Skip to main content

Full text of "The Style and Language of St. Cyprian"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 





Oxford University Press Warehouse 
Amen Corner, £.C. 

(Pew !9orfl 











VJ ', 









.0 • 

• • 

* • 

• • 

• • • • 

• • • 

• » 

• • 

• « 
• • • 

• • • 




St. Paul and Hellenism 1 

E. L. Hicks, M-A., Canon of Manchester. 


The ' Galatia ' op St. Paul and the ' Galatic terri- 
tory' OP Acts 15 

W. M. Eamsay, D.C.L., LL.D., Professor of 
Humanity in the University of Aberdeen. 

Acta Pilati oO 

F. C. Conybeare, M.A., University College, 


The Purpose op the World-process and the Problem 
OF Evil as explained in the Clementine and 
Lactantian writings in a system of Subordi- 
nate Dualism 133 

F. W. BussELL, M.A., Fellow of Brasenose 
College, Oxford. 

The Style and Language op St. Cyprian . . 189 

Textual Suooeotioits ..... 818 
IHDEX 819 

E. W. Watson, M.A., St John's College, 
Oxford. ^ 


• • * 
• - • 

• •• • 

• • • < 

<« 4 



[E. L. Hicks.] 

— Heavenly John, and Attic Paul, 
And that brave weather-battered Peter, 
Whose stout faith only stood completer 
For buffets. — Bobebt Browning, E cuter Day, 

The Hellenizing of the world began with Alexander the 
Great. The victory of Greek ideas followed the conquest of 
his sword. What he began his successors developed ; but the 
conception was his own. He Hellenized the world. I know 
some have doubted how far Alexander was conscious of the 

^ This was delivered as one of the Oxford Long Vacatiun Lectures for the 
Clergy, July 27, 1893. It is printed without alteration except the addition of 
one or two sentences. A review by 6. Heinrici in the Theologische Litera- 
tarzeiiungt 1894, pp. 207 foil, has brought to my knowledge an important 
paper by the veteran Ernst Gurtius, Pauius in Athen, which may be found in 
the Sitzuugsherichte tier Kdnigl, Prtwmschen AkaJemie d. Wis*, zu Berlin: 
PhUosophiich-hitttoriiche Kla*8e, 1893, xliii. §§ 9^5-938* I have been 
unable to consult the original paper, but, to judge from the review, it goes 
over much the same ground as my lecture, and adopts a similar point of view. 
The idea that in Acts xvii. 22 the words araOtU tk 6 UavXoi Iv fji4aqf tov 
'Aptiov vdyov do not refer to the hill of the Areopagus, nor even to a formal 
session of the court, but to a preliminary hearing of charges made against the 
new teacher in the aro^ 0aoi\€ioSf where the Areopagus had its place of 
business, and therefore close to the market-place, — will be found anticipated 
in Curtius* delightful 8t4id(getchichte von Aiken, 1891, p. 262. I have 
assumed in my lecture the authenticity of the thirteen Epistles, for my 
purpose was not apologetic. But such a view is at least more reasonable than 
the latest theory of certain Dutch and Swiss scholars, that none of the Epistles 
are Pauline ; that tlte 'unquestioned* four emanated from the Roman Church; 
and that the features of the real Paul are very different from those we have 
dreamed of, and are to be recovered mninly from indications in he Act^. 
This theory is quite sufficiently stated and criticized in Mr. Knowling^s The 
Witness of the Epistles, London, 1892. 



• ^ • 

.SV.^ Pqui'and Hellenism. 

• •• 

• o • 

• ■ • 

• I 

t'f^voluiioii ho*)Vl^Vork]n^. But look at his portrait, and you 
f«i*o till) ^i^ft*.oriuca8 as well as the man of arms, the dreamer 
AH W^JN^'fhc conquen)r. His tutor had been a metaphy- 

lftj(*infh>'ho had slept with the Iliad ander his pillow. And 


.• ••. n\^i\ \\\i^ won<lerful movement of events in his brief life, as he 
• •' wan making history, his ideas doubtless grew as he advanced. 
It in alwayn no with the fi^reatest men; I believe it was so 
with St. Paul. The f^miinal ideas are with them at the 
flnti ; thoir lifo's work is to develop and unfold them in fact. 

Wliiti, then, was Hellenism ? It meant (i) A breaking 
down of tho barriers of race. We realize this in a moment 
wliPti wo roiwl of the wonderful wedding-feast made by Alex- 
♦itulrr al' Husa in February, 324 B.C., when he and his chief 
(tM|ituitis, to the number of nearly one hundred, all married 
IVi*iiiiin wives on one day. It was an outward and startling 
riiprt*H!«ion of the idea that the clash of arms was now over 
iind done with. Henceforward the East should wed the 

(i) Ilellenii^m involved — as Alexander conceived it — 
H breaking down of the narrow politics of the Greek cities. 
Just after the Susa wedding- feast, he sent Nicanor to the 
Olympian festival of August, 324, to proclaim the return of 
all political exiles to their own cities throughout Greece. 
'I'hus were the old Greek political landmarks for ever swept 
away : the cities Ix^came merged in monarchies. 

(3) Hellenism meant, further, the universal spread of Greek 
language and culture. I need not dwell on this topic ; we 
shall return to it again and again. 

(4) Hellenism (once more) meant a fusion of religions. 
Wherever Alexander went he paid reverence to the local 
deities. The gods of Greece followed him to Susa and Baby- 
lon, and the teeming brood of the Nile, Sarapis, Isis, Osiris, 
and the rest, soon learned the Greek tongue and found a home 
wherever Hellenism went. 

Let me recapitulate these definitions. Hellenism meant 
(i) fusion of races, (2) unity of language, (3) union of cities 

vS7. Paul and Hellenism. 3 

in a great monarchy, (4) religious toleration and com- 

These great ideas were not wholly realized in the lifetime 
of Alexander, nor even of his immediate successors. Much 
was reserved for fulfilment only under the Roman Empire. 
And even then Rome shrank from the task. It was lefb for 
Hadrian to speak of the Greek as the equal brother of the 
Roman ^. It was reserved for a much later emperor to have 
it said of him : 

Fecisti patriam divei-sis gentibus unam ; 
Urbeni fecisti quod prius orbis erat. 

But, long before, this fusion had been preached by St. Paul, 
and had been realized in the Church. Unity of govern- 
ment, indeed, Rome had aimed at from the first. That 
universal sovereignty which had been the dream of Alex- 
ander became a momentous fact in the Roman Caesar. By 
a marvellous system of roads and forts, only rivalled in per- 
fection by her system of law and of provincial government, 
Rome organized the world in one. But while Rome could 
command and control and organize, she could not inspire. She 
did not teach others her tongue. Her decrees and laws were 
officially translated into Greek at Rome before their despatch 
to the Eastern Provinces. Still less had Rome a religion, 
a system of ideas or conduct to impart to her subjects. 

And now let us try and grasp the significance of Hellenism 
in its bearing upon the Jews. In every city of the Levant, 
from the third century b. c, there were larger or smaller settle- 
ments of Jews. Alexander planted them in his Egyptian 
city; the growth of trade under the Hellenistic kings tempted 
thousands more into the various cities of the Mediterranean ; 
the cruelty of the Syrian kings drove forth many thousands 

' See an epigram of Hadrian from EphesuB, now in the British Museum 

(N'o. 539 ; Kaibel, Epigrammata Oraecuj 888 a), in which a friend is 

praised as 

"E^oxov 'EW^vWf wpdKpnov KvqovImw, 

The phraie ii highly characteristic. 

B 2 

4 Si. Paul and Hellenism, 

more. While retaining their old beliefs, and maintaining 
close relations with the Temple, they spoke the Greek tongue, 
they adopted the Greek dress, and went as far as was possible 
in the direction of conformity to their Gentile neighbours. 
For instance, at lasos in Caria, in an inscription of the second 
century b. c, I find a certain * Niketas son of Jason, of Jeru- 
salem,' contributing along with his Gentile neighbours to the 
building of the city theatre. At Alexandria the Jews were 
so numerous, and so thoroughly organized, that there soon 
came a demand for a Greek version of their Scriptures. That 
version was made gradually, and to meet a popular demand. 
But this only lends to the fact of the Septuagint a fresh sig- 
nificance. The very Oracles of God had been Hellenized. 
Nor was this process merely external. How far Hebrew ideas 
had been Hellenized is to be seen in Philo. In Alexandria, 
in the Augustan age, there were learned and devout Jews who 
thought as well as spoke in the Greek language. We must 
not forget the great readiness with which Orientals acquire 
a foreign tongue. Even in Palestine itself there were Hellen- 
ists who not only read their Scriptures in Greek, but who 
prayed also in Greek. 

Note further that Alexander's conquests had shifted the 
centre of things. He died June ii, 323, at Babylon; he was 
King of Macedon, in the £ir West. And when, upon his 
death, his successors entered upon their fierce struggles for 
the mastery, and the tide of conflict rolled backwards and 
forwards between Europe and Asia, the populations of the 
Eastern Aegean saw the most of that g'igaKi-ottiachia. That is 
to say, the eastern basin of the Mediterranean is the heart 
and centre of Hellenism. How difficult it is to conceive of 
this! How little we know of the life of that part of the 
world (e.g.) in the third century B.C., i.e. precisely at the 
Hellenistic time! To realize the period, we must almost 
forget Athens : she is no more a factor in the problem. 
Other names have taken her place upon the page: Rhodes, 
Ephesus, Alexandria, Lysimacheia, Pergamon, Antiochs and 

S/. Paul and Hellenism. 

Seleiicias more than one. Sculpture has migrated to Rhodes, 
Even Literatnre, thoug;h linffering at Athens, steps presently 
eastward, to Alexandria, to Cos. But alas, Literature at this 
stjige almost deserta iis. But for Theocrilua (who belongs to 
Cos and Alexandria more than to Sicily), and but for Herodaa, 
whose curious poems have lately appeared from un Eg-j'ptian 
tomb to throw a llieker of lig-ht ujion this time and region, 
ne have hardly any literar}' relic of the Levant of the third 
century B.C.' It is to coins, to inscriptions, and to surviving 
works of art that we bave to turn, in order to recall the life 
of that forgotten epoch. But from such sources we learn 
very much. We learn, for example, concerning the language 
of Hclleniem, that though its dialect is contributed in the 
main by Athens, yet the vocabulary, and even the inflexions, 
show the great influence of the current speech of the Aegean. 
Thoa in the ' Will of Epicteta,' a third-century inscription 
from Thera, we find striking illustration of so important 
a word as <niva.yai'/i\ for a religious meeting, and of the curious 
word >Aa)fri7djico/ioj' for a chests The liturgical term xa/j^TMTQi 
occui-B there also, and in a Coan sacrificial inscription'. Not 
the Attic /if'roiicof, but Trttpoincos (-t<o, -I'a) is the word for 
sojourner, at Ephesus and all cities of that longitude. Again, 
words reassnme old senses which they had discarded while 
Attic was the dominant literary speech (aTrdirToAos', Kar^xi""'**, 
are examples of this), just as Americanisms like ' humans ' for 
human beings, or ' fall ' for autumn, are but survivals of 
Elizabethan English. Examples might be multiplied iodeli- 
nit«ly ; let me sum up in a word. The Jews lived near the 
very centre of Hellenism. They were part of it. And 
Jewish religion in its expression, and even in its thought, 

■ All tliis I never to fully reatised, u when I WM trying to work out tlie 
hiitiiy 0% tbi' island of Cot ; aee SiAontaX Introiliustion to Die Iiueriplioiit 
of Cm, by P»ton %vi Hicka. 

* C.I. O. No. J448. 

* Se« llelUnU Jenrnol, iSSB, vol. ii. p. 33^. 

* SeeLightfootnnGalrttiAneTi.6; nnit hia note on driloToXai, ibid. p]>. 91-3; 
md on yoTTiw/tw, Phil. ii. 14. 


6 SL Paul and Hellenism. 

had been very largely Hellenized before the coming of the 
Gospel. I say, in its thought. For I do not think any idea, 
certainly no system of beliefs and convictions, can be trans- 
lated from its native tongue into another, without detaching 
some elements, and assimilating others. Nor could the Jew 
live as a Greek, talk as a Greek, and teach and pray in Greek, 
without certain insensible modifications of his habits of mind. 
He might never be quite at home with the iwlirecta oratio^ but 
the Greek tongue taught him logic and the possibilities of 
abstract thinking. And in this there is nothing to wonder at, 
or to regret. If Judaism, if the Gospel — which came first to 
man in Jewish garb— was to take lasting hold of ' the supreme 
Caucasian mind,' it was well that it should pass westward 
through the noblest conceivable medium, that of Hellenic 
speech and thought. 

And this brings us at once to St. Paul: what was his 
relation to Hellenism? 

1. Of course he was bred and bom a Hebrew of the 
Hebrews. His parents, proud of their Benjamite origin, 
call their son Saul, after the one royal name in their tribe. 
After his home training is over, he is sent to Jerusalem, 
where he sits at the feet of Gamaliel. Until his conversion, 
he is of the stiaitest sect of the Pharisees. And at his 
conversion the heavenly voice speaks to his inner soul in the 
sacred Hebrew tongue. But St. Paul's genius was many- 
sided. He inherits from his father the Roman citizenship. 
His birthplace is Tarsus, a city second hardly to any at the 
time as a seat of learning: schools^ chiefly of course of 
Rhetoric, abounded there ; and philosophy, especially the 
Stoic, had its representatives. That is to say, Saul of Tarsus 
was a Hellenized Jew: he could speak 'E/3palrTt, i.e. in 
Aramaic, and in Greek equally well. It is time his Greek 
was not that of the literary man, still less of the Attic purists. 
It was provincial, uneducated if you please. But it was 
Greek, none the less. It is an exaggeration when Renan 
speaks of his language being almost unintelligible to a literary 

S/. Paul and Hellenism. 

Greek. He was intelligible to the provincials wbom he 
wanted to convince, The more educated Corinthians criti- 
cized his style (l Cor. x. lo); it was too full of Hebraisms 
and Aramaiems. It bad no Havoiir of literary Greek. Bnt it 
was a real, living, spoken tongue, and that was better. He 
cpeakE it, and dictates it also, with a manifest ^lovv of 
thonpht. It iinderf^eu no aenaibJe chan^ in ten years. He 
does not think in Aramait- and translate into Greek. He 
thinks in tiie tongue that he speaks and writes. He has the 
Septuagint test by heart, though he often varies a word or 
phrase, to emphasize the application. In other words, Saul 
the Pharisee is also the Hellenist Paulua. We have no proof 
that he attended the Greek schools of his city. But a nature 
so alert and sympathetic could not be brought thus near lo 
Hellenic influence without feeling its i>o\ver. We can infer 
little from his qnotation of a line of Menander in i Cor. xv. 
It was possibly a current quotation — like many a lino from 
Shakespeare to-day. The same may be said of the pas.-4ge 
from Aiatus or Cleanthea cited at Athens (-\ct9 xvii. aB), or 
the line of Epimenides in Titus i. J2. But if ho was as 
unread in Greek literature as some suppose, then his careful 
recollection of lines so casiially heard, and his j-emarkahly apt 
qnotation of them, betray all the more his mental leanings. 

3. The same thing is evidenced by his metaphors. They 
are at least as much Greek as Syrian. From Syria came the 
' open door,' the " burthen borne,' and the acts of walking or 
building to symbolize moral ideas. But on the other hand 
flee how essentially Greek is his perpetual employment of 
figures drawn from athletic games — jpiy^tiv, 6('<!nos, itarojijio- 
/3tiJ(u-, ayiaviitaBai., iiVKrcufw, ari^avus, and the rest. In all 
of which we must not think too ranch of Elis or Nemea, but 
remember that in Hellenistic and Homan times athletic 
festivals had become a universal passion, and every city of the 
Levant had Olympia of its own. Not less essentially Greek 
are hia metaphors from the mysteries {Col. i. 26 and jiamm ; 
Phil. iv. 12), or from civic life (Eph. ii, 12 and iij, and else- 

8 5/. Patil and Hellenism, 

where), or from education (-TraiSaycoyov, Gal. iii. 24)*. It 
is plain that St. Paul's mind is stored with images taken from 
Graeco- Roman life; he calls them up without effort. He 
returns to some of them again and again. Even when 
a metaphor is suggested by an Old Testament text like 
Isaiah lix. 17 and xi. 5, he works up the illustration (i Thess. 
V. 8 ; Eph. vi. 13) after the manner of a pure Greek simply 
describing a Roman soldier. I cannot enlarge on this topic — 
the western character of St. Paul's images. But to illustrate 
my argument, contrast the favourite metaphors of St. Paul 
on the one hand with the strictly Syrian and rural figures of 
the Gospels, and on the other with the purely oriental images 
of the Apocalypse, — images which art cannot express in out- 
ward shape without grotesque monstrosity. 

But (3), if St. Paul's figures were not usually Hebraic, 
neither did he derive so much as is commonly thought from 
Roman customs. Lightfoot points out (on Gal. iv) how 
St. Paul's use of v^ttios and rpoQ^(r[kL(x does not agree with the 
details of Roman law. Even when he is speaking to the 
Romans of vio^<o-ia, the word reminds me rather of Greek 
than of Roman antiquities. No word is more common in 
Greek inscriptions of the Hellenistic time : the idea, like the 
word, is native Greek. 

But (4) the moral teaching of St. Paul takes up into itself 
some of the best thoughts of Greek philosophy. The very 
language of Stoicism has lent itself to his service. I need 
say the less on this head, because of the careful and sympathetic 
treatment it has received from Lightfoot in a famous Appendix 
to his Philippians. He rightly discards the legend which 
brought the Apostle and Seneca into personal contact. There 
is no reason to suppose that St. Paul had read a page of any 
Stoic treatise. Ideas, like germs, are in the air, and they only 

* Ernst CurtiuB, in the paper already referred to, mentionB also yaip^iv 
(Phil. iv. 4) ; (i^^i24K9f'^'^' ^) ' ^^® Attic salt of Col. iv. 6 ; the idea of measure 
in a Cor. x. 1 3. All this betrays, he says, ' den Anhauch hellenischer Lebens- 

S/. Paul and Hellenism. 

nwttit a suitable host, to live and take effeet. I know not how 
mnch Mr, Ruekiii has ever read of Comte : but I know that 
gome of his Oxford lectures, when I heard them, seemed 
inspired by all that is best in the Positive Ethics. Nor can 1 
ever read i Cor. iv. 8, withont being reminded of Stoic phrases 
abotit the philo^topher-Jting'. 

(5) ^^ I'^^ imov language and ideas to method of 
exposition. Hero also— I speak with deference — Renan 
appears to exaggerate grossly when he says, ' His mode of 
arguing is strange in the extreme. He certiainly knew 
nothing of the logic of the Peripatetics. His syllogism is 
anything hut Aristotelian ; on the contrary, his dialectic 
comes nearer to that of the Talmud.' It may be prepos- 
session, but I 6nd in St. Paul much to remind me of Aristotle. 
I never read i Cor. xiii, without thinking of the description <jf 
the virtues in the liicomacheaii E/ik-t^. St. Paul's way of 
arguing also — making point by point, and covering his whole 
ground, meeling objections by auticipation, and assuming the 
questions of a supposed antagonist — recalls to me the method 
of Aristotle. I know that his style when most rhetorical 
never reaches the formal and even grandiose manner of the 
Bpistle to the Hebrews : but his method of exposition is really 
Greek, If any one doubts this, and desires to make St. Paul's 
method still Hebraic, let him compare the Pauline Epistles 
with those of St. John or St. James. The latter circle round 
certain ideas ; advance is mode with no apparent logical 
sequence. St. Paul's argument is capable of obWoua and 
minute analysis*. I would only ];oint further to the syste- 
matic classitication of moi-al obligations in Romans xii, or in 
Ephesians and Colossians, as being quite Hellenic in manner. 

(6) St. Paul's sympathy with Hellenism is shown by his 

' St. ra>Tl-, etliical tekcUiti 

■ Lm quite 

an Hellenk 


It \» (1) philo- 

OQ • d«fi 

iU, pri„ci,<l 

. xi*. our n 

e* llfi 

iii ChriBt, and 



rirtue" ■nd JutiS according tii 

uine int^llisible 



» 1 nhould mlj tlut tlJB panags wm ci 

mpnsod bef 

re Professor Ramaaj'a 

Cltiroh in Ihe liima 

» Enipift 

ciuiie Into n 

y Imnda. 

lo St. Paul and Hellenism. 

method of travel. With quite a Greek instinct he prefers to 
keep in sight of the sea. The great sea-ports have an 
attraction for him — Antioch, Troas, Thessalonica, Athens, 
Corinth, Ephesus. lie never stays in the villages, or even 
the minor towns, \vhere Hellenic influence is feeble: he 
pushes on to the larger towns of the Roman system, that is, 
where Hellenism is strong. More and more he feels impelled 
to do so by a Divine Voice within. When he visits Europe 
for the first time and lands at Neapolis, he never stops until 
he gets to Philippi, because it ' is the chief town of that part 
of Macedonia and a colony.' This practice of St. Paul is finely 
illustrated by Prof. Ramsay in his Church in the Roman Empire. 
We had all thought that Lystra, a scene of St. Paul's earlier 
labours, was an out-of-the-way, uncultivated town. We must 
deem it so no more : it was an important city, and a Roman 
colony, a centre of Graeco- Roman culture. Hence its attraction 
for the Apostle. 

(7) I pass to the growth of St. Paul's ideas. That such 
a growth took place few now would deny. I do not mean 
a change, but a development. The topics of his Epistles, the 
controversies that successively engaged his mind, show what 
that development was. I'irst came the question of the 
universality of the Gospel, and the equality of races within 
the Church. In fighting for this principle the Apostle was, 
in fact, working out a fundamental idea of Hellenism, which 
had never yet been realized, but which was to find its 
realization in a glorious and divine manner, in a kingdom 
not of earth but of heaven, in a city whose builder and 
maker is God. 

The second great topic that engaged him was the doctrine 
of the Person of Christ. This had underlain all his teaching, 
and each earlier Epistle. But now it assumes a prominent 
place, as in Phil. ii. and Col. i-iii : and its bearings upon human 
life and hope becomes of absorbing interest. But here again, 
the language which enables St. Paul to scale these heights 
of thought, and to set forth, once and for ever, the doctrine of 

S/. Paul and Hellenism. 

the Incarnation in its v&riona aspects, is the languag'e of 
Hellenigm. Greek thought had provided for St. Paul 
a vocabulary, and a set of ideas as well as phrases, wherein 
to express his doctrine — a doctrine in no wise boiTOwed 
from Hellenic thonght, but which could hardly be made 
intelligible to the minds of his time, or to our own minds 
to-day, unless Greek thought had prepared the human mind 
for such grand and far-reaching ideas • : o yap ^iKouo^oi 

There remains a third great topic of St. Panl, — the uni- 
versality and the unity of the Catholic Church. This fills his 
Ephesian letter, and forma the climax of his life. Glance 
back for an instant upon that life, and see how he reached 
this point. Driven by the Spirit he had found his way to 
Europe. From Macedonia he passes to Achaia, and spends 
a year and a half in Corinth. From the capital of Achaia. he 
jiasses to Ephesus, and (enlarging upon his Corinthian experi- 
ment) spenda nearly three years in the capital of Asia. From 
the capital of Asia his thoughts turn to the capital of the 
world: "I must see Rome' (Acts xix. ai). Within a few 
months the Roman letter was despatched. More and more 
the marvel of that wide Empire and the majesty of sovereign 
Rome had become luminous ideas in his mind. And when 
at last — by God's strange leading — he is at the centre of 
the world, there Paul the cajitive gains his clear vision of the 
Catholic Church, and writes of a polity, of an organization 
wider than of Borne, and as enduring as God (Eph. ii. 19 
foil.) : ' Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow- 
citizena with the saints ... Ye are built upon the founda- 

' Lei ihe reader compare the three psawgeB Phil, ii, C<il. 1-ii, Epli. i-ii, ■nil 
■ee ho* in point of philowphic gmp ind expreaeion Ihey improve vpoa each 
other. Note Further llie nice use of ito/rfTi, ox^lH" (,1'llil. ". 6\ AUd of the 
propoFitioiiB in Cut, i. 16-30. From tile Greek schoutu libewiae comu auch 
wurvU ma ipiattlt, foov/ufa, fiitlTijt (Pfdnft Col, ii, 91, Siptaprm In Rodikiih i, 
Knd Uie liigbty pbiluaophickl dittinctiop betweea rifUK and i yiiioi in Konians 
I, (jwniii). Other Pauline woids invite attention from a similnr jKiint of view ; 
an^ia, yi-Hjoti, JiTi7»*tf)i, ^vy^tttv, alsBijvi^, itavoia, '^piirijon^ ic.r.K. 

12 5*/. Paul and Hellenism, 

tion of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesns Christ being the 
chief corner-stone/ Here is the first germ of the Be 
Civii-ate Dei, 

We reach here the climax of the Apostle's life. Wisely 
does the author of the Acts drop the curtain at this point. All 
else was but the epilogue to the great drama. The theology 
of St. Paul was now complete ; his ideas had attained their 
fall orb. There remained nothing more than to organize, to 
elaborate discipline, to direct and advise. These cares occupy 
the Pastoral Epistles. 

May I close with three general remarks ? 

I . Let us beware of post-dating the influence of Hellenism 
on Christian thought. I felt that this error really underlay 
the otherwise brilliant Hibbert Lecturer of Dr. Hatch. The 
influence of Hellenism began in fact with the firet preaching 
of the Gospel ; and St. Paul is the foremost representative of 
the process. That influence was of course indirect and 
unconscious, and did not involve any deliberate adoption of 
Hellenic practices ^ : but it had been a leaven working in the 
Church from the first. Then later, in the fourth century, 
when the fabric of Graeco-Roman civilization was crumbling 
to its fall, the Church alone was left to rescue from that ruin 

* We may therefore dismiM the crude suggestion of Prof. P. Gardner {Tht 
Oritjin of the Lord*s Supper y 1893), that St. Paul borrowed the idea of the 
Eucharist from the Kleusinian Mysteries, which he may have learned about 
at Corinth. The writer simply ignores the testimony of the Mark- tradition to 
the primitive origin of the Lord's Supper, and he also mistakes the essential 
features of the Eleusinia. These centred in the visit of lacchos to Demeter 
and Kor^ (this formed the vofiv^\ and in the mystery-play which followed 
(rcL apw/itya, hence the l(po<f>dvTrjs), See also GuBtav Anrich, Das antike 
Mysterienweeen in teinem Einflwts nuf das ChrUtentum (1894), p. iii n. The 
value of Anrich's essay is chiefly negative. We are not to exaggerate the 
extent of Gentile admixture in Christian usage, nor date such accretions too 
early. He rightly insists (p. 106) that Hellenic worship consisted of ritual 
acts, whereas Christian worship gave the chief place to prayer, praise, and 
instruction. He points out that it was mainly in connexion with the sacra- 
ments, because they involved ceremonial acts, that Hellenic usages and 
beliefs found opportunity to fasten themselves on to the Christian tradition, 
lliis tendency, which developed by degrees, none wiU deny; see the Abb^ 
Duchesne, Let Orxginee du Calte Chriiien, 

5/. Paui and Hellenis 

mucli that humaDity could ill afford to lose '. Swiftly therefore 
and siirelvT ond with no mere blind instinet, during that b^ 
of disquiet and change, did the Church take over and (.-onsecrate 
to diviner uses whatever she could of the art, the letters, the 
ritual of the older world. We may indeed confeps that her 
task wos most difficult and delicate; we may complain that 
it was unskilfully done ; that in art she Ixirrowed too little, 
in ceremonial and in metaphysics oveimudi. But I am only 
concerned to point out here, that this assimilation of IJellenism 
by the Church, this sympathy with the old Hellenic world 
had been a reality all along, and was involved in the very 
fact of the Gospel coming to the weatcrn world in the language 
of Greece, 

3. It is vain to regrret a process so inevitable, a development 
so natural to the human mind. It is inationat to ajipeal from 
the Nicene Cieed to the Sermon on the Mount. For Christianity 
ne«ds to be expressed in the language, and therefore in the 
thought and phrase, of mankind at whatever particular date. 
The thought and phrase of the Greek world of the fourth 
century were not the same as of Palestine in the first, nor are 
they the same as our own. And yet, as a mattei' of fact, when 
we want to understand the metaphy>>ical and moi'al bearings 
of Christian doctrine, if we turn to Athanasius and Chrysostom, 
how fresh and modem they are 1 How significant the philo- 
sophy of the Be Incanintionr f'ci-di, how practical the sober, 
ethical exegesis of the Humi/ies. 

3- Perhaps one of the greatest needs of the Church in our 
day is that its teachers should learn the method of St. Paul ; 
should learn how to enunciate the Gospel in the phrase and 
ideas of modem life. For the educated this has been 
endeavoured by many, and bj' none with more wonderful 
freshness and depth than hy Robert Browning : witness 
his Deati in Iht Beterf, his Ea»ler Bay. and very much beside. 
For the industrial classes it certainly has not been done, save 
very partially, and chiefly outside of the Church. But it must 

' Thin is ler; ilriklDgly pill in ft lecture by Huniack, on St. Auguntine. 

14 Si. Paul and Hellenism. 

be done, and can best be done by men of learning and thought. 
For scholarship need not lessen their sympathy with others, 
and culture should give them an imaginative insight into 
conditions not their own. The Gospel needs translating into 
the language of the masses ; it must be brought within their 
range of ideas, must at least understand their prepossessions, 
must be recommended by illustrations taken boldly from their 
manner of life. This was St. Paul's method ; it is worth 
adoption to-day : khv ttoo-i ylyova Trdrra, Xva nikvuA^ tiva% aciacn 
(t Cor. ix. 22). 



[W. M. Ramsay.] 

Dr. Sanday asks me to write a paper on the Galatian 
question. It is difficult to do so within moderate compass, 
and it would be absurd to do so without referring to the 
counter-arguments or assertions of critics (Dr. Schiirer in 
TheologUche Litteraiurztg, 1893, Sept. 30, p. 506, correcting 
his article in Jahrb.f, Protectant. Theologie^ 189a, p. 471 ; Dr. 
Chase in Expositor, Dec. 1893, and May, 1894 ; Dr. Zockler in 
Theologhche Studien und Kritiken^ 1894, pp. 51-102) ^ It is 
therefore necessary to use a more controversial tone than is 
pleasant to me, and to speak of some elementary points at 
disproportionate length, because the controversy concerns 
especially the fundamental facts and ideas upon which the 
whole theory rests. 

If I have complied with this request, it is not because I have 
the hope of convincing any whose minds are already made up 
that the South- Galatian theory is inadmissible and impossible 
on grounds of grammar, or of geography, or of history. 
But I ask an unprejudiced hearing in the confidence that 
those who begin the investigation and weigh the arguments 

* As the diitinctive nomenclatare U8e<l in my hook has been adopted aa 
convenient by two critics, Dr. Chase and Dr. Zockler, it will be used in this 
article : ' North Galatia ' will denote the territory permanently occupied by the 
three Galatian tribes in the third century B.C., * South Galatia ' will denote the 
parts of Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and I^auria, which were included under 
the rule of the Roman governor of the province Galatia, ai^d the two opposing 
views will be designated as 'the North-Galatian theory* and 'the South- 
Oalatian theory.' /.- ^■, 

1 6 The * Galatia * of St. Paul and 

without that strong (all the stronger because unconscious) 
l)ias given by frequent repetition for years of a book so 
familiar as AcU^ will see that the South- Galatian theory' 
alone makes AcU int-elligible and intelligent ; and these will 
be a growing number as time goes on. 

One difficulty which faces me is that the North-Galatian 
theory is professedly based on the view that AcU is full of 
' gaps in the narrative,' i. e. omissions that offend against our 
sense of what is right in a history. Hence it avails not to 
prove that the North-Galatian theory attributes an irrational 
omission to Act9 : one more gap does not dismay the theorist 
who is already impressed with the number of gaps. In time, 
however, the principle will become recpgnized even in the 
criticism of Acts (as it is in all extra-Biblical criticism) that 
the interpreter who is to make any progress must start with 
the belief that his author was rational, and must prefer the 
rational theory to the theory of irrational gaps. The concise 
historian of a great movement may dismiss ten years in 
a breath and devote a chapter to one step in his subject ; but 
his silence is part of his method and as eloquent as his speech ^ 
But any one can hold the North-Galatian theory who is 
ready to help it out with the gap-theory. 

I. Ancient Opinion. — Asterius, bishop of Amaseia in 
Pontus, A.D. 401, explains the expression in Acts xviii. 23 
Ttiv TaXaTLKijv \<ipav Kal ^pvylav as t}\v AvKaoviav koX tcls t^s 
^pvyias TroActs. The North-Galatian theorists are not free 
to regard these words as the mistaken theory of a late writer : 
such a theory could not arise in the time of Asterius, for 
Lycaonia was no longer included in Galatia in his time^ 
The evidence of lat^r ecclesiastical writers is sometimes 
affected badly by their tendency to intrude the facts of their 

* That Actt was written by a great historian of that order is the 
argument of my St, Paul : the Traveller and the Bo man Citizen, now nearly 

■ See Homily VIII on St. Ptter awl St. Paul, in Migne, Palrolog. Oraec. 
vol. xl. I owe this quotation to my friend and former pupil Mr. A. F. 
Findlay. The words of Asterius are quoted below p. 18. 

tke ' Galatic Territory ' of Acts. 


own time into tlie post, and by their miHUDderstundiiig of the 
old wordfl through want of knowledge of the old cireumetaucM. 
But neither of these cuiiseu can have operated in this ea^ie ; 
Asterioe contradicts the facts of his own time ; and no conceiv- 
able interpretation could get ri]v AvKaoviav out of rrju FaKa- 
TiKqv xtipav oscept the deliberate adhesion of Asteriua to the 
South-Galatian ther)iy. Now thecircuniEtancesof Asterius'slife 
make him an exceptionally good witneos in this case : he must 
have been familiar with the geography of central Asia Minor ; 
the comparative situation of North-Galatia and Lycaonia, and 
the diiference between the two routes open to St. Paul in Acts 
xviii. 33 OD the two theories (North- Galatian and South- 
Galatian), were points on which he could not make such 
a mistake as to blunder into the idea that the ' Galatic 
R«gion ' van ' Lvcaonia.* 

Asterios, then, held the South- Galatian theory ; and thia 
ehows that either he bad studied past history independently 
and carefully, and rejected the usual belief, or the usual belief 
and the nnbroken tradition confirmed the view which he states. 
Now it is most improbable, and quite incongruous with the 
character of fourth and fifth eentnry Christianity and Chnrch 
scholarship, to suppose that any one studied such titinttfiae of 
early history in the scientific nnd independent spirit that 
would be required to recreate the South-Gnbitian theory in 
opposition to the traditional view ; and a blight study of 
AstcriuB which I have made for the purjxise does not lead to 
the belief that he was the man to make such an investigation 
with free and bold spirit. It nvvms clear that Asterius was 
brought up to the South-(ialatian theory as the accepted 

The commentaries of Theopbykct and Chrysostom contain 
no clear evidence as to their helitf on thia point; but the 
South-Galatians will find their words far more intelligent 
than the North-Galatians. For my own part, it seems diffi- 
cult to think that Chrysostom, who knew Asia Minor widely, 
could have said what he has said and not been struck with 

1 8 The ' Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

the awkwardness, if he had held the North- Galatian theory, 
whereas, if he had been brought up in an unquestioned South- 
Oalatian tradition, his language is clear and natural. 

But the proof that Asterius spoke according to accepted 
tradition and not according to independent investigation is 
furnished by the fact that he gives expression to a traditional 
error in the same sentence. He says \i.tTr\KQ^v ovv Ik KoplvOov 
irpos Trjv T&v Uio-Cbaiv \<ipav' cira ttjv AvKaovCav koI tcls rrji 
^pvyCas ir6\€is Karakafidv, KaK^Wev rriv 'Aaiav ^irtcricri/rti/bici/oy, 
€lra TijV MaK^bovCav, Koivds Ijv t^s olKovfiimis hibaa-KoXoS' Why 
does the Uia-Choov x<ipa come in between Corinth and Lycaonia 
in this account of Paul's travels from Acts xviii. i8 to xx. i ? 
The explanation is furnished by the corresponding passage of 
Euthalius, who is commonly dated c. 458 A. d., that from Corinth 
Paul went to Ephesus and Caesareia clra h€iT€pov cIs ^Avriox^iav 
TTJi UiCTLhCaSy cTra €h tijv FaXaTiKTjv xdpav ^ xal ^pvyCaVf €lTa 
irdKiv beirepov els "'E^^ccroi;. It is clear that there was a wide- 
spread traditional misinterpretation of Acts xviii 22 as re- 
ferring to Pisidian Antioch. Asterius was under the current 
mistake on this point ; but, if he had made such an independent 
study as to strike out the South- Galatian theory for himself, 
he could not have remained in error about the Antioch of 
xviii. 22*. 

Jerome in his commentary on Galatians evidently believes 
that the letter was addressed to the three Celtic tribes ; but 
this fact cannot weigh against Asterius. Jerome entertained 
without any doubt the natural thought that the Galatia of 
St. Paul was the Galatia of earlier and of late time. 

The southern tradition had every opportunity of preserving 

^ It IB noteworthy that Euthalius read in xvi. 6 r^v ^fwyiav »cal FoXari- 
icilv xwfMv^ where Chrysostom has r^v TaXariiaiv, 

' This current error prevents us from claiming Euthalius as an unmistakable 
South-Galatian. It is true that the South-Galatian theory alone brings Paul 
to Pisidian Antioch on this journey; but Euthalius gets in Pisidian Antioch 
on a side-issue. He mentions this as the second visit to Pisidian Antioch : 
I believe it was the third; but Dr. Gifford, a South-Galatian, makes it the 
second visit, while Bishop Lightfoot, a North-Galatian, makes it the third. 

the ' Galatic Territory ' of Acts. 1 9 

the real line of St. Paul's journeys. On the other hand hardly 
» scrap of tradition remains about an early church in North- 
Galatia. Its history begins in the fourth century with the 
martyr-bishop of Ancyra, Clemens, under Diocletian ', and the 
Council of Ancyra abitut 314. Only one other North-CJulatian 
bishop appeared at the Ancyran Council, PhiladeJphiiis of 
Juliopolis ; and I know of nothinfj else about the early North- 
Galattan Church, The earliest known bishop of Pessinus is 
Demetrius 403, of Tavium Dicatdus 325, of the Troknades 
CyriacuB 325. of Petenissos Pius 451, of Klaneos Salomon 6 So, 
of Orcistus Domnus 431. The last four with Pessinus are in 
the country where, according- to Dr. Ziickler, Paul planted 
Christianity with signal and striking suceess and founded 
several churehes, yet from the sujiposed Pauline foundations 
no scrap of tradition has come down to us, no martyr (ao far 
88 I know) is recorded, only one bishop earlier than the fifth 
century is known. According to Dr. Zockler Paul never 
saw Ancyra; yet there, and there alone in Noith-Galatia, do 
we find a slight tradition of the early Church. How hae this 
utter oblivion affected the flourishing ' Churches of Galatia ' ? 
The only form of the North- Galatian theory that is not a 
historical absurdity is Lightfoot's, who held that Paul's Gala- 
tian churches were in the great cities, especially Ancyra ; 
and Dr, Zockler repudiates Lightfoot's theory as impossible 
and in^cconeil cable with Act*^. 

Contrast this with the history of the South -Galatian 
Churches. Peter, bishop of leonium, at the Council of 
Ancyra 314, is the sixth in Le Quien's list of Iconian bishops, 
Eulalius in 325 the seventh^. Sergiauus, bishop of Pisidian 

* TheotloriM of Anoyni (3nl Nov.) of unknown dute is put by Le QiiieQ 
before Clemen a. 

* U u Dotennrlhy lli&t the Narth-Galatiiini are na widely at larinDce with 
Mch other u they art- with loe. Lijjiitfuot wnulil li»ve rejected nnlieeitstingly 
Zockler'a idea that Paul devoted hin time ti) rounding cliurcbea in tlie wildemesi 
nf lllo Axylon iTiuknadeg and Biniilu vlllagea) And at Peuinns. But Dr. Ziicktfr 
gravely and wrinuily ttmigrv thia u Paul't ■phero of work. 

* The ftr«t, Soaipater, is qnoted not niemly <rom Rum. xvi. 31, bnt alio on 
•ditioD in Kunie Menoliyia, wLicli perhape baa indepeadeDt ground. 

C 2 

20 The * G alalia ' of Si. Patil and 

Antioch at the CoaDcirof Ancyra, is the fifth in Le Qaien*s 
list. Several very early traditions arc connected with Lystra ^ 
and still more with Iconiam and Antioch. 

I have made no special search in any of these cases. I take 
the well-known superficial evidence; but it is all in favour 
of the view that tradition and history would preserve some 
record of a group of flourishing Pauline churches. In these 
churches of South- Galatia, the correct tradition of Paul's 
journeys was pei'petnated until at least the fifth century. 

The burden of proof has hitherto been laid on the South- 
Galatian theorists, but these facts show that it is the North- 
Galatians who seek to overturn the early tradition and are 
bound to prove their view. 

In the next place we turn to the history of the name and 
the province Galatia, and try to determine what was the 
exact situation in South- Galatia about 50 a. d. In my 
1)Cok, such points as the extent of the name Galatia, the 
use of ' Galatae ' in the sense of ' men of the province Galatia/ 
the boundary close to Derbe, the large regnum Antioclii^ the 
vigour of Roman policy in the country, the contempt felt 
by Romans and coloniae and loyal provincials for the appella- 
tion * Lycaones/ not to mention others, were taken as well 
known ^ I fancied that even a slight acquaintance with 
the antiquities of Asia Minor and the Roman imperial ad- 
ministration would show any reader or critic what were the 
giounds on which these assumptions rested^. In writing 
about St. Paul one does not expect to begin with a series of 
arguments on each point of history, geography, and antiquities 

* The story of Thekla mentions it. ArtomaA or Arteniius first bishop Act. 
Sand. 20th June, p. 67 ; Eustochius under Maximian, Act. Sand. 23rd June, 
p. 472 (he was earlier than the reorganization by Diocletian in 295, for Lystra 
•till was governed from Ancyra in his time). Of Derbe alone I find no trace 
oatnide of tlie New Testament till we come down to the fourth century. 

^ A brief excursus was added, p. 13 f.» as an afterthought in view of 
Dr. Schtirer's article Z/tf. Prot. Theol. 1P92, p. 471 f. 

' The reahonH for niy statements can in great part be got in my JHstoiical 
Geography of Asia Minor ; but will, I hope, be more eiisily and in fuller form 
found in the CitieB and BUhopria of Phry<jxa. 

the ' Galatic Terrilory' of Acts. 21 

th»t had to be touched. One tnuBt aeeunie a little ; and one 
eipectB that a critic who differs will investigate at least the 
collected and readily nccessiljle evidence before denying th^se 
assuinptionB. Scveml points of this list, however, have been 
already disputed. Dr. Schiirer denied the first point, bnt 
delisted when his attention was called to the contemporary 
get^raphera Pliny and Ptolemy : hut Dr. Cheetham still main- 
tains the attack '. The second in eontradict«l by Dr. Schiirer 
and Dr. Bloss ; the second and the last are disputed by 
Dr. Zfickler, and the others are just as likely to be contro- 

2. GiLATiA THE NAME OF THE RoMAX PnoviscE. Probably 
no one dreamed of questioning the correctness of the term 
' Uaiatia ' as applied to the whole Roman province tinlil 
l8ij3. Historians from Tacitus to Mommsen used the term 
nnquestioninfrly. But in 1892 Dr. Schurer, on the ground 
that a number of inscriptions in honour of governors of the 
province enumerate the various districts composing the pro- 
vince, and do not name it by a single name, hastily concluded 
that it was not correct to use the single name for the whole, 
and that therefore Paul could not have used the t«rm ' fJalatia ' 
except in the sense of North-Galatia *. Prof. Mommsen, 
who had edited most of these inscriptions, and thought over 
every problem connected with them, had not been thereby 
deterred from applying the term ' Galatia " to the province ; 
and all those who have studied the Asia Minor inscriptions 
are familiar with the vainglorious use of terms, which applied 
the title, governor of Phrygia, Paphlngonia, &c., to officers 
who ruled only a small part of Phrj'gia and Paphlagonia ^. 

' Dr. Zikkli^r in not «> Jftcrmined as Dr. Clieethftin ; ha al Itut hu luokeil 
into Pliny and Ftolfliiij, knd in « fuutDntc, p. 91, gr&ntg the mgrocy of their 
authority ; but sveo bs itill devutes aeieral |»ig<:B nf hiK taxt to krguin;; 
thkt tftul ITU not likely to aiiok of ' UaUtui ' u the test of hU chareb<:> in 
IcunJuii', Xe. 

' Jairh./. Pretetlaut. Tlifoleaie, 189). p. 471, waA Theolug. ZUttratunly . 

' CIL iij. 311, 31)), are nut honorary inscripliuns. bnt the reaM>D for tho 
lorui adopted in them ie eiplsined Mmi (see p. 39). The very nnler umJ in 

2 2 The * Galatia ' of St, Paul and 

As soon as Dr. Schiirer's attention was directed to the 
ancient geographers, Pliny and Ptolemy, he recognized that 
he could no longer maintain his contention, and in the most 
scholarly spirit he at once retracted it ^. It would have 
seemed sufficient to mention this and to pass to the next 
point. But his brief retractation seems to have escaped the 
attention of many who have been carried away by the appar- 
ently exhaustive erudition of his first article ; and even such 
a careful and learned scholar as Dr. Cheetham has written in 
the Classical Review ^ November, 1894, to express his belief 
in the convincing nature of Dr. Schiirer s arguments, and his 
sense of my inability to meet them. It is therefore better to 
briefly state the reasons which make it necessary to admit 
that the Romans habitually denominated the province 
* Galatia ' simply. 

Ptolemy arranges his chapters according to the Roman 
provincial divisions : v. i . YIovtov kcX BiOvvlas Oi(m : v. a. 
Trjs lhCa9 *Aalas Oiais ; v. 3. AvKias Oicri^ : v. 4. TaXaTlas Oiais- 
He states that Galatia is bounded on the south by Pamphylia 
and on the north by the Euxine sea ^, including in it Pisidia 
on the south, and Paphlagonia on the north ; he enumerates 
the parts of which it consisted, Paphlagonia, Pisidia, &c. ; and 
he mentions Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra as cities of Galatia. 
So also in describing Pamphylia, he says it is bounded by 
Galatia on the north. 

Again, Pliny, v. 146-7, gives an account of Galatia {dicenduni 
videtur et de Gahfia) : he says it reaches to Cabalia of Pam- 
phylia and the Milyae; he declares that it contained 195 
peoples and tribes (whereas Galatia proper contained three 

them 18 sufficient to show that the form is not a purely official title ; first the 
official title provinciarum Galatiae Cappadociae (the two provinces united 
under one ruler, see the exposition in the latter part of this section), then 
the enumeration of parts of Galatia, viz. Ponti, Paphlcigoniae^ &c., and then 
the additional part of Cappadocia, viz. Armeniae Minoris, 

* Tkeolog. Litter at urteitangt 1893, Sept. 30, p. 506. 

* I pass over the fact that Ptolemy makes some errors in details : the only 
point that concerns us is his belief as a scientific geographer that the term 
roAaria was properly used to denote the Roman province as a whole. 

Ike ' Galatic Territory' of Acts. 23 

]>eoples divided into twelve tetj-archies) ; and he mentions 
amon^ ite cities Lystra, and other places in tlie Ptrygiaa, 
Pisidian, and Pajihlagonian districtB '. 

So. again, Taeitua, HUi. ii. 9, says : Galatiam el Pampij/liam 
/irouinciag Calpumio Aijirenati regendas GalMa permimrat : Dr. 
Z&kler acknowledgee the force of this passage. 

These passages show that ' Galatia ' was freely and correctly 
used to denote the Roman province. No one who reada them. 
over can hesitate on this jioiut. The inference drawn from 
the inscriptions by Drs, Schiirer and Cheetham is wron^, 
and the iascriptioos are guided in their peculiar terminology 
not by consideration of strict accuracy, but by magniloquence. 
It is indeed hard to see how Dr. Schiirer could seriouMly main- 
tain that the oSicial name of a Roman province was ' Galatia, 
Pisidia, Phrygia, Paphlagonia, Lycaonia, Pontua Galaticus, 
Pontus Polenionianus.' The Romans wei-c s practical and 
business-like people. 

It is true that in s-ome cases Roman official eiiHtom employed 
a compound term to denote a single province : thus ' Bitbynia- 
Pontus ' and * Lycia-Pamphylia ' were the regolar forms. The 
Romans continued to feel that each of these provinces con- 
tained two separate parts joined together, and it is certain that 
in both cases a certain distinction was maintained between 
the parts, even under the joint adoiioist ration. Thus we 
have the titles Bithyniarch and Pontarch, and there is reason 
to think that the titles Auicitou rfi lQvo% and AuKitl/>xis did 
not extend to Pamphylia '. Again, it is quite certain that 
when Cappadocia and Galatia were united under the Flavian 
emperors, the combined name was officially required, and that 
the two when united were even not called a single province, 
for in inscriptions we commonly find proviiidae in the plural. 

' The puBige ia dUcasMid in my CiHet and U'uhopTiet of Phrygia (1895^, 
p. 318 f. 

■ The fict tliftt Ptolemy gives X.JcIa uid Piiuiphjlia in M|jaratB chsplera 
■hnwi Uinl Le coniiiiend them Ivo prurince* Under ene admin 
(ial>tla-CB]ii>w]«:ik between 78 aud 106 A. D. 

24 The ' Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

That was therefore a case in which two separate provinces 
were placed temporarily under one head, and is markedly 
different from the case of Bithynia-Pontos, which is a single 
province with a double name. 

There is at least one case in which a triple name was 
oflScially applied to a single province, viz. Syria-Phoenice- 
Cilicia. That these constituted one single province during 
the first century is shown by the provincial festival ko\,vo% 
^vplas ^oivUrjs KiAiic^a;, which united the three parts in the 
worship of the Emperors and in the feeling of Roman 
patriotism. But such a name was found to be too cumbrous, 
and the single name Syria was commonly applied to the 
whole. Cilicia was after a time separated from that province, 
and hence it is not often included under the single name, but 
it is common in the second and third centuries to apply 
the term * Syria ' to the whole territory administered by the 
Soman governor. Hence Phoenice and Palaestina were 
merged in Syria, and the usage became stronger as time 
passed to treat them as parts of Syria, and to employ such 
terms as ^vpla Ylakaiarlvrj and Xvpos 'AcncaAcofe^Tt;; nakaiOTtlvji 
(Kaibel, Inscr, Graec, in Ital. &c., i66i)^ Even in the case 
of Cilicia, we find in a Gaulish inscription k. ^AhhavfAV r$; 
'S.vpla^ 2 In CIG 5875 b Tt. 'lovAios 2i;f.(os) \ who makes 
a dedication to the goddess of Magarsos (the harbour of 
Mallos), was in all probability a native of Mallos taking the 
general provincial ethnic among Italian surroundinga 

Syria is a name applied (in Dr. Schiirer's phrase) a j^irU 
poiiori : the name of the ' predominant partner ' was applied 
for convenience to the whole partnership. In the strictest 
sense, it is incorrect ; but in names usage is everything, and 

' In this cue the man (a soldier of the praetorian gnarri) calls himself %vpot, 
' Quoted by Le Blant, Inser, ChrSt, de la Oauh, i. p. 328, from t. Ill Gorii 
Etr. p. zxxTi (inaccessible to me) : probably same as Kaibel no. 2306. 

' Kaibel puts it among the ' ftilse or suspected ' no. 70 : and it depends on 
Ligorio*s testimony alune. But there is nothing suspicious in the inscription ; 
rather its peculiarities are such as were not likely to occur to a forger, and tell 
in favour of its antlienticity. All Ligorio*8 inscriptions are not spurious by any 
means ; though those that rest only on his authority are always suspicious. 

the ' Galatic Territory' of Acts. 25 

when a name, however incorrect in origin, becomes usnal, it 
becomes correct. Hence, even thoagh the name Galatia were 
simply that of the predominant partner applied loosely to the 
whole province, we have in the case of Syria a proof that 
the name a parte potiori might become habitual for the whole 
province, and the ethnic connected with the name might be 
accepted by the whole people. But I go much further than 
this. I maintain that the name Galatia was used officially 
from the beginning to denote the whole province, that the 
intention of Roman policy was to override all tribal differences 
and to force a Roman unity, under a single name, on the 
province, that this scheme was urged with all the power of 
Rome, and that the use of the Roman name was in itself 
a proof of attachment to the Roman policy. I fully grant 
that the attempt was ultimately a failure, that the native 
names outlived the Roman name, that the expansive power 
of the old Roman idea grew weaker towards the end of the 
first century, while the spirit of individuality and attachment 
to national characteristics grew stronger, and that Hadrian 
consciously and intentionally and wisely modified the Roman 
idea, so as to bring it more into alliance with the native 
character in the different countries. But in the time of Paul 
the old Roman policy was still vigorous, the people of Iconiam 
called their country the FaAanic^ ^E-napx^ia (CJG 3991), and 
it was a mark of loyalty and Roman spirit to use the Roman 
provincial designation ^ 

Moreover it is highly probable that the inclusion of Iconium 
and Lystra in Galatia is much older than the creation of the 
Roman province ; and in § 4 the facts are arrayed to show 
that the district round those cities was organized as one of the 
twelve divisions of the Galatian state (tetrarchies). 

The words of the MenologioH Sirl-etianum on Sept. 28 (hi 

* That is of course perfectly conaistent wiih using the city-ethnic, am Paul 
does to the people of Thessalonica. Ue would doubtless have addressed the 
ooDgregation of Antiooh alone, as 'Men of Antioch'; but the only common 
address postdble for those of Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra, wast 'Men 
of the province Galatia' (see § 6^. 

26 The ^Galatia' of St. Paul and 

S. 3Iarfyres fuemnt sub Dioclefiano imp. in urhe Antiochtae 
Pisidiae ex regione Phrygiae Galaficae^ sub pramde Magno) 
contain the term Phrygia Galalica, and are explicable only on 
the Soath-Galatian view : this late authority retains a scrap 
from some early and good authority, written when Antioch 
was in Phrygia Galatica. Here we find the proof complete 
in itself, even without any corroboration, that the South- 
Galatian interpretation of Acts xviii. 23 and xvi. 6 is true to 
facts, and at the same time a proof of a genuine old martyr- 
fragment in a late document. 

The following identification is doubtful, but it seems to 
deserve mention. In CIG 4006, found at Iconium, Aurelia 
Rufina of the village Golia or Golie is mentioned. In CIG 
9764, found at Rome, Dokimos is said to belong to the 
village Goloe of Little (i. e. as Kirchhofi* explains, Asiatic as 
distinguished from European) Galatia. The two villages are 
probably the same, and the exact situation was in Lycaonia, 
in the province Galatia, not very far from Iconium. If this is 
correct, we have a native of a village near Iconium defining 
his home simply as in Galatia ^. 

3. Galatae the Inhabitants of the Roman Pkovince 
Galatia. Now we come to the second question, Could the 
people of the entire province Galatia be called Galatae ? or, 
in other w^ords, Could the term Galatae be used in the sense 
* inhabitants of the province Galatia ' ? Dr. Schiirer, when he 
abandoned the first line of defence, retired to this one, saying, 
Follig undenkbar scheiut es mir^ dass Paulas^ wenn er an Leute 
in Pisidien vnd Lykaonien geschrieben hdife, diese als FoAcirai 
angeredet haben soUte. 

' Oalaciae in MS. : Acta Sanctorum^ Sept. 28, p. 563 (where this beautifal 
antique touch is misunderstood). Some will prefer GaJatiae* 

' I count thb example doubtful, not because one need hesitate to identify 
Golie and Goloe, but because ' Little Galatia * was used occasionally in the years 
following 396 in the sense of the newly-instituted division Galatia Salutaris 
(acconling to its far commoner name). But Kirchhoff is (as I believe) right. 
The Roman inscription is certainly Christian, and might perhaps be as early 
as the third century. 

the ' Gaiaiic Territory' of Acts. 27 

^'lien the distin^uiiibed historian wrote this sentence, it is 
difficult to think that he had looked into the evidence'. 
I con hardly believe tlmt any one who looks into the factu will 
deliberately maintain, that in any caae where the Romans 
designator] one of their provinces by a single name, they 
thoaght themselves debarred from using the derived ethnic 
to indicate the people of the province. Yet Dr. Blase uses 
a similar argument, gravivs aufem erraninl qui Galafaa Panli 
intellegi voluemnt hycaonat, qvippe qui a RomaiiJ* Galutiae pro- 
vinciae ettent allriiuH, neque enim {i/f millam alia) en re ex 
Lgcaoiiibvg Gain facti erant (xvi. 6). Hia argument assnmea 
that the word Galatae could not be employed by the Romans 
except on the ground of hereditary descent from the Gallii* 
invaders of Asia Minor. Neither Dr. Schiirer nor Dr. Blaes 
gives any reason for distinguishing Roman usage in this 
province from their usage in other provinces; and therefore 
we mnst suppose that they take the rule as universal for 
all the provinces, and that they believe that the ethnics 
connected with the names of Roman provinces were not used 
except on the ground of blood and descent. As almost everj' 
Roman province contained peoples of diiferent stock and race. 
Dr. Schiirer and Dr. Blass seem to be maintaining that the 
Romans were hardly ever able to express the idea ' inhabitant 
of a province ' except by a circumlocution. 

I venture to maintain, on the contrary, that to the Roman 
mind provincial division outweighed all other considerations 
gueh as blood or descent, that the Romans habitually divided 
their provinces according to convenience of administration 
with utter disregard of racial limits * ; and that they regularly 
used the ethnic conuEcted with the name of the province to 
denote the inhabitants of the province, when purposes of 
classification and definition required such a term, 

' HignpreMiun iiDoteworthj: hegiveano reuuinanci Htatea no curroboratiiig 

' Slr»bo, p. 639, oompliiini! of tha diflicully c«u«eil to tho ge<igr«|>her liy the 
Komftn disrvgnrd for oational diatioctiolUi tJ robf 'pA/^iaf«n ^ jvard ^uAa 


28 The * Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

I should have thonght that any one who considered what 
was the character of the Roman policy in subject countries 
would recognize at once the truth of this statement: the 
Roman classification and the Roman appellation were to be 
imposed on each Roman province. While it was necessary 
for the sake of clearness to use the I'ccognized geographical 
terms on many occasions, yet, in all cases where classification 
or general definition was intended, the Roman policy pre- 
scribed the use of the Roman provincial names. It is involved 
in this policy that the whole population of a province should 
be designated by the ethnic derived from the provincial name, 
and that this designation should overrule all difierences of 
nationality or local pride. The Roman unity was de- 
liberately intended to destroy the old national diflTerences 
within the province. Thus, for example, the Phoenicians of 
Carthage despised the natives of Africa, treated them as 
a conquered and enslaved caste, and scorned the name African, 
But the Roman policy intentionally comprehended all inha- 
bitants of the pro\ance Africa under the name Afri, So also 
the Greek cities of Sicily pointedly distinguished themselves 
from the Siculi or native non-Greek tribes of the island ; but 
the Romans classed the entire population for administrative 
purposes and in general definitions as Sicnfi. Similarly we 
can have no doubt that the Greeks of the Greek colonies in 
Spain and Gaul, and the Carthaginians in Spain, prided 
themselves on their difference in nationality from the native 
Spanish or Gaulish tribes ; but a Roman i*uler, or any person 
who spoke from the Roman point of view, summed all up in 
the provincial designation. Of course, the distinctions of 
local pride were long maintained, and often appear even in 
Roman writers. The same writer, who at one time and from 
one point of view summed up the population oi Sicilia Provincia 
as Siculi y would at another time and for another purpose 
pointedly emphasize the Greek character of the people in 
Syracuse or Messana. 

The following examples, which might easily be multi- 

the * Galatic Territory ' of Acts. 29 

plied ^, justify the ruse of the proper ethnic in regard to 
some provinces, where strong diversities of race and name 
are obvious. 

Afri^ the whole population of the province Africa ; Juvenal, 
viii. 1 30 ; Plinj, Epui. ii. 1 1, %, 

Sieuliy the population of Sicily ; Cicero, Terr. ii. 13, 32, AH, 
xiv. I2yl. 

Hispanic the population of Roman S|)ain ; saepis^ume. 

Bitiyni, the population of Bithynia ; Pliny, ad Traj. 79 ; 
Gaius, Imtit. i. 193. 

Baeticij the whole population of Ilispania Baetica ; Pliny, 
EjnsL iii. 9 (et laepe). 

Even NarboneHse9 (though so specially appropriated to the 
narrow and proper sense, * citizens of Narbo '), is sometimes 
used in the wider sense of ' the people of the province Gallia 
Narbonensis ' (e. g. Orosius, i. 2, 62 and 70) ^. 

Now let us take a case where the region which became 
a Roman province had no unity and no connected geogra- 
phical consistence, previous to the time when it w^us made 
a Roman province. 

The Aquitani were only one of a great number of tribes in 
South-western Gaul; yet a large region, which was made 
a Roman province, was called after them Gallia Aquifanica ^. 
Here we have to deal with a purely Roman unity introduced 
among a set of diverse triben. But the name Aquitauia * was 
applied to the province ; and the name Aquitani was used not 
only of the single tribe, but also of the whole population 
of the province. The latter usage gradually became more 

' I liATe not tried to find out examplep, hut Biinply quote some which arc 
funiliar to me, consulting De Vit on Tarraconensis, Luguduucnsis, Narhoncnsis, 
and some other names. 

• De Vit, Onomoft.j says in reference to the adjoining province Lugduncnsfs 
turn incolae ciritatis Luydnni, turn etiam Lufjdnw nsis proHnciae; but his 
examples (Vopidous, Frocnl. 13, Sidon. Sp. i, 8) are insufficient. He says 
rigl'tly aUo, NarlMtm-jufen incolae turn urlns tnm proHnciae, 

' Compare the use of Ga!aticu« in ^puyia TaXaruci^, Uuvtos TaXaTiKoSf 
TaXarite^ XOipUf FaXaTiH^ irrapxia. 

* Compare the use of Galatia for the whole province. 

yy The * Galatia * of St. Paul and 

e^imman than the old etricter and narrower ose. Finally, 
thi;re ocear even such expressions as Bitur\ge9 Aquitani, though 
Strabo, p. 191 ^» pointedly insists on the diversity of race 
between the Bituriges and the Aquitani^. 

The fact is that genealogical terms and ideas were used far 
more lootiely in ancient times than with us ; and even so late 
HH the inif>erial time in the Roman provinces the genealogical 
fiction tended to grow up. We find the term Idvos used not 
merely of the population of Lycia, where diversity of race 
(though real) was not so patent, but also of the people of 
An^ia who belonged to almost as many and as diverse races as 
the people of Galatia. An inscription of Ephesus {luscr. 
Brit, Mu9. ctccLXXXVii) uses the expression roO lOvovs tovs 
fiyfli6vait * the governors of the province Asia,"* just as the 
Lykiarchai are termed &p\ovT€s tov AvkCo^v edvovi, * archons of 
the population of the province Lycia' (Le Bas and Wadd. 
no. 1219). Again at Aphrodisias we find the expression 
iv TO) TTJs 'Acrtas iSvH (CIG 2802). In fact fj 'Ao-ta to Idvos 
translates the Latin Asia provincia (cp. Dion. Cass. liv. 30). 

There is one difference between Asia and Galatia: the 
province Asia had a far longer history than the province 
Galatia, and there was more time for usage to harden in the 
case of Asia. But in all other respects these provinces stand 
in remarkably close analogy to one another : both grew out 
of a pre-existing kingdom bequeathed to the Romans by its 
king, and both contained a great number of separate countries 
and races. And just as the name Galatia in the larger sense 
failed ultimately to permanently establish itself as a geo- 
graphical entity, so also did the name Asia fail. When about 
A.D. 295, the province Asia was broken up after more than 

^ Where be reckonB titem among tBvri vpoaKfififva rots 'Ajeviravois. 

' The same corps which is sometimes termed cohort I Biturigum is at other 
times termed eohors I Aquitanorum Biturigum, i. e. the cohort raised among 
the inhabitants of the province Aquitania (in the special district of the 
Bitariges). [The term eohors I Biturigum is inferred from Cohort II Bitu- 
rigum ; the terms eoh. Aquitanorum, coh. Biturigum, and coh. Aq. Bit. are bard 
to distinguish.] 

the 'Galatic Territory* of Acts. 31 

four centuries of esiatence, the previous names Lyditt, Phrygia, 
Caria, were at once resumed ; and the name ' Asia ' died the 
moment the Roman unity waa dissolved ; or rather it began 
a new life as the designation of a new Roman province con- 
taining parts of Lydia, and Mysia and Caria, with the Ionian 
and Aeolic coasts. 

It IB therefore natural to expect that the provincial name 
Galalia and the ethnic Ga/a/ne, FaXdrai, should have the 
same history as Asia and Aaiaitiis; and that their extension 
shoald vary exactly according to the limits of the province. 
Now we find (CIG 6541) A. 'Avruvitf 'XaKlv0<f Aaoaiwt rijs 
'Am'as ', ' to Lucius Antonius Hyacinthne, a man of Imodicea 
of Asia,' and in 6626, OvaXfpCa '0\vfi-!Jtiii, 'Airiai'^ diro Aao- 
BiKC^af, ' Valeria Olympias, an Asian from Laodicea * ' ; and 
I do not see how we can resist the evidence that, when a city 
was reckoned to the province Asia, the inhabitants were 
entitled to use, and did sometimes use, the ethnic appellation 
'Asian.' Those who deny that Gala/^e can be used in the 
same way as A»iaai ought to prove their case, and not simply 



It must be conceded, and in trying to understand the 
complex political problems of western Asia Minor, it has to 
be carefully observed, that few cases occur where the natives 
of Asia apply the Roman expression 'Aa-iavos to themselves. 
There were of course so many more eases where descent and 
actual birthplace had t* be expressed by an individual than 
those in which his province had to be expressed, that there is 
not 80 much opportunity for using 'Acrtai'os or FaAanjj in the 
provincial sense. But, apart from this, it seems clear that 
the natives used these terms in the Roman sense chiefly or 
solely when they were amid Roman surroundings or desired 
to lay some stress on the Roman idea. When Paul addressed 
hifl converts in Iconium, &c. as ' Galatae,' he was speaking as 

' Cp. CIO 651) n. 'AAi^qvoi MofiniiAiii AaoSiMH t^ 'Aelas Knd CIO 6478 
ip sfiJi Ailnv. These uicmplir)' the many piMiible \ 
oaii j§ w> slylLil by ber own family. 


2 The ' Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

a Roman citizen to members of the Roman empire ; he was 
really taking the Roman side in the social, educational, and 
political problems of the country ; and he was giving to the 
idea of the Universal Church a form which it preserved 
and made fixed (only too firmly fixed I) in the following 
centuries ^ Moreover the formal address is to ^ the churches 
of Galatia ; ' once he slips into the address ' Galatae ' in 
a peculiar apostrophe (see Church in Rom, Emp, p. 43). 

Since few cases occur where a native of the province Asia 
calls himself 'Ao-taro; (though they are quite enough to prove 
the usage and show its character), we cannot expect to find 
many examples of the word Galatae (FoAcirai) applied to the 
natives of the whole province, which did not last so long 
as Asia ; but there are a few. A single case like Tacitus, 
Ann, XV. 6, 5, Pontica et Galatarum Cappadocumque auxilia, 
is a complete answer to the above-quoted statements of 
Dr. Schiirer and Dr. Blass *. 

Again, St. Gregorius Magnus, Dialog, iv. 38^, says, Est 
ef'iam nunc apvd nos Afhanasius havriae prenhyter qui in diehns 
svis Iconii rem terribHetn narrat evenire, Ibi namque ut ait 
quoddam mona^terium T<av ToKar&v dicitur, in quo quidam 
monachus magnae distiuctionis habebafur, iam he Kai wi/l irap' 
fjfxiv TTp€(rPvT€p6s TLs 6v6fxaTi ^ ASaviarios iK rrjs \<ipas AvKaovCas 
y€v6fi€vos TToXecoy be tov ^IkovIov, oaris irpayfia (ftofi^pov iK€la-€ 
<frl avTov y€yovivai birjyelro ovrco Kiyuiv on yiovatrnipiov avroOi, 
vTtripyjE rSiv TdkaTlav Xeyofievov. The Greek, as Mr. Prender- 
gast says on the authority of Dr. Bright, is a translation made 
about a century later from the Latin original. Athanasius is 
described in Ep, vi. 66^ p. 842 (Migne, iii. 850) as presbyfero 
wonasterii Sancti Mile cui est vocabulum Tamnaco quod in 
Lycaonia est provincia constitutum, 

' See my article in Expositor, July, 1895, on Forms of Classrfication in 
Acf$, I hope soon to work out this view in an account of Paul's work in the 
eastern provinces. 

' Cp. Ann. xVn. 35, 4 hahiti ]>er Oalatiam Cappadociamque diUctva, In 
both cases it is beyond doubt that levies from the provinces are described. 

' I am indebted fur this reference to Rev. J. M. Prendergast, Oxford. 

ike ' Galalic Territory' of Acts. 33 

In the time of Gregory Iconium waa no longer in t!ie 
province Gglatia, bnt in Lvcaonia (which was conBtitnted 
a province in a.d. 374) ; but it seems improbable that a 
monastery twit FoXarwi' should have been founded near 
Iconium, imless there had been some recognized connexion 
between Iconium and the Galatae, and this connexion will 1)e 
degcribed in ^ ^. 

The KOHw FoAaTwi' founded in the time of Auguslus wus 
in all probability an association of the whole province in the 
worehip of the emperors and the spirit of loyalty to the statu '. 
To confine the aHsooiation to a jiart of the province would 
defeat the purpose of Roman policy by recognizing and per- 
petuating a division. Moreover, it is impossible to supjwse 
that one of the twelve tctrarchies was left; out of the Com- 
mune Galafnrum; and I shall in { 6 try \a prove that the 
district of Lystra and Iconium was long recognized as one of 
the tetrarchies. If thia proof is successful, I Iwlieve it will 
have to be admitted that that district formed part of the 
association which delighted in the name of Galatae. Apol- 
lonia, which was situated in the same dihtrict as Pisidian 
Antioth, but still further away from Galatia proper, built 
a temple similar to that at Ancyra, and engraved on it the 

' The HUtemi 
jet be pruTed o: 
worth making, 
■oaght. It in, 
eiiitiD^ Koifi* [ 
ti>.tar kdA (bt 

of B^inuui re«id< 
M. Perrot, Ei 
o( ft uotvi* Avuot 
But be hu not 
wheu the Reytn 

probaiblj not ii 
WM fortned bj 
difference from ' 
EpKrebiea,' and ' 

nt8 in tbie pusgntpb nr« all mere probabilltiei : none caa a> 
I lUatinct and conctaiivo eiidmoe of inncriptions ; but tliey are 
in order to aoggeat the directioa in wbiob evidence may be 
lowever. certain that the Bomaua often albiwrd a previously 
f pari of a province to survive, e. g. in Aiia the noiriv tov 17' 
tariv rof "TfrjaXiaiv siIiW The wnrr^v *(«r,ias cannot be 
itniile. It i« argued in my Cilitf ami Suhopricr 0/ Pkryjia, 
tb Mommeen'e approval), that the Koiyir tpvyiai was a society 
BDt in Phrygia. 

■plor. Arch, de la QaUslif, i. p. 199. thinks tbnt the eiistence 
i,¥a.v proves the eitstence of n seriei of toivd for each nation. 
observed that this Hoivilv \viia6rvy belong to a later period, 
im Antiochi bad been incorporated in the empire; and it is 
my RMor. Geogr. p. 37;, that the Ljcaonisn Koinon was 
istituted until the Triple Ggiarchy, Cilida-Jsauiia-Lycaoiiia, 
Antnniniii Piua. Thia E|«rchy is a good example uf the 
Galatia ' : the compound province ia always called ' the three 
A'e find loch a phraae as it7jTfi*o\tt raiv -{ tiapxwY. 

34 7^^ * Galatia * of St. Paul and 

same inscription, viz. the B.e9 Gesf-ae Divi Augu9tu It is 
proliable that this temple was a foundation of the Kowbv 
TcXaTQv in pursuance of the same patriotic and romanizing 
scheme as the Ancjran temple. 

Again, we have at ApoUonia a Greek dedicatory inscrip- 
tion dated probably a. d. 56, in which the dedicant declares 
his/7a^m, i.e. Apollonia, to be in the land of the Galatians. 
If my interpretation is correct, this inscription is conclusive ; 
but we cannot begin with proper advantage to discuss it 
until we have gone more carefully into the history of the 
province Galatia (see § 6). 

4. Estimate of the designations, * Lycaonian,* * Pisidian,' 
&c. The question must be answered by those who take 
Prof. E. Schiirer's side, By what term could Paul address his 
converts of Iconium, Lystra, &c., collectively, if he was not 
to term them Galatians ? They themselves called the official 
who was administering them about a. d. 54 * procurator of the 
Oalatic province ' ^ ; by what general term would the pro- 
curator address the population under his charge ? Surely not 
as * Phrygians and Lycaonians and Pisidians and Milyae and 
Orondeis, and so on.' Dr. Schiirer can hardly believe that 
there was no common designation by which a Roman official 
could comprehend the provincials under his charge ; yet if 
he denies that the common designation of the provincials 
was ' Galatae* men of the province, he asserts that there was 
not any even theoretical unity in the province, and that it 
was considered by the Romans themselves to be a mere con- 
geries of alien scraps^ whose people they could not designate 
by any term which included them all and them alone. I can- 
not believe that Dr. Schiirer meant this. He would surely 
allow that a Roman governor could issue an edict com- 
prehending the whole population of his province as Gaiatae, 
and excluding all who were not of the province, as Tacitus 
does An7i. xv. 6, 5. 

But if the Roman officer and the historian could use the 

> CI(? 3991. 

the * Galatic Territory ' of Acts. 35 

term, why could not the Roman Paul ? Was there any other 
anity under which Dcrbe and Antioch and Iconium could be 
summed up except the Roman unity? There was none. 
Was there any other term by which the Roman unity could 
be designated in their case except the common province? 
There was none: they were not cive% Romani, and therefore 
they had no footing in the Roman state except as provinciales. 
Do the North- Galatian theorists commit themselves to the 
declaration that Paul would not write to hi^ four churches as 
a group, that he would not regard them as a unity ? And, if 
they shrink from that extreme, what unity do they consider 
that Paul found in them, and by what designation would he 
bring out that unity ? 

The North- Galatian theorists ignore PauVs Roman char- 
acter entirely ; they apparently do not even think what must 
have been his surroundings and upbringing in the house of 
a Roman citizen, nor how powerful an influence this must 
have exerted on him. In fact, many of the so-called historical 
investigations into Paul's life and attitude and views are 
written by critics who seem not to have realized even the 
elementary fact that he must have had a Roman praenomen 
and nomeu, and that Paulus was only his cognomen. It is 
quite pardonable in the school of investigation which accepts 
Paul as essentially a religious personality, known to us by 
evidence of higher character than ordinary historical docu- 
ments, to ignore Paul's civitas\ but among the critics who 
profess to stand on the platform of pure historical investiga- 
tion, it is simply astounding to read the disquisitions on his 
names Paulus and Saul\ I know no treatise on Paul in 
which even an attempt is made to determine from the inscrip- 
tions what was the meaning of the alternative name in 
eastern provincial society (still less what was the tdple aspect, 
and what meant the triple name, of a person in a grecized 
province as (1) Roman with tria nomina, (2) Greek with 
a Greek name (usually the cognomen) \ (3) memW of 

* It most always be borne in mind that the eastern Roman provinces were 

D a 

36 The ' G alalia ' of Si. Paul and 

an IQvo^y whether Hebrew or other, with an alternative 

I formerly assorted, and I now repeat, that, even if Paul 
had been addressing his Antiochian congregation alone, it 
would have been an insult to address them as either ' Pisidians ' 
or * Phrygians ^.' Dr. Z5ckler devotes several pages, 95 f., to 
the expression of his opinion that my assertion is false, and 
that it has misled me into extremes which in his estimation 
are quite extraordinary. 

My standpoint is this : the national appellations, Lycao^ 
Phryx^ &c., were essentially extra-Roman, and placed the 
person thus designated outside the bounds of the Roman 
state. Thus, for example, they were characteristic names for 
slaves. The geographical terms, Phrygia, &c., were necessary ; 
but the national appellative was a reproach. Such was the 
legal and theoretical point of view: in practice there were 
exceptions, for the Roman empire was as much a natural 
growth, and shared as much in the necessary illogicalities of 
development, as the English race. The best way to test my 
statement is, of course, the epigraphic ; and I am fortunately 
able to avoid the tedium of an examination, by quoting 
Mommsen. He has examined with his characteristic thorough- 
ness and legal precision the Roman usage in designating 
soldiers of the legione9^ the auxilia, and the classiarii, and has 
laid down the principles regulating the variation between the 
national designation ^, Arahus, Afer^ Cillx^ Cappadox^ Balmata^ 

recr>gnized by the state as bilingaal, Greek being allowed and used as a legal 
language ; hence Greek nomenclature comes in as a complicating element. 

' I have pointed out that Pisidian Antioch was not a Pisidian dty but ir^; 
TUaiZu^ {Church in R. Emp., p. a6 ; Strah. pp. 557, 577, who says it was in 
the country of the Phrygians, p. 569) ; but Dr. Zocklor still maintains that 
its inhabitants were Pisidians. In reality there is evidence that the population 
counted themselves in origin as MagneteSf i.e. Greeks; and that the name 
' Pisidian ' would on this ground also (:ipart from the pride of a Roman 
rolonia) have offended them. 

' He expressly recognizes that the national and the provincial designations 
often have the same form, e.g. Hertnef, 1884, p. 33 Keinetwegt^ handeU es 
fieh hier um Angahe der ProvinZf wenn aueh in manehen Fallen, wie hei 
Sardftg, Conus, Throat, Dalmata, Landschafi und Proving gusammenfaUen, 

the ' Gaiatic Territory ' of Acts. 


Greeut, Biffigniig, Piftfx, Poniicw, Pamphylm, Aegyptim, 
Libffctii, Germauii*, Sardug, &c., and the deei^naHon either 
\iy province or by city (bb one of the units ^ composing- the 
province). He points out that in the view of the Roman 
state and law, the national designation is the servile designa- 
tion. Hence it is used for the ciasglarii, as those troope werr 
originally servile in character and standing. The designation 
by city or province or unit underlying the province could not 
be used for a slave or for a hortic. nor in strict usage was it 
Applied to a ciaggiarivi : the slave had no city and no iraier, 
and only a geographical designation expresses the place from 
which he has come : we Bnd race-horses called Cajipailox and 
A/er, and slaves and r/a»»iarii called Afei\ PAryx, Sj/riit, Lycao". 
It may be well to quote a few words from Mommsen, I.e., on 
this point, as it is a complete justification of my statement 
which seems so wrong to Dr. Zdckler. H'eai/en vir uni da^a, 
den reciUicAeu Wertb dvr Heimathnngahe mitteUl der Landschiifl 
in erdrieni, »o Jiangl sie ohne Zuieifel an der urspiungiieien 
l.'HfrnHieU der FlofteHiolilalen (clatnarii). Unfreie Leitte Aaien 
tine Htfimalh iia Becfiltsiniif nicil : aber die Herkunft alt ein 
factitchfs Yerhdltn'tM nclid avch iei den Sk/aven angegebeH, &c. 
(see Herme», 1884, p. 3j f.). He hod been gnided to this 
principle by a long examination of facts and details, which be 
summed up thus, ' Aho In dem Kreite des Cla»«iarier hat dir 
Ueimathangahe nach der Landicliaft ikren t'lgenl lichen SUz, and 
hleraUe'iH trill tie ah allgeweiiie iind ftsle Norm rtu/(l. c, p. 33). 

where ■ triba (h g. Bessi) wm recogniied u one of Ibe provmoi»l unit" 
(i.e. whore the Gr«ek arganiiation by cities h«d not B|ire»d), ■ mlciior wfti 
neoeMirily designated by tlie tribe u Befriu. But Lyrao w»» not a onil 
in the }i[>iTince. 

' Tt >■ of doarK tni? that in srnue csssa Itouiun uolilien are designated, not 
by Ibur jiotria (city, or olbtr iirovincial unit kb Ileiriiii), bat by tlie tfitns 
Symi, Cilii, Cnppudgit t b«t (i) these »rc exceptional cues; Mommsen 
aUbliehei the rule deBnitely; ^l) %rns, An., are to be undentuod iv 
' belongiDg to tlir province .Syriit ' (ueed perliaps becaute tlie palria was not 
hnown more aecimtely). But in tlie aerTJle designatdon, Lijena, Pkryx, Cilir, 
Capparior, Ac., uv the national names, u Moiiiiiiaca clearly recuf^iuis. 

38 The * Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

Another way in which the national designations kept a place 
in Roman usage was in the titles of cohorU% and alae of 
Paphlagones, Itnraeij and so on. But these were all auxiliary 
troops, and were therefore styled by extra- Roman names, for 
they were theoretically soldiers supplied by nations that were 
in alliance with Rome but not included in the Roman empire : 
such was their origin, and the names and theory persisted 
after the nations were incorporated in the empire. 

These are the facts in their legal aspect. In practice, of 
course, the intermediate standing of provincials as not 
Romani cive9^ as sprung from countries whose names remained 
necessarily in use, and yet as recognized members of the 
Roman state, gradually developing by half conscious process 

towards the Roman citizenship (which they finally attained 


universally under Caracalla) — that illogical half-developed 
standing caused inconsistencies and illogicalities in practice. 
But it is, as we have said, involved in the Roman idea, that 
the pre-Roman nations were non-Roman and extra-Roman. 
Slaves, who were non-Roman and extra-Roman, were designated 
by those national names^ but not free citizens (provincials 
or Romans)^ nor Roman soldiers in the strict sense. To address 
the people of a Roman colony like Antiocheia Caesareia or 
Julia Augusta Gemina Lustra ^ as ^ Lycaonians ' or ' Phrygians ' 
would have been an insult from a Roman, and a suitable 
address only from an orator who was attempting to rouse in 
them national and non- Roman (i. e. anti-Roman) emotions. 
Nothing could mark more emphatically the himmelwciie dif- 
ference between the North-Galatian theory and my point of 
view on all that concerns Asia Minor, than the words used on 
this subject by Dr. ZSckler on pp. 95-97. We look at the 
dame thing: he says * this is black'; I say 'this is white.' 
On the most fundamental points of the historical questions 
that were being fought out in the development of Asia Minor 

' The very spelling Lustra, lued on coins and inscriptions, is a claim for 
Latin character: a native city like Prymnessos used the Y even in Latin. 
Ck>lonia Lustra used Latin in its municipal acts in the first century. 

the ' Galaiic Territaty ' of Acts. 39 

about A, D. 50, we are diametrically in oppoBition. Ooe or 
other of us is hopelessly wrong: let the world of siiholars 

5. HisiomcAL Standpoint OP Till!: Nuhth-GalatianTheoiiy. 
Ou the mere point of the diOerence between geographical 
and administrative designation our opinions are as dilTerent 
as in other respects. That in geographical points the old 
names were needed and need by the Romans, I have orged 
repeatedly : only in administrative and classiH calory respects 
were the Roman terms used or useful. But Dr. Zockler, 
p. 95, appeals to CIL '^\i and 31S in such a way as to 
suggest that in them Caesennius Gallus 80-83 a. u. is de- 
signated as governor of a series of countries on a miiestone. 
That is not the case. Gallus speaks about p/ns pTotinciai-um. 
Galatiae, Cappadociae, Ponlt, Piaidiae, fajihlagoniae, L^caoiuae, 
Armeaiae Minorti. If he had merely mentioned the roads ' in 
the {umled) provinces Galatia-Cappadocia ' {see above, p. 23), 
he would have given no conception of the extent of his road- 
making operations, for the roads on the single route from 
Amnsia to Tavium might be rightly called Via» provinciarum 
Gala/iae Capjtadoetae. Here, if anywhere, geographical terms 
ate needed ; and we do not begin to realize the vast scale of 
these engineering works, until we read the sequel, Ponti, 
Piiidiae, Paphlagoniae, Li/caoniae, Amieniat Minori*. 

Much can be learned from epigrapbio evidence, if we begin 
by understanding properly the rule, and then scrutinize 
minutely the a}iparent exceptions, which will always be found 
(when carefully studied) to make the rule more precise and 
luminous. We must, however, cling hard to the single aim 
of nnderstanding the inscriptions, and not merely turn over 
the pages of the Corpus in search of evidence to demolish an 
opposition theory. But, apparently, to the North- Galatian 
theorists an inscription is an inscription and it is nothing 
more. They do not seem to me to see the inscription in its 
surroundings and accompaniments as a piece of history, nor 
to recognize the adaptation of words and names to tha 

40 The * Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

Bitnation ; while I seem to them to drive a vain prejudice 
through all obetacles^. It is, however, a little hard that 
Dr. Z5ekler should declare that there is no evidence in my 
favour. One expects that the North-Galatian critics would 
have familiarized themselves with Mommsen's dissertations 
on the subject (Hermes, 1884, 1-79, 210-234, and Ephem. 
Epigraph.- v. 159-249). It is expected that the contro- 
versialists who judge questions of Boman history should be 
familiar with Mommsen before they criticize and condemn 
the opinions of others; and give some reason beyond sub- 
jective opinion for the condemnation. I may venture to 
prophecy that some critic will hereafter censure me for having 
adopted Mommsen^s views on the Roman feeling towards 
national names without due acknowledgement. As is stated 
in my preface, I have merely applied to early Christian 
history the principles which I have learned from Mommsen 
beyond all others. 

A serious and unpleasant difficulty faces me from the 
outset, especially in the case of Dr. Zockler, whose courteous 
and graceful tone in controversy deserves the most cordial 
and grateful acknowledgement on my side. My case rests 
on the belief that all my adversaries* arguments are founded 
on misconceptions about an obscure and remote country, and 
that the case is clear as noon-day when one understands the 
words of the historians and geographers. It is very dis- 
tasteful to me to say in regard to sentence after sentence 
that 'this statement derives its plausibility entirely from 
a misunderstanding of some authorities, and an omission of 
others.' Some German critics of my Iliflorieal Geography 
keenly resented two features in it, ( 1 } the strictures on errors 
made in German works, (2) the want of acknowledgement 
of what had been rightly said by previous German writers. If 
I corrected some error of a predecessor, that showed my 
malignity; if I passed his error unnoticed, that showed 

* "Man iiehif wohin das UbermdtBtg zdhe Festhalten an einer vorgtfanten 
Mwinung fuhren kann ! Btkyn Dr. Zockler, p. 95. 

the " Galatie Territory' of Acts. 41 

my disposition to borrow without auknowledgement '. If I 
now make any reply I shall only give further occasion for such 
criticism. Let me say that in the younff German travellers, 
Buresch, Wilhelm, and many others, I lind constant help, 
a full recognition of the difliculties of the subject, and a 
survey of the authorities from a proper point of view, which 
often guides others to results beyond those contemplated hy 
the writer. But these (luoliliea, which are conspicuous in 
other parts of the work of my North- Gal atian opponents, 
desert them in Asia Minor, because they do not recognize 
that tho subject ia difficult and has changed completely in 
recent years ; and they write with the prejudice of early 
ideas biassing their judgement. I regret to have to say thia ; 
but it is fundamental in the case, and, if I discuss the question, 
I must point it out I can only assure the North- Galatiaa 
theorists that 1 do not estimate their other work by what eeem 
to me to be the faults of their arguments, when they tread the 
soil of Asia Minor. In Asia Minor they seem to me, in the 
attempt to prop up their fundamental mistake about Galatiu, 
to he led on lo further and worse mistakes. Such a statement 
requires examples : I will give a specimen or two at random. 

On p. 78 Dr. ZScklcr says, that Joaepliui [JUd. Alt. xvi. 6, 2) 
fur Aitcyra diit H'oAuen voit Judtn da»ellj*t direct beznigt. That 
ia one of the old-fashioned trnluticiouB blunders, handed on 
from commentator to commentator on Act», until the dawn 
of modem scholarship ; but I did not es[)ect to find it drawn 
forth in the year 1894; no weapon, however, is too rusty for 
the North -Gal atian theorist, and this one appears not merely 
in Dr. Zoukler's article, but in the index to Dr. Sehtirer's 
Ge»ch.dt» Jid. Vo/ke» im Zeitalter Jesti C/irisd (^iHi)o),i. p. 690. 

' If any uue thiokB tliia is an unfair iweoUDt, let bim read the forty-aii 
oolunini ol Btrlintr Fhilolog. Wocht»ichri/l, 139I, that are JcToled lo the 
buok, bj ■ wiilor whose mi deitli this Biiring is deplored by every one, and 
by me hi much ai any. I bad never ibe nJvaDtage of leeing PruF. G. Hirsch- 
feld, but we exchanged a few letterg in the couree of veara ; and in Feb. 1884, 
only Ibe length of a journey frum Berlin M Konigiberg prevented me troui 

42 The * G alalia * of Si. Paul and 

If we take two of the fundamental books that every scholar 
who ventures to write a page about Asia Minor is expected 
to know and to use, Mommsen's Monumentum Ancyranum^ 1 883, 
p. X, and Waddington's Pastes de la province d'Asie, p. loa, 
we find a very different treatment of the passage (perhaps too 
bold in Waddington). 

It is rather absurd to waste time and paper in 1895 in 
stating the facts ; but one may ask the North-Galatians (who 
almost all ^ quote the passage) how the words iv ^Tricrrifxordrcp 
rrfircp ycvriOiim, fxot (i. e. to Augustus) vird rod Koivov ttjs ^Aa-Cas 
iv 'Apyvpri (where Scaliger alters the text to ^Ayicipri and 
some more recent critics to *AyKvpq) can be understood of 
Ancyra in Galatia. How could the Commune Asiae build 
a temple to Augustus in the capital of Galatia ? If Scaliger's 
alteration were accepted, we should have to understand that 
the Phrygian Ancyra was meant; but Chishull, followed by 
every one who studies Asia Minor, recognized that Scaliger 
was wrong. 

It is not surprising that the North- Gulatian theorists, 
starting from such vague conceptions as to the activity of 
the Commune Asiae in Galatia^ reach false conclusions about 
the direction of Paul's journeys and the names of his hearers. 
Even Lightfoot, who is usually so accurate, quotes this passage 
of Josephus: *in the generation before St. Paul Augustus 
directed a decree, granting especial privileges to the Jews to 
be inscribed in his temple at Ancyra, the Gralatian metropolis.' 

Throughout his whole article Dr. Zockler makes the im- 
pression, not of using his knowledge of Asia Minor to judge 
a difficult question, but of having decided the question and 
then gone to look in Asia Minor records for proofs to support 
his decision. Hence he sees only what seems to agree with 
his decision. There can I think be no other reason why he 
makes some of the statements which vex me so often. Let 
me take just one of his opening principles, which is perhaps 

* I must except Lipsiut, who is correct on this point: see his edition of 
Galaiians, p. i, in the Handkommentar turn N, T. 

the * Galatic Territory' of Ads. 43 

the most fuDiiamental |>oint in bis reasoning. He says (p. 56), 
Ldge ilieser lakauitche ]ierk-hl Uber ein eretmalige» Gelangen 
Pauli ttach tier ' Galalkchen Lanilschaft ' fur tick alleiit tor, to 
ialie ein Zweifel darau, dans Norilgalatien hier in Hede aland, 
niema /» tie A hi Id en kounen. l)ie Sac/i/age i»t go klar afs 
»ur moglick: wie 't>pvyia, 'Airla, Mwrt'o, Bidmia Lamhcioflt- 
namen iivd mcfit jioUtitche AdminUlrafivlif^eic/inuHgtiH gi!ul,gam 
eliento ?ii«»s roAoriie^ x^^P" ait/gefanil toerden. If his uUtement 
aliout •I'piiyia, 'Atrfa, &c., were right, it wonld be almost con- 
dusive! But be aseumeB three false jiremisea, which contain 
his desired result implicit. 

(i) The single phrase ' Galatiscbe Landscbafb,' so fm- from 
being in his favour, seems to me (as sfaited in my book, p. 80) 
dead against him. Dr. ZoeUler's adversary had founded his 
strongest argument on that special phrase; and Dr. Zockler, 
without meeting or even alluding to the argument, founds 
his opening argument on the assertion that that phrase is 
entirely in his own favour. That may be a telling: forensic 
stroke ; but, when used by a scholar, it rather takes one 
aback, and is hard to reply to, 

(2) 'Aoia is the name of a Roman province: on what 
ground does Dr. Zockler say that it is not an administrative 
term? Furt-her than this, I say that in every case where 
' Asia ' is mentioned by Strabo or by Pliny or by Ptolemy or 
by TacituB, it means the Roman province or a region more 
extensive than the Roman province, and not, as Dr. Zuc-kler 
assumes, one that is narrower than the province. In my book 
the possibility is conceded that Asia might be used in At-ln in 
the narrow sense ; to this concession it must now be added 
that I have failed to find any example of that narrower use in 
writers of the period ^. Ptolemy contrasts tijv fityaAjjii 'Aaiav 
the continent with riiv ibCav 'Arrlav (also rtjf iiiios KaXov(iiirt\v 
'kalatr) the province (and he uses 'Arriav simply to indicate the 
province in several places, e.g. v. 4, i ; v. 5, i). Strabo has 

' All oiauiple in quoted b; Stnbo, p. G17, from Demetrius t>f SkepKiH, ' rixjn 
lip ^ Mpor/n,' ^aiy, ' 'Aaia Mytm,' That ezkiuple 11 not alruiig. 

44 TTfc" ' (Ulatia ' of St. Paul and 

^^ nm^ t^tiVt^ between Asia the continent ^ and *\<rlav 
j^^v \^y^4r^ (jv 577) ^^ province (using 'XaUv simply to 
i«^i<«<« \\^ province on pp. 624, 628) ^ The same contrast 
4itM>f«ryi in Pliny ^ and in all the prose writers of the time 
^^hom I ha\x^ consulted. The meanings 'continent' and 
^ ^Mmvinco * are therefore the only ones possible in Acit^ if we 
^ bv tho analogy of contemporary writers. The former, of 
ooun^ funnot be thought of in Acf-s : the latter is purely 
Hflminiotrative ; it cannot be traced earlier than the Roman 
nmvinoo« and it ended the moment that the Roman province 
WHO diii7<olved. It arose in Roman usage, which designated 
Attiitus*8 kingdom as * Asia ' ; and it forced itself into Greek 
U)^ only very slowly. I am ashamed to take the position of 
leaching scholars far better than myself such elementary facts 
a« this. Sound scholarship is conspicuous in Dr. Zdckler's work 
(iVom which I have learned much) ; and only the distorting 
influence of a fundamental error could have led him to some of 
the statements which he makes about Oalatia. But even the 
best scholarship cannot give sound reasons for a false theory *, 
With regard to the narrow sense of * Asia ' as the Aegean 
coast, which I allowed in my lx)ok to be possible, I find no 
examples in authors of this period. De Vit in his Ouoniaslicon 
speaks of it thus: Strab, 14 inif. specialiter Asiam vocal 
lottiam ubi Epheius sita fuiL Ilinc et in Novo Teatameuio hoc 
nomine mepe Ionia venit, ut Luc, Act, xvi, 6, eolL ii. 9, vi. 9, 
xix. 10, XX. 16, efc,^ I Cor. xvi. 19, 2 Cor. 1. 8, i Pet. i. 1, 
Apocal. i. 4 ef 11. Among De Vit*s examples I find none 

^ 'Aa/oK vpo<rayop€vaayT(t 6ft/^i»vfio¥ rp ^jwtip^^ calling the province Abih 
with tlie same name as the continent, p. 624. In one case, p. 1 26, he seems 
to ase ' Asia ' in the sense of what we would now call Asia Minor. 

' 'Ao-iat in Slrabo, p. 618, is doabtful, bat without other confirmation it 
mu8t be taken in the usual sense. *Aairjr, p. 634, I take in the narrowest 
sense, but Mimnermus is the writer, not Strabo. 

' Except in one curious passage, noticed below. 

* Dr. Zockler's countryman Forbiger, in his Alte Oeogr., speaks quite 
sensibly about Asia, whereas my countryman, Cramer, writes vaguely and 
inaccurately. Kiepert, in his Manual of Anm'eni Qtography, makes only few 
references to Asia, bat all correct (I aasume his index to be complete). 

the * Gaiaiic Territory' of Acts. 45 

that support bim'. 'Asia' occurs twice m the first ten 
pages of Strabo's Lib. xiv : in one case we have iv SJ rij 'Airfqi 
'Aj3ii5of 'Apiff^au Waienv, where it is too ridiculous to make 
it mean ' Ionia ' ; in the other riji" ' \trlav rjjp ivroi tov Taipuv, 
i.e. 'Asia on this side Taurus,' which is larger than the 
province Asia. The usage of Adt is in dispute. If any one 
maintains that ' Asia ' iu i Cor. xvi. 1 9, i Pet. 1. 1 , Apocal. 
i. 4 and 1 1 means Ionia, it is vain to argue witb him. 

Of course the poets are not included in my survey. We 
spfak of the usage of prose authors. 

It neeil hardly be added that iu the inscriptions of Ionia, 
Lydia, Curia, Phrygia, in Ihe early centuries of our era, the term 
' Asia ' often occurs, and regularly in the sense of the province. 
But the North-Galatian theorists insist that the language of 
Ac/t is not like that current in the country ; and the odd thing 
is that they insist upon it as a self-evident and axiomatic faot, 
that the author of Acis must have used his terms in his own 
unexampled way, and they never dream of supporting their con- 
tention by quoting any similar usnge (except Pliny v. 28 [102]). 

We must consider the hard passage of Pliny, v. 28 (102), 
which ISlasB on Acta xvi. 6-8 considers to warrant the 
uoncluKion that ' Asia ' ordinarily denotes Mgxiam, loniatii, 
Lydiam, Cariam, Tkn/gia iamen exclu^a. They run thus, 
■ from TelmessoB (begins)^ the Asiatic or Carpathian Sea and 
Asia in the strict sense. Agrippa divided it (i.e. Asia) into 
two parts: one of these parts he enclosed on the east by 
Phrygia, Lycaonia, on the west by the Aegean Sea, on the 
Bouth by the Egyptian Sea, on the north by Paphlagoniu . . . 
The other he marked olT on the east by Armenia Minor, on 
the west by Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, on the north by 
the Pontic Province, on the south by the Pamphylian Sea.' 
This is hard to understand on any theory, Bluss understands 
that the first part was ordinarily called 'Asia,' and that it 

' Dion ClUtill^ 38, j8, iprkk* of tlio country detarilwd by De Vit, bot c 
unly indicstc it by ■ circa mlocution : 4 'Affia 4 nfH -rifr 'lairiar. 
' Fliny, v. iQi, quae LyBiuvi Jlnii Itlmremt, 

46 The * Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

contained Mygia, Ionia, Lydia, Caria: he does not explain 
how this part can be bounded by Paphlagonia, nor how 
Phrygia can be a boundary of both parts (surely if it bounds 
the one, it must be in the other). To be brief about a passage 
that would need a long discussion ^, it may be said that Pliny 
seems here to give a confused account derived from an au- 
thority who distinguished the province Asia {quae proprie 
vocaiur Asia) as bounded on the east by Phrygia Galatica, 
Lycaonia, [Galatia], on the north by Paphlagonia, [Bithynia], 
from Asia in the sense of Asia Minor ; and that Pliny's first 
part is the provinces Asia and Lycia and Pamphylia and 
Bithynia taken together and badly defined, and his second 
part is got by subtracting this from Asia in the sense of Asia 
Minor. But I see no possibility of taking either part in the 
sense of Mysia, Ionia, Lydia, Caria, as Dr. Blass assumes. 

(3) Bithynia was both a Landschaffsname and a politische 
Adminisirativbezeichnung : and its extent in the former sense 
is nearly the same as in the latter. Dr. Zockler assumes as 
self-evident that Acts uses it in the former. I have argued 
in Expository July, 1895, that Act^ uses it in the latter. At 
any rate I have given reasons : Dr. Zockler assumes. 

(4) Phrygia has two uses in Acts and elsewhere. It is 
sometimes a great country, part in Asia and part in Galatia ; 
at other times it is used, either as a noun, or as an adjective 
with \<ip(iy in the sense of Phrygia Galatica. Dr. Zockler 
surely does not deny the second use as a noun in such in- 
scriptions as CIL iii. 312 and 318, which he quotes. 

6. The Lycaonian Tetrarchy. Pliny, Nat Hist., v. 95, 
says ^ : ' The Pisidians are bounded by the Lycaonia [i. e. that 
part of Lycaonia] which looks to the jurisdiction of the 

' Stnbo, p. ia6, may be used io illuatrate it. He there uses Asia almoBt 
exactly in the sense in which we nse Asia Minor, and says /voAot/icv 'Aaiar 
rairrpf liicDs Kot dftojvvfieat rp SKjf. 

' H08 [i.e. Pinidott] includit Lycaonia in Asiaticam iuriitdictionem versa, 
cnm qua eonveniunt Philomelientes, Tymhriani^ Leucolithi, Pelteni (?), 
Tyrientee (?) [rr. II. Peltkeni, Pateniy Tirietsw, Titietim, HyrienseSy Dalien- 
«e#]. Datur et tetrarciia ex Lycaonia, qua parte Qalatiae eontermina e»t. 

the ^ Galatic Territory^ of Acts. 47 

province Asia [i, e. is classed nnder the Asian jurisdiction], in 
the same eonventus with which are the people of Philomelion 
and of Tvinbrion, the Leiicolithi, the Peiteni, the people of 
Tyriaion: from Lycaonia also, on the side which adjoins 
Giilatiu, a tetmichy is furniBhed, containing: fonrtecn citieis. 
the most famous being Iconiutn. Of Lycaonia proper (as 
distingnished from Asian Lycaonia and the Tetrarchy), the 
famous cities are Thebasa in Taurus, Hyde on the frontier of 
Galatia and Cappa<locia.' 

In this passafje it is plain that Pliny distinguishes three 
separate divisions of Lycaonia, (1) a part assi^-ned to the 
province Asia, belonfjing to the eonventus of Philomelion ' , 
(3} the Tetrarchy, containing- Iconinm and thirteen other 
cities, conterminous with Galalia proper, (3) Lycaonia strictly 
so called ^ containing Thebasa and Hyde. 

What was this Lycaonian Tetrarchy * ? We can hardly 
doubt that it was nearly equivalent to the part of Lycaonia 
that was assigned to Amyntas, and afterwards made part of 
the Roman Empire (while Lycaonia ijtsa was given to 
Arcbelaus, and afterwards to Antiochns) *. But why should 

cirftiidmn JT/P, urfce odefierri'ma Icnnia. Iptiui Li/nii'niini oeUbranlur 
Ththvta IB TauTO, JJylt in eoujl»io Galaliae alque Cappiidodae. A lattre 
aulem eim tuper Pamphyliam veaiutU Thracim mbota Mili/at qaorum 
Argcaitda oppidam. Id the lul tetitence n*ii> must refer back to Piiiilia, 
wbicli is unileratuod from PUidfic In 94. The amount of Ljeaoui* ia tskeo u 
p«rentlietical, bein; merel; a itatement of the baunilur; of PJiiidiB. It ia 
inpoiaible to imdentAnJ thnt Plin^ n^g »o f&r wrong in bii topography ai to 
put tlie Milyae on the border of Ljcaoniii. 

' Apparcntl; be in bere led into loine error bji the fnct tbat a people called 
Ljcaonei Kere aettled in the eaatem parb of central Phrygia. In an inKsriji- 
tion thi> people U diitinguished aa AlURiDrii wpAs triw. If Kny part of the 
GoUQtrj utuntty culled Lycaouiit was indudeil in the province Asia, it inugt 
have been Tyriaion, whicli Pliny mention! in addition to Asian Lycaonia {if 
the text of Silliy be correct ; bat for my own part I am inclioed to read 

• I talie the exact force of Lycaonia ipta to 1« the country wliich actually 
bean the name Ljcaonia, ns distinguished from the part called Galatic and the 
part called Asiatic. 

' In the rollowiuR investigittiun it Is dlitlnguislied as ' Ibe Tetrarchy,' from 
the ordinary Gnlatian tetrareliies. 

' To Archelaos to B.C.; to Antiachus 37 *. o. See { J. 

48 The * Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

this part of Lycaonia be called * the Tetrarchy ' ? There are 
only two possible explanations of this name (so far as \ can 
judge). The first would be that the Romans gave this^title to 
the paiii of Lycaonia which was included in the province. 
Now, as is perfectly well-known, the idea of Tetrarchies was 
a peculiarly Galatian institution ; and if the Romans gave to 
part of their province the name Tetrarchy, they must have 
applied the peculiar Galatian organization to that part of the 
province, and made it Galatian in the strictest sense. That 
would suit the South-Galatian theory excellently; but I 
cannot think it is probable. 

There is no reason to think that the Roman province was 
organized according to tetrarchies ; rather the scanty evidence 
leads us to think that the tetrarchies were disused when the 
province was instituted, and that the use of the term indicates 
a pre-Roman institution. We must, I think, prefer the second 
explanation — that the Lycaonian Tetrarchy originated in the 
pre-Roman period, i. e. the Lycaonian Tetrarchy conterminous 
with Galatia proper was one of the twelve Galatian tetrarchies, 
four of which composed the territory of each of the three 

Now it is clear that this Lycaonian Tetrarchy was not 
part of the original Galatian territory, for in that case it 
would have been merged in Noiih Galatia, whereas clearly it 
was distinguished from Galatia ; and moreover, Pliny implies 
that a Tetrarchy was given or added (daiur) out of Lycaonia 
to an already existing Galatia. The Tetrarchy must therefore 
have been a later conquest^ made after the term Galatia had 
become fixed in a precise geographical sense. 

Other reasons also point to the conclusion that the Ly- 
caonian Tetrarchy was conquered by the Galatians at a com- 
paratively late period. It is clear that the conquest had not 
taken place in 190 B.C., for Lycaonia is mentioned as one of 
the countries which had belonged to Antiochus, and were 
transferred to Eumenes ^ ; and it would be absurd to as^^ign 

^ In the Citiu and Buhopria 0/ Pkrytjia (1895), pp. 285, 351, I have 

the ' Galatic Territory' of Acts. 


Lycaonia to Eumenes, if the Tetrarchy belonged to the 
Gslatians. Moreover, it is clear that the road across Lycaonia 
was in the hands of the Seleucid kings of Syria, whose 
armies marched liack and forward over it : in fact, the 
Selencid empire in Asia Minor was impossible, unless that 
road was under their power and in their territory. Their 
kingdom wonld have been severed into two practically un- 
connected parts, if the Tetrarchy had been conquered by the 

Further, the very names of the cities along the Great 
Eastern Highway, Apameia, Lyeias, Laodiueia Katakekaiimene, 
show that the route was guarded by foundations of the 
Seleucid kings. 

The conclusion is, therefore, certain : the Lycaonian Te- 
trarchy had not been conquered by the Galatians in 190 B,c, 

The history of central Asia Minor in the century that 
followed the peace and the redistribution of power in 190 b.c. 
is most oI>scuTe. Lycaonia was assigned to Eumenes, ac- 
cording to Livy and Polybius ; but there is not the slightest 
evidence that the Pergamenian kings ever ruled it. A vast 
territory had been suddenly assigned to them, and it is obvious 
that they must have found some difficulty in establishing 
their power over it'. Lycaonia was in no way useful for the 
maintenance of their empire, as it had been for the Seleucid 
kings ; and it was not a specially desirable or defensible 
country in itself, consisting chiefly of open, flat plains. More- 
over, it is certain that Eumenes was involved in frequent 
wars with the Galatae, and that he was not loyally supported 
by the Romans, who were rather jealous of his growing 
strength and success. In fact, the Romans on the whole 
rather prevented him from vigorously prosecuting the war 

heiitat^d aboat the rending Knr! the history of this episode, anil liave left the 
qiintiun npea ; but the rollowing ini'wligarion ■bowa thkt the readiug 
hf/cimiia muit be right in Livj xixiii. £4, i[, ajid Poljb. xiii. 5, 141 
though theiB i> still k potwbility (but no more) that it i> wrong in livj 
iKirlli. 39, 16, ■nil Poljb. x>ii. i'i, lo. 

' See Ciii« onJ Bithnpriet qf Pkryijia, p. Jjg. 

50 The * Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

against the Galatae. His earlier wars indeed from 190 to 
1 70 were more successful ; he conquered the Galatae, and 
obtained some regular and acknowledged rights over them ^ ; 
the altar of Zeus the Saviour, with its magnificent sculptures 
(now at Berlin), was built to commemorate his victories ; and 
Galatian horsemen served in his armies *''• But this fidr 
prospect was clouded over, owing to B;oman jealousy. The 
selfish policy of the Republic did not desire a powerful king 
in Asia ; its aim was to let the states of Asia wear themselves 
out in mutual warfare. Hence it began to favour the 
Gralatae; and when in 167 they had penetrated into the 
Pergamenian kingdom as far as Synnada, a Roman envoy 
pretended to order them to retire, and reported that they 
despised his orders. The difficulties in which Eumenes was 
involved became more serious, and in the years that preceded 
his death he was involved in frequent wars with the Galatae. 
It is highly probable that some of the tales of depredations 
committed by the Gauls in Asia must be referred to this 

We have then to answer the question, what was the fate of 
Lycaonia during this period ? Although there is no direct 
evidence, we can hardly doubt that it was plundered and over- 
run by the Galatae ; and the fact seems certain that Lycaonia, 
which was assigned to Eumenes in 190, was not in the terri- 
tory bequeathed by Attains III to the Romans in 133. We 
must, I think, conclude that the western and north-western 
part of Lycaonia passed into the hands of the Galatae soon 
after 167, and was made one of the Tetrarchies. 

In the next place, can we determine to which of the three 
tribes, Tolistobogii, Tectosages, or Trocmi, the new Lycaonian 
Tetrarchy belonged? It is obvious that, if all the tribes 
together, or one of the complete tribes, had seized this part 

^ LiTj xlv. ao speaks of the war in 167 B. 0. as Qallorum defeetiojiem, 
' Livj xliv. 13 equites Qallos, quoa Beeum adduxerat. See Van Gelder, 
Oalatarum res in Cfraeeia et Asia, p. 360 f., to whom I am much indebted in 
this inyestigation. He has collected all the authorities, and used them 

the ' Galaiic Territory ' of Acts. 


of Lycaonia, we should not expect that the territory would be 
constituted a distinct new tetrurchy, but rather that it should 
be incoqiorated as additional land in the existing tetrarchics, 
whose number was fixed. There is apparently only one way 
in which the new territiory could have become one of the 
tetrarchiea, viz. if one of the tribes had lost part of ita land 
and the new territory replaced the lost land. Now, when the 
Galatae were pressing so hard on the Pergnmenian kingdom 
to the west, it is unlikely that the western tribe, Tolistobogii, 
or the central tribe, Tektosages, would lose part of their 
land. But the tribe on the east, Trocmi, were hard pressed 
by their neighbours, both of Pontua and of Cappadoeia, 
They are more likely to have required new land for a tetrarchy, 
in compensiition for losses on the east. Let us scrutinize the 
few recorded facts. 

Fbarnaces, king of Fontus before i% and at least as late 
as 169, pressed very hard on the countries west of him '. Aa 
Van Gelder says, ' it seems probable that Phnmaces had held 
Galatia either as subject or as allied since 1H5'; and in 183 
an envoy was sent from Rome to make an arrangement be- 
tween Eumenes and Pharnaces. But, in spite of this and 
other Roman embassies and the agreements they patched up, 
war continued for some years to rage between Pharnaces on 
the one side, and Eumenes and Ariaratbts king of Cappadoeia 
on the other. In this war part at least of the Galatae were 
on the side of Pharnaces. But Eumenes and Ariiirathes 
gained the advantage in iSi, and would have certainly 
punished Pharnaces, had not the Romans interfered and 
declared that they would themselves arrange jwace — one of 
the first overt symptoms of their growing jealousy of Eumenes. 
Their orders and negotiations )>roduced no result ; and in 180 
snd 179 the allied kings Eumenes and Ariarathes seem to 
have had their own way Hnim]>eded, and a peace was con- 
cluded in 179, one of the conditions of which was that 

' The eniuing pnnigntph 19 practically va nbat 
uyi, GulataruMi tu in Gratcta tl Atia 1, Aiuiterdin 

!. p- ■»; '. 

5 2 The * Galatia ' of St. Paul and 

Phamaces shonld evacnate Galatia, and that all arrangements 
which he had made with them should be void. 

Whether or not Phamaces succeeded either at this moment 
or later in retaining some part of the Galatian territory (which 
could only be in the Trocmian country), certain it is that 
a few years later, in 164 as we learn from Polybius, the Trocmi 
were making constant but unsuccessful efforts to wrest some 
territory from Ariarathes. These efforts imply that their 
country had become too narrow for them ; and the hypothesis 
which seems to suit all the facts is that part of their countr}' 
had been seized either by Pharnaces, or by Ariarathes, or both ; 
and that after vainly tr3ring to extend themselves to the south 
into Cappadocia, they directed their efforts to the southwest 
and occupied part of Lycaonia. 

According to Van Gelder, p. 274, the dispute between 
Ariarathes and the Trocmi as to the territory on the frontier 
was decided in 160 in favour of the Cappadocian king ; and 
our hypothesis leads us to the conclusion that the Lycaonian 
territory, already overrun frequently by the Galatae in their 
long wars against Eumenes, and prostrate before them, was 
then made a part of the Galatian state, and the Lycaonian 
Tetrarchy was constituted as the fourth Trocmian Tetrarchy. 

This inference, which possesses plausibility and a certain 
degree of probability, is raised to a very much higher level 
in historical reasoning by the evidence of an inscription, 
which hitherto has not been correctly understood. It be- 
longs to ApoUonia^ a city in that part of Phrygia which was 
incorporated in the province Galatia, and which previously 
had been in the kingdom of Amyntas ; and it is dated in 
the year 247 of an era whose beginning is uncertain ^. 
A certain Sagaris placed this inscription on an altar, which 
he dedicated to the king of the gods as a thanksgiving, 
because Zeus had saved his oxen during a famine and pre- 
served the lives of men (i.e. the owners), and brought him 

1 Perhapc 190; see below. The insoription is pabliahed by M. Waddington 
M no. 119a in Le Bm'b Vwfoge Arekiologiqut^ fto. toI. iii. 

tke ' Galatic Territory' of Acts. 53 

safe to his iBtherland, the country of the Galatae, and given 
his Bon honour among the Trocnii. 

7 leai )3o'as ifipva-m, -<\rvn^s 8« ^poriav «(ra[a)iras', 

KO( PoXaraiu ya6|¥ ijyayti ^? Tiarpiha, 

via T* i)ibv Kvi^vas fvl TpoK/AOit ^adioi[tTt' 

10 ToSiieKff oil pAya h&pov iyai t6i' fiaifiov (d[i)Ka. 

It seems not open to doubt that the itarpCs which is here 

meant is the country where Sagaris erected the altar. It 

is irrational to supixiBe that he urccted in a distant foreign 

land an offering of gratitude to the god who brought him 

to his own fatherland. The allar is therefore a clear proof 

that this city of the province Galatia might he styled by 

a citizen 'his home among the Galatoe ',' i.e. 'his home in 

the province of Galatia ' : to it Zeus brought him back in 

safety when he travelled, and in it he made his thank- 

olTenDg, and there his son gained a good position among 

the Trocmi. 

Apollonia then ranked as a city of the Galatae Trocmi at 
the time when this inscription was composed. There is no 
way in which it could be classtd to the Trocmi, except 
through its contiguity to the Lycaonian Tetrarchy ; we must 
suppose that the part of Phrygia round Apollonia was added 
to the Tetrarchy, and thus became port of the territory of 
the Trocmi ; and a citizen of Apollonia who attained dis- 
tinction might be said to gain glory among the Trocmi. 

It would be of some importance to determine the date of 
this instription. Unfortunately this is uncertain. The year 
247 is given on the stone ; but the era is uncertain. 
Waddington suggests doubtfully the Phrygian era 85-4 
B.C.; but it seems improbable that a city of the province 
Galatia could hove reckoned from the era of Sulla's reorgani- 
zation of Asia. Moreover this inscription seems to me (so 
far Bs one can judge from a printi'd cpigraphic copy) to be 
hardly so late as a.d, 163-3, which Waddington's conjecture 
would make it. The possibility may be suggested that 

' One'* DoliTe rity is onu'e mttpii ms»ri!ing lo tlie re|{iiUr usnge. 

54 3^^ ' G alalia ' of Si. Paul and 

ApoUonia dated from the era of freedom 190 B.C., when it 
was released from the yoke of the Seleucid kings. It was 
then assigned to Eumenes ; but there is much doubt whether 
it ever became really subject to Pergamos ^. The same era 
190 was used at Ariassos for the same reason^. Our in- 
scription would then date a.d. 57 ; and the famine referred 
to would be the dearth ^ throughout all the world, which 
came to pass in the days of Claudius' (Acts xi. 28). That 
famine raged in Jerusalem in 46, in Rome in 51 ; but the 
inscription seems to imply that the dedicator made a journey 
after (or on account of) the famine, and erected the thank- 
offering after his safe return to his own land. This is, of 
course, all uncertain : further evidence is needed. The only 
other dated inscription of the Apollonian valley, Sterrett, 
Wolfe Exped. no. 539, affords no evidence : it suits either era, 
85 or 190*. Further, subsequent history forces us to the 
conclusion that, if Lycaonia did become a Tetiarchy, the 
change is not likely to have occurred much later than 160. 
It seems clear that, at some period during the following 
thirty years, Galatia was conquered by the kings of Pontus. 
In 129 the Roman proconsul, Manius Aquillius, sold Phrygia 
Magna to Mithridates V, king of Pontus ; and, as Van 
Gelder, p. 277, points out*, it would be absurd for the Pontic 
king to covet Phrygia, if the vast independent country of 
Galatia lay between his own dominions and Phrygia. The 
iJEict that Mithridates ruled Phrygia until his death in 120 

^ G. Hirschfeld made ApolluxuA a Pergameoian foundation: but he does 
not take into account that, if ApoUonia had been aPeigamenian city, it would 
have been included in the province Asia. The ooinB (of the Imperial period) 
honour Alexander at Founder; and Hirschfeld gives no good reason for 
discrediting their authority as to its Macedonian (i.e. Seleucid) origin. 

' See my Citiet and Bishopries 0/ Phrygiaf p. 352. 

' It must be acknowledged that in an inscription of Conana, twelve miles 
south of ApoUonia (Sterrett, 47 a), the era 190 is impossible on account of the 
praenomen Aur., which occurs twice ; the era there used is quite uncertain. 

* But the words used by Van Gelder, p. a77t are rather loose and inaccurate, 
' Galatae, cum exigua iis esset terra.' Tlie writer of these words seems not to 
have kept his eye on the map, or only to have looked at a smaU map. 

the ' Galaiic Territory * of Acts. 


implies that he also ruled Galatia, There is every proba- 
bility that the Galatae, though gometimea independeot, were 
usually subject to Pontiis from this time onwards until the 
final defeat of Mithridates VI and the reorganization of central 
and eastern Asia Minor and Syria by Pompey in 65. They 
could not at this time conquer Lycaonia : it is more probable 
that the Tetrarehy now became subject to Pootua, Thus 
a connexion was eBtabliKbed between Pontus and the Te- 
trarehy, which seems to have persisted for nearly a centur}', 
so far as we can judg« from the scanty records. In 74 B.C. 
Eumachue, the general of Mithridates VI, conquered the 
Pisidians and leaurians, and the country of Cilicia. This 
seems a senseless account, unless we understand that Lycaonia 
was already under the Pontic power, for the campaigns 
against the other countries would have to be made &om 
Lycaonia as basis of operations. 

7. My hope was in this article to bring down the history 
of the province GaJatia to the middle of the first century 
after Christ; but already the allotted limits are more than 
exhausted. The chief points that remain are these : (i) The 
activity and direction of R«mau policy on the south-eaetera 
frontier of Galatia : this needs a long discussion, as it involves 
several obscure and doubtful points, (a) The boundary of 
Galatia on the south-east : it may be said briefly that both 
Derbe and Laranda were incorporated in the province in 
A. D, 25 ; that probably, but not certainly, both Derbe and 
Laranda were included in the Realm of Antiochus, formed in 
A.D. 37 but very soon dissolved ' ; and that Derbe was 
retained in the province, and Laranda assigned to Antiochus, 
when his Bealm was restored to him by Claudius in a.d. 41. 
(3) The organization and subdivisions of Southern Galatia: 
there were probably certain Heginitet, called in Gi-eek ytsipav, 

' There ia no evideDce what were the bounds at Caltgula't gift to Antiochu?, 
unlnB Ptolemj'a deacription be interpreted nb ut it {_*x ii done in 1117 
Sutor, Oeogr. p. 373) : Ploleiiiy'i description la not Iraa of CUudioe'* gift, 
bat the Sfgnum Anliochi, ra reitored bjr CUudiiu, wu ptobably enuiller 
than Calijjula'i gift. 

56 The * G alalia ' of St. Paul and 

viz. (fl) Pisidia, {b) Isanria Cl<rav/Mici) [x«/>a] ii^ Strabo, p. 569), 
{c) Phrygia Galatdca (as distlDgoished from Phrygia Asiana, 
called ^fnxyla \fipa in Acts xviiL 23, and ^pvyta Kal TakariKri 
Xfipa in Acts xvi. 6, (d) Lycaonia Gralatica (as distingaished 
from Lycaonia Antiocliiana, called ^ FoAarifc^ X^P^ [pi^ 
AvKaovCas] in Acts xviii. 23). The fourth jRepio included two 
cities, Claudio-Derbe and Colonia Lystra, with a stretch of 
cityless territory organized on the Anatolian village-system \ 
The term Reffio was used as a Roman governmental term to 
indicate certain subdivisions of the vast province Galatia ; for 
an Antiochian inscription' mentions a kKarovripxriv p€y€ui>v<ipioVf 
i. e. a centurion who had certain duties extending over a Ee^io 
of which Antioch was the centre: according to our interpreta- 
tion this Seffio is the x<ipa mentioned in Acts xiii. 49 and 
xvi. 6. 

But though I cannot print the second half of my paper 
here, I trust that enough has been already said to prove that 
only through the general ignorance which prevails about that 
obscure and remote province could it have appeared incon- 
ceivable to any one ^ that the inhabitants of Antioch, Iconium, 
Derbe, and Lystra should be summed up as ' Galatae.' Pro- 
bably that line of defence will not be maintained ; but the 
question will in future take the form, which interpretation, 
out of two that are conceivable and possible, suits best the 
words of Acts and of Paul ? 

On that question four brief remarks may here be made, 
(i) Dr. Zockler, p. 89, represents me as saying that the old 
names Pisidia, Lycaonia, &c., passed out of use, and that Paul 
and Luke must use the Roman names only. I never made 
nor implied either of these statements : and it is only because 
Dr. Zockler has not yet made his mind quite clear as to the 
bets about Asia Minor that he could have attributed such 

^ On the DAtore of that system I may refer to CitiM and Bishopries of 
Pkrygia, i. pp. 10, 103 f., ia4f., ftc. 

' The iiiBoription is published by Sterrett, Epi^r, Journey, No. 9a. He 
¥rrongly alters his copy to read [XJctcm^^ot. 

' For example to Dr. Schurer as quoted on p. a6 above. 

the * GalaHc Territory' of Acts. 


meaning to my words. As a matter of fact Luke has never 
need VokaTla in the sense of the province Galatia : he has 
never used tlie woni at all, but has avouhd it. The adjective 
roAariKo! alone is used by him, and its sen^ is made clear by 
the inscription CIG 3991 and by PloL v. 6, 3 and 9. I might 
devote much space to this adjective ; but 1 think that, if 
Dr. Ztickler will study the use of the adjective AaKuvnciis as 
a problem in historical and political geography, he will find 
some instructive results about roAandoV. 

(2) Dr. Ztickler, p. ^^, lays a good deal of stress on the fact 
that ill Luke's account of the first missionary journey, there is 
no mention of ' Galatia.' I accept the implied chalicnge, and 
have already in print the proof that, from the first joiuTiey 
alone, the South- Galatian theory can be established: see my 
forthcoming SI. Paid: Ike traveller ami Ihe cilheii, ch, v, vi. 

(3) With many better scholars, I maintain that, in tt]v 
^pvyiaif Kal roAnriK^i' \iapav, ^pvylav must be an adjective. 
The North-Galatiana say that it must be a noun ; if so, let 
them give examples where a nonn with its adjective is con- 
nected anarthrousty by Kat to a preceding noun and article. 
We of the South- Galatian persnasion think that Kal here con- 
nects two adjectives, as e.g. Strabo calls one of the Nile-mouths 
rbbi Kavto^iKov koI 'HpoK\e(or(Koi'(p. 788), while, if two separate 
mouths are meant the order is to McvG^trtoi' oru/ia xai {to) 
TaviJiKOv (where to' is not essential, compare Acts xviii. 23). 

{4) The character of Roman policy in Galatia was such 
that Christianity at fin-t was necessarily on the same side 
with it in the great questions that were agitating society ; 
and the development of Church organization from the first 
onwards took place necessarily, perhaps unintentionally, and 
certainly inevitably, according to the existing facts of com- 
munication and political administration : see the two chapters 
just quoted from my SI. Paul. 



[F. C. CoNYBEAItE.] 

In his Evanffelia Apocrypha (Lipsino, 1876}, Tisehendorf 
separat«d two recensions of the Acta Pilati, which he called 
A and B. These rival texts tell the same story in much the 
same way, but B seems to lie a later recension or overworking' 
of A 'Withont making a detailed comparison of the two, it 
is enough in defence of this view to }>oint to the following 
pecnliarities of B. 

1. Its language is throughout more rhetorii^l and less 
simple and archaic than that of A. Professor Rendel Harris 
has pointed out that long passages of B, e.g. ch. x and xi, 
are imitated from the Iliad. Nor was Homer alone the 
writer's model, for the wailings of the Vii-gin over her Son 
recall the strains of an Euripidean cbonis. 

2. The samo thing is apparent in its handling of citations 
of the N. T. E.g. in eh. x. 1, where the A test has wtirep, 
(i^t; aurois' fiv yap oltaatv rC woioCo-ii', the B text reads : izirip, 
fxil (Ti^irijs avrois ttju afiaprCav toijtt]!/, k.t.\. 

3. B strives to harmonize itself with canonical or later texts. 
Of this we select two salient examples. According to the 
A form, the Ascension took place in Galilee from a mountain 
of which the name is spelt ixani\x,, Mambre, Malrecb, S:c,, 
in the various sources. In B ch. xiv. i, the event still 
occurs in Galilee, but from the Mount of O/tvet ^. The same 


6o Acta Pilati. 

harmonizing tendency is already seen in some Greek MSS. 
of the A form, and also in the old Latin version of A ; for it 
reads, ch. xiv. i, 'in Monte Oliveti, qui vocator Mambre 
sive Maleeh/ Similarly from the A form there is absent the 
teaching of the virginity of the mother of Christ. Twelve 
leading Jews appear before Pilate^ and meet the hostile 
allegation that Jesus was bom of fornication by swearing 
that he was the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. The B 
text however has it thus, cap. ii. 3, olha\Ltv yap on ttiv firirepa 
avTOv Maplav 6 'Iont^c^ Karci \6yov fivr}ar€Cas tbi^aro €ls rriprjaiv. 
So in B X and elsewhere Mary is called fj OeoroKos. 

4. Comparatively late theological ideas figure in B. 
E.g. ch. XV. we read as follows: oifbkv Iltsmtov d koX 6 ^\ti\(tovs 
iviarri' irporviraxrif yap tov 'Iijctov 6 Trpoi^^n;; 'HX^a; Ijv, Here 
the word irporvTrwcri; indicates a reflective stage of Christian 
belief of which there are no signs in A. 

5. The Coptic version given in a papyrus of the fifth 
century, the Latin version of parts of which there is a palimp- 
sest text at Vienna as early as the fifth or sixth century, 
and lastly the Armenian version, which was probably made in 

region of North Palestine referred to everywhere else in the Grospels, but 
A tract dose to Jerusalem, mentioned in the P. E. as wipixupos, of which word 
indeed he beUeves the name Galilee to be here the Aramaic original. He 
further sug^gests that the Mount of Olives is in the A. P. called Mamilch, 
because of its association in Israelitish history with the worship of Moloch. 
But Matt, xzvi 3a and 69, not to adduce many other passages, seem to me 
conclusive against Reaches ingenious hypothesis. As regards the A. P. the 
words in Monte Oliveti are clearly but a late gloss, for they do not appear 
in good MSS. of the earlier or A form of the text, and the Coptic and 
Armenian vendons also lack them. The gloss however, if it be one, is in 
two MSS. of the Latin A. P. of the thirteenth centory. Perhaps the Itineraries 
appealed to by Besch {Atueerean, PartUleU. p. 386) have themselves been 
influenced by so widely diffused a writing as the A. P. e. g. Resch cites 
Antonius de Cremona: 'Prope montem Oliveti est mons collateralis, qui 
olim dictus est mons offensionis, eo scilicet quod rex Salomon quondam poeuit ibi 
ydolum Moloch adorans illud. In eodem monte offensionis est locus, qui vocatur 
C^alilaea, ubi apparuit Christus discipulis suis.* May not the place in question 
have acquired among pilgrims the name of Gralilee owing to the reflex influence 
of the A. P. ? 

Ada Pilati. 


the sixth century, nil give the A text. This is good evidence 
that, that ia by far the older of the two. 

6, Another Bign of the inferior age of the B text is that it 
omits the Aramaic originals preserved in A of the words 

Kvpiov (eh. i. 4); also of the words (ch. xi. 1) tis x*'/"'s aov 
TrapaTi$<tm to Tivei'^Ld jiou. 

The Armenian version follows the A text, imd I have used 
three MSS. of it which I call a. fi, y. 

a = Ancien Fonda Arm^nien in the Biblioth^que Nationale 
in Paris, No, 44. This is a large paper codex, 520 x 332 
mill., and very heavy. It contains 501 folios. The writing 
of this codex, as appears from notices it contnins, was completed 
A.D. 1194, or 643 of the Armenian era. The writing is 
uncial, in double columns. The A. P. occupy f. 402-f. 410 
verso. This text I myself transcrihed. 

(3 = No. S8 of the same collection, a codex similar to a, but 
written on parchment in uncials of a more archaic form than 
those of a. It is not dated, bnt ia certainly an older codex 
than a. It contains 643 folios, and is 510 x 326 mill., two 
columns t* the page. The A. P. begin on f. 125. I owe my 
copy of this text to the kindness of tbe Rev. Father Car^kin 
of the Meohitarist Congregation of Venice, 

y is a more recent codex in the library of San Lazzaro, 
Venice, but well and correctly written. It gives the same texfc 
as ^. I owe my collation of it with ^ to Father Caiekin. 

In tbe following pages I give a literal rctransJation into 
(ireek of a, and a literal Latin translation of /3. There is so 
much diflerence between tbe two texts that it was too 
laborious to print one only and give the variants of tbe other 
below the text. To facilitate comparison of the two, I have 
bracketed in the Latin version of ^ all words or sentences that 
do not occur in a, and in a all passages which are simply 
absent from j3. 

I have also printed in italics those paesa^a of j3 where 


Acta Pilati. 

a has another text. Insignificant variations in the order of 
the same words I have not thus marked, but, as I follow the 
order of the Armenian words in each translation, the reader 
can for himself detect these minor variations. 

These two Armenian texts are two recensions of one and 
the same version, and their Amdamental identity is clear to 
any one who will glance over my Latin version and mark 
how much of it is the same in a. At the same time their 
difierences are not explicable as an inside growth of an 
Armenian text, but must be the result of a fresh comparison with 
Greek texts of the original Armenian version. This is proved 
by the many cases in which the peculiar readings both of 
a and j3 are reproduced in the Greeks Latin, or Coptic sources. 
Here is an example : — 

Text of a. Cap. xv. 5. 

Kal tnrrjvTri(r€v airrols Ntico- 
briiJLOs KoX Xiyei (or? clirci;)' 
€lprijrrj vyXv koX t^ 'loxnyc^. 
Kol €l(Triv€yKtp aifTovs els rdv 
KTJTTOV aifTOVy KoX {jKOVtrev &TTav 

yiiaov ''Kvva koX Kal'd^a. 
ivol^as hi NiKohriiios. 

Text of ft. Cap. xv. 5. 

Ti^ bi tiravpioVy vcLpa<rK€vri 
^V dp0pC(ra2rr€S ol apx^i€p€Ls 
Kal ol AevLToi €h tov oXkov 
NiKohrJixov €lTrav. elprivr} <roi 
Kal Ty 'Icocn/c^. Kal ri(nra(ravTo 
iWrj\ovs> Kal Xapoiv avrovs 

'^IKobrjflOS €l(Trjv€yK€V ciff TOV 

KTJTTOv avTOv' iKaOiaav iiravT^s 
Kal *l(f>(rri<f> iv fxicr<^ axnrQv. 
Kal oibels iroXfiijo-ci; Ciyrcti; 
prifid Ti. liretra eiTrev TTpos aih 
Tovs 'Ia)(ny0' tC ia-Tiv on iKfKXrj- 
Kari fie ; avrol h\ hi,av€vov(n 
rf NiKo5i//ui(p <SoT€ AaA^(ra4 
iipbs rbv 'lt»)<n)<f>. koI cIttc (or ? 
liT€iTa \iy€i) 'NiKobrifios. 

We find the peculiarities of each of these texts in other 
sources. To begin with those of a : The words ttj bi iitavpiov 
— NiKod^/utov are not in TischendorTs Greek codex C, which 

Ada Pilati. 63 

therefore agreed here with a, Kai is added before vT!-i\vTt\<Ttv 
by A C(8ee Tisehendorfs App. Crit. p. 270). The words koI 
fliriy tip, iiitv are omitted by C, but given in ABE Vatt. 
Then the reading noi r^ ' lour^^^. koI tl(riiv. is found in A alone, 
of which the text here provokes this remark of Tischendorf ; 
' A in his haiid diibie vitiosus est ; omittit enim xal t'-naf una 
earn (lpT)iii aoi, ita ut koI ru Maifnji^ cum tipt'iiTi iiuv coniungat ; 
mrsus Kal -navrl usque 'laxnj^ omittit.' I question however 
whether A has not here the right text. Then tlinivfyKtv 
oCroiIi is in A B E, but not in C which has ws j'l'fyKav avroi/s. 
Then eis tov Kij-nop airov is in C, hut not in ABE, which with 
the Latin texts read oTkoc for Kijuor, The reading ^Kovafir 
may be due to a eorniption in the Armenian text. Sirav ri 
iTvetlpioi- is read in all the Greek soureos except C which 
seems here defective ; so are the next words «oi 'Iuhtij.^)— Kaiiii^a. 
For the omission which follows of the words itai olbtU iroKfi. — 
npiif rdv 'Iuirrif4> ^ <^aD find a single and but partial parallel in 
the sources which Tischendorf arrays, namely in codex C 
of the Latin version which omits kq! tisfv 'liuo-^^- tC on 
iKfxK-^KaTf fit ; Turninfr now to /3, we find the words rj} 5< tir. 
— NiKoBij^ow in all sources except Greek C, in much the same 
form as in ;3, except that for al op^upus koI oE Aev. is read ot 
&p\iavvayu>yoi kqI 01 Upfiy koI ol Afv. : B however reads with 
y3 : oi &px_ifpfXs koI 01 A*v. After NiKofiiJ/ioti Tischendorf reads 
wr^jTijo-tc avToXs N;Ko'B>;fios Kol f'lrff fip^vrj vpXv not, words 
which ^ omits. The Greek codex C omits koX ttr.fn' dpyjuij 
ilUVt hut continues ical flTrav irphs airov oi a.p)^ttrvi'iiya^yoi Koi ol 
Upm Kol ol Atulrai. The Latin C has as follows : ' et occur- 
rerunt eis Nicodemus et Joseph et postquam salutaverant se 
ad invicem, consederunt, aedente loseph in medio Annae et 
Caiaphae.' Proceeding with the text (3 we find the words 
thop. tlp^vtf (Tot Koi r^ 'lu><n]<i> in most of the sources. Then /9 
agrees with a in rejecting the words koI TraiTt rui olKtf trov koi 
isaml tqj oUif ' l(a<n'i>l>. They are partially absent from tho 
Greek C, and wholly from the Latin C. The next words, 

64 Acta Pilati. 

fcai y\imiL<Taifro dXXifXov?, occnr in the Latin C alone. The 
next words, kqX A. av. NiKSbrjfios ela-,, are reflected in the 
Greek sources B Vatt. and in all MSS. of the Latin versions 
except Latin C. Most Greek MSS. omit Ni<c($dt7/xo9. 

We noticed that €ls rbv Kfjirov airov agrees with a and with 
Greek C. The words which follow iKiOiaav iiravrc^ koL 'loxr^c^ 
Iv ijJo-i^ avTiav agree with Latin C alone : ' consedemnt, sedente 
Joseph in medio Annae et Caiaphae ; * other texts have koX 
iKaBi(rBi\ iirav rd avv4bpiov, koI *l<aari<p iKadi(r€ fiia-ov ''kvva koX 
Kai((<^a or similar. C^r^iv in the next sentence is reflected in 
the ' interrogare losephum verbam ' found in Latin C and in no 
other MS. prj^ia rt occurs, only transposed, in Greek C. In 
the next clause irpbs avrovs is fonnd also in Greek C and Vatt. 
and in the Latin version. tI iariv Sri comes in Greek C. 
ainrol bi biav€vov(ri is reflected in the Latin version : ' illi vero 
innuerunt.' The phrase ' nt loqueretur cum,' which exactly fits 
the Armenian, but which I render by &ar€ Xakrjaai irpos, only 
occurs in the Latin version. Lastly, ft omit« the phrase 
ivoC^a? . . . rd orci/uui, for which Latin B substitutes the word 
• snrgens.* 

Such an analysis might be extended throughout the two 
texts a and fi with the same results, and it shows that, where 
a and p difier from each other, they do so, because the original 
Armenian version was compared afresh with a Greek manu- 
script and in either one or both of a and p we have the results 
of such a recension. 

From what language was the Armenian version originally 
made? From what MSS., Greek or Latin, was the recension 
made ? At what date was the version made ? Which of the 
two texts a or j3 is the older ? Of what value for the history 
of the text is the Armenian version? Here are questions 
whicb may be taken in order. 

The original Armenian version was probably made from 
Greek. If not> it is diflScult to (iccoufit for the rendering in 
ch. xii. I ' in communi monumento/ iv kmvi^ lunni^iif, found 

A eta Pilati. 

a and (3. It ie of eouree conceivable 
the Greek test, and is not the translator's mi 

t KOWI^ V 

The Greek MS. B actuaUy has k 

I this 

reading of nairiu. 
I liave 

3 passajje. 

noticed bot a sing'le marked Syriacism in the Armenian 
tert (in in. i). Moreover the text reads throughout like 
a translation of the Greek. The later recenHion was also 
made from Greek copies. For in cb. xv. i, the Greek iv -aatnX 
6filtf is translated in ^ as = 'in omnes fines,' but in a as = ' in 
omnibus montibns ' (6piio). Whichever of the two renderings 
be the result of a recension, it must have been a Greek manu- 
script from whieh the recension was made. In ch. ix. 2 in a 
we have KoraytXari, a misreading- of KaraXfytTt, where ^ has 

The date at which the version was made cnnnot ho deter- 
mined. The A. P. was the most popular of all apocrt'phs ; 
it is therefore likely to have been one of the earliest l>ooks 
tranblnted into Armenian. The style of the version is certainly 
identical with that of the Armenian Gospels ; but the text of 
the latter seems to have l«en fairly well fixed when the A. P. 
were translated, for the scrappy citations of the Gospels and 
N. T. in genera! which they contain are on the whole rendered 
in the same terms as in the Armenian Vul^t«. In the 
Greek retranslation of a I have given in heavy type all such 
citations of the Aniwni<in N. T. Such an amount of agree- 
ment is only conceivable, if the A. P. were translated by one 
familiar with the Armenian Vulgate. This latter was com- 
pleted soon after 400 a. d. ; so we have here a ' terminus a quo.' 
The A. P. were probably translated before 700 a.d., and most 
hkely before 600 a. it. For neither a nor fi nor y give the 
prologue of Ananias Protector, which was pretixed to the Acts 
in the reign of Flavins Theodosiua, and which is already 
included in the Coptic version and in the Vienna Palimpsest. 
This consideration, however, really proves no moro than that 
the AiTOenian translator used an old text which lacked this 
addition. On grounds of style, however, I would not date the 

VOL. IV, p 

66 Acta Pilati. 

version later than A. d. 650. We most not assnme that either 
a or p gives without contamination the original Armenian 
version, or that one embodies more of that version than the 
other. If the view to which one naturally leans, that the 
shorter and terser text is the earlier, be just ; then a is the 
older text. Thus in ch. ii. 4, we find omitted or at least 
absent in a the words ' ad ludaeos qui dixerunt enm esse ex 
fomicatione natum.' So in ii. 5, the words ' quoniam non est 
natus ex fomicatione/ and just below, Wiris qui dicebant 
quoniam non est natus ex fomicatione.' These words are not 
essential to the sense, and putting aside the omissions in a 
attributable to homoioteleuton, we find that in most cases 
where it is shorter than )3, it is so by the absence of matter 
quite unessential to the narrative. It may, of course, be 
said that a scribe anxious to shorten his task might have 
made such omissions ; but what is to be said of other omissions 
in a like the following ? In ii. 4, a omits ' et maleficus est ' 
{koI yiris ia-rlv), and again in ii. 6. No scribe would have 
omitted these words twice over in order to simply shorten his 
labour by removing a superfluity. Still less would he remove 
for such a reason the words in iL 4 on opfmarpa yiyovav^ or in 
ii. 4 the words koX ycip €U ra Spixaa-rpa 'loxr^^ koX Maplas 
7rapay€y6vafi€v \ It is only in a that these omissions occur, 
and we can only explain them by supposing that they occurred 
in the Greek text originally rendered into Armenian, or were 
made at a later time for dogmatic reasons. The latter alter- 
native need hardly be discussed. Any such reason as could 
have led to their rejection from the Armenian, would have 
excluded them from several Greek copies ; but they occur in 
all. Nor are they words which, being already in the version^ 
an Armenian reviser would have excluded, because he found 
them absent from his later Greek copy. To put it briefly, 
a reviser would probably supplement the text of his version 

' Cp. also omii<8ioii of the words 'Gibberosus eram,' &c., in vi. 3, where 
7 confirms a. Compare aUo the parallel omisjiions of a iu xiii. 3 and xiv. 3. 

Ada Pilad. 


fiom Greek copies coasulted afresh, but fae woald l>e little 
likely to curtail it. It is therefore probnble that □ \& the 
older form of the Armenian text. Beyond probabilil.iea, how- 
ever, we cannot go, the more ao as ^ occasionally omits im- 
portant matter found in a. £.^. in ii. i Pilate repeats in a 
the snbstanm of his wife's dream : ttoXAq yap ItioSov iv to,vTr\ 
tr[ trVKTt, hut adds KQ( iyviav (in oCios fan Kpn-fjr (livTiov aai 
vtKpup. Now it would be possible to explain the absence 
from ^ of the words jro\Ad to vvktI as the rejection of a super- 
fluity, for they have been given just above in the messBg^e of 
Pilate's wife. But the sentence koI tyvinv, K.r.A., has not been 
so given, and it is therefore no superfluity, 

We saw above that the omissions in a are, as a rule, omissions 
of matter retained in nil other sources. In the same way this 
addition, kuI lyvm', k.t-.X., is of words given in no other source. 
It is possible that it formed part of t>he orig;inal Armenian 
version, and was excluded from /3 as being an addition to the 
canonical text of Matt, xxvii. 19. In xiv. 1 there is another 
notable omission from ^ of matter found in a. The latter 
text gives, in common with the Greek and Latin sources, 
verses 15-iS of Mark xvi., as teaching delivered by Christ to 
His disciples on Mount Mambrech, just before His ascension. 
Now ;3 omits verses 17 and 18, and gives verses 15 and 16 
very imperfectly, and in such a way as to suggest that he has 
Matt, xxviii. 19 and John iiL i8 in his mind*. The reason 
of the omist^ion in is probably this, that the Armenian 
church after the fifth century rejected Mark svi. 9-30 as 
spurious ; and the author of the ^ text accordingly rejected 
so much of these verses as he could not assimilate to other 
and canonical parts of the N. T. There is no chronological 
reason why a fifth or sixth centary version of the A. P. 
should not give these verses, as they stand in the Armenian 
Vulgate; for the last twelve verses of Maik were certainly 

' The omisBion by ^ of ««I Sam 
mi Infer™ ii, 3 jTisch. p. 31;). 

lis recall* the Greek Descem 


68 Acta Pilati. 

translated into Armenian in the fifth century. Eznik, one of 
the translators of the Bible in that century, quotes them, and 
they are read in Armenian bibles which go back to an early 
age. We may therefore explain this omission in ^ as a mere 
matter of recension. Being uncanonical, these verses are 
much less likely to have been added to the Armenian A. P. 
by a recensing hand than to have been taken away. It may 
be noticed however that in the later B text of the Greek Acts vv. 
17 and 18 are similarly excluded, perhaps for a kindred reason. 

So much for the omissions and additions which characterize 
a as compared with ^. Yet another consideration in £Eivour 
of its higher antiquity may be adduced. If there be a version, 
which at any time has been revised by fresh consultation 
of the original Greek, we shall surely be able, of two rival 
texts of it, as are a and jS, to distinguish the more primitive 
1)y the survival in it of solecisms, which the revising hand 
will have removed from the less ancient text. Of this rule we 
have an example in ch. ix. 2, where Tischendorf reads icat vvv 
KaTayy4\\€T€ fiov Sti ^acrtXca /ii(rd>. Here a translates Koi vvv 
Karay^Xari fiov, *• and now you laugh at me ' ; but j8 has 
a reading which gives very good sense, and is found in the old 
Latin version : ' et nunc dicitis mihi.' Some Greek sources 
have also : ical vvv KaraKiyiri fxov. Here KaTay€\aT€ of a 
is too obviously wrong for the reviser to have substituted 
it for kiycri fiou We may conclude that a, which contains 
the solecism, is more primitive than j3, which is without it. 
It cannot, of course, be explained as a corruption which has 
grown up within the Armenian text itself. 

My object in translating a and fi respectively into Greek 
and Latin is simply to add to our knowledge of the sources of 
the text of the A. P. I have not chosen Latin as the medium 
into which to render /3, because I suppose it to be a recension 
according to Latin texts ; but merely to avoid the labour of 
a second Greek tmnslation. I preferred to retranslate a into 
Greek rather than into Latin, because many shades of 

Acta Pilati. 


meaning, eRpecially in regard to the use of tlie article, ( 
ill-rendered in a Latin dress. 

The Armenian version clearly reflects a very primitive text 
of the A. P. In analyzing' the passag'e from cap. xv. 5, we 
saw that the texts a and /3, evtn where they disagree, yet cut 
across the other sonrces; following' no one in particolar, but 
going from one to the other. This featui-e is still more 
marked in those passages wherein a and ^ agree. Tiie 
Armenian text leaps from manuscript to mancscript, from 
version to version. In a few passages I have added footnotes 
to point out the dispersion throughout other sources of readings 
lying together in the Armenian. 

The weakness of Tischendorfs Greek and Latin t«sts lies in 
this, that they are not real texts which ever existed, but 
pieced together by him from one sonrce aft«r another, according 
to his jadgement of how the text should nin. I hope that 
any one trying to unravel the interrelations of the other 
sources will find my work of use. Where the texts a and § 
coincide, we have cerlainly a witness to the text of reapectjibie 
antiquity. The narrative of the crucifixion contained in the 
Acts of Pilate '\a a rough harmony of the four Gospels. If 
they be the same Acts to which Justin Martyr and Tertullian 
allude, they must contain evidence as to the condition in the 
first half of the second century of the text of the N, T. which 
should not be neglected, and which indeed merits to U' set 
alongside of the more extended harmony of Tatian, 

Here is not the place to argue the question of the 
antiqnity of the A. P. It would seem, however, that the 
lat« Bishop Lightfoot, in his anxiety to save the credit of 
Tertullian as a critic, passes a very hasty judgement upon 
the A, P". A text which at so early a date presents 

' Llghtbot, Apotl. Falieri, toI. I. p. S5 : ' ^' " " ni«t»lie tu siipposo tb«t 

h» iTartollun) qaotea the eiUnt Bpuriom ^f/a Pilali M genaine (Apol, it 'ek 

mperChrirtoPiUtoi.. . C»<«»ri tuncTiborioiiiintiBrit'). 

& M. (Apol, i. 35, p, 76 and i. .,S, p. 84). aniiniM t1i>t the 

Bomao Anduvai coDtMnad u aSdal report wn I b; PonlliuPihta iDTiberini. 


70 Acta Pilati, 

80 many varieties of reading must have had a long history 
behind it, even if we take into account the fact of its being 
popular and uncanonical. Tischendorf, in his prolegomena 
(p. Ixii ff.), adduces a continuous chain of testimony to 
the * extant forgery,' as Lightfoot terms our A. P., from 
Justin Martyr up to Gregorius Turonensis. This chain 
of testimony may also be strengthened. For example, the 
very archaic fragment of a homily De Latrone preserved in 
Armenian, and ascribed to the philosopher Aristides, author 
of the £Etmous Apology, almost certainly contains a reference 
to the Acts of Pilate, for these alone inform us that it was the 
right-hand thief who repented. For this extra-canonical 
detail we look everywhere in vain except in the A. P. ch. xii. 2. 
In Aristides de Latrone (Venice, 1878) we read : * Bemember 
me, Lord, in thy kingdom. . . . This day with me shalt thou 
be in the garden. . : . And now I pray you all, friends of 
the Christian race, to be instructed by the faith of the right- 
hand thief and to agree with him. Despise the left-hand 
one and his associates. For he held aloof from the voice of 
the crucified one, and has not in common with him the 
ancient, right-handed, and beautifully equipped mansion ; but 
has withdrawn himself to the left hand, and stations himself 


He 18 not referring to any definite literary work which he had read. The 
extant forgery wai founded on these notices of the early f&thers and not 
convenely.' The answer to be returned to this criticism is fourfold: (i) On 
any but a forced interpretation of their language Justin M. and Tertullian do 
allude to a document which they had seen. (2) Their critical sagacity need 
not have been so ample as to prevent their supposing that the extant docu- 
ment constituted the genuine Acts. Theirs was an age and school of criticism 
which believed the Enoch Apocryph to have been written before the flood, 
the prophecies of the Christian Sibyll to have been uttered in the remotest 
antiquity. (3) A Christian forger later than Tertullian would not have written 
A. P. ch. ii, (pp. 26, 27), as it stands in the A form. (4) He would not have 
represented the ascension as taking place on the Mount Mambrek or Mamelech 
in Galilee, but would have followed the canonical text which located it on the 
Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. The absence from the oldest texts of 
the A. P. of any attempt to harmonize their narrative with the canonical text 
is a sign that they were composed before the N. T. canon was fixed, i. e. before 
A. D. 150 or 160. 

Acta PUati. 71 

there. Concerning each of these robbers the expositions are 
near at hand for you^ and are constantly paraphrased and 
read aloud in the priestly books (et recognoscuntor in sacer- 
dotalibns litteris)/ This passage seems to pat back ch. x of 
the A. P. as &r as a. d. 130-150, and is oar earliest reference 
to it. Next we have the testimony — according to Tischendorf 
incontestable — of Justin Martyr and Tertullian. In the reign 
of Decius we meet with a reference to the A. P. in the Acts 
of Polyeuctes, which, though only embedded in a homily 
of about A. D. 363, seems to be in essential respects a document 
of A. D. 260 or earlier. In these Acts (see Tolyeucte daii% 
rhUtoire, par B. Aub£, Paris, i88a) Nearchus, the friend of 
the martyr, says : ' Yes, and thou mayest remember yet 
another incident . . . and this is from the history of the Lord. 
Bethink thee of the thief who was crucified on the right-hand 
side ; what did he say to the thief who was crucified on the 
left, and who reviled the Lord ? * The * history of the Lord * 
in question was probably the A. P., which in the oldest copies 
bear the title VTro/mi^/mara rov Kvpcov 'Ii;<roi; Xpiorov Trpa\d4vTa 
M TIovtCov HiXJltov. 



P. E.»Pieado-Petri Evangeliam. 

a:-:PariB Codex Armenui 4^. 

^« ,, ff f, 88. 

7 « Venice Armenian (>xlex of A.P. 

In the critical notes at the foot of page the references to Qreek, Latin, and 
Coptic sonroes are taken from the Evangelia Apocrypha of Teschendorf, 
Lipeiae, 1876. 

Square brackets in the Qreek version of a signify lacnnae due to abrasion of 
the paper of the MS. 

Round brackets in the Greek version of a mark pasHagee absent in fi. 

Square brackets in the Latin version of fi mark passages omitted in a. 

Italicised passages in the Latin of fi are those in which it presents significant 
differences uf text from a other than actual omissions or additions. 

Heavier t\pe in the Greek of a indicates a verbal identity of a with the text 
of the Armenian Vulgate. 


'TirofinJ/jiara h * fjirap ■ Ifivpoa-Ofv TlovrCov TTiAcirov ' • Ti»ch. 
(ircpl T^5 iva<rravfHia'€Ci>s * rod Kvplov fffiQv ^Iqcov ^' ^'^' 
Xpiorov) *. 

'£p frci ^pr€aicaiS€ic<ir<p 1^9 fiyfiiovlas (TifitpCov) 
5 Kataa/x>$ fia(nki(ai ^Pco/uuiiCDy icai *H/9ciSov rov vtov 
*H/>ii5ov • hs {j/jv] ^oo-tAcvs r^9 FoAiAaias * ^1; [^rwa-] ** Lu. 3. i 

Ann 2 3 T 

KaiifKirif Tfjs cipxrji avTov, koI ttj irpd'' ivvia KoXav- 
b&v ' Ap^y * firjvdi rjris fjv ciicay koI irdinmj iv viraTtCq 

Memoriae qnae fueront [de Christo] coram Pontio 
Pilato [praeside ludaeae]. 

Id aDDO oclavo decimo^ imperii Caesaris regis 
Graecorum ^^, et Herodis filii Herodis, qui erat rex 
Galilaeomm, in nono decimo imperii eias et ante 
quam ocfo kalendamm Amuy qaod in vicesimo qointo 

^ The words rendered ^ ^om might also ^ rd yip6fi9ya, F H have mpax^ivra ; 
C has K iw^ax^ri^aw. 

' fi ^oM wtpl XptOTov. ' fi adds rov i)7c/i^of r$t 'lovdaiat. 

* wtpi r. dyaoT. is absent from the Greek ; only D adds f {f ri^ dwoteoB^KMaiv 
which might underlie the Arm. 

* Xp»irrov] C adds a prologue beginning kyit 'ApoySas, Also Copt. ; but 
A D £ F 6 H I agree with Arm. in omitting it. 

* mal 'H. r. vl, 'H. cum £ Lat. ^ tf v. 4. «oX. cum A Lat 

' 'A^^7] The Arm. month '^p^^ might answer to anj Western month 
according to the year. All the Greek sources except A add 'Av^AAW after 
icaka»hS», Latin AprilU, 

* The Greek codices D £ have dicrvinuZ^itar^, The Latin codices and 
Coptic have ipptoMcubtttai^ with a. The rest of the Greek codices have 
vffvrf«ai5firdT^. ^ 7 adds Tiberti, 

74 Acta Pilati. I. i. 

'PoiJi^ov, Kol *P(w/3€Xii;oi;^ ^i' r<^ reripry fret avT^s^ 
Kol® 5voii; ^yc/xrfywr* ipxupioiv tQv 'lovdatcoy, "Avro 
ical Kat(it<f>a. Kal o<ra /mcra rbv aravphv Koi to Tridos 
Tov KvpCov, l(n'6prj<r€v Niico5ij/i09 ra y€v6ii€va vols 
ipXi€p€V(rkv Koi roh SWon *lovbaCois' {koI Ira^ev 5 
NiKii^lJLOS ^,) "Avvi^ Kol Kat(i<f>a, koi Sifuovt, koI AfiOq ®, 
(ical rofiaXii}\,) 'Iot;8as, A€vf, N€<^^oAf/i, 'AXcfaydpos 

Hromphae '^y ante Babelonis ', in quarto anno eius et 
duonim principum sacerdotam ludaeorum, Annae et 
Caiaphae. Et quanta post crucem et passionem 
domini, historiatus * est Nieodemus quae hctsL sunt 
summis sacerdotum aliisque ludaeis, Annae et Caia- 
phae et Simedni,et Dokae ^®, ludas, Levi, Nepthalim, 

* 'Poi^. K, 'Pov^.] Greek A I G C, Latin Copt correspond ; but B has 
Buttyriayov and E oiuiti entire passage. The spelling Rubellinum preserved 
in the Fasti Siculi is olosest to the Arm. 

' airrii] Arm. may also-^a^ov; £ has r$t alr^t ^vfonASos; but other 
sources have r^s 8i(uro<riO<rr9t 6Xv/ivid8of. D omits entire clause. 
' ical] other sources have M, 

* dvoiV i^.] Greek sources omit or have simpl j M ; the Latin has tub pnn- 
eifwiu aaeerdotum, 

* lar6fn[iaw usque Ni«o^/«oy] So £ which has l<n. Vim. tcI wtwp, rots lov8a/o(f 
Ktd roTs Apxttp€v<n, {rvvira^w 6 a:Ms Vttt. All the Greek sources, except 
D which omits the entire passage, add ypd/ifioatp 'EfipaXicots, So Latin and 

* In C G I, in Latin and Copt, which are nearest to Arm., Annas and Caiaphas 
and Simon and Dotha are of the number of those who went before Pilate, and 
are therefore like Gamaliel and the rest put in nom. case at the beginning of a 
new paragraph. They are, according to the Arm., the recipients of Nieodemus' 
instructions. Perhaps Ira^w is a mistranslation of awira^tv and led to the 
four first names being put in the dative. Tischendorf following A F H adds 
before "Amu the words ffv/ifioCkiow y^ voc^aorrcf ol dpxt*p*tt teaJt ol ypa/Afutrus. 

^ 7 reads Romcie. 

* An obvious corruption of Rmbellumit, * 7 reads ei hist, 

^'^ In a and the proper names as far as Ddkae are in the dative. From 
Iuda$ ihiej are in the nominative case. 


Acta Pilaii. 

(koI 'lopios) KQX a\ AoittdI ' Tuiji 'louBatwy, (kqi) i)A0oi' 
(fiitpoirBee Hiharov KarjjyopovvTfs tov aiiTov^ tttpi 
iroAAwf Tipd^fOiV KaKwi- (Atyoirej)" oiBafifi' TOi' 'IijiroSi' 
vlitv^ 'l&Kr^0* iiTTo Ma^iafi y*i'/'7)fl^i'ra^, kuI At'yfi taurop 
S vldv fl*oi)" Kat fia(Ti\ta' ov hqdov h\ ToCro", a\Ad itai "Ln. jj. 
Ti trd^^ara ^t^ijXoi*', ko'i mV naTptay 6pi]tTKfiair jno_ ,y_ 
ij^ui''' (toroXiJo-ai fiovKtrai. A^y<i airo^ff 5 riiAaros' '■ 
tC loTiv' h -npitTfi ital jSoAtrai KaToACo-ai ; A^youfrir' ,,. j.' 
at 'lovBaioi' i/oVq^ «;(Dfifr iv ira^^aTif fx^ flfpaWfCirai 
lo Tira' euros 6« jjioAoyf ^"i TxjtfiKoiis " kqi TrupoAvTCtoiis "cal " 'Mai. ( i. 
XtTtpoiis, Kal fiatfioi'tfoft^uovt '* (dtpaittvafv iv cra^^dru LU.7.1J. 

Alexander '", alKjae alii ludaeomm venernnt coram 
Pilato, accuBabaot omne ^* de maltis aetioaibiis mali^. 
Novimiis leBHm fiHum losepbi [fabri] '" ex Maria 
Datum, et dieit se filiiim Dei et regem. Et non 
Bolnm hoc, sed el Babbata digsolvit et pateninm 
relligionem noatram destruere viilt". 

Dicit illia PilatuD : Quid est qaod agit et viilt 
destruere ? 

Dieimt [illi] ludaei: Legem habemus in sabbato 
non curare aliquem ; sed ille clandoa [et prostratos], 

' ol AdhtoT) Ariu.«aJji 

' TOV abTof] A.11 othrr ■ourcei have or imply rov "Ij/iroS here. 

' villi'] 80 G ■nil Latinl ; otben add Srra before it or ifo/ia{6iittor, 

' P add* TOS T^CTOKOt. 

■ d>^ M, 7(v.] C'lim CC Copto Lalioii. 

' ou iiinv ti iBOTo] So C D G I and IiHtini. 

' v6iu>v iiiSir cum A Cnpto Latinia . . . C G om. fiiiSir. 

• tI iar,* 3] A. ■ fl ndda atrf. 

" B nddji et prmtralot. " B om. xa! before ^firpoiit. 

" x"*i>i' - ■ - *!"»'-] 80 G o'lly a-lding nal jnprow nfter xo! TWpA. The Lntin 
codieca A B reflret G, but tlie Latin C which hai elamlot eatcoi paratyliem 
IrproioK el ilarmoniotoi is the onlj iouroa which exactly agreea witli Ann. 

option of ^J^lt 
" 7 baa vmU dtit. 

•' y adda 








" All the 


eicapt « 


76 Acta Pilatu I. i. 

iiiro KaK&v irpi^toiv* Aiy€i airols 6 IliXaros' iromv 
*Mat. 9. T[pi^€^v KaK&v^ ; \4yinxnv avroi* y6r\s i(rrCv, koX ip^ 
La. 1 1. '^ &px<»yTi ' taiiM¥U»¥ JicPdXXffi T& Sai|i^Fia % Kat mvTa 
^^* adr^ diroTa<racTai \ 

17 and A^y€i avroiy 6 IliXaros' tovto oIk itrrhf iv iKoOifyrf 5 

fcOT 15 '"'^f"'^* ^#c/3(lXA€iv ri dcufufria, dXX' ip rois ^€oTs* ry 

AiycvfTip ol 'lovdoioi r^ IltXciry* i^toO/icp rd crop 
« Mat. 27. fiiy€dos &(rT€ airdp Trapaarrjpai iirl tov /SiJjiotos® cov 
J no. 10. '^^^ ixoviraTC avrot; •. itpoo'KaXta-aiiafOs 6 YliKaros rovs 10 

,g^ ' ^' fiy€[xi»v fiaa-iXia i^tria-ak; hiyovxrip avr^' ^ix€ii oif 

caecos et paralyticos, leprosos et daemoniosos curavit 
in sabbato malis operibns. Dicit illis Pilatus : qaibus 
operibus malis ? 

Dicant : Maleficus est [et Beelzebulo] principe 
daemonam eiicit daemones, et sunt omnia huic 
sabiecta. Dicit illis Pilatos : Istad non est in im- 
mando spiritu eiicere daemones, sed in deo Asclepio. 

Dieunt ludaei Pilato : Precamur tuam magnitu- 
dinem, ut veniat stet ante tribunal tuam et audiatis 
ilium. Vocavit ad sese Pilatus ludaeos et dicit ad 
illos: Quomodo possum ego vir praeses regem 
interrogare ? 

^ k4y, abroii 6 U, w, w, m, ; Kif. ain,'] cum G Copt. Latt. ..AC om. 

' All other sources add BccA^c^o^X either before or after rf» 4px<»^'> but 
C omits &px> T. 9at/i, * rf 9*9* 

' dAX' . . . *AaMkffinf] So most sources, butG E omit, and Copt, et molti Codd. 
Latini ied in virtute {nomine) deL For the plural however rois Btcts the other 
sources have rf $tf, 

' &<rrt usque itcotiaart ah-ov'] The Arm. literally ^ tt( venerit et tieUrii 
coram tribunali vo$tro et audieriiie ab illo. This oomUnes the readings of 
C G £ Copt. Latt. &aTt av. wapcurr. rf firffiarl ffov icai dKowr$^ai with that 
of D which is 6<rrc ab, wapaffr. M rov 0^fMiT6s aov ie(d k/tonrfiipmg wapa oov. 

* wpotTK, 6 n. T. 'Iov9.] So A (only adding 94 after wpocM., where others add 
teal before it) and I*t. Flor. : Adeocant ad §e Pilatus ludaeos dieU eis. 

• drij/)] Not in Greek or Latin. 

I. I. Ada Pilati. 7; 

kiyofitv aiiTov 0aaikia*, oAA' airii'' \iyn ^aiiTii'i;*. •Jno, iij 
irpo(rt:aA«T(if«cos !( * 6 FIiXoTOf tov Kovpatopa A«y" *' ft 
H*Ta iTTKiKtLas fl<T(\OrTui 6 'lljiroCl. i^fK0aiv 6 Kovp- '- 
(Twp Kol yi'u>/>(i7ar avrot" irfJoo-tKiii/ijo-tp avr^ KOt Xa^iav 
S Ti ^KtJAioi'* Tji Xtipi aiiToi ^irAwirt jja^iat* Kal kiyff 
Kvpif. i-nl TOVTov ^ Ttfpt'ndrTiiTav ' xal ttiTtKBi, on * o 
>;y</;xwj' Kohtl i7t*, IBdf r(s "* 6* oi 'louSaiDi h tTrofijicii 
d Kovpaiap^* KanKpa^av Xiyoirrts tuI FIiAiirifi'*' Siari vjril 
vfxUKiiiiJo; '^ ovK «io'^)«i)'<s airiv '* oAA' wriJ Koipaiupoi ; 

Dicnnt iUi : nos negamne de illo, (|iiod rex eat, sed 
ipse dicit de wee. Vocavit Pilatus cursorem, et dicit 
[illi] : cum modenitione iiigrediatiir lesus. 

Qaum exiitset cursor foras et agnosset illnm, ot 
IoIWds faciale in manu suo expanclit in terra et ilicit : 
Domine super hoc aitibula et ingredere intra, qnia 
vocal fe praesei. Et quiim vidissentillud'* ludaei quod 
fecit eureiir, elamavenint Pilaio et dicinit : Cur torture 
non introducebos ilium intra, eed cursore ? Nam 

■ AlyniMif uH|iie lavrir] So in gerienil C D K G C'.pl. (lur, V&tt, The Arm. 
an-iwen in particaUr Ui C E U in oniitCtug oi 'iDfloToi after auTf/, to G in 
nkdiiig airi* floaiAfa, to D in omittiiit; thai after BaeiUa. to C L) K in 
retuning oirji, to none In reading Kiyii befure ievruf instcjul nf after. 

' 6on>.tt. • add> aSrf . 

■ foatcIAiov] So D E F H, Latliii fmeiale. Otlier source* have mBAnKita. 
' !!■. X. 1 <^°"> A D «t Lacinih 

• 1>) T.] So Ijitin nprr Mnc. 

Grvfili wur 

e> bave t 

ariotu readings. 

' wiftw.] Arm. ^ine-de. 

• i f,y. «. «.] So Latin ,,. 

rt ;rfM<Ift 

001/ tt. 

ateelc bu or.1 

r mAi 

«. i 47- 

• B Um order «A. J ^7. 

'- e, 

<l.1« TOUTO i-r )» 


" natiii, usqoe niWry] Tlii« 

agreeH best 

wiih D : . 

arixpaiai' cirov 

ili T^.- 

a,>^Tar KtyorTU, Mo)t Kiurcea Imve Marl 

. ToS niA 

droi. *J-p«.t. 

So also 

uian; Liitin lources, but not all 

'» flhiui 

TOV niAilflV A(70tT<I. 

" wfwK.] The Arm. ■ord ana 

wen rather 

to fioDOHO 


■• «£« ila^iy. ai.] The Latin A 

B C C.r t 

i,n< f>r»c 

»f. <»£ met «<m 


/leUi bett antwerm to the Arm. The 

Ureek MU 

rem have JitJAf 

oof ur 

l*iX.,BaJ ilatkttir. 


78 Acta Pilati. i. 2. 

fcal yap 6 KoipfT^p d€aa'dfx€vos avrov Trpo<r€icuvria'€v avrt^ ^ 

Kal rd <f>aK€6\iov & €t\€v^ rjirXaxr^v X^M^^ '^^ eiTrcif 

airn^' Kvpi€, KokeT ce 6 rjyc^dv ^. 

'O hi riiAaros KCLXtadfitvos rdv Kovptroapa Xiy^i aim^' 

tC iTTohicras TOVTO ; \4y€L av7^ *, ore direoTeiXcifAi}!; * 5 

iyii ^ €ls ^Upovo'dXriiA irpds rbv ^Wi^avhpov ubov KaOrf^ 

yL€vov avrbv'^ iirl Svov, Koi ol TraSb€9 *lovbaC<av iKpa^ov, 

"Mat. 31. l\ovT€S kXoBous* ^i; row \€pa\v airrQv^' iX\oi bi 

' dircoTpiSKyuoK ^ tA ifuCna avTQv l[ATrpoa'0€V avrov ^ 

36 and X4yovT€S* S<S{a° Ik di|rurrois ^^* cdXoyi|fi^KOS Ss cpx^^ Ik 10 
Mat. 21. , 

3, OKop&Ti Kuptou. 

« Lii. 19. 

cursor quam vidit ilium, adoravit ilium, et faeiale quod 
habebat [in manu], expandit in terra et dixit: Domine, 
vocat te praeses. 

Vocavit cursorem Pilatus, et dicit illi : Quid fecisti 
istud ? 

Dicit cursor: Quo tempore missi sumus in leru- 
8alem ad Alexandrum, vidi ilium sedentem super 
asinum et pueri ludaeorum clamabant habentes ramos 
in manibus suis, et alii stemebant vestimenta sua 
ante ilium, et dicebant : Gloria in excelsis, beatus qui 
venis in nomine Domini. 

' airrfl So Latin. Greek omits. 

^ t ttxf^ (quod kab€bai)'\ So Latin forms add quod gerchat (or tenehat) 
in manu. But Arm. a has not in nutnu. Greek has a&roi; simply. 

* ttai (Tw€v usque 1)7.] So F H and Latin D*** et dixit ei Domine vocat te 
praeses ; but other Latin sources and rest of Greek have icai o/s fiatriXia avrbv 
wtpimLT^m ir€vofif«cv or similar. 

* has 6 Kovpffwp and om. avrf. 

* dw€<rTuXAfirj¥ ky^'\ A and Latin! have fit dH-^rciAar, other sources dwiarnXas 

* /3 om. iydf. "* has avr, mBiin, 
' tKpaiov usque airrSf^] So D and less closely the Lat. D**^. 

* l/xir. aWov] Not in Greek ; perhaps it* Lat. in via. 

^^ i6^a iv V,] This is nearest to A dfawvdL iv r. 6. The other Greek 
sources and also Latin have owaw irf, 6 iy r, i, or sindlar. But the B form 
of the Acts omits the latter and agrees with Ann. 

T. 4. 

Ada Pilati. 

'EKpaCov 01 'lov&alot xal \4yovtTiP ru Kovpaiapi: 'E/3- 
palmv ^ fiiv o\ ■naihei l^pala-rl f\f yov ', irol bi ■niiOfv tJv 
yiyvtioKtiu^ TO i\kr]vi,rTrl* ; Afyfi (atroij)* & navpa-aip' 
^ptaTTjtrd Tiva rZv 'E^paimv Ka'i (iwa* rt [icmv 8) 
5 KpaCovmv" i^pavrri; Kdmeiyos ipp-^vtvir^p fioi. Adyti 
avTols'' 6 rTiXoTos" ttSis ^Kpa^ov^ ; Atyovo'iv" airiS '"■ 
S^ii iy iJi|,LirroLE * fle^'^ Aiyfi avrois 6 [IiAaros* 
fl ifids ixaprvpfiTf ras tfxovas '* tos wapa t&v 
fcaltaiii '* Kpafo/i^fiQs^*, n' ijiiapTdr 6 Kovptraip ; oE 8( 
lo ItrldTtTirrav. 


Clamaverunt ludaei dicentes ad ctirsorem: He- 
braeoTum pneri hobraice clamabtint : sed tibi unde t6 
Romane ? Dicit ciirsor : Interro^vi quendam ex 
ludaeis et dixi : Quid clamant hebraiee ? et ille 
exposuit mihi. Dicit ei Pilatus : Quomodo elamabant 
[hebraiee]? Dic*^ ei: Gloria in excBlsis. Dicit eia 
Filatas: Si vos attestatis [ipsi] voeem quae ab 
infantibus dtcla est, quid peccavit cursor ? lUi aiit«m 

' S Tfiy 'Efip- ' fi Ufiaiar. * P oin. ^r -fiyr. 

* tai tliqua IWrp-imi] Thii ia oloeeiit lo L&tin lonrces ABC, Mpeciidl; C. 
which Imve nmle tibi gfjitUt (C om.} hoe (B ul hoe) HOtit, but the nnlcr » th-il 
of Lktin £>*' 111 OHtfin (vm c'l d'rdccua, jumHoi/a linjiHaTn AefrriKum nnrlif 
SimituI; the Arm. unitei futnrei from eiwh of the vkriouB fortnt which c!ie 

a the GFeok, ti.g. aoi from B F. the order ere! iri9iy frum A. 
7»<£iiiKiir from B, t<) iMriyitni from B F And A, alao Copt. Note tb»t the 
Latin foUowa C E, which h»yc ippaiarl injttead of JJAijviffW. 

* B om. afroTE. ' ^ hie n njxif. iind ora. Jorii' S. 

' ^ air^I. ■ B adds 'ESpmoii. • ^ \tjti. 

" Ai7. au.) So C . . . the rent «dd ol -loviaii,. 

■' Si^d usque 0«)>] The Deareat tothiBiB theLntin 'Ounna ill eioelaii.' Tlie 
Greek noitrcei have iiaami- lunSpayij. Bapovxarra. iSorai. Kiffi aitoii i 
niAaroi' Koi ri i/aavti Koi ri Xoiird Ti ippji'ti'lTOi ; Xifcvair air^ ol 'lovtiuar 
cSioaii SI), & h ToTi u^'ffToif (uAoTijpii'ot li J/ixufi'i'M if iiripOTi Kvpiou, TliB 
Latin have the name addition. The Greek AD omit the wliote pastnge 
beginniog from Xiyii aii. &TL w. Itf. 

" B "III. **v. " B rifr ftnif nir. 

" iipa(e)iirai] So Latin roeej ei verba JuHrtii ab infanlihui accUtmulnm 
. Oreek has SixStiaat. " P X«70/iiin)*. 


8o Acta Pilati. I. 5 

SAy^k^ (6 IlftAaros) T<f KovprroapC /feA^c koL &a"jT€p 
/SovAci €l(TiyaY€ avrov. 'Ex^as 6 Kovpaiap iTtoCtia-ev 
Kara rd itp&Tov <r\rJiJLa Koi^ k4y€i r<p 'If^o-oS* Kvpi€, 
• Mat. 27. clo'eA^c* 5ti 6 fjye^iiav • icoAei (re. 

Kl(r€kd6vTos bk Tov ^Iriaov Kai rwy iriyvwfkopiAv Kore^ 5 

XOi^ti^y TO. aCyva^ iKa^iyffov ra aiyva r^s itporopxis kavriiv 

Kal itpo(T€KVirria'av r<^ Xptorcp ^. {^Jm-ct 5e ol 'Efipaioi 

(^ ro ox^M^ ''^^ aCyvoiV, iirtp iKay^Or^a-av kcX iipwr€K6^ 

*» Mar. 1 5. vricav T<f 'IiycroC *), ir€pto'<ra»$ * iKpa^ov ° icarci rcaj; <riyvo- 

pjl . (f>6p(av. 6 h\ ITiAaros Aeyci Trpiy rovs 'louda'ovy*' oi 10 

2 3- ^av/uuiCere ttws iKayiy^av ra aCyva tcls irporoiias iavr&v ^, 

iWa KpdC^T€ Kara r&v (riyvo<t>6paiV, &air€p €l avroi 

Ixa/m^ai; "^ ; \iyov<nv ol 'lovdaioi r<^ HtKiri^' fjfulf 

tacuerunt. [Deinde] dicit ' cursori : Egredere et quo- 
modocumque vis introduc eum. Exiens cuisor fecit 
secundum prius schema, et dicit ad lesum : Domine 
ingredere, quia praeses vocat te. 

Ingresso lesu, signiferi tenebant signa et curva- 
verunt signa capita sua et adoraverunt lesum. Vi- 
dentes autem ludaei amplius clamabant adversus 
signiferos. Pilatus vero dicit ad Iudaeo3: Non 
miramini quomodo iDCui*yaYerunt signa capita sua 
[et adoraverunt lesum] ? Sed clamatis adversus 
signiferos, quasi ipsi curvaverint [et adoraverint]. 
Dicunt ludaei ad Pilatum : Nos vidimus quemad- 

' /3 roTC Kiytt and om. 6 IliK. ' fi om. /ecu. 

^ rf *l7<roi;. * oraite worda bracketed. 

* I have written lovbaiavs here and elsewhere, beoause Tiachendorfi text 
has it and it was pedantic to alter it. But it may be noticed that the 
Armenian has but one word Hreajk to render both 'loviaios and *E0p(uos and 
their derivatives. 

* /3 adds itai 'wpoo€tt&yrica» r^ *lrjcov, ^ adds Kci wpofftip&yfjaair. 

* 7 addi praeses. 

I. 5. Acta Pilati. 81 

^fhofuv ir»9 iKO^y^av ol o-iyvoifHipoi 7rpo(rKVvfi<rai^ Tf 
'Ii/o-ov. Trpoa-Kokea-ififvos i fty€fii>v^ rolvs <nyvo<f>6pcvs * Mat. 27. 
kiy€i avTois' rl oCrrois iiroii}(ror€ • ; Xiyovinv avri^' 
fifi€ii &vbp€9 ''EXXrivii ia-fitv UpdbovXoi^j vm vpotrtKV- 

5 vyi<raiJL€v aimf ; koI yap KaT€\6vT(av fifiQi; r^ aCyva 
iKipL(f>$Tio'av Kot itpo(r€Kvvri(rav rtf 'Itjctov \ 

A/yci avToU 6 ITiAotos** iK\4(a(rd€ vfuU i( vfi&v 
ipipas bvvarovi Kai KparaiovSj koX avrol KaTia\a)(nv to, 
(rCyva, kcu lb<op,€v ct iv iavroU KifATrrovrai, ^xXcfci^croi 

10 5^ ol itp€a'fivT€poi tQv *lovbaCa>v ivbpas b<ib€Ka hwarois^^ 
ava tf If iiToCriaav KaTa(T\€lv ra trlyva^ koI iari' 
Briaav^ luirpoardtv toC P^p&TOs^ row fiy4[xovos. \4yu 6 bMat.27. 
riiXaros t£ KoApa-iapc eK)3aAc avrov ^fa> tov irpoi- *'* 
TwpuHi'*, fcal €l<riyay€ avrov iti\w^ &<ns€p koL <rv 19. 

'5 fiov\€L Kal i(rj\6ov Ifw tov TtpaiToapiov 6 'lT;(ro{;( Koi Mat. 27. 

J no. 18. 

modum inclinavemnt signiferi et adoraverunt lesum. 
AdvocaDs praeses signiferos dicit eis: Quare sic 
fecistis ^ ? Dicant illi : Nos viri gentiles sumas [et] 
templornm servi : quomodo adoram«« eum ? nam 
nobis tenentibus signa curvata sunt et adoravenmt 

Dicit Pilatus synagogae : Eligite vos ex vobis viros 
potentes et fortesy et ipsi teneant signa, et yiAemns si 
ex se cnrventur. Et elegerant seniores ludaeomm 
viros duodecim fortes [potentesqae], et senos senos 
fecerunt tenere signa, et steterunt ante tribunal ^ 
praesidis. Dicit Pilatus cursoii: Eiice istum foris 
praetorium, et intromitte iterum quomodo tu volueris. 
Et exivit foras praetorium lesus et cursor««i princeps. 

' fi airf initead of r^) 'Itfff, * kiy, 6 U. rf irX^f i. 

* Kparcuobs koI Svrarot^t. 

• y/ee. tie* ' 7 om. inb. 


82 Acta Pilati. t. 6. 

6 KcAfHToap. KcX irpoaKokariiJ.fvos 6 fiytyJuav tqvs icar^- 
\ovras ra trCyva Xiyti avroXs' &iio<Ta icarci rod KalcrcLpo9y 
Sti iiip Kafi<f>$Q(nv tcL alypa fla-iSirro^ tov 'IrjoroC, ciTro- 
TffiQ ras K€<l>aXas vfiw. koI iK^Keva-fv {6 ffy^iiiip^) 
elaeXOflv {rdv ^Irjcrrwv^) iK heirripw. koX iiroCricrfP 65 
Kovpffoap Kara rd Trp&rov <r\TJfjLaj koX voWa Trap€K(i\((r€v 
6 Kovpamp rdv ^Irjcrovv^ Iva ivififj M tov (fHiKfOiXlov^ 
€la€\06vTO9 bi avTov irdkiv iKafi<l>^aav ra aiyva iv 
ka%rrols kcX irpo<r€KVvri<rav rep *lrj<rov. 

Caput II. 

*0 dc XliXaro?* Iboav ^fx^ojSo; ytvofitvos ifiovkevero^ to 

• Mat. 17. ipairrrivai ivb tov Pi^uaros •, In bk airrov ivOvyiOvaivov 

ivaarrivaif i\ yui^ adrou (m^^tv irp6$ aur&r Xcyouoa* 

Vocavit ad se praeses [viros] qui sig^a tenebant, dudt- 
qne eis: Iniavi per Caesarem, quia, si inclinant se 
signa qnando intrat lesus, amputabo capita vestra. 
Et iussit^ ingredi secunda vice. Et fecit cursort^m 
princeps ad prius schema, et multum precabatur ut 
ambularet super faciale lesus et ingrederetur. In- 
troeunte autem, iteram inclinaverunt se signa ex sese 
ef adoraverunt lesum. 

Caput II. 

Ut vero ® vidit Pilatus, extimuit, voluit surgere de 
tribunal!. Dum vero ille cogitabat surgere, uxor sua 
misit ad ilium dicens: Nihil stat tibi et homini 

* fi om. 6 ^€fiiinf. ' /3 om. t6v Irjaovv, 

* fi addi 6 *ltjirovf icat thMy. 

* The text of Mat. runa thos : KaOrjfiiyov 8^ avrov M tov firifmroSf dW<nrctXf 
rpHs airrby 4 yvi^ a^oVf \4yovaa^ fitj^iy aot leai r^ dtirai^ iicfivqf iroAAd yap 
(wa$ov <Hffi€poy tear Svap 8»* aitroy. Where for <HiiA§poy the Cop. (item Ar' 
rem.) read * hac nocte.' 

» /3 ieikfjafy. 

7 adtis prae^et, '' y^et ex sese. ' y omite. 

a. 3, 

Ada Pilati. 

fiT|B/i' vol Hal TM Siiaiui JKciru' iroXX& yAp* (KaKDv/iijii * t^ • 

vvKTi rai/TTj. 'O Si FIiAaTos irpoffKaAeirdfjiei'os flTiaiTar 

rofs [ouBai'uDs Ae'yei aurois" orSuTt on ^ yvt'^ fiov flto- 

(rej9i7s ^oTiu koi [^ioKkov)''' 'lovBai'a*. Af'youo-tf (ow-iu)*- 

S Naf, oIBajitu. Ae'yei aurots d rTiAaros' iBou i-«t^<^iv 

Itpos ifxi ^ \fyovaa' firfiir m>i kql tu Slkqlu ^KCifu. 

(-nXXi ' yip IitoSo)' ' «y TavTj) ' rjj joikt^, kai lyviiiv oTi 

oSra's ^oTi Kpiriis [urrui' khX I'^iipui') * ^. ' 

AfyoviTiv ol'lov&axoi"' T<^ Hikario^'' fiTf (iTrajitf (roi on 

lo yotjf itrriv ; Ihov &unpo-n6Ki]}j.a (77«fii^t ttj ^woiki trov '^ 

O hi WiKaroi ■npoaKoXfa&^evo'i^^ aiiTovs "Atytt aJJTu' 

ri oCrot naTofMipTupouoLv " o-ou ; oiihiv XoAeis * ; ' 

iaato" isti: iniilta enim passa sum [propter eum] in ' 
hac nocte. Pilatos autem coBvocavifc omnes ladaeos ■■ 
et dicit eis : Scitis qnia mulier mea cultrix dei est et 
Iuda«a [est ea sicut vos], Dicunt : immo ecimua. 
Dicit eis Pilatus: Ecce misit ad me [uxor mea] 
dicene: Nihil stat fibi et [homini] illi iufito: Iuda«i 
[autem reppondercnt et] dicunt Filato : Non diximae 
tibi [prius] quia ma^us est ? ecce misit Eomniam 
videndum nxori tnae. 

Filatns autem vocavit leMitn et dicit ei : Quid iati 

■ fl adds ii airir. ' $ om. /taXXov. 

' B xldii larlr Siawip i/Hit. * B om, aaTif. 

' P sdd» 4 tvrii »iDu. • B umUs from woWi down to kb) vispwr 

' rokXi f. lit.] Tho Arm. lilarally = ■ For in-ii.y nB^tuflJIi hnppcnpi lo i.«. 
o In the Ann. Vnlgale. Just uliove the Greek phnae was rendered literftllv. 
' irr.T.yvi.] SoLntin, in Anc fioile. Greek ^mplyyuKrii or Siij^tyurris. 

" BiuuBl a) ■iBviaToi a!-iMpieirTis Xiy. 

" Ai^mrir usque ntXirif) Tho L&tin is tieareit to thi>. 

" iriipoB. diique aoii] Aim. titentlly — (onmiHM dtilil uidere foennuat (hi'. 

^' fi riv 'tijffovf firr aiiToCt. 

'* tttraiii] Greek, Latin, C'>pt. luTe tAv 'Itjaavy. 

■■ 7 omit 


84 Acta Pilati. ii. 3. 

'O h\ 'Ii^o-ov; ^<rt* A ^ €lxov t^vauw cvk tip 
ikiXovv ficaoTOf ycip i^txrCav lx€i rov orSfiaTos avrov 

•Mat. 37. XoActi; iycU^d re ical icaicd* airol S\lrovrai\ 
^' *ATroKpi$4vT€9 ol irpeo-jSurcpot tQv 'lovda^cov X^yowii; 

Jxio.8.41. r^ *lri<rov' tC dirrJficda (^ficis)^ ; vpotTov Sn iic iTopvtlas 5 
y€y€vvri<r(u' beirtpov Sri iv y€vvi/ia'€i crov * Brj^XccftaiO)]; * 
^ ivalp€<n9 yiyop€W rpCrov on 6 iraTrjp a-ov 'loxr^^ xol 
^ firjrrip <rov Mapiaii fh Alymrrov iif>vyov hiorn fii^ ^l^pv 
irappri<rCav iv yiiat^ tov Xoov. 

* La. a. Aiyova-b rirc? t&p vap€aTriK6T<ap €^Xa^els** iK tQp 10 

Ac.*a. 5. *^ovbaliop' fjiifls ov X4yofi(p on fc iropPtCas yiyoP€Pf 
iXk' ofbafitp Sri iyLvr)(rTri<Taro 'Iomt^^ r^i; fi-qT^pa ovrov 
Mapl(i/u^ icai 0^ y^yivprjrai iK iroppfla^, Aiy€i 6 

testificantnr j9r(?/9^ t€? nihil loqueris? leans antem 
dicit: Si npn haberent potestatem, non loquerentur. 
Qnoniam nnnsquisqne potestatem habet oris sui loqui 
bona et mala : et ipsi videbunt. 

Besponderunt seniores ludaeomm et dicunt ad 
lesnm : Qnid videhimua ? primum qnod ex fomicatione 
natus es : seenndo qnia in nativitatem tnam Beth- 
leemensium trucidatio facta est: tertio, qnod pater 
tnus Joseph et mater tna Maria in Egyptnm 
fngitivi fnemnt eo quod non haberent fidneiam in 

Dicunt quidam qui adstabant ex ludaeis pii : Nos 
non dicimus quod ex fomicatione natus est, sed scimus 
quoniam desponsavit loseph matrem eius Mariam, et 

' /3 has ^ftc^a and om. iiiitts, 

' <K 7CV. ami] So Yen. Fabr. pro (in) nat%vit<ite tua and all Latin ■ouroet 
approximate. Greek has ij yimnjais aov or 4 (n) yiyrrfais, but E has 7cn^- 
Bivros <rov. 

' Bi/^X.] A is nearest h Brf$k€4ft. All other sources add vffw(wVf 

II. 4. Acta Pilati. 85 

^ IliAaros ^' o(no% 6 \iyos vfJL&p * iXriOrjs * ^<rrii; *, KaOci 
icol avrol Xiyovaiv ol aiveOvoi vfi&v^. Afyovcriv r^ 
IlikdTta "Avvas koI Kaii<l>as' ivav ri ttXtjOos KpiL^o\jL€V 
oTi iK ^ TTopvilas y^yivvrtrtu •, koX ov irurrcdfi;, o&roi bi 
5 iTfKHnjXvroi €{0*11^ ical fxa^ral avroO. 

A^6( IliXarof •' n iariv on irpoarjKvroC tlatv *® ; 

A^yowrir^^' 'EXXi/iHoy Wici^a iy€vvfiBr\iTaVy Koi vvv 
yry6va<ruf ^lovbaloi. 'AviKpCdriaop ol fMirr^^ Sti oujc 
iK Tropp€Cas yryivvtYraC h&^ap^^ koL 'Aaripios koI 

non est natus ex fornicatione. Dicit Piktus [ad 
ladaeos qui dixenmt eum ex fornicatione natam 
esse] : Hie sermo vester [non] est vems [quoniam 
desponsatio facta est], sicut ipsi cognati vestri dicunt. 
Dicont Pilato Annas et Caiaphas : omnis multitude 
damamus quoniam ex fornicatione natus est [et 
maleficus est] et non credis: isti autem proselyti 
sunt et discipuli eius. 

Dicit Pilatus [Annae et Caiaphae] : quid sunt 
proselyti ? 

Dicunt [ei] : Gentilium filii sunt nati et mode 
£Eu;ti sunt ludaei. Responderunt ii qui dicebant quia 
non est de fornicatione natus, Lazarius et Asterius^ 

^ UiAarof] All sources add v^r ro^ lovSoiovt roits Xfyorrof c7mu alrrdt^ ix 

' fi adds vpdt Toht lovSo/ovt ro^ \iyorras mpi airrov 6ri in vopvtias 

' V/tS»p] All sonrces add oint except A which has the qaestion : dkriBit kan 
TOVTo t6 ^fta ; 

* dX. iffnr] All sources add Sn Spfuurrfta yiywav or similar. 

* /3 o^M l<rrir dX. and adds 5ri ^p/Moffrpa yiyovay, * fi ol <n^. Ifi. \(y. 
^ 5ri U usque viarv&tis] So A and C E I (but these last transpose icat oO 

wtartfktt, tri, k.tX). Other Greek sources as B have same order as C E I 
hut read vi9rcv<SfM#a. The Latin has for ira2 o^ wurr. H mal^fieiu ui. 
' adds ei maUJloui nt, 

* A^. niX.] The Latin C alone agrees : Betpondit PUatus, 

* fi adds wp^^Atnmw mt KatiA^. ^ fi ri ti^iy wpo^rfkinoi. 
» adds a^f. 

86 Acta Pilati. ii. 5. 

'lo-oax Koi ^ 4>iXi^9 ^, Kol KplaiTO^ "^ icol ^AypCinra^ ^ Koi 
'Iot;5a9' ffiAfis TTpooiiKvToi oi yryovafifv, aXXa riKva 
^Icv^aioav ia-fi^v koI iXrj0€tap ' XaXovfitv ^^. 

Aiyti ^^ 6 Tlikaros irpbs robs bdbfKa ivbpas ^' ot tXeyov 5 
Sti oi y^yivinjiTOi Ik vopv^Cas ^'* dpKC^o) vfias Kara Trjs 
Tvxns^^ Kaforopoy ^*, c! iXriOis i<mv h ^•X^ytrc". 
AiyovfTw r^ riiXdrcp, v6px>v fypyitv yuaxaltas^^ fx^ 

Andronicus, lanopas et Zeras, Samuel, Isaac^ Unees et 
Cro9pp9 et ladas : Nos prosely id non sumos facti, sed 
filii ludaeomm samos, et veiitatem loquimur : [etenim 
in sponsalia Mariae et losephi interfuimos.] 

Convocavit Pilatos duodecim viros qui dioebant quia 
non est de fomicatione natns [dicitque ad eos] : 
Adiuro vob per vilam^^ Caesaris, si verum est quod 
dicitis [quia non est de fornicatione natus]. 

Dicunt Pilato: Legem habemus non iurare vane« 

* 'AvS^^cicot] The other aoarces have 'Ayr^ios. 
' om. KoL * fi has l^onrot. 

* fi om. ital before *laa6M, 

^ ^tktffs'] Other souroee ^trtis. * fi ^iKc^r. 

^ Kp6owot. * fi cm. imt *Ayp, 

* After XaXov/itv B G £ I Latt add : Kat yiip §ts rd opiiaarpa 'lowi^ Koi 
Maplat vapay€y6ya/uy. A omite. 

'® fi adds Kal ydip its rdi opfuiarpa Maplat icai *lejaij<f> wapaytydyafitv. 

*^ k4y€t . . iro^ckr] fi has vpoatcaXtadfitvot 6 IhXdros robs Uainca, 

" Aiytt usque 6p9pas] B C £ I Latt. and Copt, have wpoatcaKov/uvos 8i 6 
n. rob$ 9ii9. ^8., and jast below after vopcmr adds X^7ci adroTr. Bat Greek 
A has yrovt 9^ 6 TUKarot Srt dXij^ ilal rd vap* airrw Xtyo/ura, Xiyti airroit, 

^* Tisch. reads robt tMrras tn oh 7C7. Ik w. \4y€i airroit, 

^* Tvxji*] All other soarces have aajrifpias. 

** fi Tfjt (w$f Kalffapot, 

'* XiytTi] Greek, Latin and Copt, add tri ob ytyim^rai U vo^c/at. 

'^ fi adds irt 06 yfyivrqrai Ik iropvtias. 

'* luvndott] Other sources omit. 

** This answers to tha^ phrase tU r^v (on^ rov Kalmpos found in form B of 
the A. P. However the Arm. word might render aonJipia^, 

II. J. Acta Pilatu 87 

* 6fjLVV€tv •, oTi iLfjMfyrCa iarCv ^' oSroi Sfwaovaiv • 5rt • Jan. 5. 


Oavirov^^. 66. 

A^yci 6 HiKaros vpos "Avvav Koi KdiA<f>ap' ovk ^^*a*-'4- 
5 tx^ri n ^ ivoKpCvfa-Bai • ; Aiyovaiv ''Apvas koX Kaid^as 
irpis Tov YlikaTov' ol hih^Ka oiroi ^ niarevovrai *, 
^fA€?f • h\ t:Avt€s to TrKrjOos (ic/wifo/iei;) *® 5ri ix iropptlas 
^^y€yiwijTai^^ koI K4y€i iavrdv Pacn\4a ical vliv 

quia peccatum est. Isti iurent [per fortnnam 
Caesaris] quia non est istud sicut diximus, et nos rei 
simus mortis. Dicit Pilatus Annae et Caiaphae: 
Nihil habetis respondere [ad hoc]. 

Dicunt Annas et Caiaphas ad Pilatum : Hi duodecim 
eredibiles sunt [quoniam non est natus ex fornicatione], 
et nos omnis plebs ^^ quoniam ex fomicatione natus est 
[et maleficus est], et dicit se ipsum esse filium dei et 
regem, et non credis nobis? 

> fi |ij) 6/a^. /iar. ' Sri 6/a. i.] cum B Latt. Copt. . . A C E I om. 

' fi adds «aTci r$t ''^X^' Kaiaapos, 

* o^oi usqae 0av6rov agrees generally with B £ I, A and Latt. ; bat all 
these sources except A add tcar^ Trjs awrrfplas KcUaapos after 6fa6eowrip, 

^ oifH dvo/r.] Arm. literally « j»on habetit alxquid respondere f All other 
sources add vp6s ravra, 

* fi adds vp6s ravra. 

* ol 96i9. o^. WKTT.] cum B E C, item Codd. Lat. aliquot ; most Latin and 
Greek sources add quoniam non eH fiatne ex fomieatione, but Greek A and 
Latin C omit with a. 

* fi adds Srt ob ytyiyptjrcu ite wopiftias. * 4f '^^l coxup. Latin C. 
^^ fi om. icpd(, but 7 has Kiyofity. 

^ ytyiymjrai] Here BEG, item Codd. Latt. except C add teat yorjs ioriv, 
and A adds teal 6ri wXAvos iari, 
^* adds ital y6rft lariv. 

'' /3a<r. /r. vl. 9.'] The other sources have v/. 9. Koi fiao. 
** ^ has vUy $. itai fioffiKia. 
^* itai oi wiffr. i^.] The other sources have ital ob wt^rtvdfitSa, 

** 7 adds didmus. 

88 Acta Pilati. it. 6. 

(Kal)^ iKi\€V(T€V 6 lliXaTos (Airai;)^ to TrkrjOoi i(€\$€Uf 
iicrhs tQv^ bdbtKO * koL top 'irja-ovv iKi\€va€ \a)picr0fjpai ^. 
A^yci (6 riiXoToy) •• Trofy \6y(f "^ 04\ov<nv • ivoKT€UHu ; 

^ Aiyova-iv^^' Cn^ov txovaiv, Sri tv oa^^ir^ Otpa" 

A^yci 6 ITiXaros* we/)! koX&v ipyt^v^^ 04\ovcriv^ 
ivoKT€ivai ^' ; 

{Aiycva-iv airy* vcJ) ^*. 

lussit Pilatos multitudinem foris eiicere, absque 
duodecim [viris ^^ qui dicebant quoniam non est natus 
ex fomicatione] ; et lesum iussit sequestrare. 

Et dicit [eis] : Propter quant iniuriam volunt 
occidere [lesum] ? 

Dieunt [Pilato] : Zelum habent, quoniam in sabbato 

Dicit Pilatus: [ergo] propter bona opera volunt 
occidere [eum] ? 


fi om. Moi, * om. &way, 

' 9df9€Ka] All ■oaroea add r&y ilwirrw Sri o& ytyiwrirai iic wopwdus except 
C which Yariei it thus excepto XII viroi qui veritatem dicebant. 

* fi adds ioffipSiv r&v civilrrair Srt ob ytyhnnjToi itc wopt^tias. 
^ Mtdr. Iff, lir. X*] Bo all sources except A. 

* fi teat \iy, a^oTf and om. 6 TLK, * ir. X.] ^ bi^ li. 

* fi adds t6¥ li/aovr. 

' XryotMrtr] A B I Copt, add rf Uik&r^ : C E Latt. ahrf, 
"* fi adds rf DiXdrfr. 

'' w€pt M, f^7«r] The Arm. is equally compatible with vtpi icakov tpyw or wtfk 
itaXant $pycj¥, 

" BiKowrtw] Greek and Latin add cAror, 

" fi^er^o propter honum opu$ volunt occidere ipeum, 

'* fi om. kiy. ab, vai through homoioteL 

" 7 om. Tiris. 

III. I. Acta Pilati. 89 

Caput III. 

(*0WfAOV irXiy<r^€ty * •) 6 IliXaro; I^XOck Ifo) tov • Jno. 18. 
vpaiToapCov Kol X^yci airols' iiiprvpa t\(a rdv rjKiov &n ^ ' 
ni^filav ifiaprlav cdpurmi iv adrip ^\ 

^ *ATCKpiOi|aay ol 'Iov5a7oi ital cttroy r^ ITiXcir^' cl yA\ b j„o. ig, 
5 ffK KaKomH^ ^ (6 Ay0p«inros) ^ oStos, oOk &k irapcB<&KO|jMr ^^* 

^A^i^ 6 IliXaro;' \dlpm'' xal Kard t^k d|iircpaK «Jno. i8. 
Opr\aK€lav • upCrarc ®. 

* A^ouoriK * 01 *louSoiOi* ovic loTiy ^® ^fAiV ^^ (vrffws) ^* 

10 dvoKTcirai TiKa ^. <*Jno. i8. 


Caput III. 

Exit foras praetorium [Pilatos] et dicit eis : Testem 
habeo solem, quia nee onam eulpam invenio [in 
homine isto]. 

Besponderant ludaei et dicant Pilato: Si non 
eflset [hie] malefactor ^^ non tradidissemns eum 

Dicit [illis] Pilatus : Tollite [enm vob] et secundum 
legem vestram indicate. 

Dicunt [ei] ludaei : Nobis non eft fca interficeie 

A 9v. vX.] Su Latin. 

* fi 010. ^. wX. and tr. 6 U. nfter wpturwplov. 

* fi for a^f bM rf dM0p^9^ rovr^, 

* $ hm c/ ftil fy o^ros Kaicowoi6t and om. 6 drtf. 
^ 6 M.] Greek and Lai. om. 

* fi adds o^roTf after X^yfc. ^ fi adds abr^y IfAttt alter ki0€Tt, 
' fi T^ p6fu>y hitSfy. * fi Xfyovair airr^, 

'* fi ^fup obic i^tariy, 

^^ The Arm. = ' it is not for ns law io kill.* The Arm. Vulgate here«fM^»M 
nou est dtgnum (S^ior). 
'* fi om. y6fi09. 

" y^morHsreM. 


90 Acta Pilati. iii. 2. 

A^yct 6 ITiXarof ^' vylv clircv 6 dc^y /i^ * diroKrcIvat, 

• Jno. 18. * Kal cloijXOcK ci$ t& irpocTiSpiov RiXaTOS ital X^i r^ 

'IijcroO *• od et 6 (kunXcOs twk 'IouSomik • ; 
^ Jno. 18. ^*AircKpiOi| 6 *lY|oroGs* od fiiras Sti PaaiXeJs clf&i, lyid 5 

Vk €ls TouTO ycy^KnifMu xal 5ia toCto ^Xi^XuOa Xva iKfyiaaxriV 

Tiis dXY|6cias ^ '^. 

Acyci 6 ITiXaros' iXX' ivl yrjs ovk ia-riv iXriStia, 

Dicit Pilatos [Indaeis] : Vobis non dixit deus ocd- 
(fere [qaemqnam], mihi dixit ? 

[Iterum] ingressas est Pilatus praetoriam, [vocavit 
lesum secreto] et dicit ad eum : Tu es rex ludaeomm. 

Bespondit lesus^ [et dicit Pilato: A temetipso 
(or ex te) dicis istud, an alius dixit tibi de me? 
Bespondit Pilatos et dicit lesu: Numquid et ego 
Indaeus sum ? Gens tua et pontifices tradiderunt t<e 
mihi. Quidnam factum est tibi ? 

Bespondit lesus et dicit: Si ex mundo hoc esset 
regnum meum, ministri mei hoc agerent ne traderer 
ludaeis : nunc autem regnum meum non est hie. 

Dicit ei Pilatus: si hoc huiusmodi sit, erg^ tu 
rex es. 

Bespondit lesus ® :] Tu dicis, rex sum ; sed ego in 
istud quidem natus sum, et propter illud veni, ut 

* /3 adds wphis rd^ *lov9aiovs after ILAarof . 

' fi iffuv able cTrcv and om. fti). ' fi om. iceu. 

* This text awkwardly combines the reading of G I Yen. Eins. with that of 
A B Fabr. ; Tisch. reads : Koi thniXB^v w6Xtv els rh wpairitpiw 6 HiXarof leai 
i^6fyrfC€P rhv 'Ii^aovv icar I9t€» /eai ttwtv airrf. The Greek and Latin sources 
show the utmost difference of reading, but aU agree in giving tear* I81W. 

' The Latin has ut testimonium perhibeam veritati, et omn%$ qui est fx 
rtntate audit meam vocem. So A ; but B G £ I om. ut testim. perk, ver. 

* This long om'ssiou in a may be due to homoioteleuton. 

IV. I. Acta Pilati. 91 

huh tQv iypvTOiv i^ovcrCav • ^irl yfjs* 'J no. 19. 


Caput IV. 

Aiyov<nv ol ^lovhaloC €lir€v 3rt ^y« ^ KaraXuw tAk ** Jno. 2. 

KO^y ® TouTOK ital Ik TpuriK if)|Upais lycipu d; Ik TCovopdicoKTa cm t 26 

5 MX ti CTConK ^Ko8of&i^0i| ^. 61 ; Mar. 

A^yci 6 riiXaros' rlva va6v ; kiyovaiv ol 'lovbaioi' 
hv <^Kob6iJLrjcr€V 6 SoXio/Acii^. 

[omnis qui est ex veritate] audiat vocem meam. 
[Dieit ^ Pilatns : Quid est Veritas ? Dieit ei lesus : 
Veritas de eaelo est.] * . Dieit [ei] Pilatos : In terns 
vero non est Veritas ? Dieit ei lesos : Vide tu 
veritatem. Veritatem dico, quomodo iadicatur (or in- 
vestigatur) ab iis qui habent potestatem in terra. 

Caput IV. 

[Et ^ relinquens lesum intus praetorium, exivit ad 
ludaeos et dieit eis : Eg^ nee unam culpam invenio 
in eo *.] 

Dicunt [ei] ludaei : dixit quoniam possum templum 
istud dissolvere, et in triduo restituere [illud] quod in 
XL et VI annis aedificatum est ; [ille dieit dissolve 
hoc, et in triduo restituo]. Dieit [eis] Pilatus: 
Quale templum ? Dicunt ludaei : Quod Solomon 

[Iterum dieit illis Pilatus: Innocens sum eg^ 
a sanguine hominis iusti istius. Vos noscite. Dicunt 
ad eum ludaei : Sanguis eius in nos et in filios 

^ 7 adds <n. 

^ This omission in a is probably due to homoioteleuton. 
' 7 = sed PilatuB rel, 

* These words omitted in a are retained in the Greek, Latin, and Coptic 
sources. Their omission in a cannot be due to homoioteleuton. 



92 Acta Pilati. IV. 2. 

* Lu. 33. ^ npooKaXffcnlfiCKOs 6 RiXaTos rov; irptaPwipov^ fcal 
^" ' Tois dpxicpcis Koi Tovs Acvfray ctireK cUItois XaBpaitas' 
yifl oUrtos TTOirja-aTC ov yip iariv &$ios OaKdrou. 'AAA' 
ff KaTTiyopia^ vfiw* ircpt O^paviCas iaruf koX Trepl /SfjSi;- 
X(iS<r€a>9 a-aPfiirov. 5 

^'Jno. 19. A4y<n)criv ol Up€i9 t^ IltAclTy Kafo-apa^ ^ctif 
fiKa(T<f>rip.rj<nj ris, Sftoy ^<rrti; ^ovdrov ^ jui^ ; 
A/yei 6 ITtXaTOs* &fio$ ^orfo. 
(A^yavorin ol 'lovSaioi' oJ!ros d> rii; Ofdv ^/3Xa<r^>}- 

*Ek4\€V(T€ b^ {6 fjyfixi^v) i(€\0€Tv Tovs 'lovhalovs Ifw, 
KoX vpoo'KaXfa'dfjLfvos rhv 'Iijcrovr X^yci (avr^)* rf TrotT^o'ca 
<roi ; 

A/yet 6 'iTjo-otJy ovra»s iboOrj, 

Aiy€i 6 Utkaros t^ MiyiroO* irws i5od»? ; 15 

e Lu. 16. A^yci 6 'Irjaovs' (Maxr^? xai) ol Trpo<t>fJTai, ® ir/JO€ici}- 
pv^av ircpl ^ardrov rovrov ical r^f iva<m!ur€<is /xov. 

Advocans Pilatus seniores et principes sacerdotom 
et Levitas, et dicit eis secrete : Ne isto modo agite : 
accumtio enim veatra non facit hominem dignum mortis, 
sed ealumnia vestra de enratione est et de violatione 
sabbati. Dicnnt seniorei et sacerdolum principef et 
Levitae Pilato: Caesarem si quis blasphemat dignos 
est morte anne ? Dicit Pilatus : Dig^us est [morte]. 

Tone iu99it ludaeos foras exire [de praetorio], et 
advocans lesnm dixit : Quid faciam tibi ? Dicit lesus 
[Pilato]: Ita datum est. Dicit Pilatus ad lesum: 
Quomodo datum est? Dicit lesus: [Omnes] pro- 
phetae praeconizavenmt de hac morte et [de] resur- 

' The Arm. words here used in both Acts of Pilate and Lu. 23. 14 rather 
■i Koiajyopla, 

' The other sources retain these words omitted in fi, and all except Greek B 
and most Latin MSS. add after tovlwoc the words: sir Em&ufa <dr ret 

IV. 6. ^^^ Pilati. 93 

Aiycvaip ol 'lovdcuoi' tC ir\4op tovtov rj nfC^ova 

Pkcuril>rifd(Uf {$4\€is) iKOvaai * ; A^ci (6 n^Xaro; )' cl * Cf. Mar. 

oSros 6 \6yos fiXda-tj^rjuSs iorir, ^ Xdfivn oMv koI ^^ ^^^ 

ivayiy€T€ cly rriv avvay(ayi\v v\JMVy mX KarA rfjK OpricrKfCav ^ ' 
A - ' / A-jt \b »»Jno.i8. 

Aiyovaiv ol 'lovbtuoi r<^ IliXcir^' ^i; r<3 i^o/i<p ^fA6>v 
yeypayLiiivov ifrnv^ iav ivOptairos ipOpdviff hfiafynjarf, 
i^ios ioTip Xaii^ivuv T€cr<rapdKOVTa vapa fiCav ®, 6 d^ *" ^ Cor. 
€{; Ofdv fi\a<r<l>rifi&v kiOopokC<^ Xi^o/SoXtj^^a'frai \ 
lo Il€pipX€ylf6,fi€vos bi 6 ffy^iioiv €h tovs irfpKarQras 
S)(\ovs T&p *lovba[<ap Ofoap^i voXXovs baKpvoPTas^^ koI 
Xiyec Oi irop to irXrjOos povXtrai rd iiroOapiip airrov, 

rectione mea. ludaei [autem] recusaverunt^ [andientes. 
Dicit ei Pilatus]: Qaid [est] amplior blasphemia [quam 
istnd] audire ? Dicit [autem] [Indaeis] : Hie sermo 
blasphemia est, tollite earn et perducite ad synag^gam 
vestram et indicate secundum legem vestram. Dicmit 
ladaei Pilato : In lege nostra scriptum est : Si homo 
in hominem peccat;^^, dignus est plagi^ quadragenis 
una minus ; qui vero in deum blasphemat, lapidibus 

[Dicit eis Pilatus : Prendite eum yob et qua lege 
volueritis facite. Dicunt Pilato : Dignus est cruci- 


Intuitus vero index in populum qui circumstabant 

ludaeos vidit plurimos [eorum] lacrimantes et dixit : 

Non omnis multitudo vult eum mori. [Dicunt ei 

principes sacerdotum : Ideo venimus tota multitudo 

unanima ut moriatur. Dicit ad eos Pilatus: Quare 

' Section 4 of ch. iv is wholly absent from a. The other sooroes conflict 
Tery much with each other as to its text. 

' Armenian a literally «■ ted atpicxen$ presses in muHitudinem qui eirca 
Ulum stahant Ind<iei, et vidit quod multiJUbant, 

^ The Arm. « wapritcovov (mt wt^ttinimjcav ol dtcoiotrrtt. 

94 Acta Pilati. V. r. 

•Mat. 26. Aiyovtriv o\ 'lovdaloi' on tlvcv iavrbv *vl6p Oeov koX 

Caput V. 

^iKobqiJLos iviip ^lovbaXos i(rrri lfnrpoa-0€v rod IliXdroi; 
Koi Xiy€i' 'Aftw, eva-fprj, K4\€V<rov iKOV€iv 6\lyovs 
koyovs' \iy€i Tlikaros' itirf. Xiy€i 6 NtKo57jfi09' iyia 5 
flvov roty np^a^vripois kcX toIs \€p€V<n kcX rots Aevtraiy 
KoX Tsav TO "nkriBos ^1^5 crwaycoy^s, 3ri rL ^r\T€iT€ rbv 
ivbpa TovTop ; (6 ivOponros oiros) iroXXa oT/ficta iirohia-iv 
*• Acts 5. ical tvbo^a ^, h oibils iroitlv bvvarat, ^ ct+rrc avrhv Kal 

firi Ti . , .^ iroicTrc (avr^)* cl yAp Ik Ocou <oti to (nuiiiov 10 
rovro 6 iroici, o-co^o-crai, cl 5c ^$ dv6pfSinjK KaTaXu^crerai **. 
Moxr^; diro<rraX€U (tto/)^ O^ov) ^U AlyuTrrov, iTtoi-qtr^v 

moriatur ?] ^ Dicant ludaei : Quia dixit se filium dei 
esse et regem [ludaeorum]. 

Caput V. 

Nicodemos vir ludaeus stetit ante Pilatum et dixit: 
Rogo maiestatem tuam, iube me dicere sermonea paucos, 
Dicit Pilatus : Die. Dieit Nicodemus : Ego dixi seni- 
oribus etjmncipibus mcerdotum et Levitis et omni mul- 
titudini istius synagogae: Quid quaeritis hominem? 
Multa signa fecit et gloriosa quae nemo [alius fecit 
nee] facere potest. Permittite eum neque aliquid 
malum facite : quia si ex deo sunt signa quae facit, 
salvabitur; si autem ex hominibus, dissolvetur ^. 
[Quia et] Moyses missus^ in Egyptum fecit signa 

* So the Armenian reflecting the ungrammatical sentence of Greek B. 
^ The Armenian literally «»< glorified/ and seems to have had the sense of 
' gloriosa ' which is only found in Lat. £>*K 
^ In a there is a litura here of three letters. 

* This omlsaion in a may be due t<> homoioteleut<jn. 
' 7 om. 9% a. ex h. dia. * 7 adds a deo. 

V. 2. 

Acta Pilali. 

^apao} fiacriXfais AiytJjrroo. xal Tjaav ^k(i flepdTiovrfS 
't'apaio 6 'Iai'i)s Kai o 'lafip^s, Kat ^TToitjiray Kal airoi 
(Tijutia & ijioUi Muio-^s, ov TTiiiTa' ical tixoi' avrofis ol 
" Atyi'imof u; tftoi/s tod 'lav^v koi top 'Ja/ipijf JTTCtS^ 
ra oTj/^da & ^jrot'ju'oj' otk ^aav iK 8(ov, OTiwAon'o, xat 
QiPToi ol iislmfvaav avTois. koI vCv Siij>fT( ran ivOpiiiXov 
toZtop" ov yip iarii' fi^ios 0avaTov. 

AiyoviTiv TuJ NiKoS^fiui oi 'lotiflaior cri' na^T^j 
'^ yiyoi-as avTOV Koi tov Xoyov avrov iroitis. 

Af'ytt Tspoi auTous NtKo'Sijfios' M^ ital 6 i/y*/iin/ 

fiaOijrijr ytyovfv airov, (tat t6i> Ao'yoi' auToB woKi ,' ou 

itoi jiiaraiajs icoT^imjiTtc airSjj o Kaiffap *)ri tov a^itifiaros 

TtruToV ^ffap bi ip.^pnitnntivoi o\ 'lovfialoi Kara rod 

'S Ni([o6i]/iov Kat hpiCov rois 58o*tos (icar' avroS). 

A('y«t ^ rTiXaros" rC rpC^fTf icar' ojirov ; iK/fBftav yap 
^KOVuaTt ; 

mulla, quae dixit illi deiis fac, [inquit,] ante Phara- 
onem regem Egypti. Et emnt ibi BL-rvi Pharaonis 
lanes et lamres, et fecenint illi eigna quae fecit 
Moyses, non omnia, et habuerunt eoa Egyptii sicut 
deoB, lanem et lainrem : et qnoniam signa quae 
fecenint non erant ex deo, [perierant] ipai et qui* 
crediderunt eis. Et nunc permitLite liominein istura : 
non enim eet dignus morte. 

Dieunt Tudaei Nicoilemo: Tu discipulus factus es 
[iatius]. [Propter toe] et verbis eius adiutaii. Dicit 
ad eofl Nieodemus : Numquid et praeses discipulus 
factus est eiue et verbom ipsius facit ? numquid vane 
coDstituit istum Caesar^ super necessitatem banc? 
Fremebaut vero ludaei super Nicodemum et stridebant 
dentibns [euis]. Dicit [ad eoe] Pilatus: Quid stii- 
detie [dentibus] adversue eum, quia veritatem audistls? 

' 7 for qui reKdi if»i non. 

* f Midi TIbtrin*. 

96 Acta PtkUi. VI. i. 

Aiyovatv ol 'lov^aioi' rriv iXrj$€UUf avrov kdfiris ical 
t6 lUpos aifTov. 

Aiy€i 6 Nftici$5?yfju>;* ^t/v, Xif^oi KaOia^ clirarc. 

Caput VI. 

Els Vk T&v ^Icvbaitap vapamibria'as ri^tov rbv ^tfiopa 
kiyov OKOVftv* Kal kiyti 6 fiytfidv rC $4k€is clircu^ ; 5 
€7ir€. Kal \iy€i' iyi> Tpiixovra irq (iv rf vn^) 

• Jno. 5. Kar€KfCfiriv * Koi ip dbvini v6v^v ^V koI iK66pTos rov 
'Ifyorov, voXXol baifJLoviCoii€voi Koi voiK(Xais v6(rois 
KoraK^ifiivoi lO€pav€v6r}<Tav xm airrov. 'S^avlaKoi nv^^ 

^Lu. 7. KarriKiriariv fx€ kcX ipaxTTcuriv^ ii€ fieri rrjs Kkurris ical 10 
iTTqyayov /a€ vpos avT6v. Kal Ibdv fi€ 6 'lri<rovs 

*• Jno. 5. ianXayxyUrOri kcX ^tv^v X6y(f ®lycip€, apor t^ icpdPPaT^y^ 


'• Mar. 2. 

Dicont ludaei [Nicodemo] : VeritAtem ipsius accipias 
et portioQem eius. Dicit Nicodemas: Amen [fiat, 
fiat, secondam verbum vestram] aocipiam sicnt 

Caput VI. 

Alius qaidam ex ludaeis autem exsiliens rogabat 
praeddem Icqui aliquid verbum^. Dicit praeses: 
Dic qnodcumque m. Dixit [vir ille] : Ego, triginta 
[et octo] annos in lectulo iacebam in^ infirmitate 
[pessimi] doloris. Et veniente lesu multi daemoniaci 
et [aegroti] qoi in diversis infirmitatibus iacebafU, 
corati sunt ab eo. Invenes qaidam miserti sunt mei 
et portantes me in lectulo duxerunt anle eum. Et 
videns me lesus misertus est et dixit verbo : Surge. 
Tolle lectulum tuum et ambula. [Babai !] ^ Et 

» y «B verba dieere, ^ y-et in, 

' This excUiDAiion is absent in all the other sourres. 

VI. 2. Ada Pilati. 97 

orou Kol mpiirdTCi^ jcal irapaxpfiyM UiBriv. kol 
\4yov<riv ol *lovdaloi r^ ITiXdrcp* ipdrriaov avrdv iroC<^ 
^fffiipq iOtpaireiOri. koL kiy€i 6 OtpatrevOtls' iv aappartf^^ • Jno. 5. 
Acyovcru; ol 'lovdaioi rep TTiXdrcp* fxri ovx^ oUroiS jdidd- 
5 fa/yi€i; on ^2; aafifiiri^ OtpaireSa Kai baCfwvas iKpiXkei, 
"AAAoy Tiy T<av ^lovbaCtav Trapairribrjaas ^ \4y€i' ® TVff>\ds *• Mw. 
iy€vvrjOriVy Koi ifxavriv (jwvrjv) ijKovov koX irp6<r(avop ovk ' 
lfi\€TTOv' Koi irapiovTos Tov 'IifiTov iKpa^a €h <f><^vi)v 10. 46*8 
[uyikr\v' 'EK4r}<r6v ftc * Kvpi€j * itol cOv]itcK t^k x<^f^ odrou jg ^^.^ 
10 ^vi Tod$ 6^aXfioJs fiov ^ ical ^ropaxp^/uui eZ^oi; rd <^9 ^. "* Mar. 8. 
Kal &AA09 us (tQv ^lovba[<ov) irapaTnibi/i<ras X/yci* ^' 
A^irphs fjv Kal iKaOipfwrt ix€ koyif^, 

statim sanos factus sum, [et tuli lectulum meum et 
ambolavi] '. Dicont ludaei Pilato : Interroga eum 
in qua die curatus est. Dicitque curatus : Sabbato. 
Dicunt ludaei Pilato : Nonne sic docuimus quia in 
sabbato curat et daemones expellit ? 

Et alius quidam ex ludaeis exsiliens dixit : Caecus 
natus sum, vocem^ audiebam, faciem autem non 
videbam. Et transeunte lesu clamavi magna voce : 
Miserere mei, domine, [miserere mei]. Et posuit 
manum suam super oculos meos, et statim vidi 
lumen. Et alius quidam exdliens dicit : [Gibberosus 
eram, et erexit me verbo. Alius quidam exiens 
dicit :] * Leprosus eram, et sanavit me verbo. 

^ The Arm. — ' I saw the light.' In Lu. 8. 43 we haye MfiXm/ta as in the 
Greek A. P. 

' Latin, Coptic, and Greek AC retain ei Hatim aanut faettti ium, which 
other Greek MSS. omit. But no lonroefl except a omit the words bracketed. 

' 7 adds solum. 

* This omission may be due to homoioteleuton. However 7 confirms a in 
omitting these words. 



Lu. 8. 44. 

^ M*r. 5. 

98 Ada Pilati. VII. i. 

Caput VII. 
Kal yy)vi\ riy, jf oi/o/uuz ^v ^rjpoivlK\ iird fjLaKp6$€v 
Mat. 9. KpiCovtra etvev alftoppoouaa * W^l^ f^a^ 44^^^*^ ''^ 
J, Kpacnr^u '^ too t|iaTiou adrou icat KaT€TTava-0ri ^ i"IY^ ® 

20 and Tou aZ|iaTos (Sta ScSScica Ircai;). Xiyovaip ol 'lovSaioi* 
NojLtoi; fxoiJL€v yvvaxKa ivbpl fiii ik0€iv (U yLopruplav. 5 

Caput VIII. 

''AXAoi Tiv€S ivbp&v T€ Koi yvvaiKciv iKpa^ov (kiyovT€s)' 
*0 ipOptairos oiroi b[KaL6s i<mv Koi rci daifiJi/ta VTro- 
«• Lu. 10. Tio'aopTai * ovrcp. 
and Panl A^y€i 6 IIiAaros rots 'lovda^ois* ical biarC ol bihia-KoXoi 

PP: vfic^r oix VTrcTiyryo-ay avr<^ ; Aiyovaiv (t« ntA(tr<{))' ov#c 10 

• Jno. 12. oX5ofJi6V. &XA01 cliroj; (t<p niA.iT<{))* rdj; Aifapoj;* ^y€ip€V 
^' iK v€KpQv. "EvrpoiJLOS y€v6iJL€vos 6 fiyefxitv X^yci irpds 

iirav rd irXrjOos r&v *\ovbala)V Koi rl Bikers iKx^tiv 
' Mat. aliia iOt^op ' ; 

Caput VII. 
Et malier quaedam nomine Veronis a longe clama- 
yitdioens: Flnens sanguine eram [annis dnodecim], 
tetigi fimbriam vestimenti eius, et quievit fluxos 
sangninis [mei]. Dicont Indaei [Pilato] : [nos] 
Legem habemus mulierem homini non venire ad 

Caput VIII. 
Alii quidam viroram ac mnliernm clamabant: 
Homo iste iustns est, et daemonia subiiciuntur illi. 
Dicit ad illos Pilatos, Et quare magistri vestri non 
sunt snbiecti ei ? Dicont : Nescimns. Alii dixerunt : 
Lazarum suseitavit [post quatriduum] de mortuis. 
Treme&ctus praeses dicit ad omnem mnltitudinem 
ladaeorum : Et quid vultis eilhndere sangoinem 
innocentem ? 

1 '1 

The Greek has Btpyuctjf Latin Veronica 

TX. I. Acta Pilati. 99 

Caput IX. 

npo<ricaX€<r<ifi€vos 6 ITiXaTos rhv l^iKSiriiiov Koi tovs 
bdbtKa ot ttTtov 5ri ov yey4vvr}Tai iK itopvtla^^ X^yci 
avrois* tI iroiovfi€v, on ariais ylverai iv r<^ Xa<p ; 
Aiyovaiv avrf' cvk olhaix€Pj avrol 3i|roKTai ^ •. itiXu/ d • Mat. 

5 IliXaros ir/[>o<rjcaX€<r(ffi62;o9 &itav rb vkrjSo^ Xiy€C oTba 2^ 
OTi ovrffi€%d^ iariv vyiQv iv t^ ioprvi tQv dCv/xo>i/ (va ''Jno. 18. 
Tiva iitoXilitiv. Ixiu) Tivii KoribiKOif iv r<^ hfafXfaTrjpCif^ <^ 
Svofid i<m Bapappas^ Kal rovrov rov Kar^vdiriov tfix&v 
arrJKOvra (rdv 'Iriaovv) ® ir <f ovhlv hixiprrjiM * evpCcKia « Jno. 19. 

^^ iv airri^^^. rlva^ diroXt;<ra> ; XrfyouaiK* * Baf>a^P&K. ^' 
Xiyti odroig 6 riiXaros* Ti oHv iroii^aw *li|(rouKSs 6KOfM&a0v| 27. ai, 
XpiOT^S*; X^youoiK* lTaup«0i^Tw\ Irepoi hi rc^v^lovbaloiv ^ ' 

37. 17. 

Caput IX. 'Mat. 

Convocans Pilatos Nicodemum et dnodecim [viros] 
qui dicebant qnoniam non est natus ex fomicatione, 
dicit ad eos: Quid facimus, quoniam seditio fit in 
popnlo? Dicunt ei: Non noscimus; ipsi nosennt. 
Itemm Pilatus convocavit omnem mnltitndinem 
[Indaeorum] et dicit : Scio quia consuetudo vestra est 
in die festo azymorum dimittere unnm [e vinctis]. 
Habeo quemdam damnatum in caxcere [homicidam] 
nomine Barabba, et eum qai ante vos stat, in qao et 
nulla culpa invenitur in eo. Quern [vultis ut] dimit- 
tam vobis ? Dicunt : Barabbam. Dicit eis Pilatus : 
Quid ergo faciam lesum qui nominatus est Christus ? 
Dicunt : Crucifigatur. Aliique ex ludaeis dicebant : 

* Arm. — ' they know.' The Arm. yulgate tranilated i^ovrai in the same 

* The Arm. a has the word jusjung (—of evil spirits) whieh must be 
a corruption of^u/bgu/Ua ■■ ' of delinquencies.* 

' The structure of this clause kv f , , ,k¥ ahr^ has a Syriao ring. But such 
Syriacisms sometimes occur in Armenian versions certainly made from Greek 

H 2 

lOO Acta Pilati. IX. 2. 

* Jno. 19. keyowrip' * oAk ct <f>C\os Ka(aapos \ oTi €t'n€V iavrbv 

I 3 

vldp 6€ov Kal fia<riX4a koI ov KaCtrapa. 

'^Ovfiddrj o Uikaros roli *lovbaCois koL Xiyti' iti- 
(araa-iafrrbv to lOvos vfAttv, Kal) Tot$ evepyiTOUS vyMV 
iimk4y€T€, 5 

Aiyova-iv ol 'Iot;datoi* UoCois €i€pyiTais' Xiyei 6 
Tlikaros' *0 ^cd$ vfjiQp airb <rK\ripas bovX^Cas liraxrcv v/mas 
^ Jno. 6. KoX iv T^ ipw^ ^^ fJiivva ^ h^iiikia^v vfxip Kal d/orvyo- 
lirfTpav lh(aK€V vpXv kclL Ik irirpas iiba>p ih<aK€v ifJilv, Kal 
v6yLOV ih(AK€v iylv kcX iitl tovtois Tra<ri vaponpyla-aTe (icv- 10 
piov) rbv B^ov Vfxc^p Kal fjBikrjo'ev 6 6€os iiroKia'ai vixas' 
kal ikirivtva-fv Maxrrjs virip v/mui;, koI ovk d^cfXeo-ei^, 
Kal vvv KaTayeXart ixov &a"K€p Ik^Lvov Sn fiaaiXia pLi<r&, 

*Avaara9 & ITiXaroy iirh rod PrjfiaTo^ rjO^Xtv i^eXOeiv. 

• Jno. 19. c iKpa^av ol ' lovbaloi Xiyovres r<p rTiXdrcp* 'H/uteis fiaaiXia 15 

rbp Kaitrapa otbafxev Kal ov top 'Iijirovi/^ fcal yap ol 
<* Mat. a. Mdyoi ^ airb iparoX&v b&pa ^V€yKav avT<^ its paciXel, 

Non es amicus Caesaris, quia dixit se filinm dei esse 
et regem : [an forte vis hunc esse regem] ^ et non 

Iratos est Pilatus in Indaeos et dieit: Semper 
contrarii estis benefactoribos vestris. Dicunt ludaei : 
quibu9 bene&ctoribns ? Dieit Pilatus : Dens Tester 
de dura servitute eripuit vos, et in eremo cibavit vos 
manna et dedit vobis cibum cotumieem, et de 9copulo9a 
petra potavit voi, et dedit vobis legem : et 9uper haec 
omnia irritastis deum vestrum, [et quaesivistis vitulum 
seulptum.] Et voluit deus occidere vos : et depre- 
catus est Moyses pro vobis et non mortui estii. Et 
nunc dicitis mihi quia regem odi [ego]. 

Exsurgit Pilatus de tribunali et voluit exire. 
Clamaverunt ludaei et dicunt Pilato: Nos Regem 
Caesarem scimus et non Christum. Nam et magi ab 

* This cmiwion in a may be due to homoioteleuton. 

IX. 4. 

5 ttV AiyvnToii 


Ada Pilati. ' -'V :'.'■ ,^ 

\a<T\.\iVi Ti^v 'lofBai'tuc', auiiot'.^ 

'HpuSlJf ^CKTlXft'S on *y(UV'ifl7(, ■ 

avrov. yvous o irar^/) airoG 
au nai T^y [ii]T^pa aurou (cai fipvytp ' 
.oi/iras ll)?cu3i;i aTTiuAtirci' rovs 
'E^paiwv rovs yti'l'ifflt'iraff iv Br)0A((fi. ' 
'Aitoiiiras rows Koyovs tovtovs Trap a rtSi" 'lovBafuf 
i<t>o^ri6i] Kal KaTamyijfTas Toiis o<^\ovs ol ixpaCoi; A^yei 
avro's' be i0}T(i'Hpti&r]s ; Xiyovrrif, ovtos irrnv. Kai 
lo ' Xopui* 6 TIiKaros iTEwp dir(>'ti|iaTo ris }((ipaf afrou &WKaKTi ' 
■jtivTOiv ^ 'Kfyior' aOifos (ifii dird tou aipiTos tou SiKaiou ^ 
toiJtxw lificif 34>coOc. waAiv tKpa^ov Kiyovm' ti a'jie. 

oriente munera obtulerant ei, sicnt recfi dicentee : In 
es rex ludaeorum, salva nos. Et cum audisuet HeroJee 
[ft magis quia] rex natus est, voluit occidere eiim. 
Cognovit pater ei'tis loseph et tulit eum et matrem 
eiua, et fugit in Egyptum. Tunc iraivg Herodes 
iittsil occidere iofantea ludaeorum qui natj gant in 
Bethleem, et in omnibui fntbug eiui^. 

Cum audisset haec [Pilatus] a ludaeis extimens, 
impoguit BJIentium popiilo, qui clamabant, et dixit 
iis; [Quie] quern quaerebat Herodes? Dieunt [ludaei]: 
[immo] iate eet. Sumsit Pilatus aquam, lavit manus 
suaa coram omnibus dicens : Innocens sum ego a san- 
guine iusti istius ; vos noscitis. Iterum clamaverunt 
dicentes : Sanguis eitis snper nos et super Hlios nostros. 

' Thii la RD eitr&-cuit>uic&l detail. 
* Tbo CopUo hud t&*TtM ' coram on 
^ItAow : Greek B C tou .JAj'du. 

'; Greek A and Latt. hare 

' 7 read* iiuleiid of Tane ir.Elitr, ic, the followin? ; Time Hue olio erat 
HtTodti, adeocaalt Auguilo Catiiiitt. Std poilqiam rerwiat eit poll unam 
annan, junit MtrJIci in/anlci BelhUArm et JInium liiu lecuiuliiin icmpui 

•• • • 

:. '.."• 

I02 ..•*•*•/•: • ^cia PUati. IX. 5. 


T(fr€ iKi\€V<r€P 6 HiXaros KaraTfiratriux iX.KVO'Orjvai 
ifXTtpoirOev tw firJiuiTos 08 iKaOiC^o, iTrtijnivaTO ^ 
ofjT<as' rd Idvos <rov \iy€i^ <r€ &s fiatrikia' 810 tovto 

* Mat. iKiXevaa vp&rop ippaytWovo'dai * bia r&v O^tryiW r&v 
and Mnr. €va'€fiQv ^a<riKi(AV ^ kcX t6t€ ipTaaSai airrbv ivl rod 5 
'5- '5' aravpov iv T<p iciyinp'* otsov iiniaBri^^ icai Arifias Koi 

41 and rcoras ovo KaKovpyoi ** <rw avry *. 
P. E. 24. 

cjno.ii. Caput X. 

pacBim. (Kol i(rjk$€v 6 *lri<rovs iK rod itpavranplov kcX ol hio * 

• M t '^^ Ifwlrio' avroi; (ol oTporiWTcu) Kal ^ivihvtrav avn^ 10 

37* 3^ a-ivboviov ktVKOV ^, ical ^ crW^OKoy dxai/^ivdi; IOvikok iiA 
and Mar. 

15. 27. ... 

'Mat. Tanc Pilatus iassit velum protrahi ante tribunal 

^7* ^^' ubi sedebaut ; sententiam protulit hoc modo : Gens tua 

ii.'^* ^erunl de te propter regnum tui: ideoque praecipio 

h Mat. primum flagellari secundum legem pit imperatorU^ et 

deinde in crucem agant te. [Tunc sumserunt eum et 

portaverunt] in hortum, ubi [etiam] deprehetm 9unt 

Demas et Gestas duo malefactores una cum eo. 

Caput X. 

Quando venernnt ad locum, exspoliaverunt vesti- 
menta eius et praecinxerunt eum cinctura^ et coronam 
de spin is posuerunt super caput eius [et egerunt eum 

' The Arm. -= * he gave a verdict * {dw6<paffis), 

' The Arm. «» ' sp^ak abont thee m about a king.* 

' The Coptic, Latin, and Greek all have the plural fiofftXiwp : fi alone has 
the singular. 

* The reading of a is echoed in the Coptic version: Primum ivbeo te 
flagellu catdi propter leges eeUorum regum ; deinde in crucem agi eo in loco 
uhi fuisti compreheriBus, una cum Dema et Cysta dudbut latronihug, qui 
tecum comprehenti sunt, Tiachendorf remarks of the Coptic : male igitur 
interpra reddidit avaravfwS, ffoi, but the agreement of a suggests that we 
have here preserved an extra-canonical detail which has disappeared from the 
other sources. I know of no tradition which represents Jesus as having been 
crucified in the same garden in which he was taken, viz. Gethsemane. 

X. I. Acta Pilati. 103 

KC^X^r adrou ^. SfuoCoiS koX tovs hvo KaKoHfyyovs * iKpi- * Lu. 23. 

fxa<r€u;*, rov Arniav iK be^i&v koL top rcoroj; i( ^' 

eitoiriiuov ^. ^6 bi 'li|9o(is ^cycK* irdrcp^ &^ aOrois* od ** Lu. 23. 

yAp oISooiK Ti nmotkrii^* xal SiCf&cpicraKTO t& IfMCTia odroC ^ ^ j 

5 ol arpan&Tai, ° ical IcrraTo 6 Xci^ ical i$€<ip€i' Kot 34 seq. 
tviirai^ov airdv ol ipxjLcpels Koi ot ctpxoiavs (oriry airoh 
SjjLo) yjyotrrts' &XXous ia'(aa'€v, afaairfa lairr^K, tl uUs tou 
Ocou iartv, ^K^irailoi^ Kal <rrpaTUirrai, irpocr^poifTcs adn^ 

o{os Kal xo^i^^) X^OKTCs* cl oO ct 6 pcuriXc6s ^lovhaUav^ <i Mat. 

10 cQaop aeavTop, 'Efc Acvcrei; bi 6 HiXaros fieri rijif ^'' ^^ 

iiroflxurip Trjp alrCav iinypa<f>rjpai €ls rfrXor * *EXXi|rurTl • jno. 19. 

Kal 'Pttfutiorl ^ Kal 'EjS/oaiarf, Ka^a>$ eZirai^ ol lovdaioi ^i ^^' 
Pa<n\€V9 iarip 'louSaiuK. 

in crucem]. Similiter et duos malefactores suspen- 
denint, Demam a dextris et Gestam a sinistris. lesus 
autem dicit : Pater, dimitte illis : non enim eciunt 
quid fiiciant. Et diviserunt vestimenta eius milites. 
£t stabat populus et spectabat : et coutemnebant eum, 
et principes sacerdotum et indices^ dicebant: Alios 
salvavit, ealvet se ipsum ; si filius dei est [electos]. 
lUudebant et iam militee offerentes ei acetum mixtum 
cum felle ^ dicentes : Si tu es rex ludaeorom, libera 

[Tunc] post prolatam sententiam Pilatos iossit 
scribi in titulo Graece et Dalmatice^ et Hebraice, 
secondum qiiod dixerunt Indaei : Rex est ludaeorom. 

^ The words t6p AfjfiS^ , . . ^hwviwnf nre excluded by Tiachendorf from his 
Greek text, though the old Latin and Coptic versioni have them. Also the 
Greek MS. A adds Atw/ioy U Uii&v koL Xriyav (Latt. Copt. Gestam) 1^ 
f dflurv/ioir. Other Greek MSS. omit or, like £, do not say which thief was on 
which hand. 

' The Arm. — Dalmaiiee, 

* Arm. ■■ ' rulers.* 

* In Mat. 37. 34 some texts read Sfcv furA X<^$* /it/uyfUvow, 

' Dalmatice is the old Armenian rendering in the N. T. of Laiine, 

I04 Acta Pilati. X. 2. 

Ets Tis TMK KpcfiooO^KTWK, <p ivo\ka t}]/ Fcara^ X^/ct 
ovr^* ci oO ct 6 XpumSs, attooy ^/mas koI trtavrov, diro- 
KptOcls S^ Ai||mI$ eircrifta Xiywr rtj) kralpif^ avrov' od 4<>Pg 
oO T&K ^^, ^ ^j; rf avr^ Kpliiari (k(jX itii^ls) ifryAv 
4|iCiS f&^K SiKaitts & <vp(l|a|iCK ivoXajipavoixtv, koI iw- 5 

SraK IXOgs <i^ 'rg PcunXci^ crou. ctircK adT<p* dfi^K X^yw ooi, 
o^l&cpoy ^ |MT ifkou iayji Iv rQ irapoScunki. 

Caput XL 

'£ls Iktvi «Spa fjv VK^TOS l^xe (iraaoK)^ t^k y*)!' ^^ 
^H&Ti|$ tSpot* otcoTurO^KTOS ti Tov ^XuMi, iayl<TOr\ rh Kara- to 
ir^ixuTfia Tou koou drd ficooK. Kal i<l><ivr}a'€V 6 'li|arous ^tM^S 

Unas de suspensis nomine Gestas dicit ei: Si tu 
68 Christus, libera le et uos, Bespondit [socius cui 
nomen nnncapabatnr] Demas et dicit irate: Non 
times tu deum, quia in eodem indicio snmos? nos 
ia8te[, nam digna] ea qnae egimas recipimus; et 
increpait socio sno, et dicit ad lesum : Memento mei, 
[dominej quum venis in regno tuo. Dicit leiMi 
Amen dico tibi, hodie mecnm eris in paradiso. 

Caput XI. 

Erat auf^m quasi sexta hora et tenebrae tenuemnt 
terram usque ad nonam horam. Obscurato autem 
sole, scissum est velum templi in duas partes, Cla- 
mavit lesus voce magna et dixit : halach phich droui, 

^ In the Uter B fonn alone of the Greek Acts is tr/jfitpoy joined with \iyot 
aoi. To this form therefore mnBt refer Professor A. Robin.son*s note on p. 375 
of J. H. Hill's translation of the Arabic diatessaron. 

' woffav is read in Greek A ; tKrjiy B ; ' universam ' in Lat. and Copt., bnt 
notice that all sources except the Armenian have atcSros iyirvro iwl lifi^ yrjr. 
The Arm. a and /3 imply vkStos e7x« (or Kariaxt) rifif yrju, Cp. the 
Psendo-Petrine Gospel 0. 15. Notice that although the A. P. throughout this 
passage follow Lnke*s Gospel, yet in regard to the eck'pse they forsake him. 

XI. I. Ada Pilati. 105 

|MydX||, Kol X^i' &A(lx, <f>ty5 poiv, h kpyjivtVkTaC 
(irdrcp)^, ci« x^^po^ <>^^ vapor iOrjixi t6 irrcufuC pw. koI 
TouTo cliriiK irapib(OK€ rh irvcupA. IS^k 5^ 6 licaT^rropxos ra 
y€v6p.€va iS^tcurci^ t&k 6c^ X^yt^K, 5ri 6 &y6ptnros oStos 
5 Sdcaios 4JK. jcol itas i ^X^<^ ^ irapaYci^|iCFos ivX ly^v 
B€u(Un¥ Tavniv, {iO^dpovv rh y€v6fi€va\, cnnrror t& on^Ov] 
iavT&p KoX dir^orpc^OK •. • Lu. 23. 

'O 5^ iKarovrapxos ijniv€yK€V to y€v6ix€va r«p fiy€pL6vi, * 
dfcot;<ra$ 6 fjycixoiv Ka\ fj yvvri airrov iXvirrjOria-av <r<f>6bpa, 

10 KOI ovfc l<f>ayov aiht iiriov iv rfj fiptipq iKfCirp. /uiera- 
TTtfjiylfifitvos 6 TiikaTos Tohs ^lovbaCovs €Tir€v avrois' 
iO€(aprja'aT€ ra y€v6fX€va' kiywa-iv avrol ry ffy^fiovi' 
licA€i^i9 TjXlov ^ Kara ri eUoBbs yiyov€. »» Lu. 33. 

® Eton^KCicraK irdrrcs ot yvwmX *li|(ro(i dir^ ikaKp6B€¥, xal ^^' 

i^ yuKaiKCf at ^XOouaai i\aav dir^ rvis roXiXauis iwpmv Tavra ®. 49. 

qaod interpretatur in manus tuas commendo spiritam 
meum. Et haec locutus emisit spiritum. Videns 
quae facta sunt centurio glorificavit deum dicens: 
[Vere] homo hie Jilius dei est. Et omnis populus qui 
interfaernnt ad videndum, percutiebant pectora sua et 

Centnrio antem retulit quae facta sunt praesidi. 
Audivit praeses et mulier eius, et contristati sunt 
valde, non manducaverunt neque biberunt in diebus 
iilii, Pilatns autem adducens ludaeos ad sese dixit 
eis: Vidistis quodcunque fiictum est? Dicunt illi 
praesidi: Eclipsis solis secundum eonsuetudinem 
[suam] facta est. 

Stabant omnes noti lesu a longe et mulieres quae 
Hcutae fuerant a Galilea videre iUud. Et vir quidam 

^ The Greek iexU read var^p (or wier^p) before and not after the Aramaic 
formula. In a it ia placed more naturally after it. 

io6 Acta Pilati. xi. i. 

* Lu. 33. * Kol ((8<M^) ^ dn^p Tts, Si^|ia *l«Kr^^ vo\\,riLpYj\^y di4|p 

^ ^ SiKOios ical dyo^upY^s, oStos od ouyicaT^OcTO r^ )3ovA^ ical 

TQ irp(£|ci adTwr dir6 *Ap^aOcfk ii^Xcms ical lOpovs 'louSoMir, 

fcal irpoocS^cTO i^v PcunXciay tou OcoC, outos irpoocXO^M^ it^ 

riiXdTy jn/jtraTO t& rafia tou 'Ii|9ou, ital icaOcXJiir iird rod 5 

^ Mat. aravpov ivmSk^w Kodapq ^ (rivbovi koX l6riK€v iv Xa^iSTy 

' ' ^^' |iin!)|iCiY iv ^ odx i^K odScU odS^mi Kcif&CFOS \ 

Caput XII. 

'AKot^crain'c; ol 'lovdaioi on ri crufia rov 'Iy/o-ov 
^njcraro 6 'Ia)(r^<f>, j^i/rovj; aifrdv Kal rov9 dcSdefca rovs 
flirovras on ov ycyivirqTcu, iK iropvtlas kol rbv ^iKobrniov jq 
Koi Toifs iXkovs iraCpovs oItiv^s IpLitpoaB^v tov ITiAdrov 
TO. iyaOa Ipya avrov i<f>avip(aa'av. irivronv bi airoKpV' 
' P. £. 36. pivT(av ° pAvos & 'SiKobripios &<t>6rif Srt &px<i)v fjv t&v 

cut namen erat loseph, urbis piinceps, vir iostus et 
benefactor, is non erat adseutieni consiliis et actibus 
illoram, eratque e civilate ludaeortim cui nomen erat 
larimathem^ qui qjiidem exspectabat regnum del, is 
accessit ad Pilatum et petiit corpus lesu. Et de- 
ponens de cmce involvit [in] munda sindone, et posoit 
enm in exsculpto monumento, in quo nuUus fuerat 

Caput XII. 

Audierunt ludaei quia corpus lesu petierat loseph, 
quaerebant enm et illos duodecim [viros] qui dicebant 
quia non est natus de fornicatione, et Nicodemum, et 
alios 90cio9 eius qui coram Hlato bona opera eius 
referebant. Omnibus iis latentibus, solus Nioodemus 
apparuit, quia princeps erat ludaeorum, dicit ludaeis : 

' Greek B C, alto Latin and Coptic retain IM, Greek A omits. 

XII. I. Acta Pilati. 107 

yoyyrjv ; Xiyovaa; air<p ol 'lovhaloc crir irQ^ fjKS^s €ls 
TTiv awaytoyrjv ; ft-i avvta-Taip avrov fjs, <rvif avr<p rd 

5 A4y€i 6 'Sucibriixos' ifArjvy (iixriv, dfx^i;). SnoUos hi 
icol 6 'I(o<r^<^ u<^^€ls A^€f rf iKvirrjOrjTt Jtrfri ^Triadfir}v 
rd trQiia rov ^Iriaov ; Iboh iv Koivf • fxvriiJ,€Ci^ • l^tyica • Mat. 
aiT6v, imlkiias iv Kadap^ tnvh6yi^, koI v/uicis ov KoXm ^^ ' 
iirp6^aT€ KOToL tov hiKaCov T(wtov, oti ov fi€T€iJL€Krj6r)T€ a;. 59. 
10 TOV <rTavp&(rai avT6vy iXXh kclL X^yxn ® iK€PTrja'aT€ <» Jno. 19. 
avT6v ^. Kpanjo-oin'e; ol 'lovdaiot r^r 'Icoo^^ iKiXevaav ^^' 
a(nl>a\ia6r}vai ^ avrov. \4yov<nv avr<p' tovto yiyv<a(rK€ ^ Mat. 
Sri ^ iSpa ovic aTrairci vpa^al ti Kara aov, Sti <rf&^^aToy ^ Jj 


Qaomodo ingress! estis sjnagogam? Dicont ei 
ludaei: Ta quomodo ingres9U8 es synagogam, quia 
consentiens ^ illi eras ? Cum illo pars tua in seculo. 
Dixit Nicodemos : Amen. Similiter et loseph appa- 
ruit, dieit : Quid contris^^i estis [de me], quia petii 
corpus lesu ? Ecce in communi ^ monumento posui 
eum involvens in munda sindone, [et lapidem advolvi 
ad ostium speluncae]. Et vos non bene egistis de 
iusto illo ; neque poenituit vobis a erucifigendo eum, 
sed lancea perculistis latus eins. [Tunc] tenuerunt 
ludaei loseph et iusserunt custodiri et dicunt : gratias 
age ; quia hora fwn est exigere aliquid, quia sabbatum 

^ All Greek and most Latin sources, also Coptic, read rd fiipos airrov furd 
oov iw r. /<. al. Two Latin MSS. alone, A and B, exhibit the Armenian 
reading: Portiotua Ht cum illo, ifc. niXXovn is read in all sources 
except fi, 

' kicwHiaar* a{n6»] fi literally B^erctfJM^if latera eius. 

* Ann. — eadem narrans, 

* s-Kotrf, a misreading of leatrf, which proTes this translation to hare been 
ma^le from Greek. 

io8 Acta Pilati. xii. i. 

Sia^cuSci. (Iri h\ ciKpiPm) yivtoaKt ^ on koX Taf^^ris 
i^ios oifK cZ, iXXa bibofxtv rd (ru/bid aov toIs ir^Teivoh 
rov ovpavov koI roi; OrjpCois rov iypov. X4y€i avrols 6 
*laHTrj4>' ovToi ol \6yoi rov iTt€p7i<f>ivov FoXiad klalv^ is 
ivtCbiatv Sidv C^irra Koi tov Ayiov AavCb, ctircr 6 Stos' 5 

* Bo. 1 2. l|iol licSiKT|<ns, icdyjl) diTairo8<&<r«i» K ovtos bk 6 iKpoPvo'Tos ^ 

He. lO. 'ni <''<>/"^i 'CA^ V€piT€flv6fJL€V0£ ^ Tjj KOphli^ ® Xap^l^ Sftlilp 

3^- dircKii|raTo KarcVain'i rov ^Atov (^\iy<av)' iSi^s cifii iy£> 

20 and ^^ ^ aZfuiTos tou SiicauMi roin'oi;* v/icls 8y^€(r6c kcX 

^"*d'^ v/icis iTr€KpC6riT€ (tw riiAdra))^ X4yovT€S' tA at|Aa dhou i<^' lo 

30. 6. ij^fios ical ^ttI rd WKKa il^plii^ <'. ical i/Oi; ^ojSovfxai fi^irorc 

27. 24. 

* 1 Th. 2. 'Aicov<rayr€S ol Movdaioi rovs Xoyovs rovrovs* iirt- 

illucesc^dtf^. Cognosce quia nee sepultnra olim eroi 
dignus sed AsAmmus camem tuam yolaidlibns coeli et 
bestiis terrae. Dicit eis loseph : Iste sermo Groliad 
superbi est, qui exprobravit deo vivo et sancto David. 
Dixit deus [per prophetam] : Mihi vindicta et ego 
retribuam, [dicit dominus]. Hie non circumcisus 
came, sed circumcisas corde accipiens aquam lavit 
ante solem : Innocens sum ego, dicit, a sanguine iusti 
[istius] ; vos cognoscitis. £t vos respondistis di- 
oentes: Sanguis istius super nos et super filios 
nostros. Et nunc timeo ne quando adveniat vobis 
ira et in filios vestros [sicut vos dixistis]. Audientes 
antem Tudaei verba haec amariciti sunt animis suis ; 

* rovTO yiyy, «.t A.J jS « < be thankful that 'tis not the hour to exact aught/ 
as if the Greek were cix^^^^^'* ^f 4 ^/^ o^" iariy diRUTcry, and omits wpa^ai 
n icard aw. Of that reading as of in h\ dxptfiSn in a I find no echo in other 

' The phrase in the text must be derived from the apocryph of Jeremiah 
cited by Gregory of Nyssa (p. 5131 ed. 2iacagni) : rtptri/ja^taBt ri^y tcapSiay h/uir 
leai fiil r^ ad/uea r^s dMfM$wrrlas himv. Vide Resch, AtutereanonUehe 
ParaUeltexU, Leipsic, 1894, p. 375. 

' Evplw is in aU Greek sources. Coptic and Latin have Dei. 

* After Tovrovt three or four letters are erased in a. 

xn. a. Acta Pilati. 109 

KpdvSria'av rais ylrv\aTs iavrQv, koX KpaTrj(ravT€s tov 
Jo><r^<^ iv4icX€ia'av €19 oIkov iirov ovk fjv Bvpls. kcX 
vapa^\aK€9 'jrapifi€iv<w^ rfj &ipq' kcX iaif^pAyucrav ^ t^v * Mat. 
Oipav iiFov iviKKmrav 'I«(T7j<^. ^'' 

5 T<p h\ aappina Spov &pi(rav ol iLpxL€p€is koI ol 
Acvtrai &<rT€ vivras €ip€Or}vai iv rp avvayonyri' i^ov^ 
KeSovTo TToCtj^ Bavixf^ iiFOKr€lvoi><nv avT6v. KaB^aOivros 
h\ TOV avv^hplov iKi\€V(Tav iL\6rjvai axrrov /icrci voXA^; 
i,Tifiia9* Koi ivol(avT€S rriv Bvpav cihiva €vpov ^ avrov ^ Lu. 24. 
10 (* ilKc*). ical i^iarri iras 6 Kads koX (KSafifioL ® iyivovro ^ ' 
Sri rds aif^paylbas eipov (r<ias^ koI ttjv KX^lbav €lx^€v 6 16. 5. 
Kau(<^a9* Kal ovk tri MXpLriaav JmjSoXctr ras x€ipas 
(aiTCip)f oi iKikria'av ifnrpoaStv tov TliKiTov V€pl tov 

[deinde] inclnseront etim in claiuitro ubi nan erat 
fenestra, et cuBtodes posuemnt ad iaDuas, et signa- 
vemnt ianuam nbi erat \tl(Avlsus loseph. 

Sabbato autem tempos definitum fecerant synagogae 
principes et Levitae ut omnes congregarentnr in ^yna- 
gogam [in prima sabbatomm. Et vigilantes diluculo 
omnis multitudo in synagoga] eonsiliati sunt qnali 
morte interficerent eum. Sedente autem eongrega- 
tione iusserunt duei eum eum magna iniuria: et 
aperientes ianuam neminem invenerunt. Inhiavenint 
omnes populi, et extimuerunt quia signaeula inve- 
nerunt signata^ [et custodes stabant ad portam,] et 
clavem habuit Caiphas. Et amplius non ausi sunt 
mittere manum in eos qui loeuti sunt ante Pilatum 
de lesu. 

* Lit. appoiiii aunt 

' A alone of the other soiirces shows this reading. 

no Acta Pilatu XII I. i. 

Caput XIII. 

''En h\ airrCiV irvva\6ivT<av koI 6av\ia(iivT<av hih rov 

•Mat *la)<nj<^, ^JikBov riv€£ rrjs KovaroibCas, ots iTrforrja'avTo 

^ * "* 01 *lovbaioi irapa tov HiXarov rriptu*^ rb <rtt/uia- koI 

28. 4. avriyy€ikav rots iipxiavvaY<iyoi3 koL toIs Uptvai Kai 

• Mat. vivTi T<a S^Xf^ rh y€v6fA€va' to irws iyivtro • ® ocurft^ 5 

• Mar. (1*^*5) ^> '^^ tlboiL^v^ in Syytkoq tow icupiou KaWpi| <{ 
'^* •')' odpovou icai dircicJXurcif t&i^ XiOok ®* avitrrq {yap SavfiaaTOS 

• 1 Cor. (or -rij) iv b6(ri • ical ^AdXet raiy ywat^v 6 in/pios) *. 

Caput XIII. 

Et dum illi congregati erant atque mirabantar de 
loseph venerunt quidam de custodibus, quos statu- 
erant ludaei a Pilato custodire sepulcmm lesu^ [ne 
venientes discipuli eius {urentur eum]. Animntia- 
verant sacerdotum princijnbus et eetiioribus ^jfnagogae 
quaecunque facta eunt, [respondemnt principes sacer- 
dotum et dieunt :] quomodo factus est terrae motuB. 
[Aiunt dum custodiebamos nos] vidimus angelum 
domini descend^^iw de coelo et revolvit lapidem [ab 
ostio sepulcri] ; [et erat adspectus eius sicut fiilgur et 
vestimentum eius album sicut nix. Et prae timore 
eius facti sumus velut mortui. Et audivimus vocem 
angeli loquentis mulieribus, quae stabant ad sepulcrum 
lesu quia : Ne timete ; lesum crueifixum quaeritis : 
non est hie,] surrexit [autem sicut dixit ; venite et 
videte locum ubi posuerunt eum. Et euntes dicite 
discipulis, quia iam praecedit vos in Galilaeam, ibique 
videte eum. Ecce dixi vobis]. 

^ Some Latin editions read terrae motui only, omitting magntu which Latin 
MSS. add. 

' Here jS adds much that agrees generally with Matt. a8. 1-6. The text of 
a 18 found in no other source. In the canonical texts it is one or two angels 
who converse with the women about the risen Lord. Chritit himself does not 
appear or speak. In the P. £. alone Christ appears, but does not speak. The 

XIIT. 2. Acta Pilati. 1 1 1 

Aiyovcnv ol 'loudaioi' voCaii yvvai^iv fXciXci 

Xiyovaip' oI5afiev itolai Ijaav. Kiyova-iv ol 'lovbaloi' 
TToCa &pa Ijv ; Xiyoxxriv ol rfj^ KovaroihCas ^' yA<nis 
wkt6s\ Kiyovtriv ol 'lovdaloi* hia H ovk ^Kpavf^frar^ 'P.E.36. 
5 ras yvvaXKas ; Xiyovinv ol rrjs KovaroibCas' ^6$ i^icpoi ^ Mat. 
iy€v6\i€6a ^ iicb rov <^o)3ov, /i?) ikniCovr^s lb€iv rd <^ca; * **' 
Tfjs fjiAipai* (ir«s €lxofi€V * avrds ;) Xiyovaw ol 'lovSaioi* 
^ Kvpios, (iTi) ov Trt,aT€vofX€v vfxiv. Xiyawnv ol 1^9 
KOV(rT<ahlas' roaavra arifi^la clSere ct? rov 'Ii/crovv, Koi 
10 ovic ^wtoTctJo-arc' ^/uiu/ it&s wioT€t;€T€ ; ical yip icoXca; 
u/moo-arc 5ti ^ tcipios* viXiv Xiyovaiv ol 1^9 icovoroy- 
5tas* i^Koi;<rafi€i; 2ri riv alTrfa'ifi€Vov rd (rca/ma rov 
'IijcroCy Ji^cicXcfo-arc avrhv iv oIic<p rufl ical rriv Ovpav 

Dicunt ladaei [cnstodibos] : Quibns mulieribus 
loquebatur? Dicunt: nescimus quae erant. Dicunt 
ludaei : et quae hora fuifc ? Dicunt custodes : Media 
nocte. Dicunt ludaei : Quare non tenuistis eas ? 
Dicunt custodes: Tanquam mortui &cti sumus a 
timore, non sperabamus videre lumen diei: Dicunt 
ludaei : Vivit dominus, non credimus vobis. Dicunt 
custodes : Tanta signa vidistis in Aomine illo et non 
credidistis [illi] : nobis quomodo crederetis ? Istvd 
autem bene ixrnstis quia vivit dominus. Iterum 
dicunt custodes [ludaeis] : Audivimus [nos] quia qui 
petiit corpus lesu, inclusistis eum in domum unam et 

statement here in a that the Lord spoke with the women is consistent with the 
omission of Mat. 28. 5, 6, of which fi gives the suhetanoe, and also with the 
obliteration In a of a word immediate! j below after noUus ywat^lv IXdXci. The 
word erased may have answered to 6 K^os or & *lrfOovf, Perhaps the original 
text of the A. P. has been here mutilated, as giving extra-canonical detaila. 
Yet this is donbtfol, for below in xiii. 2 the guards say : 6 'Itjffovs iea0on fftcov- 
aaftty rov d77Aov dyiffrtf Koi tcrtv iv Takikal<f (cp. Mat. 28. 5-7)* 
' Here and elsewhere the Arm. is equivalent simply to ' milites.* 
' Perhaps we should render the Armenian won itcparovfuv aMis, but since 
wSfs ftxo/ity ttparrjinu aMif is read in Coptic and other sources, it is more 
probable that Kparrjtrai has dropped out of the text of a. 

112 Acta Pilati. xill. 3. 

avTov, 5ar€ oiv VfitU tov 'Ia>(T^<^, koI fjfitl^ bibofi€V rdv 

^Irjaovv, X4yov<nv ol 'lovbaloi Tois ^k Kov(n'(ohCa9' fjfuls 

bChofiev TOV 'f<i>(n7<^, Koi v/ui€t9 bore rdv ^Irjaovv. Xi' 

yovaiv ol ttjs Kov<rTa>blas' vp&rov vfi€ls b6T€ tov 'f oxnfi^, 5 

Kal €l6* finals hChofuv rdv 'liyo-ovv. Xiyovtnv {tois Trjs 

KovoTcodfa;) ^ * 6 ']a><r^<^ €t; Tr6Xiv avrov AirijA^cv. 

Xiyova-uf ol t^s Kovarcablas {iTpds Tois 'lovbaCovs)^. k(u 

• P. E. 30 6 *Ii7<rot;5, KaSiiS rJKov(rafi€v tov iyy4XoVy iv4<rni *, Kal 

ioTiv iv TTJ TaXiXaCq, 10 

^AKov(rcLVT€S hk ol 'lovbaioi tovs Xoyovs tovtovs 

»»Lu. 23. i(l>oPri$ri<Tav^ <r<f>6bpa^, X4yovT€S' ^fiijworc* iKovcO^ 6 

P. K. 38. X6yo5 oSro9 Kal irirrcs i^oixoXoyrjaiavTai cZs Tdv ^Irja-ovv^. 

e Mat. Kal cni|i|3oiiXioK' Ttoirjo'curres aXXrjXois, (oVlovbaloi) dpyupca 
28. II. 


•P.E.30. portam clasistis et sigDastis [anulo], et quam apem- 
'Mat igtis [portam] non invenistis eum. Date ergo vos 
loseph, et nos damas lesum. Dieunt ludaei easto- 
dibus: nos damas loseph, vos date lesum. Dieant 
enstodes [Indaeis] : Prime vos date Joseph, et nos 
damas lesam. Dieunt ludaei : Joseph civit-atem 
suam ivit [Arimathem]. Dicnat eustodes : Et lesus, 
quemadmodum audivimus ab angelo [qui saxum 
revolvit, quia] praecedat vos in Galilaea. 

Quum audirent ludaei sermones hos, timuerunt 
valde, dieentes: Ne quando audiatur sermo iste et 
omnes deelinent in lesum. Et consilium facientes 
una cum seniaribus argentum multum dederunt mili- 
tibus, dieentes: [Dieite quia nobis dormientibus 
venerant diseipuli eius et furati sunt eum. Et si 
auditum fuerit a praeside, nos satisfaciemus ei et vos 

^ For rots r. «. the Greek MS. A has rois {nrrfpircus. Other Greek soorcei 
omit. So also Ck>ptic. The Lat. MSS. A C add * custodibus.' 

' Some Greek tources omit wpbs r. 'I., also the Latin B C and Coptic. 
Othert retain. 

XIT. I. Ada PilaU. 113 

iKafi J^SuKav Tois (rrpaTuiraij X^oktc; Xva. fit} 8ijX(i- 
Capct XIV. 

5 iz^yrjaai^o r^ rrvvayuyTj {itai rois 5p;(it/>t7J(r(i/) Sri eiBoii 
Toii 'lijiTow kqI rois fi'fifKa fiaflijras auroC (ca0«fofx^i'out 
^ffi TO opor TO KaKov(ievov Mafi^p^)(_, koI tKtyfv Toli 
HaBrjrals airrov. ' iroptufl^Kres cl% riv K^jioi' Ki]pu£aT« ' Mar . 
wiiri) Tj KTicni- Ko't i miTT£u'o-as {«ai Pairriirftis) ^ iriuiff- | " '■'"" 
10 ocTai, 6 Sc liAiyoTrnTTqo'as KaraBpi^o-eTai. {OT|f«ia 5J rois 
Trior* fo-airiji irapaKoXouff^troutrii', tovtc<tti' iy tu ii-iSfiOTi 
(lou EatjiAvia JKpaXou^LV, iv y\iii7raii XoXi]o-ou<tii', KavTTfp 
6aifA<rinov n trLw^iv ov /17 pXdif'ci adrous, kqI i-jei ippiiintiv^ 

secnroe faciemus. IllI vero accipientes arg^ntum, 
fecerant sic ut didiceruDt: et exiit rumor iate 
e ludaeis usqne bodie]. 

Caplt XIV. 
PhiUmSn eacerdoa et Adas doctor et Egias Levita, 
deBcenderunt de Galilaea in lenisaleni et retnlerunt 
arckimfHago^, quonitiin vidcmnt lesum et undecim 
discipuloB eiu9, quoniam sedeia/ in nionte, c«i nomen 
erat SambrelecA, et dicebat discipulis euia : Ite ia 
mnndum confefiionii, et hoc quod vvlittis annuHtlaU. 

' a while here omitliug uiuali that ia given in d and in all itie other 
•onroeB, b ;et conriatent with itself and thows no ugn a( having been 
Inntikted. Indeed thkt iiucb ia not the cue ia proveil by the kindred omiiaiun 
in a lit. 3. Hem then a seems to preiieDt a text which goea bikok bej^uud 
every other source, including the Coptic. Such nuitter is more likely to have 
been added by B than really omitted by a. 

' On this |)(iK«iige see introduction. The passage cijutla . . . Ifei airrw is 
omitted in the Latin louroea E Kins. Pabr. CoriL In the Latin editions D"' 
and edP' the; are absent, 'llie Greek A omits in this pa«sa^ Mar. ifi. \6 and 
paraphrases Mar, iC. 17, IS thug: Sn ol itiirra! soAAd a<iiiua iiaiT\aoiiai kbi 
■oAAoiii iativiiirrat i^onoi. The Coptic telain* the entire passage. 

114 Acta Pilati. xiv. 2. 

Xcipas kM\M\xnwiw koL koXus Ifci avrots). Kal In rov 
'Itjo-oi} XaXoi}irro9 irpd; rov; [uaBr\Ta'i avroO, ctSo/uier ovrdv 
ivakri<f>6ivTa els t^ odpai^K. 

Aiyovaiv ol ipxitpfls Kal ol TTp€a'PvT€pot Koi ol 
Acvirai' ^rfrc T^r ho^av r<p ^cy roC 'lo-fHiijA, koI boTi airif 5 
ifofioArfyrjcrir, ravra (2ir€p i^yrfa-aaS^) fJKOvcraT€ Kot 
Idcrc ; Acyovcrti; avrots ol i^yrjaiufvoi' (rj Kvpios 6 $€6^ 
r&v varip<av fjfi&Vy $€09 'APpaofi 'la-aaK Koi 'laKdfi, Sn 
TOVTO ifKOfia'afitv avrbv iva\rj{ff64vTa els rov oipavov, 
\4yov<nv ol ^lovbaloc els tovto rj\6ar€ ol i^riyric^^voi 10 
^fxlVf fj ij\6ar€ cvxV iTrohovvai r<p 6€^ ; \4yov<riv ol 
?rp€<r)3ur€poi Kal ol ap\L€p€U Koi ol Acvtrai itpos aiirovs' 

<l>\vapCa aikri ijv i(f)\vapri(raT€ iirivavri ttAvtos tov 
*Mat Aaov*/ A^yci 4>iX€o; Upev; ical 'Adda; bibiaKCLko^ fcal 15 
'Ey£a9 Acv^n^ff itpbs tovs ip^iavvaydyovv' €l ol Aoyot 

Et qui credunt salvi erunt ^ ; qui vero non credunt^ 
condemnabuntnr. Et dum lesos [hoc] loquebatur 
ad discipulos, vidimos earn elevatum in coelum. 

Dicant autem Bacerdotom principes et Mcribae : 
Date gloriam deo Israel, et date confessionem ei, 
[quia] ista [accurate] vidiftis ei audistis, Dicunt viri: 
Yivit [dominus] deus patrum nostromm, dens Abraam 
et Isaac et laeob, quia hoc audivimus ab eodem [et 
vidimus] quod ascendit in caelum. Dicunt iacer^ 
dotum princij)es: Ad hoc venistis nuntiare nobis, an 
venistis prcferre prece9 veslras? [Dicunt ei viri: 
Venimus proferre vota nostra.] Dicunt seniores et 
principes sacerdotum et Levitae cum iis: si votum 
venistis' perficere deo, cur deliramentum istud quod 
iterastU ante omnem populum? Dicit Ambelianus 
Mcerdoium princeps et Adas didascalus et Egias Levita 

^ Arm. B ' BhAll liTe/ the ooinmon equivalent of ' shall, be saved.' 
' Hie Ann. s ft vomtHtf but there tnoBt be a oomiptioii in the text. 

Siv. 3. Ada Pilati. 

ovroi vXit i\t>,\-!\aixp.t.V koX i\Kavaa^iv afiapria tlffiv, tiov 
h'liTriov ifiuv iiTyL4v. o &v ayaddn jj iroirirraTt. ol Be 
Ka^oiTfi Tov vofxav Siptiaav avToiis lirfhfvl i^rj-y^aaa-Oal 
Tovs kSyovs TOVTOvs. liioKoii avTols fpayttv koI mdv, 
5 (kqI i^40akav aiiToiis i^ai tt}s woXetof) ', koX (f&aiKaii 
airrott) apyvpia xal Si'Spat rptis fifr' auTUf, (kql '/yayov ^ 

SujUjSoiiAioc 8^ ^ffoi^ffof ol 'louSoiot uphs tlAA^Aous, 
(itopfvOivTiiiv T&v ai'bpae iv rtj roAiAaia) '. air^nAeKrac 
10 iaVTovi ol ap^jioTij'oywyoi koI 01 itp<Ts tii r^c irvfaytoy^i/ 
Kal ' iKoVrofro itojrerfljJ ^t-iyav \iyovTft' on tI a-qfittoii ■ 
yiyovtv rovro ' (j' r^ Iirpa^A ; A^yti Awos Kat 
Ktua^af rf vc^fAiwoi al i^x"^ ^/xwi' ; rot; crrfiaTKarait 

ad archisynagogaa : Si verba ieta quae locuti siimiiB, 
et audivimuB [et vidimus], peccata sunt., ecce ante 
voe atamws : quodcunque placet- voli» facite [nobis]. 
At illi accipientes Hhnim leffinii adiuravenint eos nulli 
narrare v»bn ista. £t dederunt eix manducare et 
bibere et argentnm et viroa tres, dueet vadevdi tit 
in GalilaeaiD, et vadebant in pace. 

Consilinm feccnint ludaei inter se, et conclusomnt 
seae archiajnagogae et sacerdotes in eynngoga, plan- 
gebant planetum magnnm et dicebant : Quid signum 
contigit hoc in lerael ? Dicnnt Annas et Caipliaa : 
Qnid tristes sunt animae vestrae? militibus ha- 

' All Greek aonrcea reUJn them wnrdg, *lio cenrly all Lutin flouniei, The 

* Tlie Ann. ftniwer* to the word used here )□ the Latin veraion, prr- 

dil»mint, rather thjm iu imtaria-niaav of the Greek. 

* Theie words omitted in B precede i7v^ai>A>oi- Iroiiaar In all the Greek 
M8S. «xcept C, whoBC order kloiie tslliei with that of a. No Greek eourcei 
omit theni. Mobt Latin aourcea hare the Rame order tu a, liiit the L^tin D*** 
BDd ef\f omit rrom wopivtimir la mi ui Ir^crt. rerhafii B, as rejectiog a clauae 
of which the poaitioa varie* in other aourcea ahould be reckoned to here 
repreaent the older text 

ii6 Acta Ptlati. XV. i. 

• Mat. ixpfx€v wioTcwai, on * iyycAo; Kvptov fjK6€ koI direicv- 

Xi(r€i; rdv KC$ov\ rj ovk olSarc in ovk itrruf Sawv 
inarfvaai iucpopHarois, in icol vap f\\i&v ikafiov \pwriov 

^ Mat. iKOvhv KoX KaSiiS ihLbi(afA€v ^, o6t<os cZiror. 

28. 15. 

Caput XV. 

• Mar. *Av4a"ni 6 'NtKiirifjLOs ^ iv fiiai^ tov avv€hplov (' fori *) 5 
'^' Xiy^p* Ayyoftrc^, kads (KvpCov)^ tov9 ivbpas tovs 

ikOoirras 2?rd ttjs FakiKatas ; in avrol ela-ip <l>op<]f6pL€POi 

rbv Stip, iphp€S evTTopoi, fitaovpr^i tjip ivmlitiav, ipbpts 

^ Mat. ilpripris, avrol i^yrjaavro fxerh SpKov in Ma^up ^ rbp 
28. 16. 

bemos ^ credere quia angelus domini de^cendit de caelo 
et lapidem revolvit [ab monumento] ? [Unde vero 
cog^oscimus quia discipuli eius dedemnt aorum 
maltum costodibos sepuleri et tuleront corpus lesu 
docueruntque eos ita dicere :] Num nescitis quia non 
licet ^ credere non circumcisis aliquod verbum, quia 
etiam a nobis aeceperunt argentum multum, et sicut 
docuimus [eos] ita dixerunt ? 

Caput XV. 

Exsurgens Nicodemus in medio concilio ait [illis] : 
[Beote dixistis quodcunque dixistis. Omnis] populus 
cognoscunt viros [istos] qui venerunt de Galilaea quia 
iUi sunt timentes dominum, viri pacifici qui oderunt 
insolentiam [et avaritiam] ? ipsi narraverunt cum 

* The Arm. a— mm noicUe. The Greek text and Coptic have: &p$Sn 
KakfiTif OVK i,yvour€. The Latin texts omit ohic dirpfourt. Text $»6p$Sn 
ttwart, Bvfp cfraTc, &vas 6 Xads ytyydfaicovat rohs AyHpas. Thus a keeps what 
the Latin texts reject ; they reject what it retains ; while jS has a reading of 
its own. 

' Latin and Coptic ouit Xadr icvpiov. 

* The literal translation in a and $ of tbe Greek phrase Ix^M"'* given in 
Greek B C, proves that the Armenian version was made from Greek. The old 
Latin has debemus, * 7*/<m est 

XV. I. Acta Pilaii. 

'Iijo-oCn K ad c ()([//< fou th to opos Moju^p^x f*""" ''^*' 
ft^CKQ lia&rjT&v ^ avToS, ibi&aiTKfP avToXs orra ^KOiTirart 
Tap avrwu nai *Ko^ avric afa\i]ip04vTa th toi/ oipavov. 
Rat Xri o^cU i)p«njfffy avrovs ro itolif a-](j^fian aft- 

i Xij-^flij. xal KaBiis iiUoKti r/fias to &yiov fii^Klov Sti 
KiJpios 'HAfoi ai'f\'q(tid7j lis Tov ovpafot', nai 'EAio-iraiov 
e0wj"icrey 0unii) piiytiXij, Kai lppi\lrti<'H\las r^f f*TjA(or^i> 
uvrov i-narai tov Ekia-iraiov, koi ippi<^fv 'EAiiriraros r^y 
)Xi\\ioTTiv avrov l-nai'ui tow EAttrrrafov. Kai ilppi\^fii 6 

10 EAitrffaFor t^ii fiTjAwr^j' ovroG <ndyu> roG 'lopSiirou, 
Kal ^TT^poiTtj' KQi i^Aflfii (is 'Itpi^*"' "■*' I'TijiTTio-ai' dJr^ 
ro reKva rwv Trpo(^ijrijf Kal (iwai' ('EAio-o-aiii)}, wou i 
Kvpto's ffou ('HAiar) ; koc elirer ('EAttro-aros), oMA^^ft) 
(is rdf oipap6v koI tlirav irpds 'EKiiraaiov ^i> TivevpL& 

15 Tt ^pTrairei' auroi; nai tppi^tv (airrdv) Iv Sptiri irov ; 
i>iXa fioWap Ki^a>[i(v p-fB' T}p.!iv tovs waiSas ^f^Sc xai 
offfAflo'iTtS ^Jir^o-ftifitu. (Eol 3w^itA«(rov r3f 'EAtaffdioi', 
KkKtlvos oiiK i,irri\6fv fifr' air&v. koI i^TT]ffav airrbv 

Bflcramento, vidimns [ait] leeum sedetitem in monte 
Sambrelech cum iiodecim discipulis suis, qaia docebat 
eo6 quod audiviwM* ab iisdem ot vidimus earn c-fevaliim 
in caelum. Et quod nalluB interrogavib eos, quamoJo 
aecendit. Docet enim noa roriptura sacra dt- EUa 
quod etevafu* ett in caelum: el clamabat Elitaeiis voce 
magna, et proiecit melotem super evm ; et Elisaeus 
[aecipiene] melotem Eliae, perculil lordanem, et tmn- 
eiit [in sicca] et venit lericlio. Et occiirrerunt ei filii 
prophetaram et dicunt : Ubi ? st dominna tuiis ? Et 
dicit, ascendit in caelum. Et dicunt ad Elisaeum : 
Numquid apiritua oliquis rapuit eum et proiecit in 
montibus alicubi ? Bed mag-ia tollamua nobiscum 
paeroa noatros ct earn us requiramus [eum], Et 
indaeerunt illoco EHsaeum, et ille non ibat com illia : 
et [illi] quaesiernnt eum tribus diebue, et non iavene- 

ii8 Acta Pilati. XV. 2. • 

• Lu. 24. Tpcis fifi4pas Kal ov^ fipov *, koI iyvanrav Sri iXfiSm 
^' ip€krj<f>0ri. 'AAX' iKOva-ari fwv, koL iTroaT€l\a)yL€V iv 

vavrl Sp€i *l<rparj\y (koL td<afX€v) ji^wws vird iyyiKoiv 
ffpTriirrai Koi ^ipimai iv Sp€(rC ttov. koI rip€(r€V vaaiv 
6 X6yos oSros. Koi ^TreoTCtXar €ls irdvra ra Spta 5 
'l<rpa^A fijT^<rai (avroV. i(;fi'n\(rav) ^ rhv ^\r\frovv koX ovx 
^ipov rhv h\ '1(00^^ etpofitv iv ^A.pi\iadip, '. 

*AKCf6aavT€S V€pl rov 'Iq>o^<^ i\A,pr\(rav koI ihoiKav 
ho^av r^ dctp flcrpa^X) ^. ical avpifiavKiov ivoCriaav ol 
ip)(^un)viyaryoi Kal ol icpcTs iro^fp rpJ7r<p ovirh^axrii; r^ 10 
'Ia>or^^. fcat iXaftov Topjov x&prrov kcX iypay^av oSroi;. 

runt et int^llexemnt quod vere ascendit. Et nuncj 
audite me, et mittemus in omnee Jines Israelis, ne 
raptos a spiritibus sit lesus et proiectu9 sit in montibos 
alicubi. Et placoit iermo coram omnibus. Et miserunt 
in omnibus montibus Israel quaerere lesum^ et non 
invenerunt ; Joseph autem inven^rt«»/ in Arimathem, 
[neque ausi sunt comprehendere eum. 

Et venientes annuntiaveinmt senioribus et sacer- 
dotum principibus et Levitis quia non invenimus 
lesum : loseph autem invenimus in Arimathem.] 
Audientes autem de loseph gavisi sunt et dedenmt 
gloriam dec. Deinde consilium fecerunt prhicipei 
iacerdotum et scribae et Leviiaey quomodo poasent videre 
loseph. Et acceperunt tomo chartas et scripserunt 
[ad loseph] hoc modo. 

^ The reftding rov (ijrrjacu abrdw koI o^x ttpcv is found in Greek E, also in 
Vatt. Yen. and in Latin Version and Coptic {'Irfcovv for aMy). The reading 
mi i(^Trfoay r. liycr. m. oix ^po^ w in Greek B C E. Perhaps a is a conflation 
of both readings. 

' The omission in a of the words given in fi : neque aiui to xnveuimue in 
Arimathem is no doubt due to homoioteleuton. 

' Greek A and edP^ Lat. om. lapa^K, 

XV. 3. 

Ada Pilati. 

YXprjVTf o-ot Kfll irriiTO Sira <rov ioTi. ol&aiitv on 
ijjidproftty fls Tav 0tdii Kai (Is <ri. tufilfAfiios ru fltui 
'lapaijK taTa^tuitrov iK$ftv irpbs touj irar^/jar (koI ttjjob 

S ros fliJfios ical ov^ (vpofiiv at. otbafiiv Srt ^ov\i]v 
KaKrfv i^ovXtvaafitSa ntpl aov, AAAd trou 6 flfos atrt- 
Xii;3eTo Kai (avr^s 6 Kvpios) 6ifiTKt6a<Tfv ttju jSovX^ii 
flltSf, ^p -ntpi ffov i^avKfv<rap,t6a, ri^ie itdrtp 'Iiu(ri](^, 

lo Kai i^e\i^avTo (aird nocTOS 'IirpaijX) oi-B/ias fnra o\ 
ttplkovv t6v 'Imtnjtp, otis («:ai avros 6 'Iunr^<^) iyCi-oa-Kfv 
airrov (/liAous. Kal Xtyouo-i;! ol &p\irrvvayu>yot (nai 0( 
Uptif lioi ol Aeuirai irpis Toiis ayfipai)' /SAtVtrt, cl 
Scicffxcfu; Ti|i' (^iirroA^f iiap T}p.aiif Kai arayi'^, 

r^f ^7r(OToA^i> f<i) hvayv^, oldarc ort KCKcUturai. atr- 
irdfeiTdc avT^v Jv cl/J^fff kqI iiii<TTpatf>t]rt itpii ^/laf. 

Pax tibi et omnibus quae tua aunt. Novimun quia 
peccavimns in deum et in te: et precawnr deum 
lemel, ut dignitm J'aciat le venire ad patrea tuos, quia 
contristati eumus oinnes, quum apemimus ianuam 
neque invenimua te. Novimus quia consillali fiimm 
de te consiiium malum, Ked (loiuiuus mxcejM ie et 
dissipa\'it consilium nostrum quod de te coDsiliati 
EUmuB, [O] pater Honorandus, losepb honoratus ante 
oculoa no»tro» et ab omni populo. 

Et eltgerunt viros septem qui amabant loseph, 
noverat illos *icut amicos, et dieunt [ad eos] jirincijiet 
tacerdoliim: Videte: si quum susceperfi! episkilam 
a vobis et legerit, tciatU quia vult venire ad noa ; si 
autem quum accipiat littcras non legerit, ecietis quia 
malignatur [vir advereas nos], salutsntes eum in pace 
tovertiuiini ad nos. Benedicent«a autem virot dimi- 


1 20 Acta Pilati. XV. 4. 

nf)k6rfr\iT0» avrovs mX airiXvaap, koI fjXSov ol ivbp€9 
cis 'ApiiiaBifi vpds 'loxn}^, vpoa-ftcvvria'av avr^ Koi 
Kiyova-iM (a^<p)* €lpriirq <roi Koi vivra ocra aoiS i<m, 
KiK€ivos A/yci (avret;). cipiji^ vpxv koI vcanl r<p Aa<p 
'lo-paifX. ical i^wKav aim^ rriv iviaroXrjVf Kal bt^ifuvos 5 
(6 'Ia><r^<^ TJiv iviaroXiiv) iviyvtOy Kai KaT€<l>Ckria€V r^i; 
iTnoToXriv koI €vk6yriaev rdv 0€bv Koi \iy€i, oSrcos* 
eiKoyrirbs i icipios, hs i(air4ar€i\€v tov SyytXov airov 
Koi iaKivaaiv p,€ vird ras inipvyas airov. koL 'luxri}^ 
KaT€<l>Ckri(Tev avrov; koL irap40riK€V avrois Tpiir€(av, koX 10 
ii^tayov ical iviov^ jcat iKOifitjOrja'av iK€L 
• Hos. 6. Kal dpSpCtrcurrfi * lyCfarro. ical farptaatv 'Ia)o^<^ rf/v 
Ji^oi; (avroi;) ical iiropeiOri fitr air&v, ical ^A^ci' ci; r^v 
&y^y irciXu/ 'Ifpovo-aXi{/uu ical vTrrivTrja'fv iras i Xahs 
(*l<rpari\ r<p 'loxn;^), fKpa^av \iyovT€S' flprfirri tlaohf 15 
<rov. ical X4y€i, 'loxr^^ vpd; irclrra rdr Xa6v' €lprivri 
vfiiv, Kal KaT€<l>lXr}a'€V vivra t6p Xaov. ical iffaratrro 
&s etbov airrSv, Kal inT€hi^aTo airrdv Nucodi/fzos (cl? t6v 

serunt. Venemnt aatem viii in Arimathem ad 
loseph, adoravemnt earn et dicant : Pax tibi et omni 
quod toi est. Et ille dicit: Pax vobis et omni 
popolo Domini. Et dederunt ei epistolam. Suseipiens 
autem lepU, et oscnlatos est epistolam, benedixitqae 
denm et di^^ hoc modo : Benedictns dominos, qni 
misit angelnm saum et eooperuit me snb alis sais. 
Osculatus est etiam eo9 loiepk et apposuit eis mensam^ 
manducaveront et biberunt, et dormieruni ibi. 

Et mane sorgentes precati sunt ; et stravit loseph 
asinnm et ambulavit cum illis, et introit in sanctam 
civitatem lerusalem. Et oecarrit (>mnij9{7^94^; clama- 
bant [omnes] dicentes: Pax in introitu tno. Ait 
loseph ad omnem populom, Pax vobis. Et salutaverunt 
omnes eum, et mirabantar qui yidebant enm. Et 
sascepit earn Nieodemus, et fecit convivium ei. 

XV. g. 

Ada Pilati. 

OiKOV aiiTOv), Ka\ i-noitftrtv So^iir lfi(yiX')f). Kal 
iKdXfffti' 'Avvav Kal Kaiitt>ai' nal tdv« AcvtVas fls Tiv 
oIkoi! avTOV, i^ayov koX tinov Ka\ fiif>pAi-6r]aav triiv r<p 
'Iwn-^^, Kal ifH'ovfTfi rov $(bp i-nopfiOr^aav tls Toi/s 
i OiKOVS aiiTaii. 6 ok 'Iqi0^0 (}itivtv tit rbv oXkov 

(Kai VTrfierqatv avroii ^iKohrffioi) Kal \iytV tlfrqyrf 
vfiXv Kal T^ '\u)(r^, Kal ttarjVfyKtv atrovs ds rof 
K^itov airov Koi T/xovtrev i^ap ri trmrthptov ', kqi 'Iojit^^ 
to iKAettrt tx4<Tov'Avva Kal Ka'm^a. (AvoC^as bi) NikoSti^ios 
(to trnfia aiirot'] K^ytt tu 'Iwit^^' warep 'Iiu(t^<^ icai r^ie 
()rarrosroCAaoG,oTSas'on)ot rffiiot SiSda-icaAoi (vat tf^cis) 
CfToviriv T!apa ffov fiaGfiv p^f«i t(. ical Aeyd 'itoiT^i^* 

Vocavit Annam et Cnipham [et senioree] et Levitas 
in domum Buam. Mnndncabant et bibebant et gaviai 
BOnt cum loseph et benedvrtruttt ileum, [et] iverant 
[viniisqnisque] in domnm Bnam. loeepb [vero] re- 
mansit [in domo Nicodemi. 

Postera antem die, parasceve* erat ; vigilaverunt 
sacerdotum principes et Levitae] ' ad domum Nico- 
demi tt dicunt. Pax Ubi et Toaeph, [et salntaverunt 
interseae.] Et [excipiens] eos [Nicodemua] in/roduxit 
in hortnm Buam. SeileruiU omnei et loseph in medio 
eontm : [et nemo ausns est quaerere verbum. 
Deinde dicit ad eos loseph : Ut quid vocagtis me ? 
Illi vero innaerunt Nieodemo ut loqueretur euni 
loseph. Deinde] dicit [Nicodemus] ad loseph : 
Pater honorande loeeph, veneraii<li et liiihacaU tyna- 
gogae volitnt quaerere a ie verbum. Dixit loseph 

' Ann. — ' the putitic' Jut before tni.iiii. — 4init>a(r n 
of IwuiwL - inaUai^, 

122 Acta Pilati. xv. 6. 

j/Hunfo'are. Kol fkafiov t6v vo^jlov ''Avvas Kal Ka'Ci(f>a9 
KOLi &pKi(rav rdv 'IcD<r^<^ k4yoirr€S' bds b6(av r^ ^cf 
'lo-pa^A, (ical bds avTi^ tiyapiirriav' Sri "A^ap &pKl<r6r} 
Ttapa Tov irpo<f>rJTov rod vlov Nav?) koI ovk iTriiipKrj(r€Pj 
iXkh ivrjyy€i\€Vi koL ovk Inpiuy^tv prjiii ri*) ^ fx^ Kpvy^s 5 
d<^' ^fjitti; (?Q>9 ^2/69 ical jrd; pi^fuxrof). fcal \iyti 'Ia>(r^<^' 
^ 6 Kvpios iav Kpv\lf<a d<^' v/um^i; prjiia fv. koI Aeyovcri 
(irpd9 avTov). XyTrp ikvTrrjOrjpL^v 5re T^rifo-o) rd crcafia 
rov 'Itjo-ov fcal ivervkt^a^ airrb KaOapai^ aivbdo'i Kal 
lOijKas avrdv iv {Kaiv<f) pLvrJixari. bia tovto d^exXc^- 10 
acLfjJv a€ iv oIk<^ {ottov ovk fjv OvpCsy Koi ImBriKayi^v 
KkAhas KcX crff^payvbas iitX tQv Ovp&v koI irapa^vAaica; 
Sttov fjs K€Kk€i.(rpLivoij ^j Kai rfj fiiq rod a-aPfiirov fjvol^a' 
li€V Tcis Ovpai Kal ovx ^ipayiiv 0*6, ikv'nriOr\yLiv <r<l>6bpa, 
fcol iKO-Taois i'niTT€a'€v i<f>* (^M^^ i^O'l vivra) rdv kaov. 15 

Kal vvv irdyyciAov ffplv tC yiyovas. A4y€i, (avrois) 
'loxn/^' 7^ irapaa-Kevp ivb^Kdrri &p^ iiriKkelaaTi fi€, Kal 

[Nicodemo] : Dicant. Tollentes auiem Annas et 
CaipJuu librum legum adiaraverunt loseph dicentes: 
Da gloriam deo Israel, et quaecunque interrogamus ne 
abscondas a nobis. Dicit [ad eos] loseph : Vivit 
dominus si abscondam a vobis verbum unum. Et 
dicant: Contristati magna tristitia somus quoniam 
petisti corpus lesu et involvisti illud monda sindone 
et sejpelisti earn in monumento [tuo]. Ideo inclu- 
simus te in carcere : et una sabbati aperientes ianuas 
non invenimus te. Contristatique sumus valde et 
stupor irruit super populum [usque hodie]. Annuntia 
ergo nobis quae sunt facta tibi, 

Inquit loseph : In [die] paraseeve circa decimam 

^ The Latin texts omit the same words as fi, at least from on "Axap and 
mostly reject one of the claases beg^ning with 96$. The Coptic and Greek 
texts retain these words, which are surely necessary as giving a reason why 
Joseph was to thank the God of Israel. 

* All souroes except the Latin B retain the words here omitted by fi. 

XV. 6. Ada Pilaii. 123 

(liHva r^c T}fi,ipav tov tya^^6.Tov ■nK^pi '. Kal fitaovaTfi 
PVKTds fV)(oij.fvov fj-ov *, 6 oXkos ottov ivfK^fia-aT( fl.f 
iKptfiiaSij Ik Toiif TfiT<riip<i)v yoiriui', Kal us aiTTpaTttit/ 
(<fia)Toi fihov) TTpd 6(ti0aXfiae Ifi^i: Kai ^fi<J>o;ios yfvii- 
j ficvos tTitno xo/iai. (cai (TrtAti^ero {r^s )((ipds ^xuti) ical 
t^f^oXtv fit oTrd roO tottou Sttou iyKfKkfLo-ufvos ifM'J''i 
KOt lufiiis vBttrwii iireirt<rfu /if {ftixpt twv ttoBwi' fiou). 
Kai T!i>otr(Kdiii' ' ^Tri to itpoframav fiov Karet/JiAijo-^ji ^^e 

10 ^olJt <rov KoX Be r(s AoAet ttpoi at. koX Afa/3Aii/»af 

«I8oi/ rflv IijToOi'" KoX ivrpofios ytv6(i.fvos itoxovi'* ori ■Mw.6. 
ipivTOiriti Ti tlij. (k(h ra irpoiTT&yiiaTa IXtyov)* xal ,^'16. 
iipiifi.riv ix t«i> JirroAuv X^yttv' xal avrds trwtkiKti 

horam incliiaiEtis me [in carcereni], et mansi ssbbatuin 
diem totum. Qnum media nos esset, slante me in 
orotione, suspensa^ eat a quattnor ang-ulis, veluti 
corugcuB luminis ante OCuloB meos. Et exterritut in 
terrain cecidi AppreheiuiU et efevavit me a loco ubi 
ceculeram et humiditas aquae incidit Buper me [ct 
odor peieutit nares meas eicnt suavis aromatis ;] et 
adveniens ad me osculatua est me ct dixit mibi : 
loeeph ne time, apcri oculos tuos et vide quis [est qui] 
loquitur tibi. Intendena autem vidi leaiim, extimui 
et pnta^/» fantamta esse. £t coepi e maudatia 
recitare : ipse vero colloquebatni mecum. Et voa non 

' Or perhap* oXi/c. 

* Tbe Aim."' while I itood in prater.' Tliia In 6he onliiuirj equivKleat of 
tiiXOIfivnv itiru, but not iocoiiaintant witli nrlftorTiit (or laTaniymi) /uiB (oi 
(Ixcf^*''"' wliich ii revl in tha Gtoak texts. 

' The Grseh texts have ini^M, % atnae which the Arm. oftnuot field. Tha 
Arm. — ' having come near' or ' h»viiig pot near.' 

' The reading of a. would Bceiii tii W a euufliitiiin of ml ri tpoar. iXiyor 
given in Greek E C and xm ^fiifn" *'h"' ''^ "'"''• "^ Kreek E, only irr&kri or 
aonie (imilar word a Iruulati^d in the second claiue. The old Latin alio hni 
different vrordi : oralione afilem el praeetjitu loqafltar ti. 

' Tbeetiuivaleiilofdomut uIiiin«Iiuwffain«muBthavedroppedautaflhe^te: 

1 24 Acta Pilatu xv. 6. 

/iOi. fcal vfjici? y€ ot5ar€ 5ri, Mr ^(ii^rocr/yui oin'om^o'Ci 
TivX fcal iKOvaji ra prjixara t&v irpoorayixiroiVy 4>vy^ 
<l>ei(€C Koi Ibitv Sti (TvrcAoAei fiot, eiiroi; {airr^y ^afifil 

* Jno. I. 'HAia*. Kol kiy€i fxoi' oifK cifjil tyii *Hklas> fiTtov air^* 

2 1 32. 

(TV d^ tIs 61, #ci;p4€ ; ical k4y€i' clfxl ^yoi 'iTycrovf, oS ro 5 

(rQfjLa jirrjaoi ircLpa IIiAarot; koI iv€Tv\i(as iv KaBapai'f 

tnvh6<n KOL aovb6piov lOrjKas iv\ rd Ttf)6(r<oTt6v fwv koL 

^ Mat. fOrjKii /ic ^i; Kalpi^ ^ lunjfiaTif Kal iicvXiaas kiOov rivh 

andJno. V^^y^Py Bipav Tov fAvrjiMTOi. Koi ttirov {r^ kakovvrC 

' '^ ' fxoi)' b€l(6v fioi rdv rcfiroy® {ovov tOriKi crt). iLtrqyayi to 
16. 6 and fi€, KoX Ibei^i fioi t6v tottov Srrov MBti airbs koI 
J. ' <nMvi6v ri (2 Tr€pi€Cf^a'fiivo9 fjv, kcu to aovbdpiov rh 

<* Jno. 20. €2; TJ)i; K€(Pa\riv licctro ^ abrov' koL iitiyvtav ort, 'Iiycrovf 
^ iji;, fcai iircXdjScro 7^9 X!^ip6s fiov koL itrrqo'iv fi€ r^v 

BvpQv K€Kk€i(Tp.iv<av iv fji^o-cp rod oIkov pLOVy koX iLphravaiv 15 

• Act8 I. fi€ cfe T^v KkCvrfv fiov Kal kiy€i fxoi' t<ai r€<r<rap<i/coirra* 


ignoratis, si phantasma caivis occurrat et aadierit 
verba mandatoram, foga fugit. Qaam loqaeretur ad 
me, dixi : Rabbi, Eliaa ? Et dieit mihi : Non sam 
ego Elias. Et dixi ad earn : QuU es tu domiue f Et 
dicit mihi Ego sum lesus, cuius corpus petisti a Pilato 
et involvisti in munda sindoue, et sudario operuisti 
caput meumy et in novo monumento posuisti me, et 
advolvisti lapidem magnum ostium monumenti. Dixi 
autem ei : [Veni] ostende mihi locum. Et duxit me 
[in locum ubi posui ego eum]. Fidi sindonem, suda- 
riumque quo involveram caput eius : deinde cognovi quia 
lesus est. Et apprchendens manum meam duosit me 
[in Arimathem et] clausis ostiis introduxit me in 
domum meam ; reposuitque in lectulo meOj dicitque mihi : 
[Pax tecimi. Deinde osculatus est me et dicit ^ :] 

' ThU omiMdon in a is probably dae to homoioteleaton. No other aonxee 
presents it. 

fjlitpav fiil i^iKdriS l£ oXkov itov iboii yap iy&i Ttoptvaofxai 
■npdi Tols &h(\tf>ovt fiov tU roAiAaiat'. 

Caput XVI. 

Kql &KOVtTavTfi ol apxiavvdyiuyoi koI ol Upd^ ra 
pijIiaTa TavTa impa tov luxr^i^ i^(K(VTi\6i]iTav iv Tats 
5 '/'tixoTs oItSip (cal iyivovra airrfi vfKpoi ' ko( i-ntaav • 
XOM"' fo'^ iiivri(rTtv(Tav ?tus iv^TT^i Sipai. koX Trope it dAouji 
Thv 'latar)^ koX roe NuoStjjioi', roc 'Aveav Kal rdv 
Kaldifiav koi tovs Uptis ktyovrtr ivdtm]Tt, ariJTf iv\ 
Toiis -nobas tpiuiw, yfiiraaOe &pTov koX ivitTx^aaif ras 
lo ifru^as ifiuv, Sti avptov uA^^arav itrriv. Kal IsopcH- 
6i\irav itKaiTTOs) fU rhv qIkov airov. 

Tf 8« aafi^&Ttf imiflnrai' oi fliBdo-KoAoi koL ol Upeis 
Kol ol Acvirai (nvtCn^ovv upos oAX^Xovs koi cXeyor. 

Usque quadraginta dies non exire de domo tua ; ecce 
eff3 \ado ad fmtres meos in Galilaeatn. 

Cai'lt XVI. 

Qutim aiidivissent verba ista a loaeph sacerdotum 
princi])es et scribae et oranis senatus syna^o^e faeti 
santi tanqDum roortui ; et ceciderunt in terrain, et 
ieiunaverunt [diem ilium] usque ad nonani homm. 
Ihinde Nicodemus et Joseph rogavemnt i'o» dicentes: 
Surgite state super pedes vestros, et gustate el 
confimale animas, quoniam craslina die sabbatum 
[domini] est. [Et euiTextnint, in oratione stabant ad 
deum, et manducavyrunt et biberunt '], et abierunt in 
domum suam. 

Sabbato autem sederunt areh'myHagoffac et teniore» et 
PAarisaei, dia^erebant ad iavicem et dicebaut : Quae 

' An omioian due to hi>iiioIoiel«utan. 

1 26 Acta Pilati. xvi. a. 

* I Th. a. ri9 ^ ^py^ ^ tf^Ooaci^ * ^^* ^fia9 ; Srt oQia\ktv rov iraripa 
avTov fcal rriv fxrjTtpa. Aiy€i Aevls 6 bihicrKokos' rdv 
TtoTfpa fcal rr\v fxrirepa olbaixtv (ffofiovixivovi rdv Otov, fcol 
Tcis €V\hs firi ivoar€povvTas koL ras btKiras iirobCboV' 
ro9 rpls^ Tov iviavrov, Koi ore iyevvrjOrj 6 'Irjcovs S 
irpoarjviyKav {avrbv 6 Trarrip koX fi pLr/Trip airov) ciy tov 
T&nov TovToVf Koi BwTias fcal dkoKavrdiiara lb<aKCLv r<p 
$€if. Koi St€ fXafitv avrbv d ixiyas bibAa-Kokos Svficcav 

^ La. 3. b f [^ j^ dyKdXas adrou, X^i* vtiv dvoXucis^ S/(nroTO, T&r 
38 if. ^ 

SouX^K (Fou Kard t& pr\\i-d, oou. (hx cISok 6^6oiXfiOi |&ou t& xo 

awTf\pi6v oou. t|dX^yi|acK a^oi; ZupiuK kox X^yci irp^ MapiAf& 
T^i' |M)T^pa a^Tou* cvayycXi^ofic^ci croi irepl rov iriublov 
TovTOV. fcal X^yci Mapidfi* iya$6vy icupU pjov, ical A/yct 
Svfjiccix;' (dyadJx' ^ortr.) Idov oiros ^Iri nruo-is Kal dig- 
est iracundia quae supervenit nobis? quia novimus 
patrem et matrem eias. Bespondit Levi didascalos et 
inquit: Par^^e^ eins novimus, [quia] timentes [erant] 
deum, vota non morabantur et decimas dabant [ter] in 
anno. Et quando paruerunt lesum, adduxerunt in locos 
hos, et holocausta et sacrificia dederunt deo. Et quum 
magnus didascalus Simeon accepit eum in bracliia sua, 
dicit : Nunc dimitte domine servum tuum, secundum 
verbum tuum in pace : quia viderunt oculi mei salu- 
tare tuum, [quod parasti ante faciem omnium popu- 
lonmi. Et] benedixit eo8 Simeon et dixit ad Mariam 
matrem eius : Annuntio tibi de puero isto. Et dicit 
Maria : Bonum est, domine mi. Iterum dicit Simeon: 
Ecce fiet hie in ruinam et in restorationem [multorum 
in Israel], et in signum contradictionis ^ : [et tuam 

* There is a slight corruption of the text here in a. I haye rendered it m it 
most have stood. 

' Some Latin sources read conimdicHonU, implied both by the Armeniaa 
A. P. in Lat. D*^ and by the Armenian vulgate. 

xvi. 3. Acta Pilati. 127 

voXXwK KopSiwi' SiaXoyia|MH \ 

AiyowTiv r<^ 5i5a(rfC(iA<i> Acv^ rovro av v66€V otda;; 
X^yei A€v(* oifK oldare ort ^op' avrov IfiaSov t6v vofiov ; 

5 kiyavtnv ain^ rb ^vvibptov' rdv varipa aov Oikoyitv 
Ihtw, irpoaTJveyKav rdv iraripa avrov {fixTrpoa'6€v) koI 
fipiirria'av avT6py fcai kiy€C rl l(n\v in ovk iTri(TT€V(raT€ 
Tois viols fiov ; 6 fiaK&pios ^vpLio^v ibCba^tv avria tov 

10 AiyowTiv {rb avvibpiov T<p bibaa-KiiXi^) Acvi' iXtiBis 

ioTLV TO prjfjM h iX6Xriaas> \iy€i airrols' iXriOis iartv, 

A4yov(rip vpbs aXXrjkovs ol ip\i<ruviy<ayoL koX ol 

Upels' b€VT€ dirooTctAcofAcr fls rriv TaXikaiav irpbs rohs 

Tp€ls ivbpas Toifs iXOSirras koL i^yri<raii4vovs vfpl tov 

15 bibiaK€iv avT6vj koX cliraxrti; ffpXv viis €tbov airrbv iva" 

quidem animam pertransibit gladius,] ut revelentor 
multis in cordibus cogitationes. 

Dicunt sacerdotum principes ad Levi : Ista verba tua 
qnomodo audisti? Dicit [ad eos] Levi: Non scitis 
quia ab ipso didici legem ? Dicunt ipsi senatos : 
Patrem tuum volumns videre. [Deinde] vocaverunt 
patrem eius et scrutati sant enm, et dicit eU : Quid 
non credidistis Jilio ineo ? [Nescitis quia] beatus [et 
iostus] Simeon docoit earn legem. Al^qtie iterum 
dicunt ad Levi : [deus scit] ea quae vere dicta sunt, 
Dicunt inter sese principes Mcerdolum et Levitae: 
Venite mittamus in Gralilaeam ad tree viros qui hue 
venerunt et narraverant de docendo eius [discipulos], 
et dicent nobis quomodo videnmt eum assumptum in 

' The joint presentation of dtTtXoyias in tome old Latin texta of the A. P., 
in a and fi and in the Armenian volgate, luggestB that dtrriXoytat Btood also in 
some canonical texts. The omissions of a in this passage are not due to 
homoioteleuton. They probably represent the original text of A. P., to which 
and other sonroes have added from the canonical books. 

128 Acta Pilati. xvi. 4. 

\ri<l>6ivTa. koI rjptcrfv 6 koyos {otrros) vaaiVj Koi iirc- 
ar€iXav rovs rpw Hvbpas roh^ ikOovras ii€T aifT&v fk 
rrip Takikalat'^ koI ttvav irpds avrov^* efirarc pap0i ^ 
'Addf KcU pafifil 4>£\€09, koI pafifil 'Ey^ tlprivri iyilv koI 
irivra icra vymv i<mv. ^ryr^crca); iroXX^9 ytvopAin^s ip 5 
r^ <rvv€hpC(f^, &Tr€arilikriiJL€v rov /coXcVai ifias fls roi/s 
iylovs t6vovs ^la-parjK, 

Kol ivop€V$ri<rav ol Hvbpts Koi evpov cdrrovs KoBe^a- 
fi4vovi Koi iA€k€TovvTas TOP pofiop. rjoiTaa'apTO avrov^ ip 
€ipi|i/Y7, Koi kiyovaip ol ivbp€S vpds tovs ivtkOopTa^ lo 
irpds avToiis' ttpripri (iirrlp) vavrl r<^ Xa<p 'lo-pa^A. /col 
avTol kiyovaip' clprjpri iarlp, Kiyovtrip avrols' €& rl 
fjkOaTt; kiyovciP' fcoAci Vfias to <rvpihpiop tk ttip 
iylap Tr6kiP *l€povirakrjfi, 

'Us rjKOva-av ol ivbp€S Sn CrirovPTOi ip r<j> (rvpthpl^^ 15 
rfi^avro r^ ^e^ kcX ip€KkC0rjaap iiera rw iphp^p, 

caelum. Et complactdt sermo iste omnibus. Mise- 
runt tres viros qui venerant cum ipsis in Galilaeam : 
dicite rabbi ^ Addae et rabbi Fileas et rabbi Eg^ : 
Pax vobis et omnibus quae vestra sunt. Lisquintio 
facta est [de multis rebus : ideo] misimus [viros istos 
ad vos] ut diffni simus ire vobis ^ in sanctam civitatem^ 

Et pro&cti sunt viri [in Galilaeam], invenerunt 
eos sedentes et meditantes l^em. Salutaverunt eos 
in pace. Et dicunt illi ad illos qui veneruni : Pax 
omni populo Israel. Illique dicunt : Fax est, et 
vocaverunt vos archisynagogae^ in sanctam civitatem 
lerusalem. Audientes quia quaeruntur a concilio, 
oraverunt deum, et recubuerunt cum viris, manduca- 

^ The Arm. translates by the word afutpnjuiulrut^ which means hiZ&cicakoi. 

' The one word 'vardapet * ia uied indifferently in the Armenian to render 
both pafifil and M&aKoXos, 
* Perhaps the Greek original read twa d^iw/Atp ipx^Bai l/ids. 

XVI. 5- Acta Pilati. 129 

l<f>ayov Kal l-niov, Koi iviarrjcrav koL ivopeiOrja'av €h 

Kot Tji iitavpiov iKaBiaOr) {t6 avvibpiov) iv ry avi^a" 
y<ayfi, iTTfpdrricrav airrovs kol kiyovaiv' ovroas €i8ar€ rov 

5 ^h\(rovv Ka$€Cop,(vov ds rd opos MapLfiprix koI bibacrKOvra 

. Tohs fxaOriTas avroVy Koi cidarc airrov iva\'q<l>B4uTa fls 
ovpavov ; iircKplOria-av koI \iyov<nv' ikqOQs lbopL€v airdv 

AiyovfTW ''Avvas (/cal KaXd<f>asi)' iparc^ avrovs iv 

10 aWrjkaip (kou IbiafAev €l aviiffxavovcriv '• Kol 'fjpav ^ 
avTovs*) vaprjyayov vp&Tov t6v 'Adda, fcai Xiyovtnv 
avr^. tliff. r^pxVy ti&s lh€T€ airrhv Ka0€C6p,€vov. A^yci 
'Abbas' fri KaB^CofJiivov airrov iv nS opti MaiApprJXj 
btbdaKOVTOS tovs uaSrjTcis airrov, €lbou€V V€<bikriv^ iirt' •Actsi. 

15 a-KidCovaav avrov {Kal tovs pLaO-qras ovtov) *, koI Mw. 9. 7. 

verunt et biberunt cum eis, et surgentes sant profecti 

Et in crastino sederunt in concilio ; interrogaverunt 
eos dieentes: Verene vidistis lesum sedentem in 
monte Sambrelech docentem undecim discipulos suos et 
vidistis eum assumptum in caelum? Besponderunt 
et aiunt verum est ; vidimus eum ascendentem in 

Dicit Annas : separate istos invicem. Adduxerunt 
primum Addam. Ait [Annas] : die nobis quomodo 
\\Aisti eum ascendentem in caelos. Ait Addas : Dum 
sedebat in monte Sambrelech et docebat discipulos 
suos vidimus nubem obumbrantem eum, et ascendit 
[nubes] in caelum ; et discipuli eius orabant prostrati 

^ A i-m. = ' separate.' 

' Arm.Btt unum tennonem dieunt. The words here omitted in are 
essential to the sense and mast have stood in the original text. The Greek C 
omits them through homoioteleuton ; probably omits from same canse. 

' Greek, Latin, and Coptic retain the words omitted in fi. 


26. 39- 

130 Acta Pilati. xvi. 6. 

avtki\^Qi\ fX^ rhv oifpavovj koI ol fiaOriTal avrov riv^avro 
•Mat. K€ifi€roi iirl irpoa-aiTrov ^ airrCii; im yijv, 'EKoXccroi; rov 
^ikiov Upia, ripdrqa-av airrdv Koi kiyovaiV tt&s lb€S rov 
^Irjaovv iLvdKi)(f>OivTa ; Kot avrhs kiy€i a>(ravra)9. (i)p«- 
TTjo'av Tov ^EyCav, kol avrds rd airrd elir€v.) ^ Aiyovaiv 5 
t6 (Tvvihpiov Ttpos dAA.)/Xov9* ^i; rla vofxia Mwvo-ecos 
yiypainaV iK aToiiaToav hvo Koi rpitav araOrja-^Tai ttop 
prjfia. kiy€i ^Afiovbi}v bLhia-Kokos' yiypaitrai Iv ry 
vopi^y 7rept€7rar6t ^¥tV(a\ avv T(^ 6€<a, (koL oihiiroT€ i<f>(lvrjj 
&n fjLfTiOrjKfv airbv 6 Ocos) ^. 'latptos hihaaKoXos Acyer lo 
TOV ayiov Mcavcriois (rdv Oavarov) rJKOva-afjL^Vy AAA.' oifK 
elda/xei; T7)v Ta(f)riv avrov ea)9 ttjs arju^pov, A€v\s pa^pl 
Xiyfi' ri k(TT\v on €lTr€v 6 pap fit ^vfiedv, on €lbfv Tdv 
*\ri(rovv. Ibov, ovros TTT&(ns koi di/aorao-i; iroXk&v Kal 
ai)fitlov avnkoyias. 'laaaic pa^pX kiy€C Ihov iyi^ is 

super faciem in terra. Vocaverunt etiam Fileos 
saeerdotem, interrogaverunt ipsum dicentes: Quo- 
modo vidisti eum aseendeniem ? £t ipse eadem dixit. 
Dicunt qui erant in concilio inter sese: In lege 
Moysis scriptum est : in ore duorum vel trium testiam 
eonstabit omne verbum. Dieit Abuthen didascalas : 
Ambulavit Enoch ^ eum deo. lairus didascalus dicit : 
Et sancti Moysis mortem audivimus, sed non vidimus 
eum : [scriptum est enim in lege domini : Mortaus 
est Moyses, et nemo cognoscit] locum eius usque 
hodie. Levi rabbi dixit : Quid est quod dixit rabbi 
Simeon quum videret lesum? Ecce iste [fiet in] 
Tuinam et in restitution^m multonim, et in signum 
contradictionis ? Isaac sacerdoH dicit : [Scriptum est 

^ The omission of these words in /3 may easily be due to homoioteleuton. 
* This omission in /3 may be due to homoioteleuton. They come in all other 

' The Arm. text is slightly corrupt here and the words answering to 
tcriptum e$t in lege seem to have dropped out through homoioteleuton. 

XVI. 7. Acta Pilati. 131 

dirocTTcXw rbv iyyfXov fiov tov hia<l>vki^ai irc, Koi t6 

orofii fiov hoOrjcfTaL avri. 

"Xvva^ Koi Kai(i<^a9 kiyovaiv 6p0&s €haT€ ra y^ypayr 

fiiva iv T^ v6yLia M6t>iJ(rea>Vy 2ri roO 'Era>x Oivarov ovbeis 

B etbev (koi tov ayCov ^HkCa Oivarov oihtU &i;ofui<r€i/)* 6 

hi 'Irja-ovs. 

'O 8c '[-qa-ovs X6yov €h(OK€V rcj) UikJiTi^y on €ttapL€V 

avrbv • ^'ml6}i.€voy koi ^p.nTu<r/xara XafiovTa cZs ri Tip<Jaw- * Mat. 

36. 67. 
iroK • airou, icoi ari^vov ii dxaKdwr ** iBi\Kav • avr«|> ol ^ ^ . 

10 0Tpan«ro4* i<j)pay€\X(iO'q Koi aTt6<l>a<nv i\ap€v Airb ^7- ^9* 
rTtAcfrou, Kttt ^-ttI nirpas ^ ia-TavpdOri Koi Aruxas koI , . ff ' 
FcoTos (8vo) Xryorat ficr' avrov, icat gT4 ^Aoyxj? t^*' <iJno. 19. 
-TrXfvpar atTou i(€K4vrqa'€v Aoyylvos OTpaTicSnjs, ical 3t4 ^* 
ro o-d>fia avroO 7)nf(raro 6 rlynos irarrip fjix&v 'Ia)(n7<^, koL 

15 on iviarq [KaOiis \4y€i Koi) KaOoas Xiyovtriv ol rpcis 

hihiaKaXoC €lhofi€v avrbv avaXi\<f>OivTa ® ^U rbv • Mar. 
ovpavov^, Koi oTi A(vl {6 bibiaKoXos) fiapTvp€i ra 

in libro legum :] Ecce ego mit^ angelnm menm 
[ante faciem tuam et praeparabit viam taam]. 

Annas et Caiphas dicunt : Recte dixistis ; [nonne] 
scriptnm est in lege Moysis, quia Enochi mortem nemo 
vidit. lesus autem stetit ante Pilatum et iudicatus est, 
quia vidimus eum alapis pereulsum et sputa accipien- 
tem in faciem suam, et coronam de spinis in caput 
eius ; a milifihns flagellatus est, et sententiam 
[mortis] accepit a Pilato; et crucifixus est in loco 
golgothae^ et Gestas et Demas latrones cum eo ; et quia 
lancea latus eius perforavit Lingianus miles ; et quia 
corpus eius postulavit honorabilis pater noster loseph, 
et resurrexit sicut dicunt tres didascali, vidimus ipsum 
ascendentem in caelum. Et quia Levi est testificatus 

' —'on a rock*: /3»Mn loco Gh>lgothae/ agreeing with the Greek 6 ktX 
T^vov Kfaviov. The Latin omiti. 

K % 

132 Acta Pilati. XVI. 8. 

\iyov<T{,v ol 6i6a(rKaAoi -Trpoy 'navra rhv Xoov* 'Trapa 

KVplov iyfV€TO avni koi i<m OaviuKrrr) iv 6<l>$akfxo^s 

• Gal. 3. fifjL&v, yivda-KOVT^s yv(i(T€a'0€y oIkos *Ia#c<w^, on • 

13 and ^ ^ 

Dent. 21. y^ypaitraC ^irucardpaTos iras 6 ^iri {uXou Kpcp,dfi€vo$ ^ 

-Trap^yyctAar ol iipyifrvviyoiyoi koL Upci; "Travrt t$ Aa<p 5 

'I(rpa7]A A^yorT€9* ^'TTiicoTciparoy €bi itas i av7\p hs irpoa-' 

Kvvfl KrCa-fiara itapa ^ rhv KTCa-avra, kclL €tTTOv ttcls 6 

Kaos' ipLT^Vy ^M^i ifJLTJv. 

Kal invrjaev iras 6 kaos rov KVpiov kol iTrfjkOov 

(Kaaros cJy top oIkov avrov, koI Xpior^ fi bo^a th tovs 10 

quod Simeon dixil : [Hie fiet in ruinam et in restitu- 
tionem multoram in medio Israel, et in signum 
contradictionis. Iterumque] dixerw»^ doctores et 
omnes popali, *si a domino factam est boo, et est 
mirabile ante oeulos nostros, seiendo seite, domns ista 
lacobi, quoniam scriptum est quia maledictus est 
omnis quieunque pendens remaneat in ligno. Sed 
Scriptum monet, dei qui caelum et terras non fecerunt 
pereant. Et] praeceptum dederunt omni multitudini 
Israel, [sacerdotum principes et Levitae,] dicentes: 
maledictus sit omnis vir qui adoret creaturas et non 
creatorem. Et aif^ omnis multitudo^a^,^fl^. 

Et benedixit omnis plebs deo, [et dicunt: Benedictus 
domine deus, qui dedit requiem omni popnio Israel, 
secundum omne quod locutus est. Et sit dominus 
deus noster cum nobis, sicut cum patribus nosfjris.] 
Et [laudantes dominum] ambulaverunt unusquisque 
in domum suam. [Et novi populi qui e gentibus 
emittamus hymnos et gloriam Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus Sanctis nunc et semper et in aeternitates 
aetemitatum. Amen.] 

^ Arm. = ' and not the creator.* 



[F. W. BcgaELL.] 



§ I. It may be toldly asserted that the main point at issiii; 
in the Ante-Nict'ne controversies and the Cardinal Joetrinc of 
the Fathera in ttie first three centuries, is the Personality of 
tjod, nnd His interest in the world. Even the subject of 
Incarnation and Redemption may be said for a time to be 
subordinate. ' Of what sort was the God whom Christ came 
to reveal?' By degrees the question assumed a different 
form, ' Is not the manifestation of the Divine Natnre in 
Cbfiat our only guide ? " He that hath seen nie hath seen 
the Father also"'. The world in ils ceaseless interrogation 
of the historic Christ, passes through the same stages as 
Philip, believing that the Saviour came to preach an unknown 
Father, until convinced that not in some esoteric knowledge 
of the inscrutable, but in the life and character of Jesus lay 
the secret of the new revelation. In fact, in this announce- 
ment was a reaction sguinst a then prevalent and mistaken 
reverence, in which lay a great peril to practical piety. In 
the religious world of both Greeks and Jews, and especially 
in that amalgam which united both, the divine conception 
had been gradually divested of character, afTecticns, or titles 

134 Subordinate Dualism. 

in any way akin to mankind. In the end the Athenians had 
been right, on the assumption that they followed Plato and 
Aristotle. The unknown God was the only one which was 
left to them ; an infinite sea of goodness, or an attenuated 
Final Cause. The Septuagint takes pains to respectfully 
correct those passages in the Old Testament which represent 
the Almighty as having bodily parts ; as actuated by motives 
or swayed by affections which have their counterpart in man. 
Philo Judaeus is always tending towards a neuter and imper- 
sonal notion of God (ro Omv^ rb or), as if attempting to separate 
and (perhaps) hypostatize all those qualities, characteristics, 
or actions in the Divine Being, on which the idea of Provi^ 
dence depends. * God is after all unknowable ; the divine 
word {6€los k6yos) is God in relation to us, so &r as we can 
know Him and appreciate His manifestation ; — His existence 
rather than His essence. It is this second God who has made 
the worldly and presides over its destinies in the two spheres 
of Nature and History, even he perhaps not directly or by 
immediate contact, but through his principal powers, the 
Creative and the Kingly (TrotijriK^ and jSao-tXiK?;). Of these 

' NuMEMius, in EusEBlus, Pr. £v. xi. i8 koX y^p oCt€ Si/fuov/ryciy iarl 
XP*^ ^^^ "fpSnWt KcX rov JirifiiovpyovyTOi $€ov xA <^>'<>' vofil(€<r$ai varipa rhv 
wpSnw Bf6y .... 6 ^cdy yiivrot 6 dtvrfpos ital rpiros iarlv tU' ffVfJul>€p6/i€Vos 8i 
tJ CX-q Jw48i ovan ivoi fiiv aitT^v, <rx^{fTai il inr* avr^s . . . . xal AirtfAowros 
^vrov yiv€rat koI dtntTOi rov ala$rjrov . , . . 6 fiky npSnos 6(ds iaroA iarafs 
6 8i ZfvTtpos ifivaXiv iari Kivovntvos .... dio/io\oyT)<rdffi€$a ^fuy avroTs 
6fAokoyiav ohx dfufnaffifr^aifioy dKovaai, rdv /ily vpSrrov Ocov dpy^y cTvoi tpyoav 
^viiMomw KoX ^(Tikla^ rb¥ iijfuovpyiK6v bk $€ov ^tfioytty 5i' oipavov tovra, 

Apollonius, in £us. iv. 13. The First God Scfroi .... ovbtvds oi/bk irapd 
rSiv tcpurrdycuv 1jir€p ijfuis, ovb* tariv A .... 7$ dvlrjai ^vrbv ^ Tp4<p€t fwov 
4 d^p, ^ fiij irp6ctaTi yi n /iiaafui. The present creation, nay, man himself all 
but his innermost spiritual centre, was essentially contemptible in the eyes of 
these speculators of the Imperial age. — Pldtabch, Is. et Os. § 78 6 8' karl fiiy 
airrbs drntrdro) rfjs yrjs dxpavros Koi dfuavros leal tea$ap6s ovola^ dvdorji <p$opd¥ 
Z€xoiiivri% Koi Bdvarov, 'AkBpwirouy bt tf/vxfus ivravBoi filv inrd aoofidrojv icai iraBSjv 
w€pt€Xo/UvaK ovK Ian fitrovoia rov OcoC, irA^i' offov 6v€lpaTOS i/Mvpov Btytty 
ycrfa€t bid, ipikoawptas. The only way to this God was on the Path of Know- 
ledge ; He could not be approached by the practical life. — The gnostical idea of 
the Second God, the Creator, has been adopted from this system in Tennyson. 

Subordinate Dualism. 


the former is wholly good and merciful (Nature), while the 
apparent asperity of the latter (History) is due to human sin, 
and represents not so much an essential attribute of the Auyot, 
us iniT altered relation to his uniform benevolence.' 

The Epicurean deity, whose existence rested on the credit of 
dreams and survived only in deference to jjopular fanaticism 
(Epicurus bad no intention of emulating the fat« of Socrates 
or the confessorship of Anaxagoras), — this god, I Bay, had 
been long since conducted to the extreme limits of the known 
Universe, and forbidden to meddle with the course of lhe 
world, either in natural law (of which he was himself a 
manifestation) or in human history (to which he was entirely 
indilTei-ent). The Stoics, with their habitual and unpardonable 
ofience of retaining language which they laboured to deprive 
of all significance, are loud in their jiraiees of the divine 
goodness, and subtle in their arguments on behalf of Provi- 
dence; but it is a goodness which is pur])ose!ess, and 
a Providence which is unconscioos. And it is only this 
poetic language of religious sentiment, which preserves the 
Stoics from the charge of atheism, or a blank admiration of 
physical force ; of a certain steady equipoise nr proportion 
in the Univerae. It is also worthy of careful notice that those 
of the School who approach cosmogony from the human and 
the practical side, as Seneca and Aukelius, ever tend to 
a half-Platonic Mysticism; which, so far from identifying 
the 'god within' ami the course of the world without, leaves 
them in reality in irreconcilable opposition. Lastly, the 
Platonist, if I may be allowed to speak at this [loint of the 
later development of the third century, insists with singular 
earneatnesB upon the doctrine of necessary Sequence, natural 
concomitance, as against creation: not by the will of God 
(irpoaip/o-et) but (riji etrai) by Emanation does this universe, 
whether of thoughta or things, arise '. The Gnostic meantime 

' Tl.e \An of .lelil.en.te oreHlion \d Greek pMloftiphy !» <mlj found in the 
hnlf-uiytb of ttiB Timaiu*. Abistotlb ■bifti th« centru of grsTit; boia 


136 Subordinate Dualism. 

(against whose bitter discontent the genial optimism of 
Alexandria was to array its forces) involves the God and 

a Personal God to the strivings of Nature after an unapproachable Ideal, who 
or which may be unconscious of it. Through Pboclus, this notion that all 
orders gaze upwards, and not down on their suffering inferiors, enters Western 
thought with D10NT8IUS Abkopaoita and Ebiobna. Plotinus clearly 
expresses a widely current opinion, Enn. v. a, i : hv y&p riktioy r^ fnjZly 
iffTur /jojik lx«>' t^V^^ i€\<T$ai, otoy {/vtp€/>pvrf zeal rd {nripwkfjpft Ai/rw 
irfiroii7«cv dWo' rd Bl y€v6fJifyoy fls A{rr6 iv€<rTf>d<fnj ical kwKijpi!u$ij Kal kylvtro wphf 
Avrd fiKiwcv fcai NoGs ovrcas. The Higher Powers do not indeed perceive that 
virtue is gone out of them : they are unaware of what is after all a degenera- 
tion or an abortion (2»0T^^/ia, itcrpufui). Plato, I believe, stands alone in 
anticipating the Christian view (though, no doubt, imperfectly), that the 
world took its rise, not in a fluent passivity from an Original Source, but 
from the desire of the Creator to communicate His own goodness and happiness 
to other beings. 'How came it to be so ? ' asks Lotze {Pkilaa. of Rel, xlvi). 
* Is this transition to Reality an Emanation by natural necessity from God's 
Being ? or is it the act of a Will which gave reality to that which under- 
standing and imagination could only represent as possible ?....' (xlviii) : 
' If the Divine Thought of the World is to have a realization other than that 
which it already ha? in the Divine Mind, this can only be by Grod's creating 
individual finite Spirits, by His causing to arise in them the cosmic thoughts 
in question as external perceptions .... and at this rate Creation may be 
defined as follows ; God permitted the thought, which at first was only His, to 
become the thought of other Spirits.' .... (li) : ' We cannot wish to define 
the exact way in which Creation issued forth from the Creator, but only the 
import of the creative act, which is this : that with a view to the existence of 
the Spirit- World, which of ittelf is no naturcU consequence flowing from the 
being of Qody a Divine Will was necessary .... And this is how the 
notion of Creation differs from that of an Emanation or development of this 
world.* .... (lii) : ' Religious feeling has ever regarded as Grod*8 motive (in 
creating the world) the expansive love, which urges Him to communicate His 
holiness to other beings, and this thought quite satisfies the yearning in us, 
which led us to suppose that God laboured in creating the world ; for accord- 
ing to it, the Creation arose not without thiM sympathy and enduring interest. 
It was not a matter-of-fact result flowing from the Divine Will, nor was that 
Will indifferent ; rather is it true that God is bound up with Creation by a 
perpetual sympathy.* ('A^o^^s ^i^, ir/aO^ Z\ ohbth utpi ovBtyits ovbtirort kyyiyy^" 
roi ip$6vos' rovrov 8* licrhi &v w&yra Srt fidXtara yiy€a$ai ifiovk^Bri irapawkfjaia 
lavr^.) A recent commentator on this passage warns us : * Of course Plato's 
words are not to be interpreted with a crude literalness.* ;I) What is thciSym- 
bUic or allegoric meaning of goodness ? is a question which may arise in some 
minds. <p$6vos is the characteristic feature of mythologic deities ; indifference 
(the mean) of later philosophic substitutes; benevolence (con.<»cious and determi* 
nate) at the root of things is a conception found but rarely: modem speculation 
has laboriously revived the antique belief in Jealousy or Indifference. 

Subordinale Dualism. 


Creator of this world in his condemnation of its faults or 
ine<|UulitieG, and professes to vise ahove this sphere to a Deity 
of unknown inexpressible transcend eoce, by the simple process 
of layings aside all the properties and attributes of man (and 
often all the virtues and decencies as well). It need hartlly 
be pointed out that all these various views extend in the 
same direction ; and are aimed against the humanity of the 
Divine. Whether the school starts from an admiration or 
irom an abhorrence of the process of life, each will end in 
a final doctrine not dissimilar to BHlhmanism. In a word, 
the common object of all speculators in this epoch is to deny 
Creation, and to deny Providence ; and if some seem to wel- 
come the Christian dogma of Hedemption and Reconciliation, 
this is only another term for the announcement of this denial. 
They worship not that which is, but that which is not'. 

§ 2. But the Christian religion restates the affinity of God 
with man, and is not ashumed to dwell almost exciusivcly 
on the anthropomorjihic conception. The history of Christ 
brings home to us in a sfartling manner, a truth whicb was 
peculiarly unacceptable to the world just then; the supreme 
interest of God in His handiwork, and Ilia sympathy with 
His creatures. To un age, which reverenced God just because 
of His distance and unapproachable majesty, it proclaims that 
He is very near, and that His providence is very minute. 
St.. Paul may be said to correct the hyper-refinement of 
Athenian agnosticism by a return to the instinctive sense 
of afhnity with God, in Aratns toC yap koi yivot ia\i.fv. Yet 
the Christian idea of sonship differs entirely from tbe Stoic 
conetpt'u'n, though not from the language of that school. 
When men, disquieted at tbe failure of political and social 
life, believed that the human race is of no more account than 
birds or insects, a new assurance of dignity, a new guarantee 

' In the account of the Baxilidina ejatem depicted by HlFFOLTTca, it is 
boldly Bitid ihnt nil ihinga yesrii after the G<A wliu ia not. Rtf. Uaer. VII. 11 : 

138 Subordinate Dualism. 

of worth was given, which enabled each man to look upon 
his own personality, however to all seeming valueless, as, in 
a sense, the supreme end of all creation, nay, the cause 
of the historic sufferings of Godhead {ynkp ov Xptcrrof 

The preaching of the Gospel revives in a very striking way, 
the sense of personal dignity in man, and builds on this its 
ethical system (not as some superficially suppose, upon an 
appeal to altruism in the first place). God really created the 
world, and did so for a moral purpose. The visible universe 
is not the mere shadow, the inseparable correlate of His 
spiritual and unseen nature ; but has been built, a temporary 
edifice to serve an eternal design. 

Man (man the individual, not the race) becomes again the 
centre of the Universe, and is not a bubble blown about for 
a season by the winds of Chance or Fate, but possesses an 
intrinsic verity and the germ of an immortal existence. So 
far from being an accident in the great total of the Universe, 
a ripple on a troubled ocean soon to return thither indis- 
tinguishable whence it came forth, the Individual is the only 
reality ; so' far from being the puppet of an irresistible and 
unconscious power, liis free will is the single ultimate fact of 
experience, his good will the one thing of final value. His 
welfare so far from being subordinate to any vague design of 
arbitrary power or desire for life, is sacrificed to nothing, but 
is the final end at which Creation aims. The pagan lost 
sight of the single life in admiration of the Macrocosm ; and 
the sole remaining ethical duty or road to happiness was 
the loss of the fatal and perhaps impious dower of personality. 
The unit for the Jew was the Hebrew nation ; and he 
appropriated to himself its failures and successes with the 
same earnest yet immature self-devotion that we find in 
Codrus or Decius. But the Christian saw in the world's 
course, a school for the discipline of character, the apprentice- 
ship of the infant ' that was learning to become a citizen of 

Siibordiuate Dualism. 


'. It would not be hard in theory to attack the 
ChriBtian gystem as an inculcation of debai^in^ Belfi^hness, 
were not this accui^ticin immediately contradicted by aettial 
experience. For in this way only {such is the verdict gntned 
by an unbiassed scrutiny of the several echook of jiagan 
Individaolism) does the value and use of this life appear, 
if it be not considered as an accidental or a final good, but aa 
a means to an eternal end. The duties of social life, and 
genuine interest in others are only poasible to those who see 
in the State (or even in the Church), not an organism whose 
corporate welfare or exterior prosperity is the Hoal norm of 
good and bad, but a home of souls ; and who discern, through 
the inequalities of faculty, talent, station, the brotherhood of 
man. The mists of Flutonism which raiseu qualities and 
ideas to divine honours, and depreciates the singular, [lasd 
away in this more j>ractical view of life. Such a religion is 
not only readily intelligible to the humblest capacity ; but 
by it alone is the gifted speculator saved from despair at the 
meaningless futility of his own life, from contempt of the 
pettinees of others. For it cannot be deemed a satisfactory 
answer to the riddle of existence to discover that there is 

^ 3. The Gospel of Christ is a vindication of the personal 
to the personal. It professes, aa no ol-her system does, to 
justify the world -process, the design of a creator, the dealings 
of Providence, to the individual consciousness. All other 
echemes, all other religions are at the merey of a revolt of 
Egoism, and this is both natural and inevitable. (This is 
clear from the jpractical result of a perversion of Christianity 
itself which emphasizing the dii-ine attributes of omnii>otence 

' Dio CBBTBoaTOHUB, Borgilhtntliea, OralJoa 36 :— The world we miut 
osll jilar .... liSaliiora iraAiro'av, .... T^ Oiiiy Hfot iAJJ)KBVi Koutiniair, 
ftod if oDa ahkll iauludo aiiaiaf ri Aeyixit, mea twing DambereJ wiLh god*, 

140 Subordinate Lualism, 

and will to the exclusion of Love, refuses to justify its doctrine 
either to the individual reason or the moral sense. The only 
answer to every natural question put by instinct of justice 
or self-love, is with Tertuluan, ' quia Deus voluit' But the 
matter ends there : not only for children to whom a parent's 
command should be sufficient, but for grown men, who need 
an explanation, i.e. demand that a given edict should be 
justified to themselves. For the only explanation which 
satisfies is a reference to a personal will, making foe a good 
and beneficent end. We cannot wonder then at J. S. Mill's 
remarks upon such a conception of deity, nor at the bitter 
attack at the French Revolution on the tyrannical and 
arbitrary rather than the paternal view, which not only does 
not console or encourage the individual, but irritates his 
natural and indeed commendable selfishness, by ignoring his 
welfare. This rebellion of Egoism whatever its final con- 
clusion, is a sign of maturity. The youth is of age, and 
fancies he must claim admittance to his father*s councils and 
secrets. It takes form first as a Sophistic disbelief in social 
convention and antique institutions, which appear to press 
heavily on the liberty of the more spirited and ingenious, or 
it may be represented as in the first book of the Bible, as the 
passing of adult reason out of the Paradise of children ; where 
an apparently arbitrary command or restriction is first ques- 
tioned and then transgressed^. The certainty of our own 

' ScHELLiNO*s earliest work in Latin, an attempt to explain 'the very 
ancient philosopheme in Genesis iii, de primd Malorum hum. oriffine* ia 
worth consulting. $ 5. 'It is wrong to suppose as hitherto, mali moralis 
initia hoc capite describi. It is rather the decay of the Golden Age, a passing 
forth from primitive simplicity, the dawn of reason and intelligence, from 
which at once arise the conquests and the pains of civilized life. The cause of 
this " evil " ii supposed by all to have been curiosity ; this well agrees with 
Pandttm's legend amon^ the Greeks. The gates of a childish Paradise are 
closed for ever on the human race ; they wander forth in search of the Ideal 
(rerum altiorum cupiditas), and their pioneer is the Snake, an inner spirit of 
discontent, which is cause of all nnhappiness and of all advance.* $ 6. 'It 
is Beason, driving us by main force out of the narrow realm of sense, pro- 
mising us a home which we never reach, glories that we are never to behold 1 

Subordinate Dualism. 1 4 1 

existence is our most vivid experience in practieal life; and 
those who after the advice of Seneca to Lnciliiis, 'alternate 
solitude with Society' and thus are neither immeised in the 
State nor completely unehoritic, — are brought t« a conclusion 
that may eeem vain and indemonstrable, but is inevitable; 
that the world is formed to produce Helf-conscionsness ; that 
it cannot be the dei-ig-n (if at this sta^e such a t«rm is 
admissible) — the de^i<fn of the world-process to extinguish 
a result so painfully attained ; that in spite of all appearance 
the education and discipline of the )>ersonal spirit i^ the aim 
of creation ; and that the author of this system, while He 
transcends all human excellence, yet bears resemblance to 
men in two essential points; He must be supreme ^oo(/«ws 
and Love; and He must be supreme j'"«//f^. He must be 
known as Creator of the world, and Judge of mankind ; 
indifferent neither to their iappineM nor their virtue: and 
these in the end are identical. 

The Platonist or Unoatic of this period considers all such 
direct interference with phenomena derogatory to the highest 
(lod '. Behind the duality of the Powers in their natural and 

In fiitura, there it no hope of k return ta the UDremaoning Btile of hkppy 
inaooence in Eden or Aroodik,' ' Wlio would prefer ' (ha uki, in a bunt of 
elithunMin, ■ignificant euoug;!) in 1 799) ' llie niy to such a gloriiiui and infiniLe 
dertinyT' Compmre aUo the Lact&uLiui interpolator. D. I. vii 5. 

' PsEtjno-PLtiTAiiCH, I'lac. I'kilo'. 1, G. Plato's orentEoiiiitiii ia rebaheit 
[oftc AjpDv B*it«D-iXiJ>iou) ,- «Divaii liir &iiai>Tarova:v ititpiiipot (Plato and 
Abaxagorae) uri ti^ Ot^v iwoiriaav imuTpfpfitttvor twv ivBpwrii'bflf ff Ka't Toirov 
X^P"' Tir niaiiov itaTOOjUKifoJ-ra. Ti -jap fiannpiof nal a'tiSaprov iwov, a-ufiiii- 
wXtipatfiiyuf Tt uaai rnV Ayafftu! W hoxou narros &6fieT^nf^ uAuk Av wtpi rf/y avmx^y 
rijs iSiai ri/Zattiovias tai iipBapoias avtwiaTpi^ii iari tw¥ dy&pwjiiywy Trpaypatw, 
KaitoiaififtFi' I' ir iit), if^roo Burji' nal T/wfofoI. ix^"-!"'/^' •"' fip'taSii (It t^ 

So niucli fur the pkgtiad develnptiient of thu world, where tUe influence uf 
the Higheat I)eit; appeared unimaijinabte : it wag the same in the hittorical ; 
— twi )) tl-ntf J eiii Jfirri, tai Tp loiJrou ^patTiSi ri mar' Arepa/tor oticovofUiTei, 
tA fijv nlpttikoy tirvx''. rd S' uarfimr riravria aaax'i ', Celhub does indeed 
believe In Providence, hat it !■ ■dinintetared through inferiur aqenlt: Con- 
deeoeniian nf the Supreme Being to nun lie could not undentand. It was on 
axiom uf pbiloei^tiio religion that alt d*reot aonunanioRtioii, txeepl dimlg in 

142 Subordinate Dtialism. 

historical activity, there stands the Philonian \6yos ; and even 
this power is too much qualified and bears too many attributes 
to be regarded as the ultimate principle ; and a neuter word, 
which expresses not so much the conscious Source as the 
indefinite Ground of existence, has to be introduced. The 
later Platonic theology is a continual straining after some- 
thing still more abstract and completely negative and one, as 
if determined to put an end to the anthropomorphic supersti- 
tion of the divine image in Man ; and to separate finally the 
Author from his work, not perhaps by the primitive daalism 
of the master of the School, but by an ever-increasing series of 
intermediate beings or stages, which perplexed and discouraged 
the aspirant to reunion with the only true life. But the 

thought (Origen, e. CtUum, vii. 40, 43) was impossible. * Man \a not formed 
in God*8 image (vi. 63-4% nor is he any dearer to Go<l than animals ; indeed, 
many tribes have a far closer affinity {kyyvr4f»j rijs $€ias SfuKia^ kK€tva wt^vtcirm, 
Kol tJvai aof^Ttpa teal BtwfHhiort^, iv. 88). It is an absurd superiitition to 
believe that the world was made for us men (iv. 69, 23), or that the highest 
truth is entrusted to a single nation, or the simplicity of ignornnt faith ; or* 
indeed, that there is any absolute and universal religious truth at all.* 

The distance between God and the world (which can only be called Sit by 
a stretch of imagination) he expresses as follows : — A4y<u 8^ oiHir Kaivdry dAAd 
irdXai hthtrfiiiva. *0 0cdr &yaO^ kariy teai xaKds teal c68ai/i(vv, KoJt ^y Tf) teaWlffr^ 
Kal dpiar^. El S^ h dvOpdntovs tedrtiai, fifTo$o\^s airrf 8«? ftcra^oA^s bl If dyaBov 
th K€uc(iV .... Kal k^ tifScufiovias *ls icaMoikufjioviay. Tir &y oZv lAoiro ToiavTfjv /itra' 
fioKqv; .... ovK dy oZv ou8i ravrrjv t^k fitrafioX^ ©c^s Hxoito (iv. 14). By 
which ea9y syllogistic method the speculators of the late Hellenic and Imperial 
age unanswerably refuted the beliefs in Direct Creation, Providence, Revelation ; 
and sent the religious minds to find what solace could be afforded for thia 
neglect, to the mysteries of Isis and Mithra, and the worship of particular and 
locid Daemons. Such a theory tended to support the Roman system, for the 
Emperor, like the Supreme Deity, was unquestionable and inscrutable, and 
the pettiness of civic worship (to which Celsus, no less than LucTAK and 
Sextus Empibicus, recalled men) prevented any serious coalition in a 
universal Faith. — Oinow dvOpdnr^ vtiroirjTai rd vavraj &<rw(p ovSi hlovrty 068* 
d4T<fff ovbl B€\<f>ivi' dAA' Sweat 08c 6 Kofffios &s dv $€ov ipiyw .... riXtiw k^ 
drtaa^rojv flvfjrai. Tovtov xdpiv fitfJiiTpirjTai rd irayra, oi>H dW^hcjy, <l fi^ 
ndptpyoVy dk\d roCOAov* ical fiikti r^ 0Cf; rot; 8Kov, kojI rovro othrort diroAciVcc 
np6voia .... ovtii Hid 'xfi6vov irpbi avrhv (?) 6 %*6i lmffrp4ip€i, oW dvOpirmv 
lv€Ka &pyi(€Tai (iv. 99). If the Stoics, with Epictei'US and Aubelius, have 
become Platonic in this ^ge, the Platonista have borrowed the Stoic doctrine 
of a universal, not a particu'ar Providence. 

Subordinate Dualism. 143 

Christian insists upon this doable office of good Creator and 
moral Judge^ not as the deputed province of some inferior 
power, bat as the essential and inseparable function of the 
Highest God Himself. *The Shadow of the Sage's self, 
projected on vacancy/ was called God; and the Sage had 
long abandoned interest in the practical life, and expected 
his Divinity to do the same. But the Christian sees in God 
a father, and a redeemer, believes in a minute providence 
never wearied by trifles so called, but overruling all for the 
best; not some distant being, who takes delight in the 
Universe as an eternal spectacle, but a consoler ever near to 
the worshipper, piercing through the outer surroundings 
to the good-will and honouring and rewarding it alone. 
Everything else has been stripped off; there is no longer 
any vain groping amid unrealities, no fruitless pursuit of the 
object outside all reference to ourselves ; but the true life of 
the world is seen to consist of one relation only, a personal 
God in immediate contact with personal man. 

§ 4. Some such preface on the novelty of the Christian 
message is required, to throw light on the problem of Evil 
and its interpretation just at that time. It will be seen that 
owing to this shifting of the centre of gravity from the 
Universe to man, an entirely new conception of sin, pain, 
and evil generally must arise. There is no end in creation 
acknowledged now outside and beyond the perfection of human 
character ; everything must take its place in some subordinate 
relation to this final aim. This by no means simplifies 
matters ; and the main doctrine of the personal interest of 
God in the irorld, increases the difficulties which surround 
the origin and purpose of evil. In that view of the world, 
(which in future I shall describe for the sake of brevity as 
the Impersonal conception) — the question TioO^v ra KaKi; is 
not unanswerable and can be easily eluded by a subtle 
dialectician. The curiosity of an inquirer who is not yet 
fully self-conscious, or who has discovered the secret treasure 

144 Subordinate Dualism. 

of his personality only to lose it, may be without difficulty 

Such pantheistic systems, which make the present and the 
actual (as a meaningless and infinite series of phenomena)^ both 
eternal and divine, must needs eliminate all notion of purpose 
or oi progress. There can be no history in such a universe. 
' Here and now. Deity is perfectly revealed in its two aspects^ 
as thought or as extension/ The inventors of such systems 
have abandoned all hopes of explanation: they will merely 
codify existing things, and invent a formula that may satisfy 
the intellect ; and afterwards with more or less poetic senti- 
ment pronounce the result beautiful or detestable, and style 
the whole, bed or word of all possible w^orld& ' Heaven and 
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away ' ; the 
doctrine of the eternity of the universe was seen to be in- 
compatible with Christianity ^. Nor can the optimist quarrel 
with the pessimist for imposing his own final construction on 

' Compare the anti-Platonic writings of Abneas of Gaza, and Zachabias of 
MiTTLBNB. Nem£SIUS bad for an instant endeavoured to reconcile with 
Christian faith the two cardinal doctrines of Keo-PIatonism, the pre-existenoe 
of souls, the eternity of the world ; both fatal to the supreme dignity of the 
Personal. — Aeneas and Zachabias set themselves to disprove them (p. 53, 
ed. Boissonade) TkeophraUiu : Ol rov nKdrotifos fwarayojyoi rd yiyovtv ov 
yiyov€ Xiyovaiv, &X\d. Kar* alriav iyivtrOy d'.ov r^i ifi^i ffKias alriov roif/Autf 
(r&/jux' dW* oiic abrb ir€'roirfic€y avr^v, dXX' iictivrj rovr^ ovyrjHokovOn<ff^» 
To which Euxitheus replies : Oinc dpa ^fuovpy6s 6 Arjfuovpybi €l ft^ 0ov\6' 

fjKyos h wfvoifjKt 9fjfitovpy€iy d\A* ahr6yua.7ov roht to Tlav, tl ft^ yiyovtv 

ObKWv KoX r^v Tlp6voiav & rwv Avorjrojy \6yoi awavtiktv oh ycLp Av yivotrj 
(Ttetai i-rifi4K€ta. — Zacuakias, 105, Boiss. : ^aal y^p Cri, xaOdirfp oiriov ro aSti»a 
T^$ kK&Grov CKids ylvtraij oii6xpovoi tk r^ awyuiri ij atctd tccu ovx 6fi'Wifios ovrat 
^ Kai oSc 6 K6afu>s impai€o\ov$rjfjia lari rov Q€0Vj alriov ovros avr^ rov ttyat, 
Kcu awatdi6i iori rf) Bcf) oineiri 5( Kai ofiCrifioi. — 1 1 5, Boiss. : Ei 8' dyoBds ii¥ 
IfiovXiiBrj c7ku rd 5vTay ol Mfitvoi avrwv wpds rd ttyat (^v ySip ftp6 tovtcov &s 
TcAcioToror xai olbipbs Sco/icvof, avrds Sjv 1) irdca airdpKfia)^ oIk &pa dvdymi 
awathiov tXvai r^ w€notijK6Ti rd woirf/M' Zu ydp irptafivrtpov tlvm rov roii^/Mros 
T^v wotrjT^v .... (twfp rd iroiovfi€voy Zt^rtpdv Ian rod voiovvros airlif 
leal xpdvtpt <^ fii^ti M^ dPovkrp-os atria rvy\d»€iv ical ov \€\oyifffiivij {&avtp r^s 
OKids rd auffia) .... Tlak ydp dv ttrj Ztipuovpyd^ 6 Arjfuovpybs cl ji^ fiovK6ftti'Os 
h utiroiijKty iJrj 9fj/uovpy6s ; 4 *^ Stawtp xf) ad/fmri 1) CKid oCrcji d-nKws lud ry 
Arjfuovpyf irapvfKokov$Tja€v itc ra^ofidrov wapvwoordv to5c rd Hdv ; 

Siihordinate Dualism. 


the ambiguous results of the scrutiny of tbing^, Bf.tli are 
indeed fully justified ; and lite all interiiretations of thia kind 
each betrays the inmost character of the philosopher ; though 
nominally aiminp at impersonal truth, each involves an act of 
moral choice, and proves that the periintaf cannot be silenced ' : 
for what is pessimism but the natural i-eaction of the neglected 
individual against the eulogies of a Universe, which may be 
alitiiluiel^ good (whatever possible sense this can have), but is 
ceitainly not good in rebition to him ? In such system then 
the terms good and bad yradually tend to lose their meaning, 
They are different manifestations of the same thing; the law 
of polarity is welcomed by such speculators'. In old days, 
Plato had sugg'ested an explanation b\' a sort of allegorical 
hypothesis ; God works on a pre-existcnt matter, and His 
buneficence is thwarted by the intractable materia! ; or again, 
original creation is entrusted to inferior deities, and the 
subsequent care of the world to Daemons. There is no 
actual and final antithesis of good and evil ; no promise of 
a final triamph of the right, such as might pcrhajts encourage 
the Parsee of ancient days ; a question perhaps of stages, of 
higher and lower, but not of absolute controries. The two 
terms shade oiT insensibly into each other. There is no clear 
boundary line of demarcation. 

In any case Evil {regarded only in relation to abstractions, 
to the unconscious, not to the individual who [minfully ex- 
periences it), tends to disappear, to be considered as non- 
existent. And this is true, whatever be the precise form of 
Pantheism in favour. 

§ 5, Christianity supplants this physical conception of evil 
by a moral explanation. It does not reside as a property in 
matter, for in its very nature it is inapplicable to anything 
that is not conscious and &ee. It can only be understood in 

' 8eo tbe very rem«rk»ble word* of Ron tS£S, TkoifjhU oa Kdiyion, 101 -J, 

111, I^5- 

' Compare Samciel Luho, A Modem Zoromtriait. 

146 Subordinate Dualism. 

a personal sense. The world no longer flows out from the 
overfull and brimming cup of God's nature {to vTr€fm\rjp€s in 
Plotinus) ; it is created by Him for a certain and very definite 
purpose. Evil and matter (so often involved or identified) 
are no longer the shadow cast by the divine perfection ; bat 
the one is His handiwork (and as such ^oo(l, but not ffod) ; the 
other is a criminal and deliberate rebellion of a perverse will 
against His decrees, which axe not arbitrary but loving. And 
jon the other side, the ideal set before us is neither the superficial 
welfare of a nation, nor the progress of civilized humanity, nor 
even the outward gloiy of a church, but the education of single 
souls. As there is nothing that can be called good unreservedly 
but a 'good will,' so it is impossible to connect the notion of 
intrinsic Evil with anything but an Evil Will, a person^. 

' The methodical PantheiBt, who upholds the omnipotence of God at the 
expense of all other Divine qualities, in vain repeats the unmeaning paradox 
' that vice is not less hateful or less deserving of punishment because it is 
involuntary.* Maniuus, who as a poet marks the transition of pure Stoie 
Positivism into a mystic region, and is in a sense the counterpart of Cicero, 
labours to show the hatefulness of fated evil, and the responsibility of auto- 
mata : iv. 112: — 

' Nam neque mortiferas quisquam magis ederit herbas 
Quod non arhUrio veniunt, sed ttmine eerto; 
Gratia neo levior tribuetur duldbus eitcis. 
Quod Natura dedit fruges, non ulla toluntas: — 
Sic hominum meritis tanto tdt gloria maior 
Quod caelo gaudente venit ; rursusque nocentes 
Oderimus magis, in culpam poenasque creates 

Nee refert scelus unde cadat, scelus esse fatendum. 

Jonathan Edwards {Doctrine of Original Sin, 1758, Boston) is reduced to 
unintelligible refinement to avoid a logical conclusion : — ' The Divine Being is 
not the author of Sin, but only disposes things in such a manner that Sin wiU 
certainly ensue/ No doubt we are right in applying the title Almighty to the 
Creator, but an exclusive study of this quality of Omnipotence leads us back 
insentiibly to the old discarded physical conception of the Divine nature. The 
highest wonder in the Universe is not the Power of God, but His free gift of 
personality and independence to reasonable creatures. Edwards, too, echoes 
the Doctrine of Mamiliob in the following opinion : — * The essence of Virtue 
and Vice, as they exist in the disposition of the Heart, and are manifested ia 
the acts of the Will, lies not in their eau$€ but in their Natwre* {Freedom of 

Subordinate Dualism. 


Other BO-called eviU are only apparent or relative Evild, or 
blessings in disguise ' ; other imperfectione or errora may be 
due to iwnorauee or incomjilete koowtedgv — all such belong 
to time, and are curable; but a fully -conscious and de- 
liberately perverse will must be regarded as eternal in the 
sense of rejecting' its own remedy ; for God (this ia a valuable 
lesson which Plato tBugbt) acta on the soul as on the world, 
not by coiupuUion, but hy persuaeinu. 

This may jicrhaps explain how it is that to the Peraonatist, 
the idea of an Evil Spirit, who in a sense //H.'ar/*and in another 
/ii/^lt the designs of Providence is by no means an obsolete 
superstition, but a doctrine of the highest truth and im- 

^ 6. A second point remaina to be considered ; iu what 
does personality consist? It is discovered to be the final 
and unalterable fact of experience* (for even Natural Science 
doea not dii^over things in themselves, but only expresses 

Ikt Will. EiBt..n, I7S4'|. 'ThB piasewioti i.t tha aiiiful ilifpoiillon by whioh 
mea ue uimUle to ob«y the cammHDda of Gad ia itwlf Iheir Wiiist and luodt 
inexotmble ain' (Letter to Mr. Ertkine). 

Yet it must not tie Bupponeit that Bdwnrdi maintaineJ thmngliout the Antiis 
ituplKisble Tewnlment igmiast Che Jiiat vUiuiB of the penonnl. In a pn nihil moua 
work {GotFt Lo'l End in Creation, BoBCon, i;8S), he uoiitendi rightly enorigh 
' (Jint there in nn incoiiipatibilitf betweea the Aappiiuii of civated beings and 
tbe deolarative glory of God, loMiniich am these Iwu ends coincide in one. Tliu 
Crention ■■ bappy and holy, as it i> the objet-t of Ihe benevolent love of tba 
Creator, cftDitot but derlare Hia glory.' Iu a aimllar manner, the leeiniDg 
auetority of Kant's Lam of Daly is softened by a firm conviction or, rather, 
fervent hope and trust, that Virtue and Happineai are in their nature insepar- 
able, or al least will in the end coincide. ' We ore bound to seek to further 
that harmony between Virtue which is tha Highest G00.I {Suprfafin fioaum) 
kod Happiness, which is the indispenaiible conditian of the re»liiation of Perfect 
Good (S. Bonum in the sense of Brmam CunsunimAtiTm).' Nay. on this he 
fountli the chief reason for Ihe eiistence of God ; ' we must ptntolate thv eii«- 
tence of a cituse, which shall be able to elfect the eznet degree uf agreemen I 
of Ha[>pineBB with Morality : -• we most postulate the eiisteiioe of God.' 

' We may here fully endorse the language of ClUtl^, who t«nely lunis op 
the cunclnsions of Stoio and Platonio tliutight (in (his age hudi; distiiiguishablti 
cnrrents); iv. 70; Kifr aoi t< »o«d icaiiir, ovimi i^kor tl tatir latif ei -/ip 
etaf S n^ 001 4 S^*-V 4 ''V 'OXfi aiiiu^ipii. 
v BoHANRB, I.e. [30, jio- 

148 Subordinate Dualism. 

their relations to iis, in terms of ourselves). Bat what is 
its nature ? The essence of Personality rightly conceived is 
self-limitation. Creation %% the voluntary limitation tohick God 
Aas imposed on Him self. And creation in this new view 
(which refuses to work up to self-consciousness, but insists 
on beginning from it) can only be regarded as a creation of 
free spirits \ Any other conception of the act is more or less 
inconceivable. We cannot escape from ourselves; and from 
a sense of responsible worth. The notion of free-will may 
be ' an inevitable illusion/ but the emphasis is on the first 
word of the definition, and an illusion is often truer for ns 
than truth itself. Regarding then man, one by one rather 
than in the aggregate, as the final end of creation (and in 
a sense perhaps the beginning also), we must hold to oar 
belief in spite of the taunts levelled at our mistaken notion 
of our value ^. Now since the Personalist must regard 
creation as a deliberate and moral act (not as a necessary 
outflowing of unconscious perfection), // is clear that otnnipo^ 
tence, in the usual seicse of the word^ can no longer form one 
of the primary attrihufes of the Divine Nature. It is a truer 
form of almighty power to submit to limitation ; and this 
the Christian believes to be the main doctrine of his &ith. 
God limits Himself in time, He sacrifices Himself in sub- 
mitting to the bonds of matter ; not as if this self-emptying 
were an eternal process, but as a means to some great and 
benevolent end ; the communication of His own nature to 
free beings. God, if I may reverently use the expression, 
submits, not indeed to a development, but to a circum- 
scription, in history. He pleads with man, and while He 
seems to educate the race, is acting for the sake of the single 
life. The Son of God to complete our redemption, does not 

*■ Compare LoTZB*8 Outlines of the Philosophy 0/ Relujifm. 
' Lord Karnes opined that 'God had deceived mankind by an inyincible 
instinct or feeling, which leads them to suppose that they are free.* 
* Compare Lbopahdi*8 Dialogue ' of the Gchlin and the Gnome.* 

Subordinate Dualism. 


ehrink from suffering and death, that henceforward a man 
may say, not only ' Our Father,' liut ' My Saviour.' 

In sum, the visible world in Christianity is not the 
eipresHion of God, but His self- limitation (in a sense also. 
His disguise); and the coiirse of history represents the re- 
jection of the Almighty, and the snfTerings of the Lord of 



jrnoB) AND THE < 


§ I. Nothing need now detain lis from the promised 
consideration of two remarkable writers in the Ante-Nicene 
period, the author of the Fseudo- Clementine literature ', and 
Lactantius *. We have seen the tendency of orthodos 

' The CLEHEMTiNg literature : workg written probably in S^a towiinli the 
middle or oIom of the eecuud «Dturj, aad cluming C1.EHBNT of Rome for 
Iheir ■uthor : e.irli(«t form no doubt the moat violent, jioUaiiKal, »nd doctrioa] 
(Ebionilic) ; owing to the interest of the narrative (In which Cleukmt iitarta 
from Rumo to bear ChriHt, Fnlla in with Feter, and at lut diacovera hie pnreat, 
after witneising all Peter'a oonSict* with Simon Magui), these wiitingi 
KQiired the Hympathif of the orthodox, and the UomiXin were corrected and 
altered, eo aa to remnve pointa of diflerence, And concentrate attention on the 
romance and it* incidents. The Secognitioat \» the name given to BcrnNUB's 
tranalation of the original wi>rk, in wliith he boltUy exercises his well-known 
power of eiclaion nnil modifioaliun. The atagee of thia pmeeaa of adaptatiaii to 
orthodox readera very posaibly were : (1) th? early and now loat AreMype, 
where doctrinal hostility had the chief place ; (1) Bomiliei, which we have in 
Greek, in which atory and polemto have an wjual abare ; (j) Kurf inub'b trans- 
lation, or the Recognilioui, where dogma is becoming auboniinate ; (4) the 
EpitoiM, wbere the itory at tuch monopoliiea all attention, nnd the Bennona 
and debates have fallen out. The general teaching of Che Clemcatines will be 
seen from the igaotaticins which follow. 

' h. Cakliuh Fiumiancs (circ. 160-340 a.d ), a contemporary of the Neo- 
PhMoniflt lamblichuaj a pnpil of Abnobiuh the Numidinn, but not an 
imitalor of his style; profeised rhetoric at Nicoinedia between tbe years 
305-31) A.O. {Div. Intt. v. j1; 'in extreme old age,' as Jerome tells us, waa 
tlie tutor of Crispus, the son uf Conatantine I, in Gaul, 319 a.d. He wrote 
[t) seven hoAa of Dieine ImtrutUoni, on the model of bis maater'i work, in 
which he coDtraati the tms religioa with vain auperatilion on the one hand, 
and proud phUoaophy on the other; (1) De Op\fieio Dei, to Demetnanus ; 

150 Subordinate Dualism. 

Christianity to emphasize the personal element in God (that 
is, His self-limitation), and the personal element in man, 
his accountability, and therefore his freedom. The one hypo- 
thesis seems to explain the title Creator^ the second the 
fnnction of Judge^ both of which meet* as at every torn in 
the Anti-Gnostical writings. There is thus both purpose and 
progress in the world : and the definite goal to which creation 
moves is the judgement of man, rational and responsible. 
It is never pretended that this conception of the world 
explains the existence of evil adequately ; the believer can only 
say, ' Free-will, with which we start as a postulate, is incon- 
ceivable without the possibility of lapse ; and the results of 
perseverance in a particular course may become a permanent 
and ineffaceable habit. God might have created blameless 
puppets, but while we are constituted as we are, it is im- 
possible to sincerely attach to such creatures a notion of merit ; 
just as it is impossible with justice to punish ignorance save 
with a view to its correction. God might indeed have foi*©- 
seen and prevented the fall of angels and men ; but as He 
has, though foreseeing, not prevented, we can only suppose 
that in a mysterious manner evil, which apparently baffles 
the purpose of God in the world, is made (in a still more 
comprehensive monistic doctrine) to serve His eternal end ; the 
probation, redemption, and eternal happiness of Free Spirits.' 
It is at this point precisely that we are met by the greatest 
obstacle. Is the evil spirit independent then of God, or is he 
still His servant? a Wra/, or a minister? There can be no 
doubt that these two notions coincide in the Christian 

(3) the Epitome of the Div. InsiU. to Pentadias ; (4) On the Anger of Ood, 
against the Epicureans, to Donattu ; (5) the work On the Death of Persecutor* 
may or may not be his (it is headed ' Lucius Caecilius/ and dedicated to 
Donatus) : an interesting hiatorical account in accurate style of the fate of 
persecuting emperors, especially at the beginning of the fourth century. 
His Latinity has been all the more admired since his orthodoxy has been 
impeached. Jxbomb, Ep, 58 : ' Utinam tam nostra affirmare potuisset, quara 
facile aliena destraxit 1 ' 

Subordinate Dualism. 


doctrinD of the Devil, which, as contrasted with GnoBtic or 
Manichaoan speculation, never nttributea to him original 
coexistence with (k>d, but a created lifu in time; vet some- 
times seems to convey the ideu of successful opposition Xo 
ilivino coanBcls, One object of the Pscndo-Cl^M ENtines ib 
without doubt to investigate the nature of Evil, and its place 
in a universe which was created by a moral Being, just 
and merciful, and which cannot be regarded as the abortion 
of on inferior divinity. We find in them a crude yet working 
hypothesis to nceount for this ; and there is a distinct point 
of contact with Lactantius in the dogma of Syzygies {i 
Kcuiitv Tjjs ^vCtiyias). The first inipnise of the writer of the 
Homiliex, which I take to be the earlier unmodified form, is 
to refute a certain form of (inosis, and to point to the true 
remedy for such heresies, in a resolute excision of scriptural 
interpolations, which arise from a perverted Judaism. This 
religion (whose historical fortress the various forces of 
Gnosticism beleaguered) must be restated as a i/iin/ua/, not 
a eeremoniotti faith. In tact, one form of Gnosis is employed 
to combat another: a modified Marcionitism is to correct, 
without breaking from, the Old Testament; and the writer 
aims at discovering the original primitive religion, identical 
in the tme Jew and the true Cbristiiin, and now for the first 
time thrown open to the whole Gentile world. 'There ia 
a certain honesty in this method of dealing with inconvenient 
Scripture ; allegory is not tolerated in this severe school : 
'enee rccidendum est, ne pais sincera trahatur.' What is 
nnworthy of God is interpolated ; aod the power of dis- 
criminating genuine from false has come with the advent 
of the True Prophet. ' But how is it Ihat God's word has 
been allowed to suffer this violation?' The answer is sig- 
nificant of the whole mental attitude of the writer ; ' to (e»t 
the perspicacity of the reader, and prove if a natural innlmat 
of what is right and WTong, suitable and in-apt for the Divine 
Being, could esca^ie slavery to a written lt:tter'; in a woid, 

152 Subordinate Dualism. 

to encourage personal inquiry, led indeed by a sense of right 
(to ctSAoyoi;), and to dignify beyond an inspired book the free 
and innate knowledge of God, which every man possesses. 

§ 2. The God revealed by this eternal religion is before 
all things personal, Creator, Governor, Judge. There is no 
original antithesis of co-ordinate principles; nor any scheme 
of higher and lower spheres which ends in pagan Gnosticism 
by dissociating the idea of Creation and Providence from the 
Supreme God. The world is built for man's sake ; and, for 
his further discipline, for his education into self-knowledge 
and self-reliance, a duality of influences, evil and good, are 
called into play, from Cain and Abel down to Simon Magus 
and Peter, culminating in the final appearance of Antichrist 
and Christ. The evil in the world is explained partly as the 
will of the Supreme, partly as the necessary probation of 
man. Sometimes, with a certain inconsistency it is stated 
that t] KaKCa (personified evil) sends out her apostles, and 
again Greek itaiMa all comes from 6 KaKos Aatfia>i;, while 
references to evil angels are not uncommon. The True 
Prophet, who in each emission of pairs appears in the second 
place, is God's spirit, again and again in successive incarna- 
tions entering a rebellious world, clothing itself in human 
flesh, or united to some good man, and on each occasion 
teaching the same truth: namely, the doctrine of God, 
Creator and Judge^ the sum, as it were, of Religion, 
or Exoteric Christianity, in Irenaeus and Origen ; — a stern 
yet necessary doctrine in an age when the idea of God 
evaporated in a vague conception of an impassive Benevolence 
at the root of things, and the freedom and responsibility of 
man in a determinist * physical advantage ' (<^v(r€a>9 Trporiprjiia) 
of a small minority selected by a non-moral choice. These 
several Theophanies calling man to true knowledge, and to 
the hope of a future life, are invariably thwarted, and indeed 
anticipated, by a corresponding emanation of evil. Such is 
the main outline of this curious attempt at speculative com* 

Subordinate Dualism. 


promiee, the anion of t.rtie Hebraism and ChrisLianity as the 
proclamation of one God, Creutor and Jud^ ; the refutation 
of non-othical OnoBia and ceremonial Judaism by cutting 
away all inconvenient scriptural testimony; and the explana- 
tion of the obvious struggle of good and evil inflnenccB in this 
world by a (somewhat ambiguous) subordination of Evil to the 
final purpose of God. Elliieal as the writer tries to be, a 
dangerous /ihygicul interpretation is in the last resort placed 
npon evil ; for both good and evil seem to be the manifesta- 
tions of an indifferent being in polarity, a sort of counterpart 
to the strange notions of bifurcation in the original unisexual 
Adam Kadmon. But, though strict logic maj' at times seem 
to drive him to this position, it ia nevertheless alien to 
the general tenor of these writings ; for, however fantastic 
this cosmogony may be, the basis of all such theorizing is 
SQ honest conviction of a moral purpoie in the world as far as 
it-s Creator's intention ia concerned ; and of the moral dignity 
of man, which by free choice can realize, can co-operate in 
this purpose. We have before ua an ingenious attempt to 
preserve the nnity, goorlness, transcendence of God, and His 
impassibility {&.-apaai!^tia), without at the same time giving 
the world over entirely to the rule of the Devil, or on the 
other hand explaining away the significance and existence of 
eviL The author acknowledges evil as the wilful rebellion 
of a free-will ; but believes that it subserves God's intention. 
He is thus worlting on the side of orthodoxy as champion of 
peraonalit^. What is his object in Books v, vi, vii ? To repu- 
diate current paganism, whether^jOJi^r or esoteric ; to expose 
the crimes of mythology, or their seductive allegorization. 
At the mouth of Ajipion, a hypocritical priest of a religion of 
Reserve, we have a strange cosmogony from Chaos, in which 
'EpuE, a blind struggle of an anconscioue life-principle, takes 
the pbice of a purposeful Creator. It is just this [modem] 
principle of the ' strivinga of the Will to Hvo ' which excites 
the hostility of the writer. He feels the inconsistency of 

154 Subordinate Dualism. 

a material and unconscious substrate of infinite potentiality ^. 
He seems to object to the sudden and uncalled-for intrusion of 
a * deus ex machina,' 6 aldipios r€\vi,Tris^ into a universe, which 
appears (according to this hypothesis) to have grown up very 
well by itself. At the beginning of things, he is determined 
to have a pergonal Mind, and thus in these books strikes 
a blow at Hylozoism (or the belief that the egg is first), that 
mysterious and inconceivable doctrine, which we can reconcile 
neither with our experience nor our reason, but which never- 
theless is, and always has been, the fundamental creed of the 
larger part of mankind, though it be sometimes disguised by 
personal names and personified impulse as in mythology, or 
as in the Aristotelian metaphor of the yearning (ope^i9) of 
matter after form. 

§ 3. On this point we can at least be clear: God is a 
personal will, absolute, and almighty, whose purpose nothing 
can oppose : He is by no means formless, but iy^v [lop^-qv : 
else Iv tCvl ip^ltrrj ^ ; He is not infinite space, but rather the 
heart of the universe. Next, the world is created for man, 
by the grace and gift of God, himself a free person ; and to 
set before his choice two kingdoms of transient and eternal 
good, two spirits (or influences) are produced. Here then is 
Man placed for probation between two rival chieftains, tried 
by interpolated Scriptures, wiles of Daemons, and inherited 
passions and diseases, and, above all, held in fetters of llkavr\ 
and 2t;r77^€(a, the hateful antagonist of 'AAij^cia. The True 
Prophet comes to restore the primitive Monotheism of the 
patriarchs, handed down from the saintly and unfallen Adam 
(who is his earliest incarnation) ; and to revive pure spiritual 
Hebraism free from fiery sacrifices, and purified by the new 
watery birth (for on Baptism and its efficacy the writer 
especially insists). It is a religion of gratitude to the Creator^ 

* Compare Dr. H. Stirling, who ehows that this is actually Idealism, in hit 
Secret of Begel, 

* Compare the complaint of the Egyptian monk in Socbates. 

Subordinate Dualism. 


fear of the Juilge. This vi.-iiljle world 13 indeed the creation of 
God, with its preeent plenriurca and allurements; bat there is 
a greater Btresa on His moral government {Philo's ^airiAu^ 
Jw'QfKs), which places us in these enticing suiToundings, not 
that we may enjoy them, but of deliberate choice (a eelf-limi- 
talion) 'may pass through things temporal' to God himself, 
and our better home. Veiy significant of 'Clemest's' em- 
phasis on the personal is his distinct rejection of & Ms^eai 
theory of revelaiioti or redemption, in which divine truth or 
divine life is appropriated by the entire abandonment or an- 
nihilation of the human (which yet must be postulated aa 
the centre and agent of the appropriation). Revelation for 
man thus placed must come from within, the echo in the 
heart of God's voice without. External means of information 
may be fruudolent (scriptures and visions). As op])Osed to 
the mechanical and arbitrary theory of inspiration in Philo 
and in the Apologists (in which the Sun of human reai^oa sets 
before the dark radiance of the divine night can reign '), all 
heavenly secrets or messages are judged by to ttXoyav, the 
instinctive and moral sense which each man of birthright 
possesses, that God is giwl and jmC. It is the canon of 
rational piodabilUy", III. 31, 32, The opposite view may in 
a measure be regarded as a corollary of that docetic theojibony 
in which Christ passes through the Virgin, aiaittp 8ta aaiKijvot. 
The divine and the human are incompatible, and, aavo for an 
instantaneous moment of miracle, mutually exclude each 
other. There is no real union of God and man ; for the 
conception of both is still jiAyeiral, iniinite and Unite, and not 
moral ; the supposed reconciliation is of two antithetic Haluref, 
not the harmony of two free and personal H'ills. 

But to ' Clement' the opproprialion of one personal will by 
another must be real and not 6ctitious. Christ speaks clearly ; 

' Comp&n PuiLo'e L'umnienUi? o 
■ Which U>-i.Ay wnuUl seem to be 
e puMibility of » I>ivuie RcveUtiol 

itn. IV. \i : Str. Die. Sir. 53. 

itiog tbe old A priori wguaieutB ftgkitut 

156 Subordinate Dualism. 

all, even the most ignorant, can understand ; for the True 
Prophet offers Himself to each man, just as each can receive Him. 
The human side is not merged in the divine ; but remains 
entire, though transformed to co-operate of free choice, and 
to enjoy the consciousness of working with God. [But what- 
ever merits the writer of the Clementine Homilies may be 
justly allowed^, all are rendered valueless by his imperfect 
Christology. There is no true reconciliation ; and in the end, 
the justice of God becomes unethical, and the appearance of 
Christ a transient theophany. Yet, as it is not with the 
doctrine of Christ's Person that I am now concerned, but with 
the Prince of the Left, the above commendation may be 
allowed to hold good in this latter relation.] 

§ 4. In the doctrine of Evil (founded upon this moral view 
of the person of God and man) an attempt is made to infuse an 
ethical significance into a physical and necessitarian conception 
of the Divine Nature and the world-process. The Supreme 
Being, possibly in perverted Rabbinism, and certainly in many 
Gnostic sects, is regarded as bisexual, hermaphroditic ; as con- 
taining, that is, within Himself, a lower element, destined to 
issue in a more or less fictitious conflict ; * that in God, which 
is not yet God,' to borrow an idea which is found in Behmen, 
and lies at the root of much transcendental cosmogony, in 
the earlier years of this century. Without forsaking this 
hypothesis (an immediate expression in polarity, by con- 
traries), our writer, — determined opponent of impersonalism, 
and starting from an assumption of fully-conscious and 
purposeful reason, — transforms the idea of evil from a necessary 
development of a certain side in the Divine Nature (inconceiv- 
able when so much importance was attached to the simplicily of 
rd 6v) into a deliberate creation, designed for the moral dis- 
cipline of man. With much honesty of purpose, and boldness 
of enterprise, the writer cannot come to a satisfactory or con- 

^ Compare the remarks of Mr. Simon, note Y YY. Div. I, vol. i. of Dorkbr's 
work, Clark*! Translation. 

Subordinate Dualism. 


Histent coDclusion. For with the best wishes he has not 
bronght ont the real ethical conception of sin, and there re- 
miiins in the picture of the world-spirit a phynical notion 
which in the end cither throws back the entire guilt upon the 
Creator (so-called Augugdniau), or, regarding evil ae necessary 
to development and moral choice, denies its essential ovilneiis 
altogether {PlalonkI). 

Id the citations it will be seen how the old problem occurs 
(at Iset to be dismissed as insoluble), —the problem which we 
have thns stated: Is the Devil a rival or a terranf of God? 
The former is the conception most in favour with Peraonaliats, 
inasmuch as wilful delianee of a good law by a free being is 
the only intelligible kind of evil. But in the difficulty of this 
mode of thought, the author takes refuge in a physical notion ; 
the devil was ' created to rejoice at the punishment of the bad,' 
and to lind pleasnre in a certain habitation, where such punish - 
ment was to be exercised ; and in this latter ease he is blame- 
less, for his constitution, as agent of a lower province, the 
divine displeasure and justice, is nuiuraUy or of neci:»mly such 
as God made him ; while on occasion, by an omission which 
cannot be otherwise dcsciibed than as shifty and inexcusable, 
he is spoken of as ' created to rejoice in evil,' and not in its 
punishment. 'The evil principle' (says Dobnek's commentator) 
' ser^'cs (the Good) without either knowing or willing to do 
eo ; for though Satan hinnelf Sa not righteous as Gt>d is, his 
Kwi is righteous. When he does mischief, he is executing 
a divine punishment, which God as the Good cannot lUmge/f 
directly administer,' Accoidioglv. he is compelled, without 
being aware of it, ' to help on the victory of the righteous 
God." But whatever the strict definition of the Devil's 
freedom or responsibility for the part he plays, to him as to 
a supreme world-spirit is entrusted visible creation ; he is 
the lord of the kingdom of transient {food things. It is not 
an usurpation so much as a lawful commission oi' delegation 
of authority. He rules over pagan ideas of present enjoyment 

15S Subordinate Dualism. 

nnd brief pleasures ; in a word, over a life of secular and finite 
hopes, in which the true value of the pergonal spirit is sacrificed. 
Christ is the king of the world to come, of the eternal hopes 
of the true self-realization, only accomplished by self- restriction 
in this lower sphere. The future glory cannot be gained save 
by al>andonment of present attractions: even the beauty of 
iho world is a snare, and the dominant idea of morality is 
mtcctiriHUi. Knjoyment of the one is incompatible with at- 
iiiintnont of the other (* and likewise Lazarus evil things: but 
now lio is comforti'd, and thou art tormented'). There 
Mfd then two classes in this Subordinate Dualism: the 
Mftniliirist^, who seek impatiently to gratify what they 
I'uliM'ly believe to be their true personality, untrusting 
in a divine purpose in things, extending beyond the visible; 
und the citizens of the City of Truth, an inheritance won 
by patient waiting and a resolute sacrifice, not indeed of 
self, but of the lower instincts, which we must learn to discard, 
selling all for the one pearl of great price ^. And these two 
classes arise by no summary fiat of a divine separation, but by 
free choice, exercised with full chances in a world of opposites. 



II. 15. God in His own Nature is one, but His manifesta- 
tion is twofold, and by means of opposites : EI9 inv avrbs hi\SiS 
KaX ivavrifos dteiXe iravra to. ra>i; &Kp(uv. The same notion 
differently expressed, i-n ipxiJ9 avTos ^U S^v koX yL6vos O^ds 
TTOirfa'as ovpavov kclL yTJVy fffiJpav koL vvKTa . . . ^o}r}v koI OivaTov. 
In the midst of this world of contraries man is placed to exer- 
cise free choice on things already good and bad (but only 

* Manilius IV. 404 : — 

Quid caelo dabimus? quaDtum est, quo Teneat amne? 
Impendendas homo est, Deus ease at possit in ipso. 

Subordinate Dualisvi. 


relatively to him) : ^ kcX tos tQp orfvyiwi- iv^Kka^tv tUopas. 
Thejireieui world is, as it were, the lesser mystery (to f^iKpa) ; 
it is TTpdaKaipos and ia Tull of ayvoia ; it is 0^Xus and hears 
children, not for itself but for eternity. The fature world ia 
TO fiftO^, aiiios, yi'itrts, and wi ■narrjp w7tobt\6[i€voi its offspring' 
now grown to maturity, from the hands of this age, a mother 
or a norse, to whom the early care, but not the complete 
education, is entrusted. 16. 'Ev &px^ 6 &t&s *U iv, wa-ntp 
bf^M Kai apinrtpA, updrov lT\oCr\T( roii oiyiwoi' (iro tjjv yijv Kai 
ovTws (f^s iido-as Tos "ufvyias, Bnt in the case of man he 
aHert the onler of this manifestation id pairs. In this way 
the author marks the difference of man from other creatures 
(itovoi aiVffciv'ntos) and of the development in History from 
that of Nature, isl fiivrot avOptiiraiv ovueri oCrios dAAa Ttda-as 
ivaXkaTTfi Tar av(vyias. us yap att aiirov ra -npara npdrrova, 
ra ItvTtpa iirrova (here ia a doctrine at the root of b!1 Gnostic 
£manatiouii-m), in aeBpii-noiv t6 ivat-Tiov tipCa-Kofifv, ra itpSna 
yflfiova, Ta ttvTepa KpdtTova. It is probable that physical 
excellence gives its best first ; brit the idea of gradual progress 
seems inseparable from the idea of moral perfection. The 
rejection of evil implies the possibility of yielding to its 
enticements ; and in a measure even this yielding ia a neces- 
sary moment in au upward course. But it is in \-ain that 
we look for steady consistency; 33. t«0 new discrepancies 
arise; i] KoKia appears as a personal power, rival of God ; and 
the antecedence of good in physical creation seems abandoned : 
(JTii yap, is i^, Bv'uws itoi ipavriai^ itijrra t)(oiiTa opuijitv, 
first Night then Day (but see above), first ignorance then 
knowledge, first disease then healing, — so wpwra rd t^? WKavr\i 
Tif /3i'i(i tp-^frM, and then Truth, firsf the diseases by Aaron's 
rod, then the cure by Moses ; (and at this juncture in the 
struggle of the world), as the pagans are turning from their 
idols, no ti Kaiiia tsakw is aurff ^aaiXtvovaa anticipates their 
conversion, and sends forth her guileful favourite, Simon. 
So 111. 59- n/ioAo^ovfra ^ Kqk^ r^ r^s avQayiat voftif vpo- 

i6o Subordinate Dualism. 

avitrretXc 2i/uia)i;a, to make man believe in many gods, instead 
of one Creator of the world. So VIL ii of Simon: avro? 
iarl Mayo9, avrds biifioXoSj avToi Kaxia? irnr^pi'n)s> (As to this 
mysterious prosopopoeia, is it not possible that the writer, 
struggling with a moral conception of sin expressed in 
language which often reduces it to an original and therefore 
physical distinction, intended by ^ Kaicta, the feminine prin- 
ciple of weakness in created things, aspiring blindly to 
a fuller participation in its Creator, or, to put it from the 
Platonic and impersonal point of view, the visible and tran- 
sient world, striving by ceaseless reproduction of types to 
appropriate the perfection of the intellectual region — to, 
voT\Ti'i But the theologian must make up his mind 
whether he will consider this weakness which thwarts, 
a defiance of the Creator's designs, or a consciotts infirmity 
which seeks to heal itself. On the answer will depend the 
entire conception of sin as physical or moral ; and also the 
notion of God, as interested Creator or impersonal reservoir 
of goodness. Is Matter to blame for its defects ? Plato 
inclines to the belief that it is ; Aristotle defends it by the 
new doctrine of the ' yearnings ' of inanimate nature (a notion 
which, though an indefensible personification, lies behind 
much Pantheistic speculation, notably that of M. Yacherot). 
But all this inconsistency merely proves the futility of the 
Manichean physical hypothesis, and its extreme super- 

III. 33. The duplicity of the universe is represented here 
in a purely physical light. God, who creates the world and 
disposes the elements, makes the pleasure of existence (and 
perhaps also its duration) to depend upon the law of interaction 
and alternation. It was perhaps impossible to conceive of the 
continuance of creation, save under the idea of a perpetual 
overcoming of an opposite in a new unity : 05ro9 \k6vo^ ttjv 
fiCav Kol TTpdrqv fwvo^ibrj ovtrCav T€Tpax&s Kai ivairrCoiS iTpesjfcv' 
cZra iJiC^aSy Kpia^is i( avT&v ivobi<r€Vy tva €ls ivavrCas 4>va-€is 

Subordinate Dualism. 


TtTfioiii^ivai KOI fiffxiyiiiiiai rov ^r fibovijn eu ttj^ avTuni(vyias 
ipydcroii'TM. There is a trace here of a fatal tendency to 
transform bad and good in man into a mere physical dietinc- 
tion of sex in common with earlier speculators ; and in this 
semi-PlatoDie passage, which recalls both the Symposium and 
the Timaotis, there is a postulate of Matter coexisting with 
God which is not explained satisfactorily either bera or 
elsewhere in the Jlomifiet. 

But from such melaphytlcal or phy»ieal ideas the writer 
hastens back to bis perianal relations, the notion of the Two 
Kingdoms of Darkness and Light, between which man is 
placed : XV, 7. L r^f 'AAijflei'oi isapaiv Trpo^ijnjs iti&a^fv ^(xot, 
5rt 6 Toiv oKoii' Ar)ij.iovpy6s itoi Qtos, bvaC titiv a'iiiufti4.€ jSao-iXffas 
bio, 'Ayafluj Tf Kal rToinfpuJ, fiouj Tip pitii KoKiS roC -napODTOi 
KOiriiav ficra vofiov ttjv j3acfi\tiav. aurr &v ^x'"' i^ova-lav Koka^fiv 
rmn HiKovvro-i. Tui 8c ^AyaSif tov i'T6fj.ttrav atiiov alUva. In 
§ 6 we have a kind of apologue of these two kingdoms, as of 
hvo ()(6pm' fiaa-iKtai}' oitoji' kqI SiijpTjfi^rar J"as X'^F"* ixovroiii. 
Men are defraiidfra of their tme sovereig^n, so as to live in 
a foe's land (iiaeo iv iripov firrl jiarriktlit), but God is kind and 
pardons them. XX. 2, 6 Qfos 5vo ^aniXfCas opitras leal buo 
aluvai avveiTT^iTaTO, Kplvas nZ Iioirr}pif b(boa6ai tov Trapo'pra 
K.6(Tfiov hia rb y.iKp6v tf avrov (ivai kuX itapipxfffdai S^tms, f<f if 
'AyaO^ ffuiTfiv iitfa\tTO tov fi(K\oirTa aluva, 5,Tf Bfj tiiyat- SvTa 
Nol kUiiov. Between these man is absolutely free to choose : 
Tbv ovv &v0pw!ioii avTf^ovcriov tuoiriirfv, ^TrinjBftoVTjra f^ouTH 
I'cvfii' TTpuf &s /3ou'Aerai ir^d^ds . . . wf tlrai rov avOpui-nov tx 
ipvpafxaToiv duo, flijAetas t( koI ^pptros; and thus, XIX. 23, 
6 xtftTfios opyavov (irTt Tt^vLxSts ytyofos, tva Tif faofitvif apptt'i 
almvCioi If 0rjK(ia tUttj biKaiovs altoviovs viol's. XX. i, cont. : 
^(6 B^ Kol hvo 0801 TTpofTiBijirav, ctSj/ov r( Koi ai-op.laf b'uo r* 
^aiTiKttai iipiaSi^uav, ti fiip ovpavStv Kfyofifvaiv, t) If Tue iirl yifj 
vOv ffam^fVoiToiv. 'A\Ka Koi 6t!o ^atriKfii fTixdrjirav, av ii 
fxip TOV TiapovTOs Kal vponKO-lpov Korrpov v6p.if ^aviinvttv 
iXdpOTovfiBii . . . li 8( tTipoi KQi avrbi ^aaiXtin imapy-^aiv tov 

i62 Subordinate Dualism. 

iaofiivov al&vos, <nipy€i traa-av avOpdiroiv (t>v(riv iv roi? vapovai 
TTiP 7tappr\aiav ^^u' ov bvvaficvos ikk* wy rty ttot iari \avdav€iv 
'n€ip(ifi€vos TO, iTvpL(f>ipovTa aviifiovXeuci. (Now it is evident 
that this writing is an attempt to escape from Gnosticism by 
the employment of Gnostic resource. With a strong insistence 
on God as the good Creator of the visible world, a defence 
indeed of the Creator from the attacks of the prevailing 
Discontent, the practical ethics amount to a completely Mani- 
chean and ascetic ^repudiation of this life: and, in this 
passage of Peter's esoteric teaching, this strange Gnostic 
position is adopted, so strenuously attacked by the orthodox 
writers, that Christ comes secretly to win men away by stealth 
from their allegiance. Our legitimate ruler and sovereign is 
the Devil, or rather this world belongs to him. Does it not 
appear an infringement of the original partition of Time and 
Eternity (the temporal and the immortal life), if the Saviour 
robs the Devil of his subjects before their period of servitude is 
over?) III. 19. Christ suffered and died here: ijJk\ovTos 
al&vos Pa<nk€ifs tlvai Karrj^uofjiivoi irpds rov vvi; ^pL-npoOiayufa^ 
'napeiKri<f>ora ro/mo) ttiv PatriXeCav [rrjv piaxrjv iiroulTo ?] 

Each man is free to choose his leader: iavTov (XV. 7) 
iirovipLeiv (^ ^SovAcrai ^ r^ irapoim KaK(p ij t(^ pLiWojm 'Aya^f . 
Those who choose the present good are richly dowered here 
{Ti\o\rTV,v Tpv<f>av 7Jb€(r$aC tQv yap i(rop.ivaiV iyaOQv ovb€v 
€$ovai). But those who choose the delights of the inture 
kingdom (ra rrjs pL€k\ov<Tri9 paa'i\€Cas) . . , tol ivravOa &9 
iWoTpCov Paa-tXicos thia ovra, avroh vopLiC€<r6ai ovk i^canv^ 
rj ibaros p6vov koI iprov Kai rovTOiv p.€$* Ibp&roi TtopidoyAvQiV 
Ttpos rd ^rjv, Kai ircpiPoXaCov kvos. As in the system of 
Lactantius, there is no place in the kingdom of God for 
the wealthy and successful in this life ; good fortune here 
(supposed to be in each case a deliberate choice) disqualifies 
for eternal bliss : the two spheres are incompatible ; and 
no one can ' make the best of both worlds.' 

Daemons have power only over those who yield to their 

Subordinate Dualism. 

allarementg and oat at their table, VII. 3: OJirw yap aV 
hfty^'i iiTo rov -navTa kj-io-^jtos ©eoO, Suirlv exduTOTf ap\ovcrt 
bf^nf Tf Kot eStoiiJ/iiJ oiplirQjj vofios firi «x*"' ^'<fl'"*pof ovtwh 
i^ovaiav iav fxij TipoTfpov Tivi Ofjorfiowtfoi ye'iijTdi, Si/ lu iroi^<Tai 
^ KaKwirai ^ovKtrat. And as the tires of Judaic sacrifice are 
pstiuguished by the water of Baptism, so the table of OeviU 
{tiliaXoOvra) 19 BUjierBeded by the Eticharist. VIII. ai. 
Christ the king of the future world was exposed to the same 
temptation, the display of the glories or pleasures, which 
this life and its prince have to offer : tu yap -nil €verf^{Cas 
t)fJ.Qv fiaaiXfi irpoaTjKOf wort o irpotrKatpos ^atrt\tvs, kqi ov ^lav 
TToiwji {ov yap i^v) CiAAa ■npOTpiniov Kol avaiTflOiov (on tA 
■neiaOiivai f-nl rfi ixda-Tov xftrci f^tmtria). Christ refuses, 
knowing this voluntary choice of the temporal means eternal 
servitude to the Devil. XX. 3. ITiese two beinfjs ever fight 
together for the possession of Man's allegiance : tuv B« Bv'o 
roiJraji' 6 Irtpo^ top irtpov iK^iA^trat &toS K€kfV(TavTos, and 
each of us has perfect freedom to obey which he prefers. 
If the Good, he becomes K-nifia of the future sovereign, whose 
kingdom is not from hence ; if the Evil, tov tiapavTos yCftTai 
Tlopripov vT!r\piTiip.a. Notice the netitert : it is suggested that 
the first eflbrt of deliberate will is alone /ree ; afterwards we 
must abide by the consequence ; ' we are not our own.' And 
remembering the practical problem of thot age, the question 
of the Realm of Freedom, we may see here that Krifjia implies 
no real sacrifice of self, but only a vohintary mancipation to 
a service which is ' perfect freedom,' in which the pertonalUy 
is invigoratcl, not extinguished. 

The 80-cnlled gifts of Fortune then come from the Devil, 
who, as in the old German legends, makes a compact with 
the soul, and barters a fixed period of earthly success for an 
eternal slavery. But occasionally (and as a result of an 
inconsistency to which I must again refer) the De^"!! is repre- 
sented as punishing his subjects even in this liTe, 3s (XX. 3) 
S(' Afia/)rfat Kpl<rti itKaCq -niv kot airov AajSuv i^owlav, itai itph 


1 64 Subordinate Dualism. 

Tov fiiXXovTos al(avo^ ^cAtJctos airfj yprja-Oai^ iv t^ vvv fiCi^ KokaC(ap 
TjbtTaL : in which simple sentence lies the whole problem of the 
alternative, rebel or minister ? and the entire confusion in this 
writer's mind between indignation at evil and rejoicing in it. 
This strife of the two kings, present and to come, constitutes 
the world-process, or at least the historic development of man- 
kind. Adam is the first manifestation of the good principle, 
and it is an error to suppose that he fell : III. 22. 'n>^v rovn^ 
(rv(vyos (Tvv€KTl<r6r) di^Xcia iftvarii^ as inferior to him as fierovaia 
to ov<rlay as moon to sun, as fire to light. This wife of Adam, 
who almost approaches the traditionary conception of Lilith, 
is believed to be 'npirq Ttpo<f>r\riSy tov vvv Koarfiov a>9 OrjKeia 
61A0C0V ipxov<ra. II. 16. From Adam there arose, first ibiKos 
Katv, second bUaios 'A/SA, according to the law of Emanation 
(6 koyos, or 6 Kavti^v Trjs (rvCvyias, or (III. 23) Kara rdv rfjs 
TTpoobov \6yov, and iv rrj tQv crvfvyiwi; irpockevati). Symbolical 
of this great secret, now at last revealed, is the emission of 
the birds from Noah's ark. II. 16. cont. : 'JTV€vixdTa)v €Ik6v€9 
bvo i,TT€aT6Xrj(rav iKadapTov \4y(o kol KaOapov, first the black 
raven, then the white dove. We have the pairs: Ishmael, 
Isaac ; Esau, Jacob ; Aaron (rfj ro^ct irp^Tos ... 6 ipxi,€p€vs' 
ftra 6 vopLoOirrjs), Moses. The last pair that preceded Simon 
Magus and Peter were Jesus and John the Baptist (II. 17, 
III. 22), last representative of the female principle: 6 iv 
ytvvTiTOLs yvvaiK&v TTpQros ^A^€r, fira 6 iv vlois iLvOpiiircav, So 

II. 23, of John : 69 koI tov KVpCov . . . KaTo. tov t^9 av^vyias 
Xoyov iyiv€To irpoobos. In like manner the Magus precedes 
Peter: II. 17. 6 irpb ifxov ch to. iOvrj npiaTos iXOdv (repeated 

III. 59). * It is easy to detect whose he is, and whose am I,* 
6 fi€T* iK€Lvov ikrfkvOm ... 0)9 (TKOTU^ ^€^9, 0)9 ayvoia yv(a<Tis^ 
w9 v6g(^ laa-is. So, as Christ said, first must come the false 
gospel vTto Ttkivov Ttj;o9, then, to cleanse the holy place, must 
the true gospel be secretly dispensed {Kpv<l>a StaTrcfw^d^yai eh 
iiravSpOuxriv Tijv ia-ofjJvcDv aipiaeuiv). At the end of the world 
comes Antichrist and Christ, at whose advent all the works 

Subordinate Dualism. 


f darkness shall become invisible (d</>ajn)). The source of 
error in man is ignorance of this Cnnon of Dualism. II. 18, 
(JT<i oil', w? f^l''} Tiii' KnKrffa irfi Zu[uYia5 iyvoovai rivf't, so 
the ehiiracter and origin of Simon Magus is not rightly 

In such a syalem, then, everything is adapted and arranged 
for the trial and probation of man the individual. Punishment 
iii corrective and admonitory, and aims at the rcKtoration of 
the sinner (XII. ,^2): it is not Goi/,s will that he should be 
unhappy, hut the inevitable result of his own free choice. God 
forces none to obey and love hira. All trials and diseases in 
life have this single object, the testing of the Saints, who 
give up, with prudent foresight and sincere faith in God's 
promises, the pleasures of the present world. In opposition 
to the enemies of Providence (that much impugned doctrine 
in this period ; compare Lactantius), it is maintained that 
not the smallest thing liappens without God; and thus it 
must be confessed that the writer haa caught hold of the 
main teaching of Christianity from its human side ; the 
extension of the idea of T\p6i'oia from nal'wnal or cosmic to 
indivitiual life. Much the same principle underlies this 
sentence (XII. 32}: AiVoios fit lorir iMuios & fov tiXoyov 
ivfKa Tji ipva-fi liaxofJifvos, for merit resides not in letter of 
scripture or in verlwl obedience, but in the innate sense of 
right and wrong, and the cultivation lif moral spontaneity. 


More jiariicular account of the origin of Evil in the 
ClSMBSTISS Hd-viusa. 
§ I. From the standpoint of human nature, liased on the 
value oi t)i6 pergonal will and free choice, the evil in the world 
ie capable of explanation. The Moral difficulties vanish, to 
a great extent, if we may assume a rival principle to the will 
of God, who seeks to divert us from thoughts on our true 


1 66 Subordinate Dualism. 

home, Eternity, and who already anticipates our appearance 
in the world by his opposition to God (merely transient and 
fictitious though it may perhaps be). Our moral nature 
implies choice; but choice implies opposites and contraries; 
thus nothing, not our pain, or success, or disease or health, or 
poverty or riches, fieJls outside the counsels of God, who tries, 
by means of His two servants, of what temper we are. Thus, 
from an ethical point of view, we may silence our doubts ; for 
it would be difficult to imagine a moral world except in this 
way ; but the specrdative problems as to the origin and nature 
of the Evil One remain unsolved. In the Homilies Books 
XIX and XX are given up to this discussion, which is 
significantly omitted in the later Recognitions. 

There are two arguments, one with Simon in XIX, the 
other with the believing disciples in XX. Simon is an 
adversary whose main object is to perplex, and it is difficult 
to form an accurate idea of his doctrine. At first he wishes 
to shift the responsibility of evil from the Devil to his Creator. 
* Who is the Evil One ? * I do not know, but believe that he 
exists, as Christ told us: did icdyo) crvfi^T/fii avrhv \miLp\€iv, 
' Is he create or uncreate ? (yci/Tjroy, ayivriTos), for if we discover 
his author, we shall transfer the blame.' Not so, for perhaps 
God cannot prevent it, el be ov6' airds bvvaroSf KpeCrraiV 6 irpos 
r^ &bvvaT€iv Kara to bwarov eiepyerelv fifias ovk 6kv&v. [Here 
Peter approaches the position of J. S. Mill.] Even if created 
by God, God is not blameworthy, for good men have bad sons. 
He is created, but does not receive his evil from God ; and 
yet we must allow that nothing happens contrary to God's 
will, Who (§ 12) can be wpo/SoAeiy , . . tQv T€<r<rip(ov ouo-ic^v, 
OeppLOv Xiyco Koi ylrv^pov, vypov tc koX $ripov. At first they 
were simple : iy irp^ra airkij Kai &pLiyrj ovra irpos ovhirtpov 
i\€iv Trjv op€^iv^ TTpo^KrjdivTa b^ iird rod 0€ov Kai l^o) KpaSivra 
yiv€<r6ai C^ov, TTpoaCp€a-iv ixov 6\o6p€v<raL KaKOvs (a). Inasmuch 
as all these are bom from God, 6 Uovripbs ovt iWoOii; itmv^ 
ovT iiT* avTov . . . 0€(n} r^r KaKiav elXijc^e^ because these ovaLai 

SubordmaU Dualism. 


in themselves at first neither l>ad nor good, ovOcTtpai ovitm 
Tfi<t>vKoKpii'T}tiivai t^ airroo T!po0(^K->}VTai, Kal efto airrdis KpaBfC' 
irai? imo rijs aiirov rE;(iir|s, fiovKijiTd (= volimiarw motu'i) 
<Tvt>.^ilir\Ktv ^ itpbi Tov tSiv KaKStv oktOpov iniBvfiia (b). Here 
iippears the ineonaistency of a propoaed explanation, half 
phi/»ieal, half moral; and again, this conception of the Devil 
as the willing minister of GoD'a righteous jndgementa, is quite 
JDComplete, and takes no notice of the element of moral 
perversion, being little more than Phu.o's notion of the 
paiTikiKT] bieaixii. This view is rejected by Simon : AtJiiarilr 
oBf iTsip)^aiv 6 Qeos Ktprav ra <TTOix_f'ia, tal Troitif Kparrtts, vpci 
&I ^oi/Aerai yiveirdai ttpoaipifftis, Bfa tC fx^ iitoifi ayaS&v 
'npoaiptuKiju Trjv iKaurov Kpauiv ; (a question which is always 
being asked in some form). Peter at last grants that this 
peculiar temper of the De^nl arose in accordance with God's 
will ; oCrtus povK^ tov avyKiprnvTos avfi^f^ijKfv is ijtfeATjtrei' 
17 rwj' KaKwi' irpoalpfiris (e). Here is clearly an inconsistency : 
the DeWt passes from antagonism to God into the position of 
an a^nt. 

In ^ 14 Simon enggests an honest Dualism of God and 
Matter : tC bi ft fi "TXti avroj trvyx^povos ovtra xal io-oSiiya^ios wc 
iX^P°^ '"po^AWfi aiiTut ^yip.oi'as ip.i!oiC(oirTas avTov tois ^ouAij- 
HatTi ; eo again, | 1 7 : Mijti at\ tiv naX ourws auatptirai to, r^s 
Moi'apx'***' <n>vap)(ovaT]'i Kdi tripas Trjs Kara t^i' 'TKiju dut'djxtws ' ; 
There are two ways of regarding the material substrate, as 
limiliiig or atpiring after the good, or the intellectual world. 
Plutarch, in his ' Isis and Osiria,' adopts the former view (both 
are possible in Platonic thought), and is almost tempted to 
personify the toeaktieat of the receptive element into obstinate 

This Peter denies; Matter recognizes and obeys God, and 
Jesus in the miracles shows His power over it, Simon wishes 
to press Peter to one of two conclusions ; either we start from 

' DreneerB trannlMian here quite niiiiaeH tlie point, anJ Is uiigr>iutnilicii1 ; 
for awe of ^W yt " uonne (byjiatheticftl &nil laggeitiva), bbo XX. g (mI fin.). 

J 68 Subordinate Dualism. 

OoD*8 omnipotence, and believe him to be the Author of Evil ; 
or preferring to connect the Divine Nature rather with good- 
ftea than power^ we suppose Matter to be almost independent 
of this authority. * If God ensouled Matter, iv€\lni\<a(r€V airriv 
oIk avrbf alnos tariv &v airni tCkt€i kokw ; ' Peter replies 
with a compendium of orthodox doctrine: 'all earthly evils 
flfifie because of man's &11 ' (Ipirera Ufioka, fioravoL Oapia-ifioip 
iind Daemons) ; ' and if you ask why man was thus made 
oapnblo of death, I respond because he is free (avr^^oiHrio;).' 

§ 16. Nor is God ui\just, if he makes use of the Devil's 
tnalif'e for Ium own righteous ends : ei iLTroirrivTa airov 6 &€os 
A/txctP rQif ifioConv Karianja^ jf6fi(^, rifP rifuopCav iitiy^iv rols 
A/yi(t/)r ((rover i Ktktwa^ avr^, ovk a§cfco$ ^oriif. § 17* Simon, 
thinking more of his opposition to God than his ministry, asks : 
why «{d(i)9 avTov iirl KaKvt itro^i^vov^ ytvoficvov avrdv ovk ip€i\€ ; 
} 18. Simon starts a third possible theory, taking its origin 
from pantheism: Evil only relative: M^ti ovv t&v itpo^ ri 
ivTiv ; depends on its object for its qualification : in this way 
all distinctions vanish ; evil is not evil, nor is good, good ; all 
is in Heraclitean flux: iKirepov yap Oirtpov ipyaC^rai. So, 
§ 19 : MrJTi ovv ovk Icrri r^ <f>va-€i irovrjpov ^ iyaOov, AXka v6yLif 
hia(f)€p€i Kol i0€i : that is, the Source of Life, physical or 
mental, is indifferent ; and all morality grows up by conven- 
tion, and depends on institutions which are only locally 

In § 20 Peter introduces a new idea— Sin neither truly 
existent nor eternal : ovk ipa virapx^i rd Iloinfpov itl, qAA.' ovbi 
yitiP vTiip^ai hvvarai. 

The rest of this book XIX is occupied with Simon's gnostic 
attacks on the evils, cruelty, inequality of this world ; and 
shows clearly how entirely the early heresies depended upon 
this widespread Discontent, whether it were practical or 
ipeciilative Peter replies : * Much physical evil in the world 
arises from our carelessness, from neglect of the rules of health 
or the fitting periods of generation. And besides, pains here 

Subordinate Dualism. 


are to correct sin, and to lead a 

' from i 

Ignorance: it you 
are good, you will not suffer : 86s rfii/ fi^ d/jo/>r(iii(iiTa na'i Kafii 
TOP (i^ TracrxoiTo. This is very inconsiptent ; here pain, 
instead of being a probation, is a refribufioH. But the poaition 
of the former books is that pain in this life is the inseparable 
lot of those who choose eternal happiness. 'As to the terrible 
injustice and inequality of life, it is necessary for the perfection 
of saints ; some by suffering, others by seizing an occasion of 
charity, are made pious (*i<re/i«rs dnoreAtfffl^t'at).' Simon 
departs, after an angry repiv and an indignant and somewhat 
modern protest, that in this theory the poor are a mere instru- 
ment for the jierfection of the wealthy. 

In the next book Peter undertakes privately to explain the 
truth Tijs irepi roiJ Tlovipov &piiovlas. The Devil ia the duly 
appointed king of the present world, 8s icai fir' SktOpt^ isovtiprnv 
\aipfiv iKpdSr} (d). Now this feeling, thongh in itself not 
commendable, is used by God, who cannot pnnish sinners 
directly; koI us lita \api(6p.feos <?riflwfiia Tr]v rov &toi} Qov- 
Aijirii/ ^KTcXti. Christ on the other hand is created {hrip.iQvp- 
yi)6fU) to rejoice in authority over the good, and saves them 
to eternal life, favri^ yapt^Qp,tvos t^ii vTrep rounoy Us Qtov 
avaiptpti X'^P'"- Both please themselvcB, but in doing so 
eerve God; and both are ministers and agents of God's 
good pleasure : 01 Svo ^y^fioi'cs oSrot rax^tai x* (pes' flfl 0cofi 
■7tpoKop,^av(iv imOvpovaat Kal to aiiTov dcArj^a (ttitcAciv' even 
now desirous of anticipating the fains of the wicked, the 
delighlt of the just. It ia God who really acts throughout; 
He kills and makes alive : oTtoKTtivti. piv Sia r^; dpLo-rcpas . . . 
hla Tov i-nl KaKioirtt t&v do-e/Sii' )(aiptiv Kpa64vTOs llovrfpov. 
aiiCfi 6« foi (VfpytTfl bia rffs Stfius . . . tia tov i-a tvfpyitrCn 
itaX tnonjpia biKaimv \aCp(iP 6ijfi to upy ijfl^t^os 'Ayadov. 

XX, 3. Eiai 6e o5to( rar oioCas e^'"''"** "^^ f$oi6ev tov 0eov, 
ouB( ytip icmv iTdpa Tts &p\ri . . ■ ui pr/v airo tov Qtou is ^ifa 
JIpoffi\.i'lSii<Tav' o^rfSofoi yap ovrui ^<raii . , . ovrt avp^(^riKa<riv 
avTopirias, irapd t^v ovtov ^ouArif yfyopoTts, iitft rd TJjs bwiptats 

T70 Subordinate Dualism. 

avTov yAyi<TTov iLv^pr\To iv, . . . dXX' iitb rov ®iov fxkv irpopi- 
jSAijroi TO TTpdriara orotx^ta Tifrarapa (warm, cold, wet, dry, or 
fire, air, water, earth). Whence God is the Father of all 
existence {&0€v hr\ kolL Ylariip Tvy\av€i irdaTi^ overlay, — ovotjs 
yviyj\i rr\s Kara r^v Kpcuriv (His plan as to the mixture of 
elements taking effect?) The materials or elements of 
creation then come from God himself by projection : His 
design as to their commingling and permeation then takes 
effect. Yet out of this purely physical conception arises, by 
a sudden turn, the idea of moral difference : l^a> yap KpaO^la-LV 
avTOty 0)9 tIkvov fj TlpoaCpcaris iycvirrjOrj. And so the Devil is 
really only a minister of God, and is blameless : 6 ovv Homipds 
TTpds TO) Tov iv€<rT<aTos KoapLOV TcAei VTrovpyrjtras d|&^fiirrus r<p 
0€<p (&T€ bri oif /uita9 ovaias ibp rrj^ irpdi KQKiav pLOinjs)^ iicracrvy^ 
KpiOtU dyaO^ y€V€<r6ai bvvarai, o^S^ yap vvv kuk^k n noici, 
KaiToi KaK^s Sr, voy^lpons KaKovyjilv ilK-qiftoas Tiiv i^ova-laV' This 
universalist and Origenian doctrine on the return of Satan to 
his allegiance, seems to depend upon a dim adumbration of 
modem science : thought is molecular displacement, and 
character depends upon a particular arrangement of atoms. 
And it is quite obvious that this writer who insists most 
strongly on human freedom and responsibility, shrinks from 
attributing the same liberty to the Evil angels, i. e. is reduced 
to 2k physical instead of an ethical explanation.) 

XX. 5. Sophonias states an article of his belief which strikes 
at the entire Gnostic doctrine of Emanation and successive 
Deterioration : rh pkv yevvrja-ai (0€dr) blb<apLL, to b^ ivoiwiop 
oifTta y€Pvri<rai ovk anoblboapLi, Peter becomes pensive at this 
(M avvvoCas ycroficros), and repents of having begun this 
inextricable discussion, and sets forth a vague theory of God's 
power to ' change * things, even Himself. 

*0 picv irpopiXXcDV koI (Is kripav ova-lav Tpaitiirra tsoXiv ^<^' 
jatn'di; Tpiirciv bvvarai, 6 b^ irpopk-qdeU ttjs ^f iKclvov TpoTrrjs . . . 
t4kvov VTrip\a>v, ip€V tov irpofidKXovros Povkrjs akko rt ywicrOai 
oi bvvarai, €l pLri iKclvos dikci. Thus the Devil is exactly what 

Subordinate Dualism. 


God mthei him to be, and cannot overpower the law of his 
own nature and conformation. XX. 8. Michaiah asks if the 
Good spirit ytyetTjroi like the Evil ? If ho, tht-y seem to he 
brothera. Peter replies : ovx onoi»s y'V"''^"^^ ■ ■ ■ ''<'" HoitipoC 
i} TfTpayiiTis tov ircifiaTOS oitria 7r«fvAoK^(n)^^nj iitb tov &tov 
vpofj3\^8i), «£b) 8e aiiTTJs Kara rijv Tov Trpo^iAoiTos ^ov\V ^Kpd&i) 
npiis TJiv xpairtv fj Kaxols \aC[ioV(Ta TTf^oaipeiis (e). (It appears 
then that God is the author of so-called ICvil, hy deliberate 
creation or projection of elements so mingled, that a certain 
?fts necessarily came upon them, and will continue imtil the 
component parts are redistributed.) But this hyiKithesia is 
not readily accepted : 8ia ti hi f^ui wi ovtov upatftiViji 
oiiriai f/ mitijit^ijicvia kqicois ^aipovtra -npoaipfiris ineyivtTO {{) ; 
For as to the ' Evil ' Will {whatever the exact sense of 

OUT* iito TOV Qfov yeyeyj^irai, 
OVTf Vlf) fTtpou Tivos, 

oSt( inf)' airoij ■7rpo/3(/3Ar|rai, 
ovTt auTofidruis itpoeX^Auflej', 
oCrt d«l ijv (is 7; ■apo rrjs avYKpiatais o 


iXXa noTo TTii- ToC e«ou fio<i\-r\air (fu> r^ Kpdtfft mj/i jSe'^ij it (V. 'O 
bi 'AyaOis eic r^s tov Qeov jtaAAiVnis rpojt^s yei'i^flels icai oiiK 
i^o) KpdiTd (Tii/i^<^T(KW¥ Tui ovTi TiDs iiTTiv. It caDuot be denied 
that we have here the worst features of the Necessitarian and 
Impersonal view of God, which lies at the root of Gnosticisms. 
In this difficulty the writer flies to a refuge which he had 
once abandoned with contempt^the letter of Scripture : iiril 
Tovra &ypa<fia Tvy\di'fi nal a-ToxairpoXs TTfTHtTTuip^ffa, firj iroiTUS 
^fitv ovTus ^x*'" ^(^aiova-HiD (compare Origrn, who imposes 
a similar condition on his speculation in his ' Principia ' ; and 
it may here be remarked that the Doctrine of Reserve, so 
generally supposed to be the edifice of aristocratic i)ride 
and intellectuulism, may with equal likelihood be founded 
on humility : the iTtappiiriov (Uptan is not certain and there- 

172 Subordinate Dualism. 

fore cannot be commanieated to all men as authoritative 

But a still more complete exculpation of the Devil awaits 
us ; in XX. 9, Lazarus now boldly puts a question, which has 
been on our tong'ues for some time past : Il&s hvvarov tvkoyov 
civat rbv i/tto 0€ou hiKalov KaraaTivra Uovrjpbv (Sore A(r€)3ij<rdi^o)j; 
€lpai TifMapov, TOVTov airrdv varcpov fiera tQv ovtov iyyiXonv avv 
rols &fiapT<akoL9 €h to a kotos rd KardTepov TrefiTrea-Oai] there 
remains, then, to sever the notion of pain from the Devil's 
sojourn in Hell ; for the Devil is an Angel who fears God, 
performs His will, and punishes His traitors. Peter : Kiy& 
6fJioXoy€^ 5ti 6 Wovr\pQS irowfip^i' ouS^k 'ttoici, KaQo tov boOivra avr^ 
vofjLOV ^icreAei. Kacroi Ttpoaip^aiv i\(av kqktiv opaas <^o/3ip ri 
irpos tov &€dv odS^K ibUoDS irpiaan (notice that itpoaCp^a-is 
has now lost its true persmial and ethical significance, and is 
confused with the necessary result of a certain mixture of 
elements). ^uafiiXkoav h\ didao-K^Aov; iXriB^ias €h ivibpav rm* 
&KpLT<av KoX 5i(i)3oXo9 6 avrdi dvopLa^cTai. — To this conclusion 
there is but one corollary, a modified belief in * happiness in 
Hell.' *0 Ilovripds (tk6t(^ \alp^iv Kara tt]v Kpa<nv yfyovdsf ftera 
Twr opobovkiov iyyikuiv els Td tov TapTapov (tkotos KoreXOfAv 
i|ScTcu* (fiiXbv yap irvpl to ciccfroy. Whereas men's souls, <^rd9 
KaSapov orayoves oiaai, are punished in such environment. 
Thus it is clear that man's spiritual nature differs from the 
devil's, and in reality only the former is free, the latter being 
physically so compounded that his character is foredetermined 
and is not the result of free-will. If he were not thus sent 
into darkness, t6t€ ov bvvaTai 17 KaKois avrov xaipova-a Kpaa-is 
lieraavyKpiOrj vai els iyaOov irpoalpcaiv (?) (f). (This sentence 
is very ambiguous, but seems to imply a future change in his 
temper when his work of thwarting^ chastising, deceiving^ in 
accordance with God's will shall be over.) Kal oCrwy hyaOb^ 
(? ayaOols) crvvtlvai Kpidrja-erai Tavrp paXKov, oti koxoIs xalpovaav 
XeAoyxo)? Kpaaiv (g), ahlt^ tov itpos tov Qeov <f>6fiov oifb^v vapa 
TO boKovv r^ TOV 0€oi} v6fi^ bi€Trp6,(aTo, May not, he asks, the 

Subordinate Dualism. 173 

story of the cbang« of Aaron's rod into a i^nake und buck 
Bgain into a rod be n foreahadowinfj in mystic language of 
the Devil's altered character? (r^u roC ^ov'\pQXi vnTtfiov ytmt- 
a-oftfirqv Tijs Tpimiis lifTaavyKpatrur.) 




In this somewhat more orthodox recension, we have the 
same doctrine of the two kingijoms, to be chosen by the free- 
will of eacb. 

DUo repta conttiiuil Deus et prindpes emitit : unum taecuhre 
et praeienti voluptaiii praemio coronatum ; allerum, file pre- 
hen»vm aed aeterttam mereedem pollicen». Jlic lioni male halcniur; 
et pet»imu» guuqve intulfaf meliorihus : — iia dul/itari non polttf, 
retervari utrumque in meriiorum gnorum compentaftonem. This 
is the ntoral distinction of the two realms of time and eternity; 
(so I. 34 Ihio Tegna potvU praeientis dico lempork et faturi) : 
but we have besides the phi/ttcal distinction : I. 37 Ua 
totiu* Mandi machinafa, cum una domut eiset, in ditas dtvidit 
regione». I)ivi»ionig auiein Aaec fuii cauta, vt fiiperna reffio 
angeli* J4abitacu.(um, inferior vera praeheret homtnibtit: — et tic 
cuncta praeparata mnt ul homimhut qui iahiiarent in ea, etteat 
Jacaltat liig Qmrnbiii pro arhiirio uti, .... live ad bona velint, 
lire ad mala. — III, 52 Foteitatem dedit unicui^ue ariilrii «ai, 
III hoc efne poiiit quod vult, el rurium praevidens quia itta 
poteiUu arhitrii alioi qvidem faeeret eligere ioiia, alioi oero mala, 
ei per hoc in duni ordinei necetiario j/ropagattdam es»et hominum 
geiiuij—vnicttique ordini coitcetiil et locum et regem, quem vellet 
eligere; bonui enim rex boiiii gaudet,et maltgnvi malit. — IV. 19 
Eit ergo ia poteifale nniu»cuinique [qvia liberi arbitrii facta* est 
homo), i(/rKBi«oSM( Apostles) re/if audire ad filatn,an daemoni&ui 
ad interiiitnt, — IV. 25. God foresees perversion of His good 

174 Subordinate Dualism. 

gifb, and arranges accordingly ; but this foresight in no way 
interferes with free choice : — Praevidit diverso9 ordines atque 
officia differentia, ut esset diversitas in ordinibus et officiis, se- 
cundum jjroprios animarum motus, ex arbitrii lihertate proferendos. 
He thus foresees sin, but does not force thereto: and He 
prepares a system of corrective punishment for our good : — 
Oportuit ergo esse et poenarum ministros, quos tamen arbitrii 
libertas in hunc ordinem traheret: besides dehuerunt habere 
quos vincerent hi qui agones susceperant caelestium praeniiarum. 

V. 9 Qui permanet in malo et servus est Mali, nofi potest effici 
portio Boni ; quia ab initio, ut ante diximus, duo regna statuit 
Deus, et potestatem dedit unicuique hominum, ut illius regnijiat 
portiOy cui se ad obedientiam ipse subiecerit. God has clearly 
defined this: non posse unum hominem utriusque regni esse 

VIII. 52. How justly God succours the corrupt state of 
the world I ut quoniam bonis Dei mala (quae ex peccato originem 
sumpserant) sociata snnty duahus his partibus duos prin- 
cipes ponerety et ei qui bonis gaudet bonorum ordinem .... 
statuit y ei vero qui malis gaudet y ea quae contra ordinem et 
inutUiter geruntur (ex quibus sine dubio etiam Providentiae 
fides in dubinm veniatj; et habita est per hoc a iusto Deo iusta 
divisio.— 11. 18. The origin and wiles of the Devil (about 
which subject the Recognitions observe a certain reticence) 
are made to depend on Man's need of probation : — ut ergo 
infideles a fidelibuSy pii discemantur ab impiisy permissum est 
Maligna uti his artibus, quibus singulorum erga verum parentem 
probentur affecttis. So § 17 Studet Inimicus .... inimicos 
eos efficere condilori suo. III. 55 Propter hos ergo qui 
salutis suae neglectu placent MaJOy et eos qui studio utditatis 
suae placere cupiunt BonOy — paria quaedam ad temptationem 
praesenti huic saeculo statute sunt, § 59 Paria quaedam huie 
mundo destinasse Deum; ille qui primus ex paribus venity a Malo 
esty qui secundum a Bono ; and every one has a chance of 
making up his mind (occasio iudicii)y whether he is foolish 

Subordinate Dualism. i ; 

and believes the first who coniee, or whether, being wise, 1 
is able to discern the Spirits. — \ 6i Paria .... hmc mum 
destinata sunt a/i initio taeculi : — 



The Giants. 




The Philistines. 




The Magicians. 


The Tempter. 

The Son of Man. 

Simon Mag^is. 


(All nations.) 

Verbi Seminator(?) 



There is oo intelligible account given of the Fait of Man ; 
muniiavi iplrilm are casually mentioned. I. 43. Daemons 
clearly exercise a kind of divine commistjion to try nations 
and individuals. IV. 33. We overcome them not by our 
own strength ; »ed pTopfer I)ei, qui eot tubiecil-, pokdatem, 
— VIII. 50 (Beits) magia induhil per sivgiilat genie* angelog 
qvosdam agere princlpalum, qui viaiU gaudent. — We cannot 
throw the responsibility of our faults on the Devils: II. :8 
Qttomodo ergo dieemui Malignum etse caiisam peccaii notln, quum 
hoc pcrmisiu Dei fiat, %t per iptiim probeiUur .'' and IX. 16, 
Clement's father sums up the ' sermon ' of hia son rightly : 
cum eo quod inest lidtrtas ariilrii, ett erIrhigeciLg et nliqua Causa 
mali, ex qua per direr»a» coHcv/iitceiiliaa incitantur yuiilem 
iemines, non lamen coguntnr ail peecalum. 

We may ask then, what is Sin) VIII. 51 Em arbUrii 
iiiertafe ttnmquisijve hominum, dum incrediilua est de futurit 
(that ia, about the righteous personftlity and Providence of 
God, about the purposeful origin and final justice of (he 
world), jier malog actus incurrii in mala ; and into a super- 
ficial, suspicious, and short-sighted philosophy of present 
enjoyment. — Belief in the Christian message, i.e. in future 

176 Subordinate Dualism. 

judgement and eternal life, cannot come by intellectual pro- 
cess : it is rather an irresistible corollary (compare Fighters 
Vocation of Man^ Book III). V. 35 Non aliter scire poUrilis 
(the truth of our preaching), nisi ut obedientes his quae man- 
dantur ipso rerum exitu et beatitudinis certissimo fine doceamini^, 
— The Christian is therefore contrasted with the children of 
this world : VI. 13 Debemus praecellere eos, qui praesens 
tantum saeculum nSrunt: V. 5 Pergentibus ad civitatem 
saluiis. What is meritorious is a belief that the Creator will 
at last restore the balance of justice : VII. 33 immortalis et 
beata vita credentibus danda promittitur: VIII. 48 Divina 
Providentia iudicium erga omnes statuit^ quia praesens saeculum 
non erat tale, in quo unusquisque possit pro meritis dispensari. 

The first impulse of the individual (Clement's fj TTpdrrj 
revo-ts wpos (Toarripiav) is curiously defined : III. 53 Malus 
.... apud Beum qui requirere non vult quod sibi expedit (pro- 
bably i<ms ov pavk^rai (r]Trj(rai rd iavT<a a'Vfi<f>4pov). So 
VIII. 59 qui desiderium gerunt cognoscendi quod sibi expedit. 
The writer here insists on the primary motive of self-interest ; 
and this is true in a great majority of cases, if we consult 
history and experience. 'What shall we do to be saved?' 
It rises from a sense of personal unease and alienation, not, in 
the first instance, from a vague altruistic sentiment. The 
soul is for the time alone with God, and forgets all else in 
this solitude. The first gaze of the awakening spirit, now 
folly self-conscious, is turned within, not without. *Is thy 
heart right with My heart ? ' is the question God puts to it. 
It inquires of itself : * Do I realize my own dignity and worth 
in the eyes of God?' God distinguishes those who seek 
their own good and their own hurt: Beu^ quod utile est 
(III. 53) occuUavit hominibus (i.e. the possession of the king- 
dom of heaven, or immortal life, which is the only good). 

The bad, then, are the lazy ; qui neglexissent quod sibi utile 
et saluiare esset inquirere, tamquam seipsos odio habentes, 

^ Compare altio Recoon. II. 22 : III. 37, 41, 59. 

Subordinate Dualism. 


I who recognize what is liest for them extir^uish tbe 
flames of the old carnal birth at the font, the second birth by 
water : IX. 7 Prima eiiim nottra naiivitas, per ignem eontmpi- 
Keitiiae dticendU, et idea dUpensatione divina, teeumla base per 
aqiiam introducifur, quae reetinffuaf ignis nalurant .... (the 
80ul must ao live) »f- ttnUa* omnino Muvdi hiiiiif voluptaies 
requiratf ted tit tamquam perfgriun-g et adenia, a/que alteriut 
chitalU civit. 

Nothing can be clearer than this speculative doctrine of 
man's origin, duty, and destiny. The problem of the author 
of evil recedes into the background. The ' malign one ' and 
his angels are indeed mentioned as they might be in orthodox 
Christian writings, but we miss the detailed metaphysical 
inquiry, degenerating into a mere p}iy»'>eal hypothesis, which 
occQpies the later books of the Homilies. The centre of the 
Sjrstem in the ' Recognitions ' is the free-will of man the 
individual, and his instinct of self- preservation, which, by 
means of corrective discipline (IV. 1 1, 33) and the probation 
of daemonic wiles, is educated and developed into a sincere 
desire for immortal life, an ascetic repudiation of all fictitious 
worldly delights in this, a determination to regai-d sutfering as 
chastisement coming from a Father's hand, and a firm trust 
in God's justice and mercy (which does not wait for proof) 
that all present wrongs will be riglited at the Judgement Day. 



This last of the Latin writers of the Ante-Nicene Church 
recalls the author of the Clemeidines in two points ; the formal 
doctrine of the origin and nse of evil, and the presence of 
interpolations which it is difficult to separate from the text. 
Ilia conception of the world-process may be gathered from 


178 Stibordinate Dualism. 

tbe following axioms, wbich resume the leading features of 
his doctrine : — 

(a) He writes to effect a new alliance between Religio and 
Sapientia, so long divorced ; the one superstitious, the other 
merely negative and destructive. 

(b) He is intensely indignant against the Epicureans especi- 
ally, who deny design ; with these pretended philosophers the 
Christian has nothing in common. All others agree in 
believing that conscious reason rules the world with deliberate 

(c) There is for the believer a moral and personal Creator ; 
and the purpose of God in building the world for us was to 
put before rational beings the high prize of immortality, to be 
won at the price of hard toil and frequent probation. 

(d) To this end He establishes us with free-will in a world 
of contraries ; in the centre between bad and good, higher 
and lower ; creating (?) a leader of the right and a leader of 
the left, like a constitutional monarch who establishes the 
useful interaction of rival parties. This God does with full 
fore-knowledge of the corruption and degradation of men. 

(e) Both come from Him, Who is Almighty, yet chooses 
to create something that seemingly thwarts His designs. 
Evil He does not create, so much as * set before ' man's eyes 
{proposuil). Evil does not then become ethical (that is, really 
evil) until man chooses; and this word (projjosuit) reminds 
one of the continual reference to man's probation : evil in its 
nature is probably only in relation to us. All things are in 
pairs ; a Pythagorean avaroLxCa ; right and left ; heaven and 
earth ; light and darkness ; soul and body ; and this latter is 
bad in its nature and a hindrance to our better aspirations. 
Apart from Evil, Good is absolutely inconceivable. 

{/) The Mnal Good is clearly Immortal Life, and virtue 
(conceived of as an objective law) is only the means appointed 
by God whereby we attain to it. Virtue is pure impassibility, 
the absolute surrender and refusal of all the tempting allure- 

Subordinate Dualism. 


ments of this life ; success and happinees here is entirely 
incompatible with future bliss. 

This arcanum or sacramciUum muntti is clearly and concisely 
stated in Epit. 69 Factui a Deo Mnndit*, tit hominei tuitcerett- 
tur; nawttufur aufem AomiKei, vi Leum jMttrem agnoKant {in quo 
et( Sapientia); agnoscunt nt colani (in guo e»l lutfitia); colunt 
vf tuercedem Immortalitatit accipiant ; accipiitnt Tmiiiortaliiatem 
ui in aelemum Deo serviaut. Everything is thus referred to 
the moral conception of man, and liis perfecting: through trial 
for a futnre inheritance. 

Present interest will centre round ((/) and (c), and the 
Lactantian idea of duality in this world, which forms the 
centre of his system (Opif. 10 : The nose God made ip»a ilujili- 
eitate jiitlcerriiiiKm. Ex quo inietligimua, qiiaiilum diialis 
nHmerut una et timplici cotnpage tolidaiits ad vcram vahat per- 
/ec/ionewj .... To him p/iysieal motion and moral free-will 
were alike impossible, unlet-s there existed two extremes, 
opposite yet in a sense united, each entailing the other, 
between which a path might be traversed in either direction, 
And so there is absolute need of antithesis : III, 29 Ea> quo Jit, 
vt virtu* nulla sit, fiis! adrersaniia nt, V. 7 Virtvtem ant 
eerni non po»»e, nisi haieat vitia contraria ; atU non ewe perfee- 
tam, nisi exerceatur adcersis. Banc enim Dent boNorum et 
malorum voluit ewe distantiam, vt quaUtatem lorn ex male 

tciamut, §*c nee alterivs ratio intelligi tullato altera 

polett. Deui ergo non exclunt- malum, ut ratio virlutit eomtare 
patiet. VI. 22 At enim. saepe dictum est, virtutem nullam 
futnram fvisse, nisi haberet quae opprimcret. VII. 4 J/jsa ratio 
ac neecssilas exigebat et bona homini proponi,et mala; bona qvibus 
ulMur, mala quae ritet et caveat. II. 8 (the interpolator, a some- 
what bolder exponent of this theory of Subordinate Dualism) : 
' Bonum et malum fecit, ut posset esse Virtus, quae nisi malis 
agitetur, aut vim snum perdet, aut omnino non erit,' (Con- 
trast alone hringa our value of goodness and health.) Ita 
bonum sine malo in hac vita esse non potest, Utrumque, 

i8o Subordinate Dualism, 

licet contrarium sit, tamen itn cohaeret, at alterum si tollas, 
ntrumque snstuleris ; nam neque bonum comprehendi et per- 
cipi potest sine declinatione et faga mali, nee malum caveri 
ac vinei sine anxilio comprehensi ac pereepti mali. Necesse 
igitnr fiierat, et malum fieri, ut bonum fieret.' VII. 5 (the 
same later hand), some one asks, * Cor non bonum tantum 
fecit, ut nemo peccaret, nemo faceret malum ? Nulla .... 
virtus esse poterat, nisi diversa fecisset, nee omnino apparere 
vis boni potest, nisi ex mali comparatione.* Evil is nothing 
but * boni interpretatio * .... he who instituted the circus- 
games 'amator unius coloris fuit, sed altenim ei et quasi 
aemulum posuit, ut posset esse certamen et aliqua in specta- 

culo gratia. Sic Deus, &c Si desit hostis et pugna, 

nulla victoria est ' Virtue is made perfect ' de malorum 

conflictatione .... Ergo diversitas est, cui omnis ratio veri- 
tatis innititur . . • .' The &11 of man is in reality an ascent : 
knowledge of good, as well as of evil, was given simultane- 
ously : ' Qua percepta, statim de loco sancto pulsus est, in quo 
malum non est ... . relegatus in hunc communem oibem ut 
ea utraque simul experiretur. Quamdiu in solo Bono fuit, vixit 
ille princeps generis humani velut infans boni et mali nescius.' 
(See Schelling's Be Origine Mali,) On this mediety of man 
depends both intellectual and moral worth, his peculiar dignity 
* ut ratio virtutis sapientiaeque constaret, .... inter utrum- 
que medium, ut haberet licentiam vel mali vel boni sequendi.' 
— Epit. 29 Fit ut bonum sine malo esse nonpossit. — De Ira 1 3 Deus 
proposuit ei et bona et mala, quia sapiefitiam dedit, cuius omnis 

ratio in discemendis malts et bonis sita est Invicem sibi 

alterutra coiinexa sunt, ut sublato alf-erutro utrumque sit tolU 
necesse .... positis tantummodo in conspectu bonis, quid opus 
est cogitatione, intellectu, scientia, ratiotie? § 15 J^^ superius 
explanavi simul Deum proposuisse bonum et malum (et bonum 
quid em diligere, malum autem .... odisse) ; sed idea malum 
premisissCy ut et bonum emicaret : quod alterum sine altero (sicut 
saepe docui) intelligimus consfare non posse. 

SubordinaU Dualism. 

The difficulties and inconwistenoiea which arise aft-erwarda 
in this dogma have their origin in the fluctuation between 
the phys'tral and moral, the iinptrsona/ and jjer*ona/ conceptions. 
And it may here be remarked that the old feud of rclijfion and 
philosophy [Heligto : Sa/iien/ia) among the ancient Greeks may 
be traced to the same ambiguity. The extreme emphasis on 
caprioions y^eMo/ro/i'/y in popular superstition leads in reaction 
to the complete elimination of nill and piirpose from the 
theology of reflecting men, and the search for a metajii^ ileal 
unity takes the place of an inquiry into moral motives and 
sacrifices of propitiation. Escessive anthropomorphism of 
mythology is followed by Ionic hylozoism, and later by the 
postulate of t'i Bthv or i<ii)(iir roijiriajt, which has no human 
affinities. Lactaktius alternates between a phyg'ical theory of 
God's development hy contraries, in which there is always ■ 
a syatoechy of higher and lower in nature {whence eomes our 
virtue and vice, as we choose one or the other), and a purely 
moral notion of evil : IV. 35 {sin is not) nitce>»Uati» ( = physical 
and inevitable), »ed propositi ae voluntatia, VI. 23 J/«m etl 
enintprofeeto quae peccat. Similarly, the leaders of this great 
struggle sometimes retire into the background, leaving only 
antithetic forces of nature, or come into prominence as inde- 
pendent moral wills, as persons fighting for the possession of 
man. I shall first cite those passages in which the pht/nieal 
polarity of the universe is traced to natural and inevitable 
causes; and next, and in conclusion, those in which the Evil 
Spirit is described a.s personal. In the first it is clear that the 
responsibility is thrown back upon the Creator, Who thus 
perhaps ceases to be a moral governor, and becomes rather 
n delighted spectator of mimic warfare. In the second series 
the emphasis is laid on the persunality of Satan ; but it is 
impossible to acquit LACTANTiua of the charge of colouring 
this with phyiical notions. The first set of quotations tends 
to make it doubtful if the Body is not the sole cause of sin ; 
the second reminds us tlukt the Spirit is iree. But it may be 

1 82 Subordinate Dualism. 

plauEiibly urged that it is the diverse character of the Good 
and the Bad Spirit that entails this system of confronting 
opposites in creation. Even in the former group frequent 
traces of this view may be found. 

II. 9. Above God placed hicem jperennem et superos et vitam 
ferjpetuam^ et contra in terras tenebras et inferos et mortem. So 
East and West, or the gates and grave of light. Day is of 
God, as are omnia quaecumque meliora sunt; nox autem quam 
occidens extremus induxitj eius scilicet quern Dei esse aemulum dixi^ 
mns. Again : Nox^ quampravo Uli antitheo dicimus attrihutam. 
-Elements are diverse: Duo igitur ilia principalia inveniuntur,quo 
diversam et contrariam sibi hahent potestatem ; calor et humor, 

II. 12. In ipsius auf^m hominis jictione illarum duarum mate^ 

riamm, qnas inter se diximus esse co7itrarias, ignis et aquae 

conclusit perfecitque rationem , . , , Ex rebus igitur diversis ac 

repngnantibus homo factus est, sictit ipse Mundus ex Ivce et 

tenebris, ex vita et morfe; quae duo inter se pugnare in homine 

praecepit. Utriusque offida sunt, ut hoc quod est ex caelo et 

Deo, imperet ; illud vero quod ex terra est et Diabolo, serviat, — 

III. 6 Ita quoniam ex his duobus constanivs eleinentis, quorum 

alterum luce praeditum est, alterum tenebris (part is given to 

knowledge, part to ignorance). — IV. 25 Etenim cum constet 

homo ex came et spirifu .... caro quoniam terrena est , , , . 

copulatum sibi spiritum trahit secum (but he is careful in this 

passage, as noted above, to guard himself from a mere super- 

fieial, necessitarian view of evil, as in the Manichean system ; 

sin is a matter of the will (propositi ac voluntatis),— YI. 22 Ita- 

que fecit omnia Deus ad instruendum certamen duarum rerum. — 

VII. 4 Quoniam homo ex rebus diversis ac repugnantibus confi- 

guratus est, anima et corpore, id est, caelo atque terra, tenui et 

comprehensibili, aeterno ac temporali, sensilili atque bruto, luce 

praedito atque tenebroso; ipsa ratio ac necessitas exigebat et 

bona homini proponi et mala, — ^VII. 5. For at the creation of 

man God spiritum suum terreno corpore induit et involvit, ut 

compactus ex rebus diversis ac repugnantibus bonum ac malum 

Subordinate Duahsm. 


caperei Ergo quia viHulem propo»uit homini Deus, licet 

anima et- corpiii eomociala funt ; tamen cottiraria sunt, el impiig- 
nanf invicem. — VII, 9 Berum Nalnra hie daobu* elemenlis, quae 
repngnaniia »iii ei inimiea iunf, conttat, igne et aqua (one 
ascribed to heaven and the other to earth). — De Ira, 15 
Seniqne iptiim mundum ex duobu* eltmentis refugnanliiug el 
invicem copulalig c»*e coneretum, igneo el iiimido .... Sic ei 
not ex duoiHs aeque repugnanlibtit compacli mmus, animo el 
corjjore, quorum allerum cash ascribilar, quia tenue esl el infracla^ 
bile, allertnn terroe. quia compreheu»ibiie etl; alleTKiti mlidum et 
aefemum et(, allerum fragile aique morlale, Hine exiHtt in 
hominibHe naturae mae depravatio. — § 19 Sed qiiouiam eompacttts 
e»f, «i diximua e duobu», animo el eorpore, in altera virtutta, in 
allero vitia contlnentur, et impugnatit invicem. 

It appears then aa if it were matter that waa evil : we havo 
besides certain inconsistent passages like the following : — 
II. II llliut eat lolum (■=.J)ei) iptieqvid tumm. Yet the Su- 
preme Good concerns the soul alone: III. 9 (Summum BoHum) 
vt toliiit animi sit, nee eommvnieari pontil cum corjiore. — V. 31 
Non pernpiciunl altiua vim rationemque Aominls, qvae tola non in 
corpore sed in menle ett. — VI. 1 7 Not aulem Summum Bonvm 
non re/'crimui ad corpus, sed ovtne officium soliita animae coimt- 
tafione mefimur. — But again we have IV. 24 (reminding us of 
Theo|thyIact'8 on ou t^vati &ij.apTiok6s ij fop^}, Christ came in 
the flesh, nl otlendai etiam car nem poise capers virlutem. Yet 
their good is mutually exclusive : Ammt bona mala sunt cor- 
poris, id est, opiimfuga, volupiatum interdicHo, doloris morOsque 

contemptus. Ita corporis bona mala sunt auimi Qui 

mavuU bene vtrere in aeternum, male vicit ad tempiis et affteilur 
omnibus molestHs el laboribus. — VII. 10 Sicut duae vi/ae propo- 
sitae sunt iomini, quorum altera esl animae, altera corporis ; ita 
et mortes duae. — VII. 12 (Platonic theory of the fall of the 
Sonl) Quia tenebroso domicilio tcrrenae carnia inolusa esl (bo also 
De Ira, i). — De Ira, 10 Cut particulam de Sua sapientia dedil, 
et instrnxit eum rations, quantum fragilitas terrena capiebat. 

184 Stibordinate Dualism. 

§ 19. The soal's goods, which consist in conlinendis libidinibus 
contraria sunt corpori; et corporis bona, quae stint in omni genere 
Toluptatum^ inimica sunt animo. § ao Adeo subiecta est peccato 
fragilitas carnis, qua induti sumus. 

There are here confased traces of three different versions of 
the origin of Evil : (i) The ' Platonic * (as it is called), which 
is clearly restated by Plutarch {de Is. et Osir.) that matter 
coexists with God, and can be only imperfectly brought under 
discipline by His persuasion ; (2) that evil (or the possibility 
of it) is necessary from the configuration of the universe and 
Man, the microcosm, by an Almighty power, Who expresses 
Himself by opposites (physical) ; (3) that the world indeed is 
created entirely good (or, perhaps more accurately, indifferent), 
but the Evil Spirit and Man's Free-will find means of per- 
verting its use to their own hurt. 

We must now review those passages, which refer to the 
creation of Free Spirits (noting whether here, too, the complete 
independence of the personal is really preserved, and whether 
the character of the bad, as well as of the good, spirit is not 
a direct creation of God). As to the real hostility of this 
evil power to God, there is no doubt, whatever its cause. 
IT. I. The ingratitude of men, whence can it come, unless 
there be aliquant perversam potestatem^ quae veritatis semper sit 
inimica^ quae humanis erroribus gaudeat, cui unum acperpetuum 
sit opu^y offundere tenebras et hominum caecare mentes^ ne lueem 
videanty ne deniqne in caelum aspiciant, — III. 29. As we 
Christians know that Fortune is nothing at all, it-a scimus esse 
pravum et subdolum spiritum, qui sit inimicus bonis .... qw 
contraria facit quam Deus. — And thus a wilful rebel will be 
eternally punished: VII. 26 perpetuo igni cremabitur in aeier^ 
num. IL 17. He who yields to his evil advice in ilia decidety 
quae in distributione rerum attributa esse ipsi malorum principi 
disputavimus^ in tenebras scilicet et inferos et supplicium sempi^ 

But in the following passages the responsibility of the Devil 

Subordinate Dualism. 


is by no means clear, and a certain physical necessity seems to 
overpower the unbiassed free-will : {but if Satan be a mere 
aijent of the divine will, the question put in Horn. XX 
will press upon us for solution.) II. 8. Before God began 
the creation of the world, protluxit tintilent »iu gpirilim, qui 
f»»et viffutlhui Dei patria praeJihia .... Behide fecit alleriim 
in quo indoles divinae ttirpit non perman*it. Tainted with the 
poison of his own envy, auo arhilrio (quod illi a Deo liliemm 
datum fuerat) con/rarium aide nomen aacivit .... luvidit enim 
illi anleceaaori atto, qui Beo pair i jieraererando .... carua eat. 
Hunc ergo ex bono per se malum effectum Graeci iiifioXav appel- 
lant, noa cnminalorem vocamua, quod erimina in quae ipae illicii, 
ad Bevm dtfeml. But the interpolator is bolder : he b^ins 
the discussion hy the statement ; ' Fecit in principio bonum 
ettnahim'; and attempts to explain Satan's fall : 'Curautem 
iustus DeuB talem vofiieni esse (eipUcabo). Fabricatarua Deus 
hunc Mundum, qui eonstaret ex rebus inter se contrariis atque 
diBcordibuB, constituit ante diversa, fecitque ante omnia duos 
fontea reruni sibi adversantium, inter seque pugnantiiim ; illoa 
videlicet duos spiritns, rectum at(|ue pravum, quorum alter est 
Deo tsnquam dextra, alter tanquam sinistra, ut in eorum 
essent potestate contraria ilia, quorum mixtnra et temperatione 
Mundns .... eonstareU' It will be seen that the inter- 
polator, in the interests of the doctrine of onmipotence, leans 
to an entirely physical interpretation of evil. 

' Quoniam fas non erat, ut a Deo proGcisceretur malum 
(neque enim contra se ipse faciet) : ilium constituit malomm 
inventorem, quern cum faceret, dedit illi ad mala excogitanda 
ingenium et astutiam, ut in eo esset et voluntas prava, et per- 
fect* nequitia; et ab eo contraria virt.utibus suis voluit oriri, 
enmque secum contendere, utrumne ipse plus bonoium daret, 
an ille plus malorum, Sed rursua, quoniam Deo sunimo repug- 
nari non potest, bonorum suorum potestatem itli ullori (0/ 
alteri} assignavit, quern supra bonum et perfeutum esse dixi- 
mus. Ita duos ad certamen comiHuuit et instrusit, sed eorum 

1 86 Stibordinate Dtialism. 

alterum dilexit, ut bonum filium, alterum abdicavit, at malum. 
(The angels too are formed to be his ministers 'unius sed 
repugnantis naturae ; of. Be Ira^ t5* Some remained good, 
others fell, but in the beginning all were * pares aequa con- 
ditione apud Deum/ which is inconsistent with the description 
of the Devil just given.) ' Gum autem Deus ex his duobus 
alterum bono praeposuisset, alterum malo, exorsus est fabricam 
Mundi, omnibus his quos creavit ministrantibus et per certa 
officia dispositis/ (When therefore we read * pars .... per- 
versa voluntate descivit/ we feel there is an intrusion of an 
alien idea. *Who doth resist His will?') — In Lactantius 
himself, II. 9, the night is given to t\\ejpravM9 AutifAeus; and 
II. 14, we have cui ab initio dederat terrae potesiat-em. — ^V. 22 
Beo quia repugnari non potest, ipse adversaries nomiui sua 
excitat, non qui contra ipsum demum pvgnent, sed contra milites 
eius, — ^VI. 6 Fons autem bofiorum Leus est, malorum vero ille 
scilicet Bivini nominis semper inimicus. Opif. 19; (The inter- 
polator explains the Devil's origin from the moral nature of 
man : ' Dedit ei et constituit adversarium nequissimum et 
fallacissimum spiritum, cum quo in hac terrestri vita sine uUa 
securitatis requie dimicaret. Cur autem Deus hunc vexatorem 
generis humani constituent, breviter exponam. Ante omnia 
diversitatem voluit esse (ideoque vulgo non aperuit veritatem, 
sed eam paucissimis revelavit) ; quae diversitas omne arcanum 
Mundi continet .... Noluit enim Deus hominem ad illam 
immortalem beatitudinem delicato itinere pervenire. Daturas 
ergo virtutem, dedit hostem prius, qui animis hominum 
cupiditates et vitia immitteret ; qui esset auctor errorum 
maloramque omnium machinator, ut quoniam Deus hominem 
ad vitam vocat, ille contra .... traducat ad mortem.' 

Virtue is conceived of as mere impassible refusal to yield to 
the pains or pleasures of life, which be it noticed, VI. 4, it 
is God and not the Devil who puts in our path : VI. t 8 Summa 
igitur virtus habenda patientia est, quam ut caperet homo iustus, 
voluit ilium Beus .... pro inerte cofitemuu — VII. 5 Ut pro- 

Subordinate Duaiism. 


poneret iomim virlatem, id eH, to/erantiam maiorim ac Ubonim, 
per quam pottel praemiunt immortalUalis adipitci. Epitome, 
^ 34 Virtus ettim tiialorvm itiintitteulia ed. 

For God desires us to reaoh our prize with difficulty, VII. 5 
Etecogitavit .... inenarraliHe oput qyemadmodum infinilam 
muHrludinem erearet animaritm, quas primofragil^iit et imhecillia 
coTporUiua iUigatia con»(i(ueret inter bonvm malumqtie media*, ut 
conitantiius ex ulritque tialurit vtrtutem proponeret, tie immor- 
ialifaiem delicate agxeqiierenlur ae moUiter (see Opif. 19, 
interpol.) »ed ad illiid aeteniae vtlae ineloquHite praemium 
tiimma cum difficullafe ac magtiis laboribui pervenirent. 

From theao passages it is clear that both Lactantius and 
hiB interpolator (somewhat bolder than the orifrinal author) 
fix their eyes on the moral life of man, and in explaining the 
universe start therefrom. Agreeing with the Stoics in the 
belief that the 'good will' is alone of value (that state of 
mind, Andfltia, quae nee cripi cuiquam, nee transferri in alterum 
potest VII. 26), they reach instinctively two necessary corol- 
laries : — (i) This good will is purely negative, and consists in 
denying all the messages of sense, and defying the blows of 
fortune ; that is, life is to be entirely ascetic and unsocial in 
the midst of a world, which, made by God, is yet governed by 
the Devil ; (ii) the powerlessness of the good will here, and 
yet the consciousness that it alone is of worth, requires 
a reward in a future life, to bo won with difficulty at the 
price of the rejection of the insidious blandishments of the 
present. And though they do not face the question of the 
Devil's happiness in Hell, it is clear that this being does not 
possess free-will in the sense that we do, inasmuch as he and 
the world be governs were created for our probation, to 
represent a particular temptation. The Clementines, with 
a somewhat subtler inquiry, Hnally relieve him of responsibility 
by showing that hie pA^siral conformation entails this delight, 
either in evil or the punishment of the wicked, and this enjoy- 
ment of darkness and tire, as his natuiftl abode. The final 

1 88 Subordinate Dtmlism. 

result of both authors, though it is one from which they seem 
to shrink, is that the world centres round personal and respon- 
sible man ; that he is free to choose present or future life ; 
and that the Lords of these two spheres are creatures and 
agents of God, who perform His will on the left hand and on 
the right, and are in a strict sense not free, for they do but 
execute His commands by an inherent law of their being. 
Such at least, if we can reduce scattered references to order, 
would seem to be the lesson conveyed by the Clementine 
writings and by the last Latin author before the Council of 
Nice ; and if we recall the opposite views then current, neees^ 
iilarian and impersonal, and remember that in course of time 
these views will find admission into the Christian Church 
itself, we shall find instruction in this honest attempt to 
approach speculation only from the practical point of view ; to 
subordinate inconsistencies of result to the supreme importance 
of maintaining the dignity and the freedom of man the indi- 
vidual, and to regard the question of future life with no 
impartial coolness, but with a firm conviction that God is 
and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek 
Him. But it must be allowed that in these systems the 
mystery of Iniquity is by no means explained, nor the per- 
sonal responsibility of the prince of evil. It seems to vanish 
hehind pAysical language, and the notion of rebel finally gives 
way to that of accredited agent. Yet it may be safely said 
that none who attempt a final solution of this insoluble 
problem can afford to neglect these two points, in which the 
merit of the pseudo-Clemen tines and Lactantian writings is 
conspicuous : a firm adherence to the righteous and personal 
conception of God (at least so far as human responsibility is 
concerned, in distinction to diabolic), and a firm belief in the 
freedom of man and his discipline by the adversity and tempta- 
tion of this present life. 



[E. W. W.\TSON.] 


{ I. Introdnotion and Literatuiv. { 3. Cjpruu's worhs, { 3. tteUtiau to 
the Old Idtiu Bible am) ntlier tmulntions. $ 4. CriiiipaHtoii with TertullUo. 
{ 5. Compunion with ApuUiui. i 6. Relation to Senec» arjd Cicero. 
i 7. PoetJcal and Gnoiolc element'-. ( S. Cypriao'e re]>etitirMia from hiiiiselF. 
§9 Tn>pe« : mstaphnr, uiotonyniy. jieriplinui*, hyperbaton, Sec, i lO. Playi 
upon lnii(^aage. { it. Syiiimetrr. S 11, GmiiiDatical device! for efTect. 
i 13. Rhvtbm. i I4. Rhyme. S 15. Alliteration, i 16. Paralalia. { 17. 
Anaphora. } t8. A"yrideti>n. S 19. Amplification, i 10. Figura etj- 
mologica. M'. CunoloBion. 

§ I. Some Buc years ago tbe Bisliop of Salinbury suggested 
to Mr. II. J. White and myself that we should tarn our 
uttention to the study of St. Cyprian. The work was begun, 
hut Mr. White soon found that his work ut the Salisbury 
Theological College and ujwn the Latin Vulgate would not 
permit him to share it. I have therefore had to continue it 
alone, hut not without an interest and help from the Bishop 
and Mr. White, which have been of the greatest service, and 
indeed make Salisbury one of the few places in England where 
patristic studies can with any convenience be pursued. 

Limits of spiu;e have compelled me to omit much that ie 
interesting. All mention of syntactical matters ', of the 
forms of words, of words which occur in writers of the same 

■ There it one iiutance of an auiiliiuy verb which ii sri remarkable that it 
inu*t not be paified over : th>i earliest UM or uella ai a future Miixiliary in 
4S4. I lulilidcrtiiil [marifta) . . . noit <• Aoe fidere at lOxrari in praueiitia 
vslUnt ted iUam libvrtalu tl ictmrilatit atlcrnae gloriam cogilatmt. The 

I go The Style and Language of St. Cyprian, 

class as Cyprian, has had to be abandoned, except where they 
illustrate the subject of the paper. Yet I hope that I have 
been able in some instances to improve and elucidate the text, 
and that the collection of words used by Cyprian in Christian 
senses may do something towards making the history of 
Christian terminology more definite, and the account of his 
style and rhetoric be of interest to those who are engaged upon 
the same subjects in other authors. 

The exact object of this paper is to describe the chief 
characteristics of the style of St. Cyprian, to determine his 
literary affinities, and to collect the most remarkable words in 
his vocabulary, both general and theological. In all these 
respects his works offer much that is interesting and important 
for the history of the Latin literature and language, as well as 
for that of the growth of Christian thought and organization. 
Little has as yet been done in these respects for the study of 
Cyprian. The great scholars of the seventeenth century who 
have edited him, though all, especially Bigault and FeU, with 
Dodwell in his wonderful Bmertationes C^prianicae, have 
done good service, took little interest in the history of style and 
language. It is indeed remarkable that with their vast know- 
ledge they should have passed over so much that is strange 
and striking. More may be learned from scattered notes in the 
works of such writers as Gronovius and Barth than from them. 
The progress that has been made of late has been considerable. 
The index to Professor von Hartel's edition in the Vienna 
Corpus of the Latin Fathers is in itself an admirable commen- 
tary, and the suggestions as to interpretation which it contains 
are indispensable to the student ; but it was one of the earliest 
works to appear (1868-1871) in the Vienna edition, and like 
the rest of those first volumes it has a somewhat incom- 
plete index. It can never be used to prove a negative^ and 
cannot be regarded as an adequate authority for such inquiries 
as have been instituted by Professor Wolfflin, and now are 

instance from Corippas given by Sittl, Lokale VertcJtiedenkeiten, p. 128, is 
three hundred years later. 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 


carried on by so many skilled eolleagueB of his in the Arc/iiv 
fur lat-tinm-he Lexicograp/iie and elsewhere. 

Two works upon the language of Cyprian have appeared 
of late years. One in very short, hut admirable as far as 
it goes ; the introduction prefixed to the Abbe Leonard's 
edition of some of the treatises ', which, with his editions of 
Minucius Felix and Tertullian's Apuhgy, ought to be better 
known in England. But tliis introduction, brief as it is, is 
mainly devoted to syntax, and on most points of style is 
altogether eileut. The other work, of much greater size and 
far less value, is by the Abbe Le Provost -. It shows a very 
slight knowledge of modern scholarship and is quite without 
method ; words and constructions, for insfanee, taken from 
Cyprian's Biblical citations, are arranged and discussed in- 
discriminately among Cyprian's own. Though the book 
contains a good deal that is useful, especially on pp. 61 If., 
where the writer notices some of Cyprian's debts to Seneca 
and others, it is go discursive and in places so inaccurate as to 
be of little service, even had the author followed a better plan 
and possessed a wider knowledge ^ 

But the chief debt of this pajjer is to the Arckivfur laieiHuche 
Lexicographie, already mentioned, without the help and 
example of which, direct and indirect, it coutd not have been 
written. A special acknowledgement is due to Professors 
WOlfflin, Thielmann, and Landgraf for their work in that 
review and elsewhere *. Paucker, Bdnsch, and many more 

' Sancti Thataii CyprioNf lAhri ad Don., rfe XotL, ad Dentlr,, de Bono 

Pat., Titian oUnaique ... par I'AbM Ford. Uimard ; Nmniur, 1887. 

' ilndi phiiologUjui rt litl^raire <Br Saint- Cupriea, par M. Le ProvoBt, 
vicaire lapitulsire de Saint Eiiaac et Trfguier ; Saiat Erieuq and Paris, 1889, 
304 pp., 8vo. 

' One orhuchiefumeU to prove tbalCj'prinn'iwritingi and the Latin Bible, 
wbidh lie tteematu regard as une of CyiiHRn'awwks, rire olmoat Aiigmlvi inrorin. 

* I may mention that xoine writers in. the Archiv—anl tlioBe mentinned 
nor olhen among: ita leading contributor— have uicd Hartern index without 
loaking tu see wlietber tbe pauagfu oitel were Cyprian's own or from 
CurnelioB or Kiue otiier writer, and that Gumui words have been iu 
ooilHquauce attributed to Africa, and other fabie ogBBliluDtis drawn. 

192 The Style and Langtiage of St, Cyprian. 

who have dealt with the language generally or with parti- 
cular writers, are mentioned in the following pages. To them, 
and to others who have suggested thoughts none the less 
valuable that there has been no occasion to cite their words, 
the heartiest thanks are paid ^. 

§ 2. In this paper the works of Cyprian have been regarded 
as a whole. Written as they were within a period of ten 
years, and by a man whose style had been formed before his 
conversion to Christianity, there was no room for develop- 
ment in manner. All that his religion did for him was to 
change his subjects and to enlarge his vocabulary. It has 
often been said that his letters are more carelessly written 
than his treatises. There is some truth in this, though there 
is much bad writing in the latter^. On the other hand 
Cyprian's best and most elaborate writing, rhetorical and 
poetical, may be found in such panegyrical orations as ^pp. 
38, 39, 40, written to be pronounced before the assembled 
Church of Carthage on behalf of newly ordained clergy, as 

' Schmalz's Stilutik in I wan Muller^s Handhuch has been of the greatest 
help. If it could be expanded to an adequate extent it might fnlfil aU 
reqoirements. The lines are laid down for a complete history of the growth 
of Latin style. Several years' continuous work have assured me more and 
more of the value of Georges' Lexicon. It would be ungrateful not to 
mention also the names of Sittl, Miodunski and Koffmane. Becker, 
Kretzachniann and Koziol, the writers on Apuleius, the author most akin to 
Cyprian in style, have been of great service. On Tertullian I have only 
seen the exceUent paper by Kellner in the TheoL Quartalschrift, 1876, 
and Kolberg*s and Bonwetsch*s writings. 

' E. g. 226. 10 conttituere audet aliwl aXtare . . . nee scire qtumiam sq., 
250. 19 ante est tU sciamus . . . funcfacere sq., 352. 19 dirisii per nof fieri 
et quod nobis deheant imputai^ omnia ista, 373. 19 nisi iter urn pietas diuina 
suhueniens iuttiiiae ' et misericordiae operibus ostensis uiam . . . aperiret, 
386. I ad corroboraiionem fidei et dileciionem Dei, 405. 13 unnsquisque cum 
naseitur , . . iniiium sumit a laerimis et quamuis adhue omnium nesdus et 
ignarus nihH aliud nouit . . . quamflerCf 408. iS ut fratri in te peceanti non 
tantum septuagies se piles sed omnia omnino peccata dimiitas, 422. 9 Saul 
quoque rex ui David odisset . . . quid aliud quam zeli stimulus prouoeauit t 
220. 25 f., 250. 12 f., 385. 10 f., &c. Tenses are constantly confused and put 
in wrong sequences; 197. 14, 239. 6, 260. 3, 329. 16, 330. 20, 384, 13, 401. 
I, 429. 14, &c. Indicative often in dependent clauses; 339. 18, 392. 20 f., 
419. 10, &c. 

Tke Style of St. Cyprian. 


Kpp, 6, 10, 38 and 37, laudations of the ConfesBors, or Ep. 5K 
to the people of Thibaris, which Ehert' deBcriljee as showing 
the most brilliant and characteriBtic aspect of Cyprian's style. 
Such letters, if they ought to be so called, are hardly less 
ornate than the Ad Donafum. On the ground, then, of the 
substantial identity of Cyprian's style throughout his writings 
no distinction haa been made between different parts of them 
in this paper, and all are cited simply by page and line of 
Hartel's edition. 

All Cyprian's undoubted works are reviewed here. I.p. 
33, of which some doujbts have been expressed, has been 
included, though of course it can contribute little. But the 
Qiioi! Itliila Di'i non sinf has been excluded. There has been 
much discus^ion as to its genuineness, which there is no room 
to recapitulate here. It must suffice to say that its jerky 
style, its paucity of conjunctions, the want of any reference to 
it, and of any repetition of its language in other parts of 
Cyprian's writings, though he so constantly repeats what he 
regards as happy phrases, together with the use of terms 
which he never employs '', have convinced me that it is not 
hia. Yet even if the treatise be genuine, the loss to a know- 
ledge of Cyprian through its exclusion is not great. It is 
a mere cento from known and ptrhaps unknown sources, 
much more clumsily compiled than Cyprian's adaptations 
from Tertullian ^ In spite of the advocacy of WiilflBin and 
Matzinger, I have not felt justified in using the He Speclaculi* 

' Litltralur itei MitUlulUrt, p. 63. He aeleoti { 9 fornpeciaJ ci>iuincnd«tion. 
kp. II. t SiaitleutilBequftl. GtitU.Otseh.d. Cyiie, Littaat<tr,V*ne\,\^i, 
givBa It ijood (.-oUeEtiuQ of uicieut ojiinioai on Cyprian's eii^leiice u an uTklur 

.-Llld H 

urt of a lientheo >IUt 14. 14. 
16 iDontionsd Jn varioui niftM 
9 wilneu {Ep. 70. £} ia the bI 
Cypriknic authonhip. But quite speri 

ualyut II). 1. li'. II, 15. 10, j6. 18. 

II the following pftgea. 

ongHBt olum thHt ^od Id. hiii to 

roiii the queatiun of tlia vkIuu of 
rume'ti BtteitHtioii, which la not too grent, it it clear that apurioui trotim 
had been fathered oil Cj'prikn > ^nentiun eulier. LoL-ifiir'i uae of the Dr 
Lii^dibiu Martyrii »how« that he hnd no duubt of iU beiiif Cypriau'ii work, 
anil it bnR a place in the Chaltenham Lilt. <luod Id. aa.J Well have aa itnmger 
claim, quite ajiart from interual evidence. 

194 ^^ Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

and Be Bono Pudiciliae as Cyprianic ^; but they again could 
not have contributed much materiivL 

The text followed has of course been HartePs. Little more 
can remain to be done for the Treatises, and the reader feels 
himself perfectly safe with that text \ But the Letters need 
much further investigation. There must be more meaning 
than has yet been discovered in the varying order of the Epp. 
in different groups of MSS., and even in MSS. closely allied, 
and more MSS. need to be collated \ But even so the 
changes to be made cannot be considerable. 

§ 3. The most obvious characteristic of Cyprian's writings 
is their thoroughly rhetorical character, and their indepen- 
dence of Christian literary tradition. There were two 
considerable bodies of literature with which he might have 
shown affinity, the Old Latin Bible and its kindred transla- 
tions from the Greek, and the writings of TertuUian. Of 
both his style shows independence, and of the former his 
constant attempt to improve upon the translators' Latin 
shows how little esteem he had for their work. 

One cannot help being struck by the small respect which 
Cyprian shows for the language of his Latin Bible ^ which 
he quotes so constantly and so precisely. Apart from the 

* Wolfflin on De Sped, in Arehiv fUr lat, Ler, viii, p. i ; Matzinger, Det 
hh Cyprianus Traetat De bono Pudtcitiae, Nfirnberg 1892. Each writer 
defends both treatises, and both can allege very strong grounds, though 
Matzinger*8 proofs seem the more convincing. But the arguments of Weyman 
{Hitt.Jahrhueh d. G6rre$ Oe$ellschqft, 1892), Demmler ( TA^ol. QuartaUehri/t, 
1894) ^^^ Haussleiter {Theol. Literaiurblatt, 1894) raise serious difficulties. 
Their claim for Novatian of these two tracts and of Quod Idola is less success- 
ful than their attack on Cyprian*s authorship. It seems impossible that the 
same pen could have written both Quoil Idola and the other two. 

' With the well-known exception of the TefHmonia, 

* Cf. Professor Sanday in Studia Biblica et EedeHastiea, III. p. a 1 7 ff., on the 
Cheltenham List. On p. 299 is a table giving a partial clue to the arrange- 
ment of letters. In Old Latin Biblical Texts II, Appendix II, the same 
writer has given some account of the Oxford MSS., and shown reason for 
supposing them well worth further examination. I have lately collated those 
that seem most important. 

* May I state my own strong conviction, for what it is worth, that there 
never was more than one original Old Latin version f 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 195 

termini teefmici of Christian doctrine and discipline, and from 
his own diction when alluding to Scrijitiiral, and especially 
Pauline, !aDj»nBge, there is no sign of any dependence. In 
spite of its rich vocabulary, in some rcBpect* superior t-o that 
of the Vulgate, the Old Latin version was elamsily executed 
and quite modem. By his extreme care in indicating that 
its words are not his own (see p. 252), Cyprian !:cems to 
disclaim all responsibility for the translation which he had 
to Qse, and indeed its whole style is markedly incongruous 
with his own. There are a few Bihlical phrases which he 
nsea constantly and naturally, such as accipere pergonal, am- 
bulare in lumine, cunuersatio, tcaniia/um, fnhntafio. But their 
character shows that they were part of the common Christian 
vocabulary, as they had been, do doubt, before the Bible was 
translated into Latin'. But Cyprian not only, as a rheto- 
rician, disliked the style of the Latin Bible: he was also 
discontented with its vocabulary. It osed many Greek words; 
on a later page those which Cyprian retained are collected, 
and it will be seen with what vigour, and in some cases with 
what success, he strove to eject them. Indeed, the whole of 
the next chapter, dealing with his ecclesiastical vocabulary, \9 
an evidence of his purism in this respect. He wrote a long 
letter [Eji. 63) upon the Eucharist, without ever using the 
word eiicharisfia; daemon, m^tterinnt, and others are almost 
banished, and throughout his works he never uses words so 
common as Paraele/ui, paraiola, proselylus, nenphyUn^ hrauiitm, 
though Tertullian freely used them all. The only Greek words, 
for which substitutes had been provided, which he constantly 
prefers are haptinma, because of heretical associations of tinctio 
(see p. 264), preAyler, because of the indefiniteness of senior, 
and /aicui instead of plebtla*. And there are few of the 
Greek terms of Church use for which he has not e-ifsayed to 

' It would be iutcTMling to know wlien the Lntin Bible, for ita own ukr, Yv 
CamevcDenMein theerraofCbrlBtiaiu. Loctaiiiiiiiseematohkvtiiilitltereiipeat 
for it ks Cvpriin, nnd Arnnbim even \ta. His lUuHimg to drfinilely Chriitim 
nutten ve eipreaaed in tbuniughly unbibliual Ikngiutge. 
Aiiibrowi knd AuguaCini 

196 The Style and Language of S/. Cyprian. 

find a Latin synonym. Bat it is not only Greek words which 
are avoided by Cyprian. He is still more averse to Hebrew. 
Satan and Sataiuu^ common in Tertullian, are entirely absent. 
The only Hebrew word freely used is gehenna (374. 8, 483. 8, 
&c.). Mamana^ 381. 18, sabbatnm, 720. 2, and a few more 
could not be avoided ^. 

But Latin words of modem or rude invention are disliked 
by Cyprian as much as Greek or Hebrew. The reader of the 
titles of the Te^timania finds himself in the presence of words 
quite different from those which Cyprian elsewhere employs ; 
theological terms found only there or perhaps also in the 
carelessly written letters of the Baptismal controversy, which 
formed part of the original stock, but offended Cyprian's 
taste. Thus saluafor only occurs Test, ii. 7 tit. and saluare 
only in the Baptismal letters, 790. 20, 809. 12, just as 
catecumenus is found in both Test. iii. 98 and 795. 16, and not 
elsewhere. Saluare was modern and probably undignified in 
sound ; Cyprian's many substitutes for it will be found in 
Ch. II. The most noteworthy is the old ceremonial term of 
heathen worship, sasj)itare, 188. 25, 211. 9. Amobius, 2. 74, 
another rhetorician, uses sospitator of Christ. Cyprian's use of 
this word, of altare for the ara of the O. L., of uestigium for pes 
in the Baptismal ceremony of washing and kissing the feet, 
for all of which see the next chapter, was no doubt part of 
a deliberate plan for making Christian language more stately, 
and so recommending the Faith. 

Cyprian's extensive use of the Bible is certainly in part 
rhetorical. He renounced the direct citation of the classical 

' Greek and Hebrew wonls are marked as alien by their not being adapted 
to Latin forms. The pi. and aoc. of kaeresis and exkomoloyesin should probably 
always be in -is and -in; cf. 227. 14, 423. 11, 524. 6, 781. 10, 800. i, 805. 21, 
806. 9; haereMos 772. 17; mnriyras 502. 19, &c. Propheten seeius the 
normal form, as in Tertullian. Yet agapem 102. 5. Hebrew noun§, except those 
wliich are classical in form, as Pharao 328. 5, and Daniel^ Eztchiel, &c., of 
the third declension (yet Samuel ace. 728. 20), are treated irregularly; e.g. 
Abraham U indeclinable 468. 19, 670. 6, 703, 19, but declined 704. 3, which, 
however, is Biblical. Hierotolyma (pi.) 660. 11, Hiermtdem never. 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 197 

writers, though he still employed them for ornameDtal 
allusions, and Scripture had to fill the pince. It would be 
a very inadequate account of hie motives to say that the 
Teitimoma and Ail Fortviia/ iim were composed for this end ', 
but it would be easier to underestimate than to overestimate 
the rhetorical use mode by Cyprian of his Bible, and especially 
of his own extracts in the Teifimon'm, The influence of this 
work over Christian literature for some ^nerations aft«r its 
compiler's death has probably not yet been realized. Yet 
when Cyprian himself is aiming' at efl'ect by means of florid 
diction, not by appeal to authority, he judiciously abstains 
from any itug^stion of Biblical language. 

There is some evidence that Cyprian knew Irenaeus 
(Harnack, Al/rhrittHehe Lilrraivr, p. 267), and it may be more 
than an accident that the words praefguralh 763. 14, ami 
platma 46H. 12 should apparently occur for the first time in 
Irenaeus (5. 29, 2; and I. ifl, 5. II, 2), and then in Cyprian, 
though not in Tertullian. But. there is no evidence that he 
knew any other translations into Latin ^ 

§ 4. Of Cyprian's dependence on TertuUian, his master 
according to Jerome's well-known anecdote, there can be no 
doubt. But it is entirely a dependence of matter, not of 
manner. No two styles can be more different. TertuUian i-* 
always concise, even to obscurity. His sentences, according 
to his own rules of art, are always well shaped ; he can never 
l;e accused of carelessness. But he is the most reckless of 
writers in the adoption of words of vulgar life, and in their 

' Yet cf. HnuMloiter-B Csprlatiilmliem in Comrant/. Wotlfftin, p. 3J9 IT. 
Speaking of the Dt Uobilm Vitgtnam he Byi., ■ Der frilh^™ L*brer .Irr 
BerectuuDkeil lienulxt die Sauunlung der " Zeugnfsae " iinter ilem rhetoripchea 
UeBichtBpUDkt der Tnplk;' ud Uter ■ Der kaiuelle AtiUs*. d-e nr>liinrendi|j 
geworJene Zurechlweunng dor Virginw, Wldet den Zatlel das Gewebes. Dpd 
EiilMililag liefem die Tnlimouia and dei' uuenchdpfliche TertullUa. Cyprian'o 
Arbeit beMtliraiikte uob an aufdie rholnriHhe Amiftlhruiig,' 

* He may bkve koown the Greek Irenaeiu, nit the Latin, whiuh ihiiwit 
•one ligni of k lai«r date. He oerteialy hrtd s hand in the trauUtion ,>t 
Up 75> tlioDgb Uuit can only have been ia improving a Lati u vei-»iiin alTMiiy 

1 98 The Style and Langnage of St. Cyprian. 

invention for any momentary need. Cyprian, on the other 
hand, attains his effect by an amplitade of expression which 
degenerates often enough into mere verbosity, and is guilty 
from time to time of a sentence so prolonged and involved 
that its construction is lost or obscured. Indeed, he is a very 
careless writer, even at his best, as regards structure. Yet he 
is sparing in the use of new or colloquial words, and when 
he employs them it is almost always to obtain some rhetorical 
effect. For that purpose he is not afraid to endanger his 
sense, as will be seen from the passages given hereafber of 
language forced for alliteration, rhyme, &c.^ Few of the 
words which strike the reader as characteristic of Tertullian 
are found, except in isolated instances, in Cyprian. Oehlers 
index under the headings, for example, of adsignare^ capere, 
censtiiy conuenire^ deputare^ dupungere^ elogium^ and many more, 
shows words and idioms of frequent occurrence that are never, or 

* See pp. 2 32, a 25, &o. In 728. 1 1 ff. is a question lost in a string of citations. 
Ep. 41 begins with two sentences, one of twenty and the other of fifteen lines. 
Instances of grammatical carelessness in the Treatises have already been given 
on p. 1 92. The Letters have naturally even more errors. Some of his chief causes 
of confusion, beside those mentioned there, are the dependence of several 
clauses on one conjunction not repeated, as in 740. 9-23, where all depends 
on one cum ; cf. 298. 19 fiT., 744. 20 ff., and many more ; clauses simply linked 
together without any subordination, or without any indication of the b^:inning 
of the apodosis, as 407. 23, 528. 23, 539. 9, 544. 15, 606. 13, 772. 18. Ac. ; 
double relative clauses, as 589. 10, 643. 9, 699. 13 ; double conditional clauses, 
as 754. 12, 781. 11; the use of a participle for a relative or conditional clause, 
as 499. 23, 518. 14, 687. II ; the use of the genitive and ablative in many 
eccentric senses, and other causes whicii can only be dealt with in a diwussion 
of syntax. Such granmiatical peculiarities as seem to be rhetorically intended 
are mentioned later. Beside these must be named the omission of words or 
prefixes through a cognate precedinsr as 600. 22 in tanto f rat rum relvjiosoque 
eonuentu (i.e. tarn religio^o), 628. 7 pari grauitate tt faluhri moderatione 
(i. e. pariter salubri), so perhaps also 671. 19 ialia ac ianta et mulfa extmpla 
(i. e. tarn multa) should be read. With these may be compared ps.-Apul. Aacl, 
8 (33. M Goldb.) tantiu ei bonus, Hieron. Bp. 48. 12 toties et crebro. The 
prefix coH' is omitted 431. 23 eonlaetare ei gratulare meliorihus, 701. 2 
eollegarum et sacerdotum ; cf. Apul. Apol. 40 (51. 15 Kr.) conexa et eateimta. 
Correlatives also are omitted occasionally, as 189. 17, 383. 24. Gyprian*3 
mistakes usually occur near the end of his writings, and are especially common 
in the long controversial letters, of which he seems to have grown tired before 
they were finished. 

The Style of St. Cyprian. igg 

most rarely, to be found in Cyprian, whose own favounte words, 
e.g. blandiri, eopulare, cumulare,ffragsari, magUierium, obsequium, 
proficere, repraetenUire, are in no wiae frequent in Tertullian. 
The only writing of Cyprian's which seems to show signs of 
his master's influence in style is Ep. 63, certainly one of Ilia 
earliefet compositions. It contains such words as iaxare and 
lacfifrare (705. 19, 7 10. 18), which he afterwards avoids. 
Yet a fair proportion of the few needless Greek words 
employed are loans from Tertullian ; cf. p. 296. 

The influence of Minucius Felix nn Cyprian, or rather the 
wholesale borrowing from him in the Ad Don., and the more 
moderate loans elsewhere (e. g. B. Pat. § 3, which contains qid 
Hon luqiiimur magna ted iiiiiimus (398. 2l) from Min. Fel, 38. 6, 
which in its turn probably comes from Seji.Ep.26. 5 ulruni loqvar 
foriia ati teuiiam) is so obvious and well indicated already that it 
need not be retAiled here. Their style also is very similar ^. 

§ 5. Cyprian's object in such treatises as the Be Ilabitu 
Virginum and De Paiientia was no doubt to give his people the 
benefit of Tertullian 's thoughts, while providing a substitute 
for writings which, however harmless themselves, would 
probably lead their readers on to Montanist works of the same 
author. A similar motive seems to have led Cyprian to com- 
jiose the Ad DoMatutn. The philosophical writings of Apuleius, 
composed in that ornate style which was as pleaxiug to 
Cyprian's age as to himself, must have been a dangerous 
attraction to the less convinced Christians. In all probability 
they were written with a deliberate religious purpose ; perhaps 
even the Meiamarp/wset were composed by Apuleius in order 
to attract his readers to the Mysteries, with an ecstatic account 
of which he ends his book. The Ad JJo/ialum appears to be 
a counterblast to such literature as this, probably to the 
very writings of Apuleius which are extant. ITie theory of 
a definite purpose of presenting Christianity in its most 
pleasing aspect, as a mystery initiation into which brings new 

■ If evidenoB bu atill nerded of the euUer data >if MiaDciu!<, I liave given 
» imkll proof on p. 115. 

2CX) The Style and Langtiage of St. Cyprian. 

life and joy, and presenting it vaguely, without revelation of 
its inward teaching, but with all the attractions of what 
passed for the highest eloquence, seems a better account of the 
work than the supposition usually entertained, that it is the 
crude and florid production of a new and ill-instracted convert. 
No stress need be laid upon the apparent autobiography which 
it contains ; a neophyte in his first enthusiasm is the natural 
speaker in such a composition. It is a piece of literary work- 
manship, and only in that light can it be judged. Its style 
is no evidence that it was written soon after Cyprian's con- 
version. He was emphatically a man of his day, and his 
generation regarded such writing with admiration. Tertullian 
had already set the example of a Christian teacher indulging 
in rhetorical display, and that without any excuse of possible 
usefulness. The de Pallio^ with its elaborate antitheses and 
assonances and all the artificial graces of the time, its minimum 
of Christianity and its adulation of the Severi, is as clearly 
written for the sake of words as Fronto's praises of Smoke and 
Dust or anything in the Florida of Apuleius. Cyprian had 
at least a serious subject, if he treated it somewhat trivially. 
At any moment during his episcopate the need for a rhetorical 
antidote to rhetorical pagan tracts may have arisen, and when 
the need arose his education enabled him to supply it. That 
his standard of taste did not change is shown by Ep. 76, which 
contains some of his most highly coloured rhetoric, written 
under the inspiration of approaching martyrdom within a few 
weeks of his death ^. • That such an indirect reply to pleas 
for paganism might naturally be made is shown, I think, 
conclusively by the AiclepiM attributed to Apuleius. Unless 
I am entirely mistaken, that piece is translated from the 
Greek by a deliberate imitator of the writings of Cyprian. 
Cyprian found it necessary to show the world that Christian 

* Against this view of the Ad Don. must be set Angnstine^s statement that 
it was his work as a new convert. Doetr. Chr. 4. 14. This, at any rate, has 
been the view usually taken of AugUHtine*8 meaning. Bat dc»es he necessarily 
imply more than that Ad Don. stood at the beginning of his copy ? 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 20 r 

literature could be as attractive ae hcatben ; a generation later 
the literary sdvantage was on the side of Christianity. 

It wcnld be imiiost^ible to show any direct influence of 
Apuleius on Cyprian, though nothing can be clearer than the 
fact that both had been trained in the same school of rhetoric. 
The writers on the slyle of Apukius might, with a very small 
amount of change, turn their books into treatises on Cyprian. 
There is only one of Apuleius' devices, the use of diminutives, 
which is not also employed by Cyprian'. Apuleins, a leisurely 
writer aiming at nothing bat effpct, uses his tricks of style 
with mneh more frequency than Cyprian ; yet Cyprian bus 
them always at command, and on occasion, as in the Ail Doh., 
the perorations of moat of his treatises and the panegyrital 
letters, can use them as lavishly as Apuleins himself*. The 
^mmetrical arrangement of 1)alanced clauses, the constant 
pleonasm (for Cyprian when striving to be eloquent will 
always use two words in preference to one), the alliteration, 
the rhyme, the poetical diction, the forced metaphors and 
combinations of incongnious words, and all the artifices of 
style are to be found in both*. Though this paper is confined 

' CXattada 18^, 5 uid mmmu&i 479. t, 701. 6 kre CjrpHon'a on]}> (liminiltivM 
iif Um Grat <twli:iiiiiuii, aod th<?y are not employed fur mrre elTeot. Morula, 
;oo. 11, is not Cyprutn't own, bal quoted by hiiD from the words of tbe 
recipient of % rinon. DimiDUtivei in -f'llum are Tnirly numenius, but only 
tonumlieHlam no. 13, 683. 6 »nd corpiucultim 30l. 4, j6t. 5 nre dioiinalive 
in more thui form. 

' KratlBchiDuin, De laliKilale t. Apulrii. Konigibei^, ISGj, p, t 
Ficeaaive Hyuimetry of Apiileiut, ui'x amtem difi potetl qiuim crttrr 
furrit Jpultitu in ompii'Siu hit dielionit Jloreulii {-wipiini, 4c.) ilvdimK fippe- 
tnvllr. KretttcbnianD, Becker knd Koiiiil on Apuleiua km all uteful t» 
• naiiler of Cyprt«n, if only to tB»oh him the wide bub of iilsunuin in thia 
•cbool, and to mognice the mperBbuDtlanae of aynoiiyniB without tryinf; tu 
torture them Intn dijferenoea of meaning;. 

' Apuleiua' qnmint rbynie with ndTerb" in ■alim, Mrt. 8. tg 1144. 14 
Kya*.) n(n> (rtciniatim iliiprrto led cunralim itipalo comnitiilu hsa an (i>,<ct 
pantllel in Cyprinn 598. it oafui/im pir mallomm i/otnoi net oppiiiatim ptr 
f iiaarfan eiiiilaltt iliteii'rirnle; where Cyprian hu an amonanM M well, uid lo 
exceU hi* nnJ. Wh»t eould be more Cypriftoic than MrC. 4. 19 (66. 4 Eyw.) 
Ata nmnilmii i-at'ihri eoutiliu rrrte di'poinii' ) Vet it referK tu (he amtngeiueobi 
for a burglary. 

202 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

to one writer, it may be suggested that a comparison of the 
style of different authors with the text-books of rhetoric 
would cast much light on the history of education under the 
Empire, and might be a more certain guide to localization than 
the study of words, which has been pursued so vigorously of late. 
§ 6. Apuleius is not the model of Cyprian ; they were only 
trained in the same school, whatever it may have been ; it 
was, at any rate, not that of Fronto. But Cyprian owes 
a direct debt to Seneca. In the next chapter (p. 291) one 
striking metaphor, that of the gladiator for the Christian, 
has been pointed out as common to both. This is only 
one of several thoughts which Cyprian owes to the Stoic 
philosophy of Seneca. As illustrations of hardship the 
Stoic ofben dilates on torture^ the eculeus^ the laminae^ the 
frcmi inscriptaf the wild beasts, &c., dangers which were 
much more real to the Christian. Hence not only the 
general sense of Seneca, but even turns of language are 
reproduced; Sen. Dial. i. 4. 11, vulnera praebere uulneribus 
(Cypr. 491. 17 torquerentur . . . iam non membra sed uulnera\ 
for the thought cf. Mart. Police. la), Ep. 66. 18 nihil intere^se 
utrum aliquis in gaudio sit an in eculeo iaceat ac tortorem lasset, 
Ep. yi. ^ si uirtutem adamaveris quidqnid ilia contigerit tibi . . • 
faustnm felixqne erit ; et torqueri si modo iacueris ipso torquente 
securior sq. : IHal. 5. 3. 6, Ep. 14, 5, &e. (cf. Cypr. 192. 9, 491. 
13, 58a. 19, &c.). But Cyprian borrows from Seneca on 
other themes also, and his words as well as his thoughts; 
Ep. 94. 56 properantis mundi uolubilem cursum = Cy]pT. 577. 8 
reuerteiitis anni uolubilem circulum, Dial. 5. i. 5 accessns lenes et 
incremetita /allentia^ cf. Cypr. 209. 13, 247. 26, &c., Ep. 83. 
27 retinere rectum tenarem=62i. 17, 725. 9, Dial. 5. i. 4 ira 
praecipitat= 225. 11 (cf. 5. 20), though this may be Virgilian, 
Aen. 2. 317 ; words frequent in both and similarly used are 
aestuare, fluctuare^ injlari, inconcussits, proficere (of moral pro- 
gress), repraesentare. The Ad Don. especially is full of 
reminiscences of Seneca \ 

' Cf. with 8. 35 aruinae torU sq. Sen. Ep. 15. 2 ; with 9. I earim perire, 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 



The only other prose writer whom Cyprian evidently knew 
is CieiTO. Thoiif,'h no educated writer of post-Augustan date 
could fail to show the influence of Cicero, yet there can be 
none who is less indebted to him than Cyprian. In Ad Hon. 
1 (3, 13) ilum erratici jialmitnm laptm . . . re/ftiuf there ie an 
imitation of J)e Senectiiie 52, «'Vi* terpem mnltiplici lajttu ft 
erralico ; and 668, 15 eq. Buggeats conlemjuii Catilmae fflaiHot. 
BpEide theee there eeem to be only little expressions which 
tnig-ht naturally cling to the memory, such as turbo el tem- 
prtia* 210. 17, 618, 2, praepropera feitiualio 717, 11, expug- 
iiator matrimonii alimi 644. 10. Two of Cicero's words, 
iiigreitio 193. 15, and impugnatio (six timeu: see Hartel's 
index), seem to have been revived by Cyprian, after an 
intervening- period of neglect. 

\ 7. Amon^ existing poets one cannot be sure that Cyprian 
knew any but Virgil. Lucretius, whom Tertiillian and 
Lactantius know well, Amobius too well, is never copied. 
Arborei fe(.u» ^^y^. a from Georg. I. ^^,fTOn(lca tecta 3. 14 from 
Georg. 4. 6\,fitriata ment 424. il from Aen. 2. ^oy , fttetuan» 
vario meittit ae»tu 039. 13 (and 300. 16) from Aen, 4. 532, 
bihat licet gemma 13, 24 from Georg. 2. 506, fanda atque 
iufanda 630. 17 from AeJi. I. 543, &c., and, most clearly of all, 
367. 24 quando ri in agro inter cidtag et fertilet legete* lolium 
et aueita domitietur (alluded to again 38^. 9) from Georg. i. 154 
interqne niteiitia culta Infelix lolium et sterile* dominantvr 
auenae; probably also 577. i^ per uicietiludinet mentium (rant- 
meauii hihtmiijii from Aeii. i. 366 ternaque tramiermt }{utuli» 
hiberna rul/aclix (cf, p. 30,5, n.) are evidences that Cyprian 
could quote his Virgil, while 4. S exilin ingeuii ang«»ta medlo- 
crifag . . . niillit ad eopiam fecundi eaetptli* eulmiml/vg ingra- 
ttcfcit from Kc/, 1 . 68 congettum cae»pile ailmea proves that he 
could forget or mistake his meaning. Areafruge* terit 304, 34 
recalls Tibullns i. 5, 21 area dum. mrs»e« sole calente (erei. 

Ep. 115, S e-iriu4 inepU. Ad Don. f II auggMla Sen. Ep. 1(5. 8 If. %nA DUil. 
I. ,t, 10 S. But cf. eipecidly Ail Dun. | 10 (und Ad Dem. ti o. ") "Ub 
i>iiil. 4. 7. 3, knil ^. S. ). 

204 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

But it is probable that there are also citations from Seneca's 
tragedies. Their language, of coarse, has many resemblances 
to that of the moral writings, and also to prose rhetoric of 
Cyprian's school. In no play is this so strong as in the 
Hercules Oelaetis. But 355. 23 si terra iiitu pnlueris squaleat 
is very possibly from Phaedr, 471 orhU iacebit squalido turpis 
situ ; cf. 830. a sqttalent membra . . . situ et sorde deformia^ 
which suggests a dislocated hexameter. Vinax jlamma 368. 
16 occurs in Med. 826, compage rupta 4gi. 16, though in a 
different sense, in Oed. 580 (plural Here. Oet. 11 35, 1228) and 
obductae /ores 10. 25 Here. Oet. 1548. These also may be 

There are at least two more instances of apparently hexa- 
meter lines, from unknown poets, cited indirectly; 353. 10 
nouella ac uegei^ iuuenta pollere^ which suggests uegeta pollere 
iuuenfn; cf. avena dominetur already cited, and 646. 23 
carinam praeualidis et electis roboribiis intexe^ which may be 
from roboribus ualidis intexe carinam^ and also one iambic 
senarius with its two last words transposed^ 474. 7 nemo diu 
tutus est periculo proximus^. 

Beside these instances of actual verse, Cyprian's diction is 
at least as full of poetical elements as that of any post- 
Augustan writer. Taking only a few illustrations, and those 
confined to nouns, <7(?i^*=' warfare' 495. 6, 526. 15, 654. 9, 
663. 23, clades 224. 14, 302. 28, &c., labes 6. 4, &c., moles 15. 
10, &c., sordes (sing.) 104. 19, 830. 2, strages 358. 2T, &c., 
strues 13. 20, suboles 410. 6, &c., are in form or use poetical, 
as are aeuum^uUa 6. 3, 364. 20, aetas-^tempus 780. 14, 
germen 189. 12, gleba 355. 24, meia (of a river) 7. 9, wera? (sing.) 
678. 22, /?rea: (sing.) 226. 8, 247. 9, 292. 12,408. 20, &c, stidor 

^ No one seemB hitherto to have noticed this line. ProfeMor J. E. B. Mayor, 
who recognizes that it is verse, has pointed out that the thoaght is in Sen. 
Here, Fur. 326 f. nemo te into diu PerieulU offerre tarn crests poteatf but tloea 
not know the line itself. It is not in Wdlfflin*s Publilius S^ras, Jerome, Ep, 
30. 14 has nemoy ut heatvs Cyprianua ait, Batis tuttu pericido praximHs, 
TertuUian Naii. i. 20 srmilarly transposes two words of the Hesiodic line to 
adapt them to prose ;— tie figulus Jiff ulo,/uherfahro inuitkt. 

Tke Style of St. Cyprian, 205 

{uf a fountain) 353, 16, conamlua 687. 15, fumiHa = 'eyes ' 8. 24, 
10. 26, piffiiora = iilieri 388. 11, 26, &c.' So aleo with com- 
{K>und expresEions : clagsicum vocit 317. 11, ffrana pretiota = 
'jewels' 197. 25 (not in Georges)', (/««(» ac/ir^'eu* 239. ij,*idu» 
iurbiiium 249. 4, supinae manna 330. 19, paujifret tieiiae 3.53. 4, 
laboraia mouilia 259. 14, /onyaeua nita ^5^- 35, cruilo tempore 
518. 20, geminiig agou 580, 4, cam/ti/a liia 230. II, 369. 24, 
577. 13 (also in Apuleius, Met. 6. 20, p. 109. 33 Ej-bm) 
jiammii amLientibtt* titet/iox 221. 8, i!u**i domits 313. i, fons 
lenectuie de^cieiit 353, 16, animalia nergeute ti/u ail lerraui 
iJepreim 362. i£, and many more. The use of Bimple for 
i-ompound verbs may also be regarded as poetieul, e.g.ybra/e 
navem 304. i^=jierforare,formare=refornmre 402. i2,preniere 
= oppr'mere 244. 21, quaerere 694. 8, 747. 22, »igHare=aihig- 
nare 15. 15, »pectare=ex]iectare 539. i(, tternere 362. 21, 
gKatieTe=per«Hadere 478. 4, tiimere=aeeipere 378. 4, 519. t6, 
and constantly, tergere 494. 5, ueilere 218. 10. 

A writ-er so diflTase aa Cyprian oould neither use nor 
originate many proverbial e.ipressioQs. Otto, in his Spricfi- 
leorter der Homer and Weyman in his review of that book in 
yaJWiaeArchiv, 8, p. 397, have gleaned what there is ; 6. 13 
in propriai laudei odiom iaclalio e*t, 13. i"} and 245. I! potfii- 
ieri magis qaam poitidere, 202. 19 non e»t ad magna facllii 
adKeHgvg,4\g. lode tcinlilfis cnnfiare hii-etidia, 421. Zgladiosuo 
perivii, 431. 30 uude uulneratut fuerat imle curare, 505. 12 
parum eH adipitd aliqvul poluiHt, pint ett quod adeptu* es potse 
teruare, 617. 6 quati tnnt.a»»e fit homiiiem muiare regioneiit", are 
the most interesting. To tliese must be added nemo diu (ulun 
eif' periculo proximut 474. 7, cited above. Scmel vincU qui 
»taiim paHtur ^yy. 3, is ^wrhaps the source of the proverb 
vincit qui patitur*. 

■ A. Fauck in WiilfDiirB ArckU, 7. p. loi. itntca tbut CypiUo i> the fint 
tu UM fiijnont ■j'aleinkticmlly >■ % iiilwtilnte for iQ>tii. 

' Cf. Tert. Bit. Can. ■} Hulitnlir 3ta.t't grana eaudenliii. 

* Thli muil ba liiiitily proretbinl, nut Kontian. Tbt^e ii dc 
ulloiion to that poet. 

r J. E. B. Mftyir Hnda Iha words iuibeddsd i 

other pofsibli- 
the CaUmia 

2o6 The Style and Language of St, Cyprian, 

§ 8. There is no source from which Cyprian draws more 
freely than his own writings. Phrases, and even long 
sentences, which he regards as effective are repeated, and 
this not only in hasty letters written about the same time, 
but also in his more elaborate productions separated by 
intervals of years. Felicitous expressions must have been 
stored up either in his memory or in his common-place book 
for repetition. One sentence in Ad Don. 3 (5. 18 ff.) necesse 
esf'y ut solebat^ uinolentia innitef'^ injlet superbia, iracnndia inflam^ 
met, rapacit<i9 inquieM, crudelitds itimvlet, amhitio delectet^ 
libido praecijpitet, the alliterations and rhymes of which pleased 
him, is repeated with modifications in Un, 16, and MorL 4 
(225. 9, 299. 18), and reminiscences of it are found in Dem, 10 
and Z. i. 6 (357. 27, 423. 6) ; so with sol radial sq. in Don. 
14 and Op. 25 (15. II, 393, 27). The very effective con- 
clusion of the De Opere et Ekemosi/nis, in pace uincenfibns 
coronatn caudidam pro operibus dabit^ in persecutione pro passione 
geminabit, is repeated fix)m the end of Ep. 10, and the thought 
occurs again 577. 16. Other instances are 241. i negotiafionis 
quaes fuosae nundinas aucuparirrz ^\ ^. 22; 239. 11 auulsam 
uiscerum nostrorum parfem= 521. 12 ; 14. 20 adridet ut saeuiat 
sq.=202. 14; 13. 13 caducis notis sq, = 390. 20 ff. ; 35. 10 
libellus compendio breiiianle digestus= 224. 2, where the sense 
is quite different; 10 1. 12 praeceplorum grande compendium = 
287. 25 ; 214. 5 foils . . . exundare . . . diffundi=^^^^. 15, 411. 
22, and cf. 642. 15 ; 30T. 22 imbrem nubila serena suspendunt=^ 
352- 9 ; 351 • 2 oblatrantem te . . . et obstrepentem, cf. 229. 13 
and 602. 3 (Tert adu. Marc. 2. 5 init. canes . . . latrantes in 
Deum ueritatis). Many more instances might be given ^. 

Monoslicha (Rieae, Anthol. Lai. 716. 43 >, qid uinci aete paiitur pro tempore 
uincit, bat does not know the source of the usual form. Tert. in dilating on 
the subject in Apol. 50 does not put the thought in the form of an aphorism. 

^ I think it miglit be shown that in some small particulars Cyprian*s 
language varied from time to time; that culhuc insupetf porro aulem, pariter 
et, and some other expressions, are only found within certain periods. This 
might be of use in fixing the date of some of the Treatises, which is not so weU 
ascertained as that of the Kpp. 

The Style of St. CyPrian. 
iny b^in our Btndy of t 


! details of Cyprian's 
style with the rhetorical tropes'. Of several of these he 
makes little use ; to others he is devoted. Of metaphorical 
language, especially, good and I)ad, his writings are full. 
Some of it is poetical, some scriptural in origin ; perhaps 
none is very striking. His enemies are lues^ el pegles 219. i, 
Patrii>aagiaiii . . . et ceterae haeretieoriim peg(e» et glailii et 
iienena 781. 14 (f^n, of definition), and similar words are 
common. Other metaphors are MriWo* m'^forHBi 359. 19^; cou- 
lidentium uo/untaltim divortium 3 15. S ; animae tinea, cogitationum 
tabef, peclorU rubigo ^Z^. 17 ; adulteria eolorum 199.5; it odium 
pertecutionii faeihiig liuori* exargit 422 5 (cf. 358. 10, 424. 6) ; 
interfecior poenilenl.iae 694. 4 ; mibi/um liuori* 426. 6. Verbs 
are still more often so employed, e. g. wpire dolorert, &c., 
685. 9*, olilatranfiumjli(etuum iHcurtu* 667. 24, domvs iant /asm 
iam/atigata 313. 2, efo»»i et fatigati moiitei 353. 3, calcare 
camiJiciHam 339. 24, tnud/are ghiriam, &e. 238. 33, 794. 10, 
841. II (cf. ampii lure 425. 16, easfrare 204. ^), teminare g/oriam, 
tec. 577. 19, &c., deftruere cattHatem, veritafem, &c. 420. 4, 
and often, gubernandae ecckfiae tibram tenenfes 744. 16, ati/irjua 
iUa contra epitcopatum mevm uenena refinenfe» 591. 9, and 
many more. 

Metonymy in Cyprian is almost confined to the use of 
abstract lor concrete nouns (cf. Volkmann, op. cil. p. 424 n.), 
which is carried to un excessive degree; 652. 17 pacera non 
ifellciis ted armit damui, 387, 12 patrijiitmium copioium cum 
intltgenfium paiipeTlale eommunican»,42i, 17 alia ilia sublimilat 
(i.e. Satan; cf. Quwi.Id, 8, p. 25. 14), 190. 18 quodsi Ckriitum 
fOHtmenlia leijiii/ur el regno Lei uirginitat destinatur, ^oi. 18 

' As cUtfdfttid by Vulkmiuin, Shttorili dtr Grierhrn und BSmrr, p. 4IJ If. 
EiiUDpiHa coul'l Du doubt be giren of nlheri than tliose rneDlioned, bat they 
would he in no way ehuaekrislii: of Cy|>riitn'* itjlo. 

' DoM ihii pliirj uccur earlier than Tart. ^». 30 (,350. II Uvitt.), Apol. jo, 
ftcl Cf. 351.8. 

' A medical meUpbot; cC uarUtii4 leprae ]]6. ij, Sen. N.Q. 3. Ig. II, 

' P. Geyer'i ■rgument fniui Ibii word in WslSin'i Arehiv 8. 4;; i« apoilcd 
by liii Deylecl uf Cyprian and AinobiUB. 

2o8 The Style and Language of St. Cypnan. 

rogemus . . . cito latebrU nostris et periculh subueniri=^latentibu9 
el jpericlitantibus. Mediocrifcts nostra=zego^ loi. 15, &c., is 
very common (see p. 373); conseientia uestra apparently is 
used for tu 656. 16, and elsewhere. Other instances are cum 
plebis inaequalitas discreparet 497. 14, adunationis noitrae cor- 
pM unum 698. 21, cum omnium baptUmo communicaus 800. 2 
and 805. 17, circumuenire tolitudinem singularvm 693. i. 
Abstract periphrases are constantly used for Deu9^ cf. p. 244. 
Cyprian makes no excessive use of collective abstracts; 
fratemitas is, of coarse, common ; noua/ralemitas^' Cain and 
Abel '421. 23, cf. germanit4i9 TAebanorum, Quod. Id. 8 (25. 18) ; 
cottuiuium=:conuiuae 16. 11, audientia=:auditores 4. 14, and 
others^. Such abstracts are not only used of persons ; 600. 
17 episcopatu9 tut ordinationem singulorum auribua iniimauimus 
and the like are very frequent*. 

Here may be classed the use of concrete plurals for 
abstracts'; cf. 357. 13 delicta mendaciorum, libidinum^ frau- 
diuMy crudelilatis^ impietatis^ furoris^ where they are combined 
with singular abstracts, 510. 2 gubemacula eccleiiae^gubernatio, 
674. 2 fiaufragia, 728. 4 mens praua et/aUax lingua et odia 
uenenata et sacrilega meudacia, and many more. Conversely, 
plural abstracts in a concrete sense are common : laudes^ 
uirtutes, gloriae^ as in classical writers. 

But Cyprian also frequently changes the meaning of words 
at his own convenience. Formido ^^ oh^eci of fear* 209. 10 is 
classical; but he ventures on discrimen for irutina 218. 18 

^ Cyprian falls far short of other Chriatian writers ; Vita 5 (A. xcv. 24) 
per omnet aditus sollicita caril<u eireuihat; Firm. Mat. Err. 27. 3 ut his 
omnihut( (so. typU) queui per gradus quotdam ad lignum erucis italus hominum 
penteniret^ol <reai6fA§voi ; Victor Vit. i. 25, &c. 

* Abstracts with a genitive are constantly employed ; uerifat g^ws quite 
inonotonoas, used as it is in 779. 8 sanctifienndi salutaris aquae ueritate; cf. 
233. 16, 305. I3i 341. II, 379. 33, &c.; Bojide* often, e.g. 660. gflde deuotionit 
B deuotione fideli. A characteristic example is 2 1 1. 18 quos detinere non potest 
in uiae ueteris eaeciUite cireumscrtbit et decipit noui itineris errore. Other 
g(K>d instances are 337. i, 434. 10, 631. 23, 675. 15, 780. 22. 

' Cf. Wolfl9in in his Archiv, 5. 493, for inatancea from De Aleatt. So in 
Hieron. Ep, 69. 3 effuHo Mnguinis et instar tuit in omni caeno lUbidinit 
uoliitohra «* uoltUatio. 

The Style of St, Cyprian. 209 

(cf. ej^dMUB 528. 4,66^5. 7), ff/»iu/^«='qua.rrel3omenef«' 409. 1, 
tenacitat ae firmitas parallel with uineii/iim &ail J'undameiitum 
407. 36, and convereely Jirmamentum for frmitat 489, 10, 
rotttuuio for inquiiiatio 644, 1 2, /acinus for ' guilt ' (not ' crime ') 
679. 20', iDHtnncce of verbs with forced and unusual mean- 
iags are also common ; see pers/ringere, prafttrhigere, pemtre- 
pere, pratKlruere in Hartel'a index, promHtere 493. 10, 
594. 4, prorvere 528. 15, 59S. 10, <}cciirrei-e=tucciirTere 523. 
19, tubdncere 8. 11, and many more. He deJights in devis- 
ing new ehadee of meaning, giving a personul Eubject or 
object to a verb never bo need before, or otherwise showing 
his ingenuity*. 

PeriphraBis ie excessively common. Cyprian's devotion to 
ab^ti-act nouns marks his style off from that of the classical 
writers, and often even impedes his sense, as in 517.4, 571. 14, 
600. 1,656,14, 743.17. Cretuabil a^dieios an/r'Hx setnper ffe/ienna 
ft uiuaeibus fiamtnls tiorax pioeiia 368. 16, combines pleonasm 
with periphrasis; cf. uermiam eilax poena = vern/es 410. 9. 
Another curious periphrasis is 243. 21 cui cnim noH nascent! 
aifqiie morieiiti relinqiienfla quandoque patria ? where iia«ce»» 
adque morirm is put for morlalis. A periphrastic use of eirca 
is as common in Cyprian as in other late writers, 478. iz, 
616. 18, 674. 2, &c. 

Hendiadys is not very common except with verbs ; projie- 
rare et uenire=propeTanter 509. 13, cum ail we lifteras direxerint 
rf petier>Ht=petenteg 519. 14, cum wanni dejlnerrl et . . . 
imiendeTft 763, J4, and the like, 'llie substantives come 
rather under the head of amplilication or extension of mean- 
ing, as 402. 8 cradel'Uas neci* et efuiio tangnlnu. 259. 15 
tnthnnenta peregrina et »er>ea» He»teg,^y]. 6, 710. 14, &c., many 
of which are cited in § 19. 

' Fheinwr repTeienta iyo,da in Ml. 14. 13 in Cyprian's Bible, .1.15. 
Viilg. ini^uiriw. JeromB hu only aUoweil the word lo nDrrire in three a 
in llie Valgftte; kll of these ue id the aauftl Mii»e. 

■ 3") irilh ■djeotivf* ; tiierinp/fl ditigenlia lOi. 9, delieata eoiigrtmio loa. 
iind othm which normall j wonid be ir«fd of pcnoni, not of ■bitniction*. 

vol.. IV. P 

2IO The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

Of hyperbaton there is one remarkable form, found also in 
Apaleius ^, by which one of two co-ordinate words is separated 
by a copula from those which qualify or agree with it ; 524. 
2 incommodo aliquo ei infinniiatis periculo=.incommodo et periculo 
infirmitatis^ 603. i iupenederunt et ad nos redire noluerunt^y 
614. 10 perfidiae et haereticae prauitatis, 660. 14 proclamantes 
etjidem suam per haec uerba testantes, 518. 16, 538. 4, 670. 17, 

768. 22,795.4'. 

Cyprian often displaces his words, sometimes with awk- 
ward results, though there can be no doubt that he does it 
deliberately. Dependent words are frequently pushed to the 
front, as in the very clumsy instance, 627. 13 secundum qiwd 
famen ante fuerat destinatum, persecutione sopita cum data esset 
Jacultai in unum conueniendi^ copiosus episcoporum numerus^ sq.; 
of. 740. 3 obrepere autem si hominibus Basilides potuit, Deo 
mm fHifesfy which may be excused by epiploce with the pre- 
CHHling obrqmt^ 368. 20, 404. 24, 411. 4, 789. 14 (where et 
tim^qni tf)^ &c. Esse especially is often prefixed; 387. 21 
ijno amplior fnerit pignorum copia esse et operum debet maior 
inptHSti, 5. 15, 398. 23, 623. 4, &c. In 243. 21 obscurity is 
cutmcHl not only by a strange periphrasis but by the putting 
o( noH before its natural place ; cf. 514. 16. Quid clauses are 
UHUully dislocated ; 200. i uiderhit quid sibi nuptae blandiantur 

* Met, 6. 31 (116. 16 Eyss.) ultra motlum delictique saeuire ierminum'^ 
^Hodum Urminumque delicti; Plat, i. 15 (77. 7 Goldh.) pulmanes loco ae tui 
gtnert cordi plurimum consulunt = loco ae genere ; and perhaps elsewhere. It 
i« an imitation of such poetical licence as Hor. Carm. 3.4. 11 ludofatigatum- 
que tomno, Tibullus i. 3. 56, &c. 

' To take this as hyperbaton for tupersederunt et ncHuerunt redire seems 
more reasonable than with Hartel (Preface, p. liii) to appeal to an unattested 
statement of Nonius that the verb supergedere may mean ' to be obstinate.* 
Ronsch, Beitr, 3, p. 80 agrees with Hartel. 

* So also in other writers among Cyprian's JEpp, In 552. 8 (Novatian) the 
MSS. read tenortm euangelici uigoris inlibatam dignitatem servare, Hartel 
reads tenore, but tenorem et is at least as near to the MSS., and quite possible 
according Ut this idiom. So CJomelius (613. 15) malitia et inejrplehili auaritia, 
and Nemesianus (835. 3) where, for the MS. ut . . , cadauera (or cadauerxs) 
iptiue publici hoHis nerui concisi calcarentur, cadauer et should probably be 
read, instead of et being inserted after hoftit, as by Hartel. 

* This separation by a genitive of noun and adjective u rare in Cyprian. 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 2 1 1 

8(|., 209. 4, 299. 10, 373. iH, &c. ; cf, the estraordinary <iiine 
cum Htfit ailtjue uiroa sq., 300. 35. Priut limge qiiam 498. iH, 
mnllum malUia jiratracta 399, 18 (cf. 424. 22), and the like, 
ocMaiooally occur. 

Adverbs and conjUDctions are often put unnaturally late in 
the sentence. Nnmqite m third 651. 17, 735. 33, e(e«m third 
771, 8, uti'fiie fourth 737. 12. /''i also is often displaced, 
oceurring once in the sixth place, 698. 21. Such nrran^- 
ments as 364. 8 quam contri»tauei-at nuper laetam fadtl 
eccleahim, 318. 13 »i eonfeclam et /lara/am iam ue»tem daren, 
507. 23 poKt coiifentioHem tanelijicat^ el iitlvtf-raia ptrnt membra, 
578. 21 in mme ailhuc Heel uoiit /toti/it, are common', 

§ 10. Cyprian does not furnish many examples of playing; 
upon language. Verbs are aometimes used in two sensee; 
e.g. 383, 1 7 tierua* jiecHniant quae le teruala non teruat, 403. 5 
li admitsttm Jaeintit agnotcant , . . ad praemiuta regni eaele«tia 
admiltit, 466. 4 aed afiii terrain eolentihiti ilia (sc. leuitica 
Iribiit) faiUum Deum colerei, 688, 21 wi . . , tnagit petantfiiHiU 
pro *e precea at/que orafwnet antUtiii» qtiam ipiifuwlant tangui- 
uem lacerilolU, 711. 12 noa omneit poHabai Ckriatua qui et 
peeeata noaira portabat^. So with substantives; 402. 14 »( 
. . . palmia in J'aciem verlieraTelar ijai jjalmat ueraa utHcentibua 
Iriiaii ; cf. 724. 18 ti vera apud iiiaanoa furor intaHabilit perae- 
verauerii, and 616. lo Nonaiiani et Nouati nouaa . , , mac&maa, 
which never recurs, obvious though it is. Perhaps the only 
instances of oxymoron are jraWe ro»//eH'/jwm no. 12,287. 25 
(cf, Aug, C. /J. 4. 21 magnum conjiendium), taagiia el diutna 
ireiiilaa 2tiii. 1, fetus aferilia, nuliil-i aerena ^01. 20, 22. Cyprian 
indulges in few conceits ; 582. 21 the confessors' ftet are bound. 

' Exkmplw of tropical langn&ge not ao often UHod bj CyprtMi are, ( I ) the 
prtiUpticuMoffttljectiTPB 13. 11, 353. iSr 378. is. 74',"i [a) Htotei, only in 
Buoh laild eipreuiun- ranoii facile " nrqaaqaam 310, l.uiil often, ftn J alniilsrlj 
mitiua, miiiime anil ■ fvi* ihdm; (3) hyjierbole ijq. 11 sNuIicini uUeervm 
Huiilnirain jiarltm (repeated 5II. I], and perbapB auggeitcd by Hnr. firm. 
a. 17- 5), 49I. 17. 538. S, 679. »3i (4) braoliyl.igy, luch as i* closed by 
Volknuuia (p. 413) under qmecdinhB, 117. 15, 417. 3, &e. 

* Ordinary leugma it eonuiion enouijh in Cyprian ; 4S1. 6, Ci<(3. 6, £a. 

2 1 2 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian, 

yet tbey are trampling on the serpent^ (of. 619. 6), 710. 21 
wine changed to water, 829. 10 gold carried to the mine. 

§ II. Nothing is more characteristic of Cyprian than his 
striving after symmetry in the formation of his periods. Of 
jjarisosis many examples must necessarily be given in illus- 
tration of other figures, and therefore few are given here; 
313. 25 quails illie caelestium regnorum uolvptas fine timore 
itwriendiy et cum aefemitate uiuendi quam sutnma et perpetva 
felicitaSy where it is combined with rhyme, antithesis and 
chiastic arrangement^ 491. 10 uidit admirans jaraesentium 
multitude caele9te certamen Lei et spiritale proelium Chri^ti^ 
*tetifse seruos eius uoce libera^ mente incorrupta, uirtufe diuina, 
felis quidem saecularibus nudof, sed armisjidei credentis armato9, 
where there are two short instances of pariso^is, Deiy Christi 
being inserted to fill out the one, and credentis to complete 
the other, 365. 18 exultant semper in Domino et laetantur et 
gavdent in Deo euo, et mala adque aduerea mundi fortiter 
tolerant^ dum bona et proepera futura prospectant, 740. i, &c. 
In the concluding section of Ad Dem,, 370. 15-22, there is 
a succession of six groups of clauses, arranged by two, three 
and four, of nearly equal length ^, Indeed, Cyprian constantly 
for the purpose of balance inserts otiose words ; many of the 
instances cited under the head of amplification are due to this 
desire rather than to a simple preference for two words 
instead of one; cf. 201. 10 simul cum amictu uestis honor 
corporis . . . ponitur, 311. 11 uenturus ad Christi sedem, ad 
regnorum caelestium claritatem lugere non debet et plangere^ sed 
jjotius secundum polliciiationem Domini, secundum fidem ueri 
in profectione hac sua et translatione gaudere, where secundum 
Jidem ueri, whatever it may mean*, is simply inserted to increase 

' Reading caleatvs instead o{galeatus; cf. p. 213 n. 

' Chiaamui is very common, e.g. 198. 22, 204. 17, 390. 22, 694. 3. It is, 
of coil rite, often combined with other figures, under which examples occar. 

' This equivalence makes Hartel's conjecture of a lacuna in line 17 unlikely, 
ft is also probable that patri was meant to rhyme with caelesti, as eruci$ 
rhymes with tanguinU just before. 

* Cf. Fiagm, lurii Fat. ( 28a; it seems to represent CTyprian's common Jidea 

The Style of St. CyPrian. 1 1 .; 

the number of pairs to four. Other examplei; are 421. 11,5^0. 
II, 398. 19 ff., in all of which words appear to be added in 
order to make one clause equal in lenjfth to another. 

Oue of the worst and most constant features of Cvprian'x 
style is the monotonous aTntng;ement of his words in twos and 
threes. Of the former many instances must be given here- 
after under amplification ; but even when be is not filling; out 
his sentences with synonyms he is equally careful to save hie 
words from standing alone ; cf. 237. 17 adest mili/um Christi 
COTS candUla qui perteeutioni» urgent't* ferodam- tur//uleri(am 
ttabili eimgrenionefiigeruiUt para/i ad pal.ientiam eareerit, armati 
ad loleraiiHam mortit, where four substantives are provided 
with adjectives, and all is followed by a pair of symmetrical 
rhyming clauses. These again are followed by three rhyminff 
clauses of equal length. Similarly 364. 7 ]M:r tjjM quae uo* 
cruciant ei J'atigaitf probari ef cnrroborari w't Kcimii* et Jidimut, 
and 6H2. 14, where, to complete the symmetry, mere pleonasm, 
such as poeiias aefemat et tupplicia perpetiia, is admitted. For 
other examples of this love of pairs of words see p. 230. 

Though it not so easy to arrange words in threes ae in 
pairs, Cyprian very frequently does it. Beside other instances 
given in this paper, such passages as 493. 3. 523, 4 (where et 
•■itnfeitoruia praetca/iam, in form if not in substance, seems due 
to this desire), 5H7. 11, 663. 23, 668. 12, 712. 8, are strong 
e%'idence for the use even where the reading is somewhat 
doubtful, as in 5K2. 33 and 746. II '. The third co-ordinate 
word or phrase is often loaded for erapfansis ; 669. 9 esealtatio et, 
iiifiatiij et adroguHS ac sapertta tactntio, 6H9. 2 nutlu» Dei tacerdos 

' la 58), 13 Ilsrtrl ruitrt rC q'uivni* liijati nerrio pedta eitnl, ijulmhui 
irrpmi li obt'iliii ci mcl'U *■(. But iho MS. cvideiico i» itronj; f" palcalii 
mod mgnintt gaiailur, wliioh Ih only nr«d by P. jui piuriiM amietlaru 
peri»geniorit neiauil (Hnrtel, Praf. p, xixiii). Cataire luitl oilfrere htt 
oumbiiied ag^n in 438. 9 nnd 6A4. lO. Id the lut pauiige ia n pU; upon the 
wonU ealeiatt nnd ealcaii; here apon the ttjati ^af», which ;rt me (nr. 
In 746. 1 1 M lit iMta* aceruHt tl lalularit lu'i-ni'liu rt ilaliii terura Ihe 
evideniHi \» diviiled, In a badi; alte-^ted letter, between tht inierlion and omu- 
fion of aeet'*": Hartol brackeU the «nrd, but in a doubtful owe Cyprian '■ 
ura^e ia auffieient lu turn the icule in ik> favour, aa alsu in 646. JO. 

214 ^^^ Style and Language of St, Cyprian. 

sic injirmus esf, sic iacens et ahiecius^ sic inbeciflifate humanac 
mediocritatis innalidus qui eq., 422. 10 innocenteniy miscricordem^ 
miti lenitate patientem^ 243. 16, 390. ai, 505. 24, 681. 14, &c. 
Even a sixfold combiDation occurs, as in 687. 19, 730. 10. 
Many triple rhymes and pleonasms will be found in §§ 14, 16 
Cyprian's range of subjects naturally led him often to con- 
trast truth with error ; but the opportunities for symmetrical 
arrangement which antithesis gives had perhaps quite as much 
to do with his devotion to that figure. Antithesis real and 
unreal, combined usually with parisosis or other figures, 
abounds in his pages. Ep, 38, especially, contains little else. 
Such strings as 806. 5 succumbat et cedat ecclesia haereticis^ 
lux fenedris, Jides perfidiae^ spes despera/ioni, ratio errori, 
immortalitas morti^ caritas odio, ueritas mendacio^ Christus . 
anticiristOyBTe very common ; cf. Fort, 6 tit., 593. 18, 687, 19, 

773- 5, &c. 

This love of symmetry is clearly manifested in numerous 
abrupt changes of voice in the verbs. In order to gain 
apparent uniformity the subject is violently altered and a 
passive introduced in the second half of a sentence, the first 
half of which has had a deponent verb ; e. g. 402. 24 if. itle 
non loquitur nee mauetur nee maiestatem suant sub ipsa saltim 
passione profitetur ; usque ad finem perseueranter ac iugiter 
tolerantur omnia ut consvmmetur in Christo plena et perfecta 
patientia, 410. 1381,423. 10 flp., &c. Conversely, the first clause 
is made to adjust itself to the second, 276. 24, &c. 

§ 12. Certain grammatical devices are also freely used for 
rhetorical purposes. One of the most frequent is the use of 
plural abstracts, which is also characteristic of Apuleius (Koziol, 
p. 251). Instances are acerbationes 600. 21, admi?iistrationes 
629. 9, anxietates 405. 16, confessiones 481. 3, co7ijlictationes 
299. II, and often, conluctafiones 405. 23, conspectus 237. 15, 
dignationes (acts of favour) 500. ] 3, &c., infestationes 406. 4, 
501. II, meditationes 430. 14, miserationes 379. 24 (also Bibl.), 
postulationes 319. 12, tarditates 318. 25, ultiones 363. 8, 366, 
10 (Bibl.). 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 215 

Here may also Ix- placed tlii- use of verbal nouns as 
attribtitea, which is very common, e.g. deso'lor ml»ecla 13. 11, 
expvgHatur imm'xciit 201. 18 (where inimicux is the substantive, 
cf. svblili» mitiiicui 249. 10), inpium efpeneculorem [fralrcm) 
404. 8, and especially peccafor, bb peccator populus 273. 25, 
cf. 641. 7, 670. 5, 769. 2, &c, Cyprian extends this attri- 
butive nae to substantives of other forms, as 3. 14 laiuhe 
aruH(line», 13. 7 cofiieg pumpa (cf. 401. 10), 360, 24 iniiex vox, 
581. 13 martyr leclor, 724, 6 tiiperstes crapiila. In this respect 
Tertullian (cf. Sittl, Lokale renehiedenkeikn, p. no) far 
exceeds Cyprian, and Ambrose again leaves Tertullian in the 
rear '. 

As in other third century writers ' derivative adjectives 
constantly take the place of a subjective or objective genitive, 
and even of a prepositional expressiou. Som'inicui and ec- 
clesiastieiis especially are so used, e. g. 642. 23 eecleviastieum 
rorpitf, 621. 5 /Uteris . . . q/ttu ail me de iie»(ra regreMiotte et 
de eccle»ia»tiea paee ac fraterna redintegraiione fecaiU, where 
the aim is uniformity, 319. 15, 6j6. 21, and often doniiuira 
C'lnjeisio (by the martyrs), 309. 19 areetsi/io dominica (cf. 
Pat*. Perp. 1% Jin. domimeae paaionex), 390. I, 699. 15 ««'»- 
maria eujiidiiat, quantitan, 653. 5 nalitritat domimca (bestowed 
by the Lord), 204. 5 divinvm muiiva et palrium = Dei PalrU, 

411. 8 eafivt Ivfjulum, the last being a loan from Tertullian 
Jud. I. 

Present participles, often of verbs which Cyprian uses in no 
other form, and in senses which cannot be distinguished from 
those of an adjective, are very common, e. g. adulantia llaiidi- 
Dienla 347. II, angeutei fortunae, iniuriae. Sic, I4. 3, 301. 5i 

412. 15, 657, 33, 710. 17, dhcordans et dmideiis zS^. 16, 

' tb nuij be nijticed tbat thnugb C'jjiriai), like other writers stler Liry, aie* 
■ubatuntives in -tor tn eipre^i a ningle act u well u ■ elate or qimlitjr (cF. 
Schiimli, *(i7i«(tit, } 1 in liiuX'WIiiler'* tlaudbvcA ,, hu ia viry >parinB of iiicli 
ute : 379. 8. 64*. 10, 734, 13. uid » few more. 

' K.g. Apuleiiu, He Ei'iiol, p. 155; cf. Uildebmid'a note to Amotilii>i. 
p. 44y, mi Zink an Fiilgentiua Myth. Other writen on Ute I^tin nuthon 
m&ke Iho Mine rmniu'k. Perlmpa Arnobiua goffl fiirlheBl in this direction. 

2 1 6 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

ducrepan% 602. 7, exundam 214. 6, 353. 15, 411. 23, fallens 
247. 26, 360. 21, 421. 1^ feroeiens 7. 16, 484. 10, 630. 22, 
fru9tra%9 13. 15, 390. 23, incursans 8. 5, 356. 25, 625. 6, 
lenocinans 198. 21, multiplicand 241. 3, oblecians 4. i ; cf. 
Leonard's Introdactdon, § 36. Such participles are ofben 
joined with an adjective ; 407. i, 507. 2, 629. 3, &c. 

The neater plural of adjectives, with or without a genitive 
following, is also a favourite usage ; aduersa mundi ^6^. 22, 
431. 2, extrema mortis 724. 16, secreta et abdit^ mentis 383. 13, 
arcana cordis atque abdita 653. 6 (cf. 257. 12, 268. 26, 423. 5, 
563. 13 (Roman), Thielmann in W6lfl3in*s Archii\ 3. 490), 
occidua 353. 11, caelestia = caelum 204. 4 (for supema in 
the same sense see p. 285), amaioria 195. 17, canora musica 
420. 5 (cf, Apul. Plat. I. I, 64. 3, Goldbacher)| serena longa 
352. 9, &c. 

Cyprian is very moderate in the combination of different 
degrees of comparison. Superlative is followed by positive in 
239. 10 maximas eximiasque uirtutes^ 313. 26 quam summa et 
perpetua fellcitaSy 477. 13 summits et magnus fructus^ 672. 14 
summa et magna ; conversely, 394. 4 quam grandis et summa 
laetitia ; superlative by comparative 288. 5 praecepta prima et 
maiora, cf. 339. 2 ; comparative by positive 191. ii meliora et 
diuina, ^6H. 16 frugaliores et innocentes cibi. Similar irregu- 
larities are 222. 7 inexpiabilis et grauis culpa, 293. 17, 504. 17 
(cf. 303. I g) frequenter ac semper, 5y6, 9 satis ac plurimum, 
687. 2 castra inuicta et fortia, 754. 16 quam sine spe sint et 
perditionem sibi maximam . . . adquirant sq. It will be seen 
that most of these are legitimate ; and it must be remembered 
that the irregular superlative had practically become positive. 
Comparative adjectives and adverbs^ as in other late writers, 
are constantly used indefinitely or as equivalent to superlatives. 
There are nine instances in the short Ad Bon. ; cf. 104. 31, 
3*3- 5,483. 11,603. 8, &c. 

The Greek attraction of the relative, and the merging of the 
antecedent in it, is also common. This attempt at conciseness 
sometimes leads to obscurity, as in 582. 6, where the subject to 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 


r«i plus lieuit ei coeffUie ecalaia ', the et marking the apodoais; 
cf. 2H2. 7, 287. 15, 306. 2, 3H6. 18, &c. Secundum quod is 
esiieciiilly common in citations, 2H5. 17, &c. Hartel's Index 
is far from exhansting the inatances. 

Certain other asa^^eB are adopted for rhetorical purposes, 
especially the historical Jiilinitive, which ia found five times, 
6. 6, 317. 20, 240. 21, 242. 14, 255. 13. Among these are 
both descriptive and narrative passages. The employment 
ako of ut clauses in many and often strange senses', con- 
secutive, explanatory or other, as 195. 33, 569, 13, 678. 12, 
&c., of qnoil clauses as 320. 17 nc . . . peril ant, quod euaserint 
(repeated 501. 3), 664. i ne pcrdat integer quml nitper ttedf, 
203. 33, 298. iH, 403, 35, &c., in some of which quoil may bo 
a relative and object to the verb, as in 769. 14 cotitenlire in id 
quod iUi baptizauerint ^, seems often to be dietated by rhetorical 

Hypallage, sometimes bold enongh, is not uncommon. 
Instances are 202. 26 magna iio» mercea hahet, 576. 12 uealrit 
fordifiun adhaeremui= ' yon love us,' 716. 6 quod furfum el adul- 
terium He in not etiam cadal cauere goUicife . , . ilebemiis, 195. 8 
pa/rimonio iuo Deum faeuera (repeated 363. 8, 386. ii), 584. 
35 pfeibglerii honorem detignaste not illit sciafis, 682. 5 exarma- 
(tttjidet mUitantis populi. 

§ 13. Nothing shows the rhetorical training of Cyprian 
better than his use of rhythm, rhyme, and alliteration. 
Ithythni, even more than the others, displays this. In this 
respect the Ad Donatum, Cyprian's most rhetorical writing, 
shows jiiat the same results on examination as his other 
Treatises and the Letters. Takiug the ends of jierioda 
(including in them the words preceding a colon) we find that 
six forms all hut exhaust the list. There are 150 of these 

' 'Hie {HiritKl ahuuld «nr«1y be pliicsd Bfter tmidemlibiu. Nobit luadeililiuM 
eal plus lieull for ' the Cbiiruh nhich had greater Hgbt* oier him thku I who 
WB* uixing him ' ia nut iinly banh but unlike Ujprian. 

* Though not olten final 1 ad Aob . . . »t tv amiie fiirlber ilefiaitii'ii ia uanal. 

' Cf. Ambr. Ep, 63. 9 ptnliUrvnl uU^vn quml iflKmiiuraut, perdhlemiil 
•iai/(l >r xliifuu eoiilinHerUHt Irmpure. 

2i8 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

terminations. Of these fifty-five are of the form ^^^ ^ | — ^ 
{tectafecerunt^ gerere fe9tinanty amoena consent it ^ &c.), and forty- 
five are trisyllabic in their ending, nine terminate with 
a monosyllable followed by a word of two syllables (ex vobis, 
hane sedem, &c.), and one with three monosyllables (usiis est, 
ars est) ^. A tribrach is only used five times before the final 
trisyllable; the usual trochee is much more often a whole 
word than a termination. The next terminal rhythm in 
number is - w - ^-'j of which there are twenty-seven instances, 
only four of which are vitiated by a long syllable at the end. 
Twenty are formed by one word (sortiafnr, Sec), six by two 
words, the first a monosyllable (et fauebam 6. 2, where the et 
is put out of place for the purpose, non timetur, &c.), only two 
by dissyllables {saepe mecum). Then follows - ^ - | - v^ ^ with 
twenty-two examples (amore quo diligis, conuiuium sobrium), of 
which seven have the last syllable long, and two the first 
resolved into two short {indicia praenoscimus, adsidua uel lectio). 
Twelve have a trisvllabic word at the end, five one of four 
syllables (poenitentla contagia, &c.), and the rest two words 
{iura proscript^ sint, singuli crimen est, &c.). Then comes 
-\j I \j\^-\j, that esse uideatur ending which Quintilian (9. 4. 
73, 10. 2. 18) complains of as hackneyed. Of these there are 
fourteen, all but one (damnare qvod eramus) ending in a four- 
syllabled word, and only one (donantur alieni) having its final 
syllable long. Then comes - w | - <^ w ^ {uerit4ite simplicia, 
pectus et pateat, &c.) with twelve instances, eight ending in 
a four-syllabled word, and five with a long syllable, and 
finally twelve of w — v^ {reuelabo, recensere, facit tnecum, 
pauor nullus, Sec.) with five examples of a word of four 
syllables, five with two words, and one (efaboratam) extending 
beyond the termination. The six terminations account for 
137 of the 150 cases, in 105 of which the last word is of the 
quantitative value of — o at least. Only thirteen cannot be 
accounted for under these six heads. 

' For two monosylUbles regarded 9» equivalent to a diBSjllable cf. Babrens* 
Preface to Poetae IxUini Minares, voL i, p. xii. 

The Style of St. Cypn 


of 262 

In the De Lapa't*, not quite so carefully written, < 
endiDgs all but twenty-ei^ht fall under the name six heads. 
Nearly a third, eighty-one, are of the form ^=^ ■~/ | — ^, 
Bisty of - u — w, twenty-eight nf — tj - | -•-■-, twenty of 
-^ I w u - 1^, sixteen of — ■-> | — u w — , and twenty-nine of 

In the Be Bono Paiienfiae, more carefully written than the 
Se Laptig, of 133 f«i-minationB all bnt sevenl^en come under 
the above heads ; thirty-two under the first, twenty-five under 
the second, fourteen (of which seven are of the resolved form 
-www |-u-aa uera jiafunf.ia, fecit in origiw') under the 
third, thirteen under the fourth, nine under the fifth, and 
thirteen under the last. Of the remaining seventeen, seven 
areofaforni rare in-if/^ fio«. an(l7^<'Za/)*i», (hat of -^^— | — , 
as aadivs noffri*, benigniii* diet. 

Taking next sis of the most rhetoneal Epistles, 10. 2^,37, 3^, 
39, .58, t<ig(.'ther, the result is found to be much the same. 
Of 193 terminations all hut twenty come under the six heads, 
the numbers belonging to which are respectively 56, 40, 23 
(four in the resolved form), 16, 7, and 30. 

It may he sufficient to take two more letters, both long 
onea, Ep. 59 to Cornelius, denouncing Novatian'a party, and 
the controversial Ep, 73 to Jubaianns on Baptism. In the 
former, which contains iiS terminations, the numbers of the 

' It wit] be wen thst there are comparatively Tew of tlie more difficult 
romui. or the lirat form, twenty-eight >re of two coi»[ilete worili, M nnHdaii 
rtuiil and fbrly-three luva the iiivt word longer. In ten the Hmt ii, or enda 
with, ■ Iribrurh. In eiyht two words {iacere ml credo, &«.} mre employed to 
fomi the final ninlumui, Two an fortncd of one word, nutifiaiirriiH', prut- 
tlieane.runl, and in one, *( ritgnufTUtif (14]. 17), the ft \t put out of iu pUeo 
to Hcure thin ending;. Of tli« ■eoond fonn rorlytwo WH woida of fonr ajllmblel 
(liaecn with the liiul long), eiil«en h»ve a mDnu«ylkl>le flrat {vt perirel, Ac.) 
and two are of two diuyllnblea. Of the tUrO form tixtoen end with four- 
■yllBliled word* ; the ntlicn are of three or eoinpumid teiui!* ; there ahoald be 
added one of tlie form - w | <» - uu {tponti prDpcrnii'mui). Of the ewe 
Hultatitr form all end with word> of four syllahUs. Of the fifth form all exeept 
three ending with three-ay llaliled words {oamminieara n liiHuIond Ac.) end 
with words of four. Of the twenty-ninn of the laet form, twenty-two are of four 
ayllablin mid aaven of two diwyllabio wiird* ; aeven biivo the final lung. 

2 20 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

different forms are 22, 28, 18, 5, 11, 11. These with seven of 
- v^ - I — , mentioned as also fairly numerous in Be B. Pat.^ 
and sixteen irregular, make up the whole number. In Ep. 73, 
written, like all those on the same subject, with less regard to 
form than Cyprian's other works, the numbers among 123 
terminations are 23, 22, 18, 8, 7, 15. Among the large pro- 
portion of thirty exceptions are many of four long syllables 
{baptizari, &c.), which hardly occur in those previously 
analyzed 1. 

Little would be gained by going through more of Cyprian's 
writings ' ; the results would be the same. He had no doubt 
been trained so effectually that his sentences, however hastily 
written, instinctively ended with one of the forms already 
mentioned. Very rarely does he end with a short word, 
except when two combine to form one of these terminations ; 
hardly ever is there a hexametrical ending. 

Cyprian's care for rhythmical endings can clearly be seen 
in the varying forms of such words as contagium with its 
alternative coniagio. The former, which is the normal form of 
the third century, is used twenty-four times, the latter four- 
teen times, often demonstrably, as in 203. 14 contagione 
iramiiu and 829. 15 contagione maculelur^ to produce a rhyth- 
mical effect which the other would not have given. A more 
remarkable instance is saepe. Frequenter is the normal word 
for 'often' throughout Cyprian ; saepe is never used except for 
rhythm*, terminal or other, and is comparatively rare. 

^ Without going through the particulars as fully as in Ad Don, and De Laps. 
it may be mentioned that in De Pat. the terminations are unusually harmonious 
and perfect. The same may be said of the six rhetorical letters. Among other 
signs of Cyprian*8 comparative indifference to the styles oiEpp, 58 and 73, and 
others like them, is the rarity of the e9$e uideatur ending, and the greater 
number (in Ep, 73 nearly 35 per cent) of irregular endings. 

^ Yet an occasional emendation might result, as in 779. 3, where quaerente 
rescripterimt for which there is some authority, is much more in Cyprian's style 
than the belter attested quaeretUi of Hartel's text> and in 483. 10, 633. 14, 
71 1. 3 2, ytfhere perneuerent, multa diuersiiaSf dileetio should be read. 

* .S. 21. 251. 4, 260. 13, 423. 10. 435. 14, 475. 21, 569. 19, 576. 8, 629. 10, 
764. 16, 765. 9, and perhaps a few more times. 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 221 

The so'itary iDBtance nf Jatm for conjiteri is due to rhythm, 
lit . . . CiritfutH uiclrix lingua faleatiir 665. I '. AH these 
Cyprianic tenniDBtioiiH are iisaal enfiug-li in classical writers, 
nnd are among those approved by Quintilian, 9. 4. 93 ff. * 

§ 14. Rhyme, though only of a lew types, is common in 
Cyprian, Within the same clause such rhymes as 405. 12 
eiim guilore el laljore, 593. 7 amore el anlore, 793, 4 /luilorau 
eittt et honorem, 602. 13 notiitalf vel pranilale, 339. 36 tanclilai) 
ei itiffnilait, ^20. il iliuilias et delieiai,6^j. -j malitia et laeuitia^, 
314. 2 gloriam et. nicloriam, 743. 4 w.e anu'ig nee mi»i», 24S, 16 
rontumaciiut el peruicadius, 748. 4 exeerabUet el deteil-abileg, 
765. 7 Ifitidahiles ac probabiku, 430. 1 1 exerle aiTqve aperle, are 
frequent * ; cf, 6. 14 quamvi» nan iarlatum poisil e»ge nml i/raliim, 
355. 32 tanln est poleHan Domini, ianta maieHat, i6y. ^/iindii- 
menla aeilifiranilae »jiei,Jirmamenta eonroboravdae fdei, a good 
example of parisoeis, 390. 33, and many more. It is also 
combined with other figures ; 239. 23 integritag propria el 
Mtiitat priitata, 664. 3 inlegrox Iiohot, lapion dolor ad praemiiim 
proiiocet. Longer examples often occur, as 304, 17 haiic 
imaginem uirginitas portal, portal inteffrila», ganctilag porlat et 
iieritax, portanl sq. ; in 305. 6 and 749. 9 are three nouns of 
the same form ; cf. 424. 8, 694. 4. 

Rhymes at the end of parallel clauses arc also common ; 

' Co-npago 131. 10. 6,(1. 34, tonpaga 5. 8, 197. JO, aj6. 14, 304. »3. 4gt. t6. 
711.6, oil/ee'im, adfecliu; roiHwnnn, conntutio, nnd other »l[eni»tives miy bo 
Mooonted Tor in t)>e Mme vaj. 

* Id am. Grl. Ant., 1893, ii m iui|>iirtanL [)ai>er by W, Hejer on rhytlim 
in later Latin. Ha only makps one inaidentnl [nenUon vt Quintilian, appearing 
tn hnld that a complete revnlation look place in the leconil centnry, and that 
earlier vriterB ne«d not be taken into account. Hi^ example) of i|iiuntlUiliTe 
rhythm are taken from Cyprian. The analyaU ia admirable, but toe elaborate 
and even artlRcial, making no allowance for excejitinns. Hii theoij of the 
pervading cretic lervea vroU Tor the groupin); of instancef ; but Cyprian's final 
cretic is mnally a dactyl, bh'I be Iovm to end with a mnloBiiuB. 

' Cf. matitia ti tuijuitia t C.r. 5, 8 in Cyprian's Bible (I15. 16) as well 
an in the Vulgate. 

* Similarly tn 794. 4 1 wanid read nan p^ia1^l t iifJerniV Jmmo aetrritiii 
jiteealU eommtinieare. The nlienii of the H3S. I( pointleH, Kid itiimo point* 
to a pla; on word*, a* in 379. 7. 

222 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

261. 17 inimte sibi placentes et transpunctae mentis alienatione 
dementes, 382. 22 cogitatio . . . ntedifatio, 357. 25 peccatur , . . 
placeatur^ 370. 18, 390. 26, 432. 14, &c. ; cf. 277. 25 iniuriam 
facere non nosse et factum posse tolerare^ where posse is displaced 
from the end to get the esse uideatur rhythm. In 725. 6 ff. 
there axe three rhymes in one period, elaharate . . . reuocate 
. . . consentiant . . . faciant . . . tenorem , . . nu/orem^ each 
ending its clause ; and the same number in 706. 13 ; in 731. 
19 there are alternating rhymes, proscripti sunt . . .fueruut 
• • . profecti sunt . . . sumpserunt, 

A word at or near the beginning of a sentence rhyming 
with another at the end is also frequent ; 262. 26 post 
indumentum Christi perditum nullum iam uelle uestimentuWy 
405. 18 sudatur enim quamdiu istic uiuitur et lahoratur^ 681. i 
coftpeUuntur . . . piosecuntur, 357. 19, 547. 7, 576. 19, 683. 

That the number of rhymes of these different kinds is no 
accident may be seen from the cases in which Cyprian has 
forced his language into rhyme ; 598. 2 aduentantibus et rei 
ueritatem reportantibus, where adventare, a verb most rarely 
used by Cyprian, is manifestly less appropriate than aduenire ; 
629. 22 f actus est autem Cornelius episcopus de Lei . . . iudicio, 
de clericorum . . . testimonio, de plebis . . . suffragio, de sacerdotum 
. . . colleffio, where the last word, which is quite inappropriate, 
is used for the natural consensu (672. 7 and elsewhere) because 
of its ending, as is pratsentia for adsensus in the similar 
passage 523. 5 ; 602. i^ et lahoramus et lahorare dehemus vt 
unitatem . . . ohtinere curemu^ for obtineamus; 398. 25 intie 
patientia incipit, inde claritas eivs et dignitas caput siimit. orlgo et 
magnitudo patientiae Leo auctore procedit, where et magnitudo 
seems inserted because claritas in the preceding clause is provided 
with a rhyme; 731. 17 Cyprianum , . ,sacerdotem Lei agnoscentes 
et contestantes ei, where ei, a word almost unused by Cyprian, 
and certainly never placed in an emphatic position elsewhere, 
is obviously set at the end of the period for rhyme with Lei; 
394. 28 in pace uincentibus coronam candidam pro operibus dabit, 

The Style of St. Cypnan. 223 

in pertecii/ioHe purpiireampro pasfione ffemina6ii ^, where nothing 
bat the rhyme could have induced him to reject the natural 
addet ; 331. H qiiicquul a mafrice ditcetserit teortum uiuern el 
ipirare hoh poterif, tuit/^uftam »alutia am'iUU, where ouly 
the rhyme can account for the change of tense ; even stronger 
is 737- 31 ^"' iudicio ac tcsfimonio Dei not prohantur /an/um 
xnd eiiam gloriantar. The sense required is that they receive 
not mere approval bat actual praise. It would be against 
Cyprian's rules of rhythm to end a period with the hexametrical 
glorifieaniuT \ he therefore spoils his sense with (/loriantHr, 
unless indeed we suppose a \Mh gloriart=glorijicare, very rare 
elsewhere * ; so also 675' 5 item Paulug monet nos cum malt de 
eeetetia pereunt non moueri nee recedeHiibiit perjiili» fidem niiiiiii, 
where the violent change of construction can have no other 
pnrpose than rhyme ; cf. erunt . . . a'vipiunf- 2,53. 14. 

Certain imperfect rhymes, which Cyprian appears to have 
intended for such, -may here be mentioned; 302. 28 claih-m, 
laudem, 370. 35 lastaa, g-ratua, 393. 28 «»w* eit, communis e*t, 
471. 10 loentus eft, tnitut ett, 250. 31 coiicettum, prominaum, 
582. 18 contaliuit, ]iauit\ cf. gcmino xumus dolore pefciitii «t 
dupHci maerore confuti m the Roman Kp. 36 (572, 13). 

It remains to mention that Cyprian carefully avoids 
paiechesis, except in such cases as bonorum ?iio/itm, where it 
cannot be avoided. There are a i'ew exceptions, as 593. 33 
adiillerinii doetrinis, but very few. One reason for Cyprian's 
use of deifiea ditc'iplina may be that diuina di»cipHna breaks 
this rule; see ch. ii. ^ i. 

The nunieroua instances of parallel clauses ending with eM. 
tiinf, &c. are no doubt arranged for purposes of rhyme, e.g. 1 H9. 
1 1 HHtie noliu ad uirgitien aermo ett, quariim quo sub/imiar gliirin 
ett maior el cum ett, 383. 15 pecuniae tuae captiuut el teruun et, 
catenit eupidilalU el uinculit aliigalut et, et quern to/iieral 
Chrittus denuo uinciut et, 642. 6 quitquis ille est et qualltcumque 

' The difference in qiuntity doei not (teler Cyprian tioui thii rhyme ; iMiit 
, . . inrmiabil nccnm 368. 11. Robert el uigore a » fiiTonrito expreiaioii. 
' Yet of. gloria i.tei^SoliioVTtt in EctIm. 43. 30. 

2 24 ^^^ Style and Langtiage of St. Cyprian. 

est^ cArisliatius non est qui in Christi ecclesia non est. The 
number of such terminations is striking ; of. 9. 3 f»^ qnis possit 
occidere perifia esty itsus est, ars est, 630. 7 prof amis est, alienus 
est, forts est. 

§ 15. Alliteration is at least as common as rhyme. The 
constant use of prepositional prefixes, evidently as much for 
this purpose as for amplification, is one of the most obvious 
features of Cyprian's style ; e.g*. 673. la adplicito et adiuncto, 
802. 8 addidit et adiecit, 357. 17 coartata et conclusa, 711. 6 
eonflueret et conueniret, 217. 14 designat et denuntiat, 353. 5 
decrescit ac deficit, 639. 5 disponit et dirigit, 675. 20 enitimur 
et elaboramus, 768. 22 exo^rlifuns et .. . exerrans, 357. 14 inerepat 
ftincusat, 233. 7 tnpeditos et inpUcHos, 351. 2 oblatrantem et 
. . . obsfrepentew, 632. 18 offocari . . . et opprimiy 330. 17 
perseuerandi et permanendi, 334. 15 praemonet et praenvntiat, 
772. g praeponere etpraeferre, 213. 9 renitituret resistit, 770. 16 
repudiare et reicere, 687. 4 suggerit et subministrat. Perdere 
and perire are often combined, 410. 26, 421, 8, &c. Instances 
in which the alliterative verbs are in parallel clauses, or one 
of them a participle or replaced by a verbal noun, are also 
numerous, e. g. 355. 26 cormmpat . . . consumat, 368. 6 
adueniens hoc admonet, 584. 1 2 congressioni et pact congruentes ; 
cf. 356. 6 ecce uerbera desuper et jlagella non desunt. In these 
cases the alliterative words are rarely synonyms, but such 
juxtaposition is far too common to be an accident. 

Ordinary alliteration is also very common, especially in 
the more rhetorical parts of Cyprian's writings ; 4. 3 uolup^ 
iaria visio, 7. 14 uenenorum nirns, 2^1. 6 neri itineris uia {tiia 
verifatis, &c., 211. 4, 431. 11, 768. 23, 833. 5, and elsewhere), 

217. 23 oris osculum, 195. i gratia gloriae, 238. 6 capita 
captiua, 430. 5 suboles subseciua ; so also with words connected 
by conjunctions; 221. i mandavit et monuit, 373. 2 multa et 
magna, 404. 15 wagna et wira, 674. 9 ntagnalia et mirabilia, 

218. 16 permitfit et patitur, 393. 13 and 699. 30 libenter ac 
largiter, 229. 25 firmitas et fides, 278. 2 fortiter ac fidenter, 
731. 10 propria et priuata, 479. 6 sollertia et soUicitudo, 485, 8 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 


ereilere et cretcere, and many more. There are many alliter- 
ations also in worda balancinj^ one another in the same or 
different clauses; 3. 12 <lanl »ere«iium "iciita secre/a, 368. 16 
Hittacifiug Jlammig uorax poena, 194. 28 qu-iliut mulla magnalia 
eum miracnlo fiicirei, 23S. 12 quae cum »aec»/o aexum quoqiie 
uirrvHiif; 423. 16 non Aominit ted hoHOri* itiimicus, 577. 22 
hofipitiHn caTcfrii korreum conpulalu, 3(j8. iq non uesti/u 
tapienliam sed tterilate praeferimu* ^ ; d./mgib^t . . . fraglaulia 
352. 28, windicta . . . vetla 408. 23. In some eaaea it is 
plain that Cyprinn hat) used forced lang^ua^e for purposea of 
alliteration, as in 582. 7 jw-c fat fueraf nee iftcffjiif, where tlie 
natural ernf would not have given the effect, and in 676. 11 
qui non lanfiitn ab k'f igiic abitfufui ted et ab» te ilUc , . . pitUut 
e»t'^. So also 279. 7 cult'tdianii immo eontinnit oratioiiibat, 
374. 5 tangitine ef nanefijicalione Christi. Chi uikt iam deeral 
Htclitt abuw/aulia'a eogiiabat 2K2. 7 is an exact parallel to 
ApnleiuB, Flor. 16. 68 dohr iulesliuorum . . . conpelleret ante 
leliim abire qitam leclitm ; yet u'tta uic/imque is CiceroniaD. 

FrDloD(red alliteration is very common, e.g. 8. 23 paratiir 
glad ia tori at luditt, ttl libidinem crtulelium iiiminvm tauguit 
obfeclet, 202. 25 magna vot wercet habet, praemium gratule 
uirttiiit, munu* tnarii/tiim catiiia/it, 227. ao, 341. 12, 383. 23, 
388. II, 468. 18, &c. Often the alliteration is wholly or in 
part prejiositiooal ; 219. 16 Aos eotdem deiiuo Domiunt denoial 
el detigiiat dicent lire dcreliqueruHt sq., ^6^. 19 quae de llei 
iiidigital'wKe deteejuluHt, 497. 12 ii petendo aufti* fulnte ditionat 
uocet ei dijiparet iwlunlattt el uehementer hoc ditplicuitie ilH qui 
dixerat, pelile el iapelralit, qiml plebit inaequalilat ditcreparel 
Etp, where besides the dit alliteration there id another with v, 
230. 8 ff,, &c. In 475. 4 f. u fivefold alliteration with cou- 

' This ia borruwed from M». F«l. 38. 6 (54. 10 Uklin) mm qui non kaiilu 
laptmtiam ttil mtnle prafftrimu*, ■nil it evidence, ma far u it goes, of the 
preoedeQCu nf Minnaiiia. No one, in the third or fourlb century, would have 
altered the alliteraUve aon iiatitu td urrilate into the >im|jle equivalent. 

* The only other inatance of obt iu Cyprian ii, I think, 153. 14 abt le. For 
Uii)[oaye furoed lor nlUteratioii cf. j6l. J {Komaii) tj aowfiiin nottmn 
tang-iihrm fiulimiu ted faditte jiarall iiiimiri. The aoriat iulitiiliTe it amply 

VOL. iV. Q 

226 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

occurs, ending with the very inappropriate verb conjiteiur^ 
of. 599. 8, where confitentur is chosen because of the preceding 

Other alliterations are elaborately chiastic; 214. 13 pro- 
fluentes largifer riuo9 latins pandit^ and 732. 8 Puppianus solus 
integer inuiolatus sanctus jmdicus^ with their arrangements of 
p. 1. r. 1. p. and p. s. in. in. s. p., are perfectly symmetrical. Or 
the alliterative words may begin and end clauses, as 243. 13 
nee . . . ad prqfana contagia sponte properauimus ; perdidit nas 
aiiena perfidia ; parentes sensimus parricidas, where an alliter- 
ation begins and ends three successive clauses. But such 
examples are naturally more frequent with kindred words. 

§ 16. Parataxis is exceedingly common in Cyprian, and is 
indeed more characteristic of him than any other rhetorical 
figure. The simplest form, as 13. 17 saltibus saltuSy 421. 2 
f rater fratrxSy 251. 4, 340. 27, 422. 8, &c. is comparatively 
rare ; cf. 254« 1\ ah inmundo spiritu inmunda correpfa, 658. i 
iJisto iustorum praecedentium exemplo^ 357. 19 indignamini 
indignari Devm, &c. Cognate words in close connexion are 
more common ; 199. 22 qttando oculi fibi non sunt quos Deus 
fecit sed quos diabolvs infecit, 689. 2 iacens et abiectus, 690. 11 
nee capi nee decipi, 657. 14 uiuit et uiuifcat, 785. 22 (with 
alliteration) Paradisi potus salubres et salutares, 710. 12 a 
sapore saeculari resipiscere, 769. 7 ut intus per sanctos sanctifi- 
eetvr^ 11. 8, 200. 24, &c. So also when the words are in 
different, and especially in antithetical, clauses ; 362. 23 cum 
statu oris et corporis animum tuum sfiitue, 694. 3 magis durus 
saecularis phUosophiae prauitate quam sophiae dominicae lenitate 
pacijicus, where the verbal opportunity has caused Cyprian to 
overcome his dislike of Greek words, 496. 5 sibi placentes et 
omnibus displicentes, 662. 20 uenit Antichristus sed superuenU 
CAristvSf 259. 1 7 anro te licet . . . condecores sine Christi decore 
deformis es^ 356. 23 et non agnoscis Doniinum Deum tuum cum 
sic exerceas ipse dominatum?, 581. 2 illic fuisse conspicuum 
gentilium multitudini, hie a fratribus conspici (so also 357. 26), 
428. 18, a double example, si accepto Spiritu sancto sancte et 

Th£ Style of St. Cyprian. 227 

fpirit^lUer vivrnvx, cf. 471. IS. Another cbiastiu instance 
is 420. 17 tam parattts nemper ad repugnandum quant est ad 
inpugnatidum parol ut inimicut. But Cyprian's favourite 
instances a,refi<le» and aacerdos with their cognates contrasted 
with perfidia, mcrilegivm, &e. ; 239. 19 «i . . . Jidem primam 
perfidia po»Unore miiiaueril, 769. 12 dmn sacerilofem qiiaerit iu 
iacrilegumfraude errorU inciirrit, 723. 15 qui idolig saerificando 
tacritega aacrificia feeerunl tacerdotium Dei tibi uiiidicare tioii 
ponuHt, 3H2. 23, 675. 5, 777. 20, 2^^. 22, 471. 6, 687. 21, 
737. 22, &c, ; cf. 226. 5, 431. I. 

But the chief use of this figure in Cyprian is for con- 
tinuance of thought, not for antithesis. Such language as 
277. 20 qui in aelenium manere volumut Bet qui ae/entug enf 
iioluntatem farere deliemu*, 233. 11 iit . . . eitigiM. Jideg t/os/nt 
Migilaidiae praemium de Domino receplura, cf. the whole 
passage, 646. 18 operari tu pulat rualictim paste si dixerit 
' agrum peritia otniti ratlicitatis exerce ' sq., where a very rare 
word has heen chosen to keep up the connexion of language, 
307. 39, 427. 1 9, 492. 2, &c. is common. Prolonged parataxis, 
often combined with anaphora or alliteration, ia a marked 
characteristic of Cyprian'a style ; 500. ^ ad . . . dignatioae 
eiu* indignutn ... mandare dig/iaiug eat, 46H. 18 ceier urn quant um 
«uU inde quaerat, qualia quaeatua eat sq., 313. 18 patriam no» 
Hoslram paradiaum cottputamui, pareiifes patriarcha* habile iam 
coepitnua ; quid noit properamus el currimui ul palriam fwtlram. 
videre el parenlei aalutare posaimua, 470. 14 qui , , . per omnet 
coRtumeliaa el poenaa aujieriiim populum ealcaret el premeret ut 
contemptua aacerdoa de svperho populo ullione diuin/i uiitdi- 
rareliir. In the third of these examplea the chiastio pair, 
par. par. jtatr. is to be noticed ; in the fourth the recurrence of 
e. el p. in the first, and the repeated words in the middle of 
Loth clauaea. A more complicated example is 510. 22 qiiml 
interim morimur, ad inmortatHident tnorte trauagredimur, nee 
pof^al uita aelema auceedere ntai hine contigerit exire. nan 
est exitut late aed tranail/ia el temporali itinere deeurto ad 
aelema tranagreasua. Here, beside the repetition of aeterna, 
Q 2 

228 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

three verbs with their cognates and two prefixes are pressed 
into the service. Another elaborate instance is 409. 16 ff. 
nam cum in ilia prima iransgremone praecepti frmitas corporis 
cum inmortaliiate disccMerit et cum morte imfirmiias uenerity nee 
possit Jirmitas recipi nisi cum recepta et inmortalitas fuerii^ 
oportet in hac fragilitate adque infrmitate corporea luctari semper 
et congredi, quae luctatio et congressio sq. The stiff monotony 
of these two passages is not due to carelessness ; they are from 
the most rhetorical of Cyprian's later writings, the Be Bono 
Patientiae, and the words were no donbt deliberately chosen 
and arranged. Similar passages are excessively numerous 
throughout Cyprian's writings; among the best are those 
which begin 261. 17, 361. 9, 393. 9, 501. 5, 647. 4, 693. 4. 
In some instances the language is forced for the sake of 
symmetry ; e.g. 381. 18, where at the end of a long parataxis 
we read et dum times ne pro te patrimonium perdas, ipse pro 
patrimonio pereaSf 493. 16 Anne igitur agonem per prophetas ante 
praedictum, per Bominum commissum, per apostolos gestum sq., 
576. 9 per tales talia petferuntur. In all these and in many 
more cases prepositions are used unnaturally for this rhetorical 
pui-pose. No stronger instance of Cyprian's attachment to 
this figure can be found than his consenting to use the 
unliterary word deijicus (see ch. ii § 1) in parataxis with 
Bens\ 618. 22 nee remanere in ecclesia Beipossunt qui deijicam 
et ecclesiasticam disciplinam sq., and elsewhere. He avoids it 
in every other context. It remains to mention such prolonged 
instances as 582. 19 iacuit inter poenas poenis suisfortior, inclusus 
includentibus maior^ iacens stantibus celsior, uincientibus firmior 
uinctus, sublimior indicantibus iudicatus^ and 695. liut pascendo 
gregi pastor et gubemandae naui gubemator et plebi regendae 
rector redderetur sq. These also are not uncommon in Cyprian. 
§ 17. No figure is more common than anaphora in Cyprian ; 
it is constantly used both in prolonging a period and in 
beginning successive sentences; 319. 5 insiuuantes et docentts 
hoc esse baptisma in gratia maius^ in potestate sublimius, in 
honore pretiosius, baptisma in quo angeli baptizant^ baptisma in 

The Slyle of St. Cypri 


quo Deut el ChrUfM eiut exuUaMf, liapf'uma pott quod iteiim iaiii 
jjeccat, hnptitma quod Jidei no»lrae iMcremenfa coMiuot/naf, bap- 
fitina quoit not de mimdo recedenlei t/atim Deo copufat. in 
aquae baplitmn sq. Not only is hoptiama carried through the 
sentence, but Cyprian also, for the sake of symmetry, here 
uses the %nilgar in inBtmmental — baptitma in quo aiigeli fiapfi- 
zaui — which IB very rare in hia writing's. This may lie 
compared with his uae of deijiciu, mentioned above. Other 
giKjd instances are 368. 9 ff, creihte il/i qui omnino noii fallit. 
credits itli qui iaec omnia fii/ura praedieit. credite illi qui 
credeHlibua praemium uitae aeiemae dabit. credite ilU qui in- 
creduliB aeteraa aapplicia gehennae ardoribut inroffabil, and 
731. 6 ff. dixiiti fane icrvpiilum libi e*»e (o/lendunt de animn, 
i)t quern iiicidiiti. ineidigli, led lua creduHfat^ inreliz/iota. 
iueidinti, sed tua vieiite et volunfate nacrilega, dum incet/a, dum 
inpia, dam vefattda contra fralrem, contra mcerdotem faci/e 
fiMilii libenter et cretUs. In Le Ilab, firg. §^ 8-1 1 begin with 
/oetip/etept (e dieit ei diuilem ; in Mori. 14 (306, 2 ff.) five 
short sentences begin with won timeat ; in Ep. 74. § 8 (805. 
16 ff.) are five questions beginning dat honorem Deo qui, 
followed by »i tic honor Deo dafiir; in Ep. 55. 20 {638. 16 ff,) 
an eightfold example. Other Instances, more or less elaborate 
and regular, are countless; 359. 18, 672. 5, 595. 9, 829. 18, 
&c. '. In some cases the aim is obviously alliteration, as in 
ao2. 7 nince veglem quae uirgo e», uinee nurum. 

The examples of the same word repeated at the beginning 
and end of a clause are few; 479. 20 »alulai vot iliacoiiua et 
qui mecum intttl talatattt, 596. 7 paeem poUicel»r ne perueniri 
pottil ad paeem. salutem promittil ne qvi deliquii uenial ad 
tiilulein, and probably others ; cf. 3155. 1 2 Dei homiHem et 
riilti-rem Dei, 41^. 19, &c. This is more common with cognate 
words, as 686. 18 delicti* plm quant quotl oportet remUlendis 
fiaene ipue detinquo, and with rhyming words ^. 

' Cf. Senec*, N. Q. 3 prolng. quid ril priirc'puun t six timet rapmted. 
' For tbii figure cf. Volkmuin'a Ilkitorit dtr Or. u. HOuut 471, uid Apu- 
leiua. Jfif. 4. 31, II. 5 (76, 13, loS. 7 E;u.). (bough neither ia an »>cl parallel. 

230 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

§ 18. Asyndeton, not to any noteworthy extent of words, 
bnt of clauses, is very characteristic of the style of Cyprian. 
Especially it is his custom to end long periods with a string 
of asyndeta ; e.g. 5. 18 tenacihui semper ifdecebru necesse esl, ut 
solebat, uinolentia inuitet, inflet superbia, iracundia inflammei^ 
rapacifas inquietef, crudelilas stimulet, ambitio delectef, libido 
praecipitet. In this instance Cyprian was no doubt as mnch 
interested in the rhyme as in the asyndeton ; bnt he was so 
well satisfied with the latter that he has repeated the com- 
bination in no less than four other treatises, though less 
completely and with much variation: 225. 9, 299. 17, 423. 6; 
cf. 357. 27, which, however, is not asyndetic. Other good 
examples are 411. 26, 596. 4, 617. 18, 655. 18, 806. i. 

A period formed of two asyndetic clauses of some length, 
often antithetical, is common, as also an unconnected clause 
at the end of a period; cf. 412. 7 docet delinquentibus cilo 
i^noscere, si ipse delinqtias diu et muUum rogare^ 231. 10, 425. 
19, 746. 7, 765. II, 793. 10. Long asyndetic passages, with 
anaphora and alliteration, are frequent ; Mort. § 26 and Z, L, 
§§ 7, 8 are good examples. 

Though Cyprian's use of copulative conjunctions is variable 
and eccentric ^, he does not seem to have used polysyndeton 
as a rhetorical figure. 

§ 19. Amplification by means of synonymous nouns co- 
ordinated is common in Cyprian. The simplest form, of two 
substantives without epithet, is not the most usual. Preces et 
orationes, words without any distinction of meaning in this 
writer, occurs at least eight times (see p. 269 for this and other 
pleonasms concerning prayer) ; scopulos et saxa 474. 5 *, con-- 
flictationes et pressnrae 404. 29, apostatae et desertores uel 
aduersarii et hostes 647. 16, uictimae et iostiae 195. 21, 652. 24, 

^ Cf. the paseages beginning 412. 17, 527. 2a, 587. 14, 668. 2. 

' Tliis is a favourite pleonasm of Seneca, Ben, 4. 22. 3, Dial. a. i. a 9ara et 
rvpes, N. Q, 2. 6, s scopulos rupesqtie, N. Q. 3. 12. 2 saxa eautesque, N. Q. 4. 2. 5 
scopuli eaulium, Apuleius, Met. 5. 27 (94. 26 Ejss.) saxa cautiumf Met. 6. 31 
(116. 27) saxum scruposum. Lucan, 2. 619 scopulosas rupU^ 5. 675 scruposis 
taxis, Ambr. Ep. 6. 13 scrupea rapes. Cyprian baa teopulota saxa 301. 23. 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 


mora et iardHas 497. 4 ; cf. 340. 5, 694, 32, and mnny more. 
Adwrsariii* et Jnimieiia, tjiiacopi et tacerdoiet, and others, 
wbiuh are practically fixed theological terms, will be Found in 
the next chapter. It may be noted that in 3S3, 9 if. there are 
to be found within eight lines inejifig et gtvlli*, metii et sullki- 
ludine, gecrela el af/dita, alia et profunda, captiuug et teriiu«, 
catenii et vhiciilit ; cf. also 309, 24 ff. 

It is not very often that one of these coordinated siib'- 
slantivee defines the other, as in 310. iH verl/it el prorni»»i», 
525. II obsequiit el operilut, 597. 12 ex eorum tertnone adque 
ad»everatione, 600. 2 nnum adque conplexum ; cf. the context. 
A singular abstract with a plural concrete 13 more usual ; vi et 
lapuHbiif 40S. 22, in lalebrU adque in »olifudiiie, . . . infelribut 
el in langi'ore 654. 2 f . ; so 659, 23, 666. j, 679. 4, 688, 1 1, &c. 

Adjectives are often similarly joined ; 363. 1 8 clarum adque 
manifetfum, 257. 13 aOdita et secrete, 618. 14 simiUa et paria, 
168. 26, 780. 9, &c. This is more ueual than two identical 
adjectives attached to a sabatantive; parua et modica de/icta 
682. 3, and again 786. 21, *ub regali ae t^ra*«ica teruitiite 

337. 21, eiiiemodi et tales terui 567. 21 ; c£ Novatian in 
Kp. 30 {^^$, 23) epitciipi uicini et ailpropinqitavtet. 

It ia more usual for Cyprian to double both epithet and 
substantive ; _/a»wi mendax et fal»u» nimnr 601. 7, ditsimulatio 
nulla, nulla cunelatio 358. 23 ; for this use of digtimnlalio see 
p. 301, pares ambo el uterqve eonsitaile* 584. ^,praeima mors et 
iiicina areessitio 298. 25, mandala diuina ac praecepta caeleslia 

338. J2, 378. 21, and oft«n ; cf. 356. 18, 419. 11, 432. 35, 
580. so, 79H. 14, &c. 

Double adverbs are also common ; 290. 8 lollicUe el caute, 
649. 12 ineaute et lemere, 309. 34 merito ac iure, 648. I uberius 
<ic plenius, &c. ; cf. 675. 1 2 ultro et criwine »no perire. But 
as a rule they are employed for alliteration rather than 
simply to fill out the sentence- 
When synonymous and even not synonymous nouns are 
preceded by a preposition, this preposition is often repeated 
for the sake of symmetry ; 505. 23 in arto el in anguslo 

232 The Style and Language of Si. Cyprian, 

Uiuere^ 593. 4 a uultibu4 adque ab oculis ue^trig, ib. ii per 
minai et per imuUas perfidorum^ 731. 20 in carcere et in catenis. 
In the two last alliteration is partly the motive. Other 
instances of sach repeated prepositions are 404. 12, 421. 4, 
606. 10, 641. 22, 654. 2, 3, 6. 

When synonymous verbs and participles are coordinated, 
it is more usoally with a view to alliteration than to simple 
amplification. For snch forms as addimvs et adiungimus^ 
recreati et renati^ &c. see § 15. Cyprian's otiose manner of 
citing Scripture is mentioned in the next chapter, § 6. In 
addition to the examples cited there, good instances will be 
found in Ep, 74. §§ 3, 11 and Lap*. 15. Beside such cases 
there are many others, e.g. nererie et metnis 380. S^/estinat 
ft properat 414. 27, adgno9cant adqfte inUUegant 599. 4, quam 
(sc. ])er9tcMtionem) iste noto quod am euadendae et lucrandae^ 
damnafioni^ excipiene iaee omnia eommisit et miscuit, vt qui eici 
df ecele^ia et excludi kabebat sq. 619. 12, GoliatA interfecto et 
of)e ac dignatione diuifia lanfo io9(e delefo 422. 12. 

There are some instances of double synonjrmons phrases ; 
1 96. 1 2 fugiant castae virgines et pudicae ineestarum eultus, 
habitue inpudicarum, lupanarum^ insignia, ornamenta meretrieum ; 
cf. 363. II ruinis rerum, iacturls opum, dispendio militum, 
deminutione castrorum *. 

Though Cyprian's usual amplification may be expressed by 
the formula AB + AB, in some cases he varies it by doubling 
the qualifying synonym in the second half, thus using the 
form AB + AAB; e.g. 388. 21 bis delinqnis et geminum ac 
duplex crirnen admittiSj 601. i neque enim facile promenda sunt 
el incavte ac temere pnllicanda quae sq.* ; cf. 365. 18 exul- 

* For lucrari « ejfugert see p. 308. 

'^ Cf. 699. 35 lenonam et lupanarum in$ignia ; see Hausdeiter in Wdlfflin's 
Archiv, 8. 145, Wolfflin, ib. p. 8, on Spwt, 5 (App. 8. 5), and Gorges' 
Lejrieon^ «. v. In all these cases lupana - meretrix, 

' I. e. exercHuwn, as in 693. 11 and elsewhere in Cyprian. 

* There are other instances to which the references are nnfortnnately lost ; 
quite sufficient in all to prove that this form is no accident, bat a deliberate 

-Hetorical device. I have not noticed it in Apuleius. 

The Style of Si. Cyprian. 233 

t4iiit Kmper in Domino el laetantyr et gaudtnt in Deo mo, 669. 

ClaDseB identical in nieaiiin» are not nneommon ; e.g. 
J49. 1 7 nemo *ejallaf, nemo ttecipiaf,, 1 95. 7 diuitem le sentiant 
pauperen, hcupletem te sentiant iwUgente*, 581. 7 quottiam 
temper ffaiidium properai nee polegi mora* ferre laetitia, 426. 
2 ff., a triple instance, 247. 2, 363. I3, &c So Novatian in 
^■P- 3° (553- 20) non tit minor medictiia qitam uvtuug ett, non 
tint minora remedia qiiam/wiera^, and probably the same writer 
in Ep. 36 (572. 12). 

It was naturally more diiBcnIt to find three dynonyms than 
to find two, and therefore eases are less common in Cyprian, 
though by no means rare ; e.g. 1 98. 7 opvt Dei el /ac/iira 
eiitt el pla^tica, 305. 6 ii/frmiiat et Inhecillilat et, naifitax, 
284. 32 pacifcot et eoneordei adque unauimct, 400. II qnitqve 
fenis patient et milit e»t, 730. 15 adullot el prouectot et maioret 
natv, 310, I »i timulata, ti fefa, »i fiicata nidenlnr ette qiiue 
dicimvs, ib. 4 iuprobat deuiqve apoilotiit Pautim et oliurgat et 
riitpat, 377. 16 reuelat anqelut et wanifetlal et jtrmat, 61K. 3 
hottit qnietit, tranqiitltitatin advfrmrins, pacit inimicut, 31 H. 3 
rircutiinenit netrimn, fallit tNcaiitttm, decipit inperilum ; this 
last ia preceded by three ti clauses. ^ 

The enbordination of synonymous substantives is also verj' 
common; 217. 33, 330. 17 eoneordia jiactt, 2S5. 11 concoTiUae 
paj-, 232. I zeti ditcordia, 198. 30, 226. II temeritiiti* andicia, 
384, 14 uiffor eenturae, 744. 16 ecH»ura vigorit, 301. 8 morbi 
valetvdo, 5, 10, 15. 26 te/iium vetvttalit, 618. 33 actut coh- 
uertatio, 300, 13 termonnm contiiquia (cf. termo coaloquii in 
Kp. 75, 826. 8), 731. 17 lajitnt niiiiae, 201. lO amictiis uetlit, 
7. 14, 806. 11 teeuenorvm virvx, 502. 17, 503, 30, 632, 19 
exitut mortii, 490. 11 cerlaminit proe/ium, 202. ii, 214. 12, 
338. 19, 331. 6, 318. 15, 500. 15, 617. I, 775. 10, 8.-0. So 

■ Novalii 

Hi. cb 


eerUinly lunicd rh- li.rie In tho xuiic ichunl with Cyprii.n 
Ii* MUriii'U M eflicl in language ftm thu Htne u tliEin. 

difleniDPe Frurii both is Ifae pftrede nf Ic^irnl methii'l, in 
le three writen are of oiune nidcly different in vuc»bularj-. 

234 T^f^ Style and Language of Si. Cyprian. 

with gerands; 194. 11 concupiscendi libido^ 602. 14 amUgendi 
serupulus^ 479. ii introeundi aditu9. Instances where the 
dependent substantive is of narrower application than the 
other are frequent, e.g. hoBpUium carcerii 494. 2, 577- a^» 
carcerum claustra 828. 8, cu9iodia carceris 582. 15, obsequium 
operations 503. 18 (cf. 525. 11), iubsidium cibi 283. 10, 
quantitas nutneri 338. 7, uoluntatif imperium 308. 16, con- 
uiciorum probra, contumeliarum Indibria 402. 9, 10. Two 
synonymous nouns combined with a synonymous genitive 
occur 373. li fragilUatU humanae infirmity atque inbeciUlttu. 

A synonymous substantive and adjective also stand often 
together; 15. 5 inmortalitas aeternay 301. 23 scopulosa saxa, 
355. 26 morbida ualetudo^ 421. ii maliuolus litwr^ 422. ii 
milU lenitas, 578. 13 multiplex numero^itasy 583. 14 generota 
nobilitas, 644. 11 caenow uorago (cf. in Ep, 75 uorago ei 
caenum 824. 21), 702. i ultronea uoluntate = ultro, 783. 6 
adumbrata simulation 364. 20 aeuum temporale^ 35. 10, 224. 2 
conpendium breuians, 7-17 increpantes minae^ 287. 6 collecta 
breuita9\ cf. 272. 8^. I have only noticed one instance of 
a double synonymous adjective with a synonymous substan- 
tive, 313. 4 turbida et procellosa tempestas (cf. 501. 21, 618. 2). 

Examples of a synonym or synonyms under a government 
different from that of the adjective are also frequent, e.g. 
189. 21 cauti ad sollicitudinem, 214. 6 exundantis copiae largitae^ 
230. 20 aliquu fallentis astutiae calliditate decepti, 250. 3 
praepropera Jestinatione temerarius (and similarly 528. 9), 
424. 25 remedium curae medentis^ 578. 1 1 inmota et iuconcussa 
fide stabiles^ 624. 22 aestuantis animi solUcitudo susperua^ 689. 3 
inbecillitate kumanae mediocritatis inualidiis, 617. 20 auaritiae 
inexplebilis rapacitate furibundus^ adrogantia et stupore superbi 
tumoris inflatuSy 192. 12,357.28,422. 11,478. 12,807. I7,&c. 

Otiose pronouns are not uncommon. It is, of course, 
possible that many of these are not inserted for purposes of 
rhetoric, but simply through carelessness. Yet the large 
number of similar cases in Apuleius and Arnobius makes it 

*■ Similarly in 501 . 1 7 exiguam tkmtium paucitaiem should probably be read. 

The Style of Si. Cyprian. 235 

certain that this was a rhetorical device in Cyprian also. 
A curious coordination occurs twice; 668. 14 conuicia eoruvi 
quibu* ge et uHam »uam coif'idie laeeranl, 718. 13 no6i» enint 
adque oeuiU no»lri» . . . accipere qui nnfi suni inereinenlum 
nidentur ; cf. in the Roman Kp. 36 (572, (6) nos adipie animvm 
nottrum. The api^b-ition »fw, ego et tiberatU occurs 606, 9. 
The repetition of antecedent after relative is rare ; 498. 10 
iuitene qui luueni), 752. 21 agni qui aptug, and 720. 5 ; cf. 
771, I «t quia oui» iam/ueral Aane oitem . . .pastor recipiat. 

But most of the examples in Cyprian are of the repetition 
of a personal or demonstrative pronoun under the same or 
a different construction, in either case without helping the 
sense'. So 607, 7 no» enim thguUt naulganlibtu . . . noit 
icimut horiatot e»te ill sq., 623.6 «l se putel . . . palam iamferre 
se jioite {the true reading), 587. 17 vt etiam nunc ego . . . 
omaet opio we tio»iie='l wish to know all ; ' cf. 276. ao et idea 
Chrittiani qui in oratioue apptllare patrem Deiim coepimiis noi 
et ui rei/num Dei nobis ueniat oramut. A superfluous demon- 
strative pronoun appears after a substantive or a relative, 
e.g. 593. 23 {pretlij/teri) qui ad diiorum preibyterortim uelerem 
nt'quitiam retpondeulet, licut illi Sutamtam pud'ieam corrumpere 
ct uiolare conati lanl, tic et hi adallerinia doclrinu ecclesiae 
pudiciliam corrumpere , . , conantur, 615. 10 in confefsofibus 
. , . nemo non tocitttn »e et participem eorum, gloriae conputat, 
784. 16 quod auicM quidam diciint eii qui in Samaria baptizati 
/uerant , . . iantum super eos mannm inposifam esse ; cf. ib. 24, 
606. 12, 638. 6, &c. PoBsesaives are often used needlessly; 
7. 4 si iiisdtiae uiam teiieas inlapsa Jirmilale uettigii Ijii, 340. 
19 mater . . . tarn grande t/iarlyriam Deo praebeni virtttie 
oculorum suorvm quant praebuerant filii eius tormentis et passions 
membrorvm ; for suus a large collection, which can be at least 
doubled, is given by Hartel ». v. The 6ui>erfluous eius has 
a similar use; to !Iart«l's list s.v. is may be added, 433, 18, 

' cr. Apul. Mtt. ;. 15 (93. 10 Eju.) ncc U rartilt prardpilio ftl vlla piarlU 
acnnilo It gentrt perimai; GoU. ). 3. i H tttUrani . . . imrrfliani tain 
urltia »c|. : Arncbiiu 7. 30 (364. 1 7 Reifl'.), ic, with HilJirlirmnl'ii uote, p. 499. 

236 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

503. 14, 595. 25, 670. 8, and many more. Iku% ei Chrufu$ 
eius, if the eiu9 be saperflaoiis, is mentioned in the next 
chapter, § 4. 

Suchnses as 582. 26 ^^ 91 aliquis Thomae similis extlterii qtti 
minus auribuB credat^ nee oculorum Jides deest ut quis quod audit 
et uideat^ and 547. 12 ne quid eonseieniiam uestram laterei quid 
mihi 9criplum sit, qnidque ego reteripserim are not uncommon ; 
quis is a pronoun which Cyprian used often and some- 
times strangely ^ : quid deinde illud, quale est ut or quod sq., 
quiddeinde illud, quam sq., and similar phrases are used several 
times in rhetorical questions ; 9. 6, 307. 3. 359. 16, 507. 20, 
792. J 2, and elsewhere. 

Otiose pronouns in apposition are rare in Cyprian and not 
remarkable, e. g. hie idem 570. 4, 584. 20, is ijae 359. 16, 
5^3* ^3> ^°^) ^ A substitute for quiequie^ talie . . . quisque 
^^5- ^5 ; cf. quod totum hoc in Ep, 75 (81 r. 27)^. 

A verb synonymous with its subject or a participle with 
the noun in agreement, occurs several times ; 213. i, 4 originem 
ab UHO incipientem . . . exordium ab unitate proficiscitur^ 542. 12 
denique huius seditionis origo iam coepit^ 398. 25* &c. ; syno- 
nymous with an adjective 490. 4 exulto laetus et gratulor ^, 
488. 23 cnm opinio dubia nutaret, 430. 17 oratio iugis omniuo 
non cessetf &c. ; with the adjective as object ^60.^12 multiplica^ 

' Bat these may be merely c&reless language, as is that of Caldonius, 
537* 13 **^ 9fid uidear temere aliquid prtiesumere, 

' To syntax rather than to style belongs the nse ot plusquam quod for pint' 
quam, e.g. 687. 15 aui plus enistimemut cui inpugnandum potae hamana 
conamina qtutm quod ad protegendum praeualet diuina tateUij cf. 321. 10, 
526. 14, 686. 19, and elsewhere ; bat in 623. 10 the quod is omitted. Illud 
or hoc introducing an ut, qitod or aoc. inf. clause is frequent, 305. 14, 547. 15, 
713. ao, 756. 6, 765. 5, 799. 14. Through the weakening of ti^ as a final 
particle — its normal use in Cyprian is consecutive or explanatory — txd hoc or 
propter hoc are used, the former especially, to give the final sense tout or t»e. 
To Harters list of tite former may be added 14. 8, 15. 8, loa. 23 and very 
many more; propter hoc vt 839. 12, propter hoe . , . ne 653. 9, propter hoe 
quod 756. 9. Similarly, to strengthen quod, htte ipeo, ex hoe ipro, &c are 
often used, e.g. 321. i, 406. 14, 720. 22, &c., cf. hoc i^jso H 195. 15, hoc ip$o 
quo 387. 14, 512. 4, hoe ipeo quia 693. 4. 

' Oratulari^gaudere is common in Cyprian; cf. 545. 6 laetatue eatU et 
plurhaum gratulatue quod sq. ; see p. 308. 

The Style of St. Cyprtan. 

I »tt})jilicia. A synonymous adverb and verb are also 
eommon : 569. a pert'tnaeiler periitiere, joy. 1 7 riirm* iierare, 
540. 3 UK delicto priori adiciant oiliiic alinii lie/ictuvi (cf, 249, 
22, 254. 3, 792. 17), 5, 6 denno reiiaioi, 640. 10 lUaiio redire, 
591. I! deniw reiiouare, 391, H ante praediceie, which is very 
common. Indeed verbs formed with prae are us nally preceded 
by «n/5, as ante praeuenire 347. 14, ante praemittere 720. i, 
ante praernonere 768, 22, atite jiraettrvire 209. i 
montlrare 704, 12. Both rfestto aud ai(/e occur together in 
706. 13 dttiuo jtraecanitiir e( ante jiraeiUeituT, unless, as is very 
probable, item dtuno go together. Instances of a synonymous 
verb and noun connected by a preposition are not frequent ; 
15. 36 uon haee unqvam pTornmbel in laptum teitio tietimialis, 
188. 22 per otnnia trrHitud* ofjsequia Redem/doris Imperio 
pareamut, 431. 13 ut t/iuiiia et gpiritiilU »ege» in eopiam feeundae 
memt exuberel, 785. 17 arboret fnigtferai intra 
iniut incliixit, 243. 17, 362. 20, &0. Nin cum Trnjimo comilante 
uenit»ent, 633. 3, may be classed with these, and ,577. 8 
reurrtentit anui uolubikm circutum, A synonymous ablative 
is more common, usually in elaborate phrases containing other 
forms of ampHRcation ; 424. $ quaiitoque iUe eiti inuuletar 
S'lccetnii meliure jrrofecerit tanto inuidui in tnaiim iufimdium 
liunrit i-fnibua inariieKit, 393. 20 qnaudo mundi lege decurrent 
uicibu* attemi» how reuoluta luccedii, 643. 23 quando , , . uata 
lignea diuiitt ardorit ineendio conerementur, 670. 7 eutn tormetitit 
craciabiindtis jJammae cremaii/is ardoriina aduratar, ^^6. 16 cum 
in sece»»u priuatig preeibut oramia, and similarly 275. 18, 501. 
9, 567. 2, &c., 734. 7 ceni» adqiie ep«li» etiam nunc inhiant 
qnariim crapulam tnper siipeT»tilem iu dies crmlifate riictabanl, 
and many more. Cf. the periphrastic amor quo ililii/'n 4. 5, 
cari qtiiM di/iffimii9 300. 35. 

Temjioral and local adverbs are oftt'n combined, others 
rarely. Si« tmiltupiqiie differtnr 400. 7. 412. 8, 623. 14, itatim 676. 3, ieor»um forio 671. 9; oS. prima et inter 
initio 625. 13. laniiamque seems only to occur once, 8-^3. 7 ; 
tamlnii ium 726. 10. Qiiaiit/o adSuc et, strictly temporal, is 

2.38 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

read, 477. i ^. An adverb with a synonymous prepositional 
expression is very common, though the adverbs so employed 
are few; hie in ecclesia 584. 17, ilfic in carcere 576. 10, illic 
apud clericos 479. 3, illinc a nobis 618. 4, inde ad not 617. 18, 
istic in mnndo 301. 14^ islic ajjud fratres 678. 17, istinc de 
eaeculo 310. 13, intu9 in ecclesia 647. 16, /oris extra eccUsiam 
214. 25, are instances of the usual types. Statim is often 
similarly used; in prima statim natiuitatif exordia 243. 11, 
a prima statim persecutiouis die 679. 21, 210. 3, 272. 20, 337. 

2, 401. 10,405. 18, 482. I, 721. 9, &c. ; so also adAnc 354. 

3, 797. 21. An adverb synonymous with an adjective occurs 
272. 8 breuiter colleciu (cf. coUecta breuilas 287. 6), 808. 10 
quo minus aqua continua perseiieranter ac iugiter jlueret, 519. 
15 quando ipsa ante mater nostra pacem . . .prior sumpserit ; 
cf. 421. II nan prius alterum deiciens . . . quam ipse zelo ante 
deiectus, and 695. 6. Two very Apuleian expressions are 
541. 3 Ubellos gregaiim multis dare and 598. 21, cited above, 
p. 201. There remain the otiose uses of magis^ and adkuc. 
Mag is ac mag is is used at least twelve times, 225. 8, &c., magis 
followed by a comparative thrice ; 397. 10 quid magis sit n^l 
utilius ad uifam uel mains ad gloriani guam sq.^, 420. 19, 583. 
17. Magis is followed by an otiose plus 513. 12. Ad hue is 
used like magis to strengthen a comparative; to Hartel's 
instances add 356. 9, 357. 21, 694. 1 ; adhuc magis together 
404. 8, ultra adhuc 287. 12 and 667. 2, adhuc insuper^ 359. 

^ Et tunc quid em gladio oceidebanturj quando adhuc et circumcisio canialit 
manebat. Harters Btatement, «. v. quandOj that the word is used perraro with 
the indicative is an overstatement. The infttances, both temporal and logical, 
are fairly numerous. 

' This a<lverb, which gives Cyprian great difficulty, has many irregular uses, 
not ^veti in HarteFs Index^ which belong rather to syntax than to style. 
Maffis tarn, of which he gives two instances, also occurs 549. 17, but is confined 
to the Roman letters. 

' This is not carelessness, but no doubt a superfluous word introduced for 
parallelism with the maitu that follows. It is at the opening of De Bono Pat,, 
and Cyprian always bestows his best rhetoric upon the beginning and end of 
his writings. 

* Adhuc imtuper is confined to a short period of Cyprian*s writings. It 
occurs four times in Ep. 59, once in 67, once in 73, twice in Ad Dem,, once in 

The Style of St. Cyprian. 239 

22, 24, 681. 2, &e., adhiic imuper et 404. 19, poit ista mlinc 
insuper 683. 8, et pot/. U/a adkuc intuper et (>^^. 13 (of. H post 
itia adiuc 403. i), immo ailAuc intuper 779. 16. Adkuc u»qne 
49^. 18, 679. 13 appears to be first used by Tertallian ; quoad 
vique 301. 14 had been ttlroady used in the O. L. Biblo. 

Copulative oonjaiictiona are constantly multiplied \ et . . . 
quoque 598. 5, nee . , . quoque 427. 22, etinni . . . ft 677, 22, 
adiiac quoque 750. 13, eed et constantly (see Hartel's Index), 
ned iiec, aetl aeque 319. 31, 390. 9, 517, II, 631, 14, 805, 1, 
&C., nee nott et 238. 14, 318. 23, 339. 19, Sec, nee non . . . 
quoque 409. 14; cF. nee non etiam , , , quoque of Novatian, 
551. 12. Parifer et is of constant occurrence, e.g. 600. i r, 
21, almost always connecting long words ; simiil el is rare ; 
t-o Hartel's list sbould perhaps be added 510. 3 ; simUiter et 
only 399. 8. Benuo qiioqne occurs 190. 8, ifeiu deniio often, 
374. 6, 751. 1, &c. Poreo aatetii ia common in Cyprian's 
latest writinga, 374. 31, 419. 7, and in the £pp. on the 
Baptismal controversy. The only earlier instance ia in Ep. 
58, 6_59, 8. Scilicet eerie is read once, in a badly written 
passage, 339. 8, The list of otiose conjunctions might be 
made much longer. 

Prepositions are used otiosely with uicariue and »oliii ; 
pro me . . . uicariaa IHlerae 480. 13, and similarly 587. 13, 
656. 14, 697. 20, me eolum sine vobi» 593. 6 and so 294. 12 ; 
cf. 594. 23 *ibi toll. 

It remains to notice certain cases of contingere, dehere, ce»c, 
}ios»e used simply to expand the sentence; 433. 12 peruenire 
, . .tit eitm uiilere confingal = uideamut, 547. 5 quorum leinporn 
inhtttranil lauta felicilas ut aelale nostra uidere continfjeret 
jiTohatos seruo* Dei eq., 509. 13 quamquam causa conpelleret ul 
ijiee ad uos prnperare el uenire deberem, and similarly 827. ai ' ; 

R. Fal. : onm kIso in Ep. 7£ (8)6. 8). The comiiiDBtion is not notiued 1>y 
Georgw undur ei Liter woni, 

' Yet tbii rftbere may be purely auxiliftrj ; cf. Cod. LugJ. Qen. 19. 11 at 
iflroirt rfeirrm - Sitm ilalXSai. cited by ThiBliasnn in Wblfflin's^rc-Ain, ). 65, 
Mid 487. 6 In the Rotn*n Ep. 6. Coepi—t uid ineipen ub certainly lued hy 
Cj^prlui u ■triot Buiiltariee. 

240 The Style and Language of St. CyPrian. 

510. 22 n qui sunt qui . . . indigeani^ 502. ii utinam loci 
conditio pcrmitfcret ut ipse nunc praesens esse possem^ 404. 17, 
505. 12, &c. ; cf. 602. 18, cited on p. 222. Fideri, &g^n» is 
used superfluously in a number of passages where there is 
certainly no idea of seeming, as 309. 27 spei nostrae et fidei 
praenaricatores sum us y si simulata^ si ficta^ si fucata uidentur 
esse quae dicimus^ where uidentur esse must be for sunt ; cf. 
223. 15, 227. 10, 714. 8, 761. 10, 809. 12, &c.^ 

§ 20. Hitherto examples of amplification have been chosen 
which were not cases otfigura etymologica^ or other rhetorical 
devices. Of figura efymologica in the strict sense * there are 
not many instances in Cyprian. Taking them in Landgrafs 
order, the following is perhaps a complete list; 259. 15 induere 
indumenta^ 432. 11 curricula decurrere, 578. 21 uita uiuifur, 
512. 4 superantem superare^ 621. 17 and 725. 9 tenere tenoren^^ 
710. i^pofo poculo^ \ 425. 21 inluminati Christi lumine, ^01. 
7 oratione communi . . . oranteSy 672. 8 discidio seindere (cf. 
231. 9), 768. 14 unctione unctus ; 728. 14 episcopum episcopi ei 
iudicem iudicis ; 3. 4 tetnpestiunm tempus, 238. 2 and 723. 15 
sacrijlcia sacrilega, 399. 5 sacra sacrilega ; 465. 4 and 581. ^prae- 
sensadesse ; 408. 19 and constantly omnis omnino ; 473. 2 con-- 
tinenter tenere. Besides these there only remains magis ac 
magis, already mentioned ; magis wagisque is never used by- 

§ 21. Sufficient evidence has been given to show that 
Cyprian's style is that of a man so thoroughly trained in a 
rhetorical school that he never, even in his most hasty writing, 
fails to show his education. It is a style which is essentially 

^ Some instances are purely passive, as 622. 15 etsi uidentur in eecUtia ewe 
eizania, which states that they are, not that they seem to he, present, 67^ 19 
eum talis . . . inpugnari uidetur, appant guts xnpugnet. There is a strange 
passive use of uideri in De Rebnpt. 7 (A 78. 9^. 

* As defined by G. Landgraf in Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlangenni, 
vol. ii. pp. 1-69, * eonpottitio duorum congenerun uocahulorum quae Hem 
grammaiicae legibus artiMime inter te conexa unam eamque amplifieatam alque 
disertifsimam notionem efficiaut* 

' The frequent oblationem offerre, since it is a fixed part of the ChrisUan 
vocabulary, cannot be regarded as an instance of accuaaiiuat ttymologieue. 

The Style of St. CypHan. 241 

one with that of ApiileiuSj qdiI had no donbt been learnt by 
both on Africon soil. But how far it waa peculiar to Africa '\» 
a more doubtfnl point. In ite literary aspect it is closely 
akin to that of Ammianus and the PanegyriiitB ; in its gram- 
matical to that of Vibruviiis '. Thoiigli it is certiiin that 
provincial peculiarities existed, and certain also that many of 
them have been detected, yet the uuconscions degeneration of 
grammar and the conscious efforts after rotundity of expression 
were common to the whole empire. A constant emigration 
eeema to have Wen going on from southern Italy to Carthage, 
as now to Bnenoa Ayres, and (he connexion between Rome 
and Africa eonid not have been closer than it waii. Africans 
of Aoman descent no doubt did their best to retain, and the 
educated natives to assume, the characteristics in language 
and otherwise of Italians. It is therefore dangerous to regard 
as peculiarities of African writei-s what may only apjtear to be 
such, because comparatively little has survived of the literature 
of other provinces in the third century. What would have 
been the strongcBt possible evidence, could it have been 
sustained, a Semitic element in African Latin, has been 
abandoned by the author of the theory *. There are of course 
local elements in the style of Cyprian as of other writers, and 
tho present tendency of inquirers is certainly not to under- 
estimate theni ; but his style is imdoubtedly that 1 
educated, though careless, Latin writer, trained in and 
satisfied with the fashions of his day. There is no sign 
that he hud any training but the rhetoricaL Legal terms 
occasionally occur ; but every Koman knew something of law, 
and nothing indicates that Cyprian had a professional 
knowledge. Of philosophy, in spite of his acquaintance with 
Seneca, he shows no sign. That formal logic, of which 
Novatian makes so pedantic a display, and in which his 

' Aiietoutin J.PrBun'»B*mffrftMrn7m tut S^tlm dit Vilrat, BnuiWrgiiSS^, 
' K, Sitll. Lotale Fer-eAierfenAeitoi, p. gj ff. Ho aurrendcn. it, with 

wiDie rHWrvaliuiu, ia the JakrabeneM, tSyi, p. 146. Vet U Dot vucliu Dti 

for a Dtu 7^8. 14 a. UebrmiBui ? 

242 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

philosophy, derided by Cyprian, appears to have consisted \ is 
never employed. His full command of all the technical 
devices of the rhetorician, chastened only to some extent by 
the seriousness of his thought, his amplitude of expression 
and the smoothness with which his periods move — it would 
be possible to collect from the few pages of Cornelius almost 
as many abnipt transitions as from all Cyprian's writings, — 
the copiousness and originality of his vocabulary, all display 
him as one who exercised the thoughts and the cultore of the 
old world upon the problems of the new. It is recognized 
now that the older scholars were wrong in classing together 
all the Christian authors as writers of ecclesiastical Latin. 
No such Latin existed till the monasteries were established, 
and the great Fathers had written. And there is no author to 
whose style the term can be less appropriately applied than 

* Fronto also {J)t Eloquentia, p. 146, Naber^ appears to regard foirmal logic 
an of the essence of philosophy, and ridicules it accordingly. Cf. PB.-Apu]. l>e 
JDogm. Plat. iii. p. 972 Oud. (ed. Groldbacher in Wiener Studien, 1885, 
p. 267. 10), and Apul. Flor, 1. 7. 



§ I. Deuty &c. % 2, Divine actioo, creation, miraoles, Uw. § 3. Divine 
favour and disfavour. § 4. Christ and His work. § 5. The Holy Spirit, 
prophecy, visions. §6. Scripture. § 7. Types. ( 8. Chi'tttiaMi8,Jl(feli8,&c 
$ 9. Eccletfia, &c. $ 10. Laity. $ 11. Bishop. $ la. Other Oniers and 
Ordination. $ 13. Councils. 9 14* Proselytes and catechumens. $ 15. 
Baptism and accompanying Rites. $ 16. The Eucharist. S I7* Prayer. 
§ 18. The place of worhsip. (19. Preaching. ( 20. Manner of address, 
f rater, &c. $ ai. Payment of the clergy. $ 22. Christian virtues. $ 23. 
Alms. $ 24. Christian conduct and progress. $ 25. Sin and Penitence. 
$ 26. Freewill and conscience. $ 27. Death and Heaven. $ 28. The devil 
and hell. $ 29. World and Heathen. § 30. Persecution, Confession, 
Martyrdom and Lapse. $ 31. Heresy. $ 32. Greek words. $ 33. New and 
rare substantives. $ 34. Adjectives. § 35. Pronouns. § 36. Verbs. $ 37. 
Adverbs and Conjunctions. $ 38. Preponitions, &c 

In this chapter the attempt is made to give a full acconnt 
of the theological and ecclesiastical terms used by Cyprian. 
The subject is that of language, not of doctrine or history, 
and though the latter cannot be avoided, and indeed it is 
hoped that this paper may be of use for their study, they 
have not been introduced exce])t in illustration of the words 
employed. Illustration from other writers has been avoided, 
and the history of words before and after Cyprian's day passed 
over, unless light could in some way be thrown upon Cyprian's 
motive in using them. Biblical terms also^ and especially 
those of St. Paul, have been omitted, as belonging to the 
common stock of all Christian writers. 

In Cyprian's day the Latin tongue was stiU adjusting itself 
to the Faith, and the Christian vocabulary was unsettled. 
Cyprian was one of those who had most influence in fixing 
it. A good deal may be leamt, not only from the words 

R 2 

244 ^^ Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

which he nsed, but from thoee which he avoided or attempted 
to displace, of the course of Christian thought as well as of 
the Latin language. His hostility to Greek terms, for 
instance, which I have illustrated, must be regarded as an 
early sign of severance between Eastern and Western 
Christendom. But the limits of this paper leave room only 
for the statement of facts, not for the drawing of conclusions. 
I have concluded with a selection of new and i*are words^ 
not of Christian significance. Want of space has compelled 
me to omit much that is interesting in this respect. 

§ I. I)en9y with Cyprian's love for abstracts, is paraphrased 
in many ways, e.g. 519. 16 quando . . . no9 diuina protectio 
reduces ad eccUsiam suamfecerit ; 680. 16 m^ uulneratoM diuina 
clemefifia in ecclena sua curet ; diuina cetisura 496. 19, 737. 8, 
&c. ; diuina maieslas, pietas^ betiignitas^ bonitas^ indulgetUia^ 
dignatio 250. 21, 274. 5, 579. 3, &c. 

Deifas is not used by Cyprian. It first occurs in De Aleatt, 
7 (A 100. 9) ; an evidence, as far as it goes, for the later 
authorship of that tract. Diuinitas, in the only passage where 
Cyprian uses it (339. 26), perhaps stands for diuinatio, though 
a comparison with 661. 19 renders this doubtful. Triuif-as 
occurs 292. 6, 782. 4, 791- 22, after TertuUian ; diuina Jimiitas 
215. 7 must mean union of Persons. 

Though Domiuus, when it stands alone, is normally for 
ChristuSy yet Beus and Dotninus are also used interchangeably 
and in combination ; for rhetorical purposes they often occur 
at the ends of parallel clauses, e.g. 232. 22 diem Domini H 
iram Dei, 757, 3 dignatione Dei et ordinatione Domini. In 320. 
13 praeferamus . . . Demn et Christum diabolo et antichristo 
Cyprian has gained three rhetorical figures at the cost of one 
false antithesis. 

Beside diuinus the adjective deijicus occurs. The word, 
which seems to belong to vulgar Latin ^, is used rarely and 

' It is used by the illiterate Lucianus in Ep, 22 (533. 12), in De AUatL 11 
(A 103. 16), several times in the De MontibuSf by the translator of £p, 75 
(815 4), in Sent, 8 (441. 9). Cyprian only uses the word thrice, and each 
time deliberately, for the sake of parataus with Deut; 429. 15, 618. aa, 742. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 


only for s epccial rhetorical purpose iti6t.ead of the iisubI •/iu1hv/i, 
for which caeletiU is a frequent substitute. Domin'eni^ which 
19 very common, seems to be ased indefinitely, e. p. 430. 16 ait. 
in manif/w diiiina lerfio,iit»e>iaihu«(lominicn cppi/a/io, where the 
words ai'e simplv used for variety, as with I)eii» and Dotnitiun 
above, as well as in the stnet sense, e. ^. liomittiea ronfe»»in 
(of Christ) 319. 15, 656. 21, though the latter is more usual. 
Jknainictit (sc. rftc*) = Sunday 5K1. 8; for flonitticum = 
eittiarinlia see p. 266 ; tpirita/iM, in the corresponding sense, 
is also common '. 

5 2. Divine action is often eKprested by iHuinU.iit, 433. i, 
689. 4, &c. ; by proHiilmfer, for alliteration, 607. 19; by 
iie«ujier in 356. 7 for the same reason ; by cae/itit» in the 
rhetorical vJ(/ Boualuni, 6. 5. Similarly ajnritaHler, e.g. qnwi 
tpiriia/i/er jiraecijiitur = a Spiriht sancto, 713, 1^ ; d. humanilvt 
taedMil. ptirtemtioneM, i.e. 'inflicted by men," 366. 10. 

Acts of power such as miracles are maffnaHa, mirabilia, both 
several times, magnalia et mirabilia 674. 9, mirabilia uiriutvm 
401. S, uirtvlei 323. 17, and often. HHraculum occurs in the 
sense of mira/io 581. 3, 583. 33, not in that of miracle. The 
nearest approach to it is 582. 15 miraciilum =■ 
ronliKtatio mrabilit; cf. 195. I qniliia miiUa magnalia cnm 
miracufo faeeret ^ mirifice*. 

Cyprian does not often mention the work of creation '. 

ai. In 419. Ig, 74). )i there a the Turlher rcMun that to wrile iliaina 
dufipUua, u would hkce ortra natursl, would be cuntnrjr tu hia rntea of 
comjajiition; we p. iij. TertolUiin's drtu deiftcui (»B^ve) in Apol. II i» 
probkbly ■ coinage of tiii own ; the word !■ carefully avoided by the nvjiv 
eluocal of the ChriitiBii writerg; even Luoifer aad Lactantiui, in niiite of 
their deht to Cyprian, reject it. It certainly in Cyprian liu do laeanin); 
other than that of <f;uiRDi ; cf. reyiflco Iujti Virgil. Atn. 6. 6oc„ eatificui fien. 
Pkatdr. 169. 

' Betide thia u*e tpirllali* ii constantly and ai practicall; eqnlvalcnt to 
CArtftinRut or ttHetnu, a. g. 41S, 10, 545. 9, 5H3. S. Caeleilit kod ipirilali* 
are very often ombined; 191. ii, 139. 9, 310. 10, 611. 8, ke. 

' Thia ii« otean ia very oominiin in Cyprian; 588. 15 cum pan ^ pae'JIcf, 
131. 10 evm fitJuria ^JldKutm: &c. 

• Of the DUDieroii! pawagoa jii which the Vulgnte hi>a Creator, errare. 
crratura, there are Bingnlarly few in I'vprian. The only one <■( Iheae wurda 

246 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

Create^ I think, does not occur, creaiura twice, in a concrete 
sense, 708. la, 768. 17, creator only 79a. 4 negan^ Deum 
creatorem Ckruti ^. Facere seems to be the usual equivalent for 
ereare, vfith factor^ 66a. 7, 718, 15; cf. 319. 1 9 *, and yotf^^ra, 
in a rhetorical passage, 198. 7. In the De Hab. Virg.^ adapted 
from Tertullian, he borrows that writer s plustica and prolo^ 
plasiuB 198. 7, 190. 15; plasmare in 804. 18 is an allusion 
to Sap. 15. II ; d'luiuum plasma^ 468. 12, is some evidence 
that Ep. a belongs to an earlier date than O. Ritschl's 
arguments indicate. When Cyprian's style was matured 
he avoided, as far as possible, the use of Greek words. 
Insiituere is used for creare 201. a8, institutio 468. 10 ; instUutor 
is so used by Tertullian and Lactantius. Artifex is used 
198. ao, 201. 27, not, I think, opifex^ though opus is found, 
198. 7, &c.* 

The usual words for God's law and appointment are dispoMio 
(Test, 1 . 1 1 fit, dupositio et testamenfum)^ institutio, ordinatio^ 
traditio, and lex*. Praescriptio in the legal sense seems the 

which they contain ie creaiura, Ecclus. 24. 5, Col. I. 15 (62. 15, 63. 16). In 
Dan. 14. 4 (337. 20, 661. 13) and MaL 2. 10 (114. 16) eondere takes the place 
of the Vulgate creare. In £ph. 4. 24 ieria$€is is translated by coruHtutus (124. 
23) instead of creatus, as in the Vulgate. There are no other passagee in 
which creare or its cognates might have been expected. In the contemporary 
Ad Nov. 4 (A 56. 13) Gen. 6. 7 reads perdam hominem quern feci. 

^ This seems a reference to Heb. 3. 2, where Clarom, reads creaiori nto, 

and the Old Latin MSS. generally that or qui ereauit ettm ; Vulgate et qui 

fecit ilium. There is another possible reference to Heb. 4. 12 in 271. 21 

inpetrabiliii et effUax sermo. Since Tertullian knew the EpisUe it is incredible 

that Cyprian was ignorant of it, though he would not cite it as Scripture. 

' Creare is not even used, when it might naturally have been expected, of 
the divine appointment of Bishops, but always facere, corutUuere, Ac., though 
creare p$eudoepiseopum occurs 642. 22. In fact, through its use by Marcion, 
the word seems to have gained a heretical connotation, of which this may be 
a surrival. Tertullian very rarely uses it except in reference to the tleus 
Marcionis {Adu. Marc, constantly, Cam. Xti 2, Ret, Cam, 2, Prax, 3, &c.), 
the true God being conditor, Soter has similarly suffered through Gnostic 
use (Tert. Adu. Val., ptusim) ; cf. Cyprian*s rejection of tinctio, 

* Koffmane, p. 67, states that eondere is used by Cyprian for creare. He 
does not give a reference, and I have noticed no instance, except conditor in 
EP'7S (824. 12). 

* Lex is used both generally for Grod*8 commandments and, in the Scriptural 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 247 

true reading in 736. 11, and not Hartel's ^wfry/^io ; ot, 
373- 17- 

§ 3- Cyprian's characteristic words for God's bearing: to 
men are ceiitura, tlignatin, imlulyentia, bonita», and pielat. 
Bmiilag always and pietas almost always — perhaps 388. 12,19 
are the only exceptions — are used of Divine goodness, not of 

Centura may imply either approval (152. 6, &c.) or condem- 
nation, e.g. 670. 14, which is more usual. It is also often 
ased in a general sense, meaning little more than majesty, a^ 
in 683. 14, 413. 22, in which it is coupled with maietlax, 
according to Cyprian's nsual pmctioe of combining synonyms '. 
Diffna/io is one of the most common of Cyprian's words, 
especially in the alliterative phrase tie Ik't diffiialione. As 
a rule it is rather equivalent to favour than to grace, though 
it describes internal as well as external gifts, e.g. 275. 6, 
656. 15, and 716. 23 benigua et larga d. corda tHlumiHat. 
But more commonly it is used of some visible mark of favour, 
as the episcopate, 546. 19, 651. 9,671. 2o and often, confeseor- 
ship or martyrdom, 251, 16, 673. 14, 695. 6, or other Divine 

wnae. Tor the Old TeaUmeDt. Betide nuay olniuoal niM (171. 14, igy id, 
301. I, 304. 9, Ae.), it is aurioualy euiptojed, followed bj > genitire, in aacb 
pHiIiee* M iSj. 11 ad allare urnfre eum $impliri eorde, enm Itgt imiiliat. 
owin eancordiat pact. Tba two Uat are panphrued jqM aflerwardB by the 
■iuipte tiufitid itnilpai. Huljl. 31 in Ddtimort, in hge intlitiat, iadileclionr, 
ill optre fillet ttullii at, 33A. 17 Deo ianoctiitiae lege ilruoli. In Iheae and in 
many more pamagea Ux neaa simply BUparBaoua. In 118. 25 qui if priu- 
poillm lint ulla ordinalioaU lege contlilHHnt Ibers ia a very Cyprianic 
Hiuiralent for ordiaalio layilima. Lrgitimui in Cyprian bu not only thin 
meaning of lawful, but also that of appuiuled by taw; 33S. II nunrrui 
tet/ilimui et eerliu, 191. 1 1 tti/iUaia ad precem lempora. It coiiiee to mean 
genuine 1 7<Jo. 16 UyUiiai Chriitiani, yii. S ligitima Jldet, 708. 10 legitimn 
taneli/ieuUo {lacrijieii). 

' CfiUMra, which in very frequent, ia nsed of BiBtiupa and othen in (everal 
■eiuea. The moat usual is thnt of jodicial atriotneu, e.g. GdS. 11 ; aUo of 
juriidictioii, or the ri^'lit to judge, tw 1S9. 30 ; of obedience to diaclpline, or 
loyalty, 635. Ij, Ac. ; of reproof adininixtered, as fiij. 18, or genlence pawed, 
>■ 7£8. 1. Once at leut it ia aaed in n bad aenae, 639. ] uel duriliae iitl 
rtfwHrns luar obntinatione. In the sense of aeverity it ia uaed by Terl., ami ia 
common in the Biat. Aug. excejit Vopiacna ^Krebe, Itliein. Mat. 1S9], p. 48). 

248 The Style and Language of Si. Cyprian. 

help, 346. 5, 422. 13, 500. 9, 13, 801. 15. A partial convene 
is diuina indignatio 363. 19, 521. 16. The word is not used 
of human action. Itulvlgentia occurs constantly in the two 
senses, both found in TertuUian, of favour and goodness, e. g. 
.579- 3) 43^* ^4' ^° which it is often interchangeable with 
difffiafio, as 656. 12 phbs cui de diuina indHlgentia prae9umn^, 
and of forgiveness, e.g. 403. 5 indulgentia criminis^ 249. ai, 
628. 12, 8z;c. 

§ 4. Sermo Dei is constant, though TertuUian wavers 
between Sermo and Ferbum. The rendering in Cyprian's 
version of the Bible seems always to have been Sermo. 
Concamatio occurs once, 60. 5 ; incamatio never, though 
incamatus is found in Novatian, Trin. 19. Koffmane^ 
p. 42, only knows Hilary of Poitiers as using concamatio in 
this sense. It was perhaps an unsuccessful coinage of 
Cyprian. In una omnes ip^e port-auit^ 271. 13, describes the 
work of the Incarnation ; so also 277. 2, 711. 12, 754. 8 ; cf. 
Is. 63. 9. TertuUian does not use the phrase ; cf. p. 308. 
Adnenins is used both of the first and second Coming, 211. 8, 
414. 21, &c. Fascia ^ 471. 2, and reiurreciio^ are of course 
common. Ad/tcensu*, never atlacen^io^ is used, 471. 17, &c. 

Christus is much more common than Dominus or compound 
titles ; the full Dominus natter Te9U9 Christus is very rare ; 
Domittus lesus onlv occurs in the solemn salutation at the end 
of the last letter, 842. 9. JDei/s et Christus eius^ which occurs 
so often (see Hartel's Index Verbornmy s. v. ellipsis and w, and 
add 838. 15), may have been misunderstood by Cyprian, as 
Hartel suggests, for an ellipse otjilius *. 

Saluare^ is only used thrice, 790. 20, 809. 6, 12, Salnatnr 

* PaMio if often u^eil of the martyrii, 578. 2, &c., and in the plurml m well 
M in the singular, e. g. 662. 22, 833. 9. 

' See a good article on this eias by F. Piper in Z*chr, fUr Kirehenge9eh, 
1890, p. 67. In Tertullian I have only noticed one instance, in Bapi, 9 
(208. 19 Reiff.). 

' Cf. WolflSin in Sitzunffaheriekte of the Munich Academy, 1893, p. 263 f. 
Saluaior is used by the illiterate Celerinns, 529. 12. Tertullian rejects it, 
though it stood in his Bible, and is constant in Irenaeus. Cyprian never 
Tertullian*8 taluiifleaior, for which add Mare. 5. 15 to Oefaler's list. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 249 

once, 60. 13. ThesearepasBag^B in which Cyprian ia making no 
attempt at style. In rhetorical paasag«s he twice uses xotpitare. 
18S. 25, 211.9; ^^ P- '9^- Seruare occurs 214. 19, 505. 15, 
and of. 319. 30; retteruare ^'J'^. 13, 640. 30, congeruare 279. 15, 
and coiiKrvaloT 837. 17, as in Tert. Kc*. Cam. ^fi fu.. Cut!.. 
Tew. I. 3. Sal iijix fieri ie nsed occasionally, e. ^. 751. 16, 
H09. II ; taluug ai^quf inco/iimU 367. lo ; Domino el Deo 
iiottro Saliitari 614, 8, the only instance of this Biblical nse 
(Rfinseh, I/. F. p. 1 00). Cyprian uses Mediator only in 60. 1 9. 
The Biblical redewfth and Heiiemplor are ased, e. g-. 188. 23, 
^39- '5. 7'3- ^> """^ *'^<* redimere, e.g. 370. 16; but the verb 
is commonly employed of human effort by alma, &e., as in 
I95. 24, 377. 9. Other expresBions for the Saviour's work 
are pereata por/nre 401. 13, 711. i^^, remitfere constantly*, 
dfinare 349. 31, &o. ; eurare, emundare, pvrgare, are nsed 
indifferently oF Divine and hnman action. Beparare 370. 33, 
394. 9, &c., reconciliare Deo 370. 17 also occur. Aihineafui is 
freqnent ; ad iioeatii* e( ttepi-era for occnn twice, 499. 18, 637. y\ 
ludicium ia rarely further described ; cognitw is an occasional 
variant. The two are combined 659. 5. BeirifiiUio, as the 

' FrotDrj..53.4(rBj/.i.i3,p.77,2o). ThBMmere«dingi»inAag.C. iJ. 
iS. ][) (DiiiiilMirl, ed. i. ii. 195. 6). 

' The corieBimnding »ub«Untivo i« rtmitta or remiuio. Tbo runner ocoun 
19 tiniei, I tbink, the Utter 14 time*, in Cjpriuii'g own wriliiit,'. The Utter 
stood in the Afrio«n Baptismal question {r. g. ■jffi. I4\ »ncl it i< usually wlien 
>pe«kiDg directly of thii rormnla ttiat Cyprina Q>e* it, yet not ilwayi ; cf. 
350. 3. The nsutar pi. remina (cf. Wej'nuD in WiilBlin'a Archie 9. ijtf). 
tboug:h it hks important MS. anpport, ia not likely to be Cypriuiie. Id the 
Semltalitif and in Ep. 73 renUi'o !■ the Diual form. Tlua ilifFereDtiatioii of 
fonn, eomWuBd with the ennjiant Afrioan use of io*r;«/iim for the mnudiu 
which itill Blood in the Bapliamal SeriripB, nnd WM oiiffll, thnu|[h rarelj, by 
Cyprian, *howB that Oiriitianity muit have treen of •iiiiie considerable antiquity 
Id Africa when C'yprian wrote. These and other difference* from the Unguagu 
of the parent Church in Italy uiimt hare required the lapse of seTGnt genera* 
tiMu, espedally since they amae between Churches only tiiree d&yn' jonmey 

' Mr. H. J. White regards Htpneolor in t)>e*e paaia(;es an equivalent to 
propiHaior, rincein I John 3. ) (637. II) lAaaiiis is translated by drpitealio, 
u ii t(i^aiiit In Ule Vdgate (i.e. O.L.) Sap. iS. ll ; hut it would be mom 
in aocordanee with the style of Cfprisn that the two word* abould be 
pncticatly synonyins. 

250 The Style and Langtiage of St. Cyprian. 

result of judgment, is reward, 344. 1 8, &c. ; the only excep- 
tion I have noted is 399. 15. Vindicta for punishment is 

§ 5. There is no variant for Spirilus Sanctui. The sanctum 
is rarely omitted, 204. 10, 301. 17, &c., and rarely precedes, 
though this is contrary to Cyprian's custom. Praedicere and 
praedicare occur constantly, the latter as a substitute for 
euangelizare^ which Cyprian never uses. There seems to be 
no clear instance oi praedicare wrongly used for praedicere. 
Denuntiare is used in the same sense 217. 14. For the Divine 
fulfilment of Scripture the Biblical adimplere is used ^. 

Inspirado and reuelatio, e. g. 787. 15, where both occur, are 
common; adsjpirare 841. 10. Ostensio^ ostendere are used of 
the giving of visions, e.g. 497. 9, 498. 9, 651. 7. Where 
ostendere is used without the mode of revelation being named, 
as in 567. 21, it is safe to assume that a vision is implied ^. 
Fiaio also is found, e.g. 734. 8. In Spirilu occurs 692. 10, 
&c. ; in ecsfasi only 520, 7 \ Canere and praecanere, both 
from Tertullian, occur several times, e.g. 375. 19, 706. 13 ; 
diuino spiritu et instinctu, 359. 6, is used of prophetic inspira- 
tion. Instinctii^ ^ in this sense occurs again 255. 1 6 ; insti^are 
656. 15, 698. 22. Spiritus coTifessioms is read 338. 26, spiritus 
diuinitatis 339. 26. 

§ 6. It will be most convenient here to deal with Cyprian's 
language concerning Scripture, which he so often attributes 
to the Holy Spirit^. The singular Scriptura is much more 

^ Add to Harters list 235. 6; in different senses 255. 15, 256. 15, 776. i. 

■ Ostendere is so used Pass, Ferp, §§ 4, 7, 8. 

' Feus, Ferp. 20 adeo in spirit u et in extasi fuerat. The word is used by 
Tertullian. In Ep. 75 (817. 4) tnulier in ecstdsin constituta it cannot be an 
ablative, as Koffmane (p. 36) would have it. It must be a rendering of ^U 
iKffToaiv vtoowjaf or something similar. 

* But inttinctus is more often to evil ; 421. 1 1, 588. 9, 645. 12. Imtinguere, 
though used by Tertullian, never occurs in Cyprian. 

' Cyprian's mode of citation is very uniform. He almost always uses two 
synonymous verbs in his love of pleonasm ; Deutj ChristuSf Spiriim Sanctue, 
Apostolus loquitur et dicit. In Ep. 68 occur the forms docens et praecipiene, 
ponit et dicitf docens et osfendeue (twice), loquens et dicens, mandauit et dixit, 
oeteuditur et probatur^ contestntur et dicit,prohat et decla rat, loquitur et dicit. 

Tke Language of St. Cyprian. 251 

common than Seripturae. The standing epithets are taticta 
and liiulna; lacra does not occnr. VariaatG are very rare; 

raefeste* Seripturae 254. 9, domhiieae ,538, 5. The other names 
for Scripture in Cyprian are dUcipUna ^ (d. eaeleslit 287. 25), 
lectio, which clearly has this meaning in 370. 30, 518. 11, 
430. 16 {»it m maiiibus diiiim ledio), and elsewhere; lH/ri 
niiirllalet 36. 19; Seripturae veterei et noiiae 36. 18, 375. 17. 
TeniameittiiM and iiiitrumentuia in thia sense do not occur. 
More general terms are praecepta 101. 11, 238. 17, &c., and 
magisteria ', which ia very common, and probably derived from 
the Old Latin New Testament; cf. 193. 6, 53a. 15, 738. 16, 
and especially 505. 15. These words are used with a great 
wealth of epithets, diuinus, gpiritalk, caek»lia, saiiciim, nalularit, 
uitalis, euanijdicus. The legai term capitula ia osed for verses 
or Bectiona of Scripture, 36, a, 230. 8, 318. 10, as in Tertullian, 
bnt Tcrtulliau's tituti is absent. 

In the Old Testament Lex is not only used alone, but 
once nt least with the genitive of a jmrt ; lex Exodi 317. 9. 
Tertiillian's Arithmi and Critae have disappeared, but in 
the Tettimonia the true reading is in Basilion primo, &c., aa 
against Hartel's A, which haa almost always Begnorum. But 
elsewhere Hanilion ia not found in the writings of Cyprian ; 
one among many evidences that that work was compiled 
before Cyprian had settled upon his vocabulary. He uses 
instead liegnornm, or else, and more often, avoids naming the 
book. Similarly in 143. 3, 329. 7, the only passages where 
they are named, we read apud, in Paralipomenon. The same 

deiiarat dictn; uildidU dietnt, trribil el didl, Cf. in Ep. 74. 3 eUimal at 
difil, increpiita ct obiargaiu fonil el dicll, eommoHtt et imtraU diettu. In 
435. 10 Apoiloliu Paiiliu inifrufif at tnoiicrM a( • ■ . mribit et Jicil, The 
ioatanoea oce verj nre wbdni Cyi'tinn ia oouttiat viith CLe liuiple Scriptura 

' If WollHin in Ilia Arehiv, viii. p. 11, ia rigbt ; cf. 468. i, 13a. 5. In all 
tbew iniUnoci Ihe meaning might bo tbe iuubI one, yet ccrlunlj in Firm. 
Mat. 1>» Err. 19. £ quiil nobu Irmlnl euanff^iai dimipliita meuiB Soriptura. 

■ Cf. Bacdel Hw-ris, Coil. Sangall. p. 15. In thnt M3. mayulerium net 
doftrina oocor* m tbe rcmderiug of SiSaattUua. Ue compkrei Irenwiua, j. 
14. J. 

252 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

ellipse occurs 338. 8, and often in the Testimonia, with Basiliom 
and Regnarum. In Paroemiis is the regular mode of citation 
for the book of Proverbs ; in Prooemiis, 62. 3, can only be 
a lapsus calami. There is some little evidence for in Parabolii^ 
62. 3, 154, 4, though it is not likely to be Cyprian's. Very 
often the book is included with the other sapiential books, as 
in Sapientia, e. g. 1 28. 13, 156. 1 7. In 672. 22 the Minor Pro- 
phets are cited collectively ; in duodecim propheiis. Cf. Tert. 
adu. Marc. 4. 1 3 Naum ex duodecim^ and Adu. Jnd. 5. The other 
names of books offer nothing noteworthy ^, unless it be that 
he has Malachin (nom. and ace.) twice^ 293. 13, 413. 17, and 
perhaps also 94. 22, Malachiel twice at least, 68. 3, 138. 19, 
against Malachias thrice certainly (50. 7, 114. 16, 157. 15), 
and probably also in 97. 3. 

Euangelium ^ is, with one exception, used in the singular, 
the Gospels being regarded as an undivided whole. Except 
in the Testimonia the form employed is Dominus in Euangelio 
suo dicif, &c., the personal agency of the Evangelists being 
ignored. In the Testimonia^ where more exact citation had to 
be given, Euangelium cata ilatthaeum^ &c. is the description. 
The evidence for secundum is inadequate, and its use improb- 
able *. Cyprian never follows Tertullian in speaking of Euan^ 
gelium Matthaei^ &c. Evangelia qiiaftuor, the only example 
of the plural, occurs 785. 20. Acta, not Actus, Apostolorum is 
always used. 

Cyprian is very careful not to cite Sciipture without 
acknowledgement. He never allows himself, as does Tertul- 
lian, to fall into continuous Scripture language without giving 

' Koffmane, p. 10, notes that psalmus is very often nsed in Cjprian for 
a verse of a psalm. But when Cyprinn writen psalmus dicHf &o. he simplj 
personifies the single Psalm, as he does when he writes Apocalyptit dieit 
342. 21, 663. 5. He recognized them as separate compositions; in the 
Tettimonia he gives the number, and his usual citation is in Pialmit, 

* Beside this normal use of euangelium, euangelieue, it is also used for the 
Faith as a whole, and practically as an equivalent for eceleeia, e. g. 248. 36 
fiec eeeUHae iungitur qui ah evangelic teparatnr, 687. 3 saeerdos Dei euan- 
gelium tenene, cf. 544. 12. 

' Cr. Ztihu, Neuteef. KamoUf 1. 164, n. 5. 

The Language of St Cyprian. 


DOtiue of the fact. The only inetances where ehort passages 
are quoted without warning are, so far as I have observed, 
aafi. %% 390. 21, 379. ai, 507. 7, 711. 3. Beside Daminm 
Si'c. did/, Scriplura is frequently {lorsoitiHed as the speaker. 
The impersonal iniiuit appears occasionally, e.g. 738. 18, 23 ; 
and Eimilarly qiiando oecurrat ilict-at 66H. 23 ; for these ef. 
MiodoDski's note to De Alcall. p. 61. 

§ 7. Cyprian Lad frequent occasion to show that the facts 
of the Christian Faith are foreshown in the Old Testament. 
For type he appears only once to use mi/»terium 86. 6 ; (y/iw* 
often, e.g. 269. 11, 3B6. 25, 704. 11, hut, with his usual 
dislike of Greek words, more often imago, e.^. iHq. 14,367. 16, 
703. 24, OT fgurOf as 217. 10, 705. 2. Once iuilar occurs, 
785. 17 ; umbrit et imago 328. 4, 719- 25 ; praefiguraito 
•j6^. 14 ; tignttm et tacramekium 216. 13, 330. 19 ; tacramentum ' 

' Ai thii id ihe fitit occMion on which I hkTa to refer to lliii word, I will 
hen try to cluntjf its aaea in Cyprinii. This ia not u*?, M Ihe Tuiaua meui- 
iii(fi oFlcn overlap, and the word in ouitiy ioBtauan wna ue«d with inlention&l 
vmuenoM. It is uned twice nf the military mth ; 146. 11 tacrameuti mri 
inmor JeHo'iaHU eljidei umta iiuntpi ; and Sci6. 4. Of loyalty to that oath, 
491. II tjHCtaeiiliim q'lum tahiimt . . , guam Dei octlit lacraauKlo el ifmo- 
(ioiM militit aim aecrplnm. In ■ very coinmoD lenM it comrn to mean a bond, 
howcTsr it may have attained the meaning 1 e. g. 754. 15 intparabUt anilali* 
"'■ "5' 7 <"<>'<>' meranteHliM cuelntibai cohaermt; ik 11 uiiilatii ■„ uiticu- 
iHm eoaeortiiat, which are identiral phiueii ; ao also 639. 5 m'meiiCe eonenr- 
dSiu uinntlo el ptririieranle ealMieae tcctmiae taeramenlo ; 668. S oepulati 
taenmento tmnnliiiitulii. The acticm of heretice, &c. un thit bond ii docribed 
141. 11 ai Hiliiert, Sa8. )2 inpngmire, "Jg^. 10 mulilare, I17. 19 dulurfcare. 
Alio ■ rule or law, aa 60a 4 ■. Mincf (rOilUtim iHuiHOt diepotilionii et mlAaJf- 
tae anilati; cf. 551. S (NoTatian). A duclrinr, sometimes with the connnla- 
tion of myitery, e. ?. 36. 1 j Uem liiielliu alimt eauUait Chruli 1., quwl i<lm 
ifnerit qui atlnanlialHi eil u\., Tell. 3. 50 lil.i.JUUi non (141 prDfnnanditm ; 
ib. i. 3 lit. dt taerBineHte eoHtartiationit ein» *l iHutiiatit «q. ; iSS. 1 tic Bum 
rforerf ( qntd lU U'ta ue(rfiia (. ailae magmi at riiuiiui breuiliila coiiplexiiM nl ; 
710. 3, 713. 9, Ac. Similarly in Ep. 77 (834. 7) Netneiiaiiui uiyii dam non 
dttinin oecttlfa tacravKula nudure, tVom Ibi* meaning it wcma to be ei- 
leniled to tb»l uf lonoD ^nerallj' 1 171. 8 yualia lunl ilomiaieae orationit 
taeramenta, qaam magna tq. From the meaulng of myatery oomei that of 
type, in which mytterioiu t«Mhing ia conveyed; this ia very common, e.g. 
391. 6, 13, 337. j7, 764. 8, JloS. 13, Ac. ; ofayiiilmlioal acUon la 83. 11 iiicra- 
vmnId Hiiellottif CAiiXum ligiiificavt; an inilaneo or einmple 763. 13; cf. 
70J. r4 Chrittut . . . jtii ifripUtaium omj.fum tacrtimeitto ac ItMmonio 

25+ The StyU and LanguagE of St Cyprtan, 

ftlone very often. The verfa» used am typ^m^ figurwmj Ice. 
esgpnmera 702. 14, ic., which is the moat common; gerert 
386. z6 ; pariare 269. it : praewon^trare 704. 12; oHemdere 
702. zj. The type ae representing its antitjrpe is aud 
dtimyHarr ; j^i. zi 'fui aynu9 deutjnabai Ckri»tnm ; praeformare 
Zlj, 4}. tfxprimerv jj8. Zj, praejiffurarv 3Z8. 5, inUiare 403. 27, 
J/;c«^ Ija^ufioHtfm CAruH inUianSy ami z8j. 13. Ferita*^ as in 
367. 16, TQi. 13, and re^pomiere, as 593. zi, stand for the 

§ 8. CAri^^idinn* is common, but leas common than mi^t 
have been expected. It is rare as an adjective^ CkriȣiamMm 
ttomtm III. I J, i)atieHtia 4C4. ij» nnaniMittu 754. 4, and a few 
more. When used as a sHibstantiye it always seems to hare 
the conm>tatinn of a good Christian, and to be resenred for 
^mewhat emphatic paBi»|j:e& FuMUy on the other hand, is 
acutoorle^ term ; of. in Tc^^. 3. the titles §^ 34, 37, 44, 57, 87. 
Caldonius can ut<e it even of lapsed persons, 537. 4 ; TertnUian 
ffitf. I includes renegades under the term, and Jiiinm^ 1 1 con- 
trasts it with Spiritali*. L e. Montanist. SimHariir jide9 
appears to be used simply for the fiict of Baptism in 3V#/. 
3. II tit, CUM qui jiAeJti 'TtjtMttcut}^ e9iy and i^. 97 tit^ as in 
Tertollian ifono^. 11 /aantfts a Jidt* pnm/t^y and Pa//. 18*. 

prntiiic€t4w, Le. witaieM bodi typiiml ami liinKt. In 710. 23 it ftppemrs lo 
OMAtt not the type but the teachim^ whicii it cunT«ys» Tlie word it nacd fire> 
quentlj in the mndem nu^aniny of sacrament ; «. \^. JksptUmi «. 795. 34 ; 
«. miLutare ue. Bapdmn 761. 2; ti Mtcnsmmiio vfro^e noaeom/vr (L e. 
B^ptMHi and Md»«4 imp^itio) 775. 16^ 795. 12. and 5tfn/. 5 '439^ 9'. So of 
the Eck:haridt, 431. 17 «i« «i^rai»««^(> cn^eu tt eihwm at potwm war£»; nnd 
cren of the elementi, 355. 19 diaconiu nlnetaUi lictt '/« aaeramtrnto omKH* 
imfmdUj where fie^i* partitive ; * poored tome of the nicrament of the cnp into 
the ehild't mouth.' It ia aaed alao of the Paaniver ; Mocnim^Himm PmsckmB 
^^7' ^f 75' ^^ '•> ^^ ^^ means of grace generallj, 770. 19. In 370. 19 hmme 
tifi^ri poie^tj teqmamnr cmuen, kniut MaerirmeiHto tt tujno cettteamiir,it secius 
to mean the si^ of the Crow ; et 664. 25. In Sent. 7 ^440. 19^ it is cqairmltAt 

* a. forma facii — two* ywwofuwo* in the Vg. of i Pet. 5. 3, and d^/urmart 
in this sense in Tert. Res, Cam. 30. 

'This distinction seems the best ez|danation of CkrUiiani fifeleff whi^ 
ficcars seren times in the probably Cyprianic De Speci , jiJelU being the 
tabstiuitiTe and of Christiana fidelis. Text. Ujt. 2. 8, i. e. a baptized peraoB 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 255 

Christians are oiWn called simply nodri, 301. 7, 523. 14, &c. 
Homo Lei occurs sis times, 365. 12, &o., homo Dei et ChrUti 
297. 13 ; teruM Dei is common. They are called fliiiinum 
genvi 366. 22, and ore contrasted with genve humamim 301, 
15'. Cretlenfet is very common, as \b filentet 510. 19, &c., 
probably invented by Cyprian as a Bironger cognate term for 
the v!^&k Jithlet ; it does not api)ear to l>e nsed by Tertnllian. 
Crediili ia absent, though the negative is common ^. 

^ 9. Ecc/e*ia' is often paraphrased by domus Dei, e.g. 477. 
4, 674. 24, or domutfidei 300. 19, 777, 20, &c. Eededa quae 
catholica vna e»t 733. 9, and fairly often, e. g. 597. 1 3. Cyprian 
does not nse the elliptic CalhoUca, sc. ecele»ia, of Cornelius 
(611. 16). The epithet #aaci'(j*, 767. 9, seems to have no va- 
riant, and is not very common. Cornelius writes (611. H) 
taneiistima eatioUca ecclena ". The Church is frequently said 
to be aedi/icaia orfundala miper Petrum. This t>ccurs 194. 25, 
213. 14 (the famous pasasge in De Vh. 4), <j38. 17, 403. 16, 

worthy of tbe nkme uf Cbrutiui ; of. A. 4. 17 kovm ChrUliaimifldilift yfhare 
both Are epitbeW. In De llAapl. 11 (A 83. s) nihil lulcrat ittruniMf nerinni 
atnHtniiraflilelitiil quieonfltetur Doniiaiim tbe wnnti nimply me&n unbapllied 
orbaptiied; at.fidntaertmeiilim^BiiptUni inTert. De. An.l (191). 11 Il«i<f,)- 

' Quoailiuqti^ UHc in mundo nmtii eum grrifrr humano carnU aei/ualHule 
eaniiiriginixr, ipirdii upuramur. It wnuld add jioiiit to Timituii' (idiutn 
gtntrit humnni if il were a recognized teiui b; whicli the CbriHtiant distin- 
guished the heathen (rom tbenuelrey ; and might ■eem consiitent with the 
afaarge ofmagia brought against them nnder the same nune ; cf. Ramsaj, Th( 
Church i« (*« fiomnn Empirt. p. ; j6. Yelin 393. »6, 404. 16, 409. 15 penuo 
humaniim Untcd incliinirely ; in 306. 11 lint tiUodlfeiiminagrneiii humnni it 
■esiDa to be nod of heathen not being Kleeted for puniihment In thia world. 

* CredulilaM —JiiUt i* nut employed by Cyprian, but by NemeiiMiuB, 834. 8, 
Kbich wema ihe earlieat instanoe, Cypriui hu it fa a bad lenH 110. 4. 
Jit, 7. It reaun in Amobiui and Jerome for ^fei. Iiiereduliu, iaertdalilat, 
injtdelii are common. 

' The exact phraw extra ecetettant nulla unlm, oflen attributed to Cyprian, 
doeanot occar in hia writings. Thsneareitapproadi to it ii 795.3 laJutexIra 
nclettntn non ell, and 477. 5. 

' Here may be noted the rarity of loecr : 68S. 3 drri nmilri tnctr ueieran- 
•lutque ronffetlutit atrnont Ibe only inatanoc ; the word is aToidod in an abrioui 
antitheeii 714. la. 

' Ctttholiait ia rot u»ed 10 widely a- in TertuUiao ; ra'ho'iea regain 76;. 3, 
JI4tt J3S. 90, tatholicat iMtltuHonit iinibi* 604. 1 1, and a few more. 

256 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

594. 6 \ 674. 16, 732. 25, 769. ao, 773. 12, 783. 15, Peira 
is 80 used in Ep. 75 (820. 37, cf. 821. 16), but never by 
Cyprian. In 338. 17 Hartel has introduced it into the text 
on insufficient MS. authority, and in spite of Cyprian's con- 
stant use of nuper Petrum. For the description of faithfal 
Christians as super petram fundatiy see § 24. In connexion 
with the Church, Cyprian also often uses the words fnatrix, 
rculix^ origo, caput ; e g. 607. 9 ut ecclesiae caiholicae matrix 
cem d rculicem agnascerent ac tenerenty 808. 2 caput et origo^ 
779. 19 caput et railixy 772. 23, &c. uerif^s et matrix ^^ 600. 2 
radix et mater. How far matrix is equivalent to mater it is 
difficult to say ; in 607. 9 the word was probably chosen for 
the rhyme ; cf. 214. 14, 338. 15. Ecclesia sponsa Christi 
{Ted. 2. 19 tit.) is carried out as a metaphor with great 
consistency, e.g. 804. 21 apud solam sjxmsam Christi quae 
parere spiritalif-er et generare filios Deo possit^ 243. 15 ecclesiam 
matrem^ pattern Deum, and even more strongly 214. 17 ff. 
Ecclesia mater is of constant occurrence, 490. 5, 588. 13, &c. 
In 680. 23 matris sinus is opposed to nouerca. Heresy is 
adulterinm 214. 17, 667. 2, &c. Corrumpere, uiolare, &c. were 
certainly used by Cyprian much more literally in this con- 
nexion than we, with our ways of thinking, should assume ; 
cf. especially 593. 21. Advnare (usually the perfect participle) 
and adunatio are often used of the Church, 238. 10, 620. 3, 
698. 21, &c. Intus and /oris express membership and 
exclusion ; plebs intus posit a 687. I'j^foris esse 745. 9 ; both 
together 732. 13 f. But the pleonastic intv^ in ecclesia^foris 
extra ecclesiam is much more common ; 784. 20, 214. 25, &c. 
Except this last example^ from De Un, 6, it is confined to the 

* In this passage una cathedra is joined with una eeclesia \ cf. 630. 3,683. 10. 

* The following list is, I think, a ccmplete one of the passages in which one 
or more of these words occur in connexion with the Church; 188. 9, 3ii. 3^ 
313. I, 314. 4, 14, 330. 34, 331. II, 338. 15, 403. 36, 404. 3. 579. 9, 701. 33, 
769. 30, 783. 14, 786. 33, in addition to those given above. In different con- 
texts cf. 353. 15, 421. 4. In no instance can the use oi nuitrix be that of urbf 
primaria regionu alieuiut which Paucker in his Addenda gives from later 
writers. Tertullian makes a use of the word siinilar to Cyprian s, but wider. 

The Language of Si. Cyprian. 2$y 

najitiumal controverey, where it occurs ut least fourteen times. 
Fori* teoTitim is used 673. i),farii po»ili el- eetra ecde«iam coH' 
flifuH 77«. 13 ; cf. 785, 17. 

Eccletia is of course used for the local as well as for the 
universal Church ; eecfetiae omnet 627. 11, ecdet'ia priHcipa/in 
(Rome) 683. 10, &c,, yet Cyprian docs not often use the word 
ill this sense. 

The body of Chnstians is occasionally lecta ; loi. 8 quaeiiain 
rnpiltUa (of Scriptnre) ad re^iffiosirm »eclae noslrae dUeiplittam 
pertinentia ; 543. 8 modtvatun el caulu» et huniilitate ac timore 
teclae naifrae verecundut. In 397. 8 uitti quibut ad contequenda 
diii'mHv* jyraemia »pei ac fdei nosfrae gecta dirigilur there id 
a violent enallaf»'e (for many similar cf. Koziol, Der Slil dea L, 
A/iuhiu*, p. 233 f,). But this use of nfclit is much more 
common in Tertullian. 

{ 10. Lay members of the Church are laiei 632. 6, &c., but 
not very often ; usually jMt or populne. Of these two pleia 
in the less common ; plebt cut praeitumut 656, la, eajj/cbn eui 
/iraepotiliitOTdinaivT'j^g. 10; iCautiumpIelm 526. 6, he. Pteht 
Domini, CAritli ia an inclusive term for all Chiistians, 219. 6, 
^9'^^ 5j &c. Once the plural occurs, 735. 9 /</ciM contiitentet 
lid Legiimem et, A«liiricae, of the lay members of the communities, 
Popvlwi^ credftifium, Chitlianonm, ecclexiae, vnnter (21 1. 14, 
363. I, 414. 25, 730. 15,732. 12, &c.) is very frequent. It also 
stands alone, e.g. 239. 16 popu/i aliijuando tiiimero»i multtpfej 
iacfura; cf. Ssw^. 33 {449. i)trec driobut popufis galu/arem aquam 
/ribuerepofcil iUe qui umuf ffretfit pat/or enf, Fopu/iix, Lut not 
pMs, is used of the heathen as well as of Christians, e.g. 390. 
5, where popvltitperdifioHit ac worfi» is opposed to p^ebt CArisii, 
711.3, &c. 

§ II. The four terms, epincopus, tacerdot, anlklet, praepoailut 
lire used for Bitiop, The first three liave only this one sense. 
J''piicopn» {coep'tcopus, pteudoepucoput, epitcojatua) ia not much 

■ SllU, Lotah VerKhiedeniritfn. p. log, ii right 
he vnlgkr uiiBe ia abacDl ftxin Cjprikii. Id thi 
•*»«iiinft!ly, J14. I, 343. 6; jSi. ^pajjuli 
VOL. IV. 9 

258 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

more common than Mcerdos, The latter (with mcerdotium, 
consacerdos, Mcerdolalis)^ though no doubt it is often used 
because the name involved an argument and a claim, is 
employed so freely and so naturally that it must have been 
a current term of unmistakable import ^. Antisfes used, like 

' In Cyprian's writingB there is no passage where »acerdo$ mnst, and not 
many where it can, be equivalent to preAyter. The nomerons cases where 
fpueopi et tactrdote* occnrs are simply pieces of Cyprianic rhetoric, like j>rec«« 
9t orationes, adtutrtaritu ei inimictu^duiboluSf and many more, cf. p. 230. 
In Ep, I (466. 16) the decree of epUcopi antecettores no$tr% is called in 467. 4 
tacerdotum deeretum. In Ep. 15. i (514. 3) saeerdoM Dei is contrasted with 
pretibyteri ; cf. 522. 4. The Church of Carthage has only one $aeerdas; 581. la 
ut Domini misericordia pUhi tuae saeerdotem reddai incolumem. The bishop's 
seat is cathedra sacerdotalis 630. 2. Other passages where the same meaning 
is obvious are £p. 3, throughout which episcopus and tactrdos are interchange- 
able, Ep. 55. 9, and Ep. 67. 2. There are, I think, only five passages where 
pretbffter can be the meaning of sacerdoa ; (i) singuli diuino Bocerdoiio 
honorafi et in elerico minutterio congtituti^ which includes all the clergy : 
diuino makes it likely that presbyters are embraced in the sacerdoUum ; cf.the 
reference to 629. 9 in my note, p. 260. (2) 586. 6 f. the prtibyter Numidi- 
cus was all but slain in the persecution, and survived against his will ; reman* 
sit inuitue, ted remanendif ut uidemut, haec fuit causa \U eum clero noetro 
Dominus adiunger^t et detolatam per laptum quorumlam presbifterorum isos- 
trorum copiam ffloriosis eaeerdotibus adomaret, el promouebitur quidem sq. 
This might meau that Carthage, which has lost presbyters, shall be provided 
with fresh ones ; but it is much more probable that the sense is that the Church 
which has lost mere presbyters Khali have the honour of a bishop being elected 
from among its clergy. This explains et promouebitur quidem, which the 
other translation does not. (3) 697. i et cum episcopo pregbyteri eacerdotali 
honore coniuncii ; here honor must not be pressed. Licentia or potestas is 
never attributed to presbyters. It refers to the outward respect paid to them 
as in Test, 3. 85, 465. 5, 585. 14, 689. 13. (4) 738. 20 nee hoc in episeoporutn 
tantum et tacerdotum ted et in diaconorum ordinationibus ohtenuute apos- 
tolot animaduertimu*. Here again the words are identical. There is no 
such formal record in the Book of Acts of the ordination of presbyters aa there 
is of that of St. Matthias and of the Seven. (5) 777. i oportet enim taeerdotet ei 
ministrot qui altari et saerificiis deteruiuni integrot adque inmaculatot esse. 
Here 0. Ritschl, Cyprian u. d. Verfastung d, Kirche^ p. 231, would translate 
prenbytert and deacons. But in Laps. 6 (240. 16) taeerdotet and ministeria (or 
perhaps minittri) include the whole clergy, and may do so here. Cyprian is 
always a careless writer, and it would not be well to press this single instance. 
He is no doubt referring directly to presbyters and deacons (776. 15), but has 
used the other terms as an argument a fortiori. 0. Ritschl, I. c, cites Huther 
as denying that sacerdos in Cyprian m.e»jxs presbyter. In Tertullian, Kolbetg, 
Verfasaung, Ac. d. Kirche nach d. Schr. Tertullians^ p. 41, fails to give a 
clear instance of tacerdot = presbyter \ yet the argument of the famous 

Tlu Language of Si. Cyprian. 259 

»acerdo», of the PrieatB of the Old Testament {Zachariai 
a/ituff* Dei 687. 5, Z. tacerdot 337. 5) is used frequently of 
bishops, and of no others; 454. 4 antUtile* et sacerdotef 
pleonastic, like epUcojii el laeerilutes, and bo Min. Fel. 9. 4. 
Praepotiiut normally means a bishop; 729. 20 omuet jtrar- 
pasilos qui apotliilit vicaria ord'malione tueceduiif, 218. 25, 
765, 24, &o. ; praeposHi el sacerdolei pleonastic, 730. 8. In 
470. 5 Aai'on is tacerdot praepotiliis. But in 514. 18 prae- 
},otili are the clergy in the absence of the bishop, as in the 
Roman Ep. 8 (486. 6} praeposili et uice pattorum during* the 
vacancy of the see. In 475. 15 praeposili et diaeoni are 
synonyms; cf. Tert. Fug. ij, where praepo»iti is used in- 
clusively for the whole ckrui. Paslvr, e.g. Test. 1. 14 Hi. 
and guOi'Tiiator, e. g. 674. 1 are also frequently used, and of 
bishops only. In Ep. 66. 5 Cyprian describes himself by all 
these sis titles, e/iiicoput, ijraepoitilug, pastor, guhernalor, aalisli'n, 
tacerdot {730. 10). He uses caput in 600. 6 ; cf. 203. 6. 

Bishops are coUegae and form a collei/iiim. There seema no 
reason to suppose that antecessor (466. t6, &c.) has any other 
sense in Cyprian than the temporal, cf. the common succesHo, 
though Kofl'mane, p. 58, suggesls that it conveys the notion 
of authority us well, and is derived from the Jurists'. The 
latter may well be the case. Locus, i/radiis, and cathedra, all 
of frequent oceurrence, are used of the bishop's position. His 
authority is usually described as Ikeulla or potesias, words only 
used of bishops. 

§ 12. Preslj^ler (prarl/^erium, lioth collective and of the 

in Eih. Coil. 1 require!, or >t lenftt ftiia Htrength Ftdid, the IJentitj in 
mMDing of theK U-nua. AmbruK in bii Epp. , uid the ducumeoW included 
in thkt eulltictiuii, ojoiMxatXy ateiaeerdor -^ epUcoput. Schepu in Wtilfflin'i 
Atckir, 3. 313, notes the wune of PrisoiUian ; tee atwi Miod.itiiki'i note to 
Ve Aleitit, p. Ci, with his references. Jerome it the earl 
oarer in the matter, often Uiyag tactrdoi in both Bemee, u diwe Augustine, 
who (Utea, C. D. )o. lo (Uombart, «iil. 9, ii, 433. id) thit the name 
belong! to both Ordera. Ai late m Ph-Ignatiux, Btro. \ 3, and Pb.- 
Plonius, Vila False. % Jt, ii/xi/i ii used without quklifioition for 'bidiop.' 
Cj'priftn conatautly calls presbyten hii conprenbytari, never bia coataccrdoUt 
or colltifnt. He iluea not u>e I'ertuUian's fummiM tuetrdoi for ' biahop.' 
' VI. Kollerg, op.cU. p. sB.n. 11. 

S 2 

26o The Style and Language of St, Cyprian. 

office, conpre^hyfer) has no variant. In Tett. 3. 76 maiarem 
natu nan temere accusandum Cyprian is boand by his Biblical 
text (Vg. preshyterum). In Ep. 75 (814. 30) maiares naiu is 
one among many strong evidences against Cyprian as the 
original translator, as is senior es in the same letter, 812. 23. 
Biacofitis (diacanium ; for forms see p. 297) is also constant, 
though it is tempting in a few cases to regard minister^ 
adminUtratio as meaning ' deacon ' and ' diaconate ' ^. For dia^ 

* Cf. Koffmane, pp. 25, 150. MinUter and its cognates are often used, and 
in yarioas senses, by Cyprian. In 590. 15 the clergy other than the bishop are 
clawed as presbyteri, diaeoni, cetera minigteria ; 465. 1 1 tinguli diuino tacer- 
dotio honorati et in clerico minuierio comtitutit where et is dixjanctive; 
cf. Tert. Praencr. 29 tot iacerdotia^ tot miniateria perperam fancta ; fninUtri 
eccUsiae 571. i refers primarily to two subdeacons and an acolyte. In 
240. 16 the term is incloaivey as also 466. 21. But 738. 35 altarU mmitterimm 
\n * the office of a deacon/ and the Levites, who are the counterpart to Cyprian 
of the deacon, are always minittri with a minhterium, 470. 3, 757. i, Ac. ; 
469. 10 diaconus officii ac tninisterii sui ohlitut. There is a clear example of 
minister '^clericus, and probably diaconus, in Ep, ai (Celerinus), 551. 12, 
where the true reading appears to be et nunc super ipsos factum antietites Dei 
reeognoui idem minisfer, * I, myself a minietery recognize you as raised above 
(rod^s bishops.' By the common notion that orders were bestowed, ipso 
facto y on confessors, Celerinus in bis modesty gives himself a lower and hia 
friend a higher grade in the ministry ; cf. Hermas, Vi9, 3. a, i, Hamack, 
Dogmenffesch. i. 184 n., and the Roman Ep. 8 (488. 10), where the confessors 
precede the presbytern ; also Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathersy vol. 3. 241. The 
evidence is stronger for adminittraiio ^ diaconatus. In 2 Cor. 9. 12 Ztateovia 
ifl translated administ ratio in Cyprian's Bible (113. 20, 380. 23) instead of the 
Vulgate ministerium ; 617. 1 diaconio sanetae admini*trationis amiseo appears 
an identical genitive (cf. preces orationis, &c,, and apontolatu$ ducafue in 
De Aleatt. i) ; 590. 14 diacoui ecclesiaaticae cuiministrationi deuoti. But the 
word is used of Aaron's office 411. 10, and therefore also of bishops, 489. 3 
integritas administ rationis, 828. 19, &c., as is adminislrare ; sacerdotium Dei 
ndmiuistrare 735. 17, 770. 15, Sent, i (437. 5); cf. 510. 15, 608. 6. Both 
administratio and ministerium are used of the lower orders of the ministry in 
the twin passages, 581. 22, 588. 2. In 629. 9 Cornelius . . . jier omnia cede'- 
*ia*tica officia promotiis et in diuinis adminitttrationihus Dominum saepe 
promeritas implies, I think, that Cornelius had been a presbyter, for except 
in this one pa«i<age diuinus (which probably refers to the Eucharist) is con- 
fined to sacerdotiumy ecclesiasticus being the only epithet given to the diacon- 
ate and lower grades. Tertuliian in Krh. Cast, 10 seems to use minister of 
the celebrant at the nltar. It is remarkable how little, no doubt intentionally, 
Cyprian refers to the presbyterate ; cf. his avoidance of the word sacerdos in 
relation to it. In another sense ministerium occurs 548. 1 scio . . . pauoot 
{eierieos) qui illic sunt uix ad m. cotidianum operis sufficere, and 50a. la. 

Langiiagi: of SI. Cyprian. 

conium see p. 299, and cf. KoHmanc, p. 25. Diacfmafiif does 
not ofcur. 

HyjiudiacoHU* ia always used for the African siibdeacon, not- 
only by Cyprian, but by others, aa in Ejip. 77, 78, 79. It is 
also used in ^73. 13 in a Roman letter, but of a Carthaginian 
officer. The only case of giiMiacouu* is in the Roman Kp. H 
(485. 30); a Carthaginian is spoken of, and this seems the 
earliest use of the word. No Romnn siiMeacon i^ named. 

Lector^ lectio have no variant ; li-ctioneiit ilare idieui 348. 6. 
Acolutliio also is invariable, aa is exorcula, though Cyprian 
rejects the verb exorcizare, Proximi elero 548, 5 auggeats the 
jiToximi of the Roman civil service'. Cypiian mentions all 
orders of the ministry escept the deaconests and the oaliariua. 

For religio, re/iffiotus in the sense of orders, clerical, see the 
note to J 24. Cterm aa a collective noun is very common, 
e.g. ^^6. 10, 6H9. 13; as an abstract' it is absent. Clerici'n 
is common as a substantive, naturally for the most part in the 
plural; as an adjective it is rare, el. minlsterium 465. ii, 
onti«afio 466. 10, epitfiila 489. 18, &c. The collective orHo 
(e.g. 808. 17) is very rare, though common in Tertnllian. 

The words normally employed by Cyprian to deacribe the 
appointment of clergy are co«g/i/iiere, ordinare, facere. All 
are used of all ranka, e.g. a bishop eUctu* et contliiuf-ui 60S. 
8 ; Stml. 78 ttOH olim turn fipigcoput coni/ttaius ; of a lector 584. 
2 1 . Ordinare, ordtnatio are the most common, e. g. deUvtut 
diuina ordiitatione cpiicapint 696. 26 ; cf, Hartel's /irdeie Serum ; 
it is ased of a deacon 738, 21, of a lector 581. 5. Facere l» 
not so common ; 593. 8, 597, 12, &c. lleferre epucopatttm 

NemeiiKDUB in Kp. ;; (835. x9] wtiully uw« the wonl for oonorete kIitu; m. 
qniKl diilribumdiini inf«M(i. The work of ihv apoatleB ii mlaitteriinn tnlutli 
in 755. 19. la Dc Btbapt. i {i. jt,, 31 ) inb^rfdu tninld'H-Ji" validity of the 
miDiiiterial net, i. e. B»{itUm. Usrtel need nut have ilaubted the text. 

' Froiimi memoriae, a mmioria, Ac., boldin^; a pwttlim betwien tlwt of 
• proeurslor and <X hii tubaliertiii. Cf. Hirtclifcld, UviermckangeH, p[i. zi 1, 

■ In Buch leniea u Dt Rtbapt. I {A. 70. 16) "O'lum in ijiociinqae cleio 
coiutitutwm; jet cf. 741. 9. 

262 The Style and Language of St, Cyprian. 

alicui occurs 739. 17 ; cooptare 678. 9 and ereare 64a. 22 
are only used of heretical bishops. Eligere and deligere 
both occur several times. The voice of the laity is always 
9vffragiuM 629. 24, 738, 15. Manum inponere in episcopatum 
739. 17 and 610. 4 (Cornelius). Deposition from orders is 
twice described by deponere, 472. 6 and 739. 23. Usually he 
contents himself with the wider term absfinere, or such 
j^eneral expressions as excif-are de presb^ferio^ separate 9e apecca- 
lore }waej)09ito^ indigno9 recuMre (619. 9, 737. 22, 738. 2), &c. 
§ 13. Councils of diflTerent kinds are frequently mentioned, 
but Cyprian appears to avoid anything like technical language 
concerning their assembly or proceedings. Usually he describes 
their meeting as in vnum conuenire 627. 14, 779. 2, or prae- 
jtrnfes adesse 465. 5, 581. 5; concilium habere occurs 628. 6, 
677. 20 ; concilium agere 680. 10^ ; cogere et celebrate concilium 
775. 5. Conuenfus occurs 600. 22 ; cf. the conuenticulum of heresy 
220. 23, &c. It does not come within the scope of this paper to 
deal with the constitution of these Councils, for there is no 
distinction in Cyprian's language as to their meeting, their 
proceedings or their decisions, except that in 465. 4, ego el 
coUegae mei qui praeaente^ aderant et conpresbyteri nostri qui 
nobis adsidebantj some distinction might seem to be made as 
to the status of the different Orders. But in 771. 6 quid 
nuper in concilio plurimi coepiscopi cum conpresbyteris qui aderant 
censuerimus, there seems to be no difference. For the debates 
of the Council Cyprian has a great wealth of language ; com-- 
municato et librato de omnium conlatione cofisilio 626. 13, 
librata consilii communis examinatione 717. 16, ponderare, 
examinarCy pond us eraminare, limare, tractare *, &c. The de- 

^ Concilio frequenter acta. This must mean frequently assembled, and not 
largely attended, as the Archbishop of Canterbury would have it in his article 
Cyprian in the Diet. Chr, Biogr, Frequenter in Cyprian's usaal word for 
often ; he only uses saepe for purposes of rhythm, and perhaps not more than 
twelve times in the whole of his writings. Y^xdi frequenter mean anything but 
' often ' in the third century ? 

' Of debates or modes of procedure during the session there is no account. 
In 627. 16 we read that at a Council of bishops terxpiurie diu ex utraque parte 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 


cifion of the council is sUcernere, »tatu<:re (slatiiere el Jirmare 
774. 14), itulkare or cemere, all of frequent occurrence. The 
ijubstantives used for the decisions are senteniia, decretum, 
jiliicitHm, and once (466. 11) forma. 

The assembly of the clergy at other times than at a 
council is con»e»gus 586. 15, no doubt of the Lisho}) and 
presbyters only, and coageitua (onleBS this be, as is more 
probable, the dais on which they sat) 688. 3. So also 585. 2 
tettaTt nobkcum is a promise that a lector shall lie advanced 
to the presbytcrate. In 689. [3 clerv* leeiim praefiilfni includes 
the whole clergy, and refers to function rather than to dignity. 

^ 14. The first stage towards Christianity is named uenire. 
Cyprian, with his dislike of Greek words, never MseAprosel^fni, 
though it occurs in TertuUian. In the letters of the BiiptiM- 
mal controversy venire, weiiien*, ad Chr'titum, ad eecUs'tam, &u. 
are conetant. Occasionally he ventures on iien'ieng alone ; 
769. 18 uenientem bapthare. Calecumeitu* oacaTB twice, 106. 18, 
795. 16 (i.e. in Test, and Baptismal Ejip., in which no attention 
in paid to style), and in the Roman J'J/i. 8 (488 2), catechiKla 
never, eateclikare only in Ep. y^-, (H23. 17). Jndieiu is twice 
used for cateeumenug, 524. 14, 548. 8', doctor for catechilta; 
preibyteri Aoctoren are mentioned 548. 6, and a doctor^ audi- 
enliitm ib. 8, the latter being a lector ; doctor withorit further 
description 780. 20. Nouns, tioaelhs, rad'is aeeni merely 
descrijitive epithets, and not substitntes for the absent 
iieophyfu», which has been deliberately avoided. 

§ 15. Often as Cypi'iau has to speak about Biiptism, he has 
no such wealth of syaonyms as other writers. He does not 

pr-ilalit ItmpfrasKtititin laluhH MiHleraliune lihraniiniu, wh 

■ (!onipn>miie. The lue of Scriplnre >iiggBit> tlrnt in 5)3, 4 uf 

eotpitcopit Mcunrium DomiTii di$cipiinaia . . . marti/rum liitira' rxaminart 

^lOMimiK, iJiwJ]i{{>i<iiiiByiDeBn'ScriptDre,'uiniH!rtKiDolheTpMMgeaj of.} 6. 

' Cf. ucrbtim aadiait in tit Htlapt. :i, 14 (A Bj. 31, B3. j, 87. io)=eaifr 
mmenu: Cf. Eolberg, op. etl. p. 63. 

* So Hartel in his Ind. Ber. 1. v. dorlora, Ibough in liii text he reuli 
iluetomm, tuA in Iba Ind. Vtih. tloclom auilianle*. It ipems impoaible to 
uiake wuie if the traditionnl reuling ilorlOTtm be itMadaned. 

264 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

go far beyond Biblical language. It is impossible to make 
a distinction of meaning between haptUmus and baptUma. 
For forms see p. 297. Tittguere^ tiKctio are confined to 
heretical Baptism, except in two passages, 543. la, 782. 5, 
where Cyprian is indirectly citing Scripture \ The only use 
of iHluminare=<txaTi((iv in this sense seems to be 789. 12 
quamodo j>099unt tenebrcte iniuminare ? where the context sug- 
gests Baptism, though it may be only a general expression ; 
cf. Sent 23 (445. 10). Abluere occurs occasionally; 752. 6 
baptizandi adque abluendi iominU pa^ktUm; ib. 3 aMui el 
jmrgari eius lauaero ; 219. 2i. This no doubt is from i Cor. 
6. II in Cyprian's Bible (168. 3, 275. 11) as well as the 
Vulgate. In all other instances it has an object in Cyprian, 
criMen^ 9orde9 or similar words ^. Christians are recreaii et 
renafi 294. ii, 365. 21, reparaii 400. 27, &c., expiaii 6. 4, 8. 
5, 751. 16, innouati 204. 6, 769. 7, 803. i; reformatut in 
Houum hominem occurs 803. 8, redintegrare 279. 15. Purificare 
786. 24, &c. is rare ; cf. 578. 26. Regefieratio^ sancti/icatiOy 
renasci are common property of Christian writer& Baptism 
is natiuitas fecunda 6. 6 and often, iterata 204. 7, caelestis 427. 
28, &c. Other similar epithets are also used ; cf. Koffmane, 
p. 78. It is lauacrum mlutare 204. 6, &c., uitale 188. 14; 
aqua uitalis, salutarU 374. 8, 752. 5 ; in the rhetorical 
language of the Ad Uotialum, 6. 3 unda genitalU. Fans in 
785. 21, &c. is purely metaphorical ^, For the use of sacramen-- 
turn see the note to § 7, p. 253. Those who are duly baptized 

* This contumelious uro of a word which bad been normal in the previoas 
generation (TertuUian and the African Bible) must be an indirect attack on 
Muntanism, to which Cyprian never alludes, though it undoubtedly existed in 
Carthage in his day. lutinffuere, which also occurs in Tertullian, is used 
several times in the Sententiae, and tinciio survived till the sixth century. 
Paucker, Subrefieta, cites it both from Fulg. Rusp. and Fulg. Ferr. In other 
respects there iu Httle difference between the language of Cyprian and Tertollian 
concerning Baptism and the Eucharist. 

' See Wolfflin in his A rckiv, 4. 569. His earliest inbtanoes of abluert'^ 
hnpHzare are Tert. adu. Marc. i. 14, Iren. 4. 27. i. 

^ Yet Koffmane, p. 76, sees in it an alluhion to a concrete sense of fon» in 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 


become legUtmi Ckrittiani 760. 16; cf. legititni fidelet in De 
Rebapt. I4(A 87. ti). The gift in Baptism ia graUa'^, 719, 15, 
760. 15, 273. 6, &e. The Baptis^mal qiipstioas are iiif-erro- 
i;a/.io', 756. 10, &c. SgmM'im., 756. 7, according to llarnaoli, 
Bogmengeich. i. 103 n., is the earliest use of the word. 

Fettufium ivfantit for /»?*, 719. 13, in the ceremonial kissing 
of the foot which formed part of the Baptismal rite, is no 
doubt part of Cyprian's attempt to elevate Chnstiau diction. It 
appears not to be Biblical. The word attained some currency. 
In the twenty-third sermon attributed to Fulgentius Rus- 
pensis, Be pedibiig laiiandis, it is constantly used of the feet. 

Concerning vnctio and tiguum erucU (tignaeulum doTumiciim 
785, .■), contignari 751. 6, »ignari 783. 10, tignvm et naeramenfum 
370. 19, »ignum Dd 664. 25) nothing need be said. ChrUma 
occurs only 768. 14, and is there explained by vnclio. ifauiis 
inpotido, aft-er Baptism and penitence and in Ordination, is 
constant, though the simple manut occurs once at least (248, 
22). That it is a single word, as Hartel suggests in his 
Mex Verhorum, seems clear, in spit« of one or two rhetorical 
postpositions of tnanM ^. 

^ \6. The word KurharUfia is not very common. It is 

' Gralia is leai used \<y Cvjirino thoa might h«ve heea expected, fieaidei 
thii Uie for llie gift In Baptiun, whith it much the moat •:otnnion, it !■ used Tor 
other gifts or rBronni, e. g. agj. 7 adaaitut CSrirti atteraiie gratiam tud* 
pnubilanu, ^6$. 17 gralia Cmnii el eopia rtgni earletfit, 380. li bealu4 Paaltu 
dominieat iHtpiraliiiHlt gralia plcnui, ICneems Mtnally to meui 'reward' in 
HiTvnl pMwgei, e.g. joi. tS uirginei quarum ml graliam mercei Meunda e»l, 
104. 3, 311. I, 491. 14, to. Oralia Lei - bo'iilm oeciirx occuiunaily, 171. 1.;. 
17s. 10, Lc, ; sriitia et iiululgttUia together, 433. 14; 415. 10 humo ad l)ii 
gratiam petlinmi a n Cfpriuiic ■batriK.-tioa for ad Dtum. The ward ii not 
iiTten used in > general uhh of ' tpiritiikl pouer bestowed '; jet cf. iGo. 11, 
310. ao. Id cotinetian with the Euobkrlit Ib»ve only noted tlie atruige ii»e. 
156. 14 gralia talularit in eintniu maialar =^ lioitia ; cf. nfnuTiriuin -lUi-i 
»3S. ■»■ 

' Seiiide the qucibion Credii i» rsmiuipnem M). whtdi renin fn nFtcn, (here 
■re trace* of the B&irtiimnl rormulk in 406. 3, 50S. 13, ftnd in 191. )o, iSi. 4, 
which contun the word pompof, used by Cyprian only in this i 

' On whicb KotlWne, p. 7S, Uyi ■Irea*. But the double genitive required 
in niuiH* inptmilio tpttiropi, whicb uimRtsntly ucMun, Ji aluunt uukiiuwn in 
l'ypri«n'« wriiingi. I have only noted a6i. 1 1 , G65. 3. 

266 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

absent, for instance, from Ep. 63, which is entirelj deToted to 
the sabject. Its sense is concrete ; commonicmnts are said 
euchariistiam aecijitre, TesL 3. 94 tii.y 280. 20, &c., and 
conversely, 519. 4 ab epi*ropo . . . encharUtia datur ; a8o. 1 1 
euckarUtiam ad eibum coHidie sumimu9; eucAarLtiam anUimgere^ 
odtiMffere, ib. 10, 19; cf. 407, 24. The word is used as 
a synonym for polM Muctificatus 255. 20. In 768. 19 is an 
obscurely expressed passage where eucAaristiam /acere stands 
for the usual 9atifieium eelebrare, as also in Sent. i. Sanctum 
Domini occurs 248. 5, 256. 7, 10 ; 217. 12 the pleonastic earo 
Chrisli H sanctum Domini, This may be an ellipse for wnctum 
Domini corpus 514, 12 ; corpus Domini occurs alone 665. 3, &c. 
Once also, as already mentioned in the note on gratia to the 
last section, gratia salutaris is used in relation to sanctum 
Domini^ 256. 14 quando gratia salutaris in cinerem sancto 
fugiente mutetur, where sancto must either stand for Christo or 
be a neuter abstract^. The usual title for the Eucharistic, 
service is sacrijicium, either alone as in 256. 9, 697. 23, or 
more often s, diuinum or dominicum. The elliptic dominicum 
occurs 384. 20, 714. 13, 14, the last instance being plural. 
llostia dominica is opposed to falsa sacrificia 226. 9, and must 
be equivalent to sacrificium ; cf. uictima for (r<^ay7/ in the O. L. 
of Is. 53. 7 ^. SoUemnia is used for the Eucharistic service, 255. 
14 sollemnihiis adimpleiis, and 649. 26 ; in the latter passage 
also sollemnltas^. In 713. 22 the whole service seems to be 
called ohlatio. For the use of sacramentum in connexion with 
the Eucharist, see note to § 7. The most remarkable example 
is sacramentum crucis 431. 17. Celebrare is the most usual verb 
with sacrificium^ Test. 1. 16. tit,, 256. 9, 466. 19, &c. ; 830. 16 

' Fag. 25 (25. 18 Reiff.) ex ore, quo Amen in sanctum protulerit eeems to be 
the only similar case in Tertullian. Can it mean to say the response after the 
Ter sancttu? 

' Ronsch, Itala «. Vulgata, p. 327, and Cyprian 80. 8, 414. 11, 507. 7. 
Perhaps also in 402. 21 cum ad uieiimam ChriHi confundantur sidera is the 
true reading. 

' Joh. 13. I in Tert. Prca, 23 has sollemnitas Paschae (Vulg. diet fesius), 
SoUemnia and soUemniias are constantly uied by Tertullian of Christian and 
iftthen rites. 

Tke Language of St. Cyprian. 


/aculfat <<fereii(ii H eehhtandi la'-rijina iliiiiiia '. Sacrijicare 
occurs 255. 10, but was no donbf. avoided through ita jiuiaful 
suggestion of the lapsed nacrifcati. Sandifeare ca/irem, &c., 
e.g. 255. 21, 701. 17; laerificium domiuicum leffitima aauctijl- 
ratii/ne ce/ebrarf 708. 10. Beside the use of offerre naerijicia 
already named, "■^6. 33, R30. 16, it is employed absolutely 
479. 15 offfrre apiiii con/eMore*, and with jiro of persona either 
dead or living (for the latter see § 26) 466. 19, 514. 12. 583. 
II. Qblationem farere jiro thrmilione 467. 2 is equivalent 
to taerijicium ceUhrare pro dormilione 466. 19. Offerre obla- 
tionea eonim occurs 568. 14 ; ea/ix qui offertur, sc. Deo 703. 9 ; 
r.clehrare ohfafiones el naerifcia 503, 21, cf. the use above 
mentioned of oUafio 713, 32. The Kucharist is a mmmemo- 
rafio both of Christ 703. 9. cf. 713. 13, and of the martyrs 
.^,03. 14, 504, I, 583. 12. It will be seen that the i 
a jiart of the EiichBristic service is often put for the whole; 
cf, espc'cially 713. 21 tie enim ineipil et a pamloHe ChrUtl in 
pfftecuiiotiibtit fratemitat retardari dum in oi/a/ionif/at discit 
<ie tanguine ein* et cruore cotifumii, i. e. from fear of being 
detected through the smell of wine*. 

Some of these terms are used of the worshippers as well as 

' CeUlTitie ii ■ fairourile verb of Cypri»n'B. Bwides tiii« uwt of ceUhrare 
taerifieia-^iacrijleare, unei alio of faekthcn uerilice. 673. :6, (here are klio 
eeldn'are oraliouri '^ ornrt J74. 7, 191. 4; erlebrare diHinai teelia 
fSo. n ; lauaera caltvlie - lauari asg. 6 : lot marlyria imloruia laepa eeh- 
brain - ptrpetrala 337. S ; himtd'clionem celebrare irirca Abraham ~ bmedietre 
704. 7 ; ( palrimoniam) andt opai parleile crlrhralrr, i. e. olmiitj, 380. 1 1 ; 
ocitM adkae gtrilur et agon eottulia telebralur Jj6. 15, ftuil »inilliirly 389. JO 
jualr muniu etl euiiu edilin aililf-ilar — quod e^lifnr ; «i'a tpirilalibui merilU 
tt eailettibm praemiit t*mpornm uieiui/Mile cefebrvrfaralha conressore pau 
thrir time. 57**. S- In tU" v«giie «bbi) Ihe word in 

rhoknical pnrW nfCyprkn'i writings. Compwa De Rehapi. 1 (A. 71. Jl) 
■oli'utnia omnfiai pmeiliealia cMirata alqut eoepUi a Johnnnt BaplUla. 
Celel'riire rtmrnefionem Pomini occun I91. 15, 714, JO-cnmmBmorate, uid 
so 583. I] martynitn liin anniueitaria rommeinoratiom, ■uil fOs. 15. In 
193. II a puMge oF Soripturfl u iiitrodaeinl by Kriplam t*l .. .tl in eremplmn 
nolri ecelniat ore eeUbratur ^i» proclniuied ; 763. 13 pviui aequallli'lii lacrif 
lamlum (IjpeJ uiW*«ii»tii KxoHo rue cel^riil*m. Cohere tl eelebrare eoncUium 

r.h- ; 

' Cf. Hier 


I laeroique nali 

268 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

of the celebrant. Saerifieium in 384. 22 is used of their 
offering ; they are called sacrificanfe^ 255. 27, though this is 
rendered uncertain by comparison with 1. 10; cf. 269. 2 
qiuindo in unum cum fratrUms coHuenimu$ et %acrifieia diuina 
cum Dei %acerilote celebramus. 

Altare is constant in Cyprian of the Christian altar. In 
688. 2, 722. 4 he contrasts heathen arae with Dei alf-are ; c£l 
360. 4. Once a heathen altar is called diaholi altare 679. 23 
(so Tert'. De Pallio 4 altaria huHuaria), but he never speaks 
of ara Lei ^ ; in his most violent attacks upon schism he 
always speaks of aHaria pro/ana^ never of arae, Nidor aitarium^ 
of heathen worship, 24. 14, is one of many strong evidences 
that Quod Id, is not by Cyprian. 

Communicatio ^, and sometimes the full form iu9 communica^ 
tionis is common ; communicafionem tribuere 249. 9, iu9 communis 
cationis accipere 518. 20, laxare 247. 28, &c. The verb com-- 
mnnicare is equally common ; cum aliqvo 467. 18, 732. 6, &c., 
being used of the recipient, alicui of the celebrant, 568. 13, 
632. 9, &c. But there are a few exceptions, as 519. 21, 624. 8, 

* Yet in the O. L. ara wa-s certainly frequent, perhaps constant, in a good 
sense. In Apoc, 6. 9 Cyprian reads it three times, 130. 14, 350. 8, 413. 7. 
In this verse Tertullian has twice {Rea, Cam. 35, DeAn. 9) turned it into smb 
cUtari, but he is paraphrasing the passage. Elsewhere he uses the words 
indifferently ; cf. Kolberg, p. 31 3 f. Primasius retains ara. It occurs in this 
sense in Clarom. in Heb. 7. 13, and in^ in Jac. 3. ii. In the Vulgate it is 
only found in the Apocryphal books, which were not revised by Jerome. 
Amobius uses the words indifferently, and often in combination, of the heathon 
altar ; Lactantius, I think, does the same. Ammianus, 33. 11. 9, uses ara of 
the Christian altar, perhaps in insult. In the Index to the first part of 
C, I. L. viii. (the African volume) nra occurs thirty-five times of the heathen 
altar, altare only once. The ChriHtian altar is not named. The second part 
of C. /. L. viii. is unindexed, but in reading it through I did not notice any- 
thing inconsistent with the view that in ordinary language the words were 
thorouglily differentiated. In Virgil, Eel. 5. 65 en quattuor arae, Ecee duos 
tibi, Daphni, duas altaria PkoebOy tho word altare seems more dignified than 
ara. It is certainly aI'M) rare in Augustan prose. Being stately and uncom- 
mon it was well adapted to the Christian need. 

' Communio is rare, and only used in general senses, as 789. ii nullant 
eommunioiiem lumini et tenehrin 758. 4, 10, &c. Cf. the curious use, 545. 15 
cum mariyribus in honore communis est - particepe. Yet in the Roman Ep, 
8 (487. 30) communic communicatiOf and aUo in Ep, 75 (835. 18). 

The Language of S(, Cyprian. 269 

Sco. 2, where commnnicare cum dUqiw u used of the celebrant. 
The verb is OBed absolutely, in the sense of rommuHicationem 
accipere 588. 18, 740. 17 ; aimilarly non conniunieantM for 
ahtteTiti 262. I '. It may be mentioned here that the Sunum 
riirila is entitled a itraefalio, 389, 15. 

5 17. Prayer is usually prex or orafio. Wlien the woni 
dtands alone, jirej; not precet, \a almost coneUint; in the 
comjiounds favoured by Cyprian j/rex seldom occurs. Preee» nt 
oralionet in pleonasm is common, 272. 10, 465. 13, 578. 25, 
596. ] (twice), 688. 23; prex ei oratio 267. 18, 27(5, 10; 
peiiliones e( precef 287. 6; precei oradonit 500. i^; j)o»lu- 
lafionum precet 319. 13. PetUio is fairly common; precatio, 
268. 3, is rare. The most common veib is rngare ; orare is 
also frequent, as is pelere; precari and pottulare (five times 
in Dom. Or.) not so common. Hfpreeari iu used for orare 275. 
3, 287. 10, 288. 15, 84]. 16, as well as in its UHUal sense; 
cf. Thielmann in Wolfflin's ArcAiv, 1892, ]». 253. Elaborate 
phrases, snch as 501. 7 oradoiie commtin't ei concortH preee 
oraniet, are of course numerous. Aiiorare, athra/or (0. g. 267. 
20, from Joh. 4. 23) are confined to indirect citations from 
Scripture. The Lonl's Prayer is prex i-oltidiana, aa in Aug. 
C. D. 21. 37 (Dombart, ed. 3. ii. 548. 30). 

For thanksgiving the language is not remnrlvable, 
except in the use of wo/wm, e.g. 504. 18 quid ctiim vel 
maiui in iiotit mn» jiotat eite vrl mr/ius gnam cum ni'leo 
eonfe»»iorii* veUrae houore inluminafym gregem. Ckriiti ? i, e. ' for 
what can I be more thankful P ' It is often practically equi- 
valent to, and used with, pautliuw ; 728. 13 ueiiienU* . . . 
cum vofo et ganflio tutt-ipjo, 614. 11 noli communiii amplitiimum 
gawlium excrpipiun, 641 . 11 (Ji/iu7M) cam nolo pa/entae exu/la- 
liimi* ampledilur, 510. 32, 619. 13, &c. ; so in other writers 
557. 17, 620. 8, and Quint. 12. 5. 6 *. 

■ In ■ bwlly ncinlcil jihnw oF StephanuB, pitcl 799, iS, 814. 8, lie eepDja 
to u» communieara afi^nem for alicai. Cyprian Ukku nvidi-nt pteuure in 
puinling out lluil hit opponent'! diction w an ■ level with hii ftrgnmsnti ; qHoi 
iitptrita olqtit {»pTOvidt nrlprit 799. 1 4. 

* Vntum is ftlH> often uied in tbe clutical Kate uf dedre, e. g. 30S. 13 


270 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

There is not much that is noteworthy concerning watching, 
literal or metaphorical, and fasting. In frequenianda oratione 
Hocte uigilare 288. 22, inuigilare el incumbere ad preces 289. 11, 
uigihre in satufactione Dei 522. 17, and the like are frequent. 
leiunium^ 377. 13, ficc. is common. 

§ 1 8. Ecclesia, as the body of Christians, — eccle^ia ul est 
pleb9 in ecclesia conHituta 711. 18 — has already been con- 
sidered. In Test, 3. 46 tit, muUerem in eccUsia tacere debere 
he is borrowing Scriptural language ; but 508. 20 ad ecclesiam 
reuerti may mean the place of assembly. This is more 
probable in 686. 3, where Cyprian speaks of Felicissimus 
and his companions as not having the courage ad ecclesiae 
limen accedere. But there are no instances so clear as some in 
Tertullian of this sense of the word. Static is used 598. 9, 
and also by Cornelius, 612. 7. The only furniture of the 
Church mentioned beside the altar is the pulpitutn^ from 
which the lector read the Scripture. The pulpitum in 583. 24 
is tribunal ecclesiae^ and the lector loci altioris cehitate subnixits. 
In 581. 1 the exchange by the confessor Aurelius of the 
catasia for the pulpitum^ on his ordination to the lectorship, 
gains the more in point the greater the resemblance between 
the two. In Ta%9, Perp, 19 Satuminus is exposed upon a 
pulpitum at his martyrdom. In Pass, Perp, 5, 6 the prisoners* 
station in court is catasta^ rendered in the Greek by ^rjfia^ 
Rutilius Namatianus (i. 393) in the fifth century describes 
Christian sermons as mendacis deliramenfa catastae. Thus it 
had come to be equivalent to pulpit. The two words must 
have been identical in meaning ; a platform affording a full 
view of the person reading, on sale (Pers. 6. 77, &c.), or 
under trial or torture. 

It is remarkable that Cyprian seems to avoid giving 
a definite name to the Christian meeting. He is contented 
with vague language, like colligi 222. 4 (cf. 659. 15 ; never 
the vulgar coUigere of Tertullian and others ; Kofimane, p. 47, 

maiora detnderia et uota poiioraj 351. 15 studio magU contradicendi quam 
uoto discauli, 510. i, 656. 7, 686. 17, &c. 

The Language of Si. Cyprian. n-ji 

Rousch, It. I', p. 353), where, however, exlra ecc/esiam may he 
local; in nitum coi>iienire 269. I, Perhaps, indeed, there wes 
no permanent ehurch in Carthage. A comparison of 600, 21 
contidaitibus Dei nacerdotHiut et alfari potito at a Council, with 
6H8. I rfceflenditie sacerf!o(ibiis ae Domini a/tare reiiwueiifibut, 
vaggesis that the place of meeting waa not permanently 
devoted to its purpose. Had there been a ohuich the Cotiiicil 
would no doubt have met there. But the rleri nontri sarer 
uenerandiitqiie conge»tu» of the latter passage was in all pro- 
bability a dais, and must have been cumbrous for removal. 
There is no such use of the word in Georges' Dictionary, and 
it may possibly, as already suggested, be equivalent to corixef- 
xu», but cf. Apnl, Se Deo Socr. 4 {p. 9. 14 Goldbacher), usqne a4 
rpgiiinulalihmguffgeiitumftjienilulumttibutialeiieetug. And when 
in 688. I we read uf erclena Capitvfio ceilat it seems as though 
each were a building, and each perhaps single of its kind, 

§ 19. Ee.side the acts of worship already mentioned there 
remains the sermon of the bishop. No one else is named by 
Cyprian as addressing the people. In 527. 20 he ^[icaks of 
aiUocuiio et perfvami. This was by letter, but Cyprian's 
letters addressed to the jieojile were really speeches, some of 
them of the most rhetorical character, written to bo delivered 
for him in the assembly. Though aiUc^ufio wos a recognized 
term (Text., Novatian in Eji. 30 and later writers ; see Mat- 
zinger on De Bono Pwl. p. 14) Cyprian never uses it again. 
Instead he constantly uses tracfatiis ; fraciaHo never. Trae- 
(are, in the sense of preaching, occurs in the Preface to the 
Tettimonia, 36. 3, where Cyprian states that his object in 
writing is tiou tarn traHa»»e r/itam (rarlaiitibus materiam prae- 
bttitte. He repeats this, as he usually does with what seem 
tfl him Imppy phrases, in the Preface to the Ad FoHunatum, 
318, II id non tarn traelaium menm uiihar tibi miniMe quam 
maleriam (raelanlibiit pruebtii»9e. As traclaitles in the second 
clause of both certainly means preachers, the word must have 
the same meaning in the first. The verb recurs in the same 
sense 633, 17, 6^,t). 15, 842. 1, the noun 319. 3, 383. 7, and in 

2/2 The Style and Langtuzge of St, Cyprian. 

Ep. 77 hy Nemesianas, 834. 7 nan desinii in traclaiibus tuut 
^acramenta occulta nudare^, 

§ 20. There is not much variety in the mode of address by 
the clergy to one another and to the huty. Frater is normal 
in both cases, the laity are fraire% ei sorores 473. 8, cf. the 
QommovLfratern'ita9\ lector frater uoster 565. 14. In directly 
addressing his correspondents the word rarel}^ stands alone ; 
in the hostile Ej). 66 to Florentius always, and also often 
in the friendly Ep, 59 to Cornelius. Elsewhere in that 
letter the usnal /rater car mi me is nsed. A bishop is called 
fiius in 469. 4, and Quirinos of the Testimonia, addressed uajiti 
carmime, may have been a bishop aUo, and certainly belonged 
to the clergy, as the Magnus fliua of Ep. 74, and others so 
styled by Cyprian may also have dona The only epithets 
used, except the neutral desiderantissimus of the final saluta- 
tions, are carMmus and dilectUsimus, Of these the former is 
used for the most part in addressing clergy, the latter in 
addressing laity, though there are sundry exceptions^. Dilee^ 
tissimns is constantly employed in Ep, 58, to the plebs of 
Thibaris, in which the Bishop and Clergy of that place^ who 
must have been at variance with Cyprian, are ignored. It is 
also usual in the treatises, e.g. de Un., B. Pat,, Bom, Or. 
Carmimus is used more irregularly. Its common use is to 
the clergy, clergy jointly with laity, or the confessors. Yet 
in Ep, 43, addressed to the plebs only, they are cariisimi four 
times, dUectmimi thrice. But bishops also are called dilectU^ 
simi^ e.g. 435. 11, 806. 15, and in Ep, 67, addressed to clergy 

* From De Bono Pud. 1 (A. 13. 5) cotidianin euangeliorum tractatihus the 
sermon seemn to have been part of the daily Eucharistic service, cf. ib. 14. i. 
Matzinger, Des hi. Cypr. Tractat de B. Pud., Niimberg, 1893, has shoini 
Mtrong grounds for regarding this treatise as Cyprian's ; cf. p. 1 94. Cyprian uses 
the noun twice (623. 14, 632. 3), the verb four times (510. 3, 525. 7, 565. 19, 
570. 7) of proceedings in Council, inhere the speeches no doubt had some 
resemblance to sermons. Tractatus appears to be used several times in the 
De Rebapt. in the sense of argument. Praeconium (add to Hartel's list 237. 
14, 363. 9) is never used in this sense by Cyprian, as Koffmane, p. 97^ aeserts. 

' See Wolfflin's most instructive article in YdnArchio, 1892, p. 19. Nothing 
can be learned from the recent papers of Babl and Engelbrecht on this subject. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 

Bfi well &i laity, ilUectiumni is constant, except in the final 
ealntation, where carisiimi stands ; but the genuineness of this 
salntation is doubtful. 

DonttHHt is never used by Cyprian. He is bo addressed by 
other bishops, H36, ^, and the word is used seveisl times in 
the £/ip. by persons of different classes to their equals and 
superiors, much as it is in Apul. Melant. Papa, PajMm is con- 
lined to Novatian and other Roman writers in their addresses 
to Cyprian, Cornelius never uses it. Bcuedictuf (used in the 
Rom. Kj). 8, 4X5, 19, Pa>s. Perp. 3, Tert. Prac ct. 30, &c.) 
is never used by Cyprian either of the living or of the dead. 
£«r^H«isconstantly used for confessors and martyrs; ieali/fgimus 
more rarely, both of the living and dead, e. g. 492. 1.5, 828. 13. 

In addressing others Cyprian often speaks modestly of 
mtnliocriiat nottra (101. 15, 297. 11, 317. 8, 435. 12, 527. 15, 
22, 576. 18, 623, 20, 749. 5, 760. 19, 799. I ; parua no»ira 
mediocritaa 765. 23), for ego, an espresaion apparently firet 
used by Yelleius, 2, in. 3. Elsewhere be uses the word aa an 
abstract in similar passages ; e.g. 4. 7, ^d^. 6, 656. 10, 702. 
1, 79S. 9. Other examples of self- depreciation are 189. 19 
txlremi et minimi et kumUitatit noitrae admodum conscii, 309. 
16 minimu* et extremui, 500. 8 minim uifaiaulut. The two lust 
are justified by being used of himself as favoured with a 
vision. There ia no formal system of abstraction, ianctitiu 
taa, &c. in Cyprian (cf. WSlfflin in his Archiv, 1892, p. 3}, 
yet there is a certain approximation to it; e.g. 495. 13 
ailmoneo reliyiosam toiiicilu'liucm aeilram, 5H8. 3 dilit/eiUia 
nostra, 504. 15, 676. 13, 775. 7, &c. 

It is worthy of notice that Christians in Cyprian's Epp. 
invariably have only one name, in spjte of the obvious incon- 
venience of this in a country so ill-provided as Africa. Tlio 
only exceptions are in Up. 66, where Cyprian follows the 
example of bis op]X)nent Puppianus in giving himself two 
names, coupled, in the manner usuiil in the African inscrip- 
tions, by qui el^, and the two Geminii of lip. i. The same is 

' K. g. In Uie uuiodeiwl auppleiueat to C. I. L. S, 11499, '15 'Si '193*^1 
vol.. IV. T 

_ « 

'^- '. :r^r > i.- -: mit-Ti-u* -2»enr:— •til? >:cs<a 

/ ' .". 

« « 


-.*• * : •-^ -'".r i-^^-'r-ar'Ij Tr .aai Eucharistio 
'.■. * •.-.' .'-. ■". -'»r \' .-r -a.'i-rA.rr* "-r i-lT-i-i -KzjikZ are evidently 

/////».,"/>"' "*-^0/,»fjjf ^/ •- •;'-*; •■.-;,. T *V^ 'ic 'i.^ari ^z* ^af^-r/jiciU hom 
,///-./'/// -;; ; ( •A^^-.r'-o ^i a ■/'H-*io.i'* fii^rtt-t'Tfia ^anfum *yynt inirani , 
'/* t '"''■' *i*'nfnfiJi ol-m f. tm j.rt'fi/jt*fn4 honor'^ntur rt /iiuUioHt4 
t$irtif,if,ui'i iifii$niliH quitattfafthiin jjartianfur. There are thus 
lliM< .-o-iMi-... of inr-oriif : 'ij the *^///Jf, which is the ifijvt men- 
nh itti III ilii* (*liiirf'li in itH or^nization as a ^uild, and forms 
I III-, ifitimn nii'imnnia '. Tlii^ niust also be the ntipenflia ecrlesiat 
I /./-.I .'/..I »//«/! //Mil/ /i- of /"^K 8. 14. (2) 04/«///o«<'*, which can onlv 
limit liiTii ill! irriHfiiliir wMiriM* of income. (3) Sjwrfufa and 
^•.•"." . w H h sfoifuiiiir iind homtran; Honor, honorare must have 
•I ili-htitli* ».rii«n«, hko lilt* ^i'//i»r moUc'i^^ and ntportufa must have 
llio ..niiii» •!, n-.o «i in I ho irniKls, whore ])eriodical distributions 
«iMi' in.iilo !o iho iiioiuUmn t'n^m the interest of legacies, gifts 
A \\w u» U. ,'i :i vjx'iuMal sub^oription : of. Sohie^ (7;, r/V. p. 103. 
I ■»« • %'.\'.'v't\\i v.\ av.'oi'.ut a^wrvlintr to the rank of the 

••'.»••*•.• •'» '. ^- vvv'..'\ ; K-t' Tor:. /.■•/«. I- (ig-. ^ Reiff.). 


^. '. ■'•,■ s' \- f.-v>'. o.*v.vs8!i*.'rs An? V have the same 
•, v^ ^ .-^ * .' '— .Va'^ %f:?*? than the deao*>ns 

^''^ * * ^^ .• V. *> • .' — <\-.:" •:>•: Lij'^ ..'hosfen instead 
»• * . * . V V '.» " . ■•"..*.:.{ s. ivv, oa wbioh the 

'N V 

■■■'*•'• ••^.o*. 3. ::i' 

V » 

* % "\ \ 

% - % 

- d I 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 275 

though probably nothing morej that under the Empire there 
Bhould have gfrown up a system of tporfulae for the mainten- 
ance of the Roman worship : cf. Mommsen, Slaatsrecht, ii. 63. 
§ 33. Of Christian virtues the one most commonlv incul- 
cated is di«rip/i}ia. Of dUci'p/ina one sense, in which It 
represents BiSao-icaAia, has already been mentioned in § 6. 
It fltands more often for loyalty or obedience to the law of 
God, and of conduct resulting- from such obedience, e. r-. 268. 
jS precatio cum {liscij)/ina quktem cimtiiiem ef, pvdorem, where 
cum ditciplina is adverbial, 369, 3 uerdcuntitae ei ilUciplinae 
memoren, both of the conduct of worshippers ; 439. 15 ad 
pairem Deum deifita diieij/ma renpoudeat^ 618. 3a nee remanere 
in eeelesia I}ei pOMu»t yiii deijicam ei eecletiagiicam diiciplinam 
nee actu» tut conueriatione nee mifrum pace (ennerutil ' ; 584. 16, 
ut mai/i'»terium caeterU praebeat ditcip/inae, 742. 3i, 527. 7*, 
&C. It is not always easy to distinguish cafiea in which the 
thon^ht is that of military disi'ipline from those in which it 
is of religious teaching. Practically identical with ditcijiHna, 
in its sense of ' loyal obedience,' are sometimes eetigura {see note 
to § 3) and often nigor, Ihough it is more often used of the 
bishop in his capacity of judge than of other Christiand, loyal 
under pressure', iHl-eger, iidegrUai, also in the sense of 
'loyalty,' are common. 

' In thene two puang^ dfificn duelplina in aiuiply erjuivslent to dirciptiiia 
dominiea 505. ji. 9ee { I. 

' Dinfipliim Is often nted with, or a> the Miue genu M, etiiiura, e. g. 6li$. 
11 Ultirrat . . .el tceltiiatlieai diieiiiliime tl tnetrdotalU etsnrae plenai, 
6)5. 14, 8to. In 591. 34 ditcfpliva is contrutfii with muerieor-lia. Closel/ 
connected with its lue of the te»cbinff of Scripture ii thai of diisijiUna man- 
giliea, the law of tha Go»pel, 59J. 19. 709. 13, 713. 18, Ac. It stuidi fur 
k lemon lesrot, 303. 16 hnni^ apottoli diieipHnam ria Domini Itgc lenu-nnt 
mm mtiuilurr t'n ailuerrh, Soi. 11; of proficienoy in what hna heen Uught, 
9. J diteiplina rtt ul prrimfTi qiiiipottit. The conlinut between the diiMpliua 
of pnbllc BiKt Uie eaRneraufto of private life, wbiuli Kdlberj,' !p. 164 n.) trauea 
in TertuIIi«ii, tannot be e»t»bli«hed for Cyprirw In other reBi*ct« the two 
u*e the word in the iMne kebmb Rnd with b<iuiiI freqnencj. 

' Vigor liu a wide ■□<! vigue uce. It is tnoat commim H equirrtlent to 
DFnnrra. in the eenae nurjed »b>ive ; 199. 1;, 730. Jo. &c. Cminra uujurii 
744. 16, tnd cmmrae vigor 384. 14, are ideoticil pteouatic tcmu. It Ii alsii 
lined for 'leverilj,' jjfi. 4, 60S. lI,Ac. ; cf. in the Roiiiwi Ep. id tignr tint et 

T a 

276 The Style and Langtmge of St. Cyprian. 

CaritoB and dilectio (once, in Tett. 3. 3 tii. agape et dileetk) 
are equally common. Adfeetio seems only once (23a. i) to be 
used of the virtue ; elsewhere it is of personal feeling. Can' 
cordia (coficordla pacts 217. 23, 220. 17 and eoneordiae pax 
285. 11). Pax {pax morum 618. 23, cf. 621. 17 ; the adjectives 
corresponding to it are pacatus once, 221. 5 simplice* et pacati^ 
jMcifcus constantly^), quies^ verecundia^ continentia in the 
patristic sense, and humilitas^ are constantly mentioned. 
The right feeling of man towards God is usually timor^ e. g. 
526. 7 {timere 302. 27, and often, timidns 501. 10, iimide ae 
religiose 716. 7), more rarely metus 392. 26, &c., with metuere 
'jyj. 21, &C. Trementee ac metuentes Deum occurs 567. 10; 
kumilem et guietum et trementem sermones suos 506. 2. 
Obsequium and ohseruatio are very common, 392. 29, 741. 
23, &c. Deuotio is not very common ; 631. 5 deuotio et timor; 
660, 9 deuotionis fides equivalent to fdelis deuotio 786. 10 ; 
denote etfortiter 513. 9, deuota uirtus 663. 23, Sec,, Jldelissimus 
ac deuotissimus frater 503. 16. The meaning is always that 
of loyalty. Dicatus Deo (see Hartel's Index), according to 
Biinemann on Lact. Epit. 71. 8, first occurs in Cyprian. 
Justus is fairly common as equivalent to ' righteous,' e.g. 681. 
4 confessores et uirgines et iustos quosque fidei laude praecipuos ; 
so also ivstitia, 431. 7, includes all the virtues previously 

. . . teueriias (573. 18), and 551. 16, also Roman. It means also the right to 
jurisdiction, 469. 13 pro episcopatus uigore et eathedrete aMetorttaU, 667. 14, 
Sue, In all these cases it is exactly equal to diseiplina. It is also often 
used quite classically for * power ' or ' energy * ; 6. 18, 361. 6, 725. 10, &c. Ft^or 
Jidei is very c^^mmon, 339. 35, 630. 24, &c. ; uufor continentiae 638. 16. 
Vigor f discipfina, censura, robur, tenor {ienorem tenere 621. 17, 725. 9, tenore 
ctutodiiae fidei uigere 828. 17, si tenor fitfei praeualei apud uo$ 806. 15, &o.) 
are all used separately and in combination without any definite differenoe of 

* Pax is also frequently contrasted with turbo, tetnpeittaa, proedla of perse- 
cution or heresy. 

' JIumiliSf humilitaa are almost always used in the Christian sense; cf. 
507. 16 humUes et qnieti el tacitumi (unmurmuring), and in the Roman £p, 
31 (563. i) humilUas et fubiectio. In 730. 24 the humilitae of brigands to 
their chief ; in 189. 19, 689. 4 it means * lowly position.* HumUiare (373. 7) is 
rare, except in Scriptural reminiscences. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 277 

mentioned. Similar uses are 7. i, 223. 20, 62^^. 10', Fitief, 
aa the Christian Faith and in relation to Baptism, has been 
already mentioned. Ab a virtue of the individual Christian 
it \i sIpo used in the Scriptnral way: e.g. 672. X"] filen qua 
I'iitimnt- There seems lo be nothing peculiar about the man- 
ner of its employment. The ueeB of creilere are sufficiently 
ijriven in IlarterB Iiiiiex '. 

§ 23. Charity and alms are often described as rleemotyHac. 
The singular perhaps only occors in Te»L 3. i (1 11. 12) 
nemini tiegantlam ehemo»ytiam and ,377. 10. The plural seems 
always to mean 'acts of mercv,' elKemoni/nag faeei'e hein^ the 
most enmmon use 379. 23, &c , from Ae(« 10. 2, Sic. ; cf 290. 
31 ; there ia nothing lite eUemoxyna» <fare. M-»irrirordia, 
according to Kufftnane, p. 30, was first introduced by Cyprian 
as a translation of eleemimyna^. In Te»t. 3, I fit. de 60110 operi* 
H mitericardiae becomes in ^ 2 tii. in opere el eleemotyni*. 
These are, as is usual in Cyprian, simple jileonasms. Miteri- 
•■ordia is very common in Ojt. El., e.g. 374. 22 addidit elee- 
iiiM^nat eme J'acie»da» ; miserifort vionet viitericordiam feri. 
which are identical phrases ; 375. 18 mUericordiae opera ; 376. 
1 7 operaliomhu* iutti» Deo taiinjieri, mitericoTfliae meritit peecata 
jturgari, and many more. Mitera/iotiet paupenim ^ ' ficia of 
mercy to the poor,' occurs 379. 34, from Dan. 4. 24 (377. 6). 
But the common word for acts of charity is operalio, often 
with the epithet iW/a {see note to the last §) as in 374. 9, 
384. 11, but also without, 383, 27, 503. 18, &c.* Opw»inthe 

' The word in often »liMi QSad in the leiiBB of 'adequits'; ynrnlleulM plena 
et imtta 636. 14, dntitr opera n« lali'/itElianiiat el lamtulatioHibia iiulU 
dtlitrta redimaiitUT 68a. 11, ftc. IC ia difficult to Me tiie eisct meuiinjf in 
651. 18 eiUemptratvlnm tit ofttmlonihut ailqnt admoniliopibni iatlU; in Uie 
Rotnftnffi. 31 (5l)i. 11] de tnii lalioriiiu intlii u from the LXX of Pror. 3. g. 
For iiiMlitia Ai > reclering of the fiiblini Smaiaairii in the WDie of ' klmi' 
tef tlia next wction, uid J. B. Mkjror'i **lunble note on Jmc. 5. 30 oa tha 
IbeologioU uieof IiiniiavAij. 

• For endrre CKrUlo, Sec. mlA 361. aS. 404. ), 431. tS, 596. 10, 719. ifi ; 
f»T ere4lm aliqaem. Sent. 14*1111 A. 71. 11 ; eredere co*lra aliiiutPi J34. lO. 

■ Vet TerL Adu. Marc. 4 37 h»» mixrieor-lvtr iipa-a, and 0'. Fitg. 13 in. 

' Id othar eenw* the woitl i* rare ; 7. 1 operatia iatla leelna Qied genimlly of 
> righleoui life ; 466. 8 Le«ilie-i Irilm, . . . q-ii op^r<,tiu«il..udi-iMU i«,i,tel.„,l . 

278 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

singalar is not very oommon in this sense^ Tent. 3. i, 2, 26 
iiU^ 385. 10, &c., though the pluial constantly oocors. Opera 
singular is absent, and the plural operae is only used by 
the illiterate Celerinus, 531. 4. Operari is also common, e.g. 
Teit. 3. 40 tit, non iactanter nee tumultuose operandum. 
Operans occurs as an adjective 394. 3, and 407. i iusti et 
operanteSy and also operarim 379. 17, 0. etfructuosu^ 380. 3*. 
The last, with its contrary HeriliSy is often used. lustitia is often 
used for ' charity.' The word is no doubt derived from dtxato- 
(ruv7)y regarded as an exact equivalent for ikaiixofrvini, in such 
Biblical passages as Matt. 6. i. There is no rendering of 
this verse in Cyprian, but the Vulgat-e has iustUiam^ and 
probably Cyprian had the same, though k reads elemosinam* 
At any rate there are many other Biblical passages &om 
which he might have borrowed the word ; cf. Meyer's Com- 
mentary on Matt. 6. i. The word is thoroughly adopted and 
used freely and naturally by Cyprian ; iustitiae opera 314. 5, 
iustitiae ac misericord iae nogtrae opera 392. 19, and iusta 
operatio often in Op. EL ; in^ti et operante*^ synonymous, 407. 
I ; cf. 307. 5. As has been already stated, plus, pietae are not 
used by Cyprian in this sense. * To distribute alms' is com- 
monly di%pen9are 393. 12, 588. 14, 700. 19, &c.* 

§ 24. The distinctively Christian conuer^atio^ for * manner of 
life,' is not much more common than actiis. Their strict 
meanings seem to be reversed in 739. 13 episcopu^ deligatur 
plebe praeseiite quae . . . uniidscuiusque actum de eius conuer^ 
satione perspexit, where actu^ must mean 'character* and 
conuersatio * conduct.' Elsewhere the words seem to be used 

* Opus, operari occur in several senses ; opera aaeculariaffunesta 633. 6, 
636. 3, &c. In 837. 20 Nemesianus strangely writes aacrifieium ex omni 
opere mundo. Operari in aliquem^* to relieve,' 386. 8, * to injure,* 483. 8 ; 
operari ad honos m*u«, necessitates, &c., 195. 23, 479. 4, 700. a8 ; circa frae* 
turn ealutis operanies':' to win,* 390. 2 ; magis ac magie intellectus cordis 
operabitur scruianti scripturas 36. 18 ; operaiur per inprohas mentes uirus 
13. 3; clauo funibtu tteiis ut fabricetur et armetur nauis operare 647. i. 
The verb is transitive in 11. 6. 

' Expungere in the very hastily written Ep. 41 (587. 13, 588. 5) cannot be 
regarded as an ecclesiastical term. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 


; e. g. 274. 

indifferently. Conuergari ie very rare in this 

13 and in Ep, 75 (817. 21). 

Religio has a wide use, tliougli such phraiBes as re/h/io 
ehristiana do not occur'. It is often employed of the religious 
frame of mind .is in 204. 19 iuifitiam cam religione rdlHentet^ 
ttahilea Ih fide sq., which, in Cyprian's language, is proitably 
equivalent to religiose, 303. 1 c'lrea (morem Dei tlabilii ei 
jiTnm» H ad omnem loferanOam pa»*io7iu fide religiauit artnatu*, 

742. 9 permanet apud plarimos sineera men» et religio inlegra, 

743. 17 f. inlegrUati* et fidei uestrae religtotam ioUicitudinem 
laudaiiiut et tulfiortamur ne . . . ted inirgram et lineeram fidet 
vextraefirmitatem rtligioto titaore seruet'ts. Text, 3. 3 tit. agapew 
et dilectionem religime et firmiter exereemlam 193. aK, 3jo. 
17, &c. It will be seen that the word is used in ]»s»igea 
where there is the notion of steadiness and of awe. The 
preceding passages have referred to the laity only or to all 
Christians ; but the word is also specially used of the debates 
and decisions of Bishops and Councils, as 466. id epiteopi 
aniecesforet nosiri religiose consideraniet ei aalaljriier provideuteg, 
716. 7 sollicite et iimide ae religiose, ib. 25 religioHt noatrae 
covgruit et timori et ijisi loco adque officio saeerdoiii nostri, 736. 
20, 8oj. 9, &0. The connotAtion of inreligiosus is the same, 
415. 13 inreligioea et inuerecunda fiestinatio, 741. la nea not 
mot/eat . . . si apud quotdam aut lubrica fides niiiat aut Bet 
iimor inreVigiosut nacUlat'^. 

' Yet af.J4l. as ladaeiidejleiinlibiuelareliijIonfliHiiia Tfctdtnlibiit, 36^. 

14 utTtit religiotiii ctt»diila iiu oiinlrMted with leiiebrota ruper'Ulio. 

* B«aido thia genera] use of rrlu/io it appear* to have definitolj' that at 
' Order*' in too piuia^s ; 5S6. 10 el promoaebittir q*id«m(, f^vmldieiuproitg- 
ler'i ml aotjillortm grudum nligiaiiii mar, i.e. lapardotium, 6ig. II iCome- 
lim) per omnia icrleniulKa iifflcia yromolui ... ml mcerdolii tuhtime/iuH- 
fflam cunofu riltginni* gruililiiu OKtndil. So aliin JIO. 15 admiiMtalio 
religtota itMiilB fur the uiiwl teeUtiatlica. But in 478. 14, though a limilar 
pauage, reiiijio ia/t quite a giDeral unw, as alao probubtjr in 600. ii lu i-inio 
frattum Teliyimoqiie eo»iienl», i. e. lam reliyioM {et, 609. 1 Initta lattllia 
adfteti •uiiiiut tt Deo . . . grattat agimttt, ac. tanliu. Saoli oini 
tide througb tbo Buue preceding Btecomiuoii in Cj-prian ; lee p. igS a.}. 
«ord comn to mean rule, 465. iS eaiui orilinalioniii H rdigfonii for\ 
LtMllae pn'ia In lege Itnueriml, where there are three ii)'notiyiiti ; in 686. 

28o The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

Christians are thrice described hsfundati ^uper petram 210. 
16, 579. 9, 625. 4; cf. 188. 10. ChristM qui e^t petra 
occurs 706. 19^. Progress in Christian life is expressed by 
proficere^ which is constantly used in all possible constructions^. 
The result is promereri Beum^ used by Cyprian at least twenty- 
three times'; tnerita means almost as often 'punishment' as 
* reward,' 359. 8, 496. 19, &c. The metaphor of agon^ palma, 
&c. is used of a good life as well as of confessorship, 394. 
21 ff., and elsewhere. 

§ 25. Sin* is peccatum or delictum^ the former being the 
more usual. Peccafar^ both as a substantive and as an 
attribute {mcerdos mcrilegvs et peccator 769. 2, &c.), is com- 
mon; delictm- only occurs 720. 17. Delinquere^ is somewhat 

713. 18 it seems equivalent to dUeiplina and censura. In one ftaauige, 698. 
ao f.y it seems osed of a bond, according to the old etymology ; et noH tanium 
dilectio $ed et religio intiigare nos debeat adfrcUrum corpora rtdimendtu Here 
reiigio refers to the adunatiOf dilectio to fratres preceding. There remain the 
three passages 467. 4 $acerdotum decretam religiose et neeeMarie factum, 605. 
i^ et religiosum uobi$ et neeesearium existimaui . , . ad confe$9ore» littera* 
facere, 701. 19 rdxg\09um pariter ac necessarium duxi de hoc ad uos lUterag 
facere. The third of these shows that in the second uohis cannot be oonstrued 
with litterae facere ; and Cyprian never has littercufaeere alieui. Vohie must 
be equivalent to erga uo» and reliyiosumf religiose taken in a general sente in 
all three cases. 

^ The word pefra is used literally once, 667. 24. 

' HarteVs litft of these constructions is by no means complete. The word is 
very sparingly used by Tertullian ; it is constantly used by Seneca of moral 
progress, and very possibly is a part of Cyprian*s debt to him. 

» To Hartel's insUnces add 392. 28, 483. 11, 494, 19, 511. 5, 525. ii, 539. 
7, 629. iO| 831. 8, Vita, c. 3. All have Deum or Dominum as direct object, 
except 494. 19 coronam de eo promerendam. The word is not used bj the 
other writers in Cyprian's £pp., and rarely by Tertullian. It is used twice at 
least by Seneca instead of his usual demereri; Dial. 7. 24. i, Bei^. 2. a. i. 
Apuleius uses it thrice in Met. 5. 25, 6. 10, 11. 6 (93. 23, 103. 8, 209. 6 Eyas.). 
The first and third have Cupidinem, nttmen as objects. The word did not hold 
its own in later theological literature ; Ambr. Ep. 63. 112, Hier. J^. 120. 10. 
Aug. C D. 19. 16, 21. 27 are, I think, the only instances in those writings. 

* Much of the language dealt with in this section, though generally appli- 
cable, is used by Cyprian only in relation to heresy or lapse, because he rarely 
has occasion to mention other sins. For the sake of convenience I have dealt 
with the whole here, instead of placing part in the later seotions which deal 
with those subjects. 

* Delinquere magna 262. 18 (ef. peccare grauia 228. i^^tdelinquere in Deum 
717. 10, deliuqMeHtee^delictoree 743. 4. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 

rare ; jtereaee ownrs on almost every pnge. Mort-ale crh/teti 
only occurs once, 407. 21 ', mor/alia docere 469. 3, i. e. the art 
of acting. Heresy ia falxa et mortalit sediiclio 72^. 16, and 
lupse tiimmttm ihliclum 51H. 3. Vvlitnt, cBpecially in Op. El., 
\a very conamon for ' sin * ''. The metaphor is carried out with 
great consistency ; viiliierali, Muciali, meAeUa, ciratneem obdii- 
cert, mitrliii't, &e. are frequent ; ef, 6^^. 1 7 ff. Almost as 
common is the metaphor of disease, mo-rlu», Jiwrlulun (always, 
I think, active, as it is in Lucretius' description uf the plague, 
6. 957, &c.), cont-agium, See. The Biblical tranngreiH and 
tramgreMw* do not occur in the plain sense of ' sin,' The only 
other common metaphor is that of iaheg 428, lO, &c., nonJen 
374. 17, &e. (singular, 'Fe»i. 3. 54 til.). There is nothing 
noteworthy about the names of particular sins; zeiui with 
zelafe (in Z. L. and elsewhere, as 693. 24) is common; 
vineeiut 638. II, &c., is rare. 

The dnty of man in relation to sin is paenifere*, or jmeni- 
l-eHtiam agere. Tlangere deVicta 261. 10, &c. (also intransitive 
641. 17, 649. 12), and many eimilur words are used in this 
connexion. It may be said that mnch of the Innguage which 
is used of Baptism as taking away sin, and most of that 
which is used of Christ's work, is repeated of human effort ; ef. 
such passages as 375. 2, 646. 12. The result of righteous- 
ness ia redimere deliela 195. 24, 3H7. 16, &c., lergere jifccafa 
once, 387. 25, jrropidari Drum 376. 16 (cf. 366. i), plaeare 
Jhminutit 249. 25, Di-pimere (641. 8, &c.), and exponere (e.g. 
433. 26) peeca/a are used occasionally. "Beside paeHifeaiia the 
normal language concerning penitents inclndes deprecatin, 
nafiiifactio and exhomotngenU \ 227. 10 in paenitriifia crmtnis 

' Aitnllrrium.Jratu, homieirlliini nre thf atimn 10 dellned. Cp. p. i^n., 
ktid Hkrokck, Ve Aleait. |>p. 17, S4 If. 

■ Cf. Miodoniki'B iiute to De Alt>,U. p. Bj. 

* Falnn-d iraatgretriontt a a>(sd by Novntian 551. 11 ; Irannjreiio prae- 
Cfpli oocum 409. 17, Ittci mi mlitittrriuia tranigresri 75;. 1, fiantgrrunr Irijii 
404. 37. Them nut the unty inal&nou of t)i> word la rebLLiun to sin ; it never 
hu the kbnulute moaning at ptaatum, &c. 

* Ai a penoiiol verb It uccurB 536. id, 647, 13, tha fint foUowed by > 
genitive, the Becond alone. 

282 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

eofuUtuii Deum plenis MtisfactionibM deprecantur. JDeprecatiOj 
singalar and plural, is common^ 377. 14, &c., satisfaction satis^ 
factiones^ mtisfacere^ satUJieri constantly occur ; 247. 9, 472. 
14, 516. II, 522. 17, 680. 18, &c. Exhomologesis is the regular 
word for ' confession ' ; it occurs in the plural 524. 5^. Con- 
fe%%io is only used twice in this sense; 258. 18 where it is 
explained by confiteantur preceding, and 615. 13 in the 
sense of return from schism ^. Exhomologesin facere is not so 
common as confiteri, or confiteri peccata. Cyprian's favourite 
metaphor for such penitent conduct is puUare ad ecclesiam 
682. 18, &c.^ The reward of penitence and confession is 
manus inpositio 514. ii, &c. It is strange, however, though 
in all probability an accident, that the substantive is never 
used in this connexion ; there is always a periphrasis ; manu 
eis a nobis in paenitentiam inposita 525. 18, and the like. 
Remissa, &c. have already been treated of under the head of 
Baptism. Absolutio and its cognates (cf. Tert. Adu. Marc. i. 
28) are entirely absent. 

The punishment of the impenitents {contumaces 248. 16, 
&c. is common, but hardly precise) is abstineri ; abstinere 
transitive occurs, 475. 20, &c., ten times in all, abstentus also 
frequently *. The full form abstinere a comm7inicatione, 590. 4, 
is not often used. Cohibere a communicatione, 597. 15, and 
prohibere^ 280. 13, do not recur. The opposite to abstinere is ad- 
mittere 6^6, 7, &c., or pacem dare, concedere^ &c., e.g. 717. 15. 

^ The evidence is strongly in favour of exhomologe»U instead of Hartel's 
exhomologetin ; cf. the plural haeresis 781. 16, 800. i, &c., which is the true 
reading, not haereses. 

* Probably also 647. 12, though there it may have its usual sense. It waa 
very natural that Cyprian should avoid it, s^nce he has so much occasion to 
speak of confession in the other sense. But it is almost as rare in Tertullian ; 
perhaps only Adu. Marc. ii. 34 paenitentiae confessio, Apol. 24, Paen, 3, 8, 
Cam. Xti 8. 

' It is impossible to reconstruct from Cyprian the ceremony of penitence and 
readmission. But from Ep. 59. 1 5 it is clear that the account given by Tertul- 
lian in Pud, 1 3, though hostile, is not inaccurate. Tertullian^s language in 
relation to sin, penitence, &c., is much the same as Cyprian's. 

* For the construction of abstinere see Weinhold in Wdlfflin*s Archiv, 
6. 509 ff. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 

\ 2(5. HiimaD reeponeiliility is recognized as arbi/riiim 
iiierum^; Tett. 3. 52 tit,, 204. I, 218. 16, 674, 15; cf. the 
common Baving clause concerning bishops, & g. 778. 5 tpi^ndo 
kabeal i» eeeletiae tulminis/ratiojte uolimiafig suae arbllrium (ihe- 
rum, iiHtisquigque prarponUus. Man's mind and conscience is 
uioi^Xy coHKcientia; the word has a wide extension of meaning^. 

^ 27. Human life is transitory (for emtuiUnt implying this 
see p. 311). and its end a summons or departure. Mor», 
niori are therefore asually paraphrased, and not often used of 
Christians withont some qualification. 

There is a great variety of language concerning death. 
Jrcettire, arcemiio, from the Old Latin of such passages as 
Job. 14. 3 (v. RQnach, li. V. 284, and WSlftlin in his Arc/ni-, 
•"93' P- 286), occur respectively twice and five times'. The 
li arbitnt el tuat potttlatU 

a Tertiilli»D, Ada. Marc. ii. S Hbar 

the Mam of ' initid,' e.g. S31. 24 i^inteiiMiae aielricU uigor, 494. 14 
I I'n'i^a at coHteienlia ijlorlma, if,i. n Aoc eo prq/leil al til minor 
nip-i, nan ■' innoceiii contcientla, IJJ, tj, 3S7. 17, &€. So alio ennieieittia 
i« oftKn contrwtod with mania, mputal ■clioD vith bodily ; 156. 14 niniiHii 
eonlaminari, eontcitntiam miteen, 634, 5 miniM pvra, coiiiciVhIiu poU'itn, 
51S. i, ha. Ne quill eonineHliam ua-tram laltrel 547. ii.uid aimilar plirua 
■re vei-f comumii ; 50a. 17, 777. 14, fta. Ueiice the word cnniea h> hnve lbs 
exact muDing of ' knoiiirl«dg« ' ; 346. 8 (Faiilu4> qui id qMod li didigit el uidH 
maiorit cnitreientiae ueritale profiletur, i. e. truth gained by fullar know- 
ledge ; of kaovledge tnrolving consent, 717. 1 4 j/nc pr(i/<i et comcitnliu plebiM, 
717. 4 tine eaaicientia et permittu Dri, cf. 738. 1 j, *c. Thig knowledge ui«y 
ba tbitt puuewed by ntbon of a perwin's cburaoter; 1119. 8 %-iHC couicirnlian 
eriminnn tum pri^lrm limebal, i.e. publia knowlc<1gG; ao 39S. 10 uirlulum 
eanittientia i* oontrwted with iaclatUia ; the g<>od chanoter of Chriitiann is 
well known, tbongh they do not parada it as do tlie pbi!(i«oplie» ; lo also 10. 
iG tmil probably 031. 11 qui eoiueitnliac luae lnea elartteuitl. CoRteuiiEfa 
ma iFeiDi to mean the general knowledge of Coroelius' merit, not hia own 
ConaciouB innocence. The word also menni the mow of iimucenco or of guilt, 
mure oRen the latter than the former; so 1 1. 4, 59:. 14. 61S. 11, 7^7. 21. In 
634. (O lolerubUii eonMnitntia^t not unbearable wuh of etu. Henoe tha 
meaning of aotnal innucunce or guilt -. 347. 17 in periecutioHa mtli(i*a, in pact 
onalur, 734, 17, &e. ; 356. ^ inpuallum din nan fuit ■ . . ifi*- 
iailiat crimen, 183. 17 admoMmur qaod peccatortt lumtu . . . 
ttiat mifniH) reeordetitr, 474. 1 1, 739. 19, ftc. Bt»t tiht eoii- 
tciia oeonrt 360. j, 549. 4 ; maU liti eoMciui 67B. 8, 683. 7. 

■ Tht verb in 308. 1 j, 730. (4 in ailditiun to Hartel'i inatanoe ftoui Ep. 11 

ninti'liitnt et 

2h^ Tlie Stvu amc Lam^MogE qf &. Cypriam, 

iffflioe sh? dasL ^frf. ri*. ^f**. ^ Bm iBn^Ihr words are 
nswmsL 'wrocL smxph- earT^<^r ^aie -amnsin %£ d efiiui e; 
•'^•rrfrf-'' f;?f 11. f*rr^l^^ f.54. 5;. tap^eaerf 3S4. 15. 4S6. 
J-, amd ufveiL. kuc **rr^'f-* 3^1;, :ii:. fcc- ane all 
aMiinv:}^ - : «rrf«Kr-r c or r»f mmmin . ifS^'se, fee. if 

crr^f r^ ^OfT*-"*. fct.. 5ac- 21. 2f), spfl. it fee.*: ^rrire. of 
fc Cnri6dKL'§ doRz.. iterbspF cnLy 3r*. 11 : iramnrt mi immffr- 
ia*iurrm 5,^5. -l- T*'^^**-; a« I^tminmm 73I- 2L rf. 339- 6, 
irmmtrrfrdi ad imsmnr^J^nn^m 51 2. 2:l fleem not to be pppeatod. 
T&f- eDmRioiiczii? ikcnntf vat emevnt^ and exifw*^ widk and 
vitbcnn ^> «ofri*V. fee. Qf lAeae tiie Istser is tbe more 
fKnuDinL 'Uiousrh far^'T^ it much more &eq[iaaiS than exire. 
Trati^sth* hJiz T 'cskJtT'r^t^ ciiaiid tc^rrtier, 31 c 04, 25 (ct 
1^2. 21 r<^c/;4r"«-«-«rip^ (tf inf cutnr in«ai a nev Hie in Bi^itisni) ; 
}frifffrB. f'-^. f. i'^'.-rrT'f f-r r-^CMkBOTit 311. 14. bonwed from 
tlie Bflcjcfcl r'c«rV-r-. usee of EsKiek. 't- 15. 2C ; rrd^fifio oeeon 
3^ 26 \ Iiie ranosf fjr^iuau wsaA has ahoost a litentore 
to 2ifie:£ i^ used :;i2. 22 : ^-e tl 2vv. To die beAm another 
u ^mt^arn 6^5. 6. ^2S. •. c*v«f mitt^-r 585. 16, j/rmem if iere 
586. 6 : rf. 2^2. 13. }if4fr'y»rrf is iis«id of man in the Scrip- 
tozal manner: ri'^yyrt rrdenhU ifi. 3. Concerning borial 
tJbcfre is no noieworthT bin^-CEa^ : clmtltriam is used of 
a Soman p>]ace of baiial. S43. g. cfl A:^-a^ ^ 1 {ciL 9); in 
74c. 2C d/,»'/ pr>^ana #?';*>"* •\fj9(i^l7i*$ is the language of 
a letu^r from Spain, not that of Crpnan. 

The dead are commemonted at the altar: the tMatio is 
made for them, including the marnrrs. and the Sacrifice 

' So f^^d^ert in the RoBtan i/w S .4S6. 5' ; -fe'^^t%U rpiritm 55^ (5, alto 
hfnBMH ; rte^tni abaoloie od a lomb, C. /. L. S. fcia. for afn'i/. lliere it 
A raJumbl« cr.JI«cu:« vi vam for deatli. OuiiCaiui «ii beatli«ffi. in A. Kftbler^a 
articie cm Uk Latuutr of Afiicaa IziKT<{kUoii« in Wotflm** jlrdbir, 8. 183, 
viiifcb «Ik)vi that tlwffe famtf of ifM^di vcnp br bo BMAaa excIaATctr CliristiMi. 
J Lavr foaivd thu amde a valoable snpplaDMit to mT ovu ivadisc of CI, It, 8. 

' Hariri ooeon ia Puc Prrp. ii vt«ieF> and 13 im Uut scMa ; it m im 
Up U aUflBi m TertidlHB. 

* Cr fMblllw «p£M^ vritcs m tke Wadi«g r t«« ^ »«* MSS. to ^^ 9. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 


offered, 466. 19, 467. a, 503. 14, 583. 10. At the altar the 
name of the deceased is pronouoced 466. 20 ; the anniuenaria 
rommemoratio of martyrs in 583. 12 no doubt took the same 
form. Bejirecatio on behalf of the deceased ia also mentioned 
467. 3, but it is not clear whether this is distinct from the 
naming at the altar ; the aut need not be disjunctive. But 
frequentelur would appear to indicate that there wiis, for 
a Christian who died a natural death, one funeral celebration 
of the Euchariat, and afterward for some time a mention of 
hia name in the usual service. Deprteatio is not spoken of 
in the case of the martyrs. 

The true life is vita; 370. 4 h\c mta aut amittilur aut 
teneiur, 288. i, 526. 5, and often. Fiialitia the sense of 'life- 
giving- 'is also frequent; aqua uUalit 188. 14, 219. ao, S:c., 
remeitia 254. 9, praeeepla 189. %i„foide« 786. 12, &c. ; so also 
uiuere, Deo ttiuere, tn Ifeo v'luere 187. 4, 283. 11, 370. 2, 753. 
5, &e. ; niuiilvt cvliat = aeiernu* 16. i ; niuenfet ejiiacopi 
736. 4. f'ittijicare in the senses both of'givinff life,' as 370. 
17, and 'restoring to life,' ae 275. 17, is common ; uiuijieatio 
394, 9, &c Caelum is varied once, at least, by the Biblical 
vaeli 658. 27, and by eaefesila, also Biblical, 304. 4. Neither 
of these is in a Suriptural contest. Begnum carhrum ia 
common, and regnum also without definition, e. g. 432. 15 ; see 
Hartel's Inilex Verborum: rtgna caeliirum 394, lo ; tuparna, at 
least four times, 362. 19, 393. 37, 438. 19,579. 3'. Paradlimt 
occurs 390. 10, 829. 19, and in a few other passages. 
■ Hefrigerium, also Biblical, is nsed occasionally, e.g. 829. 26; 
but Cyprian never employs Tertullian's refrigtrare. Con- 
aHmmare, are frequent, 379. 5, 489. 3, Sec. ; 
Coiitiiiiitiiator (sc. CAriifut) only 343. 6. 

^ 38. It remains to speak of the enemies of the Church, 
Jiaholv*, mrculunty Aarredci, &c. Diabolut, of coiuve, ia 
common, but Cyprian, with his usual dislike of Greek words, 
more often paraphrases the name. Aduenariut is the most 

' S«;i*rni,Ithiiib,o«!uri only once in Tfrt.; Scorp, H>{l67.8 Beiff.;. His 
words for licaven are ihesaiiie MCyprian'i, bulyaradtjuiil much more cunimoa. 

286 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

common substitate ; 289. 18, 580. 7, &;c., Liimicus somewhat 
less frequent, e. g. 21 1, 9 ; Aduersarius et Inimicus, together 
by pleonasm, 667. 20 ; Adtiersarius vetu9 et hostis antiquum 
317. 20. Both are used as actual substantives, and with 
attributes; expugnator Inimicus 201. 18; cf. 249. 10, &c. 
]llaius=6 TTovrjp6s is used 286. 6, 287. 13, &c., but less often 
than by Tertullian. Malignns is not used by Cyprian. It 
has been already mentioned that he never has Satan or 
Satanas. Immundus 9piritu9 (cf. Pa99. Perp. 21) is opposed to 
Spiritus Sanctity 645. 12, and is elsewhere used for diabolu^y 
but more commonly is in the plural. Serpens occurs several 
times, 210. I, 373. 15, &c., but draco is absent. Cyprian is 
apparently the inventor of the adjective serpentinus 431. 15, 
806. 9. Evil spirits are immundi spiritM often, immundi et 
errat'wi spiritus J. 16 (cf. spirit u erroris abreptus 211. 2), spiritus 
nequam 765. i and in Ep, 75 (817. 10), peccatores et apostal4ie 
angeli 197. 26. Daemonia seems to occur only 645. 11, daemon 
not at all ^. For the ejection of these spirits Cyprian never 
uses exorcizare ; he leaves it to the speakers in the Sententiae, 
though he is obliged to use the recognized exorcista. He 
gives instead rhetorical descriptions of the exorcist's work, 
flagellar e, urere^ torqnere^, &c., without any word for the actual 
command to depart. Adiurare occurs only once, 36 1 . 1 8, and in 
Quod Id, 25. 3. Diabolical action is described with much 
variety, conflicfatioj infedatio^ incursatio, laqneus^ labes, uenenum, 
/units, adulatory ueterator, praeuaricatoryferaliSyfunestus^ letalis, 
circumuenire, grassari, deicere, auert^re, euertere, &c. Inferi is 
the normal name for hell, 362. 19, 6^6. 8, 647. 1 2, &c. ; gehenna 
occurs several times, the only Hebrew word used by Cyprian 
which he could have avoided, e.g. 483. 8, 689. 9. But he prefers 

' In Quod hi. both are found, 23. 15, 16 and 24. 4 ; daemon aluo in Bp. 75 
(817. 8), and daemoniacHS in Sent, i (436. 16). Tertullian uses daemon and 
daemonium indifferently, but avoids the forms daemoniorum and daemon{bu9. 
I have only noticed these four timen and once respectively. 

' Cf. C. I. L. 8. 2756 carmiuihus defixa iacuit . . . «/ eius spii'itus ui extor- 
queretur quam naturae reddereiur. Hereextorquere mustHtand for eicere. It is 
a heathen monument to a wife. The conduct of the demon is described in Ian- 
gage very like that in which Cyprian speaks of the exorcist, e.g. 361. 18, 764. 15. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 


to paraphrase ; poeualit jiamma 66.';. 8, ariifitt nemper gnheuna 
et viuacibut fiammU uorax poena 368. i6',&c. He does not use 
fariaruf, though it is employed liy Tcrtullian and by Novatian 
in £>). 30 (555. 19). 

§ 29. Saecttlum IS the u»iial word for the world, in the 
theological senae, as translatttig Konfto;, but there are a numher 
of exceptioiiB, where mtindun appears; 363. 22, 365. ai, 397, 
16, &C. ; taectilttiii el mundns pleonastic 250. 1, 313. 4. If 
Hauseleiter^ is right in making taeculum in this sense 
distinctively African, Cyprian's use of muwhs may be derived 
from the Baptismal formula, which no doubt was used exactly 
as it had been brought from Italy ; 406. 3 qui diabolo et 
muMdo reiiun/iaiiimus appears to be a clear allusion to it. 
Terra is used once only in this sense, 501. 3 ; cf. the argument 
of Dom. Of. § 17. The adjective »aecularis constantly occurs, 
with taeculariter (103. 32, &c.) ; ferreniis also often, terreit-riii 
at least twice, 7. 7, 344. 23, and cf. 411, H ; iniindanua never. 

The people of the world are, as already mentioned in § 8, 
geiuis humantim as contrasted with the diuinnm geniti. In the 
Tetlmo«ia they are called simply gevtea, and also in Ep. 63 
(704, 2,711,3,6^). Exferae gentet occurs only 740. 20, and is 
not Cyprian's own, but the language of the Spanish letter 
whose cont«nta he is reciting. Is it the case that the remoter 
churcbes used archaic language through their isolation, when 
terms had changed in the more central? We have seen that 
hypodiaconus only was used at Carthage, while fubiHaeonuK has 
been introduced at Rome*. Affophyli occurs once in the 
Teslimonia (83. 19); alien^ena four times; once in the 

' or. uennium edar poenii 410, 9. 

* In Ada Stm. Eriang. iii. p. 431, on iho PulMilie Teraioo of Herm*l, 
Muiuiui is even rater in Tertultian tliftn in\'yprian. 

' Ad kddilioD&l evidence, if one vwe oefded, fur iti being unong the 
e&rlieit of Cjprian'i writings, cumpoBtsd before bi« ftyle wm foi'iiied. 

' According to Hkuuleiter's »rtia]>, cited alHive, in the alder and, ■• he 
Hji, Africui version of Hertiiu, gfiilei or tjrlirue ijrnlrt ii almoat constaDl. 
We we thkt Cypriiin onljr ums genlti in liiti earlieat nrritingii, aiid exitrae 
gtnltt neier. SalioHU tlta i> avoided, Ihougb it itood in Cjpr&n'i Bible ; 
■ee Koffibiuie, p, 33. 

288 The Style and Language of St, Cyprian. 

Teitimonia (83. 25), once in this reprodaction of the Spanish 
letter, 740. 21, and twice in indirect citation of Scripture, 
342. 2, 366. 22. It is thrice cited from Malachi 4. i. It is 
to be* noticed that, though alienigena occurs sparingly in the 
Vulgate as revised by Jerome, it is very common in the books 
where the old version has been left untouched. None of these 
words, then, are used by Cyprian after he had formed his style. 
He confined himself to efhniciu (775. 2i, &c.) and gentilU. 
The change that was passing over the language of the Church 
may be seen in the rarity of etAnicus^ though that seems the 
most common word in TertuUian for * heathen ^.' Even in the 
titles to the Testimonial where Cyprian has used so many 
archaic words, only gentUi8 is found. There seems to be no 
other synonym in Cyprian ; prqfanus is only descriptive. 
Though the word is Biblical, yet it is not common either in 
Scripture or in TertuUian, and Cyprian in all probability bor- 
rowed it from his knowledge of classical literature. He usually 
i*eserves it for heretics, but profamu arbiter^ templa, dei are 
found 3. 1 1, 399. 4, 41 1 . 7, and the word 366. 4, 23 of heathens. 
Idolvm is constantly used, and also, though less commonly, 
simulacrum; fgmentum occurs thrice (362. 15, 399- 5, 411. 8), 
as in Novatian, Trin. 3, and TertuUian, Jud, i ; it was 
perhaps frequent in the Old Latin ; it still stands in Vulg. 
Sap. 14. 16. Idolatra occurs 645. 19, idolatria often*. Ara 
is used 242. 24, &c., altare^ for the sake of variety, of a heathen 
altar, 243. i, but never again. For these words see § 16. 
There is nothing remarkable about the words used for heathen 
worship ; sacrijicia cefcbrare 6y^. 15, sacrijicare idolis 242. 13, 
sacnjicanfes 238. 5, &c. Adscendere stands alone 242. 11, ad- 

' Oen tilts is rare in TertuUian except in Ad Ux. and Cult, Fem., where he 
usee it freely. He constantly uses nationes, very rarely gentet. AHophyHuB 
and artraneus are occasional variants for his normal ethnieus, 

* So these forms are certainly to be spelt ; see especially 325. 22, and 740. 
12, 22; in these two last instances Uarters MSS. have no variant. Cf. 
Wolfflin in his Archii\ 5. 496 and 8. 6, Miodonski on De AUatt. 5. 3, and 
Koffmane, p. 37. TertuUian uses the full form (yet cf. 368. 4 Reiti.), and in 
Lucifer also (see HarteFs Article in Wolfflin*s Arehxc, 3. 33), the MH, has 
ulololatria, &c. more often than the synooiMited form. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 289 

ffiti/hTe Cajdlolium 254. 16 ; cf. 342. 19, 531. I9. This nonld 
eeem to have become a synonym for the offering of sacrifice. 
A worshipper of idols is often called sacriUffiig'^, usually in rhe- 
torical contrast to sacerilox, tacrtficinm, &e. 35^^. 33, 399. 5, &c. 

§ 30. The trouble cnused by the heathen to the Church is 
/lerteculio, fri&ii/alin or j/ressura. The two last are renderipg-s 
of flAft^is from Scripture. Preistira ", though its use is not 
always pretise, is more definitely connected with persecution 
than trifjulatio. The descriptions of confeBsor^hip and martyr- 
dom as aliHii 6ajiliiima (i.e. allenim) or tani/iiiuit haplixiaa 
(319. 4, 796. 1, cf. Pa**. Ferp. 18. 21, &c.), purifieal'w eon- 
fKS»ioui» 578, 26 (cf. 786. 24 of Baptism), turmenia quae 
marlyrat JJel roit»eerant et ipua pn»*ionis prohatione sanelijicanf 
481. 13, and the like, belong rather to Theology than to the 
study of language. That which is confessed is nomen or 
nomen Chriiti; usually the former, e.g. 103. 23. 378. 3, 795, 
18, &c. The language used concerning modes of torture, &c, 
does not belong to this subject ; it is naturally often rhetorical. 
Prison, for instance, is rarely career ; iotpifinm earcerU 494. 2, 
577. 22, poeiialit hens 577. 12, poeuale receptaeulum 578. 15. 
and other paraphrases take its place. There is a great variety 
of language for the martyrs' reward, in such Epp, as 28, 37, 
38, 39, 76, which need not be given here. The characteristic 
word iff pa/ma 402. 15, 493. 20, 831. 24, &c., which takes the 
place of the brau'iiim of Tertullian. Cyprian read it, and not 
brauiuM, in i Cor. 9. 24 (141. 5, aecoiding to the true text, 
330. 1,493. 7)- 

All who stand firm under pei-secution aie tlanlei; those 

' Cf. Dt A Intll. 7, witli UruDKk'a now, p. 13, who ujr* that tatriUgiim a 
itlalolnlria in common in SalpiciuH Ssveru*. 

* Thii wnrd, which Jiromo hM almont Imuiahcd froin tbe Vulgate, where it 
DOW ■Unilit in only uivcd ptuBges — lix in the N. T., which J 
Iiabljr ovarlooked, line in ihe Apoorjpb*, and none id tha 0. T. — laust 
have been m common in the Old Littin tu irUniUilio. In (.'ypriMi 
ate U of pcnecutioD, e.g. 141. 33. S33. 14, of wint, leH oftuii, aa 191. »6, 
479- 4, and slio uf tnmble geuemlly. It ia uted Utenlly of overurowdiu{[, 
534. tj, by LuduQH. The Komu ChrutunB (till lued fUi/wmFiif, 487. 11, 
M in C»nicliua' letter in Eua. B. E. 6. 43. 1 1, and Canon. Apoil. ii. 


290 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

who Buflfer, whether fatally or not, are confessores {eonfite^iten 
onoe, 615. 5) or martyred. Testis (cf. Fita, init, Cypriamis . . . 
testis Dei gloriostis) does not seem to be nsed. Confessor and 
martyr are ased equally often, and quite indifierently ' ; 
the pleonastic martyres et confessorcs 513. 5, 520. 17, &c. 
Confiteri^ confessio stand both alone and with Christum^ Christi 
dependent. Confessio nominis 653. 22, &c. Martyrium or 
martyria facere occurs several times, perhaps on the analogy of 
stipendia facere ; martyria edere once, 742. 3 ; martyrium tollere 
653. 12. In 698. 3 is the otiose confessionis martyria^ and 
260. 7 uirtutum martyria ^. Passio and passiones are frequent. 

The uirtutes, laudes, gloriae^ all meaning meritorious actions, 
of the confessors are often mentioned, e. g. 547. 3, 577. i, 
578. 12^. But the characteristic virtue of the confessor is 
tolerantia 204. 20, 415. 14, &c. The wealth of epithets for 
the confessors is great ; gloriosus, iniibatus, inmaculatuSy incon- 
cussuSf inmotuSj &c. Beatus^ used in addressing them, has 
already been mentioned ; cf. 57^* 22 beatumfacit prima et una 
confessio. Was it a recognized title ? 

Exile, either voluntarily endured to escape death, or in- 
flicted as a punishment, is often mentioned. The sufferer is 
always extorris *, profugus^ &c. being only used for variety, 
and exul^ I think, never. Bishops are sentenced to relegatio ; 
Lucius of Rome, for instance, 695. 19. If this instance stood 
alone it would be a strong confirmation of the statement of 

^ Cf. Liglitfoot's Apostolic Fathers, iL p. 26 t 'The Decian peneoution 
would seem to have been instrumental in fixing this distinction between mar> 
tyrs and confessors/ The traces of it in Cyprian are yery slight; 627. 8 
Moyge tunc adhuc conftnore nunc iam martyre, and Nemesianus' description 
in Ep, 77 1,834. 15) of martyrdom as magna confessio, Con/exsor and confessio 
are very rare in Tertullian ; they were perhaps only just coming into use when 
he wrote, through a popular dislike of the Greek equivalents. 

' While confessio has almost lost the sense of < confession of sin,' exhomo' 
logesis has lost that of ' confessing,* in the sense of recognizing, 6od*s glory. 
Yet it must have had it in Cyprian's Bible (260. 10, of. Test, 3. 114), though 
he preferred to take it in the meaning which he always gives to the wurd. 

* Laus in this sense also occurs in the singular, e.g. 621. 8. Cyprian may 
have remembered Virgil, Aen. 5. 355 primam merui qui laude coronam. 

* There is some evidence, e.g. 507. 2, 616. 16, 633. ix, for Cyprian*B having 
uaed the volgar form extorrens. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 

the Felicinn catalogue that Lucius was bom patre jmrjiureo, 
since rehgatio affected only the higher classes. Yet both in 
the T Ua and in the Acta Cyprian is sentenced not to relegatia 
but to ej-ilium, while we read in 731. 21 of a large number 
of bishops in exil'mm reUgati. If the episcopnte could be 
desired for worldly reasons, as Cyprian says in Laps. 6 and 
^f- ^5- 3> they could hardly be among the f-cmiiore* of 
Roman law, and subject to the heavier punishments of such'. 
Volnntary exile is ceilere, 344. 13, tecci/ere, 244. 10, 14, and 
often, recerftfrc still more commonly, 570. 1.5, 659. SO, & 

In connexion with confessorship Cyprian uses many 
metaphors, especially those of sacrifice, of warfare, of the 
arena and the race. Martyrs are vicl'imae 698. 4, hodiae 830. 
23, hotliae ei vict'mae 653. 34; cf. 561. 18 in the Roman 
Ep. 31. The Church is casira C/iri»li, caetedia, &c., often 
certainly, perhaps always, in the Ecnse of army, not of camp ; 
e.g. 363. I a, 693. I J, 806. 5; yet cf. 490. 16. Confession is 
constantly proefium (492. 8 proe/iaiurei el, adteHoret mi 
nomini*), ceriamen, e. g. 545- 7 ff-j &c. Christians are commili' 
tones 6^:6. 15; viifilare Deo occurs 297. 15, ml/t/ia for the 
Christian warfare, campaign, conduct in battle, is frequent, 
649. 13, 658. 38, &e. " Com mea fit i of refupite from martyrdom 
occurs thrice, 494. 32, 581. 20, 632. 24 ^ 

The Christian conflict is also compared to that of the 
gladiator. Id 498. 1 2 the devil is seen in vision as a retlariut. 

' Probkblj, tlierefore, the pfwsibilitiei «f inSeriD; for Cornelius roentinned 
<D Ep. 55. 6 (630. II ff.) ue only rhetorio. Tn the hoitile Ep. 8 (486. l) the 
Roman olergj o>11 Cirpriu t, jieriotut intignif. They wem to be ■nagn'fj'ing 
hii bult in ntiring bj alluding to hiB pcwilian in lociety, vbicb would lutTe 
uved faitn, nt the worat, from such puaiibment »■ humble Chrialiann endured. 
Yet in Ep. 76 (Sap. IJ, 17I wo find biahopi sufferiDg from in/omin uiiinila, 
infamia. Thii is the only 1110 of thelegikl term infamia in cnnneiioa with thii 
jwnieoiition. Some of the biihop* may hsve been •:{ humble poaitioo, but 
lejptlity win nut coniidered in ValeriiLn'a persecution. Clergy of >11 ordera 
were beiii(( treated a« oonvioU in the minen. 

' Jfililia ii equivalent to txtrcUai in 545. S mrUttit nilitiaa t 
nouUlU, and 657. 94. Milti is ooUective 491. 11. 

' It la used In the meaning of recovery from lioknea, 309. : 
Sen. Ep. 54. t. 

u a 

292 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

In 664. 23 the galea is described, covering the whole head, 
and seems to be that of a gladiator. The very term si-antes is 
identical with, if not borrowed from, the gladiatorial name for 
the victor ^. The gladiator s food is used as an illustration in 
the Roman Ep. 31 (557. iX) ita illas (literas) uoto e^uriente 
Kuscepimvs ut ad certamen inimici ex illis nos satis pastes et 
saginatos gaudeamus ; literally, of a gladiator in Ad Don. 9. i . 
Fuither passages, such as 15. 20 cum semel pectus caelestis 
sagina saturauerif, 401. 17 diebus quadraginta ieiunatper quern 
celeri saginantur^ Tert. Res. Cam. 8 caro corpore et sanguine 
Christi "uescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur, suggest that 
there may have been in the Old Latin Bible a use of saginare 
as meaning to strengthen or satisfy, in such passages, for 
instance, as Matt. ^.6. But there seems to be no evidence of 
any such use ; there is certainly none in Tertullian or Cyprian, 
It seems therefore more probable that the word, even in these 
cases, comes from the same metaphor ^. Apart from this use 
the word is employed by Cyprian in its usual classical sense of 
gluttony, 259. 6, 468. 20. The agou^ or certamen which was 
the object of the spectaculum (all these words are equally 
common) was often athletic, but sometimes clearly gladia- 
torial; e.g. 526. 15 acies adhuc geritur et agon eottidie 
celehratur^ 578. 13 agon unus sed multiplici proeliorum nu-^ 
merositate congest us. In the latter the confessor has to 
meet a succession of fresh opponents, like the ter fortis of 
Quint. Decl. 271. Indeed Cyprian's use of fortis seems 
generally to be the technical one of Quintilian's Declama^ 
tions^ in which it is common, as also in Quint. Inst. 7. 7, 
not merely meaning brave, but implying that the courage 
has been shown in action, and the reward earned ^ The 

* See the examples from iniioriptioiiB collected by Friedlander, Daniellunffen, 

ii. 363. 518. 

' For the gladiatorial use cf. Apal. Met. 4. 14, where the robbers are 
described as pulpU taginantes (intransitive) in preparation for their xnatanM 
militia ; Quint Decl. 9. 5 (cited by Mayor on Juv. 11. ao) aleJxU deuatum 
corpus grauior omni fame tagina. For the word cf. Koffmane, p. 99. 

' Cf. Is. 7. 13 in 74. 4, 49a. 21, and for the subject Origen, Protrept. x8. 

* The use of so unchristian an iUustration as that of the gladiator, if it did 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 

^Giifral language of training, running, receiving a crown, 
&c. in such passages as 517. 19, 493. 3, 66j. 18, &c. la, of 
course, in the main Pauline, bat has been much developed. 
In 580, 4 there is an allusion to some arrangement of the 
gumes. The confessor passea through a geminut agon; firet 
eur»ii» and then a crrt^mtn forlhit. Is this wrestling? 

There are several notices of the reverence paid to Martyis. 
The date of theii' death is rt'corded, 503. 14, though Cyprian 
never calls it their natalit, and coBuneiiwralioHex or titemoriae 
(the words are probably BvnoDj'mous, memoria not having the 
later sense of 'tomb') heldfor them, 503. 15, 583. 13. Sacrifice 
is offered for them aa for others who are deceased ; cf. pp. 
267, 2fi4, and not simply in memory of their victory. 

For martyrdom as a baptitaia tanguink see esjiecially Ep. 
73. 21, 32, and p. 319. 5 if. The thought is common both in 
Cyprian and Tertullian, e.g. Seorp. 12, Bapl. 16 (174. 6, 214. 
14 Reiff.)- 

The opposite to eonfe»»io, conflleri is pro/nsiio 256. 35 (cf. 
Novation, 550. 24), pmjiteri 338. 25, and perhaps 843. 5. 
Though lapga» is constant for a fallen Christian, /nil does not 
occur except in compound tenses, as 541. 7, 650. iS, &c, 
Apimtalarf is used only 6j2. 10 ; it is, no doubt, simply an 
accident that apottata refers only to heretics, 632. 10, 647. 16 ; 
cf. 197. 26, H25. iS. The downfall itself is lap»tt» 648. 15, 
&c., but more often rmna 239. iS, 501. 16, 721. 17, &c. 
Metaphors from death, disease, shipwreck, &c. are common. 
Many have been given already in § x^ ; much of this language 
is also used in reference to schism : see the next section. The 
kinds of Iap»i mentioned are libellatici^, of whose crime 

not arinH Irom tlie circumiUncea of cammoa lifs, iniiaC have come from tie 
Stoics. Friedliinder, DariUIVingCRt "- 4°° i-i citaa from De lto<ii « L'liriitEan 
vencl fuund >t Tddu with tlie figure uf > Ticturioiix Ikrux or Ttiinrim apon 
it. De Rniai «Kji that it it a n/mbol nf the triumgihrnit anul ; Friedliindar 
would haTS it to be a sharioteer. Whatever arcliaeolnglca! leaiinii* lie njny 
liive, no weight can be attached to bia fiirtbsr arin«>)<-'it thai CliHslisiu would 
never have lued bucIj a ijiubuL Cyjiriau, we hare Been, had no nuch >CTU|i]e. 
For hia relation to SenocB ere p. 303,aiid cf. Tert. JVnrf. i, 

' Li/irll'it in ueed by Cypriau for bin own treatiaea, 36. j, 613. 16. 798. 19, 

294 ^^^ Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

a variety is that of those qui accepta fecissent 551. 3 
(Novatian), whatever the exact meaning of that may be ; 
turificafi and sacrificafi. These names are perfectly definite 
in their employment and belong to history rather than to 
a study of language. 

§ 31. Haeresis and scAisma are identical terms in Cyprian, 
though constantly used, after his pleonastic ffishion, together^. 
Haereticus^ and schismaficus are equally constant and identical 
in meaning. Haeresin, schisma facer e are also normal, 746. 
6, 754. 17, &c. Cyprian tried several Latin substitutes, but 
apparently was not satisfied with any ; discretio et ieparatio 
603. 2, dUcessio 619. 15, ichigma et di%cidium 666. ao, 
discidium conpaginis^ fraternitatu^ unitatis 231. 10, 604. 16, 
672. 8, discordia (not moral, but actual schism) 22a. 7, 642. 
24^ ; cf. diuortium 215. 8. The authors of such division are 
diuerm pars 600. i, i. e. hostile, cf. conuenticula diuersa 220. 
24 ; discrepans * f actio 602. 7 ; discorded often, though dis^ 

&c. ; of a letter from the lapsed, claiming communion, in Ep. 33 (568. 3), but 
there is some doubt of the genuineness of this Up. ; of the letters of the con- 
essors readmitting the lapsi to conununion, 523. 19, &c., which are also called 
tit ferae, 54i* 6, 9 ; finally, of these certiBcates given by the magistrate that 
a Christian had sacrificed, 341. 19, &c. The use in Ep. 33 resembles the Egyp- 
tian libellus lately discovered; see Harnack in Theol. Litztg. 1894, p. 38. The 
thing existed in Tertullian's time, though he does not name it; cf. Kolbergp. 1 46. 

' Cf. 598. 16, 746. 6, where haeresis clearly means schism. The very fact 
that they are used together is in Cyprian's style an evidence that they are 
identical; cf. saucicUi et uulnerati, preces et orationes, and so many more. 
The only passages where there seems to be a distinction of meaning are a few 
in which they are joined by uel — u«f, instead of et — et, but there are so many 
instances in Cyprian in which uel is not disjunctive that no argument can be 
drawn from these; besides them there are only 614. 14 schumaticus immo 
haeretiotts furor, and 805. i cum uero nulla omnino haeresis sed neque aliquod 
sehitma habere salutaris baptismi sanctificationem /oris possitf neither of which 
is more than rhetoric. 

^ Cornelius seems to use haeresiacus 611. 13, 612. 14, which Cyprian rejects. 

' Jerome, Ep. 94. 2, ventures on scissara\ cf. Vulgate, i Cur. 11. 18; 
Cyprian and Tertullian do not cite this text. Cyprian only has the word from 
3 Reg. II. 31, in a 16. 2. In Sent. 5 (440. i) occurs qui diuisumem faeiunt, 
hoc est schismaticos et haeretieos. The Echtemach Grospels stand alone in 
reading discisio for ax^ffpa in Joh. 7. 43; Vulgate dissermo. There 
clearly a strong desire for a Latin word. 

* The verb is used absolutely 497. 14, 529. 2. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 395 

rorfiant and ilitcordiosui nre not found in the special sense. 
Tbeir work is constantly tdmiere ecck»iam, unitatem, &c. 
224. II, 605, 6, &c, reecindere 643. 44, dUcerpere 331. 11, 
604. 14, tiitlraiere gciniiere laniare 598. ao. Algeedere 6^1. 
21, dUceilere 733. 2, &c., and especially recedere ']'}']. 21, &c., 
are common, as are«ej»'fjflrc«ff 314. 20,745.5, &,c.,fora9egredi 
757- 161 rfxire, dere/iti/juere eceleiiam, and similar phrases. 
RtheUio 13 freqnent ; rebetlare confra pacem, S;c., 472. 4, 
592. 25, and often. Contp!ratio,aediiio,f actio, sediictio (725.16), 
are also common. Beside these Cj-prian uses aemuH, aemu- 
fante»,aenittfatiodiiicisga^ 222.3,598. 14,604. i4,Sie.;jjraeuari- 
aiiio 213. ijtpraeuaricator' 742. 6,759. 3,786. 13, in all case« 
combined with prodilvr. Generally speaking all the language 
used or suitable for evil spirits or heathens, traitors or madmen, 
is bestowed upon heretics ; perhaps the most common terms 
are prqfaiiva, adulter^ and iacrilegut; the three are combined, 
745. 12. Praetumjiiio (add to Hartel's liat 747. 24, Soi. 16, 
807. 12, and in another sense 459. 14), perti/iaeia* 600. 3, 
titmoi; alupor.furor, ueneiium are characteristic terms. Mallgm '' 
et detraheaUi 629. 3, perdili, perditw, perdere et perire are 
very common, as are the metaphors of parricidium and 

For the meeting of heretics Cyprian avoids t^ynagoga (twice 
in Ep. 75, 819. 24, 820. 25). He twice nses coHumliculum 
instead ; conuenOcuh diaerta 220. 23, coniienlkulum perditae 
facHo7ii» 683. 6. 

5 33. That Cyprian's list of Greek words is short, and that 

' For aimalm-'hotllt bh ItijIiKh, II. T. p. 338. DUciua armaj-atio m-att. 
I for aemuUitio tchitmaiiBa ; no error iciuiu 599. : >^ reiumalii. 
' Tbese wonlu, wiih praeuaricari, nre uned ■avenl timoi, genar^Uy of ths 
feel of ■ bud life, 19B. 33, 309. 37, 388. 17, 4"3- 7i 4'7' 7 i pratuarieaiio 
irilali* " lajitai J93. 13 ; praeitarieatio = iatrtiu U oaed by Cornoliiu kUo, 
[J. IS- 

* See I 9. uid et viliare 614. lo. 

' Doe* Ihii mean cruelty, in dewrting their notlier ! For pertin<a in Uiii 
n»e «ee p. 305. 
' Thii ii kD indirect GTidenoa th&t in Cypriiui'a time in<>ti<piM>(lK<io/ii< 

296 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

there are few for which be has not attempted to provide 
a substitate, has already been said on p. 195. There is 
only one Greek ecclesiastical term, nymholum^ which appears 
to occur for the first time in him (756. 7, cf. 818. 10), and 
he only ases it once. It is no doubt a mere accident that no 
earlier instance has survived. Cyprian's object was not to 
introduce, but to banish, Greek words. In the preceding 
pages the ecclesiastical words have been set out in detail. 
It may suffice here to set them together without further 

Those for which Cyprian provides no substitute are 
acoluthus^ angehSy angelicuSy apostolus (also of messengers of 
evil 642. 17), bhsphemuSy hlasphemia^ blasphemare^ cathedra^ 
calAolicus, clerus^ clericus, ecclesia, ecclesiasticuSy ecstasis, euan^ 
gelium, etiangeiicus, exorcismus, exorcisfra (never exorcizare)^ 
hypodiaconus (leaving subdiaconus to Rome), plolatra, idolatria^ 
laicus ^presbyter, preshyteriumy conpresbyfery propheta^propheticuSy 
pseudochristuSy psetidoepiscoptts {pseudoapostolus and pseudo^ 
propketa are words of Stephanus, not of Cyprian), zelus and 
zelare (never the deponent). There are only two other Greek 
words of Christian sense which he freely uses, agon (with 
agonisticvs), and pelra (see pp. 292, 280). A few Biblical 
words, as botnius 578. i, 705. 20, 754. 9, grabatus 762. 16, 
lepra 226. 25, leprosns 671. 3, &c., moechus 638. 11, pafriarcia 
308. 9, &c., zizania 622. 15, 16, a few more which had been 
thoroughly adopted in Latin, classical or post-classical, as 
aphronitra pi. = * cakes of soap '761.4 (cf. Treb. Poll Gall. 6. 5), 
authenticus 489. 16 (Tert., Jet.), cafasta 581. i (see p. 270), 
chorus 313. 27, cdlyrium 384. 15, conchylium {=^murex) 197. 
18, cyuocephalus 360. 6, stibium 384. 15 ; tropaeum^ tyrannicuSy 
&c., need not be noticed. Plasmare 805. 15, plastica 198. 7, 
profoplastus 190. 15 (also in Novatian, Trin. 8) are reminis- 
cences of Tertullian ; plasma 468. 12, not used by TertuUian, 
probably comes direct from Irenaeus. 

Cyprian twice shows that he had some knowledge of Greek. 
In 762. 9 he ridicules his opponents who used the word 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 297 

c/itiifi, and in 765. 18 adopt« the hnmoroua peripatetic't in 
contrast ; eimilarly in 694. 3 he contrasts topkia dontiniea 
with taeeji/arig piUo»n/iAia. 

Bnt the most important gronp of Greek words are those of 
Church use for which Cyprian employe, more or less frequently, 
a Latin substitute, These are : — 

agajt only Test. 3. 3 lit., coupled with the synonymous dile.ctio '. 

aUojthjfli only 83. ttj {Test. 3. 16). See p. 287, 

ajxutata, apoUalare, Bee p. 293. Much less common than dtsertor 
and other Latin terms. 

laptitmwi, baptigma, baptisntum ; see § 15. Cyprian's normal 
use J9 baptiama nom. ace, with obliijne cases from boplimtui, 
and plural bapliimmla. No other plural furraa aie found. 
But 781. 20 hvjititmaiig without vnrinnt, and 787. 22 bajiti^- 
mate, thongh there ia much evidence for baplismo. Tlierc is 
no instance of 110m. hajitiamui, and only, I think, 775. 15, 
776. 7 for ba/ilismtim ace; in tlie latter it is neuter, if the 
text may he trnated. In the Senlt. there is one clear instance 
of the masc, two clearly neuter, twenty-six doubtful, twenty 
of baptimna. Terlullian wovera Itetween these fumis as much 
as Cyprian. Bapiitma, ahl., ought to bu read 788. 8 and 
796. 13, as iu £■;». 75 (815. 11); of. Koffmane, p. 36. Bap- 
titare and rehaptixare are used without variant except in 
paraphrase. It has been already suggested that tinetio, 
tinffutre are avoided, us Hontanist words, and only used bh 
deBcriptiouB of the heretical rite. 

cattewmmuif 106. tS, 4R8. 2, 795. 16 {caUehizare in Ep. 75 
(823. 17)); audiriM twice. 

ehriima once only 768. 14, and there explained by unclio. 

ehriatianua, see p. 254 ; emphatic and comparatively rare. 

liaemon, dafvioniwm ; see p. a86. Almobt always immimdi 
tj/in'tiis, &c. 

diabotvg often, yet more frequently inimieut, &c. ; see p. 285. 

diaeonva', diacoTiitim ; for these AuA for minister, admminlratio 
aa prol)ab]y equivalent, see p. 260. 

' But lliCTB is Strong evidence for agape having stood in Cyprian's Bible. 
Itisuied 114. I, 115. 13, 116, 17. 133. 8 in Lord Crawford's MS. tSth cent.), 
IU well at in the beat of thorn cited Uj Hartel. 

' With the exceptiua of abl. laptumn, diofonnt Is the only Greek wnrd 
with the form of which Cyprian took liberticH ; diacontm should perhaps be 
read in 61S. 11 ; iliacanet jfig. 11 ^doubtful ib. 5^, 839. 16, 84a. lo; diaeoni- 

298 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

episcojyuSf epiacoiHUus, coepiscoptu; see p. 258. AntisUs and 

aacerdoa constantly. Coepiaeopus seems to be a coinage of 

ethnicus rarely for gentilis ; see p. 288. 
etuiharistia comparatively rare ; see p. 266. 
exJiomologesis always except 258. 18, where confessio is used; 

see p. 282. 
JiaeresiSj htereticus constantly; for Latin synonyms see p. 294. 
idolum is varied hyjigmenttmi and simulacrum ; see p. 288. 
mxirtyr.martyrium indiscriminately with cow/e««or,&c.; seep. 290. 
2)ro])httare 223. 17, 339. 26, elsewhere ^aec?tc«rc, &c. 
8cand((lum (add to HarteFs list 474. 19, 508. 3) five times, 

acandalizare thrice; qffendiciUum perhaps only 304. 14. 
schismUj schismaticus constantly; for variants see p. 294. 
aynagoga only Test, i. 20 tit. In the sense of * heretical assembly' 

conuenticulutn takes its place 220. 23, 683. 6. 
<yj/i^ often, yet more often imago, &c, ; see § 7. 

Noteworthy Greek words used by other writers in the Epp. 
and Senleuliae SLTB — cateckizare 823. 17, cimiterium (of a Roman 
burial-place) 840. 9^, daemoniacui 436. 16, exorcizare 436. 16, 
&c. (confined to Sentt,\ peirarium (a conjecture) 534. 18, 
pseudohaptizatM 438. 4, tartar us 555. 19, thlibomeni 487. ai, 
zelotypus 533. 13. 

§ 33. The length of this paper makes it impossible to do 
more than select out of Cyprian's general vocabulary a few of 
the most remai'kable words ; and especially those which ap- 
pear for the first time in his writings. Beside the ordinary- 
stock of words of a writer of the third century, common to 
Apuleius, Tertullian *, Justin, the Old Latin Bible, &c., there 

h\M usually in the addresses {diaconiSy Epp. 14, 39). See Ronsch, It. V. p. 263. 
AioKOJv is found in third-century Greek Inscriptions, Pagan and Christian 
(Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 442 ; Lightfoot, J^i»a^iti«, i. 501). 
Conversely vdrponv in Tlieoph. Ad Autol. 3. 27 and often in inscriptions. 

^ Cited from a despatch from Rome ; in the Acta of Cyprian $ I it is used by 
the proconsul Paternus. Koffmane p. 31 has overlooked it in Tert. de An, 51 
(383. 16 Reiff.), perhaps the earliest instance. 

* Oehler^B Index tu Tertullian is very imperfect. He omits, among others, 
these words for which Cyprian has been in several cases cited as the earliest 
authority; — adhucu$que, J ud. 7 (Cyprian 495. 18, 679. 13, the first instances 
according to Thielmann in Wolfflin's Archie, 6, p. 69); deponere «■ Mepose,* 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 299 

are many borrowed fmm classical poetry, of which some 
exampica have already been given, and many found in Plautus 
and other early writers, which do not recnr till the third 
century. All these classes of words are, with few exceptiontf, 
omitted here, as are those which have been previously dis- 
cussed. Words which seem to be new in form are marked with 
an asterisk, those which are new in meaning with an obelus. 

The most noteworthy substantives, arranged alphabetically 
according to declension, are : — 

tciti/urae 646. 1 9. This may mean works of agricultnre, though 
for the pi. in this sense Georges only cites Lucr. 5. 1448, 
whom Cyprian does not seem to have read. But his lr>ve for 
pariillelisiu makes it more likely tliat it corresponds with the 
preceding clause, and means fields. In this sense Ueorges only 
cites Salvian, Gvh. Dei, 7. 2 (157. ao Pauly), 

■\i!\idium 832. 25. In Georges only in the aeuse of 
attiick, and first in Qetlius. 

fauaUia 576. i7=/au»r. Only cited from Accins, tr. 510. 

' itiaudienlta 569, 21, iJivented by CypriaD for all Ue rat ion. 

'tupaTia=mtrelTisB 196. 14,699. 25; also inZ)e*)MC(. 5 (A. 8. 5). 
Cf. Wiilfflin, in his JrcAiu, 1892, p.8, and Haussleiter, (6. p. 145. 

'commentarii^commmUaritntri 841. 3. The latter ia common 
enough, but Cyprian's funn does not seem to occur again. 
But tliere is some manuscript evidence tar frumentarii, which 
is read by Rigault and Fell. 

'diaconium6tT. i ; cf. p. 260, and KolTinane, p. 25'. 

'ta!cidiu7n=mor» 312. 22, apparently an inai Xtyiiuvof, derived 
from Kccldere; cf. G.I.L. 8. 95 1 3 (from Caesarea Mauret.) 
3-Jfi annti uoh^M uixi, in xlci txcidi quaiulo datwn e»l. 

Fug. I (Cjpr. 47J. 6, 739. »3) ; druotio^'lojtits,' Scorp. 5 [Cypr, 631. 5, 660, 
9I; morlaHi''de»dly,* Pud. 19 Jlii. twice (Cvpr. 407. n, 469, 3, 715. 16 (inJ 
dt Aleiilt. 6. II ; cf. Hilgenfeld'* nlition, p. 73, >lid Itumch IStilr. 3. il) ; 
numeratHa* MoHog. 4(Cypr. m, s.f^Y, qiatHdiwdoaae, Idol. 15. JVuW. i. 7. 
to. (Cypr. 496. IS, 649. Ji, 679. 3I. 

' ir Hartel's &1m«t certain conjecture ia De Altatf. 3. 1 liinpraired by 
Miodolipki in Commfni. Wotl0in. p. 373 ff. to (> epiicBpiiun Uem) for epi- 
icopi idem be nomjitcd, the pMvlUI form ii liroughl Iwck from the Hge of 
UiUry, Aug. And xi'i Abut, almoet to cLnl uf Cypriui. 

300 The Style and Language of St, Cyprian. 

Georges in the Jahre^richtf vol. 40, p. 126 gives the word 
this derivation, citing Prud. Ajx)th. 607 for the sense of * sun- 
set/ But Thielmann (Wolfflin's Archive i. p. 76) makes it 
a vulgar derivative from excldere for excedere, in the sense of 
excessus. He gives some of E,onsch's {It. V. p. 356) examples 
of decidere=decedere (i.e. Tnari)^ and adds others of his own ; 
but this seems a less probable account. It would be more 
likely that the word is formed on the analogy of dxBcidiufn^ 
which often enough means no more than ' departure ^' 

^fomenlum^omes 10. 7, 194. 12, 591. 18, all pi. Arnob. 2.62 
(98. 3 Reiff.). 

*in'piameniwm 724. 13. Cf. Min. Fel. 28. 5 inpiatis mcris, 

ioblectamenta et inlecebrcie, certainly synonyms, 501. 4. For 
oblectare in this sense see Koffmane, p. 95. 

itraversaria 829. 21; omitted by Georges in the sense of * fetters' 
or rather, perhaps, * stocks.' Ducange cites Greg. Tur. De Viia 
Patrum, 7, Forcellini-De Vit only this passage. 

utdium 259. 22 neclecto cftjnllo, uvlto nvJbUo. Hartel cites no 
variant, and this may therefore be a mere misprint. But in 
Apul. Met. 4. 25 (71. 30 Eyss.) aaeuiore uulto is read without 
variant in Eyssenhardt's MSS. ; and it is quite possible that 
Cyprian has chosen the rare form for uniformity of termination. 
Cf. Georges, Lex. d. lot. Wortformen^. 

Of the third declension the only class in which Cyprian 
displays much invention is that of verbal nouns in -tio. 

*acerh(Uio (pi.) 600. 2 1 ; the only example in Georges. Ronsch, 

Jt. V, p. 79 cites Gloss. Cyrill. 
•\adflictatio W4a^t=* infliction' 685. i. Georges only cites Cod, 

Theod. for this use. 
*adunatio; add 712. i to Hartel's instances. Paucker, Suppl, 

cites Cassiod. and Boethius. Cyprian id the first Chnstian 

' Cf. exitium, which in the third and foarth centuries bad been weakened 
to a synonym o( exitus^mors. Apul. Met. 5. a; (95. 4 Eyss.) mortis exUium 
means no more than Cyprian's mortis exitus (50a. 17, 632. 19). So also in 
Firm. Mat Err. a. 7 and a 8. 13 animndversionis exitium is exactly equivalent 
to iHuinae animaduersionis exitus in 18. 4. Cf. Oehler's note to Tert. i. 5x8. 

' Cf. amictum, Novatian, Trin. 21 (16), which Georges, Lex. d. lot. Wort- 
formen only cites from Isidore; and sepultum fecit '^sepmlcruin, C. J. L, 8. 
9798 (Safar, Numidia), though this might be from sepultus. Georges has not 
the word. 

The Lan^iage of St. Cyprian. 


writer to uFe ihe verb freely, though it occurs in Tert, Pvd. 

■; aoJ is Biiilical, 
'um-ArtVio = nior#, see p. 283; areatitio domtjuca 309. 19. 

It is curious that this word, which Cyprian uses fire times, 

and Luciunus (S34- 5) once, should uot hare been adopted by 

Inter writers. 
tawu^iiri 304. 13 de exeed«n(ibiig earis funebris et trintii auiitsio. 

VAMi:\ieT,Svbindmila, citea from PauHii. Nol. Ep. 13. 8, aod it 

ia uwd by Tert. Cam. Xti 20 of physical seportition. 
erilentio 705. 19 toreuiaris eulcalio ft prt-iaura from Old Latin, 

£e. 63. 3 (i&. 1. 13). This woid is cmtitted by Ueorges, nud 

% Bonech in /(. F., Beitr., and Cotleel., but noticed by Pauoker 

ill his Suppl. 
teoiiciirTwd'o, Test. 2. 2 tit.; see p. 248. Though tneamatu* 

is used by Novation, Trin. 19, Cyprian baa no such form. 

Ctnicamatio ia uaeU in another sense (from Mt. 19. 5} by Tert. 

Moaog. 9. 
•^eoiiceplio ]>r.riiieiosa 307. 19; Bpns* invented to carry on ihe 

ptmediiig eoneqituin. 
corroLoTotio 386. i. Not in Vulg. or Tert. Pauclter, Suj,j,l. 

givfs 3 Pet. 3. 17 from Au;,'. (without reference) ne decidatU 

... a coTToloratione uestra (Vulg.jJrfn»Va(«)'. 
trfrIrocf«(io=calunjny 689. 19, Paucker, Supjil. only cites 

Cassian, Coll. 9. 3. 
idiea!mulalio=^de\ay 358. 23 praedandi dUnmiilatio jwlla, 

nvUa ctmelatio. Since it ia Cyprian's constant habit to aay 

the eame thing twice, there cau be no reasonable doubt of the 

meaning. Cf. diemnvlare in Virg. Aen. 4. 368, and Itonsch, 

II. y. p. s!3. 

ieMiJiiinatio (raetaiihorical) 500. 4. Arnob., UJpian, 4c. ; cf. 
Pnuclter, Sujipl, The verb ia so used 218. 18, 409. 32, 
686. iS. 

■tj?ie(i'u='fftctiooBne8a' 6oz. ai, 618. la. Georges only citea 
Cawian, CoU. 22. 6. 

' Oilier rweni1>liinc«a of Cyprun to 1 Fet. (i. e. ironli Gnt found in both, 
and nut again till much Uter\ which ■iiggest the thoDgbt that the Vul- 
gate of t1i<M E|i!>tU ia the Old Liilin, u in luiiie other of the Catholio Epp., 
are eognit'O {Palrii tt fUii) 79a. 10, which in llijs oonnexion ia fnund in the 
Vuluite only in 3 Pet., ineruabilU 79J. 10 and j Pet. 1. 14 (it reaun in 
Hiar'iD. Ei: iG. 3); but I'rii^iHriu 394. 13 ii the alternative reading in 1 Ptt. 
). 14 of Cod. Toiel. (Riiinch, /(. V. p. 216;. and also fint recurs in Cyprian. 

302 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian, 

*incur8atio 364. 2. Nonius, Heges. 

*intemiinatio 476. 2. See Rbnsch, Collect, p. 37, and Paucker, 

\ostensio=ui8io 651. 7, 17, 734. 2, all pi.; see p. 250. 
jHjdpaiio = 'flattery' 569. 17. Plautus, Cassian, InaL 10. 17, 

Interp. Orig. in Mt 6. 4 (Paucker, KL JBeitr.), 
*ploratio 369. 1 7 ; only cited from Aug. Serm.^ but omitted by 

ipiUlulatio (metaphorical) 352. 16 ; cf. jndltdare 224. 14, 806. 

10. Paucker, Subrdicta^ only cites this and Praedestinatus in 

this sense. 
^seminatio (metaphorical) 642. 24, 689. 17, 788. 19 ; cf. wminare 

352. i5» 577- i9» 618. 8. 
t<tnc<to=' heretical Baptism/ 772. 8, 800. 7, and in Ep. 75 (815. 
20); see p. 264. 

*ceUita8 583. 25 ; omitted by Georges, and even by Paucker. 
imortcditas = pestis 301. 12, &c., in De Mart, Cited by Georges 

only from the Chronologer of 354. 
tn*«fiaffl«= * agriculture ' 646. 18. Cited in this sense only 

from Palladius, and in Cyprian no doubt used for epiploce 

with rusticum preceding. Tlie word occurs in Quod Id, 2 

(20. 7). 

Beside these the following deserve mention : — 

acceptor 692. 23 ; Wolfflin, in Archiv, 8. 123, cited only from 

Lucilius, the Old Latin Levit. 11. 13, 16 (Vulg. ciccipiter), and 

this ; see also Ronsch, It, V, p. 521. 
fnigror (concrete) 198. i, 384. 19, equivalent to piUuis niger 

198. 8, 259. 19 ; cf. the classical rubor 198. i, 8. 
*jmtrame7hy 247. 20 puJtraminihus amputatis, 684. 22 neque enim 

sic jmtramina quaedam coUiganda sunt ut sq. ^ 
*8eruitudo 328. 10. Only one doubtful passage of Livy is cited 


' lu 684. 22 the change fn>m coUiyenda to coUitjanda is as easy as Hai*ters 
(Index) suggestion oiputamina^ and gives better sense. It is the conyerM of 
aperiendvm uulnus est in the other passage (247. 19), and an allusion to 
Cyprian's favourite metaphor of the falsely healed wound, though here the 
whole body of the Church, and not the individual Christian, is wounded. If 
putamina be read, how could the gathering up of branches already lopped 
inflict further damage upon the tree f 

The Language of S(. Cyprian. 303 

Verlml nouns in -tor ore : — 

+a'/i(/'(((w = 'deceiver" 745. 17. This, and not flatterer, must be 
the Rense, ami eo probably alao in 618. i itfmji^T adulator ut 
fallat ; pleonaam ia to be expected in Cypriau. Georges hiis 
this sense for adulatio from Quint, nnd Amm. Marc., but not 
for adulator. It oecura as the equivalent of imoirpiTijt in the 
fragmentary Latin translation of the Didache ; see the Prole- 
goRiena to Haruack's edition, p. 278. 

'delictoT 720, 17. Panokcr, Sttjip!. cites Conirood. /ttHr. 53 
(ii. II. 5 Dombart), Hieron., Aug. 

'inpugnator 615. 6, 689. 4. Cf. Pauclter. NacUlrUgf., p. ai. 

'munfratnr 345. 1. Omitted by George a ; Sftlvian, Paul. Nol. 
(Paucker, Svhrelicta). 

oeciaor 734. 13. Flautus and Fetilian (Georges). 

jtaljHilor 13. 10. Plautus and Casaian, CoQ. 10. 13 (Paucker, A7. 

Of the fourth and fifth declenaiona there are few words to 
be noticed. Cyprian Las no such devotion to the fourth aa 
hoe, for instance, Gelliua. 

fcongfetus 688. 3, see p. 271. Probably the diiis on which 
were tlie altar and tlie seata for the clergy, but perhaps the 
aaaembly of clergy. No similar use seems to be cited. 

iductua lemjiorU Imigua 576. 31. Nothing aimilar aeema to he 

tpofrtiiafu* improbua = ' exercise of power,' ' tyranny,' 588. 5. 
Another strange use ia 340. zi. 

pn'malvn (pi.) = 'birthright' 411. 3, 798. 7, Thie must be the 
Old Latin reading of Gen. 25. 31, &e., cf. Tert. De Jtiun. 17, 
Anibr. Up. 63. 99. The Vulgate haa jirimot/enila. It is not 
noticed by Ronach or Oeorgea. 

5 34. Adjectives, stran^ in form, or strangely used, are 
common : — 

f abhorrent = ' repulaive ' 569. ao ; not in Georges, and no other 

example given in WiilfHiu'a Arehiv, 4. 285. 
ia/ienu* aenaua = 'insane' 681, 12. Georges only cites Finn. 

ifalh. 3. 6. 
'bulatnmdua 6o>. 20. There can be no doubt of the reading, 

though the word occurs nowhere else. Comeliua (611. 3) 

304 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

alludes to the passage, and corrects to paJabundus, which 

Cyprian, with his love of synonyms, no douht meant to write ^. 
feentenus fmcttts = centuplex 832. 19. Georges only has Yen. 

Fort. 3. 9. 105 centeniLs redilus^, 
*cruciabundu8 670. 7, apparently another airaj Xtyofitvop, 
idiscissa aemidatio 604. I4:=8chi8matica : cf. scissus error 599. i. 

Both must he attempts to provide a Latin equivalent for 

a Greek adjective. 
*elucidu8 598. 3. Not in Georges ; hut the reading is not 

quit^ certain. 
"^expensa moderatio 570. 20 ; cf. pensius consilium 649. 24. 
yiiLCtuabundtu 255. 12. Amhr., Aug. (Georges)'. 
*indocibili8 253. 2, if this be the true reading. Wrongly cited 

by Ilonsch It. V. from Ireu. 4. 28 ; it is in neither Stieren's nor 

Harvey's index to Ireuaeus. 
*inlap8afirrmta8 7. 3. Omitted by Georges. 
iinmer€n8 2^6. I3 = 'guilty/ 'unworthy of reward'; not in Georges. 
%npetrahili8 et efficax 8ermo 271. 21. Plautus and Amm. Marc. 

Can this be an allusion to Jac. 5. 16 or Heb. 4. 12 ? 
flaudabtli8 = * laudatory ' ; 506. 8 Xomen Dei laudabdt testi- 

monio praedicatur, 598. 13 ddecti et ordlnati et laudabiU 

muUorum senteiitia con2>robati, and similarly 629. 7, 20 ^ 

Laudabile testimonium is simply for laue. No one seems to 

have noticed this sense. 
*men8umu8 571. 2, 585. 2. Novatian. Trin, i, but apparently 

not earlier. 

^ Cf. Fronto, Ad M, Caef. 2. 12 (written by Marcus) oue% . . . palamiet 
balantesque oherrant. PuloJimndiu also is very rare. In Quod Id, 10 (37. 
1 4) it is boiTOwed from Tert. Apol. 2 1 . 

' Cf. 202. i^fructus cum cenieuo, from which agricultural formula eeiUenui 

frtictus is derived ; Cic. Verr, 3. 47 ager efficit cum octauOf hene ut agatur^ 

ueruirif ut omnes dii adiwienty cum decumo (cited from Roby, Latin Or. 

§ 1883). In 763. 25 Cyprian uses ti'icegimu^y sesra^esimufy centetimuB in the 

same sense, as in the Vulg. Mt. 13. 8 ; and in 202. 15, 832. 19 iexagenarius 


' Beside the three -handua forms given above, Cyprian has gaudiiiundut 
831. 16 (Apul.) and nuiahundus 5. 2 (literal in Apul., but not cited in Cyprian*B 
inetiiphorical sense before Lact.) ; also the common forms cuncicUmnduM 829. 
22, errabundus 773. i,furibanduM 617. 20. gratulahundui 621. 9. The last is 
equivalent to Indus, 9a graiulari 691. 13 and olien.^ gratulatio 615. 15 to 
gaudere, gaudium, for which cf. Ronsch, It. V. p. 367, Beitr. i. p- 35 

* Cf. Apul. Flor. I. 9. 38 utinam postern . . . prciedicdbUi teaiimonio tuo ad 
omnem notttram Camenamfruit i. e. laude. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 


jKrtinax = crudeli$, 637, 20. Georges only cites for this eense 
Cnpit. J/atT, 13. 3, but it al»o occurs in Sen. £}). 104. 39 
M. CaUinem reeeitttctretn cunt quo et infentiut /ortuna egil et 
perlinacius. Cf, periifiaeia 600. 2. 

' aemitonntt 830. 6, and copied by NemeBinnuB 835. 15, For 
the subject cf. FritMlliiider'a D.'rgt, 3. gi8, who only refers tu 
this and Arlemidorus. Ontiron I. zi ; Apul. Met. 9. 13 (162. 
13 Eyas.) capillum nemirati. 

fej-ar 750. 4 ep«eia(im teparet potuit, Apparently the first 
example in proRe; previoosly in the Silvvr poets only. 
Soliniis and Pt-ieciuo (Georges). 

V/rft/(>r»M» 53. 17, 338. 3. Aug., Anibr., &c. 

**erp«n(i'njM43i. 15, 806. 9; De Aleatt. 6 (A 98. 4). Aug., &c. 
Cf. RouEch, Colltet. iSi. where ts no instAnce, apparently 
literal, which may be earlier. 

atihtriatM ^ij%. 11. Ter., Amm. Marc., Eieron. (Georges). 

'YitirginaUi eorUin«»tia (of Cornelius, in the sense of Apoc. 14. 4) 
639. 15. TluB seems the earliest example. 

unanimu (never nnam„mg) 431. g. 570. 6, 628. ai, 777. 13. 
In these H&rtel gives no variant, but in 694, 16 and 754. 3 
(the latter Biblical) the evidence ia strong for uniaHimiii, and 
the critical note to the letter passage leads to the suspicion 
that this may be the true reading; elsewhere. For unianimiii 
Georges has nothing earlier than the Scholia to Juvenal 
{5- 134). nor fir itnanimit than the Old Lntin and Claudian ; 
cf. Biinsch, Collect, p. 106, Cyprian has stmiaaitni* 595. 1 1 
and 635. 19, and it is therefore more than probable that 
axanime should be reiid in 378. 1, not eranimat. Otherwise 
his constant adherence to ■animig forma would be broken. 

For adjectives need as eubstantives see p. 216. A few 
more may be given, and especially tbe names of the seasoos, 

/libeniiim, vrnuim, aiifumiivm 577. 14, 3j3. i, 3', maynalia 
and miraUlia for miraclen (see Hartel's Index and p. 345), 
accidentia 363. 3i, cit«d only from Quint. Decl. and Amm. 

■ Alt theM occur iu TL-rtultiaii : xee Oeljler's Imhx. Amid all tliHt lina 
bera written about them the CarthagrnUn luDiwic C. I. L. 8, l]5jg, {giving 
lli« nainM aaUuninu, attlat, xaani, uerHiM, doea not leem to bnve been 
noticed. Nowhere eUe doei uernui niMO. ocour. For tlie neuter cf. iliitma 
{f\.)^duf, Cnel. Aur. Acut. a. 39. iiS (Geoi^n). I have njreidy ■ugj.'eiited 
th»t 577. 14 .n.y ba a remini.oencc of Virg. Aen. i. 266. 


3o6 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

Ms^TCj j)opul(irei==* commons' 673. 16, which the dictionaries 
only cite from HUt, Aug,^ Amm. Maic., and later Jet., though it 
already occurs in Tert. Sped. 3, masculus, always a substantive 
in Cyprian, 190. 13. 16, 203. 6, 468. 10, 473. 3, 22, 476. 2 K 
For the elliptical domviicui (die^)^ and dominicum and sanctum 
(sacrificium), see pp. 245, 7,66. A curious ellipse is 36. 20 de 
diuinii fontibus inpleuimus modicum. 

§ 35* O^ ^^ pronouns little can be said without touching 
upon syntax. Generally speaking it may be said that his 
use of them is that of his age. Hie for }«, i$te (in Roman as 
well as in African writing) for hic^ ipse for idem (cf. Sittl, Lok. 
Verschiedefiheiten 115, Ronsch, Beitr. 2. 26), alius for alter ^ 
quis for vter were to be expected ^. The rarity of -met forms 
(e.g. 226. I and 477. 16, where semet should surely be 
read instead of se et) is noticeable; sese is never used. 
Indefinite quis is widely and often strangely used ; Test. 3. 
25 tit,^ 8. 5, 263. 3, 807. 12, &c. Quidam (cf. Petschenig in 
W6lflBin's Archit\ 6. 268 for the use in Amm. Marc.) is 
constantly used for sunt qui, nonnul/i; 297. 7, 616. 18, 722. I, 
&c. Quisque and quicwnque are often used for qniuis (see 
Hartel's Iwlex, and for quicunique add 799. 15 (Stephanus) 
and 809. 16), but the chief use of quisque is of course for 
quicumque, which, in the classical use, is rare. Quidquid, 
however, is always used, and never quidque in this sense. 
Quisquis is rare (add 12. 11, Sent. 18). Quispiam, quiuis, 
quUibet are, I think, never used. SingvJiy with and without 
quique, is a favourite substitute for omnes ; unusquisque also is 
common. Eiusmodi stands alone for talis, and more rarely as 
an attribute; 219. 5, 225. 15, 241. 4, 468. 4, 694. 15, &c., 
but is not frequent, ffuiusmodi is very rare, perhaps only in 
226. I. Ealb, Boms Juristen, p. 108, notes that huiusmodi 
does not prevail till after Papinian in legal Latin. 

To express reciprocation Cyprian uses inuicem, I think, 
nineteen times ; with an accusative Test. 3. 9 tit,, 408. 13, 

^ Mares only lo. lo. It had probably died out of the spoken language. 
' Hartel's Index U by no means complete in these respects. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 307 

427. 17, 643. 6, 668. 8 ; a genitive 695. 3 ; dative 217. 22, 
340. 34, 243. 8 {706. 2 shows that this is dative). 501. 9, 689. 
12, "JM. I, 733- ^o; ablative [ieparare. reeedere ah intileem) 
364, 18, 475.23, 476. 9, 711. 18. The only other prepo si tiona 
ao used are adueriitm 278. 13, and cum. 650. 16. UtruOi'qtie 
(for which Hautssleiter in WolBlin'e Archiv, 5. 565 suggests 
utrumqiie), 695. 4, midao Syj. 2 (cf. 689. 12), and jm utrum 
678, 9 are isolated instances ; alter utrum ygg. 17 is a citation 
from Stephanus. Reflexive pronouns alone are used for 
reciprocation 240. 24, 712. 4, and similarly a personnl pro- 
noun jo8. 17. Beside these may be mentioned S45. 21 a//n« 
pro altera, 6gg. 17 UHUtqiiiique pro allero^. 

5 36. Cyprian is more bold in the use of verbs than in that 
of nouns, and the number of new and rare forms is somewhat 
large. Bnt it is in their sjiitox, with which this paper is not 
concei-ned, that he is most original and inventive. 

(iia'ien(irt='waDder in mind' 289, 23. Hau.'ifleiter iu Wolfflin's 
Arekiv, I. 870 cites only this and two isoUited BibUcal readings, 
Jerem, 23. 7 (Wirceb.) and Mc. 4. 19 (Colbert.). 

'abigeare 773. 1, Though ahigealor and aingeatua (n.) occur, 
tide verb duos not Geem to recur even in glosses. 

'atiioeiiare 4. I. Cuseiod., Sulvisn, &c. 

drewneuraare 683. 32. Plaut., Ter., Lucr., Laot., &c. 

iclarijicar^ 679. 4 darificato dit. There seems to be nothing 
like this. 

ieoagulare (tnctaphorical) 326. 18 wagulati cum Udem tirnvX 
ad avdaciam. 

aonUatari = declarare ; in cilatioDB of Scripture aa 192. 22 coit- 
Uatani ait, 758, 14, &c. ; with aco. iiif. ofteu 309. 18, 360. 26, 
588. II {double occ), 740. 23, &c., and with quod 634. 8 ; 
vith ace. 270. I conttsUtri jiecccUa, 692. 10 mtrila, 222. 13, 
&c.; with ace. also in the Roman Spji. 551. 2, 559. 15. It 

' No tp-ammaticKl paper couM be more ulmirable tbui Tliielmiuin'B on this 
(ubject in the Archiv, 7. 343 ff. Hb mjb that iMuicem occurs about twenty 
times in Cjprian, the cluiial infer M once. This i* an oversight, fur it 
■otadl^ occun in the Komna £p. 36 (575. 6), if it be the true rexiiug. 
Other noteworthy initances of reciprocation not wrtlten by Cyprian are 335, 
16. SJO. n. i!4-S. S7i-8,637- 1.810.6,811.1,81. 

3o8 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

is Biblical with ace. inf. (e. g. i Pet. 5. 1 2), but does not occur 
in the Vulgate with an ace of the thing attested, nor in 
Cyprian with a personal object {cantestor uos) as is usual in 
the Vulgate. Jerome seems the first writer after Cyprian 
freely to use the word as he does. Aug. and Ambr. appear 
to avoid it. lu the strange corUesiantes ei 731. 18 both case 
and pronoun seem to be chosen simply for rhyme. 

diluctdare : 589. 2 dUucidata ucritate. This must be the read- 
iog, as in Tert. Marc. 3. 23 init, ; cf. Paucker's Ergdnzungen I, 

euirare (literal) 10. 10. Varro, Catullus, Arnob. 5. 42 (211. 23 

gratiilari=zla€tari; add 8. 16, 545. 6, 588. 12, 641. 10, 740. 
17, cf. Ronsch, It, r. p. 367, and Dante, Parad. 24. 149. 
Gratvlatio 615. 15, grcUvlahundua 621. 9, in the same sense; 
cf. gratvlanter in Paucker, Addenda, 

ilaxare (pacem^ &c. alicui), ad<l 625. 16, 637. 21, 638. 8, 16. 

1 can find no parallel. 

leuare; 630. 18 cum tnvXto patientius et tolerahiliua audiret 
(Decius) levari aduersum se aemvlum jprincijyem quam cansttttu 
Eomae Dei eacerdotem. The only resemblance seems to be 

2 Esdr. 6. 6 et leuare U vsUs super eoa regem, 

ilimare, see HHrtel's Index. The meaning seems to be to form 
a decision, not to enquire into a proposal; e.g. 596. 25, 
where otherwise would be an awkwanl v<rr*pw 9rporcpo». 

lncrari==effugere {mantis carmficis, &c.) 306. 23, 342. 3, 619. 12 ; 

cf. lucrum 312. 27. Apul. Met. 8. 12 (142. 12 Eyss.), Amm. 

Marc. 19. 4. 3, Victor Vit. 3. 26 (84. 22 Petsch.) ; so lucri 

facere in Bell. Hisp. 36. i, Tert. Res, Cam. 42, &c.,and lucratio 

Tert. Test, .4 n. 4 (139. 17 Eeiff.). 

ipcrtare\ (i) Christum hominem portabat of the Incarnation; 
see p. 248. This phrase is Cyprian's own; it is not in 
Tertullian or Irenaeus, and does not seem to be adopted by 
later writers*. (2) Forlare typum^figuramy &c., see p. 254 ; 

* Cf. haiulare in Iren. 5. 19. I sua propria eum {IJovUnum) baimlafUe eon- 
ditionCy quae haiulatur ah ipto^ though the sense is different. Father Pnller, 
8. S. J. E., has pointed out to me the use of portmrs in Iren. 5. 18. I Paier 
eondilianem itimul et Verbum sutim portans, and that H is only another step 
(though Iren ae us does not seem to take it) to speak of the Church being borne 
by the Word. Irenaeus prefers recapitulare in this oonnezion« as in 5. 
20. 2. Tertullian has tpecie hominis quam erai gestalunu in Adu, Mare, 4. aa, 
and gestare also ib. 34 and Cam. Xti 10, &c. Q-estahat for portahat it the 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 

this agnm seetns peculiar to Cypriao. 
the UEual Christian Muse. 

(3) Portare pteeata, ii 

^j/rafformnre = praefiffurare a [ 7. 4. Nothing like it is cited. 

jTojiQffatr. = rrescrt 7. 19 immundoa epiritus . . . iiteremenlo 
poeime prapagantig extendere, copied in Quod Id. (15. 7). It 
seems to be intransitive, and syaouj moita with incremento ; 
NO Leonard, who gives no parallel '. 

'qiiamlitmaTe 732. 2. Ahsent in tlie Vatican Fragments of 
Jnrispnidfuce, from which Oeorges cites it. 

reealeitrare = r^td/art: 423. 14. Bihl. (only Deut 32. 15), Amm. 

ireerrare (of Baptism), see p. 264. Cypnnn is the first to nse 
it in this sense. 

^r^^pn^are {ali'qvem) 273. 6, 36a. 27, 373. g, 394. 9. 400. a-j and 
(in Ep. 75) 8n. 31. Cf. Min. Fel. 34. 12 (49. 14 Halm). 
Cyprian is the first to use this verb also of Baptism, and 
almost the first to use it with a personal object. 

'STf.prafsentare = reddert 542. 15, 596. 21, 808. 12 ; cf. Hartel's 
Index to Lucifer. Another strange use is 502. 13 ojieium 
meum uarlra dilvjenlia repraKfenUt, for which Greg. M. Kji. 
I. I no^ra per tnm repraeaenlelnr atietorilati (Lewis and 
Short) is the only parallel cited ; yet cf. O. Ritschl, Ci/pnan 
t. Carthago, p. 11 ff. In ordinaiy senses the verb is very 
common, as it is in Seneca. Perhaps this is one of Cj-prian's 
dehls to him. 

freiieniare = aaluare, see p. 249. Also = obaeruare (leytm, &c.) 
284. J, 513. 10, 713. 19. 

imtiare = abvTulaneer addtre (Hurtel) 755, 15. This and the 
similar pawages from the Vit'i 8 and Sing. Cler. 8 seem to stand 
alone, while tiie sense of adi-aaare, 377. 16, is quite isoluled. 

mecare iutrnns. 808. 8. Lact. 7. 3, 8, where Biliiemann's 
instancc« from Apicius are copied by Georges. 

iaolidare {Jidtnt, Sia.) 494. 6, 579. 8. In other remarkable 
seuEes 304. 23, 318. II, 675. I, 713. 6, and in Ep. 75 (820. 
27), Cyprian is not only the first but the boldest employer 
of this word in metaphorical senses. Lnct,, Ejiit. 66. 8, Opif. 

rraLdingortheOirord MS. Bodl. Add.C. I£, of the beginning uftbelenlbci 
tnij, in 71 [, \1. Induerc in thia neiue is confinad to Qaod I-t., 18. 9, 31. 3 
' But coulcl it be nyuQcymoua with ejttndei'e, dncribing farlhor the lue 
tha ukIou I 

3 1 o The Style and Language of St, Cyprian, 

lo. 9, imitates him. The passage in E^, 75 is one of many 

signs that Cyprian had a hand in that letter. 
*8ordidare; add 201. 5, 219. 21, 374. 24, 830. 3 (literal), and 

Sent. 42. Lact., Hieron. {Ep. 54. 16 as well as 107. 10, 

which is cited hy Georges), Firm. Math., &c. 
isospitare =i saltuire 188. 25, 211. 9. Enn., Pacuv., Plant., 

CatnlL, liv., &c., hut very rare. This attempt of Cyprian's 

to enrich theological diction was unsuccessful ; seep. 249. 
*8partidare 466. 12; air. Xcy. ; see p. 274. It must mean to 

give, and not to receive, the sporttda, as the dictionaries would 

have it. 
subitare = * take by surprise ' 693. 15. The only other instances 

seem to be the Vita, § 15 (cvi. 17), and Apoc. 3. 3 (Primasius) 

ueniam et svhitaho aduentum meum. Cf. subitatio in Sap. 5. 2, 

and desvhitare Firm. Math, 3. 4. 6 (cited in Paucker, Addenda). 

See Wolfflin*s Archiv, 3. 255 and 4. 586. 
taxare = indicate 705. 19. So Tert. Fraescr. 6, Adu. Marc. 4. 

20, 27, though usually in Tert. it means to blame. This is 

its only occurrence in Cyprian, and is a sign that when Ep. 63 

was written he was still under Tertullian*s influence; cf. p. 199. 
*turificare: only the perf. part, turificati is used 624. 19. Cf. 

Paucker's Ergdnzungen J I. 
iueniilare honorem 340. 9 ; cf. Juv. i. 28 ; in the opposite 

sense 598. 14 ; uenUlare mendacia 678. 12, as in Min. Fel. 

28. 2, Tert., &c, ; to spread a rumour 628. 18, 839. 14 ; add 

to HarteVs list 2 1 1 . 3 (literal). 

Beside these there are two possible readings which should 
be mentioned : — 

derepiUare 253. 12 delicta nostra dereptUemus {^^). The allitera- 
tion makes it the more probable. 

exabundare, almost certainly in 353. 15, 411. 23 ; see Hartel's 
critical notes, and Quicherat's Addenda. 

It is probable also that in 727. 21 there is a verb glariare = 
glorificare, see p. 223. 

augere in trans. 643. 2. Honsch, Beitr. 3. 9 only cites Jerem. 

22. 30 in Iren. 3. 29 and a gloss. 
*coniacere 475. 5. Cf. Paucker, Ergdnzungen I\ 

^ The other verbs of this form in Cyprian are eondolere 521. 11, congaudere 

The Lavgttage of SI. CyPn 

HarifTe =^ Koi^nnAii 473. 3, 475. Ii; ■= hahita: 
(the Litter pleonaatic hahUare H manere) ; i 
3. 57 f. for both senses. 

■6 370.8, 4'o.; 
ee ItiiiiEcli, Beu 

unimadmrtere aHqu^m; add 839. 16 to Hartel's list, perliapa 
the enrlicet instances with a direct persanal ohject ; Frouto, 
p. 207 Naber, cited by Hartel, peruerge fiicla animaduertil ia 
not to the point. 

ictnieltidere ^ 'choke' 256. 2, 357. 18 ; cf. 373. 17. Cited by 
Ueorges only from FalladiuB. 

ieofilidfre iutrana. 215. 8, and in the Roman Ep. 36 (573. 21). 
S. Brandt in Wolfflin's Arehiv, 8, p. 130 cites Lact. Inst. 2. 8. 
31, Dt Ira 10, 25. 

ftmtigtere (see Hartel's Index) in the present part, is constantly 
used ID the Christian sense of sojouming, as in the iiewly- 
discovered translation of Clement, § i, jrapninui-, Tliis ia 
not a Biblical usage '. Unless (as Hamack asserts) Clement 
wiis a translation of the second century, these instances in 
Cyprian may be the earliest. ConmBtens is also twice used for 
Cyprian's favourite eonslilulus; in Ep. 17 (i<(5zi. z)fi^tribug 
in pl^i conastenlibus, and 749. 13 extra f.ccletiam con»iHenB*. 

iflepromere = 'publish,' 'proclaim' 239. zi, 309. 26, 400. 13,4^7. 
20, 717. 13. Nothing like tbis seems to be cited' except 
Nazarius, Pan. 8. 

dirigere litterat ad aliqvem 514. g, gi6. 13, 519. 14, 60O. 12, 
606. 9, 715. 9, 731. 17. Cf. WblfBin in his Arehiv, 4. 100, 
who knows no example between the Muratorian canon (p. 10 b., 
9 eputulae auiem Paidi quae a ipio loeo ad qua ex caiua 
direetae tint sq.) and Jerome. 

idutribuere ; 277. ^ exemplumdieclpuiiii miia ditlr&uena=dattt; 
probably only chosen fur the alliteration with di»-, without 

6)0. 9, ™Hl(r((art.43t. jj, oonmori 341. Ij, co*paU jll. 10, contepHllui 740. 
11, anil the Biblical eomnrgere 439. 5 (Ke 41S. ai). All of tiieev nre uiwd 
mrliflr Uum Cypriui ; cf. Rbnsoh, ColUcl. 145. 

' The luein the Aeta of Cypriftn bj the procotuul Pklemun (ai. igj ia the 
uiiul one ; cf. Mkjror'f Appendil to hii JuTenal, p. 390, on 3. 196. 

' Cimililutitt in, inler, Aa. —mBimiit, tc., bai been so fully and lo well diB- 
ciiHAed by Ealb and oChora that there is no need to dwell upon it here. It it, of 
cnune, by do uivnas pecnliar lo Cyprian. I m»; refer to a note which I have 
CDOtribulwl to Ibe edition <'f the Vulg»te by Wordanoith And White OQ JoL 

3 1 2 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

thought of the appropriateness of the word ; cf. 394. 6 ecn- 
trilnieni pro terrenU eadestia, which also simplj means giving. 

itncurrere aupplicia, incommoda 342. 4, 364. 24. Lact., Amob., 
&c. : see Biinemann on Lact. 2. 7. 23. 

•\6btendeTe 254. 8 quid caeci oculi paerUtentiae iter non uident quod 
obtendimus ] This must be iu the sense of ogtenderey for which 
perhaps it is only an error. Nothing like it seems to occur 

iofferre: oblati jyraefsclis 840. 12, and Acta ^ 3 (cxii. 12). 

pradigere 577. i. This very rare word is only cited from Apul. 
Met. 7. II (123. 25 Eyss.), and Tert. Ad Nat. i. 14 (a false 
reference in Oehler). But can it be discriminated from prae- 
eligere'i Cf. Ronsch, It. V. 210, Paucker, Ergdnzungen II, 
and Engelbrecht in Silzungtber. of the Vienua Academy, vol. 
no, on Claud. Mamertus. 

•^^proponere = edicere 284. 15, and cf. 682. x6 ; proponere edictum 
Novatian in Ep. 30 (551. 10), Tert. Pvd. i. 

statuere = sistere 249. 13, 355. 25, 424. 3. Amob. i. 50 (34. 16 
EeifT.), where Hildebrand only cites Cyprian ; but cf. Honsch, 
Beitr. 3. 77 for Plautus and Propertius. 

struere = instruere 598. 5 ; cf. Ronsch, It. V. 380, and Beitr. 3. 
78, where he cites from Haupt an inscription given in Spicil. 
Sohsm. which copies 249. 13 {v. 8.) with struatur for 8talwUtir\ 
If this reading be accepted, Cyprian's will be the earliest 
instance in the sense of obstrttere. 

itransjnmgere : transpunctas mentis aliencUione dementes 261. 17. 
In this metaphorical sense of stricken, synonymous with 
aliencUio and demenSj Cyprian seems to be the first to use the 
verb, which is cited also from Cael. Aur., though transpunctio 
261. 12, is biblical. 

*exambire 528. 2, 630. 11, 739. 22, with different constructions. 

Amob. 3. 24, 7. 15, onwards. 
tgnire (literal) 339. i. This was probably in Cyprian's Bible in 

2 Mace. 7. 3 (Yulg. auccendi) ; aurum igndtvan 384. 10 is 

Biblical; see ib. 6 and Ronsch, It. V. p. 156. 

^ This reading, and in 238. 8 qnam not laet08 exeipit from the same sonroe 
(Hanpt, Opute. 3. p. 202) are very tempting ; but de oc mundo for deproelio 
■how that the latter at any rate is only a paraphrase. The change, of course, 
was necessary in the case of a natural death, but when one change was made 
another might easily be admitted. 

The Language of S(. Cyprian. 313 

The 00]/ impersonal verb which appears first in Cyprinn 

'lityrret 781. 18 n«c deleelat id dieert quod auC horrel ant p'ldtt 
■noBte. Thia does not Beem to be cited eltewliere ; vtaA it 
improvised by Cyprinu for uniformity with ^udit ' ) 

Present participles used as Bubtitantives are not common : 
aeiaulanfet = adver»arii 598. 14, audicnfca (see p. 263), 
ilamlifnt = quack 570. I, ctmmeaH/e» 746. i^eoujitenlei 615. 5, 
credentet (see p. 255), delinqumtei 743. 4, wetieiitei = itpoa- 
^AvToi (see p. 263). Siteeiu for diteipulue seems to be 

I 37. Adverbs are used in extraordinary nbuiidance, but not 
many seem to be new : — 

'd(uoU = 'loyally' 513. 9, Laut., &c. 

^jilane = c:Tte, niininim, utique, but never, I tljink, for pernpieae., 
aperte, ae Hnrtrl would httve it iu some iuatuuceB. Add to 
liis iiiHtiiiiceH 338. 15, 748. 32, 776. 14'. 

Cyprian, like Apoleius, delights in adverbs in -im : — ' 
glomeraliin 479. 10. Aetna 199, Mncr, Sat. 6, 4. 3 (where Juu 

baa no note) onwards. 
'vptciatim 750. 4 ; seven times in ihc Hint. Au//., see HodscIi, 

Jl. v. ]i. 149, and Paucker, NaehlnU/f, p. 24. 

' Oporlel ia Ci^prUn is >Ihb;s, excejit pertiApa id 33^. |], naett in the 
itnnigeTBeiiMof nwVM(-««C; the u>u»l mBWiiiig-being ainjpliejby fDHiiffHi/, Ac. 

' Cjrprian kUu uiwn the nrti toniii conimllt 475. lo, errrlc 410. M (meui- 
iug dearly, nnC eiier}(f Ikftlly ; a mow "luitttni by UnorKBi-, tlinu^h uwxl lUio liy 
TertuUiku). iiilUiU 6^3. 3, 757. 6, itercln 16S. 13. Uu hu 110 udw foimB in 
-o : fnr /nliitato, Uitalo, iitto - atr*, nee Harlct's Imlur, 

' Slatim in 139. 36, 150. n, and Sii. 6 {Ep. 7£) ■« unid in the Ii'DM of 
' oecesiarily,' >■ in Sen. t'y. 45. 10. /nferini muit meui ' nt mice ' iti 475. 14. 
636. 7, 647. 14; ituioally hM the wn« of ' for the preraut,' or ' for a time.' ai 
144. 13, 659. iS. Tlie other ml vefIm of this fonii umhI by Cyprian are cok/ciO'ih 
54*. is.gitgatim 541. 3, nv«iiiuilim 516. j, i), opjAlalim mid oitintim fgS. 
J 1, 11, ;inHim often (in thoBeDBeof ■ in diBcrimi nattily,' a6g. 4), jiHuitiiiii 371. 
$, 512. ig, and in Ep. 75 (816. 11), tingiUatim 171. 4. Bciids Ibeae niKi'rii 
or «alt*m ii uied with nee or tioH inslsad of nb . . . jiiiif«>i (ct Sitll in 
JahrtMm. 1891, p. 135) in 141, 14, 14J. II, 36a. 9, 401. 15, 8)6-8; wiUioal 
a negative, only 14, ij and 604. 15. 

314 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. 

The following in -ter are noteworthy : — 

granditer five times ; see Hartel's Index, Only two earlier 
instances of this adverb are cited from Ovid, and i Esdr. 9. 7 
from Cod. Tolet. (Ronsch, It. V. p. 150.) 

*inseparahiliter 215. 11, 22, 278. 2. Lact., Hieron., Aug. 

* saeculariter Test, 3. 36 tU. Aug., Prosper. 

istibtiliter fallens 289. 20 ; of. 8ubtUii€U in Ronsch, Beitr, i. 68 ; 
in the usual sense 782. 21. 

Derived from present participles are : — 

fexttUanter 614. 11,691. 9. 

*gvh€manter 608. 10. Omitted by Georges. 

ignoranter 701. 16, 715. 3 ; only Vulg. (Old Latin) Ecclus. 14. 7 ; 

RufinuB, Aug. 
indesinenter 733. 20. Vulg. only Heb. 10. i. Lucifer, Hieron., &c. 
*urgenter 676. 14 and in the Roman JSp, 36 (573. 4). Aug. 

Of temporal adverbs and conjunctions the rarity of saejoe 
has already been noticed on p. 220. The same has been 
noted by Wolfflin in Cassius Felix ; but Cyprian never uses 
the comparative or superlative of frequenter ; mepiun and 
iaepissime are always used. lugiter, also as in Cassius Felix, 
alternates with semper, Mox is never used ; its place is taken 
by cito or uelociter ^. The strange use of retro for * in future ' 
occurs in 366. 13. Tunc is always used, and never turn. 

There is less to be said about local words. Eadnde, rare in 
this sense, occurs 841. 13, 15 ; istic, istinc always mean * here ' 
and * hence,' and with iUic, illinc are constantly used of Carthage 
and Rome*. litic for istu>c 616, 11, but iUuc 725. 15. 
Nu^squam is put strangely for neqnaquam in 394. 26, and the 
curious form of question uhi erit quod . . . ? occurs several times, 
as 601. 10 uhi erit quod discimus?^ 634. 20, 793. 12, 15 ; so 
in Ep. 75 (824. 17) and in Roman Epp. 551. 22, 562. 15, 
564. 6. 

^ Mox in the Vulgate is confined to six examples, five of which are in books 
not revised by Jerome. 

* For the pleonastic illine ab urbe^ &c., see p. 338. Here maybe mentioned 
the attributive use of iUic, istie, and quondanif indexed by Hartel ; add to 
these poBtmodum 375. 14, semper 341. 33, and perhi^s etatim 505. 14. In 
Ep. 75 occur retro 816. 35, and /ori« 833. 11. 

The Language of St. Cyprian. 315 

Fortaitie {239. 6, 307. iW), forta»»ii {47.5. 8 and in the 
Bomtrn Ep. 31, 558. 7) sjaA forBi(.an (254. 2 and iairly often), 
are uIL used, as in Apuleius ; ef. Becker, Stiid. ApuL p. 1 1. 

Among negatives haud is absent, tUough common in tlie 
artiticitil style of Amobiiis. Neue ia also absent, being i-eplaced 
by neque, et or aiil ; once «c . . . ud iie 500, 14, and twice 
probably ne . . . ne in co-ordinate clanses, 5H8. 3', 688. 16, 
Noa forming one notion with the word connected, adjective, 
adverb, &c. b chai-acteristic of Cyprian ; hoh talubriier 195. 
16, non de «w tetiteittia onlinati = conira 672. 16, lie non 
colektibvi 361. II, &c. Necduni and neque enin have qnite 
taken the place of noiitlum, non enim \ hence et necdum, 
necdum qitoque 593. 8, 801. 4, neque enim et 688, 10. But 
iriegulnr negatives are conntless. 

Of irregularly osed copulative conjunctions some examples 
have been given on pp. 230,239. It maybe stated as a general 
rule that et connects clauses, ac words. Hem is excessively 
common. Aut . . . aut is used for et , . . et 01 tarn . . . quam in 
240. 14, 548. 5, 673. 20, and often, though wl . . . vel is 
normal in this sense, 356. 19, Stc. The comparative particles 
are tantum . . . quantum or in tantnm . . . in quantum ■ tam 
. . . quam, hoc . , . quo and t-anto . . . quanta are rarer ^- But 
the most noteworthy and almoi^t the most common of 
Cyprian's usages are those of el for »ed or famen either at the 
Iwginning or in the middle of a sentence. Only once is it 
nsed between words, not clauses, 283. 1, unless et be read in 
586. 3; bat such expressions as 263. 11 distribucmlum per 
apofioloi latum (all they had) dahant ct uon talia deli^ta 
reilimebant and 366, 12 are of constant occurrence. Con- 
versely »cd et in similar positions, well, though not completely, 
indexed by Hartel, is freqaently used for et. 

< Hvtel OQoe, 588. 3, rerwia war, bat the teit it cluiibtful, and it leema 
better tu read lu . . . rir u guggMtwl above. 

* (/uam amplioT . ■ ■ tam tnaior 14. 11. Qunntum. . . laatvm with poiitlve 
iidj. j6j. 16, 584. 10. Other inaUiicea •« 490. S, 505. 3, 546. 11. For iit 
laiitum ... in qvaiilum and vkriontB aee HarteL t.vv. ui and quaitliii. 
QmiikIo with lanlB uuiticd 1B9, 17. 

3i6 The Style and Language of St. Cyprian, 

Of adversative oonjanctions, immo^ in various positions, is 
very common ^. Porro also is frequent, alwajs initial and 
usually with autem^. At {at emim 301. 7, at nero 651. 24} 
appears to be almost extinct. For 9ed enim see Hartel's Index, 
Ceterum is very common at the beginnings of periods in a 
strongly adversative sense. Certe is always initial (227. 16, 
601. 8, &c.)^ and used not for restriction, but for assertion. 
£rpo is apparently used for tamefi in a conversational passage, 
307. 18, as it is in Sent. 4 (438. 3). 

Nm si is constantly used with the indicative in a reduetio 
ad absurdum, as 382. 20 ; only 334. 8, 45^. 15 in another 
sense with the subjunctive. Si is strang^ely used for quod in 
249. 23, 468. 7, 740. 17. Dum is often used^ and invariably 
with the present indicative, as a causal particle ; dummodo 
perhaps only 779. 12 ^ 

In the place of the old conclusive particles, iine^ inde^ unde 
are almost always used. Propter quod and et idcirco are much 
more common than quamofyrem^ quare or quapropter^ though 
all these occur ; quocirca is absent. Denique in several senses 
— for instance^ * in consequence,' * accordingly,* and as a simple 
copula — rarely in that of * finally,* is very common *, eg. 421. 
23, 501. I, 618. 4, 7CX5. II. 

Probably no writer has used quominus so freely as Cj^rian 
in all connexions; e.g. 260. 3, 297. 11, 411. 9, 502. 18. 
Unal ut, as has been said, is rare unless strengthened with ad 
hoc y propter hoc^ &c. But the use of a^ as simply explanatory or 
consecutive is a marked feature in his style ; 195. 23, 312. 21, 
26, 522. 15, 794. 18, &c. 

Clauses with quia^ quod^ quoniam for the ace. inf. are, of 

^ It is used for poiias ; nemo eogitet . . . $ed immo eontideret 334. 3, and 
219. 22. 

* Forro autem^^ on the contrary* 797. 8 ; cf. Roniob, Beitr. 2. 78. 

' The combinations of dum, &o. are often curious ; dum , . . tie 743. 16, 
772. lysie. . . dum 605. i, hinc . . . dum 423. 9, inde . . . dum 422. 17, to ... 
dum 212. 3, inde . . . quod or quia 362. 30, 408. 9, 667. 20, 798. 7. 

* Cf. Kalb, Rom» Juristen, p. 19 f., Becker, Stud. ApuL p. 32, Ronach, 
£eitr. 2. 65. 

The Latigvage of St. Cyprian. 

course, tMimmon in n writer of the thin! century, and most 
of them have been indexed liy Hartel. 

§ 38. The most remarkable part of Cyprian's syntax is that 
of preposif.ions, which must be omitted here. He avoids both 
archaic and vul^r forms ; several wliieh are common in such 
writers as Fronto and TertuIIiaii, and used by other writers in 
Cyprian's cirrtspondence, are absent. The following are not 
need: — abmque (but alt 253. 24, 676. ll), ci*, cUra, cfam 
(though coram is used as a preposition, and pa/aiii as an 
adverb), erga and ergo, penes, poue, prae, seeim, xnbter, ieiiiit, 
vtque and admqve^. Trans is confined to the formala trans 
ware constituH 592. 22, 601. 3 ; ex and ob are comparatively 
rsre, while opvd has an extraordinary extension of meaning. 

The following- ablatives are used with the genitive as sub- 
stitutes for prepositions: — benijicio 385. 21'', caum 659. 27, 
frawle /69. 12, vierito {cf. Sittl, op. rif. ji. 135), "ii. 4, 
retpecfu 510. 5. To these should perhaps be added_yfr/e 2S1, 
4. 3°3- 3. 357- 115, 370. 12, and ui 302. 16, 30J. 16. 

There is little to be said about exclamations. Uthiam 517, 
15, &c. is varied thrice by the poetical «/ 10. 24, 361. 18. 
685, 6 ; except in 353. 23, where there is the accusative, o is 
followed by the nominative 14. i, 9, &c. Proiloltir occurs 
9. 12, 243, iq, pro nefas 199. 10, 242. 10. Oto, qiiaes<i,puta, 
are used without construction, as in other writers. 

' TJtqae a4 i;6. 16, 401. a6, 401. G, 503. to, 764. jj adfiurm tuqve 50^. 7. 

' Cypriim in»ij hnve le»rnt thin u«b from Seneca, who hu it (rniuenllj. 
Dial. 5. I. I &o. It IB bIho usetl by Apiileiui, Met. 5. 15, S. :>o 19,;. Ii;, 147, 
6 Kjw.)»inl Pi.-A|)ul. Aiel. 31 {£4. 11 Goldbacher), nod by Luciuma 533. 7, 
Sittl, Lik. Vtrifhie'l., p. 136, Hlr&ngely seenu to regard it as Alricnn. and tbe 
initnnce in the VUa 1, A. c. 10) u the wrlieit. At any rate he quutM no 
uilier. See ai-t WiiimiD'i Archie, 8. 590. 




338- 17 • 


Page 256 

370. 17 

. . 212 

378. 1 . 

. 305 

402. 21 

. . 260 n. 

477.16 , 

. 306 

483. 10 . 

. 220 91. 

501. 17 

. . 334»- 


. . 282 n. 

531- " ■ 

. 260 f}. 

55a. 8 

. . 210 n. 

582. 22 

. . 213 n. 

588. 3 . 

. . 3^5 "• 

Habtsl 589. 2 

Pack 308 

623. 6 

633. H 
646. 20 . 

684. 22 . 

220 ft. 

213 II. 

. 302 tu 

711. 22 

220 u. 

736. II . 
746.11 . 


ai3 II. 


220 ». 

794- 4 - 
835- 3 ■ 

221 ». 
210 ft. 



Abalienari, 307. 

abhorrenBi 303. 

abigeare, 307. 

ablaere, 264. 

absolatioi 282. 

abrtinere, 262, 282. 

ahBtrcicts, 208, 214, 273. 

acceptor, 302. 

aocidentia, 305. 

acerbatio, 300. 

acoluthtu, 261. 

Ad Donaium, 199. 

address, modes of, 272. 

adfectio, 276. 

adflictatio, 300. 

adhac, adhuo usqae, &c., 238, 298 n. 

adimplere, 250. 

wljectivet, 215/., 303/. 

adlocutio, 271. 

adminiBtrare, administratio, 260. 

adorare, adorator, 269. 

adscendere, 288. 

adspirare, 250. 

adulator - * deceiver,' 303. 

adunare, adanatio, 256, 300. 

aduocatuB, 249. 

adverbsy 237, 313. 

aeomlus, &c., 295. 

African Christianity, 249 n. 

African Latin, 241, 287. 

agape, 297. 

agon, 292. 

imenigena, 287. 

alienni, 303. 

alliteration, 224/. 

allophyli, 287. 

alms, 277. 

altare, 268, 271, 288. 

Ambrose, St., 215, 280 n. 

amictam, 300 n, 

amoenHre, 307. 

amplification, 209, 234, 230/. 

anaphora, 228/. 

animadaertere, 311. 

antecettor, 259. 

antistes, 257. 

antithesis, 214, 226. 

aphronitra, 296. 

apofltata, apostatare, 293. 

Apuleius, 198, 199, 210, 23011., 235 n., 

ara, 268, 288. 
aroessire, aroeBsitio, 283. 
Am<^us, 195 »., 196, 215 w., 235. 
asyndeton f 230. 
at, rare, 316. 
aadienB, 263. 
augere, intrctns., 310. 
Augustine, St., 269, 280. 
autnenticaB, 296. 
autumnum, 305. 
auulflio, 301. 

BalabundoB, 303. 
baptism, 263/., 287, 297. 
baptisma sanguinis, 289, 293. 
beataB, beatiBaiinuB, 273, 290. 
benediotuB, 273. 
beneficio, 317. 

Bible, Old Latin, Cyprian^s relation 
to, 194. 

— Names of Boohs, 251/. 

— Cyprian s mode of citation, 250 11., 

Bishops, 257/., 290/. 

blandienB, 313. 

brachylogif, 211 n. 

brauiam, 195, 289. 

Calcatio, 301. 
canere, 250. 
capitola, 251. 
cariBsimuB, 272. 
caritaB, 276. 
caBtra, 291. 
cata, 252. 
catasta, 270. 
oateonmenaB, 196, 263. 
cathedra, 256, 259. 
catholiouB, 255. 

crlcbnre, j66. 

celutu, 302. 
ornuurB, J47. 
cenlenui fructui, 304. 

Aiannit, ill *., 3)6/. 
chriinik, 165. 

C*ri«i, 148. 

Chruliaut, lieir namet, 3 
chrialiULua, 1^4, 
Cicero, J03. 

cireumciir«nre. 307. 
clarificare, 307. 
rleri/y, atKiiihl-igf oj', 262/. 
— model 0/ addretfing, aji. 

clerui, clericni, 161. 
clinici, 196. 

cimgalarF, 307. 
cnUega, oollegium, Ijg. 

, 167, il 

comQieutarii. sgg. 

eoHiparuoit, irrnfii^iir, 116. 

condere, comlilor. 146. 
confeHin, cimfiUri, 18], 190. 
,„./...■».»,■,, ,6=., .89/. 
oongestua, 163, 171. 

ion., 130. '39. 315/ 

credere, »77. 

credoIiLH, J55 n. 

cruriabundui, 304. 

cultarae, 399. 

t^vm, prtpoidlion, 345 n., 304 a. 

CgpriaH, &7., 100, 340, 191 ». : kif 
UUrary .iffinitii; 194/.; tiw 
Oredr, 196; avoM* lltbrtiB anit 
lireelr trorrfi, i9j/'-i 39s/.; ii» 
rarrfrnvn la grammar, 19* «., 
196 n.; hiiiiinlar, 336 ■., 314/*- 1 
o&feet III Ad DoD., I99; di'lt Of 
£p. 63, 199, 1S7, 310 , relafiam 
to Ep. 75. 197 ■, 360; not 
ailhor of Quod IdaU, 193, 26S, 
186, 309 n. 

Daemon, daenuiniuiii, da^nofUBmu, 


Vt AteatorOnu, 144. 


17. f- 

delwre, aaxiUary, 339. 

defonn«re, 154 n. 

dNficiu, 333, 33S, 344, 

dritu, 344. 

delictor, delinqaere, iSo, 303. 

deniqae. 316. 

deponerr, 363, 198 n. 

deprecari, 369. 

iIe|H«catio, 3S1, 385. 

deprecakv, 349. 

difpromEre, 311. 

derepaUre, 31a. 

designare, 354. 

detnctktio, 3c I. 

Haiiote, .lom.tio, 376, 399 »., 313. 


di™tus rieo, I7fi. 
dignktlo, 147. 
dilectio. 376. 
dilectiuimiu, 371. 
dilitcidare. ,^08. 

, 360, 397, 399. 

, coBDenUcnlnm, 363, 395. 

i, oaDuersfitio, 378. 
cmpLire, 36j. 

Cornetiui, Pop', 34I, 360 n, 
ourroboraCifi, 301, 

cr«»re, creator crefttnnt, 145/*.. 363, 


iliBpenaare, 378. 
duiiiriiiiliilic), JO I. 
diitribaere, 311. 



diuiaiu m 

doctor, 363. 

dooiinui, dmiiiiiica*, donlntoam, ». 

/., 366, 173. 
tlprniira. donuitio, 184. 
daotiu, 303. 
duiii, 316. 
Eocleii*, 15 J, 170. 


/«^a:. 3 2 i^^^^^H 

•,HU, lupfrfluout. ajs, J4S. 
eiilsmodi. 306. 

gntulabandiu, 304 n. ^^^M 

grftLulwi, gmtulatio, 308, ^^* 

eleemo«yn», 177. 

GtwI toorrf* opoi'iini, 195, 190 <•. 

rllijua. 198 •., 14s, )5i, JJ5. 

m, 295/. 

»79 «.. 306. 

-/onH«o/,i96n., 38iB.,J97'.. 

elucidun, 304. 

gubernuiteT, 3:4. 

ergo, 316. 

Uaemii, Jijereticm, 194. 

ethnicui, 388. 

hand, 315. 

BiuingeUmn, ajl. 


*«ac™. 385. ^^ 

eui™«. 308. 

/Hebrew troriff, 196. ^^^H 

Eebrea,, EpiilU lo. 146 ti. ^^^H 


kdl, 3S6. ^^H 

e]>»iiiiii»Uo, 301. 

excidium, 999. 

A«r«v, n6, ^^^^H 

e.orte. 313 n. 

bomu Dei, 155. ^^^^^^^^^^^H 

hooor, houiwue, 374. ^^^^^^^^^H 

ciinde. local. 31 4. 

barret, 313. '^^^^^^^H 

exitium - eiitaa, 300 s. 

hitstia, 366, 391. ^^^^H 

aorrltm, a6l. a86. 

eipciuua. 304. 

extBTM gentoe, 387. 

hffpallage, 3 1 7. ^^H 

Bxtorri*. eilorrena, )90. 

Avp«,«a«in, 210. ^^m 

enulUntor, 314. 

A^«w»>;.,3M». ^^H 

eiulUntU, 399. 

FKinuB - guilt. 309. 

lauiianLquo, 237. ^^^^^| 

fiiutlu. 301, 

idoUtra, yolum, &c., 18S, ^^H 

fatflri-confiteri. 211. 

ignire,3>2. ^^M 

fauenti*. 399. 

IgDoraDter, 314. ^^^H 

/Mr of God, 2j6. 

ilDago, 353. ^^H 

imiDD, 316. ^^^H 

fide, flW., 317. 

fidelia. fidet. 254. »77- 

inaudientia, 299. ^^^1 

tign™ = type. »S3- 

incurrare, tram., 312. ^^^H 

incursatlo, 302. ^^^H 

miu>. jji. 

fiuotuobunduB, 304. 

induls«iiti>, 14S. ^^^M 

fon., 364. 

infuiiia, 291 n. ^^^H 
interi, 286: ^^^| 

fonnm, 154 n., 363. 

fiiniUn, forUHC, fortudi, 315. 

lifiniliti^, iUforical, 217- ^^H 

fortij, ig». 

ingrewio, 303. ^^^H 
initisre, 354- ^^^H 

jnlapiug, 304. ^^^H 

trnude, J17. 

inlidU, 313 ■. ..^^^^^H 

frequenWf, 330, 314. 

gsbcDDB, 196, 1 HO. 

inDouare, 264. ^^^^^^^^^| 

inprtrabiUi, 304. ^^^^^^^m 

goDtoa, gealilcg, 2SJ. 


yenus hurosnum, diuinom, ajj. 

gladiator, metaphor of, 191 . 

iDKpambiliUr, 314. ^^^^^^^M 

glomu-e, 313. 

inijiiratiom, 350. ^^^^^^^^H 

Gnoelie (trnw, 346 n. 

instigare, butindiu, i£0. ^^^^H 

gnnft preliou, jOj. 

gnuidiler, 314. 

mterim, 313 n. ^^^^1 

t;iati>, 263. 

Inftrjiction,. 317- ^^^M 





intenniiiatio, 302. 
intiiiguere, 264 ». 
Irenaeus, 197, 308 n. 
ifte, ifltio, &c., 306, 314. 
ingiter, 314. 
iosiitia, iustos, 276, 278. 

Jerome, St., 198 »., 280 n. 

Laicas, 257. 

UpsuB, 293. 

laadabilis, 304. 

laxaie, 3oiB. 

lectio, 25 1, 261. 

lector, 261. 

leuAre, 308. 

lex, leg^timus, 246, 251. 

libellAtici, libellus, 293. 

lioenti&, 259. 

limare, 308. 

lUotee, 211 n. 

logic, rhetorical use of, 241. 

Lord*» prayer, 269. 

Lucius, Pope, 290. 

lucmi^ escape, 308. 

lue»y pi., 207. 

lapanA, 299. 

Magisterium, 251. 

inagniilia, 245. 

maiores nata, 260. 

malignuiy 286, 295. 

manere, 311. 

manum imponere, mannsinpositio, 

262, 265, 282. 
martyrium, 290. 
masculus, 306. 
matrix, 256. 
mediator, 249. 
mediocritas nostra, 273. 
memoriae, 293. 
mexuumuB, 304. 
raerito, 317. 
meritum, 280. 
metaphor, 207, 291. 
meionymv, 207. 
metuere Denm, metuB, 276. 
militia, 291. 

minister, ministerium, 260. 
Minuoias Felix, 199, 225 n. 
mirabilia, miracnlom, 245. 
miserationes, misericordia, 277. 
morbidus, 281. 
mortalis, 281, 299. 
mortalitas, 302. 
morula, 201 n. 
mox, 314. 
mondus, 287. 
manerator, 303. 
mjBteriom, 195, 253. 

Natalis, 293. 

negatives, 315. 

neopbytus, 195. 

nigror, 302. 

nisi si, 316. 

nomen, 289. 

nostri, 255. 

Nooatian, 194 n., 233 n., 241. 

nomeroaitas, 299 n. 

nosquam, 314. 

nutabundtiB, 304 n. 

O 81, 317. 

oblatio, 267, 274, 284. 

oblectamentum, 300. 

obtendere, 312. 

occisor, 303. 

offerre, 267, 312. 

opera, operari, &c., 277. 

oportet, 313 n. 

ordiiiare, ordinatio, 246, 261. 

oetendere, oetensio, 250, 302. 

oxymoron, 211. 

Palma, 289. 

palpatio, palpator, 302, 303. 

papa, pa|Mw, 273. 

vofMi wpoadoiday, 21 1. 

parabola, 195, 252. 

Paracletus, 195. 

parataxis, 226/. 

parisosis, 212. 

participle present » adj. or tfuhttt., 

passio, 248, 267. 

pastor, 259. 

pax, pacatus, kc^ 276, 282. 

peripatetic!, 297. 

periphrasis, 209. 

pertinacia » cmelty, 295. 

pertinax, 305. 

Peter, 8t,, Second Epistle, 301 n. 

petram, super, 280. 

Petrum, super, 255. 

pignora « liberi, 205. 

plane, 313. 

plangere, 281. 

plasma, plasmare, plastica, 197, 246, 

plebeiuB, 195. 
plebe, 257. 

pleonasm, 230/., 256, 269. 
ploratio, 302. 

plural, concrete for dbeiraet, 208. 
Poets, influence of, 203/., 210 «. 
pompa, 265 n. 
populares, 306. 
populus, 257. 
porro, 239, 316. 

portare bominem, typum, 248 /I, 308. 
potentatus, 303. 



potestas, 359. 

praecanere, 350. 

praeconium, 272 ». 

praedicabiliit, 304 ». 

prae&tio, 269. 

praefigurare, 254. 

praefigaratio, 197, 253. 

praeformare, 254, 309. 

praeligere, 312. 

praepoAitaSy 257/. 

praeaaricari, &c., 295. 

prayer, 269 /. 

prepontums, 239, 317. 

presbyter, presbyteriam, 259, 263. 

pressora, 289. 

prez, 269. 

primatas, 303. 

profanus, 288. 

profeMio, protiteri, 293. 

proUpsU, 211 n. 

promereri, 280. 

pronouns, 217, 234, 306. 

propagare, 309. 

proponere, 312. 

proselytui, 195, 263. 

protoplastai, 246, 296. 

proverbial eacpratsiont, 205. 

prouidenter, 245. 

prozimi dero, 261. 

pallulare, pullulatio, 303. 

pulpitum, 270. 

pulsare ad ecclefiam, 283. 

putramen, 302. 

Quaestionare, 309. 

qaamdia^ donee, 299 fi. 

quando, 238 n. 

quidam, 306. 

quod, conjunction, 217. 

Quod Iilola, 193, 268, 386, 309 M. 

ciuominas, 316. 

Kecaloitrare, 309. 

reciprocation^ 306. 

recreare, 264, 309. 

redditio * mon, 284. 

redemptor, redimere, 249, 281. 

refrigerare, refirigerium, 285. 

relative, 216. 

relegation 390. 

religio, religioeiUf 261, 279. 

remiisa, remissio, 249. 

reparare, 309. 

repentance, 281. 

repraesentare, 309. 

resemare—saluare, 249, 309. 

reipecta, 317. 

retributio, 249. 

retro, 314. 

rhyine^ 201 n,, 221 f. 

rhythm, 317/. 
ruina, 393. 
rusticitas, 302. 

Saoer, rare, 351, 255 ». 

■acerdoB, 257/. 

lacramentnm, 253. 

sacrificare, sacrificiam, 266/1, 268, 288. 

Biicrilegiam, sacrilegua, 289. 

saeculariter, 314. 

saeculara, 287. 

snepe, rare, 220, 314. 

sagina, saginarei 292. 

saltim, 313 n. 

saluare, saluator, 196, 248. 

salutaris, 249. 

salutificator, 248 n. 

aaluus fieri, 249. 

sanctificare, 267. 

Satan, Satanas, 196. 

satiare, 309. 

satiffacere, satisfactio, 281. 

schisina, &c, 294. 

■ciiisura, 294 fi. 

Scriptura, &a, 25a 

tecuone, names of, 305. 

secrete, 313 ». 

secta, 257. 

secauduin quod, 217. 

seminare, seminatio, 302. 

Semiticieme, 241. 

semitonsus, 305. 

Seneca, 202, 204, 230 n., 280 n. 

senior, 260. 

separ, 305. 

septiforuiis, 305. 

sepultum, 300. 

Sermo, 248. 

serpens, serpentinus, 286, 305. 

seroare » saluare, 249. 

seroitudo, 302. 

si, 316. 

siocare, 309. 

signaculom, 265. 

dmolacrum, 288. 

gin, 280. 

solidare, 309. 

sollemnia, sollemnitas, 266. 

sopire, metaphorical, 207. 

sordidare, 310. 

soKpitare, sospitator, 196, 249, 310. 

Soter, 246 n, 

speciatim, 313. 

spiritalis, spiritiditer, 245. 

Spiritos SanctuB, 250. 

sportala, sportukre, 274, 310. 

stantes, 289^ 292. 

statim, 313 ». 

statio, 370. 

Btatnere, trans,, 312. 

Sfephanus, Pope, 269 n. 



stipendia eoclesiae, 274. 
Htipes, 274. 

Sioic infintnct^ 202, 292. 
Htmere, 312. 
HubdiaoonuB, 261. 
Bubitare, 310. 

gubsfantives attrihtiive, 215. 
Bubtiliter, 31 4. 
Bubtriatis, 305. 
Buffiragiom, 262. 
Bupersedere, 210. 
Bymbolum, 265. 
synagoga, 295. 

Tacitus, 255 n. 

tartaruB, 287. 

taxare, 310. 

tenor, 276 n, 

terra, terrenus, 287. 

Tertullian, 195/., 200 , and passim. 

testamentum, 251. 

testiB, 290. 

TihulluSf 203. 

Umere, timidus, &c., 276. 

tinctio, tinguere, 195, 264, 302. 

titulus, 251. 

tolerantia, 290. 

tractare, tractatus, 271. 

trans, rare, 3 1 7. 

traiiBgredi, transgressio, 281. 

transpnngere, tranHpunctio, 312. 

traiiersaria, 300. 

trinitas, 244. 
turn, tunc, 314. 
turificare, 310. 
typus, 253. 

Velle, auxUiary, 189 n. 
uenienB, uenire, 263. 
uentUare, 310. 
uerbum audiens, 263. 
ueritas, 254. 
nemam, 305. 
uestiginm, 265. 
ui, 317. 

uictima, 266, 291. 
uideri, 240. 
uigor, 275. 
uindicta, 250. 
Virgil, 202/., 268. 
uirginaliB, 305. 
nita, oiuere, &c., 285. 
unanimis, 305. 
unctio, 265. 
aotum, 269. 
urgenter, 314. 
ut, 217, 316. 
nubiua, 271. 
uultum, 300. 

World, 287. 

sseluB, zelare, 271. 
seugma, 211. 


The Holy Scriptures, Apociypha, etc 

The Bible in English 
Reprint oftheAuthorizedVersion of 1611. *to. leas. £3 as. net 
The Authorized Version. 

Complete lists of Oxford Bibles, Oxford Bibles for Teachers. Oxford Prayer 
Books, Churcli SetM, etc, in all styles and bindings can be obtained from 
any bookseller, or from Mr, Henry Frowcte, Oxford Warehouse, Amen 
Corner, London, E.C. 

The Revised Version. 

[The Revised Version ia the joint property of the Universities of Oxford 

and Cambridge.] 
Edition for the Chureh Desk. 

Folio, In buckram, with the Apocrypha, £i 23. net. Bound in 

Grained Cowhide, £-i 10s.; witli tlie Apocrypha, £3; in Turkey 

Morocco. £1 4s.; with the Apocrypha, £1 IGs. 

Library editions, in large type (pica). Dound in doth and greatly reduced 

in price. 

Royal 8vo. with large margins: with the Apocrypha. 6 vols., from £1 9s. ; 

the Apocrypha only. tOs. 6d. ; the other live volumes. IBs. 6d. 
Demy Bvo, with the Apocrypha. 6 vols., £1 Is.; the Apocrypha only, 
75. Sd. ; the other five volumes, 14s. 
Single volume editions ; 

Royal Bvo. on Oxford India Paper, and in targe type (pica), in Persian, 

ia 19s. 6d.; with the Apocrypha, in Turkey Morocco, £:i ii>s. 
Royal Svo, small pica type. In cloUi, 10s. 6d. ( in leather bindings, from 

I9s. 6d. 
Svo, small pics type. In cloth. 7s. fid. ; in leather bindings, from lOs. 6d. 
6 vo, minion type.; wlththcApocrypha,6s.; the Apocrypha 

16mo. ruby type. In cloth, 23. fid,; with the Apocrypha. +s. ; the 
Apocrypha only, 2s. ; wilJi the Oxford Helps, in leather, from 78. 

16mo, nonpareil type. In leather, from 38. 

IGmo. pearl type. In cloth boards, from 8d. ; with Oxford Helps, 
from 'is. fid. 

The Revised A''ersion with marginal references, 

9vo, in bourgeois type, from Gs. ; on Oxford India paper, bound in 

leather, fttim 15s. 
Svo, in minion type, from is.; with the Apocrypha, from 7s, fid.; with Oxford 
Helps, from lis. i on Oxford India paper, bound in leather, from 14s. 
16ma, ill nonpareil type. In leather, from 6s. ; on Oxford India paper, 
bound in leather, from lOs. ad. 
The Parallel Bible, conUlnlng the Authorized and Revised Versions in 
parallel columns. Small quarto, in minion type. On ordinary paper, from 
10s. 6d. ; on Oxford India paper, bound in leather, from IGs. 
The Two- Version Bible, being the Authoriied Version with the 
differences of the Revised Version printed in the margins, so tliot both texts 
can be read from the same pwe. With references and maps. Bourgeois 
type. Cloth, Ts. Sd. j leather, from lOs. Gd. : on Oxford India paper— cloth, 
10s, Gd.i leather, from lis.; interleaved with writing-paper, ana bound in 
leather, from £1 Is. With the Oxford Helps, leather, from ISs. 6d. Printed 
on writing-paper with wide margins for notes, from 10s. Gd. net. 


Elementary Helps to the Study of the Bible 

Oxford Bible for Teachers, containing the texts of the Old and 

New Testaments, with or without marginal references, and in either the 
Authorized or RcNised Versions, together with the Oxford Helps to the BiWe 
(see below), and 124 full-page plates. 

In many styles and bindings. A complete list can be obtained from 
Mr. Henry Frowde, Amen Corner, London, £.C. 

The Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible, containuig 

Introductions to the several Books, the History and Antiquities of the Jews, 
the Natural History of Pcdestine, with copious tables, concordance and 
indices, and a series of maps. With 194 full-page plates^ 

8vo, in long primer type— cloth, 5s. ; leather, from 6s. 6d. 

8vo, in nonpareil type— cloth, 2s. 6d. ; leather, 3s. 6d. 

16mo, in pearl type— stiflF covers. Is. net; cloth. Is. 6d.; leather, fit>m 2s. 

Bible Illustrations, being 124 full-page plates, forming an i^pendix to 
the above. Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

Helps to the Study of the Book of Common Prayer. By 

W. R. W. Stephen*, drown 8vo. Cloth, 2s. 6d. net ; also in leather bindings. 
Printed on Oxford India paper and bound with the Ptayer Book, from lis. 6d. 

Dr. Stokoe's Manuals. Crown 8vo 
Old Testament History for Schools. By T. H. Stokob. Part i. 

(Third edition.) From the Creation to the Settlement in Palestine. Part II. 
From the Settlement to the Disruption. Part III. From the Disruption to 
the Return from Captivity. Extra fcap 8vo. 2s. 6d. each, with maps. 

Manual of the Four Gospels. With Mapa, Ss. Cd. Or, separately. 
Part I, The Gospel Narrative, 2s. ; Part II, The Gospel Teaching, 2s. 

Manual of the Acts. sb. 

The Life and Letters of St. Paul, ss^cd. Or^ separately, 

Part I, The Life of St. Paul, 2s. Part II, The Letters of St Paul, 2s, 

First Days and Early Letters of the Church, ss. Or, Part I, 

First Days of the Church, Is. 6d. Part II, Early Letters of the Church, 2$. 

Graduated Lessons on the Old Testament. By u. z. Rule, 

edited by Ll. J. M. Bebb. Selected Readings from the O.T. with para- 
phrases and connecting paragraphs ; with notes for teachers and pupils. For 
use in lower forms, and in elementary and Sunday Schools. The text is that 
of the R.V., but the book may be used with the A.V. In three volumes. 
Extra fcap 8vo. Is. 6d. each in paper covers, or Is. 9d. each in doth. Vol. I. 
Creation to Death of Moses, vol. II. Conouest of Canaan, Psalms, etc. 
Vol. III. Israel and Judah, the Captivity, the Prophets. 

Notes on the Gospel of St. Luke, for Junior Classes. By Miss 
E. J. Moore Smith. Extra fcap 8vo, stiff covers. Is. 6d. 

A Greek Testament Primer, being an easy grammar and reading- 
book for the use of students beginning Greek. By £. Milucr. Second 
edition. Extra fcap 8vo, paper, 2s. ; cloUi, 3s. 6d. 



History of the Bible 
List of Editions of the Bible in English, by H. CmroK. 

Second edition, ftvo. Us. (id. 
nhemes and Doway; showing what has been done by Romsn Catholics 

for l}ie diffiision of the Bible in English, By H. Cotton. 8vo. 9s. 

The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English 

Bible, by J. G. Cahlktoh, containing historical and critical introduction, 
tables and analyses thereof. Hvo. 9s. Gd. net. 
WycliiFeS Bible, porOon edited by W. W. S»E*T. 

Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica. Easays chiefly in Biblical and 
ratjlstic LTiticism, and kindred Guhjects. 8vo. Cloth. 
Vol. I, 10s. ed. Vol. II, IBs. Sd. Vol. in, 16a. Vol. IV. 125. 6d. 
Vol. V, comiilele, IBs,, or, in separate stiff cover parts. Parti. Life of St. 
Nino, by M. and J. O. Wabdrop. 3s. fid. Part 11, Texts from Mount 
Athos, by K. Lake. 3s. 6d. Part III, Plaee of the Prsliitto Version in 
the Apparatus Criticus of the Greek New Testament. 2». ed. Part IV, 
Baptism and Christian Arehaeology, by C. F. Rogehs. 4s. fid. 

The Gospel of Barnabas. Edited and translated from the Italian 
MS. in the Imperial Library. Vienna, by Lonsdale and Lai'b* Rago. 8vo, 
with a facsimile. I6s, neL 

The Journal of Theological Studies. Edited by J. F. Bcthitke- 

Baker and F. E. BHionTNAH. Published Quarterly, pnce ;ls. 6d. net. subscription IBs. net, post free. Many of the tiacK numbers are still 


Tlie Old Testament and Apociypha 

The Psalter, by Ricuakd Rolle of Hai 
Brami.ev. Witli nn inlroduetion and glossary'. 

The Parallel Psalter : being the Prayer- 

and a new version arranged on opposite pages, with an introduction and 
glossaries by S. It. Dbiveh. Second edition. Extra fcap 8to. 3s. 6d. net. 

An Annotated Psalter. Arranged by J. M.TiioMreoN. FcapHvo. 9s. 

The Book of Job in the Revised Version. Edited, with 

introductions and brief annotutious, by S. R. Dbiveh. Crown 8vo. 
•ii. M. net. 

Lectures on Ecclesiastes. 

Crown Bvo. is. 6d. 

Astronomy in tlie Old Testament. 

Authorited transLition. Crown Bvo. 3s. 6d. net. 
EcclesiosticUS, translated from the original Hebrew by A. E. Cowixr and 
A. Neubavis. Crown 8vo. Ss. 6d. 

By G. G. BHAni 

a of the Paalnii 

Second edition. 



The Place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature. An 

essay by D. S. Maboououth. SmaU 4to. 9s. 6d. 

The Five Books of Maccabees, with notes and mustratioDs by 

H. Cotton. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

The Book of Enoch, translated from Di]lmann*s Ethiopic text (emended 
and revised), and edited by R. H. Charles. Svo. [Out of print.] 

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, translated from the Slavonic 
y W. R. MoRFiLL, am 
/HARiJs. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

by W. R. MoRFiLL, and edited, with introduction, notes, etc, by R. H. 

Deuterographs. Duplicate passages in the Old Testament Arranged 
by R. B. GiRDLESTonTE. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

History and Song of Deborah (Judges iv and v). By g. a, 

Cooke. Bvo. Paper covers. Is. 6d. (Published by Mr. Frowde.) 

Libri Psabnorum Versio antiqua Latina, cum Pamphrasi Angio- 

Saxonica. Edidit B. Thorpe. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

Libri Psabnorum Versio antiqua Gallica e Cod. MS. in Bibi 

Bodleiana adservato, una cum Versione Metrica cdiisque Monumentis perve- 
tustis. Nunc primum descripsit et edidit F. Michel. Bvo. 10s. 6d. 

Hebrew and Chaldee 
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis. 

By G. J. Sfurrelu Second edition. Crown 8vo. 19s. 6d. 
Notes on SamueL By S. R. Driver. [Out of print] 

Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings. By 

C. F. Burney. 8vo. lis. net. 

A Hebrew and Enghsh Lexicon of the Old Testament, 

with an Appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic, based on the Thesaurus 
and Lexicon of Gesenius, by F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Brioos. 
Small 4to. 34s. net. The several Parts can be supplied to complete sets. 

Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar, as edited and eniai^^ by £. 

Kautzsch. Translated from the 25th German Edition by G. W, Coluks. 
Translation revised and ac^usted to the 26th Edition by A K Cowley. 8vo. 
[Out of print.] 

A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew. By 

S. R. Driver. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

A Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, attributed to 

Abraham Ibn Ezra. Edited from a MS in the Bodleian Library by S. R. 
Driver. Crown 8vo. Paper covers, 3s. 6d. 



The Book of Tobit. a Chaldee Test, from a unique MS in the 
Bodleinn Ltbtary; with other Rabbitiiral texts, English translations, and the 
Itala. Edited by A. Nbi'iiaiteb. Crown Bvo. 6s. 

EccIesiasticUS (xxxix. 15— xlix. 11). The Hebrew, with early 
versions and English translation, eh.-, edited by A. E. CowlEv and A. Neuhaueh. 

With e facsimiles. 4to. lOs. Gd. net 

Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto recovered of the 

Book of EccleslastifNS in Hebrew. 60 leaves in Collotype. £1 Is. net. 
[Published jointly by the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses.) 

The Psahns in Hebrew without points, stufcc 
Accentuation of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, By w.Wicre 

yvo. Ss. 

Hebrew Prose Accentuation. By the « 
Lightfoot's Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. 

Edition by R. Gjimiieli- * vols. t>vo. ill Is. 


VetUS Testamentum ex Verslone Septuaglnta Interpretum Becundum 
exemplar Vaticanum Romae editum. Acccdit potior varictas Codicis Alex- 
andrini. Torn! HI. ISmo. <is. each volume. 

A Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of 
the O. T. (includins the Apocryphal Books); by the late Edwin Hatch and 
H.A. Redpath. With Supplement. ByH. A. Redmtk. Ease. I. con tain inn; 
a Concordance to the proper names occurring in the Septuagint ; Fasc. II, 
containing a Concordance to Eccleslasticus, other Addenda, and the Hebrew 
Index to tlie whole work. Imperial 4to. Cloth In S vols. £8 Bs. net (or 
Concordance. 2 vols., £6 ns. 6d. net. Supplement, £i net). Parts H-Vl, 
Sis. net each ; Supplements I and H. ISs. net each. 

Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive, Vetemm inter- 
pretum Graei'orum in totum Vetus Testamentum Frogmenta, Edidit F. Fielc. 
8 vols. ito. £.5 is. 

Essays in Biblical Greek. By Enwi» Hatch. 8vo. los. ed. net. 

The Book of Wisdom: theGreekXext, the Latin Vulgate, and the 
Autliuriied English Version ; with an introduction, critical apparatus, and 
■ - By W. J. Deame. 4to. 13s. fld. 

Tattam's Major and Minor Prophets. 


The New Testament 

Greek and English 
The Parallel New Testament, Greek and English ; being 

the Authorized Version, 1611 ; the Revised Version, 1881; and the Greek 
Text followed in the Revised Version. 8vo. 12s. 6d. 

The New Testament m Greek and EngUsh. Edited by 

£. Cardwell. 9 vols. 1837. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of 

the Authorized Version. (1) Pica type. Second edition. DemySvo. 10s. 6d. 
(2) Long Primer type. New edition. With marginal references. Fcap 8vo. 
4s. 6d. (3) The same, on ¥nriting-paper, with wide margin, 15s. (4) The 
same, on India paper. 6s. 

Novum Testamentum Graece. Accedunt parallela S. Scripturae 

loca,etc. Ed. C. Llotd. 18mo. 3s. On writing-paper, with wide margin, 7s. 6d. 

Critical Appendices to the above, by W. Sakdat. Extra fcap 8vo. 38.6d. 

Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Lloyd), with Sanday's Appen- 
dices. Cloth, 6s. ; paste grain, 7s. 6d. ; morocco, 10s. 6d. 

Novum Testamentum Graece juxta Exemplar Millianum. 

Fcap 8vo. 2s. 6d. On writing-paper, with wide margin, 7s. 6d. 

EvangeUa Sacra Graece. Fcap 8vo, limp. is. ed. 

Novum Testamentum Graece. Antiquisslmorum Codlciim Textus 
in ordine parallelo dispositi. Edidit £. H. Hansell. Tomi III. 8vo. £1 4$. 

Athos Fragments of Codex H of the Pauline Epistles. 

Photographed and deciphered by Kirsopp Lake. Full-size collot3rpe 
facsimiles, large 4to, in an envelope. 2ls. net. 

Athos Fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas. Photo- 
graphed and transcribed by Kibsopp Lake. Full-sized coUot3rpe focsimiles, 
large 4to, in an Envelope. 17^. 6d. net. 

The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve 

Patriarchs. Edited from nine MSS., with variants from other versions. 
By R. H. Charles. 8vo. (Immediately.) 

Outlines of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament 

By C. E. Hammoxd. Sixth edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. 

Horae Synopticae, being contributions to the study of the Synoptic 
problem. By Sir J. C. Hawkins, Bart. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 

Greswell's Harmonia EvangeUca. Fifth edition. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

DiateSSaron. Edited by J. White. Ss. 6d. 

Sacred Sites of the Gospels, with sixty-three full-page illustrations, 
maps, and plans. By W. Sanday. 8vo. 13s. 6d. net. 

The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. By w. Sanday. 8vo. 

7s. 6d. net. 

The Life of Christ in Recent Research. By w. Sakday. 

8vo, with two illustrations. 7s. 6d. net 



The Logia 
Two Lectures on the ' Sayings of Jesus,' dcUvered at Oxford 

in lfl97, by W. Lo(k and W. Sandav. Hva. Is, 6d. neL 

The Oxyrhynchus Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels. 

By C Tavijib. 8vo, paper covers, 2s. Od. net. 

The Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus, found in ims; with the 

Sayin)^ called ' Logia/ found in I80T. By C. Tivuiii. Hvo, paper covers. 
Published by Mr. Frowdc for the Egypt Exploration Fund. 
AOriA IHZOY, from an early GieeW papyrus, discovered and edited with 

translation and cammentary by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hukt. 8vo, jtiff 

boards, with two collotypes, 3s. net ; with two tone blocks, Sd. ueL 
New Sayings of Jesus and Fraf^menl of a Lost Gospel Edited by 

B. P. GaDiFEj-L and A. S. Hunt. With one Piute, is. net 

Fragment of an Uncanotiical Gospel from OxjrhjTichus. 

By the same editors. With one Plate. Is. neL 


(tic and Syriac 
The Coptic Version of the New Testament, in the Northern 

Dialect, otherwise called Meinphitic and Bohairie. With Introduction, 
(.'ritical apparatus, and En KlUh translation. 8vo. Vols. I andlL The Gospels. 
£i is. net. Vols. Ill andlV. The EpUUes. £2 2s. net 
TetraeuangeUum Sanctum lusta aimrJicem Syrorum veraioDem ad 
fidcni codicum, Massorae, editionum denuo recoenituni. Lectionum supel- 
Icctileni quam conquisiverat P. E. Pi'set auxit, digessit. edidit G. H. 
Gwiij.iiiii. Accedunt rapituIoruiD notatio, concordiarum tabulae, translatio 
Lntina. onnntationes. Crown Mo. £3 is. net. 

Collatio Cod. Lewisiani Evangeliorum Syriacorum cum 

Cod. Curctoniano, auctore A. Bonus, Demy Ho. Bs. 60. net. 

Nouum Testamentum Domini Nostri lesu Christi 

Latine, secundum E^tionero Sancti Hieronymi. Ad Codicum Manuscript- 
orum fidem recensutt I. Wormwohth, Episcopus Sarisburiensis ; in opens 
socictatinn adsumto H. I. WnrrE. 4to. Part 1, buckram. ±3 19s. ed. Also 
separately: Fasc. I, Igs. 6d.: U, Ts.fld. ; IH, lis, 6d. : IV. IDs. 6d. : V, iOs.6d. ; 
Vt, 133. ed. ! VII. In the Press. Binding case for the first live Fasciculi, 3s. 

Old-Latin BibUcal Texts: smaiuto, suff covers. 

No. I. St. Matthew, from the St. Germain MS (g,). Edited by J. 

Lot 62S*. Edited by ri. j; WnrrE! ' 12s. M. net "'' 

No. IV. Portionsofthe Acts, ofthe Epistle of St James, and of the First 

Epistie of St, Peter, from the Bobbio Palimpsest (s), now numticrcd Cod. 

Ill in the Imperial Library at Vienna, Edited by H. J. Wnrre. is. net 

No. V. Tlic Four Gospels from the Codex Corbcicnsls (ff, or ff.j) 

together with Fragments of the Catholic Epistles, of the Acts and of the 

■ ie from tlie Fleury PaUmpsest (h). Edited by E. S. BttCHANAS. 

" facsimiles. 13s. Gd. net. 



The Fathers of the Church and 
Ecclesiastical History 

Editions with Latin Commentaries 

Catenae GraeCOrum Patrum in Novum Testamentum edidit J. A« 
Cramer. TomiVIII. 8vo. jC2 

Clemen tis Alexandrlni Opera, ex rec Guil. DnmoRm. Tomi IV. Svo. 
£3 net 

CyriUl Archiepiscopi Alexandrlni in XII Prophetas edidit P. £. Fubet. 
Tomi II. Svo. £2 2s. 

In D. Joannis Evangelium. Accedunt Fragmenta Varia. Edidit post 
Aubertum P. E. Pusey. Tomi III. Svo. £2 5s. 

Commentarii in Liicae Evangelium quae supersunt Syriace edidit 
R. Payne Smith. 4to. £1 2s. Translation, 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 

Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae, Balaei aliorumque Opera Selecta. 

Eusebii Opera recensult T. Gaibtord. 

Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri XV. Tomi IV. 8vo. 42s. net. 
Evangelicae Demonstrationis Libri X. Tomi II. 8vo. 15s. 
Contra Hieroclem et Marcellum Libri. 8vo. 7s. 
Annotationes Variorum. Tomi II. Svo. 17s. 

Canon MuratorianUS. Edited, with notes and facsimile, by S. P. 
Tregelles. 4to. 10s. 6d. 

Evangeliorum Versio Gothica, cum Interpr. et Annott E. Bewzeui 
edidit E. Lye. 4to. 12s. 6d. 

Evagni Historia Ecclesiastica, ex rec H. VAUEsn. Svo. 4s. 

FL Joseph 1 de bello Judaico Libri Septem recensuit E. Cardwell. 
Tomi II. 8vo. 17s. 

OrigeniS Phllosophumena; sive omnium Haeresium Refutatio e Codice 
Parisino nunc primum edidit Emmanuel Miller. Svo. 10s. 

Patrum Apostolicorum, Qementis Romani, Ignatii, Polycarpi, quae 
supersunt edidit G. Jacobson. Tomi II. Fourth edition. Svo. £1 Is. 

Reliquiae Saerae secundl tertlique saecull recensuit M. J. Routh. 
Tomi V. Second edition, 1846. Svo. £1 5s. 

Scriptorum Eeelesiasticorum Opuscula recensuit M. J. Rocth. 

Tomi II. Third edition, 1858. Svo. 10s. 

Soeratis Scholastid Historia Ecclesiastica Gr. et Lat. edidit R. Hcssey. 
Tomi III. 1853. Svo. 15s. net 

Sozomeni Historia Ecclesiastica edidit R.HU88ET. Tomi III. Svo. 

Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri V rec T.Gadtord. Svo. 7s. 6d. net 

Graecarum Affectionum Curatio rec T. Gaisforo. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 



Editions with English Commentaries 
or Introductions 

St. AthanasiuS. Orations against the Arians. With an account of hla 
Life by W. B«ioiiT. Crown 8vo. 9s. 

Historical Writings, ncpording to the Benedictine Tent. 
With on introduction by W. BniaUT. Crown 8vo. 
IDs. ed. 

St. Augustine. Select Anti-Pelagian TreatLses, and the Acts of the 
Second Council of Orange. With introduction by W. Bbiqht. Crown 8vo. 9s. 

St. Basil : on the Holy Spirit. Revised text, with notes and Introduction, 
by C. F. H. JoHKSTON. Crown 8vo. 7s, 6d. 

Barnabas, Edltlo Princeps of the Epistle of. by ArchbUhop Ussher, as 
prinled at Oitfurd. a. d. 1613. WiUi a dissertation by J. H. Bachbocbe. 

SmalJ Ito. a'i. Gd. 

Canons of the First Four General Councils of Nicaea, Con- 
stantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. With notes by W. BainiiT. .Second 
edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, according to Burton's text, with 

introduction by W. Bnicsht. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. 

Eusebii Painphili EvangeUcae Praeparationis Libri XV. 

Revised text edited, with intrudiictlon, notes. English translation, and indices, 
by E. H. GiKFORii. 4 vols. [Vols. I, II, text, with critical notes. Vol HI. 
in two parts, translation. Vol. IV. notes and indices.) 8vo. £5 5s. net. 
(VoL HI. divided into two parts, containing the translation, i."l Se. net.) 

The Bodleian RIanuscript of Jerome's Version of the 

Chronicles of Eusebius, reproduced in collotype, with an intto- 
ductiiin by J. K FoTHEnniouAH. 4to, buckram. i'S 10s. net. 

, against 

the Fourth Book of 
; of its genuineness, 

The Third Book of St. Irenaeiis, Bishop of Lyom 

Heresies. With notes and glossary by H. Deake. Crown 8vo. * 
John of EphesUS. TranalaUon.byR.PAViraSiiiTH. 8wj. 10s. 

Philo : about the Contemplative Life; 

the Treatise concerning Virtues. Edited, with a deft 
by F. C. CoNYBEABE. With a focsiiuile. 8vo. 14s. 

Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, acconiing to Hussey's Text, with 

introduction by W. Bbisht. Second edition. Crown Bvo. 7s, ed. 

Tertulliani Apologeticua odversus Gentes pro Chrlstianis. 
T. H. BiNOLEY. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 

: ad ScapuU 

Edited by 


Works of the English Divines. 8vo 

Sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries 
Editions of Hooker and Butler 

Hooker S Works, with Walton*s Life, arranged by Johk Keble. Seventh 
edition, revised by R. W. Church and F. Paget. 3 vols. 19s. each. [Vol. II 
contains the Fifth Book.] 

Introduction to Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V. 

By F. Paget. Second edition. 5s. net. 
1 he xext, as arranged by J. Keble. 3 vols. lis. 

The Works of Bishop Butler. By w. e. Guumtoke. 9 vols. 

14s. each. Crown 8vo, VoL I, Analogy, 5s. 6d. ; VoL II, Sermons, 5s. 

Studies subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler. 

Uniform with the above. 10s. 6d. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Pearson*8 Exposition OF THE Creed. Revised by E. Burton. Sixth edition. 10s. 6d. 

Minor Theological Works. Edited by E. Churton. 2 vols. lOs. 
Enchiridion Theologicum Anti-Romanum. 

I. Jeremy Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, and Real Presence. 8s. 
II. Barrow*s Supremacy of the Pope, and Unibr of the Church. 7s. 6d. 
III. Tracts by Wake, Patrick, Stillinofleet, Claoett, and others, lis. 
Aixix's Works. 4 vols. 5s. each. Bentley*s Sermons. 48. 

Biscoe's History of the Acts. 9s. 6d. 
Bra6ge*s Works. 5 vols. £1 12s. 6d. 

Bull's Works, with Nelson's Life. Ed. by K Burton. 8 vols. £2 9s. 
Burnet's ExposrrioN of the XXXIX Articles. 7s. 
Butler's Works, 1849. 2 vols. Sermons. 5s. 6d. Analogy. 5s. 6d. 
Clergyman's Instructor. Sixth edition. 6s. 6d. 
Comber's Works. 7 vols. £1 1 Is. 6d. 
Fell's Paraphrase on St. Paul's Epistles. 7s. 
Fleetwood's Works. 3 vols. £1 Is. 6d. 
Hall's Works. Edited by P. Wynter. 10 vols. £3 3s. 
Hammond's Paraphrase on the New Testament. 4 vols. 20s. 

Paraphrase on the Psalms. 4 vols. 20s. 
Horbery's Works. 2 vols. 8s. Hooper's Works. 2 vols. 8s. 

Jackson's (Dr. Thomas) Works. 12 vols. £3 6s. 
Jewel's Works. Edited by R. W. Jelf. 8 vols. £1 10s. 
Leslie's Works. 7 vols. 40s. 

Lewis' (John) Life of Wiclif. 5s. 6d. Life of Pecock. 3s. 6d. 
Lewis' (Thomas) Origines Hebraicae. 3 vols. 16s. 6d. 
Patrick's Theological Works. 9 vols. £1 Is. 
Sanderson's Works. Edited by W. Jacobson. 6 vols. £1 10s. 
Scott's Works. 6 vols. £1 7s. Smalridoe's Sermons. 2 vols. 8s. 

Stilijngfleet's Origines Sacrae. 2 vols. 9s. 

Grounds of Protestant Religion. 2 vols. lOs. 
Stanhope's Paraphrase. 2 vols. 10s. Taverner's Postils. 5s, 6d. 

Wall's History of Infant Baptism. By H. Cotton. 2 vols. £1 Is. 
Waterland's Works, with Life by Van Mildert 6 vols. £2 lis. 

Doctrine of the Eucharist. 3rd ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
Wheatley's Illustration or the Book of Common Prayee. 5s. 



Early Ecclesiastical Histoiy 

The New Testament in the ApostoHc Fathers. By a Com- 
mittee ofthe Oxford Society of Historical Tlieolopy, 8vo. (is. net. 

The Church's Task under the Empire, with preface, potes, 

and ejH'ursus, by C. Bwo. 8vo. Ss. net. 
Bingham's Antiquities of the ChHetian Church, and other Works. 

H) vols. Hvo. £S 3s. 

The Church in the Apostt^ic Age. By w. w. Sbibu«^. Second 

edition. Fcap Svo. 3s. ficT 
Harmonia SyniboUca: Creeds of the Western Church. By C. 
Heitk-tlev. 8vo. 6a, 6d. 

A Critical Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed. By 

G. D. W. Okmaknev. Svo. IOs. 

Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta luris Antiquissima : 

Canonum et Conciliorum Graecorum Intcrprctutiones Latinae. Edidit 
C. H. TuBNEH. 4to. sUff covers. Tom I, Fasc. I. pars I. 10s. 6d. net; pars 
n, sis. net. Tom 11, pars 1. IBs. net. 
The Key of Truth : being a Manual of the PauUcian Church of 
Arnieniu. By F. C. Convbeare. Svo. 15s. net. 

Baptism nnd Christian Archaeology, being an offprint of studia 

BiblicQ, Vol. V. By C. F. Rooehs. 8vo. Cloth, is. net. 

Ecclesiastical History of Britain, etc 

Adaninani Vita S. C«Iumbae. Edited, with introduction, notes, 

and glossary, by J. T. Fowi.el Crown 8vo, leather back. Be. Sd. net 

With translation, 9s. 6d. net, 

Baedae Opera Historica. Edited by C. Plummeb. Two volumes. 

Crown Hvo. 31.s. net. 

Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great 

Britnin and Ireland. Edited after Spelman and Wilkins, by A. W. Haddan 
and W. SnTBiB. Medium Svo. Vols. I-Ill, G3s. net. Also separately. Vol.11 
(Paris 1 and II), Vol. III. Per volume. Its. net. 
Nova Legenda Anghae, as collected by John of Tynemoutb and 
others, and first printed 1316. Re-cdited 1»()3 by C. Hobstman. 9 vols. 
8vo. £1 16a. net. 

Wyclif. A Catalogue of the Works. By W. W. Shiblet. 8vo. 3s. «d. 

Sclcet English Works. By T. Ahnold. 3 vols. Svo. ill Is. net. 

Trialogus. First edited by G. Lr-cai-tM. tJvo. 7s. 
Cranmer's AVorks. Collected by H. Jenktms, 4 vols, 8vD. £1 lOs, 

Records of the Reformation. The Divorce, issr-isss. Mostly 

now for tlie first lime printed. Collected nnd urranged by N. PcH:ocit. i vols. 


Primers put forth in the reign of Henry VIII. sn. &*. 

The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws, as attempted in the 

reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elisabeth. Edited by £. Cahdwell. 
8yo. 6s. 6d, 

Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer from 1551 to 

1690. Edited by E. Cardwelu Third edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 

Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of 

England; Injunctions, Declarations, Orders, Articles of Inquiry, etc, from 
1546 to 1716. Collected by E. Cardwelu 9 vols. 8vo. 25s. net. 

Formularies of Faith set forth by the King's authority daring 
Henry VIIFs reign. 8vo. 7s. 

HomiheS appointed to be read in Churches. By J. GRUTrras. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Hamilton's Catechism, 1552. Edited, with introduction and 
glossary, byT. G. Law. With a Preface by W. E. Gladstoke. 8vo. ISs. 6d. 

Noelli Catechismus slve prima InstitutiodisdpUnaquePieUtasChristianae 
Latine explicata. Editio nova cura G. Jacobsok. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 

Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus Reformandae Ecclesiae edit Subjic 
Catechismus Heidelbergensis et Canones Synodi Dordrecht Svo. 8s. 

Histories written in the seventeenth (or early 
eighteenth) and edited in the nineteenth century 

Stillingfleet's Origines Britannicae, with Lloyd's Historical 

Account of Church Government Edited by T. P. Pantin. 2 vols. 8vo. 10s. 

Inett's Origines Anglicanae (in continuation of StUUngfleet). Edited 
by J. GaimTHs. 1855. 3 vols. Svo. 15s. 

Fuller's Church History of Britain. Edited by J. s. Bkeweb. 

1845. 6 vols. 8vo. £2 12s. 6d. net 

Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Corrected and con- 
tinued from 1715 to 1853 by T. D. Hardy. 3 vols. 8vo. £l 10s. net 

Strype's Memorials of Cranmer. »vois. svo. Ufcof 

Ayfmer. 8vo. 5s. 6d. net. Life of Whitgift. 3 vols. 8vo. 16s. 6d. net 
General Index. 3 vols. 8vo. 

Burnet's History of the Reformation. Revised by N. Pocock. 

7 vols. 8vo. £1 10s. 

Prideaux's Connection of Sacred and Profane History. 9 vols. Svo. 
10s. Shuckford's Continuation, 10s. 

Gibson's Synodus Anglicana. Edited by E. Cardwell. 1854. 

Svo. 6s. 


Recent Works in English Ecclesiastical History 

;[and from the abolition of the 

. 6vols. 8vo. ISs.pervol. 

History of the Church of Engl 

Roman Jurisdiction. By W. R. Dkon. 3rfi 

Chapters of Early English Church History. By w. Bwoht. 

Third edition. With a map. 8vo. lis. 

Itegistrum Sacrum Anglicanum : an attempt to exhibit the conne 

oYEpis-'opal Succession in England. ByW. Stubbs. Snd ed. 4to. KJa. Gd. 

The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement of ReUglon. isssiset. 
By Henkv Gee. With illustrative docunicnta and lists. Bvo. IDs. (id. net. 


Liturgies, Eastern and AVestem. Voi. i. Eastern Liturgies. 

Edited, with introductions and appcndic-cs, by F. E. Bbiohtman, on the basis 
of a work by C B. Hahhohd. 8vo. ill Is. 

RitUale Armenorum : being the AdmlnUtration of the Sacraments 
and the Breviary Rites of the Armenian Church, together with the Greek 
Rites of Baptism and Epiphany. p;dited from the oldest MSS by F. C. 
" " ~ "~ . with the East Syrian Epiphany Rites, translated by A. J. 


9vo. 21 s. 

Cardwell's Two Books of Common Prayer, set forth by 

authority in the Rei^ of Edward VI. Third edition. Hvo. Ts. 

Celasian Sacramentary, Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae. 
Edited by H. A. Wiiao.i. Medium 8to. 18s. 

Leofric Missal, with some account of the Red Book of Derby.the Missaiof 
RobcrtofJumifeges,eU'- Edited by F. E. Wamew. +to,half-raoroeco,i;i15s. 

Ancient Ijiturgy of the Church of England, according to the 

Uses of Sarum, York, Hereford, and Bangor, and the Roman Liturgy 
arranged in parallel columns, with preface and notes. By W. Maskell. 
Third edition. 8vo. lis. 

Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiae Anglicanae : the occasional 

Offices of the Church of England according to the old Use of Salisbury, the 
Prymer in English, and other prayers and forms, with dissertations snd 
notes. By the same. Second edition. Three volumes. 8vo. £S 10s. 

The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church. By F. E. 

WjuuEH. tfvo. 16s. net. 



Sacred Books of the East 

Translated by various Scholars, and edited by the late 
Right Hon. F. Max Muller. Forty-nine volumes 

An Index Volume (VoL L) is in preparation. 

Sacred Books of India. Brahmanism 

Twenty-one volumes 

Vedic Hymns, Part I, translated by F. Max Muiajol. Part II, translated 
by H. Oldekberg. Two volumes (XXXII, XL VI). 18s. 6d. and 146. 

Hymns of the Atharva-veda, translated by M. Bloomtieu). 

One volume (XLII). 21s. 

The A^atapatha-BrdhmaTia, translated by Juuus Booeukg. 

Five volumes (XII, XXVI, XLI, XUII), 12s. 6d. each ; (XLIV), 18s. 6d. 

The Grihya-Sfttras, translated by H. Oldckbero. 

Two volumes (XXIX, XXX), each 12s. 6d. 

The Upanishads, translated by F. Max M&ller. 

Two volumes (I, XV Second edition), each 10s. 6d. 

The Bhagavadgita, translated by Kashivatu Trimbak Telavg. 

One volume (VIII), with the Sanatsu^tiya and Anugftft. lOs. 6d. 

The Vedanta-Sfttras, with /Sankara*8 Commentary, by G. Thibaut. 

Two volumes (XXXIV, XXXVIII), each 12s. 6d. 

The third volume (XLVIII) with R&m&nup's £frfbh&shya. 25s. 

Vol. XXXIV — Part I of the Ved&nta-Siktras — is temporarily out of print 

The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, translated by G. Buhler. 

Two volumes (II (Second edition) and XIV), each 10s. 6d. 

The Institutes of Vishnu, translated by Juuus Jolly. 

One volume (VII). 10s. 6d. 

Manu, translated by Georg Bijhler. 

One volume (XXV). 21s. 

The Minor Law-books, translated by Juuus Jolly. 

One volume (XXXIII, Narada, Brthaspati). 10s. 6d. 

Jainism and Buddhism. Twelve volumes 

The 6raina-SutraS, translated from Prakrit by H. Jacobl 
Two volumes (XXII, XLV). 10s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. 

The Saddharma-pU7Z6^arika, translated from Sanskrit by H. Kerk. 

One volume (XXI). 12s. 6d. 

Mahslyana Texts, by E. B. Cowell, F. Max Muller, and I. Takakusu. 
One volume (XLIX). From the Sanskrit. 12s. 6d. 



The Dhammapada and Sutta-Nipata, translated by F. m*k 

MfrLLEB and V. F^l.t3B0lJ„ 

One volume (X, Second edition). From the Pali. 10s. 6d. 
Buddhist Suttas, translated from the PgU by T. W. Rhi-s Daviim. 
One volume (XI). lOs. Gd. 

Vinaya Texts, translated byT. W, Rnra D*vin»aiid H. Ou>EHBi:ni;. 
Three volumes (XHI, XVII. XX), From the Pfili. Each 10s. fid. 
Volumes XIII and XVII will in future only be sold In complete 
sets of the SaiTed Books of the East. 

The Questions of King Milinda, by T. w. Rbvs Davids. 

Two volumes (XXXV, XXXVI). From the PSIi. 10s. (id. and 19s. Hd. 
The Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king, translated by Samuel Be*l. 

One volume (XIX). From the Chinese translatiou from the Sanskrit. 10s. (id. 

Sacred Books of the Persians. Zoroastrianisni 
Eight vohiraes 

The Zend-Avesta Parta I, n, translated by J. DAm»iarrErEB. Part III. 
translated by L. H. Millh. 
Three volumes (IV (Second edition}. XXni. XXX!). l*s.. 10s. 6d., lis. 6d. 
PaWavi Texts, translated by E. W. Wnrr. 

Sacred Books of the Mohammedans 
Two volumes 

The Quran. tianslaUd by E. H. Paijmeb. 

Two volumes (VI. IX). 21s. 

Sacred Books of China. Six volumes 

Texts of Con&cianism, translated by JuiEs Leoqe. 

Fonr volumes(ni, XVI, XXVII. XXVIII). 13s. fid., 10s. lid., 13a. 6d., 

Texts of Taoism, translated by Jaubs Lcoor. 

Two volumes (XXXIX. XL). Together He. 

Also published by Mr. Frowde 
The Giitakamala, or Garland of IJirth-Stories. By Abva Si'iltA. Trans- 
lated from the Sanskrit by J. S. Sfever. Svo. lOs. tkl. 

The Dialogues of the Buddha. TransUited from the pau by 

T. W, Rhtb Daviim, Bto. lOs. 6d. 


The Sacred Books 

FirH Serisi. 

I. The Upanishads, i. 

II. Laws of the Aryas, L 

III. Confucianism, i. 

IV. Zend-Avesta, i. 
V. Pahlavi Texts, i. 

VI. The Qur'An, i. 
VII. Institutes of Vishnu. 
VIII. BhagavadgttA, etc. 
IX. The Qur*&n, ii. 
X. The Dhammapada. 
XI. Buddhist Suttas. 
XII. Satapatha-BrAhmafia, i. 

XIII. Vinaya Texts, i. 

XIV. LAwsof the Aiyas,!!. 
XV. The Upanishads, ii. 

XVI. Conftidanism, ii. 
XVII. Vinaya Texts, u. 
XVIII. PahUvi Texts, ii. 
XIX. Fo-sho-hing-tsan-ldng. 
XX. Vinaya Texts, iii. 
XXI. Saddharma-puiMlarika. 
XXII. Gaina-SAtras, i. 

XXIII. Zend-Avesta, ii. 

XXIV. PahUvi Texts, iii. 

as originally numbered 

Sseimd Seri$$. 
XXV. Manu. 
XXVI. £Eatapatha-Br&hmana, ii. 
XXVII. Con^danism, iii. 
XXVIII. Confucianism, iv. 
XXIX. GWhya-Siktras, i. 
XXX. Grthya-Siktras, ii. 
XXXI. Zend-Avesta, iii. 
XXXII. Vedic Hymns, i. 

XXXIII. Minor Law-books, i. 

XXXIV. Ved&nta-Satras, i. 
XXXV. Questions of King Milinda, i. 

XXXVI. Questions of King Milinda, ii. 
XXXVII. Pahlavi Texts, iv. 
XXXVIII. VedAnto-Satras, u. 
XXXIX. T&oism, i. 
XL. T4oism, ii. 
XLI. ^Eatapatha-BrAhmana, iii. 
XLII. Atharva-veda. 
XLIII. jS>atapatha-Br&hmaiia, iv. 
XLIV. Satapatha-BrAhmasia, v. 
XLV. G>aina-SOtras, ii. 
XLVI. Vedic Hymns, u. 
XLVII. Pahlavi Texts, v. 
XL VIII. VedAnta^atras, iii. 
XLIX. Mah&yAoa Texts, 

DictioDaries^ Grammars^ and Editions 


A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, EtymoU^icaiiy and PhUoiogicaiiy 

arranged. Bv Sir M. Mokier-Wiluams. New edition, 1900, greatly enlarged 
and improvea. 4to, cloth, £3 13s. 6d. ; half-morocco, £4 4s. 

A Practical Grammar of the Sanskrit Language. By 

Sir M. MoKiCR-WiLUAifs. Foiu-th edition. 8vo, 15s. 

Nalopdkhydnam. story of Nala, an episode of the MahabharaU : 
Sanskrit Text, with a Vocabulary, etc. By Sir M. Monikr-Williams. Second 
edition. 8vo, 15s. 

Sakuntala. A Sanskrit drama, edited by Sir M. Mokier-Williams. 
Second edition. 8vo, £1 Is. 

Katyayana's Sarvanukramawi of the iZigveda. 
The Dharma-Sawgraha. 

The Mantrapatha, the Prayer Book of the Apastambins. 

The jBig- Veda Sa^«hita, with S&yana's commentary, edited by F. Max 
MiJLLER. Second edition, 4 vols. 4to, £8 8s. net Index, £2 2b. net. 




L flWiffii 1 



1 ! 






(650] 723-9201 

All books are subject to recall.