PL 6 · cols. 57–76

N. Lenglet du Fresnoy, Praefatio in Lactantium

Editors' preface

PRAEFATIO NICOLAI LENGLET DUFRESNOY IN LACTANTIUM.

PREFACE OF NICOLAS LENGLET DU FRESNOY TO LACTANTIUS.

I. Jamdudum expectant eruditi emendatiorem atque perfectiorem, quam antehac, Lactantianorum operum editionem. Hanc publici juris facimus, atque id curavimus, ut textus sit emendatissimus; notae vero non ad ostentationem, sed ad utilitatem referantur. Ne putes tamen, lector erudite, haec omnia soli meae curae deberi. In mentem equidem mihi anno 1707 venerat hanc operam in me suscipere, ut otium quod erat mihi a seriis negotiis, quibus detinebar insulis Flandrorum in aula Bavarico-Coloniensi, hoc studio exercerem; omnes fere Lactantii editiones congesseram, atque manuscriptos quosdam, tum in Belgio, tum antea Parisiis contuleram; notas item plurimas assiduo labore confectas et undique conquisitas in unum coacervaveram.

I. The learned have long been awaiting an edition of the works of Lactantius more correct and more complete than heretofore. This we now make public, and we have taken care that the text be as correct as possible, while the notes are directed not to display but to usefulness. Yet do not suppose, learned reader, that all this is owed to my care alone. It had indeed come into my mind in the year 1707 to take this labour upon myself, so as to employ in this study the leisure I had from the serious business by which I was detained at Lille in Flanders, at the Bavarian-Cologne court; I had gathered together almost all the editions of Lactantius, and had collated certain manuscripts, both in Belgium and earlier at Paris; I had likewise heaped together into one a great many notes, composed with unremitting labour and sought out from every quarter.

II. Sed quo tempore haec animo versabam, et manum admovebam, ut ad finem operis properarem, nunciatum mihi fuit, Joannem Baptistam le Brun Rothomagensem, Aureliae ad Ligerim tunc degentem, omne studium, laborem omnem Lactantio emendando intendere; tunc susceptum opus deposui, atque per interpositos amicos misi Joanni le Brun selectas decem editiones et amplius ex rarioribus quadraginta, quas summa cura collegeram. Hujus doctrina et diligentia mihi ex editis S. Paulini operibus, aliisque nou indoctis lucubrationibus notae ac probatae erant.

II. But at the time when I was turning these things over in my mind, and was setting my hand to it so as to hasten to the end of the work, word was brought to me that Jean-Baptiste le Brun of Rouen, then living at Orléans on the Loire, was bending all his zeal and all his labour to correcting Lactantius; then I laid aside the work I had undertaken, and through friends acting as intermediaries I sent to Jean le Brun ten select editions, and more than forty of the rarer ones, which I had collected with the utmost care. His learning and diligence were known to me and approved from his edition of the works of St Paulinus and from other not unlearned labours.

Editors' notes and page, col. 57

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible (call presumably at the heading)› · call in col 57

Cujus editionem, ut pote omnium hactenus publici juris factarum loco habendam, ad innumerorumque tam editorum quam manuscriptorum codicum fidem emendatam, nonnulis tamen vel in melius mutatis vel additis, recudimus.

We reprint his edition, as one to be held in place of all those hitherto published, corrected against the witness of countless printed editions and manuscript codices alike, though with some things either changed for the better or added.

(printed under page 32)

Page

running head: 57 PRÆFATIO IN LACTA[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A electio coelestis inveniat; B I. Jamdudum expectant; C II. Sed quo tempore
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints (kept as printed): "nou" for "non" (para II, "nou indoctis"); "nonnulis" for "nonnullis" (footnote (1))
other: a full-width band (PRÆFATIO NICOLAI LENGLET DU FRESNOY IN LACTANTIUM.) stands across cols 57/58 in mid-page; the text above it (col 57 para 1 and col 58 paras 1-3, with the ANNOTATIONES at the page foot) is the end of the previous work and is NOT set in this unit; the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width (Q1 2026-11-02: line corrected; it previously said the col 58 paragraphs above the band were set here)
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at I. Jamdudum expectant eruditi
running head: 57 PRAEFATIO IN LACTANTIUM. 58
marginal letters: A ‹electio coelestis inveniat› (previous work, above the title band); B ‹I. Jamdudum expectant eruditi› (in the gutter, shared with col. 58 ‹III. Verum, re infecta›); C ‹II. Sed quo tempore haec› (in the gutter, shared with col. 58 ‹oratio. Certum est›)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:58

III. Verum, re infecta, anno 1731, abiit ad superos vir eruditus, atque quibusdam ab hinc annis ejus mihi commissa sunt scrinia, et creditae annotationes. Sed quantus me stupor incesserit vix enarrare fas est, cum viderim, editorem sane eruditum, improbo decem annorum labore in eo tantum desudasse, ut undique coacervaret, imo et corraderet varias lectiones manuscriptorum codicum et Lactantianarum editionum; omissis interim iis observationibus, vel historicis, vel criticis, quae ad auctoris mentem tum assequendam, tum explanandam essent necessariae. Hac inita ratione, numerum tantummodo editionum auxisset Joannes le Brun; sed antiquiorum non extinxisset desiderium, imo potius incendisset.

III. But, with the business unfinished, in the year 1731 the learned man departed to those above, and some years since his cases of papers were committed to me and his annotations entrusted to me. But how great an amazement came over me it is scarcely right to recount, when I saw that the editor, a truly learned man, had toiled with ten years' relentless labour only at this: to heap together from every side, nay even to scrape together, the various readings of the manuscript codices and of the editions of Lactantius; leaving aside meanwhile those observations, whether historical or critical, which were necessary both for grasping and for explaining the author's meaning. On the plan he had entered upon, Jean le Brun would only have increased the number of editions; but he would not have extinguished the longing for the older ones, nay rather he would have kindled it.

IV. Sed ad Lactantium ipsum nostra convertatur oratio. Certum est auctores inter Latinos id illi peculiare esse, ut quodammodo sit ad diversa munia paratus. Si etenim in scriptoribus ecclesiasticis secundum, aut tertium solummodo locum habet, procul dubio vir fuit primarius in re litteraria, propter variam ejus eruditionem, dignam homine litterato. Tanta quippe facundia, nitore tanto, tanta etiam gravitate de rebus maxime in religione necessariis sublime disputat atque disserit, ut nostris temporibus aeque gratus sit, ac prioribus Ecclesiae saeculis.

IV. But let our discourse turn to Lactantius himself. It is certain that among the Latin authors this is peculiar to him, that he is in some manner equipped for diverse tasks. For if among the ecclesiastical writers he holds only the second or third place, beyond doubt he was a man of the first rank in letters, on account of his varied learning, worthy of a man of letters. For with such eloquence, such polish, and such weight too does he argue and discourse loftily on the matters most necessary in religion, that he is as welcome in our times as in the earlier ages of the Church.

V. Quaerere vulgo solent, cur eruditus ac eloquentissimus scriptor suas ediderit Institutiones. Id porro causae fuit: sicut prudentes, et arbitri equitatis Institutiones juris civilis compositas vulgarunt, quibus dissidentium lites contentionesque sopirent, sic Divinas Institutiones eo potissimum publici juris

V. People commonly ask why the learned and most eloquent writer published his Institutes. Now this was the reason: just as the jurists and arbiters of equity published Institutes of civil law, composed so that by them they might lay to rest the suits and contentions of those at variance, so the Divine Institutes chiefly for this purpose [he made] public

Editors' notes and page, col. 58

Page

running head: ATIO IN LACTANTIUM. (cut at left edge; presumably PRAEFATIO IN LACTANTIUM.)
marginal letters: A ‹instar esse confido›; B ‹III. Verum, re infecta›; C ‹oratio. Certum est›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence (instar) and ends mid-sentence (publici juris); the heading ANNOTATIONES. is a full-width line cut at the left edge, not set; the annotations under it (Justi petitione; Celsum) stand above the title band and belong to the previous work, so they are not set in this unit; the title of the new preface (PRAEFATIO / LENGLET DUFRESNOY (1) / IN LACTANTIUM.) is printed full width, cut at the left edge, and is not set; editors' matter set: Lenglet Dufresnoy's preface, paragraphs III to V (III. Verum, re infecta); 'equitatis' (printed so, without the ligature) and 'eo' are read from faint type
other: misprint kept as printed: equitatis (for aequitatis), para. V (Q3)
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): Caecilium | Coecilium (previous work; the page prints the ae ligature, Q3)
other: the 3 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 57 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 57 PRAEFATIO IN LACTANTIUM. 58
marginal letters: A ‹instar esse confido› (previous work, above the title band); B ‹III. Verum, re infecta› (in the gutter, shared with col. 57 ‹I. Jamdudum›); C ‹oratio. Certum est auctores› (in the gutter, shared with col. 57 ‹II. Sed quo tempore›)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the column ends mid-sentence at "publici juris" (word complete; the sentence continues in col. 59, not seen); the English ends mid-sentence accordingly, with [he made] supplied for the verb that follows in col. 59 — check against col. 59. The text above the title band (previous work) stays unset.

PL 6:59

fecit Lactantius, ut fidelibus uno quasi intuitu cuncta praesto essent argumenta, quibus gentilium errores revincerent, et assererent infractam religionis christianae veritatem (Lactant., Instit., lib. I, cap. 1, col. 116 nost. ed.).

Lactantius made, so that all the arguments might be at hand for the faithful as if at a single glance, by which they might refute the errors of the gentiles and assert the unbroken truth of the Christian religion (Lactant., Inst., book 1, chapter 1, col. 116 of our edition).

VI. Ejus quippe Institutiones, quae libris septem absolvuntur, eo procedunt ordine, ut tribus prioribus cultus deorum insanos retundat, tribus aliis fideles christianos ad veritatem instituat; nam, ut ait Lactantius ipse (lib. I, cap. 23, col. 232 nost. ed.): « Primus sapientiae gradus est falsa intelligere, secundus vera cognoscere; » ultimo tandem libro de impiorum poenis et cruciatibus, piorum vero immortali praemio et beatitudine agit. Nec tamen credas, toto hoc in opere omnia momenta aeque valida esse; quaedam rationes quae nunc leviores et frigidae videntur, tunc graves erant atque firmae. Ita quandoque fit, tum ex ingenio, tum ex moribus hominum, ut diversa temporum curricula diversas etiam habeant disserendi rationes.

VI. For his Institutes, which are completed in seven books, proceed in this order: in the first three he beats back the insane worship of the gods, and in the other three he instructs faithful Christians in the truth; for, as Lactantius himself says (book 1, chapter 23, col. 232 of our edition): "The first step of wisdom is to understand what is false, the second to know what is true"; in the last book, finally, he treats of the punishments and torments of the impious, and of the immortal reward and blessedness of the pious. Yet you should not suppose that in this whole work all the arguments are equally valid; certain reasonings which now seem rather slight and cold were then weighty and firm. So it sometimes happens, both from the character and from the manners of men, that different courses of the ages also have different ways of arguing.

VII. Non diffitetur autem Lactantius, quin eamdem viam emensi jam fuerint quidam e nostris scriptoribus. Sed, ut ipse ait, Minucius Felix, qui veritatis idoneus assertor esse potuisset, non integram tamen nec omnino plenam in tuenda religione disputationem scripsit. In Tertuliano, idque merito, desiderat eloquii perspicuitatem et facilitatem; in Cypriano, quamvis eloquenti et ornato, quamvis in persuadendo potenti, non sat aptam in convincendis gentibus scriptionem notat. At non est culpandus Lactantius, quod septem libros a praeceptore Arnobio scriptos silentio praetermiserit. Arnobius enim non nisi, ut videtur anno Constantini XX, id est, aerae vulgaris 326, christianam suscepit religionem quo tempore suas in ethnicam superstitionem edidit disputationes, sex plus minus annis post vulgatas a Lactantio suas Institutiones. Mirum igitur non est, si Lactantius christianorum, teste Eusebio Caesariensi, eruditissimus tam arduam in se susceperit operam; nec inulta voluerit esse convicia, quibus christianos consectati fuerant duo philosophi, sive ii sint Hierocles ac Porphyrius, sive quidam alii.

VII. Lactantius does not deny, however, that certain of our writers had already travelled the same road. But, as he himself says, Minucius Felix, who could have been a fit champion of the truth, nevertheless did not write a complete or wholly full disputation in defence of religion. In Tertullian, and rightly so, he finds clarity and ease of style wanting; in Cyprian, although eloquent and ornate, although powerful in persuading, he notes a manner of writing not suited enough to convincing the gentiles. But Lactantius is not to be blamed for having passed over in silence the seven books written by his teacher Arnobius. For Arnobius, as it seems, embraced the Christian religion only in the twentieth year of Constantine, that is, 326 of the common era, at which time he published his disputations against the heathen superstition, some six years, more or less, after Lactantius had made public his Institutes. It is no wonder, then, if Lactantius, the most learned of the Christians on the testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, took so arduous a work upon himself, and would not let go unanswered the insults with which two philosophers had assailed the Christians, whether these were Hierocles and Porphyry, or certain others.

VIII. Hos porro libros quando scripserit Lactantius,

VIII. Now, when Lactantius wrote these books

Editors' notes and page, col. 59

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: aerae vulgaris 326› · call in col 59

Sic porro ait Eusebius : Anno xx Constantini Arnobius in Africa rhetor clarus habetur, qui cum in civitate Siccae ad declamandum juvenes erudiret, et adhuc ethnicus ad credulitatem somniis compelleretur, neque ab episcopis impetraret fidem, quam antea impugnaverat, elucubravit adversus pristinam religionem luculentissimos libros, et tandem velut quibusdam obsidibus pietatis foedus impetravit. Ita Chronicon Eusebii; eaque ratione accessionem Arnobii ad religionem christianam in annum 326, qui est vigesimus Constantini, rejicimus, quamvis R. P. Remigius Ceillier eam statuat ann. 303, in Historia scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, tomo III. Si anno tertio quarti saeculi Christo nomen dedisset Arnobius, procul dubio id annotasset Eusebius regnante Diocletiano, non autem anno xx Constantini. Porro ejus Chronico non est deneganda fides : hoc ipso tempore liber ille fuit conscriptus a viro eruditissimo, qui omnem operam contulerat in exploranda vita doctiorum, sui praesertim saeculi.

For Eusebius says this: "In the twentieth year of Constantine Arnobius is held a famous rhetor in Africa; while he was training young men in declamation in the city of Sicca, and, still a pagan, was being driven by dreams towards belief, and could not obtain from the bishops the faith he had formerly attacked, he worked out most brilliant books against his former religion, and at length, as if with certain hostages of his piety, obtained the covenant." So the Chronicle of Eusebius; and on that ground we put Arnobius's coming to the Christian religion back to the year 326, which is Constantine's twentieth, although the Reverend Father Rémi Ceillier sets it in the year 303, in his History of the Ecclesiastical Writers, volume III. Had Arnobius given his name to Christ in the third year of the fourth century, Eusebius would beyond doubt have noted it under the reign of Diocletian, not in the twentieth year of Constantine. Moreover his Chronicle is not to be denied credit: that book was written at this very time by a most learned man, who had given all his effort to investigating the lives of the learned, especially of his own century.

(printed under page 33)

Page

running head: 59 PRÆFATIO IN LACTA (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹fecit Lactantius, ut fidelibus›; B ‹rationes quae nunc leviores›; C ‹quod septem libros a praeceptore›; D ‹civitate Siccae ad declamandum (footnote)›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:60

non est usque adeo certum. In varias critici abierunt sententias. Putat Isaeus anno 302 elaboratos esse; sed hoc anno fideles christiani aliquantulum pace fruebantur, verum quo tempore edidit suas Institutiones persecutione exagitabatur Ecclesia. Existimant alii, anno 311; cardinalis Baronius, post annum 315; doctiores denique, multo post annum 318, forte anno 320 aut 321, editas fuisse sentiunt. Meum non est hic per multas sermonum ambages horum omnium agitare rationes, et argumenta utrinque allata curiosius conquirere. Sufficiat probatam, aut saltem probabiliorem exponere sententiam.

is not so very certain. The critics have gone off into various opinions. Isaeus thinks that they were composed in the year 302; but in this year the Christian faithful were enjoying a little peace, whereas at the time when he published his Institutes the Church was being harried by persecution. Others think in the year 311; Cardinal Baronius after the year 315; the more learned, finally, judge that they were published long after the year 318, perhaps in the year 320 or 321. It is not my business here to discuss the reasons of all these through many windings of words, and to search out too curiously the arguments brought forward on either side. Let it suffice to set out the proven, or at least the more probable, opinion.

IX. Nicomediam Bithyniae ex Africa accitus fuerat, imperante Dioclesiano, Lactantius, ut ea in urbe litteras oratorias, id est, Romanum doceret eloquium; ibique mansit toto persecutionis tempore, quae decem et amplius annos in christianos saeviit. Ea vero finem non habuit, nisi medio mense junio anni 313. At Eusebius horum temporum scriptor diligentissimus admonet, ex Bithynia in Gallias profectum non fuisse Lactantium nisi anno 317. Verum Lactantius cum scripsit Institutionum libros, tunc in Bithynia non erat. « Ego, inquit, cum in Bithynia oratorias litteras accitus docerem, contigissetque ut eodem tempore Dei templum everteretur, duo extiterunt ibidem, qui jacenti veritati insultarent (libro V Institut., cap. 2). Vidi ego, inquit, in Bithynia praesidem (libro V, c. 11). Haec igitur jamdiu praeterierant; tunc ab ea Lactantius aberat provincia. Haec ergo scripsit post annum 317.

IX. Lactantius had been summoned from Africa to Nicomedia in Bithynia, in the reign of Diocletian, to teach oratorical letters, that is, Roman eloquence, in that city; and there he remained for the whole time of the persecution, which raged against the Christians for ten years and more. It did not, however, come to an end until the middle of the month of June in the year 313. But Eusebius, a most diligent writer of these times, informs us that Lactantius did not set out from Bithynia for the Gauls until the year 317. Now when Lactantius wrote the books of the Institutes, he was not then in Bithynia. « When I, he says, having been summoned, was teaching oratorical letters in Bithynia, and it had happened that at the same time the temple of God was being overthrown, two men arose in that same place to insult the prostrate truth (Book 5 of the Institutes, ch. 2). I saw, he says, in Bithynia a governor (Book 5, ch. 11). These things, therefore, had long since passed; at that time Lactantius was absent from that province. He therefore wrote these things after the year 317.

Attamen persecutiones memorantur in libris Institutionum: sed quaenam istae fuerint ex ipso videre est Lactantio. Eam non puto fuisse, quam desinente anno 302 meditabantur Diocletianus et Galerius; quaeque incoepit die februarii 23 anni 303, exitumque habuit die 13 junii anni 313. Tunc enim Nicomediae erat Lactantius; non igitur hanc eo loci appellat persecutionem. Clarius istud elucescit ex his Lactantii verbis (lib. VI, c. 17): « Spectatae sunt spectanturque adhuc per orbem terrae poenae cultorum Dei, in quibus excruciandis nova et inusitata tormenta excogitata sunt. Nam de mortis generibus horret animus recordari, cum immanium bestiarum ultra ipsam mortem carnificina saevierit. » Equidem eo loci loquitur Lactantius de Diocletianea persecutione: sed ea tunc non saeviebat. Propius inspicias haec verba, « Spectatae sunt poenae; tormenta excogitata sunt; horret animus recordari; cum saevierit. » Numquid hae locutiones ad statum praesentem spectant? numquid e contrario ad praeteritum? Jam igitur haec omnia praeterierant, cum scripsit Lactantius.

Nevertheless persecutions are mentioned in the books of the Institutes: but which these were may be seen from Lactantius himself. I do not think it was the one which Diocletian and Galerius were planning at the close of the year 302, and which began on the 23rd day of February in the year 303 and had its end on the 13th day of June in the year 313. For at that time Lactantius was at Nicomedia; therefore it is not this persecution that he names in that place. This shines out more clearly from these words of Lactantius (Book 6, ch. 17): « The punishments of the worshippers of God have been seen, and are still seen, throughout the world, in torturing whom new and unheard-of torments have been devised. For the mind shudders to recall the kinds of death, since the butchery of savage beasts raged beyond death itself. » Indeed in that place Lactantius is speaking of the Diocletianic persecution: but that was not raging at that time. Look more closely at these words: « The punishments have been seen; torments have been devised; the mind shudders to recall; since it raged. » Do these expressions look to the present state? Do they not, on the contrary, look to the past? All these things, therefore, had already passed when Lactantius wrote.

Editors' notes and page, col. 60

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: spectanturque adhuc› · call in col 60

Haec sane sunt intelligenda de claris istorum temporum confessoribus, quos partibus corporis ac membris mutilos fecerant persecutores. Horum multi interfuerunt concilio Nicaeno. Ex iis erant SS. Paphnutius Thebaidis, Potamo Heracleae, Spiridio Cypri episcoporum, quorum stigmata pro Christo accepta deosculatus est non semel Constantinus imperator, juxta Eusebium, in hujus principis Vita, lib. III, c. 6 ad 13, et post Eusebium multi scriptores ecclesiastici.

These words are surely to be understood of the famous confessors of those times, whom the persecutors had left maimed in parts of the body and in their limbs. Many of them were present at the Council of Nicaea. Among them were Saints Paphnutius of the Thebaid, Potamo of Heraclea and Spiridio of Cyprus, of the bishops, whose wounds received for Christ the emperor Constantine kissed more than once, according to Eusebius in his Life of that prince, book III, chapters 6 to 13, and after Eusebius many ecclesiastical writers.

(printed under page 33)

Page

running head: …ATIO IN LACTANTIUM. 60 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge; presumably DISSERTATIO IN LACTANTIUM.)
marginal letters: A tius, non est usque adeo certum; B ibique mansit toto persecutionis; C Attamen persecutiones memorantur; D tione: sed ea tunc non saeviebat
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:61

Itaque multo post annum 315. Verum post Ecclesiam restitutam nulla omnino alia fuit in christianos persecutio, nisi Liciniana, cujus initium in annum 320 rejiciendum est. Quis vero non videt de Licinio rem esse libro VI Institutionum, capite 6, ubi sic ait Lactantius : « Quidam probitate ficta viam sibi ad potentiam muniunt, faciuntque multa quae boni solent, eo quidem promptius, quod fallendi gratia faciunt; utinamque tam facile esset praestare, quam facile est simulare bonitatem! Sed ii cum esse coeperint propositi ac voti sui compotes, et summum potentiae gradum ceperint (id est acceperint), tum vero simulatione deposita, mores suos detegunt, rapiuntque omnia, et violant, et vexant; eosque bonos (id est christianos) quorum causam susceperant, insequuntur, et gradus per quos ascenderunt amputant, ne quis illos contra ipsos possit imitari. » Numquid non est hic ipse Licinius, qui, coelitus per quietem monente angelo ut praescripta precis norma exoraret a Deo summo victoriam, statim exoravit et impetravit. « Liciniani ergo, » inquit noster Lactantius, « scuta deponunt, galeas resolvunt, ad coelum manus tendunt, praeeuntibus praepositis, et post imperatorem (Licinium) precem dicunt. Illi oratione ter dicta, virtute jam pleni reponunt capitibus galeas, scuta tollunt, tubae canunt, signa procedunt (de Mortibus persecut., c. 46, tom. II); Liciniani, impetu facto, adversarios invadunt » (Ibid., c. 47). Nonne hic idem ipse est Licinius, qui fecit multa quae boni solent, quique « de restituenda Ecclesia litteras proponi jussit... et verbo hortatus est, ut conventicula (christianorum) in statum pristinum redderentur? » (De Mort. persec., c. 48, initio et in fine.) Attamen insequitur eos ipsos bonos, quorum causam antea susceperat, rapitque omnia, et violat, et vexat.

Therefore long after the year 315. But after the Church was restored there was no other persecution whatever against the Christians except the Licinian, whose beginning must be put back to the year 320. Who indeed does not see that it is Licinius who is in question in Book 6 of the Institutes, chapter 6, where Lactantius speaks thus: "Some, by feigned probity, build themselves a road to power, and do many things which good men are accustomed to do, and that indeed the more readily because they do them for the sake of deceiving; and would that it were as easy to exhibit goodness as it is easy to simulate it! But when these have begun to be in possession of their purpose and desire, and have taken (that is, received) the highest degree of power, then indeed, the pretence laid aside, they uncover their character, and seize everything, and violate, and harass; and they pursue those good men (that is, Christians) whose cause they had taken up, and cut away the steps by which they ascended, lest anyone be able to imitate them against themselves." Is this not Licinius himself, who, when an angel admonished him from heaven during sleep to beg victory from the Supreme God according to a prescribed form of prayer, at once begged for it and obtained it? "The Licinians therefore," says our Lactantius, "lay down their shields, unfasten their helmets, stretch out their hands to heaven, their officers leading the way, and after the emperor (Licinius) they say the prayer. Having said the prayer three times, now full of courage, they put their helmets back on their heads, raise their shields, the trumpets sound, the standards advance (On the Deaths of the Persecutors, ch. 46, vol. 2); the Licinians, making an attack, fall upon their adversaries" (ibid., ch. 47). Is not this the very same Licinius who did many things which good men are accustomed to do, and who "ordered a letter to be posted concerning the restoration of the Church... and exhorted by word that the meeting-places (of the Christians) be restored to their former state?" (On the Deaths of the Persecutors, ch. 48, at the beginning and at the end.) And yet he pursues those very good men whose cause he had previously taken up, and seizes everything, and violates, and harasses.

Illa vero Liciniana persecutio in Oriente tantum saeviebat; occidentales enim imperii partes quae Constantino, eas ut regeret, obtingebant, data jamdudum et firmata pace fruebantur. Hinc Lactantius ipse summum imperatorem alloquens, ait : « Malis qui adhuc adversus justos in aliis terrarum partibus saeviunt, quanto serius, tanto vehementius idem Omnipotens mercedem sceleris exsolvet. (Libro I Instit., c. 1, col. 117, nost. ed.). Hac igitur saeviente orientali persecutione suas scripsit, suas edidit Institutiones Lactantius, id est, anno forte 320 aut 321. At nondum exsolverat Deus Licinio mercedem sui sceleris.

That Licinian persecution, however, raged only in the East; for the western parts of the empire, which had fallen to Constantine to rule, had long been enjoying a peace granted and made firm. Hence Lactantius himself, addressing the supreme emperor, says: "To the wicked who still rage against the just in other parts of the world, the same Almighty will pay the wages of their crime the more vehemently, the later He does so. (Book 1 of the Institutes, ch. 1, col. 117 of our edition). It was, then, while this eastern persecution was raging that Lactantius wrote, that he published, his Institutes, that is, perhaps in the year 320 or 321. But God had not yet paid Licinius the wages of his crime.

Verum peroratio ad Constantinum posterioris videtur esse temporis, anni scilicet 324, cum soli huic principi pareret Romanum imperium, Licinio devicto et procul a republica remoto. « Te, » inquit Lactantius, « Providentia summae Divinitatis ad fastigium principale provexit, qui posses vera pietate aliorum male consulta rescindere, peccata corrigere, saluti hominum paterna clementia providere, ipsos denique malos a republica submovere, quos summa potestate dejectos (quae verba neminem alium quam Licinium indicant in ordinem reductum) in manus tuas Deus tradidit (quia Licinius bis a Constantino victus, cedere

But the peroration to Constantine seems to belong to a later time, namely to the year 324, when the Roman Empire obeyed this prince alone, Licinius having been vanquished and removed far from the commonwealth. "You," says Lactantius, "the Providence of the Supreme Divinity has advanced to the princely summit, so that you might with true piety rescind the ill-advised measures of others, correct their sins, provide with fatherly clemency for the safety of men, and finally remove from the commonwealth the wicked themselves, whom, cast down from supreme power (words which point to none other than Licinius, brought to order), God has delivered into your hands (because Licinius, twice defeated by Constantine, to yield

Editors' notes and page, col. 61

Page

running head: 61 PRÆFATIO IN LACTA[NTIUM] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹Itaque multo post annum 315.›; B ‹tur, et gradus per quos ascenderunt›; C ‹jussit... et verbo hortatus est›; D ‹Lactantius, id est, anno forte 320›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ‹Itaque multo post annum 315› (the whole column is part of the editors' preface to Lactantius); "non / dum" printed across a line end without hyphen, set as nondum; no closing » after "exsolvet." in the Lactantius quotation, left as printed; "tra-/didit" joined, first letter of "didit" damaged but legible; "46" in "c. 46" partly damaged but legible; column ends mid-sentence at "cedere"; 'tom. II' and 'Libro I' set from small capitals

PL 6:62

conctus est) ut esset omnibus clarum quae sit vera majestas. Illi enim qui ut impias religiones defenderent, coelestis ac singularis Dei cultum tollere voluerunt, profligati jacent, » (lib. VII Institut., cap. 26): in exilium enim pulsus est Licinius anno 324, sed nondum, ut videtur, morti fuerat traditus, ob res novas quas in Oriente moliebatur, quod factum solummodo fuit anno 325. Hinc Lactantius eo loci veram Constantini pietatem laudat, quod et venia et vita perduelli et inimico concessis, eum etiam comiter convivio exceperit.

was compelled), so that it might be clear to all what the true majesty is. For those who, in order to defend impious religions, sought to take away the worship of the heavenly and only God, lie overthrown," (Inst. 7.26): for Licinius was driven into exile in the year 324, but had not yet, as it seems, been put to death on account of the revolution he was plotting in the East, which was done only in the year 325. Hence Lactantius in that place praises the true piety of Constantine, in that, having granted both pardon and life to the traitor and enemy, he even received him courteously at a banquet.

X. Qui possunt eruditi quidam de his ad Constantinum orationibus tamdiu satagere; utrum scilicet imperatori suas inscripserit Lactantius Institutiones? Hunc equidem principem ter quaterve appellat eo in opere. Has orationes non diffiteor saepe, quin et saepissime a mss. codicibus abesse, iisque antiquissimis, tum etiam ab editis quibusdam. Aliquae tamen leguntur in probatis codicibus, at non omnes. Facile controversiam dirimes, si duplicem conjicias factam fuisse a Lactantio Divinarum Institutionum editionem: unam tristibus Licinianae persecutionis temporibus, anno 320 aut 321, alteram post eumdem devictum atque in ordinem redactum, anno 324. Tunc Constantinus, parta victoria, « Malorum, » id est, Licinii et Martiniani, « male consulta rescidit. » Sed scriptorem se moderatiorem prudentemque praebuit eo loci Lactantius, non appellato nomine Licinii, proxima conjunctione cum imperatore conjuncti. Constantinus enim sororem Constantiam uxorem Lucinio tradiderat.

X. How can certain scholars busy themselves so long over these addresses to Constantine, namely whether Lactantius dedicated his Institutes to the emperor? He does indeed address this prince three or four times in that work. I do not deny that these addresses are often, indeed very often, absent from the manuscript codices, and those the most ancient, and also from certain printed editions. Some, however, are read in approved codices, but not all. You will easily settle the controversy if you suppose that a twofold edition of the Divine Institutes was made by Lactantius: one in the grim times of the Licinian persecution, in the year 320 or 321, the other after that same man had been conquered and reduced to order, in the year 324. Then Constantine, the victory won, "rescinded the evil counsels of evil men," that is, of Licinius and Martinianus. But Lactantius showed himself a rather moderate and prudent writer in that place, not naming Licinius, who was joined to the emperor by the closest bond. For Constantine had given his sister Constantia in marriage to Licinius.

Quin etiam fatentur omnes has orationes, tam ineunte libro I quam desinente septimo, plane Lactantianum sermonem redolere: qua de re disserimus iisdem in locis, collatis harum vocibus cum indubitatis Lactantii loquendi formulis. Sed unde fieri potest, ut saepe ex his orationibus una aut altera, non autem ultima legatur quibusdam in manuscriptis? Id sane fuit factum propter diversa, ex quibus posteriores codices descripti sunt, exemplaria. Cum istas orationes Lactantius suis addidit Institutionibus, solus regebat Constantinus Romanum imperium. At si altera facta est Lactantio Divinarum Institutionum editio anno 324, potuit, verbi gratia, inter haereticos appellare Arianos (lib. IV Institut., c. 30), quorum nomen in plurimis, iisque antiquis manuscriptis legitur. Jam enim Arius ab Alexandro episcopo Alexandria fuerat ejectus, et damnatus duabus in synodis, annis videlicet 319 et 324.

Moreover, all admit that these addresses, both at the beginning of Book 1 and at the end of the seventh, plainly breathe the style of Lactantius: on which matter we treat in those same places, comparing their words with the undoubted turns of speech of Lactantius. But how can it happen that often one or another of these addresses, but not the last, is read in certain manuscripts? This was surely brought about by the differing exemplars from which the later codices were copied. When Lactantius added these addresses to his Institutes, Constantine was ruling the Roman Empire alone. But if a second edition of the Divine Institutes was made by Lactantius in the year 324, he could, for example, name the Arians among the heretics (Inst. 4.30), whose name is read in very many manuscripts, and those ancient. For Arius had already been cast out of Alexandria by Alexander the bishop, and condemned in two synods, namely in the years 319 and 324.

XI. Quamvis gentiles certioribus saepissime coarguerit argumentis, quamvis religionem sincere et candide coluerit Lactantius, non diffiteor tamen, eum quibusdam obstrictum fuisse erroribus. Hos diverso animo unusquisque, prout affectus est reprehendit. Recte de Lactantio cum S. Hieronymo (Epist. ad Paulinum) dicimus: « Utinam tam nostra confirmare

XI. Although Lactantius very often refuted the pagans with quite sure arguments, although he practised religion sincerely and candidly, I do not deny, however, that he was bound by certain errors. These each person censures in a different spirit, according as he is disposed. Rightly do we say of Lactantius with St Jerome (Letter to Paulinus): "Would that he could as well confirm our own

Editors' notes and page, col. 62

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quibusdam in manuscriptis› · call in col 62

Sic in ms. Lactantii Patr. Capuc. S. Honorati Oratio lib. I legitur, at non ea lib. VII.

Thus in the manuscript of Lactantius belonging to the Capuchin Fathers of Saint-Honoré, the address in book I is read, but not the one in book VII.

(printed under page 34)

Page

running head: …ATIO IN LACTANTIUM. 62
marginal letters: A conctus est) ut esset omnibus; B opere. Has orationes non diffiteor; C Lucinio tradiderat.; D nomen in plurimis, iisque
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:63

potuisset, quam facile aliena destruxit ! Sed non eo progredimur, ut eum cum Antonio Raudensi ex ordine Minorum, saeculi XV theologo, exagitemus, quasi ejus libri haeresibus et impietate undique referti sint. Mens mea non est in varias doctiorum incurrere reprehensiones, ne eadem in me dicteria inferantur, qualia expertus est Raudensis ille, quem non solum Adamus quidam, monachus Genuensis, notat vehementer ut insanum, verum etiam Franciscus Philelfus bonarum ille litterarum cultor assiduus. Sic enim Antonium Raudensem alloquitur (Philelfus, lib. V Epist., ad an. 1443), propter male et insulse reprehensum ab eo tribus libris Lactantium: « Vellem equidem, Pater optime, ab omni istiusmodi scribendi genere te continuisses, neque cum insaniente Candido Decembre desipere ipse voluisses : id certe fuisset et ordinis, et dignitatis tuae. Quae enim per immortalem Deum fanatica ratio te commovit, ut perinde atque infesto quodam, atque inimico afflatus Spiritu, in virum illum doctissimum atque disertissimum tam insolenter, tam injuriose, tam impie invehereris, ut non res solum pene innumerabiles consulto male interpreteris, sed nomen etiam viri depravare studueris ; utpote quem Lactensium pro Lactantio nomines? Nam de rebus ipsis quid loquar, quas vel pueris notas dum corrumpere laboras, te omnibus eruditis et gravissimis viris ridiculo praebes. Pudet me profecto ea in medium proferre, quae a te non inepte minus, quam perperam notata sunt atque reprehensa. » Nusquam vidi Antonii istius Raudensis erratorum Lactantii libros tres typis commissos : eorum in Bibliotheca Regia tria novimus exemplaria manu exarata ; editae tantum fuerunt ex iis quaedam decerptae annotationes.

as easily as he destroyed the work of others! But we do not go so far as to harass him, together with Antonio da Rho of the Order of Minors, a theologian of the fifteenth century, as though his books were stuffed on every side with heresies and impiety. It is not my intention to run into the various censures of the more learned, lest the same gibes be hurled at me as that da Rho experienced, whom not only a certain Adam, a monk of Genoa, vehemently brands as insane, but also Francesco Filelfo, that assiduous cultivator of good letters. For thus he addresses Antonio da Rho (Filelfo, Letters, book 5, at the year 1443), on account of Lactantius, badly and witlessly censured by him in three books: « I could indeed wish, best Father, that you had kept yourself from every kind of writing of this sort, and had not chosen to play the fool yourself along with the raving Candido Decembrio: that would certainly have befitted both your order and your dignity. For what fanatical reasoning, by the immortal God, moved you, as though breathed upon by some hostile and inimical Spirit, to inveigh so insolently, so injuriously, so impiously against that most learned and most eloquent man, that you not only deliberately misinterpret almost innumerable matters, but have even striven to corrupt the man's name, seeing that you call him Lactensius instead of Lactantius? For what should I say about the matters themselves, which, known even to boys, you make yourself a laughing-stock to all learned and most weighty men while you labour to corrupt them? I am truly ashamed to bring forward into the open the things that have been noted and censured by you no less ineptly than wrongly. » I have nowhere seen the three books of that Antonio da Rho on the errors of Lactantius committed to print: of them we know three handwritten copies in the Royal Library; only certain annotations excerpted from them have been published.

XII. Nimium etiam excrevit Josephi Isaei censura, qua in Lactantio reprehenduntur propositiones nonaginta quatuor, quarum tamen quaedam, ipso teste Isaeo, benigno sensu sunt interpretandae, quod aliquando fieri solet in vetustissimorum temporum scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Libenter potius amplectimur Joannis Mariae Brasichelli annotationes censorias, quae moderati sunt theologi. Hujus animadversiones, etsi Lactantio, ubi opus erat, accomodaverimus, eas nihilominus infra sub uno quasi conspectu exhibemus.

XII. The censure of Joseph Isaeus has also grown excessive, in which ninety-four propositions in Lactantius are censured, some of which, however, on the testimony of Isaeus himself, are to be interpreted in a kindly sense, as is customarily done at times with the ecclesiastical writers of the most ancient times. We rather gladly embrace the censorial annotations of Giovanni Maria Brasichelli, which are [the work] of a moderate theologian. His observations, although we have applied them to Lactantius where there was need, we nevertheless present below as it were in a single view.

XIII. Nec etiam Lactantio adjudices impia illa Manichaeorum

XIII. Nor should you attribute to Lactantius those impious Manichaean

Editors' notes and page, col. 63

Footnotes

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

Vide Lucam Wadingum in libro Scriptorum ordinis Minorum, in-folio, Romae 1650. Hic autem Raudensis librum edidit alium de Verbo bono, quem propter stylum multum exagitat Laurentius Valla.

See Luke Wadding in his book of the Writers of the Order of Friars Minor, folio, Rome 1650. This Raudensis also published another book, On the Good Word, which Lorenzo Valla harshly attacks for its style.

(printed under page 35)

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

Hujus in Raudensem epigramma versuum octo legitur in editione Lactantii Romana anni 1468, apud Petrum de Maximis, unde illud exscripsit Albertus Fabricius Bibliothecae Latinae Supplemento, pag. 395. Hoc eo loci dare nobis visum est : Hic male corripuit stolidis Antonius (Raudensis ausis / Auctorem : in variis causa pianda locis. / Non erat in tenebris errantes imaginis astrum / Dicere, vel nitidum luce carere jubar. / Denique cum sanctae Ecclesiae pia lumina constet. / Obsequio ex tanto conticuisse viro ; / Tu vero, eloquio lingua interdicta Latino, / I cubitum ; nam te pensitat elleborum.

An epigram of his against Raudensis, of eight lines, is read in the Roman edition of Lactantius of the year 1468, at Pietro de' Massimi's, from which Albert Fabricius copied it in the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Latina, page 395. We have thought good to give it here: "Here Antonius Raudensis, with foolish daring, wrongly rebuked the author: in various places the fault must be atoned for. It was not right to say that the star of the image wanders in darkness, or that the shining radiance lacks light. In short, since it is agreed that the pious lights of the holy Church fell silent in deference to so great a man, you, whose tongue is barred from Latin eloquence, go to bed; for hellebore is weighing you out."

(printed under page 35)

Page

running head: 63 PRÆFATIO IN LACTA[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A potuisset, quam facile aliena; B niente Candido Decembre desipere; C erratorum Lactantii libros tres; D beside the blank above this column's footnotes (no text line of col. 63)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:64

dogmata, quae quandoque in quibusdam mss. ejus codicibus ac editis leguntur. Ea enim vix reperies in vetustis exemplaribus; aut saltem in margine quorumdam adscripta sunt, velut extranea et peregrina. At uno verbo, Manichaeis non adhaesisse Lactantium, ex silentio S. Hieronymi et S. Augustini aliorumque scriptorum manifestum est. In Manichaeorum grege nullus unquam eum annumeravit, quod procul dubio non omisissent, si ansam in eo reprehensionis dedisset Lactantius. Hae etenim impietates saepissime assutae textui Lactantiano non modo perturbant Scriptoris sermonem, verum etiam ejus doctrinae plane sunt contrariae, ut data occasione ostendimus.

doctrines which are sometimes read in certain manuscript codices of his and in printed editions. For you will scarcely find them in the old exemplars; or at least they are written in the margin of some, as things foreign and alien. In a word, that Lactantius did not adhere to the Manichaeans is manifest from the silence of St Jerome and St Augustine and of other writers. No one ever counted him among the flock of the Manichaeans, which they would beyond doubt not have omitted, had Lactantius given them a handle for reproach in this. For these impieties, very often stitched onto the text of Lactantius, not only disturb the Writer's discourse, but are also plainly contrary to his doctrine, as we have shown when occasion offered.

XIV. Quamvis in explicanda Verbi divini generatione non erraverit Lactantius, minus tamen theologice locutus est: sed philosophorum loquendi modis utitur, quod interdum evenit iis auctoribus, qui ante Nicaenum scripserunt concilium, quo non doctrina tantum catholica dilucidius et planius quam antehac explicata est, verum etiam voces doctrinae christianae maxime consonae formatae sunt et constitutae. Caeterum verba quae ex capite 9 libri secundi Institutionum contra sensum Ecclesiae excerpta esse putantur, ea nec in antiquis leguntur exemplaribus, nec illis convenit cum doctrina Lactantii, qui Verbum, Dei Filium, ante saecula fuisse genitum pronuntiat (libro IV Instit., c. 6), quod negabant Ariani. Hunc etiam « summo Patri similem » pronuntiat (lib. IV, c. 13, initio): quin imo Isaias inquit (ibid.) Christum « et Deum fuisse et hominem testatur. » Sic porro ait cap. 19 libri VII: « Hic est enim liberator, et judex, et ultor, et Rex, et Deus, quem nos Christum vocamus. » Sed doctrinam catholicam, qualem eam reperias in Patribus ante-Nicaenis, atque in probatis illorum temporum scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, multis verbis praedicat auctor noster. « Cum dicimus, inquit, Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque secernimus, quia nec Pater sine Filio esse potest, nec Filius a Patre secerni... Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat, et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est... Et Filius ac Pater qui unanimes incolunt mundum Deus unus, quia et unus est tamquam duo, et duo tamquam unus... Denique unum Deum esse tam Patrem quam Filium Isaias ostendit. » Haec omnia scriptoris sunt apprime catholici, atque tum a verbis, tum a mente Arianorum omnino aliena, iisque maxime contraria. Hi enim nusquam dixerunt Patrem et Filium « unius esse substantiae. » Verum tantam sibi Lactantius, tum ob singularem facundiam, tum ob variam multiplicemque eruditionem, conciliaverat apud antiquos auctoritatem, ut ejus scripta, tamquam sibi faverent, ex ingenio corruperint haeretici quidam, sive Manichaei, sive Ariani.

XIV. Although Lactantius did not err in explaining the generation of the divine Word, he nevertheless spoke less theologically: rather he uses the philosophers' manners of speaking, which sometimes happens with those authors who wrote before the Council of Nicaea, by which not only was Catholic doctrine explained more clearly and plainly than before, but also terms most consonant with Christian doctrine were formed and established. For the rest, the words which are thought to have been taken from chapter 9 of the second book of the Institutes against the sense of the Church are neither read in the ancient exemplars, nor do they agree with the doctrine of Lactantius, who declares that the Word, the Son of God, was begotten before the ages (book 4 of the Institutes, ch. 6), which the Arians denied. He also declares Him "like to the supreme Father" (book 4, ch. 13, at the beginning): indeed, he says (ibid.), Isaiah testifies that Christ "was both God and man." So further he says in chapter 19 of book 7: "For this is the deliverer, and judge, and avenger, and King, and God, Whom we call Christ." But our author proclaims in many words the Catholic doctrine, such as you would find it in the ante-Nicene Fathers and in the approved ecclesiastical writers of those times. "When we speak," he says, "of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of something different, nor do we separate the two, because neither can the Father be without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father... Since therefore the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, there is one mind to both, one spirit, one substance... And the Son and the Father, Who dwell in the world with one mind, are one God, because the one is as two, and the two as one... Finally, Isaiah shows that both the Father and the Son are one God." All these are the words of an eminently Catholic writer, and wholly foreign, both in words and in mind, to the Arians, and most contrary to them. For they nowhere said that the Father and the Son are "of one substance." But Lactantius, both on account of his singular eloquence and on account of his varied and manifold learning, had won for himself such authority among the ancients that certain heretics, whether Manichaeans or Arians, corrupted his writings at their own fancy, as though they favoured them.

XV. At suspensus haereo propter S. Hieronymi auc⟨t⟩oritatem. Sanctus enim Doctor ait (Epist. ad Pammach.) Lactantium, « errore Judaico in libris suis, maxime in epistolis ad Demetrianum, negare substantiam Spiritus sancti. » Verum hujus erroris ne vestigium

XV. But I remain in suspense on account of the authority of St Jerome. For the holy Doctor says (Letter to Pammachius) that Lactantius, "by a Jewish error in his books, especially in the letters to Demetrianus, denies the substance of the Holy Spirit." But of this error not even a trace

Editors' notes and page, col. 64

Page

running head: [DISSERT]ATIO IN LACTANTIUM. 64 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹chaeorum dogmata›; B ‹gice locutus est›; C ‹19 libri VII›; D ‹catholici, atque tum›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:65

quidem extat in Institutionum, aliisque ejus libris. Hinc cum eodem Hieronymo (lib. I in Epistol. ad Galat., c. 4) dicere nobis liceat: « Quis mihi interdicere potest ne legam Institutionum libros, quibus contra Gentes scripsit fortissime, quia superior sententia detestenda est? » Ita porro locutus est erravitque Lactantius « per imperitiam Scripturarum, » ait idem sanctus Doctor.

survives in [the books] of the Institutes and in his other books. Hence, with the same Jerome (Book 1 on the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. 4), let us be permitted to say: "Who can forbid me to read the books of the Institutes, in which he wrote most forcefully against the Gentiles, because the former opinion is to be detested?" Thus, moreover, Lactantius spoke and erred "through ignorance of the Scriptures," says the same holy Doctor.

XVI. Nullus tamen diffitetur, in sententiam erroresque Millenariorum descendisse Lactantium. Existimavit enim, cum viris tunc apprime catholicis, Christum Dominum, vergente ad finem mundo, per mille annos cum justis hominibus in terra regnaturum. At jam a multo tempore sublatus est a Christiana religione hic error, cujus parens fuit vir quidam pius, Papias scilicet, episcopus Hierapoleos in Phrygia, ineunte saeculo secundo. Hunc autem, ex perperam intellecto Apocalypseos capite XX ortum, studiose comprobare nititur Lactantius, tum ex versibus Virgilianis, tum ex libris Sybillinis, qui medio eodem saeculo exarati creduntur, quique apud ipsum, atque alios scriptores ecclesiasticos, plurimum poterant. Sed illi non est venia deneganda, quam alii ob istud erratum acceperunt. Merito tamen et sapienter Gelasius papa, exeunte saeculo quinto, Lactantii opera una cum scriptis apocryphis annumerat, quod ea non poterant inoffensa omnino doctrina catholica perlegi a cunctis fidelibus.

XVI. No one, however, denies that Lactantius fell into the opinion and errors of the Millenarians. For he held, together with men who were at that time thoroughly catholic, that Christ the Lord, as the world was drawing towards its end, would reign on earth for a thousand years with just men. But this error has long since been removed from the Christian religion; its parent was a certain pious man, namely Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, at the beginning of the second century. This [error], which arose from a wrongly understood twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse, Lactantius zealously strives to prove, both from verses of Virgil and from the Sibylline books, which are believed to have been written in the middle of that same century, and which carried very great weight with him and with other ecclesiastical writers. But he must not be denied the pardon which others have received for that error. Rightly, however, and wisely did Pope Gelasius, at the end of the fifth century, number the works of Lactantius together with the apocryphal writings, because they could not be read through by all the faithful entirely without offence to catholic doctrine.

Ne autem lectorem verba et auctoritas Lactantii decipiant, et inducant in ejus errores, non tantum in notis illos depellimus, sed etiam in hujus tomi primi praemonitis diligenter, ex variis auctoribus, admonemus.

But lest the words and authority of Lactantius should deceive the reader and lead him into his errors, we not only refute them in the notes, but also give careful warning, drawing on various authors, in the preliminary notices of this first volume.

XVII. Nihilominus doctissimi quique ejus libros summo in pretio habebant; atque mirum est, quot in orbe litterario Lactantianorum operum codices manuscripti reperiantur. In sola Parisiensi urbe triginta septem et amplius innotuerunt mihi: multo plures invenias in aliis Galliae nostrae bibliothecis; qui vero caeteras Europae regiones perlustraret, uberiorem sane segetem consequeretur. Vaticana duodecim, Regia Taurinensis bibliotheca novem exhibent. Quid ab Hispanicis, maxime Scorialensi, omnino eruditis nostratibus ignota, quamvis referta rarioribus mss., quid a Neapolitanis, Vindobonensi, Veneta, Ambrosiana, Florentina, Cassinensi, Siculis expectandum esset? Non omnes tamen aeque sunt antiqui et optimae notae. Nullus tamen est praetermittendus, quippe qui ex antiquiori descriptus sit exemplari. Hinc erudito lectori persuasum esse debet, quanti scriptorem elegantissimum fecerint majores nostri. Multos tamen reperias saeculis XIV et XV exaratos. Tunc temporis enim iterum ardere coeperunt, in Italia praesertim, studia litterarum; atque Lactantium non propter solum latini sermonis nitorem, sed propter variam ac minime vulgarem eruditionem curarunt ubique describi. In emendandis porro diligenter auctoribus antiquis, unus non sufficit manuscriptus codex, sed plures sunt adhibendi. Ille quidem veram lectionem profert: sed alius eam confirmat; nec sine plurium testimonio aliquid certi depromere licet. Attamen est modus

XVII. Nevertheless, all the most learned men held his books in the highest esteem; and it is remarkable how many manuscript codices of the works of Lactantius are found in the world of letters. In the city of Paris alone, thirty-seven and more have come to my knowledge; you would find many more in the other libraries of our France; and whoever should survey the remaining regions of Europe would certainly gather a richer harvest. The Vatican library exhibits twelve, the Royal library of Turin nine. What might be expected from the Spanish libraries, above all that of the Escorial, which is wholly unknown to the learned of our country, although it is filled with rarer manuscripts, and what from those of Naples, Vienna, Venice, the Ambrosiana, Florence, Monte Cassino and Sicily? Not all, however, are equally ancient and of the best quality. Yet none is to be passed over, since each has been copied from an older exemplar. Hence the learned reader ought to be persuaded how highly our forefathers valued this most elegant writer. Many, however, you may find written in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. For at that time the study of letters began to burn again, in Italy especially; and they took care that Lactantius should be copied everywhere, not only for the brilliance of his Latin style, but for his varied and far from common learning. Moreover, in carefully emending ancient authors, one manuscript codex does not suffice, but several must be employed. One indeed offers the true reading, but another confirms it; nor is it permissible to draw out anything certain without the testimony of several. Yet there is a measure

Editors' notes and page, col. 65

Page

running head: 65 PRÆFATIO IN LACTAN (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹gium quidem extat in Institutionum›; B ‹pias scilicet, episcopus Hierapoleos›; C ‹monitis diligenter, ex variis auctoribus›; D ‹Nullus tamen est praetermittendus›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: whole column is editors' matter (Praefatio in Lactantium: ‹gium quidem extat›, sections XVI-XVII); first word "gium" is the end of a word broken from the previous column (probably vestigium, rendered "trace", unsure); "Nihilominus" looks like "Nibilominus" in the image, possibly damaged h, unsure; "Sybillinis" set as printed (normal spelling Sibyllinis); stray dot before "Vindobonensi" not set; column ends mid-sentence at "modus"

PL 6:66

quidam adhibendus, ne amanuensis erratum loco veri scriptorum sermonis suscipiatur.

of some sort to be applied, lest a copyist's error be taken up in place of the true wording of the writers.

Eorum qualemcunque pertexuimus indicem, addito, quantum in nobis fuit, scriptionis tempore, ne in censuram eruditorum incurreremus. Nec igitur sine ratione Gallaeus culpatur, merito Isaeus ipse improbatur, qui cum duodecim Vaticanos codices inspexerit, eorum tamen aetatem non indicavit. Recte ergo, quin imo et rectissime, Bunemannus ait (Praefationis suae Lactantianae editionis, pag. 7): «Non dubito post Isaei tempora plures codices in Vaticanam (Bibliothecam fuisse) illatos. Utinam, inquit, opitulante EMINENTISSIMO PASSIONEO, praecipuo litterarum elegantiorum patrono, aliquis inde ad Lactantium illustrandum fructus etiam postliminio redundaret!»

We have woven together a list of them, such as it is, adding, as far as lay in our power, the date of writing, so as not to incur the censure of the learned. Not without reason, therefore, is Gallaeus blamed, and deservedly is Isaeus himself censured, who, though he inspected twelve Vatican codices, nevertheless did not indicate their age. Rightly, then, nay most rightly, Bünemann says (Preface to his edition of Lactantius, p. 7): «I do not doubt that after the time of Isaeus more codices were brought into the Vatican (Library). Would that, he says, with the help of the MOST EMINENT PASSIONEI, foremost patron of the more elegant letters, some fruit might also flow back from there, by right of return, to the illustration of Lactantius!»

XVIII. Variae nunc brevi percurrendae sunt Lactantii editiones. Vix unus aut alter est scriptores inter profanos, ne dicam ecclesiasticos, quem saepius vel docti emendaverint, vel excuderint bibliopolae. Centies integer praelo subjectus est: ejus vero libri aliquod quindecies et amplius cum notis vulgati sunt. Atque ab ipsis typographiae incunabulis, ante annum primum saeculi decimi sexti, decies septies in lucem prodierunt: quod vix reperias in aliquo alio scriptore. Aliquando ter, saepius bis unoquoque anno diversis in urbibus publici juris fecerunt eum eruditi tum catholici, tum a cultu catholico Romano alieni. Itali, Galli, Germani, Hispani, Batavi, Angli hunc notis, quantum in iis fuit, illustrarunt. Attamen non aeque omnes sunt utiles: adhuc aliquid, non solum ut textus ab omnibus amanuensium mendis liber fieret, verum etiam ut apprime mentem auctoris assequeremur, desiderabant doctiores quique; fatenturque (Nicolaus le Nourry, e congregatione S. Mauri Benedictinus, in Apparatu ad Biblioth. SS. Patr., t. II, col. 658) « nullam ex omnibus his editionibus esse omnino perfectam, omnibusque suis numeris et partibus expletam. » Equidem vetustissimae loco tantum sunt mss. codicum, quos repraesentant. Si enim exemplaria, ex quibus exprimuntur, truncata fuerunt et corrupta, procul dubio editum mancum est et imperfectum. Sic editio rarissima anni 1465 in multis deficit, quippe quae ab uno tantum codice, eoque imperfecto, fuerit deprompta. Graeca quandoque praetermissa sunt; saepius etiam absunt quidam versus et commata. Ita fere est de editis, quae vulgata sunt prioribus istis temporibus. Vix textus emendatus utcumque nobis suppetit ante Aldinas editiones ope et cura tum Baptistae Egnatii, tum Honorati Fasitellii. Verum ab eo tempore ad annum 1544, quo prodiit emendatior editio Coloniensis, vix ulla est, quae lectori possit satisfacere.

XVIII. The various editions of Lactantius must now be briefly run through. There is scarcely one writer or another among the profane, not to say the ecclesiastical, whom the learned have more often emended or booksellers more often printed. He has been put to the press entire a hundred times, while some of his books have been published with notes fifteen times and more. And from the very cradle of printing, before the first year of the sixteenth century, [his works] came to light seventeen times, something you would scarcely find in any other writer. Sometimes three times, more often twice in a single year, in different cities, scholars both Catholic and estranged from the Roman Catholic worship made him public. Italians, French, Germans, Spaniards, Dutch and English have illustrated him with notes, as far as lay in their power. Yet not all are equally useful: all the more learned still desired something more, not only that the text should be freed from all the faults of copyists, but also that we should grasp the author's meaning exactly; and they acknowledge (Nicolas le Nourry, Benedictine of the Congregation of St Maur, in the Apparatus ad Bibliothecam Sanctorum Patrum, vol. 2, col. 658) «that none of all these editions is wholly perfect and complete in all its numbers and parts.» Indeed the oldest [editions] stand only in place of the manuscript codices which they reproduce. For if the exemplars from which they are printed were mutilated and corrupt, the printed text is without doubt defective and imperfect. Thus the very rare edition of the year 1465 is deficient in many places, since it was drawn from only one codex, and that an imperfect one. The Greek is sometimes omitted; more often, too, certain lines and clauses are missing. Such is roughly the case with the printed editions which were published in those earlier times. A text emended in any way at all is scarcely available to us before the Aldine editions, produced by the labour and care of Baptista Egnatius and of Honoratus Fasitellius. But from that time until the year 1544, when the more correct Cologne edition appeared, there is scarcely one that could satisfy the reader.

XIX. Sed ad Lactantium planius intelligendum, propter variam ejus doctrinam, necessariae sunt annotationes. Atque primus omnium Xystus Betuleius integras elaboravit, quae anno 1563, post ejus mortem, Basileae vulgatae fuerunt. Erasmus quidem jam anno 1529, in librum de Opificio Dei annotatiunculas ediderat, sicut et Willichius anno 1542,

XIX. But for understanding Lactantius more plainly, on account of his varied learning, annotations are necessary. And first of all Xystus Betuleius worked out complete ones, which were published at Basel in the year 1563, after his death. Erasmus, it is true, had already in the year 1529 published brief little notes on the book On the Workmanship of God, as also Willichius did in the year 1542,

Editors' notes and page, col. 66

Page

running head: …TIO IN LACTANTIUM. 66 (left part cut off at the image edge; presumably DISSERTATIO IN LACTANTIUM.)
marginal letters: A quidam adhibendus; B XVIII. Variae nunc; C tus ab omnibus amanuensium; D mata. Ita fere est
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set throughout (prolegomena, Dissertatio in Lactantium): ‹quidam adhibendus›, ‹Eorum qualemcunque›, ‹XVIII. Variae nunc›, ‹XIX. Sed ad Lactantium›; column begins and ends mid-sentence; EMINENTISSIMO PASSIONEO printed in small capitals, set in capitals; stray mark after "quique" before the semicolon not set; "(Bibliothecam fuisse)" set as printed; "aliquod" cannot agree with plural "libri ... vulgati sunt", so it is taken as a misprint for "aliquot" (UNSURE).

PL 6:67

Sed Betuleius vix mss. codicum rationem habuit. Ejus notae multo quam par est prolixiores, et ad eruditionis variae ostentationem, non ad legentium utilitatem sunt elaboratae. Michael Thomasius Taxaquetius melius aliquid molitus est: sed jejune admodum usus est duobus antiquissimis Bononiensibus exemplaribus et Vaticanis septem, quae viderat. Plane igitur et perfecte medicam manum omnibns Lactantiani textus vulneribus non adhibuit. Multo perfectior est Isaei emendatio, quae Caesenae in Italia vulgata fuit in anno 1646, ex Vaticanis duodecim codicibus expressa. Criticas non solum, sed etiam theologicas annotationes apposnit. Thysius paucas admodum, et nullius fere momenti notas textui Lactantiano aspersit; primusque mihi visus est auctorem nostrum corrupisse libri I, capite 15. Quam corruptelam amplexus est, atque longiori, quam par est, annotatione contra bonos mores ac veritatem evangelicam defendit Gallaeus, ut pro usnra propugnaret; nec eam emendare sategerunt Sparkius et Walchius. Gallaeus ipse, anno 1660, emendatiorem ac nitidiorem juvenis molitus est Lactantii editionem, quam notis undique conquisitis, extraneis saepe, et ad controversias theologicas spectantibus illustravit. Sparkius Gallaeo, etsi multo parcior, doctior tamen fuit. Cantabrigiensis editor fatetur, se iterum cudere Thomasianum textum. Cellarius quasdam, sed nec inutiles notas, nec indoctas adjunxit sat emendatae suae editioni. Joannes Georgius Walchius vix annos natus viginti in Lactantio emendando specimen acris judicii edidit atque doctrinae, qua nunc in patria illustrior habetur; mirorque in hac juvenili aetate opus senile non obiisse modo, sed et excogitasse. Christophorus Augustus Heumannus elegantem sane excudit, tum ob textus Lactantiani emendationem, quam tamen, ipso fatente, a Christophoro Cellario mutuatus est, tum ob suas notas, quae singulare in arte critica studium, accuratamque diligentiam exhibent. Multo plura tamen, quam debuisset, glossemata excogitat in Lactantium a viris parum litteratis inducta fuisse. Occurritne difficile aliquid, tunc subest illi cujusdam additamenti suspicio, aut etiam querela, verum saepissime falsa, utpote nullius fulta manuscripti codicis auctoritate? Tandem Joan. Ludolphus Bunemannus in edendo Lactantio palmam aliis omnibus praeripuit. Tanta enim variarum animadversionum ubertas, diversarum lectionum tam multiplex affluit copia, tam argutum judicii enitet acumen in hac sua editione, ut nullus ante illum eo usque progressus fuerit. Sat ipsi non fuit tot mss. codices, tam multas variasque conferre editiones; Scriptorem nostrum cum latinae linguae principibus aeque contulit, ut persuasum sit omnibus, Lactantium auctores inter ecclesiasticos disertissimum fuisse. Hunc quippe ad quinquaginta duos mss. codices, vulgatosque quinquaginta quinque emendavit. Merito igitur magnam in Germania laudem ob emendatum Lactantium consecutus est vir eruditissimus. Miror tamen illum, adhibitis historicis annotationibus, ad optatam

But Betuleius took scarcely any account of the manuscript codices. His notes are far more prolix than is fitting, and were worked up for the display of varied erudition, not for the benefit of readers. Michael Thomasius Taxaquetius attempted something better: but he made very meagre use of two most ancient exemplars of Bologna and seven of the Vatican, which he had seen. Plainly, therefore, he did not apply a healing hand fully and perfectly to all the wounds of the Lactantian text. Far more perfect is the emendation of Isaeus, which was published at Cesena in Italy in the year 1646, drawn from twelve Vatican codices. He added not only critical but also theological annotations. Thysius sprinkled very few notes, and of almost no importance, over the Lactantian text; and he seems to me the first to have corrupted our author in book 1, chapter 15. This corruption Gallaeus embraced, and in an annotation longer than is fitting defended it against good morals and evangelical truth, so as to fight on behalf of usury; nor did Sparkius and Walchius take pains to correct it. Gallaeus himself, in the year 1660, as a young man undertook a more correct and more elegant edition of Lactantius, which he illustrated with notes gathered from every side, often extraneous, and bearing on theological controversies. Sparkius, though much more sparing than Gallaeus, was nevertheless more learned. The Cambridge editor admits that he is printing the Thomasian text again. Cellarius added certain notes, neither useless nor unlearned, to his fairly correct edition. Johann Georg Walch, scarcely twenty years of age, in emending Lactantius gave a specimen of keen judgement and of learning, for which he is now held the more illustrious in his native land; and I marvel that at so youthful an age he not only undertook a work fit for an old man, but even devised it. Christoph August Heumann printed a truly elegant [edition], both for its emendation of the Lactantian text, which nevertheless, by his own admission, he borrowed from Christoph Cellarius, and for his own notes, which display a singular zeal in the critical art and an exact diligence. Yet he imagines far more glosses than he ought to have been introduced into Lactantius by men of little learning. Does anything difficult occur? Then there lies beneath it, for him, the suspicion of some addition, or even a complaint, but very often a false one, inasmuch as it is supported by the authority of no manuscript codex. At last Joh. Ludolph Bünemann in editing Lactantius snatched the palm from all others. For such a richness of varied observations, so manifold an abundance of different readings flows in, so subtle a sharpness of judgement shines out in this edition of his, that no one before him had advanced so far. It was not enough for him to collate so many manuscript codices and so many and various editions; he compared our writer equally with the chief authors of the Latin language, so that all are persuaded that Lactantius was the most eloquent among the ecclesiastical authors. Indeed, he emended him against fifty-two manuscript codices and fifty-five printed ones. Deservedly, therefore, did this most learned man win great praise in Germany for his emended Lactantius. I marvel, however, that he, having applied historical annotations, to the desired

Editors' notes and page, col. 67

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO IN LACTA[NTIUM] (cut off at the right edge), column number 67
marginal letters: A Sed Betuleius vix mss.; B nostrum corrupisse libri I; C cii edidit atque doctrinae; D praeripuit. Tanta enim
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: continuation of the Praefatio in Lactantium (Sed Betuleius vix mss. codicum...), set in full; column begins and ends mid-passage (ends "ad optatam"); "paucas" has a damaged c (reads like "paueas"); "Betuleius" t/l indistinct in this type (could read "Beluleius"), kept as Betuleius; stray marks before "habuit" and after "est:" ignored as type damage

PL 6:68

metam opus tam eximium non perduxisse; cum jam fortis, jam ingentis cursus emensus esset spatium. Nil factu erat facilius: minus procul dubio laboris fuisset ex antiquis ea colligere, quae apta sunt ad hunc auctorem explicandum; plus tamen scientiae, plus contulisset ingenii.

goal did not bring so excellent a work; since he had already traversed the space of a course already strong, already vast. Nothing was easier to do: without doubt there would have been less labour in gathering from the ancients those things which are suited to explaining this author; yet he would have contributed more learning, more talent.

XX. Quid alii in edendo Lactantio praestiterint, diximus; quid jam in hac editione praestemus, nostrum est enarrare. Quanquam de auctore nostro optime sit meritus Joan. Bapt. le Brun, quaedam tamen ejus annotationibus addenda esse putavi. Vix mihi creditum est hujus editoris autographum Lactantianum, cum in mentem mihi venit, ut quas ipse notas congesseram olim, in unum cum variis lectionibus a Joanne le Brun collectis copularem atque jungerem. Hac ratione existimavi fieri posse, ut eruditorum omninm animadversiones haec novissima repraesentaret editio, atque cunctarum instar esse posset. Alias, non omnes tamen, verum selectas et utiliores conquisivi et elegi in Erasmo, Betuleio, Thomasio, Isaeo, Gallaeo, Sparkio, Cellario, Walchio et Heumanno. At Isaei editio cum raro venum eat, ejus tamen notae sint eruditae, et ad rationem theologicam saepius exaratae, integras eas adjungere visum est ad calcem prioris voluminis, ne desiderent aliquid lectores in hac ultima Lactantii editione, quae omnes alias uno quasi intuitu complectitur. Si ergo subjiciatur textui Lactantiano qnaedam annotatio historica aut critica, ne dubites, ea est Lengletii: si vero subsint lectiones variae, eas, quibusdam tamen exceptis, Joanni le Brun adjudices. Haec est norma hujus curas ab alterius opera secernendi. Verum quae ad grammaticam, aliorumque scriptorum cum Lactantii verbis collationem spectant, vix attigimus. Si cui porro necessariae forent notae, vel potius disquisitiones in Lactantium theologicae, eas uberrime dabit Domnus Nicolaus le Nourry, e congregatione S. Mauri Benedictinus, tom. II Apparatus ad Bibliothecam Sanctorum Patrum, a columna 571 ad 1172.

XX. What others have accomplished in editing Lactantius, we have said; what we now accomplish in this edition, it is ours to relate. Although Jean-Baptiste le Brun deserved exceedingly well of our author, I nevertheless thought that certain things should be added to his annotations. Hardly had this editor's Lactantian autograph been entrusted to me, when it came into my mind to couple and join into one the notes which I myself had once gathered together with the various readings collected by Jean le Brun. In this way I judged that it could come about that this newest edition would present the observations of all the learned, and could stand in the place of them all. Others, yet not all, but chosen and more useful ones, I sought out and selected in Erasmus, Betuleius, Thomasius, Isaeus, Gallaeus, Sparke, Cellarius, Walch and Heumann. But since the edition of Isaeus is rarely on sale, while his notes are learned and quite often written with a theological bent, it seemed good to add them entire at the end of the first volume, so that readers may lack nothing in this latest edition of Lactantius, which embraces all the others as it were at a single glance. If, then, some historical or critical annotation is placed beneath the text of Lactantius, do not doubt that it is Lenglet's; but if variant readings stand beneath, assign them, with certain exceptions, to Jean le Brun. This is the rule for distinguishing the labours of the one from the work of the other. But matters that concern grammar, and the comparison of other writers with the words of Lactantius, we have scarcely touched. If, further, anyone should need notes, or rather theological inquiries into Lactantius, Dom Nicolas le Nourry, a Benedictine of the Congregation of St Maur, will supply them most abundantly in volume 2 of the Apparatus to the Library of the Holy Fathers, from column 571 to 1172.

XXI. Attamen quosdam manuscriptos codices, editionesque nonnullas a Joanne le Brun nusquam visas conquisivi. Codicem unum eximium, etsi quadringentorum tantum annorum, suppeditavit exquisitissima Bibliotheca Eminentissimi cardinalis de Rohan, nusquam a theologis, imo nec a litteratis omnibus sine laude nominandi. Codicem alium trecentorum et amplius annorum perhumaniter, ut solet, subministravit R. P. Domnus Ludovicus Lemerault, Regiae Sangermanensi Bibliothecae praefectus: collationes quorumdam Italicorum manuscriptorum a Latino Latinio factas, quae in ejus Bibliotheca non legnntur, aliasque etiam a Petro Ciacconio collectas ultro commodavit D. Claudius Prevotius canonicus regularis ex regalis abbatiae Genovefanae Bibliotheca desumptas. Duos codices ut ad me mitterentur benigne concessit insigne capitulum Cameracense, unum decimi vel undecimi, sed lacerum, alterum integrum decimi quinti tantum saeculi. Quintum tandem habuimus ex Bibliotheca patrum Capucinorum conventus sancti Honorati Parisi⟨e⟩nsis,

XXI. Yet I sought out certain manuscript codices, and some editions nowhere seen by Jean le Brun. One excellent codex, though only four hundred years old, was furnished by the most exquisite Library of the Most Eminent Cardinal de Rohan, a man never to be named without praise by theologians, nay, nor by any of the lettered. Another codex, of three hundred years and more, was most courteously supplied, as is his custom, by the Reverend Father Dom Louis Lemerault, prefect of the Royal Library of Saint-Germain; collations of certain Italian manuscripts made by Latino Latini, which are not read in his Library, and others also collected by Pedro Chacón, were freely lent by Dom Claude Prévost, canon regular, taken from the Library of the royal abbey of Sainte-Geneviève. The distinguished chapter of Cambrai kindly allowed two codices to be sent to me, one of the tenth or eleventh century, but mutilated, the other entire, of the fifteenth century only. A fifth, finally, we had from the Library of the Capuchin fathers of the convent of Saint-Honoré of Paris,

Editors' notes and page, col. 68

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge]TIO IN LACTANTIUM. 68
marginal letters: A metam opus tam eximium; B Hac ratione existimavi; C ceptis, Joanni le Brun; D laude nominandi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: whole column is from the editor's (Lenglet du Fresnoy's) dissertation on Lactantius (Quid alii in edendo Lactantio...); running head cut off at left, prob. DISSERTATIO; left-column fragments belong to col. 67 and are not set; first letter of fortis damaged, read fortis; "a Joanne", "codices", "aliasque" partly damaged type, read as set; tom. II printed in small capitals; last word Pari- (Parisiensis) broken at column end

PL 6:69

ejusdem fere scriptionis ac est Sangermanensis codex, paulo tamen recentiorem. Manu exaratum codicem Lactantii librorum de Ira et de Opificio Dei quadringentorum circiter annorum habet Joan. le Beuf, Regiae Inscriptionum ac Litterarum Academiae socius. Hunc libenter utendum ad me misit, ex eoque aliqua decerpsimus. Manuscriptum quoddam Coloniense exhibet praeclara et emendata editio anni 1544. Ad septuaginta igitur quinque codices, quos enumerabat Joannes le Brun, additi sunt à me quinque, aut etiam sex alii.

of nearly the same script as the Saint-Germain codex, though somewhat more recent. A handwritten codex of Lactantius' books On the Wrath and On the Workmanship of God, about four hundred years old, is held by Jean le Beuf, member of the Royal Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. He kindly sent it to me for use, and from it we have drawn some things. A certain Cologne manuscript is presented by the excellent and corrected edition of the year 1544. To the seventy-five codices, then, which Jean le Brun enumerated, five, or even six, others have been added by me.

Idem sit judicium de pluribus, iisque rarissimis editionibus, quas non viderat Joan. le Brun, ac praecipue de Sublacensi anni 1465, quae omnium princeps est et primaria, quin etiam et rarissima; hujus quippe quinque vix reperias exemplaria: unum Romae, in Barberina Bibliotheca; alterum in Mogontinensis ecclesiae archivio litterario; tertium in eximio musaeo viri clarissimi ac eruditi Claudii de Boze, utriusque Academiae, tum Gallicae, tum Regiae Inscriptionum socii, atque Regiorum Numismatum scriniis praepositi: quartum exemplar Tiguri extat, in Bibliotheca Carolina; quintum tandem in Bibliotheca Scholae Zwickaviensis (Cycneae) servatur. Hujus editionis variae lectiones sigillatim hic edentur. Contulimus praeterea hunc auctorem nostrum ad Parisiense editum anno 1513, quamvis caeteris minus emendatum. Sed magnopere attendimus editionibus Coloniensi anni 1544, Heumannianae anni 1736, atque aliis quibusdam, quas non inspexerat Joannes le Brun.

Let the same judgement hold of several editions, and those very rare ones, which Jean le Brun had not seen, and especially of the Subiaco edition of the year 1465, which is the first and foremost of all, and indeed also the rarest; for of it you would scarcely find five copies: one at Rome, in the Barberini Library; another in the literary archive of the church of Mainz; a third in the outstanding museum of the most distinguished and learned man Claude de Boze, member of both Academies, the French and the Royal Academy of Inscriptions, and keeper of the Royal Cabinet of Medals; a fourth copy exists at Zurich, in the Caroline Library; a fifth, finally, is preserved in the Library of the School of Zwickau (Cygnea). The variant readings of this edition will be given here one by one. We have moreover collated this author of ours with the Paris edition published in the year 1513, although it is less correct than the others. But we have paid great attention to the editions of Cologne of the year 1544, of Heumann of the year 1736, and to certain others which Jean le Brun had not examined.

Jam metam laboris attingebam, cum mihi nuntiatum fuit a magnae spei juvenibus, doctissimi viri Joan. Georgii Walchii filiis, cum me Parisiis invisere, virum aeque clarissimum ac eruditissimum, Jo. Ludolphum Bunemannum, novissimam anno 1739, vulgasse in Germania Lactantianorum operum editionem. Eam statim conquisivi, atque ex ea decerpsi non paucas annotationes, eas etiam, quae huic nostrae emendationi adversantur. Illasque praemisi textui Lactantiano in utroque hujusce editionis volumine.

I was already reaching the goal of my labour when I was informed by young men of great promise, the sons of the most learned Johann Georg Walch, when they visited me at Paris, that a man equally most distinguished and most learned, Johann Ludolph Bünemann, had very recently, in the year 1739, published in Germany an edition of the works of Lactantius. I sought it out at once, and from it I drew not a few annotations, even those which run contrary to this emendation of ours. And these I have placed before the text of Lactantius in both volumes of this edition.

XXII. Huc usque de Divinis tantum Institutionibus verba feci: alia tamen opuscula edidit Lactantius, quorum plura vel interierunt, vel alicubi delitescunt. Verum quo putantur ordine elaborata esse, non abs re erit inquirere. Quod ut rectius fiat, quid de scriptore illo dixerit S. Hieronymus (de Scriptorib. ecclesiasticis, cap. 80), in medium est afferendum. « Firmianus, inquit, qui et Lactantius, Arnobii discipulus, sub Diocletiano principe accitus cum Fannio grammatico, cujus de Medicinalibus versu compositi extant libri, Nicomediae rhetoricam docuit, ac penuria discipulorum ob graecam civitatem, ad scribendum se contulit. Habemus ejus Symposium, quod adolescentulus in scholis scripsit Africae, et Ὁδοιπορικὸν de Africa usque Nicomediam, hexametris scriptum versibus, et alium librum qui inscribitur Grammaticus, et alium pulcherrimum de Ira Dei, et Institutionum Divinarum adversus Gentes libros septem, et Ἐπιτομὴν ejusdem operis in libro uno ἀκεφάλω,

XXII. Up to this point I have spoken only of the Divine Institutes; yet Lactantius published other small works, of which most have either perished or lie hidden somewhere. But it will not be beside the point to inquire in what order they are thought to have been composed. That this may be done more correctly, what St Jerome said of that writer (On Ecclesiastical Writers, ch. 80) must be brought forward. « Firmianus, he says, who is also called Lactantius, a disciple of Arnobius, having been summoned under the emperor Diocletian together with Fannius the grammarian, whose books On Medicines composed in verse are extant, taught rhetoric at Nicomedia, and, from lack of pupils because the city was Greek, he betook himself to writing. We have his Symposium, which he wrote as a youth in the schools of Africa, and a Hodoeporicon from Africa as far as Nicomedia, written in hexameter verses, and another book which is entitled the Grammarian, and another most beautiful one On the Wrath of God, and seven books of Divine Institutes against the Gentiles, and an Epitome of the same work in one book, headless,

Editors' notes and page, col. 69

Page

running head: 69 PRÆFATIO IN LACTA[NTIUM] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A si⟨e⟩nsis, ejusdem fere scriptionis; B quippe quinque vix reperias; C Jam metam laboris attingebam; D fiat, quid de scriptore illo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with word fragment broken from previous column, second letter damaged (si⟨e⟩nsis); editors' matter set throughout (preface: si⟨e⟩nsis, ejusdem fere scriptionis…); "quas non viderat" — type looks like "now", read as damaged "non"; "Illasque" uncertain, type shows "Hlasque" (could be Hasque); "cum me Parisiis invisere" set as printed though grammar suggests inviserent; ἀκεφάλω printed without visible iota subscript

PL 6:70

et ad Asclepiadem libros duos; de Persecutione librum unum; ad Probum Epistolarum libros quatuor; ad Severum Epistolarum libros duos; ad Demetrianum auditorem suum Epistolarum libros duos; ad eumdem de Opificio Dei, vel Formatione hominis librum unum. Hic extrema senectute magister Caesaris Crispi, filii Constantini, in Gallia fuit, qui postea a patre interfectus est. »

and to Asclepiades two books; on the Persecution one book; to Probus four books of Letters; to Severus two books of Letters; to Demetrianus, his pupil, two books of Letters; to the same, on the Workmanship of God, or the Formation of Man, one book. In extreme old age he was in Gaul the teacher of the Caesar Crispus, son of Constantine, who was afterwards put to death by his father. »

Ex his sancti Doctoris verbis, aliisque documentis elici, non certo quidem, sed non improbabili conjectura potest, tempus quo unumquemque librum ediderit Lactantius. Jam is extremam senectutem erat adeptus, cum in Gallias missus est a Constantino, ut Crispum filium litteris erudiret, quod factum est, juxta Eusebii Chronicon, circa annum 318. Hanc senectutem extremam conjicere licet fuisse ad annum circiter septuagesimum. Ab annis igitur 318 si dempseris septuaginta, supersunt 248, quo aerae christianae anno natus forsan est Lactantius noster.

From these words of the holy Doctor, and from other documents, the time at which Lactantius published each book can be drawn out, not indeed by a certain, but by a not improbable conjecture. He had already reached extreme old age when he was sent into Gaul by Constantine to instruct his son Crispus in letters, which happened, according to the Chronicle of Eusebius, about the year 318. This extreme old age we may conjecture to have been about the seventieth year. If therefore you subtract seventy from 318 years, there remain 248, in which year of the Christian era our Lactantius was perhaps born.

At juxta Hieronymum, hic, cum esset adolescentulus in scholis Africae, scripsit Symposium anno, ut puto, 268. Hoc deperditum crediderunt eruditi. At non semel illud edidit sub nomine Lactantii Heumannus; nec multum abnuit Bunemannus. Attamen haec aenigmata Symposio cuidam a veteribus tribuuntur, ut apprime notat Albertus Frabicius in Bibliothecae Latinae supplemento p. 271. Nihilominus tamen illud iterum excudi curavi tomo II hujusce editionis. Istud autem Symposium, opus quidem juvenile, centum continet aenigmata versibus exarata, quae prius vulgata fuerant sub Symphosii vel Symposii, ignoti cujusdam poetae nomine: aliquae tamen editiones titulum praeferunt: Coelii Firmiani Symposii Poetae.

But according to Jerome, he, while he was a young man in the schools of Africa, wrote the Symposium, in the year, as I think, 268. The learned believed this lost. But Heumann more than once published it under the name of Lactantius; nor did Bünemann much object. Nevertheless these riddles are attributed by the ancients to a certain Symposius, as Albert Fabricius notes very well in the supplement to the Bibliotheca Latina, p. 271. Nonetheless I have had it printed again in volume II of this edition. Now this Symposium, a youthful work indeed, contains a hundred riddles composed in verse, which had previously been published under the name of Symphosius or Symposius, an unknown poet; some editions, however, bear the title: Of Coelius Firmianus Symposius the Poet.

Elegantius vero est Carmen de Phoenice, quod acris aeque ac limati judicii vir, Nicolaus Heinsius, Lactantii foetum agnoscit et praedicat. Idem censet Petrus Lambecius in eruditissimis de Bibliotheca Caesareo-Vindobonensi Commentariis, l. II, cap. 8, p. 788. Ac doctiores quidam tum ante, tum post Lambecium, in eamdem loquuntur sententiam; atque multis in mss. sub Lactantii nomine legitur. Sic etiam habet codex Sangermanensis: « Ista carmina dicuntur esse Lactantii. » Quae si sint scriptoris hujus, illa circa annum 280 scripta sunt, cum jam in maturiorem aetatem adoleverat: nondum tamen Christo nomen dederat Lactantius. Ea etiam dedimus tomo secundo nostrae editionis.

More elegant indeed is the Poem on the Phoenix, which Nicolaas Heinsius, a man of judgement as keen as it was polished, recognizes and proclaims as the offspring of Lactantius. Peter Lambeck holds the same in his most learned Commentaries on the Imperial Library of Vienna, book 2, chapter 8, p. 788. And certain more learned men, both before and after Lambeck, speak to the same opinion; and in many manuscripts it is read under the name of Lactantius. So too the Saint-Germain codex has: "These poems are said to be by Lactantius." If they are by this writer, they were written about the year 280, when he had already grown to a more mature age; Lactantius, however, had not yet given his name to Christ. These too we have given in the second volume of our edition.

At cum, Diocletiano imperante, ex Africa Nicomediam accitus fuerit Scriptor elegantissimus, ut rhetoricam doceret, atque Ὁδοιπορικὸν, id est itinerarium suum, hexametris versibus scripserit, mens mea est annum circiter 290 in Bithyniam advocatum hunc fuisse. Diocletianus enim non est imperio potitus, nisi anno 284. Peractis autem in Europa bellis quibusdam, Asiam repetiit anno 289, a quo, ut puto, petierunt Nicomedienses, ut ad se vir ille disertissimus accerseretur. Id vero a solo poterant Imperatore exorare atque impetrare. Eodem forte tempore Grammaticum scripsit Lactantius. Uterque autem liber non invenitur.

But since, in the reign of Diocletian, the most elegant Writer was summoned from Africa to Nicomedia to teach rhetoric, and wrote his Hodoeporicon, that is, his itinerary, in hexameter verses, my opinion is that he was called into Bithynia about the year 290. For Diocletian did not obtain the empire until the year 284. And having finished certain wars in Europe, he returned to Asia in the year 289, and of him, as I think, the Nicomedians requested that that most eloquent man be fetched to them. This indeed they could beg and obtain from the Emperor alone. Perhaps at the same time Lactantius wrote the Grammaticus. Neither book, however, is to be found.

Editors' notes and page, col. 70

Page

running head: [DISSERT]ATIO IN LACTANTIUM. 70 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹et ad Asclepiadem libros duos›; B ‹senectutem extremam conjicere licet›; C ‹fuerant sub Symphosii vel Symposii›; D ‹Ea etiam dedimus tomo secundo›
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints (kept as printed): "Frabicius" for "Fabricius" (para At juxta Hieronymum, "Albertus Frabicius") (Q2 2026-11-02: added)
other: editors' matter: whole column is the editors' Dissertatio in Lactantium (‹et ad Asclepiadem libros duos›, end of a quotation from Jerome, De viris illustribus; ‹Ex his sancti Doctoris verbis›); a small mark like "t." or "†" stands before "Ex his", unclear (possibly a damaged paragraph numeral or note call), not set; several u/n confusions (Lactantins, adeptns, missns, filiam) taken as faint type and set as Lactantius, adeptus, missus, filium; "280" and "289" have damaged first digits (the latter looks like 189), read from context, UNSURE; "l. n" read as l. II; Greek breathing on Ὁδοιπορικὸν unclear in the image

PL 6:71

Sed cum Christo fuerit postea mancipatus, veram in Asia suscepit religionem, forsan anno 295, septem vel octo annis antequam in Fideles fureret persecutio. Hac saeviente, scripsit Lactantius libellum eximium de Opificio Dei, circa annum 310, ad Demetrianum quondam auditorem suum, ut quem litteris nihil aliud quam linguam instruentibus erudierat, ipsi non deesset honestioris rei, meliorisque doctrinae praeceptor (De Opificio Dei, cap. 1). Hunc librum ita philosophice scripsit Lactantius, ut ex eo tamen facile Christianus mandata coelestia hauriat. Obscurius nihilominus, ipso fatente (De Opificio Dei, cap. 20), locutus est, quam decuit, idque pro rerum ac temporis necessitate, plura et meliora editurus, si indulgentia coelitus venerit. Quae verba procul dubio saevientem indicant persecutionem. Tunc autem meditabatur Lactantius grandius quoddam volumen contra philosophos, et de iis quae ad vitae beatae statum spectant (Ibid.). Hic non obscure indicat Divinas Institutiones, quarum libri priores contra Philosophos scripti sunt, ultimus de Vita Beata disserit. Non igitur illas jam ediderat Lactantius, quod multo clarius elucet legentibus caput 20 libri de Opificio Dei.

But when he had afterwards been made over to Christ, he took up the true religion in Asia, perhaps in the year 295, seven or eight years before the persecution raged against the Faithful. While it was raging, Lactantius wrote the excellent little book On the Workmanship of God, around the year 310, to Demetrianus, once his pupil, so that the man whom he had educated in letters that equipped nothing other than the tongue should not lack a teacher of a more honourable matter and a better doctrine (On the Workmanship of God, ch. 1). Lactantius wrote this book so philosophically that a Christian may nevertheless easily draw heavenly commandments from it. Nonetheless, by his own admission (On the Workmanship of God, ch. 20), he spoke more obscurely than was fitting, and that on account of the necessity of affairs and of the time, intending to publish more and better things if indulgence should come from heaven. These words without doubt indicate a raging persecution. At that time, moreover, Lactantius was planning a certain larger volume against the philosophers, and concerning the things that pertain to the state of the blessed life (ibid.). Here he plainly indicates the Divine Institutes, of which the earlier books were written against the Philosophers, while the last discourses on the Blessed Life. Lactantius had therefore not yet published them, which shines out much more clearly to those who read chapter 20 of the book On the Workmanship of God.

Eodem forsan tempore scripsit ad Demetrianum ipsum Epistolarum duo volumina, qnae, sicut et aliae ejus epistolae, interciderunt: quasdam tamen, desinente, saeculo XVI, viderat Hadrianus Junius in Egmundani monasterii Bibliotheca, ms. codicibus olim refertissima (Hadrian. Junius, in Bataviae Historia, in-4°, Lugduni Batav. 1588, pag. 311). At jam ab anno 1573 sublati erant hi duo libri, quos Junio abbas hujusce monasterii tunc ostenderat.

Perhaps at the same time he wrote to Demetrianus himself two volumes of Letters, which, like his other letters too, have perished: some of them, however, at the close of the sixteenth century, Hadrianus Junius had seen in the Library of the monastery of Egmond, once very full of manuscript codices (Hadrianus Junius, in the History of Batavia, quarto, Leiden 1588, p. 311). But already from the year 1573 these two books, which the abbot of this monastery had then shown to Junius, had been taken away.

In eadem forte persecutione multas scripsit Lactantius Epistolas ad Asclepiadem. Huic sane cum elegantissimo scriptore nostro consuetudo intercesserat et familiaritas. Sicut enim Asclepiades, caeterum vix notus, sed aut Graecia, aut Asia oriundus, ut nomen indicat, ad Lactantium librum nuncupaverat de summa Dei Providentia (lib. VII Institut. Div., c. 4, in fine); vicissim ipsi duos libros Lactantius inscripsit. Verum hi utique perierunt.

In the same persecution, perhaps, Lactantius wrote many Letters to Asclepiades. Between him and our most elegant writer there had indeed been intimacy and friendship. For just as Asclepiades, otherwise scarcely known, but sprung either from Greece or from Asia, as his name indicates, had dedicated to Lactantius a book on the supreme Providence of God (Divine Institutes, book 7, ch. 4, at the end), so in turn Lactantius inscribed two books to him. But these have certainly perished.

Sedata Diocletianea persecutione, pace composita, christianis in integrum restitutis, Lactantius librum de Mortibus persecutorum scripsit, anno, ut videtur, 315. Idque non solum post pugnam ad Campum Serenum descriptam capite 47, qua superatus est a Licinio Maximinus, die primo maii anni 313, imo post edictum de restituenda Ecclesia, quod die decimo tertio junii proponi jussit Licinius, ut habetur cap. 48, verum etiam post mortem, qua Valeria anno 315 mulctata fuerat: quod legitur cap. 51. Hunc libellum de quo iterum dicemus initio alterius voluminis, ab annis mille deperditum, repertumque in Bibliotheca Colbertina, primus anno 1679 edidit Stephanus Baluzius, mandante illustrissimo viro Joanne Baptista Colbert, regi a sanctioribus secretis, et summo aerarii administro. Singularis hujus in orbe christiano codicis, qui cum reliquis omnibus Colbertinis in Regiam

When the Diocletianic persecution had been quelled, peace settled, and the Christians restored to their full standing, Lactantius wrote the book On the Deaths of the Persecutors, in the year 315, as it seems. And this not only after the battle at the Campus Serenus described in chapter 47, in which Maximinus was overcome by Licinius on the first day of May of the year 313, indeed after the edict on restoring the Church, which Licinius ordered to be posted on the thirteenth day of June, as is found in ch. 48, but also after the death with which Valeria had been punished in the year 315: which is read in ch. 51. This little book, of which we shall speak again at the beginning of the other volume, lost for a thousand years and found in the Colbertine Library, Étienne Baluze first published in the year 1679, at the command of that most illustrious man Jean-Baptiste Colbert, secretary of state to the king and chief administrator of the treasury. Of this codex, unique in the Christian world, which with all the other Colbertine [manuscripts] came into the Royal

Editors' notes and page, col. 71

Page

running head: 71 PRÆFATIO IN LACTA (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹Sed cum Christo fuerit postea›; B ‹cul dubio saevientem indicant›; C ‹Lugduni Batav. 1588›; D ‹315. Idque non solum›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: whole column is the editors' prolegomena (Praefatio in Lactantium), set in full, ‹Sed cum Christo fuerit postea mancipatus›; column ends with "Re-" split at the column break (probably Regia); the right-hand column visible in the images belongs to the next column and is not set; "Iladrianus", "Iluic", "Ilunc" read as scan artefacts for H; comma after "desinente" set as printed; "Digitized by Google" watermark not set

PL 6:72

venit Bibliothecam, copiam mihi fecit, insito quodam vel innato potius quo est in rem litterariam amore Claudius Sallier, Regiae Bibliothecae praefectus alter. Codicem hunc cum editis iterum conferendum esse duxi, et quaedam rursus (quod vix credas) a multis, iisque viris eruditis, praetermissa annotavi. Ita ut etiam expresserim in notis quae fuerint amanuensis errata. Ea enim saepissime doctioribus dant locum, novam ac utiliorem aut elegantiorem fingendi interpretationem. Sed ne aliquid deesset huic nostrae editioni, commentarios, quos in Ultrajectinam anni 1692 congesserat Paulus Bauldri, eos omnes, nullo dempto, recudi curavimus. Idque tanta fide ac diligentia, ut eorum etiam notationes censorias, quibus gravius quam decet in Doctrinam catholico-romanam incurrunt, non praetermiserim, addita nihilominus quadam, ubi opus est, animadversione, qua in annotatorem rejicitur error. Ad quid enim istae tam intempestivae excursiones, ubi de historia, non de rebus agitur theologicis? Hac ratione nostram in editionem ea omnia contulimus, quae prius undique sigillatim conquirere erat necesse, ut integra Lactantii opera, variosque in ea commentarios sibi compararet lector eruditus.

Library, Claude Sallier, second prefect of the Royal Library, granted me the use of it, out of that love, implanted or rather innate, which he bears towards letters. I judged that this codex should be collated once more with the printed editions, and I again noted certain things (which you would scarcely believe) passed over by many, and those learned men. So that I have even set out in the notes what the copyist's errors were. For these very often give the more learned occasion for devising a new and more useful or more elegant interpretation. But so that nothing might be lacking to this edition of ours, we have taken care to reprint the commentaries which Paul Bauldri had gathered into the Utrecht edition of the year 1692, all of them, with none removed. And this with such fidelity and diligence that I have not passed over even their censorious remarks, in which they assail Catholic-Roman Doctrine more severely than is fitting, while adding nonetheless, where there is need, some comment by which the error is thrown back upon the annotator. For to what purpose are such ill-timed digressions, where the matter in hand is history, not theology? In this way we have brought together into our edition all those things which previously had to be hunted out one by one from every quarter, so that the learned reader might procure for himself the complete works of Lactantius and the various commentaries on them.

Crispus, anno 317, aetatis vigesimo, Caesar factus est a Constantino patre. Tunc in Galliis uterque erat, quo accitus fuit Lactantius, qui filium imperatoris litteras edoceret humaniores. Atque ab eo tempore non solus ego multis ductus rationibus opinor editas fuisse Divinas Intitutiones, verum in eamdem loquuntur sententiam Antonius Pagius (Critica ad Annal. Baronii, ad an. 315, n. 6), Tillemontius (Hist. Eccl., tom. VI, p. 728), Nicolaus le Nourry (Apparat. ad Biblioth. SS. Patrum, tom. II, p. 336 et 366), Remigius Ceillier (Hist. de Auct. eccl., tom. III, p. 592), uterque Benedictinus, Joannes Baptista le Brun, aliique bene multi, quibus est persuasum Lactantium hunc librum edidisse postquam percrebuit Liciniana persecutio, quae saevire non coepit nisi anno 320. Nolim tamen diffiteri Lactantium multa prius de re christiana in arcanis tabellis scripto annotasse, ut opus hoc tam arduum, tam difficile non solum adoriretur, sed etiam ad optatum perduceret exitum vix enim aliter fieri potuit. Institutionum vero duplicem a Lactantio vulgatam fuisse editionem, non Thomasius modo (Thomas. notae ad cap. 1 lib. I Institut.), sed et Baluzius ipse (Baluz. notae in lib. de Mort. persecut., ad calcem tom. II nostrae edit.), et Heumannus (Not. ad cap. 1 Divin. Instit. libri primi) monuerunt; apud quos leges, tristibus quidem temporibus scriptas esse Divinas Institutiones, laetioribus autem emendatas, auctas et Constantino dicatas. Bis, inquit Heumannus, Lactantius hoc opus edidit, prius ante regnum Constantini, iterum eo rerum potito. Ex hac forsan duplici editione emanarunt, non equidem omnes, sed quaedam lectiones variae, quae laboris non minimum facessere, tum doctis Lactantii editoribus, tum eruditis quibusque. Non enim adversatur scriptori etiam diligentissimo, nec abhorret

Crispus, in the year 317, in the twentieth year of his age, was made Caesar by his father Constantine. At that time both were in Gaul, whither Lactantius was summoned to teach the emperor's son humane letters. And from that time onward, not I alone, led by many reasons, think that the Divine Institutes were published, but to the same opinion speak Antoine Pagi (Critica ad Annal. Baronii, at the year 315, no. 6), Tillemont (Hist. Eccl., vol. 6, p. 728), Nicolas le Nourry (Apparat. ad Biblioth. SS. Patrum, vol. 2, pp. 336 and 366), Rémi Ceillier (Hist. de Auct. eccl., vol. 3, p. 592), both of them Benedictines, Jean-Baptiste le Brun, and a great many others, who are persuaded that Lactantius published this book after the Licinian persecution had spread abroad, which did not begin to rage until the year 320. I would not, however, deny that Lactantius had earlier noted down in writing many things concerning the Christian religion on private tablets, so that he might not only undertake this work, so arduous, so difficult, but also bring it to the desired conclusion; for it could scarcely have come about otherwise. That a double edition of the Institutes was put out by Lactantius has been pointed out not only by Thomasius (Thomasius, notes on chapter 1 of book 1 of the Institutes), but also by Baluze himself (Baluze, notes on the book On the Deaths of the Persecutors, at the end of volume 2 of our edition), and by Heumann (Note on chapter 1 of the first book of the Divine Institutes); in whom you will read that the Divine Institutes were written in sad times indeed, but corrected, enlarged and dedicated to Constantine in happier ones. "Lactantius," says Heumann, "published this work twice, first before the reign of Constantine, again when he had gained supreme power." From this double edition perhaps there have arisen, not indeed all, but certain variant readings, which have caused no small labour both to the learned editors of Lactantius and to all the erudite. For it is not contrary to a writer, even a most diligent one, nor is it repugnant

Editors' notes and page, col. 72

Page

running head: TIO IN LACTANTIUM. 72 (cut off at the left edge of the image; presumably DISSERTATIO IN LACTANTIUM.)
marginal letters: A giam venit Bibliothecam; B nam incurrunt, non praetermiserim; C quuntur sententiam Antonius Pagius; D masius modo (Thomas.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the whole column is editors' matter (the editor's dissertation on Lactantius), set in full: ‹giam venit Bibliothecam›, ‹Crispus, anno 317›; column begins with fragment "giam" of a word (Regiam) broken from column 71; the left-column fragments visible in the images belong to column 71 and are not set; "Thomas." is printed with damaged type (looks like Thonlas), set as Thomas., UNSURE; no punctuation printed between "exitum" and "vix", set as printed; "Galliisuterque" printed without a space, set as two words; "366" partly damaged (looks like 36b); no full-width line.

PL 6:73

a ratione, ut suas ipse retractet lucubrationes. Felicior sane atque suavior multo est emendatio propria quam aliena.

to reason, that he himself should retract his own nightly labours. Far happier indeed and sweeter is one's own correction than another's.

At liber iste varia et multiplici cum refertus sit doctrina, ad ejus lectionem, ut plane intelligatur, vigilans ac singularis adhibenda est opera. Multi autem terrentur assiduo et acriori studio. Hinc Epitome prodiit, postulante Pentadio, sive is frater Lactantii fuerit, sive christianus quidam et amicus, quem loco fratris Lactantius habebat. Pentadius ille ejusdem fortasse generis erat, atque alter hujusce nominis, qui Constantio imperatori intimis fuit a secretis. Istud enim nomen parum vulgare est apud antiquos. Ita porro suas Institutiones angustioribus constrinxit terminis auctor noster, ut mentes instruat, nec tamen prolixitas pariat fastidium, sicut nec brevitas obscuritatem. Quamvis autem eamdem ibi Divinarum Institutionum tradiderit doctrinam, quam alibi passim, eam nihilominus iisdem verbis non explicat. Sicuti nonnulla praetermisit intacta: ita plurima, veritatis explicandae causa, interdum adjicit. Hinc facile ad scribendum, hinc varium aptumque ad omnia exhibet ingenium. Hujus autem Epitomes pars maxima jam a tempore sancti Hieronymi desiderabatur; quam tamen integram fere ex codice ms. Regiae Taurinensis Bibliothecae edidit Parisiis, anno 1712, vir doctissimus Christophorus Matthaeus Pfaffius, Tubingensis Academiae cancellarius. Cujus libri apographum ad me, deprecante eruditissimo Joan. Daniele Schoepflino, historiarum et eloquentiae professore publico in Argentoratensium universitate, misit Pfaffius, atque in eo quaedam non exigui momenti observavi. Ne putes tamen statim post editas Institutiones Epitomen fuisse perscriptam: plures enim elapsi sunt anni opus inter utrumque. «Quamquam, ait Lactantius (Epitome in prooemio), Divinarum Institutionum libri, quos jampridem ad illustrandam veritatem religionemque conscripsimus, etc.» Quemadmodum haec verba, «non ita pridem,» paucos annos, sic ea «jampridem,» quae Lactantius habet, longius temporis significant intervallum. Libens ergo crediderim anno 325 aut 326 editam fuisse Epitomen.

But since that book is packed with varied and manifold learning, a watchful and singular effort must be applied to reading it, so that it may be fully understood. Many, however, are deterred by constant and more strenuous study. Hence the Epitome came forth, at the request of Pentadius, whether he was the brother of Lactantius or some Christian and friend whom Lactantius regarded in the place of a brother. That Pentadius was perhaps of the same family as, and a second bearer of this name with, the one who was privy secretary to the emperor Constantius. For that name is not very common among the ancients. Further, our author confined his Institutes within narrower bounds in such a way as to instruct minds, and yet so that neither length should breed weariness nor brevity obscurity. And although he there handed down the same doctrine of the Divine Institutes as elsewhere throughout, he nevertheless does not set it out in the same words. Just as he left some things untouched, so he at times adds a great many for the sake of explaining the truth. Hence he displays a talent ready for writing, and hence one varied and fitted for everything. The greatest part of this Epitome, however, had already been missing from the time of St Jerome; yet it was edited almost complete from a manuscript codex of the Royal Library of Turin, at Paris, in the year 1712, by that most learned man Christoph Matthäus Pfaff, chancellor of the Academy of Tübingen. A copy of this book Pfaff sent to me at the request of the most erudite Johann Daniel Schöpflin, public professor of history and eloquence in the university of Strasbourg, and in it I noted certain things of no small importance. Do not suppose, however, that the Epitome was written out immediately after the Institutes were published: for several years elapsed between the one work and the other. «Although,» says Lactantius (Epitome, in the preface), «the books of the Divine Institutes, which we wrote long ago to bring to light truth and religion, etc.» Just as the words «not so long ago» signify a few years, so the words «long ago», which Lactantius has, signify a longer interval of time. I would therefore gladly believe that the Epitome was published in the year 325 or 326.

At interea, forte anno 324, plures alios per otium libros edidit scriptor disertissimus, illum praecipue qui de Ira Dei inscribitur, quem editurum se praemonuerat (Divinar. Instit. lib. II, cap. 17): «Seponatur, inquit, locus de Ira Dei, quod et uberior est materia, et opere proprio latius exequenda.» Hoc vero contra Epicureos probat, Deum summe justum ob malam hominum mentem, perpetrataque ab iis delicta, imponere poenas sontibus, sicut bene merentes promissis donat muneribus. Hunc librum non pulcherrimum modo, sed et docto pariter et eloquenti sermone conscriptum, recte S. Hieronymus habet ut Epitomen Dialogorum Ciceronis. Qui utinam eximie et eleganter in Gallicam linguam versus a Joanne Fr. Dreux du Radier, regis a consiliis, in tractu Thymarensi praetore speciali, mox prodeat in lucem, sicut et ipse spem nobis fecit.

But meanwhile, perhaps in the year 324, this most eloquent writer published at his leisure several other books, chiefly the one entitled On the Wrath of God, which he had announced beforehand that he would publish (Divine Institutes, book 2, chapter 17): «Let the topic of the Wrath of God,» he says, «be set aside, both because the matter is fuller and because it must be pursued more broadly in a work of its own.» In this he proves against the Epicureans that God, being supremely just, on account of the evil mind of men and the crimes committed by them, imposes penalties on the guilty, just as He rewards the well-deserving with the gifts He has promised. This book St Jerome rightly holds to be not only most beautiful but also written in a style at once learned and eloquent, like an epitome of the Dialogues of Cicero. Would that it, translated excellently and elegantly into the French tongue by Jean Fr. Dreux du Radier, counsellor to the king and special magistrate in the district of Thymerais, may soon come to light, as he himself has given us hope.

Editors' notes and page, col. 73

Page

running head: 73 PRAEFATIO IN LACTA[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹a ratione, ut suas ipse›; B ‹nec tamen prolixitas pariat›; C ‹fessore publico in Argentoratensium›; D ‹monuerat (Divinar. Instit.›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: whole column is editors' matter (Praefatio in Lactantium), set from ‹a ratione, ut suas ipse retractet›; column begins and ends on whole words; printer's signature PATROL. VI. omitted; no full-width line; right-hand column (74) visible but not set

PL 6:74

Circa eadem tempora scripsisse mihi videtur Lactantius Epistolarum ad Severum libros duos. Severus autem ille Hispanus erat, atque unus ex majoribus Aquilii Severi, de quo ait S. Hieronymus (in Catalogo scriptor. ecclesiast.): « Aquilius Severus in Hispania, de genere illius Severi ad quem Lactantii duo Epistolarum scribuntur libri. » At Nicomedienses sicut et Bithynos inter et Hispanos nihil, multum vero Galliam inter et Hispaniam erat negotii. Hinc conjicere licet has Epistolas a Lactantio editas fuisse, dum in Gallia morabatur. Eadem porro dicerem de libris quatuor Epistolarum ad Probum, cujus nomen non Asiaticum, sed Romanum est, vel forte Gallicum. Ad eum enim in Gentis gratiam atque laudem Lactantius his in Epistolis de Gallis praeclara quaedam profert, testante S. Hieronymo (Prooem. lib. II, in Epist. ad Galatas). « Galli, inquit Lactantius, a candore corporis Galatae nuncupantur, et Sibylla sic eos appellat. Quod significare voluit poeta, cum ait: Tum LACTEA colla auro innectuntur, cum posset dicere CANDIDA. Hinc utique Galatia provincia, in quam Galli aliquando venientes, cum Graecis se miscuerunt; unde primum ea regio Gallo-Graecia; post Galatia, nominata est. » Haec tamen, non diffiteor ipse, levior est conjectura; verum ab aliis certiora, melioraque sunt expectanda.

About the same time Lactantius seems to me to have written the two books of Letters to Severus. That Severus, moreover, was a Spaniard, and one of the ancestors of Aquilius Severus, of whom St Jerome says (in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers): "Aquilius Severus in Spain, of the family of that Severus to whom the two books of Letters of Lactantius are addressed." But between the people of Nicomedia, as also the Bithynians, and the Spaniards there was no dealing at all, whereas between Gaul and Spain there was a great deal. Hence one may conjecture that these Letters were published by Lactantius while he was staying in Gaul. I would say the same, further, of the four books of Letters to Probus, whose name is not Asiatic but Roman, or perhaps Gallic. For to him, by way of favour towards and praise of that nation, Lactantius in these Letters sets forth certain fine things about the Gauls, as St Jerome attests (Preface to book 2, on the Epistle to the Galatians). "The Gauls," says Lactantius, "are called Galatae from the whiteness of their bodies, and the Sibyl calls them so. This is what the poet meant to signify when he says: Then MILKY necks are entwined with gold, when he could have said WHITE. Hence certainly the province of Galatia, into which the Gauls at one time came and mingled themselves with the Greeks; whence that region was named first Gallo-Graecia, afterwards Galatia." This, however, I do not myself deny, is a rather slight conjecture; but more certain and better things are to be awaited from others.

XXIII. Jam diximus de omnibus Lactantii libris, tum extantibus, tum deperditis, quos enumerat sanctus Hieronymus; sed parum nobis curae est de promissis operibus, quae nusquam forsan extiterunt, quale illud est adversus Judaeos (Lact., Inst. lib. VII, c. 1), cujus veterum nullus meminit. Sic etiam pollicitus fuerat Disputationes contra omnes mendaciorum sectas (Lact., lib. IV Divin. Instit., cap. ultimo, et de Ira Dei, cap. 2). Quod utrumque onus multo gravius erat, quam ut illud feliciter sustinere posset auctor elegantissimus, at in Scripturis sacris non satis exercitatus, nec integre versatus in Ecclesiae doctrina. Nec plus curamus eos libellos quos suppositos appellamus. Memorant doctiores quidam librum de Spectaculis (in Memoriis Trevoltianis, ad ann. 1705, pag. 1992; Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, ann. 1705, tom. II, pag. 117; Buddei Lexicon universale, voce LACTANTIUS), quem dicunt sub nomine Lactantii ex ms. editum esse Venetiis, anno 1705. Hujus copiam mihi facere, imo nec certam habere notitiam potui ex illustrissimorum virorum, atque etiam bibliopolarum litteris Venetias missis. Unde merito hanc editionem fabulam esse putamus, cum viro clarissimo Jo. Ludolpho Bunemanno in Miscellaneis Lipsiensibus, tomo III, pag. 136.

XXIII. We have now spoken of all the books of Lactantius, both those extant and those lost, which St Jerome enumerates; but we care little about promised works, which perhaps never existed anywhere, such as that one against the Jews (Lact., Inst. book 7, ch. 1), which none of the ancients mentions. So too he had promised Disputations against all the sects of falsehoods (Lact., book 4 of the Divine Institutes, last chapter, and On the Anger of God, ch. 2). Each of these burdens was much heavier than that a most elegant author, but one not sufficiently practised in the sacred Scriptures nor thoroughly versed in the doctrine of the Church, could successfully sustain it. Nor do we care any more for those little books which we call supposititious. Certain learned men mention a book On Spectacles (in the Trévoux Memoirs, for the year 1705, p. 1992; Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, year 1705, vol. 2, p. 117; Buddeus, Lexicon universale, under the word LACTANTIUS), which they say was published from a manuscript under the name of Lactantius at Venice in the year 1705. Of this I was unable to obtain a copy, indeed not even to have certain knowledge of it, from letters sent to Venice to most illustrious men, and also to booksellers. Hence we rightly consider this edition to be a fable, along with the most distinguished Johann Ludolph Bünemann in the Miscellanea Lipsiensia, vol. 3, p. 136.

Jam anno 1570 monuerat Michael Thomasius in Antuerpiensi sua editione, carmen de Pascha non esse Lactantii, sed Venantii Honorii Clementiani Fortunati, presbyteri Italici VI seculo, testante ms. codice Bibliothecae Vaticanae, in quo leguntur poemata hujus Venantii Fortunati, qui postea fuit Pictaviensis episcopus. Alii versus de Passione Domini ignotum prorsus habent auctorem, at non Lactantium. Haec nihilominus carmina edidimus, ne forte querantur morosi

Already in the year 1570 Michael Thomasius had pointed out in his Antwerp edition that the poem on Easter is not by Lactantius but by Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus, an Italian priest of the sixth century, on the witness of a manuscript codex of the Vatican Library in which are read the poems of this Venantius Fortunatus, who was afterwards bishop of Poitiers. The other verses, on the Passion of the Lord, have an author wholly unknown, but not Lactantius. We have nevertheless published these poems, lest perhaps they should complain, being fastidious,

Editors' notes and page, col. 74

Page

running head: ATIO IN LACTANTIUM. 74 (cut off at left edge; presumably DISSERTATIO IN LACTANTIUM.)
marginal letters: A ‹Circa eadem tempora scripsisse›; B ‹testante S. Hieronymo (Prooem.›; C ‹c. 1), cujus veterum nullus›; D ‹lustrissimorum virorum, atque etiam›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: whole column is the editors' dissertation (‹Circa eadem tempora›; ‹XXIII. Jam diximus›; ‹Jam anno 1570›); last word mo- split at column break (continues in col. 75); printer's signature 3 and Google/OCR watermark not set; Prooem. read from œ ligature, slightly unclear in image

PL 6:75

quidam lectores, putentque truncam esse ac imperfectam nostram editionem.

certain readers, and think our edition truncated and imperfect.

Quamvis autem antiquiores Lactantiani codices uno contextu scripti sint sine ulla nec sectionum, nec capitum, sed solummodo librorum distinctione: receptam tamen adhibuimus in capita divisionem, summariis additis, ut cuncta legentibns clariora fiant. Medii aevi exemplaria, quale illud est eminentissimi cardinalis de Rohan, sectiones multas habent; nullas reperire est in vetustissimis Regiis et Cameracensi, nec etiam in Sangermanensi; at codex patrum Capucinorum qui recentior est, vulgatis capitibus distinguitur.

But although the older Lactantian manuscripts are written in one continuous text without any division either of sections or of chapters, but only of books, we have nevertheless adopted the received division into chapters, with summaries added, so that everything may be clearer to readers. The copies of the Middle Ages, such as that of the most eminent Cardinal de Rohan, have many sections; none are to be found in the most ancient Royal manuscripts and in that of Cambrai, nor yet in that of Saint-Germain; but the manuscript of the Capuchin fathers, which is more recent, is divided into the common chapters.

Dictu inutile putavi de stylo Lactantii longius disserere. Sat est observasse cum S. Hieronymo aliisque viris doctissimis, scriptorem hunc disertissimum Ciceronis eloquentiam referre. Nusquam ejus turget, raro assnrgit oratio; sed cum lenitate quadam aequabiliter profluit, non tamen sine nervis et viribus: tam est accurata, tam fortis, ut nulla sit aptior ad persuadendum, sed sine judiciali asperitate, et sine sententiarum forensium aculeis. Puro studet eloquio, perspicuo atque eleganti; sequiturque hanc Ciceronis ipsius normam, « Pacatiorem philosophorum rationem esse, oratorum vero pugnatiorem. » In vocum dispositione tantam sectatur suavitatem, ut etiam apud eloquio potentes Cicero christianus audire mereatur, et Romani Oratoris ingenium om-

I have thought it useless to discourse at greater length on the style of Lactantius. It is enough to have observed, with St Jerome and other most learned men, that this most eloquent writer recalls the eloquence of Cicero. Nowhere is his speech swollen, rarely does it rise high; but it flows on evenly with a certain gentleness, yet not without sinews and strength: it is so careful, so strong, that none is better suited to persuading, but without the harshness of the law court and without the stings of forensic maxims. He aims at a pure diction, clear and elegant; and he follows this rule of Cicero himself, "That the manner of the philosophers is more peaceable, but that of the orators more combative." In the arrangement of words he pursues such sweetness that even among those mighty in eloquence he deserves to be called the Christian Cicero, and the genius of the Roman Orator in

nino sapiat. Habet tamen verba quaedam peregrina, sed ea vel sunt illius saeculi quo vixit Lactantius, vel Africanae terrae solum redolent. Sic Tertullianus, sic SS. Cyprianus, Augustinus et Fulgentius, aeque ac Lactantius Africani, verbis quibusdam utuntur insolitis et barbaris. Ea porro in rerum indice diverso, id est, Italico charactere edi curavimus.

savours wholly. It has, however, certain foreign words, but these either belong to the age in which Lactantius lived, or smell of the soil of the African land. Thus Tertullian, thus Saints Cyprian, Augustine and Fulgentius, Africans just as Lactantius was, use certain unusual and barbarous words. These, moreover, we have had printed in the index of subjects in a different, that is, Italic type.

In hac vero editione, quae textum Lactantianum sine typographico errore repraesentat, noluimus auctoris hujus verbis admiscere litteras aut signa, quae notas indicarent, ne rerum series perturbetur, neve immutetur orationis ordo; ne tandem frequentiores notulae textui permistae, attentum lectoris animum retardent, alioque avertant. Satis esse duximus initio cujusque annotationis apponere voces quae forent in gratiam minus eruditi lectoris planius explicandae.

In this edition, however, which presents the text of Lactantius without typographical error, we have not wished to mix into this author's words letters or signs that would indicate notes, lest the sequence of matters be disturbed or the order of the discourse be altered; lest, finally, the more frequent little notes mingled with the text should hold back the reader's attentive mind and turn it elsewhere. We have thought it enough to place at the beginning of each annotation the words which were to be explained more plainly for the benefit of the less learned reader.

Haec de nostra sufficiat observasse editione, in qua excudenda vicem suam implet Joannes de Bure, bibliopola, ut doctis emptoribus fiat satis, tam in charta eligenda, quam nitidioribus adhibendis characteribus.

Let it suffice to have observed these things about our edition, in the printing of which John de Bure, bookseller, fulfils his part, so that learned buyers may be satisfied, as much in the choice of paper as in the use of finer type.

Caeterum si quid forte in notis dictum fuerit a nobis adversus sanctae, catholicae, apostolicae et Romanae Ecclesiae scita, cujus judicio haec nostraque omnia subjecta sunto, illud indictum omnino esse volumus, parati emendare, ubi opus erit.

For the rest, if anything should perhaps have been said by us in the notes against the decrees of the holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman Church, to whose judgement let these and all our things be subject, we wish it to be wholly unsaid, being ready to correct it wherever there shall be need.

Editors' notes and page, col. 75

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Tunc autem Siccae› · call in col 75

Sicca, urbs Africae propriae; vocaturque aliquando Sicca Veneria, vel Sicca Colonia. Siccesitanus episcopus legitur apud Victorem Vitensem in historia Persecutionis Vandalicae.

Sicca, a city of Africa proper; it is sometimes called Sicca Veneria, or Sicca Colonia. A bishop of Sicca (Siccesitanus episcopus) is read of in Victor of Vita's History of the Vandal Persecution.

(printed under page 41)

Page

running head: LACTANTII VITA. 76 (initial L cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹nino sapiat. Habet tamen›; B ‹rent in gratiam minus›; C ‹matique ad veri Dei›; D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "nino" (rest of [om]nino from col. 75) and, after the title, with the fragment "matique" from col. 75; full-width title "LACTANTII VITA." stands between the preface's last paragraph ("Caeterum si quid...") and "matique ad veri", cut off at the left edge, not set; editors' matter set: end of the editors' preface (nino sapiat. Habet tamen...) and the Lactantii Vita (matique ad veri Dei cultum...); "lib. v" appears printed as italic lowercase v, set as V; coelestis, incoeptam, coeleste and Phoenice are printed with the œ ligature
other: the 4 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 75 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the text of this column below the full-width band belongs to the next unit; not set here (rail-only part)
other (Q1 2026-11-02, for the c75 part, not written here): the word broken across cols 75/76 ("om-" | "nino") is NOT joined in parts/c75_a.md: set "omnino" whole at the end of the col 75 paragraph and begin the col 76 text with "sapiat."; the sentence runs on, so the two pieces are one paragraph. The English across the break is garbled ("...the genius of the Roman Orator in" | "savours wholly."): it should read that he deserves to be called the Christian Cicero "and savours wholly of the genius of the Roman Orator."