Register and enumeration of the books read by us, 279 in number, of which our beloved brother Tarasius desired to have a summary.2

Photius, to his beloved brother Tarasius, in the name of the Lord, greeting.

MY DEAREST BROTHER TARASIUS,

After our appointment as ambassador to Assyria3 had been confirmed by the assent of the embassy 4 and approved by the emperor, you asked to be furnished with summaries of those works which had been read and discussed during your absence. Your idea was to have something to console you for our painful separation, and at the same time to acquire some knowledge, even if vague and imperfect, of the works which you had not yet read in our company. We believe that their number is exactly 279. Accordingly, regarding the fulfilment of your request as a sacred obligation, we engaged a secretary, and set down all the summaries we could recollect. No doubt we have not been expeditious enough to satisfy your feverish eagerness and vehement desire, but still we have been quicker than might have been expected. The summaries will be arranged in the order in which our memory recalls them. Certainly, it would not be difficult, if one preferred it, to describe historical events and those dealing with different subjects under separate headings. But, considering that nothing would be gained by this, we have set them down indiscriminately as they occurred to us.5 If, during your study of these volumes, any of the summaries should appear to be defective or inaccurate, you must not be surprised. It is no easy matter to undertake to read each individual work, to grasp the argument, to remember and record it; but when the number of works is large, and a considerable time has elapsed since their perusal, it is extremely difficult to remember them with accuracy. As to the commonplaces met with in the course of our reading, so simple that they can hardly have escaped your notice, we have devoted less attention to them, and have purposely refrained from examining them carefully. You will be better able than ourselves to decide whether these summaries will do more than fulfil your original expectations as to their usefulness. Certainly, such records will assist you to refresh the memory of what you have read by yourself, to find more readily what you want, and further, to acquire more easily the knowledge of what has not as yet been the subject of intelligent reading on your part.

1 For the life and works of Photius see Introduction to vol. vi.
2 The genuineness of this title is disputed.
3 To the caliph of Bagdad; according to others, to Persia, or one of the Eastern emirs (Bury).
4 πρεσβεία cannot mean “senate,” as Schott renders it (senatus), but is probably “the body constituting the embassy,” a number of others nominated for the mission, to whom Photius was persona grata, and who expressed a wish that, he should accompany them. This explanation is due to the kindness of Professor J. B. Bury.
5 The text is corrupt.

1

Read the treatise of Theodore the Presbyter,2 in which he undertakes to prove the genuineness of the works of St. Dionysius. The following arguments against it are refuted: (1) I. they are genuine, how is it that none of the later Fathers cites them or quotes any passages from them? (2) How is it that Eusebius Pamphili,3 in his list of the writings of the Holy Fathers, does not mention them? (3) How is it that these treatises describe in detail rites and customs which only became established in the Church gradually and after a long time? The great Dionysius, as is clear from the Acts,4 was contemporary with the Apostles [whereas most of the institutions described only became established gradually and in later times]; it is therefore improbable (says the objector), or rather a clumsy fiction, to assert that Dionysius could have undertaken to describe institutions which were not fully developed till long after his death. (4) How is it that a letter of the divinely-inspired Ignatius5 is referred to? for Dionysius flourished in the time of the Apostles, whereas Ignatius suffered martyrdom during the reign of Trajan, and wrote the letter referred to shortly before his death. Theodore endeavours to solve these difficulties and does his best to prove the genuineness of the treatises.6

1 These sections are usually alluded to as Codices (manuscripts). Codices were originally wooden tablets (caudex, codex, a block or slab of wood) coated with wax and divided into “leaves,” which, when wood was superseded by parchment or other writing materials, developed into the book, as contrasted with the roll-form (volumen) of MSS.
2 Nothing further is known of his life or writings.
3 The famous ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius bishop of Caesarea (c. 260-340), who assumed as his surname the name of his intimate friend, literary adviser and assistant, Pamphilus, presbyter of Caesarea, and martyr (309).
4 xvii.
5 Bishop of Antioch (c. 70-107).
6 These mystical treatises, ascribed to “Dionysius the Areopagite,” were at one time supposed to be the work of the Dionysius mentioned in the Acts, who was subsequently identified by some with St. Denis, the first bishop of Paris and the patron saint of France But it is now generally agreed that they were written about the end of the fifth century, when the writings of the neo-Platonist Proclus exercised great influence, and that the name is an assumed one.

Read Adrian's (Hadrian's) Introduction to the Scriptures,1 a useful book for catechumens.

1 This treatise, probably written by a Greek-speaking Syrian monk, who flourished about 425, is hardly an introduction to the study of the Scriptures in the modern sense. It is rather an aid to the correct understanding of the language of the Bible, dealing with questions of meaning, style, composition and metaphors, and concluding with some rules of interpretation (see edition, with translation and commentary, by F. Goessling, Berlin, 1887).

Read the History of Nonnosus,1 containing a description of his embassy to the Aethiopians, Amerites,2 and Saracens, then a most powerful nation, as well as to other Eastern peoples. At this time Justinian was emperor of the Romans, and Caisus chief of the Saracens. This Caisus was the grandson of Arethas, himself a chief, to whom Nonnosus's grandfather was sent as ambassador, during the reign of Anastasius, to conclude a treaty of peace. Nonnosus's father Abrames3 had in like manner been sent on an embassy to Alamundarus,4 chief of the Saracens, during the reign of Justin, and was successful in procuring the release of Timostratus and John, two Roman generals who were prisoners of war. Caisus, to whom Nonnosus was sent, was chief of two of the most illustrious Saracen tribes, the Chindeni and Maadeni. Before Nonnosus was appointed ambassador, his father had been sent to this same Caisus by Justinian, and had concluded a treaty of peace, on condition that Caisus's son Mavias should be taken as a hostage to Byzantium. After this, Nonnosus was entrusted with a threefold mission: to Caisus, to induce him, if possible, to visit the emperor, to Elesbaas, king of the Axumites, and to the Amerites. Axumis 5 is a very large city, and may be considered the capital of Aethiopia; it lies more S. and E. than the Roman empire. Nonnosus, in spite of the treacherous attacks of tribesmen, perils from wild beasts, and many difficulties and dangers on the journey, successfully accomplished his mission, and returned in safety to his native land.6

He relates that Caisus, after Abrames had been sent to him a second time, set out for Byzantium, having previously divided his chieftaincy between his brothers Ambrus and Yezid. He brought a large number of his subjects with him, and was appointed administrator of Palestine by the emperor.

He tells us that the ancient name for what are now called σανδάλια (sandals) was ἀρβύλαι, and that φακιόλιον (turban) was called φασῶλις.7

He tells us that most of the Saracens, those who live in Phoenicon as well as beyond it and the Taurenian mountains,8 have a sacred meeting-place consecrated to one of the gods, where they assemble twice a year. One of these meetings lasts a whole month, almost to the middle of spring, when the sun enters Taurus; the other lasts two months, and is held after the summer solstice. During these meetings complete peace prevails, not only amongst themselves, but also with all the natives; even the animals are at peace both with themselves and with human beings. Other strange, more or less fabulous information is also given.

He tells us that Adulis9 is fifteen days' journey from Axumis. On his way there, he and his companions saw a remarkable sight in the neighbourhood of Aue (Ave), midway between Axumis and Adulis; this was a large number of elephants, nearly 5000. They were feeding in a large plain, and the inhabitants found it difficult to approach them or drive them from their pasture. This was what they saw on their journey.

We must also say something about the climatic contrarieties of summer and winter between Ave and Axumis. When the sun enters Cancer, Leo, and Virgo, it is summer as far as Ave, as with us, and the atmosphere is extremely dry; but from Ave to Axumis and the rest of Aethiopia, it is severe winter, not throughout the day, but beginning from midday, the sky being covered with clouds and the country flooded with violent rains. At that time also the Nile, spreading over Egypt, overflows and irrigates the land. But when the sun enters Capricornus, Aquarius, and Pisces, the atmosphere, conversely, floods the country of the Adulites as far as Ave, while it is summer from Ave to Axumis and the rest of Aethiopia, and the fruits of the earth are ripe.

During his voyage from Pharsan,10 Nonnosus, on reaching the last of the islands, had a remarkable experience. He there saw certain creatures 11 of human shape and form, very short, black-skinned, their bodies entirely covered with hair. The men were accompanied by women of the same appearance, and by boys still shorter. All were naked, women as well as men, except for a short apron of skin round their loins. There was nothing wild or savage about them. Their speech was human, but their language was unintelligible even to their neighbours, and still more so to Nonnosus and his companions. They live on shell-fish and fish cast up on the shore. According to Nonnosus, they were very timid, and when they saw him and his companions, they shrank from them as we do from monstrous wild beasts.

1 Nothing further is known of him.
2 The Homerites (Himyarites) of the Yemen.
3 The name points to the family being of Semitic origin, although he was probably a convert to Christianity.
4 Al-Mundir, chief of the Saracens of Hira.
5 Modern Axum, now the capital of the Abyssinian province of Tigre. It contains numerous antiquities and inscriptions, and is still regarded as a holy city. Christianity was introduced into Aethiopia as early as the fourth century (see J. T. Bent, The Sacred City of the Ethiopians, 1893).
6 Further particulars of the mission are given in the Chronicle of John Malalas, and in Gibbon, ch. xli.
7 The form of the word is doubtful.
8 Mountainous districts in Anterior Asia and the land of the Saracens.
9 A seaport town, generally identified with modern Thulla or Zula in Annesley Bay on the W. shore of the Red Sea.
10 Town in Aethiopia.
11 The Pygmies.

Read the twenty-five books of Theodore of Antioch 1 against Eunomius 2 in defence of St. Basil.3 His style is somewhat obscure, but the work is full of ideas and sound reasoning, and contains a wealth of evidence taken from the Scriptures. He refutes the arguments of Eunomius almost word for word, and amply proves that he is very ignorant of outside knowledge and still more so of our religion. I believe he is the Theodore who was bishop of Mopsuestia.

1 Theodore (c.350-428), bishop of Mopsuestia (394) in Cilicia, born at Antioch, the greatest exegete of the Antiochean school. He also wrote polemical, dogmatic, and liturgical treatises.
2 Eunomius (d. 393) of Cappadocia, bishop of Cyzicus, deprived of his episcopate for Arianism.
3 St. Basil the Great (330-379), bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (370). He is most important as the strenuous upholder of orthodoxy and as the introducer of definite rules and forms of ecclesiastical life, which have maintained themselves to the present day.

Read also the attack of Sophronius1 on Eunomius in defence of St. Basil. His style is clearer and more concise than that of Theodore. He does not traverse all the arguments of Eunomius, but chiefly attacks and refutes those which appear to contain the most essential points of his heresy. The style is aphoristic, the language in general free and simple 2 and not disagreeable, although embellished with over-laboured arguments.

1 Probably the friend of St. Jerome and translator of his works.
2 Ασύνδετος, lit., “without conjunctions.”

Read also the attack of Gregory of Nyssa1 on Eunomius in defence of St. Basil. His style is as brilliant as that of any rhetorician, and agreeable to listen to. He does not refute Eunomius in detail, and is consequently briefer than Theodore, but fuller than Sophronius. He is fond of using enthymemes 2 and arguments from example. But I can say without partiality that the copiousness and fertility of his arguments are as convincing a proof of his superiority to Theodore as the charm, brilliancy, and pleasantness of his style.

1 (332-396). Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia (372), younger brother of Basil the Great, called Father of the Fathers.
2 The special meaning of an “enthymeme” is a rhetorical or imperfect syllogism, drawn from probable premises. But here and elsewhere in Photius it seems to mean simply “arguments.”

Read another treatise by the same Gregory of Nyssa on the same subject. In this he joins issue with Eunomius by more reasoned arguments and storms the tottering ramparts of his impiety. The beauty of his style, its mingled brilliancy and charm, are equally conspicuous in this work.

Read Origen's 1 four books On First Principles. The first deals with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In this his statements are often blasphemous; thus, he asserts that the Son was created by the Father, the Holy Ghost by the Son; that the Father pervades all existing things, the Son only those that are endowed with reason, the Holy Ghost only those that are saved. He also makes other strange and impious statements, indulging in frivolous talk about the migration of souls, the stars being alive, and the like. This first book is full of fables about the Father, Christ (as he calls the Son), the Holy Ghost, and creatures endowed with reason. In the second book he treats of the world and created things. He asserts that the God of the Law and the prophets, of the Old and the New Testament, is one and the same; that there was the same Holy Spirit in Moses, the rest of the prophets, and the Holy Apostles. He further discusses the Incarnation of the Saviour, the soul, resurrection, punishment, and promises. The third book deals with free will; how the devil and hostile powers, according to the Scriptures, wage war against mankind; that the world was created and is perishable, having had a beginning in time. The fourth book treats of the final end, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the proper manner of reading and understanding them.

1 Surnamed Adamantius (184-253), born at Alexandria, died at Tyre. This treatise supplied the chief arguments for the charge of heresy that was brought against him. He was also called Chalcenterus (“brazen-bowelled”) from his passion for work. His numerous works comprise Homilies, and the famous treatise Against Celsus. Fragments of his Hexapla (a recension of the Old Testament) have been preserved.

Read fifteen books of the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius, in which he refutes the foolish doctrines of the gentiles, and shows that they were always contradictory. At the beginning and end of the fifteenth book he mentions another treatise, the Demonstratio Evangelica, which follows the Praeparatio. His object in these works is to refute the errors of the gentiles, and to confirm the preaching of the Gospel.

Read the twenty1 books of Eusebius's Demonstratio Evangelica.

1 Only ten are extant.

Read Eusebius's Praeparatio Ecclesiastica,1 in … books in which there are extracts. . . .

1 This work is lost.

Read Eusebius's Demonstratio Ecclesiastica,1 in … books.

1 This work is lost.

Read two books of Eusebius's Refutation and Defence, and a second edition of the same, which, while differing in certain passages, agrees in other respects in both style and sentiments with the first. He mentions certain difficulties brought forward by the heathen against our blameless religion, and solves them satisfactorily, though not entirely. His style is neither agreeable nor brilliant; however, he is a man of great learning, although wanting in the shrewdness and firmness of character so necessary for the accurate discussion of questions of dogma. In many passages he utters blasphemies against the Son, calling him second cause, commander-in-chief, and other excrescences of Arian madness. It is evident that he flourished during the reign of Constantine the Great. He was an ardent admirer of the virtuous saint and martyr Pamphilus, from whom he took his surname.

Read Apollinarius's1 Against the Heathen, On Piety, and On Truth. The writer was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia2 and flourished during the reign of Marcus Antoninus Verus.3 He deserves mention and his style is excellent. Other writings of his are said to be equally worthy of record, but they have not come into my hands.

1 Also spelt Apolinaris, Apollinaris, or Apollinarius, flourished about 175. His gentile name was Claudius.
2 In Lesser Phrygia.
3 The well-known author of the Meditations, commonly known as Marcus Aurelius.

Read the Acts of the first council1 in three volumes. It bears the name of Gelasius,2 but is rather a history than an Acts. The author's style is poor and mean, but he gives a detailed account of the proceedings of the council.

1 Of Nicaea (325).
2 Of Cyzicus, flourished about 475. Nothing more is known of him than what he states in the work itself, which is still extant.

Read the Acts of the third council,1 consisting almost entirely of the letters of St. Cyril2 to Nestorius3 and that impious man's replies.

1 Of Ephesus (431).
2 Archbishop of Alexandria (412-444).
3 Patriarch of Constantinople (428-431), deprived of his office by the council of Ephesus on account of his heresy.

XVII Read the Acts of the fourth council1 in several books. There were fifteen sessions, at which Dioscorus 2 and Eutyches 3 were condemned, and Nestorius excommunicated. St. Flavian4 was declared innocent after his death, together with Eusebius of Dorylaeum,5 Theodoret 6 and Ibas.7 Other special matters were discussed, and the spirit of piety was strengthened.

1 Of Chalcedon(451).
2 Bishop of Alexandria (444-451).
3 Founder of the sect of the Monophysites (380-456).
4 Bishop of Constantinople (447-449).
5 Bishop of Dorylaeum (mod. Eski Shehr) in Phrygia (400-451).
6 Bishop of Cyrrhus (Cyrus) near the Euphrates, two days' journey from Antioch, theologian and ecclesiastical historian (c. 393-458).
7 Bishop of Edessa (c. 435-457).

Read the Acts of the fifth council,7 at which the three so-called “chapters”8 were dealt with, and Origen and his writings excommunicated, together with Diodorus of Tarsus,9 and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodoret's answer to the twelve anathematisms of Cyril was also excommunicated. Previous to this, the cases of Zooras 10 and Anthimus,11 who wormed his way into the patriarchate of Constantinople, and certain other matters were discussed.

7 Of Constantinople (553).
8 The writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; of Theodoret in defence of Nestorius; the letter of Ibas to the Persian Maris.
9 Founder of the exegetical school of Antioch, bishop of Tarsus (378-394).
10 A Monophysite Syrian monk.
11 Anthimus, patriarch of Constantinople (535, deposed 536), translated from the episcopate of Trapezus through the influence of the empress Theodora.

Read the Acts of the sixth Council,12 at the sessions of which Sergius,13 Cyrus,14 and Pyrrhus 15 of Constantinople were excommunicated, together with Honorius16 of Rome, Polychronius,17 and others, who had ventured to assert that there was only one will and one energy in Christ. The dogma of truth was confirmed.

12 Of Constantinople (680).
13 Patriarch of Constantinople (610-638).
14 Bishop of Phasis, afterwards patriarch of Alexandria (630-641).
15 Friend and successor of Sergius as patriarch of Constantinople (638-641).
16 Pope (625-638).
17 Monothelite presbyter and monk.

Read the Acts of the seventh council,1 at the sessions of which the iconoclasts were defeated and the orthodox faith shone with increased brightness.

1 The second council of Nicaea (787).

Read the treatise of John Philoponus 2 On the Resurrection in … volumes. In this work, rejecting the doctrine of the Resurrection of the body, he says much that is ill-considered. He also ridicules our blessed and holy Fathers.

2 Of Alexandria, theologian, grammarian, and philosopher, flourished in the first half of the sixth century. His chief work (of which considerable fragments remain), called The Arbitrator, was an attempt to reconcile Monophysitism and Tritheism. Photius (Cod. 55, 75) mentions two other theological treatises. On the Resurrection is lost. Some fragments of notes on Aristotle are preserved. He was called Philoponus from his great industry; his opponents changed this into Mataioponus (vainly industrious).

Read the elaborate Refutation by Theodosius the Monk3 of the passages cited by John Philoponus as arguments against the Resurrection, including quotations from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, in refutation of John's vain efforts.

3 A fifth-century monk, of whom nothing is known.

Read the invectives of Conon,4 Eugenius,5 and Themistius,6 against the treatise of John Philoponus, in which they pillory his vain efforts. They also violently attack him personally, as a man entirely estranged from the Christian faith. However, they agree with him in refusing to accept the decisions of the council of Chalcedon.

4 Bishop of Tarsus (c. 600).
5 A Cilician bishop in the second half of the sixth century.
6 Deacon of Alexandria (sixth century), leader of the Agnoetae (a Monophysitic sect), who held that the human soul of Christ resembled that of man in all things, even in his “ignorance” or limited knowledge.

Read a volume containing the Acts of a disputation held before John,1 bishop of the queen city, during the reign of Justin,2 in which Conon and Eugenius the Tritheites took part on the one side, and Paul3 and Stephen,4 the Hesitators,5 on the other. Conon and Eugenius appear to have sided with Philoponus; for when Paul and Stephen demanded that they should anathematize Philoponus, they were unwilling to do so. On the other hand, they brought forth arguments to prove that his views were in harmony with those of Severus 6 and Theodosius, their own teachers. They indeed in many respects uphold the orthodox views—-that the Trinity is consubstantial and of the same nature, that God is one, that the Godhead is one; but they are guilty of blasphemy in asserting that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are partial substances, and have special divinities and natures, thus being at variance with themselves and the truth. Many other opinions of theirs are equally foolish and nonsensical.

1 John III Scholasticus (the lawyer), bishop of Constantinople (565-577). He was the author of a Nomocanon, a digest of canonical law.
2 Justin II (emperor 565-578).
3 Paul the Black, “Jacobite” patriarch of Antioch (c. 550-578).
4 “Jacobite ” bishop of Cyprus.
5 They partly accepted, and partly rejected, the decisions of the council of Chalcedon.
6 Monophysite patriarch of Antioch (512-519).

Read the work by John Chrysostom 7 entitled Notes on Death, twenty-two short homilies. In the same volume there are also twenty-two homilies on the Ascension of the Lord and seventeen on Pentecost.

7 John the Golden-mouthed (347-407), bishop of Constantinople.

Read the orations of Synesius,8 bishop of Cyrene, On Providence,9 On the Kingdom, and some other subjects. His style is lofty and dignified,1 but somewhat inclined to be over-poetical.

Also read various letters of his, distilling grace and charm, at the same time vigorous and full of closely-packed 2 ideas.

He originally belonged to a heathen school of philosophy, but was favourably disposed to the inspired truths of Christianity and ready to accept all its doctrines except that of the Resurrection. Although this was his attitude, he was admitted into our Church and even raised to the episcopate, by reason of his goodness and purity and in the conviction that a man of such holiness of life could not fail to be illuminated by the light of the Resurrection. Nor were these hopes disappointed. For as soon as he became bishop he readily assented to that doctrine. Synesius was an ornament to Cyrene at the time when Theophilus was patriarch of Alexandria.3

8 Neo-Platonist and bishop of Ptolemais in Cyrenaica (378-431). The speech On the Kingdom was delivered at Constantinople before the emperor Arcadius.
9 Also called Egyptian Discourses, a sort of historical romance, in which there are allusions to the history of the time, disguised as the mythical stories of Osiris and Typhon.
1 Perhaps “massive” might express the idea of ὂγκος.
2 Or “shrewd.”
3 385-412.

Read the ten books of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. Beginning from the birth of Christ, our true God, it carefully describes the period of the tyrants, and ends with the reign of Constantine the Great. A more detailed account is given of the Church institutions established by him during his reign.

Read Socrates's4 Ecclesiastical History, a continuation of that of Eusebius. Beginning with the reign of Constantine, it goes down to the time of Theodosius the Younger.5

The writer, who had attended the lectures of Ammonius and Helladius the Alexandrine grammarians,6 even when a boy had been instructed in “grammar” by heathen tutors, who had been banished from their native country for sedition and carried on their profession at Constantinople. The work contains the events of 140 years, and the entire history is included in seven books. There is nothing remarkable in the author's style, and he is not very accurate in matters of doctrine.

4 Socrates of Constantinople (c. 380—-439), originally a lawyer.
5 Emperor 408-450.
6 The Greek γραμματικός is equivalent to “a literary man” generally, with special reference to the study of poetry. The same idea appears in γραμματική(grammar). Ammonius and Helladius had fled for refuge to Constantinople, where they taught Socrates.

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius 1 Scholasticus, an ex-praefect, born at Epiphania in Coele-Syria, in six books. The work begins where those of Socrates and Theodoret end, and goes down to the twelfth year of the reign of the emperor Maurice.2 The style is not without charm, although somewhat diffuse; in matters of doctrine he is certainly more trustworthy than other historians. The work also contains some passages about images.

1 About 536-600. He was an advocate (Scholasticus).
2 That is, it covers the period from 431 to 593.

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Salamanus Hermeias Sozomen,3 in nine books. Dedicated to the emperor Theodosius the Younger, it begins with the consulship of Crispus and his father Constantine, and goes down to the reign of Theodosius the Younger.4 Sozomen was at one time an advocate in Constantinople. His style is better than that of Socrates, from whom he differs in certain particulars.

3 He was born near Gaza in Palestine, and afterwards settled in Constantinople (c. 400-450).
4 It originally covered the period from 324 to 439, but the history of 425-439 is wanting.

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret.5 Of all the writers mentioned his style is best suited for history. It is generally clear, dignified, and free from redundancies, although he sometimes employs metaphors that are too bold, almost insipid. He gives a fuller account of the proceedings of the second council 6 than other historians, who merely bestow a cursory notice upon them, as if they were unwilling to say much about it. However, even he does not give all the details. He begins his History with the heresy of Arius and goes down to the reign of Theodosius the Younger, and the death of Theodore,1 at the time when Sisinnius was bishop of Constantinople.

5 See Cod. 27.
6 The first council of Constantinople (381).
1 Of Mopsuestia (see Cod. 4.).

Read various letters of Athanasius,2 some containing a kind of Apology for his flight.3 The style is elegant, brilliant, and clear, full of grace and persuasiveness. It is a pleasure to listen to the Apology.

2 (296-373). Patriarch of Alexandria, the father of orthodoxy and the chief opponent of Arianism.
3 He was accused of cowardice by the Arians for taking refuge in the desert.

Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias,4 entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias.5 He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod 6 and the last of the kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of the reign of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus's style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free. It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem.

4 Contemporary of Josephus, by whom his character and works are violently attacked. He was condemned to death by Vespasian, but his life was spared by Agrippa. He also wrote a history of the Jewish war.
5 The Greek phrase is βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασι, usually translated “crowned kings,” but στέμμα more probably here means a genealogical tree.
6 Agrippa II, before whom St. Paul made his defence. The statement that he died in the third year of Trajan's reign (100) is objected to on the ground that Josephus' Autobiography, which gives an account of Justus, was published immediately after the Antiquities (in the reign of Domitian).

Read the History of Africanus,1 who was also the author of the Cesti in fourteen books.2 Although his style is concise, he omits nothing worthy of record. He begins with the Mosaic cosmogony and goes down to the coming of Christ. He also gives a cursory account of events from that time to the reign of Macrinus,3 at which date, as he tells us, the Chronicle was finished, that is, in the 5723rd year of the world. The work is in five volumes.

Africanus also wrote a letter to Origen against the authenticity of the history of Susannah, on the grounds (amongst others) that it is not included in the Jewish books, and that the play on words (ἀπὸ τοῦ πρίνον πρῖσαι … ἀπὸ τοῦ σχίνου σχίσαι)4 is at variance with the genuine Hebrew style. Origen answered and refuted these objections.

Africanus also wrote a letter to Aristides,5 in which he showed that in reality there was no such difference as was generally supposed between the genealogies of our Saviour in Matthew and Luke.

1 Julius Africanus (c. 170-240), Christian historical writer, was born at Jerusalem (not in Africa) and subsequently lived at Emmaus-Nicopolis in Palestine. He was the author of a Chronicle, a history of the world from the Creation to 221; Cesti (embroidered girdles), a collection of notes on all kinds of subjects; a letter to Aristides on the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke; and a letter to Origen to show that the History of Susannah in the Apocrypha is a later addition from a Greek original. The last has been preserved in full, of the three first only fragments. According to his system of chronology, called the Alexandrian era, there were 5499 years between the Creation and the birth of Christ, which he antedated by three years.
2 The correct number is twenty-four.
3 Emperor 217-218. An extract in Georgius Syncellus, however, shows that the Chronicle really went down a little later.
4 “Where didst thou see them?” “Under a mastic tree (σχῖνος).” “The angel of God shall cleave (σχίσει) thy soul to-day.” “Under a holm-tree (πρῖνος).” “ The angel of God shall saw thee in two (πρίσει).”
5 Nothing is known of him.

Read the work of Philip1 of Side, entitled a Christian History, beginning with the words “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He gives an account of the Mosaic history, sometimes brief, sometimes full, although wordy throughout. The first book contains twenty-four volumes, like the twenty-three other books, which we have seen up to the present.2 His language is diffuse, without urbanity or elegance, and soon palls, or positively disgusts; his aim is rather to display his knowledge than to benefit the reader. Most of the matter has nothing to do with history, and the work might be called a treatise on all kinds of subjects rather than a history, a tasteless effusion. Philip was a contemporary of Sisinnius and Proclus, patriarchs of Constantinople. He frequently attacks the former in his history, because, while both filled the same office3 and Philip was considered the more eloquent, Sisinnius was elected to the patriarchate.

1 Philip of Side in Pamphylia (fifth century). He was a presbyter in Constantinople, and a friend of John Chrysostom.
2 It originally contained thirty-six books and nearly one thousand volumes.
3 They were both presbyters.

Read the book entitled the Book of Christians, an interpretation of the Octateuch. The author,4 who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus, It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures. The style is poor, and the arrangement hardly up to the ordinary standard. He relates much that is incredible from an historical point of view, so that he may fairly be regarded as a fabulist rather than a trustworthy authority. The views on which he lays special stress are : that neither the sky nor the earth is spherical, but that the former is a kind of vault, and the lattera rectangular plane, [twice as long as broad], to the ends of which the ends of the sky are united; that all the stars, with the help of the angels, are kept in motion; and other things of the same kind. He also mentions the books of Genesis and Exodus, as it were by way of digression; and enters into a lengthy discussion and speculations about the Tabernacle. The prophets and apostles are cursorily treated. He says that the sun is only twice as large as two “climates”;1 that the angels do not dwell in heaven, but above the firmament and mingle with us; that Christ at His Ascension entered the space between the sky and the firmament, and that only this is the kingdom of heaven; and similar absurdities. He dedicates the first six books to a certain Pamphilus, of the remaining six (there are twelve in all) the seventh to Anastasius, in which he contends that the heavens are indissoluble; the eighth, on the song of Hezekiah 2 and the retrogression of the sun, to a certain Peter. In this book he also states that he has written a commentary on the Song of Songs. The four remaining books have no dedication.

4 Cosmas Indicopleustes (“the Indian navigator”), an Alexandrian merchant, who flourished in the sixth century. He visited Arabia and East Africa, but it is doubtful whether he deserves the title of “Indian navigator.” The title by which the work is usually known is Christian Topography; as its object was to introduce a new system of physical geography in harmony with the teaching of Christianity, a physico-astro-nomical interprelation of the Scriptures, Photius gives it the subtitle of Interpretation oj the Octateuch. Fabricius (Bib. Gr., iv. 230) takes it to mean simply “a treatise in eight books,” regarding the four other books as a later addition, or it may refer to the “eight books” of Ptolemy's geographical work. Photius says he flourished under “Justin,” but as he does not state which Justin, perhaps “Justinian” (527-565) should be read. He certainly may have been born under Justin I (518-527) and died under Justin II (565-578).
1 Before the earth was regarded as spherical, its surface was supposed to “slope” (κλίνω) from S. to N., and this slope was called κλίμα. Later, the word was used for belts or zones of its surface, and then for the temperature of those zones. According to Cosmas, the two “climates” were between the latitudes of Alexandria and Rhodes, and Rhodes and Constantinople (about 635 miles).
2 Isaiah xxxviii.

Read an essay On Government,3 in the form of a dialogue between Menas a patrician and Thomas a referendary.4 The treatise is in six books, in which is discussed a form of government, called δικαιαρχικόν (just rule), differing from those propounded by ancient writers. The Republic of Plato is deservedly criticised. The interlocutors hold that the constitution which they propose should be a combination of the three forms of government—-monarchy, aristocracy, democracy. Each of these is to contribute what is genuine and sincere to the formation of the ideal constitution.

3 There seems no reason to identify this with the treatise of Περὶ πολιτικῆς καταστάσεως of Peter Patricius (sixth century), Byzantine historian. There is no clue to the author.
4 Master of requests, a sort of lord-in-waiting; also a Church dignitary, an intermediary between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities.

Read the work of Theodore of Antioch1 entitled A Commentary on Genesis (the history of the Creation), the first book of which contains seven volumes. The style is neither brilliant nor very clear. The author avoids the use of allegory as much as possible, being only concerned with the interpretation of history. He frequently repeats himself, and produces a disagreeable impression upon the reader. Although he lived before Nestorius, he vomits up his doctrines by anticipation. This is that Theodore of Mopsuestia, from whom on several occasions John Philoponus (as the latter himself says) demanded a serious explanation of his method of interpretation in his own work on the Creation.

1 See Cod. 4.

Read the brief refutation of the discourse of Hierocles 2 in support of Apollonius of Tyana3 by Eusebius Pamphili.

2 Hierocles of Caria, Roman proconsul, a violent anti-Christian, lived in the time of Diocletian (emperor 284-305). The work referred to is Truth-loving Words to the Christians, in which Apollonius of Tyana is placed above Christ.
3 Of Tyana in Cappadocia (c. 4 B.C.—-A.D. 97), magician and wonderworker.

Read the so-called Ecclesiastical History by Philostorgius 1 the Arian, the spirit of which is different from that of nearly all other ecclesiastical historians. He extols all Arians, but abuses and insults all the orthodox, so that his work is not so much a history as a panegyric of the heretics, and nothing but a barefaced attack upon the orthodox. His style is elegant, his diction often poetical, though not to such an extent as to be tedious or disagreeable. His figurative use of words is very expressive and makes the work both pleasant and agreeable to read; sometimes, however, these figures are overbold and far-fetched, and create an impression of being frigid and ill-timed. The language is variously embellished even to excess, so that the reader imperceptibly finds himself involved in a disagreeable obscurity. In many instances the author introduces appropriate moral reflections of his own. He starts from the devotion of Arius to the heresy and its first beginnings, and ends with the recall of the impious Aetius.2 This Aetius was removed from his office by his brother heretics, since he outdid them in wickedness, as Philostorgius himself unwillingly confesses. He was recalled and welcomed by the impious Julian. The history, in one book and six volumes, goes down to this period. The author is a liar and the narrative often fictitious. He chiefly extols Aetius and Eunomius for their learning, as having alone cleansed the doctrines of faith overlaid by time, therein showing himself a monstrous liar. He also praises Eusebius of Nicomedia3 (whom he calls the Great), Theophilus the Indian,4 and several others, for their lives and wonderful works. He severely attacks Acacius, bishop of Caesarea5 in Palestine, for his extreme severity and invincible craftiness, in which, he declares, Acacius surpassed all his fellow-heretics, however filled they were with hatred of one another, as well as those who held different religious opinions.

This was the extent of our reading. Soon afterwards six other books were found in another volume, so that the whole appears to have filled twelve books. The initial letters of each book are so arranged that they form the name of the author. The work goes down to the time of Theodosius the Younger, when, after the death of Honorius, Theodosius handed over the throne of the West to his cousin Valentinian the Younger, the son of Constantius and Placidia.

Notwithstanding his rage against the orthodox, Philostorgius does not venture to attack Gregory the Theologian,6 but unwillingly accepts his doctrines. His attempt to slander Basil the Great only had the effect of increasing his reputation. He was forced to admit the vigour and beauty of his sermons from actual knowledge, although he timidly calls Basil overbold and inexperienced in controversy, because he ventured to attack the writings of Eunomius.

1 Of Borissus in Cappadocia, born c. 368, died after 425. The history covered the period from 300 to 425. He supported the extreme Arianism of Eunomius. A considerable number of extracts (also from Photius) have been published as a separate work.
2 Aetius of Antioch, founder of an extreme Arian sect, died at Constantinople (367). He was exiled by Constantius, but recalled by Julian the Apostate.
3 Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 342), supporter of Arianism and a bitter opponent of Athanasius.
4 Bishop of the Church of Aethiopia (358). He was born in the island of Diu (India), but in early youth was taken as a hostage to Constantinople, where he became a Christian (Arian).
5 Surnamed the One-Eyed, succeeded Eusebius (whose pupil and biographer he was) as bishop of Caesarea in 340 and died in 365.
6 Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), bishop of Constantinople.

Read the Ecclesiastical History by a certain John.2 It begins with the reign of Theodosius the Younger, the heresy of Nestorius and his deposition, and goes down to the time of Zeno and the deposition of Peter the heretic,3 who had usurped the see of Antioch. The style is clear but florid. The author describes in detail the third council held at Ephesus,4 and also another council held in the same place, the “Robber” council,5 which he deifies together with its president Dioscorus and his companions. He also gives a slanderous account of the council of Chalcedon. This justifies the conclusion that the author is John, presbyter of Aegae, a heretic who wrote a special attack on the council of Chalcedon. The history, according to his statement, is in ten books. I have only read five, containing (as already stated) a record of events from the heresy of Nestorius to the deposition of Peter the heretic.

2 Presbyter of Aegae in Cilicia, flourished in the latter half of the fifth century. In Cod. LV. Photius calls him a Nestorian, but it is suggested that this is a mistake for Eutychian.
3 Surnamed the Fuller, patriarch of Antioch (471-488).
4 431.
5 449.

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Basil the Cilician.6 It begins with the death of Simplicius, bishop of Rome,1 who wrote to Acacius of Constantinople 2 to have no dealings with Peter surnamed Mongus,3 who was then corrupting Alexandria by anathematizing, publicly and in church, the holy council of Chalcedon. It was through him that Acacius was deprived of his see; for although Acacius at first was justly incensed against him, he subsequently showed no aversion to his doctrines and thereby incurred the suspicion of being a heretic. This matter came up again during the reign of Zeno. The history begins at this time and goes down to the death of Anastasius, after he had reigned twenty-seven years and three months, Justin the Thracian being proclaimed his successor.4 The present book finishes about this time, and embraces the period from Zeno to the death of Anastasius and the proclamation of Justin as emperor. The author also states that two other books were written by him, the first and the third; the first beginning with the reign of Marcian and ending with that of Zeno, where the second begins, while the third continues the narrative of the second, beginning with the reign of Justin.

The author's style is rather slovenly and uneven. He also introduces a large amount of episcopal correspondence, the object of which, he says, is to prove what he writes; these vastly increase the bulk of the book and contain but little history, and that buried under a mass of verbiage. The clearness of the narrative is destroyed by the number of parentheses.

6 (c. 500). Presbyter of Antioch, afterwards bishop of Irenopolis in Cilicia (see Cod. CV1I.).
1 468-483.
2 Patriarch of Constantinople (471-489).
3 The “Stammerer,” Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria (482).
4 The work therefore covers the period from 450-527.

Read the treatise of John Philoponus on the Hexaemeron.5 In this his style is pure and clear and better than usual. He agrees in the main with Basil the Great, but everywhere opposes Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, taking up the same subject, wrote his Interpretation of Genesis, which Philoponus in turn endeavours to refute.

5 The Six Days' Work of the Creation.

Read the eight books of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus 1 of Tyre.2 His style is clear, agreeable, concise, and full of charm, due to his fondness both for archaisms and for novel constructions.

He tells us that Apollonius visited the Indians, whom he calls Brahmins, from whom he learnt much of their divine wisdom. He also visited the wise men of Aethiopia, whom he calls Gymni,3 because they pass all their life naked and never wear clothes even in the most trying weather. But he declares that the wise men of India are far superior to those of Aethiopia, since they are older in point of time and their intellect is purer and keener, owing to their living nearer to the rays of the sun.

He does not, however, assert that Apollonius worked any wonders such as legend ascribes to him; he merely extols him as leading a philosophic and temperate life, in which he exhibits the teaching of Pythagoras, both in manners and doctrine. Various accounts are given of his death, the circumstances of which are obscure, as he himself desired; for during his lifetime he was in the habit of saying that the wise man should keep his life a secret from others, or, if he could not, should at least keep his death a secret.4 The place of his burial is unknown.

Philostratus states that Apollonius had a great contempt for riches; he gave up all he possessed to his brother and others, and could never be persuaded to accept money from those in authority,5 although they pressed it upon him as deserving it. He asserts that he long foresaw the famine at Ephesus and stopped it after it broke out. He once saw a certain lion, which he declared to be the soul of Amasis, king of the Egyptians,6 which had entered the body of the animal as a punishment for the crimes Amasis had committed during his lifetime. He also exposed an Empusa,7 which, under the guise of a courtesan, pretended to be enamoured of Menippus.8 He recalled to life a Roman girl who had apparently just died, and loosed his limbs from his fetters, while bound in prison. Before Domitian he defended himself and extolled Nerva (Domitian's successor); after which he vanished from the court, and joined Demetrius9 and Damis10 as had been arranged, not after a long time, but in a few moments, though they were several days' journey apart. Such are the fictions of Philostratus concerning Apollonius. He denies, however, that he was a wonder-worker, if he performed some of the wonders that are commonly attributed to him, but asserts that they were the result of his philosophy and the purity of his life. On the contrary, he was the enemy of magicians and sorcerers and certainly no devotee of magic.

All that he says about the Indians is a tissue of absurd and incredible statements. He asserts that they have certain jars full of rains and winds, with which in time of drought they are able to water the country, and again to deprive it of moisture, after the rain has fallen, since in these casks they have the means of controlling the alternate supply of wind and rain. He tells similar stories, equally foolish and preposterous, and these eight books are so much study and labour lost.

1 There were three sophists of this name belonging to a Lemnian family : (1) who lived in the second century; (2) son of (1), who lived first at Athens, then at Rome and in the time of Philip the Arab (244-249); (3) nephew of (1), who lived in the time of Caracalla and Elagabalus. The Life of Apollonius is by (2), Flavius Philostratus, who wrote it at the desire of the empress Julia Domna, wife of Septlmius Severus (died 217).
2 The surname Tyrius is probably due to a confusion of Τύριος with Στειριεύς (of the Athenian deme Stiria), or Photius has wrongly identified him with the lexicographer Philostratus of Tyre (Cod. CL.).
3 The naked ones, the Gymnosophists.
4 The Epicurean maxim, Λάθε βιώσασ, εἰ δὲ μή, Λάθε ἀποθανών.
5 Or, “those possessed of large means.”
6 570-526 B.C.
7 A sort of hobgoblin or ghoul, supposed to devour human beings.
8 Of Lycia. Perhaps the Cynic who lived in Lucian's time.
9 Cynic philosopher of Sunium, who taught at Rome under the emperors Gaius, Nero, and Vespasian. He is said to have met Apollonius in Athens, but considering that his philosophical views were opposed to those of Apollonius, the account of the intimacy is probably untrue. Demetrius had to leave Rome because of the freedom with which he attacked the emperor and the authorities.
10 Of Nineveh, pupil and companion of Apollonius, the reputed author of the life which formed the basis of Philostratus's romance. He is said to have handed over the MS. to the empress Julia Domna, who ordered Philostratus to edit it.

Read two pamphlets by Andronicianus5 Against the Eunomians. In the preface he promises much that he does not perform, at any rate in the second book. He shows himself a devoted student of philosophy in character, sentiment, and style. By religion he is a Christian.

5 Nothing is known of him.

Read twenty-seven books by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, against various heretical propositions.1 The first book is directed against those who assert that the God-Word was one nature and that it took its beginning from the seed of David, and also against those who attribute passions to the Godhead. In the second, he supports his contentions more by arguments from Scripture.2 The third deals with the same subject. The fourth contains the teachings of the holy Fathers concerning the glorious Dispensation (Incarnation)3 of our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God. The fifth contains a collection of the opinions of the heretics, which are compared with the opinion of those who do not admit two natures in Christ and shown to be nearly akin. The sixth distinctly states that there is one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The seventh is in the form of a letter completing the first book. The eighth is written against those who judge the truth only by the opinion of the multitude. The ninth is against those who assert that we should neither seek arguments nor quote from the Scriptures, but that we must be satisfied with our faith. The tenth is against those who malevolently bring forward the argument that “the Word was made flesh.” The eleventh is against those who forbid us to assume two natures in the Incarnation. The twelfth is against those who assert that he who says the Word is one thing and the flesh another, assumes there are two Sons. The thirteenth is against those who say that to regard Christ as a man is to put one's hopes in man. The fourteenth is against those who say, “He suffered without suffering.” The fifteenth is against those who say, “He suffered as he willed.” The sixteenth is against those who say that we ought to accept the words, without regard to what is signified by them, which is beyond all men's understanding. The seventeenth is against those who say, “The Word suffered in the flesh.” The eighteenth is against those who ask what punishment the Jews would have suffered, if they had not crucified God. The nineteenth is against those who declare that he who does not believe that God was crucified is a Jew. The twentieth is against those who assert that the angels who ate with Abraham did not entirely put on the nature of flesh. The twenty-first is against those who depreciate each of the miracles, by denying the flesh. The twenty-second is against those who injure our race, by denying that the Saviour began with our nature. The twenty-third is against those who bid us simply believe what is said, without considering what is seemly or what is unseemly. The twenty-fourth is against those who do away with the difference of the two natures, after the Passion and the Ascension. The twenty-fifth is a summary of all that has already been stated in detail. The twenty-sixth deals with the subsequently manifested composition or consubstantiation; the twenty-seventh with the example from the ordinary man (applied to Christ). The subject alone in each case is sufficient to indicate which of the above confirm the orthodox faith, and which are at variance with it.

Read in the same volume three larger works than those mentioned, entitled Eranistes (the Beggar) or Polymorphos (multiform).4 The first teaches that the Word is unchangeable; the second, that the union is unmixed; the third, that the God-Word is impassible. In a fourth book, these statements are supported by argument. The three books were composed by him in the form of a dialogue, but the rest are in continuous prose. The style is clear, distinct, and pure; not wanting in charm, and the works abound in suitable reflections.

1 Variously ascribed to Theodoret, Athanasius, and Eutherius, bishop of Tyana.
2 Unless γραφικώτερον means simply “more picturesquely,” “more vigorously.”
3 Οἰκονομία in the Greek.
4 It is in the form of a dialogue between a representative of orthodoxy (Theodoret) and a representative of Monophysitism, compared to a beggar who gathers scraps of all kinds from earlier heretical writings.

Read the work of Josephus the Jew 1 on The Calamities of the Jews. The capture of Iotapata3 (at which Josephus himself was taken prisoner) and Gischala,2 and the desolation of other Jewish fortresses is described, and in the last book the destruction of Jerusalem and the fortress of Masada.3 The work is in seven books. The author has a pure style, and is apt at expressing his meaning with dignity, with distinctness and charm. In the speeches introduced he is persuasive and agreeable, even when the opportunity invites him to take opposite views; he is clever and prolific in the use of arguments on either side, and is extremely fond of aphorisms. He is also very skilful in introducing the emotional, in rousing the passions and calming them.

He relates that many signs and portents preceded the taking of Jerusalem. A heifer that was being led to the sacrifice brought forth a lamb; a light shone in the temple and a voice was heard saying, “Let us remove hence”; the gates of the temple, which twenty men could hardly open, opened of their own accord; in the evening troops appeared clad in armour. A man named Jesus, son of Ananias, for six years and three months incessantly repeated, like one inspired, the words “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” When he was whipped for it, he made no reply, but repeated the same words. He was present at the capture of the city, and while crying out “Woe, woe, to the city!” he was hit by a stone from one of the enemy's engines, and gave up the ghost.

Such were the signs that foretold the taking of the city; but it was internal sedition, together with the enemy, that overthrew it. Split up into the factions of Zelotae and Sicarii,4 they destroyed one another, and thus the body of the state was cruelly and mercilessly torn asunder by the common people. The city suffered so grievously from famine that the inhabitants were driven to all kinds of excesses; a woman even ate the flesh of her own son. Famine was succeeded by pestilence, a clear proof that it was the work of the divine wrath, in fulfilment of the Lord's proclamation and threat that the city should be taken and utterly destroyed.

1 The well-known historian (37-98), “the Greek Livy.” The Wars was originally written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek. His other extant works are : Jewish Antiquities, Autobiography, a polemical treatise Against Apion.
2 In Galilee.
3 A Judaean stronghold (mod. Sebbeh).
4 The Zealots and Sicarii (assassins) constituted the fanatical anti-Roman Jewish war party, whose desire was to drive out the Romans and all who favoured them. They did not shrink from murder, and carried small daggers (sicae) to stab those whom they considered the enemies of their country.

Read the treatise of Josephus1 On the Universe, elsewhere called On the Cause of the Universe and On the Nature of the Universe. It consists of two little treatises, in which the author shows that Plato contradicts himself. He also refutes Alcinous,2 whose views on the soul, matter, and the Resurrection are false and absurd, and introduces his own opinions on the subject. He proves that the Jewish nation is far older than the Greek. He thinks that man is a compound of fire, earth, and water, and also of spirit, which he calls soul. Of the spirit he speaks as follows : Taking the chief part of this, he moulded it together with the body, and opened a passage for it through every joint and limb. The spirit, thus moulded together with the body and pervading it throughout, is formed in the likeness of the visible body, but its nature is colder, compared with the three other substances of which the body is compounded. These views are not in harmony with the Jewish ideas of human physiology, and are below the customary standard of his other writings. He also gives a summary account of the creation of the world. Of Christ the true God he speaks like ourselves, openly giving Him the name of God, and describing, in language to which no objection can be taken, His indescribable generation from the Father. This might, perhaps, cause people to doubt whether the treatise is really by Josephus, although in respect of style it does not differ from the rest of his writings.

I find a marginal note to the effect that the work is not by Josephus, but by one Gaius,3 a presbyter of Rome, also the author of The Labyrinth,4 and of a dialogue against Proclus, the champion of the Montanists.5 The latter, which had no ascription, is attributed by some to Josephus, by others to Justin Martyr, and The Labyrinth to Origen. But there is no doubt that the work is by Gaius, the author of The Labyrinth, who at the end of this treatise has left it on record that he was the author of The Nature of the Universe. But it is not quite clear to me, whether this is the same or a different work. This Gaius is said to have been a presbyter of the Church at Rome, during the episcopate of Victor6 and Zephyrinus,7 and to have been ordained bishop of the gentiles. He wrote another special work against the heresy of Artemon,8 and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles of St. Paul, and does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews.

1 The author is most probably Hippolytus of Rome, born in the middle of the second century, died soon after 235.
2 Platonic philosopher, flourished in the first or second century A.D.
3 Lived at the beginning of the third century A.D.
4 Others ascribe this also to Hippolytus. It is a question whether it is identical with The Little Labyrinth mentioned by Theodoret.
5 The founder of the sect was Montanus of Phrygia (latter half of the second century). He was a priest of Cybele, subsequently converted to Christianity and a teacher at Rome. According to his followers, he was the Paraclete or Holy Spirit promised by Christ. Amongst other things they distinguished two classes of sins, those unto death and those not unto death; denied the validity of second marriages; did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's death for mankind; despised the old prophets as possessed by evil spirits; and favoured a highly ascetic life. “All the ascetic, rigorous, and chiliastic elements of the Church combined in Montanism.”
6 189-202.
7 202-217.
8 Second and third century, Adoptianist, Monarchian or anti-Trinitarian. His views were subsequently developed by Paul of Samosata (flourished 260-272). This work is probably identical with The Labyrinth.

Read the treatise of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, Against the Blasphemies of Nestorius, in five books. In these he preserves his characteristic style and curious phraseology. But he is clearer than in his letters to Hermeias4 and his work On Adoration in the Spirit. The language is ornate and elaborate, forced into agreement with its peculiar form, which resembles prose poetry that despises metre.

4 Possibly the author of a treatise Ridicule of the Heathen Philosophers, but the time at which he lived is disputed,

Read the treatise of Nicias the monk5 Against the Seven Chapters of Philoponus, which he mentioned in his work called the Arbitrator. The style is simple and concise, suitable for controversial writings, and free from redundancies. Also read his attack On the impious Severus and two books Against the Heathen.

5 Flourished c. 600.

Read the four books by Hesychius,1 presbyter of Constantinople, On the Brazen Serpent. The work is meant for show, and is a studied attempt to work upon the feelings. It contains speeches to the people put into the mouth of Moses, and fictitious addresses of the people in reply. There are also elaborate speeches of the Deity to Moses and the people, together with their replies, in the form of entreaty and excuse. A great part of the work, which comprises a bulky volume, is devoted to these speeches. The author himself, so far as one can judge from this treatise, is orthodox.

1 Nothing is known of him. It is suggested that he may have been the Hesychius who accused Eunomius of heresy.

Read the account of the synod held at Side1 against the sect of the Messalians,2 Euchites,2 or Adelphians.3 Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, presided, supported by twenty-five other bishops. Read in the same a letter of the synod to Flavian, bishop of Antioch, giving him an account of the proceedings.

In consequence of this letter, Flavian summoned another synod against these same heretics, assisted by three other bishops, Bizus of Seleucia, Maruthas, bishop of the Sufareni,4 and Samus. There were also present priests and deacons to the number of thirty. The synod refused to accept Adelphius's profession of repentance or to admit him when he offered to renounce his heresy; for it was shown that neither his renunciation nor repentance was sincere. The founders of this sect were Adelphius, who was neither a monk nor a priest, but one of the laity, Sabas, surnamed Apokopos (castrated), who assumed the garb of a monk, another Sabas, Eustathius of Edessa, Dadoes, and Simeon, the tares of the evil one, and others who grew up together with them. Adelphius and his followers were condemned, although they sought opportunity for repentance, which was refused them, since they were detected communicating in writing, as if they shared their views, with persons whom they had anathematized as Messalians.

Flavian wrote a letter to the Osroenians, informing them of what had been done and giving an account of the punishment and excommunication of the heretics. The bishops who received it wrote back to Flavian, thanking him and expressing their approval. Litoius,5 bishop of Armenia, also wrote inquiring about the Messalians, and a copy of the decree and sentence of the council was sent to him. The great Flavian also wrote to another Armenian bishop on the same subject; in this second letter he accuses the bishop of sympathy with the Messalians. Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, also wrote to the bishops of Pamphylia, bidding them everywhere expel the Messalians as accursed and an abomination. He wrote in similar terms to Amphilochius, bishop of Side.

Sisinnius of Constantinople and Theodotus of Antioch sent a joint letter to Verinianus,6 Amphilochius, and the rest of the bishops in Pamphylia, addressed “To our colleagues, beloved of God, Verinianus, Amphilochius, and the rest of the bishops in Pamphylia : Sisinnius, Theodotus, and all the holy synod which by the grace of God was assembled in the mighty city of Constantinople to consecrate the most holy Sisinnius, beloved of God, and our emperor Theodosius, beloved of Christ, greet you in the Lord.” In this letter from the council Neon the bishop declared that if any one, after the excommunication of the Messalians, should at any time be detected saying or doing anything which rendered him suspect of favouring this heresy, he should not be allowed to retain his position, not if he offered to pay ten thousand times the penalty imposed upon those who repent; and that any one who supported him, a bishop or any one else, should be liable to the same penalty. John of Antioch also wrote a letter to Nestorius about the Messalians. The holy oecumenical council, the third, at Ephesus,7 also issued a decree, exposing the blasphemies and heresies of the Messalian book Asceticus and anathematizing it. Archelaus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, also wrote twenty-four anathematisms against these articles. Heraclidas, bishop of Nyssa, also wrote two letters against them, in the second of which evidence is given of the antiquity of the worship of the holy images.

Some time afterwards, Gerontius, presbyter and superior of the monks at Glitis, wrote to Alypius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, bringing various charges against Lampetius,8 a profane impostor, who was the first of the Messalian sect who succeeded in worming his way into the dignity of the priesthood. Alypius, on receipt of the letter, commanded Hormisdas, bishop of Comana, to investigate the charges against Lampetius. The heads of the indictment were : that he had been guilty of unlawful intercourse with women; that he had used obscene language in reference to such matters; that he sneered and scoffed at those who chanted the hours as being still under the law. He and the Messalians were accused of many other impious words and deeds; and we ourselves, while endeavouring, as far as was in our power, to lead them from the error which was lately beginning to spring up again, have seen much festering passion and vice consuming their souls. But this Lampetius, Gerontius the presbyter being his accuser and bishop Hormisdas his judge, convicted partly on the evidence of witnesses and partly out of his own mouth, was unanimously degraded from the priesthood. Alypius of Caesarea who had been misled and had promoted the miscreant to the dignity of presbyter joined in the vote. This thrice sinful Lampetius composed a book called the Testament, in which some of his impious doctrines are inserted; Severus, who usurped the see of Antioch, while still only a presbyter, refuted it. A certain Alpheus, bishop of Rhinocorura,9 defended Lampetius as innocent in word and deed of the charges brought against him, and although, so far as one knows, he introduces no blasphemies in his published work, he was deprived of his office as a supporter of Lampetius. Another Alpheus, who had been ordained presbyter by Timotheus of Alexandria, was removed from office for the same heresy, as we learn from a report made by Ptolemy, also bishop of Rhinocorura, to the same Timotheus.

1 In Pamphylia (383).
2 Both names mean “those who pray,” the first being Syriac, the second Greek. They believed that perpetual prayer and asceticism would procure inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
3 From Adelphius, one of the first leaders of the sect.
4 In Mesopotamia.
5 Of Melitene in Lesser Armenia.
6 Bishop of Perga.
7 431.
8 A Messalian leader, almost as important as Adelphius. His followers were called Lampetians.
9 On the borders of Egypt and Palestine.

Read an account of the proceedings of the synod held at Carthage 1 in the great church, while Faustus 2 Honorius was emperor of the West, against Pelagius3 and Coelestius.4 The president was Aurelius, bishop of Carthage and Dotianus of Telepte, chief prelate of the province of Byzacena, supported by distinguished Church dignitaries from different provinces, to the number of 224. This synod excommunicated those who asserted that Adam was created mortal, and that he did not suffer death as a punishment for his sin; also those who declared that infants newly born had no need of baptism, because they were not liable to original sin from Adam; also those who affirmed that there was a place midway between hell and paradise, to which infants dying unbaptized were removed, there to live in a state of blessedness. Six other similar articles, which hold the first place in the heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius, were also anathematized.

The emperors Theodosius and Honorius also wrote to bishop Aurelius condemning these same heretics. After this Constantius, the husband of Placidia and the father of Valen-tinian the Younger, sent a decree to Volusianus, praefect of the city, ordering that Coelestius should be banished. [This Volusianus, uncle of Saint Helena (Melania),5 at the time was a heathen, but when threatened with death he became converted to the true faith and was baptized by Proclus 6 of Constantinople, where he had been sent on an embassy. Perhaps at the same time he met that holy woman, who had come from Jerusalem to the queen-city.]7 Leo of Rome8 also wrote in regard to the converted Pelagians that, if they desired to be received into the Church again, they should anathematize their heresy in writing. In the letter of Coelestine, bishop of Rome,9 to Nestorius the same heretics are condemned. Coelestine also wrote to the bishops of Gaul in defence of the teaching of St. Augustine and against those who were emboldened to speak rashly by the licence allowed to the heresy. Jerome the priest10 also wrote to Ctesiphon 11 in refutation of those who held the idea of impassibility (in other words, against Pelagius). This Pelagius was a monk and Coelestius was his pupil.

1 412 or 411.
2 If Faustus be taken with Honorius, it will be an epithet corresponding to Felix; others render “in the great church of Faustus.”
3 c. 370-440. According to some, he was; a Hibernian; according to others, a Welsh monk named Morgan (“sea-born” = Pelagius). He resided in Rome, Africa, and Palestine, where he is said to have died. The Pelagians rejected the doctrine of original sin, but believed in the Trinity and the personality of Christ.
4 Coelestius, a native of Ireland, pupil of Pelagius, younger and more vigorous than his master. It is to him that the influence of Pelagianism was chiefly due. Some authorities make him an Italian.
5 There were two holy women of this name : the elder (350-410), and the younger (383-439). The latter is here referred to. She was born at Rome, but early in life retired to Hippo in Africa, where she became acquainted with St. Augustine, and afterwards to Jerusalem, where she embraced the monastic life and died.
6 Patriarch of Constantinople (434-447).
7 Bekker states that this paragraph is an addition by a later hand.
8 Leo the “Great,” pope 440-461.
9 422-432.
10 St. Jerome.
11 Supposed to have been a Roman, to whom Jerome wrote from Palestine, in reply to his request for advice concerning Pelagianism.

Read a work attacking the heresy of Pelagius and Coelestius, entitled A Copy of the Proceedings taken against the Doctrines of Nestorius by the Bishops of the West. It states that the Nestorian and Coelestian heresies were identical without doubt, quoting as its authority a letter of Cyril of Alexandria 1a to the emperor Theodosius. The Coelestians, speaking of the body or the members of Christ, that is, the Church, audaciously deny that it is God (that is, the Holy Spirit) who distributes to each man severally, as He wills, faith and all that is necessary to life, piety, and salvation; according to them, the nature of man as constituted—-which by sin and transgression fell from blessedness and was separated from God and handed over to death—-both invites and repels the Holy Spirit in accordance with free will. The Nestorians hold and venture to assert the same opinion concerning the head of the body, Christ. Since Christ shares our nature and God wishes all men alike to be saved, they say that every one of his own free will can amend his error and make himself worthy of God; wherefore He who was born of Mary was not Himself the Word, but, by reason of the nobility of His natural will, He had the Word accompanying, sharing the condition of sonship by nobleness alone and similarity of name.

This Pelagian or Coelestian heresy flourished not only in the East, but also spread over the West. At Carthage in Africa it was detected and refuted by Aurelius and Augustine, and publicly condemned at various synods. Those who held these opinions were expelled from the Church as heretics, when Theophilus was bishop of Alexandria1b and Innocent bishop of Rome,2 by Roman, African, and other Western bishops. At the synod held in Palestine,3 however, at which fourteen bishops attended, Pelagius was acquitted. Some of the charges brought against him he utterly denied as foolish and anathematized, while he admitted having made certain other statements, not however in the sense attributed to them by his accusers, but rather in conformity with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. His accusers were Neporus 4 and Lazarus,5 two bishops of Gaul, who were not present at the inquiry, having obtained permission to absent themselves in consequence of the illness of one of them. So Augustine states in his letters to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage.

After the death of the holy Augustine certain of the clergy began to reassert these impious doctrines. They began to speak evil of Augustine and falsely accused him of denying free will; but bishop Coelestine checked the renewal of this slander, writing to the bishops of the country in defence of that godlike man and against those who had set this heresy on foot again. As time went on, and these heretics, after having abjured their own doctrines, were received again into the Church, the scandal was again revived by them, and had to be put down before it went further by bishop Septimus,6 who wrote to Leo, pope at that time and a fervent opponent of these impious doctrines. Not long afterwards, when the shameless heresy again sprang up from an evil root, certain persons at Rome openly expressed themselves in favour of it. But Prosper,7 truly a man of God, in his pamphlets against them, soon crushed them, while Leo still occupied the papal throne. The heresy was also condemned at the holy synod of Ephesus.8 John, patriarch of Alexandria,9 in his Apologia to Gelasius, bishop of Rome,10 anathematized not only the Pelagian heresy, but Pelagius and Coelestius themselves, together with Julian,11 who was known to have succeeded them in the leadership of this sect.

1a Archbishop of Alexandria (412-444).
1b 385-412.
2 402-417.
3 At Diospolis, the ancient Lydda (415).
4 Or rather Heros, bishop of Aries.
5 Bishop of Aix.
6 Bishop of Altinum (mod. Altino) near Venice.
7 Prosper of Aquitaine (403-463). He was the author of two or three valuable Chronicles and a number of theological works.
8 431.
9 Afterwards bishop of Nola.
10 492-496.
11 Bishop of Eclana, near Beneventum, a Pelagian leader (fifth century).

Read the treatise of John Philoponus (or rather Mataeoponus) Against the Holy Fourth Oecumenical Council.3 The style is characteristic of him. He shamelessly attempts to prove that the council favoured the heresy of Nestorius, and declares that it acquiesced in his excommunication, because it imagined it was doing no harm to the man4 by ratifying his doctrine, which Nestorius himself, on whom the condemnation fell, fondly cherished and regarded as the most important thing of all; wherein he indulges in fabrications and outrageous statements, on a par with his mental capacity and the unsteadiness of his opinions. The audacious and idle assertions which he makes against the council, a comedy in four parts, are in no way deserving of credit or even sensible.

In the same volume read a treatise by another John, a Nestorian, Against the same Holy Fourth Council. The author is John of Aegae,5 an impious person, but his diction has beauty and charm, and is brilliant and perspicuous.

3 451.
4 If this is not somewhat ungrammatically for τὸν ἂνθρωπον, the sense may be general, “to a man,” i.e. a person would not feel injured if the point on which he laid most stress were conceded.
5 Cod. 41. But he is obviously a Eutychian, not a Nestorian, unless the mistake is in Cod. 41., some other John being really the author.

Read the treatise of Theodoret of Cyrrhus Against Heresies, from the time of Simon 1 down to those which sprang up in his own age. It is dedicated to a certain Sporacius,2 who was fond of hearing about such matters. It goes down to Nestorius and his heresy, on which he pours forth unmitigated censure, and even farther, to the heresy of Eutyches. In the last of the five books which the treatise contains, he gives a summary of divine and orthodox doctrine compared with idle heretical talk, showing that it is not to be confounded with the latter, but is pure and irreprehensible. The style is clear and free from redundancies.

1 Magus (see Acts viii.).
2 Count of the domestics (captain of the palace guards), consul 453.

Read Appian's 1 Roman History, in three parts and twenty-four books. The first treats of the seven kings, Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Ancus Hostilius,2 Ancus Marcius (grandson of Numa), Tarquinius (Priscus), Servius Tullius, Lucius Tarquinius, son of Tarquinius,3 of whose acts and deeds it contains an account. The first of these, the founder and oekist of the city, although his rule was rather patriarchal than tyrannical, was nevertheless assassinated, or, according to others, disappeared from view. The second, in no way inferior as a ruler to his predecessor, or perhaps even his superior, died at the age of … The third was struck by lightning. The fourth succumbed to disease. The fifth was murdered by shepherds. The sixth was also murdered. The seventh was deposed and driven out of the city for his tyranny. After this, the monarchy was abolished, and its powers transferred to consuls. Such is the contents of the first book, which is entitled The Book of the Kings. The second book, entitled Italica, gives an account of the history of Italy with the exception of that part which is situated on the Ionian Sea. The following book, Samnitica, relates the wars of the Romans with the Samnites,4 a powerful nation and an enemy difficult to conquer whom it took the Romans eighty years to subdue, and the other nations who fought on their side. The fourth, Celtica, relates the wars of the Romans with the Celts (Gauls). The remaining books are similarly named. The fifth contains the History of Sicily and the other Islands, the sixth gives an account of Iberian affairs, the seventh of the Hannibalic wars, the eighth of Libyan affairs (dealing with Carthage and Numidia), the ninth of Macedonian affairs, the tenth of Greek and Ionian affairs, the eleventh of Syrian and Parthian affairs, the twelfth of the Mithradatic war. Up tp this point the relations and wars of the Romans with foreign nations are set forth in this order. The books that follow describe the civil wars and disturbances amongst the Romans themselves. They are entitled the first and second books of the Civil Wars and so on down to the ninth, which is the twenty-first book of the whole. The twenty-second book is called Hekatontaetia (the history of one hundred years), the twenty-third, Dacica, on Dacian affairs, the twenty-fourth, Arabica, on Arabian affairs.

Such are the divisions of the entire work. The account of the civil wars contains first the war between Marius and Sulla, then that between Pompey and Julius Caesar, after their rivalry took the form of violent hostilities, until fortune favoured Caesar and Pompey was defeated and put to flight. Next, it describes the proceedings of Antony and Octavius Caesar (also known as Augustus) against the murderers of Julius Caesar, at the time when many distinguished Romans were put to death without a trial. Lastly, the desperate conflict between Antony and Augustus, accompanied by terrible slaughter, in which victory declared for Augustus. Antony, deserted by his allies, was driven a fugitive to Egypt, where he died by his own hand. The last book of the Civil Wars describes how Egypt came into the power of the Romans, and how Augustus became the sole ruler of Rome.

The history begins with Aeneas, the son of Anchises, the son of Capys, who lived in the time of the Trojan war. After the capture of Troy Aeneas fled, and after much wandering landed on the coast of Italy at a place called Laurentum, where his camp is shown, and the coast is called after him Troja. Faunus, son of Mars, who was at the time ruler of the original Italian inhabitants, gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas and a piece of land 400 stades in circumference, on which Aeneas built a city and called it Lavinium after his wife Lavinia. Three years later, Faunus died, and Aeneas, who succeeded to the throne by right of kinship, gave the aborigines 5 the name of Latins from his father-in-law Latinus Faunus. After another three years, Aeneas was killed in battle against the Rutulians of Tyrrhenia, to whose king Lavinia had formerly been betrothed. He was succeeded by Euryleon, surnamed Ascanius, the son of Aeneas by Creusa the daughter of Priam, who was his wife at Troy. According to others, however, the Ascanius who succeeded him was his son by Lavinia. Ascanius died four years after he had founded the city of Alba with a body of settlers from Lavinium, and Silvius became king. The son of this Silvius is said to have been Aeneas Silvius, and the son of Aeneas Latinus Silvius. His descendants were Capys, Capetus, Tiberinus, and Agrippa, said to be the father of Romulus, who was killed by lightning, leaving a son Aventinus, who had a son named Procas. All these are said to have been surnamed Silvius. Procas had two children, the elder named Numitor, the younger. Amulius. When the elder succeeded to the throne on the death of his father, the younger got possession of it by force and crime, killed his brother's son Egestus, and made his daughter Rhea a priestess, so that she might not have children. But Numitor's mildness and gentleness saved him from the plot against his life. Silvia broke her vows and became pregnant,6 and was seized by Amulius for punishment, her two sons being given to some shepherds to be thrown into the river Tiber near at hand. The infants, Romulus and Romus,7 were descended from Aeneas on the mother's side; the name of their father was unknown.8

As already stated, the history begins with a rapid account of Aeneas and his descendants; but from the time of Romulus, the oekist9 of the city, it gives full details of events to the reign of Augustus, and, here and there, as late as the time of Trajan.

Appian was an Alexandrian by birth, and at first an advocate at Rome, being subsequently raised to the dignity of a procurator 10 under the emperors. His style is dry and free from redundancies; as an historian, he is trustworthy to the best of his ability, and an excellent authority on military matters; the speeches which he introduces are admirably calculated to encourage soldiers when dispirited, to restrain them when too ardent, to express and faithfully represent the emotions and feelings. He flourished in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian.

1 Of Alexandria, lived at Rome during the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius (between 98-161). Of the twenty-four books of the Roman History, which Photius had before him, only eleven (besides the Preface) are completely preserved; the others are entirely lost, or only fragments.
2 Usually known as Tullus Hostilius.
3 Usually known as Tarquinius Superbus.
4 The most important were the three following:. 343-341; 326-304, in which the disaster of the Caudine Forks befell the Romans; 298-290, in which the Samnites suffered a decisive defeat at Sentinum (295).
5 Attempts to identify these people have proved unsatisfactory. The name is variously derived from ab origine, the primeval inhabitants, children of the soil = Gk. αὐτόχθονες; from aberrare, the nomads; or from βορείγενοι, mountain-dwellers.
6 By the god Mars.
7 Remus.
8 One MS. has an enlarged paragraph: “for, detesting their unknown father, they rather prided themselves on descent from Aeneas.”
9 The Greek word οἰκιστής (oekist) denotes the founder of a colony and head of a band of colonists.
10 Probably of Egypt. Others render : “He was thought worthy of the management of the affairs of the emperors.”

Read Arrian's 1 Parthica (History of Parthia) in seventeen books. He has also written the best account of the campaigns of Alexander of Macedon. Another work of his is Bithynica (History of Bithynia), relating the affairs of his native country. He also wrote an Alanica (History of the Alani).2 In the Parthica he gives an account of the wars between Parthia and Rome during the reign of Trajan. He considers the Parthians to have been a Scythian race, which had long been under the yoke of Macedonia, and revolted, at the time of the Persian rebellion,3 for the following reason. Arsaces and Tiridates were two brothers, descendants of Arsaces, the son of Phriapetes. These two brothers, with five accomplices, slew Pherecles, who had been appointed satrap of Parthia by Antiochus Theos,4 to avenge an insult offered to one of them; they drove out the Macedonians, set up a government of their own, and became so powerful that they were a match for the Romans in war, and sometimes even were victorious over them. Arrian further relates that during the reign of Sesostris, king of Egypt, and landysus, king of Scythia, the Parthians removed from their own country, Scythia, to the land which they now inhabit. The emperor Trajan reduced them to submission but left them free under a treaty, and appointed a king over them.

This Arrian, called the “young Xenophon,” a philosopher and one of the pupils of Epictetus,5 flourished during the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Antoninus. Owing to his remarkable learning he was entrusted with various offices of state, and was finally promoted to the consulship. He was also the author of other works: the Lectures of Epictetus his master, with eight books of which we are acquainted, and the Conversations of Epictetus in twelve books. His style is dry, and he is a genuine imitator of Xenophon.

It is said that he was also the author of other works, but they have not come into my hands. Certainly he does not lack rhetorical skill and power.

1 Flavius Arrianus, flourished during the latter half of the second century A.D., and died before 180. He was born at Nicomedia in Bithynia, studied philosophy under Epictetus and distinguished himself as a soldier. He was appointed governor of Cappadocia in 136, and consul in 146. He spent the rest of his life in his native city, where he held the lifelong office of priest of Demeter and Kore. In addition to the works here mentioned, he was the author of: A Voyage round the Euxine, a treatise on Tactics, the Order of Battle against the Alani (defeated by him while governor of Cappadocia), on the Chase, and an account of India, perhaps a continuation of the Anabasis (the account of Alexander's campaigns), so named after the Anabasis of his model Xenophon.
2 Of which the Order of Battle against the Alani, referred to above, is a section.
3 Rebellantibus in the Latin versions of Schott and Muller (Frag. Hist. Gr. iii. 586). But can καταστραφέντων mean this? The more natural rendering; would seem to be: “which had long been under the yoke of Macedonia, the Persians having been subdued at the same time,” i.e. by the Seleucids.
4 Antiochus II (king 261-246 B.C.).
5 Of Hierapolis in Phrygia (c. A.D. 60-140), Stoic philosopher.

Read the proceedings of the synod1 that was unlawfully summoned against St. John Chrysostom. The presidents were Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, Acacius of Beroea, Antiochus of Ptolemais, Severian of Gabala, and Cyrinus of Chalcedon, who were bitterly hostile to Chrysostom, and constituted themselves judges, accusers, and witnesses. There were thirteen sessions: twelve against Chrysostom, the thirteenth against Heraclides, whom Chrysostom had ordained bishop of Ephesus.

Owing to the pressure of other business, however, the deposition of Heraclides could not be ratified. His accuser was Macarius, bishop of Magnesia. The open enemy and chief accuser of Chrysostom was his deacon John. He first charged Chrysostom with having wronged him by ejecting him for having beaten his own servant Eulalius; the second charge was that a certain monk named John had been flogged by order of Chrysostom, dragged along, and put in chains like those possessed; the third, that he had sold much valuable Church property; the fourth, that he had sold the marble which Nectarius had set aside for decorating the church of St. Anastasia; the fifth, that he had reviled the clergy as dishonourable, corrupt, useless in themselves,2 and worthless; the sixth, that he had called St. Epiphanius 3 a fool and a demon; the seventh, that he had intrigued against Severian, and set the decani4 against him; the eighth, that he had written a book slandering the clergy; the ninth, that, having called all the clergy together, he had summoned three deacons, Acacius, Edaphius, and John, on a charge of having stolen his hood,5 and had asked whether they had taken it for any other purpose; the tenth, that he had consecrated Antonius as bishop, although he had been convicted of robbing graves; the eleventh, that he had denounced count John at a seditious meeting of the troops; the twelfth, that he did not pray either when walking to the church or entering it; the thirteenth, that he ordained deacons and priests without standing by the altar; the fourteenth, that he consecrated four bishops at once; the fifteenth, that he received visits from women by themselves, after he had sent every one else out of the room; the sixteenth, that he had sold by the agency of Theodulus the inheritance left by Thecla; the seventeenth, that no one knew how the revenues of the Church were spent; the eighteenth, that he had ordained Serapion priest at a time when he was under accusation; the nineteenth, that he paid no heed to those who belonged to the communion of the world, who had been imprisoned by his orders, and when they died in prison did not even condescend to make arrangements for the interment of their bodies; the twentieth, that he had insulted the most holy Acacius, and refused to grant him an interview; the twenty-first, that he had handed over the presbyter Porphyry to Eutropius to be banished; the twenty-second, that he had also handed over the presbyter Venerius and grievously insulted him; the twenty-third, that a bath was heated for him alone, and that after he had bathed, Serapion emptied the bath, so that no one else might use it; the twenty-fourth, that he had ordained many without witnesses; the twenty-fifth, that he ate gluttonously alone, living like a Cyclops; the twenty-sixth, that he himself was accuser, witness, and judge, as was evident from the case of Martyrius the proto-deacon, and Proaeresius, bishop of Lycia; the twenty-seventh, that he struck Memnon with his fist in the church of the Apostles, and while he bled at the mouth celebrated the communion, the twenty-eighth, that he dressed and undressed on his throne, and ate a lozenge;6 the twenty-ninth, that he bribed the bishops who were consecrated by him to oppress the clergy.

Such were the charges against this holy man. He was four times summoned, but refused to appear. He declared that, if the synod would remove his open enemies from the list of judges, he was ready to appear and defend himself against any charges brought against him; if they refused to do so, no matter how many times they summoned him, it would be of no avail.

The first and second counts were then investigated, after which the synod proceeded to deal with the case of the bishops Heraclides and Palladius of Helenopolis. The monk John, mentioned by the deacon John in the second charge against Chrysostom, presented a memorial accusing Heraclides of being a follower of Origen, and of having been arrested at Caesarea in Palestine for the theft of the clothes of Aquilinus the deacon. Notwithstanding this, he declared, Chrysostom had consecrated him bishop of Epliesus. He further accused Chrysostom himself, whom he blamed for all that he had suffered at the hands of Serapion and Chrysostom owing to the Origenists. After this the ninth and twenty-seventh charges were investigated.

Then bishop Isaac again charged Heraclides with being a follower of Origen, with whom the most holy Epiphanius would hold no communion either at prayers or meals. He also presented a memorial containing the following charges against Chrysostom : (1) That the monk John, already mentioned, had been flogged and put in chains through the Origenists; (2) that Epiphanius refused to hold communion with him on account of his connexion with the Origenists Ammonius, Euthymius, Eusebius, Heraclides, and Palladius; (3) that he neglected the duties of hospitality and always ate alone; (4) that in church he used such language as “the table is full of furies”; (5) that he loudly exclaimed, “I am in love, I am mad”; (6) that he ought to explain what “furies” he referred to, and what he meant by “I am in love, I am mad,” expressions unknown to the Church; (7) that he licensed people to sin, since he taught, “If thou sin again, repent again,” and, “As often as thou sinnest, come to me and I will heal thee”; (8) that he uttered blasphemy while in the Church, asserting that the prayer of Christ was not heard, since He did not pray in a proper manner; (9) that he stirred up the people to reject the authority of the synod; (10) that he had welcomed a number of heathens who had oppressed the Christians, kept them in the church, and afforded them protection; (11) that he had encroached upon the provinces of others, and consecrated bishops there; (12) that he had insulted the bishops, and ordered the bishops and . . .7 to be ejected from his house; (13) that he had subjected the clergy to unheard-of insults; (14) that he had violently appropriated sums of money left to others; (15) that he performed ordinations without a meeting of the clergy and contrary to their wish; (16) that he had received the Origenists, but allowed those who were in communion with the Church and had come to him with letters of recommendation to be cast into prison without obtaining their release, and even if they died there, took no further notice of them; (17) that he had consecrated as bishops foreign slaves not yet emancipated and, in some cases, under accusation; (18) that he himself (Isaac) had often been ill-treated by him.

Of these charges the first, having been already discussed, did not seem to require further examination, but the second and seventh, and then the third of the charges brought by deacon John, were investigated. In this last the archpresbyter Arsacius, the successor of Chrysostom, and the presbyters Atticus and Elpidius somehow or other came forward as witnesses against that holy man. They and the presbyter Acacius also gave witness against him on the fourth charge. After these had been investigated, the above-mentioned presbyters, with Eudaemon and Onesimus, demanded that the synod should hasten its decision. Accordingly, Paul, bishop of Heraclea, called upon all to give their vote. The members present, forty-five in all, then recorded their opinion, beginning with bishop Gymnasius and ending with Theophilus of Alexandria. It was unanimously decided that Chrysostom should be deprived of his episcopate. A letter on his deposition was sent on the part of the synod to the clergy of Constantinople, and a report was made to the emperors. Gerontius, Faustinus, and Eugnomonius also presented three petitions, complaining that they had been unjustly deprived of their episcopates by Chrysostom. The emperors in reply sent an imperial rescript to the synod. These were the proceedings of the twelfth session; the thirteenth, as has been stated, was occupied with the case of Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus.

1 The synod (403) “at the Oak,” an estate near Chalcedon, on the opposite side of the Bosporus to Constantinople, belonging to the imperial prefect Rufinus. See Hefele, Conziliengeschichte (Eng. tr.).
2 Αὐτοπαραχρήτους. Another reading is αὐτοπαρακλήτους, “self-invited.”
3 See CXXII.
4 Monastic officials, who had each ten monks under their control. The name was also given to the Copiatae or Fossarii (grave-diggers, undertakers), who had to bury the poor for nothing.
5 Μαφόριον, a covering for the head, cowl, hood, especially for females. As used by monks, it may possibly be identical with the scapular. Another reading is ὠμοφόριον shoulder-cape (the Latin pallium).
6 Chrysostom advised the communicants to eat a lozenge (or little cake) to avoid spitting out any of the sacrament.
7 The word omitted is ἐκπιγγάτους, the meaning of which the translator has been unable to discover. Ducange explains it by Conciliabulum as specially used of the synod of the Oak.

Read the nine books of the History of Herodotus,1 in name and number identical with the nine Muses. He may be considered the best representative of the Ionic, as Thucydides of the Attic dialect. He is fond of old wives' tales and digressions, pervaded by charming sentiments, which, however, sometimes obscure the due appreciation of history and its correct and proper character. Truth does not allow her accuracy to be impaired by fables or excessive digressions from the subject.

He begins his history with Cyrus, the first king of Persia, describing his birth, education, manhood, arid reign, and goes down to the reign of Xerxes—-his expedition against the Athenians, and subsequent retreat. Xerxes was the third who succeeded Cyrus, the first being Cambyses, the second Darius. Smerdis the Magian is not reckoned among these, as a tyrant who craftily usurped the throne that did not belong to him. Darius was succeeded by his son Xerxes, with whom the history concludes, although it does not go as far as the end of his reign. Herodotus himself, according to the evidence of Diodorus Siculus,2 flourished during these times. It is said that, when he read his work,3 Thucydides, then very young, who was present with his father at the reading, burst into tears. Whereupon Herodotus exclaimed, “Oh, Olorus! how eager your son is to learn! ”

1 Of Halicarnassus (c. 484-424 B.c ), the so-called “father of history.” His history, in nine books, each named after one of the Muses, gives an account of the Persian wars from the reign of Cyrus down to the battle of Mycale in the reign of Xerxes, a period of 126 years. It also contains digressions on the early history and manners and customs of different peoples. It is curious that Photius has not devoted more attention to him.
2 See LXX.
3 To an assembly of the Greeks at Olympia.