Volume 1 — PHOTIUS BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON⁠[6] (continued 4)

The sixth book relates how Demosthenes and Hyperides, Aristonicus of Marathon and Himeraeus, the brother of Demetrius of Phalerum, fled to Aegina, and, while there, were condemned to death by the Athenians on the motion of Demades, and how Antipater carried out the sentence. How Archias the Thurian, who put them to death, died in the utmost poverty and disgrace. How Demades was soon afterwards sent to Macedonia, where he was put to death by Cassander, after his son had been murdered in his arms. Cassander alleged in excuse that Demades had once insulted his father, Antipater, in a letter which he wrote to Perdiccas, begging him to rescue the Greeks, who were only held together by an old and rotten thread, as he abusively called Antipater. Dinarchus of Corinth was the accuser of Demades, who paid the just penalty for his venality, treachery, and unfaithfulness.

The author also relates how Harpalus, who during the lifetime of Alexander had stolen money belonging to him and fled to Athens, was slain by Thibron the Lacedaemonian. Thibron seized all the money that remained, and set out for Cydonia in Crete, whence he crossed over to Cyrene with a body of 6000 men, at the request of some exiles from Cyrene and Barca. After many engagements and mutual intrigues, in which he was sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful, he was finally captured during his flight by some Libyan drivers, and taken to Epicydes the Olynthian at Teuchira, which had been entrusted to him by Ophellas a Macedonian, whom Ptolemy the son of Lagus had sent to help the Cyrenians. The inhabitants, by permission of Ophellas, first tortured Thibron and then sent him to the port of Cyrene to be hanged. But since the Cyrenaeans still persisted in their revolt, Ptolemy in person visited the place, and after having restored order, sailed home again.

Perdiccas, intriguing against Antigonus, called him to judgment, but Antigonus, aware of the plot, refused to appear. This led to enmity between them. At the same time Iollas and Archias came to Perdiccas from Macedonia, accompanied by Nicaea, the daughter of Antipater, with a proposal of marriage. Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great, also sent to him, offering him the hand of her daughter Cleopatra. Eumenes of Cardia favoured Cleopatra, but his brother Alcetas persuaded him to accept Nicaea. Soon afterwards Cynane was put to death by Perdiccas and his brother Alcetas. This Cynane was the daughter of Philip, the father of Alexander, her mother being Eurydice, the wife of Amyntas, whom Alexander put to death just before he set out for Asia. This Amyntas was the son of Perdiccas the brother of Philip, so that he was the cousin of Alexander. Cynane brought her daughter Adea (afterwards called Eurydice) to Asia and offered her hand to Arrhidaeus. The marriage subsequently took place, with the approval of Perdiccas, to appease the increasing indignation of the soldiery, which had been aroused by the death of Cynane. Antigonus, in the meantime, took refuge with Antipater and Craterus in Macedonia, informed them of the intrigues of Perdiccas against him, declaring that they were directed against all alike. He also described the death of Cynane in such exaggerated terms that he persuaded them to make war on Perdiccas. Arrhidaeus, who kept the body of Alexander with him, contrary to the wish of Perdiccas, took it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemy the son of Lagus in Egypt; and though often hindered on his journey by Polemon, a friend of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention.

Meanwhile, Eumenes conveyed gifts from Perdiccas to Cleopatra at Sardes, since Perdiccas had decided to repudiate Nicaea and to marry Cleopatra. When this became known to Antigonus through Menander the governor of Lydia, he informed Antipater and Craterus, who were more than ever determined to make war on Perdiccas. Antipater and Craterus, starting from the Chersonese, crossed the Hellespont, having previously sent messengers to deceive those who guarded the passage. They also sent ambassadors to Eumenes and Neoptolemus, who supported Perdiccas; Neoptolemus went over to them, but Eumenes refused.

Neoptolemus being suspected by Eumenes, war broke out between them, in which Eumenes was victorious. Neoptolemus fled with a few men to Antipater and Craterus, and succeeded in persuading the latter to join him; so both made war against Eumenes. Eumenes did his best to prevent his own men from knowing that Craterus was fighting against him, being afraid that, influenced by his great reputation, they might either desert to him, or, if they remained faithful to him, might lose heart. Successful in scheming, he was also successful in battle. Neoptolemus fell by the hand of Eumenes “the secretary” himself, after having proved himself a brave soldier and commander. Craterus, who fought boldly against all who opposed him and showed himself openly in order to be known, was slain by some Paphlagonians before he was recognized, although he had thrown off his hat.⁠[494] However, the infantry escaped and returned to Antipater, which considerably reassured him.

Perdiccas, setting out from Damascus to make war upon Ptolemy the son of Lagus, reached Egypt with the kings⁠[495] and a large force. He made many charges against Ptolemy, who publicly cleared himself, so that the accusations appeared ill-founded. Perdiccas, notwithstanding the opposition of his troops, decided to carry on the war. He was twice defeated, and, having treated those who were inclined to go over to Ptolemy with great severity, and in other respects behaved in camp more arrogantly than became a general, he was slain by his own cavalry during an engagement. After his death Ptolemy crossed the Nile to visit the kings, upon whom he bestowed gifts and treated them with the utmost kindness and attention, as well as the other Macedonians of rank. At the same time he openly showed sympathy with the friends of Perdiccas, and did all he could to allay the apprehensions of those Macedonians who imagined they were in peril, so that at once and ever afterwards he was held in great esteem.

At a full council of war, Pithon and Arrhidaeus having been appointed commanders-in-chief of all the forces for the time being, about fifty of the supporters of Eumenes and Alcetas were condemned, chiefly because Craterus had met his death in civil strife. Antigonus was summoned from Cyprus, and Antipater ordered to repair with all speed to the kings. Before they arrived, Eurydice refused to allow Pithon and Arrhidaeus to do anything without her permission. At first they did not demur, but afterwards told her that she had nothing to do with public affairs, and that they themselves would look after everything until the arrival of Antigonus and Antipater. When they arrived, Antigonus was placed in chief command. When the army demanded the pay that had been promised them for the campaign, Antipater replied straightforwardly that he had no money, but that, to avoid incurring their censure, he would thoroughly search the treasury and other places where money might be hidden. These words aroused the displeasure of the army. When Eurydice joined in the accusations against Antipater, the people were indignant, and a disturbance took place. Eurydice then delivered a speech against him, in which she was assisted by Asclepiodorus the scribe and supported by Attalus. Antipater barely escaped with his life, after Antigonus and Seleucus, at his earnest request, had addressed the people on his behalf and nearly lost their lives in consequence. Antipater, having thus escaped death, withdrew to his own army, where he summoned the cavalry commanders, and after the disturbance had been put down with difficulty, he was again reinstated in his command.

He then made a division of Asia, partly confirming the earlier one and partly altering it as circumstances necessitated. Egypt, Libya, the large tract of country beyond it, and all the territory that had been conquered towards the west, was given to Ptolemy; Syria to Laomedon the Mytilenean; Cilicia to Philoxenus, who had held it before. Of the upper provinces, Mesopotamia and Arbelitis were given to Amphimachus, the king’s brother; Babylonia to Seleucus. To Antigenes, commander of the Macedonian argyraspidae,⁠[496] who had first attacked Perdiccas, was given the whole of Susiana; to Peucestes Persia; to Tlepolemus Carmania; to Pithon Media as far as the Caspian gates; to Philip Parthia; to Strasander the territory of the Arei and Drangeni; to Stasanor of Soli, Bactria, and Sogdiana; to Siburtius Arachosia; to Oxyartes the father of Roxana Parapamisus; to Pithon the son of Agenor the part of India bordering on Parapamisus. Of the adjacent provinces, that on the river Indus, together with Patala, the largest city of India in those parts, to king Porus, and that on the river Hydaspes to Taxilus the Indian, for it would have been no easy matter to displace them, since they had been confirmed in their government by Alexander, and their strength had greatly increased. Of the countries to the north of Mount Taurus, Cappadocia was assigned to Nicanor; Greater Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, and Lycia, to Antigonus as before; Caria to Asander; Lydia to Clitus; Phrygia on the Hellespont to Arrhidaeus. Antigenes was appointed to collect the revenues in the district of Susa, 3000 of the Macedonians who were mutinously inclined being sent with him. As the king’s bodyguard Antipater appointed Autolycus the son of Agathocles, Amyntas the son of Alexander and brother of Peucestes, Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy, and Alexander the son of Polysperchon.⁠[497] He made his own son Cassander chiliarch of the cavalry, while Antigonus received command of the forces which had formerly been under Perdiccas, together with the care and custody of the kings’ persons and, at his own request, the task of finishing the war against Eumenes. Antipater, having secured the general approval of all that he had done, returned home. With this the ninth book concludes.

The tenth book relates how Eumenes, having heard what had befallen Perdiccas, and that he himself had been declared an enemy by the Macedonians, made all preparations for war; how Alcetas, the brother of Perdiccas, took refuge with him on that account; how Attalus, who had been one of the ringleaders in the insurrection against Antipater, also joined the exiles with a force of 10,000 foot and 800 horse; how Attalus and his troops attacked Cnidus, Caunus, and Rhodes. The Rhodians, under their admiral, Demaratus, completely repulsed them. How Eumenes nearly came to blows with Antipater on his arrival at Sardes, but Cleopatra, Alexander’s sister, to prevent the Macedonian people accusing her of being the cause of the war, persuaded Eumenes to leave Sardes. Notwithstanding, Antipater reviled her for her friendship with Eumenes and Perdiccas. She defended herself more vigorously than a woman could have been expected to do, brought countercharges against him, and in the end they parted amicably. Eumenes, having unexpectedly attacked those who did not acknowledge his authority, collected much booty and money, which he distributed amongst his soldiers. He also sent messages to Alcetas and his friends, begging them to assemble all their forces in one place so that they might unitedly attack the common enemy. But differences of opinion arose amongst them, and they finally refused. Antipater, not yet daring to engage Eumenes, sent Asander against Attalus and Alcetas; after the battle had long remained undecided, Asander was defeated. Cassander was at variance with Antigonus, but by command of his father, Antipater, he abandoned his opposition. Nevertheless, Cassander, when he met his father in Phrygia, advised him not to get too far from the kings, and to keep watch on Antigonus; but the latter, by his quiet behaviour, courtesy, and good qualities, did all he could to remove suspicion. Antipater, being appeased, appointed him to the command of the forces which had crossed over with him to Asia—8500 Macedonian infantry, and the same number of foreign cavalry, together with half the elephants (that is, seventy)—to assist him in ending the war against Eumenes. Thus Antigonus began the war. Antipater, with the kings and the rest of his forces, pretended to be going to cross over into Macedonia, but the army again mutinied and demanded their pay. Antipater promised that he would pay them when he reached Abydos, or let them have, if not the whole, at least the greater part of it. Having thus encouraged their hopes, he reached Abydos without disturbance, but having deceived the soldiers, he crossed the Hellespont by night, with the kings, to Lysimachus. On the following day the soldiers also crossed, and for the moment made no further demand for their pay. With this the tenth book ends.

This author is second to none of the best historical writers. He is very strong in concise narrative, and never impairs the continuity of the story by ill-timed digressions or parentheses; he is novel rather in arrangement than in diction, which he employs in such a manner that it would be impossible for the narrative to be set forth more clearly and perspicuously. His style is distinct, euphonious, and terse,⁠[498] characterized by a combination of smoothness and loftiness. His novelties of language are not merely far-fetched innovations, but are obvious and emphatic, figures of speech in reality, and not simply a change of ordinary words. The result is that not only in this respect is clearness secured, but also in the equipment, order, and nature of the narrative, which is the artistic essence of perspicuity. For straightforward periods are used even by those who are not specialists, and if this is done without anything to relieve them, the style degenerates into flatness and meanness, of which, in spite of his clearness, there are no traces in our author. He makes use of ellipsis, not of periods but of words, so that the ellipsis is not even noticed; any attempt to supply what is omitted would seem to indicate a tendency to unessential additions, and would not really fill up the gap. The variety of his rhetorical figures is admirable; they do not deviate at once altogether from simple form and usage, but are gradually interwoven from the beginning, so that they neither offend by satiety nor create confusion by sudden change. In a word, any one who compares him with other historians, will find that many classical writers are his inferior in composition.

XCIII

Read the same author’s Bithynica in eight books, containing a detailed account of the mythical and general history of Bithynia. It is a history of his own country, dedicated to it as a patriotic offering. For he tells us definitely in this work that he was born in Nicomedia, brought up and educated there, and held the office of priest of Demeter and her daughter, to whom the city was sacred. He mentions various works of his on other subjects, such as the career of the Corinthian Timoleon in Sicily, and the memorable deeds of Dion the Syracusan, who freed Syracuse and the whole of Sicily from the second Dionysius, the son of the first, and from the barbarians, whom Dionysius had introduced to support his tyranny. It appears that the history of his country was the fourth work he wrote, being written after the histories of Alexander the Great, Timoleon, and Dion. Certainly from the time when he first took to a literary career he had intended to treat of this subject, but the work took some time to complete owing to the lack of material; at least, this is the reason he himself gives for the delay in its production. He begins, as stated, with mythical history and goes down to the death of the last Nicomedes,⁠[499] who at his death left his kingdom to the Romans, who had never had a king since the expulsion of the Tarquins.

XCIV

Read the Dramaticon of Iamblichus,⁠[500] a narrative of love adventures. The author makes less show of indecencies than Achilles Tatius, but he is more immoral than the Phoenician Heliodorus. Of these three writers, who have all adopted the same subject and have chosen love intrigues as the material for their stories, Heliodorus is more serious and restrained, Iamblichus less so, while Achilles Tatius pushes his obscenity to impudence. The style of Iamblichus is soft and flowing; if there is anything vigorous and sonorous in it, it is less characterized by intensity than by what may be called titillation and nervelessness. Iamblichus is so distinguished by excellence of style and arrangement and the order of the narrative that it is to be regretted that he did not devote his skill and energies to serious subjects instead of to puerile fictions.

The characters of the story are a handsome couple named Rhodanes and Sinonis, united by the tie of mutual love and marriage. Garmus, king of Babylon, having lost his wife, falls in love with Sinonis and is eager to marry her. Sinonis refuses and is bound with chains of gold, while Rhodanes is placed upon the cross by Damas and Sacas, the king’s eunuchs. He is taken down through the efforts of Sinonis, and the lovers take to flight, one thus escaping death, the other a hated marriage. Sacas and Damas have their ears and noses cut off and are sent after the fugitives. They take different routes to carry out the search. Rhodanes and Sinonis are nearly surprised by Damas in a meadow. For a fisherman had told him of some shepherds who, being put to the torture, at last show him the meadow where Rhodanes had discovered a treasure, revealed to him by the inscription engraved on a cippus⁠[501] surmounted by a lion.

A spectre in the form of a goat becomes enamoured of Sinonis, which obliges the lovers to leave the meadow. Damas finds a garland of flowers dropped by Sinonis and sends it to Garmus as a consolation. In their flight, the lovers come across an old woman at the door of a hut; they hide themselves in a cave, thirty stades long and open at both ends, the mouth of which is concealed by thick bushes. Damas comes up with his companions, and questions the old woman, who is terrified by the sight of the naked sword. The horses on which Rhodanes and Sinonis had ridden are captured. The soldiers surround their hiding-place; the brazen shield of one of those who were keeping watch is broken on the cave; the hollowness of the echo discloses the whereabouts of the fugitives; the soldiers begin to dig, and Damas’s shouts reach the ears of those within. They retire farther into the cave and make their way to the second opening. Here a swarm of wild bees attacks the diggers, drops of honey falling also upon the fugitives. The bees as well as the honey are infected with poison from their having eaten certain venomous reptiles, so that the diggers whom they sting either lose a limb or die. Rhodanes and his companion, hard pressed by hunger, lick up some drops of the honey, are seized with colic, and fall on the road as if dead. The soldiers, worn out by the attack of the bees, take to flight but renew the pursuit of the lovers. Seeing Rhodanes and Sinonis prostrate in the road, they pass them by, taking them for two dead strangers. Sinonis, while in the cave, had cut her hair, and made a rope with it to draw water; Damas finds it and sends it to Garmus, as an earnest of the speedy capture of the fugitives. The soldiers who passed by where Rhodanes and Sinonis were lying in the road pay respect to them as if they were really dead, according to the custom of the country; some cover them with their tunics, others throw over them anything they have at hand, even pieces of bread and meat, and then go their way. The lovers recover from the drowsiness caused by the honey; Rhodanes had been roused by some crows quarrelling over some pieces of meat, and woke Sinonis. Getting up, they go in the opposite direction to the soldiers, so as to be less easily recognized. They meet two asses and mount them, having first loaded them with part of what the soldiers, thinking them dead, had thrown over them, and which the lovers had carried away. They stop at an inn, but soon leave it for another, in the neighbourhood of a full market-place. Two brothers have died and they are accused of their murder, but acquitted. The elder of the two brothers, who had poisoned the younger and who had accused them, poisons himself, thereby proving their innocence. Rhodanes gets possession of the poison without being seen. They put up at the house of a brigand who robbed passers-by and ate them. Soldiers sent by Damas capture the brigand and set fire to his house; Rhodanes and Sinonis, enveloped by the flames, with great difficulty escape with their lives, after they have killed the asses and thrown them on the fire to make a bridge across. The soldiers who fired the house, meeting them during the night, ask them who they are. “We are the ghosts of those murdered by the brigands,” they reply. Their thin, pale countenances, the weakness of their voice, persuade the soldiers that they are speaking the truth, whereat they are greatly alarmed. The lovers resume their flight, and meeting a young girl who is being carried to the grave, join the throng of spectators. An old Chaldaean comes up and stops the funeral, saying that the girl is still alive, and so it turns out to be. He predicts to Rhodanes and Sinonis that they will attain royal rank. The girl’s grave is left empty, and a great part of the robes which were to be burnt and of the food and drink is left behind. Rhodanes and Sinonis make a good meal, take some of the clothes and sleep in the grave. In the morning, the soldiers who had fired the house find they have been deceived, and set out in pursuit of Rhodanes and Sinonis, imagining that they are accomplices of the brigand. Having traced them as far as the grave and seeing them lying there motionless, overcome by wine and sleep, they imagine they are looking on corpses and so leave them, although they hesitated since their footsteps guided them thither.⁠[502] Rhodanes and Sinonis leave the grave and cross the river, the waters of which are sweet and clear and reserved for the king of Babylon alone to drink. Sinonis, when trying to sell the clothes she has taken, is arrested for sacrilege and brought before Soraechus, the son of Soraechus the tax-gatherer and named the Just. Owing to her beauty, he is minded to send her to king Garmus; whereupon Rhodanes and Sinonis mix a dose of poison, considering death preferable to the sight of this king. Their intention is revealed by a female slave to Soraechus, who secretly empties the cup containing the deadly potion and fills it with a sleeping draught; after they have drunk it and are in a deep sleep they are placed in a carriage to be taken to the king. A little way from Babylon, Rhodanes is frightened by a dream and cries out; this wakes Sinonis, who takes up a sword and wounds herself in the breast. Soraechus wants to know their history, and the lovers having received a solemn promise from him, tell him everything. He sets them at liberty and shows them a temple of Aphrodite on a little island, where Sinonis can be healed of her wound.

By way of digression the author relates the history of the temple and the little island, which is formed by the surrounding waters of the Euphrates and Tigris. The priestess of Aphrodite had three children, Euphrates, Tigris, and Mesopotamia, the last, who was born ugly, being changed into a woman so beautiful that three suitors quarrelled for her hand. Bochorus, the most famous judge of the time, was chosen to decide their claims, and the three rivals pleaded their cause. Now Mesopotamia had given one of them the cup from which she drank, had crowned the second with a garland of flowers from her own head, and had kissed the third. Bochorus decided that she belonged to the one whom she had kissed, but this decision only embittered the quarrel, which ended in the death of the rivals by one another’s hands. In another digression the author gives details of the temple of Aphrodite. The women who visit it are obliged to reveal in public the dreams they have had in the temple; this leads to minute details of Pharnuchus, Pharsiris and Tanaïs, from whom the river is named. Pharsiris and Tanaïs initiated those who dwelt on the banks of the river into the mysteries of Aphrodite. Tigris died in the little island just mentioned, after having eaten of some roses in the buds of which, not yet full blown, lurked a poisonous little beetle. His mother believed she had made him a demi-god by her enchantments.

Iamblichus then describes different kinds of enchantments—by locusts, lions and mice. According to him, the last is the oldest, the mysteries being called after the name of these animals.⁠[503] There are also enchantments by hail, snakes, necromancy and ventriloquism, the ventriloquist being called by the Greeks Eurycles, and by the Babylonians Sacchuras. The author calls himself a Babylonian and says that, after having learnt the art of magic, he devoted himself to the study of the Greek arts and sciences. He flourished in the reign of Soaemus, son of Achaemenides the Arsacid, who occupied the throne of his fathers, and was afterwards a Roman senator and consul, and king of Greater Armenia.⁠[504] At this time Marcus Aurelius was Roman emperor. When Aurelius sent Verus, his adopted brother and son-in-law and colleague in the empire, to make war against Vologaesus⁠[505] the Parthian king, Iamblichus predicted the beginning, the course, and end of the war. He also tells how Vologaesus fled over the Euphrates and Tigris, and how the kingdom of Parthia became a Roman province.

Tigris and Euphrates, the children of the priestess, were very like each other, and Rhodanes was like both. Tigris, as has been mentioned, had been poisoned by eating roses, and when Rhodanes crosses over to the island with Sinonis, the mother of Tigris, when she sets eyes on Rhodanes, declares that her son has come back to life, accompanied by Korē.⁠[506] Rhodanes falls in with the deception, highly amused at the credulity of the islanders. Damas is informed of what has happened to Rhodanes and Sinonis and of what Soraechus has done for them, his informant being the physician whom Soraechus had secretly sent to attend to Sinonis’s wound. Soraechus is arrested and taken to Garmus, and at the same time the informer is sent with a letter to the priest of Aphrodite, ordering him to seize Rhodanes and Sinonis. The physician, in order to cross the river, hangs himself round the neck of a camel in the usual manner, having first deposited the letter in the animal’s right ear. He is drowned in the river, the camel alone reaches the island, and Rhodanes and Sinonis, taking Damas’s letter out of its ear, become aware of the danger that threatens them.

They accordingly take to flight, and on the way meet Soraechus, who is being taken to Garmus, and put up at the same inn. During the night Rhodanes bribes certain persons to slay the guards of Soraechus, who takes to flight with the lovers, being thus rewarded for his previous kindness. Damas arrests the priest of Aphrodite and questions him about Sinonis; the old man is condemned to change his ministry for the office of executioner; the manners and customs relating to this office. Euphrates, whom the priest his father takes for Rhodanes and calls him by this name, is arrested, and his sister Mesopotamia takes to flight. Euphrates is taken before Sacas and questioned about Sinonis, being taken for Rhodanes and examined as such. Sacas sends a messenger to Garmus to inform him that Rhodanes is captured and that Sinonis soon will be. For Euphrates, when questioned in the name of Rhodanes, being obliged to call his sister Mesopotamia by the name of Sinonis, declares that Sinonis fled when she saw him arrested.

The fugitives Rhodanes, Sinonis and Soraechus, put up at the house of a farm-labourer. He has a beautiful daughter, who has just lost her husband, and out of her affection for him has cut her hair. She is sent to a goldsmith to sell the golden chain which Sinonis had brought from her former prison. The goldsmith, seeing the beauty of the young woman, and recognizing part of the chain which he happened to have made himself, and noticing that she has her hair cut, suspects that she is Sinonis. He accordingly informs Damas and has the labourer’s daughter secretly watched. Suspecting what is afoot, she takes refuge in an empty house. The story of the young girl named Trophimē, of the slave who was both her lover and murderer, of the golden ornaments, of the lawless conduct of the slave, of his suicide, of the blood that spirted over the labourer’s daughter when the murderer was committing suicide, of the fear and flight of the young woman, of the terror and flight of those who were keeping watch on her, of the young woman’s return to her father, of the story of her adventures, of the departure of Rhodanes, and of the letter sent by the goldsmith to inform Damas that Sinonis has been found. To confirm his letter, he sends the chain which he has bought, and mentions the other suspicious circumstances connected with the labourer’s daughter.

Rhodanes, at the moment of leaving, kisses the labourer’s daughter. Sinonis is furiously jealous; at first she had only suspected this kiss, but her suspicions were confirmed when she wiped off the marks of blood with which his lips were stained. Sinonis makes up her mind to kill the young woman and hastens back like a madwoman, followed by Soraechus, who is unable to calm her passionate fury.

They put up at the house of a wealthy man of dissolute habits, named Setapus, who falls in love with Sinonis and tries to seduce her. She pretends to return his love and, at night, when Setapus is intoxicated, stabs him with a sword, orders the servants to open the door, leaves Soraechus, who is ignorant of what has happened, and sets out in haste to find the labourer’s daughter. Soraechus, when he hears of her departure, starts in pursuit, having hired some of the slaves of Setapus to accompany him, so as to prevent the murder of the labourer’s daughter. He overtakes her, makes her get into a carriage which had been prepared beforehand, and turns back with her. On their return, the servants of Setapus, who had found their dead master, filled with rage rush upon them, seize Sinonis, bind her, and take her to Garmus to be punished as a murderess. Soraechus, having sprinkled his head with dust, and rent his cloak, announces the sad news to Rhodanes, who would have killed himself, but is prevented by Soraechus.

Garmus, having received the letters from Sacas and the goldsmith, informing him of the capture of Rhodanes and Sinonis, rejoices greatly, offers sacrifice to the gods, orders preparations to be made for the marriage, and issues a decree that all prisoners should be unbound and set free. Sinonis is accordingly released from her bonds by the servants of Setapus. Garmus orders Damas to be put to death and he is handed over to the priest whom he himself had deprived of his priesthood and made executioner. Garmus was wroth with Damas, because he had allowed others to have the honour of arresting the supposed Rhodanes and Sinonis. Damas is succeeded in his office by his brother Monasus.

The story of Berenice, daughter of the king of Egypt, of her disgraceful amours, of her intimacy with Mesopotamia, who was afterwards seized by Sacas and, as Sinonis, sent to Garmus with her brother Euphrates. Garmus, hearing from the goldsmith that Sinonis has escaped, orders him to be put to death, and the guards, who had been deputed to watch the pretended Sinonis and to bring her to him, to be buried alive with their women and children.

An Hyrcanian dog, belonging to Rhodanes, finds in the ill-omened inn the bodies of the unhappy girl and of the slave, her infatuated lover and murderer. It has already devoured the body of the slave and half eaten that of the young girl, when the father of Sinonis comes on the scene. Recognizing the dog as belonging to Rhodanes and seeing the half-eaten body of the girl, he first kills the dog as a sacrifice to Sinonis and then hangs himself, having first buried the remains of the girl and written on her tomb with the blood of the dog, “Here lies the beautiful Sinonis.” Meanwhile Rhodanes and Soraechus come up, see the dog lying dead by the tomb, Sinonis’s father hanging by a rope, and the epitaph written on the tomb. Rhodanes stabs himself and adds to the epitaph on Sinonis the words: “and the handsome Rhodanes,” written in his own blood. Soraechus puts his head in the noose, and Rhodanes is preparing to give himself the death blow, when the labourer’s daughter rushes in, shouting loudly, “Rhodanes, she who lies here is not Sinonis.” She runs and cuts the rope by which Soraechus is hanging, and snatches the dagger from the hand of Rhodanes. At last she manages to convince them by relating the story of the unhappy girl, and of the buried treasure, which she had come to carry off.

Meanwhile Sinonis, released from her bonds, hastens to the labourer’s house, still furious with his daughter. Unable to find her, she asks her father where she is, and on his telling her the way she has taken, she immediately sets out in pursuit with drawn sword. At the sight of Rhodanes lying on the ground and her rival sitting alone by his side, endeavouring to staunch the wound in his breast (Soraechus having gone to fetch a physician) her rage and jealousy know no bounds and she rushes upon the young woman. But Rhodanes, forgetting his wound at the sight of her violence, musters up strength to throw himself in front of Sinonis and hold her back, at the same time snatching the sword from her hands. Sinonis, transported with rage, rushes out of the inn and running like a madwoman shouts to Rhodanes: “I invite you to-day to Garmus’s wedding.” Soraechus, on his return, hearing what has taken place, consoles Rhodanes, and after his wound has been dressed, the labourer’s daughter is sent back with money to her father.

Euphrates and Mesopotamia, the supposed Rhodanes and Sinonis, together with Soraechus and the real Rhodanes are taken before Garmus. Garmus, seeing that Mesopotamia is not Sinonis, delivers her to Zobaras with orders to cut off her head on the banks of the Euphrates, to prevent any one else in future taking the name of Sinonis. But Zobaras, who has already drunk at the fountain of love, is smitten with Mesopotamia; he spares her life and sends her back to Berenice, who had become queen of Egypt after her father’s death, and from whom she had been taken.⁠[507] Berenice is again united to Mesopotamia, on whose account Garmus threatens war.

Euphrates is handed over to his father, now executioner, by whom he is recognized, and his life is spared. He takes the place of his father, whose hands are not soiled with human blood, and afterwards, disguised as the daughter of the executioner, escapes from the prison and regains his freedom.

Such was the state of affairs when Soraechus is condemned to be crucified. The place of execution appointed was the meadow with the fountain where Rhodanes and Sinonis had first rested during their flight, where Rhodanes had discovered the hidden treasure of which he informs Soraechus when the latter is being led away to execution. A body of Alans, indignant at not receiving their pay from Garmus, who had halted at the place where Soraechus was to be executed, drive away the guards of Soraechus and set him free. Soraechus, having found the treasure of which he had been told, and having cleverly removed it from its hiding-place, persuades the Alans that he has learnt this and other things from the gods. Having gradually gained their confidence, he induces them to elect him their king, makes war upon Garmus and defeats him. But this happened later.

While Soraechus is on his way to execution, Garmus, crowned with garlands and dancing, orders Rhodanes to be taken to the place where he was to have been executed before, and to be placed upon the cross. While Garmus, drunk with wine and dancing round the cross with the flute-players, abandons himself to joy and revelry, he receives a letter from Sacas, informing him that Sinonis has just married the young king of Syria. Rhodanes is rejoiced, Garmus at first wants to kill himself, but, changing his mind, makes the unwilling Rhodanes, who would have preferred death, come down from the cross. Garmus then appoints him to the command of an army which he decides to send against the king of Syria, so as to pit the lover against the rival. Rhodanes is treacherously received by the army in a friendly manner, Garmus having privately instructed the generals under Rhodanes that, if their army is victorious and Sinonis is captured, they are to put Rhodanes to death. Rhodanes gains the victory, recovers Sinonis, and becomes king of Babylon, as a swallow had foretold. For when Garmus in person came to see Rhodanes set out on the expedition, an eagle and a kite pursued this swallow, which escaped the eagle but became the prey of the kite. Such is the contents of the sixteen books.

XCV

Read the work of John Scythopolita the Scholasticus Against Separatists from the Church, or Against Eutyches⁠[508] and Dioscorus⁠[508] and those who held the same ideas, and denied that there were two natures in Christ. The work, in twelve books, was written at the request of a certain patriarch named Julian.⁠[509] The writer’s style is clear and pure and he uses words suited to the historic style. He vigorously combats heresy and makes full use of evidence from Scripture, not neglecting logical methods, when they are appropriate to the subject. The author of this separatist treatise attacked by Scythopolita has concealed his name, but has craftily entitled it Against Nestorius, in order to induce the more simple-minded to read it. Perhaps it is Basil of Cilicia,⁠[510] who afterwards wrote against John a dramatic dialogue worthy of the religion he professed.

XCVI

Read the work by George, bishop of Alexandria,⁠[511] entitled The Life of St. Chrysostom. Who the author is, I cannot state with certainty. The style is simple, at times degenerating into meanness and vulgarity, and the proper construction of nouns and verbs, usually observed even by the grammarians,⁠[512] is neglected. The author says that he has compiled his history from material taken from bishop Palladius,⁠[513] who has written an admirable and careful life of Chrysostom in the form of a dialogue, from Socrates,⁠[514] and other writers.

According to the author, the great John was born at Antioch of noble parents, Secundus and Anthusa. Meletius the Armenian, then head of the Church at Antioch,⁠[515] initiated them into the rites of Christianity and prepared them to receive the saving grace of baptism, having first initiated and baptized their son. At an early age, John went to school. From boyhood he was distinguished for his modesty, showed none of the effeminacy common to wealthy and high-born children,⁠[516] and would not even ride on horseback. At Antioch he attended the lectures of Libanius on grammar and rhetoric, and of Andragathius on philosophy. After his father’s death, he was the comfort of his mother, and, abstaining from all pleasures and amusements, devoted himself entirely to study.

He visited Athens to improve his knowledge, and in a short time showed himself so superior to all other students that Anthemius, the priest of the temple of Athena, who was reputed the wisest man in Athens, was jealous of him. Demosthenes, the prefect of the city, sent a most complimentary summons to him, in answer to which John presented himself with great humility. In a discussion that took place between them, John showed himself superior in learning, intelligence, and piety. A marvellous result of this was, that Anthemius, finally convinced by John’s divine eloquence and prayers, was baptized with all his household by the bishop of the city. The prefect, who had been already baptized, received instruction in the doctrines of Christianity, together with a large number of heathen. The bishop of the city wanted to ordain John and to leave him bishop of the city in his place, but John, when he became aware of this, secretly set sail in haste for his own country.

His friends and acquaintances wished him to enter the legal profession, but he was himself inclined to a monastic life, although only eighteen years of age. Two of his fellow-students, Theodore, afterwards bishop of Mopsuestia, and Maximus, afterwards bishop of Seleucia, rejected a public and mercenary career and chose a private and simple life. He was very intimate with Basil the Great (not the other Basil, as some assert), who was ordained deacon by Meletius and whom John esteemed more highly than any other of his friends. Basil took farewell of John and tried to persuade him to adopt the same kind of life, but for the time his mother stood in the way. Bishop Zeno came from Jerusalem⁠[517] and appointed John reader in the church at Antioch. Soon afterwards his mother died, John distributed his father’s property amongst the poor, left the city, entered a monastery in the neighbourhood, and showed himself a model and pattern monk.

Hesychius, a Syrian monk, who was reputed to have a knowledge of the future, saw two men in white raiment, the one holding a book and the other some keys, both of which they gave to John. The latter declared that he was the apostle Peter, the former that he was John the theologian. Hesychius told this to the inmates of the monastery, having taken care that it should not reach the ears of John, for fear lest, owing to his great modesty, he might leave the monastery. John also went through severe religious exercises and composed several monastic treatises.

He also wrought miracles while in the monastery. One of the citizens had such a pain on one side of his head that his right eye hung out, but when he consulted John he was immediately cured. A certain Archelaus, a wealthy and distinguished person, suffering from leprosy in the face, was ordered to wash in the pool out of which the brethren drank, and became well; after this, he distributed his wealth, said farewell to the world, and entered the monastery, his example being followed by many others. Another person named Eucleus, who had lost his right eye through the influence of an evil spirit, applied to the monastery for admission; his head was shaved while the man of God prayed, and he recovered his sight. A woman also who had an issue of blood seven years was healed. A lion, which was said to have carried off a number of travellers, after John had impressed the sign of the cross upon others, was killed by its influence.

After four years, owing to the number of people who applied to him, he left the monastery, and spent two years in a cave seldom sleeping and not lying down during the whole of the time. Having contracted a chill in the stomach and kidneys, he was compelled to return to Antioch, where he was ordained deacon by Meletius and looked after the altar. At that time he wrote the three treatises to Stagirius⁠[518] and those On the Priesthood and On the Incomprehensible. After the death of Meletius at Constantinople, the holy John returned to the monastery. Flavian, who had succeeded Meletius, in consequence of a divine revelation brought him back to the city from the monastery and ordained him priest. A command had been given to Flavian in a vision that John should be ordained and that Flavian himself should ordain him. A dove that hovered over his head during the ceremony was abundant proof of the divine grace with which he was to be filled. He spent twelve years in the sanctuary. From his early years, owing to his zeal for virtue he was harsh and severe, and rather given to wrath than to consideration for others. He wrote several commentaries while at Antioch, and at the bishop’s urgent request addressed the people extemporaneously in the pulpit.

The son of a woman named Euclaea, suffering from a violent fever, whose life had been despaired of, was healed by being sprinkled with some water which John had blessed. A certain woman belonging to the sect of the Marcionists,⁠[519] whose husband held some office in the city, was in a desperate condition from dysentery; but having been healed by John, she, her husband, and all her household, with several other Marcionists, returned to the true faith.

On the death of Nectarius, archbishop of Constantinople,⁠[520] John was sent for from Antioch, in spite of the opposition of the inhabitants, who claimed him as their own special blessing. But the emperor’s command prevailed; John was consecrated by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria,⁠[521] who was reluctant to perform the ceremony, but was forced to do so, certain papers containing charges against him being held over him as a threat if he did not consent. While John was being consecrated amid general approval, a man possessed was freed by him from an evil spirit.

The great Chrysostom then immediately abolished the custom of receiving spiritual sisters and delivered long discourses against the unjust, the gluttonous, and the pleasure-loving. He was very charitable, so that many called him the Almsgiver. In a word, he taught all virtue and dissuaded from all vice. He also sent monks to Phoenicia to redeem from error those who were given over to idolatry; these monks, armed with the imperial authority, overthrew the idolatrous temples, the expenses being defrayed by certain pious women. A band of Celts, infected by Arianism, was brought back to the true faith by missionaries who spoke their language. He also brought back the nomad Scythians voluntarily to Christianity. He utterly rooted out the Marcionite heresy which was raising its head again in the East. He increased the number of nightly services with chanting. He took his food alone for three reasons; he was a total abstainer from wine because it affected his head (except when he drank it flavoured with roses in summer), he suffered from a weak stomach so that he often could not eat the food put before him, but asked for something else, and when at leisure he often refrained from food all day. The clergy considered him very harsh and austere. His deacon Serapion was also the cause of great hatred against him. John expelled several clergy from the Church for various reasons. Serapion also quarrelled with Severian, bishop of Gabala, who conceived a great and lasting hatred of John. John was greatly loved by the people owing to his discourses. He himself was very fond of commenting upon the epistles of St. Paul, who, according to John’s friend Proclus, visited him for three nights and inspired him with the interpretation of his epistles.

John also offended the empress in the case of Theodoric the patrician, whom he had succeeded in freeing from her unjust exactions. Theodoric gave the greater part of his property to the Church poorhouse as a thankoffering to God, which inflamed Eudoxia with anger and malice. Eutropius introduced a law that criminals who fled for refuge to the churches should not enjoy the privilege of asylum. But when, soon afterwards, he himself took refuge there, he reaped the fruits of his own legislation. While he lay prostrate at the altar, the great John delivered a speech full of reproach, which set many against him, who thought that he rebuked the unhappy wretch too cruelly. He deprived the Arians of their churches and with the emperor’s consent drove them out of the city. Since they had composed antiphons to deceive the simple-minded he outdid them, with the assistance of the empress, by displaying silver crosses while the antiphons were being sung. It is said that the God-inspired Ignatius first introduced antiphons, in imitation of the angels who in this manner sang the praises of God. The influential Arian Gaïnas⁠[522] demanded a church from the emperor, but John who was present expressed his disapproval with great freedom, and persuaded the emperor to refuse. Soon afterwards, when Gaïnas rebelled, John, without delay, at the general request, went on an embassy to the barbarian, and repressed the revolt.

Eusebius, who succeeded Celbianus as bishop of Valentinopolis,⁠[523] presented a document containing seven charges against Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus. The three first accused him of sacrilege; the fourth was that he had retained in his service without rebuking him a youth who had committed murder; the fifth, that he had taken possession of and sold some land which had been left by Basilina, the mother of Julian,⁠[524] to the Church; the sixth, that he had resumed intercourse with his wife after he had said farewell to the world, and that he had had a child by her; the seventh, that he accepted fees for consecration. The last charge, being regarded as the most serious, was investigated. The trial was protracted to great length, since the accuser himself purposely neglected his duty, and Antoninus died before it ended. John therefore went to Ephesus, and removed from their sees six bishops who had paid fees to secure consecration and confessed their guilt. He also deposed six others in Asia for the same offence. In place of Antoninus he consecrated Heraclides his own deacon, which created a disturbance. In place of the six bishops others were appointed who were distinguished by greater piety and virtue. When Chrysostom was banished all these were deprived of their sees, while those who had been ejected were restored.

Severian, bishop of Gabala, having heard that Antiochus was in Constantinople and had obtained considerable sums of money by his discourses went there himself. John, when he set out for Ephesus, recommended him as his deputy in the pulpit, and in this manner Severian became known to the emperor and all the people.

Callitropē, the widow of a shipmaster, had been unjustly taxed, and Paulacius, the prefect of Alexandria, harshly pressed the poor woman for the amount (500 gold pieces). She appealed to the empress, who fined Paulacius 100 pounds of gold, of which the sorely afflicted woman only received thirty-six pieces. She accordingly took refuge with the general “port in a storm,” the great John, who brought an action against Paulacius for the payment of 500 pieces to the widow. This roused the hostility of Eudoxia, who was anxious for Paulacius to be let off. She was not listened to, however, and the just man claimed and restored to the ill-treated woman that of which she had been unjustly defrauded. Then a wonderful thing happened. When Eudoxia sent to rescue Paulacius in despite of John, an angel appeared bearing a spear and frightened her messengers, so that their mission was unsuccessful. In consequence of these and similar acts of John, Acacius of Beroea, Theophilus, Antiochus, and Severian, and many others, whom he had offended by his reproaches, with the assistance and at the instigation of Eudoxia, began to plot against him. Theophilus accused Peter, chief presbyter of Alexandria, of having administered the sacrament to a woman who was a Manichaean; his defence was that she had been converted and that it was by his permission that she had been admitted by him to the communion. In proof of this he called to witness Isidore the presbyter⁠[525] and hospitaller of Alexandria. This Isidore, owing to his blameless character, had formerly been sent to Damasus⁠[526] by Theophilus, and had brought from Rome to Flavian an offer of friendship and alliance, after the two Churches had been at variance for twenty years. The evidence of Isidore roused the anger of Theophilus, who expelled Peter from the Church and falsely accused Isidore of gross immorality. When the falsehood was discovered, Theophilus was roused to further villainy, which was increased by the following incident. A certain rich woman named Theodota had given Isidore 1000 pieces of money to distribute amongst the poor without consulting Theophilus, which Isidore had done. To avoid the wrath of Theophilus he fled to the mountain of Nitria,⁠[527] where he had formerly lived in a cell. The chief of the Egyptian monks were Dioscorus, Ammonius, Euthymius, and Eusebius, four brothers, called “the long” from the height of their stature. At that time a quarrel had broken out with the Anthropomorphite heretics. When some ignorant and coarse monks created a disturbance in Egypt, Theophilus, apparently alarmed when they abused him, attempted to deceive them by flattery, saying, “I have seen your faces as the face of God.” But when they further demanded that Origen, because he asserted that the divinity was without human form, should be anathematized, he consented, and so escaped death. Seizing hold of this pretext against the “long brethren” (since they would no longer associate with him as before, and denied that God had a human form), he accused them to the monks and stirred up that ignorant herd against them and also against Isidore, on whose account he was the more hostile to them. At last, after having been the victims of intrigue and ill-treatment, and their cells having been set fire to, they fled to Constantinople. John received them kindly and sympathetically, but did not admit them to communion for fear of offending Theophilus, to whom he wrote a letter proposing reconciliation, but Theophilus paid no attention. In the meantime the “long brethren” presented documents containing charges against Theophilus, and were in turn accused by others at his instigation. When these latter were unable to prove anything they were thrown into prison and flogged, some of them died and the rest were condemned to banishment in the island of Proconnesus.⁠[528] John informed Theophilus of the charges against him, to which Theophilus angrily replied: “I believe you are acquainted with the canons of the council of Nicaea, by which it is ordained that no bishop shall exercise jurisdiction beyond his own province. If you are not, then make yourself acquainted with them and do not interfere with the charges against me.” Notwithstanding, the same Theophilus who wrote these words afterwards condemned John, although he belonged to another diocese. As the monks did not desist from their accusations against Theophilus, the emperor ordered him to present himself for trial. But the animosity against John increased to such a degree that, on his arrival, Theophilus was appointed judge of John himself.

The wife of the senator Theognostus, who had been proscribed and died in exile, had been deprived by the empress of a field that had been left her. She accordingly had recourse to John, the champion of widows, but although he spoke with great freedom on her behalf his efforts were unsuccessful and only roused the hatred of the empress. He accordingly ordered that, on the day of the Exaltation of the Cross (the 14th of September), when the unjust empress was about to enter the church, the gates should be shut against her. His order was carried out, and the empress retired in shame and anger, and from that time began to plot John’s deposition, banishment, and every other degradation that her indignation suggested. When, as she drew near, she found the gates of the church being closed, one of her suite drew his sword against those who were shutting them; whereupon his hand suddenly withered, but was afterwards restored on his doing homage to John.

The great Epiphanius, whom Theophilus had beguiled and stirred up against John, on his arrival in Constantinople created a disturbance. He ordained a deacon at Hebdomon⁠[529] in St. John’s Church contrary to the law, performed the service without the permission of Chrysostom, and demanded that he should condemn the writings of Origen. Our author relates (as is also stated in the life of Epiphanius), that he by no means approved of the deposition of Chrysostom, as others believed he did, in spite of the empress’s importunity. He also mentions their prediction to each other, that neither should see his throne again. Before his condemnation John, having heard that Eudoxia was angry with him, delivered a lengthy discourse against women generally, which the people interpreted as an attack on the empress. On the arrival of Theophilus, the intrigues against the great combatant John began. When he did not appear at the synod, Theophilus and his party pronounced sentence against him, although he loudly protested that he was ready to appear and defend himself, if his avowed enemies were removed from the council. Forty bishops were ready to support John against Theophilus and his party, but when they loudly protested he comforted them, and begged them not to cause dissension in the Church. After his deposition, he was banished to Hieron,⁠[530] but, in consequence of a severe shock of earthquake which was ascribed to the divine wrath, he was brought back to the city and again seated, against his will, on the episcopal throne. He declared that he did not wish to resume his pastoral office until the unjust sentence against him had been submitted to investigation. Soon afterwards, Eudoxia being again enraged because John had attacked her in reference to the statue which had been erected in her honour near his church and was the cause of disturbance inside, intrigues were again set on foot against him. Theophilus, although this was an unexpected piece of good fortune for him, being afraid of the hatred of the citizens, did not appear. The cause of their hatred against him was that, after the deposition of John, he had communicated with the “long brethren,” by whose means he had plotted against him, and that he did not himself abstain from reading the writings of Origen, on account of which he had accused John. He did not, therefore, attend in person, but sent others to declare that John ought not even to be brought to trial, since after his deposition he had ventured to perform the services of the Church, whereas the synod of Antioch left no room for defence to one who did so after he had been deprived of office. Those who sided with John declared that both the canon and the synod were tainted with Arianism, and that the canon had been aimed at Athanasius; that the council of Sardica⁠[531] repudiated the validity of the synod, and not only allowed Athanasius to defend himself but also to perform the duties of the priesthood with Marcellus.

Chrysostom was accordingly prohibited from officiating in the church and even from entering it. The festival of the Birth of Christ was at hand, and until the feast of Pentecost and for five days afterwards he took no part in the services. He was then finally expelled from the city and the church and was banished to Cucusus.⁠[532] At that time a fire broke out in the pulpit and spread to the rest of the building. Many of the enemies of John were made an example, being carried off by filthy diseases or heaven-sent calamities. John, after he was deported to Cucusus, both lectured in public and consecrated several bishops, priests, and deacons. He also performed many miracles during his banishment and after his death, which Basiliscus, bishop of Comana and martyr,⁠[533] having appeared to him, foretold. He was buried in the same grave as the martyr.

Theophilus and his party condemned Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus, in his absence, and, after suffering cruel indignities, Serapion was deprived of the bishopric of Heraclea, to which he had been consecrated by John after his first return from exile. A eunuch of the tribune Victor, a man of disgraceful character, was elected in his stead. Other bishops, about twenty in number, were driven from their sees, together with a large number of priests, deacons, and laymen, who were accused of favouring John, including some pious women, the most distinguished of whom were Olympias,⁠[534] Pentadia, Procle, and Silvanē.

Innocent, bishop of Rome, strongly supported the cause of John, although without success. He sent messengers who were dismissed with contumely and wrote letters, but his efforts were unavailing. Subsequently, Arsacius was with difficulty induced to enter his name on the diptychs.⁠[535] Some time afterwards, Proclus transported his remains to Constantinople.

This writer appears to relate much that is contrary to the truth of history, but there is nothing to prevent the reader from picking out what is useful and passing over the rest.

XCVII

Read the Collection of Chronicles and List of Olympian Victors by Phlegon⁠[536] of Tralles, a freedman of the emperor Hadrian. The work is dedicated to a certain Alcibiades, one of the emperor’s bodyguards. It begins with the 1st Olympiad,⁠[537] because, as nearly all other writers affirm, there are no careful or accurate accounts of preceding periods, but different writers make different statements, and even those who have been eager to obtain the credit of writing about them contradict themselves. For this reason, as we have said, the author begins with the 1st Olympiad, and goes down, as he himself says, to the times of Hadrian.

I have read as far as the 177th Olympiad,⁠[538] in which Hecatomnus of Miletus was victor in the stadium⁠[539] and diaulos, and in the race of men in armour three times; Hypsicles the Sicyonian and Gaius of Rome in the long race; Aristonymidas of Cos in the pentathlum;⁠[540] Isidore of Alexandria in wrestling; Aptotus in the periodos;⁠[541] Atyanas the son of Hippocrates, a native of Adramyttium, in boxing; Sphodrias the Sicyonian in the pancratium.⁠[542] Among the youths Sosigenes of Asia in the race; Apollonius of Cyparissus in the wrestling-match; Sotericus of Elis in the boxing-match; Calas of Elis in the pancratium; Hecatomnus of Miletus in the armoured race (he was crowned three times in the same day, in the stadium, the diaulos, and the armoured race); Aristolochus of Elis in the four-horsed chariot race; Hagemon of Elis with his race-horse; Hellanicus of Elis with his pair of horses, and his four-horsed chariot; Cletias of Elis with his pair; and Callippus of Pelion with his race-horse.

At that time Lucullus⁠[543] was besieging Amisus,⁠[544] but having left Murena⁠[545] with two legions to carry on the siege, he himself set out with three others against the territory of the Cabiri, where he went into winter quarters. He also ordered Hadrian to make war against Mithradates, who was defeated. An earthquake in Rome did much damage, and many other events happened during this Olympiad. In its third year the population according to the census was 910,000. Sinatruces, king of the Parthians, was succeeded by Phraates⁠[546] Theos, and Phaedrus the Epicurean⁠[547] by Patron. Virgilius Maro was born on the 15th of October in this year. In the fourth year of this Olympiad Tigranes and Mithradates, having collected an army of 40,000 foot and 30,000 horse, who were drawn up in the Roman order of battle, engaged Lucullus and were defeated; Tigranes lost 5000 killed, a large number of prisoners, besides a promiscuous rabble. Catulus⁠[548] dedicated the Capitol at Rome. Metellus⁠[549] set out against Crete with three legions and occupied the island; having defeated Laosthenes and shut up the inhabitants within their walls, he was rewarded with the title of imperator. The pirate Athenodorus enslaved the people of Delos and insulted the images of the so-called gods; but Gaius Triarius having repaired the damaged parts of the city, fortified the island.

We have read five books as far as this Olympiad. The author’s style, though not too mean and ordinary, does not always preserve the Attic character. But his ill-timed, if laborious, diligence in reckoning the Olympiads, his lists of names of the victors and their achievements, and his accounts of the oracles, not only disgust the reader, since they do not allow a glimpse of anything else to appear, but also make the language disagreeable and rob it of all charm. He also attaches undue importance to oracles of all kinds.

XCVIII

Read the History of count Zosimus,⁠[550] ex-advocate of the fisc, in six books. Being an impious heathen, he frequently yelps at those of the true faith. His style is concise, clear, and pure, and not devoid of charm. He begins his history almost from the time of Augustus, and glances rapidly at the emperors down to Diocletian, merely mentioning their proclamation and the order of succession. From Diocletian he treats at greater length of his successors in five books. The first book contains the emperors from Augustus to Diocletian and the sixth book ends at the time when Alaric, who was besieging Rome for the second time, when the citizens were reduced to desperate straits, raised the siege and proclaimed Attalus emperor. Soon afterwards he deposed him because of his incapacity, and sent an embassy to Honorius, who was then at Ravenna, with proposals for peace. But Sarus, himself a Goth and an enemy of Alaric, with about 300 men attached himself to Honorius, and, promising to do his utmost to assist him against Alaric, succeeded in making the negotiations unsuccessful. Here the sixth book ends.

It may be said that Zosimus did not himself write the history, but that he copied that of Eunapius,⁠[551] from which it only differs in brevity and in being less abusive of Stilicho. In other respects his account is much the same, especially in the attacks upon the Christian emperors. I think that both these authors brought out new editions, although I have not seen the first edition, but it may be conjectured from the title of the “new edition,” which I have read, that, like Eunapius, he published a second edition. He is clearer and more concise, as we have said, than Eunapius, and rarely employs figures of speech.

XCIX

Read the eight books of the History of Herodian.⁠[552] Beginning from the death of Marcus Aurelius, he relates how his son Commodus, who succeeded him, having shown himself utterly degenerate and completely under the influence of flatterers, was put to death by his concubine Marcia as the result of a plot by Laetus and Eclectus. He was succeeded by Pertinax, an old man of high character; but the praetorian guards, who hated virtue, slew him in the palace. Julian, who obtained the throne by bribing the praetorians, was soon afterwards put to death by them. Niger,⁠[553] who appears to have been an estimable man, was declared emperor, while Julian was still alive. Severus,⁠[554] keen witted, astute, and resolute in the presence of dangers, having defeated and put to death his rival, ascended the throne, and removed all who resisted him by open violence or ensnaring craft. He treated his subjects with the greatest haughtiness. He died of illness⁠[555] while waging war against the Britons. Antoninus,⁠[556] the elder of his two sons, having made a treaty with them, returned to Italy. He unwillingly accepted his brother Geta as his partner in the empire, and soon afterwards murdered him in his mother’s arms. Eager to surpass all in vice and cruelty, he fell a victim in Syria to a plot set on foot by Macrinus, who was himself threatened with death by the emperor and was anxious to prevent it. Macrinus, an old man, dilatory and lacking in self-control, but in other respects a worthy person, became emperor after the death of Antoninus. Moesa, the sister of Julia, had two daughters, Soaemis and Mamaea; the former had a son named Bassianus, the latter a son named Alexinus, both reputed sons of Antoninus. The army, on some slight pretext, proclaimed Bassianus⁠[557] emperor in the camp, and bestowed upon him the name of Antoninus. Macrinus, defeated in battle, fled from the borders of Phoenicia and Syria and retired to Chalcedon, intending to make his way from there to Rome; but he was intercepted by the emissaries of Antoninus, who cut off his head and carried it back with them.

Antoninus, as long as he followed the counsel of his mother, ruled with moderation, adopted Alexinus—whose name he changed to Alexander⁠[558]—as his son, and created him Caesar. But after he fell under the influence of flatterers, there was no excess of vice and intemperance of which he was not guilty. His attempted plot against Alexander was frustrated by the soldiers, and when he decided to punish them, they put him to death. Alexander, the son of Mamaea, reigned fourteen years to the best of his ability with goodness and clemency and without bloodshed; but owing, it is said, to the avarice and meanness of his mother, they were both put to death, and Maximin was proclaimed emperor.

Maximin, a brutal and oppressive tyrant, a man of enormous stature and extremely cruel, reigned nearly three years. The soldiers in Africa revolted and slew the governor, a man of like character appointed by Maximin, and elected the proconsul Gordian (a man eighty years of age) emperor against his will. Rome joyfully accepted his election, deprived Maximin of all his honours, and at the same time declared the proconsul’s son, Gordian, joint-emperor with his father. While Maximin was preparing for war, Gordian, who had occupied Carthage together with his son, seeing that his position was desperate, hanged himself; his son was defeated by Maximin, and fell on the field of battle. The Romans, deeply grieved at their death, hating and at the same time fearing Maximin, proclaimed Balbinus and Maximus emperors at Rome. The soldiers created a disturbance and demanded that Gordian, the grandson of the elder Gordian, and his daughter’s son, quite a boy, should be associated with them in the empire. While Maximus was advancing against Maximin, the latter was murdered by his own soldiers, his head was taken to Maximus, and thence to Rome. Soon afterwards, the soldiers again revolted, dragged Maximus and Balbinus from the palace and, after inflicting every insult upon them, put them to death and bestowed the throne upon Gordian alone, now about thirteen years of age. Here the eighth book ends.

The writer’s style is clear, brilliant, and agreeable; his diction avoids extremes, being neither too much given to atticism, which violates the natural charm of ordinary language, nor so careless as to degenerate into meanness to the sacrifice of all the rules of art. He does not take a pride in what is superfluous, nor does he omit anything that is necessary; in a word, he is inferior to few in all the good qualities of an historian.

C

Read several of the Declamations of the emperor Hadrian,⁠[559] distinguished by moderation of style, and not disagreeable to read.

CI

Read the consular and imperial orations of Victorinus, the son of Lampadius of Antioch, in honour of the emperor Zeno, in whose reign he lived to a great age. His style is distinguished by clearness, absence of redundancy, and the use of ordinary language.

CII

Read the treatise of Gelasius,⁠[560] bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Against the Anomoeans, in one volume. His style is free from superfluities, and vigorous; he makes frequent use of Attic words, his principles are carefully worked out, and he is not at a loss for arguments; in all respects he is a good writer, except that he childishly employs the rules and terms of logic till they become wearisome, as if he had just peeped into dialectical text-books, and uses his words wrongly. Certainly he inserts an apology for this ill-timed language, but what he intended to excuse he ought never to have used at all. In addition, the arrangement of the work is somewhat faulty. The same little volume contained the various arguments by Diodorus of Tarsus Concerning the Holy Spirit, in which he shows that he is already infected by the taint of the Nestorian heresy.

CIII

Read the Allegories of the Sacred Laws, and On the Civil Life, by Philo Judaeus.⁠[561]

CIV

Read, also, his description of the lives of those amongst the Jews who led a life of contemplative or active philosophy, the Essenes⁠[562] and Therapeutae. The latter not only built monasteries and holy places (semneia, to use their own word), but also laid down the rules of monasticism followed by the monks of the present day.

CV

Read, also, his two tractates, Censure of Gaius⁠[563] and Censure of Flaccus,⁠[564] in which, more than in his other writings, he shows vigour of expression and beauty of language. But he frequently errs by changing his ideas and in describing other things in a manner at variance with Jewish philosophy. He flourished in the times of the emperor Gaius, to whom he states that he sent a deputation on behalf of his own people, while Agrippa was king of Judaea. He was the author of numerous treatises on various subjects, ethical discussions, and commentaries on the Old Testament, mostly consisting of forced allegorical explanations. I believe that it was from him that all the allegorical interpretation of Scripture originated in the Church. It is said that he was converted to Christianity, but afterwards abandoned it in a fit of anger and indignation. Before this, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, he had visited Rome, where he met St. Peter, chief of the apostles, and became intimate with him, which explains why he thought the disciples of St. Mark the evangelist, who was a disciple of St. Peter, worthy of praise, of whom he says that they led a contemplative life amongst the Jews. He calls their dwellings monasteries, and declares that they always led an ascetic life, practising fasting, prayer, and poverty.

Philo came of an Alexandrian priestly family. He was so admired amongst the Greeks for his power of eloquence that it was a common saying amongst them: “Either Plato philonizes or Philo platonizes.”

CVI

Read the work by Theognostus of Alexandria,⁠[565] entitled The Outlines of the Blessed Theognostus of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Scriptures, in seven books. In the first book he treats of the Father, and endeavours to show that He is the creator of the universe, in opposition to those who make matter coeternal with God; in the second, he employs arguments to prove that it is necessary that the Father should have a Son; and when he says Son, he demonstrates that He is a creation, and has charge of beings endowed with reason. Like Origen, he says other similar things of the Son, being either led astray by the same impiety, or (one might say) eager to exert himself in his defence, putting forward these arguments by way of rhetorical exercise, not as the expression of his real opinion; or, lastly, he may allow himself to depart a little from the truth in view of the feeble condition of his hearer, who is, perhaps, entirely ignorant of the mysteries of the Christian faith and incapable of receiving the true doctrine, and because he thinks that any knowledge of the Son would be more profitable to the hearer than never to have heard of Him and complete ignorance of Him. In oral discussion it would not appear absurd or blameworthy to use incorrect language, for such discussions are generally carried on according to the judgment and opinion and energy of the disputant; but in written discourse, which is to be set forth as a law for all, if any one puts forward the above defence of blasphemy to exculpate himself, his justification is a feeble one. As in the second book, so in the third, in treating of the Holy Spirit, the author introduces arguments by which he endeavours to show the existence of the Holy Spirit, but in other respects talks as much nonsense as Origen in his Principles. In the fourth book, he talks similar nonsense about angels and demons, attributing refined bodies to them. In the fifth and sixth, he relates how the Saviour became incarnate, and attempts, after his manner, to show that the incarnation of the Son was possible. Here, also, he trifles greatly, especially when he ventures to say that we imagine the Son to be confined now to this place, now to that, but that in energy alone He is not restricted. In the seventh book, entitled On God’s Creation, he discusses other matters in a greater spirit of piety—especially at the end of the work concerning the Son.

His style is vigorous and free from superfluities. He uses beautiful language, as in ordinary Attic, in such a manner that he does not depart from the ordinary style in composition and does not sacrifice its dignity for the sake of clearness and accuracy. He flourished....

CVII

Read the work of the presbyter Basil of Cilicia,⁠[566] written against John Scythopolita, whom he calls “pettifogger” and several other names, and otherwise abuses. For instance, he asserts that he was suspected of being a Manichaean; that he limited the sacred forty days to three weeks, and during them did not even abstain from eating fowl; that he took part in heathen rites; that he was greatly given to gluttony, and never communicated while the sacred office was being performed, but after the Gospel took part in the holy mysteries with the boys, and immediately hurried to the holy table. Such insulting and brutal remarks are scattered broadcast throughout the work. The work is dramatic in character, in the form of a dialogue, dedicated to a certain Leontius, who had asked the author to write it. The characters are Lampadius, who defends Basil, and Marinus, who defends John. Marinus, during the course of the discussion, is represented as condemning his client and going over to Lampadius, a certain Tarasius being then introduced as interlocutor. The disputants are represented as asking and answering questions intended to benefit themselves and to censure and perplex the opponent’s advocate. The whole work is divided into sixteen books: the first thirteen are in the form of a dialogue in which the author has expended great energy and labour in attacking John’s first book alone, while the remaining three are directed against the statements in the second and third books.

In the first book, after the preface is concluded, he takes his stand against two chief points, the first that “The word suffered in the flesh,”⁠[567] the second, “To say Christ is the same as saying God.” In the second book he attempts to show that he has been unjustly blamed and that John has misunderstood the words, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.”⁠[568] In the third book he asks how the words, “Now the son of man was glorified and God was glorified in him,”⁠[569] and the rest of the passage are to be understood. In the fourth book, he inquires how the body is said to be peculiar to God, about His unity, the words, “God, thy God hath anointed thee,”⁠[570] and “I sanctify myself.”⁠[571] In this book Marinus, abandoning the rôle of opponent, goes over to Lampadius. In the fifth book, where Tarasius is introduced as taking up the part of Marinus, the author makes more bitter accusations against John, with which nearly the whole book is taken up. In the sixth book he attacks more severely the union of Christ our Saviour. He also discusses the words “God, thy God, hath anointed thee,” and the attitude of the Church towards the expression “He was made flesh.”⁠[572] In the eighth book, he falls headlong into numerous absurdities in discussing “The Word was made flesh” and also “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”⁠[573] In the ninth book he speaks of “That Rock was Christ,”⁠[574] “Thy life shall hang in doubt before thee,”⁠[575] and “This gate shall be shut,”⁠[576] to all of which he gives an impious interpretation. The tenth book deals with “To you is the word of this salvation sent”⁠[577] and “He who spared not his own Son”⁠[578] and “Of the Word of life,” which your hands have touched, and “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son”⁠[579] and so on. In the eleventh book he discusses, “This is our God, there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of him,”⁠[580] and “Afterwards did he show himself upon earth and conversed with men,”⁠[580] and “Arise, O God, and judge the earth,”⁠[581] and “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,”⁠[582] and against those who asserted that the apostles could not teach the truth owing to the weakness of their hearers. In the twelfth book he teaches that one of the Trinity suffered, and discusses “Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”⁠[583] He puts forward a weak and sinful plea for our denying that there are two Christs, in which his defence is prompted by his wishes. In the thirteenth book he inquires how it is that there are not two Sons, and indeed it would seem from his defence that there must be. Tarasius, as if unable to meet the arguments against him, remains silent, and Basil (or Lampadius) discontinues his zealous questions and answers. The last three books are more detailed, and attack the statements of John in the second and third books.

This Basil, as he himself tells us, was a presbyter of the Church at Antioch, when Flavian was bishop there, and Arcadius emperor of Rome. His style is poor, and especially in the dialogues differs little from the language of the common people. Nor is he accurate in composition, but frequently makes mistakes and uses solecisms; at the same time, he endeavours to be clear. His arguments against the orthodox are keen and show the practised logician; in fact, he seems to have wasted his whole life in his idle attacks upon the true faith. Although he is tainted with Nestorianism, he does not defend Nestorius, but praises the fathers Theodore and Diodorus. He does not openly use so much blasphemous language against the divine Cyril. He declares that John, the object of his attack, relies for support on nothing but the twelve “chapters” of Cyril, especially the twelfth, in which he introduces the suffering of God. With this he concludes his idle labours. As mentioned above, the work is dedicated to a certain Leontius, whom he pompously calls most holy, most beloved of God, and Father.

CVIII

Read the work of Theodore the monk Against Themistius, entitled: “A brief refutation of the old rash and absurd attacks of Themistius on the Fathers, now worked out by us in view of the questions and propositions put forward by him against the truth, and a clear and accurate arrangement of the subject under discussion.” This title is more like a book than the title of a book. Both Theodore and Themistius are heretics, adherents of Severus, and belonging to the Theopaschitae.⁠[584] Themistius (or Calonymus, as he also calls himself) was the chief of the sect called Agnoetae,⁠[585] on whom he wrote a work called, An Apology for the Holy Theophobius by Calonymus or Themistius, in which he also attacks Severus, whose devoted adherent he is. Such is falsehood and such are the lovers of falsehood. He challenges Themistius to argue and shows that his four arguments, intended to prove ignorance in Christ, which he deals with one by one, involve countless absurdities. Then again Themistius, to make good his defeat, wrote a single book against Theodore. Theodore again refutes his objections in three volumes, and sets forth his own real opinion on the subject. Both of them are skilful writers, aiming at clearness, combined with earnestness and sedateness.

CIX

Read three volumes of the works of Clement,⁠[586] presbyter of Alexandria, entitled Outlines, The Miscellanies, The Tutor.

The Outlines contain a brief explanation and interpretation of certain passages in the Old and New Testaments. Although in some cases what he says appears orthodox, in others he indulges in impious and legendary fables. For he is of opinion that matter is eternal and that ideas are introduced by certain fixed conditions; he also reduces the Son to something created. He talks prodigious nonsense about the transmigration of souls and the existence of a number of worlds before Adam. He endeavours to show that Eve came from Adam, not as Holy Scripture tells us, but in an impious and shameful manner; he idly imagines that angels have connexion with women and beget children; that the Word was not incarnate, but only appeared so. He is further convicted of monstrous statements about two Words of the Father, the lesser of which appeared to mortals, or rather not even that one, for he writes: “The Son is called the Word, of the same name as the Word of the Father, but this is not the Word that became flesh, nor even the Word of the Father, but a certain power of God, as it were an efflux from the Word itself, having become mind, pervaded the hearts of men.” All this he attempts to support by passages of Scripture. He talks much other blasphemous nonsense, either he or some one else under his name. These monstrous blasphemies are contained in eight books, in which he frequently discusses the same points and quotes passages from Scripture promiscuously and confusedly, like one possessed. The entire work includes notes on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, St. Paul’s epistles, the Catholic epistles, and Ecclesiasticus. Clement was a pupil of Pantaenus, as he himself says. Let this suffice for the Outlines.

CX

The Tutor is an elaborate work in three books, containing rules for behaviour and conduct. It was preceded by and combined with another work, in which he refutes the impiety of the heathen. These discourses have nothing in common with the Outlines, since they are entirely free from idle and blasphemous opinions. The style is florid, rising at times to an agreeable and moderate loftiness, while the display of learning is not inappropriate. In the last book something is said about images.

CXI

The Miscellanies,⁠[587] in eight books, contain an attack upon heresy and the heathen. The material is arranged promiscuously and the chapters are not in order, the reason for which he himself gives at the end of the seventh book in the following words: “Since these points have been thoroughly discussed, and our ethical formula has been sketched summarily and fragmentarily, as we promised, teachings calculated to kindle the flame of true knowledge being scattered here and there, so that the discovery of the sacred mysteries may not be easy to any one of the uninitiated,” and so on. This, he himself says, is the reason why the subject-matter is so unsystematically arranged. In an old copy I have found the title of this work not only given as Miscellanies, but in full as follows: Miscellany of Gnostic Notes in accordance with the True Philosophy, books 1-8. The first seven books have the same title, and are identical in all the copies. The title of the eighth, however, varies, as does the subject-matter. In some copies it is called Who is the Rich Man that is saved? and begins, “Those who ... laudatory speeches,” etc.; in others it is called The Miscellanies, the eighth book, like the other seven, and begins, “But not even the oldest of the philosophers,” etc. The work in some parts is unsound, but not like the Outlines, some of whose statements it refutes.

Clement is said to have written several other works, of which the following are mentioned by other writers: On Easter; On Fasting; On Evil-speaking; On the Ecclesiastical Canons, and against those who follow the Erroneous Doctrine of the Jews, dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. He flourished during the reign of Severus and his son Antoninus at Rome.

CXII, CXIII

Read two volumes of the works of Clement, bishop of Rome.⁠[588] One is entitled The Apostolic Constitutions by Clement, containing the synodical canons ascribed to the assembled Apostles. The other, in the form of a letter, is dedicated to James the Lord’s brother and contains what are called The Acts of the Apostle Peter, His Conversations with Simon Magus, The Recognition of Clement and his Father and his two Brothers. Hence in some copies it is entitled The Recognition of Clement of Rome. As we have said, a letter is prefixed as sent to James the Lord’s brother, but not always the same nor from the same person, according to some copies being sent by Peter the apostle, according to others by Clement to James. In the first case, Peter would seem to have compiled an account of his own acts and sent it to James at his request; in the second, Clement compiled it by command of Peter and sent it to James, after Peter had passed to immortal life. It may be conjectured then that there were two editions of the Acts of Peter, and that when one in course of time perished that of Clement alone survived. For in all the copies which I have seen—by no means a few—after those different epistles and titles I have unvaryingly found the same treatise beginning, “I, Clement,” etc. The work is full of countless absurdities and of blasphemy against the Son in accordance with the Arian heresy. The Constitutions appear to be liable to censure on three counts: clumsy fiction, which it is easy to remove; the abusive charges against Deuteronomy, which can easily be met, and its Arianism, which can be refuted by a vigorous attack. But the book of the Acts of Peter, in its distinctness and earnestness, its purity, vehemence, its general linguistic excellences, and its great learning, is so superior to the Constitutions that, as far as language is concerned, no comparison between the two works is possible.

It is this Clement of whom St. Paul speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians, “With Clement also, and other my fellow-labourers, whose names are written in the book of life.”⁠[589] He also wrote an important letter to the Corinthians, which was so highly thought of that it was read in public. A second letter to the same is rejected as spurious, as also the lengthy discussion, a dialogue between Peter and Ap(p)ion.⁠[590] Some say that Clement succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome, others that he was the fourth bishop, Linus and Anacletus intervening, and that he died in the third year of Trajan’s reign.

CXIV

Read a book entitled Circuits⁠[591] of the Apostles, comprising the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, the author being one Lucius Charinus,⁠[592] as the work itself shows. The style is altogether uneven and strange; the words and constructions, if sometimes free from carelessness, are for the most part common and hackneyed; there is no trace of the smooth and spontaneous expression, which is the essential characteristic of the language of the Gospels and Apostles, or of the consequent natural grace. The contents also is very silly and self-contradictory. The author asserts that the God of the Jews, whom he calls evil, whose servant Simon Magus was, is one God, and Christ, whom he calls good, another. Mingling and confounding all together, he calls the same both Father and Son. He asserts that He never was really made man, but only in appearance; that He appeared at different times in different form to His disciples, now as a young, now as an old man, and then again as a boy, now taller, now shorter, now very tall, so that His head reached nearly to heaven. He also invents much idle and absurd nonsense about the Cross, saying that Christ was not crucified, but some one in His stead, and that therefore He could laugh at those who imagined they had crucified Him. He declares lawful marriages to be illegal and that all procreation of children is evil and the work of the evil one. He talks foolishly about the creator of demons. He tells monstrous tales of silly and childish resurrections of dead men and oxen and cattle. In the Acts of St. John he seems to support the opponents of images in attacking their use. In a word, the book contains a vast amount of childish, incredible, ill-devised, lying, silly, self-contradictory, impious, and ungodly statements, so that one would not be far wrong in calling it the source and mother of all heresy.

CXV

Read an anonymous work entitled A Disputation against the Jews and those who hold the same Heretical Views, and those called Quartodecimans,⁠[593] who do not celebrate the Holy Easter Feast in the first month as the Hebrews do. The style is concise and free from redundancies, but somewhat bombastic. The author asserts that our Lord Jesus Christ did not partake of the regular Paschal feast⁠[594] on the holy fifth day, for that day was not laid down, but on the following day; that He did not even then lawfully eat what He did eat; for He ate neither lamb, nor unleavened bread, and observed none of the practices which those who keep Easter according to the law are in the habit of observing. He asserts that He partook of a private, mystic feast, from which He gave bread and wine to His disciples.

Another tractate is also included, by a certain Metrodorus, a list of twenty-eight cycles of nineteen years for calculating the holy Paschal feast. This Metrodorus, whoever he was (for I have not been able to learn anything about him), beginning with Diocletian, has collected the Easter days for 533 years,⁠[595] according to the received and accurate computation of the fourteenth day. For neither the Church nor ancient tradition appears to have observed those days.

CXVI

Read another anonymous work entitled A Third Volume on the Holy Easter Feast, in eight books. The style is simple and very clear, and contains many sensible ideas. In the fourth book the author often refutes Metrodorus, and while supporting himself with evidence from the Scriptures, works into his discussion of Easter some useful remarks on the Creation by way of interpretation. It is dedicated to one Theodore, whom he calls his beloved brother. He was the author of other treatises on the same subject, but this is the fullest and most useful, since he amply discusses everything bearing on the subject. He gives a clear and detailed account of leap-year and the intercalary month, the epacts of the sun and moon, the nineteen days and the method of finding them, the months, the new moon, the week and its days, which years are called cyclical and which intercalary. He also discusses the twenty-eight years of the solar cycle, the nineteen years of the lunar cycle and its fourteenth day, the lunar and solar months, the new moon of the lunar and solar month, the lunar month and the exact month, the calculation of the years of the world. He says that according to the other years of His advent our Lord and God Christ partook of the prescribed Easter feast, but not on the day which was reported. This is worthy of consideration, since Chrysostom and the Church teach that He partook of the regular feast⁠[596] before the mystic supper.