Athenagoras Atheniensis philosophus Christianus, Legatio pro Christianis (Πρεσβεία περὶ Χριστιανῶν)

(1) ‹anchor: title, Περὶ Χριστιανῶν (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 890

Περὶ Χριστιανῶν. Suffridus in suo codice reperit ὑπέρ, quod ei magis arridet quam περί. At immerito prorsus illud περί in suspicionem venit. Praeter exemplum ab Henrico Stephano allatum ex Isocrate in Helenae Encomio: Ἀπολογεῖσθαι μὲν γὰρ προσήκει περὶ τῶν ἀδικεῖν αἰτίαν ἐχόντων, multa alia proferri possunt ex sacris et ecclesiasticis scriptoribus. Sic in libro Job, cap. XLII, 28: Ἰὼβ δὲ ὁ θεράπων μου εὔξεται περὶ ὑμῶν, Job servus meus precabitur pro vobis. Non rara sunt in Scriptura ejusmodi exempla. In epist. Maximiani ad Cyrillum haec leguntur: Μὴ ἀμέλει τῆς περὶ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὸν Δεσπότην Χριστὸν πρεσβείας. Liber pro Judaeis a Philone scriptus, vocatur ab Eusebio ὁ περὶ Ἰουδαίων συνταχθεὶς λόγος, lib. II Hist., cap. 18. Non dubitat Valesius quin legendum sit ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων, quia Eusebius lib. VIII Praep. evang., cap. 10, locum profert ἐκ τῆς Φίλωνος ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων Ἀπολογίας. Sed cum Suidas librum Philonis περὶ Ἰουδαίων commemoret, cumque Ruffinus locum Eusebii sic vertat, De Judaeis apologeticus liber, quo etiam modo Hieronymus reddidit, nihil prorsus in Eusebio immutandum.

"Concerning Christians" (Peri Christianōn). Suffridus found hyper ("on behalf of") in his manuscript, which pleases him more than peri ("concerning"). But that peri has come under suspicion quite undeservedly. Besides the example brought by Henri Estienne from Isocrates' Encomium of Helen — "For it is fitting to make a defence concerning (peri) those who are charged with wrongdoing" — many others can be brought from the sacred and ecclesiastical writers. So in the book of Job, ch. 42, 28 [as printed]: "And Job my servant shall pray concerning (peri) you," Job my servant shall pray for you. Examples of this kind are not rare in Scripture. In the letter of Maximian to Cyril we read: "Do not neglect your intercession concerning (peri) us before the Lord Christ." The book written by Philo for the Jews is called by Eusebius "the discourse composed concerning (peri) the Jews," Hist. book 2, ch. 18. Valesius does not doubt that one should read hyper Ioudaiōn, because Eusebius, Praep. evang. book 8, ch. 10, quotes a passage "from Philo's Apology on behalf of (hyper) the Jews." But since Suidas mentions Philo's book peri Ioudaiōn, and Rufinus renders the place in Eusebius thus, "an apologetic book on the Jews," which is also how Jerome rendered it, nothing at all is to be changed in Eusebius.

(printed under page 475)

(2) ‹anchor: Αὐτοκράτορσι› · call in col 890

Αὐτοκράτορσι. Sic uterque Reg. et Clarom. Editi αὐτοκράτορσιν.

"To the emperors" (Autokratorsi). So both Reg. [Royal manuscripts] and Clarom. [the Clermont manuscript]. The editions have autokratorsin.

(printed under page 475)

(3) ‹anchor: Μάρκῳ Αὐρηλίῳ Ἀντωνίνῳ› · call in col 890

Ἀντωνίνῳ. Codices nonnulli Ἀντωνίῳ. Desunt in codice Etonensi hae voces Ἀντωνίνῳ καὶ Λουκίῳ Αὐρηλίῳ.

"Antoninus." Some manuscripts have Antōniō. The words "Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius" are missing in the Eton manuscript.

(printed under page 475)

(4) ‹anchor: Λουκίῳ Αὐρηλίῳ Κομμόδῳ› · call in col 890

Κομμόδῳ. Nonnulli codices Κομόδῳ.

"Commodus." Some manuscripts have Komodō (with one m).

(printed under page 475)

(5) ‹anchor: μεγάλοι βασιλέων› · call in col 890

Μεγάλοι βασιλέων. Legendum existimat H. Stephanus μέγιστοι.

"Great ones among kings." H. Stephanus (Henri Estienne) thinks one should read megistoi ("greatest").

(printed under page 475)

(6) ‹anchor: οἰκουμένη› · call in col 890

Οἰκουμένη. Sic vocari solet Romanum imperium. Caius apud Josephum Antiq. lib. XIX, p. 653, dicitur malis et sycophantiis replevisse πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἧς ἐπῆρχε, totum orbem cui imperabat; et pag. 666, imperium Romanum vocatur ὑποτελοῦσα Ῥωμαίοις οἰκουμένη. Episcopi Valentis aulae addicti vocantur a Gregorio Naz. orat. 20, p. 338, saevi tetrarchae orbis ipsi parentis, οἱ πικροὶ τετράρχαι τῆς ὑπ' αὐτὸν οἰκουμένης. Vid. epist. 42 S. Basilii. Sic etiam vocantur interdum non latissimae regiones. Hieronymus observat illud Isaiae: Et visitabo super orbis mala, ubi Hebraice dicitur Thebel et Graece οἰκουμένη, non de mundi consummatione intelligendum, sed de Babylonis ruina.

"The inhabited world" (oikoumenē). This is the usual name for the Roman Empire. Gaius, in Josephus, Antiquities book 19, p. 653, is said to have filled with evils and false accusations "the whole oikoumenē which he ruled," the whole world over which he held command; and on p. 666 the Roman Empire is called "the oikoumenē subject to the Romans." The bishops attached to the court of Valens are called by Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 20, p. 338, cruel tetrarchs of the world obedient to him, "the bitter tetrarchs of the oikoumenē under him." See St Basil's letter 42. Sometimes, too, regions that are not very wide are so called. Jerome observes that the saying of Isaiah, "And I will visit evils upon the world," where the Hebrew has Thebel and the Greek oikoumenē, is to be understood not of the end of the world but of the ruin of Babylon.

(printed under page 475)

(7) ‹anchor: τὴν Ἑλένην Ἀδράστειαν› · call in col 890

Τὴν Ἑλένην Ἀδράστειαν. Mirum sane est Ilienses tantum honoris habuisse Helenae, quae tot illis malorum causa exstiterat. Sed Ilienses, ut observat Eustathius Iliad. Δ, p. 590, et Η, p. 666, Herculem oderant, quamvis urbem non evertisset; Achilli autem, Antilocho, Patroclo, Ajaci, qui eam solo aequaverant, parentare non dubitabant, quia bellum Herculis honorificum Trojae non fuerat, at postremam cladem plurimum laudis et gloriae compensabat. Hinc forte Helenam colere non veriti sunt. Cur autem Helena sub Adrastiae nomine culta fuerit, illustrari potest ex Eustathio, qui docet in Δ Odyss., p. 1488; Helenam ab Homero cum Artemide comparari ac inde scriptores Homero posteriores ansam arripuisse, ut quia Artemis allegorice luna dicitur, Helenam lunarem mulierem fingerent, ut ex mundo lunari delapsam, eamque sursum postea (continues)

"Helen as Adrasteia." It is indeed strange that the people of Ilium paid such honour to Helen, who had been the cause of so many evils for them. But the people of Ilium, as Eustathius observes on Iliad Δ, p. 590, and Η, p. 666, hated Hercules, although he had not overthrown their city; yet they did not hesitate to offer funeral rites to Achilles, Antilochus, Patroclus and Ajax, who had levelled it to the ground, because the war of Hercules had brought Troy no honour, whereas the final disaster made up for it with a great deal of praise and glory. Perhaps that is why they were not afraid to worship Helen. Why Helen was worshipped under the name of Adrasteia can be illustrated from Eustathius, who teaches on Odyssey Δ, p. 1488, that Helen is compared by Homer to Artemis, and that writers after Homer seized on this as a handle, so that, since Artemis is allegorically called the moon, they made Helen out to be a lunar woman, as if she had fallen from the lunar world, and [that] she afterwards (continues)

(printed under page 475)

(8) ‹anchor: ἐπιστάμενος› · call in col 891

Ἐπιστάμενος. Vertit Gesnerus Helenam, veluti Adrastiam, scientes adorant. Sed haec videntur explicari posse ex his quae infra n. 14, leguntur: Ἐπεὶ μὴ τοὺς αὐτοὺς οἷς ἴσασι νομίζομεν. Quod non eosdem, quos ipsi agnoscunt, asciscamus deos. Apud Eusebium Hist. VII, 11, sic Aemilianus alloquitur Dionysium: Θεοὺς γὰρ σέβειν ἐκελεύσθητε καὶ θεοὺς οὓς πάντες ἴσασι. Illud ergo ἐπιστάμενος idem videtur esse ac agnoscens.

"Knowing" (epistamenos). Gesner translated: "knowingly they worship Helen as Adrastia." But this seems explicable from what is read below, n. 14: "since we do not hold [as gods] the same ones whom they know," because we do not adopt the same gods whom they themselves acknowledge. In Eusebius, Hist. 7.11, Aemilian addresses Dionysius thus: "For you were ordered to worship gods, and gods whom all know." That epistamenos, then, seems to mean the same as "acknowledging."

(printed under page 476)

(9) ‹anchor: Ἀγαμέμνονα› · call in col 891

Ἀγαμέμνονα. Sic vocatur Agamemnon apud Clement. Alex. Protrept., pag. 24, et apud Lycophronem vers. 85, ubi observat Tzetzes sic olim reges appellari solitos fuisse. Idem observat Eustathius in Iliad. p. 166. Saepe alias nomina deorum hominibus affinguntur. Paulo post Athenagoras Erechtheum vocat Neptunum, Agesilaum Plutonem Lactantius lib. I, cap. 11. Observat Clemens Alexandrinus Protrept. p. 36, non reges solum nomina deorum sibi arrogasse, ut Dionysii, seu Bacchi Ptolemaeum quartum et Mithridatem, sed idem ausos esse ipsos etiam privatos, ut Menecratem medicum, et Nicagoram, quorum prior Jupiter, alter Mercurius vocabatur. Hinc etiam Aristarchus Jupiter apud Athenaeum lib. III, cap. 20. Vid. lib. VI, et lib. VII et lib. XIII.

"Agamemnon." Agamemnon is so called [i.e. as a god, Zeus Agamemnon] in Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, p. 24, and in Lycophron, line 85, where Tzetzes observes that kings were once commonly so named. Eustathius observes the same on the Iliad, p. 166. Often elsewhere the names of gods are attached to men. A little later Athenagoras calls Erechtheus Neptune; Lactantius, book 1, ch. 11, calls Agesilaus Pluto. Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus p. 36, observes that not only did kings claim the names of gods for themselves — as Ptolemy IV and Mithridates that of Dionysus or Bacchus — but private persons also dared the same, such as Menecrates the physician and Nicagoras, the former of whom was called Jupiter, the latter Mercury. Hence also "Aristarchus Jupiter" in Athenaeus, book 3, ch. 20. See book 6, and book 7, and book 13.

(printed under page 476)

(10) ‹anchor: Τένvην Ὀδίαν› · call in col 891

Τέννην Ὀδίαν. Variae in hunc locum lectiones et conjecturae, de quibus judicium erit eruditi lectoris. Codex Reg. 1 habet τένι ἡοδίαν, secundus Τέvν Ὀδίαν, codex orat. Τένην ὀδίαν. Suffridus in codice suo reperit Ὀτρύνην Ὀδίαν; hinc vertit: Caduceatricem Triviam sive Proserpinam, quam et Ὀδίαν apud Graecos dici, ut Triviam apud Latinos existimat, quia eadem est ac Hecate, et Ὀτρύνην ab impellendo, quia suum habet ut Mercurius caduceum; et mortuos ad inferos deducit. Addit idem Suffridus Phylonoen eamdem esse ac Proserpinam caduceatricem, et tollit καὶ ante Ὀτρύνην. Gesnerus legendum putat Τέννην Τενέδιος, quia, ut ait Cicero III act. in Verr. Tenem apud Tenedios putant esse sanctissimum Deum ac eorum urbem condidisse. Porro sive Tennem, sive Tenem scribas, perinde est. Conon apud Photium cod. 18, scribit cum duplici ν. Langus legit τὴν Ὀδίαν, et compitalem Proserpinam interpretatur, Meursius mavult, τὴν ἐνοδίαν, ac Dianam ita cognominatam esse declarat. lib. I, cap. 2, Miscell. Laconic.

"Tennes Hodia." There are various readings and conjectures on this place, on which the learned reader will judge. Codex Reg. 1 has teni hēodian, the second Tenn Odian, the Oratory manuscript Tenēn odian. Suffridus found Otrynēn Odian in his manuscript; hence he translates "Trivia the herald-staff bearer, or Proserpina," whom he thinks was called Hodia ("of the road") among the Greeks as Trivia was among the Latins, because she is the same as Hecate, and Otrynē from "urging on," because like Mercury she has her herald's staff and leads the dead down to the underworld. The same Suffridus adds that Phylonoe is the same as Proserpina the staff-bearer, and removes the kai before Otrynēn. Gesner thinks one should read Tennēn Tenedios ("Tennes of Tenedos"), because, as Cicero says in the third action against Verres, the people of Tenedos think Tenes a most holy god and the founder of their city. Whether you write Tennes or Tenes makes no difference; Conon, in Photius codex 18, writes it with a double n. Langus reads tēn Hodian, and translates "Proserpina of the crossroads"; Meursius prefers tēn enodian, and states that Diana was so surnamed — Miscellanea Laconica, book 1, ch. 2.

(printed under page 476)

(11) ‹anchor: ἐθέλωσιν› · call in col 891

Ἐθέλωσιν. Reg. 1, et tres Romani codices θέλωσιν prima manu.

"They wish" (ethelōsin). Reg. 1 and three Roman manuscripts have thelōsin in the first hand.

(printed under page 476)

(12) ‹anchor: τούτοις πᾶσιν› · call in col 891

Τούτοις πᾶσιν. Clarom. et tres Anglicani codices τούτων πᾶσιν.

"To all these" (toutois pasin). The Clermont manuscript and three English manuscripts have toutōn pasin.

(printed under page 476)

(13) ‹anchor: ἀπέχωνται› · call in col 891

Ἀπέχωνται. Reg. 1 et uterque Ottobon. ἀπόσχωνται.

"They abstain" (apechōntai). Reg. 1 and both Ottoboni manuscripts have aposchōntai.

(printed under page 476)

(14) ‹anchor: ἡμῖν δέ› · call in col 891

Ἡμῖν δέ. Monet H. Stephanus legendum esse ἡμῶν δέ, sed videtur loci emendationem tantum inchoasse. Legitur in Reg. 1 et Orat. ἀπεχθάνεται. Unde facile est accuratam et cum iis quae sequuntur congruentem sententiam habere. Quare sic legendum videtur: Ἡμῶν δὲ.. τὸ ὄνομα τί ἀπεχθάνεται; Cum hac scriptura quadrat quod sequitur: Οὐ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα, etc. Quare etiamsi retineamus ἀπεχθάνεσθε, legendum erit: Ἡμῶν δὲ τῷ ὀνόματι τί ἀπεχθαίνεσθε. Legitur ὑμῖν δέ in codice Institutionis Pariensis Oratorii.

"But to us" (hēmin de). H. Stephanus advises reading hēmōn de, but seems only to have begun the emendation of the place. Reg. 1 and the Oratory manuscript read apechthanetai ("is hated"). From this it is easy to get an exact sense that agrees with what follows. So it seems one should read: "But our … name, why is it hated?" What follows fits this reading: "For names are not," etc. So even if we keep apechthanesthe, we shall have to read: "But why do you hate our name?" The manuscript of the Paris Oratory reads hymin de.

(printed under page 476)

(15) ‹anchor: πρὸς ἅπαντα› · call in col 891

Πρὸς ἅπαντα. Reg. 1 et alter Ottobon. habent πρὸς ἅπαντας.

"Towards all things" (pros hapanta). Reg. 1 and the other Ottoboni manuscript have pros hapantas ("towards all people").

(printed under page 476)

(16) ‹anchor: μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας› · call in col 891

Μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας. Reg. 1 et uterque Ottobon. μηδένα ἀδικοῦντας. Ibidem Reg. 1 συγχωρεῖται.

"Doing no wrong" (mēden adikountas). Reg. 1 and both Ottoboni manuscripts have mēdena adikountas ("wronging no one"). In the same place Reg. 1 has synchōreitai.

(printed under page 476)

(17) ‹anchor: ἐλαύνεσθαι› · call in col 891

Ἐλαύνεσθαι. Dodwelli in hunc locum perabsurda observatio legitur dissert. 11, Cypr. n. 38: Non dicit ipsos persecutionum auctores, inquit, fuis- (continues)

"To be driven" (elaunesthai). A quite absurd remark of Dodwell's on this place is read in his Dissertationes Cyprianicae 11, n. 38: "He does not say that they themselves were the authors of the persecutions," he says, "[that they] had (continues)

(printed under page 476)

(18) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 894

Παυσώμεθα. Clarom. et unus ex Anglicanis, παυσόμεθα.

"That we may cease" (pausōmetha). The Clermont manuscript and one of the English ones have pausometha ("we shall cease").

(printed under page 477)

(19) ‹anchor: ἡ κοινὴ› · call in col 894

Ἡ κοινή. Delendum articulum monet H. Stephanus et paulo post legendum φιλανθρωποτάτων.

"The common" (hē koinē). H. Stephanus advises deleting the article, and a little after reading philanthrōpotatōn ("most humane").

(printed under page 477)

(20) ‹anchor: ἡ σύμπασα› · call in col 894

Ἡ σύμπασα. Deesse hic vocem οἰκουμένη aut aliam similem existimat Stephanus, sed forte supplenda magis quam deesse existimanda.

"The whole" (hē sympasa). Stephanus thinks the word oikoumenē ("inhabited world"), or another like it, is missing here; but perhaps it should be thought of as understood rather than missing.

(printed under page 477)

(21) ‹anchor: δικαζόντων ἐπιζητούντων› · call in col 894

Ἐπιζητούντων. Deest in tribus Anglicanis.

"Inquiring" (epizētountōn). Missing in three English manuscripts.

(printed under page 477)

(22) ‹anchor: μεγίστοις φεύγωσι› · call in col 894

Φεύγωσι. Uterque Regius et Orat. φεύγουσι.

"They are prosecuted" (pheugōsi). Both Royal manuscripts and the Oratory manuscript have pheugousi.

(printed under page 477)

(23) ‹anchor: ἐν ἴσῃ τάξει (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 895

Ἐν ἴσῃ τάξει. Ante haec verba videtur deesse conjunctio copulativa, quam quidem in interpretando supplevimus. Henricus Stephanus eam collocat ante εἰδότες, quod idem esse putat ac διὰ τὸ εἰδέναι. Videtur ergo Stephanus sic intellexisse has voces ἐν ἴσῃ τάξει, etc., aequo animo sententiam damnantem et absolventem excipiunt vel exspectant. Mox tres Angl. ἐφ' ὅτῳ. Ducaeus ἐφ' ὅσων. Alii ἐφ' ὅτων.

"In equal order" (en isē taxei). Before these words a copulative conjunction seems to be missing, which we have supplied in translating. Henri Estienne places it before eidotes ("knowing"), which he takes to be the same as dia to eidenai ("because they know"). Stephanus therefore seems to have understood the words en isē taxei, etc., thus: "they receive, or await, with an even mind the sentence that condemns and the sentence that acquits." Just after, three English manuscripts have eph' hotō; Ducaeus (Fronton du Duc) eph' hosōn; others eph' hotōn.

(printed under page 478)

(24) ‹anchor: τοὺς ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 895

Τοὺς ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας. Hoc argumentum, quo utitur S. Justinus Apol. I, n. 5, eo majoris est ponderis, quod philosophi statuas et deos irridebant, nec tamen ob eam rem male audiebant, aut sacrificare cogebantur. Cur ergo, inquit Tertullianus Apol. 46, quibus comparamur de disciplina, proinde illis non adaequamur ad licentiam impunitatemque disciplinae? Vel cur et illi, ut pares nostri non urgentur ad officia, quae nos non obeuntes periclitamur? Quis enim philosophum sacrificare aut dejerare aut lucernas meridie vanas proferre compellit? Quinimo et deos vestros palam destruunt, et superstitiones vestras commentariis quoque accusant, laudantibus vobis.

"Those from philosophy." This argument, which St Justin uses in Apology 1, n. 5, carries all the more weight because the philosophers mocked statues and gods, and yet were not ill spoken of for it, nor compelled to sacrifice. "Why then," says Tertullian, Apology 46, "are we not put on a par, as regards freedom and impunity for our teaching, with those to whom we are compared in teaching? Or why are they too, as our equals, not pressed to the duties which we are endangered for not performing? For who compels a philosopher to sacrifice, or to swear, or to set out useless lamps at midday? On the contrary, they openly demolish your gods and attack your superstitions in their writings too, with your applause."

(printed under page 478)

(25) ‹anchor: φήμης ἀποδυσάμενοι› · call in col 895

Ἀποδυσάμενοι. Videtur Athenagoras Justinum imitari et falsas criminationes, ut prava quaedam integumenta considerare, quae Christianae doctrinae, ut ait Justinus Apol. II, n. 13, improbi homines ad alios deterrendos injecerant. Si quis tamen hanc vocem ἀποδυσάμενοι idem esse velit ac postquam depulerimus, non repugnabo, sed tunc legendum erit ἀπολυσάμενοι, ut paulo ante et passim.

"Having stripped off" (apodysamenoi). Athenagoras seems to be imitating Justin, and to regard the false accusations as certain wicked coverings which, as Justin says in Apology 2, n. 13, wicked men had thrown over Christian doctrine to deter others. If anyone, however, would have this word apodysamenoi mean the same as "after we have repelled," I will not object; but then one will have to read apolysamenoi, as a little before and throughout.

(printed under page 478)

(26) ‹anchor: Οἰδιποδείους› · call in col 895

Οἰδιποδείους. Reg. uterque, Orat. et tres Angl. Οἰδιποδίους.

"Oedipodean" (Oidipodeious). Both Royal manuscripts, the Oratory manuscript and three English ones have Oidipodious.

(printed under page 478)

(27) ‹anchor: τῶν ἐναντίων› · call in col 895

Τῶν ἐναντίων. Elegantius et ornatius fore existimat Stephanus si legatur καὶ ἐναντίων, sed inutili prorsus opera, cum locus nec corruptus sit, (continues)

"Of the opposites" (tōn enantiōn). Stephanus thinks it would be more elegant and ornate if one read kai enantiōn; but this is labour wholly wasted, since the place is neither corrupt (continues)

(printed under page 478)

(28) ‹anchor: κελεύοντες μὴ ὁμονοεῖν (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 898

Κελεύοντες μὴ ὁμονοεῖν. Omisit haec verba Gesnerus, ut parum quadrantia, suspicatur conjungi debere cum his quae praecedunt, ita ut legatur: Θείῳ νόμῳ κελεύοντι μὴ ὁμονοεῖν. Suffridus ac auctor editionis Oxon. nihil mutandum putant; uterque sic interpretatur, quasi dicat Athenagoras vetuisse imperatores, ne ethnici cum Christianis consentirent. Ex quo nulla prorsus sententia erui possit, quamvis diversam uterque eruere conetur. Corrupti loci non difficilis erit emendatio, si, ut par est, attendamus. Lego itaque μὴ μηνύειν; si nihil horum a nobis admitti vos ipsi testes estis, qui nomen nostrum deferri vetatis. Nefas ambigere, quin respiciat Athenagoras ad aliquod imperatorum edictum, ex quo Christianorum eluceret innocentia. At vix ullo edicto imperatores innocentiam Christianorum significantius declararunt, quam cum eorum nomen deferri vetuerunt. Trajanus Plinio secundo rescripserat: Hoc genus inquirendos quidem non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere, ut ait Tertull. Apologet., c. 2. Adrianus in Epistola ad Minucium Fundanum in ipsos delatores animadverti jusserat, si Christianos solius religionis nomine accusarent. Idem sanxerat Antoninus in epistola ad commune Asiae. M. Aurelius, etsi tam liberaliter cum Christianis non agebat, eos tamen accusari vetuerat paucis annis antequam ei hanc Apologiam Athenagoras offerret. Sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus, inquit Tertullianus Apologet., c. 5, poenam dimovit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione et quidem tetriore. Quare cum Marcus Christianos accusari vetaret, accusatis poenam non eximeret, merito Athenagoras illius testimonio Christianorum innocentiam declarari contendit. Quod quidem argumentum sic Tertulliani nervis vibratur Apologet., c. 2: O sententiam necessitate confusam! Negat inquirendos ut innocentes, et mandat puniendos ut nocentes. Parcit et saevit: dissimulat et animadvertit. Quid temetipsam, censura, circumvenis? Si damnas, cur non et inquiris? Si non inquiris, cur non et absolvis? Haec Tertulliani dicta de Trajani edicto haud scio an melius quadrent in edictum M. Aurelii, qui Christianos non solum, ut Trajanus, inquiri, sed etiam accusari vetabat, inflicta accusatoribus gravissima poena, quod a Trajano factum non legimus.

"Commanding not to agree" (keleuontes mē homonoein). Gesner omitted these words as fitting poorly; he suspects they should be joined to what precedes, so as to read: "by a divine law commanding not to agree." Suffridus and the editor of the Oxford edition think nothing should be changed; both interpret as if Athenagoras were saying that the emperors had forbidden the pagans to agree with the Christians. From this no sense at all can be got, though each tries to get a different one. The emendation of the corrupt place will not be difficult if we pay due attention. I therefore read mē mēnyein ("not to inform against"): "if you yourselves are witnesses that none of these things is committed by us, you who forbid our name to be brought to court." It is wrong to doubt that Athenagoras is looking to some edict of the emperors from which the innocence of the Christians shone out. But by hardly any edict did the emperors declare the Christians' innocence more expressly than when they forbade their name to be brought to court. Trajan had written back to Pliny the Younger "that people of this kind were not to be sought out, but if brought forward ought to be punished," as Tertullian says, Apology ch. 2. Hadrian, in his letter to Minucius Fundanus, had ordered that the informers themselves be punished if they accused Christians on the name of their religion alone. Antoninus had decreed the same in his letter to the Common Council of Asia. M. Aurelius, though he did not deal so generously with the Christians, had nevertheless forbidden them to be accused a few years before Athenagoras presented this Apology to him. "Though he did not openly remove the penalty from men of this kind," says Tertullian, Apology ch. 5, "in another way he openly scattered it, by adding a condemnation for the accusers too, and a harsher one." So since Marcus forbade the Christians to be accused, though he did not exempt the accused from punishment, Athenagoras rightly argues that the Christians' innocence is declared by his testimony. This very argument is brandished with Tertullian's force, Apology ch. 2: "O sentence confounded by necessity! It denies they are to be sought out, as innocent, and orders them punished, as guilty. It spares and it rages; it pretends not to see and it punishes. Why, judgement, do you outwit yourself? If you condemn, why do you not also seek out? If you do not seek out, why do you not also acquit?" I rather wonder whether these words of Tertullian about Trajan's edict do not fit better the edict of M. Aurelius, who forbade the Christians not only to be sought out, as Trajan did, but even to be accused, with a very heavy penalty laid on the accusers — which we do not read that Trajan did.

(printed under page 479)

(29) ‹anchor: τὴν βασιλείαν (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 898

Τὴν βασιλείαν. Reg. 2 et tres Anglicani τῆς βασιλείας.

"The kingdom" (tēn basileian). Reg. 2 and three English manuscripts have tēs basileias.

(printed under page 479)

(30) ‹anchor: ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας … ἐπιδιδόντες (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 898

Ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας... ἐπιδιδόντες. Videtur ratiocinatio Athenagorae duabus rebus, tanquam fundamento, niti: 1° Moribus tanto veritatis amore inflammatis nihil inesse posse sceleris, quod legum severitatem reformidet; 2° Christianos, dum vitam pro veritate profundunt, non cedere adversariis, nec ab eis vinci, sed potius vincere. His suppositis, sic ratiocinatur Athenagoras: Si nunc Christiani, cum impetrare non possunt ut leges observentur, mortem libenter oppetunt pro veritate; quanto magis causae suae confident et adversarios non metuent, cum accusatoribus non jam nomen Christiani deferendum erit, sed aequabili jure crimina probanda? Forte legendum ἢ τοῖς διώκουσιν.

"For the truth … giving up." Athenagoras's reasoning seems to rest on two things as its foundation: first, that in a way of life fired by so great a love of truth there can be no crime that fears the severity of the laws; second, that the Christians, while they pour out their life for the truth, do not yield to their adversaries nor are conquered by them, but rather conquer. On these premises Athenagoras reasons thus: if Christians now, when they cannot obtain that the laws be observed, willingly meet death for the truth, how much more will they trust their cause and not fear their adversaries when accusers will no longer have to bring the name of Christian to court, but must prove crimes under equal law? Perhaps one should read ē tois diōkousin ("or to those who persecute").

(printed under page 479)

(31) ‹anchor: γενητὴν καὶ φθαρτήν (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 898

Γενητὴν καὶ φθαρτήν. Unus ex Anglicanis codicibus γεννητὴν καὶ φθαρτήν.

"Come into being and perishable" (genētēn kai phthartēn). One of the English manuscripts has gennētēn ("begotten") kai phthartēn.

(printed under page 479)

(32) ‹anchor: μὴ τὸν αὐτόν (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 899

Μὴ τὸν αὐτόν. Recte observavit Gesnerus legendum esse ἐσθλόν. Ibidem tres Anglicani καθεστάναι.

"Not the same" (mē ton auton). Gesner rightly observed that one should read esthlon ("noble"). In the same place three English manuscripts have kathestanai.

(printed under page 480)

(33) ‹anchor: ὡς ἐκεῖνος δογματίζων (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 899

Ὡς ἐκεῖνος δογματίζων. Samuel Petitus Var. Lect. lib. III, cap. 3, legendum putat, ὡς ἔχει νοῦς, δογματίζων, quod idem est ac apte et ut sana mens postulat. Gesnerus legit, ὅτι Θεός, δογματίζων. Editor Oxoniensis, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ὁ Θεὸς δογματίζων, illum Deum esse affirmans. Sed parenthesis, quam apposui, videtur rem expedire, nosque inutilium conjecturarum labore levare. Si quis tamen legere malit οὕτως ἐκεῖνος, sic ille decernens et asseverans; eo probabilior erit haec emendandi ratio, quod vocis οὕτως duae priores litterae facile, ob similitudinem cum praecedentibus, excidere potuerunt.

"As he, laying down doctrine" (hōs ekeinos dogmatizōn). Samuel Petit, Variae Lectiones book 3, ch. 3, thinks one should read hōs echei nous, dogmatizōn, which is the same as "fittingly, and as a sound mind requires." Gesner reads hoti Theos, dogmatizōn ("declaring that [he is] God"). The Oxford editor: hōs ekeinos ho Theos dogmatizōn, "affirming that that one is God." But the parenthesis I have added seems to settle the matter and to spare us the labour of useless conjectures. If anyone, however, prefers to read houtōs ekeinos, "so he, deciding and asserting," this way of emending will be all the more probable because the first two letters of the word houtōs could easily have dropped out through their likeness to what precedes.

(printed under page 480)

(34) ‹anchor: ὁρᾷς τὸν ὑψοῦ (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 899

Ὁρᾷς τὸν ὑψοῦ. Hos versus Athenagoras deflectit ab ea sententia in quam accipi solent. Sic enim eos interpretatur Cicero lib. II Nat. deorum: Vides sublime fusum immoderatum aethera, / Qui terram tenero circumjectu amplectitur, / Hunc summum habeto Divum, hunc perhibeto Jovem. Liquet Euripidis versus sic a Cicerone reddi, ut aether, qui terram circumplectitur, pro Deo habendus sit. Sed aliter interpretandi necessitatem mihi attulit Athenagoras, qui non aetherem pro Deo haberi ab Euripide existimat, sed eum qui et aetherem et terram complectitur. Nam 1° Euripidem laudat Athenagoras, quod Deum ex operibus in aethere et terra manifestis cognosci doceat. Non aetherem ergo, sed eum, qui aetherem complectitur, Deum ab Euripide credidit agnosci. 2° Euripidem loqui declarat de Deo qui scientia tantum cognoscitur, ἐπὶ τοῦ κατ' ἐπιστήμην νοητοῦ, nedum de aethere hos versus acceperit. Sic interpretandi Euripidis locum fortasse dedit Athenagorae is ejusdem poetae versus, quem citant Justinus in libro De monarchia, et Clemens Alex. Protrept. p. 45: Τὸν πάνθ' ὁρῶντα κ'αὐτὸν οὐχ ὁρώμενον. Qui cuncta cernit, ipse sed non cernitur. Sed illud ὑγραῖς ἐν ἀγκάλαις dubitare non sinit quin aetherem Euripides appellaverit Deum.

"You see the one on high" (Horas ton hypsou). Athenagoras bends these lines away from the sense in which they are usually taken. For Cicero renders them thus, Nature of the Gods book 2: "You see the boundless aether spread on high, / which embraces the earth in its soft encircling: / hold this the highest god, call this one Jove." Clearly Cicero renders Euripides' lines so that the aether which embraces the earth is to be held as God. But Athenagoras has obliged me to interpret otherwise, for he thinks that Euripides holds as God not the aether but him who embraces both aether and earth. For, first, Athenagoras praises Euripides for teaching that God is known from the works manifest in the aether and on earth; so he believed that Euripides acknowledged as God not the aether but him who embraces the aether. Second, he declares that Euripides is speaking of the God who is known only by understanding, "of what is intelligible by knowledge," still less would he have taken these lines of the aether. Perhaps Athenagoras was given this way of interpreting the place in Euripides by that line of the same poet which Justin quotes in his book On the Sole Rule of God, and Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus p. 45: "He who sees all things and is himself not seen." But the words "in moist arms" leave no doubt that Euripides called the aether God.

(printed under page 480)

(35) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 899

Τοῦτον. Duo Anglicani codices, τοῦτο.

"This one" (touton). Two English manuscripts have touto ("this thing").

(printed under page 480)

(36) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 899

Οὐκ οἶδα. Sic codices omnes manu exarati. Male in editis οἶδεν. Caeterum hic versus accuratius a Justino ex Euripidis Hecuba citatur in lib. De monarch.: Ζεύς, ὅστις εἶ Ζεύς, οὐ γὰρ οἶδα πλὴν λόγῳ.

"I do not know" (ouk oida). So all the handwritten manuscripts; the editions wrongly have oiden. This line, moreover, is quoted more exactly by Justin from Euripides' Hecuba in his book On the Sole Rule: "Zeus, whoever Zeus is — for I do not know, except by report."

(printed under page 480)

(37) ‹anchor: ὄψει τῶν ἀδήλων› · call in col 899

Ὄψει τῶν ἀδήλων. Gesnerus legit ὄψει οὐκ ἀδήλων. Editor Oxoniensis ὄψει τὸν ἄδηλον. Atque haec quidem lucis aliquid his tenebris afferre possunt. Sed cum in utroque Regio et utroque Ottobon. et Orat. legamus τὰ φαινόμενα ἀέρα, αἰθέρος, γῆς, facilis suspicio est illud ἀέρα corruptum esse, et ex alia voce, quam librarii non belle legerint, ortum esse. Cum enim illud ἀέρα, non consentit cum sequentibus vocibus αἰθέρος, γῆς, tum vero in testimonio Euripidis, quod hoc loco explanat Athenagoras, nulla fit mentio aeris, sed tantum aetheris et terrae. Quare pro ἀέρα legendum puto ἑώρα, sicque scribendum: Τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων ὄψει τὸν ἄδηλον νοῶν, τὰ φαινόμενα ἑώρα αἰθέρος, γῆς.

"By the sight of things unseen" (opsei tōn adēlōn). Gesner reads opsei ouk adēlōn ("by the sight of things not unseen"); the Oxford editor opsei ton adēlon ("the unseen one by sight"). These indeed can bring some light into this darkness. But since in both Royal, both Ottoboni and the Oratory manuscripts we read ta phainomena aera, aitheros, gēs, one readily suspects that aera is corrupt and arose from another word which the copyists misread. For not only does aera not agree with the following words aitheros, gēs, but in the testimony of Euripides which Athenagoras is here explaining there is no mention of the air, only of aether and earth. So for aera I think one should read heōra ("he saw"), and write thus: "Understanding the unseen one from his works by sight, he saw the things manifest in aether and earth."

(printed under page 480)

(38) ‹anchor: εἷς ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν› · call in col 899

Ἀληθείαισιν. Fronto Ducaeus ἀληθείῃσιν. Reg. 2 et 3, Angl. ἀληθείαις.

"In truth" (alētheiaisin). Fronton du Duc has alētheiēsin; Reg. 2 and 3 and the English manuscripts have alētheiais.

(printed under page 480)

(39) ‹anchor: τοῦ ἐκείνου πληρουμένην› · call in col 899

Πληρουμένην. Ita codices mss. summo consensu et editiones Ducaei et Oxon. Aliae πληρουμένων. Langus et Gesnerus dum legunt πληρουμένων ἑκάτερος pro ἑκάτερα, mirum in modum aberrarunt. Suffridus hanc amat constructionem: Γαῖαν (continues)

"Filled" (plēroumenēn). So the manuscripts with complete agreement, and the editions of Ducaeus and Oxford; others have plēroumenōn. Langus and Gesner, in reading plēroumenōn hekateros for hekatera, went remarkably astray. Suffridus likes this construction: "the earth (gaian) (continues)

(printed under page 480)

(40) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 902

Εἶναι. Lerum [sic] τὸν Θεὸν tres Angl. codices et Reg. secundus.

"To be" (einai). Three English manuscripts and the second Royal have ton Theon "again" [the printed "Lerum" is evidently for "Iterum"; i.e. they repeat "God"].

(printed under page 481)

(41) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 902

Διδάσκων. Haec ad Sophoclem non referuntur (is enim non docebat, ubi Deum esse oporteat) sed ad Euripidem, qui sublimem illum, cujus ulnis aether et terra continentur, solum Deum esse pronuntiat.

"Teaching" (didaskōn). This is not to be referred to Sophocles (for he was not teaching where God must be), but to Euripides, who declares that "that one on high," in whose arms aether and earth are held, alone is God.

(printed under page 481)

(42) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 902

Ὄψει. Meursius in Denario Pythagorico legit Ὄψιμος pro corrupta hac voce ὄψει.

"By sight" (opsei). Meursius, in his Denarius Pythagoricus, reads Opsimos [a proper name] for this corrupt word opsei.

(printed under page 481)

(43) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 902

Παρὰ τῶν ἐγγυτάτων. Jamdudum monuit Gesnerus legendum τὸν ἐγγυτάτω, ut paulo post legitur.

"From the nearest" (para tōn engytatōn). Gesner advised long ago that one should read ton engytatō, as is read a little later.

(printed under page 481)

(44) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 902

Ἐλάχιστον. Mallet Gesnerus ἀριθμόν, sed nihil mutandum.

"Least" (elachiston). Gesner would prefer arithmon ("number"), but nothing should be changed.

(printed under page 481)

(45) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 902

Ἐτραπόμην. Unus ex Anglicanis ἐπετραπόμην, ac paulo post τὸν δὲ τοῦ παντός.

"I turned" (etrapomēn). One of the English manuscripts has epetrapomēn, and a little after ton de tou pantos.

(printed under page 481)

(46) ‹anchor: εἰς πάντας› · call in col 902

Εἰς πάντας. Tres Anglicani εἰς πλῆθος.

"To all" (eis pantas). Three English manuscripts have eis plēthos ("to the multitude").

(printed under page 481)

(47) ‹anchor: Θεοὶ θεῶν› · call in col 902

Θεοὶ θεῶν. Hic locus aliter apud Platonem in Timaeo ubi pro his vocibus ἀδύνατα ἐμοῦ μὴ θέλοντος, habemus: Δι' ἐμοῦ γενόμενα ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ γε θέλοντος. Ciceronem, qui vertit, «me invito», legisse μὴ θέλοντος probat H. Stephanus.

"Gods of gods" (Theoi theōn). This place reads differently in Plato's Timaeus, where for the words "impossible [to dissolve] unless I will it" we have: "having come into being through me, indissoluble while I so will." H. Stephanus shows that Cicero, who translated "against my will," read mē thelontos.

(printed under page 481)

(48) ‹anchor: ζῶον σύνθετον› · call in col 902

Ζῶον σύνθετον. Sic exponitur sententia Aristotelis apud Plutarchum I. De Placit. philosoph., c. 7.

"A composite living being" (zōon syntheton). Aristotle's view is so set out in Plutarch, On the Opinions of the Philosophers, book 1, ch. 7.

(printed under page 481)

(49) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 903

Ἐπὶ γενέσεις κόσμου, ἐμπεριειληφός. Mendose apud Plutarchum loco jam citato, ἐπὶ γενέσει κόσμου ἐμπεριειληφότος. Vid. Euseb. Praep. Ev. l. XV, c. 14.

"For the generations of the world, having embraced" (epi geneseis kosmou, emperieilēphos). In Plutarch, at the place already cited, it reads faultily epi genesei kosmou emperieilēphotos. See Eusebius, Praep. Ev. book 15, ch. 14.

(printed under page 482)

(50) ‹anchor: ὡς καὶ τοῖς› · call in col 903

Ὡς καὶ τοῖς. Legit Gesnerus οἱ καὶ τοῖς. Sed nihil mutandum.

"As also with the" (hōs kai tois). Gesner reads hoi kai tois; but nothing should be changed.

(printed under page 482)

(51) ‹anchor: τοσοῦτον δὲ δυνηθέντες› · call in col 903

Τοσοῦτον δὲ δυνηθέντες. Sic legitur totus hic locus in cod. Clarom: Τοσοῦτον δὲ δυνηθέντες περινοῆσαι, περὶ Θεοῦ ἀξιώσαντες μαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ παρ' αὐτοῦ ἕκαστος. Gesnerus legit τοῦτον δὲ ὅσον μὴ δυνηθέντες· sed cum Athenagorae verba verbis Latinis reddita commodam habeant sententiam, nihil prorsus mutandum est, praeter illud ὃν ante οὐκ ἀξιώσαντες, quod aut tollendum est ut inutile, aut mutandum in οἱ vel ὡς. Cur autem philosophi cum veritatem quaererent, invenire non potuerint, eamdem causam afferunt multi alii scriptores, in primis Lactantius, qui l. I Inst., c. 1, sic loquitur: Neque ego nunc eorum studium reprehendo, qui veritatem scire voluerunt, quia naturam hominis Deus veri adipiscendi cupientissimam facit; sed id arguo, id revinco, quod honestam illorum et optimam voluntatem non sit secutus effectus, quia neque quid esset verum ipsum sciebant, neque quomodo, aut ubi, aut qua mente quaerendum. Et l. IV, c. 2: Quid autem putemus fuisse causae, cur tot ingeniis, totque temporibus summo studio et labore quaesita non reperiretur, nisi quod eam philosophi extra fines suos quaesierunt. Vid. Justinum Cohort.

"But having been able [to grasp] only so much" (tosouton de dynēthentes). In the Clermont manuscript this whole place reads: "having been able to comprehend only so much, thinking fit to learn about God, but each from himself." Gesner reads touton de hoson mē dynēthentes; but since Athenagoras's words, rendered in the Latin, give a suitable sense, nothing at all needs changing except the hon before ouk axiōsantes, which must either be removed as useless or changed to hoi or hōs. Why the philosophers, though they sought the truth, could not find it, many other writers give the same reason, above all Lactantius, who speaks thus in Institutes book 1, ch. 1: "Nor do I now blame the zeal of those who wished to know the truth, for God made human nature most eager to attain the truth; but this I charge, this I refute: that success did not follow their honourable and excellent will, because they neither knew what the truth itself was, nor how, or where, or in what mind it was to be sought." And book 4, ch. 2: "What then are we to think was the reason why, though sought by so many minds and over so many ages with the greatest zeal and labour, it was not found — except that the philosophers sought it outside its proper bounds?" See Justin, Exhortation [to the Greeks].

(printed under page 482)

(52) ‹anchor: Πνεύματι ἐνθέῳ› · call in col 903

Ἐνθέῳ. Unus Angl. ἐν Θεῷ.

"Divine, inspired" (entheō). One English manuscript has en Theō ("in God").

(printed under page 482)

(53) ‹anchor: παραλιπόντας› · call in col 903

Παραλιπόντας. Tres Angl. παραλιπόντες, et infra ἔχοιτε.

"Leaving aside" (paralipontas). Three English manuscripts have paralipontes, and below echoite.

(printed under page 482)

(54) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 906

Ἀλλὰ ὅτι ἀγένητοι, οὐχ ὅμοιοι. Sic habet codex Clarom. Sic etiam I Reg. nisi quod alia manus haud recens post ἀγένητοι addiderat, ut est in aliis codicibus mss. et editis, τε καὶ γεννητοί; ex quo tota Athenagorae de Dei singularitate disputatio deformabatur. Eadem ratiocinatio occurrit apud Joan. Damasc. lib. V De fide, cap. 5.

"But since unbegotten, not alike" (alla hoti agenētoi, ouch homoioi). So the Clermont manuscript has it. So too the first Royal, except that another, not recent, hand had added after agenētoi, as in other manuscripts and the editions, te kai gennētoi ("and begotten"), by which Athenagoras's whole argument about the oneness of God was disfigured. The same reasoning occurs in John Damascene, On the Faith book 5 [as printed], ch. 5.

(printed under page 483)

(55) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 906

Εἰ γὰρ ὁ μέν. Tres Romani codices εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ.

"For if the one" (ei gar ho men). Three Roman manuscripts have ei men gar ho.

(printed under page 483)

(56) ‹anchor: ὁ γενόμενος κατὰ τοῦ ὄντος› · call in col 906

Ὁ γενόμενος κατὰ τοῦ ὄντος. Pugnant haec verba cum Athenagorae sententia, qui de duobus illis diis, quos animi causa fingit, ita disputat, ut utrumque ingenitum et increatum ac proinde dissimilem esse ponat, quemadmodum supra vidimus. Quamobrem has voces in interpretando neglexi; nec assutas esse dubito ab eo, qui prius addiderat similem vocem, καὶ γεννητοί, ut duo illi dii, praeter sententiam Athenagorae, geniti et ingeniti dicerentur.

"He who came into being, against him who is" (ho genomenos kata tou ontos). These words conflict with Athenagoras's thought, who argues about those two gods, whom he imagines for argument's sake, in such a way as to posit that both are unbegotten and uncreated and therefore unlike, as we saw above. So I have left these words out in translating; and I do not doubt they were sewn on by the same person who had earlier added the similar word kai gennētoi, so that those two gods, against Athenagoras's meaning, would be called begotten and unbegotten.

(printed under page 483)

(57) ‹anchor: ἀλλὰ προνοεῖ› · call in col 906

Προνοεῖ. Reg. 1 προνοῇ. Ibidem Reg. 2, et duo Angl. οὐδέ. Legendum putat Gesnerus οὐδὲ προνοεῖ εἰ μὴ πεποίηκεν. Sed inutilis ejusmodi emendatio loci minime mendosi.

"He provides" (pronoei). Reg. 1 has pronoē. In the same place Reg. 2 and two English manuscripts have oude. Gesner thinks one should read "nor does he provide, if he has not made." But such an emendation of a place that is not at all faulty is useless.

(printed under page 483)

(58) ‹anchor: τοὺς λογισμούς› · call in col 906

Λογισμούς. Duo Angl. et Clarom. συλλογισμούς.

"Reasonings" (logismous). Two English manuscripts and the Clermont have syllogismous ("syllogisms").

(printed under page 483)

(59) ‹anchor: νομίζω καὶ ὑμᾶς› · call in col 906

Νομίζω καὶ ὑμᾶς. Legend. νομίζω γὰρ ὑμᾶς, vel νομίζω δέ. Primum testimonium non reperitur quoad verba. In secundo illud, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, malui reddere, et novissimus, ut in Vulgata.

"I think that you too" (nomizō kai hymas). Read nomizō gar hymas, or nomizō de. The first testimony is not found word for word. In the second, I preferred to render kai meta tauta ("and after these things") as "and the last," as in the Vulgate.

(printed under page 483)

¹ ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 907 Isa. XLI, 4.

Isaiah 41:4.

² ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 907 Isa. XLV, 5; XLIII, 10.

Isaiah 45:5; 43:10.

³ ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 907 Isa. LXVI, 1.

Isaiah 66:1.

(59*) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 907 Caret altero membro phrasis, quod quidem, Athenagorae, ut videtur, subintellectum, ab antecedentibus repetendum est; sicque locus explicandus quasi scriptum sit: Ἐπεὶ δὲ . . . . λογισμοὺς (νομίζω γὰρ ὑμᾶς . . . . ἐμπνεῦσαι), οὐκ ἄν τις ἀνθρωπικὸν τὸν καθ' ἡμᾶς ἐνόμισε λόγον. EDIT. PATROL.

The sentence lacks its second member, which, being understood by Athenagoras as it seems, is to be supplied from what precedes; and so the place is to be explained as if it were written: "But since … our reasonings (for I think that you … to inspire), no one would have thought our doctrine merely human." EDITORS OF THE PATROLOGIA.

(printed under page 484)

(60) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 907

Πάρεξ ἐμοῦ. Duo Angl. et Reg. 2 add. σώζων.

"Besides me" (parex emou). Two English manuscripts and Reg. 2 add sōzōn ("saving").

(printed under page 484)

(61) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 907

Ὑμῖν. Unus Angl. ὑμῶν, et mox tres γενομένων.

"To you" (hymin). One English manuscript has hymōn, and just after three have genomenōn.

(printed under page 484)

(62) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 907

Διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Reg. 1 et duo Anglicani δι' αὐτοῦ. Legitur tamen in Regio διὰ τοῦ supra lineam. Ibidem mallem συγκροτεῖται pro eo quod omnes editi et mss. habent συγκρατεῖται.

"Through the same" (dia tou autou). Reg. 1 and two English manuscripts have di' autou. In the Royal, however, dia tou is read above the line. In the same place I would prefer synkroteitai ("is welded together") to synkrateitai ("is held together"), which all the editions and manuscripts have.

(printed under page 484)

(63) ‹anchor: Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος› · call in col 907

Λόγος. Uterque Bodl. ὁ Λόγος.

"Word" (Logos). Both Bodleian manuscripts have ho Logos.

(printed under page 484)

(64) ‹anchor: ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ› · call in col 907

Ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ. Accusatus Petavio Athenagoras, quod Verbum cum Patre usque ad mundi creationem confundat. Sed nihil iniquius hac criminatione. Duo incommoda removet a Filii generatione Athenagoras. Ne quis sibi fingeret Christianos de Filio Dei idem sentire ac poetas de filiis deorum, docet Filium Dei esse Verbum Patris in idea et operatione, ac proinde illius generationem nihil commune habere cum stultis gentilium de divinitate commentis. Rursus ne videretur hunc Λόγον in divinis ideis, veluti quamdam efficientiam et proprietatem, reponere, explanat has voces in idea et operatione, ac demonstrat Dei Filium esse Verbum Patris in idea et operatione, quia secundum ipsum et per ipsum omnia creata sunt, sive quia, ut paulo post legimus, Verbum prodiit ut omnium idea et effectio foret. Itaque Verbum declarat Athenagoras personam esse aequalem Patri, ut quae omnes Patris ideas possideat, et aeque omnipotens sit ac Pater. Nam Verbum in idea et operatione, sive Verbum prodiens ut omnium sit idea et effectio, nihil aliud est quam Verbum in quo mundi exemplar descriptum fuit, et per quod mundus creatus fuit. Notissima est antiquis haec loquendi ratio. Verbum apud Philonem lib. De mundi opificio, p. 5, dicitur esse mundus intelligibilis, sive mundi exemplar, quod idem est ac idea. Vocatur idea apud Clementem, Strom. V, p. 553, idea idearum apud Origenem lib. VI adv. Cels. p. 320. Neque aliud senserunt quicunque omnia in Verbo creata dixerunt. Sic etiam Verbum apud antiquos scriptores vocatur, effectio, sive operatio, quia per eum omnia facta sunt; quale est illud Tertulliani adv. Hermog. c. 20: Erat initium viarum (Sophia) quia cogitatio et dispositio prima Sophiae fit operatio de cogitatu viam operibus instituens. Eadem de causa Verbum appellatur ἐργασία apud Justinum Dialog. n. 114, ἔργον apud Tatianum n. 5, quia nimirum per Verbum omnia creata sunt. Docet ergo Athenagoras Filium nec modo corporeo genitum esse, nec Patris efficientiam aut proprietatem esse, sed veram et coaeternam Genitori personam.

"In idea and operation" (en idea kai energeia). Athenagoras was accused by Petavius of confusing the Word with the Father up to the creation of the world. But nothing is more unfair than this charge. Athenagoras removes two difficulties from the Son's generation. Lest anyone imagine that Christians think of the Son of God what the poets think of the sons of the gods, he teaches that the Son of God is the Word of the Father in idea and operation, and that his generation therefore has nothing in common with the foolish inventions of the pagans about divinity. Again, lest he seem to place this Logos among the divine ideas, as a kind of efficiency or property, he explains the words "in idea and operation" and shows that the Son of God is the Word of the Father in idea and operation because according to him and through him all things were created — or because, as we read a little later, the Word came forth to be the idea and the effecting of all things. So Athenagoras declares the Word to be a person equal to the Father, as possessing all the Father's ideas and being as omnipotent as the Father. For the Word in idea and operation, or the Word coming forth to be the idea and effecting of all things, is nothing else than the Word in whom the pattern of the world was drawn and through whom the world was created. This manner of speaking is very well known to the ancients. In Philo, On the Creation of the World, p. 5, the Word is said to be the intelligible world, or the pattern of the world, which is the same as idea. He is called the idea in Clement, Stromata 5, p. 553, the idea of ideas in Origen, Against Celsus book 6, p. 320. Nor did any who said that all things were created in the Word mean anything else. So too the Word is called by ancient writers the effecting, or operation, because all things were made through him — such as that saying of Tertullian, Against Hermogenes ch. 20: "She (Wisdom) was the beginning of ways, because the thought and first disposition of Wisdom becomes operation, setting out from the thought a way for the works." For the same reason the Word is called ergasia ("work, operation") in Justin, Dialogue n. 114, and ergon ("work") in Tatian n. 5 — because all things were created through the Word. Athenagoras therefore teaches that the Son was neither begotten in a bodily way, nor is an efficiency or property of the Father, but a true person, coeternal with the one who begets him.

(printed under page 484)

(65) ‹anchor: πρὸς αὐτοῦ› · call in col 907

Πρὸς αὐτοῦ. Valde mihi displicet haec scriptura. Neque enim, ut erudito Bullo visum est, idem valet ac ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, neque ullum afferri possit exemplum, in quo omnia πρὸς τοῦ Λόγου creata dicantur, pro eo quod saepissime usurpatur ὑπὸ τοῦ Λόγου. Sed si legamus πρὸς αὐτόν, praeclara exstabit sententia, nempe omnia secundum Verbum, sive secundum exemplar in Verbo descriptum creata esse. His enim verbis: Πρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο, continetur explicatio praecedentium, ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ, nec difficile est animadvertere, quemadmodum Filius Verbum dicitur in operatione, quia omnia per eum facta sunt, ita etiam in idea dici, quia πρὸς αὐτόν omnia facta sunt. Dicebat n. 8: Τὰ δὲ ἀγέννητα ἀνόμοια, οὔτε πρός τινα γενόμενα.

"By him" (pros autou). This reading displeases me greatly. For it does not mean the same as hyp' autou, as the learned Bull thought, nor could any example be brought in which all things are said to be created pros tou Logou, instead of the very commonly used hypo tou Logou. But if we read pros auton, an excellent sense will result: that all things were created according to the Word, that is, according to the pattern drawn in the Word. For the words "For by him and through him all things came to be" contain the explanation of what precedes, "in idea and operation"; and it is not hard to see that, just as the Son is called the Word "in operation" because all things were made through him, so he is also said to be so "in idea" because all things were made pros auton ("after him"). He said at n. 8: "But unbegotten things are unlike, not having come to be after (pros) anything."

(printed under page 484)

⁴ ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910 Prov. VIII, 22.

Proverbs 8:22.

(printed under page 485)

(66) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Ἑνότητι καὶ δυνάμει Πνεύματος. Docet Filium in Patre esse et Patrem in Filio, quia una in utroque divinitas. Hoc enim loco Spiritus nomine divinitas significatur, ut saepe alias apud antiquos ac nominatim ipsum Athenagoram, qui paulo ante dicebat Deum spiritu et virtute non enarrabili circumdatum esse. Deum ait esse Spiritum n. 16.

"By the unity and power of the Spirit" (henotēti kai dynamei Pneumatos). He teaches that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, because there is one divinity in both. For in this place divinity is signified by the name Spirit, as often elsewhere among the ancients, and in particular in Athenagoras himself, who said a little earlier that God is encompassed by spirit and by unutterable power. He says that God is Spirit at n. 16.

(printed under page 485)

(67) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Tres Anglicani ἐν αὐτῷ.

"In himself" (en heautō). Three English manuscripts have en autō.

(printed under page 485)

(68) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Γῆς ὀχείας. Clarom. et tres Anglicani γῇ ὡς ὀχείας. Evanescit tota hujus loci difficultas, quae mirum in modum torsit interpretes, si legamus γῆς ἀχρείας et mutemus pravam editionum praecedentium interpunctionem, ἀποίου φύσεως καὶ γῆς, ὀχείας ὑποκειμένων δίκην.

"Of the earth … of mating" (gēs ocheias). The Clermont and three English manuscripts have gē hōs ocheias. The whole difficulty of this place, which has tormented the interpreters remarkably, vanishes if we read gēs achreias ("of useless earth") and change the bad punctuation of the earlier editions, apoiou physeōs kai gēs, ocheias hypokeimenōn dikēn.

(printed under page 485)

(69) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Προελθών. Alia criminatio hic repellenda. Jam vidimus immerito accusari Athenagoram, quod Verbum cum Patre confundat. Non justior accusandi causa, quod Verbum tunc productum fuisse censeat, cum mundus creatus est. Liquet hanc progressionem nihil minus esse quam productionem. 1° Idcirco omnia per Filium creata esse dicit, quia Pater et Filius unum sunt, quia una in utroque divinitas. Erant ergo unum, erat una in utroque divinitas antequam mundus crearetur. 2° Conceptis verbis declarat minime productum fuisse tunc Verbum, sed prodiisse ut idea et effectio foret omnium rerum creandarum. 3° Ejusdem Verbi aeternitati consuluit, cum ait: Ab aeterno enim Deus habebat in seipso Verbum. Erat ergo ab aeterno Verbum in Patre, ac proinde et ipse Pater in Verbo. Nam idcirco, ut jam dixit Athenagoras, Verbum est in Patre, quia uterque unum sunt ac una in utroque divinitas. Cur autem Deus, utpote ab aeterno rationalis, Verbum in seipso dicatur habuisse, explicabimus ad lib. II Theophili. 4° Filium ab aeterno Filium fuisse iisdem rationibus probatur. Hanc enim Filii notionem subjicit, mens et Verbum Patris est. Erat autem mens et Verbum Patris ab aeterno, ut jam probavimus. Sed tamen hanc Filii notionem explicat Athenagoras ex mundi creatione; neque id incommode. Suppeditat enim mundi creatio exemplum, in quo Filius munus sustinuit, Filio Dei, id est, menti et Verbo Patris conveniens; idea omnium exstitit, qui ab aeterno erat mens Patris et omnes ideas Patris acceperat; effectio omnium, qui Verbum erat Patris et ab aeterno omnipotentiam ac totam Patris essentiam acceperat.

"Having come forth" (proelthōn). Another charge must be repelled here. We have already seen that Athenagoras is undeservedly accused of confusing the Word with the Father. There is no juster ground for accusing him of holding that the Word was produced at the time the world was created. Clearly this coming forth is anything but a production. First, he says that all things were created through the Son because the Father and the Son are one, because there is one divinity in both; so they were one, there was one divinity in both, before the world was created. Second, he declares in express words that the Word was not then produced, but came forth to be the idea and the effecting of all the things to be created. Third, he safeguarded the eternity of the same Word when he said: "For God from eternity had the Word in himself." So the Word was in the Father from eternity, and therefore the Father himself in the Word; for, as Athenagoras has already said, the Word is in the Father because the two are one and there is one divinity in both. Why God, as being rational from eternity, is said to have had the Word in himself we shall explain on book 2 of Theophilus. Fourth, that the Son was Son from eternity is proved by the same reasons, for he adds this notion of the Son: he is the mind and Word of the Father. And he was the mind and Word of the Father from eternity, as we have already proved. Yet Athenagoras explains this notion of the Son from the creation of the world — and not unsuitably. For the creation of the world supplies an instance in which the Son performed an office befitting the Son of God, that is, the Father's mind and Word: he who from eternity was the Father's mind and had received all the Father's ideas became the idea of all things; he who was the Father's Word and from eternity had received omnipotence and the whole essence of the Father became the effecting of all things.

(printed under page 485)

(70) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Ἐπαναφερόμενον. Similia de Verbo leguntur apud Ignatium ep. ad Magnes., n. 7. Nec verendum est ne haec a Sabellianis commentis non satis recedant. Idem enim hic dicit de Spiritu, quod antea de Filio; quemadmodum Filius ita progressus est ad mundi creationem, ut semper sit in Patre, ita etiam de Spiritu sentiendum docet. Paulo post, praedicat trium personarum et in unione potentiam et in ordine distinctionem; similia habes n. 12. Vide etiam, n. 24, ubi tres personas unum esse dicit κατὰ δύναμιν, id est, secundum divinitatem.

"Being borne back" (epanapheromenon). Similar things are read of the Word in Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians, n. 7. Nor need one fear that these words do not keep far enough from the inventions of the Sabellians. For he says here of the Spirit the same as earlier of the Son: just as the Son came forth for the creation of the world in such a way as always to be in the Father, so he teaches that we are to think of the Spirit too. A little later he proclaims both the power of the three persons in their union and their distinction in order; you have similar things at n. 12. See also n. 24, where he says the three persons are one kata dynamin, that is, according to the divinity.

(printed under page 485)

(71) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Τίς οὖν οὐκ ἄν. Reg. 1, et Clarom. οὖν et ἄν supra lineam. Deest οὖν in tribus Anglicanis.

"Who then would not" (tis oun ouk an). In Reg. 1 and the Clermont, oun and an are above the line. Oun is missing in three English manuscripts.

(printed under page 485)

(72) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Λέγοντας. Tres Angl. codices λέγοντες, et mox cum Claromontano δεικνύντας αὐτόν. Ibidem in Reg. 2, distinctio apposita post Υἱόν, ut vox Deus referatur ad Spiritum sanctum.

"Saying" (legontas). Three English manuscripts have legontes, and just after, with the Clermont, deiknyntas auton. In the same place in Reg. 2 a stop is placed after Huion ("Son"), so that the word "God" refers to the Holy Spirit.

(printed under page 485)

(73) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 910

Θεολογικόν. Duo codices Anglicani λογικόν, quae scriptura Suffrido sine ulla prorsus ratione arrisit. Satis ex hac voce perspicitur angelis honorem aliquem et cultum a Christianis adhiberi, sed tanto inferiorem eo cultu, qui Deo debetur, quanto res creata distat a Creatore. Quare immerito Barbeyrac in tractatu De doctrina morali Patrum Athenagoram exagitat, quasi haustum e Platonicis fontibus angelorum cultum doceat, ac ethnicis haec legentibus integrum non fuerit non existimare divinitates quasdam inferiores a Christianis coli, et ab eis polytheismum quemdam admitti. Iniquissima sane criminatio post tam multas Athena- (continues)

"Theological" (theologikon). Two English manuscripts have logikon, a reading that pleased Suffridus for no reason at all. From this word it is clear enough that some honour and worship was paid to angels by Christians, but as far below the worship owed to God as the creature is distant from the Creator. So Barbeyrac, in his treatise On the Moral Teaching of the Fathers, harasses Athenagoras without cause, as if he taught a worship of angels drawn from Platonic sources, and as if pagans reading this could not help thinking that certain lower divinities were worshipped by Christians and some kind of polytheism admitted by them. A most unjust charge indeed, after so many of Athena- (continues)

(printed under page 485)

⁵ ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 911 Matth. V, 44.

Matthew 5:44.

(printed under page 486)

(74) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 911

Δογμάτων. Hanc vocem Athenagoras proprie de vivendi praeceptis usurpat, quae quidem a doctrina fidei supra exposita distinguit. Dogmata Christiana Tatianus eodem sensu videtur usurpare n. 27, si quidem ea pravis ethnicorum institutis opponit.

"Of the doctrines" (dogmatōn). Athenagoras uses this word properly of the precepts for living, which he distinguishes from the doctrine of faith set out above. Tatian seems to use "Christian dogmas" in the same sense at n. 27, since he sets them against the depraved institutions of the pagans.

(printed under page 486)

(75) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 911

Προσέχομεν. Tres codices Anglic. et Clarom. προέχομεν.

"We attend to" (prosechomen). Three English manuscripts and the Clermont have proechomen.

(printed under page 486)

(76) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 911

Ὑμῶν. Deest in tribus Anglicanis.

"Your" (hymōn). Missing in three English manuscripts.

(printed under page 486)

(77) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 911

Ἐπιτρέψατε. Reg. 2, ἐπιτρέψασθε. Mox tres Anglicani codices ἀγαγεῖν.

"Allow" (epitrepsate). Reg. 2 has epitrepsasthe. Just after, three English manuscripts have agagein.

(printed under page 486)

(78) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 911

Κατηγορούμενον. Frustra Gesnerus addendum putat διδασκόντων.

"Being accused" (katēgoroumenon). Gesner needlessly thinks didaskontōn ("of those teaching") should be added.

(printed under page 486)

(79) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 911

Οἱ εὐδαίμονας. Articulus additus in editione Oxoniensi ex tribus mss. quibuscum consentit Clarom. In Reg. 2, habetur supra lineam. In eodem Clarom. et 2, Angl. legitur, οἱ διὰ τούτων εὐδαίμονας. Mox duo Angl. καὶ τοὺς προκατάρξαντας.

"Those [who make] happy" (hoi eudaimonas). The article was added in the Oxford edition from three manuscripts, with which the Clermont agrees; in Reg. 2 it is above the line. In the same Clermont and in two English manuscripts one reads hoi dia toutōn eudaimonas ("those who [promise to make] happy by these"). Just after, two English manuscripts have kai tous prokatarxantas.

(printed under page 486)

(80) ‹anchor: ἑαυτοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα› · call in col 911

Ἑαυτοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα. Haec scriptura Reg. 2, et trium Angl. longe videtur praeferenda vulgatae, ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ταῦτα, quae sic reddiderant interpretes: Nunquam non pergunt adversus eos, a quibus offensi fuere, nefanda quaevis excogitare. Sed in hac interpretatione vox ταῦτα nec redditur, nec videtur reddi posse. Sed si illam, aut quod pro ea posuimus, nempe τὰ τοιαῦτα, referamus ad supradicta artis sophisticae instituta, non difficilis erit nec obscura sententia. Rhetores et Sophistas exagitat Athenagoras, quod non modo Christianorum virtutem in diligendis inimicis non imitentur, sed etiam ipsi inceptores injuriarum sese praebeant, et dum aliis beatam vitam docendo pollicentur, ipsi artis arcana ad maledicta et malefacta sibi investigare non desinant.

"For themselves such things" (heautois ta toiauta). This reading of Reg. 2 and three English manuscripts seems far preferable to the common one, ep' autous tauta, which the translators had rendered: "They never stop devising every kind of wickedness against those by whom they have been offended." But in this rendering the word tauta is not translated, nor does it seem it could be. If, however, we refer it, or what we have put in its place, ta toiauta, to the institutions of the sophistic art mentioned above, the sense will be neither difficult nor obscure. Athenagoras attacks the rhetors and sophists because not only do they not imitate the Christians' virtue in loving enemies, but they even make themselves the starters of injuries, and while promising others the happy life by their teaching, they never stop searching out for themselves the secrets of their art for abuse and wrongdoing.

(printed under page 486)

(81) ‹anchor: ἐργάζεσθαι ἐπιθυμοῦντες κακόν› · call in col 911

Κακόν. Legitur σκαιόν in Clarom. Atque ita in suo exemplari legerat H. Stephanus.

"Evil" (kakon). The Clermont reads skaion ("perverse"). And H. Stephanus had read so in his copy.

(printed under page 486)

⁶ ‹anchor: cras enim moriemur› · call in col 914 Isa. XXII, 13.

Isaiah 22:13.

(printed under page 487)

(82) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 914

Παιόμενοι. Duo Anglicani codices παιόμενον. Paulo post tres Anglicani οὕτω ἂν ἑαυτούς, et mox Reg. 2, cum duobus Anglicanis, ἐνταῦθα κακὸν πείσεσθαι

"Being struck" (paiomenoi). Two English manuscripts have paiomenon. A little after, three English manuscripts have houtō an heautous, and just after Reg. 2, with two English manuscripts, entautha kakon peisesthai ("to suffer evil here").

(printed under page 487)

(83) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 914

Τὸν μέτριον. Clarom. τὸ μέτριον.

"The moderate [one]" (ton metrion). The Clermont has to metrion.

(printed under page 487)

(84) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 914

Πρᾴου. Deest conjunctio post hanc vocem in duobus Anglicanis codicibus et Clarom.

"Gentle" (praou). The conjunction after this word is missing in two English manuscripts and the Clermont.

(printed under page 487)

(85) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 914

Καὶ πίωμεν. Haec desunt in Clarom. Desumpta sunt, ut observat Ducaeus, ex Isaiae XXII, 13, et I Cor. XV, 32.

"And let us drink" (kai piōmen). These words are missing in the Clermont. They are taken, as Ducaeus observes, from Isaiah 22:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:32.

(printed under page 487)

(86) ‹anchor: ὕπνῳ καὶ θανάτῳ διδυμάονε› · call in col 914

Ὕπνω καὶ θανάτω διδυμάονε. Casus sunt tres numeri dualis, nescio quam recte, neque cujus auctoris; malim ego dativo ὕπνῳ καὶ θανάτῳ διδυμάονι. GESN.—Immo διδυμάοσι, v. Iliad. Π, 672. E. P.

"Sleep and death, twins" (hypnō kai thanatō didymaone). These are three cases in the dual number, I know not how correctly, nor from what author; I would prefer the dative hypnō kai thanatō didymaoni. GESNER. — Rather didymaosi; see Iliad 16 (Π), 672. EDITORS OF THE PATROLOGIA.

(printed under page 487)

(87) ‹anchor: παραπεμπόμενοι› · call in col 914

Παραπεμπόμενοι. Ex hac voce pendet totius loci sententia; vertit Gesnerus: Illum duntaxat ducem pertranseuntes sequimur. Auctor editionis Oxon. In hoc tantummodo incumbimus. Langus: Qui hanc vitam in hoc tantummodo transmittimus. Sic reddendum videtur: Qui hac una re ad futuram vitam perducimur. Paulo post eodem sensu ab Athenagora usurpatur. Nam ne solam fidem requirere videretur, addit aliam conditionem, nempe si puri ab omni delicto perducamur. Sic apud Clementem Alex. Strom. VI, p. 647, cognitio non sine labore comparanda dicitur his qui per angustam viam ad aeternum et beatam salutem perducuntur, τοῖς εἰς τὴν ἀΐδιον καὶ μακαρίαν παραπεμπομένοις σωτηρίαν. Virginitas apud Gregorium Naz. orat. 20, p. 358, dicitur mundum ad mundum transmittere, praesentem nimirum ad futurum, κόσμον κόσμῳ παραπέμπουσαν, τὸν ἐνεστῶτα τῷ μέλλοντι.

"Being escorted" (parapempomenoi). The sense of the whole place hangs on this word. Gesner translated: "Passing through, we follow him alone as guide." The editor of the Oxford edition: "We apply ourselves to this alone." Langus: "We who pass this life in this alone." It seems it should be rendered thus: "We who are brought through to the future life by this one thing." A little later Athenagoras uses it in the same sense; for, lest he seem to require faith alone, he adds another condition, namely "if we are brought through pure from every offence." So in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6, p. 647, knowledge, not to be gained without labour, is said to belong to those who by the narrow way are brought through to eternal and blessed salvation, "to those escorted to eternal and blessed salvation." Virginity in Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 20, p. 358, is said to pass the world on to the world — that is, the present to the future — "escorting world to world, the present to the coming."

(printed under page 487)

(88) ‹anchor: τούτου, ὃν ἴσως› · call in col 914

Ὑπὸ μόνου δὲ παραπεμπόμενοι τούτου, ὃν ἴσως. Sic emendo hunc locum: Ὑπὸ μόνου δὲ παραπεμπόμενοι τοῦ τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν παρ' αὐτοῦ Λόγον εἰδέναι. Cur τοῦ ponendum existimem pro τούτου, ducor auctoritate codicis Reg. 2, ubi postremum τοῦ alia manus addidit. Cum autem librarii alicujus culpa pro his vocibus, ὑπὸ τοῦ τὸν Θεόν, scriptum fuisset, ὑπὸ τούτου ὄν, lector non indoctus videtur apposuisse margini hanc notam, ἴσως Θεόν, fortasse Deum, id est fortasse legere oportet Θεόν. Inde ergo factum, ut hae voces, ἴσως Θεόν, quae sua sponte nihil aliud esse videntur, nisi observatio lectoris naevum animadvertentis, in ipsum contextum reciperentur, neque expungeretur illud τούτου ὄν. Vox Θεόν in eodem Regio codice supra lineam apposita, quod quidem emendationem meam confirmat.

"Escorted only by this, whom perhaps" (hypo monou de parapempomenoi toutou, hon isōs). I emend this place thus: "escorted only by knowing God and the Word who is from him." Why I think tou should be put for toutou, I am led by the authority of the manuscript Reg. 2, where another hand added the final tou. Since through some copyist's fault hypo toutou on had been written for the words hypo tou ton Theon, a not unlearned reader seems to have put this note in the margin, isōs Theon, "perhaps God," that is, perhaps one should read Theon. That is how it happened that these words isōs Theon, which by themselves seem to be nothing but the remark of a reader noticing a flaw, were taken into the text itself, while that toutou on was not struck out. The word Theon is placed above the line in the same Royal manuscript, which confirms my emendation.

(printed under page 487)

(89) ‹anchor: ἑνότης› · call in col 914

Ἑνότης. Deest in duobus Anglicanis.

"Unity" (henotēs). Missing in two English manuscripts.

(printed under page 487)

(90) ‹anchor: τῶν τοσούτων› · call in col 914

Τοσούτων. Non improbat hanc scripturam Gesnerus, sed tamen legi posse existimat τούτων vel τῶν τριῶν.

"Of so many" (tosoutōn). Gesner does not reject this reading, but thinks one could read toutōn ("of these") or tōn triōn ("of the three").

(printed under page 487)

(91) ‹anchor: καὶ κρείττονα› · call in col 914

Κρείττονα. Reg. 2, Clarom. et duo Anglicani κρεῖττον. Suffridi codex τὸ κρεῖττον.

"Better" (kreittona). Reg. 2, the Clermont and two English manuscripts have kreitton; Suffridus's manuscript to kreitton.

(printed under page 487)

⁷ ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 915 Matth. V, 46.

Matthew 5:46.

(printed under page 488)

(92) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 915

Ὀρόν. Sic codices Regii et Ottoboniani cum editione Tigurina et codice quo usus est Suffridus. Mallet tamen Suffridus ὄξος, acetum. Gesnerus legendum putat οἶνον vel μύρον vel ὀπόν. Legitur οἶνον in editt. Paris. Salmasius ὀπόν legit Plinian. exercit. p. 369. Sed nihil vetat quominus ὀρόν retineamus; haec lectio probatur Samueli Petito Var. Lect. lib. III, cap. 3, ubi serum lactis vertendum existimat.

"Whey" (oron). So the Royal and Ottoboni manuscripts, with the Zurich edition and the manuscript Suffridus used. Suffridus, however, would prefer oxos, "vinegar." Gesner thinks one should read oinon ("wine") or myron ("perfume") or opon ("juice"). The Paris editions read oinon. Salmasius reads opon, Exercitationes Plinianae p. 369. But nothing prevents our keeping oron; this reading is approved by Samuel Petit, Variae Lectiones book 3, ch. 3, where he thinks it should be translated "whey of milk."

(printed under page 488)

(93) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 915

Ἐπεὶ δέ. Codices tres Anglicani ἐπειδή. Mox unus ex iisdem codicibus τί ἐστι Θεός. Codex Suffridi τί ἐστιν ὁ Θεός.

"But since" (epei de). Three English manuscripts have epeidē. Just after, one of the same manuscripts has ti esti Theos; Suffridus's manuscript ti estin ho Theos.

(printed under page 488)

(94) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 915

Θεολογικοῦ. Codex Suffridi θεωρητικοῦ, quae scriptura Suffrido arridet, quamvis omnino vitiosa sit.

"Theological" (theologikou). Suffridus's manuscript has theōrētikou ("contemplative"), a reading that pleases Suffridus, though it is wholly faulty.

(printed under page 488)

(95) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 915

Εὐωδία. Sic Irenaeus lib. IV, c. 14, n. 3: Ipse quidem nullius horum est indigens: est enim semper plenus omnibus bonis, omnemque odorem suavitatis, et omnes suaveolentium vaporationes habens in se, etiam antequam Moyses esset.

"Sweet savour" (euōdia). So Irenaeus, book 4, ch. 14, n. 3: "He himself has need of none of these things; for he is always full of all good things, and has in himself every odour of sweetness and all the fumes of fragrant things, even before Moses existed."

(printed under page 488)

(96) ‹anchor: ὅταν› · call in col 915

Ὅταν. Addendum videtur οὖν.

"When" (hotan). It seems oun ("then") should be added.

(printed under page 488)

(97) ‹anchor: προσφέρειν δέον› · call in col 915

Δέον. Clarom. et tres Anglicani δεῖ.

"It being necessary" (deon). The Clermont and three English manuscripts have dei.

(printed under page 488)

(98) ‹anchor: περὶ θεῶν μάτην› · call in col 915

Μάτην. Hanc vocem, quae tenebras huic loco offundit, librario alicui in mentem venisse puto ob similitudinem sequentium syllabarum, ἀλλ' Ἀθην. Saepe enim librariis contigit, ut ex duabus similibus vocibus alteram omittere, ita eamdem vocem bis scribere. Sic infra n. 16, vocem μαρτυρεῖ, quae perperam iterabatur, ope cod. Bodleiani sustuli.

"In vain" (matēn). I think this word, which casts darkness over the place, occurred to some copyist because of its likeness to the following syllables, all' Athēn. For it often happens to copyists that, just as they omit one of two similar words, so they write the same word twice. So below, at n. 16, I removed with the help of the Bodleian manuscript the word martyrei, which was wrongly repeated.

(printed under page 488)

(99) ‹anchor: Κελεὸν καὶ Μετάνειραν› · call in col 915

Μετάνειραν. Menalina dicitur apud Ovidium Fast. lib. IV, legendum Μεγάνειρα. Sic enim Pausanias, Nicander et Diomedes grammaticus. SUFFRIDUS. — Meganirae quoque meminit Apollodorus lib. III, c. 3, et Antonius Liberalis Metamorphos., cap. 8. RECHEMBERG.

"Metaneira." She is called Menalina in Ovid, Fasti book 4; one should read Meganeira, for so Pausanias, Nicander and Diomedes the grammarian. SUFFRIDUS. — Apollodorus also mentions Meganira, book 3, ch. 3, and Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses ch. 8. RECHENBERG.

(printed under page 488)

(1) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Μενέλεων. Illius delubrum in vico Laconico, qui dicebatur Therapne, commemorat Pausanias lib. III, p. 199.

"Menelaus." Pausanias, book 3, p. 199, mentions his shrine in a Laconian village called Therapne.

(printed under page 489)

(2) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Χῖοι. Legendum esse Κεῖοι probat eruditus Oxoniensis editor tum ex his Virgilii (Georg. I, 14) versibus: . . . . et cultor nemorum, cui pinguia Ceae / Ter centum nivei tondent dumeta juvenci; tum etiam ex testimonio Diodori Siculi Bibl. lib. IV, p. 281, ex quo patet Aristaeum non apud Chios, sed apud Cejos pro deo habitum fuisse; citat etiam hujus emendationis auctores Huetium Demonstr., p. 550; Bochartum Geogr. sacr. p. 442: et Rechembergium.

"Chians" (Chioi). The learned Oxford editor shows that one should read Keioi ("Ceans"), both from these lines of Virgil (Georgics 1.14): "… and you, tender of the groves, for whom three hundred snow-white bullocks crop the rich thickets of Cea"; and from the testimony of Diodorus Siculus, Library book 4, p. 281, from which it is clear that Aristaeus was held a god not among the Chians but among the Ceans. He also cites as authors of this emendation Huet, Demonstratio p. 550; Bochart, Geographia sacra p. 442; and Rechenberg.

(printed under page 489)

(3) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Θεαγένην. Lucianus in deorum concilio Thasiorum simplicitatem ridet, qui statuam hujus pugilis febribus mederi putabant. Quod spectat ad caedem ab eo patratam Olympiae, existimat Suffridus memoriam effluxisse Athenagorae, dum in Theagenem confert celeberrimam historiam, quae de Cleomede Astypalaeensi, pugile altero longe clariore, narratur. Non improbabilis haec conjectura Suffridi. Quamvis enim, ut observat Rechembergius, non repugnet, ut caedem Theagenes patraverit; id tamen de Cleomede notum et testatum est, de Theagene autem, excepto Athenagora, silent omnino antiqui scriptores. At ea videtur exstitisse ejusmodi rerum Athenagorae peritia, ut ei haec facta asseveranti, quae alii scriptores nec memorant nec negant, fides non sit deroganda.

"Theagenes." Lucian, in the Assembly of the Gods, laughs at the simplicity of the Thasians, who thought the statue of this boxer cured fevers. As for the killing he committed at Olympia, Suffridus thinks Athenagoras's memory slipped, in transferring to Theagenes the very famous story told of Cleomedes of Astypalaea, another and far more celebrated boxer. This conjecture of Suffridus is not improbable. For although, as Rechenberg observes, it is not impossible that Theagenes committed a killing, yet this is known and attested of Cleomedes, whereas of Theagenes the ancient writers, except Athenagoras, are entirely silent. But Athenagoras seems to have had such knowledge of these matters that, when he asserts facts which other writers neither record nor deny, he should not be disbelieved.

(printed under page 489)

(4) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Σάμιοι Λύσανδρον. Gratum animum videntur Samii hac adulatione significare voluisse ob restitutam a Lysandro eorum rempublicam, ejectis Atheniensibus, ut testatur Plutarchus in Lysandri Vita. Idem scriptor, vivo Lysandro, aras in Graecia erectas, ac victimas narrat oblatas fuisse. Lysandri crudelitas, quam notat Athenagoras, praecipue enituit in occidendis octingentis Milesiis, quos jurisjurandi religione deceptos partim in urbe retinuerat, partim in urbem vocaverat.

"The Samians [worship] Lysander." The Samians seem to have wished by this flattery to show gratitude for Lysander's restoring their commonwealth after the Athenians were driven out, as Plutarch attests in his Life of Lysander. The same writer relates that altars were set up in Greece to Lysander while he was still alive, and victims offered. Lysander's cruelty, which Athenagoras notes, showed itself chiefly in the killing of eight hundred Milesians, whom, deceived by the sanctity of an oath, he had partly kept in the city and partly summoned into it.

(printed under page 489)

(5) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Μήδειαν καὶ Νιόβην. Habent duo Regii, Clarom. et orat. ἢ Νιόβην. Observat Suffridus Medeam ab Hesiodo in Theogonia commemorari, non tamen celebrari ut deam. Hac de causa Samuel Petitus, tum etiam quia Athenagoras hoc loco varias gentium superstitiones, non singulorum poetarum deliria persequitur, hunc locum sic emendat Variar. lect. lib. III, c. 3; Ἀλλὰ μὲν Καδούσιοι Μήδειαν, ἢ Νιόβην Κίλικες. Sed Cadusii colunt et venerantur Medeam tanquam deam, quomodo etiam Cilices Nioben.

"Medea and Niobe." Two Royal manuscripts, the Clermont and the Oratory have ē Niobēn ("or Niobe"). Suffridus observes that Medea is mentioned by Hesiod in the Theogony, but not celebrated as a goddess. For this reason, and also because Athenagoras in this place is going through the superstitions of various peoples, not the ravings of individual poets, Samuel Petit, Variae Lectiones book 3, ch. 3, emends the place thus: "But the Cadusians [worship] Medea, or the Cilicians Niobe." But the Cadusians worship and venerate Medea as a goddess, as the Cilicians do Niobe.

(printed under page 489)

(6) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Τύπτονται γάρ. Sic Julius Firmicus lib. De errore prof. relig., p. 21, edit. Lugd. Batav. an. 1672: Si dii sunt quos colitis, inquit, cur eos lugetis? Cur eos annuis luctibus plangitis? Si lacrymis et luctu digni sunt, cur eos divino honore cumulatis? Similis sententia Xenophanis Colophonii refertur apud Plut. lib. De Osir., p. 379.

"For they beat their breasts" (typtontai gar). So Julius Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 21, Leiden edition of 1672: "If those you worship are gods," he says, "why do you mourn them? Why do you lament them with yearly mournings? If they deserve tears and mourning, why do you heap divine honour on them?" A similar saying of Xenophanes of Colophon is reported in Plutarch, On Osiris, p. 379.

(printed under page 489)

(7) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Πάντα δὲ ἔθνη ἀσεβοῦσιν. Eodem argumento saepe usi sunt alii religionis defensores. Tertullianus Apologet. cap. 13: Cum alii alios colitis, inquit, utique quos non colitis offenditis. Praelatio alterius sine alterius contumelia non potest procedere; quia nec electio sine reprobatione. Jam ergo contemnitis quos reprobando offendere non timetis. Eadem leguntur lib. I, Nat., cap. 10. Hac ratiocinatione Augustinus utendum sibi esse non duxit, quia aliud sibi proponebat. Qua in re, inquit, lib. VII De Civit. Dei, cap. 1, non dico quod facetius ait Tertullianus fortasse quam verius, si dii seliguntur ut bulbi, utique caeteri reprobi judicantur. Non hoc dico; video enim etiam ex selectis seligi aliquos ad aliquid majus atque praestantius. Sicut in militia, cum tirones electi fuerint, ex his quoque eliguntur ad opus aliquod majus armorum. Demonstrare instituebat Augustinus deorum cultu aeternam felicitatem comparari non posse. Huic proposito parum conducebat ethnicos impietatis arguere, quia alios alii deos colebant. At eadem ratiocinatio magnum et praeclarum Tertulliano usum praebebat, quem profecto rejectum non fuisse ab Augustino asseverare licet. Duobus enim illa ratiocinatio stat principiis. 1° Nemini cultum divinum esse deferendum, nisi qui ab omnibus colendus et adorandus sit. 2° Cum Christianos impietatis nomine damnarent ethnici ob cultum diis negatum; jure merito referebant Christiani quod allatum erat ab adversariis.

"And all peoples are impious" (panta de ethnē asebousin). Other defenders of religion often used the same argument. Tertullian, Apology ch. 13: "When you worship some gods and others others," he says, "you certainly offend those you do not worship. Preferring one cannot go forward without insult to another, since there is no choice without rejection. So you already despise those whom you do not fear to offend by rejecting them." The same is read in To the Nations book 1, ch. 10. Augustine did not think he should use this reasoning, because he had another aim. "In this matter," he says, City of God book 7, ch. 1, "I do not say what Tertullian said more wittily perhaps than truly: if gods are selected like onions, the rest are surely judged rejects. I do not say this; for I see that even from the selected some are selected for something greater and more excellent, as in the army, when recruits have been chosen, some of these too are chosen for some greater work of arms." Augustine was setting out to show that eternal happiness cannot be gained by worshipping the gods. To this purpose it helped little to charge the pagans with impiety because different people worshipped different gods. But the same reasoning offered Tertullian a great and splendid use, and one may safely assert that Augustine did not reject it. For that reasoning rests on two principles. First, that divine worship is to be paid to none but one who is to be worshipped and adored by all. Second, since the pagans condemned the Christians under the name of impiety for refusing worship to the gods, the Christians with full right turned back on them what their adversaries had brought against them.

(printed under page 489)

(8) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 918

Πάντες. Deest ea vox in editionibus Parisiensibus.

"All" (pantes). This word is missing in the Paris editions.

(printed under page 489)

(9) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 919

Μέσου. Tres Anglicani et Reg. 2, μέσον.

"Of the middle" (mesou). Three English manuscripts and Reg. 2 have meson.

(printed under page 490)

(10) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 919

Καὶ ὁ πηλός... κεραμεύς. Hae voces cum deessent in omnibus editt., restitutae sunt ex mss. codicibus. Reg. 2 et Clarom. et tribus Anglicanis et Suffridi. Habebant editi: Ὡς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς ὁ Θεὸς δημιουργός. Unus ex Anglicanis ὑπακούσασα.

"And the clay … potter" (kai ho pēlos … kerameus). Since these words were missing in all the editions, they have been restored from the manuscripts — Reg. 2 and the Clermont and three English manuscripts and Suffridus's. The editions had: "For as the potter, so God the craftsman." One of the English manuscripts has hypakousasa ("having obeyed").

(printed under page 490)

(11) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 919

Πανδεχής. Reg. 2 et Clarom. cum tribus Anglicanis παντευχής.

"All-receiving" (pandechēs). Reg. 2 and the Clermont, with three English manuscripts, have panteuchēs.

(printed under page 490)

(12) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 919

Εἰργασμένου. Regius uterque et Ottobon. ἐργασαμένου.

"Having been wrought" (eirgasmenou). Both Royal manuscripts and the Ottoboni have ergasamenou ("having wrought").

(printed under page 490)

(13) ‹anchor: Ὡς, εἰ› · call in col 919

Ὡς εἰ. Legendum putat Gesnerus ὥστε.

"So that, if" (hōs ei). Gesner thinks one should read hōste.

(printed under page 490)

(14) ‹anchor: ὧν ἂν› · call in col 919

Ὧν ἄν. Haec desunt in Reg. 1, et uno ex Anglicanis. Paulo ante tres Anglicani ἀφικούμενοι et mox unus ex iisdem τύχοιμεν.

"Whatever" (hōn an). These words are missing in Reg. 1 and in one of the English manuscripts. A little before, three English manuscripts have aphikoumenoi, and just after one of the same has tychoimen.

(printed under page 490)

(15) ‹anchor: ἐπὶ τὸ σεμνόν› · call in col 919

Ἐπὶ τὸ σεμνόν, etc. Refert Clemens Alex. Protrept. p. 33, illud Heracliti: Καὶ ἀγάλμασι τουτέοισιν εὔχονται, ὁκοῖον εἴ τις δόμοις λεσχηνεύοιτο. His simulacris vota faciunt, velut si quis cum aedibus garriat. Minucius Felix pag. 139: Quod si ingressus aliquam domum, omnia exculta, disposita, ornata vidisses, utique praeesse ei crederes aliquem dominum, et illis bonis rebus multo esse meliorem: ita in hac mundi domo, cum coelum terramque perspicias, providentiam, ordinem, legem, crede esse universitatis Dominum, parentemque, ipsis sideribus et totius mundi partibus pulchriorem.

"To the splendour," etc. (epi to semnon). Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus p. 33, reports that saying of Heraclitus: "And they pray to these statues, as if one were to chat with houses." They make vows to these images, as if someone were chattering with buildings. Minucius Felix, p. 139: "If you entered some house and saw everything finished, arranged and adorned, you would surely believe that some master presided over it, and that he was much better than those fine things. So in this house of the world, when you look upon heaven and earth, their providence, order and law, believe that there is a Lord and Father of the universe, more beautiful than the stars themselves and the parts of the whole world."

(printed under page 490)

(16) ‹anchor: ὑμᾶς δὲ πάντα› · call in col 919

Πάντα. Frustra Gesnerus legendum conjicit ὑπὲρ πάντα.

"In all things" (panta). Gesner needlessly conjectures that one should read hyper panta ("above all things").

(printed under page 490)

(17) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Καὶ κινούμενον. Deest conjunctio in duobus Anglicanis et Reg. utroque.

"And moved" (kai kinoumenon). The conjunction is missing in two English manuscripts and in both Royal ones.

(printed under page 491)

(18) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Πλήσσοντα. Tres Anglicani τὸν πλήσσοντα.

"Striking" (plēssonta). Three English manuscripts have ton plēssonta.

(printed under page 491)

(19) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Τὰς κιθάρας στεφανοῦσιν. Eodem exemplo utitur Tertullianus lib. II ad Nat., cap. 5: Nam in voluptatibus vestris, inquit, non tibiae aut citharae coronam ad praemium adjudicatis, sed artifici, qui tibiam et citharam suavitatis temperet. Vid. Iren. lib. II, cap. 25.

"They crown the lyres" (tas kitharas stephanousin). Tertullian uses the same example, To the Nations book 2, ch. 5: "For in your pleasures," he says, "you award the crown as a prize not to the flute or the lyre, but to the artist who tunes the flute and the lyre to sweetness." See Irenaeus, book 2, ch. 25.

(printed under page 491)

(20) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Εἴτε. Clarom. et tres Anglicani ὥστε εἴτε.

"Whether" (eite). The Clermont and three English manuscripts have hōste eite.

(printed under page 491)

(21) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Καὶ σῶμα. Subaudiendum est Θεοῦ, quae vox paulo ante occurrit. Neque enim Peripateticorum propria fuit haec sententia, mundum esse substantiam et corpus; sed, ut supra n. 7, testatur Athenagoras, Deum Aristoteles ejusque sectatores ex corpore et anima, veluti animal quoddam componebant; et corpus quidem assignabant aetheream substantiam et tum errantia, tum fixa sidera, animam autem, rationem motuum corporis effectricem.

"And body" (kai sōma). "Of God" is to be understood, a word that occurs a little before. For this view — that the world is substance and body — was not peculiar to the Peripatetics; but, as Athenagoras attests above at n. 7, Aristotle and his followers composed God of body and soul like a kind of living being, and assigned as his body the aethereal substance and both the wandering and the fixed stars, and as his soul the reason that brings about the body's motions.

(printed under page 491)

(22) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Τὰ στοιχεῖα. Liquet haec elementa, quae visu praeclara esse propter opificis artem declarat, non esse, aerem aut aquam aut ignem aut terram, sed solem et stellas. Vide l. I Theophili.

"The elements" (ta stoicheia). Clearly these elements, which he declares splendid to the sight because of the maker's art, are not air or water or fire or earth, but the sun and the stars. See Theophilus, book 1.

(printed under page 491)

(23) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Ἔξεστιν. Hanc vocem addidimus ex utroque Reg., utroque Ottobon. Clarom. et Orat. Ibidem tres Anglicani ἢ ὅσον ἐκελεύσθησαν πλέον. Sic etiam Reg. 2, nisi quod deest ἢ ante ὅσον. Legitur illud ἔξεστιν in edit. Oxon.

"It is permitted" (exestin). We have added this word from both Royal, both Ottoboni, the Clermont and the Oratory manuscripts. In the same place three English manuscripts have ē hoson ekeleusthēsan pleon ("more than they were ordered"). So also Reg. 2, except that ē is missing before hoson. Exestin is read in the Oxford edition.

(printed under page 491)

(24) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Φύσει. Hic editi addunt μαρτυρεῖ, quod cum iterum statim occurrat, ac sententiam prorsus deformet, ac desit in Bodleiano secundo, visum est delendum e contextu.

"By nature" (physei). Here the editions add martyrei ("bears witness"); since it occurs again immediately, quite disfigures the sense, and is missing in the second Bodleian manuscript, it seemed right to delete it from the text.

(printed under page 491)

(25) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 922

Καὶ Πλάτων. Deest conjunctio in duobus Anglicanis ac Clarom.

"And Plato" (kai Platōn). The conjunction is missing in two English manuscripts and the Clermont.

(printed under page 491)

(26) ‹anchor: οἶδα ἀνθρώπους› · call in col 922

Ἀνθρώπους. Pro hac voce tres Angl. habent αὐτούς.

"Men" (anthrōpous). For this word three English manuscripts have autous ("them").

(printed under page 491)

(27) ‹anchor: ὡς λόγος› · call in col 922

Λόγος. Legendum esse λόγῳ jamdudum monuit Stephanus. Sic legitur in edit. Frontonis Ducaei.

"Saying" (logos). Stephanus advised long ago that one should read logō. So it is read in Fronton du Duc's edition.

(printed under page 491)

(28) ‹anchor: ὑπ' αὐτῶν› · call in col 922

Ὑπ' αὐτῶν. Nonnulli codices ἐπ' αὐτῶν.

"By them" (hyp' autōn). Some manuscripts have ep' autōn.

(printed under page 491)

(29) ‹anchor: τοὺς καὶ … δόντας› · call in col 922

Τοὺς καὶ... δόντας. Has voces, quae in contextu Herodoti non leguntur, nec sine incommodo legerentur, restituendas esse in avitam sedem, post haec verba λεγομένοις θεοῖς admonuit Oxoniensis editor, idque in interpretando secutus sum.

"Who also … gave" (tous kai … dontas). The Oxford editor advised that these words, which are not read in the text of Herodotus and could not be read there without awkwardness, should be restored to their original place after the words legomenois theois ("the so-called gods"); and I have followed this in translating.

(printed under page 491)

(30) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 923

Ἐνομίζοντο. Duo codices Anglicani ὀνομάζοντο. Legendum conjicit Gesnerus ὠνομάζοντο.

"They were held" (enomizonto). Two English manuscripts have onomazonto; Gesner conjectures one should read ōnomazonto ("they were named").

(printed under page 492)

(31) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 923

Σκιάς. Suffridi codex σκιάν, idque illi magis probatur. Paulo ante habent editiones Parisienses γραφικῆς δὲ καὶ Κράτωνος.

"Shadows" (skias). Suffridus's manuscript has skian ("shadow"), and he approves it more. A little before, the Paris editions have graphikēs de kai Kratōnos.

(printed under page 492)

(32) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 923

Κοροπλαστική. Suffridi codex habet κοροπλαθική, quod quidem ei magis probatur, quia vox κορόπλαθος frequentiori usu teritur quam κοροπλασταί. DECHAIR ibidem leg. ὑπὸ δὴ τῆς Κόρης.

"Modelling of figures" (koroplastikē). Suffridus's manuscript has koroplathikē, which he approves more, because the word koroplathos is in more frequent use than koroplastai. DECHAIR, in the same place, reads hypo dē tēs Korēs ("by the Maiden").

(printed under page 492)

(33) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 923

Καὶ ἀναγλύψας. Conjunctionem suppeditavit codex Claromontanus.

"And having carved" (kai anaglypsas). The Clermont manuscript supplied the conjunction.

(printed under page 492)

(34) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 923

Πλαστικὴν καὶ ἀνδριαντοποιητικήν. Sic emendavi ope Reg. 2, Clarom. et duorum Anglicanorum. Male in editis ἀνδριαντοποιητικὴν καὶ πλαστικήν. Plastice enim, ut ait Plinius lib. XXXIV: Prior quam statuaria fuit. Unde etiam mater statuariae vocatur apud eumdem lib. XXXV, p. 711.

"Modelling and statue-making" (plastikēn kai andriantopoiētikēn). I have so emended with the help of Reg. 2, the Clermont and two English manuscripts; the editions wrongly have andriantopoiētikēn kai plastikēn. For modelling, as Pliny says in book 34, "was earlier than statuary." Hence the same author, book 35, p. 711, also calls it the mother of statuary.

(printed under page 492)

(35) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 923

Μᾶλλόν γε Ἀθηλᾶς. Secum pugnare Gesnero visus est Athenagoras, quia Athenam, quam hic eamdem esse ac Athelam declarat, infra n. 20, ab Athela distinguit. Atque haec causa Langum adduxit, ut has voces μᾶλλόν γε Ἀθηλᾶς, Ἀθηλᾶ γάρ, etc., e contextu in marginem obrepsisse crederet. Sed duae sunt Athelae: altera dicitur e cerebro Jovis prodiisse, et ut ait Eustathius in Iliad. p. 83: Οἱονεὶ ἀθηλός τις οὖσα, ὡς μὴ θηλάσασα. Ὤδινε μὲν γάρ, φασίν, ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ Διός. Haec Minerva dicitur et Athena, meritoque eam distinguit Athenagoras ab altera Athela, sive Proserpina, quam Jupiter ex matre suscepit, quaeque idcirco lactata non fuit, quia matri, utpote horrendum monstrum, displicuit.

"Or rather of Athela" (mallon ge Athēlas). Athenagoras seemed to Gesner to contradict himself, because below, at n. 20, he distinguishes from Athela the Athena whom he here declares to be the same as Athela. And this led Langus to believe that the words "or rather of Athela; for Athela," etc., had crept from the margin into the text. But there are two Athelas. One is said to have come forth from the brain of Jupiter, and, as Eustathius says on the Iliad, p. 83, "as being one unsuckled (athēlos), since she was not suckled; for the head of Zeus, they say, was in labour." This one is called Minerva and Athena, and Athenagoras rightly distinguishes her from the other Athela, that is Proserpina, whom Jupiter had by her mother, and who for that reason was not suckled, because she displeased her mother as a horrid monster.

(printed under page 492)

(36) ‹anchor: τῆς ἐλαίας› · call in col 923

Οὕτω γὰρ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλαίας. Testatur Plutarchus apud Eusebium Praep. evang. l. III, ligneum fuisse Minervae Urbicae simulacrum, quod ab indigenis consecratum asservabatur apud Athenienses. Ξύλινον δὲ τὸ τῆς Πολιάδος ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτοχθόνων ἱδρυθέν, ὃ μέχρι νῦν Ἀθηναῖοι διαφυλάττουσιν. Athenagorae verba οὕτω γάρ quae Gesnerus interpres omiserat, sic redduntur in Oxoniensi editione: Sic enim quod ex olea fabricatum fuit, antiquitus appellabatur. Sed his verbis non simulacri nomen, sed illius species significari videtur: neque Athelae, sed Poliadis simulacrum dicebatur. At quomodo Minerva in hoc simulacro Ἀθηλᾶ effingi potuit, si hac voce ubera illi admota non fuisse significetur? Dicendum ergo Minervam in hoc simulacro cum unica mamilla, ut Amazones solebant, effictam fuisse; vel, illa verba, quae tantum molestiae facessunt, post τὴν καθημένην rejicienda, unde in locum non suum, ut saepe alias contigit, migrare potuerunt. Non repugnat Minervam sedentem in antiquissimo quoque illo simulacro expressam fuisse.

"For so [was called] the one from the olive" (houtō gar to apo tēs elaias). Plutarch, in Eusebius, Praep. evang. book 3, testifies that the image of Minerva of the City was of wood, consecrated by the natives and preserved among the Athenians: "That of Polias, wooden, set up by the original inhabitants, which the Athenians keep to this day." Athenagoras's words houtō gar, which Gesner the translator had omitted, are rendered thus in the Oxford edition: "For so was what was made from the olive called of old." But these words seem to signify not the name of the image but its form; and it was called the image not of Athela but of Polias. Yet how could Minerva be represented in this image as Athēla if this word means that no breasts were given her? We must say, then, that Minerva was shaped in this image with a single breast, as the Amazons were; or else that those words which cause so much trouble should be moved after tēn kathēmenēn ("the seated one"), from which they could have migrated to a place not their own, as has often happened elsewhere. It is not inconsistent that Minerva was shown seated in that very ancient image too.

(printed under page 492)

(37) ‹anchor: Ἐνδυὸς› · call in col 923

Ἐνδυός. Ἐνδιός dicitur in duobus codicibus Anglicanis; vocatur Ἔνδοιος apud Pausaniam lib. I, p. 47, ubi haec leguntur: Ἔνδοιος ἦν γένος μὲν Ἀθηναῖος, Δαιδάλου δὲ μαθητής· ὃς καὶ φεύγοντι Δαιδάλῳ διὰ τὸν Κάλω θάνατον ἐπηκολούθησεν εἰς Κρήτην. Τούτου καθήμενόν ἐστιν Ἀθηνᾶς ἄγαλμα, ἐπίγραμμα ἔχον, ὡς Καλλίας μὲν ἀναθείη, ποιήσειεν δὲ Ἔνδοιος. Endaeus erat patria Atheniensis, Daedali discipulus, qui Daedalum ob necem Cali fugientem Cretam usque secutus est. Hujus est sedens Minervae simulacrum, cum hac inscriptione: Calliam dedicasse, fecisse Endaeum.

"Endyus." He is called Endios in two English manuscripts; he is called Endoios in Pausanias, book 1, p. 47, where we read: "Endoios was an Athenian by birth, a pupil of Daedalus, who also followed Daedalus to Crete when he fled because of the death of Calos. His is a seated image of Athena, bearing an inscription that Callias dedicated it and Endoios made it." Endaeus was an Athenian by country, a pupil of Daedalus, who followed Daedalus as far as Crete when he fled because of the killing of Calus. His is a seated image of Minerva with this inscription: "Callias dedicated it, Endaeus made it."

(printed under page 492)

(38) ‹anchor: Θεοδώρου καὶ Τηλεκλέους› · call in col 923

Θεοδώρου καὶ Τηλεκλέους. Theodorum hunc paulo ante Athenagoras Milesium vocat; Plinius Samium fuisse dicit, Hist. nat. lib. VII, c. 56. Sed Plinii sententiam confirmat Pausanias, qui lib. VIII, p. 479, Rhoecum Philaei, et Theodorum Teleclis filium, ambo Samios, aes excudere primos docuisse narrat.

"Of Theodorus and Telecles." A little before, Athenagoras calls this Theodorus a Milesian; Pliny says he was a Samian, Natural History book 7, ch. 56. And Pausanias confirms Pliny's view, relating in book 8, p. 479, that Rhoecus son of Philaeus and Theodorus son of Telecles, both Samians, were the first to teach the casting of bronze.

(printed under page 492)

(39) ‹anchor: Ἰδεκταίου› · call in col 923

Ἰδεκταίου. Τεκταῖον vocat Pausanias lib. II, p. 146, ubi sic loquitur: Μαθητὴς δὲ ὁ Κάλλων ἦν Τεκταίου καὶ Ἀγγελίωνος, οἳ Δηλίοις ἐποίησαν τὸ ἄγαλμα τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος. Ὁ δὲ Ἀγγελίων καὶ Τεκταῖος παρὰ Διποίνῳ καὶ Σκύλλιδι ἐδιδάχθησαν. Discipulus autem fuit Callon Tectaei et Angelionis, qui Samiis simulacrum Apollinis fecerunt. Angelion autem et Tectaeus Dipoeno et Scyllidi operam dederunt.

"Of Idectaeus." Pausanias, book 2, p. 146, calls him Tectaeus, where he speaks thus: "Callon was a pupil of Tectaeus and Angelion, who made the image of Apollo for the Delians. Angelion and Tectaeus were taught by Dipoenus and Scyllis." Callon was a pupil of Tectaeus and Angelion, who made the image of Apollo for the Samians [as printed; the Greek has Delians]. Angelion and Tectaeus studied under Dipoenus and Scyllis.

(printed under page 492)

⁸ ‹anchor: in manu Dei› · call in col 926 Prov. XXI, 1.

Proverbs 21:1.

⁸* ‹anchor: μητέρα Τηθύν› · call in col 926 (printed in the Greek, col 925) Il. Ξ, v. 201, 302.

Iliad 14 (Ξ), lines 201, 302.

(printed under page 493)

(40) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 926

Ἡ δὲ ἐν Σάμῳ. Quod ait Athenagoras de Junone Samia, confirmatur a Pausania, qui Junonis Samiae templum antiquum esse probat ex ipso simulacro, quod Smilidis Aeginetae, Euclidis filii, Daedalo aequalis opus esse testatur. Hinc emendari potest quod legitur apud Clementum Alexandrinum Protrept. p. 30: Junonis Samiae statuam scalpro Euclidis factam esse, σμίλῃ τῇ Εὐκλείδου πεποιῆσθαι. Legendum videtur ὑπὸ Σμίλιδος τοῦ Εὐκλείδου πεποιῆσθαι, a Smilide Euclidis filio factam esse.

"And the one in Samos" (hē de en Samō). What Athenagoras says about the Samian Juno is confirmed by Pausanias, who proves that the temple of the Samian Juno is ancient from the image itself, which he attests is the work of Smilis of Aegina, son of Euclides, a contemporary of Daedalus. From this one can emend what is read in Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus p. 30: that the statue of the Samian Juno was made with the chisel of Euclides, "made with the chisel (smilē) of Euclides." It seems one should read "made by Smilis son of Euclides."

(printed under page 493)

(41) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 926

Τί οὐκ ἦσαν. Sic editio Oxoniensis et mss. Aliae editiones: θεοὶ οὐκ ἦσαν. Vitium animadverterat Stephanus et legendum monuerat, ut in textu posuimus.

"Why were they not" (ti ouk ēsan). So the Oxford edition and the manuscripts. Other editions: theoi ouk ēsan ("they were not gods"). Stephanus had noticed the fault and advised reading as we have put in the text.

(printed under page 493)

(42) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 926

Τί δαί. Reg. 2 et tres Anglicani habent τί δέ, et mox τί δὲ ἔδει. Mox tres Anglicani λίθος.

"What then" (ti dai). Reg. 2 and three English manuscripts have ti de, and just after ti de edei. Just after, three English manuscripts have lithos ("stone").

(printed under page 493)

(43) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 926

Χαλεποί. Pars versus 131, l. XX Iliad. deest θεοί in Clarom. et tribus Angl.

"Hard" (chalepoi). Part of line 131 of Iliad book 20; theoi ("gods") is missing in the Clermont and three English manuscripts.

(printed under page 493)

(44) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 926

Μέγιστοι. Duo codices ὦ μέγιστοι. Suffridus in suo codice reperit αὐτοκράτορες, atque ita legendum putat.

"Greatest" (megistoi). Two manuscripts have ō megistoi ("O greatest"). Suffridus found autokratores ("emperors") in his manuscript, and thinks it should be read so.

(printed under page 493)

(45) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 926

Παρέχω. Multi veteres libri παρέχων. Mox Gesnerus legendum putat ἔχετε vel ἔχοιτε ἄν.

"I offer" (parechō). Many old books have parechōn. Just after, Gesner thinks one should read echete or echoite an.

(printed under page 493)

(46) ‹anchor: ἐπουράνιον βασιλείαν› · call in col 926

Βασιλείαν. Hic editi addunt εἰληφόσιν, excepta editione Oxoniensi. Delendam censuit hanc vocem Stephanus, nec eam agnoscunt Anglic. codices et Clarom. Linea transversa notatur in Regio secundo. Mox codices Anglicani ὥς φησι.

"Kingdom" (basileian). Here the editions, except the Oxford, add eilēphosin ("to those who have received"). Stephanus judged this word should be deleted, and the English manuscripts and the Clermont do not have it; in the second Royal it is marked with a line through it. Just after, the English manuscripts have hōs phēsi.

(printed under page 493)

(47) ‹anchor: βασιλέως γὰρ ψυχή› · call in col 926

Ψυχή. Liquet hunc locum ab Athenagora de praecipuo quodam in regum vita protegenda praesidio intelligi. Sic intellexit Themistius, orator profanus, qui in orat. 7 ait scriptum esse in litteris Assyriorum: Ὡς ἄρα ὁ νοῦς τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ παλάμῃ δορυφορεῖται· et in oratione 11, τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως καρδίαν ἐν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ παλάμῃ δορυφορεῖσθαι. Praesidium singulare significat et ipsa illa vox δορυφορεῖσθαι et adjuncta a Themistio explicatio, qui in primo loco manum reges custodientem, in altero manum reges assectantem interpretatur. Mox editi ἑνὶ τῷ Θεῷ. Melius Anglicani codices quos secutus sum.

"Soul" (psychē). Clearly Athenagoras understands this place of a special protection guarding the life of kings. So it was understood by Themistius, a pagan orator, who says in oration 7 that it is written in the writings of the Assyrians "that the mind of the king is guarded in the hand of God," and in oration 11, "that the heart of the king is guarded in the hand of God." Both the word doryphoreisthai ("to be escorted by a guard") itself and the explanation Themistius attaches signify a singular protection: in the first place he interprets it as the hand that guards kings, in the second as the hand that attends kings. Just after, the editions have heni tō Theō; better the English manuscripts, which I have followed.

(printed under page 493)

(48) ‹anchor: οὕτως γέγονεν› · call in col 926

Γέγονεν. Deest in cod. Clarom.

"Came to be" (gegonen). Missing in the Clermont manuscript.

(printed under page 493)

(49) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 927

Ὠκεανός, etc. Legitur hic versus apud Homerum Iliad. Ξ, citatusque est a Justino martyre in Cohort. ad Graecos. Nec mirum est, si eum Orpheo attribuit Athenagoras potius quam Homero; cum ejusmodi versus Orpheo suppositi, et plerumque ex Homero imitatione expressi his, qui fraudem non subolfaciebant, imitatorem Orphei Homerum fuisse persuaderent.

"Ocean," etc. This line is read in Homer, Iliad 14 (Ξ), and is quoted by Justin Martyr in the Exhortation to the Greeks. Nor is it surprising if Athenagoras attributes it to Orpheus rather than to Homer, since lines of this kind, foisted on Orpheus and mostly modelled on Homer by imitation, persuaded those who did not scent the fraud that Homer had been the imitator of Orpheus.

(printed under page 494)

(50) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 927

Αὐτῶν. Legendum censuit Gesnerus αὐτοῦ, unde etiam sic reddidit: Corpus vero medium continebat faciem Dei. Sed retinenda est vulgata lectio. Illud enim Dei caput non in medio corpore situm erat, sed inter duo alia capita, nempe draconis et leonis. Hercules enim erat tempus apud Aegyptios, ut observat Suffridus, eique tria capita affingebant, ut tempus praeteritum, praesens et futurum designarent.

"Of them" (autōn). Gesner judged that one should read autou ("of him"), and so he rendered: "but the middle of the body held the face of a god." But the common reading must be kept. For that head of the god was not placed in the middle of the body but between two other heads, namely of a serpent and a lion. For among the Egyptians Hercules was Time, as Suffridus observes, and they gave him three heads to signify time past, present and future.

(printed under page 494)

(51) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 927

Ὑπερμέγεθες ᾠόν. Haec frustra quaesieris in versibus sub falso Orphei nomine exstantibus; sed Athenagorae testimonium confirmat Plutarchus, qui de Orpheo sic loquitur Sympos. lib. II, p. 636: Οὐχ ὄρνιθος μόνον τὸ ᾠὸν ἀποφαίνει πρεσβύτερον, ἀλλὰ καὶ συλλαβὼν ἅπασαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἁπάντων ὁμοῦ πρεσβυγένειαν ἀνατίθησι. Non modo gallina ovum antiquius facit, sed omnem ei omnium prorsus rerum originis principatum attribuit. Recenset deinde Plutarchus ad firmandam Orphei opinionem animalia, quae ex ovis nasci constat, et idcirco ovum in Bacchi mysteriis ut imaginem illius, qui omnia genuit, et in seipso continet, non absurde consecratum fuisse dicit. Eodem fere ac Orpheus modo Phoenices, teste apud Eusebium Sanchuniathone Praep. evang. lib. I, cap. 10, omnium rerum originem ex limo ac deinde ex ovo quodam repetebant, Aegyptii autem, ut testatur Porphyrius apud eumdem Eusebium lib. III, Praepar., cap. 11, mundi opificem Deum, quem Cneph appellabant, ex ore suo ovum fingebant emisisse; quo ex ovo alium deum genitum esse, apud ipsos Phtha, apud Graecos Vulcanum nomine, illudque ovum interpretabantur mundum. Quod ad limum spectat, iidem Aegyptii, teste Jamblich. De myster. sect. 7, cap. 11, dicebant eum esse τῶν στοιχείων καὶ τῶν περὶ τοῖς στοιχείοις δυνάμεων πασῶν ἀρχηγὸν αἴτιον ἐν πυθμένος λόγῳ προϋποκείμενον, elementorum et omnium in elementis potestatum causam principem instar fundamenti subjectam.

"A huge egg" (hypermegethes ōon). You would look for this in vain among the verses extant under the false name of Orpheus; but Athenagoras's testimony is confirmed by Plutarch, who speaks thus of Orpheus, Table Talk book 2, p. 636: "He not only declares the egg older than the bird, but gathering it all together assigns to it the seniority of all things at once." Not only does he make the egg older than the hen, but he attributes to it the whole primacy of origin of absolutely all things. Plutarch then lists, to support Orpheus's opinion, the animals that are known to be born from eggs, and says that for this reason the egg was not absurdly consecrated in the mysteries of Bacchus as an image of him who begot all things and contains them in himself. In almost the same way as Orpheus, the Phoenicians — on the testimony of Sanchuniathon in Eusebius, Praep. evang. book 1, ch. 10 — derived the origin of all things from slime and then from a certain egg; while the Egyptians, as Porphyry attests in the same Eusebius, Praep. book 3, ch. 11, imagined that God the maker of the world, whom they called Cneph, emitted an egg from his mouth; that from this egg another god was born, named among them Phtha and among the Greeks Vulcan; and they interpreted that egg as the world. As for the slime, the same Egyptians, on the testimony of Iamblichus, On the Mysteries sect. 7, ch. 11, said that it was "the originating cause of the elements and of all the powers in the elements, laid down beforehand as a foundation," the principal cause of the elements and of all the powers in the elements, placed beneath like a foundation.

(printed under page 494)

(52) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 927

Κατενεχθέν. Legitur κάτω κατενεχθέν in uno ex Anglicanis et in codice Suffridi, qui hanc probat scripturam.

"Brought down" (katenechthen). Katō katenechthen ("brought down below") is read in one of the English manuscripts and in Suffridus's manuscript, who approves this reading.

(printed under page 494)

(53) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 927

Οὐρανὸς δέ. Reg. 2 οὐρανὸς δὲ θεός. Mox Reg. 2 et duo Anglicani ἄνδρας τε.

"And Heaven" (ouranos de). Reg. 2 has ouranos de theos. Just after, Reg. 2 and two English manuscripts have andras te.

(printed under page 494)

(54) ‹anchor: (call not visible on this foot)› · call in col 927

Κόττυν, Γύγην. Legitur in nonnullis mss. et editt. Paris. Κόττην. Habent etiam nonnulli codices Γύνην, alius Γύννιν.

"Cottus, Gyges." Some manuscripts and the Paris editions read Kottēn. Some manuscripts also have Gynēn, another Gynnin.

(printed under page 494)

(55) ‹anchor: οὕνεκα τισάσθην› · call in col 927

Τισάσθην. Haec Scriptura debetur Henrico Stephano. Legitur in codice Claromontano τιμωρήσωσι, in duobus Anglicanis τὶ τιμωρήσωσι, in utroque Regio et tribus Romanis οὕνεκά τι τιμωρήσωσιν ἢ τιμήσωσιν σάσθην, unde Stephanus elegit τισάσθην. Observat Suffridus Titanes hic confundi cum gigantibus quos sola terra genuit, cum primi ex coelo et terra orti fuerint.

"They avenged" (tisasthēn). This reading is owed to Henri Estienne. The Clermont manuscript reads timōrēsōsi, two English manuscripts ti timōrēsōsi, both Royal and three Roman manuscripts houneka ti timōrēsōsin ē timēsōsin sasthēn, from which Stephanus chose tisasthēn. Suffridus observes that the Titans are here confused with the Giants, whom earth alone bore, whereas the former sprang from heaven and earth.

(printed under page 494)

(56) ‹anchor: τῷ παντί› · call in col 927

Τῷ παντί. Locus valde corruptus. Legitur in Claromontano codice et tribus Anglicanis, τῷ παντὶ ὡς τὴν ἀρχήν, etc. Editor Oxoniensis percommode emendat hoc modo, καὶ τὸ πᾶν· τί ἐκεῖνο τοίνυν;

"To the universe" (tō panti). A badly corrupt place. The Clermont manuscript and three English manuscripts read tō panti hōs tēn archēn, etc. The Oxford editor emends very aptly thus: kai to pan; ti ekeino toinyn? ("and the universe. What, then, is that?").

(printed under page 494)

(57) ‹anchor: ὂν εἶναι› · call in col 927

Ὂν εἶναι. Tres Anglicani codices ἂν εἶναι. Suffridus et Oxoniensis editor deesse ἔδει existimant; legere malim ὂν νοεῖται.

"Being" (on einai). Three English manuscripts have an einai. Suffridus and the Oxford editor think edei ("it was necessary") is missing; I would prefer to read on noeitai ("is thought of as being").

(printed under page 494)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 930

Φθαρτόν. Editio Oxon. καὶ φθαρτόν ἐστι, et mox οὐκ ἐγὼ μέν. Sed nec in editionibus Parisiensibus nec in nostris codicibus leguntur hae particulae καί et μέν. Platonis verba, quae mox citantur, desumpta sunt ex Timaeo. Ope codicis Clarom. emendavi quod erat in editis αἰσθητόν, γεννητόν.

Φθαρτόν ("perishable"). The Oxford edition has καὶ φθαρτόν ἐστι, and shortly after οὐκ ἐγὼ μέν. But neither in the Paris editions nor in our manuscripts are the particles καί and μέν read. Plato's words, quoted shortly after, are taken from the Timaeus. With the help of the Clermont codex I have corrected what stood in the printed editions as αἰσθητόν, γεννητόν.

(printed under page 495)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 930

Λαβόντος. Clarom. et tres Anglicani λαβόντας. Infra unus ex Anglicanis ἀδύνατον δὲ καί.

Λαβόντος ("having received"). The Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have λαβόντας. Below, one of the English manuscripts has ἀδύνατον δὲ καί.

(printed under page 495)

(60) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 930

Μένει. Deest ea vox in editionibus Parisiensibus, legitur in aliis et in codicibus mss. Habent στάσις Reg 2, Clarom. et tres Anglicani. Mox Gesnerus et Suffridus malunt τό γε γὰρ κατ' αὐτούς. Sed nihil mutandum.

Μένει ("remains"). This word is missing in the Paris editions; it is read in the others and in the manuscript codices. Regius 2, the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have στάσις. Shortly after, Gesner and Suffridus prefer τό γε γὰρ κατ' αὐτούς. But nothing should be changed.

(printed under page 495)

(61) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 930

Καὶ ὕλης. Haec verba et quae in eamdem sententiam dicta consequuntur, desunt in Clarom. et tribus Anglicanis, in quibus legitur: Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ τεχνίτου· οὔτε πρεσβυτέραν, etc.

Καὶ ὕλης ("and of matter"). These words, and what follows said to the same effect, are missing in the Clermont codex and the three English manuscripts, in which one reads: Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ τεχνίτου· οὔτε πρεσβυτέραν, etc.

(printed under page 495)

(62) ‹anchor: ἂν παρεγενόμην› · call in col 930

Παρεγενόμην. Reg. 2 παραγενοίμην.

Παρεγενόμην ("I would have proceeded"). Regius 2 has παραγενοίμην.

(printed under page 495)

(63) ‹anchor: θεὸς δράκων› · call in col 930

Θεὸς δράκων. Haec quoque ex Aegyptiorum hausta fontibus. Hercules enim, ut paulo ante dicebat Athenagoras, opifex est mundi, cujus ex ore ovum emissum est. At mundi opificem Aegyptii sub serpentis specie effingebant. Hoc animal Phoenices, inquit Philo Biblius apud Euseb. Praep. I, cap. ult., bonum daemonem appellant, Aegyptii vero Cneph. Cneph autem nomen est mundi opificis apud Aegyptios, ut modo observavimus ex Porphyrii testimonio.

Θεὸς δράκων ("a god, a serpent"). This too is drawn from Egyptian sources. For Hercules, as Athenagoras said a little before, is the maker of the world, from whose mouth the egg was put forth. And the Egyptians represented the maker of the world in the form of a serpent. "This animal the Phoenicians," says Philo of Byblos in Eusebius, Praeparatio [evangelica] I, last chapter, "call the good daemon, but the Egyptians Cneph." And Cneph is the name of the maker of the world among the Egyptians, as we observed just now from the testimony of Porphyry.

(printed under page 495)

(64) ‹anchor: Δήμητρος αὐτῆς› · call in col 930

Ἢ Δημήτορος αὐτῆς. Sic emendavi ope codicis Claromontani quod in editis legebatur, καὶ Δήμητρος ἢ Δημήτορος τὸν αὐτῆς. Legendum putant Gesnerus et Oxoniensis editor τῆς αὐτῆς. Hinc interpretatur Gesnerus: Eamdem enim illi faciunt.

Ἢ Δημήτορος αὐτῆς ("or Demetor herself"). So, with the help of the Clermont codex, I have corrected what was read in the printed editions: καὶ Δήμητρος ἢ Δημήτορος τὸν αὐτῆς. Gesner and the Oxford editor think τῆς αὐτῆς should be read. Hence Gesner translates: "For they make her the same."

(printed under page 495)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 931

Κόρης. Codices nonnulli κόρσης. Ibidem Clarom. et tres Anglicani γενομένης. Reg. 2 γενομένη.

Κόρης ("of Kore"). Some codices have κόρσης. In the same place the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have γενομένης; Regius 2 has γενομένη.

(printed under page 496)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 931

Ἀνάγκη. Ponitur post εἰπεῖν in duobus Anglicanis et Reg. secundo.

Ἀνάγκη ("necessity"). It is placed after εἰπεῖν in two English manuscripts and in Regius 2.

(printed under page 496)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 931

Τί τὸ σεμνόν. Uterque Bodleianus τί σεμνὸν ἢ τί χρηστόν.

Τί τὸ σεμνόν ("what is the dignified thing"). Both Bodleian manuscripts have τί σεμνὸν ἢ τί χρηστόν.

(printed under page 496)

(68) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 931

Αἱ διαθέσεις. Codex Suffridi τίνες αἱ διαθέσεις; atque haec illi scriptura plurimum probatur.

Αἱ διαθέσεις ("the dispositions"). Suffridus's codex has τίνες αἱ διαθέσεις, and this reading greatly commends itself to him.

(printed under page 496)

(69) ‹anchor: Ἂν δὲ› · call in col 931

Ἂν δέ. Duo Anglicani τὴν δέ, Clarom. τὰν δὲ Φάνης ἄλλην γενεῶν. Unus ex Anglicanis habet γένεσιν. Hunc Phanetem ex ovo profusum fuisse non dixerat Athenagoras illo in loco, ubi de ovo locutus est. Sed difficile non est intelligere, simul cum ovo prodiisse primogenitum illum Deum, qui coelum et terram ovo contenta dicitur condidisse. Idcirco enim Phanes ille draconis speciem dicitur habuisse, quia mundi opifex ita effingi solebat apud Aegyptios. Phanes ille nihil aliud esse videtur quam Minerva. Haec enim, ex Patris capite, ἐκθοροῦσα, prosiliens, ut ait Themistius orat. 3, omnia creavit et coelum ac terram temperavit. Praeterea Metis, cum praegnans Minerva esset, a Jove deglutitur, ut videre est apud Eustathium in Iliad., p. 83, ac deinde Minerva per caput Jovis erupit. Quadrat id cum Phanete, qui a Jove devoratus dicitur. Ex his patet immerito Gesnerum existimasse addendum esse τὴν Μῆτιν post ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, quod quidem in interpretando sequi non dubitavit.

Ἂν δέ ("and her"). Two English manuscripts have τὴν δέ; the Clermont codex τὰν δὲ Φάνης ἄλλην γενεῶν. One of the English manuscripts has γένεσιν. Athenagoras had not said that this Phanes was poured out of the egg in the place where he spoke of the egg. But it is not hard to understand that the first-born god, who is said to have made the heaven and earth contained in the egg, came forth together with the egg. That is why Phanes is said to have had the form of a serpent: because the maker of the world was customarily represented so among the Egyptians. This Phanes seems to be nothing other than Minerva. For she, ἐκθοροῦσα, "leaping forth" from her Father's head, as Themistius says in Oration 3, created all things and ordered heaven and earth. Moreover, when Metis was pregnant with Minerva, she was swallowed by Jove, as may be seen in Eustathius on the Iliad, p. 83, and then Minerva burst out through Jove's head. This squares with Phanes, who is said to have been devoured by Jove. From this it is clear that Gesner wrongly thought τὴν Μῆτιν should be added after ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, which indeed he did not hesitate to follow in his translation.

(printed under page 496)

(70) ‹anchor: ἢ καταποθῆναι› · call in col 931

Καταποθῆναι. Clarom. et tres Anglicani κατατεθῆναι. Sic etiam alius codex citatus a Ducaeo.

Καταποθῆναι ("to be swallowed"). The Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have κατατεθῆναι. So too another codex cited by Ducaeus [Fronton du Duc].

(printed under page 496)

(71) ‹anchor: ὕλης ἀποκρινομένων› · call in col 931

Ἀποκρινομένων. Clarom. et tres Anglicani ἀποκρινόμενον. Sic etiam Reg. 2 ad marginem. Qui contextum Athenagorae immutaverunt, videntur minus intellexisse vim hujus verbi ἀποκρίνεσθαι et idcirco illud retulisse ad Deum. At verbum illud percommode dicitur de iis, quae e materia educuntur et generantur; idque observavit Gesnerus, cujus observationem confirmat Plutarchus, quo teste apud Euseb. Praep. Evang., lib. I, c. 8, Anaximander docebat infinitum esse causam mundi generationis et corruptionis. Ex eo enim coelos eductos fuisse, ἐξ οὗ δή φησι τούς τε οὐρανοὺς ἀποκεκρῖσθαι.

Ἀποκρινομένων ("of things separated out"). The Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have ἀποκρινόμενον; so too Regius 2 in the margin. Those who altered Athenagoras's text seem not to have understood well the force of this verb ἀποκρίνεσθαι, and so referred it to God. But the verb is said very fittingly of things drawn out of matter and generated; Gesner observed this, and his observation is confirmed by Plutarch, on whose testimony in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, book I, ch. 8, Anaximander taught that the infinite is the cause of the world's generation and corruption. "For from it the heavens were drawn out," ἐξ οὗ δή φησι τούς τε οὐρανοὺς ἀποκεκρῖσθαι.

(printed under page 496)

(72) ‹anchor: σπέρμα› · call in col 931

Καὶ σπέρμα. Deest conjunctio in utroque Regio et uno Anglicano. Paulo ante tres Anglicani, τί δὲ καὶ πρόσιμεν.

Καὶ σπέρμα ("and seed"). The conjunction is missing in both Regii and in one English manuscript. A little before, three English manuscripts have τί δὲ καὶ πρόσιμεν.

(printed under page 496)

(9?) ‹anchor: not visible; numeral not visible at the line's start› · call in col 934 Iliad. Δ, v. 23.

Iliad 4, line 23.

(printed under page 497)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Iliad. Δ, v. 24.

Iliad 4, line 24.

(printed under page 497)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Iliad. X, v. 168 et 169.

Iliad 22, lines 168 and 169.

(printed under page 497)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Iliad. Π, v. 434 et 435.

Iliad 16, lines 434 and 435.

(printed under page 497)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Ibid., v. 522.

Ibid., line 522.

(printed under page 497)

(14) ‹anchor: Διομήδης› · call in col 934

Iliad. E, v. 376.

Iliad 5, line 376.

(printed under page 497)

(15) ‹anchor: Ἄρηα› · call in col 934

Odyss. Θ, 307, 308.

Odyssey 8, 307, 308.

(printed under page 497)

(16) ‹anchor: ἔδαψεν› · call in col 934

Iliad. E, 858.

Iliad 5, 858.

(printed under page 497)

(17) ‹anchor: ἐγχέσπαλος› · call in col 934

Iliad. O, v. 605.

Iliad 15, line 605.

(printed under page 497)

(18) ‹anchor: μιαιφόνε› · call in col 934

Iliad. E, v. 31.

Iliad 5, line 31.

(printed under page 497)

(19) ‹anchor: ἦν› · call in col 934

Odyss. Θ, 308, 309.

Odyssey 8, 308, 309.

(printed under page 497)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Αἱρεῖ. Legitur apud Homerum ᾕρει. Perperam conjecit H. Stephanus scripsisse Athenagoram αἴρῃ et inde factum αἱρεῖ.

Αἱρεῖ ("takes"). In Homer one reads ᾕρει. H. Stephanus wrongly conjectured that Athenagoras wrote αἴρῃ and that αἱρεῖ came from it.

(printed under page 497)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Καὶ ἀνθρώπους. Deest conjunctio in uno ex Anglicanis. Mox editio Oxoniensis ὁ πατήρ.

Καὶ ἀνθρώπους ("and men"). The conjunction is missing in one of the English manuscripts. Shortly after, the Oxford edition has ὁ πατήρ.

(printed under page 497)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Ὀδύρηται. Clarom. ὀδύρεται.

Ὀδύρηται ("laments"). The Clermont codex has ὀδύρεται.

(printed under page 497)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Αἴ, αἴ. Legisse se ait Suffridus in antiquo codice ὤ μοι ἐγών, ut apud Homerum. Λέγων pro ἐγών ex incuria.

Αἴ, αἴ ("alas, alas"). Suffridus says he read ὤ μοι ἐγών in an old codex, as in Homer. Λέγων for ἐγών is a slip.

(printed under page 497)

(77) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 934

Ἀδυνατῇ. Sic pro ἀδυνατεῖ, emendavit Fronto Ducaeus qui duos codices mss. citat. Ita legendum monuerat Stephanus, atque ita legitur in Reg. 2. Sic etiam habuit prima manu Reg. 1. Retinuit ἀδυνατεῖ utraque editio Parisiensis.

Ἀδυνατῇ ("is unable"). So Fronto Ducaeus corrected it, for ἀδυνατεῖ, citing two manuscript codices. Stephanus had advised that it be read so, and so it is read in Regius 2. Regius 1 also had it so in the first hand. Both Paris editions kept ἀδυνατεῖ.

(printed under page 497)

(78) ‹anchor: μὴ τιτρωσκέσθωσαν› · call in col 934

Τιτρωσκέσθωσαν. Ita Reg. 2 prima manu et tres Anglicani. Editi τιτρωσκέσθω. Paulo post ante haec verba: Διὰ δὲ χρόα καλὸν ἔδαψεν, Gesnerus addendum putat Ἄρης ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Sed fortasse Athenagoras, ut in re notissima, necesse esse non putavit admonere haec verba de Marte et Diomede dicta esse.

Τιτρωσκέσθωσαν ("let them be wounded"). So Regius 2 in the first hand and three English manuscripts. The printed editions have τιτρωσκέσθω. A little after, before the words Διὰ δὲ χρόα καλὸν ἔδαψεν, Gesner thinks Ἄρης ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ should be added. But perhaps Athenagoras, the matter being very well known, did not think it necessary to point out that these words were said of Mars and Diomedes.

(printed under page 497)

(79) ‹anchor: αὐτοῦ διεξίῃς› · call in col 934

Διεξίῃς. Uterque Regius, duo Romani codices cum Claromontano et tribus Anglicanis habent διέξῃ. In nonnullis tamen non exstat ι subscriptum. Codex Suffridi διήξεις.

Διεξίῃς ("you recount"). Both Regii, two Roman codices, with the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts, have διέξῃ. In some, however, the iota subscript does not appear. Suffridus's codex has διήξεις.

(printed under page 497)

(80) ‹anchor: Τεχνήεντες ἔχυντο› · call in col 934

Ἔχυντο. Deest in tribus Anglicanis.

Ἔχυντο ("were poured around"). It is missing in three English manuscripts.

(printed under page 497)

(81) ‹anchor: ἀσεβῆ λῆρον› · call in col 934

Λῆρον. Iidem codices λῆρον τὸν ἀσεβῆ. Legendum videtur οὐ καταβαλοῦσι; sic paulo ante σιώπησον, Ὅμηρε.

Λῆρον ("nonsense"). The same codices have λῆρον τὸν ἀσεβῆ. It seems one should read οὐ καταβαλοῦσι; so, a little before, σιώπησον, Ὅμηρε.

(printed under page 497)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 935

Iliad. B, 820, 821.

Iliad 2, 820, 821.

(printed under page 498)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 935

Iliad. Ξ, 315.

Iliad 14, 315.

(21') ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 935 Alcestis, v. 1, 2.

Alcestis, lines 1, 2.

(21'') ‹anchor: σῴζον οἶκον› · call in col 935 Alcestis, v. 8, 9.

Alcestis, lines 8, 9.

(printed under page 498)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 935

Ἦ γὰρ θεοί. Editi ἢ γὰρ θεοὶ καὶ οὐχ ἅψεται. Codex Suffridi εἰ γὰρ θεοί, quae quidem illi scriptura probatur, nec non Gesnero. Codex Claromontanus ἢ γὰρ θεοί; ἅψεται, etc., legendo cum interrogationis nota, quam quidem miror in hac tota verborum complexione editori Oxoniensi displicere.

Ἦ γὰρ θεοί ("are they then gods?"). The printed editions have ἢ γὰρ θεοὶ καὶ οὐχ ἅψεται. Suffridus's codex has εἰ γὰρ θεοί, a reading he approves, as does Gesner. The Clermont codex has ἢ γὰρ θεοί; ἅψεται, etc., reading it with a question mark, which I am surprised the Oxford editor dislikes in this whole sequence of words.

(printed under page 498)

(83) ‹anchor: ἐβουφόρβουν ξένῳ› · call in col 935

Ξένῳ. Legitur ξένων in Regio primo et sex aliis. Ibidem monet Oxoniensis editor legi δὴ γαῖαν in Alcest. Euripidis, ubi haec leguntur.

Ξένῳ ("for a host"). Ξένων is read in Regius 1 and six others. In the same place the Oxford editor notes that δὴ γαῖαν is read in Euripides' Alcestis, where these words occur.

(printed under page 498)

(84) ‹anchor: Κἀγὼ τὸ› · call in col 935

Κἀγὼ τό. Sic apud Eusebium Praep. l. XIII, cap. 3. Sic etiam legendum censuit Gesnerus. Editi κἀγώ τι. Tres Anglicani cum codice Suffridi κἀγώ τοι. Ibidem Reg. 2, et duo Anglicani habent Φοῖβον.

Κἀγὼ τό ("and I [thought] the"). So in Eusebius, Praeparatio, book XIII, ch. 3; Gesner also judged it should be read so. The printed editions have κἀγώ τι; three English manuscripts with Suffridus's codex have κἀγώ τοι. In the same place Regius 2 and two English manuscripts have Φοῖβον.

(printed under page 498)

(85) ‹anchor: τέγγει κρούνωμα› · call in col 935

Δακρύοις τέγγει κρούνωμα. Sic restituit H. Stephanus, cum antea legeretur, ut in plerisque mss. δακρυόεις τ' ἐπικούρου νομῷ.

Δακρύοις τέγγει κρούνωμα ("moistens the spring with tears"). So H. Stephanus restored it, whereas before it was read, as in most manuscripts, δακρυόεις τ' ἐπικούρου νομῷ.

(printed under page 498)

(86) ‹anchor: ἡ γῆ› · call in col 935

Ἥρα δὲ ἡ γῆ. Plutarchus in libro De placit. philosoph. sententiam Empedoclis aliter ac Athenagoras explanat, ac Junonem interpretatur aerem, Plutonem terram. Sed quia Juno saepe alias ab antiquis terra dicitur, frustra immutetur Athenagorae contextus, ut mutandum opinatus est Langus.

Ἥρα δὲ ἡ γῆ ("and Hera the earth"). Plutarch, in the book On the Opinions of the Philosophers, explains Empedocles' view otherwise than Athenagoras does, and takes Juno as air and Pluto as earth. But since Juno is often elsewhere called earth by the ancients, Athenagoras's text would be changed to no purpose, as Langus thought it should be changed.

(printed under page 498)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Καὶ φιλίη. Ante haec verba alius apud Sextum philosophum versus legitur, quem H. Stephanus apud Athenagoram omissum fuisse existimat, is nempe: Νεῖκός τ' οὐλόμενον δίχα τῶν ἀτάλαντον ἁπάντῃ. Ex quo nonnulli sex principia Empedocli attribuunt. Sed cum hoc loco Athenagoras sententiam Empedoclis ad duo principia revocet, nempe amicitiam quae imperat et ea quibus imperat amicitia, hic versus non incuria librariorum, sed consilio Athenagorae praetermissus.

Καὶ φιλίη ("and Love"). Before these words another verse is read in Sextus the philosopher, which H. Stephanus thinks was omitted in Athenagoras, namely: Νεῖκός τ' οὐλόμενον δίχα τῶν ἀτάλαντον ἁπάντῃ. From it some attribute six principles to Empedocles. But since in this place Athenagoras reduces Empedocles' view to two principles, namely the Love that rules and the things Love rules, this verse was left out not by the copyists' carelessness but by Athenagoras's design.

(printed under page 499)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Ἃ χωρὶς τῆς φιλίας, κ. τ. λ. Quamvis vitiosa non sit hujus loci interpunctio aut interpretatio, videtur tamen utraque melius se habitura, si hunc in modum immutetur: Ἃ χωρὶς φιλίας οὐ δύναται μένειν, ὑπὸ νείκους συγχεόμενα, πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴποι τις ταῦτα εἶναι θεούς; Quae sine amicitia permanere non possunt, discordia autem confunduntur, haec quomodo deos esse quisquam dixerit? — Ex Addendis et Emendandis.

Ἃ χωρὶς τῆς φιλίας, etc. ("things which without Love…"). Although the punctuation and translation of this passage are not faulty, both would seem better if changed in this way: Ἃ χωρὶς φιλίας οὐ δύναται μένειν, ὑπὸ νείκους συγχεόμενα, πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴποι τις ταῦτα εἶναι θεούς; "Things which cannot endure without Love, and are confounded by Strife — how could anyone say these are gods?" — From the Addenda and Corrigenda.

(printed under page 499)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Συγχεόμενα. Sic plerique codices mss. Editi χεόμενα.

Συγχεόμενα ("confounded"). So most manuscript codices. The printed editions have χεόμενα.

(printed under page 499)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Ὡς ἐάν. Legendum, ut Gesnerus et editor Oxoniensis monuere, ὥστε ἐάν.

Ὡς ἐάν ("as if"). One should read, as Gesner and the Oxford editor advised, ὥστε ἐάν.

(printed under page 499)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Ἐπισυνάπτοιτο. Edit. Oxon. ἐπισυνάπτοιο.

Ἐπισυνάπτοιτο ("were joined on"). The Oxford edition has ἐπισυνάπτοιο.

(printed under page 499)

(92) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Συνεκφωνουμένου. Conjiciunt nonnulli legendum συμφωνουμένου.

Συνεκφωνουμένου ("uttered together"). Some conjecture that συμφωνουμένου should be read.

(printed under page 499)

(93) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Τὸν Δία. Tres Anglicani τινὲς Δία. Clarom. τινὲς διαλέγουσιν.

Τὸν Δία ("Zeus"). Three English manuscripts have τινὲς Δία; the Clermont codex τινὲς διαλέγουσιν.

(printed under page 499)

(94) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Ἴσα. Gesnerus mallet ὅσα. Idem erit sensus, si legamus, ἴσα τῇ τῆς ὕλης ἀλλαγῇ. In duobus Anglic. et Clarom. 2, legitur ἡ τῆς ὕλης κεχωρηκός, caeteris omissis. Codex Eton. retinet vocem ἀλλαγή, caetera omittit.

Ἴσα ("equally"). Gesner would prefer ὅσα. The sense will be the same if we read ἴσα τῇ τῆς ὕλης ἀλλαγῇ. In two English manuscripts and Clermont 2 one reads ἡ τῆς ὕλης κεχωρηκός, the rest omitted. The Eton codex keeps the word ἀλλαγή and omits the rest.

(printed under page 499)

(95) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 938

Αὐτῆς. Tres Angl. αὐτοῦ et paulo post φατέον μὲν ὄντος.

Αὐτῆς ("of it"). Three English manuscripts have αὐτοῦ, and a little after φατέον μὲν ὄντος.

(printed under page 499)

(96) ‹anchor: μήτηρ νομίζεται πάντων› · call in col 938

Νομίζεται πάντων. Sic plerique mss. Editi πάντων νομίζεται.

Νομίζεται πάντων ("is reckoned [mother] of all"). So most manuscripts. The printed editions have πάντων νομίζεται.

(printed under page 499)

(97) ‹anchor: ἐπ' αὐτῷ εἴδωλον› · call in col 938

Τὸ ἐπ' αὐτῷ εἴδωλον. His verbis non videtur (continues)

Τὸ ἐπ' αὐτῷ εἴδωλον ("the image made of him"). By these words it does not seem (continues)

(printed under page 499)

(97) ‹anchor: (continued)› · call in col 939

(continued) designari simulacrum ex aere aut ligno factum, sed aliena species sub qua depingebatur Saturnus, sive ficta illa temporis imago, ad quam illius facta revocari solebant. Videtur hunc locum sic intellexisse Tertullianus, cujus verba eo libentius referam, quod et antiquis Athenagoras non plurimum cognitus fuit, et Tertulliano ejus vestigia prementi opem ac lucem afferre potest in explendis lacunis. Sic igitur Tertullianus lib. II ad Nat. cap. 12: Aut Saturnus fuit aut tempus. Quomodo Saturnus, si tempus? Aut si Saturnus, quomodo tempus? Utrumque enim non potes corporale in eo confirmare. Quid autem prohibuit tempus coli in sua qualitate, et non in specie hominis; aut fabulam hominis in sua specie, non in temporis qualitate? Quid sibi vult intellectio ista, nisi foedas materias mentitis argumentationibus colorare? Saturnum neque ideo qui... d..... tempus (neque adeo qui Deum dicis, das esse tempus), aut dum eum tempus facis, jam nec hominem vis fuisse.

(printed under page 500)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 939

Τί δεῖ. Τί δέ Reg. 2, Clarom et 2 Angl. Addendum ὑμῖν post verbum existimat Gesnerus; sed ea vox facile suppletur.

Τί δεῖ ("what need"). Regius 2, the Clermont codex and two English manuscripts have Τί δέ. Gesner thinks ὑμῖν should be added after the verb; but that word is easily supplied.

(printed under page 500)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 939

Τὴν φρόνησιν. Legendum ἣν φρόνησιν. Mox tres Anglic. τὴν φύσιν. Ibidem Reg. 2 et tres Anglic. καὶ περὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς pro ἢ ἃ περὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. In Reg. 1, ἢ περὶ Ἀθηνᾶς et ἃ supra lineam.

Τὴν φρόνησιν ("wisdom"). One should read ἣν φρόνησιν. Shortly after, three English manuscripts have τὴν φύσιν. In the same place Regius 2 and three English manuscripts have καὶ περὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς for ἢ ἃ περὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. In Regius 1, ἢ περὶ Ἀθηνᾶς, with ἃ above the line.

(printed under page 500)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 939

Λέγουσιν. Ita tres Angl. et Clarom. cum Ducaeo et Oxon. Aliae editiones λέγοντες. Gesnerus bis legit πάντα.

Λέγουσιν ("they say"). So three English manuscripts and the Clermont codex, with Ducaeus and the Oxford edition. The other editions have λέγοντες. Gesner reads πάντα twice.

(printed under page 500)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 939

Περὶ Πελώρου. Saepe librarii eamdem syllabam, eamdemque vocem bis scripsere imprudentes. Saepe etiam eorumdem incuria nonnullae voces e sua sede in aliam migrarunt. Utrumque vitium videtur huic corruptissimo loco accidisse. Crediderim enim scripsisse Athenagoram ἢ περὶ Ὥρου, unde factum a librariis, praepositione ob negligentiam repetita περὶ Πελώρου, atque has voces collocandas esse post καλεῖται. Si cui minus placeant hae conjecturae, legere poterit cum Suffrido μετ' Ὥρου pro περὶ Πελώρου. Notum est enim ex Plutarcho lib. De Iside, cap. 5, ut idem vir eruditus observat, Isidem, ubi didicit dispersa a Typhone membra Osiridis fuisse, Butim venisse, ubi educabatur Orus, quem probabile est a matre assumptum, ut Osiridis membra simul quaererent.

Περὶ Πελώρου ("about Pelorus"). Copyists often carelessly wrote the same syllable or the same word twice; often too through their carelessness some words wandered from their own place into another. Both faults seem to have befallen this very corrupt passage. For I should think Athenagoras wrote ἢ περὶ Ὥρου, from which the copyists, repeating the preposition through negligence, made περὶ Πελώρου, and that these words belong after καλεῖται. If these conjectures do not please someone, he may read with Suffridus μετ' Ὥρου for περὶ Πελώρου. For it is known from Plutarch, On Isis, ch. 5, as the same learned man observes, that Isis, when she learned that Osiris's limbs had been scattered by Typhon, came to Butus, where Orus was being brought up, whom it is probable his mother took with her so that they might seek Osiris's limbs together.

(printed under page 500)

(3) ‹anchor: τῷ λόγῳ› · call in col 939

Τῷ λόγῳ. Melius fortasse, ut conjicit Gesnerus, τοῦ λόγου.

Τῷ λόγῳ ("by reason"). Better perhaps, as Gesner conjectures, τοῦ λόγου.

(printed under page 500)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 939

Καί τι γάρ. Legendum καίτοι γε, ut monuit Gesnerus. Ibidem Reg. uterque εἰ θεολογοῦσιν. Deest ἢ in Clarom. et tribus Anglicanis.

Καί τι γάρ. One should read καίτοι γε, as Gesner advised. In the same place both Regii have εἰ θεολογοῦσιν. Ἢ is missing in the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts.

(printed under page 500)

(5) ‹anchor: λόγους βεβαιοῦσι› · call in col 939

Βεβαιοῦσι. Tres Anglicani praemittunt οὐ. Sic etiam Reg. 2. Sed alia manu supra lineam. Ibidem Clarom. ἀπ' αὐτοῖς.

Βεβαιοῦσι ("they confirm"). Three English manuscripts put οὐ before it; so too Regius 2, but in another hand above the line. In the same place the Clermont codex has ἀπ' αὐτοῖς.

(printed under page 500)

(6) ‹anchor: ἡ πρὸς ταῦτα› · call in col 939

Ἡ πρὸς ταῦτα. Legit Gesnerus πρὸς ταύτας. Legendum videtur ἡ πρὸς ταύτας... ἢ γῆς.

Ἡ πρὸς ταῦτα ("the [union] with these"). Gesner reads πρὸς ταύτας. It seems one should read ἡ πρὸς ταύτας... ἢ γῆς.

(printed under page 500)

(7) ‹anchor: Ἀλλ' ἀποπίπτοντες› · call in col 939

Ἀποπίπτοντες. Sic editiones Ducaei et Oxoniensis, et codices Clarom. et Suffridi et duo Anglicani et Reg. secundus alia manu. In aliis editis et mss. ἀποπίπτοντας.

Ἀποπίπτοντες ("falling short"). So the editions of Ducaeus and Oxford, and the codices of Clermont and Suffridus, two English manuscripts, and Regius 2 in another hand. In other printed editions and manuscripts, ἀποπίπτοντας.

(printed under page 500)

(8) ‹anchor: καὶ ὑπερκύψαι› · call in col 939

Ὑπερκύψαι. Sic editio Oxon. cum codicibus Reg. 2, Clarom. tribus Anglic. et Suffridi. Eodem verbo utitur Athenagoras infra n. 26. Aliae editiones ὑποκύψαι.

Ὑπερκύψαι ("to rise above"). So the Oxford edition, with the codices Regius 2, Clermont, three English manuscripts and Suffridus's. Athenagoras uses the same verb below, no. 26. The other editions have ὑποκύψαι.

(printed under page 500)

(9) ‹anchor: ὕλης συντετήκασιν› · call in col 939

Συντετήκασιν. Sic uterque Regius codex, quibus favent alii codices. Legitur enim in uno ex Romanis συντετήκησαν, in alio συντετήκεισαν, in duobus Anglicanis συντεθείκασιν. Editi συνεστή- (continues)

Συντετήκασιν ("they have melted down"). So both Regius codices, and other codices support them: for in one of the Roman ones one reads συντετήκησαν, in another συντετήκεισαν, in two English manuscripts συντεθείκασιν. The printed editions have συνεστή- (continues)

(printed under page 500)

(9) ‹anchor: (continued)› · call in col 942

(continued) κασι. Scriptura, quam in contextum recepimus, quaeque infra iterum occurrit n. 26, confirmatur his Theodoreti verbis, I adv. Graecos, p. 477: Μόνοις γὰρ τοῖς ὁρατοῖς συντετήκατε, καὶ τὰ χειρόκμητα ξόανα σέβοντες τὴν περὶ τῆς ἀοράτου φύσεως διδασκαλίαν οὐ δέχεσθε. Solis enim visibilibus rebus intabescitis et manufacta simulacra venerantes, doctrinam de invisibili natura non admittitis.

(printed under page 501)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 942

Νομιοῦμεν. Clarom., tres Anglicani et Suffridi codex νοοῦμεν quod quidem Suffrido magis arridet. Tatianus n. 18, Justini auctoritate fretus effectus daemonum eo redigit, ut morbo, quem inflixerant, deleto, hominem pristinae valetudini restituant; non absimiles hac in re latronibus, qui quos ceperunt, pretio restituunt. Tertullianus Justinum et Tatianum imitatur, cum ait Apolog. cap. 22: Laedunt enim primo, dehinc remedia praecipiunt, ad miraculum nova, sive contraria, post quae desinunt laedere et curasse creduntur. Huc spectat quod Minucius Felix cap. 27, et S. Cyprianus De idol. van. dicunt, daemones remissis quae constrinxerant videri curasse. Lactantius l. II, c. 15: Prodesse enim eos putant, cum nocere desinunt, qui nihil possunt quam nocere. Eusebius lib. V Praep. evangel. daemones hominibus illudere existimat cum multis aliis artibus, tum curationibus corporum, quae postquam propria sua daemonum operatione laeserunt, rursus iidem, dum laedere desinunt, morbis solutos relinquunt. Θεραπείαις τε σωμάτων, ἃ διὰ τῆς οἰκείας αὐτῶν δαιμονικῆς ἐνεργείας ἀφανῶς αὐτοὶ λυμαινόμενοι, πάλιν οἱ αὐτοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀνέσεως ἐλευθέρους τῶν παθῶν ἠφίεσαν. Inter hos omnes scriptores convenit, morbos interdum immitti a daemonibus, neque ea res Scripturam reverentibus dubia esse possit; sed dum dicunt ea a daemonibus sanari quae laeserant, id de morbis per inanem speciem immissis et eodem modo sanatis intelligunt. Neque enim morbi, qui languorem afferrent et ea quae ad sensuum perfunctiones necessaria sunt, immutarent, solo daemonum discessu, et eorum, quae constrinxerant, remissione sanari dicerentur. Praeterea iidem scriptores, ut infra videbimus ad n. 27, totam rem inanibus visis et somniis magna ex parte perfici declarant. Dubitat Irenaeus an magi daemones a se immissos ejicere possint, nedum morbos, Deo permittente, inflictos sanare. Nec enim caecis possunt donare visum, neque surdis auditum, neque omnes daemones effugare, praeter eos qui ab ipsis immittuntur, si tamen et hoc faciunt, lib. II, c. 31, n. 2.

Νομιοῦμεν ("we shall reckon"). The Clermont codex, three English manuscripts and Suffridus's codex have νοοῦμεν, which indeed pleases Suffridus more. Tatian, no. 18, relying on Justin's authority, reduces the demons' doings to this: that once the disease they had inflicted is removed, they restore the man to his former health; not unlike robbers in this, who restore for a ransom those they have taken. Tertullian imitates Justin and Tatian when he says, Apology ch. 22: "For first they do harm, then they prescribe remedies, new to the point of wonder, or contrary ones, after which they stop harming and are believed to have cured." To this points what Minucius Felix, ch. 27, and St Cyprian, On the Vanity of Idols, say: that the demons, by releasing what they had bound, seem to have cured. Lactantius, book II, ch. 15: "For they think they do good when they stop doing harm, who can do nothing but harm." Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica book V, holds that the demons delude men by many other arts and especially by cures of bodies, which, after harming them by their own demonic working, the same demons, when they stop harming, leave freed of their diseases: Θεραπείαις τε σωμάτων, ἃ διὰ τῆς οἰκείας αὐτῶν δαιμονικῆς ἐνεργείας ἀφανῶς αὐτοὶ λυμαινόμενοι, πάλιν οἱ αὐτοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀνέσεως ἐλευθέρους τῶν παθῶν ἠφίεσαν. All these writers agree that diseases are sometimes sent by demons, nor can the matter be doubtful to those who revere Scripture; but when they say that the demons heal what they had harmed, they mean diseases sent by an empty appearance and healed in the same way. For diseases that brought on weakness and altered what is necessary to the working of the senses would not be said to be healed merely by the demons' departure and the release of what they had bound. Moreover the same writers, as we shall see below at no. 27, declare that the whole thing is accomplished for the most part by empty visions and dreams. Irenaeus doubts whether magicians can cast out the demons they themselves sent, much less heal diseases inflicted by God's permission: "For they cannot give sight to the blind nor hearing to the deaf, nor put to flight all demons, except those sent by themselves, if indeed they do even this," book II, ch. 31, no. 2.

(printed under page 501)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 942

Ἐξητάκαμεν. Gesnerus mallet ἐξετάσωμεν.

Ἐξητάκαμεν ("we have examined"). Gesner would prefer ἐξετάσωμεν.

(printed under page 501)

(12) ‹anchor: Θαλῆς διαιρεῖ› · call in col 942

Διαιρεῖ. Idem Gesnerus addi posse non incommode existimat τὸ Θεῖον, sed satis est illud subintelligere. In codice Suffridi post verbum διαιρεῖ addebatur οὐσίας τὰς λογικάς. Libentius assentior Gesnero verbum διαιροῦντες satis incommode ibidem occurrere, ac multo nitidiorem fore orationem, si expungeretur.

Διαιρεῖ ("divides"). The same Gesner thinks τὸ Θεῖον could be added without awkwardness, but it is enough to understand it. In Suffridus's codex οὐσίας τὰς λογικάς was added after the verb διαιρεῖ. I more readily agree with Gesner that the word διαιροῦντες occurs rather awkwardly in the same place, and that the sentence would be much neater if it were struck out.

(printed under page 501)

(13) ‹anchor: δὲ τὰς φαύλας› · call in col 942

Τὰς φαύλας. Uterque Regius τὰς φαύλους. Duo Romani τοὺς φαύλους. Frustra Suffridus legendum putat τὰς κακάς, ut similia similibus respondeant.

Τὰς φαύλας ("the bad ones"). Both Regii have τὰς φαύλους; two Roman codices τοὺς φαύλους. Suffridus vainly thinks τὰς κακάς should be read, so that like may answer to like.

(printed under page 501)

(14) ‹anchor: κόσμον τὸν οὐρανοῦ› · call in col 942

Τὸν οὐρανοῦ. Unus ex Anglic. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, quod Gesnero magis placet.

Τὸν οὐρανοῦ ("the [world] of heaven"). One of the English manuscripts has τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, which pleases Gesner more.

(printed under page 501)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Γέ που. Reg. 2 et tres Angl. γέ τοι. Legitur δέ που apud Platonem edit. Francofurt. in Timaeo unde haec desumpta.

Γέ που ("surely"). Regius 2 and three English manuscripts have γέ τοι. In Plato, Frankfurt edition, in the Timaeus, from which these words are taken, δέ που is read.

(printed under page 502)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Εἰδόσιν. Legitur εἰδότων in octo codicibus mss., nempe utroque Reg., utroque Rom. Orat., et tribus Angl. Sic etiam habet Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. V, p. 589, qui quidem hunc Platonis locum ad prophetas nostros violenter detorquet.

Εἰδόσιν ("[to them] knowing"). Εἰδότων is read in eight manuscript codices, namely both Regii, both Roman codices of the Oratory, and three English manuscripts. So too Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis V, p. 589, who indeed forcibly twists this passage of Plato to our prophets.

(printed under page 502)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Λέγωσιν. Legitur λέγουσιν apud Platonem.

Λέγωσιν ("they may say"). Λέγουσιν is read in Plato.

(printed under page 502)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Περὶ αὐτῶν θεῶν. Gesnerus scribi vult καὶ περὶ τούτων τῶν θεῶν, quomodo scriptum in ms. et excuso Platonis codice, quo usus est Suffridus. At in Bodl. et Eton. et in edit. Platonis Francofurt. legitur περὶ τούτων τῶν θεῶν. DECHAIR.

Περὶ αὐτῶν θεῶν ("about the gods themselves"). Gesner wants καὶ περὶ τούτων τῶν θεῶν written, as it stands in the manuscript and printed copy of Plato that Suffridus used. But in the Bodleian and Eton manuscripts and in the Frankfurt edition of Plato περὶ τούτων τῶν θεῶν is read. DECHAIR.

(printed under page 502)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Ἐγεννήθησαν. Legitur ἐγενήθην apud Platonem.

Ἐγεννήθησαν ("they were begotten"). Ἐγενήθην is read in Plato.

(printed under page 502)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Φόρκυς. Codices nonnulli Φόρκος et sic edit. Oxon. Ibidem apud Plat. Φόρκυς τε καὶ Κρόνος καὶ Ῥέα.

Φόρκυς ("Phorcys"). Some codices have Φόρκος, and so the Oxford edition. In the same place Plato has Φόρκυς τε καὶ Κρόνος καὶ Ῥέα.

(printed under page 502)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Τούτων. Plat. τοὺς τούτων.

Τούτων ("of these"). Plato has τοὺς τούτων.

(printed under page 502)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Θεόν. Reg. 2 Θεῖον. Tres codices Anglicani λαμβανόμενον.

Θεόν ("God"). Regius 2 has Θεῖον. Three English codices have λαμβανόμενον.

(printed under page 502)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Ἐξειπεῖν. Legendum ἐξειπών, ut monuit Gesnerus. Ibidem frustra Suffridus legendum putat τὸ ἀϊδίως ὂν pro τὸ ὄντως ὄν, quamvis ita invenerit in suo codice ms.

Ἐξειπεῖν ("to declare"). One should read ἐξειπών, as Gesner advised. In the same place Suffridus vainly thinks τὸ ἀϊδίως ὂν should be read for τὸ ὄντως ὄν, although he found it so in his manuscript codex.

(printed under page 502)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 943

Ἀποχεόμενον. Reg. 2 et duo Angl. ἐπιχεόμενον.

Ἀποχεόμενον ("poured out"). Regius 2 and two English manuscripts have ἐπιχεόμενον.

(printed under page 502)

(25) ‹anchor: θεοὺς δυναμένους› · call in col 943

Δυναμένους. Legendum δυνάμενος Suffridus et Gesnerus monuerunt.

Δυναμένους ("being able"). Suffridus and Gesner advised that δυνάμενος should be read.

(printed under page 502)

(26) ‹anchor: εἰρημένον αὐτῷ› · call in col 943

Αὐτῷ. Reg. 2 τούτῳ.

Αὐτῷ ("by him"). Regius 2 has τούτῳ.

(printed under page 502)

(27) ‹anchor: Πλάτων, ἑτέρῳ› · call in col 943

Ἑτέρῳ. Gesnerus putat addendum esse γάρ. Idem erit sensus si legamus ὃς ἑτέρῳ.

Ἑτέρῳ ("by another"). Gesner thinks γάρ should be added. The sense will be the same if we read ὃς ἑτέρῳ.

(printed under page 502)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 946

Κατὰ δύναμιν. Immerito has voces expungit Gesnerus, nisi addatur ἀνθρωπίνην. Neque Gesnerus hunc locum intellexit, quem ita reddit: Deum enim summum illum in vulgus efferre, homini possibile non est; neque ipse Oxoniensis editor, qui sic emendat: Quod fieri non possit, ut pro potentia Deum vulgo patefaciamus. Non viderunt eruditi viri Athenagoram non suis verbis loqui, sed Platonis, qui difficultatem Dei apud omnes praedicandi, non ex Dei majestate infinita, non ex praedicantis imbecillitate repetit, sed ex malo audientium affectu, quos laederet ejusmodi praedicatio. Unde Athenagoras impossibile esse statuit ex Platonis sententia, id est valde periculosum, apud omnes Deum pro viribus praedicare, seu quod idem est, in vulgus efferre quidquid de Deo mens acutior investigaverit. Respicit igitur ad haec verba Platonis, supra citata n. 6: Τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον, καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν.

Κατὰ δύναμιν ("according to power"). Gesner wrongly strikes out these words unless ἀνθρωπίνην is added. Nor did Gesner understand this passage, which he renders thus: "For it is not possible for man to make that supreme God known to the crowd"; nor the Oxford editor himself, who corrects it so: "Because it cannot be that we make God known to the crowd according to [our] power." These learned men did not see that Athenagoras is speaking not in his own words but in Plato's, who derives the difficulty of proclaiming God to all not from God's infinite majesty, nor from the weakness of the one proclaiming, but from the bad disposition of the hearers, whom such a proclamation would harm. Hence Athenagoras, following Plato's view, lays down that it is impossible — that is, very dangerous — to proclaim God to all as far as one can, or, what is the same, to make known to the crowd whatever a keener mind has found out about God. He is therefore looking back to these words of Plato quoted above, no. 6: Τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον, καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν.

(printed under page 503)

(29) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 946

Τί δαί. Reg. 2 et tres Anglicani τί δέ. Quod sequitur ad ipsum referri posset in hunc modum: Quid attinet apud vos, omne doctrinae genus scrutando aut poetarum meminisse, etc. Illud κεκινηκότας affine est, ut observat Gesnerus, proverbio, Omnem lapidem movere, satisque convenit homini argumenta undique exquirenti ad causae defensionem. Ita hunc locum intellexit Suffridus, unde etiam paulo post legit εἰπεῖν ἔχοντας.

Τί δαί ("why then"). Regius 2 and three English manuscripts have τί δέ. What follows could be referred to it in this way: "What point is there, among you, in searching every kind of learning or recalling the poets," etc. That κεκινηκότας is akin, as Gesner observes, to the proverb "to move every stone," and suits well a man seeking arguments from every side for the defence of his case. So Suffridus understood this passage, and hence a little after he also reads εἰπεῖν ἔχοντας.

(printed under page 503)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 946

Ξενηλατούμεθα. Legendum ξενηλατοίμεθα vel ἐξενηλατούμεθα monet Stephanus. Quanquam ei magis placet ut legatur: Εἰ καὶ ποιηταὶ... ἀνεικότως ξενηλατούμεθα.

Ξενηλατούμεθα ("we are driven out as strangers"). Stephanus advises reading ξενηλατοίμεθα or ἐξενηλατούμεθα. Though he prefers that one read: Εἰ καὶ ποιηταὶ... ἀνεικότως ξενηλατούμεθα.

(printed under page 503)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 946

Πνεῦμα. Tres Anglic. ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.

Πνεῦμα ("Spirit"). Three English manuscripts have ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.

(printed under page 503)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 946

Κατὰ δύναμιν. Frustra Gesnerus legere mallet τρία μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν, ἑνούμενα δὲ κατ' οὐσίαν. Δύναμις hoc loco idem est ac οὐσία et divinitas.

Κατὰ δύναμιν ("in power"). Gesner would vainly prefer to read τρία μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν, ἑνούμενα δὲ κατ' οὐσίαν. Δύναμις in this place is the same as οὐσία and divinity.

(printed under page 503)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 946

Καὶ δι' αὐτῆς. Valde mihi displicent haec verba, quae commodum sensum non videntur assequi posse, sive cum Gesnero reddamus, quae vel circa materiam vel intra eam versantur, sive cum Lango, circa materiam versantes et per eam consistentes. Sed si pro ἐχούσας legamus ἀρχούσας, quae quidem levissima est immutatio, paucis verbis expressam habebimus totam Athenagorae de angelis sententiam, quos et materiae praefectos fuisse, et quidquid juvant aut nocent per materiam id praestare mox docebit. Ita interpretari coactus sum, cum aliter commodam sententiam elicere non possem.

Καὶ δι' αὐτῆς ("and through it"). These words displease me greatly, since they seem unable to yield a fitting sense, whether we render with Gesner "which move either about matter or within it," or with Langus "moving about matter and subsisting through it." But if for ἐχούσας we read ἀρχούσας — a very slight change — we shall have Athenagoras's whole view of the angels expressed in a few words: he will shortly teach that they were set over matter, and that whatever help or harm they do, they do through matter. I was forced to interpret it so, since I could draw no fitting sense from it otherwise.

(printed under page 503)

(34) ‹anchor: κατὰ συμβεβηκός› · call in col 946

Κατὰ συμβεβηκός. Sic etiam supra n. 23, τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐτῷ. Quae quidem loquendi ratio interdum significat accidens; unde Clemens Strom. V, p. 587: Deus μήτε συμβεβηκός τι, μηδὲ ᾧ συμβέβηκέ τι, neque est accidens, neque ei quidquam accidit. Sed tamen eadem voce interdum ea, quae alicui rei necessario conveniunt, sive attributa significantur, velut cum ait Eusebius Demonstr. evangel. lib. IV, p. 148: Ἡ μὲν αὐγὴ οὐ κατὰ προαίρεσιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκλάμπει, κατά τι δὲ τῆς οὐσίας συμβεβηκὸς ἀχώριστον. Splendor non ex luminis proposito et voluntate splendet, sed secundum quiddam, quod essentiae inseparabiliter convenit. Ambigua videri non debet Athenagorae sententia, cum diserte declaret hac voce ea significari, quae nec pars Dei esse possunt, nec ab eo separari.

Κατὰ συμβεβηκός ("as an attribute"). So too above, no. 23, τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐτῷ. This way of speaking sometimes signifies an accident; hence Clement, Stromateis V, p. 587: God μήτε συμβεβηκός τι, μηδὲ ᾧ συμβέβηκέ τι, "is neither an accident, nor does anything befall him." But the same word sometimes signifies what necessarily belongs to a thing, that is, attributes, as when Eusebius says, Demonstratio evangelica book IV, p. 148: Ἡ μὲν αὐγὴ οὐ κατὰ προαίρεσιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκλάμπει, κατά τι δὲ τῆς οὐσίας συμβεβηκὸς ἀχώριστον, "The radiance shines not from the purpose and will of the light, but according to something that belongs inseparably to its essence." Athenagoras's meaning ought not to seem ambiguous, since he expressly declares that by this word are signified things which can neither be a part of God nor be separated from him.

(printed under page 503)

(35) ‹anchor: καὶ συγκεχρωσμένου› · call in col 946

Συγκεχρωσμένου. Reg., 1 συγκεχραμένου.

Συγκεχρωσμένου ("coloured through with"). Regius 1 has συγκεχραμένου.

(printed under page 503)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 947

Τοῦτο γάρ. Gesnerus praemittendum putat διά.

Τοῦτο γάρ ("for this"). Gesner thinks διά should be put before it.

(printed under page 504)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 947

Πρόνοιαν. Hic addendum ἔχοι aut aliquod simile verbum, ut monet Gesnerus. Generalis illa providentia, quam Deo tribuit Athenagoras, non sic accipienda est, quasi rebus particularibus ita praeficiat legatos suos, ut nullam ipse illarum procurationem gerat. Tam stulta opinio non potest affingi Athenagorae, qui infra lib. De resur. n. 18, pronuntiat nihil neque in coelo, neque in terra a gubernatione et providentia Dei destitui, sed ad omnia, sive non videantur, sive videantur, sive parva sint, sive magna, pervenire Creatoris sollicitudinem. Quare providentia illa generalis in eo posita, quod, cum angeli, pro naturae suae conditione, paucis tantum rebus providere possint, Deus omnia prorsus regat et gubernet. Unde illam providentiam Athenagoras παντελικὴν et γενικὴν vocat. Methodius apud Photium cod. 234, ita hunc locum Athenagorae citat, ut eum non modo de providentia Dei non detrahere existimaverit, sed etiam idoneum ad Dei dominatum astruendum judicaverit. Sic enim habet: Τούτων γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἀγγέλων σύστασις τῷ Θεῷ ἐπὶ προνοίᾳ γεγονέναι τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ διακεκοσμημένοις, ἵνα, τὴν παντελικὴν καὶ γενικὴν ὁ Θεὸς ἔχων τῶν ὅλων πρόνοιαν, ᾖ τὸ κῦρος καὶ τὸ κράτος ἁπάντων αὐτὸς ἀνηρτημένος.

Πρόνοιαν ("providence"). Here ἔχοι or some similar verb should be added, as Gesner advises. The general providence that Athenagoras assigns to God is not to be taken as if he set his deputies over particular things in such a way that he himself exercised no care of them. So foolish an opinion cannot be fastened on Athenagoras, who below, in the book On the Resurrection, no. 18, declares that nothing in heaven or on earth is left without God's government and providence, but that the Creator's care reaches to all things, whether unseen or seen, whether small or great. So that general providence consists in this: that whereas the angels, by the condition of their nature, can provide for only a few things, God rules and governs absolutely everything. Hence Athenagoras calls that providence παντελικὴν and γενικήν. Methodius, in Photius, codex 234, quotes this passage of Athenagoras in such a way that he not only did not think it detracted from God's providence, but even judged it apt for establishing God's dominion. For he has: Τούτων γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἀγγέλων σύστασις τῷ Θεῷ ἐπὶ προνοίᾳ γεγονέναι τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ διακεκοσμημένοις, ἵνα, τὴν παντελικὴν καὶ γενικὴν ὁ Θεὸς ἔχων τῶν ὅλων πρόνοιαν, ᾖ τὸ κῦρος καὶ τὸ κράτος ἁπάντων αὐτὸς ἀνηρτημένος.

(printed under page 504)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 947

Τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ μέρους. Sine causa Gesnerus legendum putat τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους.

Τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ μέρους ("and the particular"). Gesner without reason thinks τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους should be read.

(printed under page 504)

(39) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 947

Οἷοι γεγόνασιν. Uterque Reg. et duo Angl. γεγόνασιν οἷοι. Methodius haec describendo partim ipsa verba immutat, partim ipsam sententiam, aut saltem liberius interpretatur. Ait enim diabolum invidia in hominem concepta peccasse, ac deinde caeteros mulierum amore captos fuisse: καὶ οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ ἐφ' ὧν αὐτὸς ἐποίησε καὶ διετάξατο ὁ Θεὸς ἔμειναν· αὐτὸς δὲ ἐνύβρισε καὶ πονηρὸς περὶ τὴν τῶν πεπιστευμένων ἐγένετο διοίκησιν, φθόνον ἐγκισσήσας καθ' ἡμῶν· ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ μετὰ ταῦτα σαρκῶν ἐρασθέντες καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς φιλοτησίαν ὁμιλήσαντες θυγατράσιν.

Οἷοι γεγόνασιν ("such as they became"). Both Regii and two English manuscripts have γεγόνασιν οἷοι. Methodius, in transcribing this, partly alters the words themselves, partly the sense itself, or at least interprets more freely. For he says that the devil sinned through envy conceived against man, and that the others were then taken with love of women: καὶ οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ ἐφ' ὧν αὐτὸς ἐποίησε καὶ διετάξατο ὁ Θεὸς ἔμειναν· αὐτὸς δὲ ἐνύβρισε καὶ πονηρὸς περὶ τὴν τῶν πεπιστευμένων ἐγένετο διοίκησιν, φθόνον ἐγκισσήσας καθ' ἡμῶν· ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ μετὰ ταῦτα σαρκῶν ἐρασθέντες καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς φιλοτησίαν ὁμιλήσαντες θυγατράσιν. ("And the others remained in the things for which God made and appointed them; but he himself became insolent and wicked in the administration of what was entrusted to him, having conceived envy against us; as did those who afterwards fell in love with flesh and consorted in love with the daughters of men.")

(printed under page 504)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 947

Ἕτεροι τῶν. Deest articulus in Regio primo. Tres Anglicani, ἕτεροι τοῦ.

Ἕτεροι τῶν ("others of the"). The article is missing in Regius 1. Three English manuscripts have ἕτεροι τοῦ.

(printed under page 504)

(41) ‹anchor: καὶ θεολογικῆς› · call in col 947

Καὶ θεολογικῆς. Haec ad contextus emendationem addidit Oxoniensis editor, ex tribus desumpta codicibus. Reperiuntur etiam ad marginem in Regio secundo.

Καὶ θεολογικῆς ("and theological"). The Oxford editor added these words to correct the text, taking them from three codices. They are also found in the margin in Regius 2.

(printed under page 504)

(42) ‹anchor: δαίμονες, ὁμοίας› · call in col 947

Ὁμοίας... ποιούμενοι. Haec desunt in Clarom. et duobus Anglicanis.

Ὁμοίας... ποιούμενοι ("similar... making"). These words are missing in the Clermont codex and two English manuscripts.

(printed under page 504)

(43) ‹anchor: οἱ δαίμονες› · call in col 947

Οἱ δαίμονες. Legitur γίγαντες in codice Suffridi, quae scriptura immerito ei probatur ac Gesnero. Nam gigantes Athenagoras eosdem esse ac daemones declarat; in quo quidem facile conciliatur cum Justino, qui in Apol. II, n. 5, daemones ex angelorum cum mulieribus consuetudine genitos fuisse testatur.

Οἱ δαίμονες ("the demons"). Γίγαντες is read in Suffridus's codex, a reading he and Gesner wrongly approve. For Athenagoras declares that the giants are the same as the demons; in which he is easily reconciled with Justin, who in Apology II, no. 5, testifies that the demons were begotten from the intercourse of angels with women.

(printed under page 504)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 950

Πολλάκι. Hos versus, qui inter Incert. Tragoed. Euripidis reperiuntur, ita edidimus, ut habentur in editione Oxon. Athenagorae et Cantabrig. Euripidis. Pro ultima voce ἄγει legendum videtur ἀεί, ita ut hae voces τοὺς μέν, τοὺς δέ referantur ad κραίνει. Mox legendum videtur τίνος ἤ.

Πολλάκι ("often"). These verses, which are found among the fragments of uncertain tragedies of Euripides, we have printed as they stand in the Oxford edition of Athenagoras and the Cambridge edition of Euripides. For the last word ἄγει it seems ἀεί should be read, so that the words τοὺς μέν, τοὺς δέ refer to κραίνει. Shortly after it seems τίνος ἤ should be read.

(printed under page 505)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 950

Εἰσορῶντες. Reg. 1 et 2, Anglic. εἰσορῶντας. Mox Reg. 2, εἰ νόμοισι. Sunt etiam hi versus ex Incert. Tragoed. Euripidis.

Εἰσορῶντες ("beholding"). Regius 1 and 2 and the English manuscripts have εἰσορῶντας. Shortly after, Regius 2 has εἰ νόμοισι. These verses too are from Euripides' uncertain tragedies.

(printed under page 505)

(46) ‹anchor: Ποίαν› · call in col 950

Ποίαν. Editi φύουσαν οἴαν, excepto Ducaeo qui habet φύουσα πόαν. Euripides in Cyclope, ut observat editor Oxoniensis, τίκτουσα ποίαν. Legendum videtur ἀνάγκῃ.

Ποίαν ("grass"). The printed editions have φύουσαν οἴαν, except Ducaeus, who has φύουσα πόαν. Euripides in the Cyclops, as the Oxford editor observes, has τίκτουσα ποίαν. It seems ἀνάγκῃ should be read.

(printed under page 505)

(47) ‹anchor: συστάσεως νόμῳ› · call in col 950

Τὸ κοινὸν... νόμῳ. Sic uterque Reg. et Clarom. et tres Anglic. Editi τὸν κοινὸν συστάσεως νόμον.

Τὸ κοινὸν... νόμῳ ("by the common... law"). So both Regii, the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts. The printed editions have τὸν κοινὸν συστάσεως νόμον.

(printed under page 505)

(48) ‹anchor: τοῦ ἐπέχοντος› · call in col 950

Ἐπέχοντος. Duo Anglic. ἀπέχοντος. Ibidem deest ἄρχοντος in Clarom. Mox vox ἄλλος desumpta ex editione Oxoniensi cum deesset in Parisiensibus.

Ἐπέχοντος ("of the one holding sway"). Two English manuscripts have ἀπέχοντος. In the same place ἄρχοντος is missing in the Clermont codex. Shortly after, the word ἄλλος is taken from the Oxford edition, since it was missing in the Paris editions.

(printed under page 505)

(49) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 951

Ἐφ' ἑτέρων. Mallet Gesnerus ἐφ' ἑτέροις. Ibidem unus ex Anglic. αὐτοὺς μὲν εἶναι.

Ἐφ' ἑτέρων ("in the case of others"). Gesner would prefer ἐφ' ἑτέροις. In the same place one of the English manuscripts has αὐτοὺς μὲν εἶναι.

(printed under page 506)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 951

Νερυλλίνου. Nonnulli codices Νερυλλῖν et ad marg. Νερυλλίνης.

Νερυλλίνου ("of Neryllinus"). Some codices have Νερυλλῖν, and in the margin Νερυλλίνης.

(printed under page 506)

(51) ‹anchor: δι' αὐτὰ› · call in col 951

Δι' αὐτά. Editor Oxoniensis legit δι' αὐτόν.

Δι' αὐτά ("on account of them"). The Oxford editor reads δι' αὐτόν.

(printed under page 506)

(52) ‹anchor: τὸν ἀνδριάντα› · call in col 951

Ἀνδριάντα. Duo Anglicani codices ἄνδρα.

Ἀνδριάντα ("statue"). Two English codices have ἄνδρα.

(printed under page 506)

(53) ‹anchor: τί δαὶ› · call in col 951

Τί δαί. Reg. 2 et duo Anglicani τί δέ. Mox iidem codices cum alio Anglic. καθ' ἑαυτόν.

Τί δαί ("what then"). Regius 2 and two English manuscripts have τί δέ. Shortly after, the same codices with another English one have καθ' ἑαυτόν.

(printed under page 506)

(54) ‹anchor: ἐνεργεῖ καὶ ζῶντος› · call in col 951

Ἐνεργεῖ καὶ ζῶντος. Legendum ἐνήργει. Mortuus enim erat Neryllinus, cum haec scriberet Athenagoras, quamvis non multo ante mortuus, ut patet ex superioribus verbis: Ὃς ἀνὴρ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς. Illud etiam νῦν, quae nunc efficere statua dicitur, probat legendum esse ἐνήργει, ita ut his, quae tunc statua efficere dicebatur, ea opponantur, quae ipso vivente et aegrotante Neryllino, effecerat.

Ἐνεργεῖ καὶ ζῶντος ("it works, even while living"). One should read ἐνήργει. For Neryllinus was dead when Athenagoras wrote this, though he had died not long before, as is clear from the earlier words: Ὃς ἀνὴρ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς. The word νῦν too, "what the statue is now said to effect," proves that ἐνήργει should be read, so that what the statue was then said to effect is set against what he had effected while Neryllinus himself was alive and sick.

(printed under page 506)

(55) ‹anchor: εἰς γῆν› · call in col 951

Εἰς γῆν. Mallet Oxon. editor καὶ εἰς γῆν. Malim καθελκομένη εἰς γῆν.

Εἰς γῆν ("towards the earth"). The Oxford editor would prefer καὶ εἰς γῆν. I should prefer καθελκομένη εἰς γῆν.

(printed under page 506)

(56) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 954

Ἐναποσφραγίσηται. Tres Anglicani codices προσφραγίσεται.

Ἐναποσφραγίσηται ("stamps upon"). Three English codices have προσφραγίσεται.

(printed under page 507)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 954

Περὶ αὐτῆς. Duo Anglic. περὶ αὐτῶν.

Περὶ αὐτῆς ("about it"). Two English manuscripts have περὶ αὐτῶν.

(printed under page 507)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 954

Φαντασίας αὐτοῖς. Fraudem daemonum eodem modo exponunt alii scriptores. Δι' ὀνείρων, ait Tatianus n. 18, τὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς πραγματευόμενοι δόξαν, per somnia illis opinionem de se injiciunt. Tertullianus, Apol. 22: Eadem igitur obscuritate contagionis, inquit, aspiratio daemonum et angelorum, mentis quoque corruptelas agit furoribus, et amentiis foedis, ac saevis libidinibus, cum erroribus variis, quorum iste potissimus, quo deos istos captis et circumscriptis hominum mentibus commendat. Quod ait Eusebius lib. V Praep. evang., cap. 2: Stolidos et faciles animos a daemonibus in errorem induci nescio quibus simulacrorum motibus, κινήσεσί τισι τῶν ξοάνων, id explicandum videtur ex verbis Athenagorae. Illi enim simulacrorum motus aliud esse nihil videntur, quam phantasiae illae, quas tanquam a simulacris daemones immittunt in animos infirmos. Similia docent Minucius Felix cap. 27 et Cyprianus qui illius verbis utitur pro suis in libro De Vanit. idol., et Lactantius lib. II, cap. 14. Quidquid autem hoc loco dicitur ab Athenagora, promissa explicatio est illorum effectuum, quos n. 23, sub nomine simulacrorum edi fatebatur. Huc autem redit tota illius disputatio: statuae nihil possunt sua sponte; Neryllinus et Proteus et Alexander nihilo efficaciores; inani ergo specie daemones hominibus illudunt. Tatianus n. 18, Justini auctoritate fretus, negat daemones sanare: Minucius et Cyprianus eo redigunt daemonum molitiones, ut curasse videantur. Nihil aliud possunt quam nocere, inquit Lactantius lib. II, cap. 15. Ex his autem asseverare possumus nullam prorsus fidem apud primos Christianos habuisse Cornelium Tacitum, dum narrat Hist. lib. IV, Alexandriae hominem caecum et alium manu aegrum, monitu Serapidis, ad Vespasianum confugisse, ac petente altero, ut genas et oculorum orbes dignaretur respergere oris excremento; altero, ut vestigio Caesaris calcaretur, imperatorem Serapidi paruisse ac statim utrumque sanatum. Mox Gesnerus legit ὀνόμασι pro νοήμασι. At Tertullianus modo citatus ita hunc locum imitatur, ut legisse videatur νοήμασι.

Φαντασίας αὐτοῖς ("[presenting] fancies to them"). Other writers explain the demons' deceit in the same way. "Δι' ὀνείρων," says Tatian, no. 18, "τὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς πραγματευόμενοι δόξαν: through dreams they instil into them an opinion about themselves." Tertullian, Apology 22: "By the same obscurity of contagion," he says, "the breath of demons and angels also works corruptions of the mind, with frenzies and foul madness and savage lusts, with various errors, of which this is the chief, that it commends these gods to the captured and ensnared minds of men." What Eusebius says, Praeparatio evangelica book V, ch. 2 — that dull and pliable minds are led into error by the demons through some sort of movements of the images, κινήσεσί τισι τῶν ξοάνων — seems to be explained from Athenagoras's words. For to him those movements of the images seem to be nothing other than the fancies which the demons send into weak minds as if from the images. Minucius Felix, ch. 27, teaches the like, and Cyprian, who uses his words as his own in the book On the Vanity of Idols, and Lactantius, book II, ch. 14. Whatever Athenagoras says in this place is the promised explanation of those effects which in no. 23 he admitted were produced under the name of the images. His whole argument comes to this: the statues can do nothing of themselves; Neryllinus and Proteus and Alexander are no more effective; therefore the demons mock men with an empty appearance. Tatian, no. 18, relying on Justin's authority, denies that the demons heal; Minucius and Cyprian reduce the demons' contrivances to this, that they seem to have cured. "They can do nothing but harm," says Lactantius, book II, ch. 15. From this we can affirm that Cornelius Tacitus had no credit whatever among the first Christians, when he relates, Histories book IV, that at Alexandria a blind man and another sick in the hand, at the prompting of Serapis, fled to Vespasian, the one asking that he deign to sprinkle his cheeks and eyeballs with spittle, the other that he be trodden by Caesar's foot; that the emperor obeyed Serapis, and both were at once healed. Shortly after, Gesner reads ὀνόμασι for νοήμασι. But Tertullian, just quoted, imitates this passage in such a way that he seems to have read νοήμασι.

(printed under page 507)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 954

Μέμφι. Sic plerique codices mss., editiones Paris. Μέμφει.

Μέμφι ("Memphis"). So most manuscript codices; the Paris editions have Μέμφει.

(printed under page 507)

(60) ‹anchor: σφεας αὐτοὺς› · call in col 954

Αὐτούς. Pro hac voce legitur πάντας apud Herodotum, lib. II, cap. 144.

Αὐτούς ("them"). For this word πάντας is read in Herodotus, book II, ch. 144.

(printed under page 507)

(61) ‹anchor: ὕστερον› · call in col 954

Ὕστερον. Herodot. ὕστατον.

Ὕστερον ("later"). Herodotus has ὕστατον.

(printed under page 507)

(62) ‹anchor: τὸν Ὀσίρεως› · call in col 954

Ὀσίρεως. Herodot. Ὀσίριος.

Ὀσίρεως ("of Osiris"). Herodotus has Ὀσίριος.

(printed under page 507)

(63) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 955

Σωτηρίαν. Herodot. lib. II, cap. 156, καὶ σώτειραν.

Σωτηρίαν ("safety"). Herodotus, book II, ch. 156, has καὶ σώτειραν.

(printed under page 508)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 955

Εὐσεβείας. Reg. 2, Clarom. et duo Angl. θεοσεβείας. Quod autem primos illos reges Aegyptiorum Athenagoras coelesti ortos dicit origine, id ex Herodoti sententia, nec sine aliqua dicit ironia. Hos enim natos humano more et nutritos et inter homines regnasse probat, ut originem illis non coelestem, sed terrenam fuisse demonstret.

Εὐσεβείας ("piety"). Regius 2, the Clermont codex and two English manuscripts have θεοσεβείας. That Athenagoras says those first kings of the Egyptians sprang from a heavenly origin, he says following Herodotus's view, and not without some irony. For he proves that they were born and reared in human fashion and reigned among men, so as to show that their origin was not heavenly but earthly.

(printed under page 508)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 955

Θηλείας. Herodot. lib. II, cap. 41, θηλέας et mox Ἴσιος, quae vox eodem modo antea legitur apud eumdem Herodotum. Mox legitur in Clarom. et duobus Anglicanis ἐστὰν ἐν δαμάλης σχήματι ἰδεῖν. Haec etiam supra lineam scripta in Reg. 2. Praeterea Clarom. addit ἔστιν. Melius in 2 Angl. τοὺς μὲν οὖν καθαρούς.

Θηλείας ("female"). Herodotus, book II, ch. 41, has θηλέας, and shortly after Ἴσιος, a word read in the same way earlier in the same Herodotus. Shortly after, the Clermont codex and two English manuscripts read ἐστὰν ἐν δαμάλης σχήματι ἰδεῖν; this is also written above the line in Regius 2. The Clermont codex further adds ἔστιν. Better in two English manuscripts: τοὺς μὲν οὖν καθαρούς.

(printed under page 508)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 955

Ἰοῦν. Plerique codices Ἰώ aut Ἰῶ.

Ἰοῦν ("Io"). Most codices have Ἰώ or Ἰῶ.

(printed under page 508)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 955

Ἔξω ἤ. Sic emendavi ope ipsius Herodoti contextus lib. II, c. 3, quod in editis nostris legebatur ἐξ ὧν. Legitur etiam apud Herodotum μόνον, et deest ἐλάχιστα.

Ἔξω ἤ ("except"). So I corrected, with the help of Herodotus's own text, book II, ch. 3, what was read in our printed editions as ἐξ ὧν. In Herodotus μόνον is also read, and ἐλάχιστα is missing.

(printed under page 508)

(68) ‹anchor: ἀΐδιον αὐτοῖς γένος› · call in col 955

Συνάπτων τὸ ἀΐδιον αὐτοῖς γένος. Ut antea coelestem originem, animi causa, diis illis affingebat, ita nunc Mercurium aeterno cum illis genere conjunctum dicit. Quare nec cum editore Oxoniensi legendum ἀνθρώπινον pro ἀΐδιον, nec cum Gesnero et Suffrido, συμφωνοῦσι μὴ εἶναι ἀΐδιον αὐτοῖς γένος, sed supplendum tantummodo λέγουσι.

Συνάπτων τὸ ἀΐδιον αὐτοῖς γένος ("joining to them an everlasting lineage"). As before he attributed a heavenly origin to those gods for amusement's sake, so now he says Mercury is joined with them by an everlasting lineage. So neither should ἀνθρώπινον be read for ἀΐδιον with the Oxford editor, nor with Gesner and Suffridus συμφωνοῦσι μὴ εἶναι ἀΐδιον αὐτοῖς γένος; only λέγουσι needs to be supplied.

(printed under page 508)

(69) ‹anchor: καθ' ἕκαστον καταλέγοιμι› · call in col 955

Καταλέγοιμι. Tres Anglic. codices λέγοιμι.

Καταλέγοιμι ("I should list"). Three English codices have λέγοιμι.

(printed under page 508)

(70) ‹anchor: μὴ νενομίσθαι› · call in col 955

Μὴ νενομίσθαι. Legit Gesnerus μὴ βασιλεῖς ὄντας αὐτοὺς νενομίσθαι. Sed iniquum prorsus est emendare velle quidquid in antiquis scriptoribus non elegantissimum et ornatissimum videtur.

Μὴ νενομίσθαι ("not to have been reckoned"). Gesner reads μὴ βασιλεῖς ὄντας αὐτοὺς νενομίσθαι. But it is altogether unjust to want to correct whatever in ancient writers does not seem most elegant and most polished.

(printed under page 508)

(71) ‹anchor: τοὺς ἄλλους› · call in col 955

Τοὺς ἄλλους. Clarom. et tres Anglic.: τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἄλλους θνητούς.

Τοὺς ἄλλους ("the others"). The Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἄλλους θνητούς.

(printed under page 508)

(72) ‹anchor: τὰ μαθήματα› · call in col 955

Μαθήματα. Legendum παθήματα Gesnerus dudum admonuit. Sequens Herodoti locus legitur in eodem lib. II, cap. 61.

Μαθήματα ("teachings"). Gesner long ago advised that παθήματα should be read. The following passage of Herodotus is read in the same book II, ch. 61.

(printed under page 508)

(73) ‹anchor: ἐχόμεναι τοίχου› · call in col 955

Τοίχου. Addit Herodotus lib. II, c. 170: Καὶ ἐν τῷ τεμένει ὀβελοὶ ἑστᾶσι μεγάλοι λίθινοι.

Τοίχου ("wall"). Herodotus, book II, ch. 170, adds: Καὶ ἐν τῷ τεμένει ὀβελοὶ ἑστᾶσι μεγάλοι λίθινοι ("And in the precinct stand great stone obelisks").

(printed under page 508)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 958

Ἴφιτον. Haec ab aliquo insuta conjicit Stephanus. Legi Odyss. Φ prope initium monet Oxon. editor Versus Hesiodi non reperiri monet Gesnerus; Pindari autem exstare Pyth. 3. [Lege Χώσατ'.]

Ἴφιτον ("Iphitus"). Stephanus conjectures that these words were stitched in by someone. The Oxford editor notes that they are read in Odyssey 21, near the beginning. Gesner notes that the verses of Hesiod are not found, but that Pindar's are extant, Pythian 3. [Read Χώσατ'.]

(printed under page 509)

(75) ‹anchor: δεξίωμα› · call in col 958

Δεξίωμα. Sic uterque Reg. δεξίαμα in 3 Angl. ἀξίωμα in editis. Ὡς additum a Stephano ex aliis hos versus Euripidis citantibus. Mox Suffrid., τί δεῖ με.

Δεξίωμα ("welcome gift"). So both Regii; δεξίαμα in three English manuscripts; ἀξίωμα in the printed editions. Ὡς was added by Stephanus from others who quote these verses of Euripides. Shortly after, Suffridus has τί δεῖ με.

(printed under page 509)

(76) ‹anchor: ὡς ἀπόπτυστοι› · call in col 958

Ὡς ἀπόπτυστοι. Mallet Gesnerus οἱ ἀπόπτυστοι.

Ὡς ἀπόπτυστοι ("as abominable"). Gesner would prefer οἱ ἀπόπτυστοι.

(printed under page 509)

(77) ‹anchor: Συρία θεός› · call in col 958

Ἔδοξε Συρία θεός. Observat Suffridus, cum historiae monumentis non quadrare id quod de Semiramide pronuntiat Athenagoras, nisi forte illam brevi admodum tempore hoc deae Syriae nomen habuisse dicamus. Sed minus attendit vir eruditus deam Syram idem hoc loco non esse ac celeberrimam illam Syriam deam, quae praecipuum erat Syriorum numen; sed idem ac unam ex illis quae (continues)

Ἔδοξε Συρία θεός ("she was thought a Syrian goddess"). Suffridus observes that what Athenagoras declares about Semiramis does not square with the records of history, unless perhaps we say that she bore this name of the Syrian goddess for a very short time. But the learned man did not sufficiently notice that "a Syrian goddess" in this place is not the same as that most celebrated Syrian Goddess, who was the chief deity of the Syrians, but the same as one of those which (continues)

(printed under page 509)

(77) ‹anchor: (continued)› · call in col 959

(continued) a Syriis colebantur. Quidquid enim honoris Semiramidi delatum dicit Athenagoras, id illam non sua sponte habuisse dicit, sed propter matrem Dercetum, quam proinde longe filia venerabiliorem apud Syros fuisse statuit.

(printed under page 510)

(78) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 959

Δεκάτῃ γενεῇ. Legitur in libris Sibyllinis δεκάτη γενεή, sed prorsus mendose, ut ex Tertulliano, quem mox citabimus, perspici potest.

Δεκάτῃ γενεῇ ("in the tenth generation"). In the Sibylline books δεκάτη γενεή is read, but quite wrongly, as can be seen from Tertullian, whom we shall quote shortly.

(printed under page 510)

(79) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 959

Βασίλευσε. Sic emendavit editor Oxoniensis ex ipsis versibus Sibyllinis pro eo quod erat in editis βασιλεύς. Ibidem editi οὐρανοὺς ἐκάλεσσαν. In Sibyllinis libris edit. Galei legitur οὐρανοῦ ἐξεκάλεσσαν. Mallem οὓς ἐκάλεσσαν. Hos versus ita legebat Tertullianus, uti eos emendandos puto. Sic enim interpretatur II ad Nat., cap. 12: Decima genitura hominum, ex quo cataclysmum prioribus accidit, regnavit Saturnus et Titan et Tamfetus, coeli et terrae fortissimi filii.

Βασίλευσε ("reigned"). So the Oxford editor corrected it from the Sibylline verses themselves, for what stood in the printed editions as βασιλεύς. In the same place the printed editions have οὐρανοὺς ἐκάλεσσαν. In the Sibylline books, Gale's edition, οὐρανοῦ ἐξεκάλεσσαν is read. I should prefer οὓς ἐκάλεσσαν. Tertullian read these verses as I think they should be corrected; for he renders them so, Ad Nationes II, ch. 12: "In the tenth generation of men, after the flood befell the earlier ones, Saturn and Titan and Tamfetus reigned, the mightiest sons of heaven and earth."

(printed under page 510)

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 959

Γαῖάν τε καὶ οὐρανόν. Legitur γαίης τε καὶ οὐρανοῦ in versibus Sibyllinis, ut observavit editor Oxoniensis.

Γαῖάν τε καὶ οὐρανόν ("earth and heaven"). Γαίης τε καὶ οὐρανοῦ is read in the Sibylline verses, as the Oxford editor observed.

(printed under page 510)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 959

Οἱ πρώτιστοι. Malunt οἱ προφέριστοι Gesnerus et Suffridus, atque ita legitur in versibus Sibyllinis. Sed multo aptior nostra lectio; nec dubium quin ita legerit Tertullianus, qui in loco jam laudato utitur Sibyllae auctoritate, ut probet Saturnum coeli et terrae filium dici, non quod vere e coelo et terra genitus fuerit, sed quia ignoti erant ejus parentes, et cum venisset in Italiam, rudes tunc agebantur et oculi et mentes hominum et quolibet novi viri aspectu quasi divino commoverentur, nedum et regis et quidem primi. Patet ex hac ultima voce Saturnum et Titanem et Japetum, etsi decima generatione regnarunt, primos tamen hominum dici, quia primi regnarunt, et quia antiquissimi fuere. Apud Justinum Cohort. n. 21, antiquissimi homines vocantur primi homines.

Οἱ πρώτιστοι ("the very first"). Gesner and Suffridus prefer οἱ προφέριστοι, and so it is read in the Sibylline verses. But our reading is much more apt; nor is there any doubt that Tertullian read it so, who in the passage already cited uses the Sibyl's authority to prove that Saturn is called the son of heaven and earth, not because he was truly begotten of heaven and earth, but because his parents were unknown, and when he came into Italy "men's eyes and minds were then rude, and they were stirred by the sight of any new man as by something divine, much more by that of a king, and indeed the first." It is clear from this last word that Saturn and Titan and Japetus, though they reigned in the tenth generation, are nonetheless called the first of men, because they reigned first and because they were most ancient. In Justin, Exhortation no. 21, the most ancient men are called the first men.

(printed under page 510)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 959

Φιλανθρωπίᾳ. Sanctus Athanasius in orat. adv. gentes id testatur contigisse διὰ φόβον τοῦ προστάξαντος, ob metum illius qui id praeceperat. Sed metus ille non tam videtur esse terror animis injectus, quam metus displicendi charissimis ob beneficia regibus, nempe Adriano et Antonino, quos Athenagoras M. Aurelii parentes appellat. Erat sane Adrianus lenitate et humanitate longe inferior Antonino; sed cum magna illius in Aegyptios beneficia exstiterint, non mirum si ab hominibus superstitiosis cultum Antinoi facile impetravit. Huc accessit gratia et auctoritas Antonini, quem ex testimonio Athenagorae operam dedisse colligimus, ut instituta ab Adriano impietas, eo mortuo, non abrogaretur.

Φιλανθρωπίᾳ ("out of kindness"). St Athanasius, in the oration Against the Gentiles, testifies that this happened διὰ φόβον τοῦ προστάξαντος, "out of fear of him who had commanded it." But that fear seems not so much a terror struck into their minds as the fear of displeasing kings who were very dear to them for their benefactions, namely Hadrian and Antoninus, whom Athenagoras calls the forebears of Marcus Aurelius. Hadrian was certainly far inferior to Antoninus in mildness and humanity; but since his benefactions to the Egyptians were great, it is no wonder that he easily obtained from superstitious men the worship of Antinous. To this was added the favour and authority of Antoninus, who, we gather from Athenagoras's testimony, took pains that the impiety instituted by Hadrian should not be abolished after his death.

(printed under page 510)

(83) ‹anchor: νομίζων ἐπισκιάσειν› · call in col 959

Ἐπισκιάσειν. Clarom. et tres Anglicani, ἐπισκιάζειν.

Ἐπισκιάσειν ("to overshadow"). The Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have ἐπισκιάζειν.

(printed under page 510)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 962

Παρασκευάσειν. Tres Angl. παρασκευάζειν.

Παρασκευάσειν ("to furnish"). Three English manuscripts have παρασκευάζειν.

(printed under page 511)

(85) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 962

Θεῖον νόμον. Idem dixit Athenagoras n. 3. Uterque locus illustratur ex libro De resurrectione, qui sic incipit: Παντὶ δόγματι καὶ λόγῳ, τῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀληθείας ἐχομένῳ, παραφύεταί τι ψεῦδος. Παραφύεται δὲ οὐκ ἐξ ὑποκειμένης τινὸς ἀρχῆς κατὰ φύσιν ὁρμώμενον, ἢ τῆς καθ' αὐτὸ ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἕκαστον αἰτίας, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν ἔκθεσμον σπορὰν ἐπὶ διαφθορᾷ τῆς ἀληθείας τετιμηκότων σπουδαζόμενον. Sententiae omni ac doctrinae, quae quidem cum rerum veritate consentiat, adnascitur aliquid mendacii. Adnascitur autem non ex subjecto aliquo principio secundum naturam productum, aut ex propria cujusque rei causa, sed ab iis, qui semen adulterinum ad corruptionem veritatis cordi habent, de industria excogitatum.

Θεῖον νόμον ("a divine law"). Athenagoras said the same at no. 3. Both passages are illustrated from the book On the Resurrection, which begins thus: Παντὶ δόγματι καὶ λόγῳ, τῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀληθείας ἐχομένῳ, παραφύεταί τι ψεῦδος. Παραφύεται δὲ οὐκ ἐξ ὑποκειμένης τινὸς ἀρχῆς κατὰ φύσιν ὁρμώμενον, ἢ τῆς καθ' αὐτὸ ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἕκαστον αἰτίας, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν ἔκθεσμον σπορὰν ἐπὶ διαφθορᾷ τῆς ἀληθείας τετιμηκότων σπουδαζόμενον. "Upon every opinion and teaching that agrees with the truth of things some falsehood grows up alongside. It grows up not as produced by nature from some underlying principle, or from the proper cause of each thing, but as deliberately devised by those who set their hearts on a spurious seed for the corruption of the truth."

(printed under page 511)

(86) ‹anchor: οὐδὲν› · call in col 962

Οὐθέν. Tres Anglicani οὐδέν.

Οὐθέν ("nothing"). Three English manuscripts have οὐδέν.

(printed under page 511)

(87) ‹anchor: Ὑμεῖς μὲν οὖν› · call in col 962

Ὑμεῖς μὲν οὖν. Legendum ὑμῖν, ut monuit H. Stephanus, atque ita videtur scriptum prima manu fuisse in Regio primo.

Ὑμεῖς μὲν οὖν ("you then"). One should read ὑμῖν, as H. Stephanus advised; and so it seems to have been written in the first hand in Regius 1.

(printed under page 511)

(88) ‹anchor: ἄνθρωπος αὐτῷ› · call in col 962

Ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος αὐτῷ. Sic Reg. 1, et Orat. At Clarom. et tres Angl. habent αὐτῶν. Edit. Paris. αὐτοῦ. Legendum putat Gesnerus ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, minus animadvertens hominem hoc loco appellari animam, ac proinde hominem uniuscujusque esse animam uniuscujusque. Unde Theophilus infra l. I, n. 2: Δεῖξόν μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπόν σου, κἀγώ σοι δείξω τὸν Θεόν μου. Demonstra mihi hominem tuum, et ego ostendam tibi Deum meum. Et Tatianus n. 15: Μόνος δ' ἄνθρωπος εἰκὼν καὶ ὁμοίωσις Θεοῦ. Nihil ergo mutandum in his Athenagorae verbis, quae sic reddenda essent, si verbum verbo redderetur: ut uniuscujusque nostrum homo extra noxiam apud eum et reprehensionem sit.

Ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος αὐτῷ ("the man of each of us, before him"). So Regius 1 and the Oratory codex. But the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts have αὐτῶν; the Paris editions αὐτοῦ. Gesner thinks ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος should be read, not noticing that in this place the soul is called "the man," and so the man of each one is the soul of each one. Hence Theophilus below, book I, no. 2: Δεῖξόν μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπόν σου, κἀγώ σοι δείξω τὸν Θεόν μου, "Show me your man, and I will show you my God." And Tatian, no. 15: Μόνος δ' ἄνθρωπος εἰκὼν καὶ ὁμοίωσις Θεοῦ. So nothing should be changed in these words of Athenagoras, which, if rendered word for word, would read: "so that the man of each of us may be without fault and reproach before him."

(printed under page 511)

(89) ‹anchor: καρδίᾳ ἡμῶν ὁρᾶν› · call in col 962

Ὁρᾶν. Deest illud verbum in tribus Anglicanis, in quibus etiam paulo post desideratur ἕτερον et τὴν ψυχήν. Oxoniensis editor legendum conjicit καὶ πεπείσμεθα. Legendum potius videtur καὶ τοῦ ἐνταῦθα, atque ita visum Gesnero.

Ὁρᾶν ("to see"). That word is missing in three English manuscripts, in which a little after ἕτερον and τὴν ψυχήν are also wanting. The Oxford editor conjectures that καὶ πεπείσμεθα should be read. It seems rather that καὶ τοῦ ἐνταῦθα should be read, and so Gesner thought.

(printed under page 511)

(22) ‹anchor: in corde suo› · call in col 963

Matth. V, 28.

Matthew 5:28.

(printed under page 512)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 963

Γυναικὶ δ' ἰδίᾳ ἀδελφῇ. Reg. 2 et Rom. uterque γυναικὶ δ' ἀδελφῇ. Reg. 1 γυναικὶ διαδελφῇ. Clarom. et tres Anglicani γυναικὶ καὶ ἀδελφῇ.

Γυναικὶ δ' ἰδίᾳ ἀδελφῇ ("to a woman, his own sister"). Regius 2 and both Roman codices have γυναικὶ δ' ἀδελφῇ; Regius 1 γυναικὶ διαδελφῇ; the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts γυναικὶ καὶ ἀδελφῇ.

(printed under page 512)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 963

Βασιλεὺς ἐθέλων καὶ Θυέστης. Locus corruptus, sed qui restitui possit et sanari, si legamus βασιλεῦσαι ἐθέλων καὶ ἐκδικηθῆναι, omissa illa voce Θυέστης, quam editor Oxoniensis probe vidit e margine, in qua aliquis notaverat de Thyeste Athenagoram loqui, in ipsum contextum obrepsisse.

Βασιλεὺς ἐθέλων καὶ Θυέστης ("a king wishing, and Thyestes"). A corrupt passage, but one that can be restored and healed if we read βασιλεῦσαι ἐθέλων καὶ ἐκδικηθῆναι, leaving out the word Θυέστης, which, as the Oxford editor rightly saw, crept into the text itself from the margin, where someone had noted that Athenagoras was speaking of Thyestes.

(printed under page 512)

(92) ‹anchor: ἤδη μεμοίχευκεν› · call in col 963

Μεμοίχευκεν. Tres Anglicani addunt αὐτήν.

Μεμοίχευκεν ("has committed adultery"). Three English manuscripts add αὐτήν.

(printed under page 512)

(93) ‹anchor: μηδὲν πλέον› · call in col 963

Μηδὲν πλέον. Sic Clarom. et tres Anglicani. Editi μηδὲν τὸ πλέον.

Μηδὲν πλέον ("nothing more"). So the Clermont codex and three English manuscripts. The printed editions have μηδὲν τὸ πλέον.

(printed under page 512)

(94) ‹anchor: ὑμῖν, δεσπότης› · call in col 963

Δεσπότης. Melius sane δεσπόται, ut habent Parisienses editiones ex conjecturis Gesneri et Suffridi. Alloquitur enim duos imperatores Athenagoras. Sed quia in omnibus mss. legitur δεσπότης, nihil mutandum duxi. Supra lineam in Regio 2, habetur ὦ.

Δεσπότης ("lord"). Better certainly δεσπόται, as the Paris editions have it from the conjectures of Gesner and Suffridus; for Athenagoras is addressing two emperors. But since δεσπότης is read in all the manuscripts, I thought nothing should be changed. Above the line in Regius 2 there is ὦ.

(printed under page 512)

(95) ‹anchor: νόμος ὃς› · call in col 963

Νόμος ὅς. Plerique codices mss. νόμος ἤ.

Νόμος ὅς ("a law which"). Most manuscript codices have νόμος ἤ.

(printed under page 512)

(96) ‹anchor: ἀδελφοὺς καὶ› · call in col 963

Ἀδελφοὺς καί. Haec deerant in edit. Paris. At in omnibus leguntur mss.

Ἀδελφοὺς καί ("brothers and"). These words were missing in the Paris editions. But they are read in all the manuscripts.

(printed under page 512)

(97) ‹anchor: λέγοντος τοῦ λόγου› · call in col 963

Λέγοντος τοῦ λόγου. Videtur haec Athenagoras ex apocrypha aliqua scriptura deprompsisse; sic enim citari solet Scriptura. Vid. Clementem Alex. Paedag. III, p. 257.

Λέγοντος τοῦ λόγου ("as the word says"). Athenagoras seems to have drawn this from some apocryphal writing; for Scripture is customarily cited so. See Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus III, p. 257.

(printed under page 512)

(98) ‹anchor: τὸ προσκύνημα› · call in col 963

Προσκύνημα. Ad marginem Regii 2 legitur πρόσχυμα.

Προσκύνημα ("the greeting of reverence"). In the margin of Regius 2 one reads πρόσχυμα.

(printed under page 512)

(99) ‹anchor: ὑφ' ἡμῶν (opening lines above the foot image; checked on the column image)› · call in col 965

Ὑφ' ἡμῶν. Nullus dubito quin legendum sit ὑφ' ὑμῶν. 1° Quidquid praecipue discrepabat inter Christianorum et Romanorum matrimonia, id a Christo, non ab ipsis Christianis institutum erat, matrimonio nimirum ad Sacramenti dignitatem evecto. Quare immerito dixisset Athenagoras: Uxorem unusquisque nostrum secundum leges a nobis positas ducit. 2° Tabulae nuptiales, de quibus Tertullianus lib. II ad uxorem, cap. 3, secundum leges Romanas fiebant, et si qua repudii necessitas superveniret, id quoque ex earumdem legum more fiebat, ut patet ex muliere Christiana, de qua Justinus loquitur initio Apol. II. Mirum ergo non videtur si Christianos Athenagoras secundum leges Romanas matrimonium inire dicat. Quin etiam proprias leges hac in re jactare et Christianum jus Romano opponere, oratio fuisset ad placandos imperatores non valde idonea.

"By us" (ὑφ' ἡμῶν). I have no doubt that we should read ὑφ' ὑμῶν ("by you"). 1° Whatever chiefly distinguished the marriages of Christians from those of Romans had been instituted by Christ, not by the Christians themselves, marriage having, that is, been raised to the dignity of a Sacrament. So Athenagoras would wrongly have said: "Each of us takes a wife according to laws laid down by ourselves." 2° Marriage contracts, of which Tertullian speaks, To his Wife book II, ch. 3, were made according to Roman law, and if any necessity of divorce arose, that too was done according to the custom of the same laws, as is clear from the Christian woman of whom Justin speaks at the beginning of Apology II. So it does not seem strange if Athenagoras says that Christians contract marriage according to the Roman laws. Indeed, to boast of their own laws in this matter and to set Christian law against Roman would have been speech not at all suited to placating the emperors.

(printed under page 513)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 966

Ἐν παρθενίᾳ καὶ εὐνουχίᾳ μεῖναι. Idem perpetuae virginitatis propositum declarant, quae paulo post leguntur, οἷός τις ἐτέχθη μένειν. Id enim dici solere de iis, qui se perpetuae continentiae voto obstringunt, jam observavimus ad Justini Apol. I, n. 29. Hanc Ecclesiae doctrinam perspicere licet in insigni Clementis Alexandrini testimonio, quod et mendis et prava interpretatione deformatum restituere in suum nitorem aggrediar. Sic igitur Clemens Strom. III, p. 459 edit. Paris., 546 edit. Oxon.: Ἡ πρόθεσίς τε ἑκάστου, τοῦ τε ἑαυτὸν εὐνουχίσαντος, τοῦ τε αὖ γάμῳ διὰ παιδοποιίαν συζεύξαντος, ἀνενδότως πρὸς τὸ ἧττον διαμένειν ὀφείλει. Propositum et illius, qui semetipsum castravit, et illius, qui se propter liberorum procreationem matrimonio conjunxit, ita perseverare debet, ut minime deflectat ad id quod inferius est. Qui se ergo castraverunt propter regnum coelorum, hi se irrevocabili obstrinxerunt voto. Deinde Clemens idem statuit de iis qui a conjugio ad perfectiorem statum transeunt: Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιτεῖναι οἷός τε ἔσται τὸν βίον, μείζονα ἀξίαν ἐν Θεῷ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ περιποιήσεται, καθαρῶς ἅμα καὶ λελογισμένως ἐγκρατευσάμενος· εἰ δέ, ὑπερβὰς ὃν εἵλετο κανόνα εἰς μείζονα δόξαν, ἔπειτα ἀποπέσῃ, πρὸς τὴν ἐλπίδα. Ἔχει γὰρ ὥσπερ ἡ εὐνουχία, οὕτω καὶ ὁ γάμος ἰδίας λειτουργίας καὶ διακονίας τῷ Κυρίῳ διαφερούσας. Doctissimus Oxoniensis editor existimat post τὴν ἐλπίδα aliquid hujusmodi excidisse, ne tamen animum despondeat, ita ut is, qui post susceptum continentiae propositum cadit redeundo ad id quod reliquerat, is lapsum suum hac ratione consolari possit, quod ut castitas, ita etiam matrimonium suas habeat virtutes. Sed quod hic dicitur de matrimonii virtutibus, non eo spectat, ut illius usum repetere liceat his qui perfectiorem statum amplexi sunt. Nam lapsum vocat hanc agendi rationem S. Clemens, atque ut perstantibus in suscepta continentia uberiorem mercedem promittit, ita cadentibus gravissimas minas intentat. Quare vulnus hujus loci sanabitur, si legamus, πῶς τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχοι; illud ἔχοι facile excidere potuit ob similem vocem ἔχει, quae proxime sequitur. Sic ergo totum hunc locum interpretor: Quod si vitam ad perfectius intendere potuerit, majus meritum apud Deum sibi ipse comparabit ob servatam pure et rationi consentanee continentiam. Sed si postquam transcendit, majoris gloriae causa, electum vitae genus, ceciderit; quomodo spem habebit? Habet enim ut castitas, ita et matrimonium proprias perfunctiones et ministeria, quae Domino probantur. Spem aufert cadentibus, quandiu scilicet ad promissam continentiam non redibunt; quod autem addit de laudabilibus matrimonii perfunctionibus, eo manifeste spectat, ut qui hunc statum elegerunt, non temere ad perfectiorem transcurrant.

Ἐν παρθενίᾳ καὶ εὐνουχίᾳ μεῖναι ("to remain in virginity and continence"). The same purpose of perpetual virginity is declared by the words read a little after, οἷός τις ἐτέχθη μένειν. For we have already observed, on Justin's Apology I, no. 29, that this is customarily said of those who bind themselves by a vow of perpetual continence. This teaching of the Church can be seen in a notable testimony of Clement of Alexandria, which, disfigured as it is both by errors and by a bad translation, I shall try to restore to its lustre. So Clement, Stromateis III, p. 459 of the Paris edition, 546 of the Oxford: Ἡ πρόθεσίς τε ἑκάστου, τοῦ τε ἑαυτὸν εὐνουχίσαντος, τοῦ τε αὖ γάμῳ διὰ παιδοποιίαν συζεύξαντος, ἀνενδότως πρὸς τὸ ἧττον διαμένειν ὀφείλει: "The purpose both of him who has made himself a eunuch and of him who has joined himself in marriage for the begetting of children ought to persevere so as by no means to turn aside to what is lower." Those, then, who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven bound themselves by an irrevocable vow. Then Clement lays down the same of those who pass from marriage to a more perfect state: Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιτεῖναι οἷός τε ἔσται τὸν βίον, μείζονα ἀξίαν ἐν Θεῷ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ περιποιήσεται, καθαρῶς ἅμα καὶ λελογισμένως ἐγκρατευσάμενος· εἰ δέ, ὑπερβὰς ὃν εἵλετο κανόνα εἰς μείζονα δόξαν, ἔπειτα ἀποπέσῃ, πρὸς τὴν ἐλπίδα. Ἔχει γὰρ ὥσπερ ἡ εὐνουχία, οὕτω καὶ ὁ γάμος ἰδίας λειτουργίας καὶ διακονίας τῷ Κυρίῳ διαφερούσας. The very learned Oxford editor thinks that after τὴν ἐλπίδα something of this kind has dropped out, "yet let him not lose heart," so that one who, after taking up the purpose of continence, falls by returning to what he had left, might console his lapse by this reasoning, that marriage, like chastity, has its own virtues. But what is said here about the virtues of marriage is not meant to let those who have embraced the more perfect state return to its use. For St Clement calls this way of acting a lapse, and as he promises a richer reward to those who persevere in the continence they have undertaken, so he threatens the gravest penalties to those who fall. So the wound in this passage will be healed if we read πῶς τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχοι; that ἔχοι could easily have dropped out because of the similar word ἔχει, which follows next. So I translate this whole passage: "If he can raise his life to what is more perfect, he will gain for himself a greater merit with God, for having kept continence purely and reasonably. But if, after he has gone beyond the kind of life he chose, for the sake of greater glory, he falls, how will he have hope? For marriage, like chastity, has its own functions and ministries, which are approved by the Lord." He takes hope away from those who fall, so long, that is, as they do not return to the continence they promised; and what he adds about the praiseworthy functions of marriage plainly aims at this, that those who have chosen that state should not rashly hurry on to a more perfect one.

(printed under page 513)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 966

Εὐπρεπής ἐστι μοιχεία. Non solus Athenagoras de digamis justo severius visus est judicare. Consuli potest longa series ejusmodi testimoniorum apud Cotelerium p. 64, in notis ad Pastoris lib. II. Non tamen praetermittendum quid sentiat Athenagoras, cum praesertim Tillemontius, quo viro nemo aequior, nemo ad vituperandum tardior, Athenagorae verbis adductus sit, ut eum e Montanistis unum fuisse non affirmaret quidem, sed tamen suspicaretur. Equidem satis causae esse non puto ut in hanc suspicionem vocetur. Nam 1° Cum monogamia maximo esset in pretio apud Christianos, secundae autem nuptiae, etsi non omnino inconcessae, aliqua tamen ignominia notarentur, digamis a sacra communione ad tempus remotis; quid mirum si monogamiam Athenagoras, ut commune Christianorum institutum commendat? Similiter Theophilus Antiochenus lib. III ad Autol.: Apud Christianos, inquit, monogamia servatur. Et Minucius Felix: Cupiditatem procreandi aut unam sentimus, aut nullam. 2° Metaphora non carent hae voces: Occultus est adulter. Lenit enim asperiorem criminationem dum occultum vocat adulterium; ac secundas nuptias nulla lege interdictas fatetur, si quidem tunc manifestum esset vitium. Hanc igitur vim habet decorum illud et occultum adulterium ut digamus per quamdam metaphoram, ac sensu quodam subtiliore et longius petito adulter sit, quia videlicet, ut addit Athenagoras, discedit ab ea matrimonii ratione, quam Deus ab initio instituerat, unica uxore Adamo concessa.

Εὐπρεπής ἐστι μοιχεία ("is a respectable adultery"). Athenagoras is not alone in seeming to judge the twice-married more severely than is just. A long series of such testimonies can be consulted in Cotelier, p. 64, in the notes to book II of the Shepherd. Yet Athenagoras's view must not be passed over, especially since Tillemont — no man fairer, none slower to censure — was led by Athenagoras's words, not indeed to affirm, but still to suspect, that he was one of the Montanists. For my part I do not think there is enough reason for him to be brought under this suspicion. For 1°, since monogamy was held in the highest esteem among Christians, while second marriages, though not altogether forbidden, were nonetheless marked with some disgrace, the twice-married being kept from holy communion for a time, what wonder if Athenagoras commends monogamy as the common practice of Christians? Likewise Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus book III: "Among Christians," he says, "monogamy is kept." And Minucius Felix: "We know either one desire of begetting, or none." 2°, these words are not without metaphor: "He is a hidden adulterer." For he softens the harsher charge by calling it hidden adultery, and admits that second marriages are forbidden by no law, since otherwise the fault would then be manifest. So that "respectable" and "hidden" adultery means that the twice-married man is an adulterer by a kind of metaphor, in a subtler and more far-fetched sense, because, as Athenagoras adds, he departs from the plan of marriage that God had established from the beginning, when one wife was granted to Adam.

(printed under page 513)

(none) <!-- note: Q2 2026-11-09: footnote (99) was set twice (a tail under Footnotes, the whole under Editors' prose); now set once, whole, under Footnotes. It is foot apparatus, not editors' prose. Its opening lines down to "evecto" are cut from the foot image and were read on the column image. Ligatures are written ae, and the small-capital numerals are written II. -->

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 967

Matth. XIX, 9.

Matthew 19:9.

(printed under page 514)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 967

Εἰς τοῦ γένους κοινωνίαν. Ita codex Clarom. et tres Anglicani et Ducaeus, quibus favet Reg. 2, ubi εἰς additum est post lineam. Deest in aliis haec praepositio. Ut autem nihil desit ad sensus integritatem, legendum, ut in interpretatione expressimus, τὴν σαρκὸς πρὸς σάρκα κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν πρόσμιξιν. Sed molestum forte videbitur, quod Athenagoras iisdem utatur rationibus, quibus Tertullianus catholicam sententiam impugnat in libro De monogamia. Revocat enim Tertullianus ad primam matrimonii institutionem cap. 4. Profert etiam cap. 9, latam a Christo legem adversus divortium. Sed saepe ex iisdem principiis diversae consecutiones eruuntur. Cum enim haec duo argumenta, de quibus diximus, tum multa alia Hieronymus ex libro Tertulliani De monogamia mutuatur in epist. 91, alias 11, non ut secundas nuptias, ut Tertullianus, prohibitas et impermissas, sed ut propter intemperantiam concessas esse demonstret. Primam matrimonii institutionem pariter objiciunt digamis auctor Constitut. apost. lib. III, cap. 2. Clemens Alex. Strom. III, p. 461.

Εἰς τοῦ γένους κοινωνίαν ("for the fellowship of the race"). So the Clermont codex, three English manuscripts and Ducaeus, supported by Regius 2, where εἰς has been added after the line. This preposition is missing in the others. So that nothing may be lacking to the completeness of the sense, one should read, as we have expressed it in the translation, τὴν σαρκὸς πρὸς σάρκα κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν πρόσμιξιν. But it may perhaps seem troubling that Athenagoras uses the same arguments with which Tertullian attacks the Catholic view in the book On Monogamy. For Tertullian goes back to the first institution of marriage in ch. 4, and in ch. 9 he also brings forward the law laid down by Christ against divorce. But often different conclusions are drawn from the same principles. For Jerome borrows both these two arguments of which we have spoken and many others from Tertullian's book On Monogamy in Letter 91 (elsewhere 11), not to show, as Tertullian does, that second marriages are forbidden and not permitted, but that they are allowed on account of incontinence. The author of the Apostolic Constitutions, book III, ch. 2, likewise sets the first institution of marriage against the twice-married; so Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis III, p. 461.

(printed under page 514)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 967

Θεούς. Tres Angl. θεοῖς.

Θεούς ("gods"). Three English manuscripts have θεοῖς.

(printed under page 514)

(5) ‹anchor: οὐ γὰρ› · call in col 967

Οὐ γάρ. Duo Angl. et Reg. 2, οὐδέ.

Οὐ γάρ ("for not"). Two English manuscripts and Regius 2 have οὐδέ.

(printed under page 514)

(6) ‹anchor: ἀπαρκεῖ› · call in col 967

Ἀπαρκεῖ. 2 Angl. ἐπαρκεῖ.

Ἀπαρκεῖ ("it suffices"). Two English manuscripts have ἐπαρκεῖ.

(printed under page 514)

(7) ‹anchor: δὲ δικαιοσύνη› · call in col 967

Δικαιοσύνη. Uterque Regius, Clarom. et 2 Angl. δικαιοσύνης.

Δικαιοσύνη ("justice"). Both Regii, the Clermont codex and two English manuscripts have δικαιοσύνης.

(printed under page 514)

(8) ‹anchor: καὶ ἀνεξικάκοις› · call in col 967

Ἀνεξικάκοις. Tres Angl. ἀλεξικάκοις.

Ἀνεξικάκοις ("forbearing"). Three English manuscripts have ἀλεξικάκοις.

(printed under page 514)

(9) ‹anchor: ἔστι πάσασθαι› · call in col 967

Πάσασθαι. Tres Angl. et Reg. 2, σπάσασθαι.

Πάσασθαι ("to taste"). Three English manuscripts and Regius 2 have σπάσασθαι.

(printed under page 514)

(10) ‹anchor: αὐτοὺς ἔρηται› · call in col 967

Ἔρηται. Tres Anglicani εἴρηται, et sic videtur prima manu habuisse Reg. 1.

Ἔρηται ("asks"). Three English manuscripts have εἴρηται, and Regius 1 seems to have had this in the first hand.

(printed under page 514)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible on this page foot› · call in col 970

Οὐδεὶς καθ' ἡμῶν. Testatur Justinus in minore Apol. n. 12, nonnullos Christianorum servos aut pueros aut mulierculas horrendis tormentis coactos fuisse fabulosa illa flagitia in Christianos fingere. Hoc ipso anno quo scribebat Athenagoras, id est anno 117, idem Lugduni contigerat, nonnullis servis tormentorum metu Thyesteas coenas et concubitus Oedipodeos indicantibus, ut discimus ex Epist. Eccles. Vien. et Lugd. apud Euseb. lib. V, cap. 1. Sed forte non habebat in memoria Athenagoras quod apud Justinum legitur; forte scribebat antequam martyres Lugduni torquerentur, aut saltem antequam illorum martyrii fama ad ipsius aures perveniret. Atque etiamsi rem non ignorasset, quia tamen haec indicia non sponte, non horrore criminis delata, sed cruciatibus expressa, liquido potuit ea floccifacere, ac innocentiam Christianorum nullo hactenus judicio laesam asseverare. Simili modo Tertullianus decantata illa crimina nunquam a servis, quos tamen latere non possent, comprehensa fuisse demonstrat. Oro vos, inquit, lib. I ad Nat. cap. 7, extraneis unde notitia? cum etiam justa et licita mysteria omnem arbitrii (leg. arbitrum) extraneum caveant, nisi illicita minus spernunt. Legendum videtur, minus cernunt. Id est nisi forte extranei in cernendis illicitis mysteriis minus curiosi sunt. Si retineatur illud spernunt, legendum erit magis pro minus. Pergit Tertullianus: At quin extraneis tam honorare (leg. ignorare) quam confingere magis competit... (sed forte) domesticorum curiositas furata est per rimulas et cavernas. Quid? cum domestici eos (leg. reos) vobis prodant, a nullis (enim) magis prodimur; quanto magis si atrocitas tanta sit, quae justitiae indignationis omnem familiaritatis fidem rumpit, non potuerit continere quod horruit mens, quod expavit oculus?

"No one against us." Justin testifies in the shorter Apology, no. 12, that some slaves of Christians, or children, or poor women, forced by horrible tortures, invented those fabled crimes against the Christians. In the very year in which Athenagoras was writing, that is the year 117 [so the scan appears to read; the Lyons martyrdoms are of 177], the same thing had happened at Lyons, when some slaves, in fear of torture, alleged Thyestean banquets and Oedipodean intercourse, as we learn from the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Eusebius, book V, chapter 1. But perhaps Athenagoras did not have in mind what is read in Justin; perhaps he was writing before the martyrs at Lyons were tortured, or at least before the report of their martyrdom reached his ears. And even if he had not been unaware of the matter, yet because these allegations were brought not freely, not from horror of the crime, but wrung out by torments, he could plainly set them at naught, and assert that the innocence of the Christians had so far been harmed by no judicial finding. In the same way Tertullian shows that those much-repeated crimes were never detected by slaves, from whom they could not have been hidden. "I ask you," he says, Ad Nationes book I, chapter 7, "whence have outsiders knowledge, when even just and lawful mysteries guard against every outside witness (arbitrii; read arbitrum), unless illicit ones are less scorned (minus spernunt)?" It seems one should read "minus cernunt", that is, unless perhaps outsiders are less curious in observing illicit mysteries. If "spernunt" is kept, one must read "magis" for "minus". Tertullian continues: "But it suits outsiders as much to honour (honorare; read ignorare, 'to be ignorant') as to invent ... (but perhaps) the curiosity of the household has stolen it through chinks and crannies. What then? When those of the household betray them (eos; read reos, 'the accused') to you — by none (indeed) are we more betrayed — how much more, if the atrocity were so great as to break all the trust of familiarity through the indignation of justice, could it not have contained what the mind shuddered at, what the eye was terrified to see?"

(printed under page 515)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible on this page foot› · call in col 970

Ἀνδροφονίαν. Tres Angl. ἀνδροφονίας et mox ἀνθρωποβορίας.

"Murder." Three English manuscripts read ἀνδροφονίας ("murders"), and shortly after ἀνθρωποβορίας ("man-eatings").

(printed under page 515)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible on this page foot› · call in col 970

Τὸν φονευόμενον. Ita Reg. 1. Editi τὸ φονευόμενον.

"The one being slain" (masculine). So Regius 1. The printed editions have τὸ φονευόμενον (neuter).

(printed under page 515)

(14) ‹anchor: not visible on this page foot› · call in col 970

Ἄρχοντες. Clarom. et tres Anglicani κρατοῦντες.

"Rulers." The Claromontanus and three English manuscripts read κρατοῦντες ("those in power").

(printed under page 515)

(15) ‹anchor: μήτε λόγον› · call in col 970

Μήτε λόγον. Tres Angl. μὴ λόγον. Sic etiam Reg. 1, sed secunda manu.

"Nor an account." Three English manuscripts read μὴ λόγον. So also Regius 1, but in a second hand.

(printed under page 515)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible on this page foot› · call in col 971

Τῶν νοητῶν σωμάτων. Ut sibi Athenagoras constet in instituta divisione, legendum: Συνισταμένων ἐκ μὲν τῶν ἀσωμάτων, κατὰ τὴν ἐπισύνθεσιν, τῶν σωμάτων· ἐκ δὲ τῶν νοητῶν, τῶν αἰσθητῶν. Vidit Suffridus addendum esse τῶν αἰσθητῶν.

"Of the intelligible bodies." For Athenagoras to be consistent in the division he has set up, one should read: "the bodies being composed, by combination, of incorporeal things, and the sensible things of intelligible ones." Suffridus saw that τῶν αἰσθητῶν ("of the sensible things") must be added.

(printed under page 516)

(17) ‹anchor: πάντων ὑποχειρίων› · call in col 971

Ὑποχειρίων. Sic et Reg. uterque et duo Romani codices, et Orat. quibus etiam favent duo Anglicani, in quibus legitur ὑποχειρῶν. Editi ἐπιχειρίων, excepta tamen Frontonis Ducaei editione, qui similia apponit Tertulliani et Prudentii testimonia, quorum primus sic loquitur Apol. c. 30: Precantes sumus omnes semper pro omnibus imperatoribus, vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitum fortem, senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum. Sic autem Prudentius in Agone S. Romani: Placanda nobis pro triumphis principis Delubra; faustus ut secundet gloriam Procinctus, utque subjugatis hostibus, Ductor quietum frenet orbem legibus.

"Subject." So also both Regii, two Roman codices, and the Oratorian, which two English manuscripts also support, in which ὑποχειρῶν is read. The printed editions have ἐπιχειρίων, except however the edition of Fronton du Duc, who adds similar testimonies of Tertullian and Prudentius, the first of whom speaks thus, Apology chapter 30: "We are all ever praying for all the emperors: for long life for them, a secure empire, a safe house, a brave army, a faithful senate, an upright people, a quiet world." And Prudentius thus, in the Contest of St Romanus: "We must appease the shrines for the prince's triumphs, that a happy campaign may further his glory, and that, the enemy subdued, the leader may rein a quiet world with laws."

(printed under page 516)

(18) ‹anchor: πρὸς ἡμῶν› · call in col 971

Καὶ πρὸς ἡμῶν. Ita Reg. uterque, Clarom., Orat. et duo Romani. Unus ex Anglicanis ἡμᾶς. Editi καὶ πρὸς ὑμῶν, quae scriptura Gesnero et Suffrido displicuit, nec immerito. Quale enim hoc acumen exstitisset, etiam imperatorum interesse, ut et eorum imperium augeatur, et omnibus obsequium suum praestantibus stabiliatur. At de Christianis Athenagoras, ut ostenderet quantum imperatorum causa cuperent, praeclare ait eos in publicis commodis et in prosperis imperatorum rebus sua etiam commoda inventuros sperare.

"In our interest too." So both Regii, the Claromontanus, the Oratorian and two Roman codices. One of the English manuscripts has ἡμᾶς. The printed editions have καὶ πρὸς ὑμῶν ("in your interest too"), a reading that displeased Gesner and Suffridus, and not without reason. For what point would there have been in saying that it was in the emperors' interest too that their empire be increased and made firm by all rendering it obedience? But Athenagoras, to show how much the Christians desired the emperors' good, says excellently of them that they hope to find their own advantage too in the public advantage and in the emperors' prosperity.

(printed under page 516)