You are on page 1of 71

Codices 166-241 [Extracts] 166.

[Antonius Diogenes, The incredible wonders beyond Thule] Read by Antonius Diogenes The incredible wonders beyond Thule, in twenty-four bo oks. The work is a novel; the style is clear and of such a purity that the clar ity never leaves anything to be desired, even in the digressions. In the though t, it is most agreeable as, so close to the myths and incredible wonders, it giv es to the material of the story a fashion and arrangement which is absolutely be lieveable. The story begins with a man called Dinias who, during a voyage of exploration, i s cast away with his son Demochares, far from his country. They crossed Pontus, passed by the edges of the Caspian or Hyrcanian Sea, and arrived at the Riphaea n mountains and the sources of the Tanais. Then because of the great cold they make a half-turn towards the Scythian Sea and travel East; they arrive in the la nd where the sun rises; from there, they make a tour of the exterior sea spendin g much time and often getting lost; during which they meet Carmanians, Meniscian s and Azoulians. They arrive in the island of Thule which they consider at the time a stage on th eir journey. In this island of Thule, Dinias forms a relationship with a woman c alled Dercyllis with whom he falls in love; she came from Tyre and was the daugh ter of a notable family; she lived with her brother called Mantinias. Dinias, in his discussions with her, learns that the wanderings of the brother and the sis ter and all their misfortunes are caused by Paapis, an Egyptian priest. His coun try had been devastated and he had emigrated to Tyre; received by the parents of the brother and sister, Dercyllis and Mantinias, he appeared initially full of good intentions towards his benefactors and all their house; but then he did muc h evil to this house, the children and their parents. After misfortune which str uck them, the girl was taken to Rhodes along with her brother; from there, she w ent away, wandering, in Crete, then to the land of the Tyrrhenians, then, from t here, to those called Cimmerians; there, she saw Hades and learned enormous amou nts about what occurs there; she was instructed by Myrto, her own maidservant, who was long dead and returned from to death to teach her mistress. Then begins the account given by Dinias to a certain Cymbas, originally from Arc adia, whom the Arcadian League had sent to Tyre to ask Dinias to return with him to his country. But, as the weight of age prevented this, he recounts instead a ll he has seen himself in his journeys, what he has learned from other witnesses and that which he knows from the account of Dercyllis in Thule, i.e. her travel s which have been mentioned, and how, after her return from Hades with Ceryllos and Astraios, since she was already separated from her brother, she had arrived with them at the tomb of the Siren; she tells how she herself, in her turn, hear d what was said by Astraios about Pythagoras and Mnesarch, that which Astraios h imself had heard said by Philotis and the fabulous spectacle which appeared befo re their eyes and finally what Dercyllis, returned from her own peregrinations, told him. By chance she arrived in a town in Spain whose inhabitants could see a t night, but were blind each day ; she reports what Astraios, while playing the flute, did to the enemies of those people. Relaxed and careless, they fell to th e Celts, a cruel and stupid tribe; they escaped by horse; she relates the advent ures which happened to them with these horses which changed color. They arrived in Aquitain and the honors are reported which were given to Dercyllis and Ceryll os but especially to Astraios, because of his eyes which, dilating and narrowing , announced the phases of the moon; it put an end to the quarrel of the kings of this country in this matter: they were two and they followed one another mutual ly according to the phases of the moon. This is why the people of this country w ere delighted by the presence of Astraios and his friends.

Then follows the account of all that Dercyllis saw and endured further. She live d among the Artabres, a people where the women fight while the men keep house an d deal with womans' work. Then follows what happened to them, to her and Ceryllo s, among the people of Astures and the adventures of Astraios in particular; whi le, beyond any hope, Ceryllos and Dercyllis escaped many dangers, at Astures, As traios did not avoid the punishment which was owed him for an old fault; but wit hout delay he was first saved from danger, then cut up. Then is told what she saw in her journey in Italy and Sicily; arrived at Eryx, t he chief town of Sicily, she was stopped and led to Enesidemus, then head of the Leontins. There she found once more this thrice-detestable Paapis who lived with the tyran t and, in this unexpected misfortune, she found an unexpected consolation : her brother Mantinias. He had wandered much; he had seen incredible spectacles conce rning men and other beings, the sun itself and the moon, the planets and the isl ands especially. He told them to her, thus providing her with an inexhaustible m atter of marvellous accounts which she will tell later to Dinias, who reunites t hem and who is supposed to tell this to the Arcadian, Cymbas. Then, Mantinias and Dercyllis, on their departure from the Leontins, stole the l eather bag of Paapis and the books which it contained, and his box of herbs; the y embarked for Rhegium and from there for Metaponte, where Astraios found them a nd announced to them that Paapis followed them closely. They passed among the Th racians and Massagetes with Astraios, who returned to his friend Zamolxis; the a ccount details all that happens during this voyage, how Astraios met Zamolxis am ong the Getes, who already regarded him as a god, and what Dercyllis and Mantini as requested Astraios to say and obtain for them. There, an oracle announced to them that their destiny was to go to Thule; they would return to their country l ater. But, before, they would know misfortune and, to requite their impiety howe ver involuntary towards their parents, their existence would be shared between l ife and death: they would live during the night, but would be corpses every day. After having received this oracle, they left the country and left Astraios with Zamolxis, honoured by the Getes. The account reports all the wonders in the Nor th which they saw and heard. All these journeys Dinias heard told at Thule by Dercyllis; now are presented th e stories recounted by the Arcadian Cymbas. Then it reports that Paapis, follow ing the trail of the companions of Dercyllis, caught up with them in the isle by an artifice of magic and cursed them with a glamour to die during the day and l ive again the night following. He afflicted this torment on their publicly spit ting in his face. Throuscan, an inhabitant of Thule, ardently taken with Dercyl is, when he saw his lobe fall under the stroke of torment inflicted by Paapis, w as very angry ; he brutally attacked the priest and in a moment killed him with a blow of his sword; this was the only way he could find to put a limit to these innumerable misfortunates. And as Dercyllis appeared dead, Throuscan killed hi mself over her body. All these adventures and many others which are like them, the funerals of the de ad, their exit from the tomb, the love-affairs of Mantinias and what followed fr om them as well as the other similar journeys which happened in the isle of Thul e, Dinias, who learned them from the mouth of Dercyllis, is now presented in th e process of retelling them for the Arcadian Cymbas. And so closes the twenty-t hird book of Antonius Diogenes on the marvels to be found beyond Thule without t he work offering anything about Thule except the little information furnished at the beginning. The twenty-fouth book presents Azoulis as narrator and Dinias reunites the stori es of Azoulis to the fables recounted above by Cymbas. He tells how Azoulis dis covered the type of enchantment by which Paapis had ensorcelled Dercyllis and Ma

ntinias to make them live during the day and be corpses at night, how he deliver ed them from the spell after having discovered the secret of this punishment and of the cure at the same time in Paapis' own bag which Mantinias and Dercyllis c arried with them. He discovers, moreover, how Dercyllis and Mantinias delivered their parents from the terrible evil; Paapis had led them, by tricks and under a pretext that it would benefit them, to make them remain a long time extended a s if dead. Following this discovery, Dercyllis and Mantinias hurry home to resuscitate and save their parents. Dinias, with Carmanes and Meniscos (Azoulis goes elsewhere) , continues his course towards the regions situated beyond Thule; it is during t his that he sees the unbelievable marvels which happen beyond Thule and which he now is supposed to tell to Cymbas. He says he has seen what the astronomers te ach, for example that it is possible that some people live under the artic pole, where a night lasts a month, or much shorter or longer, a night of six months a nd, what is most extraordinary, a night of a year; that it is not only the night which reaches these durations, but the day knows an analogous phenomenon. He pretends to have seen other strangeness of the same genre and he makes an ext raordinary story about some men and about certain wonders of another sort which he saw and which no-one, he says, could have seen nor heard tell of nor imagined . But what is most incredible than all is that in journeying toward the north, they arrived near the moon, which resembled a shining land; arrived there, they saw what must normally be seen by those who imagine such exaggerated inventions. He then says that the Sibyl performed a divination with Carmanes. He recounts a fter that how each made personal prayers; each of the others saw their dreams co me true. For him, when he woke up after his prayer, he was discovered at Tyre i n the temple of Heracles. He got up, found that Dercyllis and Mantinias had com pleted their adventure happily; they had delivered their parents from their long sleep or rather from death and, as for the rest, they were happy. See what Dinias says to Cymbas; he presented him with tablets of cypress and mad e them ready in a manner learned from Erasinides of Athens, the companion of Cym bas, who knew the art of letters. He also showed them to Dercyllis -- it was he r, in fact, who brought the tablets -- and he ordered Cymbas to tell his story twice: he would keep one copy and the other, when they died, Dercyllis would pl ace in a coffer and deposit it in her tomb. And, in fact, Diogenes, who was also called Antonius and who has told the story of Dinias recounting all these marvels to Cymas, wrote at the same time to Faust inus that he was in the process of composing a work on the marvels to be found b eyond Thule, and that he dedicated his romance to his sister Isidora, who loved this sort of book. On the other hand, he is called the narrator of an ancient i ntrigue and even while inventing these incredible and untrue stories, he pretend s to use the testimony of older authors on the fables he tells; it is on these w itnesses he would throw the responsibility for all the mischief in the story he wrote; he even cites at the head of each book the authors who have treated the s ubject before him so that his incredible stories do not lack the air of witnesse s. At the head of his book, he writes a letter to his sister Isidora; there he atte sts that it is to her that he dedicated these works; but at the same time he int roduces Balagros, who writes to his wife, named Phila, daughter of Antipater; he writes that, when Tyre was taken by Alexander, the king of Macedon, and much of it destroyed by fire, a soldier came to find Alexander to reveal to him, he say s, a strange marvel visible in the town. The king took along with him Hephaesti on and Parmenion; they followed the soldier and discovered stone coffins in some underground chambers. One carried as epitaph: "Lysilla lived thrity-five years "; another: "Mnason, son of Mantinias, lived sixty-six years, then seventy-one";

another: "Aristion, son of Philocles, lived forty-seven years, then fifty-two"; another: "Mantinias, son of Mnason, lived forty-two years and seven hundred and six nights"; another: "dercyllis, daughter of Mnason, lived thrity-none years a nd seven hundred and sixty nights"; the sixth coffin said: "Dinias the Arcadian lived one hundred and twenty-five years". After standing perplexed before these inscriptions, apart from that of the first tomb which was plain, they found near a wall a small coffer of cypress wood car rying the inscription: "Stranger, whoever you are, open to learn what astonished you". The companions of Alexander opened therefore the box and found the table ts of cypress which Dercyllis, no doubt, had deposited there following the instr uctions of Dinias. This is what Balagros wrote in the letter to his wife where he says that he tran scribed the tablets of cypress to send them to her. From this the text passes t o the reading and transcription of the tablets of cypress, one sees Dinias recou nting to Cynibas what was said above. See therefore in what manner and on what subject Antionius Diogenes has composed and invented this romance. According to all appearance, he is earlier in time than the authors who have ima gined fictions of this kind, i.e. Lucian, Lucius, Iamblicus, Achilles Tatius, He liodorus and Damascius. In fact this story seems to have been the source of the True History of Lucian, of the Metamorphoses of Lucius and even for the histori es of Sinonis and Rhodanes, of Leucippe and Clitophon, of Chariclea and Theagene s, for the inventions in their wandering journeys, their loves, their departures , their dangers, Dercyllis, Ceryllos, Throuscan and Dinias seem to have furnishe d the models. At what era to situate the career of the father of similar inventions, Antonius Diogenes, I can say nothing more certain; all the same it may be conjectured tha t he is not far from the era of king Alexander. He cites himself an author more ancient than himself, a certain Antiphanes who, he says, also was involved with marvellous stories of the same genre. In the story, particularly, as in fabulous fictions of the same kind, there are two considerations most useful to notice. The first is that they show that evil doers, even if they seem to escape a thousand times, always get their punishment ; the second, that they show many innocents placed in great danger often saved a gainst all hope. 1 This novel is lost, and it is difficult to assign a date to the work. Wi lson says he may be second century AD. There are some details about the work pr eserved in Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras; in cc. 10-13 he repeats Astraios' nar rative and even treats it as authentic, and also mentions the author again in cc . 32-6. [Translated from Henry] 167. [John Stobaeus, Anthology] Read John Stobaeus,1 Extracts, Sentences and Precepts: 4 books in two volumes. He dedicates them to him for whom he says he worked to create them, his own son Septimius. His collection is made of loans from poets, speakers and the famous politicians. He joined together, he says, in some cases a selection of pieces, i n others some sentences and elsewhere some precepts of life to discipline and im prove in his son, in communicating to him, a naturally slight gift for memorisin g readings. His first book dealt with natural sciences; the beginning of the second dealt wi th language and the remainder with morals; the third and the fourth, except for

some data, deal with morals and politics. The first book numbers sixty chapters in which the author distributes the quotations and the famous sayings of old. He re are the subjects. After having initially dealt with God as creator of what is and Providence who d irects all, he is interested in those who deny the existence of a Providence and of divine forces emanating from it and which contribute to the control of the u niverse. Then he discusses justice established by God to supervise the actions o f the men and to punish the sinners. On the divine necessity which ensures that everything happens inexorably according to the will of God. On Destiny and the g ood order of events. On Fate or Chance. On the movement of blind fate. On the n ature of time, its divisions and that of which it is the cause. On the celestial Aphrodite and the divine love. In tenth place, on the principles, elements and universe. Then, on matter, on the form, on the causes, on the bodies and their division, o n the infinitely small, on the figures, on the colors, on the mixture and the co mbination, on the vacuum, the place, space, on movement. In the twentieth place, on the generation and the destruction, on the world (is it animated and managed by a Providence?); where is the principle which orders it and from where it is fed to be found? On the ordinance of the world, on the unity of the universe. On the nature and the division of the sky. On the nature of the stars, their figures, their movement, their significance. O n the nature of the sun, its size, its form, its evolutions, its eclipse, its si gns and its movement. On the nature of the moon, its size, its form, its light, its eclipse and its appearance, its intervals, on predicting it. On the Milky Wa y; on comets, shooting stars and other phenomena of space. On thunder, the flash es, the thunderbolts, the hurricanes, the typhoons. In thirtieth place, on the r ainbow, the aurora, the parhelion, the rays, like on the clouds, the fog, the ra ins, the dew, snow, the white frost, hail. On the winds; on the earth: is it sin gle, limited? What is its size, its position, its form? Is it motionless or movi ng? On the earthquakes, on the sea, how do they flow and flow backward. On water , on everything. On Nature and the causes which emanate from it. On the generati on of living beings, etc. How many species are there of living beings? Are they all endowed with reason and sensitivity? On sleep. On death. On the plants. On t he food and the appetites of living beings. On the nature of men, on the spirit, the heart, the feeling and on tangible objects; are the feelings true, how muc h of the senses exist? What is the nature and the activity of each one? On sight . On the images which mirrors return. On hearing. On taste. On touch. On the sen se of smell. On the voice: is it incorporeal? Which is the principle which order s it? On the imagination, on the judgement. One-hundred and ninth. On the opinio n and sixtieth. On breathing and its affections. Such are thus the chapters of the first book and such is their contents; it is c lear that they deal with physics, except some of the first which one would rathe r classify as metaphysics.2 He assembles there, as I have said, the opinions of old, whether they are concordant or divergent. However, in this book, before app roaching the chapters which will be enumerated,3 he has two chapters of which on e is a praise of philosophy, a chapter also extracted from various authors; the other dealt with the sects which were constituted in philosophy. It is there tha t he joins together old opinions on geometry, music and arithmetic. The second book is composed of forty-six chapters. He treats initially interpret ers of divine signs and says that, for men, the truth about the essential nature of understandable things is imperceptible. He then discusses dialectic and rhe toric, style and letters, poetry, the form of the style in the ancients, the mor al aspect of philosophy, on what depends on us, of the idea that nobody is mali cious deliberately, of what the philosopher must be, of the obligation to respec t the divinity; that pious and righteous people receive the assistance of the d

ivinity. Divination. That it is necessary to much of associating with the wise a nd to avoid poor people and those without culture. On appearance and reality. Th at one should not judge a man by his speech, but by his character. That those wh o lay traps for others harm themselves unknowingly. On glory. On fame. That mode ration is best. That virtue is difficult to reach and vice easy to practise. Tha t one should not take account of the opinion of people deprived of intelligence. As hypocrisy is as harmful to those who use it as to those against whom it is u sed and must be driven out of the soul. That worldly affairs must not be pursued , because such an attitude causes envy and calumny. That, in the faults which on e commits, nothing is more beautiful than repentance. On the insult; that which is not a good. That, when we are insulted, it is necessary for us to take care n ot to fall into the same errors. On necessity in life. That it is necessary to a ct advisedly. On the will. That one should not act randomly. That adversity is o ften salutary, especially to the foolish. On education. On instruction. That fri endship is most beautiful of all the goods. That similarity of character creates friendship. That, in misfortunes and the dangers, one should not neglect ones f riends. That one should not join ones friends in injustice. On false and doubtfu l friends. That it is necessary to hasten reconciliations with friends by tolera ting their faults with more ease and by forgetting them. That it is in misfortun es that we know our true friends. Precepts on friendship. On enmity and how it i s necessary to behave with regard to ones enemies. How it is possible to benefit from ones enemies. On benevolence. That pleasure made at the right time is wort h more. On reciprocity of benefit. That one should neither profit the malicious nor accept it from them. Final chapter: on ingratitude. Such are the chapters of the second book.4 In the third book, there are forty-two chapters. He treats initially virtue; the n vice. On prudence, imprudence, moderation, intemperance, courage, cowardice, j ustice, cupidity and injustice, truth, falsehood, frankness, flattery, prodigali ty, economy, self-control, licence, resignation, anger, self-knowledge, arroganc e, selfishness, conscience, memory, lapse of memory, oaths, perjury, need to wor k, idleness, decency, impudence, silence, relevance in the words, brevity, chatt ering, kindness, envy, the fatherland, abroad, secrets and in forty-second place , on calumny.5 Here are the subjects of the fourth book. Initially the constitution, secondly l aws and habits, the people,6 the powerful ones of the cities, power, the quality necessary of the leader; that monarchy is better. Precepts on kingship. Critiqu e of dictatorship. War. Audacity. Youth.7 Military leaders and the necessities o f war. Precepts on peace, agriculture, peace, navigation, the arts, masters and slaves, vulgar love and the desire of carnal pleasures, beauty, marriage and all that concerns that in this chapter. Precepts on marriage, children and all tha t concerns that in this chapter. That parents must receive from children the res pect which is due to them. The attitude which fathers must adopt with regard to their children. That what is moreover better, is brotherly love and affection wi th regard to the parents. Domestic administration. On nobility and all that conc erns this in this chapter. On the commoner's condition. On riches and all that c oncerns them in this chapter. On poverty. Comparison of poverty and riches. That life is short and full of worry. On sadness, which is very painful. On dise ase and cures. On health and its conservation. On doctors. On happiness. On misf ortune. That human prosperity is unstable. On those who are happy without deserv ing it. On those who are unhappy without deserving it. That it is necessary to s upport with nobility the blows of chance. That it is necessary to show ones happ iness and to hide ones misfortunes. On hope. On what happens against any expecta tion. That one should not be delighted about those who are suffering misfortune. That those which are suffering misfortune need sympathy.8 On old age and all th at concerns it in this chapter. On death. On life. Comparison, of life and death . On mourning. On burial. Consolations. That the dead should not be insulted. Th at the memory of the majority of people vanishes quickly after death.

Here are the fifty-eight chapters of the fourth book. For all four books, there are two hundred and eight,9 where, as we said, John presents some of the opinion s, the quotations and the famous sayings which he draws from extracts, sentences and precepts. He assembles them from the philosophers, Aeschines the Socratic a nd Anaxarchos and Anacharsis, Aristonymus and Apollonius, Antisthenes and Aristi ppus, Ariston and Aristoxenes and Archytas, Aristotle, Anaximandros, Anaximenes, Archelaus, Anaxagoras, Archainetes, Arcesilaus, Arrian, Antipater son of Histi aus, Antiphanes, Apollodorus, Aristarchus, Asclepiadus, Aristaius, Archedemos so n of Hecataeus, Apollophanes, Aigimius, Aisaros, Atticus, Amelius, Albinus, Aris tandros, Harpocration, Apelles, Aristagoras, Aristombrotus, Archimedes, Boethus, Bias, Berosus, Veronicos, Brotinos, Bion, Glaucon, Demonax, Demetrius, Damippus , Diogenes, Diodorus, Democritus, Diotimus, Diocles, Damarmenes, Didymus, Dion, Dios, Euclid, Euphrates, Epicharmos, Epandrides, Erasistratos, Ecpolus, Epicurus of Gargettos, Epictetus, Hermes, Empedocles, Epicurus the Athenien, Eusebius, E urysos, Eratosthenes, Eurystratus, Ecphantus, Epidicus, Eudoxos, Epigenes, Eveni us, Euryphamos, Zaleucos, Zeno, Zoroaster, Heraclides, Heraclites, Herophiles, T hemistius, Theobulus, Theanos, Theages, Theophrastus, Theodore, Thais, Theocritu s, Thrasyllos, Jerome, Hippias, Iamblicus, Hierocles, Hippalos, Ion, Hipponos, H ierax, Hippodamos, Hippasos, Iouncos, Crito, Cleobulos, Cebes, Coriscos, Clitoma cus, Critolaus, Clineas, Carneades, Cleanthes, Callimachus, Critias, Crantor, Ca llicratides, Leucippes, Lucius, Lysis, Lyncus, Lycon, Leophanes, Longinus, Menec hmes, Metrocles, Metopos, Menedemes, Musonius, Mnesarchus, Melissos, Metrodorus, Milo, Moderatus, Maximus, Nicolas, Numenius, Naumachius, Naucrates, Nicias, Nic ostratus, Xenocrates, Xenophanes, Onatos, Ocellus, Onetor, Panacaius, Pittacos, Periander, Pythagorus, Plutarch, Pempelus, Plato, Panaitius, Posidonius, Pericti onus, Porphyry, Parmenides, Polemon, Pytheas, Porus, Polybius, Plotinus, Protago ras, Pythiades, Pyrrho, Rufus, Rheginus, Solon, Sotion, Sosiades, Serenus, Socra tes, Stilpon, Speusippes, Strato, Scythinos, Sphairos, Seleucus, Severus, Timon, Timaeus, Taurus, Timagoras, Teles, Hypseos, Philoxenes, Philolaos, Pherecydes, Favorinus, Phintys, Chion, Chrysippus, Charondas, Chilo, and, among the cynics, Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates, Hegsianax, Onesicritus, Menander, Monimus, Polyzel os, Xanthippus, Theomnestos. These are the philosphers from whom he makes his co llection. As poets, Athenodorus, Anaxilles, Archippos, Apollonides, Alcidamas, Aristaeus, Antimachus, Antiphanes, Aristarchus, Archilochus, Achaios, Aeschylus, Agatho, Al exis, Aristocrates, Amphis, Alcaeus, Aratus, Astydamas, Andronicus, Anaxandrides , Aristophanes, Aralochos, Apollodorus, Alexander, Anacreon, Axinicos, Aristopho n, Bacchylides, Bion, Biotos, Bathon, Diphilus, Dionysius, Demetrius, Dicaiogene s, Diodorus, Dictys, Euthydamus, Eupolis, Euphronus, Eratosthenes, Epicharmus, E venos, Euphorion, Hermolochos, Euripides, Zeno, Zenodotus, Zopyros, Hesiod, Hero des, Heniochos, Heliodorus, Theodectus, Thespis, Theognis, Theocritus, Thelero phos, Iophon, Hippothoos, Hipponax, Isidore, Hippothoon, Iulius, Ion, Cleanthes, Cleainetus, Callimachus, Critias, Cleoboulus, Cratinus, Carcinus, Cercidas, Cal linicos, Clinias, Crantor, Clitomachus, Linus, Licymnius, Lycophron, Leonidas, L aon, Menander, Myron, Moschion, Menippus, Moschos, Mimnermus, Melino, Metrodorus , Menophilus, Nicostratus, Nicolas, Neophron, Nicomachus, Naumachios, Neoptolemu s, Xenophanes, Xenarchus, Homer, Orpheus, Olympias, Pindar, Parmenides, Posidipp us, Pausanias, Polyeides, Patrocleus, Pisander, Panyasis, Pirithous, Pompeius, R hianos, Sophocles, Sotades, Simonides, Sosiphanes, Simylos, Sositheos, Sclerios, Sappho, Sarapion, Sosicrates, Stagimos, Sopatros, Sthenides, Sousaron, Stesicho ros, Timostratos, Timocles, Tyrtaios, Telesilla, Hypobolimaios, Hypsaios, Philet as, Philoxenus, Philippides, Phrynichos, Philonides, Philemon, Phocylides, Phil ippos, Phoinicides, Philiscos, Pherecrates, Phanocles, Phintys, Phileos, Chaerem on, Choirilos, Chares. Such are the poets from whom he fills up the citations in his chapters. The orators, historians, kings and generals (for he has also put together the wi tnesses borrowed from these groups) are: Aristides, Aristocles, Aelian, Aeschine

s, Agatho, Antiphon, Archelaus, Gaius, Gorgias, Demosthenes, Demades, Demaratus, Ephoros, Zopyros, Herodotus, Hegesiades, Hegesios, Thucydides, Theseus, Theodor us, Thrasyllus, Theopompus, Isocrates, Isaeus, Cornelian, Callisthenea, Clitopho n, Ctesias, Lysias, Nicias, Xenophon, Obrimos, Polyainos, Prodicus, Protagoras, Sostratus, Timagoras, Trophilos, Hyperides, Philostratus, Chrysermos, Alexander, Agesilas, Agathocles, Antigonus, Agis, Agrippinus, Anaxilaos, Archidamos, Diony sius, Darius, Epaminondas, Eudamidas, Themistocles, Iphicrates, Hipparchus, Coty s, Clitarchus, Lycurgus, Leonidas, Lamachos, Mallias, Pericles, Pyrrhus, Ptolemy , Semiramis, Scipio, Scillouros, Timotheus, Philippus, Phocion, Phalaris, Charil lus, Chabrias, Chares, Aristophanes, Aesop, Antigenidas, Aristotle, Aristides th e Just, Alcmeon the physician, Antyllos the physician, Arimnestos, Apelles, Brys on, Glaucon, Galen the physician, Dicearchos, Dion, Dionysius, Diocles the physi cian, Euxitheos, Hermarchus, Hermippos, Euryximachos, Euphranias, Erasistratus t he physician, Euryphron the physician, Eratosthenes, Eubulos, Theopompos, Theocr itus, Thymarides, Thynon, Hippocrates the physician, Cato, Cephisodores, Kleostr atos, Clitomachus, Licymnius, Myson, Metrodorus, Metrocles, Nicostratus, Prausio n, Simonides, Seriphios, Sotion, Sostratus, Speusippos. But such is thus the number of the chapters in which John Stobaeus classified th e words of earlier authors and the number of writers, philosophers, poets, orato rs, kings, and generals from which he borrowed to make his collection. This book is of obvious utility to those who read the works of these writers; it will hel p their memory and will be useful to those who have not approached them yet beca use, thanks to a constant exercise, they will be able in a little time to acquir e a summary knowledge of many beautiful and varied thoughts. Both categories wil l have the advantage, naturally, of being able to find without pain or waste of time what is sought if one wants to pass from these chapters to complete works. Moreover, for those who want to speak and write, this book is not without utilit y. 1. This is the well-known anthologist of the 5th century AD, whose Anthology is extant. The text which has come down to us is different to that which Photi us had before him. For this, see: A. Elter, De Ioannis Stobaei codice Photiano, diss. Bonn, 1880; Hense, s. v. Joannes (n. 18), in P. W., t. IX (1916), col. 2549 ; Luria, Entstellungen der klassiker Texte bei Stobaeus, in Rh. Mus. t. LX XVIII (1929), p. 81. Wachsmuth-Hense, Berlin, 1884-1912, 5 vol. (Critical edition). These studies show how much we owe to Photius. His synopsis gives us the tr ue title of the collection, the extent of the work and its complete plan, what l ittle we k now of the now lost introduction, and the purpose of the author in wr iting it. Without the table of chapters preserved here, we would have no overal l picture of the first two books, which have suffered badly the ravages of time. It also makes it possible for the specialists to reclassify the many fragments scattered in the manuscript, which are often not identified as from Stobaeus. 2. The first 10 chapters. 3. Comparison of the list of subjects with the manuscripts reveals that the se are the chapters in order, and their chapter titles. These are valuable wher e the chapters are lost. There are few divergences between the list and the Mss ., and the wording of the titles is almost the same. The first two chapters are almost entirely lost. Photius thus allows us to place various fragments from t hem in their correct position. The series of 60 chapter titles allows us to re store the titles of chapters 2, 52, 54, 58 and 60. Chapters 33-35, 37, 44 and 4 6 are lost. 4. The enumeration of Photius also conforms to that in the manuscripts, and

restores some chapter titles. Chapters 10-14, 16-30, 32 and 34-35 are lost. 5. Books III and IV, unlike the first two books, have come down to us almos t complete. Only chapter 1 is lost. 6. This chapter, which is chapter 3, is missing in the Mss. of Stobaeus, an d known to us only from Photius. 7. After this chapter, which bears the number 11, Photius omits the title o f chapter 12. 8. This last title is not a chapter title, but the second part of chapter 3 8. The title of chapter 39 has been omitted. 9. The total is correct, despite all the damage to the Mss. Elter suggests that the number was recorded separately in the Ms. Photius used. The lists of more than 450 names pose many problems, not least because such lists are prone t o damage in transmission. Elter is the only scholar to have attempted to identi fy them. Many are quite unknown. Henry prefers not to even attempt to tackle t he problem. Elter discussed how the register was created. It is in five parts, of which the first two only are clearly distinguished from each other in the synopsis. (1) There is a series of philosophers, with the cynics put together. (2) Poets. The synopsis then announces the orators, historians, kings and generals: (3) o rators and historians, and (4) kings and generals. Finally (5) a series of name s in which appear several physicians and other people who didn't belong in any o f the previous 4 lists. For each list, the names are in alphabetical order, but by the first letter only, and each one was raised in the passage in which it ap peared for the first time. It was the opinion of Elter and those who followed him that Photius did not draw up this list himself, but found it in the manuscript he used. [Translated from Henry] 168. [Basil of Seleucia, Sermons] Read by Blessed Basile1, bishop of Seleucia, fifteen sermons. The first discusse s the text, "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth ". Then on Jos eph, Adam, Cain and Abel, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Jonas; the ninth is on the cen turion, the tenth on the text "the disciples sailed with Jesus, etc". Then on "C ome, all you who are weary and are heavy-laden, etc ". Then, on the publican and the Pharisee. Then on the text "Say that my two sons shall sit one on your righ t, the other on your left ". Then on the text "Who do men say that I am, the Son of man?". Fifteenth on "Are you he that will come, or must we expect another?" 2. In the sermons of this author more than any other, one can see implemented a fig ured, sharp style and with the parts of the sentence in balance; clarity and acc uracy run from one end to the other of the work. However, the exaggerated abunda nce of figured language and the sharp turns, or rather the monotonous and uninte rrupted flow of them, causes in the reader aversion and incites criticism; it pr ovokes blame with regard to a writer unable apparently to master a natural effec t and place a regular order on disorder. And, although he abounds in figures an d this figured type of style comes out of him like a spring, he does not fall or in any case only occasionally into a cold proficiency nor he does not obscure h is thought with a lack of clarity; but, by the brevity of the members of the per iods and the periods, and by the expressive character of the words which he empl oys, he achieves with the figured style what is difficult to do. But on the who

le, as I said, satiety blunts the grace, and the unmixed use of the figured styl e does not allow the rules of the art of speaking to operate freely. It seems that it is this writer rather than Basil the Great of Caesarea who was the friend and the companion of the thrice-blessed John Chrysostom 3: it is to h im that his treatise On priesthood is dedicated; because many traces of the word s and thoughts of St. John appear in the writings of Basil, especially in those which he discusses the Scriptures, as if both had drawn from the same source to know what was useful to them. And the handling of figured style in the direction of the expressivity and familiarity is a testimony, and not least, of intimacy with St. John and of the reading of his works; because this holy man also made u se of it, but a moderate and very convenient use; while happily mingling a simpl icity which attenuates the emphasis and makes of his style the very image of the honest man. This Basile is he that which also developed in verse the trials,tests and triump hs of the first martyr Thecla. There also exist other works by him. 1. We have a number of sermons under the name of this author. They can be f ound in Migne, P. G., t. LXXXV, p. 9-618. Cf. Jlicher, s. v. Basileios (n. 17), i n P. W., t. III (1899), col. 55. 2. In PG 85, col.27-474, there are 42 sermons by Basil. All those enumerat ed by Photius are among them, but not in the order given. Presumably the order reflects that in the manuscript Photius had before him. 3. Not necessarily so; Jlicher thinks otherwise. Possibly Photius or his pre cursors have been misled by the similarities of style. [Translated from Henry] 169. [Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius] Read by St. Cyril, Against the blasphemies of Nestorius 1, five books of which t he first refutes ten chapters of the Nestorian heresy, the second fourteen chapt ers, the third six, the fourth seven and the fifth seven also. The form of his style is modelled on the kind of style appropriate to his writin gs, but with a certain tendency to vulgarisation. Also in the work is a letter addressed to Nestorius himself, which attempted to convince and correct him in a friendly way. But there was also the response of N estorius to Cyril; he handles the points contained in the letter like a lawyer. There was also another letter by Cyril sent to Nestorius from the synod of Alexa ndria which enjoined him to anathemise the twelve chapters. There were also addr esses to Bishop Valerius against Nestorius and his propositions, a dogmatic lett er addressed to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, which rather constitutes an apology for a unity of views and agreement with John of Antioch. There were various oth ers more on the same subjects; in two of them, he expounds the divine doctrines of the council of Nicaea 2. In all these writings, he keeps the style of his own works, sometimes accentuating it, sometimes attenuating it however. In same volume there were the letter on the scapegoat addressed to Acacius, bish op of Scythopolis, and, moreover, another writing entitled Scholia on the Incarn ation of the Son only where are cleared up the following questions: Who is the C hrist? How should the word Emmanuel be understood? Who is Jesus the Christ and w hy was the Word of God called man? Then, why is the Word of God said to have van ished? How is Christ one and how is he Emmanuel? And what do we have to say on t he unity? On the coal which Isaiah saw and ten other items on the same order as those. This work has great utility 3.

1. Photius has already discussed this author and work in Codex 49. The work is extant; see Migne, P. G., t. LXXVI, col. 9-256. In the original work, the s econd book only had 13 chapters. 2. All to be found in Migne, P. G., t. LXXVII, col. 40-297 B (passim). Clea rly Photius had discovered a collection of Anti-Nestorian writings extracted fro m the letters of Cyril. 3. The text of these Scholias is in Migne, P. G., t. LXXV, col. 1370-1412. T he questions given by Photius are very exact and in the order of the original t ext, in fact the titles of the first nine chapters of the work. The abbreviator hasn't continued further or signalled why he stopped after chapter 9. [Translated from Henry] 170. [Unknown, Precursors of Christianity] Read an extended work, voluminous even, in fifteen books and five volumes. In th is work, testimonies and quotations of entire books not only by Greek authors bu t also by Persian, Thracian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Chaldaean and Roman authors considered notable in each one of these countries are thrown pell-mell together. The author tries to show that there is in them a supplement in favour of pure, supernatural and divine Christian religion, that these texts proclaim and announ c the supernatural Trinity, one in its substance, the arrival of the Word in a body of flesh, the signs of his divinity, the Cross, the Passion, the placing in the tomb, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the grace of the Holy Spirit manifes ted miraculously on the Apostles by tongues of fire, the terrifying second comi ng of Christ our God, the resurrection of the dead, the judgement, the reward fo r what everyone did in life. Moreover, the creation of the universe, Providence, Paradise and other subjects of the same order, the virtue which is practised am ong Christians and all that touches on this subject. He tries to show that, on a ll these ideas, the Greeks, the Egyptians, Chaldaeans and those enumerated above reflected and proclaimed them strongly in their own writings. And it is not only from those listed that he gathers and groups testimonies, but he has not failed in taking even some from the alchemical writings of Zosimus 2 (the latter was a Theban from Panopolis) to demonstrate the same propositions; to this end, he explains the meaning of Hebrew words and the places where each A postle preached the doctrine of salvation and ended his human labours. At the en d of his book, he develops his own exhortation in which he mixes, to reinforce i t, pagan sentences and sentences borrowed from Scripture; it is there especially that one can recognize the love of this man for virtue and his irreproachable p iety. As for the form of his writings, little need be said; because, in many passages, his construction and vocabulary are so neglected that sometimes he does not eve n escape clichs. And often the sense of his writings is no better. As for the method which the author used to reach his goal, no man of goodwill co uld blame him, but the same does not go for his work. Because there are not only many words which are often inappropriate to our divine dogmas which he forces i nto agreement with them, but there are also fables and dreams whose inventors mu st have laughed if they had any sense and which our author does not hesitate to say are in harmony with our divine wisdom; he goes as far as trying to put the c ompletely foreign significance of the fables and the dreams in agreement with th e true, divine, unquestionable and pure ideas of the divine dogma. No advantage for religion results from this; but the author could without unreason avoid proc uring materials for amateurs to launch quarrels on critical matters if they can show that some relate to ours, just to confirm our religion. Our religion does n

ot need it and is the only one which is pure and true; this is an attempt to twi st into agreement the interpretation of texts which have nothing to do with it, are for the most part strangers to it, and the ideas which come from them differ more from ours than night from day.3 And the author has taken upon himself this very arduous task, as he frequently s ays himself, in order to show that the Christian dogma was announced and proclai med in advance among all peoples by the remarkable men in each and to thus remov e any excuse for those of the gentiles who did not come to the divine message. T he goal is creditable, but it is not right to try to carry it out by difficult a nd not very convincing means, but by those which are easy to reach and that the faith suggests. As for the name of the author, I have at present been unable to obtain knowledge , because the volumes which we saw did not carry it. It is known only that he li ved in Constantinople, was married with a wife and children and that he lived af ter the time of Heraclius.4 1. Sch ll, Histoire de la littrature grecque, vol. VI, p. 317-318, is one of th e few modern authors to take any notice of this codex, writing that he regrets t he loss of a work which would give us so much information on ancient traditions, especially those of the Orient. The loss is likewise regrettable because if we had it, our understanding of ancient Christian apologetic would be greatly enha nced. N.G.Wilson states (Photius, p.154) that the compilation of such an anthol ogy in the late seventh or eighth century, normally regarded as a period almost devoid of cultural activity, is remarkable. 2. Zosimus wrote a treatise on alchemy in 28 books, of which only a few frag ments remain. He lived in the fourth century (Wilson, p.156). 3. This paragraph, from 'No advantage' is very confused in Henry and forms a single sentence. I have broken it up somewhat with guidance from Wilson, who seems to read the text somewhat differently: 'True piety does not benefit in any way; he might reasonably be thought to give the captious opportunities to attac k it, if they will now be in a position to show some members of our church makin g efforts to reconcile irrelevant and utterly different doctrines with the funda mentals of our faith. It has no need of this; it alone is pure and true; and th is is an attempt to force the interpretation of texts more distant from our beli efs than darkness is from light.' (p.155). 4. Emperor from 610-641 AD. [Translated from Henry, corrected against Wilson] 171. [Eustratios, On the status of souls after death] Read a book by Eustratios,1 priest of the Great Church. It is composed in a sty le which can't be praised but with logic which can't be faulted. The language i s clear. The writer proposes to demonstrate three propositions: first, after leaving thei r bodies, the souls of the saints still exercise influence; and not only the sou ls of the saints, but also every human soul, according to its merits. Finally th at souls often appear to many people in many different modes which manifest corr esponding to their own nature; it is not a divine power which is manifesting the se energies in taking on the appearance of the souls of the saints. Why, in fac t, is there need of intermediaries, of figures and forms when it is possible for the Almighty to accomplish his decrees in a more immediate manner through the h oly souls?

The author attempts to establish both propositions by citations taken from the O ld and New Testament and by the witness of different Fathers. The third subject with which he is concerned is that sacrifices made by the prie sts for the souls of those who die in the faith, offerings or just prayers, supp lications or charities of the faithful in their favour, obtain the salvation and remission of sins of those for whom they are made. It is thus that he advocate s sacrifices on the third day for them, considering the mystery of the resurrect ion of the Lord on the third day as an aid and help in supplication; likewise, s acrifices on the ninth day, because the Lord was seen by his disciples for the s econd time after 8 hours; likewise, sacrifices on the fourteenth day, because it was after that number of days that he was seen for the last time by his discipl es and rose into heaven clothed with our nature. I have discovered, on the other hand, that in this book the master who taught th e law to Paul, Gamaliel 2, was converted and baptised. And that Nicodemus, the friend who came by night, also became a friend of the great day and died a marty r 3; he was a cousin of Gamaliel, according to the book. Both were baptised by John and Peter and the son of Gamaliel, named Abib, also. As for the blessed Ni codemus, when the Jews learned that he had been baptised, he was beaten up, whic h he endured valiantly, but died soon after. This is the story in the book. The author dedicated it to Chrysippus 4. Chrysi ppus was a priest at Jerusalem who, while writing a eulogy of the martyr Theodor e, mentioned in a digression a certain Lucian who was also a priest of the same church at Jerusalem at the time when John was High Priest there. This Lucian 5 in the course of a night, around the third hour, awoke and receive d the revelation of what he recounts. Gameliel appeared to him and revealed wha t follows: that it was Gamaliel, when he had been baptised and by whom, that Abi bos was his son and that they were buried in a single coffin, and that Stephen t he first martyr was buried in the tomb just to the East; at his feet, in another coffin, was Nicodemus; he recounted his sufferings and why and from whom they w ere endured. The next coffin was that of himself and his son. After these reve lations, Gamaliel asked Lucian not to neglect their remains and not to leave the m to be destroyed by sun and rain. An earthquake happened at the same time as t he vision and many healings occurred; above all, it was the tomb of the first ma rtyr that did this abundantly. 1. The work is extant. It was first edited by Allatius, Rome, 1655, with a Latin translation. The translation (only) was reprinted by Migne, Patr. gr. lat ine tantum edita, t. LXXX, p. 823-889. On this author see Jlicher, Eustratios (n. 1), in P. W., vol. VI (1907), col. 1489 sqq., and S. Vaith, Eustrate, in Vacant , vol. V, p. 1576-1577. The latter accuses Photius of many errors in his summary , without specifying what these might be. 2. Paul tells us (Acts 22:3) that this man was his teacher in the law. His conversion is affirmed first in the Clementine Recognitions. 3. On this person, see A. Molini, in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, t. IV, p. 1614-1616. John (7:50) suggest that when Nicodemus knew the truth he bec ame a believer. Later legend made him a sculptor and attributed to him the Volt o. 4. On this Chrysippus (409-479AD), cf. A. Sigalas, Chrysippos, in Buchberger , vol. II, p. 1193. In Byzantinisches Archiv, vol. VII (1921), p. 1-16, Sigalas published a eulogy of the martyr Theodore mentioned here. 5. There exists a text by this Lucian dated to the Vth century : Epistula Lu ciani ad omnem ecclesiam (Migne, P. L., vol. XLI, col. 807-818). According to Mo

lini (above), he is responsible for the tradition in which Nicodemus is driven o ut by Gamaliel, and the conversion of the three people mentioned. [Translated from Henry] 172, 173, 174. [John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis] Read 61 Homilies on Genesis by John Chrysostom 1 in three volumes, the first con taining 20 homilies, the second 16, the third 25. He declares in the first book that he started preaching at the start of Lent 2 a nd finished before the end of the season having addressed these 20 discourses to the people 3 together with, among the sermons on Genesis, three or four others arising no doubt from circumstances. It can also be remarked that, in spite of the title of Discourse that this book bears (which is what I've found in the cop ies which I have read), the discourses resemble homilies closely, as may be seen among other things in that in numerous places he addresses himself frequently t o hearers as if he could see them in his presence, with questions, responses, pr omises. The discourse, with a different turn from the homily, can offer the sam e figures; but the fact that they are used in a continuous and constant manner a nd without applying any rule in the arrangement shows that we are dealing with h omilies. He addressed them to the faithful, as can be seen from the texts themselves, oft en day by day, sometimes both days. Such is the first book, which includes 20 h omilies. The second book contains sixteen discourses; the first seven are still visibly p ronounced during Lent, so that throughout the whole of Lent to the fourth day of Holy Week, he pronounced twenty-seven homilies on Genesis. The nine remaining discourses in the second book and the twenty-five in the thir d were not immediately pronounced nor in a continuous series after Easter. In f act, after the homily of the fourth day of Holy Week, which is part of the twent y-seven homilies on Genesis, he preached the following day on the cross 4, then on the treason 5, and during the remainder of the time, the homilies were concei ved as a series for each day. And after the homilies on the resurrection 6, he preached in a continuous fashion on the Acts of the Apostles, as he himself indi cates in beginning the twenty-eighth sermon on Genesis which he had, evidently, like those that followed, pronounced long after. In fact the homilies on Acts n umber fifty-five 7, and were pronounced in the space of around a year, because h e pronounced them not day after day, but at intervals of five and seven days and more. He shows himself that he pronounced them in the third year of his minist ry. As for those on Genesis, we cannot tell when he preached them, other than t hat it wasn't then as he tells us in the twenty-eighth discourse, and which he c omposed in the third year of his ministry and not with the others (more than tha t, in fact, I do not know); it is evident that these homilies were likewise comp osed during his ministry: the group of twenty-seven during Lent of the second ye ar, the thirty-four others during the fourth year. His style, beyond its clarity and usual purity, offers also distinction and ease and mixes with an abundance of thoughts a quantity of most happy examples. It is, all the same, inferior in style to the homilies on Acts because he works in a slightly more ordinary genre, in the same way as the language of the homilies on Acts is less than the commentaries on the Apostle and the reflections on the Psalmist. In fact everywhere in his writings he implements the purity, distinct ion, clarity with approval, and it is through these qualities that he shines thr oughout in these last works, as by the happy abundance of examples, the mass of arguments and also, where it is needed, by their skill; and in a word, in the vo cabulary, the construction, the method, the thought and in all the composition,

these are the works in which he has best succeeded. For the homilies on the Apostle 8, there is a way to recognise from themselves w hich of them were composed when he lived at Antioch -- they are more regular -and which when he was bishop. As for those on the Psalms 9, we still have not f ound the information necessary to know their history, but, to consider their pow er and the value of their style, it could be suggested that he composed them at a time of leisure rather than one in which he struggled with public affairs. An d, if certain words which require an explanation or more detailed examination ha ve not been explained carefully, it is not astonishing. Because in all that rel ates to the understanding of the hearers, in all that could involve their salvat ion and be useful, nothing is ever neglected. This is why I today admire this m any times blessed man: always and in all his writings, he sets himself the objec tive of the utiluty to his hearers, and all the rest is of no concern, or very l ittle. And if some ideas seem to have escaped him, and if he gives the impressi on of not attempting to penetrate further, it is that, in these details and othe rs of the same kind, he considered it unimportant preferring to deal with the s ervice of his flock. 1. St. John Chrysostom has already been mentioned in codex 86, reappears aga in in codices 270, 274 and 277. The homilies are in Migne, P. G., vol. LIII, p. 26-386 ; vol. LIV, p. 385-580. English translations are online at 2. Cf. Homily 1. Migne, P. G., vol. LIII, p. 22. 3. Allusion, in Homily 21, to a time of fasting when exhortations are more f requent. 4. Migne, P. G., vol. XLIX, col. 393-418. 5. Of Judas; two homilies, col. 373-392. 6. Two homilies on Easter, vol. L, col. 433-442, and vol. LII, col. 765-772. 7. A number which corresponds to our texts. Migne, vol. LX. 8. St. Paul. Ample collection of homilies. Migne, P. G., vol. LX-LXIII. 9. Migne, P. G., vol. L. [Translated from Henry] 175. [Pamphila, Miscellaneous historical notes] Read the Miscellaneous historical notes by Pamphila, in eight books. She was a married woman, as she allows us to understand at the start of these commentaries ; she had lived thirty years with her husband from her youth when she began the composition of these memoires; she says that she relates that which she learned from her husband in the course of a common life of thirty years which was unint errupted by a day or an hour, and that which she happened to learn from all the other people who visited her husband (he had many visitors famous for their cult ure), and that which she had taken from books. Every statement which seemed to her deserving of noting and retaining, she inclu ded in the notes without order, without organising them or separating them by su bject, but randomly and in the order in which each presented itself. There woul d have been no difficulty, she says, in organising them according to a plan, but she thought that the mixture and variety more agreeable and more gracious than the unity of a plan.

This book is useful as a means to erudition. In fact one finds in it much essen tial information as regards history, sentences, some data on rhetoric and philos ophical speculation, on poetic form and randomly on other subjects of the same k ind. Pampila was of Egyptian nationality; her career is placed in the middle of the r eign of Nero, emperor of the Romans. Her style, insofar as it can be detected i n the preface and when she speaks elsewhere in her own name, above all in the th ought, is of a simple kind as is natural for that which comes from a woman; the vocabulary even does not deviate from this. In the passages where she speaks by citing writers earlier than herself, her style has more variety and is not comp osed according to a single format. 1. Fragments only exist of this author, to be found in Mller, Fragmenta Hist . Graec., vol. III, p. 520-522. A discussion of the author and the fragments ca n be found in Regenbogen, s. v. Pamphila (n. 1), in P. W., vol. XVIII, 2 (1949), col. 309-328. The fragments are neither numerous nor very important. There ar e 10 in all, of which 8 come from Diogenes Laertius and 2 from Aulus Gellius. N one of them give any of the biographical information above, which must therefore have been present in the text read by Photius. The notice in Suidas is not as full, and the information in it comes from Hesychius. Photius notes in codex 16 1 that Sopatros used Pamphila's compilation. [Translated from Henry] 176. [Theopompus, Philippica] Read a work of history by Theopompus. Fifty-three of his books are preserved 1. Some of the ancients have said also that books 6, 7, 29 2 and 30 have disappea red. But I did not read these books either; on the other hand, a certain Menoph anes, who mentions Theopompus (he is an ancient writer not to be taken lightly) 3 says that book 12 is likewise lost, yet we read it along with the others. And this twelfth book contains the history of Akoris,4 the king of Egypt (he dea ls with the barbarians 5 and labours on behalf of Evagoras against the Persians) ; it relates the unexpected way in which he mounted the throne in Cyprus after b eing captured by Abdymon of Citium, who governed the land; the manner in which t he Greeks of Agamemnon took Cyprus, after driving out the subjects of Kinnyras. The remnants of these form the inhabitants of Amathus. How the king (of Persia ) was persuaded to make war on Evagoras, with Antophradates, satrap of Lydia, as general and Hecatomnos as admiral. The author talks of the peace which the kin g arranged in Greece; he says how the war against Evagoras was managed with much vigour and talks of the naval battle of Cyprus. The Athenian state tried to re main faithful to its treaties with the king, but the Spartans, full of pride, wa nted to break the treaty. The author relates in what way the peace of Antalcida s was made and the war which Tirbazos managed and how he plotted against Evagora s and how Evagoras accused him before the king and concluded an arrangement with Orontes. He says that when Nectanebo was raised to the throne in Egypt, Evagor as sent ambassadors to the Spartans. He reports how the war in Cyprus ended. H e speaks of Nicocreon, who conspired, was unmasked in a surprising fashion and f led. He recounts how Evagoras and his son Pnytagoras both slept with Nicocreon' s surviving daughter, without knowing the other had done so. This was thanks to the offices that the eunuch Thrasydaios of Elis who managed in turn their liaso n with the girl. This was the cause of their death: Thrasydaios assassinated bo th of them. The historian reports then how Akoris the Egyptian made alliance wi th the Pisidians. He talks of their country and that of Aspendos 7. He talks o f the doctors of Cos and Cnidos which are called the Asclepiadae; the first of t hese came from Syrnos, the descendants of Podaliros 8. He speaks also of the pr ophet Mopsus 9 and his daughters, Rhode, Melias and Pamphilia, from whom Mposues tia and Rhodia, in Lycia, and the country called Pamphilia take their names. He

reports how Pamphilia was colonised by the Greeks and their civil war; the Lyci ans, under the command of their king Pericles make war against Telmessos 10 and did not stop fighting until they had corned the citizens within their walls and forced them to negotiate. This is thus the content of the 12th book which Menop hanes considered had disappeared 11. Theopompus came from Chios and was the son of Damostratos. It is said that he w as exiled from his country with his father, who was condemned for supporting the Spartans. He was allowed back home after the death of his father; his return w as obtained thanks to a letter from king Alexander of Macedon to the people of C hios. Theopompus was then 45 years old. After the death of Alexander 12, threa tened with exile from everywhere, he arrived in Egypt. Ptolemy, king of the cou ntry, did not want to receive the writer, but would have put him to death as an intriguer if certain of his friends had not saved him by interceding for him. He says that he was the contemporary of the Athenian Isocrates, of Theodectes of Phaselis and of Naucrates of Erthraea 13; they held the first place in eloquenc e with him among the Greeks. But because of their lack of resources, Isocrates and Theodectes wrote their discourses for money, becoming sophists to teach the young and made their living this way. He and Naucrates had enough to consecrate their time to philosophy and study. And there would be nothing abnormal in his claim to the first place after he composed not only discourses on oratory which ran to more than 20,000 lines, but also more than 150,000 lines in which can be found the story of the facts and deeds of the Greeks and barbarians down to his own times 14. He says also that there was no place in Greece nor any town of any importance wh ere he had not stayed and given some public lectures from his discourses without having left there a souvenir of great glory and of his talent as an orator 15. While talking about himself thus, he shows that those who occupy the first place s in the course of earlier epochs were well inferior to the authors of his times , after whom they merit not even the second place; this is evident, he says, fro m the books which one or another have composed and left to us, because this kind of study has undergone great development in his time 16. But who are the autho rs of earlier times of whom he speaks? I cannot determine this clearly, because I suppose that he did not dare strike against Herodotus and Thucydides, to whom he was much inferior in more than one way. No doubt it is the historians Hella nicos17 and Philistos 18 which he has in mind, or perhaps he alludes to Gorgias, to Lysias 19 and to other authors of that kind which were a little before his t ime and which are not so inferior in every way to him in their writings. But th ese are the opinions of Theopompus. It is said, on the other hand, that Ephoros 20 and he had been pupils of Isocrat es. Their works themselves show this, because, in the writings of Theopompus, t he form imitated from Isicrates is frequent, even if it is inferior in precision of work. The subjects of history were suggested to them by their master: ancie nt times to Ephoros, events in Greece after Thucydides to Theopompus. The task was divided in a manner appropriate to the temperament of each. This is why the prefaces of their histories have a great resemblance to each other in the thoug ht and their other elements, as if both were starting the career of history from the same base. Very numerous digressions on every sort of topic lengthen the historical writing s of Theopompus. This is why Philip, who made war against the Romans,21 extract ed and grouped together the acts of Philip, which were only taken from Theopompu s, and so reduced the whole to 6 books only without adding anything of his own a nd without really omitting anything except the digressions. Douris of Samos 22, in book 1 of his histories, says thus, "Ephorus and Theopomp

us are much inferior to other writings. They possess, in fact, neither fidelity in reporting nor charm in their manner of expression and they are themselves on ly concerned with simply writing." But however Douris is himself much inferior in this respect to the writers which he criticises. Is this accusation made in reply to the pretentious judgement of Theopompus, which did not even assign the second rank to writers before himself? I cannot say, but I can affirm that neit her of the two authors have been judged fairly. Cleochares of Smyrlea 23 considering, I think, the complete discourses of Isocr ates (or his point of view, in the comparison which he makes with Demosthenes, i s that we must not assign these a place too far below him), says that the discou rses of Demosthenes resemble a division of soldiers and those of Isocrates a bun ch of athletes. It is clear however that in his writings Theopompus is not infe rior to any work by Isocrates 24. This is what I have to say about the family of Theopompus, his education, his ma ster, his contemporaries, his writings, his public life, his literary style and purpose 6 (all briefly summarised), the times when he lived and the vicissitudes of his existence. 1. Theopompus of Chios wrote in the 4th century BC and was born ca. 378-7 BC . He was an important historian. His main works were the Hellenica and the Phi lippica. Both are lost. The first was a continuation of Thucydides dealing wit h events from 411/410 to 394 BC (the battle of Cnidos). Fragments exist, which give little idea of the work; Grenfell et Hunt, Hellenika Oxyrhynchea cum Theopo mpi et Cratippi fragmentis, Oxford, 1909, mentioned by Henry, does not belong to Theopompus. The Philippica dealt with the years 360-336 BC in 58 books, and ce ntres on the career of Philip II of Macedon. Many fragments exist, and so we kn ow that the author did not limit himself to events involving Philip but also dea lt with the Greek world in general, as well as including many digressions. Both sets of fragments are to be found in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden 1962, pp.526-617, 115. Photius is the main source for what bi ographical information we have on Theopompus. 2. The text says "9 and 20"; Wilson believes that "29" is meant. (Wilson, p 161). 3. An otherwise unknown writer who must have lived around the start of the Christian era. Cf. Orth, p.42-3. 4. The manuscripts have "Pacoris" here but Akoris later. Akoris was king o f Egypt between 393 and 383 BC. (Wilson, p161). 5. This is the reading of manuscript A, but manuscript M reads 'he deals wi th the inhabitants of Barke' which was a town in Cyrenaica. Wilson following Ja coby prefers M. (p.161). 7. A city in Pamphilia, with an impressive Roman theatre still visible. 8. Fr. 351, p. 609. Podaliros son of Asclepius founded Syrnos. 9. Fr. 346, p. 608. 10. In Lycia. the ued rom an 11. On this summary of book 12 of the Philippica, the reader is referred to commentary of Jacoby, vol. 2 B, p.372-4. This passage of Photius is catalog among the fragments of the historian, as no. 103 of the Philippica. Apart f Photius there is only a scholia of Aristophanes (fr. 104). Photius gives us idea of how Theopompus worked in his digressions.

12. On the connections of the historian with Alexander, see the fragments 25 1-254 (p. 590) and fr. 225 (p. 591), which mentions a eulogy of Alexander by The opompus. 13. Both Theodectes and Naucrates were pupils of Isocrates. Nothing of the ir speeches has survived. Naucrates also wrote a handbook of rhetoric, while Th eodectes wrote tragedies. Some titles and a few brief fragments of these surviv e. (Wilson, p.161). There were two Theodectes of Phaselis: cf. F. Solmsen, s. v . Theodectes (n. 1 et 2), in P. W., 2nd ser., vol. V (1934), col. 1722-1734. On Naucrates see F. Alexander, s. v. Nausikrates (n. 2), in P. W., t. XVI (1933), col. 1952-1954. 14. Either of the two works, or both together perhaps. 15. Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ad Pompeium, 6, 3. 16. While inventors are often praised, the idea of progress in Greek litera ture is rarer than might be expected. See L. Edelstein, The idea of progress in classical antiquity, Baltimore 1967. (Wilson p.161). 17. Hellanicus of Lesbos, the contemporary of Herodotus, features in codex 161. 18. Philistos of Syracuse, politician and historian, died in a naval battle in 357 BC. During a period of exile he wrote a history of Sicily, of which frag ments remain. Photius does not have access to good reference materials of dates and events, and so is misled into thinking Hellanicus and Philistios are contem poraries. 19. For Lysias see codex 262. Gorgias (ca. 480-ca.380BC) was more responsi ble than any other sophist for developing the new art of rhetoric. His Helen, P alamedes, and a paragraph from a funeral oration are extant. 20. Ephoros of Cyme was a 5th century author who wrote a lost Universal Hist ory in 29 books. Theopompus' relations with Isocrates are discussed again in co dex 260. 21. Philip V of Macedon (238-179 BC). 22. Duris of Samos was a scholar of the 4th century BC, whose works are lost . Cf. Schwartz, s. v. Duris (n. 3), in P. W., vol. V (1908), col. 1853-1856. H e was a pupil of Theophrastus. 23. Cleochares came from Myrlea, a city of Bithynia on the Propontis east of Cyzicus. The error in the name may be by either Photius or his source. He was a rhetorician of the 3rd century BC, of no great importance. His comparison is found also attributed to Philip of Macedon in codex 265. Cf. Aulitzky, s. v. Kl eochares (n. 5), in P. W., t. XI (1922), col. 672 sqq. 24. The Greek may also mean 'not inferior to any of Isocrates' followers'. [Translated from Henry with reference to Wilson] 177. [Theodore of Antioch (Mopsuestia), Against those who say that men sin by n ature and not by intention] 1. Read a book whose subscription reads, "Theodore of Antioch, Against those who sa y that men sin by nature and not by intention." His polemic against those is de veloped in 5 books. He wrote this work against westerners touched by this ill;

it is among them, he says, that the promoter of this heresy appeared: he left th ese and came to establish himself in eastern regions and there composed some boo ks on the new heresy which he had imagined, and sent them to the inhabitants of his country of origin. By these writings, he attracted many people of those reg ions to adopt his views to the point where entire churches were filled with his error. I cannot say with certainty whether the name of Aram which he gives to their chi ef is a name or nickname 2. This person, the author says, fashioned a fifth gos pel which he feigns that he found in the libraries of Eusebius of Palestine. He rejected the translation of the New and the Old Testament published by the unit ed Seventy and also those of Symmachus, Aquila 3, and others, and boasted that h e had composed a new one of his own without, like the others, having studied and practised Hebrew since infancy and without having mastered the spirit of the Ho ly Scripture. Instead he put himself under the tuiton of some low-class Jews an d there acquired the audacity to make his own version. The principles of their heresy are, in summary, the following. Men sin, they sa y, by nature and not by intention; and 'by nature' they do not mean that nature which was in Adam when first created (because this, they say, was good because m ade by a good God), but that nature which was his later after the fall because o f his ill conduct and sin. He received a sinful nature in exchange for the good and a mortal nature in exchange for an immortal; it is in this manner and by na ture that men became sinners after having been good by nature. It is in their n ature and not by a voluntary choice that they acquired sin. The second point is connected to the preceding propositions. They say that infan ts, even newly born, are not free from sin because, since the disobedience of Ad am, nature is fixed into sin and that this sinful nature, as was said, extends t o all his descendants. They quote, he says, the verse, "I was born in sin" and others similar: the holy baptism itself; the communion with the incorruptible bo dy for the remission of sins and the fact that these apply to infants as a confi rmation of their own opinion. They claim also that no man is just, and this is thus obviously a corollary of their initial position, "because nothing of flesh can be justified before you," he says, and he cites other texts of the same kind . The fourth point (O blasphemous and impious mouth) is that Christ himself, our G od, because he put on a nature soiled by sin, was not himself free from sin. Ho wever, in other places in their impious writings, as the author says, it can be seen that they apply the Incarnation to Christ not in truth and in nature, but o nly in appearance. The fifth point is that marriage, they say, or the desire of carnal union and th e ejection of seed and all that is of that domain and by which our species perpe tuates itself and increases itself are works of the evil nature into which Adam fell through sin to receive all the weight of the evils because of his sinful na ture. Such are thus the positions of the heretics. As for our Theodore, he repulses them with reason and sometimes it is in the bes t manner and with vigour that he blames the absurd and blasphemous character of their opinions; and, in returning to the words of Scripture that the others inte rpret against their correct meaning, he demonstrates their ignorance perfectly 1 . On the other hand, this is not always the case, but he seems to us, in many p laces, entangled in the Nestorian heresy and echoes that of Origen, at least in that which concerns the end of punishment. Further, he says that Adam was mortal from the beginning and that it was only in appearance, to make us hate sin, that God seemed to impose death on us as a pun ishment for sin; this assertion does not seem to me to proceed from just reason

ing, but on the contrary it leaves en if, as the author wants to say, esy. Because an idea is not good t bad ideas combat each other ---d is supported by the testimony of heresy dares to oppose it.

much to explain if someone chooses to ask, ev a opinion like his is strongly opposed to her just because it fights a bad idea ---- in fac but that which conforms to valid reasoning an the holy Scriptures is admissible, even if no

There is a further point which in my judgement has no place among the dogmas of the truth, which is affirmed with excessive insistance and which is not recognis ed by the divine church: that there are two remissions of sin, one for what one has done and the other, what to call it I do not know, a remission which is the very fact of existing without sin or of sinning no more (in fact we need several explanatory terms in order to express this new kind of remission of sins). He calls what is properly called the absence of sin, the total remission and a m ore appropriate sense of the term and the complete destruction of error. What then is this remission of sins? Where is it granted? When does it begin? It began to manifest, he says, with the incarnation of Christ our Lord and was given by way of a down-payment; and it is given in a perfect manner and based on our works even in that restoration which follows the resurrection and to obtain which we are baptised just like our children. But what has been said so far is deserving enough of respect and close to nature to make us turn everything avidly towards our end. Tell us again, what is done and what is to do? In fact we will lend you an attentive ear. What is this fa mous total remission of sin? He says that we will sin no more after the resurre ction. But what hopes you have dashed! Because, leaving to one side this inves tigation into the manner in which the remission of sin must be stated, I will ex plain myself briefly. And what? It is for this, in your eyes, that the Christ became incarnate, and w as crucified, ---- that you would sin no more when you were resurrected from amo ng the dead? So those who sinned before Christ walked on earth sin among the de ad? And, if we are not baptized, we will commit still more sins among the dead, according to you, us and the tiny infants? And all the infidels, in the future life, they will be able to commit thefts, adulteries, impieties, robberies, and to satisfy all their wicked passions? Because you will not find for them any c hastisements just or heavy enough for faults committed in that life! These then are the reasons why in my opinion it is proven that his idea of the r emission of sins cannot be approved. Perhaps he himself did not arrive at this view on his own, but to resolve the difficulties raised by those who wonder why children participate in incorruptible mysteries and why it is thought that they merit baptism if this is not because they themselves are charged with sins, sinc e this sin is bound up in their nature, because the sacraments are administered for the remission of sins. But it will be necessary to resolve this difficulty, which offers numerous elements of solution, in another way, and, after having e xamined the astonishing corollaries of his conception of the remission of sins, not to strain so hard for an answer. This Theodore is the author who also write polemically with success in twenty-ei ght books against Eunomius to defend the teaching of St. Basil,4 or rather, the truth; in fact the vocabulary, the arrangement of words, the spirit of the dogma s, the richness of the refutation and all the rest offers nothing wrong. He is lacking in clarity, although he uses a vocabulary which contains nothing unusual , but most of the time he employs long periods and repeated digressions during w hich the sense of his arguments is much delayed. He employs oblique cases and p articiples in abundance; he often repeats the same facts in no particular order; his repetitions (in which there is a total lack of method) are longer than the matter of his book itself. Some defects of this kind produce a great obscurity

in his writings.5 However he seems to have worked seriously at our holy scriptu re, although he deviates frequently from the truth. 1. This work is by Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428AD). He was born in Antioch and became bishop of Mopsuestia in 392. He was a pupil of the famous pa gan rhetorican Libanius, as was John Chrysostom. He wrote commentaries on many books of the bible, mostly lost, but substantial remains exist in catenae. He w as the leading member of the Antiochene school of exegesis, which was opposed to excessively allegorical interpretation of the scripture and applied philologica l methods of the kind used on literature by pagan scholars. Photius also deals with his work in codices 4 and 38. This particular work is lost, but fragments exist quoted in Latin by Marius Mercator (5th century) and are printed in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 66, col. 1005-1012 in the Collectio Palatina. Note that the codex is headed 'Theodore of Antioch' in the manuscripts. Thi s is misleading, and a marginal note was added from somewhere in a different han d in A, reading "this is the bishop of Mopsuestia, as we have gathered from some letters." Wilson suggests that the note may be due to Photius himself. 2. 'Aram' is generally agreed to be St. Jerome. It is curious that Theodor e should invent a name, since Hieronymos Eusebios is a Greek name. The work of Jerome's 'composed in the Orient' is his Dialogi in Pelagianos (Dialogues agains t the Pelagians). Pelagius and his partisans exaggerated the importance of fre ewill, but the reaction of St. Jerome was to assert almost the opposite, which g ave rise to attacks like those in the work treated here. The bad state of the p reservation of the text of the works of Theodore, and the limited value of the L atin fragments, makes it hard to relate them to this summary of the Greek work, and difficult to know the thought of Theodore accurately. 3. Manuscript is literally 'Akylas'. 4. Codex 4. 5. This assessment is less favourable than that given in codex 4. [Translated from Henry. I have yet to look at Wilson here] 178. [Dioscorides, On matter] Read On Matter by Dioscorides, a work divided in seven books. In five of them h e speaks about herbs, plants, aromatics, and the preparation of oils and unguent s. He also deals with animals and the use that may be made of certain of their organs; of trees, the juices which come from them, or which lose them, of honey and also of milk, of grass, of plants that are called cereals or vegetables, of the roots of plants and of shrubs and herbs and of the usage of their juice for medicine or nourishment. Further, he deals in a fully sufficient manner with wi nes and metals and, for most of the items he intends to discuss, he describes th e appearance, the nature of these items, and the places where they may be found in a very exact manner so that one can recognise the object searched for; he spe aks less of the usage that one can make of them or he describes the search with less exactitude. He also gives various ways to deal with wines in this part. In the sixth book, he discusses remedies: those which are h attack illness. In the seventh, which is also the last e undertakes an enquiry into animals that throw darts and which those who have encountered these animals will find mplete cure. harmful and those whic of all his research, h on the means thanks to a relief and even a co

Such is the general purpose of the work. This book is useful not only for the p ractice of medicine, but also for speculations on philosophy and the natural sci

ences. Of all those since Dioscurides who have written about simples, some have merely copied his work, others have not even cared to transcribe it exactly, bu t have broken up the ensemble of teaching on each subject so as to group in one part the facts about appearance, nature and reproduction of simples, and in the other part to describe in detail their use and usefulness. Alexander, Paul 2 and Aetius 3 and the other writers of the same kind have not e ven taken any account of the appearance of plants, but have merely extracted the information relating to their use to include in their own treatises; and furthe r, Paul has left out what Dioscurides said about the use of plants, but has coll ected a number of facts on the use and usefulness of items which the latter did not mention. Aetius has not only added nothing, but has left out, I do not know why, much that Dioscurides wrote. And even Oribasos himself, who seems to be t he most lengthy of them, has not transcribed in its own groups all that Dioscuri des wrote, but has separated the use of the form and of the nature. And Galen, apart from leaving out a very great number of facts on plants, has on ly transcribed the information on the powers and uses of the items of which he t alks: he has only given a feeble justification of his omissions of form and natu re. Although, in discussing herbs, he speaks of them with more detail than Dios curides, exceeding the reputation of this writer in usefulness for this one part , which is not the least important, he surpasses him less all the same because h e does not appear inferior to him in his treatise on plants. To my knowledge, f or things that concern knowledge of appearance, nature and origin of these plant s, no author can be found more useful than Dioscurides. According to the testimony of Galen, the author was from Anazarba. Myself I hav e found in the subscriptio's [of manuscripts] that he is called at the same time from Anazarba and from Peda.4 Among the many authors who have treated the same subject before him, he is revealed as having the most exact and most useful usa ge of them all. 1. This work has survived in 5 books, while Photius knows of 7. It belongs to the 2nd century AD. The work was edited by Wellmann, Berlin: Weidmann (1906 -14). See Wellmann, Dioskurides (n. 12), in P. W., vol. V (1905), col. 1131-114 2. Dante placed Dioscurides in the first circle of Hell, that inhabited by the good pagans. 2. An important 7th century AD compiler. Cf. Diller, s. v. Paulus (n. 23), i n P. W., t. XVIII, 2 (1949), col. 2386-2387. 3. Aetius of Amida, a 6th century AD writer. He was the author of a large c ompilation in 60 books (see codex 221). The three authors mentions knew Dioscur ides work only indirectly, according to Wellmann. Cf. Wellmann, s. v. Aetios (n . 8), in P. W., t. I (1894), col. 703-704, et Supplementband I, col. 29 4. The manuscripts of his work call him [Greek]. This is without doubt the source of Photius' comment. [Translated from Henry] 179. [Agapius, Manichaean pamphlets] 1 Read a work containing 23 small books and 202 other chapters by that detestable impiety, Agapius, in which he shows that the name of Christian is for him only a facade; and no-one allows himself to burst out his hate for Christ as much as h e does in his writings. He dedicates them to a woman named Urania, whom he proc laims is an initiate of the same philosophy as himself. He thus teaches and supports everything that is the opposite of Christianity: he

places opposite God an evil principle which exists of itself for all eternity; he calls it sometimes 'nature', sometimes 'matter', sometimes again 'Satan', 'de vil', 'master of the world', 'god of the age', and he gives it multiple other na mes. It is by necessity, and in spite of themselves, he claims, that men sin; t he body belongs to the domain of evil, and the soul to that of God and it is (wh at insanity!) consubstantial with God. He pours derision on the Old Testament, Moses and the Prophets; he goes so far, the wretch, as to speak evil of the For erunner; he ranges them together with all that is said and done in the Old Testa ment (O, the impiety!) on the side of the evil principle that is opposed to God. The tree of Paradise, he imagines, is the Christ whom he claims to honour, but w ith his lips [only], while enough cannot be said of the extent to which he blasp hemes him, by that which he does and by the beliefs that he professes. As for t he consubstantial Trinity, this damned soul affirms that he confesses it, but th at is an impious bit of malice designed solely, by the words of piety, to seduce those who come to him with too much ignorant simplicity and to slip in, by this sort of admixture, the fatal strand of his teaching, totally steeped in the poi son of his error. Thus he says that he honours and preaches the body of Christ, and Christ crucified, and the Cross, and Baptism, the placing of Christ in the tomb and his resurrection, and the resurrection of the dead and the judgement: i n a word, all the vocabulary proper to the true faith employed by Christians he transposes and applies to other notions which are either very bizarre or abomina ble or foreign or senseless or inadequate, and lacking in any coherence. He thu s attempts to fortify his own heresy. And his impiety is exercised with so much cunning that, while feeding an unlimited hatred against Mary ever-virgin and Mo ther of the Christ our God, and waging an unmerciful war on her, he nevertheless in hypocrisy makes use of the name of Mary; by calling her the Mother of God, a t the price of a lie, he shows neither fear of God nor the least shame. Also, w hile covering the precious and salutary Cross of Christ with a thousand insults, while calling it blasphemously the scarecrow of the Jews, he nevertheless has t he impudence to say that he judges the cross of Christ worthy of honour and vene ration, by naming in his malice things by names foreign to them.2 It is thus that he recounts about the body and blood of Christ not what we know of it, we Christians, but that which his mad and delirious mind has invented. H e uses the words which the Christians use, but he uncouples them from the true r ealities. He speaks without shame of the sun and the moon as divinities, which he proclaims as consubstantial with God, and he himself imagines that their ligh t is not sensible but intelligible; this is why he calls them incorporeal, witho ut form or colour, and deserving of veneration. He imagines that it is necessary to abstain from meat and conjugal connection as if they were infamous things; him, the most infamous of all! In rejecting wine also because it leads to drunkenness, our author does not take into account tha t it is not wine that intoxicates, but the fact of using it without measure or r egard for decency, in the same way as the abuse of any food or water is harmful. Poor fool, he also worships the air, which he hymns, calling it a column and a m an. He holds in aversion fire and earth, which he places in the domain of evil. After gathering together more chatter and a number of his own pitfalls taken f rom pagan superstition and arranged as suits his own imagination, he offers a he ap of evils and fills it with the impiety that constitutes his own dogma. He also pulls out some words from the holy gospel and from the letters of St. Pa ul and he tries to pervert the sense of them and to turn them into words of his own heresy. As for the so-called Acts of the Twelve Apostles, those of Andrew a bove all, he shows that he relies on them to support his claim. He also wants t o reinforce his belief in the migration of souls: those who are elevated because of virtue, he confounds with God; those who have gone to the limit of vice, he dedicates to the fire and the shadows, and those who have lived an existence in

between he returns to the body. He uses without shame as witnesses even those faithful to pagan religion, above all Plato, to establish his own impiety; he calls them divine and holy just like Christ his saviour; many of his other remarks are still more full of great foll y, of malice and impiety. He seems to attack the error of Eunomius, and it is impossible to say at what po int one blasphemes with more impiety than the other. In his vocabulary and style, he is not without meriting sometimes some respect, above all when he undertakes a description; in places he is vulgar and no differ ent to that which is heard in the street. This wretch even possesses some philo sophical knowledge, and leaves none of it its original integrity, but mixes and confounds them all. And, to bastardise the truth and righteousness, he lacks ne ither energy nor skill: in invention or reflection, he is insuperably obtuse and stupid. The utility of his impious and valueless treatise is solely to confuse and to the shame of those who are attached to the impious belief of the Manicha eans and to his own. 1. The work of this direct disciple of Manes is lost. Cf. Jlicher, s. v. Ag apios (n. 2), in P. W., vol. I (1894), col. 735. It has sometimes been suggeste d that two works by Agapius are discussed here, but Henry thinks not. 2. Mani proclaimed himself 'apostle of Jesus Christ by the providence of Go d the father', and at the same time called himself the Paraclete that had been p romised to be the author of a true revelation. See the Anti-Manichaean works of Augustine. Cf. G. Welter, Histoire des sectes chrtiennes, Paris, Payot, 1950, p. 36. [Translated from Henry] 180. [John the Lydian, On prodigies, etc] Read three treatises of John Laurentius of Lydian Philadelphia 1 : On prodigies, On the months, On the public magistracies. The treatise On prodigies, for all that I can judge from my experience, never leaves the domain of fable, or very s eldom; that On the months, while it abounds in useless facts, is neither agreeab le nor very interesting for the study of ancient times; as for that On the publi c magistracies, for those whom this subject interests above all, it contains inf ormation which is not lacking in elegance. Moreover, this author is furnished to satiety with ornate passages, and in many places, to an excessive coldness and with too much audacity; sometime he writes in an appropriate and charming manner. As for the rest, he suffers from great unevenness, arrogant when he should not b e and humble, on the other hand, where he should not be. He flatters outrageous ly those of his own time; on those who have passed on and concerning whom he dre ads no sanction for his insolence, he pours blame in floods. For the style, there are some places where what he says is choice and elevates i tself to atticism; elsewhere he is vulgar, negligent and without anything but tr iviality. Nevertheless in the treatises On prodigies and On the months no doubt he cannot be criticised too much on this subject; but when he sets himself to t reat of political magistracies and to develop some historical narratives, he is guilty of the same unevenness as much in the style as in the ideas and in the co mposition of his writing; I see no excuse which can explain this similar neglige nce. This writer was a soldier under the order of prefects at the age of twenty -one; at forty he was a lawyer, then keeper of the tax-rolls; it is then, he say

s that he wrote these treatises and that he was appointed a dignitary of the cou rt by the emperor. 2 As for the epoque in which he lived, he knew the reign of A nastasius, and lived to the end of those of Justin and his successor Justinian. In religion he seems devoted to superstition, because he respects and honours the beliefs of the pagans, but he honours ours also, without making it possible for his readers to decide easily whether he honours them by conviction or as one who plays a part. 1. This author is of the 6th century. Nothing more of his works has surviv ed than the three works mentioned here. On the months and On magistracies have survived only in a mutilated form. On prodigies was published by Wachsmuth, Lei pzig: Teubner (1896); On the months and On magistracies by R. Wensch, Leipzig: T eubner (1898 and 1903). On the author, see A. Klotz, s. v. Lydos (n. 7), in P. W., t. XIII (1927), col. 2210-2217. 2. Lydus gives his autobiography in On magistracies III, 26-30. This is the principal source on which Photius draws for this account. He did obtain facts elsewhere, such as the appointment as matriculaire. This is discussed on III, 6 6, p. 167 of Wensch edition. The information is more detailed than that in Suid as. [Translated from Henry] 181. [Damascius, The Life of the philosopher Isidore] Read "On the life of the philosopher Isidore" by Damascius of Damascus. The wor k is long and split into some 60 chapters. on setting out to write the life of Isidore, he dedicated his work to a certain Theodora who also observed pagan cus toms. She was not lacking in knowledge in the matter of philosophy and in all th e touches on the poets and grammar; she was also an expert in the speculations o f geometry and arithmetic; Damascius himself and Isidore had instructed her, and three young sisters at various times. this Theodora was the daughter of Cyrina and Diogenes, son of Eusebius son of Flavian, who was descended from Sampsigeram us and Monimus, of whom Iamblichus is also a descendant; all were in the first r ank in the impiety of idolaters. Thus Damascius dedicated his biography of Isidore to this person, whose request, together with other concomitant causes, was the stimulus for the writer to carr y out the task, as he says himself. however it is not especially the life of Isi dore which he describes, as also that of numerous people contemporary with this philosopher or earlier than in; he assembles their deeds, stories about them, an d he uses digressions in abundance and even to satiety. His opinion on things divine is that of an extreme impiety; strange old wives' s tories fill his heart and writings; thus, our holy religion is visibly the objec t of frequent attacks on his part, although not frank attacks, and of a disguise d malevolence. For all those whom he exalts in his writings and that he proclaim s superior to the human condition for the excellence of their conceptions in kno wledge and the agility of their thought, he sets himself up as judge of each, an d there is not one of all those he admires whom he does not reproach for some de fect: he that he exalts for his intelligence isn't intelligent on every point, h e that is incomparable for his knowledge does not know everything, he whose virt ues make him almost divine has lots of defects. Thus each of those whom he was exalting is trivialised and reviled; in this way he arrogates to himself, by devious means, superiority over them all and in all. Also he works through his life of Isidore alternately praising and blaming him . Nevertheless, in the difficulties of logic, in the solutions he borrows and c ites as remarkable, finally in those which he himself produces with great pride for the quickness of his thought and the exactitude of his knowledge, there can

be found neither any construction of this author which rises above the standard ordinary philosophy, nor anything which qualifies as ability and mental agility by human standards, never mind those of the divine; .. 188. [Alexander of Mindos, Collection of Marvels -- Protagoras, Universal Geogr aphy] Read Alexander 1, A collection of marvels. He relates in this books a number of prodigious and unbelievable things, but he lists first other authors who have r eported these facts before him and who are not without renown. He speaks of ani mals, of plants of certain countries, of rivers, springs, plants and of other su bjects of the same type; he has a clear and concise style and which is not disag reeable In the same volume, a work of Protagoras 2 entitled Universal Geography in six b ooks. The first five, without being as serious or exact as the geographers foll owed, form a description of Asia, Libya and Europe. The sixth book is in the sa me vein as the collection of Alexander, because it reports exotic stories which circulate everywhere; he attributes part of this to earlier authors and pretends to have seen himself much no less strange than the rest. This author equally h as a clear and concise style, above all in his sixth book. 1 This refers to Alexander of Mindos, who lived in the first part of the 1st cen tury A.D., and not as has been long believed, Alexander Polyhistor. He is cited by Ptolemy Chennos (Cod. 190) and Elian used him. He himself used the Libuka& of King Juba. The work is lost. 2 Protagoras lived in the second or third century AD. [Translated from Henry.] 189. [Sotion, Strange Stories about water -- Nicolas of Damascus, Strange custo ms -- Acestorides, Urban Fables] Read Sotion 1, on the strange stories which are given in various places about ri vers, springs and lakes. This little work is itself of the same genre as the si xth book of Protagoras and as the collection of Alexander, except that in this p articular book, he only reports marvellous stories about springs and lakes while in the others there are a fair number on other subjects. The style is close to that of those works. Likewise I read in the same volume a work of Nicolas 2 dedicated to Herod, king of the Jews, which contains a collection of strange customs. It agrees precisel y with some of the strange stories collected by Alexander and adds a number of d etails to the legends collected by Conon; all the same, he omits some because he reports them elsewhere. In style he is equally sober and lacks nothing in clar ity, but he is more concise and has more talent than those preceding. He reports certain facts which, while very strange, are admitted by many people and some others which are not known, but which are not in flagrant opposition to those which are believable, because these are most often customs he assigns to certain peoples, but one can find among them some of which the unreality is evid ent. This Nicolas, I think, is Nicolas of Damascus who achieved the peak of his career under Augustus and who was considered as his friend; it is for that reas on that the emperor called a type of cake "nicolai" 3, which Nicolas had sent hi m; he wanted to honour someone who had shown him this courtesy. This author has also left us, if my memory of past reading is right, a voluminous History of As syria. In the same volume, I have also read in four books a work by Acestorides on Urba

n Fables. This author appears to me to have had much more ability than many oth ers in the choice of his title. In fact the histories which others have transmi tted, the more moderate among them without comment, the others asserting that th ese are true, by him in his desire to be accurate are called fables and are asse mbled as a collection or even a book of legends, as he is happy to call it. Among these stories, one may find many which are in the collection of Conon and which Apollodore has recounted in his Library, which have been collected by Alex ander, dedicated to Augustus by Nicolas, and treated earlier by Protagoras. But this Acestorides has included many which the others have omitted; indeed in man y of the stories handled by himself and others, one can see that the versions di verge. This author relates in his own writings many facts which are attested in famous accounts. He is one of those who could demonstrate their truth clearly and it s eems that he has entitled them as fables not to criticise the character of their composition, but to emphasise their agreeableness and charm. But in my opinion one may recognise his wisdom because, in proposing to join together carefully f ables and real facts, he avoids blame by the ambiguity of his title. In styles he resembles likewise the preceding authors. 1 Sotion was a Peripatetic philosopher, of uncertain date. 2 He was born c. 64 BC. As a young man he was tutor to the children of Antony a nd Cleopatra; later he became a friend of Augustus, and historiographer for Hero d the Great, although he was not himself a Jew. His principal works were a univ ersal history in 144 books, a life of Augustus, an autobiography and a work on n ational customs in various countries. Some fragments of the work are extant. F or the remains of his works see F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Histor iker (no 90), Berlin (1926) 324-430; esp. vol. 2 A, pp.384-390. 3 The story is also told by Plutarch, Quaestiones convivales 8.723D and Athenaeu s, Deipnosophistae 15.652A. However in these versions dates, not cakes, are inv olved. [Translated from Henry. Some notes from Wilson] 190. [Ptolemy Chennus, New History] Read Ptolemy Hephaestion, New History, intended for scholarship in six books, a work really useful for those who undertake to attempt erudition in history; it c an, in fact, give the method to know in a short time connected elements, whereas a long life would be consumed in the effort of locating them in the books throu gh which they are scattered. It abounds in extraordinary and badly imagined inf ormation; and the peak of absurdity is that he attempts, for certain trivial fab les, to explain the reasons for their appearance. As for the collector who has assembled these stories, he is a somewhat credulous spirit, inclined to boastfulness and who has no other distinction in his langua ge. He dedicates his work to a certain Tertulla whom he celebrates as his "lady " and whose love for letters and scholarship he praises. He attacks some of his detractors whom he accuses of having approached the subject in an unhealthy way . In any case, the majority of his stories which are free of things impossible to believe, offer a knowledge above the ordinary, but which is not unpleasing. The first book contains a story on the death of Sophocles and, before this, one on that of Protesilas. Then comes that of Heracles, who killed himself by fire because he was unable at the age of fifty to draw his bow (?) ; a story about Cr oesus saved from the pyre, one on the death of Achilles, and on the courtesan La is, who choked on an olive-stone. In treating each of these subjects, he preten

ds that his detractors have committed errors when they learned them and passed t hem on. He then recounts concerning king Alexander that when he saw at Ephesus a picture which represented Palamedes assassinated by a ruse, he was troubled because the victim resembled Aristonicus, the partner of Alexander when playing ball-games; such was in fact the character of Alexander, full of goodwill and kindness for his companions. He then pretends that the sense of the passage discussed by Eup horion in his Hyacinth, "Only Cocytus washed the wounds of Adonis", was as follo ws: Cocytus was the name of a pupil to whom Chiron had taught medicine and who c ared for Adonis when he was wounded by the wild boar. He says that the person in the first book of Herodotus' Histories who was killed by Adrastus, son of Gordias, was called Agathon and that he was killed in the c ourse of a quarrel about a quail. He says that Cadmus and Harmonius were changed into lions and that Tiresias underwent seven metamorphoses, and he explains why the Cretans call him daughter of Phorbas. Erymanthos, son of Apollo, was punis hed because eh had seen Aphrodite after her union with Adonis and Apollo, irrita ted, changed himself into a wild boar and killed Adonis by striking through his defenses. He explains why the poet made doves the servants of the gods at their meals, and he reports what king Alexander and Aristotle said to each other above; he speak s also of Homer and the doves. He says that the poet Epicharmus was descended f rom Achilles, son of Peleus. Homer calls Patroclus the first horseman because h e learned from Poseidon, who loved him, the art of riding horses. Odysseus was first called "Outis" because he had large ears, but, he says, durin g a day of rain his mother who carried him was unable to stop him lying down at the side of the road and that is the reason why he was given the name of Odysseu s. An Arcadian named Peritanos committed adultery with Helen when she lived with Al exander in Arcadia; Alexander, to punish him for this adultery emasculated him a nd it is since then that the Arcadians call eunuchs "peritanoi". Aristonicus of Tarentum said that Achilles, when he lived among the young girls at the house of Lycomedes, was called Cercysera; he was also called Issa and Pyr rha and Aspetos and Prometheus. Botryas of Mindos says that all the children of Niobe were killed by Apollo. The father of Odysseus gave him a monitor caled M uiscos, a Cephallenian, to accompany him. Achilles was also accompanied by a mo nitor called Noemon, of Carthaginian origin, and Patrocles had Eudorus. And Ant ipater of Acanthe says that Dares, who wrote the Iliad before Homer, was the mon itor of Hector and got him to promise not to kill the companion of Achilles. H e says that the monitor of Protesilas was Dardanus, of Thessalian origin, and th at Antilochus Chalcon was appointed rider and monitor by his father, Nestor. Th ese are the subjects treated in the first book. The second treats of Heracles who after his spell of madness was cured with hell ebore by Anticyreus who had discovered the remedy for this in Phocidus, where it was abundant; others each give a different version of this cure. He says that Nestor was loved by Heracles; that it was not Philoctetes but the Trachinian Mor simos who lit the pyre of Heracles; that Heracles, after the Nemean lion had bi tten off one of his fingers had only nine and that there exists a tomb erected f or this detached finger; other authors say that he lost his finger following a b low by a dart of a stingray and one can see at Sparta a stone lion erected on th e tomb of the finger and which is the symbol of the power of the hero. It is si nce then that stone lions have likewise been erected on the tombs of other impor tant people; other authors give different explications of the lion statues. Fro m the pyre of Heracles a swarm of locusts flew out which ravaged the countryside

like a plague before they were destroyed. It was Aphrodite who, because of Adonis whom both she and Heracles loved, taught Nessus the centaur the trap with which to snare Heracles. Nireus of Syme, who was loved by Heracles, helped him to beat down the lion of Helicon; others say t hat Nireus was the son of Heracles. Who are the Charites referred to by the poet to whom he compared the hair of Eup horbus? Heracles, says the author, was called Nilos at his birth; then, when he saved Hera in killing the nameless giant with the fiery breath who attacked her , he changed his name because he had escaped the danger of Hera. Abderos, belov ed of Heracles, was killed by Theseus when he came to announce the episode of th e pyre. Aristonicus of Tarentum says that the middle head of the hydra was of gold. Ale xander of Mindos says that a serpent born of earth fought with Heracles against the Nemean lion; fed by Heracles, it accompagnied him to Thebes and stayed in a tent; it was this that ate small sparrows and was changed to stone. The Argo was constructed by Heracles on Ossa in Thessaly; her name was given bec ause of Argos, son of Jason, who was loved by Heracles; it is becase of him that he undertook the voyage with Jason to Scythia. He recounts that Hera who fough t on the side of Geryon was wounded on her right by Heracles and all that follow ed him. Corythos, an Iberian, who was also beloved of Heracles, was the first t o manufacture a helmet; it is from this, says the author, that this piece of arm our takes its name. The tomb which passes for that of Zeus in Crete is that of Olympos of Crete, who received Zeus son of Cronos, raised him and taught divine things to him; but Ze us, he says, struck down his foster-parent and master because he had pushed the giants to attack him in his turn; but when he had struck, before his body he was full of remorse and, since he could appease his sorrow in no other way, he gave his own name to the tomb of his victim. Of which author of verse did Alexander son of Philip say: "Proteus, well, drink wine now that you have eaten human flesh"? And he spoke justly of Proteus. Wh ich song was Alexander accustomed to sing and whose were the words? On who did the same Alexander son of Philip write a funeral chant? Such are the chapters o f the second book. The third is devoted to Hyllos son of Heracles; he had a little horn on the righ t side of his face and Epopeus of Sicyon seized it after having killed Hyllos in single combat; he filled it with water of the Styx and became king of the count ry. Concerning the water of the Styx in Arcadia he recounts the following: whil e Demeter was mourning for her daughter, Poseidon intruded on her sorrow and she in anger metamorphosed into a mare; she arrived at a fountain in this form and detesting it she made the water black. Hecale and all those who took this name. Alexander's father was not Philip but a man called Draco and of Arcadian origina; this was the origin of the legend of the serpent. He speaks of Ptolemy's dog; it fought by the side of its master; it was opened when it died and found to have a hairy heart; it was of the Moloss ian race and was called Briareus. This concerns Polydamas. What do these words of the poet mean: "Daughter of Pan dareus, 'la chanteuse verdire'...(?)", etc? He speaks of the Palladium which Dio medes and Odysseus went together to steal, of the reed which repeated that Midas had the ears of an ass, of the acestalian birds which were sought in Stesichoru s, of the raft of Gigo which is at the edge of the Ocean, which can only be move d with an asphodel and remains immovable by force. Rhopalus was the son of Hera

cles; the same day, he rendered to his father the honours due to a hero and sacr ificed to him as a god. Ampbiarus received this name because the parents of hi s mother had both prayed that she would give birth without grief. Who wrote the hymn which is chanted at Thebes in honour of Heracles and where he is called son of Zeus and Hera? Then those who composed hymns in different cit ies are discussed. He says that the poet Philosthephanos of Mantinea never used a coat since he was born and that Matris the Theban, an author of hymns, lived all his life on myrtle leaves. Eupompus of Samos raised, incredible wonder, a w ild serpent; it was, it was said, a son to him; it was called Draco and had very piercing sight and could easily see at twenty stades; he placed it in the servi ce of Xerxes for a thousand talents and, sat with him under the golden plane tre e it described to him what it saw of the naval combat between the Greeks and bar barians and the exploit of Artemisus. Plesirrhous the Thessalian, author of hym ns, was loved by Herodotus and was his heir; it is he who composed the introduct ion of the first book of Herodotus of Halicarnassus; the authentic beginning of the Histories of Herodotus is in fact : "Those of the Persians who are knowledge able say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the conflict". Polyzelus of Cyr ene never laughed, from which his surname of Agelastus. The man who overrode ev eryone with his piety was, according to some, Antigonus of Ephesus, according to others Lucias of Hermione, of whom Theophrastus speaks in his letters. Achille s and Deidamia had two children: Neoptolemus and Oneiros; Oneiros was killed by Orestes, who didn't recognise him, while fighting with him Phocidus for a place to pitch a tent. The author then deals with coincidence in history. At the tomb of Amycus there grows a red laurel and those who have tasted it have taken prizes in boxing; Ant odoros, who had eaten some, gained thirteen crowns; all the same he was conquere d by Dioscorus of Thera in his fourteenth combat, just as Amycus himself, it is said, had fallen to one of the Dioscurides. Croesus, it is said, was conceived during a festival of Aphrodite, during which the Lydians have a procession for h er decorating the goddess with all their wealth. The father of Themistocles sacr ificed a bull when the birth of his son was announced; he drank the blood of the victim and died. Darius, son of Hystapes, exposed by his mother, was fed on ma res milk by a horse-guardian, Spargapises, and he became king thanks to the 'hen nissement' of a horse. A servitor of the lyric poet Ibycos, who was called Hera cles, was burned alive for conspiring with brigands against his master. Orestes came into the world during the festival of Demeter Erinys. Philip as an child attempted in the evenings to strike shooting stars with his arrows and th e divine Diognetus predicted that the infant would become master of many peoples ; Aster was also the name of one who lost an eye to an arrow that way. Marsyas the flutist, the one who was flayed, was born during a festival of Apollo, where the skins of all those victims one has flayed are offered to the god. The author speaks of Tityos, who attempted to ambush Alexander. The mother of C laudius, while pregnant, desired some of those mushrooms called boletus and ate some, and Claudius died from eating some of the same which had been poisoned. H e speaks of the centaur Lamios who, caught in adultery, was murdered according t o some by the eunch Peirithos, according to others by Theseus; such are the nume rous effects of coincidence in these stories. Thus ends the third book. The fourth recounts that Helen was the first to imagine drawing lots with the fi ngers and that she won at chance with Alexander; she was the daughter of Aphrodi te. There was born of Helen and Achilles in the fortunate isles a winged child named Euphorion after the fertility of this land; Zeus caught him and with a blo w knocked him to earth in the isle of Melos, where he continued the pursuit and changed the nymphs there into frogs because they had given him burial. Some say that Helen was taken away by Alexander when she hunted on the mount of the Virg in; struck by his beauty, she followed him like a dog.

The author speaks of the embroidered belt which Hera received from Aphrodite and gave to Helen: it was stolen by Helen's servant, Astyanassa and recovered from her by Aphrodite. What is the significance of what Helen says in Homer: "Each imitating the voice of their spouse"? Helen was the daughter of Helios and Leda and she was called Leonte; this was, it is said, following the resentment of Aphrodite against Mene laus who had arranged the abduction of Helen: he had promised a hecatomb to Aphr odite as the price of the marriage, and didn't offer it. The Helen-flower grows in Rhodes; it received its name from her, because it grew under the tree on which Helen hanged herself; those who ate of it inevitably co me to quarrel. It was Helen who was taken by Menelaus and so married him. Some authors report that Helen, arrived in Scythia Tauris with Menelaus in searc h of Orestes, was immolated to Artemis with Menelaus by Iphigenia; others say th at she was removed during the voyage of the Greeks home by Thetis, metamorphosed into a seal. It is said that Helen was called by her real name Echo because of her ability to imitate voices; her name of Helen came from the fact that Leda brought her into the world in a marshy place. The place called Sandalion at Sparta takes its na me from the sandal of Helen who fell in this place while Alexander pursued here. Helen had a daughter by Alexander; they disagreed about the name to hive here; he wanted to call her Alexandra, she wanted to call her Helen; Helen carried he r in a 'partie d'osselets' and the infant received the same name as her mother; this daught was killed, it is said, by Hecuba when Troy was taken. In the time of the Trojan war, there were many celebrated Helens: the daughter o f Aegistheus and Clytemnestra that Orestes killed; the one who assisted Aphrodit e in her union with Adonis, the daughter of an inhabitant of Epidamnos, whom the people of that town honour under the attributes of Aphrodite because she distri buted silver during a famine; the daughter of Faustulus who was the foster-fathe r of Remus and Romulus. The woman who ate three dogs a day was also called Hele n, as well as the sister of Dicearcus, son of Telesinos, and eighteen others of which the Helen before Homer, daughter of the Athenian Museum and who recounted the war of Troy; it is of her, it is said, that Homer obtained the subject of hi s poem and it is her who had a lamb that could speak two languages; also among t hem, the daughter of the Aetolian Tityrus: she provoked Achilles to single comba t and gave him a head-wound which was not mortal, but it was she who fell under his blows. Helen the female painter also belongs to the list; she was the daughter of Timon the Egyptian: she painted the battle of Issus at the time when she was at the h eight of her poweres; the picture was displayed in the temple of Peace under Ves pasian. Archelaus of Cyprus says that there was a Helen of Himera who was the l ove of the poet Stesichorus; she was the daughter of Micythos; she left Stesicho rus and went to live with Bougpalos. The poet, wishing to defend himself from b eing a fool, wrote that Helen had left at his own wish, and the story that Stesi chorus became blind is false. The plant "moly" of which Homer speaks; this plant had, it is said, grown from t he blood of the giant killed in the isle of Circe; it has a white flower; the al ly of Circe who killed the giant was Helios; the combat was hard (mlos) from whic h the name of this plant. Dionysius was loved by Chiron, from whom he learned chants and dances, the bacch ic rites and initiations. The author speaks of the "Taraxippos" of Olympus and of the Myrtilloi, father and son. Neoptolemus Makiotes was the only one to lea

rn from Aithos, a Delphian, the oracle of 'Phemonoe'. It is of this Aithos that Herodotus says, in the first book of his Histories: "although I know his name I will not quote him". The author speaks of double appellations in Homer; one is that used among the go ds, the other current among men; the Xantho is the only river which is a son of Zeus. He treats of other double names. There is, he says, in the Tyrrhenian co untry a tower called Tower of the Sea, of the name of "Sea", a Tyrrhenian poison er; she worked for Circe and fled from her mistress. It was to her, says the au thor, that Odysseus came; with the aid of her drugs, she changed him into a hors e and kept him with her until he died of old age. Thanks to this anecdote, the difficulty of the Homeric text is resolved: "Then the sea will send you the soft est of deaths". Thus ends the fourth book. It is said in the fifth book that it is reported that it was Jason and not Pollu x who fought against Amycus and the place they fought witnesses this by its name , "Spear of Jason", and a spring appears near there which is called Helen. Than ks to these facts, the sense of an epigram of Crinagoras is clarified. "And the mares of Proclus will eat the green psalacanthus", a verse unknown to Callimach us, is a spoof of the comic Eubulus on Dionysius. The author also deals with th e parody of this verse. As for the "psalacanthus", it's an Egyptian plant which gains health and victory when used to decorate horses. It is said, on the othe r hand, that Psalacantha was a nympth of the isle of Icarus who, captured by Dio nysius, helped him to obtain Ariane on the condition that he should also belong to her, and Dionysius refused; Psalacantha took herself to Ariane and the irrita ted god turned her into a plany; then, feeling remorse, he wanted to honour this plant by placing it in the crown of Ariane, who took her place among the celest ial constellations. As for the plant, some say it resembles the 'armoise', othe rs the melilot. He reports that Athenodorus of Eretria, in the eighth book of his commentaries, says that Thetis and Medea had a dispute in Thessaly as to which was the most be autiful; their judge was Idomeneus, who gave the victory to Thetis; Medea in ang er said that the Cretans were always liars and in revenge she made the curse tha t he would never speak the truth, just as he had lied in his judgement; it is fr om that, he says, that Cretans pass as liars. Athenodorus cites as author of th is story Antiochus in his second book of Legends of the town. Ilus, the father of Laomedon, had, he says, a plume of horsehair and, among the sons of Priam, Melanippos and Idaios likewise. Xanthe and Balios, the horses of Achilles, once belonged to giants and they were the only ones to fight alongsid e the gods against their brothers. When Odysseus had a shipwreck close to Thyla in Sicily, the shield of Achilles was thrown ashore near the monument of Ajax; placed next to the monument, it was struck by lightening the next day. Heracles did not wear the skin of the Nemean lion, but that of a certain Lion, o ne of the giants killed by Heracles whom he had challenged to single combat. Th e dragon which guarded the golden apples was the brother of the Nemean lion. Ir us, who appears in Homer, was a Boetian. The wife of Candaulus, whose name isn' t mentioned in Herodotus, was called Nysai; she acquired double pupils and a ver y piercing sight when she obtained the stone of the serpent; it was thanks to th is gift that she saw Gyges leaving through the door; others say that she was cal led Tudun, and others Clytia; Abas says that she was called Abro. The wife's na me was, it is said, passed over in silence by Herodotus because Plesirrhous, who m Herodotus loved, was taken with a woman called Nysia and who was of a family o f Halicarnassus, and that he hanged himself when he was unsuccesful with her. I t is for this reason that Herodotus does not mention the name of Nysia which was odious to him. The centaurs who fled from Heracles through Tyrsenia perished of hunger, ensnare

d by the soft song of the sirens. Abderos, who was loved by Heracles, was the b rother of Patroclus. Epipole of Carystos, daughter of Traction, hid her sex to go on campaign with the Greeks; denounced by Palamedes, she was stoned by the Gr eeks. When Alexander abducted Helen, Menelaus offered a hecatomb to Zeus at Gor tyne in Crete. Palamedes commanded the Greeks in place of Agamemnon, in fact, a t his arrival at Aulis, Agamemnon shot with an arrow wild goat sacred to Artemis ; the Greeks finding it impossible to set sail, Calchas predicted that the prodi gy would cease if Agamemnon sacrified his daughter Iphigenia to Poseidon; when h e refused, the angry Greeks removed his command and nominated Palamedes king. Philoctetes died bitten by a serpent and Alexander was killed by Menelaus with a blow of the spear in his thigh. After the death of Demetrius of Scepsis, next to his head was found the book of Tellis, and the Divers of Alcmeon were found, it is said, next to the head of Tyronichos of Chalcis; the Violaters of Justice of Eupolis next to the head of Ephialtes and Cratinus, Eunides next to that of A lexander king of Macedon, and the Works and Days of Hesiod next to that of Seleu cus Nicator. And the legislator of Arcadia, Cercidas, ordered that books I and II of the Iliad should be buried with him. And Pompey the Great never went to w ar without reading book XI of the Iliad because he was an admirer of Agamemnon. And the Roman Cicero was beheaded while being carried in his litter where he wa s reading Euripides Medea. Diognetus the Cretan boxer, winner in a competition, did not receive the crown b ut was even attacked by the Eleans because the adversary whom he had defeated an d killed was called Heracles like the hero. This Diognetus is honoured as a her o by the Cretans. The line of Homer, at the moment where Menelaus is wounded: " You neither, Menelaus, you are not forgotten by the blessed immortals", has been parodied by the pythian god who substituted Menedernus for Menelaus. During a festival given by the emperor Augustus, the question was asked: "Which verse of Homer was parodied by the oracle, and who is the personage of whom this oracle s poke?" Menedemus the Elean, son of Bounias, showed to Heracles how to clean the stables of Augias by diverting a river; it is said also that he fought alongsid e Heracles in his fight with Augias; he was killed and buried in Lepreon close t o a pine. Heracles instituted games in his honour and he fought against Theseus ; as the combat was equal, the spectators declared that Theseus was a second Her acles. Phantasia, a woman of Memphis, daughter of Nicarchus, composed before Homer a ta le of the Trojan War and of the adventures of Odysseus. The books were deposite d, it is said, at Memphis; Homer went there and obtained copies from Phanites, t he temple scribe, and he composed under their inspiration. Adonis, having becom e androgynous, behaved as a man for Aphrodite and as a woman for Apollo. As a hommage to the river Alpheus, after a victory at Olympia, Heracles called w ith his name the letter "alpha" which he placed at the head of the alphabet. Our mythographer, in emitting his twaddle, says that Moses the legislator of the Hebrews was called Alpha because he had a white scab on his body. Galerius Cra ssus, who was a military tribune under Tiberius, was called Beta because he like d to eat white beet which the Romans called "betacium". Horpullis, the courtesa n of Cyzicus, was called Gamma and Antenor, author of the History of Crete, was called Delat because he was good and loved his city, because the Cretans called him rightly "Delton". And Apollonius, who made himself famous in the time of Ph ilopator for his knowledge of astronomy, was called Epsilon because the form of this letter matched the contours of the mooth, in the knowledge of which he was very skilled. Satyros the friend of Aristarchus was called Zeta because of his love for research and Aesop, it is said, was called Theta by Idmon, his master, because he was of a servile and changing character; indeed slaves are called the tes. The mother of Cypselos, who was lame, was called Lambda by the god of Delp hi. And Democydos says that Pythagoras, who described all the numbers, was desig

nated by the third letter. Such is the content of the fifth book. The sixth contains the following chapters. Achilles, killed by Penthesileus, was resuscitated at the request of his mother Thetis to return to Hades once he had killed Penthesileus. In the Alexandra whi ch Lycophron wrote: "What sterile nightingale killer of centaurs...", these are the sirens who he called killers of centaurs. Helenus, son of Priam, was belove d of Apollo and received from him the silver bow with which he wounded Achilles in the hand. It was with Andromache and her sons that Priam came to beg Achilles for the bone s of Hector. Thetis burned in a secret place the children she had by Peleus; si x were born; when she had Achilles, Peleus noticed and tore him from the flames with only a burnt foot and confided him to Chiron. The latter exhumed the body of the giant Damysos who was buried at Pallene -- Damysos was the fastest of all the giants -- removed the 'astragale' and incorporated it into Achilles' foot u sing 'ingredients'. This 'astragale' fell when Achilles was pursued by Apollo a nd it was thus that Achilles, fallen, was killed. It is said, on the other hand , that he was called Podarkes by the Poet, because, it is said, Thetis gave the newborn child the wings of Arce and Podarkes means that his feet had the wings o f Arce. And Arce was the daughter of Thaumas and her sister was Iris; both had wings, but, during the struggle of the gods against the titans, Arce flew out of the camp of the gods and joined the titans. After the victory Zeus removed her wings before throwing her into Tartarus and, when he came to the wedding of Pel eus and Thetis, he brought these wings as a gift for Thetis. Peleus, it is said , received on the occasion of his marriage a sword from Hephaestus, from Aphrodi te a piece of jewelry on which was engraved a Love, from Poseidon some horses, X anthe and Balios, from Hera a 'chlamyde', from Athena a flute, from Nereus a bas ket of the salt called 'divine; and which has an irresistable virtue for the app etite, the taste of food and their digestion, whence the expression "...she pour ed the divine salt". The author speaks of the Achilles son of the earth and of all the Achilles who h ave been celebrated since Trojan times; it is this son of the earth who, when He ra fled from the union with Zeus, received her in his cave and persuaded her to marry Zeus, and it is said that this was the first marriage of Zeus and Hero, an d Zeus promised Achilles that he would make famouse all who bore his namel it is for that reason that Achilles son of Thetis is famous. The master of Chiron wa s called Achilles and it of him that the name came which Chiron gave to the son of Peleus. The promoter of ostracism at Athens was called Achilles, this was th e son of Lyso; it is said that there was born also a son of Zeus and the Lamia c alled Achilles; he was of an irresistable beauty and like others was the object of a competition, he carried it than to the judgement of Pan. Aphrodite was irr itated and placed in the heart of Pan the love of Echo and she made him become a s ugly and unattractive as he had been beautiful. And the son of a certain Gala tes was called Achilles and the author says that he had grey hair from birth; an d there are still forty other Achilles who were famous and two among them were d ogs and their behaviour as dogs was astonishing. Priam was beloved by Zeus and received from him the golden vine plant of which h e made a gift to Eurypyles, son of Telephos, as the price of his alliance. Aeso p, killed by the people of Delphi, resuscited and fought alongside the Greeks at Thermopylae. Philoctetes, at Lemnos, was cured by Pylios son of Hephaestus, fr om whom he learned how to draw the bow; the river Scamander had a son, Melos, wh o was beautiful; it is said that Hera, Athena and Aphrodite quarrelled on his ac count; who would have him as a priest; Alexander judged that Aphrodite carried i t; it is for this reason the fable of the apple circulates. Hypermenes, in his History of Chios, says that Homer had a servitor called Skindapsos; he was fined a thousand drachmas by the people of Chios because he hadn't burned the body of

his master; and the man who invented an instrument with the name of this perso n, the skindapsos, was a man of Eretria, son of the flute-player Poicius. Such is the sixth book. In the seventh, it is found that Theodore of Samothrace says that Zeus, after hi s birth, didn't stop laughing for seven days and that this is the reason why the number seven is considered perfect. Achilles, because he was saved from the fi re that his mother had lit to burn him, was called "saved from fire" and it is b ecause one of his lips was burned that he was called Achilles by his father. Te lemachus was put to death by the Sirens when they learned that he was the son of Odysseus. Odysseus, in the land of the Tyrrhenians, took part in the flute-pla ying competition which he won; he played the Fall of Illium by Demodocos. Stich ios the Aetolian, who was beloved of Heracles, was opened and found to have a ha iry heart; he had been killed by Heracles himself when, in his madness, he kille d his own children and it is said that he was the only one the hero lamented. Hermes, beloved of Pollux, one of the Dioscurides, made him a gift of Dotor, the Thessalian horse. Apollo organised funeral games in honour of Python; Hermes c ontributed to it, like Aphrodite; she won and accepted as prize a zither which s he gave as a gift to Alexander. It is of her that Homer says : "But what could help bring your zither to you..." In Bacchylides, what is the word attributed t o Silenus and to whom did he address it? The rock of Leucade received its name from Leucos, the companion of Odysseus, wh o was originally from Zacynthos and who was, says the Poet, killed by Antiphos; this is the person, it is said, who raised the temple of Apollo Leukates. Thus those who dive from the top of the rock were, it is said, freed from their love and for this reason: after the death of Adonis, Aphrodite, it is said, wandered around searching for this. She found it in Argos, a town of Cyprus, in the sanc tuary of Apollo Erithios and ' l'emporta' after having told Apollo in confidence the secret of her love for Adonis. And Apollo brought her to the rock of Leuca de and ordered her to throw herself from the top of the rock; she did so and was freed from her love. When she sought the reason of this, Apollo told her, it i s said, in his capacity as a soothsayer, he knew that Zeus, always enamoured of Hera, had sat on this rock and been delivered from his love. And many others, men and women, suffering from the evil of love, were delivered from their passion in jumping from the top of the rock, such as Artemesa, daught er of Lygdamis, who made war with Persia; enamoured of Dardarnus of Abydos and s corned, she scratched out his eyes while he slept but as her love increased und er the inflence of divine anger, she came to Leucade at the instruction of an or acle, threw herself from the top of the rock, killed herself and was buried. Hi ppomedon of Epidamnos, says the author, was enamoured of a young boy of his land and, unable to obtain any success as the boy had a penchant for another, he kil led him, then went to Leucade, jumped and killed himself. And the comic poet Ni costratus, in love with Tetigidaia of Mirina, jumped and was cured of his love. Maces of Buthrotum was, it is said, surnamed "White rock" because he had been c ured of the evils of love after he jumped from the rock four times. A crowd of other people pass to be relieved in this way. Boulagoras the Phanago rite, enamoured of the flutist Diodorus, threw himself from the rock and was kil led at an advanced age. Rhodope of Amisene killed herself also in jumping for t he love of two twin lads who belonged to the guards of king Antiochus and were c alled Antiphon and Cyrus. And Charinus, a iambic poet, was in love with the eun uch Eros, Eupator's butler; trusting the legend of the rock he jumped, broke his leg, and died of pain while making these iambics: "To the devil with you, deceptive and murderous rock of Leukos! Charinus, alas! alas! this iambic muse, You have turned to cinders by your vain words of hope.

Can Eupator suffer so much for Eros." And Nireus of Catana, in love with Athena of Athens, came to the rock and jumped and was delivered of his pain. In jumping he fell into the net of a fishman in which when he was pulled out was also found a box filled with gold. He went to law with the fisherman for the gold, but Apollo appeared to him in the night in a dream and told him to desist since he should give thanks for his safety and h e threatened him; it was not right in addition to try to appropriate gold which belonged to others. The pan is, it is said, a sea fish of the whale family and of which the appearan ce reminds one of Pan; in his body is found a stone, the "asterite" which, expos ed to the sun, catches fire; it is useful otherwise to make a charm. Helen was in possession of this stone, which carried graven on it the image of the pan fis h itself, and she used it as a seal. Such are the chapters of the seventh book of the New History for the use of scholars of Ptolemy Hephaestion. 1 Many of the people and details given may be the invention of Ptolemy Hephaest ion (also known as Ptolemy Chennos or Chennus) himself, rather than the product of his research. According to the Suda, this fantasist lived in the times of Tr ajan and Hadrian. For more details, R. HERCHER, Ueber die Glaubwrdigkeit der neu en Geschichte des Ptolemaeus Chennus, Jahrbuch fr Kl. Philol., Suppl., Bd. I (185 5-6), pp.269-293. [Translated from Henry] 191. [St. Basil of Caesarea, The Ascetics] Read by St. Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the work called The Ascetic s in two books. The work is useful for all of those who choose the way of piety to attain the benefits of eternity and above all to those who engage in the com bat of asceticism in the communities. It contains, moreover, solutions and brie f clarifications for numerous difficulties of the Scriptures, which increase the reputation of the natural ability of the author. In these writings, thus, appears the natural ability of which the author is accu stomed, as well as his quite pure clarity. All the same, certain problems which he handles are somewhat allusive. It isn't that the language contains juvenile innovations of vocabulary nor that the construction is obscured by "duplication s", and it isn't the presence of any research which is strange and lacking the n ew ability and smoothness, whether in the familiar manner of the author or the c lassical language; but, while conserving the qualities which are habitual to him , it is as if he scatters the allusions in places without giving any idea of wha t is important about it, except where he sacrifices concision. as for the clarit y, considering that he represents his work as a summary, he didn't work at this most of the time since he didn't need to. What often appears from the solutions of his researches is the depth with persuasiveness, and what comes out from it everywhere is the salutary utility for souls. It isn't only the brevity that de stroys the clarity, nor the fact that he didn't arrange the reasoning for his so lution in the form of a conclusion; but it is the fact that, in the arrangement of the arguments and in the lack of force and cohesion of the demonstrations, th e thought is mislaid. The cause of these defects is due to the various types of reflection, of which I leave the examination to your informed spirit. The allusiveness, otherwise, is not continual in these two books; there is not m uch in the first book, in fact; all the same, in one passage, he treats obscene words with reticence; for the rest, great is his simplicity and his equal purity and also the clarity and, from one end to the other of these two books appears a great simplicity and a great familiarity in the use of words and syntax, as we ll as a concern to be understood by the vulgar and to come down to their level h

aving their safety in view. His first book exposes thus the cause and the danger of a very grave divergence of views and of a very great separation between the church of God and between me n. In the second place, that a transgression of all the divine order is punishe d with a redoutable vigour, and he shows this from the Scriptures. He treats th irdly of our holy faith, that is to say of our pure and clear doctrine on the th rice-holy Trinity. The second book exposes briefly so to speak the main traits of the character of a Christian and the very similar picture of those who are called to teach. Then he develops in a way some rules for ascetisicm in the form of questions and res ponses, fifty-five of them, then, in a more summary fashion, three-hundred and t hirteen other rules. 1 This codex has already been briefly mentioned in codex 144. The work extant un der this title does not correspond to this description. [Translated from Henry, amended slightly from Wilson] 224. [Memnon of Heraclea, History of Heraclea] Read the historical work of Memnon from the ninth book to the sixteenth book. Th is history sets out to describe the noteworthy things which happened in Heraclei a Pontica. It lists the tyrants of Heracleia, their character and deeds, the liv es of the other [distinguished citizens], the manner of their death, and the say ings which were associated with them. [1] [Memnon] says that Clearchus was the first to attempt to make himself tyrant of the city. Clearchus had received an education in philosophy; he was one of t he pupils of Platon, and for four years he had been a pupil of the rhetorician I socrates. But he turned out to be truly savage and bloodthirsty towards his subj ects, and reached the peak of arrogance, so that he called himself the son of Ze us, and tinged his face with unnatural dyes, adorning it in all kinds of differe nt ways to make it appears glistening or ruddy to those who saw him; and varied his clothing to appear fearsome or elegant. 2. This was not his only vice; he sh owed no gratitude to his benefactors, was extremely violent, and ventured to car ry out the most appalling deeds. He ruthlessly destroyed those he attacked, not only amongst his own people but whenever he perceived a threat elsewhere. Howeve r he was the first of those who were called tyrants to establish a library. 3. Because of his murderous, cruel and arrogant character many plots were formed against him, but he escaped them all until eventually Chion the son of Matris, a high-minded man who was a blood relation of Clearchus, formed a conspiracy wit h Leon, Euxenon and many others. They gave Clearchus a fatal blow, and he died m iserably from his wound. 4. When the tyrant was making a public sacrifice, Chion and his associates thought that this would be an opportunity for action, and Ch ion plunged a sword into the side of their common enemy. Clearchus was racked by a great and piercing pain, and he was tormented by horrible visions (these visi ons were the ghosts of those he had cruelly murdered). Two days later he expired , after living for 58 years, of which he was tyrant for 12 years. At that time A rtaxerxes was king of Persia, and after him his son Ochus. Clearchus sent many e mbassies to them during his lifetime. 5. However almost all the tyrant's assassi ns were killed. Some were cut down by the bodyguard at the time of the attack, f ighting bravely. Others were captured later and subjected to terrible tortures. [2] Satyrus the brother of Clearchus took over the government, acting as guardia n of the tyrant's sons, Timotheus and Dionysius. Satyrus exceeded not only Clear chus but all the other tyrants in his cruelty. Not only did he take vengeance on those who had plotted against his brother, but he inflicted equally intolerable

harm on their children, who had taken no part in what their parents had done, a nd he punished many innocent people as if they were criminals. 2. He was complet ely uninterested in learning, philosophy and all the other liberal arts. His onl y passion was for murder, and he did not want to learn about or practice anythin g which was humane or civilised. He was evil in every way, even if time lessened his [desire to] sate himself with murders and the blood of his countrymen; but he did show a conspicuous affection towards his brother. 3. He kept [the success ion to] the leadership of the state safe for the children of his brother, and va lued the welfare of the boys so highly that, although he had a wife and loved he r dearly, he was determined not to have a child, and used every possible device to render himself childless, in order that he should not leave behind anyone who could be a rival to his nephews. 4. While he was still alive, but weighed down by old age, Satyrus passed on cont rol of the state to Timotheus, the elder son of his brother, and shortly afterwa rds he was afflicted by a severe and untreatable illness. A cancerous growth spr ead underneath between his groin and his scrotum, and irrupted painfully towards his inwards. An opening formed in his flesh and discharges ran out with a foul and unbearable smell, so that his retinue and his doctors could no longer concea l the all-pervading stench of the putrefaction. Continual sharp pains racked his whole body, consigning him to sleeplessness and convulsions, until eventually t he disease spread to his internal organs, and deprived him of his life. 5. Like Clearchus, Satyrus gave to those who saw him when he was dying the impression th at he was paying the penalty for his savage and lawless abuse of the citizens. T hey say that often during his illness he would vainly pray for death, and after he had been consumed by this harsh and grievous affliction for many days, he fin ally paid his due. He had lived for 65 years, and was tyrant for seven years, wh ile Archidamus was king of Sparta. [3] Timotheus took over the government and reformed it to a milder and more demo cratic regime, so that his subjects no longer called him a tyrant, but a benefac tor and saviour. He paid off their debts to the moneylenders from his own resour ces, and gave interest-free loans to the needy for their trade and for the rest of their living expenses. He released innocent men, and even the guilty, from th e prisons. He was a strict but humane judge, and in other respects he had a good and trustworthy nature. So he cared for his brother Dionysius like a father in every way, making him joint ruler at the start, and then appointing him to be hi s successor. 2. He also showed a brave spirit in matters of war. He was magnanim ous and noble in body and in mind, and he was fair and gracious in the settlemen t of wars. He was skilful at grasping an opportunity, and vigorous in achieving what he contemplated; he was merciful and just in character, and relentless in h is boldness; he was moderate, kind and compassionate. Therefore in his lifetime he was an object of great fear to his enemies, who all dreaded and hated him; bu t to his subjects he was agreeable and gentle, so that when he died he was much missed, and his death aroused grief mixed with longing. 3. His brother Dionysius cremated his body magnificently, pouring out tears from his eyes and groans fro m his heart. He held horse races in his honour; and not only horse races, but th eatrical and choral and gymnastic contests. He held some of the contests immedia tely and others, yet more splendid, later on. That, in brief, is what is related in books nine and ten of Memnon's history. [4] Dionysius became the next ruler [of Heracleia] and increased its power; Alex ander's victory over the Persians at the river Granicus had opened the way for t hose who wanted to increase their power, by cutting down the strength of the Per sians, which had previously been an obstacle to them all. But later he experienc ed many dangers, especially when the exiles from Heracleia sent an embassy to Al exander, who had by then completely conquered Asia, asking him to grant their re turn and to restore the city to its traditional democracy. Because of this Diony sius was almost removed from power, and he would have been removed if he had not

been very clever and quick-witted, earning the goodwill of his subjects and cou rting the favour of Cleopatra. And so he resisted the enemies who threatened him ; sometimes he yielded to their demands, mollifying their anger and putting them off with delays, and at other times he took measures against them. 2. When Alexander died at Babylon from [? poison] or disease, Dionysius set up a statue of Joy after hearing the news. In his great delight when the message fir st arrived, he suffered the same effect which extreme grief might produce: he al most collapsed with the shock, and seemed to have become senseless. 3. The exile s from Heracleia urged Perdiccas, who had taken over the government, to follow t he same policy but Dionysius, though on a knife's edge, by similar methods escap ed all the dangers which were facing him. Perdiccas was a poor leader and was ki lled by his men; the hopes of the exiles were extinguished, and Dionysius enjoye d prosperity in all his undertakings. 4. The greatest good fortune came to him from his second marriage. He married Am astris, the daughter of Oxathres; this Oxathres was the brother of Dareius, whos e daughter Stateira Alexander took as his wife after killing her father. So the two women were cousins, and also they had been brought up together, which gave t hem a special affection for each other. When he married Stateira, Alexander gave this Amastris to Craterus, one of his closest friends. After Alexander departed from this world, Craterus turned to Phila the daughter of Antipater, and with t he agreement of her former husband Amastris went to live with Dionysius. 5. From this time onwards, his realm flourished greatly, because of the wealth w hich the marriage brought to him and his own love of display. He decided to buy the entire royal outfit of Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily, who had been removed from power. 6. It was not only this that strengthened his power, but also the su ccess and goodwill of his subjects, including many who had not previously been u nder his control. He gave outstanding aid to Antigonus the ruler of Asia when he was besieging (?) Cyprus, and as a reward received Antigonus' nephew Ptolemaeus , the general of the forces by the Hellespont, to be his daughter's husband; thi s was his daughter from his previous marriage. After achieving such distinction, he disdained the title of tyrant and called himself a king. 7. Now that he was free from all fear and worry, he gave himself up to a life of continual luxury, so that he grew fat and unnaturally bloated. As a result, not only did he pay less attention to governing the state, but also when he went to sleep he was only with difficulty roused from his soporific state by being pier ced with large needles, which was the only remaining way of reviving him from hi s unconscious torpor. 8. He had three children by Amastris: Clearchus, Oxathres, and a daughter with the same name as her mother. When he was about to die, he l eft Amastris in charge of the government, acting as guardian along with some oth ers for the children, who were still quite young. He had lived for 55 years, out of which he was ruler for about [30] years. He was, it was said, a very mild ru ler and earned the epithet "the Good" from his character; his subjects were deep ly saddened by his death. 9. Even after his departure from this world, the city still flourished, while An tigonus carefully protected the interests of the children of Dionysius and their citizens. But when Antigonus' interest turned elsewhere, Lysimachus again took charge of Heracleia and the children, and even made Amastris his wife. To start with, he was very much in love with her, but when the pressure of events demande d it, he left her at Heracleia and went off to deal with urgent business. When h e was free from his many troubles, he soon sent for her to join him at Sardis, w here he showed her equal affection. But later he transferred his affection to th e [daughter] of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, who was called Arsinoe, and this caused Amastris to part from him. After leaving him, she took control of Heracleia; sh e revived the city by her presence, and created the new city of Amastris.

[5] Clearchus had now reached adult age, and became ruler of the city; he fought in many wars, sometimes as an ally of others, and sometimes resisting attacks a gainst himself. In one of these wars, he went as an ally of Lysimachus against t he Getae, and was captured along with him. Lysimachus was released from captivit y, and later secured Clearchus' release as well. 2. Clearchus and his brother we re established as rulers of the city in succession to their father, but the way they treated their subjects was far different from his mild benevolence. They ca rried out the foulest of crimes; for they caused their mother, who had not parti cularly interfered in their affairs, to be drowned in the sea when she was on bo ard a ship, by a terrible and evil device. 3. Lysimachus, whom we have mentioned many times before, was now king of Macedon ia, and though his relationship with Arsinoe had caused Amastris to leave him, h e still felt some glow of his former passion for her. He was not prepared to ign ore her cruel murder; but he hid his feelings very carefully, and pretended to s how the same friendship towards Clearchus as before. By many devices and tricks of deception (for he was the cleverest of men at hiding his intentions) he arriv ed at Heracleia as if to approve the succession. Though he put on a mask of fath erly love towards Clearchus, he killed the matricides, first Clearchus and then Oxathres, making them pay the penalty for the murder of their mother. He put the city under his protection, and carried away much of the treasure which the tyra nts had accumulated. After allowing the citizens to establish a democracy, which was what they wanted, he set off back to his own kingdom. 4. When he arrived there, he was full of praise for Amastris; he marvelled at he r character and the way she ruled, how she had built up her realm in size and im portance and strength. He exalted Heracleia, and included praise for Tius and Am astris, the city which she had founded in her name. By saying all this, he arous ed in Arsinoe a desire to be mistress of the places which he was praising, and s he asked him to grant her wish. To begin with he refused, saying that it was too much to give, but later as she continued to entreat him, he let her have it; fo r Arsinoe was not easily put off and old age had made Lysimachus more malleable. 5. When she gained possession of Heracleia she sent there Heracleides of Cyme, a man who was well-disposed towards her, but otherwise ruthless and cunning, a s kilful and quick-witted planner. When he arrived at Heracleia, he governed the c ity strictly, bringing accusations against many of the citizens and handing out punishments, so that they were deprived again of the good fortune which they had just acquired. 6. Under Arsinoe's influence, Lysimachus killed Agathocles, the oldest and best of his sons, who was the offspring of his previous marriage. First he tried to p oison him secretly, but when Agathocles discovered this and spat out the poison, he disposed of him in the most shameless way; he threw him into prison and orde red him to be cut down, on the pretended charge that he was plotting against Lys imachus. Ptolemaeus, who carried out this outrage, was the brother of Arsinoe, a nd because of his folly and recklessness was given the name Ceraunus ["thunderbo lt"]. 7. By murdering his son, Lysimachus justly earned the hatred of his subjec ts. So Seleucus, on learning about this and how easily the kingdom could be over thrown, now that the cities had revolted against Lysimachus, joined battle again st him. Lysimachus died in this war, after being struck by a spear which was thr own by a man from Heracleia called Malacon, who was fighting for Seleucus. After Lysimachus' death, his kingdom was merged as part of Seleucus' kingdom. At this point, the 12th book of Memnon finishes. [6] In the 13th book Memnon says that the Heracleians, when they heard that Lysi machus had been killed by a man from Heracleia, recovered their confidence, and bravely sought the independence which they had been deprived of for 84 years, fi rst by their native tyrants and then by Lysimachus. 2. First of all, they went t o Heracleides and urged him to leave the city, for which they would not only let

him go unharmed but would send him on his way with splendid gifts, if only he l et them regain their freedom. But far from being persuaded, he became angry and sent some of them off for punishment, so the citizens made a pact with the leade rs of the garrison, promising that the garrison would receive equal rights of ci tizenship and would continue to receive the same pay as before. Then they seized Heracleides and held him as prisoner for a while. This freed them from all fear . They pulled down the acropolis walls to their foundations, appointed Phocritus to be governor of the city, and sent an embassy to Seleucus. 3. But Zipoetes, the ruler of the Bithynians, who was hostile to Heracleia on ac count of both Lysimachus and Seleucus (for he was the enemy of both of them), at tacked the city's territory and laid it waste. Nor did his own soldiers escape w ithout similar injuries to those they perpetrated, because they suffered almost as much harm as they did to others. [7] Meanwhile, Seleucus sent Aprodisius to administer the cities of Phrygia and the upper parts of Pontus. He carried out his business, and on his return he pra ised the other cities, but accused the Heracleians of being hostile towards Sele ucus. Irritated by this, Seleucus used threats to disparage and scare the envoys who came to him, but one of the envoys called Chamaeleon was not frightened by the threats, and said "Heracles is karron, Seleucus" ("karron" means "stronger" in the Doric dialect). Seleucus did not understand this, but remained angry, and turned away from them. The envoys could see no advantage either in returning ho me or in remaining where they were. 2. When the Heracleians heard about this, amongst other preparations they gather ed allies, sending envoys to Mithridates the king of Pontus and to the cities of Byzantium and Chalcedon. 3. Then Nymphis, who was one of the remaining exiles f rom Heracleia, urged the others to return home, and said that this could easily be achieved if they did not seem to be pressing for the restoration of the prope rty which was taken away from their parents. He very easily persuaded the other exiles, and their return took place as he predicted. The returning exiles and th e city which received them felt equal pleasure and delight, as the people in the city warmly welcomed them and ensured that nothing was missing that might contr ibute to their welfare. 4. In this way the Heracleians regained their traditiona l nobility and constitution. [8] Seleucus, encouraged by his success against Lysimachus, set out to cross ove r to Macedonia. He longed to return to his fatherland, from which he had set out with Alexander, and he intended to spend the rest of his life there (he was alr eady an old man), after handing over the government of Asia to his son Antiochus . 2. But Ptolemaeus Ceraunus, because the kingdom of Lysimachus had come under S eleucus' control, was himself accompanying Seleucus; he was not despised like a prisoner, but given the honour and consideration due to the son of a king. His h opes were raised by the promises which Seleucus made to establish him back in Eg ypt as the rightful heir to the kingdom, when his father Ptolemaeus died. 3. How ever, though he was honoured with so much attention, these favours failed to imp rove the disposition of an evil man. He formed a plot, fell upon his benefactor and killed him. Then he jumped on a horse and rushed to Lysimacheia, where he pu t on a diadem, and escorted by a splendid bodyguard went out to meet the army; t hey were forced to accept him and call him king, though they had previously serv ed under Seleucus. 4. When he heard what had happened, Antigonus the son of Demetrius tried to cros s over to Macedonia with an army and a fleet, in order to forestall Ptolemaeus; and Ptolemaeus went to confront him with Lysimachus' fleet. 5. In this fleet wer e some ships which had been sent from Heracleia, six-bankers and five-bankers an d transports and one eight-banker called the lion-bearer, of extraordinary size and beauty. It had 100 rowers on each line, so there were 800 men on each side, making a total of 1,600 rowers. There were also 1,200 soldiers on the decks, and

2 steersmen. 6. When battle was joined, the victory went to Ptolemaeus who rout ed the fleet of Antigonus, with the ships from Heracleia fighting most bravely o f all; and of the ships from Heracleia, the prize went to the eight-banker "lion -bearer". After this defeat at sea, Antigonus retreated to Boeotia, and Ptolemae us crossed over to Macedonia, which he put securely under his control. 7. Immedi ately he showed his wickedness by marrying his sister Arsinoe (this was traditio nal amongst the Egyptians) and murdering the sons she had by Lysimachus. Then af ter disposing of them, he banished Arsinoe herself from the kingdom. 8. He commi tted many other crimes over a period of two years, until a band of Gauls left th eir country because of famine and invaded Macedonia. He joined battle with these Gauls, and was killed in a manner befitting his own cruelty, being torn apart b y the Gauls, who had captured him alive after the elephant on which he was ridin g was injured and threw him off. Antigonus the son of Demetrius, who had been de feated in the naval battle, became ruler of Macedonia after the death of Ptolema eus. [9] Antiochus the son of Seleucus, who had through many wars recovered his fathe r's kingdom with difficulty and even so not completely, sent his general Patrocl es with a detachment of his army to this side of the Taurus [mountains]. Patrocl es appointed Hermogenes, whose family came from Aspendus, to lead attacks agains t Heracleia and the other cities. 2. When the Heracleians sent an embassy to Her mogenes, he made a pact with them and withdrew from their territory, and instead marched through Phrygia to Bithynia. But Hermogenes was ambushed by the Bithyni ans, and was killed together with his whole army, though he himself fought brave ly against the enemy. 3. As a result of this, Antiochus decided to mount an expe dition against the Bithynians, and their king Nicomedes sent envoys to Heracleia to ask for an alliance, which he quickly obtained, promising in return to help the city when it was in a similar plight. 4. Meanwhile by spending a great deal of money the Heracleians recovered Cierus and Tius and the Thynian territory, but they did not succeed in regaining Amastr is (which had been taken away from them along with the other cities), though the y tried hard by war and by offering money. Eumenes, who held Amastris, was swaye d by an unreasonable anger, and preferred to hand over the city for free to Ario barzanes the son of Mithridates, rather than to accept payment for it from the H eracleians. 5. At about the same time, the Heracleians entered into a war with Z ipoethes the Bithynian, who ruled over Thynia in Thrace. In this war many of the Heracleians were killed after performing acts of true bravery, and Zipoetes utt erly defeated them; but when an allied army came to the rescue of the Heracleian s, he disgraced his victory by running away. Though defeated, the Heracleians we re able to recover and cremate the bodies of their dead without hindrance. Then, having achieved that they went to war for, they took the bones of their dead ba ck to the city, where they gave them a splendid burial in the monument of the he roes. [10] At about the same time, a war arose between Antiochus the son of Seleucus a nd Antigonus the son of Demetrius. Large forces were ranged on either side, and the war lasted for a long time. Nicomedes the king of Bithynia fought as an ally of Antigonus, and many others fought on the side of Antiochus. 2. So after clas hing with Antigonus, Antiochus undertook a war against Nicomedes. Nicomedes gath ered together forces from various places, and sent envoys to the Heracleians to ask for assistance; they sent 13 triremes to help him. Then Nicomedes went out t o oppose Antiochus' fleet, and for a while they remained confronting each other, but neither side started a battle, and they returned without achieving anything . [11] When the Gauls came to Byzantium and ransacked most of its territory, the B yzantines were worn down by the war and asked their allies for help. All the all ies provided such help as they could, and the Heracleians gave four thousand gol d pieces (this is what the envoys had asked for). 2. Not long after, Nicomedes m

ade a pact with the Gauls who were attacking Byzantium, and arranged for them to cross over to Asia; the Gauls had tried to cross over many times before, but ha d always failed, because the Byzantines would not allow it. The terms of the pac t were as follows: the barbarians should always support Nicomedes and his childr en, and should not enter into alliance with any other state which requested it w ithout the permission of Nicomedes. They should be allies of his allies, and ene mies of his enemies. They should serves as allies of the Byzantines, if necessar y, and of the inhabitants of Tius and Heracleia and Calchedon and Cierus, and of some other rulers. 3. On these terms, Nicomedes brought the multitude of Gauls over to Asia. The Gauls had 17 eminent leaders, of whom the most important and d istinguished were Leonnorius and Luturius. 4. At first this crossing of the Gauls to Asia seemed to cause only trouble for the inhabitants, but in the end it inclined to their benefit. The kings tried to put an end to the democracies in the cities, but the Gauls strengthened them, b y repelling the cities' oppressors. 5. Nicomedes, after arming the Gauls, starte d by conquering the land of Bithynia and slaughtering the inhabitants, with the assistance of the Heracleians. The Gauls shared the rest of the loot amongst the mselves. 6. After advancing over much of the country, the Gauls withdraw and chose a sect ion of the land to keep for themselves, which is now called Galatia. They split this land into three parts, for the tribes of the Trogmi, Tolostobogii, and Tect osages. 7. They each founded cities, the Trogmi at Ancyra, the Tolostobogii at T abia, and the Tectosages at Pessinus. [12] Nicomedes enjoyed great prosperity, and founded a city named after himself opposite Astacus. Astacus was founded by settlers from Megara at the beginning o f the 17th Olympiad [712/11 B.C.] and was named as instructed by an oracle after one of the so-called indigenous Sparti (the descendants of the Theban Sparti), a noble and high-minded man called Astacus. 3. The city endured many attacks fro m its neighbours and was worn out by the fighting, but after the Athenians sent settlers there to join the Megarians, it was rid of its troubles and achieved gr eat glory and strength, when Doedalsus was the ruler of the Bithynians. 4. Doedalsus was succeeded by Boteiras, who lived for 76 years, and was in turn succeeded by his son Bas. Bas defeated Calas the general of Alexander, even thou gh Calas was well equipped for a battle, and kept the Macedonians out of Bithyni a. He lived for 71 years, and was king for 50 years. 5. He was succeeded by his son Zipoetas, an excellent warrior who killed one of the generals of Lysimachus and drove another general far away out of his kingdom. After defeating first Lys imachus, the king of the Macedonians, and then Antiochus the son of Seleucus, th e king of Asia, he founded a city under Mount (?) Lyparus, which was named after himself. Zipoetas lived for 76 years and ruled the kingdom for 48 years; he was survived by four children. 6. He was succeeded by the eldest of the children, N icomedes, who acted not like a brother but like an executioner to his brothers. However he strengthened the kingdom of the Bithynians, particularly by arranging for the Gauls to cross over to Asia, and as was said before, he founded the cit y which bears his name. [13] Not long afterwards, a war broke out between the Byzantines and the inhabit ants of Callatis (a colony of Heracleia) and of Istria. The war was caused by th e trading post at Tomis, which the inhabitants of Callatis wanted to run as a mo nopoly. Both sides sent envoys to the Heracleians to ask for assistance; the Her acleians gave no military aid to either side, but sent arbitrators to each of th em to arrange a truce, though at the time they did not accomplish this. After su ffering greatly at the hands of their enemies, the inhabitants of Callatis agree d to a truce, but by that time they were almost incapable of recovering from the disasters which had struck them.

[14] After a short interval of time, Nicomedes the king of Bithynia, who was clo se to death, named the sons of his second wife Etazeta as his heirs; they were s till very young, so he appointed Ptolemaeus, Antigonus, and the peoples of Byzan tium, Heracleia, and Cius to be their guardians. Zeilas, his son by his previous marriage, had been forced out by the scheming of his step-mother Etazeta and wa s in exile with the king of the Armenians. 2. But Zeilas returned to claim the k ingdom with a force which was boosted by the Tolostobogian Gauls. The Bithynians wanted to preserve the kingdom for the younger children, and arranged for the b rother of Nicomedes to marry the children's mother. The Bithynians collected an army from the guardians who were mentioned above, and withstood Zeilas' attack t hough there were many battles and changes of fortune, until the two sides agreed on a truce. The Heracleians fought heroically in the battles, and ensured that there was a favourable treaty. 3. Therefore the Gauls, regarding Heracleia as an enemy, ravaged its territory as far as the river Calles, and returned home with a great quantity of booty. [15] When the Byzantines were at war with Antiochus, the Heracleians supported t hem with 40 triremes, but the war did not proceed beyond threats. [16] Not long afterwards, Ariobarzanes departed from this world, while he was in the middle of a dispute with the Gauls. His son Mithridates was still young; so the Gauls treated the son with disdain and devastated his kingdom. 2. The subje cts of Mithridates suffered much hardship, but they were rescued by the Heraclei ans, who sent corn to Amisus so that they could feed themselves and meet their b asic needs. Because of this the Gauls made another expedition against the territ ory of Heracleia, and laid it waste until the Heracleians sent an embassy to the m. 3. The historian Nymphis was the head of the embassy; by paying out 5,000 gol d pieces to the Gauls' army as a whole, and 200 pieces each to their leaders, he persuaded them to withdraw from the country. [17] Ptolemaeus the king of Egypt had reached the height of prosperity, and deci ded to favour the cities with magnificent gifts. To the Heracleians he gave (?) 500 artabae of corn, and he built a temple of Heracles, made from Proconnesian m arble, on their acropolis. [18] Having brought his account down to this point, the author makes a digressio n about the Romans' rise to power: what race they came from, how they settled in Italy, what happened before and during the foundation of Rome. He gives an acco unt of their rulers and the peoples they fought against, the appointment of king s, the change from monarchy to rule by consuls, and how the Romans were defeated by the Gauls and their city would have been captured by the Gauls, if Camillus had not come to its aid and rescued it. 2. Then he describes how Alexander wrote to them, when he crossed over to Asia, that they should either conquer others, if they were capable of ruling over them, or yield to those who were stronger th an them; and the Roman sent him a crown, containing many talents of gold. Then h e describes their war against the Tarentines and their ally Pyrrhus of Epirus, i n which after both suffering reverses and inflicting defeats on their enemies, t hey forced the Tarentines into subjection and drove Pyrrhus out of Italy. 3. The n he describes the Romans' wars against the Carthaginians and Hannibal, and thei r successes in Spain under Scipio and other leaders; how Scipio was proclaimed k ing by the Spaniards but refused the title, and how Hannibal was finally defeate d and fled. 4. Then he describes how the Romans crossed over the Ionian sea, and how Perseus the son of Philippus when he became king of the Macedonians impetuously broke t he treaty which his father had made with the Romans, and was overthrown after be ing defeated by Paullus. 5. And then he describes how they defeated Antiochus th e king of Syria, Commagene, and Judaea in two battles, and drove him out of Euro pe.

6. Resuming after this account of the Romans' conquests, the author says that en voys were sent by the Heracleians to the Roman generals who had crossed over to Asia; the Romans welcomed them warmly and treated them with kindness. Publius (? ) Aemilius granted them a letter, in which he assured them of the friendship of the senate towards them, and said that they would receive whatever care and atte ntion they needed. 7. Later they sent envoys to Cornelius Scipio, who had conque red Africa for the Romans, in order to confirm the alliance which had previously been agreed. 8. After this, they sent envoys to Scipio again, because they want ed king Antiochus to be reconciled with the Romans; and they also addressed a de cree to Antiochus, calling on him to lay aside his enmity towards the Romans. Co rnelius wrote back to the Heracleians, beginning as follows: "Scipio, general an d proconsul of the Romans, to the senate and people of the Heracleians, greeting s". In the letter he confirmed the goodwill of the Romans towards the Heracleian s, and that they were willing to put an end to the war with Antiochus. Lucius' b rother Publius Cornelius Scipio, who commanded the fleet, gave a similar reply t he envoys of the Heracleians. 9. Not long afterwards, Antiochus renewed the war with the Romans; he was comple tely defeated, and ended the hostilities by agreeing to a treaty which expelled him from the whole of Asia, and deprived him of his elephants and fleet. Commage ne and Judaea were left under his control. 10. The city of Heracleia sent envoys with a similar message to the next general s were sent out by the Romans, and these were received with the same goodwill an d kindness as before. In the end a treaty came about between the Romans and the Heracleians, in which they agreed not only to remain as friends, but also to fig ht as allies for or against other states, as either of them required. Identical copies of the treaty were inscribed on two bronze tablets, one of which was set up at Rome in the Capitoline temple of Zeus [Jupiter], and the other at Heraclei a, also in the temple of Zeus. [19] After narrating all this in the 13th and 14th books of his history, the aut hor describes at the start of the 15th book how Prusias, the vigorous and very a ctive king of the Bithynians, by making war brought Cierus (which belonged to th e Heracleians) under his control, along with some other cities. He changed the n ame of the city to Prusias, instead of Cierus. He also captured Tius, another ci ty of the Heracleians, so that his territory surrounded Heracleia on both sides up to the sea. 2. After these cities, he subjected Heracleia itself to a severe siege, and killed many of those who were besieged. The city was close to being c aptured, but while climbing a ladder Prusias was hit by a stone which was thrown from the battlements. He broke his leg, and because of this injury the siege wa s lifted. 3. The stricken king was carried away by the Bithynians in a litter, n ot without difficulty, and he returned to his own country, where he lived on for a few years before he died, being named (because of his injury) "the lame". [20] Before the Romans crossed over to Asia, the Gauls who lived in the upper pa rt of Pontus, wanting to have access to the sea, tried to capture Heracleia, whi ch they thought would not be a difficult task because the city had lost much of its former strength, so that they regarded it with contempt. They marched agains t it with all their forces, and the Heracleians themselves called upon whatever assistance they could arrange at the time. 2. So the city was subjected to a sie ge, which went on for some time, until the Gauls began to suffer from lack of pr ovisions; for the Gauls are accustomed to waging war with passion rather than by making the necessary preparations. When they had left their camp and were forag ing for provisions, the defenders of the city made a sally and fell upon them un expectedly. They captured the camp and killed many of the Gauls there, and they caught the others who were scattered in the countryside without difficulty, so t hat less than a third of the Gauls' army escaped back to Galatia. 3. This succes s induced the Heracleians to hope that they would be restored to their former gl ory and prosperity.

[21] When the Romans were fighting against the Marsi and Paeligni and Marrucini (these are tribes who live in the north of Africa, near to Gades), the Heracleia ns went with two decked triremes to assist the Romans. After helping to win the war and earning much praise for their valour, the Heracleians returned home in t he 11th year after they had left. [22] After this, the grievous war between the Romans and Mithridates king of Pon tus broke out; the apparent cause of this war was the seizure of Cappadocia. Mit hridates gained control of Cappadocia when he captured his nephew Arathes after breaking his oath concerning a truce, and then killed him with own hands. This A rathes was the son of Ariarathes and of the sister of Mithridates. 2. Mithridate s was a persistent murderer since his childhood. He had become king at the age o f 13 years, and soon afterwards he imprisoned his mother, whom his father had le ft as joint ruler with him, and eventually put an end to her by violence; he als o killed his brother. 3. He increased his realm by subduing the kings around the river Phasis in war as far as the regions beyond the Caucasus, and grew extreme ly boastful. 4. On account of this the Romans regarded his intentions with suspi cion, and they passed a decree that he should restore to the kings of the Scythi ans their ancestral territory. He obeyed this order without resistance, but gath ered as his allies the Parthians, the Medes, Tigranes the Armenian, the kings of the Phrygians and [the king of] the Iberians. 5. He provided other pretexts for war. For instance, after the Roman senate had appointed Nicomedes, the son of N icomedes and Nysa, to be king of Bithynia, Mithridates set up [Socrates] called Chrestus as a rival to Nicomedes. However the Romans' wishes prevailed, despite the opposition of Mithridates. 6. Later, when Sulla and Marius were engaged in fighting for control of the Roma n state, Mithridates gave 40,000 foot-soldiers and 10,000 cavalry to his general Archelaus, and ordered him to march against the Bithynians. When they met in ba ttle, Archelaus was victorious, and Nicomedes escaped with only a few companions . After hearing this news, Mithridates, who now had his allied forces with him, set off from the plain of Amaseia and marched through Paphlagonia, leading an ar my of 150,000 men. 7. Manius confronted (?) Menophanes the general of Mithridate s with just a few Roman soldiers, because the soldiers of Nicomedes who were wit h him ran away as soon as they heard of the approach of Mithridates; Manius was defeated and fled, losing all his army. 8. Then Mithridates invaded Bithynia wit h impunity and captured the cities and countryside without a battle. Some of the other cities in Asia were captured and others allied themselves with Mithridate s, so that there was a complete transformation in the state of affairs. The Rhod ians alone maintained their alliance with the Romans. Therefore Mithridates wage d war with them by land and by sea, though the Rhodians had the better of the co ntests, and Mithridates himself came close to being captured in a naval battle. 9. Then Mithridates, because he had heard that the Romans who were scattered thr oughout the cities were hindering his designs, wrote to all the cities instructi ng them to kill the Romans in their midst on a specific day. And many obeyed the se instructions, making such a slaughter that on that one day 80,000 people were killed by the sword. 10. When Eretria, Chalcis and the whole of Euboea had gone over to Mithridates, along with other cities, and the Spartans had been defeated, the Romans sent out Sulla against him with a suitable army. 11. On his arrival, Sulla won over some cities which changed sides of their own will, and captured others by force, and he routed a large army from Pontus in battle. He also captured Athens, and the city would have been destroyed, if the senate had not quickly put a stop to Sull a's intentions. 12. There were many skirmishes, in most of which the men of Pont us had the upper hand, and the situation changed as a result of their successes. But the royal troops suffered from a lack of supplies, because they used up wha t they held recklessly and did not know how to preserve what they had acquired. They would have been in desperate trouble, if Taxiles had not captured Amphipoli

s, after which the rest of Macedonia went over to his side, and he was able to p rovide plentiful supplies. 13. Taxiles and Archelaus joined up their armies, so that they had over 60,000 m en, and they took up position in the territory of Phocis, awaiting Sulla. Sulla received reinforcements from Lucius Hortensius, who brought more than 6,000 men from Italy, and camped opposite them at a considerable distance. While Archelaus ' men were carelessly foraging, Sulla unexpectedly attacked his enemies' camp. H e immediately killed the men whom he captured if they were strong, but he placed those from whom he had nothing to fear around the camp and told them to light f ires, so as to receive those returning from foraging without giving them any sus picion of what had happened. This turned out as he planned, and Sulla's men won a brilliant victory. [23] Mithridates accused the Chians of aiding the Rhodians, and sent Dorylaus ag ainst them. Dorylaus captured the city with some difficulty. Then he allotted th e land to men from Pontus, and he transported the Chians by sea to Pontus. 2. Th e Heracleians, who were allies of the Chians, attacked the Pontic ships carrying the captives as they sailed past and brought them back to the city without resi stance, because the ships were not equipped to defend themselves. The Heracleian s promptly revived the Chians by providing them unstintingly with everything the y needed, and later restored them to their fatherland, after offering generous g ifts to them. [24] The senate sent Valerius Flaccus and Fimbria to fight against Mithridates. It ordered them to share with Sulla in the war, if he co-operated with the senat e, but if not, to make war against him first. 2. Flaccus suffered various misfor tunes to start with (such as lack of food and losses in battle) but mostly he wa s successful. He crossed over to Bithynia with the help of the Byzantines, and f rom there he went to Nicaea, where he halted. Likewise Fimbria crossed over with his troops. 3. Flaccus was annoyed because most of the army preferred to be led by Fimbria, because he was a considerate commander. While Flaccus was bitterly rebuking Fimbria and the most distinguished soldiers, two of them, who were rous ed to greater fury than the others, murdered him. The senate was angry with Fimb ria for this; but it disguised its anger, and arranged for him to be elected con sul. Fimbria, thus becoming commander of the whole force, won over some cities b y agreement and captured others by force. 4. Mithridates' son, accompanied by the generals Taxiles, Diophantus and Menande r, confronted Fimbria with a large force. To start with the barbarians had the u pper hand; and Fimbria decided to use a stratagem to repair his defeats in battl e (the enemy army was much larger than his). When both armies arrived at a certa in river, with the river in between them, and a storm broke out at dawn, the Rom an general unexpectedly crossed the river. He fell on the enemy while they were still asleep, and killed most of them before they knew what was happening. A few of the leaders and the cavalry escaped the slaughter, including Mithridates the son of Mithridates, who rode off and escaped to his father in Pergamum along wi th some others. 5. After the king's army had suffered this overwhelming defeat, most of the cities went over to the Romans. [25] After Marius, one of the opposite faction, had been restored to Rome from h is exile, Sulla was afraid that he might be forced into a similar exile because of his harsh treatment of Marius; so he sent envoys to Mithridates, proposing a truce between him and the Romans. Mithridates, who gladly accepted the proposal, asked to meet to agree the terms. Sulla set out eagerly, 2. and after advancing towards each other, they met at Dardanus to discuss the treaty. When their atte ndants had withdrawn, they came to an agreement, that Mithridates would surrende r Asia to the Romans, that the Bithynians and Cappadocia would be ruled by their native kings, that Mithridates would be confirmed as king of all of Pontus, as long as he provided 80 triremes and 3,000 talents to Sulla personally for his re

turn for Rome, and that the Romans would not punish the cities for their support of Mithridates. In fact the Romans did not abide by this last part of the treat y, and they afterwards forced many of the cities into slavery. 3. So Sulla retur ned in glory to Italy, and Marius again withdrew from Rome. Mithridates went bac k home, and set about subduing many of the nations which had revolted from his r ule after the disaster which he suffered. [26] Murena was sent out as commander by the senate, and Mithridates sent envoys to him, reminding him of the treaty which Sulla had made and asking him to abid e by it. But Murena took no notice of the envoys (they were mostly Greeks and ph ilosophers, and disparaged Mithridates instead of supporting him) and he set off against Mithridates. He established Ariobarzanes as king of Cappadocia, and fou nded the city of Licinia by the border of Mithridates' kingdom. 2. Meanwhile Mur ena and Mithridates both sent envoys to the Heracleians, each calling on them to become their allies. The Heracleians considered the power of the Romans to be f ormidable, but were afraid of Mithridates because he was their neighbour. Theref ore they replied to the envoys that when such great wars were breaking out, they could scarcely protect their own territory, let alone come to the assistance of others. 3. Some of Murena's advisers said that he should attack Sinope and star t a war for control of the king's capital, because if he captured that city, he would easily win over the other places. But Mithridates protected Sinope with a large force and prepared for open war. 4. in the opening skirmishes the king's f orces had the advantage, but the subsequent battle was evenly balanced, and this battle blunted the two sides' enthusiasm for war. Mithridates went away to the regions around the river Phasis and the Caucasus, while Murena returned to Asia; and they both looked after their own affairs. [27] Soon afterwards Sulla died at Rome, and the senate sent Aurelius Cotta to B ithynia and Lucius Lucullus to Asia, both of them with orders to fight against M ithridates. 2. Mithridates assembled another large army and 400 triremes, togeth er with a considerable number of smaller ships, including fifty-oar ships and ke rkouroi. He sent Diophantus (?) Mitharus with a force to Cappadocia, to establis h garrisons in the cities and, if Lucullus marched towards Pontus, to confront h im and prevent him from advancing further. 3. Mithridates took with him an army of 150,000 foot-soldiers, 12,000 cavalry and 120 scythed chariots, as well as an equal number of workmen. He advanced through Paphlagonia Timonitis into Galatia , and nine days later arrived in Bithynia 4. Lucullus ordered Cotta to sail to t he harbour of Chalcedon with all his ships. 5. Mithridates' navy sailed past Heracleia; it was not admitted into the city, b ut the Heracleians provided supplies when they were asked for them. While the sa ilors and inhabitants were mingling together, as was natural, Archelaus, the com mander of the navy, seized Silenus and Satyrus, two distinguished Heracleians, a nd did not release them until he had persuaded them to provide five triremes to assist in the war against the Romans. As a result of this action, as Archelaus h ad contrived, the people of Heracleia were regarded as enemies by the Romans. Th erefore the Romans, who were exacting requisitions from the other cities, demand ed contributions from Heracleia as well. 6. When the money-collectors arrived in the city, they disregarded the laws of the state, and their demands for money d istressed the citizens, who regarded this as the beginning of slavery. They want ed to send a delegation to the senate to ask to be released from the requisition s, but they were persuaded by the one of the most audacious men in the city to m ake away with the money-collectors in secret, in such a way that no-one was sure how they died. 7. The navies of Rome and Pontus met in battle by the city of Chalcedon, and a b attle also broke out on land between the king's army and the Romans; the general s of the two sides were Mithridates and Cotta. In the land battle the Bastarnae routed the Italians, and slaughtered many of them. There was a similar outcome i n the naval battle, and on one and the same day the land and sea were covered wi

th the bodies of dead Romans. In the naval battle 8,000 men were killed and 4,50 0 were captured; in the land battle 5,300 of the Italians were killed, and out o f Mithridates' army about 30 Bastarnae, and 700 others. Everyone was cowed by th is success of Mithridates. 8. But Lucullus, who was camped by the river Sangariu s when he heard of the disaster, spoke to his soldiers and encouraged them not t o be despondent. [28] Mithridates confidently moved on to Cyzicus and decided to besiege the city . Lucullus followed him and in the ensuing fighting he utterly defeated the Pont ic army. In a short time he killed many tens of thousands, and he took 13,000 pr isoners. 2. The Fimbrian soldiers were concerned that their leaders would regard them as disloyal because of their crime against Flaccus, and they secretly sent to Mithridates, promising to desert to him. Mithridates though this message was a stroke of luck, and when night came he sent Archelaus to confirm the agreemen t and to bring the deserters over to him. But when Archelaus arrived, the Fimbri an soldiers seized him and killed his companions. 3. On top of this misfortune, the king's army was gripped by famine and many of them died. Despite suffering a ll these setbacks, Mithridates did not desist from the siege; but later, after i nflicting and receiving many losses, he withdrew from the city without capturing it. He appointed Hermaeus and (?) Marius to lead the foot-soldiers, with an arm y of over 30,000 men, while he made his way back by sea. Various disasters occur red as he boarded the triremes, because the men who were still waiting to board them grasped the ships and hung onto them, both the ships which were already ful l and the ones which remained. So many men did this that some of the ships were sunk and others were capsized. 4. When the citizens of Cyzicus saw this, they at tacked the Pontic camp, slaughtered the exhausted troops who were left there and pillaged everything that had been left in the camp. Lucullus pursued the army a s far as the river Aesepus, where he surprised it and killed a great number of t he enemy. Mithridates recovered as best he could and besieged Perinthus, but fai led to take it and crossed back over to Bithynia. 5. Then (?) Barba arrived at the head of a large force of Italians and Triarius the Roman general advanced and started to besiege Apameia; the citizens of Apame ia resisted as much as they could, but finally they opened their gates and let t he Romans in. 6. The Roman army also captured the city of Prusa, which lies at t he foot of the Asian Mount Olympus. 7. From there Triarius took his army to the city of Prusias by the sea. In ancient times Prusias was called Cierus, which is the scene of many stories, such as the arrival of the Argo, the disappearance o f Hylas and Heracles' wanderings in search of Hylas. When Triarius arrived there , the inhabitants of Prusias drove out the Pontic soldiers and willingly let him in. 8. From there Triarius went on to Nicaea, where Mithridates had placed a garriso n. But the Pontic soldiers realised that the inhabitants of Nicaea were inclinin g towards the Romans, and so they withdrew at night towards Mithridates at Nicom edeia; after that the Romans gained control of the city without a fight. 9. The city of Nicaea took its name from a Naiad (river nymph) called Nicaea, and it wa s established by the men of Nicaea who fought in Alexander's army. After Alexand er's death they founded and settled this city in memory of their homeland. The n ymph Nicaea is said to have been the daughter of Cybele and Sangarius, who was t he ruler of the country. Preferring virginity to cohabitation with a man, she sp ent her life hunting in the mountains. Dionysius fell in love with her, but she rejected his advances. After his rejection Dionysius tried to achieve his desire by a trick. He filled the spring, from which Nicaea used to drink when she was worn out from hunting, with wine instead of water. She suspected nothing and, ac ting as normal, took her fill of the deceptive liquid. Then drunkenness and slee p took hold of her, and she submitted to the wishes of her lover, even against h er will. Dionysius had intercourse with her, and fathered Satyrus and other sons by her. 10. The men who founded and settled the city of Nicaea originally came from the Nicaea which is next to Phocis. They had often fought against the Phoci

ans, who eventually deprived them of their homeland, subduing it and obliteratin g it with great zeal. 11. That is how Nicaea was named and founded, and how it w ent over to the Romans. [29] Cotta wanted to make amends for his earlier failures, and advanced from Cha lcedon, where he had been defeated, to Nicomedeia, where Mithridates was staying . He camped 150 stades from the city, but was reluctant to join battle. Without waiting to be summoned, Triarius hastened to join Cotta, and when Mithridates wi thdrew inside the city the Roman army prepared to besiege it from both sides. 2. But the king heard that the Pontic navy had been defeated in two sea battles, w hich it had fought with Lucullus near Tenedos and in the Aegean, and he did not think that he was strong enough to withstand the Roman amry which confronted him . Therefore he (?) embarked his forces and sailed up the river. He lost some of his triremes in a violent storm, but he reached the river Hypius with most of hi s ships. 3. There he spent the winter, and with many promises and gifts of money he urged Lamachus of Heracleia, an old friend of his who he heard was a leader of the state, to arrange for him to be received into the city. Lamachus agreed t o the request. He prepared a magnificent feast for the citizens outside of the c ity, and plied the people with drink, after instructing that the city gates shou ld be left open during the feast. But he had arranged beforehand that Mithridate s should come up secretly on the same day, and in this way Mithridates gained co ntrol of the city before the Heracleians even realised that he had arrived. 4. O n the next day, Mithridates assembled the people and greeted them with conciliat ory words. He advised them to maintain their goodwill towards him, and establish ed a garrison of 4,000 men, with Connacorex as commander of the garrison, on the pretext that if the Romans decided to attack them, the garrison would defend th e city and save the inhabitants. Then he distributed money to the residents, esp ecially to those in positions of authority, and sailed off to Sinope. 5. Lucullu s, Cotta and Triarius, the commanding generals of the Romans, came together at N icomedeia, and set off to invade Pontus. But when they heard about the capture o f Heracleia - they did not know it had been betrayed, but thought that the whole city had changed allegiance - they decided that Lucullus should march with most of the army through the inland districts into Cappadocia, in order to attack Mi thridates and his entire kingdom; that Cotta should attack Heracleia; and that T riarius should gather the naval forces around the Hellespont and Propontis, and lie in wait for the return of the ships which Mithridates had sent to Crete and Spain. 6. When Mithridates heard of their plans, he made his own preparations, a nd sent envoys to the kings of the Scythians, to the king of Parthia and to his son-in-law Tigranes the king of Armenia. The others gave him no help, but Tigran es, after ignoring many entreaties from Mithridates' daughter, eventually agreed to an alliance with him. 7. Mithridates sent different generals to fight agains t Lucullus. When they came to battle, they had varying success, but on most occa sions the Romans had the upper hand. 8. The king was disheartened by this, but n evertheless he assembled 40,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry, and sent them out in addition to the previous army, with Diophantus and Taxiles as their generals. A fter they had joined up with the others, at first the two sides tested each othe r in skirmishes almost every day, and then there were two cavalry battles, in th e first of which the Romans were victorious, and in the second the men of Pontus won. 9. As the war dragged on, Lucullus sent some men to Cappadocia to fetch su pplies, and when Taxiles and Diophantus heard of this, they sent off a force of 4,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry to attack and plunder the men who were bringing back the supplies. But when the two forces clashed, the Romans had the upper ha nd, and after Lucullus sent reinforcements to his side, it turned into a complet e rout of the barbarians. In their pursuit of the fleeing barbarians the Roman a rmy reached the camp of Diophantus and Taxiles, and proceeded to mount a fierce assault on them. The Pontic army withstood the attack for a while, but then they all gave way, with their generals being the first to turn to flight. The genera ls went to Mithridates as the messengers of their own defeat; and a large number of the barbarians were killed.

[30] After he had suffered this manifest disaster, Mithridates ordered that the princesses of the royal house should be killed, and decided to escape from Cabei ra, where he was staying, without the knowledge of his subjects. But he was purs ued by some Gauls, who did not realise who he was, and he would have been captur ed, if they had not come across a mule which was carrying Mithridates' gold and silver, and they stopped to plunder this treasure. Mithridates himself reached A rmenia, 2. though Lucullus sent Marcus Pompeius in pursuit of him. Then Lucullus advanced to Cabeira with his entire army, and surrounded the city; he gained co ntrol of the walls after the barbarians agreed to surrender under a truce. 3. Fr om there he went to Amisus, and tried to persuade the inhabitants to come to ter ms with the Romans, but as they did not listen to him, he moved away and began t o besiege Eupatoria. There he pretended to conduct [the siege] negligently, in o rder that he might lull the enemy into the same attitude of negligence, and then achieve his object by mounting a sudden attack. The result was as he expected, and he captured the city by this stratagem. Lucullus suddenly ordered his soldie rs to bring up ladders, when the defenders were paying little attention because they expected nothing of the sort, and he sent the soldiers up the ladders to th e top of the walls. In this way Eupatoria was captured, and it was immediately d estroyed. 4. Shortly afterwards Amisus was captured in a similar fashion - the e nemy mounted its walls with ladders. Many of the citizens of Amisus were slaught ered immediately, but then Lucullus put an end to the killing. He restored the c ity and its territory to the remaining citizens, and treated them considerately. [31] Mithridates was now staying in the territory of his son-in-law [Tigranes], who refused to meet him, but gave him a bodyguard and all the other marks of hos pitality. 2. Lucullus sent Appius Claudius as an ambassador to Tigranes, to dema nd the surrender of Mithridates, but Tigranes refused to hand him over, saying t hat he would incur universal censure if he betrayed the father of his wife; ther efore, though he knew the worthless character of Mithridates, he would respect t heir ties of kinship. 3. Tigranes wrote a letter to Lucullus, containing the sam e message, but the letter only irritated the Roman, because it did not address h im as "general", in response to his own letters which had not addressed Tigranes as "king of kings". At this point, the 15th book of the history comes to an end. [32] The contents of the next part of the history are as follows. Cotta marched with the Roman army against Heracleia, but first he led it to Prusias. Prusias h ad previously been called Cierus, from the river which flows by it, but the king of Bithynia renamed it after himself when he took it away from the Heracleians. From there he went down to the [Euxine] sea; he marched along the shore, and st ationed his men by the highest point of the walls. 2. The Heracleians were made confident by the natural strength of the site, and when Cotta pressed the attack they fought back along with the garrison. A large number of the Roman soldiers were killed, though the Heracleians received many wounds from missiles. Therefor e Cotta drew back his army from attacking the walls, and camped a short distance away. He turned his attention to preventing supplies from reaching the besieged inhabitants. When the citizens ran short of basic necessities, they sent envoys to their colonies, asking them to provide supplies in return for money, which t he colonies readily agreed to. [33] Shortly afterward Triarius set off from Nicomedeia with the Roman fleet to confront the Pontic triremes which, as has been said previously, had been sent o ut to Crete and Spain. He learnt that they were withdrawing to Pontus, after los ing many ships which had been sunk in storms and in various battles. He intercep ted the remaining ships and fought a battle against them near Tenedos, in which he had 70 triremes and the Pontic navy had just under 80. 2. When the two sides met, the king's ships offered some resistance to start with, but later they were completely routed and the Roman navy won a decisive victory. And so the entire naval force, which had sailed out to Asia with Mithridates, was destroyed.

[34] Cotta, who was encamped near Heracleia, did not attack the city with his wh ole army, but sent forward detachments, some from the Romans, and many from the Bithynians. But as many of his men were injured or killed, he constructed variou s siege engines, including the Tortoise, which rather alarmed the defenders of t he city. He brought this forward in full force against a certain tower which see med susceptible to damage; however after one or two blows, not only did the towe r remain standing, but the head of the battering ram was broken off. This restor ed the spirits of the Heracleians, but disheartened Cotta, who worried that the city would never be captured. 2. The next day Cotta brought up the siege engine again, but without success; so he burnt the engine, and beheaded the men who had made it. Leaving a guard by the walls, he decamped with the rest of his army to the so-called plain of Lycaea, which gave him a plentiful supply of provisions. From there he laid waste the entire territory of Heracleia, causing great hards hip to the citizens. 3. So they sent another embassy, to ask the inhabitants of the Scythian Chersonese and Theodosia and the kings of the Bosporus for an allia nce, but the embassy returned without achieving anything. 4. The citizens suffer ed almost as much from ill-treatment inside as they did from the enemy's attacks outside, because the garrison were not content with the same provisions as the populace survived on, and by assaulting the citizens they forced them to provide what they could not easily afford. Connacorex, the commander of the garrison, w as even more brutal than his men; instead of restraining their violence, he enco uraged it. 5. After ravaging the countryside, Cotta again attacked the walls. But he saw th at the soldiers were reluctant to press the siege, so he led them away again fro m the walls, and sent to Triarius, asking him to come quickly with his triremes and prevent food reaching the city by sea. 6. Triarius took the ships which he h ad with him and 20 Rhodian ships, making a total of 43 ships. He crossed into th e [Euxine] sea and informed Cotta of the date when he would arrive. On the same day as Triarius' squadron of ships appeared, Cotta brought his army up to the wa lls. 7. The Heracleians were alarmed by the sudden arrival of the ships. They pu t 30 of their own ships out to sea, though even these were not fully manned, and the rest of the men turned to defending the city. The Heracleian ships sailed o ut to confront the approaching squadron of the enemy, and the Rhodians (who were reputed to be braver and more experienced sailors than the others) were the fir st to attack them. Three Rhodian and five Heracleian ships were sunk immediately . Then the Romans joined in the fighting; both sides suffered heavy losses, but the Romans inflicted the most damage on their enemies. Eventually the ships from Heracleia were routed and they were forced to flee back to the city; 14 of thei r ships were lost, and the ones which escaped were placed in the great harbour. 8. Cotta also moved up the land army to renew the siege. Triarius' ships took up station on each side of the harbour, so as to prevent supplies of food reaching those inside the city, and the city was gripped by such a severe famine, that a choinix of corn was sold for 80 Attic [drachmas]. 9. On top of these other evil s, a plague struck the citizens, caused either by a change in climate or by thei r poor diet. The plague consumed its victims with many different kinds of suffer ing, including Lamachus, who endured a particularly slow and painful death. The garrison suffered most of all from the disease, which killed one thousand out of their three thousand men; and their affliction was obvious to the Romans. [35] Connacorex was dismayed by these disasters and decided to betray the city t o the Romans, purchasing his own safety by the ruin of the Heracleians. He was j oined in this undertaking by a Heracleian called Damopheles, an adherent of Lama chus' party who had been chosen to be a leader of the city guards after the deat h of Lamachus. 2. Connacorex did not approach Cotta, whom he regarded as oppress ive and untrustworthy, but he made an arrangement with Triarius, which Damophele s readily consented to. After agreeing terms which they hoped would assure their well-being, they prepared to betray the city. 3. The nature of the traitors' pl

ans became known to the people of the city, who rapidly met in assembly and summ oned the leader of the garrison. Brithagoras, one of the leading citizens, went to see Connacorex. He described the situation in Heracleia, and implored him, if he wished, to negotiate with Triarius for the common safety of them all. After Brithagoras had delivered this request with much lamentation, Connacorex stood u p and refused to arrange such a treaty, pretending that he was upholding their f reedom and had great expectations. He said that he had learnt through letters th at the king [Mithridates] had received a friendly reception from his son-in-law Tigranes, and he expected sufficient assistance to arrive from there before long . Connacorex had invented all of this, but the Heracleians were deceived by his words, and believed his fabrications as if they were true; for men always choose to believe what they really wish for. 4. Connacorex, realising that he had succ essfully deceived them, quietly embarked his army onto the triremes in the middl e of the night, and sailed away; for the pact with Triarius stipulated that his men could leave unharmed, and take with them any booty which they had acquired. Damopheles then opened the gates, and Triarius and the Roman army poured into th e city; some of them entered through the gates, and others climbed over the top of the walls. 5. It was only then that the Heracleians realised that they had been betrayed. S ome of them surrendered, and others were killed. Their valuables and their other possessions were looted, and the citizens were subjected to all kinds of brutal ity, as the Romans remembered their losses in the sea battle, and the hardships they had endured during the siege. The Romans did not even spare those who had f led into the temples, but cut them down by the altars and the images of the gods . 6. Therefore many of the Heracleians, fearing inevitable death, escaped over t he walls and scattered around the surrounding countryside, and some of them were forced to give themselves up to Cotta. From them Cotta learnt about the capture of the city, the slaughter of the citizens and the looting of their property. H e was filled with anger, and immediately proceeded to the city. His army shared in his anger, not only because they had been robbed of the glory of victory, but also because all the wealth of the city had already been plundered by the other soldiers. They would have started a fight with their fellow soldiers, and the t wo armies would have proceeded to kill each other, if Triarius had not realised what they intended. By making many conciliatory speeches, and promising to make the booty available for them all to share, he averted the outbreak of internal s trife. 7. But when they realised that Connacorex had captured Tius and Amastris, Cotta immediately sent Triarius to take the cities away from him. Meanwhile Cotta seiz ed the men who had surrendered to him and the prisoners of war, and he treated t hem all with the utmost cruelty. In his search for treasure he did not even spar e the contents of the temples, but removed from them many fine statues and image s. 8. He removed the statue of Heracles from the market-place, along with its eq uipment from the pyramid; which in preciousness and size, as well as harmony, gr ace and artistry, was not inferior to the most famous [works of art]. It include d a club beaten out of refined gold, with a large lion skin engraved on it, and a quiver fashioned from the same material, filled with arrows and a bow. He load ed onto his ships many other beautiful and remarkable offerings which he had car ried away from the temples and the city. Lastly he ordered the soldiers to set f ire to the city, and burnt down many parts of it. 9. The city had withstood the siege for two years before it was captured. [36] When Triarius arrived at the cities to which he had been sent, he allowed C onnacorex, who was trying to conceal his betrayal of Heracleia by holding on to the other cities, to withdraw unharmed, and he took possession of the cities wit hout opposition. Cotta, after acting as described above, sent the infantry and c avalry to Lucullus, dismissed the allies to their homelands, and set off home wi th the fleet. Some of the ships which were carrying the spoils from Heracleia we re sunk by their weight not far from the city, and others were forced into the s

hallows by a northerly wind, so that much of their cargo was lost. [37] Leonippus, whom Mithridates had put in charge of Sinope along with Cleochar es, gave up hope of resistance, and sent a message to Lucullus promising to betr ay the city. Cleochares and Seleucus, who was another general of Mithridates of equal standing to the other two, found out about the treachery of Leonippus, and denounced him at an assembly of the people. But the people did not believe them , because he seemed to be an upright man. Therefore Cleochares and his associate s, alarmed at the favour which the people showed towards Leonippus, ambushed him and killed him during the night. This incident annoyed the populace, but Cleoch ares and his associates took control of the government and ruled in a tyrannical fashion, hoping by this means to escape punishment for the murder of Leonippus. 2. Meanwhile Censorinus, the Roman admiral in command of 15 triremes which were bringing corn from the Bosporus to the Roman army, halted near Sinope. Cleochar es, Seleucus and their associates sailed out against him with the triremes at Si nope. In the ensuing naval battle, under the command of Cleochares, they defeate d the Italians and seized the transport ships for their own use. 3. Cleochares a nd his associates were encouraged by this success, and became even more tyrannic al in their government of the city. They murdered the citizens indiscriminately, and acted cruelly in every other way. 4. A dispute broke out between Cleochares and Seleucus: Cleochares wanted to persist in the war, but Seleucus wanted to s laughter all the citizens of Sinope and hand over the city to the Romans in retu rn for a large reward. As neither of them prevailed over the other, they secretl y put their possessions on boards cargo ships and sent them off to Machares the son of Mithridates, who at that time was staying in the neighbourhood of Colchis . 5. Meanwhile Lucullus, the Roman general, arrived at Sinope and vigorously besie ged the city. 6. Machares the son of Mithridates sent envoys to Lucullus, asking for friendship and an alliance. Lucullus readily agreed, saying that he would r egard the alliance as confirmed, if Machares did not send any supplies to the in habitants of Sinope. Machares not only complied with this, but even sent to Lucu llus the supplies which had been prepared for Mithridates' forces. 7. When Cleoc hares and his associates perceived this, they gave up all hope. They loaded a la rge amount of treasure onto their ships during the night, and at the same time a llowed their soldiers to loot the city. After burning the ships which they did n ot need, they sailed off to the inner side of the [Euxine] sea, to the territory of the Sanegae and Lazi. 8. When the flames had grown high, Lucullus realised w hat was happening and ordered his soldiers to bring up ladders to the walls. The soldiers mounted the walls, and to begin with there was a considerable slaughte r [of the citizens]; but Lucullus took pity on them, and put an end to the killi ng. 9. That was how Sinope was captured. Amaseia still held out, but not long af terwards it too yielded to the Romans. [38] Mithridates had stayed in the region of Armenia for a year and eight months , and still had not come into the presence of Tigranes. Then Tigranes felt oblig ed to grant him an audience; he met him in a splendid parade and gave him a roya l welcome. After they had spent three days in secret talks, Tigranes entertained Mithridates at a magnificent banquet, and sent hime back to Pontus with 10,000 cavalrymen. 2. Advancing through Cappadocia, whose ruler Ariobarzanes was his al ly, Lucullus unexpectedly crossed the river Euphrates and brought his army up to the city in which he had heard that Tigranes kept his concubines, along with ma ny valuable possessions. Lucullus also sent a detachment of his men to besiege T igranocerta, and another force to attack the other important settlements. 3. Tig ranes, seeing many parts of Armenia under siege in this way, recalled Mithridate s and sent an army to the city in which his concubines were kept. When this army arrived at the city, the archers prevented the Romans from leaving their camp a nd they sent away the concubines and the most valuable items during the night. B ut at daybreak the Romans and Thracians attacked bravely, and there was a widesp read slaughter of the Armenians. The number of Armenians captured was no less th

an the number killed; but the convoy which they had sent ahead reached Tigranes safely. 4. Tigranes collected an army of 80,000 men and went down to Tigranocert a, in order to lift the siege and drive away the enemy. When he arrived there an d saw how small the Roman camp was, he said in contempt, "If they have come as a mbassadors, there are too many of them; if they have come to fight, there are to o few." After saying this, he camped next to the Romans. 5. Lucullus drew up his army for battle carefully and skilfully, and he addressed his men with encourag ing words. Immediately he routed the enemy's right wing; and then the troops nex t to them gave way, and so on until the whole army was in flight. A dreadful and unstoppable panic seized the Armenians, and inevitably this was followed the de struction of their army. Tigranes handed over his diadem and emblems of power to his son, and fled to one of his fortresses. 6. Lucullus returned to Tigranocert a and pressed the siege more intently, until Mithridates' generals in the city g ave up all hope and surrendered the city to him in return for their own safety. 7. However Mithridates went to Tigranes and restored his spirits, reclothing him in royal apparel, no less splendid than before. Mithridates already had a consi derable force, and he encouraged Tigranes to collect another army, so that he co uld once again strive for victory. Then Tigranes put Mithridates in overall comm and, trusting in his nobleness and intelligence, because he seemed most capable of maintaining a war against the Romans. 8. Tigranes himself sent an embassy to the Parthian [king] Phraates, offering to yield Mesopotamia, Adiabene and the Gr eat Glen to him. At the same time envoys from Lucullus approached the Parthian, who privately pretended to the Romans that he was their friend and ally, and pri vately entered into a similar agreement with the Armenians. [39] When Cotta arrived at Rome, he was honoured by the senate with the title of "Ponticus imperator", because he had captured Heracleia. But then the accusatio n reached Rome, that he had destroyed the great city merely for his personal gai n, and his enormous wealth aroused envy, so that he became an object of public h atred. In an attempt to avoid the jealousy which his wealth provoked, he handed over much of the plunder from the city to the treasury, but this did not mollify the others, who assumed that he was giving up just a little and keeping the mos t part for himself. They immediately voted to release the prisoners from Heracle ia. 2. Thrasymedes, one of the Heracleians, accused Cotta in the assembly. He de scribed the goodwill of the city towards the Romans, and said that if the city h ad acted in any way contrary to this goodwill, it was not done by the common con sent of the citizens, but they were either deceived by those who had been put in charge of affairs, or coerced by the enemies who attacked them. He complained a bout the devastation which the burning of Heracleia had caused, and how Cotta ha d taken away the statues as booty and had ransacked the temples, and all the oth er atrocities he had committed after he entered the city. Thrasymedes also descr ibed the immense quantity of the city's gold and silver, and the other treasures of Heracleia which Cotta had taken away for himself. 3. The Roman leaders were moved by this speech, which Thrasymedes delivered with wailing and tears, while a crowd of captives stood nearby, both men and women with their children, dresse d in mourning clothes and sorrowfully holding forth olive branches in supplicati on. In reply, Cotta gave a short speech in his language [Latin] and then sat dow n. Carbo stood up and exclaimed, "Cotta, we instructed you to capture the city, not to destroy it", and afterwards often speakers censured Cotta in a similar wa y. Therefore many people thought that Cotta should be sent into exile; but inste ad they expelled him from the senate, as a lesser punishment. They restored to t he Heracleians their territory on land and sea, and their harbours; they also vo ted that none of the Heracleians should be made a slave. [40] After achieving this, Thrasymedes sent most of the Heracleians back home. H e himself stayed behind for longer with Brithagoras and Propylus (Propylus was t he son of Brithagoras) in order to attend to other urgent matters; several years later, he returned to Heracleia in three light boats. 2. Upon his arrival, he t ried in every way to resettle the city, so as to bring about its regeneration; b ut for all his efforts, he was only able to collect only about 8,000 settlers, t

ogether with the members of his own household. 3. When the condition of the city improved, Brithagoras began to hope that he could restore the liberty of the ci tizens. Many years had passed, and the government of the Romans had come under t he control of a single man, Gaius Julius Caesar. Brithagoras set out on an embas sy to Caesar, and developed a friendship with him, but he was not able immediate ly to win freedom for his city, because Gaius did not stay in Rome, but left on expeditions to other places. However Brithagoras did not give up, but he and Pro pylus accompanied Caesar all over the world, and were seen his presence, as if t he dictator was indicating that he approved of their petition. 4. After he had b een in attendance on Caesar for 12 years, and just as Caesar was planning to ret urn to Rome, Brithagoras died, worn out by old age and by his continual exertion s. His death caused great sadness in his homeland. At this point, the sixteenth book of Memnon's history comes to an end. This history is intelligent and written in a plain style, with attention to clar ity. It avoids digressions, except if its purpose necessitates the inclusion of some external events; and even then, the digression does not last for long, but concentrating on what is essential it returns neatly to the main course of the n arrative. It uses a conventional vocabulary, though there are a few unusual word s. We have not found a copy to read of the first eight books, or of anything aft er the sixteenth book. Translated by Andrew Smith from Jacoby's text (FGrH. 434), and placed by him in the public domain. The [number] and other numbers in the translation are th e chapter numbers and sub-divisions of chapters in Jacoby's Greek text. The chap ter numbers are also "named anchors" so that you can go direct to the right chap ter by typing eg. 232. [Stephen Gobar, Miscellany] Read the book of a certain Stephen, a tritheist, surnamed Gobar 1. The work seem s to have involved a lot of work without procuring a profit proportional to the great pain expended; it exhibits in fact more futile vanity than utility. The ch apters which the author has written relating to questions of general order which concern the church are up to about 52; some chapters on more limited subjects a re mingled in there. These chapters are divided into expositions of two contradi ctory opinions. And these opinions are not advanced either by logic or from the holy scriptures but uniquely, according to the author, from the citation of vari ous Fathers of whom some advance the point of view of the church and others who reject it. The latter point of view is defended by ancient testimonies and ancie nt authors who had not made an exact study of all the problems, and certain of t hese citations don't defend the point of view supposed anyway, but only seem to do so, at least to the eyes that collected them. As for the point of view of the church, it is confirmed by the testimonies of authors who have defined the trut h with the greatest exactitude. The subjects on which this double and contradict ory demonstration is made are the following. It is the propriety 2, the distinctive mark and the form which constitutes the h ypostasis, and not the union of the substance and the propriety, and this is no more that which exists of itself. There are first citations which confirm this p oint of view and then others confirming the adverse opinion, to think that the p ropriety and the form and the distinctive mark are not the hypostatis but the di stinctive mark of it. And in the other chapters, not to weary with repetition ev ery time, the diverse citations rehearse the antithetical proposition and seem t o support the two aspects. John the Baptist was conceived in the month of October. The opposing opinion is that not then, but in November. The Mother of God received the Annunciation in t he month of New Things 3, that is April, called Nisan by the Hebrews; she brough

t our Lord Jesus Christ into the world after 9 months, that is 5 January, in the middle of the night of the eighth day of the Ides of January. The opposing opin ion is that not inthe month [usually thought] of the Annunciation, but on the tw enty-fifth of March, and that our Saviour 4 came into the world not on the fift h of January but the eighth day before the Kalends of January. At the moment of the resurrection, it will be exactly the same body as that whic h we wear now which we will put on again without any modification and which will acquire incorruptibility; the thesis opposed is that we won't put on the same b ody because our actual body is perishable. We will resurrect with the same appea rance and we won't resurrect with the same appearance, but another. We will be t he same age at which we died; the opposing opinion is that it will not be so, bu t that even infants will resurrect with a body of an adult and that we won't all be resurrected at once but in turn. It will be a light, aerial, ethereal and sp iritual body that we take on at the moment of resurrection; and it will not be t hus, but a terrestrial body, thick and consistent. God is of human form and has a soul, the icon reveals his corporeal form, and th at man was created in imitation of his model, and that angels have bodies simila r to human bodies, and that the human soul is an emanation of the divine substan ce 5; and the opposing opinions, that God is not of human form nor of any form a t all, and by nature isn't any of the things just stated; even the angels have n o bodies, but are bodiless, and the human soul does not emanate from the divine substance. Before the fall, the body of man was different, it was what we call a glorious b ody; and that which we have had since the fall is different: it is of flesh and a tunic of skin and we abandon it at the moment of resurrection. The contrary op inion is that these tunics of skin are not our flesh. First of all the just will be resurrected and with them all those alive and they will live a good life for a thousand years, eating and drinking, procreating, a nd that it is after this time that there will be the universal resurrection. The contrary opinion is that there is no first resurrection of the just, no more th an the good life for a thousand years nor marriages. After the resurrection, the just will live in Paradise; and they won't live in Paradise by in the heavens a nd the Paradise is neither in heaven nor on earth, but in an intermediate place. Paradis is the New Jerusalem and is in the third heaven; the tree that grow the re are endowed with sensation, intelligence and speech and it is from there that man after his fall was thrown down to earth. And the opposing thesis is that P aradise is not in the third heaven but on earth. The good things prepared for the just, the eye has not seen, the ears have not h eard and they are not found in the heart of man.6 However Hegesippus, one of the ancients, a contemporary of the apostles, in the third book of his Commentaries , in I do not know what context, says that these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the Holy Scriptures say, "Blessed are your eyes bec ause they see and happy your ears because they hear," etc.7 Those sinners who are delivered to chastisement are thereby purified of their ma lice and, after their purification, are free of chastisement. According to the o ther point of view, those delivered to chastisement are not purified and freed, but only some are, and, according to the true point of view of the church, no-on e is freed of chastisement. It is to burn and not be consumed that means being destroyed in a destruction th at does not destroy itself. Titus, bishop of Bostra, who wrote against the Manic haeans, says in his first book,8 "How can the destruction be its own destruction ? Because it is always some other object that it destroys, not itself. And if it destroys itself, it would not even have any beginning, because it would have de

stroyed itself instead of existing. An indestructible destruction is impossible to conceive of, at least according to common sense." And it is evident that it's in another sense that this holy author has said that indestructible destruction is impossible, and St. John said it in still another sense 9. The last-named in fact said that the destruction is indestructible instead of saying it prolongs itself and lasts forever, and the other intended to say that there is no indestr uctible destruction, i.e. that destruction cannot be a state exempt from sufferi ng, an absence of destruction susceptible to save those whom it encounters. But the two interpretations are such that Gobar, the author of the present essay, wi thout understanding the difference of interpretations has juxtaposed them as con tradictory propositions. The age to come is the eighth 10, the opposing proposition being that it isn't t he eighth but the ninth. The body of our Saviour Jesus Christ after the resurrection became subtle, spiri tual, heavenly, light and impossible to touch; this is why he could even pass th rough closed doors.11 His tangible and solid body is another body to the subtle one: it is consistant and of another essence. And the contrary opinion to this, is that our Lord Jesus Christ after his resurrection did not have an intangible or subtle or spiritual body, and that it was by miracle and not in virtue of the nature of his body that he still entered when the doors were shut. The Christ did not abandon his flesh after his resurrection, but with it He is s eated at the right hand of the Father 12. In the opposed thesis, He will come to judge the living and the dead in a divine body, not one of flesh. It is not wit h his flesh but purely in his divinity that the master will come for the second time. In introducing this data in his chapter, Gobar produces citations by Titus , Bishop of Bostra 13, when he could have assembled innumerable numbers who esta blish that it isn't only in his divinity that the Christ our Master will return; he passes on without mentioning one, thus showing the impiety throughout his so ul, and hasn't the honesty to profess the monophysitism by the denial of the fle sh. The impassible body, invulnerable and immortal, is of one substance and of a type different to ours and the corruptible and mortal bodies which pass into a state of incorruptibility and immortality undergo a modification in their substa nce. Every definition preserves the nature of the things it defines. If it is lessene d, or elements added to it, the object defined is destroyed. These last two chap ters, like those a little earlier, welcome witnesses in one sense only and not i n favour of two opposed theses. The Word of God is complete in every way and under all and is complete in the bo dy to which it is hypostatically attached. And in a word, the substance of the divinity, by its nature, by its power and operation, fills everything and passes into every part and mixes itself throughout the universe. On the contrary, it is not so, but God is separate from the universe in his substance and is in ever ything through the effect of his own virtues. It is before the creation of the world that God likewise created the angels. He is thus not one of them, but created them on the first day of the creation of t he world. The angels and demons are united to bodies. Neither the one nor the other are united to bodies.14 The angels and the souls endowed with reason and all the creatures provided with intelligence are by nature and according to nat ure incorruptible 15; in the opposing thesis, it is not by nature but by grace t hat they are immortal. God alone is immortal by nature. The angels who descend ed from heaven to earth had bodies and organs of generation; they united themsel ves to women and engendered the giants and taught them the arts, good and bad. The giants themselves in uniting themselves to beasts engendered monstrous men a nd demons, male and female; these anges undergo punishment in places where fire

and hot water stream from the earth. The souls of sinners become demons. Accor ding to the contrary thesis, the rebel angels remained incorporeal beings; and n ot themselves but by means of men were they united to women, or even that neithe r directly nor indirectly did they do this, and the souls of sinners are not cha nged into demons. The sky is spherical and has a circular movement; it is not spherical and ot have a circular movement. In the verse, "The Spirit of God was moving he waters," the Holy Spirit is referred to; it does not refer to the Holy but to one of the four elements. The day of the Lord is both the eighth d the first; and it is not so. does n over t Spirit day an

The souls of men are bodies endowed with intelligence and are fashioned accordin g to the exterior appearance of the body. According to the opposite opinion, th e soul is incorporeal and doesn't take on corporeal form. Souls existed before the creation of the world and descended from the heavens into bodies like those of Moses, and the prophets, of Socrates, of Plato, of John the Baptist and the a postles, and that of the Lord himself. According to the opposite opinion, souls did not exist in heaven before bodies, but are born at the moment of the genera tion of the body; however, the body comes into existence first, and then the sou l; or even, souls do not come into existence before or after the body, but, bett er still, body and soul come into existence together.16 The body of Adam was fashioned with some earth by God; it was not from earth, bu t from water and spirit. The breath that God breathed in the face of Adam was a temporal breath and not the eternal Spirit; it was not temporal but an immortal soul 17. It was neither a temporal breath nor a soul but a spirit, since man i s composed of three elements: spirit, soul and body. And the breath breathed in to Adam was none of the three elements just mentioned but the Holy Spirit, and i t is neither soul nor spirit but the breath that created the soul. Earth, water and the other elements are transformed to give fruit and planys; no urishment is transformed to give flesh, nerves and the other elements of the bod y. According to the opposed thesis, earth is not transformed into plants and fr uit nor nourishment into our body. After death, the soul does not leave either the body or the tomb; on the contrar y, it does not stay with the body nor in the tomb. On this question Gobar, who disposed of witnesses in abundance, only produced that of Severian of Gabala and that of Irenaeus. All that is created is corruptible and mortal and it is by the will of God that it remains indissoluble and incorruptible. According to the opposed thesis, tha t which is corruptible by nature cannot be made incorruptible by the will of God , because to speak thus is self-contradictory and attributes the impossible to t he creator. For this proposition the author has produced a citation borrowed fr om Justin Martyr; the latter had undertaken to combat the opinions of the pagans and refutes Plato who said, "Since you were born, you are neither immortal nor quite indestructible and yet, you won't suffer dissolution and you won't undergo a mortal destiny because you have obtained a stronger link which is my will." 1 8 And the martyr refutes the Platonic sophism and shows that Plato propounds a self-contradictory creator and doesn't include any logical reasoning; because by necessity, whether indeed that which is created is corruptible according to the definition above, or that in fact he lies in saying that everything that is bor n is corruptible.19 And Gobar hijacks the argument destined to confound the pag an in such a way that it serves the refute the position of the church. The chapters in question are elaborated by the author by means of pairs of contr adictory citations as usual; he then returns to chapters from a single point of view. He first says ---- and this is the thirty-eighth chapter of the whole wor

k ---- what the teaching was concerning the incarnation of our Lord according to St. Eustathius,20 who occupied the episcopal chair of Antioch, then what was th e teaching of the very holy Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, and how the doctors of the church understood the verse, "Of the day and the hour, no-one is told, n ot the angels nor the Son but only the Father," 21 and how Severus understood it . After these subjects treated in a single sense, he returns to producing citation s in two senses, and makes a forty-second chapter22 where it is said that our Lo rd Jesus Christ was nourished with milk by Mary, the mother of God, and that he was not so nourished. The verse, "The least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist, " was spoken by the Saviour of himself; it was not of himself that he said this, but of John the Evangelist. Our Lord Jesus the Christ was crucified aged thirty. He was not thirty, but thi rty-three; and not thirty-three but forty; nor thirty-three or forty but much ol der, so that he wasn't far short of fifty. At the moment when the Lord transmitted the mystery of the New Covenant to his d isciples, he was eating the passover; and he was not eating the passover at tha t moment. The brass serpent that Moses made in the desert was a "type" of the Master; and it was not his "type" but an "anti-type." He that cut off the ear of the High P riest was Thomas; it wasn't Thomas but Peter. At the moment of the Passion, the divinity was separated from the body of Christ ; the divinity was not separated from either body or soul. In exchange for the man who was possessed, the Lord gave his own blood to the en emy as a ransom since the enemy extorted it; in the opposing thesis, it was not the enemy but to God his father that the Christ made this offering. The Christ was resurrected in most great and marvellous glory that he only manif ested in his Transfiguration on the mountain, and after the resurrection he did not change his body to give himself the glory due to him, but made visible what he had been [already] before his death. Thus says Cyril; the opposing opinion i s that of Dionysius of Alexandria. It was on the twelfth day of the first month that Mary annointed the Lord with m yrrh in the house of Simon the leper; it was the thirteenth day when the Lord ga ve the mystic supper to the disciples; the fourteenth when the passion of the Sa viour took place, the fifteenth when he rose from the dead and the sixteenth whe n he rose into heaven; or, indeed, it was not so but it was the fourteenth day w hen he ate the mystic supper, the fifteenth when he was crucified, the sixteenth when he was resurrected. Or again it was not so either, but it was the thirtee nth day, the Sunday, when the resurrection of the Lord took place, and he ascend ed into Heaven forty days later. It was on the fifth evening at the moment when the Lord gave the mystic supper t o his disciples that the sacrifice of his body began. So far, therefore, it is the doctrines of the church and questions of a general kind that the author discusses in almost all his chapters, and most of the time he offers two opposing opinions with some contradictory witnesses and, in some c ases, he can only establish a view by witnesses favourable only to a single thes is. From here on, he deals with some special questions, eighteen in number. Fo r example, the opinion of Severus on the holy conductors of the churches and of

the arrangements where he reflects on the words of Cyril and John in their messa ge to Thomas, Bishop of Germanica; he does not approve of what St. Gregory, Bish op of Nyssa, said on the restoration of man, nor Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis an d martyr, nor Irenaeus, the holy Bishop of Lyons, when they say that the kingdom of Heaven consists of the coming of certain material foods.23 St. Basil does not follow St. Dionysius of Alexandria on many points, above all those where the Arian heresy found an opportunity. The author says in defense o fArius that this was not from an impious intention, but in combatting Sabellius; that he had been carried away in his remarks against the opposite heresy. More still, concerning the Holy Spirit, he held improper opinions. But the great At hanasius himself defends Dionysius; "Because," he says, "Dionysius never shared the opinions of Arius, nor ignored the truth; in fact he was never condemned for heresy by other bishops and never included the ideas of Arius in his teaching." 24 Theodoret also uses the same language on the subject of the said Dionysius. The author also cites some witnesses on the attitude of Theophilus and his synod in regard to St. John Chrysostom and the opinions of Atticus and Cyril on the s ubject of the same very holy John of Constantinople and the reticence of the ver y prudent Isidore of Pelusium with regard to Theophilus and Cyril, the bishops o f Alexandria, concerning St. John Chrysostom; he blames the first for their host ility towards Chrysostom, while he praises and admires him. Severus, who undertook to criticise St. Isidore without good reason, imagines as his subject an accusation of origenism,25 and yet, conquered by the truth, spon taneously admits his error. The author reports some suspicions that Hippolytus and Epiphanius encouraged con cerning Nicholas, one of the seven deacons, whom they condemn energetically. On the other hand the divine Ignatius and Clement, the author of the Stromateis, a nd Eusebius Pamphilus and Theodoret of Cyr condemn the heresy of the Nicolaitans but deny that Nocholas was connected with it. Hippolytus and Irenaeus claim th at the Letter to the Hebrews is not by Paul 26, but Clement and Eusebius and a n umerous company of the other fathers count this letter among the others and say that Clement named above translated it from Hebrew. Origen and Theognostus received the approbation of the great Athanasius of Alexa ndria in many of their works; Titus of Bostra and Gregory the Theologian in thei r letters call him the friend of virtue while Gregory of Nyssa speaks of him in favourable terms. St. Dionysius, writing to this personage, then after his deat h to Theotechnus Bishop of Caesarea, praises Origen. And Alexander, Bishop of t he Holy Towns 27 and martyr, in a letter to the same Origen treats him in a very friendly manner. Theophilus and Epiphanius reject Origen with vigour. The aut hor reports the suspicions of most holy Hippolytus in regard to the heresy of th e Montanists as well as those of Gregory of Nyssa. Such are the chapters concerning questions of detail. He then returns again to more general ideas and presents some citations which attest that the soul of som eone dead derives great advantage from prayers, offerings and alms given in its name; and the opposed opinion that it is not so.28 These are all the chapters that we have found assembled in the work of Gobar. 1. Also referred to in English as Stephen Gobarus, Stephanus Gobarus, and St ephan Gobar. He lived in the 6th century, and his work is lost. See G. Bardy, Le florilge d'tienne Gobar, in the Revue tudes Byzant., vol. 5 (1947) p. 5-30 and v ol. 7 (1949) p. 51-52. A German article on him is online at http://www.bautz.d e/bbkl/s/s4/stephan_gobar.shtml. 2. sumplokh\.

3. neon. 4. Rendered 'Lord' in Henry, but Soter in Greek. 5. Greek -- ousias theias. 6. A paraphrase of 1 Cor. 2:9 7. Matt. 13:16. This otherwise unknown citation from the ippus, twn u(pomnhma&twn, or Commentaries, has attracted much the remainder of the codex. Henry mentions that the opinion his matter is also mentioned by Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. who reports Hegesippus as saying the opposite. lost work of Heges more interest than of Hegesippus on t 40, PG 45 c. 104D,

In the interests of accuracy, I include some other translations and discussi on of this passage from Photius which I found online. 'The good things prepared for the just (ta h(toimasmena toij dikaioij ag aqa) no eye has seen nor ear heard nor have they ascended to the human heart' (c f. 1 Cor. 2.9). Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolic man, says in the fifth book of his Memoirs -- I do not know quite what he meant -- that these words were sp oken vainly, and those who said them lied against both the divine scriptures and the Lord who said 'Blessed are your eyes....' (Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, cha pter 10, fn. 31, tr. Paul J. Achtemeier). "That the good things prepared for the righteous neither eye saw, nor ea r heard, nor entered they into the heart of man. Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, how moved I know not, says in the fifth book of his Memoirs that these words are vainly spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine writings and to the Lord, saying: 'Blessed are your eyes that see, and your ears that hear,'" etc. (Makarioi oi ophthalmoi humn oi blepontes, kai ta ta humn ta akouonta, kai ta exs). (Cassels,Supernatural Religion) Again, when he reproduces the Tbingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prej udice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of Hegesippus con demning the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state th at these words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of ini tiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tbingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts everythi ng else which we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists' mig ht, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." (Lightfoot on Supernatur al Religion) 8. Titus of Bostra, Adversus Manichaeos, I.11. PG 18 c. 1084B. 9. John Chrysostom, In Ep. ad Eph. (On the Epistle to the Ephesians) 24, 5. PG 72 col. 175. 10. Greek --- ogdoos, cf. ogdoad. Bardy suggests that this may all relate to speculations of Clement of Alexandria on the ogdoad. 11. John 20:19, 26. Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Adumbr. in Epist. can. In J oannis primam, I, 1. 12. Origen, De principiis, II.11.6. Also Homily 29 on Luke. 13. This may be a reference to a lost passage from book 4 of Adversus Manic

haeos. The summary alone preserved of this book shows that Titus was in fact de fending the New Testament against the attacks of the Manichaeans. 14. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 52:2, and most of the fathers think that a ngels took on bodies. The opposite idea can be found in Gregory Nazianzen, Orat ion 38:7, Dionysius the Areopagite, The celestial hierarchy IV.1-2, and The divi ne hom. 7:2. 15. Justin, Dialogue 5 and 6; Tatian, Oration against the Greeks, 13; Cleme nt of Alexandria, Adumb. in Ep. 1 Petri. III. 16. Origen, De principiis II.8.3. Theodore, Healing for Greek maladies 5 ( PG 83 c.941 B). 17. Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim 23 (PG 80 c. 121 A-B). 18. Plato, Timaeus p. 41 A-B. 19. Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio ad Graecos 33. 20. Only a fragment of his De anima survives (PG 18 c. 613-704), which defe nds the complete divinity and humanity of Christ. 21. Matthew 24:36. Cyril of Alexandria, Treasure 22 (PG 75 c. 368D-380B). 22. 42 is what the manuscripts say; Henry states that it is in fact the 40t h chapter. 23. I found a German version of these words: "... freilich auch weder Papia s, den Bischof von Hierapolis und Mrtyrer, noch Irenus, den gottgeflligen Bischof v on Lyon (sc. erkennt Stephanus an), wenn sie sagen, es gebe den Genu irgendwelche r irdischer Speisen im Reich der Himmel. [Stephanus Gobarus bei Phot. Biblioth. cod. 232 ed. Bekker p. 291]" from here. 24. St. Athanasius devoted a tract, De sententiis Dionysii to the defense o f St. Dionysius of Alexandria. 25. Severus, Contra impium grammaticum Oratio, III.39, trad. Lebon, Louvain , 1929. 26. Cf. codex 121 from which alone we know of this work of Hippolytus. 27. Jerusalem. 28. From the Oxford Movement Tracts: But he should have considered, as Stephanus Gobarus, who was as great an heretic as himself, did, that the doctors were not agreed upon the point; some of them maintaining "that the soul of every one that departed out of this life r eceived very great profit by the prayers and oblations and alms that were perfor med for him;" and others, "on the contrary side, that it was not so;" (Tract 72) [Translated from Henry.] See also the translation by Adolf von Harnack in The "Sic et Non" of Stephan us Gobarus, from the Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923). 233. [Germanus of Constantinople, On the true and legitimate retribution]

Read a book which has the name of St. Germanus as the author, who was first chos en for Cyzicus and then was Bishop of Constantinope.1 It has as its title The P unisher or The Legitimate which are equivalent to On the legitimate retribution to men according to the actions of their life." The subject that defines this book which is a polemical work is to demonstrate t hat St. Gregory of Nyssa and his writings are free of any taint of Origenism. I n fact those to whom this silly idea of the redemption of demons and men freed f rom everlasting punishment is dear are those, I say, ---- because they know the man 2 by the elevation of his teaching and the abundance of his writings and bec ause they see his distinguished conception of the faith spread among all men, --- who have attempted to mix into his works, full of the light of salvation, inf ormed, troubled and disastrous ideas from the dreams of Origen as part of the de sign to soil with heresy by a method which overturns the virtue and distinguishe d wisdom of the great man. This is why, sometimes by faked additions, sometimes by their relentless efforts to pervert correct thinking, they have attempted to falsify many of his works w hich were beyond reproach. It is against these that Germanus, the defender of t he true faith, has directed the sword sharpended with truth and leaving his enem ies mortally wounded, he makes the victory apparent and his mastery over the leg ion of heretics who created these pitfalls. The author this, in the present work, is pure and... [my photocopy ends here: mo re when I get more] 1. St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (715-730). The work summarised here is lost. 2. Gregory of Nyssa. [Translated from Henry] 238. [Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews] Read Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. The present selection exposes what he sa ys about Herod: the reconstruction of the temple, the way he usurped the Jewish throne, how his descendants succeeded him in power and how this power disappear ed to the benefit of an aristocracy when the high-priests took the succession fr om the control of the people and all the other events connected with these.1 Towards the end of the fifteenth book of his Antiquities,2 Josephus says that, i n the eighteenth year of its reign, Herod rebuilt the temple of Jerusalem, origi nally built by king Solomon and destroyed, then rebuilt at the end of forty-six years by the returned deportees to Babylon with the assistance of Darius, the ki ng of Persia. This temple had been famous for six hundred years; Herode destroye d the old foundations to erect others and to set up a building twice the size of that it replaced. Indeed, the temple built by the prisoners was less high in so me measurements than that of Solomon. The temple of Herod was a hundred cubits long and more than twenty high, a heigh t which reduced with time by erosion and which the Jews thought of restoring in the time of Neron. The sanctuary was, known as Josephus, built by Herod in eight een months and them [ has ] buildings and the enclosure which surrounded the san ctuary it were in eight years full. The stones which were used to set up the tem ple were white and solid; each one had twenty-five bent from length, eight top a nd approximately twelve thickness. Work was completed according to the plan that here. Herod had put much self-esteem in this company; he thus started by gather ing all the materials; he had thousand carriages at his disposal for the transpo rt of the stones; he had, in addition to ten thousand workmen, thousand priests

who were to do the work in the Holy of Holies, because such was the number of th em which he had trained to build and to work wood and he had bought for them all priestly vestments. These preparations allowed him to carry out his intention i n the long term more quickly than it had been hoped for and he accepted many lar ge marks of recognition on behalf of the people who, in addition, supported Hero d badly. He sacrificed, during the completion of the temple, three hundred cows; what the other Jews offered in sacrifice, it was impossible to make the account of it.3 This Herod is the son of Antipater the Idumaean and his arab wife Cypris; it is under his reign equally that the Christ our God is born from the womb of the Vir gin for the salvation of our species; in his demented rage against him, Herod di d not touch the Master, but made himself the assassin of numerous little childre n. In murderous cruelty it is said that he exceeded every other tyrant. His wife wa s Mariamme, daughter of Alexandra who was herself the daughter of the high pries t Hyrcanus and her beauty never yielded to any rival. For this woman and the two children born of her, Aristobulus and Alexander, whose names were on all lips b ecause of their beauty, their education and their physical condition as much as because they were the sons of the king, Herod, excited by the calumnies of Antip ater, became the tormenter, initally of his wife,4 then of her children and, fin ally, of Antipater who was his son born of a prior wife. He was struck with a dr eadful evil: an ulceration of the intestine tortured the poor wretch, his breath ing was short and noisy, his feet were swollen with a white pus, he had terrible colics, and his rod decomposed producing worms and he suffered from a thousand other miseries. Five days after the assassination of his son Antipater, he ended his life also after having lived in all seventy years and ruled thirty-seven. T his character had become king in an illegal way and against his own expectation thanks to the favour of the chief Roman Antonius who was slave to money, and tha nks to the support of Augustus and to a decree of the Roman senate which confirm ed him in his office. This Herod, who was the first foreigner to reign over the Jews, contrary to thei r laws, had for father an Idumaean of Ascalon, son of Antipas who had first the surname of Antipas and later that of Antipater. This man had great riches, was a great plotter, and was factious; he was on good terms with Hyrcanus, high-prie st of the Jews, and in disagreement with Aristobulus, [Hyrcanus'] brother; this is why, in repeated instances, he pressured Hyrcanus to remove by all means the royal dignity which Aristobolus held and had taken up with his agreement. This rift between the brothers was the main cause of misery for them, their fami ly and the Jewish people; it made the kingship fall into the hands of strangers. In this quarrel, it is certain that Antipater did much for Hyrcanus and agains t Aristobulus. Finally, Aristobulus and his children were taken to Rome as priso ners; Aristobulus escaped from over there and returned to regain Judaea; he was again besieged by the Romans and, with his son Antigonus -- because this last ha d fled Rome with his father -- he was taken and returned to Rome to be kept ther e in prison; he had been a king and high priest for three years and six months a nd he had ruled with ability and grandeur. The office of high priest was given to Hyrcanus without the kingship: the people governed themselves and the power given to Hyrcanus was called "ethnarchy" inst ead of kingship. Antipater, under the pontificate of Hyrcanus, had increased his power considerably. He fought indeed at the side of the Roman Generals against those which resisted them and he had in hand the direction of Jewish affairs tha nks to the complaisant inertia of Hyrcanus. Aristobulus had been drawn from his prison by Julius Caesar who had formed the intention of sending him to Syria aga inst the partisans of Pompey, but the Pompeians took the initiative and poisoned him. Scipio, to whom Pompey had sent the son of Aristobulus, Alexander, reproac

hed his former faults against the Romans, and decapitated him. After his victory over Pompey, Julius Caesar proclaimed Antipater governor of Ju daea. The latter, on his arrival in the country, entrusted to his son Phasael th e military government of Jerusalem and the area; his next son, Herod, who was st ill very young -- he had just reached its fifteenth year -- was proclaimed gover nor of Galilee and his youth did not prevent him from showing his skill and cour age. And these actions earned Antipater in the eyes of the people as much admira tion as if he had been a king; however, he did not depart from his favorable and honest attitude towards Hyrcanus the high priest. Antipater was assassinated ju st as life opened to him a vast career very full of fame. He was poisoned follow ing a plot: Malchus bought his wine waiter and ordered him to put poison in Anti pater's drink; this Malchus was a Jew skilful at inventing a ruse and, when he w as suspected, to calm suspicion by oaths and counterfeits of friendship. Neverth eless, because apparently he found in Herod a naturally gifted adversary capable of machinations like his or more skilful than him and who sought a punishment f or the assassination of his father, Malchus was stabbed to death. Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, bribed Fabius and he obtained the support of Pomp eius, son of Menaius, by his marriage -- because he had married his sister -- an d some others still and he undertook to go down to Judaea. But Herod fought batt le with him, defeated him and pushed him back far from the country of the Jews a nd he himself was accepted with adulation by the town of Jerusalem and Hyrcanus in person for his victory when he arrived. And Antoinius, the Roman leader, gave for a bribe the Jewish tetrarchies to Herod and his brother Phasael brother wit hout Hyrcanus conceiving dissatisfaction with this. And when the people accused Herod, all that happened was that the accusers were punished instead of seeing t heir allegations upheld because Antoinius had been bribed and because Hyrcanus supported Herod, because the latter had already married Mariamme his grand-daugh ter. When Ptolemy Menaius had died, his son Lysanias succeeded him. Pacorus, son of t he king, and Bazapharmanes, Parthian satrap, seized Syria. Lysanias, allied to t he satrap, concluded a treaty out of friendship with Antigonus, son of Aristobul us, and Antigone promised to the Parthians a thousand talents and five hundred w omen provided that they give him the paternal kingdom that they would take from Hyrcanus and that they kill the partisans of Herod. Therefore Pacorus and Bazaph armanes brought back Antigonus; the war was declared against them by Herod and m any died on both sides; Herod was most distinguished in the action. Finally, Hyr canus and Phasael were made prisoners thanks to a false parley between the Parth ians and Phasael, leading to the latters death at the enemy hands, his head was crashed to pieces against a rock and he died; Hyrcanus was retained as a prisone r. The Parthians ended up taking Jerusalem; Herod, thanks to his skill, to his s peed of decision and his bravery, deservedly escaped from them and they plundere d the goods of people of Jerusalem except those of Hyrcanus who had eighty talen ts; thus they replaced Antigonus on the paternal throne. Antigonus, so that his uncle Hyrcan did not resume his sacerdotal functions, the mutilation of part of the body forbidding the Jews to be priests, slit his ears and delivered him to t he Parthians so that they take him along with them As for Herod, he gave himself no respite, but he went initially to Malik, king o f the Arabs, with the hope to find there some assistance in the name of the frie ndship of his father; disappointed, he went to Antonius at Brindes, the Roman le ader, and from there to Rome with him; he complained of what had happened to him and about the death of his brother. He cherished the project to make the throne pass, if he could manage it, to his brother-in-law, son of a daughter of Hyrcan us, because there was not the least hope to obtain it himself considering that h e was a foreigner. But Antonius and Augustus, supported by a vote of the senate, proclaimed him king of the Jews; they fought at his sides against Antigonus on several occasions and, after many massacres and many battles, they captured Anti

gonus; it was the Roman General Sossius who wrote this epilogue to the war; they strengthened the power of Herod more. The Roman leader Antony, to whom Antigonus had been sent captive, proposed to ke ep him in irons until his triumph; but when he learned that the Jewish people re volted in hatred against Herod, he decapitated Antigonus at Antioch. Hyrcanus, w hen he learned that Herod was king, addressed a request to king Phraates and, as Herod had addressed them on his side, Hyrcanus was returned to his country; he hoped to obtain much from Herod. This one testified seemingly the same favour an d the same respect to him as before; later, he accused him wrongfully of corrupt ion and of treason in favour of the Arabs and put him to death aged twenty-four and whose great kindness and peaceful mood were without equal. Aristobulus, gra ndson of Hyrcanus and brother of the Herod's wife Mariamme, at the instance of A lexandra, mother of his children, and Mariamme herself, was promoted high priest at the age of seventeen by Herod who, a little later had him strangled in the b aths at Jericho. Such was Herod, the man whom has already been depicted earlier. At the time of his death, Herod, with the agreement of the emperor, made his wil l so that his son Archelaus succeeded to him on the throne. And Caesar -- this w as Augustus -- proclaimed Archelaus master of half of the country and said that he would confer the kingship on him if he learned that he exercised his office w ith moderation and justice; he divided the other half and established there as t etrarchs Philip and Antipater, sons of Herod also. But as Archelaus ruled the Je ws with severity and in the manner of his father, his tyrannized subjects resort ed to Caesar and, in the tenth year of his reign, he was deposed and condemned t o reside in Vienne, in Gaul; consequently from a kingdom Judaea became a provinc e. Herod, the tetrarch Galilee and Peraea, son of Herod the Great, Josephus reports , took the wife of his brother Herod who was called Herodias. She also was desce nded from Herod the Great, being born of his son Aristobulus who Herode the Grea t had had put at death; she had Agrippa as a brother. Herod took her from her hu sband and married her. It was he who assassinated John the Precursor out of fear , says Josephus, which did not raise the people against him because all followed the lesson of John because of his exceptional virtue.5 It was under his reign a lso that the Passion of the Saviour took place.6 Agrippa, the descendant of the first Herod, son of Aristobulus which had been pu t to death, and brother of Herodias, had fallen into the midlle of innumerable a dventures and vicissitudes; however, whereas he was kept in prison where Tiberiu s had left him at his death, he was released by the favour of Caligula and he wa s elected king of the tetrarchy of Philip, brother of the first Herod; he accept ed also the tetrarchy of Lysanias and embarked for Judaea to the immense stupor and astonishment of all in the face of this return of fortune. Herodias, astonis hed like the others, suffered from it a mortal wound of desire and she ceased im portuning her husband only when she had constrained him to go to Rome and to act ively occupy himself to be given the throne. She left with him; Agrippa who foll owed them joined them at the moment when they had just disembarked. Before Calig ula, he accused Herod of a constant hostility with regard to the Romans; indeed, while Tiberius was still living, he had concluded a treaty of friendship with S ejanus, an enemy of the Romans, and he now meditated to make another against the m with Artaban the king of the Parthians. He did so much and so well that inste ad of the kingdom of which he had dreamed, Herod was deprived of his own tetrarc hy and was sent to Lyon, condemned to perpetual exile. Herodias voluntarily foll owed her husband into exile; Caligula joined this last tetrarchy to those of Agr ippa. This Agrippa who, to distinguish him from his son, is called Agrippa the G reat, reigned over the Jews, says Josephus, by filling them with his favours. It was to please them apparently that he killed with the sword James the brother o f John, and that he tried to kill Peter, the leader of the Apostles, but he fail ed in his intention.7 Agrippa, wearing a robe embroidered with silver, spoke to

the people and, while he listened without rejecting the words of the crowd which outrageously pushed flattery to the roof of impiety, he was punished at once; indeed, there came to him a violent pain in the belly and he died five days late r; it was in the fifty-fourth year of his age and in the seventh of his reign of which four had been passed under Caligula, three at the head of the tetrarchy o f Philippe and the fourth with, moreover, that of Herod; the three other years h ad been passed under the reign of Claudius and at this point in time he had acqu ired further Judaea, Samaria and Caesarea which the emperor had given him. Thus Agrippa died; the "bubo" -- a bird that the Romans call thus -- had appeared fiv e days before its death above its head; this bird had also announced the throne to him, so Josephus believes. At his death, he left four children: a boy, Agripp a, who was in his seventeenth year, and three girls: Berenice, Mariamme and Drus illa. The first was sixteen years old and she had married Herod, her paternal un cle; Mariamme was in her tenth year, Drusilla in her sixth. Without any other re ason than their insane anger, the Sebastians seized them suddenly, locked up the m in houses of prostitution and made them know all the affronts that one can say and those which one cannot say. Claudius was irritated by this against them wit hout however inflicting on them a punishment appropriate for their crime. Agrippa, son of Agrippa, after the death of his father, went to Rome; Claudius h ad decided to entrust the paternal kingdom to him, but, influenced by the opinio ns of certain people who pointed out the youth of Agrippa, he sent Phadus to con trol Judaea and he installed Agrippa king of Chalcis of which Herod, which had j ust died, had been king. After four years, he gave him also the tetrarchy of Phi lip and Batania, plus Trachonitis which had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias. When he had made him this gift, he removed Chalcis from him. Agrippa gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azizos, king of Emesa, who was c ircumcised, because Epiphanius, son of Antiochus, although he had promised it, h ad not accepted the circumcision, leading to the rupture of the promise of marri age. Drusilla was separated from Azizos and given in marriage to Felix, governor of Judaea, who had shown himself very eager because of her beauty. As for Maria mme, he gave her to Archelaus, son of Helcias, for whom his father had intended her; it is from them that was born Berenice. After the death of Claudius, Nero h is successor gave to Agrippa part of Galilee, Tiberias and Taricheia by requirin g his obeissance; he added to it Julias, a town of Perea, and the ten villages which surrounded it. It is under this Agrippa that St. Paul spoke before Festus. After Phadus, as governor of Judaea, Cumanus was sent; after him, who had been r ecalled to Rome to answer a charge, Felix was sent; after him, it was Festus, th en Albinus, then finally Florus. It was during the second year of his administra tion, because of the excessive sufferings which he inflicted on the Jews, that t he war between the Jews and the Romans began; Nero was in the twelfth year of hi s reign. Ananias son of Ananias took the office of high priest after having stripped Jose ph of it; he was bold, daring and bold to the extreme; he was, indeed, a followe r of the sect of the Sadducees and those were hard in their judgements and incli ned to every audacity. Thus, this Ananias, when Festus had died in Judaea and be fore Albinus had entered office,assembled the Sanhedrin on his own authority and accused James, the brother of the Lord, and others with him, of disobeying the laws and he ordered their death by stoning. On top, the most moderate Jews and k ing Agrippa himself, deeply affected, drove him out after three years of office and put in his place Jesus son of Damnes. It was after the death of Aaron, brother of Moses, that his sons, and their desc endants after them, followed one another in the office of high priest, because t here was in force an ancestral law which prohibited whoever was not of the blood of Aaron to obtain the office of high priest. So there were, from Aaron to Phan ases which was elected high priest during the war by the Jews in revolt, eighty-

three years. Then, during the passage to the desert, during which the tabernacle was manufactured, to the temple which king Solomon built, there were thirteen h igh priests who exercised the office until their death. The first Jewish constitution was aristocratic, then it was a monarchy and the t hird regime was that of the kings. From the exit of Egypt until the construction of the temple of Jerusalem, there are six hundred and twelve years. After the t hirteen high priests and the construction of the temple,there were eighteen high priests consecrated in the temple from Solomon to the moment when Nabuchodonoso r, king of Babylon, burned the temple and deported the Jewish people to Babylon with the high-priest Josedek. The duration of the regime of the high priests was three hundred and sixty-six years, six months and ten days and, when seventy ye ars had passed since the captivity, Cyrus let the prisoners return in their coun try. One of them took the office of high priest and there were after him fifteen of his descendants until Antiochus Eupator while the people lived under a democ ratic regime. Their time was four hundred and eighty years It is this Antiochus who, the first to do so, with Lysias his general, put an en d to the priesthood of Onias called Menelaus by killing him in Beroea; they put in his Joacihm which was of the race of Aaron, but not of the same family. This is why Ananias, nephew of Onias, who had died, went into Egypt; he in friendship with Ptolemy Philometor and with his wife Cleopatra, built in the deme of Helio polis in the honor of God a similar temple to that of Jerusalem and persuaded th e sovereigns to make him high priest of it. As for Joachim, he died after three years of priesthood and he did not have a successor for seven years. It was again the descendants of the children of Asamon who exerted themselves to obtain the direction of the people; they made the war with the Macedonians and elected John high priest who died after having exercised his office for seven ye ars; his death was caused by the tricks of Tryphon; his brother Simon was his s uccessor. When this one had been assassinated treacherously during a banquet by his son-in-law, his son called Hyrcanus succeeded him; this last, while dying, l eft his office to Judas whom was called also Aristobulus; this one, in his turn, had as a heir Alexander his brother: he had died of disease and had occupied th e office of high priest and the kingship -- because Judas was the first to wear the diadem -- for one year Alexander was a king and priest for 27 years and died after having entrusted to his wife Alexandra the responsibility to elect the new high priest. This one gav e the priesthood to her elder son Hyrcanus and occupied the throne herself for n ine years, then died; the duration of the priesthood of Hyrcanus was the same. I ndeed, after the death of their mother, the junior son who was called Aristobulu s entered in conflict with his brother and he removed his office of high priest from him at the same time as the maternal kingship reverted to him. Three years and three months after his rise, Pompey came along; he captured the town and se nt Aristobulus in captivity in Rome with his children; he returned his priesthoo d in Hyrcanus and the entrusted the control of the people to him but he prohibit ed him from wearing the diadem; Hyrcanus ruled twenty-four years in addition t o his first nine years of office. Bazapharmanes and Pacorus, the leaders of the Parthians, made war against Hyrcan us, captured him and made Antigonus son of Aristobulus king. When he had reigned three years and three months, Sossius and Herod took his city from him and Anto ny took him to Antioch and decapitated him there. Herod, to whom the Romans had entrusted the throne, did not select any more of the high priests of the descen t of Asamon, but from humble families and taken simply from among the priests ex cept for only one: Aristobulus, son of a daughter of Hyrcanus, who had been take n by the Parthians and with whose sister Mariamme lived. For fear that Aristobu lus, who was of famous family and whose personality was remarkable, might not at tract the people on his side, it was arranged to make him choke in Jericho while

he bathed. In choosing the high priests, his son Archelaus proceeded like him and the Roman s, who had seized the kingdom, did in the same way after him Thus there may be counted, from the time of Herod until the capture and burning of the temple, twenty-eight high priests for a duration of approximately one hun dred and seven years. Some of them exercised their office, obviously, under the reigns of Herod and Archelaus; after that, the regime was an aristocracy where t he control of the people was entrusted to the priests. 1. This section is based on Antiquities XIV-XX, as Photius goes back into th e origins of the reign of Herod. 2. In fact chapter 11, which is the last in book XV. 3. Although the text is a summary, it contains many exact quotations in Cod. 238 from Antiquities which indicates attentive reading. Some scholia have foun d their way into the text. 4. In fact Josephus does not make Antipater responsible for the death of Mar iamne. (cf. XV, 202-236). 5. XVIII, 116-119. 6. Henry writes: "No It is not in the author. nished by the silence of d this in his text or an phrase of Josephus." He f Justus of Tiberias. editor of Josephus has paid attention to this phrase. The fact that, as I wrote earlier, Photius is not asto Josephus on the Christ leads me to believe that he foun interlinear remark had slipped into it and passed as a refers here to the statement of Photius in his review o

7. Henry writes: "Given strangely to Josephus. The fact is related in Acts 12, 1-18, but I hesitate to believe that Photius has introduced this mention int o his summary himself, because, I repeat, he nowhere remarks as he did for Justu s of Tiberias that Josephus says nothing of Christianity." [Translated from Henry.]