The Project Gutenberg eBook of The library of Photius, Volume 1 (of 1)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The library of Photius, Volume 1 (of 1)
Author: Photius
Translator: John Henry Freese
Release date: July 19, 2026 [eBook #79139]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1920
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79139
Credits: Dori Allard and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIBRARY OF PHOTIUS, VOLUME 1 (OF 1) ***
Transcriber’s Notes: Italicized text is surrounded by underscores:
_italics_. Bold text is surrounded by equal signs: =bold=.
TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.,
W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.
SERIES I
GREEK TEXTS
PHOTIUS
VOL. I.
[Illustration:
TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN
LITERATURE. SERIES I
GREEK TEXTS
THE LIBRARY
OF PHOTIUS
VOLUME·I
_By_ J·H·FREESE.
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. London
The Macmillan Company. New York
1920]
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,
BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1,
AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK
PREFACE
It is proposed to issue the present translation of the _Bibliotheca_
of Photius in five volumes; a sixth will contain an account of his
life and works, a Bibliography, and a General Index to the whole.
A translator of the _Bibliotheca_ has apparently an open field. So
far as can be ascertained, no complete version exists in English or
any other modern language, although there are English translations or
editions of some of the longer extracts (_e.g._ Ctesias’ _Indica_),
of some of the literary criticisms,[1] of selected codices (chiefly
on profane authors) in Italian by G. Compagnoni,[2] a well-known
Milanese literary man and statesman (1754-1834), and of the whole in
Latin by the learned Jesuit Andreas Schott[3] in Migne’s _Patrologia
Graeca_ (vol. ciii.).
The text[4] is unfortunately in many places unsatisfactory, and no
critical edition has been attempted for nearly a hundred years--since
1824, the date of Immanuel Bekker’s edition. The nature of the work,
a sort of enlarged table of contents, often leaves the meaning and
connexion obscure, when there exist no complete texts[5] or other
means of supplementing it. The present translator, in the endeavour
to obtain as satisfactory a rendering as possible, has constantly
consulted the most important literary, theological, and historical
works and encyclopaedias bearing on the wide field covered by the
extensive reading of Photius. Naturally, there is little scope for
elegance of translation, and in the literary criticisms it is by no
means easy to find a correct and adequate English equivalent for the
terms used.
In the matter of notes, the number of personal and geographical
names, of historical allusions, is so large that any attempt to deal
with them at length would have swamped the text and reduced it to
a kind of peg on which to hang a miniature encyclopaedia. In the
case of persons familiar to all only a brief note has been given,
sufficient for the purposes of identification (often necessary where
there are several persons of the same name), so that those desirous
of further information should know for whom to look in the usual
biographical and other dictionaries. In the case of names less
familiar and points arising directly from the text, the details given
are somewhat fuller. In the Bibliography a list of the most useful
general works of reference and of special editions or accounts of the
authors criticised in the _Bibliotheca_ will be given. The present
work makes no claim to contain a complete exegetical or critical
commentary, but is a somewhat free translation intended to give
the ordinary reader an idea of the literary activity of the chief
representative of the so-called Byzantine Renaissance.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] G. Saintsbury, _History of Criticism_, i. 176; La Rue van Hook
in _Transactions of the American Philological Association_ (xxxviii.
1907) and _Classical Philology_ (iv. Chicago, 1909), and here and
there in books such as Hodgkin’s _Italy and her Invaders_, Bury’s
_Later Roman Empire_.
[2] Vols. xlv. xlvi. of _Biblioteca Scelta di opere greche e latine_.
[3] Born and died at Antwerp (1552-1629). After a wandering life he
finally settled down as professor of Greek at the Jesuit college in
his native city. He was an indefatigable translator and editor. The
translation of Photius is of unequal merit, and it is supposed that
in parts it is the work of a young and less competent colleague.
[4] _See_ E. Martini, _Textgeschichte der Bibliothek des Patriarchen
Photios_ (1911).
[5] It would be difficult, for instance, to get a clear idea of
the story of Heliodorus’s _Theagenes and Chariclea_ from Photius’s
abstract alone.
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF AUTHORS CRITICISED IN VOL. I
Achilles, Tatius.
_Clitophon and Leucippe_ (LXXXVII)
Acts of the disputation of heretics, held before John, patriarch of
Constantinople (XXIV)
Adrian (Hadrian).
_Introduction to the Scriptures_ (II)
Adrian (Hadrian), emperor.
Declamations (C)
Aeschines.
_Ovations and Letters_ (LXI)
_Against the Jews and Quartodecimans._ Anonymous (CXV)
Amyntianus.
_On Alexander the Great_ (CXXXI)
Andronicianus.
_Against the Eunomians_ (XLV)
Aphthonius.
_Declamations_ (CXXXIII)
Apolinarius of Hierapolis.
_Against the Heathen, On Piety and Truth_ (XIV)
_Apology for Origen and his Doctrines._ Anonymous (CXVII)
Appian.
_Roman History_ (LVII)
Arrian.
_Parthica_, _Bithynica_, _Discourses of Epictetus_ (LVIII);
_Indica_, _Campaigns of Alexander the Great_ (XCI);
_Events after the Death of Alexander_ (XCII);
_Bithynica_, _The Acts of Dion and Timoleon_ (XCIII)
Athanasius.
_Letters_ (XXXII);
_Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs_ (CXXXIX);
_Against Arius_ (CXL)
Basil of Cilicia.
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XLII);
_Against John Scythopolita_ (CVII)
Basil the Great.
Refutation of Eunomius (CXXXVIII);
_Ascetica_ (CXLIV);
_Hexaëmeron_ (CXLI);
_Moral Discourses_ (CXLII);
_Letters_ (CXLIII)
Boëthus.
_List of Platonic Words_ (CLIV);
_Doubtful Words in Plato_ (CLV)
Caius (Gaius) Presbyter.
_On the Universe_ (XLVIII)
Candidus.
_Histories_ (LXXIX)
Cephalion.
_Historical Epitome_ (LXVIII)
Charinus, Lucius.
_Travels of the Apostles_ (CXIV)
Choricius.
_Declamations_ (CLX)
Clement (Titus Flavius Clemens), presbyter, of Alexandria.
_Outlines_ (CIX);
_The Tutor_ (CX);
_Stromateis_ (CXI)
Clement (Clemens Romanus), bishop of Rome.
_Apostolic Constitutions_, _Recognitions_ (CXII, CXIII);
_Epistles to the Corinthians_ (CXXVI)
Conon.
_Against Philoponus_ (XXIII)
Cosmas Indicopleustes.
_Christian Topography_, _Exposition of the Octateuch_ (XXXVI)
Ctesias. _Persica_ (LXXII)
Cyril of Alexandria.
_Against Nestorius_ (XLIX);
_Thesauri_ (CXXXVI)
Damascius.
_Incredible Things_ (CXXX)
Dexippus.
_Events after the Death of Alexander_, _Historical Epitome_ (LXXXII)
Diodorus.
_Lexicon to the Ten Orators_ (CL)
Diodorus Siculus.
_History_ (LXX)
Diodorus of Tarsus.
_On the Holy Spirit_ (CII)
Dio(n) Cassius.
_History_ (LXXI)
Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
_History_ (LXXXIII, LXXXIV)
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aelius.
_Attic Words_ (CLII)
Dorotheus.
_New and Foreign Words in Plato_ (CLVI)
Epiphanius.
_Panaria_ (CXXII);
_Ancoratus_ (CXXIII);
_Weights and Measures_ (CXXIV)
Eugenius.
_Against Philoponus_ (XXIII)
Eunapius.
_Chronicle_ (continuing Dexippus) (LXXVII)
Eunomius.
Heretical treatise (CXXXVII);
its refutation by Basil (CXXXVIII)
Eusebius (sophist).
_Declamations_ (CXXXIV)
Eusebius of Caesarea.
Various Writings (IX-XIII);
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XXVII);
_Against Hierocles_ (XXXIX);
_Defence of Origen_ (CXVIII);
_Life of Constantine_ (CXXVII)
Eusebius of Thessalonica.
_Against Andrew the Monk_ (CLXII)
Evagrius.
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XXIX)
Gaius, _see_ Caius
Galen.
_On Medical Schools_ (CLXIV)
Gelasius of Cyzicus.
_Proceedings of the First Synod_ (XV);
_Ecclesiastical History_ (LXXXVIII);
_Preface to Additions to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius_
(LXXXIX);
_Against the Anomoeans_ (CII)
George, bishop of Alexandria.
_Life of John Chrysostom_ (XCVI)
Gregory of Nyssa.
_In Support of St. Basil against Eunomius_ (VI, VII)
Heliodorus.
_Aethiopica_ (LXXIII)
Helladius.
_Lexicon_ (CXLV)
Heraclian, bishop of Chalcedon.
_Against the Manichaeans_ (LXXXV)
Herodian.
_History_ (XCIX)
Herodotus.
_History_ (LX)
Hesychius Illustrius (of Miletus).
_History_, _Acts of Justin the Elder_ (LXIX)
Hesychius (presbyter, of Constantinople).
_Discourses on the Brazen Serpent_ (LI)
Himerius.
_Declamations_ (CLXV)
Hippolytus Romanus.
_Against Heresies_ (CXXI)
Iamblichus.
_Rhodanes and Sinonis_ (XCIV)
Irenaeus.
_Against Heresies_ (CXX)
Isocrates.
_Ovations_ (CLIX)
John Chrysostom.
_Letters to Olympias and Others_ (LXXXVI)
John Philoponus.
_On the Resurrection_ (XXI);
_On the Creation_ (XLIII);
_Against the Fourth Synod_ (LV);
_Against John Scholasticus, patriarch of Constantinople_ (LXXV)
John (presbyter, of Aegae).
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XLI);
_Against the Fourth Synod_ (LV)
John Scythopolita.
_Against the Eutychians_ (XCV)
Josephus.
_On the Universe_ (XLVIII);
_On the Jewish War_ (XLVII);
_On the Antiquities of the Jews_ (LXXVI)
Julian.
_Lexicon to the Ten Orators_ (CL)
Julius Africanus.
_History_ (XXXIV)
Justin Martyr.
_Apology_ (CXXV)
Justus of Tiberias.
_Chronicle of the Jewish Kings_ (XXXIII)
Lesbonax.
_Political Orations_ (LXXIV)
Lexica.
_Of the Pure Style_ (CXLVI);
_Of the Serious Style_ (CXLVII);
_Of Political Style_ (CXLVIII);
_Of the Ten Orators_ (CXLV-CLIX)
Libanius.
_Orations and Letters_ (XC)
Lucian.
_Various Works._ _Dialogues of the Dead and Of Courtesans_ (CXXVIII)
Lucius of Patrae.
_Metamorphoses_ (CXXIX)
Malchus.
_History_ (LXXVIII)
Maximus.
_Declamations_ (CXXXV)
Metrodorus.
_On Easter_ (CXV)
Moeris.
_The Atticist_ (CLVII)
Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople.
_Historical Epitome_ (LXVI)
Nicias (the monk).
_Against Philoponus, Severus, and the Heathen_ (L)
Nonnosus.
_History_ (III)
Olympiodorus.
_History_ (LXXX)
_On the Easter Festival_ (Anonymous) (CXVI)
Orators, the ten, Lexica to (CXLV-CLIX)
Origen.
_On First Principles_ (VIII)
Palladius.
_Declamations_ (CXXXII)
Pamphilus.
_Apology for Origen_ (CXVIII)
Pausanias.
_Lexicon_ (CLIII)
Philip of Side.
_Christian History_ (XXXV)
Philo Judaeus.
_Allegories of the Sacred Laws_ and _On Political Life_ (CIII);
_On the Essenes and Therapeutae_ (CIV);
_His Censure of the Emperor Gaius and Flaccus_ (CV)
Philostorgius.
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XL)
Philostratus of Tyre.
_Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ (XLIV)
Phlegon of Tralles.
_List of Olympic Victors_ and _Chronicle_ (XCVII)
Phrynichus the Arabian.
_Oratorical Equipment_ (CLVIII)
Pierius Presbyter.
Various Writings (CXIX)
Pollio.
_Lexicon_ (CXLIX)
Polycarp.
_Letter to the Philippians_ (CXXVI)
Praxagoras.
_Life of Constantine the Great_ (LXII)
Proceedings of the bishops of the West against the Nestorians and
Pelagians (LIV)
Procopius of Caesarea.
_Histories_ (LXIII)
Procopius of Gaza.
_Orations_; _Translations of Homer_ (CLX)
Sergius Confessor.
_History_ (LXVII)
Socrates.
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XXVIII)
Sopater.
_Excerpts_ (CLXI)
Sophronius.
_In Defence of Basil against Eunomius_ (V)
Sozomen.
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XXX)
Synesius.
_Writings_ (XXVI)
Synod of “The Oak” (LIX)
Synod of Side (LII)
Synods, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh (XVI-XX)
Themistius.
_Commentaries on Aristotle and Plato_; _Political Orations_ (LXXIV);
_Apology for Theophobius_ (CVIII)
Theodore of Alexandria, monk.
_Against Themistius_ (CVIII)
Theodore of Antioch.
_In Defence of Basil against Eunomius_ (IV);
_Commentary on Genesis_ (XXXVIII);
_On Persian Magic_ (LXXXI)
Theodoret.
_Ecclesiastical History_ (XXXI, LVI);
_Eranistes_ (XLVI)
Theodorus Presbyter.
_On the Writings of Dionysius the Areopagite_ (I)
Theodosius, monk.
_Against John Philoponus_ (XXII)
Theognostus of Alexandria.
_Outlines_ (CVI)
Theophanes of Byzantium (LXIV)
Theophylact Simocatta (LXV)
Timaeus.
_Platonic Lexicon_ (CLI)
Victorinus, son of Lampadius.
_Consular Orations_ (CI)
Vindanius Anatolius.
_Works on Husbandry_ (CLXIII)
Zosimus, Count.
_History_ (XCVIII)
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES
(_Down to the time of Photius_)
ROMAN EMPERORS
Augustus 27 B.C.
Tiberius A.D. 14
Gaius 37
Claudius 41
Nero 54
Galba }
Otho } 68-69
Vitellius }
Vespasian 69
Titus 79
Domitian 81
Nerva 96
Trajan 98
Hadrian 117
Antoninus Pius 138
Marcus Aurelius 161
Commodus 180
Pertinax }
Didius Julianus } 193
Septimius Severus }
Caracalla 211
Macrinus 217
Elagabalus 218
Alexander Severus 222
Maximinus 235
The two Gordians }
Pupienus and Balbinus } 238
Gordian III }
Philip 244
Decius 249
Gallus 251
Aemilianus 253
Valerian }
Gallienus } 260
Claudius 268
Quintillus }
Aurelian } 270
Tacitus 275
Probus 276
Carus 282
Carinus and Numerian 283
Diocletian 284
(with Maximian) 286
Constantius and Galerius 305
Licinius and Constantine I 311
Constantine I 324
Constantine II }
Constantius II } 337
Constans }
Constantius II 350
Julian 361
Jovian 363
DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE
_West_ _East_
Valentinian I 364 Valens 364
Gratian and Valentinian II 375 Theodosius I 379
Valentinian II 383
Theodosius I 392
Honorius 395 Arcadius 395
Valentinian III 423 Theodosius II 408
Maximus 455 Marcian 450
Avitus 455
Majorian 457 Leo I 457
Severus 461
Anthemius 467
Olybrius 472
Glycerius 473
Julius Nepos 474 Leo II 474
Romulus Augustulus 475
[End of the Western Empire] 476
Zeno 474
Anastasius I 491
Justin I 518
Justinian I 527
Justin II 565
Tiberius II 578
Maurice 582
Phocas 602
Heraclius 610
Constantine III 641
Heracleonas 641
Constans II 642
Constantine IV 668
Justinian II 685
Leontius 695
Tiberius III 698
Justinian II (restored
to throne) 705
Philippicus Bardanes 711
Anastasius II 713
Theodosius III 716
Leo III 717
Constantine V 741
Leo IV 775
Constantine VI 780
Irene 797
Nicephorus I 802
Michael I Rhangabē 811
Stauracius 811
Leo V 813
Michael II 820
Theophilus 829
Michael III 842
Basil I 867
Leo VI 886-911
PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
(_From 315_[a])
Metrophanes 315-327
Alexander 327-340
Paul I 340-341
Eusebius 341-342
Paul I (re-elected) 342-344
Macedonius I 342-348
Paul I (re-elected) 348-350
Macedonius I (re-elected) 350-360
Eudoxius 360-369
Demophilus 369-379
Evagrius 369-370
Gregory I 379-381
Maximus 381
Nectarius 381-397
John I Chrysostom 398-404
Arsacius 404-405
Atticus 405-425
Sisinnius I 426-427
Nestorius 428-431
Maximian 431-434
Proclus 434-447
Flavian 447-449
Anatolius 449-458
Gennadius I 458-471
Acacius 471-489
Fravitta (Flavitta) 489-490
Euphemius 490-496
Macedonius II 496-511
Timotheus I 511-518
John II of Cappadocia 518-520
Epiphanius 520-536
Anthimus I 536
Menas 536-552
Eutychius 552-565
John III of Antioch 565-577
Eutychius (re-elected) 577-582
John IV the Faster 582-595
Cyriacus 595-606
Thomas I 607-610
Sergius 610-638
Pyrrhus I 638-641
Paul II 641-654
Pyrrhus I (re-elected) 655
Peter 655-666
Thomas II 667-669
John V 669-675
Constantine I 675-677
Theodore I 677-679
George I 679-686
Theodore I (re-elected) 686-687
Paul III 688-694
Callinicus I 694-705
Cyrus 705-712
John VI 712-715
Germanus I 715-730
Anastasius 730-754
Constantine II 754-766
Nicetas I 766-780
Paul IV 780-784
Tarasius 784-806
Nicephorus 806-815
Theodotus 815-821
Antonius I 821-834
John VII 834-843
Methodius I 843-847
Ignatius (Nicetas) 847-858
Photius 858-867
Ignatius (re-elected) 867-878
Photius (re-elected) 878-886
[a] There is a considerable discrepancy as to dates in different
authorities. The dates here given and those of the Popes are from
Krumbacher, _Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur_ (1897).
POPES OF ROME
Marcellus 307-309
Eusebius 309
Miltiades 310-314
Silvester 314-335
Marcus 336
Julius I 337-352
Liberius 352-366
Felix II 355-358
Damasus 366-384
Siricius 384-398
Anastasius I 398-402
Innocent I 402-417
Zosimus 417-418
Boniface I 418-422
Coelestine I 422-432
Sixtus III 432-440
Leo the Great 440-461
Hilarius 461-468
Simplicius 468-483
Felix III 483-492
Gelasius I 492-496
Anastasius II 496-498
Symmachus 498-514
Hormisdas 514-523
John I 523-526
Felix IV 526-530
Boniface II 530-532
John II 532-535
Agapetus I 535-536
Silverius 536-538
Vigilius 537-555
Pelagius 555-560
John III 560-573
Benedict I 574-578
Pelagius II 578-590
Gregory I the Great 590-604
Sabinianus 604-606
Boniface III 607
Boniface IV 608-615
Deodatus I 615-618
Boniface V 619-625
Honorius I 625-638
Severinus I 640
John IV 640-642
Theodore I 642-649
Martin I 649-655
Eugenius I 654-657
Vitalianus 657-672
Deodatus II 672-676
Domnus I 676-678
Agathon 678-681
Leo II 682-683
Benedict II 684-685
John V 685-686
Conon 686-687
Sergius I 687-701
John VI 701-705
John VII 705-707
Sisinnius 708
Constantine I 708-715
Gregory II 715-731
Gregory III 731-741
Zacharias 741-752
Stephen II 752
Stephen II (III) 752-757
Paul I 757-767
Constantine II 767-768
Stephen III (IV) 768-772
Hadrian I 772-795
Leo III 795-816
Stephen IV (V) 816-817
Paschal I 817-824
Eugenius II 824-827
Valentinus 827
Gregory IV 827-844
Sergius II 844-847
Leo IV 847-855
Benedict III 855-858
Nicholas I 858-867
Hadrian II 867-872
John VIII 872-882
Martin II 882-884
Hadrian III 884-885
Stephen V (VI) 885-891
OECUMENICAL COUNCILS
1. Nicaea 325
2. Constantinople 381
3. Ephesus 431
4. Chalcedon 451
5. Constantinople 553
6. Constantinople 680
7. Nicaea 787
8. Constantinople 869
PHOTIUS
BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON[6]
_Register and enumeration of the books read by us, 279 in number, of
which our beloved brother Tarasius desired to have a summary._[7]
Photius, to his beloved brother Tarasius, in the name of the Lord,
greeting.
MY DEAREST BROTHER TARASIUS,
After our appointment as ambassador to Assyria[8] had been confirmed
by the assent of the embassy[9] and approved by the emperor, you
asked to be furnished with summaries of those works which had been
read and discussed during your absence. Your idea was to have
something to console you for our painful separation, and at the same
time to acquire some knowledge, even if vague and imperfect, of the
works which you had not yet read in our company. We believe that
their number is exactly 279. Accordingly, regarding the fulfilment of
your request as a sacred obligation, we engaged a secretary, and set
down all the summaries we could recollect. No doubt we have not been
expeditious enough to satisfy your feverish eagerness and vehement
desire, but still we have been quicker than might have been expected.
The summaries will be arranged in the order in which our memory
recalls them. Certainly, it would not be difficult, if one preferred
it, to describe historical events and those dealing with different
subjects under separate headings. But, considering that nothing would
be gained by this, we have set them down indiscriminately as they
occurred to us.[10] If, during your study of these volumes, any of
the summaries should appear to be defective or inaccurate, you must
not be surprised. It is no easy matter to undertake to read each
individual work, to grasp the argument, to remember and record it;
but when the number of works is large, and a considerable time has
elapsed since their perusal, it is extremely difficult to remember
them with accuracy. As to the commonplaces met with in the course of
our reading, so simple that they can hardly have escaped your notice,
we have devoted less attention to them, and have purposely refrained
from examining them carefully. You will be better able than ourselves
to decide whether these summaries will do more than fulfil your
original expectations as to their usefulness. Certainly, such records
will assist you to refresh the memory of what you have read by
yourself, to find more readily what you want, and further, to acquire
more easily the knowledge of what has not as yet been the subject of
intelligent reading on your part.
I[11]
Read the treatise of Theodore the Presbyter,[12] in which he
undertakes to prove the genuineness of the works of St. Dionysius.
The following arguments against it are refuted: (1) If they are
genuine, how is it that none of the later Fathers cites them
or quotes any passages from them? (2) How is it that Eusebius
Pamphili,[13] in his list of the writings of the Holy Fathers,
does not mention them? (3) How is it that these treatises describe
in detail rites and customs which only became established in the
Church gradually and after a long time? The great Dionysius, as
is clear from the _Acts_,[14] was contemporary with the Apostles
[whereas most of the institutions described only became established
gradually and in later times]; it is therefore improbable (says the
objector), or rather a clumsy fiction, to assert that Dionysius
could have undertaken to describe institutions which were not fully
developed till long after his death. (4) How is it that a letter of
the divinely-inspired Ignatius[15] is referred to? for Dionysius
flourished in the time of the Apostles, whereas Ignatius suffered
martyrdom during the reign of Trajan, and wrote the letter referred
to shortly before his death. Theodore endeavours to solve these
difficulties and does his best to prove the genuineness of the
treatises.[16]
II
Read Adrian’s (Hadrian’s) _Introduction to the Scriptures_,[17] a
useful book for catechumens.
III
Read the _History_ of Nonnosus,[18] containing a description of
his embassy to the Aethiopians, Amerites,[19] and Saracens, then
a most powerful nation, as well as to other Eastern peoples. At
this time Justinian was emperor of the Romans, and Caïsus chief of
the Saracens. This Caïsus was the grandson of Arethas, himself a
chief, to whom Nonnosus’s grandfather was sent as ambassador, during
the reign of Anastasius, to conclude a treaty of peace. Nonnosus’s
father Abrames[20] had in like manner been sent on an embassy to
Alamundarus,[21] chief of the Saracens, during the reign of Justin,
and was successful in procuring the release of Timostratus and
John, two Roman generals who were prisoners of war. Caïsus, to
whom Nonnosus was sent, was chief of two of the most illustrious
Saracen tribes, the Chindeni and Maadeni. Before Nonnosus was
appointed ambassador, his father had been sent to this same Caïsus
by Justinian, and had concluded a treaty of peace, on condition that
Caïsus’s son Mavias should be taken as a hostage to Byzantium. After
this, Nonnosus was entrusted with a threefold mission: to Caïsus, to
induce him, if possible, to visit the emperor, to Elesbaas, king of
the Axumites, and to the Amerites. Axumis[22] is a very large city,
and may be considered the capital of Aethiopia; it lies more S. and
E. than the Roman empire. Nonnosus, in spite of the treacherous
attacks of tribesmen, perils from wild beasts, and many difficulties
and dangers on the journey, successfully accomplished his mission,
and returned in safety to his native land.[23]
He relates that Caïsus, after Abrames had been sent to him a
second time, set out for Byzantium, having previously divided his
chieftaincy between his brothers Ambrus and Yezid. He brought a large
number of his subjects with him, and was appointed administrator of
Palestine by the emperor.
He tells us that the ancient name for what are now called σανδάλια
(sandals) was ἀρβύλαι, and that φακιόλιον (turban) was called
φασῶλις.[24]
He tells us that most of the Saracens, those who live in Phoenicon
as well as beyond it and the Taurenian mountains,[25] have a sacred
meeting-place consecrated to one of the gods, where they assemble
twice a year. One of these meetings lasts a whole month, almost to
the middle of spring, when the sun enters Taurus; the other lasts two
months, and is held after the summer solstice. During these meetings
complete peace prevails, not only amongst themselves, but also with
all the natives; even the animals are at peace both with themselves
and with human beings. Other strange, more or less fabulous
information is also given.
He tells us that Adulis[26] is fifteen days’ journey from Axumis. On
his way there, he and his companions saw a remarkable sight in the
neighbourhood of Auē (Avē), midway between Axumis and Adulis; this
was a large number of elephants, nearly 5000. They were feeding in a
large plain, and the inhabitants found it difficult to approach them
or drive them from their pasture. This was what they saw on their
journey.
We must also say something about the climatic contrarieties of summer
and winter between Avē and Axumis. When the sun enters Cancer, Leo,
and Virgo, it is summer as far as Avē, as with us, and the atmosphere
is extremely dry; but from Avē to Axumis and the rest of Aethiopia,
it is severe winter, not throughout the day, but beginning from
midday, the sky being covered with clouds and the country flooded
with violent rains. At that time also the Nile, spreading over
Egypt, overflows and irrigates the land. But when the sun enters
Capricornus, Aquarius, and Pisces, the atmosphere, conversely, floods
the country of the Adulites as far as Avē, while it is summer from
Avē to Axumis and the rest of Aethiopia, and the fruits of the earth
are ripe.
During his voyage from Pharsan,[27] Nonnosus, on reaching the last
of the islands, had a remarkable experience. He there saw certain
creatures[28] of human shape and form, very short, black-skinned,
their bodies entirely covered with hair. The men were accompanied by
women of the same appearance, and by boys still shorter. All were
naked, women as well as men, except for a short apron of skin round
their loins. There was nothing wild or savage about them. Their
speech was human, but their language was unintelligible even to
their neighbours, and still more so to Nonnosus and his companions.
They live on shell-fish and fish cast up on the shore. According
to Nonnosus, they were very timid, and when they saw him and his
companions, they shrank from them as we do from monstrous wild beasts.
IV
Read the twenty-five books of Theodore of Antioch[29] against
Eunomius[30] in defence of St. Basil.[31] His style is somewhat
obscure, but the work is full of ideas and sound reasoning, and
contains a wealth of evidence taken from the Scriptures. He refutes
the arguments of Eunomius almost word for word, and amply proves that
he is very ignorant of outside knowledge and still more so of our
religion. I believe he is the Theodore who was bishop of Mopsuestia.
V
Read also the attack of Sophronius[32] on Eunomius in defence of
St. Basil. His style is clearer and more concise than that of
Theodore. He does not traverse all the arguments of Eunomius, but
chiefly attacks and refutes those which appear to contain the most
essential points of his heresy. The style is aphoristic, the language
in general free and simple[33] and not disagreeable, although
embellished with over-laboured arguments.
VI
Read also the attack of Gregory of Nyssa[34] on Eunomius in
defence of St. Basil. His style is as brilliant as that of any
rhetorician, and agreeable to listen to. He does not refute Eunomius
in detail, and is consequently briefer than Theodore, but fuller
than Sophronius. He is fond of using enthymemes[35] and arguments
from example. But I can say without partiality that the copiousness
and fertility of his arguments are as convincing a proof of his
superiority to Theodore as the charm, brilliancy, and pleasantness of
his style.
VII
Read another treatise by the same Gregory of Nyssa on the same
subject. In this he joins issue with Eunomius by more reasoned
arguments and storms the tottering ramparts of his impiety. The
beauty of his style, its mingled brilliancy and charm, are equally
conspicuous in this work.
VIII
Read Origen’s[36] four books _On First Principles_. The first deals
with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In this his statements
are often blasphemous; thus, he asserts that the Son was created by
the Father, the Holy Ghost by the Son; that the Father pervades all
existing things, the Son only those that are endowed with reason, the
Holy Ghost only those that are saved. He also makes other strange and
impious statements, indulging in frivolous talk about the migration
of souls, the stars being alive, and the like. This first book is
full of fables about the Father, Christ (as he calls the Son), the
Holy Ghost, and creatures endowed with reason. In the second book
he treats of the world and created things. He asserts that the God
of the Law and the prophets, of the Old and the New Testament, is
one and the same; that there was the same Holy Spirit in Moses, the
rest of the prophets, and the Holy Apostles. He further discusses
the Incarnation of the Saviour, the soul, resurrection, punishment,
and promises. The third book deals with free will; how the devil
and hostile powers, according to the Scriptures, wage war against
mankind; that the world was created and is perishable, having had
a beginning in time. The fourth book treats of the final end, the
divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the proper manner of
reading and understanding them.
IX
Read fifteen books of the _Praeparatio Evangelica_ of Eusebius, in
which he refutes the foolish doctrines of the gentiles, and shows
that they were always contradictory. At the beginning and end of
the fifteenth book he mentions another treatise, the _Demonstratio
Evangelica_, which follows the _Praeparatio_. His object in these
works is to refute the errors of the gentiles, and to confirm the
preaching of the Gospel.
X
Read the twenty[37] books of Eusebius’s _Demonstratio Evangelica_.
XI
Read Eusebius’s _Praeparatio Ecclesiastica_,[38] in ... books in
which there are extracts....
XII
Read Eusebius’s _Demonstratio Ecclesiastica_,[38] in ... books.
XIII
Read two books of Eusebius’s _Refutation and Defence_, and a
second edition of the same, which, while differing in certain
passages, agrees in other respects in both style and sentiments
with the first. He mentions certain difficulties brought forward
by the heathen against our blameless religion, and solves them
satisfactorily, though not entirely. His style is neither agreeable
nor brilliant; however, he is a man of great learning, although
wanting in the shrewdness and firmness of character so necessary
for the accurate discussion of questions of dogma. In many passages
he utters blasphemies against the Son, calling him second cause,
commander-in-chief, and other excrescences of Arian madness. It is
evident that he flourished during the reign of Constantine the Great.
He was an ardent admirer of the virtuous saint and martyr Pamphilus,
from whom he took his surname.
XIV
Read Apolinarius’s[39] _Against the Heathen_, _On Piety_, and
_On Truth_. The writer was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia[40] and
flourished during the reign of Marcus Antoninus Verus.[41] He
deserves mention and his style is excellent. Other writings of his
are said to be equally worthy of record, but they have not come into
my hands.
XV
Read the _Acts_ of the first council[42] in three volumes. It bears
the name of Gelasius,[43] but is rather a history than an _Acts_. The
author’s style is poor and mean, but he gives a detailed account of
the proceedings of the council.
XVI
Read the _Acts_ of the third council,[44] consisting almost entirely
of the letters of St. Cyril[45] to Nestorius[46] and that impious
man’s replies.
XVII
Read the _Acts_ of the fourth council[47] in several books. There
were fifteen sessions, at which Dioscorus[48] and Eutyches[49] were
condemned, and Nestorius excommunicated. St. Flavian[50] was declared
innocent after his death, together with Eusebius of Dorylaeum,[51]
Theodoret[52] and Ibas.[53] Other special matters were discussed, and
the spirit of piety was strengthened.
XVIII
Read the _Acts_ of the fifth council,[54] at which the three
so-called “chapters”[55] were dealt with, and Origen and his writings
excommunicated, together with Diodorus of Tarsus,[56] and Theodore of
Mopsuestia. Theodoret’s answer to the twelve anathematisms of Cyril
was also excommunicated. Previous to this, the cases of Zooras[57]
and Anthimus,[58] who wormed his way into the patriarchate of
Constantinople, and certain other matters were discussed.
XIX
Read the _Acts_ of the sixth council,[59] at the sessions of which
Sergius,[60] Cyrus,[61] and Pyrrhus[62] of Constantinople were
excommunicated, together with Honorius[63] of Rome, Polychronius,[64]
and others, who had ventured to assert that there was only one will
and one energy in Christ. The dogma of truth was confirmed.
XX
Read the _Acts_ of the seventh council,[65] at the sessions of which
the iconoclasts were defeated and the orthodox faith shone with
increased brightness.
XXI
Read the treatise of John Philoponus[66] _On the Resurrection_ in ...
volumes. In this work, rejecting the doctrine of the Resurrection of
the body, he says much that is ill-considered. He also ridicules our
blessed and holy Fathers.
XXII
Read the elaborate _Refutation_ by Theodosius the Monk[67] of
the passages cited by John Philoponus as arguments against the
Resurrection, including quotations from Holy Scripture and the
Fathers, in refutation of John’s vain efforts.
XXIII
Read the invectives of Conon,[68] Eugenius,[69] and Themistius,[70]
against the treatise of John Philoponus, in which they pillory his
vain efforts. They also violently attack him personally, as a man
entirely estranged from the Christian faith. However, they agree with
him in refusing to accept the decisions of the council of Chalcedon.
XXIV
Read a volume containing the _Acts_ of a disputation held before
John,[71] bishop of the queen-city, during the reign of Justin,[72]
in which Conon and Eugenius the Tritheites took part on the one side,
and Paul[73] and Stephen,[74] the Hesitators,[75] on the other. Conon
and Eugenius appear to have sided with Philoponus; for when Paul and
Stephen demanded that they should anathematize Philoponus, they were
unwilling to do so. On the other hand, they brought forth arguments
to prove that his views were in harmony with those of Severus[76] and
Theodosius, their own teachers. They indeed in many respects uphold
the orthodox views--that the Trinity is consubstantial and of the
same nature, that God is one, that the Godhead is one; but they are
guilty of blasphemy in asserting that the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost are partial substances, and have special divinities and
natures, thus being at variance with themselves and the truth. Many
other opinions of theirs are equally foolish and nonsensical.
XXV
Read the work by John Chrysostom[77] entitled _Notes on Death_,
twenty-two short homilies. In the same volume there are also
twenty-two homilies on the _Ascension of the Lord_ and seventeen on
_Pentecost_.
XXVI
Read the orations of Synesius,[78] bishop of Cyrene, _On
Providence_,[79] _On the Kingdom_, and some other subjects. His
style is lofty and dignified,[80] but somewhat inclined to be
over-poetical.
Also read various letters of his, distilling grace and charm, at the
same time vigorous and full of closely-packed[81] ideas.
He originally belonged to a heathen school of philosophy, but was
favourably disposed to the inspired truths of Christianity and ready
to accept all its doctrines except that of the Resurrection. Although
this was his attitude, he was admitted into our Church and even
raised to the episcopate, by reason of his goodness and purity and in
the conviction that a man of such holiness of life could not fail to
be illuminated by the light of the Resurrection. Nor were these hopes
disappointed. For as soon as he became bishop he readily assented to
that doctrine. Synesius was an ornament to Cyrene at the time when
Theophilus was patriarch of Alexandria.[82]
XXVII
Read the ten books of Eusebius’s _Ecclesiastical History_. Beginning
from the birth of Christ, our true God, it carefully describes the
period of the tyrants, and ends with the reign of Constantine the
Great. A more detailed account is given of the Church institutions
established by him during his reign.
XXVIII
Read Socrates’s[83] _Ecclesiastical History_, a continuation of that
of Eusebius. Beginning with the reign of Constantine, it goes down to
the time of Theodosius the Younger.[84]
The writer, who had attended the lectures of Ammonius and Helladius
the Alexandrine grammarians,[85] even when a boy had been instructed
in “grammar” by heathen tutors, who had been banished from their
native country for sedition and carried on their profession at
Constantinople. The work contains the events of 140 years, and
the entire history is included in seven books. There is nothing
remarkable in the author’s style, and he is not very accurate in
matters of doctrine.
XXIX
Read the _Ecclesiastical History_ of Evagrius[86] Scholasticus, an
ex-praefect, born at Epiphania in Coele-Syria, in six books. The
work begins where those of Socrates and Theodoret end, and goes down
to the twelfth year of the reign of the emperor Maurice.[87] The
style is not without charm, although somewhat diffuse; in matters of
doctrine he is certainly more trustworthy than other historians. The
work also contains some passages about images.
XXX
Read the _Ecclesiastical History_ of Salamanus Hermeias Sozomen,[88]
in nine books. Dedicated to the emperor Theodosius the Younger, it
begins with the consulship of Crispus and his father Constantine, and
goes down to the reign of Theodosius the Younger.[89] Sozomen was at
one time an advocate in Constantinople. His style is better than that
of Socrates, from whom he differs in certain particulars.
XXXI
Read the _Ecclesiastical History_ of Theodoret.[90] Of all the
writers mentioned his style is best suited for history. It is
generally clear, dignified, and free from redundancies, although he
sometimes employs metaphors that are too bold, almost insipid. He
gives a fuller account of the proceedings of the second council[91]
than other historians, who merely bestow a cursory notice upon them,
as if they were unwilling to say much about it. However, even he does
not give all the details. He begins his _History_ with the heresy
of Arius and goes down to the reign of Theodosius the Younger, and
the death of Theodore,[92] at the time when Sisinnius was bishop of
Constantinople.
XXXII
Read various letters of Athanasius,[93] some containing a kind of
_Apology_ for his flight.[94] The style is elegant, brilliant, and
clear, full of grace and persuasiveness. It is a pleasure to listen
to the _Apology_.
XXXIII
Read the _Chronicle_ of Justus of Tiberias,[95] entitled _A Chronicle
of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of
Tiberias_.[96] He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took
his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the
death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod[97] and the last
of the kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him
by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He
died in the third year of the reign of Trajan, when the history ends.
Justus’s style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of
the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews,
to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of
Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him. His
father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus,
was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He
was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have
concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions
he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let
him go free. It is said that the history which he wrote is in great
part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war
and the capture of Jerusalem.
XXXIV
Read the _History_ of Africanus,[98] who was also the author of the
_Cesti_ in fourteen books.[99] Although his style is concise, he
omits nothing worthy of record. He begins with the Mosaic cosmogony
and goes down to the coming of Christ. He also gives a cursory
account of events from that time to the reign of Macrinus,[100] at
which date, as he tells us, the _Chronicle_ was finished, that is, in
the 5723rd year of the world. The work is in five volumes.
Africanus also wrote a letter to Origen against the authenticity of
the history of Susannah, on the grounds (amongst others) that it is
not included in the Jewish books, and that the play on words (ἀπὸ τοῦ
πρίνου πρῖσαι ... ἀπὸ τοῦ σχίνου σχίσαι)[101] is at variance with the
genuine Hebrew style. Origen answered and refuted these objections.
Africanus also wrote a letter to Aristides,[102] in which he showed
that in reality there was no such difference as was generally
supposed between the genealogies of our Saviour in Matthew and Luke.
XXXV
Read the work of Philip[103] of Side, entitled a _Christian History_,
beginning with the words “In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth.” He gives an account of the Mosaic history, sometimes
brief, sometimes full, although wordy throughout. The first book
contains twenty-four volumes, like the twenty-three other books,
which we have seen up to the present.[104] His language is diffuse,
without urbanity or elegance, and soon palls, or positively disgusts;
his aim is rather to display his knowledge than to benefit the
reader. Most of the matter has nothing to do with history, and the
work might be called a treatise on all kinds of subjects rather
than a history, a tasteless effusion. Philip was a contemporary of
Sisinnius and Proclus, patriarchs of Constantinople. He frequently
attacks the former in his history, because, while both filled the
same office[105] and Philip was considered the more eloquent,
Sisinnius was elected to the patriarchate.
XXXVI
Read the book entitled the _Book of Christians_, an interpretation
of the Octateuch. The author,[106] who flourished in the reign of
Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus. It begins with
the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from
the Scriptures. The style is poor, and the arrangement hardly up
to the ordinary standard. He relates much that is incredible from
an historical point of view, so that he may fairly be regarded as
a fabulist rather than a trustworthy authority. The views on which
he lays special stress are: that neither the sky nor the earth is
spherical, but that the former is a kind of vault, and the latter a
rectangular plane, [twice as long as broad], to the ends of which
the ends of the sky are united; that all the stars, with the help
of the angels, are kept in motion; and other things of the same
kind. He also mentions the books of _Genesis_ and _Exodus_, as it
were by way of digression; and enters into a lengthy discussion and
speculations about the Tabernacle. The prophets and apostles are
cursorily treated. He says that the sun is only twice as large as
two “climates”;[107] that the angels do not dwell in heaven, but
above the firmament and mingle with us; that Christ at His Ascension
entered the space between the sky and the firmament, and that only
this is the kingdom of heaven; and similar absurdities. He dedicates
the first six books to a certain Pamphilus, of the remaining six
(there are twelve in all) the seventh to Anastasius, in which he
contends that the heavens are indissoluble; the eighth, on the song
of Hezekiah[108] and the retrogression of the sun, to a certain
Peter. In this book he also states that he has written a commentary
on the _Song of Songs_. The four remaining books have no dedication.
XXXVII
Read an essay _On Government_,[109] in the form of a dialogue between
Menas a patrician and Thomas a referendary.[110] The treatise is
in six books, in which is discussed a form of government, called
δικαιαρχικόν (just rule), differing from those propounded by
ancient writers. The _Republic_ of Plato is deservedly criticised.
The interlocutors hold that the constitution which they propose
should be a combination of the three forms of government--monarchy,
aristocracy, democracy. Each of these is to contribute what is
genuine and sincere to the formation of the ideal constitution.
XXXVIII
Read the work of Theodore of Antioch[111] entitled _A Commentary
on Genesis_ (the history of the Creation), the first book of which
contains seven volumes. The style is neither brilliant nor very
clear. The author avoids the use of allegory as much as possible,
being only concerned with the interpretation of history. He
frequently repeats himself, and produces a disagreeable impression
upon the reader. Although he lived before Nestorius, he vomits up
his doctrines by anticipation. This is that Theodore of Mopsuestia,
from whom on several occasions John Philoponus (as the latter himself
says) demanded a serious explanation of his method of interpretation
in his own work on the Creation.
XXXIX
Read the brief refutation of the discourse of Hierocles[112] in
support of Apollonius of Tyana[113] by Eusebius Pamphili.
XL
Read the so-called _Ecclesiastical History_ by Philostorgius[114]
the Arian, the spirit of which is different from that of nearly all
other ecclesiastical historians. He extols all Arians, but abuses and
insults all the orthodox, so that his work is not so much a history
as a panegyric of the heretics, and nothing but a barefaced attack
upon the orthodox. His style is elegant, his diction often poetical,
though not to such an extent as to be tedious or disagreeable. His
figurative use of words is very expressive and makes the work both
pleasant and agreeable to read; sometimes, however, these figures
are overbold and far-fetched, and create an impression of being
frigid and ill-timed. The language is variously embellished even to
excess, so that the reader imperceptibly finds himself involved in
a disagreeable obscurity. In many instances the author introduces
appropriate moral reflections of his own. He starts from the devotion
of Arius to the heresy and its first beginnings, and ends with the
recall of the impious Aëtius.[115] This Aëtius was removed from his
office by his brother heretics, since he outdid them in wickedness,
as Philostorgius himself unwillingly confesses. He was recalled and
welcomed by the impious Julian. The history, in one book and six
volumes, goes down to this period. The author is a liar and the
narrative often fictitious. He chiefly extols Aëtius and Eunomius
for their learning, as having alone cleansed the doctrines of faith
overlaid by time, therein showing himself a monstrous liar. He
also praises Eusebius of Nicomedia[116] (whom he calls the Great),
Theophilus the Indian,[117] and several others, for their lives and
wonderful works. He severely attacks Acacius, bishop of Caesarea[118]
in Palestine, for his extreme severity and invincible craftiness,
in which, he declares, Acacius surpassed all his fellow-heretics,
however filled they were with hatred of one another, as well as those
who held different religious opinions.
This was the extent of our reading. Soon afterwards six other
books were found in another volume, so that the whole appears to
have filled twelve books. The initial letters of each book are so
arranged that they form the name of the author. The work goes down
to the time of Theodosius the Younger, when, after the death of
Honorius, Theodosius handed over the throne of the West to his cousin
Valentinian the Younger, the son of Constantius and Placidia.
Notwithstanding his rage against the orthodox, Philostorgius does
not venture to attack Gregory the Theologian,[119] but unwillingly
accepts his doctrines. His attempt to slander Basil the Great only
had the effect of increasing his reputation. He was forced to admit
the vigour and beauty of his sermons from actual knowledge, although
he timidly calls Basil overbold and inexperienced in controversy,
because he ventured to attack the writings of Eunomius.
XLI
Read the _Ecclesiastical History_ by a certain John.[120] It begins
with the reign of Theodosius the Younger, the heresy of Nestorius and
his deposition, and goes down to the time of Zeno and the deposition
of Peter the heretic,[121] who had usurped the see of Antioch. The
style is clear but florid. The author describes in detail the third
council held at Ephesus,[122] and also another council held in the
same place, the “Robber” council,[123] which he deifies together
with its president Dioscorus and his companions. He also gives a
slanderous account of the council of Chalcedon. This justifies the
conclusion that the author is John, presbyter of Aegae, a heretic
who wrote a special attack on the council of Chalcedon. The history,
according to his statement, is in ten books. I have only read five,
containing (as already stated) a record of events from the heresy of
Nestorius to the deposition of Peter the heretic.
XLII
Read the _Ecclesiastical History_ of Basil the Cilician.[124] It
begins with the death of Simplicius, bishop of Rome,[125] who
wrote to Acacius of Constantinople[126] to have no dealings with
Peter surnamed Mongus,[127] who was then corrupting Alexandria
by anathematizing, publicly and in church, the holy council of
Chalcedon. It was through him that Acacius was deprived of his see;
for although Acacius at first was justly incensed against him,
he subsequently showed no aversion to his doctrines and thereby
incurred the suspicion of being a heretic. This matter came up again
during the reign of Zeno. The history begins at this time and goes
down to the death of Anastasius, after he had reigned twenty-seven
years and three months, Justin the Thracian being proclaimed his
successor.[128] The present book finishes about this time, and
embraces the period from Zeno to the death of Anastasius and the
proclamation of Justin as emperor. The author also states that two
other books were written by him, the first and the third; the first
beginning with the reign of Marcian and ending with that of Zeno,
where the second begins, while the third continues the narrative of
the second, beginning with the reign of Justin.
The author’s style is rather slovenly and uneven. He also introduces
a large amount of episcopal correspondence, the object of which, he
says, is to prove what he writes; these vastly increase the bulk of
the book and contain but little history, and that buried under a
mass of verbiage. The clearness of the narrative is destroyed by the
number of parentheses.
XLIII
Read the treatise of John Philoponus on the _Hexaëmeron_.[129]
In this his style is pure and clear and better than usual. He
agrees in the main with Basil the Great, but everywhere opposes
Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, taking up the same subject, wrote his
_Interpretation of Genesis_, which Philoponus in turn endeavours to
refute.
XLIV
Read the eight books of the _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ by
Philostratus[130] of Tyre.[131] His style is clear, agreeable,
concise, and full of charm, due to his fondness both for archaisms
and for novel constructions.
He tells us that Apollonius visited the Indians, whom he calls
Brahmins, from whom he learnt much of their divine wisdom. He also
visited the wise men of Aethiopia, whom he calls _Gymni_,[132]
because they pass all their life naked and never wear clothes even
in the most trying weather. But he declares that the wise men of
India are far superior to those of Aethiopia, since they are older in
point of time and their intellect is purer and keener, owing to their
living nearer to the rays of the sun.
He does not, however, assert that Apollonius worked any wonders
such as legend ascribes to him; he merely extols him as leading a
philosophic and temperate life, in which he exhibits the teaching of
Pythagoras, both in manners and doctrine. Various accounts are given
of his death, the circumstances of which are obscure, as he himself
desired; for during his lifetime he was in the habit of saying that
the wise man should keep his life a secret from others, or, if he
could not, should at least keep his death a secret.[133] The place of
his burial is unknown.
Philostratus states that Apollonius had a great contempt for riches;
he gave up all he possessed to his brother and others, and could
never be persuaded to accept money from those in authority,[134]
although they pressed it upon him as deserving it. He asserts that
he long foresaw the famine at Ephesus and stopped it after it broke
out. He once saw a certain lion, which he declared to be the soul
of Amasis, king of the Egyptians,[135] which had entered the body
of the animal as a punishment for the crimes Amasis had committed
during his lifetime. He also exposed an Empusa,[136] which, under the
guise of a courtesan, pretended to be enamoured of Menippus.[137]
He recalled to life a Roman girl who had apparently just died,
and loosed his limbs from his fetters, while bound in prison.
Before Domitian he defended himself and extolled Nerva (Domitian’s
successor); after which he vanished from the court, and joined
Demetrius[138] and Damis[139] as had been arranged, not after a long
time, but in a few moments, though they were several days’ journey
apart. Such are the fictions of Philostratus concerning Apollonius.
He denies, however, that he was a wonder-worker, if he performed some
of the wonders that are commonly attributed to him, but asserts that
they were the result of his philosophy and the purity of his life.
On the contrary, he was the enemy of magicians and sorcerers and
certainly no devotee of magic.
All that he says about the Indians is a tissue of absurd and
incredible statements. He asserts that they have certain jars full of
rains and winds, with which in time of drought they are able to water
the country, and again to deprive it of moisture, after the rain has
fallen, since in these casks they have the means of controlling the
alternate supply of wind and rain. He tells similar stories, equally
foolish and preposterous, and these eight books are so much study and
labour lost.
XLV
Read two pamphlets by Andronicianus[140] _Against the Eunomians_. In
the preface he promises much that he does not perform, at any rate in
the second book. He shows himself a devoted student of philosophy in
character, sentiment, and style. By religion he is a Christian.
XLVI
Read twenty-seven books by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, against
various heretical propositions.[141] The first book is directed
against those who assert that the God-Word was one nature and that
it took its beginning from the seed of David, and also against those
who attribute passions to the Godhead. In the second, he supports his
contentions more by arguments from Scripture.[142] The third deals
with the same subject. The fourth contains the teachings of the holy
Fathers concerning the glorious Dispensation (Incarnation)[143] of
our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God. The fifth contains a collection
of the opinions of the heretics, which are compared with the opinion
of those who do not admit two natures in Christ and shown to be
nearly akin. The sixth distinctly states that there is one Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ. The seventh is in the form of a letter completing
the first book. The eighth is written against those who judge the
truth only by the opinion of the multitude. The ninth is against
those who assert that we should neither seek arguments nor quote from
the Scriptures, but that we must be satisfied with our faith. The
tenth is against those who malevolently bring forward the argument
that “the Word was made flesh.” The eleventh is against those who
forbid us to assume two natures in the Incarnation. The twelfth is
against those who assert that he who says the Word is one thing and
the flesh another, assumes there are two Sons. The thirteenth is
against those who say that to regard Christ as a man is to put one’s
hopes in man. The fourteenth is against those who say, “He suffered
without suffering.” The fifteenth is against those who say, “He
suffered as he willed.” The sixteenth is against those who say that
we ought to accept the words, without regard to what is signified
by them, which is beyond all men’s understanding. The seventeenth
is against those who say, “The Word suffered in the flesh.” The
eighteenth is against those who ask what punishment the Jews would
have suffered, if they had not crucified God. The nineteenth is
against those who declare that he who does not believe that God was
crucified is a Jew. The twentieth is against those who assert that
the angels who ate with Abraham did not entirely put on the nature
of flesh. The twenty-first is against those who depreciate each of
the miracles, by denying the flesh. The twenty-second is against
those who injure our race, by denying that the Saviour began with
our nature. The twenty-third is against those who bid us simply
believe what is said, without considering what is seemly or what is
unseemly. The twenty-fourth is against those who do away with the
difference of the two natures, after the Passion and the Ascension.
The twenty-fifth is a summary of all that has already been stated
in detail. The twenty-sixth deals with the subsequently manifested
composition or consubstantiation; the twenty-seventh with the example
from the ordinary man (applied to Christ). The subject alone in
each case is sufficient to indicate which of the above confirm the
orthodox faith, and which are at variance with it.
Read in the same volume three larger works than those mentioned,
entitled _Eranistes_ (the Beggar) or _Polymorphos_ (multiform).[144]
The first teaches that the Word is unchangeable; the second, that the
union is unmixed; the third, that the God-Word is impassible. In a
fourth book, these statements are supported by argument. The three
books were composed by him in the form of a dialogue, but the rest
are in continuous prose. The style is clear, distinct, and pure; not
wanting in charm, and the works abound in suitable reflections.
XLVII
Read the work of Josephus the Jew[145] on _The Calamities of the
Jews_. The capture of Iotapata[146] (at which Josephus himself was
taken prisoner) and Gischala,[146] and the desolation of other
Jewish fortresses is described, and in the last book the destruction
of Jerusalem and the fortress of Masada.[147] The work is in seven
books. The author has a pure style, and is apt at expressing his
meaning with dignity, with distinctness and charm. In the speeches
introduced he is persuasive and agreeable, even when the opportunity
invites him to take opposite views; he is clever and prolific in the
use of arguments on either side, and is extremely fond of aphorisms.
He is also very skilful in introducing the emotional, in rousing the
passions and calming them.
He relates that many signs and portents preceded the taking of
Jerusalem. A heifer that was being led to the sacrifice brought forth
a lamb; a light shone in the temple and a voice was heard saying,
“Let us remove hence”; the gates of the temple, which twenty men
could hardly open, opened of their own accord; in the evening troops
appeared clad in armour. A man named Jesus, son of Ananias, for six
years and three months incessantly repeated, like one inspired, the
words “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” When he was whipped for it, he made no
reply, but repeated the same words. He was present at the capture of
the city, and while crying out “Woe, woe, to the city!” he was hit by
a stone from one of the enemy’s engines, and gave up the ghost.
Such were the signs that foretold the taking of the city; but it
was internal sedition, together with the enemy, that overthrew
it. Split up into the factions of Zelotae and Sicarii,[148] they
destroyed one another, and thus the body of the state was cruelly and
mercilessly torn asunder by the common people. The city suffered so
grievously from famine that the inhabitants were driven to all kinds
of excesses; a woman even ate the flesh of her own son. Famine was
succeeded by pestilence, a clear proof that it was the work of the
divine wrath, in fulfilment of the Lord’s proclamation and threat
that the city should be taken and utterly destroyed.
XLVIII
Read the treatise of Josephus[149] _On the Universe_, elsewhere
called _On the Cause of the Universe_ and _On the Nature of the
Universe_. It consists of two little treatises, in which the author
shows that Plato contradicts himself. He also refutes Alcinous,[150]
whose views on the soul, matter, and the Resurrection are false and
absurd, and introduces his own opinions on the subject. He proves
that the Jewish nation is far older than the Greek. He thinks that
man is a compound of fire, earth, and water, and also of spirit,
which he calls soul. Of the spirit he speaks as follows: Taking
the chief part of this, he moulded it together with the body, and
opened a passage for it through every joint and limb. The spirit,
thus moulded together with the body and pervading it throughout,
is formed in the likeness of the visible body, but its nature is
colder, compared with the three other substances of which the body
is compounded. These views are not in harmony with the Jewish ideas
of human physiology, and are below the customary standard of his
other writings. He also gives a summary account of the creation of
the world. Of Christ the true God he speaks like ourselves, openly
giving Him the name of God, and describing, in language to which no
objection can be taken, His indescribable generation from the Father.
This might, perhaps, cause people to doubt whether the treatise is
really by Josephus, although in respect of style it does not differ
from the rest of his writings.
I find a marginal note to the effect that the work is not by
Josephus, but by one Gaius,[151] a presbyter of Rome, also the
author of _The Labyrinth_,[152] and of a dialogue against Proclus,
the champion of the Montanists.[153] The latter, which had no
ascription, is attributed by some to Josephus, by others to Justin
Martyr, and _The Labyrinth_ to Origen. But there is no doubt that
the work is by Gaius, the author of _The Labyrinth_, who at the
end of this treatise has left it on record that he was the author
of _The Nature of the Universe_. But it is not quite clear to me,
whether this is the same or a different work. This Gaius is said to
have been a presbyter of the Church at Rome, during the episcopate
of Victor[154] and Zephyrinus,[155] and to have been ordained bishop
of the gentiles. He wrote another special work against the heresy of
Artemon,[156] and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus,
the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles
of St. Paul, and does not include the _Epistle to the Hebrews_.
XLIX
Read the treatise of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, _Against the
Blasphemies of Nestorius_, in five books. In these he preserves his
characteristic style and curious phraseology. But he is clearer than
in his letters to Hermeias[157] and his work _On Adoration in the
Spirit_. The language is ornate and elaborate, forced into agreement
with its peculiar form, which resembles prose poetry that despises
metre.
L
Read the treatise of Nicias the monk[158] _Against the Seven
Chapters of Philoponus_, which he mentioned in his work called
the _Arbitrator_. The style is simple and concise, suitable for
controversial writings, and free from redundancies. Also read his
attack _On the impious Severus_ and two books _Against the Heathen_.
LI
Read the four books by Hesychius,[159] presbyter of Constantinople,
_On the Brazen Serpent_. The work is meant for show, and is a studied
attempt to work upon the feelings. It contains speeches to the people
put into the mouth of Moses, and fictitious addresses of the people
in reply. There are also elaborate speeches of the Deity to Moses and
the people, together with their replies, in the form of entreaty and
excuse. A great part of the work, which comprises a bulky volume,
is devoted to these speeches. The author himself, so far as one can
judge from this treatise, is orthodox.
LII
Read the account of the synod held at Side[160] against the sect of
the Messalians,[161] Euchites,[161] or Adelphians.[162] Amphilochius,
bishop of Iconium, presided, supported by twenty-five other bishops.
Read in the same a letter of the synod to Flavian, bishop of Antioch,
giving him an account of the proceedings.
In consequence of this letter, Flavian summoned another synod against
these same heretics, assisted by three other bishops, Bizus of
Seleucia, Maruthas, bishop of the Sufareni,[163] and Samus. There
were also present priests and deacons to the number of thirty. The
synod refused to accept Adelphius’s profession of repentance or
to admit him when he offered to renounce his heresy; for it was
shown that neither his renunciation nor repentance was sincere. The
founders of this sect were Adelphius, who was neither a monk nor a
priest, but one of the laity, Sabas, surnamed _Apokopos_ (castrated),
who assumed the garb of a monk, another Sabas, Eustathius of Edessa,
Dadoes, and Simeon, the tares of the evil one, and others who grew
up together with them. Adelphius and his followers were condemned,
although they sought opportunity for repentance, which was refused
them, since they were detected communicating in writing, as if they
shared their views, with persons whom they had anathematized as
Messalians.
Flavian wrote a letter to the Osroënians, informing them of what had
been done and giving an account of the punishment and excommunication
of the heretics. The bishops who received it wrote back to Flavian,
thanking him and expressing their approval. Litoius,[164] bishop of
Armenia, also wrote inquiring about the Messalians, and a copy of the
decree and sentence of the council was sent to him. The great Flavian
also wrote to another Armenian bishop on the same subject; in this
second letter he accuses the bishop of sympathy with the Messalians.
Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, also wrote to the bishops of
Pamphylia, bidding them everywhere expel the Messalians as accursed
and an abomination. He wrote in similar terms to Amphilochius, bishop
of Side.
Sisinnius of Constantinople and Theodotus of Antioch sent a joint
letter to Verinianus,[165] Amphilochius, and the rest of the
bishops in Pamphylia, addressed “To our colleagues, beloved of God,
Verinianus, Amphilochius, and the rest of the bishops in Pamphylia:
Sisinnius, Theodotus, and all the holy synod which by the grace of
God was assembled in the mighty city of Constantinople to consecrate
the most holy Sisinnius, beloved of God, and our emperor Theodosius,
beloved of Christ, greet you in the Lord.” In this letter from
the council Neon the bishop declared that if any one, after the
excommunication of the Messalians, should at any time be detected
saying or doing anything which rendered him suspect of favouring this
heresy, he should not be allowed to retain his position, not if he
offered to pay ten thousand times the penalty imposed upon those who
repent; and that any one who supported him, a bishop or any one else,
should be liable to the same penalty. John of Antioch also wrote
a letter to Nestorius about the Messalians. The holy oecumenical
council, the third, at Ephesus,[166] also issued a decree, exposing
the blasphemies and heresies of the Messalian book _Asceticus_ and
anathematizing it. Archelaus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, also
wrote twenty-four anathematisms against these articles. Heraclidas,
bishop of Nyssa, also wrote two letters against them, in the second
of which evidence is given of the antiquity of the worship of the
holy images.
Some time afterwards, Gerontius, presbyter and superior of the monks
at Glitis, wrote to Alypius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia,
bringing various charges against Lampetius,[167] a profane impostor,
who was the first of the Messalian sect who succeeded in worming his
way into the dignity of the priesthood. Alypius, on receipt of the
letter, commanded Hormisdas, bishop of Comana, to investigate the
charges against Lampetius. The heads of the indictment were: that
he had been guilty of unlawful intercourse with women; that he had
used obscene language in reference to such matters; that he sneered
and scoffed at those who chanted the hours as being still under the
law. He and the Messalians were accused of many other impious words
and deeds; and we ourselves, while endeavouring, as far as was in
our power, to lead them from the error which was lately beginning
to spring up again, have seen much festering passion and vice
consuming their souls. But this Lampetius, Gerontius the presbyter
being his accuser and bishop Hormisdas his judge, convicted partly
on the evidence of witnesses and partly out of his own mouth, was
unanimously degraded from the priesthood. Alypius of Caesarea who
had been misled and had promoted the miscreant to the dignity of
presbyter joined in the vote. This thrice sinful Lampetius composed a
book called the _Testament_, in which some of his impious doctrines
are inserted; Severus, who usurped the see of Antioch, while
still only a presbyter, refuted it. A certain Alpheus, bishop of
Rhinocorura,[168] defended Lampetius as innocent in word and deed of
the charges brought against him, and although, so far as one knows,
he introduces no blasphemies in his published work, he was deprived
of his office as a supporter of Lampetius. Another Alpheus, who had
been ordained presbyter by Timotheus of Alexandria, was removed
from office for the same heresy, as we learn from a report made by
Ptolemy, also bishop of Rhinocorura, to the same Timotheus.
LIII
Read an account of the proceedings of the synod held at
Carthage[169] in the great church, while Faustus[170] Honorius was
emperor of the West, against Pelagius[171] and Coelestius.[172] The
president was Aurelius, bishop of Carthage and Dotianus of Telepte,
chief prelate of the province of Byzacena, supported by distinguished
Church dignitaries from different provinces, to the number of 224.
This synod excommunicated those who asserted that Adam was created
mortal, and that he did not suffer death as a punishment for his
sin; also those who declared that infants newly born had no need of
baptism, because they were not liable to original sin from Adam;
also those who affirmed that there was a place midway between hell
and paradise, to which infants dying unbaptized were removed, there
to live in a state of blessedness. Six other similar articles, which
hold the first place in the heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius, were
also anathematized.
The emperors Theodosius and Honorius also wrote to bishop Aurelius
condemning these same heretics. After this Constantius, the husband
of Placidia and the father of Valentinian the Younger, sent a decree
to Volusianus, praefect of the city, ordering that Coelestius should
be banished. [This Volusianus, uncle of Saint Melena (Melania),[173]
at the time was a heathen, but when threatened with death he became
converted to the true faith and was baptized by Proclus[174] of
Constantinople, where he had been sent on an embassy. Perhaps at the
same time he met that holy woman, who had come from Jerusalem to
the queen-city.][175] Leo of Rome[176] also wrote in regard to the
converted Pelagians that, if they desired to be received into the
Church again, they should anathematize their heresy in writing. In
the letter of Coelestine, bishop of Rome,[177] to Nestorius the same
heretics are condemned. Coelestine also wrote to the bishops of Gaul
in defence of the teaching of St. Augustine and against those who
were emboldened to speak rashly by the licence allowed to the heresy.
Jerome the priest[178] also wrote to Ctesiphon[179] in refutation of
those who held the idea of impassibility (in other words, against
Pelagius). This Pelagius was a monk and Coelestius was his pupil.
LIV
Read a work attacking the heresy of Pelagius and Coelestius,
entitled _A Copy of the Proceedings taken against the Doctrines of
Nestorius by the Bishops of the West_. It states that the Nestorian
and Coelestian heresies were identical without doubt, quoting as
its authority a letter of Cyril of Alexandria[180] to the emperor
Theodosius. The Coelestians, speaking of the body or the members of
Christ, that is, the Church, audaciously deny that it is God (that
is, the Holy Spirit) who distributes to each man severally, as He
wills, faith and all that is necessary to life, piety, and salvation;
according to them, the nature of man as constituted--which by sin
and transgression fell from blessedness and was separated from God
and handed over to death--both invites and repels the Holy Spirit in
accordance with free will. The Nestorians hold and venture to assert
the same opinion concerning the head of the body, Christ. Since
Christ shares our nature and God wishes all men alike to be saved,
they say that every one of his own free will can amend his error and
make himself worthy of God; wherefore He who was born of Mary was not
Himself the Word, but, by reason of the nobility of His natural will,
He had the Word accompanying, sharing the condition of sonship by
nobleness alone and similarity of name.
This Pelagian or Coelestian heresy flourished not only in the East,
but also spread over the West. At Carthage in Africa it was detected
and refuted by Aurelius and Augustine, and publicly condemned at
various synods. Those who held these opinions were expelled from the
Church as heretics, when Theophilus was bishop of Alexandria[181]
and Innocent bishop of Rome,[182] by Roman, African, and other
Western bishops. At the synod held in Palestine,[183] however,
at which fourteen bishops attended, Pelagius was acquitted. Some
of the charges brought against him he utterly denied as foolish
and anathematized, while he admitted having made certain other
statements, not however in the sense attributed to them by his
accusers, but rather in conformity with the doctrines of the Catholic
Church. His accusers were Neporus[184] and Lazarus,[185] two bishops
of Gaul, who were not present at the inquiry, having obtained
permission to absent themselves in consequence of the illness of one
of them. So Augustine states in his letters to Aurelius, bishop of
Carthage.
After the death of the holy Augustine certain of the clergy began
to reassert these impious doctrines. They began to speak evil of
Augustine and falsely accused him of denying free will; but bishop
Coelestine checked the renewal of this slander, writing to the
bishops of the country in defence of that godlike man and against
those who had set this heresy on foot again. As time went on, and
these heretics, after having abjured their own doctrines, were
received again into the Church, the scandal was again revived by
them, and had to be put down before it went further by bishop
Septimus,[186] who wrote to Leo, pope at that time and a fervent
opponent of these impious doctrines. Not long afterwards, when
the shameless heresy again sprang up from an evil root, certain
persons at Rome openly expressed themselves in favour of it. But
Prosper,[187] truly a man of God, in his pamphlets against them, soon
crushed them, while Leo still occupied the papal throne. The heresy
was also condemned at the holy synod of Ephesus.[188] John, patriarch
of Alexandria,[189] in his _Apologia_ to Gelasius, bishop of
Rome,[190] anathematized not only the Pelagian heresy, but Pelagius
and Coelestius themselves, together with Julian,[191] who was known
to have succeeded them in the leadership of this sect.
LV
Read the treatise of John Philoponus (or rather Mataeoponus)
_Against the Holy Fourth Oecumenical Council_.[192] The style is
characteristic of him. He shamelessly attempts to prove that the
council favoured the heresy of Nestorius, and declares that it
acquiesced in his excommunication, because it imagined it was doing
no harm to the man[193] by ratifying his doctrine, which Nestorius
himself, on whom the condemnation fell, fondly cherished and
regarded as the most important thing of all; wherein he indulges in
fabrications and outrageous statements, on a par with his mental
capacity and the unsteadiness of his opinions. The audacious and
idle assertions which he makes against the council, a comedy in four
parts, are in no way deserving of credit or even sensible.
In the same volume read a treatise by another John, a Nestorian,
_Against the same Holy Fourth Council_. The author is John of
Aegae,[194] an impious person, but his diction has beauty and charm,
and is brilliant and perspicuous.
LVI
Read the treatise of Theodoret of Cyrrhus _Against Heresies_, from
the time of Simon[195] down to those which sprang up in his own age.
It is dedicated to a certain Sporacius,[196] who was fond of hearing
about such matters. It goes down to Nestorius and his heresy, on
which he pours forth unmitigated censure, and even farther, to the
heresy of Eutyches. In the last of the five books which the treatise
contains, he gives a summary of divine and orthodox doctrine
compared with idle heretical talk, showing that it is not to be
confounded with the latter, but is pure and irreprehensible. The
style is clear and free from redundancies.
LVII
Read Appian’s[197] _Roman History_, in three parts and twenty-four
books. The first treats of the seven kings, Romulus, Numa
Pompilius, Ancus Hostilius,[198] Ancus Marcius (grandson of Numa),
Tarquinius (Priscus), Servius Tullius, Lucius Tarquinius, son of
Tarquinius,[199] of whose acts and deeds it contains an account.
The first of these, the founder and oekist of the city, although
his rule was rather patriarchal than tyrannical, was nevertheless
assassinated, or, according to others, disappeared from view. The
second, in no way inferior as a ruler to his predecessor, or perhaps
even his superior, died at the age of.... The third was struck by
lightning. The fourth succumbed to disease. The fifth was murdered
by shepherds. The sixth was also murdered. The seventh was deposed
and driven out of the city for his tyranny. After this, the monarchy
was abolished, and its powers transferred to consuls. Such is the
contents of the first book, which is entitled _The Book of the
Kings_. The second book, entitled _Italica_, gives an account of the
history of Italy with the exception of that part which is situated
on the Ionian Sea. The following book, _Samnitica_, relates the
wars of the Romans with the Samnites,[200] a powerful nation and an
enemy difficult to conquer whom it took the Romans eighty years to
subdue, and the other nations who fought on their side. The fourth,
_Celtica_, relates the wars of the Romans with the Celts (Gauls).
The remaining books are similarly named. The fifth contains the
History of Sicily and the other Islands, the sixth gives an account
of Iberian affairs, the seventh of the Hannibalic wars, the eighth
of Libyan affairs (dealing with Carthage and Numidia), the ninth
of Macedonian affairs, the tenth of Greek and Ionian affairs,
the eleventh of Syrian and Parthian affairs, the twelfth of the
Mithradatic war. Up to this point the relations and wars of the
Romans with foreign nations are set forth in this order. The books
that follow describe the civil wars and disturbances amongst the
Romans themselves. They are entitled the first and second books of
the Civil Wars and so on down to the ninth, which is the twenty-first
book of the whole. The twenty-second book is called _Hekatontaëtia_
(the history of one hundred years), the twenty-third, _Dacica_, on
Dacian affairs, the twenty-fourth, _Arabica_, on Arabian affairs.
Such are the divisions of the entire work. The account of the civil
wars contains first the war between Marius and Sulla, then that
between Pompey and Julius Caesar, after their rivalry took the form
of violent hostilities, until fortune favoured Caesar and Pompey
was defeated and put to flight. Next, it describes the proceedings
of Antony and Octavius Caesar (also known as Augustus) against the
murderers of Julius Caesar, at the time when many distinguished
Romans were put to death without a trial. Lastly, the desperate
conflict between Antony and Augustus, accompanied by terrible
slaughter, in which victory declared for Augustus. Antony, deserted
by his allies, was driven a fugitive to Egypt, where he died by his
own hand. The last book of the Civil Wars describes how Egypt came
into the power of the Romans, and how Augustus became the sole ruler
of Rome.
The history begins with Aeneas, the son of Anchises, the son of
Capys, who lived in the time of the Trojan war. After the capture
of Troy Aeneas fled, and after much wandering landed on the coast
of Italy at a place called Laurentum, where his camp is shown, and
the coast is called after him Troja. Faunus, son of Mars, who was
at the time ruler of the original Italian inhabitants, gave his
daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas and a piece of land 400
stades in circumference, on which Aeneas built a city and called it
Lavinium after his wife Lavinia. Three years later, Faunus died,
and Aeneas, who succeeded to the throne by right of kinship, gave
the aborigines[201] the name of Latins from his father-in-law
Latinus Faunus. After another three years, Aeneas was killed in
battle against the Rutulians of Tyrrhenia, to whose king Lavinia
had formerly been betrothed. He was succeeded by Euryleon, surnamed
Ascanius, the son of Aeneas by Creusa the daughter of Priam, who
was his wife at Troy. According to others, however, the Ascanius
who succeeded him was his son by Lavinia. Ascanius died four years
after he had founded the city of Alba with a body of settlers from
Lavinium, and Silvius became king. The son of this Silvius is said
to have been Aeneas Silvius, and the son of Aeneas Latinus Silvius.
His descendants were Capys, Capetus, Tiberinus, and Agrippa, said
to be the father of Romulus, who was killed by lightning, leaving
a son Aventinus, who had a son named Procas. All these are said to
have been surnamed Silvius. Procas had two children, the elder named
Numitor, the younger Amulius. When the elder succeeded to the throne
on the death of his father, the younger got possession of it by force
and crime, killed his brother’s son Egestus, and made his daughter
Rhea a priestess, so that she might not have children. But Numitor’s
mildness and gentleness saved him from the plot against his life.
Silvia broke her vows and became pregnant,[202] and was seized by
Amulius for punishment, her two sons being given to some shepherds to
be thrown into the river Tiber near at hand. The infants, Romulus and
Romus,[203] were descended from Aeneas on the mother’s side; the name
of their father was unknown.[204]
As already stated, the history begins with a rapid account of Aeneas
and his descendants; but from the time of Romulus, the oekist[205] of
the city, it gives full details of events to the reign of Augustus,
and, here and there, as late as the time of Trajan.
Appian was an Alexandrian by birth, and at first an advocate at
Rome, being subsequently raised to the dignity of a procurator[206]
under the emperors. His style is dry and free from redundancies;
as an historian, he is trustworthy to the best of his ability, and
an excellent authority on military matters; the speeches which he
introduces are admirably calculated to encourage soldiers when
dispirited, to restrain them when too ardent, to express and
faithfully represent the emotions and feelings. He flourished in the
reigns of Trajan and Hadrian.
LVIII
Read Arrian’s[207] _Parthica_ (History of Parthia) in seventeen
books. He has also written the best account of the campaigns of
Alexander of Macedon. Another work of his is _Bithynica_ (History
of Bithynia), relating the affairs of his native country. He also
wrote an _Alanica_ (History of the Alani).[208] In the _Parthica_
he gives an account of the wars between Parthia and Rome during the
reign of Trajan. He considers the Parthians to have been a Scythian
race, which had long been under the yoke of Macedonia, and revolted,
at the time of the Persian rebellion,[209] for the following reason.
Arsaces and Tiridates were two brothers, descendants of Arsaces, the
son of Phriapetes. These two brothers, with five accomplices, slew
Pherecles, who had been appointed satrap of Parthia by Antiochus
Theos,[210] to avenge an insult offered to one of them; they drove
out the Macedonians, set up a government of their own, and became so
powerful that they were a match for the Romans in war, and sometimes
even were victorious over them. Arrian further relates that during
the reign of Sesostris, king of Egypt, and Iandysus, king of Scythia,
the Parthians removed from their own country, Scythia, to the land
which they now inhabit. The emperor Trajan reduced them to submission
but left them free under a treaty, and appointed a king over them.
This Arrian, called the “young Xenophon,” a philosopher and one
of the pupils of Epictetus,[211] flourished during the reigns
of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Antoninus. Owing to his
remarkable learning he was entrusted with various offices of state,
and was finally promoted to the consulship. He was also the author of
other works: the _Lectures_ of Epictetus his master, with eight books
of which we are acquainted, and the _Conversations_ of Epictetus
in twelve books. His style is dry, and he is a genuine imitator of
Xenophon.
It is said that he was also the author of other works, but they have
not come into my hands. Certainly he does not lack rhetorical skill
and power.
LIX
Read the proceedings of the synod[212] that was unlawfully summoned
against St. John Chrysostom. The presidents were Theophilus, bishop
of Alexandria, Acacius of Beroea, Antiochus of Ptolemaïs, Severian
of Gabala, and Cyrinus of Chalcedon, who were bitterly hostile
to Chrysostom, and constituted themselves judges, accusers, and
witnesses. There were thirteen sessions: twelve against Chrysostom,
the thirteenth against Heraclides, whom Chrysostom had ordained
bishop of Ephesus.
Owing to the pressure of other business, however, the deposition of
Heraclides could not be ratified. His accuser was Macarius, bishop
of Magnesia. The open enemy and chief accuser of Chrysostom was his
deacon John. He first charged Chrysostom with having wronged him
by ejecting him for having beaten his own servant Eulalius; the
second charge was that a certain monk named John had been flogged
by order of Chrysostom, dragged along, and put in chains like
those possessed; the third, that he had sold much valuable Church
property; the fourth, that he had sold the marble which Nectarius
had set aside for decorating the church of St. Anastasia; the fifth,
that he had reviled the clergy as dishonourable, corrupt, useless
in themselves,[213] and worthless; the sixth, that he had called
St. Epiphanius[214] a fool and a demon; the seventh, that he had
intrigued against Severian, and set the _decani_[215] against him;
the eighth, that he had written a book slandering the clergy; the
ninth, that, having called all the clergy together, he had summoned
three deacons, Acacius, Edaphius, and John, on a charge of having
stolen his hood,[216] and had asked whether they had taken it for
any other purpose; the tenth, that he had consecrated Antonius
as bishop, although he had been convicted of robbing graves; the
eleventh, that he had denounced count John at a seditious meeting of
the troops; the twelfth, that he did not pray either when walking to
the church or entering it; the thirteenth, that he ordained deacons
and priests without standing by the altar; the fourteenth, that he
consecrated four bishops at once; the fifteenth, that he received
visits from women by themselves, after he had sent every one else
out of the room; the sixteenth, that he had sold by the agency of
Theodulus the inheritance left by Thecla; the seventeenth, that no
one knew how the revenues of the Church were spent; the eighteenth,
that he had ordained Serapion priest at a time when he was under
accusation; the nineteenth, that he paid no heed to those who
belonged to the communion of the world, who had been imprisoned by
his orders, and when they died in prison did not even condescend to
make arrangements for the interment of their bodies; the twentieth,
that he had insulted the most holy Acacius, and refused to grant
him an interview; the twenty-first, that he had handed over the
presbyter Porphyry to Eutropius to be banished; the twenty-second,
that he had also handed over the presbyter Venerius and grievously
insulted him; the twenty-third, that a bath was heated for him alone,
and that after he had bathed, Serapion emptied the bath, so that no
one else might use it; the twenty-fourth, that he had ordained many
without witnesses; the twenty-fifth, that he ate gluttonously alone,
living like a Cyclops; the twenty-sixth, that he himself was accuser,
witness, and judge, as was evident from the case of Martyrius the
proto-deacon, and Proaeresius, bishop of Lycia; the twenty-seventh,
that he struck Memnon with his fist in the church of the Apostles,
and while he bled at the mouth celebrated the communion; the
twenty-eighth, that he dressed and undressed on his throne, and ate a
lozenge;[217] the twenty-ninth, that he bribed the bishops who were
consecrated by him to oppress the clergy.
Such were the charges against this holy man. He was four times
summoned, but refused to appear. He declared that, if the synod would
remove his open enemies from the list of judges, he was ready to
appear and defend himself against any charges brought against him; if
they refused to do so, no matter how many times they summoned him, it
would be of no avail.
The first and second counts were then investigated, after which the
synod proceeded to deal with the case of the bishops Heraclides and
Palladius of Helenopolis. The monk John, mentioned by the deacon
John in the second charge against Chrysostom, presented a memorial
accusing Heraclides of being a follower of Origen, and of having been
arrested at Caesarea in Palestine for the theft of the clothes of
Aquilinus the deacon. Notwithstanding this, he declared, Chrysostom
had consecrated him bishop of Ephesus. He further accused Chrysostom
himself, whom he blamed for all that he had suffered at the hands of
Serapion and Chrysostom owing to the Origenists. After this the ninth
and twenty-seventh charges were investigated.
Then bishop Isaac again charged Heraclides with being a follower of
Origen, with whom the most holy Epiphanius would hold no communion
either at prayers or meals. He also presented a memorial containing
the following charges against Chrysostom: (1) That the monk John,
already mentioned, had been flogged and put in chains through the
Origenists; (2) that Epiphanius refused to hold communion with him
on account of his connexion with the Origenists Ammonius, Euthymius,
Eusebius, Heraclides, and Palladius; (3) that he neglected the duties
of hospitality and always ate alone; (4) that in church he used
such language as “the table is full of furies”; (5) that he loudly
exclaimed, “I am in love, I am mad”; (6) that he ought to explain
what “furies” he referred to, and what he meant by “I am in love,
I am mad,” expressions unknown to the Church; (7) that he licensed
people to sin, since he taught, “If thou sin again, repent again,”
and, “As often as thou sinnest, come to me and I will heal thee”; (8)
that he uttered blasphemy while in the Church, asserting that the
prayer of Christ was not heard, since He did not pray in a proper
manner; (9) that he stirred up the people to reject the authority
of the synod; (10) that he had welcomed a number of heathens who
had oppressed the Christians, kept them in the church, and afforded
them protection; (11) that he had encroached upon the provinces of
others, and consecrated bishops there; (12) that he had insulted the
bishops, and ordered the bishops and ...[218] to be ejected from his
house; (13) that he had subjected the clergy to unheard-of insults;
(14) that he had violently appropriated sums of money left to others;
(15) that he performed ordinations without a meeting of the clergy
and contrary to their wish; (16) that he had received the Origenists,
but allowed those who were in communion with the Church and had come
to him with letters of recommendation to be cast into prison without
obtaining their release, and even if they died there, took no further
notice of them; (17) that he had consecrated as bishops foreign
slaves not yet emancipated and, in some cases, under accusation; (18)
that he himself (Isaac) had often been ill-treated by him.
Of these charges the first, having been already discussed, did not
seem to require further examination, but the second and seventh,
and then the third of the charges brought by deacon John, were
investigated. In this last the archpresbyter Arsacius, the successor
of Chrysostom, and the presbyters Atticus and Elpidius somehow or
other came forward as witnesses against that holy man. They and the
presbyter Acacius also gave witness against him on the fourth charge.
After these had been investigated, the above-mentioned presbyters,
with Eudaemon and Onesimus, demanded that the synod should hasten
its decision. Accordingly, Paul, bishop of Heraclea, called upon
all to give their vote. The members present, forty-five in all,
then recorded their opinion, beginning with bishop Gymnasius and
ending with Theophilus of Alexandria. It was unanimously decided
that Chrysostom should be deprived of his episcopate. A letter on
his deposition was sent on the part of the synod to the clergy of
Constantinople, and a report was made to the emperors. Gerontius,
Faustinus, and Eugnomonius also presented three petitions,
complaining that they had been unjustly deprived of their episcopates
by Chrysostom. The emperors in reply sent an imperial rescript
to the synod. These were the proceedings of the twelfth session;
the thirteenth, as has been stated, was occupied with the case of
Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus.
LX
Read the nine books of the _History_ of Herodotus,[219] in name and
number identical with the nine Muses. He may be considered the best
representative of the Ionic, as Thucydides of the Attic dialect. He
is fond of old wives’ tales and digressions, pervaded by charming
sentiments, which, however, sometimes obscure the due appreciation of
history and its correct and proper character. Truth does not allow
her accuracy to be impaired by fables or excessive digressions from
the subject.
He begins his history with Cyrus, the first king of Persia,
describing his birth, education, manhood, and reign, and goes down
to the reign of Xerxes--his expedition against the Athenians, and
subsequent retreat. Xerxes was the third who succeeded Cyrus, the
first being Cambyses, the second Darius. Smerdis the Magian is not
reckoned among these, as a tyrant who craftily usurped the throne
that did not belong to him. Darius was succeeded by his son Xerxes,
with whom the history concludes, although it does not go as far as
the end of his reign. Herodotus himself, according to the evidence
of Diodorus Siculus,[220] flourished during these times. It is said
that, when he read his work,[221] Thucydides, then very young,
who was present with his father at the reading, burst into tears.
Whereupon Herodotus exclaimed, “Oh, Olorus! how eager your son is to
learn!”
LXI
Read the three orations of Aeschines,[222] _Against Timarchus_
(the first of his speeches), _On the False Embassy_, and _Against
Ctesiphon_ (the third and last). These three speeches and nine
letters are said to be his only genuine works; for which reason
the orations were sometimes called the three Graces, from their
number and the charm of their style, and the letters the nine Muses.
Another oration, the _Delian law_, was known under his name; but
Caecilius[223] denies its genuineness and ascribes it to another
Aeschines, an Athenian and contemporary.
Aeschines was one of the “ten” Attic orators. He was accused by
Demosthenes of having misconducted an embassy,[224] but was not
convicted, since the demagogue Eubulus, in whose service Aeschines
had formerly been,[225] sided with him against Demosthenes, and
caused the jury to rise before Demosthenes had finished his speech.
Subsequently, when he attacked the proposal of Ctesiphon on behalf
of Demosthenes as illegal,[226] having himself settled the amount of
the fine he was prepared to pay if he did not make good the charge,
he failed to do so, and left his country. He first set out for Asia,
intending to seek refuge with Alexander, the son of Philip, who was
then on his Asiatic expedition, but when he heard of his death and
that his successors were quarrelling amongst themselves, he sailed
to Rhodes, where he remained for some time, giving young men lessons
in rhetoric. When his admirers were at a loss to understand how so
great an orator could have been defeated by Demosthenes, he replied,
“If you had heard that beast (meaning Demosthenes), you would not be
surprised.” He is said to have been the first to compose imaginary
speeches and what are called “declamations” in his leisure hours.
In his old age he removed to Samos, where he died. He was of humble
origin;[227] his father was Atrometus; his mother Glaucothea, a
priestess. He had two brothers, Aphobetus and Philochares. At first,
being possessed of a loud voice, he became a third-rate actor; then
he was copying-clerk to the Council; and soon afterwards came forward
as a public speaker. He belonged to the philippizing party at Athens,
and was consequently a political opponent of Demosthenes. He is
said to have attended Plato’s lectures, and to have been the pupil
of Antalcidas,[228] statements which are supported by the grandeur
of his language and the dignity of his inventions.[229] The sophist
Dionysius,[230] when he came across the oration _Against Timarchus_,
after he had read the opening--“I have never yet publicly indicted
a citizen nor harassed him when he was rendering an account of his
office”--is reported to have said, “Would that you had indicted or
harassed many, that so you might have left us more speeches of the
kind,” so delighted was he with this orator’s style.
His language appears natural and extemporaneous, and does not create
so much admiration for the writer’s art as for his natural gifts.
Abundant proofs of his cleverness and ability are to be found in
his orations. In his choice of words he aims at simplicity and
distinctness, and in the structure of his periods he is neither so
feeble as Isocrates, nor so compressed and concise as Lysias, while
in verve and energy he is not inferior to Demosthenes. He employs
figures of thought and speech, not to create the impression of using
artistic language, but in conformity with the necessities of the
subject. Hence his style appears direct and straightforward, well
adapted for speaking in public and for private conversation; for he
does not make constant use of proofs and arguments, and is not over
elaborate.
Aeschines,[231] the son of Lysanias, called Socraticus, is reckoned
by Phrynichus and others one of the greatest orators, and his
speeches as models of Attic style, only second to those of its best
representatives.
LXII
Read the _History of Constantine the Great_ by Praxagoras of
Athens,[232] in two books. In this he tells us that Constantine’s
father, Constantius, was governor of Britain and Spain; Maximin[233]
of Rome, the rest of Italy, and Sicily; the other Maximin[234] of
Greece, Asia Minor, and Thrace; Diocletian, as the eldest, governed
Bithynia, Arabia, Libya, and that part of Egypt that is watered
by the Nile. Constantine was sent by his father to Diocletian in
Nicomedia to be educated. At that time Maximin,[235] governor of Asia
Minor, who happened to be there, determined to lay a plot against
the youth and set him to fight with a savage lion. But Constantine
overcame and slew the beast, and having discovered the plot, took
refuge with his father, after whose death he succeeded to the throne.
Soon after his accession, he subdued the Celts and Germans,
neighbouring and barbarous nations. Having learnt that Maxentius,
who had made himself master of Rome after Maximin,[236] treated his
subjects with cruelty and brutality, he marched against him, to
punish him for his conduct. He was speedily victorious and put his
enemy to flight, who fell into the pit which he had prepared for
others and met the death which he had designed for his enemies. The
Romans cut off his head, hung it on a spear, and carried it through
the city. This part of the empire with joyful eagerness submitted to
Constantine.
In the meantime, Maximin (who had plotted against Constantine) had
died and was succeeded in his government by Licinius. Constantine,
hearing that he also treated his subjects with cruelty and
inhumanity, unable to tolerate such brutality towards those of the
same race, marched against him, to put an end to his tyranny and
replace it by constitutional government. Licinius, being informed of
the expedition, became alarmed, attempted to disguise his cruelty
under the cloak of humanity, and took an oath that he would treat
his subjects kindly and would strictly keep his promise. Constantine
accordingly for the time abandoned his expedition. Soon afterwards,
however, since the wicked cannot remain quiet, Licinius broke his
oath and abandoned himself to every kind of villainy. Whereupon
Constantine attacked and defeated him in several great battles and
shut him up and besieged him in Nicomedia, whence he approached
Constantine in the garb of a suppliant. His kingdom was taken away
from him and bestowed upon Constantine, who thus secured and became
sole ruler of the different parts of the great empire, which had long
desired an emperor worthy of it. He inherited his father’s kingdom
and that of Rome after the overthrow of Maximin,[237] and obtained
possession of Greece, Macedonia, and Asia Minor by the deposition of
Licinius. He further assumed control of that part which had belonged
to Diocletian, and had been held by Licinius, who had seized it by
right of war from Maximin,[238] Diocletian’s successor.
Being thus sole master of a united empire, he founded Byzantium
and called it after his own name. Praxagoras says that although
Constantine was a heathen, in virtue, goodness, and prosperity he far
excelled all his predecessors on the throne. With these words the
history concludes.
Praxagoras, according to his own statement, was twenty-two years old
when he wrote this history. He was also the author of two books on
_The Kings of Athens_, written when he was nineteen, and six books
on _Alexander King of Macedon_, written when he was thirty-one. His
style is clear and agreeable, but somewhat wanting in vigour. He
writes in the Ionic dialect.
LXIII
Read the _History_ of Procopius[239] the rhetorician in eight books.
He relates the wars of the Romans in the reign of Justinian against
the Vandals, Persians, and Goths, chiefly conducted by Belisarius,
whose intimate friend the writer was and whom he accompanied on
his campaigns, setting down in writing events of which he was an
eye-witness.
The following is the contents of the first book. Arcadius, emperor of
the Romans, in his will appointed Yezdegerd, king of Persia, guardian
of his son Theodosius. Yezdegerd accepted the trust, fulfilled his
duties as guardian conscientiously and kept his ward’s throne intact.
On the death of Yezdegerd, Vararanes his successor made war against
the Romans, but after Anatolius, master-general of the East, had
been sent by Theodosius on an embassy to Persia, he concluded a
treaty and returned home. After this Perozes, king of Persia, who
succeeded another Yezdegerd, son of Vararanes, waged war on the Huns
called Ephthalites or “White” Huns from their complexions. They are
not ill-looking and do not resemble the other Huns. They do not
lead a wild or nomadic life, but enjoy the protection of the laws
under their kings. They were the neighbours of Persia on the north,
which induced Perozes to invade their territory in order to settle
the question of boundaries. The Ephthalites cunningly led him into
difficult country, from which he barely escaped after concluding a
disgraceful peace. He was forced to do homage to the king of the
Ephthalites, and was only allowed to depart on taking an oath that
he would never attack them again. Subsequently, however, he broke
his word and, having again made war upon them, was ignominiously
destroyed together with his whole army, which fell into pits and
ditches cunningly prepared by the enemy. He died in the twenty-fourth
year of his reign, on which occasion the famous pearl which he wore
in his right ear was lost.
Perozes was succeeded by his youngest son Cabades,[240] who was
accused of violating the laws and imprisoned by the Persians in the
fortress of Lethe. Having escaped with the assistance of his wife he
took refuge with the Ephthalites, whose ruler betrothed him to one
of his daughters and lent him a large army, with which he marched
against the Persians and recovered his throne without a fight. His
brother Blases,[241] who was ruling in his stead, was abandoned by
his soldiers, seized, and blinded by boiling oil poured into his
open eyes, in accordance with a long-established Persian custom. An
account of the dispute between Pacurius, king of Persia, and Arsaces,
king of Armenia, and the advice hostile to Arsaces, given by the magi
to Pacurius, follows next. It seems probable, however, that this
story is fictitious.
The above-mentioned Cabades, who was heavily in debt to the
Ephthalites, endeavoured to obtain a loan from Anastasius, but met
with a refusal. Thereupon Cabades, without any further excuse,
suddenly overran Armenia and besieged Amida. When he was on the point
of abandoning the siege in despair, a gross insult on the part of
some women among the besieged induced him to turn back and continue
operations. He attacked with furious impetuosity, took the city by
storm, and carried off the inhabitants as slaves. A large number of
them were subsequently released without ransom, and treated with
great kindness by Anastasius.
Anastasius, hearing that Amida was besieged, sent a very large
force against the Persians, under four commanders--Areobindus,
master-general of the East (son-in-law of Olybrius, the former
emperor of the West), Celer, captain of the imperial household,
Patricius the Phrygian, and his own nephew Hypatius. With them
were associated Justin, who succeeded Anastasius, and many other
experienced soldiers. It is said that so large an army had never
been brought into the field against the Persians, but owing to its
delay in arriving, the city was taken; further, there was no unity
of operation and the different detachments acted independently, with
the result that they were ignominiously defeated with heavy loss. At
last they reached Amida and besieged the city, but while they wasted
time, the Persians within, who were in great straits, concluded a
seven years’ treaty, which was arranged by Celer and Asperedes as
representatives of Persia and Rome.
Mount Taurus in Cilicia first passes through Cappadocia, Armenia,
Persarmenia, Albania, Iberia, and all the other independent countries
which had become subject to Persia. Just over the frontiers of Iberia
there is a narrow path about fifty stades in length, ending in a
steep and inaccessible height; there is apparently no way through,
except by means of a natural exit which looks as if it had been
made by the hand of man, called in ancient times the Caspian gate.
Beyond this gate there are plains suitable for riding, and full of
natural springs, and there is an extensive tract of gently-sloping
country which provides an excellent pasturage for horses; it is
nearly all inhabited by Huns as far as the Palus Maeotis.[242]
Whenever they invade Persian or Roman territory through the Caspian
gate, they ride at full speed on vigorous horses, since all who
desire to enter Iberia have only to contend with difficult country
for the fifty stades mentioned; if, on the other hand, they choose
another passage, it is only with great trouble that they reach their
destination. Alexander, the son of Philip, perceiving this, built
gates there and erected a fortress. During the reign of Anastasius,
this fortress was occupied by a Hun named Ambazuces, a friend of the
Romans and Anastasius, to whom he offered to hand over control of
the gates.[243] Anastasius thanked him for his goodwill, but refused
to accept the responsibility. After the death of Ambazuces, Cabades
forcibly ejected his sons and took possession of the gates. Thereupon
Anastasius, after the treaty had been concluded with Cabades, built a
stronghold in the neighbourhood of Daras, in spite of the objections
of the Persians, and also another city in Armenia, on the frontiers
of Persarmenia, which was formerly called Theodosiupolis, since
Theodosius had bestowed upon it the rank of a city instead of a
village.
On the death of Anastasius, although many of his kinsmen were worthy
to succeed him, they were rejected and Justin elected emperor. Soon
after his accession, Cabades, in order to secure the throne for his
youngest son Chosroës, wrote a letter to Justin proposing that he
should adopt Chosroës. Justin and his sister’s son Justinian, the
heir-presumptive, welcomed the proposal, but in consequence of the
advice of Proclus the quaestor, who argued that sons were the lawful
heirs and successors of their fathers,[244] they changed their minds
and the adoption was not ratified. Subsequently, Seoses (who had once
saved the life of Cabades) and Beodes[245] were sent by the Persians,
and Rufinus and Hypatius by the Romans, to discuss the terms of peace
and the adoption of Chosroës. Seoses was accused of various offences
by Beodes, tried by his countrymen and condemned to death. Rufinus
also accused Hypatius to the emperor, who deprived him of his office.
The country between Bosporus and Cherson, which are a twenty days’
journey apart, is inhabited by Hunnish tribes, who were formerly
independent but had recently submitted to Justin, Cherson being the
last city in Roman territory. The Iberians also, being ill-treated
by the Persians, declared themselves vassals of Justin together with
their king, Gurgenes. This was the cause of war between the Romans
and the Persians.
During his lifetime, Justin had made Justinian his partner in the
empire, who, after his uncle’s death, became sole ruler. Belisarius
and Sittas were the two army commanders under Justinian. Belisarius
had been appointed to the command of the troops in Daras, when
Procopius, the writer of this history, became his secretary. When
Justinian was sole emperor, Belisarius was made general of the
East and ordered to undertake an expedition against the Persians.
Perozes, the _mirran_,[246] had been appointed to the command of
the Persian army by Cabades. While both armies were encamped near
Daras, Perozes sent a message to Belisarius, bidding him prepare a
bath in the city, since he intended to bathe there on the following
day. The Romans accordingly prepared vigorously for battle. During
the engagement, one Andrew, a Byzantine, a gymnastic instructor,
master of a wrestling school in Constantinople, and one of the
bath-attendants of Buzes (who was associated with Belisarius in the
command), when challenged to a duel, made his way through the ranks
unnoticed, and defeated and slew his challenger. Then the battle was
discontinued. In a subsequent engagement, the Persians, having been
completely defeated with heavy losses, decided not to risk any more
pitched battles with the Romans, and both sides confined themselves
to skirmishes.
Cabades then sent another army into Roman Armenia, consisting of
Persarmenians, Sunites and Sabirites, under the command of Mermeroës.
Dorotheus, general of Armenia, and Sittas, who was in command of the
whole army, joined battle, and although greatly inferior in numbers,
defeated the Persians, who thereupon returned home. The Romans then
took possession of some Persian territory, including the district of
Pharangium, the gold mines of which furnish a revenue for the king.
The Tzani (formerly called Sani), an independent people who lived by
plundering their neighbours, were defeated by Sittas and submitted to
Rome. They embraced Christianity, and were drafted into the ranks of
the Roman army.
After the defeat of both his armies, Cabades was at a loss what to
do. Then Alamundarus, chief of the Persian Saracens, an experienced
and vigorous soldier, who for fifty years had harassed the Romans,
suggested to him that he should attack Antioch, which was
unprotected, and ravage the neighbouring country. But Belisarius,
hearing of his intention, set out with all speed against him with a
force of Isaurians and Saracens, the latter under Arethas, a Saracen
chief who was on the side of Rome. Alamundarus and Azarethes retired
in alarm, closely followed by Belisarius, who did not intend to
force an engagement, but only pretended to be pursuing them. But the
soldiers reproached him, at first secretly and then openly, so that
against his will he consented to give battle. At first, after both
sides had suffered heavily, the issue remained in doubt; but after
the forces of Arethas and the Isaurians had given way, the Persians
gained a decided victory. Had not Belisarius dismounted and gone
to the assistance of those who remained, they would all have been
destroyed. Azarethes, the Persian commander, on his return received
no thanks from Cabades for his victory. For he himself had lost a
large number of men, although the enemy’s losses had been greater,
and was accordingly regarded as disgraced.
Belisarius was recalled to Byzantium by Justinian to command the
expedition against the Vandals, the protection of the East being
entrusted to Sittas. At this time, while the Persians were attacking
the Romans, Cabades died and was succeeded by Chosroës. Hearing of
this, the Romans sent Rufinus, Alexander, Thomas, and Hermogenes on
an embassy to him, with offers to conclude an “endless peace” and
also to pay a sum of 110 centenars.[247] At first the negotiations
were unsuccessful, and it was not till later that the “endless peace”
was concluded in the sixth year of the reign of Justinian. According
to its terms, the Persians received the money agreed upon, and the
district of Pharangium and the fortress of Bolon were restored to
them; on the other hand, they abandoned the fortresses captured in
Lazica, and exchanged Dagaris, an excellent soldier, for a Persian of
rank.
Soon afterwards, their subjects conspired against both Chosroës and
Justinian. The Persians hated Chosroës as turbulent and restless,
and were minded to bestow the crown on Cabades, the son of Chosroës’
brother Zames. But the plot was discovered, and Chosroës put to
death Zames and his other brothers, and all who had taken part in
it. Thus the conspiracy was put down. Cabades the son of Zames, who
was very young, escaped death through the prudence and compassion of
Khanaranges Adergadunbades,[248] who was afterwards put to death on
this account by Chosroës.
The people of Rome also rose against Justinian and declared Hypatius,
the nephew of Anastasius, emperor against his will. The rising had
its origin in the circus factions.[249] Belisarius and Mundus, by
order of Justinian, put Hypatius to death together with a number of
conspirators and 30,000 of the people. Justinian also had the support
of his nephews Boraïdes and Justus. In the same book Procopius gives
an account of the avaricious and wily Tribonian, a Pamphylian by
birth, who held the office of quaestor, and also of John, prefect of
Cappadocia, notorious for villainy, greed, drunkenness, and vice of
every kind. He relates how Antonina, the wife of Belisarius, making
use of John’s daughter Euphemia, deceived him and convicted him of
conspiring against the emperor; also how, when Eusebius, bishop of
Cyzicus, was treacherously murdered, John, being suspected of the
crime, was scourged and ignominiously banished.
The contents of the second book is as follows. Chosroës, being
anxious to break the treaty with the Romans, whose conquest of Libya
had roused his jealousy, was further incited by Witigis, king of the
Goths, who sent an embassy to him, composed of certain Ligurians and
Bassacus, an Armenian chief. The Armenians had revolted from Rome and
joined the Persians, and the Roman commander Sittas had been killed
while fighting against them. Chosroës thereupon decided to break the
“endless” truce and make war on the Romans. When he heard of this,
Justinian sent Anastasius to Chosroës to advise him not to do so. In
the meantime Witigis had been taken prisoner by Belisarius, and sent
to Constantinople. Chosroës, however, crossed the Roman frontiers,
took the town of Sura, and made the inhabitants slaves. Soon
afterwards, Candidus, bishop of Sergiopolis, having offered to ransom
the captives, 1200 in number, he let them go free on receipt of a
bond for two centenars. But Candidus, failing to keep his promise,
was justly punished. Chosroës next marched against Hierapolis, and
was preparing to lay siege to it, when the bishop of Beroea offered
him 2000 pounds of silver if he would abandon the blockade. Chosroës
consented, and even promised to evacuate the whole of the Roman
territory in the East for 1000 pounds of gold. Meanwhile Buzes,
general of the East, not thinking himself strong enough to oppose
Chosroës, kept moving from place to place. Chosroës then advanced to
Beroea, from whose inhabitants he demanded a ransom of 2000 pounds of
silver, afterwards increased to twice that amount; when they failed
to pay, he laid vigorous siege to the city. But Megas, bishop of
Beroea, appealed to Chosroës and induced him to let the inhabitants
go free, wherever they wished. Most of the soldiers voluntarily went
over to Chosroës, because their pay was greatly in arrears. In like
manner Chosroës demanded ransom from the inhabitants of Antioch, and
when they refused, besieged it. While he was vigorously attacking,
Theoctistus and Malatzes,[250] with the soldiers from the Lebanon,
secretly made their way out of the city and fled. Thus Chosroës
easily compelled Antioch to surrender and reduced the inhabitants to
slavery. Ambassadors from Rome were then sent to him, John the son
of Rufinus and Julian his private secretary. After a long discussion
as to terms, it was agreed that the Romans should pay Chosroës 5000
pounds of gold down, and 500 pounds every year in the future by
way of tribute, on his promise to cease ravaging their territory;
and that ambassadors should be sent from Justinian to confirm the
agreement. But in spite of this arrangement, Chosroës proceeded to
Apamea, and demanded a large sum of money from its bishop, Thomas;
finally, he carried off all the sacred vessels and offerings and
left the town. It was here that the miracle of the precious and
life-giving cross took place.[251] Chosroës is also said to have
attended the circus games in the same place. He then went on to
Chalcis, and after exacting from the inhabitants 200 pounds of gold,
retired without besieging it. He next visited Edessa, from which
he exacted the same amount, but, being alarmed by certain divine
warnings, left this city also unbesieged. Edessa is the city which is
connected with the story of Augarus[252] and the miracle performed
by Christ. Augarus was a great friend of Augustus, at whose court
he remained some time, and only succeeded by stratagem in obtaining
permission to return to his own country. Chosroës then left Edessa.
At the same time Justinian wrote to his ambassadors, expressing
himself ready to confirm the treaty. Nevertheless, Chosroës exacted
ransom from Constantina, and, going on to Daras, proceeded to besiege
it. Its commander, Martin, prepared to defend it, and Chosroës,
seeing no hope of taking it by siege, retired to his own country on
payment of 1000 pounds of silver. The inhabitants of Antioch were all
transferred to a city called Antioch of Chosroës, which he had built
in Assyria, a day’s journey from Ctesiphon. He treated them with
great kindness and favour, ordered that they should be exempt from
all jurisdiction but his own, constructed a hippodrome, and provided
them with other amusements.
Belisarius, who had been recalled from Italy to take command, set
out against Chosroës at the beginning of spring. On his arrival in
Mesopotamia, he armed and encouraged the soldiers, who were almost
without equipment and dreaded the name of the Persians. Chosroës, on
the invitation of the Lazians, who with their ruler Gubazes[253] had
joined the Persians, owing to the extortions and jobbery of John,
Roman commandant,[254] rapidly advanced against Petra, a city of
Colchis on the shore of the Euxine. As long as John was in command
of the fortress, the siege was unsuccessful, but after he had been
killed by a shot in the neck, it surrendered. The inhabitants were
allowed to depart unharmed, subject to an agreement. Only the large
amount of money accumulated by John through the monopoly was seized
by Chosroës. In the meantime Belisarius, after an abortive attack on
Nisibis, laid siege to the fortress of Sisauranum and compelled it to
surrender. Its commander Blischames[255] and the most distinguished
Persians were made prisoners and sent to Byzantium. Arethas also,
who had been sent with an army against the Assyrians, ravaged their
country; but his companions, who had secured large sums of money,
refused to return to Belisarius. The latter, whose army had been
attacked by sickness, was in ignorance of what Arethas had done;
Recithangus and Theoctistus were eager to return home to defend
Phoenicia, which was being ravaged by Alamundarus. Belisarius
accordingly withdrew his forces from Persian territory, and was soon
afterwards summoned by Justinian to Constantinople.
LXIV
Read the _History_ of Theophanes of Byzantium[256] in ten books. The
first book begins with the war against the Persians, which broke
out after the treaty concluded between Justinian and Chosroës was
renounced by Chosroës himself and Justin the successor of Justinian,
at the end of the second year of his reign. The history begins at
this point, and goes down to the tenth year of the war. In the first
book the author also mentions that he has written another work on the
history of Justinian; indeed, it is evident that he added other books
to these ten. In this book he narrates how the treaty was annulled.
Justin sent Comentiolus to demand the return of Suania from Chosroës,
who promised to give it back, but did not keep his promise. At this
time there was also a severe earthquake throughout Mesopotamia, a
prelude to the calamities that were to come.
The Turks, formerly called Massagetae, and by the Persians
Kirmikhiones, who live to the east of the Tanaïs (Don), at this time
sent an embassy with gifts to the emperor Justin, beseeching him
not to receive the Avars. Justin accepted the gifts, received the
ambassadors kindly, and dismissed them. When the Avars subsequently
approached Justin, requesting permission to inhabit Pannonia and
desiring to conclude peace, he refused, owing to the agreement he had
made with the Turks.
During the reign of Justinian, a certain Persian, a visitor to
Byzantium, explained to the emperor the art of rearing silkworms,
hitherto unknown to the Romans. This Persian, who had come from
the land of the Seres,[257] concealed the eggs of the silkworms in
a hollow cane and conveyed them to Byzantium. At the beginning of
spring, the eggs were placed upon mulberry leaves, on which the worms
fed when hatched, afterwards turning into moths, which spun the silk.
When king Justin afterwards showed the Turks how the worms were bred
and how silk was made, he greatly surprised them, since at that
time they had possession of the markets and harbours of the Seres,
formerly held by the Persians. Ephthalanus, king of the Ephthalites,
from whom the tribe derived its name, having defeated Perozes and
the Persians, drove them out of their territory and took possession
of it, being themselves shortly afterwards in turn defeated and
dispossessed by the Turks. Zemarchus, an ambassador sent by Justin
to the Turks, entertained them at a magnificent banquet and having
been received with every kindness returned home. Chosroës thereupon
marched against the Aethiopians (formerly called Macrobii,[258] and
at that time Homerites), who were on friendly terms with the Romans;
with the aid of Miranes,[259] the Persian general, he captured
Sanaturces, king of the Homerites, sacked their city and enslaved
the inhabitants. The author also relates how the Armenians, being
ill-treated by Surenas, especially in the matter of religion, entered
into a conspiracy with Vardanes (whose brother Manuel had been put
to death by Surenas) and a certain Vardus, slew Surenas, revolted
from the Persians and went over to the Romans, abandoning the town of
Dubios where they lived and crossing into Roman territory. This was
the chief reason why the Persians broke the treaty with the Romans.
Immediately afterwards the Iberians also revolted and with their
king, Gurgenes, deserted to the Romans. At that time Tiphilis was the
capital of Iberia.
Marcian, cousin of the emperor Justin, who had been appointed
commander in the East, was sent against Chosroës in the eighth year
of Justin’s reign. John, the general of Armenia, and Miranes, the
Persian leader (who was also called Baramaanes), collected an army to
oppose them. The Armenians were joined by the Colchians, the Abasgi,
and Saroes, king of the Alani; Miranes by the Sabiri, Daganes, and
the tribe of the Dilmaini.[260] Marcian defeated Miranes at Nisibis
and put him to flight; 1200 Persians were killed and seventy taken
prisoners, while the Roman loss was only seven. Marcian also laid
siege to Nisibis. Chosroës, when he heard of this got together
40,000 cavalry and more than 100,000 infantry, and hastened to its
assistance to attack the Romans. In the meantime Marcian was accused
to the emperor of aiming at the throne. Justin, persuaded of the
truth of the charge, dismissed him from the command and appointed
Theodore, the son of Justinian surnamed Tzirus, in his stead. This
led to disturbances, the Romans raised the siege, and Chosroës
besieged and reduced Daras.
LXV
Read the _Histories_ of Theophylact,[261] prefect and imperial
secretary, in eight books. He was an Egyptian by birth. His style
is not without grace, but owing to his excessive use of figurative
expressions and allegorical ideas is frigid and shows a puerile
lack of taste; further, his frequently ill-timed insertion of moral
sentiments betrays a fondness for excessive and superfluous display.
In other respects he is less deserving of censure. The history begins
with the reign of Maurice, and goes down to the accession of Phocas.
In the first book he gives an account of the proclamation of Maurice
by the emperor Tiberius as his successor at the time when John was
patriarch of Constantinople. Tiberius bestowed good advice upon
Maurice through the mouth of John the quaestor, who was deputed to
address Maurice and the people in place of the emperor. Tiberius
betrothed his daughter to Maurice and died the day after the
proclamation. Just before his death, he saw a vision and heard
a voice saying, “Thus saith the Trinity to thee, O Tiberius; the
tyrannous times of impiety shall not come during thy reign.” These
words were a prediction of the tragedy of the impious and tyrannical
reign of the accursed Phocas. Maurice made peace with the Avars,
who a little time before had laid siege to Sirmium, and agreed to
pay the barbarians 80,000 pieces of gold yearly in consignments
of garments and money. The treaty was kept for two years, but was
broken owing to the greed of the barbarians, who demanded 20,000
more pieces of gold. This led to the rupture of the truce: Singidum,
Augusta, and Viminacium were taken by the barbarians and Anchialus
besieged. Elpidius and Comentiolus, who were sent as ambassadors from
Rome to the chagan[262] of the Avars, were treated with insult on
the ground that Comentiolus had spoken too freely to the barbarian.
In the following year Elpidius was again sent to the chagan with
an offer to pay the additional 20,000 pieces of gold, and returned
to Byzantium with Targitius, the representative of the Avars, to
ratify the agreement. After the barbarians had plundered much Roman
territory, Targitius was banished to the island of Chalcis for six
months. Comentiolus was afterwards appointed to command against the
Slavs, and greatly distinguished himself. The chagan again violated
the truce on account of the affair of Boukolobras[263] the magian,
and many Roman towns were devastated.
The battle between the Romans and Persians at the river Nymphius and
the marriage of Maurice and Constantina, the daughter of Tiberius,
are next described. Then the fire that broke out in the forum at
the beginning of Maurice’s reign; the execution of Paulinus and the
miracle of the basin of Glyceria the martyr;[264] how the patriarch
John, when the emperor seemed inclined to leniency, himself insisted
that the magician should be given over to the flames, appealing
to the words of the apostle; how Paulinus and his son, who had
taken part in the crime, were put to death.[265] The affair of the
fortresses of Aphumon and Acbas. The battle between the Romans
and Persians, and how John was defeated by the cunning of the
barbarians. The great earthquake which took place at the beginning of
Maurice’s reign, and an account of his consulship. The appointment of
Philippicus, the husband of the emperor’s sister, to be commander in
the East, and his valiant deeds. The withdrawal of the Romans from
Media, during which the army suffered greatly from want of water.
How Philippicus handed over the district of Arzanene to his army to
plunder; the bravery of the Romans. The devastation of the country
round Martyropolis by the Persians, and their first and second
embassy to the Romans. Such is the contents of the first book.
The second book describes mount Izala; the haughtiness of
Cardarigan[266] the Persian commander; the battle between the Romans
under Philippicus and the Persians under Cardarigan at Arzamon; how
Philippicus, carrying the image “not made with hands” marched through
the camp and consecrated the army; how the Romans won a glorious
victory; how the image was sent with all due reverence to Simeon,
bishop of Amida. The territory of the barbarians plundered by the
Romans; Cardarigan flees for refuge to Daras, but the inhabitants
refuse to admit him for having been defeated. How a Roman soldier
belonging to the Quarto-Parthian legion (as those were called who
were quartered at Beroea in Syria) was brought into camp dying
of wounds. The expedition of the Romans against Azarnene, and
the desertion of its commanders Maruthas and Iobius (Jovius) to
Philippicus. The private forces raised by Cardarigan to deceive the
Romans. The marvellous escape of Heraclius (father of Heraclius
who was afterwards emperor), who was sent by Philippicus on a
reconnoitring expedition. Zabertas the Persian and the abandonment of
the siege of Chlomaron by the Romans. The headlong and unintelligible
flight of Philippicus, and the subsequent confusion in the Roman
army. Philippicus attacked by disease and the command taken over by
Heraclius. The Roman vice-commander attacks the Southern Persians
and at the beginning of spring the Romans invade Persian territory.
Comentiolus sets out against the Avars, having under him Martin and
Castus, who distinguished themselves against the enemy. Castus taken
prisoner. Ansimuth, commander of the infantry in Thrace, captured by
the Avars, who overrun Thrace. Comentiolus hesitates to attack the
enemy; speeches for and against at a council of war. A false alarm,
which also spread to the ranks of the enemy, frustrates Comentiolus’s
plan of attacking the chagan. How a soldier named Busas, who had
been captured by the enemy while hunting and left to his fate by
his countrymen, taught the barbarians to make siege-engines. The
unsuccessful siege of Beroea and Diocletianopolis by the chagan.
The emperor Maurice insulted by the Byzantine mob because of the
calamities brought upon Europe by the ravages of the barbarians.
John, surnamed Mystacon, appointed by Maurice to the command in
Thrace, with Drocton as second in command, who when Adrianople was
besieged by the Avars, attacked them and saved the city. Heraclius
attacks a Persian stronghold. The fortress of Beïudaës taken by the
distinguished valour of Sapir. The return of Philippicus to the
imperial city.
The third book begins with the appointment of Priscus to the command
of the East in place of Philippicus. The latter, jealous of Priscus,
persuades the emperor to announce a reduction of the rations of
the army. Priscus, when he approached the camp, did not get off
his horse, as was the usual custom, in order to salute the army.
This slight and the reduction of their rations caused a mutiny
amongst the soldiers. Priscus then gave the image “made without
hands” to Elifredas[267] and endeavoured to calm the soldiers by
exhibiting it, but they pelted it with stones. Priscus takes refuge
in Constantina, and Germanus against his will is chosen commander by
the army. While these disturbances were taking place, the Persians
greatly harassed the Romans. The emperor accordingly deprived
Priscus of his command and reappointed Philippicus. But the army
mutinied against him also. Constantina is besieged by the Persians
but relieved by Germanus. At the battle of Martyropolis the Romans
gain a brilliant victory over the Persians, their general Maruzas and
3000 being killed, and 1000 taken prisoners. The army is reconciled
to the emperor by the efforts of Aristobulus. Gallantry of the
Roman prisoners in the fortress of Giligerdon. Gregory, patriarch
of Antioch, re-establishes friendly relations between Philippicus
and the army. Martyropolis captured by the Persians owing to the
treachery of Sittas. Philippicus superseded in the command against
Persia by Comentiolus. The Getae or Slavs ravage the borders of
Thrace. Rome takes up arms against the Lombards. Libya[268] defeats
the Maurusii.[269] Under the command of Comentiolus, the Romans
engage the Persians at Sisarbanum near Nisibis; the Romans, fighting
with great bravery, are victorious. Heraclius greatly distinguishes
himself in the engagement. The Persian commander Phraates is slain
and much booty taken from the enemy. The defeat of the Turks by
Baram,[270] who secured great and valuable spoil for king Hormisdas.
Baram then takes up the sword against Suania. The Romans under the
command of Romanus attack Baram and his army, and inflict a severe
defeat upon him. Thereupon, Hormisdas insults Baram by sending him a
woman’s garment; Baram returns the insult by addressing a letter to
Hormisdas as daughter, not son, of Chosroës. The Armenians, prompted
by Symbatius, kill their commander John and prepare to go over to
the Persians. Comentiolus, being sent by the emperor, puts down the
mutiny and carries off Symbatius to Byzantium. He is condemned to be
thrown to the wild beasts, but his life is spared by the clemency of
the emperor. Hormisdas sends Sarames against Baram. Baram defeats
Sarames, causes him to be trampled upon by an elephant, and openly
revolts against the king. Baram, before he meditated revolt, had
become so powerful that he was considered next in rank to the king
and held what the Romans call the office of _curopalates_.[271] The
narrative returns to the events of earlier times, and a brief account
is given of what took place in the reigns of Justin and Tiberius,
of the cruelty of Hormisdas the Persian king, and the origin of the
family. Such is the contents of the third book.
The fourth book relates the spread of civil war amongst the Persians,
their victories and successes during the rule of Baram. The murder
of Pherochanes. Zadespras[272] goes over to the enemy. Hormisdas,
deprived of the throne by Bindoës, is allowed to plead his cause
in chains. After Bindoës has replied, the son of Hormisdas and the
queen are put to death and cut to pieces before his eyes; he himself
is blinded and subsequently beaten to death by order of his son
Chosroës, who was chosen to succeed him. The vigorous rule of Baram.
The flight of Chosroës, king of Persia, to Circensium, whence he
sends a letter and an embassy to the emperor Maurice. How Baram
schemes to get himself made king by the Persians, but, unable to
persuade them to elect him, proclaims himself. The emperor removes
Chosroës to Hierapolis, accompanied by a suite worthy of his rank.
What took place between Baram and Chosroës, before the latter made an
alliance with the Romans. The ambassadors sent by Baram to Maurice
are dismissed, while those of Chosroës are welcomed. The emperor
sends the bishop of Melitene and Gregory, bishop of Antioch, to
Chosroës. The treacherous murder of Baram by Zamerdes, Zoanambes,
and others. Bindoës, who had taken part in the plot against Baram,
flees to Persia. Martyropolis restored by Chosroës to the Romans.
The traitor Sittas burnt to death. The festal oration delivered by
Dometian, bishop of Melitene, on the occasion of the recovery of the
city. Such is the contents of the fourth book.
The fifth book relates how Chosroës, king of the Persians, being
dejected and sick at heart, sends a message to the shrine of Sergius
the martyr,[273] the object of devotion also of the rest of the
barbarians, entreating him to show him a way out of misfortune, and
promising him the gift of a golden cross set with gems. Zadespras
treacherously killed by Rosas at the instigation of Blischames,
and other events favourable to Chosroës. Chosroës gives a bond for
money lent by the emperor Maurice, and sends an embassy requesting
that Comentiolus be dismissed from the command; the appointment of
Narses in his stead, and the alliance with the Romans against the
usurper Baram. The royal gifts sent by Maurice to Chosroës. The
keys of Daras handed over to the emperor by the Persian ambassador
Dol(a)bzas. The speech of Dometian, bishop of Melitene, exhorting
the Romans to make an alliance with Chosroës against Baram. The
successes of Chosroës before the collision between the Romans and
Persians. How Chosroës recovers his throne and the royal treasures
with the aid of Bindoës. Junction of the Roman forces in Armenia and
the East, battle with Baram, and brilliant victory of the Romans. In
this battle, in which Narses was in command, some Turks were taken
prisoners who bore on their foreheads the sign of the cross, which
they declared they had formerly placed there to deliver them from
the ravages of a pestilence. Golinduch the Persian and his severely
ascetic life. The return of Chosroës to his own dominions. The gifts
sent by Chosroës to Sergius the martyr. His petition to the saint
to bestow pregnancy upon his wife Sirem, who was a Christian. His
petition proving successful, he sends valuable gifts to the shrine of
the martyr. Chosroës punishes all those who took part in the revolt
and puts Bindoës to death, as having lifted his hands against the
king. Chosroës predicts that the Romans will revolt against their
tyrannical masters. The embassy of Probus, bishop of Chalcedon, the
portrait of the Mother of God, and what took place at the embassy.
The emperor’s visit to Anchialus in Europe, where he is met by a
portent in the form of a sow. His return to the palace and the
arrival of the embassy of Zalabzas. Such is the contents of the fifth
book.
The sixth book relates how Maurice, setting out from the city, is
overtaken by a violent storm at sea. During his stay at Heraclea, a
monstrous prodigy is born, an infant without hands, eyes, eyebrows,
or eyelids, and a fish’s tail attached to his thigh. The destruction
of the monster. Three Slavs carrying citharae, said to have been sent
from the borders of ocean to the chagan, brought before Maurice.
Bossus and Bettus sent as ambassadors to Maurice by Theodorich,
king of the Franks, proposing an alliance in return for a sum of
money. The proposal rejected. How a large stag, one of a herd, being
wounded flees to a wood and is pursued by one of the bodyguard and
one of the Gepidae. How the former is treacherously slain for the
sake of his golden ornaments by the latter, who is convicted of the
crime a long time afterwards and burnt to death. The expedition
of the Avars against the Romans, the siege of Singidum,[274] the
appointment of Priscus as commander and general of the forces in
Europe. The church of Alexander the martyr at Drizipera set on fire
by the chagan. The Romans shut up in Tzurulum by the chagan. Maurice
cleverly deceives the chagan and forces him to raise the siege. The
embassy of the Avars to the Romans, the defeat of Ardagast,[275] the
affair of Tatimer.[276] The bravery of the tribune Alexander and
the Romans, the massacre of the Slovenes, and their counter-attack
on the Romans. Concerning the monsters born in the queen-city, a
child with four feet, another with two heads. Priscus deprived of
his command for sharing with the Persians the booty taken from the
Slovenes, and succeeded in the European command by Peter. An account
of the learning and shrewdness of Theodore,[277] who was sent as an
ambassador to the chagan by Priscus. Such is the contents of the
sixth book.
The seventh book relates the disturbances amongst the soldiers
and their bravery against the Slavs (or Getae, as they were
formerly called). What happened to Peter and the citizens at the
Thracian city of Asemus. How Pirigastus, the Slovene commander,
was slain. The bravery of the Romans, although suffering greatly
from lack of water. How Peter, being defeated by the Slovenes, is
superseded by Priscus. The death of John the Faster, patriarch of
Constantinople.[278] Concerning the money lent him by Maurice, for
which he gave a bond. The great respect shown by the truly pious
emperor to the ragged vestments left by the patriarch. The expedition
of the Maurusii against Carthage, and how it was stopped by the
bravery of Gennadius. Of the comet that was seen for several days.
The Turkish civil war. An account of their constitution, manners,
and customs. How the chagan of the Turks slew the ethnarch[279] of
the Ephthalites, enslaved the people, and also slew 300,000 Ogors
and Colchians. How he also slew Turum, who rebelled against him,
and sent a letter to the emperor Maurice announcing his victory. He
also enslaved the Avars. The inhabitants of Taugast and the tribe
of Mucri, with whom the defeated Avars took refuge. Concerning the
Ouars and Hunni, a great number of whom have inhabited Europe since
the reign of Justinian, and call themselves Avars. The Turkish
empire free from earthquakes and pestilence. The mountain of gold
and the city of Taugast. Silkworms, the mode of rearing them, and
the extensive manufacture of silk at Chubda. The white Indians.
The chagan’s conversation with Priscus concerning the enslavement
of the inhabitants of Singidum; Priscus’s answer, and how he saved
the city. The ravages of the barbarians in Dalmatia, and the great
success of Gunduis,[280] who had been sent against them by Priscus.
In the nineteenth year of Maurice’s reign a certain monk prophesies
his death and that of his children. Running with a drawn sword
from the forum to the vestibule of the palace, he proclaims that
Maurice and his children will be slain with the sword. A certain
Herodian also foretells what was about to happen. The famine in
the Roman camp. How the chagan, with remarkable humanity, granted
a suspension of hostilities for five days, during which the Romans
were to be supplied by the barbarians with provisions without fear
of molestation. How Priscus sent him gifts of spices in return. The
chagan’s advance into Moesia. Battle with Comentiolus in Moesia, in
which, by the treachery of Comentiolus, the Roman army is cut to
pieces by the barbarians. Flight of Comentiolus to Drizipera, but
the inhabitants refuse to admit him as being a runaway, and he goes
on to the long walls.[281] The barbarians in close pursuit first
capture Drizipera, burn the church of Alexander the martyr, drag
his body from the tomb and insult it. But divine justice overtakes
his insulters; the seven sons of the chagan die of bubo in one day.
During these disturbances Comentiolus resides in Constantinople; the
barbarians in the meantime approach the long walls. The inhabitants
of Byzantium are so alarmed that they contemplate abandoning Europe
and crossing over into Asia. However, the king sends Harmaton as
ambassador to the chagan, who by splendid gifts, to which are added
20,000 pieces of gold, is with difficulty persuaded to make peace,
declaring, “God judge between the chagan and Maurice, between the
Avars and the Romans.” The monsters in human form seen in the waters
of the Nile, and the various opinions as to the rising of the river.
Theophylact agrees with Agatharchides of Cnidus.[282] He says that in
the countries of Aethiopia there is a heavy and continuous downpour
of rain every year from the summer solstice to the autumnal equinox;
hence it is natural that the river should contract in winter, since
its waters are only fed from its own sources, whereas in summer it is
greatly increased by the rains from Aethiopia. Such is the contents
of the seventh book.
The eighth book relates how Chosroës, in consequence of the raids of
the Saracens who were subject to the Romans, desires to break the
treaty, but is persuaded by George, who was sent as ambassador, not
to do so. George, however, incurs the displeasure of the emperor,
since Chosroës declares that he had kept the treaty unbroken not for
the sake of the emperor, but for the sake of George. The charge of
treachery against Comentiolus, his reconciliation with the soldiers
and reappointment as commander by the emperor. Battle between the
Avars and the Romans commanded by Priscus and Comentiolus. The latter
excuses himself from taking part in the battle,[283] but the army,
under the leadership of Priscus, behaves with the greatest gallantry
and slays 4000 of the enemy. In a second engagement, the Avars lose
9000, in a third 15,000 men. In a fourth battle the Romans gain a
brilliant victory, in which 30,000 Avars and Gepidae are slain. In a
fifth and last battle, the Avars are utterly defeated, 3000 of them
being taken prisoners, together with 4000 other barbarians, 2200 of
other nations, and 8000 Slavs. The chagan cunningly persuades the
emperor to restore the captive Avars. The dejection of Comentiolus,
by whose carelessness a number of the soldiers, on the way to
Philippopolis, are frozen to death. Peter again appointed to the
command in Europe by the emperor. The marriage of Theodosius the son
of Maurice to the daughter of Germanus. The famine in the queen-city,
the disorderly conduct of the demes[284] while the emperor was
attending divine service, his clemency, the banishment and return of
the soldiers on the same day. Peter enjoined by Maurice at all costs
to keep the Thracian forces on the other side of the Ister (Danube);
the divine voice heard by Peter. Mutiny in the Roman army and a
rising against Maurice, Phocas being proclaimed exarch (captain) by
the soldiery. Flight of Peter; the emperor informed of the mutiny.
The demes, urged on by the demarchs Sergius and Cosmas, for the
first time meddle in state affairs, 1500 Greens and 900 Blues.
Maurice bestows largess on the demesmen, and sends an embassy to
the mutinous soldiers, who refuse to receive it. Byzantium put in a
state of defence. The army sends a message to Theodosius, demanding
that either he or his father-in-law should be proclaimed emperor.
When Maurice hears of this, suspecting that Germanus is the cause
of the revolt, he threatens his life. Germanus, being warned by his
son-in-law Theodosius, takes refuge in the church of the Mother of
God that had been built by Cyrus.[285] Stephen the eunuch, the tutor
of the king’s sons, sent to Germanus to induce him to leave the
church, but his mission is unsuccessful. Theodosius flogged by his
father for informing his father-in-law. Germanus removes from the
church of the Mother of God to St. Sophia, and being again summoned
to come out, is prevented from leaving the church by Andrew, a
constant attendant at the services. Disturbances in the city and
burning of the house of Constantine Lardys the patrician. Perplexity
and flight of Maurice, which is hindered by a storm. Mission of
Theodosius to Chosroës; his departure from Nicaea on being shown the
ring, which his father had arranged should be the sign and signal
for his return. The inhabitants of the city, amongst them a certain
Hebdomites, go over to the usurper. Vain attempt of Germanus to get
himself declared emperor, the Greens refusing to support him on the
ground that he favoured the Blues. Phocas proclaimed emperor in the
church of St. John in Hebdomon,[286] while Cyriacus was patriarch
of the royal city. Entry of Phocas into the palace and proclamation
of his wife Leontia as Augusta. Dispute amongst the demarchs about
their places during the procession. Cosmas, demarch of the Blues,
assaulted by Alexander, who is in his turn insulted. A reminder
that Maurice was not yet dead decides the usurper to murder the
emperor. Maurice’s children killed before his eyes in the harbour
of Eutropius. Philosophical resignation of Maurice, and his murder
by Lilius. Will of Maurice found during the reign of Heraclius.
The bodies of the king and his son thrown into the sea. Funeral
oration on Maurice. The soldiers punished by the judgment of divine
providence for their crime against Maurice, not one of all those
who had taken part in the rising being left alive soon afterwards;
they perished to a man, some by disease, others by fire from heaven,
others by the sword. When Heraclius resolved to declare war against
Razates, king of the Persians, and mustered his army, he found only
two left of those who had supported the usurper. After that the
Romans began to show themselves superior to the Persians, whereas
as long as any of the mutineers survived, victory always remained
with the enemy. Theodosius, Maurice’s son, slain by Alexander at the
command of Phocas, together with Peter, Comentiolus, and Constantine
Lardys. A false report that Theodosius was not put to death. How
the statues at Alexandria, in the district called Tychaeum, moving
from their places of their own accord, announced what had happened
in Byzantium to a copyist, as he was returning home after supper.
Maurice said to have remitted the third part of the tribute to his
subjects and to have given thirty talents to the Byzantines for the
repair of the aqueducts. His generous treatment of scholars and
students. The strange things that happened in regard to the bloody
flux of Euphemia the martyr; how Maurice, who tested the miracle
since he was at first incredulous, found it confirmed. How Phocas
shut up the wife of Maurice with her daughter in a private house. His
unsuccessful embassy to Chosroës, king of Persia; the treaty with
Persia broken by Chosroës, who pretended that it was his solemn duty
to avenge Maurice. So Lilius, who was sent as ambassador, returned
without having succeeded in his mission. Murder of Alexander, who had
conspired with Phocas against Maurice, on suspicion of having saved
the life of Theodosius, whereas he had really murdered him. This ends
the history.
LXVI
Read the _Historical Epitome_ of Nicephorus patriarch of
Constantinople.[287] It begins with the death of Maurice and goes
down to the marriage of Leo and Irene. His style is clear and free
from redundancies, his choice of words excellent; and the composition
neither too loose nor too compressed, but such as the real and
perfect orator would employ. He avoids innovations, but at the same
time is too fond of employing what is old-fashioned and affectedly
elaborate. His language is pleasant and not without charm. Speaking
generally, he throws into the shade all historians who have preceded
him; his only fault is excessive brevity, which may appear to some to
prevent his work being completely agreeable.
LXVII
Read the _History_ of Sergius the Confessor.[288] It begins with the
reign of the emperor Michael,[289] and then goes back to the lawless
and abominable acts of Copronymus.[290] Political and ecclesiastical
events down to the eighth year of Michael’s reign are narrated in
order; his military achievements and his views on religious matters
are set forth in detail.
The style is particularly clear and simple, both as regards the
meaning of words, composition, and the general arrangement, which
gives the impression of spontaneity. The language, full of natural
charm, is not characterised by studied changes of form due to
excessive care. In accordance with his design, he has preserved the
style best adapted for ecclesiastical history.
LXVIII
Read the _Historical Epitome_ of Cephalion.[291] It begins with
the reign of Ninus and Semiramis[292] and goes down to the times
of Alexander the Great. The entire history comprises nine books,
called after the nine Muses--Clio, Thalia, Polyhymnia, Melpomene,
Terpsichore, Euterpe, Calliope, Erato, and Urania, in which the acts
of Alexander, king of Macedon, are also related.
He writes in the Ionic dialect. The excessive brevity with which he
describes the bare facts of history leaves no room for admiration
or imitation. He says nothing about his race or family, but passes
them over in silence, like Homer, as he himself says. However, it
appears that he wrote the work during his exile in Sicily. While
saying nothing about his race or family, as he ought to have done, he
mentions his exile, an indication of meanness of spirit. His boast
of the number of authors consulted by him in compiling his history
shows a mind incapable of shaking off a petty and childish love of
display. He says that the first book of his history was compiled
from 570 books, of 31 of which he gives the authors’ names; the
second book from 208, with 25 authors’ names; the third from 600,
with 26 authors’ names; the fourth from 850, with 36 authors’ names;
the fifth from 200, with 26 authors’ names, and so on. Such is the
_History_ of Cephalion.
LXIX
Read the _History_ of Hesychius[293] Illustri(u)s, son of Hesychius
and Sophia, a Milesian by birth. It is a sort of synopsis of the
history of the world, as is shown by the title--_History of Roman and
General History_. It begins with the reign of Belus, king of Assyria,
and goes down to the death of Anastasius, emperor of Rome.
His style is concise and elegant, the language perspicuous if florid,
and the composition elaborate in proportion. He is especially careful
in the choice of words. His mode of expression is distinct and
emphatic, and he charms[294] the reader by his figures of speech,
which, however, do not prevent events from being described as clearly
as if he had made no use of figures, or even more clearly. He also
declares his intention of adhering strictly to truth.
The work is divided into six parts. The first part contains the
narrative of events preceding the Trojan war; the second, events
from the capture of Troy to the foundation of Rome; the third,
events from the foundation of Rome to the time when the appointment
of consuls put an end to the monarchy, in the 68th Olympiad;[295]
the fourth, events from the government of the consuls to the 182nd
Olympiad, when Julius Caesar became sole emperor and the consuls
were abolished;[296] the fifth, events that took place under the
rule of Julius Caesar down to the time when the glory of Byzantium
reached its height, at the beginning of the 277th Olympiad.[297]
The sixth begins with the time when Byzantium to its good fortune
had Constantine for its emperor, and goes down to the death of
Anastasius, whom the author (I do not know why) praises as superior
to many of his predecessors in clemency and mildness. His death took
place in the eleventh indiction,[298] when Magnus was sole consul.
The period of time embraced by the history is 1190 years.
Also read another book by the same author, containing the events
of the reign of the emperor Justin. It relates how, on the death
of Anastasius, Justin was chosen to succeed him, how Justin was
succeeded by Justinian. Various events that occurred during the early
years of the reign of the latter. The author was prevented from
writing more by the death of his son John, which so deeply affected
him that he was unable to devote himself to study or literary work.
LXX
Read the forty books of Diodorus Siculus,[299] containing a kind
of history of the world. He is fuller than Cephalion and Hesychius
Illustrius in his description of the same periods. His style is
clear, unadorned, and admirably adapted for history. He neither
excessively affects atticisms or antiquated modes of expression, nor
on the other hand does he altogether descend to the level of everyday
language. He rather takes pleasure in a style midway between the two,
avoiding figures of speech and the like affectations, and only using
the language of fable, after the manner of poets, where he relates
the legends of gods and heroes.
He begins his history with the mythical ages of the Greeks and
barbarians, and goes down to the beginning of the war between the
Romans and Celts, at the time when Gaius Julius Caesar (called
“divine” by the Romans on account of his mighty deeds) subdued most,
and those the most warlike, of the Celtic nations. He spent thirty
years over the history, as he tells us himself, visiting several
different countries for the sake of obtaining information, and
exposing himself to many dangers. He was a Sicilian from Agyrium;
from his long intercourse with the Romans he had become familiar with
that people and their language, and diligently collected accounts of
all their chief successes and failures.
The entire history is comprised in forty books. In the first six the
events preceding the Trojan war and other legends are described; in
the next eleven, the events of the world from the taking of Troy to
the death of Alexander the Great; in the remaining twenty-three, the
events up to the time when war broke out between the Celts and Romans
under the leadership of Julius Caesar. He subdued most of, and the
most warlike, of their nations and extended the Roman empire to the
British islands, at which point the history ends.
LXXI
Read the _History_ of Cassianus Coccianus (or Coccius) Dio,[300] in
eighty books. He begins with the arrival of Aeneas in Italy from
Troy, the foundation of Alba and Rome, and goes down without a break
to the murder of Antoninus named Elagabalus, who was also called
Tiberinus, Sardanapalus, Pseudantoninus, and Assyrius on account of
his vices. He also says something about the reign of Alexander who,
after the death of Antoninus, who had adopted him as his colleague in
the empire, escaped the danger that threatened him and succeeded to
the throne. The writer tells us that this Alexander was consul for
the second time together with himself, and that the emperor, desirous
of honouring his colleague, himself defrayed the necessary expenses
in connexion with his office. The author was appointed governor of
Pergamum and Smyrna by Macrinus, and was afterwards commander of
the forces in Africa. Soon afterwards he was governor of Pannonia.
Elected consul for the second time, he was allowed to return home
owing to bad feet, to spend the rest of his life in Bithynia, as his
“genius” had predicted, “beyond the reach of slaughter, bloodshed,
and tumult.”[301]
He was born at Nicaea in Bithynia, which in one part is surrounded
by the lake called Ascania. His style is grandiose and bombastic,
reflecting the consciousness of mighty events. His language is
full of antiquated constructions, and of words in keeping with
the importance of the events described. His periods are full of
protracted parentheses and ill-timed[302] inversions. The rhythm
and the abrupt interruptions, being carefully employed, owing to
the general clearness, escape the notice of the casual reader. The
speeches, after the style of those in Thucydides, but clearer, are
excellent. In almost everything else also Thucydides is his model.
LXXII
Read the _Persica_ of Ctesias[303] of Cnidus in twenty-three books.
In the first six he treats of Assyrian affairs and of events before
the foundation of the Persian empire, and only begins to treat of
Persian affairs in the seventh book. In books 7-13 he gives an
account of Cyrus, Cambyses, the Magian, Darius, and Xerxes, in
which he differs almost entirely from Herodotus, whom he accuses of
falsehood in many passages and calls an inventor of fables. Ctesias
is later than Herodotus, and says that he was an eyewitness of most
of what he describes, and that, where this was not the case, he
obtained his information directly from Persians, and in this manner
he composed his history. He not only disagrees with Herodotus, but
also in some respects with Xenophon the son of Gryllus. Ctesias
flourished in the time of Cyrus, son of Darius and Parysatis, brother
of Artoxerxes[304] who succeeded to the throne.
He begins[305] by stating that Astyages (whom he also calls Astyigas)
was not related to Cyrus; that he fled from him to Agbatana,[306]
and hid himself in the vaults[307] of the royal palace with the
aid of his daughter Amytis and her husband Spitamas; that Cyrus,
when he came to the throne, gave orders that not only Spitamas and
Amytis, but also their sons Spitaces and Megabernes should be put
to the torture for assisting Astyigas; that the latter, to save his
grandchildren from being tortured on his account, gave himself
up and was taken and loaded with chains by Oebaras; that shortly
afterwards he was set free by Cyrus and honoured as his father; that
his daughter Amytis was treated by him as a mother and afterwards
became his wife. Her husband Spitamas, however, was put to death,
because, when asked, he had falsely declared that he did not know
where Astyigas was. In his account of these events Ctesias differs
from Herodotus. He adds that Cyrus made war upon the Bactrians,
without obtaining a decisive victory; but that when they learnt that
Astyigas had been adopted by Cyrus as his father, and Amytis as his
mother and wife, they voluntarily submitted to Amytis and Cyrus.
He also relates how Cyrus made war on the Sacae, and took prisoner
their king Amorges, the husband of Sparethra, who after her husband
was captured collected an army of 300,000 men and 200,000 women,
made war upon Cyrus and defeated him. Amongst the large number of
prisoners taken by the Sacae were Parmises, the brother of Amytis,
and his three sons, who were subsequently released in exchange for
Amorges.
Cyrus, assisted by Amorges, marched against Croesus and the city
of Sardes. By the advice of Oebaras he set up wooden figures
representing Persians round the walls, the sight of which so
terrified the inhabitants that the city was easily taken. Before
this, the son of Croesus was handed over as a hostage, the king
himself having been deceived by a divine vision. Since Croesus was
evidently meditating treachery, his son was put to death before his
eyes; his mother, who was a witness of his execution, committed
suicide by throwing herself from the walls. After the city was taken
Croesus fled for refuge to the temple of Apollo; he was three times
put in chains, and three times loosed invisibly from his bonds,
although the temple was shut and sealed, and Oebaras was on guard.
Those who had been prisoners with Croesus had their heads cut off,
on suspicion of having conspired to release him. He was subsequently
taken to the palace and bound more securely, but was again loosed by
thunder and lightning sent from heaven. Finally Cyrus, against his
will, set him free, treated him kindly from that time, and bestowed
upon him a large city near Agbatana, named Barene, in which there
were 5000 horsemen and 10,000 peltasts,[308] javelin-throwers, and
archers.
Cyrus then sent Petisacas the eunuch, who had great influence with
him, to Persia to fetch Astyigas from the Barcanians, he and his
daughter Amytis being anxious to see him. Oebaras then advised
Petisacas to leave Astyigas in some lonely spot, to perish of hunger
and thirst; which he did. But the crime was revealed in a dream, and
Petisacas, at the urgent request of Amytis, was handed over to her
by Cyrus for punishment. She ordered his eyes to be dug out, had him
flayed alive, and then crucified. Oebaras, afraid of suffering the
same punishment, although Cyrus assured him that he would not allow
it, starved himself to death by fasting for ten days. Astyigas was
accorded a splendid funeral; his body had remained untouched by wild
beasts in the wilderness, some lions having guarded it until it was
removed by Petisacas.
Cyrus marched against the Derbices (Derbikes), whose king was
Amoraeus. The Derbices suddenly brought up some elephants which
had been kept in ambush, and put Cyrus’s cavalry to flight. Cyrus
himself fell from his horse, and an Indian wounded him mortally with
a javelin under the thigh. The Indians fought on the side of the
Derbices and supplied them with elephants. Cyrus’s friends took him
up while he was still alive and returned to camp. Many Persians and
Derbices were slain, to the number of 10,000 on each side.
Amorges, when he heard of what had happened to Cyrus, in great haste
went to the assistance of the Persians with 20,000 Sacan cavalry. In
a subsequent engagement, the Persians and Sacae gained a brilliant
victory, Amoraeus, the king of the Derbices, and his two sons being
slain. Thirty thousand Derbicans and 9000 Persians fell in the
battle. The country then submitted to Cyrus.
Cyrus, when near his death, declared his elder son Cambyses king,
his younger son Tanyoxarces (Tanyoxarkes) governor of Bactria,
Choramnia, Parthia, and Carmania, free from tribute. Of the children
of Spitamas, he appointed Spitaces satrap of the Derbices, Megabernes
of the Barcanians, bidding them obey their mother in everything.
He also endeavoured to make them friends with Amorges, bestowing
his blessing on those who should remain on friendly terms with one
another, and a curse upon those who first did wrong. With these words
he died, three days after he had been wounded, after a reign of
thirty years. This is the end of the eleventh book.
The twelfth book begins with the reign of Cambyses. Immediately after
his accession he sent his father’s body by the eunuch Bagapates
to Persia for burial, and in all other respects carried out his
father’s wishes. The men who had the greatest influence with him were
Artasyras the Hyrcanian, and the eunuchs Izabates, Aspadates, and
Bagapates, who had been his father’s favourite after the death of
Petisacas. Bagapates was in command of the expedition against Egypt
and its king Amyrtaeus, whom he defeated, through the treachery of
his chief counsellor Combaphis the eunuch, who betrayed the bridges
and other important secrets, on condition that Cambyses made him
governor of Egypt. Cambyses first made this arrangement with him
through Izabates, the cousin of Combaphis, and afterwards confirmed
it by his personal promise. Having taken Amyrtaeus alive he did him
no harm, but merely removed him to Susa with 6000 Egyptians chosen
by himself. The whole of Egypt then became subject to Cambyses. The
Egyptians lost 50,000 men in the battle, the Persians 7000.
In the meantime a certain Magian called Sphendadates,[309] who had
been flogged by Tanyoxarces for some offence, went to Cambyses and
informed him that his brother was plotting against him. In proof of
this he declared that Tanyoxarces would refuse to come if summoned.
Cambyses thereupon summoned his brother, who, being engaged on
another matter, put off coming. The Magian thereupon accused him more
freely. His mother Amytis, who suspected the Magian, advised Cambyses
not to listen to him. Cambyses pretended not to believe him, while in
reality he did. Being summoned by Cambyses a third time, Tanyoxarces
obeyed the summons. His brother embraced him, but nevertheless
determined to put him to death, and, unknown to his mother Amytis,
took measures to carry out his plan. The Magian made the following
suggestion. Being himself very like Tanyoxarces, he advised the king
publicly to order that his head should be cut off as having falsely
accused the king’s brother; that in the meantime Tanyoxarces should
secretly be put to death, and he (the Magian) should be dressed in
his clothes, so that Tanyoxarces should be thought alive. Cambyses
agreed to this. Tanyoxarces was put to death by being forced to drink
bull’s blood; the Magian put on his clothes and was mistaken for
him by the people. The fraud was not known for a long time except
to Artasyras, Bagapates, and Izabates, to whom alone Cambyses had
entrusted the secret.
Then Cambyses, having summoned Labyzus, the chief of Tanyoxarces’s
eunuchs, and the other eunuchs, showed them the Magian seated and
dressed in the guise of his brother, and asked them whether they
thought he was Tanyoxarces. Labyzus, in astonishment, replied,
“Whom else should we think him to be?” the likeness being so great
that he was deceived. The Magian was accordingly sent to Bactria,
where he played the part of Tanyoxarces. Five years later Amytis,
having learnt the truth from the eunuch Tibethis, whom the Magian
had flogged, demanded that Cambyses should hand over Sphendadates to
her, but he refused. Whereupon Amytis, after heaping curses upon him,
drank poison and died.
On a certain occasion, while Cambyses was offering sacrifice, no
blood flowed from the slaughtered victims. This greatly alarmed
him, and the birth of a son without a head by Roxana increased this
alarm. This portent was interpreted by the wise men to mean that
he would leave no successor. His mother also appeared to him in a
dream, threatening retribution for the murder he had committed, which
alarmed him still more. At Babylon, while carving a piece of wood
with a knife for his amusement, he accidentally wounded himself in
the thigh, and died eleven days afterwards, in the eighteenth year of
his reign.
Bagapates and Artasyras, before the death of Cambyses, conspired to
raise the Magian to the throne, as they afterwards did. Izabates, who
had gone to convey the body of Cambyses to Persia, finding on his
return that the Magian was reigning under the name of Tanyoxarces,
disclosed the truth to the army and exposed the Magian.[310] After
this he took refuge in a temple, where he was seized and put to death.
Then seven distinguished Persians conspired against the Magian. Their
names were Onophas, Idernes, Norondabates, Mardonius, Barisses,
Ataphernes, and Darius Hystaspis.[311] After they had given and taken
the most solemn pledges, they admitted to their counsels Artasyras
and Bagapates, who kept all the keys of the palace. The seven, having
been admitted into the palace by Bagapates, found the Magian asleep.
At the sight of them he jumped up, but finding no weapon ready to
hand (for Bagapates had secretly removed them all) he smashed a chair
made of gold and defended himself with one of the legs, but was
finally stabbed to death by the seven. He had reigned seven months.
Darius was chosen king from the seven conspirators in accordance with
a test agreed upon, his horse being the first to neigh after the
sun had risen, the result of a cunning stratagem.[312] The Persians
celebrate the day on which the Magian was put to death by a festival
called Magophonia. Darius ordered a tomb[313] to be built for
himself in a two-peaked mountain, but when he desired to go and see
it he was dissuaded by the soothsayers and his parents. The latter,
however, were anxious to make the ascent to it, but the priests who
were dragging them up, being frightened at the sight of some snakes,
let go the ropes and they fell and were dashed to pieces. Darius
was greatly grieved and ordered the heads of the forty men who were
responsible to be cut off.
Darius ordered Ariaramnes, satrap of Cappadocia, to cross over into
Scythia, and carry off a number of prisoners, male and female. He
went over in thirty penteconters,[314] and among others took captive
Marsagetes, the Scythian king’s brother, who had been imprisoned by
his own brother for certain offences. The ruler of the Scythians
(Scytharkes), being enraged, wrote an abusive letter to Darius, who
replied in the same tone. Darius then collected an army of 800,000
men and crossed the Bosporus and the Ister[315] by a bridge of boats
into Scythian territory in fifteen days. The two kings sent each
other a bow in turn. Darius, seeing that the bow of the Scythians was
stronger, turned back and fled across the bridges, destroying some of
them in his haste before the entire army had crossed. Eighty thousand
of his men, who had been left behind in Europe, were put to death by
the ruler of the Scythians. Darius, after he had crossed the bridge,
set fire to the houses and temples of the Chalcedonians, because they
had attempted to break down the bridges which he had made near their
city and had also destroyed the altar erected by him, when crossing,
in honour of Zeus Diabaterios.[316]
Datis, the commander of the Persian fleet, on his return from Pontus,
ravaged Greece and the islands. At Marathon he was met by Miltiades;
the barbarians were defeated and Datis himself slain, the Athenians
afterwards refusing to give up his body at the request of the
Persians.
Darius then returned to Persia, where, after having offered
sacrifice, he died after an illness of thirty days, in the
seventy-second year of his age and the thirty-first of his reign.
Artasyras and Bagapates also died, the latter having been for seven
years the keeper of the tomb of Darius.
Darius was succeeded by his son Xerxes, over whom Artapanus the
son of Artasyras had as great influence as his father had had over
Darius. His other confidential advisers were the aged Mardonius and
Matacas the eunuch. Xerxes married Amestris, the daughter of Onophas,
who bore him a son, Dariaeus, two years afterwards Hystaspes and
Artoxerxes, and two daughters, one named Rhodogune and another called
Amytis after her grandmother.
Xerxes decided to make war upon Greece, because the Chalcedonians
had attempted to break down the bridge as already stated and had
destroyed the altar which Darius had set up, and because the
Athenians had slain Datis and refused to give up his body. But
first he visited Babylon, being desirous of seeing the tomb of
Belitanes,[317] which Mardonius showed him. But he was unable to fill
the vessel of oil, as had been written.
Thence he proceeded to Agbatana, where he heard of the revolt of
the Babylonians and the murder of Zopyrus their satrap. Ctesias’s
account is different from that of Herodotus. What the latter relates
of Zopyrus is attributed by Ctesias, with the exception of his mule
giving birth to a foal, to Megabyzus, the son-in-law of Xerxes and
the husband of his daughter Amytis. Babylon was taken by Megabyzus,
upon whom Xerxes bestowed, amongst other rewards, a golden hand-mill,
weighing six talents, the most honourable of the royal gifts. Then
Xerxes, having collected a Persian army, 800,000 men and 1000
triremes without reckoning the chariots, set out against Greece,
having first thrown a bridge across at Abydos. Demaratus the Spartan,
who arrived there first and accompanied Xerxes across, dissuaded him
from invading Sparta. His general Artapanus, with 10,000 men, fought
an engagement with Leonidas, the Spartan general, at Thermopylae;
the Persian host was cut to pieces, while only two or three of the
Spartans were slain. The king then ordered an attack with 20,000, but
these were defeated, and although flogged to the battle, were routed
again. The next day he ordered an attack with 50,000, but without
success, and accordingly ceased operations. Thorax the Thessalian
and Calliades and Timaphernes, the leaders of the Trachinians, who
were present with their forces, were summoned by Xerxes together with
Demaratus and Hegias the Ephesian, who told him that the Spartans
could never be defeated unless they were surrounded. A Persian army
of 40,000 men was conducted by the two leaders of the Trachinians
over an almost inaccessible mountain-path to the rear of the
Lacedaemonians, who were surrounded and died bravely to a man.
Xerxes sent another army of 120,000 men against Plataea under the
command of Mardonius, at the instigation of the Thebans. He was
opposed by Pausanias the Spartan, with only 300 Spartiates,[318]
1000 perioeki,[319] and 6000 from the other cities. The Persians
suffered a severe defeat, Mardonius being wounded and obliged to take
to flight. He was afterwards sent by Xerxes to plunder the temple of
Apollo, where he is said to have died from injuries received during a
terrible hailstorm, to the great grief of Xerxes.
Xerxes then advanced against Athens itself, the inhabitants of
which manned 110 triremes and took refuge in Salamis. Xerxes took
possession of the empty city and set fire to it, with the exception
of the Acropolis, which was defended by a small band of men who
had remained; at last, they also made their escape by night, and
the Acropolis was fired. After this, Xerxes proceeded to a narrow
strip of land in Attica called Heracleum, and began to construct
an embankment in the direction of Salamis, intending to cross over
on foot. By the advice of the Athenians Themistocles and Aristides
archers were summoned from Crete.[320] Then a naval engagement took
place between the Greeks with 700 ships and the Persians with more
than 1000 under Onophas. The Athenians were victorious, thanks to
the advice and clever strategy of Aristides and Themistocles; the
Persians lost 500 ships, and Xerxes took to flight. In the remaining
battles 12,000 Persians were killed.
Xerxes, having crossed over into Asia and advanced towards Sardes,
despatched Megabyzus to plunder the temple at Delphi. On his refusing
to go, the eunuch Matacas was sent in his place, to insult Apollo
and plunder the temple. Having carried out his orders he returned to
Xerxes, who in the meantime had arrived in Persia from Babylon. Here
Megabyzus accused his wife Amytis (the daughter of Xerxes) of having
committed adultery. Xerxes severely reprimanded her, but she declared
that she was not guilty. Artapanus and Aspamitres the eunuch, the
confidential advisers of Xerxes, resolved to kill their master.
Having done so, they persuaded Artoxerxes that his brother Dariaeus
had murdered him. Dariaeus was taken to the palace of Artoxerxes,
and, although he vehemently denied the accusation, he was put to
death.
Thus Artoxerxes became king, thanks to Artapanus, who entered into a
conspiracy against him with Megabyzus (who was bitterly aggrieved at
the suspicion of adultery against his wife), each taking an oath to
remain loyal to the other. Nevertheless, Megabyzus revealed the plot,
the guilty conduct of Artapanus came to light, and he met the death
which he had intended for Artoxerxes. Aspamitres, who had taken part
in the murders of Xerxes and Dariaeus was cruelly put to death, being
exposed in the trough.[321] After the death of Artapanus there was
a battle between his fellow-conspirators and the other Persians, in
which the three sons of Artapanus were killed and Megabyzus severely
wounded. Artoxerxes, Amytis, and Rhodogune, and their mother Amestris
were deeply grieved, and his life was only saved by the skill and
attention of Apollonides, a physician of Cos.
Bactra and its satrap, another Artapanus, revolted from Artoxerxes.
The first battle was indecisive, but in a second, the Bactrians were
defeated because the wind blew in their faces, and the whole of
Bactria submitted.
Egypt, under the leadership of Inarus a Libyan, assisted by a native
of the country, also revolted, and preparations were made for war.
At the request of Inarus the Athenians sent forty ships to his aid.
Artoxerxes himself was desirous of taking part in the expedition, but
his friends dissuaded him. He therefore sent Achaemenides his brother
with 400,000 infantry and eighty ships. Inarus joined battle with
Achaemenides, the Egyptians were victorious, Achaemenides being slain
by Inarus and his body sent to Artoxerxes. Inarus was also successful
at sea. Charitimides, the commander of the forty Athenian ships,
covered himself with glory in a naval engagement, in which twenty
out of fifty Persian ships were captured with their crews, and the
remaining thirty sunk.
The king then sent Megabyzus against Inarus, with an additional army
of 200,000 men and 300 ships commanded by Oriscus; so that, not
counting the ships’ crews, his army consisted of 500,000. For, when
Achaemenides fell, 100,000 of his 400,000 men perished. A desperate
battle ensued, in which the losses were heavy on both sides, although
those of the Egyptians were heavier. Megabyzus wounded Inarus in the
thigh, and put him to flight, and the Persians obtained a complete
victory. Inarus fled to Byblus, an Egyptian stronghold, accompanied
by those of the Greeks who had not been killed in battle. Then
all Egypt, except Byblus, submitted to Megabyzus. But since this
stronghold appeared impregnable, he came to terms with Inarus and
the Greeks (6000 and more in number), on condition that they should
suffer no harm from the king, and that the Greeks should be allowed
to return home whenever they pleased.
Having appointed Sarsamas satrap of Egypt, Megabyzus took Inarus and
the Greeks to Artoxerxes, who was greatly enraged with Inarus because
he had slain his brother Achaemenides. Megabyzus told him what had
happened, how he had given his word to Inarus and the Greeks when
he occupied Byblus, and earnestly entreated the king to spare their
lives. The king consented, and the news that no harm would come to
Inarus and the Greeks was immediately reported to the army.
But Amestris, aggrieved at the idea that Inarus and the Greeks should
escape punishment for the death of her son Achaemenides, asked the
king [to give them up to her], but he refused; she then appealed to
Megabyzus, who also dismissed her. At last, however, through her
constant importunity she obtained her wish from her son, and after
five years the king gave up Inarus and the Greeks to her. Inarus was
impaled on three stakes; fifty of the Greeks, all that she could lay
hands on, were decapitated. Megabyzus was deeply grieved at this, and
asked permission to retire to his satrapy, Syria. Having secretly
sent the rest of the Greeks thither in advance, on his arrival he
collected a large army (150,000 not including cavalry) and raised
the standard of revolt. Usiris with 200,000 men was sent against
him; a battle took place, in which Megabyzus and Usiris wounded each
other. Usiris inflicted a wound with a spear in Megabyzus’s thigh two
fingers deep; Megabyzus in turn first wounded Usiris in the thigh and
then in the shoulder, so that he fell from his horse. Megabyzus, as
he fell, protected him, and ordered that he should be spared. Many
Persians were slain in the battle, in which Zopyrus and Artyphius,
the sons of Megabyzus, distinguished themselves, and Megabyzus gained
a decisive victory. Usiris received the greatest attention and was
sent to Artoxerxes at his request.
Another army was sent against him under Menostanes the son of
Artarius, satrap of Babylon and brother of Artoxerxes. Another battle
took place, in which the Persians were routed; Menostanes was shot
by Megabyzus, first in the shoulder and then in the head, but the
wound was not mortal. However, he fled with his army and Megabyzus
gained a brilliant victory. Artarius then sent to Megabyzus, advising
him to come to terms with the king. Megabyzus replied that he was
ready to do so, but on condition that he should not be obliged to
appear at court again, and should be allowed to remain in his
satrapy. When his answer was reported to the king, the Paphlagonian
eunuch Artoxares and Amestris urged him to make peace without delay.
Accordingly, Artarius, his wife Amytis, Artoxares (then twenty years
of age), and Petisas, the son of Usiris and father of Spitamas,
were sent for that purpose to Megabyzus. After many entreaties and
solemn promises, with great difficulty they succeeded in persuading
Megabyzus to visit the king, who finally pardoned him for all his
offences.
Some time afterwards, while the king was out hunting he was attacked
by a lion, which Megabyzus slew as it reared and was preparing to
rush upon him. The king, enraged because Megabyzus had slain the
animal first, ordered his head to be cut off, but owing to the
entreaties of Amestris, Amytis, and others his life was spared and he
was banished to Curtae, a town on the Red Sea. Artoxares the eunuch
was also banished to Armenia for having often spoken freely to the
king in favour of Megabyzus. After having passed five years in exile,
Megabyzus escaped by pretending to be a leper, whom no one might
approach, and returned home to Amytis, who hardly recognized him. On
the intercession of Amestris and Amytis, the king became reconciled
to him and admitted him to his table as before. Megabyzus died at the
age of seventy-six, deeply mourned by the king.
After his death, his wife Amytis, like her mother Amestris before
her, showed great fondness for the society of men. The physician
Apollonides of Cos, when Amytis was suffering from a slight illness,
being called in to attend her, fell in love with her. For some time
they carried on an intrigue, but finally she told her mother. She
in turn informed the king, who left her to do as she would with
the offender. Apollonides was kept in chains for two months as a
punishment, and then buried alive on the same day that Amytis died.
Zopyrus, the son of Megabyzus and Amytis, after the death of his
father and mother revolted against the king. He visited Athens, where
he was well received owing to the services his mother had rendered to
the Athenians.[322] From Athens he sailed with some Athenian troops
to Caunus and summoned it to surrender. The inhabitants expressed
themselves ready to do so, provided the Athenians who accompanied
him were not admitted. While Zopyrus was mounting the wall, a Caunian
named Alcides hit him on the head with a stone and killed him. The
Caunian was crucified by order of his grandmother Amestris. Some time
afterwards, Amestris died at a great age, and Artoxerxes also died
after having reigned forty-two years. Here the seventeenth book ends.
Artoxerxes was succeeded by his son Xerxes, his only legitimate
son by Damaspia, who died on the same day as her husband.[323] The
bodies of the king and queen were conveyed by Bagorazus to Persia.
Artoxerxes had seventeen illegitimate sons, amongst them Secydianus
by Alogune the Babylonian, Ochus (afterwards king) and Arsites by
Cosmartidene, also a Babylonian. Besides these three, he also had a
son Bagapaeus and a daughter Parysatis by Andria, also a Babylonian,
who became the mother of Artoxerxes and Cyrus. During his father’s
lifetime, Ochus was made satrap of Hyrcania, and given in marriage to
Parysatis, the daughter of Artoxerxes and his own sister.
Secydianus, having won over the eunuch Pharnacyas, who had the
greatest influence over Xerxes next to Bagorazus, Menostanes, and
some others, entered the palace after a festival, while Xerxes was
lying in a drunken sleep and put him to death, forty-five days after
the death of his father. The bodies of both father and son were
conveyed together to Persia, for the mules which drew the chariot in
which was the father’s body, refused to move, as if waiting for that
of the son; and when it arrived,[324] they at once went on rapidly.
Secydianus thus became king and appointed Menostanes his
azabarites.[325] After Bagorazus returned to court, Secydianus, who
cherished a long-standing enmity against him, on the pretext that
he had left his father’s body in Persia without his permission,
ordered him to be stoned to death. The army was greatly grieved, and,
although Secydianus distributed large sums amongst the soldiers, they
hated him for the murder of his brother Xerxes and now for that of
Bagorazus.
Secydianus then summoned Ochus to court, who promised to present
himself but failed to do so. After he had been summoned several
times, he collected a large force with the obvious intention of
seizing the throne. He was joined by Arbarius, commander of the
cavalry, and Arxanes, satrap of Egypt. The eunuch Artoxares also came
from Armenia and placed the crown[326] on the head of Ochus against
his will.
Thus Ochus became king and changed his name to Dariaeus. At the
suggestion of Parysatis, he endeavoured by trickery and solemn
promises to win over Secydianus. Menostanes did all he could to
prevent Secydianus from putting faith in these promises or coming to
terms with those who were trying to deceive him. In spite of this
Secydianus allowed himself to be persuaded, was arrested, thrown into
the ashes,[327] and died, after a reign of six months and fifteen
days.
Ochus (also called Dariaeus) thus became sole ruler. Three eunuchs,
Artoxares, Artibarzanes, and Athous had the greatest influence
with him, but his chief adviser was his wife. By her he had had
two children before he became king, a daughter Amestris and a son
Arsaces, afterwards called Artoxerxes. After his accession she bore
him another son, called Cyrus from the sun.[328] A third son was
named Artostes, who was followed by several others, to the number of
thirteen. The writer says that he obtained these particulars from
Parysatis herself. Most of the children soon died, the only survivors
being those just mentioned and a fourth named Oxendras. Arsites, his
own brother by the same father and mother, revolted against the king
together with Artyphius the son of Megabyzus. Artasyras was sent
against them, and, having been defeated in two battles, gained the
victory in a third, after he had bribed the Greeks, who were with
Artyphius, so that only three Milesians remained faithful to him. At
length Artyphius, finding that Arsites did not appear, surrendered to
the king, after Artasyras had solemnly promised him that his life
should be spared. The king was anxious to put Artyphius to death,
but Parysatis advised him not to do so at once, in order to deceive
Arsites and induce him also to submit; when both had surrendered, she
said they could both be put to death. The plan succeeded, Artyphius
and Arsites surrendered, and were thrown into the ashes. The king
wished to pardon Arsites, but Parysatis by her importunity persuaded
him to put him to death. Pharnacyas, who had assisted Secydianus to
kill Xerxes, was stoned to death. Menostanes was also arrested and
condemned, but anticipated his fate by suicide.
Pissuthnes also revolted, and Tissaphernes, Spithradates, and
Parmises were sent against him. Pissuthnes set out to meet them with
Lycon the Athenian and a body of Greeks, who were bribed by the
king’s generals to desert him. Pissuthnes then surrendered, and,
after having received assurances that his life should be spared,
accompanied Tissaphernes to the court. But the king ordered him
to be thrown into the ashes and gave his satrapy to Tissaphernes.
Lycon also received several towns and districts as the reward of his
treachery.
Artoxares the eunuch, who had great influence with the king, desiring
to obtain possession of the throne himself, plotted against his
master. He ordered his wife to make him a false beard and moustache,
that he might look like a man. His wife, however, betrayed him; he
was seized, handed over to Parysatis, and put to death. Arsaces the
king’s son, who afterwards changed his name to Artoxerxes, married
Statira, daughter of Idernes, whose son Teritukhmes, who had been
appointed to his father’s satrapy after his death, married the king’s
daughter Amestris. Teritukhmes had a half-sister Roxana, of great
beauty and very skilful in bending the bow and hurling the spear.
Teritukhmes having fallen in love with her and conceived a hatred
of his wife Amestris, in order to get rid of the latter, resolved
to put her into a sack, where she was to be stabbed to death by 300
accomplices, with whom he had entered into a conspiracy to raise
a revolt. But a certain Udiastes, who had great influence with
Teritukhmes, having received letters from the king promising to
reward him generously if he could save his daughter, attacked and
murdered Teritukhmes, who courageously defended himself and slew (it
is said) thirty-seven of his assailants.
Mitradates,[329] the son of Udiastes, the armour-bearer of
Teritukhmes, took no part in this affair, and when he learnt what
had happened, he cursed his father and seized the city of Zaris to
hand over to the son of Teritukhmes. Parysatis ordered the mother
of Teritukhmes, his brothers Mitrostes and Helicus, and his sisters
except Statira to be put to death. Roxana was hewn in pieces alive.
The king told his wife Parysatis to inflict the same punishment
upon the wife of his son Arsaces. But Arsaces by his tears and
lamentations appeased the wrath of his father and mother. Parysatis
having relented, Ochus spared Statira’s life, but at the same time
told Parysatis that she would one day greatly regret it.
In the nineteenth book the author relates how Ochus Dariaeus fell
sick and died at Babylon, having reigned thirty-five years. Arsaces,
who succeeded him, changed his name to Artoxerxes. Udiastes had
his tongue cut out and torn out by the roots behind; and so he
died. His son Mitradates was appointed to his satrapy. This was
due to the instigation of Statira, whereat Parysatis was greatly
aggrieved. Cyrus, being accused by Tissaphernes of designs on the
life of his brother Artoxerxes, took refuge with his mother, by whose
intervention he was cleared of the charge. Disgraced by his brother,
he retired to his satrapy and laid his plans for revolt. Satibarzanes
accused Orontes of an intrigue with Parysatis, although her conduct
was irreproachable; Orontes was put to death, and his mother was
greatly enraged against the king, because Parysatis had poisoned
the son of Teritukhmes. The author also mentions him who cremated
his father contrary to the law, Hellanicus and Herodotus being thus
convicted of falsehood.[330]
Cyrus having revolted against his brother[331] collected an army
composed of both Greeks and barbarians. Clearchus was in command
of the Greeks; Syennesis, king of Cilicia, assisted both Cyrus
and Artoxerxes. The author then reports the speeches of the two
princes to their troops. Clearchus the Spartan, who was in command
of the Greeks, and Menon the Thessalian, who accompanied Cyrus, were
always at variance, because Cyrus took the advice of Clearchus in
everything, while Menon was disregarded. Large numbers deserted from
Artoxerxes to Cyrus, none from Cyrus to Artoxerxes. For this reason
Artabarius, who meditated desertion, was accused and thrown into the
ashes. Cyrus attacked the king’s army and gained the victory, but
lost his life by neglecting the advice of Clearchus. His body was
mutilated by Artoxerxes, who ordered his head and the hand with which
he had struck him to be cut off, and carried them about in triumph.
Clearchus the Spartan withdrew during the night with his Greeks, and
after he had seized one of the cities belonging to Parysatis, the
king made peace with him.
Parysatis set out for Babylon, mourning for the death of Cyrus, and
having with difficulty recovered his head and hand sent them to
Susa for burial. It was Bagapates who had cut off his head by order
of Artoxerxes. Parysatis, when playing at dice with the king, won
the game and Bagapates as the prize, and afterwards had him flayed
alive and crucified. At length she was persuaded by the entreaties
of Artoxerxes to give up mourning for her son. The king rewarded the
soldier who brought him Cyrus’s cap, and the Carian who was supposed
to have wounded him, whom Parysatis afterwards tortured and put to
death. Mitradates having boasted at table of having killed Cyrus,
Parysatis demanded that he should be given up to her, and having got
him into her hands, put him to death with great cruelty. Such is the
contents of the nineteenth and twentieth books.
The twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third books conclude
the history. Tissaphernes began to plot against the Greeks, with
the assistance of Menon the Thessalian, whom he had won over. In
this manner, by cunning and solemn promises, he got Clearchus and
the other generals in his power, although Clearchus suspected and
was on his guard against treachery and endeavoured to avert it; but
the soldiers, being deceived by the words of Menon, compelled the
unwilling Clearchus to visit Tissaphernes. Proxenus the Boeotian, who
had been already deceived, also advised him to go. Clearchus and the
other generals were sent in chains to Artoxerxes at Babylon, where
all the people flocked to see Clearchus. Ctesias himself, Parysatis’s
physician, bestowed every attention upon Clearchus while he was in
prison and did all he could to mitigate his lot. Parysatis would have
given him his freedom and let him go, had not Statira persuaded the
king to put him to death. After his execution, a marvellous thing
happened. A strong wind sprang up and heaped a quantity of earth upon
his body, which formed a natural tomb. The other Greeks who had been
sent with him were also put to death, with the exception of Menon.
The author next tells us of the insults heaped by Parysatis on
Statira, and the poisoning of Statira, which was brought about
in the following manner, although she had long been on her guard
against this kind of death. A table knife was smeared with poison
on one side. One of the little birds, about the size of an egg,
called _rhyndace_, was cut in half by Parysatis, who herself took
and ate the portion which had not been touched by the poison, at the
same time offering Statira the poisoned half. Statira, seeing that
Parysatis was eating her own portion, had no suspicions, and took the
fatal poison. The king, enraged with his mother, ordered her eunuchs
to be seized and tortured, including her chief confidant Ginge. The
latter, being accused and brought to trial, was acquitted by the
judges, but the king condemned her and ordered her to be tortured and
put to death, which caused a lasting quarrel between mother and son.
The tomb of Clearchus, eight years afterwards, was found covered with
palm-trees, which Parysatis had had secretly planted by her eunuchs.
The author next states the cause of the quarrel of Artoxerxes with
Evagoras, king of Salamis.[332] The messengers sent by Evagoras to
Ctesias about the receiving of letters from Abuletes. The letter of
Ctesias to Evagoras concerning reconciliation with Anaxagoras prince
of the Cyprians. The return of the messengers of Evagoras to Cyprus
and the delivery of the letters from Ctesias to Evagoras. The speech
of Conon to Evagoras about visiting the king; and the letter of
Evagoras on the honours he had received from him. The letter of Conon
to Ctesias, the agreement of Evagoras to pay tribute to the king,
and the giving of the letters to Ctesias. Speech of Ctesias to the
king about Conon and the letter to him. The presents sent by Evagoras
delivered to Satibarzanes; the arrival of the messengers in Cyprus.
The letters of Conon to the king and Ctesias. The detention of the
Spartan ambassadors to the king. Letter from the king to Conon and
the Spartans, delivered to them by Ctesias himself. Conon appointed
commander of the fleet by Pharnabazus.
The visit of Ctesias to Cnidus, his native city, and to Sparta.
Proceedings against the Spartan ambassadors at Rhodes, and their
acquittal.[333] The number of stations, days, and parasangs from
Ephesus to Bactria and India. The work concludes with a list of the
Assyrian kings from Ninus and Semiramis to Artoxerxes. This writer’s
style is clear and very simple, which makes the work agreeable
to read. He uses the Ionic dialect, not throughout, as Herodotus
does, but only in certain expressions, nor does he, like Herodotus,
interrupt the thread of his narrative by ill-timed digressions.
Although he reproaches Herodotus for his old wives’ tales, he is
not free from the same defect, especially in his account of India.
The charm of his history chiefly consists in his manner of relating
events, which is strong in the emotional and unexpected, and in his
varied use of mythical embellishment. The style is more careless than
it should be, and the phraseology often descends to the commonplace,
whereas that of Herodotus, both in this and other respects as far
as vigour and art are concerned, is the model representative of the
Ionic dialect.
_History of India._[334]
Also read the same author’s _History of India_, in one book, in
which he employs the Ionic dialect more frequently. In regard to
the river Indus, he says that, where it is narrowest, it is forty,
where it is widest, two hundred stades broad.[335] He declares that
the population of India is almost greater than that of the whole
world. He also mentions a worm found in this river, the only living
creature which breeds there. Beyond India there are no countries
inhabited by men. It never rains there, the country being watered by
the river. He says of the _pantarba_,[336] a kind of seal-stone, that
477 seal-stones and other precious stones, belonging to a Bactrian
merchant, which had been thrown into the river, were drawn up from
the bottom, all clinging together, by this stone.
He also speaks of elephants which knock down walls, of little[337]
apes with tails four cubits long, and of cocks of very large size;
of the parrot about as large as a hawk, which has a human tongue
and voice, a dark-red beak, a black beard, and blue feathers up to
the neck, which is red like cinnabar.[338] It speaks Indian like a
native, and if taught Greek, speaks Greek.
He next mentions a fountain which is filled every year with liquid
gold, from which a hundred pitcherfuls are drawn. These pitchers have
to be made of earth, since the gold when drawn off becomes solid,
and it is necessary to break the vessel in order to get it out. The
fountain is square, sixteen cubits in circumference, and a fathom
deep. The gold in each pitcher weighs a talent. At the bottom of the
fountain there is iron, and the author says that he possessed two
swords made from it, one given him by the king, the other by his
mother, Parysatis. If this iron[339] be fixed in the ground, it keeps
off clouds and hail and hurricanes. Ctesias declares that the king
twice proved its efficacy and that he himself was a witness to it.
The Indian dogs are very large and even attack lions. There are great
mountains, from which are dug sardonyx, onyx, and other seal-stones.
It is intensely hot and the sun appears ten times larger than in
other countries; large numbers of people are suffocated by the heat.
The sea is as large as that of Greece; it is so hot on the surface
and to a depth of four fingers that fish cannot live near it, but
keep on the bottom.
The river Indus flows across plains and between mountains, where the
so-called Indian reed grows. It is so thick that two men can hardly
get their arms round it, and as tall as the mast of a merchant-ship
of largest tonnage. Some are larger, some smaller, as is natural
considering the size of the mountain. Of these reeds some are male,
others female. The male has no pith and is very strong, but the
female has.
The _martikhora_ is an animal found in this country. It has a face
like a man’s, a skin red as cinnabar, and is as large as a lion. It
has three rows of teeth, ears and light-blue eyes like those of a
man; its tail is like that of a land scorpion, containing a sting
more than a cubit long at the end. It has other stings on each side
of its tail and one on the top of its head, like the scorpion, with
which it inflicts a wound that is always fatal. If it is attacked
from a distance, it sets up its tail in front and discharges its
stings as if from a bow; if attacked from behind, it straightens it
out and launches its stings in a direct line to the distance of a
hundred feet. The wound inflicted is fatal to all animals except the
elephant. The stings are about a foot long and about as thick as a
small rush. The _martikhora_[340] is called in Greek _anthropophagos_
(man-eater), because, although it preys upon other animals, it kills
and devours a greater number of human beings. It fights with both its
claws and stings, which, according to Ctesias, grow again after they
have been discharged. There is a great number of these animals in
India, which are hunted and killed with spears or arrows by natives
mounted on elephants.
Observing that the Indians are extremely just, Ctesias goes on to
describe their manners and customs. He mentions a sacred spot in an
uninhabited district, which they honour under the name of the Sun
and the Moon. It is a fifteen days’ journey from mount Sardo.[341]
Here the Sun is always cool for thirty-five days in the year, so
that his votaries may attend his feast and after its celebration
may return home without being scorched. In India there is neither
thunder, lightning, nor rain, but winds and hurricanes, which carry
along everything that comes in their way, are frequent. The sun,
after rising, is cool for half the day, but for the remainder is
excessively hot in most parts of the country. It is not the heat of
the sun that makes the Indians swarthy; they are so naturally. Some
of them, both men and women, are very fair, though they are fewer in
number. Ctesias says that he himself saw five white men and two white
women. In support of his statement that the sun cools the air for
thirty-five days, he mentions that the fire which streams from Aetna
does no damage to the middle of the country through which it passes,
because it is the abode of just men, but destroys the rest.[342] In
the island of Zacynthus there are fountains full of fish, out of
which pitch is taken. In the island of Naxos there is a fountain from
which sometimes flows a wine of very agreeable flavour. The water of
the river Phasis, if allowed to stand a day and a night in a vessel,
becomes a most delicious wine. Near Phaselis in Lycia there is a fire
which never goes out, but burns on a rock both night and day. It
cannot be extinguished by water, which rather increases the flame,
but only by throwing earth upon it.
In the middle of India there are black men, called Pygmies,[343] who
speak the same language as the other inhabitants of the country. They
are very short, the tallest being only two cubits in height, most of
them only one and a half. Their hair is very long, going down to the
knees and even lower, and their beards are larger than those of any
other men. When their beards are full grown they leave off wearing
clothes and let the hair of their head fall down behind far below the
knees, while their beard trails down to the feet in front. When their
body is thus entirely covered with hair they fasten it round them
with a girdle, so that it serves them for clothes. They are snubnosed
and ugly. Their sheep are no bigger than lambs, their oxen, asses,
horses, mules, and other beasts of burden about the size of rams.
Being very skilful archers, 3000 of them attend on the king of India.
They are very just and have the same laws as the Indians. They hunt
the hare and the fox, not with dogs, but with ravens, kites, crows,
and eagles.
There is a lake 800 stades in circumference, the surface of which,
when not ruffled by the wind, is covered with floating oil. Sailing
over it in little boats, they ladle out the oil with little vessels
and keep it for use. They also use oil of sesamum and nut-oil, but
the oil from the lake is best. The lake also abounds in fish.
The country produces much silver and there are numerous silver mines,
not very deep, but those of Bactria are said to be deeper. There is
also gold, not found in rivers and washed, as in the river Pactolus,
but in many large mountains which are inhabited by griffins. These
are four-footed birds as large as a wolf, their legs and claws
resembling those of a lion; their breast feathers are red, those of
the rest of the body black. Although there is abundance of gold in
the mountains, it is difficult to get it because of these birds.
The Indian sheep and goats are larger than asses, and as a rule have
four young ones, sometimes six, at a time. There are neither tame nor
wild pigs. The palm trees and dates are three times as large as those
of Babylon. There is a river of honey that flows from a rock.
The author speaks at length of the Indians’ love of justice, their
loyalty to their kings and their contempt of death. He also mentions
a fountain, the water from which, when drawn off, thickens like
cheese. If three obols’ weight of this thick mass be crushed, mixed
with water, and given to any one to drink, he reveals everything that
he has ever done, being in a state of frenzy and delirium the whole
day. The king makes use of this test when he desires to discover the
truth about an accused person. If he confesses, he is ordered to
starve himself to death; if he reveals nothing, he is acquitted.
The Indians are not subject to headache, ophthalmia, or even
toothache; to ulcers on the mouth, or sores in any other part of the
body. They live 120, 130, 150, and some even 200 years.
There is a serpent a span in length, of a most beautiful purple
colour, with a very white head, and without teeth. It is caught on
the burning mountains, from which the sardonyx is dug. It does not
sting, but its vomit rots the place where it falls. If it is hung up
by the tail it discharges two kinds of poison, one yellow like amber,
when it is alive, the other black, when it is dead. If one drinks
only as much of the former as a grain of sesamum dissolved in water,
his brain runs out through his nose and he dies immediately; if the
other poison is administered, it brings on consumption, which does
not prove fatal for at least a year.
There is a bird called _dikaerum_ (meaning in Greek “just”), the size
of a partridge’s egg. It buries its excrement in the ground in order
to hide it. If any one finds it and takes only a morsel of it about
the size of a grain of sesamum in the morning, he is overcome by
sleep, loses consciousness, and dies at sunset.
There is also a tree called _parebum_, about the size of an olive,
which is only found in the royal gardens. It bears neither flowers
nor fruit, and has only fifteen very stout roots, the smallest of
which is as thick as a man’s arm. If a piece of this root, about a
span in length, be put near any body of matter, gold, silver, brass,
stones, in fact, everything except amber, it attracts it; if a
cubit’s length of it be used, it attracts lambs and birds, the latter
being generally caught in this way. If you wish to solidify a gallon
of water, you need only throw in a piece of the root the weight of
an obol; the same with wine, which can be handled like wax, although
on the next day it becomes liquid again. The root is also used as a
remedy for those suffering from bowel complaints.
There is a river that flows through India, not large, but about
two stades broad. It is called _Hyparchus_[344] in Indian, meaning
in Greek “bestowing all blessings.” During thirty days in the year
it brings down amber. It is said that in the mountains there are
trees on the banks of the river where it passes through, which
at a certain season of the year shed tears like the almond, fir,
or any other tree, especially during these thirty days. These
tears drop into the river and become hard. This tree is called in
Indian _Siptakhora_,[345] meaning in Greek “sweet,” and from it
the inhabitants gather amber. It also bears fruit in clusters like
grapes, the stones of which are as large as the nuts of Pontus.
On these mountains there live men with the head of a dog, whose
clothing is the skin of wild beasts. They speak no language, but bark
like dogs, and in this manner make themselves understood by each
other. Their teeth are larger than those of dogs, their nails like
those of these animals, but longer and rounder. They inhabit the
mountains as far as the river Indus. Their complexion is swarthy.
They are extremely just, like the rest of the Indians with whom they
associate. They understand the Indian language but are unable to
converse, only barking or making signs with their hands and fingers
by way of reply, like the deaf and dumb. They are called by the
Indians _Calystrii_, in Greek _Cynocephali_ (“dog-headed”). [They
live on raw meat.] They number about 120,000.
Near the sources of this river[346] grows a purple flower, from which
is obtained a purple dye, as good in quality as the Greek and of an
even more brilliant hue. In the same district there is an animal
about the size of a beetle, red as cinnabar, with very long feet,
and a body as soft as that of a worm. It breeds on the trees which
produce amber, eats their fruit and kills them, as the woodlouse
destroys the vines in Greece. The Indians crush these insects and
use them for dyeing their robes and tunics and anything else they
wish.[347] The dye is superior to the Persian.
The _Cynocephali_ living on the mountains do not practise any trade
but live by hunting. When they have killed an animal they roast it in
the sun. They also rear numbers of sheep, goats, and asses, drinking
the milk of the sheep and whey made from it. They eat the fruit of
the Siptakhora, whence amber is procured, since it is sweet. They
also dry it and keep it in baskets, as the Greeks keep their dried
grapes. They make rafts which they load with this fruit together with
well-cleaned purple flowers and 260 talents of amber, with the same
quantity of the purple dye, and 1000 additional talents of amber,
which they send annually to the king of India. They exchange the rest
for bread, flour, and cotton stuffs with the Indians, from whom they
also buy swords for hunting wild beasts, bows, and arrows, being very
skilful in drawing the bow and hurling the spear. They cannot be
defeated in war, since they inhabit lofty and inaccessible mountains.
Every five years the king sends them a present of 300,000 bows, as
many spears, 120,000 shields, and 50,000 swords.
They do not live in houses, but in caves. They set out for the chase
with bows and spears, and as they are very swift of foot, they pursue
and soon overtake their quarry. The women have a bath once a month,
the men do not have a bath at all, but only wash their hands. They
anoint themselves three times a month with oil made from milk and
wipe themselves with skins. The clothes of men and women alike are
not skins with the hair on, but skins tanned and very fine. The
richest wear linen clothes, but they are few in number. They have no
beds, but sleep on leaves or grass. He who possesses the greatest
number of sheep is considered the richest, and so in regard to their
other possessions. All, both men and women, have tails above their
hips, like dogs, but longer and more hairy. They are just, and live
longer than any other men, 170, sometimes 200 years.
It is said that beyond their country, above the sources of the river,
there are other men, black like the rest of the Indians. They do no
work, do not eat grain nor drink water, but rear large numbers of
cattle, cows, goats, and sheep, whose milk is their only food. When
they drink milk in the morning and then again at mid-day, they eat a
sweet root which prevents the milk from curdling in the stomach, and
at night makes them vomit all they have taken without any difficulty.
In India there are wild asses[348] as large as horses, or even
larger. Their body is white, their head dark red, their eyes bluish,
and they have a horn in their forehead about a cubit in length.
The lower part of the horn, for about two palms distance from the
forehead, is quite white, the middle is black, the upper part, which
terminates in a point, is a very flaming red. Those who drink out of
cups made from it are proof against convulsions, epilepsy, and even
poison, provided that before or after having taken it they drink some
wine or water or other liquid out of these cups. The domestic and
wild asses of other countries and all other solid-hoofed animals have
neither huckle-bones nor gall-bladder, whereas the Indian asses have
both. Their huckle-bone is the most beautiful that I have seen, like
that of the ox in size and appearance; it is as heavy as lead and of
the colour of cinnabar all through. These animals are very strong and
swift; neither the horse nor any other animal can overtake them. At
first they run slowly, but the longer they run their pace increases
wonderfully, and becomes faster and faster. There is only one way
of catching them. When they take their young to feed, if they are
surrounded by a large number of horsemen, being unwilling to abandon
their foals, they show fight, butt with their horns, kick, bite, and
kill many men and horses. They are at last taken, after they have
been pierced with arrows and spears; for it is impossible to capture
them alive. Their flesh is too bitter to eat, and they are only
hunted for the sake of the horns and huckle-bones.
In the river Indus a worm is found resembling those which are usually
found on fig-trees. Its average length is seven cubits, though some
are longer, others shorter. It is so thick that a child ten years
old could hardly put his arms round it. It has two teeth, one in the
upper and one in the lower jaw. Everything it seizes with these teeth
it devours. By day it remains in the mud of the river, but at night
it comes out, seizes whatever it comes across, whether ox or camel,
drags it into the river, and devours it all except the intestines.
It is caught with a large hook baited with a lamb or kid attached
by iron chains. After it has been caught, it is hung up for thirty
days with vessels placed underneath, into which as much oil from the
body drips as would fill ten Attic _kotylae_.[349] At the end of the
thirty days, the worm is thrown away, the vessels of oil are sealed
and taken as a present to the king of India, who alone is allowed to
use it. This oil sets everything alight--wood or animals--over which
it is poured, and the flame can only be extinguished by throwing a
quantity of thick mud on it.
There are trees in India as high as cedars or cypresses, with leaves
like those of the palm-tree, except that they are a little broader
and have no shoots. They flower like the male laurel, but have no
fruit. The tree is called by the Indians _karpion_, by the Greeks
_myrorodon_ (unguent-rose); it is not common. Drops of oil ooze out
of it, which are wiped off with wool and then squeezed into stone
alabaster boxes. The oil is reddish, rather thick, and so fragrant
that it scents the air to a distance of five stades. Only the king
and his family are allowed to use it. The king of India sent some
to the king of Persia, and Ctesias, who saw it, says that he cannot
compare the perfume with any other.
The Indians also have very excellent cheese and sweet wine, both of
which Ctesias tested himself.
There is a square fountain in India, about five ells in
circumference. The water is in a rock, about three cubits’
depth down, and the water itself three fathoms. The Indians of
highest rank--men, women, and children--bathe in it [not only for
cleanliness, but as a preventive of disease]. They plunge feet
foremost into the water, and when they jump into it, it throws them
out again on to dry land, not only human beings, but every animal,
living or dead, in fact, everything that is thrown into it except
iron, silver, gold, and copper, which sink to the bottom. The water
is very cold, and agreeable to drink; it makes a loud noise like that
of water boiling in a caldron. It cures leprosy and scab. In Indian
it is called _balladē_, and in Greek _ophelimē_ (useful).
In the mountains where the Indian reed grows there dwells a people
about 30,000 in number. Their women only have children once in
their life, which are born with beautiful teeth in the upper and
lower jaw. Both male and female children have white hair on the
head and eyebrows. Up to the age of thirty the men have white hair
all over the body; it then begins to turn black, and at the age of
sixty it is quite black. Both men and women have eight fingers and
eight toes. They are very warlike, and 5000 of them--bowmen and
spearmen--accompany the king of India on his military expeditions.
Their ears are so long that their arms are covered with them as far
as the elbow, and also their backs, and one ear touches the other.
[In Aethiopia there is an animal called _crocottas_,[350] vulgarly
_kynolykos_ (dog-wolf), of amazing strength. It is said to imitate
the human voice, to call men by name at night, and to devour those
who approach it. It is as brave as a lion, as swift as a horse, and
as strong as a bull. It cannot be overcome by any weapon of steel.
In Chalcis in Euboea there are sheep which have no gall-bladder, and
their flesh is so bitter that even the dogs refuse to eat it. They
also say that beyond the gates of Mauretania the rain is abundant in
summer, and that it is scorching hot in winter. Among the Cyonians
there is a fountain which gives out oil instead of water, which the
people use in all their food. In Metadrida there is another fountain,
some little distance from the sea, the flow of which is so violent
at midnight that it casts up on land fishes in such numbers that the
inhabitants, unable to pick them up, leave most of them to rot on the
ground.][351]
Ctesias relates these fables as perfect truth, adding that he
himself had seen with his own eyes some of the things he describes,
and had been informed of the rest by eye-witnesses. He says that he
has omitted many far more marvellous things, for fear that those
who had not seen them might think that his account was utterly
untrustworthy.
LXXIII
Read the _Aethiopica_ of Heliodorus.[352] The work is dramatic, and
the style employed is suited to the subject, being full of simplicity
and charm. The narrative is diversified by actual, expected, or
unexpected incidents that appeal to the feelings, by strange escapes
from danger, by clear and pure diction. If, as is only natural,
there is a tendency to use figures of speech, they are easy to
understand, and vividly illustrate the subject-matter. The periods
are symmetrical, and concisely arranged with a view to brevity. The
composition in other respects corresponds to the subject. The story
is about the love of a man and a woman, and shows a desire for the
strict observance of propriety.
The characters are Theagenes and Chariclea, two chaste lovers who,
through all their wanderings and frequent captivities, keep their
modesty intact. Their names, and a brief account of their fortunes
and sufferings, are given. The Athenian festival, at which Chariclea
is a priestess and Theagenes a competitor in the stadium. How they
fall in love with each other at sight; Chariclea’s consequent
illness; how she is carried off, with her consent, by Theagenes and
Calasiris from the house of her reputed father Charicles. Voyage to
Zacynthus, during which the captain of the ship is smitten with love
for Chariclea; Calasiris pretends to accept his offer of marriage.
Chariclea and her party are hospitably received on shore, and
informed by the fisherman who gives them lodging that Trachinus, the
captain of a band of robbers, intends to carry her off. The flight
of Calasiris and Chariclea, the pursuit and capture of the ship
by Trachinus. He falls in love with Chariclea, who pretends to be
willing to marry him. Calasiris and Theagenes, pretending to be her
father and brother, request [that they may be allowed to remain on
the vessel], and their request is granted. Storm at sea; their narrow
escape from shipwreck, and landing on the coast of Egypt. Trachinus
speaks of his intended marriage to Chariclea. The stratagem of her
supposed father, Calasiris, and arrangements for the wedding-feast.
Pelorus is persuaded by Calasiris that Chariclea is in love with
him, which leads to a quarrel between Pelorus and Trachinus about
her. A regular battle takes place, in which many of the pirates are
slain by themselves,[353] and several by Chariclea. Her grief at
seeing Theagenes covered with wounds. Attack by Egyptian brigands.
Their astonishment at the sight of Chariclea, whom they carry off
with Theagenes to Thyamis, the captain of the _Bucoli_,[354] as the
brigands were called. He also falls in love with Chariclea, who again
pretends that Theagenes is her brother. The _Bucoli_ are in turn
attacked and routed; flight of Thyamis and Hermuthis,[355] followed
by Cnemon[356] and Theagenes. Chariclea remains in the cave,[357]
at the entrance of which lies the dead body of Thisbe, the sight of
which plunges Theagenes[358] into unbearable grief, until Chariclea
addresses him from the cave. The mystery of the death of Thisbe;
grief of Hermuthis. Departure of Cnemon and Hermuthis, Chariclea and
Theagenes. Cnemon, leaving Hermuthis, meets Calasiris. They tell
each other their adventures. Cnemon tells the story of Thisbe and
Demaenete his stepmother, his banishment, and other misfortunes;
Calasiris that of Charicles, Chariclea, and Theagenes. Both lament
their misfortunes. Then Cnemon imparts the welcome news that
Theagenes and Chariclea are still alive, since he himself has been a
fellow-prisoner with them in the hands of Thyamis. Nausicles, with
whom Calasiris is living, brings in Chariclea in the name of Thisbe.
Hearing this name, Cnemon, knowing that Thisbe is dead, is puzzled;
but his perplexity changes to joy at the discovery that Chariclea
is alive. First search for Theagenes, and marriage of Cnemon and
Nausiclea. Calasiris sets out with Chariclea to find Theagenes.
An old woman is found lamenting over her son who has fallen in
battle, and addressing him with the aid of magic arts, Calasiris and
Chariclea meanwhile looking on. The old woman entreats the corpse
to tell her whether her other son will return. The son, cursing his
mother as guilty of violent and unlawful acts, informs her that her
son will be killed, but that she will die before him, for having
insulted the dead. Her death from accidentally falling on a fragment
of a spear.
Thyamis, Theagenes, and the rest of the robber band set out for
Memphis, the first-named desiring to recover the priesthood which
his younger brother, Petosiris, has seized. This causes a great
disturbance in the city. Arsace,[359] who is in command of the city,
endeavours to put an end to the strife by ordering the two brothers
to contend in single combat, the priesthood to be given to the
victor. The combat takes place against the wish of Petosiris, who
is unskilled in the use of arms, whereas Thyamis is an experienced
soldier. Thyamis at once scares his brother, who flings away his arms
and takes to flight, being twice pursued round the walls of the city
by his brother. Theagenes--with whom Arsace, the wife of Oroöndates,
has fallen in love--is attending on Thyamis. Calasiris and Chariclea
come on the scene. Calasiris, seeing his sons engaged in mortal
combat, runs up to them with a shout and with difficulty succeeds
in stopping the fight, since they do not recognize him. Chariclea
falls into the arms of Theagenes. The brothers lay down their arms,
and Thyamis is appointed to the priesthood by his father, who soon
afterwards dies.
Plot of Arsace against Theagenes and Chariclea, in which she is
zealously assisted by her maid Cybele, who invites them to the
palace. Arsace’s uncontrollable love for Theagenes, her schemes,
methods of ill-treatment, allurements, and plots. Cybele, who intends
to give a cup of poisoned wine to Chariclea, by mistake drinks it
herself and dies. Theagenes and Chariclea are cruelly treated and
tortured because Theagenes rejects the advances of Arsace. Chariclea
is condemned to be burnt, but the flames are extinguished by the
stone _pantarbē_.[360] Thus Chariclea escapes for the moment, but
Arsace, in her rage, prepares to have her put to death the next day.
Arsace’s husband, Oroöndates, sends [his eunuch Bagoas] to bring the
lovers by night to his camp, Cybele’s son, disappointed in his desire
to marry Chariclea, having hastened to inform his master of his
wife’s misconduct.
Attack by the Aethiopians; Theagenes and Chariclea carried
off to Hydaspes, king of Aethiopia. Their consecration for
sacrifice--Theagenes to the sun, Chariclea to the moon. Games
and sacrifices in the presence of Sisimithres, chief of the
gymnosophists,[361] and Persine, the king’s wife. Chariclea demands
to be allowed to plead her cause before the king. Her demand is
granted, Sisimithres being appointed judge; it is proved by the
evidence of witnesses that Chariclea is really the daughter of
Hydaspes and Persine. Hydaspes is with difficulty persuaded of the
truth of this, but in obedience to the custom of the country is still
determined that she shall be sacrificed. Opposition of the people
and release of Chariclea, to the joy of all. Chariclea threatened
with another danger. Theagenes is still bound for the sacrifice and
in spite of her earnest entreaties and various pleas, her father
refuses to release him. Chariclea, in great distress of mind, tells
her mother all that has happened to herself and Theagenes. The
latter’s exploit with the bull and the delight of the people. He also
defeats the mightiest wrestler among the Aethiopians amidst shouts
of applause. Nevertheless, he is crowned and led to the sacrifice.
Charicles, who happens to be present, having come from Athens, begs
the king to restore to him his supposed daughter. The king promises
to do so if he can find her, but he is unable to do so. Charicles
seizes Theagenes and drags him before the king, exclaiming, “This
is the man who stole my daughter from Athens.” An investigation
is held, Theagenes is declared not guilty with the approval of
Sisimithres, who secures the abolition of human sacrifice for the
future, amid general rejoicing. Thus Theagenes and Chariclea, after
all their trials and perils, become man and wife. Chariclea crowned
with the mitre of the priesthood by her mother, and Theagenes by his
father-in-law. Sacrifice offered and preparations made for the mystic
nuptial rites.
This romance was written by Heliodorus, son of Theodosius, a
Phoenician of Emesa. It is said that he was afterwards a bishop.
LXXIV
Read the thirty-six political orations of Themistius.[362] Some are
addressed to the emperor Constantius, others to Valens, the younger
Valentinian, and Theodosius, and contain encomiums and panegyrics
of these emperors. The style is clear, free from redundancies, but
somewhat florid. The language is official,[363] with a tendency
to solemnity. Themistius flourished in the reign of Valens, as
is clear from his works. He was still a young man in the time of
Constantius, by whom he was elected a member of the senate, as is
evident from the letter addressed by the emperor himself to that body
on behalf of Themistius. His father, who was also a philosopher, was
named Eugenius. We have seen his commentaries on all the works of
Aristotle, and concise and useful paraphrases of the _Analytics_, the
_Soul_, the _Physics_, and similar works. He also did something for
the interpretation of Plato, and, in fact, was a lover and student of
philosophy.
Also read the sixteen speeches of Lesbonax.[364] This Lesbonax....
LXXV
Read the little treatise of John Philoponus[365] against the
divinely-inspired doctrine of the holy and consubstantial Trinity,
set forth by John Scholasticus, archbishop of Constantinople, in his
catechetical speech, delivered at the first indiction[366] during the
reign of Justin.
The style is what one would expect from the author, being clear
but altogether lacking in energy and dignity. His arguments are
not only blasphemous, but utterly unsound and feeble, and he shows
himself unable to give even a superficial colouring of truth to his
fallacious arguments against the true faith. Inventing natures,
substances and godheads, like the insolent babbler that he is, he
pours forth a stream of blasphemy against the Christian faith, going
minutely into such points as “how many does one mean?” Thus, in
his ingenious trifling, as he considers it, or rather his puerile
want of taste, he insolently boasts that he despises the mystical
rites of our Church. It is not only in these particular arguments
that he appears weak and silly, but in all the other works he has
written, with the exception of those in which he has plagiarized
from others, while falsely laying claim to originality. He is far
removed from those writers who know how to distinguish the true from
the false, and are capable of attaining subtlety of thought. As for
the writings falsely claimed by him as his own, they have generally
preserved the character of their authors, except that in some cases
his vicious style and equipment have destroyed the noble manliness
of the original writers. They resemble those compounds which,
naturally excellent, owing to the manner in which they are reared and
nourished, show signs of spuriousness and degeneracy. In this work
he introduces quotations from the holy Fathers, such as Gregory the
Theologian, Basil the Great, the sorely-tried Athanasius and Saint
Cyril, but they in no way assist his impious design.
LXXVI
Read the _Antiquities of the Jews_, by Flavius Josephus,[367] in
twenty books. He begins with the Mosaic cosmogony, and although
his account agrees in the main with that generally accepted, he
sometimes differs. The work ends with the war between the Jews and
Romans, at the time when Agrippa,[368] son of the great Agrippa,[369]
who deprived Jesus, son of Gamaliel, of the high priesthood, and
bestowed it upon Matthias, son of Theophilus, was king of the Jews.
Antiochus[370] and his general Lysias were the first to introduce a
bold innovation in reference to the tenure of the high priesthood.
They removed Onias named Menelaus from that office, put him to death,
and deprived his son of the right of succession, appointing in his
place Alcimus called Iacimus, of the tribe of Aaron, but belonging to
a different family. Before this it had been the law from the time of
Aaron that the high priest should hold office for life, and that the
son should succeed the father. But when Alcimus died, after having
been high priest for three years, the office remained in abeyance for
seven years. After Matthias and his sons of the Asmonean family were
entrusted with the leadership of the Jewish people, and made war on
the Macedonians, Jonathan was appointed high priest. To this family
also belonged Judas, who was called Aristobulus, who first placed
the diadem on his head, thus filling the office of both high priest
and king. A year later he died, and left his brother Alexander his
successor in the kingdom and priesthood, who held these dignities
for twenty-seven years. From this time the kingship and priesthood
combined remained in the Asmonean family until the time of Hyrcanus,
whom Pompey, after the conquest of Jerusalem, deprived of his
kingdom, but allowed him to hold the office of high priest. After
thirty-three years he was taken prisoner by the Parthian generals
Barzapharnes and Pacorus, who appointed as king Antigonus, the son of
the brother of Aristobulus. After Antigonus had reigned three years
and three months, the Roman general Sosius and Herod the First, the
son of Antipater, a priest of Ascalon, and of Cypris the Arabian,
overthrew him, and took him to Antioch, where he was put to death by
Antony. This was the end of the Asmonean dynasty, and Herod was made
king of the Jews by the Romans. He bestowed the high priesthood upon
any one without distinction, setting an example for his successors
to follow. As stated above, the author, in his twenty books,
beginning from the creation of the world, goes down to the beginning
of the last war between the Jews and the Romans, at the time when
Agrippa, son of Agrippa, had been appointed king of the Jews by the
Romans and Gessius Florus[371] had succeeded Albinus as governor of
Judaea. The Jews, unable to endure Florus’s wickedness and cruelty,
revolted, thinking it better to perish at once together in freedom
than gradually and in slavery. It was in the second year of Florus’s
governorship and the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, that the war
broke out, with which the history of Josephus ends. Of his style we
have already spoken.
Josephus was by birth a Jew and a priest, belonging to a family
descended from a long line of priests on the father’s side. On the
mother’s side he was of royal blood, for the children of Asmoneus,
from whom her family was derived, had for a long time held both
the high priesthood and the rank of king. His father’s name was
Matthias. He was born in the first year of the reign of the emperor
Gaius,[372] and from boyhood was an earnest student. In his sixteenth
year, he began to devote his attention to the three sects of the
Jews, and conscientiously examined them, so that after having tried
them all he might be able to choose the best. These sects are the
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Having gone through them all,
he retired into the wilderness, living there for three years with
a man[373] who led a solitary and ascetic life. This man’s clothes
were made of the leaves of trees, his food consisted of natural
herbs and fruit, and he bathed frequently both by night and day, to
keep himself chaste. When he was nineteen, Josephus returned to the
city and joined the sect of the Pharisees, which is said to resemble
the sect called Stoic among the Greeks. In his thirtieth year, he
was sent by the people of Jerusalem to investigate the condition of
affairs in Galilee, where there was great confusion and things were
in a very unsettled state. He was then appointed commander-in-chief
of Galilee, and showed himself an efficient administrator. He
successfully escaped plots of different kinds laid against him by his
political rivals, and by showing a spirit of moderation in dealing
with his enemies often brought them over to his side. Having taken up
arms against the Romans against his will, after a brave resistance
at Iotapata he was taken prisoner by Vespasian, who treated him
kindly at the time and still more so after he became emperor. Not
only Vespasian, but his sons and successors, Titus and Domitian,
entertained the highest regard for him; the Roman citizenship was
bestowed upon him, and he became very wealthy. He finished his
_History_ in the fifty-sixth year of his age, in the thirteenth year
of the reign of Domitian.
LXXVII
Read the new edition of the continuation of the _Chronicle_ of
Dexippus[374] by Eunapius,[375] in fourteen books. It begins with
the reign of Claudius Caesar, when the history of Dexippus ends,
and goes down to the time of Honorius and Arcadius, the sons of
Theodosius. The work actually ends at the time when Arsacius, after
the banishment of John Chrysostom, was raised to the archbishopric
of Constantinople,[376] and the wife of Arcadius died of a
miscarriage. This Eunapius was a native of Sardes in Lydia, and an
impious heathen. He slanders and abuses in every way and without
restraint all who have adorned the empire by their piety, especially
Constantine the Great; on the other hand, he extols the impious,
above all Julian the Apostate. Indeed, it almost seems as if the work
was written as an elaborate panegyric upon him.
His style is elegant, if one cuts out terms and expressions such
as “fowl-like,” “more deer-like,” “more swine-like,” “hawk-like,”
“crow-like,” “ape-like,” “a tear like a river,” and so on, which
vitiate and debase the nobility of the rest of the language. He
also makes use of figures of speech capriciously, a fault which the
rule of historical writing forbids, but in general his forcible
style combined with urbanity palliates the offence. His method
of composition, his clearness and his use of periods are exactly
suited, and appropriate to historical narrative; sometimes,
however, the style is wordy with a tendency towards forensic rather
than historical language. In construction he introduces numerous
innovations, but not so as to cause unpleasantness nor to afford an
excuse for attacking his methods.[377]
He wrote two volumes, covering the same period. In the first, he
bespatters with abuse the pure faith of us Christians, glorifies the
heathen superstition, and attacks many pious emperors. In the second
volume, which he calls a “new edition,” he has cut out the insults
and brutal abuse which he had showered upon Christian piety, and,
having connected the rest of the body of the work, calls it, as we
have said, a “new edition,” although it still shows considerable
traces of the original frenzy. We have come across old copies of both
editions, both in separate volumes and combined, and, having read
both, are in a position to estimate the difference. The result is
that in the new edition many passages, owing to the omissions, are
mutilated and obscure, although generally the author shows a great
regard for clearness. Somehow or other in this second edition he has
not connected the narrative with due regard to the omissions, and so
has spoiled the meaning.
LXXVIII
Read the _Byzantine History_ of Malchus the sophist[378] in seven
books. It begins with the final illness and death of the emperor Leo
in the seventeenth year of his reign. The author gives an account of
the proclamation and accession of Zeno, his expulsion from the throne
and life as a private individual, the accession and abdication of the
usurper Basiliscus. The restoration of Zeno to the throne and the
murder of Basiliscus, his wife and children being unjustly put to
death at the same time. Harmatius, who had restored Zeno, met with a
similar recompense, being put to death by Onulphus. The author also
gives an account of the rebellion of Theodoric the son of Triarius;
the friendship of Theodoric the son of Malamir,[379] and his war with
Theodoric the son of Triarius; the second revolt against Zeno, the
rebellion of Marcian, the conspiracy[380] of Zeno’s mother-in-law,
and the banishment of Marcian for life. Verina’s plot against Illus,
the treacherous seizure of Epidamnus by Theodoric the son of Malamir.
Having described these events the author then touches upon Roman
affairs. The seventh book ends with the death of Nepos, who, having
driven out Glycerius, assumed the imperial power, ordered Glycerius’s
hair to be cut like a cleric’s and made him chief priest instead of
emperor. Nepos himself was subsequently slain at the instigation of
Glycerius. These seven books show that the author had already written
an account of preceding events, as also appears from the beginning
of the first book of the seven. The end of the seventh book further
shows that he had intended to continue the history, if his life had
been spared.
Malchus, a native of Philadelphia, is a most admirable historian. His
style is pure, free from redundancies and easy to understand; the
language is ornate and explicit, if somewhat pompous; he does not
hesitate to employ unfamiliar expressions characterized by emphasis,
euphony, and sublimity. Speaking generally, his language is a model
for the historian. A sophist by profession, and one of the greatest
of rhetoricians, he appears to have been a member of the Christian
Church.
LXXIX
Read the _History_ by Candidus[381] in three books. It begins with
the accession of Leo, a native of Dacia in Illyria, military
tribune and in command of the troops in Selymbria, who obtained the
throne by the aid of Aspar. Aspar was an Alan and a soldier from his
early years. He had been three times married, and had three sons,
Ardaburius, Patricius, and Ermenarichus.[382] The narrative goes
down to the proclamation of Anastasius as emperor. The author was
a native of Isauria Tracheia,[383] as he himself tells us, and by
profession clerk to certain influential Isaurians. By religion he was
an orthodox Christian, as appears from his eulogy of the fourth synod
and his well-justified attack on innovators. His style is not suited
for history. He makes use of poetical expressions that are insipid
and childish; the composition is harsh and discordant, inclined to
dithyrambic bombast or degenerating into carelessness and inelegance.
He introduces new constructions, which do not, as in the case of
other writers, lend additional smoothness and charm to the work, but
make it disagreeable to read and utterly unattractive. While here and
there his style shows improvement, his history is obviously a medley
of most different materials. He maintains that the name Isauria is
derived from Esau.
The first book describes the influence of Aspar and his sons, the
election of Leo to the throne by Aspar, the great fire that broke out
in Constantinople, and Aspar’s measures for the general welfare. Of
Tatian and Vivian; the dispute of Aspar and the emperor concerning
them, and what they said to one another. How this led to an alliance
of the emperor with the Isaurians through Tarasicodissas, the son of
Rusumbladeotes, whose name was changed to Zeno when he became Leo’s
son-in-law, after the death of his first wife. How Ardaburius, to
oppose the emperor, also endeavoured to win over the Isaurians. How
a certain Martin, the friend of Ardaburius, informed Tarasicodissas
of Ardaburius’s plot against the emperor; how mutual suspicion was
aggravated until finally the emperor Leo decided to put to death
Aspar and his sons Ardaburius and Patricius the Caesar. Aspar was
killed; Patricius, however, unexpectedly recovered from his wounds,
and Aspar’s other son Ermenarichus, who happened not to be with his
father at the time, also escaped. Leo gives Tarasicodissas the hand
of his daughter Ariadne in marriage, changes his name to Zeno,
and appoints him general of the East. The successes and reverses
of Basiliscus in Africa. How Leo desired and schemed to secure the
election of his son-in-law Zeno as emperor, but could not prevail
upon his subjects to consent. A little before his death, however,
he proclaimed his grandson Leo, the son of Ariadne, who, after his
grandfather’s death, with the assent of the senate placed the crown
upon the head of his father. Then follows a detailed genealogy of the
Isaurians, in which the author does his best to prove that they were
descendants of Esau. How Zeno, deceived by Verina, fled with his wife
and mother, abandoning the city and the throne. How Verina, hoping
that Patricius the magister would marry her and make himself emperor,
by treachery drove out her son-in-law,[384] but was deceived in her
hopes, for those in authority raised her brother Basiliscus to the
throne. The terrible massacre of Isaurians in Constantinople. Nepos,
the emperor of Rome, succeeded by Augustulus, the son of Orestes.
Such is the contents of the first book.
The second book relates how Patricius the magister, who had carried
on an intrigue with Verina, was slain by her indignant brother
Basiliscus. How Verina conceived a hatred of her brother on this
account, assisted Zeno with money to recover the throne, was
persecuted by her brother, and, had not Armatus[385] secretly got her
away from the church, would probably have lost her life. Armatus,
who had carried on an intrigue with the wife of Basiliscus, obtained
great influence and was entrusted with the conduct of the war against
Zeno; but subsequently entered into an agreement with Illus and went
over to Zeno. Armatus was held in great esteem by Zeno, and his son
was raised to the rank of Caesar. Nevertheless, he was afterwards put
to death, and his son, deprived of the rank of Caesar, became one
of the readers at Blachernae. Basiliscus before this had declared
his son Marcus Caesar and afterwards emperor. Illus, having become
reconciled to Zeno, prepared to help him to recover the throne.
Basiliscus, against whom his own adherents revolted, fled with his
children and his wife Zenonis, was treacherously induced by Armatus
to leave the church in which he had taken refuge, and banished to
Cappadocia, where he was put to death with all his family. When the
impious Peter[386] was disturbing the Churches of the East, Zeno sent
Calandion to be consecrated patriarch of Antioch. The emperor being
in want of money succeeded in obtaining some by methods suggested
to him.[387] Many who conspired against him were seized and put to
death. Illus rendered great services to the empire by his valour
in war and military successes, by his ambitious[388] political
measures and by his just dealings. After the death of the Roman
emperor Nepos and the expulsion of his son Augustulus, Odoacer[389]
obtained possession of Italy and the city of Rome itself. But the
western Gauls rebelled against him, and both they and Odoacer sent
ambassadors to Zeno, who rather favoured Odoacer. A certain Alan who
attempted to kill Illus, after he had wounded him, declared that he
had been bribed by Epinicius, an intimate of Verina. Epinicius was
handed over to Illus, and after obtaining a promise that he should
be forgiven and rewarded, disclosed Verina’s designs against Illus.
Zeno hands Verina over to Illus, who banished her to a fortress in
Cilicia, and thus secured his safety. Illus, who had become very
intimate with the impious Pamprepius,[390] to whom he had been
introduced by Marsus, gradually became ruined. Civil war against
Zeno begun by Marcian and Procopius, sons of the Roman emperor
Anthemius. After they had been defeated, Marcian was ordained a
priest, and Procopius took refuge with Theodoric in Thrace. Marcian,
in banishment in Cappadocia, escaped and stirred up revolt in Ancyra
in Galatia until at length he was captured and banished to Isauria.
The origin of the emperor’s increasing hatred of Illus. This is the
contents of the second book.
The third book, amongst other things, relates how Illus rose in open
revolt against Zeno, declared Leontius emperor and Verina empress;
how the revolt failed, and Illus and Leontius were besieged,[391]
captured, and beheaded. It also contains an account of events to the
death of Zeno.
LXXX
Read the _Histories_ of Olympiodorus,[392] in twenty-two books.
They begin with the seventh consulship of the emperor Honorius and
the second of Theodosius, and go down to the time when Valentinian,
the son of Placidia and Constantius, was proclaimed emperor of the
Romans. The author, a heathen, was a native of Thebes in Egypt,
a poet by profession, according to his own account. His style is
clear but loose and wanting in vigour, and sometimes degenerates
into commonplace vulgarity, so that the work does not deserve to
be considered a history. Perhaps that is the reason why the author
himself, conscious of these defects, declares that his work is not a
history, but a collection of materials for a history, so destitute
of regular form did he himself consider his style and phraseology.
He is not distinguished for form, except so far as one might assert
that he now and again approaches simplicity; but even in this, owing
to the excessive meanness and paltriness of his diction, he is
unsuccessful and gradually descends to vulgar mannerism. He calls his
work _Silva_, but divides it into books and strives to embellish it
with prefaces. It is dedicated to the emperor Theodosius, the son of
Arcadius, and nephew of Honorius and Placidia.
The rise of Stilicho to power; his appointment by Theodosius the
Great to the guardianship of his children Arcadius and Honorius,
his marriage to Serena, betrothed to him by her uncle the emperor
himself. Marriage of his daughter Thermantia to Honorius, and his
rise to the height of his power. His many successful foreign wars.
His death at the hands of the cruel and inhuman Olympius, whom he had
himself recommended to the emperor.
Alaric, chieftain of the Goths, whom Stilicho had previously sent for
that he might retain Illyricum for Honorius (to whom that prefecture
had been assigned by his father Theodosius), in consequence of the
murder of Stilicho, and because the promises made to him had not been
kept, besieges and sacks Rome. He carries off an enormous amount
of booty together with Placidia, the sister of Honorius, who was
in the city at the time. Before its capture he declares emperor a
distinguished citizen named Attalus, the city prefect. Another reason
for Alaric’s conduct was that Sarus, also a Goth, captain of a small
band, not more than 200 or 300 in number, and a brave and invincible
warrior, had been offered an alliance by the Romans as being hostile
to Alaric, who thus became their irreconcilable enemy.
During the siege of Rome the inhabitants were reduced to cannibalism.
Alaric, while Stilicho was still alive, received 4000 pounds of gold
for the expenses of his expedition. After the death of Stilicho his
widow Serena is strangled, it being thought that she might have been
responsible for Alaric’s attack on the city. His son Eucherius had
already been put to death.
During the reign of Honorius the name _Bucellarii_[393] was given not
only to Roman, but also to foreign soldiers; and similarly, the name
_Foederati_[394] to a mixed and irregular body of troops.
Olympius, who intrigued against Stilicho, appointed master of the
offices,[395] but afterwards deprived of his post. He recovers it
and is again deprived of it. He is beaten to death by order of
Constantius, the husband of Placidia, after his ears have first been
cut off. Thus the impious wretch meets with due punishment at last.
The chief men of the Goths with Radagaisus, about 12,000 in number,
called _Optimati_, are defeated by Stilicho, who enters into an
alliance with Radagaisus.
Illness and death of Alaric, who is succeeded by his wife’s brother
Ataulf.
The author says that dry bread was called _bucellatum_, and jestingly
suggests that the soldiers were called _bucellarii_ for this
reason.[396]
Constantine, having made himself tyrant in Gaul, sends ambassadors
to Honorius, excusing himself on the ground that he had been forced
to assume the purple by the soldiers, and asking forgiveness and
recognition as his colleague. Honorius, being in great straits,
agrees to his request. This Constantine had been declared emperor
during a revolt of the soldiers in Britain, where, before the seventh
consulship of Honorius, they had proclaimed a certain Marcus emperor.
He was soon removed by them and Gratian appointed in his stead. After
four months, they grew tired of him also, and put him to death,
Constantine being promoted to the rank and title of Augustus. Having
appointed Justin and Neobigastes to the command of his forces, he
left Britain and crossed over to Bononia,[397] a town on the coast,
the first in Gallic territory. There he spent some time, gaining
over all the soldiery of Gaul and Aquitaine, and occupied the whole
of Gaul as far as the Alps which separate Italy and Gaul. He had two
sons, Constans and Julian, the former of whom he raised to the rank
of Caesar, and bestowed the dignity of _Nobilissimus_[398] upon the
latter.
Attalus, created rival emperor to Honorius, marches towards Ravenna,
where Jovian,[399] praetorian prefect[400] and patrician,[401]
Valens, _magister utriusque militiae_,[402] Potamius the quaestor,
and Julian _primicerius notariorum_,[403] are sent to him as envoys
by Honorius. They inform Attalus that they have been sent by
Honorius to discuss the question of admitting him to a partnership
in the empire. He refuses, but offers to allow Honorius to retire
unharmed to some island or anywhere else he pleased. Jovian gladly
accepts this proposal, further proposing that Honorius should be
mutilated. Attalus rebukes Jovian, saying that there is no reason
for mutilating Honorius, if he voluntarily abdicates. Jovian,
after several unsuccessful embassies, remains with Attalus as his
_patricius_. Meanwhile, the command of Ravenna devolves upon the
_praepositus_[404] Eusebius, who, soon afterwards, by the cruelty
of Allobich and by public decree is flogged to death in the sight
of the emperor. After a considerable time, Attalus, who does not
remain loyal to Alaric (chiefly owing to Jovian, who had betrayed the
ambassadors of Honorius), is deprived of the throne, and afterwards
joins the suite of Alaric as a private individual. He is subsequently
restored, but again compelled to abdicate. Finally, he sets out for
Ravenna, is captured, and, after the thumb and forefinger of his
right hand have been cut off, is banished.
Soon afterwards, Allobich pays the penalty for the murder of the
praepositus Eusebius, and is put to death before the emperor. The
tyrant Constantine, when informed of the death of Allobich, sets
out in haste for Ravenna, to make a treaty with Honorius, but being
alarmed, turns back.
Rhegium[405] was the chief town of Bruttii,[406] whence the historian
says Alaric intended to cross over to Sicily, but was prevented
from doing so by a sacred statue. This statue is said to have been
consecrated by the ancients as a protection against the fires of
Aetna and the passage of barbarians from over seas. In one foot it
contained a fire that was never extinguished, in the other a supply
of water that never failed. When it was subsequently destroyed
by Asclepius, the manager of Constantius and Placidia’s Sicilian
property, the inhabitants suffered greatly from Aetna and the
barbarians.
The tyrant Constantine and his son Constans, who was first Caesar
and afterwards Augustus, having been defeated and put to flight,
his general, Gerontius, gladly makes peace with the barbarians and
proclaims Maximus, one of the domestics[407] and his own son,[408]
emperor. He then pursues Constans, puts him to death, and sets out
after Constantine. While these events are taking place, Constantius
and Ulphilas are sent by Honorius against Constantine; having reached
Arelate,[409] where Constantine was living with his son Julian, they
lay siege to it. Constantine takes refuge in a church and is ordained
priest, having been solemnly promised that his life should be spared.
The city gates are thrown open to the besiegers, and Constantine
and his son taken to Honorius. But the emperor, bearing a grudge
against them for the murder of his cousins by Constantine, orders
them to be put to death in violation of his oath, thirty miles from
Ravenna. Gerontius, on the arrival of Constantius and Ulphilas, takes
to flight, and is seized by his mutinous troops, who resented his
severe discipline. The house where he seeks refuge is set on fire,
but he offers a brave resistance to the mutineers, together with one
of his servants, an Alan by birth. At last, he slays the Alan and
then his wife, at their earnest request, and then stabs himself.
His son Maximus, on hearing of this, takes refuge with friendly
barbarians.[410]
Jovinus, meanwhile, is proclaimed emperor at Moguntiacum[411] in
upper Germany, with the aid of Goar the Alan and Guntiar,[412] a
Burgundian chieftain. On the advice of Attalus, Ataulf joins him with
his forces. But Jovinus, being offended at the presence of Ataulf,
in mysterious language blames Attalus who had advised Ataulf to join
him. Sarus also is on the way to join Jovinus, but Ataulf, hearing
of this, collects a force of 10,000 men and waylays Sarus, whose
followers numbered only twenty-eight. Sarus fights with marvellous
heroism, and is with difficulty taken alive by a soldier, who threw
a bag over his head, and afterwards slain. Sarus had revolted from
Honorius, who had treated the murder of Sarus’s servant, Bellerides,
as a matter of indifference and had refused to find out and punish
his murderer.
Donatus and the Huns, and the skilfulness of their kings in shooting
with the bow. The author relates that he himself was sent on a
mission to Donatus, and gives a tragic account of his wanderings and
perils by sea. How Donatus, being deceived by an oath, was unlawfully
put to death. How Charaton, the first of the kings, being incensed
at the murder, was appeased by gifts from the emperor. Such are the
events of the first decade of the history.
The second begins as follows. Jovinus, contrary to the advice of
Ataulf, proclaims his own brother Sebastian Augustus. Ataulf, deeply
offended, thereupon sends envoys to Honorius, promising to send him
the heads of the tyrants and offering to make peace. Oaths having
been exchanged, the envoys return, and the head of Sebastian is sent
to the emperor. Jovinus, besieged by Ataulf, surrenders, is sent to
the emperor and executed by the praetorian prefect Dardanus with his
own hand. Both heads are exposed outside Carthage,[413] where those
of Constantine and Julian, of Maximus and Eugenius, who had aspired
to the throne during the reign of the great Theodosius and had met
with the same fate, had already been exposed.
The restoration of Placidia to her brother Honorius is urgently
demanded from Ataulf by Constantius, who afterwards became her
husband. But as the promises made to him remain unfulfilled,
especially in regard to the supply of corn, he refuses to give her
back and prepares for war instead of peace.
Ataulf, when requested to restore Placidia, asks for the corn
promised him. Although those who had promised it are unable to supply
it, they agree to do so if Placidia is restored; the barbarian makes
a similar pretence of complying. In the meantime he sets out for
Massilia,[414] hoping to capture it by treachery. But having been
severely, almost mortally, wounded by the most noble Boniface, he
returns to his own quarters, abandoning the city which joyfully
acclaims and extols Boniface.[415]
Ataulf, determined to marry Placidia, in spite of the request of
Constantius for her restitution, raises his demands so that, if they
are not granted, he may appear to have a good excuse for detaining
her.
Constantius, who was formerly consul elect, is created consul
at Ravenna, Constans being at the same time made consul at
Constantinople. Sufficient gold was found among the property of
Heraclian, who had been put to death[416] as aspiring to the throne,
to defray the expenses of the consulship, although the amount was not
so great as had been expected. The amount in gold which was found
was about £4600, and the value of the real estate 2000 _litrae_
(£92,000). All this was made over to Constantius by Honorius “at
one asking.” Constantius, as he rode along,[417] had a dejected and
sullen appearance, with his great eyes and neck and broad head; his
whole body was bent over his horse and he looked askance on either
side, in order as the old expression has it, “to appear worthy of
empire.”[418] At feasts and banquets, however, he was agreeable and
sociable, and often even condescended to vie with the mimes who
performed at table.
On the advice and with the assistance of Candidian the marriage of
Ataulf with Placidia was celebrated at the beginning of January in
the city of Narbo (Narbonne), in the house of Ingenius, one of the
most distinguished citizens. Placidia sat in the inner apartment
dressed in Roman style and in royal robes, with Ataulf by her side,
wearing a woollen tunic and Roman costume. Amongst other wedding
presents Ataulf gave his bride fifty beautiful youths dressed in
silk, each bearing in his hands two very large dishes, one filled
with gold, the other with precious, or rather priceless, stones, the
spoils of Rome when it was sacked by the Goths. Then wedding-songs
were sung, Attalus leading the chorus, accompanied by Rusticius and
Phoebadius. The ceremony ended with great demonstrations of joy and
games, in which Romans and barbarians alike took part.
After the capture of Rome by the Goths, Albinus, the city prefect,
when the normal condition of things was restored, reported to the
emperor that the amount of corn distributed to the people was
insufficient, since their number was increasing, as many as 14,000
strangers having passed through in one day.[419]
Ataulf, after Placidia had borne him a son whom he called Theodosius,
courted the friendship of the Romans still more, but the opposition
of Constantius and his supporters made his and Placidia’s efforts
vain. The son soon died and his parents, deeply grieved, buried
him in a silver coffer in a church near Barcino (Barcelona). Soon
afterwards Ataulf himself was murdered, while looking after his
horses in the stable, as he had been in the habit of doing. He was
slain by a certain Goth in his service, named Dubius, who had long
been on the watch for an opportunity to satisfy an old-standing
hatred. Dubius’s master,[420] chief of a Gothic tribe, had been
killed by Ataulf, who had taken Dubius into his own household.
Dubius, to avenge his first master, slew his second. Ataulf, before
he died, ordered his brother to give back Placidia and, if possible,
to cultivate the friendship of Rome. He was succeeded by Singeric,
the brother of Sarus, who secured the throne by violence and intrigue
rather than legally or on the score of relationship. He put to death
Ataulf’s children by a former marriage, tearing them from the arms
of bishop Sigesarus, and by way of insult compelled Placidia to walk
in procession in front of his horse with other captives as far as
the twelfth milestone from the city. After he had reigned seven days
Singeric was slain and succeeded by the Gothic chieftain Walia.
The historian relates that he heard from a person of distinction
named Valerius about certain silver statues that were consecrated to
keep off the barbarians. In the reign of Constantius, when Valerius
was governor of Thrace, he received information of the whereabouts of
a treasure. He proceeded to the spot and learnt from the inhabitants
that it was regarded as sacred, and that certain statues had been
consecrated there in accordance with ancient rites. Valerius reported
this to the emperor, who gave him written permission to remove them.
The spot was excavated, and three statues of solid silver were found,
lying in barbaric guise, with arms akimbo, clothed in parti-coloured
barbaric raiment, with long hair, turned towards the north, the
country of the barbarians. When these statues were removed, the
Goths a few days afterwards first overran and ravaged Thrace, and
a little later Huns and Sarmatians made inroads into Illyricum and
Thrace itself; for these consecrated districts lay between Thrace
and Illyricum, and from the number of the statues consecrated, they
appear to have been intended as a protection against these barbarous
nations.
The historian tells us of the sufferings and perils of his voyage.
He says also that he landed at Athens, and that by his support and
efforts Leontius was appointed to the chair of sophistic, although
he did not desire it. Concerning the philosopher’s cloak,[421] he
says that no one in Athens, particularly a stranger, was allowed
to wear it, unless permitted to do so by the general vote of the
sophists, and unless his right had been confirmed by their rules and
regulations. The following were the rites on such occasions. All
newcomers (novices), young and old, were taken to the public baths.
Those who were by age fit to wear the cloak were brought forward by
the scholastics[422] who escorted them; then, while some ran in front
and pushed them back, others, running behind, pushed them forward and
resisted them, amid shouts of “Stop, stop, he must not wash.” Those
who pushed back those who tried to hinder the progress of the novice
were considered to be victorious in the contest. After a considerable
time, and after a long disputation had taken place in accordance with
custom, he who was being escorted was taken into a warm room and
washed. Having dressed himself, he received permission to wear the
cloak on his way from the bath, being accompanied by a numerous and
distinguished throng. Large sums are voted for the presidents of the
schools, who are called Acromitae.[423]
The Vandals call the Goths Truli, because, when they were hard
pressed by famine, they bought a _trula_ of wheat from the Vandals
for a gold coin.[424] The _trula_ does not contain more than a third
of a pint.
When the Vandals were ravaging Spain, the Romans who took refuge in
the fortified cities were so destitute of food that they were driven
to cannibalism. A woman who was the mother of four children ate them
all, in each case pretending that she did so to provide some food for
the rest and save their lives, but when she had eaten them all she
was stoned to death by the people.
Euplutius the chamberlain is sent to Walia, king of the Goths, to
make a treaty of peace with him and to recover Placidia. Walia
receives him kindly and on receipt of 600,000 measures of corn,
Placidia is released and handed over to Euplutius to be escorted to
her brother Honorius.
When a discussion arose in Athens how books could be fastened
together and people wanted to know how much glue should be used,
Philtatius, the writer’s companion, who was well acquainted with all
matters connected with literature, showed them what to do. A statue
was erected in his honour by the grateful citizens.
About the oasis the author relates much that appears incredible.
First, the climate is so healthy, that not only do none of the
inhabitants suffer from epilepsy, but those who come from other parts
are cured of it. Next, he speaks of the vast tracts of sand, and the
wells, dug 200, 300, sometimes even 500 cubits deep, which spirt up
a stream of water, from which the husbandmen who have taken part in
the work in turn draw water to irrigate their fields. The trees bear
fruit perpetually, and the corn which grows there is finer than any
other and whiter than snow. There are sometimes two crops of barley
in a year and three of millet. The inhabitants water their little
plots of land every third day in summer, every sixth day in winter,
which makes the soil very fertile. Clouds are rarely, if ever, seen.
About the clocks made there. The author says that the oasis was
formerly an island, which had been detached from the mainland, and
that it is called by Herodotus the islands of the blest, but that
Herodorus (who wrote the lives of Orpheus and Musaeus) calls it
Phaeacis. He argues that it was an island, first, from the fact that
sea shells are found adhering to stones upon the mountain which leads
to the oasis from the Thebaid, and, secondly, because of the vast
quantity of sand, which fills three oases. For he tells us that the
oases are three in number, two large, an outer and an inner, opposite
each other but a hundred miles apart, while the third is small and a
great distance from the other two. A further argument that it was an
island is that fish are often found that have been carried there by
birds, and the remains of fish that have been eaten, so that one may
conjecture that the sea was not far off. The author says also that
Homer’s family belonged to the Thebaid.
During the eleventh consulship of Honorius and the second of
Constantius, the marriage of Placidia was arranged. She herself
was greatly opposed to it, which incensed Constantius against her
household. Nevertheless, on the first day of his consulship, her
brother the emperor Honorius took her by the hand and, although
she protested, delivered her over to Constantius, and the wedding
was celebrated with great magnificence. They had two children, a
daughter Honoria and a son Valentinian, who at the urgent request of
Placidia received the title _Nobilissimus_ during the lifetime of
Honorius. After the death of the latter and the suppression of the
usurper John,[425] he became emperor. Honorius unwillingly agreed
to accept Constantius as his partner in the empire, and Placidia
received the title of Augusta from her brother and her husband.
Theodosius the cousin of Honorius and emperor of the East, to whom
an embassy was sent to inform him of the elevation of Constantius,
refused to receive it. Constantius soon became tired of the throne,
since he could no longer come and go when and where he pleased, and
his dignity forbade him to indulge in his customary amusements. This
seriously affected his health; and, after he had been on the throne
six months, a vision appeared to him and addressed him with the
words, “Six are gone, the seventh begins.” He died of pleurisy, and
with him died the indignation aroused by the refusal to acknowledge
his accession. The projected attack on the East abandoned. Walia,
king of the Goths, dies and is succeeded by Theodoric.[426]
The author relates various perils at sea from which he barely
escaped with his life. While talking of a marvellous star (called
Urania[427] by the sailors), he was leaning heavily against the mast,
which nearly gave way and precipitated him into the water. He also
tells of a parrot, with which he himself lived twenty years, which
mimicked nearly all the acts of a human being. It used to dance
and sing, call people by their names and the like. He also relates
that, when he was staying at Thebes and Soëne[428] for the sake of
gathering information, the chiefs and prophets of the barbarians at
Talmis,[429] called Blemmyes,[430] were eager to meet him owing to
his reputation. “They took me as far as Talmis,” he says, “that I
might examine the country, which is distant five days’ journey from
Philae[431] as far as the city called Prima. This was the nearest
city of the Thebaid to barbarian soil, and was hence called by the
Romans Prima (first), the name being still preserved although it has
long been in possession of the barbarians with four other cities,
Phoenicon, Chiris, Thapis, and Talmis.” In this district he heard
that there were emerald mines, which furnished an abundant supply
of those precious stones for the Egyptian kings. The prophets of
the barbarians invited him to inspect them, but this was impossible
without the king’s permission.
He tells a wonderful story about a certain Libanius, an Asiatic, who
appeared at Ravenna during the reign of Honorius and Constantius,
a most consummate magician. He declared that he could work wonders
and promised to perform them against the barbarians without the aid
of soldiers. After his promise had been put to the test, the report
reached the ears of Placidia, who threatened to apply for a divorce
against Constantius, unless the magician and infidel were removed.
Libanius was accordingly put to death. Constantius was an Illyrian
from Naisus[432] in Dacia, who, having served in numerous campaigns
from the time of Theodosius the Great, was afterwards raised to the
throne. In many respects he was worthy of praise and of a generous
disposition, until his marriage with Placidia, when he became
grasping and covetous. After his death, numerous petitions against
him from those who had been financially injured by him were presented
at Ravenna. But the indifference of Honorius and Placidia’s intimacy
with him made these petitions useless and thwarted the power of
justice.
After the death of Constantius, Honorius lavished the greatest
affection upon his sister, which, however, soon turned to mistrust
and hatred, aggravated by the intrigues of Spadusa and Elpidia
(Placidia’s nurse), in whom she had the greatest confidence, and
Leontius her steward. There were frequent riots in Ravenna, where
a large number of barbarians, who sided with her in consequence of
her marriage with Ataulf and with Constantius, frequently came to
blows with the imperial guards. At length the quarrel became so
bitter that, as the result of the hatred instead of love which her
brother now felt for her, Placidia, finding herself unable to resist,
retired with her children to Constantinople. Boniface alone remained
loyal to her, sent her money when he was able from Africa where he
was governor, and rendered her every service in his power. He also
subsequently assisted her to regain the throne.
Honorius died of dropsy on the 27th of August, and an announcement
of the news was sent to the East. In the meantime, a certain John
seized the throne. While his inauguration was taking place, a voice
was heard, as if proceeding from some oracle uttering the words, “He
falls, he does not stand,” whereupon the people, as if to break the
spell, shouted, “He stands, he does not fall.”
Boniface was an heroic soldier, who often distinguished himself
against the barbarians, sometimes with large, sometimes with small
forces, sometimes even in single combat; in a word, he entirely freed
Africa from many barbarous nations. He was a lover of justice and
despised wealth.
The author says that each of the large houses in Rome contained
all the conveniences of a well-arranged city--a hippodrome, fora,
temples, fountains, and baths. This leads him to exclaim: “One house
is a town; a city has ten thousand towns.” There were also public
baths of great size; those called Antoninianae had 1600 seats for
the convenience of bathers, made of polished marble; those called
Diocletianae twice as many. The wall of Rome, according to the
measurement of Ammon the geometrician, at the time when it was first
overrun by the Goths, was twenty-one miles in circumference.
Many Roman families received yearly incomes from their property
to the amount of about forty _centenarii_ of gold (£160,000), not
mentioning the corn and wine and other produce, which, if sold, would
equal a third of the above amount. Families next in rank enjoyed an
income of fifteen or ten _centenarii_ (£60,000-£40,000). Probus, the
son of Olympius, who was prefect of the city during the tyranny of
John, spent twelve _centenarii_ of gold (£48,000). Before the taking
of Rome, Symmachus the orator,[433] a senator of moderate rank, and a
certain Maximus, one of the wealthy citizens, spent twenty (£80,000)
and forty (£160,000) _centenarii_ respectively on their sons’
praetorships. The shows given by the praetors lasted a week.
The author says that the scene of the wanderings of Odysseus was not
the coast of Sicily, but the farthest shores of Italy; that, after
crossing the ocean, he descended into Hades and made many perilous
voyages over that sea; an opinion which he attempts to confirm by
various arguments. I have read many other writers who agree with him.
Placidia is sent back with her children from Constantinople by
Theodosius to oppose the tyrant John. She is confirmed in her title
of Augusta, and Valentinian in that of _Nobilissimus_. They set out
accompanied by an army, both horse and foot, under the command of
Ardaburius, his son Aspar,[434] and Candidian.[435] At Thessalonica
Helion, the master of offices, who had been sent by Theodosius, put
the royal robes on Valentinian, then only five years old. On his
way home, Ardaburius is captured by the soldiers of John and taken
to the tyrant, with whom he becomes on friendly terms.[436] His son
Aspar and Placidia were meanwhile overwhelmed by grief and anxiety;
but Candidian, by capturing many towns and winning great renown,
dispelled their grief and raised their spirits. The tyrant John was
put to death, and Placidia with the Caesar her son entered Ravenna.
Helion, the master of offices and a patrician, took possession
of Rome, and in the midst of a vast throng of people arrayed the
seven-year-old Valentinian in the royal robes. At this point the
history ends.
LXXXI
Read three short treatises by Theodore[437] _On Persian Magic and
wherein it differs from Christianity_,[438] dedicated to Mastubius,
an Armenian and suffragan bishop. In the first book the accursed
doctrine of the Persians, introduced by Zarades,[439] concerning
Zuruam,[440] whom he makes the beginning of all things and calls
Fortune, is expounded; how that, having offered a libation to beget
Hormisdas,[441] he begot both him and Satan. Of the mixing of
blood.[442] Having set forth this impious and disgraceful doctrine
in plain words he refutes it in the first book. In the other two
books he discusses the Christian faith, beginning from the creation
of the world and at the same time rapidly going down to the law of
grace.[443]
This Theodore is believed to be Theodore of Mopsuestia, since he
mentions with approval the heresy of Nestorius, especially in the
third book. He also foolishly talks of the restoration of sinners to
their former condition.
LXXXII
Read the _History_ of the events that happened after the death
of Alexander the Great, by Dexippus,[444] in four books; also
his _Historical Epitome_, a chronicle going down to the time of
Claudius.[445] Also read his _Scythica_, describing the wars between
the Scythians[446] and Romans and other things of note. His style
is free from redundancies, massive,[447] and dignified; he might be
called a second Thucydides, although he writes more clearly. His
characteristics are chiefly shown in his last-mentioned work.
In his record of events after the death of Alexander, he relates
how the throne fell to his brother Arrhidaeus, the son of Philip
of Macedon and Philinna of Larissa. The yet unborn child of Roxana
by Alexander, should it be a son, was to be associated with him
in the government, together with Perdiccas, who was chosen by the
Macedonians to administer the affairs of the empire. The division of
Alexander’s empire. In Asia, Ptolemy Lagus obtained the government of
Egypt, Libya, and the country beyond adjacent to Egypt, Cleomenes,
who had been appointed by Alexander satrap of this district, being
made subordinate to him. Laomedon of Mytilene obtained Syria;
Philotas Cilicia; Pithon Media; Eumenes Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and
the shores of the Euxine as far as Trapezus (Trebizond); Antigonus
Pamphylia and Cilicia as far as Phrygia; Asander Caria; Menander
Lydia; Leonnatus the Phrygian Hellespont. In Europe, Lysimachus
obtained Thrace and the Chersonese; Antipater the whole of Macedonia,
Greece, Illyria, the country of the Triballi and the Agrianes, and
all the mainland over which he had been appointed sole commander
from the time of Alexander. The general charge of affairs and the
defence of the kingdom was entrusted to Craterus; Perdiccas obtained
the chiliarchy[448] of Hephaestion, the highest dignity amongst the
Macedonians.
Porus and Taxilus were rulers of India, to Porus being allotted the
country between the Indus and the Hydaspes, the rest to Taxilus.
Pithon received the country of the neighbouring peoples, except the
Paramisades. The districts near the Caucasian mountains, conterminous
with India, were given to the Bactrian Oxyartes, the father of
Roxana, whose son, born after his father’s death, was also called
Alexander. Siburtius ruled the Arachosians and Gedrosians; Stasanor
of Soli the Arei and Drangi; Philip the Sogdiani; Radaphernes the
Hyrcanians; Neoptolemus the Carmanians; Peucestes the Persians.
Oropius was ruler of Sogdiana, not by inheritance from his father,
but by favour of Alexander. When in consequence of a revolt he was
accused and threatened with the loss of his kingdom, he held it in
conjunction with Philip. Babylon was given to Seleucus, Mesopotamia
to Archelaus. Such were the countries and their rulers as distributed
by Perdiccas after the death of Alexander. In this and other parts of
his narrative Dexippus is generally in agreement with Arrian.[449]
LXXXIII
Read the twenty books of the _Histories_ of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus.[450] He begins with the arrival of Aeneas in Italy
after the capture of Troy, describes in detail the foundation of
Rome, the birth of Romulus and Remus, and other events down to the
war of the Romans with Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. The work ends at
the third year of the 128th Olympiad, where, the author says, the
history by Polybius of Megalopolis begins. Dionysius flourished in
the Augustan age, since he tells us that he sailed to Italy after
the end of the civil war between Antony and Augustus, and lived
there for twenty-two years. During this time he acquired an accurate
knowledge of the Latin language and of Roman antiquities, and, having
thoroughly equipped himself with materials, he began to write his
history. His style and diction are marked by innovation, which drives
the narrative out of the beaten track, but his fondness for detail
produces a certain simplicity of sentiment, so that the language does
not seem to be carried away into harshness and unpleasantness. He is
fond of digressions which relieve the reader and prevent his becoming
tired of history, and refresh and revive him. In a word, the elegance
of his style, the admixture of detail and digression, soften the
composition, which has a tendency to harshness.
LXXXIV
Also read the same author’s _Synopsis_ of the above twenty books in
five volumes. In this his style is more elegant but not nearly so
agreeable; at the same time the work is more useful, since nothing is
inserted except what is absolutely necessary. From his style, concise
and free from redundancies, he may be described as a king laying
down the law; his composition and diction send forth a sound which
reaches the ears of the hearer somewhat more harshly. His manner is
not unsuitable for synopsis, but by no means adapted for a perfect
and complete history. It is evident that the writer lived before Dion
Coccaeus[451] and Appian[452] of Alexandria, who also wrote on Roman
history.
LXXXV
Read the twenty books of Heraclian,[453] bishop of Chalcedon,
_Against the Manichaeans_.[454] His style is concise, free from
redundancies, lofty, not wanting in clearness, at the same time
tempered with dignity. He combines atticism with ordinary language,
like a teacher of boys entering into a contest of superatticism. He
refutes the _Gospel_, _Book of the Giants_, and the _Treasures_ of
the Manichaeans. He also gives a list of those who wrote against
the Manichaean impiety before him--Hegemonius, who wrote out the
disputation of Archelaus against Manes; Titus,[455] who was supposed
to be an opponent of the Manichaeans, whereas he rather attacked the
writings of Addas;[456] George of Laodicea,[457] who uses nearly the
same arguments as Titus against the impious heresy; Serapion, bishop
of Thmuis;[458] lastly, Diodorus,[459] who wrote twenty-five books
against the Manichaeans, in the first seven of which he imagines
that he is refuting the _Living Gospel_ of Manes, instead of the
work of Addas named _Modion_,[460] as is really the case. In the
remaining books he explains and clears up the meaning of certain
passages in the Scriptures which the Manichaeans were in the habit
of appropriating to support their own views. Such is his account of
Diodorus. Any statements in the works of these Fathers (as the pious
Heraclian calls them) that do not appear to be sufficiently emphatic,
he briefly confirms, carefully supplies what is missing, and quotes
with approval in their entirety passages which are adequate for the
purpose, adding further reflections of his own.
The man is full of philosophical vigour, and is admirably equipped
with the theoretical knowledge of other branches of learning. Hence
he energetically combats and overthrows the trifling fables of
Manichaeus,[461] and from the consideration of what exists refutes
the fabulous nonsense about Being (that which is).
This treatise against the Manichaeans was written at the request of
a certain Achillius, whom the author calls his faithful and beloved
son. This Achillius, seeing that the Manichaean heresy was growing,
begged that it might be publicly refuted, and this work was written,
an unexceptionable triumph over impiety. This most pious Heraclian
flourished in....
LXXXVI
Read the _Letters_ written by the holy Father St. John Chrysostom to
different people after his unjust and inhuman banishment. The most
useful of them are the seventeen addressed to the pious deaconess
Olympias,[462] and those to Innocent,[463] pope of Rome, in which
he relates all that had happened to him, as far as he was able to
do so in the form of letters. These letters are characteristic of
the man. The style is brilliant, clear, persuasive, somewhat florid,
and agreeable. The letters to Olympias, however, seem to have been
written with greater care; the importance of the matters discussed,
to which the epistolary style is not adapted, necessitates a
corresponding dignity of composition.
LXXXVII
Read the _Adventures of Clitophon and Leucippe_ by Achilles
Tatius, of Alexandria,[464] in eight books. It is a dramatic work,
introducing some unseemly love episodes. The diction and composition
are excellent, the style distinct, and the figures of speech,
whenever they are employed, are well adapted to the purpose. The
periods as a rule are aphoristic, clear and agreeable, and soothing
to the ear. But the obscenity and impurity of sentiment impair
his judgment, are prejudicial to seriousness, and make the story
disgusting to read or something to be avoided altogether. Except for
the names of the characters and his abominable indecency, the story,
in method of treatment and invention, has a great resemblance to the
_Aethiopica_ of Heliodorus.
LXXXVIII
Read an account of the _Proceedings of the Synod of Nicaea_,[465]
in the form of a history, in three volumes. The author states
that Hosius,[466] bishop of Cordova, and Viton and Vincent, two
Roman priests, were present as legates on the part of Silvester,
pope of Rome,[467] together with Eustathius,[468] patriarch of
Antioch, while Alexander the priest represented Metrophanes of
Constantinople; Silvester, who was more than a hundred years old, in
consequence of his great age was unable to be present. Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria,[469] also attended, together with Athanasius,
who afterwards succeeded him in the episcopate, Macarius,[470] bishop
of Jerusalem, and a number of other bishops and priests. The synod
was summoned in the sixteenth year of the reign of Constantine, and
its proceedings lasted six years, until he had reigned twenty-one
years and six months.
The author relates that Arius was condemned and anathematized, but
again endeavoured to obtain admission to the Church, in which he
was supported by Eusebius,[471] bishop of Nicomedia, and Eutocius
the Arian, an ordained priest, whom the emperor’s sister Constantia
commended to her brother on her deathbed. Although these endeavoured
to bring back Arius to the Church, divine justice did not permit its
enemy to insult its temple and its shrine. He was condemned to die in
the latrines on the very day when he and his supporters had resolved
to profane the Church of God and His holy rites by his entrance.
His death took place in a public place, the latrines being near the
forum. The author states that Constantine the Great rejoiced that the
incorruptible judge God had solved the question by his sentence, and
wrote a number of letters, recording his opinion of the justice of
the end that had overtaken Arius. In this the author’s account agrees
with those of Athanasius the Great, Theodoret, and many others. Some,
however, think that Arius came by his disgraceful end, not in the
reign of Constantine, but in that of his son Constantius.
Such is the contents of this book. In another copy, containing the
same account, the title gives the name of the author as Gelasius,
bishop of Caesarea[472] in Palestine. The style is mean and common.
Who this Gelasius was, I have been unable to discover for certain,
since up to the present I have met with three bishops of Caesarea
named Gelasius, and have at least read the works of two. One of these
works is a polemic _Against the Anomoeans_,[473] the two others, one
of which we have just referred to, deal with ecclesiastical matters.
The title, where we have found it, is _Three Books of Ecclesiastical
History by Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine_.
The work begins as follows: The proceedings of the holy, great, and
universal synod of bishops, assembled, so to speak, from all the
provinces of the Roman empire and Persia, and so on. It ends with
the death of Constantine the Great, at the time when he received
remission of sins by divine baptism, whereby the stains of guilt
such as all men contract in life were washed off. The author says
that he was baptized and initiated into the holy mysteries by an
orthodox priest, not, as some state, by a heretic. His baptism was
delayed, because he had earnestly desired to be baptized in the
waters of Jordan. The writer states that he lived in the time of
Basiliscus,[474] who seized the throne after Zeno had been driven
out, and that he found and read the account of the proceedings of the
council written on an old parchment, while living in his father’s
house. From his recollections of this, and with the aid of other
writings which supplied him with useful information, he compiled his
history. He also mentions and cites some passages from a certain
Gelasius, whom he also calls Rufinus. He says that he was a native of
Cyzicus, and that his father was a priest in the same place. So says
the author of this work, and such is its contents.
LXXXIX
The other book, which I have referred to above, is entitled _Preface
of the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine to the Continuation of the
History of Eusebius Pamphili_. It begins as follows: Others who
have applied themselves to writing and have determined to hand
down to posterity a record of historical events, and so on. The
author states that he was encouraged to write the work by his uncle
Cyril,[475] bishop of Jerusalem. I have read elsewhere that this
Cyril and Gelasius translated the history of Rufinus[476] the Roman
into Greek, but did not compose any history of their own. It is
evident that this Gelasius was older than the other, if he flourished
in the time of Cyril of Jerusalem. He also certainly differs from
him in the greater eloquence of his language, although both are
inferior to the author of the treatise _Against the Anomoeans_, also
called bishop of Palestine. For the latter Gelasius, by his diction,
learning, and logical methods, his use of which, however, is somewhat
inept, leaves the other two far behind, whose style appears to be
much inferior. I have not yet been able to learn whether any of
these is the author of the work referred to, or who compiled it and
supplemented it by his own additions.
XC
Read two volumes of Libanius.[477] The author’s imaginary speeches,
written for the purpose of giving practice in oratory, are more
useful than the rest. The excessive elaboration and over-nicety of
the latter impair their native and so to say spontaneous grace and
charm, and destroy their clearness. Much obscurity is also caused by
parentheses, and sometimes by the omission of what is indispensable.
In other respects he is a canon and model of Attic style. His letters
also have a considerable reputation. Several other works of different
kinds are also ascribed to him.
XCI
Read the _History of the Reign of Alexander_ by Arrian[478] in seven
books. It relates how he made a treaty with the Athenians and the
rest of the Greeks with the exception of the Lacedaemonians; how he
crossed over into Asia and defeated the Persians in three battles.
At the Granicus[479] he routed the satraps of Darius, who had an
army of 20,000 horse and almost as many infantry; at Issus[480] he
put Darius himself and his army to flight and captured his wife and
children; at Arbela (or Gaugamela)[481] Darius was finally defeated,
and while trying to escape was seized and put to death by his own
soldiers. Bessus, who succeeded him, was mutilated and slain by
Alexander for his treason towards Darius. How Alexander was wounded
seven times in battle and how he carried off the royal treasure at
Pasargadae.[482] Being persuaded that Philotas was conspiring against
him, he put him to death with his father Parmenio. Alexander conquers
Sogdiana[483] and defeats the Asiatic Scythians. How Clitus was
murdered by him in a fit of drunkenness; his remorse when he became
sober. Conspiracy of the royal pages against Alexander and their
punishment. The capture of the Sogdian rock and the wife of Oxyartes,
the chief of the district, with his daughter Roxana, afterwards the
lawful wife of Alexander. How Alexander set out from Bactria against
the Indians, defeated them in several battles, and besieged and
captured several of their cities. Storming of the rock of Aornus[484]
and invasion of the country of the Ascanians. Having bridged the
Indus, Alexander crossed over, defeated Porus, king of India, in a
single engagement and took him prisoner. He was generously treated
by Alexander, who not only allowed him to keep his kingdom, but
actually enlarged it. How the rivers of India, like the Nile, are
swollen in summer, but subside in winter. There was also another
Porus, an Indian ruler, a man of bad character, in pursuit of whom
Alexander crossed the Hydaspes[485] and subdued the neighbouring
Indian tribes, took by siege their large and populous towns, and went
on to the Hyphasis.[486] While he was preparing to cross this river,
the soldiers began to show signs of discontent, complaining of their
toils and endless marches, in consequence of which Alexander left
India. Here the fifth book ends.
In the sixth book, the numerous battles and brilliant victories
of Alexander on his way home are related. In these engagements he
received two wounds besides those already mentioned, and although the
seventh wound seemed likely to prove fatal, he eventually recovered.
He returned from India by land, Nearchus,[487] with part of the army,
being sent back by sea. Both divisions met in Carmania,[488] whence
Alexander marched into Persia, Nearchus being ordered to sail to
Susiana[489] and the mouth of the Tigris. The voyage of Nearchus is
described by Arrian in his _Indica_, written in the Ionic dialect.
Alexander repairs the neglected tomb of Cyrus, and allows the
gymnosophist[490] Calanus, who was attacked by illness, to put
himself to death on the funeral pile. His splendid marriages and
those of his generals. His wives were Roxana, Arsinoë, the eldest
daughter of Darius, and Parysatis, the youngest daughter of Ochus.
Drypetis, another daughter of Darius, was given to Hephaestion;
Amastrinē to Craterus; Artacana and Artonē, daughters of Artabazus,
to Ptolemy and Eumenes; the daughter of Barsinē and Mentor to
Nearchus; the daughter of Spitamenes to Seleucus. The rest of his
friends received in marriage the daughters of the most distinguished
Medians and Persians, to the number of eighty. The discharged
Macedonian soldiers were sent home, Antipater being ordered to bring
back some of the new levies in their place. Harpalus[491] takes to
flight with a large sum of money from the treasury. The death of
Hephaestion and the great grief of Alexander; his splendid funeral
obsequies. At the same time ambassadors arrived from Libya and
Carthage, and even from Italy, to Alexander, who, when he saw the
Italians, predicted the future greatness of their country. When he
wished to advance to Babylon, the seers foretold his death, and when
an unknown person unexpectedly sat down on his throne, his end was
regarded as still more certain. Nevertheless, he equipped a fleet to
operate against the numerous Arabian tribes who believed in only two
gods, Uranus and Dionysus. While preparations were being made he was
seized with illness and died. Many contradictory stories are told of
his death. He lived thirty-two years and eight months, and reigned
twelve years and eight months. Arrian extols him as possessed of
almost every virtue. The seventh book ends here, being continued by
the _Indica_, in one book.
XCII
The same author also wrote an account of what took place after
Alexander’s death, in ten books.[492] He describes the sedition in
the army, the proclamation of Arrhidaeus (the son of Alexander’s
father, Philip, by a Thracian woman named Philinna) on condition
that Roxana’s child, when born, if it were a son, should share the
throne with him. Arrhidaeus was then again proclaimed under the
name of Philip. A quarrel broke out between the infantry and the
cavalry. The chief and most influential commanders of the latter were
Perdiccas the son of Orontes, Leonnatus the son of Anthes, Ptolemy
the son of Lagus, Lysimachus the son of Agathocles, Aristonus the
son of Pisaeus, Pithon the son of Crateuas, Seleucus the son of
Antiochus, and Eumenes of Cardia. Meleager was in command of the
infantry. Communications passed between them, and at length it was
agreed between the infantry, who had already chosen a king, and the
cavalry, that Antipater should be general of the forces in Europe;
that Craterus should look after the kingdom of Arrhidaeus; that
Perdiccas should be chiliarch[493] of the troops which had been
under the command of Hephaestion, which amounted to entrusting him
with the care of the whole empire; and that Meleager should be his
lieutenant. Perdiccas, under the pretence of reviewing the army,
seized the ringleaders of the disturbance, and put them to death in
the presence of Arrhidaeus, as if he had ordered it. This struck
terror into the rest, and Meleager was soon afterwards murdered.
After this Perdiccas became the object of general suspicion and
himself suspected everybody. Nevertheless, he made appointments
to the governorships of the different provinces, as if Arrhidaeus
had ordered him. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, was appointed governor of
Egypt and Libya, and of that part of Arabia that borders upon Egypt,
with Cleomenes, formerly governor of Egypt under Alexander, as his
deputy. The part of Syria adjacent was given to Laomedon; Cilicia to
Philotas; Media to Pithon; Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and the country
on the shore of the Euxine as far as Trapezus (a Greek colony from
Sinope), to Eumenes of Cardia; Pamphylia, Lycia, and greater Phrygia
to Antigonus; Caria to Cassander; Lydia to Menander; Phrygia on
the Hellespont to Leonnatus. This Phrygia had formerly been given
by Alexander to a certain Calas and subsequently handed over to
Demarchus. Such was the distribution of Asia.
In Europe, Thrace and the Chersonese, together with the countries
bordering on Thrace as far as Salmydessus on the Euxine, were given
to Lysimachus; the country beyond Thrace, as far as the Illyrians,
Triballians, and Agrianians, Macedonia itself, and Epirus as far
as the Ceraunian mountains, together with the whole of Greece, to
Craterus and Antipater. Such was the division of Europe. At the same
time several provinces remained under their native rulers, according
to the arrangement made by Alexander, and were not affected by the
distribution.
Meanwhile, Roxana bore a son, who was immediately acclaimed king
by the soldiers. After the death of Alexander there were numerous
disturbances. Antipater carried on war against the Athenians and
the rest of the Greeks commanded by Leosthenes. He was at first
defeated and in great straits, but was subsequently victorious.
Leonnatus, however, who came to his assistance, fell in battle.
Lysimachus also, recklessly fighting against Seuthes the Thracian
with an inferior force, was defeated, although his troops greatly
distinguished themselves. Perdiccas also made war upon Ariarathes,
king of Cappadocia, because he refused to give up his kingdom to
Eumenes, upon whom it had been bestowed. Having defeated him in
two battles and taken him prisoner, he hanged him and reinstated
Eumenes. Craterus, by the assistance he rendered to Antipater against
the Greeks, chiefly contributed to their defeat, after which they
unhesitatingly obeyed Craterus and Antipater. This is the contents of
the first five books.
The sixth book relates how Demosthenes and Hyperides, Aristonicus
of Marathon and Himeraeus, the brother of Demetrius of Phalerum,
fled to Aegina, and, while there, were condemned to death by the
Athenians on the motion of Demades, and how Antipater carried out
the sentence. How Archias the Thurian, who put them to death, died
in the utmost poverty and disgrace. How Demades was soon afterwards
sent to Macedonia, where he was put to death by Cassander, after his
son had been murdered in his arms. Cassander alleged in excuse that
Demades had once insulted his father, Antipater, in a letter which he
wrote to Perdiccas, begging him to rescue the Greeks, who were only
held together by an old and rotten thread, as he abusively called
Antipater. Dinarchus of Corinth was the accuser of Demades, who paid
the just penalty for his venality, treachery, and unfaithfulness.
The author also relates how Harpalus, who during the lifetime of
Alexander had stolen money belonging to him and fled to Athens, was
slain by Thibron the Lacedaemonian. Thibron seized all the money that
remained, and set out for Cydonia in Crete, whence he crossed over to
Cyrene with a body of 6000 men, at the request of some exiles from
Cyrene and Barca. After many engagements and mutual intrigues, in
which he was sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful, he was
finally captured during his flight by some Libyan drivers, and taken
to Epicydes the Olynthian at Teuchira, which had been entrusted to
him by Ophellas a Macedonian, whom Ptolemy the son of Lagus had sent
to help the Cyrenians. The inhabitants, by permission of Ophellas,
first tortured Thibron and then sent him to the port of Cyrene to be
hanged. But since the Cyrenaeans still persisted in their revolt,
Ptolemy in person visited the place, and after having restored order,
sailed home again.
Perdiccas, intriguing against Antigonus, called him to judgment, but
Antigonus, aware of the plot, refused to appear. This led to enmity
between them. At the same time Iollas and Archias came to Perdiccas
from Macedonia, accompanied by Nicaea, the daughter of Antipater,
with a proposal of marriage. Olympias, the mother of Alexander the
Great, also sent to him, offering him the hand of her daughter
Cleopatra. Eumenes of Cardia favoured Cleopatra, but his brother
Alcetas persuaded him to accept Nicaea. Soon afterwards Cynane was
put to death by Perdiccas and his brother Alcetas. This Cynane was
the daughter of Philip, the father of Alexander, her mother being
Eurydice, the wife of Amyntas, whom Alexander put to death just
before he set out for Asia. This Amyntas was the son of Perdiccas the
brother of Philip, so that he was the cousin of Alexander. Cynane
brought her daughter Adea (afterwards called Eurydice) to Asia and
offered her hand to Arrhidaeus. The marriage subsequently took
place, with the approval of Perdiccas, to appease the increasing
indignation of the soldiery, which had been aroused by the death of
Cynane. Antigonus, in the meantime, took refuge with Antipater and
Craterus in Macedonia, informed them of the intrigues of Perdiccas
against him, declaring that they were directed against all alike. He
also described the death of Cynane in such exaggerated terms that he
persuaded them to make war on Perdiccas. Arrhidaeus, who kept the
body of Alexander with him, contrary to the wish of Perdiccas, took
it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemy the son of Lagus in
Egypt; and though often hindered on his journey by Polemon, a friend
of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention.
Meanwhile, Eumenes conveyed gifts from Perdiccas to Cleopatra at
Sardes, since Perdiccas had decided to repudiate Nicaea and to marry
Cleopatra. When this became known to Antigonus through Menander the
governor of Lydia, he informed Antipater and Craterus, who were
more than ever determined to make war on Perdiccas. Antipater and
Craterus, starting from the Chersonese, crossed the Hellespont,
having previously sent messengers to deceive those who guarded the
passage. They also sent ambassadors to Eumenes and Neoptolemus, who
supported Perdiccas; Neoptolemus went over to them, but Eumenes
refused.
Neoptolemus being suspected by Eumenes, war broke out between them,
in which Eumenes was victorious. Neoptolemus fled with a few men to
Antipater and Craterus, and succeeded in persuading the latter to
join him; so both made war against Eumenes. Eumenes did his best to
prevent his own men from knowing that Craterus was fighting against
him, being afraid that, influenced by his great reputation, they
might either desert to him, or, if they remained faithful to him,
might lose heart. Successful in scheming, he was also successful
in battle. Neoptolemus fell by the hand of Eumenes “the secretary”
himself, after having proved himself a brave soldier and commander.
Craterus, who fought boldly against all who opposed him and showed
himself openly in order to be known, was slain by some Paphlagonians
before he was recognized, although he had thrown off his hat.[494]
However, the infantry escaped and returned to Antipater, which
considerably reassured him.
Perdiccas, setting out from Damascus to make war upon Ptolemy the son
of Lagus, reached Egypt with the kings[495] and a large force. He
made many charges against Ptolemy, who publicly cleared himself, so
that the accusations appeared ill-founded. Perdiccas, notwithstanding
the opposition of his troops, decided to carry on the war. He was
twice defeated, and, having treated those who were inclined to go
over to Ptolemy with great severity, and in other respects behaved
in camp more arrogantly than became a general, he was slain by his
own cavalry during an engagement. After his death Ptolemy crossed
the Nile to visit the kings, upon whom he bestowed gifts and treated
them with the utmost kindness and attention, as well as the other
Macedonians of rank. At the same time he openly showed sympathy
with the friends of Perdiccas, and did all he could to allay the
apprehensions of those Macedonians who imagined they were in peril,
so that at once and ever afterwards he was held in great esteem.
At a full council of war, Pithon and Arrhidaeus having been appointed
commanders-in-chief of all the forces for the time being, about fifty
of the supporters of Eumenes and Alcetas were condemned, chiefly
because Craterus had met his death in civil strife. Antigonus was
summoned from Cyprus, and Antipater ordered to repair with all
speed to the kings. Before they arrived, Eurydice refused to allow
Pithon and Arrhidaeus to do anything without her permission. At
first they did not demur, but afterwards told her that she had
nothing to do with public affairs, and that they themselves would
look after everything until the arrival of Antigonus and Antipater.
When they arrived, Antigonus was placed in chief command. When the
army demanded the pay that had been promised them for the campaign,
Antipater replied straightforwardly that he had no money, but that,
to avoid incurring their censure, he would thoroughly search the
treasury and other places where money might be hidden. These words
aroused the displeasure of the army. When Eurydice joined in the
accusations against Antipater, the people were indignant, and a
disturbance took place. Eurydice then delivered a speech against him,
in which she was assisted by Asclepiodorus the scribe and supported
by Attalus. Antipater barely escaped with his life, after Antigonus
and Seleucus, at his earnest request, had addressed the people on his
behalf and nearly lost their lives in consequence. Antipater, having
thus escaped death, withdrew to his own army, where he summoned the
cavalry commanders, and after the disturbance had been put down with
difficulty, he was again reinstated in his command.
He then made a division of Asia, partly confirming the earlier one
and partly altering it as circumstances necessitated. Egypt, Libya,
the large tract of country beyond it, and all the territory that
had been conquered towards the west, was given to Ptolemy; Syria
to Laomedon the Mytilenean; Cilicia to Philoxenus, who had held
it before. Of the upper provinces, Mesopotamia and Arbelitis were
given to Amphimachus, the king’s brother; Babylonia to Seleucus.
To Antigenes, commander of the Macedonian _argyraspidae_,[496] who
had first attacked Perdiccas, was given the whole of Susiana; to
Peucestes Persia; to Tlepolemus Carmania; to Pithon Media as far as
the Caspian gates; to Philip Parthia; to Strasander the territory of
the Arei and Drangeni; to Stasanor of Soli, Bactria, and Sogdiana; to
Siburtius Arachosia; to Oxyartes the father of Roxana Parapamisus; to
Pithon the son of Agenor the part of India bordering on Parapamisus.
Of the adjacent provinces, that on the river Indus, together with
Patala, the largest city of India in those parts, to king Porus, and
that on the river Hydaspes to Taxilus the Indian, for it would have
been no easy matter to displace them, since they had been confirmed
in their government by Alexander, and their strength had greatly
increased. Of the countries to the north of Mount Taurus, Cappadocia
was assigned to Nicanor; Greater Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, and
Lycia, to Antigonus as before; Caria to Asander; Lydia to Clitus;
Phrygia on the Hellespont to Arrhidaeus. Antigenes was appointed to
collect the revenues in the district of Susa, 3000 of the Macedonians
who were mutinously inclined being sent with him. As the king’s
bodyguard Antipater appointed Autolycus the son of Agathocles,
Amyntas the son of Alexander and brother of Peucestes, Ptolemy the
son of Ptolemy, and Alexander the son of Polysperchon.[497] He made
his own son Cassander chiliarch of the cavalry, while Antigonus
received command of the forces which had formerly been under
Perdiccas, together with the care and custody of the kings’ persons
and, at his own request, the task of finishing the war against
Eumenes. Antipater, having secured the general approval of all that
he had done, returned home. With this the ninth book concludes.
The tenth book relates how Eumenes, having heard what had befallen
Perdiccas, and that he himself had been declared an enemy by the
Macedonians, made all preparations for war; how Alcetas, the brother
of Perdiccas, took refuge with him on that account; how Attalus,
who had been one of the ringleaders in the insurrection against
Antipater, also joined the exiles with a force of 10,000 foot and
800 horse; how Attalus and his troops attacked Cnidus, Caunus, and
Rhodes. The Rhodians, under their admiral, Demaratus, completely
repulsed them. How Eumenes nearly came to blows with Antipater on
his arrival at Sardes, but Cleopatra, Alexander’s sister, to prevent
the Macedonian people accusing her of being the cause of the war,
persuaded Eumenes to leave Sardes. Notwithstanding, Antipater reviled
her for her friendship with Eumenes and Perdiccas. She defended
herself more vigorously than a woman could have been expected to
do, brought countercharges against him, and in the end they parted
amicably. Eumenes, having unexpectedly attacked those who did not
acknowledge his authority, collected much booty and money, which
he distributed amongst his soldiers. He also sent messages to
Alcetas and his friends, begging them to assemble all their forces
in one place so that they might unitedly attack the common enemy.
But differences of opinion arose amongst them, and they finally
refused. Antipater, not yet daring to engage Eumenes, sent Asander
against Attalus and Alcetas; after the battle had long remained
undecided, Asander was defeated. Cassander was at variance with
Antigonus, but by command of his father, Antipater, he abandoned
his opposition. Nevertheless, Cassander, when he met his father in
Phrygia, advised him not to get too far from the kings, and to keep
watch on Antigonus; but the latter, by his quiet behaviour, courtesy,
and good qualities, did all he could to remove suspicion. Antipater,
being appeased, appointed him to the command of the forces which had
crossed over with him to Asia--8500 Macedonian infantry, and the same
number of foreign cavalry, together with half the elephants (that
is, seventy)--to assist him in ending the war against Eumenes. Thus
Antigonus began the war. Antipater, with the kings and the rest of
his forces, pretended to be going to cross over into Macedonia, but
the army again mutinied and demanded their pay. Antipater promised
that he would pay them when he reached Abydos, or let them have,
if not the whole, at least the greater part of it. Having thus
encouraged their hopes, he reached Abydos without disturbance, but
having deceived the soldiers, he crossed the Hellespont by night,
with the kings, to Lysimachus. On the following day the soldiers also
crossed, and for the moment made no further demand for their pay.
With this the tenth book ends.
This author is second to none of the best historical writers. He is
very strong in concise narrative, and never impairs the continuity
of the story by ill-timed digressions or parentheses; he is novel
rather in arrangement than in diction, which he employs in such a
manner that it would be impossible for the narrative to be set forth
more clearly and perspicuously. His style is distinct, euphonious,
and terse,[498] characterized by a combination of smoothness and
loftiness. His novelties of language are not merely far-fetched
innovations, but are obvious and emphatic, figures of speech in
reality, and not simply a change of ordinary words. The result is
that not only in this respect is clearness secured, but also in the
equipment, order, and nature of the narrative, which is the artistic
essence of perspicuity. For straightforward periods are used even by
those who are not specialists, and if this is done without anything
to relieve them, the style degenerates into flatness and meanness, of
which, in spite of his clearness, there are no traces in our author.
He makes use of ellipsis, not of periods but of words, so that the
ellipsis is not even noticed; any attempt to supply what is omitted
would seem to indicate a tendency to unessential additions, and would
not really fill up the gap. The variety of his rhetorical figures is
admirable; they do not deviate at once altogether from simple form
and usage, but are gradually interwoven from the beginning, so that
they neither offend by satiety nor create confusion by sudden change.
In a word, any one who compares him with other historians, will find
that many classical writers are his inferior in composition.
XCIII
Read the same author’s _Bithynica_ in eight books, containing a
detailed account of the mythical and general history of Bithynia.
It is a history of his own country, dedicated to it as a patriotic
offering. For he tells us definitely in this work that he was born
in Nicomedia, brought up and educated there, and held the office of
priest of Demeter and her daughter, to whom the city was sacred. He
mentions various works of his on other subjects, such as the career
of the Corinthian Timoleon in Sicily, and the memorable deeds of Dion
the Syracusan, who freed Syracuse and the whole of Sicily from the
second Dionysius, the son of the first, and from the barbarians, whom
Dionysius had introduced to support his tyranny. It appears that the
history of his country was the fourth work he wrote, being written
after the histories of Alexander the Great, Timoleon, and Dion.
Certainly from the time when he first took to a literary career he
had intended to treat of this subject, but the work took some time to
complete owing to the lack of material; at least, this is the reason
he himself gives for the delay in its production. He begins, as
stated, with mythical history and goes down to the death of the last
Nicomedes,[499] who at his death left his kingdom to the Romans, who
had never had a king since the expulsion of the Tarquins.
XCIV
Read the _Dramaticon_ of Iamblichus,[500] a narrative of love
adventures. The author makes less show of indecencies than Achilles
Tatius, but he is more immoral than the Phoenician Heliodorus. Of
these three writers, who have all adopted the same subject and have
chosen love intrigues as the material for their stories, Heliodorus
is more serious and restrained, Iamblichus less so, while Achilles
Tatius pushes his obscenity to impudence. The style of Iamblichus
is soft and flowing; if there is anything vigorous and sonorous in
it, it is less characterized by intensity than by what may be called
titillation and nervelessness. Iamblichus is so distinguished by
excellence of style and arrangement and the order of the narrative
that it is to be regretted that he did not devote his skill and
energies to serious subjects instead of to puerile fictions.
The characters of the story are a handsome couple named Rhodanes
and Sinonis, united by the tie of mutual love and marriage. Garmus,
king of Babylon, having lost his wife, falls in love with Sinonis
and is eager to marry her. Sinonis refuses and is bound with chains
of gold, while Rhodanes is placed upon the cross by Damas and Sacas,
the king’s eunuchs. He is taken down through the efforts of Sinonis,
and the lovers take to flight, one thus escaping death, the other a
hated marriage. Sacas and Damas have their ears and noses cut off and
are sent after the fugitives. They take different routes to carry out
the search. Rhodanes and Sinonis are nearly surprised by Damas in a
meadow. For a fisherman had told him of some shepherds who, being
put to the torture, at last show him the meadow where Rhodanes had
discovered a treasure, revealed to him by the inscription engraved on
a cippus[501] surmounted by a lion.
A spectre in the form of a goat becomes enamoured of Sinonis, which
obliges the lovers to leave the meadow. Damas finds a garland of
flowers dropped by Sinonis and sends it to Garmus as a consolation.
In their flight, the lovers come across an old woman at the door
of a hut; they hide themselves in a cave, thirty stades long and
open at both ends, the mouth of which is concealed by thick bushes.
Damas comes up with his companions, and questions the old woman,
who is terrified by the sight of the naked sword. The horses on
which Rhodanes and Sinonis had ridden are captured. The soldiers
surround their hiding-place; the brazen shield of one of those who
were keeping watch is broken on the cave; the hollowness of the echo
discloses the whereabouts of the fugitives; the soldiers begin to
dig, and Damas’s shouts reach the ears of those within. They retire
farther into the cave and make their way to the second opening. Here
a swarm of wild bees attacks the diggers, drops of honey falling also
upon the fugitives. The bees as well as the honey are infected with
poison from their having eaten certain venomous reptiles, so that the
diggers whom they sting either lose a limb or die. Rhodanes and his
companion, hard pressed by hunger, lick up some drops of the honey,
are seized with colic, and fall on the road as if dead. The soldiers,
worn out by the attack of the bees, take to flight but renew the
pursuit of the lovers. Seeing Rhodanes and Sinonis prostrate in the
road, they pass them by, taking them for two dead strangers. Sinonis,
while in the cave, had cut her hair, and made a rope with it to draw
water; Damas finds it and sends it to Garmus, as an earnest of the
speedy capture of the fugitives. The soldiers who passed by where
Rhodanes and Sinonis were lying in the road pay respect to them as if
they were really dead, according to the custom of the country; some
cover them with their tunics, others throw over them anything they
have at hand, even pieces of bread and meat, and then go their way.
The lovers recover from the drowsiness caused by the honey; Rhodanes
had been roused by some crows quarrelling over some pieces of meat,
and woke Sinonis. Getting up, they go in the opposite direction to
the soldiers, so as to be less easily recognized. They meet two
asses and mount them, having first loaded them with part of what the
soldiers, thinking them dead, had thrown over them, and which the
lovers had carried away. They stop at an inn, but soon leave it for
another, in the neighbourhood of a full market-place. Two brothers
have died and they are accused of their murder, but acquitted. The
elder of the two brothers, who had poisoned the younger and who had
accused them, poisons himself, thereby proving their innocence.
Rhodanes gets possession of the poison without being seen. They put
up at the house of a brigand who robbed passers-by and ate them.
Soldiers sent by Damas capture the brigand and set fire to his house;
Rhodanes and Sinonis, enveloped by the flames, with great difficulty
escape with their lives, after they have killed the asses and thrown
them on the fire to make a bridge across. The soldiers who fired the
house, meeting them during the night, ask them who they are. “We are
the ghosts of those murdered by the brigands,” they reply. Their
thin, pale countenances, the weakness of their voice, persuade the
soldiers that they are speaking the truth, whereat they are greatly
alarmed. The lovers resume their flight, and meeting a young girl
who is being carried to the grave, join the throng of spectators. An
old Chaldaean comes up and stops the funeral, saying that the girl
is still alive, and so it turns out to be. He predicts to Rhodanes
and Sinonis that they will attain royal rank. The girl’s grave is
left empty, and a great part of the robes which were to be burnt and
of the food and drink is left behind. Rhodanes and Sinonis make a
good meal, take some of the clothes and sleep in the grave. In the
morning, the soldiers who had fired the house find they have been
deceived, and set out in pursuit of Rhodanes and Sinonis, imagining
that they are accomplices of the brigand. Having traced them as
far as the grave and seeing them lying there motionless, overcome
by wine and sleep, they imagine they are looking on corpses and so
leave them, although they hesitated since their footsteps guided
them thither.[502] Rhodanes and Sinonis leave the grave and cross
the river, the waters of which are sweet and clear and reserved for
the king of Babylon alone to drink. Sinonis, when trying to sell
the clothes she has taken, is arrested for sacrilege and brought
before Soraechus, the son of Soraechus the tax-gatherer and named the
Just. Owing to her beauty, he is minded to send her to king Garmus;
whereupon Rhodanes and Sinonis mix a dose of poison, considering
death preferable to the sight of this king. Their intention is
revealed by a female slave to Soraechus, who secretly empties the cup
containing the deadly potion and fills it with a sleeping draught;
after they have drunk it and are in a deep sleep they are placed
in a carriage to be taken to the king. A little way from Babylon,
Rhodanes is frightened by a dream and cries out; this wakes Sinonis,
who takes up a sword and wounds herself in the breast. Soraechus
wants to know their history, and the lovers having received a solemn
promise from him, tell him everything. He sets them at liberty and
shows them a temple of Aphrodite on a little island, where Sinonis
can be healed of her wound.
By way of digression the author relates the history of the temple
and the little island, which is formed by the surrounding waters
of the Euphrates and Tigris. The priestess of Aphrodite had three
children, Euphrates, Tigris, and Mesopotamia, the last, who was born
ugly, being changed into a woman so beautiful that three suitors
quarrelled for her hand. Bochorus, the most famous judge of the time,
was chosen to decide their claims, and the three rivals pleaded their
cause. Now Mesopotamia had given one of them the cup from which she
drank, had crowned the second with a garland of flowers from her own
head, and had kissed the third. Bochorus decided that she belonged
to the one whom she had kissed, but this decision only embittered
the quarrel, which ended in the death of the rivals by one another’s
hands. In another digression the author gives details of the temple
of Aphrodite. The women who visit it are obliged to reveal in public
the dreams they have had in the temple; this leads to minute details
of Pharnuchus, Pharsiris and Tanaïs, from whom the river is named.
Pharsiris and Tanaïs initiated those who dwelt on the banks of the
river into the mysteries of Aphrodite. Tigris died in the little
island just mentioned, after having eaten of some roses in the buds
of which, not yet full blown, lurked a poisonous little beetle. His
mother believed she had made him a demi-god by her enchantments.
Iamblichus then describes different kinds of enchantments--by
locusts, lions and mice. According to him, the last is the oldest,
the mysteries being called after the name of these animals.[503]
There are also enchantments by hail, snakes, necromancy and
ventriloquism, the ventriloquist being called by the Greeks Eurycles,
and by the Babylonians Sacchuras. The author calls himself a
Babylonian and says that, after having learnt the art of magic, he
devoted himself to the study of the Greek arts and sciences. He
flourished in the reign of Soaemus, son of Achaemenides the Arsacid,
who occupied the throne of his fathers, and was afterwards a Roman
senator and consul, and king of Greater Armenia.[504] At this time
Marcus Aurelius was Roman emperor. When Aurelius sent Verus, his
adopted brother and son-in-law and colleague in the empire, to make
war against Vologaesus[505] the Parthian king, Iamblichus predicted
the beginning, the course, and end of the war. He also tells how
Vologaesus fled over the Euphrates and Tigris, and how the kingdom of
Parthia became a Roman province.
Tigris and Euphrates, the children of the priestess, were very
like each other, and Rhodanes was like both. Tigris, as has been
mentioned, had been poisoned by eating roses, and when Rhodanes
crosses over to the island with Sinonis, the mother of Tigris, when
she sets eyes on Rhodanes, declares that her son has come back to
life, accompanied by Korē.[506] Rhodanes falls in with the deception,
highly amused at the credulity of the islanders. Damas is informed
of what has happened to Rhodanes and Sinonis and of what Soraechus
has done for them, his informant being the physician whom Soraechus
had secretly sent to attend to Sinonis’s wound. Soraechus is arrested
and taken to Garmus, and at the same time the informer is sent with
a letter to the priest of Aphrodite, ordering him to seize Rhodanes
and Sinonis. The physician, in order to cross the river, hangs
himself round the neck of a camel in the usual manner, having first
deposited the letter in the animal’s right ear. He is drowned in the
river, the camel alone reaches the island, and Rhodanes and Sinonis,
taking Damas’s letter out of its ear, become aware of the danger that
threatens them.
They accordingly take to flight, and on the way meet Soraechus,
who is being taken to Garmus, and put up at the same inn. During
the night Rhodanes bribes certain persons to slay the guards of
Soraechus, who takes to flight with the lovers, being thus rewarded
for his previous kindness. Damas arrests the priest of Aphrodite and
questions him about Sinonis; the old man is condemned to change
his ministry for the office of executioner; the manners and customs
relating to this office. Euphrates, whom the priest his father takes
for Rhodanes and calls him by this name, is arrested, and his sister
Mesopotamia takes to flight. Euphrates is taken before Sacas and
questioned about Sinonis, being taken for Rhodanes and examined as
such. Sacas sends a messenger to Garmus to inform him that Rhodanes
is captured and that Sinonis soon will be. For Euphrates, when
questioned in the name of Rhodanes, being obliged to call his sister
Mesopotamia by the name of Sinonis, declares that Sinonis fled when
she saw him arrested.
The fugitives Rhodanes, Sinonis and Soraechus, put up at the house
of a farm-labourer. He has a beautiful daughter, who has just lost
her husband, and out of her affection for him has cut her hair. She
is sent to a goldsmith to sell the golden chain which Sinonis had
brought from her former prison. The goldsmith, seeing the beauty of
the young woman, and recognizing part of the chain which he happened
to have made himself, and noticing that she has her hair cut,
suspects that she is Sinonis. He accordingly informs Damas and has
the labourer’s daughter secretly watched. Suspecting what is afoot,
she takes refuge in an empty house. The story of the young girl
named Trophimē, of the slave who was both her lover and murderer,
of the golden ornaments, of the lawless conduct of the slave, of
his suicide, of the blood that spirted over the labourer’s daughter
when the murderer was committing suicide, of the fear and flight of
the young woman, of the terror and flight of those who were keeping
watch on her, of the young woman’s return to her father, of the
story of her adventures, of the departure of Rhodanes, and of the
letter sent by the goldsmith to inform Damas that Sinonis has been
found. To confirm his letter, he sends the chain which he has bought,
and mentions the other suspicious circumstances connected with the
labourer’s daughter.
Rhodanes, at the moment of leaving, kisses the labourer’s daughter.
Sinonis is furiously jealous; at first she had only suspected this
kiss, but her suspicions were confirmed when she wiped off the marks
of blood with which his lips were stained. Sinonis makes up her mind
to kill the young woman and hastens back like a madwoman, followed by
Soraechus, who is unable to calm her passionate fury.
They put up at the house of a wealthy man of dissolute habits,
named Setapus, who falls in love with Sinonis and tries to seduce
her. She pretends to return his love and, at night, when Setapus is
intoxicated, stabs him with a sword, orders the servants to open the
door, leaves Soraechus, who is ignorant of what has happened, and
sets out in haste to find the labourer’s daughter. Soraechus, when
he hears of her departure, starts in pursuit, having hired some of
the slaves of Setapus to accompany him, so as to prevent the murder
of the labourer’s daughter. He overtakes her, makes her get into a
carriage which had been prepared beforehand, and turns back with her.
On their return, the servants of Setapus, who had found their dead
master, filled with rage rush upon them, seize Sinonis, bind her, and
take her to Garmus to be punished as a murderess. Soraechus, having
sprinkled his head with dust, and rent his cloak, announces the sad
news to Rhodanes, who would have killed himself, but is prevented by
Soraechus.
Garmus, having received the letters from Sacas and the goldsmith,
informing him of the capture of Rhodanes and Sinonis, rejoices
greatly, offers sacrifice to the gods, orders preparations to be made
for the marriage, and issues a decree that all prisoners should be
unbound and set free. Sinonis is accordingly released from her bonds
by the servants of Setapus. Garmus orders Damas to be put to death
and he is handed over to the priest whom he himself had deprived of
his priesthood and made executioner. Garmus was wroth with Damas,
because he had allowed others to have the honour of arresting the
supposed Rhodanes and Sinonis. Damas is succeeded in his office by
his brother Monasus.
The story of Berenice, daughter of the king of Egypt, of her
disgraceful amours, of her intimacy with Mesopotamia, who was
afterwards seized by Sacas and, as Sinonis, sent to Garmus with her
brother Euphrates. Garmus, hearing from the goldsmith that Sinonis
has escaped, orders him to be put to death, and the guards, who had
been deputed to watch the pretended Sinonis and to bring her to him,
to be buried alive with their women and children.
An Hyrcanian dog, belonging to Rhodanes, finds in the ill-omened
inn the bodies of the unhappy girl and of the slave, her infatuated
lover and murderer. It has already devoured the body of the slave
and half eaten that of the young girl, when the father of Sinonis
comes on the scene. Recognizing the dog as belonging to Rhodanes and
seeing the half-eaten body of the girl, he first kills the dog as
a sacrifice to Sinonis and then hangs himself, having first buried
the remains of the girl and written on her tomb with the blood of
the dog, “Here lies the beautiful Sinonis.” Meanwhile Rhodanes and
Soraechus come up, see the dog lying dead by the tomb, Sinonis’s
father hanging by a rope, and the epitaph written on the tomb.
Rhodanes stabs himself and adds to the epitaph on Sinonis the words:
“and the handsome Rhodanes,” written in his own blood. Soraechus puts
his head in the noose, and Rhodanes is preparing to give himself the
death blow, when the labourer’s daughter rushes in, shouting loudly,
“Rhodanes, she who lies here is not Sinonis.” She runs and cuts the
rope by which Soraechus is hanging, and snatches the dagger from the
hand of Rhodanes. At last she manages to convince them by relating
the story of the unhappy girl, and of the buried treasure, which she
had come to carry off.
Meanwhile Sinonis, released from her bonds, hastens to the labourer’s
house, still furious with his daughter. Unable to find her, she asks
her father where she is, and on his telling her the way she has
taken, she immediately sets out in pursuit with drawn sword. At the
sight of Rhodanes lying on the ground and her rival sitting alone by
his side, endeavouring to staunch the wound in his breast (Soraechus
having gone to fetch a physician) her rage and jealousy know no
bounds and she rushes upon the young woman. But Rhodanes, forgetting
his wound at the sight of her violence, musters up strength to throw
himself in front of Sinonis and hold her back, at the same time
snatching the sword from her hands. Sinonis, transported with rage,
rushes out of the inn and running like a madwoman shouts to Rhodanes:
“I invite you to-day to Garmus’s wedding.” Soraechus, on his return,
hearing what has taken place, consoles Rhodanes, and after his wound
has been dressed, the labourer’s daughter is sent back with money to
her father.
Euphrates and Mesopotamia, the supposed Rhodanes and Sinonis,
together with Soraechus and the real Rhodanes are taken before
Garmus. Garmus, seeing that Mesopotamia is not Sinonis, delivers
her to Zobaras with orders to cut off her head on the banks of the
Euphrates, to prevent any one else in future taking the name of
Sinonis. But Zobaras, who has already drunk at the fountain of love,
is smitten with Mesopotamia; he spares her life and sends her back
to Berenice, who had become queen of Egypt after her father’s death,
and from whom she had been taken.[507] Berenice is again united to
Mesopotamia, on whose account Garmus threatens war.
Euphrates is handed over to his father, now executioner, by whom he
is recognized, and his life is spared. He takes the place of his
father, whose hands are not soiled with human blood, and afterwards,
disguised as the daughter of the executioner, escapes from the prison
and regains his freedom.
Such was the state of affairs when Soraechus is condemned to be
crucified. The place of execution appointed was the meadow with the
fountain where Rhodanes and Sinonis had first rested during their
flight, where Rhodanes had discovered the hidden treasure of which
he informs Soraechus when the latter is being led away to execution.
A body of Alans, indignant at not receiving their pay from Garmus,
who had halted at the place where Soraechus was to be executed, drive
away the guards of Soraechus and set him free. Soraechus, having
found the treasure of which he had been told, and having cleverly
removed it from its hiding-place, persuades the Alans that he has
learnt this and other things from the gods. Having gradually gained
their confidence, he induces them to elect him their king, makes war
upon Garmus and defeats him. But this happened later.
While Soraechus is on his way to execution, Garmus, crowned with
garlands and dancing, orders Rhodanes to be taken to the place where
he was to have been executed before, and to be placed upon the cross.
While Garmus, drunk with wine and dancing round the cross with the
flute-players, abandons himself to joy and revelry, he receives a
letter from Sacas, informing him that Sinonis has just married the
young king of Syria. Rhodanes is rejoiced, Garmus at first wants to
kill himself, but, changing his mind, makes the unwilling Rhodanes,
who would have preferred death, come down from the cross. Garmus
then appoints him to the command of an army which he decides to send
against the king of Syria, so as to pit the lover against the rival.
Rhodanes is treacherously received by the army in a friendly manner,
Garmus having privately instructed the generals under Rhodanes that,
if their army is victorious and Sinonis is captured, they are to put
Rhodanes to death. Rhodanes gains the victory, recovers Sinonis, and
becomes king of Babylon, as a swallow had foretold. For when Garmus
in person came to see Rhodanes set out on the expedition, an eagle
and a kite pursued this swallow, which escaped the eagle but became
the prey of the kite. Such is the contents of the sixteen books.
XCV
Read the work of John Scythopolita the Scholasticus _Against
Separatists from the Church_, or _Against Eutyches[508] and
Dioscorus[508] and those who held the same ideas_, and denied that
there were two natures in Christ. The work, in twelve books, was
written at the request of a certain patriarch named Julian.[509]
The writer’s style is clear and pure and he uses words suited to
the historic style. He vigorously combats heresy and makes full use
of evidence from Scripture, not neglecting logical methods, when
they are appropriate to the subject. The author of this separatist
treatise attacked by Scythopolita has concealed his name, but has
craftily entitled it _Against Nestorius_, in order to induce the
more simple-minded to read it. Perhaps it is Basil of Cilicia,[510]
who afterwards wrote against John a dramatic dialogue worthy of the
religion he professed.
XCVI
Read the work by George, bishop of Alexandria,[511] entitled _The
Life of St. Chrysostom_. Who the author is, I cannot state with
certainty. The style is simple, at times degenerating into meanness
and vulgarity, and the proper construction of nouns and verbs,
usually observed even by the grammarians,[512] is neglected. The
author says that he has compiled his history from material taken from
bishop Palladius,[513] who has written an admirable and careful life
of Chrysostom in the form of a dialogue, from Socrates,[514] and
other writers.
According to the author, the great John was born at Antioch of
noble parents, Secundus and Anthusa. Meletius the Armenian, then
head of the Church at Antioch,[515] initiated them into the rites
of Christianity and prepared them to receive the saving grace of
baptism, having first initiated and baptized their son. At an early
age, John went to school. From boyhood he was distinguished for
his modesty, showed none of the effeminacy common to wealthy and
high-born children,[516] and would not even ride on horseback. At
Antioch he attended the lectures of Libanius on grammar and rhetoric,
and of Andragathius on philosophy. After his father’s death, he was
the comfort of his mother, and, abstaining from all pleasures and
amusements, devoted himself entirely to study.
He visited Athens to improve his knowledge, and in a short time
showed himself so superior to all other students that Anthemius,
the priest of the temple of Athena, who was reputed the wisest man
in Athens, was jealous of him. Demosthenes, the prefect of the
city, sent a most complimentary summons to him, in answer to which
John presented himself with great humility. In a discussion that
took place between them, John showed himself superior in learning,
intelligence, and piety. A marvellous result of this was, that
Anthemius, finally convinced by John’s divine eloquence and prayers,
was baptized with all his household by the bishop of the city. The
prefect, who had been already baptized, received instruction in the
doctrines of Christianity, together with a large number of heathen.
The bishop of the city wanted to ordain John and to leave him bishop
of the city in his place, but John, when he became aware of this,
secretly set sail in haste for his own country.
His friends and acquaintances wished him to enter the legal
profession, but he was himself inclined to a monastic life, although
only eighteen years of age. Two of his fellow-students, Theodore,
afterwards bishop of Mopsuestia, and Maximus, afterwards bishop of
Seleucia, rejected a public and mercenary career and chose a private
and simple life. He was very intimate with Basil the Great (not the
other Basil, as some assert), who was ordained deacon by Meletius
and whom John esteemed more highly than any other of his friends.
Basil took farewell of John and tried to persuade him to adopt the
same kind of life, but for the time his mother stood in the way.
Bishop Zeno came from Jerusalem[517] and appointed John reader in the
church at Antioch. Soon afterwards his mother died, John distributed
his father’s property amongst the poor, left the city, entered a
monastery in the neighbourhood, and showed himself a model and
pattern monk.
Hesychius, a Syrian monk, who was reputed to have a knowledge of the
future, saw two men in white raiment, the one holding a book and
the other some keys, both of which they gave to John. The latter
declared that he was the apostle Peter, the former that he was John
the theologian. Hesychius told this to the inmates of the monastery,
having taken care that it should not reach the ears of John, for fear
lest, owing to his great modesty, he might leave the monastery. John
also went through severe religious exercises and composed several
monastic treatises.
He also wrought miracles while in the monastery. One of the citizens
had such a pain on one side of his head that his right eye hung
out, but when he consulted John he was immediately cured. A certain
Archelaus, a wealthy and distinguished person, suffering from
leprosy in the face, was ordered to wash in the pool out of which
the brethren drank, and became well; after this, he distributed his
wealth, said farewell to the world, and entered the monastery, his
example being followed by many others. Another person named Eucleus,
who had lost his right eye through the influence of an evil spirit,
applied to the monastery for admission; his head was shaved while the
man of God prayed, and he recovered his sight. A woman also who had
an issue of blood seven years was healed. A lion, which was said to
have carried off a number of travellers, after John had impressed the
sign of the cross upon others, was killed by its influence.
After four years, owing to the number of people who applied to
him, he left the monastery, and spent two years in a cave seldom
sleeping and not lying down during the whole of the time. Having
contracted a chill in the stomach and kidneys, he was compelled to
return to Antioch, where he was ordained deacon by Meletius and
looked after the altar. At that time he wrote the three treatises
to Stagirius[518] and those _On the Priesthood_ and _On the
Incomprehensible_. After the death of Meletius at Constantinople,
the holy John returned to the monastery. Flavian, who had succeeded
Meletius, in consequence of a divine revelation brought him back to
the city from the monastery and ordained him priest. A command had
been given to Flavian in a vision that John should be ordained and
that Flavian himself should ordain him. A dove that hovered over his
head during the ceremony was abundant proof of the divine grace with
which he was to be filled. He spent twelve years in the sanctuary.
From his early years, owing to his zeal for virtue he was harsh and
severe, and rather given to wrath than to consideration for others.
He wrote several commentaries while at Antioch, and at the bishop’s
urgent request addressed the people extemporaneously in the pulpit.
The son of a woman named Euclaea, suffering from a violent fever,
whose life had been despaired of, was healed by being sprinkled with
some water which John had blessed. A certain woman belonging to the
sect of the Marcionists,[519] whose husband held some office in the
city, was in a desperate condition from dysentery; but having been
healed by John, she, her husband, and all her household, with several
other Marcionists, returned to the true faith.
On the death of Nectarius, archbishop of Constantinople,[520]
John was sent for from Antioch, in spite of the opposition of the
inhabitants, who claimed him as their own special blessing. But the
emperor’s command prevailed; John was consecrated by Theophilus,
patriarch of Alexandria,[521] who was reluctant to perform the
ceremony, but was forced to do so, certain papers containing charges
against him being held over him as a threat if he did not consent.
While John was being consecrated amid general approval, a man
possessed was freed by him from an evil spirit.
The great Chrysostom then immediately abolished the custom of
receiving spiritual sisters and delivered long discourses against
the unjust, the gluttonous, and the pleasure-loving. He was very
charitable, so that many called him the Almsgiver. In a word, he
taught all virtue and dissuaded from all vice. He also sent monks
to Phoenicia to redeem from error those who were given over to
idolatry; these monks, armed with the imperial authority, overthrew
the idolatrous temples, the expenses being defrayed by certain pious
women. A band of Celts, infected by Arianism, was brought back to
the true faith by missionaries who spoke their language. He also
brought back the nomad Scythians voluntarily to Christianity. He
utterly rooted out the Marcionite heresy which was raising its head
again in the East. He increased the number of nightly services with
chanting. He took his food alone for three reasons; he was a total
abstainer from wine because it affected his head (except when he
drank it flavoured with roses in summer), he suffered from a weak
stomach so that he often could not eat the food put before him, but
asked for something else, and when at leisure he often refrained
from food all day. The clergy considered him very harsh and austere.
His deacon Serapion was also the cause of great hatred against him.
John expelled several clergy from the Church for various reasons.
Serapion also quarrelled with Severian, bishop of Gabala, who
conceived a great and lasting hatred of John. John was greatly loved
by the people owing to his discourses. He himself was very fond of
commenting upon the epistles of St. Paul, who, according to John’s
friend Proclus, visited him for three nights and inspired him with
the interpretation of his epistles.
John also offended the empress in the case of Theodoric the
patrician, whom he had succeeded in freeing from her unjust
exactions. Theodoric gave the greater part of his property to the
Church poorhouse as a thankoffering to God, which inflamed Eudoxia
with anger and malice. Eutropius introduced a law that criminals
who fled for refuge to the churches should not enjoy the privilege
of asylum. But when, soon afterwards, he himself took refuge there,
he reaped the fruits of his own legislation. While he lay prostrate
at the altar, the great John delivered a speech full of reproach,
which set many against him, who thought that he rebuked the unhappy
wretch too cruelly. He deprived the Arians of their churches and
with the emperor’s consent drove them out of the city. Since they
had composed antiphons to deceive the simple-minded he outdid them,
with the assistance of the empress, by displaying silver crosses
while the antiphons were being sung. It is said that the God-inspired
Ignatius first introduced antiphons, in imitation of the angels
who in this manner sang the praises of God. The influential Arian
Gaïnas[522] demanded a church from the emperor, but John who was
present expressed his disapproval with great freedom, and persuaded
the emperor to refuse. Soon afterwards, when Gaïnas rebelled, John,
without delay, at the general request, went on an embassy to the
barbarian, and repressed the revolt.
Eusebius, who succeeded Celbianus as bishop of Valentinopolis,[523]
presented a document containing seven charges against Antoninus,
bishop of Ephesus. The three first accused him of sacrilege; the
fourth was that he had retained in his service without rebuking
him a youth who had committed murder; the fifth, that he had taken
possession of and sold some land which had been left by Basilina, the
mother of Julian,[524] to the Church; the sixth, that he had resumed
intercourse with his wife after he had said farewell to the world,
and that he had had a child by her; the seventh, that he accepted
fees for consecration. The last charge, being regarded as the most
serious, was investigated. The trial was protracted to great length,
since the accuser himself purposely neglected his duty, and Antoninus
died before it ended. John therefore went to Ephesus, and removed
from their sees six bishops who had paid fees to secure consecration
and confessed their guilt. He also deposed six others in Asia for the
same offence. In place of Antoninus he consecrated Heraclides his
own deacon, which created a disturbance. In place of the six bishops
others were appointed who were distinguished by greater piety and
virtue. When Chrysostom was banished all these were deprived of their
sees, while those who had been ejected were restored.
Severian, bishop of Gabala, having heard that Antiochus was in
Constantinople and had obtained considerable sums of money by his
discourses went there himself. John, when he set out for Ephesus,
recommended him as his deputy in the pulpit, and in this manner
Severian became known to the emperor and all the people.
Callitropē, the widow of a shipmaster, had been unjustly taxed, and
Paulacius, the prefect of Alexandria, harshly pressed the poor woman
for the amount (500 gold pieces). She appealed to the empress, who
fined Paulacius 100 pounds of gold, of which the sorely afflicted
woman only received thirty-six pieces. She accordingly took refuge
with the general “port in a storm,” the great John, who brought
an action against Paulacius for the payment of 500 pieces to the
widow. This roused the hostility of Eudoxia, who was anxious for
Paulacius to be let off. She was not listened to, however, and the
just man claimed and restored to the ill-treated woman that of which
she had been unjustly defrauded. Then a wonderful thing happened.
When Eudoxia sent to rescue Paulacius in despite of John, an angel
appeared bearing a spear and frightened her messengers, so that their
mission was unsuccessful. In consequence of these and similar acts
of John, Acacius of Beroea, Theophilus, Antiochus, and Severian,
and many others, whom he had offended by his reproaches, with the
assistance and at the instigation of Eudoxia, began to plot against
him. Theophilus accused Peter, chief presbyter of Alexandria, of
having administered the sacrament to a woman who was a Manichaean;
his defence was that she had been converted and that it was by his
permission that she had been admitted by him to the communion. In
proof of this he called to witness Isidore the presbyter[525] and
hospitaller of Alexandria. This Isidore, owing to his blameless
character, had formerly been sent to Damasus[526] by Theophilus,
and had brought from Rome to Flavian an offer of friendship and
alliance, after the two Churches had been at variance for twenty
years. The evidence of Isidore roused the anger of Theophilus, who
expelled Peter from the Church and falsely accused Isidore of gross
immorality. When the falsehood was discovered, Theophilus was roused
to further villainy, which was increased by the following incident.
A certain rich woman named Theodota had given Isidore 1000 pieces of
money to distribute amongst the poor without consulting Theophilus,
which Isidore had done. To avoid the wrath of Theophilus he fled
to the mountain of Nitria,[527] where he had formerly lived in a
cell. The chief of the Egyptian monks were Dioscorus, Ammonius,
Euthymius, and Eusebius, four brothers, called “the long” from the
height of their stature. At that time a quarrel had broken out with
the Anthropomorphite heretics. When some ignorant and coarse monks
created a disturbance in Egypt, Theophilus, apparently alarmed when
they abused him, attempted to deceive them by flattery, saying, “I
have seen your faces as the face of God.” But when they further
demanded that Origen, because he asserted that the divinity was
without human form, should be anathematized, he consented, and
so escaped death. Seizing hold of this pretext against the “long
brethren” (since they would no longer associate with him as before,
and denied that God had a human form), he accused them to the monks
and stirred up that ignorant herd against them and also against
Isidore, on whose account he was the more hostile to them. At last,
after having been the victims of intrigue and ill-treatment, and
their cells having been set fire to, they fled to Constantinople.
John received them kindly and sympathetically, but did not admit them
to communion for fear of offending Theophilus, to whom he wrote a
letter proposing reconciliation, but Theophilus paid no attention.
In the meantime the “long brethren” presented documents containing
charges against Theophilus, and were in turn accused by others at his
instigation. When these latter were unable to prove anything they
were thrown into prison and flogged, some of them died and the rest
were condemned to banishment in the island of Proconnesus.[528] John
informed Theophilus of the charges against him, to which Theophilus
angrily replied: “I believe you are acquainted with the canons of
the council of Nicaea, by which it is ordained that no bishop shall
exercise jurisdiction beyond his own province. If you are not, then
make yourself acquainted with them and do not interfere with the
charges against me.” Notwithstanding, the same Theophilus who wrote
these words afterwards condemned John, although he belonged to
another diocese. As the monks did not desist from their accusations
against Theophilus, the emperor ordered him to present himself for
trial. But the animosity against John increased to such a degree
that, on his arrival, Theophilus was appointed judge of John himself.
The wife of the senator Theognostus, who had been proscribed and
died in exile, had been deprived by the empress of a field that had
been left her. She accordingly had recourse to John, the champion
of widows, but although he spoke with great freedom on her behalf
his efforts were unsuccessful and only roused the hatred of the
empress. He accordingly ordered that, on the day of the Exaltation
of the Cross (the 14th of September), when the unjust empress was
about to enter the church, the gates should be shut against her. His
order was carried out, and the empress retired in shame and anger,
and from that time began to plot John’s deposition, banishment, and
every other degradation that her indignation suggested. When, as she
drew near, she found the gates of the church being closed, one of her
suite drew his sword against those who were shutting them; whereupon
his hand suddenly withered, but was afterwards restored on his doing
homage to John.
The great Epiphanius, whom Theophilus had beguiled and stirred
up against John, on his arrival in Constantinople created a
disturbance. He ordained a deacon at Hebdomon[529] in St. John’s
Church contrary to the law, performed the service without the
permission of Chrysostom, and demanded that he should condemn the
writings of Origen. Our author relates (as is also stated in the
life of Epiphanius), that he by no means approved of the deposition
of Chrysostom, as others believed he did, in spite of the empress’s
importunity. He also mentions their prediction to each other, that
neither should see his throne again. Before his condemnation John,
having heard that Eudoxia was angry with him, delivered a lengthy
discourse against women generally, which the people interpreted as an
attack on the empress. On the arrival of Theophilus, the intrigues
against the great combatant John began. When he did not appear at
the synod, Theophilus and his party pronounced sentence against him,
although he loudly protested that he was ready to appear and defend
himself, if his avowed enemies were removed from the council. Forty
bishops were ready to support John against Theophilus and his party,
but when they loudly protested he comforted them, and begged them
not to cause dissension in the Church. After his deposition, he was
banished to Hieron,[530] but, in consequence of a severe shock of
earthquake which was ascribed to the divine wrath, he was brought
back to the city and again seated, against his will, on the episcopal
throne. He declared that he did not wish to resume his pastoral
office until the unjust sentence against him had been submitted
to investigation. Soon afterwards, Eudoxia being again enraged
because John had attacked her in reference to the statue which had
been erected in her honour near his church and was the cause of
disturbance inside, intrigues were again set on foot against him.
Theophilus, although this was an unexpected piece of good fortune for
him, being afraid of the hatred of the citizens, did not appear. The
cause of their hatred against him was that, after the deposition of
John, he had communicated with the “long brethren,” by whose means
he had plotted against him, and that he did not himself abstain from
reading the writings of Origen, on account of which he had accused
John. He did not, therefore, attend in person, but sent others to
declare that John ought not even to be brought to trial, since after
his deposition he had ventured to perform the services of the Church,
whereas the synod of Antioch left no room for defence to one who
did so after he had been deprived of office. Those who sided with
John declared that both the canon and the synod were tainted with
Arianism, and that the canon had been aimed at Athanasius; that the
council of Sardica[531] repudiated the validity of the synod, and not
only allowed Athanasius to defend himself but also to perform the
duties of the priesthood with Marcellus.
Chrysostom was accordingly prohibited from officiating in the church
and even from entering it. The festival of the Birth of Christ was at
hand, and until the feast of Pentecost and for five days afterwards
he took no part in the services. He was then finally expelled from
the city and the church and was banished to Cucusus.[532] At that
time a fire broke out in the pulpit and spread to the rest of the
building. Many of the enemies of John were made an example, being
carried off by filthy diseases or heaven-sent calamities. John, after
he was deported to Cucusus, both lectured in public and consecrated
several bishops, priests, and deacons. He also performed many
miracles during his banishment and after his death, which Basiliscus,
bishop of Comana and martyr,[533] having appeared to him, foretold.
He was buried in the same grave as the martyr.
Theophilus and his party condemned Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus,
in his absence, and, after suffering cruel indignities, Serapion
was deprived of the bishopric of Heraclea, to which he had been
consecrated by John after his first return from exile. A eunuch of
the tribune Victor, a man of disgraceful character, was elected in
his stead. Other bishops, about twenty in number, were driven from
their sees, together with a large number of priests, deacons, and
laymen, who were accused of favouring John, including some pious
women, the most distinguished of whom were Olympias,[534] Pentadia,
Procle, and Silvanē.
Innocent, bishop of Rome, strongly supported the cause of John,
although without success. He sent messengers who were dismissed
with contumely and wrote letters, but his efforts were unavailing.
Subsequently, Arsacius was with difficulty induced to enter his name
on the diptychs.[535] Some time afterwards, Proclus transported his
remains to Constantinople.
This writer appears to relate much that is contrary to the truth of
history, but there is nothing to prevent the reader from picking out
what is useful and passing over the rest.
XCVII
Read the _Collection of Chronicles and List of Olympian Victors_
by Phlegon[536] of Tralles, a freedman of the emperor Hadrian. The
work is dedicated to a certain Alcibiades, one of the emperor’s
bodyguards. It begins with the 1st Olympiad,[537] because, as
nearly all other writers affirm, there are no careful or accurate
accounts of preceding periods, but different writers make different
statements, and even those who have been eager to obtain the credit
of writing about them contradict themselves. For this reason, as we
have said, the author begins with the 1st Olympiad, and goes down, as
he himself says, to the times of Hadrian.
I have read as far as the 177th Olympiad,[538] in which Hecatomnus
of Miletus was victor in the _stadium_[539] and _diaulos_, and in
the race of men in armour three times; Hypsicles the Sicyonian
and Gaius of Rome in the long race; Aristonymidas of Cos in the
_pentathlum_;[540] Isidore of Alexandria in wrestling; Aptotus
in the _periodos_;[541] Atyanas the son of Hippocrates, a native
of Adramyttium, in boxing; Sphodrias the Sicyonian in the
_pancratium_.[542] Among the youths Sosigenes of Asia in the race;
Apollonius of Cyparissus in the wrestling-match; Sotericus of Elis
in the boxing-match; Calas of Elis in the _pancratium_; Hecatomnus
of Miletus in the armoured race (he was crowned three times in the
same day, in the _stadium_, the _diaulos_, and the armoured race);
Aristolochus of Elis in the four-horsed chariot race; Hagemon of Elis
with his race-horse; Hellanicus of Elis with his pair of horses, and
his four-horsed chariot; Cletias of Elis with his pair; and Callippus
of Pelion with his race-horse.
At that time Lucullus[543] was besieging Amisus,[544] but having
left Murena[545] with two legions to carry on the siege, he himself
set out with three others against the territory of the Cabiri, where
he went into winter quarters. He also ordered Hadrian to make war
against Mithradates, who was defeated. An earthquake in Rome did
much damage, and many other events happened during this Olympiad. In
its third year the population according to the census was 910,000.
Sinatruces, king of the Parthians, was succeeded by Phraates[546]
Theos, and Phaedrus the Epicurean[547] by Patron. Virgilius Maro
was born on the 15th of October in this year. In the fourth year of
this Olympiad Tigranes and Mithradates, having collected an army of
40,000 foot and 30,000 horse, who were drawn up in the Roman order
of battle, engaged Lucullus and were defeated; Tigranes lost 5000
killed, a large number of prisoners, besides a promiscuous rabble.
Catulus[548] dedicated the Capitol at Rome. Metellus[549] set out
against Crete with three legions and occupied the island; having
defeated Laosthenes and shut up the inhabitants within their walls,
he was rewarded with the title of imperator. The pirate Athenodorus
enslaved the people of Delos and insulted the images of the so-called
gods; but Gaius Triarius having repaired the damaged parts of the
city, fortified the island.
We have read five books as far as this Olympiad. The author’s
style, though not too mean and ordinary, does not always preserve
the Attic character. But his ill-timed, if laborious, diligence in
reckoning the Olympiads, his lists of names of the victors and their
achievements, and his accounts of the oracles, not only disgust the
reader, since they do not allow a glimpse of anything else to appear,
but also make the language disagreeable and rob it of all charm. He
also attaches undue importance to oracles of all kinds.
XCVIII
Read the _History_ of count Zosimus,[550] ex-advocate of the fisc,
in six books. Being an impious heathen, he frequently yelps at
those of the true faith. His style is concise, clear, and pure, and
not devoid of charm. He begins his history almost from the time of
Augustus, and glances rapidly at the emperors down to Diocletian,
merely mentioning their proclamation and the order of succession.
From Diocletian he treats at greater length of his successors in
five books. The first book contains the emperors from Augustus to
Diocletian and the sixth book ends at the time when Alaric, who was
besieging Rome for the second time, when the citizens were reduced to
desperate straits, raised the siege and proclaimed Attalus emperor.
Soon afterwards he deposed him because of his incapacity, and sent
an embassy to Honorius, who was then at Ravenna, with proposals for
peace. But Sarus, himself a Goth and an enemy of Alaric, with about
300 men attached himself to Honorius, and, promising to do his utmost
to assist him against Alaric, succeeded in making the negotiations
unsuccessful. Here the sixth book ends.
It may be said that Zosimus did not himself write the history, but
that he copied that of Eunapius,[551] from which it only differs in
brevity and in being less abusive of Stilicho. In other respects
his account is much the same, especially in the attacks upon the
Christian emperors. I think that both these authors brought out new
editions, although I have not seen the first edition, but it may be
conjectured from the title of the “new edition,” which I have read,
that, like Eunapius, he published a second edition. He is clearer
and more concise, as we have said, than Eunapius, and rarely employs
figures of speech.
XCIX
Read the eight books of the _History_ of Herodian.[552] Beginning
from the death of Marcus Aurelius, he relates how his son Commodus,
who succeeded him, having shown himself utterly degenerate and
completely under the influence of flatterers, was put to death by
his concubine Marcia as the result of a plot by Laetus and Eclectus.
He was succeeded by Pertinax, an old man of high character; but
the praetorian guards, who hated virtue, slew him in the palace.
Julian, who obtained the throne by bribing the praetorians, was soon
afterwards put to death by them. Niger,[553] who appears to have been
an estimable man, was declared emperor, while Julian was still alive.
Severus,[554] keen witted, astute, and resolute in the presence
of dangers, having defeated and put to death his rival, ascended
the throne, and removed all who resisted him by open violence
or ensnaring craft. He treated his subjects with the greatest
haughtiness. He died of illness[555] while waging war against the
Britons. Antoninus,[556] the elder of his two sons, having made a
treaty with them, returned to Italy. He unwillingly accepted his
brother Geta as his partner in the empire, and soon afterwards
murdered him in his mother’s arms. Eager to surpass all in vice and
cruelty, he fell a victim in Syria to a plot set on foot by Macrinus,
who was himself threatened with death by the emperor and was anxious
to prevent it. Macrinus, an old man, dilatory and lacking in
self-control, but in other respects a worthy person, became emperor
after the death of Antoninus. Moesa, the sister of Julia, had two
daughters, Soaemis and Mamaea; the former had a son named Bassianus,
the latter a son named Alexinus, both reputed sons of Antoninus.
The army, on some slight pretext, proclaimed Bassianus[557] emperor
in the camp, and bestowed upon him the name of Antoninus. Macrinus,
defeated in battle, fled from the borders of Phoenicia and Syria and
retired to Chalcedon, intending to make his way from there to Rome;
but he was intercepted by the emissaries of Antoninus, who cut off
his head and carried it back with them.
Antoninus, as long as he followed the counsel of his mother,
ruled with moderation, adopted Alexinus--whose name he changed to
Alexander[558]--as his son, and created him Caesar. But after he fell
under the influence of flatterers, there was no excess of vice and
intemperance of which he was not guilty. His attempted plot against
Alexander was frustrated by the soldiers, and when he decided to
punish them, they put him to death. Alexander, the son of Mamaea,
reigned fourteen years to the best of his ability with goodness and
clemency and without bloodshed; but owing, it is said, to the avarice
and meanness of his mother, they were both put to death, and Maximin
was proclaimed emperor.
Maximin, a brutal and oppressive tyrant, a man of enormous stature
and extremely cruel, reigned nearly three years. The soldiers in
Africa revolted and slew the governor, a man of like character
appointed by Maximin, and elected the proconsul Gordian (a man eighty
years of age) emperor against his will. Rome joyfully accepted his
election, deprived Maximin of all his honours, and at the same
time declared the proconsul’s son, Gordian, joint-emperor with
his father. While Maximin was preparing for war, Gordian, who had
occupied Carthage together with his son, seeing that his position was
desperate, hanged himself; his son was defeated by Maximin, and fell
on the field of battle. The Romans, deeply grieved at their death,
hating and at the same time fearing Maximin, proclaimed Balbinus and
Maximus emperors at Rome. The soldiers created a disturbance and
demanded that Gordian, the grandson of the elder Gordian, and his
daughter’s son, quite a boy, should be associated with them in the
empire. While Maximus was advancing against Maximin, the latter was
murdered by his own soldiers, his head was taken to Maximus, and
thence to Rome. Soon afterwards, the soldiers again revolted, dragged
Maximus and Balbinus from the palace and, after inflicting every
insult upon them, put them to death and bestowed the throne upon
Gordian alone, now about thirteen years of age. Here the eighth book
ends.
The writer’s style is clear, brilliant, and agreeable; his diction
avoids extremes, being neither too much given to atticism, which
violates the natural charm of ordinary language, nor so careless as
to degenerate into meanness to the sacrifice of all the rules of art.
He does not take a pride in what is superfluous, nor does he omit
anything that is necessary; in a word, he is inferior to few in all
the good qualities of an historian.
C
Read several of the _Declamations_ of the emperor Hadrian,[559]
distinguished by moderation of style, and not disagreeable to read.
CI
Read the consular and imperial orations of Victorinus, the son of
Lampadius of Antioch, in honour of the emperor Zeno, in whose reign
he lived to a great age. His style is distinguished by clearness,
absence of redundancy, and the use of ordinary language.
CII
Read the treatise of Gelasius,[560] bishop of Caesarea in Palestine,
_Against the Anomoeans_, in one volume. His style is free from
superfluities, and vigorous; he makes frequent use of Attic words,
his principles are carefully worked out, and he is not at a loss
for arguments; in all respects he is a good writer, except that he
childishly employs the rules and terms of logic till they become
wearisome, as if he had just peeped into dialectical text-books,
and uses his words wrongly. Certainly he inserts an apology for
this ill-timed language, but what he intended to excuse he ought
never to have used at all. In addition, the arrangement of the work
is somewhat faulty. The same little volume contained the various
arguments by Diodorus of Tarsus _Concerning the Holy Spirit_, in
which he shows that he is already infected by the taint of the
Nestorian heresy.
CIII
Read the _Allegories of the Sacred Laws_, and _On the Civil Life_, by
Philo Judaeus.[561]
CIV
Read, also, his description of the lives of those amongst the
Jews who led a life of contemplative or active philosophy, the
Essenes[562] and Therapeutae. The latter not only built monasteries
and holy places (_semneia_, to use their own word), but also laid
down the rules of monasticism followed by the monks of the present
day.
CV
Read, also, his two tractates, _Censure of Gaius_[563] and _Censure
of Flaccus_,[564] in which, more than in his other writings, he shows
vigour of expression and beauty of language. But he frequently errs
by changing his ideas and in describing other things in a manner
at variance with Jewish philosophy. He flourished in the times of
the emperor Gaius, to whom he states that he sent a deputation on
behalf of his own people, while Agrippa was king of Judaea. He was
the author of numerous treatises on various subjects, ethical
discussions, and commentaries on the Old Testament, mostly consisting
of forced allegorical explanations. I believe that it was from him
that all the allegorical interpretation of Scripture originated in
the Church. It is said that he was converted to Christianity, but
afterwards abandoned it in a fit of anger and indignation. Before
this, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, he had visited Rome,
where he met St. Peter, chief of the apostles, and became intimate
with him, which explains why he thought the disciples of St. Mark the
evangelist, who was a disciple of St. Peter, worthy of praise, of
whom he says that they led a contemplative life amongst the Jews. He
calls their dwellings monasteries, and declares that they always led
an ascetic life, practising fasting, prayer, and poverty.
Philo came of an Alexandrian priestly family. He was so admired
amongst the Greeks for his power of eloquence that it was a common
saying amongst them: “Either Plato philonizes or Philo platonizes.”
CVI
Read the work by Theognostus of Alexandria,[565] entitled _The
Outlines of the Blessed Theognostus of Alexandria, Interpreter
of the Scriptures_, in seven books. In the first book he treats
of the Father, and endeavours to show that He is the creator of
the universe, in opposition to those who make matter coeternal
with God; in the second, he employs arguments to prove that it is
necessary that the Father should have a Son; and when he says Son,
he demonstrates that He is a creation, and has charge of beings
endowed with reason. Like Origen, he says other similar things of
the Son, being either led astray by the same impiety, or (one might
say) eager to exert himself in his defence, putting forward these
arguments by way of rhetorical exercise, not as the expression of his
real opinion; or, lastly, he may allow himself to depart a little
from the truth in view of the feeble condition of his hearer, who is,
perhaps, entirely ignorant of the mysteries of the Christian faith
and incapable of receiving the true doctrine, and because he thinks
that any knowledge of the Son would be more profitable to the hearer
than never to have heard of Him and complete ignorance of Him. In
oral discussion it would not appear absurd or blameworthy to use
incorrect language, for such discussions are generally carried on
according to the judgment and opinion and energy of the disputant;
but in written discourse, which is to be set forth as a law for all,
if any one puts forward the above defence of blasphemy to exculpate
himself, his justification is a feeble one. As in the second book, so
in the third, in treating of the Holy Spirit, the author introduces
arguments by which he endeavours to show the existence of the Holy
Spirit, but in other respects talks as much nonsense as Origen in
his _Principles_. In the fourth book, he talks similar nonsense
about angels and demons, attributing refined bodies to them. In the
fifth and sixth, he relates how the Saviour became incarnate, and
attempts, after his manner, to show that the incarnation of the Son
was possible. Here, also, he trifles greatly, especially when he
ventures to say that we imagine the Son to be confined now to this
place, now to that, but that in energy alone He is not restricted. In
the seventh book, entitled _On God’s Creation_, he discusses other
matters in a greater spirit of piety--especially at the end of the
work concerning the Son.
His style is vigorous and free from superfluities. He uses beautiful
language, as in ordinary Attic, in such a manner that he does not
depart from the ordinary style in composition and does not sacrifice
its dignity for the sake of clearness and accuracy. He flourished....
CVII
Read the work of the presbyter Basil of Cilicia,[566] written against
John Scythopolita, whom he calls “pettifogger” and several other
names, and otherwise abuses. For instance, he asserts that he was
suspected of being a Manichaean; that he limited the sacred forty
days to three weeks, and during them did not even abstain from eating
fowl; that he took part in heathen rites; that he was greatly given
to gluttony, and never communicated while the sacred office was being
performed, but after the Gospel took part in the holy mysteries with
the boys, and immediately hurried to the holy table. Such insulting
and brutal remarks are scattered broadcast throughout the work. The
work is dramatic in character, in the form of a dialogue, dedicated
to a certain Leontius, who had asked the author to write it. The
characters are Lampadius, who defends Basil, and Marinus, who defends
John. Marinus, during the course of the discussion, is represented as
condemning his client and going over to Lampadius, a certain Tarasius
being then introduced as interlocutor. The disputants are represented
as asking and answering questions intended to benefit themselves and
to censure and perplex the opponent’s advocate. The whole work is
divided into sixteen books: the first thirteen are in the form of a
dialogue in which the author has expended great energy and labour
in attacking John’s first book alone, while the remaining three are
directed against the statements in the second and third books.
In the first book, after the preface is concluded, he takes his stand
against two chief points, the first that “The word suffered in the
flesh,”[567] the second, “To say Christ is the same as saying God.”
In the second book he attempts to show that he has been unjustly
blamed and that John has misunderstood the words, “There shall
come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.”[568] In the third book
he asks how the words, “Now the son of man was glorified and God
was glorified in him,”[569] and the rest of the passage are to be
understood. In the fourth book, he inquires how the body is said to
be peculiar to God, about His unity, the words, “God, thy God hath
anointed thee,”[570] and “I sanctify myself.”[571] In this book
Marinus, abandoning the rôle of opponent, goes over to Lampadius. In
the fifth book, where Tarasius is introduced as taking up the part of
Marinus, the author makes more bitter accusations against John, with
which nearly the whole book is taken up. In the sixth book he attacks
more severely the union of Christ our Saviour. He also discusses the
words “God, thy God, hath anointed thee,” and the attitude of the
Church towards the expression “He was made flesh.”[572] In the eighth
book, he falls headlong into numerous absurdities in discussing “The
Word was made flesh” and also “No man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
in heaven.”[573] In the ninth book he speaks of “That Rock was
Christ,”[574] “Thy life shall hang in doubt before thee,”[575] and
“This gate shall be shut,”[576] to all of which he gives an impious
interpretation. The tenth book deals with “To you is the word of this
salvation sent”[577] and “He who spared not his own Son”[578] and “Of
the Word of life,” which your hands have touched, and “God so loved
the world that he gave his only-begotten Son”[579] and so on. In the
eleventh book he discusses, “This is our God, there shall none other
be accounted of in comparison of him,”[580] and “Afterwards did he
show himself upon earth and conversed with men,”[580] and “Arise, O
God, and judge the earth,”[581] and “He that hath seen me hath seen
the Father,”[582] and against those who asserted that the apostles
could not teach the truth owing to the weakness of their hearers.
In the twelfth book he teaches that one of the Trinity suffered,
and discusses “Had they known it, they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory.”[583] He puts forward a weak and sinful plea for our
denying that there are two Christs, in which his defence is prompted
by his wishes. In the thirteenth book he inquires how it is that
there are not two Sons, and indeed it would seem from his defence
that there must be. Tarasius, as if unable to meet the arguments
against him, remains silent, and Basil (or Lampadius) discontinues
his zealous questions and answers. The last three books are more
detailed, and attack the statements of John in the second and third
books.
This Basil, as he himself tells us, was a presbyter of the Church
at Antioch, when Flavian was bishop there, and Arcadius emperor of
Rome. His style is poor, and especially in the dialogues differs
little from the language of the common people. Nor is he accurate
in composition, but frequently makes mistakes and uses solecisms;
at the same time, he endeavours to be clear. His arguments against
the orthodox are keen and show the practised logician; in fact, he
seems to have wasted his whole life in his idle attacks upon the
true faith. Although he is tainted with Nestorianism, he does not
defend Nestorius, but praises the fathers Theodore and Diodorus. He
does not openly use so much blasphemous language against the divine
Cyril. He declares that John, the object of his attack, relies for
support on nothing but the twelve “chapters” of Cyril, especially the
twelfth, in which he introduces the suffering of God. With this he
concludes his idle labours. As mentioned above, the work is dedicated
to a certain Leontius, whom he pompously calls most holy, most
beloved of God, and Father.
CVIII
Read the work of Theodore the monk _Against Themistius_, entitled:
“A brief refutation of the old rash and absurd attacks of Themistius
on the Fathers, now worked out by us in view of the questions and
propositions put forward by him against the truth, and a clear and
accurate arrangement of the subject under discussion.” This title
is more like a book than the title of a book. Both Theodore and
Themistius are heretics, adherents of Severus, and belonging to the
_Theopaschitae_.[584] Themistius (or Calonymus, as he also calls
himself) was the chief of the sect called Agnoetae,[585] on whom
he wrote a work called, _An Apology for the Holy Theophobius by
Calonymus or Themistius_, in which he also attacks Severus, whose
devoted adherent he is. Such is falsehood and such are the lovers of
falsehood. He challenges Themistius to argue and shows that his four
arguments, intended to prove ignorance in Christ, which he deals with
one by one, involve countless absurdities. Then again Themistius, to
make good his defeat, wrote a single book against Theodore. Theodore
again refutes his objections in three volumes, and sets forth his own
real opinion on the subject. Both of them are skilful writers, aiming
at clearness, combined with earnestness and sedateness.
CIX
Read three volumes of the works of Clement,[586] presbyter of
Alexandria, entitled _Outlines_, _The Miscellanies_, _The Tutor_.
The _Outlines_ contain a brief explanation and interpretation of
certain passages in the Old and New Testaments. Although in some
cases what he says appears orthodox, in others he indulges in impious
and legendary fables. For he is of opinion that matter is eternal
and that ideas are introduced by certain fixed conditions; he also
reduces the Son to something created. He talks prodigious nonsense
about the transmigration of souls and the existence of a number of
worlds before Adam. He endeavours to show that Eve came from Adam,
not as Holy Scripture tells us, but in an impious and shameful
manner; he idly imagines that angels have connexion with women and
beget children; that the Word was not incarnate, but only appeared
so. He is further convicted of monstrous statements about two Words
of the Father, the lesser of which appeared to mortals, or rather
not even that one, for he writes: “The Son is called the Word, of
the same name as the Word of the Father, but this is not the Word
that became flesh, nor even the Word of the Father, but a certain
power of God, as it were an efflux from the Word itself, having
become mind, pervaded the hearts of men.” All this he attempts to
support by passages of Scripture. He talks much other blasphemous
nonsense, either he or some one else under his name. These monstrous
blasphemies are contained in eight books, in which he frequently
discusses the same points and quotes passages from Scripture
promiscuously and confusedly, like one possessed. The entire work
includes notes on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, St. Paul’s epistles,
the Catholic epistles, and Ecclesiasticus. Clement was a pupil of
Pantaenus, as he himself says. Let this suffice for the _Outlines_.
CX
_The Tutor_ is an elaborate work in three books, containing rules
for behaviour and conduct. It was preceded by and combined with
another work, in which he refutes the impiety of the heathen. These
discourses have nothing in common with the _Outlines_, since they
are entirely free from idle and blasphemous opinions. The style is
florid, rising at times to an agreeable and moderate loftiness,
while the display of learning is not inappropriate. In the last book
something is said about images.
CXI
_The Miscellanies_,[587] in eight books, contain an attack upon
heresy and the heathen. The material is arranged promiscuously and
the chapters are not in order, the reason for which he himself gives
at the end of the seventh book in the following words: “Since these
points have been thoroughly discussed, and our ethical formula has
been sketched summarily and fragmentarily, as we promised, teachings
calculated to kindle the flame of true knowledge being scattered here
and there, so that the discovery of the sacred mysteries may not be
easy to any one of the uninitiated,” and so on. This, he himself
says, is the reason why the subject-matter is so unsystematically
arranged. In an old copy I have found the title of this work not
only given as _Miscellanies_, but in full as follows: _Miscellany of
Gnostic Notes in accordance with the True Philosophy, books 1-8_.
The first seven books have the same title, and are identical in all
the copies. The title of the eighth, however, varies, as does the
subject-matter. In some copies it is called _Who is the Rich Man
that is saved?_ and begins, “Those who ... laudatory speeches,”
etc.; in others it is called _The Miscellanies, the eighth book_,
like the other seven, and begins, “But not even the oldest of the
philosophers,” etc. The work in some parts is unsound, but not like
the _Outlines_, some of whose statements it refutes.
Clement is said to have written several other works, of which the
following are mentioned by other writers: _On Easter_; _On Fasting_;
_On Evil-speaking_; _On the Ecclesiastical Canons, and against
those who follow the Erroneous Doctrine of the Jews_, dedicated to
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. He flourished during the reign of
Severus and his son Antoninus at Rome.
CXII, CXIII
Read two volumes of the works of Clement, bishop of Rome.[588] One
is entitled _The Apostolic Constitutions by Clement_, containing
the synodical canons ascribed to the assembled Apostles. The other,
in the form of a letter, is dedicated to James the Lord’s brother
and contains what are called _The Acts of the Apostle Peter, His
Conversations with Simon Magus, The Recognition of Clement and his
Father and his two Brothers_. Hence in some copies it is entitled
_The Recognition of Clement of Rome_. As we have said, a letter is
prefixed as sent to James the Lord’s brother, but not always the
same nor from the same person, according to some copies being sent
by Peter the apostle, according to others by Clement to James. In
the first case, Peter would seem to have compiled an account of his
own acts and sent it to James at his request; in the second, Clement
compiled it by command of Peter and sent it to James, after Peter had
passed to immortal life. It may be conjectured then that there were
two editions of the _Acts of Peter_, and that when one in course of
time perished that of Clement alone survived. For in all the copies
which I have seen--by no means a few--after those different epistles
and titles I have unvaryingly found the same treatise beginning,
“I, Clement,” etc. The work is full of countless absurdities and
of blasphemy against the Son in accordance with the Arian heresy.
The _Constitutions_ appear to be liable to censure on three counts:
clumsy fiction, which it is easy to remove; the abusive charges
against Deuteronomy, which can easily be met, and its Arianism, which
can be refuted by a vigorous attack. But the book of the _Acts of
Peter_, in its distinctness and earnestness, its purity, vehemence,
its general linguistic excellences, and its great learning, is
so superior to the _Constitutions_ that, as far as language is
concerned, no comparison between the two works is possible.
It is this Clement of whom St. Paul speaks in the Epistle to the
Philippians, “With Clement also, and other my fellow-labourers,
whose names are written in the book of life.”[589] He also wrote an
important letter to the Corinthians, which was so highly thought of
that it was read in public. A second letter to the same is rejected
as spurious, as also the lengthy discussion, a dialogue between Peter
and Ap(p)ion.[590] Some say that Clement succeeded Peter as bishop
of Rome, others that he was the fourth bishop, Linus and Anacletus
intervening, and that he died in the third year of Trajan’s reign.
CXIV
Read a book entitled _Circuits[591] of the Apostles_, comprising
the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, the author being
one Lucius Charinus,[592] as the work itself shows. The style is
altogether uneven and strange; the words and constructions, if
sometimes free from carelessness, are for the most part common
and hackneyed; there is no trace of the smooth and spontaneous
expression, which is the essential characteristic of the language
of the Gospels and Apostles, or of the consequent natural grace.
The contents also is very silly and self-contradictory. The author
asserts that the God of the Jews, whom he calls evil, whose servant
Simon Magus was, is one God, and Christ, whom he calls good, another.
Mingling and confounding all together, he calls the same both Father
and Son. He asserts that He never was really made man, but only in
appearance; that He appeared at different times in different form
to His disciples, now as a young, now as an old man, and then again
as a boy, now taller, now shorter, now very tall, so that His head
reached nearly to heaven. He also invents much idle and absurd
nonsense about the Cross, saying that Christ was not crucified, but
some one in His stead, and that therefore He could laugh at those
who imagined they had crucified Him. He declares lawful marriages
to be illegal and that all procreation of children is evil and the
work of the evil one. He talks foolishly about the creator of demons.
He tells monstrous tales of silly and childish resurrections of dead
men and oxen and cattle. In the Acts of St. John he seems to support
the opponents of images in attacking their use. In a word, the book
contains a vast amount of childish, incredible, ill-devised, lying,
silly, self-contradictory, impious, and ungodly statements, so that
one would not be far wrong in calling it the source and mother of all
heresy.
CXV
Read an anonymous work entitled _A Disputation against the Jews
and those who hold the same Heretical Views, and those called
Quartodecimans,[593] who do not celebrate the Holy Easter Feast
in the first month as the Hebrews do_. The style is concise and
free from redundancies, but somewhat bombastic. The author asserts
that our Lord Jesus Christ did not partake of the regular Paschal
feast[594] on the holy fifth day, for that day was not laid down,
but on the following day; that He did not even then lawfully eat
what He did eat; for He ate neither lamb, nor unleavened bread, and
observed none of the practices which those who keep Easter according
to the law are in the habit of observing. He asserts that He partook
of a private, mystic feast, from which He gave bread and wine to His
disciples.
Another tractate is also included, by a certain Metrodorus, a list
of twenty-eight cycles of nineteen years for calculating the holy
Paschal feast. This Metrodorus, whoever he was (for I have not
been able to learn anything about him), beginning with Diocletian,
has collected the Easter days for 533 years,[595] according to the
received and accurate computation of the fourteenth day. For neither
the Church nor ancient tradition appears to have observed those days.
CXVI
Read another anonymous work entitled _A Third Volume on the Holy
Easter Feast, in eight books_. The style is simple and very clear,
and contains many sensible ideas. In the fourth book the author
often refutes Metrodorus, and while supporting himself with evidence
from the Scriptures, works into his discussion of Easter some useful
remarks on the Creation by way of interpretation. It is dedicated to
one Theodore, whom he calls his beloved brother. He was the author
of other treatises on the same subject, but this is the fullest and
most useful, since he amply discusses everything bearing on the
subject. He gives a clear and detailed account of leap-year and the
intercalary month, the epacts of the sun and moon, the nineteen days
and the method of finding them, the months, the new moon, the week
and its days, which years are called cyclical and which intercalary.
He also discusses the twenty-eight years of the solar cycle, the
nineteen years of the lunar cycle and its fourteenth day, the lunar
and solar months, the new moon of the lunar and solar month, the
lunar month and the exact month, the calculation of the years of
the world. He says that according to the other years of His advent
our Lord and God Christ partook of the prescribed Easter feast, but
not on the day which was reported. This is worthy of consideration,
since Chrysostom and the Church teach that He partook of the regular
feast[596] before the mystic supper.
CXVII
Read an anonymous work defending Origen and his abominable writings,
in five volumes. The style is neither clear nor pure and contains
nothing deserving of mention. The author brings forward on behalf of
Origen and his dogmas Dionysius of Alexandria,[597] Demetrius,[598]
Clemens, and several others, but chiefly relies upon Pamphilus the
martyr and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. This apology is
not a refutation of the charges against Origen for the most part, but
rather supports the accusation, since he is not altogether free from
his blasphemous opinions. Thus, he asserts that souls existed before
bodies, supporting this nonsense by passages from the Scriptures and
Fathers, and imagines the taking up of other bodies. In regard to the
Holy Trinity, however, he is orthodox; he asserts that Origen was
not guilty of error in his opinions on the subject, but that he was
opposing the Sabellian[599] heresy, which at that time had spread
extensively, and that, in his endeavour to show that the Trinity of
Persons was quite clear and differed in many ways, he allowed himself
to be carried away beyond what was right in the opposite direction.
However, in regard to Origen’s other dogmas, to which he does not
even venture to give a specious assent, and to which he does not
think it possible to adapt his defence, he takes great trouble to
prove that they were only intended as a rhetorical exercise, or that
they were foisted into his writings by certain heterodox persons. In
proof of this he quotes Origen himself as loudly protesting, for he
says that even when he was alive he discovered that such reckless
statements were made against him. The counts on which he asserts
that he was falsely accused are fifteen in number, which he declares
to be mere slanders, proving it by quotations from his writings in
his fourth book, and refuting them by the evidence of others on his
behalf in the fifth. The counts are as follows. He is charged with
teaching that prayer should not be offered to the Son, and that He
is not absolutely good; that He does not know the Father as Himself;
that rational natures enter into the bodies of irrational beings;
that there are migrations from one body into another; that the soul
of the Saviour was the same as the soul of Adam; that there is
neither eternal punishment nor resurrection of the flesh; that magic
is not an evil; that astronomy is the cause of events; that the Only
Begotten has no share in the Kingdom; that the holy angels came
into the world by falling down from heaven, not to render service
to others; that the Father is unseen by the Son; that the Cherubim
are the ideas of the Son; that the image of God, in reference to him
whose image it is, _qua_ image, is untrue. He rejects these charges,
as already stated, as slanders on Origen, and does his utmost to
prove that he is an orthodox member of the Church. But, my dear sir,
if any one is shown to be not altogether impious, this is no reason
why he should escape punishment for obvious blasphemies.
CXVIII
Read the _Defence of Origen_[600] by Pamphilus the martyr and
Eusebius.[600] It is in six books, five of which were written by
Pamphilus when in prison in the company of Eusebius. The sixth is the
work of Eusebius alone, after the martyr, having been deprived of
life by the sword, was removed to God for whom his soul longed. Many
other distinguished persons at that time also wrote in defence of
Origen. It is said that Origen, during the persecutions in the reign
of Severus, wrote to his father Leonides, urging him to martyrdom,
and that he ran nobly in the race and received the crown. It is
added that Origen himself made ready with all zeal to enter into the
same struggle, but that his mother checked his ardour in spite of
his protestations, as he himself testifies in a letter. Pamphilus
the martyr and many others who have written an accurate account of
Origen, as given by those who knew him, assert that he quitted this
life by a glorious martyrdom at Caesarea during the cruel persecution
of the Christians by the emperor Decius.[601] Others say that he
lived till the times of Gallus[602] and Volusianus, and that he died
at Tyre in the sixty-ninth year of his age and was buried there.
This is the truer account, unless the letters supposed to have been
written by him after the Decian persecution are spurious. They say
that he studied and taught every branch of knowledge. He is said to
have been also called Adamantius, because his arguments were linked
together like chains of adamant. He attended the lectures of Clement,
the author of the _Stromateis_, and succeeded him as head of the
catechetical school at Alexandria. It is said that Clement was the
pupil of Pantaenus and his successor as head of his school, and that
Pantaenus heard teachers who had seen the apostles, and had even
heard them himself.
It is said that the movement against Origen originated as follows.
Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, had a high opinion of Origen and
admitted him to his intimate friendship. But when Origen was about
to leave for Athens without the permission of the bishop, he was
ordained by Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, contrary
to the rule of the Church, with the approval of Alexander, bishop
of Jerusalem. This incident changed the love of Demetrius to hate
and his praise to blame. A synod of bishops and some presbyters was
summoned to condemn Origen. According to Pamphilus, it was decided
that he must not remain in Alexandria or teach there, but that
he should be allowed to retain his priesthood. But Demetrius and
some Egyptian bishops, with the assent of those who had formerly
supported him, also deprived him of his sacred office. After he had
been banished from Alexandria, Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in
Palestine, welcomed him, allowed him to live at Caesarea, and gave
him permission to preach. Such are the reasons which Pamphilus gives
for the attack upon Origen.
The _Apology for Origen_ was composed, as we have said, by Pamphilus
when imprisoned together with Eusebius, and addressed to those who
were condemned to the mines for the sake of Christ, the chief of whom
was Patermythius, who shortly after the death of Pamphilus ended his
life at the stake with others. Pierius was the teacher of Pamphilus,
the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. It is said that
he suffered martyrdom together with his brother Isidore, and that a
church and houses of prayer were built in his honour at Alexandria.
The holy Pamphilus was a presbyter, and is said to have copied most
of Origen’s commentaries on Scripture with his own hand.
CXIX
Read a work by Pierius the presbyter, who is said to have suffered
martyrdom[603] with his brother Isidore, and to have been the teacher
of the martyr Pamphilus in theology and head of the catechetical
school at Alexandria. The volume contains twelve books. The style is
clear and brilliant, and, so to say, spontaneous; there is nothing
elaborate about it, but, as it were unpremeditated, it flows along
evenly, smoothly and gently. The work is distinguished by a wealth
of argumentation. It contains much that is foreign to the present
institutions of the Church, but is possibly in accordance with older
regulations. In regard to the Father and the Son his statements are
orthodox, except that he asserts that there are two substances and
two natures, using these terms (as is clear from what follows and
precedes the passage) in the sense of hypostasis, not in the sense
given by the adherents of Arius. But in regard to the Holy Ghost
his views are dangerous and impious; for he declares that His glory
was less than that of the Father and the Son. There is a passage in
the treatise entitled _On St. Luke’s Gospel_, from which it can be
shown that the honour and dishonour of the image is the honour and
dishonour of the prototype. It is hinted, in agreement with Origen’s
absurd idea, that souls have a pre-existence. In his work on Easter
and the homily upon the prophet Hosea, the author discusses the
Cherubim made by Moses and Jacob’s pillar; he admits that they were
made, but talks nonsense about their being providentially granted,
as if they were nothing, or something else, or as if what was made
was something else; for he says that they did not exhibit any sort of
form, but absurdly asserts that they only had wings of a kind.
This Pierius was presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, when Theonas
was bishop, and Carus and Diocletian were emperors of Rome. It is
said that he was so distinguished for love of work and learning, and
that his discourses to the people were so agreeable and instructive,
that he was called “the young Origen,” since Origen at that time
enjoyed a very high reputation. They say that he was well versed in
dialectic and rhetoric, and that he voluntarily practised temperance
and poverty. According to some, he suffered martyrdom; according to
others, he spent the rest of his life at Rome after the time of the
persecution.
CXX
Read the work of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons,[604] entitled the
_Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called_ or
_Against Heresies_, in five books. The first, in which Valentinus
and his impious heresy are discussed, begins as far back as Simon
Magus[605] and goes down to Tatian,[606] who, at first a disciple
of Justin Martyr,[607] afterwards fell headlong into heresy. It
also deals with those who are properly called Gnostics and the
Cainites,[608] setting forth their abominable doctrines. Such is the
contents of the first book. In the second the impious dogmas of the
heretics are refuted. The third quotes all kinds of testimony from
the Scriptures against them. The fourth answers certain difficulties
put forward by the heretics. The fifth shows that all that was said
and done by the Lord in the form of parables, derived both from His
saving doctrine and from the apostolic epistles, is suited for the
refutation of the claptrap of the heretics.
St. Irenaeus is said to have been the author of many other works
of various kinds including letters, in some of which it should be
observed that the exact truth of the doctrines of the Church appears
to be falsified by spurious arguments.
It is said that he was a pupil of the holy martyr Polycarp,[609]
bishop of Smyrna, and was presbyter to Pothinus, whom he succeeded
in the bishopric of Lyons. At that time Victor was pope of Rome,
whom Irenaeus frequently exhorted by letter not to excommunicate any
members of the Church on account of a disagreement about Easter.
CXXI
Read the tractate of Hippolytus,[610] the pupil of Irenaeus,
entitled _Against the Thirty-two Heresies_. It begins with the
Dositheans,[611] and goes down to the heresies of Noëtus[612] and the
Noëtians, which he says were refuted by Irenaeus in his lectures, of
which the present work is a synopsis. The style is clear, somewhat
severe and free from redundancies, although it exhibits no tendency
to atticism. Some of the statements are inaccurate, for instance,
that the epistle to the Hebrews is not the work of the apostle Paul.
Hippolytus is said to have addressed the people after the manner
of Origen, with whom he was very intimate and whose writings he so
much admired that he urged him to write a commentary on the Bible,
for which purpose he supplied, at his own expense, seven shorthand
writers and the same number of calligraphists. Having rendered this
service, he persistently demanded the work, whence Origen, in one
of his letters, calls him a “hustler.” He is said to have written a
large number of other works.
CXXII
Read the _Panaria_ of the most holy bishop Epiphanius,[613] against
eighty heresies, in three volumes containing seven books. It begins
with barbarism and goes down to the Messalians.[614] The author
writes more fully and effectually against heretics than any of his
predecessors, since he has not omitted any useful argument of theirs,
and has added any others that he himself could find. His style is
poor, like that of one who is unfamiliar with Attic elegance. He
is chiefly weak in his conflicts with impious heresies; sometimes,
however, he is excellent in attack, although the character of his
language and composition is by no means improved at the same time.
CXXIII
Read the same author’s _Ancoratus_,[615] a sort of synopsis of the
_Panaria_.
CXXIV
Read the same author’s treatise _On Weights and Measures_.
CXXV
Read Justin Martyr’s _Apology for the Christians_, written against
both Jews and gentiles; also a treatise _Against the First and Second
Books of the Physics_, or against form, matter, and privation, a
collection of dialectical, vigorous, and useful arguments; also,
_Against the Fifth Essence and Eternal Motion_, which Aristotle has
created by the aid of his clever reasoning, and, finally, _Summary
Solutions of Doubts Unfavourable to Christianity_.
He is thoroughly versed in our own and especially in heathen
philosophy, overflowing with learning of all kinds and a wealth
of historical knowledge; but he has not endeavoured to colour the
natural beauty of his philosophy by rhetorical arts. Wherefore his
diction, in other respects vigorous and preserving the scientific
style, is not seasoned with rhetorical condiments, nor does it
attract the crowd of hearers by seductive and alluring language.
He wrote four discourses against the heathen--the first dedicated
to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the senate; the second to his
successors. The third discusses the nature of demons. The fourth
book, also written against the heathen, is called a _Refutation_.
He also wrote _On the Sole Government of God_, _Psaltes_, some
works _Against Marcion_ which should be read, and a useful treatise
entitled _Against all Heresies_.
He was the son of Priscus (grandson) of Bacchius, and was a native
of Neapolis in the province of Palestine. He resided for some time
at Rome, where his discourses, manner of life, and dress showed the
true philosopher. As he was a fervent lover of piety, his life and
religion incurred the hostility of a certain Crescens of the sect
of the Cynics. Being falsely accused by him, he patiently endured
his persecution in a manner worthy of his whole career. Making it an
excuse for martyrdom, he nobly and joyfully died for Christ.
CXXVI
Read the little book containing Clement’s two _Epistles to the
Corinthians_. The first accuses them of having disturbed the peace
and harmony proper to civil life by sedition, disturbance, and
schism, and exhorts them to desist from such evil ways. The style is
simple and clear, in its absence of elaboration approaching that of
ecclesiastical writers. The author, however, deserves censure for
putting certain worlds beyond the ocean, for using the phoenix as an
incontrovertible argument, for calling our Lord Jesus Christ chief
priest and president, not even using the loftier terms that befit
God, although he nowhere openly blasphemes Him. The second letter,
containing advice and exhortation to a better life, at the beginning
proclaims Christ as God, although certain foreign expressions, from
which even the first letter is not altogether free, are introduced as
if from Holy Writ. Certain passages are strangely interpreted. The
sentiments are somewhat poor and at times inconsistent.
In the same little work also read Polycarp’s _Epistle to the
Philippians_, full of good advice, combined with clearness and
simplicity, after the ecclesiastical method of interpretation.
The author also says that he sent the letters of the God-inspired
Ignatius to them, asking to be informed if they had heard anything of
him.
CXXVII
Read the _Life of Constantine the Great Emperor_ by Eusebius
Pamphili, a eulogy in four books. It contains the whole manner of
life of the man, and describes all those acts of his that have to do
with ecclesiastical history, from his earliest years till the day
when he departed this life, at the age of sixty-four. Even here the
author preserves his characteristic style, except that his language
is obliged to be somewhat more brilliant, and words are inserted here
and there that are more flowery than usual; he does not, however,
exhibit much charm and grace in explanation, which is also a defect
of his other works. A large number of passages from all the ten books
of his _Ecclesiastical History_ are scattered over this work in four
books. He says that the great Constantine was also himself baptized
in Nicomedia, having put off his baptism till that time since he
desired to receive it in the waters of Jordan. He does not state
definitely who baptized him. As to the Arian heresy, he does not make
it clear whether he still adhered to that doctrine or whether he had
changed, nor does he state whether Arius’s views were right or wrong,
although he ought to have mentioned this, seeing that a great part
of the deeds of Constantine has to do with the synod, which again
claims a detailed account of them. But he mentions that a “dispute”
(as he calls the heresy, to conceal its real nature) arose between
Arius and Alexander, and that the pious emperor was very grieved at
the “dispute,” and strove, by letters and through Hosius, bishop
of Cordova, to induce the disputants to abandon mutual strife and
such questions, and to restore friendship and harmony amongst them;
that, being unable to persuade them, he called together a synod from
all parts, and so put an end to the strife that had broken out, and
made peace. His account, however, is neither accurate nor clear.
Wherefore, as if ashamed and unwilling to make public the facts
concerning Arius and the decree of the synod against him or the
just punishment of his companions in impiety who were cast out with
him, he says nothing about this. He does not even mention the just
punishment of Arius[616] inflicted by heaven and seen by every eye.
He brings none of these things to the light, and says little about
the synod and its proceedings. For this reason, when about to speak
of the divine Eustathius,[617] he does not even mention his name, nor
the audacious and successful intrigues against him. Attributing these
also to sedition and tumult, he again refers to the calmness of the
bishops who had assembled at Antioch as the result of the emperor’s
zeal and co-operation and changed sedition and tumult into peace.
Similarly, where he speaks of the intrigues against the much-tried
Athanasius, in his desire to include these things in his history, he
says that Alexandria was again filled with sedition and disturbance,
which were calmed by the presence of the bishops, supported by the
emperor. But he does not make it clear who started the sedition, nor
its nature, nor how it was put down. He preserves almost the same
method of concealment in his narrative of the quarrels of the bishops
about dogma or their disagreements in other matters.
CXXVIII
Read Lucian’s[618] declamation _On Phalaris_ and his various
_Dialogues of the Dead and Courtesans_, and other works on different
subjects, in nearly all of which he ridicules the ideas of the
heathen. Thus he attacks their silly errors in the invention of
gods; their brutal and ungovernable passions and lack of restraint;
the monstrous fancies and fictions of their poets; their consequent
errors in statesmanship; the irregular course and changes and chances
of their life; the boastful behaviour of the philosophers, full of
nothing but pretence and idle opinions; in a word, his aim is, as we
have said, to hold up the heathen to ridicule in prose. He seems to
be one of those persons who regard nothing seriously; ridiculing and
mocking at the opinions of others, he does not state what opinions
he himself holds, unless we may say that his opinion is that one can
know nothing for certain. His style is excellent, his diction clear,
suitable and expressive; he shows a special liking for distinctness
and purity united with brilliancy and appropriate dignity. His
composition is so well fitted together that the reader does not seem
to be reading prose, but an agreeable song, whose nature is not too
obtrusive, seems to drop into the listener’s ears. In a word, as
already said, his style is charming, but not in keeping with the
subjects which he himself has determined to ridicule. That he was one
of those who held that nothing could be known for certain is shown by
the following inscription in the work:
“I, Lucian, wrote this, I who am skilled in what is old and
foolish;
For what men think wise is foolish.
So then nothing that the mind of man can conceive is certain;
What you admire, seems ridiculous to others.”
CXXIX
Read the various stories of _Metamorphoses_[619] by Lucius of Patrae.
The style is clear, pure, and agreeable; avoiding innovations in
language, the author carries to excess his tales of marvels, so that
he may be called a second Lucian. The first two books are almost
translations from Lucian’s _Lucius_ or _The Ass_, unless Lucian
borrowed from Lucius, which, if I may hazard the conjecture, is the
case, although I have not been able to find out for certain which
wrote first. For it seems that Lucian, having cut down the more
copious work of Lucius and removed all that seemed unsuitable for
his purpose, combined what was left into a single composition, in
which the words and arrangement of the original were preserved, and
gave the title of _Lucius_ or _The Ass_ to what he had borrowed.
Both works are full of mythical fictions and disgraceful indecency.
The only difference is that Lucian, as in all his other writings,
ridicules and scoffs at heathenish superstitions, whereas Lucius,
taking quite seriously and believing the transformations of men into
other men and brutes, and of brutes into men, and all the idle talk
and nonsense of ancient fables, set them down in writing and worked
them up into a story.
CXXX
Read a work by Damascius[620] in four books, the first of which, in
352 chapters, is entitled, _On Incredible Events_; the second, in
52 chapters, _On Incredible Stories of Demons_; the third, in 63
chapters, _On Incredible Stories of Souls that have appeared after
Death_; the fourth, in 105 chapters, _On Incredible Natures_. They
all contain impossible, incredible, and clumsily invented tales of
wonderful things, foolish and worthy of the impious and godless
Damascius, who, while the light of the true religion spread over the
world, remained steeped in the thick darkness of idolatry. The style
is concise, clear, and agreeable, which is not usually the case in
such stories.
CXXXI
Read a work _On Alexander_ by Amyntianus, dedicated to the emperor
Marcus.[621] The author claims to describe the deeds of Alexander in
a befitting manner, but the course of his narrative proves him to
be too ready and audacious in his promises, but backward and timid
in performance. For he is far inferior to those who have previously
written of Alexander, and his style, although clear, is characterized
by lack of vigour and energy, and much that is of the greatest
importance is omitted.
Amongst other works Amyntianus also wrote parallel lives of
Dionysius and Domitian, and of Philip of Macedon and Augustus, both
in two books. A life of Olympias, the mother of Alexander, is also
attributed to him.
CXXXII-CXXXV
Read various _Declamations_ by Palladius[622] the sophist,
Aphthonius,[623] Eusebius[624] the sophist, and Maximus the sophist
of Alexandria. Palladius is far superior to the others in excellence
of style.
CXXXVI
Read the _Thesauri_ of Cyril.[625] The work is dialectical, and
attacks the madness of Arius and Eunomius with vigorous and manifold
arguments. By logical methods he skilfully refutes their folly and
by combining and introducing evidence from Holy Writ he completely
exposes the unsoundness of their doctrine. He quotes the simple
evidence from Scripture, thus everywhere closing their insolent
mouths so that they are unable to answer. This work is the clearest
of all Cyril’s works, especially to those who are able to grasp the
significance of his logical methods.
CXXXVII
Read a little work by Eunomius,[626] entitled ..., which is a clear
proof of his impiety. It was much admired by his adherents, and the
greatest efforts were made to keep it secret and prevent its becoming
known to others; but the great Basil managed to secure it, and by his
brilliancy and vigour and the force and excellence of his arguments
overthrew and refuted it. It was as if he had taken a Babylonian
child and dashed it against the granite rock of truth, showing that
what was once so much admired was a mere carcase and only deserving
of ridicule.
CXXXVIII
Read a work by the same impious man in three books, which is, as
it were, a confutation of the absurdities shown by St. Basil to be
contained in his blasphemous writings. It is said that while he
was in labour with this work he spent several Olympiads[627] shut
up in his chamber, and only after an interval of several years
brought forth the abortion and evil monstrosity with which he had
become pregnant by secret intercourse. Not without difficulty he
reared and exhibited the wretched offspring to his fellow-initiates,
being especially afraid lest it might somehow fall into the hands
of Basil and be torn in pieces before it obtained consistency, and
might prematurely wither away and perish before it came to maturity.
Wherefore, carefully and, like another Kronos[628] in the fable who
swallowed his offspring, he hid and concealed it as long as Basil’s
mortal life lasted and inspired him with dread. But after that
saint had left his temporary habitation and had ascended to his own
inheritance in heaven, being relieved of this great apprehension,
although late in the day, Eunomius ventured to bring out the work,
not for the eyes of the general public, but for his own friends.
Theodore, Gregory of Nyssa, and Sophronius (whom I have already
mentioned) came across the work, lashed it unmercifully like his
earlier one and flung it back in the face of its parent, a corpse and
smelling of all uncleanness. Thus he paid the penalty of impiety. The
style is marked by such absence of grace and charm that the author
does not seem to have any idea of the existence of such things. He
displays prodigious ostentation and produces discordant sounds by
the heaping up of consonants, and by the use of words, difficult to
pronounce and containing several consonants, in a poetical, or, to
speak more accurately, dithyrambic style. The composition is forced,
compressed, and harsh, so that the reader of his works is obliged
to beat the air vehemently with his lips, if he wishes to utter
clearly words which the author, by excessive roughening, compressing
and condensing, interpolating and mutilating, has with difficulty
composed. His periods are sometimes spun out to an inordinate length,
and the entire work is pervaded by obscurity and want of clearness,
his object being to persuade the majority by the force of his
eloquence that he goes beyond their capacity, and also to cover up
the weakness of his thoughts (which is by no means inconsiderable) by
this very obscurity and unintelligibility, and to conceal the poverty
of his ideas. He seems to have great faith in logical arguments,
attacking others on this count and showing great eagerness to employ
them himself, although, since he took up the study late and did
not acquire a thorough knowledge of the subject, he can often be
convicted of errors in reasoning.
Also read his _Letters_ to different people, 40 in number. While in
these he affects the same subtlety of form, since he is ignorant of
the laws of the epistolary style and has had no practice in them, he
has been publicly branded and exposed.
CXXXIX
Read the _Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs_ by
the great Athanasius. The style is clear, like that of all his
writings. But neither this nor any other of his works with which I am
acquainted approaches the grace and beauty of the letters containing
an apology for his flight and an account of his exile.
CXL
Read the same holy man’s _Against Arius and his Doctrines_, in
five books. The style, as in all his works, is clear, free from
redundancies and simple, but vehement and deep, and the arguments,
of which he has an abundant store, are extremely forceful. He uses
logical arguments, not with the very words taken straight from them,
after the fashion of children and those whose knowledge of a subject
is recent, who are always eager to make a childish display, but in
the imposing and dignified manner of a philosopher, using simple
ideas and these well set forth. He also strongly fortifies himself
with evidence and proofs from Holy Writ. In a word, this work alone
is a complete refutation of Arianism. If any one were to say that
Gregory the theologian and the holy Basil drew from it as from a
fountain the limpid and beautiful stream of their own works written
against the same heresy, he would not be far wrong.
CXLI
Read the work of St. Basil on _The Six Days’ Work_. He is admirable
in all his writings. More than any one else he knows how to use a
style that is pure, distinct, suitable, and, in general, political
and panegyrical; in arrangement and purity of sentiment he is second
to none. He is fond of persuasiveness and sweetness and brilliancy,
his words flow on like a stream gushing forth spontaneously from
a spring. He employs probability to such an extent, that if any
one were to take his discourses as a model of political language,
and practise himself in them, provided he had some acquaintance
with the rules connected with it, I do not think he would need to
consult any other author, not even Plato nor Demosthenes, whom the
ancients recommend those to study who desire to become masters of the
political and panegyrical style.
CXLII
Read also his _Moral Discourses_, especially distinguished by the
excellence of the language mentioned above.
CXLIII
Read also his _Letters_, the canonical and those written to various
people. They clearly show the admirable nature of the man’s
character, and any one might take them as a model of letter-writing,
if he has no other.
CXLIV
Read also his _Ascetica_ or _Regulations for a Monastic Life_. He who
follows these rules will inherit a heavenly kingdom. In this work,
contrary to his usual custom, he makes much use of headings in many
chapters.
CXLV
Read the _Lexicon_ of Helladius,[629] arranged in alphabetical
order. It is the most comprehensive of the lexicons that I
know, the collection consisting not only of words, but also
of some most agreeable short clauses, which frequently become
perfect members.[630] The words are for the most part taken
from prose writers, not from the poets, like the compilation of
Diogenianus;[631] the alphabetical order is not preserved in all the
syllables, but only in the first. The collection is very large, so
that the whole could not be comprised in five fair-sized volumes. Our
copy is in seven. It is a useful work for those who are engaged in
literary work and are desirous of acquiring a variety of knowledge.
For it contains quotations from the orators and from famous poets.
CXLVI
Read a _Lexicon_ of the pure style in alphabetical order. The work is
large and copious, and more like a number of books. It is extremely
useful to those who study the subject.
CXLVII
Read a _Lexicon_ of the serious style. It is of great length, and
this labour of love would be more convenient for readers if it were
in two or three volumes. It is arranged in alphabetical order, and is
useful for those who desire to raise their style of writing to the
sublime and dignified.
CXLVIII
Read a special _Lexicon_ of political style, in three large volumes.
This very copious work will materially assist a man to success, and
affords a ready supply of counter-arguments. For the reader will not
have to learn, but merely to note in it the words he requires, if he
is not altogether without knowledge of the ancient writers. This work
also is in alphabetical order.
CXLIX
Read the _Lexicon_ of Pollio[632] in alphabetical order. It contains
many poetical words, but not so many as that of Diogenianus, whose
work is twice as large.
CL
Read the _Lexicon_ of Julian,[633] containing the words used by the
ten orators, arranged in alphabetical order. This book also is of
very great size, and contains an explanation of all legal terms used
by the Athenians, words used by the orators in reference to private
matters or adopted by them after the fashion of the country. It is
clear that the work will be of very great service in reading speeches
together.
I also came across a work of Philostratus[634] of Tyre on the same
subject, no mean performance, although Julian’s _Lexicon_ is better.
A similar work of Diodorus[635] is in no way inferior to that of
Julian, except that the latter makes more use of quotations. I cannot
say which of them was the earlier or which borrowed from the other,
for it is evident that they are not independent compilations.
CLI
Read the _Lexicon to Plato_ by Timaeus,[636] dedicated to Gentianus,
a little work in one book, arranged in alphabetical order.
CLII
The same volume contains the five books of the first edition of the
_Lexicon of Attic Words_ by Aelius Dionysius of Halicarnassus,[637]
in which the words are arranged alphabetically from the first to the
last letter. It is dedicated to a certain Scymnus and will be very
useful to those who wish to write correct Attic as well as to those
who intend to study the works of Attic writers. It contains all the
words in use by the Athenians, at festivals and in the law-courts,
and it is easy to find special and idiomatic expressions, especially
if one consults not only the first, but also the second edition (also
in five books), containing words not included in the first, or, if
included, not supported by sufficient examples, whereas the second
edition is fuller and the quotations are more numerous. If any one
were to combine the two editions, which would not entail much labour,
the usefulness of the work would be greatly increased.
CLIII
Read in the same volume the _Lexicon_ of Pausanias[638] in
alphabetical order, quite as useful as the preceding, if not more
so, for the study of Attic authors. For although the illustrative
quotations are not so numerous, it contains more words under some of
the letters, so that by itself it is as large as the two editions
of Aelius Dionysius of Halicarnassus, although, as we have said, it
contains fewer examples. If any one were to combine the two editions
of Dionysius and the work of Pausanias, which could be easily done,
the result would be an admirable work and one most useful in reading
Attic literature.
CLIV
Read in the same volume the _List of Platonic Words_ by Boëthus[639]
in alphabetical order. It is dedicated to a certain Melant(h)as, and
is far more useful than the collection of Timaeus.
CLV
Boëthus was also the author of another little work addressed to
Athenagoras, entitled _On the Words of Doubtful Meaning in Plato_.
If any one were to combine the words in these two little works with
those included in the work of Timaeus, he would confer a great
benefit on all who are desirous of studying Plato.
CLVI
Read in the same volume a list _Of New and Foreign Words in Plato_ by
Dorotheus,[640] arranged in alphabetical order. It will clearly be
useful to the student.
CLVII
Read also the _Atticist_ of Moeris.[641] This little work also is in
alphabetical order.
CLVIII
Read the _Rhetorical Equipment_ of Phrynichus the Arabian[642] in
thirty-six books. It contains a collection of words and clauses, some
of which, gracefully expressed and arranged in a novel manner, are
enlarged into complete members.[643] Many of these are to be found in
the collection of Helladius, but there they are dispersed throughout
the bulky work, whereas here they are all collected together, the aim
of Phrynichus being to make a list of special words, while Helladius,
being simply a lexicographer, added them to the common stock and
included them amongst the rest.
The writer flourished during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and his son
Commodus, to whom the work is dedicated and inscribed, “Phrynichus to
Commodus Caesar, greeting.” In the preface he exhorts Commodus to the
pursuit of learning, at the same time praising his own work, of which
he says that he had already composed thirty-seven books and dedicated
them to the emperor, and promising to write as many more if his life
should be spared. As we have said, we have only read thirty-six
books, containing words beginning with the first down to the last
letter of the alphabet.
In spite of his assertion that he dedicated the work to the emperor,
he appears to have inscribed the separate books to different persons.
Thus, the first, second, and third books are addressed to a certain
Aristocles,[644] in the hope that it may serve as an amusement and
source of recreation for him on his birthday; the fourth to a certain
Julian, a fellow-citizen and friend. The author adds that he had at
first intended to dedicate the whole to Aristocles, but after by
the royal decree he became a member of the great council at Rome,
he decided to adopt Julian instead as his friend and associate in
his labours and to make use of his services as the judge and critic
of his writings. In spite of this promise, he dedicates the fifth
book to a learned friend of his, named Menodorus, who had previously
censured him for not having adequately investigated the inflexion
of words. The author says that the present book was written at the
request of Menodorus, and excuses the delay in completing it on the
ground that he is suffering from strangury, a common complaint of old
age, long and serious mental affliction, haemorrhage of the stomach,
and several other ailments. If, however, he should regain his health,
he promises to complete the present commission, and any other work
his friend may suggest that bears upon learning and good taste, and
has not yet been attempted. Nevertheless, the sixth book again is
dedicated to a different person--Tiberinus; the seventh to another
Menophilus, who he says is a consummate scholar and has supplied
whole passages in illustration of the matter of the sixth book, and
exhorts him to collect as many of these words as possible in his
writings. The eighth book is again dedicated to Julian, whom the
author asks to be good enough to correct any of his statements which
are unsatisfactory, for which illness must be his excuse. Inscribing
the ninth to Rufinus, he says that Aristocles first prompted him
to begin the book, but that he (Rufinus) will be responsible for
its completion, because, having seen the rest of it, he recognized
its usefulness and approved of his labours. Turning back again he
dedicates the tenth book to Aristocles, the next to Menodorus,
in which he states that he had just come across the orations of
Aristides,[645] who flourished at the time, and speaks very highly
of him. He also says that Marcianus the critic, neglecting Plato
and Demosthenes, expresses his preference for the letters of the
Roman Brutus[646] to all others and declares him to be the model of
stylistic excellence. The author says that he quotes this remark
not because he approves of this judgment, but to prevent any one
being surprised if some people think this man’s repute inferior
to that of Aristides, despite his splendid oratory; for Aristides
also, like other men distinguished for learning, has been assailed
by some who were jealous of his achievements. The eleventh book is
also dedicated to Menodorus; of the rest--that we may not incur the
charge of garrulity--one to Rheginus, another to Aristocles, another
to Basilides of Miletus, the sophist, in which he says that, as soon
as he found respite from disease, he wrote this book for him, and
begs him to correct the mistakes that may be due to illness. All the
other books, down to the end, which we have read, are dedicated to
Menophilus.
The work will no doubt be useful to aspiring authors and orators.
The compiler says that he has divided the words collected by him
into such as are adapted for oratory, written composition, and
conversation, for a derisive, contemptuous, or amatory style. The
best models, norms, and standards of undiluted and pure Attic speech
are considered by the author to be Plato, Demosthenes and the other
nine Attic orators, Thucydides, Xenophon, Aeschines[647] the son
of Lysanias the Socratic, Critias[648] the son of Callaeschrus,
and Antisthenes[649] with his two orations in praise of Cyrus and
Odysseus; of writers of comedy, Aristophanes and his band, where they
use Attic; of tragedians, Aeschylus the mighty-voiced, Sophocles the
sweet, and the all-wise Euripides. While preferring these to all
other authors, orators, and poets, he again puts first those whom (as
he says) Momus[650] himself would not blame and, even if the fabled
Corycian god[651] made grimaces at them, would not rejoice; these are
Plato, Demosthenes, and Aeschines the son of Lysanias because of the
excellence of his seven dialogues, which some consider not to have
been written by him, but ascribe them to Socrates. So much for these
matters.
The writer displays great learning, but is verbose and excessively
prolix. For the work, without omitting anything of importance, could
have been reduced to a fifth of its size, whereas the author, by an
ill-timed use of words, has spun it out to an unmanageable length,
and while collecting material for elegance and beauty of style, fails
to translate his own precepts into example.
CLIX
Read the twenty-one _Orations_ and nine _Letters_ of Isocrates.[652]
His “deliberative”[653] speeches are those _To Demonicus_ and _To
Nicocles_, containing useful advice; a second to Nicocles, and one
_On the Peace_. The object of the _Panegyricus_ is the consideration
of the means of ensuring harmony amongst the Greeks themselves, and
of the best methods for carrying on war against the barbarians,
but by far the greater part is devoted to a glorification of the
Athenians. The _Areopagiticus_ is also one of the “deliberative”
speeches, inciting the Athenians to virtue by the praise of their
ancestors, and by censuring their descendants. The _Plataicus_ and
the _Archidamus_ are also “deliberative”; in the latter he urges
the Spartans to make war against the Thebans on the question of
the Messenians. In the oration _Against the Sophists_ he attacks
his political opponents. The next speech is an _Encomium of
Busiris_,[654] as the title indicates. The eleventh is an _Encomium
of Helen_. The twelfth, _Evagoras_,[655] is a eulogy of that king,
dedicated to his son Nicocles. The _Philippus_ is a “deliberative”
speech, recommending Philip to endeavour to promote harmony amongst
the Greeks and devote his attention to a united advance against
the barbarians in Asia. The _Panathenaicus_ is a eulogy of Athens
and the ancestors of the Athenians, which he says he began to
write when he was ninety-four years of age, but was prevented by a
three-years’ severe attack of illness from completing it until he was
ninety-seven. The speech called _Antidosis_ (exchange of properties)
appears to belong to the class of “forensic” speeches and contains
a defence against the slanders of one Lysimachus against him. This
speech, the longest of those of this class, was composed when he was
eighty-two years of age, and the matter is more mixed and varied than
that of the rest; he inserts extracts from his other speeches, in
order to show that he is not corrupting the young men, but promoting
the common welfare. The speech _Against Callimachus_, as also the
_Aegineticus_ (dealing with a claim to inheritance), the speech
_Against Euthynus_ on behalf of Nicias, the _Trapeziticus_ (an action
against a banker), and _Against Lochites_ (a claim for damages for
outrage and assault) are also “forensic.” These are the twenty-one
orations of Isocrates that we have read. Of his nine _Letters_,
one is addressed to Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily, another to
Archidamus, two to Philip, one to Alexander, one to Antipater, one to
Timotheus, and the ninth to the Archons of Mytilene.[656]
This writer preferred to give instruction in rhetoric rather than
take part in the management of public affairs, like the other nine
orators, of whom Demosthenes was one; although even before their
time he had a great reputation as a rhetorician, and, later, was in
no way considered their inferior. His chief characteristics, as at
once becomes obvious to the reader, are purity and distinctness, and
excessive care in the workmanship of his speeches, which frequently
degenerates into superfluous orderliness and over-elaboration. His
infinite capacity for taking pains generates want of taste rather
than of resourcefulness in argument. He lacks impressiveness,[657]
sincerity, and liveliness,[658] but in his political orations he
makes admirable use of dignity and perspicuity in equal proportions.
His style is feeble, and the use of evenly-balanced clauses _ad
nauseam_, as much as anything else, shows his excessive attention
to petty detail. But we acknowledge the general excellence of his
language, and only make these criticisms to point out where it has
gone astray and does not do justice to itself. For, in comparison
with some of those who undertake to compose speeches, even his faults
appear virtues.
CLX
Read the _Declamations_ and _Orations_ of different kinds by the
sophist Choricius of Gaza.[659] He is a lover of clearness and purity
of style, and if he expatiates for any useful purpose, the clearness
of his thoughts is in no way impaired, since the expansion is not
ill-timed and never reaches the length of a complete period. In his
writings, character and sincerity are combined, while at the same
time he does not neglect the inculcation of moral lessons. As a rule
he uses carefully selected words, although not always in their proper
sense; for sometimes, owing to his unrestricted use of figurative
language, he falls into frigidity, and sometimes is carried away
into the poetical style. But he is at his best in descriptions and
eulogies. He is an upholder of the true religion and respects the
rites and holy places of the Christians, although for some reason
or other, contemptuously and without any excuse, he unjustifiably
introduces Greek myths and heathen stories in his writings, sometimes
even when discussing sacred things. Many writings by him of various
kinds are in circulation; one meets with fictitious, laudatory, and
controversial speeches, monodies, nuptial songs, and many others.
He flourished in the time of the emperor Justinian, and was a pupil
of the rhetorician Procopius,[660] not him of Caesarea, a most
distinguished man, who at that time, by the composition of his
useful and valuable historical works, left behind an undying renown
amongst all lovers of learning. In his own country he was connected
with the other Procopius as his teacher in rhetoric, who, when he
reached old age, had the pleasure of seeing his pupil take his place
at the head of his school. Many of his orations of all kinds are in
circulation, all deserving of careful study and imitation. Indeed,
the whole book called _Translations of Homeric Verses_, in which
the form is completely changed in various styles, is sufficient to
show his vigorous rhetorical powers, which, as far as a pupil can,
Choricius has imitated. Both were Christians, and in their orations
they frequently, and not perfunctorily, discuss the making of sacred
images. The death of his master supplied Choricius with the subject
of a funeral oration.
CLXI
Read the _Various Extracts_ of the sophist Sopater,[661] in twelve
books, compiled from the works of different historians and writers.
The first book gives an account of the fables of the gods from the
third book of Apollodorus,[662] an Athenian who taught grammar, _On
the Gods_. The selections are not from the third book alone, but
also from the fourth, fifth, ninth, first, twelfth, fifteenth, and
sixteenth, down to the twenty-fourth. The collection includes the
mythical tales and fictions concerning the gods and whatever else
is of any historical value, such as the stories of the heroes, the
Dioscuri,[663] and those in Hades, and the like. The compiler has
also drawn upon the second book of Juba[664] _On Painting_, and upon
the _Deipnosophists_ of Athenaeus[665] of Naucratis. Such are the
sources and contents of the first book.
The second book is from the first book and onwards down to the tenth
book of the _Epitomes_ of Pamphila,[666] the daughter of Soteridas,
and from Artemon[667] of Magnesia’s _On Remarkable Deeds of Women_,
the _Apophthegms_ of Diogenes[668] the Cynic, the eighth book of
Sappho,[669] and various other writers. Such is the second book of
the extracts.
The third book is from the _Various History_ of Favorinus,[670] from
books Ν, Ξ, and the rest in order, with the exception of Τ, up to Ω.
These contain various histories, the reasons and origins and meanings
of words and names, and the like. This ends the third book.
The fourth book is compiled from an anonymous work entitled a
_Collection of Wonderful Things_, from the sixteenth book of the
_Miscellaneous Notes_ of Aristoxenus,[671] and from the eighth book
of the _Dramatic History_ of Rufus.[672] Here are to be found many
improbable and incredible things, various tragic and comic incidents,
dialogues and speeches, manners and customs, and the like, with which
the fourth book ends.
The fifth book consists of extracts from the first, second, and
third books of Rufus’s _Musical History_. It contains an account of
different comedians and tragedians, of writers of dithyrambs, players
on the flute and cithara, of nuptial songs and song accompanied by
dance, of dancers and others who took part in theatrical contests,
the origin and family antecedents of those among them who became
famous, whether men or women; which of them were known as the
originators of what practices, which of them were the friends and
intimates of emperors and kings; what the contests were and whence
derived, in which each exhibited his art. The general festivals
celebrated by the whole Athenian people are also described. All these
things, and the like, the reader will find in the fifth book.
The sixth book is from the fourth and fifth books of the _Musical
History_ by the same Rufus. It gives an account of flute-players, of
the songs sung to the flute by men and women, of the poets Homer,
Hesiod, and Antimachus,[673] and most of the other poets belonging
to their school, and tells us something about female soothsayers,
who the so-called Sibyls were and whence they came, all borrowed
from Rufus. The second book of the _Halieutica_ of Damostratus,[674]
and the first, fifth, ninth, and tenth books of the _Lives of
the Philosophers_ by Diogenes Laërtius[675] are also drawn upon.
We have an account of the philosophers and of the origin of the
divine study--philosophy; how it flourished, who were the heads and
champions of the different schools, who were their followers or
rivals, the character exhibited by each, their birth and origin,
their manner of life from the beginning, and the time in which they
flourished. The book also contains information about rhetoric and
rhetoricians, extracts from Aelius Dionysius’s work _On Alexandria_,
and from the _Aegyptiaca_ of Hellanicus,[676] and concludes with
various mythical and fictitious stories and other things.
The seventh book is a kind of anthology from the _History_ of
Herodotus.
The eighth book consists of extracts from an old and anonymous work.
It gives a list of women who rose to fame and made a brilliant name,
of the deeds of certain men and their meetings for the study of
rhetoric, of the excellence of friendship, and the maxims of worthy
men. There are also selections from Plutarch’s essays on _How a Young
Man should Listen to the Poets_ and on _Nature and Labours_, showing
how many, often with great difficulty, have reformed a vicious
nature, while others through carelessness have allowed a good one
to become corrupted; how some who in their younger days were looked
upon as slow and unintelligent, when they grew up were distinguished
by brilliant qualities, quick-wittedness, and intellectual gifts.
Also from the treatises _On Shamefacedness_, _On Garrulity_, _On
Anger_, _On How One should Obtain Benefit from One’s Enemies_, _On
Cheerfulness_, _On Political Precepts_, _On Wealth_, _How One can be
Conscious of Progress in Virtue_, _On Rules of Health_, _On Marriage
Precepts_. Amongst these extracts is to be found much that is worthy
of being remembered, both words and deeds, which will be found
serviceable in many respects. Such is the contents of the eighth book.
The ninth book consists of extracts from Plutarch’s _The Slow
Vengeance of the Gods_, the _Lives of Demetrius_ and _Of Brutus the
Roman_, the book entitled _Apophthegms of Famous Men_, the little
treatise _On Rivers_, and _How to Distinguish the Flatterer from the
Friend_, the _Lives of Crates_, _Daiphantus_, and _Pindar_, and the
work entitled _Apophthegms of Kings and Generals_, and the first to
the eighth of the _Convivial Discourses_. Such is the matter supplied
by Plutarch. The author has also borrowed from the first, second,
third, and fourth books of Rufus’s _Roman History_, in which will be
found much that deserves mention although mixed up with fables and
long-winded nonsense. Such is the contents of the ninth book.
The tenth book is compiled from the _Erato_ of Cephalion,[677]
and describes the life and deeds of Alexander the Great; from the
treatise of Apollonius the Stoic[678]; concerning women who have been
philosophers or have achieved fame by anything else, or by whose
mediation families were reconciled; from the _History of Macedon_
by Theagenes;[679] from Plutarch’s _Lives_ of Nicias, Alcibiades,
Themistocles, Theseus, Lycurgus, Solon, and Alexander the son of
Philip, Cimon, [Lysander, Demosthenes], Pericles, Pelopidas, Phocion,
and Aristides, containing much that is worthy of being narrated and
recorded. Such is the contents of the tenth book.
The eleventh book is in like manner compiled from Plutarch’s _Lives_
of Epaminondas, Dion, Agesilaus, Agis, Cleomenes, Eumenes of Cardia,
Philopoemen,[680] Aratus, who when general of the Achaean league
commanded the forces seventeen times and greatly distinguished
himself in the field, and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus; from the first and
second books of Aristophanes[681] the grammarian’s work _On Animals_,
and the seventeenth book of king Juba’s _Theatrical History_. Such is
the contents of the eleventh book.
The twelfth book is taken from various sources: Callixenus’s[682]
_Catalogue of Painters and Sculptors_, Aristonicus’s[683] _On the
Museum at Alexandria_, the _Constitutions_ of Aristotle, dealing with
those of the Thessalians, Achaeans, Parians, Lycians, Chians, and of
all the peoples whom he has mentioned in his political writings, the
usefulness of which is evident. Such is the contents of the twelfth
book.
The work is very useful to the reader. For although it is not free
from fabulous, monstrous, false and improbable statements, as I have
already mentioned more than once, yet from those which are as it were
contributions from the storehouse of learning, one may gather much
that promotes virtue and honesty. For the student of rhetoric and
sophistic, as he himself says to his friends in the introduction,
they are of considerable importance and will be very serviceable. The
diction is varied, not confined to one style, although clearness is
the distinguishing feature of the entire work.
CLXII
Read a work by a certain Eusebius,[684] a bishop of the orthodox
faith, in ten books, written against a monk named Andrew, and called
forth by his behaviour. He wrote a letter to Eusebius, which he calls
a pastoral letter, imploring him to read it. Eusebius, having done
so, first reprimands Andrew for his ignorance and temerity, showing
that he had made many mistakes in spelling and could not write a
line without making a blunder, but that notwithstanding he had had
the audacity to write, forgetting his profession and the repose of a
monastic life. He then refutes Andrew’s heretical opinions at length,
for he was one of the sect called _Aphthartodocetae_,[685] from the
impious doctrine that they held. He first points out that Andrew must
explain why he used the word φθορά (corruption) in only one sense,
thinking that it referred to sin only, whereas our Holy Fathers, in
their usage of words, have traditionally applied it to different
things. Secondly, he reproves him because he ventured to declare,
like Julian, that the body of the Lord was immortal, impassible,
and incorruptible from the union (of the two natures), although
in this very letter he asserts that he has undertaken to oppose
Severus and Julian, since they deny that there are two natures or
two substances, two properties or two energies, in Christ. Thirdly,
because he insisted that the body of Adam before the fall was neither
formed entirely mortal nor corruptible by nature, from which,
according to him, it would follow that Christ had assumed from the
very union an incorruptible and impassible body; whereas, in reality,
he ought to have thought and said that the body of Adam was by nature
mortal and passible, but by divine grace was kept immortal and
impassible, until his transgression deprived him of that protection.
Such is the unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers. Fourthly, because
he called the present world incorruptible and indestructible, whereas
he ought to hold that it is corruptible and changeable. In his first
reply the bishop exhorted Andrew to retract his opinion on many other
points, at the same time convicting him of obscurity and of blasphemy
in his language.
Andrew, after he had received this exhortation to mend his ways,
went from bad to worse, and wrote another work in which he again set
forth at greater length the views he had previously expressed and,
as he imagines, establishes their truth. As we have said, the pious
Eusebius wrote ten books to combat these propositions, in which he
shows that Andrew, not content with the definition of faith marked
out by the holy synods, has audaciously drawn up an exposition
of faith of his own; that he has wrenched many passages from the
Fathers, and falsified and violently pressed them into the support
of his views; that he contradicts both the New and Old Testament
and our Holy Fathers in asserting that the world is incorruptible
and indestructible; that he says that change, transformation, flux,
can easily be misrepresented, just like the sufferings which have
their origin in vice, and that our Lord Jesus Christ assumed a
body that was unchangeable, impassible, incorruptible, and without
flux. Again, he censures him because he asserts that the world is
eternal, incorruptible, and ungenerated, and does not admit the
transformation of the elements which contributes to its eternity,
since he teaches that it is one of the passions which can easily
be misrepresented; that the body of Adam was formed incorruptible,
immortal, and impassible by nature, and not only this, but that the
clay of which it was formed is incorruptible. Eusebius also censures
him for taking the word “corruption” in only one sense, whereby he
shows that God is not the author of corruption or death or any
vicious passion, but not even of sinful thoughts, although He is the
author of corruptible and mortal substances, for these do not belong
to existing things and have no subsistence in themselves. He also
rebukes him for saying that the Lord’s body from the very union is
impassible, incorruptible, and unchangeable, and in order to prove
this, as he imagines, he shows that he has to rely upon his other
nonsensical ideas about the world and Adam. In the same work Eusebius
shows in what and how many meanings the words φθορά and καταφθορά
and διαφθορά are used in the Scriptures: of physical affections that
are by no means reprehensible, and of those that result from labour,
fatigue, and old age, old age being the corruption of youth, as
labour and fatigue of bodily tone; of bodily humiliation in ascetic
and spiritual struggles, for the apostle says, “Although our outer
man be corrupted, our inner body is renewed”;[686] of the affliction
and wasting away of the body by blows and punishment; of the injury,
partial or entire, in the case of animals, seeds, and plants; even of
death itself, and, besides this, of the dissolution and flux of the
bodies which take place in the grave; lastly, of vicious affections
or sins. Since then the words for “corruption” could be used in so
many ways, Eusebius is justified in stating that Andrew is wrong in
attaching only one meaning to these words.
He confirms his arguments by passages from the Old and New Testament,
from certain select Fathers, Athanasius and the three Gregories
(Thaumaturgus, Theologus, and of Nyssa), Basil of Caesarea, John
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Proclus of Constantinople,[687]
Methodius[688] the holy martyr, and Quadratus,[689] from some of
whose writings Andrew had wrenched and falsified passages and by
explaining them either with deliberate malice or through ignorance,
so as to support his own view, imagined that he was confirming his
own mistaken opinions. But he pays the penalty of all that has
been mentioned to Eusebius, for his tampering with the letter, his
wickedness, and folly, and for putting together certain passages
from heretical writings and venturing to ascribe them to our Holy
Fathers.
From Andrew’s foolish utterances Eusebius also shows that he
is of opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ, not being changed by
resurrection from corruption to incorruption, is equally impassible
in his manhood and divinity; that he dared to call those blasphemers
who thought and said that our Lord Jesus Christ lived on earth
with a mortal and passible body, while he himself is not ashamed,
after His victory over sufferings and the abolition of death and
corruption, monstrously to assert that the body of the Lord is
passible, forgetting that, while insulting the orthodox by calling
them _Phthartolatrae_[690] he himself is clearly convicted of being
_Pathetolatrae_.[691] He then again adds some passages from the
Fathers, and shows that the Lord’s body was passible, mortal, and
consequently corruptible until His glorious resurrection, and that
then by itself it became immortal and impassible. He also shows
that Andrew talks idly in calling the orthodox _Phthartolatrae_,
a name which is fitting and suitable for Arius, Aëtius, Eunomius,
Apollinarius, and Nestorius, but not for orthodox Christians.
Eusebius also lays down the doctrine that our Lord and God, since
He, as the architect of nature, assumed our natural and by no means
reprehensible “passions” (which are not properly called “passions”
but might more fitly be called “works of nature”), was incapable of
taking upon Him “passions” properly so called, originating from vice;
that He ate and drank with His disciples after the Resurrection not
in the same manner as He ate and drank before the Resurrection; in
the latter case He acted according to the law of nature, refreshing
and controlling the perishable flesh by food and drink, in the former
He performed the act supernaturally by way of dispensation, to
inspire the disciples, and through them all the faithful, with the
belief that the body that suffered and was crucified rose again from
the dead, the same and not a different body, although it had been
transformed and had become incorruptible and impassible. Having laid
down these doctrines in a manner acceptable to God, Eusebius finishes
his tenth book. The style is clear, simple, pure, and characterized
by distinctness where it is required.
CLXIII
Read the work of Vindanius Anatolius of Berytus,[692] entitled _A
Collection of Agricultural Precepts_, compiled by him from the works
of Democritus Africanus, Tarantinus, Apuleius, Florentius, Valens,
Leo, and Pamphilus, and the _Paradoxa_ of Diophanes.[693] It is in
twelve volumes, and, as our own experience has shown us in many
instances, is useful for the cultivation of the land and agricultural
works, perhaps the most useful of all treatises on the same subject.
However, it contains some marvellous and incredible tales, full of
Greek fables, which the pious husbandman should pass over while
gathering up what is useful in the rest of the work. All other
writers on agricultural matters, so far as I know, express nearly
the same opinions about the same things and differ little from one
another; where they do, the experience of Leo is to be preferred to
all the rest.
CLXIV
Read the work of Galen[694] _On Medical Schools_. The author,
discussing the schools that have been formed in the medical
profession, declares that the three chief are: the logical, which
he also calls dogmatic and analogistic; the empirical, also called
observant or memorial; the methodical. They differ in the method of
invention and in other respects. The dogmatic physician bases his art
upon the use of methods of reasoning for the discovery of remedies;
the empirical relies upon experiment and observation; the methodical,
while professing to employ both reasoning and experiment, makes no
careful use of either, and is rightly distinguished from the other
two.
The present work is divided into three sections. The first contains
a description of the empiric and dogmatic schools, and sets forth
the nature of each; the second introduces these two schools hotly
discussing their respective claims to superiority; the third
introduces the methodical school quarrelling with the other two, each
of them putting forward its own claims and endeavouring to overthrow
its rival. With this the third book ends.
It is evident that this work should be preferred to all other medical
writings, if one would learn which is the best school to belong to.
But it cannot properly be regarded as a medical work, but rather as a
philosophical introduction to medicine. The diction and composition
are pure and distinct; Galen everywhere pays especial attention to
these qualities, although in many works he confuses and obscures the
meaning of what he has written by overloading his treatises with
unseasonable discourses, digressions, and spun-out periods. These
seem, as it were, to chop up the context, and his tedious nonsense
makes the reader indifferent. The present treatise, however, is free
from these faults.
CLXV
Read the _Declamations_[695] and _Various Discourses_ of Himerius the
sophist.[696] Two of the former are deliberative, and three forensic,
all with introductions. Of the deliberative speeches the first is
supposed to be delivered by Hyperides in support of Demosthenes, the
second by Demosthenes, on behalf of Aeschines. Of the other three,
the first is in the form of an attack on Epicurus, who is supposed
to be on trial for impiety; the second is written against a rich
man who had exhausted the substance of a poor man by his abominable
actions, and introduces the poor man pleading his cause; in the third
Themistocles declaims against the king of Persia, who had made many
promises in the hope of ending the war.[697]
These speeches, more than the others, are written in such a manner as
to show what can be done by excellence of style and brilliancy and
vigour of ideas. The author often heaps up periods,[698] in imitation
of Demosthenes, in a variety of forms; although he specially affects
an elevated style, he cleverly modifies his language by introducing
other forms. His diction, at least in the matter of phraseology
and the meaning and the force of words, is by no means wanting in
perspicuity. The frequent breaking up of words sounds strange to
the ear but is not disagreeable, although it renders the sense
less intelligible to the ordinary reader. Another reason for the
author’s general clearness of style is that he uses expressions that
make for distinctness. As I have said, he uses heaped-up periods
in argumentation[699] and at other times, but by illuminating them
by vigorous[700] figures of speech he clears his language of any
obscurity that might arise from them. He makes frequent and clever
use of hyperbaton[701] and other figures of speech, although not to
the same extent as of periods. He is vehement and earnestly vigorous
where needed. Such he shows himself in the speeches mentioned.
Next to these speeches comes the _Polemarchicus_, a eulogy of those
who fell in battle fighting for freedom against the Persians, and
also in praise of war; the _Areopagiticus_, claiming citizenship
for his son Rufinus, not a fictitious declamation; a monody on
the death of the same son; on the marriage of his friend Severus,
also obviously not fictitious, with an introduction; _Diogenes_
or _Propempticus_,[702] a send-off speech, also furnished
with an introduction, and written in the form of a dialogue;
_Syntacterius_, a farewell speech to his friends on starting for
Corinth; a _Propempterius_ to Flavian, on his promotion to the
consulship of Asia; to a new student named Piso; another Diogenes
or _Propempticus_; an impromptu[703] on a dispute which arose in
the school; on the arrival of some Cyprians; on his first hearer
from Cappadocia; a show-speech,[704] which he at first refused to
deliver when asked, in which the thesis “Beautiful things are rare”
is discussed; on Musonius, proconsul of Greece; on the new pupil
Severus, who came on the scene during the scuffle;[705] a short
address;[706] on count Ursacius; on another Severus; on Scylacius,
proconsul of Greece; on some new pupils, Ephesians and Mysians and
citizens of Leon;[707] on companions from his fatherland; on count
Athenaeus; on the Roman Privatus, tutor of the son of Ampelius
the proconsul; on his return from Corinth; on Phoebus the son of
Alexander the proconsul; on count Arcadius a physician. Hortatory
speech to his pupils just arrived and a _propemptic_ to Flavian; on
the marriage of Panathenaeus; two short addresses; a discourse[708]
when leaving Philippi in obedience to a summons from the emperor
Julian; an oration delivered in Constantinople on the city itself,
the emperor Julian, and the rites of Mithras; a discourse on the
prefect Sallust, with an argument; on the proconsul Flavian; on
his friend’s birthday; short address on his friend’s recovery; on
intriguers; on Basil the proconsul (two); on Hermogenes, Plocianus,
Ampelius, Praetextatus, proconsuls of Greece, and their companions;
on his departure to the emperor Julian; speech delivered in Nicomedia
at the exhortation of Pompeianus the prefect; a speech on the new
students; on a new student; on his companion Zeno; on Aphobinus,
a new student; on one who entered the school in consequence of an
oracle of Poseidon; on those who had arrived from Ionia; on the
Ionian strangers; an extempore oration to his hearers; a speech in
honour of a friend in Constantinople; a discussion with his pupils
after his return from his country; an extempore oration on his
(poor) lecture-room; rebuke of those who listened indifferently to
speeches; an extempore speech on some who attended his lectures and
were inclined to be restive; on Cytianus and his companions who
behaved in a disorderly manner when he was speaking extempore;
exhortation on the necessity of endeavouring to secure variety in
discourse; discussion after the healing of his wound;[709] a speech
after his return from Corinth; on the stylus (pencil) and his pupils;
on Amyclae, a city of the Lacedaemonians, which, in obedience to a
dream, he visited to offer prayer to the God; that lectures should
not be delivered in public; speech on the necessity of taking
exercise; another speech delivered at Corinth.[710]
I think that these are all the orations of Himerius, nearly seventy
in number, which you patiently and laboriously read while I was
present. In all of them, while preserving the same type of diction
and the same kind of style, he uses heaped-up periods and figures
of speech in such a manner that a feeling of satiety is prevented
by their cleverness and the way in which they are adapted. So far
as I know, I am of opinion that no one has ever used figures of
speech so admirably or pleasantly. His writings are full of all
kinds of historical and mythical examples, either for purposes of
demonstration, or for drawing parallels, or for affording pleasure,
or for the embellishment of the subjects discussed, by which he
guides aright and diversifies his language, and by which his exordia,
epilogues, and arguments are constructed. He also often gives a
preliminary outline of the matter and manner of the discussion. But
while such is the character of his orations, it is obvious that he
held impious views on religion and imitates the dogs who yelp against
us in secret. He flourished in the time of Constantius and the most
impious Julian, and was head of the rhetorical school at Athens.
FOOTNOTES:
[6] For the life and works of Photius _see_ Introduction to vol. vi.
[7] The genuineness of this title is disputed.
[8] To the caliph of Bagdad; according to others, to Persia, or one
of the Eastern emirs (Bury).
[9] πρεσβεία cannot mean “senate,” as Schott renders it (senatus),
but is probably “the body constituting the embassy,” a number of
others nominated for the mission, to whom Photius was _persona
grata_, and who expressed a wish that he should accompany them. This
explanation is due to the kindness of Professor J. B. Bury.
[10] The text is corrupt.
[11] These sections are usually alluded to as _Codices_
(manuscripts). _Codices_ were originally wooden tablets (_caudex_,
_codex_, a block or slab of wood) coated with wax and divided into
“leaves,” which, when wood was superseded by parchment or other
writing materials, developed into the book, as contrasted with the
roll-form (_volumen_) of MSS.
[12] Nothing further is known of his life or writings.
[13] The famous ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius bishop of Caesarea
(_c._ 260-340), who assumed as his surname the name of his intimate
friend, literary adviser and assistant, Pamphilus, presbyter of
Caesarea, and martyr (309).
[14] xvii.
[15] Bishop of Antioch (_c._ 70-107).
[16] These mystical treatises, ascribed to “Dionysius the
Areopagite,” were at one time supposed to be the work of the
Dionysius mentioned in the _Acts_, who was subsequently identified
by some with St. Denis, the first bishop of Paris and the patron
saint of France. But it is now generally agreed that they were
written about the end of the fifth century, when the writings of the
neo-Platonist Proclus exercised great influence, and that the name is
an assumed one.
[17] This treatise, probably written by a Greek-speaking Syrian
monk, who flourished about 425, is hardly an introduction to the
study of the Scriptures in the modern sense. It is rather an aid
to the correct understanding of the language of the Bible, dealing
with questions of meaning, style, composition and metaphors, and
concluding with some rules of interpretation (_see_ edition, with
translation and commentary, by F. Goessling, Berlin, 1887).
[18] Nothing further is known of him.
[19] The Homerites (Himyarites) of the Yemen.
[20] The name points to the family being of Semitic origin, although
he was probably a convert to Christianity.
[21] Al-Mundir, chief of the Saracens of Hira.
[22] Modern _Axum_, now the capital of the Abyssinian province of
Tigré. It contains numerous antiquities and inscriptions, and is
still regarded as a holy city. Christianity was introduced into
Aethiopia as early as the fourth century (_see_ J. T. Bent, _The
Sacred City of the Ethiopians_, 1893).
[23] Further particulars of the mission are given in the _Chronicle_
of John Malalas, and in Gibbon, ch. xli.
[24] The form of the word is doubtful.
[25] Mountainous districts in Anterior Asia and the land of the
Saracens.
[26] A seaport town, generally identified with modern Thulla or Zula
in Annesley Bay on the W. shore of the Red Sea.
[27] Town in Aethiopia.
[28] The Pygmies.
[29] Theodore (_c._ 350-428), bishop of Mopsuestia (394) in Cilicia,
born at Antioch, the greatest exegete of the Antiochean school. He
also wrote polemical, dogmatic, and liturgical treatises.
[30] Eunomius (d. 393) of Cappadocia, bishop of Cyzicus, deprived of
his episcopate for Arianism.
[31] St. Basil the Great (330-379), bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia
(370). He is most important as the strenuous upholder of orthodoxy
and as the introducer of definite rules and forms of ecclesiastical
life, which have maintained themselves to the present day.
[32] Probably the friend of St. Jerome and translator of his works.
[33] Ἀσύνδετος, lit., “without conjunctions.”
[34] (332-396). Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia (372), younger brother
of Basil the Great, called Father of the Fathers.
[35] The special meaning of an “enthymeme” is a rhetorical or
imperfect syllogism, drawn from probable premises. But here and
elsewhere in Photius it seems to mean simply “arguments.”
[36] Surnamed Adamantius (184-253), born at Alexandria, died at
Tyre. This treatise supplied the chief arguments for the charge of
heresy that was brought against him. He was also called Chalcenterus
(“brazen-bowelled”) from his passion for work. His numerous works
comprise Homilies, and the famous treatise _Against Celsus_.
Fragments of his _Hexapla_ (a recension of the Old Testament) have
been preserved.
[37] Only ten are extant.
[38] Both these works are lost.
[39] Also spelt Apolinaris, Apollinaris, or Apollinarius, flourished
about 175. His gentile name was Claudius.
[40] In Lesser Phrygia.
[41] The well-known author of the _Meditations_, commonly known as
Marcus Aurelius.
[42] Of Nicaea (325).
[43] Of Cyzicus, flourished about 475. Nothing more is known of him
than what he states in the work itself, which is still extant.
[44] Of Ephesus (431).
[45] Archbishop of Alexandria (412-444).
[46] Patriarch of Constantinople (428-431), deprived of his office by
the council of Ephesus on account of his heresy.
[47] Of Chalcedon (451).
[48] Bishop of Alexandria (444-451).
[49] Founder of the sect of the Monophysites (380-456).
[50] Bishop of Constantinople (447-449).
[51] Bishop of Dorylaeum (mod. _Eski Shehr_) in Phrygia (400-451).
[52] Bishop of Cyrrhus (Cyrus) near the Euphrates, two days’ journey
from Antioch, theologian and ecclesiastical historian (_c._ 393-458).
[53] Bishop of Edessa (_c._ 435-457).
[54] Of Constantinople (553).
[55] The writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; of Theodoret in defence
of Nestorius; the letter of Ibas to the Persian Maris.
[56] Founder of the exegetical school of Antioch, bishop of Tarsus
(378-394).
[57] A Monophysite Syrian monk.
[58] Anthimus, patriarch of Constantinople (535, deposed 536),
translated from the episcopate of Trapezus through the influence of
the empress Theodora.
[59] Of Constantinople (680).
[60] Patriarch of Constantinople (610-638).
[61] Bishop of Phasis, afterwards patriarch of Alexandria (630-641).
[62] Friend and successor of Sergius as patriarch of Constantinople
(638-641).
[63] Pope (625-638).
[64] Monothelite presbyter and monk.
[65] The second council of Nicaea (787).
[66] Of Alexandria, theologian, grammarian, and philosopher,
flourished in the first half of the sixth century. His chief work (of
which considerable fragments remain), called _The Arbitrator_, was an
attempt to reconcile Monophysitism and Tritheism. Photius (Cod. LV,
LXXV) mentions two other theological treatises. _On the Resurrection_
is lost. Some fragments of notes on Aristotle are preserved. He was
called Philoponus from his great industry; his opponents changed this
into Mataioponus (vainly industrious).
[67] A fifth-century monk, of whom nothing is known.
[68] Bishop of Tarsus (_c._ 600).
[69] A Cilician bishop in the second half of the sixth century.
[70] Deacon of Alexandria (sixth century), leader of the _Agnoetae_
(a Monophysitic sect), who held that the human soul of Christ
resembled that of man in all things, even in his “ignorance” or
limited knowledge.
[71] John III Scholasticus (the lawyer), bishop of Constantinople
(565-577). He was the author of a _Nomocanon_, a digest of canonical
law.
[72] Justin II (emperor 565-578).
[73] Paul the Black, “Jacobite” patriarch of Antioch (_c._ 550-578).
[74] “Jacobite” bishop of Cyprus.
[75] They partly accepted, and partly rejected, the decisions of the
council of Chalcedon.
[76] Monophysite patriarch of Antioch (512-519).
[77] John the Golden-mouthed (347-407), bishop of Constantinople.
[78] Neo-Platonist and bishop of Ptolemaïs in Cyrenaica (378-431).
The speech _On the Kingdom_ was delivered at Constantinople before
the emperor Arcadius.
[79] Also called _Egyptian Discourses_, a sort of historical romance,
in which there are allusions to the history of the time, disguised as
the mythical stories of Osiris and Typhon.
[80] Perhaps “massive” might express the idea of ὄγκος.
[81] Or “shrewd.”
[82] 385-412.
[83] Socrates of Constantinople (_c._ 380-439), originally a lawyer.
[84] Emperor 408-450.
[85] The Greek γραμματικός is equivalent to “a literary man”
generally, with special reference to the study of poetry. The same
idea appears in γραμματική (grammar). Ammonius and Helladius had fled
for refuge to Constantinople, where they taught Socrates.
[86] About 536-600. He was an advocate (Scholasticus).
[87] That is, it covers the period from 431 to 593.
[88] He was born near Gaza in Palestine, and afterwards settled in
Constantinople (_c._ 400-450).
[89] It originally covered the period from 324 to 439, but the
history of 425-439 is wanting.
[90] _See_ Cod. XVII.
[91] The first council of Constantinople (381).
[92] Of Mopsuestia (_see_ Cod. IV.).
[93] (296-373). Patriarch of Alexandria, the father of orthodoxy and
the chief opponent of Arianism.
[94] He was accused of cowardice by the Arians for taking refuge in
the desert.
[95] Contemporary of Josephus, by whom his character and works are
violently attacked. He was condemned to death by Vespasian, but his
life was spared by Agrippa. He also wrote a history of the Jewish war.
[96] The Greek phrase is βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασι, usually
translated “crowned kings,” but στέμμα more probably here means a
genealogical tree.
[97] Agrippa II, before whom St. Paul made his defence. The statement
that he died in the third year of Trajan’s reign (100) is objected to
on the ground that Josephus’ _Autobiography_, which gives an account
of Justus, was published immediately after the _Antiquities_ (in the
reign of Domitian).
[98] Julius Africanus (_c._ 170-240), Christian historical writer,
was born at Jerusalem (not in Africa) and subsequently lived at
Emmaus-Nicopolis in Palestine. He was the author of a _Chronicle_, a
history of the world from the Creation to 221; _Cesti_ (embroidered
girdles), a collection of notes on all kinds of subjects; a letter
to Aristides on the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke; and
a letter to Origen to show that the _History of Susannah_ in the
Apocrypha is a later addition from a Greek original. The last has
been preserved in full, of the three first only fragments. According
to his system of chronology, called the Alexandrian era, there were
5499 years between the Creation and the birth of Christ, which he
antedated by three years.
[99] The correct number is twenty-four.
[100] Emperor 217-218. An extract in Georgius Syncellus, however,
shows that the _Chronicle_ really went down a little later.
[101] “Where didst thou see them?” “Under a mastic tree (σχῖνος).”
“The angel of God shall cleave (σχίσει) thy soul to-day.” “Under
a holm-tree (πρῖνος).” “The angel of God shall saw thee in two
(πρίσει).”
[102] Nothing is known of him.
[103] Philip of Side in Pamphylia (fifth century). He was a presbyter
in Constantinople, and a friend of John Chrysostom.
[104] It originally contained thirty-six books and nearly one
thousand volumes.
[105] They were both presbyters.
[106] Cosmas Indicopleustes (“the Indian navigator”), an Alexandrian
merchant, who flourished in the sixth century. He visited Arabia and
East Africa, but it is doubtful whether he deserves the title of
“Indian navigator.” The title by which the work is usually known is
_Christian Topography_; as its object was to introduce a new system
of physical geography in harmony with the teaching of Christianity,
a physico-astronomical interpretation of the Scriptures, Photius
gives it the subtitle of _Interpretation of the Octateuch_. Fabricius
(_Bib. Gr._, iv. 230) takes it to mean simply “a treatise in eight
books,” regarding the four other books as a later addition, or it may
refer to the “eight books” of Ptolemy’s geographical work. Photius
says he flourished under “Justin,” but as he does not state which
Justin, perhaps “Justinian” (527-565) should be read. He certainly
may have been born under Justin I (518-527) and died under Justin II
(565-578).
[107] Before the earth was regarded as spherical, its surface was
supposed to “slope” (κλίνω) from S. to N., and this slope was called
κλίμα. Later, the word was used for belts or zones of its surface,
and then for the temperature of those zones. According to Cosmas, the
two “climates” were between the latitudes of Alexandria and Rhodes,
and Rhodes and Constantinople (about 635 miles).
[108] Isaiah xxxviii.
[109] There seems no reason to identify this with the treatise of
Περὶ πολιτικῆς καταστάσεως of Peter Patricius (sixth century),
Byzantine historian. There is no clue to the author.
[110] Master of requests, a sort of lord-in-waiting; also a Church
dignitary, an intermediary between the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities.
[111] _See_ Cod. IV.
[112] Hierocles of Caria, Roman proconsul, a violent anti-Christian,
lived in the time of Diocletian (emperor 284-305). The work referred
to is _Truth-loving Words to the Christians_, in which Apollonius of
Tyana is placed above Christ.
[113] Of Tyana in Cappadocia (_c._ 4 B.C.-A.D. 97), magician and
wonder-worker.
[114] Of Borissus in Cappadocia, born _c._ 368, died after 425. The
history covered the period from 300 to 425. He supported the extreme
Arianism of Eunomius. A considerable number of extracts (also from
Photius) have been published as a separate work.
[115] Aëtius of Antioch, founder of an extreme Arian sect, died at
Constantinople (367). He was exiled by Constantius, but recalled by
Julian the Apostate.
[116] Patriarch of Constantinople (_d._ 342), supporter of Arianism
and a bitter opponent of Athanasius.
[117] Bishop of the Church of Aethiopia (358). He was born in the
island of Diu (India), but in early youth was taken as a hostage to
Constantinople, where he became a Christian (Arian).
[118] Surnamed the One-Eyed, succeeded Eusebius (whose pupil and
biographer he was) as bishop of Caesarea in 340 and died in 365.
[119] Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), bishop of Constantinople.
[120] Presbyter of Aegae in Cilicia, flourished in the latter half of
the fifth century. In Cod. LV. Photius calls him a Nestorian, but it
is suggested that this is a mistake for Eutychian.
[121] Surnamed the Fuller, patriarch of Antioch (471-488).
[122] 431.
[123] 449.
[124] (_c._ 500). Presbyter of Antioch, afterwards bishop of
Irenopolis in Cilicia (_see_ Cod. CVII.).
[125] 468-483.
[126] Patriarch of Constantinople (471-489).
[127] The “Stammerer,” Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria (482).
[128] The work therefore covers the period from 450-527.
[129] The Six Days’ Work of the Creation.
[130] There were three sophists of this name belonging to a Lemnian
family: (1) who lived in the second century; (2) son of (1), who
lived first at Athens, then at Rome and in the time of Philip
the Arab (244-249); (3) nephew of (1), who lived in the time of
Caracalla and Elagabalus. The _Life of Apollonius_ is by (2), Flavius
Philostratus, who wrote it at the desire of the empress Julia Domna,
wife of Septimius Severus (died 217).
[131] The surname _Tyrius_ is probably due to a confusion of Τύριος
with Στειριεύς (of the Athenian deme Stiria), or Photius has wrongly
identified him with the lexicographer Philostratus of Tyre (Cod. CL.).
[132] The naked ones, the Gymnosophists.
[133] The Epicurean maxim, Λάθε βιώσας, εἰ δὲ μή, Λάθε ἀποθανών.
[134] Or, “those possessed of large means.”
[135] 570-526 B.C.
[136] A sort of hobgoblin or ghoul, supposed to devour human beings.
[137] Of Lycia. Perhaps the Cynic who lived in Lucian’s time.
[138] Cynic philosopher of Sunium, who taught at Rome under the
emperors Gaius, Nero, and Vespasian. He is said to have met
Apollonius in Athens, but considering that his philosophical views
were opposed to those of Apollonius, the account of the intimacy is
probably untrue. Demetrius had to leave Rome because of the freedom
with which he attacked the emperor and the authorities.
[139] Of Nineveh, pupil and companion of Apollonius, the reputed
author of the life which formed the basis of Philostratus’s romance.
He is said to have handed over the MS. to the empress Julia Domna,
who ordered Philostratus to edit it.
[140] Nothing is known of him.
[141] Variously ascribed to Theodoret, Athanasius, and Eutherius,
bishop of Tyana.
[142] Unless γραφικώτερον means simply “more picturesquely,” “more
vigorously.”
[143] Οἰκονομία in the Greek.
[144] It is in the form of a dialogue between a representative of
orthodoxy (Theodoret) and a representative of Monophysitism, compared
to a beggar who gathers scraps of all kinds from earlier heretical
writings.
[145] The well-known historian (37-98), “the Greek Livy.” The _Wars_
was originally written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek.
His other extant works are: _Jewish Antiquities_, _Autobiography_, a
polemical treatise _Against Apion_.
[146] In Galilee.
[147] A Judaean stronghold (mod. _Sebbeh_).
[148] The Zealots and Sicarii (assassins) constituted the fanatical
anti-Roman Jewish war party, whose desire was to drive out the Romans
and all who favoured them. They did not shrink from murder, and
carried small daggers (sicae) to stab those whom they considered the
enemies of their country.
[149] The author is most probably Hippolytus of Rome, born in the
middle of the second century, died soon after 235.
[150] Platonic philosopher, flourished in the first or second century
A.D.
[151] Lived at the beginning of the third century A.D.
[152] Others ascribe this also to Hippolytus. It is a question
whether it is identical with _The Little Labyrinth_ mentioned by
Theodoret.
[153] The founder of the sect was Montanus of Phrygia (latter half
of the second century). He was a priest of Cybele, subsequently
converted to Christianity and a teacher at Rome. According to his
followers, he was the Paraclete or Holy Spirit promised by Christ.
Amongst other things they distinguished two classes of sins, those
unto death and those not unto death; denied the validity of second
marriages; did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory
of Christ’s death for mankind; despised the old prophets as possessed
by evil spirits; and favoured a highly ascetic life. “All the
ascetic, rigorous, and chiliastic elements of the Church combined in
Montanism.”
[154] 189-202.
[155] 202-217.
[156] Second and third century, Adoptianist, Monarchian or
anti-Trinitarian. His views were subsequently developed by Paul of
Samosata (flourished 260-272). This work is probably identical with
_The Labyrinth_.
[157] Possibly the author of a treatise _Ridicule of the Heathen
Philosophers_, but the time at which he lived is disputed.
[158] Flourished _c._ 600.
[159] Nothing is known of him. It is suggested that he may have been
the Hesychius who accused Eunomius of heresy.
[160] In Pamphylia (383).
[161] Both names mean “those who pray,” the first being Syriac, the
second Greek. They believed that perpetual prayer and asceticism
would procure inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
[162] From Adelphius, one of the first leaders of the sect.
[163] In Mesopotamia.
[164] Of Melitene in Lesser Armenia.
[165] Bishop of Perga.
[166] 431.
[167] A Messalian leader, almost as important as Adelphius. His
followers were called Lampetians.
[168] On the borders of Egypt and Palestine.
[169] 412 or 411.
[170] If _Faustus_ be taken with Honorius, it will be an epithet
corresponding to Felix; others render “in the great church of
Faustus.”
[171] _c._ 370-440. According to some, he was a Hibernian; according
to others, a Welsh monk named Morgan (“sea-born” = Pelagius). He
resided in Rome, Africa, and Palestine, where he is said to have
died. The Pelagians rejected the doctrine of original sin, but
believed in the Trinity and the personality of Christ.
[172] Coelestius, a native of Ireland, pupil of Pelagius, younger and
more vigorous than his master. It is to him that the influence of
Pelagianism was chiefly due. Some authorities make him an Italian.
[173] There were two holy women of this name: the elder (350-410),
and the younger (383-439). The latter is here referred to. She was
born at Rome, but early in life retired to Hippo in Africa, where she
became acquainted with St. Augustine, and afterwards to Jerusalem,
where she embraced the monastic life and died.
[174] Patriarch of Constantinople (434-447).
[175] Bekker states that this paragraph is an addition by a later
hand.
[176] Leo the “Great,” pope 440-461.
[177] 422-432.
[178] St. Jerome.
[179] Supposed to have been a Roman, to whom Jerome wrote from
Palestine, in reply to his request for advice concerning Pelagianism.
[180] Archbishop of Alexandria (412-444).
[181] 385-412.
[182] 402-417.
[183] At Diospolis, the ancient Lydda (415).
[184] Or rather Heros, bishop of Arles.
[185] Bishop of Aix.
[186] Bishop of Altinum (mod. _Altino_) near Venice.
[187] Prosper of Aquitaine (403-463). He was the author of two or
three valuable _Chronicles_ and a number of theological works.
[188] 431.
[189] Afterwards bishop of Nola.
[190] 492-496.
[191] Bishop of Eclana, near Beneventum, a Pelagian leader (fifth
century).
[192] 451.
[193] If this is not somewhat ungrammatically for τὸν ἄνθρωπον, the
sense may be general, “to a man,” _i.e._ a person would not feel
injured if the point on which he laid most stress were conceded.
[194] Cod. XLI. But he is obviously a Eutychian, not a Nestorian,
unless the mistake is in Cod. XLI., some other John being really the
author.
[195] Magus (_see_ Acts viii.).
[196] Count of the domestics (captain of the palace guards), consul
453.
[197] Of Alexandria, lived at Rome during the reigns of Trajan,
Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius (between 98-161). Of the twenty-four
books of the _Roman History_, which Photius had before him, only
eleven (besides the Preface) are completely preserved; the others are
entirely lost, or only fragments.
[198] Usually known as Tullus Hostilius.
[199] Usually known as Tarquinius Superbus.
[200] The most important were the three following: 343-341; 326-304,
in which the disaster of the Caudine Forks befell the Romans;
298-290, in which the Samnites suffered a decisive defeat at Sentinum
(295).
[201] Attempts to identify these people have proved unsatisfactory.
The name is variously derived from _ab origine_, the primeval
inhabitants, children of the soil = Gk. αὐτόχθονες; from _aberrare_,
the nomads; or from βορείγενοι, mountain-dwellers.
[202] By the god Mars.
[203] Remus.
[204] One MS. has an enlarged paragraph: “for, detesting their
unknown father, they rather prided themselves on descent from Aeneas.”
[205] The Greek word οἰκιστής (oekist) denotes the founder of a
colony and head of a band of colonists.
[206] Probably of Egypt. Others render: “He was thought worthy of the
management of the affairs of the emperors.”
[207] Flavius Arrianus, flourished during the latter half of the
second century A.D., and died before 180. He was born at Nicomedia
in Bithynia, studied philosophy under Epictetus and distinguished
himself as a soldier. He was appointed governor of Cappadocia in 136,
and consul in 146. He spent the rest of his life in his native city,
where he held the lifelong office of priest of Demeter and Korē. In
addition to the works here mentioned, he was the author of: _A Voyage
round the Euxine_, a treatise on _Tactics_, the _Order of Battle
against the Alani_ (defeated by him while governor of Cappadocia), on
the _Chase_, and an account of _India_, perhaps a continuation of the
_Anabasis_ (the account of Alexander’s campaigns), so named after the
_Anabasis_ of his model Xenophon.
[208] Of which the _Order of Battle against the Alani_, referred to
above, is a section.
[209] _Rebellantibus_ in the Latin versions of Schott and Müller
(_Frag. Hist. Gr._ iii. 586). But can καταστραφέντων mean this? The
more natural rendering would seem to be: “which had long been under
the yoke of Macedonia, the Persians having been subdued at the same
time,” _i.e._ by the Seleucids.
[210] Antiochus II (king 261-246 B.C.).
[211] Of Hierapolis in Phrygia (_c._ A.D. 60-140), Stoic philosopher.
[212] The synod (403) “at the Oak,” an estate near Chalcedon, on the
opposite side of the Bosporus to Constantinople, belonging to the
imperial prefect Rufinus. _See_ Hefele, _Conziliengeschichte_ (Eng.
tr.).
[213] Αὐτοπαραχρήτους. Another reading is αὐτοπαρακλήτους,
“self-invited.”
[214] _See_ CXXII.
[215] Monastic officials, who had each ten monks under their
control. The name was also given to the _Copiatae_ or _Fossarii_
(grave-diggers, undertakers), who had to bury the poor for nothing.
[216] Μαφόριον, a covering for the head, cowl, hood, especially for
females. As used by monks, it may possibly be identical with the
scapular. Another reading is ὠμοφόριον, shoulder-cape (the Latin
_pallium_).
[217] Chrysostom advised the communicants to eat a lozenge (or little
cake) to avoid spitting out any of the sacrament.
[218] The word omitted is ἐκπιγγάτους, the meaning of which the
translator has been unable to discover. Ducange explains it by
_Conciliabulum_ as specially used of the synod of the Oak.
[219] Of Halicarnassus (_c._ 484-424 B.C.), the so-called “father of
history.” His history, in nine books, each named after one of the
Muses, gives an account of the Persian wars from the reign of Cyrus
down to the battle of Mycale in the reign of Xerxes, a period of 126
years. It also contains digressions on the early history and manners
and customs of different Peoples. It is curious that Photius has not
devoted more attention to him.
[220] _See_ LXX.
[221] To an assembly of the Greeks at Olympia.
[222] Attic orator (_c._ 390-314 B.C.), rival of Demosthenes. He
had a varied career as secretary, third-rate actor, orator, and
statesman. At first an opponent of Philip of Macedon, he was induced
by bribery to favour his cause. After his unsuccessful attack on
Ctesiphon for proposing to bestow a crown on Demosthenes for his
public services, he retired, first to Ephesus, then to Rhodes, and
lastly to Samos, where he died. The three speeches have come down to
us; the letters are lost.
[223] Caecilius Calactinus (from Kalē Aktē in Sicily), Greek
rhetorician, flourished at Rome in the time of Augustus. He wrote a
number of rhetorical, grammatical, and historical works, the chief
being _On the Character of the Ten_ (Attic) _Orators_, but none of
them has come down to us.
[224] To Philip of Macedon.
[225] As secretary. Eubulus was a distinguished financier, and a
bitter opponent of Demosthenes.
[226] The text is corrupt here. The sense required is given in the
translation.
[227] According to his own account, he was of good family.
[228] The only Antalcidas appears to be the author of the humiliating
peace with Persia (387 B.C.), who is not famous as a rhetorician or
teacher. Suidas says that Aeschines was a pupil of Alcidamas of Elaea
(in Aeolis in Asia Minor), a pupil of Gorgias.
[229] The word πλάσματα perhaps refers here to the “moulded form” of
style, not, as above, to imaginary, fictitious speeches.
[230] Of Miletus. He lived in the time of the emperor Hadrian.
[231] Pupil of Socrates. He spent some time at the court of Dionysius
the Younger of Syracuse, and then settled in Athens and wrote
speeches for the law-courts. He also composed a number of Socratic
dialogues, of which seven were supposed to be genuine. The three that
pass under his name and some letters are certainly not by him.
[232] Flourished in the fourth century B.C. Both works mentioned by
Photius are entirely lost.
[233] Should be Maximian (Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus).
[234] Should also be Maximian (Galerius Valerius Maximianus).
[235] Galerius.
[236] Valerius.
[237] Should be Maxentius.
[238] Valerius Maximinus called Daza or Daia, emperor 311-314.
[239] Of Caesarea in Palestine, died some time after 562. In addition
to the eight books of _The Wars_ he was the author of a description
of _The Buildings_ erected by Justinian, and of an _Anecdota_ or
_Chronique Scandaleuse_ attacking the private life of Justinian
and his notorious wife Theodora. The genuineness of the last has
been disputed. In style Procopius is an imitator of Herodotus and
Thucydides. The title “rhetorician” given him by Photius better suits
Procopius of Gaza, a Christian teacher of rhetoric (465-528). For the
history of the period, _see_ Gibbon, ch. 40; J. B. Bury, _Later Roman
Empire_; T. Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_; G. Rawlinson, _The
Seventh Oriental Monarchy_.
[240] Also Kobad or Kavadh.
[241] Also Balash. According to some, he was the brother, according
to others the uncle of Cabades. Authorities differ as to whether he
died a natural death; if so, Procopius and others have confused him
with Cabades’s brother Zamasp.
[242] The Sea of Azov.
[243] On condition of a sum of money being paid to him.
[244] He was afraid that, as Justin had no natural son, an adopted
son might claim to be his heir and successor.
[245] Or Mebodes.
[246] Some take this to be a proper name, others the title of the
commander-in-chief of the Persian army.
[247] 11,000 pounds of gold, about £500,000.
[248] A Persian title.
[249] The Nika sedition (532).
[250] Or Molatzes.
[251] Apamea was supposed to be the possessor of a fragment of the
true cross.
[252] Usually known as Abgar(us), probably a title. The Abgar here
referred to ruled from 4 B.C. to A.D. 50, with an interval during
which he was deposed. It is said that he wrote a letter to Christ
begging Him to cure him of a disease. Christ promised to send one of
His disciples after His ascension, and Thaddeus was sent by Thomas,
by whom Abgar was cured.
[253] Or Gunazes.
[254] He had established a monopoly of corn and salt.
[255] There are several variants of this name.
[256] Nothing is known of the author. His history treated of the
events of 566-581, containing the reigns of Justin II and Tiberius
II. It would seem, from what Photius says, that he gave an account
of certain happenings in the reign of Justinian, and also continued
the history somewhat later in a supplement to the ten books into
the reign of Maurice. The fragment here given is important for the
account of the introduction of silkworm breeding into Constantinople
during the reign of Justinian, and for the first mention of the
Turks (_see_ Gibbon, ch. 45; J. B. Bury, _Later Roman Empire_; G.
Rawlinson, _The Seventh Oriental Monarchy_). This Theophanes is not
to be confused with Theophanes the Isaurian (758-818), whose extant
chronicle begins with the accession of Diocletian (277) and goes down
to 811 (end of the reign of Michael I Rhangabe).
[257] China.
[258] The “long-lived.”
[259] Apparently here a proper name, not a title.
[260] Probably the same as the Dilimnitae.
[261] Theophylactus Simocatta. The _Histories_ or _Oecumenical
History_ contains the reign of the emperor Maurice (582-604), and
is the oldest and best authority for the period. The complete work
is extant. Simocatta was also the author of a treatise on certain
problems of natural history and their solution, and of a collection
of rhetorical exercises in the form of letters on various subjects.
As Photius says, his style is extremely far-fetched. He has been
described as a representative of Byzantine euphuism. For the history
_see_ Gibbon, ch. 45, 46; J. B. Bury, _Later Roman Empire_; G.
Rawlinson, _The Seventh Oriental Monarchy_.
[262] The name given to the princes of the Avars and other Turkish
tribes.
[263] Or Bucolabra.
[264] The holy ointment or oil which trickled from the bones of the
martyr, ceased to flow when the basin into which it dripped was
exchanged for another one by the bishop of Heraclea.
[265] Paulinus was crucified and his son’s head cut off.
[266] More probably a Persian title, not a proper name.
[267] Others take the word to mean the image. Elifredas (or
Ilifredas) = Wilfrid.
[268] The province of Africa.
[269] The Moors.
[270] Bahram or Varahran.
[271] Major-domo of the imperial palace.
[272] Also Zadesprates.
[273] A celebrated martyr of the Eastern Church who suffered at
Sergiopolis or Rasaphe in Syria at the beginning of the fourth
century. He and another martyr named Bacchus were considered the
patron saints of Syria.
[274] Singidon or Singidunum, modern Belgrade.
[275] Leader of the Slovenes, who were under the sway of the Avars.
[276] One of Priscus’s generals.
[277] He was a physician.
[278] 582-595. Of humble origin, he was distinguished for his piety
and asceticism, but was a man of cruel disposition. His assumption of
the title of “ecumenical patriarch” led to trouble with Pelagius II
and Gregory I, bishops of Rome. Four extant works are attributed to
him.
[279] Name given to the princes or chiefs of the Slovenes and other
tribes.
[280] Also Guduis or Gudwin.
[281] Of Byzantium.
[282] Geographer and historian, grammarian and philosopher,
flourished during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181-146), but
was still living after 131. He wrote on the history of Europe and
Asia, and the geography of the Red Sea. Fragments of the history are
preserved, and Photius gives excerpts from the geography in Cod. CCL.
[283] He purposely mutilated his hand.
[284] Deme (δῆμος, people) was the name by which the circus factions
were known, their leaders being called demarchs.
[285] Prefect of the city, who built the church by order of
Theodosius II, emperor 408-450.
[286] The Field of Mars near Constantinople. Some authorities place
it at Blachernae, others on the Propontis (Sea of Marmora).
[287] 806-815. He began his career as a civilian, and although a
layman, was chosen patriarch. His conciliatory disposition brought
upon him the hatred of the extremists. During the campaign of Leo
against image-worship, he energetically defended the orthodox view.
He was finally deposed and banished. In addition to the historical
epitome of events from 602-769 here referred to, he was the author
of tables of Universal History from Adam to the death of Nicephorus
(829), much used by the Byzantines, and of three _Antirrhetici_,
written against the iconoclasts.
[288] The work is lost. The name Confessor and the epithets applied
to the acts of Copronymus show that Sergius was an opponent of the
iconoclasts and a champion of orthodoxy. He is perhaps the Sergius
exiled by Leo III.
[289] Michael II Balbus, the Stammerer (820-829).
[290] “Man of Dung,” Constantine V (741-775). An inflexible opponent
of image-worship, he was violently assailed by the orthodox, but was
in reality a most capable ruler.
[291] Flourished in the reign of Hadrian (117-138). Some fragments
have been preserved in Eusebius and some of the Byzantine chroniclers
(_e.g._ John Malalas, Syncellus).
[292] The mythical founder and foundress of Nineveh.
[293] Lived during the reign of Justinian. He was the author of a
History of the World down to the death of Anastasius (518), of which
part relating to the early history of Constantinople is preserved; of
works on Justin and the beginning of the reign of Justinian; of an
_Onomatologos_ (list) of famous literary persons, a general history
of ancient literature. _Illustrius_ is a designation of rank.
[294] The reading is uncertain here.
[295] 508-505 B.C.
[296] 52-49 B.C.
[297] Byzantium was made the capital of the empire by Constantine,
and its name changed to Constantinopolis in A.D. 330.
[298] A period of 15 years, instituted by Constantine the Great in
313 for fiscal purposes, afterwards adopted as a convenient method of
chronology generally. To find the year of the indiction, add 3 to any
date of our era, divide by 15, and the remainder is the indiction, or
if there is no remainder, the indiction is 15.
[299] Of Agyrium in Sicily, flourished in the time of Augustus,
and certainly lived till after 21 B.C. His _Historical Library_ in
forty books was a history of the world down to Caesar’s Gallic wars.
Only books 1-5 and 11-20 are extant. The chief value of the work
consists in the employment of authorities whose works are now lost,
the preservation of old tradition, and especially of chronological
material.
[300] Cassius Dio Cocceianus (_c._ 155-230), born at Nicaea in
Bithynia, senator and holder of various offices under Commodus and
succeeding emperors, being twice consul. In 229 he retired into
private life. His history of Rome in eighty books, starting from the
mythical period, goes down to the reign of Alexander Severus (229).
Of these eighty books 37-60 have come down almost complete, 36-80
exist in an eleventh-century abridgment by the monk John Xiphilinus.
In the tenth century excerpts were made from it by order of
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, and Zonaras (twelfth century) made
an abridgment of books 1-20. His point of view is that of a loyal
imperial official, who does not understand, and has little sympathy
with, earlier political struggles. His superstition is pronounced.
[301] _Iliad_, xi. 164.
[302] Reading ἄκαιρος for εὔκαιρος.
[303] Of Cnidus on the coast of Caria in Asia Minor. He was for
seventeen years (401-384) court physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, whom
he treated for a wound received at the battle of Cunaxa. He accuses
Herodotus of being a liar, but often lays himself open to the same
charge. It should be remarked that in writing his _Persica_ Ctesias
had the opportunity of consulting the Persian archives and natives,
whereas in regard to the _Indica_ he had no such advantages. He was
also the author of an account of the Persian imperial revenues, and
of some books of travel and geographical works.
[304] More commonly _Artaxerxes_.
[305] For the historical events _see_ G. Rawlinson, _Five Great
Monarchies_, iii (1871), and for an estimate of Ctesias as an
historian his translation of Herodotus, i. 71.
[306] Ecbatana.
[307] “Vaults” is used to express the sense generally, not as a
translation of the various readings: κρίσκρανα, explained as “house
of refuge”; κιόκρανα, “epistyle”; κιονόκρανα “capitals” of columns in
the form of “rams’” heads.
[308] Peltasts, light-armed troops, who carried the small shield
called _pelta_.
[309] Variously called Smerdis, Mergis, Merdis.
[310] This seems a possible meaning of θριαμβεύσας, combined with the
idea of a personal triumph.
[311] Herodotus gives the names as: Intaphernes, Otanes, Gobryas,
Hydarnes, Megabyzus, Aspathines, Darius.
[312] Herodotus, iii. 85.
[313] On the tomb of Darius, _see_ Rawlinson, _Five Great
Monarchies_, iii. 320.
[314] A penteconter was a ship carrying fifty oars.
[315] The Danube.
[316] Zeus as the god of crossing. The “altar” was probably a column
set up to commemorate his passage.
[317] Belus or Bel. For the story _see_ Aelian, _Var. Hist._, xiii. 3.
[318] The 9000 full citizens of Sparta, who formed a kind of nobility.
[319] The free inhabitants of the towns (except Sparta) who enjoyed
civil but not political liberty.
[320] Apparently to hinder the construction of the embankment.
[321] The criminal was exposed to the heat of the sun in two
boat-like troughs closely fitted together with head, arms, and legs
hanging out until he died eaten by insects (_see_ Plutarch, _Life of
Artaxerxes_, 16).
[322] Referring to the efforts of Megabyzus and Amytis on behalf of
the Greek prisoners.
[323] Reading Ἀρτοξέρξης, not Ξέρξης.
[324] Κατέλαβε. Others render “when it (_i.e._ death) overtook him,”
when the son also died.
[325] A Persian title, perhaps identical with Azarapates, a sort of
gentleman-usher of the court.
[326] Κίταρις, the citaris, cidaris, or tiara.
[327] Valerius Maximus (ix. 2. ext. 6) thus describes this
punishment. “He (Ochus) filled an enclosure surrounded by high walls
with ashes; a beam projected over it, on which he placed his victims,
having first given them plenty to eat and drink; then, overcome by
sleep, they fell from it into the treacherous heap below.”
[328] In modern Persian the sun is _Khur_, in Zend _Hware_.
[329] Ionic form of Mithradates.
[330] The excessive brevity of Photius’s abstract makes it uncertain
what the allusion is, and how Hellanicus and Herodotus are convicted
of falsehood. Perhaps there is a reference to the statement of
Herodotus that Croesus was burnt on the funeral pile.
[331] The expedition forms the subject of Xenophon’s _Anabasis_.
[332] In Cyprus. The orator Isocrates composed a panegyric on this
Evagoras.
[333] The punctuation and meaning are obscure.
[334] _See_ translation by J. W. McCrindle with Introduction and
Notes (1882), to which the present translator desires to acknowledge
his obligations; H. H. Wilson, “Notes on the Indica of Ctesias”
(Ashmolean Society Transactions, i-xi. 1838).
[335] A stade is about an English furlong.
[336] Supposed to be the hydrophane (also called _oculus mundi_, eye
of the world), a kind of opal which absorbs water on immersion and
exhibits a changing play of colours.
[337] Rather read μακρῶν (large) for μικρῶν (small).
[338] The text is corrupt here.
[339] The magnet may be referred to.
[340] Persian _mardikhora_.
[341] It is not clear whether Sardo is merely a proper name or means
the “mountain of the _sardo_” (a precious stone).
[342] During an eruption, two brothers, Amphinomus and Anapus of
Catana, carried off their parents on their shoulders, and were
untouched by the lava. The spot where this took place was afterwards
called “the land of the pious.”
[343] The name means “a fist long.”
[344] Persian _aver-khosh_ (“bringing good”).
[345] Persian _shiftehkhor_ (“agreeable to eat”).
[346] The Hyparchus.
[347] The cochineal insect is meant.
[348] Perhaps the rhinoceros, although the description is not
altogether suitable.
[349] About five pints.
[350] The jackal or hyena.
[351] This passage is probably not by Ctesias.
[352] Heliodorus of Emesa in Syria, belonging to a family of the
priests of the Sun, flourished in the third century A.D. This view
is supported by the mention of the Blemmyes (first prominent in
250), traces of neo-Pythagorean influence, and the stress laid on
Sun-worship. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates wrongly identifies
him with a bishop of Tricca in the reign of Theodosius, the latter
probably confused with Theodosius the father of the author of the
_Aethiopica_. The standard work on the Greek romance-writers is
E. Rohde, _Der griechische Roman_ (1914); see also _Blackwood’s
Magazine_, xliv. (1892). The whole work is preserved, and it would be
difficult to understand the complicated plot from Photius’s abstract.
[353] Some taking the side of Trachinus, others that of Pelorus, the
second in command.
[354] The name of a robber “shepherd-people” inhabiting the N.W. part
of the Nile delta in the neighbourhood of Alexandria.
[355] Or Thermuthis.
[356] A young Athenian who had been detained by the brigands.
[357] To which she had been carried off.
[358] Thinking it was Chariclea.
[359] Her husband, Oroöndates, being absent on a military expedition.
[360] Which she wore on her finger (_see_ Ctesias, _Indica_, p. 111).
[361] An Indian sect of philosophers who lived an extremely ascetic
life. Their doctrine was a kind of Pantheism, and they believed
in the transmigration of souls. By mortifying the body they hoped
to purify their souls. They wore no clothing, hence their name
(_gymnos_, naked, _sophistes_, wise man). Their influence in the
oriental (and even in the Greek world) was great, and Alexander the
Great, during his campaigns, endeavoured to persuade them to join his
suite.
[362] Called _Euphrades_ (“beautiful speaker”), neo-Platonist and
sophist (_c._ 317-390), born in Paphlagonia, then resident at
Constantinople, where he entered the service of the state, finally
becoming prefect of the city. One of his special duties was to
deliver official orations greeting the emperors, under six of whom
he lived. In addition to the orations here referred to, he was a
prolific writer on philosophical subjects. When quite a young man,
he gained considerable reputation as the author of a commentary
on Aristotle. He was on friendly terms with famous literary men,
orators and philosophers, Christian as well as heathen, and Gregory
of Nazianzus calls him “the king of arguments.” Of the thirty-six
speeches mentioned by Photius, we possess thirty-four (one only in a
Latin translation), and some of his work on Aristotle.
[363] “State-paper-like” (T. Hodgkin).
[364] Probably Lesbonax of Mytilene, the author of three extant
declamations. It is uncertain when he lived, probably in the first
century A.D.
[365] _See_ Cod. XXI.
[366] _See_ p. 89, note [298].
[367] Cod. XLVII.
[368] 27-100. He is the Agrippa before whom St. Paul was brought.
[369] Grandson of Herod the Great. He is notorious for his
persecution of the Christians (44). He is said to have died of a
terrible disease (Acts xii. 23).
[370] Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria 175-164. He was a determined
advocate of eradicating Judaism and of the hellenization of the
people.
[371] 64-65.
[372] Caligula, emperor 37-41.
[373] According to Josephus, his name was Banus.
[374] _See_ Cod. LXXXII.
[375] Of Sardes (_c._ 345-420), educated at Athens, and spent the
rest of his life in his native town as a physician and rhetorician.
His “historical memoirs” deal with events from 270 to 414. He
was also the author of some extant _Lives of the Sophists_. He
was a bitter enemy of Christianity, and a devoted adherent of
neo-Platonism. In the “second edition” of the _Chronicle_ much that
was offensive to Christianity was omitted.
[376] 404-405.
[377] Μεθόδοις. Another reading is περιόδοις, “periods.”
[378] Of Philadelphia in Syria. According to Suidas, the _History_
began with the reign of Constantine the Great, according to Photius
with the seventeenth year of Leo’s reign (473), being a continuation
of that of Priscus. It ended with the murder of the West Roman
emperor Nepos (480). For the history of the period, _see_ Gibbon,
_Decline and Fall_, ch. 36; Bury, _Later Roman Empire_, i. 227 (1889).
[379] Or Valamir.
[380] Against Zeno.
[381] Nothing more is known of his life than what Photius tells us.
For the period of history (457-491) _see_ Gibbon and Bury referred to
in note [378] on Cod. LXXVIII.
[382] Ermenaric.
[383] Tracheotis, a district of Asia Minor between Cilicia and
Pisidia.
[384] Zeno.
[385] Harmatius, _magister militum_, nephew of Basiliscus, a young
man of fashion.
[386] Peter, surnamed the Fuller, patriarch of Antioch 471-488, a
Monophysite.
[387] Or, “by denunciations,” “extortion.”
[388] The word φιλότιμος is generally used in a bad sense, but not
apparently here.
[389] Odovacar, king of the Heruli, who conquered Rome in 476, thus
bringing about the so-called fall of the Western empire.
[390] Of Panopolis (Chemmis) in Upper Egypt, professor of grammar
(philology) at the University of Athens. He was said to have written
an _Isaurica_ and a treatise on etymology. He was a neo-Platonist and
bitter opponent of Christianity.
[391] In the castle of Papirius in Isauria. It was betrayed by
Illus’s sister-in-law.
[392] A native of Egyptian Thebes, and ambassador in 412 to the
Hun prince Donatus. He was a heathen. The _History_, dedicated to
Theodosius II, contained an account of events from 407 to 425.
It is an important contemporary guide, and its loss, except for
Photius’s abstract, is much to be regretted. On the period _see_
Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, chs. 30-32; Bury, _Later Roman Empire_,
i.; Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, bk. i. pt. 2; E. A. Freeman,
_Western Europe in the Fifth Century_, 1904.
[393] The name is said to have originally meant a body of soldiers
who accepted any one’s “bread” in return for attendance upon him.
They would thus have formed a kind of bodyguard (Ducange). One of
the “themes” or military divisions of the empire was also called the
Bucellarian.
[394] Especially the Goths. They were nominally tributaries, but the
tribute was often diminished or remitted altogether. Gradually, they
came to be looked upon as a frontier defence force and received pay
(Hodgkin, _The Visigothic Invasion_, i. 311-315).
[395] The most important officer of the civil administration. He
united in his person most of the chief secretaryships with the duties
of private secretary to the emperor.
[396] Another suggested derivation is _bucula_, the part of a helmet
that covers the mouth and cheeks.
[397] Boulogne.
[398] This title was bestowed on the brothers, sisters, and children
of the emperor, the official hierarchy by which he was surrounded
being _nobiles_.
[399] Or Jovius.
[400] The praetorian prefects were the most important personages next
to the emperor.
[401] Under the empire hardly any of the old exclusive patrician
families survived; Constantine re-introduced the name not as that of
an order with hereditary privileges, but as a personal honour and
dignity.
[402] Commander of both infantry and cavalry.
[403] Chief of the secretaries.
[404] _Praepositus cubiculi sacri_, president or superintendent of
the sacred bedchamber, the grand chamberlain.
[405] Reggio.
[406] Modern Calabria.
[407] The _domestici_ were the household troops, the imperial
bodyguard.
[408] All the other authorities make him merely Gerontius’s
“dependent.” The word παῖς may be used in the sense of “servant.”
[409] Or Arelatum (mod. Arles).
[410] According to some accounts, he took refuge in Spain.
[411] Mainz.
[412] Or Gundicar.
[413] According to Bury, New Carthage in Spain.
[414] Marseilles.
[415] Distinguished Roman general, count of Africa, rival of Aëtius,
and friend of St. Augustine.
[416] In 413.
[417] Others take προόδοις to mean, “as he walked.”
[418] Euripides, _Aeolus_ (frag. 2).
[419] Reading τετάχθαι. Τετέχθαι would mean that 14,000 children were
born in one day in Rome, which is absurd.
[420] Sarus (_see_ p. 138).
[421] Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 20). Photius’s account is rather
obscure.
[422] Must mean “sophists” here, not, as so often in later Greek,
“lawyers.”
[423] The lexicon of Hesychius interprets the word as οἱ μείζονες
(“the greater”), that is the higher classes who are entitled to wear
the cloak. It is suggested that the reference is to senior _pupils_,
rather than to _teachers_.
[424] The _aureus_, worth about twelve shillings.
[425] He was _primicerius notariorum_.
[426] The first important representative of the name, a West-Goth,
not of course to be confounded with the famous East-Goth (Dietrich).
The present Theodoric was king of the West-Goths from 418-451. He
was killed fighting with the Romans against Attila at the battle of
Châlons.
[427] According to some, St. Elmo’s fire.
[428] Modern Assouan.
[429] On the left bank of the Nile.
[430] An Aethiopian people, mod. Barabras.
[431] Small island in the Nile with a town of the same name, where
Isis and Osiris were said to be buried.
[432] Mod. Nissa, Nisch in Serbia.
[433] Quintus Aurelius S., flourished about 400. He was prefect of
Rome and consul, and the author of letters and speeches, the former
of which and some fragments of the latter are extant.
[434] It was by the aid of this Aspar that Leo I obtained the empire
of the East (457), and afterwards ungratefully murdered him. His
father and son were both named Ardaburius.
[435] One of Honorius’s generals.
[436] He pretended to be false to Placidia.
[437] Cod. XXXVIII.
[438] They were directed against Zoroastrianism, which was making
some way at the time.
[439] Zoroaster (Zarathustra).
[440] Zervan, the principle of infinite time, from which both
Ormuzd and Ahriman, the good and evil spirits, were supposed to
have emanated. The sect of the Zervanists thus endeavoured to avoid
Zoroastrian dualism.
[441] Ormuzd.
[442] Supposed to be a reference to Gnostic supporters of
Zoroastrianism.
[443] The Christian era.
[444] Publius Herennius D. (flourished 254-278), rhetorician,
statesman, and historian, a native of Athens, who distinguished
himself against the Goths (269) when they attacked that city. Of the
fragments preserved the chief is an address to the soldiers of Athens
(_see_ Gibbon, ch. 10, i. 265, 266, Bury’s edition).
[445] 268.
[446] The Goths.
[447] Or “grave” (ὄγκος), “dignified.”
[448] Commandership of the select cavalry corps called Ἑταῖροι, a
sort of bodyguard.
[449] _See_ Cod. XCII.
[450] Rhetorician and historian. He came to Rome in 30 B.C. and
remained there till his death (7 B.C.). He was the author of numerous
rhetorical works, several of which are extant, the most important
being that on the ancient Greek orators. Of the twenty books of the
_History_ (_Roman Antiquities_) eleven have been preserved, going
down to 441 B.C., the period of the decemvirs. It is a rhetorical
production, the chief object of which is to represent the Romans as
superior to the Greeks, while at the same time he soothes the vanity
of the latter by insisting upon the Greek origin of the former.
[451] Dio Cassius; _see_ Cod. LXXI.
[452] Cod. LVII.
[453] Nothing seems to be known of him.
[454] Their system was dualistic, recognizing two principles, good
and evil; the first the author of man’s spiritual, the second of his
corporeal nature. Man had two souls, one intellectual and rational,
the other evil. They held that the souls of men, animals and plants
were coeternal with God; that baptism was useless; that man was not
free; that Christ was the material sun enlightening the world; that
all religions were indifferent.
[455] Bishop of Bostra in Arabia Auranitis (362-371).
[456] One of the three first disciples of Manes.
[457] 335-347.
[458] In Egypt. The work is still extant.
[459] Presbyter of Antioch and bishop of Tarsus. The chief “founder
of the rational school of Scriptural interpretation.”
[460] “Bushel,” referring to St. Mark iv. 19.
[461] Manes (_c._ 240-274), or Mani, the founder of the sect.
[462] O. the younger (_c._ 368-before 420), deaconess of
Constantinople. After Chrysostom’s final expulsion, she seems to have
left the city, and to have led a wandering life, being subjected to
much persecution on account of her friendship with him.
[463] Innocent I, bishop of Rome (402-417).
[464] Probably lived in the third century A.D. The complete work is
extant.
[465] By Gelasius of Cyzicus, who probably flourished in the second
half of the fifth century. The work, which is still extant, is
considered valueless as an historical authority.
[466] Appointed about 300, died about 358. He was sent by Constantine
in 324 to Alexandria, on a mission to reconcile Arius and Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria. He was Constantine’s adviser on theological
matters, and is supposed to have taken an important part in drawing
up the symbol of faith at the synod.
[467] 314-335.
[468] Born at Side in Pamphylia and died at Philippi in Macedonia
(337), formerly bishop of Beroea. He was exiled in consequence of
a false charge brought against him by the Arians, of whom he was a
bitter opponent.
[469] Patriarch of Alexandria (312-326). He excommunicated the Arians
and caused their doctrines to be condemned at the synod.
[470] Bishop from about 311 to between 331 and 335. Helena, the
mother of Constantine the Great, visited Jerusalem during his
episcopate (325).
[471] Successively bishop of Berytus, Nicomedia, and Constantinople.
Exiled by Constantine, he was recalled through the influence of the
Arians, and became the bitter enemy of Athanasius, whose banishment
he procured. He became bishop of Constantinople in 341, his
advancement being due to the patronage of Constantia, the emperor’s
sister. He drew up nearly all the Arian formulae.
[472] The question of the Gelasii is very obscure (_see_ also Cod.
CII).
[473] Those who taught that the Son was “dissimilar” and of different
substance from the Father. The leaders of the sect were Aëtius and
Eunomius.
[474] Emperor 475-477.
[475] 315-386, bishop 348. He was exiled for several years by
Arian intrigues, but recalled by Julian the Apostate. His extant
_Catecheses_ contain the oldest and most concise abridgement of
Christian doctrine.
[476] Rufinus Tyrannius or Toranus (345-410), born at Concordia,
a small town in Italy. He is called “of Aquileia,” where he was
baptized, and entered a monastery. He is chiefly known for his
quarrel with Jerome about his translation of various works of Origen.
He was condemned by pope Anastasius, and died in Sicily. He was the
author of a large number of translations and other works.
[477] Famous sophist (314-393). Brought up at Athens, he was
professor of rhetoric at Constantinople, where he had as pupils St.
Basil and St. John Chrysostom. Much of his work is extant, consisting
of purely rhetorical exercises and instructions, actual speeches
on various subjects, a life of Demosthenes and arguments of his
speeches, and extensive correspondence. He was a pagan.
[478] Cod. LVIII.
[479] 334 B.C.
[480] 333 B.C.
[481] 331 B.C.
[482] The earliest capital of Persia (now Meshed-i-Murghab), where
Cyrus was buried.
[483] Mod. Bokhara.
[484] “Birdless,” so high that birds could not fly to the summit. The
name is given by the Greeks to many high Indian rocky mountains.
[485] Mod. Behat or Jhelum.
[486] Mod. Sutlej.
[487] Alexander’s admiral and one of the chief navigators of ancient
times.
[488] The Persian coast-land on the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean as
far as Gedrosia, now Kerman.
[489] Large Persian province, the same as Elam, the only town of
importance being Susa.
[490] _See_ p. 123, note [361]. This was their regular custom when
ill (κατὰ τὰ πάτρια).
[491] Alexander’s early friend and untrustworthy treasurer. He fled
from Babylon with 5000 talents before Alexander’s return to India,
and went to Athens, where by gifts of corn and money he succeeded
in gaining the favour of the inhabitants and protection against
Antipater, who demanded his surrender. He took refuge finally in
Crete, where he was killed.
[492] Consult J. P. Mahaffy, _Alexander’s Empire_ (1887) in “Story of
the Nations” Series, and E. R. Bevan, _The House of Seleucus_ (1902).
[493] _See_ p. 149, note [448].
[494] Καυσία, a light, broad-brimmed felt hat, worn by the
Macedonians, to keep off the burning heat (καῦσις) of the sun.
[495] Arrhidaeus and the young Alexander, the son of Roxana.
[496] The “silver-shield” division of the Macedonian army.
[497] More correctly Polyperchon.
[498] Or “well-rounded.”
[499] The first independent king of Bithynia was Nicomedes I (278
B.C.); the Nicomedes here referred to is Nicomedes IV, who bequeathed
his kingdom to Rome in 74 B.C.
[500] Syrian romance-writer, probably lived about the middle of the
second century A.D. The complete work is no longer extant (_see_ Cod.
LXXIII).
[501] A monumental pillar or monument generally marking the site of a
grave.
[502] Or, “being uncertain whether their footsteps led thither.”
[503] Deriving μυστήριον from μῦς.
[504] A.D. 164.
[505] Or Vologases III (148-190).
[506] Reading Κόρην with capital Κ. Korē or Persephonē, daughter of
Demeter (Ceres), wife of Pluto, and queen of the lower world. If
κόρην be read, we must translate “and bids her daughter follow him.”
[507] By Sacas (p. 174).
[508] _See_ Cod. XVII.
[509] Supposed to be Julian, patriarch of Antioch (471-476).
[510] _See_ Cod. XLII.
[511] 616-630. The work, which is extant in a complete form, is
regarded as worthless (_see_ biography of Chrysostom by W. R. W.
Stephens, 1872).
[512] Γραμματικοί must here mean those whose education is elementary.
It more generally = philologist in the sense of a student of
literature.
[513] _c._ 364-431, Bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia, author of the
_Lausiaca_, biographies of ascetics.
[514] _See_ Cod. XXVIII.
[515] About 360.
[516] Add: “would not allow such to accompany him.”
[517] He was bishop of Majuma, the port of Gaza, famous for his
ascetic life and devotion to the duties of his calling.
[518] A young friend of Chrysostom who, after having led a dissipated
life, entered a monastery. He was at first unable to endure the
restrictions, became subject to convulsions (regarded as demoniacal
attacks), but gradually attained to a more religious and meeker frame
of mind. The treatises contain Chrysostom’s advice to his friend.
[519] So called from Marcion of Sinope, an heresiarch of the second
century A.D. His followers believed in two Christs, one sent by an
unknown God to save the whole world, the other whom the Creator would
one day send to save the Jews. They denied the resurrection of the
flesh, and maintained that the body of Christ was like ours only in
appearance, not in reality.
[520] He succeeded Gregory of Nazianzus, and was archbishop from 381
to 397 (398).
[521] 385-412.
[522] Roman general, a Goth by birth, commander of the troops of
Arcadius. He afterwards revolted, was declared an enemy of the state,
and retaliated by ravaging the territory of the empire. He was killed
fighting against the Huns (401), who sent his head to Constantinople.
[523] Mod. Valenza in Liguria.
[524] The Apostate.
[525] Priest and monk (fifth century A.D.). He was a great friend and
champion of Athanasius.
[526] Pope 366-384; a Spaniard by birth. His secretary was St. Jerome.
[527] In the district of lower Egypt, so called from the natron lakes.
[528] Mod. Marmara (from its marble) in the Propontis (Sea of
Marmora).
[529] _See_ p. 85, note [286].
[530] At the mouth of the Euxine.
[531] The modern Sofia, capital of Bulgaria. The council was held in
343 or 347.
[532] A village on the borders of Armenia and Cilicia.
[533] 312.
[534] _See_ p. 152, note [462].
[535] Literally, “a double-folded tablet” of wood, ivory, or metal.
In the early Church, the tablets on which were written the names of
those specially commemorated at the celebration of the Eucharist.
[536] Of Tralles in Lydia, lived till the reign of Antoninus Pius.
His treatises _On Wonderful Things_ and _On Long-lived Persons_ are
extant.
[537] 776 B.C.
[538] 72-69 B.C.
[539] Racing, a single course, the _diaulos_ being a double course.
[540] The “five exercises,” running, leaping, wrestling, boxing,
discus-throwing.
[541] The period embraced all the games, so that “to conquer in the
period” meant to be victorious in all.
[542] A contest combining both wrestling and boxing.
[543] Lucius Licinius Lucullus (_c._ 110-57), Roman general,
conqueror of Mithradates. He was famous for his luxurious banquets,
which have become proverbial.
[544] Mod. Samsun, on the coast of Pontus.
[545] Lucius Licinius Murena, consul 63 B.C. He was accused of
bribery, defended by Cicero in a speech still extant, and acquitted.
[546] Phraates III.
[547] President of the Epicurean school at Athens, died 70 B.C.
Cicero draws freely from his work _On the Gods_ (a fragment of which
was discovered at Herculaneum) in his _De Natura Deorum_.
[548] Quintus Lutatius Catulus. The Capitol had been destroyed during
the civil wars of Sulla’s time.
[549] Quintus Caecilius Metellus, consul 69, conqueror of Crete after
a three years’ campaign. He received the title of Creticus for his
services.
[550] His history, probably written between 450-501, really begins
with the death of Commodus (192) and ends at 410, just before
Alaric’s siege of Rome. He is an extremely bigoted heathen,
fond of the old mythological legends, oracles, prodigies, and
everything marvellous, ignorant of geography, and pays no attention
to chronology. But the work is valuable as mainly compiled from
trustworthy contemporary authorities (_see_ Cod. LXXX).
[551] Cod. LXXVII.
[552] Flourished about A.D. 238. His history embraces the period from
the death of Marcus Aurelius to the death of Gordian (180-238). His
geography and chronology are defective. For the history of the period
_see_ Gibbon, chs. 4-7.
[553] Gaius Pescennius Niger.
[554] Lucius Septimius Severus.
[555] At Eboracum (York).
[556] More commonly known as Caracalla.
[557] Varius Avitus Bassianus (afterwards Marcus Aurelius Antoninus)
more commonly known as Heliogabalus (more correctly Elagabalus).
[558] Alexander Severus.
[559] Emperor A.D. 117-138. He was a great patron of literature, and
wrote several works himself, both prose and verse. His address to
the soul is famous (see _Life_, by F. Gregorovius, Eng. tr. by M. E.
Robinson, 1898).
[560] _See_ Cod. LXXXVIII.
[561] _c._ 20 B.C.-A.D. 40. The most important Jewish Hellenist,
called the Jewish Plato, born at Alexandria of a priestly family.
Hardly any particulars are known of his life. In the year 40 he was
head of a deputation of his countrymen to the emperor Caligula at
Rome, to protest against the persecution of the Jews in Alexandria.
He was the author of numerous works, purely philosophical, exegetical
(on the Pentateuch), historical, and apologetic. Amongst them are:
_On the Indestructibility of the World_; _That every Good Man
is Free_; _Allegories of the Sacred Law_, full of allegorizing
and constant attempts to combine Judaism and Hellenism; _On the
Contemplative Life_; _Against Flaccus_ (governor of Egypt); and _The
Embassy to Gaius_. His philosophy is a sort of neo-Platonism--an
endeavour to reconcile the teaching of Plato and of the Bible. There
are two worlds, an intelligible and a sensible, the latter formed
by God on the model of a world of ideas, invariable and coeternal,
personified under the name of Logos (Reason), an emanation from God.
“The Logos, intermediate between God and the world, dwells with God
as His wisdom, and as the abiding place of the Ideas.”
[562] They were divided into _practici_ (active), who lived in
common, and _theoretici_ (contemplative), who lived alone. In Egypt
and Greece the latter were called _therapeutae_.
[563] Roman emperor A.D. 37-41, more commonly known as Caligula.
[564] Avillius F., governor of Egypt, and persecutor of the Jews.
[565] Flourished about the middle of the third century A.D.
[566] _See_ Cod. XLII.
[567] 1 Peter iv. 1.
[568] Isaiah ii. 1.
[569] John xii. 31.
[570] Psalm xlv. 7.
[571] John xvii. 19.
[572] John i. 14.
[573] John iii. 13.
[574] 1 Cor. x. 4.
[575] Deuter. xxviii. 66.
[576] Ezekiel xliv. 2.
[577] Acts xiii. 26.
[578] Romans viii. 32.
[579] John iii. 16.
[580] Baruch iii. 36-38.
[581] Psalm lxxxi. 8.
[582] John xiv. 9.
[583] 1 Cor. ii. 8.
[584] Who added the words “One of the Trinity was crucified” to the
Trisagion. According to them, Christ had only one, and that a divine
nature, and therefore the divine nature suffered at the Crucifixion.
[585] They taught that the human soul of Christ was like our own,
even in its imperfect knowledge and ignorance.
[586] Titus Flavius Clemens (_c._ 150-213). A Platonic philosopher
who embraced Christianity, and succeeded Pantaenus as head of the
catechetical school of Alexandria. Amongst his pupils were Origen and
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. His chief works are those mentioned
here by Photius. To these may be added his _Hortatory Address to the
Greeks_, showing the superiority of Christianity to the heathen and
other religions. In consequence of the persecution of Severus, he
fled to Palestine, where he died.
[587] _Stromateis_ (Στρωματεῖς), bed-coverlets, “patch-work quilts.”
[588] Lived during the first century A.D. According to tradition
he was one of the first successors of St. Peter as bishop of Rome.
Numerous works, such as the Homilies and Recognitions, the Apostolic
Constitutions, which are ascribed to him, are spurious, the only
writing bearing his name which is admitted to be genuine being the
First Epistle to the Church of Corinth (the second is spurious). On
the whole question _see_ edition (1890) by Bishop Lightfoot.
[589] iv. 3. Clement being a very common name, this identification is
by no means certain.
[590] Apion, Alexandrine grammarian, commentator on Homer, flourished
in the middle of the first century A.D. He was notorious for his
hatred of the Jews and of Jewish Christianity.
[591] Or “Travels.”
[592] Also Leucius, or Leontius. His date is uncertain, perhaps in
the fifth century A.D.
[593] They celebrated Easter or the Paschal Feast on the day of the
Jewish Passover (the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish
year, corresponding to March-April), whatever day of the week it fell
on. _See_ the exhaustive account in Hefele, _History of Christian
Councils_, i. 298, (1871).
[594] The Jewish Passover.
[595] _i.e._ For a cycle of 532 years (28 × 19) and one year more,
when a new cycle should begin. Metrodorus possibly lived in the sixth
or seventh century. On this difficult subject, _see_ article “Easter”
in _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_.
[596] The Jewish Passover.
[597] Bishop of Alexandria (247-264), called “the Great,” a pupil of
Origen.
[598] Bishop of Alexandria (189-232). He was at first on friendly
terms with Origen, who offended him by publicly expounding the
Scriptures although unordained (_see_ also Cod. CXVIII).
[599] A sect named after Sabellius (second-third century A.D.). While
denying that the Son was subordinate to the Father, they denied
His real personality, and regarded the Trinity of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit as not real and eternal, but temporal and modalistic
(different modes of the manifestations of the Divine Nature).
[600] Book I exists in a Latin version by Rufinus.
[601] Emperor 249-251. He was notorious as a relentless enemy and
persecutor of the Christians.
[602] Emperor 251-253. His son Volusianus was associated with him in
the empire.
[603] During the persecution of Diocletian (303).
[604] _c._ 120-140 to 202, bishop of Lyons 177, He was born in Asia
Minor, near Smyrna, and removed to Rome about 155. He is said to have
been martyred under Severus, but this is not regarded as certain. He
was an ardent opponent of the Valentinian Gnostics, and earnestly
endeavoured to prevent a quarrel between the Eastern and Western
Churches on the question of the date of Easter. His great work only
exists in a barbarous Latin version, though parts of the original can
be re-constructed from quotations in later writers.
[605] Simon the Magician, flourished about the year A.D. 37, when he
gained great influence in Samaria by his witchcraft (_see_ Acts viii.
9-24).
[606] An Assyrian, student of Greek philosophy, who became converted
to Christianity at Rome about 150 by reading the Bible. A Christian
apologist, he later adopted Gnostic views. He retired to Mesopotamia
and is supposed to have died at Edessa, _c._ 180. In addition to an
_Apology for Christianity_, he was the author of a _Diatessaron_, a
sort of harmony of the Gospels.
[607] _c._ 103-164. Born in Palestine, Greek philosopher and convert
to Christianity. He is said to have been scourged and beheaded for
refusing to offer sacrifice to the pagan divinities.
[608] Gnostic sect of the second century, followers of Carpocrates of
Alexandria.
[609] Martyr (_c._ 155) under Marcus Aurelius.
[610] Flourished during the third century. He was a pupil of Irenaeus
and an active opponent of the Gnostics. He was a presbyter of Rome,
and became anti-bishop in opposition to Calixtus (Callistus), an
adherent of Monarchianism (denial of the doctrine of the Trinity).
The treatise _Against Heresies_ was first discovered in a convent on
Mount Athos in 1842.
[611] A Jewish sect, so called from Dositheus of Samaria (first
century A.D.), who killed himself by fasting. He insisted on a
rigorous observance of the Sabbath.
[612] Died about A.D. 200, born at Smyrna or Ephesus. According to
him “Christ was the Father, and the Father was born, suffered, and
died.”
[613] _c._ 316-403, born near Eleutheropolis in Palestine, bishop
of Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus. He was a vigorous opponent of
Origen and Chrysostom. _Panaria_ is the Latin equivalent of the Greek
Ἀρτοφόρια (bread-baskets).
[614] _See_ Cod. LII.
[615] Rather _Ancyrotus_ (Gk. Ἀγκύρωτος), “secured by an anchor,” the
anchor of faith amidst the storms of heresy.
[616] _See_ p. 154.
[617] _See_ p. 153, note [468].
[618] The well-known sophist and humorous writer (_c._ A.D. 125-180).
He was a native of Samosata in Syria, and, after a wandering life,
settled down in Athens, whence he removed to Egypt, where he died.
His _True History_ was the original of works like the _Gulliver’s
Travels_ of Swift, with whom and with Voltaire he has much in common.
[619] Both the Λούκιος ἢ Ὄνος (Lucius or the Ass) of Lucian and the
_Metamorphoses_ of Apuleius go back to one Greek original, here
called Lucius of Patrae in Achaea (mod. Patras).
[620] Neo-Platonist philosopher of Damascus, flourished in the
fifth-sixth century A.D. He taught philosophy and rhetoric in
Alexandria and Athens. His treatise _Doubts and Solutions in regard
to First Principles_ is extant.
[621] Marcus Aurelius.
[622] Of Methone, lived in the time of Constantine.
[623] Of Antioch (fourth century A.D.). Pupil of Libanius and author
of an extant _Progymnasmata_ (literary exercises).
[624] There were two sophists of this name, one of Antioch, the other
of Alexandria. Nothing more is known of them, nor of Maximus.
[625] Of Alexandria (_see_ Cod. XLIX). The work deals with “the holy
and consubstantial Trinity.”
[626] Of Cappadocia, head of an extreme Arian sect. He was bishop
of Cyzicus, but was deposed and exiled, and died at the end of the
fourth century. He asserted that the Son of God was God only in name,
and that He was united to humanity not in substance, but only by His
virtue and operations.
[627] Periods of four years.
[628] Saturn. He had heard that he would be killed by one of his
sons, and accordingly devoured his children as soon as they were
born. Zeus, Poseidon and Pluto were saved, their mother Rhea having
substituted stones for them, which Saturn swallowed with equal
avidity.
[629] Of Alexandria, flourished under Theodosius II (408-450).
[630] _See_ p. 224, note [643].
[631] Grammarian of the time of Hadrian.
[632] Valerius Pollio of Alexandria.
[633] Nothing is known of him.
[634] Not to be confused with the author of the _Life of Apollonius
of Tyana_ (Cod. XLIV).
[635] Valerius Diodorus, son of Pollio (Cod. CXLIX).
[636] About the beginning of the fourth century A.D. The lexicon is
extant.
[637] Not the author of the _Roman Antiquities_ (Cod. LXXXIII).
[638] Flourished in the time of Hadrian.
[639] His identity is uncertain.
[640] Possibly Dorotheus of Ascalon, a Greek grammarian often
referred to by Athenaeus.
[641] Second century A.D. His lexicon, called Λέξεις Ἀττικαὶ (Attic
words), is extant.
[642] Of Bithynia, flourished under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.
He was a great stickler for purity of style. Only extracts and the
present summary of the _Equipment_ have been preserved, but a shorter
work called the _Atticist_, in which rules are given for the use or
avoidance of various expressions, is extant.
[643] “Members” (κῶλα, _membra_), as distinct from “clauses”
(κόμματα, _incisa_). The original distinction is one of length, 4 to
6 syllables being a “clause,” 7 to 10 a “member” (_cp._ the use of
our own comma and colon). According to Quintilian, _incisum_ is a
complete sense in which the numbers or rhythm are not yet complete,
_membrum_ is a complete sense and a complete rhythm, but while
perfect as a limb, in relation to its body (the given whole of which
it forms part) it is incomplete and has no meaning (_see_ Sandys on
Cicero, _Orator_, 212).
[644] Of Pergamum, Greek philosopher and sophist, consul under Marcus
Aurelius, author of declamations and technical writings on rhetoric.
[645] Publius Aelius Aristides (_c._ 129-189) famous rhetorician,
born at Hadrianutherai in Mysia, friend of Marcus Aurelius. He was a
priest of Asclepius (Aesculapius) at Smyrna. More than fifty of his
orations and declamations are extant.
[646] Marcus Junius Brutus (85-42 B.C.), the conspirator.
[647] Lived in Syracuse, at the court of Dionysius the Younger (356
B.C.), and afterwards wrote speeches for the law-courts at Athens. He
is, of course, not identical with the rival of Demosthenes (_see_ p.
62, note [231]).
[648] One of the most hated of the Thirty Oligarchs or Tyrants at
Athens (404 B.C.). He was a pupil of Socrates, and a poet and orator
of no mean order.
[649] _c._ 440-370 B.C., founder of the Cynic school. He was first a
pupil of the famous sophist Gorgias of Leontini, then of Socrates.
[650] The personification of blame or censure.
[651] According to Suidas, the inhabitants of Corycus (a promontory
in Pamphylia), to avoid being plundered by pirates, used to go and
listen in other harbours to find out where certain vessels were
bound, and then informed the pirates. He adds that the comic poets
introduced a Corycian god, one who was always listening. Ephorus
gives a somewhat different story. The text is unsatisfactory here and
the meaning is not very clear. J. H. Leich’s suggestion, χωρίσειεν
(_segregaret_), in his essay on the Bibliotheca (1748), does not mend
matters.
[652] 436-338 B.C. One of the “ten” Attic orators. The political
object of his speeches was to unite the Greek world against its
hereditary enemy, Persia. His twenty-one extant speeches are
distinguished by high artistic finish, and are most carefully
elaborated. The news of the battle of Chaeronea (338), in which the
Athenians were utterly defeated by Philip of Macedon, is said to have
killed the aged orator--“killed with report that old man eloquent”
(Milton). He was too timid to speak in public himself, and opened a
school of rhetoric, which was largely attended.
[653] Speeches were divided into deliberative, forensic, and
epideictic (show speeches).
[654] Egyptian prince who put to death strangers arriving in his
country. He was slain by Hercules.
[655] King of Salamis in Cyprus (_see_ p. 109).
[656] The letter to the children of Jason of Pherae completes the
nine. Opinions are divided as to the genuineness of the letters.
[657] Or, “delineation of character” (Van Hook).
[658] “Fiery earnestness” (Jebb).
[659] Flourished at the beginning of the sixth century A.D., pupil
of Procopius of Gaza. He was nominally a Christian, but his point of
view and manner of expression are pagan. Several of his panegyrics,
funeral orations, wedding speeches, and school declamations are
extant.
[660] Procopius of Gaza (465-528).
[661] Perhaps Sopater of Apamea, who was at first intimate with
Constantine the Great, but was put to death by him on account of his
pagan propaganda.
[662] Flourished about 140 B.C.
[663] Castor and Pollux.
[664] King of Mauretania, born _c._ 50 B.C., died _c._ A.D. 20. He
was a most prolific writer on all kinds of subjects.
[665] Of Naucratis, in Egypt; flourished at Rome during the reign
of Commodus and his successors. His _Doctors at Dinner_ (Sandys) is
a kind of encyclopaedia, in which are preserved numerous quotations
from some 700 ancient authors, especially of the Middle and New
Comedy.
[666] Learned female grammarian of the time of Nero; author of a work
bearing upon the history of literature (_see_ Cod. CLXXV).
[667] Nothing further is known of him.
[668] 403-323 B.C.
[669] Of Eresus or Mytilene in Lesbos. Two complete poems and
numerous fragments remain, increased by the papyrus-finds in Egypt.
[670] Of Arelate (Arles); sceptic; author of numerous popular
philosophical works, epideictic declamations, and speeches. He
chiefly resided in Rome, and was patronised by Hadrian.
[671] Of Tarentum; flourished 318 B.C. He was a great authority on
music and rhythm (he was called ὁ μουσικός), and wrote on almost
every subject.
[672] It is uncertain whether he is identical with the author of the
Musical and Roman Histories mentioned below, or whether the author of
the last is an orator of whose rhetorical work a fragment has been
preserved.
[673] Of Colophon or Claros, contemporary of Plato. His elegy _Lyde_,
on the death of his mistress, was famous. He also wrote a long-winded
epic, _Thebais_, and was the author of an edition of Homer.
[674] Roman senator; lived a little earlier than Aelian (_c._ A.D.
170-230). Besides the _Halieutica_ (On Fishing), he wrote on aquatic
divination, and marvellous things.
[675] His date is unknown, possibly the second half of the third
century A.D. The _Lives_ is an undigested and uncritical compilation
from different works.
[676] Of Mytilene (died _c._ 405 B.C.). He wrote several genealogical
works, and the history of various countries and peoples, amongst them
an _Atthis_ (history of Attica), and _Troica_ (History of Troy).
[677] _See_ Cod. LXVIII.
[678] First century B.C.
[679] His date is uncertain. The work was much used by Stephanus of
Byzantium, the geographer.
[680] Add Timoleon.
[681] Of Byzantium (_c._ 257-180 B.C.), successor of Eratosthenes as
librarian of Alexandria. He is famous for his editions of Homer and
other poets, in which he introduced accents and other marks to be
used in the criticism of the text.
[682] Of Rhodes, end of third century B.C. Wrote on art and a
descriptive account of Alexandria.
[683] Of Alexandria, contemporary of Strabo (who died _c._ A.D. 24).
He wrote on the critical marks used in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and
commentaries on Homer and Pindar.
[684] Bishop of Thessalonica, _c._ 600.
[685] A Monophysite sect, which held that the one nature of Christ
was not subject to corruption (ἄφθαρτος), understanding by corruption
(φθορά) not only the corruption following on death and moral
depravity, but all needs of the body, sufferings, and weaknesses,
against which no reproach could be made (ἀδιάβλητα). The _docetae_
part of the compound seems to mean that Christ’s body was not what
it appeared, for it does not appear that they regarded it as a
phantasm, a body _in appearance_ only. They admitted it was real and
substantial.
[686] 2 Cor. iv. 16.
[687] Patriarch of Constantinople, died 447. He was a friend and
pupil of Chrysostom; some of his sermons and letters are extant.
[688] Bishop of Olympus and Patara in Lycia in the fourth century.
It is not certain that he suffered martyrdom. _See_ Codd.
CCXXXIV-CCXXXVII.
[689] Christian apologist during the reign of Hadrian.
[690] From φθαρτός (corruptible) and λατρεία (worship). They held
that the human body of Christ was subject to ordinary natural
corruption.
[691] Who believe in a passible Christ.
[692] Fourth or fifth century A.D. About the middle of the tenth
century a selection was made from it and similar works by command of
the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
[693] Of Nicaea, lived in the time of Cicero. The statement that he
wrote a volume on _Paradoxa_ is probably an error.
[694] Claudius Galenus, A.D. 129-199, the most celebrated physician
of antiquity. Born at Pergamum, he studied at Alexandria, and was
summoned to Rome by Marcus Aurelius, who had the greatest confidence
in him. He wrote numerous treatises on medicine and other scientific
subjects, grammar, and literary criticism.
[695] Μελεταί, elaborate fictitious speeches written for practice in
the schools of rhetoric.
[696] Born at Prusa _c._ A.D. 315, died _c._ 386. Lived at the court
of the Emperor Julian and after his death at Athens. He was the
teacher of Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. Of the twenty-four extant
_Declamations_ some are school exercises, others inaugural orations
(_see_ Cod. CCXLIII).
[697] Themistocles dissuaded the Athenians from accepting his offers.
[698] The word used (περιβολή) expresses the combination in a
single period of a variety of diction, sentiments, and figures
of speech. The Latin equivalent is _circumducta_ or _circumjecta
oratio_: cp. Quintilian, ix. 4, 124: _cum sensus unus longiore ambitu
circumducitur_ (“when a single thought is drawn out by a lengthy
period”).
[699] Αἰτιολογία, giving the causes or reasons of things.
[700] Γοργός, “vigorous,” “fiery,” opposed to “languid,” “spiritless.”
[701] The inversion of the usual order of words or clauses in a
sentence, chiefly for the sake of emphasis.
[702] A send-off speech (like _Propempterius_).
[703] Σχέδιον, a short extempore discourse.
[704] Ἐπίδειξις, a speech delivered in the theatre or a public place
to exhibit the composer’s rhetorical powers.
[705] In the school. To read Συμπληγάδι (with capital Σ) and
translate “prefect of Symplegada” seems absurd.
[706] Λαλιά, a short complimentary address to a real personage.
[707] The text cannot be right (τοῦ Λέοντος). Τοῦ λέγοντος, “of the
speaker” (_i.e._ Himerius himself) is another reading.
[708] Διάλεξις, a private lecture or dissertation for the instruction
of pupils.
[709] Received during the disturbance (συμπληγάς) in the school.
[710] See also the _Eclogae_ by Photius (Cod. CCXLIII) and the
_Orationes_, ed. F. Dübner in the Didot series (Paris, 1849).
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE
S. P. C. K.
BOOKS FOR
STUDENTS
AND
OTHERS
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
LONDON: _Central Offices_: 6 ST. MARTIN’S PLACE, W.C.2
_Book Shops_: 64 NEW BOND STREET, W.1
43 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C.4
_And of all Booksellers_.
_New York_: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
BOOKS FOR STUDENTS
_=Translations of Early Documents=_
A Series of texts important for the study of Christian origins.
Under the Joint Editorship of the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.,
and the Rev. Canon G. H. BOX, M.A.
_The object of this Series is to provide short, cheap, and handy
textbooks for students, either working by themselves or in
classes. The aim is to furnish in translations important texts
unencumbered by commentary or elaborate notes, which can be had
in larger works._
EXTRACTS FROM PRESS NOTICES.
=The Times Literary Supplement= says: “These Jewish Apocalypses
have a direct relation to the thought and religious ideals which
confronted primitive Christianity in Palestine, and not only for
their own sakes, but for their influence on the New Testament and
Apostolic Christianity they deserve careful attention. Handbooks at
once so scholarly and so readable will be welcomed by all interested
in Christian origins.”
=The Church Quarterly Review= says: “To the theological student who
is anxious to know something of the circumstances and thought of the
time during which Christianity grew up, and of the Jewish environment
of the teaching of our Lord and the Apostles, there is no class of
books more valuable than the later Jewish Apocrypha.”
=The Church Times= says: “The names of the Editors are a guarantee of
trustworthy and expert scholarship, and their work has been admirably
performed.”
=The Tablet= says: “A valuable series ... well brought out and should
prove useful to students.”
=Catholic Book Notes= says: “The S.P.C.K. is to be congratulated on
its various series of cheap and useful books for students.”
=The Journal of the Society of Oriental Research (U.S.A.)= says: “The
S.P.C.K. have again made the whole body of students, interested in
things Jewish and Early Christian, their debtors ... their splendid
work in this series.”
=The Living Church (U.S.A.)= says: “To praise this project too highly
is an impossibility. Everyone has felt the need of such a series of
handy and inexpensive translations of these documents and ... we are
assured of excellent results.”
_=Translations of Early Documents=_
FIRST SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and
Cognate Texts (Pre-Rabbinic)
=1. Jewish Documents in the Time of Ezra=
Translated from the Aramaic by A. E. COWLEY, Litt.D.,
Sub-Librarian of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.
=2. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus)=
By the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., Vicar of St. Alban’s,
Bedford Park, W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London.
2_s._ 6_d._ net.
=3. The Book of Enoch=
By the Rev. R. H. CHARLES, D.D., Canon of Westminster. 2_s._
6_d._ net.
=4. The Book of Jubilees=
By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 4_s._ net.
=5. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs=
By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.
=6. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon=
By the Rev. G. H. BOX, M.A., Rector of Sutton, Beds., Hon. Canon
of St. Albans.
=7. The Ascension of Isaiah=
By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 10 in one volume.
4_s._ 6_d._ net.
=8. The Apocalypse of Ezra (ii. Esdras)=
By the Rev. Canon BOX. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.
=9. The Apocalypse of Baruch=
By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 12 in one volume,
2_s._ 6_d._ net.
=10. The Apocalypse of Abraham=
By the Rev. Canon BOX. Together with No. 7 in one volume. 4_s._
6_d._ net.
=11. The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob=
By the Rev. Canon BOX and S. GAZELEE.
=12. The Assumption of Moses=
By Rev. W. J. FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of Holy Trinity, East Finchley.
With No. 9 in one volume. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.
=13. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo=
By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D., F.B.A., Hon. Litt.D., Dublin, Hon.
LL.D., St. Andrews, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge. 8_s._
6_d._ net.
=14. The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament=
By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D. 5_s._ 6_d._ net.
SECOND SERIES--Hellenistic-Jewish Texts
=1. The Wisdom of Solomon=
By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.
=2. The Sibylline Oracles (Books iii-v)=
By the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Vicar of Christ Church, Lancaster
Gate, W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 3_s._
6_d._ net.
=3. The Letter of Aristeas=
By H. ST. JOHN THACKERAY, M.A., King’s College, Cambridge.
2_s._ 6_d._ net.
=4. Selections from Philo=
=5. Selections from Josephus=
By H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A. 5_s._ net.
=6. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees=
By the Rev. C. W. EMMET, B.D., Vicar of West Hendred, Berks.
3_s._ 6_d._ net.
=7. The Book of Joseph and Asenath=
Translated from the Greek text by E. W. BROOKS. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.
THIRD SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and
Cognate Texts (Rabbinic)
[711]=1. The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirke Aboth).= Translated
from the Hebrew by W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 5_s._ net.
[711]=2. Berakhoth.= By the Rev. A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, D.D.
[711]=3. Yoma.= By the Rev. Canon BOX.
[711]=4. Shabbath.= By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.
[711]=5. Tractate Sanhedrin. Mishnah and Tosefta.=
The Judicial procedure of the Jews as codified towards the end of
the second century A.D. Translated from the Hebrew, with brief
Annotations, by the Rev. HERBERT DANBY, M.A., Sub-Warden of St.
Deiniol’s Library, Hawarden. 6_s._ net.
[The special importance of this consists in the light thrown by
it on the trial of our Lord.]
[711]=6. Kimhi’s Commentary on the Psalms (Book I, Selections).= By
the Rev. R. G. FINCH, B.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.
=7. Tamid=
=8. Aboda Zara=
=9. Middoth=
=10. Sopherim=
=11. Megilla=
=12. Sukka=
=13. Taanith=
=14. Megillath Taanith=
=Jewish Literature and Christian Origins=:
=Vol. I. The Apocalyptic Literature.=
=” II. A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinical and
Mediæval Judaism.=
By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, M.A., D.D., and G. H. BOX, M.A., D.D.
=The Uncanonical Jewish Books=
A Short Introduction to the Apocrypha and the Jewish Writings
200 B.C.-A.D. 100. By WILLIAM JOHN FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of East
Finchley. 3_s._ net.
A popularisation of the work of specialists upon these books, which
have attracted so much attention.
_=Translations of Christian Literature=_
General Editors:
W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.; W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.
A number of translations from the Fathers have already been published
by the S.P.C.K. under the title “Early Church Classics.” It is now
proposed to enlarge this series to include texts which are neither
“early” nor necessarily “classics.” The divisions at present proposed
are given below. Volumes belonging to the original series are marked
with an asterisk.
=The Month= says: “The cheap and useful series.”
=The Church Times= says: “The splendid series.”
=Studies= says: “For the intelligent student of Church history who
cannot afford to be a specialist ... such books abound in information
and suggestion.”
=SERIES I.--GREEK TEXTS.=
=Dionysius the Areopagite: The Divine Names and the Mystical
Theology.= By the late C. E. ROLT. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.
=The Library of Photius.= By J. H. FREESE. In 6 Vols. Vol. I. 10_s._
net.
=The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 7_s._
6_d._ net.
*=The Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome.= By the Rt. Rev. J. A.
F. GREGG, D.D. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.
*=Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man that is being saved?= By
P. M. BARNARD, B.D. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.
*=St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood.= By T. A. MOXON. 2_s._ net.
*=The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles.= By C. BIGG, D.D. 1_s._ 3_d._
net.
*=The Epistle to Diognetus.= By the Rt. Rev. L. B. RADFORD, D.D.
1_s._ 6_d._ net.
=St. Dionysius of Alexandria.= By C. L. FELTOE, D.D. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.
*=The Epistle of the Gallican Churches: Lugdunum and Vienna.= With an
Appendix containing Tertullian’s Address to Martyrs and the Passion
of St. Perpetua. By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.
*=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Catechetical Oration.= By the Ven. J. H.
SRAWLEY, D.D. 2_s._ net.
*=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of St. Macrina.= By W. K. LOWTHER
CLARKE, B.D. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.
=Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen the Teacher): the Address of Gregory to
Origen, with Origen’s Letter to Gregory.= By W. METCALFE, B.D.
*=The Shepherd of Hermas.= By C. TAYLOR, D.D. 2 vols. 2_s._ each net.
=Eusebius: The Proof of the Gospel.= By W. J. FERRAR, 2 vols.
=Hippolytus: Philosophumena.= By F. LEGGE. 2 vols.
=The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= By the Ven. J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._
net.
*=St. Irenaeus: Against the Heresies.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2
vols. 2_s._ each net.
=Palladius: The Lausiac History.= By W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. 5_s._
net.
=Palladius: The Life of St. Chrysostom.= By H. MOORE.
*=St. Polycarp.= By B. JACKSON. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.
=SERIES II.--LATIN TEXTS.=
=Tertullian’s Treatises concerning Prayer, concerning Baptism.= By A.
SOUTER, D.Litt. 3_s._ net.
=Tertullian against Praxeas.= By A. SOUTER, D.Litt. 5_s._ net.
=Novatian on the Trinity.= By H. MOORE. 6_s._ net.
*=St. Augustine: The City of God.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 1_s._
6_d._ net.
*=St. Cyprian: The Lord’s Prayer.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 1_s._ 6_d._
net.
=Minucius Felix: The Octavius.= By J. H. FREESE, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.
*=Tertullian: On the Testimony of the Soul and On the Prescription of
Heretics.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 2_s._ net.
*=St. Vincent of Lerins: The Commonitory.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D.
2_s._ net.
=St. Bernard: On Grace and Free Will.= By W. WATKIN WILLIAMS.
=SERIES III.--LITURGICAL TEXTS.=
EDITED BY C. L. FELTOE, D.D.
=St. Ambrose: On the Mysteries and on the Sacraments.= By T.
THOMPSON, B.D., and J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.
*=The Apostolic Constitution and Cognate Documents, with special
reference to their Liturgical elements.= By DE LACY O’LEARY, D.D.
1_s._ 3_d._ net.
*=The Liturgy of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitution,
commonly called the Clementine Liturgy.= By R. H. CRESSWELL. 1_s._
6_d._ net.
=The Pilgrimage of Etheria.= By M. L. MCCLURE. 6_s._ net.
*=Bishop Sarapion’s Prayer-Book.= By the Rt. Rev. J. WORDSWORTH, D.D.
1_s._ 6_d._ net.
=SERIES IV.--ORIENTAL TEXTS.=
=The Ethiopic Didascalia.= By J. M. HARDEN, B.D., LL.D.
=The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus (Armenian).= By J. A. ROBINSON,
D.D.
=SERIES V.--LIVES OF THE CELTIC SAINTS.=
EDITED BY ELEANOR HULL.
=St. Malachy of Armagh (St. Bernard).= By H. J. LAWLOR, D.D.
=St. Ciaran of Clonmacnois.= By R. A. S. MACALISTER.
=St. Patrick: Life and Works.= By N. D. J. WHITE, D.D.
=SERIES IX.--SELECT PASSAGES.=
=Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church.= Vol. I. To
A.D. 313. Edited by B. J. KIDD, D.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.
_=Handbooks of Christian Literature=_
=The Letters of St. Augustine.= By W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth
boards, 10_s._ net.
=The Early Christian Books: A Short Introduction to Christian
Literature to the Middle of the Second Century.= By W. JOHN FERRAR,
M.A., Vicar of East Finchley. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.
=The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture: A Study in the
Literature of the First Five Centuries.= By GEORGE DUNCAN BARRY, B.D.
Cloth boards, 4_s._ 6_d._ net.
=The Eucharistic Office of the Book of Common Prayer.= By the Rev.
LESLIE WRIGHT, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.
_=Helps for Students of History=_
Edited by
C. JOHNSON, M.A., H. W. V. TEMPERLEY, M.A.
and J. P. WHITNEY, D.D., D.C.L.
=The Times Educational Supplement= says: “These little volumes by
well-known specialists should be in the hands of serious students of
history.”
=The Guardian= says: “This is a remarkable series.... A number of
excellent little handbooks for the most part by acknowledged experts.”
1. =Episcopal Registers of England and Wales.= By R. C. FOWLER,
B.A., F.S.A. 6_d._ net.
2. =Municipal Records.= By F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A. 6_d._ net.
3. =Medieval Reckonings of Time.= By REGINALD L. POOLE, LL.D.,
Litt.D. 6_d._ net.
4. =The Public Record Office.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net.
5. =The Care of Documents.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net.
6. =The Logic of History.= By C.G. CRUMP. 8_d._ net.
7. =Documents in the Public Record Office, Dublin.= By R. H.
MURRAY, Litt.D. 8_d._ net.
8. =The French Wars of Religion.= By ARTHUR A. TILLEY, M.A. 6_d._
net.
By Sir A. W. WARD, Litt.D., F.B.A.
9. =The Period of Congresses--I. Introductory.= 8_d._ net.
10. =The Period of Congresses--II. Vienna and the Second Peace of
Paris.= 1_s._ net.
11. =The Period of Congresses--III. Aix-la-Chapelle to Verona.=
1_s._ net.
Nos. 9, 10, and 11 in one volume, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.
12. =Securities of Peace: A Retrospect (1848-1914).= Paper, 2_s._
net; cloth, 3_s._ net.
13. =The French Renaissance.= By A. A. TILLEY, M.A. 8_d._ net.
14. =Hints on the Study of English Economic History.= By W.
CUNNINGHAM, D.D., F.B.A., F.S.A., 8_d._ net.
15. =Parish History and Records.= By A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A.,
F.S.A. 8_d._ net.
16. =A Short Introduction to the Study of Colonial History.= By
A. P. NEWTON, M.A., D.Litt. 6_d._ net.
17. =The Wanderings and Homes of Manuscripts.= By M. R. JAMES,
Litt.D., F.B.A. Paper cover, 2_s._; cloth boards, 3_s._ net.
18. =Ecclesiastical Records.= By the Rev. CLAUDE JENKINS, M.A.,
Librarian of Lambeth Palace.
19. =An Introduction to the History of American Diplomacy.= By
CARL RUSSELL FISH, Ph.D., Professor of American History in the
University of Wisconsin. 1_s._ net.
20. =Hints on Translation from Latin into English.= By ALEXANDER
SOUTER, D.Litt. 6_d._ net.
21. =Hints on the Study of Latin (A.D. 125-750).= By ALEXANDER
SOUTER, D.Litt. 8_d._ net.
22. =Report of the Historical MSS. Commission.= By R. A. ROBERTS,
F.R.Hist.S., sometime Secretary of the Commission.
23. =A Guide to Franciscan Studies.= By A. G. LITTLE.
24. =A Guide to the History of Education.= By JOHN WILLIAM
ADAMSON, Professor of Education in the University of London.
8_d._ net.
25. =Introduction to the Study of Russian History.= By W. F.
REDDAWAY. 6_d._ net.
26. =Monuments of English Municipal Life.= By W. CUNNINGHAM,
D.D., F.B.A.
_=The Story of the English Towns=_
A Series of Popular but Scholarly Histories of English Towns,
designed primarily for the general reader, but suitable also for use
in schools. With Maps, Plans, and Illustrations. Cloth boards. 3_s._
6_d._ net.
=The Yorkshire Post= says: “A picturesque history of Yorkshire’s two
leading cities.”
=The Times Literary Supplement= says: “This well-planned series.”
=Leeds.= By J. S. FLETCHER, Member of the Yorkshire Archæological
Society.
=Peterborough.= By K. and R. E. ROBERTS.
=Sheffield.= By J. S. FLETCHER.
=Westminster.= By H. F. WESTLAKE, M.A., F.S.A., Custodian and Minor
Canon of Westminster Abbey.
_In the Press_--
=Harrogate=
=Birmingham=
=Nottingham=
=Pontefract=
=Halifax=
=Plymouth=
=St. Albans, etc.=
_=Studies in Church History=_
=The Venerable Bede: His Life and Writings.= By the Right Rev. G.
F. BROWNE, D.D., formerly Bishop of Stepney and of Bristol. With
Illustrations. Cloth boards, 10_s._ net.
=The Morning Post= says: “The final and complete history of the
scholar-saint.”
=The Reformation in Ireland: A Study of Ecclesiastical Legislation.=
By HENRY HOLLOWAY, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net.
[_Study of the Irish Reformation is essential, if English readers
are to understand present-day Irish problems, which hinge largely on
religious questions. The author discusses his difficult subject with
complete impartiality._]
=The Universe= says: “The standpoint from which he writes is that
of the detached and unbiassed historian. His book is refreshingly
satisfactory.”
=The Emperor Julian: An Essay on His Relations with the Christian
Religion.= By EDWARD J. MARTIN, B.D., formerly Scholar of Oriel
College, Oxford. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.
=The Importance of Women in Anglo-Saxon Times; The Cultus of St.
Peter and St. Paul, and other Addresses.= By the Right Rev. G. F.
BROWNE, D.D. With two Illustrations. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net.
=The Guardian= says: “Deserves to be widely read both for the
excellent choice of its matter and the equally admirable presentation
of it.”
=Essays Liturgical and Historical.= By J. WICKHAM LEGG, D.Litt.,
F.S.A. Cloth boards, 5_s._ net.
=The English Historical Review= says: “Scholars and antiquaries will
thank Dr. Legg for the service he has done by making these studies
more widely known.”
=French Catholics in the Nineteenth Century.= By the Rev. W. J.
SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth boards, 5_s._ net.
=The Expository Times= says: “The book has the merits of good history
and good biography, both in manifest excellence.”
=An Abbot of Vézelay.= By ROSE GRAHAM, F.R.Hist.S. With eight
Illustrations. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.
=The Westminster Gazette= says: “His career bristles with interdicts,
excommunications, appeals to Rome, and struggles in which he showed
himself to be very distinctly a member of the Church Militant.”
_Texts for Students_
General Editors: CAROLINE A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.; H. J. WHITE, D.D.;
J. P. WHITNEY, D.D., D.C.L.
=The English Historical Review= says: “A new series which deserves
mention ... every number is the work of a scholar of acknowledged
competence.”
=Catholic Book Notes= says: “The S.P.C.K. has rendered a service to
Education.... It is to be hoped that these texts will find their way
into our colleges: they will give a new meaning to Latin and history.”
=The Saturday Review= says: “We have often called attention to the
value of these most useful tracts.”
1. =Select Passages from Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio
Cassius=, illustrative of Christianity in the First Century.
Arranged by H. J. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 3_d._ net.
2. =Selections from Matthew Paris.= By C. A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.
Paper cover, 9_d._ net.
3. =Selections from Giraldus Cambrensis.= By C. A. J. SKEEL,
D.Lit. Paper cover, 9_d._ net.
4. =Libri Sancti Patricii.= The Latin Writings of St. Patrick,
etc. Edited by NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.
5. =A Translation of the Latin Writings of St. Patrick.= By
NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.
6. =Selections from the Vulgate.= Paper cover, 9_d._ net.
7. =The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome.= Paper cover, 6_d._ net.
8. =Select Extracts from Chronicles and Records relating to
English Towns in the Middle Ages.= Edited, with Introduction,
Notes, and Glossary, by F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D. Paper
cover, 9_d._ net.
9. =The Inscription on the Stele of Méša.= Commonly called the
Moabite Stone. The text in Moabite and Hebrew, with translation
by the Rev. H. F. B. COMPSTON, M.A. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.
10. =The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D.
1_s._ net.
11. =Christian Inscriptions.= By H. P. V. NUNN, M.A. With two
Illustrations. 1_s._ net.
12. =Selections from the “Historia Rerum Anglicarum” of William
of Newburgh.= 1_s._ 3_d._ net.
13. =The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D.
4_d._ net.
14. =The Epistle of Barnabas.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 6_d._
net.
15. =The Code of Hammurabi.= By PERCY HANDCOCK, M.A.
16. =Selections from the Tell El-Amarna Letters.= By PERCY
HANDCOCK, M.A. 4_d._ net.
=Select Passages Illustrating Commercial and Diplomatic Relations
between England and Russia.= By A. WEINER, M.A., F.R.Hist.S.
1_s._ 6_d._ net.
=Itinerarium Regis Ricardi.= By M. T. STEAD.
=Select Extracts Illustrating Florentine Life in the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Centuries.= By E. G. ROPER.
=Slavonic Settlements in Dalmatia.= By J. B. BURY.
_Pioneers of Progress_
MEN OF SCIENCE: Edited by S. CHAPMAN, M.A., D.Sc.
Each with a Portrait. Paper cover, =1s.=; cloth, =2s.= net.
=The Medical Times= says: “Extremely well written and should do
much to stimulate interest in science ... especially suitable to
place in the hands of senior school-boys and junior students.”
=The Manchester Guardian= says: “An admirable series.”
=The Scotsman= says: “These studies have many recommendations
from the point of view of the amateur scientist.”
=Galileo.= By W. W. BRYANT, F.R.A.S., Royal Observatory,
Greenwich.
=Michael Faraday.= By J. A. CROWTHER, D.Sc.
=Alfred Russel Wallace: The Story of a Great Discoverer.= By
LANCELOT T. HOGBEN, B.A., B.Sc.
=Joseph Priestley.= By D. H. PEACOCK, B.A., M.Sc., F.I.C.
=Joseph Dalton Hooker, O.M., G.C.S.I, C.B., F.R.S., M.D., etc.=
By Professor F. O. BOWER, Sc.D., F.R.S.
=Herschel.= By the Rev. HECTOR MACPHERSON, M.A., F.R.A.S.,
F.R.S.E.
=Archimedes.= By Sir THOMAS L. HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S.
=Aristarchus of Samos.= By Sir THOMAS L. HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S.
WOMEN: Edited by ETHEL M. BARTON.
With Illustrations.
=Florence Nightingale.= By E. F. HALL.
=Dorothea Beale.= By ELIZABETH H. SHILLITO, B.A.
=Elsie Inglis.=
[12.2.20.
_Printed in Great Britain by R. Clay & Sons, Ltd., London and
Bungay._
FOOTNOTES:
[711] It is proposed to publish these texts first by way of
experiment. If the Series should so far prove successful the
others will follow. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are now ready.
Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have
been silently corrected after careful comparison with other
occurrences within this work and consultation of external
sources. Some hyphens in words have been silently removed and
some silently added when a predominant preference was found in
the original work. Except for those changes noted below, original
spellings in the text and inconsistent or archaic usage have been
retained.
Page 16: “I. they are” replaced with “If they are”.
Page 62: “governed Bithynia, Arabia, Lybia” replaced with
“governed Bithynia, Arabia, Libya”.
Page 128: “John Chysostom” replaced with “John Chrysostom”.
Page 162: “to the wish o” replaced with “to the wish of”.
Page 236: “until his trangression” replaced with “until his
transgression”.
Page 237: “his other nonsenical” replaced with “his other
nonsensical”.
Footnote 33: “Ασύνδετος” replaced with “Ἀσύνδετος”.
Advertisements, page 16: “a Great Discover” replaced with “a
Great Discoverer”.
Italicized text is surrounded by underscores: _italics_. Bold
text is surrounded by equal signs: =bold=.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIBRARY OF PHOTIUS, VOLUME 1 (OF 1) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
