Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus

(1) ‹anchor: Στωμύλον μὲν οὖν› · call in col 1023

Στωμύλον μὲν οὖν, etc. Refertur haec sententia totidem verbis a Joanne Damasc. Paral. p. 564. Deest conjunctio sequens in codice Bodleiano.

"Στωμύλον μὲν οὖν," etc. This sentence is quoted in exactly the same words by John of Damascus, Parallela, p. 564. The conjunction that follows is missing in the Bodleian manuscript.

(printed under page 544)

ANALYSIS LIBRI PRIMI

ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST BOOK

Continet liber hic primus sermonem Theophili cum Autolyco habitum, erudito illo quidem, sed simulacrorum cultore et Christianis non amico. Is cum jocatus esset in Christianorum de Deo ac de resurrectione sententiam, materiam dedit Theophilo utriusque dogmatis defendendi. Postquam igitur Theophilus (n. 1) illius in venditandis diis arrogantiam et illepida in Christianorum nomen dicteria perstrinxit, respondet huic ejusdem petitioni (n. 2): « Ostende mihi Deum tuum. » Demonstrat: 1° Deum videri non posse, nisi cordis oculi diligenter expurgati fuerint. 2° (n. 3, 4), Si quis postulat ut Dei forma exprimatur, id prorsus fieri non posse, quia nihil de Deo dicere possumus, quod non longe infinita illius virtute superetur. 3° Etiamsi Deus non cernatur oculis, at ex providentia et operibus cognosci (n. 5. 6). 4° Tum demum fore ut Deum videamus, cum mortalitatem exuerimus et incorruptionem induerimus (n. 7).

This first book contains a discourse of Theophilus held with Autolycus, a learned man indeed, but a worshipper of idols and no friend to the Christians. Since he had made a jest of the Christians' belief concerning God and concerning the resurrection, he gave Theophilus occasion to defend both doctrines. So, after Theophilus (n. 1) has censured his arrogance in vaunting his gods and his witless gibes against the Christian name, he answers this same man's demand (n. 2): "Show me your God." He shows: 1° that God cannot be seen unless the eyes of the heart have been carefully cleansed. 2° (n. 3, 4) If anyone asks that God's form be described, that this cannot be done at all, because we can say nothing of God that is not far surpassed by His infinite power. 3° That even though God is not perceived by the eyes, yet He is known from His providence and His works (n. 5, 6). 4° That we shall see God only when we have put off mortality and put on incorruption (n. 7).

Sed quia resurrectionis fides abhorrebat ab Autolyci ingenio, conatur Theophilus incredulum animum flectere, ac probat: 1° In multis artibus ac variis in rebus ad vitae cultum pertinentibus nihil sine fide ad exitum perduci (n. 8); quanto magis Deo, a quo creati sumus, fidem derogari non debere? 2° Autolycum exagitat, quod cum statuas deos esse et mira efficere credat, credere nolit Deum a quo creatus est, iterum creare posse. 3° Tum oblata occasione scelera et flagitia deorum persequitur, superstitiones Aegyptiorum, matrem deorum ejusque filios Caesari vectigales (n. 10); ex quo concludit Caesarem multo magis quam ejusmodi deos honorandum esse, sic tamen ut minime adoretur (n. 11). Christianum autem nomen (n. 12) non risu, ut deos Autolyci, dignum esse, sed rem maxime suavem et utilem significare demonstrat. 4° Cum petiisset Autolycus (n. 13) aliquem sibi ex mortuis redivivum monstrari, cumque crediturum se promisisset, si quem vidisset ejusmodi, rejicit eum Theophilus ad Herculem et Aesculapium, ac crediturum dubitat etiamsi mortuorum aliquem ad vitam revocatum videat. Sed tamen ut obstinatum frangat animum, objicit in rebus ante oculos positis imagines quasdam resurrectionis, velut in dierum ac noctium vicibus, in mirabili frugum et plantarum nascendi ratione, in lunae interitu ac resurrectione, in hominum aegrotantium ad pristinam sanitatem et formam restitutione. Suum denique (n. 14) exemplum Autolyco proponit; et quemadmodum ipse olim incredulus tum rationibus supra demonstratis, tum Scripturarum lectione et certissimo propheticorum oraculorum eventu convictus credidit, idem nunc Autolyco faciendum censet, ne, si nunc utiliter credere nolit, frustra credat aliquando in aeterna supplicia conjectus.

But because faith in the resurrection was repugnant to Autolycus's cast of mind, Theophilus tries to bend his unbelieving spirit, and proves: 1° That in many arts and in various matters belonging to the conduct of life nothing is brought to completion without faith (n. 8); how much more, then, ought faith not to be withheld from God, by Whom we were created? 2° He takes Autolycus to task because, while he believes that statues are gods and work wonders, he will not believe that God, by Whom he was created, can create him again. 3° Then, as occasion offers, he goes through the crimes and vices of the gods, the superstitions of the Egyptians, the mother of the gods and her sons, tributaries of Caesar (n. 10); from which he concludes that Caesar is to be honoured far more than gods of that kind, yet in such a way that he is by no means worshipped (n. 11). And he shows that the Christian name (n. 12) is not deserving of ridicule, as are the gods of Autolycus, but signifies something supremely sweet and useful. 4° When Autolycus had asked (n. 13) that someone restored to life from the dead be shown to him, and had promised that he would believe if he saw anyone of that kind, Theophilus refers him to Hercules and Aesculapius, and doubts whether he would believe even if he saw one of the dead called back to life. Nevertheless, to break his obstinate spirit, he sets before him, in things placed before our eyes, certain images of the resurrection: as in the succession of days and nights, in the wonderful manner in which crops and plants spring up, in the waning and rising again of the moon, in the restoration of the sick to their former health and appearance. Finally (n. 14) he sets his own example before Autolycus; and as he himself, once an unbeliever, came to believe, convinced both by the reasons shown above and by the reading of the Scriptures and the most certain fulfilment of the prophetic oracles, so he judges that Autolycus must now do the same, lest, if he will not now believe to his profit, he believe in vain one day when cast into eternal punishments.

<!-- note: Page 544 (cols 1023/1024), full width, in the middle band (full2): heading ANALYSIS LIBRI PRIMI under the work's title block (S. P. N. THEOPHILI ... AD AUTOLYCUM LIBRI TRES, omitted as title); ends at the rule above the Greek title of Book I. 2 paragraphs plus heading. The old-edition page number 337 at the start of the first paragraph is omitted as editor's margin matter. UNSURE (low-resolution italic, 3/5/8 hard to tell apart): numerals read by sequence as 2° (n. 3, 4), 3°, (n. 5. 6), (n. 10) — the last may print 18; 'filios' (the scan looks like 'filibs'); 'demum' (may print 'demun'). -->

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1026

Μεμιασμένοις. Ait Cl. Wolfius hanc vocem erudito viro, quem non nominat, visam esse superfluam. Equidem assentirer, si vox illa de sermonibus manifesta nequitia corruptis intelligenda esset. Hic enim facta generatim opponuntur sermonibus etiam decoris et in speciem praeclaris, nedum aperte improbis et nequitiam prae se ferentibus. Nec profecto veritatis cultoribus magna laus esset non decipi sermonibus aperte nefariis. Sed cum μιαίνω, ut apud Latinos violo, idem saepe valeat ac tingo, λόγους μεμιασμένους interpretor sermones fuco et pigmentis coloratos.

Μεμιασμένοις ("defiled"). The distinguished Wolf says that this word seemed superfluous to a learned man whom he does not name. I would agree, if the word were to be understood of speeches corrupted by open wickedness. For here deeds are set in general against speeches that are even graceful and splendid in appearance, let alone ones openly vicious and displaying their wickedness. Nor indeed would it be great praise for the worshippers of truth not to be deceived by openly wicked speeches. But since μιαίνω, like violo among the Latins, often means the same as tingo ("to dye"), I take λόγους μεμιασμένους as speeches coloured with rouge and paint.

(printed under page 545)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1026

Τὸ ἔργον τοῦ λόγου. Opus sermonis, id est qualis vita sit eleganter et ornate loquentium. Confirmant hanc interpretationem innumera sanctorum Patrum testimonia, quale est illud S. Cypriani initio libri De Pat.: Nos autem, fratres dilectissimi, qui philosophi non verbis sed factis sumus... qui non loquimur magna sed vivimus, etc. Vide Athenag. Legat., num. 11. Eodem sensu Rom. II, 15: Opus legis scriptum in cordibus, τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου.

Τὸ ἔργον τοῦ λόγου, "the work of the speech", that is, what sort of life those lead who speak elegantly and ornately. This interpretation is confirmed by countless testimonies of the holy Fathers, such as that of St Cyprian at the beginning of the book On Patience: "But we, most beloved brethren, who are philosophers not in words but in deeds ... who do not speak great things but live them," etc. See Athenagoras, Legatio, no. 11. In the same sense Rom. 2:15: "the work of the law written in their hearts", τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου.

(printed under page 545)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1026

Κατέπληξας. Ita Oxon. et Hamburg. cum Front. Duc. Legitur κατέπλησας ad marginem codicis Bodleiani, obruisti me. Tigur. κατεπλήθαμεν. Paris. κατέπληθάς με. Cum autem editio Tigurina et codex ms. Bodleianus habeant ἐπειδή, magis id mihi placuit quam ἐπειδάν, quod operarum incuria in alias editiones irrepserat.

Κατέπληξας ("you struck [me]"). So the Oxford and Hamburg editions, with Fronton du Duc. In the margin of the Bodleian manuscript is read κατέπλησας, "you overwhelmed me". The Zurich edition has κατεπλήθαμεν; the Paris edition κατέπληθάς με. And since the Zurich edition and the Bodleian manuscript have ἐπειδή, I preferred that to ἐπειδάν, which had crept into other editions through the carelessness of the printers.

(printed under page 545)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1026

Εὔχρηστος εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ. Usitata haec loquendi ratio apud ecclesiasticos scriptores. Hermas de Christianis divitibus lib. I, c. 3, n. 6: Respondens, inquit, dico ei: Domina, quando utiles erunt Domino? Cum circumcisae, inquit, fuerint divitiae eorum, quae eos delectant, tunc utiles erunt Domino ad aedificium. Et lib. II, c. 3: Vide enim quam sit aequanimitas dulcior melle; et utilis erit Domino, qui in ipsa commoratur; nam iracundia inutilis est. Si ergo mista fuerit iracundia aequanimitati, contribulatur animus, et non est utilis Deo oratio illius, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εὔχρηστος τῷ Θεῷ ἡ ἔντευξις αὐτῆς. Mulieres corruptae a Marco haeretico confessae sunt, teste Irenaeo, lib. I, c. 13: κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἠχρειῶσθαι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, secundum corpus exterminatas se ab eo. Hinc etiam Cyrillus Hierosol. catech. 2: Corpus polluisti et inutilis factus es, καὶ ἄχρηστος γέγονας. Vas in honorem sanctificatum et utile Domino. II Tim. II, 21.

Εὔχρηστος εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ, "to be useful to God". This is a customary way of speaking among the church writers. Hermas, on rich Christians, book I, ch. 3, no. 6: "Answering," he says, "I said to her: Lady, when will they be useful to the Lord? When," she says, "their riches, which delight them, have been cut away, then they will be useful to the Lord for the building." And book II, ch. 3: "For see how much sweeter than honey is equanimity; and he who dwells in it will be useful to the Lord; for irascibility is useless. If, then, irascibility is mixed with equanimity, the soul is troubled, and its prayer is not useful to God," καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εὔχρηστος τῷ Θεῷ ἡ ἔντευξις αὐτῆς. The women corrupted by Mark the heretic confessed, as Irenaeus attests, book I, ch. 13, that they had been "ruined in body by him", κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἠχρειῶσθαι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. Hence also Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 2: "You have polluted your body and become useless", καὶ ἄχρηστος γέγονας. "A vessel unto honour, sanctified and useful to the Lord," 2 Tim. 2:21.

(printed under page 545)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1026

Τοῦ Θεοῦ. Dei videlicet Christi a quo suum Christiani nomen acceperunt. Vel, quod verisimilius mihi videtur, postquam dixit Theophilus Christianum nomen Deo gratum esse; inde occasionem sumit de ipsius Dei nomine ac de ejus natura omnem intelligentiam superante disserendi.

Τοῦ Θεοῦ, "of God": that is, of God the Christ, from whom the Christians received their name. Or, which seems to me more likely, after Theophilus has said that the Christian name is pleasing to God, he takes occasion from this to discourse on the name of God himself and on his nature, which surpasses all understanding.

(printed under page 545)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1026

Δεῖξόν μοι. Videtur hominis nomine intelligere animam Spiritu sancto illustratam. Vid. Tatianum, num. 15. Quod autem paulo post legitur ἐπεὶ δεῖξον, pro eo mallet Wolfius ἐπίδειξον. Sed nihil mutandum videtur, cum sua sponte plana sit sententia. His Theophili de Deo videndo sententiis similes occurrunt apud Augustinum in psalm. XLI, et lib. III De Symbolo, c. 3. Quod autem ait Theophilus: Sed si dicas, Ostende mihi Deum tuum; nequaquam conjiciendo suspicabatur haec dicturum Autolycum; sed revera id dixerat Autolycus, ut patet ex fine hujus libri.

Δεῖξόν μοι, "show me". By the word "man" he seems to mean the soul enlightened by the Holy Spirit. See Tatian, no. 15. As for what is read a little later, ἐπεὶ δεῖξον, Wolf would prefer ἐπίδειξον in its place. But nothing seems to need changing, since the sense is plain of itself. Statements like these of Theophilus on seeing God occur in Augustine, On Psalm 41, and On the Creed, book III, ch. 3. And when Theophilus says, "But if you say, Show me your God," he was by no means guessing that Autolycus would say this; Autolycus really had said it, as is clear from the end of this book.

(printed under page 545)

(8) ‹anchor: τῆς ψυχῆς, δύνασθαι› · call in col 1026

Δύνασθαι. Legitur τοῦ δύνασθαι in editione Hamburg. Minus recte articulum hunc addidit doctissimus editor. Scribendum potius fuisset τὸ δύνασθαι αὐτά. Sed satis est haec subintelligere. Habemus enim infra num. 5, locum simillimum: Οὕτως ἔχοι αὐτὸν Θεὸν μὴ δύνασθαι ὁραθῆναι ὑπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν, etc.

Δύνασθαι, "to be able". The Hamburg edition reads τοῦ δύνασθαι. The very learned editor added this article less correctly. It would rather have had to be written τὸ δύνασθαι αὐτά. But it is enough to understand these words. For we have below, no. 5, a very similar passage: Οὕτως ἔχοι αὐτὸν Θεὸν μὴ δύνασθαι ὁραθῆναι ὑπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν, etc.

(printed under page 545)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1027

Οὐκ ἔτι. Ita Ducaeus et Paris. Aliae editiones οὐκ ἔστι.

Οὐκ ἔτι, "no longer". So Fronton du Duc and the Paris edition. Other editions have οὐκ ἔστι, "is not".

(printed under page 546)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1027

Οὐ δύναται... ἐν τῷ ἐσόπτρῳ. Haec addita ex cod. ms. in editione Oxoniensi; ita etiam Wolfius qui paulo post legendum putat ἡ ἁμαρτία.

Οὐ δύναται ... ἐν τῷ ἐσόπτρῳ, "cannot ... in the mirror". These words were added from a manuscript in the Oxford edition; so too Wolf, who thinks that a little later ἡ ἁμαρτία should be read.

(printed under page 546)

(11) ‹anchor: ὕλης ἐπιφορά› · call in col 1027

Ἐπιφορά. Sic Tigur. et Hamburg. et cod. Bodleian. multo melius quam in aliis editionibus ἐκφορά. Cf. Grabe Spicileg. II, p. 232.

Ἐπιφορά, "an onset". So the Zurich and Hamburg editions and the Bodleian manuscript, much better than ἐκφορά in other editions. Compare Grabe, Spicilegium II, p. 232.

(printed under page 546)

(12) ‹anchor: Εἰ γὰρ φῶς› · call in col 1027

Εἰ γὰρ φῶς. Hunc locum sic imitatur Novatianus lib. De Trin., c. 2, ut ipsis Theophili verbis utatur: Sive enim illum, inquit, dixeris lucem, creaturam ipsius magis quam ipsum dixeris, ipsum non expresseris; sive illum dixeris virtutem, potentiam ipsius magis quam ipsum dixeris, et deprompseris; sive dixeris majestatem, honorem ipsius magis, quam illum ipsum descripseris. Simili modo demonstrat Gregorius Nazianzenus in orat. 34, divinam naturam minus accurate describi, cum Spiritus et ignis et lux et charitas et sapientia et justitia et mens et Verbum et aliis ejusmodi nuncupatur.

Εἰ γὰρ φῶς, "for if light". Novatian, in the book On the Trinity, ch. 2, imitates this passage so closely that he uses Theophilus's very words: "For whether you call him light," he says, "you will have named his creature rather than himself, and will not have expressed him; or whether you call him strength, you will have named and set forth his power rather than himself; or whether you call him majesty, you will have described his honour rather than himself." In a similar way Gregory Nazianzen shows, in Oration 34, that the divine nature is described less than accurately when it is called "Spirit and fire and light and love and wisdom and justice and mind and Word", and other such names.

(printed under page 546)

(13) ‹anchor: ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ› · call in col 1027

Ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ. Ducaeum vituperat Wolfius, quod hanc vocem interpretetur principatum, ac ipse reddidit principium. Sed parum quadrat ut Patris principium Filius dicatur. Dicitur quidem lib. II, num. 13, principium in quo Deus creavit coelum et terram; at principium Patris non dicitur. Quare malui retinere principatum; idque eo lubentius, quod Theophilus in libro II, n. 10, Filium vocari doceat ἀρχήν, quia imperat et dominatur omnibus rebus ab ipso creatis. Est ergo principatus Patris, quia Pater omnibus per eum imperat.

Ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ, "his ἀρχή". Wolf faults Fronton du Duc for rendering this word principatum ("rule"), and himself rendered it principium ("beginning"). But it hardly fits for the Son to be called the beginning of the Father. In book II, no. 13, he is indeed called the beginning in which God created heaven and earth; but he is not called the beginning of the Father. I have therefore preferred to keep principatum, and the more gladly because Theophilus teaches in book II, no. 10, that the Son is called ἀρχή because he governs and rules over all the things created by him. He is therefore the Father's rule, because the Father governs all things through him.

(printed under page 546)

(14) ‹anchor: ἀναπνοὴν ἑαυτοῦ λέγω› · call in col 1027

Ἀναπνοὴν ἑαυτοῦ λέγω. Si haec ad Deum referantur, legendum ἀναπνοὴν αὐτοῦ, respirationem illius dico. Sed haec de Deo loquendi ratio non admodum decora est; nec illius confirmandae causa mutandus videtur contextus non vitiosus. Cur enim non ita interpretemur: Meam ipsius respirationem dico. Dicebat paulo ante: Si lucem eum dicam, opus ejus dico. Sic etiam hoc loco, si spiritum dicam, opus illius dico, nempe spiritum illum de quo ait Theophilus n. 7: Hujus spiritu loqueris, o homo, hujus spiritum ducis.

Ἀναπνοὴν ἑαυτοῦ λέγω, "I speak of one's own breath". If these words referred to God, one should read ἀναπνοὴν αὐτοῦ, "I speak of his breath". But this way of speaking about God is not very seemly, and a text that is not faulty should not be changed to support it. For why should we not interpret it thus: "I speak of my own breathing"? He said a little before: "If I call him light, I speak of his work." So too in this place: if I say spirit, I speak of his work, namely that spirit of which Theophilus says in no. 7: "By his spirit you speak, O man; his spirit you breathe."

(printed under page 546)

(15) ‹anchor: κριτὴν αὐτὸν λέγω› · call in col 1027

Κριτὴν αὐτὸν λέγω. Haec verba quae desunt in omnibus editis, sumpta sunt ex codice Bodleiano, (continues)

Κριτὴν αὐτὸν λέγω, "I call him judge". These words, which are missing in all the printed editions, are taken from the Bodleian manuscript, (continues)

(printed under page 546)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1030

Τὰ πάντα αὐτὸν λέγω. Satis commode legeretur τὰ πάντα αὐτοῦ, ut placet erudito editori Hamburgensi, vel ἀπ' αὐτοῦ. Omnia illius esse vel ab eo esse dico. Non tamen commodo sensu caret vulgata scriptura. Indicat enim Patris nomine comprehendi quidquid humana imbecillitas de Deo eloqui potest. Cotelerius, in loco quem modo citavimus, legit πρὸ πάντων αὐτὸν λέγω, atque hanc conjecturam confirmat ex his quae paulo post leguntur, Pater dicitur, quia est ante omnia.

Τὰ πάντα αὐτὸν λέγω, "I call him all things". One could quite suitably read τὰ πάντα αὐτοῦ, as the learned Hamburg editor prefers, or ἀπ' αὐτοῦ: "I say that all things are his" or "are from him". Yet the received reading does not lack a fitting sense. For it indicates that under the name of Father is comprised whatever human weakness can say of God. Cotelier, in the place we have just cited, reads πρὸ πάντων αὐτὸν λέγω, "I call him before all things", and confirms this conjecture from what is read a little later: "He is called Father because he is before all things."

(printed under page 547)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1030

Παιδευτής. Melius forte redderetur, castigator Dei cultorum. Videtur enim Theophilus indicare velle quid intersit inter poenas, quibus bonos interdum Deus erudit, et eas quas impiis, ut severus judex, infligit. Notus est omnibus Proverbiorum locus, quem citat Apostolus, Hebr. XII, 5.

Παιδευτής, "instructor". It might perhaps be better rendered "chastiser of God's worshippers". For Theophilus seems to want to show the difference between the punishments by which God sometimes trains the good and those which he inflicts on the wicked as a severe judge. The passage of Proverbs which the Apostle cites, Heb. 12:5, is known to all.

(printed under page 547)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1030

Θεὸς δὲ λέγεται. Citat hunc locum S. Joannes Damascenus sub nomine S. Amphilochii episcopi Iconii, non tamen sine aliqua dissimilitudine. Sic enim habet: Θεὸς λέγεται διὰ τὸ τεθεικέναι πάντα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ ἀσφαλείᾳ καὶ διὰ τὸ θέειν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τρέχειν, καὶ κινεῖν, καὶ κυβερνᾷν καὶ ζωογονεῖν τὰ πάντα. In codice Coisliniano 276, quo continentur Parallela, sed alio ac in editis ordine, legitur hoc testimonium sub eodem Amphilochii nomine, sed deest ἐξουσίᾳ, et pro ζωογονεῖν habetur ζωοποιεῖν.

Θεὸς δὲ λέγεται, "and he is called God". St John of Damascus cites this passage under the name of St Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, though not without some difference. For he has it thus: "He is called God (Θεός) because he has set (τεθεικέναι) all things in his own authority and security, and because of θέειν, that is, running, and moving, steering and quickening all things." In the Coislin manuscript 276, which contains the Parallela, but in a different order from the printed editions, this testimony is read under the same name of Amphilochius, but ἐξουσίᾳ is missing, and instead of ζωογονεῖν it has ζωοποιεῖν.

(printed under page 547)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1030

Ἑαυτοῦ. Legendum putat ἑαυτῶν Suicerus Lexic., p. 1367. Cui quidem favet illud psalmi CIII: Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν αὐτῆς. Sed hic locus ita citatur a sancto Joanne Damasceno, ut necesse sit legere ἑαυτοῦ. Habet enim πάντα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ, omissa praepositione.

Ἑαυτοῦ, "his own". Suicer, Lexicon, p. 1367, thinks ἑαυτῶν, "their own", should be read. That reading is indeed supported by the verse of Psalm 103: "You who founded the earth upon its own firmness", ἐπὶ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν αὐτῆς. But this passage is cited by St John of Damascus in such a way that ἑαυτοῦ must be read. For he has πάντα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ, with the preposition omitted.

(printed under page 547)

(20) ‹anchor: στοιχεῖα› · call in col 1030

Στοιχεῖα. Sic etiam infra n. 5 et 6, solem et stellas appellat Theophilus. Eodem sensu vocem hanc usurpant Eusebius Hist. lib. III, c. 31; Praep. evang. lib. I, c. 12, et lib. III, p. 91; Basil. hom. 4 in Hexaem.; Chrysost. homil. 6 in Genes.; Cyrill. Jul., p. 17. Unde facile explicatur, quod nonnullos criticos torsit, cur astra interdum apud Latinos elementa appellentur, ut apud Tertullianum lib. II ad Nat.; Lactantium lib. II, c. 5, et S. Hieronymum epist. ad Hebidium. Miror Petavium minus vidisse quid sint apud Epiphanium τὰ ματαίως νομιζόμενα εἰς ἀριθμὸν στοιχείων παρὰ τοῖς πεπλανημένοις ὀνόματα, ἃ ζώδια καλοῦσι, frustra excogitata, pro numero elementorum, apud errantes nomina, quae Zodia appellant. Haec Petavius, not. in haeres. 16, interpretatur de quadripartita signorum divisione pro quatuor elementorum numero. Sed liquet Epiphanium loqui de signis Zodiaci, non de quatuor elementis. Recenset enim duodecim nomina Hebraica totidem Graecis nominibus respondentia pro numero elementorum, id est duodecim signorum Zodiaci.

Στοιχεῖα, "elements". So too below, nos. 5 and 6, Theophilus calls the sun and stars by this name. Eusebius uses the word in the same sense, History book III, ch. 31; Preparation for the Gospel book I, ch. 12, and book III, p. 91; so Basil, Homily 4 on the Hexaemeron; Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Genesis; Cyril, Against Julian, p. 17. From this is easily explained what has vexed some critics: why the stars are sometimes called elements among the Latins, as in Tertullian, To the Nations book II; Lactantius book II, ch. 5; and St Jerome, letter to Hedibia. I am surprised that Petavius did not see better what in Epiphanius are τὰ ματαίως νομιζόμενα εἰς ἀριθμὸν στοιχείων παρὰ τοῖς πεπλανημένοις ὀνόματα, ἃ ζώδια καλοῦσι, "names vainly devised by those in error according to the number of the elements, which they call the Zodia". Petavius, in his note on Heresy 16, interprets this of a fourfold division of the signs according to the number of the four elements. But it is clear that Epiphanius is speaking of the signs of the Zodiac, not of the four elements. For he lists twelve Hebrew names answering to as many Greek names "according to the number of the elements", that is, of the twelve signs of the Zodiac.

(printed under page 547)

(21) ‹anchor: Καθάπερ γὰρ ψυχή› · call in col 1030

Καθάπερ γὰρ ψυχή. Eodem modo Octavius (continues)

Καθάπερ γὰρ ψυχή, "for just as the soul". In the same way Octavius (continues)

(printed under page 547)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1031

Ἀχώρητον. Vide hujus rei uberiorem explicationem lib. II, n. 22.

Ἀχώρητον, "uncontainable". See a fuller explanation of this matter in book II, no. 22.

(printed under page 548)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1031

Εἰ γὰρ τῷ ἡλίῳ. Similem Xenophontis sententiam citant Clemens Alex. Protrept. 46, et Cyrillus Alex. I Jul., p. 32. Putat Clemens haec Xenophontem hausisse ex Sibylla, cujus testimonium ibidem omnino gemellum refert. Sic etiam Minucius Felix: In sole adeo, inquit, qui vivendi omnibus causa est, videre non possumus; radiis acies submovetur, obtutus intuentis hebetatur, et si diutius inspicias, omnis visus exstinguitur. Quid? Ipsum solis artificem, illum luminis fontem possis sustinere? Eadem habes apud Theodoret. serm. 10 De Provid., p. 439.

Εἰ γὰρ τῷ ἡλίῳ, "for if the sun". A similar saying of Xenophon is cited by Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 46, and by Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian I, p. 32. Clement thinks Xenophon drew this from the Sibyl, whose testimony, an exact twin of it, he reports in the same place. So too Minucius Felix: "Even in the sun," he says, "which is the cause of life for all, we cannot see; the eye is driven back by its rays, the gaze of the beholder is dulled, and if you look longer, all sight is put out. What then? Could you bear the maker of the sun himself, that fount of light?" You have the same in Theodoret, Discourse 10 On Providence, p. 439.

(printed under page 548)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1031

Ὑπὸ πνεύματος Θεοῦ. Non loquitur Theophilus de Spiritu sancto, sed de illo spiritu, quem ait infra n. 7, a nobis spirando hauriri; quem lib. II, n. 4, per omnia diffusum esse dicit, et n. 13, natura tenuem esse.

Ὑπὸ πνεύματος Θεοῦ, "by the spirit of God". Theophilus is not speaking of the Holy Spirit, but of that spirit which, he says below in no. 7, we draw in by breathing; which in book II, no. 4, he says is diffused through all things, and in no. 13 is fine by nature.

(printed under page 548)

(25) ‹anchor: Εἶτα βασιλεύς› · call in col 1031

Εἶτα βασιλεύς. Refert hoc testimonium S. Joannes Damascenus Parall. p. 787, sub nomine Theophili Alexandrini et pag. 339, sub Theophili nomine. Illud etiam imitatur Irenaeus lib. II, cap. 6, n. 2, ubi Gnosticos supremum quemdam et omnibus ignotum Deum fingentes eodem prorsus argumento, ac ethnicos Theophilus, refellit. Aut nunquid hi, inquit, qui sub Romanorum imperio sunt, quamvis nunquam viderint imperatorem, sed valde et per terram et per mare separati ab eo, cognoscent, propter dominium, eum qui maximam potestatem habet principatus? Qui autem super nos erant angeli, vel ille quem mundi fabricatorem dicunt, non cognoscent omnipotentem? Illud Irenaei, propter dominium, respondet his Theophili verbis διὰ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων, per principatus et potestates; quibus verbis designat Theophilus legatos et praefectos ab imperatore in provincias mitti solitos. Ejusmodi enim voces saepe eos significant qui magistratum gerunt. Euripides in Andromache: Ἀρχαί τ' ἐπληροῦντο, Magistratus congregabantur. Eodem sensu Plato in libris De Rep.; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. lib. II, cap. 12, hanc vocem usurpant. Sic etiam Juvenalis apud Latinos sat. X, 99, 100: Hujus qui trahitur, praetextam sumere malis, / Quam Fidenarum Gabiorumve esse potestas? Vopiscus in Saturnino c. 3: Ut primum Aegyptii, inquit, magnam potestatem ad se venisse viderunt, statim clamaverunt: « Saturnine Auguste, dii te servent. » Haec pauca de multis referenda duxi, ut intelligatur quid sibi velit illud Theophili δι' ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων, quid etiam illud Irenaei propter dominium. Videtur enim vetus interpres Irenaei, ut saepe alias, ita hoc loco lapsus esse, et pro δι' ἐξουσιῶν legisse δι' ἐξουσίαν; unde reddit, propter dominium, cum reddere debuisset per potestates. Neque enim dubium, quin eadem sit hoc loco Irenaei ac Theophili sententia, quae tamen dissimilis foret, utpote obscura prorsus et enervata in Irenaeo, si legeretur, propter dominium. Huc accedit quod Irenaeus, dum imperatorem vocat eum qui maximam potestatem habet principatus, non obscure confirmet eam, quam dico, comparationem imperatoris cum minoribus potestatibus, id est cum legatis et praefectis, per quos imperator cognoscitur. Ambigi possit utrum Irenaeus ex Theophilo, an Theophilus ex Irenaeo hanc sententiam mutuatus fuerit. Sed cum ea res magni sit momenti ad investigandum tempus quo Theophilus hos libros elucubravit, rejicienda in tertiam partem Praefationis videtur.

Εἶτα βασιλεύς, "then a king". St John of Damascus reports this testimony in the Parallela, p. 787, under the name of Theophilus of Alexandria, and on p. 339 under the name of Theophilus. Irenaeus also imitates it, book II, ch. 6, no. 2, where he refutes the Gnostics, who invent a supreme God unknown to all, with exactly the same argument with which Theophilus refutes the heathen. "Or will those," he says, "who are under the rule of the Romans, though they have never seen the emperor, but are far separated from him by land and sea, not know, because of his dominion, him who holds the greatest power of rule? And will the angels who were above us, or he whom they call the maker of the world, not know the Almighty?" Irenaeus's "because of his dominion" answers to these words of Theophilus, διὰ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων, "through rulers and powers"; by these words Theophilus means the legates and prefects whom the emperor customarily sends into the provinces. For such words often denote those who hold office. Euripides in the Andromache: Ἀρχαί τ' ἐπληροῦντο, "the magistrates were assembling". Plato in the books of the Republic, and Philostratus, Life of Apollonius book II, ch. 12, use the word in the same sense. So too among the Latins Juvenal, Satire 10, 99–100: "Would you rather wear the purple-bordered robe of the man who is being dragged off, than be a 'power' at Fidenae or Gabii?" Vopiscus, in the Saturninus, ch. 3: "As soon as the Egyptians," he says, "saw that a great power had come to them, they immediately cried: 'Saturninus Augustus, may the gods keep you.'" I have thought it right to report these few instances out of many, so that it may be understood what Theophilus means by δι' ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων, and also what Irenaeus means by "because of his dominion". For the old translator of Irenaeus seems to have slipped in this place, as often elsewhere, and to have read δι' ἐξουσίαν instead of δι' ἐξουσιῶν; whence he renders "because of his dominion", when he should have rendered "through the powers". For there is no doubt that the thought of Irenaeus in this place is the same as that of Theophilus; yet it would be unlike it, being quite obscure and enfeebled in Irenaeus, if one read "because of his dominion". Add to this that Irenaeus, in calling the emperor "him who holds the greatest power of rule", plainly confirms the comparison I speak of, between the emperor and the lesser powers, that is, the legates and prefects through whom the emperor is known. It might be doubted whether Irenaeus borrowed this thought from Theophilus or Theophilus from Irenaeus. But since that question is of great importance for determining when Theophilus composed these books, it seems best to defer it to the third part of the Preface.

(printed under page 548)

¹ ‹anchor: receptacula Austri› · call in col 1034 Psal. XLVI; Job. IX, 9.

Psalm 46; Job 9:9.

² ‹anchor: in pluviam multiplicat› · call in col 1034 Psal. CXXXIV, 7.

Psalm 134:7.

³ ‹anchor: sonum fluctuum ejus excitat› · call in col 1034 Psal. LXIV, 8.

Psalm 64:8.

⁴ ‹anchor: motum fluctuum ejus mitigat› · call in col 1034 Psal. LXXXVIII, 10.

Psalm 88:10.

(printed under page 549)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1034

Ἀέρων τροπάς. Miror Wolfium huic scripturae substituisse ἀστέρων τροπάς. Fatetur editionem Tigurinam et cod. Bodleianum habere ἀέρων τροπάς. At sibi opinionis errore finxit Ducaeum et alias editiones habere ἀστέρων τροπάς. Sed eum falli asseverare possum; ἀέρων μεταβολή legitur apud Clementem Strom. VI, p. 659.

Ἀέρων τροπάς, "the turnings of the airs". I am surprised that Wolf substituted ἀστέρων τροπάς, "the turnings of the stars", for this reading. He admits that the Zurich edition and the Bodleian manuscript have ἀέρων τροπάς. But by a mistaken opinion he imagined that Fronton du Duc and other editions have ἀστέρων τροπάς. I can affirm that he is mistaken; ἀέρων μεταβολή, "change of the airs", is read in Clement, Stromata VI, p. 659.

(printed under page 549)

(27) ‹anchor: ἐκ θησαυρῶν αὐτοῦ› · call in col 1034

Ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν φῶς ἐκ θησαυρῶν αὐτοῦ. Haec in textum perperam videntur irrepsisse. Nam et paulo post repetuntur, et orationis seriem hic perturbant.

Ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν φῶς ἐκ θησαυρῶν αὐτοῦ, "who brought light out of his treasuries". These words seem to have crept into the text wrongly. For they are both repeated a little later and disturb the flow of the sentence here.

(printed under page 549)

(28) ‹anchor: καὶ συνάγων› · call in col 1034

Συναγαγών. Redundat hoc verbum sive Theophili, sive, quod libentius crediderim, librariorum incuria.

Συναγαγών, "having gathered". This word is redundant, whether through the carelessness of Theophilus or, as I would more readily believe, of the copyists.

(printed under page 549)

(29) ‹anchor: λάβοι τὴν κατεξουσίαν› · call in col 1034

Κατεξουσίαν. Ita scribo pro κατ' ἐξουσίαν. Hinc Matth. XX, κατεξουσιάζω. WOLFIUS. Legere malim τὸ κατ' ἐξουσίαν.

Κατεξουσίαν, "full licence". So I write instead of κατ' ἐξουσίαν. Compare Matt. 20, κατεξουσιάζω. WOLF. I would rather read τὸ κατ' ἐξουσίαν.

(printed under page 549)

(30) ‹anchor: τῆς ὑπ' οὐρανόν› · call in col 1034

Τὸ εὖρος τῆς ὑπ' οὐρανόν. Ita scripsi pro eo quod Tigurina et Parisienses habebant τὸ σῦρος τῆς ὑπ' οὐρανῶν. Pro me facit B. ms. ubi legitur εὖρος, nec aliter scripsit Theophilus. Is enim phrasin hanc integram petiit ex Jobi XXXIII, 18, qui ita: Νενουθέτησαι δὲ τὸ εὖρος τῆς ὑπ' οὐρανόν, id est nostine latitudinem terrae? WOLFIUS.

Τὸ εὖρος τῆς ὑπ' οὐρανόν, "the breadth of the earth under heaven". So I have written instead of what the Zurich and Paris editions had, τὸ σῦρος τῆς ὑπ' οὐρανῶν. The Bodleian manuscript supports me, where εὖρος is read; nor did Theophilus write otherwise. For he took this whole phrase from Job 33:18, which runs thus: Νενουθέτησαι δὲ τὸ εὖρος τῆς ὑπ' οὐρανόν, that is, "Do you know the breadth of the earth?" WOLF.

(printed under page 549)

⁵ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035 Psal. XXXII, 6.

Psalm 32:6.

(printed under page 550)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035

Τούτου. Ita codex Bodleianus et editio Hamburgensis. Aliae editiones τοῦτο. Sed, ut accurata sit sententia, legendum etiam, τούτῳ λαλεῖς; satisque apte adderetur καί ante τοῦτον ἀγνοεῖς.

Τούτου, "of this one". So the Bodleian manuscript and the Hamburg edition. Other editions have τοῦτο. But for the sense to be exact, one should also read τούτῳ λαλεῖς, "by him you speak"; and καί would quite fittingly be added before τοῦτον ἀγνοεῖς, "you do not know him".

(printed under page 550)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035

Πώρωσιν. Hoc malim pro πήρωσιν quod ms. B. et editi omnes exhibent. At B. superscriptum habebat πω syllabae πη. Atque vox πώρωσιν apud LXX, atque in N. T. subinde de obstinata mente occurrit; vicissim πήρωσις, ejusdem alioqui significationis frustra utrimque quaeritur. WOLFIUS.

Πώρωσιν, "hardening". I would prefer this to πήρωσιν, "maiming", which the Bodleian manuscript and all the printed editions show. But the Bodleian had πω written above the syllable πη. And the word πώρωσις occurs from time to time in the Septuagint and in the New Testament of an obstinate mind; conversely, πήρωσις, which otherwise has the same meaning, is sought in vain in both. WOLF.

(printed under page 550)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035

Πᾶσα ἡ ... σοφία αὐτοῦ. Haec addita e codice Bodleiano in editione Oxoniensi, ac postea in Hamburgensi.

Πᾶσα ἡ ... σοφία αὐτοῦ, "all ... his wisdom". These words were added from the Bodleian manuscript in the Oxford edition, and afterwards in the Hamburg edition.

(printed under page 550)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035

Ἀπόθῃ. Legit Wolfius ἀπόθῃς et paulo post ἀποδύσῃς. Sed nulla subest hujus mutationis, quanquam levissimae, necessitas.

Ἀπόθῃ, "lay aside". Wolf reads ἀπόθῃς and, a little later, ἀποδύσῃς. But there is no need for this change, slight though it is.

(printed under page 550)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035

Ἀνεγείρει. Necesse non est legere ἀνεγερεῖ, ut Grabius legendum censebat teste cl. Wolfio. Usitatum enim est praesens pro futuro, cum certa et explorata res promittitur.

Ἀνεγείρει, "raises up". There is no need to read ἀνεγερεῖ, "will raise up", as Grabe thought it should be read, according to the distinguished Wolf. For the present is customarily used for the future when something certain and assured is promised.

(printed under page 550)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035

Σὺν τῇ ψυχῇ. Sic reddi possent haec verba: Suscitabit carnem tuam immortalem cum anima futuram. Sed nihil vetat sic etiam interpretari, ut anima cum corpore excitari et resurgere dicatur. Saepe enim sancti Patres resurrectionem animae et corporis praedicant, non quod animam ad tempus cum corpore interire suspicentur, sed ut illius restitutionem in pristinum statum significent. Polycarpus gratias agit apud Euseb. lib. VI, quod a Deo in numerum martyrum vocetur ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς αἰωνίου ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος, in calice Christi, in resurrectionem vitae aeternae, animae atque corporis. Irenaeus lib. IV, cap. 18, n. 5: Προσφέρομεν δ' αὐτῷ ἴδια, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν. Offerimus ei quae sunt ejus, congruenter communicationem et unitatem praedicantes et confitentes resurrectionem carnis et spiritus. Et lib. V, cap. 31: Manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et haec operatus est Dominus, animae abibunt in invisibilem locum, definitum eis a Deo, et ibi usque ad resurrectionem commorabuntur, sustinentes resurrectionem; post recipientes corpora et perfecte resurgentes, hoc est corporaliter, quemadmodum et Dominus resurrexit, sic venient ad conspectum Dei. Tertullianus lib. De poenit., cap. 3: An tu discernas actus carnis et spiritus, quorum et in vita et in morte et in resurrectione tantum communionis atque consortii est, ut pariter tunc aut in vitam aut in judicium suscitentur? Lactantius lib. VII, cap. 11, ubi probat non interire animam, sed dissociari a corpore, sic tamen de ejus resurrectione, sive in antiquum statum restitutione loquitur: Et quia temporalem vitam temporalis mors sequitur, consequens est ut resurgant animae ad vitam perennem, quia finem mors temporalis accepit. Nihil ergo commune his sanctorum Patrum dictis cum absurdo nonnullorum Arabum errore, qui cum sibi fingerent animas simul cum corporibus interire et resurgere, eruditis Origenis coram frequenti concilio disputationibus cesserunt, teste Eusebio Hist. lib. VI, cap. 37.

Σὺν τῇ ψυχῇ, "with the soul". These words could be rendered thus: "He will raise your flesh to be immortal together with the soul." But nothing prevents interpreting them so that the soul is said to be raised and to rise again with the body. For the holy Fathers often proclaim the resurrection of soul and body, not because they suppose that the soul perishes for a time with the body, but to signify its restoration to its former state. Polycarp, in Eusebius book VI, gives thanks that he is called by God into the number of the martyrs "in the cup of Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, of both soul and body". Irenaeus, book IV, ch. 18, no. 5: "We offer him what is his, fittingly proclaiming the communion and union, and confessing the rising of flesh and spirit." And book V, ch. 31: "It is manifest that the souls of his disciples too, for whose sake the Lord also wrought these things, will go away into the invisible place appointed for them by God, and will dwell there until the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection; afterwards, receiving their bodies and rising perfectly, that is, bodily, just as the Lord also rose, so they will come into the presence of God." Tertullian, in the book On Repentance, ch. 3: "Or would you separate the acts of flesh and spirit, which in life, in death and in resurrection share so much communion and fellowship that they are then raised together either to life or to judgement?" Lactantius, book VII, ch. 11, where he proves that "the soul does not perish but is separated from the body", nevertheless speaks of its resurrection, or restoration to its ancient state, thus: "And since temporal death follows temporal life, it follows that souls rise again to everlasting life, because temporal death has come to its end." These sayings of the holy Fathers therefore have nothing in common with the absurd error of certain Arabians, who, imagining that souls perish and rise again together with bodies, yielded to Origen's learned arguments before a crowded council, as Eusebius attests, History book VI, ch. 37.

(printed under page 550)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1035

Τὸν ἀθάνατον. Haec addita ex cod. ms. in editt. Oxon. et Hamb. Mox aliquid subintelligendum, nempe, si inique loqui pergas.

Τὸν ἀθάνατον, "the immortal one". These words were added from a manuscript in the Oxford and Hamburg editions. Next, something must be understood, namely: if you go on speaking wickedly.

(printed under page 550)

(38) ‹anchor: ἡ πίστις προηγεῖται› · call in col 1035

Ἡ πίστις προηγεῖται. In hoc argumento, quod multi alii usurparunt, ut Clemens Alex. Strom. II; Origenes I contra Celsum; Arnobius l. II; Eusebius Praep. I; Cyrillus cat. 5, Theodoretus I adv. Graecos, observare possumus fidei nomine apud antiquos scriptores non modo assensum rebus revelatis, sed saepe etiam eorum, quae Deus promisit, impetrandorum fiduciam designari. Quamvis autem immane discrimen sit inter eam fidem quam navis gubernatori, aut medico aut doctori habemus, et eam quam Deo, qui proprio Filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum, habere debemus; habent tamen haec exempla ex humanis rebus re- (continues)

Ἡ πίστις προηγεῖται, "faith goes before". In this argument, which many others have used, such as Clement of Alexandria, Stromata II; Origen, Against Celsus I; Arnobius, book II; Eusebius, Preparation I; Cyril, Catechesis 5; Theodoret, Against the Greeks I, we may observe that by the word faith the ancient writers denote not only assent to things revealed, but often also confidence of obtaining what God has promised. And although there is an immense difference between the faith we have in a ship's pilot, or a physician, or a teacher, and that which we ought to have in God, who did not spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all, yet these examples taken from human affairs have (continues)

(printed under page 550)

(39) ‹anchor: ἄμεινον› · call in col 1038

Ἄμεινον. Legitur ad marginem codicis Bodl. ἃ μήν, quae scriptura in contextum inducta a Fello et Wolfio. Sed non videtur contextus, cum sua sponte sanus esset et integer, ob lectionem margini appositam immutari debuisse.

Ἄμεινον, "better". In the margin of the Bodleian manuscript ἃ μήν is read, a reading brought into the text by Fell and Wolf. But it does not seem that the text, being sound and whole of itself, should have been altered because of a reading added in the margin.

(printed under page 551)

(40) ‹anchor: τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ› · call in col 1038

Αὐτοῦ. Hanc vocem addidit Wolfius ex cod. Bodl. desumptam.

Αὐτοῦ, "his". Wolf added this word, taken from the Bodleian manuscript.

(printed under page 551)

(41) ‹anchor: καὶ ταῦτα μὲν μέτριον› · call in col 1038

Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν μέτριον. Refellit Wolfius hanc interpretationem: Haec quidem mediocria sunt; ipse vero sic reddit: Sed de his quidem pauca et modica dicere attinet. Probari non potest haec doctissimi viri interpretatio, quam tamen, inquit, peritis se facile probaturam esse confidimus. Luce clarius est Theophilum levia et mediocria dicere, quae antea dixerat, quia ad graviora transibat (continues)

Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν μέτριον, "and these things are moderate". Wolf rejects this rendering, "These things indeed are moderate", and himself renders thus: "But about these things it is fitting to say only a little, and that in moderation." This rendering of the very learned man cannot be approved, though he says, "we are confident it will easily commend itself to the experienced." It is clearer than daylight that Theophilus calls what he had said before light and moderate because he was passing on to graver matters (continues)

(printed under page 551)

⁶ ‹anchor: spem suam in eis constituunt› · call in col 1039 Psal. CXIII, 8 et CXXXIV, 18.

Psalm 113:8 and 134:18.

(printed under page 552)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1039

Κυνηγέτιν. Ita se emendasse monet Lacrosii consilio Wolfius pro eo quod erat in editis κυνηγέτην.

Κυνηγέτιν, "huntress". Wolf notes that he corrected it so, on La Croze's advice, in place of what stood in the printed editions, κυνηγέτην, "hunter".

(printed under page 552)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1039

Συγγραφεῖς. Interdum hoc nomine generatim omnes scriptores designat Theophilus, velut n. 2, lib. II, et initio libri tertii. Sed hoc loco συγγραφεῖς qui a poetis distinguuntur, non alii videntur esse quam historici, nec ad alios pertinet haec antiquarum rerum, licet fabulosa, narratio. Sic etiam vocantur historici n. 12, l. II, et a poetis et philosophis distinguuntur: Δοκεῖ δὲ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν φιλοσόφων ἢ συγγραφέων καὶ ποιητῶν εἰρημένα, ἀξιόπιστα μὲν εἶναι. Si quis dubitet his verbis, ἢ συγγραφέων historicos significari, attentius legat haec Theophili verba ex n. 33: Τίς μὲν οὖν... τῶν καλουμένων σοφῶν καὶ ἱστοριογράφων.

Συγγραφεῖς, "writers". Theophilus sometimes uses this name for all writers in general, as in book II, no. 2, and at the beginning of the third book. But in this place the συγγραφεῖς, who are distinguished from the poets, seem to be none other than historians; nor does this narrative of ancient events, legendary though it is, belong to anyone else. So too historians are so called in book II, no. 12, and are distinguished from poets and philosophers: "What is said by the philosophers, or the writers (συγγραφέων) and poets, seems trustworthy." If anyone doubts that historians are meant by the words ἢ συγγραφέων, let him read more attentively these words of Theophilus from no. 33: "Who, then, ... of the so-called wise men and historiographers."

(printed under page 552)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1039

Καὶ ἐνύδρων νηκτῶν. Fortasse excidit καί. Ita noster supra n. 6: Καὶ νηκτῶν ἐνύδρων τε καὶ ἐναλίων; ubi νηκτά ab ἐνύδροις distinguit. WOLFIUS. — Ex ipsis verbis, quae ab erudito viro citantur, nihil hoc in loco mutandum esse patet. Nam cum duas species natatilium distinguat Theophilus, nempe fluvialium et marinorum; natatilia fluvialia vocare debuit pisces Nili ab Aegyptiis adoratos; frustra ergo diceremus natatilia et fluvialia.

Καὶ ἐνύδρων νηκτῶν, "and of water-dwelling swimmers". Perhaps καί has dropped out. So our author above, no. 6: "and of swimmers, both those of fresh water and those of the sea", where he distinguishes νηκτά from ἔνυδρα. WOLF. — From the very words cited by the learned man it is clear that nothing should be changed in this place. For since Theophilus distinguishes two kinds of swimming creatures, namely those of rivers and those of the sea, he had to call the fish of the Nile worshipped by the Egyptians "river swimmers"; it would be pointless, then, for us to say "swimmers and river creatures".

(printed under page 552)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1039

Ζεὺς Κάσσιος. Eruditus Wolfius legendum monet Κάσιος; idque probat testimoniis Scriptorum apud quos memoratur Jupiter Casius, nempe Lucani lib. VIII, Plinii IV, 3, et V, 3. Sexti Empir. Pyrrhon. III, 24. Stephani Byzantini, qui Jovem Casium a Casio monte et urbe Aegypti deducit.

Ζεὺς Κάσσιος, "Zeus Cassius". The learned Wolf advises reading Κάσιος, and proves it by the testimony of writers who mention Jupiter Casius: Lucan, book VIII; Pliny IV, 3, and V, 3; Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhonian Outlines III, 24; Stephanus of Byzantium, who derives Jupiter Casius from Mount Casius and the city of Egypt.

(printed under page 552)

(46) ‹anchor: τέλη καὶ εἰσφοράς› · call in col 1039

Τέλη καὶ εἰσφοράς. Quod ait Theophilus de vectigalibus, quae mater deorum, ejusque filii imperatori solvebant, explicari et illustrari potest ex Tertulliano: Sed aliquo solatio, inquit lib. I ad Nat., c. 10, privatorum et domesticorum deorum querelae juvantur, quod publicos turpius contumeliosiusque tractetis. Jam primum, quos in hastarium regessistis publicanis sub... lis, omni quinquennio inter vectigalia vestra proscripto addicitis. Sic Serapeum, sic Capitolium petitur, addicitur, conducitur... sub eadem voce praeconis, eadem exactione Quaestoris. Sed enim agri tributo onusti viliores, hominum capita stipendio censa, ignobiliora. Nam hae sunt captivitatis notae poena; Dei vero qui magis tributarii, magis sancti, imo qui magis sancti magis tributarii; majestas constituitur in quaestum, negotiatio religione proscribitur, sanctitas locationem mendicat; exigitis mercedem pro solo templi, pro auditu sacri, pro stipitibus, pro ostiis; venditis totam divinitatem, non licet eam gratis coli; plus denique publicanis reficitur, quam sacerdotibus.

Τέλη καὶ εἰσφοράς, "taxes and levies". What Theophilus says about the taxes which the mother of the gods and her sons paid to the emperor can be explained and illustrated from Tertullian. "But the complaints of the private and household gods," he says in To the Nations book I, ch. 10, "are helped by some consolation, in that you treat the public ones more shamefully and insultingly. First of all, those whom you have thrown back into the auction-room [text broken: sub... lis] to the tax-farmers, you knock down every five years, put up for sale among your revenues. So the Serapeum, so the Capitol is bid for, knocked down, let out ... under the same voice of the crier, the same exaction of the quaestor. But lands burdened with tribute are cheaper, and men's heads assessed for poll-tax are meaner. For these are the marks of captivity. But gods, the more tributary they are, the holier; nay, the holier, the more tributary. Majesty is turned into a source of gain; religion is put up for sale as a trade; sanctity begs for a lease. You exact a fee for the ground of the temple, for access to the rite, for the offerings, for the doors; you sell the whole of divinity; it may not be worshipped for nothing. In short, more is made for the tax-farmers than for the priests."

(printed under page 552)

(47) ‹anchor: Τοιγαροῦν› · call in col 1039

Τοιγαροῦν. Videtur sibi ante haec verba hiatum et lacunam perspicere eruditus Wolfius, quia deesse nonnulla et ms. B. indicat et series orationis evincit. Sed vix quidquam magis aptum magisque nexum reperiri potest. Quid enim cum vectigalibus, quae Caesari deorum mater et dii pende- (continues)

Τοιγαροῦν, "therefore". The learned Wolf thinks he sees a gap and lacuna before these words, because "the Bodleian manuscript indicates, and the run of the sentence proves, that something is missing." But hardly anything more apt and better connected could be found. For what, with the taxes which the mother of the gods and the gods paid to Caesar, (continues)

(printed under page 552)

⁷ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1042 Prov. XXIV, 21, 22.

Proverbs 24:21–22.

(printed under page 553)

(48) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1042

Τρόπῳ γάρ τινι. Illud quodammodo, non eo spectat ut dubia et incerta res videatur, sed quia comparationem quamdam inter Deum et reges instituit Theophilus, et quemadmodum praefecti et judices a regibus constituuntur, ita potestas regia est quaedam veluti administratio a Deo commissa.

Τρόπῳ γάρ τινι, "for in a certain manner". That "in a certain manner" is not meant to make the matter seem doubtful and uncertain, but is there because Theophilus draws a comparison between God and kings: just as prefects and judges are appointed by kings, so royal power is a kind of stewardship entrusted by God.

(printed under page 553)

(49) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1042

Ὑπ' αὐτὸν τεταγμένους. Non subditos generatim haec designant, sed eos quibus aliquam rerum administrandarum partem committebat imperator, id est praefectos et duces et praesides. Sic Justinus Apol. I, n. 23: Φόρους δὲ καὶ εἰσφορὰς τοῖς ὑφ' ὑμῶν τεταγμένοις πανταχοῦ πρὸ πάντων πειρώμεθα φέρειν. Hoc ipso in loco imperator dicitur ἄνθρωπος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμένος.

Ὑπ' αὐτὸν τεταγμένους, "those appointed under him". These words do not denote subjects in general, but those to whom the emperor entrusted some share in the administration of affairs, that is, prefects, generals and governors. So Justin, Apology I, no. 23: "Taxes and levies we try before all men to pay everywhere to those appointed by you." In this very passage the emperor is called "a man appointed by God".

(printed under page 553)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1042

Τίμα. Deest in codice Bodl.

Τίμα, "honour". Missing in the Bodleian manuscript.

(printed under page 553)

(51) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1042

Τίμα... ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν. Legitur φοβοῦ Proverb. XXIV, 21. Sed, ut observat Cl. Wolfius, S. Ignatius in epistola ad Smyrnenses legit ut Theophilus.

Τίμα ... ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν, "honour ... their enemies". In Proverbs 24:21 φοβοῦ, "fear", is read. But, as the distinguished Wolf observes, St Ignatius in the letter to the Smyrnaeans reads as Theophilus does.

(printed under page 553)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1042

Τὸ χριστόν. Vide Notas in Apologiam I S. Justini, num. 4, et II, n. 6. Miror eruditum Wolfium opinari Theophilum respicere hoc loco ad χρηστός, quia Christum gentiles Chrestum et forte etiam Christianos Chrestianos appellare consueverant. Quamvis autem Christianos ita dictos existimet Theophilus, quia uncti sunt oleo Dei, non tamen, ut eidem videtur Wolfio, discrepat ab aliis scriptoribus, qui Christianorum nomen a Christo deducunt. Nam Justinus etsi hoc nomen deducit a chrismate, Apol. I, n. 4. Christianos tamen a Christo nomen accepisse docet in pluribus locis Dialogi, ut n. 117.

Τὸ χριστόν, "what is anointed". See the notes on St Justin's Apology I, no. 4, and II, no. 6. I am surprised that the learned Wolf thinks Theophilus alludes in this place to χρηστός, "because the heathen were accustomed to call Christ Chrestus, and perhaps also the Christians Chrestians." And although Theophilus holds that the Christians are so called because they are anointed with the oil of God, he does not, as the same Wolf thinks, disagree with other writers who derive the name of Christians from Christ. For although Justin derives this name from chrism, Apology I, no. 4, he nevertheless teaches in several places of the Dialogue, as in no. 117, that the Christians received their name from Christ.

(printed under page 553)

(53) ‹anchor: ἢ κόσμιον› · call in col 1042

Ἢ κόσμιον. Recte observat Wolfius legendum esse κόσμιον δύναται ἢ εὐμορφίαν, transponendo conjunctionem.

Ἢ κόσμιον, "or ornamental". Wolf rightly observes that κόσμιον δύναται ἢ εὐμορφίαν should be read, by transposing the conjunction.

(printed under page 553)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1043

Ἴσως καί, etc. Ex hoc loco Dodwellus dissert. 2, in Iren., n. 44, concludit defecisse mortuorum excitationes apud Christianos. Sed Dodwellum Irenaeus ipse refellit, qui cum aequalis sit Theophilo, ac paulo post eum scripserit, testatur aetate sua mirabilem copiam donorum Spiritus sancti adhuc vigere, et mortuorum resurrectiones inter haec miracula recenset: Jam etiam, inquit, quemadmodum diximus, et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis multis, lib. II, cap. 32, n. 4. Vid. cap. 31, ejusdem libri n. 42.

Ἴσως καί, "perhaps also", etc. From this passage Dodwell, Dissertation 2 on Irenaeus, no. 44, concludes that the raising of the dead had ceased among the Christians. But Dodwell is refuted by Irenaeus himself, who, being a contemporary of Theophilus and writing a little after him, testifies that in his own age a wonderful abundance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit was still flourishing, and counts the raising of the dead among these miracles: "Even now," he says, "as we have said, the dead also have risen and remained with us for many years," book II, ch. 32, no. 4. See ch. 31 of the same book, no. 42.

(printed under page 554)

(55) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1043

Τελευτήν. Sic Clemens ep. ad Cor., n. 24: Intueamur, dilecti, eam quae omni tempore fit resurrectionem. Dies et nox resurrectionem nobis declarant: cubat nox, exsurgit dies; dies abit, nox advenit. Sic etiam Tertullianus Apol. c. 48, et De resurrect. c. 12; Minutius Felix in Octavio; Cyrill. cat. 18; Epiph. Ancor. Caetera argumenta iisdem et pluribus aliis nota.

Τελευτήν, "end". So Clement, letter to the Corinthians, no. 24: "Let us look, beloved, at the resurrection that takes place at every season. Day and night show us a resurrection: the night lies down, the day rises; the day departs, the night comes on." So too Tertullian, Apology, ch. 48, and On the Resurrection, ch. 12; Minucius Felix in the Octavius; Cyril, Catechesis 18; Epiphanius, Ancoratus. The other arguments are known to these same writers and to many others.

(printed under page 554)

(56) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1043

Προσφέρουσιν. Satis apte Wolfius, monitu Davisii, legendum putat προφέρουσι.

Προσφέρουσιν, "they bring to". Wolf, on Davies's advice, quite aptly thinks προφέρουσι, "they bring forth", should be read.

(printed under page 554)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1043

Τάφον. Ejusdem Davisii monitu Wolfius legendum esse existimat τάφρον, ac foveam interpretatur: sic etiam legerat Clauserus, qui eodem modo reddidit. Sed hoc loco Theophilus in exemplum adducit arbores illas, quae cum in locis saxosis et desertis interdum nascantur, nec hominum manui aut terrae succis originem suam debeant, inquirendi curam afferunt undenam exortae sint. Causam confert Theophilus in granum aliquod ab ave ejectum. Quare sepulcrum, utpote monumentum ex lapidibus constructum et in locis desertis ac editis erigi solitum, sententiae Theophili melius quadrabat quam fovea.

Τάφον, "tomb". On the same Davies's advice Wolf thinks τάφρον, "ditch", should be read, and renders it "pit"; Clauser too had read it so and rendered it the same way. But in this place Theophilus adduces as an example those trees which, since they sometimes spring up in rocky and deserted places and owe their origin neither to the hand of man nor to the moisture of the soil, prompt the question where they came from. Theophilus ascribes the cause to some seed dropped by a bird. A tomb, therefore, being a monument built of stones and usually raised in deserted and high places, fitted Theophilus's meaning better than a pit.

(printed under page 554)

(58) ‹anchor: πῶς φθίνει› · call in col 1043

Φθίνει. In editionibus Oxon. et Hamb. additur καὶ ἀποθνήσκει. Verbum ἀποθνήσκει desumptum quidem est ex cod. Bodl.; sed cum desit, teste Wolfio, in eodem codice conjunctio καί, metuo ne illud ἀποθνήσκει e margine in textum irrepserit.

Φθίνει, "wanes". In the Oxford and Hamburg editions καὶ ἀποθνήσκει, "and dies", is added. The word ἀποθνήσκει is indeed taken from the Bodleian manuscript; but since, as Wolf attests, the conjunction καί is missing in the same manuscript, I fear that ἀποθνήσκει crept into the text from the margin.

(printed under page 554)

⁸ ‹anchor: cuique pro meritis mercedem tribuens› · call in col 1046 Rom. II, 6.

Romans 2:6.

⁹ ‹anchor: in cor hominis ascendit› · call in col 1046 I Cor. II, 9.

1 Corinthians 2:9.

¹⁰ ‹anchor: tribulatio et angustiae› · call in col 1046 Rom. II, 8.

Romans 2:8.

(printed under page 555)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1046

Τότε. Davisius legendum pronuntiaverat ἀνιώμενός ποτε. Sed vulgatam lectionem retinendam esse monet Wolfius, quia respicit Theophilus ad illud tempus quo supplicia inferentur. Vid. n. 7, et l. II, n. 3.

Τότε, "then". Davies had declared that ἀνιώμενός ποτε, "being grieved at some time", should be read. But Wolf advises keeping the received reading, because Theophilus is looking to the time when punishments will be inflicted. See no. 7, and book II, no. 3.

(printed under page 555)

(60) ‹anchor: κατὰ ἀξίαν τῶν μισθῶν› · call in col 1046

Τῶν μισθῶν. Leg. τὸν μισθόν.

Τῶν μισθῶν, "of the wages". Read τὸν μισθόν, "the wage".

(printed under page 555)

(61) ‹anchor: Ἐπειδὴ προσέθηκας› · call in col 1046

Προσέθηκας. Observat Ducaeus interpretem legisse προσέταξας. Vertit enim: Cum mihi imperatis. Mallet Ducaeus προσῄτησας, postulasti. Sed nihil mutandum putat Wolfius, utpote in re clara et aperta.

Προσέθηκας, "you added". Fronton du Duc observes that the translator read προσέταξας, "you commanded", for he renders: "Since you command me." Du Duc would prefer προσῄτησας, "you asked". But Wolf thinks nothing should be changed, the matter being clear and plain.

(printed under page 555)

(62) ‹anchor: τὰ πρῶτα ἔχοντος› · call in col 1047

Ἔχοντος. Eruditus Wolfius legendum putat ἔχοντός σου.

Ἔχοντος, "being [disposed]". The learned Wolf thinks ἔχοντός σου, "you being [disposed]", should be read.

(printed under page 556)

(63) ‹anchor: καὶ δι' ὀλίγων› · call in col 1047

Ἀλλὰ καὶ δι' ὀλίγων. Legitur in cod. Bodl. ἅμα καὶ δι' ὀλίγων. Sed hanc scripturam Oxoniensis editor non magni fecit; at eam Wolfius in contextum intulit, minus belle, meo quidem judicio. Aptior enim erit Theophili oratio, si dicat se inanitatem gentilium institutorum demonstrare velle, imo ex ipsis illorum historiis veritatem ante oculos ponere: aptius, inquam, et commodius id videtur, quam si simul pro imo reddatur. Caeterum debito testimonio non fraudandus Wolfius, quod mihi in sananda hujus loci vitiosa interpunctione et interpretatione praeiverit.

Ἀλλὰ καὶ δι' ὀλίγων, "but also through a few". The Bodleian manuscript reads ἅμα καὶ δι' ὀλίγων, "and at the same time through a few". The Oxford editor set little store by this reading; but Wolf brought it into the text, less happily, in my judgement at least. For Theophilus's sentence will be more apt if he says that he wants to show the emptiness of the heathen institutions, nay more, to set the truth before the eyes from their own histories: that, I say, seems more apt and fitting than if "at the same time" were rendered in place of "nay more". For the rest, Wolf must not be cheated of the credit due to him, for he went before me in healing the faulty punctuation and interpretation of this passage.

(printed under page 556)

(64) ‹anchor: εἰς ναὸν καλούμενον› · call in col 1047

Εἰς ναὸν καλούμενον. Ante has voces legitur ὑπό τινος καὶ ἀνατεθῶσιν in cod. Bodl. et editionibus Oxon. et Hamb. Sed cum glossema redoleant, recipienda in hunc textum non putavi. Scribendum enim potius fuisset ἐν ναῷ καλουμένῳ ἢ οἴκῳ.

Εἰς ναὸν καλούμενον, "for a so-called temple". Before these words the Bodleian manuscript and the Oxford and Hamburg editions read ὑπό τινος καὶ ἀνατεθῶσιν, "by someone, and are dedicated". But since they smell of a gloss, I did not think they should be admitted into this text. For it would rather have had to be written ἐν ναῷ καλουμένῳ ἢ οἴκῳ.

(printed under page 556)

(65) ‹anchor: Τοῦτο δέ› · call in col 1047

Τοῦτο δέ. Ita cod. Bodl. Male in editt. Tigur. et Paris. τοῦτο δεῖ. Habent τοῦτο δή Ducaeus, Fellus et Wolfius.

Τοῦτο δέ, "and this". So the Bodleian manuscript. Wrongly, in the Zurich and Paris editions, τοῦτο δεῖ. Fronton du Duc, Fell and Wolf have τοῦτο δή.

(printed under page 556)

ANALYSIS LIBRI SECUNDI.

ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND BOOK.

Post eum sermonem, qui in libro primo refertur, hortatus est Theophilum Autolycus (n. 1), ut de religione Christiana fusius dissereret. Morem illi gerit Theophilus, et in hoc secundo libro demonstrare instituit stultitiam superstitionis, cui addictus erat Autolycus, eique veritatis lucem ex prophetarum libris efflorescentem opponit. Observat primo (n. 2) quemadmodum statuarii opus suum non magni faciunt, dum elaborant et expoliunt, at venditum et in templo collocatum adorant; sic eos qui genealogias deorum legunt, non inficiari homines fuisse, sed tamen postea ut deos colere. Quaerit deinde (n. 3) cur dii gignere desierint et cur mons Ida vacuus sit, qui diis refertus esse deberet. Tum (n. 4) venit ad scripta philosophorum et poetarum. Ex philosophis alii Deum prorsus negant aut providentiam tollunt; alii mundum increatum dicunt, nec alium Deum esse quam suam cujusque conscientiam. Ipse Plato, qui Deum ingenitum et omnium creatorem docet, materiam cum eo increatam conjungit. Homerus deorum originem ex aqua repetit (n. 5): non sanior Hesiodi sententia. Hujus versus de mundi creatione (n. 6): materiam ingenitam statuit et de deorum prosapia nugatur: aliae Graecorum fabulae exagitantur (n. 7). Similia nugantur quidam historici, ut Satyrus, qui Ptolemaei Philopatoris genus longa serie a Baccho repetit. Ex quibus concludit Theophilus scriptores omnes errore labi, idque confirmat (n. 8) ex eorum de mundo et providentia dissensionibus, ac speciminis loco nonnullas refert poetarum de providentia discrepantes inter se sententias.

After the discourse which is related in the first book, Autolycus urged Theophilus (n. 1) to discourse more fully on the Christian religion. Theophilus humours him, and in this second book undertakes to show the folly of the superstition to which Autolycus was given, and sets against it the light of truth shining forth from the books of the prophets. He observes first (n. 2) that, just as sculptors set no great value on their work while they are fashioning and polishing it, but worship it once it has been sold and set up in a temple, so those who read the genealogies of the gods do not deny that they were men, yet afterwards worship them as gods. He then asks (n. 3) why the gods have ceased to beget, and why Mount Ida is empty, which ought to be crowded with gods. Next (n. 4) he comes to the writings of the philosophers and poets. Of the philosophers, some deny God altogether or do away with providence; others say that the world is uncreated, and that there is no other God than each man's own conscience. Plato himself, who teaches that God is unbegotten and the creator of all things, joins uncreated matter with Him. Homer traces the origin of the gods to water (n. 5); no saner is the opinion of Hesiod. His verses on the creation of the world [are set out] (n. 6): he lays down that matter is unbegotten, and talks nonsense about the lineage of the gods; other fables of the Greeks are held up to ridicule (n. 7). Certain historians talk similar nonsense, such as Satyrus, who traces the line of Ptolemy Philopator back to Bacchus in a long series. From all this Theophilus concludes that all these writers fall into error, and he confirms it (n. 8) from their disagreements about the world and providence, and by way of sample he cites some opinions of the poets about providence that conflict with one another.

Longe dissimilis prophetarum doctrina (n. 9) quos a Spiritu sancto afflatos fuisse probat eventus eorum quae praedixerunt. Hi summo consensu docuerunt mundum a Deo per Verbum ex nihilo creatum fuisse (n. 10). Operis sex dierum descriptio (n. 11) ex libro Genesis. Inde scriptores Graeci nonnulla hauserunt, sed ea errore corruperunt (n. 12). Deus initium ducit ab ipso culmine (n. 13): Spiritum rebus creatis, ut animam homini, tribuit; terram, remotis aquis, ornat seminibus, floribus et plantis. In his habemus imaginem resurrectionis (n. 14), in mari imaginem mundi. Variae considerationes de iis quae quarto et quinto, ac sexto die creata sunt (n. 15, 16, 17). Hominis creatio (n. 18) singulare quidpiam et eximium habet: declaratur illius creatio et in paradiso collocatur (n. 19). Apponit Theophilus (n. 20, 21) quae sequuntur in libro Genesis de paradiso, Evae formatione et hominis lapsu. Quod autem Deus ambulasse in paradiso dicitur, id de illius Verbo intelligendum esse docet Theophilus (n. 22). Veritas eorum quae narrantur in Genesi, ex mulierum parturientium doloribus et serpentis statu manifesta est n. 23).

Far different is the teaching of the prophets (n. 9), who, as the fulfilment of what they foretold proves, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. With the greatest agreement they taught that the world was created by God through the Word out of nothing (n. 10). A description of the work of the six days (n. 11) from the book of Genesis. From it the Greek writers drew some things, but corrupted them with error (n. 12). God makes His beginning from the very summit (n. 13): He gives the Spirit to created things, as the soul to man; the earth, once the waters are removed, He adorns with seeds, flowers and plants. In these we have an image of the resurrection (n. 14), and in the sea an image of the world. Various reflections on the things that were created on the fourth and fifth and sixth day (n. 15, 16, 17). The creation of man (n. 18) has something singular and pre-eminent: his creation is set forth, and he is placed in paradise (n. 19). Theophilus adds (n. 20, 21) what follows in the book of Genesis concerning paradise, the forming of Eve and the fall of man. And as for God's being said to have walked in paradise, Theophilus teaches that this is to be understood of His Word (n. 22). The truth of what is related in Genesis is made plain by the pains of women in childbirth and by the condition of the serpent (n. 23).

Postquam paradisi ornatum ac pulchritudinem consideravit Theophilus (n. 24), probat adversus haereticos accusandum Deum non esse, quod ligno scientiae Adamum prohibuerit, aut praevaricatori mortem inflixerit (n. 25, 26): nec mortalem Adamum, nec immortalem creari par erat (n. 27), sed capacem utriusque. Ejectus paradiso Adam cognovit uxorem suam, quam ex ejus costa Deus formaverat, ut et singularitatis Dei argumentum exhiberet et conjugalem amorem arctius astringeret (n. 28). Eva peperit Cain (n. 29) ac deinde Abel. Caini scelus et punitio et posteri recensentur (n. 30), ac artes ab eis inventae, de quibus scriptores Graeci nihil nisi fabulosum dicere potuerunt. Ejusdem Scripturae beneficio (n. 31) originem maximarum urbium, divisionem linguarum et seriem antiquissimorum regum cognoscimus, et quomodo (n. 32) genus humanum in universam terram dispersum fuerit. Frustra (n. 33) ejusmodi rerum cognitio ex libris ethnicorum petatur.

After Theophilus has considered the adornment and beauty of paradise (n. 24), he proves against the heretics that God is not to be blamed for having forbidden Adam the tree of knowledge, or for having inflicted death on the transgressor (n. 25, 26): it was not fitting that Adam be created either mortal or immortal (n. 27), but capable of both. Cast out of paradise, Adam knew his wife, whom God had formed from his rib, both to display a proof of the oneness of God and to bind conjugal love more closely (n. 28). Eve bore Cain (n. 29) and then Abel. Cain's crime and punishment and his descendants are reviewed (n. 30), and the arts discovered by them, about which the Greek writers could say nothing but fable. By the favour of the same Scripture (n. 31) we learn the origin of the greatest cities, the division of tongues and the series of the most ancient kings, and how (n. 32) the human race was dispersed over the whole earth. In vain (n. 33) would knowledge of such things be sought from the books of the heathen.

Prophetae non solum de mundi creatione nos docuerunt, sed etiam de Deo colendo (n. 34) et vita recte instituenda praecepta tradiderunt, atque harum rerum specimen ex eorum libris apponitur (n. 35). His adduntur Sibyllae versus (n. 36). Quinetiam ipsi poetae de poenis sceleri infligendis ac de pluribus aliis rebus nonnulla dixerunt (n. 37, 38), quae cum prophetis consentiunt.

The prophets not only taught us about the creation of the world, but also handed down precepts on worshipping God (n. 34) and ordering life rightly, and a sample of these things is added from their books (n. 35). To these are added verses of the Sibyl (n. 36). Moreover the poets themselves said some things about the punishments to be inflicted on wickedness and about many other matters (n. 37, 38) which agree with the prophets.

<!-- note: Begins at the foot of page 555 (cols 1045/1046), full width below the rule that closes Book I's footnotes, with the heading ANALYSIS LIBRI SECUNDI.; continues at the head of page 556 (cols 1047/1048) and ends at the rule above the title LIBER II. / BIBLION B'. Heading plus 4 paragraphs; the first paragraph runs across the page break (at 'longa / serie'). UNSURE: 'nonnullas' (the scan may print 'nonnullus'); '(n. 3)' and '(n. 5)' read by sequence (3/5/8 indistinct); 'Tum (n. 4)' has stray marks between the words on the page; the last item prints 'n. 23)' without an opening parenthesis, set as printed (supplied in the English). -->

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1050

Εἰ δὲ θεοὶ γεννῶσι. Ita codex Bodleianus. Legitur in Sibyllinis libris εἰ δέ γε γεννῶσι. Tigur. et Paris., εἰ δὲ γεννῶσι.

Εἰ δὲ θεοὶ γεννῶσι, "but if gods beget". So the Bodleian manuscript. In the Sibylline books εἰ δέ γε γεννῶσι is read; the Zurich and Paris editions have εἰ δὲ γεννῶσι.

(printed under page 557)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1050

Οἱ δὲ θεοί. Fellus et Wolfius οἱ θεοί, quamvis ms. Bodl. et editi omnes repugnent.

Οἱ δὲ θεοί, "but the gods". Fell and Wolf have οἱ θεοί, although the Bodleian manuscript and all the printed editions are against it.

(printed under page 557)

(68) ‹anchor: τὸ μὴ γεννᾶσθαι› · call in col 1050

Τὸ μὴ γεννᾶσθαι. Scripsit Wolfius τὸ μὲν γεννᾶσθαι, idque necessarium esse duxit ad sententiam restituendam. Sed minus vidit vir eruditus negationem illam, quam sustulit, etsi superfluere videtur, ex more tamen et ingenio linguae Graecae positam esse. Nam in verbis negandi et prohibendi adhibetur ejusmodi negatio, ut demonstrant grammatici pluribus exemplis, quae necesse non est hoc loco colligere.

Τὸ μὴ γεννᾶσθαι, "not to be born". Wolf wrote τὸ μὲν γεννᾶσθαι, and held this necessary to restore the sense. But the learned man failed to see that the negative he removed, although it seems superfluous, was put there according to the usage and genius of the Greek language. For such a negative is used with verbs of denying and forbidding, as the grammarians show by many examples, which there is no need to collect here.

(printed under page 557)

(69) ‹anchor: πάντα ἐφορᾶν› · call in col 1050

Πάντα ἐφορᾶν. Alludit ad Homeri versum Odyss. Λ, v. 108: Ἠελίου, ὃς πάντ' ἐφορᾷ καὶ πάντ' ἐπακούει. WOLFIUS.

Πάντα ἐφορᾶν, "to oversee all things". He alludes to Homer's line, Odyssey 11, line 108: "of the Sun, who oversees all things and hears all things." WOLF.

(printed under page 557)

(70) ‹anchor: μεῖζον› · call in col 1050

Μεῖζον. Ita Ducaeus et Wolfius emendaverunt. Aliae editiones μείζων.

Μεῖζον, "greater" (neuter). So Fronton du Duc and Wolf corrected it. Other editions have μείζων.

(printed under page 557)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1051

Πίσαν. Ita emendat Wolfius. Aliae editiones Πεῖσαν.

Πίσαν, "Pisa". So Wolf corrects it. Other editions have Πεῖσαν.

(printed under page 558)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1051

Τῆς Στοᾶς. Mirum nonnullis visum est, velut Gatakero Not. ad Anton. p. 64, cur Stoicos Theophilus cum Epicureis, Chrysippum cum Epicuro in pravis de Deo et providentia sententiis conjungat. Id etiam erudito Wolfio molestum est. Sed tamen non difficile est Theophilum defendere. Nam quod spectat ad Dei naturam, Stoicorum plerique Deum esse statuebant corporeum et mutationi obnoxium, utpote ignem omnium rerum, quae generantur, rationes in se continentem. His autem, ut observat Origenes IV Cels. p. 169, Epicurus, qui deos ex atomis componebat, non valde inferior erat. His de Stoicis dictum existimo: Quidam ex porticu Deum prorsus esse negant. Quod autem addit Theophilus, vel si sit, nullius curam gerere praeterquam sui, id facile intelligent, qui Marcionem suam de summo Deo nihil prorsus agente sententiam accepisse a Stoicis meminerint. Inde Marcionis Deus melior de tranquillitate: a Stoicis venerat, inquit Tertullianus Praescript. cap. 7. De iisdem Stoicis ait Apol. c. 47: Positum vero extra mundum Stoici (Deum asseverant) qui figuli modo extrinsecus torqueat molem hanc; intra mundum Platonici, qui gubernatoris exemplo intra illud maneat, quod regat.

Τῆς Στοᾶς, "of the Porch". It has seemed strange to some, such as Gataker in his notes on Antoninus, p. 64, that Theophilus joins the Stoics with the Epicureans, Chrysippus with Epicurus, in wrong opinions about God and providence. The learned Wolf too is troubled by this. Yet it is not hard to defend Theophilus. For as regards the nature of God, most of the Stoics held that God is corporeal and subject to change, being a fire containing within itself the principles of all things that come to be. And, as Origen observes, Against Celsus IV, p. 169, Epicurus, who composed the gods out of atoms, was not much worse than they. I take it that these words are said of the Stoics: "Some of the Porch deny altogether that God exists." And what Theophilus adds, "or, if he exists, that he cares for nothing but himself", will easily be understood by those who remember that Marcion received from the Stoics his opinion of a supreme God who does nothing at all. "Thence comes Marcion's better God, the one of tranquillity: he had come from the Stoics," says Tertullian, Prescription, ch. 7. Of the same Stoics he says, Apology, ch. 47: "The Stoics (assert God) to be placed outside the world, turning this mass from without like a potter; the Platonists, within the world, remaining like a pilot within what he steers."

(printed under page 558)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1051

Καὶ φύσιν ἰδίαν. Quid peccet haec scriptura facile perspicitur. Sive enim increatus, sive creatus dicatur mundus, erit semper φύσις ἰδία, natura singularis. Sed si legamus ἀΐδιαν, naturam aeternam, plana erunt omnia; atque hunc sensum in interpretando sequi non dubitavi.

Καὶ φύσιν ἰδίαν, "and a nature of its own". What is wrong with this reading is easily seen. For whether the world is said to be uncreated or created, it will always have φύσις ἰδία, "a nature of its own". But if we read ἀΐδιαν, "an eternal nature", all will be plain; and I have not hesitated to follow this sense in translating.

(printed under page 558)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1051

Ἄλλοι δ' αὖ τό. Ita edit. Hamburg. ex codice Bodleiano, melius quam in aliis editionibus ἄλλοι δ' αὐτό.

Ἄλλοι δ' αὖ τό, "others again [say] that". So the Hamburg edition, from the Bodleian manuscript, better than ἄλλοι δ' αὐτό in other editions.

(printed under page 558)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1051

Ὑποτίθενται Θεόν. Sic emendavi ope codicis Bodleiani. Editi ὑποτίθενται Θεοῦ, Wolfius post Grabium legendum censet Θεῷ, subjiciunt Deo materiam. Sed minus quadrat haec emendandi ratio cum sententia Theophili, qui materiam negat subjectam esse Deo, si increata sit. Quare illud verbum ὑποτίθενται non idem valet hoc loco ac subjiciunt; sed potius idem ac statuunt, sive supponunt. Quo sensu infra etiam usurpatur n. 6, ubi de Hesiodo dicitur: Materiam quodammodo ὑποτίθεται et mundi creationem, sed a quo conditus sit, minime demonstrat.

Ὑποτίθενται Θεόν, "they posit God". So I have corrected it with the help of the Bodleian manuscript. The printed editions have ὑποτίθενται Θεοῦ; Wolf, after Grabe, thinks Θεῷ should be read: "they make matter subject to God". But this way of correcting fits poorly with the thought of Theophilus, who denies that matter is subject to God if it is uncreated. Therefore the verb ὑποτίθενται does not mean "they subject" in this place, but rather "they lay down" or "they suppose". In this sense it is also used below, no. 6, where it is said of Hesiod: "He in a manner posits (ὑποτίθεται) matter and the creation of the world, but by whom it was made he does not show at all."

(printed under page 558)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1051

Καὶ ὥσπερ. Ita cod. B. et Tigur. et Hamb. Deerat conjunctio in aliis editionibus. Merito pronuntiat Theophilus materiam Deo aequalem fore, si increata sit. Cum materiae increatae defensor Hermogenes diceret non statim materiam comparari Deo, si quid Dei habeat, quia non totum habendo non concurrat in plenitudinem comparationis, sic eum urget Tertullianus, cap. 5: Veritas autem sic unum Deum exigit defendendo, ut solius sit quidquid ipsius est. Ita enim ipsius erit, si fuerit solius; et ex hoc alius Deus non possit admitti, dum nemini licet habere de Deo aliquid.

Καὶ ὥσπερ, "and just as". So the Bodleian manuscript and the Zurich and Hamburg editions. The conjunction was missing in other editions. Theophilus rightly declares that matter would be equal to God if it were uncreated. When Hermogenes, the champion of uncreated matter, said that "matter is not at once compared with God if it has something of God, because, not having the whole, it does not reach the fullness of the comparison", Tertullian presses him thus, ch. 5: "But truth, in maintaining one God, requires that whatever is his be his alone. For so it will be his, if it is his alone; and hence no other god can be admitted, since no one is allowed to have anything of God."

(printed under page 558)

(77) ‹anchor: ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων› · call in col 1051

Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. Praeclare idem Tertullianus cap. 8, adv. Hermogenem: Jam non omnipotens, si non et hoc potens, ex nihilo omnia proferre.

Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, "out of things that are not". Excellently the same Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch. 8: "He is no longer almighty, if he is not able to do this too: to bring forth all things out of nothing."

(printed under page 558)

¹¹ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1054 Iliad. Ξ, v. 201.

Iliad 14, line 201.

¹² ‹anchor: καὶ πέφραδε τιμάς› · call in col 1054 Hesiod. Theogon. v. 74.

Hesiod, Theogony, line 74.

(printed under page 559)

(78) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1054

Καθὼς βούλεται. Legendum videtur καὶ καθὼς βούλεται. Libenter etiam legerem paulo ante, οὕτω καὶ τῷ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. Tolerabilis tamen vulgata lectio, supplendo κατά. Unde miror cl. Wolfium sine auctoritate codicis ms. scripsisse ἐν τῷ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων.

Καθὼς βούλεται, "as he wills". It seems one should read καὶ καθὼς βούλεται, "and as he wills". I would also gladly read, a little before, οὕτω καὶ τῷ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. Yet the received reading is tolerable if κατά is supplied. Hence I am surprised that the distinguished Wolf wrote ἐν τῷ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων without the authority of a manuscript.

(printed under page 559)

(79) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1054

Φιλοσόφους καὶ συγγραφεῖς. Commodius fortasse legeremus, φιλοσόφους καὶ ποιητὰς καὶ συγγραφεῖς. Sic infra n. 12: Τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν φιλοσόφων ἢ συγγραφέων καὶ ποιητῶν εἰρημένα. Quinetiam cum hoc loco philosophis opponat poetas, quibus statim adjungit historicos, non caret ratione ea, quam proponimus, emendandi ratio. Sed tamen contextum mutare nolim. Vel enim συγγραφεῖς generatim intelligit eos, qui litteris aliquid mandant, eosque a philosophis distinguit, quia isti saepe nihil scribunt, sed disputationes suas discipulorum animis committunt; vel συγγραφεῖς interpretatur eos, qui de rebus antiquis sive versu, sive soluta oratione disserunt. Infra n. 8, 16, 33, et lib. III, n. 1, vox illa συγγραφεῖς philosophis et poetis et historicis aeque convenit. Vid. n. 11.

Φιλοσόφους καὶ συγγραφεῖς, "philosophers and writers". We might perhaps more suitably read φιλοσόφους καὶ ποιητὰς καὶ συγγραφεῖς, "philosophers and poets and writers". So below, no. 12: "What is said by the philosophers, or the writers and poets." Moreover, since in this place he sets the poets against the philosophers, and immediately joins the historians to them, the correction we propose is not without reason. Yet I would not change the text. For either by συγγραφεῖς he means in general those who commit something to writing, and distinguishes them from the philosophers because these often write nothing but entrust their discussions to the minds of their disciples; or he takes συγγραφεῖς to be those who treat of ancient matters, whether in verse or in prose. Below, nos. 8, 16, 33, and book III, no. 1, the word συγγραφεῖς fits philosophers, poets and historians alike. See no. 11.

(printed under page 559)

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1054

Ὠκεανόν τε. Sic emendavit Ducaeus pro eo quod vitiose legebatur Ὠκεανοῦ τε. Cod. B. Ὠκεανῶν τε. Idem codex et Tigur. in versu sequenti ἐξ οὗ δὴ πάντες.

Ὠκεανόν τε, "and Ocean". So Fronton du Duc corrected it, in place of the faulty reading Ὠκεανοῦ τε. The Bodleian manuscript has Ὠκεανῶν τε. The same manuscript and the Zurich edition have, in the following line, ἐξ οὗ δὴ πάντες.

(printed under page 559)

(81) ‹anchor: Ἀθανάτοις διέταξεν ὁμῶς› · call in col 1054

Ἀθανάτοις διέταξεν ὁμῶς. Corruptissimum locum peracute emendat Guietus not. ad hunc Hesiodi locum. Legit enim εὖ δὲ ἕκαστα ἀθανάτοις διέταξε νόμοις. Non videtur aliter intelligi posse Hesiodus. Ibidem edit. Hamb. ἐπέφραδε, ut apud Hesiodum.

Ἀθανάτοις διέταξεν ὁμῶς, "he likewise ordered for the immortals". Guyet, in his note on this passage of Hesiod, corrects this very corrupt passage most acutely. For he reads εὖ δὲ ἕκαστα ἀθανάτοις διέταξε νόμοις, "and he ordered each thing well with immortal laws". Hesiod does not seem to be understandable otherwise. In the same place the Hamburg edition has ἐπέφραδε, as in Hesiod.

(printed under page 559)

(82) ‹anchor: δότε› · call in col 1054

Δότε. Hamb. ut apud Hesiod. δότε δ' ἱμερόεσσαν. Mox cod. Bodl. κλύετε et μακάρων pro ἱερόν.

Δότε, "give". The Hamburg edition, as in Hesiod, has δότε δ' ἱμερόεσσαν. Next, the Bodleian manuscript has κλύετε and μακάρων instead of ἱερόν.

(printed under page 559)

¹³ ‹anchor: τέκ' Ὠκεανὸν βαθυδίνην› · call in col 1055 Ibid. v. 104.

Same work, line 104.

(printed under page 560)

(83) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1055

Τρόπῳ τινί. Hesiodus quodammodo materiam et creationem mundi statuit, id est, quodammodo materiam et sine creatore creationem admittit, quia materiam et creationem recensens, utrum materia ornatum a semetipsa, an a Deo acceperit minime edisserit.

Τρόπῳ τινί, "in a certain manner". "Hesiod in a certain manner posits matter and the creation of the world"; that is, in a certain manner he admits matter, and a creation without a creator, because in reviewing matter and creation he does not explain at all whether matter received its ordering from itself or from God.

(printed under page 560)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1055

Καλύπτοι. Cod. Bodl. καλύπτῃ.

Καλύπτοι, "might cover". The Bodleian manuscript has καλύπτῃ.

(printed under page 560)

(85) ‹anchor: ἡ ὕλη μετεσχημάτιζεν› · call in col 1055

Μετεσχημάτιζεν. Ita ex codice Bodleiano emendavit cl. Wolfius, qui hujus lectionis vestigium observat in editis, ubi legebatur τ' ἐσχημάτιζεν. Idem me antevertit hunc locum parenthesi explanando.

Μετεσχημάτιζεν, "was reshaping". So the distinguished Wolf corrected it from the Bodleian manuscript; he notes a trace of this reading in the printed editions, where τ' ἐσχημάτιζεν was read. He also anticipated me in explaining this passage by a parenthesis.

(printed under page 560)

(86) ‹anchor: ὡς μέμνηται› · call in col 1055

Ὡς μέμνηται. Legendum fortasse ὧν μέμνηται. Ibidem Hamb. cod. Bodl. et editi Ὀράπιος, quod quidem emendarunt Fellus et Wolfius. Reinesius I Var. Lect. pag. 114, legit Ὡραπίων ut magis Aegyptiacum.

Ὡς μέμνηται, "as ... records". Perhaps one should read ὧν μέμνηται, "whom ... records". In the same place the Hamburg edition, the Bodleian manuscript and the printed editions have Ὀράπιος, which Fell and Wolf did indeed correct. Reinesius, Variae lectiones I, p. 114, reads Ὡραπίων as more Egyptian.

(printed under page 560)

(87) ‹anchor: καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς ματαιοπονίαν› · call in col 1055

Καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς ματαιοπονίαν. Haec verba mirum in modum torserunt criticos et interpretes Theophili. Legit Wolfius τῆς ματαιοπονίας et cum Fello Aegyptiorum regum pyramides conjiciendo huc trahit. Sed his vocibus nulla supererit difficultas, si legantur post τοὺς κατὰ Ἕλληνας μύθους, qui quidem manifestus est eorum et germanissimus locus. Infra n. 12, de profanis scriptoribus: Ἡ ἐν αὐτοῖς πολυλογία γίνεται ματαιοπονία.

Καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς ματαιοπονίαν, "and the vain labour among them". These words have tormented the critics and interpreters of Theophilus to a remarkable degree. Wolf reads τῆς ματαιοπονίας and, with Fell, drags in the pyramids of the Egyptian kings here by conjecture. But no difficulty will remain in these words if they are read after τοὺς κατὰ Ἕλληνας μύθους, "the myths of the Greeks", which is plainly their own and most natural place. Below, no. 12, of the profane writers: "The wordiness among them becomes vain labour."

(printed under page 560)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1058

Μελανίππη. Ita emendavit eruditus editor Hamburgensis, fretus testimoniis Justini orat. ad Graec., Tatiani n. 33, Clementis Alexandrini Protrept. p. 20. Male in editis nostris Μεναλίππη. Legitur tamen apud Juvenalem sat. 8, v. 229, Menalippes. Ante pedes Domiti longum tu pone Thyestae / Syrma, vel Antigones, vel personam Menalippes.

Μελανίππη, "Melanippe". So the learned Hamburg editor corrected it, relying on the testimony of Justin's Address to the Greeks, Tatian no. 33, and Clement of Alexandria's Protrepticus, p. 20. Our printed editions wrongly have Μεναλίππη. Yet in Juvenal, Satire 8, line 229, "Menalippes" is read: "Lay at the feet of Domitius the long robe of Thyestes, or of Antigone, or the mask of Menalippe."

(printed under page 561)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1058

Τίκτει πρώτιστον. Hunc versum, qui antea in editis nostris sic legebatur: Πρώτιστα τεχὼν μελανόπτερος ἠώς, emendarunt Ducaeus et Wolfius, atque ita scripserunt, ut legitur apud Aristophanem in Avibus v. 696; observat Wolfius legendum Νὺξ ἡ.

Τίκτει πρώτιστον, "brings forth first of all". This line, which was formerly read in our printed editions thus, Πρώτιστα τεχὼν μελανόπτερος ἠώς, was corrected by Fronton du Duc and Wolf, who wrote it as it is read in Aristophanes, Birds, line 696; Wolf observes that Νὺξ ἡ should be read.

(printed under page 561)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1058

Τοὺς δήμους Ἀλεξανδρέων. Recte observat eruditus Wolfius familias hac voce significari, ex quibus unaquaeque φυλή, sive tribus, constabat. Sic enim infra: Ὅθεν καὶ ἐν τῇ Διονυσίᾳ φυλῇ δῆμοι εἰσὶ καταχεχωρισμένοι.

Τοὺς δήμους Ἀλεξανδρέων, "the demes of the Alexandrians". The learned Wolf rightly observes that by this word are meant the families of which each φυλή, or tribe, was composed. For so below: "Hence too in the Dionysian tribe there are demes set apart."

(printed under page 561)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1058

Φυλήν. Deest hic aliquid, et quam tribum Ptolemaeus primam constituerit requiritur. Rem expedit cod. Bodl. in quo legitur ad marginem ἴσως τὴν Διονυσίαν, forte Dionysiacam. Non alia profecto videtur posse intelligi.

Φυλήν, "tribe". Something is missing here, and one asks which tribe Ptolemy established first. The Bodleian manuscript settles the matter: in its margin is read ἴσως τὴν Διονυσίαν, "perhaps the Dionysian". Surely no other can be meant.

(printed under page 561)

(92) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1058

Ὕλλον. Sic emendavit Wolfius: editi nostri Ὕλον.

Ὕλλον, "Hyllus". So Wolf corrected it; our printed editions have Ὕλον.

(printed under page 561)

(93) ‹anchor: τοῦ δὲ Κεῖσον› · call in col 1058

Κεῖσον. B. Κεῖστον. Euseb. l. c. ex Diod. et Theopompo Κίσσιον. In eorum catalogo, monente hic Fello, desideratur Maron, et pro Acoo substituitur Merops. WOLFIUS.

Κεῖσον, "Ceisus". The Bodleian manuscript has Κεῖστον. Eusebius, in the place cited, from Diodorus and Theopompus, has Κίσσιον. In their list, as Fell points out here, Maron is missing, and Merops is put in place of Acous. WOLF.

(printed under page 561)

(94) ‹anchor: τῆς Μάγα› · call in col 1058

Τῆς Μάγα. Sic apte emendavit Wolfius, pro eo quod prave in editis nonnullis legebatur τῆς Μέγα, in aliis τῆς ἅμα.

Τῆς Μάγα, "[daughter] of Magas". So Wolf fittingly corrected it, in place of the faulty τῆς Μέγα read in some printed editions, and τῆς ἅμα in others.

(printed under page 561)

(95) ‹anchor: Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Φιλάδελφον› · call in col 1058

Τὸν Φιλάδελφον. Legendum esse τὸν Φιλοπάτορα, jam multi observaverunt, idque et ipsa clamitat historiae series, et Satyri propositum, qui a Philopatore usque ad Bacchum genealogiam pertexebat. Caeterum in hac genealogia texenda multos reges omitti, nec Theophilum cum Eusebio in Chronicis et Clemente Alexandrino consentire jam eruditi non pauci observaverunt.

Τὸν Φιλάδελφον, "Philadelphus". Many have already observed that τὸν Φιλοπάτορα, "Philopator", should be read; both the sequence of history itself cries this out, and so does the purpose of Satyrus, who wove the genealogy from Philopator back to Bacchus. For the rest, not a few learned men have already observed that many kings are omitted in weaving this genealogy, and that Theophilus does not agree with Eusebius in the Chronicle or with Clement of Alexandria.

(printed under page 561)

(96) ‹anchor: ἀπὸ τῆς γενομένης› · call in col 1058

Γενομένης. Ita Bodleianus codex. Editi γινομένης. Mox pravam interpunctionem sustulit cl. Wolfius, quae sic habebat: Θυγατρὸς δὲ Θεστίου· Ἀλθέας, etc.

Γενομένης, "who became". So the Bodleian manuscript. The printed editions have γινομένης. Next, the distinguished Wolf removed the faulty punctuation, which ran thus: Θυγατρὸς δὲ Θεστίου· Ἀλθέας, etc.

(printed under page 561)

(97) ‹anchor: Ἀριάδνης› · call in col 1058

Ἀριάδνης. Legendum videtur Ἀριαδνίς, ut hoc nomen cum caeteris sequentibus consentiat.

Ἀριάδνης, "of Ariadne". It seems one should read Ἀριαδνίς, so that this name agrees with the others that follow.

(printed under page 561)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1059

Πατροφίλης. Ita emendavit Wolfius, pro πατροφίλας qui vitiosam etiam interpunctionem sanavit, ac per ironiam ita vocari Ariadnen observat, quia patrem prodidit. Mox illud ἐν μορφῇ πρύμνιδι vertit idem forma obversa.

Πατροφίλης, "father-loving". So Wolf corrected it, in place of πατροφίλας; he also healed the faulty punctuation, and observes that Ariadne is so called in irony, because she betrayed her father. Next, the same scholar renders ἐν μορφῇ πρύμνιδι "with form turned about".

(printed under page 562)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1059

Οἱ συγγραφεῖς. Vox illa, ut observavi ad n. 4, interdum historicos apud Theophilum designat, interdum quibuslibet scriptoribus aptatur. Sed tamen historiarum scriptores hic significari existimo, quia hanc vocem usurpat Theophilus, postquam de philosophis et poetis et historicis locutus est.

Οἱ συγγραφεῖς, "the writers". That word, as I observed at no. 4, sometimes denotes historians in Theophilus, and sometimes is applied to writers of any kind. Yet I think writers of histories are meant here, because Theophilus uses this word after speaking of philosophers, poets and historians.

(printed under page 562)

(1) ‹anchor: ἰδίαν φύσιν› · call in col 1059

Ἰδίαν φύσιν. Hic quoque legendum omnino videtur ἀΐδιαν, ut supra ostendimus.

Ἰδίαν φύσιν, "a nature of its own". Here too it seems one should certainly read ἀΐδιαν, "eternal", as we showed above.

(printed under page 562)

(2) ‹anchor: καὶ τὰ τούτων› · call in col 1059

Καὶ τὰ τούτων. Hic necesse est iterum supplere ἕτεροι. Nam ut antea eos qui increatum mundum dicunt, cum iis qui creatum; ita nunc eos qui providentiam asserunt, cum iis comparat qui eam tollunt.

Καὶ τὰ τούτων, "and their [doctrines]". Here ἕτεροι, "others", must again be supplied. For just as before he compared those who call the world uncreated with those who call it created, so now he compares those who assert providence with those who abolish it.

(printed under page 562)

(3) ‹anchor: δεξιαὶ ὧραι› · call in col 1059

Δεξιαὶ ὧραι. Legit Grotius δεξιὸς ὥρα in notis ad librum De veritate relig. Christ., n. 16.

Δεξιαὶ ὧραι, "favourable seasons". Grotius reads δεξιὸς ὥρα in his notes to the book On the Truth of the Christian Religion, no. 16.

(printed under page 562)

(4) ‹anchor: οὐδενὸς σαφής› · call in col 1059

Σαφής. Hanc vocem asciverunt Fellus et Wolfius ex ipso Sophoclis contextu, apud quem leguntur hi versus in Oedipo Tyranno v. 988.

Σαφής, "certain". Fell and Wolf adopted this word from the text of Sophocles itself, in whom these lines are read, Oedipus the King, line 988.

(printed under page 562)

(5) ‹anchor: εἰκῇ κράτιστον› · call in col 1059

Κράτιστον. Ita Sophocles. Editi nostri ἐκρατεῖτο, quod merito emendatum ab iisdem eruditis viris.

Κράτιστον, "best". So Sophocles. Our printed editions have ἐκρατεῖτο, which was rightly corrected by the same learned men.

(printed under page 562)

(6) ‹anchor: Θεὸς ὁ παμμήτις› · call in col 1059

Θεὸς ὁ παμμήτις. Editi, οὐ Θεός. Sed multo (continues)

Θεὸς ὁ παμμήτις, "God the all-wise". The printed editions have οὐ Θεός. But much (continues)

(printed under page 562)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1062

Θέστιος. Scriptor omnino ignotus, eoque magis suspectum hoc nomen quod Plutarchus versum, qui Thestio attribuitur, sub Pindari nomine citat, non tamen sine dubitatione. Addit enim, ut eruditus Wolfius post Gatakerum admonuit, εἴγε Πίνδαρος ἦν ὁ ποιήσας. Plut. De Pythiae oraculis.

Θέστιος, "Thestius". A writer wholly unknown, and the name is all the more suspect because Plutarch cites the line attributed to Thestius under the name of Pindar, though not without hesitation. For he adds, as the learned Wolf pointed out after Gataker, "if indeed it was Pindar who wrote it." Plutarch, On the Oracles of the Pythia.

(printed under page 563)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1062

Θεοῦ θέλοντος. Sic legebatur in editis nostris hic versus Θεοῦ θέλοντος σώζῃ κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέῃς. Cod. ms. et Tigur. Θεοῦ διδόντος. Observant Ducaeus et Thom. Gatakerus Advers. Miscell. p. 101, interpretem legisse κἂν ἐν Εὐρίπῳ, vertit enim, Etiamsi in Euripo navigarit. Uterque monet proverbium apud antiquos hoc tritum fuisse: Mare Ionium aut Aegaeum virgulto velle trajicere. Addit Gatakerus hunc versum ita legi, σὺν τῷ Θεῷ πλέων κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέοις, apud Suidam tom. III, p. 261, edit. Kusteri; a Scholiaste autem Aristophanis citari ad occasionem hujus Aristophanis dicti in Simonidem, Κέρδους ἕκατι κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέοι. Causa lucelli naviget vel vimine. Haec desumpsimus ex edit. Hamburg.

Θεοῦ θέλοντος, "if God wills". This line used to be read in our printed editions thus: Θεοῦ θέλοντος σώζῃ κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέῃς, "if God wills, you are saved even sailing on a wicker mat." The manuscript and the Zurich edition have Θεοῦ διδόντος, "if God grants". Fronton du Duc and Thomas Gataker, Adversaria miscellanea, p. 101, observe that the translator read κἂν ἐν Εὐρίπῳ, for he renders, "even if he sails in the Euripus." Both note that this proverb was well worn among the ancients: "to want to cross the Ionian or Aegean sea on a twig." Gataker adds that this line is read thus, σὺν τῷ Θεῷ πλέων κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέοις, "sailing with God you might sail even on a mat," in Suidas, vol. III, p. 261, Küster's edition; and that it is cited by the scholiast on Aristophanes in connection with Aristophanes's saying about Simonides, Κέρδους ἕκατι κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέοι, "for the sake of a little gain he would sail even on a wicker." We have taken this from the Hamburg edition.

(printed under page 563)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1062

Λέγει. Vel legendum λέγων, vel antea simile aliquod verbum, ut observat Cl. Wolfius, ex hoc loco excidit.

Λέγει, "he says". Either one should read λέγων, "saying", or, as the distinguished Wolf observes, some similar verb has dropped out of this passage before it.

(printed under page 563)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1062

Πλὴν καὶ πληθύν. Scribit in ipso contextu Cl. Wolfius πλὴν καὶ οἱ πληθύν, sed sine ulla prorsus auctoritate aut ratione, vel potius non sine contextus perturbatione. Liquet enim duas a Theophilo controversias commemorari, nempe de monarchia et de Providentia, de quibus alii affirmabant, alii negabant.

Πλὴν καὶ πληθύν, "but also a multitude". The distinguished Wolf writes in the text itself πλὴν καὶ οἱ πληθύν, but with no authority or reason whatever, or rather not without disturbing the text. For it is clear that Theophilus mentions two disputes, namely about the monarchy [of God] and about Providence, on which some affirmed and others denied.

(printed under page 563)

(11) ‹anchor: Ἤτοι γὰρ οἱ ποιηταί› · call in col 1062

Ἤτοι γὰρ οἱ ποιηταί. Quamvis tolerabilis sit vulgata scriptura et constructio verborum, libenter tamen unam ex duabus periodum facerem, sic legendo: Ὅτι γὰρ οἱ ποιηταί.... ἐκ τούτου δὲ σαφῶς δείκνυται, etc. Particula δέ saepe negligenda, ut in pluribus Justini locis observavimus.

Ἤτοι γὰρ οἱ ποιηταί, "for either the poets". Although the received reading and construction of the words are tolerable, I would gladly make one sentence out of two, reading thus: Ὅτι γὰρ οἱ ποιηταί ... ἐκ τούτου δὲ σαφῶς δείκνυται, "For that the poets ..., is clearly shown from this," etc. The particle δέ is often to be disregarded, as we have observed in several passages of Justin.

(printed under page 563)

(12) ‹anchor: σαφῶς δείκνυται› · call in col 1062

Ἐκ τούτου δὲ σαφῶς δείκνυται. Explananda Theophili ratiocinatio, ne videatur obscura. Dubitari enim possit, utrum ipsi daemones confessi fuerint se in istis scriptoribus operatos esse, an id Theophilus ex eo colligat, quod se Apollinem esse faterentur aut alium deum. Nam, ut ait Lactantius lib. II, c. 15, non modo daemonas se esse confitebantur, sed etiam nomina sua edebant, illa quae in templis adorantur. Videtur Theophilus inde concludere poetas a fallacibus spiritibus fuisse afflatos, quippe qui his diis carmina sua accepta referrent.

Ἐκ τούτου δὲ σαφῶς δείκνυται, "and from this it is clearly shown". Theophilus's reasoning needs explaining, lest it seem obscure. For it might be doubted whether the demons themselves confessed that they had been at work "in those writers", or whether Theophilus infers this from their confessing that they were Apollo or some other god. For, as Lactantius says, book II, ch. 15, they confessed "not only that they were demons, but" also declared "their names, those that are worshipped in the temples." Theophilus seems to conclude from this that the poets were inspired by deceitful spirits, since they credited their songs to these gods.

(printed under page 563)

(13) ‹anchor: οἱ δαιμονῶντες› · call in col 1062

Δαιμονῶντες. Videntur hac voce non energumeni solum designari, sed ii etiam maxime, qui vel ad divinandum, vel ad miri aliquid faciendum deorum aliquem invocabant, qualis erat Pythia et alii ejusmodi vates. In utroque daemonum genere expellendo aeque elucebat Christianorum potestas. Edatur hic aliquis, inquit Tertullianus Apol. cap. 23, sub tribunalibus, quem daemone agi constet; jussus a quolibet Christiano loqui spiritus ille, tam se daemonem confitebitur de vero, quam alibi deum de falso. Aeque producatur aliquis ex iis qui de Deo pati existimantur, qui, aris inhalantes, numen de nidore concipiunt, qui ructando conantur, qui anhelando profantur. Ista ipsa virgo coelestis pluviarum pollicitatrix, iste ipse Aesculapius medicinarum demonstrator, alia die morituris Socordio et Thanatio et Asclepiodoto vitae subministrator, nisi se daemones confessi fuerint, Christiano mentiri non audentes; (continues)

Δαιμονῶντες, "the possessed". By this word seem to be meant not only the energumens, but also, and above all, those who invoked one of the gods either to divine or to work some marvel, such as the Pythia and other seers of that kind. In expelling both kinds of demons the power of the Christians shone out alike. "Let someone be brought forward here," says Tertullian, Apology, ch. 23, "before your tribunals, who is plainly driven by a demon; bidden by any Christian to speak, that spirit will confess himself a demon as truly as elsewhere he falsely calls himself a god. Likewise let someone be brought forward of those thought to be acted on by a god, who, breathing in at the altars, conceive the divinity from the fumes, who strain by belching, who utter oracles panting. That very Heavenly Virgin, the promiser of rains, that very Aesculapius, revealer of medicines, who furnished life to Socordius and Thanatius and Asclepiodotus, men due to die another day: unless they confess themselves demons, not daring to lie to a Christian, (continues)

(printed under page 563)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1063

(continued) ibidem procacissimi illius Christiani sanguinem fundite. Vid. Lact. l. II, c. 15 et l. IV, c. 27. Observat Wolfius ethnicos hoc Christianorum in daemones imperium non negasse, sed aut a suis similia fieri, aut a Christianis ex compacto cum daemonibus ipsis perfici dixisse. Citat hanc in rem Steph. le Moyne in notis ad Varia sacra pag. 1043 et seqq. Quo magis mirum est, inquit idem Wolfius, non defuisse nostris temporibus homines, qui asserere auderent expulsiones ejusmodi daemonum a Christianis confictas fuisse, ut fidem gentilibus extorquerent. Huc tendit anonymus, cujus observata exstant in J. Clerici Biblioth. selecta, tom. XIII, p. 220.

(printed under page 564)

(14) ‹anchor: Χωρήσαντες› · call in col 1063

Χωρήσαντες. Ita recte emendatum erudito Wolfio pro χωρίσαντες, qui etiam paulo ante observabat scribendum potius πνευματόφορος quam πνευματοφόρος.

Χωρήσαντες ("having received"). So rightly emended by the learned Wolf for χωρίσαντες ("having separated"); he also observed a little before that πνευματόφορος ("borne by the Spirit") should rather be written than πνευματοφόρος ("bearing the Spirit").

(printed under page 564)

(15) ‹anchor: Λόγον ἐνδιάθετον› · call in col 1063

Λόγον ἐνδιάθετον. Hunc locum avide arripuerunt non pauci, ut Arianam haeresim Christianis illius aetatis aut saltem Theophilo affingerent. Sed 1° Nihil magis oderant Ariani, quam illam Theophili doctrinam de Verbo Dei visceribus insito et ad mundi creationem prodeunte; illum enim Λόγον longe secernebant ab eo, quem ad mundi creationem genitum esse dicebant. 2° Verbi aeternitatem demonstrant haec verba: Ὁ ἀεὶ συμπαρὼν αὐτῷ. 3° Illud etiam a vero abhorret, quod sibi finxit Petavius, Λόγον a Theophilo cum Patre confundi usque ad mundi creationem. Non magis profecto confunditur ante mundi creationem, quam post mundi creationem. Ideo enim post mundi creationem descendebat ad prophetas, quia Spiritus est Dei et principium et sapientia et virtus Altissimi. At eadem de causa generatus dicitur ad mundi creationem; quia videlicet Λόγος erat insitus visceribus Patris, quique ei semper adest. Vide infra n. 22. Non magis ergo illa ad mundi creationem generatio de Filii aeternitate aut distinctione a Patre detrahere possit, quam missio ad prophetas.

Λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ("the Word dwelling within"). Not a few have eagerly seized on this passage to fasten the Arian heresy on the Christians of that age, or at least on Theophilus. But, first, nothing did the Arians hate more than this doctrine of Theophilus about the Word of God set within the Father's inward parts and going forth at the creation of the world; for they set that Λόγος far apart from the one who, they said, was begotten at the world's creation. Second, these words prove the eternity of the Word: "who is ever present with him." Third, what Petau imagined is also far from the truth, that Theophilus confounds the Λόγος with the Father until the creation of the world. He is surely no more confounded before the creation of the world than after it. For the reason he descended to the prophets after the creation of the world is that he is the Spirit of God and the beginning and wisdom and power of the Most High. And for the same reason he is said to be begotten at the creation of the world: namely, because the Λόγος was set within the Father's inward parts, and is always present with him. See below, no. 22. So that begetting at the creation of the world can no more detract from the Son's eternity or his distinction from the Father than can his mission to the prophets.

(printed under page 564)

(16) ‹anchor: Σοφίας› · call in col 1063

Μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ Σοφίας. Haec verba referri possunt ad verbum sequens ἐξερευξάμενος. Sed cum generatio, de qua hic agitur, nihil aliud sit quam missio: quid mirum si Deus Verbum cum sapientia sua genuisse dicitur? Spiritum sanctum emissum fuisse ad creandum docet Damasus papa, epist. 497: Neque enim, inquit, creaturae dignus est injuria, qui emissus est ad creandum.

Μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ Σοφίας ("with his own Wisdom"). These words can be referred to the following word, ἐξερευξάμενος ("having uttered forth"). But since the begetting treated here is nothing other than a sending forth, what wonder if God is said to have begotten the Word with his wisdom? Pope Damasus teaches that the Holy Spirit was sent forth to create, epist. 497: "For he who was sent forth to create," he says, "does not deserve the injury of being called a creature."

(printed under page 564)

(14) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1065 (scripture reference, printed under the Greek column only)

¹⁴ Prov. VIII, 27, 29.

Proverbs 8:27, 29.

(printed under page 565)

(17) ‹anchor: Ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ› · call in col 1066

Ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ. Spiritum sanctum his verbis manifeste designat Theophilus. Unde Triadem appellat num. 15 Deum, Verbum et Sapientiam; quo quidem in loco perinique Petavius Trin. lib. V, Verbum et Sapientiam pro una sumi persona queritur. Nam cum Spiritum multi alii Patres Sapientiam appellaverint, ut Irenaeus lib. III, c. 24; lib. IV, c. 7 et cap. 20, cur idem non licuit Theophilo? Erat ei haec loquendi ratio familiaris. Nam et in libro I, n. 7, Verbum et Sapientiam, Verbum et Spiritum distinguit, et hoc ipso in loco Deus Verbum suum cum sapientia sua genuisse dicitur. Vid. infra n. 15 et 18.

Ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ ("the wisdom that is in him"). By these words Theophilus plainly designates the Holy Spirit. Hence in no. 15 he calls God, the Word and Wisdom a Triad; and in that place Petau (De Trinitate, book V) most unfairly complains that the Word and Wisdom are taken for one person. For since many other Fathers have called the Spirit Wisdom, as Irenaeus, book III, ch. 24; book IV, ch. 7 and ch. 20, why was the same not allowed to Theophilus? This manner of speaking was familiar to him. For in book I, no. 7, too, he distinguishes the Word and Wisdom, the Word and the Spirit; and in this very place God is said to have begotten his Word with his wisdom. See below, nos. 15 and 18.

(printed under page 565)

(18) ‹anchor: Πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν› · call in col 1066

Πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν. Non videtur necesse esse legere πρὸ Σολομῶνος, ut conjicit Wolfius. Idem enim valet haec loquendi ratio ac Σολομῶνος προγενόμενος.

Πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ("many years before"). It does not seem necessary to read πρὸ Σολομῶνος ("before Solomon"), as Wolf conjectures. For this way of speaking means the same as Σολομῶνος προγενόμενος ("born before Solomon").

(printed under page 565)

(19) ‹anchor: Ἐν ἀρχῇ› · call in col 1066

Ἐν ἀρχῇ. Theophilus, ut multi alii, illud in principio idem esse putat ac in Verbo. Profert enim hoc testimonium ut probet Verbi aeternitatem. Mox demonstrat Deum in Verbo suo fecisse coelum et terram ex his verbis: In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram. Non multo ante declaraverat idem Verbum esse ἀρχήν.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ("in the beginning"). Theophilus, like many others, thinks that "in the beginning" is the same as "in the Word." For he brings forward this testimony to prove the eternity of the Word. Shortly after, he shows from these words that God made heaven and earth in his Word: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Not long before he had declared that the Word is the ἀρχή ("beginning").

(printed under page 565)

(20) ‹anchor: ὕλην γενητήν› · call in col 1066

Τρόπῳ τινὶ τὴν ὕλην γενητήν. Satis commode post has voces poneretur δηλοῦσα vel simile aliud participium. Ait autem Theophilus materiae creationem quodammodo a Scriptura doceri in exordio Genesis, quia, etsi materiae nomen Scriptura non usurpat, satis aperte materiam sub aliis nominibus designat. Sic de Hesiodo dicebat n. 6: Καὶ ὕλην μὲν τρόπῳ τινὶ ὑποτίθεται καὶ κόσμου ποίησιν, quia etsi Hesiodus diserte non dicat creationem sine creatore factam fuisse, id tamen sequitur ex ejus verbis. Hanc autem materiae creationem ex his verbis: In principio creavit coelum et terram, deducebat Theophilus, quia coeli et terrae nomine intelligebat materiam ex qua coelum et terra facta sunt. Sequitur hanc interpretationem Basilius homilia 1 in Hexaem., n. 8, docetque initio homil. 2, non solam terram initio creationis, sed ipsum etiam coelum inconditum fuisse. Justinus quoque Apol. 1, num. 59, mundum a Deo factum testatur ex coelo et terra quae prius creaverat.

Τρόπῳ τινὶ τὴν ὕλην γενητήν ("in a manner, matter as created"). After these words δηλοῦσα ("showing") or some similar participle would fit quite well. Theophilus says that the creation of matter is in a manner taught by Scripture at the opening of Genesis, because, although Scripture does not use the word "matter", it designates matter clearly enough under other names. So he said of Hesiod in no. 6: "And in a manner he posits matter and the making of the world," because, although Hesiod does not say expressly that the creation was made without a creator, that nevertheless follows from his words. Theophilus deduced this creation of matter from the words "In the beginning he created heaven and earth", because by the name of heaven and earth he understood the matter from which heaven and earth were made. Basil follows this interpretation in Homily 1 on the Hexaemeron, no. 8, and at the beginning of Homily 2 teaches that at the beginning of creation not the earth alone but heaven itself too was unformed. Justin also, Apology 1, no. 59, testifies that the world was made by God out of the heaven and earth that he had first created.

(printed under page 565)

(21) ‹anchor: ὅτι καλόν› · call in col 1066

Καὶ ἐγένετο… ὅτι καλόν. Fellus et Wolfius minime dubitaverunt, quin haec verba, quae in cod. Bodl. et in omnibus editis desunt, librariorum culpa excidissent. Quapropter ea in contextum restituerunt, eisque hac in re libenter assentior.

Καὶ ἐγένετο… ὅτι καλόν ("and there was … that it was good"). Fell and Wolf had no doubt at all that these words, which are missing in the Bodleian manuscript and in all the printed editions, had dropped out through the copyists' fault. They therefore restored them to the text, and in this I gladly agree with them.

(printed under page 565)

(22) ‹anchor: περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης› · call in col 1070

Ἔτι μὴν καὶ περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης. Nonnulla hic supplenda sunt, ac ea revocanda quae paulo ante de scriptoribus profanis dicebat, eos imitatos esse librum Genesis, ac de mundi creatione et humana natura nonnulla dixisse. Addit ergo eos et de septima die non tacuisse.

Ἔτι μὴν καὶ περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης ("and further, about the seventh"). Something must be supplied here, and what he said a little before about the profane writers must be recalled: that they imitated the book of Genesis and said a few things about the creation of the world and human nature. He adds, then, that they were not silent about the seventh day either.

(printed under page 567)

(23) ‹anchor: ἑβδομάς› · call in col 1070

Ἑβδομάς. Hac voce significari potest spatium septem dierum: sed hoc loco significat diem septimum, quem paulo ante dixerat ab omnibus hominibus appellari. Ducaeus autem et Wolfius observant errare Theophilum in interpretatione sabbati, si hanc vocem, quam Graece esse hebdomadem ait, a septenario numero nempe שבע, non autem a quiete nempe שבת deductam putaverit. Utrum autem hoc levi errore laboraverit, minime statuunt. Recte factum ab eruditis viris quod judicium suum cohibuerint. Non enim Graecos exagitat Theophilus, quod nescirent sabbatum apud Hebraeos Graece esse septenarium numerum (absurda fuisset ac Theophilo non digna ejusmodi reprehensio) aut sabbatum Judaeorum septimae apud Graecos luci respondere; id enim oculis suis videbant Graeci, neque in hoc errare poterant. Sed in hoc eos carpit, quod cum sabbatum Judaeorum irriderent, nescirent tamen sabbatum nihil aliud esse quam septimam lucem, et ideo singularem habere apud Judaeos observationem, quia septima lux est, in qua nimirum Deus ab operibus requievit.

Ἑβδομάς. This word can signify a space of seven days; but in this place it signifies the seventh day, which he had said a little before is named by all men. Ducaeus (Fronton du Duc) and Wolf observe that Theophilus errs in interpreting "sabbath" if he thought that this word, which he says is in Greek hebdomas, was derived from the number seven, namely שבע (sheba'), and not from rest, namely שבת (shabbat). Whether he actually suffered from this slight error they do not decide at all, and the learned men did right to hold back their judgement. For Theophilus does not reproach the Greeks for not knowing that the sabbath among the Hebrews is in Greek the number seven (such a reproof would have been absurd and unworthy of Theophilus), or that the sabbath of the Jews corresponds to the seventh day among the Greeks; for the Greeks saw that with their own eyes and could not be wrong about it. He rebukes them rather for this: that while they mocked the sabbath of the Jews, they did not know that the sabbath is nothing other than the seventh day, and that it is specially observed among the Jews because it is the seventh day, the day on which God rested from his works.

(printed under page 567)

(24) ‹anchor: εἰς πᾶν γένος› · call in col 1070

Εἰς πᾶν γένος. Nonnulla veritatis vestigia apud gentiles servata tum in septem dierum vicibus numerandis, tum in aliqua sabbati religione retinenda, testantur antiqui scriptores. Praeter Aristobulum, cujus testimonium exstat apud Clementem Alexandrinum et Euseb. Praep. evangel. lib. XIII, idem confirmant Philo, II De mundi opif. et II De vit. Moys. et Josephus, lib. II contra Appionem. Sed in (continues)

Εἰς πᾶν γένος ("to every race"). Ancient writers testify that some traces of the truth were preserved among the gentiles, both in counting the days in cycles of seven and in keeping some religious observance of the sabbath. Besides Aristobulus, whose testimony survives in Clement of Alexandria and in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, book XIII, the same is confirmed by Philo, De mundi opificio II and De vita Moysis II, and by Josephus, Against Apion, book II. But in (continues)

(printed under page 567)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1071 (scripture reference, printed under the Latin column only)

¹⁵ Luc. XVIII, 27.

Luke 18:27.

(printed under page 568)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1071

(continued) hoc genere praecipue observanda duo Tertulliani testimonia, in quibus aliquid conabor emendare. Sic loquitur lib. I ad Nat. c. 14: Alii plane humanius solem Christianum Deum aestimant, quod innotuerit ad orientis partem facere nos precationem, vel die solis laetitiam curare. Quid vos minus facitis? Non plerique affectatione adorandi aliquando etiam coelestia, ad solis initium labra vibratis? Vos certe estis, qui in laterculum septem dierum solem recepistis, et ex diebus ipsum praelegistis, quo die lavacrum subtrahatis, aut in vesperam differatis, aut otium et prandium curetis. Quod quidem facitis exorbitantes et ipsi a vestris ad alienas religiones. Judaei enim festi, sabbata et coena pura, et Judaici ritus lucernarum, et jejunia cum azymis, et orationes litorales, quae utique aliena sunt a diis vestris. Quare, ut ab excessu revertar, qui solem et diem ejus nobis exprobratis, agnoscite vicinitatem; non longe a Saturno et sabbatis vestris sumus. Duo in hoc testimonia facile est animadvertere. 1° Sabbatum apud gentiles observari non sine aliqua Judaici instituti imitatione. 2° Non longe etiam hac in re a Christianis gentiles remotos esse, tum quia sabbatum diei solis proximum, tum quia utrique sex aliis diebus unum praeferunt. Quare haec verba: Et ex diebus ipsum praelegistis, quo die, etc., non ad solis diem referenda sed ad sabbatum, ac multo accuratior erit oratio si legamus: Et sex diebus ipsi praelegistis, quo die, etc. Idem: Apologet. c. 16: Aeque si diem solis, inquit, laetitiae indulgemus, alia longe ratione quam religione solis; secundo loco ab eis sumus, qui diem Saturni otio et victui decernunt, exorbitantes et ipsi ab Judaico more quem ignorant. Luce clarius mihi videtur legendum esse ad Judaicum morem, valdeque miror cur Samuel Petitus Comment. in leges Atticas, pag. 4, librum ad Nationes emendet ex Apologetico et in superiore testimonio legat: Exorbitantes et ipsi a vestris, ab alienis, religione.

(printed under page 568)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1071

Ἔρεβον. Cod. Bodl. et Tigur. ἔρεβος.

Ἔρεβον ("Erebus", accusative). The Bodleian and Zurich manuscripts read ἔρεβος (nominative).

(printed under page 568)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1071

Πρὸς τάξιν. Vel legendum πρόσταξιν, atque hac voce intelligendum id quod maxime eminet; vel scribendum καὶ πρὸς τάξιν καὶ οὐ δύναται. Sic infra n. 23, aetate πρὸς τάξιν crescere. Imitatur Chrysostomus homil. 2 in Genes., hanc Theophili sententiam, et in divino opere, contra quam in humanis fieri solet, prius culmen, deinde fundamentum perfici observat, πρότερον τὸν ὄροφον, καὶ τότε τὸν θεμέλιον. Vid. Photium cod. 240. Sic etiam Basil., Ambros. in Hexaem., Greg. Naz. or. 43.

Πρὸς τάξιν ("in order"). Either one should read πρόσταξιν, and understand by this word what stands out most; or write καὶ πρὸς τάξιν καὶ οὐ δύναται ("both in order and is not able"). So below, no. 23, "to grow in age πρὸς τάξιν." Chrysostom imitates this thought of Theophilus in Homily 2 on Genesis, and observes that in the divine work, contrary to what usually happens in human works, the roof is finished first and then the foundation: "first the roof, and then the foundation." See Photius, codex 240. So too Basil, Ambrose in the Hexaemeron, and Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 43.

(printed under page 568)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1071

Καθὼς βούλεται. Addendum ante haec verba εἶτα, deinde, vel aliquid simile. Duo enim Dei propria esse docet Theophilus, primum ut creet ex nihilo, deinde ut ad arbitrium creet, et ab ipso vertice, si velit, incipiat. Quare aliquid addendum quod respondeat τῷ πρῶτον.

Καθὼς βούλεται ("as he wills"). Before these words one should add εἶτα, "then", or something similar. For Theophilus teaches that two things are proper to God: first, that he creates out of nothing; then, that he creates at his own pleasure and, if he wishes, begins from the very top. So something must be added to answer to "first".

(printed under page 568)

(28) ‹anchor: τὸν οὐρανόν› · call in col 1071

Διὰ τὸν οὐρανόν. Lego διὰ τὸ τὸν οὐρανόν. Paulo post pro καθαπερεὶ πώματα ὕδατα, posuimus καθάπερ πῶμα τά. Atque ita legendum monuit Wolfius post Davisium Laerosium et R. P. Souchet S. J. in Collect. Dissert. crit. p. 665. Videtur tenebras sic explicare, ut iis occurrat, qui illas aeternum quidpiam esse et Deo contrarium fingebant. Ita Basil., homil. 2, in Hexaem. n. 5.

Διὰ τὸν οὐρανόν ("because of the heaven"). I read διὰ τὸ τὸν οὐρανόν ("because the heaven"). A little after, for καθαπερεὶ πώματα ὕδατα we have put καθάπερ πῶμα τά ("like a lid, the [waters]"). Wolf advised reading so, after Davisius Laerosius and the Reverend Father Souchet, S.J., in the Collectio dissertationum criticarum, p. 665. He seems to explain the darkness in this way to meet those who imagined it to be something eternal and contrary to God. So Basil, Homily 2 on the Hexaemeron, no. 5.

(printed under page 568)

(29) ‹anchor: εἰς ζωογόνησιν› · call in col 1071

Εἰς ζωογόνησιν. Sic etiam Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 3 in Genes. n. 1: Ἐνέργειά τις ζωτικὴ προσῆν τοῖς ὕδασι, καὶ οὐχ ἦν ἁπλῶς ὕδωρ ἑστὼς καὶ ἀκίνητον, ἀλλὰ κινούμενον καὶ ζωτικήν τινα δύναμιν ἔχον.

Εἰς ζωογόνησιν ("for the giving of life"). So too John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Genesis, no. 1: "A certain life-giving energy was present in the waters, and it was not simply water standing still and unmoved, but moving and having a certain life-giving power."

(printed under page 568)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1073 (scripture reference, printed under the Greek column only)

¹⁷ Isa. II, 22.

Isaiah 2:22.

(printed under page 569)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1074

Φωτὸς τύπον. Lucis similitudinem referens. Sed multo aptior erit sententia si legamus τόπον, ut in interpretatione expressi. Neque enim hunc spiritum luci similem fuisse ait, sed medium inter coelum et aquas spatium occupasse, qui locus erat luci destinatus.

Φωτὸς τύπον ("the figure of light"): "bearing a likeness of light." But the sense will be much more fitting if we read τόπον ("place"), as I have rendered it in the translation. For he does not say that this spirit was like light, but that it occupied the space between heaven and the waters, which was the place destined for light.

(printed under page 569)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1074

Τὴν ὕλην. Ita Wolfius. Editi manifesto errore τῇ ὕλῃ. Coelum instar fornicis, sive camerae, se habere docent eodem modo Ambrosius in Hexaem., Diodorus Tarsensis apud Photium cod. 240, p. 698; Basilius homil. 1 in Hexaem., n. 8.

Τὴν ὕλην ("the matter", accusative). So Wolf. The printed editions, by an obvious error, have τῇ ὕλῃ (dative). That the heaven is like an arch or vault is taught in the same way by Ambrose in the Hexaemeron, by Diodore of Tarsus in Photius, codex 240, p. 698, and by Basil, Homily 1 on the Hexaemeron, no. 8.

(printed under page 569)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1074

Βώλῳ. Wolfius monitu Cl. Lacrozii legendum putat θόλῳ ἐοικυῖα, atque hanc scripturam ita in amoribus habet, ut parum abfuisse dicat, quin illam in contextum reciperet. Sed quid mutatione opus est in integro et percommodo contextu? Materiam glebae, id est inerti terrae, assimilatam dicit, ut eam inconditam fuisse demonstret. Eodem sensu Athenagoras materiam, antequam ornatum acciperet, instar naturae informis et terrae inutilis jacuisse dicit, Apol. n. 14.

Βώλῳ ("to a clod"). Wolf, at the suggestion of the distinguished La Croze, thinks one should read θόλῳ ἐοικυῖα ("like a vault"), and is so fond of this reading that he says he came near to admitting it into the text. But what need is there of change in a sound and very suitable text? He says that matter was likened to a clod, that is, to inert earth, to show that it was unformed. In the same sense Athenagoras says that matter, before it received its adornment, lay like a formless nature and useless earth, Apology no. 14.

(printed under page 569)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1074

Συνεχομένῳ. Reddidi in clauso conclavi, sive cubiculo. Sic enim IV Reg., cap. XIV, v. 16: Vidit Deus filios Israel ὀλιγοστούς, συνεχομένους, paucos et clausos.

Συνεχομένῳ ("enclosed"). I have rendered it "in a closed chamber", or bedroom. For so in 4 Kings ch. 14, v. 16: God saw the sons of Israel ὀλιγοστούς, συνεχομένους, "few and shut in."

(printed under page 569)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1074

Τοῦ κόσμου. Cum Bodleianus codex et edd. Tigur. et Paris. ita habeant, miror in Oxon. et Hamburg. legi τὸν κόσμον, quod quidem sic reddit Wolfius, postquam mundum sigillatim condidit.

Τοῦ κόσμου ("of the world", genitive). Since the Bodleian manuscript and the Zurich and Paris editions read so, I am surprised that the Oxford and Hamburg editions read τὸν κόσμον (accusative), which Wolf renders: "after he had founded the world part by part."

(printed under page 569)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1074

Εἰλήφει. Referunt interpretes ad ipsas res creatas et reddunt accepissent. Sed aptius et commodius videntur ad ipsum hominem referri, quippe cum Theophilo propositum sit totam hanc Genesis historiam divinitus traditam asserere. Cum hac Theophili sententia satis quadrat id quod dicebat Pythagoras, non solum doctissimum, sed etiam antiquissimum sapientium existimari debere eum qui nomina rebus imposuit. Πυθαγόρας ἠξίου μὴ μόνον λογιώτατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρεσβύτατον ἡγεῖσθαι τῶν σοφῶν τὸν θέμενον τὰ ὀνόματα τοῖς πράγμασι. Apud Clem. Alex., Epitom., pag. 809.

Εἰλήφει ("had received"). The translators refer it to the created things themselves and render "they had received." But it seems more fitting and suitable to refer it to the man himself, since Theophilus's purpose is to maintain that this whole history of Genesis was handed down by God. With this view of Theophilus agrees well enough what Pythagoras said, that he who imposed names on things must be thought not only the most learned but also the most ancient of the wise: "Pythagoras held that the one who gave things their names should be considered not only the most learned but also the eldest of the wise." In Clement of Alexandria, Epitome, p. 809.

(printed under page 569)

(36) ‹anchor: περὶ ἑτέρου οὐρανοῦ› · call in col 1074

Περὶ ἑτέρου οὐρανοῦ. S. Joannes Chrysostomus videtur hac in re a Theophili sententia discedere. Nam homil. 4 in Genes. pluribus contendit unum esse coelum, nec illud, quod in principio factum dicitur, ab eo differre, quod aquas dividit ab aquis. Contra Theodoretus utrumque distinguit, ut Theophilus; eos qui plures admittunt, exagitat Basilius homil. 3 in Hexaem., Ambrosius lib. II, cap. 1 in Hexaem., et Gregor. Nyssenus in Hexaem. tres coelos acriter defendunt.

Περὶ ἑτέρου οὐρανοῦ ("about another heaven"). St John Chrysostom seems to depart from Theophilus's view in this matter. For in Homily 4 on Genesis he argues at length that there is one heaven, and that the one said to have been made in the beginning does not differ from the one that divides the waters from the waters. Theodoret, on the contrary, distinguishes the two, as Theophilus does. Basil, Homily 3 on the Hexaemeron, attacks those who admit several; Ambrose, book II, ch. 1 on the Hexaemeron, and Gregory of Nyssa on the Hexaemeron vigorously defend three heavens.

(printed under page 569)

(37) ‹anchor: ὁρατός› · call in col 1074

Ὁρατός. Ita Ducaeus et Hamb. Male alii ἀόρατος.

Ὁρατός ("visible"). So Ducaeus and the Hamburg edition. Others wrongly read ἀόρατος ("invisible").

(printed under page 569)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1075

Ἐν αὐτοῖς. Sic emendavit Wolfius pro eo quod antea legebatur ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.

Ἐν αὐτοῖς ("in them"). So Wolf emended for what was read before, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ("in themselves").

(printed under page 570)

(39) ‹anchor: λέγομεν δέ› · call in col 1075

Λέγομεν δέ. Ita cod. B. et Hamb. Editi λεγομένας ἐκκλησίας. Conjicit Wolfius scripsisse Theophilum λέγομεν δὲ τὰς ἐκκλησίας.

Λέγομεν δέ ("and we mean"). So the Bodleian manuscript and the Hamburg edition. The printed editions have λεγομένας ἐκκλησίας ("called churches"). Wolf conjectures that Theophilus wrote λέγομεν δὲ τὰς ἐκκλησίας ("and we mean the churches").

(printed under page 570)

(40) ‹anchor: ἐν νήσοις› · call in col 1075

Ἐν νήσοις. Ecclesias catholicas insulis assimilat Gregorius Naz. or. 43, p. 697.

Ἐν νήσοις ("in islands"). Gregory Nazianzen likens the catholic churches to islands, Oration 43, p. 697.

(printed under page 570)

(41) ‹anchor: ἐν αἷς τείρεται› · call in col 1075

Τείρεται. Clarum et apertum contextum pervertit Wolfius, dum sine ms. codicis auctoritate scribit περιπείρεται. Nititur hac ratione, quod paulo post legatur περιπείρουσιν. At ea vox in locum sua sponte clarum sine causa intrudi non debuit.

Τείρεται ("are worn down"). Wolf perverts a clear and plain text when, without the authority of a manuscript, he writes περιπείρεται ("are pierced through"). He relies on the fact that περιπείρουσιν is read a little after. But that word ought not to have been thrust without cause into a passage clear in itself.

(printed under page 570)

(42) ‹anchor: καθάπερ πειραταί› · call in col 1075

Πειραταί. Haec intelligit Cl. Wolfius de piratis in mari piraticam aperte facientibus, qui ubi impleverunt naves suas, praeda videlicet, caeteras illas, quas cepere, ad praedicta loca allidunt. At Theophilus loquitur de perfidis illis navium magistris, qui ubi navem suam hominibus nihil mali suspicantibus impleverunt, ad praedicta loca navigant, ut iis, quos recepere, perniciem inferant, et idcirco piratae, ut praedones omnes, merito audiunt. Postulat instituta comparatio, ut qui piratarum perfidia pereunt, ii sese eorum fidei commiserint, quemadmodum nihil sibi ab haereticis metuunt, qui se regendos illis tradunt.

Πειραταί ("pirates"). The distinguished Wolf understands this of pirates openly practising piracy at sea, "who, when they have filled their ships", that is with plunder, "dash those other ships", the ones they captured, "against the places mentioned." But Theophilus speaks of those treacherous ship's masters who, when they have filled their ship with people suspecting no harm, sail to the places mentioned so as to bring destruction on those they have taken aboard, and are therefore rightly called pirates, like all robbers. The comparison he sets up requires that those who perish by the pirates' treachery have entrusted themselves to their good faith, just as those who hand themselves over to heretics to be guided fear no harm from them.

(printed under page 570)

(43) ‹anchor: περιπείρουσιν› · call in col 1075

Περιπείρουσιν. Hoc verbum observat eruditus Hamburgensis editor usurpari apud Plutarchum in Galba de capite lancea perforato; illudque huic loco aptum in primis et commodum putat, quatenus scilicet piratae naves illas ita hinc inde illidunt, ut tanquam lanceis quibusdam perforatae aquam hauriant. Sed nihil opus est ambagibus. Hoc verbum explicatur ex Apostoli loco I Tim. VI, 10: Καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς. Et inseruerunt se doloribus multis.

Περιπείρουσιν ("they run them through"). The learned Hamburg editor observes that this word is used in Plutarch's Galba of a head pierced by a lance, and thinks it especially apt and suitable here, inasmuch as the pirates dash those ships this way and that so that, as if pierced by lances, they take in water. But there is no need of roundabout explanations. The word is explained by the Apostle's passage, 1 Timothy 6:10: "And have pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

(printed under page 570)

(44) ‹anchor: ἔμελλον λέγειν› · call in col 1075

Ἔμελλον λέγειν, etc. Occurrit eadem observatio apud scriptores qui de opere sex dierum pertractarunt, velut Basilium homil. 6, num. 1; Ambrosium lib. IV, c. 1; Joannem Chrysost. homil. 5 et 6. Non absimili sententia Philo in libro De opificio, Gregorius Naz. or. 43, observant lucem ante solem creatam fuisse.

Ἔμελλον λέγειν ("they would say"), etc. The same observation occurs in the writers who treated the work of the six days, such as Basil, Homily 6, no. 1; Ambrose, book IV, ch. 1; John Chrysostom, Homilies 5 and 6. In a not dissimilar thought Philo in the book De opificio and Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 43, observe that light was created before the sun.

(printed under page 570)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1078

Ἡ δὲ σελήνη ἀνθρώπου. Longe discedit ab his Theophili principiis Eusebius, qui in libro VII Praep. evangel., c. 7, Deum cum coelo, quod ambitu suo omnia complectitur, Verbum cum sole, Spiritum sanctum cum luna, spiritales et intelligentes naturas cum stellis comparat. At Theophilus Dei nomine tres personas intelligit, quas etiam, ut inter se aequales, cum tribus diebus siderum creationem praecedentibus mox comparabit.

Ἡ δὲ σελήνη ἀνθρώπου ("and the moon, of man"). Far from these principles of Theophilus departs Eusebius, who in Praeparatio evangelica, book VII, ch. 7, compares God with the heaven, which embraces all things in its circuit, the Word with the sun, the Holy Spirit with the moon, and spiritual and intelligent natures with the stars. But Theophilus understands three persons by the name of God, and these, as equal among themselves, he will shortly compare with the three days that preceded the creation of the heavenly bodies.

(printed under page 571)

(46) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1078

Τῶν φωστήρων. Legendum esse πρὸ τῶν φωστήρων admonuit Wolfius.

Τῶν φωστήρων ("of the luminaries"). Wolf advised that πρὸ τῶν φωστήρων ("before the luminaries") should be read.

(printed under page 571)

(47) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1078

Τετάρτῳ δὲ τύπῳ. Habet editio Oxoniensis τετάρτῃ δὲ τύποις. Sed quamvis satis apta et commoda sit haec scriptura, eam tamen sequi non libet, quia repugnant et ms. Bodl. et aliae editiones. Forte legendum τετάρτῳ δὲ τόπῳ.

Τετάρτῳ δὲ τύπῳ ("and in the fourth figure"). The Oxford edition has τετάρτῃ δὲ τύποις ("and on the fourth [day], in figures"). But although this reading is apt and suitable enough, I do not care to follow it, because both the Bodleian manuscript and the other editions are against it. Perhaps one should read τετάρτῳ δὲ τόπῳ ("and in the fourth place").

(printed under page 571)

(48) ‹anchor: εἰς τόπον› · call in col 1078

Εἰς τόπον. Deest praepositio in cod. B.; paulo post habent Oxon. et Hamb. εἰς τόπον ἐκ τόπου, quamvis praepositio desit in cod. ms. et in aliis editionibus.

Εἰς τόπον ("to a place"). The preposition is missing in the Bodleian manuscript; a little after, the Oxford and Hamburg editions have εἰς τόπον ἐκ τόπου ("to place from place"), although the preposition is missing in the manuscript and in the other editions.

(printed under page 571)

(49) ‹anchor: καταλιπόντων› · call in col 1078

Καταλιπόντων. Recentior manus in margine B. ascripsit δέ: fortasse legendum, καταλιπόντων τε. WOLF. Reddi posset, dum legem ejus deserunt.

Καταλιπόντων ("having abandoned"). A later hand in the margin of the Bodleian manuscript added δέ; perhaps one should read καταλιπόντων τε. Wolf. It could be rendered "while they desert his law."

(printed under page 571)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1079

Τῷ κατὰ φύσιν. Legendum ἐν τῷ monet Wolfius. — Scribe simpliciter ἐμμένει τῷ. N.

Τῷ κατὰ φύσιν ("to what is according to nature"). Wolf advises reading ἐν τῷ ("in what"). — Write simply ἐμμένει τῷ ("abides in what"). N[ote of the present editor].

(printed under page 572)

(51) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1079

Ἀδικεῖ. Hic quoque deest καί, ut idem observat Wolfius.

Ἀδικεῖ ("does wrong"). Here too καί ("and") is missing, as the same Wolf observes.

(printed under page 572)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1079

Ἐνύδρων καὶ ἑρπετῶν. Pisces designantur his vocibus, non autem volucres, etsi ex iisdem aquis eductae. Quod ait Theophilus reptilibus aquarum, etsi benedictionem acceperunt, nihil tamen inesse, quo caeteris animalibus praestent, id videtur hac mente observare, ut baptismum hac benedictione significari confirmet. Haec autem verba οὐδὲν ἴδιον non significant nihil inesse reptilibus aquarum, quod eorum proprium sit, sed nihil quod praecipuum videatur, nihil quo caeteris praestent animantibus. Basilius homil. 8 in Hexaem., observat aquatilia animalia imperfectioris quodammodo esse naturae quam terrestria, quia in aquae crassitudine degunt. Inest illis auditus gravis, hebesque visus; muta sunt et immansueta et indocilia et hominibus intractabilia.

Ἐνύδρων καὶ ἑρπετῶν ("of water creatures and creeping things"). Fish are meant by these words, not birds, although these were brought forth from the same waters. When Theophilus says that the creeping things of the waters, though they received a blessing, have nothing by which they excel the other animals, he seems to make the observation with this purpose: to confirm that baptism is signified by this blessing. The words οὐδὲν ἴδιον ("nothing of their own") do not mean that the creeping things of the waters have nothing proper to them, but nothing that appears outstanding, nothing by which they excel the other living creatures. Basil, Homily 8 on the Hexaemeron, observes that water animals are in a way of a less perfect nature than land animals, because they live in the thickness of the water. Their hearing is dull and their sight weak; they are mute, untameable, unteachable, and not to be handled by men.

(printed under page 572)

(53) ‹anchor: ἀπὸ τοῦ θηρεύεσθαι› · call in col 1079

Ἀπὸ τοῦ θηρεύεσθαι. Vertendum esse existimat Wolfius, quod insidientur aliis, non vero, ut Clauserus reddiderat, quod venando capiantur. Neutra mihi arridet interpretatio. Videtur enim Theophilus hujus vocis, θηρία, originem deducere ex feritate, quae illis nequaquam natura insita sit, sed post hominis peccatum accesserit. Quare θηρεύεσθαι idem valere crediderim ac efferari. Sic enim usurpatur apud Clementem Alexandrinum, qui mysteria dicta esse putat quasi μυθήρια, atque hanc rationem affert: Θηρεύουσι γὰρ εἰ καὶ ἄλλοι τινές, ἀτὰρ δὴ καὶ οἱ μῦθοι οἱ τοιοίδε Θρᾳκῶν τοὺς βαρβαρικωτάτους, Φρυγῶν τοὺς ἀνοητοτάτους, Ἑλλήνων τοὺς δεισιδαίμονας. Illud θηρεύουσι nihil aliud significare potest, quam, efferatos reddunt, vel in feras convertunt. Sed tamen quia verbum θηριόω usitatius est in hac significatione, et majorem habet cognationem cum voce θηρία, legendum videtur θηριοῦσθαι apud Theophilum, et θηριοῦσι apud Clementem, Protrept. p. 10.

Ἀπὸ τοῦ θηρεύεσθαι ("from being hunted"). Wolf thinks it should be translated "because they lie in wait for others", and not, as Clauser had rendered it, "because they are caught by hunting." Neither interpretation pleases me. For Theophilus seems to derive the origin of this word, θηρία ("wild beasts"), from wildness, which was by no means implanted in them by nature but came upon them after man's sin. So I would believe θηρεύεσθαι means the same as "to be made wild." It is so used in Clement of Alexandria, who thinks mysteries are so called as if μυθήρια, and gives this reason: "For if any others, these myths too make wild the most barbarous of the Thracians, the most foolish of the Phrygians, the superstitious among the Greeks." That θηρεύουσι can mean nothing other than "they make wild", or "turn into beasts." But since the verb θηριόω is more usual in this sense and has a closer kinship with the word θηρία, it seems one should read θηριοῦσθαι in Theophilus, and θηριοῦσι in Clement, Protrepticus p. 10.

(printed under page 572)

(54) ‹anchor: κακὰ ἀρχῆθεν› · call in col 1079

Ἀρχῆθεν. Videtur sibi Wolfius hanc vocem restituisse ope cod. B. et edit. Tigur. Sed nihil deest nisi in edit. Oxon.

Ἀρχῆθεν ("from the beginning"). Wolf thinks he restored this word with the help of the Bodleian manuscript and the Zurich edition. But nothing is missing except in the Oxford edition.

(printed under page 572)

(55) ‹anchor: ἀπὸ Θεοῦ› · call in col 1079

Ἀπὸ Θεοῦ. Legendum ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. Sic enim ipse Theophilus pluribus locis, velut n. 17: Τὸν οὐρανὸν γεγονότα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ("from God"). Read ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ("by God"). For so Theophilus himself in several places, for instance no. 17: "the heaven made by God."

(printed under page 572)

(56) ‹anchor: ἁμαρτῆσαι› · call in col 1079

Κύριον ὄντα ἁμαρτῆσαι. Legendum omnino videtur κύριον ὄντα· ἡμάρτησε, καὶ τὰ δοῦλα συνήμαρτεν.

Κύριον ὄντα ἁμαρτῆσαι ("that, being lord, he sinned"). It seems one should certainly read κύριον ὄντα· ἡμάρτησε, καὶ τὰ δοῦλα συνήμαρτεν ("being lord; he sinned, and the servants sinned with him").

(printed under page 572)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1082

Εἰς τὴν ἀρχῆθεν. Lucius Charinus in libro cui titulum fecerat, Τῶν ἀποστόλων περίοδοι, absurdas quasdam belluarum et pecudum resurrectiones fingebat, teste Photio cod. 113. Stephanus Gobarus tritheita in illis quaestionibus, quas in utramque partem agitabat, statuebat quaest. 10: Ὅτι πρότερον οἱ δίκαιοι ἀναστήσονται, καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς πάντα τὰ ζῶα, Justos primum resurrecturos et cum eis omnia animalia. Sed longe ab his nugis discrepat Theophilus, qui hoc tantum dicit, animalia, si quae tunc futura sint (nihil enim affirmat) in pristinam lenitatem reditura. Similis occurrit sententia in epist. S. Barnabae cap. 6, ubi promissum homini in pisces et belluas et volucres coeli imperium tunc adimpletum iri dicitur: Ὅταν καὶ αὐτοὶ τελειωθῶμεν, κληρονόμοι τῆς διαθήκης Κυρίου γενέσθαι, cum et ipsi consummati fuerimus, ita haeredes simus testamenti Domini. Sic etiam Irenaeus lib. V, c. 33, pag. 333: Et oportet, inquit, conditione revocata obedire et subjecta esse omnia animalia homini, etc. Sed haec Irenaeus ad suam de regno mille annorum opinionem accommodat, quae Theophilo tribuenda non videtur.

Εἰς τὴν ἀρχῆθεν ("to the [state] from the beginning"). Lucius Charinus, in the book he had entitled "The Journeys of the Apostles", invented certain absurd resurrections of beasts and cattle, as Photius testifies, codex 113. Stephen Gobarus the tritheist, in the questions he argued on both sides, laid down in question 10: "That the righteous will rise first, and with them all the animals." But Theophilus is far removed from such trifles: he says only that the animals, if there are to be any then (for he affirms nothing), will return to their original gentleness. A similar thought occurs in the epistle of St Barnabas, ch. 6, where the dominion over fish and beasts and the birds of heaven promised to man is said to be fulfilled then: "when we ourselves too have been made perfect, so as to become heirs of the Lord's covenant." So too Irenaeus, book V, ch. 33, p. 333: "And it is fitting," he says, "that when creation is restored all the animals should obey and be subject to man," etc. But Irenaeus adapts this to his own opinion about the thousand-year kingdom, which does not seem attributable to Theophilus.

(printed under page 573)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1082

Ἡ θεία Γραφή. Articulus additus in edit. Hamb. ex cod. ms.

Ἡ θεία Γραφή ("the divine Scripture"). The article was added in the Hamburg edition from the manuscript.

(printed under page 573)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1082

Ἰδίων ἔργον χειρῶν. Male in Oxoniensi editione ἀΐδιον καὶ ἔργον χειρῶν. In hac sententia Theophilo praeivit Philo, in libro De mundi opificio pag. 15, et seqq. Multi alii astipulati sunt, ut Clemens Alexandrinus in Protrept., Gregorius Naz. or. 43, Nyss. in illud: Faciamus, Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 8 in Genesim, Cyrillus lib. I adv. Julianum, pag. 22 et 23.

Ἰδίων ἔργον χειρῶν ("the work of his own hands"). The Oxford edition wrongly has ἀΐδιον καὶ ἔργον χειρῶν ("eternal and the work of hands"). In this thought Philo went before Theophilus, in the book De mundi opificio, p. 15 ff. Many others have agreed, such as Clement of Alexandria in the Protrepticus, Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 43, Gregory of Nyssa on the words "Let us make", John Chrysostom, Homily 8 on Genesis, and Cyril, Against Julian, book I, pp. 22 and 23.

(printed under page 573)

(60) ‹anchor: ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ› · call in col 1082

Ἐγένετο ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ. Melius apud Septuaginta, judicio Wolfii, ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ.

Ἐγένετο ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ("came to be, on the day on which"). In the Septuagint, in Wolf's judgement, it is better: ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ.

(printed under page 573)

(61) ‹anchor: καὶ οὐκ εἶχε› · call in col 1082

Καὶ οὐκ εἶχε. Eadem observat S. Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 5 in Genes., n. 12, nosque Scripturae verbis admoneri ait, ut ne agricolarum operae nimium tribuamus.

Καὶ οὐκ εἶχε ("and it had no [need]"). St John Chrysostom observes the same, Homily 5 on Genesis, no. 12, and says that we are warned by the words of Scripture not to ascribe too much to the farmers' labour.

(printed under page 573)

(62) ‹anchor: ἐπειδὴ εἴρητο› · call in col 1082

Ἐπειδὰν εἴρητο. Tigur. et Bodleianus codex ἐπειδή.

Ἐπειδὰν εἴρητο ("whenever it had been said"). The Zurich edition and the Bodleian manuscript have ἐπειδή ("since").

(printed under page 573)

(63) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1083

Παγκάλοις. Putat Wolfius aut excidisse adjectivum aut legendum πάγκαλον.

Παγκάλοις ("all-beautiful", dative plural). Wolf thinks either that an adjective has dropped out or that πάγκαλον should be read.

(printed under page 574)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1083

Οὗτος. Sic emendavit Wolfius, ut apud LXX. Editi nostri οὕτως.

Οὗτος ("this one"). So Wolf emended, as in the Septuagint. Our printed editions have οὕτως ("thus").

(printed under page 574)

(65) ‹anchor: βρώσει φαγῇ› · call in col 1083

Φαγῇ. Ita scripsit Wolfius, ut apud LXX, pro φαγεῖ. Mox idem ut in cod. ms. φάγησθε, pro φάγεσθε.

Φαγῇ ("you shall eat"). So Wolf wrote, as in the Septuagint, for φαγεῖ. Shortly after, the same editor, as in the manuscript, has φάγησθε for φάγεσθε.

(printed under page 574)

(66) ‹anchor: ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτή› · call in col 1083

Ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτή. Septuaginta habent ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς. Sed αὐτή cum Hebraeo consentit.

Ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτή ("she, from the man"). The Septuagint has ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ("from her man"). But αὐτή agrees with the Hebrew.

(printed under page 574)

(18) ‹anchor: reversurus es› · call in col 1086 (scripture reference; the note is printed at the foot of the Greek column)

¹⁸ Gen. II, 8 usque ad finem et III, 1-19.

Genesis 2:8 to the end, and 3:1–19.

(printed under page 575)

(67) ‹anchor: αὐτό σου τηρήσει› · call in col 1086

Αὐτό. Legitur αὐτός in cod. Bodleiano et apud LXX. Observat autem Fellus nonnullis placere τειρήσει, conteret, sed pugnat Wolfius pro retinenda voce τηρήσει, modo ipsi observandi et insidiandi notio tribuatur. Utram vocem adhibuerit Theophilus, statuere non audeo; sed tamen S. Joannes Chrysostomus, qui in eadem ac Theophilus Ecclesia sacerdotii munere perfunctus est, legebat τειρήσει, quamvis in ejus operibus legatur alterum verbum. Postquam enim retulit verba Scripturae, sic ea explanat: Καὶ γὰρ τοσαύτην ἐκείνῳ μὲν παρέξω τὴν ἰσχύν, ὡς διηνεκῶς ἐπικεῖσθαι τῇ σῇ κεφαλῇ, σὲ δὲ τοῖς ἐκείνου ποσὶν ὑποκεῖσθαι, Tantum enim robur illi tribuam, ut indesinenter tuo incumbat capiti, tu vero illius pedibus subjiciaris. Atque id praecipue impletum in spirituali serpente probat ex his Christi verbis Luc. X, 19: Ecce dedi vobis potestatem calcandi super serpentes et scorpiones et super omnem virtutem inimici. Quod si verbum a Scriptura adhibitum S. Joannes Chrysostomus idem esse cre- (continues)

Αὐτό ("it"). The Bodleian manuscript and the Septuagint read αὐτός ("he"). Fell observes that some prefer τειρήσει, "will crush", but Wolf fights to keep the word τηρήσει ("will watch"), provided the sense of watching and lying in wait is given to it. Which word Theophilus used I do not venture to decide; yet St John Chrysostom, who held the office of priest in the same Church as Theophilus, read τειρήσει, although the other word is read in his works. For after quoting the words of Scripture, he explains them thus: "For I will give him such strength that he will continually press upon your head, while you will be put under his feet." And he shows that this was fulfilled above all in the spiritual serpent, from these words of Christ, Luke 10:19: "Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy." But if St John Chrysostom be- (continues)

(printed under page 575)

(19) ‹anchor: factum est nihil› · call in col 1087 (scripture reference, printed under the Latin column only)

¹⁹ Joan. I, 1, 3.

John 1:1, 3.

(printed under page 576)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1087

(continued) didit ac calcare caput serpentis, eique perpetuo incumbere, quis dubitet eum legisse τειρῆσαι?

(printed under page 576)

(68) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1087

Ἀναλαμβάνων τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός. Filius assumit personam Patris, venit in paradisum in persona Dei, non quod ipse divinitatis attributis careat, sed quia est virtus illius et sapientia, Verbum quod semper exsistit insitum in corde Dei, ejusque consiliarius et mens et prudentia, Deus, et ex Deo genitus. Patris ergo personam non eodem modo assumit ac angelus aliquis et legatus a Dei substantia alienus.

Ἀναλαμβάνων τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός ("taking on the person of the Father"). The Son "takes on the person of the Father, comes into paradise in the person of God", not because he himself lacks the attributes of divinity, but because "he is his power and wisdom, the Word who always exists set within the heart of God, and his counsellor and mind and prudence, God, and begotten of God." So he does not take on the Father's person in the same way as some angel or envoy foreign to God's substance.

(printed under page 576)

(69) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1087

Τοῦτον τὸν Λόγον ἐγέννησε. Liquet hanc generationem nihil prorsus addere aut detrahere personae Filii, ac nihil aliud esse, quam voluntariam, ut ait Tatianus, administrationem in mundi creatione susceptam. 1° Ante hanc generationem erat Patris consiliarius, et Verbum semper exsistens in corde Patris. Erat ergo persona a Patre distincta. 2° Ita generatur et mittitur ad mundi creationem, ut Pater Verbo suo vacuus non fiat, et cum Verbo suo semper versetur. Nihil ergo addit Filio ejusmodi generatio. 3° Totum hunc Filii statum declarat Theophilus contineri his verbis: In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, etc. Ex hoc autem Joannis initio manifeste illud perspicitur, Verbum, quod semper fuerat apud Patrem, prodiisse ad mundi creationem. At si quis Verbum existimet tunc productum fuisse, cum mundus per illud creatus est, is profecto nequaquam ita insaniet, ut hoc commentum clare et aperte verbis Joannis contineri putet. Numericam essentiae in tribus personis unitatem mirifice astruit Theophilus. Nam Verbum et a Patre ita distinguitur, ut Deus sit et ex Deo natus et a Patre mittatur; et cum eodem Patre tam arcte conjungitur, ut semper insitum sit in corde Patris, ejusque mens et prudentia dicatur, nec eo Pater carere possit. Haec profecto nemini in mentem venire possint, nisi qui certo teneat Patrem omnes suas ideas, ac totam substantiam Filio tradidisse. Facile intelligitur ejusmodi Filium a Patre separari non posse, ac Patris mentem et prudentiam esse. Sed si eadem in rem aliquam creatam transferantur, ita absurda erunt, ut homini sano affingi non possint.

Τοῦτον τὸν Λόγον ἐγέννησε ("this Word he begot"). It is clear that this begetting adds nothing at all to the person of the Son nor takes anything from it, and is nothing other than a voluntary administration, as Tatian says, undertaken in the creation of the world. First: before this begetting he was the Father's counsellor and the Word always existing in the Father's heart; he was therefore a person distinct from the Father. Second: he is begotten and sent for the creation of the world in such a way that the Father is not left empty of his Word, and is always with his Word. Such a begetting therefore adds nothing to the Son. Third: Theophilus declares that this whole state of the Son is contained in these words: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him," etc. From this opening of John it is plainly seen that the Word, who had always been with the Father, went forth for the creation of the world. But if anyone thinks the Word was produced only when the world was created through him, he will surely not be so mad as to think this fiction is clearly and openly contained in John's words. Theophilus wonderfully establishes the numerical unity of essence in the three persons. For the Word is so distinguished from the Father that he is God and born of God and sent by the Father; and he is so closely joined with the same Father that he is always set within the Father's heart and is called his mind and prudence, and the Father cannot be without him. Such things could surely occur to no one except one who firmly holds that the Father has handed over all his ideas and his whole substance to the Son. It is easily understood that such a Son cannot be separated from the Father, and is the Father's mind and prudence. But if the same things are transferred to some created thing, they will be so absurd that they cannot be ascribed to a sane man.

(printed under page 576)

(70) ‹anchor: καὶ ἐν τόπῳ εὑρίσκεται› · call in col 1087

Καὶ ἐν τόπῳ εὑρίσκεται. Non ergo ex diversitate essentiae fit ut Pater in loco inveniri non possit, sed quia Pater mitti non potest. Conceptis enim verbis declarat Theophilus idcirco Filium mitti et in loco inveniri, quia Deus est et ex Deo genitus, quia Verbum est illius, per quod omnia fecit, virtus et sapientia ejus. Hinc illa Filii in locum aliquem missio nihil detrahit de illius immensitate: semper enim exsistit insitum in corde Dei. Pater ergo in loco inveniri non potest, quia non potest esse vox sive Verbum alterius personae, nec virtus aut sapientia alterius dici, nec Deus ex Deo genitus.

Καὶ ἐν τόπῳ εὑρίσκεται ("and is found in a place"). So it is not from a difference of essence that the Father cannot be found in a place, but because the Father cannot be sent. For Theophilus declares in express words that the Son is sent and found in a place because "he is God and begotten of God", because "he is his Word, through whom he made all things, his power and wisdom." Hence that sending of the Son into some place takes nothing from his immensity: "for he always exists set within the heart of God." The Father, then, cannot be found in a place, because he cannot be the voice or Word of another person, nor be called the power or wisdom of another, nor God begotten of God.

(printed under page 576)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1090

Ὅπως πληρωθῇ. Hujus loci is sensus est: pariunt in dolore mulieres, in poenam peccati impositam; doloris cito eas capit oblivio, ne generis humani propagationi obstet. Partus dolores a Theophilo proferri in argumentum veritatis historiae sacrae, ex iis etiam patet, quae mox de serpentis poena subjiciuntur. Addendum videtur καί ante αὐξάνεσθαι.

Ὅπως πληρωθῇ ("so that it may be fulfilled"). The sense of this passage is: women give birth in pain, a pain imposed as punishment for sin; forgetfulness of the pain quickly takes hold of them, so that it may not stand in the way of the propagation of the human race. That the pains of childbirth are brought forward by Theophilus as an argument for the truth of the sacred history is clear also from what is added shortly after about the serpent's punishment. It seems καί ("and") should be added before αὐξάνεσθαι.

(printed under page 577)

(72) ‹anchor: τὸ οὖν ἔτι› · call in col 1090

Τὸ οὖν ἔτι. Melius τῷ οὖν ἔτι, ut observat Wolfius.

Τὸ οὖν ἔτι ("the 'still', then"). Better τῷ οὖν ἔτι ("by the 'still', then"), as Wolf observes.

(printed under page 577)

(73) ‹anchor: τρυφή› · call in col 1090

Τρυφή. Cum in omnibus editionibus legeretur στροφή, errorem vidit Ducaeus, ejusque monitu manifestum errorem e contextu sustulerunt Fellus et Wolfius, a quibus discedere nolui.

Τρυφή ("delight"). Since στροφή ("turning") was read in all the editions, Ducaeus saw the error, and on his advice Fell and Wolf removed the obvious error from the text; I did not wish to depart from them.

(printed under page 577)

(74) ‹anchor: ἀφορμὴν προκοπῆς› · call in col 1090

Ἀφορμὴν προκοπῆς. S. Ambrosius lib. De parad. cap. 4, haec habet: Apprehendit ergo eum virtus Dei, inspirans processus et incrementa virtutis; denique in paradiso eum collocavit: ut scias apprehensum quasi afflatum divina esse virtute.

Ἀφορμὴν προκοπῆς ("an occasion of progress"). St Ambrose, De paradiso, ch. 4, has this: "So the power of God took hold of him, breathing into him advances and increases of virtue; and then it placed him in paradise, so that you may know that he was taken hold of as one breathed upon by the divine power."

(printed under page 577)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1091

Ἔχων ἀϊδιότητα. Apposita parenthesis totum hunc locum illustrat, cui tenebras injecerant interpretes dum haec verba, ἔχων ἀϊδιότητα referunt ad ipsum paradisum. Comparat Theophilus paradisi statum cum ipsius Adami statu, quem nec mortalem nec immortalem creatum fuisse docet.

Ἔχων ἀϊδιότητα ("having eternity"). The parenthesis placed here illuminates this whole passage, on which the translators had cast darkness by referring the words ἔχων ἀϊδιότητα to paradise itself. Theophilus compares the state of paradise with the state of Adam himself, who, he teaches, was created neither mortal nor immortal.

(printed under page 578)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1091

Τῷ δὲ εἰπεῖν, ἐργάζεσθε. Videtur Theophilus non legisse αὐτόν in his Scripturae verbis, ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ φυλάσσειν, vel illud αὐτόν, non ad paradisum retulisse, sed ad Adamum, quasi is esset sensus, ut ipse operaretur et custodiret. Mirifice consensit cum Theophilo S. Ambrosius in his verbis interpretandis ac forte etiam legendis: Ideoque, inquit in libro De parad. c. 4, de viro tantum Scriptura dicit quia «Posuit eum in paradiso operari et custodire.» In opere enim quidam virtutis processus est, in custodia quaedam consummatio operis deprehenditur, eo quod quasi consummata custodiat. Haec duo ab homine requiruntur, ut et operibus nova quaerat, et parta custodiat, quod est generale. Leg. ἐργάζεσθαι.

Τῷ δὲ εἰπεῖν, ἐργάζεσθε ("by saying, 'work'"). Theophilus seems not to have read αὐτόν in these words of Scripture, ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ φυλάσσειν ("to work it and keep it"), or else to have referred that αὐτόν not to paradise but to Adam, as if the sense were "that he himself should work and keep watch." St Ambrose agrees wonderfully with Theophilus in interpreting, and perhaps also in reading, these words: "And so," he says in De paradiso, ch. 4, "Scripture says of the man only that 'He placed him in paradise to work and to keep.' For in work there is a certain advance of virtue; in keeping, a certain completion of the work is perceived, in that it keeps things as completed. These two things are required of man: that by his works he seek new things, and keep what has been gained, which is general." Read ἐργάζεσθαι.

(printed under page 578)

(77) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1091

Ἔτι νήπιος ἦν. De hac Theophili sententia vide Praefationem.

Ἔτι νήπιος ἦν ("he was still an infant"). On this view of Theophilus see the Preface.

(printed under page 578)

(78) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1091

Ἀπὸ τῆς γνώσεως. Monuit Wolfius legendum ἀπὸ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως.

Ἀπὸ τῆς γνώσεως ("from knowledge"). Wolf advised reading ἀπὸ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως ("from the tree of knowledge").

(printed under page 578)

(79) ‹anchor: ὑποτάσσεσθαι› · call in col 1091

Ἔτι δὲ χρὴ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑποτάσσεσθαι. Merito haec verba delenda judicat Wolfius, quae hic perincommode repetuntur.

Ἔτι δὲ χρὴ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑποτάσσεσθαι ("and further, children ought to be subject to their parents"). Wolf rightly judges that these words, which are repeated here most awkwardly, should be deleted.

(printed under page 578)

(80) ‹anchor: ἀλλ’ ὥστε› · call in col 1091

Ἀλλ’ ὥστε. Legendum videtur ἄλλως τε. Ibidem et iterum paulo post editi ἐπὰν νόμος. Cod. Bodl. et Hamb. ut in textu.

Ἀλλ’ ὥστε ("but so that"). It seems one should read ἄλλως τε ("and besides"). In the same place, and again a little after, the printed editions have ἐπὰν νόμος; the Bodleian manuscript and the Hamburg edition read as in the text.

(printed under page 578)

(81) ‹anchor: ὕβριν› · call in col 1091

Ὕβριν. Bodl. ὕβρεις.

Ὕβριν ("outrage", singular). The Bodleian manuscript has ὕβρεις (plural).

(printed under page 578)

(82) ‹anchor: μεγάλην εὐεργεσίαν› · call in col 1091

Μεγάλην εὐεργεσίαν. Ante haec verba addendum videtur ὡς, quae particula facile potuit excidere ob similem sonum syllabae praecedentis. Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 23, n. 6: Quapropter, inquit, et ejecit eum de paradiso, et a ligno vitae longe transtulit; non invidens ei lignum vitae, quemadmodum quidam au- (continues)

Μεγάλην εὐεργεσίαν ("a great benefit"). Before these words ὡς ("as") seems to need adding; the particle could easily have dropped out because of the similar sound of the preceding syllable. Irenaeus, book III, ch. 23, no. 6: "Therefore," he says, "he also cast him out of paradise and removed him far from the tree of life; not grudging him the tree of life, as some ven- (continues)

(printed under page 578)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1094

(continued) dent dicere, sed miserans ejus, ut non perseveraret semper transgressor, neque immortale esset quod esset circa eum peccatum, et malum interminabile et insanabile. Similia docet S. Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 18, in Genes.

(printed under page 579)

(83) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1094

Ποτὲ ἐτέθη. Legendum videtur ὅτε ἐτέθη vel ποτὲ ὅτε ἐτέθη. Sic etiam paulo post malim μέλλῃ.

Ποτὲ ἐτέθη ("was once placed"). It seems one should read ὅτε ἐτέθη ("when he was placed") or ποτὲ ὅτε ἐτέθη ("once, when he was placed"). So too a little after I would prefer μέλλῃ.

(printed under page 579)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1094

Καθάπερ σκεῦός τι. Similia habemus apud Clementem ep. 2, ad Corinthios, c. 8; Origen. homil. 18, in Jerem., p. 166; Methodium De resurrect., p. 198; Gregorium Nyssenum lib. De anima et resurrect.; Ambrosium lib. II De fide resurrectionis. Atque haec quidem et figuli et vasis cum Deo et homine comparatio, ut quisque satis intelligit, deducta est ex pluribus Scripturae locis, in quibus tanquam figulus vasa, ita Deus homines et gentes confringere dicitur.

Καθάπερ σκεῦός τι ("like some vessel"). We have similar things in Clement, Second Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 8; Origen, Homily 18 on Jeremiah, p. 166; Methodius, On the Resurrection, p. 198; Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection; Ambrose, De fide resurrectionis, book II. And this comparison of the potter and the vessel with God and man is drawn, as anyone understands well enough, from several passages of Scripture in which God is said to break men and nations as a potter breaks vessels.

(printed under page 579)

(85) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1094

Δυνάμει γὰρ τέθραυσται. Verbum τέθραυσται Wolfius de morte intelligendum negat. At profecto manifestum est, ut de resurrectione, ita etiam de morte hic agi; et vasis fracti exemplo hominem non solum vi quadam fractum et dejectum a Deo, ut existimat vir eruditus, sed etiam mortuum designari. Neque etiam illud, δυνάμει, idem valet ac vi quadam, sed idem ac quodammodo. Sic supra n. 15, luna δυνάμει ἀποθνήσκει, quodammodo interit; et n. 16, de raptoribus et homicidis, Δυνάμει γὰρ κατακτείνουσι τοὺς ἀσθενεστέρους ἑαυτῶν.

Δυνάμει γὰρ τέθραυσται ("for he has in a manner been broken"). Wolf denies that the verb τέθραυσται is to be understood of death. But it is surely plain that death is treated here, as is the resurrection; and that by the example of the broken vessel man is signified not only as "broken and cast down by God with a certain force", as the learned man thinks, but also as dead. Nor does δυνάμει mean "with a certain force", but "in a manner." So above, no. 15, the moon δυνάμει ἀποθνήσκει, "in a manner dies"; and no. 16, of robbers and murderers: "for in a manner they kill those weaker than themselves."

(printed under page 579)

(86) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1094

Οὐχ ὡς ἀγνοῶν. Haec quoque adversus haereticos dicta, qui ignorationem mundi opifici affingebant. Unde Tertullianus, lib. II adv. Marcionem, cap. 25: Interrogabat Deus, quasi incertus…. ut daret ei locum sponte confitendi delictum et hoc nomine relevandi.

Οὐχ ὡς ἀγνοῶν ("not as one ignorant"). This too is said against the heretics who ascribed ignorance to the maker of the world. Hence Tertullian, Against Marcion, book II, ch. 25: "God questioned him as if uncertain … so as to give him room to confess his offence of his own accord, and on that account to be relieved."

(printed under page 579)

(87) ‹anchor: ἐγὼ μέν› · call in col 1094

Οὐδὲ τοῦτο, ἐγὼ μέν. Legit Dodwellus, citante Wolfio, οὐδὲ τοῦτο, ἐγᾦμαι, id est, ἐγὼ οἶμαι. Ipse autem Wolfius, Lacrozii et Davisii monitu, legendum putat, οὐδὲ τοῦτο λέγωμεν.

Οὐδὲ τοῦτο, ἐγὼ μέν ("not this either; I for my part"). Dodwell, as Wolf cites him, read οὐδὲ τοῦτο, ἐγᾦμαι, that is, ἐγὼ οἶμαι ("not this either, I think"). Wolf himself, at the suggestion of La Croze and Davies, thinks one should read οὐδὲ τοῦτο λέγωμεν ("let us not say this either").

(printed under page 579)

(88) ‹anchor: ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος› · call in col 1094

Ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος. Ita loquitur Theophilus ut occurat haereticis Deum creatorem mortis auctorem esse fingentibus. Dicebat enim Valentinianus, teste Clem. Alex. Strom. IV, pag. 509, mortis generationem opus esse Creatoris, θανάτου δὲ γένεσιν ἔργον εἶναι κτίσαντος τὸν κόσμον. Non tamen dicebant nefarii haeretici hominem innocentem morti addictum fuisse; sed sic ratiocinabantur: Si Deus bonus et praescius futuri, et avertendi mali potens, cur hominem passus est labi de obsequio legis in mortem, circumventum a diabolo? Ita Marcionitae apud Tertullianum, II adv. Marc., c. 5. Hujus impietatis refellendae studio Theophilus, postquam demonstravit num. praeced., mortem non Deo attribuendam esse, sed peccato, nunc concedit haereticis Deum mortis auctorem futurum fuisse, si mortalem hominem creasset. Volebant iidem haeretici Deum conditorem intelligi malorum, ut et malitiae auctor renuntietur. At scite probat Tertullianus ibid., cap. 14, nihil eos promovere, nisi haec mala hominibus non malis inflicta esse demonstrent. Aut proba ea injusta, inquit, ut probes malitiae deputanda, id est, injustitiae mala; quia si justitiae erunt, jam mala non erunt, sed bona, malis tantummodo mala. Hinc duas distinguit malorum species, mala culpae, et mala poenae: agnoscit auctorem malorum quidem peccati et culpae diabolum; malorum vero supplicii et poenae Deum creatorem, ut illa pars malitiae deputetur, ista justitiae mala condentis judicia adversus mala delicti…. Quae quidem illis mala sunt quibus rependuntur; caeterum suo nomine bona, qua justa et bonorum defensoria et delictorum inimica, atque in hoc ordine, Deo digna.

Ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος ("God the cause"). Theophilus speaks so in order to meet the heretics who imagined that God the creator is the author of death. For Valentinus said, as Clement of Alexandria testifies, Stromata IV, p. 509, that "the generation of death is the work of the Creator": "the coming-to-be of death is the work of him who made the world." Yet the wicked heretics did not say that man was condemned to death while innocent; they reasoned thus: "If God is good and foreknows the future and is able to avert evil, why did he allow man, deceived by the devil, to slip from obedience to the law into death?" So the Marcionites in Tertullian, Against Marcion II, ch. 5. In his zeal to refute this impiety Theophilus, having shown in the preceding number that death is to be attributed not to God but to sin, now grants the heretics that God would have been the author of death had he created man mortal. These same heretics wanted God "to be understood as the founder of evils, so that he might be declared the author of wickedness too." But Tertullian shrewdly proves (ibid., ch. 14) that they gain nothing unless they show that these evils were inflicted on men who were not evil. "Either prove them unjust," he says, "so as to prove they must be ascribed to wickedness, that is, evils of injustice; for if they belong to justice, they will no longer be evils but goods, evils only to the evil." Hence he distinguishes two kinds of evils, evils of guilt and evils of punishment: he recognizes the devil as author of the evils of sin and guilt, but God the creator as author of the evils of chastisement and punishment, "so that the former part is ascribed to wickedness, the latter to the justice that ordains evils as judgements against the evils of offence…. These are indeed evils to those on whom they are repaid; but in their own name they are goods, as being just, defenders of the good and enemies of offences, and in this order worthy of God."

(printed under page 579)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1095

Ῥέψῃ. Legendum εἰ ῥέψῃ.

Ῥέψῃ ("should incline"). Read εἰ ῥέψῃ ("if he should incline").

(printed under page 580)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1095

Ὑπακούοντας αὐτῷ. Al. ὑπακούσαντας. Fellus et Wolfius addunt ποιῶν. Sed cum hoc verbum sine ulla auctoritate in textum induxerunt, tum vero longe satius est legere εἰς ὑπακούοντας (vel ὑπακούσαντας) αὐτῷ. Facile excidere potuit haec praepositio ob syllabam praecedentem ejusdem soni apud Graecos. Mox Wolfius legit ὑπακοῦσαι, sed immerito.

Ὑπακούοντας αὐτῷ ("those obeying him"). Others read ὑπακούσαντας ("those who obeyed"). Fell and Wolf add ποιῶν ("making"). But they brought this word into the text without any authority, and it is in any case far better to read εἰς ὑπακούοντας (or ὑπακούσαντας) αὐτῷ ("for those obeying him"). The preposition could easily have dropped out because of the preceding syllable, which had the same sound among the Greeks. Shortly after Wolf reads ὑπακοῦσαι, but wrongly.

(printed under page 580)

(91) ‹anchor: ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος Θεοῦ› · call in col 1095

Ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος Θεοῦ. Id est, cum unus Deus coleretur, nondum cognita idololatria. Alii interpretes: Cum unus sit Deus.

Ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος Θεοῦ ("for since God was one"). That is, when one God was worshipped and idolatry was not yet known. Other translators: "Since God is one."

(printed under page 580)

(92) ‹anchor: ὅτι ὅδε› · call in col 1095

Ὅτι ὅδε. Bodl. ὡς ὅδε.

Ὅτι ὅδε ("that this one"). The Bodleian manuscript has ὡς ὅδε ("as this one").

(printed under page 580)

(93) ‹anchor: οὐκ ἐποίησε› · call in col 1095

Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἐποίησε. Totus hic locus, quo vix ullus alius magis deformatus, sic videtur emendari posse: Διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐποίησε τοὺς δύο ἄμφω· ἅμα δ’ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ· οὐ μόνον ἵνα καὶ διὰ τούτου δειχθῇ τὸ μυστήριον τῆς μοναρχίας τῆς κατὰ τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἵνα πλείων ᾖ ἡ εὔνοια εἰς αὐτούς. Necessitatem harum emendationum non difficile est animadvertere. 1°. Legendum esse οὐκ ἐποίησε τοὺς δύο ἄμφω, quis non videt? Non enim binos creavit Deus Adam et Evam; si κατ’ ἰδίαν formasset Evam, tunc binos creasse diceretur. At Evam κατ’ ἰδίαν formatam fuisse negat Theophilus; simul factam fuisse asseverat, non quod eodem temporis momento ac Adam, sed quod ex Adami corpore formata fuerit. 2°. Si legamus, ut in textu, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καί, etc., inutilis erit et absurda repetitio. Jam enim dixit Evam ita formatam fuisse, ut singularitas Dei sive monarchia ostenderetur. Duae ergo causae ab eo assignantur, quarum secunda omnibus nota et perspecta. Quare disjungenda fuit ab his verbis: πρὸς μὲν οὖν, etc., quibuscum illa vitiosa interpunctio conjunxerat. 3°. Totam hanc verborum complexionem, quam uncis inclusi, eruditus Wolfius ex textu expunxit. Mox enim suo loco occurret, et in alienam hanc sedem obrepsisse manifestum est.

Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἐποίησε ("for this reason, then, he made"). This whole passage, than which scarcely any other is more disfigured, can, it seems, be emended thus: "For this reason he did not make the two separately; but God made his wife together with him: not only so that through this too the mystery of the monarchy of God might be shown, but also so that their goodwill towards each other might be greater." The necessity of these emendations is not hard to see. First: who does not see that one must read οὐκ ἐποίησε τοὺς δύο ἄμφω ("he did not make the two separately")? For God did not create Adam and Eve as two; if he had formed Eve on her own, he would then be said to have created two. But Theophilus denies that Eve was formed on her own; he asserts that she was made together with him, not at the same moment of time as Adam, but in that she was formed from Adam's body. Second: if we read, as in the text, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καί ("but nevertheless also"), etc., the repetition will be useless and absurd. For he has already said that Eve was so formed that the singleness, or monarchy, of God might be shown. So two causes are assigned by him, of which the second is known and plain to all. It therefore had to be separated from the words πρὸς μὲν οὖν, etc., with which that faulty punctuation had joined it. Third: the whole run of words that I have enclosed in brackets was struck out of the text by the learned Wolf. For it will occur shortly in its own place, and it is plain that it crept into this foreign position.

(printed under page 580)

(94) ‹anchor: ὁ Ἀδὰμ εἶπεν› · call in col 1095

Εἶπεν. Bodl. εἰπών.

Εἶπεν ("said"). The Bodleian manuscript has εἰπών ("saying").

(printed under page 580)

(95) ‹anchor: προεφήτευσεν› · call in col 1095

Προεφήτευσεν. Idem codex ἐπροφήτευσεν.

Προεφήτευσεν ("prophesied"). The same manuscript has ἐπροφήτευσεν.

(printed under page 580)

(96) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1098

Εὔαν ἐκκαλεῖται. Contendit Wolfius reddendum esse Evan vocatur. Nimirum Satanas vocatur Evam ab iis qui ab eo incitati sic clamabant. Sed Theophilus non obscure indicat ipsum Satanam, dum in eis operatur, qui illius spiritu agebantur, efficere ut Evam illam peccati inceptricem vocent. Clemens Alexandrinus conceptis verbis declarat ipsam Evam invocari: Ἐπολολύζοντες Εὔαν, Εὔαν ἐκείνην, δι’ ἣν ἡ πλάνη παρηκολούθησε, Ululantes Evam, Evam illam, per quam est error consecutus, Protrept. pag. 9. Frustra ergo totum hunc locum immutat vir eruditus. Legit enim quasi scriptum esset: Διὰ τὸ πλανηθῆναι ταύτην τὴν Εὔαν. Eusebius Praep. ev. l. II, c. 3, citat hunc Clementis locum.

Εὔαν ἐκκαλεῖται ("is called 'Eva'"). Wolf contends that it should be rendered "is called Eva": that is, Satan is called "Eva" by those who, stirred up by him, cried out so. But Theophilus indicates clearly enough that Satan himself, working in those who were driven by his spirit, makes them invoke that Eve, the beginner of sin. Clement of Alexandria declares in express words that Eve herself is invoked: "Shrieking 'Eva', that Eve through whom error followed," Protrepticus p. 9. So the learned man alters this whole passage in vain; for he reads it as though it were written: "because this Eve was led astray." Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, book II, ch. 3, quotes this passage of Clement.

(printed under page 581)

(97) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1098

Δεύτερον. Fellus et Wolfius addunt υἱόν, sed sine ulla auctoritate.

Δεύτερον ("a second"). Fell and Wolf add υἱόν ("son"), but without any authority.

(printed under page 581)

(98) ‹anchor: τὴν οἰκονομίαν› · call in col 1098

Οἰκονομίαν. Supra num. 16, eadem voce utitur.

Οἰκονομίαν ("arrangement"). He uses the same word above, no. 16.

(printed under page 581)

(99) ‹anchor: ἀνθρώπου αἷμα› · call in col 1098

Οὐκέτι αἷμα. Sanguis emissus statim coagulatur, nec terram facile subit. FELLUS.

Οὐκέτι αἷμα ("no longer blood"). Blood that is shed clots at once, and does not easily sink into the earth. Fell.

(printed under page 581)

(1) ‹anchor: ἦ φανερόν› · call in col 1098

Ἦ φανερόν. Oxon. et Hamb. καὶ ἦ φανερόν.

Ἦ φανερόν ("surely it is plain"). The Oxford and Hamburg editions have καὶ ἦ φανερόν ("and surely it is plain").

(printed under page 581)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1099

Ὅμηρος. Existimat eruditus Hamburgensis editor Theophilum, labente memoria, de urbibus id generatim accipere, quod de sola Troja Homerus dixit. Sic enim legitur Iliad. V, v. 215 et 216. Κτίσσε δὲ Δαρδανίην, ἐπεὶ οὔπω Ἴλιος ἱρὴ / Ἐν πεδίῳ πεπόλιστο πόλις μερόπων ἀνθρώπων. Conditque Dardaniam, quia nondum Ilium sacrum / In campo conditum erat, oppidum diversilinguium hominum. Fatendum est Homeri verba accurate a Theophilo non referri. Non tamen crediderim memoriam ei effluxisse; videtur potius hunc locum attente consideratum sic interpretari, quasi Homerus Trojam exempli loco nominet, ut urbes nondum conditas fuisse declaret. Quamvis enim sub Phoroneo, qui ante Dardanum fuit, nomadum vitam homines, ut testatur Tatianus n. 39, ferantur abjecisse, non tamen grande erratum a Theophilo commissum, si rem serius ab Homero collocari existimaverit.

Ὅμηρος ("Homer"). The learned Hamburg editor thinks that Theophilus, through a lapse of memory, takes as said of cities in general what Homer said of Troy alone. For so we read in the Iliad, book V [in modern texts XX], lines 215–216: "He founded Dardania, since not yet was sacred Ilium built as a city in the plain, a city of mortal men" (Latin: "He founded Dardania, because sacred Ilium was not yet founded in the plain, a town of men of diverse tongues"). It must be admitted that Homer's words are not reported exactly by Theophilus. Yet I would not believe that his memory failed him; rather, having considered this passage attentively, he seems to interpret it as if Homer named Troy by way of example, to declare that cities had not yet been founded. For although men are said, as Tatian testifies (no. 39), to have given up the nomadic life under Phoroneus, who lived before Dardanus, still Theophilus committed no great error if he thought Homer placed the matter later.

(printed under page 582)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1099

Γαϊδάδ. Ita ms. B. et LXX, in editis Γαϊδάς. Mox editiones Oxon. et Hamb. habent Μελελεήλ, Σελλᾶ, Ἰωβήλ. Sed necesse non videtur immutare codicis ms. et editorum nostrorum scripturam, quamvis aliter legatur in Bibliis.

Γαϊδάδ (Gaidad, i.e. Irad). So the Bodleian manuscript and the Septuagint; the printed editions have Γαϊδάς. Shortly after, the Oxford and Hamburg editions have Μελελεήλ, Σελλᾶ, Ἰωβήλ (Mehujael, Zillah, Jubal). But it does not seem necessary to change the reading of the manuscript and of our printed editions, although it reads otherwise in the Bible.

(printed under page 582)

(4) ‹anchor: ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ› · call in col 1099

Ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ. De hoc Theophili opere vid. Praefationis tertiam partem, ubi de gestis et scriptis Theophili agimus.

Ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ ("in another treatise"). On this work of Theophilus see the third part of the Preface, where we treat of Theophilus's deeds and writings.

(printed under page 582)

(5) ‹anchor: ἢ εἰ βούλῃ› · call in col 1099

Εἰ βούλῃ. Cod. B. εἰ βούλει, recte.

Εἰ βούλῃ ("if you wish"). The Bodleian manuscript has εἰ βούλει, rightly.

(printed under page 582)

(6) ‹anchor: Ἀρχάθ› · call in col 1099

Ἀρχάθ. Hamb. Ἀρχάθ.

Ἀρχάθ (Archath, i.e. Accad). The Hamburg edition has Ἀρχάθ. [The lemma and the variant read alike on this scan; one letter in one of them is probably different in the print.]

(printed under page 582)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1102

Πατροσωνιείμ. Sic Biblia et codex ms. Editi nostri πατρωσωνιείμ. Haec nomina aliter a Theophilo ac in Bibliis citari facile animadvertet quisquis LXX interpretes consuluerit, nec necesse est singulas varietates hic observare. Tantum dicam Mesraim non Sem filium esse, sed Cham.

Πατροσωνιείμ (Pathrusim). So the Bible and the manuscript; our printed editions have πατρωσωνιείμ. Anyone who consults the Septuagint translators will easily notice that these names are cited differently by Theophilus and in the Bible, and there is no need to note each variation here. I will say only that Mizraim is the son not of Shem but of Ham.

(printed under page 583)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible on this page› · call in col 1102

Συντελείας. Merito rejectae a Wolfio conjecturae Felli legentis συγγενείας, et paulo post ἐν τῷ μέλλειν αὐτὰς διαμερίζεσθαι.

Συντελείας ("of the consummation"). Wolf rightly rejected the conjectures of Fell, who read συγγενείας ("of kinship") and, a little after, ἐν τῷ μέλλειν αὐτὰς διαμερίζεσθαι ("when they were about to be divided").

(printed under page 583)

(9) ‹anchor: ὅτε πύργον› · call in col 1102

Ὅτε πύργον. Editio Gallaei οἱ πύργον.

Ὅτε πύργον ("when … a tower"). Gallaeus's edition has οἱ πύργον ("who … a tower").

(printed under page 583)

(10) ‹anchor: ἐς οὐρανόν› · call in col 1102

Ἐς οὐρανόν. Cod. ms. εἰς οὐρανόν. Gallaeus ἀναβῆν’ ἐς οὐρανόν.

Ἐς οὐρανόν ("to heaven"). The manuscript has εἰς οὐρανόν. Gallaeus reads ἀναβῆν’ ἐς οὐρανόν ("to go up to heaven").

(printed under page 583)

(11) ‹anchor: ῥῖψαν› · call in col 1102

Ῥῖψαν. Edit. Hamburgensis ἔριψαν, atque ita etiam codex Bodleianus. Editio Tigurina ἔρριψαν.

Ῥῖψαν ("they hurled down"). The Hamburg edition has ἔριψαν, and so too the Bodleian manuscript. The Zurich edition has ἔρριψαν.

(printed under page 583)

(12) ‹anchor: καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς› · call in col 1102

Καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. His vocibus expunctis, substituitur alius hic versus in edit. Hamb. quem rejicere nolui: Γαῖα βροτῶν πληροῦτο μεριζομένων βασιλήων.

Καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ("and so on"). In the Hamburg edition these words are struck out and another verse put here instead, which I did not wish to reject: "The earth was filled with mortals, as kingdoms were divided."

(printed under page 583)

(13) ‹anchor: Χαρράν› · call in col 1102

Χαῤῥάν. Charrae Mesopotamiae urbs Chananaeae quidem vicina, sed ab ea penitus distincta. FEL.

Χαῤῥάν (Charran). A city of Charrae in Mesopotamia, near Canaan indeed, but entirely distinct from it. Fell.

(printed under page 583)

(14) ‹anchor: ἐγένοντο› · call in col 1102

Ἐγένοντο. Id est, caeteri reges ita se habuerunt, sive sub eodem nomine Pharaonis regnarunt. Legendum ἐλέγοντο prima specie conjiciebat cl. Wolfius, sed re attentius considerata, missam fecit conjecturam.

Ἐγένοντο ("came to be"). That is, the other kings were in the same case, or reigned under the same name of Pharaoh. The distinguished Wolf at first sight conjectured that ἐλέγοντο ("were called") should be read, but on considering the matter more attentively he dropped the conjecture.

(printed under page 583)

(15) ‹anchor: Ἀριώχ› · call in col 1102

Ἀριώχ. Vel memoriter Theophilus has Scripturae historias chartis suis illinebat, vel, quod verisimilius videtur, magna librarii vulnera fecerunt. Nam Arioch ille non primus recensetur a Moyse, sed post Amarphal regem Sennaar. Frustra autem Jac. Perizonius in Originibus Babylon. pag. 323, Theophilum nostrum exagitat, quasi hos quatuor reges sibi invicem putet successisse. Non enim eos temporibus divellit Theophilus, qui unius belli societate omnes conjungit, sed mihi videtur ordinem spectare, quem Moyses in eis numerandis secutus est. Theophilum dignitatis rationem habuisse existimavit Fellus.

Ἀριώχ (Arioch). Either Theophilus daubed these histories of Scripture onto his pages from memory, or, what seems more likely, the copyists inflicted great wounds. For Moses does not list that Arioch first, but after Amraphel king of Shinar. Jacob Perizonius, in the Origines Babylonicae, p. 323, attacks our Theophilus in vain, as if he thought these four kings succeeded one another. For Theophilus does not separate them in time, since he joins them all in the alliance of a single war; he seems to me rather to regard the order Moses followed in listing them. Fell thought Theophilus took account of rank.

(printed under page 583)

(16) ‹anchor: Ἑλλάσαρ› · call in col 1102

Ἑλλάσαρ. Ipse Arioch rex fuit Ellasar. Sed haec, ut jam dixi, a librariis turbata. Iisdem tri- (continues)

Ἑλλάσαρ (Ellasar). Arioch himself was king of Ellasar. But these things, as I have said, were thrown into confusion by the copyists. To the same three- (continues)

(printed under page 583)

(continued) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1103

…buendum videtur quod Thargal rex gentium dicitur, quae vocabantur Assyriae. Illud τῶν καλουμένων Ἀσσυρίων videtur e margine in textum venisse, nec prorsus Theophili esse, qui paulo post quatuor illos reges vocat reges Assyrios.

…[to be attri]buted, it seems, to the fact that Thargal is called king of the nations which were called Assyrians. The phrase τῶν καλουμένων Ἀσσυρίων ("of those called Assyrians") seems to have come into the text from the margin, and not to be Theophilus's at all, since a little later he calls those four kings kings of the Assyrians.

(printed under page 584)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1103

Ἡ Σηγὼρ ἐπικληθεῖσα. Omissa ante has voces Βαλὰκ, unde etiam paulo post gravius erratum incidit, dum ipsa urbs vocatur Kephala, eique rex Balach affingitur.

Ἡ Σηγὼρ ἐπικληθεῖσα ("which was called Segor"). Before these words Βαλάκ (Balak) has been omitted; whence a graver error also arose a little later, in that the city itself is called Kephala and a king Balach is ascribed to it.

(printed under page 584)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1103

Ὑμόρ. Codex ms. Ὑμοόρ. Biblia Συμοβόρ.

Ὑμόρ (Hymor). The manuscript has Ὑμοόρ; the Bible, Συμοβόρ.

(printed under page 584)

(19) ‹anchor: ἐσχάτων καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνων› · call in col 1103

Ἐσχάτων καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνων. Lego ἔσχατον καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνον. Vitium emendat cl. Wolfius, sic legendo: Πάντων δ' ἐσχάτων καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνων ἀπομνημονεύονται γεγονότες βασιλεῖς Ἀσσυρίων. Qui vero proximis a nobis temporibus Assyriorum reges fuerunt, omnes commemorantur. Supra legendum ὁ καὶ Χετταῖος.

Ἐσχάτων καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνων ("of the latest times in our day"). I read ἔσχατον καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνον. The illustrious Wolf corrects the fault, reading thus: "Of all the latest times in our day are recorded the kings of the Assyrians who have been": that is, all who were kings of the Assyrians in the times nearest to us are recorded. Above, read ὁ καὶ Χετταῖος ("who was also the Hittite").

(printed under page 584)

(20) ‹anchor: ὅπου πρόσφατά ἐστι› · call in col 1103

Ὅπου πρόσφατά ἐστι. Cl. Wolfius, monitu Lacrozii, legendum putat εἴπου, utrum. Sic legerat Clauserus, qui ita reddit: Hinc videre possunt... an ea, quae a nobis traduntur per prophetas sanctos, sint nupera. Sed vitium hujus loci residere videtur in his verbis διὰ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν. Neque enim tolerabilis est haec loquendi ratio: Ea quae a nobis dicuntur per sanctos prophetas. Sed si una addita litterula legamus: Δίχα τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, sine sanctis prophetis, clara erit et illustris sententia Theophili, qui postquam Adramelechi historiam non ex sacris Scripturis, sed ex litteris externis petitam commemoravit, eam recentem esse addit, si comparetur cum scriptis propheticis, atque inde concludit summam esse antiquitatem sacrae Scripturae, cum recens sit quidquid sine illius auctoritate profertur.

Ὅπου πρόσφατά ἐστι ("where ... are recent"). The illustrious Wolf, at La Croze's prompting, thinks we should read εἴπου, "whether". So Clauser had read it, who renders thus: "Hence they can see ... whether the things handed down by us through the holy prophets are recent." But the fault of this passage seems to lie in the words διὰ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν ("through the holy prophets"). For this way of speaking is not tolerable: "the things said by us through the holy prophets." But if, adding one small letter, we read Δίχα τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, "without the holy prophets", Theophilus's meaning will be clear and plain: having recounted the story of Adramelech, taken not from the sacred Scriptures but from outside writings, he adds that it is recent if compared with the prophetic writings, and concludes from this that the antiquity of sacred Scripture is the greatest, since whatever is put forward without its authority is recent.

(printed under page 584)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1106

Ἔπειτα. Cod. ms. μετέπειτα.

Ἔπειτα ("then"). The manuscript has μετέπειτα ("afterwards").

(printed under page 585)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1106

Χυδαίων. Ita scripsit Cl. Wolfius pro eo quod legebatur in omnibus editis χυδέων.

Χυδαίων ("common, abundant"). So the illustrious Wolf wrote, in place of χυδέων, which was read in all the printed editions.

(printed under page 585)

(23) ‹anchor: προφήτας ἢ Χαλδαίους› · call in col 1106

Προφήτας ἢ Χαλδαίους. Cum Clauserus sic reddidisset, Aegyptiorum aut Chaldaeorum vates, probavit Ducaeus Chaldaeos nomen esse quod sua sponte artem divinandi designat. Profert vir longe doctissimus in hanc sententiam haec Clementis verba ex Strom. I, pag. 223: Προέστησαν δὲ τῆς φιλοσοφίας Αἰγυπτίων τε οἱ προφῆται καὶ Ἀσσυρίων οἱ Χαλδαῖοι. Vide Tatianum pag. 243.

Προφήτας ἢ Χαλδαίους ("prophets or Chaldeans"). When Clauser had rendered it thus, "the seers of the Egyptians or of the Chaldeans", Duc (Fronton du Duc) showed that "Chaldeans" is a name which of itself denotes the art of divination. That most learned man brings forward in support of this view these words of Clement from Stromata I, p. 223: "Over philosophy presided the prophets of the Egyptians and the Chaldeans of the Assyrians." See Tatian, p. 243.

(printed under page 585)

(24) ‹anchor: ὑπὸ ἡμῶν› · call in col 1106

Ὑπὸ ἡμῶν. Ita ex codice Bodl. emendavit Wolfius. Editi ὑπὸ ὑμῶν.

Ὑπὸ ἡμῶν ("by us"). So Wolf corrected it from the Bodleian manuscript. The printed editions have ὑπὸ ὑμῶν ("by you").

(printed under page 585)

(20) ‹anchor: uxorem proximi tui› · call in col 1107

Exod. XX, 14.

Exodus 20:14.

(printed under page 586)

(21) ‹anchor: palpebrae tuae annuant justa› · call in col 1107

Prov. IV, 25.

Proverbs 4:25.

(printed under page 586)

(22) ‹anchor: Dominus Deus vester est› · call in col 1107

Isa. xlii, 15.

Isaiah 42:15 [as printed].

(printed under page 586)

(23) ‹anchor: Ego manu mea firmavi coelum› · call in col 1107

Isa. xlv, 12.

Isaiah 45:12.

(printed under page 586)

(24) ‹anchor: investigatio ejus prudentiae› · call in col 1107

Isa. xl, 28.

Isaiah 40:28.

(printed under page 586)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1107

Ἀπεδείξαμεν. Vix dici potest quam incommode verbum illud repetatur, cui aliud simile paulo ante occurrit, nempe ἐδηλώσαμεν. At legendo ἀπέδειξαν restituitur sententia.

Ἀπεδείξαμεν ("we have shown"). It can hardly be said how awkwardly that verb is repeated, when another like it occurs a little before, namely ἐδηλώσαμεν ("we have made plain"). But by reading ἀπέδειξαν ("they have shown") the sense is restored.

(printed under page 586)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1107

Δεῖξαι. Legendum διδάξαι.

Δεῖξαι ("to show"). Read διδάξαι ("to teach").

(printed under page 586)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1107

Ὅρκου ψεύδους. Aliae editiones ὅρκου, ψεύδους. Infra n. 37, περὶ ἀδίκου ὅρκου.

Ὅρκου ψεύδους ("of a false oath"). Other editions have ὅρκου, ψεύδους ("of an oath, of a falsehood"). Below, no. 37, περὶ ἀδίκου ὅρκου ("concerning an unjust oath").

(printed under page 586)

(28) ‹anchor: χρὴ λατρεύειν› · call in col 1107

Χρὴ λατρεύειν. Displicet verbum illud χρή, quod aut expungendum videtur, aut leg. ἀλλὰ μόνῳ.

Χρὴ λατρεύειν ("one must worship"). The word χρή is unsatisfactory; it seems it should either be struck out, or read ἀλλὰ μόνῳ ("but only to").

(printed under page 586)

(29) ‹anchor: Οὗτος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν› · call in col 1107

Οὗτος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν. Videtur Theophilus sensum magis quam verba Moysis referre. Ac creatio quidem plurimis in locis docetur. Astrorum cultus prohibetur Deuter. iv, 19 et xvii, 3, quae loca a Fello, Ducaeo et Wolfio indicata.

Οὗτος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν ("This is your God"). Theophilus seems to report the sense of Moses rather than his words. Creation, indeed, is taught in a great many places. The worship of the stars is forbidden in Deuteronomy 4:19 and 17:3, passages pointed out by Fell, Duc and Wolf.

(printed under page 586)

(30) ‹anchor: ὁ στερεώσας› · call in col 1107

Στερεώσας. Bibl. ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ στερεώσας τὴν γῆν. Mox leg. ἐπ' αὐτῆς.

Στερεώσας ("who made firm"). The Bible has ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ στερεώσας τὴν γῆν ("who made the heaven and made firm the earth"). Just after, read ἐπ' αὐτῆς ("upon it").

(printed under page 586)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Jer. X, 12.

Jeremiah 10:12.

(printed under page 587)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Jerem. x, 13 et li, 16, 17.

Jeremiah 10:13 and 51:16, 17.

(printed under page 587)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Psal. XIV, 2.

Psalm 14:2.

(printed under page 587)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Habac. ii, 28.

Habakkuk 2:28 [as printed].

(printed under page 587)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Ἐν τῇ φρονήσει. Deest praepositio in Bibliis. Paulo ante posui ἀνορθώσας, ut habetur in Bibliis, pro edito ἀνορθῶσαι. Leg. ὅς καί φησιν.

Ἐν τῇ φρονήσει ("in understanding"). The preposition is missing in the Bible. A little before, I have set ἀνορθώσας ("who set up"), as it stands in the Bible, in place of the printed ἀνορθῶσαι ("to set up"). Read ὅς καί φησιν ("who also says").

(printed under page 587)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Ἐξήγαγεν ἀνέμους. In Bibliis ἐξήγαγε φῶς.

Ἐξήγαγεν ἀνέμους ("he brought forth winds"). In the Bible, ἐξήγαγε φῶς ("he brought forth light").

(printed under page 587)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Πώρωσιν. Ita cod. ms. et editiones Tigur. et Hamb. Aliae πήρωσιν. Cl. Wolfius monet Theophilum respicere ad Ephes. IV, 18. Vid. lib. i, n. 7.

Πώρωσιν ("hardening"). So the manuscript and the Zurich and Hamburg editions. Others have πήρωσιν ("maiming, blindness"). The illustrious Wolf observes that Theophilus has Ephesians 4:18 in view. See Book I, note 7.

(printed under page 587)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Εἰς μάτην ἀργυροκόπος ἀργυροκοπεῖ. Pro his vocibus habemus in Bibliis ὅτι ψευδῆ ἐχώνευσεν; sed haec, ut observat cl. Wolfius, desumpta ex ejusdem Jeremiae vi.

Εἰς μάτην ἀργυροκόπος ἀργυροκοπεῖ ("in vain does the silversmith work silver"). In place of these words we have in the Bible ὅτι ψευδῆ ἐχώνευσεν ("for he has cast falsehoods"); but these words, as the illustrious Wolf observes, are taken from chapter 6 of the same Jeremiah.

(printed under page 587)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1110

Καὶ ὁ Δαβίδ. Conjunctionem, quae deerat in editis, suppeditavit codex ms., ex quo etiam desumpta praepositio ante ἐπιτηδεύμασιν.

Καὶ ὁ Δαβίδ ("and David"). The conjunction, which was missing in the printed editions, was supplied by the manuscript, from which the preposition before ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ("practices") was also taken.

(printed under page 587)

(36) ‹anchor: μὴ παράγεσθαι› · call in col 1110

Παράγεσθαι. Ita cod. ms. et editiones Oxon. et Hamb. Aliae vitiose παραγενέσθαι. Hoc tamen verbum defendit cl. Wolfius, et hunc sensum affert: Qui legerit prophetarum scripta, is intelliget verum et (eadem scilicet opera intelliget) ea non ab ingeniis hominum et vana opera profecta esse. Non videtur probabilis haec interpretatio.

Παράγεσθαι ("to be led astray"). So the manuscript and the Oxford and Hamburg editions. Others, wrongly, have παραγενέσθαι ("to have come"). The illustrious Wolf, however, defends this word, and offers this sense: "Whoever reads the writings of the prophets will understand the truth, and (that is, by the same effort will understand) that they did not proceed from the wits of men and from vain labour." This interpretation does not seem probable.

(printed under page 587)

(37) ‹anchor: Ἄνθρωποι› · call in col 1110

Ἄνθρωποι. Primus hic versus citatur a Clemente Alex. Strom. iii, pag. 432. Wolfius.

Ἄνθρωποι ("Men"). This first line is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III, p. 432. Wolf.

(printed under page 587)

(38) ‹anchor: παρεπόπτην› · call in col 1110

Παρεπόπτην. Ita Gallaeus. Editi nostri παντόπτην, excepta tamen edit. Tigurina, quae habet παντεπόπτην, quod etiam in ms. Bodl. legitur.

Παρεπόπτην ("overseer"). So Gallaeus. Our printed editions have παντόπτην ("all-seeing"), except, however, the Zurich edition, which has παντεπόπτην ("all-surveying"), which is also read in the Bodleian manuscript.

(printed under page 587)

(39) ‹anchor: μόνος ἄρχει› · call in col 1110

Ἄρχει. Legitur apud Justinum et Lactantium lib. i, cap. 6, ἐστίν, atque ita editiones Oxon. et Hamb. Sed tamen contendit eruditus Wolfius retinendum esse ἄρχει, ac Opsopoeum citat, quo teste codices mss. Lactantii habent ἀρχή, librariorum incuria, pro ἄρχει. Sed si codices mss. Lactan- (continues)

Ἄρχει ("rules"). In Justin and in Lactantius, Book I, chapter 6, ἐστίν ("is") is read, and so the Oxford and Hamburg editions. But the learned Wolf nevertheless contends that ἄρχει must be kept, and cites Opsopoeus, on whose testimony the manuscripts of Lactantius have ἀρχή ("beginning"), through the carelessness of copyists, for ἄρχει. But if the manuscripts of Lactan[tius] … (continues)

(printed under page 587)

(39) (continued) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

tii habent ἀρχή, nolim hanc scripturam in librariorum incuriam rejicere, eique praeferre verbum ἄρχει. Nam de Deo non incommode dici potest: Ὃς μόνος ἀρχή, solus est principium.

…[Lactan]tius have ἀρχή, I would not put this reading down to the carelessness of copyists and prefer the verb ἄρχει to it. For it can fittingly be said of God: Ὃς μόνος ἀρχή, "who alone is the beginning".

(printed under page 588)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Τίς γὰρ σάρξ. Hi quatuor versus citantur a Clemente Alex. Protrept. p. 47, et Strom. 5, pag. 601, et Euseb. Praep. lib. xiii, ut eruditi viri Fellus et Wolfius monuerunt.

Τίς γὰρ σάρξ ("For what flesh"). These four lines are quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus p. 47 and Stromata 5, p. 601, and by Eusebius, Praeparatio Book XIII, as the learned Fell and Wolf have pointed out.

(printed under page 588)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Δυνατοί. Ita et versus Sibyllini et Clemens locis citatis et editiones Oxon. et Hamb. Aliae δύνανται.

Δυνατοί ("able"). So both the Sibylline verses and Clement in the places cited, and the Oxford and Hamburg editions. Others have δύνανται ("they can").

(printed under page 588)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Ἐν ὀστήεσσι. Ita Wolfius, melius quam editio Oxoniensis ἐν ὀστέοις, aut aliae ἐνὸς τῆεσσι. Sed legendum ἐνὶ στήθεσσι, in pectoribus, non vero in ossibus.

Ἐν ὀστήεσσι ("in bones"). So Wolf, better than the Oxford edition's ἐν ὀστέοις, or the others' ἐνὸς τῆεσσι. But read ἐνὶ στήθεσσι, "in the breasts", not "in the bones".

(printed under page 588)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Ἐτέχθη. Legitur ἔτυχεν apud Lactantium loco jam citato. Legitur ἐτύχθη in versibus Sibyllinis ex conjectura Turnebi. Sed observat Wolfius hujus formae ἐτύχθη a τυγχάνω vix dari posse exemplum. De Deo sane non belle dicitur, ἐτέχθη, sed id eodem sensu accipiendum, quo sequens αὐτογενής. Hinc etiam apud Justinum Cohort. num. 11, hunc versum habemus ab oraculo quodam, ut erat opinio, pronuntiatum: αὐτογένητον ἄνακτα σεβαζόμενοι Θεὸν αὐτόν.

Ἐτέχθη ("was born"). In Lactantius, in the place already cited, ἔτυχεν is read. In the Sibylline verses ἐτύχθη is read, from Turnebus's conjecture. But Wolf observes that scarcely an example can be given of this form ἐτύχθη from τυγχάνω. Of God, certainly, ἐτέχθη is not fittingly said; but it is to be taken in the same sense as the following αὐτογενής ("self-begotten"). Hence also in Justin, Cohortatio no. 11, we have this line, uttered, as was believed, by some oracle: "worshipping God himself, the self-begotten king."

(printed under page 588)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Διαπαντός. Opsopoeus pro his vocibus legendum putat ἀποίητος.

Διαπαντός ("always"). Opsopoeus thinks that in place of these words we should read ἀποίητος ("unmade") [reading of the Greek word uncertain on the scan].

(printed under page 588)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Ἐνὼν, τὸ κριτήριον. Legendum videtur νέμων τὸ κριτήριον

Ἐνὼν, τὸ κριτήριον ("being in [it], the judgement"). It seems we should read νέμων τὸ κριτήριον ("dispensing the judgement").

(printed under page 588)

(46) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Ἐν φαΐ. Ita cod. ms. et editiones Oxon. et Hamb. Quanquam Wolfius existimat retineri posse ἐν φάει, ut habent aliae editiones; suspicatur enim veteres in hac diphthongo ει corripienda idem sibi licentiae sumpsisse ac in diphthongis αι et οι.

Ἐν φαΐ ("in light"). So the manuscript and the Oxford and Hamburg editions. Wolf, however, thinks ἐν φάει can be kept, as the other editions have it; for he suspects that the ancients took the same licence in shortening the diphthong ει as in the diphthongs αι and οι.

(printed under page 588)

(47) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Ἐν ᾅδῃ. Editiones Oxon. et Hamb. ἐν ᾅδου.

Ἐν ᾅδῃ ("in Hades"). The Oxford and Hamburg editions have ἐν ᾅδου.

(printed under page 588)

(48) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1111

Τὴν δι' ἀκανθῶν καὶ σκολόπων· τί πλανᾶσθε; Sic emendavimus ope S. Clementis Alex. Protrept. pag. 17, quod vitiose in editis nostris legebatur: Καὶ δι' ἀκανθῶν καὶ σκολόπων ἐπλανᾶσθε. Mox apud eumdem βροτέων.

Τὴν δι' ἀκανθῶν καὶ σκολόπων· τί πλανᾶσθε; ("the [road] through thorns and stakes: why do you wander?"). So we have corrected, with the help of St Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus p. 17, what was read corruptly in our printed editions: Καὶ δι' ἀκανθῶν καὶ σκολόπων ἐπλανᾶσθε ("and you wandered through thorns and stakes"). Just after, the same author has βροτέων ("of mortals").

(printed under page 588)

(49) ‹anchor: κατθέμενοι› · call in col 1111

Κατθέμενοι. Male in editionibus Parisiensibus ann. 1615 et 1636, καθέμενοι. Sic etiam apud Gallaeum.

Κατθέμενοι ("laying up"). Wrongly, in the Paris editions of 1615 and 1636, καθέμενοι. So also in Gallaeus.

(printed under page 588)

(50) ‹anchor: Τί δὴ› · call in col 1111

Κρύσταλλα. Τί δή. Ita recte noster, pro quo Clemens Protrept. p. 50, κρύσταλλά τε, τί. Wolfius.

Κρύσταλλα. Τί δή ("ice. Why then"). So, rightly, our author; for which Clement, Protrepticus p. 50, has κρύσταλλά τε, τί. Wolf.

(printed under page 588)

(51) ‹anchor: αὐτὸς ὑπάρχει› · call in col 1111

Αὐτὸς ὑπάρχει. Legendum esse ἀΐδος ἄρχει, imperat orco, merito contendit Eustathius Swartius in Analectis p. 31. Id.

Αὐτὸς ὑπάρχει ("he himself exists"). Eustathius Swartius, in his Analecta p. 31, rightly contends that we should read ἀΐδος ἄρχει, "he rules the underworld". The same [Wolf].

(printed under page 588)

(52) ‹anchor: οὔρεά θ' ὑψήεντα› · call in col 1111

Ὑψήεντα. In Orac. Sibyl. ὑλήεντα ex conjectura Opsopoei, qui erratum in notis emendavit, et vocem ὑψήεντα agnovit non multo post occurrere. Id.

Ὑψήεντα ("lofty"). In the Sibylline Oracles, ὑλήεντα ("wooded"), from Opsopoeus's conjecture; he corrected the error in his notes and recognized that the word ὑψήεντα occurs not long after. The same [Wolf].

(printed under page 588)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Γαίης. Turnebus legendum putat ἐκ γαίης. Auratus ἐν γαίῃ. Editio Hamb. ἐν γαίης.

Γαίης ("of the earth"). Turnebus thinks we should read ἐκ γαίης ("from the earth"); Auratus, ἐν γαίῃ ("on the earth"). The Hamburg edition has ἐν γαίης.

(printed under page 589)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Ψυχροτροφεῖς τε. Edit. Hamb. et Oxon. ψυχροτροφεῖ τε.

Ψυχροτροφεῖς τε ("and cold-nurtured"). The Hamburg and Oxford editions have ψυχροτροφεῖ τε.

(printed under page 589)

(55) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Λιγυρόφωνα. Cod. ms. λιγυροτρόφωνα. Edit. Tigur. λιγυροπτερόφωνα. Gallaeus λιγυπτερόφωνα quod melius videtur.

Λιγυρόφωνα ("clear-voiced"). The manuscript has λιγυροτρόφωνα; the Zurich edition, λιγυροπτερόφωνα; Gallaeus, λιγυπτερόφωνα ("with shrill-sounding wings"), which seems better.

(printed under page 589)

(56) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Ὑπέταξεν. Ita Ducaeus et Wolfius. Aliae editiones ὑπέταξαν.

Ὑπέταξεν ("he subjected"). So Duc and Wolf. Other editions have ὑπέταξαν ("they subjected").

(printed under page 589)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Ὑπαὶ τάξεν. Ita Wolfius pro ὑπαίταξεν quod est in edit. Oxon. Aliae editiones ὑπέταξεν.

Ὑπαὶ τάξεν ("set under"). So Wolf, for ὑπαίταξεν, which is in the Oxford edition. Other editions have ὑπέταξεν.

(printed under page 589)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Οὐ καταληπτά. Ita Wolfius pro eo quod habent aliae editiones εὖ καταληπτά, captu facilia. Emendationem suam confirmat vir eruditus ex versu sequenti: Τίς γὰρ σὰρξ δύναται.

Οὐ καταληπτά ("not to be grasped"). So Wolf, for what the other editions have, εὖ καταληπτά, "easy to grasp". The learned man confirms his correction from the following line: "For what flesh can…".

(printed under page 589)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Αἰθέρα. Mallet Wolfius αἰθέρι: sic enim solet Homerus. Legitur αἰθέρα in omnibus editionibus et apud Lactantium lib. De ira Dei cap. 22, ubi hic versus occurrit cum duobus sequentibus.

Αἰθέρα ("the upper air", accusative). Wolf would prefer αἰθέρι (dative), for so Homer usually has it. Αἰθέρα is read in all the editions and in Lactantius, De ira Dei chapter 22, where this line occurs with the two that follow.

(printed under page 589)

(60) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Ἢ ἄλγεα. Ita cod. Bodl. et editio Tigurina. Habent aliae δ' ἄλγεα. Gallaeus ἰδ' ἄλγεα. Satis similis est hic versus ei quem Justinus lib. De monarch. et alii attribuunt Orpheo: Καὶ πόλεμον κρυόεντα καὶ ἄλγεα δακρυόεντα.

Ἢ ἄλγεα ("or pains"). So the Bodleian manuscript and the Zurich edition. Others have δ' ἄλγεα; Gallaeus, ἰδ' ἄλγεα. This line is quite like the one which Justin, in his book De monarchia, and others attribute to Orpheus: "and chilling war and tearful pains."

(printed under page 589)

(61) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Ἐκριζοῦσθε. Gallaeus ἐκροίζεσθε.

Ἐκριζοῦσθε ("you are uprooted"). Gallaeus has ἐκροίζεσθε ("you whiz, rush hissing").

(printed under page 589)

(62) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1114

Ἐτώσια βάρη. Ita editio Oxon. et in margine Tigurina, quae in textu habet, itidem ut codex ms. ἐστήσια φάρη. Turnebus probat ἐτώσια βάρη, sed alias proponit conjecturas, nempe ἐτήσια φάρη vel ὕβρις τ' ἀφόρητος. Auratus legit κ' αἴσθησις ἀφαυρή.

Ἐτώσια βάρη ("vain burdens"). So the Oxford edition, and the Zurich in its margin; in its text the Zurich has, like the manuscript, ἐστήσια φάρη. Turnebus approves ἐτώσια βάρη, but proposes other conjectures, namely ἐτήσια φάρη ("yearly robes") or ὕβρις τ' ἀφόρητος ("and unbearable insolence"). Auratus reads κ' αἴσθησις ἀφαυρή ("and feeble perception").

(printed under page 589)

(63) ‹anchor: λοπάδας› · call in col 1114

Εἰ λοπάδας. Ita Wolfius post Turnebum et Auratum. Editi nostri εἰλοπόδας, boves, in quo illud etiam occurrebat vitii, quod scribendum fuisset εἰλιπόδας. Lances cum ollis et cum diis felibus quadrant.

Εἰ λοπάδας ("if dishes"). So Wolf, after Turnebus and Auratus. Our printed editions have εἰλοπόδας, "oxen", in which there was also this fault, that it should have been written εἰλίποδας. Dishes go well with pots, and with cat-gods.

(printed under page 589)

(64) ‹anchor: κατὰ πίονα ναίειν› · call in col 1114

Κατὰ πίονα ναίειν. Ita editiones Oxon. et Hamb. Aliae καὶ πίονα γαῖαν: Auratus legendum putat ἀντὶ δὲ χρυσέοιο πόλου κατὰ πίονα νηόν.

Κατὰ πίονα ναίειν ("to dwell in a rich [temple]"). So the Oxford and Hamburg editions. Others have καὶ πίονα γαῖαν ("and the rich earth"). Auratus thinks we should read "instead of the golden heaven, in a rich temple".

(printed under page 589)

(65) ‹anchor: δεδίασται› · call in col 1114

Δεδίασται. Oxon. et Parisienses ann. 1615 et 1636, δεδίαστα. Turnebus legit δέδαισται, quod melius videtur.

Δεδίασται. The Oxford edition and the Paris editions of 1615 and 1636 have δεδίαστα. Turnebus reads δέδαισται ("are woven over"), which seems better.

(printed under page 589)

(66) ‹anchor: λίθων συγχώματα› · call in col 1114

Συγχώματα. Cod. ms. συγχώσματα. Observat eruditus Wolfius post Opsopoeum et Fellum, lapidum acervos Mercurio sacros hic designari, quos Graeci ἕρμακας vocant.

Συγχώματα ("heaps"). The manuscript has συγχώσματα. The learned Wolf observes, after Opsopoeus and Fell, that the heaps of stones sacred to Mercury are meant here, which the Greeks call ἕρμακες.

(printed under page 589)

(67) ‹anchor: Καί γε θεοὶ› · call in col 1114

Καί γε θεοί. Ita Ducaeus pro καὶ γάρ, quod legitur in editionibus Paris. Tigur et in cod. ms. Habent Oxoniensis et Hamburgensis, ut in Orac. Sibyll. ex conjectura Turnebi: Εἰσὶ θεοὶ μερόπων δολοήτορες ἀβούλων.

Καί γε θεοί ("and indeed the gods"). So Duc, for καὶ γάρ, which is read in the Paris and Zurich editions and in the manuscript. The Oxford and Hamburg editions have, as in the Sibylline Oracles from Turnebus's conjecture: "The gods are deceivers of witless mortals."

(printed under page 589)

(68) ‹anchor: χεῖται› · call in col 1114

Χεῖται. Ita Wolfius et Oracula Sibyllina, melius multo quam aliae editiones κεῖται.

Χεῖται ("is poured"). So Wolf and the Sibylline Oracles, much better than the other editions' κεῖται ("lies").

(printed under page 589)

(69) ‹anchor: Οὐδ' ἔστι› · call in col 1114

Οὐδ' ἔστι. Legendum videtur οὗ δ' ἔστι

Οὐδ' ἔστι ("nor is there"). It seems we should read οὗ δ' ἔστι ("but whose is").

(printed under page 589)

(70) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1115

Γλυκεροῦ. Hanc vocem, quae deerat in editis nostris, Fellus et Wolfius ex Orac. Sibyll. desumpserunt.

Γλυκεροῦ ("sweet"). This word, which was missing in our printed editions, Fell and Wolf took from the Sibylline Oracles.

(printed under page 590)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1115

Ἐκπροχέῃ. Hunc versum et sequentem sic libenter emendaverim: Ἐκπροχέει, τούτῳ δὲ μόνῳ τόν γ' αὐχένα κάμπτε, καὶ τρίβον αἰώνεσσιν ἐν εὐσεβέεσσ' ἀνακλίνοις. Gallaeus: Ἐκπροχέει, τῷ δεῖ μόνῳ αὐχένα κάμπτειν. Fellus: Ἐκπροχέει· δεῖ τῷ δὲ μόνῳ τοὺς αὐχένα κάμπτειν. Mallet Wolfius τόν γ' αὐχένα. Iidem habent in versu sequenti ἀνακλίνειν.

Ἐκπροχέῃ ("pours forth"). I would gladly correct this line and the next thus: "pours forth; to him alone bend your neck, and turn your path among the pious for ages." Gallaeus: "pours forth, to whom alone one must bend the neck." Fell: "pours forth; and to him alone one must bend the neck." Wolf would prefer τόν γ' αὐχένα. The same have in the following line ἀνακλίνειν.

(printed under page 590)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1115

Εὖ μάλα ἄκρητον.... ἀφροσύνῃσι μεμηνότι. Ita Orac. Sibyll. et Oxon. et Hamb. Aliae editiones ἐν μάλα κρατοῦντες... ἀφροσύνῃ μεμανηότι.

Εὖ μάλα ἄκρητον.... ἀφροσύνῃσι μεμηνότι ("full unmixed ... raving with follies"). So the Sibylline Oracles and the Oxford and Hamburg editions. Other editions have ἐν μάλα κρατοῦντες ... ἀφροσύνῃ μεμανηότι.

(printed under page 590)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1115

Οἱ δὲ Θεὸν τιμῶντες, etc. Hi tres versus ita emendati sunt a Fello et Wolfio, ut apud Gallaeum leguntur et Lactantium lib. ii, cap. 12, nisi quod Lactantius habet παράδεισον in tertio versu. Editi nostri pro τὸν αἰῶνος habebant αἰῶνα, nec vocem ὅμως agnoscebant in tertio versu.

Οἱ δὲ Θεὸν τιμῶντες ("But those who honour God"), etc. These three lines were corrected thus by Fell and Wolf, as they are read in Gallaeus and in Lactantius Book II, chapter 12, except that Lactantius has παράδεισον ("paradise") in the third line. Our printed editions had αἰῶνα for τὸν αἰῶνος, and did not have the word ὅμως in the third line.

(printed under page 590)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1115

Ὡς περὶ λόγια. Wolfius ὡσπερεὶ λόγια. Editio Tigurina ὡσπερί, quod positum corrupte pro ὡσπερεί, ut idem vir eruditus observat.

Ὡς περὶ λόγια ("as concerning oracles"). Wolf reads ὡσπερεὶ λόγια ("as if oracles"). The Zurich edition has ὡσπερί, which stands corruptly for ὡσπερεί, as the same learned man observes.

(printed under page 590)

(75) ‹anchor: Πάσχων ἀνάσχου› · call in col 1115

Πάσχων ἀνάσχου. Ita Fell. et Wolf. et Barnes. in Incert. Tragoed. Euripid., p. 313. Editi nostri ἀνάσχου πάσχων. Libenter sic legerem: Πάσχων ἀνάσχου· δρῶν γὰρ ἔχαιρες· νόμος Τὸν ἐχθρόν ἐστι δρᾶν, ὅπου λάβῃς, κακῶς.

Πάσχων ἀνάσχου ("suffering, bear it"). So Fell, Wolf, and Barnes among the Fragments of Uncertain Tragedies of Euripides, p. 313. Our printed editions have ἀνάσχου πάσχων. I would gladly read thus:

(printed under page 590)

(76) ‹anchor: Νόμος› · call in col 1115

Νόμος. Ex Euripide mutuatus est eruditus Wolfius quae ad hunc versum et sequentem emendandum valebant. Erat enim in editis nostris νόμον et ὅπου λάβῃ, et mox ἐχθροῦ.

Νόμος ("law"). The learned Wolf borrowed from Euripides what served to correct this line and the next. For in our printed editions there stood νόμον and ὅπου λάβῃ, and just after, ἐχθροῦ.

(printed under page 590)

(77) ‹anchor: δεινοῖς› · call in col 1115

Τὸν κακῶς τί... δεινοῖς. Ita editio Hamburg. et Oxon. Aliae τὸν κακῶς δρῶντα δεινῶς.

Τὸν κακῶς τί... δεινοῖς ("him who [does] something evil ... with terrible things"). So the Hamburg and Oxford editions. Others have τὸν κακῶς δρῶντα δεινῶς ("him who does evil, terribly").

(printed under page 590)

(78) ‹anchor: ἀνέχεται› · call in col 1115

Ἀνέχεται. Ita editt. Oxon. et Hamb. Aliae ἀνέχεσθαι.

Ἀνέχεται ("he forbears"). So the Oxford and Hamburg editions. Others have ἀνέχεσθαι ("to forbear").

(printed under page 590)

(79) ‹anchor: προσώπῳ› · call in col 1115

Προσώπῳ. Legendum προσώπου docet cl. Wolfius. Reliqua, quae sunt corruptissima, sic emendat citatus a cl. Wolfio Theod. Canterus lib. i, c. 4 Var. Lect., t. III; Lampadis criticae, p. 716, πάνθ' ὅμως ἀεὶ βλέπει.

Προσώπῳ ("with face"). The illustrious Wolf shows that we should read προσώπου. The rest, which is most corrupt, Theodore Canter, cited by the illustrious Wolf (Variae Lectiones Book I, chapter 4, in vol. III of the Lampas critica, p. 716), corrects thus: πάνθ' ὅμως ἀεὶ βλέπει ("yet always sees all things").

(printed under page 590)

(29) ‹anchor: incendet omnes impios› · call in col 1118

Malach. IV, 1.

Malachi 4:1.

(printed under page 591)

(30) ‹anchor: aqua trahens in convalle› · call in col 1118

Isai. XXX, 28, 30.

Isaiah 30:28, 30.

(printed under page 591)

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Τὰ κακά. Sic emendavit cl. Wolfius quod corrupte legebatur τὰ κατά.

Τὰ κακά ("the evil things"). So the illustrious Wolf corrected what was corruptly read as τὰ κατά.

(printed under page 591)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Τό τοι κακόν. Hi versus ita a Fello et Wolfio emendati fuere, ut habentur in Stobaei eclogis περὶ δίκης. Legebatur in editis nostris τὸ κακόν. Καὶ τὰ ἀμβλακήματα περῶντι. Ἄναυδος. Στίχοντι, καθημένῳ. Ὀπάζει... ἄλλο δέ. Duo postremi versus aeque mihi accurati videntur, ac in laudatis editionibus, in quibus legitur: Οὐδ' ἓν καλύπτει τῶν κακῶν εἰργασμένων. Ὅ τι δ' ἂν ποιεῖς, νόμιζε ὁρᾶν θεούς τινας. Editi nostri habebant ὅ τι ποιῇς.

Τό τοι κακόν ("the evil, you see"). These lines were corrected thus by Fell and Wolf, as they stand in Stobaeus's Eclogae, under "On justice". In our printed editions there was read τὸ κακόν; καὶ τὰ ἀμβλακήματα περῶντι; ἄναυδος; στίχοντι, καθημένῳ; ὀπάζει... ἄλλο δέ. The last two lines seem to me just as accurate as in the editions mentioned, in which is read: "He hides not one of the evils that have been done. Whatever you do, think that some gods see it." Our printed editions had ὅ τι ποιῇς.

(printed under page 591)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Οὐκ ἔστι. Observat cl. Wolfius metri causa legendum esse, οὐκ ἔστ' ἀνεπιδόκητον. Habebant editi nostri οὐκ ἔστι κακόν.

Οὐκ ἔστι ("there is not"). The illustrious Wolf observes that for the metre we must read οὐκ ἔστ' ἀνεπιδόκητον ("there is nothing unexpected"). Our printed editions had οὐκ ἔστι κακόν ("there is no evil").

(printed under page 591)

(83) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Εὐτυχίην. Ita Fellus, qui hos versus ita edidit ut habentur apud Euripidem a Barnesio editum; deerat particula in editis nostris ante ὄλβον, in quibus etiam legebatur εὐτυχίαν.

Εὐτυχίην ("good fortune"). So Fell, who edited these lines as they stand in Euripides as edited by Barnes; a particle before ὄλβον ("wealth") was missing in our printed editions, in which εὐτυχίαν was also read.

(printed under page 591)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Ἀδίκων γενεάν. Editi nostri habebant ἀδίκως τε νέαν.

Ἀδίκων γενεάν ("the race of the unjust"). Our printed editions had ἀδίκως τε νέαν.

(printed under page 591)

(85) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Κακότητας. Addunt ἐμοί Fellus et Wolfius, quod multo commodius deesse in editis nostris videtur.

Κακότητας ("evils"). Fell and Wolf add ἐμοί ("to me"), which, much more fittingly, seems to be missing in our printed editions.

(printed under page 591)

(86) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Κακῶς παγέντας. Sic legebatur hic versus in editis nostris: Τοὺς κακῶς πραγέντας καὶ συνηναγκασμένους. Fellus et Wolfius scripserunt παγέντας, sed praeterea addendum duxi ὅρκους. Mox enim patet aliquos versus citatos fuisse, in quibus mentio facta de ejusmodi sacramentis. Deinde vero ita legimus in Iphigenia in Aulide, versu 395. Priorem versum Fellus desumptum putat ex his verbis Euripidis nescio unde desumptis: Οὐ γὰρ ἀσυνέτους τοὺς θεοὺς ἡγοίμεθ' ἄν.

Κακῶς παγέντας ("wrongly fixed"). This line was read thus in our printed editions: Τοὺς κακῶς πραγέντας καὶ συνηναγκασμένους. Fell and Wolf wrote παγέντας, but I have thought ὅρκους ("oaths") should be added besides. For just after it is plain that some lines were quoted in which mention was made of oaths of this kind. And then we read it so in the Iphigenia in Aulis, line 395. Fell thinks the former line was taken from these words of Euripides, taken from I know not where: "For we should not think the gods without understanding."

(printed under page 591)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1118

Εἰ δεινὰ ῥέξας. Editi ὁ ῥέξας, unde Wolfius proponit ὀρέξας si prava desideraveris. Habent in textu editiones Oxon. et Hamb. εἰ δεινὰ ἔδρασας.

Εἰ δεινὰ ῥέξας ("if, having done terrible things"). The printed editions have ὁ ῥέξας, whence Wolf proposes ὀρέξας, "if you have desired wicked things". The Oxford and Hamburg editions have in the text εἰ δεινὰ ἔδρασας ("if you have done terrible things").

(printed under page 591)

(88) ‹anchor: καὶ κλέψαντες› · call in col 1118

Καὶ κλέψαντες. Mirari videtur Theophilus cur Graeci scriptores, dum ex prophetis multa suffurantur, consentanea prophetis dixerint. Cur id mirum illi videatur, causam reperiemus apud Tatianum, qui n. 40, profanos scriptores ea corrupisse ait, quae ex Moysis fontibus hauriebant, quia non grato animo, sed instar furum hauriebant.

Καὶ κλέψαντες ("and having stolen"). Theophilus seems to wonder why the Greek writers, while they filch much from the prophets, said things in accord with the prophets. Why this should seem strange to him we shall find the reason in Tatian, who says (no. 40) that the profane writers corrupted what they drew from the springs of Moses, because they drew it not with a grateful mind but like thieves.

(printed under page 591)

(89) ‹anchor: ἤτε ἔσχατοι› · call in col 1118

Ἤτε ἔσχατοι. Legendum videtur εἴ τε ἔσχατοι.

Ἤτε ἔσχατοι. It seems we should read εἴ τε ἔσχατοι ("whether last").

(printed under page 591)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1119

Proverb. xii, 8.

Proverbs 12:8.

(printed under page 592)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1119

Psal. C, 8.

Psalm 100 (Vulgate numbering), 8.

(printed under page 592)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1119

Od. A. v. 221.

Odyssey, Book 1 (Alpha), line 221.

(printed under page 592)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1119

Iliad. Π. v. 856. et v. 362.

Iliad, Book 16 (Pi), line 856, and line 362.

(printed under page 592)

(35) ‹anchor: eam› · call in col 1119

Iliad. ψ v. 71

Iliad, Book 23 (Psi), line 71 [last digit partly cut at the scan edge].

(printed under page 592)

(36) ‹anchor: infirmabuntur in eis› · call in col 1119

Ose. xiv, 10.

Hosea 14:10.

(printed under page 592)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1119

Φροντίζει. Praemittendum videtur ὅτι.

Φροντίζει ("takes thought"). It seems ὅτι ("that") should be put before it.

(printed under page 592)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1119

Καίπερ ἅπαντες. Cl. Wolfius ut hunc locum emendaret, in ipso contextu scripsit ὥσπερ ἅπαντες. Sed legendum potius καίπερ ἄκοντες. Sic enim clara erit et aperta sententia Theophili, qui paulo ante de iisdem profanis scriptoribus dicebat: Ἢ καὶ περὶ ἐκπυρώσεως κόσμου, θέλοντες καὶ μὴ θέλοντες, ἀκόλουθα ἐξεῖπον τοῖς προφήταις.

Καίπερ ἅπαντες ("although all"). The illustrious Wolf, to correct this passage, wrote in the text itself ὥσπερ ἅπαντες ("like all"). But we should rather read καίπερ ἄκοντες ("although unwilling"). For so the meaning of Theophilus will be clear and plain, who a little before said of the same profane writers: "Or also concerning the conflagration of the world, willing and unwilling, they spoke in accord with the prophets."

(printed under page 592)

(92) ‹anchor: καὶ φιλομαθεῖν› · call in col 1119

Φιλομαθεῖν. Legendum conjicit Wolfius πολυμαθεῖν, libenter discere, nisi quis pro φιλομαθῆ legendum putet πολυμαθῆ. Videtur enim illi Theophilus hominem discendi studiosum minus commode hortari, ut discendi studiosus sit. Sed hoc vitium in interpretando fugere conatus sum, nec quidquam mutandum puto.

Φιλομαθεῖν ("to love learning"). Wolf conjectures that we should read πολυμαθεῖν, "to learn willingly" [as printed], unless one thinks πολυμαθῆ should be read for φιλομαθῆ. For it seems to him that Theophilus rather awkwardly urges a man eager to learn to be eager to learn. But I have tried to avoid this fault in translating, and I think nothing should be changed.

(printed under page 592)

ANALYSIS LIBRI TERTII.

ANALYSIS OF THE THIRD BOOK.

Cum superiores disputationes obstinatum Autolyci animum non infregissent, tertia eum aggressione Theophilus expugnat (n. 1), ac sibi propositum esse declarat antiquitatem Scripturarum nostrarum breviter et ab origine repetitam ante oculos ponere, ut tandem aliquando intelligat scriptores, quorum admiratione tenebatur, nullius esse pretii. Nam nec suis ipsi oculis viderunt quae litteris commendant, nec ab his qui viderint didicere (n. 2). Nec solum inter se (n. 3), sed etiam secum ipsi litigant, ac deos esse nunc asserunt, nunc negant; providentiam defendunt ac mox evertunt. Quinetiam de morum honestate praecipientes, stupra et adulteria docent, ac ipsis etiam diis scelestas coenas, et horrenda flagitia attribuunt.

Since the earlier disputations had not broken Autolycus's obstinate spirit, Theophilus storms him with a third assault (n. 1), and declares that his purpose is to set before his eyes the antiquity of our Scriptures, traced briefly and from the beginning, so that at long last he may understand that the writers whom he held in admiration are of no worth. For they neither saw with their own eyes what they commit to writing, nor learned it from those who had seen it (n. 2). Not only do they quarrel with one another (n. 3), but even with themselves: now they assert that there are gods, now they deny it; they defend providence and presently overturn it. Moreover, while giving precepts on decency of morals, they teach debauchery and adultery, and they attribute even to the gods themselves wicked banquets and horrible crimes.

Libenter ejusmodi rebus, quas alio in libro attigit, supersedisset Theophilus (n. 4); sed cum videret Autolycum adhuc animo fluctuare, ac sermonibus hominum insanorum moveri, qui Christianis promiscuos concubitus, et humanae carnis epulas affingebant, eorumque doctrinam et novam esse et argumentis destitutam dictitabant, uberiorem sibi disputationem de Christianorum innocentia et antiquitate suscipiendam esse judicavit.

Theophilus would gladly have dispensed with matters of this kind, which he touched on in another book (n. 4); but seeing that Autolycus still wavered in mind and was swayed by the talk of senseless men, who falsely charged the Christians with promiscuous intercourse and feasts of human flesh, and kept saying that their doctrine was both new and destitute of proofs, he judged that he must undertake a fuller disputation on the innocence and antiquity of the Christians.

Demonstrat itaque horum criminum gravissima in scriptoribus Graecis indicia, nullam prorsus in Christianis haerere suspicionem. Philosophi celeberrimi docent humanas carnes vorare ac ne parentibus quidem parcere (n. 5). Omnes fere de nefandis flagitiis consentiunt (n. 6). Plato communes uxores esse praescribit. Epicurus incestos cum matribus et sororibus concubitus commendat. Quinetiam haec in deos conferre non dubitant. Nam cum nihil omnino constanter sentiant (n. 7), deos aut ex atomis constare, aut in atomos abire dicunt, aut materiales esse, aut nullam hominum curam gerere. Animam immortalem cum dixerint, in alia hominum vel etiam belluarum corpora migrare asseverant. Providentiam alii probant, alii explodunt; deos esse nunc negant, nunc affirmant, ac horrenda flagitia et humanae carnis epulas illis attribuunt (n. 8).

He shows, therefore, that the gravest evidences of these crimes are in the Greek writers, and that no suspicion at all clings to the Christians. The most celebrated philosophers teach the devouring of human flesh, and the sparing not even of parents (n. 5). Almost all agree on unspeakable crimes (n. 6). Plato prescribes that wives be held in common. Epicurus commends incestuous intercourse with mothers and sisters. Moreover they do not hesitate to ascribe these things to the gods. For since they hold nothing whatever consistently (n. 7), they say that the gods either consist of atoms, or pass away into atoms, or are material, or take no care of men. Having said that the soul is immortal, they assert that it migrates into other bodies of men, or even of beasts. Some uphold providence, others hoot it off; now they deny that there are gods, now they affirm it, and they attribute to them horrible crimes and feasts of human flesh (n. 8).

Christianorum doctrina longe sanctior (n, 9). Unum Deum esse credunt ejusque providentia mundum gubernari, et ab eo solo disciplinam et legem acceperunt. Quam sancta sit illa lex, ex decem praeceptis Moysi a Deo datis probatur. Huc accedit praeceptum de humanitate exhibenda advenis (n. 10). De poenitentia et justitia et castitate testimonia prophetarum apponuntur (n. 12, 13), quibus nonnulla adduntur ex Novo Testamento (n. 14) de amore inimicorum, et gloriae inanis fuga et praestanda magistratibus obedientia.

The doctrine of the Christians is far holier (n. 9). They believe that there is one God and that the world is governed by His providence, and from Him alone they have received their discipline and law. How holy that law is, is proved from the ten commandments given by God to Moses. To this is added the precept on showing kindness to strangers (n. 10). Testimonies of the prophets on repentance and justice and chastity are adduced (n. 12, 13), to which are added some things from the New Testament (n. 14) on the love of enemies, and on shunning vainglory and rendering obedience to magistrates.

In homines tali doctrina imbutos non cadunt nefanda et flagitiosa facinora. Imo tanta est Christianorum hac in re cautio (n. 15), ut nec gladiatorum spectaculis interesse ipsis liceat, ne caedis conscii fiant, nec aliis ludis, ne illorum aures aut oculi contaminentur.

Unspeakable and shameful deeds have no place in men steeped in such doctrine. Indeed, so great is the Christians' caution in this matter (n. 15) that they are not permitted to be present at the shows of gladiators, lest they become accomplices in bloodshed, nor at other games, lest their ears or eyes be defiled.

Christianorum doctrinam nec fabulosam nec recentem esse probat Theophilus (n. 16). 1° Ex eo quod Graeci in mundi annis numerandis, quos Christiani ex prophetarum oraculis cognitos et perceptos habent, nihil prorsus viderint; nec in diluvio narrando, quod a Moyse accuratissime describitur, felicius eis cesserit (n. 17, 18, 19). Aliud argumentum suppeditat Moysis et exitus de Aegypto ac ipsius templi antiquitas (n. 20, 21, 22). Ipsi etiam prophetae antiquiores sunt Graecis scriptoribus (n. 23).

Theophilus proves that the doctrine of the Christians is neither fabulous nor recent (n. 16). 1° From the fact that the Greeks saw nothing at all in reckoning the years of the world, which the Christians have known and grasped from the oracles of the prophets; nor did they fare any better in narrating the flood, which is described most accurately by Moses (n. 17, 18, 19). Another argument is furnished by the antiquity of Moses, of the exodus from Egypt, and of the temple itself (n. 20, 21, 22). The prophets themselves, too, are older than the Greek writers (n. 23).

Atque ut haec omnia uno in conspectu ponantur, anni Hebraeorum numerantur ab Adamo usque ad reditum e captivitate Babylonica (n. 24). Ex quo facilis est comparatio quantum intersit inter Christianorum et Graecorum historias, et utrorumque de mundi origine doctrinam (n. 25). Ne quid autem desit huic chronologiae, Romanorum anni pertexuntur usque ad obitum M. M. Aurelii (n. 16). Tum totius chronologiae praecipua capita summatim recensentur (n. 27). Ex his concludit (n. 28) quam immerito Christianam, quae longe verior et antiquior est omni Graecorum doctrina, nonnulli ut fabulosam et recentem vellicent.

And so that all these things may be set out in one view, the years of the Hebrews are counted from Adam down to the return from the Babylonian captivity (n. 24). From this an easy comparison can be made of how great the difference is between the histories of the Christians and of the Greeks, and between the teaching of each on the origin of the world (n. 25). And so that nothing may be lacking to this chronology, the years of the Romans are woven on down to the death of M. M. Aurelius (n. 16). Then the principal heads of the whole chronology are reviewed in summary (n. 27). From these he concludes (n. 28) how undeservedly some carp at the Christian doctrine, which is far truer and older than all the doctrine of the Greeks, as fabulous and recent.

Librum perorat Theophilus (n. 29) duplici allata causa, cur scriptores Graeci Hebraeos raro commemorent, quarum prima est, quod recens sit apud eos litterarum cognitio; altera quod fabulas amare et veritatem odisse ac insectari non desinant.

Theophilus brings the book to a close (n. 29) by offering a twofold reason why the Greek writers seldom mention the Hebrews: the first of these is that the knowledge of letters is recent among them; the second, that they never cease to love fables and to hate and assail the truth.

<!-- note: Begins at the foot of page 592 (cols 1119/1120), full width below the rule that closes the end-of-Book-II footnotes, with the heading ANALYSIS LIBRI TERTII.; continues at the top of page 593 (cols 1121/1122) and ends at the rule above BIBLION G' / LIBER III. Heading plus 8 paragraphs; the third paragraph runs across the page break (at 'Omnes fere / de nefandis'). The old-edition page number 380 before the heading is omitted as editor's margin matter. Printed as seen: '(n, 9)' with a comma; '(n. 16)' in the Aurelius sentence (sequence expects 26; possibly a misprint or a misread); 'M. M. Aurelii' (doubled initial as it appears; UNSURE). UNSURE (low-resolution italic): '(n. 5)' and '(n. 15)' read by sequence; no (n. 11) is printed. -->

(95) [sic; the call in the text is (93)] ‹anchor: Αὐτολύκῳ χαίρειν› · call in col 1122

Θεόφιλος Αὐτολύκῳ χαίρειν. Haec desiderantur in codice Regio, in quo titulum hunc habemus: Θεοφίλου πατριάρχου ἕκτου Ἀντιοχείας πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον Ἕλληνα περὶ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως· καὶ ὅτι τὰ θεῖα λόγια τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς ἀρχαιότερα καὶ ἀληθέστερά εἰσι τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν τε καὶ Ἑλληνικῶν, καὶ πάντων τῶν ἄλλων συγγραφέων. Theophili patriarchae sexti Antiocheni ad Autolycum Graecum de Christianorum fide, et quod divina nostra oracula antiquiora sunt et veriora Aegyptiis, Graecis et omnibus aliis scriptoribus.

Θεόφιλος Αὐτολύκῳ χαίρειν ("Theophilus to Autolycus, greeting"). These words are missing in the Royal manuscript, in which we have this title: "Of Theophilus, sixth patriarch of Antioch, to Autolycus the Greek, on the faith of the Christians; and that the divine oracles which we have are older and truer than those of the Egyptians and the Greeks and of all other writers." [The Latin then repeats the title:] "Of Theophilus, sixth patriarch of Antioch, to Autolycus the Greek, on the faith of the Christians, and that our divine oracles are older and truer than the Egyptians, the Greeks and all other writers."

(printed under page 593)

(94) ‹anchor: τῶν λοιπῶν συνταξάντων› · call in col 1122

Συνταξάντων. Cod. Regius ἐπισυνταξάντων.

Συνταξάντων ("who composed"). The Royal manuscript has ἐπισυνταξάντων.

(printed under page 593)

(95) ‹anchor: τριακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα› · call in col 1122

Ἑξήκοντα. Lactantius lib. i, c. 7, deos 365 ab Orpheo inductos enumerat; sed Justinus in libro De monarchia 360 tantum commemorat.

Ἑξήκοντα ("sixty"). Lactantius, Book I, chapter 7, counts 365 gods brought in by Orpheus; but Justin, in his book De monarchia, mentions only 360.

(printed under page 593)

(96) ‹anchor: ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις› · call in col 1122

Διαθήκαις. Ducaeus et Wolfius observant hac voce significari praecepta, ut apud Pythagoreos, non vero testamentum, ut Clauserus reddiderat.

Διαθήκαις ("in his testaments"). Duc and Wolf observe that this word means precepts, as among the Pythagoreans, and not a will, as Clauser had rendered it.

(printed under page 593)

(97) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1123

Τὰ ἄδυτα καὶ Ἡρακλέους στῆλαι. Testatur Diogenes Laertius Pythagoram, cum in Aegyptum venisset, in adyta inductum fuisse, et de diis in arcano didicisse. Ibidem vidit columnas a Theophilo memoratas, sive Herculis, ut in contextu legimus, sive ut Th. Gale ad l. 2. Jamblic. emendandum censet, Mercurii. Celebres sunt Mercurii columnae, quae, ut est apud Syncellum, in adytis templorum Aegyptiorum repositae, Pythagorae et Platoni, teste Jamblicho, lib. De mysteriis, visae et examinatae fuerunt. Sed tamen, ut observat doctissimus Fabricius Biblioth. Graec. tom. I, pag. 74, ipse etiam Hercules arcana quaedam et recondita columnis ex auro argentoque confuso factis consignaverat, quae Apollonius Tyanensis investigasse perhibetur apud Philostratum, lib. i, cap. 1. Vide Fabricium.

Τὰ ἄδυτα καὶ Ἡρακλέους στῆλαι ("the sanctuaries and the pillars of Heracles"). Diogenes Laertius testifies that Pythagoras, when he had come to Egypt, was brought into the sanctuaries and learned about the gods in secret. There he saw the pillars mentioned by Theophilus, either of Hercules, as we read in the text, or, as Th. Gale on Iamblichus Book 2 thinks it should be corrected, of Mercury. Famous are the pillars of Mercury, which, as Syncellus has it, were laid up in the sanctuaries of the Egyptian temples, and were seen and examined by Pythagoras and Plato, on the testimony of Iamblichus in his book De mysteriis. And yet, as the most learned Fabricius observes (Bibliotheca Graeca vol. I, p. 74), Hercules himself also had recorded certain secret and hidden things on pillars made of gold and silver fused together, which Apollonius of Tyana is said to have searched out, in Philostratus, Book I, chapter 1. See Fabricius.

(printed under page 594)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1123

Τὸ διδάσκειν ἀθεότητα. Materiam dedit Empedocles huic criminationi, dum nulla causae efficientis habita ratione, principia omnium esse decernit quatuor elementa et concordiam atque discordiam.

Τὸ διδάσκειν ἀθεότητα ("teaching atheism"). Empedocles gave matter for this charge, in that, taking no account of an efficient cause, he declares the principles of all things to be the four elements, and concord and discord.

(printed under page 594)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1123

Καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια. Daemones a Socrate agnosci Melitus ipse fatebatur. Hoc enim erat crimen, quod Socrates juventutem corrumperet, deos docens non existimare eos, quos civitas existimat, sed alia quaedam nova daemonia: θεοὺς διδάσκοντα, μὴ νομίζειν οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει, ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά. Unde Socrates utitur eo quod concedebat Melitus, ac probat deos a se agnosci, siquidem daemones, qui vel dii sunt, vel filii deorum agnoscat. Apol. Socrat. apud Platonem, p. 24 Mox Regius codex ἑκὼν ἀπέθανε.

Καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια ("and the daemons"). Meletus himself admitted that daemons were acknowledged by Socrates. For this was the charge: that Socrates corrupted the youth, "teaching them not to believe in the gods the city believes in, but in certain other new daemonic things" (the Greek repeats the same). Socrates therefore makes use of what Meletus conceded, and proves that the gods are acknowledged by him, since he acknowledges daemons, who are either gods or sons of gods. Apology of Socrates, in Plato, p. 24 [last digit uncertain on the scan]. Just after, the Royal manuscript has ἑκὼν ἀπέθανε ("he died willingly").

(printed under page 594)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1123

Οὔτε αὐτοί. Ita Regius codex, haud paulo melius quam editi οὔτε αὐτό.

Οὔτε αὐτοί ("nor they themselves"). So the Royal manuscript, considerably better than the printed editions' οὔτε αὐτό ("nor it").

(printed under page 594)

(2) ‹anchor: ὕστερον› · call in col 1123

Αὐτοὶ ὕστερον. Praemittendum videtur καί, vel legendum αὐτοὶ δέ, tumque clara erit sententia. Alii aliter hunc locum emendant. Grabius legit pro ἤτοι γάρ, ἢ εἰ, vel ἤτοι γὰρ οἱ περὶ θεῶν. Wolfius ἢ γάρ, εἰ περὶ θεῶν, vel εἴ τε pro ἤτοι. Profert etiam aliam Lacrozii conjecturam legentis, ἤτοι γὰρ ἃ περὶ θεῶν.

Αὐτοὶ ὕστερον ("they themselves afterwards"). It seems καί should be put before it, or αὐτοὶ δέ read, and then the meaning will be clear. Others correct this passage otherwise. Grabe reads, for ἤτοι γάρ, ἢ εἰ, or ἤτοι γὰρ οἱ περὶ θεῶν. Wolf reads ἢ γάρ, εἰ περὶ θεῶν, or εἴ τε for ἤτοι. He also brings forward another conjecture, of La Croze, who reads ἤτοι γὰρ ἃ περὶ θεῶν.

(printed under page 594)

(3) ‹anchor: ἢ εἰ καὶ› · call in col 1123

Ἢ εἰ καί. Deest illud καί in Regio codice, nec tamen delendum videtur. Addit enim orationi aliquid roboris; quippe cum majus quidpiam sit mundi creationem admittere, quam deos agnoscere, quos qui agnoscebant, non idcirco mundum ab eis creatum fatebantur.

Ἢ εἰ καί ("or if even"). That καί is missing in the Royal manuscript, yet it does not seem it should be deleted. For it adds some strength to the sentence; since it is a greater thing to admit the creation of the world than to acknowledge gods, and those who acknowledged them did not for that reason confess that the world was created by them.

(printed under page 594)

(4) ‹anchor: ἐδίδαξαν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι› · call in col 1123

Ἐδίδαξαν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. Incesta flagitia a Stoicis commendari non immerito queritur Theophilus; siquidem ea in rebus indifferentibus numerabant, quod quidem per probrum a Sancto Joanne Chrysost. objicitur Stoicorum principi, in Orat. in S. Babylam. Tam nefaria doctrina ex eorum principiis consequebatur. Nam, ut ait Chrysippus apud Plutarch. lib. De repugn. Stoic., p. 1050: Cum natura communis omnia permeet, necesse est quidquid fit in ratione et quacunque ejus parte secundum illam fieri. Unde Plutarchus sic Chrysippum ibidem exagitat: Horum, inquit, id est, adulteriorum, furtorum, parricidiorum, nihil Chrysippus, neque parvum, neque magnum fieri censet praeter Jovis rationem, legem, justitiam, providentiam; ut jam non praeter legem fiant delicta, non contra justitiam injuriae, non contra providentiam flagitia.

Ἐδίδαξαν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι ("they taught that [these] be practised"). Theophilus complains, not without reason, that incestuous crimes were commended by the Stoics; for they counted them among indifferent things, which indeed St John Chrysostom casts in the teeth of the founder of the Stoics as a disgrace, in his Oration on St Babylas. So wicked a doctrine followed from their principles. For, as Chrysippus says in Plutarch's book On the Self-Contradictions of the Stoics, p. 1050: "Since the common nature pervades all things, whatever happens in the order of things and in any part of it must happen according to that nature." Hence Plutarch harries Chrysippus thus in the same place: "Of these things," he says (that is, of adulteries, thefts, parricides), "Chrysippus holds that nothing, small or great, happens outside the reason, law, justice and providence of Jupiter; so that now offences do not happen against law, nor injuries against justice, nor crimes against providence."

(printed under page 594)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1126

Ἀδελφήν. Editi addunt αὐτῶν, quod percommode deest in cod. Regio, et edit. Hamburg. Paulo ante editi φασὶν διακονεῖν. Regius cod. ut in textu.

Ἀδελφήν ("sister"). The printed editions add αὐτῶν ("their"), which is very fittingly absent in the Royal manuscript and the Hamburg edition. A little before, the printed editions have φασὶν διακονεῖν; the Royal manuscript has it as in the text.

(printed under page 595)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1126

Διὰ γαμεῖν. Sic idem Reg. codex pro eo quod vitiose in editis, excepta tamen editione Hamburgensi, legebatur διὰ γάμου. Chrysippum Origenes lib. IV in Cels. et Diogenes Laertius in Chrysippum exagitant ob turpem hanc historiam ab eo, omni prorsus abjecto pudore, descriptam, quamvis eum non inficientur haec ad physiologiam revocasse. Orpheus apud eumdem Laertium in Prooemio vituperatur ob hanc turpitudinem Jovi affictam.

Διὰ γαμεῖν ("on account of marrying"). So the same Royal manuscript, for what was read corruptly in the printed editions (except, however, the Hamburg edition): διὰ γάμου ("through marriage"). Origen, Against Celsus Book IV, and Diogenes Laertius in his life of Chrysippus attack Chrysippus for this shameful story, written up by him with all shame entirely cast aside, though they do not deny that he referred these things to natural philosophy. Orpheus is blamed, in the same Laertius's Prologue, for this obscenity fastened on Jupiter.

(printed under page 595)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1126

Ἐν ἑτέρῳ. Innuit vero hic noster librum primum ad Autolycum, ubi eodem fere ordine, quo hic Saturni, Herculis, Bacchi, Apollinis, Veneris nefanda a gentilibus prodita memorat. Wolfius.

Ἐν ἑτέρῳ ("in another [book]"). Here our author points to the first book To Autolycus, where, in almost the same order as here, he recounts the abominations of Saturn, Hercules, Bacchus, Apollo and Venus handed down by the gentiles. Wolf.

(printed under page 595)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1126

Θεωρῶ. Uterque ms. θεωρῶν.

Θεωρῶ ("I observe"). Both manuscripts have θεωρῶν ("observing").

(printed under page 595)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1126

Ἐπεί τοι. Sic uterque cod. et edit. Hamburgensis. Aliae ἔπειτα.

Ἐπεί τοι ("since indeed"). So both manuscripts and the Hamburg edition. Others have ἔπειτα ("then").

(printed under page 595)

(10) ‹anchor: διαφόρῳ› · call in col 1126

Διαφόρῳ. Ducaeus not. in Athenag. monet legendum esse ἀδιαφόρῳ. Sic infra n. 15, ἀδιαφόρως ζῆν. Wolfius.

Διαφόρῳ ("differing"). Duc, in his notes on Athenagoras, advises that we should read ἀδιαφόρῳ ("indiscriminate"). So below, no. 15, ἀδιαφόρως ζῆν ("to live indiscriminately"). Wolf.

(printed under page 595)

(11) ‹anchor: ξυνόντας› · call in col 1126

Ξυνόντας. Legitur ζῶντας in cod. Bodl. ζῆν τάς in Regio.

Ξυνόντας ("consorting"). Ζῶντας ("living") is read in the Bodleian manuscript, ζῆν τάς in the Royal.

(printed under page 595)

(12) ‹anchor: πασῶν σαρκῶν ἀνθρωπίνων› · call in col 1126

Πασῶν σαρκῶν ἀνθρωπίνων. Repugnat ut Christianis hoc crimen affictum dicatur. Neque enim omni humana carne vesci, sed infantem ad hunc teterrimum usum occidere ferebantur. Vel ergo delendum illud ἀνθρωπίνων, ita ut Christiani omnem carnem attingere dicantur, ac proinde ne humana quidem abstinere, vel pro πασῶν legendum πάντων, hoc modo, καὶ τὸ ἀθεώτατον καὶ ὠμότατον πάντων. Sic enim infra n. 15, καὶ τὸ ἀθεώτατον πάντων.

Πασῶν σαρκῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ("all human flesh"). It is inconsistent to say that this charge was fastened on the Christians. For they were not said to feed on all human flesh, but to kill an infant for this most horrible use. So either ἀνθρωπίνων ("human") should be deleted, so that the Christians are said to touch all flesh, and therefore not to abstain even from human; or for πασῶν read πάντων, in this way: "and, most godless and cruellest of all". For so below, no. 15, "and, most godless of all".

(printed under page 595)

(13) ‹anchor: ἕψεσθαι› · call in col 1126

Ἕψεσθαι. Ita Ducaeus, Oxon. et Hamburg. Uterque codex et Tigur. et editiones Parisienses ὄψεσθαι. Legit Kusterus ὀπτᾶσθαι, ex ὀπτάομαι asso,

Ἕψεσθαι ("to be boiled"). So Duc, the Oxford and the Hamburg editions. Both manuscripts, the Zurich and the Paris editions have ὄψεσθαι ("to see"). Küster reads ὀπτᾶσθαι, from ὀπτάομαι, "I roast".

(printed under page 595)

(14) ‹anchor: ἀποῤῥίψειεν› · call in col 1126

Ἀποῤῥίψειεν. Ita uterque ms. et Tigur. et Hamb. Aliae editiones ἀναῤῥίψειεν.

Ἀποῤῥίψειεν ("should throw away"). So both manuscripts and the Zurich and Hamburg editions. Other editions have ἀναῤῥίψειεν ("should throw up").

(printed under page 595)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Εἰς θυσίαν. Praepositionem, quae deerat in editis, suppeditavit Regius codex. Cum Theophilo consentit Diogenes in Vitis Diogenis, Zenonis et Chrysippi. Dissentiet Juvenalis, si illius commentatores sequamur in his verbis ex satyra 15 explicandis: Sed Cantaber unde Stoicus, antiqui praesertim aetate Metelli? Loquitur Juvenalis de Vasconibus, qui in extrema obsidionis egestate vitam suam humanis carnibus produxerant. Laudata verba sic accipiunt commentatores, quasi quaerat poeta, quomodo Vascones Stoici esse potuissent, et mortem infando cibo praeferre, cum nondum haec in loca penetrasset Zenonis doctrina, qui moriendum potius existimat, quam de humana carne gustandum. At Theophili et Laertii testimonia dubitare non sinunt, quin Zenonem sale perfundat Juvenalis et Stoicos appellet Cantabros, quia carnem humanam voraverant.

Εἰς θυσίαν ("for sacrifice"). The preposition, which was missing in the printed editions, was supplied by the Royal manuscript. Diogenes [Laertius], in the Lives of Diogenes, Zeno and Chrysippus, agrees with Theophilus. Juvenal will disagree, if we follow his commentators in explaining these words from Satire 15: "But whence a Stoic Cantabrian, especially in the age of old Metellus?" Juvenal is speaking of the Vascones, who in the utmost want of a siege had prolonged their lives with human flesh. The commentators take the words quoted as if the poet were asking how the Vascones could have been Stoics and preferred death to unspeakable food, since the teaching of Zeno had not yet reached those parts, Zeno who thinks one should rather die than taste human flesh. But the testimonies of Theophilus and Laertius do not allow us to doubt that Juvenal is sprinkling Zeno with salt, and calls the Cantabrians Stoics because they had devoured human flesh.

(printed under page 596)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Καμβύσην. Manifestus error. Non enim Cambyses, sed Astyages id commisit. Sed forte memoria effluxit Theophilo, nec necesse est Astyagis nomen in ipso textu reponere, ut Fellus et Wolfius fecerunt.

Καμβύσην ("Cambyses"). A manifest error. For it was not Cambyses but Astyages who did this. But perhaps it slipped Theophilus's memory, and there is no need to put back the name of Astyages in the text itself, as Fell and Wolf did.

(printed under page 596)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Ὢ τῆς διανοίας. Frustra Grabius legendum conjicit, ὢ τῆσδ' ἀνοίας.

Ὢ τῆς διανοίας ("O the mind!"). Grabe conjectures in vain that we should read ὢ τῆσδ' ἀνοίας ("O this folly!").

(printed under page 596)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Οἱ γὰρ ταῦτα. Sic uterque ms. Editi. οὐ γὰρ ταῦτα. Mox Reg. ἀνέπλησαν.

Οἱ γὰρ ταῦτα ("for those who [wrote] these things"). So both manuscripts. The printed editions have οὐ γὰρ ταῦτα ("for not these things"). Just after, the Royal has ἀνέπλησαν ("they filled up").

(printed under page 596)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Περὶ τὸν χορόν. Ita Regius codex et Hamburgensis editio. Aliae περὶ τὸν χρόνον. Oxon. περὶ τὸν ἄχρον.

Περὶ τὸν χορόν ("about the chorus"). So the Royal manuscript and the Hamburg edition. Others have περὶ τὸν χρόνον ("about the time"); the Oxford, περὶ τὸν ἄχρον.

(printed under page 596)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ. Quae hic referuntur a Theophilo non exstant in primo libro De republica, sed in quinto, Quare Ducaeus et Fellus legendum existimant ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ. Videtur Theophilum decepisse liber apud Platonem inscriptus, Minos, qui libris De republica, veluti quaedam praefatio, praemittitur. Cum autem in hoc libro Minoem ejusque leges Plato magnis laudibus efferat, forte existimavit Theophilus hic quoque matrimonia Platonem ad exemplum Minois constituere.

Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ("in the first [book]"). What Theophilus reports here is not found in the first book of the Republic, but in the fifth; so Duc and Fell think we should read ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ ("in the fifth"). Theophilus seems to have been misled by the book in Plato entitled Minos, which is set before the books of the Republic as a kind of preface. And since in this book Plato extols Minos and his laws with great praise, Theophilus perhaps thought that here too Plato was ordering marriages after the example of Minos.

(printed under page 596)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Νομοθετεῖ εἶναι. Editi νομοθετεῖν χρῆν εἶναι. Primum verbum emendarunt Fellus et Wolfius. Illud χρῆν sustuli auctoritate fretus Regii codicis. Videntur inter se pugnare διαῤῥήδην et τρόπῳ τινί, nominatim et quodammodo. Conciliari poterunt, si illud τρόπῳ τινί referamus ad auctoritatem quam sibi Plato privatus in his legibus constituendis sumebat.

Νομοθετεῖ εἶναι ("he legislates that [they] be"). The printed editions have νομοθετεῖν χρῆν εἶναι. Fell and Wolf corrected the first word. I removed the χρῆν, relying on the authority of the Royal manuscript. Διαῤῥήδην and τρόπῳ τινί, "expressly" and "in a certain way", seem to conflict with each other. They can be reconciled if we refer τρόπῳ τινί to the authority which Plato, a private man, took upon himself in establishing these laws.

(printed under page 596)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Τῷ Διός. Nullus dubito quin post hanc vocem addendum sit υἱῷ vel ὀαριστῇ, filio vel confabulatori. Alioquin enim hiulca prorsus erit verborum constructio. In loco, quem citat Theophilus, utrumque titulum Plato tribuit Minoi, fretus Homeri auctoritate. Cur autem Minos appellatus sit Jovis ὀαριστής, sic exponit Plato: Ἐφοίτα οὖν δι' ἐνάτου ἔτους εἰς τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἄντρον ὁ Μίνως τὰ μὲν μαθησόμενος, τὰ δὲ ἀποδειξόμενος, ἃ τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐνναετηρίδι παρὰ τοῦ Διός. Ventitabat igitur Minos nono quoque anno in antrum Jovis, partim ut disceret, partim ut eorum rationem redderet, quae superiore nono anno a Jove didicisset. Illud δι' ἐνάτου ἔτους nonnulli ita acceperunt quasi per novem annorum spatium cum Jove Minos fuisset. In hoc vitium lapsi interpretes S. Clementis Alexandrini, apud quem Strom. i, p. 351, haec legimus: Τόν τε Μίνω παρὰ Διὸς δι' ἐνάτου ἔτους λαμβάνειν τοὺς νόμους ἱστοροῦσι, φοιτῶντα εἰς τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἄντρον. Minoem a Jove nono quoque anno leges accepisse perhibent, cum in antrum Jovis veniret. Male interpretes S. Clementis atque etiam Platonis, novem annorum spatio.

Τῷ Διός ("to [the …] of Zeus"). I have no doubt that after this word υἱῷ or ὀαριστῇ, "son" or "familiar companion", must be added; otherwise the construction of the words will be wholly gaping. In the passage which Theophilus cites, Plato gives Minos both titles, relying on Homer's authority. Why Minos was called Zeus's ὀαριστής Plato explains thus: "So Minos went every ninth year to the cave of Zeus, partly to learn, partly to give an account of what he had learned from Zeus in the previous nine-year period." Some have taken δι' ἐνάτου ἔτους as if Minos had been with Zeus for a space of nine years. Into this error fell the translators of St Clement of Alexandria, in whom we read at Stromata I, p. 351: "They relate that Minos received the laws from Zeus every ninth year, going to the cave of Zeus." The translators of St Clement, and of Plato too, render it wrongly as "over a space of nine years".

(printed under page 596)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1127

Ὅπως διὰ προφάσεως. Communes esse mulieres decernit Plato in libro v De rep., p. 457, ubi sic loquitur: Τὰς γυναῖκας ταύτας τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων πάντων πάσας εἶναι κοινάς, ἰδίᾳ δὲ μηδενὶ μηδεμίαν συνοικεῖν· καὶ τοὺς παῖδας αὖ κοινούς, καὶ μήτε γονέα ἔκγονον εἰδέναι τὸν αὐτοῦ, μήτε παῖδα γονέα. Horum virorum uxores, omnes omnium communes sunto, nullaque privatim ulli consuescito; communes porro liberi sunto, neque pater filium, neque filium pater agnoscito. Confidit Plato nullam fore de hujus legis utilitate controversiam, sed illud tantum in dubium revocari posse, utrum res fieri necne possit. Tanta fuit in ethnicis divinae legis ignoratio. Quae deinde a Theophilo citantur, ὅπως διὰ προφάσεως, etc., leguntur in eodem libro, pag. 460. Plato sic loquitur: Καὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς γέ που τῶν νέων ἐν πολέμῳ ἢ ἄλλοθί που γέρα δοτέον καὶ ἆθλα ἄλλα τε, καὶ ἀφθονεστέρα ἡ ἐξουσία τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν συγκοιμήσεως, ἵνα καὶ ἅμα μετὰ προφάσεως ὡς πλεῖστοι τῶν παίδων ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων σπείρωνται. Juvenibus, qui vel in bello vel aliis in rebus valent, cum praemia et alia munera tribuenda sunt, tum prolixior concedenda cum mulieribus dormiendi licentia, ut simul per interpositam causam quam plurimi ex talibus seruntur.

Ὅπως διὰ προφάσεως ("so that under a pretext"). Plato decrees that women be held in common in Book V of the Republic, p. 457, where he speaks thus: "That these women shall all be common to all these men, and none shall live privately with any; and the children in turn shall be common, and neither shall a parent know his own offspring, nor a child its parent." [The Latin renders the same.] Plato is confident that there will be no dispute about the usefulness of this law, but only the question whether the thing can be done or not can be called into doubt. So great was the ignorance of the divine law among the heathen. What Theophilus then cites, "so that under a pretext", etc., is read in the same book, p. 460. Plato speaks thus: "And to those of the young who are good in war or elsewhere we must give honours and prizes, among other things, and a more abundant licence to sleep with the women, so that at the same time, under this pretext, as many as possible of the children may be begotten from such men." [The Latin renders the same; its last word is printed seruntur.]

(printed under page 596)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1130

Ἐπίκουρος ... συμμίγνυσθαι. Haec uncis inclusi, quia in locum non suum obrepserunt; eorum paterna sedes assignari debet post haec verba ὡς μὴ πατέρα. Sic enim, ut ex nostra interpretatione animadverti potest, et Platonis de matrimonio leges cum Solonis legibus apte comparabuntur, et incesti cum matribus et sororibus concubitus, qui Epicuro placebant, decenter conjungentur cum aliis facinoribus, quae ab hoc philosopho laudari testatur Theophilus. Sed summa erit perturbatio, si quod dicitur de Platonis et Solonis legibus, id impia et absurda Epicuri praecepta interrumpant; neque explicari poterit, quo referenda sint haec verba, ὁπόσα τε οἱ λοιποί.

Ἐπίκουρος ... συμμίγνυσθαι ("Epicurus ... to have intercourse"). I have enclosed these words in brackets because they have crept into a place not their own; their native seat should be assigned after the words ὡς μὴ πατέρα ("as not a father"). For in this way, as can be seen from our translation, Plato's laws on marriage will be fittingly compared with Solon's laws, and incestuous intercourse with mothers and sisters, which Epicurus approved, will be suitably joined with the other crimes which Theophilus testifies were praised by this philosopher. But there will be the greatest confusion if the impious and absurd precepts of Epicurus break into what is said of the laws of Plato and Solon; nor can it be explained to what the words ὁπόσα τε οἱ λοιποί ("and whatever the rest") are to be referred.

(printed under page 597)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1130

Καὶ πέρα. Duo codices mss. καὶ περί. Editio Hamburg. καίπερ, unde Wolfius ut hanc lectionem tueatur, etiam articulum post νόμων delendum esse existimat.

Καὶ πέρα ("and beyond"). The two manuscripts have καὶ περί ("and concerning"). The Hamburg edition has καίπερ ("although"); hence Wolf, to defend this reading, thinks the article after νόμων must also be deleted.

(printed under page 597)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1130

Σολομῶν. Grabius et Fabricius legunt Σόλων, eorumque conjecturam hoc rationis momento defendit Wolfius, quod inutilis sit omnino Solomonis auctoritas, ut probetur Epicurum contra leges Graecorum et Romanorum venisse.

Σολομῶν ("Solomon"). Grabe and Fabricius read Σόλων ("Solon"), and Wolf defends their conjecture on this ground of reason: that Solomon's authority is entirely useless for proving that Epicurus went against the laws of the Greeks and Romans.

(printed under page 597)

(27) ‹anchor: καὶ θεοὺς› · call in col 1130

Φησὶ τῶν πάντων καὶ θεούς. Sic ope Regii codicis emendavit Wolfius quod prave in editis legebatur φησί τε τῶν πάντων θεούς. Libenter etiam expungerem illud φησί. Neque enim haec verba ὁρίζει φύσιν idem valent ac, Deum esse naturam autumat. Duo hic maximi errores tribuuntur Pythagorae; primo quidem omnia natura et fortuito impetu constare: deinde nullam esse providentiam. Hoc Theophili de Pythagora judicium nonnullis displicuit, in primis Reinesio Var. lect. lib. III, p. 434. Habet tamen Theophilus non contemnendos ascriptores. Hoc mundi corpus, inquit Tertullianus Apol. VI, sive innatum et infectum secundum Pythagoram; sive natum et factum secundum Platonem. Pythagoram Theodoretus adjungit aliis providentiae obtrectatoribus. Οὐ μόνον δέ, inquit lib. VI, adv. Graecos, p. 562, οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Δημόκριτον καὶ Χρύσιππον καὶ Ἐπίκουρον πάντα κατὰ ἀνάγκην ἔφασαν γίγνεσθαι, ἀνάγκην καλοῦντες τὴν εἱμαρμένην, ἀλλὰ καὶ Πυθαγόρας ὁ πολυθρύλλητος ἀνάγκην εἶπε περικεῖσθαι τῷ κόσμῳ. Non solum autem Democritus et Chrysippus et Epicurus omnia fieri necessitate dixerunt, necessitatem appellantes fatum; sed celeberrimus quoque Pythagoras necessitatem mundo incubare dixit.

Φησὶ τῶν πάντων καὶ θεούς ("he says ... of all things, and that the gods"). So Wolf corrected, with the help of the Royal manuscript, what was wrongly read in the printed editions: φησί τε τῶν πάντων θεούς. I would also gladly strike out φησί. For the words ὁρίζει φύσιν ("he defines nature") do not mean the same as "he asserts that God is nature". Two very great errors are here ascribed to Pythagoras: first, that all things consist by nature and chance impulse; second, that there is no providence. This judgement of Theophilus on Pythagoras has displeased some, above all Reinesius, Variae lectiones Book III, p. 434. Yet Theophilus has supporters not to be despised. "This body of the world," says Tertullian, Apology 6 [as printed], "whether unborn and unmade according to Pythagoras, or born and made according to Plato." Theodoret joins Pythagoras to the other detractors of providence. "Not only," he says in Book VI Against the Greeks, p. 562, "did Democritus, Chrysippus and Epicurus and their schools say that all things happen by necessity, calling necessity fate, but also the much-talked-of Pythagoras said that necessity surrounds the world." [The Latin renders the same, ending: "lies upon the world".]

(printed under page 597)

(28) ‹anchor: ὁ Ἀκαδημαϊκὸς› · call in col 1130

Ἀκαδημαϊκός. Ita codex uterque ms. et Hamb. Aliae editiones Ἀκαδημικός. Illud ὁπόσα τε cum interrogationis nota legit cl. Wolfius. Sed referendum potius videtur ad superiora: Τί μοι λοιπὸν κατατρίβεσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν; Mitto, vel, Quid memorem quot et quanta Clitomachus, etc.

Ἀκαδημαϊκός ("the Academic"). So both manuscripts and the Hamburg edition. Other editions have Ἀκαδημικός. The illustrious Wolf reads ὁπόσα τε ("and whatever") with a question mark. But it seems rather to be referred to what precedes: "What is left for me but to wear myself out over them?" — "I pass over", or, "Why should I relate how many and how great things Clitomachus", etc.

(printed under page 597)

(29) ‹anchor: Πλάτων› · call in col 1130

Πλάτων. Ita Oxon. Hamburg. pro eo quod mendose legebatur in omnibus editis et mss. πάντων.

Πλάτων ("Plato"). So the Oxford and Hamburg editions, for what was read erroneously in all the printed editions and manuscripts: πάντων ("of all").

(printed under page 597)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1131

Πυθαγόρᾳ. Wolfius et Fabricius legendum censent Πρωταγόρᾳ, eisque prorsus assentior. Neque enim Pythagoram Theophilus conjungere potuit cum Euhemero et Epicuro et aliis nullum esse Deum pronuntiantibus. Hoc uno crimine Pythagoram premit, quod sustulerit providentiam.

Πυθαγόρᾳ ("to Pythagoras"). Wolf and Fabricius think we should read Πρωταγόρᾳ ("to Protagoras"), and I entirely agree with them. For Theophilus could not have joined Pythagoras with Euhemerus and Epicurus and the others who declare that there is no God. He presses Pythagoras with this one charge, that he did away with providence.

(printed under page 598)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1131

Πᾶσι τοῖσιν ἀξίοις. Habent editiones nostrae τοῖς ἀξίοις, sed ita emendavit Grotius in Excerpt. tragoed. et comic., pag. 1004, ubi hos versus Aristophonti Comico tribuendos opinatur. Fellus et Wolfius scripsere πᾶσι γὰρ τοῖς ἀξίοις.

Πᾶσι τοῖσιν ἀξίοις ("to all the worthy"). Our editions have τοῖς ἀξίοις, but Grotius so corrected it in his Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis, p. 1004, where he thinks these lines should be ascribed to the comic poet Aristophon. Fell and Wolf wrote πᾶσι γὰρ τοῖς ἀξίοις ("for to all the worthy").

(printed under page 598)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1131

Εἴη γὰρ οὕτως. Hic loqui incipit alia persona, quae providentiae adversatur, et prosperam improborum fortunam providentiae defensoribus objicit.

Εἴη γὰρ οὕτως ("for let it be so"). Here another speaker begins, who opposes providence and throws the prosperity of the wicked in the face of providence's defenders.

(printed under page 598)

(33) ‹anchor: καὶ τὸ καθ' αὑτοὺς› · call in col 1131

Καὶ τὸ κατ' αὐτούς. Conjunctio, quae deest in codicibus mss. et editis, metri causa addita est a Fello et Wolfio. Deest etiam τό in editis. Grotius ita legit: Πράττοντας ἀτόπως· τοὺς δὲ μηδὲν ἕτερον ἂν Σκοποῦντας ἢ τὸ λυσιτελὲς αὐτοῖς μόνον. Sed non videtur necesse verbum illud σκοποῦντας aut aliud simile addere, sed tantum supplere ἑλομένους, quod paulo ante praecedit.

Καὶ τὸ κατ' αὐτούς ("and what concerns themselves"). The conjunction, which is missing in the manuscripts and printed editions, was added by Fell and Wolf for the metre. Τό is also missing in the printed editions. Grotius reads thus:

(printed under page 598)

(34) ‹anchor: Ἀλλὰ δεῖ› · call in col 1131

Ἀλλὰ δεῖ. Hic providentiae defensor responsionem incipit.

Ἀλλὰ δεῖ ("But one must"). Here the defender of providence begins his reply.

(printed under page 598)

(35) ‹anchor: Φορά τις› · call in col 1131

Ἀνωφελής, φορά τις, etc. Sic ex codicibus mss. emendatum quod erat in editionibus Parisiensibus: Τῷ βιῶσαι ὡς ἔτυχε· ταῦτα πάντα κρίνουσιν ἔχειν. Tigurina editio habebat τῷ βίῳ τε pro τῷ βιῶσαι. Grotius pro hac voce ἀνωφελής reposuerat προσγίνεται quia notus illi non erat versus φορά τις ex codicibus mss. depromptus in editionibus Oxon. et Hamb. Versum ὡς ἔτυχε, etc., scripsi, ut apud Grotium. Necesse est enim referre πάντα ad βραβεύεται. Editi habent ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα κρίνουσιν ἔχειν.

Ἀνωφελής, φορά τις ("useless, a certain motion"), etc. So corrected from the manuscripts what stood in the Paris editions: Τῷ βιῶσαι ὡς ἔτυχε· ταῦτα πάντα κρίνουσιν ἔχειν. The Zurich edition had τῷ βίῳ τε for τῷ βιῶσαι. Grotius had put προσγίνεται in place of the word ἀνωφελής, because the line φορά τις, drawn from the manuscripts in the Oxford and Hamburg editions, was not known to him. I have written the line ὡς ἔτυχε, etc., as in Grotius. For πάντα must be referred to βραβεύεται ("is governed"). The printed editions have ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα κρίνουσιν ἔχειν.

(printed under page 598)

(36) ‹anchor: Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς› · call in col 1131

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς. Grotius habet ἀλλ' ἔστι καὶ τοῖς. Cl. Wolfius legendum proponit ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς.

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ("and there is also for those"). Grotius has ἀλλ' ἔστι καὶ τοῖς. The illustrious Wolf proposes reading ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς.

(printed under page 598)

(37) ‹anchor: οὐδὲ ἕν› · call in col 1131

Οὐδὲ ἕν. Ita cod. Reg., Grotius et Wolfius. Aliae editiones οὐδέν.

Οὐδὲ ἕν ("not even one thing"). So the Royal manuscript, Grotius and Wolf. Other editions have οὐδέν ("nothing").

(printed under page 598)

(38) ‹anchor: σχεδόν γε› · call in col 1131

Σχεδόν γε. Deest vocula in Regio codice.

Σχεδόν γε ("almost, indeed"). The little word is missing in the Royal manuscript.

(printed under page 598)

(39) ‹anchor: ὁρᾶν ἔστι πῶς› · call in col 1131

Ὁρᾶν ἔστι πῶς. Reg. cod. ὁρᾷς πῶς.

Ὁρᾶν ἔστι πῶς ("one can see how"). The Royal manuscript has ὁρᾷς πῶς ("you see how").

(printed under page 598)

(40) ‹anchor: δεῖ› · call in col 1131

Δεῖ. Hanc vocem editioni Hamburgensi atque huic nostrae Regius codex suppeditavit, qui habet etiam καθὰ καὶ ὁ Σίμυλος.

Δεῖ ("one must"). The Royal manuscript supplied this word to the Hamburg edition and to this one of ours; it also has καθὰ καὶ ὁ Σίμυλος ("just as Simylus too").

(printed under page 598)

(37) ‹anchor: Dominus Deus tuus› · call in col 1134

Exod. XX, 3, 4, 5.

Exodus 20:3, 4, 5.

(printed under page 599)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1134

Περιττούς. Cl. Wolfius contendit hanc vocem idem valere ac eximium, ac proinde in eodem versu legendum καὶ τοὺς κακούς. Vox enim περιττούς, inquit, Atticis non superfluum, sed eximium, excellens, egregium denotat, id quod Conr. Rittershusius ad Oppiani Halieut. 12, pag. 281, ita probatum dedit, ut dubitandi non relinquatur locus.

Περιττούς ("extraordinary"). The illustrious Wolf contends that this word means the same as "outstanding", and that therefore in the same line we should read καὶ τοὺς κακούς ("and the wicked"). "For the word περιττούς," he says, "means among the Attic writers not 'superfluous' but 'outstanding, excellent, eminent', which Conrad Rittershusius, on Oppian's Halieutica 12, p. 281, has proved so well that no room is left for doubt."

(printed under page 599)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1134

Καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Φιλήμων. Ita Regius codex, aptius multo quam editiones Parisienses et in marg. Tigurina καθάπερ ἐξόν τινι. Ducaeus et Tigur. καθάπερ ἐξ οὗ τινι. Oxon. et Hamburg., καθάπερ ἢ ἐξ οὗ τινι. Probat Cl. Wolfius scripturam Regii codicis. Paulo post delendum λοιπῶν vel ποιητῶν.

Καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Φιλήμων ("just as Philemon too"). So the Royal manuscript, much more fittingly than the Paris editions and the Zurich in its margin, καθάπερ ἐξόν τινι. Duc and the Zurich have καθάπερ ἐξ οὗ τινι; the Oxford and Hamburg, καθάπερ ἢ ἐξ οὗ τινι. The illustrious Wolf approves the reading of the Royal manuscript. A little after, λοιπῶν or ποιητῶν should be deleted.

(printed under page 599)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1134

Καὶ πρῶτον. Existimat eruditus Wolfius hoc loco vertendum esse, Jovis deorum principis. Sed cum paulo post legamus καὶ πρώτους γε οὓς τετιμήκασι θεούς, et supra καὶ πρώτους γε τοὺς θεούς, eamdem vocem his in locis eodem modo interpretandam crediderim. Supra leg. ὁμολογοῦσιν αὐτούς.

Καὶ πρῶτον ("and first"). The learned Wolf thinks it should be translated here "of Jupiter, chief of the gods". But since a little after we read "and indeed the gods whom they have honoured as first", and above "and indeed the gods as first", I should think the same word is to be interpreted the same way in these places. Above, read ὁμολογοῦσιν αὐτούς ("they confess them").

(printed under page 599)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1134

Ἄττου τοῦ. Ita cod. Reg. et editio Hamburgensis. Aliae Ἄττιν.

Ἄττου τοῦ ("of Attis"). So the Royal manuscript and the Hamburg edition. Others have Ἄττιν.

(printed under page 599)

(45) ‹anchor: καταγέλωτα› · call in col 1134

Καταγέλωτα. Uterque codex κατὰ γέλωτα.

Καταγέλωτα ("ridiculous things"). Both manuscripts have κατὰ γέλωτα ("for laughter").

(printed under page 599)

(46) ‹anchor: πεπραχότας› · call in col 1134

Πεπραχότας. Cod. Reg. πεπραγότας.

Πεπραχότας ("having done"). The Royal manuscript has πεπραγότας.

(printed under page 599)

(47) ‹anchor: τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς› · call in col 1134

Τοῦ παντός. Editi addunt κόσμου, quod multo aptius deest in Regio codice.

Τοῦ παντός ("of the universe"). The printed editions add κόσμου ("world"), which is much more fittingly absent in the Royal manuscript.

(printed under page 599)

(48) ‹anchor: ὃς διδάσκει› · call in col 1134

Διδάσκει. Cod. Reg. καὶ διδάσκει et mox καὶ δικαιοπραγεῖν. Mox idem οὐκ ἔσονται θεοὶ ἕτεροι.

Διδάσκει ("teaches"). The Royal manuscript has καὶ διδάσκει, and just after καὶ δικαιοπραγεῖν. Just after, the same has οὐκ ἔσονται θεοὶ ἕτεροι ("there shall not be other gods").

(printed under page 599)

(49) ‹anchor: ἄνω, ἢ› · call in col 1134

Ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω ἤ. Ita uterque codex ms. et editio Tigurina. Aliae τῷ ἄνω. Quin etiam haec omnino desunt in editionibus Parisiensibus anni 1615 et 1636. Infra Reg. codex δίδωμί σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου.

Ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω ἤ ("in heaven above, or"). So both manuscripts and the Zurich edition. Others have τῷ ἄνω. Indeed, these words are wholly missing in the Paris editions of 1615 and 1636. Below, the Royal manuscript has δίδωμί σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου ("[which] the Lord your God gives you").

(printed under page 599)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1135

Ibid., 12.

The same [Exodus 20], 12.

(printed under page 600)

(39) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1135

Ibid., 13, 17 et Deut. XX, 19.

The same [Exodus 20], 13, 17, and Deuteronomy 20:19 [as printed].

(printed under page 600)

(40) ‹anchor: in terra Aegypti fuistis› · call in col 1135

Exod. XXIII, 9.

Exodus 23:9.

(printed under page 600)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1135

Κατεδούλωσεν. Uterque ms. κατεδουλώσατε pro κατεδουλώσατο.

Κατεδούλωσεν ("he enslaved"). Both manuscripts have κατεδουλώσατε ("you enslaved"), for κατεδουλώσατο.

(printed under page 600)

(51) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1135

Ὁ Θεός. Legendum ὢν ὁ Θεός.

Ὁ Θεός ("God"). Read ὢν ὁ Θεός ("being God").

(printed under page 600)

(52) ‹anchor: νόμον› · call in col 1135

Καὶ νόμον. Oxoniensis editio κατὰ νόμον. Eodem errato laborant editiones Parisienses anni 1615 et 1636.

Καὶ νόμον ("and a law"). The Oxford edition has κατὰ νόμον ("according to law"). The Paris editions of 1615 and 1636 suffer from the same error.

(printed under page 600)

(53) ‹anchor: Ἑβραῖοι› · call in col 1135

Ἑβραῖοι. Sic uterque ms. et editio Hamb. Aliae Ἑβραίων.

Ἑβραῖοι ("Hebrews"). So both manuscripts and the Hamburg edition. Others have Ἑβραίων ("of the Hebrews").

(printed under page 600)

(54) ‹anchor: κατ' ἐκεῖνο› · call in col 1135

Κατ' ἐκεῖνο. Lucem affert parenthesis, sed praeterea legendum κατ' ἐκεῖνο γὰρ καιροῦ. Ibidem Regius codex λιμοῦ γενομένου.

Κατ' ἐκεῖνο ("at that [time]"). The parenthesis sheds light, but besides we should read κατ' ἐκεῖνο γὰρ καιροῦ ("for at that time"). In the same place the Royal manuscript has λιμοῦ γενομένου ("a famine having arisen").

(printed under page 600)

(55) ‹anchor: πρὸς τὸ δεδωκέναι› · call in col 1135

Πρὸς τὸ δεδωκέναι. Liquet legendum esse πρὸς τῷ, atque ita legitur in Hamburgensi editione, sed sine auctoritate codicis ms.

Πρὸς τὸ δεδωκέναι ("towards having given"). It is clear that we should read πρὸς τῷ ("besides having given"), and so it is read in the Hamburg edition, but without the authority of a manuscript.

(printed under page 600)

(56) ‹anchor: ὕστερον δὲ καὶ› · call in col 1135

Ὕστερον δὲ καί. Deest utraque vocula in cod. Reg., nec idcirco tamen delenda, ut in edit. Hamb. haec vocula δέ, quam saepe alias in ejusmodi locis adhiberi observavimus.

Ὕστερον δὲ καί ("and afterwards also"). Both little words are missing in the Royal manuscript; yet the little word δέ should not for that reason be deleted, as in the Hamburg edition, since we have observed that it is often used elsewhere in passages of this kind.

(printed under page 600)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1138

Isa. lv, 6, 7.

Isaiah 55:6, 7.

(printed under page 601)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1138

Ezech. VIII, 21 et seqq

Ezekiel 8:21 and following [as printed].

(printed under page 601)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1138

Isa. xxxi, 6 et xlv, 22.

Isaiah 31:6 and 45:22.

(printed under page 601)

(44) ‹anchor: mini› · call in col 1138

Jer. VI, 9.

Jeremiah 6:9.

(printed under page 601)

(45) ‹anchor: justificate viduam› · call in col 1138

Isa. i, 6, 7.

Isaiah 1:6, 7 [as printed].

(printed under page 601)

(46) ‹anchor: praeibit ante te justitia tua› · call in col 1138

Isa. lviii, 6. 8.

Isaiah 58:6, 8.

(printed under page 601)

(47) ‹anchor: voluntas Domini Dei vestri› · call in col 1138

Jer. VI, 16.

Jeremiah 6:16.

(printed under page 601)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1138

Ἐν ταῖς φαύλαις. Praepositionem suppeditavit Regius codex. Omissa fuerat in editis ob similem syllabam verbi sequentis.

Ἐν ταῖς φαύλαις ("in the base [deeds]"). The Royal manuscript supplied the preposition. It had been omitted in the printed editions because of the similar syllable of the following word.

(printed under page 601)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1138

Προανεφώνησεν. Editiones Oxon. et Paris. anni 1615 et 1636, προανεφώνησαν.

Προανεφώνησεν ("he foretold"). The Oxford edition and the Paris editions of 1615 and 1636 have προανεφώνησαν ("they foretold").

(printed under page 601)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1138

Ζήσεται. Reg. Ζήσηται.

Ζήσεται ("he shall live"). The Royal manuscript has Ζήσηται.

(printed under page 601)

(60) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1138

Ἀλλ' ἐπιστρέψαι. Reg. ὡς ἐπιστρέψαι.

Ἀλλ' ἐπιστρέψαι ("but to turn back"). The Royal manuscript has ὡς ἐπιστρέψαι ("so as to turn back").

(printed under page 601)

(61) ‹anchor: κρίνατε ὀρφανῷ› · call in col 1138

Ὀρφανῷ. Cod. Reg. ὀρφανά.

Ὀρφανῷ ("for the orphan"). The Royal manuscript has ὀρφανά.

(printed under page 601)

(62) ‹anchor: πρώϊμον τὸ φῶς σου› · call in col 1138

Πρώϊμον τὸ φῶς σου. Tigur. τὸ φῶς σου πρώϊμον.

Πρώϊμον τὸ φῶς σου ("your early light"). The Zurich edition has τὸ φῶς σου πρώϊμον.

(printed under page 601)

(63) ‹anchor: βαδίζετε ἐν αὐτῇ› · call in col 1138

Βαδίζετε ἐν αὐτῇ. Uterque cod. βαδίζετε τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ.

Βαδίζετε ἐν αὐτῇ ("walk in it"). Both manuscripts have βαδίζετε τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ [the inserted word is faint on the scan].

(printed under page 601)

(48) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1139

Joel. II, 16, 17.

Joel 2:16, 17.

(printed under page 602)

(49) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1139

Zach. 7, 9, 10.

Zechariah 7:9, 10.

(printed under page 602)

(50) ‹anchor: rectas fac semitas pedibus tuis› · call in col 1139

Prov. IV, 25.

Proverbs 4:25.

(printed under page 602)

(51) ‹anchor: facit eam moechari› · call in col 1139

Matth. V, 28.

Matthew 5:28.

(printed under page 602)

(52) ‹anchor: innocens non erit› · call in col 1139

Prov. VI, 27.

Proverbs 6:27.

(printed under page 602)

(53) ‹anchor: in laetitia eorum› · call in col 1139

Isa. lxvi, 5.

Isaiah 66:5.

(printed under page 602)

(54) ‹anchor: publicani faciunt› · call in col 1139

Matth. V, 44.

Matthew 5:44.

(printed under page 602)

(55) ‹anchor: quid faciat manus tua dextra› · call in col 1139

Matth. VI, 3.

Matthew 6:3.

(printed under page 602)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1139

Καὶ Μωϋσῆς. Legendum Ὠσηέ, ut Grabius et Wolfius monuerunt. Non belle Fellus in ipso textu pro Μωϋσῆς scripsit Ἡσαΐας, a quo haec desumpta existimabat, nempe ex lvi, 1 et xli et xlv, 18. Sed citata hic verba multo aptius, ut iidem eruditi viri observant, repetuntur ex Ose xii, 6, et xiii, 4.

Καὶ Μωϋσῆς ("and Moses"). Read Ὠσηέ ("Hosea"), as Grabe and Wolf have pointed out. Fell, not well, wrote Ἡσαΐας ("Isaiah") in the text itself in place of Μωϋσῆς, thinking these words were taken from him, namely from 56:1, 41 and 45:18. But the words cited here are much more fittingly traced, as the same learned men observe, to Hosea 12:6 and 13:4.

(printed under page 602)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1139

Ἐκκλησίαν. Ita uterque codex ms. et Biblia. Editi Ἐκκλησίας.

Ἐκκλησίαν ("assembly", accusative). So both manuscripts and the Bible. The printed editions have Ἐκκλησίας.

(printed under page 602)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1139

Ἐξαλείψει. Reg. ἐξαλείψῃ.

Ἐξαλείψει ("will blot out"). The Royal manuscript has ἐξαλείψῃ.

(printed under page 602)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1139

Κρίνετε. Reg. κρίνατε.

Κρίνετε ("judge"). The Royal manuscript has κρίνατε.

(printed under page 602)

(68) ‹anchor: περιπατήσει τις› · call in col 1139

Περιπατήσει τις. Deest vocula in Reg. Leg. ἔτι ὁ Σολομῶν.

Περιπατήσει τις ("will anyone walk"). The little word [τις] is missing in the Royal manuscript. Read ἔτι ὁ Σολομῶν ("Solomon further [says]").

(printed under page 602)

(69) ‹anchor: Οὕτως› · call in col 1139

Οὕτως. Ita Reg. Editi οὕτω.

Οὕτως ("so"). So the Royal manuscript. The printed editions have οὕτω.

(printed under page 602)

(70) ‹anchor: τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις› · call in col 1139

Ἀλλοφύλοις. Legendum esse ὁμοφύλοις, cl. Wolfius post Grabium et Davisium admonuit.

Ἀλλοφύλοις ("to those of another race"). The illustrious Wolf, after Grabe and Davies, has pointed out that we should read ὁμοφύλοις ("to those of the same race").

(printed under page 602)

(56) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

I Tim. II, 2.

1 Timothy 2:2.

(printed under page 603)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

Rom. XIII, 7, 8.

Romans 13:7, 8.

(printed under page 603)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

Κελεύει ἡμᾶς. Ita uterque codex ms. et editio Hamburgensis. Legitur enim ἡμῖν in Tigur. et apud Ducaeum. Aliae ἡμῶν.

Κελεύει ἡμᾶς ("bids us"). So both manuscripts and the Hamburg edition. For ἡμῖν is read in the Zurich edition and in Duc; others have ἡμῶν.

(printed under page 603)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

Διάγωμεν. Reg. διάζωμεν.

Διάγωμεν ("that we may lead [a life]"). The Royal manuscript has διάζωμεν.

(printed under page 603)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

Φωνῶν. Cl. Wolfius legendum esse contendit φόνων, neque hanc in interpretando emendationem sequi dubitavit. Sed ei minime assentior. Hic enim generatim Theophilus vitia insectatur spectaculorum, tum exempla subjicit ejusmodi vitiorum, nempe humanae carnis epulum, quod cum homicidio conjunctum esse liquet, et deorum hominumque flagitia. Tota ergo turbabitur oratio, si quis homicidium eo intrudat, ubi nullum adhuc peculiare vitium notatur.

Φωνῶν ("of voices"). The illustrious Wolf contends that we should read φόνων ("of murders"), and did not hesitate to follow this correction in translating. But I by no means agree with him. For here Theophilus first attacks the vices of the shows in general, then adds examples of such vices, namely the feast of human flesh, which is clearly joined with homicide, and the crimes of gods and men. The whole sentence will therefore be thrown into confusion if anyone thrusts homicide in where no particular vice has yet been named.

(printed under page 603)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

Ἃ δὲ περὶ μοιχείας. Legendum εἰ δέ, si quis sententiam cum iis quae praecedunt et sequuntur consentaneam quaerat.

Ἃ δὲ περὶ μοιχείας ("and what concerns adultery"). Read εἰ δέ ("but if"), if one seeks a meaning in keeping with what precedes and follows.

(printed under page 603)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

Μετὰ τιμῶν. Sic uterque codex. Editi vitiose κατὰ τιμῶν.

Μετὰ τιμῶν ("with honours"). So both manuscripts. The printed editions, wrongly, have κατὰ τιμῶν.

(printed under page 603)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1142

Μονογαμία. Cod. Reg. μόνον ὁ γάμος. Bodl. μόνον ὁ γαμία. Reg. codicis scripturam Cotel. ut monet cl. Wolf. citat in notis ad l. ii Hermae, p. 64. idque non absque Graeculi fraude contigisse existimat.

Μονογαμία ("single marriage"). The Royal manuscript has μόνον ὁ γάμος ("only marriage"); the Bodleian, μόνον ὁ γαμία. Cotelier, as the illustrious Wolf points out, cites the reading of the Royal manuscript in his notes on Book II of Hermas, p. 64, and thinks it came about not without the fraud of some petty Greek.

(printed under page 603)

(77) ‹anchor: εἰρήνη περισκέπει› · call in col 1142

Περισκέπει. Ita Reg. et edit. Hamb. et Ducaeus. Aliae editiones περισκέπτει.

Περισκέπει ("shelters round about"). So the Royal manuscript, the Hamburg edition and Duc. Other editions have περισκέπτει.

(printed under page 603)

(78) ‹anchor: ἀναγινώσκειν› · call in col 1142

Ἀναγινώσκειν. Oxon. et Hamb. ἀναγινώσκεις, ac sic etiam Regius codex. Sed legendum puto ἐξὸν ἀναγινώσκειν. Pluribus disserendis supersedet Theophilus, quia satis multa sibi disseruisse videbatur, ut Autolycum ad consideranda religionis Christianae instituta incitaret, cum praesertim sacras ei litteras legere liceret. Hortatur ergo hominem ad legendum, idque satis patet ex his quae addit, ut eodem sis discendi studio, nempe in sacris litteris, quo hactenus fuisti in profanis. At cum hac adhortatione non quadrat Scriptura ἐξ ὧν ἀναγινώσκεις ἕως τοῦ δεῦρο. Praeterea satis absurde Autolycus, qui in profanis litteris operam posuerat, ex his quae hactenus legerat, Christiana instituta pernoscere posse diceretur. Multo aptius Theophilus eum Christiana instituta considerare posse dicit, quia ei in legendo hactenus pergere licebat, sacris scilicet libris evolvendis, qui hactenus profanos evolverat.

Ἀναγινώσκειν ("to read"). The Oxford and Hamburg editions have ἀναγινώσκεις ("you read"), and so too the Royal manuscript. But I think we should read ἐξὸν ἀναγινώσκειν ("since it is open to you to read"). Theophilus forbears from further discussion because he thought he had said enough to rouse Autolycus to consider the institutions of the Christian religion, especially since he was free to read the sacred writings. He therefore urges the man to read, and this is plain enough from what he adds: "that you may have the same zeal for learning", namely in the sacred writings, "as you have had until now" in profane ones. But the reading ἐξ ὧν ἀναγινώσκεις ἕως τοῦ δεῦρο ("from what you have read until now") does not fit this exhortation. Besides, it would be said rather absurdly that Autolycus, who had spent his labour on profane writings, could come to know the Christian institutions from what he had read until then. Much more fittingly Theophilus says that he can consider the Christian institutions because he was free to go on reading, by turning over, that is, the sacred books, he who until now had turned over profane ones.

(printed under page 603)

(79) ‹anchor: οὕτω καὶ φιλομαθὴς› · call in col 1142

Καὶ φιλομαθής. Monitus Wolfius a cl. Lacroziolegendum conjicit καὶ πολυμαθής, quia respicere videtur Theophilus ad verba Isocratis ad Demonicum: Ἐὰν ᾖς φιλομαθής, ἔσῃ πολυμαθής. Sed haec conjectura penitus disconvenit proposito Theophili, qui Autolycum hortatur, ut eodem sit in sacris litteris discendis studio, quod hactenus in profanas impenderat. In fine libri ii legimus: Χρὴ οὖν τὸν φιλομαθῆ καὶ φιλομαθεῖν. Infra editi εἰς τὴν ἀπέραντον. Reg. ut in textu.

Καὶ φιλομαθής ("also a lover of learning"). Wolf, prompted by the illustrious La Croze, conjectures that we should read καὶ πολυμαθής ("also very learned"), because Theophilus seems to have in view the words of Isocrates to Demonicus: "If you are a lover of learning, you will be very learned." But this conjecture is wholly at odds with Theophilus's purpose, who urges Autolycus to have the same zeal in learning the sacred writings as he had until then spent on profane ones. At the end of Book II we read: "So the lover of learning must also love to learn." Below, the printed editions have εἰς τὴν ἀπέραντον ("into the endless"); the Royal manuscript has it as in the text.

(printed under page 603)

(80) ‹anchor: Πῶς γὰρ ἂν› · call in col 1143

Πῶς γὰρ ἂν, etc. Totum hunc locum, qui in nostris codicibus mss. et editis corruptissimus erat, necesse fuit Platonici contextus ope restituere; quod idem in editione Hamburgensi factum fuerat. Hæc autem leguntur in tertio libro De legibus, nequaquam autem in libris De republica. In editionibus Oxon. et Hamb. pro Πολιτείαις legitur Περὶ νόμων ex conjectura.

"For how could," etc. This whole passage, which was badly corrupted in our manuscripts and in the printed editions, had to be restored with the help of Plato's text; the same had been done in the Hamburg edition. These words are read in the third book of the Laws, and not at all in the books of the Republic. In the Oxford and Hamburg editions, "On the Laws" is read for "Republic" by conjecture.

(printed under page 604)

(81) ‹anchor: Κατακοσμῶν› · call in col 1143

Κατακοσμῶν. Legendum κατὰ κόσμον.

"Adorning": read "in order" (κατὰ κόσμον).

(printed under page 604)

(82) ‹anchor: ὦ ξένε› · call in col 1143

Ὦ ξένε. Ita Plato Reg. ὦ ξένη. Editi ὦ ξένοι. Mox apud eumdem Platonem legitur ὑπόσχοιτο et ἐπιχειρήσωμεν τὸ δεύτερον. Reg. ut text.

"O stranger": so Plato. The Regius has ὦ ξένη; the printed editions ὦ ξένοι. Just after, the same Plato reads ὑπόσχοιτο and ἐπιχειρήσωμεν τὸ δεύτερον. The Regius as in the text.

(printed under page 604)

(83) ‹anchor: τῶν νῦν εἰρημένων› · call in col 1143

Τῶν νῦν εἰρημένων. Addit Plato, Λόγων χείρους οὐδὲ ἐλάττους ἀκουσόμεθα, μακρὸν ἂν ἔλθοιμι ἐγώ. Id est, Si quis nobis polliceatur Deus fore, ut si iterum leges ferendæ rationem considerare aggrediamur, sermonibus modo habitis non pejores audiamus, longum equidem iter suscipiam. Ex his colligit Theophilus Platonem conjiciendo locutum esse, nec ipsi, ut prophetis Spiritus auxilio fretis, exploratum fuisse dicendi exitum. Pravam hujus loci interpunctionem sanavit cl. Wolfius.

"Of the things now said": Plato adds, "we shall hear words neither worse nor fewer, I would go a long way." That is: "If some god were to promise us that, should we undertake a second time to consider the method of making laws, we would hear words no worse than those just spoken, I for my part would undertake a long journey." From this Theophilus gathers that Plato spoke by conjecture, and that the outcome of his speaking was not certain to him, as it was to the prophets relying on the help of the Spirit. The faulty punctuation of this passage was corrected by the celebrated Wolf.

(printed under page 604)

(84) ‹anchor: καθὼς καὶ αὐτὸς› · call in col 1143

Καθὼς καὶ αὐτός. Reg. καθὰ καὶ αὐτός.

"Just as he himself": the Regius has καθὰ καὶ αὐτός.

(printed under page 604)

(85) ‹anchor: διὰ τοῦ νόμου› · call in col 1143

Διὰ τοῦ νόμου. Locus in quo fatetur Plato neminem posse verum pernoscere, nisi a Deo doceatur, a Justino citatur Cohort. num. 32. Occurrit autem in Menone Platonis et sic habet: Εἰ δὲ νῦν ἡμεῖς ἐν παντὶ τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ καλῶς ἐζητήσαμέν τε καὶ ἐλέγομεν, ἀρετὴ ἂν εἴη οὔτε φύσει, οὔτε διδακτὸν, ἀλλὰ θείᾳ μοίρᾳ παραγενομένη ἄνευ νοῦ οἷς ἂν παραγίνηται. Nunc autem, si in omni hoc sermone recte quæsivimus et disseruimus, virtus profecto nec natura nec doctrina, sed divina sorte hominibus evenit sine scientia, iis quibus evenit. Non alium videtur Platonis locum Theophilus in memoria habuisse. Nec magni refert, quod virtus apud Platonem, veri cognitio est apud Theophilum. Eam enim veri cognitionem intelligit Theophilus, quæ ad salutem perducat. Dei cognitio, ut observavimus ad n. 19 Tatiani, in hanc sententiam interdum usurpatur. Sed si Platonis sensum Theophilus accurate sequitur, legendum erit non διὰ τοῦ νόμου, sed δίχα τοῦ νόμου, sine lege, quod respondebit his Platonis verbis ἄνευ νοῦ, sine scientia.

"Through the law": the passage in which Plato admits that no one can know the truth thoroughly unless taught by God is cited by Justin, Cohortatio no. 32. It occurs in Plato's Meno and runs thus: "But if now in this whole discussion we have inquired and spoken rightly, virtue would come neither by nature nor by teaching, but by divine dispensation, without understanding, to those to whom it comes." [The Latin repeats the quotation in translation.] Theophilus seems to have had no other passage of Plato in mind. Nor does it matter much that what is virtue in Plato is knowledge of the truth in Theophilus, for Theophilus means that knowledge of the truth which leads to salvation. The knowledge of God, as we observed at note 19 on Tatian, is sometimes used in this sense. But if Theophilus follows Plato's meaning exactly, one must read not "through the law" but "apart from the law" (δίχα τοῦ νόμου), "without law", which will answer to Plato's words ἄνευ νοῦ, "without understanding".

(printed under page 604)

(86) ‹anchor: Ἐνέστηκε› · call in col 1146

Ἐνέστηκε. Legendum συνέστηκε.

"Is present" (Ἐνέστηκε): read "consists" (συνέστηκε).

(printed under page 605)

(87) ‹anchor: Πεπομφέναι› · call in col 1146

Πεπομφέναι. Reg. ἀποβεβληκέναι.

"To have sent": the Regius has "to have cast away" (ἀποβεβληκέναι).

(printed under page 605)

(88) ‹anchor: οἷος› · call in col 1146

Οἷος. Ita Ducæus, melius quam alii οἷον. Codex. Bodl. δι' ὃν, δι' οὗ.

Οἷος: so Ducaeus, better than the others' οἷον. The Bodleian manuscript has δι' ὃν, δι' οὗ.

(printed under page 605)

(89) ‹anchor: καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ› · call in col 1146

Καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ. Reg. καθὰ καὶ, et non multo post καθὰ καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ.

"As also in another": the Regius has καθὰ καὶ, and not much further on καθὰ καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ.

(printed under page 605)

(90) ‹anchor: τὸ καθ' ἕνα αὐτῶν› · call in col 1146

Τὸ καθ' ἕνα αὐτῶν. Ita uterque codex. et Hamb. Aliæ editiones τῷ.

"Each one of them": so both manuscripts and the Hamburg edition. The other editions have τῷ.

(printed under page 605)

(91) ‹anchor: καὶ αὐτός› · call in col 1146

Καὶ αὐτός. Id est, ut explanavit cl. Wolfius, ipse Noe et uxor ejus. Illud autem καὶ αὐτός ex utroque codice idem Wolfius deprompsit, cum antea in editis deesset.

"And he himself": that is, as the celebrated Wolf explained, Noah himself and his wife. The same Wolf drew the words καὶ αὐτός from both manuscripts, since they were formerly missing in the printed editions.

(printed under page 605)

(92) ‹anchor: Βλυσάντων› · call in col 1147

Βλυσάντων. Ita Wolfius ex Regio codice. Alii κλυσάντων.

Βλυσάντων: so Wolf, from the Regius manuscript. Others have κλυσάντων.

(printed under page 606)

(93) ‹anchor: Τότε› · call in col 1147

Τότε. Deest in utroque codice. Legitur in Regio τὸ γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων πάντων.

"Then": missing in both manuscripts. The Regius reads "the race of all men".

(printed under page 606)

(94) ‹anchor: Ἀραβικοῖς› · call in col 1147

Ἀραβικοῖς. Fellus et Wolfius Ἀρμενικοῖς. Longe probabilius ita scripsisse Theophilum. Sed cum nulla suppetat codicis ms. auctoritas, non libuit contextum immutare.

"Arabian": Fell and Wolf have "Armenian". It is far more probable that Theophilus wrote so; but since no manuscript authority is available, I did not choose to change the text.

(printed under page 606)

(95) ‹anchor: Ἄμασις› · call in col 1147

Ἄμασις. Infra et apud Joseph. 1 App. vocatur Τέθμωσις. Uterque ms. Μωϋσῆς (Μωσῆς P). Sic etiam Tigurina editio et ad marg. Ἄμασις, quod postea ascitum in contextum. Codex Angl. ad marg. Θύμωσις.

Amasis: below, and in Josephus, Against Apion 1, he is called Tethmosis. Both manuscripts have Μωϋσῆς (Μωσῆς in P). So also the Zurich edition, with Ἄμασις in the margin, which was afterwards taken into the text. The English manuscript has Θύμωσις in the margin.

(printed under page 606)

(96) ‹anchor: Ὅς, φασίν› · call in col 1147

Ὅς, φασίν. Uterque ms. ὥς φασιν, ex quo conjicio scriptum fuisse ὅς, ὥς φασιν, et ex duabus voculis alteram excidisse (sed in P, ω ex o factum ab ead. manu.)

"Who, they say": both manuscripts have ὥς φασιν, from which I conjecture that ὅς, ὥς φασιν was written and that one of the two little words fell out (but in P, ω has been made from o by the same hand).

(printed under page 606)

(97) ‹anchor: Τοῦ δὲ θυγάτηρ› · call in col 1147

Τοῦ δὲ θυγάτηρ. Ita apud Josephum. Editi nostri τούτων δὲ θυγάτηρ. Excepta tamen Hamburgi editione. Apud Josephum post Orum recensentur Acenchres ejus filia; tum istius frater Rhatotis; deinde Acencheres, alter Acencheres, Armais, Rhamesses, Armesses, Amenophis. In editis nostris Rhamesses dicebatur regnasse anno 1 et mensibus 4 et mensibus 2. Duos illos menses, auctore Josepho, transtuli in Messem, sive Armessem.

"His daughter": so in Josephus. Our printed editions have "their daughter", except, however, the Hamburg edition. In Josephus, after Orus are listed Acenchres his daughter; then her brother Rathotis; then Acencheres, a second Acencheres, Armais, Rhamesses, Armesses, Amenophis. In our printed editions Rhamesses was said to have reigned one year and four months and two months. On Josephus's authority I have transferred those two months to Messes, that is, Armesses.

(printed under page 606)

(98) ‹anchor: Τοῦ δὲ Θοίσσος καὶ Ῥαμέσσης› · call in col 1147

Τοῦ δὲ Θοίσσος καὶ Ῥαμέσσης. Pro Θοίσσος legendum Σέθως vel Σέθωσις ut apud Josephum, cujus contextus sic se habet: Τοῦ δὲ Σέθωσις καὶ Ῥαμέσσης ἱππικὴν καὶ ναυτικὴν ἔχων δύναμιν. Non ascribit Josephus quot annis Sethosis et Ramesses regnaverint. Fellus et Wolfius duo hæc nomina unius et ejusdem regis fuisse volunt; unde uterque sic contextu scripsit: Ὁ δὲ Σέθως καὶ Ῥαμέσσης λέγεται, ὅν φασιν. Nituntur eruditi viri alio Manethonis apud Josephum p. 1053, testimonio, ubi Sethos dicitur nomen etiam Ramessis habuisse. At in hoc loco alius est Sethos qui annis 125 regnavit post expulsum a priore Setho fratrem Danaum. Unde etiam posterior ille Sethos dicitur Ramessis nomen habuisse a Rampsæo ævo. Apud Josephum in edit. Oxon. legitur scholium ex duobus mss. erutum, in quo Sethos et Ramesses dicuntur fratres fuisse; quibus adjungitur tertius Armais, sive Danaus, quem Sethos toti Ægypto præfecit, postquam Ramessen sustulit.

"And of him Thoessus and Rhamesses": for Θοίσσος read Σέθως or Σέθωσις, as in Josephus, whose text runs thus: "And of him Sethosis and Rhamesses, having a force of cavalry and navy." Josephus does not record how many years Sethosis and Ramesses reigned. Fell and Wolf hold that these two names belonged to one and the same king, and so both printed in the text: "Sethos, who is also called Rhamesses, whom they say." These learned men rely on another testimony of Manetho in Josephus, p. 1053, where Sethos is said to have had the name Ramesses as well. But in that passage it is another Sethos, who reigned 125 years after his brother Danaus had been expelled by the earlier Sethos. Hence that later Sethos is also said to have had the name Ramesses from Rampses his grandfather. In the Oxford edition of Josephus a scholion is read, drawn from two manuscripts, in which Sethos and Ramesses are said to have been brothers; to them is joined a third, Armais, or Danaus, whom Sethos set over all Egypt after he had removed Ramesses.

(printed under page 606)

(99) ‹anchor: Μετὰ τοὺς ἰδίους χρόνους› · call in col 1147

Μετὰ τοὺς ἰδίους χρόνους. Hæc in superioribus editt. conjuncta erant cum præcedentibus vocibus. Unde interpres reddiderat, illis temporibus quasi scriptum fuisset κατά. Ita scribere non dubitavit cl. Wolfius, qui nescio quomodo sibi finxit solam editionem Oxoniensem habere alteram præpositionem. His vocibus, μετὰ τοὺς ἰδίους χρόνους, antiquitatem Hebræorum Theophilus longius repetendam indicat, nempe ab iis temporibus, quæ Abraham ejusque nepotes in terra Chanaan traduxerunt.

"After their own times": in the earlier editions these words were joined to the preceding ones, so the translator had rendered "in those times", as if κατά had been written. The celebrated Wolf did not hesitate to write it so, imagining, I know not how, that only the Oxford edition has the other preposition. By these words, "after their own times", Theophilus indicates that the antiquity of the Hebrews must be traced further back, namely from the times which Abraham and his descendants spent in the land of Canaan.

(printed under page 606)

(1) ‹anchor: Τὸ γὰρ Σέθως› · call in col 1150

Τὸ γὰρ Σέθως. Legendum ut apud Josephum ὁ γὰρ Σέθως.

Τὸ γὰρ Σέθως: read, as in Josephus, ὁ γὰρ Σέθως ("for Sethos").

(printed under page 607)

(2) ‹anchor: Κατ' Αἰγυπτίους› · call in col 1150

Κατ' Αἰγυπτίους. Testatur Josephus corruptam fuisse a nonnullis historiam illorum temporum, ut Ægyptiis gratificarentur, 1 adv. App., p. 1051. Videtur ad hunc Josephi locum respexisse Theophilus. Quare vertendum duxi, in favorem Ægyptiorum; minime vero, de rebus Ægyptiorum.

"According to the Egyptians": Josephus testifies that the history of those times was corrupted by some to gratify the Egyptians (Against Apion 1, p. 1051). Theophilus seems to have had this passage of Josephus in view. I have therefore thought it should be translated "in favour of the Egyptians", and by no means "concerning the affairs of the Egyptians".

(printed under page 607)

(3) ‹anchor: Ὥστε Μωϋσέα› · call in col 1150

Ὥστε Μωϋσέα. Legendum εἴς τε. Sed cum aliud vulneris insit huic loco, sic restituendus videtur: Ἔτι μὴν καὶ βλάσφημα εἰπὼν εἴς τε Μωϋσέα, καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ Ἑβραίους, ὡς δῆθεν διὰ λέπραν ἐκβληθέντος ἐκ τῆς Αἰγύπτου, οὐχ εὗρε τὸ ἀκριβὲς τῶν χρόνων εἰπεῖν. Ποιμένας μὲν γὰρ αὐτοὺς εἰπὼν καὶ πολεμίους Αἰγυπτίων, ποιμένας μὲν ἄκων εἶπεν.

"So that Moses": read εἴς τε. But since there is another flaw in this passage, it seems it should be restored thus: "Moreover, having also spoken blasphemies against Moses and the Hebrews with him, as though he had been expelled from Egypt for leprosy, he could not state the times exactly. For in calling them shepherds and enemies of the Egyptians, he called them shepherds unwillingly."

(printed under page 607)

(4) ‹anchor: Ἐκβληθέντος› · call in col 1150

Ἐκβληθέντος. Hamb. et Oxon. ἐκβληθέντας ex conjectura non probanda. Nam in fabula, quam refellit Josephus p. 1052, non Israelitas, sed Ægyptios cum Moyse ob lepram ejectos Manethon narrabat. Codex Regius ἐκβληθῆναι. Codex Anglic. cum aliis editionibus ἐκβληθέντος.

"Expelled" (singular): the Hamburg and Oxford editions have ἐκβληθέντας (plural), a conjecture not to be approved. For in the tale which Josephus refutes (p. 1052), Manetho related that it was not the Israelites but Egyptians who were cast out with Moses for leprosy. The Regius manuscript has ἐκβληθῆναι; the English manuscript, with the other editions, ἐκβληθέντος.

(printed under page 607)

(5) ‹anchor: Οὐχ εὗρεν› · call in col 1150

Οὐχ εὗρεν. Hæc explicanda ex Josephi historia. Manethos plurima adversus Judæos corradebat, nunc antiquos Ægyptiorum commentarios sequens, nunc fabulas aniles. Itaque cum dixisset, commentarios Ægyptios sequendo, Israelitas sive pastores, sub Tethmosi, annis ante quam Danaus Argos veniret 393, ex Ægypto discessisse, postea, fabulis indulgendo, narrabat, sub Amenophi, quem post Sethosim ejusque filium Rampsem collocabat, maximam Ægyptiorum leprosorum multitudinem, duce Moyse, defecisse et a pastoribus olim sub Tethmosi expulsis ac Hierosolymam incolentibus auxilium sibi ascivisse. Hanc fabulam pluribus refellit Josephus p. 1052. Observat Manethonem sibi non constare, qui post collocatum Moysis egressum sub rege Tethmosi, nunc annis 518 serius hunc eventum collocat. Nam ab egressu Moysis usque ad expulsum a fratre Sethosi Danaum anni 393 intercesserant. Sethosis post expulsum fratrem annis 59 regnaverat, ejusque filius Rampses annis 66. Tum fabulosus ille Amenophis, cujusque annos idcirco Manethos definire non ausus est, quamvis in aliis regibus annos accurate adjiciat. Ἀμένωφιν γὰρ βασιλέα προσθεὶς, ψευδὲς ὄνομα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο χρόνον αὐτοῦ τῆς βασιλείας ὁρίσαι μὴ τολμήσας, καίτοι γε ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων βασιλέων ἀκριβῶς τὰ ἔτη προστιθεὶς etc. Joseph. I App. 1052. Liquet Theophilo hunc Josephi locum obversatum fuisse.

"He did not find": this must be explained from Josephus's history. Manetho scraped together a great deal against the Jews, now following the ancient records of the Egyptians, now old wives' tales. So, having said, following the Egyptian records, that the Israelites or shepherds left Egypt under Tethmosis, 393 years before Danaus came to Argos, he afterwards, indulging in fables, related that under Amenophis, whom he placed after Sethosis and his son Rampses, a very great multitude of Egyptian lepers revolted under the leadership of Moses and called to their aid the shepherds who had once been expelled under Tethmosis and were living in Jerusalem. Josephus refutes this tale at length (p. 1052). He observes that Manetho is inconsistent: having placed the exodus of Moses under King Tethmosis, he now places this event 518 years later. For from the exodus of Moses to the expulsion of Danaus by his brother Sethosis 393 years had passed; Sethosis reigned 59 years after expelling his brother, and his son Rampses 66 years. Then came that fabulous Amenophis, "whose years Manetho therefore did not dare to define, although for the other kings he adds the years exactly": "for having added a king Amenophis, a false name, and for that reason not daring to fix the length of his reign, although for the other kings he adds the years exactly," etc. (Josephus, Against Apion I, 1052). It is clear that this passage of Josephus was before Theophilus's mind.

(printed under page 607)

(6) ‹anchor: Ἐθεράπευον πᾶσαν νόσον› · call in col 1150

Ἐθεράπευον πᾶσαν νόσον. Paulo aliter Josephus I adv. App., p. 1056, ubi Moysen minime contactum fuisse probat hoc lepræ morbo, quia leprosos oppidis et vicis exclusos seorsim in lacero habitu degere, et qui eos tetigissent aut sub eodem tecto fuissent, pro impuris haberi jussit, ac ne sanatis quidem introitum in sanctam urbem concessit, nisi post multas expiationes et lustrationes et sacrificia. Videtur existimasse Theophilus expiationes et lustrationes ad perfectam morbi curationem præscriptas fuisse.

"They healed every disease": Josephus puts it somewhat differently (Against Apion I, p. 1056), where he proves that Moses was not touched at all by this disease of leprosy, because he ordered lepers, shut out of towns and villages, to live apart in torn clothing, and those who had touched them or been under the same roof to be held unclean; and he did not allow even the healed to enter the holy city except after many expiations, purifications and sacrifices. Theophilus seems to have thought that the expiations and purifications were prescribed for the complete cure of the disease.

(printed under page 607)

(7) ‹anchor: λεπρῶντας› · call in col 1150

Λεπρῶντας. Reg. λεπριῶντας. Quæ autem de Salomone huic loco intexuntur, nata videntur ex occasione templi modo commemorati.

"Lepers": the Regius has λεπριῶντας. What is woven into this passage about Solomon seems to have arisen from the mention of the temple just made.

(printed under page 607)

(8) ‹anchor: περὶ τῶν χρόνων› · call in col 1150

Περὶ τῶν χρόνων. Reg. et Hamb. τὸν χρόνον, minus commode, ut patet ex sequentibus vocibus, περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως.

"About the times": the Regius and the Hamburg edition have "the time", less suitably, as is clear from the following words, "about the king".

(printed under page 607)

(9) ‹anchor: ὑπ' αὐτοῦ εἰρημένων› · call in col 1150

Ὑπ' αὐτοῦ εἰρημένων. Hic necesse fuit parenthesim apponere, post quam sequuntur Manethonis dicta ex quibus eum erroris circa tempora arguit Theophilus. Nam qui primo dixerat Hebræos ex Ægypto discessisse annis ante Danaum 393, is postea sub rege qui post Danaum annis 125 regnare cœperat, id dicebat evenisse.

"Said by him": here it was necessary to insert a parenthesis, after which follow the statements of Manetho from which Theophilus convicts him of error about the times. For he who had first said that the Hebrews left Egypt 393 years before Danaus afterwards said it happened under a king who had begun to reign 125 years after Danaus.

(printed under page 607)

(10) ‹anchor: περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως› · call in col 1150

Περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως. Narrabat enim Manethos regem Amosum, sive Tethmosin, annos tribus et viginti post expulsos Israelitas regnasse. Wolfius, qui legendum putat ἐκ τοῦ, nihil prorsus vidit in hoc loco interpretando.

"About the king": for Manetho related that King Amosis, or Tethmosis, reigned twenty-three years after the Israelites were expelled. Wolf, who thinks ἐκ τοῦ should be read, saw nothing at all in interpreting this passage.

(printed under page 607)

(11) ‹anchor: Πρὸ ἐτῶν› · call in col 1151

Πρὸ ἐτῶν, etc. Error est vel Theophili vel librariorum. Nam apud Josephum anni 393 numerantur, p. 1041 et 1052. Sic etiam Tertullianus Apolog. cap. 29: Si quem audistis Moysem, Argivo Inacho pariter ætate est. Quadringentis pene annis, nam et septem desunt, Danaum et ipsum apud vos antiquissimum præcedit, mille circiter cladem Priami antecedit. Confirmat hanc scripturam argumentum, quo utitur Josephus, ut scriptorem Ægyptium sibi non constare demonstret. Nam cum is, litteras Ægyptiacas sequendo, Hebræos ex Ægypto egressos esse dixisset annis 393 ante Danaum; postea, fabulis indulgendo, hunc eventum sub Amenophi collocabat, annis 115 post Danaum. Unde Josephus (ibid., pag. 1052) discrimen annorum 518 inter utramque ejusdem rei narrandæ rationem observat. Porro si a Tethmosi, quem Hebræos persecutum esse Ægyptiorum litteræ narrabant, usque ad Amenophin, qui 125 annis post Danaum regnavit, anni 518 effluxerunt: necesse est ut a Tethmosi usque ad Danaum annos 393 numeremus.

"Years before," etc.: the error is either Theophilus's or the copyists'. For in Josephus 393 years are counted (pp. 1041 and 1052). So too Tertullian, Apology ch. 29: "The Moses of whom you have heard is equal in age to the Argive Inachus. By almost four hundred years (for seven are lacking) he precedes Danaus, himself the most ancient among you; he precedes the fall of Priam by about a thousand." This reading is confirmed by the argument Josephus uses to show that the Egyptian writer is inconsistent. For having said, following the Egyptian records, that the Hebrews left Egypt 393 years before Danaus, he afterwards, indulging in fables, placed this event under Amenophis, 115 years after Danaus. Hence Josephus (ibid., p. 1052) notes a difference of 518 years between the two ways of telling the same event. Further, if from Tethmosis, who the Egyptian records said persecuted the Hebrews, to Amenophis, who reigned 125 years after Danaus, 518 years elapsed, we must count 393 years from Tethmosis to Danaus.

(printed under page 608)

(12) ‹anchor: Ὥστε ὁ Μαναιθὼς› · call in col 1151

Ὥστε ὁ Μαναιθώς. Sic legitur in codice Regio: Ὥστε τὸν Μαναίθων δύο τάξεις ἄκοντα τῆς ἀληθείας δεδηλωκέναι, ἃς αὐτὸς μεμήνυκεν ἡμῖν. Cod. Angl. habet ὡς αὐτός. Cl. Wolfius. Sed nulla videtur esse immutandi contextus necessitas.

"So that Manetho": so it reads in the Regius manuscript: "So that Manetho, unwillingly, has shown two orderings of the truth, which he himself has disclosed to us." The English manuscript has ὡς αὐτός. So the celebrated Wolf. But there seems to be no need to change the text.

(printed under page 608)

(13) ‹anchor: Ἀναγραφῶν› · call in col 1151

Ἀναγραφῶν. Ἀναγραφαὶ apud Josephum p. 1039 et 1042, non sunt Manethonis scripta, sed sacræ litteræ Ægyptiorum, quibus usum se esse Manethon asseverabat.

"Records": the ἀναγραφαί in Josephus (pp. 1039 and 1042) are not Manetho's writings but the sacred writings of the Egyptians, which Manetho asserted he had used.

(printed under page 608)

(14) ‹anchor: Ἐνιαυτούς› · call in col 1151

Ἐνιαυτούς. Hanc vocem, quæ deerat in editis, suppeditavit Regius codex. Mirum in modum aberrat temporibus Theophilus, cum Israelitarum profectionem mille annis ante excidium Trojanum collocat. Melius Tatianus, Clemens et Eusebius annis tantum quadringentis. Theophilo assentiuntur Tertullianus Apolog. cap. 19, Cyrillus lib. I in Jul. Sed unde tanta hallucinatio in eruditis scriptoribus? Fortasse non tam suas ipsi rationes subducebant, quam subductas a Manethone argumenti loco sumebant ad ethnicos refellendos; id quod factum ab Eusebio videmus lib. x Præpar. evang., qui, quamvis Israelitas ex Ægypto annis ante excidium Trojanum quadringentis profectos sentiat, objicit tamen ethnicis testimonium Porphyrii Moysen Semiramidi æqualem esse testantis. Sed mihi videtur erroris fons et origo sola exstitisse auctoritas Josephi, qui sic loquitur lib. I contr. App. pag. 1042: Δύο τοίνυν ὁ Μανέθων ἡμῖν τὰ μέγιστα μεμαρτύρηκεν ἐκ τῶν παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις γραμμάτων· πρῶτον μὲν τὴν ἑτέρωθεν ἄφιξιν εἰς Αἴγυπτον, ἔπειτα δὲ τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπαλλαγὴν, οὕτως ἀρχαίαν τοῖς χρόνοις ὡς ἐγγύς που προτέραν αὐτὴν τῶν Ἰλιακῶν ἔτεσι χιλίοις. Manethos igitur duo nobis maxima testimonio suo astruit ex litteris apud Ægyptios asservatis: primum quidem adventum in Ægyptum ex alia regione; deinde discessum ex Ægypto, ita antiquum temporibus, ut propemodum mille annis Iliaca superet. Illud quidem sequebatur ex chronologia Manethonis, Israelitas ab Ægypto discessisse annis 393, antequam Danaus Argos veniret. At Danaum Argos venisse annis sexcentis ante Iliaca nec asseruit Manethon, nec asserendi locum dedit, sed hæc Josephi minus considerata fuit conjectura. Nam Inachus, a quo usque ad Danaum octo Argivorum reges numerantur, quadringentis tantum annis Trojanum excidium antecessit.

"Years": this word, missing in the printed editions, was supplied by the Regius manuscript. Theophilus strays remarkably in his dating when he places the departure of the Israelites a thousand years before the fall of Troy. Tatian, Clement and Eusebius do better, with only four hundred years. Tertullian (Apology ch. 19) and Cyril (Against Julian, book I) agree with Theophilus. But whence so great a delusion in learned writers? Perhaps they did not so much make their own reckonings as take those made by Manetho as an argument for refuting the pagans; this we see done by Eusebius in book X of the Preparation for the Gospel, who, though he holds that the Israelites left Egypt four hundred years before the fall of Troy, nevertheless sets before the pagans the testimony of Porphyry, who affirms that Moses was contemporary with Semiramis. But it seems to me that the sole source and origin of the error was the authority of Josephus, who speaks thus in Against Apion I, p. 1042: "Manetho, then, has testified to two things of the greatest importance for us from the Egyptian writings: first, the arrival in Egypt from elsewhere; then the departure from there, so ancient in time that it preceded the Trojan war by nearly a thousand years." [The Latin repeats the quotation in translation.] It did indeed follow from Manetho's chronology that the Israelites left Egypt 393 years before Danaus came to Argos. But that Danaus came to Argos six hundred years before the Trojan war Manetho neither asserted nor gave grounds for asserting; this was an ill-considered conjecture of Josephus. For Inachus, from whom eight kings of Argos are counted down to Danaus, preceded the fall of Troy by only four hundred years.

(printed under page 608)

(15) ‹anchor: Ἑξήκοντα› · call in col 1151

Ἑξήκοντα. Deest in Regio codice.

"Sixty": missing in the Regius manuscript.

(printed under page 608)

(16) ‹anchor: ἑκατὸν› · call in col 1151

Ἑκατόν. Bodleianus habet ἑκατὸν τεσσαράκοντα τέσσαρσι. Reg. τριάκοντα τρισίν. Editi, omisso ἑκατόν, habebant tantum τριάκοντα τέσσαρσιν, et infra φ. λ. γ. Fellus et Wolfius ex Josephi primo contra Appionem libro utrumque locum emendarunt, eosque secutus sum.

"A hundred": the Bodleian has "a hundred and forty-four"; the Regius "thirty-three". The printed editions, omitting "a hundred", had only "thirty-four", and below φ. λ. γ. Fell and Wolf corrected both places from Josephus's first book Against Apion, and I have followed them.

(printed under page 608)

(17) ‹anchor: μησὶν ὀκτὼ› · call in col 1151

Μησὶν ὀκτώ. Oxon. et Hamb. καὶ μησὶν ὀκτώ.

"Eight months": the Oxford and Hamburg editions have "and eight months".

(printed under page 608)

(18) ‹anchor: ὑπὸ Ἱερώμου› · call in col 1151

Ἀνεγράφη δὲ ὑπὸ Ἱερώμου. Cl. Wolfius existimat ita reddendum hunc locum: Consignata sunt (scilicet γράμματα τῶν Τυρίων de quibus ante) ab Hieromo Tyriorum rege, quippe qui amicus fuit Salomonis, etc. Sed illud ἀνεγράφη repetitio est ejusdem verbi, quod paulo ante occurrit, ἀναγέ- (continues)

"It was recorded by Hiromus": the celebrated Wolf thinks this passage should be rendered: "They were recorded" (namely the writings of the Tyrians mentioned above) "by Hiromus king of the Tyrians, since he was a friend of Solomon," etc. But that ἀνεγράφη is a repetition of the same verb that occurs a little before, ἀναγέ- (continues)

(printed under page 608)

(19) ‹anchor: Διὰ τό› · call in col 1154

Διὰ τό. Ita Reg. Editi διὰ τοῦ.

Διὰ τό: so the Regius. The printed editions have διὰ τοῦ.

(printed under page 609)

(20) ‹anchor: Αὐτῶν φησι› · call in col 1154

Αὐτῶν φησι. Legendum ἅ φασι, et mox ἃ ἀλλήλοις διέπεμπον. Videtur duo epistolarum inter Salomonem et Hiram genera distinguere Theophilus, nempe epistolas, in quibus quæstiones ad solvendum proponebantur, et eas, quæ, ut inter vicinos et amicos reges fieri par erat, variis de rebus loquebantur. In hac distinctione videtur auctorem sequi Josephum, cujus verba in hunc sensum accipi possunt. Sic enim loquitur I adv. Appionem, p. 1042: Προβλήματα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντεπέστελλον, λύειν κελεύοντες.... Σώζονται δὲ μέχρι νῦν παρὰ τοῖς Τυρίοις πολλαὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν, ἃς ἐκεῖνοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔγραψαν. Problemata sibi invicem ad solvendum mittebant..... Servantur autem hactenus apud Tyrios multa ex epistolis, quas sibi invicem scribebant.

"Of them, he says": read "which they say", and just after, "which they sent to one another". Theophilus seems to distinguish two kinds of letters between Solomon and Hiram: letters in which questions were set to be solved, and those which dealt with various matters, as was fitting between neighbouring and friendly kings. In this distinction he seems to follow Josephus as his authority, whose words can be taken in this sense. For he speaks thus in Against Apion I, p. 1042: "They sent problems to each other, bidding them be solved.... And many of the letters which they wrote to each other are preserved to this day among the Tyrians." [The Latin repeats the quotation in translation.]

(printed under page 609)

(21) ‹anchor: Καθὼς μέμνηται Μένανδρος› · call in col 1154

Καθὼς μέμνηται Μένανδρος. Quæ de Salomonis et Hirami conjunctione supra dicuntur, ea necesse fuit parenthesi includere, quia Theophilus nequaquam Menandri verbis utitur, ut hanc conjunctionem probet (nihil enim ea de re in testimonio Menandri), sed ut demonstret quot annis ante Carthaginem ædificatum fuerit templum. Præterea apud Josephum colligatæ inter Salomonem et Hiramum amicitiæ non Menander testis citatur, sed Dius, quem historiæ Phœnicum accuratum scriptorem vocat Josephus.

"As Menander records": what is said above about the bond between Solomon and Hiram had to be enclosed in a parenthesis, because Theophilus by no means uses Menander's words to prove this bond (there is nothing on that matter in Menander's testimony), but to show how many years before Carthage the temple was built. Moreover, in Josephus the witness cited for the friendship formed between Solomon and Hiram is not Menander but Dius, whom Josephus calls an accurate writer of the history of the Phoenicians.

(printed under page 609)

(22) ‹anchor: Βιώσας ἔτη πεντήκοντα τρία› · call in col 1154

Βιώσας ἔτη πεντήκοντα τρία. Editiones Oxon. et Hamb. addunt ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτη λδ. Legit etiam Wolfius ὅς, βιώσας.

"Having lived fifty-three years": the Oxford and Hamburg editions add "he reigned 34 years". Wolf also reads "who, having lived".

(printed under page 609)

(23) ‹anchor: Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον› · call in col 1154

Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον. Inter Methuastartum et Atharmyrum, qui apud Josephum vocantur Abdastratus et Aserymus, nonnulli alii reges recensentur; nimirum Abdastratum quatuor filii nutricis occiderunt, quorum natu maximus regnavit annos 12. Post hunc Astartus, cui successit frater Aserymus. Tanta est inter Josephi et Theophili contextum discrepantia, sive in annis numerandis, sive in nominibus appellandis, ut difficile sit statuere utrum semper ex Josepho Theophilus emendandus sit, an non etiam interdum ex Theophilo Josephus. — δέ add. Reg. et B.

"And after him": between Methuastartus and Atharmyrus, who in Josephus are called Abdastratus and Aserymus, several other kings are listed: namely, Abdastratus was killed by the four sons of his nurse, the eldest of whom reigned 12 years. After him Astartus, who was succeeded by his brother Aserymus. So great is the discrepancy between the texts of Josephus and Theophilus, whether in counting years or in giving names, that it is hard to decide whether Theophilus must always be corrected from Josephus, or whether Josephus too should sometimes be corrected from Theophilus. — δέ is added by the Regius and B.

(printed under page 609)

(24) ‹anchor: ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ› · call in col 1154

Ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ. Hæc necesse fuit ex Josepho mutuari, cum deessent in editis nostris. Legitur φυγών in Regio codice.

"His sister": these words had to be borrowed from Josephus, since they were missing in our printed editions. The Regius manuscript reads φυγών.

(printed under page 609)

(25) ‹anchor: Πάνυ πολλοῖς› · call in col 1155

Πάνυ πολλοῖς, Reg. οὐ πάνυ πολλοῖς. Hæc scriptura ita placuit erudito Wolfio, ut eam in contextum receperit; quasi Theophilus dicat Zachariam post Cyrum et Darium exstitisse non omnino multis annis. Sed satius videtur hæc ad Moysen referre, cujus antiquitas eo expressior, quo pluribus ab eo annis distabit Zacharias.

"Very many": the Regius has "not very many". This reading so pleased the learned Wolf that he took it into the text, as though Theophilus were saying that Zechariah lived not very many years after Cyrus and Darius. But it seems better to refer these words to Moses, whose antiquity will be the more marked the more years Zechariah stands from him.

(printed under page 610)

(26) ‹anchor: Ἰώσηππος› · call in col 1155

Ἰώσηππος. Totum hunc locum Josephi beneficio restituerunt Fellus et post eum Wolfius. In cod. Reg. legitur: Νομοθετῶν, γράφων λήγει τις ἐν τοῖς προάγουσιν αὐτοὺς εἶναι, ὅπου γε καὶ τοῦ. Editi et codex Bodleianus: Νομοθετῶν γράφων τοῖς προάγουσιν αἱ ἱεραὶ βίβλοι.

Josephus: Fell, and after him Wolf, restored this whole passage with the help of Josephus. In the Regius manuscript it reads (corruptly): "Of lawgivers, writing, someone ceases in those who lead them to be, where indeed also of the." The printed editions and the Bodleian manuscript: "Of lawgivers writing to those who lead, the sacred books."

(printed under page 610)

(27) ‹anchor: ἔτη σλ'› · call in col 1155

Ἔτη σλ'. Ita uterque codex ms. et editiones Oxon. et Hamb. Aliæ τλ'.

"230 years": so both manuscripts and the Oxford and Hamburg editions. The others have 330.

(printed under page 610)

(28) ‹anchor: ἔτη ρξζ'› · call in col 1155

ρξζ' Ita eædem editiones et cod. Reg. Aliæ ρπζ'. Sic etiam infra pro eo quod erat in editis ͵βτκϐ', idem cod. ms. et eædem editiones habent ͵βσμβ'.

167: so the same editions and the Regius manuscript. The others have 187. So also below, for what stood in the printed editions as ͵βτκϐ' [numeral partly illegible in the scan], the same manuscript and the same editions have 2242.

(printed under page 610)

(29) ‹anchor: ὢν ἐτῶν ρ'› · call in col 1155

Ἐτῶν ρ'. Reg. ρσλ'.

"Of 100 years": the Regius has ρσλ'.

(printed under page 610)

(30) ‹anchor: Φαλὲγ ὤν› · call in col 1158

Φαλὲγ ὤν. Ita mss. et editiones Oxon. et Hamb. Aliæ Φαλέγων. Sic etiam paulo post Ναχὼρ ὤν pro Ναχώρων.

"Phalec, being": so the manuscripts and the Oxford and Hamburg editions. The others run it together as Φαλέγων. So also a little later Ναχὼρ ὤν for Ναχώρων.

(printed under page 611)

(31) ‹anchor: ἐτῶν ο'› · call in col 1158

Ἐτῶν ο'. Reg. ἐτῶν οε'.

"Of 70 years": the Regius has "of 75 years".

(printed under page 611)

(32) ‹anchor: ἔτη ͵γσοη'› · call in col 1158

Ἔτη ͵γσοη'. Sic emendavit Fellus. Editi ἐτῶν ͵γφλβ'. Habet Regius codex ͵γσος'.

"3278 years": so Fell corrected it. The printed editions have ἐτῶν ͵γφλβ' [numeral as it appears in the scan]. The Regius manuscript has 3276.

(printed under page 611)

(33) ‹anchor: ͵γϡλη'› · call in col 1158

͵γϡλη'. Ita Fellus emendavit. Sic etiam cod. Reg. Habebant aliæ editiones δσνβ'.

3938: so Fell corrected it. So too the Regius manuscript. The other editions had δσνβ'.

(printed under page 611)

(34) ‹anchor: Ὀνόματι› · call in col 1158

Ὀνόματι. Reg. ὄνομα. Mox Γοθονοὴλ posui post Fellum pro Γονοθοὴλ.

"By name": the Regius has ὄνομα. Just after, following Fell, I have put Γοθονοήλ (Othniel) for Γονοθοήλ.

(printed under page 611)

(35) ‹anchor: ἔτεσιν κϐ'› · call in col 1158

Ἔτεσιν κϐ'. Fellus posuit ἔτεσιν κγ'.

"22 years": Fell put "23 years".

(printed under page 611)

(36) ‹anchor: Γοθολία› · call in col 1158

Γοθολία. Sic emendavit Fellus. Editi habebant Γοθονιὴλ et mox μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον.

Gotholia (Athaliah): so Fell corrected it. The printed editions had Γοθονιήλ, and just after μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ("after him").

(printed under page 611)

(37) ‹anchor: Τοὺς βασιλεῖς› · call in col 1159

Τοὺς βασιλεῖς. Articulum suppeditavit cod. Reg. Paulo post Reg. habet ὀνόματι.

"The kings": the Regius manuscript supplied the article. A little after, the Regius has ὀνόματι ("by name").

(printed under page 612)

(38) ‹anchor: ͵Δϡιϐ'› · call in col 1159

͵Δϡιϐ'. Sic emendavit Fellus. Editi δπνδ'.

4912: so Fell corrected it. The printed editions have δπνδ'.

(printed under page 612)

(39) ‹anchor: Οὕτως› · call in col 1159

Οὕτως. Ita Reg. Editi οὗτος.

"Thus": so the Regius. The printed editions have "this".

(printed under page 612)

(40) ‹anchor: Τελειουμένων› · call in col 1159

Τελειουμένων. Reg. τελειωμένων. Ibidem Fellus emendavit quod in editis habebatur ν ἐτῶν.

"Being completed": the Regius has τελειωμένων. In the same place Fell corrected what stood in the printed editions as "of 50 years".

(printed under page 612)

(41) ‹anchor: Ἑαυτῶν› · call in col 1159

Ἑαυτῶν. Ita Reg. Editi ἑαυτοῦ.

"Of themselves": so the Regius. The printed editions have "of himself".

(printed under page 612)

(42) ‹anchor: ναοῦ τοῦ› · call in col 1159

Ναοῦ τοῦ. Articulum suppeditavit Reg.

"Of the temple, of the": the Regius supplied the article.

(printed under page 612)

(43) ‹anchor: Κύρου› · call in col 1159

Κύρου. Sic posuit Fellus pro Δαρείου. Paulo ante dicebat Judæos Babylone annos 70 fuisse.

"Of Cyrus": so Fell put it, for "of Darius". A little before, [Theophilus] said the Jews had been in Babylon 70 years.

(printed under page 612)

(44) ‹anchor: ἱστοριογράφων› · call in col 1159

Ἱστοριογράφων. Sic emendat Regius cod. quod editi habebant ἢ εἰ καὶ τινας ἑτέρους Ἱστοριογράφους. Ἤτοι γάρ.

"Historians": so the Regius manuscript corrects what the printed editions had as "or if also some other historians. For either".

(printed under page 612)

(45) ‹anchor: Ζωπύρου› · call in col 1159

Ζωπύρου. Hoc nomen posuit Fellus ante εἶπον et ejus loco substituit Πεισιστράτου. Mox de Pausania sic loquitur Theophilus, quasi fame non interierit in templo Minervæ, sed periculo tantum objectus fuerit.

"Of Zopyrus": Fell put this name before εἶπον and substituted "of Pisistratus" in its place. Just after, Theophilus speaks of Pausanias as though he did not die of hunger in Minerva's temple but was only exposed to the danger of it.

(printed under page 612)

(46) ‹anchor: τὸν Πελοποννησίων› · call in col 1159

Τὸν Πελοποννησίων. Reg. τῶν.

"The [war] of the Peloponnesians": the Regius has τῶν.

(printed under page 612)

(47) ‹anchor: Τοε'› · call in col 1162

Τοε'. Supra n. 16 Apollonius dicitur numerasse quindecim myriades et annos ter mille et septuaginta quinque.

375: above, at no. 16, Apollonius is said to have counted fifteen myriads and three thousand and seventy-five years.

(printed under page 613)

(48) ‹anchor: Τούτοις βουλομένοις› · call in col 1162

Τούτοις βουλομένοις. Leg. τοῖς βουλομένοις.

"To these wishing": read "to those wishing".

(printed under page 613)

(49) ‹anchor: Ἔτεσι κθ'› · call in col 1162

Ἔτεσι κθ'. Editi habebant τριάκοντα ὀκτώ, sed manifestum errorem sustulit Fellus, quia id nec cum Theophili chronologia nec cum aliis scriptoribus conciliari posse videbatur. Observat autem annos 29 a Theophilo assignari, non 30, ut apud alios scriptores, quia Theophilus initium numerandi ducebat a libertate Judæis concessa. Idem emendavit quod in editis legebatur ὑπὸ μυριάδος ἐν Μεσαγγίᾳ. (Μεσσαγγίαις Reg.)

"29 years": the printed editions had "thirty-eight", but Fell removed the obvious error, since it seemed impossible to reconcile either with Theophilus's chronology or with other writers. He observes that 29 years are assigned by Theophilus, not 30 as in other writers, because Theophilus began his count from the liberty granted to the Jews. He also corrected what was read in the printed editions as ὑπὸ μυριάδος ἐν Μεσαγγίᾳ (Μεσσαγγίαις in the Regius).

(printed under page 613)

(50) ‹anchor: Ἰλίας› · call in col 1162

Ἰλίας. Addit Reg. ὡς δέ τινες Ῥέας Συλβίας.

"Of Ilia": the Regius adds "or, as some say, of Rhea Silvia".

(printed under page 613)

(51) ‹anchor: ι' καὶ α'› · call in col 1162

ι' καὶ α'. Sic emendavit Fellus quod legebatur in editis, ι' καὶ ζ'. Ita legendum probat auctoritate Plutarchi Vit. Romuli et Julii Solini qui Romam undecimo Kalendas Maii ædificari cœptam esse dicunt.

"10 and 1": so Fell corrected what was read in the printed editions, "10 and 7". He proves it should be read so by the authority of Plutarch's Life of Romulus and of Julius Solinus, who say that Rome began to be built on the eleventh day before the Kalends of May.

(printed under page 613)

(52) ‹anchor: ᾧ καὶ› · call in col 1162

Ὧ καί. Fellus scribit ᾯ χαιρῷ.

"To whom also": Fell writes ᾯ χαιρῷ [i.e. "at which time"].

(printed under page 613)

(53) ‹anchor: ὁ Νομενκλάτωρ› · call in col 1162

Ὁ Νομενκλάτωρ. Reg. Χρύσερως καὶ ἄλλοι, ὧν ὁ μὲν Κλάτωρ. Codex Bodl. ὁ μὲν Κλάτωρ. Ex quo Fellus apte emendavit id quod in editis legebatur, Χρύσερως, ὧν ὁ μὲν Κράτωρ.

"The Nomenclator": the Regius has "Chryseros and others, of whom the one Clator". The Bodleian manuscript has "the one Clator". From this Fell aptly corrected what was read in the printed editions, "Chryseros, of whom the one Krator".

(printed under page 613)

(54) ‹anchor: μέχρι τῆς τελευτῆς› · call in col 1162

Μέχρι τῆς τελευτῆς. Ita Reg. Editi μέχρι τελευτῆς.

"Until the death": so the Regius. The printed editions have "until death", without the article.

(printed under page 613)

(55) ‹anchor: οἱ Ῥωμαίων› · call in col 1162

Οἱ Ῥωμαίων. Articulum suppeditavit Regius codex.

"Those of the Romans": the Regius manuscript supplied the article.

(printed under page 613)

(56) ‹anchor: ἔτη σλζ'› · call in col 1163

Ἔτη σλζ'. Reg. ἔτη τκς'.

"237 years": the Regius has "326 years".

(printed under page 614)

(57) ‹anchor: Βασιλείας› · call in col 1163

Βασιλείας. Ita Reg. Editi βασιλέως.

"Of the reign": so the Regius. The printed editions have "of the king".

(printed under page 614)

(58) ‹anchor: συνηθροισμένων› · call in col 1163

Συνηθροισμένων. Ita Regius codex. Fellus συνηγμένων. Editi συνηρασμένων.

"Gathered together": so the Regius manuscript. Fell has συνηγμένων; the printed editions συνηρασμένων.

(printed under page 614)

(59) ‹anchor: ἡττηθείς› · call in col 1163

Ἡττηθείς. Sic Regius cod. Editi ἐπτηθείς.

"Defeated": so the Regius manuscript. The printed editions have ἐπτηθείς ("terrified").

(printed under page 614)

(60) ‹anchor: δῆλόν ἐστι› · call in col 1163

Δῆλόν ἐστι. Hæc suppeditavit idem codex.

"It is clear": the same manuscript supplied these words.

(printed under page 614)

(61) ‹anchor: Θάλλου› · call in col 1163

Θάλλου. Citat hunc Theophili locum Lactantius sub finem lib. I.

"Of Thallus": Lactantius cites this passage of Theophilus towards the end of book I.

(printed under page 614)

(62) ‹anchor: ϡ' ἢ καὶ χιλίοις› · call in col 1163

ϡ' ἢ καὶ χιλίοις. Hujus loci vulnus sanavit codex Regius. Habebant editi η' καὶ λ'. Codex Bodl. καὶ λ'. Supra dixit Moysen nongentis aut mille annis seniorem esse bello Trojano.

"900 or even a thousand": the Regius manuscript healed the wound in this passage. The printed editions had "8 and 30"; the Bodleian manuscript "and 30". Above, he said Moses was nine hundred or a thousand years older than the Trojan war.

(printed under page 614)

(63) ‹anchor: Ἰφίτου› · call in col 1166

Ἰφίτου. Ita emendavit Fellus. Editi Εἰφίτου. Cod. Reg. Ὑφίτου. Mox editi ἔσχηκε. Cod. Reg. ut in textu.

"Of Iphitus": so Fell corrected it. The printed editions have Εἰφίτου; the Regius manuscript Ὑφίτου. Just after, the printed editions have ἔσχηκε; the Regius manuscript as in the text.

(printed under page 615)

(64) ‹anchor: Παρ' ὑμῶν› · call in col 1166

Παρ' ὑμῶν. Reg. ὑμῖν. Sed legendum ἀρχαιότητος τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν.

"From you": the Regius has ὑμῖν. But read "of the antiquity of the [writings] among us".

(printed under page 615)

(65) ‹anchor: Ἡμῶν› · call in col 1166

Ἡμῶν. Malim ἡμᾶς.

"Of us": I would prefer "us" (ἡμᾶς).

(printed under page 615)

(66) ‹anchor: Ἢ καὶ σ'› · call in col 1166

Ἢ καὶ σ'. Illud ἢ suppeditavit codex Regius. Mox idem καθὰ προειρήκασι. Mox videtur legendum εἰς τὸ ἀκριβές. Præpositio facile omitti potuit ob similem sonum syllabæ præcedentis.

"Or even 200": the Regius manuscript supplied the ἢ ("or"). Just after, the same has καθὰ προειρήκασι. Just after, it seems one should read εἰς τὸ ἀκριβές ("to exactness"). The preposition could easily have been dropped because of the similar sound of the preceding syllable.

(printed under page 615)

(67) ‹anchor: Ὅτι δὲ› · call in col 1166

Ὅτι δέ. Legendum videtur ἔτι δέ.

"And that": it seems one should read "and further".

(printed under page 615)

(68) ‹anchor: Τῶν γὰρ συμβάντων› · call in col 1166

Τῶν συμβάντων. Ita Reg. Editi τὰ συμβάντα.

"Of the things that happened": so the Regius. The printed editions have the accusative τὰ συμβάντα.

(printed under page 615)

(69) ‹anchor: ἔτι δὲ› · call in col 1166

Ἔτι δέ. Hæc suppeditavit Regius codex.

"And further": the Regius manuscript supplied these words.

(printed under page 615)

(70) ‹anchor: ἀπὸ Φοινίκων› · call in col 1166

Ἀπὸ Φοινίκων. Legendum videtur ὑπὸ Φοινίκων.

"From the Phoenicians": it seems one should read "by the Phoenicians".

(printed under page 615)

(71) ‹anchor: σύμβολον› · call in col 1168

Σύμβολον. Haec de baptismo intelligit Fellus; sed compendium et pignus veritatis consignatum his libris malim intelligere.

"Token": Fell understands this of baptism; but I would rather understand it of the summary and pledge of the truth set down in these books.

(printed under page 616) <!-- Note (71) is printed full width beneath the closing lines of Ad Autolycum III §30, above the rule that opens Hermias; it begins under this column. Its call stands in the Greek of col 1168 only (the facing Latin "symbolum" carries no call); it is set here once and is not to be repeated in n1168. -->