$F

tf&

^ tV\t Shpuln^tra/ ^

PRINCETON, N J.

**

*/.

*/>

";&k\

m

■

HEEMAS IN AKCADIA

AND OTHER ESSAYS.

Bonbon: C. J. CLAY and SONS,

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,

AVE MARIA LANE,

Olaaaobj: 863, ARGYLE STREET

ILtipjifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS. flrto gork: MAt'MILLAN AND 00.

#^0

OCT

HEEMAS IN AKCADIA

AND OTHEE ESSAYS

BY

J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A., D.Litt. (Dubl.),

FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

CAMBRIDGE : AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

1896

[All Rights reserved.]

Cambridge :

PRINTED RY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THK T'XIVF.RSITY PRF.BS.

PEEFACE.

TN the following pages I have reprinted two essays which throw -1- some light on critical problems connected with the text and interpretation of that famous early Christian book, known as the Shepherd of Hermas. Each of them has been the starting point for important investigations by the leading scholars of our time ; and I have endeavoured to indicate the accretions or corrections which they have made to my first statements, so that the student may not only have before him the texts of my researches, which are extant, sometimes in very brief form, in journals not very easy of access, but may also be able to bring the investigations up to their latest point of development.

Of these two essays the first appeared in June 1887 in the Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis (Boston, U.S.A.); the second is three years earlier in date; it was first printed in the Circulars of the Johns Hopkins University for April 1884, a publication containing many valuable notes on all branches of science, but not generally accessible, nor easy to handle. If the brief paper in question were estimated by the combat of giants which it provoked, I think it would be admitted that it was worth reprinting.

To these I have added a number of other pieces which may, perhaps, be found useful by the critics. Where they do not permanently instruct, they may transitorily please; and where the matter of them may seem to be unimportant, the method will sometimes be found deserving of consideration.

CONTENTS.

PAGES

Hermas in Arcadia ! 20

On the Angelology of Hermas 21—25

Prester John's Library 26—42

Presbyter Gaids and the Fourth Gospel . . 43—59

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS 60—83

HERMAS IN ARCADIA.

THE object of the present paper is to set at rest a critical difficulty which has been raised concerning the interpretation of the tract of Hernias which goes under the heading of the Ninth Similitude ; and to indicate a direction in which further light may be obtained on the vexed question of the date of this remarkable writer. The difficulty is in the first instance one of interpretation : we find in the writings of Hermas a blending of the real experi- ences of life with imaginary importations from current mythologies which render it hard to decide whether the writer Avishes us to take him seriously, or to apply to his works an allegorical inter- pretation such as was common enough in early times, both in pagan and Jewish and Christian circles. And it is probably this perplexity rather than a mere personal fondness for such interpre- tations which led Origen to explain even the most strongly defined personal allusions in Hermas, the names of Clement and Grapte, in a spiritual manner. We may at least conclude that the subject invited such treatment. We may easily agree that the allusions to his life in Rome in the first Vision are genuine history, from which the step to the second Vision, which contains a visit to Cumse, seems natural, as does also the account of the walk on the Via Campana in the third Vision. But if we admit these passages to be meant for a literal acceptation, we certainly cannot admit the interview with the Church-Sibyl to be anything but a work of imagination based on popular religious mythology. And we should not find it easy to determine where the literal ends and the allegorical begins. We are thus in much the same case as an interpreter of the Pilgrim's Progress would be who had sufficient knowledge of Bunyans history to see that the "certain den" with which the book opens is the Bedford prison, and who had sufficient

H. H.

2 HKRXAS i\ aimadia.

insight to determine that the rest of the book was allegorical, but who was wanting both in the historical information and in the intuitive perception by which to detect the traces of Bunyan's personal history which lurk behind the folds of the Allegory. It is however generally held that the mention of places not very remote from Rome <>ughtto be accepted as sufficient evidence that the writer is giving us history rather than romance. The Via Campana, at Least, scarcely admits of being allegorized, nor the mile-stones which Hennas passes on the road: with Cumae the question is a little more involved, but even here the general opinion has been, and probably will remain in favour of the positive raphical acceptation of Hennas' words. Such being the case, it is not a little surprising that, when we have so many Italian allusions in the book of Visions, we should find ourselves transported in the Ninth Similitude into Arcadia, and there regaled with an allegorical account of the building of the Church, which outdoes in fantastic detail the whole of the previous accounts. Are we to assume that, as in the case n noted from the Pilgrim's Progress, the initial note of place is to be accepted literally, and that from that point we plunge into allegory; or is the whole a work of imagination from the start? In the latter ease, how can we explain the change of literary method involved in the comparison between a real Koine, Cuni;e, Via ( 'ampana, and a poetic Arcadia 1 In the former case, how did the Roman Hennas find his way into the most inaccessible part of Greece? h was uo doubt through some such questioning that Zalm was led to propose an emendation in the text of Henna- that instead of reading

teal aim')^a^kv fxe ei"? *Ap/caoiav

we Bhould put 'Apuclav for *ApnaZlav. The advantage of this

correction was that it transferred the scene again to the neighbour- hood of Rome, and restored the literary parallelism between the

Ninth Similitude and the book of Visiona To Support this

conjecture, Zahn first brought forward a case where the word 'Apueiav had been corrupted in transcription, viz. j a passage in the Acts of Peter and Paul, o. 20, where the scribe has in error given \\pa3iar. If Arabia, why uot Arcadia I

Then he proceeds to shew that the country around Alicia corresponds to the description given by Hennas of Arcadian

HERMAS IN ARCADIA.

3

scenery, and, in particular, he identifies the "rounded hill" {opos IxaaTtohes) to which Hernias was transported, with the Italian Monte Gentile. I do not know whether this suggestion of Zahn has met with any great favour, although it is ingenious, and not outside the bounds of possibility. The objection to it is chiefly that which falls to the lot of the majority of conjectural emenda- tions, viz. : that it is not necessary ; for, as I shall shew presently, the whole description of the country visited by Hermas, corresponds closely with the current accounts of Arcadian scenery, and is probably based upon them. So that if I do not discuss Zahn's hypothesis directly, it is because it is a last resort of criticism to which one must not look until the normal methods of interpretation have broken down. Let us then examine the scene into which Hermas introduces us ; and the interpretation which he puts upon what he sees. We are told in the first place that his guide led him away into Arcadia and there seated him upon the top of a rounded hill from whence he had a view of a wide plain surrounded by mountains of diverse character and appearance. We will indicate the description of these mountains by the following diagram, in which the successive eminences are ranged in a circular form, and attached to each is the leading characteristic which is noted by Hermas : —

TT-qydv 7rkrjp€s

x

*

fioTavas IXapds

kcu 7rdv ycros

Krqvwv kcu opveoiv

o")(L(TpCiv oXov eyc/x€i/ . . €t^ov Se fioToivas al a\icrpai

o\ov iprjpwSes

e\ov fioToivas

xAtopas kcu

rpa^v 6v

€i\€ SivSpa /xeyioTa if . . . kcu TrpofiaTa

opos /xacrTOjScs

r}pL^rjpov<i

BevSpa KaiaKapira

okov Xcvkov tP'x

/xtXav to? da(36\rj

xy aKavuwv /cat

Tpi/36\u)v 7rkrjp€<;

XP' xJ/lXov, ftordvas py) c^ov

1—2

4 BBBMA8 IX &BCADIA.

X<»w before we begin to look for identifications with the aery of any particular country or neighbourhood, we should try

to subtract from the description those details which are artistically inserted by Hennas in order to bring certain views of bid OWE before the minds of his reader under the cover of his allegory. The matter of the Ninth Similitude bo for as it concerns the building of the tower and the shaping of the various stones is already present in the third Vision; and there is much in the description that is parallel to the account given of the various stones which are brought from the twelve mountains. For ex- ample, just as in the third Vision we find stones brought for building that are white, and some that are speckled (iip-apia/cores) ; some that are squared, and some that are round; some that are sound, and some that have cracks in them. When wre find, therefore, that in his Ninth Similitude Hernias makes his firs! mountain black as soot and his twelfth perfectly white, we know that it is more likely to be an expansion of the previous allegory than a natural feature; and when we find him saying that some of the mountains had chasms {ayjLayLal) in them, we must rather refer to the stones that have cracks in them (o-^tcr/ia? £%oire$) than to any peculiarity of the mountain region, however the d.-eription may seem to invite the identification with the peculiar characteristic of Arcadia, the KardfiaOpa or underground p and hollows of the mountains into which the rivers of that country so commonly precipitate themselves.

A. similar process of subtraction must be made on account of the similarity between this Ninth Similitude and the one thai precedes it. In this case the allegory turns upon the distribution by the angel of the Lord of a number of branches which he had cut from a greal willow-tree. After a while the angel Bummons the people to whom he had given them and scrutinizes them carefully. Some brought hack their branches withered, others half-withered and with cracks on their Burfaoe, {t)p.tl~t}pov$ teal axia-fia^ ixovaa^,) others again were green, (^Xw/hk,) others had fruit, and so on. A comparison of these terms with those osed by Sermaa of his mountains will shew thai there has been a use mad.' <>f the Eighth Similitude in the Ninth.

Nor musl we suppose that there is any special identification with the particular number twelve The number is introduced artificially and for the following reason: the mountains out of

HERMAS IN ARCADIA. 5

which the stones are taken are declared to represent the peoples of the earth out of whom the church is builded ; now the idea prevailed at an early period that since the Jewish Ecclesia was composed of twelve tribes, something of a similar nature was to be predicated concerning the Christian world which had replaced and comprehended the Jewish world. Otherwise how was an explana- tion possible of the sealing of the 144,000 in the Apocalypse ? But then these twelve tribes could not be identified with nation- alities and must therefore represent so many different types of character.

This is undoubtedly Hermas' idea, and it shews us that we must not suppose any geographical enumeration to be involved in the number twelve. The author of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum amongst his many traces of antiquity gives us the following on Matt. xix. 28 : " Ad hue autem audeo, et subtiliorem introducere sensum, et sententiam alterius cuiusdam viri referre. Exponit autem sic : Quoniam sicut Judaeorum populus in duo- decim tribus fuit divisus, sic et universus populus Christianus divisus est in duodecim tribus secundum quasdam proprietates animorum et diversitates cordium, quas solus deus discernere et cognoscere potest, ut quaedam animae sunt de tribu Reuben, quaedam de tribu Simeon vel Levi vel Juda."

These twelve classes according to Hermas are a. Blasphemers and traitors. ft. Hypocrites and wicked teachers.

7. Rich men and those who are involved in the business of life1.

8. The double-minded.

e. Badly-trained, self-willed people.

r. Slanderers and keepers of grudges.

J". Simple, guileless, happy souls who give of their toils with- out hesitating and without reproach. (Cf. Teaching of Apostles.)

rj. Apostles and teachers.

6. Bad deacons who have plundered the widow and orphan. Lapsi who do not repent and return to the saints.

1 Note that these are said to he irvtySfxevot vwo tCjv irpd^v avruv, and correspond to the mountain covered with thorns and briars ; the reference to the Gospel (the thorns sprang up and choked them) seems indisputable.

f) SERMAS IN A.BCADIA.

i. Hospitable bishops who entertain the servants of God to.. Martyrs for the Name, including those who thereby

obtain a remission that was otherwise inaccessible to them.

*/3. Babes of the Kingdom who keep all the commands

of God

These, then, are the twelve tribes of the Dew Israel; and, as I have said, we do need to identify twelve mountains.

When we have made the deductions intimated from the imagery, we are left to identify the locality from the remaining • lata; and this we shall proceed to do. And to begin with, let us observe that the idea of Arcadia presented itself early in con- nection with Christianity. For example, that beautiful compo- sition which passes under the name of the second epistle of ('lenient, but which seems rather to be an early Christian homily, declares (c. xiv) the pre-existence of the Church in the following terms ■ u Wherefore, my brethren, if we do the will of God our Father we shall be of the first Church, viz.: the spiritual one, which waa created before the sun and moon... For the Church was Bpiritua] as was also our Jesus1, and was manifested in the last times." No doubl this language is in part to be explained like the Yalentiniaii Syzygy of Man and the Church by reference to a gnosis on Genesis i. 27. The writer of the homily says as much; the first Adam having been created male with female, so was

the second; but what should be noticed is that the terms used

to describe the pre-existence are not borrowed from Genesis, but

from the Arcadian tradition that they existed in their mountain

fastnesses before the moon, and it was thus that they explained their name of Wpoa-eXvvoi. What the writer of the homily means is that the Christian Church is the true Arcadia. And thus we have ai once the explanation of the ideal journey which Sennas makes into Arcadia For we find the Bame view held in the second Vision of Eermas (Via ii 4. 1 ), where we are told even more decidedly that the Church was created first of all things. Similar ideas must have been common enough in the earlier centuries. So much being premised, let us put ourselves into the position of Bermason the supposition that he has uomore than the ordinary actions concerning Arcadia We should -imply be

1 That Christ wm before "the Bon ami Moon" i- proved by Justin, Dial. 7»i, apparently from Pe, 72. 17, 110, B.

HERMAS IN ARCADIA. 7

able to say that Arcadia was the innermost part of the Pelo- ponnesus, and that it was shut in on every side by a ring of mountains. The rudest idea that could be formed would there- fore be that of a plain within a circular mountain-wall ; precisely the kind of view with which the Ninth Similitude opens. Here dwell the remnants of the primitive and virtuous race of men whom the gods loved to visit, whose chief virtues were, according to Polybius, $iko%evia and fyiXavOpw-rrLa. It may be noticed in passing, though I do not attach any importance to it, that Hermas makes one of his spiritual tribes, the good bishops, representative of the virtue of hospitality.

But it is plain that Hermas' knowledge goes beyond the elementary notion sketched above. This can be seen best by noticing the points which occur in the description of the moun- tains which have no special parallel in the allegorical explanation of the characters whom the mountains represent. For example, he adds to his description of his seventh mountain the fact that there were found on it all manner of beasts and birds ; the eighth mountain is full of springs ; the tenth mountain has sheep resting under the shade of its timber; the ninth is full of snakes and evil beasts ; the eleventh shews fruit trees, and so on. But especially one should draw attention to the sixth mountain, whose description is e%o^ fiordvas ^Xwpa? ical rpa^v ov. The same language is used again in c. 22 rov e%oz^T09 fiordvas %\Q)pas icai Tpaxeos ovtos. Here all the editors print the word rpaxv as an adjective, and it may be so ; but if an adjective it is suggested by the name of one of the mountains of Arcadia. A reference to a map of Arcadia will shew this mountain on the eastern side of the plain of Orchomenos: E. Curtius in his Peloponnesos (i. 219) describes it as follows: "Den ostlichen Berg nannten die Alten seiner rauhen und schroffen Form wegen Trachy."

I suppose it will hardly be maintained to be an accidental coincidence that Hermas, writing of Arcadia, or professing to do so, should twice describe a particular mountain by the name which the ancients used to designate one of the mountains of Arcadia. So far from any such assumption being likely, the mere mention of the name Trachy would be sufficient to intimate that we were in Arcadia.

This identification being then made, we are able to take the next step, and to determine the plain in which the scene is laid

8 pERMAfl IN ARCADIA,

and the rounded hill from which the scenery is viewed This □as at first Bight bo be difficult, because, although to an outsider Arcadia might be pictured as a happy valley within mountains, in reality, like Switzerland, with which it has often been compared, it does doI furnish any one central plain, but innumerable valleys and small plains; and although there are one or two larger and more Bpacious than others, none seems to correspond to the rounded f«>rni which Sennas' language would at first lead us to exp Bui the mention of Mount Trachy shews that the plain musi be the plain of Orchomenos, in the midst of which stands, dividing it into upper and lower respectively, the hill of Orchomenos, the strongest natural fortress of Arcadia and perhaps of ancient Greece. This then must be the opos jjLaarwBes of Hennas; it rises boa height of nearly 3000 feet immediately from the plain, and was famous even in Homeric times as one of the early Greek strongholds and cities1.

Thus far we might have arrived from a study of the itinerary of Pausanias, from whose description of Arcadia we must make not a few references. Thus in xiii. § 2 we have the following notes: Op-^ofievloi^ Be ?/ irporepa 7ro\t? eVt opov<; i)p (itcpa rj} Kopv(f>f} tcai dyopas re teal reiyjhv epeiina XeLTrerat : and in § 3. eari Be aTravTiKpv T/j? iroXews opo<; Tpa^y. to Be vBwp to e/c rod Oeov Bin -^apdBpa^ peov kol\t)<; /lera^u ry}<; re 7ro\eo>? kcli rov Tpa^eo? opovs KcireLaiv e? aXXo ^Op^ofieviov ireBiov to Be ireBiov tovto fieyedet p.ev fieya, t« irXeiw Be earw avrov \i'p.i'7]. It appears, therefore, that the nana- Trachy was current for the mountain on the east <>f Orchomenos in the second century: Pausanias se< ms to have given us here a careful and correct descripl ion of the country.

Soi nc of the other mountains to which Hennas makes reference may now he identified by the aid of Pausanias, For example,

the ninth mountain ifl Said to be full of serpents and QOzioUS

beasts. The mountain referred to is lit Sepia. The name is supposed to be derived from the venomous viper that was found there; and there were legends enough about the neighbourhood, even in Pausanias1 time, bo make it appear a country which was formerly something like Ireland before the arrival of St. Patrick.

1 Curtius, Peloponn i. 290. -ihc (urahomeniaohe Berg, eint Kappa von

8912 F. Hfthe, welohc [thomc ihnliofa i>t, and wis I Bbenen klanscht,

• inmittrlhur ftOfl d-in N:vhlnn<lo HnpOT."

HERMAS IN ARCADIA.

C^AIA

/\<*

&&0

CO

J

MFMum

**.

Mii""

turn . *ss

Jceics ■

Orckomaws

O

K '^/0 \MJjirteMisLotv

\ i^r* MlVstrakina- ', H >

^V T>Icuibineut%% * <**

/

*t*

**	?
*
/*%	• •
\	r S \
%	\^'
^ 1	X^Jro***
"V *•	v.*-**
^
^
V"
V

MAP ILLUSTRATING HERMAS' VISIT TO ARCADIA

10 IIKKMAS IX ARCADIA.

Here they said that JSpytas, the BOD of Elatos, met his death from the bite of a serpent. C£ Pausan Arcad. iv. 4, KXelropc

he tw 'A£ai'o? ov yevofievwv iraihaiv e\ Wirvrov KXarov nrepi- eyuipT)<jev ?; WptcdBav {3aai\eia. rov he Aittvtov e^eXdovra e? dypav Orjplcov fiev rwv dX/ciiAGJTepwv ovhev, arj^r he ov irpolh6p.evov diroKTLi'i'vai. rov he 6(piv rovrov /cat avros irore elhow Kara e\LV earl rov fiiKporarov, re<ppa e/x(f>ep >/?, anyfiaaiv ov crvveyecri nreiroi- KiXfievos KT€.

xvi. 1, TpiKp7)v(ov he ov iroppw dXXo earlv opo<; ^.rjiria teal AiTTVTro T(p 'EXdrov Xeyovaiv evravda yeveaOat Tfjv reXevrrjv e/c rov 6(peco<; /ere.

New, I think, if we compare Pausanias' account of iEpytus' death while hunting, through no great beast, but by the bite of a viper, with Hennas' statement that in the ninth mountain there were epTrera Oavaroohrj, hiafyOeipovra toi)? dvOpcoTrovs, he will have little doubt that the mountain meant is Mt. Sepia.

The identification of these two mountains, Trachy and Sepia. I regard as established They are respectively the fifth and ninth of Hennas' series, and whatever further progress in identification is possible, the results must harmonize with these so that the other mountains enclose a plain with them, and from an exami- nation of the situation of these two on a map of Arcadia it is not difficult to infer that the order in which Hennas reckons his mountains is East — North — West — South. I am not, however, very -anguine of making any further identifications that would be equally convincing. It would be, however, possible to detect the origin "t Eermas' many-fountained mountain. For we are informed by Pausanias that the emperor Adrian brought water for the city of Corinth all the way from Stymphalus: Pans. ii. iii. 5, Kprfvac he 7roXXal fiev dvd tijv ttoXiv ireiroiiii'Tai Truant, are d(j)66vov peovros a<j)iaiv vharos, koi o ht) (3aaiXev<: 'Ahptai'o^ eo-qyayev i/c -rvfjL(f»jXov. The language of Pausanias is in close

correspondence with Hennas, and the mountain is located in the eighth place in the Held <>t' view. The umbrageous mountain under the shade of which flocks of Bheep were gathered might find its identification in the lit. Skiathis, described by Pausanias

MB folloWB, xiv. 1, \\apvm> he ardhia irevre d(f>earj)Kev tj Te "0/»l/£*9 KaXovfMeinj /cat erepov 2icta0iQ, v<f>% efcareprp he eari r(p opei /3d pa- Opov to vhcop Karahe\o fievov to e/e'rov irehiov.

According to this identification M t. Skiathis should be the next

HERMAS IN ARCADIA. 11

in order to Mt. Sepia, since it is the tenth on Hennas' circle ; and a reference to the map will shew that this conclusion is not contradicted by the geography of the region, except that I think Skiathis would appear a little to the right of Mt. Sepia to an observer on the hill of Orchomenos1. As to the other character- istics, it is not worth while to discuss the animal and vegetable products of Arcadia more at length : it is sufficient to say that Hermas' description shews a very fair acquaintance with ancient Greek geography : and we may naturally go on to enquire what were the sources of his knowledge.

I think that it will be sufficiently evident from what has gone before that there is at least a suspicion that the description is taken from Pausanias. When we remove from our minds those details which I have shewn to be artificial creations of Hermas, and such generalities as attach themselves naturally to the idea of Arcadia as seen from the outside, we are left with peculiarities that at once fall in with the notes in the Itinerary of Pausanias. And these peculiarities are not the striking features of the Arcadian scenery, such as the lofty Mt. Cyllene2 and the like, but somewhat insignificant details which would hardly have been noted except by a close observer who was making his own notes carefully as he went along, nor would they have been repeated except by some one who had carefully perused such an itinerary3.

Now here a difficulty presents itself. No doubt we may admit a certain amount of agreement between Pausanias and Hermas, and it would be strange if two second-century writers, both dealing with the subject of Arcadia, had not expressed themselves in a

1 Note that Curtius says (i. 210), " Salad is ist der schattige Waldberg, gleich avaKLov opos bei Dikaearch. 75. Diesem Bergnamen eutspricht der Name des Dorfes Skotini das am Abhange unseres Skiathis liegt."

2 We cannot even be sure whether Hermas alludes to Mt. Cyllene at all ; yet it must have been the most conspicuous feature of the landscape. The fact that it is not actually on the borders of the plain of Orchomenos, proves nothing; Mt. Sepia overlooks the valley of Stymphalus rather than the plain of Orchomenos, yet it is clearly alluded to by Hermas. Is Mt. Cyllene intended by the seventh mountain upon whose slopes are found all kinds of cattle and of birds ?

3 For example, in addition to what has been said, notice that the leading feature in the southwest of the landscape is Mt. Ostrakina, and compare the description in Hermas where the pastor bids those who build the tower to bring 6<TrpaKov and dafiea-Tos in order that they may make the neighbourhood of the tower clean against the day of its inspection : viraye ical <p£pe da^earov ko.1 aarpaKov \eirr6v. Is this Ostrakina the twelfth mountain of Hermas ?

12 BEBMAS l\ A l:f ' \ l »l \.

manner which suggested peculiar coincidences in minor points, but in thai case how could it be possible thai Bermas could have utilized Pausanias, when that writer had oot completed his Arcadia before the year l»i7 (as we shall shew)? .

For detenniniag the date of Pausanias' Itinerary we have, I believe, no facts besides those which are contained in the work iisdf. The chronological landmarks are as follows: In the seventh Ixx.k of the Itinerary (Achaia 20, § 6) Pausanias explains that the Odeion at Athens was not described in his first book on Attica l>eeau>e llmnlrs Atticus had not built it at the time when the first book was written. Now Atticus is one of the leading figures of the second century, sufficiently known by his reputation as a rhetorician, an executor of magnificent public works all over Greer.', and as B teacher and friend of Marcus Aurelius. The period of his life is supposed to be a.d. 104-180. Since the close of his life was embittered by the plots and complaints of an opposing faction at Athens, we may suspect that his liberality in public building at Athens does not belong to the last years of his life. And, whatever date we may assign to the structure, we have the following sequence : —

Pausanias writes his Attica. Herodes builds the Odeinn. Pausanias writes his Arcadia.

The <»ther landmark isas follows: Pausanias alludes in his Itinerary of Arcadia to Marcus Aurelius and, perhaps, to his victory over the Quadi which took place in a.d. 174. The passage is as follows:

'Yovtov \iuae/3)) top jSaacXea eKciXeaav ol ' lya)/j,aioi, Bkjtl rfj & to Belov rifjifj fiaXiara e^alvero -^pcofievo^' Bo^rj Be efijj koI to ovofia to Kvpov (frepoiTO av tou rrpea^3uTepovf irariip avOpcoircDv koKov- fievos. ' AjriXiTre Be kclI eirl rf fiaaiXeia TralBa 6fuovv/j.oi>' o Be Wi'Twvli'os ovtos o Bevrepo*; teal TOV$ re Vepfi(ii'OV<;, fia^t/icoTarov^ tcai 7rXeiarov<; rcov ev T§ Evpoyirj) fiapi3dp(ov teal e0i'o<; ro ~avpo- (k'itwv TroXefiiov tcai uBircia<; ap^avra<i Ti(icopovfJLei>o<i eire^^XOe.

Th.' language here used ha- generally been taken to mean that Pausanias was writing his eighth 1 k subsequently t<> the

defeat of th>' QuadJ in 174. But it seems t«» me that while the

age ha- an air <>t having brought recent history down to date, that date is tic- date of the departure of tic expedition against the Qermans and oof of it- return. It becomes therefore possible

HERMAS IN ARCADIA. 13

to push back the date of the Arcadia nearly seven years earlier. We proceed on the supposition that Pausanias wrote his history and published it as he went along; this appears from the fact that the eighth book was written at a time when the first book was out of reach of correction. But even, on the earliest hypothesis, does it seem likely that Hernias could have written so late in the second century as to copy Pausanias? And if this seem too difficult an assumption, especially in view of the Muratorian canon, is there any other hypothesis that will explain the apparent coincidence ? The alternative that first offers itself is the depres- sion of the date of this portion of Hermas.

It has been noticed by Hilgenfeld that the writings attributed to Hermas fall, upon critical examination, into three groups : the first of these which Hilgenfeld calls Hennas apocalypticus, com- prises the first four Visions ; the second part, which comprises Vis. v to Sim. vii, having Vis. iii for its prologue, and Similitude vii for its epilogue, is the true Hermas pastoralis or book of the Shepherd. The third division comprises Similitudes viii and ix with the tenth for an epilogue. This part of the book Hilgenfeld calls Hermas secundarius, and attributes to his editorial care (whoever he may be) the massing together of the whole series of writings. Now there is something to be said for this division, even if we may not feel like abandoning altogether the theory of the single authorship. May it not be that the last division is the later workmanship of the same hand as wrote the two former groups ? In that case we are able still to hold to the Muratorian statement with the single restriction that it applies only to the earlier parts of the book. This would require us to assume that Hermas outlived his brother Pius by a number of years, depending, in part, upon the (doubtful) date of the death of Pius, or at least of the close of his episcopate. And even if this explanation be considered insufficient, it is still possible to adopt Hilgenfeld's theory of a later writer who re-edits and makes an appendix to the earlier Hermas (I do not of course mean to imply that Hilgenfeld makes Hermas fall so late as my theory would imply). And even if Pausanias should turn out not to be the true authority, the identification of the water sources of Corinth brought by Hadrian remains and lowers the date of Hermas accordingly.

It becomes proper now to return to the Arcadian allegory and

14 HEK.MAS IN ARCADIA.

see whether there is any other point where the comparison can be made geographically correct And I should like, though in a somewhat tentative manner, to suggest that in the details of the building of the tower, Hennas has had some reference to the early Cyclopean buildings of which the ruins were still to be seen in

Greece and especially in the Peloponnesus. Perhaps the best way to make my meaning clear will be to compare a passage in Sennas

with descriptions taken from Pausanias and modern writers. In Sim. ix. \ii. 4, we find Herman speaking as follows: "I said to the Shepherd, How can these stones which have been condemned enter into the building of the tower? He answered and said unto me, Dost thou see these stones? I sec them, sir, said I. Said he, I will cut away the greater part of these stones and put them into the building, and they shall fit in with the rest of the stones. How, sir, said I, can these stones when cut occupy the same room? He answered and said unto me, Those which are found to be small for their place shall be put into the middle of the building, while the larger ones shall be put outside, and so they will hold one another together."

Now let us compare with this the description which Pausanias gives of the wonderful Cyclopean walls of Tiryns. He tells as that these walls are made of unwrought stones of such size that a team <>f mules would not be able to shake even the smallest ones ; and that smaller stones to these are fitted into the interstices of the larger ones, bo as t«» produce the closest union between them1.

I understand Hennas t<> mean to describe in his builded tower a week of Cyclopean character (which, by the way, appears also from the tact that there are only ten Btones in the first course <»t the building), and the small stones which result from the pro of cutting, t<» correspond t<> those which Pausanias describes as producing a union between the larger blocks. And it i- clear from the description in Bermas that the larger blocks are un- wrought stones (dpyd). Those who wish to see the appearance of

BUCh a wall depicted will find it in Schliemaim. MyCBfUB am/

Tiryns, \>. 29, where it is called a u wall of the first period."

similar Cyclopean remains may be found at other points in

1 to 5t7 tuxos, 5 5t] [ibvov tCjv ipcuriuv Xdrrtrai, KWck&WW* p-lv icriv tpyov, ireiroiijTai 5c apyuv XLOwv, fiiyiths t'xun' (Karros \iOos u'S dir' wbrQ* pn]5' b\v dp\hv KivrjOijyai rbv HUcpdraTov virb fcvyovs ij/xiovuv ' \idia 5t iy^ppLOCrai. ird\ai u>v avruv tKaarov apfiovlav roh p.(yd\oit \ldois thai. Pmw. ii. 86. 8.

HERMAS IN ARCADIA. 15

the Peloponnesus, such as the top of the mountain of Orchomenos, and the ruins of the ancient city of Lycosura in Southwest Arcadia.

And this identification helps us to explain a detail in Hernias' account ; viz. : the way in which his tower is said to be built over the rock and over the gate (iirdva) rrjs irerpa^; koX eirdvai rf)<; ttv\7)s). Special attention is given in these early buildings, such as the acropolis of Mycenae and the like, to the defences of the entrance. The entrance to the gate of the Lions at Mycenae is an illustration of this, the gate being placed at right angles to the wall of the citadel and approached through a passage formed by the citadel wall and a nearly parallel outer wall which formed part of the masonry of a tower by which the entrance was guarded. Schliemann adds to his description of this gateway an approving reference to Leake for pointing out that "the early citadel builders bestowed greater labour than their successors on the approaches to the gates." Another instance of a gate defended by a tower which projects over it is given by Curtius from the ruins of Lycosura : " On the east side of the city there is preserved a gate with a projecting tower (ein Thor mit einem Thurmvor- sprunge)."

I venture the suggestion, then, that Hermas in the Ninth Similitude, when working up again the subject of the Church- Tower, has been influenced by accounts of the Cyclopean buildings of the Peloponnesus. If his authority was a written one, it may have been Pausanias, as in the previous cases ; unless some point can be brought forward to show that Pausanias was unacquainted with what Hermas describes elsewhere, and that Hermas must have had written authority for the same.

To sum up the whole course of the preceding arguments : the scene of the Ninth Similitude of Hermas is really laid in Arcadia, probably in the plain of Orchomenos. Some of the mountain scenery which he describes is capable of exact identification by means of the Itinerary of Pausanias ; and he has been influenced in his architecture by the Cyclopean remains of the Peloponnesus. Either the whole or at all events the latter part of the writings of Hermas should therefore be held of later date than the Arcadia of Pausanias. But the objection will be made that recent researches of German investigators and archaeologists have shown reason for believing Pausanias himself to be a wholesale thief and plunderer

16 HKKMAS IX ARCADIA.

of previous guide-books to Greece. So that our investigation may lead rather to the reopening of the Pausaniaa question than to the solution of the Hennas chronology and geography.

The attack upon Pausaniaa was commenced by Wilamowitz- Mtfllendorf {Hermes xii. 72) and sharply reinforced by Hirschfeld in an article in the Archdologische Zeitung (XL =1882, f. 97). Hirschfeld brings a good deal of evidence to shew that the list of statues of Olympian victors does not reach later than the second century B.C.; and that the series stops here, not because there were no more Olympian victories commemorated, but because Pausaniaa is copying an earlier writer (probably Polemo), who

- not pass this point of time in his descriptions: so that we may almost say that there is no evidence that Pausaniaa ever visited Olympia at all : but that both he and Pliny drew upon earlier writers.

Now this problem is a very many-sided one, and the archaeo- logical world is still divided over it, and, until the discussion subsides somewhat, it is not easy to determine whether the defenders of Pausaniaa or his severe critics have won the day. My own judgment is still reserved upon the point. Hence we must also be careful in reference to Hernias. We may be reason- ably sure that if Pausaniaa was never at Olympia, he was never in Arcadia; but the preliminary hypothesis is not yet settled. Hence we content ourselves in the Hennas problem with affirm- ing thai Hennas really describes Arcadian Bcenery, but whether he takes his description from Pausaniaa or from some earlier Baedeker's Guide to Arcadia La as ye1 uncertain.

HERMAS IN ARCADIA. 17

After the appearance of the foregoing paper, I received the following remarks upon it from Dr Hort, the characteristic caution of which will be evident to the reader, as I hope it will also be evident presently that the caution was undue and unnecessary.

Cambridge,

23 Dec. 1887.

The first reading interested me much, but not with

conviction; for the time, at least, the coincidences seemed too slight. The passage from Op. Imperf. at p. 73, a book which has much from Origen, is probably founded on some lost passage of him. There is a reference, though in somewhat ambiguous terms in the Comm. in Matt. p. 688 Ru. (1325 a, Migne); cf. 480 (912 A)

Dr Lightfoot was more favourable in his view of the argument, but he demurred (as we shall see, rightly) to the assumption that Hermas was indebted to Pausanias.

He wrote as follows :

Auckland Castle, Bishop Auckland, Nov. 14, 1887.

My dear Sir,

I am much obliged to you for your very interesting paper on Hermas in Arcadia.

You seem to me to make out a very strong case for Arcadia. As for Pausanias, I am less able to follow you. But you do not insist on this, nor does it affect your main point. If his informa- tion had been derived from Pausanias, I should have expected to find the resemblances go much further.

Yours very sincerely, J. B. DUNELM.

At this point the argument was taken up by Mr (now Prof.) Armitage Robinson, who published, in an Appendix to his edition of Lambros' collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of h. h. 2

18 HKKMAs ix ABOADIA.

Hernias, some further considerations, which will be found sufficient bo dissipate the suspicions aroused by Dr Hurt, and to confirm those expressed by Dr Lightfoot.

Over and above the identifications which I had suggested between the Arcadian mountains and the scenery described by Hennas, Mr Robinson suggested four further positive identifica- tions as well as some of a more shadowy character. These are as follows :

(i) Mt Knakalus described by Pausanias (viii. 23. 3, 4) ; kvclkos is the Doric form of /cvrj/cos a kind of thistle, and conse- quently this mountain is to be equated with the mountain which Hennas describes as aKavOwhes zeal rpifioXcov TrXrjpes (Sim. ix. 1. 5).

(ii) A ridge close to Mt Sepia, called TpUpTjva.

' This no doubt was an abbreviation of Tpi/caprjva, the three- peaked ridge ; but its popular explanation is all that we have to do with, and that is shewn by the legend that is attached to it : opj) <bevear(j)v iarl Tpitcprjva tcakov fieva' teal elcrlv avrodi tcprjvai Tpels' iv ravraLS Xovacu re^Oei/ra'Kpfxyjv at irep\ to opo$ Xeyovrat vv/ji(f)ai, kcu iirl tovt(o Trt? irrjyd^ lepas 'Epfiov vo/jli^ovo-iv' (Paus. viii. 16. 1).

Accordingly Mr Robinson identified this with the mountain which Hermas describes as ir^ywv Tr\rjp€<;...Ka\ irdv yevos tj;? /cTtcrea)? rod Kvpiov cttotl^ovto e/c ra>v Trqywv rov opovs e/ceivov.

The next two identifications are Less satisfactory : (iii) A mountain is mentioned by Pausanias, called Phalan- thus, and BUloe <j>(i\av6o$ is synonymous with (pa\a/cp6<; which, like yjnXcy;, means 'bald,' Mr K«»bins<m proposed to identify this with a mountain which Hennas describes as ijriXdv, ftoravas fit) exov- This seems to me too artificial; if Hennas had been describing this mountain, it is much more likely that he would have preserved it- Greek nam'', in the same way as he preserved the name of Tpa%v.

(iv) The next identification 1 am almost ashamed t<> cast a

suspicion upon. Mi- K->l>insMn replied t<» my question as t<> the omission of Mi Kyllene from the panorama of Sennas, when it must have been the most conspicuous feature in the landscape,

by suggesting that Mt Kyllene is the twelfth mountain of Hernias, the great white, glad-faced mountain, 'unreached by

HERMAS IN ARCADIA. 19

either cloud or wind, so that the very ashes on the altar of Hermes were found undisturbed whenever the worshippers re- turned for the annual sacrifice.'

There is no doubt that this profound calm of the mountain of Hermes was a favourite thought with the ancients; it has survived for us in modern poetry in the beautiful lines of Wordsworth, where he praises

.... the perpetual warbling that prevails In Arcady, beneath unaltered skies, Through the long year in constant quiet bound, Night hushed as night, and day serene as day.

Excursion, Bk. iii.

Unfortunately, however, and this is the only serious objection to the identification, the mountain Kyllene is, as Mr Robinson knows from an actual visit to the spot, invisible from the hill of Orchomenos; and it seems unlikely that Hermas would have thrust into his panorama a mountain which did not properly form a part of it. He might, perhaps, have done so, if he had been simply working from a geography or a guide-book ; but the result of Mr Robinson's additions to my identifications is such as to make it impossible for me to hold any longer the theory of borrowing from Pausanias. Hermas must have been in Arcadia, and in that case, it is very unlikely that he would have given us an incorrect landscape. I will not say it is impossible, and I should be glad if further consideration should make it appear more probable.

But enough has been said to dissipate the suspicions which Dr Hort had expressed to me in private. We take it as proved that the scenery of Hermas' vision is actually laid in Arcadia, and we have not the slightest right to substitute Aricia, or to try to Italianize the vision.

Not only so, but as Mr Robinson has shewn by a number of considerations, the net result of the investigation is to shew that Hermas must have come from Arcadia ; his geography is a part of himself and not a loan from Pausanias or some other guide-book. 'May he not,' asks Mr Robinson, 'have been a Greek slave of Arcadian origin ? In this case his name, a common one for Greek slaves, would seem specially fitting for a native of this particular district, when we remember that Pausanias tells us of the worship of Hermas at Pheneos, twelve miles distant from Orchomenus..., when we remember also the story of the Nymphs who bathed him

2 -2

20 BERMAS IN ARCADIA.

at his birth in the sacred fountains of Trikrena, one of the spurs of Mount Kvllene; and above all whin we recall the epithet 'Cyllenius' derived from the worship of Hennas on the windless summit of the great mountain-king of Arcadia, who reared his head, as it was firmly believed, right up into the eternal calm above the clouds and above the storms which darkened and distressed the world at his feet.'

The conclusion seems to me to be correct as well as highly eloquent ; and I am quite prepared to admit that we have in Hennas a Greek slave from Arcadia. And in this connexion, it is worthy of note that it explains certain features in Hennas' persona] history. Arcadian slaves were commonly sold in pairs, and we may get some light on the situation by recalling an instance from the century before Hennas, where two brothers, Arcadian slaves, rose to great eminence in the Roman Empire. The case to which I allude is that of Pallas and Felix, who were sold to Antonia, the mother of the emperor Claudius; both of them attained their freedom; Pallas became a leading figure in the life of imperial Rome, and Felix is known to us as the procurator of Judaea who trembled before the preaching of Paul. Now Tacitus tells us (Ann. xii. 53) that Pallas was 'regibus Arcadiae ortus,' no doubt because he was named after one of the Arcadian kings, Pallas the son of Lycaon ; and if this be so, we have an exact parallel to the naming of Hennas after the great deity of Arcadia. But it may be asked, where is the brother of Hermas to complete the parallel ? The answer is in the Mura- torian Canon which tells us that Hennas is the brother of Pius, who occupied the episcopal chair of the Roman Church.

We thus arrive at a picturesque series of parallels between t he t wo pairs of Arcadian brol hers, who, in two successive centuries,

attained eminence in Roman life: and while we do not wish to preSfl Coincidences which may be accidental, such as the sale i>\'

slaves to Roman ladies (c£ EEerm. Vis. L l o O^t-yjra^ /xe ireirpaK^v

fic'Pa&y) and the like, we may at leasl illustrate by the .successful

rise from slavery into political eminence of the two freedmen of

Claudius, the similar Liberation which took place in the case of

Hennas and Pius, and which Bel one of tlnm <>n the chair of

St Peter, and gave the other an even greater place than the chair of Peter, as representative in the Church's literature of one of the must interesting periods in her history.

ON THE ANGELOLOGY OF HERMAS.

(Johns Hopkins University Circulars, April 1884.)

There is a passage in the Shepherd of Hernias, Vis. iv. 2, 4, which has occasioned a great deal of perplexity to the com- mentators. Hermas is met by a fierce beast with a parti-coloured head, which beast symbolizes an impending persecution or tribula- tion, and makes as though it would devour him. But the Lord sends his angel who is over the wild beasts, whose name is Thegri, and shuts the mouth of the creature, that it may not hurt him.

Seypl according to Gebhardt and Harnack is 'nomen inau- ditum'; it appears in the Vulgate Latin as Hegrin and in the Palatine version as Tegri. The Ethiopic translation has Tegeri. Jerome seems to have read Tyri, since in his comments on Habac. i. 4 we have ' ex quo liber ille apocryphus stultitiae condemnandus est, in quo scriptum est quemdam angelum nomine Tyri praeesse reptilibus.' Much ingenuity has been expended over the origin of the word and in particular the following is the solution of Franciscus Delitzsch as given in Gebhardt and Harnack's edition : 'Si sumi possit, Hermam nomen angeli illius ex angelologia Judaica hausisse, quae angelos maris, pluviae, grandinis etc. finxit iisque nomina commentitia indidit, Oeypl idem est quod *Wj,

instimulator h. e. angelus, qui bestias (contra homines) instimulat atque, si velit, etiam domat (Taggar = dissidium, discordia ; cum i = Tigri, quod bene descripsit H. : Oeypc etc.).'

I assent to the Hebrew origin of the name, but am unwilling to explain a nomen inauditum by a nomen vix auditum. A more simple solution presents itself; if for 6 we write <r, according to the confusion common in uncial script, we have Xeypl for the

22 ON THE ANGKLOLOCTC OF ffWRlffAR

name of the angel: which immediately tfl the root "UD,

to close. The angel is the one that closes or shuts. This is immediately confirmed by the language of Hernias, 6 fcvpcos (iTrecrretXev top ayyeXop avrov top iirl twp OrjpLayp optci, ov to opofid io-TiP Oeypi, kcli ipeeppa^ep to aTOfia ai/TOV Xpa fir] o~e Xvfidprj.

If any doubt remained as to the correctness of this solution it would be swept away by reading the passage in Hermas side by side with the LXX of Daniel vi. 23; o #eo? /iov direaTetXep top ayyeXop avTOV kcli ipe(j)pa^€P ("UDI) tcl GTOfiaTa tojp Xcoptcop kcli ovk iXvfjLijpapTo fie.

The curious parallelism of the language employed in the two passages is decisive as to the etymology, and further we may be sure that the language of Hermas is an indirect quotation from the book of Daniel.

The result arrived at is an important one in many respects, and has a possible bearing upon the genealogy of the MSS. and versions of Hermas : so far as we are concerned we may simply Bay that those copies and versions which read deypl or any variation of the same bear conclusive marks of a Greek original. It might seem unnecessary to make such a remark, but the fact is that grave suspicions have been thrown out in some quarters as to the character of the original text of Hermas. Upon further consideration I am inclined indeed to conclude that all the versions came from an original which read Oeypi, for even the Vulgate Latin which has Heyrin sooms to have arrived at it by dropping the reduplicated T in the words

NOMEN EST TIIEGRI.

There IS, however, another way in which the Latin variant might 1"- explained: for, as Dr Eaupt points out to me, we have :i similar transformation in the Hebrew D^TTfiD (2 Kings xviii 34)

which appears in Berosua as ^lo-irapa. in Ptolemy v. 18 -t7r</>apa, but in Pliny vi L2dae Qipparenum

ON THE ANGELOLOGY OF HERMAS.

At this point the argument was taken up by Dr Hort, in a communication which appeared in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars for Dec. 1884, as follows :

Hermas and Theodotion ; a communication from Professor Hort with regard to an emenda- tion of the text of Hermas.

The note on the Angelology of Hermas printed by Professor Rendel Harris in the Johns Hopkins University Circular for April contains a discovery of considerable interest in itself, and further noteworthy as having at once enabled the discoverer to find a satisfactory answer to an old riddle. There cannot be a doubt that he is right in tracing back the language of Hermas in Vis. iv. 2 — 4 to Daniel 622; and it is hardly less certain, I think, that he has given the true explanation of ®eypl, the mysterious name of the angel who is sent to protect Hermas, by reading it as ^eypi taken as a derivative from sagar, the verb employed in that verse for the shutting of the lions' mouths.

The best known repositories of Jewish angelology do not appear to contain the name of Segri : but Sigron (|H^D) is recorded by Levy-Fleischer (p. 478) from the Talmudic Tract Sanhedrin as an accessory name of Gabriel, given him 'because, if he shuts the doors of heaven, no one can open them.' The designation would seem to belong more naturally in the first instance to some such high function as this than to the shutting of lions' mouths — an office not to be confounded with the general charge of lions or other beasts, said to have been appropriated to different angels; and the occurrence of Gabriel's name in Dan. 816 ; 921 may easily have been taken as determining the identity of the angel of 6«. By what channel the Hebrew application of an obscure name belonging to Jewish tradition came to be accepted, though ap- parently misunderstood, by the Roman Hermas, is a question easier to ask than to answer.

My chief purpose, however, in writing this supplementary note, which is sent by Prof. Rendel Harris' request, is to point out that his discovery may have an important bearing on the disputed question of the Shepherd's date. The language of Hermas follows not the true Septuagint version of Daniel, but that of Theodotion,

24 ON THE AXGELOLOGY OF HERMAS.

which superseded it in the course of the second century. The Septuagint drops the angel altogether: and in v. 22 has merely

aeaoo/cev fie 6 #eo? drrb rwv Xeourcov,

while it transfers the shutting of the lions' mouths to v. 18 by the insertion of an interpolated clause ending

uTre/eXeiaev ra arofiara rcop Xeovrwv tcai ov rraprivoyXricav

This clause, shortened in the opening words, was retained by Theoddt ion, with eicXet,o~ev (according to the best MSS.) substituted for dweKXeicrev; but he corrected v. 22 by the Aramaic text reading 6 #ed? fiov drrearetXev rov dyyeXov avrov teal evefypa^ev rd aro/iara rcov Xeovrcov real ovk iXvfjLrjvavro fie. Now Hermits has retained not only the angel, but the two characteristic Greek verbs, for he writes 6 Kvpcos direareCXev rov dyyeXov avrov... Kal evecfrpatjev to arbfia avrov i'va fit) ae Xvfidvrj.

It follows that Hennas cannot be older than Theodotion. To diseu>s the other evidence for the date of either Hernias or Theodotion would be beyond my present purpose.

F. J. A. HORT. Cambridge, England.

July 8, 1884.

This attempt to place the date of Hennas lower than that of Theodotion provoked the opposition of Dr Salmon who, in the following year in a note on Hennas and Theodotion which will be found appended bo his Introduction to the New Testament, de- fended tlic antiquity of Sennas relatively to Theodotion, Dr Salmon had already in an article on Sennas in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography rejected the evidence of the Muratorian Canon which places the time of the composition of the Shepherd in the episcopate of Pius, Le, c. a.i>. 140 — 155. (The Canon itself must be later than this by some years, and we shall perhaps not I*.' far wrong if we date it approximately in a.i>. 180.) Salmon was uow obliged to face uew ami, at first sight, conclusive evidence for the lateness of Sennas. True, the date of Theodotion is uot a fixed point, being almost as much in dispute as the date of Sennas. But the evidence of the Patristic literature goes to shew- that the Church abandoned the use of the Septuagint Daniel somewhere between the time of .Justin and the time of Irenaeus,

ON THE ANGELOLOGY OF HERMAS. 25

substituting for it the more exact version of Theodotion. And certainly the translation made by Theodotion is earlier than Irenaeus, for it is alluded to by the latter writer in his work against Heresies (iii. 21), and there are traces of the use of the Theodotion Daniel in the quotations of Irenaeus from the book itself. It follows, therefore, that Theodotion's text was known in the West as early as 180 A.D. And if we grant the use of Theodotion by Irenaeus why should we deny it in the case of Hermas ?

The answer to this, from Dr Salmon's point of view, is that we have no right to assume that the only translations of Daniel current in the early Church were those of the LXX and of Theodotion. An examination of the quotations made from Daniel in the Apocalypse shews some singular agreements with the text of Theodotion as against the LXX, from which it is a natural inference that Theodotion remodelled an earlier version of Daniel. But in that case we have no right to say positively that Hermas has quoted from the text of Theodotion. Even in the very verse which is supposed to furnish the test case, we find a curious agreement with Daniel as quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which suggests the use of a version like the Theodotion version by a writer a century earlier than Theodotion (cf. Heb. xi33 ecfrpagav arofiara Xeovrcov).

The argument must be traced at length in Dr Salmon's own pages, and it will, I think, leave the impression upon the mind of the student that a fair case has been made out for a suspense of judgment in regard to inferences drawn from the Segri passage. Probably it will also be felt that Dr Salmon went too far when he suggested that even the quotations in Irenaeus, which were supposed to come from Theodotion, might be from some lost early version to which that of Theodotion was closely related. If these quotations are to be disputed, in the light of the known fact of Irenaeus' acquaintance with the version of Theodotion, we should almost be obliged to go further, and deny the use of Theodotion by Irenaeus' pupil Hippolytus. But this step is too extreme for any one who was not prepared to abolish Theodotion altogether. But without denying the use of Theodotion by Irenaeus we might hold the posteriority of Hermas to be non-proven, and the question then arises as to whether there is any further light to be obtained upon the disputed points from fresh points of view.

PRESTER JOHN'S LIBRARY.

A Lecture delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge, in October 1892.

The newspapers have from time to time during the last two yean informed us that the King of Abyssinia has begun to collect

1 kfl f<>r a Royal Library, and that he has made requisition from

the monks of the various monasteries in his kingdom for the Leading works which are extant among them, or for copies of the same. One suspects that some traveller is there who lias been urging the King to make collections with the view of rendering the recovery of lost Ethiopic books more easy. If that be BO, he i^ a wise traveller and deserves our best thanks.

The suggestion, however, of a royal library for Abyssinia takes us back as well as invites us forward; for one of the features of the great kingdom of Prester John, the Christian King <»f Ethiopia, whom the Portuguese discovered holding the faith in the mountains that border on the southern end of the Red Sea, was a magnificent library. Abyssinia was reported to be a paradise of books, as well as a Christian country with a Sappy Valley in it1. And the description which the English writer Purchaa gives of this collection of rare books is enough bo make the mouth >»t' every scholar and bibliophile t-» water. Let me draw your attention, as mine ha- been drawn bya friend, to the following extract from Purchcu his Pilgrimage or Belationt of the

1 Rasselas is no man Imagination of Johnson; he wroto the novel shortly after ho had been doing the hack-work of translating Lotxrt Fcffagt to Abyuinia for

Bettesworth and Hicks of Paternoster Bow, who published it in 1785, Johnson received five tineas for tins piece of work and devoted his first earning! to the funeral expenses of his mother. The translation was made from the French edition.

prester John's library. 27

World and the Religions observed in all Ages, London, 1613; pp. 565 ff., Of the Hill Amara : and the rarities therein. After describing the natural features of the hill, the stately buildings of the two churches with their monasteries, he goes on to speak of the library thus (p. 567) :

"In the monastery of the Holy Crosse are two rare peeces, whereon Wonder may justly fasten both her eies ; the Treasury and Library1 of the Emperour, neither of which is thought to be matchable in the world. That Librarie of Constantinople2 wherein were 120000 bookes, nor the Alexandrian Library, wherein Gellius3 numbereth 700000, had the fire not been admitted (too hastie a student) to consume them, yet had they come short, if report over-reach not, this whereof we speake, their number is in a maner innumerable, their price inestimable. The Queene of Saba (they say) procured Bookes hither from all parts, besides many which Solomon gave her, and from that time to this, their Emperors have succeeded in like care and diligence. There are three great Halls, each above two hundred paces large, with Bookes of all Sciences, written in fine parchment, with much curiosity of golden letters, and other workes, and cost in the writing, binding, and covers: some on the floore, some on shelves about the sides ; there are few of paper : which is but a new thing in Ethiopia4. There are the writings of Enoch copied out of the stones wherein they were engraven, which intreate of Philosophic, of the Heavens and Elements. Others goe under the name of Noe, the subject whereof is Cosmographie, Mathematickes, cere- monies and prayers ; some of Abraham which he composed when he dwelt in the valley of Mamre, and there read publikely Philo- sophic and the Mathematikes. There is very much of Salomon, a great number passing under his name ; many ascribed to Job, which he writ after the recovery of his property 5 ; many of Esdras, the Prophets and high Priests. And besides the four canon icall Gospels, many others ascribed to Bartholomew, Thomas, Andrew, and many others ; much of the Sibylles, in verse and prose ; the

1 "The library of the Prete." [Margin.] 2 " Zonar. Ann. to. 3." [Margin.]

s "Gell. li. 6 c. 17." [Margin.]

4 "Fr. Luys hath a very large catalogue of them 1. 1, c. 9 taken out (as he saith) of an Index, \vh. Anthony Gricus and L. Cremones made of them, being sent hither by the Pope Gregory 13 at the instance of Cardinall Zarlet, which sawe and admired the varietie of them, as did many others then in their company." [Margin.]

5 Qu. prosperity.

28 PRESTER JOHN'S LIBRARY.

workes of the Queen of Saba; the Greek Fathers all that have written! of which many an- not extant with us; the writers of Syria. Egypt, Africa, and the Latine Fathers translated, with others innumerable in the Greeke, Hebrew, Arabike, Abissine, Egyptian, Syrian, Ohaldee, far more authors, and more of them than we have; few in Latin ; yet T. Livius is there whole, which with us is imperfect, and Mime of the works of Thomas Aquinas; Saint Augustines workes are in Arabike: Poets, Philosophers, Phy- sicians, Rabbines, Talmudists, Oabalistes, Hierogliphikes, and others would be too tedious to relate. When Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus; when the Saracens over-ranne the Christian world; many books were conveyed out of the Eastern partes into Ethiopia ; when Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jewes out of Spaine, many of them entered Ethiopia and for doing this without licence, enriched the Pretes library with their Bookes ; when Charles V restored Muleasses to his kingdom, the Prete hearing that there was at Tunis a great Library sent and bought more than 3000 books of divers arts. There are about 200 monks whose office it is to looke to the Librarie, to keep them cleane and sound ; each appointed to the Books of that language which he understandet h : the Abbot hath streight charge from the Emperor, to have care thereof, he esteeming this Library more than his treasure."

The foregoing statements of Purchas are astonishing enough, and it may well be supposed that the range of the literature declared to be extant in the library of Prester John would be sufficient, of itself, to destroy all faith in the authority of the narrator: and indeed this seems to have been the impression

produced Upon tin- minds of many scholars of the day. who, while

they were not unwilling t«» believe that lost 1 ks might be

recovered from Abyssinian libraries, uot unnaturally shrank from the belief that all the Lost works of ancient Christian literature, .y nothing of pagan Letters, were to !><• found under a single root* in the Library of Ranofilan

But wo must admit that the statements made by Purchas hav.- an air of verisimilitude t<> a modern scholar. Take the

very first statement mad.- by the Elizabethan writer, that the l>o..k^ are all on vellum, ami that paper is a new thing in Ethiopia. Does that look like an invention 1 Take Wright's Catalogue of the Ethiopic Mss. in the British Museum: and examine whether

there are any paper MSS. You will find that they are sur-

prester John's library. 29

prisingly few, and of those which exist almost all are of a more recent date than Purchas' Pilgrims : e.g. No. 127 is written in the xviiith century; No. 151 is dated 1630; No. 318 was written in the xixth century ; No. 357 was written about the beginning of the xixth century ; No. 392 was written in A.D. 1861 ; No. 395 was written in 1810 (and the paper is dated 1807), and so on. In fact I have not noted any copy in the British Museum on paper which was not written later than Purchas' day. Is not this remarkable ? How did Purchas' informant know that things were so different in Abyssinia to what they were in Syria, for example ?

In the next place notice that the first of the books referred to by Purchas as extant in the Abyssinian Library is " the writings of Enoch, copied out of the stones on which they were engraven, which intreate of Philosophic, of the Heavens and Elements." Is it not strange that the front rank should have been assigned to the very book which was actually brought back a century and a half later from Abyssinia by the traveller Bruce ? Further the reference to the heavenly tablets is in agreement with the language of the book of Enoch ; for example, compare c. 81 " and he said unto me, 0 Enoch, observe the writing of the heavenly tablets, and read what is written thereon and mark every indi- vidual fact. And I observed everything on the heavenly tablets, and read everything which was written thereon and understood everything." Compare with it the manner in which the book of Enoch is cited in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs : " and now, 0 my sons, I have read in the tablets of heaven."

Last of all the description which Purchas gives is not a bad summary of the contents of the lost book. The most recent editor of Enoch (Mr Charles) describes a certain section of the book as a Book of Celestial Physics, which is not unlike Purchas' language concerning the Heavens and the Elements. For example, the 62nd chapter entitles itself " The Book of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven and the relations of each, according to their classes &c."

It must, I think, be admitted that Purchas' account of the book of Enoch is not inconsistent with the belief that he derived his knowledge from some one who had seen the book.

A little lower down in the list we are told that the library contained the works of the Queen of Saba. Now this, at all

30 presteh jdiin's LIBRARY.

events, could hardly have been derived from notices of the earlier Qreek and Latin literature. The Queen of Sheba, however, is one

of the stock figures in Abyssinian History; for instance in the Ix.ok railed Kebra Nagast (the Glory of Kings) fourteen chapters are devoted to the legends concerning the Queen of Sheba1. Further the Abyssinian literature contains amongst the laws and statutes of the kingdom, a collection brought from Jerusalem by Menelek the son of Solomon. Menelek's mother is the Queen of Sheba.

Now we can hardly regard it as a pure accident that Purchas has thrust the Queen of Sheba in amongst the ecclesiastical authors kimwn in Abyssinia ; he musl have had some knowledge or tradition at the very Least with regard to the historical and literary position assigned to the elect lady in question by the Abys>i nia ns.

It becomes proper for us, therefore, to investigate as far as possible the sources from which Purchas drew his wonderful account of the Ethiopian literature.

\o\v, as will be seen from our quotation, Purchas giv< marginal reference which betrays his authority: he tells us that " Fr. Luys hath a very large catalogue of them (the Aby>sinian treasures) taken out, as he saith, of an Index, which Anthony ( tricus and L. Cremones made of them, being sent hither by the Pope Gregory 13 at the instance of Cardinal] Zarlet, which sawe and admired the varietie of them, as did many others then in their company."

Cardinal Zarlet is, of course, the famous Sirletus, Librarian of the Vatican, and just the very man to have instituted a Literary hunt in connexion with the Apostolic missions to the Ethiopea.

But who is Fr. Luys, that tells the tale?

Amongst the historians who have written of Ethiopia in modern tim<s, we find the Dame of Luys de l/rivta. Bifl work

'Historia de la Etiopia' was published at Valencia in the year L610, ju>t three yean before the first edition of Purchas, In those days Englishmen travelled id Spain and talked Spanish and read Spanish, One has only to recall the allusions in Shakespeare to Spanish customs and the borrowing of Spanish

words in a manner which would bo Unintelligible DOW-a-days

1 These ohapten v<,<, edited by rratorini In 1*70 andez the title 'Fibula do Begin* Babaca apad JSthio]

prester John's library. 31

and to compare similar phenomena in Ben Jonson and other Elizabethan writers, in order to assure oneself that in the golden age of English literature learned men were familiar with Spanish1.

There is then no difficulty a priori in the use of a Spanish author by Purchas, two or three years after the date of production of his work. But we need not speculate, for we have only to read Purchas side by side with Fr. Luys de Urreta in order to see that practically everything in the one is translated from the other. The very description of the Monasteries, and their location on the sacred mountain of Amara, comes out of Urreta, and so does the whole account of the library and its contents.

In proof of these statements we transcribe some sentences of Urreta, and reproduce his account of the Library, from which it will be seen that it is indeed, as Purchas described it, a very large catalogue, too large apparently for the faith of Purchas, and his was no slight faith, to judge from the number of lost books which he advertised out of Urreta.

In lib. i. c. 9 Urreta tells us all about Prester John's library under the heading De los dos Monasterios que ay nel Monte Amara, y la famosa libreria que tiene en uno de ellos el Preste Juan....Estas dos Iglesias que la una se intitula del Espiritu Santo, y la otra de Santa Cruz, son las mas sumptuosas y magnincas q ay en toda la Etiopia.

He then gives a sketch of the most famous libraries in the world, from Aulus Gellius, Epiphanius, Plutarch, Galen, Nicephorus and Zonaras. Two of his references, viz. to Zonaras and Gellius will be found on the margin of Purchas. He goes on to describe the buildings : Son tres salas grandissimas, cada una de mas de dozientos iiassos de largo, donde ay libros de todas scientias, todos en pergamino muy sutiles, delgados y brunidos, con mucha curiosidad de lettras doradas y otras labores y lindezas; unos enquadernados ricamente, con sus tablas; otros estan sueltos, como processos, rollados y metidos dentro de unas bolsas y talegas de tafetan : de papel ay muy pocos, y es cosa moderna y muy nueva entra los de Etiopia.

The passages which I have printed in italics shew the source from which Purchas derived his information about the size of the

1 Cf. George Herbert's playful allusion :

44 It cannot sing or play the lute, It never was in France or Spain."

32 presteh John's library.

three separate halls, and the predominance of vellum books over paper, and the whole of his statements may be further compared with Urreta.

Next comes the Catalogue made for Gregory XIII.

El aranzel que se traxo al Sumo Pontifice Gregorio deci- motercio, es el siguiente. Hay escrituras de Enoch, <j fue el Beptimo nieto de Adam, las quales esta en pergaminoe, facadas de piedrasy ladrilloa dondese escriuieron primeramente, que tratan de coeafl de Philosophia, de cielos y elementos. Hay otros libros q van co nombre de Noe, que trata de Cosmographia, y Mate- mat leas (1 cosas naturales y de algunas oraciones y ceremonias. Hay libros de Abralwm, los que el compuso quando estuuo en el valle de Mambre, donde tenia discipulos y leva publicamente Philosophia y las Mathematicas ; estos discipulos fueron con cuya ayuda vencio a los quatro Reyes que lleuauan preso a su sobrino Loth. De Salomon muchissimos, unos traydos por la Reyna Saba, otros por Melilec hijo de Salomon, y otros q el mismo Rey Salomon embiaua, y assi son en grande numero los que van con titulo de Salomon. Hay muchos libros con titulo de Job, y dizen que el los oompuso despues que boluio en su antigua prosperidad.

So far we can see that Purchas has taken practically every- thing in Urreta. But it will be noticed that Urreta is not destitute of information which could not have been obtained except from people conversant witli Ethiopian life. The allusion to Melilec the son of Solomon agrees closely with what we have QOted above from the Kebra Nagast or book of the Glory of Kings.

Urreta continues as follows ; and we shall see that Purohaa is with him for a part of the account :

Hay muchofl libra de Esdras, y de muchos Prophetcu y Swmoa Sacerdotee. Biuchas epistolas extraordinarias de Son Pablo1, de las qualee qo se biene en la ESuropa ooticia. Muchos Evangelioe faera de los quatro ( Sanonioos y Sagrados, que boo Ban Ifatheo, sac Lucas, -an Marcos, y Ban Juan, como el Evangelio secundum Hebraeoe, secundum Ncuaraeoi, BncratUae, EbionUae,y Egipciae; y Evangelio secundum Bartholomaeum, Andream, 8. Thonmm, y otros.

Compare this with Purchas1 account, and yon will B6C that the English transcriber has begun bo abbreviate. Urreta's account

grows more ami more wonderful.

1 Tlu> italicized authors are cither thOM DM nti<>ned above by 1'uichas, or they arc names to which we dull refer a little later on. See note on \\ 10.

PRESTER JOHN'S LIBRARY. 33

Aunque es verdad que todos estos Evangelios y libros nombra- dos sean apocriphos, de muy poca, o ninguna autoridad, con todo los pongo aqui por curiosidad que por tal los guardan en esta libreria, que tambien los tienen por apocriphos en toda la Etiopia ; solo los guardan por grandeza, y lo es sin duda para una libreria. Hay muchos libros de las Sybillas en verso y en prosa, y otros compuestos por la reyna Saba y Melilec.

By this time Purchas had got as much as he could carry, and he summarizes what remains in Urreta, by telling us that all the Greek and Latin fathers, and all the Philosophers, Physicians and Rabbis are there. Urreta's account proceeds as follows :

Historias de la vida y muerte de Jesu Christo, y otras cosas que sucedieron despues de su muerte, compuestas por algunos Judios de aquellos tiempos. Hay tambien muchos libros de Abdias1, San Dionysio, fuera de los que por Europa tienen de Origines, y de su maestro Clemente Alexandrino, y el maestro de este Panteno, de todos estos ay muchas obras ; de solo Origines ay mas de dozientos libros. Tertulliano, san Basilio, san Cypriano, san Cyrillo, san Hilario, san Hilarion, san Anastasio, san Gregorio Niceno, y Nazianzeno, Epiphanio Damaceno, y todos los Dotores Griegos, sin que aya ninguno de los que han escrito que no este en esta libreria: no solo los que comunmente andan entra las manos, pero otros muy esquisitos que no se tiene de ellos noticia, copuestos per los mismos Dotores. De San Ephrem Siro, Moyses Bar cepha, y de otros de la Iglesia Syra. Muchos tomos de San Juan Chrisostomo, y de su maestro Diodoro Tarcese todas sus obras. Oecumenio, Doroteo, Tyro2, y Dionysio Alexandrino disci- pulo de Origines. Serapion en muchos libros, San Justino Martyr muchas obras, con las de su discipulo Taciano ; todos los Theo- doros, el Antiocheno, el Heracleyta, y el Syro, o Teodorito por otro nombre, en compafiia de Theodolo; los dos Zacharias, el Obispo de Hierocesarea, y el de Chrisopolis, Triphon discipulo de Origines; y Tito Bostrense Arabio. Tambien estan las obras de Ticonio y Arnobio, Theophilato Antiocheno : las obras de Theo- gnosto alabado por San Athanasio, y Theodoto Ancirano, Acacio discipulo de Eusebio Cesariense, San Alberto Carmelita, Alex- andro de Capadocia ; las obras de Ammonio Alexandrino maestro de Origines, y las de Amphilochio de Iconio, que tuuo la ciencia

1 Cp. lib. ii. c. 14 " Abdias in vita Apostolorum." " I follow the punctuation of the MS.

3

34 PRESTBH .mux's LIBRARY.

reuelada ; Anastasio Sinayta,y el Anastasio Antiocheno, y Andreas el Cretense, y Hierosolimitano, y el Cesariense, Antiocho Bfonacho, j Antiocho Ptolemaydo, Antipater Bostrenee; loe dos Apollinares, el Junior y el Antiquior; y tambien 1"- doe Aristoboloe, el moco 3 el viejo, y Aretae Cesariense, Rodon discipulo de Taciano, Rodul- pho Agricola, Cayo Mario, Victorino, Catina, Syrot por ra nombre Lepos, esto 0*, agudo, ingenioso ; Proclo Constantinopolitano, Primacio Uticense discipulo de San Augustins Policronio discipulo de Diodoros Phocion, y Pierio Alexandrino, Philon Judio, del qua! ay mas de brezientos libros, cosa que admiro. Y los Judios de Egipto, de Arabia, y otras partes Be obliga a dar muchos millares de ducados, solo por que Be la- dcxni trasladar. Pedro Ede.sino

discipulo de San Efren^ Paulo Emesino, y Patrophilo Palestino, Pantaleon; de san Didimo Alexandrino ay muchos libros, y tambien son muchos los de Egesippo: Oresiesn Etiope Mongetque 0 afto 420; y las obras de Olimpiodoro y de san Nilo y muchas de Nepote Egipcio: Euagrio Antiocheno, y las obras de Eudoxia Emperatriz muger de Theodosio el menor; Euthalion Monge, Baailio, Eustaehin Antiocheno, y Enthiniio y san Metho- dio, las obras de Melito Sardense, y de San Luciano Antiocheno, y de Flauiano Constantinopolitano t y Fortunacia.no Africano, y el glorioso Fulgencio, Junilio, y Julio, todos Africanos; los libros de Judas Syro, Tsidoro Pelusiota en Egipto, discipulo de San Ghriso- stomo, Tsidoro Thesalonicense ; estan las obras de George Trope- suncio, y de Oennadio Constantinopolitano; los dos Josephos, San Juan Climaco, y Cassiano, Hisichio Hierosolimitano ; de San Augustin ay inumerables obras, qo boIo las que comunmente andan por las librerias, bud otros muchos libros que ounca Be ban impresso: de San Bieronymo, San Ambrosio, San Leon Papa, v San Gregorio Magno ay algunoe libros, aunque muy pocos, porque de los Dotores Latinos es lo menoe que ay, Y aduiertase, que todos los libros que ay en eetaa tree Balae Bon en lingua Gri Arabiga, Bgipcia, Sira, Chaldea, Eebrea, y Abissina: en lingua Latina no auia oingun Libro, Bino bodas las Decadas de Titoliuio, que por la Europe do se benian,y alia eetauan oluidadas, que oomo no las sabian leer, qo ha/ian caso de ellas. Lo que digo de los libros de Dotores Latinos, eetauan braduzidos en lengua Gri • •"in" s.ui Bieronymo, Ambrosio, San Augustin en lingua Aral. 1).' los Dotores mas modernos ay algunoe, oomo las partes de Santo Thomas, 3 el Contra Qentes: las Obras de San Antonino, y

PRESTER JOHN'S LIBRARY. 35

el directorio Inquisitorum, traduzidas en lingua Abissina por Pedro Abbas Abissin, natural de Etiopia, hombre doctissimo en lenguas y Theologia Escolastica, traduxo muchas sumas de casos de conciencia, y cada dia se van traduziendo obras de Latin, Italiano, Espanol en el collegio de los Indianos en Roma, para embiar a la Etiopia ; y al presente se estan traduziendo en lengua Etiopia las obras deuotas de Fray Luys de Granada. Estan sobra la Sagrada Escritura todas las translaciones de Origenes, Luciano, Theodosion, Simacho, Aquila; liciones Griegas, Arabigas, Egipcias, Hebreas, Chaldeas, Abissinas, en Armenio, y en Persa, tambien esta la Latina; pero la Vulgata que se cita, y lee, es la Chaldea1. De Astrologia, Matematicas, Medicina, Philosophia, son innumerabiles los libros que ay escritos en las linguas dichas, Platon, Aristoteles, Pitagoras, Zenon ; de Archimedes, Auicena, Galeno, Hipocrates, Auerroes, muchos libros, no solo los que comunmente se platican, sino otros muchos, de los quales no se tiene por aca noticia. Libros de Poetas como Homero, Pindaro, innumerabiles. De historias ay gran numero. Basta dezir que los libros que ay son mas de un million. De Rabinos assi antes de la venida de Christo, como despues de su santissima muerte, ay muchissimos ; como de Rabi Dauid Kimki, Rabi Moyses Aegyptius, Moyses Hadarsam, Sahadias, Bengion, Rabi Salomon, Simeon Benjochay, Simeon Benjoachim, Rabi Abraham, Benesra, Bacaiay, Chischia, Abraham Parizol, Abraham Saua, Rab. Achaigool, Rabi Ammay, Rab. Baruchias, Rab. Isaac, Ben Scola, Isaac Karo, Isaac Nathan, Rab. Ismael, Rab. Leui Bengerson, Rab. Pacieta, y otros muchos. De la Cabala, y del Talmud de los Judios auia en un aposento mas de cinco mil tomos. Esta tabla que he puesto en este capitulo es parte de un indice y aranzel que hizo de todos ellos Antonio Greco, y Lorenco Cremones, embiados por el Papa Gregorio decimotercio, a instancia del Cardinal Zarleto : los quales fueron a la Etiopia solo para reconocer la libreria, en compania de otros que eran embiados para lo proprio, y vinieron admirados de ver tantos libros, que en su vida vieron tantos juntos, y todos de mano y en pergamino, y todos muy grandes, porque son como libros de coro, con el pergamino entero, con los estantes de Cedro muy curioso, y en tan diferentes linguas.

1 That is the Ethiopic : cf. letter of Gonzalez Roderico to the Jesuits in Goa, quoted in Purchas lib. vii. c. 8 " I had made my book in Portuguese and it was necessary to turn it into Chaldee." It is also so named in the PsaHerium in qua-

tuor Unguis of 1518.

36 presteb John's library.

Urretagoes on, after this tremendous catalogue, to tell us how all these books go1 bo Abyssinia, beginning with the Queen of Sheba, and working down through various historical persecutions and falls of great cities with subsequent removals of collections of books and the like.

Now what are we to Bay to all this story?

I- there anything in it and how much? We have noticed already that th< suspicions awakened in favour of the genuineness of Purchas' story are not reduced to nothing by reading the accounts of Urreta There are some things brought to light which betray an actual knowledge of Abyssinia. Be tells us, moreover, what, as a member of the Dominican order he ought to know, and which is probably quite correct, that the Roman missionaries were translating various bonks of doctrine and discipline into Ethiopic, such as the works of Aquinas or S. Luys de Granada And he says that his lists are taken from cata- logues made at the instigation of Sirletus. All of this looks reasonable enough, if it were not for the colossal size of the library and its wonderful inclusiveness. What are we to siv to it '.

W <• know what was said by contemporary writers.

(Jrreta's account was challenged by Godignus in his book De Abassinorum rebus, published at Lyons in 1615.

Qodignufi Bays (lib. i. cap. zvii.) "Ait in monte Amara, in coenobio sanctae crucis earn (bibliotecam) Bervari, et ab Regina Sabae accepissc initinin, repositos ibi esse libros pennultos, quos et tunc Salomon Lpsi reginae ab Bierosolymis in patriam discedenti dono dedit : et singulis deinde annis Bolitus erat ad eandem mittere. Inter reliquos esse quoedam, quos vetustissimua ill*1 Enochua ab Adamo Septimus de coelo de elementis etc....

II ec de monstruosa ilia biblioteca dizisse satis. Eteliqua apud eum videat, qui volet Duo tamen hie adjungenda quae addit [Jnum est, Sirleti Cajdinalis rogatu, raissea Qregorio xiii Pontifice tnaximo in Ethiopian] missos Antonium Qricum et Laurentium Cremonensem, at banc inspicerent bibliotecam eta...

Baec ill''. Sed uullam in monte Amara esse bibliotecam, ei litteris habemus, et oarratione eorum, qui loca ilia diu ooluere. Nonnihil librorum est in eo coenobio, quod Axumum vel Acaz- umum di.itur. et a regina Candace ferunt aedificatum in urbe Saba, quae mme paene euersa, et aequata solo oonnulla retinet antiquae signa pulchritudinia Quidquid id tamen librorum est, regiae bibliotecae aon meretur aomen.

prester John's library. 37

Ita referunt, qui rem perpexere, indubitatae homines fidei."

It may perhaps be thought that Godignus was a little too sweeping in his condemnations ; no doubt the Jesuit fathers were not disposed to regard with much confidence the statements of the Friars Preachers with regard to Abyssinia or any other matter.

Godignus' contemptuous rejection of Urreta was taken up by Ludolf in his History of Ethiopia, published not long after. I quote the second English edition, which bears the date 1684. Ludolf says :

"Besides sacred books the Habessines have but very few others. For the story of Barratti1, who chatters of a library containing ten thousand volumes, 'tis altogether vain and frivolous. Some few we had an account of," and he appends the following note :

"Urreta did not think worth while to tell so modest an untruth. The most celebrated Libraries, saith he, that ever had renown were nothing in respect of Presbyter John's : the books are without number, richly and artificially bound ; many to which Solomon's and the Patriarchs' names are affixt. Godignus explodes him, 1. i. c. 17."

Quetif, the literary historian of the Dominicans, in giving an account of the works of Fr. Luys de Urreta, endeavours to apologize for a description of Abyssinia which he has not courage to defend by suggesting that Urreta was imposed upon by some Ethiopian. He had no intention himself to utter anything that was not truth, but some one played off on him a literary forgery.

" De quibus operibus (sc. Urretae) eruditi alii aliter sentiunt, nos hoc unum contendimus Urretam ab implanatorum falsario- rumve crimine immunem esse, nee quid quod verum ipse non putaret edidisse : utrum autem cujusdam Aethiopis agyrtae Joannis Baltazar2 fraudibus illectus et circumventus fuerit, facilio- risque fidei hominem se praestiterit, ac levioris, id peritorum certe cordatorumque relinquimus arbitrio et criterio."

1 John Nunez Barreti (a Portuguese of the city of Oporto) was appointed Patriarch of Ethiopia by the influence of King John of Portugal and at the instance of Peter the Abyssinian : his life will be found in the second book of Godignus, De Abassinorum rebus: cf. Purchas, Pilgrims, lib. vii. c. 8.

2 This John Balthazar Abassinus is alluded to in Godignus lib. ii. c. 18, p, 315. Purchas lib. vii. c. 8 (ed. 1625) speaks of him and his connexion with Urreta in the following decided manner: "One Juan de Baltasar, a pretended Abassine, and Knight of the Militarie Order of Suiut Antonie, hath written a Booke in Spanish of that Order, founded (as he saith) by the Prete John, in the daies of Saint Basil, with

38 ratESTifi john'a library.

But this appeal for mercy leaves us still without an ex- planation of the way in which the fraud, if it was indeed a fraud, was concocted by the hypothetical Ethiopian. It certainly was no ordinary person that manufactured the catalogue in the first instance. To take a single specimen, we are told that the library contained an account of the events occurring in connexion with the Passion, and subsequently; this evidently means the Gospel of NicodemuSj but the writer goes on to say thai it was an arc, .unt written by the Jews : this arises out of the false prologue to the Xicedennis Gospel which affirms the Hebrew origin of the legends. But the reference implies a writer who had also read carefully the books which be describes. Would an Ethiopic trickster have don,- it so cleverly as this ? Why may not the Acts of Pilate have been extant in Abyssinia?

We will now try to take the enquiry a little further, by pointing out the actual source from which Urreta's lists are derived.

It has occurred to me that perhaps the details may be extracted from the Biblioteca of Sixtus Senensis ■ and I now propose to shew that this is really the case. The supposition is not an unlikely one, for Sixtus is the great scholar of the Dominican order: moreover, there is on the margin of Urreta's book, in one place, a reference to Sixtus. He is describing the works of the Patriarchs who wrote before the Flood, and on the margin are the words

Bscrituras bechas antea del diluvio

Six to Senense lib 4. Bibliothecae. Our main reason for making this suggestion lies iii the fact that Urreta's list has every appearance of being taken from an alphabetically arranged catalogue. For example, we have such

Conjunct ions as :

T.itian: Theodorus Ant.: Theodoras BeracL: Theodoras Syras : Theodoril as : Theodoulos : rules received bom him, ebon ■ena handled jeera befbn any Military Order was

in tin- World. I know DOt whether hii Bookfl (which I haw hv me) hath D&OTO Uei

<>r lints ; a man of ■ leaden broilM and a l»ra/> n f.icc ; ■QQOnded, If DOt «-\<v»-dt d hv

the aforall, Natural! ami l'nhticall Hietorie of Ethiopia, the worka ol his Behollar i • r i ' i r.-t.L, a Bpeniefa Frier and (yer: the said G my when throogfa

hii Ant B luteel tan."

I hen examined Baltaaar'i book, pnbliahed at Veleneti hi 1609, entitled Ftmdaeion, Vida >/ Eegla de hi gramde orden niftier, and do not see any reason t<> make him reeponsible for Drrete in the matter ol the OatuVffl

PRESTER JOHN S LIBRARY.

39

and then after inserting Zacharias of Hierocesarea and Zacharias of Chrysopolis, we go on with Tryphon, Titus of Bostra, and Ticonius and so on.

The list then inserts Arnobius, and returns to the end of the alphabet with Theophylact, and Theognostus.

There is a method in this madness ; it is not necessary to spend time in making illustrations of it. Where is the catalogue from which this was taken ? Either the books in the library of Prester John were arranged alphabetically, and followed a Western alphabet, or we have here a Western book catalogue from which selections have been made. That the latter is the solution appears at once on consulting Sixtus Senensis.

Let us take one or two extracts from Urreta, and put side by side with them the corresponding parts of the alphabetically arranged catalogue of Sixtus.

Urreta

Triphon discipulo de Origenes y Tito Bostrense Arabic Tambien estan las obras de Ticonio.

Sixtus

Titus Bostrenae ecclesiae in Ara- bia episcopus.

Triphon, Origenis discipulus. Tichonius, natione Afer.

Acacius. . .Caesariensis Ecclesiae Palestinae episcopus, Eusebii Caesa- riensis Episcopi discipulus.

Albertus Joanuis Harlemensis Carmelita. . . .

Alexander, Episcopus Cappado- ciae.

(The intrusion of the modern writer between the two Church Fathers is very striking.)

Acacio, discipulo de Eusebio Cesa- riense, San Alberto Carmelita, Alex- andro de Capadocia.

Rodon discipulo de Taciano, Rodulpho Agricola,

Cayo Mario, Victorino,

Catina Syro, por su nombre Lepos, esto es, agudo, ingenioso.

Rhodon Asianus, Tatiani in scrip- turis auditor et discipulus, followed by

Rodolphus Agricola, Frisius.

Caius Marius Victorinus Afer, rhetor sui temporis praestantissimus.

And a little later on,

Catina Syrus, cognomine Leptos, id est, acutus et ingeniosus... Cuius meminit Hieronymus libro i. comm. in Ezech., referens summatim exposi- tionem illius super visione rotarum et animalium,

40 PRESTEB .mux's LIBRARY.

Or compare the following:

Oresics.. Etiope Monge, que nvio Orcsiesis monachufl et eremita,

afio 420 y las ohras do Olimpiodoro. Pachomii et Theodori monaehoram

in Bob'tudinibus JSgypti oommoran- tiimi oollega..,Clartiit sub Hooorio

Aug. anno Dom. 420....

( )lyinpi<>d"rus Moi melius.

But we need not occupy more space in proving what is abundantly char that the list of Urreta is a series of extracts from Sixtua Senenflis, and that he follows his authority even in printers' errors1. We can hardly interpose another writer between Urreta and Sixtns, and the idea that the catalogue was the fabrication of an Ethiopian monk seems especially improbable.

The only question that remains is whether Urreta has drawn upon the narratives of the Dominican missionaries as well as upon the printed work to which we have tracked him. This is not at all an unlikely supposition, and deserves looking into. But we must first subtract all the information that can fairly be set down to Sixtns: and when this is done, there is very little left. All the lost Goepelfl are gone, Livy is gone, Abraham, and Noah and

1 The following further coincidences may be noted with passages which we have italicized in Urreta's account.

Tryphon, Origenis discipulus, preceded by

Titus Bostrenae ecclesiae in Arabia episcopus. and a little earlier

Tichonius, natione Afer.

Primasius, (Jtioensifl in Africa episcopus, divi AngOStini, ut creditur discipulus,

Pterins, Alt ixandrinae eooleeiae presbyter...

Plncidni...

1 '. .1 % »hi . uiius. . .l>iotlori Tarsensis episcopi auditor... and on :m t-.-i.i-i it i

Petms, Edessenae Booli dM preebytar, I -it in morem Bnnoti Bphrem tone Bomttini etc....

and on the prtioni ptgfl

l'aulus, llin. KM BpiMOpnS, and ■ littlfl earlier

Pntrophflni Scythopolee piscopus,

mill on tin' jTt'\ ioni i

Pnnteleon, mAgnM I >« i eeeleaias dinooav

The rotdax can also verify u host of other names, both IhOM which we have italicized and inoit of the others. From Sixtns comes aho the table of Kahbis.

PRESTER JOHN'S LIBRARY. 41

Enoch have disappeared, and the crowd of lesser men. Prester John's Library has shrunk to quite an attenuated form, and we are now in danger of expecting nothing from Abyssinia instead of expecting everything. A winter of discontent has followed rapidly on the glorious summer of Urreta's promises. We are reduced from the stately palace of Rasselas to a lodge in a garden of cucumbers.

The attitude of despair is, however, as unreasonable as that of extreme hope. The libraries which gave us Enoch and the Book of Jubilees cannot be exhausted. It is not generally known that the English army swept up nearly 1000 MSS. at the capture of Magdala, and left 600 of them behind in a church on their return to the sea-coast1.

It is much to be regretted that no sufficient band of Ethiopic scholars was attached to the Abyssinian expedition. Were those 600 volumes all prayer-books ?

These books from the collection of king Theodore cannot, however, be held to have exhausted the MS. wealth of Abyssinia. And significant rumours have lately been reaching us of discoveries made in an island on one of the great Abyssinian lakes.

Here is a notice from a German paper of March 16, 1894 (Theol. Lit.-Blatt): " Konig Menelek von Abessinien hat, nach der Meldung franzosischer Blatter, bei einer Expedition nach dem im Stiden seines Reiches gelegenen Zuai-See einen werthvollen Fund alt-athiopischer Manuskripte gemacht. Die Inseln dieses Sees galten immer als 'heilig' und die dortige schwer nahbare Be- volkerung verwahrt trotz ihrer barbarischen Unbildung nach alter Ueberlieferung die athiopischen Bticher als Heiligth timer. Die auf der Insel Debra-Sina gemachten Funde sind theils liturgischen Inhalts, zum anderen Theil versprechen sie aber werthvollere Ausbeute. Der Konig beabsichtigt eine Dampferverbindung auf dem See herzustellen, womit der sagenhafte Zauber der heiligen Inseln verschwinden wiirde."

1 Record of the Expedition to Abyssinia, ii. 396 : " On the capture of Magdala a large number of Ethiopian MSS. were found, having been carried there by Theodore from the libraries of Gondar and the central parts of Abyssinia during his late expedition, in which he destroyed very many Christian churches. On rinding that Magdala would have to be abandoned to the Gallas, it became necessary to provide for the safety of these volumes, which would otherwise have been destroyed by the Mohammedans. About 900 volumes were taken as far as Chelikot, and there about 600 were delivered to the priests of that church, one of the most important in Abyssinia; 359 books were retained for the purpose of scientific examination."

42 PRESTBB JOHN'S URRARY.

What makes it practically certain that this is a true report which has reached Europe is that a similar statement with regard to the existence of the books will be found in the Journals of the missionaries [semberg and Crapf: we find in their account (p. 179) as follows :

"In the lake of Gurague called Suai five islands exist, in which the treasures of the ancient Abyssinian kings are said to have been hidden from Gragne [the Mohammedan desolator of Abyssinia] when he entered Abyssinia. That there are Ethiopic books is confirmed by a man whom the king sent as a spy."

In all probability, then, it is the books mentioned by [semberg ami Krapf that have been brought to light by king Menelefc : and one can only hope that before long the contents of this newly- found library may be rendered accessible to Western scholars.

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(A Paper read before the Society for Historical Theology, November 28, 1895.)

There are some learned men whose works it is almost im- possible to read with a proper degree of scepticism ; their ac- quaintance with the subjects upon which they write is so wide, the considerations which they bring forward are so varied and new, the collateral information, both relevant and irrelevant, which they furnish is so stupendous, that the critical faculty becomes paralyzed in its most useful members, in its power to doubt and to contradict; and it is often only after long and weary study that we begin at last to realize that these great scholars were just as capable of running down a cul de sac as we are ourselves, and that we must resume with regard to them the habit of healthy distrust and apply it to many of their strongest and most elaborate demonstrations.

Such is the temper of mind in which I am trying to read Lightfoot, the writer of all others in our time whose criticisms seem to defy challenge and escape contradiction; and the object of the present paper is to shew in a brief, but I hope conclusive manner, the accumulation of errors for which Lightfoot is respon- sible in his treatment of a single problem of Church History, and the way in which our progress has been arrested by the erroneous hypothesis which he brought forward and his undue zeal in defending that hypothesis. I am referring to the question of Gaius the Presbyter, a famous third century writer, of whom Eusebius tells us that he wrote or held a dialogue against Proclus the Montanist in the days of Zephyrinus, and that he attacked in this dialogue the Chiliastic views which Cerinthus and others

44 PBESBTTEB 0AIU8 AND Tin: FOURTH GOSPEL.

deduced from the Apocalypse, and probably attacked the Apo- calypse itself

As tar hack as lstjs in an article entitled 'GdivSOT Hippolytus,'

published in the Journal of Philology, Lightfoo! had maintained the theory that Gaius was merely the double of Bippolytus; ami

he brought forward a number <>t' confirmatory considerations, which were revised and amplified in his Apostolic Fathers, a work in which, as 1 have intimated above, everything ha- tin- air of being final and infallible. These considerations were (i) that the historical allusions bo Gains agree exactly with parallel details in the lit-' <.t Hippolytus; as, for instance, that they both flourished under Zephyrinus, that each was styled presbyter, that they both lived at Rome, that they were both learned men, that they both denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that each was antimontanistic, and that, more obscurely, the title 'Bishop of the Gentiles,' whatever it may mean, seems to have been applicable to either of them. And (ii) further than these historical allusions there were literary confusions between Gaius and Eippolytus of an extraordinary kind, which were made worse by tin- modern critics who insisted on referring every anonymous work <«f Hippolytus to the shadowy Gaius, until at last, as Light- foot allowed, they overdid the matter by trying to make Gaius the author of the Philosophumena. Now unce the Philosophu- mena is undoubtedly the work of Hippolytus, ami the recognition of it- authorship carries also the authorship of a number of less- r

works which arc in dispute, Gains would have hen a jay stripped

of a ma-- of peacock's feathers and lefl to us merely a- the author of the Dialogue against /'/■"'■his the Montanist, if it had not happened that Lightfoot ingeniously -tuck all the feathers on

again by maintaining that (iaius was Hippolytus, and that even

the Dialogue against Proems was due to the latter Bather, His

explanation was that the title of the Dialogue in question ran as

follows :

AuiXoyos Va'tov Ka\ WpoxXov i) Kara Woi'Tcivicttu)}',

and that Gaius is here either a literary Lay-figure, which has given can-.' iii a mass of Bubsequenl misunderstandings, or thai it is the actual pnenomen of Eippolytus.

Now this was \ei v ingenious; moreover it rid us of the trouble- some and perplexing figure of the Higher Critic (U>v such Gaius

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 45

certainly was) in the Roman Church ; it disposed of a person who was of doubtful orthodoxy (for the fact that Gains wrote against the Montanists is not a set-off against his attack on the Johannine writings ; any stick is good enough to beat a Montanist dog), and it left us a clearer view of the classic form of the great pupil of Irenaeus, who seems to have never been guilty of anything worse than Novatianism, and who in other respects was a genuine malleus haereticorum. No doubt there is a certain advantage to be gained from the fact that heretics turn to shades and their works do follow them, while the orthodox defender of the Faith becomes more and more imposing and real, so that we may say, with Homer,

olos TreTrvvrai, rol Se gkicli al'aaovatv' in no other way could the rule ' quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus' become verifiable. But, as it happens, in the case which we are studying, the shade has evaded the Charon who had ferried him over, and is back again, as in his last edition Lightfoot admits, in the upper air.

The key to the problem, as in so many modern cases, is of Syrian manufacture.

First of all, we are to set over against the fact of Gams' attack on the Apocalypse, and the statement on the back of the chair of Hippolytus in the Lateran Museum that Hippolytus wrote a treatise virep rov Kara ^Ycoavvrjv evayyeXiov teal a7rotca\v\lreco<; the remarkable entry made by the Syriac writer Ebed-jesu at the beginning of the 14th century that Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, wrote a treatise called

or ' Heads against Gaius.'

This latter entry ought to have been sufficient to prove that Gaius was an antagonist of Hippolytus and not his double ; and taken with the first two statements to make it highly probable that Gaius actually attacked both of the Johannine writings, for the defence of Hippolytus is clearly a single work occupied with the Johannine matter in the Canon. But, unfortunately, we have not been in the habit of either studying or trusting Syriac writers in the degree that they deserve.

The second direction from which the Syriac fathers come to our aid is Dr Gwynn's discovery1 that Dionysius Bar-Salibi in his

1 Hcrmathena, vol. vi. pp. 397 — 118.

46 PRESBYTEB QAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Commentary upon the Apocalypse, of which a copy is extant in the British Museum1 (of course unpublished), quotes from the very treatise referred toby Ebed-jesu, giving in a number of instai the substance of the objections made byGaius to the Apocalypse and the replies of Bippolytns.

The recovery of these passages enabled Dr Gwynn to affirm with certainty the separate identity of Qaius, and to prove that (Jains had rejected the Apocalypse from the Canon on the ground that it contained predictions mainly eschatological, irreconcilable with the words of our Lord and the teaching of St Paul'; and these views of Qaius were antagonized by Hippolytus in a treatise whose title was probably 'Heads against Gains', and we are thus led to conjecture that the complete title was

KecfxiXaia Kara Fai'ov virkp rod Kara '\codvvrjv €vayye\iov Ka\ ciTTOKaXvylrectiS,

or else that the work of Hippolytus existed also in an Epitome ; that is, we equate the title preserved in Syriac with the title on the back of the chair, and so make Gaius to have attacked the canonicity, not merely of the Apocalypse but also of the Fourth Gospel.

But here we are upon new ground, for we have taken a step at which Dr Gwynn hesitated and drew back. For, finding that in replying to Gaius, Hippolytus cites, once at least, from 81 John's Gospel, he argues that this implies that Gaius accepted the Fourth Gospel Indeed he says that it seems to follow with scarcely less certainty than the preceding conclusions thai Gaius accepted the Fourth G St John* 8. It is this statement into

the accuracy of which 1 propose to enquire.

But before doing so, it is in-tructive to recall some of the obstacles through which we have threaded OUT way in the history of the investigation. Lightfoot in his last edition admitted the weight of the Dew evidence brought forward by Dr Gwynn, but suggested that, although Qaius may be come to life again, it may be some othei Gaius, He clung to the theory which he had care- fully elaborated, and was unwilling to abandon it. 1 think tins tenacity is to be regretted; it would have been better to have been more Saturnian with one's offspring, But Lightfoot, of course, granted at once that Gaius had written against the Apo-

1 Bioh. 7.

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 47

calypse, and from this it follows that the remarks which Gaius makes about Cerinthus and the sensuous millennium which he proclaimed in the name of a great Apostle, must be understood as a criticism of the Apocalypse and the Chiliastic interpretations of it. In the light of which recently acquired knowledge it is interesting to compare the misunderstanding of the situation involved in the following sentence from Lightfoot {Apost. Fathers, Pt. I. vol. ii. p. 386), "It is difficult to see how an intelligent person should represent the Apocalypse as teaching that in the kingdom of Christ ' men should live in the flesh in Jerusalem and be the slaves of lusts and pleasures ; ' and again ' that a thousand years should be spent in marriage festivities.'" Amongst the people of ecclesiastical rank and dignity who held the view involved, though somewhat caricatured, in these words were Papias, Irenaeus, Nepos and Victorinus of Pettau. They certainly were not all of them idiots, though perhaps we may allow Papias the title of a(f>68pa a^c/cpos top vovv. The fact is that Lightfoot did not do justice to the Chiliastic movement.

Dr Gwynn is in the same case ; in order to save the credit of the Apocalypse he ventures to suggest that Cerinthus " may have written a pseudo-Apocalypse, containing previsions of a millennium of carnal pleasures, and that Gaius, in his anti-millenarian over-zeal, may have rejected both Apocalypses, the genuine and the spurious alike." But since Cerinthus is credited with nothing worse than the rest of the Chiliastic succession, we have no reason to make him the author of a further Apocalypse, which would not also apply to the other fathers who are named, all of whom hold what their opponents call the 'sensuous millennium.' We must not multiply Apocalypses : the one which is certainly involved in the phenomena is sufficient for the explanation of the phenomena.

And now for our problem ; did Gaius write against the Fourth Gospel, yea or nay ?

The answer will come from the same quarter as before, for the Syrian Church holds the keys of all the problems. Suppose we turn to Dionysius Bar-Salibi's Commentary upon St John, of which a Latin translation is preserved in the Bodleian Library1, made by Dudley Loftus from a MS. now in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. We find the following sentence, which I give in Loftus' own words :

1 Fell M8S. 6 and 7.

L8 PRESBTTEB QAIUS AND THE POUBTB Q08PEL.

Gains haereUcue reprehendal Johannem <|uia mm concors fuit • •urn Bociis, dicentibus1, quod post baptismum abiit in Qalilaeam, »t fecit miraculum viiii in Katna. Sanctue Hypolittu e contrario (I. adversufl earn) scilicet, Christ us postijuam haptizatus fuerat, abiit in desertum, e1 quando inquisitio facta erat de illo per discipulos Johannis et per populum, quaerebant cum et non Lnveniebant eum, quia in deserto erat, cum vcro finita fuisset bentatio el rediisset, venit in partes habitatas dob ut baptizaretur, baptizatufl enim jam fuerat, Bed ut monstraretur a Johanne qui dixit intuens eum, ecce Agnus Dei! baptizatus Lgitur fuit et abiit in desertum dum exquirerent eum, et quod vidissent eum bene persuasi erant, quia fuit, sed quo abiisset non sciverant, sed quando rediisset persuasit eis ex quo quod monstratua fuit a Johanne, crastino die vidit eum Johannes et dixit ecce agnus Dei! istos quadraginta dies exquisiverunt eum et non viderunt eum : jnractis vero diebus tentationis, cum venisset et visus esset venit in Qalilaeam ; quapropter inter se conveniunt Evangelistae quia postquam rediisset Dominus noster a deserto eumque monstrasset Johannes, illi, qui vidissent eum baptizatum, apprehendissent patrem clamautem, non viderunt eum amplius, quia abiit in desertum, necesse habuit Johannes ut iterum testimonium hujus- modi perhiberet de eo, quod hie est quam quaeritis et illinc abiit in Qalilaeam virtute Bpiritus.

Now this extract at first sight seems t<> dispose completely of Dr Qwynn's Btatemenl as to the acceptance of the Fourth Qospel by Gaius. There is, however, a textual difficulty. On comparing Loftus' rendering with two Mss. in the British Museum (('odd. Add. 71.S4 and 12,143), J find reason bo suspect that the name of Qaiufl was Dot in the primitive draft of the Commentary. For example the MS, Add. 71S4 begins as follows:

1 A oertaio heretic had accused .i<>lm fax'

and a later hand adds above the line the WOld coCUr^L^^. On the "ther hand thifl addition is wholly wanting ill the MS. Add. 12,143, and as we can Bee no reason for the omission of the name of Gaius in these two copies, we Buspect that it lias come in by editorial correction Indeed the opening words which answer to

the Greek aiperiKOS Tt? would of themselves suggest the absence

1 We .should probably correct the Svii;ie text and it ad dwentcm.

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 49

of the name of the heretic. The question is whether the name is rightly added by way of identification. And to this I think we may answer in the affirmative ; for the description of Hippolytus' reply which follows

' Of the holy Hippolytus against him,'

immediately recalls the title ' Heads against Gams.' And indeed there is no other candidate for the honour of the place of opposition. It is, moreover, interesting to compare the way in which the quotations are introduced with the passages quoted by Bar-Salibi in his commentary on the Apocalypse.

The five cases given by Dr Gwynn are introduced as follows :

r<liiL\^ Klicn A-m\.i r^^CU cn.K'irc' wajrd^ (i)

IJSarc'a cnflo^rC' j-Saai.T qpC^AoAK'

i.e. 'Gaius the heretic, who objected to this Revelation and said ... Hippolytus of Rome refuted him and said5

: vzart oocur^l^ (ii)

K'Aua^cn K'.icn A-n-ooA QpClL iNcu^rc* VSJr^o

i.e. Gaius said :

and Hippolytus said in reply to this objection of the heretic :

\ ooCn^l^ v^cnsa r<L^ico (iii)

i.e. Here Gaius objected...

and Hippolytus refuted him and said :

\c»CUt<1^ (iv)

. cn\ -i n CU Qoa^Aa£ur</

i. e. Gaius :

Hippolytus against him...

•. v^cnr^ reLnJ^rCirfcn ooCUrel^ (v)

:i-2nrc'c\ KllorA OOQOLAK' qpqVAcvAjK'

i.e. Gaius the heretic objected...

Hippolytus refuted this and said.

H, H. 4

r>0 RRB8BYTKH GAITS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

and these prefaces are bo closely parallel to the passage which we

have (jiiut.d from Bar-Salibi's C» >i i mi* 1 1 1 ar\ <»n the Fourth (Inspel,

that we need have do hesitation in saying that if the name of Gain- was wanting in the first copy, it has been rightly suggested by later readers. And if this be so, we can only regard as a serious misstatement Dr Gwynn's remark that it follows with hardly less certainty than the fact that Gains lived and opposed the canonicity of the Apocalypse that the said Gains accepted the Fourth Gospel.

But in order that the matter should be put outside of doubt, we will take the argument a little further and examine what Epiphanius brings forward in his treatment of the ."> 1st H«r» -y. that of the people whom he calls the Alogi. It is commonly supposed that this title is an invention of Epiphanius to describe the people who did not believe in the Johannine writings, which contain the Doctrine of the Logos. And Epiphanius actually says in c. 3 Tt cfxiatcovaiv toivvv ol "AXoyoi ; Tclvttjv yap avroU T Idrj^Li ti)v eTTCoi'VfjLiav' dirb yap T179 Sevpo ovtcos K\7]0t']aovrai, Ka\ outolk;, ayaTTTjroi, eiridco/jLev aiVot? ovofia, Tovreariv* AXoyoi. And he s] »eaks with the same air of originality in c. 28, in the words, 'HXey^Orjaav tcai ol diro^aXXofjievoL to Kara 'Icodvvrjv evayyeXiov, oi><; St/cat'co? y\\6yov<i fcaXeaofiac, €7r€iBr} rov Xoyov tov Oeov diro- ftdWoi'Tai, Tov Bed '\aidvvrjv KTjpv^Oivra /ere. There is, however,

a curious feature In the title of the refutation of this heresy which that this originality is an illusion. For the title runs as

follows: Kara t/;? alpeaea)*; t//? fir) Se^o^ezn/? to Kara 'IcodvvTjp evayyeXiov xal ry)v WTTOKaXvyfrtv, fjv itcdXeaev ApoiJTODV, rpia-

KO(TTl) TTpOiTT], 7/ Kol 7T€VTt]K0aTt} TTpCOTJ). HelV the obvioUS

suggestion is to restore 'AXoywv for 'Aiwfrw in harmony with the passages quoted above. Bui how did the error arise ' The answer is 1 think, as follows: the title must have been confused with the title oi another heresy, viz. the heresy of Norms, to whom the appellation of 'A.v6tjtos would l>e peculiarly applicable. And when we turn to the heresy in question, which is the 57th in Epiphanius' list, we find him using this very plaj upon the name, though it does nol appear in the title prefixed to the heresy. For

example in C 4 he Bays vai Bieireatv etc TravTa^odev 6 tvs'

"Voj/at'a? aov X6yo$, rr> dvotjre. It is to this heresy then thai the name applies. We may also compare a <> o$to$ *al o air

avrov NotyTOt) t'^wi1 oi'o/sa di'otjTos' ftwapYCJ real ol ifj airov dvoj]-

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 51

tovvt€$, also c. 8 Tt ovv epel N077T0? eV rfj avrov dvorjaia; etc. etc. Now when we turn to the heresy of the Noetians as described by Philaster (Haer. 53) we find that the same play upon words occurs, as the following sentence will shew:

alii autem Noetiani insensati cuiusdam nomine Noeti, qui dicebat patrem omnipotentem ipsum esse Christum;

and here, as Lipsius shews, the word insensati stands for dpotjrou. And a comparison with the language of Hippolytus contra Noetum shews that Philaster is following Hippolytus closely; so that we reasonably infer that the play upon the name began originally with Hippolytus, and this inference is fully confirmed by an examination of Hippolytus' treatment of the subject. For not only does Hippolytus shew an acquaintance with the joke, but we can see the way in which he was led to it. He compares the theological system of Noetus with that of Heraclitus, in which all contraries are harmonized so that crooked things are the same as straight things, mortal and immortal are equivalent terms, and God is at once ' summer and winter, peace and war, satiety and famine.' What wonder then if he should apply the same reason- ing to the name of Noetus, who should turn out to be Anoetus ! And that he does so reason will appear from Ref. Haer. ix. 10, where he follows the sentence fO 0eo?...7ro\.e/zo?, elpyvrj, fcopo<;, XifAO? by saying Tdvavria diravra. ovtos (I. outcd?) 0 vovs.... <£>avepdv Be irdat tovs vovtovs (l. dvor,TOV<i) Nowtov BiaBoxovs kcu tt/9 alpeo-ew? irpoardra^, el kcu 'Hpa/cXetTov Xeyoiaav eavrov<; /xi) yeyovevat aKpoaras, dXkd ye rd t&> NotjtS Sogapra alpovpevovs avacpavSdv, ravra 6fjLo\oye2v. For, as he continues, they hold the doctrine of contraries in regard to the Divine Nature. It was reasonable, then, that they should furnish a parallel to it in themselves.

But if this title is derived primarily from the wit of Hippoly- tus it is not unreasonable to suppose that the title "AX070? which it has displaced in the text of Epiphanius comes from the same mint. For Epiphanius does not, apparently, use the title 'Avotjtoi at the head of his treatment of the heresy of Noetus, however much it is involved in the text : yet it must have stood in the list of heresies, in order that a transcriptional confusion should arise between the Alogi and the Anoeti. We infer, therefore, that the presence of the title Alogi is probable in the book or table of

4—2

52 PRE8BYTEB GAIUS \\l» THE P0T7BTH GOSPEL,

heresies upon which Epiphanius Lb working. And with this Ldghtfool agrees (8. Clement of Rome, ii 394), for he says, " We may rasped that Epiphanius borrowed the name aXoyoc, ' the irrationa] ones/ from Hippolytus; for these jokes are very much in his way; e.g. votjtos, dvorjro^, and Botcos, Botcelv, SoKTjral." \\ e may also add the heresy which Epiphanius describes as Krjpiv- Oiavol ijroi M-qpivOcavol1 to our list, and here Epiphanius has failed to see the Hippolytean joke (Mijpwdos =& noose) and discusses whether it is one person or two that is meant.

So much for the title of the 51st Heresy: it suggests the use of Hippolytean material ; and now let us turn to the text of the section. It is mainly made up of two separable defences, that of the Fourth Gospel and that of the Apocalypse. For aught Epiphanius knows (T^a), the Alogi may have also rejected the Johannine Epistles which confirm the authenticity of the other two books, but he is concerned only with material furnished by the attacks upon the greater Johannine writings. He deals accordingly with selected objections. And amongst the refutations which he makes of the attacks on the Apocalypse there is, as Dr Qwynn has pointed out, one which is closely parallel to one of the instances in the Bar-Salibi extracts from the Heads against ( Jains. For convenience we will print the text of Epiphanius side by side with the Gwynn-Qaius fragment:

Epiph. Il'i'-r. li. c. 34. Ga&ut,

Kai <}>(i(Tii> on, Eifiov, Km (itt( rut (\yy(\<0, AndthscmgtU

\vaov rovf riaaapat ayyAovs rofa M roi" which

Kicpi><iT»v Kd\ rJKovcra riv lipiOp-nv TOW aTparov, 90fU Qth& for datft tO flay tfa

UVQUU fWPuSdffS K(i\ xi\tut YiAuifi<r, Km rjdiiv third />"/'( <;/ PIMM llt'V. i\.

(V&t&vpfvm OcJjHiKds nvplpwt Kat 6(ioi8as xa\ 15). On this ('.tins B

idKtuOii'ovi. *Er6fuow> y<\> <>[ rotovroi, pij m) It is not written that angelfl

lipu ytXtunv t'(TTii> r) dXrjdfiu- tav yap Xiy;/ rOVC are t" make war, DOT that a

rticnrapoj dyyAovs Tins «V tu> V.v(pfji'rrj] Kadc third j»art ft' nun is t<>

{opbovt, iki 8f(£p rat rtovapat dmtfaopas tu>v perish : but that nation thaU

t\-(itTf t'Ofoiv K<i6((<>p,ti>wv tm Tuv Bttyponp, ritt agednti nation Matt.

otratfc daw 'AoWpioij Baflvkttmotf M$&m *m .wiv. 7 . Bippolytus in re-

Il»'/)fr(M. \vrxuyap n't rioaaptt f&uriXftfU note) ply to him: It is n<>t of

btadofflV tv to') AiivujX t'fi<l»'t>t>iTtti, air TTpwroi angelfl ho says they

' \<jiTitn(,i f'tiiKTtXfvoi', Kiii \\ii,iv\u>i'i<n h XpOHHt U) war, l>nt that four nations

(u'roi ', M9601 ^c Sifftt^aiH-o, fitr ovrovf fi< are to arise out of the region Qcpotu, J» wpArot yiym-f kr,...,, 0 ii"i,\n\. which is 6y Bvpkratot and to Tn y/i/i Mbq i7ro dyytXovs rcraypfoa i&rlp, an oome against the earth ami

Bet Llghtfoot, I.rrtttriS mi St John.

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

53

empaprvpel poi Mcova-fjs 6 ayios rov Qeov Ocpd- 7ra)V, rov Xoyov Kara aKoXovdiav epprjvevoiv Kai Xeycov, 'Eire pooTTjcrov rov naripa crov Kai dyyeXel aoi, rovs npecrfivrcpovs Kai epoi/0-1 <rot' "Ore 8iepepi£ev 6 vy\naros edvrj, as bucriTfipev viovs *A8ap, €0~T7]aev opia i6vu>v Kara dpiOpov dyyeXoov Qeov' km eyevrjOr) pepis Kvpiov Xaos avrov 'laKco/3, axoivLo-pa KXrjpovopias avrov 'icrpaijX. Ei ovv ra Z6vr\ vtto dyyeXovs etcrl reraypeva, diKaicos fine, Avcrov rovs rccrcrapas dyycXovs tovs iv ro> EvCppdrj] Kade^opevovs Kai eVe^o/xe-

VOVS €iriTp€7T€lV rois e6v€0~lV els TToXepoV, €(OS

Kaipov paKpodvplas Kvpiov, ecos -npocrrd^ii 8i avrcov €K.diKtav yevecrdai reov avrov dyicov. 'E«pa- rovvro yap oi enirerayfievoi ayycXoi V7r6 tov ivvevparos p,r) e^ovres Kaipov eTri8popfjs, 8ia to prproo Xveiv avrols rr)v biKrjv, rov ra Xonrd eOvr) Xveadai evexev rfjs npos rovs dyiovs vftpeeos. Avovrai 5e ol roiovroi iea\ inipxovrai rr/ yrj cos looavvrjs 7rpo(pr]T€V€i Ka\ oi Xonroi npoqbrjrai. Kai yap Kivovpcvoi oi ayycXoi kivovci ra edvrj els opprjv cfcdiKtas. "On de nvpivovs Ka\ 6eia>8as Kai vaKLvO'tvovs OcopaKas ar)p.aivei, ovdeis dp.q)i- /3aXXet. EKetm yap ra edvr) ano rfjs roiavrrjs Xpoas e^ei rrjv dpqbiaa-iv. Ta pev yap deicodrj ipdria \P°a TIS e0"rt M^'ivrl ovrco KaXovpevt] epea. ra de Tvvpiva, Iva e'lnr] rd KOKKrjpd evdv- para, Kai vaKivOiva, Iva Sei'^fl rr}V KaXXatvr/v epeav.

to war with mankind. But this that he says, four angels is not alien from Scripture. Moses said, When He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the boundary of the nations ac- cording to the number of the angels of God (Deut. xxxii. 8). Since therefore nations have been assigned to angels, and each nation pertains to one angel, John rightly declared by the Revelation a loosing for those four angels : who are the Persians and the Medes and the Babylonians and the Assyrians. Since then those angels who have been appointed over the na- tions have not been comman- ded to stir up those who have been assigned to them, a certain bond of the power of the word is indicated which restrains them until the day shall arrive and the Lord of all shall command. And this then is to happen when Antichrist shall come.

The parallelism between the two lines of defence is so striking that it betrays a common origin, and this must be the work of Hippolytus, which has been rehandled by Epiphanius, and which appears, perhaps in an abbreviated form, in the extracts of Bar- Salibi. Such an abbreviation might be due to Bar-Salibi himself, or to the fact that the Heads against Gains is a summary of a larger work.

But if this be the case, that we are dealing with lost Hippoly- tean and Gaian matter, we cannot limit ourselves to the single passage in which Epiphanius and Bar-Salibi agree. We must group together all the extracts in the two writers which defend the Apocalypse, and regard them as the residue of a single lost work; after which we must make a similar investigation with regard to the Fourth Gospel.

We thus learn, over and above what Bar-Salibi tells us, that

.">4 PBE8BYTFI; r;ATT'S AND THE FOrilTH GOSPEL.

the AJogi objected to the machinery of the Apocalypse, especially to the Angels and Trumpets; and that they criticised the Epistle

to Thyatira, on the ground that no Church existed in Thyatira in St John's day.

And the Bame method of enquiry hold- with regard to the

i«lation of Gains to the Fourth Gospel: for we find Epiphanins dealing with a series of objections made to the Chronology of the Fourth Gospel and to special disagreements between St John and the Synoptics, and we shall see that under both these heads he is dealing with Hippolytean matter; the replies are the replies of Bippolytus, rehandled by Epiphanins, and the Chronology is the Hippolytean modification of the work of Julius Africanus.

\V. have shewn from Bar-Salibi a single instance of a Gaian objection to the Fourth Gospel, viz. the discordant accounts of the events connected with the Baptism. And when we turn to Bpiphanins we find that the very first objection of the Alogi which he refutes is this very difficulty. <&datcov<ri yap tca0' eavr&v, ov yap etiroifii Kara Tffi dXrjOelas, on ov avficpcovei rd avrov fiiftXia tol$ XonroU air 0 err 0X0 is. Here Epiphanins is working on a text which read erepois for which he gives XoittoU '. for we find the equivalent sentence in Bar-Salibi:

quia non concors fuit cum sociis (i.e. eraipois).

The form of the objection turns upon the quotation of a number of verses from the beginning <>f the Gospel. Mich as: '() 'I waving paprvpei, Kal icetcpaye, Xeycov on, ovros eanv ov eiTTOv vp.li>' Kal on, Qvros earn' 6 dpvos rov Oeov, 6 al'pcoi' tm- afj.(ipriav rov Koapov kci\ *a#e£//? (frr/ai, Kal elirov avrco 04 uKovaavres, '\ya/3(3\, irov pevels ; dpa Be ei> ravrrp, TjJ eiravpioi', cf)7)ati\ rjOeXrjaev e%eX6elv eis n)v YaXiXaiav Kai evpiaKa ^'iXittttov, K(i\ Xeyei avr(o 6 'ItjctoO?, WtcoXovdei poi. Ka\ perd tovto 6\iyro irpoaQev (f)Tja\, Kal perd rpeis tjpepas ydpo<; eyevero ev Kava rrjs VaXtXaias /ere.

Bpiphanius' reply Lb long and diffuse; he begins by pointing out thai the same method of criticism might be applied t<> the internal disagreements of the Synoptics; how, for example, are we to pii ther the infancy accounts in Matthew and Luke;

and bow are we to place the visit of the Magi and the flight into Egypt, so as to be in harmony with the presentation of Christ in the Temple etc The criticism of the AJogi who accepted the

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 55

Synoptics could thus be easily directed against themselves. When at length Epiphanius comes to the discussion of the Johannine passage, he explains that the Lord, after his baptism, went into the wilderness, returned to Nazareth, and afterwards came back again to the Jordan where John was baptizing : Xva Bei^rj perd rds reaaapaKovTa i)fAepa<> tov Treipaa/juov, fcai fierd rrjv air avrov tov Treipao-fiov eirdvoSov teal opfirjv rrjv irrl Na^aper teal Ta\i- XalaVy &)<? ol aWoc rpels evayyeXiaral ecfrrjaav, irdXiv errl tov 'JopBdvrjv avrov rj/cevai ktL

And this is substantially the same as we find in the passage in Bar-Salibi, so that we may claim again the recognition of Hippolytean matter.

The second difficulty which he undertakes to handle is the question of the number of passovers in our Lord's ministry. According to the Alogi, John mentions two passovers in our Lord's ministry, the Synoptics only one. Epiphanius adds the accounts together and argues, reasonably enough, for three pass- overs. But he is evidently falling foul of the belief of the early Church that our Lord's ministry was confined to a single year, an opinion which was based upon or confirmed by the words of Isaiah that he came to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Accordingly Epiphanius, who is working at the data of some Chronographer, that our Lord was born on the 11th of the Egyptian month Tybi, and that he was baptized in his 30th year on the 12th of the Egyptian month Athyr proceeds to the question of the acceptable year in the following words ; ical direvrevOev diro 'Advp ScoBetcdrrjs K7]pvrrovTO<; avrov tov Be/crov ivuavTov Kvpiov /ere. And certainly he argues, the Lord did preach the acceptable year, because for the first year of his ministry he met with general acceptance, but after that with opposition ! This ingenious argument shews that Epiphanius is trying to get rid of the theory of a single year of the ministry, which he found in his sources.

Now it would be very interesting if we could compare the Chronology which Epiphanius gives with that of Hippolytus either as it existed in the Chronica or as we are entitled to assume that it must have existed in the defence of the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse (for certainly Hippolytus must have dealt with the objection made by the Alogi on the subject of the Passovers).

56 PRE8BTTBH GAIUS AND THE POUBTB 006PEL.

But unfortunately we are dealing here with loei documents. What does seem clear is thai Epiphanius has been tinkering the data before him ; for he alters the date of Christ's death, which in the Bippolytean tradition is usually the consulate of the two (Jemini, and makes it two years later, by assuming in the life of our Lord two further consulates, of which the first is that of Rufus (Fufius) and Rubellio (who are in fad the Gemini over again)\ and the second is the consulate of Vinicius and Longinus

sius. It is clear that such a confusion as this cannot be due to Hippolytus. and we suspect that some one has been trying to add a couple of years to the tale.

But in the next place when we compare the list of consuls given by Epiphanius for the first thirty years of our Lord's life with the table in the Chronographer of 354 which is taken from the Hippolytean table of 234, we find that Epiphanius has placed the birth of Christ two consulates earlier than the Chrono- grapher; and this again suggests an attempt to gain two years in our Lord's life by some one who was working on a chronicle of 31 years which he was trying to turn into one of 33 year-. Now whether all of this confusion is due to Epiphanius, or whether part of it is due to Hippolytus who has emended the 31 year life of Christ which appears in his paschal cycle into some system more oonsistenl with the Gospels, I am not at present prepared to say: it is possible that the correction is due to more than a single reformer.

At all events, we may be confident that Hippolytus in dealing with Gaius must have had to bee the difficulty of the Chronology, and if ho did not succeed in abandoning the theory of the accept- able year, Bpiphanius musl have done it for him, and don." it with much blundering. Bui behind all these confused data of Epiphanius there must lie the Bippolytean tables as they were taken from Africanus. And perhaps some day we may be able to say h'os much of the work of Africanus ha- escaped mutilation at the hand- of those wh«» worked him over. We have shewn, then, that Bpiphanius in hi- 51s1 heresy, that of the AJogi, is using materia] which was taken in part at least from the reply of Hippolytus to Gaius in defence of the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. And it is clear, since Hippolytus would not have been defending what no one was attacking, that objections n still current at Koine in the early pari of the third century t«»

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 57

the canonicity of the fourth Gospel. How much is involved in this admission as regards the existence of a previous succession of adverse Higher Critics, is difficult to say. In the case of the Apocalypse the objection taken can easily be seen to be early and constant and widely diffused. Whether criticism of the same intensity was applied to the fourth Gospel, we have no means of determining: but it is a fixed point gained to have restored, as Dr Gwynn has done, the personality of Gaius : and to have defined, as we hope to have done, his position as a critic.

An Extract prom the Commentary of Dionysus Bar-

Saliiu on the Gospel op .John (c. ii. v. l).

From (A) Cod. Mub, liritt. Add. 7184, /. 2432 with some vari from Ii Cod, Mi'.s. Britl Add. 12,143.

: o^aoi.i oocu^AcxSurc* r^jL»To.i ^3.1 ^LuCUA KLx-»"i^ CUrdjL ori^a.l r£-*JZ73\n r^l'SrtCU rt\*xZACi ^jisa .T^i^ cotd.i ocn kLi^ic^ ndiacuo . cVar^ .vy^cn <-^° . >*?3cu ^ i s -tik' icV\_=3C\ . K'i.ra.'vsnA A\rc* .] vAca-573.i *»crr»vu .ta, r£-*zn\a rdincu carD.i ocn rdl*ic^ nClrrtCU . rc':W5fc\cV> ^ic^> vcna^nio

rc*cV>c\cV\jL^3.l -rdJco rc'cVu.cVl rdsacu . rdiA^X ji°>J pdAl | 1 liCuA rCocn -\i\n*73 : pcL^CUxJJd i K* .X-JnC' icVvrai ^'•vsarc'.i . -•cncx'ia.jj r^\on\ \Jc\rdA rc'CNcn *n \ t.

. cn\ n n CU, oo flULil C\^» K* rdx*.To.i

1 A (not li) :id<l "ii BUUrg. in a late hand: nnA\ A y AnT.i OCT) K'ooX fX'l COV^rC' CU CT3 V^rC'CX

r^*7i\s. .1 A (not 13) adds on marg. in a lat. IkuhI r^L^CU «-».! CUCO 3 A (not li) adds OTtI lino in a late hand qoC\-»t<L^^

PRESBYTER GAIUS AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 59

K'ia .1^0-3.1 ^orxjD , jCTDOwAI.K' n^A cnA OOOD , i S iC\

r£s&u\ nc*chr<' v^cno r<Lic\iCm\ .i\»*it. ^*.i .ta . K'ocn ^3 rx'ojjcta.'i r^\r^ .ix.^ rc*ocn .i>*ais, . *^q^j.i oA . rc'crArC.'i cntranc* rc'cn.i . WK' ~»or2*Vu .1^.1 oorA .^U>cu . .^cnaL oocn ^nns*a .1^ K'is.'usaA A\r<o i_m^ e.v5] .K'ocn ucnoiuK' ^jso.i .*cn .oocn .ion a»sw ^cnoK'vu.io cnx^rc' v^cn .1^0 .oocn ^-1* rdA AtK* rdfk*reiAo

Vu^tt.l p^.^O-aA >flMCb ^..^3 ^CUjcjSp^I .1 i 3 . ^^W^

^Aonus . r^cnArf.! cniifcK' ocn .i^flK'o ^luCX* ..»cq-»v»j ^_Acn icViso ...»cnor<'V4j rdAo ucoor^si ^l^ocu ^isnirc^ ^».T^3 . rc*\ i\ ^\ pC*cV\pC* .Um^^o rC^rC* .1-* rdiCUflaJ.l vy&cn.i icVus.t A^a . pdiiuA r^^ en i\ ^or^ ^ i \ *ti t , ovjj.i ^^o-SctiA ^iwcu cn^cvuo . K'i-s.iJsn »jsb •^^ A\^73 .ao^ ^cnoK'VM retAo r<^a.i t<1=>kAo .vsbu^.i ^cncvA-^. .icnjaaJ.i { \ »cu.> jaJic^Jtorc' . rCi^i-saA A.^.i AtK* prxsS ^2ao . ^oc^vJr*' { 1 s -i 1 cucn.i ^oq_=j : AiOlftlAl

f<U>oi.i r<* \ 1 » -i r^A i\ \A

EUTHALIls AM) EUSEBIUS.

By the publication of his researches into the problems as- sociated with the name of Euthalius of Alexandria, Prof. Robinson has laid all New Testament scholars under a great debt of

gratitude If his Euthaliana had done nothing more than restore to us a number of pages of the famous Codex H of the Pauline Epistles by the simple process of reading the impress of the ink of the perished pages upon the pages which remain, it would have been a distinct paleographical triumph. For it must !»<• re- membered that this MS. of which the extant leave- are scattered over the libraries of Pari-, St Petersburg, Moscow. Kieff, Turin and .Mt /Lthos, has been the object of study of a great many pairs of eyes that are usually in the habit of seeing. Dr Gregory, acting as literary executor to Tisehendorf, had certainly planned an edition of the B-fragments, and made preparation for that edition, yel he does uof seem to have Buspected thai the worn and stained pages had a double tale to tell, and could furnish the text

of leaves Lost afl Well as of leaves preserved. We also made a

careful study of this Codex, bo far as its Paris fragments are

concern..!. \.t n uever dawned upon our minds that the Bet-off on

the pages belonged to a dim-rent set of pages than those which

were extant ; nor did the thought occur to us when, not long since, we were examining the A.thos fragments These A.thos leaves were also examined i>\ Duchesne1, but neither does he appear to have Buspected that there was any Bupplementarj evidence forthcoming from the manuscript

More curious -til!. M. Omonl in publishing an edition of the St Petersburg leaves, actually read a lost page of the MS. by the

1 Archil,* 4e» MistUmt sritiitifiqucs ct littrr,ii,r<y . r. A. vol. B. l';uis. 1876.

EUTH ALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 61

reversed writing, but does not seem to have applied his method to any further leaves either at Paris or St Petersburg. It is, therefore, a distinct triumph and a very welcome increase to our knowledge that Prof. Robinson, working independent of us all, has been able to read, without serious lacunae, sixteen fresh pages of this valuable text.

But, valuable as this increment to our knowledge is, it is only a small part of Mr Robinson's services to the critic who occupies himself with the supposed Euthalian text of the Epistles and the shadowy editor of that text. He has passed under review almost the whole of the literature of the subject from Zacagni onwards, with the view of determining all that can be known with regard to the person and work of Euthalius. And in so doing he has shewn a remarkable grasp of critical methods, far beyond what one is used to look for in English work. Nor is the study the less interesting because the author displays such evident delight in knocking down all the ninepins which recent students of Euthalius had set up, including Ehrhard, Dobschtttz, Conybeare and myself. 'The scholar's melancholy,' as Shakespeare says, 'is emulation.' We have sometimes a touch of the complaint ourselves, and Prof. Robinson will not be angry if we indulge the hope that, as far as our own ninepins are concerned, we may be able to set some of them up again. At least that is the object of the following pages. But whether we succeed in our attempt or not, we have a good hope that we shall not leave the subject without adding to our knowledge something which will be of permanent value.

This is the third time, I think, that I have approached the Euthalian problems. The first occasion was when in connexion with the study of the Stichometry of ancient MSS. I came across the collection of Euthalian and Ps.-Euthalian data which Zacagni had amassed in his Collectanea Monu mentor um Veterum, and under- took to prove, as against the traditional view held by Scholz, Scrivener and others, that the lines numbered by Euthalius were not sense-lines {cola and commata as they are sometimes called) but space-lines of which the unit of measurement is a 16-syllabled hexameter. There has been no exception taken to this demon- stration (nor is it easy to see how any exception was possible, for the investigation was self- verifying) ; but a new point has been raised by Prof. Robinson who questions with great propriety why we should attribute to Euthalius at once the art of writing the

62 EUTiiAi.ns and BU8EBIU&

N.T. in sense-lines, and the counting of the N.T. and attached matter in space-lines. Ee proposes, therefore, to divide the Euthalian materials, speaking roughly, between two artists of whom one, Euthalius, should write the Acts .and Epistles in cola and a<M certain prologues, while the other, whom he identifies with an Evagrius who appears in the subscription to certain Euthalian MSS. (notably in Cod. II, as recent investigations have shewn) should publish an editiu minor of the Euthalian text and materials and be responsible for the stichometry, properly so called, of the text and prologues. This suggestion has a great air of probability about it. For the present we leave it on one ride, as we hope to re-open the investigation from a fresh quarter. liosi of what we had said upon the interpretation of the Euthalian lines will be found reprinted in the little volume Stichometry1.

The second attack which we made upon the Euthalian problem dealt with the obscure personalities of the writer and of the person to whom the work was dedicated. It is well known that there is a great air of uncertainty about the titles prefixed to the works attributed to Euthalius. The MSS. speak, but by no means uniformly, of Euthalius of Sulci, but no one knows where Sulci IB, doI even Pro£ Robinson, for it is almost impossible to refer the work to Sardinia, where a place of that name is known ; they make Euthalius a bishop, but we cannot identify either him or his diocese. Bis first work, thai on the Pauline Epistles, is based upon the previous work of a pious father whom he does qo1 name, though he speaks of him flatteringly enough, and the influence has ii"i been an unnatural one thai the father in question was not

exactly in the very odour of sanctity: and internal evidence has been produced which suggested thai the great nameless one illicit

perhaps be Theodore of liopsuestia. In the second part of bis work, that which deals with the Acts and the Catholic Epistles, Euthalius (whoever he was) expressl} addresses in his prologu father of the nam.- of Athanasras ; bu1 here, too, the critic found a difficulty, for of the actual dates found in the Euthalian prej one ( A.D. 896) was too late for At hanasius the Great, and the other (a.i>. 458), which mighl seem to refer the work to the time of the second AAhanasius, appeared ool to be due to the hand of the original author of the Prologues.

1 Stichometry i Cambridge University Pn n Warehov

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 63

At this point I took up the matter with the object of proving that the name of Athanasius which occurs in the Prologues to the Acts and Catholic Epistles is an orthodox substitute for an un- orthodox name which has disappeared ; and, guided by what seemed to me an obvious and repeated play upon words in the Euthalian text, where there were frequent and significant allusions to Me\eT77 or study, I maintained that the work was originally dedicated to a father of the name of Meletius upon whose name Euthalius was playing, and that its true title was EvdaXiov 777309 MeXenov.

The subordinate question, as to which of the possible Meletii of doubtful ecclesiastical repute was the one to whom the book was dedicated was decided, perhaps too rapidly, in favour of Meletius of Mopsuestia, the pupil and successor of the great Theo- dore. In making this identification, I was, of course, influenced by the first of the two dates (a.d. 396) found amongst the Euthalian matter, which I took to be the true date of Eutha- lius.

But to all this Prof. Robinson takes exception: according to him the date 396 is not the date of Euthalius, but of his successor Evagrius, and consequently we have no chronological difficulty to get over in accepting the ascription of certain MSS. and of the text itself to Athanasius ; while, as to the supposed play upon a name, while not entirely denying that there is something of the kind involved, he thinks that it is merely a play upon a word capable of two senses, because MeXeV??, which I take to be the key-word to the understanding of the prologues, is a word which may mean either study or training in the athletic sense : accord- ing to which interpretation, since the word training is susceptible of a double sense even amongst ourselves, we are to understand Euthalius as saying ' I recommend to you my foster-sister and friend, the appropriately named lady, Madam Training.' And Prof. Robinson concludes by saying, ' I cannot myself think that a case is made out for any deletion of the name Meletius at all.' With which observation he finally knocked over my ninepin !

Now, as far as I am concerned, I have no special objection to be put in the wrong, but inasmuch as we are obliged by Euthalius to sing the praises of Mistress Study, whoever she was, and the praise ought not to be mere superficial adulation, it might be as well to make the examination a little more closely concerning these

64 EUTHAMUS AND BU8KBIU&

two points, the question of the supposed lieletius whom I maintain it. have been erased, and the subordinate issue as to the date of Euthalius. The latter question can, indeed, be treated indepen- dently of the former; for, as Mr Robinson allows, if a.i>. 396 is the date of Evagrius and ool of Euthalius, there is at least one other lieletius of an earlier date, viz. Heletdus of Antdoch, who might be a candidate at once for ecclesiastical disgrace and the hand of Melete ; hut I shall Dot abandon the date 396 for Eutha- lius without applying to the subject some more of the Bleepless discipline which Euthalius praises; and as for Melete, who has engaged me as well as the pious father of antiquity in her toils, if I find her fallacious, Bhe shall be burnt for a witch.

And so we come to our third contribution t<> the Euthalian problem, which is the relation of the prologues of Euthalius to the of Eu8ebiu8. According to Robinson (and the impression is DOt an unnatural one), Kuthalius is a very original writer, with a 'great wealth of expression,' a person who can not only talk in high-sounding Greek, but who would also qoI sully his Btyle by 'repeating his own language in a slavish manner': in other words a literary artist of some eminence whose commodity of words and of id.as ( which words are meant either to express or to conceal) i> something more than

A beggarly array of empty boxes,

Of musty packthread and old cakes of roses.

I will confess that, until recently, I shared with Mr Robinson

this idea of Euthalius; he was one of the writers who drove one

to the dictionary, and such we always respect — and hate. But I

hope to be able to shew thai this grandeur of style is only

apparent, and that, in nality. one of the main 0808 of the swollen

speech of Euthalius is to furnish various readings for the text of ESnaebius I

In the first place, thru, we ul)s.T\e that Kuthalius himself has

directed as to Eusebius as one of his sources: he bells us. in his Prologue to the Pauline Epistles (Zacagni, p 531) as follows :

Vji)aeftio<; Be, toi/? ixereTreira ypovovs <ifcpi/3io<s Trepiepyaadfievos, laTop-qaev ijpuv go] <V T"~> Bevrtpro ru/xn) 7/)s' l^KKXijaiaartK)")^

ICTTOpiaS TOVTOV KCll TO flCipTVpiOl1' Kill (f)7)(Tl TO/' MavXoV UV€TOV

Btarptyfrat Ka\ Tor TOV (-)eov Xoyov uK(t)XuT(t)<; Ki]pv^ai eTTKnjfiijvu- fieyow I ere //< v ovr t7ri X*p(ovo<i uTroXoyrjati p.n-Dj' t6v WavXov avOis eVi ~>)i' rou Kffpvy/iaTOQ BiciKoviav \o~/»k flvei areiXaaOat.

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 05

The passage, to which we shall presently have to refer more at length, is taken from Euseb. H . E. ii. 22, where Eusebius is relating what St Luke says about Paul's first imprisonment and what report says about the second imprisonment. As it stands in Euthalius the structure of the sentence is harsh enough : but it all becomes clear when we refer to the History which tells us :

Kcu Aovtcas Be 6 ra$ irpd^em tcov cnroaTokwv ypa<f>fj irapaBovs, iv tovtois KareXvae ttjv laropiav, Bceriav oXrjv iirl t?}? 'Pa>/y% tov UavXov averov BiaTptyau koi tov tov ®eo0 Xoyov d/cco- Xvtco? Krjpv^ai €7rcar)/jLr)vd/jL6vo(i. Tore /xev ovv diroXoy^crd^evov avOis iirl ttjv tov /cr)pvyp,aTO$ Bta/coviav X0709 e^et arelXaaOac tov dirocTToXov.

We see then the way in which Euthalius appropriates his author, and we could easily extend our recognition of the matter borrowed from Eusebius by examination of the immediate context. But, for the present, let it suffice to shew that the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius is one of the sources of Euthalius. A second source may be identified by a reference to c. 3 of the Pauline prologue (Z. p. 529) where Euthalius tells us as follows :

Avay/caiov Be rjyrjad/jLrjv iv /3pa^el /cat tov %p6vov iiricrr}- fieiwcrao-daL tov Kr}pvy/JLaTo<; UavXov etc tcov y^poviK&sv /cavovcov Evaeftiov tov UafMfytXov ttjv dva/cecfraXalcoa iv ttoiov/jLcvos. evOa Br) ttjv filfiXov pbeTa %et/3a? et'X^^w? kt€., where from the very language we are led to expect that quotations are coming, or at all events, statements which are the equivalent of quotations. And we shall shew that Euthalius actually had the Chronicon open before him, as well as the History to which, as we have already pointed out, he refers on a subsequent page.

He begins his extracts by saying that the Passion of our Lord occurred in the 18th year of Tiberius. The passage of the Chronicon from which this is taken is preserved in Syncellus (614. 7):

I^CToO? O XptCTTO? 0 u/o? TOV 06OV 0 KVpiOS IJfltoV KCLTO. TO,?

irepl axjTov irpo$>i)Teia<; eirl to 7rd6os irpoyei gtovs 16' t;}? Tifiepiov ftao-tXeias.

The Hieronymian version of the Chronicon gives the xviiith year, the Armenian agrees with Syncellus in giving the xixth year.

Euthalius then alludes to the election of the seven deacons, and in particular of Stephen, in the following terms :

n. h. 5

66 BUTHALIU8 a\i> BU8EBIUR

Km fi€$' r)fitpa<; Tii-fl? 6\iyas elBov eVet irpo^ip^o^ievov^ tovs Wtt octt o\oik els hiaKoviav tov avTofapajvvpov Irecpavov tcai tovs afi4>\ avrov.

Of this we find, in spite of Euthalius1 express statement, no trace in the Chronicon, bul on looking into the History (H.E. ii. 1) we find

Ka6i(TTainaL...eh htaKoviav...avhp€^ hehoKifiaa^evoi rbv dpi0-

fj.uv tVrrt 01 ufi<f>\ rbv ^Lre^arou, where the coincidences in language will be noticed, and then a little lower Eusebius speaks of Stephen

a> follows :

7T/30JTOS" TOV aVTW cf)€p(OIV^LOV T(t)V U%lOVl/CQ)V TOV XpHJTOV

[laprvpcov airo^perai areefcavov .

And here a curious fact comes to light, viz. that Euthalius has (ailed to understand Eusebius' language.

Eusebius Bpeaks of Stephen as bearing away the martyr's crown, which is appropriately named {arefyavos) for him. Here the play upon words has taken Euthalius' fancy, but he has blunderingly carried "ft aura) (pepou'Vfiov and applied it to Stephen, without mentioning the crown to complete the parallel. He might have contented himself with calling Stephen fapwwiios and leaving his readers to see the obvious play upon the name; but he was appropriating from Eusebius, and not 'mixing his pamt- with brains/ and so we have the impossible reading which appears in C<»d. l>oeelerianns as avrco (ptpcorv/jLov, in other MSS. as a single impossible word avro<l>€poovvfiopt in Cod. Lollinianus bj emendation as iraw fcpMvviuw .

And lest there Bhould be any doubt about the bet that Euthalius has been appropriating Eusebian language, we can compare with the foregoing passage from Eusebius the language in which Euthalius Bpeaks of the martyrdom of Paul (Z. 522):

to> T&P 'nj)oviK(t)]' \piarov fiapri'pcov (nefau'fp KareKoafiijOi].

Cf. also Euseb. Mart Pal* •> rbv t&p iepovbcmv rtfr Otoaefteias

and Mart I'd. 9 Behp KaT^Koap.i)Oi) fiaprvpifp etc,

Euthalius continues his discussion of the Pauline chronology, and presently he makes the statement that Paul continued

1 With tin- r.'inpiur Svno-llu-. 681. t: l>ra rbv dfxdpibv, Soxei n<*, x/wf vrrjfKfflav ril'v dbtXtpuv vtt6 twc airoaroXau' KaTiffTdO-qjay u'v T/iurroi rjv ~T{<pavos 6 rpurros ^trd rbv awTrjpa wapd tuv kv(h.okt6vu)v Xitfo/SoX^eit nai rbv (pfpuvviuw d£tu>y o/oj <jTJ<f>avov itrrp a\ ~

i in defending thii leet reading; lei tlu berbftriem stand,

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS.

67

preaching from the 19th year of Tiberius to the 13th year of Claudius, fjyeiiovevovro? rore tt}? 'Ioi/oWa? (prfXi/cos e</>' ov fcarr)- yoprjOels vtto 'lovSaicov rrjv djroXoyiav iiroLrjaaro IlauXo?.

Turning to the Chronicon we find the following entries from Syncellus :

(629. 3) KXavhto? tfctfXi/ca rrjs 'Iot/&ua? r/ye/JLova i^€7re/j,yjr€.

(632. 17) eVt avrov IlavXos vtto 'lovBatwv KarrjyoprjdeU ttjv cnrdkoyiav 7T€7roir)Tcu.

After describing Paul's appeal to Rome, Euthalius continues (Z. 531):

avvrjv he avrS tcai 'Apto-Tao^o? ov teal el/corco? avvaL^/jidXcorov

7TOV TOOV eiTl<TTQ\toV ClTTOKoXel, KOI AoVKCLS O Ta$ 7Tpdi;€l<; TtoV

' Xiroa-roXayv ypacfrr} irapahovs.

But this is taken, word for word, from the History (H. E. ii. 22) : and shortly after this the quotation from the History is continued in language which we transcribed above.

A little lower down Euthalius tells us, against which we will set the Eusebian parallels, as follows :

Euthal. (Z. 532).

dvelXev (i€V ' ' Xypimrivav 7rpe3ra rrjv

Ib'iav u.r)repa, en 8e Kai ttjv d8eX(prjv tov

narpbs, Kai 'OktclovLclv ttjv eavra> yv-

vcukci Kai dXXovs p.vpiovs rw yevei npo-

arrjKOVTas.

Euthalius continues : /i€T€7retra 8e KadoXiKov eKivrjo'e p.ov Kara ratv Xpicmavajv, Kai ovruts eVi ras Kara tcjv ' ATroa-roXoiV eTTrjpOt) a<pa- yds.

Euseb. H. E. ii. 25. ur)T€pa be ouolcos Kai dbeXqbovs Kai yvvalKa avv Ka\ aXXois fivpiois T(3 yevei

Trpoo-rjKovdi

Euseb. Chron. ap. Syncell. 636. 8. Nepw dvelXe ttjv eavrov prjrepa ' Aypinnivav Kai rrjv tov narpos dbeXq^rjv. Euseb. Chron. Armen. Neron cum aliis viris illustrious et Hochtabiam uxorem suam inter- fecit.

Euseb. Chron, ap. Cedrenum 360. 17. Kai dXXovs uvpiovs no yevei npocrrj- Kovras.

Euseb. H. E. ii. 25.

ravTT] yovv ovtos denud^n? ev rols p.dXio-Ta np'OTos dvaKTjpvxdeis, eVi rds Kara tu>v ' AnoaroXayv enrjpOrf o~qt>ayds' and cf. Chron. ap. Syncell. 644. 2.

eni ndai 6' avrov roir dTv\r]pao-i Kai tov TTpwTov Kara Xpicrnavcov e'vebel£aro 8ia>yp.ov...

fVl nao-i 8' avrov dbiKi)p.acri Kai rbv npcorov Kara Xpianavuiv e'vebei^aro bicoy- u.dv, rjviKa Herpos Kai TlavXos KTe.

5—2

68 I HALIU8 a\d EUSEBIUa

After calculating the years from the Passion to the Martyrdom of Paul (whi.-h u evidently reckoned by the aid of the I Ihronicon), ire find thai he has turned hark to 11. E. ii 22 and is working very literally :

Euthaliu$(Z. 59

Trepi ukv ti)<; 7rpfoT7]<i avrov aTroXoyias (fxiaKwv rdhe' iv rfj Wpvrn (Jiov u7ro\oyia\..€K o-To/iaTO? XeovTos, tovtov tov Xepwva that XeynW rrepl Be t^ &€VT€pa<; iv f) kcli reXeiovrai tw tear avrov fiaprvpiM, (f)i]cr\vy Tfjv KaXijv SiaKOviav crov irX^po^oprjaov. eyco yap )'jSj) crTrei'Bofiai-...i(t)6aTT]K€. kcli otl Aovkcis rjv iraXiv avv avTo> ktZ,

with which we may compare

Bum b. II. E. ii. 22

iv rrj TTpwrr] fiov, <f>r)<r\v, anroXoyla. . .Xeovros, tov Nep&^a Tairrj, oj? €oik€, Bin to wfiodvfiov TrpoaeLircov . . .iv tt) avTrj TTpoXeyec yp<i<f>i/ (bucTKUiv' iyio yap yBi] o~7revoofiai...e<f)€(TTr)K€v.

But enough has been said to Bhew thai Euthalius La for the most of his time a plagiarist, as well as sometimes a blunderer. Will it be Baid in reply thai it was quite natural that he should use the Chronicou and the History in writing the life of the Apostle Paul, and that, at all events, he has confessed to borrow- ing I It usually happens that debts confessed are only a fraction of those contracted, and an examination of the rest of Euthalius' work will confirm thai proposition. It' he Bhould be original anywhere, ii ought to be in his opening remarks, where he

ilains th- of the work which he has undertaken and Lb

untrammelled by history or by chronology. Bu1 is it so \ Lei as turn to the prologue to the Acts (Z. p. 404), and see whether it reads lik.' the work of an original and fecund mind. We find him telling ii- of the new and difficult path that he has to tread in making his edition of the Acts: old tk n 8a&r}$ tj

v4(R I'lfiathjs t\)>//.i7)r OOOP KO>\ fopififj iivai WpOOTeTOyfM

OV?- 7T0V T(VV tuTOl t6v Bf&OV « fw/ H ft ,.jt I (Til /'TO XofOV

OffDjpO Bttyrniv Wtp\ TOVTO t/"/s ypatyfjfi TO\ Tffi ti\ o"ttovBi]V 7rtTroirj-

Km. iv. :..

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 60

But when we turn to the opening chapter of the Ecclesiastical History, the secret is out, for here we find

eVet /cal rrrp&TOL vvv rrjs vTroQeaews iirifiavTes old riva iprj^v /cal drpt^r} levac ohov ey^eipovfxev,

and somewhat further on

' Avayfccuorara 8e /jloc iroveladau rr/v virodeaiv r/yovfiai ore firjoeva ttco eh Bevpo rwv i/cfcXrjcnacrTitccov avyypacfrecov hteyvcov irepl tovto tt}? ypa<prjs <rrrovhr)v ireiroirnxevov to p,epo<;.

Further the expression oaou top delov eirpea^evaavro \6yov may be compared with the opening sentences of Eusebius oo-ot re Kara yevedv e/ccio-rrjv aypd(f)(o<; r) teal hid avyypa/jL/jbdr(ov top Oelov eirpeo-fievaav Xoyov fere.

Other coincidences in thought and expression may be noted l, and it follows that the loans which Euthalius makes on Eusebius are not limited to a single section, but that he is a systematic plagiarist.

It will be admitted, I think, that the dependence of Euthalius upon Eusebius is established : but it may well be questioned whether it does not go much further than our identifications, and whether it does not involve other authors beside Eusebius.

Take, for example, the Pauline prologue in which Euthalius speaks in such choice language of the reasons which led him to his task, and of his own ecclesiastical obedience to the superiors who set him at the work. At first sight these sentences appear to be the most original in the whole document and to have the flavour of real history. No one would suspect, at the first reading of these personal statements on the part of Euthalius, that they constitute a conventional opening to a new book. But that such is the case will, I think, be clear by comparing with the language of Euthalius the opening sentences of the Armenian historian, Lazarus of Pharbi.

1 e.g. (Z. 405) ff vyy uu}fj.r}u ye TrXeiaTrjv ahQiv eV dpi(f)OLu, t6X/xt)s 6/ulov kcl! TrponeTelai T7JS ifj.rjs.

Euseb. II. E. i. 1 d\Xd fxoi avyyvwfxrjv rjSt] euyuw/AovoJv evrevdev 6 Xoyos aire?, with which cf. H. E. vi. 20 tt)u irepl to avvrarTeiv Ka.iva.% ypacpas irpoir^Teidv re nai ToXfiav

iTTKXTOfXlfau.

The pilfering runs through the prologue to the Acts. Cf. (Z. 410) 'Avnoxeos yap ovtos VTrapxuv to yevos, larp6s re tt}v iirio'Trjfj.Tjv, npbs llavXov /Aadyrevdels, with Euseb. H. E. iii. 4 AovKas 5e t6 /xeu ytvos iau tuv air 'Ai/Ttoxei'as, ttjv 8e iiriarrjfxrjv iarpbs, tcl wXe'icrra avyyeyovuis rip HavXtp....

70 ii' i ii LLIUS AND i:!m:i:iis.

Euthaliua Lacanu of Pharbi

Pt Epp. Paul I' ' . ' '-' •

•IV, 4n\ofia&t r„; mrm yum Written at the request of Vahan,

T^ <T^ aym^, Itfnp r^oWnTt, aiAnl gW* Mid inar/kan of Ariii-nia.

n «d wiAh *W, trmmwf rtm m) Translation of Victor Lang

rapfurdvtrfi r^i Urropitu iiunnb* fa» I/e present ouvrage, onrrre de

(f)T)K<i, rwM Tin/ rpoXoyo» roC QauXov notre Gublesse, v.i former oomme la

Tr/)ny/xnr(/<jf irvvyp^ac' «» ttoXi/ ^m- troisieme I'.trtie de ccs annales. Nous

(ov r) Kaff rj^if fpyo* <\i'(b(£(iiMT]v 8t(i Bommea forod <1 [entreprendn-] uii

rfjf jrdpdKorjf' tyviov yap i» Trapoipiais Bembable travail par ordre des princes

to XaXov/icMw, iln 3^ I'iiit (Ivijitoof (v et ear les exhortations des saints

('nru>\(ia (<ttui. o <'">» i-rrrjKoos torai docteUTB, n'nsant pas QOUfl OppOSer, T<ii:rr;v fcrog »T. PlOV. 13. 1). ,.,i QOUfl l a] •] x'lalit LOS liH'!ia<cs que

la saint Ecritura fait ftux enfants deeobe'issante et de lindulgence [•ui'elle] montre vis-a-vis de ecus qui sont soumis et dociles.

Here the same idea is Been to underlie both authors, viz. the of disobedience to superiors, based on the warning of the Scriptures against disobedient children. The passage which Eu- thalius quotes from the Proverbs underlies the prologue of Lazarus. Bach writei a by antithesis, in the manner of the Proverbs,

the well-being winch is the portion of the obedient. Each of them Bpeaks modestly of his own powers, Lazarus calling the task one that is 'the work of his weakness/ and Buthalius 'a work that Lb boo great for me.1

Buthalius further describes his work by saying that he has rushed into 'the narrows and Btraits of history1 in writing the nt prologue i" St Paul.

Surely the natural suggestion is that both waiters are using conventional openings, and Buthalius' language suggests further that he has borrowed from the prologue to a history.

I. mi- wrote his History not earlier than a.i>. 4sj as a sequel to the works I \. bhangelus and Faustus of Byzantium. Butha- lius cannot have imitated him, both by reason of the date, as well ise the work is written in Armenian. Will it be said that l- tarns has imitated the Buthalian prologue? tins is extremely unlikely, for Lazarus was well acquainted with Greek literature and was hardly likely to select for a model of Btyle bo trifling a pie© Buthalius' prologue. Moreover when we take into

•nut the proved borrowing of Buthalius from Busebius and the

EUTH ALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 71

suspicious statement about the 'narrows and straits of history' we are led to infer that both writers are drawing upon some classic opening in which the work of a historical writer is compared to the course of a ship navigated in difficult and narrow seas.

And this supposition is not an unnatural one. It will be found to be the main idea of the prologue to the history of Aga- thangelus, who tells us (Langlois, p. 106) " Pour nous, ce n'est pas une orgueilleuse resolution qui nous pousse a entreprendre teme- rairement ce travail ; mais nous sommes contraint malgre nous, par les ordres formels des princes, a naviguer sur la mer des lettres." And a reference of the prologue of Euthalius to the Catholic Epistles shews the same comparison of the literary artist to the tempest-tossed voyager in a tiny skiff.

We say, then, that the evidence favours a belief that Euthalius found a literary model for his prologue to the Pauline Epistles in the proem of some well-known historical work; and from the suspicious use of a quotation from the Proverbs we suspect that it was the work of a Christian historian. And certainly we do not think any one will have anything further to say in defence of the originality of Euthalius or in praise of his copious vocabulary.

Having now proved the dependence of Euthalius upon Euse- bius and others we are in a better position to determine the text of Euthalius in doubtful cases and the interpretation where the meaning is obscure.

For example, in a passage quoted above (Z. 532) the printed text of Euthalius reads avelXev fxev 'K^pLiririvav irpcora rrjv Ihiav firjTepa where Cod. Vat. 761 has rrjv eavrov /jbrjrepa. A reference to the Eusebian text shews that this latter reading is probably correct.

On the same page Euthalius has avvrjkde 8e irdXiv 6 Aovfcas avrS, but Cod. Vat. 761 and Cod. Boeclerianus read avvr)v. A reference to the text of Eusebius shews that he constantly, and in this very connection reads avvrjv. Conversely, where the text of Eusebius is doubtful, we have reason to believe that the Euthalian extracts furnish fresh material for its elucidation.

Coming now to the question of interpretation, we have a right to assume as a general principle that when Euthalius uses Eusebian language he uses it in the Eusebian sense ; he may sometimes misunderstand, but even a stupid transcriber will, in the majority of cases, take the words in their proper sense. Let

72 i.i i ii kL.ii a and eusEBiua

us then burn bo bhe disputed passage in which I claim to have detected a deletion of bhe unorthodox name Ifeletius and the insertion of the orthodox Athanasius, and in which Mr Robinson thinks ii" case has been made oul for any tampering with the

The principal sentences which need interpretation are as follows :

(Z. 406 » iyat Be SiKaiCDTara, kci\ fiaXa ye opd^, avvrpocpop re Km (f)t\i)i> tirK^iifiLGaifjL,' (iv aoi, k<u KaraXe^co rrjv evirpocniyopov, ti)i> wdvv <})tf)ft'i'Vf.L()i', rrjv T&v Oeicov Xoytwv e/jL(f)i\6ao(f)6v <f)T)fii rijv, vfi i]i> yeytova)?, (piXoxptare, kclI eiacoye rot twv Biktvwv v v7T(tp\foi\ Kdt t>)i> epaafiiov avri}*; Trpoa 7jy opiav ey/cara- 7rpayfJ.aT€v6fiti>o$ crvyraU re net Ka\ aKOifi^roi^ yv/j.vacriais dtcovofitros (1. aaKovfievcs) evOaXearary]v KareaT7]aa^.

Starting from bhe known feci that Euthalius is a carefnl Btudenl of Eusebius, we naturally ask the question whether Eusebius uses the word fapoovvfios, which is a Little difficult of interpretation, and what meaning he attaches to it.

\\ i have already given one instance in which Euthalius plays

00 the name of Stephen, and the crown, (£epro/ u/zo? a\ro\ that is

involved in thai name, and have shewn that the word-play was

based upon a similar one in the text of Eusebius, which Euthalius

has blunderingly appropriated

But n i- when we come t" l"<>k into the text of Eusebius • rally that we tind the meaning <>t' the disputed word and

discover that it i- one «-t' the commonest literary artificer <>t'

I. -huis to indulge in an etymological Bubtlety over the names oi

the people whom he describes Let us take Bomi

//. A', iv. 16. Eusebius describes the philosophy <>t Oreecens

the <.j>j)"iiciii of .In-tin by saying rhv fyepdvvfiov Be ovto* tJ

\\ ' ■ •- ', '•"',;-. q j3loP Tt Kill TpUTTOV e^i'jXoU.

The mode "t life of ( Irescens was appropriately named after the ( \ nio "i- ( Janine philosophy .

// A'. \. l' 1 (which, i see, Prof. Robinson also refers bo) Km o

//i /' EilpfJVCUO?, lf>€p4 :t< <> r rf/ TTpoaiiyopi(i . at rot T€ r<o

tlpffVOTTOlO^, TOUIVTQ vwkp t/\ jm* eKKXi)cri'r>r tipfji'jj<;

wap€/cd\€t} where the meaning is sufficiently clear.

//. /•/. \n. 32 describing bhe bishop Theodotoe, Eusebius speaks ol him avrois dvrjp col rd Kipiov Spofia teal rov

7Kt>-i>\ (iraXrjdeiHras, a man who verified by his actions his

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 73

proper name (i.e. as involved in the interpretation of Theodotos, or God-bestowed) and the name of bishop.

H. E. ix. 2. In the same way Theotecnos, the persecutor, is spoken of as heivbs teal 70779 teal Trovrjpbs dvrjp real tt)? irpoo-wvvfilas aWorpLos. No child of God he !

Somewhat more obscure is the passage Mart. Pal. 8, in which Eusebius speaks of the martyrs in the Porphyritic mine in the Thebaid : eZ^e /nh irpb tovtov to tcaXovfxevov ev SrjffatSi (f)€p(ovv/jLco<; ov yervdrai Hopcpvpirov XiOov /leraXXov 7rXeLaT7)v oo-7]v 7rXrj0vi> rebv tjJ? 0eocre/3€La<; o/jLoXoynrcbv : a sentence which the contemporary Syriac version interprets as follows : " great multi- tudes of confessors were in the mines that are called Porphyrites, in the country of Thebais, which is on one side of Egypt : and on account of the purple marble which is in that land the name of Porphyrites has also been given to those who were employed in cutting it."

There is no doubt Eusebius is playing upon the name Tloptyv- piTr}s, but whether we have the Greek sentence in its original form is a little doubtful.

A still more difficult case to interpret is Mart. Pal. 9, where a persecutor is spoken of, M«fu? ovofia, x€^P(OV TV$ wpoaqyopias avOpcoTTo?. The word Mafu? does not seem to be Greek, and an attempt has been made, not very successfully, to give it a Syriac etymology (see Ruinart, Act. Sine. p. 287).

The word <f>€p(ovvfjL<o<; is used also with reference to the name of a disease, which, for the present investigation, is much the same as a proper name, and Eusebius says, in describing a pestilence that had broken out, H. E. ix. 8 eXtco? 8e rjv feptovvfuos tov irvpoihovs eveicev dvOpa^ irpoaa^opevofjbevov, ' there was a sore that was rightly called carbuncle on account of its inflammatory nature.'

Very similar is the way in which Eusebius plays upon the name of the heretic Manes, whom he describes, H. E. vii. 31, as 6 Havel? ra<; (frpevas, €7rc6vv/j,6<; re ri}<; Sai/jLOvojans aipeo-€(o$...8ai-

ILOVIKOS Tt? U)V Kal /JLaVl(t)&T)<s...TV(f)OV/jL€VO$ €7rl rfj fjiaVLO-K

But perhaps most striking of all is the way in which he plays with the name of Meletius the bishop of the churches in Pontus (H. E. vii. 32) : 0 &e MeXerios (to fieXi t//? 'Att^a:/;? itcdXovv avrbv

1 Similarly Titus Bostrensis adv. Manichaeo8t Prol. : 6 5e 'Slaves 4k ftappdpuv nai rrjs yucua'as aVTTJS iiruvvpLOS.

7 | I HANTS AND B08SDIU&

oi utto iraidtias) toiovtos tjv olov tiv ypuyjreie Tt? tcov Kara iravra

■ \-d 7€\€<DTa.T()V.

There can be do reason to doubt, then, from the cases of word- play which we find applied in Eusebius to proper names, thai Euthalius has been imitating a literary peculiarity of the 1. slesiastica] History: and in the case of the play upon the nam.- of Stephen, he was found guilty of the theft, flagrante to.

Ami ii follows from this thai when we read his description oi the attractive lielete who ensnares holy fathers in her net, and calls her </>fpwi'u^o?, we are to expect a pun. Moreover when in Busebius we find thai he uses in connection with his (pepcorvfiw;, the expression feprr-wfios r§ ir poo- wo pin, we can scarcely doubt that when Euthalius describes Miss Helete as rrjv evirpoai)yopov, rijr 7r<irv (pepou-up-or, he means, aot that she is affable, or easy of

is, but that she is rightly named: so that the repetition of two almost equivalent expressions accentuates the belief that there is some play upon the word1. The only thing left to determine is what the word-play consists in. According to Prof. Robinson it is nothing more than a play upon the alternative meanings of Study and Training: in support of which it might be pointed out that Busebius, whose cast-off garments furnish Euthalius' ward- robe, uses the word in both senses. So much might be readily admitted

But to this explanation there are objections from .very

quarter: Busebius in the cases which we have quoted plays almost exclusively upon titles and proper names, such a^ Cynic. [renaeue Tl l becnos, Porphyrite, Maw-. Manes, and

Meletius. The only exception, and thai is more apparent than real, i- when he describes the disease called Anthrax and says it was rightly named.

Euthalius also in three cases (Stephen, Saul, and Paul | expounds propei Dames; and the presumption, therefore, is that something "f the same kind is involved in the description of lielete as faph rr/ios and t vwpooifyopov. The conditions are perfectly

tied bj the assumption that the person addressed is named Meletius. Euthalius might, to !„■ sure, have called Bleletius

$)epmrvpos and l.tt OS io imagine what he meant, hut it answered 1 With whi.h pn uwtioo "t" mine, I bm Mi Robinaoii igi

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 75

his purpose just as well to call Melete fapavvfios, the father Meletius having been already mentioned in the context.

On Prof. Robinson's supposition, we have a play upon words which is (i) obscure, and (ii) not of sufficient importance in view of the space which is occupied by the praises of Melete. From the very beginning of the prologue to the Acts the play upon the word betrays itself, and the allusions to Study are kept up almost to the end of the prologue. It is evidently the nucleus of the composition. Is it possible that one doubtful oscillation between the senses of Study and Training could have exercised such an influence upon the mind of Euthalius as to colour the whole of the dedication of his work ?

But this is not all : we are able to shew that the name of Meletius was a name that was commonly played with. When I first announced that I believed there were traces of the erasure of this name in the Euthalian prologue, it never occurred to me that a parallel instance could be found of the literary trick which I had, as I supposed, unearthed. I simply saw that Euthalius made puns (often bad ones1), and suggested that he had made one more than the three of which he was proved to be guilty. But I discovered subsequently, and added a note to that effect, that Gregory of Nazianzus had called Meletius of Antioch his ' honey- sweet' friend, in the following lines:

Carm. xi. 1521 rov ovO1 oirep fce/cXrjro teal KaXovfievov o tjv • Me\tTO<? yap rpo-ros /cal rovvofia.

If Gregory of Nazianzus played with the name of his Meletius, there was certainly nothing against the supposition that Euthalius might have treated one of his friends in a similar manner.

But surely the case is immensely strengthened when we find amongst the names upon which Eusebius plays the very name of Meletius; for we have shewn conclusively that Euthalius appro- priates the ideas and language of Eusebius freely, and that he imitates him in playing upon the name of Stephen. Why then should there be any difficulty in the supposition that Euthalius has also borrowed from Eusebius the idea of playing upon the name of Meletius ? And is not this hypothesis further strengthened

1 I refuse to credit Eusebius with SaOXos on icrdXeveu or with UaOXos 6Yi irciravrai.

76 I.I THAI. IIS AND BUSEBIU&

by the fact that in the very same sentence, as Mr Robinson admits, Euthalius plays upon his own name? I consider, then, that my case, bo far from having been rendered hopeless, or reduced to an unnecessary piece of ingenuity in the face of Pro£ Robinson's investigations, is in reality very much stronger than I had at first imagined it to be1.

A further test of the accuracy of the solution will lie in the

fact that it helps us to clear up some of the remaining obscurities iii I h«- text of Euthalius.

For instance in the opening sentences of the prologue to the Acts, we are told of students of the Scripture in quest of immortality, who seek to realize the blessing of the first Psalm,

rov$ irepl rod Seiov Xoyov Xoyovs e/jL/jbeXerrj/ia vv/crcop re Kai fxtd" Sjfiepav, tt] acpebu avrojv reOeivrat ^v^rj, dXyOcos to t>}s dyXao(f)eyyovs teal fia/capias tcivtt)<; [rpocpTJs] 7]/j,€poTpa)6evT€<;, col TUiV ivaperoiv avrrjs tcai deicov Kapirwv diroyevad/ievoi.

The passage is difficult to understand, and Zacagni, apparently in despair, has inserted demo the word rpo(p?)<; and translates as if people were daily fed upon this blessed neat"! Bui this will

not do: ijfiepoTpct) Sevres cannot mean 'supplied from day to day' ; if it means anything it means 'gently pierced": but as a matter of fact, there is no such word. And certainly if rpocf)fj<; were rightly

restored, the author could not go on to speak of 'tasting her divine fruits,' i.e. the fruits of the rpo(f>yj. But suppose we leave out the word added by Zacagni and read the clan-'

T(u r/y? dyXaofayyovs kcu p,aKapia<; ravT7)<; tp,ep(p rpcoOevres

'-mitten with passion for this resplendent and blessed creature,' we Bee that all that is necessary to the sense is a satisfactory feminine antecedent to the clause. And this is at once supplied by writing (leX&rrjv for i/xficXirrjfia, which thinly disguises it. The personification of fieKtrt) is the key to the perplexity <>f the

i ft '. We will now pass mi to the mere difficult question of the

genuineness of the Martyrium Pauli which is usually attached to

the Euthalian prologue to the Pauline Epistles. As we have

pointed out, this question is not really much affected by the

1 The only ultenmtiv.' would be to credit tome lost book of Bueebiua with the

playful preface iddrooBod to Meletiuc, who would In that oase be lieletiai of

Pontua, who wai m ven yean In biding in Palestine during the persecution

ded by Bueebiui and in constant intercourse with that lather. Bnl we do not

it bo tins bypotl

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS.

77

solution of the previous one. We might find a Meletius to whom Euthalius could dedicate his work almost anywhere in the fourth century. So that it is not necessary to decide the Meletian question before discussing the Martyrium. It must, however, be remembered that the dependence of Euthalius upon Eusebius is a factor in the solution of both questions, and this dependence is a proved and demonstrated fact.

Let us see whether it has any bearing upon the discussion by which Prof. Robinson seeks to shew the dependence of the Martyrium upon the Pauline prologue, and its non-authenticity as a work of Euthalius.

On p. 29 of his Euthaliana Mr Robinson prints for the purposes of comparison the passages of the prologue which correspond to the Martyrium ; as follows :

Prologue to Pauline Epistles. Z. 522. AvtoBi ovv 6 pandpios UavXos tov KaXbv aywva dyoivio-d- fievos, ws (pr)o~iv avTos, t<o to>v Upovi- kcov XpuTTov papTvpasv (TTfCpava) Kare- KO<Tp.r}6rj. 'Pa>paloi fie TrfpiKoXXecnv en/cot? teal fiaaiXeiois tovtov Aen/mi>a

Ka0€lp£aVT€S €7T€T€lOV aVTtO pvqp-qs

rjpipav iravqyvpi^ovcn rfj tt pb rpicov KaXavda>v lovXioiv TrepnTTj Uave-

flOV prjVOS TOVTOV TO popTVplOV iopTCL- £oVT€S.

Z. 532. "EvBa 8fj avvffirf rbv Uav- Xov Tpia.K.OO-T(p €KTG> €T€l TOV 0~ 0) -

Ttjplov nddovs Tpio-KaiheKarcd fie Ne'- pa>vos papTvpijaai, £l(pei ttjv K€<pa\r)V cnvoTp.r}6£vTa.

Z. 533. Ilepi fie ty)s fie vre'paj (dnoXoylas) cv fj ko\ TfXciovTai rw kclt avTov paprvplco, <pr]o~\v ktc. "Eo-tiv ovv 6 nas xPovos T0V Krjpvy- paros UavXov ktL

Z. 529. 'Avayicaiov fie ijyr)o~dpr)v iv /3pa;(ei *a\ rbv xP°vov cirio-rjpci- a>o~ao-0ai tov KTjpvyparos UavXov, e'/c T&v xpoviK&v Kavovoiv Eucre/3iou tov UapcpiXov ttjv dvaK«paXaia>o~iv rroiov- pevos.

MapTvpiov UavXov tov 'AttootoXov. 'Etti Nepcoi/oy tov Kaiaapos 'Poapaicov epapTvprjaev avrodi UavXos 6 airo- o~toXos, £i'<pei ttjv K€(paXr)v airo-

TpTjdeiS, iv TG> TpiCLKOO-Tto Kdl €KTG> €T€l TOV O-(0TT)piOV nddoVS, TOV

KaXovaycovadycoviadpevos ev'Pooprj, ivipTYTrj rjpepq Uavipov prjvbs f)Tis XeyoiTO av irapa 'Pcopaiois r) npb TpLcov KaXavfiaiv 'lovXioiv, Ka0y tjv eTeXeiwdrj b dyios a7rooroXoy rw /car' avTov papTvpia) i^r/Koar^ kcu ivvaTta erei tt)s tov o-coTr/pos rjpwv 'irjaov Xpia- tov napovo~ias.

"Eotiv ovv 6 nets xPovos f£ °^ epapTvprjae Tpiaic6o~ia TpiciKovra er/7 pe\Pl T*ls Trapovaijs Tavrrjs vnaTftas, TtTapTTjs ptv \\pKadiov TpiTTjs fie 'Ova>- piov To>v dvo dde\<pa>v avroKparopcov AvyovaTOiv, evvarrji IvdiKTicovos tjjs 7r(VT€Kcu8(Ka€TT]piKf}s nepiudov, prjvbs 'lovviov (Ikoo-ttj ivvdrrj rjpepq. 'Ectj;- peiaiaapTjv aKpiftan tov %pbvov tov papTvpiov UavXov d-noaTuXov.

We have printed this passage with the spaced type by which

78 I ''i HAL1U8 AN'D BUSEBH &

Prof Robinson indicates the coincidence between the two Bete of ments. Hia first remark upon these coincidences Lb thai the comparison 'disposes of Zacagni'a view thai it ia the work of the early Father from whom Euthaliua borrowed bis chapter-divisions, tor it ia redolent of Butbalius: the only question i> whether it is not to., redolent.' It will be recognized at once that this question of redolence haa been somewhat complicated by the proved dependence of Ruthaliua apon Eusebius, The prologue itself haa • an ancient and fish-like smell.' Almost every won! of it ia from Eusebius, aa we will shew in detaiL And consequently when Mr Robinson makes his first general criticism of the Martyrium by saying that "it is almost inconceivable that a writer who haa 90 i\ a wealth of expression aa the author of the Prologue should repeal hia own language in this slavish manner/ wo may very well reply that tin- objection disappears as soon as it ia found that the wealth of language is an illusion, and that the repetition ia a repetition of the words of gome other person. There is no law of criticism which expresses in the language of minute probability the chance that a person who has made a patchwork 0U1 of' some

other persons writings will repeat the offence or which affirms the ■ in. unlikeliness that he will put the stolen pieces together a little differently. We come now to three detailed objections which Mr Etobinson make- to the authenticity <»f the Martyrium, which would h«' fatal if they were all correctly taken, without the possibility of reply: we will take them in order: they are intended to demonstrate that the Martyrium is a later document, produced l>\ an epitomiser working on the former.

1. At first the author <-t' the Martyrium embodies from the Prologue the Roman date for June _!>. viz. /> irpo rpK?v Ka\ai>Swv '\ov\tri)i> ; hut later on he gives the date aa utivos lovvlov tih-oarj'/

2. It is objected that the phrase in the Martyrium rji /car' avrbv fiapTVfxrt) ia extremely harsh, whether avn'n' be referred to Paul "i Nero; but in the Prologue it ia quite clear that it is referred to Nero. The obscurity in the Martyrium ia due t.» the carelesa work of the epitomiser.

8, 'I'll-' strongest objection "t all lies in the fact that the Martyrium places the actual martyrdom on dune 29th, which is a deduction from the bet that the Etonian Church kept the

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 79

festival of SS. Peter and Paul on that day, which we know from the Liberian catalogue (a.d. 354) to have been simply the day of the Deposition in A.D. 258. This mistake, according to Mr Robinson, was not made by the author of the Prologue.

These are formidable objections ; it only remains to see whether they can claim to be insuperable.

Probably the best way to proceed will be to try and get a clear idea of how much of the matter quoted from the Prologue is Euthalius and how much Eusebius.

To begin with, the adverb avroOi, which stands at the head of the first extract, is a Eusebian word, probably the most frequent adverb which he employs, and quite one of his style-words, as any one may see by turning the pages of the History. In Eusebius it never stands, as far as I know, at the beginning of the sentence, and never is far removed from the preceding note of place. Euthalius is struck with it and gives it a prominent position, but at the same time it is thirteen lines of the text since Euthalius has mentioned Rome1. Probably in the passage of Eusebius upon which Euthalius was working the matter was better arranged.

The words that follow tco t&v lepov'ucwv XptcrToO /juaprvpcov <TTe<f)dv(p Kare/coa/jijOrj we have already shewn to be Eusebian.

We are next told of the Depositio Martyrum, and the curious words are used irepifcaWecnv oikok; real ftaaikeiois.

Is it Euthalius or Eusebius that speaks of the churches in which the martyrs' bones are laid as 'gorgeous and palatial dwellings ' ? Let us turn to the oration of Eusebius at the conse- cration of the Church at Tyre: we find (H. E. x. 4) that he speaks of Christ as having filled the world with his royal dwellings (ffaai- Xiko)v olk(ov avrov) which are adorned with irepucaWr} Koa/jDJfiaTd re teal dvaOrjixara. Later on in the same discourse he twice speaks of the Church at Tyre in the same style, calling it top fiaaiXeiov oIkov (pp. 473, 478) and a little later on again it is rov fieyav real ftaaikucov ef dirdvTwv oIkov by which he describes the Spiritual Church. We may be pretty sure that Euthalius is working over some Eusebian statement.

The expression rov o-corrjpLov irdOovs is easily seen to be from

1 The Eusebian usage may be seen from scores of passages ; there are three in the beginning of IT. E. iii. 5 irpos rQiv avrodi o-rparoiridoiv di> ay opevd els... rov rov avrodi tt)s iiri<rKoirr)S 9pbvov...Toh avrodi. 8okI/xois Si' airoKa\v\peus exbode'vTa. The commonest use of the word is in such phrases as 17 avrodi eKK\r^<ria, 77 avrodi irapoiKia.

80 kith LLIU8 AND BUSEBIUS.

the snii m source; i1 Lb Eusebius' regular term, and occurs uol only prominently in the Chronicon, but throughout the History: Mart P"!. ProL rtfr rov awr-qpiov 7rd0ov<: eopT7}s\ Mart Pal. 11

rrn'ro rov croyrrjpiov fiaprvpiov wddovf. C£ also //. E. viii. -.

x. 3. We Bhould uot, of course, dwell on comparatively colourless expressions like these, it' we had not proved thai Eusebius the principal Bource for Buthaliau language, a fad which entitles u- to make identifications of common words and turns of speech as well as rare onea

The ezpre88ion rpiaKaiheKUTfp 8e ^Sep(i)i'O<;...a7roT/Ar)0€i'Ta is baaed partly upon the Chronicon, where the years of Nero are counted separately, but can also be illustrated from ET.27.ii. 25 M

t//s kutu tow arroaroXaji' £7n'}p0T} afyayas' IlaOXo? 8t) ovv eV

avrrjs rPfl»/M|9 Tqp K€(f)a\j)i> dir()Tp.i)6?)raL ktL, where the only thing we miss is the fi'<£e/ which occurs both in the Prologue and in the Martyrium, We have already shewn that, Euthalius had pilfered from tin- passage.

Coming now to the disputed passage iv $ /cal reXeiovrai tw

kcit' avrov fiaprvpicp W€ find that this is do! Euthalius but ESusebius (//. E. ii. 22), Bevrepov S' €7ril3fivra rfj avrf/ TroXei, no Kar avrbv TeXeicodPjvai p,apivpiw. And the obscurity which attaches to the phrase ^t' avrov will he found to be involved in ESusebius himself, so that the Martyrium is actually nearer to Eusebiufl than is the Prologue

Aj there seems to be uo doubt that Euthalius has transcribed a number of sentences from this chapter of the History it will be convenient to Bet down the very words of Eusebius, indicating what Euthalius baa borrowed in spaced type:

'hz/OTo? vtto Xe;/90>ro? 8i(i&o)(o<; irifAW€Tai* kuO' ov SiKaioXnyjja/i/j.ei'O's o \\<iv\<>s. Seafiios flVi 'Vo'^n^ ftfCTOl. \\f)iar- ap\o<i 0 avro) a v i > r, n r k a t t/Vorow trvvaiy/ldXtOTOV rrov

tow iwiaroXmv (irroKaXti. tea] \ovtca$ St 6 rn<: wpafei?

tom1 uTToa toXo) v ypa<f)ij rrapahois. hf Tin jots tUtriKuct Ti]i> lOTOf)t(U\ OUT laV n\tjr lw\ Tf}% 'P<v//;/s' t6v \\av\or avtTOV Siarpiyfrai k a t Tor TOV Seov Xoyov <ik(oXvtu)^ Ki]pv%ai t majjp i, »■»»//« rov Tort /it/' <> v r [Kuthal. add. tVi Xtpawov] (iTruXoyrjanfitvoi' [Kuthal. add. re/' llaf'Xor] ar0i< i tt i tijv tov Klfpvy/iaro? 8iatcoi>iai> A070V *X€l o~T€iXaatfai top (irroaroXoi', Sevrepov £' bri&cuna TjJ avrf/ rroXet, to) kut* uitov Tf\( KoOrvat fiaoTvplm,

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 81

I suppose we must explain kcit avrov here by reference to Ka6' ov at the beginning of the chapter1, but the harshness of the construction is as great in Eusebius as in the Martyrium, and no argument for a later date of the Martyrium can be deduced from the expression in question. Mr Robinson's second objection, there- fore, falls to the ground.

The strongest objection is, no doubt, the third, which is based upon an apparent confusion between the Martyrdom and the Depositio of the Apostles which, according to Robinson, exists in the Martyrium but not in the Prologue. Did Eusebius say any- thing about the Depositio, and did he say it clearly ? We have by this time little reason to confide in Euthalius as an independent investigator: and the prejudice is in favour of the use of Eusebian matter. It is very unfortunate that just at this point we lack the reference which would decisively clear the matter up, for Eusebius' book of Martyrs to which he several times refers in his history is not extant. No doubt it contained the Martyrdom of the great Apostles as well as of later worthies. We may, however, get some light upon the matter by referring to H.E. iii. 31, where Eusebius records the death of John and Philip and says liaiikov fxev ovv ical Uerpov tt}? reXevrrjs 6 re *%p6vos kcu 6 rpoiros real irpoaeri o t?}? /juera rrjv aTraWayrjv rov (SLov rd)v aKt^vcopbdrcov avrajv /caraOeaecos ^&Spo9, tf&r) irporepov tj/jlIp 8e8?j\corcu. Here tcardOecns is the equivalent of the Latin depositio, and while at first sight it seems that Eusebius is speaking of the later Depositio and carefully distinguishing it from the Martyrdom, the previous passage in the History to which he refers (H. E. ii. 25) shews conclusively that this is not his meaning : he is describing the Depositio of SS. Peter and Paul in the Vatican and in the Church on the Ostian Way. Now this very chapter is one of those from which we have already convicted Euthalius of borrowing ; and we say therefore that not only is the language of the Prologue at the point in question Eusebian language ; but that it certainly does not refer to the Catacombs, for the resting places of the Martyrs are splendid churches, in the plural ; this must mean the Vatican and the church on the Ostian Way. It appears therefore that the confusion between the Martyrdom and the Depositio exists equally

1 It is Eusebius' way of describing coincidence in chronological position : vide Chronicon passim.

H. H. 6

82 i i in Ai.ns and BUSEBIUH,

in the Prologue and the Martyrium. This would seem to meet Mr Robinson's third objection.

And now m to the method of dating the Martyrdom or Depoeitio. In the first place, while we have reason to regard I. >rl)ius as the pn»xiinat<' source for both the Prologue and the Martyrium, the actual date given, the 5th <>f Panemus, Lb older than Eusebius. We can Bee this by comparing Eusebius1 method of dating liartyrdomfl in the account <«t' the Palestine Martyrs,

K r example, We have ~.cii'0ik6<; 0M^P o? Xeyocr av WttplWios irapa Pw/xaiot? ' Aeaiov fir]vo^ e/3&6fjiT]t irpo kirra elBo>v lovviayv Xeyoir (iv irapd 'Pa)p:aio(<; ' and BO <»n. from which it is clear that

the months used by Eusebius, writing at Cesarea, are the Roman months with Syro-Maoedonian names; the Syro-Macedonian calendar has, therefore, been displaced It is not unreasonable to Buppose, then, that a reference to Panemus in the account of P il'i Martyrdom, where Panemus is clearly the Syro-Macedonian month and nol the later Etonian substitute, belongs t<> an earlier time than Busebiua It' he found it in his sources, he was almost bound to explain it. The document from which our information comee must have contained more than the allusion to the fifth day of Panemus. But even with the attached Roman date there is -till some ambiguity; for Panemus itself has become ambiguous: and we may regard it as certain that the calendar which in Eusebius' time had been changed from Syro-Macedonian arrange- ment to Etonian arrangement, while retaining the names, would in the end tak<- up the Roman uames as well as the Roman arrai ment of the months: and these uames amongst a Greek-speaking people will appear as Greek namea It is therefore quite natural that we should find in the Martyrium in the )>a<saL,r«' in which the writer brings the dates down t<> his day, the statement that the M irtyrdom i- commemorated on the 25th of June.

I do cot see, then, that any convincing reason has been brought forward for making the Martyrium later than tin- Pauline Pro- logue, or assigning them to different hands. Buthalius i^ proved to have been an epitomizer of previous materials; why should we and epitomiser to go over what Buthalius has collected; he was quite capable of doing the summarising himself] either by

1 Tlmt in th« 7th <>f Dodoi Ei tht 7th of 'mi.', and n ooastantly. Notta Hit • m -lit i.f the BueUaa method <>f dating witb th.> language of th.> Umrtyrium:

EUTHALIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 83

going over his prologue and picking up the allusions, as Prof. Robinson thinks was done, or by going once more, which is the likelier hypothesis, to the sources from which he had derived his information.

The probability that Euthalius went to his sources for the summary which we find in the Martyrium is increased by the appearance in the reckoning of the Eusebian phrase 77 n? Xeyoir av in connection with the equivalent date.

There are other reasons for refusing to Euthalius the extreme antiquity with which Mr Robinson wishes to credit him. One of them has been pointed out by Zahn in Theol. Lit. Blatt for Dec. 20, 1895 ; he shews that in Euthalius' list of quotations there is one which is professedly taken from the Apostolic Constitutions (Acts xx. 35), to which pseudapostolic work an extreme antiquity was therefore assigned in Euthalius' mind. But Zahn points out that the quotation in question does not appear in the first form of the Constitutions, the Syriac Didascalia, which belongs to the third century, and that the Constitutions in their later form can hardly have existed as early as 370 and may be later than 400 A.D. Zahn suggests that a later hand should be credited with this quotation ; but this is quite unnecessary; the difficulty only arises from a wrong chronological idea about Euthalius.

A further consideration of some weight is to be found in the fact that Euthalius speaks of Eusebius in a way which implies that he had been some time dead and had already acquired a literary canonisation. At the close of the Pauline prologue he imagines an objector who refuses to believe the details of Paul's second captivity on the ground that there is nothing of the kind mentioned in S. Luke. And the reply is that we should, on such a point, receive the testimony of Eusebius the Chronographer, and of his History. For it is those who follow the teaching of the Fathers and accept their traditions who will attain unto eternal life. The idea of replying to such objections comes from Euseb. H. E. ii. 22, but the manner of making the reply in which such deference is paid to the opinion of Eusebius, who is styled the Chronographer (which can hardly be a contemporary title), shews that Euthalius is writing after the death of Eusebius, and probably some time after. Now Eusebius died in 340. It would seem, therefore, a very unlikely supposition to assign Euthalius, with Prof. Robinson, to some date between 330 — 350 A.D.

<£ambrtoge:

PRINTED BY J. and c. P. CLAY AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1 1012 01124 51

Date Due fl
.•	| | I
m*^MMM>	up
up&&&f!f±	•
ftp

Ml