Volume 1 — PHOTIUS BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON⁠[6] (continued 5)

CXVII

Read an anonymous work defending Origen and his abominable writings, in five volumes. The style is neither clear nor pure and contains nothing deserving of mention. The author brings forward on behalf of Origen and his dogmas Dionysius of Alexandria,⁠[597] Demetrius,⁠[598] Clemens, and several others, but chiefly relies upon Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. This apology is not a refutation of the charges against Origen for the most part, but rather supports the accusation, since he is not altogether free from his blasphemous opinions. Thus, he asserts that souls existed before bodies, supporting this nonsense by passages from the Scriptures and Fathers, and imagines the taking up of other bodies. In regard to the Holy Trinity, however, he is orthodox; he asserts that Origen was not guilty of error in his opinions on the subject, but that he was opposing the Sabellian⁠[599] heresy, which at that time had spread extensively, and that, in his endeavour to show that the Trinity of Persons was quite clear and differed in many ways, he allowed himself to be carried away beyond what was right in the opposite direction. However, in regard to Origen’s other dogmas, to which he does not even venture to give a specious assent, and to which he does not think it possible to adapt his defence, he takes great trouble to prove that they were only intended as a rhetorical exercise, or that they were foisted into his writings by certain heterodox persons. In proof of this he quotes Origen himself as loudly protesting, for he says that even when he was alive he discovered that such reckless statements were made against him. The counts on which he asserts that he was falsely accused are fifteen in number, which he declares to be mere slanders, proving it by quotations from his writings in his fourth book, and refuting them by the evidence of others on his behalf in the fifth. The counts are as follows. He is charged with teaching that prayer should not be offered to the Son, and that He is not absolutely good; that He does not know the Father as Himself; that rational natures enter into the bodies of irrational beings; that there are migrations from one body into another; that the soul of the Saviour was the same as the soul of Adam; that there is neither eternal punishment nor resurrection of the flesh; that magic is not an evil; that astronomy is the cause of events; that the Only Begotten has no share in the Kingdom; that the holy angels came into the world by falling down from heaven, not to render service to others; that the Father is unseen by the Son; that the Cherubim are the ideas of the Son; that the image of God, in reference to him whose image it is, qua image, is untrue. He rejects these charges, as already stated, as slanders on Origen, and does his utmost to prove that he is an orthodox member of the Church. But, my dear sir, if any one is shown to be not altogether impious, this is no reason why he should escape punishment for obvious blasphemies.

CXVIII

Read the Defence of Origen⁠[600] by Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius.⁠[600] It is in six books, five of which were written by Pamphilus when in prison in the company of Eusebius. The sixth is the work of Eusebius alone, after the martyr, having been deprived of life by the sword, was removed to God for whom his soul longed. Many other distinguished persons at that time also wrote in defence of Origen. It is said that Origen, during the persecutions in the reign of Severus, wrote to his father Leonides, urging him to martyrdom, and that he ran nobly in the race and received the crown. It is added that Origen himself made ready with all zeal to enter into the same struggle, but that his mother checked his ardour in spite of his protestations, as he himself testifies in a letter. Pamphilus the martyr and many others who have written an accurate account of Origen, as given by those who knew him, assert that he quitted this life by a glorious martyrdom at Caesarea during the cruel persecution of the Christians by the emperor Decius.⁠[601] Others say that he lived till the times of Gallus⁠[602] and Volusianus, and that he died at Tyre in the sixty-ninth year of his age and was buried there. This is the truer account, unless the letters supposed to have been written by him after the Decian persecution are spurious. They say that he studied and taught every branch of knowledge. He is said to have been also called Adamantius, because his arguments were linked together like chains of adamant. He attended the lectures of Clement, the author of the Stromateis, and succeeded him as head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. It is said that Clement was the pupil of Pantaenus and his successor as head of his school, and that Pantaenus heard teachers who had seen the apostles, and had even heard them himself.

It is said that the movement against Origen originated as follows. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, had a high opinion of Origen and admitted him to his intimate friendship. But when Origen was about to leave for Athens without the permission of the bishop, he was ordained by Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, contrary to the rule of the Church, with the approval of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. This incident changed the love of Demetrius to hate and his praise to blame. A synod of bishops and some presbyters was summoned to condemn Origen. According to Pamphilus, it was decided that he must not remain in Alexandria or teach there, but that he should be allowed to retain his priesthood. But Demetrius and some Egyptian bishops, with the assent of those who had formerly supported him, also deprived him of his sacred office. After he had been banished from Alexandria, Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, welcomed him, allowed him to live at Caesarea, and gave him permission to preach. Such are the reasons which Pamphilus gives for the attack upon Origen.

The Apology for Origen was composed, as we have said, by Pamphilus when imprisoned together with Eusebius, and addressed to those who were condemned to the mines for the sake of Christ, the chief of whom was Patermythius, who shortly after the death of Pamphilus ended his life at the stake with others. Pierius was the teacher of Pamphilus, the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. It is said that he suffered martyrdom together with his brother Isidore, and that a church and houses of prayer were built in his honour at Alexandria. The holy Pamphilus was a presbyter, and is said to have copied most of Origen’s commentaries on Scripture with his own hand.

CXIX

Read a work by Pierius the presbyter, who is said to have suffered martyrdom⁠[603] with his brother Isidore, and to have been the teacher of the martyr Pamphilus in theology and head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. The volume contains twelve books. The style is clear and brilliant, and, so to say, spontaneous; there is nothing elaborate about it, but, as it were unpremeditated, it flows along evenly, smoothly and gently. The work is distinguished by a wealth of argumentation. It contains much that is foreign to the present institutions of the Church, but is possibly in accordance with older regulations. In regard to the Father and the Son his statements are orthodox, except that he asserts that there are two substances and two natures, using these terms (as is clear from what follows and precedes the passage) in the sense of hypostasis, not in the sense given by the adherents of Arius. But in regard to the Holy Ghost his views are dangerous and impious; for he declares that His glory was less than that of the Father and the Son. There is a passage in the treatise entitled On St. Luke’s Gospel, from which it can be shown that the honour and dishonour of the image is the honour and dishonour of the prototype. It is hinted, in agreement with Origen’s absurd idea, that souls have a pre-existence. In his work on Easter and the homily upon the prophet Hosea, the author discusses the Cherubim made by Moses and Jacob’s pillar; he admits that they were made, but talks nonsense about their being providentially granted, as if they were nothing, or something else, or as if what was made was something else; for he says that they did not exhibit any sort of form, but absurdly asserts that they only had wings of a kind.

This Pierius was presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, when Theonas was bishop, and Carus and Diocletian were emperors of Rome. It is said that he was so distinguished for love of work and learning, and that his discourses to the people were so agreeable and instructive, that he was called “the young Origen,” since Origen at that time enjoyed a very high reputation. They say that he was well versed in dialectic and rhetoric, and that he voluntarily practised temperance and poverty. According to some, he suffered martyrdom; according to others, he spent the rest of his life at Rome after the time of the persecution.

CXX

Read the work of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons,⁠[604] entitled the Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called or Against Heresies, in five books. The first, in which Valentinus and his impious heresy are discussed, begins as far back as Simon Magus⁠[605] and goes down to Tatian,⁠[606] who, at first a disciple of Justin Martyr,⁠[607] afterwards fell headlong into heresy. It also deals with those who are properly called Gnostics and the Cainites,⁠[608] setting forth their abominable doctrines. Such is the contents of the first book. In the second the impious dogmas of the heretics are refuted. The third quotes all kinds of testimony from the Scriptures against them. The fourth answers certain difficulties put forward by the heretics. The fifth shows that all that was said and done by the Lord in the form of parables, derived both from His saving doctrine and from the apostolic epistles, is suited for the refutation of the claptrap of the heretics.

St. Irenaeus is said to have been the author of many other works of various kinds including letters, in some of which it should be observed that the exact truth of the doctrines of the Church appears to be falsified by spurious arguments.

It is said that he was a pupil of the holy martyr Polycarp,⁠[609] bishop of Smyrna, and was presbyter to Pothinus, whom he succeeded in the bishopric of Lyons. At that time Victor was pope of Rome, whom Irenaeus frequently exhorted by letter not to excommunicate any members of the Church on account of a disagreement about Easter.

CXXI

Read the tractate of Hippolytus,⁠[610] the pupil of Irenaeus, entitled Against the Thirty-two Heresies. It begins with the Dositheans,⁠[611] and goes down to the heresies of Noëtus⁠[612] and the Noëtians, which he says were refuted by Irenaeus in his lectures, of which the present work is a synopsis. The style is clear, somewhat severe and free from redundancies, although it exhibits no tendency to atticism. Some of the statements are inaccurate, for instance, that the epistle to the Hebrews is not the work of the apostle Paul. Hippolytus is said to have addressed the people after the manner of Origen, with whom he was very intimate and whose writings he so much admired that he urged him to write a commentary on the Bible, for which purpose he supplied, at his own expense, seven shorthand writers and the same number of calligraphists. Having rendered this service, he persistently demanded the work, whence Origen, in one of his letters, calls him a “hustler.” He is said to have written a large number of other works.

CXXII

Read the Panaria of the most holy bishop Epiphanius,⁠[613] against eighty heresies, in three volumes containing seven books. It begins with barbarism and goes down to the Messalians.⁠[614] The author writes more fully and effectually against heretics than any of his predecessors, since he has not omitted any useful argument of theirs, and has added any others that he himself could find. His style is poor, like that of one who is unfamiliar with Attic elegance. He is chiefly weak in his conflicts with impious heresies; sometimes, however, he is excellent in attack, although the character of his language and composition is by no means improved at the same time.

CXXIII

Read the same author’s Ancoratus,⁠[615] a sort of synopsis of the Panaria.

CXXIV

Read the same author’s treatise On Weights and Measures.

CXXV

Read Justin Martyr’s Apology for the Christians, written against both Jews and gentiles; also a treatise Against the First and Second Books of the Physics, or against form, matter, and privation, a collection of dialectical, vigorous, and useful arguments; also, Against the Fifth Essence and Eternal Motion, which Aristotle has created by the aid of his clever reasoning, and, finally, Summary Solutions of Doubts Unfavourable to Christianity.

He is thoroughly versed in our own and especially in heathen philosophy, overflowing with learning of all kinds and a wealth of historical knowledge; but he has not endeavoured to colour the natural beauty of his philosophy by rhetorical arts. Wherefore his diction, in other respects vigorous and preserving the scientific style, is not seasoned with rhetorical condiments, nor does it attract the crowd of hearers by seductive and alluring language. He wrote four discourses against the heathen—the first dedicated to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the senate; the second to his successors. The third discusses the nature of demons. The fourth book, also written against the heathen, is called a Refutation. He also wrote On the Sole Government of God, Psaltes, some works Against Marcion which should be read, and a useful treatise entitled Against all Heresies.

He was the son of Priscus (grandson) of Bacchius, and was a native of Neapolis in the province of Palestine. He resided for some time at Rome, where his discourses, manner of life, and dress showed the true philosopher. As he was a fervent lover of piety, his life and religion incurred the hostility of a certain Crescens of the sect of the Cynics. Being falsely accused by him, he patiently endured his persecution in a manner worthy of his whole career. Making it an excuse for martyrdom, he nobly and joyfully died for Christ.

CXXVI

Read the little book containing Clement’s two Epistles to the Corinthians. The first accuses them of having disturbed the peace and harmony proper to civil life by sedition, disturbance, and schism, and exhorts them to desist from such evil ways. The style is simple and clear, in its absence of elaboration approaching that of ecclesiastical writers. The author, however, deserves censure for putting certain worlds beyond the ocean, for using the phoenix as an incontrovertible argument, for calling our Lord Jesus Christ chief priest and president, not even using the loftier terms that befit God, although he nowhere openly blasphemes Him. The second letter, containing advice and exhortation to a better life, at the beginning proclaims Christ as God, although certain foreign expressions, from which even the first letter is not altogether free, are introduced as if from Holy Writ. Certain passages are strangely interpreted. The sentiments are somewhat poor and at times inconsistent.

In the same little work also read Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, full of good advice, combined with clearness and simplicity, after the ecclesiastical method of interpretation. The author also says that he sent the letters of the God-inspired Ignatius to them, asking to be informed if they had heard anything of him.

CXXVII

Read the Life of Constantine the Great Emperor by Eusebius Pamphili, a eulogy in four books. It contains the whole manner of life of the man, and describes all those acts of his that have to do with ecclesiastical history, from his earliest years till the day when he departed this life, at the age of sixty-four. Even here the author preserves his characteristic style, except that his language is obliged to be somewhat more brilliant, and words are inserted here and there that are more flowery than usual; he does not, however, exhibit much charm and grace in explanation, which is also a defect of his other works. A large number of passages from all the ten books of his Ecclesiastical History are scattered over this work in four books. He says that the great Constantine was also himself baptized in Nicomedia, having put off his baptism till that time since he desired to receive it in the waters of Jordan. He does not state definitely who baptized him. As to the Arian heresy, he does not make it clear whether he still adhered to that doctrine or whether he had changed, nor does he state whether Arius’s views were right or wrong, although he ought to have mentioned this, seeing that a great part of the deeds of Constantine has to do with the synod, which again claims a detailed account of them. But he mentions that a “dispute” (as he calls the heresy, to conceal its real nature) arose between Arius and Alexander, and that the pious emperor was very grieved at the “dispute,” and strove, by letters and through Hosius, bishop of Cordova, to induce the disputants to abandon mutual strife and such questions, and to restore friendship and harmony amongst them; that, being unable to persuade them, he called together a synod from all parts, and so put an end to the strife that had broken out, and made peace. His account, however, is neither accurate nor clear. Wherefore, as if ashamed and unwilling to make public the facts concerning Arius and the decree of the synod against him or the just punishment of his companions in impiety who were cast out with him, he says nothing about this. He does not even mention the just punishment of Arius⁠[616] inflicted by heaven and seen by every eye. He brings none of these things to the light, and says little about the synod and its proceedings. For this reason, when about to speak of the divine Eustathius,⁠[617] he does not even mention his name, nor the audacious and successful intrigues against him. Attributing these also to sedition and tumult, he again refers to the calmness of the bishops who had assembled at Antioch as the result of the emperor’s zeal and co-operation and changed sedition and tumult into peace. Similarly, where he speaks of the intrigues against the much-tried Athanasius, in his desire to include these things in his history, he says that Alexandria was again filled with sedition and disturbance, which were calmed by the presence of the bishops, supported by the emperor. But he does not make it clear who started the sedition, nor its nature, nor how it was put down. He preserves almost the same method of concealment in his narrative of the quarrels of the bishops about dogma or their disagreements in other matters.

CXXVIII

Read Lucian’s⁠[618] declamation On Phalaris and his various Dialogues of the Dead and Courtesans, and other works on different subjects, in nearly all of which he ridicules the ideas of the heathen. Thus he attacks their silly errors in the invention of gods; their brutal and ungovernable passions and lack of restraint; the monstrous fancies and fictions of their poets; their consequent errors in statesmanship; the irregular course and changes and chances of their life; the boastful behaviour of the philosophers, full of nothing but pretence and idle opinions; in a word, his aim is, as we have said, to hold up the heathen to ridicule in prose. He seems to be one of those persons who regard nothing seriously; ridiculing and mocking at the opinions of others, he does not state what opinions he himself holds, unless we may say that his opinion is that one can know nothing for certain. His style is excellent, his diction clear, suitable and expressive; he shows a special liking for distinctness and purity united with brilliancy and appropriate dignity. His composition is so well fitted together that the reader does not seem to be reading prose, but an agreeable song, whose nature is not too obtrusive, seems to drop into the listener’s ears. In a word, as already said, his style is charming, but not in keeping with the subjects which he himself has determined to ridicule. That he was one of those who held that nothing could be known for certain is shown by the following inscription in the work:

CXXIX

Read the various stories of Metamorphoses⁠[619] by Lucius of Patrae. The style is clear, pure, and agreeable; avoiding innovations in language, the author carries to excess his tales of marvels, so that he may be called a second Lucian. The first two books are almost translations from Lucian’s Lucius or The Ass, unless Lucian borrowed from Lucius, which, if I may hazard the conjecture, is the case, although I have not been able to find out for certain which wrote first. For it seems that Lucian, having cut down the more copious work of Lucius and removed all that seemed unsuitable for his purpose, combined what was left into a single composition, in which the words and arrangement of the original were preserved, and gave the title of Lucius or The Ass to what he had borrowed. Both works are full of mythical fictions and disgraceful indecency. The only difference is that Lucian, as in all his other writings, ridicules and scoffs at heathenish superstitions, whereas Lucius, taking quite seriously and believing the transformations of men into other men and brutes, and of brutes into men, and all the idle talk and nonsense of ancient fables, set them down in writing and worked them up into a story.

CXXX

Read a work by Damascius⁠[620] in four books, the first of which, in 352 chapters, is entitled, On Incredible Events; the second, in 52 chapters, On Incredible Stories of Demons; the third, in 63 chapters, On Incredible Stories of Souls that have appeared after Death; the fourth, in 105 chapters, On Incredible Natures. They all contain impossible, incredible, and clumsily invented tales of wonderful things, foolish and worthy of the impious and godless Damascius, who, while the light of the true religion spread over the world, remained steeped in the thick darkness of idolatry. The style is concise, clear, and agreeable, which is not usually the case in such stories.

CXXXI

Read a work On Alexander by Amyntianus, dedicated to the emperor Marcus.⁠[621] The author claims to describe the deeds of Alexander in a befitting manner, but the course of his narrative proves him to be too ready and audacious in his promises, but backward and timid in performance. For he is far inferior to those who have previously written of Alexander, and his style, although clear, is characterized by lack of vigour and energy, and much that is of the greatest importance is omitted.

Amongst other works Amyntianus also wrote parallel lives of Dionysius and Domitian, and of Philip of Macedon and Augustus, both in two books. A life of Olympias, the mother of Alexander, is also attributed to him.

CXXXII-CXXXV

Read various Declamations by Palladius⁠[622] the sophist, Aphthonius,⁠[623] Eusebius⁠[624] the sophist, and Maximus the sophist of Alexandria. Palladius is far superior to the others in excellence of style.

CXXXVI

Read the Thesauri of Cyril.⁠[625] The work is dialectical, and attacks the madness of Arius and Eunomius with vigorous and manifold arguments. By logical methods he skilfully refutes their folly and by combining and introducing evidence from Holy Writ he completely exposes the unsoundness of their doctrine. He quotes the simple evidence from Scripture, thus everywhere closing their insolent mouths so that they are unable to answer. This work is the clearest of all Cyril’s works, especially to those who are able to grasp the significance of his logical methods.

CXXXVII

Read a little work by Eunomius,⁠[626] entitled ..., which is a clear proof of his impiety. It was much admired by his adherents, and the greatest efforts were made to keep it secret and prevent its becoming known to others; but the great Basil managed to secure it, and by his brilliancy and vigour and the force and excellence of his arguments overthrew and refuted it. It was as if he had taken a Babylonian child and dashed it against the granite rock of truth, showing that what was once so much admired was a mere carcase and only deserving of ridicule.

CXXXVIII

Read a work by the same impious man in three books, which is, as it were, a confutation of the absurdities shown by St. Basil to be contained in his blasphemous writings. It is said that while he was in labour with this work he spent several Olympiads⁠[627] shut up in his chamber, and only after an interval of several years brought forth the abortion and evil monstrosity with which he had become pregnant by secret intercourse. Not without difficulty he reared and exhibited the wretched offspring to his fellow-initiates, being especially afraid lest it might somehow fall into the hands of Basil and be torn in pieces before it obtained consistency, and might prematurely wither away and perish before it came to maturity. Wherefore, carefully and, like another Kronos⁠[628] in the fable who swallowed his offspring, he hid and concealed it as long as Basil’s mortal life lasted and inspired him with dread. But after that saint had left his temporary habitation and had ascended to his own inheritance in heaven, being relieved of this great apprehension, although late in the day, Eunomius ventured to bring out the work, not for the eyes of the general public, but for his own friends. Theodore, Gregory of Nyssa, and Sophronius (whom I have already mentioned) came across the work, lashed it unmercifully like his earlier one and flung it back in the face of its parent, a corpse and smelling of all uncleanness. Thus he paid the penalty of impiety. The style is marked by such absence of grace and charm that the author does not seem to have any idea of the existence of such things. He displays prodigious ostentation and produces discordant sounds by the heaping up of consonants, and by the use of words, difficult to pronounce and containing several consonants, in a poetical, or, to speak more accurately, dithyrambic style. The composition is forced, compressed, and harsh, so that the reader of his works is obliged to beat the air vehemently with his lips, if he wishes to utter clearly words which the author, by excessive roughening, compressing and condensing, interpolating and mutilating, has with difficulty composed. His periods are sometimes spun out to an inordinate length, and the entire work is pervaded by obscurity and want of clearness, his object being to persuade the majority by the force of his eloquence that he goes beyond their capacity, and also to cover up the weakness of his thoughts (which is by no means inconsiderable) by this very obscurity and unintelligibility, and to conceal the poverty of his ideas. He seems to have great faith in logical arguments, attacking others on this count and showing great eagerness to employ them himself, although, since he took up the study late and did not acquire a thorough knowledge of the subject, he can often be convicted of errors in reasoning.

Also read his Letters to different people, 40 in number. While in these he affects the same subtlety of form, since he is ignorant of the laws of the epistolary style and has had no practice in them, he has been publicly branded and exposed.

CXXXIX

Read the Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs by the great Athanasius. The style is clear, like that of all his writings. But neither this nor any other of his works with which I am acquainted approaches the grace and beauty of the letters containing an apology for his flight and an account of his exile.

CXL

Read the same holy man’s Against Arius and his Doctrines, in five books. The style, as in all his works, is clear, free from redundancies and simple, but vehement and deep, and the arguments, of which he has an abundant store, are extremely forceful. He uses logical arguments, not with the very words taken straight from them, after the fashion of children and those whose knowledge of a subject is recent, who are always eager to make a childish display, but in the imposing and dignified manner of a philosopher, using simple ideas and these well set forth. He also strongly fortifies himself with evidence and proofs from Holy Writ. In a word, this work alone is a complete refutation of Arianism. If any one were to say that Gregory the theologian and the holy Basil drew from it as from a fountain the limpid and beautiful stream of their own works written against the same heresy, he would not be far wrong.

CXLI

Read the work of St. Basil on The Six Days’ Work. He is admirable in all his writings. More than any one else he knows how to use a style that is pure, distinct, suitable, and, in general, political and panegyrical; in arrangement and purity of sentiment he is second to none. He is fond of persuasiveness and sweetness and brilliancy, his words flow on like a stream gushing forth spontaneously from a spring. He employs probability to such an extent, that if any one were to take his discourses as a model of political language, and practise himself in them, provided he had some acquaintance with the rules connected with it, I do not think he would need to consult any other author, not even Plato nor Demosthenes, whom the ancients recommend those to study who desire to become masters of the political and panegyrical style.

CXLII

Read also his Moral Discourses, especially distinguished by the excellence of the language mentioned above.

CXLIII

Read also his Letters, the canonical and those written to various people. They clearly show the admirable nature of the man’s character, and any one might take them as a model of letter-writing, if he has no other.

CXLIV

Read also his Ascetica or Regulations for a Monastic Life. He who follows these rules will inherit a heavenly kingdom. In this work, contrary to his usual custom, he makes much use of headings in many chapters.

CXLV

Read the Lexicon of Helladius,⁠[629] arranged in alphabetical order. It is the most comprehensive of the lexicons that I know, the collection consisting not only of words, but also of some most agreeable short clauses, which frequently become perfect members.⁠[630] The words are for the most part taken from prose writers, not from the poets, like the compilation of Diogenianus;⁠[631] the alphabetical order is not preserved in all the syllables, but only in the first. The collection is very large, so that the whole could not be comprised in five fair-sized volumes. Our copy is in seven. It is a useful work for those who are engaged in literary work and are desirous of acquiring a variety of knowledge. For it contains quotations from the orators and from famous poets.

CXLVI

Read a Lexicon of the pure style in alphabetical order. The work is large and copious, and more like a number of books. It is extremely useful to those who study the subject.

CXLVII

Read a Lexicon of the serious style. It is of great length, and this labour of love would be more convenient for readers if it were in two or three volumes. It is arranged in alphabetical order, and is useful for those who desire to raise their style of writing to the sublime and dignified.

CXLVIII

Read a special Lexicon of political style, in three large volumes. This very copious work will materially assist a man to success, and affords a ready supply of counter-arguments. For the reader will not have to learn, but merely to note in it the words he requires, if he is not altogether without knowledge of the ancient writers. This work also is in alphabetical order.

CXLIX

Read the Lexicon of Pollio⁠[632] in alphabetical order. It contains many poetical words, but not so many as that of Diogenianus, whose work is twice as large.

CL

Read the Lexicon of Julian,⁠[633] containing the words used by the ten orators, arranged in alphabetical order. This book also is of very great size, and contains an explanation of all legal terms used by the Athenians, words used by the orators in reference to private matters or adopted by them after the fashion of the country. It is clear that the work will be of very great service in reading speeches together.

I also came across a work of Philostratus⁠[634] of Tyre on the same subject, no mean performance, although Julian’s Lexicon is better. A similar work of Diodorus⁠[635] is in no way inferior to that of Julian, except that the latter makes more use of quotations. I cannot say which of them was the earlier or which borrowed from the other, for it is evident that they are not independent compilations.

CLI

Read the Lexicon to Plato by Timaeus,⁠[636] dedicated to Gentianus, a little work in one book, arranged in alphabetical order.

CLII

The same volume contains the five books of the first edition of the Lexicon of Attic Words by Aelius Dionysius of Halicarnassus,⁠[637] in which the words are arranged alphabetically from the first to the last letter. It is dedicated to a certain Scymnus and will be very useful to those who wish to write correct Attic as well as to those who intend to study the works of Attic writers. It contains all the words in use by the Athenians, at festivals and in the law-courts, and it is easy to find special and idiomatic expressions, especially if one consults not only the first, but also the second edition (also in five books), containing words not included in the first, or, if included, not supported by sufficient examples, whereas the second edition is fuller and the quotations are more numerous. If any one were to combine the two editions, which would not entail much labour, the usefulness of the work would be greatly increased.

CLIII

Read in the same volume the Lexicon of Pausanias⁠[638] in alphabetical order, quite as useful as the preceding, if not more so, for the study of Attic authors. For although the illustrative quotations are not so numerous, it contains more words under some of the letters, so that by itself it is as large as the two editions of Aelius Dionysius of Halicarnassus, although, as we have said, it contains fewer examples. If any one were to combine the two editions of Dionysius and the work of Pausanias, which could be easily done, the result would be an admirable work and one most useful in reading Attic literature.

CLIV

Read in the same volume the List of Platonic Words by Boëthus⁠[639] in alphabetical order. It is dedicated to a certain Melant(h)as, and is far more useful than the collection of Timaeus.

CLV

Boëthus was also the author of another little work addressed to Athenagoras, entitled On the Words of Doubtful Meaning in Plato. If any one were to combine the words in these two little works with those included in the work of Timaeus, he would confer a great benefit on all who are desirous of studying Plato.

CLVI

Read in the same volume a list Of New and Foreign Words in Plato by Dorotheus,⁠[640] arranged in alphabetical order. It will clearly be useful to the student.

CLVII

Read also the Atticist of Moeris.⁠[641] This little work also is in alphabetical order.

CLVIII

Read the Rhetorical Equipment of Phrynichus the Arabian⁠[642] in thirty-six books. It contains a collection of words and clauses, some of which, gracefully expressed and arranged in a novel manner, are enlarged into complete members.⁠[643] Many of these are to be found in the collection of Helladius, but there they are dispersed throughout the bulky work, whereas here they are all collected together, the aim of Phrynichus being to make a list of special words, while Helladius, being simply a lexicographer, added them to the common stock and included them amongst the rest.

The writer flourished during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, to whom the work is dedicated and inscribed, “Phrynichus to Commodus Caesar, greeting.” In the preface he exhorts Commodus to the pursuit of learning, at the same time praising his own work, of which he says that he had already composed thirty-seven books and dedicated them to the emperor, and promising to write as many more if his life should be spared. As we have said, we have only read thirty-six books, containing words beginning with the first down to the last letter of the alphabet.

In spite of his assertion that he dedicated the work to the emperor, he appears to have inscribed the separate books to different persons. Thus, the first, second, and third books are addressed to a certain Aristocles,⁠[644] in the hope that it may serve as an amusement and source of recreation for him on his birthday; the fourth to a certain Julian, a fellow-citizen and friend. The author adds that he had at first intended to dedicate the whole to Aristocles, but after by the royal decree he became a member of the great council at Rome, he decided to adopt Julian instead as his friend and associate in his labours and to make use of his services as the judge and critic of his writings. In spite of this promise, he dedicates the fifth book to a learned friend of his, named Menodorus, who had previously censured him for not having adequately investigated the inflexion of words. The author says that the present book was written at the request of Menodorus, and excuses the delay in completing it on the ground that he is suffering from strangury, a common complaint of old age, long and serious mental affliction, haemorrhage of the stomach, and several other ailments. If, however, he should regain his health, he promises to complete the present commission, and any other work his friend may suggest that bears upon learning and good taste, and has not yet been attempted. Nevertheless, the sixth book again is dedicated to a different person—Tiberinus; the seventh to another Menophilus, who he says is a consummate scholar and has supplied whole passages in illustration of the matter of the sixth book, and exhorts him to collect as many of these words as possible in his writings. The eighth book is again dedicated to Julian, whom the author asks to be good enough to correct any of his statements which are unsatisfactory, for which illness must be his excuse. Inscribing the ninth to Rufinus, he says that Aristocles first prompted him to begin the book, but that he (Rufinus) will be responsible for its completion, because, having seen the rest of it, he recognized its usefulness and approved of his labours. Turning back again he dedicates the tenth book to Aristocles, the next to Menodorus, in which he states that he had just come across the orations of Aristides,⁠[645] who flourished at the time, and speaks very highly of him. He also says that Marcianus the critic, neglecting Plato and Demosthenes, expresses his preference for the letters of the Roman Brutus⁠[646] to all others and declares him to be the model of stylistic excellence. The author says that he quotes this remark not because he approves of this judgment, but to prevent any one being surprised if some people think this man’s repute inferior to that of Aristides, despite his splendid oratory; for Aristides also, like other men distinguished for learning, has been assailed by some who were jealous of his achievements. The eleventh book is also dedicated to Menodorus; of the rest—that we may not incur the charge of garrulity—one to Rheginus, another to Aristocles, another to Basilides of Miletus, the sophist, in which he says that, as soon as he found respite from disease, he wrote this book for him, and begs him to correct the mistakes that may be due to illness. All the other books, down to the end, which we have read, are dedicated to Menophilus.

The work will no doubt be useful to aspiring authors and orators. The compiler says that he has divided the words collected by him into such as are adapted for oratory, written composition, and conversation, for a derisive, contemptuous, or amatory style. The best models, norms, and standards of undiluted and pure Attic speech are considered by the author to be Plato, Demosthenes and the other nine Attic orators, Thucydides, Xenophon, Aeschines⁠[647] the son of Lysanias the Socratic, Critias⁠[648] the son of Callaeschrus, and Antisthenes⁠[649] with his two orations in praise of Cyrus and Odysseus; of writers of comedy, Aristophanes and his band, where they use Attic; of tragedians, Aeschylus the mighty-voiced, Sophocles the sweet, and the all-wise Euripides. While preferring these to all other authors, orators, and poets, he again puts first those whom (as he says) Momus⁠[650] himself would not blame and, even if the fabled Corycian god⁠[651] made grimaces at them, would not rejoice; these are Plato, Demosthenes, and Aeschines the son of Lysanias because of the excellence of his seven dialogues, which some consider not to have been written by him, but ascribe them to Socrates. So much for these matters.

The writer displays great learning, but is verbose and excessively prolix. For the work, without omitting anything of importance, could have been reduced to a fifth of its size, whereas the author, by an ill-timed use of words, has spun it out to an unmanageable length, and while collecting material for elegance and beauty of style, fails to translate his own precepts into example.

CLIX

Read the twenty-one Orations and nine Letters of Isocrates.⁠[652] His “deliberative”⁠[653] speeches are those To Demonicus and To Nicocles, containing useful advice; a second to Nicocles, and one On the Peace. The object of the Panegyricus is the consideration of the means of ensuring harmony amongst the Greeks themselves, and of the best methods for carrying on war against the barbarians, but by far the greater part is devoted to a glorification of the Athenians. The Areopagiticus is also one of the “deliberative” speeches, inciting the Athenians to virtue by the praise of their ancestors, and by censuring their descendants. The Plataicus and the Archidamus are also “deliberative”; in the latter he urges the Spartans to make war against the Thebans on the question of the Messenians. In the oration Against the Sophists he attacks his political opponents. The next speech is an Encomium of Busiris,⁠[654] as the title indicates. The eleventh is an Encomium of Helen. The twelfth, Evagoras,⁠[655] is a eulogy of that king, dedicated to his son Nicocles. The Philippus is a “deliberative” speech, recommending Philip to endeavour to promote harmony amongst the Greeks and devote his attention to a united advance against the barbarians in Asia. The Panathenaicus is a eulogy of Athens and the ancestors of the Athenians, which he says he began to write when he was ninety-four years of age, but was prevented by a three-years’ severe attack of illness from completing it until he was ninety-seven. The speech called Antidosis (exchange of properties) appears to belong to the class of “forensic” speeches and contains a defence against the slanders of one Lysimachus against him. This speech, the longest of those of this class, was composed when he was eighty-two years of age, and the matter is more mixed and varied than that of the rest; he inserts extracts from his other speeches, in order to show that he is not corrupting the young men, but promoting the common welfare. The speech Against Callimachus, as also the Aegineticus (dealing with a claim to inheritance), the speech Against Euthynus on behalf of Nicias, the Trapeziticus (an action against a banker), and Against Lochites (a claim for damages for outrage and assault) are also “forensic.” These are the twenty-one orations of Isocrates that we have read. Of his nine Letters, one is addressed to Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily, another to Archidamus, two to Philip, one to Alexander, one to Antipater, one to Timotheus, and the ninth to the Archons of Mytilene.⁠[656]

This writer preferred to give instruction in rhetoric rather than take part in the management of public affairs, like the other nine orators, of whom Demosthenes was one; although even before their time he had a great reputation as a rhetorician, and, later, was in no way considered their inferior. His chief characteristics, as at once becomes obvious to the reader, are purity and distinctness, and excessive care in the workmanship of his speeches, which frequently degenerates into superfluous orderliness and over-elaboration. His infinite capacity for taking pains generates want of taste rather than of resourcefulness in argument. He lacks impressiveness,⁠[657] sincerity, and liveliness,⁠[658] but in his political orations he makes admirable use of dignity and perspicuity in equal proportions. His style is feeble, and the use of evenly-balanced clauses ad nauseam, as much as anything else, shows his excessive attention to petty detail. But we acknowledge the general excellence of his language, and only make these criticisms to point out where it has gone astray and does not do justice to itself. For, in comparison with some of those who undertake to compose speeches, even his faults appear virtues.

CLX

Read the Declamations and Orations of different kinds by the sophist Choricius of Gaza.⁠[659] He is a lover of clearness and purity of style, and if he expatiates for any useful purpose, the clearness of his thoughts is in no way impaired, since the expansion is not ill-timed and never reaches the length of a complete period. In his writings, character and sincerity are combined, while at the same time he does not neglect the inculcation of moral lessons. As a rule he uses carefully selected words, although not always in their proper sense; for sometimes, owing to his unrestricted use of figurative language, he falls into frigidity, and sometimes is carried away into the poetical style. But he is at his best in descriptions and eulogies. He is an upholder of the true religion and respects the rites and holy places of the Christians, although for some reason or other, contemptuously and without any excuse, he unjustifiably introduces Greek myths and heathen stories in his writings, sometimes even when discussing sacred things. Many writings by him of various kinds are in circulation; one meets with fictitious, laudatory, and controversial speeches, monodies, nuptial songs, and many others. He flourished in the time of the emperor Justinian, and was a pupil of the rhetorician Procopius,⁠[660] not him of Caesarea, a most distinguished man, who at that time, by the composition of his useful and valuable historical works, left behind an undying renown amongst all lovers of learning. In his own country he was connected with the other Procopius as his teacher in rhetoric, who, when he reached old age, had the pleasure of seeing his pupil take his place at the head of his school. Many of his orations of all kinds are in circulation, all deserving of careful study and imitation. Indeed, the whole book called Translations of Homeric Verses, in which the form is completely changed in various styles, is sufficient to show his vigorous rhetorical powers, which, as far as a pupil can, Choricius has imitated. Both were Christians, and in their orations they frequently, and not perfunctorily, discuss the making of sacred images. The death of his master supplied Choricius with the subject of a funeral oration.

CLXI

Read the Various Extracts of the sophist Sopater,⁠[661] in twelve books, compiled from the works of different historians and writers. The first book gives an account of the fables of the gods from the third book of Apollodorus,⁠[662] an Athenian who taught grammar, On the Gods. The selections are not from the third book alone, but also from the fourth, fifth, ninth, first, twelfth, fifteenth, and sixteenth, down to the twenty-fourth. The collection includes the mythical tales and fictions concerning the gods and whatever else is of any historical value, such as the stories of the heroes, the Dioscuri,⁠[663] and those in Hades, and the like. The compiler has also drawn upon the second book of Juba⁠[664] On Painting, and upon the Deipnosophists of Athenaeus⁠[665] of Naucratis. Such are the sources and contents of the first book.

The second book is from the first book and onwards down to the tenth book of the Epitomes of Pamphila,⁠[666] the daughter of Soteridas, and from Artemon⁠[667] of Magnesia’s On Remarkable Deeds of Women, the Apophthegms of Diogenes⁠[668] the Cynic, the eighth book of Sappho,⁠[669] and various other writers. Such is the second book of the extracts.

The third book is from the Various History of Favorinus,⁠[670] from books Ν, Ξ, and the rest in order, with the exception of Τ, up to Ω. These contain various histories, the reasons and origins and meanings of words and names, and the like. This ends the third book.

The fourth book is compiled from an anonymous work entitled a Collection of Wonderful Things, from the sixteenth book of the Miscellaneous Notes of Aristoxenus,⁠[671] and from the eighth book of the Dramatic History of Rufus.⁠[672] Here are to be found many improbable and incredible things, various tragic and comic incidents, dialogues and speeches, manners and customs, and the like, with which the fourth book ends.

The fifth book consists of extracts from the first, second, and third books of Rufus’s Musical History. It contains an account of different comedians and tragedians, of writers of dithyrambs, players on the flute and cithara, of nuptial songs and song accompanied by dance, of dancers and others who took part in theatrical contests, the origin and family antecedents of those among them who became famous, whether men or women; which of them were known as the originators of what practices, which of them were the friends and intimates of emperors and kings; what the contests were and whence derived, in which each exhibited his art. The general festivals celebrated by the whole Athenian people are also described. All these things, and the like, the reader will find in the fifth book.

The sixth book is from the fourth and fifth books of the Musical History by the same Rufus. It gives an account of flute-players, of the songs sung to the flute by men and women, of the poets Homer, Hesiod, and Antimachus,⁠[673] and most of the other poets belonging to their school, and tells us something about female soothsayers, who the so-called Sibyls were and whence they came, all borrowed from Rufus. The second book of the Halieutica of Damostratus,⁠[674] and the first, fifth, ninth, and tenth books of the Lives of the Philosophers by Diogenes Laërtius⁠[675] are also drawn upon. We have an account of the philosophers and of the origin of the divine study—philosophy; how it flourished, who were the heads and champions of the different schools, who were their followers or rivals, the character exhibited by each, their birth and origin, their manner of life from the beginning, and the time in which they flourished. The book also contains information about rhetoric and rhetoricians, extracts from Aelius Dionysius’s work On Alexandria, and from the Aegyptiaca of Hellanicus,⁠[676] and concludes with various mythical and fictitious stories and other things.

The seventh book is a kind of anthology from the History of Herodotus.

The eighth book consists of extracts from an old and anonymous work. It gives a list of women who rose to fame and made a brilliant name, of the deeds of certain men and their meetings for the study of rhetoric, of the excellence of friendship, and the maxims of worthy men. There are also selections from Plutarch’s essays on How a Young Man should Listen to the Poets and on Nature and Labours, showing how many, often with great difficulty, have reformed a vicious nature, while others through carelessness have allowed a good one to become corrupted; how some who in their younger days were looked upon as slow and unintelligent, when they grew up were distinguished by brilliant qualities, quick-wittedness, and intellectual gifts. Also from the treatises On Shamefacedness, On Garrulity, On Anger, On How One should Obtain Benefit from One’s Enemies, On Cheerfulness, On Political Precepts, On Wealth, How One can be Conscious of Progress in Virtue, On Rules of Health, On Marriage Precepts. Amongst these extracts is to be found much that is worthy of being remembered, both words and deeds, which will be found serviceable in many respects. Such is the contents of the eighth book.

The ninth book consists of extracts from Plutarch’s The Slow Vengeance of the Gods, the Lives of Demetrius and Of Brutus the Roman, the book entitled Apophthegms of Famous Men, the little treatise On Rivers, and How to Distinguish the Flatterer from the Friend, the Lives of Crates, Daiphantus, and Pindar, and the work entitled Apophthegms of Kings and Generals, and the first to the eighth of the Convivial Discourses. Such is the matter supplied by Plutarch. The author has also borrowed from the first, second, third, and fourth books of Rufus’s Roman History, in which will be found much that deserves mention although mixed up with fables and long-winded nonsense. Such is the contents of the ninth book.

The tenth book is compiled from the Erato of Cephalion,⁠[677] and describes the life and deeds of Alexander the Great; from the treatise of Apollonius the Stoic⁠[678]; concerning women who have been philosophers or have achieved fame by anything else, or by whose mediation families were reconciled; from the History of Macedon by Theagenes;⁠[679] from Plutarch’s Lives of Nicias, Alcibiades, Themistocles, Theseus, Lycurgus, Solon, and Alexander the son of Philip, Cimon, [Lysander, Demosthenes], Pericles, Pelopidas, Phocion, and Aristides, containing much that is worthy of being narrated and recorded. Such is the contents of the tenth book.

The eleventh book is in like manner compiled from Plutarch’s Lives of Epaminondas, Dion, Agesilaus, Agis, Cleomenes, Eumenes of Cardia, Philopoemen,⁠[680] Aratus, who when general of the Achaean league commanded the forces seventeen times and greatly distinguished himself in the field, and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus; from the first and second books of Aristophanes⁠[681] the grammarian’s work On Animals, and the seventeenth book of king Juba’s Theatrical History. Such is the contents of the eleventh book.

The twelfth book is taken from various sources: Callixenus’s⁠[682] Catalogue of Painters and Sculptors, Aristonicus’s⁠[683] On the Museum at Alexandria, the Constitutions of Aristotle, dealing with those of the Thessalians, Achaeans, Parians, Lycians, Chians, and of all the peoples whom he has mentioned in his political writings, the usefulness of which is evident. Such is the contents of the twelfth book.

The work is very useful to the reader. For although it is not free from fabulous, monstrous, false and improbable statements, as I have already mentioned more than once, yet from those which are as it were contributions from the storehouse of learning, one may gather much that promotes virtue and honesty. For the student of rhetoric and sophistic, as he himself says to his friends in the introduction, they are of considerable importance and will be very serviceable. The diction is varied, not confined to one style, although clearness is the distinguishing feature of the entire work.

CLXII

Read a work by a certain Eusebius,⁠[684] a bishop of the orthodox faith, in ten books, written against a monk named Andrew, and called forth by his behaviour. He wrote a letter to Eusebius, which he calls a pastoral letter, imploring him to read it. Eusebius, having done so, first reprimands Andrew for his ignorance and temerity, showing that he had made many mistakes in spelling and could not write a line without making a blunder, but that notwithstanding he had had the audacity to write, forgetting his profession and the repose of a monastic life. He then refutes Andrew’s heretical opinions at length, for he was one of the sect called Aphthartodocetae,⁠[685] from the impious doctrine that they held. He first points out that Andrew must explain why he used the word φθορά (corruption) in only one sense, thinking that it referred to sin only, whereas our Holy Fathers, in their usage of words, have traditionally applied it to different things. Secondly, he reproves him because he ventured to declare, like Julian, that the body of the Lord was immortal, impassible, and incorruptible from the union (of the two natures), although in this very letter he asserts that he has undertaken to oppose Severus and Julian, since they deny that there are two natures or two substances, two properties or two energies, in Christ. Thirdly, because he insisted that the body of Adam before the fall was neither formed entirely mortal nor corruptible by nature, from which, according to him, it would follow that Christ had assumed from the very union an incorruptible and impassible body; whereas, in reality, he ought to have thought and said that the body of Adam was by nature mortal and passible, but by divine grace was kept immortal and impassible, until his transgression deprived him of that protection. Such is the unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers. Fourthly, because he called the present world incorruptible and indestructible, whereas he ought to hold that it is corruptible and changeable. In his first reply the bishop exhorted Andrew to retract his opinion on many other points, at the same time convicting him of obscurity and of blasphemy in his language.

Andrew, after he had received this exhortation to mend his ways, went from bad to worse, and wrote another work in which he again set forth at greater length the views he had previously expressed and, as he imagines, establishes their truth. As we have said, the pious Eusebius wrote ten books to combat these propositions, in which he shows that Andrew, not content with the definition of faith marked out by the holy synods, has audaciously drawn up an exposition of faith of his own; that he has wrenched many passages from the Fathers, and falsified and violently pressed them into the support of his views; that he contradicts both the New and Old Testament and our Holy Fathers in asserting that the world is incorruptible and indestructible; that he says that change, transformation, flux, can easily be misrepresented, just like the sufferings which have their origin in vice, and that our Lord Jesus Christ assumed a body that was unchangeable, impassible, incorruptible, and without flux. Again, he censures him because he asserts that the world is eternal, incorruptible, and ungenerated, and does not admit the transformation of the elements which contributes to its eternity, since he teaches that it is one of the passions which can easily be misrepresented; that the body of Adam was formed incorruptible, immortal, and impassible by nature, and not only this, but that the clay of which it was formed is incorruptible. Eusebius also censures him for taking the word “corruption” in only one sense, whereby he shows that God is not the author of corruption or death or any vicious passion, but not even of sinful thoughts, although He is the author of corruptible and mortal substances, for these do not belong to existing things and have no subsistence in themselves. He also rebukes him for saying that the Lord’s body from the very union is impassible, incorruptible, and unchangeable, and in order to prove this, as he imagines, he shows that he has to rely upon his other nonsensical ideas about the world and Adam. In the same work Eusebius shows in what and how many meanings the words φθορά and καταφθορά and διαφθορά are used in the Scriptures: of physical affections that are by no means reprehensible, and of those that result from labour, fatigue, and old age, old age being the corruption of youth, as labour and fatigue of bodily tone; of bodily humiliation in ascetic and spiritual struggles, for the apostle says, “Although our outer man be corrupted, our inner body is renewed”;⁠[686] of the affliction and wasting away of the body by blows and punishment; of the injury, partial or entire, in the case of animals, seeds, and plants; even of death itself, and, besides this, of the dissolution and flux of the bodies which take place in the grave; lastly, of vicious affections or sins. Since then the words for “corruption” could be used in so many ways, Eusebius is justified in stating that Andrew is wrong in attaching only one meaning to these words.

He confirms his arguments by passages from the Old and New Testament, from certain select Fathers, Athanasius and the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Theologus, and of Nyssa), Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Proclus of Constantinople,⁠[687] Methodius⁠[688] the holy martyr, and Quadratus,⁠[689] from some of whose writings Andrew had wrenched and falsified passages and by explaining them either with deliberate malice or through ignorance, so as to support his own view, imagined that he was confirming his own mistaken opinions. But he pays the penalty of all that has been mentioned to Eusebius, for his tampering with the letter, his wickedness, and folly, and for putting together certain passages from heretical writings and venturing to ascribe them to our Holy Fathers.

From Andrew’s foolish utterances Eusebius also shows that he is of opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ, not being changed by resurrection from corruption to incorruption, is equally impassible in his manhood and divinity; that he dared to call those blasphemers who thought and said that our Lord Jesus Christ lived on earth with a mortal and passible body, while he himself is not ashamed, after His victory over sufferings and the abolition of death and corruption, monstrously to assert that the body of the Lord is passible, forgetting that, while insulting the orthodox by calling them Phthartolatrae⁠[690] he himself is clearly convicted of being Pathetolatrae.⁠[691] He then again adds some passages from the Fathers, and shows that the Lord’s body was passible, mortal, and consequently corruptible until His glorious resurrection, and that then by itself it became immortal and impassible. He also shows that Andrew talks idly in calling the orthodox Phthartolatrae, a name which is fitting and suitable for Arius, Aëtius, Eunomius, Apollinarius, and Nestorius, but not for orthodox Christians. Eusebius also lays down the doctrine that our Lord and God, since He, as the architect of nature, assumed our natural and by no means reprehensible “passions” (which are not properly called “passions” but might more fitly be called “works of nature”), was incapable of taking upon Him “passions” properly so called, originating from vice; that He ate and drank with His disciples after the Resurrection not in the same manner as He ate and drank before the Resurrection; in the latter case He acted according to the law of nature, refreshing and controlling the perishable flesh by food and drink, in the former He performed the act supernaturally by way of dispensation, to inspire the disciples, and through them all the faithful, with the belief that the body that suffered and was crucified rose again from the dead, the same and not a different body, although it had been transformed and had become incorruptible and impassible. Having laid down these doctrines in a manner acceptable to God, Eusebius finishes his tenth book. The style is clear, simple, pure, and characterized by distinctness where it is required.

CLXIII

Read the work of Vindanius Anatolius of Berytus,⁠[692] entitled A Collection of Agricultural Precepts, compiled by him from the works of Democritus Africanus, Tarantinus, Apuleius, Florentius, Valens, Leo, and Pamphilus, and the Paradoxa of Diophanes.⁠[693] It is in twelve volumes, and, as our own experience has shown us in many instances, is useful for the cultivation of the land and agricultural works, perhaps the most useful of all treatises on the same subject. However, it contains some marvellous and incredible tales, full of Greek fables, which the pious husbandman should pass over while gathering up what is useful in the rest of the work. All other writers on agricultural matters, so far as I know, express nearly the same opinions about the same things and differ little from one another; where they do, the experience of Leo is to be preferred to all the rest.

CLXIV

Read the work of Galen⁠[694] On Medical Schools. The author, discussing the schools that have been formed in the medical profession, declares that the three chief are: the logical, which he also calls dogmatic and analogistic; the empirical, also called observant or memorial; the methodical. They differ in the method of invention and in other respects. The dogmatic physician bases his art upon the use of methods of reasoning for the discovery of remedies; the empirical relies upon experiment and observation; the methodical, while professing to employ both reasoning and experiment, makes no careful use of either, and is rightly distinguished from the other two.

The present work is divided into three sections. The first contains a description of the empiric and dogmatic schools, and sets forth the nature of each; the second introduces these two schools hotly discussing their respective claims to superiority; the third introduces the methodical school quarrelling with the other two, each of them putting forward its own claims and endeavouring to overthrow its rival. With this the third book ends.

It is evident that this work should be preferred to all other medical writings, if one would learn which is the best school to belong to. But it cannot properly be regarded as a medical work, but rather as a philosophical introduction to medicine. The diction and composition are pure and distinct; Galen everywhere pays especial attention to these qualities, although in many works he confuses and obscures the meaning of what he has written by overloading his treatises with unseasonable discourses, digressions, and spun-out periods. These seem, as it were, to chop up the context, and his tedious nonsense makes the reader indifferent. The present treatise, however, is free from these faults.

CLXV

Read the Declamations⁠[695] and Various Discourses of Himerius the sophist.⁠[696] Two of the former are deliberative, and three forensic, all with introductions. Of the deliberative speeches the first is supposed to be delivered by Hyperides in support of Demosthenes, the second by Demosthenes, on behalf of Aeschines. Of the other three, the first is in the form of an attack on Epicurus, who is supposed to be on trial for impiety; the second is written against a rich man who had exhausted the substance of a poor man by his abominable actions, and introduces the poor man pleading his cause; in the third Themistocles declaims against the king of Persia, who had made many promises in the hope of ending the war.⁠[697]

These speeches, more than the others, are written in such a manner as to show what can be done by excellence of style and brilliancy and vigour of ideas. The author often heaps up periods,⁠[698] in imitation of Demosthenes, in a variety of forms; although he specially affects an elevated style, he cleverly modifies his language by introducing other forms. His diction, at least in the matter of phraseology and the meaning and the force of words, is by no means wanting in perspicuity. The frequent breaking up of words sounds strange to the ear but is not disagreeable, although it renders the sense less intelligible to the ordinary reader. Another reason for the author’s general clearness of style is that he uses expressions that make for distinctness. As I have said, he uses heaped-up periods in argumentation⁠[699] and at other times, but by illuminating them by vigorous⁠[700] figures of speech he clears his language of any obscurity that might arise from them. He makes frequent and clever use of hyperbaton⁠[701] and other figures of speech, although not to the same extent as of periods. He is vehement and earnestly vigorous where needed. Such he shows himself in the speeches mentioned.

Next to these speeches comes the Polemarchicus, a eulogy of those who fell in battle fighting for freedom against the Persians, and also in praise of war; the Areopagiticus, claiming citizenship for his son Rufinus, not a fictitious declamation; a monody on the death of the same son; on the marriage of his friend Severus, also obviously not fictitious, with an introduction; Diogenes or Propempticus,⁠[702] a send-off speech, also furnished with an introduction, and written in the form of a dialogue; Syntacterius, a farewell speech to his friends on starting for Corinth; a Propempterius to Flavian, on his promotion to the consulship of Asia; to a new student named Piso; another Diogenes or Propempticus; an impromptu⁠[703] on a dispute which arose in the school; on the arrival of some Cyprians; on his first hearer from Cappadocia; a show-speech,⁠[704] which he at first refused to deliver when asked, in which the thesis “Beautiful things are rare” is discussed; on Musonius, proconsul of Greece; on the new pupil Severus, who came on the scene during the scuffle;⁠[705] a short address;⁠[706] on count Ursacius; on another Severus; on Scylacius, proconsul of Greece; on some new pupils, Ephesians and Mysians and citizens of Leon;⁠[707] on companions from his fatherland; on count Athenaeus; on the Roman Privatus, tutor of the son of Ampelius the proconsul; on his return from Corinth; on Phoebus the son of Alexander the proconsul; on count Arcadius a physician. Hortatory speech to his pupils just arrived and a propemptic to Flavian; on the marriage of Panathenaeus; two short addresses; a discourse⁠[708] when leaving Philippi in obedience to a summons from the emperor Julian; an oration delivered in Constantinople on the city itself, the emperor Julian, and the rites of Mithras; a discourse on the prefect Sallust, with an argument; on the proconsul Flavian; on his friend’s birthday; short address on his friend’s recovery; on intriguers; on Basil the proconsul (two); on Hermogenes, Plocianus, Ampelius, Praetextatus, proconsuls of Greece, and their companions; on his departure to the emperor Julian; speech delivered in Nicomedia at the exhortation of Pompeianus the prefect; a speech on the new students; on a new student; on his companion Zeno; on Aphobinus, a new student; on one who entered the school in consequence of an oracle of Poseidon; on those who had arrived from Ionia; on the Ionian strangers; an extempore oration to his hearers; a speech in honour of a friend in Constantinople; a discussion with his pupils after his return from his country; an extempore oration on his (poor) lecture-room; rebuke of those who listened indifferently to speeches; an extempore speech on some who attended his lectures and were inclined to be restive; on Cytianus and his companions who behaved in a disorderly manner when he was speaking extempore; exhortation on the necessity of endeavouring to secure variety in discourse; discussion after the healing of his wound;⁠[709] a speech after his return from Corinth; on the stylus (pencil) and his pupils; on Amyclae, a city of the Lacedaemonians, which, in obedience to a dream, he visited to offer prayer to the God; that lectures should not be delivered in public; speech on the necessity of taking exercise; another speech delivered at Corinth.⁠[710]

I think that these are all the orations of Himerius, nearly seventy in number, which you patiently and laboriously read while I was present. In all of them, while preserving the same type of diction and the same kind of style, he uses heaped-up periods and figures of speech in such a manner that a feeling of satiety is prevented by their cleverness and the way in which they are adapted. So far as I know, I am of opinion that no one has ever used figures of speech so admirably or pleasantly. His writings are full of all kinds of historical and mythical examples, either for purposes of demonstration, or for drawing parallels, or for affording pleasure, or for the embellishment of the subjects discussed, by which he guides aright and diversifies his language, and by which his exordia, epilogues, and arguments are constructed. He also often gives a preliminary outline of the matter and manner of the discussion. But while such is the character of his orations, it is obvious that he held impious views on religion and imitates the dogs who yelp against us in secret. He flourished in the time of Constantius and the most impious Julian, and was head of the rhetorical school at Athens.

FOOTNOTES:

PUBLICATIONS

OF THE

S. P. C. K.

BOOKS FOR

STUDENTS

AND

OTHERS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE

London: Central Offices: 6 St. Martin’s Place, W.C.2 Book Shops: 64 New Bond Street, W.1 43 Queen Victoria Street, E.C.4 And of all Booksellers.

New York: The Macmillan Company