Volume 1 — PHOTIUS BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON⁠[6]

PHOTIUS BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON⁠[6]

Register and enumeration of the books read by us, 279 in number, of which our beloved brother Tarasius desired to have a summary.⁠[7]

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

My dearest brother Tarasius,

After our appointment as ambassador to Assyria⁠[8] had been confirmed by the assent of the embassy⁠[9] and approved by the emperor, you asked to be furnished with summaries of those works which had been read and discussed during your absence. Your idea was to have something to console you for our painful separation, and at the same time to acquire some knowledge, even if vague and imperfect, of the works which you had not yet read in our company. We believe that their number is exactly 279. Accordingly, regarding the fulfilment of your request as a sacred obligation, we engaged a secretary, and set down all the summaries we could recollect. No doubt we have not been expeditious enough to satisfy your feverish eagerness and vehement desire, but still we have been quicker than might have been expected. The summaries will be arranged in the order in which our memory recalls them. Certainly, it would not be difficult, if one preferred it, to describe historical events and those dealing with different subjects under separate headings. But, considering that nothing would be gained by this, we have set them down indiscriminately as they occurred to us.⁠[10] If, during your study of these volumes, any of the summaries should appear to be defective or inaccurate, you must not be surprised. It is no easy matter to undertake to read each individual work, to grasp the argument, to remember and record it; but when the number of works is large, and a considerable time has elapsed since their perusal, it is extremely difficult to remember them with accuracy. As to the commonplaces met with in the course of our reading, so simple that they can hardly have escaped your notice, we have devoted less attention to them, and have purposely refrained from examining them carefully. You will be better able than ourselves to decide whether these summaries will do more than fulfil your original expectations as to their usefulness. Certainly, such records will assist you to refresh the memory of what you have read by yourself, to find more readily what you want, and further, to acquire more easily the knowledge of what has not as yet been the subject of intelligent reading on your part.

I⁠[11]

Read the treatise of Theodore the Presbyter,⁠[12] in which he undertakes to prove the genuineness of the works of St. Dionysius. The following arguments against it are refuted: (1) If they are genuine, how is it that none of the later Fathers cites them or quotes any passages from them? (2) How is it that Eusebius Pamphili,⁠[13] in his list of the writings of the Holy Fathers, does not mention them? (3) How is it that these treatises describe in detail rites and customs which only became established in the Church gradually and after a long time? The great Dionysius, as is clear from the Acts,⁠[14] was contemporary with the Apostles [whereas most of the institutions described only became established gradually and in later times]; it is therefore improbable (says the objector), or rather a clumsy fiction, to assert that Dionysius could have undertaken to describe institutions which were not fully developed till long after his death. (4) How is it that a letter of the divinely-inspired Ignatius⁠[15] is referred to? for Dionysius flourished in the time of the Apostles, whereas Ignatius suffered martyrdom during the reign of Trajan, and wrote the letter referred to shortly before his death. Theodore endeavours to solve these difficulties and does his best to prove the genuineness of the treatises.⁠[16]

II

Read Adrian’s (Hadrian’s) Introduction to the Scriptures,⁠[17] a useful book for catechumens.

III

Read the History of Nonnosus,⁠[18] containing a description of his embassy to the Aethiopians, Amerites,⁠[19] and Saracens, then a most powerful nation, as well as to other Eastern peoples. At this time Justinian was emperor of the Romans, and Caïsus chief of the Saracens. This Caïsus was the grandson of Arethas, himself a chief, to whom Nonnosus’s grandfather was sent as ambassador, during the reign of Anastasius, to conclude a treaty of peace. Nonnosus’s father Abrames⁠[20] had in like manner been sent on an embassy to Alamundarus,⁠[21] chief of the Saracens, during the reign of Justin, and was successful in procuring the release of Timostratus and John, two Roman generals who were prisoners of war. Caïsus, to whom Nonnosus was sent, was chief of two of the most illustrious Saracen tribes, the Chindeni and Maadeni. Before Nonnosus was appointed ambassador, his father had been sent to this same Caïsus by Justinian, and had concluded a treaty of peace, on condition that Caïsus’s son Mavias should be taken as a hostage to Byzantium. After this, Nonnosus was entrusted with a threefold mission: to Caïsus, to induce him, if possible, to visit the emperor, to Elesbaas, king of the Axumites, and to the Amerites. Axumis⁠[22] is a very large city, and may be considered the capital of Aethiopia; it lies more S. and E. than the Roman empire. Nonnosus, in spite of the treacherous attacks of tribesmen, perils from wild beasts, and many difficulties and dangers on the journey, successfully accomplished his mission, and returned in safety to his native land.⁠[23]

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

He tells us that the ancient name for what are now called σανδάλια (sandals) was ἀρβύλαι, and that φακιόλιον (turban) was called φασῶλις.⁠[24]

He tells us that most of the Saracens, those who live in Phoenicon as well as beyond it and the Taurenian mountains,⁠[25] have a sacred meeting-place consecrated to one of the gods, where they assemble twice a year. One of these meetings lasts a whole month, almost to the middle of spring, when the sun enters Taurus; the other lasts two months, and is held after the summer solstice. During these meetings complete peace prevails, not only amongst themselves, but also with all the natives; even the animals are at peace both with themselves and with human beings. Other strange, more or less fabulous information is also given.

He tells us that Adulis⁠[26] is fifteen days’ journey from Axumis. On his way there, he and his companions saw a remarkable sight in the neighbourhood of Auē (Avē), midway between Axumis and Adulis; this was a large number of elephants, nearly 5000. They were feeding in a large plain, and the inhabitants found it difficult to approach them or drive them from their pasture. This was what they saw on their journey.

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

During his voyage from Pharsan,⁠[27] Nonnosus, on reaching the last of the islands, had a remarkable experience. He there saw certain creatures⁠[28] of human shape and form, very short, black-skinned, their bodies entirely covered with hair. The men were accompanied by women of the same appearance, and by boys still shorter. All were naked, women as well as men, except for a short apron of skin round their loins. There was nothing wild or savage about them. Their speech was human, but their language was unintelligible even to their neighbours, and still more so to Nonnosus and his companions. They live on shell-fish and fish cast up on the shore. According to Nonnosus, they were very timid, and when they saw him and his companions, they shrank from them as we do from monstrous wild beasts.

IV

Read the twenty-five books of Theodore of Antioch⁠[29] against Eunomius⁠[30] in defence of St. Basil.⁠[31] His style is somewhat obscure, but the work is full of ideas and sound reasoning, and contains a wealth of evidence taken from the Scriptures. He refutes the arguments of Eunomius almost word for word, and amply proves that he is very ignorant of outside knowledge and still more so of our religion. I believe he is the Theodore who was bishop of Mopsuestia.

V

Read also the attack of Sophronius⁠[32] on Eunomius in defence of St. Basil. His style is clearer and more concise than that of Theodore. He does not traverse all the arguments of Eunomius, but chiefly attacks and refutes those which appear to contain the most essential points of his heresy. The style is aphoristic, the language in general free and simple⁠[33] and not disagreeable, although embellished with over-laboured arguments.

VI

Read also the attack of Gregory of Nyssa⁠[34] on Eunomius in defence of St. Basil. His style is as brilliant as that of any rhetorician, and agreeable to listen to. He does not refute Eunomius in detail, and is consequently briefer than Theodore, but fuller than Sophronius. He is fond of using enthymemes⁠[35] and arguments from example. But I can say without partiality that the copiousness and fertility of his arguments are as convincing a proof of his superiority to Theodore as the charm, brilliancy, and pleasantness of his style.

VII

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

VIII

Read Origen’s⁠[36] four books On First Principles. The first deals with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In this his statements are often blasphemous; thus, he asserts that the Son was created by the Father, the Holy Ghost by the Son; that the Father pervades all existing things, the Son only those that are endowed with reason, the Holy Ghost only those that are saved. He also makes other strange and impious statements, indulging in frivolous talk about the migration of souls, the stars being alive, and the like. This first book is full of fables about the Father, Christ (as he calls the Son), the Holy Ghost, and creatures endowed with reason. In the second book he treats of the world and created things. He asserts that the God of the Law and the prophets, of the Old and the New Testament, is one and the same; that there was the same Holy Spirit in Moses, the rest of the prophets, and the Holy Apostles. He further discusses the Incarnation of the Saviour, the soul, resurrection, punishment, and promises. The third book deals with free will; how the devil and hostile powers, according to the Scriptures, wage war against mankind; that the world was created and is perishable, having had a beginning in time. The fourth book treats of the final end, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the proper manner of reading and understanding them.

IX

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

X

Read the twenty⁠[37] books of Eusebius’s Demonstratio Evangelica.

XI

Read Eusebius’s Praeparatio Ecclesiastica,⁠[38] in ... books in which there are extracts....

XII

Read Eusebius’s Demonstratio Ecclesiastica,⁠[38] in ... books.

XIII

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

XIV

Read Apolinarius’s⁠[39] Against the Heathen, On Piety, and On Truth. The writer was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia⁠[40] and flourished during the reign of Marcus Antoninus Verus.⁠[41] He deserves mention and his style is excellent. Other writings of his are said to be equally worthy of record, but they have not come into my hands.

XV

Read the Acts of the first council⁠[42] in three volumes. It bears the name of Gelasius,⁠[43] but is rather a history than an Acts. The author’s style is poor and mean, but he gives a detailed account of the proceedings of the council.

XVI

Read the Acts of the third council,⁠[44] consisting almost entirely of the letters of St. Cyril⁠[45] to Nestorius⁠[46] and that impious man’s replies.

XVII

Read the Acts of the fourth council⁠[47] in several books. There were fifteen sessions, at which Dioscorus⁠[48] and Eutyches⁠[49] were condemned, and Nestorius excommunicated. St. Flavian⁠[50] was declared innocent after his death, together with Eusebius of Dorylaeum,⁠[51] Theodoret⁠[52] and Ibas.⁠[53] Other special matters were discussed, and the spirit of piety was strengthened.

XVIII

Read the Acts of the fifth council,⁠[54] at which the three so-called “chapters”⁠[55] were dealt with, and Origen and his writings excommunicated, together with Diodorus of Tarsus,⁠[56] and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodoret’s answer to the twelve anathematisms of Cyril was also excommunicated. Previous to this, the cases of Zooras⁠[57] and Anthimus,⁠[58] who wormed his way into the patriarchate of Constantinople, and certain other matters were discussed.

XIX

Read the Acts of the sixth council,⁠[59] at the sessions of which Sergius,⁠[60] Cyrus,⁠[61] and Pyrrhus⁠[62] of Constantinople were excommunicated, together with Honorius⁠[63] of Rome, Polychronius,⁠[64] and others, who had ventured to assert that there was only one will and one energy in Christ. The dogma of truth was confirmed.

XX

Read the Acts of the seventh council,⁠[65] at the sessions of which the iconoclasts were defeated and the orthodox faith shone with increased brightness.

XXI

Read the treatise of John Philoponus⁠[66] On the Resurrection in ... volumes. In this work, rejecting the doctrine of the Resurrection of the body, he says much that is ill-considered. He also ridicules our blessed and holy Fathers.

XXII

Read the elaborate Refutation by Theodosius the Monk⁠[67] of the passages cited by John Philoponus as arguments against the Resurrection, including quotations from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, in refutation of John’s vain efforts.

XXIII

Read the invectives of Conon,⁠[68] Eugenius,⁠[69] and Themistius,⁠[70] against the treatise of John Philoponus, in which they pillory his vain efforts. They also violently attack him personally, as a man entirely estranged from the Christian faith. However, they agree with him in refusing to accept the decisions of the council of Chalcedon.

XXIV

Read a volume containing the Acts of a disputation held before John,⁠[71] bishop of the queen-city, during the reign of Justin,⁠[72] in which Conon and Eugenius the Tritheites took part on the one side, and Paul⁠[73] and Stephen,⁠[74] the Hesitators,⁠[75] on the other. Conon and Eugenius appear to have sided with Philoponus; for when Paul and Stephen demanded that they should anathematize Philoponus, they were unwilling to do so. On the other hand, they brought forth arguments to prove that his views were in harmony with those of Severus⁠[76] and Theodosius, their own teachers. They indeed in many respects uphold the orthodox views—that the Trinity is consubstantial and of the same nature, that God is one, that the Godhead is one; but they are guilty of blasphemy in asserting that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are partial substances, and have special divinities and natures, thus being at variance with themselves and the truth. Many other opinions of theirs are equally foolish and nonsensical.

XXV

Read the work by John Chrysostom⁠[77] entitled Notes on Death, twenty-two short homilies. In the same volume there are also twenty-two homilies on the Ascension of the Lord and seventeen on Pentecost.

XXVI

Read the orations of Synesius,⁠[78] bishop of Cyrene, On Providence,⁠[79] On the Kingdom, and some other subjects. His style is lofty and dignified,⁠[80] but somewhat inclined to be over-poetical.

Also read various letters of his, distilling grace and charm, at the same time vigorous and full of closely-packed⁠[81] ideas.

He originally belonged to a heathen school of philosophy, but was favourably disposed to the inspired truths of Christianity and ready to accept all its doctrines except that of the Resurrection. Although this was his attitude, he was admitted into our Church and even raised to the episcopate, by reason of his goodness and purity and in the conviction that a man of such holiness of life could not fail to be illuminated by the light of the Resurrection. Nor were these hopes disappointed. For as soon as he became bishop he readily assented to that doctrine. Synesius was an ornament to Cyrene at the time when Theophilus was patriarch of Alexandria.⁠[82]

XXVII

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

XXVIII

Read Socrates’s⁠[83] Ecclesiastical History, a continuation of that of Eusebius. Beginning with the reign of Constantine, it goes down to the time of Theodosius the Younger.⁠[84]

The writer, who had attended the lectures of Ammonius and Helladius the Alexandrine grammarians,⁠[85] even when a boy had been instructed in “grammar” by heathen tutors, who had been banished from their native country for sedition and carried on their profession at Constantinople. The work contains the events of 140 years, and the entire history is included in seven books. There is nothing remarkable in the author’s style, and he is not very accurate in matters of doctrine.

XXIX

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius⁠[86] Scholasticus, an ex-praefect, born at Epiphania in Coele-Syria, in six books. The work begins where those of Socrates and Theodoret end, and goes down to the twelfth year of the reign of the emperor Maurice.⁠[87] The style is not without charm, although somewhat diffuse; in matters of doctrine he is certainly more trustworthy than other historians. The work also contains some passages about images.

XXX

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Salamanus Hermeias Sozomen,⁠[88] in nine books. Dedicated to the emperor Theodosius the Younger, it begins with the consulship of Crispus and his father Constantine, and goes down to the reign of Theodosius the Younger.⁠[89] Sozomen was at one time an advocate in Constantinople. His style is better than that of Socrates, from whom he differs in certain particulars.

XXXI

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret.⁠[90] Of all the writers mentioned his style is best suited for history. It is generally clear, dignified, and free from redundancies, although he sometimes employs metaphors that are too bold, almost insipid. He gives a fuller account of the proceedings of the second council⁠[91] than other historians, who merely bestow a cursory notice upon them, as if they were unwilling to say much about it. However, even he does not give all the details. He begins his History with the heresy of Arius and goes down to the reign of Theodosius the Younger, and the death of Theodore,⁠[92] at the time when Sisinnius was bishop of Constantinople.

XXXII

Read various letters of Athanasius,⁠[93] some containing a kind of Apology for his flight.⁠[94] The style is elegant, brilliant, and clear, full of grace and persuasiveness. It is a pleasure to listen to the Apology.

XXXIII

Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias,⁠[95] entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias.⁠[96] He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod⁠[97] and the last of the kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of the reign of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus’s style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free. It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem.

XXXIV

Read the History of Africanus,⁠[98] who was also the author of the Cesti in fourteen books.⁠[99] Although his style is concise, he omits nothing worthy of record. He begins with the Mosaic cosmogony and goes down to the coming of Christ. He also gives a cursory account of events from that time to the reign of Macrinus,⁠[100] at which date, as he tells us, the Chronicle was finished, that is, in the 5723rd year of the world. The work is in five volumes.

Africanus also wrote a letter to Origen against the authenticity of the history of Susannah, on the grounds (amongst others) that it is not included in the Jewish books, and that the play on words (ἀπὸ τοῦ πρίνου πρῖσαι ... ἀπὸ τοῦ σχίνου σχίσαι)⁠[101] is at variance with the genuine Hebrew style. Origen answered and refuted these objections.

Africanus also wrote a letter to Aristides,⁠[102] in which he showed that in reality there was no such difference as was generally supposed between the genealogies of our Saviour in Matthew and Luke.

XXXV

Read the work of Philip⁠[103] of Side, entitled a Christian History, beginning with the words “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He gives an account of the Mosaic history, sometimes brief, sometimes full, although wordy throughout. The first book contains twenty-four volumes, like the twenty-three other books, which we have seen up to the present.⁠[104] His language is diffuse, without urbanity or elegance, and soon palls, or positively disgusts; his aim is rather to display his knowledge than to benefit the reader. Most of the matter has nothing to do with history, and the work might be called a treatise on all kinds of subjects rather than a history, a tasteless effusion. Philip was a contemporary of Sisinnius and Proclus, patriarchs of Constantinople. He frequently attacks the former in his history, because, while both filled the same office⁠[105] and Philip was considered the more eloquent, Sisinnius was elected to the patriarchate.

XXXVI

Read the book entitled the Book of Christians, an interpretation of the Octateuch. The author,⁠[106] who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus. It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures. The style is poor, and the arrangement hardly up to the ordinary standard. He relates much that is incredible from an historical point of view, so that he may fairly be regarded as a fabulist rather than a trustworthy authority. The views on which he lays special stress are: that neither the sky nor the earth is spherical, but that the former is a kind of vault, and the latter a rectangular plane, [twice as long as broad], to the ends of which the ends of the sky are united; that all the stars, with the help of the angels, are kept in motion; and other things of the same kind. He also mentions the books of Genesis and Exodus, as it were by way of digression; and enters into a lengthy discussion and speculations about the Tabernacle. The prophets and apostles are cursorily treated. He says that the sun is only twice as large as two “climates”;⁠[107] that the angels do not dwell in heaven, but above the firmament and mingle with us; that Christ at His Ascension entered the space between the sky and the firmament, and that only this is the kingdom of heaven; and similar absurdities. He dedicates the first six books to a certain Pamphilus, of the remaining six (there are twelve in all) the seventh to Anastasius, in which he contends that the heavens are indissoluble; the eighth, on the song of Hezekiah⁠[108] and the retrogression of the sun, to a certain Peter. In this book he also states that he has written a commentary on the Song of Songs. The four remaining books have no dedication.

XXXVII

Read an essay On Government,⁠[109] in the form of a dialogue between Menas a patrician and Thomas a referendary.⁠[110] The treatise is in six books, in which is discussed a form of government, called δικαιαρχικόν (just rule), differing from those propounded by ancient writers. The Republic of Plato is deservedly criticised. The interlocutors hold that the constitution which they propose should be a combination of the three forms of government—monarchy, aristocracy, democracy. Each of these is to contribute what is genuine and sincere to the formation of the ideal constitution.

XXXVIII

Read the work of Theodore of Antioch⁠[111] entitled A Commentary on Genesis (the history of the Creation), the first book of which contains seven volumes. The style is neither brilliant nor very clear. The author avoids the use of allegory as much as possible, being only concerned with the interpretation of history. He frequently repeats himself, and produces a disagreeable impression upon the reader. Although he lived before Nestorius, he vomits up his doctrines by anticipation. This is that Theodore of Mopsuestia, from whom on several occasions John Philoponus (as the latter himself says) demanded a serious explanation of his method of interpretation in his own work on the Creation.

XXXIX

Read the brief refutation of the discourse of Hierocles⁠[112] in support of Apollonius of Tyana⁠[113] by Eusebius Pamphili.

XL

Read the so-called Ecclesiastical History by Philostorgius⁠[114] the Arian, the spirit of which is different from that of nearly all other ecclesiastical historians. He extols all Arians, but abuses and insults all the orthodox, so that his work is not so much a history as a panegyric of the heretics, and nothing but a barefaced attack upon the orthodox. His style is elegant, his diction often poetical, though not to such an extent as to be tedious or disagreeable. His figurative use of words is very expressive and makes the work both pleasant and agreeable to read; sometimes, however, these figures are overbold and far-fetched, and create an impression of being frigid and ill-timed. The language is variously embellished even to excess, so that the reader imperceptibly finds himself involved in a disagreeable obscurity. In many instances the author introduces appropriate moral reflections of his own. He starts from the devotion of Arius to the heresy and its first beginnings, and ends with the recall of the impious Aëtius.⁠[115] This Aëtius was removed from his office by his brother heretics, since he outdid them in wickedness, as Philostorgius himself unwillingly confesses. He was recalled and welcomed by the impious Julian. The history, in one book and six volumes, goes down to this period. The author is a liar and the narrative often fictitious. He chiefly extols Aëtius and Eunomius for their learning, as having alone cleansed the doctrines of faith overlaid by time, therein showing himself a monstrous liar. He also praises Eusebius of Nicomedia⁠[116] (whom he calls the Great), Theophilus the Indian,⁠[117] and several others, for their lives and wonderful works. He severely attacks Acacius, bishop of Caesarea⁠[118] in Palestine, for his extreme severity and invincible craftiness, in which, he declares, Acacius surpassed all his fellow-heretics, however filled they were with hatred of one another, as well as those who held different religious opinions.

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

Notwithstanding his rage against the orthodox, Philostorgius does not venture to attack Gregory the Theologian,⁠[119] but unwillingly accepts his doctrines. His attempt to slander Basil the Great only had the effect of increasing his reputation. He was forced to admit the vigour and beauty of his sermons from actual knowledge, although he timidly calls Basil overbold and inexperienced in controversy, because he ventured to attack the writings of Eunomius.

XLI

Read the Ecclesiastical History by a certain John.⁠[120] It begins with the reign of Theodosius the Younger, the heresy of Nestorius and his deposition, and goes down to the time of Zeno and the deposition of Peter the heretic,⁠[121] who had usurped the see of Antioch. The style is clear but florid. The author describes in detail the third council held at Ephesus,⁠[122] and also another council held in the same place, the “Robber” council,⁠[123] which he deifies together with its president Dioscorus and his companions. He also gives a slanderous account of the council of Chalcedon. This justifies the conclusion that the author is John, presbyter of Aegae, a heretic who wrote a special attack on the council of Chalcedon. The history, according to his statement, is in ten books. I have only read five, containing (as already stated) a record of events from the heresy of Nestorius to the deposition of Peter the heretic.

XLII

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Basil the Cilician.⁠[124] It begins with the death of Simplicius, bishop of Rome,⁠[125] who wrote to Acacius of Constantinople⁠[126] to have no dealings with Peter surnamed Mongus,⁠[127] who was then corrupting Alexandria by anathematizing, publicly and in church, the holy council of Chalcedon. It was through him that Acacius was deprived of his see; for although Acacius at first was justly incensed against him, he subsequently showed no aversion to his doctrines and thereby incurred the suspicion of being a heretic. This matter came up again during the reign of Zeno. The history begins at this time and goes down to the death of Anastasius, after he had reigned twenty-seven years and three months, Justin the Thracian being proclaimed his successor.⁠[128] The present book finishes about this time, and embraces the period from Zeno to the death of Anastasius and the proclamation of Justin as emperor. The author also states that two other books were written by him, the first and the third; the first beginning with the reign of Marcian and ending with that of Zeno, where the second begins, while the third continues the narrative of the second, beginning with the reign of Justin.

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

XLIII

Read the treatise of John Philoponus on the Hexaëmeron.⁠[129] In this his style is pure and clear and better than usual. He agrees in the main with Basil the Great, but everywhere opposes Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, taking up the same subject, wrote his Interpretation of Genesis, which Philoponus in turn endeavours to refute.

XLIV

Read the eight books of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus⁠[130] of Tyre.⁠[131] His style is clear, agreeable, concise, and full of charm, due to his fondness both for archaisms and for novel constructions.

He tells us that Apollonius visited the Indians, whom he calls Brahmins, from whom he learnt much of their divine wisdom. He also visited the wise men of Aethiopia, whom he calls Gymni,⁠[132] because they pass all their life naked and never wear clothes even in the most trying weather. But he declares that the wise men of India are far superior to those of Aethiopia, since they are older in point of time and their intellect is purer and keener, owing to their living nearer to the rays of the sun.

He does not, however, assert that Apollonius worked any wonders such as legend ascribes to him; he merely extols him as leading a philosophic and temperate life, in which he exhibits the teaching of Pythagoras, both in manners and doctrine. Various accounts are given of his death, the circumstances of which are obscure, as he himself desired; for during his lifetime he was in the habit of saying that the wise man should keep his life a secret from others, or, if he could not, should at least keep his death a secret.⁠[133] The place of his burial is unknown.

Philostratus states that Apollonius had a great contempt for riches; he gave up all he possessed to his brother and others, and could never be persuaded to accept money from those in authority,⁠[134] although they pressed it upon him as deserving it. He asserts that he long foresaw the famine at Ephesus and stopped it after it broke out. He once saw a certain lion, which he declared to be the soul of Amasis, king of the Egyptians,⁠[135] which had entered the body of the animal as a punishment for the crimes Amasis had committed during his lifetime. He also exposed an Empusa,⁠[136] which, under the guise of a courtesan, pretended to be enamoured of Menippus.⁠[137] He recalled to life a Roman girl who had apparently just died, and loosed his limbs from his fetters, while bound in prison. Before Domitian he defended himself and extolled Nerva (Domitian’s successor); after which he vanished from the court, and joined Demetrius⁠[138] and Damis⁠[139] as had been arranged, not after a long time, but in a few moments, though they were several days’ journey apart. Such are the fictions of Philostratus concerning Apollonius. He denies, however, that he was a wonder-worker, if he performed some of the wonders that are commonly attributed to him, but asserts that they were the result of his philosophy and the purity of his life. On the contrary, he was the enemy of magicians and sorcerers and certainly no devotee of magic.

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

XLV

Read two pamphlets by Andronicianus⁠[140] Against the Eunomians. In the preface he promises much that he does not perform, at any rate in the second book. He shows himself a devoted student of philosophy in character, sentiment, and style. By religion he is a Christian.

XLVI

Read twenty-seven books by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, against various heretical propositions.⁠[141] The first book is directed against those who assert that the God-Word was one nature and that it took its beginning from the seed of David, and also against those who attribute passions to the Godhead. In the second, he supports his contentions more by arguments from Scripture.⁠[142] The third deals with the same subject. The fourth contains the teachings of the holy Fathers concerning the glorious Dispensation (Incarnation)⁠[143] of our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God. The fifth contains a collection of the opinions of the heretics, which are compared with the opinion of those who do not admit two natures in Christ and shown to be nearly akin. The sixth distinctly states that there is one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The seventh is in the form of a letter completing the first book. The eighth is written against those who judge the truth only by the opinion of the multitude. The ninth is against those who assert that we should neither seek arguments nor quote from the Scriptures, but that we must be satisfied with our faith. The tenth is against those who malevolently bring forward the argument that “the Word was made flesh.” The eleventh is against those who forbid us to assume two natures in the Incarnation. The twelfth is against those who assert that he who says the Word is one thing and the flesh another, assumes there are two Sons. The thirteenth is against those who say that to regard Christ as a man is to put one’s hopes in man. The fourteenth is against those who say, “He suffered without suffering.” The fifteenth is against those who say, “He suffered as he willed.” The sixteenth is against those who say that we ought to accept the words, without regard to what is signified by them, which is beyond all men’s understanding. The seventeenth is against those who say, “The Word suffered in the flesh.” The eighteenth is against those who ask what punishment the Jews would have suffered, if they had not crucified God. The nineteenth is against those who declare that he who does not believe that God was crucified is a Jew. The twentieth is against those who assert that the angels who ate with Abraham did not entirely put on the nature of flesh. The twenty-first is against those who depreciate each of the miracles, by denying the flesh. The twenty-second is against those who injure our race, by denying that the Saviour began with our nature. The twenty-third is against those who bid us simply believe what is said, without considering what is seemly or what is unseemly. The twenty-fourth is against those who do away with the difference of the two natures, after the Passion and the Ascension. The twenty-fifth is a summary of all that has already been stated in detail. The twenty-sixth deals with the subsequently manifested composition or consubstantiation; the twenty-seventh with the example from the ordinary man (applied to Christ). The subject alone in each case is sufficient to indicate which of the above confirm the orthodox faith, and which are at variance with it.

Read in the same volume three larger works than those mentioned, entitled Eranistes (the Beggar) or Polymorphos (multiform).⁠[144] The first teaches that the Word is unchangeable; the second, that the union is unmixed; the third, that the God-Word is impassible. In a fourth book, these statements are supported by argument. The three books were composed by him in the form of a dialogue, but the rest are in continuous prose. The style is clear, distinct, and pure; not wanting in charm, and the works abound in suitable reflections.

XLVII

Read the work of Josephus the Jew⁠[145] on The Calamities of the Jews. The capture of Iotapata⁠[146] (at which Josephus himself was taken prisoner) and Gischala,⁠[146] and the desolation of other Jewish fortresses is described, and in the last book the destruction of Jerusalem and the fortress of Masada.⁠[147] The work is in seven books. The author has a pure style, and is apt at expressing his meaning with dignity, with distinctness and charm. In the speeches introduced he is persuasive and agreeable, even when the opportunity invites him to take opposite views; he is clever and prolific in the use of arguments on either side, and is extremely fond of aphorisms. He is also very skilful in introducing the emotional, in rousing the passions and calming them.

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

Such were the signs that foretold the taking of the city; but it was internal sedition, together with the enemy, that overthrew it. Split up into the factions of Zelotae and Sicarii,⁠[148] they destroyed one another, and thus the body of the state was cruelly and mercilessly torn asunder by the common people. The city suffered so grievously from famine that the inhabitants were driven to all kinds of excesses; a woman even ate the flesh of her own son. Famine was succeeded by pestilence, a clear proof that it was the work of the divine wrath, in fulfilment of the Lord’s proclamation and threat that the city should be taken and utterly destroyed.

XLVIII

Read the treatise of Josephus⁠[149] On the Universe, elsewhere called On the Cause of the Universe and On the Nature of the Universe. It consists of two little treatises, in which the author shows that Plato contradicts himself. He also refutes Alcinous,⁠[150] whose views on the soul, matter, and the Resurrection are false and absurd, and introduces his own opinions on the subject. He proves that the Jewish nation is far older than the Greek. He thinks that man is a compound of fire, earth, and water, and also of spirit, which he calls soul. Of the spirit he speaks as follows: Taking the chief part of this, he moulded it together with the body, and opened a passage for it through every joint and limb. The spirit, thus moulded together with the body and pervading it throughout, is formed in the likeness of the visible body, but its nature is colder, compared with the three other substances of which the body is compounded. These views are not in harmony with the Jewish ideas of human physiology, and are below the customary standard of his other writings. He also gives a summary account of the creation of the world. Of Christ the true God he speaks like ourselves, openly giving Him the name of God, and describing, in language to which no objection can be taken, His indescribable generation from the Father. This might, perhaps, cause people to doubt whether the treatise is really by Josephus, although in respect of style it does not differ from the rest of his writings.

I find a marginal note to the effect that the work is not by Josephus, but by one Gaius,⁠[151] a presbyter of Rome, also the author of The Labyrinth,⁠[152] and of a dialogue against Proclus, the champion of the Montanists.⁠[153] The latter, which had no ascription, is attributed by some to Josephus, by others to Justin Martyr, and The Labyrinth to Origen. But there is no doubt that the work is by Gaius, the author of The Labyrinth, who at the end of this treatise has left it on record that he was the author of The Nature of the Universe. But it is not quite clear to me, whether this is the same or a different work. This Gaius is said to have been a presbyter of the Church at Rome, during the episcopate of Victor⁠[154] and Zephyrinus,⁠[155] and to have been ordained bishop of the gentiles. He wrote another special work against the heresy of Artemon,⁠[156] and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles of St. Paul, and does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews.

XLIX

Read the treatise of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, Against the Blasphemies of Nestorius, in five books. In these he preserves his characteristic style and curious phraseology. But he is clearer than in his letters to Hermeias⁠[157] and his work On Adoration in the Spirit. The language is ornate and elaborate, forced into agreement with its peculiar form, which resembles prose poetry that despises metre.

L

Read the treatise of Nicias the monk⁠[158] Against the Seven Chapters of Philoponus, which he mentioned in his work called the Arbitrator. The style is simple and concise, suitable for controversial writings, and free from redundancies. Also read his attack On the impious Severus and two books Against the Heathen.

LI

Read the four books by Hesychius,⁠[159] presbyter of Constantinople, On the Brazen Serpent. The work is meant for show, and is a studied attempt to work upon the feelings. It contains speeches to the people put into the mouth of Moses, and fictitious addresses of the people in reply. There are also elaborate speeches of the Deity to Moses and the people, together with their replies, in the form of entreaty and excuse. A great part of the work, which comprises a bulky volume, is devoted to these speeches. The author himself, so far as one can judge from this treatise, is orthodox.

LII

Read the account of the synod held at Side⁠[160] against the sect of the Messalians,⁠[161] Euchites,⁠[161] or Adelphians.⁠[162] Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, presided, supported by twenty-five other bishops. Read in the same a letter of the synod to Flavian, bishop of Antioch, giving him an account of the proceedings.

In consequence of this letter, Flavian summoned another synod against these same heretics, assisted by three other bishops, Bizus of Seleucia, Maruthas, bishop of the Sufareni,⁠[163] and Samus. There were also present priests and deacons to the number of thirty. The synod refused to accept Adelphius’s profession of repentance or to admit him when he offered to renounce his heresy; for it was shown that neither his renunciation nor repentance was sincere. The founders of this sect were Adelphius, who was neither a monk nor a priest, but one of the laity, Sabas, surnamed Apokopos (castrated), who assumed the garb of a monk, another Sabas, Eustathius of Edessa, Dadoes, and Simeon, the tares of the evil one, and others who grew up together with them. Adelphius and his followers were condemned, although they sought opportunity for repentance, which was refused them, since they were detected communicating in writing, as if they shared their views, with persons whom they had anathematized as Messalians.

Flavian wrote a letter to the Osroënians, informing them of what had been done and giving an account of the punishment and excommunication of the heretics. The bishops who received it wrote back to Flavian, thanking him and expressing their approval. Litoius,⁠[164] bishop of Armenia, also wrote inquiring about the Messalians, and a copy of the decree and sentence of the council was sent to him. The great Flavian also wrote to another Armenian bishop on the same subject; in this second letter he accuses the bishop of sympathy with the Messalians. Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, also wrote to the bishops of Pamphylia, bidding them everywhere expel the Messalians as accursed and an abomination. He wrote in similar terms to Amphilochius, bishop of Side.

Sisinnius of Constantinople and Theodotus of Antioch sent a joint letter to Verinianus,⁠[165] Amphilochius, and the rest of the bishops in Pamphylia, addressed “To our colleagues, beloved of God, Verinianus, Amphilochius, and the rest of the bishops in Pamphylia: Sisinnius, Theodotus, and all the holy synod which by the grace of God was assembled in the mighty city of Constantinople to consecrate the most holy Sisinnius, beloved of God, and our emperor Theodosius, beloved of Christ, greet you in the Lord.” In this letter from the council Neon the bishop declared that if any one, after the excommunication of the Messalians, should at any time be detected saying or doing anything which rendered him suspect of favouring this heresy, he should not be allowed to retain his position, not if he offered to pay ten thousand times the penalty imposed upon those who repent; and that any one who supported him, a bishop or any one else, should be liable to the same penalty. John of Antioch also wrote a letter to Nestorius about the Messalians. The holy oecumenical council, the third, at Ephesus,⁠[166] also issued a decree, exposing the blasphemies and heresies of the Messalian book Asceticus and anathematizing it. Archelaus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, also wrote twenty-four anathematisms against these articles. Heraclidas, bishop of Nyssa, also wrote two letters against them, in the second of which evidence is given of the antiquity of the worship of the holy images.

Some time afterwards, Gerontius, presbyter and superior of the monks at Glitis, wrote to Alypius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, bringing various charges against Lampetius,⁠[167] a profane impostor, who was the first of the Messalian sect who succeeded in worming his way into the dignity of the priesthood. Alypius, on receipt of the letter, commanded Hormisdas, bishop of Comana, to investigate the charges against Lampetius. The heads of the indictment were: that he had been guilty of unlawful intercourse with women; that he had used obscene language in reference to such matters; that he sneered and scoffed at those who chanted the hours as being still under the law. He and the Messalians were accused of many other impious words and deeds; and we ourselves, while endeavouring, as far as was in our power, to lead them from the error which was lately beginning to spring up again, have seen much festering passion and vice consuming their souls. But this Lampetius, Gerontius the presbyter being his accuser and bishop Hormisdas his judge, convicted partly on the evidence of witnesses and partly out of his own mouth, was unanimously degraded from the priesthood. Alypius of Caesarea who had been misled and had promoted the miscreant to the dignity of presbyter joined in the vote. This thrice sinful Lampetius composed a book called the Testament, in which some of his impious doctrines are inserted; Severus, who usurped the see of Antioch, while still only a presbyter, refuted it. A certain Alpheus, bishop of Rhinocorura,⁠[168] defended Lampetius as innocent in word and deed of the charges brought against him, and although, so far as one knows, he introduces no blasphemies in his published work, he was deprived of his office as a supporter of Lampetius. Another Alpheus, who had been ordained presbyter by Timotheus of Alexandria, was removed from office for the same heresy, as we learn from a report made by Ptolemy, also bishop of Rhinocorura, to the same Timotheus.

LIII

Read an account of the proceedings of the synod held at Carthage⁠[169] in the great church, while Faustus⁠[170] Honorius was emperor of the West, against Pelagius⁠[171] and Coelestius.⁠[172] The president was Aurelius, bishop of Carthage and Dotianus of Telepte, chief prelate of the province of Byzacena, supported by distinguished Church dignitaries from different provinces, to the number of 224. This synod excommunicated those who asserted that Adam was created mortal, and that he did not suffer death as a punishment for his sin; also those who declared that infants newly born had no need of baptism, because they were not liable to original sin from Adam; also those who affirmed that there was a place midway between hell and paradise, to which infants dying unbaptized were removed, there to live in a state of blessedness. Six other similar articles, which hold the first place in the heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius, were also anathematized.

The emperors Theodosius and Honorius also wrote to bishop Aurelius condemning these same heretics. After this Constantius, the husband of Placidia and the father of Valentinian the Younger, sent a decree to Volusianus, praefect of the city, ordering that Coelestius should be banished. [This Volusianus, uncle of Saint Melena (Melania),⁠[173] at the time was a heathen, but when threatened with death he became converted to the true faith and was baptized by Proclus⁠[174] of Constantinople, where he had been sent on an embassy. Perhaps at the same time he met that holy woman, who had come from Jerusalem to the queen-city.]⁠[175] Leo of Rome⁠[176] also wrote in regard to the converted Pelagians that, if they desired to be received into the Church again, they should anathematize their heresy in writing. In the letter of Coelestine, bishop of Rome,⁠[177] to Nestorius the same heretics are condemned. Coelestine also wrote to the bishops of Gaul in defence of the teaching of St. Augustine and against those who were emboldened to speak rashly by the licence allowed to the heresy. Jerome the priest⁠[178] also wrote to Ctesiphon⁠[179] in refutation of those who held the idea of impassibility (in other words, against Pelagius). This Pelagius was a monk and Coelestius was his pupil.

LIV

Read a work attacking the heresy of Pelagius and Coelestius, entitled A Copy of the Proceedings taken against the Doctrines of Nestorius by the Bishops of the West. It states that the Nestorian and Coelestian heresies were identical without doubt, quoting as its authority a letter of Cyril of Alexandria⁠[180] to the emperor Theodosius. The Coelestians, speaking of the body or the members of Christ, that is, the Church, audaciously deny that it is God (that is, the Holy Spirit) who distributes to each man severally, as He wills, faith and all that is necessary to life, piety, and salvation; according to them, the nature of man as constituted—which by sin and transgression fell from blessedness and was separated from God and handed over to death—both invites and repels the Holy Spirit in accordance with free will. The Nestorians hold and venture to assert the same opinion concerning the head of the body, Christ. Since Christ shares our nature and God wishes all men alike to be saved, they say that every one of his own free will can amend his error and make himself worthy of God; wherefore He who was born of Mary was not Himself the Word, but, by reason of the nobility of His natural will, He had the Word accompanying, sharing the condition of sonship by nobleness alone and similarity of name.

This Pelagian or Coelestian heresy flourished not only in the East, but also spread over the West. At Carthage in Africa it was detected and refuted by Aurelius and Augustine, and publicly condemned at various synods. Those who held these opinions were expelled from the Church as heretics, when Theophilus was bishop of Alexandria⁠[181] and Innocent bishop of Rome,⁠[182] by Roman, African, and other Western bishops. At the synod held in Palestine,⁠[183] however, at which fourteen bishops attended, Pelagius was acquitted. Some of the charges brought against him he utterly denied as foolish and anathematized, while he admitted having made certain other statements, not however in the sense attributed to them by his accusers, but rather in conformity with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. His accusers were Neporus⁠[184] and Lazarus,⁠[185] two bishops of Gaul, who were not present at the inquiry, having obtained permission to absent themselves in consequence of the illness of one of them. So Augustine states in his letters to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage.

After the death of the holy Augustine certain of the clergy began to reassert these impious doctrines. They began to speak evil of Augustine and falsely accused him of denying free will; but bishop Coelestine checked the renewal of this slander, writing to the bishops of the country in defence of that godlike man and against those who had set this heresy on foot again. As time went on, and these heretics, after having abjured their own doctrines, were received again into the Church, the scandal was again revived by them, and had to be put down before it went further by bishop Septimus,⁠[186] who wrote to Leo, pope at that time and a fervent opponent of these impious doctrines. Not long afterwards, when the shameless heresy again sprang up from an evil root, certain persons at Rome openly expressed themselves in favour of it. But Prosper,⁠[187] truly a man of God, in his pamphlets against them, soon crushed them, while Leo still occupied the papal throne. The heresy was also condemned at the holy synod of Ephesus.⁠[188] John, patriarch of Alexandria,⁠[189] in his Apologia to Gelasius, bishop of Rome,⁠[190] anathematized not only the Pelagian heresy, but Pelagius and Coelestius themselves, together with Julian,⁠[191] who was known to have succeeded them in the leadership of this sect.

LV

Read the treatise of John Philoponus (or rather Mataeoponus) Against the Holy Fourth Oecumenical Council.⁠[192] The style is characteristic of him. He shamelessly attempts to prove that the council favoured the heresy of Nestorius, and declares that it acquiesced in his excommunication, because it imagined it was doing no harm to the man⁠[193] by ratifying his doctrine, which Nestorius himself, on whom the condemnation fell, fondly cherished and regarded as the most important thing of all; wherein he indulges in fabrications and outrageous statements, on a par with his mental capacity and the unsteadiness of his opinions. The audacious and idle assertions which he makes against the council, a comedy in four parts, are in no way deserving of credit or even sensible.

In the same volume read a treatise by another John, a Nestorian, Against the same Holy Fourth Council. The author is John of Aegae,⁠[194] an impious person, but his diction has beauty and charm, and is brilliant and perspicuous.

LVI

Read the treatise of Theodoret of Cyrrhus Against Heresies, from the time of Simon⁠[195] down to those which sprang up in his own age. It is dedicated to a certain Sporacius,⁠[196] who was fond of hearing about such matters. It goes down to Nestorius and his heresy, on which he pours forth unmitigated censure, and even farther, to the heresy of Eutyches. In the last of the five books which the treatise contains, he gives a summary of divine and orthodox doctrine compared with idle heretical talk, showing that it is not to be confounded with the latter, but is pure and irreprehensible. The style is clear and free from redundancies.

LVII

Read Appian’s⁠[197] Roman History, in three parts and twenty-four books. The first treats of the seven kings, Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Ancus Hostilius,⁠[198] Ancus Marcius (grandson of Numa), Tarquinius (Priscus), Servius Tullius, Lucius Tarquinius, son of Tarquinius,⁠[199] of whose acts and deeds it contains an account. The first of these, the founder and oekist of the city, although his rule was rather patriarchal than tyrannical, was nevertheless assassinated, or, according to others, disappeared from view. The second, in no way inferior as a ruler to his predecessor, or perhaps even his superior, died at the age of.... The third was struck by lightning. The fourth succumbed to disease. The fifth was murdered by shepherds. The sixth was also murdered. The seventh was deposed and driven out of the city for his tyranny. After this, the monarchy was abolished, and its powers transferred to consuls. Such is the contents of the first book, which is entitled The Book of the Kings. The second book, entitled Italica, gives an account of the history of Italy with the exception of that part which is situated on the Ionian Sea. The following book, Samnitica, relates the wars of the Romans with the Samnites,⁠[200] a powerful nation and an enemy difficult to conquer whom it took the Romans eighty years to subdue, and the other nations who fought on their side. The fourth, Celtica, relates the wars of the Romans with the Celts (Gauls). The remaining books are similarly named. The fifth contains the History of Sicily and the other Islands, the sixth gives an account of Iberian affairs, the seventh of the Hannibalic wars, the eighth of Libyan affairs (dealing with Carthage and Numidia), the ninth of Macedonian affairs, the tenth of Greek and Ionian affairs, the eleventh of Syrian and Parthian affairs, the twelfth of the Mithradatic war. Up to this point the relations and wars of the Romans with foreign nations are set forth in this order. The books that follow describe the civil wars and disturbances amongst the Romans themselves. They are entitled the first and second books of the Civil Wars and so on down to the ninth, which is the twenty-first book of the whole. The twenty-second book is called Hekatontaëtia (the history of one hundred years), the twenty-third, Dacica, on Dacian affairs, the twenty-fourth, Arabica, on Arabian affairs.

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

The history begins with Aeneas, the son of Anchises, the son of Capys, who lived in the time of the Trojan war. After the capture of Troy Aeneas fled, and after much wandering landed on the coast of Italy at a place called Laurentum, where his camp is shown, and the coast is called after him Troja. Faunus, son of Mars, who was at the time ruler of the original Italian inhabitants, gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas and a piece of land 400 stades in circumference, on which Aeneas built a city and called it Lavinium after his wife Lavinia. Three years later, Faunus died, and Aeneas, who succeeded to the throne by right of kinship, gave the aborigines⁠[201] the name of Latins from his father-in-law Latinus Faunus. After another three years, Aeneas was killed in battle against the Rutulians of Tyrrhenia, to whose king Lavinia had formerly been betrothed. He was succeeded by Euryleon, surnamed Ascanius, the son of Aeneas by Creusa the daughter of Priam, who was his wife at Troy. According to others, however, the Ascanius who succeeded him was his son by Lavinia. Ascanius died four years after he had founded the city of Alba with a body of settlers from Lavinium, and Silvius became king. The son of this Silvius is said to have been Aeneas Silvius, and the son of Aeneas Latinus Silvius. His descendants were Capys, Capetus, Tiberinus, and Agrippa, said to be the father of Romulus, who was killed by lightning, leaving a son Aventinus, who had a son named Procas. All these are said to have been surnamed Silvius. Procas had two children, the elder named Numitor, the younger Amulius. When the elder succeeded to the throne on the death of his father, the younger got possession of it by force and crime, killed his brother’s son Egestus, and made his daughter Rhea a priestess, so that she might not have children. But Numitor’s mildness and gentleness saved him from the plot against his life. Silvia broke her vows and became pregnant,⁠[202] and was seized by Amulius for punishment, her two sons being given to some shepherds to be thrown into the river Tiber near at hand. The infants, Romulus and Romus,⁠[203] were descended from Aeneas on the mother’s side; the name of their father was unknown.⁠[204]

As already stated, the history begins with a rapid account of Aeneas and his descendants; but from the time of Romulus, the oekist⁠[205] of the city, it gives full details of events to the reign of Augustus, and, here and there, as late as the time of Trajan.

Appian was an Alexandrian by birth, and at first an advocate at Rome, being subsequently raised to the dignity of a procurator⁠[206] under the emperors. His style is dry and free from redundancies; as an historian, he is trustworthy to the best of his ability, and an excellent authority on military matters; the speeches which he introduces are admirably calculated to encourage soldiers when dispirited, to restrain them when too ardent, to express and faithfully represent the emotions and feelings. He flourished in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian.

LVIII

Read Arrian’s⁠[207] Parthica (History of Parthia) in seventeen books. He has also written the best account of the campaigns of Alexander of Macedon. Another work of his is Bithynica (History of Bithynia), relating the affairs of his native country. He also wrote an Alanica (History of the Alani).⁠[208] In the Parthica he gives an account of the wars between Parthia and Rome during the reign of Trajan. He considers the Parthians to have been a Scythian race, which had long been under the yoke of Macedonia, and revolted, at the time of the Persian rebellion,⁠[209] for the following reason. Arsaces and Tiridates were two brothers, descendants of Arsaces, the son of Phriapetes. These two brothers, with five accomplices, slew Pherecles, who had been appointed satrap of Parthia by Antiochus Theos,⁠[210] to avenge an insult offered to one of them; they drove out the Macedonians, set up a government of their own, and became so powerful that they were a match for the Romans in war, and sometimes even were victorious over them. Arrian further relates that during the reign of Sesostris, king of Egypt, and Iandysus, king of Scythia, the Parthians removed from their own country, Scythia, to the land which they now inhabit. The emperor Trajan reduced them to submission but left them free under a treaty, and appointed a king over them.

This Arrian, called the “young Xenophon,” a philosopher and one of the pupils of Epictetus,⁠[211] flourished during the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Antoninus. Owing to his remarkable learning he was entrusted with various offices of state, and was finally promoted to the consulship. He was also the author of other works: the Lectures of Epictetus his master, with eight books of which we are acquainted, and the Conversations of Epictetus in twelve books. His style is dry, and he is a genuine imitator of Xenophon.

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

LIX

Read the proceedings of the synod⁠[212] that was unlawfully summoned against St. John Chrysostom. The presidents were Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, Acacius of Beroea, Antiochus of Ptolemaïs, Severian of Gabala, and Cyrinus of Chalcedon, who were bitterly hostile to Chrysostom, and constituted themselves judges, accusers, and witnesses. There were thirteen sessions: twelve against Chrysostom, the thirteenth against Heraclides, whom Chrysostom had ordained bishop of Ephesus.

Owing to the pressure of other business, however, the deposition of Heraclides could not be ratified. His accuser was Macarius, bishop of Magnesia. The open enemy and chief accuser of Chrysostom was his deacon John. He first charged Chrysostom with having wronged him by ejecting him for having beaten his own servant Eulalius; the second charge was that a certain monk named John had been flogged by order of Chrysostom, dragged along, and put in chains like those possessed; the third, that he had sold much valuable Church property; the fourth, that he had sold the marble which Nectarius had set aside for decorating the church of St. Anastasia; the fifth, that he had reviled the clergy as dishonourable, corrupt, useless in themselves,⁠[213] and worthless; the sixth, that he had called St. Epiphanius⁠[214] a fool and a demon; the seventh, that he had intrigued against Severian, and set the decani⁠[215] against him; the eighth, that he had written a book slandering the clergy; the ninth, that, having called all the clergy together, he had summoned three deacons, Acacius, Edaphius, and John, on a charge of having stolen his hood,⁠[216] and had asked whether they had taken it for any other purpose; the tenth, that he had consecrated Antonius as bishop, although he had been convicted of robbing graves; the eleventh, that he had denounced count John at a seditious meeting of the troops; the twelfth, that he did not pray either when walking to the church or entering it; the thirteenth, that he ordained deacons and priests without standing by the altar; the fourteenth, that he consecrated four bishops at once; the fifteenth, that he received visits from women by themselves, after he had sent every one else out of the room; the sixteenth, that he had sold by the agency of Theodulus the inheritance left by Thecla; the seventeenth, that no one knew how the revenues of the Church were spent; the eighteenth, that he had ordained Serapion priest at a time when he was under accusation; the nineteenth, that he paid no heed to those who belonged to the communion of the world, who had been imprisoned by his orders, and when they died in prison did not even condescend to make arrangements for the interment of their bodies; the twentieth, that he had insulted the most holy Acacius, and refused to grant him an interview; the twenty-first, that he had handed over the presbyter Porphyry to Eutropius to be banished; the twenty-second, that he had also handed over the presbyter Venerius and grievously insulted him; the twenty-third, that a bath was heated for him alone, and that after he had bathed, Serapion emptied the bath, so that no one else might use it; the twenty-fourth, that he had ordained many without witnesses; the twenty-fifth, that he ate gluttonously alone, living like a Cyclops; the twenty-sixth, that he himself was accuser, witness, and judge, as was evident from the case of Martyrius the proto-deacon, and Proaeresius, bishop of Lycia; the twenty-seventh, that he struck Memnon with his fist in the church of the Apostles, and while he bled at the mouth celebrated the communion; the twenty-eighth, that he dressed and undressed on his throne, and ate a lozenge;⁠[217] the twenty-ninth, that he bribed the bishops who were consecrated by him to oppress the clergy.

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

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

Then bishop Isaac again charged Heraclides with being a follower of Origen, with whom the most holy Epiphanius would hold no communion either at prayers or meals. He also presented a memorial containing the following charges against Chrysostom: (1) That the monk John, already mentioned, had been flogged and put in chains through the Origenists; (2) that Epiphanius refused to hold communion with him on account of his connexion with the Origenists Ammonius, Euthymius, Eusebius, Heraclides, and Palladius; (3) that he neglected the duties of hospitality and always ate alone; (4) that in church he used such language as “the table is full of furies”; (5) that he loudly exclaimed, “I am in love, I am mad”; (6) that he ought to explain what “furies” he referred to, and what he meant by “I am in love, I am mad,” expressions unknown to the Church; (7) that he licensed people to sin, since he taught, “If thou sin again, repent again,” and, “As often as thou sinnest, come to me and I will heal thee”; (8) that he uttered blasphemy while in the Church, asserting that the prayer of Christ was not heard, since He did not pray in a proper manner; (9) that he stirred up the people to reject the authority of the synod; (10) that he had welcomed a number of heathens who had oppressed the Christians, kept them in the church, and afforded them protection; (11) that he had encroached upon the provinces of others, and consecrated bishops there; (12) that he had insulted the bishops, and ordered the bishops and ...⁠[218] to be ejected from his house; (13) that he had subjected the clergy to unheard-of insults; (14) that he had violently appropriated sums of money left to others; (15) that he performed ordinations without a meeting of the clergy and contrary to their wish; (16) that he had received the Origenists, but allowed those who were in communion with the Church and had come to him with letters of recommendation to be cast into prison without obtaining their release, and even if they died there, took no further notice of them; (17) that he had consecrated as bishops foreign slaves not yet emancipated and, in some cases, under accusation; (18) that he himself (Isaac) had often been ill-treated by him.

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

LX

Read the nine books of the History of Herodotus,⁠[219] in name and number identical with the nine Muses. He may be considered the best representative of the Ionic, as Thucydides of the Attic dialect. He is fond of old wives’ tales and digressions, pervaded by charming sentiments, which, however, sometimes obscure the due appreciation of history and its correct and proper character. Truth does not allow her accuracy to be impaired by fables or excessive digressions from the subject.

He begins his history with Cyrus, the first king of Persia, describing his birth, education, manhood, and reign, and goes down to the reign of Xerxes—his expedition against the Athenians, and subsequent retreat. Xerxes was the third who succeeded Cyrus, the first being Cambyses, the second Darius. Smerdis the Magian is not reckoned among these, as a tyrant who craftily usurped the throne that did not belong to him. Darius was succeeded by his son Xerxes, with whom the history concludes, although it does not go as far as the end of his reign. Herodotus himself, according to the evidence of Diodorus Siculus,⁠[220] flourished during these times. It is said that, when he read his work,⁠[221] Thucydides, then very young, who was present with his father at the reading, burst into tears. Whereupon Herodotus exclaimed, “Oh, Olorus! how eager your son is to learn!”

LXI

Read the three orations of Aeschines,⁠[222] Against Timarchus (the first of his speeches), On the False Embassy, and Against Ctesiphon (the third and last). These three speeches and nine letters are said to be his only genuine works; for which reason the orations were sometimes called the three Graces, from their number and the charm of their style, and the letters the nine Muses. Another oration, the Delian law, was known under his name; but Caecilius⁠[223] denies its genuineness and ascribes it to another Aeschines, an Athenian and contemporary.

Aeschines was one of the “ten” Attic orators. He was accused by Demosthenes of having misconducted an embassy,⁠[224] but was not convicted, since the demagogue Eubulus, in whose service Aeschines had formerly been,⁠[225] sided with him against Demosthenes, and caused the jury to rise before Demosthenes had finished his speech. Subsequently, when he attacked the proposal of Ctesiphon on behalf of Demosthenes as illegal,⁠[226] having himself settled the amount of the fine he was prepared to pay if he did not make good the charge, he failed to do so, and left his country. He first set out for Asia, intending to seek refuge with Alexander, the son of Philip, who was then on his Asiatic expedition, but when he heard of his death and that his successors were quarrelling amongst themselves, he sailed to Rhodes, where he remained for some time, giving young men lessons in rhetoric. When his admirers were at a loss to understand how so great an orator could have been defeated by Demosthenes, he replied, “If you had heard that beast (meaning Demosthenes), you would not be surprised.” He is said to have been the first to compose imaginary speeches and what are called “declamations” in his leisure hours. In his old age he removed to Samos, where he died. He was of humble origin;⁠[227] his father was Atrometus; his mother Glaucothea, a priestess. He had two brothers, Aphobetus and Philochares. At first, being possessed of a loud voice, he became a third-rate actor; then he was copying-clerk to the Council; and soon afterwards came forward as a public speaker. He belonged to the philippizing party at Athens, and was consequently a political opponent of Demosthenes. He is said to have attended Plato’s lectures, and to have been the pupil of Antalcidas,⁠[228] statements which are supported by the grandeur of his language and the dignity of his inventions.⁠[229] The sophist Dionysius,⁠[230] when he came across the oration Against Timarchus, after he had read the opening—“I have never yet publicly indicted a citizen nor harassed him when he was rendering an account of his office”—is reported to have said, “Would that you had indicted or harassed many, that so you might have left us more speeches of the kind,” so delighted was he with this orator’s style.

His language appears natural and extemporaneous, and does not create so much admiration for the writer’s art as for his natural gifts. Abundant proofs of his cleverness and ability are to be found in his orations. In his choice of words he aims at simplicity and distinctness, and in the structure of his periods he is neither so feeble as Isocrates, nor so compressed and concise as Lysias, while in verve and energy he is not inferior to Demosthenes. He employs figures of thought and speech, not to create the impression of using artistic language, but in conformity with the necessities of the subject. Hence his style appears direct and straightforward, well adapted for speaking in public and for private conversation; for he does not make constant use of proofs and arguments, and is not over elaborate.

Aeschines,⁠[231] the son of Lysanias, called Socraticus, is reckoned by Phrynichus and others one of the greatest orators, and his speeches as models of Attic style, only second to those of its best representatives.

LXII

Read the History of Constantine the Great by Praxagoras of Athens,⁠[232] in two books. In this he tells us that Constantine’s father, Constantius, was governor of Britain and Spain; Maximin⁠[233] of Rome, the rest of Italy, and Sicily; the other Maximin⁠[234] of Greece, Asia Minor, and Thrace; Diocletian, as the eldest, governed Bithynia, Arabia, Libya, and that part of Egypt that is watered by the Nile. Constantine was sent by his father to Diocletian in Nicomedia to be educated. At that time Maximin,⁠[235] governor of Asia Minor, who happened to be there, determined to lay a plot against the youth and set him to fight with a savage lion. But Constantine overcame and slew the beast, and having discovered the plot, took refuge with his father, after whose death he succeeded to the throne.

Soon after his accession, he subdued the Celts and Germans, neighbouring and barbarous nations. Having learnt that Maxentius, who had made himself master of Rome after Maximin,⁠[236] treated his subjects with cruelty and brutality, he marched against him, to punish him for his conduct. He was speedily victorious and put his enemy to flight, who fell into the pit which he had prepared for others and met the death which he had designed for his enemies. The Romans cut off his head, hung it on a spear, and carried it through the city. This part of the empire with joyful eagerness submitted to Constantine.

In the meantime, Maximin (who had plotted against Constantine) had died and was succeeded in his government by Licinius. Constantine, hearing that he also treated his subjects with cruelty and inhumanity, unable to tolerate such brutality towards those of the same race, marched against him, to put an end to his tyranny and replace it by constitutional government. Licinius, being informed of the expedition, became alarmed, attempted to disguise his cruelty under the cloak of humanity, and took an oath that he would treat his subjects kindly and would strictly keep his promise. Constantine accordingly for the time abandoned his expedition. Soon afterwards, however, since the wicked cannot remain quiet, Licinius broke his oath and abandoned himself to every kind of villainy. Whereupon Constantine attacked and defeated him in several great battles and shut him up and besieged him in Nicomedia, whence he approached Constantine in the garb of a suppliant. His kingdom was taken away from him and bestowed upon Constantine, who thus secured and became sole ruler of the different parts of the great empire, which had long desired an emperor worthy of it. He inherited his father’s kingdom and that of Rome after the overthrow of Maximin,⁠[237] and obtained possession of Greece, Macedonia, and Asia Minor by the deposition of Licinius. He further assumed control of that part which had belonged to Diocletian, and had been held by Licinius, who had seized it by right of war from Maximin,⁠[238] Diocletian’s successor.

Being thus sole master of a united empire, he founded Byzantium and called it after his own name. Praxagoras says that although Constantine was a heathen, in virtue, goodness, and prosperity he far excelled all his predecessors on the throne. With these words the history concludes.

Praxagoras, according to his own statement, was twenty-two years old when he wrote this history. He was also the author of two books on The Kings of Athens, written when he was nineteen, and six books on Alexander King of Macedon, written when he was thirty-one. His style is clear and agreeable, but somewhat wanting in vigour. He writes in the Ionic dialect.

LXIII

Read the History of Procopius⁠[239] the rhetorician in eight books. He relates the wars of the Romans in the reign of Justinian against the Vandals, Persians, and Goths, chiefly conducted by Belisarius, whose intimate friend the writer was and whom he accompanied on his campaigns, setting down in writing events of which he was an eye-witness.

The following is the contents of the first book. Arcadius, emperor of the Romans, in his will appointed Yezdegerd, king of Persia, guardian of his son Theodosius. Yezdegerd accepted the trust, fulfilled his duties as guardian conscientiously and kept his ward’s throne intact. On the death of Yezdegerd, Vararanes his successor made war against the Romans, but after Anatolius, master-general of the East, had been sent by Theodosius on an embassy to Persia, he concluded a treaty and returned home. After this Perozes, king of Persia, who succeeded another Yezdegerd, son of Vararanes, waged war on the Huns called Ephthalites or “White” Huns from their complexions. They are not ill-looking and do not resemble the other Huns. They do not lead a wild or nomadic life, but enjoy the protection of the laws under their kings. They were the neighbours of Persia on the north, which induced Perozes to invade their territory in order to settle the question of boundaries. The Ephthalites cunningly led him into difficult country, from which he barely escaped after concluding a disgraceful peace. He was forced to do homage to the king of the Ephthalites, and was only allowed to depart on taking an oath that he would never attack them again. Subsequently, however, he broke his word and, having again made war upon them, was ignominiously destroyed together with his whole army, which fell into pits and ditches cunningly prepared by the enemy. He died in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, on which occasion the famous pearl which he wore in his right ear was lost.

Perozes was succeeded by his youngest son Cabades,⁠[240] who was accused of violating the laws and imprisoned by the Persians in the fortress of Lethe. Having escaped with the assistance of his wife he took refuge with the Ephthalites, whose ruler betrothed him to one of his daughters and lent him a large army, with which he marched against the Persians and recovered his throne without a fight. His brother Blases,⁠[241] who was ruling in his stead, was abandoned by his soldiers, seized, and blinded by boiling oil poured into his open eyes, in accordance with a long-established Persian custom. An account of the dispute between Pacurius, king of Persia, and Arsaces, king of Armenia, and the advice hostile to Arsaces, given by the magi to Pacurius, follows next. It seems probable, however, that this story is fictitious.

The above-mentioned Cabades, who was heavily in debt to the Ephthalites, endeavoured to obtain a loan from Anastasius, but met with a refusal. Thereupon Cabades, without any further excuse, suddenly overran Armenia and besieged Amida. When he was on the point of abandoning the siege in despair, a gross insult on the part of some women among the besieged induced him to turn back and continue operations. He attacked with furious impetuosity, took the city by storm, and carried off the inhabitants as slaves. A large number of them were subsequently released without ransom, and treated with great kindness by Anastasius.

Anastasius, hearing that Amida was besieged, sent a very large force against the Persians, under four commanders—Areobindus, master-general of the East (son-in-law of Olybrius, the former emperor of the West), Celer, captain of the imperial household, Patricius the Phrygian, and his own nephew Hypatius. With them were associated Justin, who succeeded Anastasius, and many other experienced soldiers. It is said that so large an army had never been brought into the field against the Persians, but owing to its delay in arriving, the city was taken; further, there was no unity of operation and the different detachments acted independently, with the result that they were ignominiously defeated with heavy loss. At last they reached Amida and besieged the city, but while they wasted time, the Persians within, who were in great straits, concluded a seven years’ treaty, which was arranged by Celer and Asperedes as representatives of Persia and Rome.

Mount Taurus in Cilicia first passes through Cappadocia, Armenia, Persarmenia, Albania, Iberia, and all the other independent countries which had become subject to Persia. Just over the frontiers of Iberia there is a narrow path about fifty stades in length, ending in a steep and inaccessible height; there is apparently no way through, except by means of a natural exit which looks as if it had been made by the hand of man, called in ancient times the Caspian gate. Beyond this gate there are plains suitable for riding, and full of natural springs, and there is an extensive tract of gently-sloping country which provides an excellent pasturage for horses; it is nearly all inhabited by Huns as far as the Palus Maeotis.⁠[242] Whenever they invade Persian or Roman territory through the Caspian gate, they ride at full speed on vigorous horses, since all who desire to enter Iberia have only to contend with difficult country for the fifty stades mentioned; if, on the other hand, they choose another passage, it is only with great trouble that they reach their destination. Alexander, the son of Philip, perceiving this, built gates there and erected a fortress. During the reign of Anastasius, this fortress was occupied by a Hun named Ambazuces, a friend of the Romans and Anastasius, to whom he offered to hand over control of the gates.⁠[243] Anastasius thanked him for his goodwill, but refused to accept the responsibility. After the death of Ambazuces, Cabades forcibly ejected his sons and took possession of the gates. Thereupon Anastasius, after the treaty had been concluded with Cabades, built a stronghold in the neighbourhood of Daras, in spite of the objections of the Persians, and also another city in Armenia, on the frontiers of Persarmenia, which was formerly called Theodosiupolis, since Theodosius had bestowed upon it the rank of a city instead of a village.

On the death of Anastasius, although many of his kinsmen were worthy to succeed him, they were rejected and Justin elected emperor. Soon after his accession, Cabades, in order to secure the throne for his youngest son Chosroës, wrote a letter to Justin proposing that he should adopt Chosroës. Justin and his sister’s son Justinian, the heir-presumptive, welcomed the proposal, but in consequence of the advice of Proclus the quaestor, who argued that sons were the lawful heirs and successors of their fathers,⁠[244] they changed their minds and the adoption was not ratified. Subsequently, Seoses (who had once saved the life of Cabades) and Beodes⁠[245] were sent by the Persians, and Rufinus and Hypatius by the Romans, to discuss the terms of peace and the adoption of Chosroës. Seoses was accused of various offences by Beodes, tried by his countrymen and condemned to death. Rufinus also accused Hypatius to the emperor, who deprived him of his office.

The country between Bosporus and Cherson, which are a twenty days’ journey apart, is inhabited by Hunnish tribes, who were formerly independent but had recently submitted to Justin, Cherson being the last city in Roman territory. The Iberians also, being ill-treated by the Persians, declared themselves vassals of Justin together with their king, Gurgenes. This was the cause of war between the Romans and the Persians.

During his lifetime, Justin had made Justinian his partner in the empire, who, after his uncle’s death, became sole ruler. Belisarius and Sittas were the two army commanders under Justinian. Belisarius had been appointed to the command of the troops in Daras, when Procopius, the writer of this history, became his secretary. When Justinian was sole emperor, Belisarius was made general of the East and ordered to undertake an expedition against the Persians. Perozes, the mirran,⁠[246] had been appointed to the command of the Persian army by Cabades. While both armies were encamped near Daras, Perozes sent a message to Belisarius, bidding him prepare a bath in the city, since he intended to bathe there on the following day. The Romans accordingly prepared vigorously for battle. During the engagement, one Andrew, a Byzantine, a gymnastic instructor, master of a wrestling school in Constantinople, and one of the bath-attendants of Buzes (who was associated with Belisarius in the command), when challenged to a duel, made his way through the ranks unnoticed, and defeated and slew his challenger. Then the battle was discontinued. In a subsequent engagement, the Persians, having been completely defeated with heavy losses, decided not to risk any more pitched battles with the Romans, and both sides confined themselves to skirmishes.

Cabades then sent another army into Roman Armenia, consisting of Persarmenians, Sunites and Sabirites, under the command of Mermeroës. Dorotheus, general of Armenia, and Sittas, who was in command of the whole army, joined battle, and although greatly inferior in numbers, defeated the Persians, who thereupon returned home. The Romans then took possession of some Persian territory, including the district of Pharangium, the gold mines of which furnish a revenue for the king. The Tzani (formerly called Sani), an independent people who lived by plundering their neighbours, were defeated by Sittas and submitted to Rome. They embraced Christianity, and were drafted into the ranks of the Roman army.

After the defeat of both his armies, Cabades was at a loss what to do. Then Alamundarus, chief of the Persian Saracens, an experienced and vigorous soldier, who for fifty years had harassed the Romans, suggested to him that he should attack Antioch, which was unprotected, and ravage the neighbouring country. But Belisarius, hearing of his intention, set out with all speed against him with a force of Isaurians and Saracens, the latter under Arethas, a Saracen chief who was on the side of Rome. Alamundarus and Azarethes retired in alarm, closely followed by Belisarius, who did not intend to force an engagement, but only pretended to be pursuing them. But the soldiers reproached him, at first secretly and then openly, so that against his will he consented to give battle. At first, after both sides had suffered heavily, the issue remained in doubt; but after the forces of Arethas and the Isaurians had given way, the Persians gained a decided victory. Had not Belisarius dismounted and gone to the assistance of those who remained, they would all have been destroyed. Azarethes, the Persian commander, on his return received no thanks from Cabades for his victory. For he himself had lost a large number of men, although the enemy’s losses had been greater, and was accordingly regarded as disgraced.