C(H/\F^LES HUch E\/EI^AF^D 
 
^ I B UHY 
 , OF THE 
 U NIVELS IT Y 
 Of ILLI N O I 5 
 
 680 
 
 E 82 .p 
 
PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
Ta vra pxv c? to aKpifiks 7rpoSttopio'ap,€#a, rjprj/xwoi rrjv ra>v dvayivaxi- 
 kovtwv Siavoiav £k tov (r^eSov ttjv Tr)<s viroO ear ea>? irpoOecriv €v(tvvotttov 
 i\€LV' Lva Sk i^rj tlvl ££y XvpiaivecrOai tw <rvyypap.p,aTt* elwOacn yap ol 
 7rXc6CTTOt ras aXAorptas 7rpayp,aT€tas StacrKeva^eiv 7rpos to 
 
 SoKOVV Ta? p,€l/ TWJ/ Topnav OLKpOCTT L^iSaS TO e/iW Trp07]<T<f)0l\l(TdpLr)V 
 
 ovop-aTi T€ Kat €Tro)Vvpua, Sid TrdvTOiv \povov £twv crvyKXeiovTivv. Kat 
 Toivvv airw, a p\v KaAws VTryjyopevTai Trap dXrjv rrjv (rvyypacfirjv, p.r ; 
 p,€T€^eTw <f)0ovov f os tois KaAots 7 rpo tcov aXXoiv cTncfiVia-OaL CLOiOw a Sc 
 dyvorjcrai crweVeae, rrapd roiv ois Xoyov Svvapus Kat 7r€tpas, SiopOioriov 
 k.t.X. Niceph. (Frown.) H. E. i. 1, p. 43. 
 
 TaoTa p,€i/ ovi/ aKpt/ftos 7rpo8ia>picrap,€0a, j3ov\6p,€ voi tov s pikv avayivd)- 
 < TKOvras ets evvoiav ayayeiv t^s oA^s 7rpo0eo'€(o?' tov? Se SiacrKtvdfcciv 
 eta>0oTas Ta? /3t/3A.ovs aTTOTpeif/ai too Xv/JiawecrOaL Ta? aAAoTpta? 7rpay- 
 p.aT6tas. rjpuv Sk Trap oXrjv ttj v lo-ropiav Ta p.ev ypatfrivTa Ka\a>?, p,r; 
 p€T€^eTO) <f>6ovov Ta ayvorjOkvTa Tvy\av€T(o Stop^wcrew? o7ro tcov 
 
 Svvarwrtpaiv. Diod. Sic. (Prooem.) i. 5, p. 9. 
 
PEREGRINUS PROTEUS 
 
 Sin Enbcsttgation 
 
 INTO 
 
 CERTAIN RELATIONS SUBSISTING BETWEEN 
 
 DE MORTE PEREGRIN I 
 
 THE TWO EPISTLES OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS 
 THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS 
 THE BIBLIOTHECA OF PHOTIUS 
 
 AND OTHER WRITINGS 
 
 BY J. M. COTTERILL 
 
 EDINBURGH 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET 
 
 1879 
 
 (ALL RIGHT A RESERVED.) 
 
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
 
 FOR 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 DUBLIN, .... ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 
 NEW YORK, . 
 
 SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 
 
■JO Tolas E \ 
 
 W-? 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 
 
 
 T HE circumstances attending the publication of this 
 volume are known to some persons. They can bear 
 witness that the writer did not first of all invent the theory 
 of a literary fraud perpetrated in the times of the revival of 
 letters, and then seek for the facts by which to establish it. 
 They know that the theory, as it is propounded in the follow- 
 ing pages, has been gradually developed to meet the facts as 
 they have come to light. They can testify that, from the 
 coincidences which first of all came into the writer’s hands, he 
 sought not to destroy, but to establish the credit of more than 
 one of the writings, the authenticity of which he is now 
 obliged to deny. Thus much it is necessary to say, for to 
 some persons it will seem strange that the completion of the 
 inquiry into the Epistle to Diognetus, begun in the Church 
 Quarterly Review in 1877, should still remain unpublished. 
 The results of this inquiry would have been printed, in a 
 complete form and in a separate volume, in the autumn of 
 1877 if, meanwhile, the writer had not become convinced of 
 the spuriousness of the two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians. 
 It seemed unfair to attempt to deal with the question of 
 the genuineness of Diognetus in silence as to his conviction 
 that more important interests were at stake. An examina- 
 tion of Clement’s Epistles was accordingly written, and a 
 portion of it (now published as an appendix) placed in the 
 printers’ hands. Later on, the interpolations in Photius’ 
 Bibliotheca , the spuriousness of De Morte Peregrini and its 
 connection with the Bibliotheca and every one of the suspected 
 writings, became apparent. It then seemed to him that the 
 subject could only be fairly treated by publishing a prelimi- 
 nary volume which should show the existence of a large 
 number of singular coincidences imperatively demanding some 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 explanation. The object of the present volume, therefore, is 
 simply to point out certain circumstances which the writer 
 believes can only be explained by the theory of a great literary 
 fraud in the times of the revival of learning. It does not 
 profess to make a complete study of any single writing, or 
 to discuss beforehand objections and difficulties which may 
 obviously be urged, but which will find their solution when 
 once the fraud is regarded as an established fact. The 
 volume is intended to furnish a ready starting-point and base 
 of operations for such further examination of any of the 
 suspected writings as may seem to be required. In the process 
 of composition some deviation from the original plan has been 
 necessitated by the abundance of the fresh evidence which 
 has presented itself on every hand : and thus, in its present 
 form, the book deals less with the Epistle to Diognetus and 
 some other writings, — less even with Peregrinus , — and more 
 with the Epistles of Clement, than was originally proposed. 
 
 No apology is needed for making known the facts contained 
 in the following pages, nor ought any to be required for the 
 exposition of what honestly seems to the writer to be the only 
 possible explanation of those facts. It is much to be regretted 
 that this explanation is so destructive as it is ; but it may be 
 doubted whether any other explanation would prove to be in 
 the end less destructive. If the verbal coincidences supplied 
 in the following pages — the way in which they have been 
 found, their cumulative force, and the noteworthy character 
 of some of them — may be legitimately set aside, the question 
 must necessarily arise whether other arguments founded on 
 verbal coincidences can hold their ground. If, however, no 
 apology is needed for the work itself, still some apology should 
 be made for the many imperfections in its execution. It will 
 perhaps be allowed to the author to plead first the limited supply 
 of books at his command, and secondly the difficulty of pre- 
 senting his subject in an intelligible and readable form. 
 
 Portobello, January 1879. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHATTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Some aspects of Revival of Learning, . . . . .1-5 
 
 Attempts at Literary Fraud, . . . . . . 6, 7 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HENRY STEPHENS. 
 
 His Life and Writings, 
 
 His Love of Parody, .... 
 Homeri et Hesiodi Certamen , . 
 
 Parodies Morales , .... 
 
 8-14 
 14 sq. 
 14, 15 
 15-20 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 COINCIDENCES. 
 
 § 1. Sundry coincidences with Clement’s Ep. i. , . . . 21-27 
 
 (1) § 1 with Eusebius, ...... 21 
 
 (2) § 2 ,, Plutarch, etc., . . . . 21 sq. 
 
 (3) § 36 (irfoffrar'/is) with Sophocles, . . . .22 
 
 (4) §§ 5, 36 with Clem. Horn, and Cyril of Jerusalem, . 22 sq. 
 
 (5) § 12 with Diodorus, ..... 23 
 
 (6) ,, Evang. Thom., . . . .23 
 
 (7) § 19 with Basil and Epiphanius, . . . 23 sq. 
 
 (8) §§ 19, ,20, 61 with Basil, . . . .24 
 
 (9) §§ 20, 37, 38 with Sophocles and Euripides in Stobseus, . 24 sq. 
 
 § 2. Coincidences with Clement’s Ep. i. and other writings out of 
 
 same pages of Philo, ...... 27-29 
 
 §§ 58 (Plato), 44, 62 with Philo, .... 27 
 
 (1) Philo with Peregrinus , . . . . .28 
 
 (2) ,, Philostratus and Cod. 244, . . 28 
 
 (3) „ Cod. 244, 28 
 
 (4) ,, Evangelium Thomce, . . . .28 
 
 (5) ,, 3 Maccabees, ..... 28 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 DE MORTE PEREGRINI. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 § 1. Paraphrase, ....... 30-34 
 
 § 2. Peregrinus and Bp. Pearson and Ignatius, . . .34 sq. 
 
 §3. ,, and Eusebius, Tertullian, Aulius Gellius, Philo- 
 
 stratus, Athenagoras, ..... 36-38 
 
 CHAPTEE Y. 
 
 EVANGELIUM THOM.E. 
 
 § 1. Jesting use of Prov. xxx. 4 and of Ecclesiastes , . .42 sq. 
 
 § 2. Evang. Thom, and Peregrin. 9 (quoted), . .45 
 
 Peregrin. 9 indebted to Aristophanes, . . 45 sq. 
 
 Peregrin. §§ 10, 11 quoted, . . . . 47 sq. 
 
 vrpoffr&rvis, Peregrinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Clement, and 
 
 Epiphanius, . . . . . . 48 sq. 
 
 povuraros, Lycurg. c. Leocr., and Peregrinus, . . .48 
 
 ,, Cod. 279, and Peregrinus, . . . 50 sq. 
 
 Cod. 279, Aristophanes, and Cyr. Jer., . . . 52 sq. 
 
 Peregrinus and Cod. 27 9 spurious, . . . .56 
 
 Ep. i. 43 with Cod. 279, Cyr. Jer., Peregrinus, Cod. 244, and 
 
 Epiphanius, • . , . . 56-60 
 
 § 3. Evang. Thom, and lines of Aristophanes used in Peregrinus, . 60-67 
 
 Evang. Thom. A. 13, B. 11, quoted, . . . .63 
 
 I v«AXa| and IvaXkdxm;, . <i . . . .64 sq. 
 
 Evang. Thom, and Cod. 250, . . . . 67 sq. 
 
 Cod. 250, Evang. Thom., Isa. xl., Eusebius, and 
 Clement, ....... 68-73 
 
 Ep. ii. 11 quoted, . . . . 72 
 
 ha.xxu.%, Clement, and Diodorus, .... 73-75 
 
 § 4. De Prcenotione ad Epigenem liber, .... 75-92 
 
 Eeasons for examining this Treatise, Ep. i. 65 quoted, . . 75-79 
 
 o xa.) UaZxos, passage quoted, . . . . 79 sq. 
 
 De Prcenot. , Peregrinus, S. Paul’s Epistles, Acts, Cod. 279, . 80-84 
 
 “ The keys,” De Prcenot., Ep. i. 43, . . . 84 sq. 
 
 ha.xxu.%, De Prcenot., Ep. i. 12, Cyr. Jer., Peregrinus, Ep. i. 43, 85 sq. 
 
 De Prcenot., Diodorus, and Cod. 244, .... 87-90 
 
 De Prcenot. and Philo, ...... 90-92 
 
 § 5. Cod. 250, ....... 90-107 
 
 Examined with Diodorus, ..... 93-99 
 
 Sundry Excerpts considered, . 99-107 
 
 1. Elephant-hunters, Evang. Thom. lvuXXa%, . . 99 sq, 
 
 2. Writer betrays himself by use of Strabo, . . . 101 
 
 3. Locust-eaters, Clement and piXuvu repos, use of Plutarch, . 101 sq. 
 
 4. 5. Use of .Mian, . . . . . 102 sq. 
 
 6. xa.fia.pa., ....... 104-107 
 
CONTENTS. ix 
 
 §6. 
 
 fii>.u,vuTipo; and Clement’s apocryphal quotation, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 107-146 
 
 
 Ep. i. §§ 7, 8 quoted, ...... 
 
 108 sq. 
 
 
 1 . Clement’s method of composition and use of Holy Scripture, 
 
 109-113 
 
 
 Ep. i. 27 quoted, ...... 
 
 111 
 
 
 2. §§ 7, 8, 27, and other writings, .... 
 (1) Ep. i. 27 with Clem. Alex., Eusebius, Dionysius, 
 
 113 sq. 
 
 
 Peregrinus, Hippolytus, Diognetus, 
 
 113-116 
 
 
 Diognet. 11 quoted, . 
 
 114 sq. 
 
 
 Epistola ad Theophilum and later developments, 
 Ep. i. 27 (also §§ 7, 8, 40, 41, 42, 43, etc.) with 
 
 116 sq. 
 
 
 Theophilus, ..... 
 
 117-122 
 
 
 Ep. i. 16 with Theophilus , Jerome, Eusebius, 
 
 122 sq. 
 
 
 Ep. i. 29 quoted, ..... 
 
 128 sq. 
 
 
 (2) Ep. i. §§ 7, 8, 
 
 ,, with Basil (Ps. cxxxii., cxv.) and 
 
 129 sq. 
 
 
 Chrysostom, ..... 
 
 130 sq. 
 
 
 Ep. i. §§ 7, 8 with Irengeus and Diognetus, . 
 
 131 sq. 
 
 
 Diognet. 7 quoted, ..... 
 Ep. i. §§ 7, 8 with Wisdom, Hippolytus, Clem. 
 
 132 
 
 
 Alex., and Diognetus , .... 
 
 Ep. i. §§ 7, 8 (apocryphal quotation) with Sacra 
 
 132-134 
 
 
 Parallela, Clem. Alex., and Tertullian, . 
 
 134-139 
 
 
 3. Sacra Parallela and its excerpts from an unknown Eusebius, 
 
 ] 39-146 
 
 
 ayioTrpivris, Clement, Polycarp, Eusebius, . 
 
 141 
 
 § 7. 
 
 Prefaces to Sacra Parallela, ..... 
 
 146-167 
 
 
 Lequien’s remarks, ...... 
 
 147 
 
 
 1. Prefaces, Ep. ii. 19 (quoted), and Ecclesiastes, 
 
 2. ,, Diodorus, Clement, Didymus, Theophilus, Pere- 
 
 147-150 
 
 
 grinus, ....... 
 
 150-154 
 
 
 3. Prefaces, Diodorus, Peregrinus, Clement, and Diognetus, 
 
 154-158 
 
 
 4. , , and Philo, ..... 
 
 158 sq. 
 
 
 5. ,, not written by John of Damascus, 
 
 159 sq. 
 
 
 6. ,, and Sermo de legendis libris Gentilium, . 
 
 ,, De Legend., Diodorus, Cod. 244, pseudo-Galen, 
 
 160-167 
 
 
 Peregrinus, ...... 
 
 160-162 
 
 
 De Legend, with Xenophon, .... 
 
 163 sq. 
 
 
 ,, with Cyril of Alexandria, Stobaeus, and Philo, 
 
 164-167 
 
 C 00 
 00 
 
 Vis enim a Deo non fit, sed bona sententia adest illi semper, 
 
 
 
 Diognetus, Clement, Sacra Par. , Stobaeus, Xenophon, 
 
 167-169 
 
 §9. 
 
 1. Ep. i. 14, Xenophon, Cedrenus, and Stobaeus, 
 
 2. Topics in column of Cedrenus taken up in Peregrinus, De 
 
 169 sq. 
 
 
 leg. libr. Gent, etc., ..... 
 
 171 sq. 
 
 
 Peregrin. §§ 24, 25, and 3 Macc. iv. 19-21, quoted, 
 
 172 sq. 
 
 
 Cedrenus, Peregrinus , pseudo- Basil, and 0 ratio, 
 
 174 sq. 
 
 
 Oratio examined, ...... 
 
 175-200 
 
 
 ,, and Eusebius, ..... 
 
 176-179 
 
 
 Orat. 5 quoted, ...... 
 
 177 
 
 
 Peregrinus and Eusebius, ..... 
 
 179 
 
 
 Orat. 3 quoted, ...... 
 
 180 
 
 
 ,, and H. Stephens, ..... 
 
 180 sq. 
 
 
 ,, and Cod. 190, ..... 
 
 182 sq. 
 
X 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Orat. 3 and Diodorus, ..... 
 Diodorus, Peregrinus , Philostratus, and Cod. 244, . 
 
 H. Stephens, Oratio, Clem. Horn ., Euripides, 
 
 ,, ,, „ and Ep. i. 55, . 
 
 Corrupt passage in Orat. 2, . 
 
 >» „ Ep. i. 6, 
 
 Connection with Theophilus , .... 
 
 10. Return to column of Cedrenus, .... 
 
 I. Cedrenus and De leg. libr. Gent., Xenophon, Eustathius, 
 
 Oratio, and Aristophanes, .... 
 
 2. Hippolytus’ Refutatio, Ep. i. §§ 44, 34 ; ii. §§ 11, 14, and 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 9, 
 
 3. Xenophon and Achilles Tatius, .... 
 Tatius and Cods. 244, 250, Cedrenus, Oratio , Herodotus, 
 
 pseudo-Basil, and Theophilus, 
 
 Illustrations out of Tatius of matters previously observed, 
 
 (1) Tatius with Peregrinus and Clement, . 
 
 (2) Tatius with Oratio, pseudo-Basil, Peregrinus, Theo- 
 
 philus, Clement, ..... 
 
 (3) Tatius with Cedrenus, Hippolytus, Aristophanes, Cod. 
 
 279, Theophilus, Eusebius, Diodorus, and Oratio, 
 
 (4) Tatius with Euripides (Iphigenia), Clem. Horn., Oratio, 
 
 Peregrinus, Cod. 244, .... 
 
 Tatius’ parody of Rev. v., Ep. ii. 19, and Peregrinus, . 
 
 (5) Tatius with Cod. 244, and pages of Diodorus used by 
 
 Clement, etc., ..... 
 
 (6) Tatius and “the keys,” pseudo-Galen, Clement, Oratio, 
 
 pseudo-Basil, Plutarch, Cod. 244, 
 
 (7) Tatius and the Elephant, Cod. 250, Evang. Thom., 
 
 Theophilus, Basil, Cod. 244, Clement, Apollodorus, 
 Plutarch, yElian, Homer, Peregrinus, 
 
 Ep. i. §§ 46, 47 quoted, .... 
 
 ,, indebted to Clem. Alex., 
 
 (8) ,, Oratio and Cod. 190, . 
 
 (9) Tatius, lib. iv. 3 (Hippopotamus) quoted, 
 
 Use of Diodorus and Cod. 250, .... 
 Tatius, accounts of Calanus, Peregrinus, iElian, Strabo, 
 3 Maccabees, Arrian, ..... 
 3 Macc. and Tatius, Peregrinus, Strabo, Diodorus, Cod. 
 
 250, Ecclesiastes, Greg. Thaum., Evang. Thom., 
 Tatius and ALlian, ..... 
 
 (10) Tatius, lib. vi. §§ 5, 13 quoted, .... 
 § 5 with Cod. 279, pseudo-Galen, and Acts, 
 
 § 13 with Diodorus, Cod. 250, Tzetzes, pseudo-Galen, 
 Oratio, Thucydides, Philo, .... 
 Jesting in Cod. 250 and Oratio, 
 
 (11) Tatius and Cod. 232 (Stephanus Gobarus), Hegesippus, 
 
 and 1 Cor. ii. 9, Clement, .... 
 Cod. 232 and Tatius, lib. v. 11 quoted, . 
 
 Connection with Clement in use of Jas. iv. 6, . 
 
 Cod. 232 with Eusebius, Ignatius, Jerome, and Irenseus, 
 Conclusion as to Tatius’ love-story, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 187 sq. 
 
 188 sq. 
 191 sq. 
 193 sq. 
 196 sq. 
 198 
 
 198 sq. 
 200 
 
 200 sq. 
 
 203 sq. 
 207 
 
 207 sq. 
 211-247 
 211 
 
 211 sq. 
 
 212 
 
 212 sq. 
 
 214 sq. 
 
 215 sq. 
 
 216 sq. 
 
 217-222 
 
 221 
 
 221 sq. 
 
 222 sq. 
 
 223 
 
 223-225 
 
 225-229 
 
 229-231 
 231 sq. 
 234, 235 
 234 sq. 
 
 235-238 
 236 sq. 
 
 238-241 
 
 241 
 
 242 sq. 
 244-247 
 247 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XI 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PHOTII BIBLIOTHECA. 
 
 Reason of Selection of this Work for further Examination, . 
 
 § 1. Cod. 126 quoted entire, ...... 
 
 1. uaapciKOiXuvrws and apocryphal quotations, 
 
 Connection with Peregrinus : — 
 
 (1) § 24 ; (2) § 41, 
 
 (3) Tpoffrums, Cod. 126, Peregrin. 11, Aristophanes, 
 
 and Ep. i. 61, 
 
 (4) vpo'rru.'rYu, Cod. 126, Peregrin. 11, Aristophanes, 
 
 and Ep. i. 36, 
 
 2. The coincidences not accidental, .... 
 
 (1) “Scholia” on Arist. Pint. 21, 27, and Ep. i. §§ 19, 
 
 53 ; ii. §§ 10, 19, 20, 
 
 (2) Lycurg. c. Leocr. and Ep. ii. 20, . 
 
 (3) Evang. Tliom. A. §§ 7, 8, B. 6, and Ep. i. 36, 
 
 (4) Theoph. 18, Evang. Thom., Ep. i. 36, Plut. ii. p. 
 
 695, and Tatius, v. 2, etc., 
 
 Tlieophilus, and interpolation in Ep. i. 35, . 
 
 3. Cod. 126 and De Spir. Sanct. xxix., 
 
 (1) Author of Clement’s Epistles made use of De Spir. 
 
 Sanct., ...... 
 
 Clement’s favourite Doxology, 
 
 Ep. i. 20, De Spir. Sanct., and Philo, quoted, 
 
 ,, and Clem. Alex., 
 
 „ and Diodorus, .... 
 
 Ep. i. 33 (quoted), Philo, and Diodorus, 
 
 Clement, Theophilus and Liturgies, 
 
 ,, Apost. Const., Philo, Theophilus, Dio- 
 dorus, Oratio, Cod. 250, and pseudo-Galen, 
 
 (2) De Spir. Sanct. used (if not written) by author of 
 
 Cod. 126, ...... 
 
 (3) De Spir. Sanct. cc. xxix. xxx. belong to our 
 
 “group of writings,” . 
 
 De Spir. Sanct., Cod. 250, Diodorus, Cod. 213, 
 Evang. Thom., Strabo, Daniel, Thucydides, 
 Nicephorus, ..... 
 Nicephorus and Diodorus, .... 
 Pseudo-Basil and Nicephorus, different names for 
 same person, ..... 
 § 2. Cod. 244, ....... 
 
 1. Excerpts on Hermaphrodites, .... 
 
 (1) Evang. Thom., Oratio, Aristophanes, and Cod. 244, 
 
 (2) iEiian, pseudo-Eustathius, Clem. Alex., and Cod. 
 
 244, ...... 
 
 2. Excerpts on death of Catulus, etc. , quoted, 
 
 Connection with Plutarch, Cod. 250, Polybius, Zonaras, 
 
 Cedrenus, Nicephorus, Appian, and Glycas, . 
 Nicephorus the interpolator of the Bibliotheca, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 248 
 
 248 sq. 
 
 249 
 
 250 
 
 251 
 
 252 sq. 
 254-258 
 
 254 sq. 
 
 255 
 
 255 sq. 
 
 256-258 
 
 257 
 
 259 sq. 
 
 259-270 
 
 260 
 
 260 sq. 
 
 262 sq. 
 
 263 sq. 
 
 265 sq. 
 
 266 sq. 
 
 268 sq. 
 
 270 sq. 
 
 271 sq. 
 
 271 sq. 
 277 sq. 
 
 279 
 
 279-288 
 
 280 
 
 280 sq. 
 
 281 sq. 
 
 282 sq. 
 
 283 sq. 
 285 sq. 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Connection of Nicephorus’ writings with our “group,” . 288 sq. 
 
 (1) Nicephorus, Sacra Parallela, and Diodorus, . 288 sq. 
 
 (2) ,, Clement, and Diodorus, . . 289 
 
 (3) ,, De Spir. Sand., Cod. 250, Epist. Jer., 
 
 De Laud. Const., Clem. Alex., Ep. i. 20, Apost. 
 
 Const., ...... 289 sq. 
 
 (4) Nicephorus, Ep. i. 20, De Laud. Const., Didymus, 
 
 De Spir. Sanct., Oratio, Theophilus, Tatius, 
 
 Apost. Const., Cod. 250, Ep. i. 33, . . 290 sq. 
 
 Authorship of “group of writings” traced to times of 
 
 revival of learning, ..... 293 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 § 1. Coincidences, ....... 294 sq. 
 
 § 2. Documents, the authenticity of which is denied, . 298 sq. 
 
 § 3. Photius’ Bibliotheca , ...... 299 sq. 
 
 § 4. Clement’s Epistles, ...... 302 sq. 
 
 1. They say too little, ..... 304 sq. 
 
 They say too much, ..... 305 
 
 2. Sundry sets of coincidences, .... 305 sq. 
 
 3. Examination of some supposed witnesses to genuineness, . 312 sq. 
 
 Epistles belong to “group of writings,” . . . 314 
 
 § 5. At what period these writings were composed, . . 315 sq. 
 
 § 6. A forged ms. not an impossibility, . . . 319 sq. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 § 1. Clement’s Epistles and their mss. , .... 325 sq. 
 
 §2. Canon Lightfoot’s analysis of the readings of the mss. , 326 sq. 
 
 § 3. Inconsistencies in the mss., ..... 328 sq. 
 
 § 4. Lack of “external testimony to the antiquity ” of the mss., . 329 sq. 
 
 § 5. Remarkable statement in Ep. i. unnoticed by antiquity, . 330 sq. 
 
 § 6. Unsatisfied references of antiquity, .... 332 sq. 
 
 Sibylline verses found in Apost. Const., and used in Peregrinus, 
 
 once stood in Ep. i. , . . . . . 333 sq. 
 
 A. Clement’s Epistles and Diodorus, .... 339 sq. 
 
 Ep. i. 12 quoted entire, . . . . . .342 
 
 ,, and Evang. Thom., ..... 343 sq. 
 
 Clement used Diodorus in jest, ..... 347 
 
 Ep. i. 12, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen, . . . 349 sq. 
 
 B. § 1. Apocryphal quotation in Ep. ii. 4, . . . 351 sq. 
 
 Cod. 126, ....... 351, 354 
 
 Evang. Thom., ...... 356 sq. 
 
 § 2. Clement’s Epistles, Diognetus, Hippolytus, and Lucian, . 357 sq. 
 
DOCUMENTS 
 
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF WHICH IS DENIED. 
 
 1. De Morte Peregrini, ascribed to Lucian. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 § 1, 
 
 179 
 
 § 25, 
 
 172 sq., 226, 228, 242 
 
 o, 
 
 . 47 
 
 26, 
 
 . 215 
 
 8, 
 
 170, 227 
 
 27, 
 
 . 226 
 
 9, 
 
 . 45, 49, 51, 67, 202, 253 
 
 29, 
 
 . 333 
 
 10, 
 
 47, 49, 155, 188 
 
 32, 
 
 75, 219, 225 sq. 
 
 11, 
 
 . 47, 49, 51, 55, 57, 58, 61, 
 
 33, 
 
 193, 213, 215, 219 
 
 
 86, 155, 250, 251, 254 
 
 36, 
 
 . 44, 46, 66, 231 sq. 
 
 12, 
 
 86, 88, 216, 233 
 
 37, 
 
 44, 221 
 
 13, 
 
 49, 58 
 
 38, 
 
 . 283 
 
 15, 
 
 . 47 
 
 39, 
 
 . 173, 232, 250 
 
 16, 
 
 . 114, 171 
 
 40, 
 
 . 47, 171 
 
 19, 
 
 37, 80, 114, 155, 161, 188 sq. 
 
 41, 
 
 28, 34 sq., 219 sq., 250 
 
 21, 
 
 . 188, 226 
 
 42, 
 
 . 124, 170, 211 
 
 22, 
 
 189 
 
 44, 
 
 90, 179, 256 
 
 23, 
 
 37, 283 
 
 45, 
 
 . 258 
 
 24, 
 
 . 24, 172 sq., 203, 211, 250 
 
 
 
 
 2. Evangelium Thom^:. 
 
 
 A. 7, 
 
 61, 62, 70, 100, 212, 252, 255 
 
 A. 14, 
 
 . . 343, 356 sq. 
 
 8, 
 
 . 255, 345 
 
 16, 
 
 43, 44 
 
 9, 
 
 23, 67, 253, 344 
 
 17, 
 
 . 28 
 
 10, 
 
 43, 62, 69, 217, 231, 345 sq. 
 
 B. 6, 
 
 . 255 
 
 11, 
 
 42, 75, 345 
 
 8, . 
 
 . 345 
 
 12, 
 
 43 
 
 10, 
 
 42, 345 sq. 
 
 13, 
 
 42, 61, 63 sq., 99, 107, 
 
 ! ii, 
 
 63 sq., 99, 107, 183, 231, 
 
 
 183, 216, 343 
 
 
 345 sq., 356 sq. 
 
 2 , 
 
 3, 
 
 4, 
 
 5, 
 
 6 , 
 
 3. Epistolj® Duai ad Corinthios, ascribed to Clement. 
 
 ep. i. 
 
 21, 209, 341 
 21, 22, 114, 232 
 
 59 
 
 346 
 
 . 22, 49, 129, 194, 198 sq., 
 331, 339 
 90, 111, 198, 340 
 
 § 7, 
 
 8 , 
 
 9, 
 
 10 , 
 
 11 , 
 
 . 108 sq., 113 sq., 130 sq., 
 212, 344 
 
 101, 108 sq., 113 sq., 130 sq., 
 141, 167, 201, 212, 249 
 . 266, 359 
 
 . 359 
 74, 343, 344 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xiv 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 § 12, 
 
 23, 
 
 73 sq., 84, 86, 88, 216, 
 
 § 40, 
 
 . 118, 144, 148 
 
 
 
 290, 342 sq. 
 
 41, 
 
 . 119, 140, 144, 340 
 
 13, 
 
 
 . 141, 359 
 
 42, 
 
 119 
 
 14, 
 
 
 . 123, 170, 180 
 
 43, 
 
 . 56 sq., 73 sq., 84, 87, 
 
 16, 
 
 . 
 
 121, 122 sq., 199 
 
 
 119 sq., 144 
 
 19, 
 
 23, 24, 110, 131, 254, 289, 341 
 
 44, 
 
 27, 87, 205 
 
 20, 
 
 .24, 
 
 114, 121 sq., 130, 211, 
 
 46, 
 
 . 130, 221, 224, 341 
 
 
 260, 
 
 261 sq., 265-271, 290, 
 
 47, 
 
 . 221, 340 
 
 
 
 292, 345 
 
 48, 
 
 267 
 
 21, 
 
 
 . 110, 151, 170, 346 
 
 49, 
 
 . 341, 358 
 
 23, 
 
 
 . 347 
 
 50, 
 
 358 
 
 25, 
 
 
 226, 332 sq. 
 
 51, 
 
 344 
 
 26, 
 
 
 . 335 
 
 53, 
 
 . 254, 264 
 
 27, 
 
 
 111, 113 sq., 335 
 
 54, 
 
 . 151, 194 
 
 28, 
 
 
 71, 125, 335, 356 
 
 55, 
 
 111, 193, 198 sq. 
 
 29, 
 
 
 128 sq. 
 
 56, 
 
 198 
 
 30, 
 
 
 . 243 
 
 57, 
 
 27, 120 
 
 33, 
 
 
 129, 265 sq., 269, 292 
 
 58, 
 
 27, 259, 345 
 
 34, 
 
 . 69 
 
 sq., 110, 205, 239 sq., 
 
 59, 
 
 114, 153 sq., 158, 203, 267, 341 
 
 
 
 246, 266 
 
 60, 
 
 112 
 
 35, 
 
 
 70, 240, 242, 243, 257 
 
 61, 
 
 24, 110, 132 sq., 251, 254, 260 
 
 36, 
 
 22, 61, 120, 168, 243, 252 sq., 
 
 62, 
 
 27, 141, 337 
 
 
 
 254, 255 sq. 
 
 63, 
 
 262 
 
 37, 
 
 
 25, 168, 221 
 
 64, 
 
 66 
 
 38, 
 
 
 . 25 
 
 65, 
 
 . 78, 79, 84 
 
 EP. II, 
 
 § 1, 
 
 
 . 122, 124, 148, 149 
 
 § n. 
 
 . 72, 117, 126, 148, 205 sq., 
 
 2, 
 
 
 . 353 
 
 
 239, 347 
 
 3, 
 
 
 . 353 
 
 12, 
 
 . 206, 208, 240, 352 
 
 4, 
 
 
 . 42, 69, 249, 351 sq. 
 
 14, 
 
 205, 239, 240, 345, 358 
 
 5, 
 
 
 . 355 
 
 15, 
 
 22, 206 
 
 6, 
 
 
 . 190 
 
 17, 
 
 357 
 
 7, 
 
 
 . 186, 212 
 
 19, 
 
 68, 146, 148 sq., 205, 
 
 9, 
 
 
 . 218 
 
 
 215, 218, 220, 255 
 
 10, 
 
 
 . 255 
 
 20, 
 
 . 114, 254, 255 
 
 4. Photii Bibliotheca. 
 
 Cod. 126, 23, 36, 248 sq., 351 sq. 
 
 232, ... 239 sq. 
 
 244, 28, 58, 61, 89, 90, 92, 131, 
 
 148, 151, 161, 184, 190, 
 205,207, 213, 215, 2l7sq., 
 219, 279 sq., 282 sq. 
 
 250, 62, 67 sq. , 92 sq. , 158, 207, 
 217, 219 sq., 225, 228, 229, 
 
 230, 235, 236, 251, 256, 
 262 sq., 269, 271, 272, 
 273 sq., 274, 275, 283, 
 288, 289, 290, 292. 
 
 Cod. 279, 50, 51, 53, 54, 58, 81, 82, 
 
 85, k 151, 183, 212, 233, 
 234* 249, 250. 
 
 5. De Prjenotione ad Epigenem Liber, ascribed to Galen. 
 Pp. 75 sq., 155, 161, 189, 216, 218, 234, 236 sq., 238, 263, 269, 291. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XV 
 
 6. De Legendis Libris Gentilium, ascribed to Basil. 
 
 Pp. 155, 160 sq., 171, 172, 174, 175, 200, 202, 205, 208, 211, 217. 
 
 7. De Spiritu Sancto, cc. xxix., xxx., ascribed to Basil. 
 Pp. 259 sq., 271 sq., 273 sq., 275 sq., 276, 289, 291, 345. 
 
 8. Epistola ad Diognetum, ascribed to Justin Martyr. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1 , 
 
 134 
 
 § 8, 
 
 185 
 
 3, 
 
 . 114, 171 
 
 9, 
 
 18, 133, 158 
 
 4, 
 
 131 
 
 10, 
 
 . 127, 178 
 
 5, 
 
 . 106, 115, 168 
 
 11, 
 
 114 sq., 121, 129 
 
 7, 
 
 . 110, 131, 132 sq., 167 sq., 
 
 12, 
 
 . 115 
 
 
 178, 190 
 
 
 
 
 9. Oratio ad Grecos, ascribed to Justin Martyr. 
 
 1 , 
 
 176, 191 sq., 211, 213, 291, 357 
 
 § 4, 
 
 . 174, 186, 216 
 
 2, 
 
 175, 185, 187, 197, 212, 291 
 
 5, 
 
 174, 177 sq., 222, 
 
 3, 
 
 50, 175, 179, 180 sq., 202, 222, 
 
 
 241, 291 
 
 
 237, 263, 269, 346 
 
 
 
 
 10. Epistola ad Theophilum, 
 
 A SUPPOSED 
 
 Synodical Letter. 
 
 1, 
 
 129 
 
 § 18, 
 
 208, 220, 251, 256 sq., 
 
 2, 
 
 125 
 
 
 258, 269, 291 
 
 3, 
 
 122, 126, 129, 266, 336 
 
 24, 
 
 . 198, 210 
 
 4, 
 
 122 
 
 27. 
 
 199 
 
 5, 
 
 122 sq., 218 
 
 28, 
 
 199 
 
 6, 
 
 . 121, 136, 141 
 
 29, 
 
 . 267, 278, 291 
 
 7, 
 
 121, 129, 145, 150, 212 
 
 30, 
 
 118 sq., 124, 141, 153, 276, 
 
 15, 
 
 255 
 
 
 278 
 
 16, 
 
 . 203, 212, 257 
 
 31, 
 
 . 117, 336 
 
 11. Sacra Parallela, ascribed to John of Damascus. 
 Prsefationes, . . . . 146 sq., 187, 188, 201, 205, 208, 288 sq. 
 
 12. Clitophontis et Leucippes Amores, ascribed to Achilles 
 
 Lib. i. 
 
 3, 
 
 4, 
 
 5 , 
 
 6 , 
 7, 
 9 , 
 
 12 , 
 
 13, 
 
 . 207, 220 
 
 207, 217, 218, 219 
 . 209 
 
 . 209 
 . 209, 212 
 
 . 210 
 210 sq., 292 
 . 210, 230 
 
 Lib. ii. 8, 
 18, 
 19, 
 24, 
 34, 
 iii. 7, 
 12 , 
 13, 
 
 Tatius. 
 
 . 212 
 . 211 
 . 216 
 213, 216 
 . 212 
 . 211 
 . 213 
 
 215, 224 
 
XVI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Lib. iii. 14, 
 
 
 . 286 
 
 Lib. v. 13, 
 
 
 . 242 
 
 15, 
 
 
 . 213, 228 
 
 14, 
 
 
 . 235 
 
 16, 
 
 
 . 214 
 
 16, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 22, 
 
 
 . 213 
 
 17, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 25, 
 
 
 . 215, 220, 226 
 
 21, 
 
 
 . 242 
 
 iv. 1, 
 
 
 214 sq. 
 
 24, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 2, 
 
 
 . . 222 sq. 
 
 25, 
 
 
 . 212 
 
 3? 
 
 223 
 
 sq., 227, 273, 281 
 
 27, 
 
 
 . 271 
 
 4, 
 
 
 217 sq., 225, 269 
 
 vi. 1, 
 
 
 . 211 
 
 7, 
 
 
 . 212 
 
 2, 
 
 
 . 213 
 
 9, 
 
 
 . 218 
 
 4, 
 
 
 . 237 
 
 12, 
 
 
 . 211 
 
 5, 
 
 
 234 sq. 
 
 15, 
 
 
 . 218 
 
 11, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 16, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 12, 
 
 
 237 sq. 
 
 17, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 13, 
 
 
 235 sq., 263 
 
 24, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 14, 
 
 
 . 233 
 
 v. 1, 
 
 
 . 258 
 
 19, 
 
 
 . 216, 292 
 
 2, 
 
 
 . 258 
 
 vii. 5, 
 
 
 218, 227, 242 sq. 
 
 
 
 . 258 
 
 6, 
 
 
 . 213 
 
 5, 
 
 
 . 231 
 
 9, 
 
 
 . 212 
 
 7, 
 
 
 . 283 
 
 viii. 6, 
 
 
 . 221, 224, 232 
 
 9, 
 
 
 . 230 
 
 15, 
 
 
 . 238 
 
 11, 
 
 
 . 241 
 
 17, 
 
 
 . 232 
 
 12, 
 
 
 . 241 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13. Maccab^eorum iii. 
 
 
 
 Chap, iv., 
 
 173, 
 
 227 sq., 229, 339 
 
 Chap, vi., 
 
 
 173 sq. 
 
 v., 
 
 
 . 231, 342 1 
 
 vii., 
 
 . 
 
 29, 174 
 
 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. 
 
 P. 16, 1. Q,for Sat. i. 1 read Sat. ii. 
 
 P. 46, 1. 23, ,, xcti [toi ,, xui fjboi. 
 
 P. 47, 1. 17, „ t'« „ «. 
 
 P. 63, 1. 15, ,, ,, ixovroi. 
 
 P. 64, 1. 28, for i vaWclxrov (j/M ‘ixovri; 
 
 read \vafaka.xrov ptb z%ovros. 
 
 P. 75 n., 1. 2, for vi. read vii. 
 
 ,, 1. 7, ,, Cordex ,, Codex. 
 
 P. 122, 1. 30, after p. Ill insert Ixdkunv 
 yocp v]y.a.i ovx ovrot, xai Mikwriv \x /xvj 
 OVTOg UVOlt w/xats. Ep. ii. 1. 
 
 P. 150, 1. 38, for the hermaphrodite 
 read Hermaphroditns. 
 
 P. 153, 1. 8, do. 
 
 P. 189, ]. 35 , for rov read to. 
 
 P. 194, 1. 32, „ *5 jpg „ xjpul 
 P. 200, 1. 15, before Achilles insert an. 
 P. 205, 1. 21, for 33 read 34. 
 
 P. 219, 1. 19, ,, di&Ziovn, ,, $it%iovn. 
 
 ,, 1. 28, ,, ,, /xiyvy. 
 
 P. 226, note , „ 24 „ 25. * 
 
 P. 227, 1. 4, ,, uurriv ,, ocvrw. 
 
 P. 228, 1. 8, ,, suppose and explain 
 
 read supposed and escape. 
 
 P. 228, 1. 22 , for olxnpta read o'Ixvhj.x. 
 
 P. 232, 1. 24, ,, xifitj ,, xopiv. 
 
 P. 252, 1. 26, delete that. 
 
 do. 
 
PEREGRIRUS PROTEUS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 A LONG and patient examination of a certain group of docu- 
 ments has forced upon us the conclusion that they are 
 not what they profess to be. We have found these documents 
 to be all of them composed apparently on nearly the same 
 plan, all of them closely linked to one another among them- 
 selves, all of them connected together in certain writings which 
 they used in common. We have found what seems to us an 
 explanation of the plan on which they have been written in 
 some of Henry Stephens’ books. Further inquiry has shown 
 us that these documents are the natural productions of the 
 times to wdiich, on examination, they appear to belong. 
 
 In placing the results of this examination before our readers, 
 we have thought that it would be for their convenience to 
 reverse, or nearly so, the process which we were ourselves 
 obliged to adopt. 
 
 We did not, in the first instance, consider the circumstances 
 attending the revival of learning in the 15th and 16th cen- 
 turies, the temptations to and the facilities for fraud which 
 then existed, or the attempts at fraud which were actually 
 made. It may, however, be well that the attention of our 
 readers should first of all be directed to these things. 
 
 We did not suggest to ourselves a method of literary com- 
 position out of Stephens’ books, and then set ourselves to find 
 something which might seem to be written upon that method. 
 Still the consideration of what Stephens says will help greatly 
 towards understanding the method on which we believe the 
 documents to which we refer to have been composed. 
 
 The discovery that all of the documents with which we deal 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 meet together in Lucian’s De Morte Peregrini , was almost our 
 last. We have thought, however, that it might be well to put 
 it in the forefront of our inquiry. 
 
 There is very much that is painful in the suspicious examina- 
 tion into the truth of documents supposed to be genuine. We 
 take no pleasure in exposing the fraud. And if that portion 
 of our evidence which we now bring forward should seem to 
 make it less necessary to produce the enormous mass of evidence 
 which we hold in reserve, we shall be much rejoiced. 
 
 For these reasons we have thought it desirable to begin, 
 where we ourselves in fact left off, with some reflections upon 
 the phenomena which a consideration of the times of the 
 revival of learning reveals. 
 
 § 1. It will hardly be denied that the circumstances attending 
 the revival of learning in the 15th and 16th centuries offered 
 great facilities to any person, who might be so disposed and 
 had the necessary skill, for passing off his own writings as the 
 work of an ancient author. Men started off in all directions 
 in search of mss., and returned laden with their spoils. Investi- 
 gation into the histories of the mss. so brought into the market 
 or the library was not possible, and their discoverer’s word had 
 to be taken. Mss. were, at any rate in the 15th century, 
 numerous. They were found in convents, in private houses, 
 and in such unexpected quarters, that it was hardly possible for 
 a MS. to make its appearance under circumstances so strange as 
 to excite suspicion. When “ codices ” reached private hands, 
 they might be dealt with as their owners pleased. When they 
 found their way into the public libraries, then in course of 
 formation, they were subjected to no sufficient supervision. 
 There was little or nothing to prevent the interpolation of MSS., 
 or the substitution of one MS. for another, or the depositing of 
 a ms. to be found, conveniently or accidentally, at some future 
 time. Far otherwise is it to-day in the better class of public 
 libraries, where the surveillance exercised over the use of mss. 
 makes such frauds difficult, if not wholly impossible. This 
 careful supervision, it must be remarked, is a witness to the 
 widespread feeling — founded on a knowledge of human nature 
 — that, if opportunities for fraud be afforded, men will be 
 found here and there dishonest enough to avail themselves of 
 them. When, then, the facilities for dishonest dealings with 
 
REVIVAL OE LEARNING. 
 
 mss. were so great as they were in the times of the revival of 
 learning, it may be very safely assumed that there were at 
 least some attempts at such dishonesty. 
 
 Assuming then that some forgeries, few or many, were 
 attempted at the time of which we speak, it becomes a question 
 of great importance to consider what shape they would be 
 likely to take. 
 
 If the great movement, which we call the revival of learning, 
 had been set on foot within the bosom of the church by men 
 eager for some alteration and amendment in her theology or 
 discipline, we might fairly conjecture that writings forged 
 under such circumstances would have a distinct polemical 
 object in view. The “revival” had, however, no such origin. 
 It was not, at the outset, a moral or theological, but an in- 
 tellectual movement. It began at a time when the general 
 moral standard was low, and at first did little or nothing to 
 raise that standard. It required, but it did not receive, the 
 direction and control of Christian principle. Its immediate 
 effects were in many cases such as some churchmen feared or 
 professed to fear. In not a few instances classical study broke 
 down, or at any rate weakened, whatever Christian feeling the 
 student previously possessed. Some persons became pagans 
 or semi-pagans, infidels or semi-infidels ; others wallowed in 
 obscenity, and in their own writings outdid the ancient authors 
 whom they imitated. Men strove to reproduce the past in the 
 present, too often copying the vices of antiquity as being more 
 easy of imitation and more congenial to the natural mind than 
 the virtues. It was, however, with very many, the language 
 of antiquity that was imitated and reproduced rather than 
 either its vices or its virtues. The object of their ambition 
 was, atoove all things, to attain to scholarship. They desired 
 nothing more. Scholarship was not regarded by such men as 
 a means whereby something better might be reached, but was 
 itself the goal towards which they pressed. 
 
 Such was one aspect of the revival of learning in Italy in the 
 15th century. There was of course another and brighter side 
 to the movement, which would have to be taken account of in 
 writing its history. All we contend for is, that the dark side 
 did actually exist, and that out of that dark side would come 
 any attempts at literary frauds which might be made. 
 
4 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 § 2. Now it is easy to see that forgeries, if made at all at 
 this time, would be the work of scholars rather than of polemical 
 divines. Such forgeries would not be unnatural under the 
 circumstances. They would express the desire their writer 
 had to feel, in a practical way, the mastery he had attained 
 over an ancient tongue. They would be intellectual exercises 
 on which he would bring to bear all his learning and scholar- 
 ship. The allusions they contained he would regard as sufficient 
 finger-posts to his learning; the groupings of words, of which 
 he only would know the history, would be the evidence to him- 
 self of his scholarship. The subject-matter of these writings 
 would not suggest the learned allusions and scholarly selections 
 of words and phrases, but would be itself so shaped as to em- 
 brace them. Such writings would have but little of definite 
 aim in them. Their writer might choose to personate a heathen 
 author, but he might also prefer a Christian one. The writings 
 of the Fathers were read. They were studied, however, by 
 many only as Greek books with allusions that had to be under- 
 stood, with corrupt passages that had to be amended, and for 
 the sake of the differences in the use of Greek words and 
 idioms which were interesting to the linguist. A religious 
 and Christian topic might thus be taken as the subject of 
 the forgery. The writing would have, however, no distinct 
 polemical object in view. It would be, as in the former case, 
 an intellectual exercise, but now moving in a different literary 
 sphere. The religious subject would be taken not because it 
 was religious, but because the writer felt within himself that 
 in that line he had some special proficiency. The subject 
 might, however, be taken for the sake of the covert jest and 
 veiled blasphemy of which such writing was capable. To be 
 just, we must add that the writer, if so offending, might be 
 unconscious of the blasphemy in his keen appreciation of his 
 jest. 
 
 We do not think it possible to read, e.g ., Symond’s Renaissance 
 in Italy at all carefully without coming to the conclusion that 
 forgeries of the 15th century, if attempted at all, would be, in 
 the majority of cases, very much such as we endeavoured to 
 describe. It is very needful to take note of this, for we are 
 satisfied that some fictitious writings now supposed to be 
 authentic ancient Christian documents have escaped detection 
 
LITERARY FRAUDS. 
 
 5 
 
 simply from the circumstance that no polemical object can be 
 observed in them, a distinctly polemical purpose being assumed 
 to be a necessary part of a fictitious Christian writing. 
 
 § 3. When we pass over to France, Germany, and other 
 quarters, we find the revival of learning marked in many 
 respects by the same characteristics as in Italy. There was 
 the same feverish thirst for ancient mss., and the same deter- 
 mination to obtain them at any cost and by any means ; the 
 same desire for scholarship, and the same content with mere 
 scholarship ; the same love of ancient language, for language’ 
 sake rather than for the thoughts that language was intended 
 to convey ; the same ambition to be the first to discover, and 
 the first to publish, a writing unknown before; the same temp- 
 tation to literary fraud, and the same opportunity for accom- 
 plishing it. Some of the darker features of the movement in 
 Italy were not so conspicuous, but dark side there was to the 
 revival of learning everywhere. Out of that came the literary 
 frauds, if any, which were attempted; and these would be for 
 the most part such as we have before described. 
 
 § 4. It was likely, as we have seen, that literary deceptions 
 would be one of the forms in which an ill-regulated study of 
 antiquity would show itself at the time of the revival of learn- 
 ing. As a matter of fact, attempts at such deception were not 
 of unfrequent occurrence. 
 
 Greswell, in his View of the Early Parisian Greek Press , 
 p. 316, speaks of the “ fictum pro antiquo” as “an exercise 
 commonly practised by early scholars.” He describes the in- 
 dignation of Scaliger at discovering that he had published some 
 lines of Muretus as a fragment of an ancient poet (see 
 Disraeli’s Cur. Lit . Masterly Imitators). Something of the 
 same kind as Muretus’ fictitious fragment was the Latin 
 “Satire” (by “an uncertain author”), which was published, 
 as we shall see presently, by H. Stephens in 1577, and which 
 deceived Barthius. This satire (which perhaps was not in- 
 tended to deceive) was not a mere fragment, but a whole poem ; 
 and it suggests the probability that men would in those times 
 be found ready to make bolder ventures in literary fraud, and 
 to attempt to pass off considerable works as from the pen of an 
 ancient w r riter. We might be sure that this would be the case 
 even if we had no proof ; but we have proof. 
 
6 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 1. We might adduce Disraeli’s Cur. Lit. Literary Forgeries , 
 and his well-known account of the Antiguitates Varice by 
 Annius de Viterbo in the 15th century. 
 
 2. Fabricius ( Bibl . v. 1, p. 88, Hamb. 1723) writes: 
 
 “ Sub Athenagorse Philosophi Atheniensis nomine prodiit etiam 
 Gallice, veluti e Graeco conversum opus, tributum in libros decern de 
 vero et perfecto amove , sive de castis amoribus Theogenis et Charidis, 
 Pherecydisque ac Melangeniae. Interpres Fumceus (M. Fumee 
 Seigneur de Genille) qui codicem Graecum a Lamanaeo Protonotario 
 Cardinalis Armaniaci accepisse se testatur, versionemque suam Galli- 
 cam eidem Lamanaeo 4 Octobr. 1569 inscripsit, non dubitat auctorem 
 esse ilium Athenagoram, cujus Apologia et liber de resurrectione 
 exstat, quod etiam e stylo et colligendi ac disserendi ratione putat esse 
 perspicuum.” 
 
 No Greek original is in existence, and no one believes the 
 treatise to be the work of Athenagoras. It is very commonly 
 supposed to have been written by M. Fum4e himself, or by 
 one of his friends. There can be little doubt as to the delibe- 
 rate attempt at fraud. 
 
 3. There are also a large number of letters in existence in a 
 Latin dress which profess to have been written by Diodorus 
 Siculus. No Greek original has ever been known. Internal 
 evidence forbids a belief in the authorship of Diodorus. 
 These letters are commonly ascribed to the times of the revival 
 of learning. 
 
 4. Erasmus published in 1539 a Greek translation of Jerome’s 
 De Viris Illustribus , which professes to be by Sophronius, 
 Jerome’s friend. The printer certainly used a ms.; there is 
 no proof that any other ever existed, and even that has not 
 survived. Erasmus has been often accused of publishing a 
 translation of his own under the name of Sophronius. We do 
 not make this accusation. He speaks of an ancient MS. from 
 which he took it, and he may have himself been deceived. 
 The ancient MS., however, never appeared. The whole thing 
 looks very like a fraud, not necessarily of Erasmus, but at any 
 rate of some friend, who palmed off a MS. upon him which was 
 afterwards found unable to bear the light. The translation 
 has indeed been defended, but on the singularly weak ground 
 “ that many articles in Suidas are in the very words of this 
 Greek version ” (Smith’s Diet. Gr. Rom. Biogr ., art. “ Soph- 
 
LITERARY FRAUDS. 
 
 7 
 
 ronius ”). It was as easy, w T e should suppose, for some pseudo- 
 Sophronius to copy Suidas as for Suidas to copy the veritable 
 Sophronius. 
 
 The weak point of tliese last three attempts at fraud was the 
 lack of a sufficient Greek ms. Were there no cases in which 
 this weak point w T as sufficiently provided against? 
 
 It is reasonable to conclude that there were. Certain it is 
 that there are a great number of documents in existence which 
 are not by the authors to whom the mss. assign them. It would 
 be a stretch of charity to suppose that all these cases of false 
 ascription are due to the mistakes of ignorant transcribers. 
 What is to hinder the conjecture that some of these are of 
 very late date ? It is a fact that some of these are supported 
 in their false pretensions by writings which confessedly have 
 been interpolated, e.g. pseudo- Athanasius’ De Vivginitate , which 
 is referred to by Suidas. It is not an unfair inference that, 
 at any rate in some instances, the support given to such false 
 pretensions by an interpolated author is itself an interpolation. 
 Men certainly had some object in tampering with ancient 
 authors such as Suidas. It is certain that the Sacra Parallela 
 of John of Damascus have been tampered with, but it is not 
 at all certain that there are not still some undetected interpola- 
 tions. Not a few writings are received as genuine, almost 
 entirely on the strength of what is said concerning them in 
 the Bibliotheca of Photius. This great work has been sus- 
 pected, but it has never been proved to contain interpolations. 
 It is, however, easy to understand what a powerful instrument 
 for the support of forged documents it might have become — 
 and indeed may now be — if it unhappily fell at any period in 
 its history into unscrupulous hands. 
 
 It will be our business in due course to prove that literary 
 frauds of some magnitude have been actually perpetrated, to 
 give reasons for supposing these frauds to belong to the times 
 of the revival of learning, and to show that we have been 
 arguing throughout on a basis of actual fact. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 HENRY STEPHENS. 
 
 W E shall now proceed to explain the method on which, 
 as we believe, some fictitious writings of the 15th or 
 16th centuries were composed. 
 
 § 1. Among the most zealous and successful searchers after 
 ancient mss. in the 16th century was Henri Estienne, better 
 known as H. Stephanus or Stephens. As the use of his books 
 is necessary for our present purpose, it may be well at this 
 point to give some account 1 of this learned but singular man. 
 
 He belonged to a family of celebrated printers. The first 
 of these, Henri r., was born in 1460. He was disinherited for 
 printing in 1482, and died in 1520. His second son was the 
 distinguished Robert Stephens, so well known in connection 
 with the sacred Scriptures. Robert Stephens died in 1559. 
 His son, our Henry, was born in 1528. From his earliest 
 years Henry was devoted to the study of Greek, with which, 
 rather than Latin, by his own wish, he began his student’s life. 
 The best scholars of the day were his instructors. Though 
 Greek was Henry’s great delight, he seems to have applied 
 himself to the study of almost everything that came in his way. 
 It was, as he tells us himself, in his edition of Aldus Gellius, 
 quite in his youth that he investigated the mysteries of 
 astrology ; 2 the extortionate demands, however, of the char- 
 latan who instructed him and his own good sense together 
 enabled him to shake off the infatuation. He devoted his 
 attention also to Greek caligraphy, being the imitator of, and 
 as some say, the pupil of Angelos Vergetius, 3 “the king’s 
 
 1 From the Ch. Quart. April 1877, by permission. The following have been 
 used: — Hallam, Lit. of Europe; Maittaire, Vit. Steph.; Greswell, Hist. Early 
 Paris. Press; Didot, Nouvelle Biogr. Universelle, etc. 
 
 2 Vid. Ep. iv. 5, note. Perhaps at this time he first became acquainted with 
 Sextus Empir. : Stephens, in his books, often refers to, and sometimes quotes, 
 his writings, though they were not published in Greek until after his day. 
 
 3 A ms. {Cod. Par. Reg. 1227) of Photius’ Biblioth. is supposed to be in his 
 handwriting. — Phot. vol. iii. p. 42, Migne. 
 
STEPHENS’ LIFE. 
 
 9 
 
 writer in Greek,” in which he became exceedingly expert. In 
 the times of which we are speaking, though, through the 
 revived state of learning, libraries were far more numerous 
 and extensive than they had been a century previously, still 
 very many mss. were scattered about in monasteries and in 
 private hands. The scholars of the day seem to have had 
 each his own collection of mss., which they borrowed the one 
 from the other pretty freely. 1 It should be remembered also 
 that the capture of Buda by the Turks in 1527 had dispersed 
 abroad such of the contents of the magnificent library formed 
 by M. Corvinus as had escaped destruction. The library 
 contained not only ancient MSS. of great value, but also an 
 immense number of 15th and 16th century transcripts of early 
 writings. 2 These last were valuable to the scholar, by making 
 him acquainted with ancient authors, but of little value to the 
 editor and publisher without the originals from which they 
 were copied, or some other ancient exemplars in their room. 
 
 It will be no matter for surprise that H. Stephens, at an 
 early age, became ambitious of possessing such of these relics 
 of antiquity as he could lay his hands upon. They were, in 
 some sort, a passport into that literary circle into which he 
 wished to penetrate. They were, moreover, the material which 
 was to supply the printing-press which he proposed to establish 
 at Paris. Accordingly, in 1547, we find that he started on a 
 literary exploring expedition ; and he spent three years and a 
 half in making the acquaintance of the scholars, and in visiting 
 the libraries of Pome, Florence, Naples, and other cities. In 
 his preface to the Ep. ad Diognet ., Stephens speaks of the 
 difficulties he found when in Italy in deciphering some of the 
 ancient manuscripts. These expeditions were repeated at 
 various times, and he not only became well acquainted with 
 manuscripts of all dates, but also became possessed of a con- 
 siderable number. Some of these he published in due course, 
 others he used in preparing his editions of ancient authors. 
 It is much to be regretted that Stephens was as careless 
 
 1 Vul. e.g. P. Nannius’ Pref. Athan. Op. 
 
 2 M. Corvinus “availed himself of the dispersion of the libraries after the 
 capture of Constantinople to purchase Greek mss. , and employed four transcribers 
 at Florence, besides thirty at Buda, to enrich his collection.” — Hall. Lit. Eur. 
 i. p. 153 ;vid. Pattison. Is. Casaub. p. 38, Lond. 1875. 
 
10 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 apparently in the preservation of these valuable documents as 
 he was careful and diligent in the finding and acquiring them. 
 
 Returning to Paris at the close of 1551, he set up his 
 printing-press in that city. That same year he put forth his 
 first printed production — the first in a stream which was poured 
 forth from one press or another so plentifully that, Hallam 
 says, “ in the year 1557 alone he published more editions of 
 ancient authors than would have sufficed to make the reputa- 
 tion of another scholar” {Lit. Eur. i. p. 988). 
 
 In 1554 appeared the “ editio princeps” of the Odes of 
 Anacreon , beautifully printed, and for the preparation of which 
 Stephens collated two manuscripts which had come into his 
 possession, adding one ode, which he professed 4o have found 
 on the cover of an old writing. “ This book,” Greswell says, 
 
 “ was variously received. The majority of the learned considered it 
 a happy discovery, but some mistrusted it. Robertellus would not 
 acknowledge it as legitimate; Fulvius Ursinus, in his edition of Greek 
 Lyric Poets , denied a place to Anacreon. It were to be wished that 
 the two manuscripts of which we have spoken had been preserved, 
 but unfortunately H. Est., at the end of his days, having fallen into 
 a sort of aberration of intellect, 1 suffered them to perish with many 
 others which he communicated to no one — not even to his son-in-law, 
 Casaubon” (vol. ii. p. 155). 
 
 In 1557 Stephens published an edition of Atlienagoras {Apol. 
 and Resurr .), manuscripts of which, as he told P. Nannius in 
 1551, had come into his hands. In 1563 he put forth Rudimenta 
 Fidei Christiance : addit.a est ecclesiasticarum precum formula , 
 Gr. Lat. 12mo. 2 “This” (Greswell, p. 208) “is Calvin’s 
 
 1 For the greater part of his life Stephens was subject to a certain mental 
 malady, the like to which, he says, he had never heard or read of. While it 
 was upon him he loathed his ordinary employment, and could not enter his 
 library without putting his hand before his eyes. During one of these attacks 
 he devoted himself to caligraphy, some specimens of which he afterwards 
 engraved. On another occasion he completed a translation of the Hypotyposes 
 of Sextus, which he had some while before thrown aside on account of its 
 difficulty. — (Sext. Emp. Hyp. Pref. H. Steph. 1562. Gresw. ii. pp. 201, 206.) 
 
 2 This translation is throughout largely indebted to the Greek Fathers 
 and the Liturgies, and indeed to Greek literature generally. Thus the writer 
 contrives (on p. 127), by the alteration of a participle into an infinitive, 
 to incorporate a line by Agathon. This is very specially the case with the 
 preface to the work, in which Stephens transcribes a passage from Xen. Mem. 
 (ii. 1. 21), but without any acknowledgment. The thoughts and words of 
 this preface can, in nearly all cases, be distinctly traced to sources more or less 
 
STEPHENS’ BOOKS. 
 
 11 
 
 Catechism , elegantly translated by Henry himself into Greek.” 
 The volume we spoke of above, as published in 1551, w r as the 
 first edition of this Catechism , which w r as originally w T ritten in 
 French. While turning it into Latin, Calvin made some 
 alterations. Stephens took advantage of the opportunity 
 which a fresh addition of this translation afforded to make 
 some emendations. 
 
 He tells us, in a note at the end of the book, that Melanchthon 
 had of his own accord sent him a letter of high approval of his 
 earlier work (1551). Melanchthon, we may observe, w r as cousin 
 and pupil of the eminent Johann Reuchlin, whose name ap- 
 peared upon the back of the Strasburg MS. of the Ep. ad Diognet ., 
 and who died in 1522. The title-page of this little book bears 
 upon it the words, “ Excudebat H. Steph. illustris viri Huldrici 
 F uggeri typogr.” 1 Under this patronage Stephens’ opportunities 
 for the study of ancient MSS. were no doubt largely increased. 
 
 In 1572 Stephens published his great work, the Thesaurus 
 Grcecce Linguae . His father, it w’ould seem, had collected some 
 materials for this w'ork, and Sylburg, the great German scholar, 
 assisted him, but Henry himself spent twelve years in its 
 compilation. The value of the Thesaurus to Greek scholarship 
 is too well known to need remark here. We may observe, 
 however, that it was not prepared for the press exactly in the 
 manner which we should have supposed. Stephens tells us in 
 his preface 2 that it was written out for the press under great 
 difficulties, as the printers wanted material. We shall marvel 
 at the prodigious powers of mind and memory which could 
 produce such a w r ork under such circumstances ; but w r e shall 
 not be surprised to find that he omits many w r ords and many 
 
 ancient. The Greek title ffrot%uu<ris r»j? vttrnws seems taken from Athan. De 
 Incarn. Verb. p. 109, Colon. 1686. 
 
 1 Stephens assumed this appellation in 1558. Fugger, a native of Augsburg, 
 and born in 1528, “expended extraordinary sums in the purchase of good mss. 
 of ancient authors, and in procuring impressions of them.” — Gresw. ii. p. 170. 
 
 2 “ Falleris enim, lector, si hoc opus (exceptis paucis quibusdam ejus locis) 
 aliter quam ad clepsydram (ut loqui soleo) typographicam scriptum fuisse putas ; 
 id eet, ut quemadmodum typographicse operse certo quotidie penso obnoxise sunt, 
 ita et ipse certo certaque hora exhibendo scriptionis mese penso obnoxius essem. 
 Adde quod ne id quidem conficiendi pensi tempus, licet breve, liberum ab aliis 
 occupationibus et negotiis erat, sed ita vario eorum genere et circa rem typo- 
 graphicam et circa rem familiarem districtum atque implicitum, ut unius inter- 
 dum horse spatio decies ilia mihi scriptio intermittenda esset.” — Thes. Pref. 
 p. 17. 
 
12 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 references that we might fairly expect, nor that he proposed 
 to issue one day a supplementary volume to supply such 
 deficiencies as he might observe, and for which it would appear 
 that he collected some materials. We shall not wonder that, 
 in very many cases, he does not give chapter and verse for 
 the references which he makes, nor that the wording of the 
 quotations is oftentimes inaccurate, so much so as to draw 
 down upon him the charge of falsifying the authors to whom 
 he appealed. 
 
 In 1577 he produced a small volume 1 containing some letters 
 of SS. Gregory, Basil, and others, some dialogues of Lucian, 
 some poems (first published in his edition of Anacreon), and a 
 satire ( vid . p. 5), which he describes as by “ an uncertain author,” 
 and which was from the pen of the Chancellor de l’Hopital. 
 We do not say that Stephens intended to pass this off as the 
 work of an old Latin poet ; if he did, it would be no matter 
 for surprise, for Greswell says that “ the jictum pro antiquo 
 was an exercise commonly practised by early scholars, and 
 often with so much ingenuity as to deceive the best critics,” 
 p. 316. Stephens may have thought that the poem bore very 
 sufficient indications of modern authorship. As a fact, how- 
 ever, it did deceive no less a scholar than Barthius (Gresw. ii. 
 p. 333). In 1578 appeared “ Schediasmatum variorum , id est, 
 Observationum, Emendationum, Expositionum, Disquisitionum 
 libri tres, quae sunt Pensa succisi varum horarum Januarii, 
 Februarii, Martii.” April, May, and June followed some 
 years later. So fond was Stephens of speaking of these pro- 
 ductions, that they became a sort of byword among men, like 
 Leunclavius 2 and others * with whom Stephens was no favourite. 
 They are, however, remarkable productions, not clearly the 
 hasty effusions which the title might lead us to suppose. They 
 show the hold which Stephens had obtained over ancient litera- 
 
 1 “ Epistolia, Dialogi Breves, Oratiunculse, Poematia, ex variis utriusque 
 linguae scriptoribus. Inter poematia autem est Satyra elegantissima, quae 
 inscribitur Lis, non prius edita,” 1577. 
 
 2 Leunclavius had been severely handled by Stephens, and he retorts in his 
 notes to his edition of Xenophon with great acrimony. While the work was in 
 preparation Leunclavius died, and Sylburg became the actual publisher. He 
 added a commendatory preface. This is noteworthy, as it would seem to show 
 that a breach had taken place between himself and Stephens, of whom he speaks 
 very kindly in his edition of Justin, in 1593. 
 
STEPHENS’ CHARACTER. 
 
 13 
 
 ture, both Greek and Latin, and his power of producing from 
 all sources passages which answered the purpose which he had 
 in hand. In 1592 appeared the Epistola ad Diognetum and the 
 Oratio ad Grcecos. His career as an author was closed by the 
 publication of a poem which bore upon the title-page, Argen- 
 torati Bertramus, 1596. He died two years afterwards in 
 poverty in the hospital at Lyons. 1 
 
 As to the great attainments and literary ability of Stephens, 
 no difference of opinion can be said to exist. On the discretion 
 and even honesty with which he used his great powers, the 
 opinions of persons capable of judging seem to differ widely. 
 Some speak of his labours, of his emendations of the texts he 
 edited, of the skill with which he detected the various errors of 
 transcribers of ancient MSS., in terms of the highest commen- 
 dation. Others seem hardly able to find words of sufficient 
 bitterness in which to express their adverse opinion. Let it 
 suffice to quote the words — words both of praise and blame — 
 of the writer of the article on Plato in Smith’s Diet, of Gr. 
 and Rom. Biog. p. 404, ed. 1849 : “ The edition of H. Stephanus 
 is equally remarkable for the careful preparation of the text — 
 by correcting mistakes of copyists and typographers, and intro- 
 ducing in several instances very felicitous improvements — and 
 for the dishonesty with which the editor appropriated to him- 
 self the labours of others without any acknowledgment, and 
 with various tricks strove to hide the source from which they 
 were derived.” There is no reason why any difference of 
 opinion should exist. His own writings, if properly examined, 
 must necessarily give a decisive yea, or an equally decisive nay, 
 to the charges which have been brought against him. 
 
 When we turn, however, to consider H. Stephens from other 
 points of view than that of mere scholarship, we find little sure 
 ground on which to tread. His books are indeed to some 
 extent our guide. He was a Protestant, and, as his Thesaurus , 
 his translation of Calvin’s Catechism, and other of his writings 
 abundantly show, thoroughly conversant with all Christian 
 literature to which he could find access. He never entered, 
 
 1 Stephens lost the fortune which he inherited from his father, partly through 
 his restless roving habits, partly through the expense of printing his Thesaurus, 
 of the profits of which he was deprived by the publication of Scapula’s abridg- 
 ment. 
 
14 
 
 PEREGKINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 however, the arena of polemical controversy properly so called. 
 He was an unsparing denouncer of the vice and superstition of 
 the age, and specially in all high places, as his U Apologie pour 
 Herodote and his Principum Monitrix Musa , which Didot de- 
 scribes as his great work, “ tres hardi et tres curieux,” bear 
 witness. But then, as Greswell points out, p. 157, though his 
 opinions were the same as those of his father, he was never 
 persecuted on account of them. He was never accused of 
 disguising his opinions, and yet he remained at Paris unmolested 
 long after his father had been forced to leave it. He was never 
 indeed promoted to the dignity of “ Typographus Regius,” still 
 he printed under the royal licence. The truth is, we know 
 almost nothing of Henry Stephens outside of his books. 
 
 § 2. There is one phase of Henry Stephens’ mind which may 
 be very plainly learned from his books, of which no biography, 
 so far as we know, has taken any particular notice : we 
 mean his excessive love of parody and of every kind of literary 
 “ equivoke.” It was his delight to write “ ut TTGcpahog” to 
 borrow an expression from the preface to his Thesaurus , in the 
 first page of which two parodies are found. 
 
 (1.) In 1573 he published Homeri et Hesiodi certamen . 
 Matronis et aliorum parodice ex Homeri versihus parva immuta- 
 tione lepidb detortis eonsutce . In the preface to the Parodice he 
 expounds the various kinds of parody which he favoured. One 
 kind consisted in applying the words of tragedy to comedy ; a 
 second, in putting the words of some poet to a very different 
 use to that which the poet himself intended. Under this kind 
 of parody the most solemn subjects might be treated of in 
 language taken even from comedy. A third was simply the 
 interweaving with an author’s own words the words of some 
 other writer. This last kind he also calls TrccpczTr'hoz'/]. Thus 
 almost every kind of use by one author of another was in his 
 view parody, provided the use was hidden so far as possible. 
 This book of Stephens’ came into our hands at a very interesting 
 moment. We had been engaged in an inquiry into the Epistle 
 to Diognetus , falsely ascribed to Justin Martyr. We had 
 satisfied ourselves that it was of late date, and made up of 
 words and scraps of Greek gathered from many sources, and 
 worked up with great skill into a sort of literary mosaic. We 
 wanted some explanation of it, and some evidence to show that 
 
STEPHENS’ LOVE OF PARODY. 
 
 15 
 
 a scholar, who alone could have written the Epistle , might 
 possibly think of using such a method of composition. We 
 shall now, out of the above-named preface, let Henry Stephens 
 describe in his own words the kind of composition which the 
 Epistle to Diognetus is. We shall only ask our readers to sub- 
 stitute some expression of wide meaning for the single volume 
 of Homer of which he speaks : — 
 
 “ Homericis nctiyv/oig , quorum nonnulla 1 in superioribus opusculis 
 leguntur, aptissime subjuncturum me putavi naiyv/uv aliud quoddam 
 genus : quod licet Homero non adscribatur, Homericum tamen aliqua 
 .ex parte est ; utpote ex Homeri verbis, vel potius ex certis singulorum 
 ejus versuum particulis artificiose consarcinatum. Ingeniose pro- 
 fecto istud furti genus fuit excogitatum, quod ejusmodi est ut vix 
 furtum dici possit ; adeo ut si reviviscens Homerus aliquem ruv 
 nupydouv suos versus eo modo furantem vel in avropupw deprehen- 
 disset, et ilium in jus vocasset, in medio etiam Areopago causa fuisse 
 casurum existimein. Quod tamen sic accipi velim tanquam de 
 doctis furandi artificibus a me dictum. Quemadmodum enim scribit 
 Xenophon, quanvis Lacedasmone furari impune liceret, solitos tamen 
 eos csedi qui non satis caute furarentur ; atque hoc minime mirum 
 debere videri ait, quum et in aliis rebus soleant vapulare discipuli 
 qui non rite exequuntur quod edocti fuerint ; ita certe eos qui 
 Homero vel alii suos versus, vel potius certas suorum versuum 
 postiunculos, non ea cautione qua decebat surripuissent, pcenas daturos 
 fuisse existimo. Sed illi Xenophontei fures non satis caute furari 
 dicebantur siquando contingeret ut in furto deprehenderentur : at 
 napudoTg in eo tantum adhibenda cautio est, ut quae furati verba 
 fuerint in alium usum convertant, qui tarn remotus sit ab eo quern 
 apud suum autorejn habebant (quod attinet ad sensa quibus expri- 
 mendis adhibita erant) ut nihil tale illi dum iis uteretur, in mentem 
 venisse dici possit” (p. 71). 
 
 With the substitution which we have suggested, this extract 
 nearly exactly describes the Epistle to Diognetus. Stephens’ 
 words would lead us to conclude that he would be very lenient 
 to such literary piracy, if only it was cleverly executed, and 
 not found out. Detection clearly would be a great sin in his 
 sight. 
 
 (2.) The book which we have just been using was not the 
 only book which Stephens wrote on parodies. In 1575 he 
 published a very singular volume called Parodice Morales. It 
 is divided into two parts. The first is occupied by his own 
 1 The Horn, et Hes. Gertamen , which precedes. 
 
16 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 parodies, which run on for nearly 150 pages. He heads the 
 page with a line taken from a Latin poet. He then gives the 
 Greek equivalent, then various parodies, leaving the opposite 
 page blank for the insertion of such additional parodies as may 
 occur to the reader. Let us take an example. He heads p. 144 
 with “ Nemo repente fuit turpissimus,” Juv. Sat. i. 1. He 
 then gives two Greek translations ; then the Parodies, as 
 follows: “Nemo repente fuit teterrimus. Nemo repente fuit 
 nequissimus. Nemo repente fuit parcissimus. Nemo repente 
 fuit lucri cupidissimus,” and so on ten times over. There is, 
 however, often more in these than meets the eye. “ In omnibus 
 parodiis, aut ad id quod experientia quotidiana docet, aut ad 
 proverbium aliquod, vel celebrem quampiam historiam, aut 
 ad aliam vel ejusdem vel alius poetae, aut etiam oratoris sive 
 historici cujuspiam sententiam, respexi,” Pref. It thus happens 
 that by a single word Stephens sometimes looks at a second 
 passage, and by so doing combines that second passage with 
 the one which he parodies. Thus in p. 104, where he takes for 
 his subject “ Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi,” Hor. 
 Ep. i. 2. 14 (of which he gives about eighty different parodies), 
 he writes, “ Effoetus nimiae veneris deliria plector.” In his pre- 
 face he says that in the word “ effoetus ” he is looking at a 
 certain passage in Cicero’s De Senectute. Here again, we may 
 remark, we have another very conspicuous feature in the com- 
 position of Diognetus , where again and again some sentence 
 will be found to gather into itself a word or a thought out 
 of several different parallels. Stephens’ own Greek writing 
 abounds with examples of this style of composition. 
 
 What we have just pointed out is further interesting as 
 showing that he applied to the use of prose the same principles 
 which in his other book he lays down as applicable by parodists 
 to Homer’s poetry. 
 
 In the preface to this volume he contends that the kind of 
 parody of which we have just given examples was a novelty. 
 He says that Plutarch knew nothing of it, or at any rate was 
 silent respecting it ; and that Chrvsippus, though he might 
 be thought to have done something of the same kind, still 
 confined himself within far narrower limits. He speaks, too, 
 of the profit to be derived from the exercise of parody of this 
 sort : 
 
STEPHENS’ LOVE OE PARODY. 
 
 1 % 
 
 “Necesse enim est ut qui sententiam aliquam poeticam per parodias 
 late propagare velit, multarum historiarura, multorum quse vita 
 quotidiana suppeditat exemplorum, quinetiam sententiarum quas alibi 
 legit, rationem a memoria sua reposcat. ut taceam quantam synony- 
 marum vocum varietatem, quarum delectus habendus, suggeri ab 
 eadem oporteat. In plerisque certe sententiis, quot meee sunt parodiee, 
 totidem fere exempla eorum. quae illis dieuntur, in promptu fuerunt, 
 partim ex celebrioribus historiis, partim ex iis quae tempora nostra 
 nos docuerunt, et quotidie docent, petita.” — Pref. 
 
 It must be evident from the consideration of what Stephens 
 says here, and in the other passages which have been given, 
 that if it should occur to any one not merely to write a line or 
 two, but the sentences of a document of some length, on the 
 methods which Stephens lays down, the writing as a whole 
 would present, if carefully analysed, some most extraordinary 
 features. 
 
 Let us go again to Stephens’ preface for a description of 
 these. He there tells us how he came to think of his new 
 kind of parody. He was returning from Vienna on horseback, 
 and meditating on the woes of his country, when the verse of 
 Horace (given above) flashed across his mind. “ Volvens et 
 revolvens, ccepi tandem, ad fallendum itineris tsedium, tot modis 
 quot in hoc libro videbis (eighty of them), ilium refingere : 
 ita ut, velut Proteum quemdam, vultus alios atque alios sumere 
 coegerim.” This illustration aptly applies to what would be 
 found on a careful analysis of the writing of which we have 
 just spoken. At one moment you wotfld fancy that you had 
 (say) Clement of Alexandria before you, at another Hippo- 
 lytus or Justin Martyr, or perhaps some secular author. On 
 no one of them could you fairly lay hold. You could not say 
 that any sentence was plainly taken from any one of those 
 writers, for the simple reason that it was taken from all. This 
 is exactly what is found on the careful analysis of the Epistle 
 to Diognetus and some other writings. Each sentence is a very 
 Proteus. We now and again see a face that recalls something 
 of several persons seen in bygone days ; but which of all these 
 the face is like, we cannot tell. Such are the sentences of 
 writings of the class to which the Epistle to Diognetus belongs. 
 The fact is that these writings are parodies — in Stephens’ 
 sense — from the beginning to the end. Now and then they 
 offend by burlesques — parodies in our more usual meaning— of 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 sacred, or, at any rate, grave matters. Often their writers 
 reverse this, and write a grave sentence in such a way that the 
 passage from which they copy becomes a burlesque on their 
 own sentence. We have a notable instance of this last in 
 Diognet. ix., where a passage 1 which has won universal admira- 
 tion is so written that a somewhat extravagant passage on the 
 Virgin Mary, in a homily of John of Damascus, reads very 
 like a parody of the epistle. The idea of this kind of parody 
 would probably be taken from the Homer o-Centones, ascribed 
 to Eudocia, the wife of Theodosius it. This poem deals with 
 the gravest subjects, — the fate of man, the incidents in the 
 life of our Lord, the resurrection, etc., — and is entirely taken 
 out of Homer, and composed in the fashion which Stephens 
 has already described to us. Eudocia’s poem is discussed at 
 great length in the second part of the Parodice Morales ; and 
 the Homeric sources of a considerable portion of it are pointed 
 out. 
 
 Stephens’ reference to Proteus, in connection with his 
 parodies, is made the more interesting from the circumstance 
 that, after tracking the Epistle and some other writings from 
 author to author, and from treatise to treatise, we at last traced 
 them, one and all, to the account of the life and death of 
 Peregrinus Proteus, which is given in the De Morte Peregrini , 
 commonly ascribed to Lucian. This narrative can hardly be 
 by Lucian ; and we shall see presently how curiously the 
 writings which we have in view seem indebted to the very 
 sentences, pages, or histories to which Peregrinus appears also 
 to be indebted, the materials used by the one being used per- 
 haps by some of the others, or perhaps by all of them, but in 
 different ways. That Stephens had perfect knowledge of this 
 
 1 Oy^6 l/u.vv<TixotxviTiv, uXXu, lpcaxpo^v/u,v<rsv, eturo$ tov ’foiov vlov u-ts^oto Xvrpov Ccrtp 
 tuv xkxuv . . . a tvs yXvxsius a.vTcx.XXa.yvs, u tvs &vs%i%vidi(rTOU ^v/xiovpyius, u tuv 
 aTpoir^oKVTuv slspyttriuv , Diognet. ix. Comp. yi o Kvpios sitrvxovtrtv uvtuv, o 
 t<z%us a’s tXlov, fipxbbs sis opyvv , Sobs tvv xvpiuvvptov M ccpiccv XvTpov ovtus tt.yXa.itv 
 kua (Asya.Xo<puis avri rvs Eiiois. . . . u tvs svipystriets ! u tvs /u.syaXe^upsZs \ ... u 
 tvs l^etXXeiyvs tuv vrpa.TTopt.siuv, Horn. ii. in Nat. B. V. Mar. v . p . 852 , with us 
 u.\iu.yu.<fTos * ^vp-ioupyict in p. 851 . The whole passage as it stands in the epistle 
 is most carefully built up. In almost every word the writer is “looking at” 
 some passage more or less illustrative of his main thought. Other coincidences 
 — in other parts of the epistle — with the passages so “looked at” prove the 
 obligation, and the whole is an excellent and elaborate illustration of Stephens’ 
 description of his own parodies. 
 
STEPHENS’ LOVE OF PARODY. 
 
 19 
 
 fact, and that his reference to Proteus is an allusion to it, we 
 shall hereafter see abundant reason for believing. 
 
 (3.) In his preface to Parodies Morales , Stephens quotes 
 certain lines expressing the admiration which was felt when 
 Echo was first heard. He says : “ Hie ex variis Homeri locis 
 excerptos videmus versus, qui quum ad valde diversos apud 
 eum sermones pertineant, sic ad unum eundemque sunt hie 
 aptati, ut plerique qui illos esse Homericos ignorent, non per 
 abusum ita usurpari, sed hunc primum et verum esse illorum 
 usum sint credituri.” — P. 9. The same may be said of the 
 poems of Eudocia and of other such like poetry. If any one, 
 being ignorant of Homer, were to maintain that Eudocia’s 
 poetry was purely from her own brain, our course would be 
 that which Stephens takes. We should produce the lines of 
 Homer to which Eudocia was indebted. We should contend 
 that the coincidences between her lines and Homer’s were very 
 numerous, and some of them very remarkable ; and that the 
 theory of accidental coincidence could not possibly hold. There 
 would be no difficulty in this, for such poetry as Eudocia’s is 
 avowedly Homeric. We could give back to Homer the half 
 lines, phrases, and words taken from him. About some words 
 and phrases used several times by Homer there would be a 
 momentary difficulty, — we should hesitate as to which out of 
 several places we ought to assign them. We should therefore 
 look at each place to see what other borrowed words or phrases 
 we could observe in the near neighbourhood which would seem 
 to indicate that Eudocia’s eye had passed that way. Our 
 evidence from first to last would consist of verbal coincidences. 
 For every line of Eudocia’s poetry these would be found. 
 
 Now it will follow from this, that if the Epistle to Diognetus 
 and the other writings which are in our thoughts have been 
 wHtten, as we assert that they have, on the principles which 
 Stephens has marked out for the composition of the various 
 kinds of parody which he describes, then an immense number 
 of verbal coincidences will be found between them and the 
 authors who, in these writings, take the place of Homer. This 
 is exactly what is found in the case of the writings with which 
 we deal. Their sentences can be reconstructed out of other 
 authors, just as Eudocia’s lines out of Homer’s. The argument 
 is the same in both cases. These verbal coincidences, we con- 
 
20 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 tend, are too numerous, and some of them too remarkable, to 
 permit us to suppose that they can as a whole have arisen 
 accidentally. One thing, however, must be noted: any six 
 lines of Eudocia’s poetry, when carefully analysed, will suffice 
 to show the character of the whole. The use of Homer was 
 not expressly concealed. In our writings the use of other 
 authors was very carefully hidden. We cannot, therefore, 
 deal with them in the same summary fashion as we can with 
 the Homeric parodies. We shall expect to meet with verbal 
 coincidences at every turn, but we shall not expect many of 
 these to be of that decisive stamp which at once proves 
 Eudocia’s lines to be in truth Homer’s. In the writings with 
 which we deal it is necessary to take account of the force of 
 cumulative evidence. This is needless in the case of the 
 Homeric 1 parodies. In short, we must not expect to find 
 detached pieces of evidence which would at once, without 
 further inquiry, have proved our writings frauds on the day 
 they were first published. 
 
 1 There are also in existence Centones Viryiliani. Disraeli’s Cur. Lit. gives 
 some interesting information in the chapter on Parodies , as also in that on 
 Literary Follies, among which the compositions spoken of above are classed. 
 The author says : “A Cento primarily signifies a cloak made of patches. In 
 poetry it denotes a work wholly composed of verses or passages promiscu- 
 ously taken from other authors, only disposed in a new form or order, so as to 
 compose a new work and a new meaning. Ausonius has laid down the rules to 
 be observed in composing Centos. The pieces may be taken either from the same 
 poet or from several ; and the verses may be either taken entire, or divided into 
 two — one half to be connected with another half taken elsewhere ; but two verses 
 are never to be taken together. Agreeable to these rules he has made a pleasant 
 nuptial Cento from Virgil,” Lit. Foil. It is worth observing that the Editio 
 Princeps of Ausonius’ writings, together with the Probce Centones, was pub- 
 lished in 1472. It is fair to conclude that the subject of parodial writing was 
 beginning to excite some interest. The poems of Calpurnius, which, if not 
 written upon Ausonius’ plan, are at any rate greatly indebted to many of the 
 Latin poets, were added to the above-named volume, perhaps for this reason. 
 Stephens was the first to call public attention to the subject. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 COINCIDENCES. 
 
 W E shall now give a few examples of the coincidences 
 which we have found. They will indeed come before 
 us hereafter in the course of our inquiry, and we shall then 
 see the way in which they are found, which is a matter to be 
 taken into consideration in estimating their value. Our coinci- 
 dences are, however, far too numerous to permit of a close 
 examination of each as we come upon it; it maybe well, there- 
 fore, to select a few for more particular investigation. For the 
 sake of considering their collective as well as their individual 
 weight, we shall take them all from one document. 
 
 § 1 . ( 1 .) In Clem. Rom. i. 1 is the expression : \nuXkv\hovg 
 (TVfJbtpopoig. ’E 7T(/XkYfkog is, of course, a common enough word ; 
 but we know of only two other examples of the complete 
 expression. One is found in the scholiast on Lycophron, 243 
 (p. 49, Canter.), the other in Euseb. H. E. i. 8, p. 24 : roitg 
 Kara rov o'iTtov \ TccKXyjXoig (rv[Jb(popoc7g. Clement has rot xutm 
 rov oizov lower down in the same § 1. 
 
 (2.) In Clem. i. 2 we find fyhov h'hovrzg yj \a(/jfioivovrzg. 
 “ Doubtless,” Lightfoot 1 remarks, “ a reference to our Lord’s 
 words recorded Acts xx. 35 : yjotzotpiov Iffnv (jooiXKov 'bibovoci yj 
 ’kc&f/jficivsiv” Lightfoot goes on to show that “maxims similarly 
 expressed had been uttered” by the Epicureans, quoting Plut. 
 Mor. p. 778 C : 'JL e 7r / w,ovpog rov gu to sv rtoiCiv ov yoovov 
 
 kocKKiov bCKKot xcci tyhiov shut (pyjci. Lower down, in the same 
 section, Clement writes : g<r/ kccc/i uyciQoTroiict, sroiyooi g Ig ttccv 
 g pyov ctyaQbv, from Titus iii. 1. We have seen that Stephens, 
 by the use of a single word, “ looked at ” a passage in Cicero, 
 De Senect. Does the r$iov of Clement in like manner look at 
 the saying of Epicurus as quoted by Plutarch ? It may be 
 accidental, no doubt. Is it accidental ? It is at any rate re- 
 markable that Plutarch has on the same page, 778, some words 
 
 1 S. Clement of Rome , London and Cambridge, 1869; S. Clement of Rome, 
 an Appendix , London, 1877. 
 
22 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 just as parallel to Clement’s second reference as Epicurus’ 
 saying is to Clement’s first. Plutarch writes: rovg 5’ dp ypvrac, 
 oi GvvovrBg tuv pikoGbpuv bizaiOTBpovg ttoiovgi zai (jjBrpiurBpovg 
 zai TTpoOuf/jOTZpovg Big to g a ttoibIv. Compare these last words 
 with Clement’s second quotation. Plutarch, moreover, im- 
 mediately above writes : rolg hpBvGiv alba zai riyjTjv ai rcokBig 
 vb[/j0vgiv. With the two passages of Plutarch compare vtto- 
 raGGopjBvoi rolg Tiyovgoboig v(Jbdv zai rifjjTjv TTjv zmO/jzovggcv dirovB- 
 (jj.ovreg rolg Trap’ vyfiv 7rpsGf3vTspoig’ vsoig tb goBTpia, z.r.X., Ep. i. 1. 
 Compare, further, with Clement and Plutarch : bn BTOigboi bgtb 
 Big Bviroiiav 0s<y avTjzovGav (cf. Clement’s zadyzovGav), Ignat. 
 Polyc. 7 ; ObKovgiv yap vfPiv bv TTpaGGBiv ©goV Broiyoog Big to 
 7rapaGyfiv, Smyrn . 11 ; iroipjOTBpov yap iavrov "kByBi 6 K.vpiog Big 
 to bibovai tov airovvrog , Clem. ii. 15 (vid. infra , c. iv. 2). 
 
 It will not be denied that the two sets of coincidences, the 
 first with Eusebius and the second with Plutarch, are what we 
 should expect to find if Clement’s Epistle were written upon 
 the method we have set forth. 
 
 (3.) In Ep. i. 36, Clement writes : \v rj BvpopjBV to GcoTTjpiov 
 ripjobv ’ Itjgovv Xp/Grov . . . tov GrpoGTarriv zai (3 orjQov rijg aG&BVBiag 
 tj(/jCuv. Compare yjg ( vogov ) gb TTpoGrarriv Gvryipa t\ ava<g, goovvov 
 B<gBvpiGzo(/jBV , Soph. CEd. P. 303. This looks as though the 
 word TpoGTaTTjg had excited some little attention. It will come 
 before us again when we compare Clement’s Epistles with De 
 Morte Peregrini , where the word is found. Meanwhile see the 
 next coincidence (vid. cc. vi. vii.). 
 
 (4.) In Ep. i. 5, Clement calls S. Peter and S. Paul rovg 
 dyadovg anoGrohovg . The epithet has attracted some attention. 
 Lightfoot ( Addenda , p. 406) says : “ Harnack appositely quotes 
 Clem. Horn. i. 16: 6 b’ dyaQbg YlBTpog TrpoGTrrjhriG ag, z.r.X.” The 
 reference is a just one. In § 19, the writer of the homily says : 
 tov gob ovv (3o7]0ov avbpa tov akrjdij 7Tpo(p7]T7iv \Byoo, og goovog 
 (paTiGai \pv%dg dvOpuTruv bvvarai, cIjgt dv avrolg opOaKgoolg 
 bvv7]07jvai Tjgoag bviIbIv rrjg aiwviov Gcoryipiag rr\v obov. Compare 
 avTYi 7) obog , dya7r7jToi, b ft svpogosv to Gwrripiov Tjgoav T tjgovv 
 Xp IGTOV TOV ap^lSpBa TUV TTpOGfiOptiv TjgbUV, TOV ‘7TpOGTaT7]V zai 
 fiorjObv rrjg aG&BVBiag Tjgouv. bid tovtov anviGagoBv Big rd v^7] tuv 
 ovpavuv' bid tovtov BVOTrrpiZppjBQa tyiv agougoov zai V7rBpraT7]v 
 o\piv avrov' bid tovtov r^BuyfriGav 7jgouv oi o(pQakgooi rijg zapbiag’ 
 bid tovtov i] aGvvBTog zai bg zotu gob7j bidvoia figouv dvaOaKkBi Big 
 
COINCIDENCES. 
 
 23 
 
 to flavgoaffTOV avTOv (pcug, Clem. i. 36. Still more “ appositely,” 
 however, we may quote Cyr. Jer. Cat. vi. 15 : ‘ffapuTiivoffievYig 
 he ffig Tkdvfjg , ayaQav tgvvapig htopflouTai to <ttcc7(T{jIjCC, UtTpog zai 
 Hav'kog Kapayevogbevoi , ol ffig ’E zz\Y\Giag npoGTaTai. 
 
 The word 7rpOGTccT7]g is made of considerable importance by 
 Photius’ animadversions. He says (of Clement) : apyiepea 
 
 Zai 7rp0(TTGCT7]V TOV K VpiOV 7j(JjQ0V T 7JG0VV \%0V0 gtjoCfidV 0L)hs Tag 
 
 QeoftpeTrelg zai v^Y\koTipag affine Trepi avTov (pavag, Bibl. 
 126. It is noteworthy that Cyril’s is the earliest Christian 
 use of the word which is in any sort parallel to Clement’s* The 
 preceding coincidence suggests that an interest was felt in the 
 word. The indications here are in the same direction. Does 
 it not look as though Cyril’s use of the word had been ex- 
 amined and ayaQog borrowed, and as though, in like manner, 
 from the homily had been taken fiorjQog, with somewhat 
 more Any way, the double set of coincidences aptly 
 illustrates our theory. 
 
 (5.) In Ep. i. 12, Clement speaks of Rahab and the spies 
 ( zaTaazbnoov ) ; presently he uses the word evaKkd<g. Diodorus 
 Siculus (xvii. 33) begins a chapter, which might easily sug- 
 gest the scriptural account of the taking of Jericho, with 
 zaTavzoicuv. He, too, presently uses evaX\a<g. We shall see 
 hereafter that Clement has a great many coincidences with 
 Diodorus in the immediate neighbourhood of c. 33. 
 
 (6.) In the same § 12, Clement applies V7rep£ov, and presently 
 GTeyog, to Rahab’s dwelling. The narrative as given in Josh. ii. 
 requires the word hSgoa , which is there found. In Evang. Thom. 
 ix. p. 142 (Tisch. 1853), hagoa, vneptiov, GTeyov are all used, and 
 they are followed presently by g vaKhdzTYig. This last word is 
 applied to a part of a bedstead. The only other use of it that 
 we have been able to find is by Aquila (Isa. iii. 4), where it 
 means “an exchanger.” Compare with Clement’s g vaKha<g, 
 which must be taken in the “strange” sense of “‘crosswise,’ 
 i.e. ‘ in an opposite direction,’ ” Light. Add. p. 412, vid. c. v. 
 
 (7.) Clem. Ep. i. 19: to Taneivoffiovovv zai to vToheeg hia ffig 
 VTrazoyjg ov ffiovov j/goag aKKa zai Tag srpo yjgo&jv yevedg fieXTtovg 
 efror/iGev, Tovg rg zaTahe^affievovg Ta \oyia avTov ev (pofiq zai 
 aXrjdeia. Compare 7repi TafteivotppoGvvrig zai zevoho^iag. \oyog . 
 z. ’A gofyavov tov {jjYj zaTahe<gdgoevov to ftpog vravTag vvroheeg zai 
 ea'/jaTov, z.tX. Sym. Metaph. Serm. xx. 1, p. 575 (quoting 
 
24 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Basil, Ps. Ixi. p. 193), with zaTahz^a^evog too lyzXTjfJoaTa, zav 
 f/j 7 j akrjdrj fi f only twelve lines below, but in another extract 
 from Basil. The aptness of the parallel cannot be questioned. 
 
 It is, however, made still more noteworthy from another 
 circumstance. Canon Lightfoot {Addenda, p. 418) writes : 
 “ to vnoh SS£, ‘ submissiveness ,’ i subordination .’ This seems to 
 
 be the meaning of the word, which is very rare in the positive 
 though common in the comparative: vyrohsloTZpog; see Epiphan. 
 Hcer . Ixxvii. 14 : to VTrohzlg zee/ TjXaTTOtjfJOZvov, a passage pointed 
 out to me by Bensly. Accordingly, in the Syriac it is rendered 
 diminutio et demissio .” (Lightfoot, in bis Addenda , gives 
 the variations found in the Syriac version of Clements 
 Epistles.) Nothing can w T ell be stranger than that the 
 Syriac version should be in close contact with Epiphanius, 
 wdiile the Greek is in equally close contact w T ith Basil. If it 
 were lawful to take a late date for Clement’s Epistle, one 
 would suppose that a scholarly interest had been taken in to 
 VT rohzzg. See c. vi., where the word comes up again. 
 
 (8.) In the same § 19, Clement writes: (3 ovkr\[ka' voriGoopiZV 
 Trojg abpyrjTog vnapypi irpog oraGav tt\v zt'/g/v uvtov , with t^v 
 X z/TOvpytaP oevTuv aicpoGzoTrojg IttitzKovg/v shortly afterwards in 
 § 20 ; and in § 61 : (jorjhzv havTiovpAvovg too ^z\r\p>aTi gov' oJg bog, 
 K6p/g . . . z ig to hiznz/v avTovg ty\v vto gov hzhopj ivrjy avToig 
 Tjytf/jov/ccv aorpoGzOTroog. Compare y^pyj hi . . . orzp/ 0g ov too 
 I vCCVTlOVfJjSVM, 0G0V \ TTl T7j XZ%Z /, Of/jOXoy ziv, {Jj7\ voziv. O iov, ZOLTOL 
 Tag zoivdg 7rpoXij\pz/g \gt / tt\v Ozlav (pvG/u ayaOrjv, zai aopyyjTOv , 
 zai h/zaiav o(jboXoy ziv, with fiovkripja . . . zai ovToog airpoGzaGroog 
 &Tev<g6{JbzQa Ta/g Tpa(pa7g just below, Basil in Is. Prooem. 5, 
 p. 381. 2 We are not aware of any other example of the use 
 of the word aTpoGzbftug. 
 
 Here again the double coincidence of Clement with Basil in 
 the word a e 7rpOGzb‘7Toog is suggestive. 
 
 (9.) In Clem. Ep. i. 20 is the word hiypGTaTOVGa . It 
 is not a very common one. It is found in Stoboeus, Flor. 
 
 1 ’ Av'-pteuv <rrx6(/.o'i xarx rov idiov xxipov rvv Aur. d. a. 1. Cf. oi)%i <xxvns tltrt 
 Xnroupyixu nvivy.oira. x.r.k., Heb. i. 14. The origin of the joke — for it is nothing 
 else — will be shown hereafter. See Diod. Sic. iii. 16. 
 
 2 P. 380, riis vrpos rov &iov irQo^porocrns Ivarsv/Vsa/j, and in the same sentence 
 
 xxi rov; o(p6x\[/.ou$ tvs dixvoiyovros e/’s xxrxvotio’iv uv (Zovkirai 6ixy.xruv. 
 
 Compare drivira/xEv its rov orar'ipx . . . E^'ki^/ufjoiv rots opjofjixffiv rvi 'l'V%vis S*S to 
 ( jt.xxpo&v[Lov ulrov [iovXv/xx, still in Clement’s short § 19. 
 
COINCIDENCES. 
 
 25 
 
 xliii. 21, p. 83 (Meineke), in a fragment of Enrip. Antig. If 
 any one should choose to conjecture that the word is taken 
 from that source, he will find in the same place of Stobseus 
 very excellent support for his opinion. The preceding extract 
 in Stobseus is a fragment from Eurip. jEol., which Lightfoot 
 points out to be used by Clement in Ep. i. 37. The latter 
 part of the fragment, which Lightfoot shows to be used in 
 § 38, is found only in Stobseus. Above this fragment in 
 Stobseus is an extract of only three lines. We then find some 
 lines from Sophocles’ Ajax . Clement’s editors point out that 
 
 those very lines are used in § 37, 1 and in the very sentence 
 in which the fragment from Euripides is used. The words 
 in § 37, common to Clement, with Sophocles and Euripides, 
 Canon Lightfoot prints as being quotations. 
 
 It is impossible to suppose that the two passages had become 
 linked together in the mind of Stobseus by means of Clement’s 
 Epistle; for not even once, so far as we can find, does he quote 
 any Christian writer. We are driven to the conclusion that 
 the remarkable coincidence we have just pointed out is acci- 
 dental, — which seems an unreasonable conclusion, — or else that 
 Clement’s Epistle is not so early as it has been commonly 
 supposed to be. 
 
 1 In Ep. i. 37, Clement says : el psyuXoi ruv pixpuy ol 'bvvoc.vrcu Avon, ovrs 
 oi (tixpoi ruv fityukuv' alyxpoar'is ns hrnv lv <7ra.criv, xui iv rourois X p^tis, and ill 
 
 § 38 : o wXovffios IsrixopnyAra T V <7rTU) X a f' ® ^ strokes slx a p tfftri *ru ru ®su, or t 
 iluKtv alrS, x. r. x. On the first of these Lightfoot says: “See Soph. Aj. 158 
 (quoted by Jacobson) : xArot aptxpo) potyecXuv X U P‘S o’<pnXtpov orvpyov pv/uec vriXovron, 
 x.r.x.,” and on <rvyxpu.<ns, x.r. X. “ This seems to he a reference to Eurip. AEol. 2 : 
 a.xA etrn ns ffiynpcuris u<rr ’ix uv for Euripides is there speaking of the 
 
 mutual co-operation of rich and poor.” On the passage from § 38 he writes : 
 “See Eurip. Erctgm. (Eol. 2: & (An yup l<rn ru nlvn n, vr'kohrios $fiuo ,, ‘ £. el 
 vrXovrovvns ol xixrn^Poo, ro7<riv vrtvnffi xpup&voi Ovjpup'Aai.. The resemblance here 
 confirms the conjecture that in the earlier passage Clement has the words of 
 Euripides in his mind.” Two lines of the fragment (but not those used in § 38) 
 are quoted three times by Plutarch. There are some indications from which it 
 might be argued that all three of these were consulted by the writer of the 
 epistle. The lines are found in Mot. p. 25. Immediately above them we 
 observe lv used by Clement in the same sentence as the lines in § 37 (see 
 above) ; in the following sentence in Plutarch is xp ^ ra/ - Clement uses the exact 
 word directly in § 37. In Mor. p. 369, the lines are found again, and in the 
 next sentence la , x u p ^vm\a.Xnorrov, olx lv Xoyots povov. Clement, in § 38, 
 where he is using the latter part of the fragment, writes: o l<r%vpo; (An 
 r«v ccffhvn, followed directly by (An lv Xoyois. ’A vhvn is exactly found in Mor. p. 
 474, where the lines are used for the third time by Plutarch. 
 
26 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 We have not brought these coincidences forward, however, 
 at this point for the sake of their bearing upon the question of 
 the genuineness, or otherwise, of Clement’s Epistle. This is not 
 the question immediately before us. We have wished to give 
 at the outset of our investigations some proof that coinci- 
 dences — selected, not as being the strongest that could be 
 given, but for their representative character — can be pro- 
 duced out of the group of writings which we examine, which 
 do seem on the face of them to bear out the theory of com- 
 position which we have already set forth. It can hardly be 
 denied that they do. There is upon the face of them — if they 
 be not accidental — a seeming interest in words, and in the 
 grouping of w 7 ords. Stephens (Par. Mor. pt. ii. p. 11) describes 
 the two poems of Homer as supplying “ amplam rerum et ver- 
 borum sylvam” for the purposes of Eudocia and other parodists. 
 The coincidences we have just produced — if they are not acci- 
 dental — certainly do look as though the writer regarded the 
 books with which he deals as “ sylvas,” from which to take not 
 plants and slips, instinct with original life, to be transplanted 
 into his own borders, but timber, to be cut, and carved, and 
 polished by him at his pleasure. 
 
 We have taken the foregoing coincidences, all of them, 
 from Clement’s Ep. i., for the sake of the support which they 
 mutually give to one another. It must be allowed that their 
 value is immensely increased by the fact that they concern one 
 and the same writing. 
 
 We, of course, admit that the first of our coincidences, that 
 of Clement’s i. 1 with Eusebius, might accidentally arise. 
 The question, however, which the critic will ask, is not whether 
 a particular coincidence may be accidental, but whether it is. 
 To this question, the other coincidences give a cumulative as 
 well as an individual answer. We cannot afford to be insen- 
 sible to the force of cumulative evidence. 
 
 The Epistle to Diognetus would equally as well have served 
 our purpose as Clement’s Ep. i. We selected Clement be- 
 cause we do not for one moment wish to conceal the fact that 
 we include his epistle in the group of writings which we 
 believe to be utterly fraudulent. Knowing what we know, or 
 think we know, it would not be fair dealing to keep this fact 
 in reserve. We wish to have the whole matter discussed on 
 
COINCIDENCES. 
 
 27 
 
 its merits. We are quite prepared to find that there are 
 some persons whose minds are so made up on the question 
 of the genuineness of Clement’s Ep. i. that they will be 
 unable to give our arguments any patient hearing. But 
 there are also men of calmer minds who will inquire w r hat 
 the meaning is of the facts we bring forward, and without 
 prejudice or passion consider whether it is conceivable that 
 mere ingenuity can build up a charge of fraud, so elaborate 
 as ours will be found to be, on the basis only of accidental 
 coincidences. 
 
 § 2. We shall now take a verbal coincidence," again with 
 Clement, which will lead us to the subject of our immediate 
 inquiry, Lucian’s De Morte Peregrini , and also give us an 
 example of one of those specially curious class of coincidences 
 in which a number of writings meet together in the pages of 
 an author of whom, as of one another, they are supposed to 
 be wholly independent. 
 
 In Ep. i. 58, it is said : iKkoyif/jog zarui s ig rov upiflf/jov rav 
 GuZflpj'tvoov. Lightfoot remarks that g Xkoyif/jog is “ used here, 
 as in § 57, for those who have a place among the elect of 
 God;” and he says:. “Comp. Plato, Phileb. 17 E: ovx \Xkb- 
 yigbov ovh’ IvupiQgjOvP The four next words are necessary to 
 show the coincidence with Clement : ur ovtc Big upi^ov z.r.’K. 
 From this we may gather that Clement felt some interest 
 in iWoyif/jog. He uses the same word, but in a somewhat 
 different sense, in §§ 44, 62. In § 44 he writes : hiuhBtgavrui 
 BTBpoi hzhozi^uagAvoi uvhpsg rr\v ketrovpyiav uitrav. T ovg ovv 
 zaru<rru0'evrug vtt’ btcbivoov rj f/jsru^v v(fi erepav iKkoyipjuv 
 uvhpav, and in § 62 : iKKoyigbaruroig xul eyzezvfioGiv (see note, 
 p. 29) s ig ru Xoyiu rrjg nuihBiug rov Oeou. Cf. Philo, Vit. Mos. 
 i. 48, p. 123 : ug hr] rig IXKoyipjuv npotprirav yeyovag zui f/jrjhev 
 uvsv ypr](XfjjMV BiaOag Kpurreiv ro TrapuTrav, viravehvero Xeyav ovtc 
 BTrirpBTTBiv ultra fiuh'iZjuv ro Qbiov. tcui oi goh Sj Ttovrig Brruv/yzGuv 
 unpunroi Trpog |8 ugi\bu' irzpoi 5s BvOvg irci rrjit uvrriv yjpBiuv e^sipo- 
 rovovvro rav hoTcif/jarzpav, TC.r.X. Philo thus, out of the same 
 passage, supplies a parallel for two places in which Clement 
 uses IXKoyipjog. Unless we fall back upon “accident,” we 
 must needs confess that Clement’s sentences are concocted out 
 of Philo and also out of Plato. Can this be the work of 
 the Clement of Rome? For further illustration we may add 
 
28 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 from Philo : rot peh Grporspoc Tccvrcc, s I gtsv, Igti Xoyia zai 
 XpW[*oi, p. 127. 
 
 (1.) We shall now give some coincidences with the same 
 pages of Philo out of five other writings. The sentence 
 immediately above that first given from Philo begins thus : 
 Igti tovtov k<gzGrspjGre ruv iruipcov nvdg (p. 122) ; and presently, 
 as we have seen, we find g yziporovovvro and bi/]yovf/jSvog. Com- 
 pare zui nvetg \gc) rovrco (tovtmv, v.l.), GrpeGfievrccg rav iroApwv 
 \ yziporovriGi, Lucian, Peregrin. 41, with biriyovgeivov just below. 
 
 (2.) On the same p. 122, Philo writes : GvptjGrXotz Big 5s ov 
 Grpog ecpozXsrqrovg zod ctveeGzriTovg g yvco rr\v (Jtjdyjiv ovgocv, ocXX’ 
 uOXriToig GroXegecov ocrirrTjTOvg rco ovn , ot Grpo (jjizpov gtoXXu, zod 
 (JusydXee rivhpocyccQiGoivro, G^fjedroov dXzqv zed (ppovripbcc biecvoietg 
 zed ccpertjg vdgog ZGrihzi^dpjZvoi, with ra Grpwroe tmv clQXoov 
 in the next sentence. Compare gtzQocvovgQoj $2 6 peh bpopbizog 
 dOXyjrrjg shutpov GrccpsXQdv, q IWor 6 5s roc ficcpvrepcc olgzcov, 
 rocvpco GvpOGrXccz dg rj bipzTco, o s yd OGripApeci Grpocrrco, poeyocv ocQXov 
 u<pYipr\g!iVY\g pboi rrjg rvyrjg. Philostr. Vit . Soph. (Herodes) ii. 7. 
 Compare further with both : on eflog r\ v ^dig Poopeocioov Grpccid- 
 rciig , jfwxos o Grpccnjyog ccvrdv, gvv cevToig podyr} Grp bg nvecg 
 tmv GroXspbioov GvpjGrXoczsig, VGrlp rovg tigocziGyiXiovg rdv zyfipdv 
 etpociv&TO dvzXdv, ipoGrepdropcc ccvrov dvayopzvziv feed ocgtozocXsIv, 
 o \gti fiocGfXeoe. An excerpt from Diodorus Siculus, Photius, 
 Bibl. 244, p. 391. Philo immediately above the sentence 
 given above has \yfipwv, fieiGiXzoc, dvzXdv, IpefiocXdv. This last 
 word is exactly found in Photius a few lines above. 
 
 (3.) We quoted above from Philo, p. 127 : Xoyioc zed 
 ypyjGUtOi. After two lines we find (puXd<gocGQoci ; on p. 126 : 
 ypCXiGrwg \n yzdv ; on p. 124 : pecezpdv dTobyipeiav. Compare 
 ( pvXd<gecG0oii tov togcov rbv Ivzyzbvree rov bipeoppov with rov 
 ypyiGpjbv and to Xoyiov in the next line ; and with pecczpdv 
 ccGrobygjjiocv eleven lines below, and after a few lines ficcpzwg 
 Ivzyzziv. Excerpt (on hermaphrodites ) from Diodorus Siculus, 
 Photius, Bibl. 244, p. 377. 
 
 (4.) Philo writes in p. 125 : Igtsi o Xoyog zpyov \gt)v ccvtoj. 
 Compare bn Grdg Xoyog ccvtov spyov Igt)v erotpeov, Evang. 
 Thom. A, 17, p. 147. 
 
 (5.) Philo is here speaking of Balak and Balaam, and the 
 sin into which the prophet led the children of Israel, and of 
 the act of Phinehas. On p. 124 he writes : r/j be VGrepoc/a . . . 
 
COINCIDENCES. 
 
 29 
 
 o BccXdzyjg . . . Grrfkriv avveficciw ihpvaOoci huigboviov Tivog (ttj 
 VGTSp. and haifjbov. in Philostratus, a few lines below the passage 
 given above) ; on p. 128 : 7ropveicc zeipt'evovg ocvzKojv with 
 hoQeiarig Sg dheiccg in the next sentence. Presently, on same 
 page : tojv cc7ro tov 1 yevovg. Lower down, on same page : to 
 T- apciheiypja, . . . ave’kovTeg, to [/Av gbiocGgocc tov sflvovg, all in same 
 sentence. Presently, in the beginning of p. 129 : rsrpa- 
 ziayjikiovg he (pocGi npog Toig hiGfjjvpioig dvocipeOrjvcii (x,ia yj^epcc. 
 Compare 3 Macc. vii. 10 : Tovg ez tov yevovg ; in ver. 11 : Tovg 
 yuGTpog evez ev Toi Oeioc 'rMpafiefirizoTag % , in ver. 12: g hoozev 
 ccvTOig dhetccv ; in ver. 14 : toJv (jjegjiuGpj'evoov ogtjoeQvrj . . . zcci {aztcc 
 ‘ 7T(zpcchei r yf/jaTi(r{Jj0tJV dvrjpovv ; in ver. 15: g zeiv/j he T/j yj^epcc 
 dveihov V7rep Tovg TpiazoGtovg dlvhpag ; in ver. 20 : ev gty\Ky\ . . . 
 zccflihpvGccvTtg. The close of the third book of Maccabees 
 describes how the plans of Ptolemy Philopator were defeated ; 
 how the people prayed the king to suffer them to take ven- 
 geance on those of their nation who had broken God’s 
 commands ; how, permission being granted to them, they slew 
 300, and then with great joy kept a solemn feast. 
 
 We do not lay stress on the things which we have now 
 pointed out in themselves alone, but on the singular fact that 
 they are all here found together in Philo, and that the five 
 writings, Clement’s Epistle , Lucian’s ~ Peregrin., Philostratus, 
 Vit. Her ., Photius, Bibl. 244 (two excerpts), the Evang. 
 Thom ., and 3 Macc., to which the coincidences pointed out 
 relate, are all closely connected together, as we shall see here- 
 after. We shall find many coincidences of the same kind as 
 this, and we must bear in mind here again their cumulative 
 force. 
 
 1 In the next line Philo has py n xucvQoru. u$ re ilcttyos. Comp. Clement’s 
 iy/tixvQoffiv US roe Xoyiee., (piloted, on p. 27. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 DE MORTE PEREGRIN!. 
 
 W E must now pay particular attention to the treatise 
 De Morte Peregrini, to which Philo, to whom we went 
 for the purpose of comparing his use of iKkoyifjjog with that 
 of Clement, has introduced us. 
 
 § 1. The story of Proteus Peregrinus, as Lucian tells it, is 
 on this wise. 
 
 Happening to pass by the gymnasium at Elis, he heard a 
 cynic, by name Theagenes, railing at all the world in general, 
 and in particular at those persons who accused Proteus of 
 vainglory ; for, he said, had not Hercules done the like, and 
 had not Empedocles jumped into the crater? Lucian inquired 
 what all this might mean, and he was told that Proteus 
 intended to burn himself at Olympia. Theagenes left off 
 speaking, and, bathed in tears and pulling his hair (but not 
 ^oo hard), was carried away by his friends. 
 
 Another orator, whose name is not given, immediately 
 mounted the rostrum. 
 
 Theagenes, he said, had concluded his oration with the 
 tears of Heraclitus, but he would begin his with the laughter 
 of Democritus. And then he laughed until his laughter 
 became contagious, and Lucian and the rest joined him. 
 
 The orator then went on to tell what he knew, or had 
 heard, about the image of deity (Proteus) of whom Theagenes 
 was so enamoured. In his early days, he said, Proteus had 
 been taken in adultery, and compelled to undergo the usual 
 punishment thereof. Not content with scandalous things of 
 that kind, he had, so the story went, been guilty of killing his 
 father. After that exploit he had to leave his native city, 
 and to wander from place to place. Being in Palestine, he 
 became a Christian, and so rapidly surpassed his teachers, that 
 presently he became their president (TrpoaroiTTig). It happened, 
 however, that he was thrown into prison for introducing new 
 mysteries, just as the Crucified One, the object of Christian 
 
DE MORTE PEREGRINE 
 
 31 
 
 worship, had done before him. This was a fine thing, the 
 orator said, for Proteus, and greatly ministered to his thirst 
 for fame. The Christians flocked to his assistance, and he 
 soon amassed a large sum of money. The governor of Syria, 
 however, saw that this imprisonment only ministered to 
 Proteus’ vainglory, and so after a trial he let him go. 
 Proteus then, the orator proceeded, returned home, only to 
 find, however, that his crimes were not forgotten. He there- 
 fore let his beard grow, and assumed the garb of a cynic 
 philosopher, and declared that he gave all his property to the 
 people of Parium. This made him a fine fellow, but, of 
 course, reduced him to poverty. Proteus therefore started 
 a second time on his travels. At first, he threw himself upon 
 the charity of the Christians, but presently ruined himself 
 with them by eating forbidden things. In his distress he 
 begged of the emperor to be allowed to recall his generous 
 gift to Parium, which was, of course, refused. 
 
 Proteus then started on a third journey, this time to Aga- 
 thobulus, an Egyptian philosopher. There, the orator said, he 
 shaved half his head, and daubed himself with mud, and behaved 
 in a most obscene and ridiculous fashion, and certainly suc- 
 ceeded in gaining the credit of being a most extraordinarv fellow. 
 From Egypt he went to Italy, where at once he began to 
 abuse everybody, and specially the emperor, the meekest of 
 men ; and, altogether, he behaved in such a way, that it at 
 last became necessary to tell him that philosophers of his 
 stamp were not wanted at Rome. He turned this dismissal 
 to profit, however. Epictetus and others had been dismissed 
 for plain speaking, and why not Proteus ? 
 
 Thence he went to Greece, to Elis, and, of course, took to 
 railing. This time he fell foul of that excellent man (Herodes 
 Atticus) who, at his own expense, brought water to Olympia, 
 to the great relief of the spectators at the Olympic games. 
 As, however, he was at that moment drinking the said water, 
 his language was considered intolerable, and he was obliged 
 once more to take himself olf. And back Proteus had come, 
 the orator said, at the next Olympiad ; but as the people had 
 found him out, and had become accustomed to his tricks, he 
 had determined, by way of novelty, that he would burn him- 
 self alive. Doubtless he had made a convenient and safe 
 
32 
 
 PEREGRINES PROTEUS. 
 
 receptacle for himself in the midst of the funeral pile. 
 Proteus wanted, he supposed, to change his name, and take 
 that of Phoenix, that well-known bird. Theagenes, the orator 
 proceeded, had given them some Sibylline verses about that 
 same Proteus. He would match them, he said, with one of 
 Bads’ oracular utterances. The fox cubs, they heard from 
 Bacis, were to follow this precious cynic to the flames. Was 
 Bacis a worse soothsayer than the sibyl? Would it not be 
 well if Proteus’ admirable friends would volatilize (g t'ocep&xTouo'i) 
 themselves? That was, he thought, their term for burning. 
 
 As the people began to exclaim, “ Let them be burned, for 
 they are worthy of the fire,” the orator stepped down laughing. 
 
 Lucian then went on to Olympia to see the end, for the 
 whole thing gave him infinite amusement. He found Proteus 
 uttering his own funeral oration, recounting his great deeds, 
 and saying that he wished to put a golden crown, or finish, to 
 a golden life, and die like Heracles, and mingle with the air ; 
 that he would teach men to despise death, and that he hoped 
 that every man would be his Philoctetes. When Proteus 
 had finished, the more foolish of his audience urged him (as he 
 had hoped) to save his precious life in pity to the Greeks. 
 The more manly folk, however, bade him to fulfil his purpose. 
 You will imagine how I laughed, says Lucian, wdien his cheek 
 grew deadly pale ; and when, from fear, he was obliged to 
 cease speaking, no one could pity such a vainglorious fool. 
 
 Lucian then describes the closing scene. The funeral pile 
 was prepared, and the moon, as was fitting, shone out upon the 
 noble deed, and Proteus appeared, torch in hand. With him 
 was Theagenes, also armed with a torch ; and right well he 
 played the second part in the comedy. They fired the pile 
 from either side. Proteus then — and note this well, Lucian 
 sgys — divested himself of his wallet, and cloak, and Heraclean 
 club, and stood forth in an unquestionably dirty shirt; then 
 casting frankincense into the fire, and facing the south, and 
 breathing a prayer to his maternal and paternal gods, he sprang 
 into the flames, and was seen no more. As Proteus named the 
 paternal deities, I remembered that murder of his, and could no 
 longer contain my laughter, Lucian remarks. 
 
 As Lucian was returning, he met people on the road 
 pressing forward to be in time for the spectacle, which they 
 
DE MORTE PEREGRINE 
 
 33 
 
 thought would have taken place in the early morning in 
 honour of the rising sun, after the manner of the Brahmins. 
 Some went on to secure a relic (hefyavov ) ; others returned, 
 and eagerly inquired of him what had happened. To the 
 more intelligent of these inquirers Lucian told the truth ; but 
 f 01 the simple souls that stood open-mouthed to hear the tale, 
 he added, he says, sundry embellishments of his own. For 
 their benefit he introduced an earthquake, and made a vulture 
 fly up from the midst of the flames. He amused himself 
 mightily at the horror which they displayed, and at the way 
 m which some of them quietly adopted his inventions, and 
 spoke of them as facts within their own knowledge. He adds 
 that Proteus had before his death sent letters to divers cities 
 of repute, and commissioned some of his associates to act as 
 messengers from the shades below, and that he was sure that 
 the cities which had been so honoured would erect statues to 
 his memory. 
 
 Such, he says, was the end of the ill-fated Proteus, who had 
 lived only for fame, the enjoyment of which he reaped by the 
 very death which gave it to him. 
 
 To make Chronius, to whom he was writing, laugh the 
 more, Lucian adds something further. He reminds his' friend 
 of what he (Lucian) had once told him of a voyage from 
 Troas, in which he had been privileged to have Proteus as 
 his companion, when Proteus showed his luxurious sensual 
 habits, and also his miserable cowardice, in that when the 
 storm overtook them this fine fellow went below and blubbered 
 with the women. About nine days before his death, Lucian 
 says, Proteus having over-eaten himself, and made himself 
 \ery sick, fell ill of a fever. Alexander, the physician, was 
 sent for, who found him, consumed with fever, rolling on the 
 floor in agony, and asking for a little cold water. The 
 physician refused the request. He reminded Proteus that 
 he had desired death, and told him that death had now come 
 of its own accord to his door, and that there was now no 
 necessity for the fire. Proteus replied that such a death was 
 much too common for him. Lucian had this story from 
 Alexander ; but he says that he himself saw Proteus only a 
 few days before his death rubbing some ointment on his eyes 
 till they watered again. It was, he says, as if a man who was 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 going to the cross should trouble himself about an ailment to 
 his finger. Laugh, my friend, he adds, and most of all laugh 
 at those who admire Proteus. 
 
 Such is Lucian’s account of the life and death of Proteus 
 Peregrinus. How much of it is true? When he tells us that 
 he embellished the story for the benefit of some persons who, 
 he thought, would believe him, one cannot help suspecting 
 that there is more of satire than meets the eye; and that, 
 though there may be some small modicum of truth, we may 
 believe as much or as little of the general narrative as we 
 please. At any rate, the conclusion of the account is hardly 
 consistent with the beginning, where Lucian says distinctly 
 that he was passing the gymnasium at Elis when he happened 
 to hear of Proteus’ purpose. Besides, there runs throughout 
 the narrative a spirit of raillery and jest which we have vainly 
 endeavoured to give in our brief paraphrase, and which seems 
 to forbid us to look at the story in any other light than one of 
 those jests of which Lucian was unquestionably fond. 
 
 § 2. It must be confessed, however, that Lucian’s account 
 of Peregrinus has not commonly been regarded with this 
 suspicion. Pearson, for example, in his celebrated Vindicice 
 Ignatiance , makes considerable use of De Morte Peregrini. He 
 thinks that Peregrinus was acquainted with Ignatius’ Epistles, 
 and imitated them. He refers to Peregrin . 41. Lucian 
 writes thus: g Izovag gbh yap napa rz ’HXg/W ai/ra/v, napa 
 rz ruv aXkojv f E XKrjvoov^ oig feat z ‘zrzGraXzzvai zKzyov, avn'xa 
 g>a\a olha noKkag avaar/iGogb wag. (pact 5g Trdaaig ayfibv raig 
 g vhotgoig nokiGiv iniGrohag han't^^at avrov , hiaOqxag nvdg , 
 7ta\ TrapaivzGtig , %al vogjovg. xai Tivag hei tovtm {tovtcjv, v.l.) 
 TrpZGfiiVTag ran/ iraipuv ly^iporovri^ vwpayyikovg xou veprepo- 
 hpof/jovg npoGayopivaag. We must bring to the recollection 
 of our readers the coincidence for this passage which we gave 
 out of Philo a little while ago : g <ri rovrov g^g-rg^sTg ra/v iraipa/v 
 nvag, with lypiporovovvro and hiYiyovgijZvog a few lines below. 
 Pearson writes — 
 
 “ Habemus hie epistolas a jamjam morituro ad insigniores civi- 
 tates missas, cum exhortationibus: quod fecit S. Ignatius, neque ante 
 Peregrinum praeter eum, opinor, quisquam : habemus viros ex 
 
 sociis suis institutos tanquam legatos : scilicet, e^sipoTovrjGs ‘Trptfffieurdg, 
 plane ut apud Ignatium nostrum epistola ad Smyrnseos (§ 11), 
 
DE MORTE PEREGRINE 
 
 35 
 
 yziporovy)6ui fconpcff&sUTyiv, et ad Magnesianos (?. Philad. 10), 
 ysiporovriGui diuxovov sig r'o rrpsG^svGai Iks? Qsgv TpscSsiav' habemus 
 eos legatos a Peregrino appellatos vsprspodpopovg, ut apud Ignatium 
 ( Polyc . 7), siporovrjGct / rivet, og dvvqGsrai Osodpo/xog x.ct'k&TGQcti. Si huic 
 conjecture locus sit, has epistolas quas defendimus probe novit Pere- 
 grinus, qui ante martyrium Ignatii natus, post medium sseculi secundi 
 flammis se dedit,” Pars. i. 2, p. 79 (Migne). 
 
 Bishop Pearson was evidently too much in earnest to be 
 able to detect a joke, or he would hardly have gravely sup- 
 posed that Peregrinus adopted the title veprepobpoyjovg for his 
 messengers. The joke is Lucian’s, not Peregrinus’. This 
 makes no difference, of course, to the argument in favour of 
 Ignatius’ Epistles, for Lucian was contemporary with Pere- 
 grinus. The bishop does not inquire whether Lucian really 
 wrote De Mort. Peregr ., a question, in any case, of primary 
 importance to the argument. 
 
 That the joke, or parody, is Lucian’s, seems not at all 
 doubtful. Ignatius, very soon after the words quoted above 
 by Pearson from Polyc. 7, writes in the beginning of § 8 : Itsi 
 TT ctffGiig rofig (note with the passage from Peregrin. 41 given 
 above), izziK^Gictig ovz y]hvvy]Q'/iv ypd\poci 5/a to efcccfyvtjg t\s7v 
 pjji ccto 'TpaGchog g ig Ng mtoXiv. But Lucian, almost im- 
 mediately after the words quoted above, says : ezslvoc goh yeep 
 Taken o’ktOgc, zvOvg azovaoeg goov, ore rjzov ckto 2 vpiocg, hiqyov- 
 / jAvov (Philo’s word), ojg uto Tp uabog (TvyjTkzvaccif/ji avTop. 
 Ignatius, almost immediately after the words quoted by 
 Pearson out of Philad. 10, writes in § 11 : Tepid l QiXoovog . . . 
 og goto 2yp ictg gooi cizokovOeT, dTora%dg,evog ru fiia (Lucian’s 
 companion was the very opposite of Ignatius’). It is, of 
 course, not impossible that Lucian might have had Pere- 
 grinus as his companion in a voyage from Troas ; nor is it 
 impossible that Lucian might have given an account of this 
 voyage in the body of his narrative in entire independence of 
 what Ignatius had said. But it is inconceivable that he 
 should finish his narrative of Peregrinus with the coincidences 
 with Ignatius, which have been pointed out, and then tack 
 on his account of the voyage from Troas as an afterthought 
 (which it is), without having had that voyage suggested to his 
 mind by the words of Ignatius : tX elv yoe gcto r?jg Tp ooahog. 
 
 Jacobson, on Ignat. Polyc. 7, says: “Luciani narrationem, 
 
36 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 mirifice sane cum iis quae in Epistolis nostris leguntur con- 
 venientem, non veram esse historiam arbitratur Deuster- 
 dieckius, sed Actorum Ignatii parodiam acerbam, e.g., § 41, 
 Oa( 7 / hi Truffuig, Dtisterdieck is certainly right. 
 
 Lucian having come nearly to the end of his narrative, works 
 up the conclusion as a parody upon the close of Ignatius’ 
 Epistle. His eye falls upon the mention of the voyage from 
 Troas. He immediately invents a voyage with Peregrinus, 
 and tacks it on at the end of his narrative. Ignatius’ words 
 would remind any one of S. Paul’s voyage from Troas to 
 Neapolis, Acts xvi. 11 (perhaps from this chapter comes the 
 use of herr{/jOpv\a<g in Peregrin. 12) ; S. Paul had another 
 voyage, however, with a storm, and which is followed in Acts 
 xxviii. 8, 9 by the story of Publius’ father being sick of a 
 fever (7rvpzro7g) ; so Lucian adds a storm to his voyage, and 
 directly afterwards makes Peregrinus to be ill, Trupsroo gbuXu 
 Gfiohpfi. We shall hereafter find this fever appearing again 
 and again in other quarters. 
 
 One more interesting coincidence, with the passage from 
 Perigrin. 41 (quoted above), must be added. In Phot. Bihl. 
 126, we find: Xsys/ *ai rug Ifticro’kug uvrolg ’ lyvuriov rov 
 Ozopopov uTrecruXzlvui. Photius has just given a description 
 of Clement’s Epistles. We shall produce hereafter other 
 coincidences with Photius, cod. 126, out of Peregrinus (see 
 c. vi.). 
 
 From what has been just pointed out, it appears that 
 Peregrinus contains some imitations or parodies of grave sub- 
 jects, and that the coinage of new -words was suggested to 
 its writer by the language of Ignatius. Pearson has pointed 
 out coincidences which, he thinks, cannot be accidental. If 
 we accept these, we must accept also the others -which we have 
 supplied ; and if we do, we shall naturally suspect the sound- 
 ness of the judgment which has ascribed De Morte Peregr. 
 to the pen of Lucian. 
 
 It will be -well to examine some other accounts of Pere- 
 grinus Proteus. It may be that we shall find there some- 
 thing to justify this suspicion. 
 
 § 3. Eusebius, Cliron. ii. p. 562 (Migne), on Olympiad, 
 236, a.d. 166, writes: Apud Pisas Peregrinus pbilosophus 
 
 rogo, quern ex lignis composuerat, incenso, semet super jecit. 
 
DE MORTE PEREGRINI. 
 
 37 
 
 Ylepeyplvog 6 (piXoGopog h> wavYiyvpei 7rvp am^ag eavrov 
 hinpriai” In col. 555, an Agathobulus is mentioned, of 
 whom nothing is known, and who ma}' have been the equally 
 unknown Agathobulus to whom, as we have seen, Peregrinus 
 betook himself. Tertullian, ad Mart. 4, p. 625 (Migne), 
 writes: “Heraclitus, qui se bubulo stercore oblitum exussit; 
 item Empedocles, qui in ignes HCtnsei montis dissitivit ; et 
 Peregrinus, qui non olim se rogo immisit ; cum foeminae 
 quoque contempserint ignes.” Lucian also connects Empe- 
 docles and Heraclitus with Peregrinus, as we have already 
 seen, and in § 23 he writes : Ttarappov eh Qavarov tcoi 7ta vGeoog 
 Tcou toov ToiovToov heipjaTcov. In c. 1, Tertullian says : “ Inter 
 carnis alimenta — quse — et singuli fratres de opibus suis pro- 
 priis in carcerem subministrant.” Compare with the be- 
 haviour of the Christians to Proteus when in prison. Herac- 
 litus daubed himself with dung, Lucian’s Peregrinus with 
 fnud. Peregrinus did this, and also beat himself in the 
 presence of a large company. Tertullian goes on to speak 
 of the hiagbaGTiycoGig of the Lacedemonians when their youths 
 were beaten in the presence of their parents and relatives. 
 These things are wholly consistent with the notion that the 
 writer of Peregrinus referred to Tertullian for information. 
 In Amm. Marcell. xxix. 1, Peregrinus Proteus is mentioned. 
 We learn, however, nothing more than Eusebius tells us. 
 
 In Aul. Gell. xii. 11, again Peregrinus is spoken of. From 
 what we are there told, we should conclude that Peregrinus was 
 not at all the kind of man whom Lucian describes, and the 
 notion that Lucian’s account is fictitious is thereby confirmed. 
 
 In Peregrin. 19, the writer says that Proteus went to Elis, 
 and there naxcog yjyopevev Herodes Atticus, who had done so 
 much for the comfort of the spectators at the Olympic games. 
 Philostratus ( Vit. Soph. ii. 13), in his life of Herodes, returns 
 the allusion which the writer of Peregrinus makes to Herodes 
 by a similar one to Proteus. He says : aXP onoog ye na'i 
 Trpog rag Xoihoptag eppcoro, hrfkwGei zat rd Kpog rov zvva 
 Ylpcurea \e^evra tots vP aurov ’ K$yivy\giv. qv (Pev yap toov 
 ovtco QappaXecog pfkoGOpovvTcov 6 Ylpcorevg ovrog , cog eg nvp 
 eavTov ev ’O Xvf/jTia p fyai. eTrqzo'kovQet he tco 'H pcohy, zazcog 
 ayopeucov avrov Y)[jjifiapfidpco yXcoTTq. Philostratus uses zazoog 
 dyopeveiv three times, and lays great stress upon the words. 
 
38 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 It certainly looks as though the expression had been 
 borrowed from Philostratus by the writer of Peregrinus. 
 We shall have a good deal to say about Philostratus’ life of 
 Herodes hereafter. 
 
 Athenagoras ( Suppl . 26) says that Proteus cast himself into 
 the fire in the neighbourhood of Olympia. In no other respect 
 does he corroborate Lucian’s story. He does, however, in a 
 very remarkable manner bear witness to the fulfilment of 
 a prophecy on which Lucian ventured. Athenagoras writes : 
 rov rotvvv aXkovg gAv tivai rovg Ive pyovvrag, erepav hi 
 
 avicraaQai rag eizovag, Izzivo g,lyiarov rsz^piov, Tpaag zal 
 Idap/ov 7} ULtlv — ro 5s II apiov ’A 'ke<gavhpov zal II poorlug. 
 Comp. avicraGOai rag eizovag with the opening words of the 
 passage from § 41, quoted on p. 34. 
 
 It would be unreasonable to contend that this is an acci- 
 dental coincidence. Are we then to think that Athenagoras, 
 in writing his apology, found it necessary to consult Lucian 
 on a matter of common notoriety ? or are we to suppose that 
 he had been so struck by the fulfilment of Lucian’s prophecy 
 that he unconsciously recorded that fulfilment partly in the 
 prophet’s own words? It seems a simpler solution, and one 
 more in accordance with what has already been observed, to 
 believe that the writer of Peregrinus is here jocosely making 
 Athenagoras in some sort a witness to his veracity. 
 
 Reference to such other accounts of Proteus as we possess 
 thus shows that the diffuse narrative given in De Morte Pere- 
 grini is without any external support, and that there are not 
 wanting indications that the writer of the treatise in question 
 consulted these accounts. 
 
 We shall now continue our examination of Peregrinus, and 
 at the same time bring into comparison with it the Evangelium 
 Thomce and other writings. We shall be led into some long 
 digressions. This we cannot help. 
 
CHAPTER Y. 
 
 E Y ANGELIUM TH0MJ1. 
 
 T 'HE edition of the Evangelia Apocrypha , published by C. 
 
 Tischendorf (Lips. 1852), contains twenty-two apocry- 
 phal writings — some in Greek, and some in Latin. 
 
 The first of these is the Protevangelium Jacobi . Tischendorf 
 names a number of writers to whom an apocryphal writing 
 by James was known, and concludes this to be the one known 
 to them. He says: “ Accedit quod in libri argumento nihil est 
 quod ab ingenio sseculi secundi medii abhorreat,” Proleg. p. xiii. 
 
 The fifth and sixth of the apocryphal writings in Tischen- 
 dorf’s volume are the Evangelium Thomce , A (pp. 134-149), 
 and the Evangelium Thomce, B (pp. 150-155). These are 
 two versions of the same Gospel. We shall see reasons for 
 believing that these were written by the same hand. 
 
 We have already come across this Gospel in chap. iii. 2, 4, 
 p. 26, where we showed a coincidence with it in certain pages 
 of Philo, which same pages furnished coincidences with other 
 writings. 
 
 As it will be necessary to refer exceedingly often to the 
 Evang. Thom., 1 some detailed account of it will be useful. 
 
 The Evang. Thom. A has nineteen sections, the contents 
 of which are shortly as follows : — 
 
 1 . 
 
 Declaration of the authorship of Thomas. 3 lines. 
 
 2 . 
 
 Jesus, being five years old, creates twelve sparrows, and by 
 so doing breaks the Sabbath. 16 lines. 
 
 1 The other Greek writings are : IX. Gesta Pilati, A ; X. Gesta Pilati, B ; XI. 
 Descensus Christi ad Inferos ; XVII. Anaphora Pilati , A ; XVIII. Anaphora 
 Pilati , B ; XIX. Paradosis Pilati; XXI. Narratio Iosephi Arimathiensis. 
 
40 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 3. 
 
 The son of Anna offends Jesus, and is withered up at His 
 word. 11 lines. 
 
 4. 
 
 Another child offends J esus, and dies. 9 lines. 
 
 5. 
 
 Joseph expostulates. 12 lines. 
 
 6 . 
 
 Jesus is brought to Zacchaeus that he may learn His letters. 
 21 lines. 
 
 7. 
 
 Discomfiture of Zacchaeus. 21 lines. 
 
 8 . 
 
 Some words of Jesus. 8 lines. 
 
 9. 
 
 Jesus is playing with some boys in an upper chamber. 
 One of them falls down and is killed. Jesus leaps down 
 and restores him to life. 12 lines. 
 
 10 . 
 
 A young man is cutting wood with an axe, and injures his 
 foot. He is healed. 8 lines. 
 
 11 . 
 
 Jesus, being six years old, is sent by His mother to fetch 
 water. The pitcher is broken by the way. He brings the 
 water back in His garment. 7 lines. 
 
 12 . 
 
 Miraculous growth of corn. 7 lines. 
 
 13. 
 
 Joseph is making a bedstead, and has one piece too short 
 for his purpose. It is pulled out to the required length. .1 1 
 lines. 
 
 14. 
 
 Jesus is taken to another master. There is a disagreement, 
 and the master dies. 15 lines. 
 
EVANGELIUM THOM^E. 
 
 41 
 
 15. 
 
 Jesus is taken to another master, a friend of Joseph’s, who 
 admires Him. In consideration of this, the preceding master 
 is restored. 22 lines. 
 
 16. 
 
 James is bitten by a viper, and is healed. 7 lines. 
 
 17. 
 
 Jesus restores a child to life. 10 lines. 
 
 18. 
 
 He does the same for a man. 7 lines. 
 
 19. 
 
 Jesus, being twelve years old, is taken to the temple. (The 
 narrative nearly corresponds to that in Holy Scripture.) 25 
 lines. 
 
 There are only eleven sections in Evang. Thom. B. §§ 1, 
 4, 5, 6, 7 in each version deal with the same subjects. Of 
 the rest in B, § 2 corresponds with § 3 in A, § 3 with § 2, 
 § 8 with § 9, § 9 with § 10, § 10 with § 11, § 11 with § 13. 
 
 Tischendorf shows (Proleg. xl. sq.) that an Evang. Thom . 
 was known to the ancients. He points out some circum- 
 stances which might seem to cast a doubt upon the authen- 
 ticity of our apocryphal Gospel. He gives, however, reasons 
 for putting these circumstances on one side, and adds : 
 “ Denique similitudo inter Irenaei locum de Jesu ad discendum 
 litteras magistro tradito, A dv. Haeres. i. 20, et locos eos quibus 
 eadem fabula in nostris codicibus narratur, tanta est ut nos 
 vetet Irenaei librum a nostro diversum putare,” p. xlii. It is 
 unnecessary to produce these passages. It is enough to say 
 that the apocryphal Gospel, of which we speak, claims to be 
 the Evang. Thom, known to the ancients. 
 
 If it is what it professes to be, it formerly belonged to a 
 group of apocryphal writings forged, as Irenaeus says, by the 
 Marcosians, a sect of the Valentinians, with intent “to con- 
 found the foolish, and those who know not the scriptures of 
 truth.” 1 It is to be expected, therefore, that writings of this 
 character should contain much that sounds unpleasantly in our 
 1 See Westcott, Can. New Test. Pt. I. iv. 8, p. 305, 4th ed. 
 
42 
 
 PEREGKINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ears. Irenaeus shows, however, that they were composed not 
 for the sake of the jest or the blasphemy, as we should account 
 it, but with a real, earnest purpose. They were intended as 
 an attack upon Christianity, as then commonly received. 
 Open jests and open blasphemies may be looked for, not 
 parodies of verses of the Old Testament which may easily 
 escape observation. 
 
 § 1. To give our readers an idea of the true character of 
 our Evang . Thom., we shall point out a most obvious parody 
 of a verse of the book of Proverbs — most obvious, that is, 
 when once attention is called to it. 
 
 In Evang. Thom. B 10, p. 154, our Lord is sent to the 
 fountain for water, and, having broken the pitcher on the 
 way, He returns with the water in His garment. 
 
 The next section, on the same page, tells us that Joseph 
 was engaged in making a bedstead, and found one of the 
 pieces of wood too short for his purpose. Joseph was then 
 directed to place them side by side, and to pull upon the 
 shorter piece. He did so tots zp ocTrjtrccg zee) 6 ’I rjffovg to srepoi '• 
 oizpov s'lkzvasv avTov rriv ccXkrjv TTpoTogoriv. 
 
 Prov. xxx. 4 runs : Tig dvsfirj s ig too ovpaooo zoct zccTS^rj ; 
 rig (rvorjyayeo dosgoovg so zb'hnoo ; Tig cvosGTps^so vhoop so 
 i/jjGCTia ; Tig szpdTrjas TrdoTooo too o dzpooo Ttjg yijg ; 
 
 It is not possible, one would suppose, that this resemblance 
 of the Evang. Thom. B to this verse can be accidental. The 
 second clause of this verse, we may remark, is quoted by 
 Canon Lightfoot (Ep. of Clem. p. 192) in illustration of an 
 apocryphal quotation in Clem. ii. 4. 
 
 We have some evidence at hand which is in some measure 
 corroborative of the parody which we have pointed out. 
 
 In the narrative of the breaking of the pitcher, in Evang. 
 Thom. B, the language ((rvosTpi'firj rj vhpioe c&vtov , zoci a-rs \Qouv 
 h TTi irriyri, z.tX.) resembles Eccles. xii. 6 : kou (rvvTpi/3/j vhp'ict 
 \ 7Ti t/i TYiyy}. Solomon proceeds : zoo) GvvTpoxaGri 6 rpoyfg \tci 
 tov \dz7coV') zoci sTHTTps^pyj 6 %ovg iff) TTjV y?jv oog jjv, z.tX. The 
 last words are, no doubt, a reference to — they would at any 
 rate suggest — Gen. ii. 7 : zou inhuGiv 6 Oeog too uvQpcoTrov, yjovv 
 a 7ro Trjg yfc x tX. In Evang. Thom. A 2, it is said : zee) \ocfioov 
 7rr[ko v BT'kccfrsv 7rov\i'oc (ffTpovdioe, just above) ij 3. A little above, 
 in the same section, it is said: toc ps ootcc vhocToc (Tvvfiyayev (exactly 
 
EVANGELIUM THOM^E. 
 
 43 
 
 in the verse of Proverbs) sic Xcczzov (see above in Eccles.). 
 In Eccles., in ver. 4, there is GTpovOiov. 
 
 In the Evang. Thom. A, between the two miraculous cir- 
 cumstances which form the parody on the verse from Proverbs, 
 a short section intervenes, which has nothing answering to it 
 in B. 
 
 We are told (§ 12, p. 143) that at the seed-time (sv zoupoo 
 rov Gnbpov) the child went out with his father to sow (Gftsipsiv) 
 corn in the field, tie sowed one grain. When it was reaped 
 (QsplZj&iv) and threshed it produced 100 measures. He then 
 called together all the poor of the village, and gave (g^ap igocto) 
 to them. 
 
 This would be readily suggested by Eccles. xi. In ver. 2 : 
 “ Give a portion to seven, and also to eight.” In ver. 4 : “ He 
 that observeth the wind shall not sow (GTrsipsi) ; and he that 
 regardeth the clouds shall not reap (OepiGSi).” 
 
 No^v turn to Eccles. x. 
 
 Ver. 9 runs: GyjZguv %vku zivhvvsvGZi Iv uvrolg' soiv sztcsgyi to 
 G ihrjpiov, z.t.X. 
 
 We have been referring to Evang. Thom. A, §§ 11, 12, 13. 
 In § 10 (B 9) w r e are informed that as a young man was 
 GXiZfiov %i)\u, the axe fell (s7TSGSv) and cut his foot so severely 
 that he died. He was immediately healed (iddyj) by Jesus, 
 and the people said : Of a truth the Spirit of the Lord (ttvsv/JjCi 
 0so£) dw^elleth in this child. Ver. 4 of Eccles. runs: g ocv 
 crvsvfjijoc rov VgovGia^ovrog ccvafiri s tti gs, to7Tov gov ftyj on 
 iccf/jcc zarccmvGSt (kfAocpriccg gtjsydiXocg. 
 
 Ver. 7 of Eccles. has: zocOctipovvTcc (ppccyf/jov h^sroci uvrov 
 o(pig; and ver. 11: eav hoizri o<pig. In Evang. Thom. A 16, 
 James is sent hrjGcci %v\ci; a viper g haze his hand. But Jesus 
 zaretpvGqGZ to hrjyfjjoc, and healed him. 
 
 These coincidences, as a whole, cannot have accidentally 
 arisen, and they show plainly how this apocryphal Gospel was 
 manufactured. 
 
 If the writer of the Evang. Thom, used not only the LXX. 
 version of Eccles. but also the Meta,phrasis ascribed to Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, the various points which he takes up would be 
 much more distinctly marked out for him. 
 
 The Metaphrasis is very brief, not much longer indeed than 
 the book of Ecclesiastes, which it paraphrases. 
 
44 
 
 PEREGR1NUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Thus in Eccles. Metaph . xi. 6 we find : Gmipocg &g \v zocipSj^ 
 (TvyzofJbiZ^s rovg napTOvg, brror av rovrov zccipog hurry ; in ver. 9, 
 ypcpiZ^aboci a 7n0vfjjtccig. Compare with what is given above out 
 of the miracle of the corn ( Evang . Thom. A 12). 
 
 In x. 8, 11, hrjyp>cc, compare with miracle of the snake-bite 
 above. 
 
 In x. 9, 10, bcWbc KGii <ryjZp)V h ocvrSj rSj olte'ioj ottXm 
 
 rov zivhvvov o’lcrer locv hi av fifty rov an\iov rov rrlXinw Iznri- 
 hyjffcci, OopvftyOyiGSrcci 6 ravroc Ip yocZpfiivog, x.r.’k. In Eccles. 
 there is no mention of an axe. In Evang. Thom. B, rrlXspcvg 
 is the word ; in A, cdgjvrj ; and in the latter, flopvftov yivofilvov 
 is said. The words ayj'Cpv %vkoc are in both versions. 
 
 We shall show presently that Gregory’s Metaphrasis was 
 used by certain other writers. The things now pointed out 
 come very appropriately to hand. It is difficult to suppose 
 them to be accidental. It is, however, a matter of very small 
 importance whether we at present conclude that Gregory was 
 or was not used by the writer of the Evang. Thom. At any 
 rate, what has been pointed out shows that ideas and language 
 similar to those of the Evang. Thom, would be naturally 
 suggested by the perusal of the last three chapters of the book 
 of Ecclesiastes, which is all that we contend for at present. 
 
 We do not think that the use of this book for suggestions 
 can reasonably be denied. The ideas for the filling out of 
 these suggestions, and the language in which they are clothed, 
 come from various sources. These are partly classical, and 
 some of them will be pointed out presently. Other sources, 
 again, are scriptural. The story of the cure of the snake-bite 
 in A 16, p. 147, for example, seems to point to Acts xxviii. 3 sq., 
 where avarpi^ocvrog 5g rov Ylocvhov (ppvyocvojv rrhrj^og . . . ’iyjhvoc 
 . . . JcocQy'^t rrjg %s/po£ ocvrov . . .ro flypiov may be compared with 
 avXhlyovrog rov ’ I oczcoftov roc (ppvyocvoc g y/hm shccxs ryv %&7pav 
 T ocxuftov . . . ro Qqpiov of the Evang. Thom. 
 
 In Peregrinus 36 we find rrvpccv , and in the next line but one 
 rcov (ppvyccvav, ug ccvccpQtiy ruyjaroc, and after a few lines, in 
 § 37 : ocvy^ocv ro rrvp fisy/Grov, are bcrrb hochovv rtoti (ppvyocvoov. 
 Compare ccvcc^pocvreg yocp rrvpdcv . . . (ppvyocvoov rr'kyQog, Acts xxviii. 
 2, 3. One would not care to point this out if it were not that 
 \ve find in § 42 an account of a voyage and a storm at sea 
 followed immediately by a fever, just as S. Paul’s voyage and 
 
EVANGELIUM TH01VLE. 
 
 45 
 
 shipwreck are followed in Acts xxviii. by the fever of Publius’ 
 father. See the paraphrase of Peregrinus in chap. iv. 
 
 § 2. In Peregrin. 9, Lucian relates a very disgusting story 
 concerning Proteus. The examination, however, of certain 
 passages of Aristophanes and his scholiast, which illustrate and 
 explain it, leads to such important results that we cannot afford 
 to pass it by. 
 
 Lucian writes: to yap r?jg pvcsoog tovto TThaagoa zai byigoiovpy- 
 rifjjd, 6 tov YlohvzhsiTov zavoov, s wsi s ig avbpag ts\s7v ijptgaTo 
 iv ’ Apf/jZvia (jjOiysvsiv ahovg, g>aha KoXhag TThriydg shafts, zai 
 rsXog zara tov Tsyovg dxbgbsvog b/spvys, papavtbi ttiv 7rvyrjv 
 ftsftv(7fJbsvog' sna (ASipdziov ti cbpa7ov biapOsipag, TpiayfhAv 
 VgwvriGaTO 7ra pa tcov yoviovv tov vraibog, ksvyitoov ovtcov, gbrj isr# 
 tov ap(JjO(TT?jv aTrayfiyjvai Trig ’ Afflag, with zvftiffT&ivTsg iv too 
 [asgoo, only five lines above, and with tovto yap 6 zszpaycbg 
 izMvog izahiiTO in § 5 ; sti yap tovto szoXsito in § 12 . This 
 story and Lucian’s iv toj (joscm remind us of St John viii. 1 sq., 
 and zai zaTshsipt)?] gbovog b ’ I ricovg, zai 7] yvvrj iv (JjSGm ivTatra, 
 ver. 9 in particular. 
 
 In Evang. Thom. A 9 (B 8), it is said that Jesus was playing 
 with some boys, iv V7rspd>co, and that one of them, nsGobv ano 
 tov bovgoaTog zoctoj, died (cf. iv tco V7rspa)a> . . . S7rs<rsv a^ro tov 
 TpiGTsyov zaTco , zai tfpOr] vszpog, Acts xx. 8, 9). When the 
 other boys saw this they fled, zai zaTSGTY\ b ’I Y\aovg gobvog (zai 
 g/ovog 6 T rjffovg VKshsipOyi SGT&g, B). The yovsig of the boy 
 heard of it and came, and looking up they saw Jesus and 
 reviled Him, zaTSiryftviasv b T rjaovg dnb tov GTsyov zai sgtyj 
 Trapa to KTagoa tov Traiblov, zai szpa<gs pavy posyahri zai sinsv 
 'Lrivov, . . . ovtoj yap to ovogba avTov izahsiTO. Jesus restored 
 him to life, ol hs yovs7g tov Traibtov glorified God. Compare 
 above. 
 
 Four lines above this story, in same p. 142, in the Evang. 
 Thom. A, is ojg to aibiov zaTsvavas tov \byov. Compare cIjgts 
 zaTSKOtVas tov hoyov, Peregrin. §§ 5 , 33 . 
 
 There are thus three sources to which the story of the 
 Evang. Thom, would seem to be indebted. They mutually 
 support one another; and the fact that S. John viii. might 
 have been suggested by Peregrinus , must be observed. 
 
 There are four passages in Aristophanes which have more 
 or less bearing upon the story in Peregrinus 9. Two of 
 
46 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 them are, however, fairly close together, and practically form 
 one. 
 
 1. Nab. 967 (Bekker) : ovb ’ av ekecQai 5g wvovvr e<g 7 jv ze$a- 
 \aiov r$jg p a(pavtbog. 
 
 In 958 we find rvnrbgjevog noKkag. As the scholiast 
 says : nKriydg byfkovbn. Compare with Peregrinus above. In 
 964 we find nalg ; in 981 : yoveag. Of. above. In 982 
 is rdyaKgoa. Four lines above the story in Peregrinus , and 
 also in the sentence following it, Proteus is called to ayaXgja. 
 In 987 (and elsewhere) is g^eipaziov ; in 1000 : nvyriv 
 goeyaXyjv; in 1005: nvyrjv gbinpav. Compare above, and also 
 the plural elg rag nvydg in § 17. In 1012 : oj zaXK'mvpyov 
 aotyiav TtheivoTarriv enaGnoov. After six lines Peregrinus speaks 
 of ty\v OavgoaGTyjv ao(piav of the Christians. In 1047 we 
 notice 6 nazobaigjoov, the first words of Peregrinus. In 1057 : 
 rfjg (pvaeag, followed in 1062 by gboiyog yocp ijv rvyrig akovg. 
 Compare above. 
 
 This brings us in 1066 to the second passage, illustrative 
 of Peregrin. 9 : r/ b\ v\ pa(pavib&j@ri niQogjevbg aoi, re<ppa re rdJij ; 
 
 In 1071 is 77 5’ aKko. Just before the story in Peregrinus 
 is 77 yap aKko. In 1085 : u zivovgtjevoi, npbg rouv Oebov, be^aaQe 
 goov Ooigoanov, ug e^avrogbokb) npbg vgbdg ; and in 1106 : 
 npoaeyerw rov vovv. Compare 6 be, tea) goot ndvv r\br\ npbaeyj. 
 tov vovv , dno&egi>evog rr\v nrjpav, xal to rpifiaviov ; and after three 
 lines, baigi>oveg . . . be^avO'e goe, § 36. In 1110 we find tov 
 r'eyovg used above. 
 
 With the words from 1055 compare noiog be zoGgoog be^erai 
 riva tuv avTogoo'kovvTav an avrov, Clem. i. 28. 
 
 2. There are two passages in Plutus which have to do with 
 Peregrin. 9, but at some distance from one another. For the 
 sake of convenience we shall take the second passage first. 
 
 (1.) In Plut. 544, Aristophanes says: avri §g goatyg 
 (pvKkeT icryvav pa<pavibcjv. It is the word pa<pavig and its use 
 which takes our writer from passage to passage. The word 
 will turn up again in another quarter. 
 
 Perhaps (pvkkeT itryyovv attracted some notice. Suidas quotes 
 Acliarn. 445, where the same combination is used. In 
 Acharn. 439 is fiefivegoevov. Compare p acpavibi rqv nvyyjv 
 (oefivcrgoevog in Peregrin. 9, quoted above. Two passages are 
 thus combined. 
 
ARISTOPHANES. 
 
 47 
 
 In Acharn. 488: ri ravra rovg A azavag ainwgjiQa may 
 be compared with rov ovv 0s ayivrj rovro (hdXiara ainavairo, 
 Peregrin . 24. Observe the double accusative. This line of 
 Aristophanes is noticeable as being quoted by Aristeides. We 
 shall refer there hereafter, and it will then be seen that 
 Peregrin. §§ 9, 24 are closely connected. 
 
 Returning to Plat. 544, we find in 547 : dyaQojv irdcriv rolg 
 dvQpoj7roig dftotpoi'ivoj <r’ ai'nov oixrav; Compare rralhag avrovg 
 dnityrivi . . . zai ndvra (Jbovog avrog av, presently in Peregrin. 11. 
 We shall refer to this again directly. 
 
 In 554 we notice iftikifouv. dig (Jbazaplrrjv Si A agjanp 
 with zaraXu^n in 555. Compare yjv 6 (joazapir^g rrarrip 
 avrov zarikivri, Peregrin. 15. Examination will show how the 
 one passage is worked up out of the other. The scholiast 
 would assist our author. 
 
 In 586 is critpavua ag zonvco arKpavoo. Compare zorivu 
 ri irrri(Jj(Pivov, Peregrin. 40. 
 
 (2.) The other and the most important 1 passage of Aristo- 
 phanes is in Pint. 168 : 6 h’ aXovg yi g>oiypg hid as nov 
 TrapariXKirai. The scholiast here fully describes the punish- 
 ment of the adulterer. Among his words are : roig rpiyag 
 riKkirai. Compare rag rpiyag in'Kkiro, Peregrin. 6. 
 
 In 140 is dvr^airai ; in 150, Pivyjg. Compare above. 
 
 In 181 sq. Aristophanes writes — 
 
 XPE. rd c)g Trpdygjar ovy) hid <rs 7rdvra Trpdrnrai ; 
 (joovdrarog yap si <jv < 7rdvrojv air tog , 
 zai rav zazwv zai rav dyafldv, sv la& on. 
 
 KA. zparovai yovv zdv rolg noXipboig izaaron, 
 s<p olg dv olirog ivizatfiZyirai (hdvog . 
 
 IIAOY. lyd roaavra hvvarog zip/ lig oov ttosIv; 
 
 Lucian goes on in § 10: ravra zai rd roiaura saviiv g,oi 
 hoza' rryjkog yap in dPkaarog r,v, zai ovhina ivnXig dyaKgba 
 rig/iv svhsbrigjiovpyyiro . a £g rov rrarspa shpaaz, zai vrdvu dzovaai 
 a<giov. . . . lira iTCiihri rd TTpaygoa hufiiftdrjro, (pvyrjv iavrov zarahi- 
 zdnag inXavdro , oKKy\v aKKori df/jiifiav. §11: orivrip zai rrjv 
 Oavfjjarrriv tropiav rav yjp lanavav sgg pads, mpi rrjv TlaXanrrivqv 
 rolg ispivai zai ypafipjanvciv avrdv \vyyivd(bivog. zai (n yap :) 
 iv (Spays! naihag avrovg dPsprivs , npopyirrig , zai (haadpyyig, nai 
 \vvayaysvg , zai navra (i>ovog avrog dv. zai rav (SifiXav rag (Pi v 
 
 1 See chap. vi. 
 
48 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 sj^yslro, za) htzcdpzi, TroPkag 5g auTog za) %vozypa(pz, za} cog 
 6zbo avTOo zzzTooi fjyovoTO, za) oogjoOzT/i zyjpoooTO, zai TrpoGTaTqo 
 ZTrzypapoo* too g>zyao yovo zzziooo zti <rz(5ov<rio aoQpcoTOO, too \v 
 
 TY YIccXaHTTlVri doaVZOXOTT IGblOTa, OTl ZOClOYjO TaVTY}0 TZXZTtjO Zlfffj- 
 
 yayzo \g too fiioo. 
 
 Compare the zai 7raoTa g>ooog avTog coo with Aristophanes. 
 The poet’s zig coo hardly makes necessary, though it would 
 suggest, Hesychius’ explanation of gcoocoTaTog by g,ooog coo, v%dp- 
 ycoo. We had occasion to refer just now (see p. 47) to 
 Plut . 544 in illustration of Peregrin. 9 ; and in 546 sq. we 
 found : apd ys woWcoo dyaQooo Tcdaio Tolg do@pco7roig aTropaioco 
 (7 aiTioo ovcao ; Comp. Lucian's d‘7rz<py]ve, and the lines of 
 Aristophanes given above. 
 
 The scholiast on g,oocoTaTog refers to Lycurgus’ Contr. 
 Leocr. 20. He only gives a few r words. If he had been 
 illustrating Peregrinus, he would doubtless have given the 
 whole sentence, which is this : Toiyapovo (/jOocotgctoi ZTcoovgjOt 
 T?jg %dpag ziffio, faoOzcoo Tigocoo TZTvyyizoTzg. Comp. Lucian’s cog 
 Qzbo . . . rjyovoTO, applied to Proteus. 
 
 The editors have found some difficulty in dealing with the 
 sentence beginning with too gczyao yovo. It has been contended 
 that this last word should be altered into yap. Reference to 
 the lines of Aristophanes above shows that there is a yovo 
 in 184. A difficulty has been felt there also; and there also 
 yap has been suggested. 
 
 The too gAzyao, again, has been a difficulty. A lacuna after 
 znzypapoo has been supposed by some. Gessner conjectured 
 gcdyoo. There is, however, in Aristophanes, in 170, an im- 
 portant gczyocg . He says : gAzyag 5s fiaaikzvg ovy) bid tovtoo 
 zogjd ; We have no doubt at all that gAzyao was written. We 
 shall presently find it taken up in Clement as too (jgAyao) 
 apyizpza, and in some other quarters as too gAzyao fiaaCbAza 
 (see cc. vi. vii.). 
 
 We believe that the passage w r as intentionally written as it 
 stands, that it might be thought to be corrupt, and that it 
 might give rise to comment and conjecture ; for while we are 
 satisfied that g>zycco w r as written, w*e are equally satisfied that 
 gcayoo, which is an obvious conjectural emendation, w 7 as in the 
 mind of the writer. 
 
 (i a ) In chap. iii. 1, 4, it was shown that Cyril of Jerusalem and. 
 
EPIPHANIUS. 
 
 49 
 
 Clement agree in applying the epithet dyaQoi to S. Peter and 
 S. Paul. Both writers agree in using the word arpOGTaTTig. 
 Cyril calls the apostles oi rrjg ’Hz/ckYiaiag arp ogt area, Cat. vi. 
 15, p. 96. Cyril goes on : zai k^ihzizTiuvTa tov vog>iZppjZvov 
 fleov ^igoevva, vszpov zvQvg a7rzhzi<gav. Presently Cyril says : zai 
 oi) OavfjjGCTog d\iov' II avhog yap Jjv : “ ivho was caught up into 
 the third heaven and into paradise , and heard unspeakable words, 
 which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” Comp. Lucian’s 
 npocrdTriv z.t.X., and his zai 7ravv dzovaai d%iov a little above. 
 As the reading stands as above with pJayav, the coincidence 
 now pointed out is noticeable. Write in goayov, however, and 
 it becomes remarkable, for Simon is here called M ayog. We 
 shall confirm the idea of the use of Cyril directly. Meanwhile 
 we must remember that we referred to Cyril merely because 
 of the connection between him and Clement. 
 
 (/3) If the writer of Peregrinus, though writing yhyav in 
 §11, had goayov in his mind, as has been suggested on p. 48, 
 it may be worth while to turn to Epiphanius, who, in his 
 Adversus Hcereses , discourses on Simon Magus and the other 
 heretics of whom Cyril speaks. There can be no other reason 
 for hoping to find in that particular part of Epiphanius’ writ- 
 ings coincidences with Peregrin . 11 and thereabouts. 
 
 In II acres, xxi., Simon is discussed ; in xxii., Menander, who 
 followed in Simon’s steps ; in xxiii., Saturnilus and his con- 
 nection with Simon. We may pause on § 4 for a moment. 
 Epiphanius is speaking of the heretical notion that man was 
 created by angels. The word tc X avgoa occurs, and very soon 
 (jjdXKov evTshsGTSpov to epyov tov riyyirov. Comp. Lucian’s 
 TXdagja in § 9, and his arrjXog yap anhaarog r\v, zal ovbinu 
 IvTZhkg dyaXgoa (Proteus) in § 10, quoted p. 47. 
 
 In Hceres. xxiv., Epiphanius speaks of the heresy of Basilides, 
 an offshoot from Saturnilus and Simon. In § 3, p. 71, he 
 says that these heretics contended that it was not Jesus, but 
 Simon the Cyrenian, who was crucified (g GTavpdQrj) ; Jesus 
 ascended up into heaven xapdbovg tov ^igbtvva dvaGzoXo7TiG0ijvai. 
 Comp, with Lucian in§ 11 (see p. 48). In § 13, Lucian says : 
 STiiTa 5g 6 vogooOzTrjg 6 <rpaTog sTSiffSv auTovg , o!>g Qzovg golv Tovg 
 'E XXrjvizovg dffapvriGcjvTai) tov £g dvzGzoXoTnGfPzvov 1 IzCivov 
 
 1 With u.vu.ffx.oXorfKrOiv'ra. o<t i x.ou\v)v x.t.X., Peregrin. 11, COmp. tt.vi<rx.oXo'7ri<ri tvj v 
 Kp%Ctl*lV %lxnv 1 THTIptoHv, Herod, iv. 43. “ Citat Thomas M. in ’EviTipos," Gaisford. 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 g opHTTrjv avrdv GcpoGzvmGi, Epiplianius writes on the same 
 page : rovg avru rreiG&evrag IzbibaGzei, and presently : ana pn\- 
 Gidetav avrag e zbibaGZoov. The word dnapvriGi&eia is very un- 
 common, and therefore likely to have attracted attention. We 
 shall have occasion presently to refer again to these same pages 
 of Epiphanius. 
 
 (y) We have been, however, only preparing the way for 
 some more conclusive evidence. 
 
 In the Oratio ad Grcecos (ascribed in the MS. to Justin 
 Martyr), § 3, it is said: rd [Pev ’ Arpecog ayrj, OveGrov Piyyi, zai 
 II eXombuv f/jVGT], zat A avadv (pflova (povevovra, zai drezvovvra 
 f/jef/jsQvfff/j'wov, zai rd ®v'e Greta, bCiirva a ’E pivvveg ijprvov, with rd 
 yap O ibinobog z.r.X. in the next line. The words here seem to 
 be carefully selected. Observing this, we turned to certain so- 
 called excerpts from Helladius, the Egyptian grammarian, 
 found in Photius, Bibl. 279. These excerpts are frequently 
 used in Stephens’ Thesaurus sometimes with, but oftener with- 
 out acknowledgment. On p. 535 we found bid zed . . . ezaXovv . . . 
 rag be ’E pivvvag E5^s vibag r\ Gegbvag Oeag, rd 5s [JbVGog dyog. 
 We further remarked in the excerpts various things which 
 might have been used as hints in the composition of the Oration ; 
 and as Eusebius, H. E. v. 1, p. 156, writes : rd Qv'eGreia beinva 
 zai O ibmobeiovg gbi%eig (comp, with Oration above), we thought 
 it probable that the whole passage in the Oration was a mere 
 manufacture, and that the Helladian excerpts had been used. 
 
 Knowing all the writings with which we deal to be closely 
 connected together in the sources from which they are drawn, 
 we have carefully kept these excerpts in view. When, then, we 
 came upon g,ovdrarog in Aristophanes, and when it appeared 
 probable that the writer of Peregrinus had been struck by the 
 word, w r e turned with some interest to Helladius, who com- 
 ments upon it. 
 
 On p. 533 the writer of the excerpt says : on rd [hdvog 
 exiraGiv (paGi "kaf/jfidveiv oi ypa^gbanzor bid rd (Jbovdrarog 
 goKoizov riyovvrai. ’ ApiGrofiavyg be ogbcog zA^pyirui rrj (pavri. 
 Helladius refers to Plut. 182 (not to Eq. 352, where the word 
 is also found), as we shall see presently, to the very passage, i.e. 
 now in hand. In the preceding twenty-f our lines we remark ; 
 vof/joQ'errjv, ovbev QavpijaGrbv, ypatpeiv , rov rcov eni Qavaroo zara- 
 bizaG^evroov epovea, ’ ApiGroreXqg 6 rov nepmarov npoGrdrrjg. 
 
HELLADIUS. 
 
 51 
 
 Comp, here the zarochizuGug (for murder), OccvfJbutTrriv, zcci 
 tccvtcc f/jovog avTog m, <gvvsypcc<pe, fiyovvTO zoci vogboOirq e xposvro 
 /cat KpoarGCT'/iv S7rzypa(pov of Peregrin. 11, quoted pp. 47, 48. 
 
 At the close Photius speaks of other books written by 
 Helladius (ffvyypoctpevg), an Egyptian cog avTog eTriypafiei, 
 adding : iGCf/jfiiz&j (JbWpoj bie<gyjX0e roi Trpozsif/jsvct. ’ Y.TTiypoi^ziv 
 becomes connected with TTpofTrccT/jg through Arist. Pac. 667 : 
 on avToj novripov ‘7rpoGraTriv Irnypcc^uro. In chap. vi. the use 
 of this place of Aristophanes will be shown. 
 
 It is simply impossible that the coincidences which have now 
 been pointed out can have accidentally arisen. Let us consider 
 how the case stands.. 
 
 Peregrin. 9 contains a story for the explanation of which it is 
 necessary to examine certain passages of Aristophanes, and in 
 particular Pint. 168, and the scholiast’s remarks thereon. We 
 did so, and found some indications of the use of Aristophanes 
 in Peregrin. 9. We remarked further that the writer of Pere- 
 grinus had apparently been struck by Aristophanes’ use of the 
 word (AovcurGCTog in Plut. 182, for in his § 11 there was shown 
 not only a resemblance to Plut. 182, but also to the words of 
 Lycurgus, to which the scholiast refers in illustration of that 
 line. In consequence of this seeming interest in f/jovwrarog 
 by the author of Peregrinus , we turned to a certain specified 
 page of Photius’ Bibliotheca (the excerpts from Helladius). 
 We had no reason to expect coincidences there. There is no 
 identity in thought between that page and Peregrin. 11 to lead 
 to identity in language. Nothing, indeed, can be more broken 
 than the thread of ideas in the excerpts from Helladius. The 
 passage just now referred to contains about twenty-five lines 
 distributed in seven exceedingly short excerpts, each of which has 
 a distinct subject. We had no more right to expect to find any- 
 thing common to that page with Peregrin. 11 than in any other 
 of the 545 pages of the Bibliotheca. Yet in that page, in close 
 company with [jjovourarog, which Aristophanes, not the writer 
 of Peregrinus , uses, we found very noticeable coincidences. 
 
 It must be remembered that this is now the ninth instance of 
 what looks like indebtedness on the part of the writer of Pere- 
 grinus to other writers. He seems to use Philo, Ignatius, 
 Photius, Bibl. 126, Tertullian, Athenagoras, to use (or to be 
 used by) the Evang. Thom., Aristophanes, Epiphanius, Now he 
 
 iuivfRSITY OF ILLINOS 
 
52 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 is tracked in a way that cannot surely be accidental into the 
 excerpts from Helladius. The conclusion is irresistible. If 
 these excerpts are genuine, they were used by the writer of Pere- 
 grinus. The writer cannot then he Lucian. If the excerpts 
 are not genuine, the case is not materially altered. The word 
 f/jOVMrarog in Aristophanes might guide the writer of Peregrinus 
 to the excerpts, but it could not guide the writer of the excerpts 
 to Peregrin. 11, for the word is not there used. If, however, these 
 excerpts are frauds, the connection between them and Pere- 
 grinus may be much closer than as yet appears. For the pre- 
 sent, we must conclude only that Peregrinus and the Bibliotheca 
 are not independent of one another. 
 
 The conclusion at which we have now arrived, it must be 
 remarked, gives a general justification to the supposition that 
 the writers just named were used in Peregrinus , and in par- 
 ticular that Aristophanes was made use of very much in the 
 way that has been pointed out above. We must further infer 
 that the writer of Peregrinus was fond of jest and parody, and 
 a man who took a lively and scholarly interest in words. 
 
 We ought now to proceed to bring the Evangelium Thomce 
 into comparison with those passages of Aristophanes •which 
 were used in Peregrin. 9, for this section has been shown to be 
 in close contact with the Evang. Thom. We must, however, 
 for the sake of confirming the conclusion to which we have 
 just come, and of clearing the way for future discussion, enter 
 upon one of those digressions as to which we warned our 
 readers on p. 38, and consider the question of the genuineness 
 or otherwise of the excerpts which we have just been using. 
 
 (5) These excerpts, as we have called them, are short sum- 
 maries of matters found in the four books of Helladius. They 
 are not in the words of the grammarian, who wrote in 
 iambics. Photius introduces every fresh subject with or/. 
 In a passage of forty-five lines, and which includes that to 
 which we just now called attention, this or/ occurs ten times, 
 showing that there are ten different subjects. One or two 
 of these lead us to suppose — as they were no doubt intended 
 to do — that they are summaries of matters treated at some 
 length by Helladius himself. This passage occupies about 
 one column out of the eleven devoted to the four books of 
 Helladius in Migne’s edition. It is evident, therefore, that 
 
HELLADIUS. 
 
 53 
 
 we have no right to expect to find more points of contact with 
 Aristophanes’ Plutus in the near neighbourhood of (jjovojrarog 
 ( Plut . 182) than the excerpt given on p. 50 contains, which 
 stands number eight in the passage with which we are now 
 concerned. 
 
 In Plut. 191, however, Aristophanes speaks of itiyjpbuv. In 
 Excerpt 10 we are told that it was customary at Athens, in 
 certain expiations, to wear black ic^ubug round the neck on 
 behalf of men, and white on behalf of women. 
 
 In 179, Lais the courtesan is mentioned. There is a scliolion 
 on her ; and the language describing her murder in the temple 
 of Venus, and the consequences of the murder, is almost exactly 
 that of Helladius in Excerpt 9. 
 
 Excerpt 8 is on (jjOvojTarog. 
 
 In 175 is |3 sa ovonwhYig. In Excerpt 1 it is said: aXkoi 
 T7jg $i\bvY\g 7] p cc(pig ^akaioTipov. Stephens says that p aplg has 
 sometimes the meaning of “ napus,” and he gives the word 
 with this meaning under p ocpccvig. We cannot forget that it 
 
 has been the unpleasant story in Peregrin. 9 of the p ctipccvig 
 that brought us to Plut. 168 and the scholion thereon. The 
 punishment of the adulterer is referred to in an earlier 
 excerpt. 1 
 
 Excerpt 2 runs thus: or/, (pyjffh ovrog, 9 Apiffrorsfojg 6 rov 
 •7rept7rocTov TrpotrrccTrig V7ro YVkuruvog 'innog IffajvofjjOcZpro, Ivuv- 
 
 1 P. 530 : on o <rn%os ® orapoi/xix^ofitvos" 
 
 opxovs I yu yvva.ix.os us v'bup ypd<pu } 
 tan y\v lotpoxXiovs, rovrov %t Txpu'Sqacts o ^iT.uvi'hns zJW' 
 opxovs fxoi%uv us ritypav lyu ypuQu. 
 
 Oi £ t <ra.s yvvouxas axuarruvTts tpooaiv' 
 
 opxovs lyu yvvoctxuv us oixrov ypatyw. 
 
 Comp, with this last : o V, US avbp ytvvouos, ovx o’lxrov ptiTci xciTyvicrtv Tali' opxios 
 Ipciauv %ivu, Soph. 0. C. 1636. Athenseus (quoting Xenarchus) writes : opxov 
 V lyu ywaixos us oTvov yp«.<pu, x. p. 441. This is perhaps the original. The 
 grouping of the lines in the excerpt has an amusing resemblance to Stephens’ 
 parodies, described on p. 16. In Plut. 179 a Philonides is mentioned as well as 
 Lais (so also by the scholiast). The punishment at which Philonides glances is 
 fully described by the scholiast on Plut. 168. There is no authority whatever 
 for attributing the first of the lines just given to Sophocles. The expression iv 
 vboon ypu<puv is used by Plato, Phcedr. p. 276. Above it and below it we 
 observe X^P ,v - It happens that the scholiast on Plut. 179 refers to the 
 
 Phcedrus ; and in his first sentence about Philonides uses the expression wa^ias 
 ivtxt v. In an inquiry such as this is in which we are engaged, it is necessary to 
 take note of every little circumstance. A straw will sometimes show which way 
 the stream is moving. 
 
54 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 novcOai hozbov rob hihuczoCkoo' not] yocp 6 iTorog rov eocvrov <pi\e7 
 srarspa hazvetv . . In Pint. 155 sq. Aristophanes jests about 
 a horse. The %p?]trrot Trobiheg, he says, do not ask for money as 
 the wages of their iniquity : 6 ybev 'Innov ayaQov, 6 5s zvvag 
 Orjpevnzug. ociffypvofJtjevoi yap apyvpiov cclre7v ’iaoog ovbfjbccn repi- 
 •. xerrovci rrjv (Jjoyfiqpiav. The scholiast says that under the 
 name of the horse they conceal their desire for money. 
 
 Aristophanes’ epithet %p tjgtoi is noticeable. In Pint. 386 he 
 has : aX>,a rovg yjp rjcrovg goovovg ’ey coys zcci rovg he^iovg z.rX. 
 On he <gieg it may be that the writer of the excerpts consulted 
 or remembered Suidas, who gives the proverb beginning he<gibv 
 elg VTCihriUjCC z.rX., for in the very next excerpt (of three 
 lines) this proverb is given. Curiously, also, Hesychius writes : 
 Xprjcroi, ol zccrochehizocGgoevot , yjpr}(U[x,oi. The next excerpt 
 (4) to the proverb runs : on hbjfoiov goev (prici zoXeia Qai rov rbov 
 Itti flc&varoo zccruhizcca^evroov (povecc , hyjgjbzoivov 5s rov fiaGuviG- 
 rrjv. This appears to be taken from the Etymologicum 
 Magnum. A rjf/jozoivog- hri[jjbai.og ficcffocvHrrfig* r\ o hrjgjiog, rjyovv o 
 ez rod hfjf/jov ro (fioveveiv z'krjpooQeig, p. 265, F. Sylb. 1593. 
 The words rov rbov Itti Occv. zccr. pov., which form part of the 
 coincidence with Peregrinus, are, however, interpolated, being 
 suggested apparently by Hesychius. 
 
 These things come very appropriately to hand just when 
 they are wanted. Can it possibly be all accident ? If not, 
 this can hardly be the work of Helladius. Helladius, more- 
 over, did not write the excerpts, but four books of iambics from 
 which they are compiled. To all appearance, the excerpts 
 themselves have been manufactured from hints supplied by 
 Aristophanes and his scholiast. 
 
 The application of the term “ horse ” to Aristotle looks very 
 much like mere jesting. He is in the same place also called 
 * 7TpO(rraT7]g . On this account, but on no other, it is natural to 
 turn to Cyril of Jerusalem, whose use of the word has seemed 
 to be so interesting in some other quarters. Nothing can 
 easily be conceived more unlikely than that coincidences with 
 a specified page of Helladius should be found in a specified 
 page of a lecture by Cyril of Jerusalem, De Uno Deo . Our 
 excuse for taking this seemingly useless trouble is simply this : 
 Clement’s Ep. 1 and Peregrinus are linked with Cyril in the 
 use of the word TrpoGrbcrrjg ; this word is used in Peregrin. 11, 
 
HELLADIUS. 
 
 00 
 
 a section shown to be in close connection with our excerpts in 
 the use of that very word among others ; the jesting character 
 of Peregrinus has been fully established, and we think we 
 detect a joke in Helladius’ use of the word. 
 
 In Cat. vi. 15, p. 96, is the passage containing the word 
 TrpoardrTjg, which has been already quoted on pp. 23, 49. A 
 little below Cyril says : Jcai 6 Xsycov n aXiv dXXov ro v tfarepa, 
 xai dXXov rov Troiqrijv rov xofffjoov, evavnovrai rcg 'Tico Xeyovn. 
 Comp, with Helladius’ excerpt, given in full on p. 53. 
 
 This is not sufficient in itself to show a connection. Almost 
 immediately, however, after the use of the word rrpoardrrig , 
 Cyril says : ovhsv Oavgoaffrov. This is found in Excerpt 5. It 
 is an exceedingly common expression, and it will be said that it 
 is “ nothing wonderful ” that both Cyril and Helladius should 
 use it. On this account, however, the coincidence is a very 
 instructive one, and serves to show that even a coincidence in 
 the use of a very common expression ought not hastily to be 
 dismissed as accidental. The author of Peregrinus in § 11 (see 
 p. 47) writes, perhaps sarcastically : rr\v &avgjaarr\v <ro(piav ruv 
 
 XplffTtOCVOJV. 
 
 Cyril says : ovhsv OavgbaGrov, xamp ov Oavgoaffrov JJsrpog yap 
 ?jv, 6 rag xXs7g rwv ovpavvv 7rspi(pepwv. xai ov Oavgoarog d%iov. 
 UavXog yap t\v, “ who was caught up into the third heaven and 
 to paradise , and heard unspeakable words , which it is not lawful 
 for a man to utter” We have pointed out that the last part of 
 these words seems to be used in Peregrin. 11. 
 
 Excerpt 5 runs thus : on IrcrcCig gosv xai vogjCig hs7 ypatyeiv zai 
 Xsysiv rrjv evOeiav ruv TrXqvdvvnxat v, ovz'en he zai rag ainanzag, 
 aXX’ iftireag zai vogAag' si he zai 'Eevopouv ei'pTjze rovg vog> e7g, ovhsv 
 Oavgoacrov, dvrip sv arpareiaig aypXaCpvv zai |g vuv avvovriaig si 
 riva tfapazowrei rrjg rcarpiov (pouvrjg' hid vog,o6zrriv avrov ovz dv 
 rig ’A rnziagjov vrapaXafioi. Observe the rag zXsig of Cyril. 
 Suidas writes: K Xeig, zXsihog. zai r\ airianzYi ruv 7rXy]@vvrizdv, 
 rag zXs7g. Compare Cyril and Suidas with the hcKeig and 
 vopjSig of Helladius, which, he says, it is unlawful either to write 
 or to utter as accusatives. 
 
 It is impossible to contend that this double set of coincidences 
 is a mere accidental circumstance. We have described exactly 
 the way in which they were actually found. It is clear that 
 the excerpts in question have no right to the name of 
 
56 
 
 PEREGRINE'S PROTEUS. 
 
 Helladius. We shall hardly think that Photius manufactured 
 them. We must regard them as interpolations of Photius’ 
 Bibliotheca. 
 
 Two points then, we conceive, are now plainly established. 
 
 1. Photius’ Bibliotheca has been interpolated. 
 
 2. De Morte Peregrini was not written by Lucian, but was 
 written by the interpolator of the Bibliotheca , or by some one 
 intimately acquainted with his secrets. We may, of course, 
 reverse this last position, and suppose that the interpolator 
 became by some means acquainted with the secret history of 
 De Morte Peregrini. 
 
 These two conclusions will be amply supported as we proceed. 
 
 (g) We have, however, not yet finished with the curious 
 connection between Cyril and Helladius which has been 
 pointed out. 
 
 Clement of Rome has a section in which “ the keys ” play a 
 very singular part. Remember Cyril’s rag ySkilg, and Helladius’ 
 parody of the passage containing them. 
 
 In Ep. i. 43, Clement gives the familiar narrative of 
 61 Aaron’s rod that budded.” He does not tell the story, how- 
 ever, exactly as it is told in Num. xvii. He draws considerably 
 upon his imagination. So in § 12, where he gives the story of 
 Rahab and the spies, he departs from the scriptural narrative, 
 and by so doing brings himself into that curious connection 
 with the Evang. Thom, which has been pointed out on p. 23, 
 and wdiich will be referred to again presently. 
 
 In § 43, Clement says that Moses took the rods which had 
 been brought to him and bound them, and sealed them with 
 the rings of the heads of the tribes, and placed them within the 
 tabernacle on the table of God, adding : xai ySKiiaag rrjv gtcyivyiv 
 SG( ppayiGSv rag zkzibag cocavrag xou rag p afibovg. When the 
 morning came, Moses showed the seals, opened the doors, and 
 brought out the rods. The second sealing of the rods after the 
 door of the tabernacle had been shut creates a difficulty. The 
 Syriac version steps in to the rescue, for the scribe would ap- 
 pear to have had Qupag in his copy of Clement (Light, p. 434) 
 or in his mind. 
 
 No part of this sealing, it must be observed, has any warrant 
 in the sacred narrative. Do not the arrangements appear to 
 be a little too elaborately detailed for serious writing? The 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 57 
 
 simple mention of sealing the door might pass without much 
 remark, although even that would be an embellishment of the 
 scriptural account. Moses, Clement says, sealed the rods ; he 
 sealed the keys deal jroog zai rag pdffiovg. The last was too 
 much for the gravity of the Syriac scribe, and he suggests 
 Qvpag. Both the Greek mss., however, give pafifiovg, and all 
 three MSS. are supposed to spring from one archetype (Light, 
 p. 247). But even with Qvpag, does not the account read like 
 mere jest ? It has a strong family likeness to a story told in 
 the Evang . Nicodem. A, p. 237 ( Evang . Apocr ., Tisch.). The 
 writer, desiring to ridicule the sealing of our Lord’s sepulchre, 
 says that the Jewish authorities laid hold an Joseph (because 
 he had begged the Lord’s body) and placed him in a room 
 where there was no window. The door (comp, with the 
 Syriac version of Clement’s, § 43) was carefully sealed. The 
 key was not ; its safety was otherwise, but sufficiently, provided 
 for. Caiaphas kept the key. When the door was opened in 
 the morning, Joseph was, of course, missing. The people, the 
 writer says, were much astonished at this, because the seals 
 were unbroken : zal on rr\v zheihav er/jev 6 K aia(pag. The 
 writer proceeds : zai ovz'en eroXfjbyjGav e ftifiaXeTv rag yfipag 
 ahroov elg rovg XaXyjffavrag eybftpoaQev rov Ui’karov vftlp rov 
 ’Itjgov, and his words sound like a recollection of the story of 
 which Clement gives his own peculiar version. 
 
 It is noteworthy that Clement begins his narrative: zai ri 
 6av[jjacrov el z.rX. Common as this word Qavybacrrov is, it may 
 perhaps be no less significant than Helladius’ ovhev QavyoaGrov, 
 with which we shall now compare it. 
 
 Clement says : zal ri Qavyjaarov el oi ev Xp irrol rriarev^evreg 
 Grapd Qeov epyov roiovro xarearriGav rovg poeip^yoevovg ; oftov 
 xal 6 yjazdpiog ftiarog Qepdftav ev o\co rco oizco M oovcrjg rd 
 hiarerayy/eva avrco ft dvr a eayiiJjeidaaro ev ralg iepaig fiifiXoig, d 
 zai e ftqzoXovQrjcrav oi Xoiftol ftpo(p?jrat awe fti(j>aprvpovvreg rdig 
 vft ’ avrov vevofjjoderjjyoevoig. Comp. Helladius’ el • • • ovhev flav- 
 (jjarrov . . . vof/joOerqg , remembering that his sentence is founded 
 on Cyril’s use of rag zXeTg. Somewhat lower down Helladius 
 has dcravrcog zai. Comp. Clement’s use of the expression. 
 
 N oyjo6err,g hardly seems the natural word in the connection 
 in which Helladius uses it. We have seen that it forms 
 one point of contact between Helladius and Peregrin. 11. In 
 
58 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Peregrinus if appears in near company with GCpo^riTYig and 
 |3 just as vof/jeQ&reiv does in Clement with KpoffiTai and 
 fitfiXovg. In Peregrin. 13 the word is again used. The writer 
 says : gVe/ra &g 6 vo[/jO0err]g 6 TrpcoTog sts iffzv avTovg , cog abzXtyo) 
 navTzg elev aXXrjXcov, \mibav avralg TapafiavTeg, Qeovg pbh rovg 
 'JLXXqvizovg a,7rappf]GcovTai, top 5a apSGzoXoTTiGf/jZvov izi 7pov 
 
 GO(piGTY\V avrcov TpOGZVPCOffJ, Zai ZOCTCC TOVg SZZlPOV VOfJjOVg fitCOffl. 
 zaTatppovovciv ovv oc7rocvTcov h%i<rrig, za) zoiva qyovvTai avzv Tivog 
 azpifiovg TrtGTScog Ta ToiavTa Trapabe^af/jZPOi. 
 
 Who was this 6 vogboQzTrjg 6 Kpcorog 1 ? Various answers have 
 been given to this question. Among others the name of Moses 
 has been suggested. The question is not worth debating. As 
 with his (jj'tyav in Peregrin. 11 (where vofioOerrig is also used), 
 so here with 6 vof/joQ. 6 TTpoor., the writer no doubt intended to 
 give opportunity for conjectures. 
 
 The word in question is used and applied to Moses in some 
 excerpts professedly from Diodorus Siculus, found in Photius 
 Bibl. 244. It is there used (p. 380) in near company with ro7g 
 /gpgy<r/,'as in Peregrin. 11, and with vrpoGzvvzlv, as in Peregrin. 13. 
 Each of the clauses just given from § 13, except the last, 
 is there illustrated, only that the writer of the excerpt is at 
 pains sometimes to express the exactly opposite idea. Thus 
 (Jjbvovg yap anavToov \6vwv azoivoovqTOvg, to f/iiffog to vrpog TOvg 
 avOpcovrovg, to {Jbqbm aXXco g Qvzi TpaT efyjg zoivoovziv gorib' svvofiv to 
 TccpdcTrav, Trjv [UGavOpcoTrlav vravToov, etc., are said of the Jews. 
 
 He says, p. 380 : g 7T017]Gccto 5’ 6 vo{/jO0zT7]g tcov tz TroXzgjizm 
 epycov ‘ToXkyjv ftpovoiav, and after two lines: Itoizito bl za) 
 GTpaTtiag. Helladius (see p. 55) refuses to acknowledge 
 Xenophon as pof/joOzTrjv of Attic Greek, because his life had 
 been spent h GTpaTZiaig. 
 
 Some few lines above on the same page the writer says : za) 
 Tag Tifjjag za) ayiGTziag tov Qeiov zaTzbei<ge, za) toc zaTa Tr,v 
 TroXiTZiav lvof/jO0ZT9]<rs ts za) bizTa%e. Comp, with Clement in 
 § 43, quoted above, p. 57. 
 
 N ogooQzTziv is used also on p. 379 (but not in the same ex- 
 cerpt), and there it is almost directly followed by Tag kpag 
 avTcov fitfiXovg. Comp, with Clement’s rocig hpaig fiifiXotg in 
 § 43, quoted above. 
 
 There are, it will be seen, a few words out of the passage 
 just quoted from Peregrin. 13, for which there is nothing 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 59 
 
 in any way parallel to be found in the excerpts from 
 Diodorus. 
 
 If we turn again to Cyril, Cat . vi. 15, p. 96, we find a 
 TTpurog which may have suggested the 6 vofjfjoQzryjg 6 ftpourog of 
 Peregrinus. Cyril says Simon Magus was the -rp vrog 6 rrjg 
 zaziag hpdzsui/. Marcion followed him, and Cyril writes : vto 
 yap tuv z r ci(A,ivct)V dno Trig noCkaidg h rfj zaivri hiaQijzr] f/jccp- 
 Tvpiav sXsy^ofjijBvog, npourog IroXg^Giv Izzo^ai rag fjbapTvpiag, 
 zai dgodpTvpov a(pe7i^ai rov zarayyiKKogjivov Xoyov rrjg wfo rscug. 
 Comp, with the 6 vofJboCiTrjg 6 npoorog . . . dnv nvog dzp ifiovg 
 ‘TiaTicog rd roiavra Trapahs^dfJb^oi. Peregrin. 13. 
 
 We expect, of course, that this idea of Cyril’s will appear 
 (Proteus-like) elsewhere. Accordingly we find, whether it is 
 an accidental circumstance or not, an answering GvmriiJja p- 
 Tvpovvrtg z.r.X. in Clement’s words in § 43, given above. 
 
 In the same § 43 we find Z/fkov e[/j 7 fSGovTog, and after some 
 few lines, but still in § 43, gjdXiGra yher d\\’ im [lyi dzaraG- 
 raGia ytvrjrai \v tc7j L TparjX, and after five lines, but in § 44, 
 hid Tuvrqv ovv rr\v airiav- Now, strangely enough, by again 
 going to a source to which we have shown that Peregrin. 13 is 
 seemingly indebted, we shall find Clement’s words now given 
 to be illustrated. 
 
 Immediately after the passage just quoted out of Cyril, 
 Basilides is spoken of. It will be remembered that in § /3, 
 p. 49, we produced out of Epiphanius’ remarks on the heresy 
 of Basilides : rov 2 igoam dvaGzo\o7riG^rivai ( Hceres . xxiv. 3, 
 p. 71) in illustration of Peregrin. 13. This section of 
 Peregrinus we have shown to be connected with Clement’s 
 § 43. Is it not remarkable that only seven lines below 
 dvaGzoXorr. Epiphanius should write : 5/’ zihtv 6 n arrip azara- 
 GraGiav h rs rolg dvOpanoig zai Iv ro7g ayyzXoig, followed 
 after a few lines in the same page by: hid ravrriv yap rrjv airiav 
 rr\g rihvTraQiiag ttoWoI eig Trjv a'ipiGiv \gj e Ki f KTOVGiv ? Comp, with 
 Clement’s words just given. These coincidences are made 
 still more remarkable by observing that above dvaGzo\o e 7r. 
 Epiphanius writes : 5/a rr\v rwv dXKoov dyyiXav 7 ?apaZjikooGiv, 
 and after two lines : tovtov hzza TroXzgjOi 7ravTore zai azaraG- 
 raGiai zar avrwv hra/iGTyjGav. Comp. \z tovtov Zflkog . . . zai 
 dzaraGruGia , ToXegbog, Clem. i. 3. 7JjXog is the burden of 
 the following sections, and 5/a Zfi Xog or ZyfXov occurs many 
 
60 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 times. Of course here, as so often, the noticeable circum- 
 stance is the way in which these coincidences are found. 
 
 We make no remark here upon the bearing of all these 
 various circumstances connected with Clement’s § 43, which 
 have been pointed out upon the question of the genuineness of 
 Clement’s Ep. 1. We only say, that if any person is disposed 
 to look upon § 43 as nothing but elaborate jest and parody, 
 he will certainly have some justification for his opinion. 
 
 § 3. It will be necessary now to return to the Evang. 
 Thom . 
 
 Our first introduction to this apocryphal gospel was through 
 a page of Philo, which supplied a parallel both for the gospel 
 and for Pcregrinus. On examination of the gospel it appeared 
 that the writer had parodied a verse of the book of Proverbs, 
 and that in working out his parody he had used the language 
 of Eccles. xii. This was a hint to examine the chapters of 
 Ecclesiastes immediately preceding. On doing this it was 
 found that suggestions for some of the sections of the gospel 
 had, to all appearance, been received from these chapters, and 
 notably that the ayjZpvv %vhu of Eccles. x. 9 had been taken 
 up in Evang . Thom. A 10 (B 9). It was then shown that the 
 Evang. Thom. A 9 (B 8) was somewhat closely connected 
 with Peregrin. 9. 
 
 This Peregrin. 9 is, however, as we have seen, indebted to 
 Aristophanes. We have now, therefore, to retrace our steps 
 to discover whether the Evang. Thom, and Peregrinus meet in 
 Aristophanes as they before met in Philo. We turn, it must 
 be observed, to certain passages definitely marked out for us 
 by their seeming use in Peregrinus. If we expect to find 
 coincidences for the gospel in Aristophanes at all, this must be 
 because we believe the writer of the gospel to have been just 
 as fond of parody and jest as Aristophanes. But if we expect 
 to find them in certain specified places, this can only be because 
 of the connection between the gospel and Peregrinus which 
 has been pointed out. 
 
 1. For convenience’ sake we shall begin with Pint. 544. 
 
 We did not find much here for Peregrinus , nor do we now 
 for the Evang. Tliom. This neighbourhood was taken more 
 notice of in other quarters. In 515, Aristophanes has yrjg 
 aporpoig pij^ccg. On these words the scholiast says: aporpov 
 
EVANGELIUM TH01VLE. 
 
 61 
 
 GyiGccg, rspooov rfy S7rKpdvsiav. We shall hereafter find that 
 these words are made use of in an excerpt professedly from 
 Diodorus Siculus (Phot. Bibl. 244), which gives an account 
 of the hermaphrodite. In the Evang. Thom. A 13, p. 144, 
 however, it is said that Joseph rexrav rp zal Irroki h ra> neaped 
 SKl'lVOJ dporpcc. 
 
 2. Plut. 168, vid. supr. p. 47. 
 
 In 163 is rsnruivsrui. The scholiast says : rsnrcjv lari. 
 Comp, rsnrcov r\v just given. 
 
 In 169 we find oipooi rdXag. Comp. dipooi, TjtfopfjOyjv 6 rakocg 
 sybo, Evang. Thom. A 7, p. 140. In the same § 7, p. 141, 
 the writer says : svdvpjovpoai, (piXoi, rrjv GciGyvvqv, on y'spoov 
 VTTGCpyjUV V7T0 TTUlblOV tWCTjOw nai Syu IKTtUTtYlGCU Tlttl dnotouVliv 
 bid rovrov rod Traibog' ov bvvapocu yap \v rJj wpa rocvryj epo- 
 /3Xs\pcci eig rrjv o^iv avrov. noci ndvrav slrrovrcov on svinfjQqv vtto 
 reaibiov pjtnpov, ri sycv sittsTv ; and directly: ovrog ri Trors gAiyu 
 srriv, rj Qsog rj dyyihog, rj ri z’iftoo ova oibai and after one line : 
 rb rrocibiov piiyu. We observe here that the pAsyug ficcG'iXsvg 
 of Pint. 170, which we have shown to be taken up by rbv 
 p/syav in Peregrin. 11, is here represented by posy a and rb ttcci- 
 biov pAsyu. Notice pjinpov with the diminutive ; the following 
 pj'sya points out the joke. Comp, further, 147, where Aristo- 
 phanes writes : sycoys roi bid pumpov dpyvpibiov bovXog ysysvyipoai. 
 Notice here also pjinpov with a diminutive. The writer of the 
 Evang. Thom, has just said: riyevvi^opo^v eyeiv poaOrirriv, nai 
 svps^v ’iyziv bibuGnodkov. The point of the jest lies in the fact 
 that Plutus is here in disguise : sv Gyrjpoan dvbpog , as the 
 scholiast says. A id rovrov is used here five times. We shall 
 show in the next chapter that there is in Clement’s Ep. i. 36 
 an answering S/a rovrov (comp, here) five times repeated, and 
 the connection will then be pointed out between Clement and 
 the gospel, and between both and Aristophanes. 
 
 3. Nub. 967-1066, vid. supr. p. 46 ; infr. p. 64. 
 
 In 1070, comp, ri brjr Ipslg, rjv rovro vinrjQijg Ipoov with the 
 words from the Evang. Thom. A 7, just given. 
 
 In 992 are found : vtto rcAAig pjopioug. In explanation of the 
 word as applied to the sacred olive trees in the Acropolis of 
 Athens, the scholiast tells the story of the sad fate ( poopov ) 
 of the son of Poseidon, who was sent to cut down one of 
 these trees : 6 bs dvurtivug rbv rcihinvv nai nxvrrjg d rrorvyojv 
 
62 
 
 TEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ift'krfy.v iavrov zai dftiQavi. Another version has : ravrqg [JjIv 
 7\ar6yji<si) rov hi ftoha avrov ftX^ag in\ivrr\ai z.r.X. 
 
 In Evang. Thom. A 10 (B 9), the cyjZpov \vka of Eccles. 
 x. 9 is taken up : zal poir okiyag ripJipag ayjZpiv rig rwv 
 yurovuv Zjukov dft'irif/ji rrjv fianv rov ftohog avrov hid rov 
 ftiXizvog, za'i igaigoog yiyovdvg yjf/jiWiv dftoQvfozuv. B. zai 
 izparqffiv rov viaviazov rov ftift’k^yora ftohav, zai ivQioog iaQyi- 
 im i 5s rdj viaviczco ’ Kvdara vvv, ayjZ^i rd \vka zai povyjpjovivi 
 pool. A. The thing, of course, here to be noticed is the singular 
 way in which we have come upon the scholiast’s most appro- 
 priate story. 
 
 When dealing with Peregrin. 11, we had occasion to refer 
 to Arist. Pac. 667, and also to Vesp. 876. In Pac. 702 it is 
 said : “ And thou, O mortal, go on thy way rejoicing, and 
 remember me.” In Vesp. 875 is yiirov , and a little below: ovhiig 
 avrjp ruv viaripoov. Compare all with the words of Evang. 
 Thom, just given. 
 
 Stephens has shown us (vid. supr. p. 16) that he was in 
 the habit in his parodies, by the introduction of a word or two, 
 to “look at” some remarkable story or other. We seem to 
 have here, in the Evang. Thom., more examples than one of 
 the same kind of thing. 
 
 In an excerpt professedly from Agatharchides (Phot. Bihl. 
 250), the elephant hunters and their modes of capturing the 
 elephant are described. Three methods are mentioned. In 
 the first and third the “ axe ” plays a conspicuous part. In 
 the first and third also, the death of the victim was of the same 
 lingering kind. The hunters, we are informed, were wont to 
 cut the flesh from the hinderparts of the elephant while it was 
 still alive : zai ftoifoavrig i<gaipoov ro Z>dov, lira vizpov z.r.X., 
 p. 453. Compare with Evang. Thom. 
 
 The scholiast’s story, again, might seem to have reminded 
 our writer of Herodotus’ account of the brave deed of He^esis- 
 
 O 
 
 tratus. This man’s feet, or rather foot, had been put into the 
 stocks, and his death was intended. He, however, obtained 
 possession (izpar^fTi) of a knife, and (after one line) Herodotus 
 says : araOporjaapoivog yap ozoog i\i\ivairai ol ro Xoiftov rov 
 ftohog , aftinpoi rov raptrov iavrov, , ix. 37. Compare with the 
 Evang. Thom. The natural consequence of this surgical 
 operation was that one leg became shorter than the other. It 
 
EVANGELIUM THOMAS. 
 
 63 
 
 was necessary, therefore, as Herodotus says, to supply a \vkivov 
 z'oloc. In the so-called excerpts from Helladius, there is a 
 witticism upon the same subject : on, tprjvi, rov $uaih!iug 
 K OpivOoV 7} fJbfjTTjp, yVVTj &S ’A (Atptovog, xtikofioOTZ pa (TXU^OVVCi rd 
 irepa ‘Trohf, Aocfificc sxocXelro. 
 
 We venture to think that the writer of the Evang. Thom . 
 makes himself merry with these things in § 13 A(ll B). 
 We will place the two versions side by side. 
 
 A 13. 
 
 ' O 6s rrarrip avrov rexruv riv, xai 
 erto/ei e v rep xa/pep exe/vep dporpa 
 net/ Zvyovg. e^erayri avrep xpu(3- 
 / 3arog rapd r/vog ‘ttXovG/ov offojg 
 rroiTjasi avrp. rov 5s evbg xavbvog rov 
 xaXovpevov evaXXdxrov ily\ eyovreg 
 r / KoiriGat, elr £v ro <? ra/b/ov 6 ’I rjffovg 
 rp rarpi avrov ’i uGYjtp Qeg xaroj 
 rd bvo % vXa , xai ex rov [liGov [x>ep- 
 ovg /Goro/rjGov avrd. xai enoiriGev 
 ’iwGT'Cp xaOug e/rrev a vrep ro rraibiov. 
 sGrri 6s 6 ’lr t Govg ex rov erepov (Jj'ep- 
 ovg xai expdrqGev ro xoXo(3ePrepov 
 £,vXov, xai exre/vag avro ’/Gov enoiri- 
 Gev rov aXXov. xai elbev o rrarrip 
 avrov 'l'j/Grrf xai edavpaGe, xai 
 <Tep/Xaftdv ro ra/b/ov xareep/Xe/ 
 Xeyuv M axdp/bg ei/xi, or/ ro rra/b/ov 
 rovro debuxe [io/ b Osbg. 
 
 B 11. 
 
 OflaGag be ro oybbov rv\g i}X/x/ag 
 erog, rpoerdyr\ o ’i wGYjtp vno nvog 
 gtXovG/ov xpdfifSarov oixobo^YiGa/ 
 a urw* rexruv yap r\v. xai e^eXduv 
 ev rep dypp npbg GvXXoyqv £ ) vXuv, 
 gw? jXQev avrp xai o ’I TjGovg. xai 
 xo-ypag bvo £vXa xai rreXsx/Gpcg ro 
 ev edyzev nXriGlov rov aXXov, xai 
 [jj£rp7}Gag evpev avro xoXo(3drepov,xai 
 ibdv eXvtfrjGri, xai s^jrs/ evpeTv 
 erepov. I6wi> be o I?j Govg Xeye/ avrep 
 Qeg rd bvo ravra opoov rpbg /go- 
 rr\ra d/jveporepuv ^poro/jocov. xai b/a- 
 i 7ropov[j>evog b ’I uGr\<p Kepi rovrov , ri 
 (3ovXyjra/ ro rra/b/ov, ero/TjGev ro 
 -irpoGraybev. xai Xeye/ avrd rraX/v 
 KpdrrjGov ioyypdg ro xoXo(3ov gvXov. 
 xai Qctvfia?av o ’lo/Gr,p expdr?]Gev 
 avro. rbre xparyjGag xai b ’i YjGovg 
 ro erepov dxpov e/Xxvcev avrov r?jv 
 aX?.?]v rcporo[i7\v e'xoirrfev xdxe/vo 
 7gov rov aXXov ^ vXou , xai (pr\G/ 
 tfpog rov ’iwGrip M r^xer/ Xvrov, 
 dXXa rro'/e/ dxuXvroog ro epyov 
 GOV. 
 
 This narrative appears to be, as already stated on p. 42, a 
 parody of Prov. xxx. 4 : rig hzparrjffs ftavrav rdv azpuv rrjg yrjg ; 
 We have now to trace out the particular form which the 
 parody assumes. 
 
 Ttxrav Up and ccporpcc we have lately found. 
 
 (1.) We shall examine first of all some scriptural sources to 
 which the narrative seems indebted. 
 
 Kpcc/3/3 ccrog is used in both versions. S. John uses this word 
 
64 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 in chap, v., which gives an account of the healing of the im- 
 potent man on the Sabbath day. This miracle excited the 
 anger of the Jews. In ver. 18 are the words : icov iavrov 
 rroiuv rev 0s<£. Comp, with Evang. Thom . A. This version 
 takes up the breaking of the Sabbath by miraculous acts in 
 § 2. The writer says: idm b't rig ’Yovbociog a \ 7 cok 1 6 ’l rjtrovg Iv 
 aufiftdrcv TTotiZpjVi cc'TrqkQe rroepayp^^ zcci MYiyytikt z.r.\. In 
 S. John, ver. 15, it is said: ccTrqhOiv 0 uvOpMrrog, zcei ccvrjyyei'ks 
 z.r-\., and in ver. 16 : on rccvroc Irroki \v aveftfidrcv. Compare. 
 Observe also the opening words of A 13 above, with which 
 also compare : \v Izzivco ru zocipti IrropzvO/j 0 T yjvovg rdig (rd/3/3cccri 
 z.r.X. S. Matt. xii. 1. In ver. 2 it is said : idov 01 (JbccQrjral aov 
 ttoiougiv 0 ov7t e&ffn TTOiziv h ffccfifiura, and in Evang. Thom. 
 A 2 : dice ri ruvrcc Koifig \v (rcififidrep a ovk sfyffn ttoibiv, adopt- 
 ing the form of S. Luke vi. 2. In Num. xv. 32 we are told 
 that a man was found GvKkzyovrcc <gv\cc on the Sabbath day. 
 Compare with the vrpog cvKhoyriv \vkcvv of the Evang. Thom. 
 B 11 (given above), certainly an unnatural expression for the 
 procuring of timber for the purposes of carpentry. 
 
 The interweaving of these various narratives into the pages 
 of the gospel is very obvious and very instructive. Why may 
 we not believe Aristophanes and other authors to be used in the 
 same fashion? And why may there not be other literary 
 mosaics besides this apocryphal gospel ? 
 
 (2.) The passage of Aristophanes which is still before us is 
 Nub. 967-1066, vid. supr. pp. 46, 61. 
 
 In 970 are the words : ovb' ’iaypiv rev nob' hceKhd^. (Comp, 
 the huXkdzrov gey ’iypvrtg of the gospel.) Here, then, again 
 we have “ two feet,” and in company with them the word 
 hccKKoe^. We have (vid. supr. p. 62) discussed the story of 
 the injured foot, and found in Herodotus another story, to 
 which the writer of the Evang. Thom, seems to refer, in which 
 mention is made of “a w'ooden foot ” to supply the loss occa- 
 sioned by Hegesistratus’ too free use of the knife. From the 
 pseudo-Helladian excerpts we learn that zoXofidrepog is the 
 proper word to use under such circumstances. Here in the 
 Evang. Thom, we find two pieces of wood intended for two 
 parts of a bedstead. The novel word lvuXhdz,ryig\s used to de- 
 scribe these. One of these pieces is too short, and, since it was 
 expressly cut for the purpose, too short from the too free use 
 
EVANGELIUM THOM^E. 
 
 65 
 
 of the knife or axe. This defective piece is said to be 
 zdkofturspog. We would suggest that the bedstead is intended 
 to be of the 44 stretcher ” form. The eva'kkcczrrjg will then be 
 the “ crosspiece fitting into another crosspiece,” and at the 
 same time the 44 leg.” The writer of the gospel deserves some 
 credit for being the first to make this novel but apt use of the 
 word. It would be perhaps imputing too much to his in- 
 genious mind to suggest that he had an eye also to the 
 commoner meaning of ivcxXkci^ ( 44 interchangeably ”), and to 
 the swaying to and fro, first this way and then that, to which 
 the bedstead would have been subject if the defect had not 
 been remedied. Anyway, the story here before us in the 
 Evang. Thom, seems to spring naturally from what has just 
 preceded, coupled with the words of Aristophanes. 
 
 Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon gives 44 crosswise ” as the meaning 
 of svccKkoc^ here in Aristophanes ( 44 crosslegged,” as we should 
 say). We may illustrate this meaning by Gen. xlviii. 14 : 
 szrsivag 5g ’lapurjX TYiv yfipu ty^v Zs^iav I KsficcXev ski rijy zspuXyjv 
 ’Etppa/^, ovTog &g r\v 6 vsursp og, zcci rrjv upiarspav ski rrjv zsficcXyjv 
 WluvciGGYj, svccXXd^, Toig %g?pcc£. It is evident that the writer of 
 Evang. Thom, consulted this passage. Observe the Izrsivocg 
 exactly in A ; and comp, sIks &g T cuGyjp toj Kccrpi avrov. viol 
 [jjov g bh ovg sbaz s g>oi 6 6sdg svruvQcc, ver. 9, and zcci s QiKyigsv 
 ccvrovg , zcci Kspiskocftsv avTOug , ver. 10, with the close of A. 
 Under the circumstances in which they are found, these co- 
 incidences cannot be regarded as accidental, and they tell their 
 own tale. An interest evidently was felt in the word svccKkcc<g. 
 Aristotle uses svcCKkaJg IgcKiKrsiv (Lid. and Scott’s Lex.), 44 of 
 two things which fit into one another.” Part. An. iii. 1. 5. 
 Only a few lines below we read rov svog zccXovgcmv Gzccpov ; we 
 shall therefore probably conclude that our writer consulted or 
 called to mind Aristotle as well as the book of Genesis. 
 
 (3.) The writer of the Evang. Thom., however, does not use 
 svcck\cc%, but svccXXcczTYjg. Aquila uses the word in Isa. iii. 4, 
 zcci svccKkcczrcct zvpisvGovGiv ccvroov. It is here apparently in 
 the sense of “ exchangers.” This does not help us at all as to 
 the meaning of the word as applied to a bedstead. Aquila’s 
 use of the word is nevertheless of great interest. The closing 
 
 1 The use of Isa. iii. is confirmed by the Latin version of the Evang. Thom., 
 which has, “ Erat architector Iosepli.” Tisch. p. 166. 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 words of the preceding verse are, zoci GOfioP apyjTZZTom zal 
 gvhtov dzp outtjv. They could not fail to recall to the minds 
 of such students of Aristophanes as our writers have shown 
 themselves to he, Av. 1154 sq. : opvikg t]Gclv TizTOVig go$ututoi 
 ‘T re'kezavreg, ot rolg pvyypGiv am7rtktzYiGccv Tag ttv \ ag* 6 
 zTVTog avTav m’kzzuvTcov uG7rzp \v vav7rriyicv. The scholiast on 
 7rzXsz. says, napd to ^zXezdv ra %uka\ and on a^STreX. he 
 writes : TreXzzctj, t 7rzXszf]GM, <gvXa, nzXiziCp) to g>iTa Trjg GTraQqg 
 tloktck). Comp, with the Ecang. Tliom. B. 
 
 In Av. 1132 we find dzobog^Gav clvto (cf. the olzoh. avTco 
 above), and in 1130, g^g-rp^o"’ avT \yu : in 1104, opQti {jbZTpqGco 
 zavovi TpoGTidzig^ and 1006, ohoi opQai Tpog auTO to [lzgov . 
 Comp, with Evang . Thom. 
 
 This passage of Aristophanes is not one which has been 
 before consulted, and we therefore naturally consider whether 
 there are any indications of its use in Peregrinus. 
 
 In Av. 1125 we observe zdXXiGTOV epyov, and after one line 
 zai (dzccyev'/jg. Comp, zai STreihyj q gzXy\vyi aviTiiXiv (she i yap 
 zazeivrjv OzuGGCGdut to zdXXiGTOV tovto spyov ), and after oneline 
 zai f/jdXiGTcc 6 yzwabag 6 \z UaTp&iv (Theagenes). Peregrin . 1 36. 
 
 In Av. 1058 there is an interesting parallel for Clement’s 
 Ep. i. Aristophanes writes : yjhrj g>oi too < 7ravb e 7TTa zal ncavTapya 
 Qvyito) ndvTig Ovgovg ’ zvzTaiaig tvypfig. Comp. Xomov 6 
 ‘TocvTevroKTTig 6zbg zal 5g GTCOTrig tqov t 7rnvpjdTuv zal zvpiog naGr^ 
 Gccpzog , i. 64, with zvzTaiav a few lines below. 
 
 We shall have occasion to return to Aristophanes in the 
 next chapter, and it will then be seen that Clement’s § 64 is 
 
 1 With these words further comp, orug, toV tl xxXov rovpyov, oxorov Ss7, xov 
 vpi%upo S u xTavuv ; Soph. El. 1493. If the writer looked, as we ourselves did, 
 at the beginning of the play, he would find in line 67 : xXX\ u orxrpyx y*i hoi r 
 iy^eopioi, I’i^xoh p ivtv^ovvtx rx7o<h ox7i oho7$, ov r , u orxrpouov 'bZpx. In Peregrin. 
 36, after 8 lines, we read : A xlpovts pyrpcvoi xx) < rxrpuoi, Vt\xoh pi tvptvug. Vid. 
 supr. p. 46 for the suggestion. 
 
 It is worth while to notice the way in which the first passage from Sophocles 
 was found. On p. 48 attention is directed to tov ptyxv yovv in Peregrin. 11, and 
 to the difficulty which has been felt both with ptyxv and yovv. It was suggested 
 that ptyxv was written, but that pxyov was in the writer’s mind. A yovv was 
 shown in Pint. 184. If we consult Thomas Magister on yovv, we find Pint. 184 
 quoted ; also PluL. 147, shown on p. 61, to be used in the Evang. Tliom.) also 
 as from Soph. El. rx yovv ox. These words are in line 1499, while the passage 
 above quoted is from 1493. The line runs: rx yovv *’• \yu ooi p ixvn$ tip.) twvS’ 
 xxpos. This might easily have suggested pxyog. We shall see presently that 
 pxvns is apparently taken up by another writer. 
 
AGATHAKCHIDES. 
 
 67 
 
 closely connected with Plat. 168 sq., used, as we have seen, in 
 Peregrinus and the Evang. Tliom. 
 
 (4.) In Av. 1159 (we began with 1154) Aristophanes has 
 (3e(3uXccva)Tui. The scholiast writes : or; QgcXgcvoi XeyovTui 
 x.t.X. KoXojSo; Tag fiaXavovg is an expression found in Strabo 
 xvi. p. 771. Directly afterwards, speaking of the elephant- 
 hunters and their three methods of securing their prey, he has 
 ex daPepov goepovg. Comp, our writers lx tov hepov goepovg in 
 A 13 above. This is followed in Strabo, after two lines, by 
 xaTavrjbyjGavTeg a-ro. Comp. xaTeyryjbriGev cc7ro <tov GTeyov xal 
 scry; Tapa to TTTagoa tov naihiov. Evang. Thom . A 9. 
 
 We referred on p. 62 to certain excerpts from Agathar- 
 chides, found in Phot. Bibl. 250, and to the account of the 
 elephant-hunters therein contained. The writings of Agathar- 
 chides were known to Strabo, and if these excerpts are what 
 they profess to be, he made far greater use of those writings 
 than he cared to acknowledge. 
 
 If we turn again to Agatharchides’ account of the elephant- 
 hunters, the eye falls at once upon S7rocy be to Z^aov . . . srsc^, oi 
 (TvvdrjpocToci napayivovTai he) to KTagoa, p. 452. Comp, with 
 A 9 just quoted. YlT&jgoa is not used by Strabo nor by 
 Diodorus, who has an account of the elephant-hunters, which 
 is supposed to be taken mainly from Agatharchides. Agathar- 
 chides here describes the first method of taking the elephant. 
 From the third we gave on p. 62 a coincidence with Evang. 
 Thom. B 9. The second method, as described by Agatharchides, 
 differs somewhat from Strabo’s. Both agree in saying that a 
 bow was used, and that three men were engaged in the opera- 
 tion. Strabo says that two men held the bow while the other 
 pulled the string. Agatharchides, however, writes : 6 gob big 
 xaTeyji to Toigov t& nob) irpOGlSefiqxtvg, oi be bvo Trjv vevpav 
 eXxvGavTeg lx Ttjg aTraGTjg fiiag atpijxav to (3eXog. Nine lines 
 below, in the description of the third method, we find : ware 
 Tovg gob bvo Teabag Tovg tcXyigiov tov GTeXeyovg, with tov gvXov 
 after one line. Comp, all with Evang. Thom, quoted p. 63. 
 
 The xoXofioi Tag {3 aXdvovg of Strabo appear in the excerpts, 
 cap. xxx. p. 453. Half a dozen lines above we observe aTeo 
 Tivog , with TeapaTeXyjGiov in the next line. Comp, the Tcapd 
 Tivog ttXovgiov of A 13. Nor is this so wild a conjecture as it 
 would at first sight appear to be. 
 
68 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Immediately after the sentence describing the zoXoftovg, 
 Photius breaks the thread of his account of the Troglodytes 
 by saying : bn %'expqrcci 6 (rw/ypotipevg, arnzurryjg xoctroi ojv, rr. 
 Trig zugApocg Xe^ei. He then resumes his narrative. What 
 is the meaning of this remark so strangely introduced ? The 
 translator of the excerpts writes: 46 Hinc digressione facta 
 auctor monet se, quamvis Attice loquatur, Camerse (urbis in 
 Greta) tamen dialecto familiariter uti ; ” which is a good deal 
 more than a translation of the Greek. The digression, more- 
 over, appears to belong to Photius rather than to Agatharchides. 
 We may compare a somewhat parallel remark in the Helladian 
 Excerpts, p. 535 : on ovrog 6 <rvyypcc(pevg, 6 rccvroc cvvTaJgugjivog, 
 y'evog fjbh A lyvvmog Jjv, iroheug 5s r/jg ’A vnvoov r\, cog ccvrog 
 emypcipei, Bqo’ccvni'bov, iocgbfiiySj he (Aerpcp hieZfiXOe roc npoKii- 
 fjjeva. This would lead us to suppose Photius to be responsible 
 for the interruption. Photius, again, often uses \z<gig, but 
 certainly usually in the sense of 44 word.” So in Bill. 213, 
 where he describes in glowing colours the writings of Agathar- 
 chides, he uses Tj&lgig several times over, e.g. g,7\ zcuvccig 
 v,eyjprigJevog Xe^effi. That Xz<gig should be so rendered here 
 receives some little confirmation from the circumstance that 
 whereas the narrative goes on to speak of the strange funeral 
 rites of the Troglodytes, and the words ovroo rocig XTjheiocig 
 zccTocyjpcbvrou 1 vovveyfig occur, in Bihl. 213 Photius goes on to 
 write zeyjprircci 5s zcci yvcogbaig to vovveygeg . . . eTihriKovaccig. 
 He is saying that Agatharchides dressed out old words with 
 new meanings. Nowhere else in the excerpts, however, does 
 yccgoocpoc appear. We shall show where it does come from 
 presently, meanwhile we merely call attention to the strange 
 way in which Photius introduces his remark. 
 
 This word yagjbcpGc, which may be a town in Crete, may 
 also mean a bed or couch. So Arrian (vii. 25) uses it for 
 the bed on which Alexander was carried. It happens that 
 Diodorus gives a very particular description in lib. xviii. 26 sq. 
 of the gorgeous chariot on which the body of Alexander was 
 
 1 The excerpt proceeds : u*i p fxb Xvtuv laurov$ lir) ro7$ uXwrvrois ffvviffius ffripuov. 
 Comp, fjt-b ouv Xwutr&w o tvo’if&YiS) ihv iwi roi$ vvv %povoi$ rctkaiTupy’ (jo%Ktt.pio$ avrov 
 avapci vu %povo$ • ixs7vo$ ctvoo f/.irx <ruv vrxnpwv avct(Ztw<ru$ iicppxvfbo’iTat ll$ rov 
 
 a\'j-r*rov aiuvx. Clem. ii. 19. There is a certain connection in thought besides 
 the mere verbal coincidence. Comp, further the fivx'in Xv<r ov of the Evang. 
 Thom, in the section now in hand, quoted p. 63. 
 
ISAIAH XL. 
 
 69 
 
 carried. In this description, the word zagoapa constantly 
 appears, e.g., rag rvjg zagoapag yajviag. In Evang. Thom. A 10 
 we are told that the young man was cutting wood : \v rrj yajvla. 
 The selection of a “ corner ” seems peculiar ; it would, however, 
 no doubt explain the accident. In A the tool used is called 
 crigfaij, which might well have been suggested by Diodorus’ 
 (jihqpovv* ruv 5’ atjovavv rd ‘jcpoiypvra %p vtrd zarzGzzvaGro npo- 
 rogoag s ypvra Xsovraiv (jifiyjvriv o5a| zariypwag. zard 5s g>z gov 
 to goyjzog elx°v xohov \v7]pgjOGg,zvov yj^ytavizdog \v gozGri rrj zagadpcc, 
 z.r.X., with Zp vyaiv after two lines. Comp, with A 13, B 11, 
 quoted p. 63. We shall find ourselves brought to the same 
 pages of Diodorus presently by another road. 
 
 (5.) The word zag>d pa is used once in the Sacred Scriptures : 
 o GTYivag ojg zagbdpav rov ovpavov , Isa. xl. 22. Ver. 20 runs, 
 %u\ov yap aGTinrov IzXzyzrai rzzrajv, zai G0(paig <g?]T?]Gei wag 
 GT/jGZi zizova avrov. In verse 25 the LXX. has vvv ovv rivi 
 (JbZ dgjOidGars, but Symmachus and Theodotion zai iGajOfjGogjai. 
 Comp, with A 13, B 11, quoted p. 63. 
 
 There is a certain special interest belonging to these last 
 coincidences. We have pointed out on p. 42, that the 
 
 miraculous story of the bedstead which we are now dis- 
 
 cussing, and the miraculous carrying of water in the Lord’s 
 garment, seem to be parodies of Prov. xxx. 4. We have also 
 said that Lightfoot quotes this verse of the Proverbs, in illus- 
 tration of an apocryphal quotation found in Clement’s Ep. ii. 
 4: \dv 7)rz gusr zgoov Gvvqygjzvoi \v raj zoKkoj g,ov , z.r.X. 
 “ The image and expressions are derived,” Lightfoot re- 
 marks, “from Isa. xl. 11 : raj fipa^iovi avrov gvvo^zi dpvag zai 
 \v raj zohrra) avrov fiaGraGSi.” The last clause is only found 
 in some few MSS. It is, however, the reading of Aquila and 
 Symmachus. It must be observed that there is a good deal 
 
 in Isa. xl. to suggest the verse in the Proverbs. Yer. 12 
 
 runs : rig igj'zrprjGZ r/j %e ipi ro vba>p, zai rov ovpavov GwiOagJiri. 
 zai rraGav rrjv yrjv 5p azi; and ver. 28 : 6 0zog 6 zaraGzzvaGag 
 rd dzpa rtjg yyjg. Prov. xxx. 4 might thus easily have been 
 suggested. 
 
 We have just quoted vv. 11, 12. The preceding words 
 from the close of ver. 10 are quoted by Clement, in Ep. i. 
 34, in his own peculiar fashion. In the LXX. they are : ibov 
 6 gjia&og avrov vat avrov , zai ro spyov Ivavriov avrov ; but in 
 
70 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Clement : ihov 6 Kvpiog , zai 6 [hia&bg avrov crpo npoauvov 
 avrov, aftohovvai izdffrco zard to spyov avrov. This is thought 
 to be “a confusion of Isa. xl. 10 and Isa. xlii. 11,” with “an 
 ending either from Prov. xxiv. 12 or (more probably) Rev. xxii. 
 12 ’’(Light.). Eusebius, however, in his Comment . in Isa. xl. 10, 
 quotes the verse and adds: ravra (Isv mpi rrjg hsvrspag rov 
 Xpurrov Trapovaiag, za&’ fyv 5j|g/ h dofy aTrohooGoov szaGrcu zard rd 
 spy a avrov. A few lines above, Eusebius has ravra ttj rdv 
 rrpoXsyjQhrcvv STsrai htavoid. Comp, ov ‘xapazoXovOriGoo ttj 
 
 hiavoia avrov , Evang. Thom. A 7, p. 140. The gospel pro- 
 ceeds : u I deceived myself, thrice-wretched man that I am : 
 7\yuvi(J)[jjYiv f/jaQqrqv, zai svps6r\v sy^siv hihaGzaXov.” Soon 
 after the passage just given from § 34, Clement writes in 
 § 35 : zai ravra virsTiffrev ‘ravra vto rrjv havoiav qf/juv, and 
 in the next line : 6 hqf/jiovpyog zai rarrjp ruv alwvoov 6 ravayiog 
 avrog yivuGzsi ty\v r oaorrira zai rrjv zaXXovrjv avrav. v\g>€ig ov v 
 ayaviffwf/jeQa svpsOrjvai z.r.X. Compare. Turning again to 
 Eusebius, we find sir Irsihyirsp sz ysQovg zai zaXXov/jg 
 znagjdruv dvaXoyojg 6 ysvsGiovpybg Qsapsirat z.r.X. 
 
 In § 34, Clement proceeds to quote Dan. vii. 10 (but invert- 
 ing the clauses) : govpiai (jovpidheg rcapiiGrrizswav avrov, zai 
 y}Xiai yfXiabsg sXsirovpyovv avrov' zai Izszpayov' dyiog , dyiog , 
 dyiog zvpiog GafiadvQ, yrXqprjg raGa rj zriGig rijg Votng avrov. 
 The latter part is “ a loose quotation ” from LXX. Isa. vi. 3. 
 If we turn to Jerome’s Comment, in Isa. xl., we find, p. 492, 
 that Dan. vii. 10 is there quoted (but without inversion of the 
 clauses), and that his very next words are, “ unde et Dominus 
 Sahaoth appellatur,” etc. 
 
 We turn now to Eusebius on Isa. vi. 3. He reads with 
 Clement Izszpayov. The LXX. has zai szszpaysv srspog 
 rrpog rov srspov z.r.X. Dan. vii. 10 is given here also, but not 
 with the clauses transposed. Clement goes on : zai yjfjoslg ovv , 
 sv ogoovoia S7rl ro avro Gvvayfihrsg r/j gvvsi^gsi, ovg s§ hog 
 Grogoarog | ftofjGovf/jSv rrpog avrov szrsvdvg slg ro gjsrbypvg z.r.X. 
 Observe the stress laid upon unity — one mind, one place, one 
 mouth. Eusebius, on the other hand, goes on : ov goiav yap 
 ripitaav (povv^v, ovbs aQpoovg ogvov ravra zo/vfj ravryjv dvsrsf/jrov, 
 aXX’ srspov rpog ro srspov z.r.X.; and presently: ovz sn hog 
 dizov , [Lvpiovv hs z.r.X. Turning again to Eusebius on Isa xl., 
 we find, on ver. 5, zai ovbagjdvg Tlvsv/ooarog ayiov glsroyoi 
 
ISAIAH XL. 
 
 71 
 
 rravreg dvdpuTOi. "On K vpiog Tkd\yGiv> u^psvhyg yap 6 evay- 
 yzikdgtzvog. Qoovy Xs yovrog, Boyarov. Ka/ s/ra, T / fioyGcu. Comp, 
 with passage just quoted from Clement. The use of these 
 words will be confirmed directly. Eusebius here appears to 
 look at Heb. x. 23 : niGrog yap Inayyzikdgjivog. In ver. 22 
 we observe and GvvzihyGZoog Kovypdg; and in ver. 25, [joy 
 lys&ara'ksfoovng ryv iTTiGvvayayyv iavrdov. Compare with 
 Clement. 
 
 Various verses of Isa. xl., and among them ver. 22, con- 
 taining zaf/jdcpa, are quoted by Eusebius in his Prcep. Evang. 
 vii. 11. Presently, p. 319, he gives a very peculiar version 
 of LXX. Ps. cxxxviii. 8 : lav GrpuGoo s Ig rdv ahyv, rrdpzi. 
 Clement, in Ep. i. 28, has a marvellous version of some verses 
 of this psalm, in which he might be thought to take into his 
 own hands the first clause of Prov. xxx. 4 : rig dvlj3y s Ig rdv 
 ovpavov seal scarify ; the rest of the verse being sported with 
 in the 2d Epistle, and in the Evang. Thom. Clement 
 writes : lav scaraGrpaGoo s Ig rag d/3 vGGovg, Isczi rd rrvzvfjbd gov. 
 The LXX. reads : lav scar a fids Tig rdv ahyv, craps/. Clement 
 has another (out of a great many) peculiarity. He reads : Tig 
 rd iGyjara ryg yyg, instead of Tig rd ZGyjxra ryg 0a XaGGyg 
 with the LXX. Eusebius, in the context, has, l % Irydrov rrjg 
 
 yfc- 
 
 In chap. xv. p. 326, Eusebius quotes Dan. vii. 10, with the 
 inverted clauses, as Clement does. Eusebius prefaces the text 
 with hid . . . rrapiGrdg ng Qio\dyuv pyGi ; Clement with \zir- 
 ovpyovGiv napiGr ting' Tdyu yap y ypa(py. 
 
 The order in which the coincidences just given follow one 
 another seems to indicate a connection in the process of com- 
 position between Clement’s i. 28 (containing LXX. Ps. 
 cxxxviii. 7-10) and i. 34 (containing Isa. xl. 10). This con- 
 jecture is confirmed by reference to Clem. Alex., Strom . iv. 
 22, p. 625, where the passage from Isaiah immediately follows 
 that from the Psalm. That from Isaiah is in the words of 
 our § 34, and Lightfoot consequently concludes that the 
 Roman Clement is being copied. That from the Psalm so 
 closely resembles the version in our § 34, that here again 
 Lightfoot concludes that Clement of Alexandria “ derived it 
 through the medium of the Roman Clement.” To the pas- 
 sage from Isaiah, in Clem. Alex., there is tacked on, so as to 
 
72 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 form one citation, 1 Cor. ii. 9, in the very words of S. Paul. 
 This verse forms the third and last quotation in our § 34. 
 The words 6 Ssog are, however, omitted ; a is altered into 
 oircc (a v.l. in 1 Cor. ii. 9 of nearly, if not quite, equal 
 authority), and uyurruGiv into the V7ro[/jivovffiv of the LXX. 
 Isa. lxiv. 4. Clement of Alexandria, it must be observed, does 
 not name the Roman Clement, nor does he do so anywhere in 
 the immediate neighbourhood. Beyond question, the natural 
 inference from the foregoing is that the epistle of Clement 
 (so called) borrowed from Clem. Alex. The other coinci- 
 dences just pointed out look in the same direction, and, indeed, 
 cannot be satisfactorily explained on any other theory. 
 
 This idea is confirmed by reference to Clement’s ii. 11. He 
 writes : — 
 
 niffrbg yap ionv 6 snayystXd/xsvog rag avri/tuffO/ag dnodidovai 
 v?£a<jrw ruv spyuv a brob‘ iav ouv noiYiGoifisv rqv dixaioGvvyjV svavriov rob 
 0s ob, Si67](*o[/j&v iig ryjv (3aGiXs/av avrob xai Xyj^o/Jjsda rag InayysXiag, 
 dg obg ob'/. tjkoug sv obd's b(p6a\[jjog sihsv, obd s sni napdiav dvOpdnov avsSoj. 
 k'/bs^dfisQa ovv %a§ dpav rqv fiaci'keiav rob 0s ov sv dydnr\ xa l dr/aio- 
 obvr\, sns/dri ovx o’ihan>sv rrpv yjfxspav rr\g snityavsiag rob 0soD, snspoirr\&sig 
 yap a-j rbg 6 K bpiog bnb nvog, nor s r^si abrob i] (3aff/X s/a, n.r.X. 
 
 If this passage is compared with that from Eusebius on Isa. 
 xl. 10, quoted on p. 70, it will be seen how closely parallel it is. 
 Comp, the zu@ copav of Clement with the zaff of Eusebius, 
 and notice the 5j|g / common to the two. Observe, further, the 
 use of Heb. x. 23, and compare with the passage from Euse- 
 bius on Isa xl. 5, quoted on p. 71. Some words from Heb. x. 
 25 are there given. Out of the same verse, comp, zou Toaovroj 
 (jjaKkov oca fiXetrsTS lyyifyvGotv rfy q/jj'e pow with Clement here. 
 This confirms the conjecture that Eusebius was used, and sug- 
 gests that the two epistles bearing Clement’s name are really by 
 the same author. 
 
 The coincidences given above cannot, for the most part, be 
 explained by the supposition that Clement was copied. They 
 can all of them be explained by the conjecture that Clement 
 was the copyist. It is difficult to understand on what 
 principles of fair criticism this conclusion can be resisted. It 
 is not, however, any part of our plan to argue the question 
 now. These things must be added to the body of evidence 
 which is growing up, the cumulative force of which will 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 have to be felt. We have mentioned them at this time 
 merely because we came across the Epistles of Clement in Isa. 
 xl., to which chapter we also traced the Evang. Thom, We 
 wished to confirm the notion that an interest for some reason 
 was felt in this chapter, and the inference that Prov. xxx. 4 
 was used very much as we have supposed. 
 
 It must be observed that we were taken to Isa. xl. by the 
 word zccpApa, to which the writer of the Evang, Thom, seems 
 to have paid special attention. 
 
 (6.) Before we leave this gospel we must recall to the 
 recollection of our readers the fact that there is a peculiar 
 interest belonging to the word lvocKkci<g, in that it is found in 
 Clement’s i. 12 (where it is used in the sense of Ci crosswise,” 
 “in opposite directions,” vid . sup. p. 23), and forms one link of 
 connection between this section and those pages of the Evang. 
 Thom, which we have just been discussing. 
 
 This section tells the story of Rahab’s reception of the spies, 
 and gives the conversation she had with them. In the course 
 of her conversation she uses some words to which the editors 
 have specially called attention. Lightfoot writes : “ Cotelier ob- 
 serves that Clement seems to have had in his copy of the LXX. 
 (Josh. ii. 9) the words kmi zurtKrriGGOV irccvreg oi zccTOizovvrzg 
 rrjv yyjv ccep 1 which are wanting in all the best mss., 
 
 though supplied in the Complutensian edition, and represented 
 in the original Hebrew.” It does not seem unfair to argue 
 from this circumstance that Clement was perfectly familiar 
 with the chapter (Josh, ii.) in which the story of Rahab and 
 the spies is recorded. How, then, are we to account for the 
 fact that the conversations which are carried on in Clement’s 
 i. 12 are not in the words of the sacred narrative? 
 
 We saw not long ago an instance of exactly the same kind 
 of thing in i. 43, which, while it tells the story of Aaron’s rod, 
 adds sundry embellishments of Clement’s own. If any one 
 chooses to believe this adorning of the sacred narrative in i. 43 
 to be nothing else than jesting, he is most certainly justified in 
 so doing. It is natural to ask whether § 12 is like § 43, not 
 only in its departure from the simple narrative of Holy 
 Scripture, — which is acknowledged, — but also in its seeming 
 want of that gravity which is to be looked for in the writings 
 of Clement of Rome. 
 
74 
 
 PEREGKINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Without going into a complete examination of Clement’s 
 language, some circumstances may be readily pointed out 
 which may be thought to make § 12 in all respects the counter- 
 part of § 43. 
 
 We have said in chap. iii. 15, p. 23, that Clement’s use of the 
 word svaCKkddg shows some coincidences with Diodorus’ in lib. 
 xvii. 33, p. 184. 
 
 This chapter could not fail to suggest the scriptural account 
 of the taking of Jericho to any one who was on the look-out 
 for something to parody or turn into jest. It opens with the 
 words, 7oov b\ zootoogzottmv d e 7rayyBi\dv7oov covtoo z.tX. It says 
 a great deal about the sounding of the trumpet and the shout- 
 ing of opposing armies, shout answering to shout until the 
 whole country resounded with the din. The language, tuv 
 bl (TocXTriyzToov Trap’ ctf/jpOTZpoig to •7ro\Bf/jizov g71(JjCcivovtoov oi 
 ^AoozsbovBg wpooToi avvaXoXdtXgoovTBg ftorjv b^ocigiov sTOt'jjffccv, bears 
 some resemblance to cog hi yizovgbv 6 \ubg tuv avChmyyoov, 
 tjXcoXco^b, rjXaXcc^B 7rcig 6 Xccog otf/ju dXooXooyfJboo fjosyaXop zai 
 layppoo. Josh. vi. 20. Nor is a reference to the capture of a 
 city wanting here, for the closing words of c. 32 are, 6 b’ ’ A?J§- 
 avbpog r/jv (/Av ’Iggov gcoKiv oofyokoyov zaTa^Xrj^dfJjBvog lypipooauro. 
 u Interim Alexander Issum, Ciliciae urbem non ignobilem formi- 
 dine perculsam , occuparat.” This chapter contains the word 
 g vccKkalg. If it can be shown that Clement used Diodorus at this 
 point, it cannot reasonably be doubted that it was done in jest. 
 
 The closing words of Clement’s § 11 are, sig zpifjbcc zcci s ig 
 gyi^bioogiv TruGuig rofig yevzooig yi'vovrai. The words of Diodorus 
 immediately preceding the closing word of c. 32, given above, 
 are : bid rijg ibiocg zpiGBoog TrpoBGrj^aivov roig ftccpfiupotg rrjv viztjv. 
 
 After one line in § 12, Clement has BZ7TB[/y(p0BVToov . . . 
 zutugzottoov. Comp, with the opening words of c. 33 given 
 above. 
 
 In the same sentence Clement writes : g|g xz[i,^iv dvbpocg 
 rovg Gv\\7]\pO(/jZvovg avrovg , oxoog z.tX. Light- 
 
 foot, on rovg GvXXtj'ip; calls attention to the construction. In 
 c. 32, p. 183, Diodorus writes: GvTXqQfoig zcci bsQsig sig (pvXcczyjv 
 xccpBboflri , and after two lines : TIocp/ocsvioovoc (jAbv fJbBToc rrjg bvvoo(jjBoug 
 octbgtbXs ‘rpozurcc\7]'^6f/jBvov z.tX. On the preceding page we 
 find g ZflTBi GTparriyov bdgibyypBuv tov biccbs^ousvov z.tX., and on 
 p. 187 B^BXBfJb^oBV BVCC 7 MV fylkC/OV AbOVVOCTOV , ZCCTCCXCCVGOVTCC Ttjv 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 75 
 
 rapccy/jv, xu) TrapGif/jvQyjffofJtjZvov rdg z.r.k., and after three lines 
 TrpoGccyopsvGdi. For the use of these same passages in Peregrin. 
 12, vid. infr. § 4. 2. a. 
 
 Clement also writes in § 12 : not) TpOGsfevro uvty\ hovvcti 
 (rrjf/j67ov. Lightfoot remarks that yrpoGzflzvro “ is used in imita- 
 tion of the LXX. diction.” This is probable enough, and it 
 is none the less probable that the TrpoGs^svro of Diodorus in 
 the last six lines of c. 32 suggested its use ; at any rate, it is 
 there exactly found. Now, when we add to these coincidences 
 bockkalg, used both by Clement and Diodorus, it seems un- 
 reasonable to deny the use of Diodorus. If this is conceded, 
 it would seem to follow that § 12 is nothing else than jest. 
 The use of vvrepaov and Greyog, and of the words u which are 
 wanting in all the best mss.,” is at once thus capable of easy 
 explanation, vid. snpr. pp. 23, 73. 
 
 In c. 33, a little above huXk a§, Diodorus has roGOvrov 
 TkrjOog i Sekoov, ojgtz hid rrjv TrvzvorqTu rvv j SccXXopusvcov dKkyfkoig 
 GvyxpovovToov. Comp, b (5s ru dyT^cv GuyzpovGccg rj vhpicc eppdyri , 
 Evcing. Thom. A 11, p. 143, a few lines only above ivocKkdzrrig. 
 In B 10 the words are, ftopzvdpjtvog 5s Gvverpifiri rj vhpicc avrov. 
 Comp, further, with both, zcctottiv rod rwv x,?jpvxcov dywvog, and 
 after three lines, s you 5s okiyoov ijzouGcc V7ro Gckri&ovg rav rrspiBG- 
 rooroov * eira, (pofirjDzig f/j/j Gvvrptfizr/jv b roGccvry rvp/3 y. Pere- 
 grin. 32. K ccroTTiv and dydovotg are in Diodorus’ context. A 
 further use of those pages of Diodorus in Peregrinus will be 
 shown presently. 
 
 § 4. There is some confirmation of the reality of the connec- 
 tion just pointed out, between Clement and Diodorus, in the use 
 of the word boCKkofig, to be found in a treatise called De Prceno- 
 tione ad Epigenem Liber, 1 and which bears the name of Galen. 
 
 1 “ Exstat in edit. Aid. P. in. p. 135, in gr. Basil. P. in. p. 451, in Chart, 
 to. viii. p. 829, in vi. Junt. cl. iv. f. 213. 
 
 “ Ad Posthumum de prsenotione male inscripserunt editores. Est liber omnino 
 memorabilia, in quo Galenus, qua felicitate in prsesagiis usus sit, fuse enarrat, 
 et historias plane mirabiles refert. Scripsit hunc librum editis jam libris de art. 
 med. et de libr. propr. Citat in eo libros xv. de pulsibus. 
 
 “ Cordex latinus est in bibl. r. Paris, n. 6865. 
 
 “ Interpretes sunt Jul. Martian. Rota et Jo. Guintherius, cujus versionem 
 Charterius emendavit. 
 
 “Editiones Galeni de prsesagitura, Ge. Valla interpr. prodiitc. aliis Galeni et 
 alior. Grsecor. Ven. 1498 f. Prodiit etiam Leonh. Jaechino interpr. c. explana- 
 tionibus. 1540, 4to.” Ackermann. Liter. Hist, in Kuhn, vol. i. p. cxlvi. 
 
76 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 This treatise comes before us for examination under rather 
 peculiar circumstances. In the Contemporary Review for May 
 1878, in an article entitled “Illustrations of the Acts from 
 Recent Discoveries,” Canon Lightfoot calls particular at- 
 tention to “a striking coincidence” between Galen in the 
 above-named treatise and S. Luke in the Acts of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Galen (§ 2, p. 612) speaks of a certain Sergius Paulus, a 
 proconsul and student of Aristotle. Having introduced him 
 as Sergius 6 zui II ccvXog, Galen, throughout the remainder 
 of the treatise, drops the first name, and calls him simply 
 Paulus. Canon Lightfoot considers (p. 290) this dropping of 
 the name of Sergius in favour of Paulus, to be a justification 
 of the conjecture that would identify the Paulus, the proconsul 
 of a certain Cyprian 1 inscription, as the Sergius Paulus of 
 Acts xiii. 
 
 Canon Lightfoot takes special notice of the words 6 zct) 
 YLavXog, which are the very words which S. Luke uses of Saul 
 of Tarsus, in Acts xiii. 9, in the very place, that is, where he 
 is speaking of Sergius Paulus. It is interesting to see how- 
 this coincidence is dealt with. Canon Lightfoot says : “Not 
 the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology 
 as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from 
 these treatises of Galen ; and conversely, I have no desire to 
 suggest that Galen borrowed from S. Luke. But if so, the 
 facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which 
 find favour in this age.” Will any one say that the two 
 reasons which Canon Lightfoot gives are sufficient to prove 
 that the coincidence in question is accidental ? and yet, if it is 
 to have even the smallest value as “ a warning,” its accidental 
 character must be placed beyond doubt. We quite agree 
 with the Canon, that it would be ridiculous to argue that the 
 writer of the Acts borrowed from Galen. The alternative is, 
 however, not that which he mentions. No one, we should 
 imagine, would “ desire to suggest,” or even dream of suggest- 
 ing, that Galen wrote his treatises (or any one of them) as 
 parodies of Holy Scripture, which De Prccnotione must be if 
 its o xoci UccvXoc was borrowed from the Acts. The real 
 alternative is very obvious. Fabricius 1 says that there are 
 1 Enr nATAor- [an©] rnATor. Cesnola’s Cyprus, p. 425. 
 
GALEX. 
 
 77 
 
 170 works extant under the name of Galen. Of these, only 
 82 or 83 treatises, and some 18 books of commentaries upon 
 Hippocrates, are thought to be genuine. The remaining 
 treatises are considered to be either doubtful, or certainly 
 spurious. It is therefore very natural, and we think only 
 right, to ask whether the treatise which contains this “ striking 
 coincidence” with the Acts, is really from the pen of Galen. 
 This question, however, Canon Lightfoot does not ask. Having 
 started two theories with respect to the coincidence in ques- 
 tion, which condemn themselves, he assumes its accidental 
 character, and then holds the facts up as a “ warning.” If 
 coincidences may be discarded as accidental in this summary 
 fashion, it is not easy to understand how they can be used, as 
 Canon Lightfoot does use them, to support certain ancient 
 documents. 
 
 In the Contemporary Review for May 1877, there is an 
 article on u Supernatural Religion,” also by Canon Lightfoot. 
 In this (p. 1134) he brings forward three coincidences between 
 Tatian’s Apology and the Gospel of S. John, and argues from 
 them that Tatian w r as certainly acquainted wdth the Gospel. He 
 is at much pains, therefore, to show their force. The first of these 
 (Tvsuf/jct 6 Qsog) — like the one with which we are concerned, in 
 that it consists of three words only — “ he should not,” he says, 
 “ have regarded as decisive if it had stood alone.” It is, how- 
 ever, evident that he thought it an excellent reason for a close 
 examination of Tatian’s Apology . The third, he says, “is all 
 
 the more remarkable, because the w T ords are extremely simple 
 in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation which 
 gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.” One 
 cannot but feel that these words apply with almost equal 
 force to the coincidence (o xai Tluv’koc) between Galen and 
 S. Luke. 
 
 Canon Lightfoot then goes on to speak of the value of 
 cumulative evidence, and he writes : “ It is only necessary to 
 point to the enormous improbability that any two writers 
 should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances as in the 
 passages quoted, and the inference will be plain,” p. 1136. 
 Our contention is, that the coincidences which we bring for- 
 
 1 Lib. iv. 17, p. 528 sq., Hamb. 1717. Vid. Acker. Liter. Hist. Kuhn, vol. i. 
 p. xviii. ; Smith’s Diet. Gr. Rom. Biogr. art. “Galenus,” p. 210, ed. 1846. 
 
78 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ward must be dealt with on precisely the same principles as 
 those which Canon Lightfoot applies to the resemblances 
 which he brings forward for the purpose of showing that 
 Tatian was acquainted with S. John’s gospel. Coincidences 
 are not to be put aside, because we may happen to “ have no 
 desire to suggest” that one writer borrowed from another. 
 Their significance, their individual value, their cumulative 
 force, must be considered. 
 
 We have here before us one coincidence between Galen and 
 S. Luke, which is confessedly an important one. A single 
 moment’s reflection, however, supplies us with a second of no 
 less importance. S. Luke, after introducing Saul of Tarsus 
 as 6 nu) II avXog, thenceforward drops the first name and uses 
 Paul only. Galen does the same thing with Sergius 6 ku) 
 Ylavkog. This is an important coincidence, for Canon Light- 
 foot, as we have seen, draws an important inference from the 
 dropping of the name. 
 
 We thus have two very noticeable coincidences between 
 Galen and S. Luke. The cumulative force of three, it seems, 
 should prove that one writer borrowed from another. Now, 
 will any one say that the two which have been pointed out 
 will not justify even a “sober” critic in casting a suspicious 
 eye along the pages of Galen’s treatise? 
 
 When we read Canon Lightfoot’s article of May 1878, and 
 observed the second coincidence with S. Luke which he does 
 not mention, as well as the first which he does, we did not 
 jump to the conclusion that the treatise containing them was 
 a forgery ; neither were we disposed rashly to assume that these 
 startling coincidences with S. Luke had accidentally arisen ; 
 but we thought that an examination of the treatise was called 
 for, and that possibly other things of like character would be 
 found. Canon Lightfoot seemed to challenge the examination 
 of the coincidence which he produced, and we determined 
 to make that examination. 
 
 It would not, however, have been made at this time, if it 
 had not been for one circumstance. On further reflection, it 
 occurred to us that Clement, in his Ep. i. 65, has a xui, which 
 is just as noticeable as Galen’s. We therefore conjectured 
 that Galen’s treatise, if a fraud, would be found to be closely 
 connected with the writings which we have specially in hand, 
 
GALEN. 
 
 79 
 
 and that, in all probability, the very passages and pages (or 
 some of them), which we knew to be used in those writings, 
 would serve to expose its true character. How far this 
 expectation was justified it is our business to show. 
 
 (1.) We shall first of all point out the use of Tioei, on which 
 the conjecture rested. Clement writes : 
 
 rovg dg a ^SGTCxX/xiioug a <p vj/xuv K Xaud/ov ”E tux/ O ucx\\p/ov 
 B/ruvu guv tuxi <E > oprouvdruj sv s/p)jvTj /Agra yapcxg iv Tcxysi avavs/x-^ccT s 
 rrpog i][X(xg, ozrug 6 cxttov rriv euxraiav tuxi imGrod^rijv 7]fi?v s/pTjvriv tuxi 
 o/xovo/cxv drayysXkwGiv’ s/g to Tcxyjov xa/ j^/agcs yjxprivcxi rrspi Trig suGtcx- 
 Qs'uxg u/xuv. 'H yjxp/g rou xup'/ou Tjfxuv I y\Gou Xp/Grov (x eQ’ ufxuv tux i 
 fxsTtx kcxvtwv Tt(xvrcxyr\ ruv xsxXtj/xsvu v ugto rou Ssou tux/ 5/’ auzou 
 
 x.r.x . — i. 65. 
 
 On avv Tied Oopr. Lightfoot says: “For the position of tcui 
 comp. Phil. iv. 3, fierce Tied KXrjfJjevrog (quoted by Laurent, 
 p. 425).” We observe that S. Paul in verse 1 uses the word 
 SGriGroOrirog. It is not found again either in the LXX. or 
 N. T., and not very often elsewhere. Clement, we see, uses it 
 almost directly after avv Tied ^oprovvcxr&f. Now turn to the 
 only mention of Fortunatus in the N. T. in 1 Cor. xvi. 17. In 
 ver. 11, S. Paul says: GrpoGrsf/j\pars ds ccurov sv s Ipyjvrj. Light- 
 foot quotes these words in illustration of Clement’s Iv s/p?jv/j . . . 
 ciVGiGrsfA^Gcrs. In ver. 23, S. Paul writes: % yoipig rov K vpi'ov 
 ’I. X. (JjS& v(Jjmv. Comp, with Clement. There is a little 
 difference. Why? S. Paul ends Phil. iv. with y\ yjdpig tov 
 K vpiov tiumv 9 I. X. (JjSroi '7TUVTMV V(/jmv. On the next words of 
 Clement, Lightfoot quotes 1 Cor. i. 2, avv acexai rolg SGriTiccXov- 
 f/j'svoig to ovofjju Ti.rX . Why does not Clement write avv aroLai ? 
 The [mtgl Gravrovv of Phil. iv. supplies the answer. The natural, 
 if not the necessary, inference from the foregoing coincidences 
 is that Clement consulted both 1 Cor. xvi. and Phil, iv., and 
 borrowed Tied from before his own name in Phil, iv., and then 
 in jest tacked it on to Fortunatus. 
 
 (2.) In De Prcenot. 2, p. 612, Galen writes : 
 
 dXr/ov d * uGTepov sr/Gxs-^o/xsvoi tov Kudri/xov up/xovTo 2 spy/bg ts 
 6 xcxi (xext 6, 1 Kuhn) IlaDXog, og ou /Agra rroXuv yjpbvov unapyog sysvsro 
 
 1 ‘‘The words stand ’S.tpyios n xa) o n aZ'koe, in Kiihn and other earlier printed 
 editions which I have consulted, but they are quoted 2 ipyiis n o »ai UuZxos by 
 
80 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 rjjg KoXeuc, zui <J>Xa/3/os -J Kurix.bg [Lev u)v qdyj zui ubrbg, iffKeuzug 1 
 d'e Kepi rrjv 7 A p/ffroreXoug (piXceopiuv, uOKep zui b HubXog, o7g diyiyriffufievog 
 ukuvtu b E ubrifiog ru zur s/fe, XvKeTv e <pr) rr; v oijixepov ho^evTjv Kpop- 
 prrfiv ski rob /jj'eWovrog Kupo^vG/Mob, KupucpvXurretv d ’ okojc uKoSyjGoiro 
 yevoftevoo 8e zuze/vov Kepi rrpj uvrr t v upuv ro7g Kpoyeyevri^evoig b fit v 
 Kod^/xog e&u v/xaZe re zui ro7g eKiGzoKov/a'evoig aurbv ukugiv idrjXov rue 
 f (J>ug Kpopprjffeig. yiguv de obroi oyebov u-Kuvreg oi zuru rqv 'FwfjjUtwv 
 
 koXiv u^iojjxut/ re zui Kuide/cp Kpovyovreg. 
 
 It appears from this that Sergius was not the only student 
 of Aristotle, and but one, and not at that time the chief one, 
 of the distinguished company drawn to Galen by his wonder 
 ful predictions. 
 
 With Galen’s last words, compare apn he rovg f, Ea Xyjvctg 
 e TetOev avreep occOai otXoc *P cofLcctotg ocpTi £g ccvhpcc vruiheici zai 
 a^iMf/jCCTi GrpovyovToc. Peregrin. 19. Truly nothing can be 
 more suggestive than this coincidence with Peregrinus. It 
 inclines one more than ever to suppose the coincidence with 
 S. Luke to be mere parody. 
 
 Galen’s aWgp zui 6 YlavXog gives emphasis to the preceding 
 6 zotl II ocv\og, and at the same time explains how the various 
 reading may have crept in accidentally or otherwise. 
 
 Galen’s expression rob zcct egoe is Pauline. Comp. Col. iv. 
 ra zcct' egee nuvTu yvoopicet vgc7v Tvyizog, ver. 7 ; oV gVe go^ooc 
 vrpog vgoag eig ccvto tovto , 7vu yvoo too mp) vgooov, zcci nccpcczockeGYj 
 Tccg zccphiccg vgooov, ver. 8. Now, observe, Galen on the same 
 p. 612 (after three lines) writes : cog ovv eyvoopiGe gcov to ovogccc 
 zcci tout 2 ccvto too rg YlccvLco hirjy^GccTO zcci gceTcc ty\v Trzlpccv e(pYi 
 GrccpcczccXelv 3 gee, hei^cci rg zcci ccvtco. Ver. 10 of the Colossians 
 
 Wetstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading 
 rests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense.” — Light. 
 note , p. 292. Conybeare and Howson, The Life and Epistles of S. Paul , vol. 
 i. p. 177, n. ed. 1859, quote the passage from Galen, and read o *«/ in silence 
 though using Kuhn’s edition. Alford also notices the coincidence, and reads 
 0 7CCCI without remark. 
 
 1 iffTov^xKus has been suggested from Galen’s ItrirouSuxus xa\ <npi riiv ’A p. <pi\. 
 a little below. See next note. 
 
 2 r. a. and a. t. in the N.T. are found (with one exception, 2 Pet. i. 5) only 
 in S. Paul’s Epistles. Galen has «. t. in § 5, p. 630 : ovus i.xou<r6wtriv a. r. ptevov. 
 
 Comp, ftovov ruv ttu^uv "vet ftvyiftovtvuftiv f o xcti itr-rov^atret etvro rooro eroirjoeti , 
 
 Gal. ii. 10. See preceding note. See also note next but one following. 
 
 3 Comp. “When the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles 
 besought (vrupsxuXovv) that these words might be preached to them the next 
 Sabbath.” — Acts xiii. 42. 
 
GALEN. 
 
 81 
 
 runs : “ Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and 
 Marcus, uv&^iog to Barnabas,” etc. (Hesych. : aveipiOi, ahzX- 
 (pSjv vioi). Galen after one line says: ofjjotcog hi zai Pocp^ccpog 
 o 6z7og tov ficcGiXzvovTog Azvziov, zcctoc rrjv AIzgo7Totm[Jj7ccv 
 ovof/ja^of/jSVTjv ovrog v^ccp^ov, IhziTo tov fjbccOrifjbarog zoc) avrog, 
 uGGezp o UccvXog. Can it be possible that Galen’s Barbaras is 
 in truth Barnabas? His sentence would then be equivalent 
 to the Barnabas and Paul of the Acts. Thomas M., under 
 TiQyjV) treats of c&vz^iog among other relationships. His remarks 
 might have supplied the whole of one of the short pseudo-Hella- 
 dian excerpts, except the following words : zoci @z7ov fjjlv ovofAcc- 
 ZpvGi tov tov naTpog cchzXtpov. Phot. Bill. 279, p. 530. Com- 
 pare with Galen, whose name is mentioned two or three lines 
 above the words now given from the excerpt. 
 
 Galen uses the expression toc zctr IfJbz again on p. 647 : zcct 
 
 (JjZVTOI ZCtl GCVTOg ST0l(Jj0g 7]V, C/JGTCZp 0 TZ 2s/3?jip0g, TO (JjYjVVGCll 
 T. Z. g. TU TZ ZCCTU TYIV TOJV T OUfJjCllUV GtOklV OVTl M upzu Avpr[klU 
 ’A vtcovivcj ccvTOzpccTopi. A zvziog yocp z.t.X. Comp. "E XXtjgi tz 
 zca ^fictpfidpoig, <ro(po7g tz zcct ccvoyjTotg bpztXzTTig zifjor ovtco , to 
 zcct Zf/jZ, < 7rpo6vfjjOv zcct v[uv To7g zv e Pcb/ooy] zvocyyzktGocGOcci' 
 Pom. i. 14, 15. Besides the general parallel, observe the 
 fiupfidpoig of the Romans and the Marcus and Lucius of 
 Galen. The conjecture as to Barnabas and Barbaras just 
 now hazarded would seem to be in some measure con- 
 firmed. 
 
 We turn now to Acts xiii. It begins: “Now there were 
 (zjGdv hz) in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets 
 and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, 
 and Lucius— and Saul.” Ver. 44 runs: “And the next 
 Sabbath-day came Guzhov gtocgcc 7] nb\ig bczovGoct tov \oyov tov 
 Qzov .” Comp. Galen’s sentence (quoted p. 80): q gocv hi ovtoi 
 Gyzhbv - 6 h’ ovv B oqOog, cczqzoag follow. Comp, also his 
 Lucius. M ccpzov is the last word of Acts xii. 
 
 In ver. 8 we are told that Elymas withstood S. Paul, and 
 sought to turn away (htccGTpz^cct) the deputy from the faith ; 
 and in ver. 45, that the Jews, when they saw the multitudes 
 that came together to hear the word (tov \oyov} of God, were 
 filled with envy, and spake against those things which were 
 spoken by Paul,” etc. On p. 613 Galen says that one Anti- 
 genes ridiculed him, saying that they vrould know whom to 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 praise orocv 1 l%(pep6(JbSvov ’ihcocriv (the sick) E vhqfjbov . . . dnoc- 
 rpstpcuv biore rov Xoyov. In Acts v. 6, 9, ezpzpeiv is used of 
 Ananias and Sapphira when carried out for burial ; and in 
 ver. 15, kzfizpeiv rovg dffd evitg is found. 
 
 In xiii. 12 it is said that when the deputy saw what was 
 done (the fulfilment of S. Paul’s words in the case of Elymas) 
 he believed sz^XrjffffOfJbevog far) r/j hihccxfi rov K vpiov. So Galen, 
 p. 614, says that when his first prophecy respecting Eudemus 
 came true, men were amazed ; but when his second also was 
 fulfilled, ccmvreg [ilv gjg nhayriGuv. 
 
 In Acts xii. 22 (the end of the chapter), S. Luke, speaking 
 of Herod’s death, says : 6 5g hrjfjbog fareQawei, Qzev (pojVYi zcci ovz 
 dvOpuTov. Galen, p. 618, says of Eudemus (obs.), when he 
 was cured : obx vftofifaovrog (Jjtrpiug (pQsyyetrOcci rov <pi\o(r6(pov, 
 xcc0d'7rep e’iaiOev. zzzpccyorog £g ffpog ocffavrccg yjfidg rovg g movrug 
 (ptXovg, wg 6 YlvOiog ' AvroKkav, hid rov YaXqvov aro^otrog z.r.X. 
 
 Along the whole narrative, indeed, -Galen appears to desire 
 to play (in parody) the part of S. Paul, and to exaggerate 
 and turn into ridicule those features of the apostle’s character 
 and writings the most easily assailable. Galen encounters 
 opposition ; he works cures which make a great stir, and give 
 him a great name ; he professes not to be careful of honour of 
 this kind, and not to go about proclaiming his own medical 
 prophecies and cures; he disclaims boasting, and then boasts; 
 he says he will be silent upon the wonderful cure which had 
 brought him the greatest fame, and then immediately describes 
 it. The close of that part of the treatise, moreover, which 
 deals with the cure of Eudemus shows several resemblances to 
 the close of the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 After one of his controversies, p. 628, Galen writes: 6 ’ AAg \<zv- 
 
 1 Comp, the story of Ahab, Micaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah in 
 1 Kings xxii. Comp. ver. 25 : xxi uti M i%x'ixs, l^ov xv o'yj/y ry fif&'ipx ixiivy, orxv 
 d(reX0y$ rx/xuov rov rx/xiiov rov xpvfiTjvxi \xu (with xTo<rrp'i\pxn immediately in the 
 next verse), with Galen above in the text. Ver. 18 runs: “And the king of 
 Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee on ov Tpotpnnvu ovros poi xxXx, 
 'Sion xXX' y and ver. 8: iyu /xi/xlfftjxx xvrov, on ov XxXu Tip) Ifjoov xxXx 
 
 x.r.x. In the pseudo-Helladian excerpts, p. 532, the following is found: d/o 
 xx) o * Ayxfjt.ifjt.vwv opyi^o/xivos rx K ciX%xvn Iv ro7g xvro7 s pr,/u,xn rriv $Xx9tyvi(i.ix » 
 Tipityipii, Mxvn , Xiyuv, xxxuv, xx) xt't <roi fiXov rx xxxx jxxvrtvur^xt' xxi' J E trOXov 
 
 ovSi tut on i/Ttf, Horn. 11. i. 106 sq. This would readily suggest 1 Kings 
 xxii. So J. Duport, Horn. Gnomol. 1660, p. 5. Two or three lines below in 
 the excerpt ixtptpovai is found. Comp, with Galen. See note, p. 85. 
 
GALEN. 
 
 83 
 
 bpog . . . s<pq . . . roig 8/a tcov aivQfoeav <paivo(jj'svoig tigtsvsiv tjf/j oig 
 heiV' azovGug 5’ lycb tgcvtgc, koltoCKiiccov ocvrovg \ ypjp'iaQriv h gjbvov 
 (p0e r y<gcc(jjsvog, cog SGtpciXrjv oio/Atvog sig rovg aypoizoTvppam/ovg 
 r,zsiv z.t. A. Comp. Acts xxviii. 25 sq.: c&crvf/jfioovoi 8s ovrsg vp og 
 btXkyfkovg aTrekvovro, sinovrog rov UccvXov p rjfjua sv, “Well spake 
 the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, 
 Go unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall 
 not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive.” 
 Compare the latter as well as the earlier part of this passage. 
 When Galen had gone away, the rest had some controversy 
 among themselves. So, in ver. 29, it is said, that “when Paul 
 had said these things, the Jews departed, and had great reason- 
 ing among themselves.” Galen tells us that numbers of 
 persons came together to the same place to hear him discourse 
 upon various medical matters: zocl [/j'z%pt 8s vvv, ovblv 1 sroX- 
 (jjTjffe rig ccvtsittsTv ccuroTg srcov h too [biTaJgv ysyovoroov is. So, in 
 ver. 30, it is said, “ And Paul dwelt two whole years in his 
 own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 
 preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things 
 which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no 
 man forbidding him.” To make the picture more complete, 
 Galen says, that in consequence of a desire which Boethus had 
 expressed to possess his notes or commentaries, he dictated to 
 the scribes both what he had shown and wdiat he had said, [Arj 
 ‘Z'poopobfjjsvog si (JosXKsi ZooGSiv ocvtoc TroWoTg, which is, in all re- 
 spects, true of S. Paul. We have just seen a coincidence 
 between Galen and the writer of Peregrinus. We cannot for- 
 get that the latter makes himself merry with the Epistles of 
 1 The sources of Galen’s language as well as of his ideas may he easily traced. 
 Phil. i. 12 contains an example of ra ip i. (See p. 80 and note 2.) In 
 ver. 5 we find x%pi rov vvv\ in ver. 6 : alro rovro (see note 2, p. 80) ; in ver. 14 : 
 roXpciv a.<p'o[loii rov x'oyov XaXiiv. Comp, with Galen. He immediately proceeds : 
 xuirot yz ^loofiovXivopivuv yt ToXXuv ctvruTuv, otu? ooxovaSunv ocvro rovro p'ovov (see 
 note 2, p. 80), us avruprixottriv, ov pviv roXpuvruv yz zls xp'nriv It) ipiXoXoyuv oovhpuv 
 ctyctyzlv rot ypc&<p'zvrte. Comp. roXpep n$ vpuv . . . xplviaSou it) ruv ooblxuv, xoo) ov%) 
 hr) ruv a.y\uv ; 1 Cor. vi. 1; also, “Yet Michael the archangel, on ru hufZoXu 
 (obs. ) ^ leixpivopzvos £ izXzyzro Tip) rov Mureus truparos, ovx zroXpmrz xpitriv ZTZvzyxziv 
 ISXutrtpvp'icis,” Jude 9 ; us xpimv , Jude 6. Just above, in Galen, we observe n j» 
 Quvriv, and after one line r > jv a({)uvieov zpyd^oiro xoo) ruv Tctpoo^Szy^ctpivuv oTorz 
 zhzixvvov rozvra Toivruv zXzyp^S'zvruv, . . . iv ru%zi ypootyuv. Comp. Tootruv ctovStiv 
 Toiovpzvos ypaQziv, Jude 3 } xoo) \\zXzy\cu Tavroos rovg u<rz[Zz7; couruv Tip) Tccvruv 
 x.r.X., Jude 15. zXzy\iv $1 ‘i<rx, iv t ^ ,a S vrupoovopias' vTo^vytov citfiuvov, h) oovipuTcu 
 <puvy <p0iy?apivov, 2 Pet. ii. 16 (parallel to Jude 11). 
 
84 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Ignatius, as the former may perhaps be here thought to do 
 with those of S. Paul. 
 
 Then, further, when Galen’s story of the cure of Eudemus 
 is carefully considered, it seems impossible to suppose it to 
 be written seriously. It reads very much as if there were in it 
 some little substratum of truth gathered from Galen’s books, 
 with embellishments of the writer’s own, after the fashion of 
 Peregrinus. It is amusing to remark the way in which the 
 marvels of the cure are “piled up” and emphasized. Thus, 
 on p. 614, we find E vhfjfjbov ityizoerov zee) rpiTOv erog uyovroc, 
 rpslg ’iypvrac rerupraiovg \v (jAgco y^ipjSvog, OepccTrsvziv vtig- 
 yyiircti TceXrivbg (these last words may be borne in mind), or as 
 Eudemus describes himself, as yspovroe ifjjuvog Spec zdepjvovroc 
 rpur) TiTccpraioig, p. 619. We are reminded of Clement’s em- 
 bellishments of the simple narratives of Holy Scripture, e.g. in 
 i. 12 and in i. 43, and of the way in which Clement piles up his 
 sentences when, at any rate, there may be a joke in hand — e.g . 
 avv zee) tpoprovvoera Iv eipTjvri gesroe ypepveg Iv rdey^i z.r.X., i. 65, 
 vid. sup. p. 79. 
 
 (3.) Curiously enough, Galen gives in this same treatise 
 an illustration of Clement’s i. 43 (the sealing of the rods). 
 
 A son of Boethus, Galen says, p. 635, w r as ill. His case, 
 from a medical point of view, w 7 as peculiar ; for one day he 
 would be sick and the next well, or by night he would be 
 feverish, while by day his pulse would be regular and low. 
 There was nothing either in the quality or the quantity of the 
 food provided for him to account for the strange symptoms. 
 Galen therefore suggested that the boy had secret stores of 
 food, to which he applied himself. Accordingly Galen (p. 636) 
 rrp> (jjTjTipoc tov vroeihog vrfoffxoyijsvyjv oezpiftoig oevrov <pv\ccZcei \ tso '- 
 ryjffi (fivkuzoc '7rocpoczoi()ri{/jZV7]v rg 5/’ oXyjg ryjg ^gp ocg, ocTrozcSkvovGuv 
 rg Tovg g ig rov oizov izCivov eiaiovrccg, zeera, roV oizov uvrov 
 zoif/jcogbivov, M7rozez\si(r[Jjevov hboflev cczpifiag an ocvrrjg. Four 
 days elapsed, but there was no improvement in the symptoms. 
 The boy was brought out of the house which he had formerly 
 occupied to that of Boethus. Those persons who were met 
 with by the way joined the procession ! One of those persons, 
 of course, was Epigenes, who always turned up most appropri- 
 ately to be the witness to Galen’s triumphs. An irresistibly 
 comic account is given of the new chamber, the mother’s bed, the 
 
GALEN. 
 
 85 
 
 little bed for the son, and the seats for Boethus and Galen to 
 sit in solemn conclave upon the mysterious case of this small boy, 
 who was suspected of eating more than was good for him from 
 some secret store. No less amusing is the conversation which 
 went on. Galen, however, learned ontug orav g Ig to ficcXccvelov 
 7] f/jTjrrip avrov 7ropeuo(/jW?] Tthi'iGy tov oixov, shoe v^rsp dafyotkitug 
 e ig yXaTTOzogoov egoficcWovGcc ty\v zocTccGyif/j/ivr]Toci, and he 
 
 concluded that the boy took this opportunity of devouring his 
 concealed stores. A regular search was instituted in the bed 
 and under it. This was for a long time fruitless, and the laugh 
 was against Galen — 77 , 0 [LMVTig Xgyg/ ; one thing re- 
 
 mained unsearched — fy be tovto nwrihug Gp,izpov ryjg {L7\Tpog 
 avTOv rccpuvTivihog STiKSif/jei/ov tSj zcefledpcc. Galen seems to 
 mean by this a sort of nightcap, for, on p. 631, he says that a 
 certain woman covered her body with clothes, oiXKco £g tivi 
 [ jjizpcij (obs. the use with dim., vid. sup. p. 61) TocpuvTivihla) Tqv 
 xeQodJjv sfcsiro zuQgc7T gp ot yprftpvT eg vnvov. Galen lifted the 
 “ nightcap ” and shook it, and there fell from it a piece of 
 bread. “ Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.” 
 
 Y\coggozo[JjOv 1 is used twice in the N. T., both times by S. 
 John, with reference to Judas : xcci to yXuGGOTcofjijOV g]^g, pcoci 
 rd (^aXKofjjSvcc IfidffTciZpv, xii. 6, and g ttsi to yXcoGGozo^ov uypv 
 6 ’I ovhccg, xiii. 29 ; comp, with Galen. This receptacle con- 
 tained the key, comp. x,cci oti ty\v nki Ihocv liypv 6 K uic&pag. Evang. 
 JVicod., quoted p. 57. Except that it would have spoiled the 
 joke, one does not see why the mother should not have done 
 the same as Caiaphas. We need hardly be indebted to Galen 
 for “ a surgical operation ” to enable us to see through this 
 transparent jesting. As a finishing touch, we may mention 
 that the name of this small boy, the subject of so much medical 
 and parental anxiety, so carefully put under lock and key and 
 seal, bore the name of Cyril — shall we say, after Cyril of 
 Jerusalem ? (vid. sup. p. 55). 
 
 (4.) We shall give now the illustration of Clement’s use of 
 IvocKkcdg, which was promised. 
 
 Galen, p. 656, says that certain physicians outrage their art 
 
 1 In the pseudo-Helladian excerpts, p. 532, an account is given of yXu<r- 
 <Tox.ofji.i7ov, which appears to be indebted to Hesychius. Shortly afterwards 
 Hesychius notices yva^aXAov and yva< pxXo;. Here in Galen to y\ >u<pec?.ov is one of 
 the things searched. 
 
86 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ctWsp xu) rovg (pi\oGo<povg (pi\o<ro(piocv, oi yz (/jqbzvbg ibiwTov 
 fizknov fiiovvrzg ovopjuZpvaiv avTovg 6 v6{Jjoiti gz(jovm toj ryjg (pi\o<ro- 
 (piocg. Comp, ovx ccvroi fikourtpriybovGi to xoChbv ovopjoc, to itfsxhjOh 
 k(p vgbbig ; Jas. ii. 7. Lower down in the same chapter S. James 
 speaks of Rahab, “ who sent out the messengers another way.” 
 It will be remembered that Clement tells this story in Ep. 
 i. 12, and that he writes: xou z^Z7rzf/j^zv ocvbpo ig Tovg ffvKkqypo- 
 fjuz vovg ai)T0vg , and after half a dozen lines : bbbv VTobzixvvovGoc 
 auTolg zvccKkoccg. Galen (who is here speaking of one Sextus, 
 who was sick of a fever) goes on immediately to mention the 
 malice of the physicians: Kzpj'xbvTuv tz bi oXqg Tjf/jzpug Tovg 
 yvcoaopj'zvovg tz xcci ctyyzKkovTocg uvToig to yzvrjGopjZvov. They 
 did not know, he says, exactly what had been predicted as to 
 Tfjv bcpy/iv T?jg xpiazoog. When they heard of an accession of 
 fever about the seventh hour, they mocked : xai (puvzpcog 
 z ‘TiyjzipovTzg cctccgi Tolg uttocvtugiv zXzyov xzpTop>ovvTZg cog r\ 
 OccvfjjUGTrj f/jCcvTZia, tov VccXqvov xcctcc tovvocvtiov aTrzfiq. yzvopjzvyjg 
 (MVTOi Tijg xpicrzag, aog Gcpoziprixziv xutcc, ty\v tt poTzpociocv (ztpcurccv 
 z^of/jzvrjv zvcck\bi<g) ZTpZTrovTO TrcivTzg cPiayyvbpjZvoi, xui tclvtOj Trjg 
 Gcpoyvuazug ovbzv zypvarig Quvf/jOHTTOV, ojg zbzitga aoi. We observe 
 here, then, a very apt example of the construction to which 
 Lightfoot calls attention ( vid . sup. p. 74), followed presently, 
 as in Clement, by zvaWu<g. 
 
 Observe, in the next place, Galen’s r\ OccvgoccGT?} g mvtzIcc , 
 followed by ovbzv ^ocvgoaGTOV ; and compare the whole passage 
 with the parallel quoted from Cyril of Jerusalem, on p. 55. 
 This, a curious confirmation of the conjecture, that the joke 
 about “ the keys,” found in Galen and elsewhere, takes its rise 
 from Cyril. Peregrin. 11 we know to be indebted to the same 
 place of Cyril, and we consequently conclude the TrjV Qccv- 
 pjCCGTrjv GopiMV there in Peregrinus (vid. sup. p. 47) to be equiva- 
 lent to Galen’s r\ Occvgo. goavT. here. Here, on p. 657, as there, 
 the writing and expounding of books is spoken of ; here, on p. 
 655, we find ovbzv xivziv; there, in the beginning of § 12 : ttccvtcc 
 zxivovv. In Peregrin. 11, again, is the tov guzyccv yovv com- 
 mented upon on pp. 48, 49. We conclude, therefore, the 
 title of pj&VTig assumed by Galen here, as well as elsewhere, 
 to be taken from Soph. El. 1499 (vid. sup. p. 66, note). In the 
 account of the boy Cyril he is often so called, and the words 
 fjoccvTig ojv are found. This receives some confirmation from 
 
GALEN. 
 
 87 
 
 the fact that El. 1481 runs : zoci pcocvrig uv upiGrog SGQaKkov 
 toCKui ; while here in Galen, p. 655, we read : &>g ovn civ 
 Gtpocksirjv sv t5j 7rpopp7]GSi, with fjcccvriv just below. The con- 
 nection between Soph. El. 1499 and Peregrinus is thus to some 
 extent confirmed, — a matter of some importance, in considera- 
 tion of the way in which the lines of Sophocles were reached 
 (vid. sup. p. 66, note). 
 
 The connection which has now been pointed out between 
 Galen and Cyril of Jerusalem in “the keys,” naturally leads 
 us to open once more Clement’s i. 43 (the sealing of the keys 
 and rods). If we do, we find that there, in Clement, the 
 foreknowledge (<7rposyvoo) of Moses is in hand, as also the 
 TrpoyvuGig rsXsicc (beginning of § 44 : rsXsiog sv TpoyvMGSi, is 
 found in Cyril, p. 92) of the apostles ; and here, the TrpoyvwGig 
 of Galen. There, Clement begins one sentence with ov 
 Tposyva, and the next with fjcoiXiGrcc ffiei ; here, Galen begins 
 one with gv . . . syvcog, and the next with ov ycip yfiiGuv : 
 both Galen and Clement speaking of the forecasting of future 
 events. There, Clement has ru svho^a) ovbg>uri ; here, Galen 
 ovogcun Gsp>vco. Above,, on p. 57, the opening words of § 43 
 are given, wdiich may be compared with Galen’s uvrri pcsv ovv 
 ?! e 7rpbpp7\Gig^ ug stpqv, si zcci QavpjCCGTrj rolg TroWoig rovroig iccrpolg 
 erodgsv, ci\\’ ov roiccvrri ys kut ccXqOeiav tjv, here, on p. 657. 
 The connection is far closer than appears at first sight; for just 
 as Clement says that surprise was needless, for Moses had 
 supplied a precedent in the sacred books, so Galen, that certain 
 prognostications of his were divested of all marvel, inasmuch 
 as he had only foretold what was plainly laid down in the 
 books of Hippocrates. 
 
 Galen would thus seem to be in contact with Clement, both 
 in i. 43 through “ the keys,” and in i. 12 through ivoCKkvtig. 
 
 (5.) But now a curious fact appears. It is no less profitable 
 to turn to Diodorus for the illustration of Galen than to 
 Clement, who himself seems to have been indebted to Diodorus 
 (vid. sup. p. 74). 
 
 If our readers will refer to p. 74, they will see various ex- 
 amples bearing upon the “ construction ” to which attention 
 has been directed from Diodorus, xvii. 33, p. 184, and the 
 immediate neighbourhood. The word svccXXcic^ is there used. 
 Diodorus writes ; 7] pkv bicc rug ruv uy^viZppJsvuv ccpsrdg , 
 
88 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 GC(/j$tho%ov g/^g TTjv toov oXcov xpiaiv' btccXocvtbvbto yap bsvpo 
 xaziiaB rtjg Tp07r/jg Bva\\a% yivofjjBvrjg. Comp, with Galen 
 above. Just below, Diodorus has TpoBTpsmvTO. Comp. Galen’s 
 btpbtovto. A little above, in Diodorus, is airyjVTa, and just 
 above IvaXkdTg is zaTanpOTBpyjaai or TTpoTspyjaai (v. 1). ’EvaA- 
 Xd% is used several times by Diodorus; and this last verb, or 
 the noun formed from it, appears almost always in close 
 company with it (comp. Galen’s ^rp OTBpaiav). So in lib . xx. 
 13, p. 415, Diodorus writes: akP o'lgeai to hatgeoviov champ 
 Bac'iTv^Bg ro7g vmprjtpdvoog biaXoyifyyAvoig to Ti\og toov xaTB\- 
 aria&BVToov Big tovvocvtiov f/jBTOCTi^aiv, and after one line: ?J 
 Tvyyi bl evaKkd^ to, TrpOTBprjgbaTa erpOTBpijaag. Comp, again 
 with Galen. 
 
 A singular illustration of the mysterious connection whicli 
 seems to exist between Galen’s treatise and Peregrinus may 
 here be pointed out. Comp, totb h/j xai av}X.7](p0Big \m tovtoo 
 6 IT puTBvg BVBmaBV Big to bBagecoT^piov with Imi 5’ ovv sbsbsTO 
 after one line, and presently oov r\xov Ting toov Xp laTiavoov gtb\- 
 Xovtcov cc7ro tov xoivov , (ZojjQqaovTeg, xai IgvvayopBvaovTBg, xai 
 ^apaf/jV^aoif/jBVOi tov dvbpa, Peregrin. 12, with the very words 
 from Diodorus, quoted on pp. 74, 75, for their bearing upon 
 Clement’s “ construction ” ( rovg avXkq^ogijBvovg) in i. 12, for 
 which Galen has supplied a parallel. Galen and Peregrinus 
 thus meet in Diodorus. A few lines above, in Peregrinus , we 
 remark : xat booQbv (jAbv Bvdvg rjv opav . . . oi £g bv tbKbi avToov xai 
 avvBxd^Bvbov evbov (JbBT avTOv. With these words, and with 
 those just given, comp. OTcog xai avTog bv too YIccXoctico 
 zoifjjyjOBi'Tiv, 7)xb Tig xaXoov rg/jdg dpTi \vyyoov tjfjbfjbivcov V7ro tov 
 avTozpaTopog ffTsXkof/jBvog. cog dg Tpioov ovtcov toov boo&bv tb Xai 
 mpi TTjv boo BcopaxoTcov ccvTov x.tX., here in Galen, p. 658. 
 
 We may, however, draw the connection between Galen and 
 Diodorus much closer, and in a very singular manner. 
 
 We began our notice of p. 656 by speaking of certain physi- 
 cians, who, in Galen’s judgment, outraged their medical art. 
 He says : vgJiv &g To7g (pikoig oaoi zaTByvoozaTB Ttjg iaTpiz/jg 
 TByyrig bx Trig tovtoov agoadiag^ emhBtzvvgbi Ttjv gAv TByyriv cdgiav 
 ’A aroKkoovog tb zed ’ AazXrjmov, Tovg §g laTpovg TOVTOvg vfipl^Biv 
 uvTrjv champ xai Tovg (pTK. x.tX. (see p. 85). Galen lays 
 stress upon TBryv yv. 
 
 It happens that in Diodorus, xvii. 31, p. 183, just above the 
 
GALEN. 
 
 89 
 
 examples of “ construction ” referred to above, there is a short 
 medical statement. Alexander, we are told, w r as greatly dis- 
 tressed at the death of Memnon : — 
 
 ug d * ijxov nvsg (cf. the uv rixov nvsg just given out of Peregrinus) 
 anctyysXXovrzg ri/V rod Megjvovog reXsvrrjv (comp. Galen’s dyysXXovrsg, 
 sup. p. 86. The malicious physicians desired to hear of the death of 
 Sextus), /xsr oXiyov d's s/g appuGr/av (3apvrspav s/^-TrsGU) v } xai yaXsftui 
 rcd&zi Govsypiizvog, gvvsxuXsgs rovg tarpovg. ruv ftsv ovv aXXuv sxccGrog 
 buGyspug sJys npog rrpv 6 spans! av, Qr/Xinnog d ’ ’A yapvdv ro ysvog notpa- 
 (3oXoig xal Gvvro/zoig Qspunstauc ypoo/Msvog, snriyysiXaro did cpap/Maxsiag 
 Xvgsiv rov vogov ' ... 6 {isv larpog dodg (pdp^axov msTv, xul Guvspybv 1 
 Xufiuv rqv (p-jGiv rod xd/uvovrog, xai rrjv r'syvrjv, ebQbg dnyjXXa^s rr\g voGov 
 rov ’ AX's^avdpov. obrog gdsv obv napado^ug sxpvyuv rov x/vdovov, xa) rov 
 iarpbv n^Gag /xsyaXonpsnug, xar'sra^sv abrov s ig roug suvoucrdroug ruiv 
 cpiXuv. 
 
 On reyvrjv (above) Wesseling notes : “T vyyjv, Steph. margo 
 cum Venet. Vat. Reg. 1,” and he makes the following observa- 
 tion (which no doubt previous critics had often made in sub- 
 stance) : “ Etsi ssepe numero in medicis verum sit, quod de 
 rebus humanis poeta, rvyrj roc Ovrjrav Trpdypjocr , ovz evfiovXici, 
 injuriam tamen Philippo Acarnani scribge insignem inferunt, 
 cum fortunse magis prsesidio, quam arti hanc Alexandri cura- 
 tionem tribuunt. Sibi ergo habeant, rrjv rvyrjv, ego rrjv riyyr\v 
 medico non detraho.” We venture to suggest that Galen took 
 the rsyvrjv on which he lays stress from this source. (See p. 92.) 
 
 With the passage from Diodorus, comp, rrjv S’ 'Hpa'/'5cs tyccoiv 
 appaortcc mptmoeTv . . . ypapAvav ds otvrav Ospumiaig . . . rrjv 
 5g arrokvdiiaav rrjg vooov . . . rrjg rvyyjg chomp \v bpccp>ocoi ro 
 orocpdthd^ov rrjg mpimrsiocg ccyovorjg e ig eyzXrg/jOc. Excerpt (1st 
 on Hermaphrodites , Herais), Diod. Sic., Phot. Bibl. 244, and 
 ovvezXrjOrj ncXrjbog iocrpodv. zoci rm (/Av biXKoov ouhetg vmoyvziro 
 OepctKevsiv, (papfjjcczoyrwXrjg hs rig iTrocyyzXXopjZvog vyibiosiv srsf/jS 
 rov l^rrippAvov rbocov . . . zcci rovrov rov rponov vyionoirioag 
 hirkovv ccT/irsi rov p,ioQov. Excerpt (2d on Hermaphrodites , 
 Callo), Bihi. 244. 
 
 The use of the passage of Diodorus is thus pretty equally 
 
 1 Comp, truvipyov xa.) <r> iv rov trupioiros Qvtriv, Excerpt (Diodorus), Phot. 
 Bibl. 244, p. 384. Just above we find ob% i^ovns afyoxptuv riyspovoc, and soon 
 after, on same page : rov Cbi\oi.fjt.ivov ctvrov rijv arpoorviyioiv. In Diodorus, a little 
 above, on p. 182, we observe : XCpru arpttrnyov u%io%ptuv } rov ^ieiht\o[/.ivov rwv rov 
 M iuvovos hyifjoovlctv. The changes are after the manner of our writers ; vid. sup. 
 p. 7 4, where the same passage is quoted in another connection. 
 
90 
 
 PEREGPJNUS PROTEUS. 
 
 divided between these two excerpts. We shall show in due 
 course that these excerpts are nothing else than filthy jokes 
 founded on the desire of Herodes Atticus to cut through the 
 Isthmus of Corinth. 
 
 We called attention on p. 84 to Galen’s words : QepuTrevsiv 
 VTiayysirai Toc\y]vog, p. 614. On p. 619 we find rrjv yovv 
 yzytVYlf/jwriv Xvcuv rov vovqf/jccrog, r'STrsnjf/jOci yap yjhq rsX sag 
 vyicciveiv, imyysiXdcgjSvog with octttjKKcc^s in the next line. 
 Compare this last passage with Diodorus, and observe the 
 blending of the two passages of Galen in the second excerpt. 
 We shall hereafter show the ‘‘promise to heal” and the 
 “ double reward ” of the excerpts to be taken from Apollodorus, 
 to whose writings our authors would seem to have betaken 
 themselves from the interest they felt in the Danaids — an 
 interest shared, we may remark, also by Clement ( Ep . i. 6). 
 
 On p. 619, among the words last given from Galen, are 
 ccTqXXcdgs f/jS. Galen proceeds : zccrocysXoj[/jSvog vtt ocvruv, s 7 
 ys vogol^si yspovrcc ysi[x,covog copy zoigovovrcc rpiffi rsrccprocioig 
 octtocXKoc^siv. In the first of the excerpts which we have just 
 been using we are told Herais was brought before the judges 
 that it might be determined whether she (he) should be restored 
 to the husband. Herais was obliged to make certain revela- 
 tions pyfea'i rs (pcovrjv hs ivo7ra0ou(ruv, si ring uvayzaZ^ovci gvvoiksIv 
 avhpi rov ccvhpcc. These sentences might well have been written 
 by the same hand. 
 
 We have, however, brought Galen’s words forward mainly 
 for the sake of reminding our readers that one of the jokes in 
 the cure of Eudemus seems to lie in rpicri rsrocpraiovg Iv (Jj'sgco 
 (or copy) y} lyj&vog. 
 
 (6.) We made our first acquaintance with Peregrinus and 
 the excerpts from Diodorus in those pages of Philo in which 
 coincidences were found with several writings ( vid . sup . c. 
 iii. 2, p. 27). Let us turn to the first page of Philo, to which we 
 then referred. Immediately above the sXkoyifJjog of Philo and 
 Clement it is said that Balak, among other things, rrposJ^s . . . 
 <p\oy(JjOV iv [hi goo ysi[x>covi. This is exactly what Galen did if 
 we take, as we may, (p\oy(j>ov in a medical sense. In Peregrin. 
 44, soon after, that is, the words which make the coincidence 
 with this very page of Philo, we find rov <p\oy(/jdv (of fever) 
 ov (p'spovroc. Lower down, and among the very words partly 
 
GALEN. 
 
 91 
 
 given in c. iii. 2, p. 27, Philo writes : TrgpiTTOTspag hi hoopzag 
 v7riGyjov(jjZvoi' hzkzourdeig hi zoci roig r\hri 7rpoTZivo[AZvoig, zou rodg 
 
 [JbgXKoVGOUg ikTtffl, ZOU TO OC^lCOf/jCC TCOV e 7TMpUZGCkOVVTOOV zoctou- 
 
 heffOetg, Ivzhihov, nukiv GrpotpccGi^of/jevog to Qz7ov, ovz l(p’ vyizi. T/j 
 yovv VGTzpcu'oc TrapgGzzvaZ^TO Ttjv z^ohov, bvzipocTu hirjyovf/jzvog. 
 Comp. zutu hi ty\v VGTzpcu'av zcoQzv ccpizofMvoi trpbg avTov, 
 ovhzTrco TrapbvTcov fjf/jMV, zhoGav to (pccpf/joczov ccihzGdzvTog hl7]- 
 yrjGGCGQcu ra V7T \[lov Xzybfjozva ccvtco zou ccfjocc GzocGdyozvog [azt 
 zvGTaGZcog, cog VTroGyofJOZVovg Tovg apizvovfjozvovg iaTpovg affavTug, 
 ovqGZiv ocv-tov ov Gfjoizpoi T?jv tov (papfjobczov 7rp0G(p0p0CV, p. 610. 
 Philo has 0zocgoc(jijZvov on the same page, and in the second line 
 of the following page bvfjGZig yap ovhzv. Galen has a little 
 above, on the same page, zv yzifjocbvog apy/j ; and Philo, as we 
 have already seen, \v (Jj'zgco yzi^covi. On the same page Galen 
 has tccvtoc fjoh ovv a7rzzptva,fjij7iv zycb too z.t.X. ; Philo, in the next 
 but one, oig ocTrzzpivccfjbqv tocvtoc. On the same page Galen has 
 zvzX7nhzg, and on the next tIvoc GcpoGhoziuv syoifjbi tcov fjozXXovTcov 
 (compare) ; on the preceding page (p. 609) he has a parallel 
 sentence : tivo j ty\v z X nihoc (compare) zyoif/ji. He proceeds : 
 yivcoGzzig ovv owoog ccTrzzpivcifJbyjv ccvtco (joqhlv bc{Jb(pifibcXXoov cog ov 
 f. hbvov ovhlv ov7]GU (compare Philo’s ovqGZig ovhzv) to (pocpf/occzov, 
 ocXXoc zou hiwXovv zpyocGZTCu tov TZTocpToc7ov. Compare here 
 with the last words from the excerpt given above. It is 
 the same joke only differently handled. On p. 609, Galen 
 has also Tjjg Ozpc&Trziccg tov voGtjfjjOCTog ; Philo has the same ex- 
 pression in the original place. 
 
 We shall make but one more reference. We will keep the 
 same place in Philo, but turn to Galen’s, p. 625. There he 
 recounts his great deeds : — 
 
 n ’poppqffstg rs xai Qeparreiug enoryiffd/xriv u%tug ertutvoo /xsydXov xai 
 sv noWr) 56^7 7 Tccpa nciiGiv tjv, ug olffdcc, xai {Leya rjv rovvof^a TuXrjvoZ. 
 GuvTju^dvsro rs rvj 36^7] (pQovog ex ruv oiofisvuv shut n xai abruv, ug 
 ccv sv rravri f/j'spsi rr\g rzyyr\g Irr s/jjoo vtxufj/evuv, sXsyov rs rrepideovreg 
 rrpj f) roXiv aXXog aWo n 3ta(3dXXuv } o fi'sv ug xard rvyqv iacdfiriv rovds 
 nva pi^ox/vdvvuj rpoTu Os pane tug yprjffd/j.svog, 6 S’ ug ex fiavrtxr\g at 
 Tpopp'/jGetg xai ovx ex Qzupiug iurpixyg yiyvotvro. 
 
 Philo says that Balaam (Philo does not name him. Galen 
 is less scrupulous) was very celebrated, and had been initiated 
 into every form of the soothsayers’ business {roc fj jCCVTizrjg 
 eihq) GroXXolg zou noWazig iftihife.aihivog octigtoc zou (MyocXct 
 
92 
 
 PEItEGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (cf. the i7rihiizvv[jji z.r\. from p. 656, quoted on p. 88). 
 He was a great prophet, predicting all kinds of wonderful things 
 — rain in summer, heat in winter, etc., zai OepocTSiug Xoif/jizwv 
 vo<T7}[/jaruv, zcci olXX&jv fAvpiav, uv exccffTOV 6 t 7rpoQiG‘7riZjziv hozuv 
 hvoyjciaroTccTog tj v, i xt gAsycc ryjg svzXsiag TTpospyp^ivog hid rrjv 
 STnfiotivovffocv as/ zu'i <p() dvovcai/ TrccvTocy^oas <prj(jj7iv. Compare 
 with Galen. 
 
 In the excerpts already referred to we find s ig [tAiyu qv%ero y\ 
 hiccpopd. Comp, with Philo and with the pJiyu . . . (rvvqv §. of 
 Galen, who uses Philo. 
 
 Notice, further, Galen’s “foolhardy method,” and compare 
 with TrccpufidXoig zoci avvro(x>oig Oepumtuig yjp&iMvog from 
 Diodorus, xvii. 31, p. 183 (quoted on p. 89, in connection with 
 lvccKkd%), and the opposition here between Tvyyi an d riyyYi, 
 which we have ventured on p. 89 to suggest to be underlying 
 an emphatic Tiyyyi, used by Galen on p. 656. 
 
 Our readers can now judge for themselves whether rvyyi or 
 Tiyyr\ has presided over the coincidences which have been 
 pointed out, beginning with the “ striking coincidence ” between 
 Galen’s mention of Sergius and S. Luke’s of Saul of Tarsus, 
 concerning each of whom 6 zai II auXog is said. It must, how- 
 ever, be carefully observed that for the examination of pseudo- 
 Galen’s treatise only those pages of other than scriptural w r ritings 
 have been used which may be said to lie already open before us. 
 The pages of Peregrinus, Philo, Diodorus, Cyril, the excerpts 
 both from Helladius and Diodorus, to which references have 
 been made, are all in our hands for other purposes. Immense 
 weight is thus given to the coincidences which have been pro- 
 duced. They simply cannot have accidentally arisen. It must 
 also be further observed that our case is now strengthened in all 
 directions. The use of Philo and Diodorus by Clement cannot 
 now with any show of reason be denied. It is thus not by 
 accident, but by design, that Diodorus’ xvii. 33 and Clement’s 
 Ep. i. 12 have so much in common, and that the one seems 
 to be a parody of the other. 
 
 § 5. The discovery ( vid . sup. p. 52 sq.) that the Bibliotheca 
 of Photius has been interpolated, in so far as the so-called 
 Helladian excerpts are concerned, forces us to view the whole 
 volume with a suspicious eye. We have seen on pp. 62, 67 
 some coincidences between the Evang. Thom . and the excerpts 
 
AGATHARCHIDES. 
 
 from Agatharchides, contained in Phot. Bibl. 250. Some 
 examination of these excerpts is now necessary. 
 
 The excerpts in question profess to be from the first and fifth 
 books “ concerning the Red Sea,” by Agatharchides, a writer 
 who is said to have flourished about 113 B.c. Strabo mentions 
 him, and used his writings, but chiefly through Artemidorus, 
 who is supposed to have been greatly indebted to Agathar- 
 chides. In forming an opinion upon the coincidences between 
 Strabo and our excerpts, it is of great importance to bear in 
 mind that Agatharchides was manipulated by Artemidorus 
 before his statements were used by Strabo. 
 
 Diodorus also mentions Agatharchides, and is supposed to 
 have made great use of his writings. If, indeed, our excerpts 
 are genuine, Diodorus took the fifth book of Agatharchides as 
 the basis of his own lib. iii. He brings his subjects forward 
 nearly in the order in which they stand in the excerpts, and 
 uses very much the same language. The close connection 
 between our excerpts and lib. iii. may be accepted as an 
 acknowledged fact. 
 
 When Strabo and Diodorus are both of them compared with 
 the excerpts, it will be found, in a great many instances, that 
 the accounts given in the excerpts are far more complete than 
 those of Strabo and Diodorus separately; and that, though 
 the language of the excerpts is for the most part nearly that 
 of Diodorus, yet when Strabo supplies particulars not recorded 
 by Diodorus, the language is then as nearly that of Strabo. 
 When, moreover, as is the case sometimes, HClian furnishes 
 additional particulars, it will be found that the excerpts have 
 something to correspond. The natural inference would seem 
 to be, that the accounts given in the excerpts were compiled 
 out of Diodorus and such other accounts as the writer could 
 conveniently lay hands upon. That this inference is not only 
 natural but necessary, we shall now T show. 
 
 In lib. iii., which is supposed to be so much indebted to 
 Agatharchides, Diodorus mentions his name three times only. 
 
 1. In c. 11, p. 181, he is merely spoken of along with Artemi- 
 dorus and certain others (unnamed) as worthy of credit. 
 
 2. In c. 48, p. 216, Diodorus writes: xura, bl rrjv bvaiv 
 
 Ivavria yincQui TSpt uvrov. bozziv yap ro7g opooat 
 
 Kcuvofic utltIgi Tov %0(T(/j0v, ovk sXgcttov copoov hvz7v ug 
 
94 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 5’ ' Ay aOupyihrig 6 Kvi'hiog ccvsypcc\psv, apwv Tpiuv. tovtov hrj tov 
 zaipov rihffTOV rolg lyyjopioig QafaffOcu z.r.X. Diodorus is 
 speaking of certain celestial phenomena, and the natural 
 inference from his words would seem to be that he compiled 
 his account of those phenomena from various sources, and 
 made a special note of a certain difference of statement which 
 he found in Agath arch ides. No one would suppose that he 
 was transferring Agatharchides bodily into his own pages, as 
 was certainly the case if the excerpts are what they profess to 
 be. Excerpt c. 51, p. 459, has g lg hi ty\v ianipcLV zvuvtiov 
 to Tsp; rov t]Kiov TTccQog (push opoiffOar v7rohei%oiVTa yap oti 
 hzhvz s zcctm Ttjg yrjg, ovz zKmttco ypovov oopvv TpioHv fJOSTci tccvtcc 
 pooTi%siv, ov zal vo^iZ^ovai nap avTolg zaipov slvca Ttjg rj^spag 
 tov fyhtffTOV. The contact here with Diodorus is made as plain 
 as it can well be. The obvious objection is that it is too plain. 
 We observe the words potaiv opaaQai. Diodorus twice uses 
 them earlier in this same chapter. We understand the paaiv 
 as he uses it. It seems to indicate that he examined more 
 authorities than one. The hvfiv again, in the passage just 
 quoted, is an indication of the same kind. What does the 
 word mean in the excerpt? Does it point out that Agathar- 
 chides himself consulted various authors, and that Photius 
 only gives a summary of his remarks, some of which dealt with 
 opinions other than his own ? Higher up in the excerpt we 
 find (potciv again. Are we then to suppose that Diodorus’ 
 hvziv comes from Agatharchides? This theory, natural 
 enough on some grounds, is quite untenable. It is simply 
 incredible that Photius so summarizing should have accident- 
 ally produced a passage exactly parallel to that of Diodorus, 
 except in the one word hvziv. We are not relieved, however, 
 from this difficulty by supposing that Photius gives us the 
 actual words of Agatharchides. For if we examine the excerpt 
 with Diodorus, we find not only the close correspondence in 
 language which might be expected, but also a correspondence 
 in the number and form of the sentences, and in the position 
 of words in them, too close to have been brought about except 
 by express purpose. No two writings could possibly so closely 
 resemble one another, and yet differ so much from one another, 
 unless these resemblances and differences had been intention- 
 ally produced. 
 
AGATHAKCHIDES. 
 
 95 
 
 We will now compare the excerpt with Diodorus sentence 
 by sentence. We will not make the sentences suit our plan, 
 but be guided by the “full stops” placed, in Photius and 
 Diodorus. 
 
 Sentence 1 in Diodorus, p. 215, begins with r\ hi zard 
 rovrovg Qakarra Xevzrj (paivsrai ; sentence 2 begins with vijaoi 
 V tvhaifjjovsg and ends with zai rolg OrfkzGiv avrwv ovz Itti- 
 (fiverai ro zaQoXov zlpag. The excerpt makes one sentence of 
 this ; it begins with arapd 5g rrjv ydpav ravrr\v tj fjblv fldXarra 
 Xsvzrj (paivsrai, it places a “ comma ” before vijaoi hi svhaipoovsg, 
 and ends with ovhsv) hi ruv Orfksiobv Iftipverai zlpag. Sentence 
 3 in Diodorus (which we may now call 2) begins with ilg 
 ravrag (vijaovg), and sentence 2 in the excerpt with lv 
 ravraig ralg vqaoig. We shall direct special attention to this 
 sentence directly. The next sentence in Diodorus simply 
 closes c. 47 by saying that enough has been said upon the 
 preceding subject, and therefore need not be taken into 
 account. Sentence 3 then in Diodorus begins with arapd §g 
 rdv zard rbv ovpavov, and is less than two lines in length. 
 The next sentence is almost as short, and has in it OavfAaaid- 
 rarov polv ovv lari ro kb pi rbv dpzrov. Sentence 3, of two lines, 
 takes up the two of Diodorus, and is lari 5g avroig zai rd 
 zard rbv ovpavov Qavf/jaaiag sypvra' cov lari za) ro ‘zrspi rbv 
 dpzrov av(/jfioTivov. The next sentence in Diodorus, which we 
 may call 4, begins with dacb yap (joqvbg, ov zahovai ’AOqvaToi 
 [jjGcifAuzryipioJvcc, and in the excerpt with daub yap [joaifjtjazrj'i- 
 piuvog, og ayerai acapdroig ’A Orivaioig. Sentence 5 in Diodorus 
 begins with ruv hi aXkojv rovg ovof^a^opolvovg TrXar/jrag dQsoopyi- 
 rovg , and in the excerpt with ruv 5’ dXkovv darspuv oi fjulv 
 TrXdvrjrsg doparoi. Sentence 6 in Diodorus begins with rbv 5’ 
 rfkiov, in the excerpt with rov 5g ffkiov. Sentence 7 in 
 Diodorus ends with rrpiv bpaQrjvai rbv rikiov , and in the excerpt 
 with wpiv rbv r[kiov Ihslv. Sentence 8 in Diodorus begins with 
 Iz fjAaou hi rov mXayovg paaiv avapaivopbsvov avrbv opdaQai 
 (JjIv dvOpazi and ends with If/jpepfj, (Jbizpov l/afipifearspav syjovn 
 rbv dnb rrjg zspaXqg Iffipavsiav. The excerpt, which before 
 combined two sentences in one, here makes three sentences 
 out of Diodorus’ one. Sentence 8 runs : hevrspov 6 r\Xiog dva- 
 (pspofJijBvog paivsrai Iz polaov rov rtiXdyovg. Sentence 9 begins : 
 acoiCi hi rovro dvQpazi. Sentence 10 ends with l^pspyj, fjbizpov 
 
96 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Sf/jfipiOzGrepov sypvn rrjv am rcbv azpuv (pavraciav, oi'om 
 zs^aXrjv. Sentence 11, as we may now call it, in Diodorus 
 begins with TTpog 5g rovroig p,r\r avyqv, and has in the middle 
 rrvpog akafjjTrovg sv czorsr hevrepag h* apxofimjs, aGmhoeihjj, 
 and ends with rrvpaihsg zaQ' vm pfloXqv. Sentence 11 in the 
 excerpt begins with g \n roivvv ovrs avyriv, and has in the middle 
 e cog Tp wTY\g wpag, aKk’ I tti azorsi mp ockccf/jTrsg’ hsvrspag K 
 hviffraf/jsvrjg . . . aGTrihosih eg, and ends with zai mpuhsg . . . rag 
 vmpfioXag. This brings us, both in Diodorus and the excerpt, 
 to the passages first quoted, and these passages may be again 
 looked at. It is quite impossible that such a persistent adher- 
 ence either by Diodorus to Agatharchides, or by the compiler 
 of the excerpts to Diodorus, could have been maintained on 
 any honest system of writing. What is more, no small 
 amount of skill was required to keep up the resemblances in 
 every sentence, while still making every sentence to be 
 different. 
 
 We have a very interesting proof at hand that Diodorus 
 had nothing whatever to do with these resemblances and differ- 
 ences. More than one of these differences are noticeable, but 
 there is one which is specially instructive. 
 
 Diodorus has : g ig ravrag 5’ g fJbTopoi rravraypOsv zaranksovci, 
 [LaKiara 5’ elg Uoravag , ’ AXs%a vhpog wzigs napd rbv ’Ivhov 
 
 Trorafjjov, vavaraQp>ov g%g iv fiovXopjevog rov napa rbv cbzsavbv 
 napoCktov. The parallel passage in the excerpt runs: \v 
 ravraig ra7g vr\aoig ihsiv sanv oppjovcag \[Lmpizdg rbvv rrpoaypjpcov 
 a yj&iag, Khaiarag (jAv szs70sv ov zarsGrr\aaro vrapd rbv ’ P 5 oV 
 Trorafjjbv 6 ’AXs %avhpog vavrrraQpjOV, ovz okiyag hi axo rrjg 
 ITg pff/hog zai Kappavtag za i rr\g cvvsyyvg vuGqg. That one 
 or other of these two sentences has been copied, and yet 
 deliberately altered, is self-evident. 
 
 A difficulty has been felt in Diodorus’ account, which 
 Wesseling thus states: “ Potanam , ad Indum flumen urbem, qui 
 memoret, nemo est. Pattala Alexander muniit et vavQaraQpjCo 
 zai vs cocotzoig instruxit : quae nisi eadem sint ac nostri Potance 
 dicendum est, id cognominis fuisse portui sive navium stationi, 
 cujus fundamenta idem rex non longe Pattalis posuit in 
 Arriani vi. 20.” The writer of the excerpt, who drops the 
 name of the naval station, was equally as well aware of the 
 difficulty which Wesseling points out as Wesseling himself, 
 
AGATHARCHIDES. 
 
 97 
 
 and equally as well acquainted with the probable solution of 
 the difficulty. 
 
 If we turn to Arrian, Exped. Alex. vi. 20, we find, among 
 the words to which Wesseling refers, zed yccp hravQa Itsvosi 
 gtoKov vftoTcz'iweaQoti vzoov ovz ohiyoov Trpog r/j ttoKzi rolg IlaT- 
 rccXoig, twTep \ayj't > iT 0 6 Trorapeog bAvhog, with \%\ rov zohnov 
 tov YlzpGizev a few lines above. Comp, the excerpt’s ^XsiGrecg 
 fjbh IzeiOev ou . . . ovz ohiycng £g cbro rtjg TLspathog. In c. 18 
 there is another mention of Pattala, with Kpoayjupwv a few lines 
 above, and with at ttXsigtcci roov vecuv a few lines below. In 
 c. 17 we find zed rccvrcc \g zbapeou zccTccffryicrocvrcc (comp.) 
 <gv(/jficiKkeiv oi eg rec IJccttccXcc, with \g K ccppoocvtocv only a few 
 lines above. The way in which these coincidences have been 
 found forbids us to believe them to be accidental. The con- 
 clusion necessarily follows that Diodorus was copied, and — 
 since we cannot suppose that Photius, even if he had desired 
 to forge, would have forged in this way — that the excerpts 
 from Agatharchides, equally with those from Helladius, are 
 merely interpolations of Photius’ Bibliotheca. We have ample 
 support for this conclusion. 
 
 3. In c. 18, p. 187, Diodorus says that Ptolemy hi. sent a 
 certain Simmias to explore the countries bordering on the Red 
 Sea, and that this Simmias uzpifiag, ojg tprjffiv ’A yccQocpyjhyjg 6 
 K vihog iGTopioypoi(pog , elgflroure roe zeerei ty\v < 7rccpoc7jav ’iQvyj. 
 Diodorus proceeds: (pyjffh/ ovv to tuv ktgzQ&jv A iOiowuv g Qvog z.t.\. 
 The excerpts are in close contact with Diodorus, both before and 
 after the passage just given. It is therefore concluded that 
 Diodorus is at this point leaning heavily upon Agatharchides. 
 This is certainly not the necessary, perhaps not the natural, con- 
 clusion from Diodorus’ own words. The writer of the article 
 on “Simmias,” in Smith’s Diet.' Gr. Rom. Biogr ., argues from 
 them that Agatharchides derived much of his information from 
 the authority of Simmias. Why may not Diodorus have done 
 the very same thing? Marcianus the geographer, writing 
 very much later, in his Epitome mentions a Simmias among the 
 writers of whom he made some use. This writer may possibly 
 be the same as the Simmias of Diodorus. It is a very singular 
 circumstance, but a fact, that instead of the words roe zeerei 
 rrjv 7rupc&hiuv (eQvyi) of Diodorus, quoted above as the subject 
 of Simmias’ accurate investigations, three MSS. read roc zcctcL 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 T'/jv iGTopiav. It is difficult to suppose that this alteration 
 could have accidentally arisen. It is natural to suppose that 
 a deliberate alteration has been made for some purpose or 
 other. After we have already seen, we shall probably con- 
 clude that the object was to cut away so far as might be any 
 ground for supposing that Simmias and not Agatharchides was 
 used. 
 
 In support of this we shall point out another singular fact. 
 We remark among Diodorus’ words (pyjGtv ovv z.r.X. After 
 a few lines we have (pciGiv. Diodorus says : /3 XzTrovrzg (jAv 
 A rzmg z ig rcc GvvrzXovfMva, rofig hz zz(pcc\cctg Trap’ zzocgtgc hiocvzv- 
 ovrzg. hid zcci (pocGtv ccvrovg hiockzzroo [lzv Ujy\ yprjGOcci, fjbifjbyjnzri 
 h'/]\toGii z.r. A. Comp. fiXz ttovgi (jAv ovroi hrzvojg z Ig ro 
 
 ' yivofjjzvov zcci rcig zzcpccXdg ttvzvcc hiuvzvovGi, rdov 5s ziQiG[jjZvuv 
 avOpuTTco Tpog clvQpooTov, ovhz rdv zXccyiGT^v hihouGiv zvvoiuv oflzv 
 ((pyjGiv 6 Gvyypoc(pzvg) zycoy z vo^iZ^co [Jbrjhz yccpazr^pcc zvyvooGrov 
 syz iv otvrovt r, z diGfJjfi 5s zoii vzv(Jj(zti rryoig tz zcci [/ji^rizr, 
 hyikwGZi z.t.X., Bibl. xv. p. 450. It thus appears that at the 
 precise point where Diodorus introduces a (pccGtv, there Photius 
 has a corresponding (fiyjGiv d Gvyyputpzvg, strengthened by o0 zv 
 zycoyz verify. No other ^tjgiv or (pccGiv will be found in 
 Diodorus for some pages on either side of the examples given 
 above. Is it not strange that Photius should so pointedly 
 seize upon this particular passage and direct special attention 
 to it? If the writer was not Photius but an interpolator who 
 desired to make Diodorus bear witness to the genuineness of 
 the excerpts which he was manufacturing, could he have taken 
 any more effectual step? Coming after what has been already 
 observed, it is impossible with any show of reason to contend 
 that this last coincidence is accidental. It strongly supports 
 the conclusion to which we just now came. 
 
 We have thus examined the three places- in lib. iii. in which 
 Diodorus mentions the name of Agatharchides. It cannot be 
 said that they show that Diodorus was to any great extent 
 indebted to him. Two of them seem, on the contrary, to prove 
 that Diodorus was himself copied. We believe the proof of 
 this to be so conclusive that we might safely leave the question 
 as it now stands. We would rather, however, err on the side 
 of bringing forward too much evidence than too little. We 
 shall therefore examine several more of the excerpts. They 
 
AGATHARCHIDES. 
 
 99 
 
 are all of them easily assailable. We will not pick them, how- 
 ever. We shall turn first to that excerpt which supplied 
 some coincidences for the Evcing. Thom. ( vid . sup. pp. 62, 67), 
 and then take some of them in regular order. 
 
 1. We turn then once more to Strabo, p. 771, and his 
 account of the elephant-hunters. He describes, as we have 
 said above on p. 67, three methods of capturing the elephant 
 which the hunters were wont to employ. The first and third 
 of these (but not the second) are described by Diodorus, and 
 the language of the excerpt (c. xxv.) is in close connection 
 with that of Diodorus. The language of the excerpt, how- 
 ever, in describing the third, is in equally close contact with 
 that of Strabo. The excerpt says : rptig dvbpeg & {Jjh-Jeyprrzg 
 TOcgov, oiarovg b\ 7r\siovg zzyjpiffpAvovg rq yoKy rfiv opeav, laruMiv 
 \v fipvgjM Trccpd rdg rcov Q'/ipiav bie^oboug' grav ovv rrpOGdyyj to 
 Z^mov, 6 uAv slg zccrzyei ro rb\ov rw 7?obi 7rpo<T@zfi7]zdg, oi hi bvo 
 rr\v vzvpdv iXzvffavrsg \z rrjg fiictg ccCprjzccv ro fizXog 
 
 z.r. A. Strabo writes : ring 5g zcci ro^vf/jocaiv avcapovGiv ccvrovg 
 yoXy fisftGigj[MVoig otpeair r\ 5s ro|s/a 5/a rpicov uvbpav (TuvreXelrcci, 
 rm (JjIv zartypvrojv rb ro%ov zee) 7rpofizfirizbrMV ro7g rrori, rov 
 5’ ekzovrog rijv nvpdv. On p. 771 Strabo has oiaro7g. 
 
 We notice in the excerpt Trpoafi sfi., but in Strabo Trpo^s/D. 
 
 It happens that Diodorus writes <7rpo(rfisfir]zojg 6 rvftrcov in his 
 description of the first method. If it is argued that Diodorus 
 takes the word from Agatharchides, it must then be explained 
 why he does not describe the method in which the word is 
 found. 
 
 We remark, further, the curious difference between the two 
 accounts, amidst so much that is the same. The story as it is 
 told in the excerpt is exceedingly precise. Can it be that , 
 a change has been made in jest? It is just at this point, 
 observe, where the excerpt comes into contact with the Evang. 
 Thom., vid. sup. pp. 67, 63. We have seen (p. 64) the 
 interest shown by the writer of the Evang. Thom, in the ovb’ 
 ’iffysiv rd> 9ro5’ hciKkddg of Aristophanes. In the excerpt {vid. 
 sup. p. 67) there is a mention of “two feet.” It is a feature 
 in the description of the third method of taking the elephant, 
 not found either in Strabo or Diodorus. Further on in the 
 excerpts (p. 456) sva/Accf is used. Diodorus does not use it at 
 that point. In the preceding page we remark zeri rqv o^iv 
 
100 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 l[Jj$0UV0V U7T0 Ti TMV 0@pV6)V Zdl TtoV Of/jfJjfZTMV dUGTyjpdV. The 
 corresponding words in Diodorus are rrjv d%b rcuv btppvuv 
 KpOGO^lV dVG77\pOTipdV S%S /. Comp. OU (pZpOJ TO dVGTTjpOV TOV 
 
 fiXkfJbf/jOCTog auTOv, Evang. Thom. A 7, p. 140. 
 
 If the writer of the excerpts was also the writer of the 
 Evang. Thom., or a person intimately acquainted with the 
 secrets of the author of the gospel, the things just pointed out 
 would be exactly what we should expect to find. We could 
 then understand the alteration in Strabo’s account of the use 
 of the bow, — the introduction of the 66 two feet,” — and, further, 
 that the mind which set two men to pull with all their might 
 on one bow-string, might also have conceived the notion of two 
 persons pulling with all their strength on the two ends of a 
 piece of wood until it was stretched to the required length. 
 
 There is something more in this excerpt which has the 
 appearance of parody. In the passage given at the beginning 
 of this section, we may remark biz^'obovg. The word is not 
 used either bv Strabo or Diodorus in the parallel accounts. 
 It is found once in the N. T., in the parable of the 44 marriage 
 supper,” recorded by S. Matthew (chap. xxii.). When all 
 things were ready (prdVTd SToigod), the parable says, and when 
 the guests who had been invited refused to come, the servants 
 were sent ssn rdg biz^obovg toov obuv (ver. 9) to seek others. If 
 we turn to S. Luke xiv. 16, we find dv0pw7rbg rig ikoiyigz bCnrvov 
 f/j'zycc, and in ver. 17 on %br] STOigod Igti GTdVTd. Comp., from 
 the third method of capturing the elephant, zdi ‘zpoztiTdi rolg 
 OripdGdGi bimvov STOigoov. The last two words are not found 
 either in Strabo or Diodorus in the parallel passages. The 
 elephant no doubt was btlwvov gosyd. The excerpt proceeds : 
 zdi Troi^GdVTig s^otif/jov (used in Evang. Thom., vid. sup. p. 62) 
 TO XfioV) ZITM wcpbv, TTpbg TYIV IdVTOV XP SlCCV ZXUGTOg Td fjbskfj 
 bidipovGiv. This, again, is not represented either in Strabo or 
 Diodorus. Can this be serious writing 1 The author is not 
 speaking of legs and shoulders of mutton, but of the limbs of 
 an elephant. Comp, bidipovv Ibid zzdGTop zdQug fiovXeTdi. 
 xdQdftip ydp to Googbd h Igti, zdi gJihri lyp 1 noKhd z.tX ., 
 1 Cor. xii. 11, and zdi dndVTd zoivd . . . zdi bnuJipiLpv 
 dVTd KdGi, zdtioTi oiv Tig %ps idv g/^g, Acts ii. 44, 45. 
 
 2. At the close of his description of the elephant-hunters, 
 Strabo says : Tovg bl zvvqyovg oi vogoccbeg cczdOdpTovg zdXovGiv. 
 
AGATHARCHIDES. 
 
 101 
 
 vtzpzzTtoci he tovtoov zQvog ov pAyoo GTpovQotpdyoov, nap olg opvztg 
 z.t.X., p. 772. 
 
 Excerpt c. xxvi. runs : oti toov zvvrjydjv tovtoov, ovg ot 
 vo/jjcihg dzuOdp rovg, zcoXziv z looQooct, to pAv <zpog iffTzpoov dirb- 
 (j-Tooapjoo AI&iottojv vzpbZToot ovg zvokovat crtpjovg, rd 5g ftpog 
 f/jZff7]f/j(Dpiccv ov pAzyoo zdvog, o! zookovpjzvot crrpovQopdyot z.t.X. 
 
 Diodorus says : tovtoov 5s tojv yzvbov rd pAv yrpog zanzpoov pj'zpr] 
 zqotoizovgiv Al&ioTzg ot Tcpoaooyopzvbpjzvot Gip>ot' rd §g <7rpog 
 pozcripj ftp toov zzzXtpj'zvco vzpozTGoi to toov GTpovOopdyoov y'zvog. zgti 
 ydp Trap avTolg bpvzov t'i yzvog z.t.X., p. 194. 
 
 The writer of the excerpt has here plainly betrayed himself. 
 It is simply incredible that Photius, while compressing c. xxvi. 
 of Agatharchides into eleven lines, should have accidentally 
 gathered up so nearly exactly the words both of Strabo 
 and Diodorus. ’ is almost the only word not 
 found in the parallel passages. It is found not far off in 
 Strabo (p. 770), but in another sense. He applies it to a 
 river. Of this river, excerpt c. xxii. speaks, and the lan- 
 guage is closely connected with Strabo. ’ A'roaxooapjoo is not 
 used. Strabo writes, however, in v. p. 251: zQvog otzzl potzpov 
 d‘r6(T7rci(j[jjCc. It is natural to infer that the writer’s attention 
 was caught by Strabo’s use of the word in p. 770, and that 
 Strabo’s previous use of the word in its rarer sense was 
 remembered. 
 
 3. In excerpt c. xxvii. an account is given of the locust- 
 eaters. They are described by Strabo on p. 772, and by 
 Diodorus in c. 29, p. 195. Strabo calls them pjzXocvooTZpoi tz 
 toov ooKkoov zoo) fipooyvTZpot ; Diodorus, pjtzpoTZpot pAv toov dXkoov, 
 ivyvoi £g Tolg oyzotg , pAzXcovzg hz zootf VTZpfioXjjv ; the excerpt, 
 /3p as/jjTzpot pAv tojv ’kotnoov, \ayyo) §g Tolg zibz at, pozXcovzg hz 
 Vgootaioog. As usual, the excerpt combines Strabo and Diodorus. 
 Clement, in Ep. i. 8, uses the rare comparative p,z\oovooTzpog. 
 The passage in which it is found is very remarkable, and will 
 be fully examined in the next section of this chapter. 
 
 The writer of the excerpt goes on to say that the locusts 
 T/j pAv hvvdrjjZt Trjg w T^azoog toov opviQoov p>tzpbv TrcopooXkdTTOv, 
 fjjuzpov £g too aobfjjCCTt. bonb tovtov tov Zpoov Tpz(povTai TrdvTco tov 
 yjpbvov, doKkoog tz TovTotg zoo i TZTooptyzvpj'zvotg yjpoopjzvoi. The 
 last part of this passage is represented in the other accounts, 
 but the language is very different. Comp, iyjvoov hz . . . Tovg 
 
102 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 (jAv, if c/Xfjj/jC rzrapiyzviiAzvovg. bpviQw hz rovg rz oprvyag, zai rag 
 vfoffag, zai rd (Tfjbizpd rcov opviQiojv {rd (Mzpd rwv opvidcuv, v.l.)> 
 dfjjd cirzovrai, Trporapiyzvaavrzg. Herod, ii. 77, with Xoyiouraroi 
 (jbcczpSj a few lines above. It may naturally be inferred from 
 this that the writer of the excerpt examined or remembered 
 Herodotus’ use of rapr/zvziv. 
 
 The excerpt agrees with Diodorus in the description given 
 of the extraordinary death by which the locust-eaters commonly 
 died. They were eaten up, it seems, by winged lice, and 
 suffered intolerable agonies. The excerpt uses the word 
 azaprzprjrovg. A little above it has avi(Trop7]rov, but in another 
 connection. Neither word is a common one, and neither 
 of them is used by either Strabo or Diodorus in the parallel 
 accounts. Comp., however, oi hi 7rzpi rtjv zpvdpav Qakaacav 
 voffrjeravrzg, dig ’ KyaQapyjhr\g iffrbpryjzzv, aXKoig rz (rvf/jTrcufjjacrtv 
 zyjpY\Gttvro zuivoig zed dviaropyiroig, zed hpazovna (Jjizpd rdg 
 zyyjfjjag hizcQiovra zai rovg fipocyiovag z<gzzv^zv d^af/jzvwv h ’ 
 ctvOig dvzhvzro , zai (pXzyfjoovdg dzaprzpfjrovg zvziXovfJbZvoc roig 
 [jjvdhzai xapziyzv. Plut. ii. p. 733. There is no verbal con- 
 nection here whatever between Plutarch and either Strabo 
 or Diodorus, and none with the excerpt except in the two 
 noticeable words mentioned. There ought to be in the 
 excerpts a passage answering to this of Plutarch. It would, 
 however, have required a special excerpt, and one by no means 
 easy to manufacture. If this excerpt had been given, surprise 
 would then have been felt that Diodorus should have passed 
 it by. As, moreover, it may be argued that Plutarch is giving 
 a scientific interpretation of the cause to which Agatharchides 
 ascribes the death of the locust-eater, it may, perhaps, be 
 inferred that our writer did his best to gather into the excerpt 
 Plutarch’s reference to Agatharchides by taking the words 
 in question. At any rate, the coincidence can hardly be 
 believed to have accidentally arisen. 
 
 4. In excerpt c. xxviii. the country adjoining to that 
 occupied by the locust-eaters is described. We are told that 
 it was deserted by reason of the scorpions and venomous 
 spiders, dg rzrpuyvdQoug ovof/jd^ovciv zvioi , which swarmed in it. 
 Diodorus, whose language here closely resembles that of the 
 excerpt, omits the name of these spiders. ^Elian, N. A. xvii. 
 40, supplies it. Compare his d zuXovffi rzrpdyvaQu. Strabo 
 
AGATHAECHIDES. 
 
 103 
 
 (p. 772) also gives the name. Coincidences between the 
 beginning of AElian’s c. 40 and Strabo, p. 770, seem to 
 indicate that AElian derived his information, in this respect, 
 from the same source as Strabo, from Artemidorus, or perhaps 
 from Ctesias, to whom ^Elian sometimes refers, as we shall see 
 directly. 
 
 5. Excerpt c. xxix.. describes the Cynamolgi. It consists 
 of twelve lines only, which as usual combine the information 
 found in other accounts. The close connection with Diodorus’ 
 far longer description is acknowledged in Wesseling’s notes. 
 
 The excerpt begins thus : on varuTOi , Qfjff!, ruv TTpog 
 fipiuv olzovvrwv eiaiu ovg "KXXrjvsg (JjIv K vvocfjooXyovg zuXovcnv, 
 oi h’ daTvyzirovzg, &>g oiv Tig zittoi (note this expression), dypiovg 
 fiupfidpovg. Diodorus has rag 5* iGyciTid,g ruv Ttpog [JjZ(T7\[Jj- 
 fiptccv [JjZpOOV ZttTOIZOVGlV UllhpSg V7T0 [Jbh T&JV 'E XX?JV6JV ZoCX 0 V{JjZV 01 
 zvvdfjovvoi, zccrd ty\v ruv TrXridioyjljpMV 1 8ocp/3ccpav hidXzzrov 
 dypioi. Observe here the zwm(JjVvoi, altered into xvvuyjoXyoi, 
 and the transfer of the epithet f3dp/3ccpog to the Cynamolgi, 
 from their neighbours. At the close of his account, Diodorus 
 says : rd (JjIv ovv rzXzvrotia yevyj tojv -rpoY (/jSffy][Jofipioit/ olzovvroov. 
 The excerpt, at the end, has zee) rd [/jIv tzXzvtccioc rdv vrpog 
 (JAGri[jj$piav toiuvtk. This looks as if Diodorus’ words had 
 been taken, but divided, lest the excerpt should appear to be 
 a mere slavish copy of Diodorus. 
 
 Strabo has a very brief description of the Cynamolgi. He 
 adds, however, one particular to Diodorus’ account. He calls 
 them zGcroczofJjOi. The excerpt makes this point, and calls 
 them zo[Jj7\tcii. 
 
 iElian, N. A. xvi. 31, gives an account of these people. 
 All accounts, of course, agree as to the keeping of dogs. 
 -ZElian, however, says that they rpepsiv zvvag ftoXXovg , zoerd 
 roug ''Tpzuvovg to (jj'zyzGog. This last particular is neither in 
 Diodorus nor in Strabo. The excerpt, however, has z.vvccg hi 
 rpe(pov(ri TroXXovg zcci (MyaXovg, ofjooiag ro7g 'Tp zccvoTg. 
 
 Strabo and Diodorus say nothing about the milking of the 
 female dogs. iElian, however, has zcci rav QqXzioov dfJbtXyovtri 
 ro yaXcc z.r.X. The excerpt makes this point also, and says : 
 zira, zoci rdg rav tcvvdjv QyjXziag dfJozXyovrzg toj ydXuzn rpz- 
 < povrcci . The excerpt ends where .^Elian’s account ends. 
 
 It happens that .ZElian tells us that he was indebted to 
 
104 
 
 PEKEGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Ctesias for Ills information. Schneider in a note says : “ Nisi 
 PElianus memorise lapsu Ctesiam pro Agatharchide nominat, 
 hie Ctesiam exscripsisse censendus erit. Eadem enim tradit 
 Agatharchides apud Photium” etc. If, then, it was not for 
 the existence of our excerpt, the conclusion would be that 
 Diodorus, who uses very much the language of ASlian, was 
 himself indebted to Ctesias. This would be probable enough, 
 for in lib. ii. Diodorus expressly refers to Ctesias at least 
 seven times. And in lib. iii. 11, p. 181, he mentions Agath- 
 archides, Artemidorus, zott nveg erepot, as reliable authorities 
 on the subjects which he had in hand. The notion that 
 Diodorus made use of Ctesias receives some little confirmation 
 from the circumstance that Diodorus has rovg zvvotg e7ra(pta,di, 
 and .ZElian an answering rovg rpoptf/jovg avruv zvvccg It ocvrovg 
 utyiaciv. There is no coincidence with the excerpt in this 
 particular. 
 
 If, however, we hold the excerpts to be genuine, we must 
 then believe that Agatharchides and ^Elian copied Ctesias, 
 that Strabo copied Artemidorus, that Artemidorus and Diodorus 
 copied Agatharchides, and that Photius, in making his brief 
 summary of the last-named writer’s account of the Cynamolgi, 
 accidentally managed to give those particulars, and no others, 
 which must now be gathered from Strabo, Diodorus, and 
 yElian. Can this be believed ? If, for convenience’ sake, we 
 suppose AElian’s memory to have failed him, and that he wrote 
 Ctesias in mistake instead of Agatharchides, the demand on 
 our faith will be hardly less. 
 
 6. We have produced, we believe, evidence amply sufficient 
 to expose the real character of these so-called excerpts from 
 Agatharchides. We have, however, not yet redeemed the 
 promise given on p. 68, to show the source whence the rr,g 
 zoifJOGtpccg there referred to is taken. 
 
 We turn, therefore, to the excerpt (next in order), c. xxx. 
 It gives an account of the Troglodytes. For the sake of show- 
 ing that this excerpt is marked by the same features as the 
 preceding five, we shall quote a few lines of it for examination. 
 
 The writer says : Itmv hi eTtcrij to 6'epog, ev ro7g rek^ocroohediv 
 oci'GCG’rpztpovrc&i y^copioig, (/ja^of/jevot t pog ccXXijkovg Kept rov 
 yChot)[JjUTog. K cci ra, Tped/ovrepcc ruv fiodzyifjjGCTuv tcou vogovvtcc 
 hoLKavMdtj htu rcov [/jccyeipcjv rocvroc zre tvovreg, ovg kcxXovgiv 
 
AGATHARCHIDES. 
 
 105 
 
 uzuOuprovg. This is, as usual, in close connection with 
 Diodorus, c. 32, p. 197. The words £/a roov [ituy. to the end 
 are, however, unrepresented. Strabo supplies them : zul uXXoog 
 rroXXuyug azevu^of/j svwv vko tcov ^uyilpcov ovg zuXovciv uzu- 
 Quprovg. The remainder of the sentence in the excerpt is 
 nearly in the words of Diodorus, but is unrepresented in Strabo. 
 
 The word yiX&jf/jU is hardly found. The scholiast on Horn. 
 Od. xi. 134, indeed, quotes as from JEschylus zppabtog yap 
 v^cOiv 7TOTojf/jevo<;, ov ff ojg zttXy^zv i] 5’ vlog %g iXatAUGiv, \k rovfi s 
 uzuvdu kovtiov fio<rzy][/jOLTog k.t.X. Compare. The passage is, 
 however, corrupt. Compare, further, Hesychius : yfxbg , ti 
 rpo(pyj, zui yiXov ro uvro (g Ig ruvro ^uvrzg is said in the 
 excerpt three lines above yjXd)[Luaiv. It is not in Strabo, but 
 is an alteration of Diodorus’ fjolvyopreg ruvru) zui yoprog ruv 
 fioffZTjf/jurajv (compare), and directly yiXovcQut. That the 
 history of the use of the word yjXoo[JjU in the excerpt is some- 
 thing of this kind, would seem plain by referring for yiXovaOui 
 to Xen. Anab. vii. 2. 21, where lyiXov is found, and in its neigh- 
 bourhood some coincidences with another part of the excerpt 
 now 7 in hand. 
 
 The word rzXf/jurubyjg is not a common word. The excerpt 
 uses it in the passage quoted above, but it is not in the parallel 
 passages either in Strabo or Diodorus. Strabo uses it in lib. 
 xvii. p. 793, but in an entirely different connection : \v * AXgf*- 
 uvbpe iu rov Qzpovg (obs.) a pyouAvov ^Xyipov^zvog 6 lAsTXog 
 
 TrXrjpoT kva r/jv XifWTjv zui ovhh \u nXyjUTwbig ro ryjv uvutyopdv 
 t 7roi7jaov (/joyQrjpuv. Compare with the excerpt (quoted p. 104). 
 Eight lines below, in the excerpt, [itoy^ripu is found ; but it is 
 not either in Strabo or Diodorus in the parallel passages. 
 
 Immediately after the passage just quoted from Strabo, 
 p. 793, the royal burial-places at Alexandria are described. 
 Among other things, Strabo says : ro cig Goo[hu rov ’ AXe%uvbpov 
 KOf/jirrag 6 YlroXe^adog \zr$ivaiv h r/j ’ AXs%ui/bpeiu k.t.X. 
 “ Locus erat urbe media, regum sepulturae destinatus, quern 
 2^a vocabant.” These words, though they are very nearly 
 an exact translation of some of Strabo’s here, are taken from 
 Wesseling’s note to Diod. xviii. 28, p. 279, where Diodorus 
 says that Ptolemy kutigkzvugiv ovv rzfJbevog Kurd ro p/AysOog 
 Kott Kurd rrjv zuruazev'/jv rrjg ’ AXe %uvhpov ho^yjg u^iov, h a 
 zrihivaug uvrov k.t.X. 
 
106 
 
 PEREGRIXUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Now, just above this Diodorus gives that description of 
 the chariot in which the body of Alexander was carried, 
 to which we referred on p. 68, in connection with the 
 Evang. Thom. As we have already pointed out, zcc[JjU pa 
 is there used a great number of times. This word, how- 
 ever, is here in the excerpt a few lines only below rstyoa- 
 rduhrig, winch forms a connecting link with Strabo, at that 
 point where Strabo and Diodorus meet in their accounts 
 of the burial of Alexander. After the use of the word 
 
 zafjodpa, the excerpt goes on to speak of the funeral rites 
 of the Troglodytes. The word zqhetaig is used. It is not 
 in Strabo or Diodorus in the parallel passages. Compare, 
 however, the zrjhevuv of both Strabo and Diodorus just 
 pointed out. 
 
 The use of the word zapapa here in the excerpt is, as we 
 have pointed out on p. 68, very remarkable. The writer 
 breaks the thread of his narrative to say : on zsy^pyjrai 6 
 ffvyypotipsvg, drrizKTTTjg zairoi ojv, r/j rijg zagoapag We 
 
 remarked just now (p. 98) the pointed way (oQtv [(pyjariv 6 
 avyypa<p Bug] sytvys vogjiZp z.rX.) in which the writer 1 makes 
 his own certain statements of Diodorus in c. 18, p. 187. On 
 that same page Diodorus goes on to speak of the various 
 refuges from the heat of the sun which the fish-eaters either 
 found or contrived. It happens that, in describing such of 
 these as were made out of the ribs of large fish, he says : 
 t rzsTa^ofjj'svrig ovv ryjg zagoapag, Iv ravT/i to fiapvrarov rov 
 zccvfjjccrog dvanavovrai. Here, then, in this place, very 
 specially marked out as in close contact with our excerpts, in a 
 passage the language of which is very much that of excerpt 
 c. xvii., is the exact expression rrjg zayApag to which the writer 
 of c. xxx. calls attention in such a strange fashion. If the 
 excerpts were genuine, it would be a fair conclusion that the 
 
 1 With the words $/o xx) <pxa)v ulrov ; {*. sv f&h %pyjtr0xi, thus specially 
 
 laid hold of by the writer of the excerpt, compare XpurTiuvo) yap outs y* oilr& (pan* 
 ovn eUan ^ixxixpipc.'ivoi ruv Xoivuv ucriv ocvQpuvruv. olin yap ftov vroXns ibices xaroixovmv, 
 otin 'biu.Xixrop nvi <rxpnXXxy/u,ivip %puvrtxi, Diogiiet. V. 1. In iii. 8, p. 179, 
 Diodorus has TupnXXxy/xivots V Man %pwvrcn. Compare with Diognetus. If 
 Diognetus had been written either by the compiler of the excerpts, or by one 
 intimately acquainted with his secrets and following in his footsteps, the 
 coincidences which we have just pointed out would be of the very kind which 
 we should expect to find. 
 
AGATHARCHIDES. 
 
 107 
 
 rr,g zufJbdpag of Diodorus, though not found in Photius’ 
 summary, was taken from Agatharchides. 
 
 Strabo, p. 773, has a few words upon the fish-eaters : olzovai 
 \v aarrikocioig y\ fjjMpaig an yuarccig uko hozoov (Jjb zcci 
 aTpooTqpoov tojv zyjnioov oancov nui uzcivQcHv, (pvWahog h’ tkctivrig. 
 There are two points here worthy of notice. Diodorus has 
 IsAtgci pvovrcti z.t.X.; Wesseling desires to read zkcucci; the 
 writer of the excerpt has the same desire, and writes zkcaav. 
 Diodorus does not use tlie word {jbdvhpcc . The writer of the 
 excerpts does not use it here ; but, obserye, he does use it in 
 c. xxx., only a few lines after rqg zccf/jccpag. He says : Ittocv 
 ds vi>Z tirr,, elg gbdvhpag gblv avvuyovai ty\]) \iiocv, avojfov £2 
 Xovai p i7rovg \z (poivizoov. Comp. Strabo’s [jbMpccig anyaaroclg. 
 The writer uses inifidCKkiiv in describing the dwellings of the 
 fish-eaters in the very sentence in which, in Diodorus, ryjg 
 zccpbccpag is found, and in which, in Strabo, [jjdcv^paig is found. 
 
 The passage in c. xxx., from which w r e have just given some 
 w r ords, has nothing answering to it in Diodorus ; the language, 
 however, is nearly that of Strabo (p. 776), who supplies 
 Diodorus’ deficiency. The particular w r ords, hov r ever, given 
 above, have nothing corresponding to them in Strabo. They 
 belong to the writer of the excerpt, who plainly takes the idea 
 from Strabo’s yAvhpotig anyocarcclg. 
 
 It is evident, then, that the r?c zuf/jdpag of c. xxx. is taken 
 from Diodorus. It is not at all evident what the writer’s object 
 was in marking out the v r ord as he has done. It may, with the 
 translator of the excerpts, mean “ a towui in Crete;” or with 
 Arrian, “ a bed ” — and the coincidences with the Evang. Thom ., 
 with which zafjjccpcc is concerned ( vid . sup. pp. 67, 68), have 
 to do with the miraculous story of the bedstead ; or it may 
 have other meanings and other connections. 
 
 It is quite possible that there may have been some local 
 controversy, or some jest connected with the w r ord in the 
 waiter’s day, which gave it a special interest in his mind. 
 In Homilies of a certain class, 6 aryjaug cog zccf/jdpuv rbv ovpocvov 
 Isa. xl. 22 is a very favourite expression. Patient inquiry will 
 doubtless clear up the mystery. 
 
 § 6. The question whether (M \uvconpog (yid. sup. p. 101) was 
 honestly used by the writer of Clement’s epistle, as the v r ord 
 which occurred naturally to his mind, or was selected by him 
 
108 
 
 PEREGRINES PROTEUS. 
 
 for its rarity, can only be answered by a careful examination 
 of the passage in which it is found. If this passage should 
 turn out to be nothing but a skilful compilation from a variety 
 of sources, it may fairly be inferred that the writer deliberately 
 selected f/jekocvwrepog for special reasons. Its use will then 
 form a connecting link between Clement’s epistle and the 
 forged excerpts from Agatharchides, which have been shown 
 to be indebted to the very passage of Strabo which contains 
 the word. The Evangdium Thomce professes to be an ancient 
 apocryphal gospel. It certainly is not the Evang. Thom . 
 known to the ancients. We may therefore properly conclude 
 that an interest was felt in some quarters in apocryphal 
 literature. A curious connection between this spurious 
 apocryphal gospel and Clement’s epistle has been observed. 
 It will be well, therefore, to pay particular attention to the 
 passage in which pjsXccvarzpog is found, for this passage pro- 
 fesses to be an apocryphal quotation, taken, as is supposed, 
 from an apocryphal or interpolated book of Ezekiel. 
 
 We shall give Ep. i. 8 (which contains the quotation) entire ; 
 but in order that we may have more of Clement’s own Greek 
 before us, we shall precede it by the greater part of § 7. 
 
 §7 . ... dio .. . zal sX6u/isv sni tov sjzXsyj xai Gs/ivbv Ttjg napadb- 
 Gsug ti/JjZjv zavova, zai ’/du/isv rt zaXov zal ti Tspnvov z ai ti npoffdszTov 
 hdniov to j noiqcavTog r\/idg' drsv/ffw/isv sic to aJ/ia toj XpiGTOj zai 
 yvu/isv ug sari ti/iiov rep naTpi ccvtoZ tu> 0 g <£, oti did rrjv /j/iSTspav 
 cuTYip'iciv Izyy&sv^ navTi Tip zoG/ioo /is ravotag %dpiv snr\vsyzs' disX9w/isv 
 Tag ysvsdg ndaag zai zaTa/i d&u/isv oti sv ysvscf, zai ys via (iSTavoiag 
 Tonov sduzsv 6 dsffnbrrig T0?g (3ovXo/isvoig zniffTpa<py]vai in avrov. Nus 
 szvjpj^s /iSTavotav, zai oi InazojffavTsg sffddyiffav' lwvdg XivsjiTaig 
 zaTa6Tpocpy)v izripji^iv, o i ds /iSTavorjGavTsg ini To?g d/iapTq/iaGiv ajTOjv 
 i^iXdcavTO tov ©g bv izsTSvovTsg zai sXa (3ov 6ciTr\piav zainsp dXXorpioi toj 
 0soj ovrsg. § 8. o/ XsiTovpyoi ryjg ydpiTog toj 0 fou d/a nvsv/iaTog 
 dyiou nspi /iSTavoiag sXdXriffav, zai ajTog ds 6 dsGnoTrjg tuv and vtuv 
 ns pi /iSTavoiag s?.aXy]ffsv /is& opxov — 
 
 u Zoj yap syd, Xsysi K vpiog, oil f3ojXo/iai tov QdvaTov toj a/iapTuXoj, 
 ug rfjv /isTavoiar ” 
 
 npoffTiQsig zai yvd/iriv dyabr\v % 
 
 u MsravorjffaTS, olzog ’iffparjX, dno Tr,g dvo/iiag j/iuv sinov To7g vioTg 
 toj Xaoj j aou. ’Eav uotv ai d/iapTiai j/iuv dnb rrjg yrjg sug toj ovpavoj, 
 zat sdv wow nuppoTspai zozzoj zai /isXaviuTspai ffdzzou, zai sniGTpatprjTS 
 npbg [is s% oXrjg Ttjg zapbiag zai f/V/jrg, HaTsp , snazojGo/iai j/iuv ug 
 Xaoj dyioj 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 109 
 
 K at sv kTspuj to-ttuj (Isa. ii. 16—20), Xeyzi ourug " — 
 
 “ Aobffaffde xui (om. CS with LXX.), xadupol yeveffds, d<psX effds 
 (atpsXsre C with LXX.) rag Kovyjp/ag drro rouv -^vyouv ^Siv dnsvavri 
 rcbv opdaX/uciui/ /uov' kgcvg aeds d<rb rwv ffovrjpiuv b/uouv, /udders xdXov rroieTv, 
 IxYr/rrioare xptffiv, pi iffaffde ddizob/uevov, xpivare oppavdu ‘/.at br/.aid6are 
 y/ipcjp (A; y/ipoiv C with LXX.)' xat debre . xai (om. S with LXX.)' 
 
 . . teXeydu/Lsv (A; diaXeydbu>x,ev C; loquamur cum alterutro. S Light, p. 
 412; hieXeyydou/uev LXX.), Xeyu (A; xvptog ins. CS with LXX.)' xai 
 edv duGtv at d/uapriai b/ucuv dig (potvixobv, dug yidva Xeuzavbu’ edv de cuffiv 
 dug xoxicivov, bug spiov he vxocvu’ xoci edv deXqrs xat e/ffaxovGTjre /uov, rd 
 dyadd rr\g yr/g pdysGde’ edv 5s fu ^ deXr/re juqd'e e/ffaxobffqre /uov, [udyatpa 
 biudg zareberar ro ydp oro/ua xvptou sXdXriffe rubra.” 
 
 Tldvrag obv robg dyarrqrobg abrob (3ovX6/uevog /ueravolag [uerusysTv, sffrr r 
 p/i's r(j) ‘ruvroxpuropr/tQu (SovXq/uan abrob. 
 
 Clement’s divergences from Isa. i. 16-20 are all pointed out 
 above, and it is evident that he had the LXX. before him. 
 
 The apocryphal quotations given above are not found either 
 in whole or in part in any apocryphal writing now in exist- 
 tence, nor are they, either in whole or in part, anywhere 
 attributed to an apocryphal writing. Have they been honestly 
 taken from some lost document, or have they been manufac- 
 tured for the occasion % This is the question for solution. 
 
 1. In order that Clement’s method of composition may be 
 thoroughly understood, we shall somewhat carefully examine 
 his use of the LXX. and New Testament in those portions of 
 §§ 7, 8, which are manifestly his own. We shall then consider 
 what indications may be found in them of a similar use of 
 writings other than scriptural. 
 
 (1.) In illustration of the opening sentences, Lightfoot quotes 
 LXX. Ps. cxxxii. 1 Ihov (obs.) 77 ZOCkOV 7j 77 TtyTCVOV Z.T.X. ; 
 1 Tim. ii. 3 rovro zodkov zod dnohizrov evdnrtov (obs.) tov 
 GooTTjpog ?}(JjS)V Osou (“ of which Clement’s language here seems 
 to be a reminiscence,” Light.) ; 1 Pet. i. 19 ri[/jico cci'fjjOtn cog 
 u[JjVqv c&[JjU[JjOV zod donikov Xp iffTOv. He also refers to Wisd. 
 ix. 12. Turning to Wisdom, we find in ver. 1 6 Troifcug (obs.) 
 rd ttuvtgc; in ver. 10 zed ym (obs.) r / ivdpzarov igti Trccpd 
 ooi- oihs ydp z.t.X. ; in ver 12 zed ’iarou ‘7rpo<rhezrd (obs.) rd 
 g pyec (JjOv. Observe here the form which Clement’s second 
 sentence finally assumes after the manipulation of some of the 
 texts just given. 
 
110 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Clement’s Ttpciop z.tX. reminds us of LXX. Ps. cxv. 15 
 n'fjjiog IpaPTi'op zvplov 6 QdpaTog ogiup avTOv. Now mark the 
 connection between this verse and Wisd. ix. 5, which has the 
 words lyu hovXog cog zai vlog rrjg <7raih'iGzrig gov, in common with 
 the 16th verse of the Psalm. 
 
 In § 21 Clement has Ta zaXd zai ivdpiGTa Iputiop avTov 
 yroiupbiP (JjsQ' ofjoopolag, followed after two lines by ~h!i\rfiiP 
 
 aVTOP TUP iPPOlUP Yj[JjUP Ovhl TUP hiakoyiG[LUP UP TTOIOVI/jZQu. 
 
 Compare with the foregoing, and add Wisd. ix. 14 a oyiGfjjOi 
 yap ... a/ \ 7 rip 01 a 1 yjfjjup ; x. 8 tov (ly; ypupai Ta zaXd . . . 
 {/j/jhe \ccQc7v. The preceding verses are used in § 11. 
 
 In illustration of the first sentence of § 7, given above, 
 Light-foot (p. 410) refers to § 19. These two sections have a 
 good deal in common. Compare Clement’s aTiPiGuposp (obs.) 
 slg top ‘TTccTZpa zai ztigt^p tov GVfJjTaPTog zoGpoov with the 
 ‘xurtpu zog{j>ov {Jj'opop zTKjQsvra of Wisd. x. 1. 
 
 In § 61 Clement has gv, heGTOTa, ehuzag . . . dig hog . . • rig 
 to hiinup avTovg rrjp vto gov hshof/j'eprjp avToig i]yipi>optap d^po- 
 Gz/ovrug ( vid . sup. p. 24) . . . ro7g vldig tup dpQpuftup hot,ap zai 
 rtfjjrjp zai l^ovGiap tcop ini rrjg yrjg vnapyjoPTup- gv , Kvpis, 
 hiivQvPOP r/jp i QovXyjp avTup zocra to zoCt.oP zai ivdpiGTOP huniop 
 gov , onug hiinoPTig h sipr]P?i zai GcpavTYiTi z.tX. Compare 
 with the foregoing, and add Wisd. ix. 2 “ And ordained man 
 through Thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the 
 creatures which Thou hast made ; ” ver. 3 zai hi'iny top 
 
 ZOGfJCOP IP OGlOTYjTl ZGCl hlZaiOGVPrj , ZCCI IP ivdvTTjTl ^Vfcrjg ZplGlP 
 
 zpipyj. dog pool z.tX. ; ver. 6 g p vldig dpQpunup; ver. 17 fiovXrjp 
 hi gov . . . gv ihuzag z.tX. ; ver. 19 zcci ovTug hiupQuQ/jGap 
 (hiopQuGu(jjiQa § 21) gcI Tpifioi tup ini Tr,g yjjg z.tX. 
 
 \imiip is also used in Wisd. xii. 15 : hlzaiog 5g up hizatug Td 
 naPTa hiinug z.tX., and not elsewhere, either in the LXX. 
 or N. T. In ver. 17 we find 'iGyjjp yap iPihiizPVGai ; in ver. 
 18 sp iniazila zp'ipug. Compare Clement’s ip npavT/]Ti. In 
 §21 he has iphutgaGOuGap, to dzipaiop Trjg npavTYjTog ai)Tup 
 ^oiXyipca (cf. his ttip ftovhTjp avTup above) dnohii^aTuGap, to 
 inmzig z.tX . We shall show presently the g p inmziia of 
 Wisdom to be used in Diocjnet. vii. ( atX ’ innizila, npavT7]Ti) 
 to which it is connected through ver. 14 ovti fiaGXsvg ti 
 T vpappog ccPTOtpQaXprijGai hvpqGiTal goi z.tX.; cf. tov ipyov avTov 
 6 puQpog zai napii^ipog {zai PuOpog zai napii[LiPog Ip toic ipyoig 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 Ill 
 
 ffov, Ecclus. iv. 29), ovz dvroipdaXfJbzi rco zpyoTtapzzry] avrov , 
 
 § 34 . 
 
 We referred just now to ver. 18. It ends with Tap zan yap 
 aoi oral/ QzXyg to IvvacQai. Ver. 11 has g vXa$ov[hivbg nva 
 z.r.X . ; ver. 12 rig yap zpzT, ri Woiqaag ; yj rig dvriarriazrai rd 
 zpifjoari (70V. In ver. 17 is i(7yvv, as we have already seen. 
 This word is also in vv. 16, 18. In xi. 21 is to yap [JOzyaXcog 
 iryvziv Trapean aoi Tavrorz , zai zpdrzi ftpayjovog gov rig dvriG- 
 rrjGzrai ; and in ver. 22 oXog 6 zoGfJbog zvavriov (7 ov. Compare 
 these passages together. In § 27 Clement says: — 
 
 dva^ojcrvpriffd-oj ovv % vtang avrov iv '/jfxTv, zai vorjGujtLSv on rrdvra 
 iyyvg avnZ icnv. iv Xoyoj rrig /xsyaXuGvvrjg avrov GvvsGryjGaro rd 
 rrdvra, zai iv Xoyoj dvvarai avrd za raGrps^ai. Tig ipsT avruj T / 
 irroi^Gag ; r\ rig dvriGrriGsrai rw zpdrsi rijg iGyyog avrov ; or s dsXsi zai 
 wg QsXsi ‘Toir/Gei cravra, zai ovdsv [tri rrapsXQ'/] ruiv dsdoyfj.ariG/xsvwv vrr 
 avrov. IT dvra ivdmov avrov s/gi, zai ovdsv asXvjQs rqv fiovXrjv avrov, 
 si ovpavoi z.r.X. LXX. Ps. xviii. 1—3. 
 
 Clement here, then, quotes Wisd. xii. 12, but alters it so as 
 to combine xi. 21. This is plain from the orav OzXyjg of xi. 
 18, and the oXog 6 zoGf/jog havriov gov of xii. 22. With the 
 opening words of the passage just given, comp. Wisd. ix. 1 
 (already used): 6 TroiijGag rd Gcdvra Iv Xoyco aov. Clement’s 
 zaraGrpz^ai carries us back to §§ 7, 8, for the closing words 
 of § 6 are ZyXxog zai zpig rroXzig [LzyaXag zarzGrpz\pzv zai 
 edv'/j fJbzyaXa hgzpiZyaGZV. Comp. Ecclus. xxviii. 11, g pig z.r.X., 
 ver. 14: yXaGGa (obs.) . . . zai TrbXzig oyvpdg zaOeTXe, zai 
 oiziag {. hiyiardvwv zarzGrpz^z. (The whole passage is imitated 
 in § 55.) Cod. C. supplies an interesting and instructive 
 reading. It substitutes zarzGza^z for zarzGrpz^zv. Comp. 
 Jer. i. 10 : ihov zaOzGrazd gz Gqf/jZpov, Z7Ti z0vt] zai gsri fiaGt- 
 Xziag, zzpi^ovv zai zaraazaTrrziv. 
 
 Clement’s next sentence contains the words vovdzrovvrzg, 
 VTrofjjifjijVTicrzovrzg. They carry us back to Wisd. xii. 2, where 
 we observe VTrof/jifjjvyjGzcov vovQzrzTg. In ver. 10, comp, Ihihovg 
 T 07 C 0 V [jjzravoiag, and in ver. 19 on hid cog ini d[ 7 japri][jjaGi 
 / jjZrdvoiav , with the latter part of § 7, quoted above. 
 
 In the passage from § 27, Clement appears to use LXX. 
 Ps. cxlviii. 5, 6 : on avrbg zinz zai zyzvriQriGav, avrbg zvzrziXaro 
 zai z zri(70y](7av' zgt'/jg zv avrd . . . npoGray^a zOzro, zai ov 
 napzXzvGzrai. 
 
112 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 It is not the simple fact that Clement uses the sacred 
 writings to which we call attention — this no one will deny — 
 but to the peculiar way in which he uses them. He often 
 expressly cites them, but far oftener uses them without 
 citation. He manufactures his sentences out of them. He 
 combines two or three (perhaps parallel) texts in one short 
 sentence of his own. He alters a text apparently for no 
 other reason than to combine another text with it. He uses 
 the LXX. as a schoolboy might use Xenophon’s Anabasis, 
 not slavishly copying it, but leaning upon it for words and 
 combinations of words. Proof of this may be multiplied to 
 any extent. In § 60, Clement has 6 ayaQog zv rolg opoof/j'zvoig zai 
 TTlCTOg ZV rolg TTZTTOldbfUV Z7TI 0'S, IXz Y\[J jOV ZCCl OlZripfJjOV, (ZpZg TJfjiiv 
 rag avofjolag rjfjjav zai rag ahziag zai rd 7rapa7rrdf/jara zai 
 TrXTjfJbfJOzXiccg. Several commentators have found a difficulty 
 in Clement’s opco^zvoig, and have made conjectural alterations ; 
 but, as Lightfoot truly says, “ The idea, and in part the lan- 
 guage, is taken from Wisd. xiii. 1, \tc roov opoo[JjZVCt)v ayaddv 
 ovz ’icyyaav zilzvai rov ovra ovrz rolg zpyoig < rpoc>y j bvrzg zk'z- 
 yvoocav rov rzyyirriv. The language in the latter part of the 
 sentence is suggested by Ecclus. ii. 10 sq. rig zvzTriarzvrz 
 Y^vpico zai zar^yjjv^ri ; . . . bion oizripybcov zai zXzr\ [J joov o 
 YA jpiog, zai acpfyfriv afJbapriag.” Observe, here, the changed 
 use of ayaQog, the alteration of zvz-xiffrzvaz K vpiu into rolg 
 e 7TZ7roiQoGiv z <7ci 0 'S, and the expansion of d[i>apriag. Clement’s 
 sentence is a plain manufacture. Ecclus. ii. 10 begins with 
 sfjofiXs^pars s ig dpyjziag yzvzdg zai ibzrz, rig z vz^iffr. z.r.X. 
 Comp. Clement’s bizX^[LZv rag yzvzdg vraffag z.r.X. of § 7, 
 quoted p. 108. Here is the idea of Ecclesiasticus. The com- 
 bination of verbs is found in a parallel section : ’ihco[JjZv avrov 
 zara bidvoiav zai Zf/jfiXz^oof/jZv z.r.X ., § 19. In § 60, a few 
 lines above the passage just quoted, Clement has 6 rrnjrog zv 
 KaGaig ralg yzvzoilg (here is the idea again), looking, as Light- 
 foot shows, at Deut. vii. 9 0s og marog 6 (pvXaaauv biaQrizriv 
 . . . s ig yfxiag ysvzag. 
 
 It is evident that Clement did not write “ currente calamo,” 
 but had a reason for every word which he placed in his sen- 
 tences. There was, moreover, a place from which almost every 
 word was deliberately taken. Words had other words 
 associated with them in his mind, and when one was used. 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 113 
 
 the others followed at no great distance. The way in which 
 Clement used the LXX. and N. T. point out unmistakeably 
 a certain habit or method of writing. With such a habit he 
 must have used writings not scriptural in the same fashion. 
 W e have already seen indications of this in the word \XKo- 
 yif/jog { vid . sup. p. 27), as used by Plato and Philo; in 
 t 7rpo(JT&T7ig {vid. sup. p. 22), as used by Sophocles ; in h/ccXXcig, 
 {vid. sup. pp. 23, 73 sq.), as used by Diodorus. 
 
 (2.) We shall now bring Clement’s own Greek in §§ 7, 8, 
 27, as quoted above, into comparison with some ecclesiastical 
 and secular writings. If we find indications of the use of 
 those writings precisely similar in character to the indications 
 of the use, of the sacred writings already observed, we cannot, 
 if we are to act impartially, turn round and dismiss these as 
 mere “ accidental coincidences.” 
 
 (A.) We shall turn our attention, in the first instance, to 
 that portion of § 27 which is quoted on p. 111. 
 
 (a) Observe the opening words, avcc^uTuprifTciTaj z.rX. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, Strom, i. 1, p. 324, has rocvra hi 
 avaZ^aTrvp&v VTOf/jvqfjjttGi, and presently ra hoypjUTi^df/jZVGc. 
 Comp, with § 27. After two lines he has pcccrd toV ebzXirj zoci 
 (Tipjvov Tr\g Trccpcchot Tew; zuvova, p. 325 (quoted by Liglitfoot, p. 
 410, who concludes that the “ phrase ” was “ borrowed ” from 
 our Clement). If, however, the writer of Clement’s epistle 
 was the “ borrower,” he would almost necessarily bethink him- 
 self of rrjg TifTrssjg uvaXpuKvpYiGiv, Euseb. H. E. iv. 23, p. 144. 
 Comp, with § 27. We say “almost necessarily,” for Eusebius 
 in this chapter informs us, on the authority of Dionysius, bishop 
 of Corinth, that Clement’s epistle was read in the churches 
 from the earliest times. A late writer, seeking to palm off his 
 own writing as that of Clement of Pome, would, as a matter of 
 course, have paid special attention to this chapter. Eusebius 
 gives a portion of one of Dionysius’ letters, which is of some 
 interest. Dionysius says : gg ctpyyjg yap vpXv Uog i <rri tovto, 
 navTcig (Jjh ccheXpoug t 7roiyJ\cog evspyers7v, ’ EyyXricriccig n ttoX- 
 Xcclg ra 7g yard 7rdffccy 7ro\iv Ifiohia, 7rlfjj7rsiv, uhs fjbh rrjv tuv 
 hzopAvcov mviav a va^vy j ovrocg^ \v [hiroXXoig 5g c&hzXtpoTg V 7 rccp- 
 ypvaiv imyppriyovvrug. . . . g dog ... 6 ov p,dvov hiureT?]p7]%zv 
 6 (jjGczcZpiog v[JjSjv InXicoTog 'Zarfjp tc.tX. Comp, g^s/ (Proteus) 
 obv rohivrspov ‘7rXu , rrjGopjivog, Izuvd l(pohicc rovg Xpiartocvovg 
 
114 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 bycov. Peregrin . 16; also (with both) rolg \<p6hioig rov Xp iffrov 
 apzovfMvoi. Clem. Ep. i. 2. Having observed these things, and 
 knowing our writer’s delight in a jest, we thought that \ 7 riff- 
 zovrog 'Scoryp would hardly escape. Knowing Wiazo^og to be 
 used in a rather peculiar way in § 59, we turned with some 
 interest to that section. We found rov rcov aKYiKrciffpJivav 
 ffcorfjpa, rov vravrog ‘rvsvpjccrog zricrriv zai briffzoTrov. There 
 may be joke within joke here, for Lightfoot remarks: “In 
 Amos iv. 13 we have syco . . . zriZpov Trvsvf/joc, where it apparently 
 means 4 the wind,’ but might easily be understood otherwise.” 
 Curiously enough, we have the joke, if it be a joke, exactly 
 reversed in Ep. i. 20. There Clement has uv'ef/jcov aradgcoi 
 zara rov ’fiiov zaipov rv\v Xeirovpyiav avrcov a e 7rpoazd f 7rcjg inciri- 
 Xovffiv. Comp, ovy) vravreg Pm Xsirovpyizd ‘rvsvf/jara z.rX. 
 Heb. i. 14. The use of Heb. i., ii. in § 20 may be easily 
 shown ( vid . sup. p. 24). Curiously, again, the expression 
 avegocov aradgcoi from Job xxviii. 25 has been so altered in 
 ‘‘meaning,” that Lightfoot is obliged to suppose that Clement 
 has “misunderstood” it. “Accident” has dealt very hardly 
 with Clement’s language if all these things are accidental. 
 
 If we turn to § 59 we find (very soon after far iff zottov) rolg 
 hsogoivoig . . . rovg ‘nXavoopkvovg (cf. the rrXav^ffogbSVog of Pere- 
 grin. 16 given just above) . . . Xvrpcoffai rovg heff pious Vpoov. 
 Comp, with Dionysius above. The coincidences with the 
 liturgies in this part of Clement are undeniable. We see 
 here whence some hints for their use might have been 
 derived. It must be remembered that g t 7Ciffzo < 7Cog ^corrip 
 guided us to § 59. 
 
 (|3) There are some words in § 27 which seem to be the 
 property of Ilippolytus, who has <rdvra koicov cog deksi, z ad cog 
 QzXzi, ore dsXsi. Contr. Noet. viii. p. 815 ; comp, with § 27, sup. 
 p. 111. A few lines below, on the same page, Hippolytus 
 has faoffefteiav affzelv. In Ep. ii. 20 Clement has Ipnopiav 
 yjffzovpev zai ov Oioff'efieiav. Comp, rtapiypiv pcopiav g izdg puX- 
 Xov yjyolvr dv, ov dsorefieiav. Diognet. iii. 3. To this passage 
 from Diognetus another may be added : — 
 
 o7g opia riGnog ov Qpuvzrui ovbs opia ‘Trctrspojv rrupopj^sraj' ?.7rcc <po(3og 
 vofiov abzTou, %ui rrpoipvjruv yupig yivuGnsrcu, xai evuyysXtwv niGrig 
 Upvrui, xui arocroXuv rapddoGig <pv\dGGzrai, xa/ sxxX»jff/ac ydpig 
 Gxiprti’ yppw ftfi Xvnuv emyvuiGri a Xoyog o/xiXsT, di ’ uv fiovXsrai, 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 115 
 
 07 s QsXsi (obs.). oca. yctp GiX^/xan roZ xtkvoovrog Xoyov sx/v^tj^sv sfytffsTv 
 [lira kovov. Diognet. xi. 5 sq. aaxov/jj'svriv yvuciv. xii. 5. 
 
 The elaborate expression, to QzKrif/jCc tov zekzvovTog Xoyov, is 
 noteworthy. In chap. vii. we shall have occasion to point out 
 a number of coincidences between Diognetus and Contr. Noet., 
 which will show that these writings are not independent of one 
 another. Still Hippolytus’ constant expressions, both in Contr . 
 Noet. and the Refutatio , are to Oz'krjf/jGi tov UccTpog, and 6 zzhivwv 
 Ilar^p. In chap. vii. we shall give reasons for believing that 
 the changes have been made in Diognetus for the express 
 purpose of showing that cc. xi., xii. do not belong to the times 
 of Hippolytus. This question does not concern us at the 
 present moment. We mention it now, however, because we 
 think that a second intentionally made theological note of 
 time may be pointed out in the words just quoted from 
 Diognet. xi., and one which will help to illustrate those por- 
 tions of Clement’s Ep. i. which are now in hand. 
 
 The strange expression in Diognet. xi. ( vid . sup.), kzzkrjtrioig 
 ydptg GztpTOL, has naturally attracted some attention. Bunsen 
 desired to alter %ap/£ into %espcc. It happens that in § 7 (vid. 
 sup. p. 108) there is an expression partly parallel, and one 
 ■which has attracted even more attention — pjSTccvoiocg %«p/v. 
 Observe the tov Txjg tfccpccdotrsag zocvovcx, of § 7, and its simpli- 
 city in the writer’s view, and compare with the more elaborate 
 opt a TTiffTsatg, optcc ‘rccTepoov, dnoGTokav 7rccpdho(Tig of Diognet. xi. 
 Observe, also, the oi XstTovpyoi (“ i.e. the prophets.” Light- 
 foot) Tyjg yjzptTog tov 0s ov of § 8, and the alteration into 
 Trpo^yjTMV yjzptg in Diognetus . In § 27 observe the very 
 ecclesiastical htboypjUTiGpjiwv, but which is used of the decrees 
 of God ; and notice the connection, such as it is, between § 
 27 and Diognet. xi. We venture to think that, while in 
 Clement we are supposed to have the simplicity of primitive 
 Christian faith, — just as in the earlier part of Diognetus (c. v.) 
 we are supposed to have the simplicity of primitive Christian 
 life, — the IzzXTjGtag yjzptg of Diognet. xi. is intended to mark, 
 in the writer’s mind, a later theological development with 
 which he had no sympathy. Certainly the expression, <4 the 
 grace of the church skips,” seems to savour of jest or satire. 
 
 The very form of the sentence in which the expression 
 stands seems to mark it out as satire : ov OpccveTcci, ovds Tccpopt - 
 
116 
 
 PEREGRINES PROTEUS. 
 
 ^ara/, a$sra/, yivwoMrui', 5'Spyra/, (puKccafrercci , . . . ra/pra. It 
 is sheer nonsense if it is not satire. If, however, the transfer 
 of ygxpig from f/jsrccvoiocg to izKkqcriccg was actually made, if, 
 that is, the expression, “ the grace of the church skips,” is 
 simple satire, it is significant enough. The writer may or 
 may not have had faith in “ the grace of repentance ; ” he 
 certainly had none in “ the grace of the church,” and nothing 
 but contempt for those ‘‘later theological developments,” to 
 which the expression “ grace of the church ” may be thought 
 to point. It leads us to expect that we shall somewhere find 
 a treatise in which such “ later developments ” are the subjects 
 of his ridicule ; in which the tenets which he specially abhorred 
 are satirized by the extravagance with which they are advo- 
 cated; in which the wit consists in adapting language originally 
 applied to the highest and holiest of things, to things less high 
 and holy, and perhaps even ridiculous. This treatise, if we 
 are right in our conjectures as to the history of lzx,Xy](Tiug 
 %ccptg (Tziprcc, will be found to be in close connection with 
 Clement’s epistles or Diognetus (or both), and to be indebted 
 to those sources to which the writer (or writers) of those docu- 
 ments appears to have applied himself. 
 
 (y) Such a treatise we can produce, one in which, from 
 end to end, the words of Holy Scripture are ceaselessly played 
 upon, in which men are spoken of with those combinations of 
 epithets which specially belong to God in the LXX.; in which 
 the solemn pleadings of the liturgies with the Almighty are 
 addressed to an earthly monarch; in which the sitting of Jesus 
 by Jacob’s well is the subject of parody; in which the “cultus” 
 of images is advocated with inconceivable absurdity, while in 
 those images yjipig is made in the most pointed way to reside. 
 
 This treatise professes to be a letter addressed to the 
 Emperor Theophilus, the Iconoclast. It is found amongst the 
 writings of John of Damascus. It cannot be his, and has 
 been supposed to be a “ synodical ” letter, written by Christo- 
 pher, patriarch of Alexandria, and to have been signed by 1455 
 bishops and priests. It is, however, in character such as we 
 have described, as the briefest inspection will show. That it 
 should contain “ later developments,” and that these should be 
 stated with some extravagance of language, is of course to be 
 expected. The question is, whether this extravagance of state- 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 117 
 
 ment is the natural language of an earnest and conscientious 
 advocate of image-worship, or the artificial and assumed ex- 
 travagance and parody of some later satirist. 
 
 Whether we are right or wrong in regarding the Epistola 
 ad Theophilum as a satire, it most certainly contains a great 
 number of coincidences with Clement. 
 
 In Theopli. xxxi. (the last §) the following passage is found : 
 
 raZra bpl^of/,sv rr\ xsXevffst xa/ a ZOsvrfq roZ 2 urqpog yj/xuv ’I. X., og 
 sfaro ‘rpoGraypa xa/' ov i 7rapz\sZ(ferai (LXX. Ps. cxlviii. 6). roZ xXsi- 
 ffccvrog rr\v afivGGov, x.u .1 fffip ccy i Gaft's vov aZrijv rti <po(3epti xat svdo^w 
 ovo/tart aZroZ ’ sZ\aj3s/Gdu (Wisd. xii. 11), raGa 7) yr\ aero <7rpoGuiro’j 
 aZroZ, on (pofispog ear/, xa/ rig avriGrr]Gsrai aZrui (Wisd. xii. 12) ; xa/ 
 <&o(3epbv rb sftrrscsTi/ tig yj7pag QsoZ Zpivrog (Heb. x. 31). 
 
 The writer here then combines, as Clement does in § 27 
 (vid. sup. p. Ill), LXX. Ps. cxlviii. 6 with Wisd. xii. 12. 
 The first text is obviously used, and the evXofie/ffdai (zvXofiov- 
 f/jivog, ver. 11) sufficiently shows the rig ovncrYiazroi to be taken 
 from Wisdom. Clement begins § 27 with rovry ouv r/j zkvrihi 
 TpoahU(70ctj(Tccv oi \pvxui TjpjMV Tco mcrS} Iv rolg Iftoyyzkioig. 
 Comp. Korzypogjzv rbv ogjoXoyiov rrjg zX^rihog ozkivrj. vriGrog ydp 
 6 zrroyyzikogjzvog. Heb. x. 23. (Comp. Clem. Ep. ii. 11, vid . 
 sup. p. 72.) Observe Clement’s manipulation of the verse, and 
 that ver. 31 is quoted in Theophilus . Comp, also the zvoyyz- 
 \im Kiting of Diognet. xi. (vid. sup. p. 114). With the 6 
 xzkzvoov \byog of Diognet. xi. also compare the zz\zvtizi K.rX. 
 of Theophilus. The whole section in Theophilus is, indeed, in 
 many respects parallel to Diognet. xi. The points, however, 
 which the two writings have in common with one another, are 
 more fully developed in Theophilus. 
 
 E 7ro(Jjevoi f the writer says, rco Zpu rwv . . . Korspoov . . . koto 
 rag OKOtiroXizdg Kopohotizig, and the ancient customs of the 
 churches, rug ngbiog zizovog a tiKoZppjzCo. This is the Kiting 
 ruv oKoarokm which enlightened the churches. If any dare 
 to set aside any of the things — whether the form of the cross 
 or the images and pictures — handed down to the Holy Church, 
 according to the ancient customs of the fathers and godly 
 kings, let them, if priests, he deposed and anathematized : z / 5g 
 [Jjovatpvrzg not Xocifcoi zitit ru ovrw ovoQzpjon zorozpivztiQot, 
 no) ryjg Qz fog zoivooviog otpopi^ztiQoi. Comp, with Diognet. xi. 
 If we look a few lines higher up in the preceding section, we 
 
118 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 find more details, and specially that the zvccyyzkioov 1 KiGTig of 
 Diognetus is developed into Tipyj zee) GS^ccGycioT'/iTi hrfofjg toj 
 tvttgo tov ZpiOftoiov GTavpov, zcci tuv OsoXizTGtJV ’E vocyyeXicov 
 zuraGTrGc^ofJjsQcc. It is, of course, the connection of Theophilus 
 with Clement, which has just been observed, which gives im- 
 portance to the parallel now pointed out. 
 
 The parallel, or rather the contrast between Theophilus and 
 Clement is much stronger. The 6 Trig ^ccpochoGicog zccvnv of 
 § 7 (vid. sup. p. 108) is mightily developed. The to ti^aov 
 ccifjccc, on which faith should gaze, has become Tocg Tipciag 
 iizovocg. The teachings of the past are no longer to be studied 
 for lessons of repentance, but for precepts of image-worship. 
 It is no longer the ocXkoTpiog tov Qsog (§7) who is saved, 
 although he is such, but the ocXkoTpiog Trig Xp iGTiocvizrjg TrpoG- 
 yjyopiccg who is condemned, because he rejects the images. 
 There is no mention here made tojv hthoypjCCTiGf/j'muv, by God, 
 w r hich shall not pass away (as in § 27) ; but tojv wap’ ripAV (obs.) 
 fchoypjOCTiGpjivcov 8i07rvtvGToov Xoyuv (concerning the “ cultus ” 
 of images) not to be transgressed without pains and penalties. 
 
 It was, observe, the coincidence between Theophilus and 
 Clement in the use of Holy Scripture, which led us to examine 
 Clement’s context. 
 
 So far we have simply compared those portions of Clement’s 
 Ep. i. which were in our hands with the close of Theophilus . 
 If we look elsewhere in Clement, we shall find irresistible 
 evidence as to the general correctness of the line we are taking. 
 We use, observe, the same page of Theophilus. 
 
 In § 40 Clement contends that “ all things ” should be done 
 “ decently and in order.” He says that, as men who have 
 peered into the depths of the divine knowledge (comp, the 
 Study of Antiquity), we ought to do whatever the Master 
 IzsXevGZV (comp. zsXsvgsi z.tX .), not when and where we please, 
 dckX! ojpiGy>ivoig (comp. 6pi%0fjbsv) zaipdig. If we do, all will be 
 well : Toig yeep vopbif/joig tov heGvroTOv cczoXov&ovvTzg ov htapjccp- 
 tuvovgiv. For to the high priest, and priests and Levites, to 
 each is given his own office and ministry. But 6 \cciz,og 
 ocv6pa t 7rog Tolg Xccizolg TrpoGTocypjCCGiv hehsTca. Comp, the STroycsi/oi 
 
 1 This is more pointedly expressed in § 2 (which is a summary of §§ 30, 31) : 
 
 atrxvru; xect txs rif&'ia; iixovxs x<rorx^o/x i6x iv Itry; tu tvtoo tov Z > uovoiov ffTxvpov, xxi 
 tuv Oio’kixruv 'EuxyytXiuv' . . . xvtyi ii TrlffTig ttjv oixov/xivriv hpuTifft. 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 119 
 
 tco opco z.t.X., and the Xaizoi, who are condemned to the same 
 anathema as the priests (vid. sup. p. 117). One is apt to think 
 that a layman, or laymen, who rebelled against priestly assump- 
 tion had some hand in the composition of Clement’s Ep. i. 
 
 In § 41 the subject of § 40 is followed up. The sentence 
 f/j'/j Kapez^aivcov tov upiGpJevov Trjg XeiTovpyiag avTov zavova, 
 might be supposed (perhaps it was so intended) to be the 
 parent of many more of like character in later times. This 
 section ends with ol ovv orapa to zaQijzov Trjg f^ovXrjGeojg avTov 
 (obs.) KOlOVVTig Tl 0GCVaTOV TO KpOGTtfJbOV s yOVGlV OpMTS, dheX(pof, 
 ogco Kkeiovog zaTY^idjQripjev yvaGsag, togovtco (JbdXXov vKozeipoeQa 
 zivhvvco. Comp. kogco fJbdXXov ye ipovog d%iaQrjGeTai Tipapiccg, 6 
 tov XpiGTOv yapazTrjpa (taking the place of u the blood of the 
 covenant” of Hebrews, and of “ the will of God” of Clement) 
 tov zai tov GTccvpov dyiaGavTog gcObtouv, rj aKavaivopoevog ; cog 
 TeXeiog aKOGTaTrjg, zai dXXoTpiog Tr\g Xp iGTiavizrjg or p oGrjy op lag, 
 hoyog zai vorohizog bgtcci aiaviov zaTazpiGeag. This is a plain 
 parody of Heb. x. 28, 29. It is no less plain that Clement is 
 using the same chapter, but more guardedly. In ver. 25 we 
 find zai togovtoj (JbdXXov ogco ; in ver. 36 i'va to OeXypoa tov 
 S eov oroirjGavTeg (or vv. 7, 9) ; in ver. 8 oti QvGiav . . . zou 
 Tnp) apbapTiag . . . aiTiveg zaTa tov vofJbov KpOGpepovTai (comp. 
 ov oravTayjiv 7rpoG(pBpovTcu Qvgigu evheXeyiG (Jbov r\ evycov rj Kepi 
 apoapTiag in same § 41) ; in ver. 2 hid to (Jbyihe^iav eyeiv sti 
 G vveihrjGiv dpjapTicov Tovg XaTpevovTag (comp. evyapiGTeiTco (“ the 
 allusion here is plainly to the public services of the church.” 
 Lightfoot) 0s£ ev ocycc0Yi GvveihrjGei vordpyoov). 
 
 In § 42 Clement says that the apostles poeTa orXripo^opiag 
 KvevfJbaTog dyiov e^rjXQov (obs.). Comp. orpoGepycofieOa (obs.) 
 . . . ev orXripotpopia KiGTecog, eppavTiGp/evoi Tag zaphiag doro Gvvei- 
 hrjGecog orovripdg. Heb. x. 22. Comp, further with the last 
 words of Clement from § 41. In Theophilus we have orpog 5s 
 KBpiGGOTepav 7r\7ipo(popiav . . . Trjg oriGTecog. 
 
 In § 43 Clement tells the story of “ Aaron’s rod that 
 budded,” and has too evho^co ovopaTi, and after two lines zou 
 Xafioov avTag (pdfthovg) ehrjGev, zou eGppdyiGev; and after two 
 lines zou zXe'iGag tt\v Gzrjvrjv eGppdyiGev Tag zXelhag. Comp, the 
 tov zXeiGavTog Trjv a(3 vggov, zai GfipayiGapAevov avTY\v too (pofiepco 
 zai evho^co ovo^aTi avTov, quoted above (p. 117), from the close 
 of Theophilus . Our readers should turn back to the whole 
 
120 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 passage, and observe once more the coincidences between it and 
 §27. The close connection between Clement’s Ep. i. and 
 Theophilus cannot be denied. 
 
 The writer of Theophilus, however, used the Oratio 
 Manassis , found in Apost. Const, ii. 22. Comp. 6 zKsiGotg rij? 
 cifivGGov zai G(pptt f yiGM(jjSvog avrijv raj (pofispoj zoti svho^oo ovopbotri 
 gov. It seems hardly less plain that Clement was indebted to 
 the same source. On s Itigsv z r.X. (see the words just given 
 from Clement), Liglitfoot remarks : “ This incident, with the 
 following, sGtyp&yiGSv rag zXslhag ajGavrovg, is not given in the 
 Biblical narrative” (Num. xvii.). It happens, however, to be 
 said in the Apost. Const., a few lines above the words just 
 given, zcci zureXccfiovro rov M ccvaGGjjv sv hscpboTg zu l shrjGav 
 avrov iv re's hccig yja\zaig zoti z.rX. A great many suspicious 
 circumstances connected with Clement’s § 43 have been 
 pointed out on p. 56 sq. ; and when to those circumstances 
 is added the close connection just pointed out between §§ 27, 
 40, 41, 42, 43 and Theophilus , in the very place where the 
 Oratio Manassis is used, the conclusion seems necessarily to 
 follow that Clement used the Oratio , and that his § 43 is mere 
 jesting. From what was shown on p. 118 with reference to 
 § 40, we shall naturally infer that it was “ the keys,” 1 of which 
 S. Peter was the bearer (as Cyril says), that the writer of 
 Clement’s epistle mocked at as the emblems of an authority 
 against which he rebelled. 
 
 There are some further indications of Clement’s use of the 
 Orat. Manass . It has Travri raj zoGpaco . . . zoti raj rXrfisi ruv 
 oizrippbajv gov wpiGocg pjsravoiccv upaupraAolg sig Goorrjpiotv . . . zai 
 
 Govg ruv abiziaiv p>ov, zctrazocp>7rropjsvog . . . zed vvv zXivaj yovv 
 zaphtocg p»ov. Compare with § 7, quoted on p. 108; and, further, 
 with arsv'iGajpjSV sig ra v\pq rcuv ovpavajv, followed immediately 
 by ol (xpQu'kfJboi rijg zuphiug, § 36 ; and with . . . sig pjsravoiotv 
 zdpb^otvrsg rot yovctrct rrjg zaphiccg vpMV, § 57. Observe the 
 zccrcczaf/jTropijSvog of the Orat. Manass. In § 19 arsviGajpjSv is 
 followed immediately by ihajpjsv, and ro7g opapaotGiv rijg ^vyjjg. 
 
 1 We have, of course, a reference to the “keys” in Theophilus, but not in the 
 hands of S. Peter : ruv iu<ri(bcuv xa) op0o$o%wv 'boyy.a.'ruv rag xXui xurs%ovr's toio-vtu. 
 vTaypa^o/u-iv. The writer has quoted, as Cyril does in Cat. vi. 15, S. Matt, 
 xviii. 19. See further on in this section. 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 121 
 
 In § 16 Clement has TamivoQpovovvTav yap zgtiv o XpiGTog. 
 Comp, the 0soc rav (Jjzravoovvrav of Or at. Manass. 
 
 If we look back and observe the resemblances in Theophilus 
 to Clement’s Ep. i., which have been pointed out, and also the 
 marked differences between the two writings at those points 
 where they most resemble one another, it would seem that the 
 theory which we ventured to propound on p. 116 has found 
 some support. It w T ill be said, however, Where is the yjdpig 0 ! 
 
 In Theoph. vii. p. 632, the writer says that time would fail 
 (ezhs/\psi) him if he endeavoured to tell all (the decrees on 
 image-worship) that had been laid down by the npofiriTav zal 
 dnoGTOkav zal nampuv zal hihaazakojv . . . ovhlv yap Xikrjds 
 Tovg mzv[paTO(f)opovg l zal QzonTag an oGTokovg. akk’ amp to 
 HvsvfJba to dyiov \ \akr\aiv (comp, here with the beginning of 
 § 8, vid. sup. p. 108), lv vopboo zal npo(pfjTaig zal zb ayyzki'oig, 
 TavTa zal zhlhatgav, TavTa zal nap zhuzav' TavTa zal IzoGfJjrjffav 
 T/jv ayiai/ ’E zzkrjGiav dno nzpaTcov Trig olzovgbzvrig z.tX. These 
 last words are found in LXX. Ps. xviii. 4, a psalm which has 
 ever been associated with the apostles. Clement’s junction of 
 the decrees of God (obs.) to ovhzv kz\r]0zv in § 27 (vid. sup. p. Ill), 
 followed by LXX. Ps. xviii. 1-3, has thus a parallel in Theo- 
 philus. Now, observe, in this passage thus in contact with 
 Clement are found the “ law,” the “ prophets,” the “ gospels,” 
 the “ church,” just as they stand in Diognet. xi. There are, 
 also, the “ traditions of the apostles,” the “ preaching of the 
 apostles,” and also hihavzakog. Earlier, in Diognet. xi., we have 
 hihaezakog , Ta napahoQzvTa , hid dnoGTokoov zripvyfizig. In the 
 beginning of Diognet. xii. the writer speaks of those who become 
 “ a paradise of delight:” zapndig zzzog(Jj7i[/jZVOi. Comp, the 
 IzoGfjjTiGav Trjv dylav ’JLzzhrjGiav of Theophilus. These 2 coin- 
 cidences are surely noteworthy. 
 
 A little above in Theoph. vi., p. 632, the writer has npoc- 
 (pvyov yzyovoTa T/j Ttjg Szo[/jf]Topog vznTij zlzovi. Comp. Tovg 
 npoanzfyzvyoTag To7g olzTippjjdig avTOv. Ep. i. 20. Clement 
 
 1 These epithets make the transfer of the language from God to the apostles 
 more pointed, for they may be thought to be an attempt to explain and justify 
 the transfer. 
 
 2 The way in which they have been found should be carefully observed. 
 While remarking the coincidences between Theophilus and Clement, we remark 
 also those between Theophilus and Diognetus. This is the second instance of 
 this double connection [vid. sup. p. 117). 
 
122 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 follows this, as in Theophilus, after a few lines, by ovhh 
 XsXtjQsv, applied as before to God. Higher up in § 20, Clement 
 has g uKkoiovaa n tmv 'hzhoypjUTKrp/smv vnr avrov (obs.). 
 Compare with the foregoing, and note the change from the 
 mercies of God to the image of the Virgin. 
 
 In the preceding section ( Theoph . v., p. 632) the writer tells 
 the well-known story of King Abgarus. He proceeds : — 
 
 ortep i/tfiayeTov fi'sypi r $ )g 6/j^spov r\ Xafinporarri xat fizyaXuivv^og 
 (obs.) tojv ’E5s Gfftfvwv ToXig doKep dxy}ffrpov j3u(fiXix,bv xursypvGu, avyu 
 xotl TtofAffd^ei' gyjfxsTu h 5s rti Xaw deixvvovrog, rov ravryv avry; rrjv 
 ydpiv xapaGyofjjivox) Xpiarov n.r.X. 
 
 Comp. Clement’s § 16: ru'reivoippovovvruv yap lanv 6 Xpiffrog, ovy. 
 srraipofAZvw v srrt ro no/f/jV/ov avrov' to axTinTpov rrjc /xeyaXojovvrig rov 
 0soD, 6 K vpiog ’i. X., ovz yXOiv Iv xo/JjTw dXafyvztag ovbs vrrspyjtpavstag, 
 xafaep dvvdfjysvog' dXXa rarrsivotppovuv, xadug to nvzvfia to dyiov mpi 
 avrov eXa ATjffz' ri yap K vptz x.r.X. Isa. liii. 
 
 Observe the transfer to the likeness of the Lord, and mark 
 the of Theophilus. Comp, also the a^rgp to Trvsvgtjoc to 
 
 ayiov i\oChY\azv in a passage from Theophilus , given above, and 
 from the same page as that in which the present passage 
 stands. 
 
 In the preceding section (§ 4), the writer says that S. Luke 
 carved out and painted a likeness of the Virgin Mary while 
 she was still alive, and that when this was shown to her she 
 said : yj yjayig fjbov fjuzT 9 ctvTrjg sgtoli. Here, then, we find the 
 %upig of Clement and Diognetus taken up in a sufficiently 
 pointed way. A little above, in the preceding section (§ 3), 
 we remark 6 gtmvtu be tov pbri ovTog g ig to shut rroepaydycov, 
 o Tccg . . . fivvd/jjzig tco Xoyco GVGTTiGccf/jevog. Comp, with § 27 
 given on p. 111. Lightfoot quotes Philo , ii. p. 367 ra yap 
 p>yj ovtcc IzoKsgsv g ig to shat, and Clem. Horn. iii. 32 tco tu gurj 
 ovtgc g Ig to shat ffVGTyjGaf/j'svco. Compare. 
 
 The words just quoted from Clement’s § 16 are very re- 
 markable. The wonder is that they never became “ household 
 words ” in the church. Jerome quotes them on Isa. Iii. 13, p. 
 612, or seems to do so, but even this does not appear to have- 
 directed attention to them. In illustration of them, Lightfoot 
 refers to Phil. ii. 6 sq. and LXX. Ps. xliv. 6 6 p ccfidog euQv- 
 TYjTog Y] paj 68og T?jg @GCGiXetceg (rov. The first of these passages 
 is partly cited by Jerome in his context, as also by Eusebius 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 123 
 
 (on the same verse), whose Commentary on Isaiah Jerome every- 
 where uses in his own exposition. LXX. Ps. xliv. 6 is not 
 quoted by either of them, but Jerome does cite verse 4, and, 
 in explaining it, makes use of Eusebius’ comments thereupon, 
 to which we shall have occasion presently to refer. Both 
 Eusebius and Jerome, moreover, explain the “dry ground,” 
 or rather Aquila’s dvro yyjg dfidrov of Isa. lii. 2 of the Virgin, 
 and they both quote Isa. xi. 1 zul ktjsXevffsroti pdfihog \z rijg 
 p iZyjg ’Istrtrcci, zoti biv&og \z rov pifyg dvotfiriczrai. 
 
 It will be profitable to turn to some commentaries on Isa. 
 xi. 1. 
 
 The last sentence of Eusebius’ comment on LXX. Ps. xliii. 
 contains two quotations. One of these is LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 
 35 sihov rov acrefiTj vwepv^povfievov zoti tftaupbyjivov z.r.X. Comp, 
 the kffccipofjosvav of the opening words of § 16, given above. 
 The writer of Clement’s epistle himself 1 gives the verse in 
 § 14. Eusebius might have given the hint. On Isa. xi. 1 
 Eusebius has r^ng pafihog (Christ), nrdvrag rovg v^rjXovg 
 Gvvrph ^octree, rufteivJjffsi. Comp, with § 16. 
 
 Jerome on Isa. xi. 1 writes thus : — 
 
 “Virgam et florem de radice Jesse, ipsum Dominum Judsei 
 interpretantur ; quod scilicet in virga regnantis potentia, in flore 
 pulchritudo monstretur. Nos autem virgam de radice Jesse sanctam 
 Mariam Virginem intelligamus, quEe nullum habuit sibi fruticem 
 cohaerentem ; . . . et florem Dominum Salvatorem, qui dicit in 
 Cantico Canticorum. — Ego flos campi (? rsd/ov) et lilium convallium 
 {Cant. ii. 1).” 
 
 1 Clement adds the following verse : xa) fapTjXdov xa) /dob obx %v, xa) i^i^rYlffa 
 rov rofov avroZ xa) ob% ibpov. The LXX. has xa.) i^ryiera abrov xa) ob% ibpiU’/i 
 o rovros abroZ. Eusebius throws no light upon the variation. Didymus, 
 however, in his Expos, in Ps., supplies a possible explanation. He does not 
 quote the verse, but has fapi\6uv, <p*<rl, ry 'b/avo/a if) rov p t&Xkovra fb/ov, obxiP 
 ibpov (obs.) rov affifcTi, us ^nrH/rat (obs.) rov rofov. This suggests that Clement’s 
 is a mere “ fancy ” reading. The greatest pains seems to be taken in his epistles 
 to find curious readings. When they could not be found, they could, of course, 
 be made. Clement’s quotation here is one of six, which, ‘ ‘ without hinting that 
 he is quoting from a previous writer, Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iv. 6 (p. 
 577), strings together ... He ends this string of quotations with the very 
 words of the Roman Clement, rafuvotppovovvruv yap ... to foi/aviov abroZ (§ 16), 
 without any indication that he is citing from another ” (Lightfoot). One of 
 these quotations has a “remarkable omission.” This peculiarity is found also 
 in our Clement. The Alexandrian gives the LXX. version of Ps. xxxvi. 36. 
 Our Clement prefers his own peculiar version. 
 
124 
 
 P EREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 On this we remark that the pdfifiog, or Gz^7rrpov, is applied 
 with the Jews by Clement in § 16 to our Lord, in Theophilus 
 (as above) to our Lord’s likeness. The writer of Theophilus , 
 however, uses az^rpov ficcGihizov again (in § 30), and then 
 applies the expression to the likeness of the Virgin Mary and 
 the infant Saviour : rov yotpoczr^poc rfjg . . . M ccpiccg, zod rov g£ 
 ccvrrjg aoipKwOivrog zod vyjTrtdffCivrog Seov A oyov, cog zavyyjpjoc, 
 rriarzoog zed arztyavov (Isa. lxii. 3) zdKhovg, zoti az7}7rrpov fi uai- 
 Xtzov z.r.X. With gf otvrtjg, comp. \z rrjg piZ/jg of Isa. xi. 1. 
 For zdXhovg , see Isa. liii. 2. Both Jerome and Eusebius take 
 special note of the word, — the one in his comment on Isaiah, 
 the other in his comment on the psalm, — as we shall see pre- 
 sently ( vid . infr. p, 126). is not a common word, 
 
 and must have been chosen advisedly. Comp, the ojg ftuihiov 
 (or ug GrJdZyuv of Theodotion) in Isa. liii. 2. It happens 
 that Clement in C reads srg Yiov. Comp, the srg fo'ov of Cant, 
 ii. 1, quoted by Jerome in Isa. xi. 1. 
 
 Basil’s Commentary on the first sixteen chapters of Isaiah is 
 incomplete, in that we have only an Enarratio in aliquot loca 
 xi. et xii. capitis Isaice. He begins with ver. 10, but thereon he 
 explains ver. 1 of Christ, and says : on 1 h |3pa%s? rrpv ydpiv 
 ^apocffyoyoevog rjjg h/ccvdpa<7nj(recog, rccyeiccv zcci olovu wupoftizTjv 
 Troiuroci rr\v \r:ihri[jjiotv. Comp, the rrjv yd piv TotpaGyopj'zvov 
 XpiGTOv of Theophilus , and mark the transfer of ydpiv from 
 
 1 Three lines below tv [hpx%;7, we find ov%l <pv\ai, Ao\u‘ ov$t, A o\u tJvxi, xXXx 
 xxrx xXwfaixv (“ ita mss. omnes. Editi , ol%i, fettrl, ^o|a, ovht hand emen- 
 date” note at foot). Comp. us (ipx^ Xoyu TipiXxfiuv, Tpos xXi\hixv fJLiv ovhtTu- 
 Ton xTofiXi^/xvros, tor) Zi, xx) ru Txpx rcov ToXXuv tTxlvop xtxvtx tiTovros xti, 
 xxi Tpx%xvros, us xx) tis t\ Ip xXtadxi, on priZ' xtoXxvuv ruv tTxlvuv tpitXXtv , 
 ivaitr^ros xvruv ytvopavos. Peregrin. 42. Further on Basil has xToXxvaxi . . . 
 xlaflxvofAivos (obs.) tjjj ivtpytaixs rov Stov, xxv%r,atrxi sir’ xlry xxl tynaiv. ’I^oy o 
 ©soj (too, 'lurrip [aov, TtToiGus ’iaopjoxi \ or' xvrov, xxi ol (pofinDyiao/Axi, £ ion f) Bo£a [aov 
 xai fi xlvtais fxov Kvpios. Ta vrx ovx ipovaiv (obs. ) ol Toiovvrts (obs. ) rtjv tXt%[Aoavvnv 
 tfxTpooOiv ruv xvOpuTuv, ovds ol Txp’ xXXriXuv Xx/xflxvovrts, xx) rriv $o|av r'% v 
 
 Txpx rov [/.ovov ®tov ov Z,nrovvns, xx) oXug ol TxpxfZxlvovns r*iv tvroXbv rov Xtyovro ; 
 (obs.) M>j ytvufjotdx (obs.) xtvoho\oi. The coincidences here cannot be accidental. 
 
 Further on Basil (p. 573) has Boosts ovv xvr ) rov, M>j (Aixpx ftp) ©sou <ppovtirs, 
 xXXx /xsyxXy rvj £ ixvolx rx <rtp) xvrov ivvoovvns, ovru QtoXoytlrt, utrn xx) roi s 
 pcxxpxv ova i r*is aurnplxs OTivxi i \xxovarov (obs. ) v/xuv rov Xoyov. Comp, ovrus 
 Ss7 fi/xas <Ppovs7v onp) 'Inaov Xpiarov, us Tip) ®tav , us Tip) xpirov Z,uvruv xx) vtxpuv' xx) 
 ev 2i7 fiftxs /xixpx Ppovuv Tip) rris aurviplxs *i/uuv’ tv ru yxp (ppov uv ri/u.xs puxpx Tipi 
 xvrov , fAixpx xx) IXtI^o/xiv Xx(it7v’ xx) ol xxovovns (obs.) x.r.x., Clem. ii. 1 . We 
 found just now a coincidence in Theophilus for the same section, and coinci- 
 dences between Peregrin. 19 and the same section will be pointed out hereafter. 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 125 
 
 the incarnation of Christ to His likeness. ’E vavdpco^Gig is 
 twice used in Theophilus in the near neighbourhood. 
 
 LXX. Ps. xliv. 6, to which Lightfoot refers, is a very 
 obvious parallel to Clement’s words in § 16, more obvious in 
 the Hexapla than in the LXX., for Aquila has GZTjTrpov 
 svQvrrjrog ffxtjirrpon rr,g /3 affiXsiag gov. If we turn to Eusebius’ 
 comment on that verse, we find that he quotes it, and adds 
 ovh Iv yap Iv avrcio gzokiov ovb\ Grpayya\iuhig. This is said in 
 Prov. viii. 8 of Wisdom’s words. The sentence, however, 
 which is here, observe, tacked on by Eusebius to “ the sceptre 
 of the kingdom,” is in Theoph. ii. (which is a summary of the 
 two concluding sections) applied to the church : ovhlv yap Iv 
 TTj zaOoXizJj 'Y,7t7tKY\Gia gzo\. z.r.X. The change here made is 
 as pointed as it can possibly be. The writer proceeds : Travra 
 yap suQela roig voovgi, zai opQd rdig svp igzovgi yvaGiv o\tj yap 
 zaXrj x.rX. Prov. viii. 9, however, runs : navra hoorna ro7g 
 gvviovgi, zai opQa rolg evp igzqvgi yvcoaiv. Nothing can well be 
 plainer than that evQela is taken from the sudurqrog of the 
 psalm, or rather of Eusebius’ comment on the psalm. The 
 avroj of Eusebius is the rbv ’A yaTrqrbv rov Qeov, to whom the 
 epithet zaXog is applied. N ofoeig is in the same place. It is 
 quite impossible that these coincidences, thus grouped around 
 the u rod” or “sceptre,” can have accidentally arisen. 
 
 We must return to Eusebius’ comments on LXX. Ps. lxiv., 
 which are full of interest to any one who desires to unravel 
 the mysteries of the writings which we are examining. 
 
 In § 28, a few lines after the passage in § 27 which is in 
 such close contact with Theophilus , Clement has Xeyei yap 7 cov 
 to ypa(pe7ov. The last word (which commonly means “ a pen ”) 
 has excited much attention, and the editors have pointed, in 
 explanation of it, to the threefold division of the Old Testa- 
 ment scriptures into “ the law,” “ the prophets,” and ayibypafya 
 or ypatyiia. They do not, however, give any example of the 
 use of the singular ypaQziov in this sense. Thus Suicer, in his 
 Thesaurus , discusses not ypapelov, but ypu$ Cia. He did not 
 believe in the authenticity of the epistles bearing Clement’s 
 name, and therefore does not cite the passage before us. 
 
 Eusebius discusses the words from LXX. Ps. xliv. 1 r\ 
 y\Z)GGa f/jov zaXapjog ypai/jpaTzag ifgvypatyov. He points out 
 that Symmachus read ypapzlov instead of xdhapjog. He gives 
 
126 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 what we may call his theory of inspiration. The pen is the 
 tongue of the prophets. There is the Holy Spirit, there is the 
 prophet, zooi rplrov rrjv y’kooGcctv rrjv '7rpo(p?]riz7jv, zocXapjOv zai 
 ypoopslov yupccv Irrslysv, opyuvov rvyyoevovaoo rov yjpoopJsvov covry 
 ooylov Uvev/ooccrog. The word ypaQiiov is thus equivalent to 
 the common 6 TrpopTjnzbg Xbyog , and which Clement has in 
 Ep. ii. 11. That we have here the true history of Clement’s 
 use of the word seems probable from some further considera- 
 tions. 
 
 Eusebius goes on to show that the words oupcoiog zaXKsi Trot pa 
 rovg vlovg roov bovtopanoov which follow, are necessarily con- 
 nected in the LXX. with 7 ] yXooaroo fjoov z.r.X. In the Hebrew, 
 however, and in the other versions, there is, he says, no such 
 connection, the words “ the tongue, etc.” forming an intro- 
 duction to an ode to the Beloved. On His beauty Eusebius 
 dilates, combining the various versions in one sentence : cupcciog 
 g] zccfcksi, zoekog si, jj zoeXKsi szoeXkidodrjg, zaXKsi copaiooOrjg, bo 
 9 A.yaTTjrs, ffccpoi rovg vlovg roov av0pbo7roov. He was one of the 
 sons of men, and numbered with rolg sic) yyjg ToXirsvffcopjSVoigy 
 but there was no beauty to be compared to His. In Theo- 
 philus, in the first Gz^rpov ficcaikizov passage (obs.), our Lord is 
 said to have been g tti yrjg en 7roXirsvo[JL>svog. Eusebius goes on 
 to show that the zocXXog was not of the body, but ro rrjg apsrrjg , 
 and that the psalm is not contradicted by the words of Isa. 
 liii. 2 zcci IhofLSV oovrov , zoo 1 ovz siysv si'bog ovll zccXXog * aXXd 
 ro silog avrov ceripjov , szXslvrov Kcepa, rovg vlovg roov avOpoonoov. 
 The LXX. reads sihofjbsv, and inserts zoci before szXslrrov. 
 Here, then, Eusebius is enlarging upon the zoeXXog of the 
 Lord, and showing that in this particular verse of Isa. liii. 
 there is no contradiction with the psalm. Verse 6 of the 
 psalm is the verse to which Lightfoot refers in illustration of 
 the words in § 16, with which Clement introduces Isa. liii. 
 Exactly at this point we have shown a coincidence with 
 Theopliilus , which applies the words of Clement in § 16 to the 
 likeness of our Lord. In Theoph. iii. a very elaborate descrip- 
 tion is given of our Lord’s person. Epithet is piled upon 
 epithet, and phrase upon phrase. Among these we observe 
 Girbyjpovv roo slhsi (obs.) zetrao rqv fJtjyjrpboocv (obs.) epjtpbcvstoiv 
 (jjazpoMzrvXov . . . zcci roc ^oopooTrXrjGioo rrjg bepsrrjg (comp, with 
 Eusebius) z.r.X. We turn then, now, to Clement’s version of 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 127 
 
 Isa. liii. 2 zu) s'iho[JbSv gcvtov, zee) ovz sYypv Bihog ovhs zuKkog, 
 dXkd to eihog uvtov kti^ov, bzXbTttov erccpcc to si hog tuv cevOpw- 
 <ruv. Mark the change here of Tovg vlovg (obs. the srapa Tovg 
 vlovg tojv dvOptoKcov of the psalm) into to Bihog. Comp, with 
 Theophilus, and note the contrast between (jb^Tpaav and 
 dvOpurouv. Observe also that Clement omits zee) before 
 Iza bIttov, as Eusebius does. It must be observed that g Ihog is 
 the reading of both of the Greek MSS. (A. C.) of Clement’s 
 epistle, but it is a reading which cannot be found elsewhere. 
 Does it not seem as if it had been deliberately adopted 1 in 
 jest? 
 
 Eusebius, however, proceeds with ver. 2 gfg^ v0q y\ 
 bv ypikscl gov hid tovto svXoyrjGB (SB o Qsog Big tov ocisovcc. 
 Mi vvarig [lbv ovv sups fJblccv Tivd yjdpiv' zee) N&>2 gtoKiv sups tivcc 
 yjdpiv svojkiov tov ®sou‘ zee) szaffTog tuv hizaicov yjdpiTog 
 
 ILSTSffypV. B7TSI 5g TOV ’ AyUKTlTOV TTOCGOC 7] KCCTplZYl Big OCVTOV 
 
 szsvwdrj %dpig. Can it be that we have here the passage on 
 ydp ig, which first of all excited the mirth of our writers? 
 Comp, the wuvTceg ovv Tovg dyoeerriTOvg (obs. the ’A ycexYiTog of 
 Eusebius) ocvtov (3 ovkoptsvog fJOSTccvolocg [LSTcecryfiv^ of the close 
 of § 8, quoted on p. 109, remembering the to cclpooc . . . szypGsv 
 (comp, the g ^syyQrj r\ ypepig of the psalm) . . . f/jSTavoiccg %apiv 
 facrivsyzsV) and the oi XsiTOVpyo) TY\g yjdpiTog which precede 
 (vid. sup. p. 109). Clement goes on to bid us to become izsTcci 
 of His pity; and Eusebius to say that those who have wept 
 zee) tt}v vtto Toig Gro'kspjloig hovKsioev s gcvtojv V7foypd r <pocvTsg (obs.), 
 g vzuipag tov ’ Ay ccttjtov IzSTSvomi . . . s7Js7v . . . wg dv . . . ty\v 
 vt avToig oelypoockooGioev virslgccydyoi. In § 16, after the 
 quotation of Isa. liii., Clement has opuTS, dvhpsg dya, 7 rqT 0 i, 
 
 1 Clement’s version of Isa. liii. shows several other divergences from the 
 LXX. , all of which are capable of explanation. One of them, an interpolated 
 •rovof, seems to be a jest no less than s7£«j. It is a jest founded on one meaning 
 which Jerome gives to a vovn, which is in the LXX. version. The proof of this 
 would carry us into writings which do not now concern us. 
 
 The explanation of another divergence from the LXX. is close at hand. 
 Eusebius, in Isa. liii. 6, reads with the LXX. *«< K vpios veipitiaKtv uirov tu7s 
 tt.fi.a.prlctis ripuv ; but in his comment thereon he has avros yap laurov ‘z-api'Sfiou 
 o Kupios wnp tuv c&f/ccpnwv vipoeuv, tvoo yiv/i root uvn^/vy^ov xki uvriXvrpov ripoav. 
 Clement accordingly reads v<r\ p ruv a. fi. Comp, the parallel passage in 
 Diognet. X. eovros tov ’fiiov vlov ooirihoro kvrpov vorsp ypocov k.t.A. The uvt! of the 
 oovr'ikurpov of the N. T. and Eusebius is dropped, and t/vip is made very em- 
 phatic by being repeated six times. 
 
128 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Tig o V7roypu(/j[j(jog (obs.) 6 heho^bog rjyJiv ei yap 6 xvpiog ovTvg 
 sruwBtvoQpovricrev, ri ‘7ror/]G&fjjev 7][bilg oi vto tov ^vyov Trjg yccpiTog 
 avrov hi uvtov ekOovTzg ; obs. and comp, the paradoxical ex- 
 pression V7T0 tov Zpyov Trig y&piTog. The history of this can 
 be given, but it would lead us to writings with which we have 
 no immediate concern. 
 
 Other things in this psalm we must pass by, and turn to 
 ver. 1 of LXX. Ps. lxxiii., a psalm almost as interesting for 
 our purposes as Ps. xliv. 
 
 Clement’s § 29 runs thus : — 
 
 ‘rrpoffsXdujuosv obv avrui h o<$iorr\n •vj 'V%rjg, dyvdg xaJ dfudvrovg yz7pag 
 a/povreg <7 rpog avrov , ayairuvreg rov Imzixri xa i rvarrXayyyov rrarzpa 7]f/>uv 
 og lxXoyy\g /oospog iTO/qffev lavrOj. Ovru yap ysypanrar "Ors d/s/uotp/^ev 
 x.rX. Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 : xai iv erepuj rorrrv) Xeyei' T dob K vpiog Xa,a- 
 j3dvsi savrui sdvog lx fjoloov IQvovv, U)<5T?p Xa/x(3dvsi avQpwrrog rvjv aTapyr t v 
 avrov rrjg dXoj, xai l^sXsvffsrai (Isa. xi. 1) lx rov ’iQvovg Ixsivov ayia 
 dy/ovv. § 30 : dyiov obv /uospig vTapyovrzg x.r.X. 
 
 Eusebius, in his comment on LXX. Ps. lxxiii. 1, describes 
 God’s dealings with “ the sheep of His pasture,” — His chastise- 
 ments, and vet His long-suffering kindness. Thus he quotes 
 S. Matt, xxiii. 37, 38 (“ How often would I have gathered,” 
 etc.), and says that the “ how often ” points out the long- 
 suffering of God. He then quotes ver. 2 of' the psalm : fjovr]- 
 (rQyjTi Trjg Gvvaycuyrjg gov, rig exrrjGa asr upyjjg (obs.). This 
 “ synagogue ” he describes as rj he to etgoci'pZTOv TrccpiGTouGcc Trjg 
 ezXoyrjg rj ’Y.xxXrjGia, (comp.). He gives the reason why the 
 first “ synagogue ” was cast out, quoting LXX. Ps. xxi. 17-19. 
 He then proceeds with ver. 2 of the psalm : eX vTpuGoo pccfihov 
 xXrjpovof/jiccg gov* hvGMrrrjTixMg' 2:) yap, (prjGi'v , TccvTrjv \\vTpooGu 
 TTjv Gvvayojyriv zocTccgiaGocg avTrjv Grjv yprj^ocTtGCii fjbepiha not) 
 pufihov xkYipovo^iocg gov * "Ors yap hiefJoepiZ^ev x.tX., Deut. xxxii. 
 8, 9. Eusebius then says that Aquila for pafihov in the psalm 
 read GxrjTTTpov ; but Symmachus GxrjrTpov xXripovyjag gov * 
 hihccGxovTog tov Xoyov rrccvTug [job avOpou^ovg eivca tov O eov, tov 
 
 ufiupiG(/jbov a vtov Xuov ooGirep fictGXizov gcvtov GxrjrrTpov 
 yeyovboci. It cannot be denied that we have here before us 
 amply sufficient hints for Clement’s § 29. Now observe, 
 Eusebius immediately continues the psalm : opog 2 icvv tovto, 
 o xaTeGxrjvcoGccg b ccvtm, "E-rapev ra? xtipccg gov x-tX. Accord- 
 ingly Clement lias, as we see above, yjipug a/pomc, looking at 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 129 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 8, Ixalpovroig oGiovg yfipoig, yet altering the first word 
 into a/pomc, and OGiovg into kv ogioty}ti rrjg \pvx%g, and sub- 
 stituting a yvdg zai aguidvrovg xfiP^g from the familiar liturgical 
 expression, being moved thereto by Deut. xxxii. 6 (Clement 
 quotes vv. 8, 9) ovz cciirog ovrog gov Trccrrip (Clement takes 
 the word) Izt/jgocto gz net) zttoitjgz gz zcci z-^Xocgz gz. Comp. 
 Clement’s own ui/()pa7rov refig lzpcc7g zoci dgoMpooig %gpo"/V 
 zttXugzv, § 33 , or 6 xzpi jiv dxpdvroig rov dvOpooTov TrXdGag, 
 Theoph. iii. 
 
 Eusebius goes on to quote Heb. xii. 22 < 7rpoGzXr[Xv6ot,TZ S/ah' 
 opzi z.r.X. Accordingly Clement begins § 29 with TrpOGzX^ojf/jZv. 
 We came to this 73d Psalm, observe, simply because of the 
 poefihov zXrjpovopjiag in ver. 2. 
 
 The coincidence with Theophilus in GzriTiTpov ($gcgiXiz6v of 
 course sends us to that writing. In § 7, just below a passage 
 quoted on p. 121, we remark ra GZYiTrrpu rTjg (oocGiXziccg (Ps. 
 xliv.), in the next line rjjg poz ydXyjg p i%yjg (Isa. xi. 1, liii. 2) 
 GTvXovg tmv ’¥,zzXtigi&v . . . zaTzppodgz, and, after four lines, 
 civQpcuTTOtg . . . hayzGi roc ruv dyioov ocyicc g^g^s/p/Wro. Here, in 
 Eusebius, we have Gzijffrpov fiuGiXzicig . . . zccTzppa^ccv olvtyiv 
 (Zion) . . . g vocyzGiv; and comp. Clement’s ay/a a yioov in § 29, 
 also oi (AzyiGTOi zoci iizocioruroi gtvXoi zhi^x^ocv, § 5. One 
 of these was S. Paul, whom Clement describes as zYipvtg yzvo- 
 (jjzvog h tz r/j uvcctoXyi z.r.X. In Theoph. i. we find 6 pozyag 
 TLocvXog zcci zf]pv% rrjg oizovgjzvrig zai lih&Gzoikog, looking at 
 1 Tim. ii. 7, where S. Paul speaks of himself as zqpv<g and 
 hluGzotkog zQvav. This last expression is found in Diognet. xi. 
 
 We shall now take our leave of Theophilus for the present. 
 Our readers, we imagine, will be prepared to say that it was 
 certainly not written by Christopher, the Patriarch of Alex- 
 andria, but by some later author, who was at considerable pains 
 to transfer the language of the writings from which he borrowed 
 from their own subjects to what we may call “ later theological 
 developments.” 
 
 Of the coincidences with Clement we say nothing at present. 
 Our readers can draw their own conclusions. 
 
 (B.) We have been led very far away from the professed 
 object of this section, and must now return to the examination 
 of Clement’s Greek in §§ 7, 8, quoted on p. 108 sq. 
 
 (1.) We have pointed out on p. 109 sq. the use in § 7 of 
 
 i 
 
130 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 LXX. Ps. cxxxii., followed by the use of LXX. Ps. cxv. It 
 happens that commentaries on these two psalms are found 
 amongst the writings of Basil. They follow one another — and 
 the coincidence is worth observing — for the commentaries on 
 the intervening psalms are missing. They are ascribed to 
 Basil, but the authorship is doubtful. The explanation of Ps. 
 cxv., for example, includes nearly all now found in Didymus’ 
 Expositio , and in the same words. The question, of course, 
 does not at all concern us. 
 
 Basil’s exposition of Ps. cxxxii. is very short. The eye falls 
 at once upon rrjg ypopirog bovooQsv s| ovpoovov oroopoo rov IZoorijpog 
 \rc) rijv * JLzzXtigioov Izypopj'zvrig . . . zoo) s Trrivzyzz \zyoov Z oorjv sag 
 rov oolbovog. T5o:) hr], rt zcoXov, rj rl repirvov, boXX rj to zooroizeTv 
 bohzXQovg It) to covto; zoodobg zoo) IzXfjdjjre. E ig Kvpiog, (joigc 
 vfong, gV (^gottig[/jOo’ elg 0soV zoo) Ilar^p. Comp. Clement’s 
 language in § 7 ( vid . sup. p. 108). Obs. the STrjveyzz. Cod. 
 Alex, reads vTrjvzyzz, which seems to have a history of its own 
 into which we cannot now enter. Obs. also Clement’s too Toorp) 
 oovrov too Ssoo. This is the reading of C. The reading in A. 
 is doubtful, but it was either too 0s cio t oorpi, or ru 0saj zoo ) 
 Toorpi. Comp, further § 46 r] ovy) hoc 0s ov zyppjzv zoo ) zvoo 
 Xp/oroJ'; zoo) zv HvzvfJbco rrjg ypopirog to zzypGzv z<p rjfoag zoo) 
 (Jjioo zXrjoig zv Xp/aT&>, where Clement is using (in his own 
 peculiar fashion) Eph. iv. 4 sq., as Basil does. Comp, again 
 with Basil and with Heb. x. 29 to Tvzvfjooo rrjg ypopirog, also 
 vid. sup. p. 127. 
 
 In Basil we remark also g \v0oo rj ovvzXzvoig toou ToovrooypQzv 
 cohzXpoov zyiyvzro, with toiCitooi in the next line but one. In 
 Eusebius’ very brief comment on the same verse, we find 
 opbovoioo 5s zoo) s iprjvrj z.rX. Comp, too tz z XooyjGroo roov Zpjwv 
 rdog ovvzXzvozig oovrwv zv opbovoico zoo) ziprjvrj toiovvtooi , Ep. i. 20. 
 
 We turn now to Basil’s exposition of LXX. Ps. cxv. We 
 shall only notice one coincidence. 
 
 Verse 15 is used by Clement. On verse 16 Basil has viog 
 yap tifJji rrjg Tooihiozrig gov (on p. 110 special attention is called 
 to these words as a connecting link between Wisd. ix. 5 and 
 the psalm), Sj v vrjTibo^ovGoov (vid. sup. p. 124) zoo) zof/jihij Toolhoo 
 Toopooyooyuv 6 lyfipbg, zoo) GOToorrjocog rrjg orjg hovXzioog, hovXqv rrjg 
 d{/jCopTioog s Totrjozv. coXX ZTiorpztyco zoo) ZToovoorpzyjx Tpog rov s| 
 bopyrjg Azotot^v, zoo) ZTiyivuGzco rrjv bopypoioov hovXzioov. We 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 131 
 
 have already referred several times to Clement’s § 19. Comp, 
 now hravahpdpjoopjW It/ tov \% apyr\g Tapahehopjsvov rjpJiv Trjg 
 siprjvqg azonov. In the preceding sentence (for which vid. 
 sup. p. 23) is r&mivotppovovv. Comp, further, It/ togovtov hi 
 reruireivaro (obs.) to oizstizov (obs.), ugtz zai IfiovXevGavTO 
 It/ rovg zvpiovg (obs.) STavahpagosTv z.t.X., Phot. Bihl. 244, p. 
 390 (excerpts from Diodorus). These excerpts have already 
 been referred to several times. 'VnavaTpkyfiv is a word not 
 at all in common use. 
 
 (2.) From Basil we turn to S. Chrysostom In cap. xii. Matth. 
 Horn. xliv. Having quoted ver. 41 (“ The men of Nineveh 
 shall rise in judgment,” etc.), he supposes our Lord to contrast 
 Himself with Jonah. He has za) 6 p>lv zaTaGTpofirjv zzripvigs v, 
 \yu z.t.X. , and after three lines lyoo yap al/Tog 6 hzG7roTrjg zai 
 tmv GcdvTuv zvpiog rj\0ov, and. after seven lines za) 6 pAv %evog 
 rig /jv zai aXkoTpiog, and after one line uXkd zai STSpov vpoG- 
 Ti'QrjGi t apaheiyf/ja Xlyoov. Comp, the zaTaGTpo^v ezrjpv%ev, 
 aXkoTpioi tov Ssov ovTzg , za) avTog Sg 6 hsGTTOTrjg tmv airavTuv, 
 npOGTiQiig of Clement (vid. sup. p. 108). 
 
 (3.) The expression dyaQr\ yvapjr], which Clement (vid. sup. 
 p. 108) uses, is one with which we happen to be very familiar. 
 It is found in the following Greek fragment of Iren. Hce.r. iv. 
 37, preserved in the Sacr. Par. of John of Damascus : j 3ia 0s£ 
 ov vpoGSGTiv, aya&7\ hi yvoop,?} ndvTOTZ GvpjTrdpZGTiv avTco. The 
 Greek may not be that of Irenseus, but of a late 1 translator 
 from the Latin, which alone has come down to us entire. The 
 old version of Irenseus’ sentence is “ Vis enim a Deo non jit , 
 sed bona sententia adest illi semper .” 
 
 The first clause of the sentence as it stands in the Sacr. Par. 
 is used in Diognet. vii. 4 (see below). A second but longer 
 fragment of the Greek of chap. 37 is also preserved in the 
 Sacr. Par. This also contains a coincidence with Diognetus. 
 Comp. Irenseus’ papTvpiag Trig IzXoyrjg with p>apTvpiov 
 IzXoyrjg , Diognet. iv. 3. Immediately afterwards Irenseus says 
 that the prophets exhort men to do what is right, adding za ) 
 yycopjyjg htopAvuv dyaOrjg , qv 6 dyaQog 0soV TapsGx s yivwGzav 
 hid tmv 7rpo<p7jTcov (obs.). It cannot be denied that this is an 
 apt illustration of Clement’s use of ayadrj yvwpjT}. Another 
 exceedingly short fragment of chap. 37 is preserved. The last 
 1 This question will be considered at the close of this section. 
 
132 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 words are aXXa \lyi fiiaZ^ogj'zvov. Comp, the ov fiiaZpgjBvog of 
 Biognet. vii. 4 (below). Only one other very small fragment of 
 the Greek of this rather long chapter remains. The singular 
 fact that those portions of Irenaeus’ Greek should have been 
 preserved which contain the coincidences is to be observed. 
 We shall now give the passage from Biognetus to which we 
 have referred : 
 
 (2) . . . rovrov rrpbg avrovg dreorsiXsv] (3) a pa ys, ug avQpuruv 
 dv rig Xoyloairo, siri rvpambt xai (p6{3u xai xarasrA^g/ ; (4) ov [lvj 
 ovv' aXX’ sv emsixeia, rpavr^n. ug (3affi\eug tz/m^uv viov fiadiXia 
 em/i’tyev, ug Gsb v smju^sv, ug rpog avdpunovg sn^^pzv, ug ffu^uv gVs/A-vpsv, 
 ug rrsiduv, ov fiiufy/xsvog. (3ta yap ov rpoGSdri rep 0g& ; (5) srz/Jt^/sv 
 ug xaXuv, ov d/uxuv’ gVg/x%}/gv ug dyarruv, ov xpivuv. rzfjj^u yap avrov 
 xp/vovra' xat rig avrov rr t v rrapovotav VKOGryjasrai. 
 
 This passage is the one to which reference was made on p. 
 110. We were then examining Wisd. xii., and the use which 
 appeared to be made of that chapter in Clement’s § 61. We 
 then remarked that Clement used b TrpavrriTi, while \v hnzi- 
 zeia was in Wisd. xii. 17. The two words go naturally 
 together, and so here in Biognet. vii. we have h zTieizeia, 
 crpavrqrt. The writer of Biognetus in his interrogatory \ti 
 rvpawihi, followed by fiaGiXzvg, draws a plain distinction be- 
 tween ftaGiXevg and rvpavvog. So in Wisd. xii. 14 we have 
 ovrz fiaGiXevg rj Tvpavvog z.r.X. In Wisd. xii. 12 we have Sj 
 rig uvncrriGerai ru zpigbaTt (obs.) goi ; which is an apt parallel 
 for the conclusion of the passage from Biognetus given above. 
 We saw on p. Ill that Clement combined Wisd. xii. 12 with 
 Wisd. xi. 21 to yap gozydXojg layjjtiv napiGri goi ttccvtots, zai 
 zparzi i Qpayjovbg gov rig a \riGrr\GBrai. Comp, sr apsGri goi 
 
 TravTort with Irenseus’ (?) ayadrj Sg yvwf/jyj ttccvtotb Gvgb^dpzGnv 
 avrw. Clement uses the ayaOrj yvafATj ; the preceding clause 
 stands here in Biognet. vii. No one will deny that these 
 things are very curious. 
 
 The passage from Biognet. vii. is very carefully compiled 
 from a number of parallel passages, each of which declares as 
 its leading idea that God does not force the will of man. Under 
 the writer’s skilful manipulation, its sentences form indeed a 
 “ catena ” as it were of authorities on the question of man’s 
 free-will. One of these authorities is Irenaeus, and we have 
 seen that his words appear to be used both by Clement and 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 133 
 
 the writer of Diognetus. We have seen, also, that both writers 
 seem to use the same chapter of Wisdom. It will be proper, 
 therefore, to examine some of the other sources to which 
 Diognetus is indebted. 
 
 Hippolytus writes : — 
 
 oig o'j% hog xaipov Xoyog lysvsro, dXXd did raffojv (obs.) ysvzuv a i 
 ruv ‘jpoXsyo/x'svuv (puvai svarodzixroi <rupi<sravro . . . d/a era Guv y&vsuv 
 . . . ods Xoyog IpQsyysro X'syuv, di’ avru v smGrps(puv rov dvdpurrov lx 
 1 Tupcocorig , ov (3ia dvdyxr\g dovXayuyuiv, dXX’ scr IXsvQspiav IxovGiu 
 rrpoaipsasi xaXuv (obs.). rovrov (obs.) rov Xoyov iv vGr&poig dnrzGrzXXzv 
 6 KccT/jp, ovx'sn did ffpoprirou (obs.) XaXs Tv . . . ouds di’ dyylXov (pofiovvra. 
 (obs.) ^vyfv, dXX’ avrov (obs.) wapovru rov XsXaXrixora. Ref u,t. x. 33, 
 p. 542 (Dunck. 1859). 
 
 Observe the general parallel with Diognet. vii., and note the 
 ( poftu and zahuv. Comp, also with Clement’s §§ 7, 8 (given on 
 p. 108), remembering that the oi hsirovpyoi are the prophets. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria also writes : — 
 
 ravrr\ 6 rrdvruv ? K vpiog *.E XXijvuv rs xai ftapftdpuv rovg 16'zXovrag 
 wtidtr ov ydp ftia^srai rov 1% avrov Gurripiav XafizTv did rod sXzG^ai. 
 Strom, vii. 2, p. 832. 
 
 Observe the general parallel with Diognetus , and note the 
 ug tts'iQuv. Our Clement has shaft ov Gurripiav at the close of 
 § 7 ( vid . sup. p. 108). Strom, vii. is unquestionably used in 
 Diognetus , notably p. 833 in Diognet. ix. and elsewhere. This 
 same page appears to be used also in Diognet. vii. Clem. Alex, 
 has zai rov hvvafjusvov zahug n 'hisirsiv anohshoGOui rr\v szstvov 
 'hioizTjGiv' sanv Sg ro ug ahridug upx ov rs ^ai tiys^ovovv z.r.h. 
 Comp, ahh’ avrog a hrjQug 6 Travrozpdrup . . . 0goY • • • eyza- 
 rs(T Triples (cf. here with the close of § 8, p. 109) ralg zapbiaig 
 avruv' ov . . . dvQpunoig VGTYipsrriv nvd ftsf/j^ag rj dyyshov r) 
 &p%ovra ij riva ruv 'hiSTCovruv rd swiysia r\ riva ruv 7rs7nGrsv[/jSvuv 
 rag \v ovpavoTg hioizfceig, Diognet. vii. 2. Comp, further, sig 
 ro 'disnsiv avrovg rqv vto gov 'bs'hof/j'svyjv avroig yiys^oviav drrpoG- 
 zoGCug , Clem. Ep. i. 61. In Strom, vii. 7, p. 857, ro • Tavro - 
 zparopizov ft ovhrjf/ja, used in § 8, p. 109, is found. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria writes in another place : — 
 
 diduGi ds (3ovXo/xlvoig xal v f irzpiG f KovdaxoGi xai dsojalvoig, iv ovrug idiog 
 avrov 7] aurrip'ia yevr,rui, ov ydp dvayxa^si 6 Qsog, /3/a ydp lydpbv ©go). 
 Quis div. scilv. x. p. 940, with 6 yovv T?j Govg ovx iXsyx^f fz.'v avrov , . . . 
 aXXd xai ay ana. x.r.X., just above in § 9, p. 940. 
 
134 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Compare the leading idea with Diognetus. Observe ug 
 <xycc7TMV. In Diognet . i. we find vkz pstr^ovhcc^ora. The word 
 is a rare one. Comp, also Clement’s shooKZv 6 hstfTorqg rdig 
 /3 ov\op>woig at the close of § 7, given above on p. 108. 
 
 It must be observed that we have not hunted far and near 
 for these coincidences with Clement. We recognised Clement’s 
 dyccOrj ywyoTj as belonging to a sentence partly used in Diognet. 
 vii., and then turned to passages parallel to Diognet. vii. which 
 were already in our possession. Two of these passages are 
 definitely referred to in the article on Diognetus in the Church 
 Quarterly , April 1877. Hippolytus’ Contr. Noet., we may 
 observe, which we were using a little while ago, is also there 
 quoted several times. 
 
 The subject of Diognetus in the passage given above is 
 44 free-will.” Clement’s subject is 44 repentance.” There is, 
 of course, a connection between the two, but Clement does not 
 point it out. The reason why the writer of Diognetus combines 
 the several parallels pointed out above is obvious. It is not so 
 evident why the writer of Clement’s epistle uses the selfsame 
 passages. We want something plainly to connect Clement’s sub- 
 ject with that of Diognetus. This missing link we can supply* 
 
 In John Dam. Sacr. Par. lit. A., tit. ix. ( de arhitrii libertate ), 
 p. 315, the passage just now quoted from Quis div. salv. is 
 found, and almost directly afterwards an extract from Eusebius, 
 which contains the following words : to zspbog zcci ttjv Zjy/jiuv 
 "Kiyzi "bid rov TTpotpriTov 'H troitow ’Eav OeXyre, zai eiacczova/ire 
 (aov, rd dyaQd rrjg yyjg (pdyevQs' idv bs p>ri CsXyjrs, f/jqbe eiaocpcov- 
 ffyjre p>ov , s yd) ovz dmyzd^oj. This is the LXX. version of 
 Isa. i. 19, 20, with the exception of the last three words, which 
 differ widely from the LXX. Clement quotes them, and 
 quotes them correctly in (obs.) § 8 ( vid . sup. p. 109). 
 
 In the passage from Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv ., which is 
 given in the Sacr. Par. just above the extract from Eusebius, 
 are the words ov ydp dvccyxdZpi o' 0s og. 
 
 The case then stands thus : There are four passages (one 
 from Irenseus, one from Hippolytus, and two from Clement of 
 Alexandria) which have one leading idea in common, and all 
 of which appear to be used both by the author of Diognetus 
 and the writer of Clement’s Ep . i. One of these parallel 
 passages is here in the Sacr . Par., and along with it, in a quota- 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 135 
 
 tion from Eusebius, a version of Isa. i. 19, 20, so altered from 
 the LXX. as to embody the leading idea of these passages in 
 the language of that particular passage which stands alongside 
 of it. Those very verses are quoted by the writer of Clement’s 
 epistle in the place where he seems to use the four passages 
 referred to. Is it not natural to infer that this writer had the 
 Sacra Parallela of John of Damascus before him? We 
 wanted the link of connection between the main subject of 
 Clement’s Ep. i. 7, 8, and the main subject of JDiognet. vii., 
 which the seeming use of the same passages by both writers led 
 us to expect. We have now found this connecting link. Shall 
 we be content to set this down to “ accident,” together with 
 the train of coincidences which led to its discovery, and which 
 it supports ? or shall we call to mind that we have already, in 
 c. iii. p. 25, remarked a coincidence of a very similar character 
 between the Florilegium of Stobseus and Clem. Ep. i. 37 ? 
 
 It will not be denied that Eusebius has laid a very bold 
 hand on the words of Holy Scripture, nor yet that it is a 
 remarkable circumstance that the wording of this bold innova- 
 tion should so closely resemble the language of Clem. Alex, 
 which is found close by. Who is this Eusebius ? If he is a 
 writer of credit, and the passage quoted is now to be found in 
 his genuine writings, we must needs think this to be an acci- 
 dental coincidence. He is a writer, however, of whom nothing 
 is known. He is quoted more than twenty times in the Sacr. 
 Par., and is occasionally called “ bishop of Alexandria.” 
 Lequien (Sacr. Par. p. 666) writes : “ Diu multumque quae- 
 sivi quis tandem Eusebius iste fuerit, cujus operum frequentia 
 passim in Parallelis nostris occurrunt excerpta. . . . aliunde 
 autem in Alexandrinorum pontificum catalogis nullus Eusebius 
 reperitur.” W e may then hold any opinion we please concern- 
 ing this Eusebius. There is nothing in the history of the MSS. 
 of the Sacr. Par. to hinder us from believing the extract from 
 Eusebius now before us to be an interpolation, or at least to 
 have been altered at the particular point at which we have 
 touched it, so as to support certain theological views. Curi- 
 ously enough, the very words of Irenaeus (|3/a ov -rpmor/i') 
 which have been taken over by the writer of Diognetus , are set 
 down to Eusebius in Sacr. Par., lit. B. tit. vii. p. 393. This 
 fact gives some support to the idea that the extract with which 
 
136 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 we are concerned is an interpolation, or else has been tampered 
 with. We shall come across Eusebius again, and we shall then 
 learn a good deal more about him. 
 
 The examination of the Sacr. Par. of John of Damascus, 
 under the “ title ” de arbitrii libertate (the subject of Diognet. 
 vii.), brought such curious facts to light that it may be well to ex- 
 amine lit. M. tit. iii. de Pcenitentia (Clement’s subject in §§ 7, 8). 
 
 We find, as we might expect, that Clement’s quotation, Isa. 
 
 i. 16-20, is given. The version follows the LXX., except 
 
 that it interpolates xotl with Clement, and reads, as Clement 
 also does, instead of the of the LXX. 
 
 It does not read y/ipu as Clement does ; for this divergence from 
 the LXX. we must have recourse to the genuine Eusebius 
 (Isa. i. 18). ( Vid. sup. p. 109.) 
 
 Zech. i. 3 precedes Isa. i. 16-20 in the Sacr. Par., and Joel 
 
 ii. 12, 13 precedes Zech. i. 3. The verses from Joel begin with 
 
 i7ri(TTpcc(p7]Te rtpog gbs o\rig rrjg xaphicig x.r.X. Comp, 
 
 with Clement’s apocryphal quotation in § 8 {vid. sup. p. 108). 
 It is a small matter, no doubt, but we may take note of the 
 7rpog fJbe of Joel. 
 
 Following Isa. i. 16-20 is Isa. xix. 22, and then the words 
 orccv eTjerpafi/jg (rrevcdgeig, tots aojQri<jri, in silence as to the 
 source from which they are taken. Following these words is 
 Isa. xliii. 25, and then xlv. 21, and 22 imarp&tyYiTi npog g>i, 
 xui GcuOfozffQ s ol layjzrov Trjg yrjg. Comp. Clement’s ccko 
 Trjg hi the apocryphal quotation in § 8. 
 
 The Sacr. Par. give a number of other passages of Holy 
 Scripture, and also extracts — some of them very long ones — 
 from various writers. On p. 594 an extract is given from 
 Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 39. It is so given, however, as to 
 show that some words of Clem. Alex, are omitted. It is worth 
 our while to see what the omitted words are. Examination 
 shows that 19 lines are omitted, and that they contain this 
 noticeable passage : 
 
 dio xai x'expaysv' sXsov 6 s\uj xat ov 6vff/av. ou /3ouXo,aa/ rov duvccrov 
 rov a/JoapruXov, aXXoc rr\v [Azruvoiuv. Jtav uciv ai a^apr/'ai v/jouv ug 
 (poivniovv spiov, ojg yjova Xivravoj' zocv 1 fAsX&vrzpov rov dxorovg, ug spiov 
 Xsvxov ixv/^pag ‘ro/ijffu. 
 
 1 In Tlieojph. vi. p. 632 is the curious expression «vrl <puro$ f*'\avtpP>oc<p\s 
 a kotos. The story justifies the expression. A person having reviled the image 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 137 
 
 This passage is quoted by the editors in illustration of our 
 Clement’s apocryphal quotation in § 8, and some of them (at 
 any rate) suppose that the two Clements were indebted to an 
 apocryphal or interpolated book of Ezekiel, for a reason which 
 will appear directly. Now, it is obvious to ask which of the 
 two Clements gives the original words of this book of Ezekiel. 
 If it is answered that Clem. Alex, gives them, it has then to be 
 explained why our Clement so strangely alters them. If, on 
 the other hand, our Clement is supposed to give the original, 
 it has to be explained why he gives this curious version of Isa. 
 i. 18, and then immediately follows it by another, which, though 
 not free from divergences which can be found in Eusebius 
 and the Sacr. Par., is still very nearly that of the LXX. For 
 Clement does in the seeming apocryphal quotation give a 
 version of Isa. i. 18 (%gci lav uffiv al (kfJbuprioti v^uv ug (poiwtovv, 
 ug xiwu hzvzuvu- lav 8s uuiv ug k'okkivov, ug ipiov Xs vxccvu), as 
 is evident from two considerations. In the first place, on the 
 hypothesis, Clem. Alex, had before him the words now given 
 by our Clement, and he has altered them into a more approved 
 version of Isa. i. 18. Compare. In the next place, because 
 our Clement’s citation too closely resembles existing versions, of 
 Isa. i. 18 to be anything else than itself a version. Comp, 
 the words just given from Isa. i. 18 with Clement’s apocryphal 
 quotation. Both of the versions are cast in the same mould. 
 Clement’s first five words are in the first clause of the LXX. 
 version. Symmachus’ version of the second clause runs : sdv 
 Trvppai ugiv ug zozkivov. Clement must then give us a 
 version of Isa. i. 18 in his so-called apocryphal quotation. We 
 have found in Symmachus one of his divergences. Let us look 
 at the rest. In Isa. i. 6 , C&7T0 rtohuv sug %e<puX7jg, we have the 
 form of his first divergence. We have just found, however, 
 close by Isa. i. 16-20 in the Sacr. Par., uvro rr,g yyjg. It is 
 very easy to trace the history of his sug rov ovpavov. The 
 / isXuvrspov of Clem. Alex, in the passage just given shows that 
 he contemplates sins greater even than those to which Isa. 
 i. 18, which he cites, refers. The prophet has in his mind 
 the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. Clem. Alex, contemplates, 
 therefore, sins greater than those of Sodom. We are irresistibly 
 
 of the Saviour, a dove was seen to go out from his mouth, and the Evil One to 
 enter in the form of a crow ! 
 
138 
 
 FEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 reminded of our Lord’s words, tcoli < n ), Kasrsp vao £//,, fi sag rov 
 ovpavov, lug cihov zarccfiificcGfifiGri' on si h Hohoftoig z.r.X. 
 S. Matt. xi. 23. Clement’s divergence here is tantamount 
 to a comparative to correspond to his following Trvpporspca and 
 / AsXavarspai . As Stephens would say, Clement “ looks at ” 
 the “ celebrem historiam” ( vid . sup. p. 16) of Capernaum. 
 But in ver. 21 our Lord says, “ Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! 
 woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works which 
 were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they 
 would have repented long ago in guxzu and ashes.” This 
 explains the alteration of the Gzorovg of Clem. Alex, into our 
 Clement’s guzhov, and suggests that thereby he is looking at 
 another “ celebrem historiam.” 
 
 Clem. Alex., in the passage just given, with Isa. i. 18 com- 
 bines S. Matt. ix. 13 (which does not concern us) and Ezek. 
 xxxiii. 11, 12 Zfij lya, rubs Xsysi K vpiog, ov fiovXof/jai rov 
 Quvurov rov aesfiovg ag (obs.) — [Clement’s TpoeriH'ig zoci 
 yvup>riv c&yuflfiv] — zoci Ivan' c&7ro()vfiGzsrs oizog ’lepafiX; sWov 
 Trpog rovg viovg rov Xaov gov . . . sv fi fipj'spa ctyroGrpi^r] cako rfig 
 avop>iag ccvrov z.r.X. Let our readers now turn to p. 108, and 
 compare this with § 8. Can anything be plainer than that the 
 writer of Clement’s epistle availed himself of the reference to 
 Ezek. xxxiii. 11, which the words of Clem. Alex, supplied, and 
 then, making some alterations partly in accordance with the 
 language of Clem. Alex., inserted his notable expression 
 7rpoGri0iig zoci yvafjorjv c&yccQfiv into the middle of verses 11, 12? 
 This is exactly in accordance with everything else which has 
 been observed. 
 
 We return now to the Sacr. Par. Immediately above the 
 extract from Quis div. salv. 39, there is another from Clement 
 of Alexandria. It is taken from Pcedag. i. 9, p. 146. Now, it 
 happens that on p. 151 is the second passage quoted by the 
 editors in illustration of our Clement’s citations : <pqGi yap 5/a 
 Ts^s zifiX. ’Eay S7riGrpcc(pfire s? oXr]g rfig zccphiccg sea) sir'rjrs, 
 Ilar&p, oczovgo[Jjcci vgoav ag Xoc ov ctyiov. These words are very 
 nearly those of our Clement in § 8. The mention of the 
 prophet’s name by Clem. Alex, has led to the supposition that 
 the citation in § 8 is taken from an apocryphal or interpolated 
 book of Ezekiel. The theory is, however, only required to 
 bolster up the credit of our Clement’s Ep. 1. Clem. Alex, is 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 139 
 
 not necessarily here using any apocryphal writing. As Potter 
 says: “Prophetse sensum, mutatis verbis, exhibet.” Clem. 
 Alex, treats the gospels and the psalms of David in this 
 same place in precisely the same way as he does the Prophet 
 Ezekiel. The sentence, moreover, next preceding that just 
 now given from Quis div. salv. is a short summary of S. Luke 
 xv., and it is introduced with (prjcrt. The words now found in 
 Pcedag. i. 10 cannot be independent of our Clement’s. Is it 
 not reasonable to conclude that the writer of the epistle 
 observed the language of Clem. Alex., and that he was led to 
 associate them with Isa. i. 18 through the intervention of the 
 Sacr. Par ., which give, as we have seen, some words of the 
 prophet Joel, which are the same as those used by the two 
 Clements. It will be understood now why we called attention 
 to the npog (JbZ of Joel and Clement, but which Clem. Alex, 
 has not. 
 
 Very little now remains of Clement’s §§ 7, 8 unaccounted 
 for. Almost the only question, indeed, that can be asked about 
 them is this : Whence does the writer get his idea that God 
 spake concerning repentance with an oath? We can find 
 this. 
 
 Tertullian, de Pcenitentia (obs.) iv., writes thus : 44 At enim 
 ille non prsecipit tantum ; sed etiam hortatur. Invitat (Ezech. 
 xxxiii. 11) prsemio salutem, jurans, etiam vivo dicens, cupit 
 credi sibi. O beatos nos quorum caussa Deus jurat!” We 
 consulted this treatise because we had previously (p. 37) seen 
 reason for thinking that Tertullian was used by the author of 
 Peregrinus. 
 
 3. Though the language of Clement’s §§ 7, 8, and the 
 apocryphal citations which the latter contains, have been suffi- 
 ciently discussed, we must nevertheless return to the Sacr. Par. 
 and to the extracts given under the title de Pcenitentia . 
 
 (1.) On. p. 587, a long extract from Chrys. Horn. ii. in Ps. 1. 
 begins. The extract next in order (p. 590) is also from 
 Chrysostom ; but it is not stated from what particular writing 
 it is taken. We, Chrysostom says (in substance) in this last 
 extract, oi toj Ovfficcffrqpicu -raps hpeuovTsg, and whose business it 
 is to teach, are compassed with sin and infirmity. We trust, 
 however, to the loving-kindness of God, and do not refuse the 
 responsibilities to which we are called, though we are only 
 
140 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 sinful men. If you sin, he says, you do not incur such great 
 guilt as we do, for you are under teachers : 7 ][hzig Sg ogoo noKtco 
 tw cc^icoycccTi vmpiyjoyjZV) togovtm noKkw zocl toj zyz\ryjjOCTi 
 vnozziyczOoc. Comp. Clement’s oi ovv 7rccpcc to zccdijzov ryjg 
 fiovXqGZajg ccvtov KoiovvTzg n Occvcctov to ‘rpoGTiycov zypvGiv. 
 'OpocTZ, aSg \(poi, ogoo 'xhiiovog zccTyfeiaQriyjZv yvuGZoog, togovtco 
 [/juKKov V7rozzi{/jz0cc zivhvvw. § 41. These words have been 
 already quoted on p. 119. Here again the parallel is a good 
 one. Now, it happens that if we take up Chrysostom’s Horn . ii. 
 in Ps. 1., where the extract given in the Sacr . Par . leaves off, 
 we come presently to el yccp zzzlvoi y>rj tyf/soepTOV, ovz ocv z hz^ccvTO 
 tov Occvcctov to eTirifJttiov. Comp, with Clement’s words just 
 given. Further on, in the same Homily , Chrysostom quotes 
 vv. 18, 19, “ Do good in Thy good pleasure unto Zion ; build 
 Thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt Thou be pleased 
 with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering, and 
 whole burnt offering; then shall they offer bullocks upon 
 Thine altar (zti to 0vg locGTYipibv gov).” The psalm, Chrysostom 
 remarks, is full of prophecy, and suited to the case of those 
 Jews who -were compelled to dwell in Babylon, Izztzvovgi yccp 
 
 OtZTOV Tivog GC^lwOijvOCl T/jV GTOklV, TMV TZpjfloXaV CCVOp0OV(JtjZVCVV , TY\q 
 ZCCTCC VO(JjOV TZXoVf/jSVYjg XcCTpziccg' VVV [LZV yccp, (pTJGl, Trjv bcXKoTpiocv 
 olzovvTccg Tocg ojpiG[i>zvocg OvGiccg TrpoGtp'zpziv ovz zvzgtiv , zv zzzhr] 
 (jcovyi 77j tcoKzi 0vziv goi tov voycov hiocyopzvovTog. But Clement 
 in this same § 41 bids the Corinthians not to transgress tov 
 cupiG[Mvov Tfjg XeiTOvpyiccg ccvtov zocvovgc. He goes on : ov 
 ‘TCCVTOCfcOV TpOGfiepOVTCCl 0VGICCI . . . bcXP % ZV ' hpOVGCcX'^ f/jOV/j* 
 ZCCZZT Sg OVZ ZV TTCCVTl T07TCO TTpOG^ZpZTCCt, 0c\\’ SfLKpOGtkv TOV 
 
 vccov Kpog to OvGiccGTqpiov. Obs. the u Jerusalem,” and stti to 
 O vGiccGTTjpiov of the psalm. The use of Heb. x. in Clement’s 
 § 41 has been pointed out on p. 119. It would certainly 
 appear that the writer was indebted also to the Sacr . Par. and 
 Chrysostom’s Homily. 
 
 (2.) If we look onward in the Sacr. Par., but still under the 
 same “ title,” our attention is arrested by the following words : 
 zccXov zocl ’lovty tco TccpcchedazoT/ ycz, si y jZtccvoy]GZv , zee / yc/j 
 cc7T?]y%ccT0. toov yccp (JjZtccvoovvtuv 1 z if/ji Ozog. S/cc tovto 
 zccT/j\0ov ztc) T?jg yrjg, hoc yjZTccvoiccv tco zoGycw % ccpiGcoycoci . 
 Above, in an extract from the same writer, we remark S/a 
 1 From the Orat. Manass . , vid. sup. p. 120. 
 
ECJSEBIUS. 
 
 141 
 
 rovro KoerrjXOov hot bcvmaocy6cyu x v[Jj7v ypcpiv. Comp, the 
 xothbv hoc) . . . Trccvri roo xba^co yoZToevoioeg %ap/v iirfjveyxs of 
 Clement’s § 7, quoted on p. 108. This coincidence with 
 Clement is very interesting, because it is found in an extract 
 from the writings of the mysterious Eusebius ( vid . sup. p. 135). 
 
 These extracts begin with some lines which, in Sacr. Par. 
 p. 343, are ascribed to Philo : brctv otvOpurtog zocropOaffri fiiov 
 hotpzrov 5/’ ocffxfoewg . . . on hrrh euffsfiyjg. Comp. 2 sig 
 svocpsTOv fiiov Tolg OzXovgiv evceftag %oci bizociojg bitvQvmv. Clem. 
 Ep. i. 62. The Greek ms. is defective at this point. Light- 
 
 1 Not a common word. Comp. x'opa\ dvrurdyzrat, Ep. ad Theoph. vi. See 
 note on p. 136. 
 
 2 With both passages comp. xaropGovvras yap rbv **t’ dpzrvv /S/ow tea.) Gzoazflus 
 btayovras, btxatov (obs. ) ruv olxziuv doroXavztv xaporuv. Euseb. Cser. in Isa. lxii. 6-8. 
 It has been pointed out on p. 124 that ar'ztpavov xdxxovs used in Ep. ad Theopli. 
 xxxi. is taken from Isa. lxii. 3 xa) sV > i err'zcpavos xaXXovs sv %up) Kvplov, xa) 
 bidbvpa (bcto-iXiias iv %e ip) ©saw aou. Eusebius explains the verse thus : <rrz<pavos 
 yap us aXvGus (obs. ) Xpttrrov vrdvrzs oi bt avrov xaropGovvrzs rvy^dvovtri, xa) btdbvpa 
 fbariXztas Z‘o"i TVS avrov oi ro7s vorzp avrov zvvGXvuorzs ayutrtv , oi ayioi pdprvpzs, ovs rv 
 zxvrov %ztp) o Tlarvp \xXz\dpzvos (obs. ) ru Ttu orzptriGvo‘ 1 , ffrzipavuv avrov xa) btabvpan 
 (baaiXixu npuv ro orXvdos ruv bi' avrov xa) vvr' avrov ffzffuapzvuv. Comp. <rvvs%dpvv 
 vp7v pzydXus sv Kvpiu vpuv ’I. X., 'bz\apzvots (obs.) rd pipvpara rvs aXvGovs aydtfvs, 
 xa) orpoorzp-^/affiv, us z <rz(iaXzv vp7v, rovs zvztXvppzvovs ro7s dyioorpzorztn (obs.) bz<rpo7s, 
 dnvd Itrn biabvpara ruv dXvGus (obs. ) voro ®zov xa) rov K vpiov vpuv zxXzXzypzvuv 
 (obs.). Polyc. Phil. i. On vv. 4, 5, Eusebius has tira xa) vrpbs rvv 'ExxXijffiav 
 <xotz7rat rovs Xoyovs (obs. ) . . . xaGvxzro yap \\ ovpavuv o povoyzvvs rov ®zov A by os, 
 tv tyxapcrov uToQrivy rvv ’E xxXvo’iav. . . . Az^apzvv (obs.) roivvv Trap' avrov rvs 
 zvayyzXtxvs ToXirztas rd trvripparx, Tvzvpartxa7s Gvtriats x.a) dyto‘7rpz<rzfft (obs. ) 
 xaropGupam rvv vvpQvtv zxXdp-rovtrav dorzbzt^zv. Polycarp proceeds : xa) ori v (bzfbaia 
 rvs ‘rlffrzus vpuv pit^a, !£• ap%uiuv xarayyzXXop'zvv %pbvuv, pzy^pt vvv bia/a'zvzt xa) 
 xaporo(f)opi7 zts rbv Kvptov vpuv *1. X. bs VTrzpzvzv vorzp ruv apapnuv ripuv zus Gavarov 
 xaravrtitrar ... zts ov . . . ‘rnrrzvsrz . . . its vjv oroXXo) ImGvpovciv z\<nX0z7v. On 
 ver. 10 Eusebius has zts rbiv (baenXziav ruv ovpavuv zitnzvai ; and on vv. 11, 12, 
 o avros vv ’S.urvp bt uv ztrpa^z xa) <7rz , 7tov6zv vTzp rov ruv avGpuTuv y'zvovs rvv orapa rov 
 ®zov ffurvpiav ro7s zts avrov •jrtffrzvovat orpo%zvuv. 
 
 This interesting literary entanglement, which cannot possibly be accidental, is 
 made more interesting from the circumstance that Clement has ro7s dytovpzyrzfft 
 xbyovs (obs.) in § 13, and that Polycarp is supposed to have copied from Clement 
 at that very point. Suicer notices dyiowpzTru. He does not, of course {vid. sup. 
 p. 125), refer to Clement ; he gives, indeed, no earlier authority than Cyril of 
 Alexandria. Eusebius’ Commentaria in Isaiam were first printed in 1706. 
 
 Eusebius, we may observe, speaks of the Church as dy'tav xa) dpupov . , . 
 dyto’Tpz'rztfi xaropGupaat rvv vvptfvv zxXdpirovoav. If we turn to the Ep. ad 
 Theoph. xxx., where arzt^avov xaXXovs is found, and from which so much has 
 been already produced on p. 118 sep , we find Tpbs . . . (hz[bxlu<nv rvs • • . t tar zus , 
 xaSus xa) z\ dpyp,s xa) avuGzv piffl 1 bivpo (so far cf. with Polycarp) v xaGapd 
 xa) dpupos Xpiffnavixurdrv zvo-'zfbaa . . . Gzoorpzorus . . . K vptu v {i.e.) ruv . . . 
 s txbvuv zvxoap'ta btaXaporu. 
 
142 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 foot says that the Syriac translator “ must have had a text 
 which a corrector had emended by striking out or altering g lg, 
 so as to govern filov by ^iBv^vmvT 
 
 We shall not discuss the real authorship of the words in 
 question. They may belong to Philo or to Eusebius ; it 
 matters not which of these two authors is their rightful owner. 
 We remark, however, that we have seen very much the same 
 thing with regard to the sentence which the Sacr. Par. ascribe 
 both to Ireneeus and Eusebius. 
 
 We have already found ( vid . sup. p. 134) an extract from 
 Eusebius in which a text of Scripture is altered in the very 
 words of an extract from Clem. Alex., which stands close by. 
 A very slight examination will suffice to prove that the extracts 
 now before us are a barefaced manufacture, in part out of 
 extracts from Basil and Chrysostom, which are found in the 
 Sacr. Par. under the title l)e Pcenitentia , under which they are 
 themselves found. 
 
 We shall take first of all about twenty lines of Basil, and 
 compare them with as many lines of Eusebius. It must be 
 observed, however, that the twenty lines of Basil are in three 
 extracts from three different writings. The second of these 
 extracts contains five lines, and the third four lines. The first 
 is longer, but we take only the latter part of it. Basil has f/j'/j 
 cog Big ficcOog zcczuv BfjjKBGwv . . . ore yccp ccTTOGTpccpsig GTBVoc%sig 
 . . . tots GcoQ'/jgti (in Ep. xliv., from which the extract is made, 
 otccv yap kvriGTpccpstg GTSvcc^g, tots GwQTjGrj) • • • ovz sgti vofMog 
 ZizocZpov . . . ccXKcc ypcpig oro’KiTBVOfJjBVT], GcvccficcXkopsBvri rrjv zoKocgiv 
 (Basil has yjcpig V7repri@e{/jBV7] ty\v zoKocgiv ; note the change). 
 The first extract ends with ov zvpizvBi 7] upjGcpTioc. The second 
 extract has (joi) too (ZccObi tojv zoczuv Ivccro fJbBi V7jg . . . olhs yccp 
 ccvopQovv zccTBppccyiJjBvovg o K vpiog. The third extract begins 
 with {Jb7}heig \v zcczioc hiuycov bccvtov bcoroyivooGZBra. Comp. 
 tv cc p>y\ ccTroyiveoGzr] ccvtov , zee) TrcevTBKcog bzttbgt] Big tov ftvflov Trig 
 bcorcoKBiccg . . . Ka/ [ly\ zccToezvpiBvQri vorb tcov orovripobv ccvtov 
 BO tlVOltoV . . . BCCV [/jTj BV TOO TCCpCCTrTOjpjCCTl (JjBlVr] . . . BCCV B7riGTpoc(psig 
 GTBVcc<grig totb gco^gt) . . . (jcrj cc7royivcoGzB bccvtov . . . \yu yccp 
 bI(Ja 6 bevop&cbv Tovg zccTBppccyuAvovg. fifAsTg 7 ]zovgcc[jcbv (obs.) tov 
 K vpiov KzyovTog , — St. Matt. xi. 28, — \yco to (popTiov vpjbov 
 zovtpiZpo. oihcc yccp oti ov hvvccG0B Pgcgtocgcci to tov vbfjcov 
 popTiov, zee i £/a tovto za,T7jX0ov } hoc ccvTBiGccyccyco VfPlV ypepiv , hoc 
 
EUSEBIUS. 
 
 143 
 
 to fiopriov roov upbotpriav vutcov zovtpiffot). It is impossible that 
 these things can be accidental. 
 
 The words last given are the property of S. Chrysostom, 
 for in an extract on p. 588, still under the same “ title,” 
 de Pcenitentia , we find yjzovGccg (obs.) rov Trpo^rjrov Xeyovrog^ 
 K vpiog z.r.X. . . . ( poprfoc ’iyzig vrXTjfJjf/jeXiif/jccrwv CzXco avrct 
 zovty'iGou. Eusebius goes on to say fjorjh tig TrocpuiryiGercci, bits 
 fjouyoc, sire reXojvrjg , sirs foXccG^fJOog, x potreXOsTv r/j (Jberuvoiu- 
 (/j7]hzig (pofi'/]0ri. Chrysostom, in like manner, after two lines, 
 speaks of the “ thief,” then of the u tax-gatherer.” If we 
 look at the preceding page, we find (jbqheig . . . uKoyivwazYi rr,g 
 iuvrov aojT'/jpiag^ aaefi'/jg el ; bvorjffov rovg (Jbuyovg , and in like 
 manner in the next line rov reXuvr\v, and in the next rqv 
 
 'Tropvyjv, and in the next rov Xyffrriv, and in the next rov 
 
 fiXccfftp/jf/jOv. Eusebius has r; Kopni (piXfouGu ... to yeipo- 
 
 ypapov roov ap/jCcpTiojv hieppri^ev . . . oj yvvuizog $iXoGO(piu ! and 
 Chrysostom, on p. 596, opcc rov ’I ooff/jp, nag (piXoGofitccv 
 toXX^v e7rehei^ccro . . . rov [Jblv yjrwvu vyjaug rrjv ttigtiv ov 
 
 fouppyj&g. 
 
 The second extract is of the same character as the first, and 
 partly indebted to the same sources. It is an imaginary 
 message to Simon Peter, in explanation of the words “ and 
 Peter ” in S. Mark xvi. 7 : “ But go your way, tell His dis- 
 ciples and Peter,” etc. You see, the writer says, the pity of 
 rov A ecTorov ; He uttered no other name but that of Peter 
 only. Why ? because the others did not say : “ Though we 
 should die with Thee, yet will we not deny Thee ” (S. Matt, 
 xxvi. 35, where it is added, “ Likewise also said all the dis- 
 ciples !”): O vrog (obs.) elpyjzug rjpv'/iGCiro zcci e^e’KGuv (obs.) 
 
 e%u ezXuvae rtizpojg. f/j'eXXei (obs.) ovv (pofielcOui to come into 
 my presence. Tell Peter not to fear: . . . ovz shazcc ciXXu 
 rug zXelg rijg /3 uaiXeiug rwv ovpuvoov. (jorj }>eiXiuGyg' ov yccp 
 ehrjtrctg (obs.) 1 2 far) rrjg 7 tjg 9 etrrut lelepbov h rolg ovpocvolg. p rj 
 (pofiqOrjg, Tie rpe‘ ov (jjereGTTjGu ae rov Qpovov (obs.) fj,ov ovz 
 qXurruau 2 ae rrjg yupirog pov. 0 (obs.) yap eTryjyyeiXdfjoriv 
 
 1 Is this a real or assumed corruption of the text? Cf. It/ < rriv6n of Chrysos- 
 tom, which follows presently. 
 
 2 Eusebius has this clause again, adding on xo.) ox/a. oov '10.060,1 ’i%u rov? 
 
 u.o6iviT;, xoi oouhop/a,, xa.) oifi/xi\/6/a, (pvyaSivu <rev( ^al/oovaf, xa.) fi tSjj oov 
 
 x.t.x. This is very like other treatments of x,a-{>/$ which have been observed. 
 
144 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (obs.), TrX'/lpOOGOO. ZTc) T7J rtZTCZTp 00 [ljlVYl (obs.) GOV TlGTZl I will 
 build my Church : . . . g 'ihov gov rot bazpva, zat aprjza goi to 
 afjjdcpryifjooc. too Aafiih hvo zaza zpyaGayj'zvoj, phoiy^iav zat 
 (povov, Gvvex®pWu> kua zlg tt\v apxotiav TaJgiv Trig vp otprjTZtag 
 avrjyayov . . . zyoo zi[M 6 z.tX. (bis). 
 
 We have already seen in the extract from Chrysostom, 
 which supplied us with a parallel for the close of Clement’s 
 § 41, that Chrysostom speaks of himself and his brethren in 
 the ministry as compassed with sin and infirmity. He tells us 
 that the ministry of the gospel has been entrusted to sinful 
 men, for the express purpose that they may be themselves com- 
 passionate towards sinners. He goes on (p. 591) to adduce the 
 Apostle Peter as an example : TIzTpog r,(JjzXkzv (obs.) niGTZviaQai 
 Tag zXzlg Trjg fiaGiAztag, yoaKkov ^g zal zkigtzvO?] 1 (obs.) Tag 
 z\zig Trjg fiaGikz'iag tuv ovpavui v 9 zal rjyjZ’hXzv (obs.) niGTZvzGQai 
 to Gfkyjtiog Toov \aoov. t'i yap (prjGiv 6 AzffKoryjg (obs.) <7rpog 
 avTov. 'O zav i^G^g ztti Trig yrjg z.t.X., — that Peter who said 
 to Christ, “ Though I should die with Thee,” etc., ovTog zXQav 
 . . . denied Him. T H Hgrps, Chrysostom exclaims, tovto zgtiv 
 okov o (obs.) zyrriyyz'iko) (obs.) ; . . . Christ looked upon him, 
 and as soon as Peter understood His meaning, he began to 
 weep and to repent. He fell into sin, that, knowing his own 
 sin, zal to tov Azg7Totov (obs.) Gvyx^prjyoa, he might himself 
 forgive. Why have I said this? because we who are priests, 
 zal z TTi tov Opovov (obs.) zuQz^oyosvot, are prone to sin. 
 
 We now turn to Horn. ii. in Ps. 1., from which large 
 extracts are given in the Sacr. Par., and which just now 
 
 Notice also the alteration by Eusebius of Basil’s %*pi; uv-tprifopiv* into %dpis 
 ‘Tokirivofitivyi, and the coincidence, pointed out above, with Clement’s furxvolas 
 X*P‘S- 
 
 1 Chrysostom’s remark forces us to the conclusion that Eusebius’ ol Hfiras has 
 been deliberately written. No doubt the alteration in the text was intended to 
 look like the carelessness of “ the ignorant scribe.” At any rate, before this plea 
 can be accepted as the explanation of the appropriate coincidence with Chrysos- 
 tom, it must be proved that the extracts from Eusebius are “ above suspicion.” 
 We seem to have here an indication, that while Clement’s xku$ in § 43 ( vid . svp. 
 p. 56) is a joke upon “the keys” of S. Peter, his £$> vriv jestingly refers to the 
 power of “binding and loosing” (vid. svp. p. 118 <5 Xai . . . 'ZiZirat). It has 
 been already shown that Eusebius uses here the Oral. Manass. , so does Clement 
 in that remarkable section. Turning as we naturally do to Cat. vi. 15, we find 
 that Cyril says, “the pair of good apostles” 'ZiopOovTou re This is 
 
 followed presently by (iviS rris Eusebius has, as we have seen, us rov 
 
 (ZvUov r>is otvruXuots, and it is followed by 'ZiopOoZfial <rou <rc tr<pd\ptu. 
 
EUSEBIUS. 
 
 145 
 
 supplied us with very noticeable parallels also for Clement’s 
 
 §41. 
 
 On p. 867 ( Wust.) Francof. 1698), Chrysostom has dzovs 
 ri $7j(Ti too n srpa, rco GrvXa, ry zprjKlbi, ru bibc rovro z"k7]0evri 
 Ylsrpcu, hTSiifj T/j TlffTSi (obs.) ‘7T27TSrp(V[/jSV0g (obs.) Jjj/. ^IfJbWV, 
 z.r.X., and presently sybo eipci and syw si pci 6 several 
 times. A few lines above he has oug s\si rsXog tj TTpo^rirslcc * 
 bcXXbc [/jrfietg ocf/jtpifiaXXsra, si zccra rov rrjg pcsrccvoiccg zccipov. 
 TpoprjnxTjg irfe'icoro yccpirog o pcs yccg Acc\ 8/S. ... cog ovz sffrspyjro 
 Tjjg rov nvsvpcocrog yccpirog . . . hi7rXijv yccp sysi rov vopcov nocpbc- 
 ficuriv . . . zcci K vpiog ocpsTk s ro bcpcccprripccc gov. Previously 
 Chrysostom has said ibov ivo bcpoccprrjpcccrcc, pcoiysicc zcci (pbvog, 
 and presently, in the middle of a few lines, which tell of 
 David’s sin and repentance, but which are omitted from the 
 extract from this Homily given in the Sacr. Par ., he has stto'iyigs 
 pcsv ovv (povov zcci pcoiysi'ccv rcocpsGys Sg bcczpvcc. 
 
 Nothing can well be plainer than that these extracts, under 
 the name of Eusebius, are manufactured, and that they are 
 partly made up out of materials found ready to the writer’s 
 hand, under the very “ title,” in the Sacr. Par., where his own 
 composition is found. These so-called extracts can be nothing 
 else than interpolations of the Sacra Parallela of John of 
 Damascus. What has been already observed ( vid . sup. p. 135) 
 with respect to another extract looks entirely in the same 
 direction. A good deal more evidence on this point might be 
 produced if it were necessary. We shall content ourselves, 
 however, with very briefly noticing two other so-called extracts 
 from Eusebius, which offer some features of special interest. 
 
 In Sacr. Par. lit. PL tit. xxvii. p. 665, an extract from 
 Eusebius is found containing the following words: 6 biocfioXog 
 CC7T bcpyyjg /3 ccGzccvog sen zeu TroXspciog ro7g bcvOpboKoig. soev i 
 spyov zccXov sv rbJ bcv&pbvTru, (pOovel, zcci bcyuviZproci zocrocpy?jGcci 
 cevro. Comp. ocX7cc ys 6 TroXspciog zcci ocpycciog rov y'svovg ssn- 
 fiovXog tiiccfioXog, <pQovco zcci ficcGzc&vicc rcov zccXbov rsrqzevg z.r.X. 
 Ep. ad Theoph. vii. p. 632, in the middle, that is, of the pas- 
 sage of which so much use has been made on p. 121 (vid. infr. 
 p. 150). 
 
 In Sacr. Par. lit. II. tit. xxxi. p. 671, in another extract 
 from Eusebius, the writer has zcci erdevrsg bjg vnonrspoi rp g- 
 yovGiv roc Qsccpjocroc rrjg szzXyGiocg op bv pcsv. . . . oXoc ficcGiXsiccg 
 
 K 
 
146 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 < rpo|sva* ruvra kzovsi 6 spxbfjosvog s Ig rrjv szzXriffiav. r'i hi 
 Osoopsl o rps%&)V s ig rd Osar poc ; dfff/jOCToe, hiafiokizd. Returning 
 now to the Sacr. Par. under De Pcenitentia , and to an extract 
 from Chrysostom’s Horn. i. in Ps. 1. p. 584, we find 6 rqg 
 dvwQsv dvroXuvffag ponrjg . . . g/S sv, svrTSpwQri to ofifAu ... cu hi sv 
 Osurpop (3Xs TTSig, otov zod 6 rpovrog zokdZfi ipvfflv oh fiksTS/g 
 &g fjuovov , dXkd zod cczovsig pfjfLoirav xoucfctg, za) fiXsTstg gtoXw 
 T ropvizTjv zed oicf/jOCToc hiccfioXiza, TrotvTotyjbQ sv. . . . dvOpuTrog si, 
 rrjv zoivyjv rrjg (pvffsaog ciffQsvsiav TrspizsifJbsvog. Comp., further, 
 with the extract from Eusebius fiourtketotg oupccvcov Tpo%evovffor, 
 and with that from Chrysostom zou si [Psv zeekbog . . . tovto 
 rrjg dvooOsv V7rdp%si poTrvjg. si hi j Suwvcrag . . . tovto to Trjg 
 g f/jfjg dffOsmoig. The first of these coincidences is found in the 
 first Preface to the Sacra Parallela , while the second Preface 
 supplies the coincidences with Chrysostom. 
 
 § 7. The two Prefaces to the Sacra Parallela of John of 
 Damascus, of which the first is much the shortest, occupy only 
 about two columns of Migne’s edition. Each of them is care- 
 ful to inform us that the opinions of Philo and Josephus will 
 be found in the pages of the Sacr. Par ., apparently for the 
 sake of calling special attention to this fact ; the two Prefaces 
 here, but not elsewhere, adopt the same language. It is as if 
 the writer (or writers) thought that some apology for the 
 presence of extracts from Philo and Josephus 1 in the Sacr. 
 Par. was needed. The argument to be read between the lines 
 may perhaps be somewhat as follows : there are two Prefaces ; 
 one or other of them at least must be from the pen of John 
 of Damascus ; this sentence is in both Prefaces , it must 
 necessarily therefore be the Damascene’s own declaration. 
 Critics have nevertheless been somewhat sceptical on this 
 point. 
 
 1 Under the name of Josephus a considerable excerpt from a treatise 
 commonly ascribed to Hippolytus is given at the very end of the Sacr. Par. 
 Lightfoot (p. 470) points out a number of resemblances between this treatise 
 (and that part of it which stands in the Sacr. Par. under the name of Josephus) 
 and Clement’s Ep. ii. , and says that they “suggest that our Clementine Homily 
 (Clem. Ep. ii.) was known to this writer.” Curiously enough, some of these 
 resemblances are to the language of § 19, the very section, that is, which con- 
 tains, as we shall see directly, coincidences with the Prefaces to the Sacr. Par. 
 Have the Sacr. Par. here, as in the case of the extracts from Eusebius, been 
 interpolated ? and have the Prefaces to the Sacr. Par. been tampered with in 
 order to support the interpolation ? 
 
SACEA PAEALLELA. 
 
 147 
 
 It may be well to hear what Lequien, the editor of the Sacr . 
 Par., has to say upon our Prefaces. He writes, p. 277 : — 
 
 In codicibus tam Vaticano, quam Yenetiano Grascorum, prgefationes 
 duae toti operi praemittuntur, quarum prior nonnihil mihi difficultatis 
 suggessit. Iluic Jacobus Billius Latinura hunc titulum fecit : Prce- 
 fatio Greed cujusdam in D. Joannis Damasceni Parallela. Dum vero 
 singula membra, imo singulas voces oculis et mente pensito, nihil 
 me reperire fateor, quod non a Parallelorum auctore scriptam 
 significet, praeter haec postrema verba, ovx eXarrovvra roUruv roc rrapd 
 rov Uotrpog pyjdrjffo/yj'va Xoy/a, nec doctorum eloquia quee eruditus Pater 
 est producturus , infirment. Casterum Yenetianus codex ista non 
 habet ; Billius vero in Sermones a Spiritu sancto pronuntiatos ea 
 transtulit ; at legerit, Tlapa rov TLvevfiarog, non rrapd rov n arpbg, 
 a Patre , seu Parallelorum collectore. Atqui haec postrema lectio, 
 quam velut verissimam teneo, cum Praefationis hujus prioris alium 
 a Damasceno auctorem indicat, turn Joannem nostrum symbolas et 
 excerpta Philonis et Josephi in sua Parallela non congessisse, sed ab 
 isto anonymo postmodum adjecta esse : ut proinde quae ad ealeem 
 alterius praefationis de iisdem excerptis leguntur, ex hac prima 
 mutuata transsumptaque fuerint a librariis quibusdam, qui, ea prae- 
 termissa, alteram duntaxat, quae genuina Joannis Damasceni est, 
 Parallelis ipsis praefigendam censuerint. 
 
 To speak plainly, the first preface is, in the judgment of 
 Lequien, a fraudulent attempt to make an interpolated docu- 
 ment pass muster as the Sacra Parallela which John of 
 Damascus compiled. If any portion of the second Preface 
 were from the pen of the Damascene, it would be natural to 
 go on to suppose that the writer of the first Preface added to 
 the second that it might tell the same false story as the first. 
 We shall show, however, that that part of the second Preface 
 which Lequien supposes to be genuine was really written by 
 the author of the first Preface , and that that author cannot 
 reasonably be supposed to have been John of Damascus. 
 
 1. In the second Preface the author writes : — 
 
 ov de rporrov oivog vdan cvyxpa&eig, ijdvg son xai smreprrrj rrjv yapiv 
 dftoreXer ovrug xai 7] xara6xevr\ oXov rov ffvyypdj&fAarog, Cv/A/Jj/xrog 
 oinfa arch rr\g Oeiag Tpcctprig, %ai ro ov oduv xai 6eo<popwv dvdpuv, eroXXrjv 
 tyti, roTg [Jj'zv (3ovXo/j,evo/g dvay/vdffxe/v ^vyaywytav, roTg de (p/Xorrovov/S/v, 
 e/g ro d/d ihvr\ihr\g dvaXa(3eTv ev/joape/av rrdci de roTg evrvyydvovff/v, 
 up'eXe/av. Cf. ov ds rporrov oivog vdan x.r.X., 2 Macc. xv. 39. 
 
 Compare uffre , ddeXpoi xai ddeXpa /, /uoerd rov Qeov rr\g dXrjde/ag 
 dvayivdcxu v/xTv evrev^/v eig rb rrpodyjiv roTg yeypa[M(jj'evoig } ha xai 
 
148 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 tavrovg G^G^rs xai rov dvuyivuGxovra h vfjj/v’ /uigQov yap alroj vjxdg r'o 
 /uosravoriGai oXqg xapdiag Gurrip/av eauro7g xai ^urjv bibbvrag. rovro 
 yap ‘iroifaavrtg Gxortbv naotv ro7g vsoig drjGo/xzv ro7g (3ov\of/,'svoig ffspi r/jv 
 svGefiiiav xai rfjv % pvjffrorqra rov 0£6u (piXortove/v . Clem. Ep. ii. 19. 
 
 On [ASTci rov Qeov z.r.X. Lightfoot says : u i.e. 6 After you 
 have heard the voice of God in the Scriptures,’ as it is rightly 
 explained by Bryennios.” This makes the parallel closer. 
 
 Compare also biorrip xai 7](j>z7g rag rtipimniag raurag dvaypacpyjg 
 fill' i (A ffa/Asv, ou -^pvya yuylag d7X dtp&Xsiag evexa ruv ayayivwGxovruv, 
 Phot. Bibl. 244, p. 379 (one of the so-called excerpts from Diodorus 
 containing the infamous account of the hermaphrodites). 
 
 The one writer seems to borrow from the Preface what the 
 other leaves. 
 
 Now, observe, a few lines above, in this excerpt we have 
 hog aroiypiov ext rw rehet rov v xpoGrtflsvrog, and a few lines 
 below fjber oXiyov he zoci -rap’ ’A Qrjvcctoig rov rotovrov yevopJevov 
 z.r.X. In the Preface we find . . . aror/ftcc’ ev reXet ezdcrrov 
 ypocfipjccrog eiat rirXoi xccpccxepjxbf/jevot, xept uv potzpov vGrepov ev 
 roig roxotg yevopoevog z.r.X. We remark also, in the excerpt, 
 htxXovv dcxrirei rov (joigOov. Comp. 1 the (JjIgQov ocircu of Clement, 
 which is in some sort “ double,” for he is Ci looking” at 1 Tim. 
 iv. 16 “ for in so doing thou shalt both save thyself and rovg 
 dczovovrocg gov” In the next sentence Clement has dcyocvocz- 
 roopjev oi ccGOfioi, and Lightfoot translates : u fools that we are,” 
 adding “ for this is the force of the article ; comp. § 1, o/ 
 oczovovreg.” The sentence in ii. 1 runs : zoci ol oczovovreg wg 
 xept pbizpcijv dcpcocprocvoptev. Comp. 6 vxcczovgjv p>ot ovz uiayvv- 
 0?]Gercci, zoci ol epyocCpp>evot ev epooi ov% depjoeprrjGovGt. Ecclus. 
 xxiv. 22. Comp, also oi ovv roig xpoGrerocypoevotg zoctpoig 
 xotovvreg roig xpoGfiopccg ccvrwv evxpOGhezroi re zoci pjoczocptot 
 (obs.) roig ydcp vopotpootg rov heoxorov oczoXovQovvreg ov htocpoocp- 
 rocvovGiv . . . xp oorayf/jocotv. Clem. Ep. i. 40 ; and also pjoczocptot 
 (obs.) oi rovroig vxoczovovreg (obs.) roig xpoGrocyp,ocGtv, Ep. 
 ii. 19, a few lines after the passage quoted above ; and further, 
 from the first Preface (speaking of the opinions of Philo and 
 Josephus), ag ov pcovov rov ozoxov (cf. with passage from 
 ii. 19, quoted above), rovv xocp ripoiv xtGr order wv zoci f/joczocpiav 
 (obs.) ccvhpav ovh ’ oXag htocpcccprocvovoiv (obs.). AVhen the writer 
 of Clement’s Epistles has once got hold of an idea, he is never 
 
 1 Also on jv s %outrtv rbv xpitriv, uiro'i rs tool) ol xxovovrss, ii. 11. 
 
SACRA PARALLELA. 
 
 149 
 
 weary of showing his knowledge of equivalent expressions. So 
 is it also with the author of the first Preface in this question of 
 “ obedience.” In the first twelve lines we find tcov Qslcov svtoXcov 
 T7]p7](rig, (pv\d%rjs rag evToXag, rovg arsiQapypvvTag Tolg arpoaTay- 
 ra \vTSTa\pJsva TrpodvfJbcog ezTeXeiv. 
 
 We quoted Ecclus. xxiv. 22 just now in illustration of some 
 words from Clem. Ep. ii. 1, among which were cog arspl (Jjizpcbv. 
 It happens that cog is a most conspicuous word in the latter 
 part of Ecclus. xxiv., e.g. ver. 27 6 zzpatvcov cog <pcog araibsiav 
 (obs. cf. Heb. xii. 7 el TCaiheiav VKogbeveTe, cog violg z.t.X.), cog 
 z.t.X., which may be compared with Clement’s clever adapta- 
 tion : to (pcog yap rgEiv eypcplaaTO, cog TraTrjp viovg riybag 7rpoa7]- 
 yopevaev z.t.X. still in ii. 1. The idea of sonship is also in 
 the first twelve lines of the first Preface : VTSp eXtr/Sa to T/jg 
 vloOzaiag a^icof/ja, which may be further illustrated out of Ep. 
 ii. 1, for we have (jL>rjhe[/jiav e \ 7 riha eypvTag, si (Jbrj Trap' avTov. 
 
 Ecclus. xxv. 17 runs : aconip'ia yvvaizog aXXoidi Trjv opaaiv 
 avT/jg , zal gzotoi to TTpoacoarov auTrjg cog adzzov. In Ep. ii. 19 
 we have eazoTlagbe^a Trjv biavoiav vtto tcov eniQvgjiwv tcov (AaTalcov . 
 In Ep. ii. 1 there is a parallel passage, and there ev t\ ) bpdaei 
 is found. 
 
 Now, observe, Ecclus. xxiv. 21 (we have just quoted ver. 22) 
 is expressly cited in the Preface , and the writer makes use of 
 the chapter in the same kind of way that Clement does. Thus 
 the Preface begins with Trig QzonvevGTov Tpafirjg rj dazriaig^ 
 ttXovtov Vo\r\g zal dpyfg, za 1 ardvTcov baa to Qvyitov danat^Tai 
 yevog , VTepeysi, acoTrjpiag rigblv epobia ypcpiLppJevri (cf. Clement’s 
 7 j[uu eypcpiaaTO just given). Comp. Ecclus. xxiv. 17 eycb cog 
 agrteXog fiXaaTyjaaaa yjdpw, zal Ta avQr) (. iov zap arbg bcfeflg zal 
 ttXovtov. Seven lines afterwards the waiter quotes ver. 21. 
 With the acoTtjp. tj. s(pbb. yjzp. of the Preface , comp, the acoTqpfav 
 iavTolg zal Z^coriv bibovTag of Clement’s ii. 19, given above. 
 
 There certainly appears to be a close connection of some 
 kind between these Prefaces and Clement’s Epistles. It does 
 not seem to be a case of ordinary borrowing by one writer 
 from another. The coincidences seem rather to point to one 
 mind and one hand. The considerable passage quoted above 
 from the second Preface is from that portion of it which 
 Lequien considers to have been actually written by John of 
 Damascus. If this opinion is a sound one, we must have mis- 
 
150 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 interpreted the coincidences which have been produced. If, 
 on the contrary, it can be shown that the Prefaces are fraudu- 
 lent additions to the Sacr . Par. by a late hand, our conjecture 
 as to the connection between them and Clement’s Ep. ii. will 
 be worthy of consideration. 
 
 2. It may be well, perhaps, before we proceed with our task, 
 to set before our readers what it is we are going to do. We 
 have two columns of Greek in hand, and w r e are going to show 
 that they are mere patchwork, made up of words and scraps 
 gathered from various authors. We have to find these words 
 and scraps within reasonable distance of one another, and when 
 gaps occur we must show some connecting link which may 
 reasonably be thought to have induced the writer to pass from 
 one part of a volume to another part, or from one author to 
 another author. It will not do to find these coincidences for 
 one part only of these columns, for we have to show that they 
 are throughout written by the same hand. Now, if the two 
 columns of these Prefaces are honest Greek, written partly by 
 John of Damascus or wholly by some writer whose habitual 
 language was Greek, and who had therefore no occasion to 
 trouble himself about words and phrases, can any task be 
 imagined more hopeless or more heart-breaking % It took us, 
 of course, some considerable time to elaborate the proof which 
 we are about to produce, but it was no trouble at all to find the 
 pages to which we shall have occasion to refer. We simply 
 dealt with these Prefaces as we dealt with pseudo-Galen’s 
 treatise when we saw reason to doubt its genuineness. We 
 turned to pages which we knew to be elsewhere used. 
 
 We shall show the method we pursued. We do not say that 
 we shall be accurately following upon our writer’s track. His 
 footsteps are visible enough, but we cannot always tell which 
 of them are earliest in time. 
 
 We turn first of all to Diodorus, iv. 6 sq. pp. 252, 253. 
 They are very remarkable pages. Our attention is at once 
 arrested by the words Tpog rovg | Sccczccivoitrccg ti rcuv kccXojv. 
 Comp, the fiaczaviot, rcov kuXwv of Ep. ad Theoph. vii., quoted 
 on p. 145. 
 
 In the next sentence Diodorus speaks of the hermaphrodite, 
 and he uses the rather uncommon word Trccpsf/jpsprjg, in a pas- 
 sage which has much in common with a sentence containing 
 
SACRA PARALLELA. 
 
 151 
 
 that word, and which is found in the excerpt from Diodorus 
 in Phot. Bibl. 244, only a few lines below the passage given 
 above. It was the connection between the Prefaces and 
 this “ excerpt ” that induced us to try these pages of 
 Diodorus. 
 
 Diodorus goes on to speak of the Muses. Authorities, he 
 says, differ, but some few of the poets 0v f yccT&pcig oiTrotyMivovTUi 
 Ovpccvov zal Tyjg. They disagree also as to the number of the 
 Muses, but the number nine prevails, vtto tuv kvrtQuvetrrcirouv 
 c&vbpav fisficciovpjevog. In the first Preface we have zed viovg 
 0sou . . . ocTrsfpTjvocro. Presently the w 7 riter describes the 
 opinions of Philo and Josephus as being not at all inferior 
 to those of the Tccp rjfJbTv kigtotoltuv zed [Acczecpicov ccvhpuv, 
 adding cxXku ys zed noWijv rrjv igottjtk, zed 1 o^oioXi^iav h ti 
 X oyoig zed ijOzGi 2 STnbsizwvTai, |3sj Qcciovvroc (jouWov, ovz 3 l\ecr- 
 tovvtgc rovrcov Kccpa, tov IlarpoV prjOriGOf/jevoc Xoyioc. 
 
 Diodorus then gives the derivation of M ovgol. The excerpts 
 from Helladius (Phot. Bibl. 279) — the falsity of which has 
 been shown on p. 52 — adopt (p. 531) Diodorus’ opinion. 
 Turning to the passage, we find, a few 7 lines above it, gwoctt - 
 tovgi , and presently sgtiv sups 7v and GGcpij TrocpiGTTiGt. In the 
 first line of first Preface we have GvvdnrovGcx,, and in the second 
 Preface w 7 e find eGTtv s vps7v and GutpoJg 7rotpiGTQjv. 
 
 Diodorus proceeds to give a short explanation of the names 
 of the nine Muses. Every one of these explanations is more 
 or less perfectly represented in the second Preface. 
 
 1. Clio : so called to tov s z Trig xoiriGicog toov lyzoopeioc- 
 Z^opj'ivuv S7rocivov [Piyu z\zog mpmoitiv Tolg S7rccivov(/jZVOig. In 
 the Preface we are told that the Suer. Par. contain not only 
 the words of Holy Scripture, but also of the holy fathers, av 
 to (Jjiyec zSPiog zutcc tt^gocv tyiv oizov[Livr\v hicifisfioriTcii zed 
 %[/jV7}tgii. Comp, tovto 6 ToifiGocg iecvToj (Jj'iyoc z\zog \v Xp igtoj 
 K ipiToiriGiTui. Clem. Ep. i. 54. 
 
 2. Euterpe : a-ro tov Tspmu Tovg uzpooopjivovg. Comp, 
 the s-r/rspT? in the passage from the second Preface ( vid . sup. 
 
 1 For this uncommon word, vid. infr. p. 154. 
 
 2 Comp, to . . . r\6os ivbu%tlff6wffa.v, Clem. Ep. i. 21. 
 
 8 So the message of our Lord (in the extract from Eusebius) to Simon Peter 
 was rather to strengthen than to diminish or take away anything that had been 
 promised or bestowed. Vid. sup. p. 143, where observe the thrice repeated 
 
 il\xr TUffcc. 
 
152 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 p. 147). A little below the writer promises short extracts, so 
 as not \voyfiiv rovg dxovovrag. 
 
 3. Thalia : drrb rov daKkziv im noKkovg yjpbvovg rovg hoi 
 rcov TTOiTj^drcov lyxcofJbia^OfJbevovg. Comp. Nos. 1, 7, 9. 
 
 4. Melpomene: ano rtjg [/jzkuhiag, hf yjg rovg axovovrag 
 ^vyjxycoymQai. Comp, with the words just given, and with 
 the passage quoted on p. 147. 
 
 5. Terpsichore : avro rov rspTreiv x.rX. See No. 2. The 
 expression, or that on p. 250, suggests 2 Macc. xv. 
 
 6. Erato : anb rov rovg 'Taihzv&ivrag woQzivovg xal Wipda- 
 rovg uworikiiv. Comp, first of all the Isnrspsr? rrjv %dpiv 
 dfforzku of the passage quoted on p. 147, and then k^rsparrog 
 yap cog aXTjOcbg tj yXvxvrrjg rcov msvf/janxcov f/jaQr]fJodroov dytd- 
 fyvGcc, xal av%dvovffa, xal rpspovtra rag ^vyjdg. 
 
 7. Polymnia : dnb rov bia croXXyjg vf/jvfoecog Imp am g 
 xaraaxzvdZ^iv rovg hid rcov ^oirif/jdrcov drca^avarfCjoyfivovg rrj 
 Vofy. Comp, vfjbvyjrai in No. 1. We shall return to this 
 directly. 
 
 8. Urania : a7ro rov rovg rraihivPivrag vt avrrjg z^aipzaGai 
 Tpog ovpavov. Comp. ziGo^zda yap i vr&vQev xal rag \af/j7Tpdg 
 rcov hxaiaov havofjodg, from first Preface . 
 
 9. Calliope : octto rov xa\rj v osra ‘7rpoieo'Qai, rovrzam, rq 
 zvznia hdpopov ovaav, dftohoxrjg rvyypcvav vtto rcov dxovbvrcov. 
 Comp, ri yap rov xdXXovg rcov zyxzi[/j'zvcov IxXoyyj irpog 1 iavryv 
 sXxz i rovg ivrvyyjdvovrag, ovx Icbffa xafoozlv ro (jozXKov axovaai 
 noQovvrag, xal cog \v any/ipaig ahzrai p^GZGiv. With the last 
 clause, comp. Nos. 3, 7. 
 
 The peculiar use (in both Prefaces) which has here been 
 made of Diodorus will hardly, we should suppose, be denied ; 
 and we might, perhaps, be content to rest our denial of the 
 authorship of John of Damascus on what has been already 
 produced. The examination, however, of the Greek of these 
 Prefaces is so instructive, and the results of the examination 
 are so undeniable, that we shall pursue our investigations a 
 great deal further. 
 
 Diodorus proceeds, at the bottom of p. 253 and onward, to 
 give the history of Hercules. He does not say anything about 
 Prodicus’ myth of the “ choice of Hercules.” It would 
 naturally occur to any one’s mind. In both Prefaces there 
 1 For t. i. vid. infr. p. 160. 
 
SACRA PARALLELA. 
 
 153 
 
 is the opposition of “ virtue ” to “ vice,” and we shall see pre- 
 sently that “the choice of Hercules” was present in the 
 writer’s mind. 
 
 On p. 250, Diodorus speaks of Dionysus, adding zard rfy 
 \\ dpyj\g evpsnv rov ohov [lyittoj rrjg vharog zpacrs cog ivpripjirrig. 
 Comp, with the passage from the second Preface , on p. 147. 
 
 On p. 251, an account is given of Priapus, which extends on 
 to p. 252, to the mention of the hermaphrodite. Diodorus 
 has biapbovrjg elg arravra rov aiuva, which might have suggested 
 the biavopbag of the first Preface , for which see No. 8. 
 
 We observe, also, roc 5g rov aupbarog pb'zpr] TrzpiTrXdfracrav eig 
 avOpoorrov TV7rov . . . rag rip>dg dir ovipjovai . . * TTpocrriyopiag. 
 If we turn to the Ep. ad Theoph. xxx., the section, that is, in 
 which, on p. 118 sq., we found so much that was interesting, 
 we remark Wiarig rw rvrrco rov Z^ooorroiov cravpov, with 
 rif/jjjv roig irpwrorvTroig d^rovepbovreg in the next line, and 
 followed after four lines by rrjg Xp Krnavizrjg rrp ocrrjyopiag, 
 and after one line by {bifiaioocriv roov Trap rjpbTv behoypba- 
 napbivoov feonvivarav \byuv. In the first Preface , as we have 
 already seen (p. 148), we are told that the opinions of Philo 
 and Josephus do not fall short of those of rav Trap rjpbTv . . . 
 dvbpojv . . . 1 3efiaiov,ra pbaKkov . . . \byia. The next line has 
 OsoTrvzvcrrov. In the same place the writer of Theophilus says 
 that the glory of image-worship shines forth \v laropiaig zai 
 pbovfrovpybpbanv. The last word appears to have been coined 
 expressly for the occasion, and is certainly appropriate to 
 Diodorus’ account of the Muses here given, and of which the 
 writer of the Prefaces makes use. Observe the contempt for 
 image-worship which lurks in the use of Diodorus’ language by 
 the writer of Theophilus. 
 
 On p. 251, just above the history of Priapus, it is said that 
 Dionysus was the evperijv of certain games. In lib. i. 88, 
 p. 98, Priapus is also spoken of. We observe here ro ^g 
 pbbpiov rov GcufJbarog, ro rrjg yevicewg ainov , npbdrrQai Trpotrrj- 
 zovrag, cog dv vnapyov dpyfiyovov rrjg ruv Zjuojv (pvczwg . . . 
 bio zai rag s izovag avruv avanQbai rovg ifkiiarovg \v ro7g 
 iepolg evrerapbivag. If, now, we turn to the very same sentence 
 in Clem. Ep. i. 59, in which we have pointed out (p. 114) 
 what appear to be two jokes, we find tkTTiZpiv iTci rb dpyfiyovov 
 Trarrig zrEzug ovopbd (obs.) (rov . . . pb6’,ov svspyerrjv (evperrjv, 
 
154 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 S. Light, p. 288), ‘TTvevf/jurav zai 0goV TraGrjg g apzog, rov IftifiTk- 
 novra 1 h ralg dfivGGOig, rov InonrYiv dvOpooftivcov ipyav . . . rov 
 Tccvrog Trvsvf/jarog zriGrr\v zai Inie zo7rov. Comp, with Diodorus. 
 
 Compare also with both, 6 Sg dyatobg \an E[p ia%og, 6 ftpiv n 
 sivai rroiYiaccg' hid rovro zaXeirai IT piavrog, on l7rpi07roiy]GS rd 
 Tocvrcc &/a rovro (obs.), (pqGiv, sig ndvra vabv Iferarai, vtto 
 T ruGrjg rrjg zr incog (obs.) ri^u^zvog (obs.) zai Iv ralg oh dig 
 fiver d^ovv rag oTapocg ( Diod . p. 252) Indvu vvrov, rovrlen 
 rovg zvpecovg rr\g zrietoog, uv vinog (obs.) eywero, icpton oirjevg 
 rrjv zrieiv npbnpov ovz ovevv, Hippol. Ref. v. 26 (Justin the 
 Gnostic). 
 
 In lib. iii. 68, p. 238, Diodorus twice uses STrirepT/j, for which 
 see the passage from the second Preface , on p. 147. In the 
 same place Diodorus has yXvzvrriri, and half a dozen lines 
 above it ’in hi zvff VTspfioXqv vyisivov. In the second Preface 
 is yXvzvrrig , with ra in (obs.) zvfl V7repfio\rjv d^tivco half a 
 dozen lines above. 
 
 3. ’ K.r:v^vvvri c Cfiv ( see No. 7 above) is a word likely to 
 attract attention. Wesseling (Diodorus’ editor) has a note 
 upon it, and refers to lib. i. 2, p. 5. The word is there used, 
 and in the following sentence Diodorus has Ssri etdevv rijv 
 oizovf/jlv/jv, and in the preceding sentence roi aKkv erdvrv 
 ra zvrd rov fiior roig Sg hi dpz rijv < 7repi7roi7iev[/jlvoig ho<gvv , at 
 TTpa^eig vTrvvrv rov viwva f/jvrifjijovzvovrvi, hivfiodf/jevai rco Qao- 
 raroo rrjg ieropivg ero^vn. Comp, the zard ttvgvv rv\v oizov- 
 (Jjiv/jv hivfitfionrvi already observed in No. 1. 
 
 On p. 47 sq. the greater part of Peregrin . §§ 10, 11 is given. 
 
 1 Comp, b ctytx T pitbs . . . xot) o7a n ovtrot i ti rov etluvlov xot6nptivv\ tuxov, tT/fike- 
 rruv K[Zv<r<rovs. Didymus, De Trin. ii. 1. This reference is given in the Church 
 Quarterly, Oct. 1876, p. 244. We consult Didymus because of this coincidence 
 with Clement. Further on in the same chapter, p. 114, Didymus has orapitrruv 
 yovv ro rpioo^ixu;. In the second Preface we find rb v rpm^ixbv ptovatbat, and, as we 
 have already seen, orxpurruv. Presently Didymus has ro . . . vorspi^ov oi^iuptx . . . 
 ro . . . xot ) vlovs &iov bptots wotouv tbs rivivptu vloditrioos. Comp, from first Preface 
 viovs ®tov yiMitrSott, and after two lines itorlp Ikorlbot ro r’bs vlofotrlots ot\iooptx. 
 
 In chap. iii. Didymus considers the various titles of the Holy Spirit, and on 
 p. 125 the UvivptK v\o6iffl«.s appears again followed by the n nvptot Wayyiklas. 
 Presently he has Uvivptx %aptros, and the text iav btyaorbir'i pti, rots ivrokots rots 
 1/u.ots rvtpba'oori, followed by optoiorpoocov, <rri%i$tcov, avivtpriptb^n, and presently 
 optoiokQot several times. We have seen the last word, which is an uncommon 
 one, in the first Preface. In the second is optotorpoxos, btviv<p*iptovptivns. Comp, 
 also <rrt%ypct7s ( vid . sup.). In the opening twelve lines ( vid . sup. p. 149) of the 
 first Preface the other points are taken up, vid. infr. p. 159. 
 
SACEA PAEALLELA. 
 
 155 
 
 We observe there sir a, snsihrj ro Tpccy^a, iis/3s/3b^ro (comp, 
 here with Diodorus), (pvyrjv iccvrov zaTofuzuGug STrXavccTO, 
 aWriv ocKkors otfisifiav . . . sv fipuyfi 7rocibag avriQijv. s (comp, here 
 with the rovg viovg . . . ciTretpqvciro of first Preface , vid. sup. 
 p. 151). After a few lines, given on p. 48, we have a sentence 
 partly indebted to Diodorus (vid. sup. p. 88), and which has 
 oVsp zcfi civro ov [uzpov ccvroo cc^ioopcc ‘TSpiSTOiTjGS 7rpog tov e%jjg 
 fiiov. The word oc^ioof/joc is used in the first Preface (see note 
 on p. 154), and for the rest of the sentence compare Diodorus’ 
 words quoted above. We recall dpn civhpcc Traihsicc zoci 
 o^iuf/jun TTpovyjovru, of Peregrin. 19, found also in pseudo- 
 Galen’s De Prcenot. (vid. sup. p. 80). Two lines above in 
 Peregrinus we observe si rig dXKog sv GCspiGraGSi roiavry. Now, 
 here, in Diodorus (p. 4) we have oi is TrsTrcctisvpjSVOi ruv hnai- 
 isvrcvv TTposypvGi. Comp, with Peregrinus. Five lines above 
 Diodorus has TrspiGruGSoov. On p. 250, a page used apparently 
 (vid. sup. p. 153) in the second Preface , we have the more 
 exact expression rocTg TOiccvruig TrspiGrocGSGi. 
 
 On p. 7, Diodorus says that he travelled for thirty years 
 from country to country, acquiring the knowledge which was 
 necessary for the composition of the history which he pro- 
 posed to write. His words, as we shall see presently, seem to 
 be partly used in the second Preface. Photius, Bibl. 170, ex- 
 pressly refers to them, and speaks of Diodorus as ronovg rs 
 TToKkovg apjSifiwv. Comp, the s TrXocvoiTo, aWqv ocXXors 1 dpjs'i- 
 fiav of Peregrin. 10, quoted above and on p. 47. 
 
 It would thus seem that Peregrinus is to some small extent 
 connected with our Prefaces and the sources from which they 
 are derived. 
 
 We return now to Diodorus, p. 5. In the pages in which 
 we now find ourselves, the coincidences are very numerous, 
 and to do full justice to them we should have to transcribe far 
 more, both of Diodorus and of the Prefaces , than our space will 
 permit. We must content ourselves with noticing some points 
 only, and these not so fully as we could wish. 
 
 On p. 5, Diodorus has rrjv vttoQsgiv, four lines above ocirioc , 
 and between the two words a passage in which apsrrjg is opposed 
 
 1 The combination is suggested apparently by three lines of Theognis quoted, 
 as we shall find presently, by Basil in de legend, libr. Gentil. The first of these 
 lines ends with hafcuypo^et, and the third with cixkori clxxot e%u. 
 
156 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 to xaxiag, and further down on p. 5, paS/ug zvpoi. On p. 6 he 
 has aGravTa TaXka yprjG/f/ja t5j ypafirj gtz p/z/Xqfizva/. Comp. 
 Grzp/z/Xr]<pzv £2 0 Ga qflizag, jj yvoopb/xSig, rj Gcapa/vzTixug GTpog 
 GTaGaV a/T/aV TZ Xai VGTodZG/V 77J TZ II CCXCCIOC Xai NgOS TUV izpOOV 
 \oyiuv Tpa(prj XzXzxTai . . . Ta Grzpi dpZTrjg xai xaxiag Grzp/zi- 
 \q<pzv. S/d to z vXtigttov SXz xa\ paS/ug zvp/Gxz/v x.t.X. Comp, 
 with Diodorus. Comp, also Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv. 48 rrj 
 GraXa/a GrapOzvu rd rrjg vzag ZGt/Sz/xvvg zTa/pag GyjipjaTa. ov 
 vzf/jZG/g to/vvv ovSz "I gtgtuvi, axadavaT/^ovTi ( vid . sup. p. 154) 
 X.T-X. 
 
 On p. 6, Diodorus says that history blames the bad hut 
 extols the good (we have just found apzTrjg opposed to xaz/ag), 
 and has zyz/v too GV{/j(pzpovTi followed after a few lines by 
 Grpoa/pZG/v, with to Gvpotp'zpov in the next line. Comp. paS/av 
 §2 Trjv tov GV(jj<p'zpovTog a/pZG/v z^opbzv, GrapaXXqXovg 6z VTzg Tag 
 apZTag, xa) Tag . . . xax/ag. We shall find presently GTpog 
 dXXrjXovg T/OzvTzg. 
 
 On the same p. 6 we find z fJbGTZ/piav f/jzy/GTrjv . . . To/g zvTvy- 
 yjdvovGi followed presently by xz/f/j'zvrjg yap zv Tdig dvay/vuG- 
 xovGa Trjg dfizXz/ag. Comp, with the passage from the second 
 Preface, given on p. 147. 
 
 At the bottom of p. 6, Diodorus says that no writer had 
 ever attempted to write a connected history of all times and 
 circumstances ; that history therefore was contained in many 
 volumes, by as many different writers, and (p. 7) that the 
 dvaXrj^/g (xaTaXrj^/g in Preface) of it was SvGGTzp/XrjGTTog 
 (comp, the zvX/jgttov just above) and SvG[/jVrj[/j6vzvTog (comp, 
 the passage from the second Preface , given on p. 147). This 
 great work, hitherto unattempted, Diodorus proposed to under- 
 take, making it as profitable as possible, zXayiGTa Sz Tovg 
 dvay/vuGxovTag zvoyfrjGOVGav. Comp, the pbrj . . . z voyfz/v Tovg 
 dxovovTag (vid. sup. No. 2). The preceding sentence in the 
 Preface is GroXXrjv $2 ypziav z/G(pzpei too GUPTaypoaTi. The 
 following sentence in Diodorus contains zlg Trjv ypziav . . . tuv 
 GWTayfJjdToov. The sentence following zvoyfziv in the Preface 
 is fjoaXiGTa £2 z^rjvprjTai S/a to opooioTpoGTa (see note, p. 154), 
 rjyovv Ta zgt/ hog GTpdy(x>aTog GroXXayfig Xzyopozva. The next 
 sentence in Diodorus begins with r] S’ zv f/j/a GWTa<gzoog GTpay- 
 pbaTZioo, and is followed presently by (joaX/GTa (Pzv . . . ZGCZ/Ta 
 xat Sid ty\v zv Trj 'Poo^y yoprjy/av tuv GTpog Trjv VGTOxz/fJbzvrjv (in 
 
SACRA PARALLEL A. 
 
 157 
 
 same part of Preface ) vnbQeGiv cgvtizovtm. Comp. oyooioTpOTCG, 
 etc. 
 
 On p. 8, Diodorus has ccveXccfiopoev ex tojv VTrof/jVTjytjbGTcov. 
 Comp, to 5/a (/jV/i[/j7jg cgvcgXcg^v (vid. sup. p. 147). 
 
 The preceding sentence in the Preface is srsp/ cov puizpbv 
 vGTepov b To7g ronoig yevop&vrig |3pa%sa epbo, GOG<pcog to sj ogvtmv 
 XpriGif/jOv ntocpiGTwv. Here, on p. 8, Diodorus has fiovXof/jCGi 
 fipcGyj&oG TTpohioptGGct Trspi z.T.X-, and on p. 12, . . . tgov ^priGiyucov 
 xcgtog ycizpbv zogi z.t.X. followed by -rap/ 5s tcov crp bc^eav . . . 
 yevopJemv he b To7g yvcopiZppjboig To^roig Trig oixovfjbbrjg hie^ievai 
 Treipocffopjedcc. 
 
 On the same p. 8, Diodorus has sra-ro/tyas^a 5s ttiv bcpyyjv 
 Trig iGTopiocg cgtto tguv pjvOoXoyovpj'evav . . . too v yap fitfiXcot/ fjpdv 
 £§ ocl ‘TpuTcci ‘zepieyjovGi . . . xcci tovtcjv cgi yob . . . a,veyeypoi(pocf/jei/ 
 
 . . . b 5s Tccig e\rjg eizoGi xcgi Tpm (obs.) fiifiXoig z.t.X., and on 
 p. 9 cogtz T/jv uXqv TpocyyijCCTetCGV riyobov TeGGOGpuzoiTOG fiifiXoov 
 ovgogv. Comp., from the second Preface , ttocgog 5s ri % pay yooGTe /a 
 b Tpm (obs.) fiifiXoig oGvocyeypocnTOGi* zogi tovtcov ri yob npaTr) 
 GvyzeiTUi a<p’ av (JjOgXigtog yrpOGqzoi yjpiGTiocvoig tt}v a pyyjv as/ 
 •ro/s/^a/, aero (obs.) 0s ov Tyjv Tptochizrjv (see note, p. 154) 
 yjOvbchoG (obs.) (pcoTtZpvGOGV ex % pooiyoicov (obs.) rjyjbig. On p. 15, 
 Diodorus has to GcoyooG tov xoGpoov GvyxeiG$OGi ttogv ex tcov 
 'zpoeipnpJemv (obs.). Compare. Diodorus is speaking of many 
 gods TpepovTGcg rs zoc) ccv^ovTccg ttcgvtcg (cf. ogv^ogvovgog zogi 
 Tpe(povGcc Tccg -byvypcg, vid. sup. p. 152). 
 
 The coincidence between the Preface and Diodorus in Tpm 
 fiifiXoig is worthy of special notice, for it happens that the 
 writer of the Preface gives an untrue description of the Sacr. 
 Par. The contents are not divided into three books, but 
 ranged under the letters of the alphabet. Editors are obliged 
 to suppose that John of Damascus changed his mind. It was 
 no part of the writer’s plan to give a truthful account of the 
 Sacr. Par. 
 
 On p. 12, Diodorus has irpog c&XXyjXovg ti0 ivreg GvyofioXoG. 
 Comp. KoipocXXrjXovg QevTeg (vid. sup. p. 156). A few lines 
 above he has i<ic) Tug voyoocg GTropdhrjv e%ibcci. In the second 
 Preface we find zogi tog Trept tovtcov GTopcchqv x,zi[/jevoG 0G7T0(pQey- 
 pbCGTCG riv&oXbyrjVTOGi. In the parallel passage in the first Pre- 
 face there is qQp oig^gogv. Diodorus has here bcdpoi^oyobovg in 
 close company with Giropbchriv. This last word evidently ex- 
 
158 
 
 PEREGRINES PROTEUS. 
 
 cited some attention. Comp. inizeipjivav aura vrjffav ffnopahyjv. 
 Diod. iii, 44, p. 212, in the midst, that is, of the pages used 
 for the manufacture of the so-called excerpts from Agathar- 
 chides. This use of ffnopdhyjv might well be remembered. 
 Eusebius, also, H . E. i. 1, very appropriately writes : off a roivvv 
 e Ig ryjv npoyc^pbevrjv Kvffirikfjffeiv vnoOeffiv qyovpjeQa, rdv avroTg 
 bternig ffnopahyjv pjvyjfJbovevQevrav dvaXe^dpcevoi, za) cog dv ez 
 ’koyizdv Xeif/jdvav rag eniryjheiovg avrcov rav nd\ai ffvyypatpeav 
 anavO/ffdfiivoi (obs.) (fiavag z.r.\. 
 
 The sentence in Diodorus which contains ffnopahyjv begins 
 thus : rovg he e\ dpyfg yevvyjQevrag rdv dvOpdnav (fiaffiv iv 
 drdzra za) Qqpiahet fiioo zaOeffrdrag, ffnopdhrjv z.rX. Diodorus 
 alludes to the lines (in which the keenest interest was felt in 
 several quarters) yjv xpovog or w drazrog dvOpanuv fiiog za) 
 flyjptuhyjg layyog O' vnyjperyjg z.rX. Sextus Empir. M. ix. 54, 
 introduces them by saying that Critias maintained on ol 
 naXaio) vop>eOerai iniffzonbv nva rav avOpanivuv zaropOapjdrav 
 za) dpjaprripjdrcov enXaffav rov Oeov vne p rov ytafi&va XaOpa rov 
 nXyjffiov ahizeiv evhafiovgjevov ryjv vno rdv Oedv ripbapiav. Comp, 
 the words from Clement’s Ep. i. 59, quoted on p. 154. The 
 idea, that Clement is looking in the same direction as Diodorus, 
 is confirmed by the fact that Diodorus presently has rd 
 npdra yevop>eva ffvffryjf/jara rdv andvrav eOvav dpyfeyova ygygo*- 
 Oai, and further on npdrovg rcov dndvrav dvOpdnoov evperdg 
 yeve ffOai (vie/, sup. p. 154). The writer of Diognetus seems 
 also to look in the same direction when he says, p>expi (Dev ovv 
 rov npoffOev ypovov iiaffiv fipoag cog efiovkopjiOa drdzroig (popcctg 
 (pepeffOai. Diognet. ix. 1. Comp, with Diognetus , ovz, lav 
 avrdg drdzrag (pepeffOai z.rX., a version of Num. xxvii. 17 
 (Philo, i. p. 170). The 16th verse runs: g niff/ce^dffOa Y^vpiog 
 6 Slog rav nvevf/jdrav zed ndffY\g ffapzbg dvOpanov In) rijg ffvva- 
 yayyjg ravrqg. Comp, with Clement’s § 59, quoted on p. 154. 
 This curious coincidence would very naturally arise if Clement’s 
 Epistle and Diognetus were by the same author. 
 
 4. It may be remembered ( vid . sup. p. 152, No. 6) that we 
 found the word enepacrog to be used both in Diodorus and in 
 the second Preface. It is used several times by Lucian, but 
 otherwise does not appear to be common. In Philo, i. p. 671, 
 we find dre aX^Oeiag ryjg enepdffrov yep>ovra. Comp, enepaarog 
 yap &>g d\rfiag, vid. sup. p. 152. 
 
SACRA PARALLELA. 
 
 159 
 
 On the same page Philo has fiovXopAvoig 5s rrjv dfiz'kziccv, and 
 on the preceding page fjoerd ^darig evf/jccpeiccg. Comp, with the 
 passage from the second Preface , quoted on p. 147. 
 
 On this last page (p. 670) Philo has to yrapov, and in the 
 same sentence fjosya xcct \yypdv xrrjfjtjcc xcci dyarnfft/jct, dptrijg. 
 In the beginning of the second Preface is to T-ccpov, and the 
 first words of the first Preface are xrrjfjjoc Tiptiov r\ dpsrf]. Philo 
 may merely have given the suggestion; at any rate, we shall 
 find a better parallel presently. 
 
 Here, also, Philo has ivfff/jsveg, and the Preface vvrd hvfff/jsvav 
 dvev(p7](/jOVf/jSV7]g. For the last word, see note, p. 154. 
 
 5. We are now in a position to come to some definite con- 
 clusions concerning the Prefaces which we have been examining. 
 The use, and the very extraordinary use, of Diodorus, not to 
 mention Philo and Didymus, cannot be disputed. The coinci- 
 dences which have been produced belong to all parts of both 
 Prefaces , and prove that these Prefaces were written by the 
 same person. This person could not have been John of 
 Damascus ; in the first place, because, from internal evidence, 
 as Lequien ( vid . sup. p. 147) shows, we must hold the first 
 Preface and part of the second to be later additions ; in the 
 next place, because it is impossible to believe that a writer of 
 the eighth century, thinking in and speaking Greek every day, 
 -yvould use Diodorus in the way that the writer of the Prefaces 
 certainly did. These Prefaces are mere literary mosaics, and 
 very obviously the work of far later times than those of' John 
 of Damascus. 
 
 If this conclusion concerning the Prefaces is a just one, it is 
 not at all difficult to understand, at any rate, one object which 
 the writer had in view in prefixing them to the Sacra Parallela. 
 The sentence, indeed, concerning Philo and Josephus (vid. sup. 
 p. 146), standing as it does in both Prefaces in the same words, 
 sufficiently explains this object. The writer wanted to 
 encourage the study of these and other ancient writers not 
 Christian. Living at a time when the study of ancient Greek 
 literature was attracting notice in some quarters, but being 
 frowned down in others , he wanted to contradict the notion 
 that the Church had always looked askance at such study. 
 We speak of course with diffidence here. We know for 
 certain what Greek passed before our writer’s eyes, and what 
 
160 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 use lie made of it ; but we do not know , we can only guess, what 
 his thoughts and intentions were. We only surmise that one 
 among the objects which he had in view, when writing these 
 Prefaces , was that which we have just stated. We have, how- 
 ever, some rather interesting evidence to produce, which seems 
 to give colour to our surmise. 
 
 6. Among the writings of Basil is one called Sermo de 
 legendis libris Gentilium. This treatise, first published (in 
 Latin) in 1507, has been constantly used in support of classical 
 study. If we turn to § 4 we find Basil’s version of Prodicus’ 
 speech on the meeting of Hercules with u Virtue” and “Vice.” 
 The “ two w T ays,” one or other of which Hercules was invited 
 to choose, are very constantly referred to by our authors with 
 more or less of openness. In our Prefaces we have pointed out 
 the opposition between “ virtue ” and “ vice ” (vid. sup. p. 156). 
 If we run our eye down Basil’s narrative, we observe sheet yap 
 rr\v g>sv V7T0 zopjf/joonzyjg (obs.) fosffzsvaffpj'svqis slg zaXXog . . . 
 sXzsiv siriypipsiv rois 'H pazXsa irpog s avrrjv, and presently 
 rcsiparsov sir) rois fitov bsizisvvai rovg Xoyovg' dog o ys rrjts dyjpi 
 pyigearoois irapa rolg aXXoig (ptXoero^iav spy op (3s/3atoois, and after 
 four lines olov sir) roots irivdzoois szsivog sbsi^sv, and after one 
 line geazpovg isirsp aisrrig dirorshsiv Xoyovg. Comp., from the 
 second Preface , yj yap rov zaXXovg roots syzsipj'svoois szXoyri irpdg 
 savr/jts sXzsi z.r.X. (vid. sup. p. 152), and after a few lines 
 rd irsp) dpzryjg za) zaziag, with 6 irha<g in the next line. 
 Further on in the same Preface Xsfyg ohrjyovca za) sXzovca , 
 and after a few lines za) ha gorj sis roo tsspjsits rd avrd dyayvooa- 
 fjeara ro7g sis p^joasri, za) ovz sv irpaygeatri zsypopnrpj'svoig, 
 fjeazpovg dirorshoogtjsis Xoyovg, with rovg stsrvyyjdisoisrag rds 
 irhazi after two lines. These resemblances cannot have acci- 
 dentally arisen ; and that they have not is further shown by 
 observing in § 2, irapaXXyfKa Osisrag, which may be compared 
 with irapaXXrjXovg nfiisrsg in the first Preface, and for which 
 we have already found a “ parallel ” (irpdg a XXqXovg nOsi/rsg) in 
 Diodorus (vid. sup. p. 157). The Prefaces to the Sacr. Par. 
 cannot then be independent of Basil’s treatise. Would it not 
 seem that, equally with other lovers of classical study, our 
 writer was attracted by the de legendis libris Gentilium ? 
 
 Some one will perhaps now be ready to point out that by 
 producing Basil’s irapdXXyfka Qsisrag as a “ parallel ” to the 
 
DE LEGENDIS LIBRIS GENTILIUM. 
 
 161 
 
 expression of the Preface , for which a 44 parallel” has been pre- 
 viously found, we have in some measure pulled down what we 
 only just now were so carefully building up. and have cast a 
 doubt upon the force of the coincidences between Diodorus 
 and the Prefaces which have been pointed out. Duplicate 
 coincidences, one or other of which must be accidental, may 
 doubtless be sometimes found. We have not knowingly kept 
 any in the background. We have shown on p. 19 what must 
 be done with these when they are found. This particular 
 duplicate, however, presents no difficulty whatever, for Basil 
 has Kpog uXkrihovg (with Diodorus) in the selfsame sentence. 
 The coincidence only sends us to Basil’s treatise to see what 
 else we can find. 
 
 In the beginning of § 3, Basil writes : ruvrd hrj tccvtcc \lyuv 
 xcci mfi Gvyypccplcov ’iyco' xcci [hdCkiaf orav ^vyccycoyiccg hsxoc 
 fobs.) rcov bcxovbvrcov ’koyoftoiuci. Comp, with the passage from 
 Phot. Bibl. 244 (the hermaphrodite), quoted on p. 148. 
 
 Just below TCipuXkYfkGC (in § 2) Basil speaks of Moses, and says 
 OU f. /AyiGTOV IgTIV g 7TI GOplGC 7TUpd KVLGIV dv0pM7TOig OVOfJljCC . . . OVTCO 
 
 TrpoGikOiiv r/j Qsoopicc, x.tX. Comp, the cc^iag Itccivov gjiycCkov 
 xod lv < 7roWri hb<gri Tccpcc ttccgiv \ v, cog oivOa, xcti [hlyac rjv Tovvogjoc 
 TaXqvov ... lx Qsoopiccg x.r. a. of pseudo-Galen, p. 625, quoted 
 on p. 91. Basil has somewhat similar words in his description 
 of the 44 choice of Hercules : ” xcci cyfhbv uTnzvreg, oov hrj xcci 
 Loyog Tig Itrnv It) 1 <ro(picc , rj gcixpov % gbsi^ov, g ig hvvccf/jiv excurrog 
 lv roig iccvrcov trvyypoif/jgbccffiv, ccperijg hrouvov hutffkQov. Comp, 
 with pseudo-Galen as above, and also with his rjtrocv hi ovroi 
 ayfhbv uTCCVTzg ol xccrcc rrjv Pcogcocioov ttoXiv cc^icogjocri re xcci 
 mihsicc vpouyovTeg, p. 612, quoted on p. 80. These last words 
 are also found in Peregrin. 19. We have shown on p. 155 
 that Peregrin. 19 seems to be indebted to Diodorus, i. 2, p. 5. 
 Turning once more to Diodorus, p. 5, we remark rdcvrig hi 
 [jjiyoCkwv Itccivcov tjzicoOtigccv (comp, with pseudo-Galen) . . . roc 
 
 1 The scholiast on Arist. Nub. 360 says : Ttx,i Ss vuv rov Ylpobixou S tcttrvpuv 
 
 on y. tyto-TYiv (obs.) (comp, with pseudo-Galen) ti%i ortp'i aurov u$ t>Ttp wa.vru.s 
 mv rip trotp'ia.’ aoQttrrvs Se riv o npobiKos, Xia? ro y'tvos. . . . ^tecfiuWtt. For the last 
 word, vid. sup. p. 91, where the whole passage of pseudo-Galen is given. It 
 must not be forgotten that we have shown on pp. 89, 90 that pseudo- Galen’s 
 treatise is in close contact with the excerpt from Diodorus (on hermaphrodites) 
 at that point (or near to it) where the coincidences with the second Preface are 
 found. Vid. sup. p. 148. 
 
 L 
 
162 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 f/jh yap dXXa gjvrgjjsla. hiag>svsi yjpovov oXiyov, vtto ToXXav 
 dvaipovgjsva rrspiardnsav' t\ hi rrjg inropiag hvvafjjig Ivrt ndcrav rrjv 
 oiTcovf/jZvyjv (used in Preface ), hifjzovna . . . r'pog Xoyov hvvayjiv 
 (comp, with Basil) . . . ovz dv rig pahlag supot (used in Preface ) 
 . . . si 5s e 7CS t 7raihsv{Lsvoi rdv drraihsvrav Trpos^ovGi (used by the 
 writer of Peregrinus , and perhaps by pseudo-Galen). We have 
 taken these things from only ten lines of Diodorus. Compare 
 also rd gulv dXXa rdv zrrgjjdrav, ov (jjdXXov rdv lyfovrav r\ zai 
 ovnvocrovv rcov snrvyovrav Icrriv, . . . [/jSra^aXXogijSva- [Lovr\ 5s 
 zr^godrav r\ dps rr\ avapaipsrov, zai Zfovn zed rsXsvrrjcravn 
 rrapagAvovaa. This sentence is found in Basil’s § 4, imme- 
 diately before the “ choice of Hercules,” and will be fully 
 considered hereafter. 
 
 We gave some words just now out of Basil’s description of 
 “ the choice of Hercules,” which supplied a coincidence with 
 the second Preface . Among them was zof/jf/janzrjg. This 
 
 word seems at one time to have excited considerable interest. 
 Stephens in his Thesaurus has a very long comment upon it, 
 and cites Plato, Gorg. pp. 463, 465. At the bottom of p. 465, 
 we find ’id cog (Tlv ovv drorrov rrsrro'^za, on as ovz lav {ovz sacra, 
 second Preface ), (tazpovg Xoyovg Xsysiv, avrog gbazpov Xoyov 
 drrorsraza. We have already given (p. 160) gbazpovg arrorsivsiv 
 Xoyovg as a coincidence between Basil and the second Preface. 
 It would certainly seem that Basil took the words from Plato. 
 The ovz Sana suggests that the writer of the second Preface 
 did the same. The way in which Plato introduces them make 
 them more noticeable than they would otherwise be, and 
 therefore more easily remembered. 
 
 What is the meaning of all these coincidences ? Do they 
 not suggest the possibility, and even probability, that this 
 treatise, de legend, lihr. Gent., is not the work of Basil ? This 
 is actually the case. The treatise is spurious. In not a few 
 instances the great name of Basil has been tacked on to writ- 
 ings of which he was guiltless; and here, in this case, some 
 late writer has sought to palm off his eulogy of classical study 
 as if from the pen of Basil the Great. 
 
 To make this grave charge good, we need travel very little 
 away from the story of Hercules’ choice, which lies here 
 before us. 
 
 Pseudo-Basil writes : — 
 
DE LEGENDIS LIBEIS GENTILIUM. 
 
 163 
 
 K ai jtxrjv xai 6 KtToc xou 1 GoipiGrrig Upodixog ruv eaurou Guy) pa^aaruv 
 ddeXpd rouroig eig dperriv xai xaxiav e<p/XoGo(priGev' . . . e yei 5s outgj 
 xug 6 Xoyog auTui, oGa eyu rou dvdpog rr\g diavoiag [xefivrgiai, exei ra ye 
 pq/xara oux exiGrajxai, xXqv ye dy on dxXug ourcag ei'prixev dveu fxerpou. 
 on veoj ovn tu> 'HpaxXe? xo/xidy, xa i Gyedb v raurqv dyovn rfi v qXrxiav, 
 Jjv xai u/xeTg vuv , (3ouXeuo/xevw xorepav rpaxyrai ruv oduv, ty\v did. rojv 
 xovoiv ayouGav xpog aperrjv, rj rr\v paorqv, xpoceX6s?v duo yuvaTxag, raurag 
 ds elvai ’ Aperqv xai Kaxiav. 
 
 We naturally conclude from this that the writer had at one 
 time seen the 7 Op ai of Prodicus (which still he does not call 
 by that name), but not recently, and that therefore he remem- 
 bered nothing but the general drift of the story, and that the 
 narrative was not in verse. In point of fact, however, the 
 writer had Xen. Mem . ii. 1. 20 sq., not merely in his mind as a 
 recollection of his youthful studies, but actually before him. 
 
 Xenophon writes : — 
 
 . . . ug (puGiv ot dyadoi dvdpeg * Xeyei de xou xai *HGiodog' 
 
 T^i/ [xev yap xaxorrjra xai iXadov eGnv eXecQai 
 *P ri'/diug’ Xeiri /xev bdog, jxdXa 5’ eyyuOi vaisi. 
 
 T rjg d ’ dperrig idpura Qeot xpoxdpotQev eOvjxav 
 ’ Atodvarof /xaxpbg 3? xa / opOiog ol/xog eg aurqv 
 Kai Tpr\yyg to xpurov exr\v d 1 eig axpov ixrjra/, 
 
 'P'/j/diyi dr; exeira x'eXei, yaXexr^ Grep eouca. 
 
 Maprupe / de xa/ ' Kxiyap/xog ev rude' 
 
 Toov xovuv xuXougiv rgxTv xdvra rdydt)' oi 6eoi. 
 
 Kai ev aXXoj de roxw <pqGiv ’ 
 
 J n xovqpe, fjiTj too /xaXaxd /xxeo, /xr\ rd cxXr\p e%yg. 
 
 Kai Upodixog de 6 Gocp'og ev rui Guyypd/x/xan tOj xepi rou * HpaxX'eoug, 
 oxep dri xa i xXeicroig exideixvurai, uGaurug xepi ryjg dperrig axocpaiverai 
 ud'e xug Xeyuv, oGa eyu /xe/xvri/xar (priGi yap 'HpaxXea, ex ei ex xa/duv eig 
 yfiri v up/xaro, ev fj oi veoi r\dr\ avroxpdropeg yiyvb/xevoi dqXouGiv, e ire tyi v 
 di dperrig odbv rpe^ovrai exi rbv (3/ov , ei're rr\v did xaxiag , e£eX06vra eig 
 7jGv%/av xa0?jG0a/, axopouvra , oxorepav ruiv bd&v rpdx/jrar xai (pavrjvai 
 aurOi duo yuvu/xag xpo/evai /xeydXag x.r.X. . . . outoj xwg (obs.) didxet 
 Tlpodrxog rijv ux ’A perrjg 'UpaxXeovg xaideuGiv , exoG/xrjGe fxevroi rag 
 yvoj/xag en fxe yaXeiorepoig pqfxaGiv r\ eyu vuv. 
 
 The 0 (Tcc lyoo (Jbs(/jvr){/jcii common to the two accounts is very 
 amusing, and ought in itself alone to convince every one that 
 Basil never wrote de legend . libr . Gent . 
 
 In addition, however, to the coincidences between the two 
 accounts now shown, there is further evidence at hand of the 
 1 See note, p. 161. 
 
164 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 actual use of Xenophon. In § 3, pseudo-Basil uses the very 
 lines of Hesiod which Xenophon does. He mentions the name 
 of Hesiod. He does not quote the lines, but takes them to 
 pieces. He has oti Tpayfioc golv npojTov . . . zai ihpuTog . . . 
 ohog . . . £/a to opOiov • . . pcchioog Itti to binpov bKObiv K . . ug goh 
 . . . ag hi pahia . . . uQpbov sivcci Xafisiv 1% tov avvzyyog 
 6 avTog ol)Tog Troi^TTjg eQijffev. Igooi golv yap hozs7 ovhb STSpov ij 
 . . . ‘7rpozakov(jjWog anccvTug ccyaQoug shat, tgcvtu hizkOziv, xui 
 cogtb (J07j ZMTMfjjuXazHrQbTag k.t. a. We cannot deny the use 
 of the lines of Hesiod. But if we do not, we cannot, seeing 
 the way in which the writer has used these lines, in common 
 fairness deny that his unavTug ayaOovg was taken from 
 Xenophon, or that his KUTM[kaCkaiLiGQiVTug was suggested by 
 the res [/jockaza of Epich annus. 
 
 For the lines of Hesiod and Epicharmus with which Xeno- 
 phon precedes the story of Prodicus, pseudo-Basil substitutes 
 three 1 lines which, with Plutarch, he ascribes to Solon, and 
 then two lines of Theognis. In Stobseus, Flor. i. (Vsp/ upZTrjg) 
 16, p. 4 (Meineke), the three lines are found ascribed to 
 Theognis. They are immediately followed by the lines from 
 Hesiod which Xenophon gives. These lines appear to be 
 found only in Plutarch and Stobseus. Now, observe, on p. 2, 
 Stobseus gives a fragment from Euripides, not found else- 
 where, the first line of which is ovz bgtiv c&ptTTjg zTrjgijCc, 
 TifJjiaTBpov. Comp, the first words of the first Preface , zTijf/ja 
 
 TlfJtlOV 7] apiTTj. 
 
 If the writer of de legend, libr. Gent, was not Basil, — and we 
 certainly have found sufficient evidence to satisfy us that he 
 was not, — but a far later writer, a scholar and a student 
 gradually putting together his treatise as opportunity offered, 
 he would feel some interest as to the times in which Prodicus 
 lived, and would probably refer to Cyril of Alexandria, who in 
 his Orat. i. contr. Jul. deals with chronology. Accordingly, on 
 p. 13 (Spanheim), we find that Cyril assigns Prodicus and 
 others to the 86th Olympiad. Four lines afterwards he 
 describes Aristotle as /3p ayfiav oiyovTU zofjjihrj ttjv yfhuduv. 
 Comp, with the words of pseudo-Basil above. It seems likely 
 that the writer’s eye travelled over the earlier pages of Cyril, 
 for on p. 10 Cyril has (speaking of Moses) viog hi uv irt zai 
 1 See note, p. 155. 
 
DE LEGENDIS LIBRIS GENTILIUM. 
 
 165 
 
 xrjg AlyvTxiuv (rotpiag rig Tzipocv l}Jdv, oiov xi Tp oyv[hvcca[Lop 
 xuv Osiorepav, ztoizixo xd dvdpZjTiVGc- zctxaybvxzg xoivvv \% 
 ’AfipGcdf/* xovg yjpovovg far) Madges ’A xXocvxd xz xov HpO[/jy]Qzwg, 
 dp^dff/jS0a, tuXiv zvxzvQz v zx'zpug ixqjv dpyrjg z.x.X. Comp. pseudo- 
 Basil’s words in § 2 Xzyzxoct xoivvv zcti M avGYjg zzzlvog o Tdvv, 
 ov (j ityiGxov \(txiv zt) (ro(picc Tccpd tugiv dvQpooToig ovof/jcc , xo7g 
 AlyvTxiojv [AoiOfifj/curiv zyyvfsjvcurdf/jzvog xrjv hidvoiocv, ovxco 
 TpoazXdzlv xq Qzapia, xov ovxog • Tctpc^TX^aiovg ^g xovxu zdv xoig 
 zdxco yjpovoig z.x.X., and after five lines 1v zvxzvOzv dp^ovf/jcct. 
 
 Another thing with respect to pseudo-Basil’s treatise must 
 be observed. It shows signs of the writer’s interest in words 
 just in the same way that the other writings which we have 
 been examining do. We have already seen an example of this 
 in zo(/j[agjxix,yi- We shall now take the sentence (partly quoted 
 on p. 162) immediately preceding the lines of Solon and 
 Theognis that usher in the “ choice of Hercules,” and show 
 another example of the same thing. 
 
 The sentence is this : — 
 
 ra, fjj&v aXXa, Tuv xr^aarwv, ou f/jdXXov rtiv syovruv ^ na / ovt/vooojv 
 ruv eTirvyovruv Igtiv, woenp sv rrathiS, xu/3 aw ryds xoMzT'fc {tira[3aXX6- 
 lj.ivcc‘ iiwri hi nrrj fiaruv 7j apeTYj dvatpot/psrov , nut Zuvn nett reXivrrj- 
 
 GU',n ‘TTapU'lSVOVffCt . 
 
 The writer has been saying that he was acquainted with a 
 certain person who maintained that “ all Homer’s poetry was 
 the praise of virtue,” and who gave a sort of allegorical inter- 
 pretation of the preservation of Ulysses from shipwreck — but 
 naked. He has 'dv succeed ca. He says that this interpreter 
 of the poet’s mind contended that Homer only fell short 
 of saying bxi ’ Apzxrjg vf/iiv ZTifJjzXyixzov, Zj dv&paTot, rj zed 
 vccvocyijffavxi avvz zvrjyjxai, zod it) xyjg yepeov yzvbfjozvov yvfAvov 
 xifjjiZjxspov dTohzi^zi xav zvhai^ovoov Quidzoov. 
 
 The word dvutpaipzxog is not often used. Comp, yivzxcu hi 
 6 f/jlv zTciivog It’ dpzxcic, 6 hi f/jazeep/erf/jog It’ zvxvyicc. zed 6 
 (JjIv dyGcQog dvrjp It i xdig Tap 9 dpsxdg dyaQolg yivzxcct xoiovxog , 6 
 h’ zi)hcii[jjMV zed zt) xoig hid xvyav. zed 6 fjolv dyaQog dvr\p 
 cAvocficripzxov zyzi xdv ocpzxdv , 6 h ’ zvhocifjjoov laxiv bz dfiaipzzxGci 
 xdv zvhctiUjOGvvuv. And presently, in another extract from the 
 same writing (on same page), (jjZxccfioXoitrccg xdg xvyccg. These 
 words are from an excerpt from Archytas given by Stobseus, 
 Flor. i. 72, p. 30, that is to sai^, from the same Sermo in which 
 
166 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 we found the lines from Theognis and from Hesiod side by 
 side, and also the line from Euripides, ovz igtiv apzTrjg zTyjgja 
 TifJbiooTSpov, which may now be compared with pseudo-Basil. 
 The very first line of the Sermo is dpzTrjg /3s/3atat h’ g Iffiv at 
 ZTTjffStg gbovat, which also compare. 
 
 This Sermo contains also, p. 54, Xenophon’s account of the 
 “ choice of Hercules.” Everything, therefore, was ready to 
 the writer’s hand. This account has iTrtf/jiXyjreov. Compare. 
 Virtue is also described in it as (pvczt zzzoffgijrgjAvriv to (Plv ad^a 
 zaOaptoTTjTt ; while pseudo-Basil has here BTSthjjTSp avTOv 
 (Ulysses) apzrrj avrt lybaTtcov zszofffAqf/j'zvov g ttoitigz. 
 
 Philo, Leg . Alleg. ii. 16 (i. p. 77), has g vyylv hi zat 
 
 Izfizfikqf/jivyjg uvafiaiperov sa> ova yap dv svfyrai (comp, dv 
 g v^acOai), zara Trig '4'VXVS avTrjg, gJivti (obs.) ai/T/j. The 
 
 point of interest is the circumstance that Philo is here in the 
 midst of his explanation of the words zat \ j(rav oi hvo yvf/jvot 
 z.t.X., Gen. ii. 25. He has expounded two kinds of nakedness, 
 and goes on immediately to expound a third. The history of 
 pseudo-Basil’s passage seems now perfectly plain. Reading 
 through Stobaeus’ Sermo on “ Virtue,” he lighted upon the 
 extract from Archytas. He observed ava(patpSTog, and remem- 
 bered the use of it by Philo, and consequently Philo’s inter- 
 pretations of u nakedness.” It then struck him that it would 
 be a good joke to allegorize in Philo’s fashion. 
 
 Our readers may observe pseudo-Basil’s \v Trathta zvficov. 
 The explanation of this gave us some trouble, for we could see 
 no sufficient suggestion. It occurred to us at last that the 
 writer would doubtless remember the account given of 
 Archytas by Diogenes Laertius (lib. xiii.). If he did, he would 
 be likely to remember and to “ look at ” the closing words zat 
 yeoofJbSTpia vp coTog zvfiov svpsv, dig (prjfft II XaTovv h TroXiTSta. 
 
 We consider it now to be sufficiently proved that Basil did 
 not write de legend, libr. Gent. The title suggests a far later 
 date than the fourth century. The coincidences with the 
 Prefaces to the Sacr. Par. and other writings point to the 
 same conclusion. The results of the examination of this 
 treatise strongly support our conjecture as to the object (or 
 one object) which the writer of the Prefaces had in view in 
 prefixing them to the Sacr. Par. This conjecture is further 
 confirmed by the fact that Meineke in his edition of the Flori - 
 
VIS ENIM A DEO NON FIT. 
 
 167 
 
 legium of Stobseus adds an Appendix ex cod. MS. Florentino 
 Parallelorum Sacrorurn Joannis Damasceni. It is said : — 
 
 Profanorum Scriptorum sententiaB ex Ioannis Damasceni Parallelis 
 quas continentnr in cod. xxii. plutei viii. bibl. Laurent, chartac. in 
 4° min. sgeculi xii. vel xiii. excerptae, qu£e Stobaei Florilegio vel 
 corrigendo vel uberiori reddendo maxime sunt profuturae. — Sartius. 
 
 There is also the following note : — 
 
 A prima codicis pagina usque ad p. 74, nulli auctores profani 
 recensentur, nisi Philo et Josephus (observe this) ; quorum sententias 
 praetermisimus describere, quum inter sacros in Ioannis Damasceni 
 Sacris Parallelis editis adcenseantur. — Sartius. 
 
 § 8. We have ventured on p. 131 to suggest the possibility 
 that the words lot ov ‘X^basanv, ccyciQrj is yvuyjri ttkvtots 
 (TV fjjTccpsffriv civrco are not those which were originally written 
 by Irenseus, but a translation of the old Latin : “ Vis enim a 
 Deo non fit , sed bona sententia adest illi semper .” The curious 
 connection of this sentence with Diognetus, Clement’s Ep. i., 
 and the Book of Wisdom, is plainly pointed out on p. 132. In 
 succeeding pages four passages have been produced, each con- 
 taining the leading idea of the sentence, and each apparently 
 used in Diognetus and Clement’s Ep. i. One of these parallel 
 passages has been found in the Sacr. Par. of John of Damascus, 
 and almost alongside of it a text of Scripture altered, so as 
 to convey the leading idea of the sentence, in the language 
 of that particular parallel passage which stands in its near 
 neighbourhood. This altered text of Scripture occurs in an 
 extract from a writer to whom, elsewhere in the Sacr. Par., 
 the first clause of the sentence in question is ascribed. Other 
 extracts from this writer have been shown to be late additions 
 to the Sacr. Par. All these various circumstances tend to 
 give to the coincidence between the latter part of the sen- 
 tence and the Book of Wisdom a far greater importance than 
 would otherwise belong to it. This coincidence, if it has not 
 accidentally arisen, shows that the Greek of the sentence 
 before us is not Irenseus’, but from the pen of a translator 
 probably, though not certainly, of later date than John of 
 Damascus. If we can find under circumstances not less 
 remarkable as good a coincidence for the earlier half of the 
 sentence as we have already found for the later, the conclusion 
 
168 
 
 FEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 that the whole sentence is a translation, and therefore pro- 
 bably an interpolation, will almost necessarily follow. 
 
 We have lately seen reason to suppose that our writers made 
 use of Stobseus’ Florilegium. It may be remembered that 
 on p. 25 a striking coincidence between Flor. xliii. 18, 20, pp. 
 82, 83, and Clement’s Ep . i. §§ 36, 37, has been pointed out. 
 These sections declare the necessity of due order and harmony 
 in the Church of Christ. They might almost be said to be 
 written Tepi tt oXireiag, which is the “title” of the Sermo of 
 Stobseus in which the coincidence with Clement is found. 
 Diognet. v. describes the life of the primitive Christians, and 
 is the rrepi rroXirelocg section of this writing. 
 
 In Flor. xliii. 25, p. 83, half a dozen lines below those which 
 give the coincidence with Clement, there is a single line from 
 Sophocles which is not found elsewhere : voyhoig emabui rolciv 
 e yypjpoig zoCKov. Comp. Iv roig eyycopioig ebenv uzoXoOouvreg 
 . . . hheizvvvrcci rrjv zurccffTccffiv rrjg iuvrwv no'kiTeiccg, Diognet. 
 v. 4. This is very suggestive. 
 
 In 37, p. 86, Stobseus gives a passage from Xenophon which 
 explains the distinction between ficcriXelocg and rvpocvv'ihotg. In 
 Diognet. vii. a distinction is drawn between j QocffiXsvg and 
 Tvpcwog. 
 
 In 63, p. 92, Stobseus cites a passage in which Plato de- 
 scribes, in his familiar style, various forms of government. 
 The passage begins with ocp ov giovapyiot, . . Na/. kua (/jStgc 
 gbovapyiav eiTroi rig biv ... ; rrajg n.rX. Presently Plato says 
 that the gbovccpyjoc has two forms and two names : to gbh rvpuv- 
 vihi, ro he ficcffi’kizTj. Comp, with cipoc ye, &>g blvDpooTrog biv rig 
 Xoyimiro, Ivi rvpocvvthi . . .; ov [Dev ovv, of Diognet. w ii., quoted 
 on p. 132. The writer of Diognetus nowhere else adopts the 
 same style. 
 
 In 75, p. 95, Stobseus quotes Xen. Mem. i. 2. 10: — 
 
 syu ft 1 ol/jcat roiig (ppovrjffiv dffzoZvrag zai vofii^ovrccg izavoug zosffQai rd 
 ffvfjup'epo'jra, didutizzi v roiig rroWrag qziora yiyvzadai (3tu/oug, sidorag ori 
 rv) (Jj'zv (3 la ‘TTpoGsartv zy&pa za / z/vdvvog, did 6s rov miduv dzivdvvojg re 
 zai (Jjzra (piXiag roc aiird yiyvzrai. oi /isv yap fiiacOsvrzg ug a cpaips- 
 Qz'jrzg fuGovGiv, oi 6s nic&hrzg ug zsyapifffic'evoi (piXovGiv. ovz oZv oh rd\i 
 (ppovrjffiv dffzovvruv rb fiidfyffOui, aXAa ruv icyxiv dvzv yvd/ucrjg iyovrm rd 
 roiavra rparrav zffriv. 
 
 Now it is not here the general parallel and the verbal coinci- 
 
VIS ENIM A DEO NON FIT. 
 
 169 
 
 dence only wliicli must be observed, but the plain connecting 
 link between Xenophon’s rcov iGypv avzv yvagbyg zypvroov and 
 Wisd. xi. 21 to yap gozyakoog iGyjjziv TrapZGTi goi navrorz, za'i 
 zparzi ftpayjovbg gov rig avTiGT7]ffzrai. Clement ( vid.sup . p. Ill), 
 observe, alters /3p ayiovog into layjjog, and writes jj rig avriGT'/j- 
 Gzrai too Kparzi rrjg iGyvog avrov, borrowing, as Lightfoot 
 points out, to zpdrog Trig 'iGypog avrov from Eph. i. 19 or vi. 10. 
 The layjjg of Wisd. xi. 21 thus came very specially under the 
 notice of the writer of Clement’s Epistle. If our readers will 
 turn back to p. Ill, and observe the connection between 
 Wisdom and Clement’s Ep. i. 27, which is there pointed out ; 
 to p. 132, and the connection there shown between Wisdom 
 and Diognel. vii. ; to p. 131 sq., and the discussion of Clement’s 
 c&yaQyj yvaf/jq , — the conclusion seems to be irresistible that the 
 Greek |3/a 0g£ ov TrpoGZGriv, ayaQrj Sg yvcogor] ndvrorz Gvgjftdp- 
 zgtiv avrov is only a translation of the Latin of Irenaeus, in 
 which the translator with singular skill combines the language 
 of Xenophon and the Book of Wisdom. It is easy to under- 
 stand that a writer with a good memory might attain to great 
 facility in the manufacture of sentences of this character. It 
 is easy also to understand that some men may have found this 
 method of composition very fascinating. 
 
 § 9. The pages of Xenophon from which Stobasus has made 
 his extracts are of special interest and importance, both as 
 regards the composition and the authorship of Diognetns. 
 These questions do not immediately concern us. There is one 
 passage, however, which affects both Peregrinus and Clement’s 
 Ep. i., and brings to light so much that is curious that we 
 must not pass it by. 
 
 1. In Mem. i. 3. 9, Xenophon writes : — 
 
 ov cv Kpir6(3ov\ov ivbiuZsg . . . zai 'Kpovo^nztiv [moWov ruv avoqrojv 
 rs zai pi-^ozi vdvvuv, and after two lines ovrog zav sig fiayaipag zv(3iff- 
 ryjffeis, zav tig cr vp aXoiro, and after one line ov yap ovrog sroX/ayiffe rov 
 ’ AXztfiiahov vlbv <p/Xrjffai, ovra svnpoGunorarov zai upatbrarov ; aXX' si 
 f/jSVToi roiovrbv sffn ro pi^oz/vdvvov spyov , zav syu doz w /xoi rov z/vdvvov 
 rovrov vno/xs/vai. 
 
 We are here told what Socrates said when he heard that 
 Critobulus had kissed the fair son of Alcibiades, and what 
 Xenophon’s reply was. Comp. fiXafi/jv yap ov rvypvaav, 
 (jjdXXov §g n'lvbvvov v7toigo[JjZv [Ezyav, zav pi\poKi',bvvcog Z7rihdjgjzv 
 
170 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 lavTovg Toig Qt'krjfJjaGtv tcov avt)poo7rcov, Clem. Ep. i. 14. Observe 
 how the two uses of pi^ozivhvvog are combined in Clement’s 
 sentence. With Xenophon’s middle sentence, comp, jj ri yap 
 aWo . . . yjpv\ Groitiv . . . opcovTag Sg dvhpag ytpovTag . . . zvfiiG- 
 ToovTai h too gotGoo ; dog Sg tihtirjTB, olov tb to dyaXyoa (Proteus) 
 g gti to zav^GogbBvov z.t.X., Peregrin. 8 ; and also cog g ig T'vp 
 akBG^ai (obs.), followed after four lines by zai to goBipaziov 
 to cbpalov, o bttbigb zvvt'Zfiiv (obs.), cog zyjoi zai avTog Tiva ’ AXzi- 
 fiiahyjv (obs.) . . . tv g>tGoo. 
 
 The story which Xenophon tells is referred to, and the words 
 which appear to be used in Peregrinus are cited, with slight 
 alterations, by Cedrenus, Compend. Hist . p. 359 ovTog, s 
 pahioog av zai rig z.t.X. Immediately afterwards Cedrenus 
 says that Agesilaus prevented himself from kissing a beautiful 
 youth, and so escaped fiXafav. Comp, with Clement. Any 
 one interested in Xenophon’s tig gua^aipag zvfiiGTav would 
 consult his Sympos. ii. 11 goBTa hi tovto zvzXog riiGYiv'tyfiri 
 Trepif/jSGTog <gi(pcov bpQdv. tig ovv TavTa r\ opyyiGTpig IzvQiGTa tb 
 zai VgBzvfiiGTU VTTtp avToov . Comp, the tv too gotGco of Peregrin. 
 §§ 8, 42. Two lines above, observe, Xenophon has oti si 
 TavTTiv vtoigco, pahloog z.t.X. Comp, the VTOiGoyotv of Clement 
 and the pahioog of Cedrenus. If, indeed, we borrow (piXrjgtaTa 
 from Cedrenus, and alter (not a violent alteration) Clement’s 
 OiXyigoaGiv into (piXyiyoaGiv , we shall find that Clement conveys 
 the exact idea of Xenophon. 
 
 For Clement’s ov ty\v TvyovGav we must return to Stobseus. 
 In 94, p. 102, we find ov yap Tav TvypvGav, aXXa Tav goByiGTav 
 zazohaipooGvvav . . . Taig toov avflpooToov \pv%a7g. Compare. A 
 few lines above we observe aztpaiov. We have already (p. 
 110) found this word to be used in § 21, in a passage which 
 has been shown to be connected in language and thought with 
 Wisd. xii. and Diognet. vii., connected in short with the very 
 subject which brought us to Stobseus. In the same Sermo of 
 Stobseus we find various hints for Clement’s § 21 ; for his hid 
 Trig on P- 104; for his to BniBiztg, on p. 87 ; and for his use 
 of Heb. iv. 12, on p. 88. We must, however, pass these things 
 by, for we have still a great deal to say upon the column of 
 Cedrenus which we have been using. 
 
 2. Cedrenus is here very greatly indebted to Theodor. Grcec. 
 Affect. Cur. xii. de virtute activa. p. 1011 (Schulze). Cedrenus 
 
CEDEENUS. 
 
 171 
 
 does not follow the order of Theodoretus’ remarks, though he 
 adopts a great deal of his language. He adds a good deal 
 from other sources, and partly from those to which Theodoretus 
 himself applied. We shall take up in order the various topics 
 of Cedrenus’ column. 
 
 At the top, Cedrenus is giving a brief account of Anacliarsis, 
 and using the language of Theodoretus, p. 1025. The original 
 source is Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 15, 1 p. 359, but the special 
 statement concerning Anacharsis appears to belong to Plut. ii. 
 p. 505. On p. 506, Plutarch has aKk’ oogoovg saQisa Oat gouKkov, 
 t\ (ppdtrai n tojv c&vroppqToov, and on p. 502 ty\v golv yccp & 
 'OXvfJbTrtoc gtouv oc7ro goiolg (pmrjg TroXXocg ocvTccvotzkotasig 
 TroiovGCiV, i‘7TTcc < p6i)VOV zotkovo'i, followed presently, on the same 
 page, by zocv TrspiTrocTovvTsg h tocvtoo 0 s ocgcovtou TpoGfioiToovToc. 
 Comp. sa0ioov ruv ccTroppriToov otvTolg, Peregrin. 16, and cog gosTci 
 to zav0/jvcci Oecitrociro ocvtov . . . -rsp i^octovvtoc (pccibpov Iv too 
 sktccQoovoo (jTOcc , Peregrin. 40. There is, we believe, no other 
 instance of the use of i-7TTdc(poovog. 
 
 Cedrenus then speaks of Chiron the centaur, and borrows 
 the language of Theodoretus, p. 1025. The original source 
 is Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 15, p. 360. We observe there hoc g,7\ 
 zcct ovogocc smoov bic&Tpifioo. Comp. 1m {Jj 7\ biccTpifioo Psycov, ovtoj 
 & locyovTsg z.t.X., de legend, libr. Gent. vi. ( vid . sup. p. 160 sq.). 
 Theodoretus and Cedrenus have biaysiv in the passage founded 
 on Clem. Alex. The subject of pseudo-Basil is very much 
 that of Cedrenus. 
 
 Theodoretus proceeds : ov Toivvv goccXcc Gcpoarizsi 0ocvgjdZ ) siv, 
 ovts 'H Gio'hov, Tpay/iuv XsyovToc T?jg upST?jg Tqv obov, *ic poadcvTri , 
 zoci bvafictTOV. Comp, oti Tpuysicc [Psv icp ootov zcci bvcfiocTog . . . 
 zoci avccvTTjg obog, de legend, libr. Gent. iv. This is the sen- 
 tence that is compared with some lines of Hesiod on p. 164. 
 The more noticeable of the words now given are not in those 
 lines. 
 
 Cedrenus then quotes a passage which he prefaces with b0sv 
 bjj PI Xgctoov hocpyoog ocv0ig IzbtbdcGzoov (pyiaiv. This passage is 
 found in Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. p. 571, also in Theodoretus, 
 p. 1027. In both places the passage appears as sv TpiToo Trjg 
 YioKiTStocg. It is, however, not there. It is the property of 
 
 1 From this page, and out of the passage used, a curious coincidence with 
 Diognet. iii. is given in Church Quarterly , 1877, p. 60. 
 
172 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Clem. Alex. It contains two or three words only of Plato, and 
 is so marked in Potter’s edition of Clement. Seeing that 
 Clement has evccpyug bihdazzi not far off, we must conclude 
 that Cedrenus consulted the original source. 
 
 The passage in question, which concerns the care of the 
 body, appears to be taken up by pseudo-Basil in de legend . libr. 
 Gent. viii. p. 182. 
 
 Immediately above this passage, Clem. Alex., who is con- 
 demning those who seek death, says : Qav&rco iavrovg Gcvrohi- 
 bdaci zzvm, zciQd7rsp zai ol tojv ’Ivhoov YvgjVoaotyiGTcti f/jccrcclco 
 TTvpi. These Indian Sophists seem to have excited the deepest 
 interest in the minds of our writers, who appear to have care- 
 fully examined almost every account of them to be found in 
 ancient literature. Indications of this are constantly seen in 
 our “ group of writings.” Calanus was the chief object of 
 attraction and amusement, and the author of Peregrinus seems 
 to have taken him in great measure as his model in sketching 
 out the end of Proteus. In well - nigh every place where 
 Calanus is mentioned by the ancients, there or in the im- 
 mediate neighbourhood we find coincidences with some part 
 or other of Peregrinus , and also with other writings. We 
 shall give now a long passage from Peregrinus, which contains 
 a reference to Calanus, and we shall give in notes some coin- 
 cidences from various sources which illustrate it. The coinci- 
 dences with other parts of Peregrinus and with other writings 
 we are compelled to pass by. At the end of this passage from 
 Peregrinus we shall give a curious coincidence between it and 
 the third Book of Maccabees, which we wish to have in view 
 for a reason which will hereafter appear : — 
 
 § 24. ... ro reXog de, zal ro xepaXaiov ^pr\ Zrfkovv, xai ‘xvpav cvv- 
 flsvra xopfAUiv ffux/xw v, dg evi fhdXiGra %\wpu v, eva^O'Trviyrjvai rui xacrvoD. 
 rb rrvp yap avro ov /xovov *H payCKeovg, %ai ’ Ao'xXtj'T/oD, aXX d xat 
 rdv 1 iepoffvXuv, xa/ 1 a vdpopovwv, oug opav effnv ex. 1 xaradixr\g avrb 
 'TTuffysovrag. dare a/xeivov ro did rov xacrvoD* 3 7diov yap vjuuv juovuv 
 av y&voiro. § 25. ” AXXug re o ju,ev ' HpaxXrjg, e’inep dpa xai eroXiMi jffs 
 n roiovrov (to cast himself into the fire), vtr'o voffov avro edpaffev, 
 v<7rb rov Kevravpiov a'i/uarog , dig pqffiv q rpuyudla, xarefsOibfievog’ ovrog 
 de, rivog a/rlag evexev 2 e/xf3dXXei 2 (pep uv eavrbv eig ro rrvp ; vr, A/’, 
 
 1 Diod. xvii. 107, p. 244, vfeluir s . . . \vt7veu (in same sentence) ... cl St 
 Ktvo^o^lav leri xupnpla ; and on p. 245, xardlxuiruv, followed after three lines by 
 
 crXbv tuv tipoiruXcov xa) po'/iuv. 
 
THIRD BOOK OF MACCABEES. 
 
 173 
 
 ocw; rr/v 1 xaprtpiav 4 tTidti^r/rai , 4 xa&aTtp ot Bpayjxdvtg, txtivoig yap 
 avrov 1 r^/ov ®taytvr t g tixd^tiv, uffTtp ovx 1 svov, xai iv ’lv&)/£ tivai rtvag 
 juwpovg xai 1 xtvodo^ovg dvQpdTovg. o/xug ovv xdv ixtivovg /xi/xt/ada. 
 sxtivoi yap ovx ifiTr/bojGiv tig rb Tvp, ug ’ Ovr^/xpirog b ’ AXs^avdpov 
 xufispvrirqg, iduv KaXavov 0 xqofitvov, <pr/ffiv, dXX’ tTtihdv 2 VTjtiwffi 5 TXr/dov 
 Tapaffrdvrtg 4 dxivv\roi* dv'tyovrai TapoTrdfxtvoi, sir ’ 2 tTifidvrtg xara 5 
 cyj/p la, xaiovrai ovd ’ offov oXiyov 6 sxrpi^pavTtg rqg 5 xaraxXiGtug, Pere- 
 grin. 25. uff'Ttp d/atXti xai rovg BpayjPdvag (pad Toitfv . . . tTtibr\ 
 dvyjcpdri fXtv 7) tv pa. Peregrin. 39. 
 
 ’A TeiXTjffavroc ds avroTg GxXr/poTtpov ug htbupoxoTY/atvoig tig (jr^yavr/v 
 rr,g ixfivy/jg, ovvtfiy} Gutpobg avrbv Ttpi rovrov Tti6$r\vai y Xtybvruv [xtra 
 d~odtt£ ) tug 7 (obs.), xai ry/v yapTY/piav (obs.) r\hr\ xai rovg ypapixovg 
 xaXa/aovg (obs.) tv ofg eypcvvro ixXtXoiTtvar tovto ds r/v ivipytia rrjg tov 
 ( 3or t 0ovvrog roTg ’ lovdaioig t£ ovpavov Tpovoiag dvixy/Tov (obs.), 3 Macc. 
 iv. 19—21; dvixr/Tov, dxivyrotg, vi. 13, 19. 
 
 2 Arrian, De Exped. Alex. vii. 3 xiXivtrui vrioinvui alreu Tvpdv ... tv orvpa ivi- 
 <Pipovras . . . vto tvs voirov . . . i[Ap>Xv^vai it; tvv ervpdv ... to Tvp is tvv orvpdv 
 ivifiaXov . . . ovroo hv iiri(idvTU tv Tvpa, xutuxXiPvvui /oolv iv xoafAU . . . on us xap- 
 Tipov Tt iffTl XUl UXIVVTOV X.T.X. 
 
 3 iElian, Var. Hist. ii. 12 Tipi rov oTvov uxpaTus i%uv. xai ’ AXi%uvhpos hi o 
 Maxshuv lor) KaXctvu . . . xai ’ Avdp^apns tu[atoXv iTii . . . 2 xvSuv yoop ihiov to 
 t'ivuv axpuTov. Comp, with Cedrenus. 
 
 4 Strabo, XV. p. 686 xuSuTip xai o KaXavos ’ AXi ^dvhpu tvv TOiavTnv 6'tav \<7ribu\d~ 
 /vivo;. Strabo says nothing more here. In lib. xv. p. 716, we find i%dyav iauTov 
 
 'hid orvpos v/itravTa orvpdv , vtfaXti^J/dpivov hi xai xadlcravTa Wi t'/iv orvpav vtpdipai 
 xiXivuv, axivYtTOV hi xaiiofai. 
 
 5 Plut. Alex. 69 TavTa h’ iiw&'v, xaTaxXihis foai ffvyxaXv^'d/u.ivos, olx ixivdPyi , 
 tov <rvpos TXttirid^ovTos, aXX\ iv a xaTixXiOvi ff^'/ipan, tovto hiaTVpcov, ixaXXi'ipvuriv 
 
 lavTov too vraTpiop vouu tuv ixu ffotynTTuv. Plutarch appears to be indebted to 
 Strabo, xv. pp. 716, 717. 
 
 6 Luc. Fug. 7 tovs yvpvoirofpiffTds Xiyus. dxovoo yovv too ts aXXa Tipi avTuv , 
 xai OTt ini Tvpdv pjoiyiffTYiv dva/ZavTis avi^ovrai xaiopavot, ovhev tov tr^r , [autos « T/js 
 xaP'ihpus ixTp'iTovTts. dxX! ovhlv (Aiyu tovto' tvuy%os yovv xai ' OXvfAViuffi to o/aoiov 
 iyeo iihov ysvo/Atvov' tixos hi xai <rl vrupuvui , xaioaivov TOTi tov yipovros. There is 
 a plain allusion here to Peregrinus Proteus ; and there are several other equally 
 plain allusions to be found in the treatise. Its genuineness is, however, denied 
 by Bourdelot and other critics, and we have therefore made no use of it. It 
 must stand or fall with de Morte Peregrini. 
 
 7 With the four words to which attention is here specially directed, comp, 
 the t*v xapTipiav ivihu%fiTai f KuXuvov , dx/vviToi of Peregrinus. The difference or 
 alteration in every word is the noticeable part of the coincidence. The dvi^ov- 
 tui of Peregrinus appears to be a play upon the dxivviToi which immediately 
 precedes, corresponding to the changes made by the writer of 3 Macc. Almost 
 irresistible force is given to the coincidence, from the fact that the %upTyip'iu of 
 3 Macc. is a coinage by the writer, and found in a story which is a self-evident 
 jest. The story is of the “first marvel,” which happened when Ptolemy 
 Philopator sought to wreak his vengeance upon the Jews. The king had 
 “ordered the names of the people to be taken down, preparatory to their exe- 
 cution.” “The scribes, to whom the task was assigned, toiled for forty days, 
 
174 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Turning to Cedrenus, we find in the sentence preceding the 
 passage copied from Clem. Alex. . . . Kevravpav, hid woKbriv 
 IrjwovQev zaprepiav, and lower down, and immediately after the 
 passage copied from Xen. Mem. i. 3. 9 (vid. sup. p. 170), 6 
 roGavrrjv hr[kovort wvpdv ev lavra zararo\fJb7]G ag ava\pai. 
 Now, observe, the wvpdv of Cedrenus refers to Xenophon’s 
 fire of lustful desire, and the zararo\g>7\Gag is taken from 
 Xenophon’s ov yap ovrog, spy, \roh[bn<si rov ’A Xzifiiabov viov 
 QihriGai, ovra evwpoGaworarov zai dpaiorarov ; ’ AaP si (tevroi, 
 g pq 6 S evo(pav, roiovrov lari ro p i^ozivhvvov epyov z.rX. (vid. 
 sup. p. 169). Comp, the eiwe p dpa zai eroX^GS n roiovrov of 
 Peregrinus above. Observe the roiovrov and the parody. In 
 Peregrinus, a few lines above the passage quoted, we find ov 
 cpiXozivhvvarepovg teat r oX^porepovg. 
 
 Cedrenus goes on to quote a saying ascribed to Diogenes, 
 which is found in Diog. Laert. vi. Shortly afterwards Diog. 
 Laert. gives another saying of Diogenes: %v wore %p bvog ezeivog 
 or yjpjqv eya roiovrog owdiog gv vvv owdiog h’ eya vvv, gv ovh g- 
 wore. This enables us to bring upon the scene another of our 
 “ group of writings,” for in the Oratio ad Grcecos (ascribed to 
 Justin Martyr) we observe in § 5 yiveG&e ag ’ey a, on zdya 
 7 j[/j 7 jv ag vp>eig (cf. Gal. iv. 12). The saying of Diogenes is 
 expressly referred to by pseudo-Basil in de legend . libr. Gent. 
 vii. In the next sentence pseudo-Basil has oguoiag aiaytpov 
 yiyelaQai <py)[U heTv rovg roiovrovg, ag ro eraipeTv r\ dXXorp'ioig 
 yagooig ewifiovXeveiv. In Orat. iv. we find g iwoigbi h’ av vpdiv 
 en zai rovro' ri dyavazreig , E XXtjv av, wpog ro rezvov gov , ei rov 
 L \ia pjiguovf/jevog e wifiovXevei goi zai It ’igov rov yd[x>ov GSGvXqze; 
 In Peregrinus, a few lines above the passage which we are 
 
 from morning till evening, till at last reeds and paper failed them, and the 
 king’s plan was defeated.” Smith, Diet. Bibl. p. 178. Coincidences with 
 3 Macc. are found almost everywhere, in the near neighbourhood of the mention 
 of Calanus by the ancients. Thus olvu orXsiovi oixpuru aoravrxs tovs Ixh poovTxs 
 croriffai follow immediately in 3 Macc. Comp, the words from /Elian in note 3. 
 In 3 Macc. vii. 5, appeal is made vopa VxvPZv. Arrian, in the place referred 
 to in note 2, says that Alexander, observing the Indian Sophists xpeveiv ro7s 
 Totri <r*iv y»jv, Ip’ vs fitfivKons v<r*v, inquired the reason. They replied an6puoro$ 
 
 pttv &xa<rros roirovSi tvs yvs xar's%u, otrornp tovt'o Ittiv ip’ era (Zsfivxaptsv <ru 
 anPpuoros av, orapxorXvmov tois ccWois x.r.X. Comp, tots ei orpin lorovifiirrot xai 
 or\v<ri»v tov efiov, (jt.u.'k'kon V lor’ uLtu (ZsfivxoTis, 3 Macc. vi. 31. The passage is 
 very noticeable in Arrian, and the use made of it is clever. The alteration of 
 Arrian’s lip’ ora into lor’ aura is of the same kind as the alterations of Peregrinus. 
 
OEATIO AD GKiECOS. 
 
 175 
 
 examining, the writer lias v(JL>oig 5’ ovv oivQig zpfoofJjGti, 
 av vfjbwv rovg Tcuhocg Z/jXcordg rov roiovrov yzvz<j()ai ; ovz u,v 
 uftoiTt. In Pint. ( de lib. educ.) ii. 12 we find zai vvv ctv g woiim, 
 and presently noil 7 rp 07 ]ya>ysvGS yccf/jzrqv, zoci rd roov Trocrzpctjv 
 ifiobicc rov yr\pojg ‘ripizszotpe zcct gigv\y\ki. Comp, with the 
 Oratio. In § 8, p. 184, pseudo-Basil has kfiohiov Tp og yr t pccg 
 xrrjGufJbzyog. 
 
 This interlacing of the various members of our “ group of 
 writings” one with another is very curious, and seems to 
 suggest either one mind and one hand, or else two or more 
 writers diligently following in one another’s steps. 
 
 We must pause here for a while to consider what kind of 
 writing the Oratio is, which has thus suddenly come into 
 notice. It may very safely be assumed that if it be the work 
 either of Justin Martyr (as some suppose) or of any other 
 early Christian apologist, it will not be found to contain 
 palpable jokes. But the Oratio does contain statements and 
 expressions which cannot be regarded otherwise than as jokes. 
 Almost in the first sentence we find the expression oc^ro KsTpov 
 ■TToifjAvog applied to Paris. The epithets throughout the piece 
 are exceedingly well chosen, and show a thorough acquaint- 
 ance with the language in which the various mythological 
 subjects handled therein are described by classical authors. 
 The epithet XsTpog applied to Paris seems therefore very 
 strange. Almost in the same sentence we are told that 
 Achilles jumped over a river (o r:orot[jjOv Tryih'/jGccg). It is 
 quite evident, from the author’s familiarity with mythology, 
 that he must have known perfectly well that no such leap is 
 recorded in mythological history. In § 3, it is said of Hercules 
 that he jumped over the mountains ( opyj Trrjhfoocg). On this 
 leap mythological history is also silent. Hercules was a more 
 powerful man than Achilles, and it was fitting that he should 
 have greater jumping powers. But this very fitness of things 
 only helps to make the joke more apparent. In § 3, it is said 
 that Hercules killed the bulls, and the stag which breathed fire 
 through its nostrils, transferring to the stag, that is, the de- 
 scription proper to the bull. In § 2, it is said that Neptune 
 ravished Melanippe as she was fetching water. Here, again, 
 is a matter upon which mythological history is silent. 
 Though these things are so, every line of the first three 
 
176 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 sections betrays the hand of one thoroughly versed in ancient 
 mythology. The alterations pointed out must have been 
 deliberately made as jesting “improvements” upon the received 
 myths. They can be nothing else than jokes. 
 
 We are in a position, however, to prove this. In Orat. i. we 
 are told that Achilles rd dsbrsunru oVXa d7rohvedyjSvog, 
 w(Jj(piz7jV G7o\v\v IvhvGuf/jivog, became a victim to love in the 
 temple of Apollo. The writer appears to refer to that version 
 of the death of Achilles which supposes him to have been 
 slain by Paris, on the occasion of his taking Polyxena as his 
 bride into the temple of Apollo. The expression vvyjtputriv 
 erokfyv is capable of tw'o interpretations. It may mean, with 
 Stephens: “vestem qualem sponsse gerunt,” or with Otto: 
 “vestem qualem sponsi gerunt.” If the first be accepted, it 
 is obvious to say, wfith Maran, that Achilles did not put on 
 female attire on that occasion. If we adopt the second inter- 
 pretation, the expression then becomes an embellishment of 
 the story, which, though not in itself unnatural, acquires im- 
 portance from the fact that Achilles’ assumption of female 
 attire was one of the notable incidents in his career. Stephens, 
 as we shall see presently, refers to Lycophron, and the 
 scholiast, in the pages to which he refers, would prevent him 
 from unintentionally so translating vv[/j(pix, 7 jv arokr\v as to make it 
 appear that on the occasion to which the Oratio alludes Achilles 
 put on female apparel. It seems, even as the case stands, 
 having in remembrance the other seeming jokes which have 
 been pointed out, almost necessary to believe that the vvf/jtpixrjv 
 eroK^v was deliberately written, that it might give rise to the 
 remarks which have actually been made upon it. 
 
 We shall now produce a pvfjjtpixog, over which a like un- 
 certainty may be thought to rest. On p. 50, we had occasion 
 to refer to Euseb. H. E. v. 1, in illustration of the rd Queers icc 
 'hs77rva, of Orat. iii. Further on, in the same chapter, Eusebius 
 has syjSivccv s|a/, oi yjrjbs ’iyyog ttuttots Trierecog, ctieQqeiv 
 evhvytjCirog (comp.) vv^izov, [Aybe svvoiocv tpbfiov Qsov eyj)vrsg. 
 The meaning of vv[/j(pizov here, not only may be, but as a 
 matter of fact has been, disputed. Heinichen has one of his 
 longest notes upon the question wdiether or not the word is 
 said of Christ, objecting to Valesius’ interpretation “vestis 
 nuptialis ,” and pointing to the expressions oug vvy,^ xszoeyjT}- 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 177 
 
 fjbbfj h zpoGGvToig ^pvGolg 'zrepivreTroizi'kf/jZvoig, XpiGrov svlshv- 
 (jbWTj, used earlier in the same chapter. Now, in the very next 
 sentence, Eusebius says that Alexander, a physician and martyr, 
 was ovtc a(JL>oipog mtogtoKixov yapiGpixOtTog, while, in the very 
 next sentence of the Oratio , Ulysses is said to have been 
 ayaQrjg (ppovrjGsajg oip>oipog. After three lines we find rctvroc, 
 ‘7TGcihsv2(y@Dct ov 6ikw. Comp. Trocvrsg roiyocpovv o! vov xcci 
 (ppov^Gicog ovz u,{JboipovvTeg, are vtto rrjg avururco Gopiug qrotihev- 
 Osvreg, Isidor. Pelus. Ep. iv. 202. 
 
 In Oral. v. the writer says : — 
 
 Ka/' ffop/cc 1 drrapapuXX^TU) xoivuv/iffars, xa/' Oi/w X6yu> ncudsvQrjrz, xa/ 
 fiaOers /3ufft\za dtpdaprov’ xa/' rovg rovrov ripuag sff/yvurs ovworz XaoTg 
 <povov Spyafy/Azvovg. avrbg yap q/xuv b ffrparyjybg ov (3ov\zrai ffu/ndruv 
 aXxfjv xa/' rvrro) v zv/j.optpiav ovd' svysv s/ag <ppvay/j.a, dXXd ^jvyyjv rs 
 xadapav, bcibr^rt rsrsiyiGfisvriv, yjdy] ds d/7]vexobg imcraruv ryaTv 6 dzTog 
 Xoyog , xa/' rd rov f3a6iXewg qfouv ffvvdyiqara, vpd^sig 6ziag, ug did Xoyov 
 dvvdqsug sig ^vyrjv 2 duxvovqsvyjg’ w 3 tsdXmy^ sipyjvixri •^xvyyjg vroXsjuov- 
 pozvyjg, u) vaduv dsiv&tv tpvyadzvrripiov, di) rrvpbg Ifjj^vyov fffieffnxbv did a<r- 
 xdXiov ! 
 
 1 Comp. vffxvvro ovroi ('1-ttoi) vrpos ivfx.op<p'tav (obs.) . . . us . . . xa) aorapa- 
 fjLiXXnrov alruv uvki rvv o^vrvra, Joseph. Antiq. viii. 7. 3. Josephus speaks also 
 of the appearance and stature of the riders, also of mules surpassing in strength 
 and beauty. Compare. Cureton’s translation of the Syriac runs : ‘ ‘ Because our 
 Captain delighteth not in the multitude of an army, neither in the horsemen 
 and in their beauty. ” Comp, with Josephus. It is interesting to notice that 
 an unknown John, “the deacon,” a writer of the first half of the 15th century, 
 in some verses in praise of John Palseologus, undertaken at the instigation of an 
 unknown Poly carp, makes a similar use of the same page of Josephus. He 
 
 Says : o ~2.oXofx.uv its <Ppovvffiv /asyas (Zporuv \xpi6v | ruv, tffu fx.ot.Wov to Ppovuv lff%v- 
 
 xeuriv, avDpuoruv, | o yvumv un’oipxfx.iXXos x.r.x. He not merely takes the notice- 
 able ivreipuft. , but other words from Josephus. Comp. e.g. xa) ppovvtru xa.) 
 vrXovrtu Znviyxuv ruv vrpo avrov ruv *E/3 paiuv up%vv lff%vxoruv f olx iTi/xavs rovrois 
 
 axpt TiXs vr?,s, with the language of John. It is also worth observing that, 
 a little above, John has xa) ZtfS h rovru fxvffnxus xara rovs TlavXov Xoyovs, I xa) 
 [x'ivus oXu; iv avru rovrov vfx.<pn<rfx.ivos , taking up the olx ior'ifx,avi of Josephus, from 
 whom also he takes the last word exactly. Comp, with discussion of vvfx.tptxvv 
 ffrokvv. 
 
 2 Comp, v 'liixvovfx.ivv rov aipa llva/ais, Clem,. Horn. vi. 10 (there are a number 
 of coincidences between this Homily and the beginning and end of the Oratio. 
 Vid. infr. p. 191) ; also Z,uv yap o Xoyos rov ®iou, xa) ivtpyvs . . . xa) 'btixvovfx.ivos 
 u%pi fx.ipifffx.ov 'pvxris x.r.x., Heb. iv. 12. 
 
 3 Comp. aXXu ffaXmyZ, fx.lv . . . arpanuras ffwvyayiv , xa) rroXifx.ov xarvyynXiv' 
 TLpurros iipvvixov . . . foiXos . . . ffaXony\ Itrr) Xpiffrov to E vayyiXiiv alrov . . . 
 ivhvffafx.ivoi rov 6upaxa rvg Zixaioffvvvs x.r.X. . . . rov orovvpov arroff(iirufx.iv (obs. ) 
 P>iXv . . . vto rov Piiov Aoyov avaZ > wrupov[x.ivov . . . u rvs . . . ovva.fx.iojs . . . ffrapaorofx.- 
 vros ayaOn oXu xa) riXilu ru rvs ^v^vs Tviv/aan ro?s us ovpavov aora'ipovm , yivo/aivv 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Comp, with Isidore. Eusebius in his prefatory remarks 
 upon the chapter which we are using writes ceKkoi f/xh ovv 
 icropizbeg 7roiov[/jSvoi iiqryrjffeig, Toevrovg bev rroepkiazoev r5j ypeefit j 
 ToXe/eowv vizceg,zoei rp ovrceiee zoer V/fipwv, ffrpceryiyuv rs bepionlceg, 
 not) brrXirwv bevhpoeyceQiceg, cefyoen zed yevpioig (pbvoig . . . oik y s 
 rov zeerbe hov ToXirsvfJxoerog itrjyyjfjeoerizog rj^lv Xoyog, rovg vtt I p 
 cevrijg Tfjg zcerce ^vyjiv eiprjvrjg iipyjvizcoreerovg TroXkfjeovg z.r.X. 
 In Eusebius ‘repippkovv follows after a few lines, and in the 
 Oratio Treptppebvrav. As Heinichen remarks, rb zeerbe Qeov 
 TroXireuf/jOC is here plainly opposed to the preceding (rrpcerqyovv 
 z.rX . Comp. It is impossible, one would say, that these 
 things can be accidental. 
 
 Let us return for a moment to Eusebius’ vv^izov passage. 
 The question there is, whether the vvfJbtpizov hivyeoe is to be 
 referred to the evivfjjce ycefjoov of the parable (S. Matt. xxii. 
 11), with its manifold interpretations, or to the Church as the 
 spouse of Christ, or to Christ Himself, having in mind Rom. 
 xiii. 12-14 uTroQMfJbeQcc ovv roe spy cc rov azbrovg , zod kvivfrafjoeQcc 
 roe brrXoe rov (fioorog . . . ceKK’ kvivercecOs rov K vpiov T rpovv 
 Xpjtrrov. Comp, with the Oratio. We were introduced to the 
 Oratio through a certain column of Cedrenus, which is in the 
 closest possible contact with a treatise of Theodoretus. On 
 p. 1027, Theodoretus quotes Rom. xiii. 12 sq., and on p. 1015 
 he refers to the parable of the ten virgins, and also to that of 
 the wedding garment : zeet roeg Tceptfkvovg is, roeg eepzovv ovz 
 Icyyizviceg rb kXoeiov, g %oo rov vvf/jfievvog zoerkXiTrs (comp, with 
 Eusebius)* zoei roevroe , Tapflevovg zccXouV zed rov eaQ/jrGe ‘prsp/fis- 
 fiXqpuevov ovx cepf/jbrrovo’oev ycefjbct) . . . gf^Aaffg* zoeiroi zXrfiiig 
 u<rs\7l’kv0ev . . . oeX7b STreiiy) • • • ovz faerie rrjv aro\r\v (comp.), 
 ’bnoefov ccTsp STcetfe. Heinichen refers to Theophylact on Rom. 
 xiii. 12. Theophylact, however, is only Chrysostom “ writ 
 
 . . . yetis . . . revro 'X.pitrros (lovXirut . . . A oyos ct<pictptrlcts . . . e i%t\ctvvwv rhv 
 (pfopuv. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 11, p. 90. In the Oratio lx yns yirayu tU revs 
 i/Tip "OXvywov opevSy turios o Xoyes otvruv . . . rot ^avx . . . otm'kxvvn train follow 
 directly. From the same page and sentences of Clem. Alex., comp. A eyes 
 a.Xr)6iia.s . . . Vva £v otviputrots iZpvtrn rov Bsov , with avros are evpavuv rnv etXnis/av xcti 
 rev Xoyev rov ciyiov xai otiripivonrov otviputrois ivi^pvm, Diognet. vii. ; and $/’ ns 
 fivvotytus) avipeotreis tTvyrroXinvirai Bios’ Xuiev euv xoo) ayavov, rni aptarns reuv evruv 
 evrloos yiywrnv oyev xcti itpatrtvrnv y'tvttriai’ ev yap ft iyu a i a i ns dvvntrirai rov Bitv, 
 with ayarrntras ^£ fx.iy.nrws iV»j a.vrov rns %pn<rrornros’ xcti yn ietvy.tt.trns ti ivvetrxi 
 ytynrns etvipuoros yivitrioti Biov . . . evTt iv revrei s dvvxrat ris ytyn^xaiett 0iay . . . 
 Bios ' tv ovoctvo7s ToXtnvireti, DiogilCt. X. 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 179 
 
 small,” and in Chrysostom (we have had several indications of 
 the use of this writer by our authors, vid. sup. pp. 131, 140) 
 we find awohvGafAeda several times substituted for the 
 awoQatAeQa of Romans, also spyoc ’ekeyev' ore ^g wepi r/jg aperrjg , 
 ovzen epya, aXX’ owka, and the way made very plain for the 
 roc Oeorevzra owka ocwohvcrafAevog, vvfAtpizyjv <rro\yjv \vhvad(Aevog 
 of the Oratio. Eusebius, H. E. x. 4, applies horevzrog to the 
 Church which he has just called the “bride.” The explana- 
 tion of hhi tfJboc as applicable to Christ, wdiicli Heinichen quotes 
 out of Theophylact, is also given by Chrysostom. On S. Matt, 
 xxii., Chrysostom ( Horn . lxx.) has ovrcog zee) ffv ro (aIv aa[Aa 
 weplfiaXXe <rroKfj . . . ov XoylZ^eig wag elg rag waarahag rrjv 
 z\r,6e~i<jav ^vyyiv eWievai he7 (cf. with Theodor.), zpoaaaroig 
 ypu(ro7g wepifiefiXTjfAevyjv wewoizi\(Aevr\v ; fiovXei aoi hel^co rovg 
 ovrag earoXiapJevovg ; rovg evhvfAa eyovrag yd(Aov z.rX. Comp, 
 with the passage from Eusebius. In the next sentence to that 
 containing zpoacaroXg z.r.X., Eusebius has ol he . . . wpoaen Sg 
 vwo rav \6vwv bveihiZp(Aevoi dg ayevveig zai dvavhpoi , bcvhpo(povav 
 (joh eyzXr\(Aa eyovreg z.r.X. Comp, ol ylev hoi vfAuv vwo 
 dzpaalag rjXeyy^ffav, oivocvhpoi £g ol ypaeg, vgcdv, dg ocl wap’ v[a7v 
 hpafAarovpyoi iaroplai e hyXacrav. Orat . iii. — giving examples 
 of cruelty. 
 
 It is proper to inquire whether Peregrinus makes any use of 
 Euseb. II. E. v. 1. In § 44, an Alexander (obs.), a physician, 
 plays a rather conspicuous part, and not long before the mention 
 of his name we are told that some of those who had mistaken 
 the hour for Proteus’ self-destruction still pressed forward to 
 see the spot zal n Xeldgavov zaraXa(A/3aveiv rov wvpog. Very 
 soon after the vv[A(pizov passage, Eusebius has zal rore hrj 
 wpodevreg . . . rare rov wvpog Xei^pava, wrj (Aev eawapayp, eva, wrj 
 he r\vdpazco(Aeva z.r.X. In Peregrin. 1 we find zal vvv ezeivog 
 awTjvQpdzcural croi 6 /3 eXrlarog ... 6 he yevvdhag ovrog rrjv 
 woXvavQpwwordrrjv rdv 'Ea Xyjvizdv wavrjyvpeav rrjprjffag . . . ewi 
 roaovruv (Aaprvpav (obs.). A few lines above the vvfApizov 
 passage, Eusebius has eyyXvzaivovrog rov rov (Aev Oavarov rov 
 dfAapraXov (ay\ (3 ovXoglevov, ewi £g rr\v (Aerdvoiav yprjcrrevofAevov 
 ©g ov, iva zal wahiv e weparriQaaiv vwo rov y\ye(Aovog' ewiffrel- 
 X avrog yap rov Kairapog rovg glev aworv(AwavicQrjvai, el he nvzg 
 apvoivro , rovrovg dwoXvffQTjvai, rr\g evQdhe wavriyvpeag * e an Sg 
 avrrj wcXvavdpawog ez wdvrav rdv e&vdv GvvepyofAevouv elg avrrjv. 
 
180 
 
 PEREGEINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Compare. With the first part of this passage compare xpfjff- 
 revcoofjijzOGC uvToig xocrd ryjv tvGnXuyxyiuv zoci y‘kvx,vTrira rov 
 'noiYiGMV'Tog yjfjbag. Clem. Ep. i. 14. This is very interesting, 
 because the preceding words in Clement are those which we 
 were commenting upon on p. 170, and which, together with 
 Peregrinus , appeared to be indebted to Xenophon. The word 
 aTrorvybTTocviZpiv, which is not very common, is found in the 
 pseudo - Helladian excerpts, immediately above the passage 
 given on p. 50, and which forms the coincidence with Orat. iii. 
 The writer says that one Praxiteles skinned a ram alive, and 
 was beaten to death because he had invented a new kind of 
 torture, — an appropriate story enough, seeing that Eusebius’ 
 chapter is upon certain martyrs, and the torments wdiich they 
 suffered. 
 
 The least that can be said upon the foregoing, is that there 
 is very good reason for concluding that Eusebius was used in 
 the composition of the Oratio ; and, as a necessary consequence, 
 that we are justified in saying that the “ leprous shepherd,” 
 the two w T onderful “ leaps,” and the vvpjtyiKYi otoKt] of Achilles, 
 are merely jests. 
 
 We shall now quote so much of Oratio iii. as gives the 
 account of Hercules. For the consideration of it we must go 
 back to Peregrin. 25, quoted on p. 172, and to the column of 
 Cedrenus which was then in use : — 
 
 Tov yap rpi&ffffspov ’ A.\xs/dr)v, rtiv aydvuv qyijropu, rov di d vdps/av 1 2 
 ddoftfvov, rov rov A tog viov , og 3 (Sp/apov xarzrr etpvs Xsovra xai r:o\{yx.pavov 
 
 1 The words V uvh pilot v are not in the editio princeps, published by Stephens 
 in 1592. 
 
 2 “Editi hyriropa. a'bopivov. Priorem vocem Stephanus (ex msto suo, in quo 
 priores tantum syllabae exstabant) conjecerat, idemque articulum addi (obs.) posse 
 judicaverat, ut esset hyyT. tov ooVopivov. In codice Argent, nominis fiyr,Topa 
 duse priores syllabse et a comparent ; sequuntur rev (obs.) duo verba, non quidem 
 satis perspicua, sed haud dubie kv'bpi’iu.v legenda,” Otto (Jenae 1849). Since it 
 is most unlikely that two mss. should fail through rough usage or any other 
 cause in the same word and in the same part of the same word, it follows from 
 the above that the ms. which Stephens used was the Cod. Argent. Nearly 
 (perhaps quite) three hundred years after Stephens used the ms . tov 5 /’ av^ pilot v 
 could be read. Why did not Stephens print the words ? 
 
 3 There was an “empty space” here in Stephens’ ms. “Quid si igitur 
 
 epitheto trhvocpov aut /3 pioopov hoc vacuum spatium esse implendum dicamus,” 
 Steph. notes, p. 75. “ Conjecit Stephanus o^ivoopov aut (ipiapov , idque, licet non- 
 
 nullae literae aliquantulum expunctae sint, codice Argent, probari videtur.” 
 Otto. Here, again, the ms. which Stephens used shows a fault at the same 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 181 
 
 wXsdsv vdpav' vv d ’ aypiov axd/Aarov 6 vexpobcag opv/Oag d ’ uvdpo(3opovg 
 irrra/uevog xaQsXsTv 6 dvvriOeig, xai xvva rpixapr^vov abou dvayayuv, 
 Avysiou b ’ oyvpov rsryog axv(3dXwv xaQsXsTv 6 buvyiQe/g, ravpovg be xai 
 sXapov avsXuv uv jau^coryjpsg srrvsov rrZp, xai xaprtbv ypvffeov are Xeyovg 
 sXa(3ev, epxsrbt io[36Xcv dvsXuv xai ’ AyeX&ov, rtvog e'vexsv sxravev oZ 6e[ug 
 s/ksTv, xai rbv ^svoxrovov Bo-joipiv, xai bpr\ ‘Tryjbqffag ha Xd$r\ vbup svap- 
 Qpov (puvYjv drrobibbv, ug Xoyog' o ds roffaZra xai roiaZra xai ry\XtxaZra 
 bpdcai (6 gisv 'HpaxXrjg . . . avro sbpaGsv here in Peregrin .), bvvrjOetg, ug 
 v^rtiog urro GarZpojv xaraxv/AfiaXnfQeig xai vvb yvvaixsiov spurog Tjrryjdeig 
 (comp. b yvvaixuv TjrrTidriva/ here in Cedrenus) w to Avdrjg yeXuarig 
 xard yXovru v rwxrbfisvog (comp. Peregrin. 9, quoted on p. 45, and the 
 r\jr:rb[isvog . . . rrvydg of p. 46), fjbero" xai rsXog (here in Peregrin .) 
 rbv 1 N sggs/ov yjrwva anobuffatiSai (story referred to here in Peregrin.) 
 [Art bvvTidug, wpav 2 xaP aZroZ (comp, the rtupd v sv saury of Cedrenus), 
 aZrbg rroi^ai rsXog sXafis roZ (3tov (Hercules’ death by fire, here in 
 Peregrin.). 6'sru rbv %?jXov (here in Peregrin.) ''Hpaiarog xai [lt\ 
 (pOovsirw si <zps6(3vrr)g o)v xai xvXXbg rbv rroba [AS/AiGTjro/' Apr\g bs vrstyiXriro 
 vsog gDv xai upaTog (comp, the rbv ’ AXx. viov (piXriGai, ovra ehnpoG. x.. 
 upaiorarov of Xenophon, quoted on p. 169). 
 
 place where the Cod. Argent, shows one. The argument is the same as in the 
 preceding note. Stephens’ ms. must have been the Cod. Argent. But three 
 hundred years after he used it there was no “ empty space” at this point. How 
 is this to be explained ? There is no room here for the handiwork of the “ care- 
 less” or “ ignorant scribe.” Stephens in his note twice uses the expression 
 “vacuum spatium.” If he was honest, some one must have filled in the 
 “ empty space ” with the word Ppixpov. The scribe who added the word so as to 
 deceive Cunitz, who collated the ms. for Otto, could, without doubt, if he had 
 been so minded, have written an entire ms. in the style of the 13th century, 
 the supposed date of the Cod. Argent. 
 
 1 “In codd. mstis habetur sed, ut jam Stephanus vidit, manifesto 
 
 mendo pro N 'artraov. Accidit enim ut sequens litera (v) a prsecedente, quse eadem 
 erat, absorberetur. Scriptor autem intelligit tunicam Nessi Centauri sanguine 
 infectam.” Otto. Stephens in his notes gives hra-lov. Any way, we have here 
 another plain indication that Stephens’ ms. was the Cod. Argent. 
 
 2 “Hanc prsepositionem, quam conjecit Stephanus, Cod. Argent, confirmavit. ” 
 Otto. So then xxr ’ was in the ms. before him, and, as before in the case of 
 fipicipov, he saw nothing. Beurer is supposed, on the testimony of Stephens, to 
 have transcribed the ms. which Stephens used. The readings of this supposed 
 transcript by Beurer are given by Sylburg. “Aberat (*«rj a Beureri apo- 
 grapho.” Otto. In § 4, Otto has xx) lv’ iaov. Stephens printed and translated 
 xa) troZ. “Apog. Beur. (obs.) et Cod. Argent, xx) ixr) <rou.” Otto. In § 5, 
 Stephens printed xx i tovtov; rovs %p<vx;, and conjectured rovrov. Otto prints 
 rov; toutou, and says that this reading “exstat in apographo Beur. (obs.) et in 
 codice Argent.” In the next line Otto prints o ffrpxmy'oi ( vid . sup. p. 177). 
 Stephens writes: “In exempl. videntur superesse qusedam vestigia vocis 
 arpx'nryo;, articulo o ei prsefixo. ” Three hundred years afterwards the ms. it 
 seems was more easily deciphered, for Otto says of o trrpxrnyos, “ope codicis 
 Argent, suo loco restitui.” 
 
182 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Note. — It is quite evident from the footnotes that the ms. which 
 Stephens used was the Cod. Argent., and equally evident that he 
 used the ms. dishonestly. Some persons seem to imagine that 
 Stephens had access to some other ms. He says, however, expressly 
 in his preface, that he had only one. The comparison of Stephens’ 
 text of the Epistola ad Diognetum , and his notes thereon, with the 
 readings of the Cod. Argent., wholly confirms the view we have 
 been taking. See Church Quarterly, April 1877, pp. 69, 70 ; also an 
 able discussion of the question in Patr. Apost. Op., Lipsise 1875, pp. 
 208, 209. It may be well to hear what Otto’s judgment upon 
 Stephens would be, if he could bring himself to believe, as he can- 
 not, that Stephens’ ms. was the Cod. Argent. In reply to Bunsen, he 
 writes : “At vero neutiquam argumentis opinionem firmavit : juxta 
 quam Stephanus hercle nequissimus foret verbero, utpote qui saepenu- 
 mero 1°. antiquo codici suo disertissime imputaret lacunas, ubi Argen- 
 toratensis prima, manu perspicue voces illic deficientes praebet, 
 2°. lectiones ex suo codice memoraret, quag valde differunt a lectioni- 
 bus in Argentoratensi clarissime prima manu exhibitis. Quid plura? 
 Constat Stephanum mendaciis tarn impudentibus decepisse neminem.” 
 Athenag. Op., Jenag 1857, p. 327. It is, however, more reasonable 
 to believe that Stephens’ was dishonest, than that two mss. again 
 and again failed from natural causes in exactly the same places. 
 We quite admit that there may have been another ms. which perhaps 
 Beurer used. But if there were two mss., one of them was a fraudu- 
 lent imitation of the other. 
 
 It is difficult to suppose that the connection, pointed out 
 above, of the Oratio with the various writings which happened 
 to be in our hands, on p. 174 sq., has accidentally arisen. As 
 it is of importance to discover the meaning of this, we shall 
 devote some space to the examination of the passage which 
 contains it. 
 
 In the article on Ep. ad Diognet . in the Church Quarterly , 
 April 1877, p. 47, there is a prefatory note upon the name 
 “ Diognetus.” It is there shown that two persons of this 
 name — the one (p. 149) a prophet, the other (p. 151) a pugilist 
 — are mentioned in Phot. Bihl. 190, and that there are circum- 
 stances which seem to indicate that Stephens had in view, in 
 his notes on the Oratio , that part of Cod. 190 which speaks of 
 Diognetus the pugilist. This prefatory note was intended to 
 supply a base of operations for the examination of the Oratio , 
 and as such we shall now use it. 
 
 The circumstances referred to are briefly these. Stephens in 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 183 
 
 his note on “ the leprous shepherd” of Orat. i., takes occasion 
 to say that the emendation of XsTpov into A STpcciov, if it 
 should occur to any one, cannot be made with reference to the 
 Lepreum known to geographers. In his note on the “ vacuum 
 spatium” of Orat. iii., he says that the gap cannot be filled by 
 Ns f/jicuov, for reasons which he gives. In his note on the 
 marvellous (i leap ” of Achilles, he says that the leap cannot be 
 the well-nigh proverbial one of which Lycophron speaks. It 
 happens that in Cod. 190, a few lines after the mention of 
 Diognetus the pugilist, the town of Lepreum is mentioned. 
 Previously the writer has spoken of the Nemean, lion, graft- 
 ing, as his custom is, new circumstances on to an old myth. 
 Shortly after the mention of Lepreum, a line of Lycophron 
 is quoted, which brings in a discussion of the epithet Tohapzrjg 
 as applied to Achilles. These things seem to indicate that 
 Stephens had Cod. 190 in his mind when he was writing his 
 notes on the earlier part of the Oratio. At any rate, it is a 
 very curious circumstance that these things should be found 
 all close together, in near company with the name of Diognetus, 
 the name, that is, of the person to whom the epistle was 
 written, of which possibly the world would never have known 
 anything whatever if it had not been for Stephens. 
 
 Our first coincidence is close at hand. The epithet Trohcipzrig 
 is applied to Achilles a few times in Homer ; e.g. 7ru',Tug yet p 
 zccT27re(pvs Tohoipzyjg 'blog ’A ^iXksvg. The word zocTS7rs(pvs 
 
 follows the “vacuum spatium” in Orat. iii., quoted above. 
 
 Let us turn now to p. 151, where Diognetus and Lepreum 
 are mentioned, and see what we can find. 
 
 The eye falls at once upon on <pkvctptiv ovrog 6 povtfoypccfiog 
 (Ptolemy) MooG7jg, (prjffiv, 6 tmv 'E/opa/av vofJjiOzrrjg uAtyct Ixak- 
 Ciro to ctXfiovg e%eiv It) tov (ruguciTog, and presently not) rj 
 K u\peXov [M t rr\P' ) ovffcc, Adgofibcc inh^ri vto tov HvOiov. 
 
 The pseudo-Helladian excerpts, Phot. Bibl. 279, begin thus: 
 on (pXvctpeT zcci ovTog tov M .ojar\v ctkfyoc zctkziaQvj bioTi ctktyolg to 
 7tu TotGTizTog Jjv, and on p. 531 we find on tov fianXeag 
 K opivQov 7} (JjYiTrip . . . %o’kofiaTep&) (Tza^ovacc tu iTspoj Tohi, 
 Aafihct Izgc\z7to, quoted on p. 63, in connection with the 
 Evang. Thom. Comp, these together, and with each the cuv 
 zc/j zvXXog tov Tobct of the Oratio. For vofJOoQsTTjg we may 
 refer back to p. 58. Our readers are there directed to certain 
 
184 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 so-called excerpts from Diodorus. The particular excerpts 
 made use of speak of the Israelites as having been driven from 
 Egypt because of their leprosy, an accusation which is repelled 
 by Theophilus in Autol. i. 9. Theophilus calls them “ shep- 
 herds.” It cannot be denied, then, that we have here in 
 close company with Lepreum an excellent illustration of the 
 “ leprous shepherd ” of the Oratio. Sylburg, we may remark, 
 defended the expression, and referred in justification of it to 
 Theophilus. 
 
 We shall now take a passage from Cod. 190, of 17 lines. 
 It contains .the mention of Lepreum. Just above it is the 
 name of Diognetus, just below it the reference to Moses, who 
 may be called, in the view of Ptolemy and the writer of the 
 pseudo|-IIelladian excerpts, “the leprous shepherd” of the 
 Hebrews : — 
 
 K ai Mg M e/edri/xog ’H Xeibg B ovv'sa vibv vKeds/^e v 'HpaxXe? Kepi rr t g 
 xuQdpaetog rov A vyeov noKpov, uiffre dKoffrpe^ai rov KorafLov. . . . iv 
 A ecrpeu . . . ayuva d'e Qetg sk' avrp ' HpaxX^g EKaXaiffe ©rrfe?’ itfoKaXovg 
 de rov aytovog yevo/Aevov epp7]Qr\ Kapd ruv Qearovv Kepi rov ©rjffeug' ” A XXog 
 ovrog 'HpaxXtjg. On <£>avraffia . . . cvvera^e Kph* Opripov rbv TX/axoy 
 KokepLo v . . . ra ykv dvdpeTa . . . ra &t} X vza de je.r.X. 
 
 A few lines above this passage the writer has ra d”'Epya xai rag 
 ‘H ’Aepag 'H tiiodov. 
 
 In Orat. ii. the author has aXK Z7rei 'H ffiohog "Ophypov 
 "Epya, rs zcA'YipbzpKg ffvvzypa^z. Comp, with the words given 
 from Cod. 190, and note the -rpo 'O [/j7]pov. The words of the 
 Oratio are made more noticeable, from the circumstance that 
 Stephens desired to write cxXh! stts/ f H<r. fjbz O' 'Opb. \ymro (or 
 qv) og "Epycc z.r. A. Otto improves on it. He says : “ Quid ? 
 Fortasse legendum : ’AX\’ STSt 'H ffiohog r\v, og posf "Opo. 
 ’Epya, etc. — ita ut erroris causa sit repetitum 02.” It may 
 be possible to find the suggestion for this og. The town of 
 Lepreum is not very often mentioned by the ancients. 
 Aristophanes speaks of it in the following lines : onri vij rovg 
 Ozovg, og ovk iiav (ohXvrrof/jDci rov As-rpsoy cctto M zkuvQiov, Av. 
 150, 151. Some difficulty has been felt as to og here, and off’ 
 ovtc and ojg olx, have been in consequence suggested. The 
 scholiast says ovocZpi Sg to 02. He says also that Melan- 
 thius was XsTpog, and that the explanation of the name 
 Lepreum must be referred to leprosy. We can understand, 
 
OKATIO. 
 
 185 
 
 then, the source from which the suggestion for the dropped og 
 came, and also how Stephens was led to speak of Assrp ociov as 
 a possible substitute for \z 7 rp 0 v in Orat. i. The coincidence 
 between the words of Orat . ii. and Cod. 190 must be borne in 
 mind. Comp, also the ccto Ms XavOiov (ksnpov) with the utto 
 teftpou ‘ToifJbzvog of the Oratio. 
 
 At the close of Orat. ii., a few lines above the passage 
 quoted on p. 180, we observe to uvhpixov, and to OrjXvzbv, and 
 also tcc tood yvvcaxcrjv spy a. Comp, with the words from Cod. 
 190, quoted above. On p. 152, the author has to, tqov xvvwv 
 spy a. 
 
 Next, comp, with the passage from Cod. 190 the Avyzlov 
 5 ’ oyvpbv Tiiyog <T/cvficc\av %ccQ e\e7v 6 ^vvyjdsig of the passage 
 from the Oratio , quoted above. Otto translates, and no doubt 
 rightly, “qui Augise validum stercorum murum destruere 
 potuit.” Stephens, however, translated otherwise : “ qui 
 
 Augise validum murum purgare stercoribus potuit.” So Syl- 
 burg “ deceptus Stephani versione,” as Otto says, “ zuQzkziv pro 
 zaOccIpBiv dictum esse notat.” Stephens’ translation agrees 
 with the coincidence which we have just produced out of the 
 passage which contains the mention of the Lepreum to which 
 Stephens refers. There are several indications in Stephens’ 
 edition of the Oratio and Ep. ad Diognet ., that the text, the 
 translation, and the notes have each as it were an independent 
 history. So here Stephens seems to be translating something 
 which was in his mind rather than actually before him. We 
 venture to point out what appears to us to be the solution of 
 the discrepancy between Stephens’ text and Stephens’ transla- 
 tion. Just before the xvMXiiv in question is another xuQikiiv. 
 It would be obvious to suggest that the scribe of “ the very 
 ancient exemplar” which Stephens used had had his eye caught 
 by the first zgc0s\s7V) and so been led to substitute it for the 
 following zuQoiipziy. With this theory the Greek text agrees, 
 so also does the translation, but the corresponding note was 
 omitted. There is a very similar omission from Stephens’ note 
 on the close of Diognet. viii. 
 
 Comp, also the tuv aywvcov TjyyjTopoc of Orat. iii., quoted above, 
 with the passage from Cod. 190. The Theseus spoken of is 
 said to have been the founder of the Isthmian games. In con- 
 nection with Theseus a Menedemus is mentioned. Plutarch 
 
186 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (ii. p. 81) ascribes to another Menedemus a somewhat notice- 
 able saying: zoltoltuXsIv yap ’4$tj rovg vroXXovg in) g%oXyiv 
 ’A^va^s Gopovg rb rrpburov^ sir a, ysviaQou piXoGofiovg, sir a 
 priropccg, rod 5s y^povov Tpoiovrccg , ibibvrug. Clement in Ep. ii. 
 7 deals with the Isthmian games, and he says: nod on tig rovg 
 pQoiprovg aybuvu.g zocrarrXsovGiv ttoXXoi, a XX’ ov ndvrsg Grspccv- 
 odvroci . . . dybuva rbv upQctprov, zed ttoXXoi slg avrov zktolkXsv- 
 Gcupusv . . . zai si pjrj bvvoipjsQu w dvrsg GrstpavouQyjvcci, zdv syyvg 
 rod Grspdvov ysvaposQu. It is said of Diognetus (the Cretan 
 pugilist) vizfoctg ov Xufioi rbv Grspccvov . . . rodrov rbv Aioyvrjrov 
 bug Tipouoc Kpijrsg npobuGiv. 
 
 So far we have been concerned only with a few lines of Cod. 
 190, specially marked out for us by the coincidences with the 
 pseudo - Helladian excerpts, and by the knowledge which 
 Stephens would seem to have had of them. 
 
 If, however, we look backward we find several other coinci- 
 dences. In Oral. i. we have TTpburiGrce, pdv yccp (pccGi rbv ’A ya- 
 pbSfJbvov a, r% rod a hsXpod oczpocGiop . . . rrjv Qvyccrspu xpog QvgIuv 
 evhozyjGavrcc, bodvou . . . im pvGr\rou rrjv *E Xsvqv cc7ro XsTpod 
 TTOipjSvog f]p7rcc(r(/jsvy]v. The story is told here in Cod. 190, 
 p. 151, with a noticeable variation. We find obbsXpbg ... bug 
 ’ AXs ^ccvbpov ccpTa^ovrog 'EXsvqv Ms vsXccog . . . %pa KccX^ag 
 XvQrjvai rb h/vov, si Ovgsis rrjv Qvyarspu ’Ipiysvsiuv ’ Ayocpospevcuv 
 TloGSibbvvi' rod 5s purj ccvccG^opj'svov, bpyiffOsvrsg oi f/ E XXrjvsg 
 dfisiXovro ccvrod rb zparog, zed zarsGryjGccv fdccGiXsoc, IlaXa- 
 pjY$YjV. Comp, s vhozrjGocvroc. The truth — if we may use the 
 
 word of a myth — being that Agamemnon at first rebelled, 
 but afterwards yielded to the entreaties of Menelaus. 
 
 Still looking back, we find on p. 150 that the author gives 
 an explanation of the origin of the saying : “ The Cretans are 
 always liars.” Have we here the reason why Diognetus, who 
 was a Cretan, is taken as the title of the epistle? Three lines 
 above we observe TrspisOrjzs Grstpdvou. In Orat. iv. we have 
 GTSpCCVOUV TTSplQsGSig. 
 
 On p. 149, we find rbjv Iv T ggou (Jjdy/jv. Did this suggest the 
 corrupt reading rbv sggiov ( vid . sup. p. 181, note) ? 
 
 On p. 148, the writer has rivog sgtiv 6 vpuvog 6 dhof/jsvog sv 
 0?jj3 ocioig sig 'Hpa^Xsa, sv bu Xsysi A ibg zod f/ H peeg vlog. Comp, 
 the rbv 5 /’ avhpslotv dhbf/jtvov rbv rod A ibg viov of Orat. iii., 
 quoted on p. 180. 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 187 
 
 A few lines above, on the same page, we find cog 
 tsvQovggc ttjv OvyccTspcc, its i HoGSibd/v civrriv Iv %ocry]<petot, ovcav 
 STSlpCC, slg 'iTTOV SCCVTJJV (/jSTS[/jbp<pOJG S yoChlTYl'VttGM', sXQovgdc 5 ’ ST l 
 rrjv Tr\yr\v zoci OsccGccfJbsv?] ty\v yooptyriv sGTvyrjGS ts zoci to vbcop 
 fJbsXccv SToirjGS. Comp. zcfi r\ Afi^TjTpcc, bcXcjfJbsvT] zoctcc Tag 
 iprjfjoovg, to t'szvov and after one line ToChiv o HoGSibav 
 
 yisXaviTTTiv fjoh qGyyvsv vbpsvofjosv^v. Neither the one nor the 
 other of these acts of Neptune appears to be recorded in 
 mythical history. There was a Melanippe queen of the 
 Amazons, davfJba^ofJbsvT] ycakiGTa bC avbpsiocv (Diod. iv. 16, 
 p. 262), whose life Hercules preserved. Comp, the §/’ avbps/av 
 which belongs to the coincidence which we just pointed out 
 with this very place of Cod. 190. 
 
 On p. 147, the writer has avsXcbv tov . . . TvpiTVoov YiyavTa. 
 Comp, rocvpovg bl zee) sXafiov avs\cibv uv (jjv^ooryjpsg stvsov Tvp, 
 Orat. iii., quoted above. Sylburg complained of the inappro- 
 priateness of the description, and wished to transpose the words 
 ravpovg and sXa (pov. The complaint may be thought to apply 
 equally to the YiyavTa. We shall have more to say on this 
 hereafter. 
 
 Just above the writer makes a swarm of locusts to go up 
 from the funeral pyre of Hercules. The writer of Peregrinns 
 makes a vulture to fly up from the funeral pyre of Proteus. 
 
 On p. 146, the writer speaks of the end of Hercules cog 
 tv pi avTOV ai >si\s (A?} bvvrfsig to oizsiov szTsivai Toigov. Similarly, 
 the writer of the Oratio , in the passage quoted on p. 180, gives 
 a jjjT] bvvrjOstg as the cause of Hercules’ death. There the 
 similarity ends, and it is this which gives weight to the coinci- 
 dences. Obs. in the Oratio the twice repeated 6 bvvyjQsig which 
 precedes. 
 
 Lastly, in his preliminary remarks on Ptolemy, Photius 
 writes g yji yap bovvai GvvsiXsyfJo'sva fipccygsl yjpoveg sibsvai, oc 
 GTopabr\v Tig tcov fiifrkicov avaksysiv t'ovov bsbsyf/j'svog (tazpov 
 zuTaTpr<]osi fii'ov, and after two lines 6 (Jcsvtoi tovtcov Gvvaycu- 
 ysvg z.tX. Comp. Orat. ii., where it is said that Neptune 
 debauched so many women besides Melanippe, that in the mere 
 mentioning of their names to\v TXqQog ‘Koycov zaTaTptyof/jSv. 
 Comp., further, zaTa tuguv ty\v oizovf/j'svT]v biafisfibrjTai zai 
 
 V[JjV7]Taf ZCCl TOC Tipi TOVTCOV GTOpabtJV ZSI[JjSVU aTOfiOiyfJjGlTCC 
 
 TjvOoXoy/jVTOit from the second Preface to the Sacr. Par . of John 
 
188 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 of Damascus ( vid . sup. p. 157, and the parallels there given). 
 Comp, also, with both, the g Tree imihrj to TTpaygeoc he/3e/36yro 
 • . . aXK ?] oiXKors c&(/jeifiouv . . . \v fipuyfi vrcdhug uvTovg awtyijve 
 . . . zed ^vvecyooy svg . . . zed tcov fiifikwv rag gelv IfyiyeTro, zed 
 hiS(Toc(pei, TroWug £g ocvTog zod %vveypcc@ g. Peregrin. 10, quoted 
 on p. 47, remembering the viovg . . . dTetprjvocTO of the first 
 Preface to the Sacr. Par. From the same passage of Peri- 
 grinus , comp, tccvtcc zou ru roiavrct . . . a'hl tov Tccrepcc edpocae 
 . . . $vyr\v iocvrov zaTuhizdffocg with the o ra toguvtu zod 
 toiccvtcc zod TrjXizocvTa hpdaai in the passage from the Oratio 
 now in hand, quoted on p. 181, and rov zocrd TrccTpaXaav 
 vof/jov zed to UjOiyzlag ‘7rpo6Ti[JjOV, a few lines above that passage, 
 in Orat. ii. In Peregrin. 21, we find g 7 ys zed Tovg TrccTpcc- 
 
 Aoiccg, zed Tovg ctQsovg hizecg hihovoci tuv ToXf/j^gedTcuv. 
 
 If we turn to the page of Diodorus (p. 262) from which a 
 moment ago we produced dd ccvdpeiocv, we observe hisfiefiorjTO 
 (the exact word of Peregrinus) yap zeef oXrjv ty\v oizovgowriv. 
 Comp, with the passage just given from the second Preface 
 Sacr. Par. 
 
 On p. 263, Diodorus has dvidh s B ovffipiv tov qvozto- 
 
 vovvtcc Tovg TecpSTT^pjOvvTocg. Comp. Orat. iii. (quoted on p. 
 181 ) dvihdv zed . . . zed tov % svoztovov B ovaipiv. 
 
 Diodorus goes on, p. 264, to speak of the 'HpazXsovg <TTq?,wv, 
 and the conflicting testimony concerning them : — 
 
 B ovAo/asvoc ds asi/xvricrov spyov er’ avru> ffvvrsAzcai, pad, rag a xpag 
 u[Jj<porzpag srti toA ii Trpocyfjtfat' . . . a/4 a ds xai did ro /4 syzQog ruv tpyoov 
 jjj'zvri azi fjjVY\6rog ij do^a ro\j xaraoxsudffavrog' ug ds rivsg (pad, robvavriov 
 rojv riTztpm daporspuv ffvvs^zvyi^svuv, diaffxa-^ai raurag, xai rov rropov 
 dvof^avra, Toi/jffai rov uxzavov /Jji(fysd)ui rr\ xaO' r\(j.dg 6aAarrrj. Diodorus 
 says that Hercules did two other things of the same kind. The 
 country around Tempe had been marsh for many a long day, but 
 Hercules drained it (obs.) and turned it into one of the most glorious 
 plains in Thessaly. A large district of Bceotia, on the other hand, he 
 laid under water. ’ AAAd rd fzv xard rqv OzrraAlav srrpa^sv svs pysruv 
 rovg" EAA/jvag, rd ds xard rr\v Boiuriav rij&wpiav Aa/Jij(3dvuv x.r.A. 
 
 We have here before us the source of certain jokes found 
 in some of our writings. 
 
 The writer of Peregrinus informs us in § 19 that Proteus 
 reviled Herodes (vid. sup. p. 31) Atticus, concerning whom it 
 is said dvfipa, grcciheia zed d^n>j[jjCCTi 'rrpovypvTU, hioTi zed \v 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 189 
 
 Toig aKKoig zv ztoit)<tz rrjv 'EXXaha (comp, with the words of 
 Diodorus just given), zai vbcop ZTrjyayz rq ’ OXvpjTia, zai 
 ZTavcrz hfyzi aToXkvfJbzvovg rovg TavqyvptffTag, zazug riyopzvzv ug 
 zaTaOqXvaavTa Tovg ''EXXqvag, hzov rovg OzaTag toov ’O XvpjTioov 
 'biazapTZpzlv $t\pc5vrag, zai vr\ A la yz zai aToQvrjfrzziv ToXkovg 
 ocvtSjv vto fftpohpotiv tojv vbffivv, ai rzcog hia to <g?ipbv tov yojpiov zv 
 to\7m tw tXyiOzi ZTZTokotZpv. 
 
 On p. 259, Diodorus says (of the Stymphalian birds) ztz- 
 Tokaaz yap opviQcov TXrjQog ccfAvQrjrov, and presently on the same 
 page (of the cleansing of the Augean stables) zt ay ay ojv 5s 
 tov . . . T'OTctfjjbv Z7Ti tt\v avhriv. Compare. 
 
 The first few words of Peregrin. 19, just given, have been 
 already under our notice, as supplying a coincidence with 
 pseudo-Galen ( vid . sup. p. 80). Comp, with them now, Orat. 
 i., tco yap zv Taibzia Tap’ v(jav TpovypvTa (of Homer), and after 
 two lines zai Taaav rapatgai ty\v 'E Kkaha. 
 
 We have also pointed out on p. 37 a coincidence between 
 Peregrin. 1 9 (above) and Philostratus’ life of Herodes Atticus. 
 In Vit. Soph. ii. 13, it is said that Proteus zazojg ijyopzvzv 
 Herodes. 
 
 Herodes was the counterpart of Proteus in his thirst for 
 human applause, in the charge brought against him of murder, 
 and in some other particulars. They did not, however, use 
 the same methods to obtain the renown which they desired. 
 The one narrative is as much a satire as the other, but that 
 told in De Morte Peregrini is the more extravagant of the two. 
 
 The circumstance to which the author of Peregrinus refers, in 
 the passage given above, is found in Vit. Soph. ii. 5 avzdqzz 5s 
 . . . zai tu Au to zv O XvpjTia vhcop. 0s TTaXoig (so Hercules) 
 rs, zai Toig Tzpi M rfkiha zoktov f/ E Xk^ffi, Tag zv (dzppjOTvXaig 
 zo\v(jjfir)dpag, Tolg voaovai (comp, with Peregrinus) Taiavziovg. 
 Superior to Hercules, uvriaz . . . zai B oicoTia Tokzig. He built 
 theatres, and was in some sort emulous of the great deeds of 
 his great namesake of New Testament notoriety (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xv. 9 sq.). He set up statues and tov izpov zvzTXrjGZV with 
 them, showing himself superior to him (whose name must 
 never be mentioned) who b'zTpqffZ (obs.) TTjg ’E (pzaiag ’ ApPz- 
 (jjihog tov vzav. . . . ToaovTog zpcug T?jg Vo%r\g z vtzttjzzv avTco 
 (Peregrin. 22). 
 
 Philostratus goes on : zai ToaoijTog (obs.) ojv [hzyaXovpy'ia 
 
190 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 9, a rare word), p,sya ovhlv g Ipy dedal msto, 
 stsi (JjTi tov ’ IffdfJbov (Corinth) grg^g* Xagb^pov ?iyov[Mvog, rjTSipov 
 GCTTOTSf/jsTv, za) TrsXayy] (tv vu^cci iirra. In reply to a question 
 Herodes said syu vrokvv rjhri yjpovov ayoovi^of/jai, ffy](/js7ov V7ro\i- 
 'XsaQai ro7g [JjSt* spA avOpwroig S/avo/a?, brjXovarjg avhpa' za) 
 ov7roj hozd [JjOi Trjg Vofy\g (obs.) rccvTqg Tvyyjdvstv. He put aside 
 the attempt of his friend to magnify his great works, saying, 
 ( pOapTa Xsystg rocvroc, not) yap sgti yjpovoo akovTa (comp, oiupbeOa 
 or/ /3sXnov sgtiv ra svQabz ptjiGTjGai, on g>iz pa za) okiyoyjpbvia 
 za) (p&apTa. Clem. Ep. ii. 6), za) rovg Xoyovg Tjfjjbov Toiyovpv- 
 ypvGiv STspoi, 6 pAv to pbsp>(pbfJbSvog, o dg to. q bs tov ’IvOpjOv 
 TOfJbrj spy ov aQavaTov, za) aftiGTovpjSvov T/j (pvffsi. bozs7 yap fjboi 
 to p?j<gai tov ladfjjov WoGSihcovog he7G0ai, r\ avhpog, ov ezaAovv ol 
 TroXkoi 'Hp&^oy 'YipazXsa (obs.). Comp, here throughout 
 with the language of Diodorus given above. The parody 
 cannot be mistaken. With the closing lines, compare also 
 TavTa avQpoi)7rov ov hozs7 ra gpya, TavTa ivvapbig g gti 6sov' 
 TavTa Tr\g TrapovGiag avTOv hs iypaTa, Diognet. vii., the last 
 words of the section on which so much has been said on p. 
 132 sq. 
 
 We have already referred several times (pp. 89, 148) to the 
 so-called excerpts from Diodorus, found in Phot. Bibl. 244, 
 and in particular to the accounts which are there given of the 
 hermaphrodite. These accounts are two in number, and the 
 special jest of each of them is founded on the words of Herodes 
 Atticus, which have just been given. In both accounts the 
 seeming woman is changed into a man ; in both there is an 
 inflammatory swelling. In the one, however, the change is 
 effected by the application of medicaments which produce a 
 prjfyv (comp, with Herodes) T?jg impavetag ; in the other, the 
 surgeon sTsgbS (comp, with Herodes) tov s e 7CrippjSvov T07rov. The 
 description in this second case is more detailed than in the 
 first. The writer proceeds : to pev ovv TTpuTOV to albo7ov oizpov 
 STnTSfJbcbv GwsTpqGSV slg tov ovprjT/ipa , za) zaQsig dpyvpovv zavkiG- 
 zov TavT/j ra Tgp/rr^aara toov vyp&jv s^szbpjiZgs (for the idea, 
 comp, with Diodorus) tov Sg GSGvpiyyoopjSVov to7tov g XzuGag 
 WstyvGS. It is strange that it should ever have been thought 
 possible for Photius to have stained his pages with such filth, 
 or for Diodorus to have manufactured such elaborate false- 
 hoods. 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 191 
 
 The parody pointed out seems hardly a doubtful matter, 
 even as the case stands. We shall have occasion to return to 
 Cod. 244, and then the conjecture will be supported by other 
 evidence. 
 
 The use of Cod. 190 in the Oratio will, we should suppose, 
 be conceded. This concession seems, however, almost neces- 
 sarily to carry with it an acknowledgment that Stephens had 
 perfect knowledge of the fact, for his notes upon the Oratio 
 seem to show that he had Cod. 190 in his mind when he was 
 writing them. We can understand, therefore, now why he 
 did not translate rii^og ffxvfi&kw xaflzk s7v, but something 
 else which was in his mind. His back-handed suggestion of 
 Lepreum, connected as it is with leprosy, both in Cod. 190 and 
 elsewhere, is also explained. Stephens in fact adopts the 
 Oratio as his own property, enters into its jokes, and has jokes 
 of his own. Of a piece with this is his handling of his 
 ‘‘ancient exemplar.” We do not say that he wrote the Oratio, 
 we have no evidence on that point at present. But we say 
 that he deliberately put it forth as an ancient writing, well 
 knowing that it was nothing of the kind. The views of 
 literary honesty were far less strict in Stephens’ day than in 
 our own times, consequently the charge we bring against him 
 loses something of its gravity. Still the charge is a grave one, 
 and we are bound to show sufficiently those facts which seem 
 to us to justify thp charge. We shall therefore make a few 
 further remarks upon the Oratio, which could not well have 
 been made before. 
 
 As we have already seen on p. 189, the writer in Orat. i. 
 refers to Homer. He proceeds npunara f Jbh yap $aai rov 
 A ya(jj'i(jjVova . . . za) rrjv Ovyar'epa npog Ovaiav evhozfoavra 
 hovvat . . . >ca] nacav rapa^ai rrjv im pvaqrat ryjv 
 
 ‘ETiwjv and Xenpov noiyJivog rjpnatryijivrjv. Stephens in his 
 notes professes to “suspect” Xsnpov, and accedes to the con- 
 jecture of I. Casaubon, an oXtOpov noiybsvog, with the altera- 
 tion of ano into vno. We said (p. 177) that there are a 
 number of coincidences between Clem. Horn. vi. and the Oratio , 
 and we pointed out one. In § 2, the writer of the Homily 
 maintains that the ancient myths are allegories. He names 
 a number of these, concluding with that of Paris and Helen, 
 and adds ov yap av rrj rrjg Qsag rifty npofiavig lyivzTo naybpuXov 
 
192 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (obs.) TroXepov, zai ravra err 9 oXedpoo rov rrjv nprjv drceiXYtybrog 
 zai dyyyGrevovreg rw rrjg ’A (ppohlryjg yevei. Was the conjecture 
 of Casaubon suggested from this source ? The Homily goes 
 on immediately to speak of h Gotyia rov peyiGrov "O prjpov 
 (comp.), quoting II. yii. 99, and adding cog ezeidev arravroov rr\v 
 yeveviv k Gy/izorcov, noli per dvaXvGiv rrjg vypdg zai yfftvrjg 
 ovviag e ig rrjv Trpdrrjv rraXiv d'TOzadiGrapevcov (pvviv, o evn yjdog. 
 'H Giohog £g ev ry Qeoyovicc Xeyer H rot pev npuriGra yjdog 
 eyevero * To &g eyevero hr;Xovbri . . . ov to del eivai z.r.X. Comp, 
 the “ Homer” and rrpdriGra with Orat. i., quoted above. The 
 concluding words of the Oratio are rrapaXvdeiGa (obs.) £g (fj 
 ^vyyi) rrepl rov rpdyjiXov avrrjg zazuv Trepippeovrav drrepyprai 
 rrpog rov rroiriGavra (obs.) avrrjv' he7 yap aTrozaraGradrjvai odev 
 arr'earr]. odev rig gyg^gro '/j evriv . Compare. The last words, so 
 Otto thinks, have the appearance of being a gloss. 
 
 The expression W oXedpa has, however, a special interest, in 
 that it appears to be taken from Eurip. Iphig. Aid. 884-886 
 KA. 6 he yapog n'v 9 eiy£ TrpopaGiv (obs.), $j p 9 ezbpivev ez 
 hopav; 1TP. iv 9 dydyoig yjaip ova ’ KyjKXei rraiha vvptpevGovva 
 rrjv. KA. co dvyarep, yjzeig err 9 oXedpa zed gv zed pr\rrip vedev. 
 In line 1237, stt 9 oXedpa is applied by Iphigenia to herself, and 
 she says oppa hog (piXrjpd re, tv 9 aXXa rovro zardavovv 9 eycj 
 vedev (Agamemnon) pvrjpeTov. The words immediately pre- 
 ceding the passage from Orat. i., just quoted, are XvGGrjg zed 
 azpaviag ear) pvr\peia going on to instance Agamemnon. In 
 line 1378 sq., Iphigenia again uses the word ohe dpog, applying 
 it now to Helen : g ig eye’ 'E XXag (obs.) yj psytGrr] Travel (obs.) 
 vvv drrofikeTrei . . . prized 9 dpTcc^esv lav rdvh 9 oXfii'ag gf 
 'E/Ac^og, | rov f E Xevyjg rivavrag oXedpov (obs.), 5j vnv 9 qpTUGev 
 (obs.) II apig. | ravra rravra zardavovva pvvopai (obs.) nai 
 pov zXeog, | f E>AaS’ cog yjXevdepcoGa, pazdpiov yevyjverai. Comp, 
 with Oratio. Here again, in line 1398, we find ravra yap 
 pvrjpela pov. 
 
 It seems necessary to conclude from the foregoing coinci- 
 dences, first with the Clementine Homily then with Euripides, 
 that oXedpov cannot be regarded simply in the light of a con- 
 jecture, but as an actual part of the text of the Oratio. In 
 Stephens’ notes upon Diognetus there are several instances of 
 conjectures of the same kind too apt to be accidental. There 
 is one — but not the most striking amongst them — in his notes 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 193 
 
 on § 1, compared with a passage from Hippolytus ( Church 
 Quarterly , April 1877, p. 52). 
 
 We shall now call two witnesses to prove the use of this 
 passage of Euripides. 
 
 We have shown on p. 189 a coincidence between Peregrinus 
 and the Oratio at the very spot where we have been examining 
 the latter writing. In Peregrin. 33 ( vid . sup. p. 32), Proteus 
 is supposed to have reached the final act of self-sacrifice. He 
 has been recounting the story of his life, and urging on men 
 to follow in his steps, to undergo all hardships for the sake of 
 philosophy, and to despise death. When he ceased speaking, 
 the more foolish among his hearers wept, and exclaimed a atZ^ov 
 Toig f, E Kkriatv. The braver sort, however, cried r'sksi roe 
 hshoyf/jsvoe to the great dismay of Proteus. Now, in Euripides, 
 in line 1375 — we have just quoted 1378 — Iphigenia says 
 zcerOccmv [Jbsv y,oi defiozra/. In line 1415, Achilles says 
 oly^dof/joci r\ \aroj Q'eng, si [lyi as auaco A uvoi'ihaiai tc.tX. 
 Iphigenia replies see Is acoaoci [L 'E>Aa5\ r\v hvvojyijsQoe. Very 
 soon afterwards, in Peregrinus , we observe UTrofiXsnojv Ig . . . 
 Comp, with the sig . . . ccTofiXsTrsi of line 1378, quoted above, 
 and which seems to be partly used in the Oratio. In one 
 particular, then, the death of Proteus seems to be a parody of 
 the sacrifice of Iphigenia. 
 
 We will now find some parodies in what professes to be a 
 very grave document. 
 
 In Ep. i. 55, Clement — we use the word simply as a designa- 
 tion of the writer of the epistles which bear Clement’s name — 
 says : — 
 
 voWol (3a<r/\e?'g . . . ^pYjGjtiodorijdsvTsg <xapsbwKav eaurodg s )g Oavarov, 
 ha pvffuvrcci (obs.) d/a rou savruv ai/tiarog roiig roX/rag . . . ’loud/Q 
 fiaxap/a (obs.) . . . xai rj re As/a ?cara rriffr/v ’’Ec&rip x/vdvvu eaurqv 
 nrapsBaXsv, ha ro dwdexatpvXov rou 'l<spar{k /U»sAAov avoXeffQai (obs.) 
 pvorircu. 
 
 Comp, the iw pvarjrcci un oXsdpov in the Oratio, as amended 
 by I. Casaubon in Stephens’ note. Comp, the f/jcczocpia, with 
 Euripides, and observe the general parallel which the story of 
 Iphigenia presents. Iphigenia appeared just now in Peregrinus 
 as Peregrinus himself; here, in Clement, still more like Proteus, 
 she is first “ many kings,” then “ Judith,” and lastly “ Esther,” 
 for the fAocxGcpioc applied to Judith may be thought to be a 
 
 N 
 
194 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 reference to the 11 celebrem historiam ,” as Stephens would say 
 ( vid . sup. p. 16), of Iphigenia. 
 
 In the passage quoted above, Iphigenia applies the word 
 zXiog to herself. The word appears in Clement, in a remark- 
 able sentence, only four or five lines above the first words 
 quoted from § 55. He says tovto 6 TroiTjffocg iavTw fjbiya 
 zXzog h Xp igtoj t 7repi7roi7](jerai, zai nag ronog ccvtov. 
 
 We may remember that (jozycc zXiog has been found (vid. sup. 
 p. 151) in the second Preface Sacr. Par., and shown to have 
 been taken from Diod. iv. 7, p. 253 hid to tov \z rrjg iroifoeoug 
 tuv lyzoopjiaZ^opjivcov \ ttcuvov (Atya, zXzog <7repi7roie7v ro7g liruivov- 
 pkvoig. Compare. Is this coincidence accidental 1 Consider 
 how it has been found. What can be plainer than that the 
 zXsog of the line of Euripides — which itself supplies a parallel 
 to Clement’s words — suggested the language of Diodorus ? 
 
 The pbiyoc zXeog of the Preface is applied to the holy fathers, 
 whose great renown, the writer says, is celebrated throughout 
 the whole world. This suggests to us Clement’s § 5, where 
 the labours of S. Peter and also of S. Paul are described. 
 The writer says zr\pv% yevoposvog h rs rrj dvccToXri zai sv r/j 
 hiursi, ro ysvvd7ov Trig 'XiGTiwg ccvtov z7sog (obs.) ’iXocfiev, hizccto- 
 gvvtjv hihd^ocg oXov tov zog^jOV zcci isr< to Tiptoe Trjg hvascvg eXQdv' 
 zccl [/jCcpTVpfoug z.tX. Lightfoot and others maintain that 
 Clement here alludes to S. Paul’s visit to Spain (vid. Ap- 
 pendix). If we refer to Glycas, Annal . iii. p. 236, we find 
 S. Paul’s visit to Spain mentioned. Glycas tells us only one 
 thing concerning it. He says that a certain woman, being 
 desirous to see the apostle, and to hear the truth from his own 
 lips, urged her husband to take him as their guest. The 
 woman’s eyes were straightway opened, and she read, in golden 
 letters upon the apostle’s forehead, n ocvXog 6 tov Xp igtov 
 zijpv^ Compare. A little above on the same page some 
 words of Chrysostom are quoted : To7og Tonog to gov (S. Paul) 
 she %ccto cclpbcc z.tX . Comp, with the words from § 55. Above 
 again, but on the preceding page, we find a number of autho- 
 rities mentioned who declare that the Apostles Peter and 
 Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time. How well these 
 pages illustrate Clement, may be judged from the circumstance 
 that the authorities whom Glycas names Lightfoot also names 
 in his note on p. 46. 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 195 
 
 Bat now another singular fact appears, for the sake of which 
 these coincidences have been given. We observe here in 
 Glycas a dozen lines or so which are very nearly the same as 
 those in the place of Cedrenus which we have already used so 
 much, and on which we have still a good deal to say. If we 
 turn to Cedrenus, we find that, if Glycas had copied (if this is 
 the true statement of the connection) only two lines more, he 
 would have told us that Chiron the centaur was a fiizaioffvvrjg 
 hihuczccXov. Comp. Clement’s hzaioffvvrjv hihaJgag. Apparently 
 this is another allusion to a Ci celebrem historiam .” 
 
 We return to Euripides, and in line 1407 we find Iphigenia 
 saying rov^ov 'E>Ace5/. These words would 
 
 necessarily suggest to any one on the look-out for such resem- 
 blances 1 Cor. xiii. 3 zai sav ^cof/jiGa Trccvrot ra VKapxpvrd 
 fjbov, za) sdv Trapahw to aw^a (JjOV \va zav^G0t)(jj0U. Accord- 
 ingly we find in § 55 amongst the very words from which we 
 quoted just now, and in which we found the coincidences with 
 the Oratio and Euripides, vroKkoi iavrovg rrapshoozav (obs.) s Ig 
 houXtiav, zai Xafibvrsg rag rif/jdg avrcov irepovg av (obs.). 
 
 In the passage from Orat. iii., quoted on p. 181, we may observe 
 a reference to Omphale and her contemptuous treatment (as 
 of a child) of Hercules, who had been sold to her as a slave. 
 We found just now some of Clement’s language in Diod. iv. 7, 
 p. 253. The history of Hercules begins on that page, and is 
 followed out in detail. In c. 31, p. 276, Diodorus gives the 
 account of Hercules and Omphale without the contemptuous 
 treatment which Lucian, however, supplies. Hercules being 
 afflicted with a disease applied to Apollo, and he was told that 
 his disease would be healed si TrpaOzig ^izaioog rr\v iavrov 
 Ti(jj?jv aTohoiyi roig ’Ifiirov TraiGiv. Hercules yielded pcai hovXog 
 lysvsro ’Op&£>a Xrjg . . . zat rrjv (xisv rifjbrjv . . . Graiah d^ehiozs 
 Kara rbv yjpriG(Ji>ov. . . . zai 'bovXsvoov r5j ’O/JjtpdXq z.r.X. Comp, 
 with Clement. Thus here the story of Hercules would seem 
 to have been pressed into Clement’s service. 
 
 It is difficult, indeed impossible, to gauge the amount of 
 resistance which coincidences such as these will have to meet. 
 Still, when these which we have just now been producing are 
 added to the vast array of coincidences with Clement which 
 have been previously brought forward, we cannot understand 
 how, with any show of reason, the authorship of Clement, 
 
196 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 bishop of Home, can be maintained. We shall, at any rate, 
 now venture plainly to express the opinion that neither the 
 one nor the other of the two epistles bearing Clement’s name 
 was written by him. 
 
 We think also that it must be now conceded that I. 
 Casaubon’s emendation (a<r’ oXeQpov) is something more than a 
 conjecture. It must not be supposed that we are suggesting 
 that Casaubon was guilty of fraud in this matter. We do not 
 think that the conjecture originally came from him. He may 
 possibly have approved of it. Certainly nothing would have 
 pleased him better than to appear with a mark of approbation 
 in the note of his learned father-in-law. And nothing, we 
 may add, would have pleased Stephens (or perhaps any one of 
 his literary friends) more than to pass off a piece of spurious 
 Greek upon one so learned as his son-in-law Casaubon. It is 
 at any rate most strange that Casaubon’s judgment should 
 have been sought on this point, and, so far as can be gathered 
 from the silence of Stephens’ notes, on this point alone out of 
 the many in the Oratio and Diognetus which required some 
 elucidation. Then, again, Stephens certainly was not usually 
 backward in making conjectures, and it does seem curious that 
 he should have nothing of his own to offer beyond the change 
 of Casaubon’s csto into vtto. Stephens’ suggestion partly 
 destroys the coincidence. A plain proof of innocence ! One 
 cannot but think that Stephens fathered the cctt oXeOpov upon 
 Casaubon with a sly chuckle at his expense. We are disposed 
 to think that Sylburg’s too appropriate defence of Xs ffpov 
 comes in truth from the same source. While sending the 
 transcripts to Sylburg it would be natural for Stephens to 
 comment upon such a passage as the “ leprous shepherd,’’ and 
 nothing would be easier than to make the suggestion of the 
 reference to Theophilus ( vid . sup. p. 184), in such a way that 
 Sylburg could take it up as his own. Stephens’ other sugges- 
 tion (A S'Tpa/oy), which again he is careful not to adopt as his 
 own, seems to confirm the view we take of his conduct. What 
 critic would seriously suggest an epithet so inappropriate to 
 Paris? But as we have already said, it is quite conceivable 
 that he might make the suggestion as a joke. 
 
 This view seems, however, to be further confirmed by his 
 dealings with another corrupt passage, and which is found in 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 197 
 
 Orat. ii. The writer says 6 yap fjozyakawf/jog vgocov 6 A fjrothfjg 
 (Tatian) 6 (Aavnzrjv (Tatian) \‘7rayyiikdpjivog, iavrov qXey&v 
 (Tatian) on ^svhsrai. Aa(pvrjv ehicozev, 3) v ov zareXafiz- zai 
 roo Ipofjjzvaj avrov A iazihri szzvcovn rov avrov Oavarov ovz 
 Ip >avrivaaro. Both Theophilus ( Autol . i. 9) and Tatian (c. 8) 
 put Daphne and Hyacinth side by side as illustrations of 
 Apollo’s prophetic ignorance. The special mark of connection 
 pointed out above seems to show that Hyacinth was in the 
 mind of the writer of the Oratio. In Deor. Dial, xvi., Lucian 
 laughs at Apollo, and says avrog yovv 6 goavrig rjyvozi, on 
 (obs.) (povsvsai fih rov zpcogbzvov (obs.) roo Vgzgo, ov Tpozf/javrzv- 
 ( raro (obs.) ds, cog <psv%zrai avrov Adfivrj zr.X. In the next 
 line but one we observe fyvozrovog, used in Orat. iii. quoted on 
 p. 181. In Deor. Dial. xiv. 2, Apollo, who is describing the 
 death of Hyacinth, says hiszzvsiv zf/jdvOavz, zayco svvzhiszzvov 
 ocvru ; Philostratus (Imag. xiv.) has aivirrzrai 6 Z^ooypdpog rrjv 
 avrcoXeiav rov (jozipaztov- hiszsvovn 6s roo ’ KrroXX^vi nXayiog 
 Igjxvzvaag, IpjfiaXXzi ra> 'XazivQoo rov Viskov. The suggestion 
 to amend the text of the Oratio by the use of the word 
 hiszzvziv (Aiazfori szzvoovn) can hardly be called a conjecture, 
 while the passages before us suggest more restorations of the 
 text than one which would plausibly explain the cause of the 
 corruption. It is interesting to see how Stephens, who in his 
 edition of Plato (vid. sup. p. 13) distinguished himself by his 
 apt corrections of the u mistakes of copyists and typographists,” 
 and by his 44 very felicitous,” though, as some think, occasion- 
 ally “ dishonest ” “ improvements ” of the text, dealt with this 
 corrupt (!) passage of the Oratio. No one was more familiar 
 with Lucian than Stephens. Some portions of Tatian’s treatise 
 he published along with the Oratio. He had the wisdom of 
 Beurer and of Casaubon to assist him, and yet he writes 
 “ Scripsi szzvoovn absque accentu, quod sit vocabulum deprava- 
 tum : de quo alienam divinationem expectabo,” p. 75. This 
 note seems to let us entirely behind the scenes. It explains 
 Stephens’ conduct throughout. It tells us that he sought to 
 mystify his learned contemporaries, to amuse himself with 
 their failures to enter into his jokes, and to chuckle over their 
 grave conjectures on passages, the true history of which he 
 knew perfectly well. Stephens’ hands are not clean. Some 
 charge must be brought against him. We may be quite sure 
 
198 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 that he would have infinitely preferred to be thought capable 
 of a scholarly deception, than of inability to see the true cha- 
 racter of the Oratio, or to correct its corrupt passages. 
 
 This “ corrupt ” passage has an apt parallel in Clem. Ep . 
 i. 6 5/a ^qkog hico'/fiziaat yvveeiz eg, A oevoetheg zee) A ipzoci, 
 aiziGpoocToe havoc zee) ecvoGiee ‘XocGovgoci . . . zee) eXoefiov yepceg 
 ye vvoeiov ol occrQeveTg too Goop>eeTi. The reading A oev. z. A/p., 
 which has been thought to be corrupt, and which has been 
 altered by Wordsworth into ve oeviheg ‘rocihiazca, is confirmed by 
 the later mss. and also by Strom, iv. 19, p. 618, where Clem. 
 Alex, mentions the Danaids only a very few lines after what 
 has been supposed to be a quotation from Clement’s Ep. i. 55. 
 The passage supposed to be cited is that from which we were 
 quoting just now in connection with Euripides. The coinci- 
 dences which we then showed are not in Clem. Alex., and seem 
 to be additions. When the passage was in our hands before, 
 we pointed out a certain relation between it and § 5. This is 
 an evident suggestion to consult the play of Euripides which 
 we were then using. Accordingly, in line 613 sq., we find a 
 corruption which has called forth much criticism ad 5’, do 
 Tezvov pool, XeiTce nookizovg bypvg, \ ccfipbv TiOelGce zookov, ecG&eveg 
 0’ ccf/jcc (obs.). | vp>e7g 5s vecevihceiGiv (obs.) ceyzbeXoeig eici. Comp, 
 the beaming § cepjoe with the oi ceG0eve7g toj GoopooeTi of Clement, 
 and notice the position of the words in the respective sentences. 
 Our writer’s mind seems to turn to Euseb. v. 1 (lately in hand 
 in the vvpjfiizrjv gtoXtjv discussion) 5/a to ccgQ eveg rou GoopoocTog q 
 BXccvhtm, or more exactly, further on, ccG0ev?)g too GoopooeTi] and 
 very naturally, for the story of Blandina is an apt illustration 
 of that of Dirce. Euripides, line 1200, G(peeyiov 'Tocpoccry/iv 
 AcevoeihoeiGi yrccihcc g/jv, was perhaps useful. 
 
 It is idle to consider what the true reading ought to be, since 
 none other was ever written than that which now stands in 
 Clement’s text, but we can find what perhaps may be thought 
 to be a confirmation of the notion that veoeviheg was in the 
 writer’s mind. In Ep. ad Theopii. 24, we are told of the 
 troubles which had come through the neglect (of course) of 
 the sacred images, and we find ceiy j p>oe'kaG'ioei Xoedov doGe) rtpofiocTce 
 elg G<pccyrjv ‘7ropevop>evoe , poiXP^ A lOioxoov, zee) ’hhdov, zee) elg 
 ’A voeTokeeg yrjg 5 ovXoi zee) oelx^dekuTOi, veoeviheg zoe) Troep&evoi 
 z.t.X. Clement has, as we have already seen (p. 194), ev Te t? ) 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 199 
 
 uvgctoKti zed \v r/j Ivan . . . Itti to TZpp>(x, rrjg hvazcog a few lines 
 above in § 5. In the words of Theophilus we observe a refer- 
 ence to Isa. liii. The last line of § 5 runs thus : VTTOf/jOvyjg 
 yzvofjbzvog [Atyurrog V 7 roypccpjf/jog. The last word is found in 
 1 Pet. ii. 21, where it is applied to the lesson of patience to 
 be learned from the sufferings of Christ. In § 16, Clement 
 uses the word immediately after his quotation of Isa. liii., and 
 to which he applies it. 
 
 We not only find these things in Theophilus , but also what 
 may well be thought to be a glance at the story of Hyacinth. 
 In § 28, the writer speaks of Theodosius. He takes three 
 stories found in Cedrenus, and making one out of them, says, 
 that the king being in dread of his enemies, applied to a holy 
 man, who sent him a monk’s dress (some articles of this appear 
 as articles of women’s attire in pseud.-Athan. De Virgin. 11), 
 zed tccvtcc hhvffupjZvog (obs. with Oratio ), he got on horse- 
 back. Accompanied by an angelic host, also on horseback, the 
 king went against his enemies, and completely defeated them. 
 The writer then says, “ Search and see — rag kpoig zvhvrdg zed 
 tcc kpd <rzsuq,” going on to narrate how a certain person 
 trampled on tov kpov Viazov. Comp, the corrupt passage of the 
 Oratio with its probable emendations. The writer adds, at the 
 end of the story, rfiroyyiGi Trig cdgiccg, OoevdtTcv uoupop 'hvatovriTog 
 yeyovag, which sufficiently points out the joke. The writer, 
 while he appears to take the staple of his story about Theo- 
 dosius from Cedrenus, and also to use 2 Macc. xi., seems also 
 to have in view the scholiast’s (on Lycophron) account of 
 Achilles’ assumption of female attire, and to work it all up 
 into a sort of parody. Any way, the joke on Hyacinth and 
 the hi'ffzog is not at all doubtful. 
 
 We can, moreover, show that Clement’s Epistle, in the 
 section which has been shown to be indebted to Euripides, is 
 connected with the very part of Theophilus which we have 
 just been using. Ep. i. 55 contains the words Troepzbcozzv 
 K6p log . . . \v ysipt z.t.X. The first words of § 56 are zed 
 r\ fJbsTg ovv IvTvyjopjZv mp) tmv h tivi 7rccpoc7rTapjttTi z.tX. Almost 
 immediately LXX. Ps. cxvii. 18 is quoted. In Theophilus, 
 just above the story to which we have been referring, the 
 writer has lav s vpco, (pyjfu'v, kpzoe rj fjjovuyov h tivi e 7rccpcc'7TTU[JMTi, 
 
 \ yd oevTog T/jv yXoigbvha, (JjOv 'yittXojgm av zed iGzznaLpv clvtov, 
 
200 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 which tells its own jesting tale. Just above this again, the 
 writer has shoozev h rr\ yfipi gov 6 . . . K vpiog, and quotes 
 LXX. Ps. cxvii. 16. 
 
 § 10. Having now ascertained the true character of the 
 Oratio, which suddenly became mixed up with the coincidences 
 which we w r ere finding for Peregrinus and other writings, we 
 return to the column of Cedrenus on which we were before 
 engaged. We have in our hands this column (vol. i. col. 
 397, Migne), Xen. Mem. i. 3. 8 sq., a passage from Peregrinus 
 quoted on p. 172, a passage from the Oratio given on p. 180, 
 and the Grcec. Affect, cur. xii. de virt. act. of Theodoretus 
 from which Cedrenus borrows. 
 
 1. On p. 185, a coincidence between the Oratio and Phot. 
 Bibl. 190, p. 152, is pointed out. Just above this coincidence, 
 in Cod. 190, Achilles is described as 6 Xzipuvog htbccGzccXog ; 
 almost immediately afterwards we observe the words zdXKog 
 ug,Yiyjzvo)>. Cedrenus calls Chiron iizaiOGvvrjg bihuGzcdkog. 
 In connection with these words a coincidence of a singular 
 kind with Clement has been shown on p. 195. Cedrenus is 
 indebted not merely to Theodoretus, but also to Clem. Alex. 
 Strom, i. 15, p. 360, and there Chiron is described as the 
 instructor of Achilles. The writer of Cod. 190 reverses this ; 
 he is indulging in the jocular perversions and embellishments 
 of ancient myths in which he so much delights. Further 
 down in the same column, Cedrenus applies the expression 
 zoCKKog k[LY\yjtvov to Pantheia. Plutarch (ii. 31) tells the 
 story of Cyrus’ refusal to see Pantheia, and precedes it by the 
 account of Agesilaus’ conduct to a boy. Accordingly Cedrenus 
 refers to this ( vid . sup. p. 170). In ii. p. 521, Plutarch again 
 refers to Pantheia, and there connects with her story that of 
 the behaviour of Alexander 1 to the wife and daughters of 
 Darius. A ccordingly Cedrenus links these two stories together. 
 This last narrative is given also by pseudo-Basil, de legend libr. 
 Gent. 5, p. 179, nearly in Cedrenus’ words. The context 
 shows that pseudo-Basil is not merely copying from the same 
 source as Cedrenus, not to mention that his language is partly 
 
 1 It was from observing the interest which our writers appeared to take in 
 this matter of history that we were induced to examine Diodorus’ narrative in 
 lib. xvii. 31, p. 182 sq. For the use made by Clement and others of Diodorus’ 
 pages, vid. sup. pp. 74, 88, also vid. inf. Appendix A. 
 
CEDRENUS. 
 
 201 
 
 that of Cedrenus in his account of Pantheia. The two 
 accounts cannot be independent of one another. Which of the 
 two writers is the copyist? We have here one of those signi- 
 ficant coincidences for which it is necessary to make the most 
 diligent search if we would get at the bottom of the mystery 
 which lies before us. Pseudo-Basil goes on to use the words 
 t TVf/jpTjvcu Toig faeTSpoig, and presently tqjv f/jCcQrjf/jcirav a ty\v 
 rjfioov rpsfist, f/j7]hsvoc Xoyov s%siv, uXP . . . Sf/jfidKksffOcii. 
 xclItoi tivoc lyjsi \oyov xvfle pVTjrrjv, and after one line TO^oTrjv. 
 (Comp, here 6 yXvxvTqg Tav . . . pjOc0y]fJbocTav ocv^ccvov(Tcc xoci 
 rpztpovGGC rccg \pi>x i cicg, second Pref. Sacr. Par.) Cedrenus has 
 c 7U{jj‘7re<ptovr]x,e . . . roig ^yosTSpoig in one sentence, and in the next 
 uv%ei Sg to TTccOog ekrig, Tps(pst hs fjbvrjyb^. This confirms the 
 opinion that pseudo-Basil and Cedrenus are not independent 
 of one another. Cedrenus, however, is copying word for 
 word from Theodoretus, p. 1028. Unless, therefore, pseudo- 
 Basil was the writer of the page which bears Cedrenus’ name, 
 which is probable enough, he must have copied from Cedrenus. 
 Peregrinusj in the passage quoted on p. 172, has Sf/jftdXkei (pspav 
 . . . xv(3ep vrjrqg. Xenophon has, as we shall see directly, a 
 very noticeable To^orrjg. 
 
 Cedrenus speaks not only of the refusal of Cyrus to see 
 Pantheia, but also of the reason which Cyrus gave for that 
 refusal : to [Psv yap Tvp, ffjfff, Tovg TrXTjfTtov e 7rdvTr\ SGTwTctg 
 zulsi, to he xocKkog xou Tovg Troppadev sffTaTocg. This sentence 
 is made up by Cedrenus partly out of Xen. Cyrop. v. 5, and 
 partly out of Xen. Mem. i. 3. 13 (part of the passage which 
 we are using) hag ^g xoci ol "EpaTsg to^otcci (obs.) hid tovto 
 xaXovvTui, oti xofi TroppaOsv ol xoCho i TiTpuaxovaiv. These 
 words are, it must be observed, supposed by some critics to 
 be an interpolation. 1 We shall return to this passage pre- 
 sently. 
 
 We have now exhausted the subjects taken up in the column 
 
 1 We omitted to point out in the proper place (p. 163) that the lines of 
 Epicharmus, which precede Xenophon’s description of the “choice of Hercules,” 
 are thought by some editors to be an interpolation, on the ground that in the 
 words *«J h aXXu rove;/ <p*triv, with which the second line of Epicharmus is 
 introduced, a meaning must be given to rovros which it had not in Xenophon’s 
 day. It happens that in Clem. Ejp. i. 8, the section which has been shown to 
 be connected with Xenophon, and which contains the manufactured apocryphal 
 quotation, the writer introduces Isa. i. 16-20 with xx) iv Iripu rovu Xiyu. 
 
202 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 of Cedrenus, 1 which has been under review. The account of 
 Anacharsis, found on the top of this column, is preceded by 
 a mention of the Brahmins ( Peregrinus , quoted on p. 173), and 
 of the Hyperboreans, who are described as living beyond the 
 Bhipsean mountains. We cannot have a better guide than 
 Stephens as to the direction in which a student of his times, 
 or earlier, would look for information as to these fabled 
 mountains. In his Thesaurus he refers us to “ Dionys. de Situ 
 Orhis, p. 51, editionis patris mei.” Dionysius does not say 
 much, but his scholiast Eustathius tells us all that was sup- 
 posed to be known concerning them. Just above his account, 
 on p. 52 (“ editionis patris mei ”), Eustathius has the following 
 sentence : — 
 
 'H pbhorog 5s ov {aovov YeXuvov xat ’ AydOvpffov viovg 'HpaxXsog Xsysi, 
 u\Xa xa) HxvQtiv vsuirarov xai yzvvaibrarov, dug eysvvqasv 'HpaxXrjg sXduv 
 s/g rr\v ru v IxvQuv yijv, ore rag Frjpvovov fiovg rjXauvs, [uyzig, <prjff/v, 
 syjbvri {jUc'O'Trapdevuj, yvva/xbg fih ra avu Irrb yXouruv (obs.) sy^oxjffrj, ra 
 5s xdru, otpsojg (ra 5s evepQsv, otpiog , Herod, iv. 9). 
 
 Comp, vtto ywaixelov eparog qrryjQsig (Cedrenus) vto A vhrjg 
 yeXaGqg nurd yXovroov (obs.) rv 7 rrogbsvog , Orat . iii., quoted on 
 p. 181. This laughing Lydian lady’s name was Omphale. 
 We believe the yXovrvv of the Oratio to be taken from 
 Eustathius. 
 
 For TV 7 rr 6 f/jSvog we have on p. 181 referred to Arist. Nub. 
 959 sq., rv 7 rro(Jjivog ftoXXdg (TrXrjydg IrfXovbri. Schol.) cog roig 
 M ovcrag dtpuviZ^av. \v Traiborpifiov (g ig rov totov ottov yvpjvd- 
 Z^ovroti, Tea) hiocrpifiovrriv oi ftouhzg. Schol.) k.t.X. On p. 46, it 
 is shown that the vroXXdg TrXriydg sXotB& of Peregrin. 9 is taken 
 from this source. Comp, also pseudo-Basil, de legend, libr. 
 Gent. 6 ftoXXdg $g GcX^ydg \v vrcitborpifiov ’hccfibi/rsg . . . -rapes 
 roov yvgjVUGrcidv . . . hoc gbr) biccrptfia Xzyouv ( vid . sup. p. 171). 
 Now, observe, Nub. 964 runs : jjXe i\paro b’ av rovf/jfiuXov 
 (obs.) ovbetg Taig virevepfav (obs.) ror dv. Comp, with the 
 Oratio , Eustathius and Herodotus. Aristophanes perhaps 
 suggested Eustathius. 
 
 If there is a joke on foot, we may be pretty sure that the 
 
 1 We did not stumble upon these out-of-the-way pages accidentally. We 
 were guided straight to them by a reference in a fifteenth century writing, very 
 closely connected with Diognetus. References to Cedrenus’ Compend. Hist. 
 appear to be exceedingly rare. 
 
REFUTATIO. 
 
 203 
 
 Epistola ad Theophilum will have some share in it. A few 
 lines above the passage from Peregrinus (now in our hands, 
 vid. sup. p. 172) is the word vuvivhuipjoov. It is used once by 
 Plutarch, two or three times by Lucian, but otherwise does 
 not appear to be common. In Theoph. xvi. p. 638, there is 
 the following passage : — 
 
 . . . ruv ispapywv . . . diayovruv sv rraff/i sucsfisiq xai ffs/xvorqn, oux, 
 old ’ o<xwg e/tfefv, rspag %svo<pavsg (apparently an unknown word) siasdv 
 ug rrjv ^avsvdai/jjova (obs.) rroXiv’ yovantog nvog ruv lyyupiuv reroxviag 
 (3ps<pog, ra /asv avu jasXrj rod Gu/uarog sug rov 6/j,<pa\ov (obs.) slyj red vra 
 era Tdog, ra ds iivroxaroj, 6r\poov dypiuv x.r.X. 
 
 This mag be taken from the myth which Eustathius gives 
 concerning Hercules out of Herodotus. We imagine that 
 there is some jesting lying in the background. At any rate, 
 we can produce a very curious corroboration of our conjecture 
 as to the connection between the passage given from Eusta- 
 thius and the sentence of the Oratio which refers to the 
 Lydian Omphale. 
 
 2. Justin the Gnostic introduced into his ravings a great 
 many heathen myths — selecting apparently the most scandalous 
 among them — which he allegorized after his own fashion. Co- 
 incidences between Hippol. Ref. v. 26, where Justin’s teach- 
 ing is explained, and Diodorus’ account of Priapus (in which 
 Clem. Ep. i. 59 is not altogether unconcerned) have been 
 pointed out, p. 153 sq. The narrative of the life of Hercules 
 is another of the mythical stories of which Justin made use, 
 and in Ref. x. 15, p. 516, the following passage is found: — 
 
 jj (ds) 6r)\iia . . . ra fsv avu abrr\g fi'sypi (3ovj3uvog sivai rrapdevov, 
 drro 5s. @ov(3uvog ra xdru syjdvav. xaXsTrai ds vj roiavryj ’E5s/a xai 
 'IffpaqX. raurac (pdffxsi dpydg sivai ruv oXuv, a<p’ dv ra rrdvra sysvsro. 
 rbv ’EXws/'/z, ds arrpoyvdffrug s\Qs?v (obs.) sig sm6vg>iav rjjg fu^orrap6'svo\), 
 xai smfjjtysvra (obs.) ysvvr\Gai (obs.) ayy'sXovg duidsxa. 
 
 The language is curiously like that of Eustathius (vid. sup. 
 p. 202). Now, observe, we presently find (on same page) 
 c&Kka xc&i tov 'HpcczXea, (pciaxei TTpotprjTriv yeyovemi, rirrrjGOoci 
 (obs.) Ss avrov V7C0 Ttjg ’ OfACpaXqg (obs.) tovtigtiv vwo rrjg 
 Bct|3gX, ) )v 9 AQpohtnjv ovogjdiZ^ovGiv. Comp, with the Oratio. 
 Ref. x. is an epitome of the preceding books. In Ref. v. 25, 
 the myth concerning Echidna, here referred to, is more fully 
 told. It is drawn, as Hippolytus tells us, from Herodotus. 
 
204 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Hercules, it appears, was driving the oxen of Geryones, and 
 came to Scythia. He lost his horses (roig tnirovg), and in the 
 course of his wanderings in search of them came upon Echidna 
 in a cave. In answer to his inquiry, Echidna told him that 
 she had got his horses, but that she would not give them up 
 •Tp/V rj ol (ju'xflfjmi. 
 
 This reminds us of Plut. 155 sq. (vid. sup. p. 54), where 
 Aristophanes says that the boys sometimes asked for a horse as 
 payment for their iniquity. The parallelism is, however, more 
 pointed in Hippolytus, for Justin changes the rag ivirovg of 
 Herodotus into rov l7T7T0v, and says that Hercules Xccfiaiv he 
 tovtou (JjigOov tov 17 TT 0 V KccpM Tjjg Qrjpiwhovg zopqg, cLTryWccTrero 
 (p'epoov (obs.) x,u) rcicg j 3 ovg. We shall have occasion to refer to 
 this presently in connection with the same line of Aristophanes. 
 It naturally occurs to one to ask whether these are really 
 ancient Gnostic ravings or scholarly jokes of more modern 
 times ? Nothing is known of J ustin beyond what Hippolytus 
 tells us. The only ms. of Ref. iv.-x. is very far from being 
 ancient, and the opinion that these books are of late date, 
 manufactured in great part out of Irenseus, Eusebius, 
 Epiphanius, etc., is quite admissible. 1 We do not intend to do 
 more at the present time than point out a few things which lie 
 close at hand, which at any rate cast great doubt upon the 
 antiquity of them. 
 
 1 “ And is there not something striking and congenial [to the character of the 
 year 1851] in the history of the discovery ? A French scholar, and a statesman 
 of high merit, M. Yillemain, sent a Greek to Mount Athos to look out for new 
 treasures in the domain of Greek literature. The fruits of this mission were 
 deposited, in 1842, in the great national library, already possessed of so many 
 treasures. Among them was a manuscript of no great antiquity, written in the 
 fourteenth century, not on parchment, but on cotton paper ; and it was regis- 
 tered as a book ‘ On all Heresies, ’ without any indication of its author or age. 
 The modern date of the manuscript, its anonymousness, and probably, above 
 all, this awful title, deterred the scrutinizing eyes of the learned of all nations 
 who glanced over it. It fell to the lot of a distinguished Greek scholar and 
 writer on literature, a functionary of that great institution, M. Emmanuel 
 Miller, to bring forward the hidden treasure. He was first struck by some pre- 
 cious fragments of Pindar, and of an unknown lyric poet, quoted by the 
 anonymous writer : he transcribed and communicated them, in 1846, to his 
 literary friends in Germany, who, highly appreciating their value, restored the 
 text, and urged him to publish the whole work.” Bunsen, Hippolytus and his 
 Age, 2d ed., London 1854, p. 331. The brackets in the first sentence are of 
 our own placing. 
 
1 COR. II. 9. 
 
 205 
 
 In § 23, p. 214, Hippolytus, speaking of Justin, says gVe/ra 
 rovg fjuvOovg ‘raparlQ^Gi ^vyaycoylag yapiv, offug ol hrvy- 
 yavovreg z.rX., with dvay vug fjuar uv in the same sentence, and 
 with rovg azpoufjohovg two lines above. Comp, with the 
 parallel passages from the second Pref. Sacr. Par., Clem. Ep. 
 ii. 19, Phot. Bibl. 244, quoted on p. 147, and from pseudo-Basil 
 on p. 161. 
 
 In the same sentence, Hippolytus has ov rponov e i rig obov 
 fjoazpdv fiabi%uv, rraparvyuv zara\vp>ari avarravZG&ai hozsl 
 . . . T/j he Grapam'roiripjhoig fiifiXloig zard rt 7rapzpj(palvovGi 
 rocig 7rpozip7}(/jZvaig alpzGSGiv- ol Grdvrzg yap hi 7rvevfJoari gvvuOov- 
 (jozvoi slg ha fivdov dfjbdpag Gvvdyovrai, and after three lines 
 1 Cor. ii. 9 a otpQccXpjdg ovz zllzv z.rX., followed by LXX. 
 Ps. cix. 4. 
 
 First of all, compare Clem. Ep. i. 44 p,azdpioi ol npodhoi- 
 rrop7\Gavrzg (obs.) ftpzGfivrspoi, olnvzg lyzapnov zai rz\zlav (here 
 in Hippol.) sGyov r *l v dvdXvGiv (obs.), followed after five lines 
 by hzvrrrzrz slg rag ypctfpdg, rag akr\QCig, rag rov ttvsv- 
 [Larog rov aylov IrriGraGOz on ahizov ovhl 7rapa7rZ7roiy]fjbhov 
 (obs.) yiypanrai h avraTg. 
 
 Next, comp. Clem. Ep. i. 33 fipjtig ovv , h oyuovoloc hr) ro 
 a vro GvvayQhrzg (obs.) r?j avmbr\azi, ug ££ hog aropjarog z.rX ., 
 followed in the next sentence by 1 Cor. ii. 9. Clement 
 immediately afterwards, speaking of the gifts of God, has the 
 noteworthy expression XapjTrporrig h bizaiOGvvrj. In LXX. 
 Ps. cix. (obs.) 3, we find (jbzra gov q apy/j h ripjzpa rr\g bvvapjZug 
 gov , h ralg XafJbTrporriGi ruv dyluv gov . 
 
 In Ep. ii. 11, Clement quotes 1 Cor. ii. 9. As Lightfoot 
 shows, the two epistles are closely connected at this point. 
 
 In Ep. ii. 14, a portion of 1 Cor. ii. 9 is quoted : ovrz 
 s \zinrziv rig hvvarai ovrs zaXijGai a IjrolpjaGZv 6 K vptog rdig 
 \z\zzrdlg avrov. Hippolytus has dpprjra (pvXa^ai rd rrjg 
 bihaGzaXlag Giyu(juzva in the same sentence as 1 Cor. ii. 9, and 
 f/jfjrs \\ziir€iv a few lines above it. 
 
 It is to be observed that the connection between Ep. i. 34 
 and Ep. ii. 11, in connection with Clement’s peculiar version 
 of Isa. xl. 10, has been commented upon on p. 69 sq. 
 
 Clement’s rendering is ihov 6 K vpiog, zat 6 pjiG0og avrov rpo 
 TpoG&TOV avrov , d^obovvai izdaru zard ro epyov avrov. In 
 Ep. ii. 11 we have V7ropjzlvupjZv^ ha zat rov pjiG&ov zo(JjIgu- 
 
206 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (jbeOa, GCiGrog yap zgtiv 6 z ‘rayyziXapjZvog rag avrif/jiGdiag 
 anohihovat zzaGroo roov zpyoov abrov. In Ep. ii. 15, immediately 
 after the use of 1 Cor. ii. 9 (close of § 14), Clement has p , igQoc 
 yap obz zgtiv p>tzpbg Gthavoogjzvry ypu) (/jv zat a roKhvpjZvrjv 
 arroGrpz^pat zlg ro GooOrjvat, rabrrjv yap zyppjZV rrjv avnpiGfa'av 
 airohovvat too 0g£ z.r.X. The idea of potGOog is thus every- 
 where in Clement connected with 1 Cor. ii. 9. The particular 
 shape which the idea takes seems, however, to have been a 
 matter of serious (?) consideration. 1 Cor. ii. 9 closes Ep. ii. 11. 
 In § 12, the most curious part of Ep. ii. begins. The writer 
 says (we use Lightfoot’s translation), “ For the Lord Himself, 
 being asked by a certain person when His kingdom wrnuld 
 come, said, When the two shall he one , and the outside as the 
 inside , and the male with the female (zat ro dpGZv [Lira rijg 
 07]\ stag), neither male nor female. Now the two are one , when 
 we speak truth among ourselves, and in two bodies ( zv hvGt 
 GoopjaGiv) there shall be one soul without dissimulation.” In 
 the next line but one Clement has ov rpovrov ovv z.r.X. Comp, 
 with Hippolytus, quoted above. 
 
 If we turn to Hippolytus, we find that the fable of Hercules 
 * — the loss of his horses, the receiving them as a (joigOov from 
 Echidna, who is called hiGoofJOog — follows almost immediately 
 the citation of 1 Cor. ii. 9. Hippolytus says that the story is 
 taken from Herodotus. If we turn to lib. iv. 8-10 we observe 
 S7T£ipZG@at f/jiv si icov thot iTTrovg GrXavoopjZvag (obs.) rijv 5g 
 (pavat, zoovrfjv zyjs tv, zat obit arrdhooGZtv (obs.) zzzivoo irpiv rj oi 
 [Liyfyj'jar rov £g 'HpazXza p>tyf r\vat zrfi too ptiGDoo r outgo* zzivtjv 
 rz V7rzpfia\zG0ai rr,v arrohoGiv roov 'inGroov . . . zat rov, zofitGa- 
 pozvov (obs.), Wzkztv arraKkaGGZGQai. rzhog Sg, awohihovGav 
 avrrjv zinzlv* “ "IvTovg (J>zv hrj ravrag amzopJivag zvdahz, zgoogu 
 rot zyoo • GooGrpa ( reward for saving life , or thank-offering for 
 deliverance , obs.) 5 g gv TrapzG^jzg ” z.r.X. Comp, with Clem. 
 Ep. ii. 15, quoted just above. It is impossible that the coinci- 
 dences pointed out should have accidentally arisen. They do 
 not seem, however, as a whole to be such as would have arisen 
 simply from one or more persons having copied from Hip- 
 polytus. They point to one hand and one mind, or else, and 
 more probably, to two or more persons following in one 
 another’s footsteps, understanding one another’s jokes, and 
 trying from time to time to turn those jokes in other directions. 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 207 
 
 We shall find directly a singular confirmation of this 
 opinion. 
 
 3. We return now to the passage (p. 201) from Xenophon 
 which some editors consider to be an interpolation. Kiihner 
 says: “ Apposite Bornemannus comparat A chill. Tat. p. 8,29 
 (lib. i. 4, p. 14, Mitscherlich 1792), zdXkog yap bcgvrepov TirpuGzii 
 fieXovg, zai 5/a roov b<pQuX[/joov tig ttiv ypufflit riTpuczii.” The 
 passage is “ apposite” enough, and at once connects the pages 
 in which it is found with those of the other writings which we 
 have been examining, and which have been shown to be so 
 curiously mixed up one with another, and with the column of 
 Cedrenus where Xenophon is quoted. 
 
 We have now in our hands the narrative of the adventures 
 of Clitophon and the maiden Leucippe. Clitophon was the 
 son of Hippias, whose brother Sostratus was the father of 
 Leucippe. 
 
 If we open this love-story at the place indicated, we cannot 
 fail to be struck by the number of reminiscences, as it were, 
 which we meet with in the immediate neighbourhood, of 
 matters which have been but just now under our special 
 consideration. 
 
 We take up the story in § 3, only a few lines above the 
 passage just quoted. Tatius writes . . . rov 7rd0ovg 1 ty\v a xfitfjv, 
 sts/ yap hvurov erog sx/ ro7g beza, zai TocpMzzvaZfv 6 
 
 Tccryp eig vzoora xo/^tra/ rovg yd[hovg, rjpxsro rov bpd[Larog y\ 
 Tvyr\. Comp, imnyziiv rs 5/a tovto blzrjv too Tcarpi xsp/ rqg 
 ibiag yvvuizog, r$jg rvy/ig aiGvrep h bpap^aGi z.r.X., with rrjv 
 dzfjorjv a few lines below, and rrjg dzpj/jg a few lines above, in 
 both cases in connection with a father’s marriage of his 
 daughter. Phot. Bibl. 244 (the excerpts on hermaphrodites). 
 
 The story proceeds : ovap \bbzovv Gv^vvai r/j Taptfem ra 
 zcctcu fispfj ftexptg opjtpaXov, 5 vo 5’ hrtvfev ra am Gcop,ara' 
 \<piarc&Tou 5s p>oi yvv7j <po|3spa zai [ASyaX?], to npoGooTrov ayp/a 
 . . . oQstg ai zof/jar dp yrqv ezpdret r/j 5s|/a, 5a5a rSJ Xaia' s x/- 
 
 XS<7 OVGCC OVV (JbOl 0V(Jb6U, ZOU dvaTlWaGa TY\V dp7T7]V, ZOCTOC^Spei TTjg 
 hgvog, Zvda rbuv 5 vo Gco^dTcov faccy a/ t rvfjbftoXai , zai dTeozonru 
 (JjOv tt\v napOivov. 
 
 Comp, with Eustathius. Ilippolytus (p. 218) says that 
 
 1 Comp, tov Iadovs sis uxpri v ikxep'svov in the account of the death of the locust- 
 eater. Phot. Bibl. 250, c. xxvii. (Agatharchides), vid. sup. p. 102. 
 
208 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Echidna was (ppixTov n deapoa, opyiXr], and hiGoopbog. Comp, 
 also the xcci to cLpaiv posTci rrjg 6r[k eiag, and the h hvGi GoopbccGiv 
 of Clem. Ep. ii. 12 ( vid . sup . p. 206). In the parallel passage 
 in Herodotus we find to to\ov coh e hiMTSivopbevov (obs.) ... to 
 TO< gov ts xcci tov Z^coGTrjpa eyovTa \tt' axpyjg Trjg GvpbfioXijg (obs.) 
 x.tX. Compare. Cedrenus, in the column now in hand, says 
 of Anacharsis : eiooQei yap T/j pclv Xccicc ye ipi tu odhota, xaPeyeiv, 
 T/j he he%iu 5s ra ye iKtj Gvveyeiv, VTrepctpcciveiv. Compare. 
 
 At this juncture Hippias received a letter from Sostratus, 
 informing him that Sostratus’ wife Panthia, and daughter 
 Leucippe, were on their way to him, having been driven from 
 home by a war that was raging. Remember Pantheia and the 
 wife and daughters of Darius, of whom Cedrenus speaks. 
 
 These ladies immediately appear upon the scene : cog 5s 
 eneTeiva (Clitophon says) Tovg bfyOuXpjOvg st’ ccvT/jv, ev apiGTepcc 
 craptfevog epotpcciveTui (obs.) / loi , xcci xccTccGTpccnTei pcov Tovg 
 b<p0aXpcovg too 7rpoGoo7rop, ToiavTrjv e r ihov eyoo toti lit) Tavpop 
 yeypccpupoevriv Evpco^v. Comp, with the description of Ana- 
 charsis just given out of Cedrenus. In Theoph. xviii., shortly 
 after the passage quoted on p. 203, we observe opa Tivag 
 MCTpuffTovTug ex, toov b(p&oXpi>ciov, and a little lower down on the 
 same page, opa . . . xadeZ^opcevov It) Qpovov , ov KOTe elhev 
 \v x.tX. 
 
 This lady was exceedingly beautiful : xott epjipceJTO crop- 
 (pvpuv, oiccv s Ig tov eXepuvTcc Avhirj ficcftTei yvvi , /• to GTopca, 
 pohoov ccvQog i ]v , otccv olpyrjTcct to pohov ccvoiyeiv tmv (pvWcov toc 
 yeiXrj. Comp, again with the account of Anacharsis given by 
 Cedrenus, who says in the same place that the Brahmins 
 clothed themselves with (pvXKoig. Remember also the Lydian 
 lady (Ompliale) of the Oratio. 
 
 The next words in Tatius are those quoted above, in illustra- 
 tion of the suspected passage of Xenophon. In the following 
 sentence we observe oi he (Clitophon’s eyes) ovx pjdeXov, ccXP 
 avtieXxov eavTovg exei too tov xcchXovg eXxopcevoi TTuiGpoccTi, 
 xoci Te\og ivixrjGav. Comp. pseudo-Basil’s description of the 
 allurements of “ Vice,” in his account of the u choice of 
 Hercules” (vid. sup. p. 160), and the parallel in the second 
 Pref. Sacr. Par. 
 
 All the foregoing coincidences with Xenophon, Cedrenus, 
 the Oratio , Clement, Herodotus, pseudo-Basil, Theophilus, have 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 209 
 
 been found in less than fifty lines of Greek. The coincidences, 
 however, do not stop here. In § 5 is a description of a feast 
 and a song : to Sg MGp>M tjv, ’A toKKoov p>Bp>(popjBvog <pBvyovGMV rrjv 
 A Mtpvqv, km) hiazav ccp^M km) p>BXKav kmtm\mpj$mvbiv . . . tovto 
 pcov pAlWov mgObvovgmv Big TB\og ryjv 'pvyyjv b^bkmvgbv. Comp. 
 A a,(pv7jv Ihia^Bv r\v ov kmtbXm^z, Or at. ii., referred to on p. 197, 
 and a few lines above the passage quoted on p. 180. Comp, 
 also Big tggovtov MTOVoiMg b^zkmvgmv, Clem. Ep. i. 1. In 
 Appendix A, the words Big togovto ( togovtov , v.l.) . . . Tohv 
 p tuXkov b^bkmvgmv, Diod. xiv. 76, p. 701, are shown to be used 
 by Clement. Compare now with Tatius. 
 
 In § 6, we find fiifiXiov Mp>M zpMTav km) lyKZKVpug (Clem. 
 Ep. i. §§ 40, 45, 53), MvsyivouGzov. 
 
 In § 7, Clitophon says that a relative of his named Clinias 
 loved a youth named Charicles, and bestowed on him a horse. 
 Clitophon makes a confidant of this Clinias, who was an adept 
 in love matters. As they are conversing, Charicles runs in to 
 say that his father had determined to marry him to a rich but 
 ill-favoured woman. Charicles and Clinias are filled with dis- 
 may, and Clinias inveighs against marriage : to pAv yap '’K'kevqg 
 Tav ycipcav Tvp c&vrjp / b kmtm rijg T poiccg mKKo tv p ... a tmvtm 
 to\p>ugmi yvvouKig kmv (piXaGi . . . km) tmvtm pAv TSp) Tav 
 BVp»6p(pC0V Tig MV BIT 01 yVVMIKUV , BvQm 7Cm] pbBTplOV TO MTVy/ipbM. 
 
 . . . bi hi pjyjhl BV[jjOp(pog, a>g (prig , rj GvpcpopM hiTXrj’ km) Tag civ Tig 
 avMGyoiTO, km) tmvtm pjBipMziov ovTu kmKov ; This takes us 
 back at once to the column of Cedrenus : ... tm tyi’kripjMTM tmv 
 B vpiop(pav . . . ovTog mv km) Big pcM^MtpMg zv^igtyigti (we shall 
 find this directly) km) Big Tvp bujTBGyi' 6 togmut/jv hrjXovoTi 
 TVpMV BV BMVTCO KMTMT0\pj7jGMg MVM'pMl. AlOyBVrjg hi 0BMGMpjBVOg 
 pAipMKiov . . . KZKOGpjTipAvnv bItzv E / pAv Tpog ccvhpMg , MTvyfig 
 . . . ’ Ay rjGiXMog zvpApfiov rjpM TMihog ... 6 hi ' AXB^Mvhpog . . . 
 rjvBGyjBTO. It has been pointed out on p. 174, that in Cedrenus 
 and Peregrinus there is a play upon the word “fire” — the 
 literal fire into which Hercules and Proteus jumped, and the 
 fire of lustful desire of which Xenophon speaks. Cedrenus’ 
 KMTMToX'jAjGMg and the BToXpjTjGB of Peregrinus have been shown 
 to be taken from Xenophon’s BToXfjjyjGZ (obs.) tov ’ AXzifiiMhov 
 viov (piXrjGMi (obs.). Comp, now with Tatius. 
 
 To raise his depressed spirits, Charicles went for a ride upon 
 the horse which had been given to him. Clitophon and 
 
 0 
 
210 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Clinias meanwhile continue their conversation. In § 12, a 
 slave rushes in with the startling intelligence that Charicles 
 was dead. His horse, it appears, turned restive, and finally 
 bolted. The rider was tossed about {roc\ocvTivo\hsvog) as in 
 some tempestuous sea, now upon the horse’s tail, tots Ss it) 
 Tpocy/fkov zvfiiGTuv (Xen. Cedren. Peregrin.), He was at 
 length dashed against a tree, and hurled to the ground, every 
 branch leaving its mark upon his unhappy countenance. In 
 falling he became entangled with the reins, and was dragged, 
 and at last trampled upon and kicked beyond recognition. 
 
 Bitter was the lamentation of the father over the battered 
 remains of his son: . . . ovh s zoivSj gcoi Oocvoctco TsQvrjzccg 
 — death usually removes the soul but leaves the form of 
 the man, gov ogoov zcci tccvtcc his<p0eipsv r\ tv^, zcci gcoi 
 Tsflvrjzccg Qccvcctov hiTXovv, nui GcvgcccTr ovTcog gov 
 
 ts$vy\zsv zcci Grig zizovog r\ gzioc. Comp. r( ovv A km . . . ccvTog 
 Tocpccy/jv zcci Gzccvlockoov rr\v svhccipjovoc to\iv sgcTiT^TiGiv, oig>coycci 
 rs zcci Qpyjvoi zcci hcczpvcc zcci GTSvccygcoi TccvTccypOsv 'bisTps^ov. 
 hiTXovg yccp yjv 6 QccvccTog (obs. all these words) ^vyfiv ts zcci 
 GeogjecTwV . . . 1 It&jv’ ’ Atogtcc oct sgcov, ’ IrjGov ficcGiXev' ohovg 
 (obs.) gov ov fiovXogjsQcc sihsvoci (obs.). zcci tovtov tov gs/Zgcg- 
 (Jjiov % ccpcczTrjpcc tov ovtcc Iv rri XccXzri, \idoig zcci zoTpoig zcci 
 TrfkabsGi fjbccZ^ocig, sgcTTvovTsg sig to tpogcvtov (obs.) ccvtov , 
 TpoGSppiTTOV , htccpprj^ccvTsg ccvtov sig TOvhcc<pog, and after five 
 lines 6 Kvpiog . . . sizovcc kv %spGi zpccTriGccg, zcci siprjzoog, T mg 
 7 ] sizoov z.t.X ., Theoph. 24. A few lines above the writer has 
 fJbvGTTjg. Tatius shortly before (in § 9) has f/jVGTrjg, and in the 
 next line ovz oihcc yccp lyco Tccg ohovg. 
 
 The coincidences here cannot be accidental, for we must 
 observe not only the verbal resemblances, but also the general 
 parallel — the weeping and wailing in both Tatius and Theo- 
 philus, the disfigured face and body, dashed violently to the 
 earth, of Charicles in Tatius, and the sacred image, spat upon 
 (in the face), hurled to the ground and crushed in Theophilus. 
 These coincidences, moreover, do not stand alone. Others 
 have been produced which seem to indicate some close con- 
 nection between Tatius’ tale and Theophilus. Even as the 
 case at present stands, it seems impossible to avoid the con- 
 clusion that this love story is not a writing of the sixth century 
 (or earlier), as it has been supposed to be, but a member of 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 211 
 
 the group of writings which we have been examining, and con- 
 cerning which we know at least this much, that their authors 
 strove to shelter themselves under the authority of Photius, 
 by interpolating his Bibliotheca . 
 
 We shall now show that this conclusion at which we have 
 just arrived is a necessary one, by producing from the pages 
 of Tatius’ tale illustrations of a great number of matters in 
 connection with the Evang. Thom., Peregrinus, Clement’s 
 Epistles, etc., to which attention has been already specially 
 directed, and by proving that the writing is indebted to 
 Photius’ Bibliotheca, and therefore cannot be the writing 
 which is described in it, unless, indeed, that description is 
 itself an interpolation. 
 
 1. The lamentation of Charicles’ father, from which we were 
 just now quoting, together with that of Clinias which follows, 
 supplies a number of coincidences with the close of Peregrinus, 
 at the very point where, as has been shown on p. 170, the 
 pages of Xenophon, which led us to Achilles Tatius, are made 
 use of. We shall take one only. Clinias addresses the horse: 
 
 . . . avodcQrirz xaXkovg . . . hvrqvei rov hpogbov, gv §g UTrettreivocg 
 eTrocivovf/jevog x.r.X. Comp, ojg zed s ig nvp uXzgQgci (Xenophon) 
 ors ptjb 9 andkuveiv rcov licafam (obs.) g geeXhe, cwctiffOriTog (obs.) 
 avrcov yevogbevog, Peregrin. 42. Tatius in § 12 has 6 he tTTog 
 . . . z[/jftohZppjtvog g ig 70 V hpogeov. Comp, hpogtov hiavvovGiv, 
 f/jTjbh uKhrfhoig IfjjTrohiZ^ovTcc, Clem. Ep. i. 20. 
 
 2. In the same place Tatius uses the word vv{/j<pizy]. This 
 recalls the vvpjQiztjv gtoXt^v of the Oratio and the discussion 
 thereon. In lib. iii. 7, Tatius has vvf/jtpizag eGToXiGyAevri of 
 Andromeda chained to the rock and awaiting death. In lib. 
 vi. 1, Clitophon puts on female attire, and the lady remarks gv 
 Sg evhvOi rr,v eG0yjrcc ty\v egijrjv . . . wg evf/jop(porepog Trccpoc vtoav 
 yg yorng r% GroX/j (obs.); toiovtov' tots edeuGugsTiv ev 
 ypccfiy (yid. sup. p. 176). 
 
 There are a few coincidences of small moment in themselves, 
 but which have a certain cumulative force which we may here 
 notice, — in lib. iv. 12 ev ruvruig hq rcfig A igevccig (Jj'eGai vrjcoi 
 Tivig eiGiv GTOpcchqv z.r.X., vid. sup. p. 158 ; in the same section 
 7/jSg xccxbTgs, vid. sup. p. 165, pseudo-Basil ; in lib. ii. 18 g Tel 
 Sg GweriOef/jev 7Y\v Tvpccv, vid. sup. p. 173, Peregrinus; in the 
 same section tovtoov he 7 rjv 'Lfivum eXuvQuvev ovhev, vid. sup. pp. 
 
212 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Ill, 121, Clement and Theophilus ; in lib. ii. 8 g ydv . . . \v 7 T 0 v- 
 f/jevog. rj ovz e>/S’ OTToog, and in vii. 9 ovz oiha Tralg, ovt si 
 z.t.X., vid . sup. p. 203, Theophilus ; in lib. iv. 7 GTparitorrjg be 
 ev xepciv e%av fJi>ax^. Comp. Clem. Ep. ii. 7 or/ ev x e P ff * v 6 
 ayuv among the words to which reference is made on p. 186. 
 
 3. We return now to § 7, and the gift of the horse to 
 Charicles. Clinias is described as being an adept in love 
 matters, f/jeipaziov he 6 spcog r\v' outgo dg g/^g pikoTipJag Kpbg 
 avTO, govts zai ittttov ‘Tpiaf/jevog, evrei Oeacapievov to [Aeipaziov 
 (Cedrenus has these words) STriveaev, eudvg sxupivaTO, pepuv 
 (obs.) avToo tov 'ikkov (obs.). Comp, here with Hippol. 
 Refutatio (vid. sup. p. 204). Clitophon, it seems, used to take 
 Clinias to task for being the hovXov of this passion. When 
 Clitophon himself fell in love, he felt that the tables were 
 turned . . . hovXog yeyova zayoo. It has been pointed out on 
 p. 61 that Arist. Flut . 147 lyooye roi . . . hovkog yeyevyjobai , 
 appears to be used in the Evany. Thom. ; and on p. 54 that 
 Pint. 157 o [/jIv Htcttov ayaOov, 6 he zvvag Oyjpevnzdg , probably 
 suggested the joke about the horse in the pseudo-Helladian 
 excerpt. Comp, the first of these lines with Tatius. Aristo- 
 phanes is saying that the boys veiled their demand for money 
 under requests for horses or dogs. Comp, with Tatius. Nor 
 does the use of Aristophanes appear doubtful, for the latter 
 half of the line seems plainly to be alluded to in lib. ii. 34, 
 where a certain Menelaus is telling Clinias what was the 
 -rpopavig of his own sojourn in foreign lands. He says that it 
 was g poog fiavzavog, zai Qripa hvvTvxfe' ^2 fjoeipaztov zaXov . 
 to he poeipaztov, tyikbOripov r\v. In lib. v. 25, Tatius has zdXKovg 
 zockov fiavzave (vid. sup. pp. 145, 150, and comp. Eusebius, 
 Theophilus , Diodorus). Menelaus could not prevent the youth 
 from hunting, so he went with him to the field, and there 
 accidentally killed him. Comp, the story of Apollo and 
 Hyacinth, referred to in the Oratio (vid. sup. p. 197). When 
 Clinias heard the lamentable story he was much overcome : 
 II aTpozXov ^rpopaviv avctf/jvqaOeig 'Kaprzkeovg. zcci 6 WVeveXa og- 
 T a’pjoi hazpveig; e(p7j. In reply, Clinias zaraXeyei tov Xap/- 
 z\ ea zai tov i'wwov. Comp, with Aristophanes. 
 
 4. We observe here the word Kpopaaig. It may be remem- 
 bered (vid. sup. p. 192) that this word formed part of the 
 connecting link between Clem. Horn. vi. and Eurip. Iph. Aul. 
 
. ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 213 
 
 It is proper to inquire whether the story of Iphigenia is taken 
 up by Tatius, as we have already seen it to be taken up by 
 Clement and the writer of the Oratio. It has been shown 
 that the Homily took the word from Iph. Aul. 884.* The word 
 is found again in that portion of the play which came more 
 especially under our notice: TO. pjrjTsp, ri aiyrj bazpvoig 
 Tsyysig zopag ; KA. ’iyco Tahaiva npotpaaiv oust akyCiv typ'sva. 
 These words might well have suggested the Homeric proverb. 
 In line 1373, Euripides has zai nXsov npa^Mysv ovbsv, obe 
 Gvyjtpopoig Tvyri. In lib. ii. 24, Tatius has ovbl dibd y>ov Trig 
 GV(Jj<popoig Trjv Tvyyiv. This is very amusing. In lib. vii. 6, 
 Tatius has on y>oi bsbozTai ndvTcog anoQavslv, and in iii. 22 si 
 bs ng sznobav ysvnrcu, (rcoZ^s GsavTrjy Ini to GTpaTonsbor 
 
 tccvtcc zinbvng e^ayof/jsv avTrjv sni roV fiagbov. On p. 193 
 special attention is directed to Peregrin. 33 gmZ^ov Toig 
 e 'FA\r]Giv . . . tiasi Ta beboyytjsva, and the lines of Euripides on 
 which the language is founded. Add, from Iph. Anl. 1376, 
 napeTaa y’ Iznobav to bvffysAg (obs.), and comp, all with Tatius. 
 
 In lib. iii. 22, from which we have just quoted, Leucippe is 
 indeed about to be sacrificed evidently in parody of Iphigenia. 
 In this book Clitophon, Leucippe, and their party are taken 
 prisoners by a band of robbers. The leader of the band gives 
 directions that si Tig nap Qwog Igtiv h Tolg s iXrjfjjf/j'svoig, TavTrjv 
 anaysiv npog tov Qsov, kpiiov \aoyjsn\v zai zaQdpaiov tov 
 GTpaTOv, § 12. In lib. vi. 2, Tatius has the proverb zaTa 
 Trjv ska(pov avn napQkvov, and so here he w r orks out a deliver- 
 ance for Leucippe, though it does not quite resemble that 
 whereby Euripides saved Iphigenia. Tatius says that Leu- 
 cippe’s friends fitted to her a false stomach made out of sheep- 
 skin, and filled with entrails and blood. The friendly sacrificer 
 had a knife the blade of which retreated into the handle, save 
 only the point, which projected far enough to enable him to 
 rip open the false stomach. When the appointed day came 
 (§ 15), Leucippe was laid upon the altar, and bisXzvt Tag to 
 tgifiog tig ty\v zaToo yaGTSpa, prjyvvGiir Ta anhayyya zvQvg 
 l^enrjbrjffsv. These they dragged out and zaTaTS[jjbvng dnavng 
 sig [Jjoipag sfiayov. 
 
 There is no ring of antiquity about these jokes ; they are, 
 however, exceedingly like those which we find in Phot. Bibl. 
 244, in the description of the conversion of the hermaphrodites 
 
214 
 
 PEREGRINES PROTEUS. 
 
 into men, to which attention has been called on p. 190. We 
 find there, in the one case, a prfeig (comp.), and in the other 
 a to[/j7i (comp.) : gre/AS rov eT^p^evov r'oKov (an expression 
 eminently applicable to Leucippe’s false stomach), g| ovnep 
 e^eneaev dvbpog albola z.rX. Here, in § 16, Clitophon, who 
 was deceived by what he saw, says zai ae Zfiaav averepov. 
 oiujoi , zai fthknovaav oXtjv rrjv avarofjoyjv z.rX. The word 
 to{/j7] is used several times by Tatius elsewhere. 
 
 We now come, in connection with this parody of the sacri- 
 fice of Iphigenia, to one of the most painful jokes to be found 
 in any of our writings, which we should not venture to point 
 out if we did not believe it to be perfectly undeniable, and 
 if the character of the joke did not seem to have something 
 to say as to the date when this love story under the name 
 of Achilles Tatius was written. 
 
 In the beginning of lib. iv. Clitophon pleads with Leucippe 
 for the fulfilment of his hopes. She replied that it was not 
 lawful, 7j yap [hoi Qeog ” Kpre[hig eariardaa arpuriv zard rovg 
 vKvovg, ore ezXaiov [/j'eKkovaa a(payqaea6ai. vvv, g z\aie m 
 ov yap re Qvrfcfi' fiorjflog yap e yoo aoi xapg aofjoaf [heveig 5g 
 7rapQevog y ear dv ae vv[jtj(poaroXyiaco' d%erai 5g ae aiXog ovhelg yj 
 KXe iro(pav. While Clitophon was trying to comfort himself 
 with ralg rov (JoeTAovrog ekariaiv, he recollected a very similar 
 dream which he himself had had. He thought he saw the 
 temple of Venus and a statue of the goddess within : &>g be 
 afkYialov eyevbfjorjv <7rpoaev%6(jjevog y zXeiaOrjvai rag Ovpag. aQv(A>ovvri 
 dg (JjOi yvvaiza ez^avrjvai zard rb dyaXfJoa rrjv [boptyriv s^ovaav. 
 zai' Nuv, ei7rev, ovz e^eari aoi 'rapeXQelv eiaoo rov veoo. yjv 5g 
 oXlyov avaf/jeivyg yjpbvov, ovz dvoi^co aoi / 'hbvov , dXXd zai lepea ae 
 TToiqaco rjjg 0e ov. 
 
 We may think of various scriptural parallels, which might 
 possibly have been in the writer’s mind, all more or less doubt- 
 ful. There is one, however, as to which no reasonable doubt 
 can be entertained. Comp. Rev. v. 4 zai eyw e zXaiov (obs.) 
 xoXXa, on ovhelg aJgiog evpeQ?) avo7<gai (obs.) z.rX ., ver. 5 zai 
 elg ez ruv ^peafbvrepcov Xeyei pot, M?) zXale (obs.) z.rX. y ver. 6 
 zai e}bov . . . dpviov earrjzog cog ea^ay^evov (obs.) z.rX. y ver. 8 
 ai elatv a! acpoaevyju (obs.) rcov dyicov y ver. 9 dgiog el (obs.) . . . 
 dvotgai (obs.) z.rX ., ver. 10 zai eroiriaag (obs.) Tjf/jdg rco (deco 
 (obs.) fiyiMV fiaaXelg zai lepeig (obs.) z.rX . The verses of the 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 215 
 
 Book of Revelation are taken np in order, and the parody 
 cannot be denied. The alteration of satpotypAvov into pesKkovcot 
 (rtpayfoecOcci gives great point to it. We can hardly suppose 
 this to be the work of an early writer. 
 
 Comp, further with Tatius zuv okiyov yjpovov (obs.) zazo- 
 \v rep zcnrpocp , rov ctOdvarov rrjg dvaardasug zotpnbv 
 rpvyyjGOVGiv' peyj ovv Xv^sirdco 6 svffsfiyjg, sdv stti roig vvv (obs.) 
 yjpbvoig rocXcciTnipyj* pecczccpiog ccvrov avctpeevsi (obs.) ypovog z.rX . 
 Clem. Ep. ii. 19. The remainder of the sentence is given in 
 a note on p. 68, where a coincidence is pointed out between it 
 and one of the forged excerpts from Agath arch ides, an excerpt 
 to which we shall have occasion to refer presently. It may 
 also be noticed that in Peregrin. 26 the writer has g Iff} h’ ol zai 
 pesrcc(3dXksG0cti paGiv ctvrov, zoti rivet bvsipetrot (obs.) foyjyeTffdui, 
 ug rov A log ovz zuvrog peiaiveiv ispov yjupiov. Comp, with 
 Tatius. In Peregrinus , the writer goes on immediately to 
 speak of the phoenix. In Tatius, a description of this bird 
 immediately precedes the dreams recorded above. In Pere- 
 grin. 33 (just referred to), the writer has ov pesrptag eQopv(3y]0y], 
 and Tatius here in iv. 1 ov peerpiag srdparropeyjv. 
 
 5. We have said that Tatius uses the word ropey]. It is 
 found in lib. iii. 13, in the description of a fight between the 
 robbers who were about to sacrifice Leucippe and some regular 
 troops. Tatius speaks of the “ clean cut ” (ropey]) of the /3s Xog 
 as compared with the ro rpavpecc zcci oibyjpect ug gctto \iOov of 
 the (3&j\og with which the robbers had armed themselves. 
 There is the same contrast here lying behind which we have 
 already seen between prfeig and ropey] ; and so in Phot. Bibl. 244, 
 in the case which led to the pij^ig, mention is also made of 
 oi^yjGuvrog rov ronov. Compare. 
 
 The description of the fight is compiled in great measure 
 out of Diod. xvii. 33 sq. (p. 184). The way in which the 
 various points of Diodorus’ narrative of a battle in which fifty 
 myriads of men were engaged are taken up in Tatius’ account 
 of a fight in which fifty onXircti are concerned, is very amusing. 
 We must confine our attention, however, to one point only. 
 When the robbers had wearied themselves out through the 
 multitude of j (3e>Xuv w 7 hich they hurled, the fifty men compos- 
 ing the u phalanx” opened out and allowed the more lightly 
 armed men to make their attack, zoti hzovriZyovGiv dtpeot , zoti yjv 
 
216 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 GTBppcc, TrXriyoci 5g ^rap’ cc^ori puv, zcci TpocupbocToc zcci atpocyoci. 
 zcci to f/jh epcTBipov srapa ro7g GTpocTiovTocig bcvBGrXripov tov 
 ‘ 7r\yi0ovs to eviss'g, with gsr/ Tovg IvocVTiovg after two lines. 
 Diodorus has oi iftTelg . . . 5/a<pgpom£ . . . Tcclg Bf/j^rBipiccig . . . 
 TCOLp ctfjb(poTZpoig . . . yj pclv ficcy/i . . . btccKccvtbvbto ( vid . sup. 
 p. 210, Charicles on horseback) yap bsvpo zmkb7g g, TTjg Tpo7rijg 
 svccKkoc<g yivo^zvYig' ovtb yap cczovTiGocg, ovtb TrccTu^ccg ovhzig 
 ocTpcczTov BGyB ttjv TrXqyriv, &/g ocv 5/a to ffTSjQog BToigcov tov 
 GZOGTOV KB 1[JjBVOV. 5/0 KOCl TToXkdig TpCCVf/jCCGlV BVCCVTIOig 7TBpl- 
 TvyyjkvovTBg bttittov. oi 5g . . . QvihocypvvTBg k.tX • We have 
 thus an excellent parallel with Tatius, and we have it in the 
 very pages, even in the very sentence (containing svccXXccQ, on 
 which so much has been said on pp. 23, 74, 88 sq. (vid. 
 Appendix A) in connection with Clement, the Evang. Thom 
 pseudo-Galen, Peregrinus, and Phot. Bibl. 244. We have thus 
 a confirmation of our opinion of the use made of those 
 particular pages of Diodorus by our writers. In lib. vi. 19, 
 Tatius is speaking of persons in whom both Qvpcog (obs.) and 
 Bpoog are raging, and he says otccv ovv ocpj(poo tov a 'vOpanov 
 zccTccXdcfiri, yivBTcci (Pbv ocvToig rj ^vyyi TpvTocvr), to 5g t vp 
 BKCCTBpOV TOcXoCVTBVBTOCl, (JjOCyjiTOCl 5g O f/jfioo K.T.X . Comp, with 
 Diodorus. 
 
 6. We find another use of TOpci] in lib. ii. 24. In § 19, we 
 are told that Leucippe agreed to receive Clitophon into her 
 chamber. There were difficulties in the way, however, because 
 Panthia was no less careful of her daughter than pseudo- 
 Galen’s mother of her son Cyril. A description is given of 
 the rooms occupied by the women, and of the precautions 
 taken for safety : zccTcczopci^ovGcc 5g mb) tt\v Eivki^'tyiv tj pb7]T7jp, 
 bzXbib BvhoQzv T7\V Bft) TOV GTBVM7T0V QvpCCV B<g6V0B 5s' Tig BTBpOg 
 octtbkXbib^ zcci Tag zXCig s/3ccXXs 5/a Ttjg OTrij/g' y\ 5g XocftovGoc 
 
 BpvXoCTTBV , KOCl TTBpl T/jv BQt) ZCcXbGOCGOC TOV Big T0VT0 BTTlTBTCCyf/jBVOV , 
 hisfiGcXXe gtccXiv Tccg zXsig, oTcug ccvoi^sisv. Comp. pseudo- 
 Galen’s story of u the keys,” and the words given on pp. 84, 
 85. Clitophon triumphed over all difficulties, and obtained 
 admittance to his lady’s bed-chamber. Panthia, however, 
 dreaming that a robber was attacking her daughter with a 
 sword, and waking up in alarm, hurried into the room and 
 Clitophon had to make his escape as best he could. In § 24, 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 217 
 
 Panthia, who supposed the worst, utters a lamentation over her 
 daughter : . . . ^auGrpars (the father), gv (Jj\v lv B vZpevr'top 
 t 7roXspjftg V7rlp ceXXorpiuv ydp>cor Iv Tvpoo hi zoeTtt‘7rs e 7roXspj7]G cci, 
 zee) rrjg Qvyarpog gov rig rovg ydegeovg zgvXvgzv. Comp, wdth 
 the Oratio, pseudo-Basil, and Plutarch, quoted on p. 174. 
 Panthia proceeds vvv uQXiuripov tt,ver[jj7]@t]g rr\v yccGrepcc . ccvry 
 hvGrvypGrlpce rrjg pjcey j ceipoeg ropjTj (ohs.), ovhl thov rov v/3 piGoevroe 
 cs, ovhl olhde p>ov rrjg Gvgbtpopag rrjv rvy/jv ( vid . sup. p. 213, where 
 these words are shown to be taken from Eurip. Tph. Aul.). 
 Here, then, it is plain that the writer had the same thoughts 
 in his mind in connection with rogur] as before, and as the 
 writer of the account of the hermaphrodites in Phot. Bibl. 
 244. 
 
 The way in which point after point, to which special atten- 
 tion has been directed in earlier pages, are now being taken 
 up and confirmed, is surely most remarkable. 
 
 7. In lib. iv. 4, Tatius gives a description of the elephant. 
 The elephant-hunters, and the methods of capturing their 
 prey, were subjects, as we have seen (vid. sup . p. 67), of merri- 
 ment with the writers of the Evang. Thom, and the excerpts 
 from Agatharchides. We turn, therefore, with some interest 
 to see wdiat Tatius has to say. 
 
 (1.) . . . pjttGTiZpvTog uvlyprar ri hi p A gti | avroo ttIX ezvg Gihrj- 
 povg. This seems a severe riding whip even for an elephant. 
 We do not forget, however, that the f ziXizvg plays a very 
 important part in the slaughter of the elephant, as it is 
 described in the so-called excerpts from Agatharchides, nor 
 that it belongs to one of the jokes of the Evang. Thom. (vid. 
 sup. p. 62). 
 
 (2.) The narrator says that he had seen a man place his 
 head upon the middle of the elephant’s head, and that the 
 elephant then breathed hard upon the man’s head. The 
 meaning of this was, that the man had a headache, and that 
 the breath of the elephant, being charged with aromatics, 
 acted as a cure. The object of this story is simply to introduce 
 a joke, with which we have already become familiar : o'lhzv obi * 
 tyiv fepoemiav o lXl<pccg, zee) Trpolzoe ovz oevoiyzi Gropece, ceXX’ 
 sGnv leerpog (obs.) ccXceZ^cuv, zee) rov peiGOov (obs.) Trparog ceire7 
 (obs.). zeev heug, ‘rziQerca, not) rroepzypi rrjv yjepiv, zee) ocxXo? rr\v 
 yzvvv, zee) roGOvrov Izhzy^reei ziyfivug, ogov 6 dv0p6U7rog fiovXzreei. 
 
218 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 oibe yap on neftpaze n)v og^v. Comp, the rrjv yjdpiv rrapeyeiv 
 of Theophilus and Basil, vid. sup. pp. 122, 124. Xapig ( vid . 
 sup. p. 115) is taken up by Tatius in the way that we should 
 expect: zai rrjv A ppobiryjg ydpiv avr/j t xupiaypv crpo gov. lib . 
 vii. 5. 
 
 Here, then, we have the physician of Phot. Bibl. 244 asking 
 for his reward. Comp. Clem. Ep. ii. 19, quoted along with 
 Cod. 244, on p. 148. We must not suppose that Clement has 
 no reference to the larpog , as well as to the (JjigOov , for in Ep. 
 ii. 9 he says, dig e yop>ev zaipdv rov iadrjvai, S7Tibd){/jSV e avrovg rco 
 Qeparrevovn 0g£, dvnpjiG&iav avrdj bihdvreg. 
 
 Clement, however, and the writer of Cod. 244, speak of a 
 “double reward.” We must consider whether Tatius follows 
 them in this also. Further on in this book, Leucippe is said 
 to have taken an overdose of a love potion, and to have gone 
 mad in consequence. The physicians were sent for, but could 
 do no good (comp. Cod. 244). At length a person is found, 
 who informed Clitoplion of the cause of the madness, and of 
 the name of the slave who had administered the noxious 
 draught : rov pdev (the slave) ovv eiyof/jev ev (pvXazri zaQeip- 
 %avreg. This new doctor promised to cure alrel be ypvGovg 
 rerrapag V7rep rrjg laGeoog. Clitophon assented to this, and 
 promised to double the reward if a cure was effected. The 
 idea of this double reward, both here and in Cod. 244, is taken 
 from Apollodorus, lib. ii. Apollodorus there speaks of the 
 Danaids, and says that Hypermnestra saved Lynceus, vrapQ'evov 
 avrrjv <pv\a%avra (obs.) £/o zaQelp^ag (obs.) avryjv A avadg 
 eppovpei. Comp, with Tatius. Lynceus had a son named 
 Abas, and Abas a son named Proetus, whose daughters went 
 mad (obs.), and behaved poerd dzoGp>iag uKaarig. Tatius in 
 § 9 makes this a special feature in Leucippe’s madness. 
 Melampus, the son of Amythaon and Idomene, ryjg "Aftuvrog, 
 vmGyyeirai (obs.) Gepaneveiv (obs.) rag vrapOevovg, el Xafiotro ro 
 rpirov poepog ryjg bvvaGrelag. Proetus at first refused to give 
 this great reward, but finding that his daughters grew worse, 
 be yielded, rovg alrqOevrag (obs.) poiGOovg (obs.) 6 II poTrog 
 ebibov. Melampus, however, vne Gyero toepaneveiv only on 
 receiving (a double reward) another share of the kingdom for 
 his brother Bias. Comp, with Tatius, also with Clement (vid. 
 sup. p. 148), also with Cod. 244, and pseudo-Galen, vid. sup. 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 219 
 
 pp. 89, 90. There can be no doubt that the writer of Cod. 
 244 took the idea of the double reward from Apollodorus, for 
 he has rrjg ’ Apccfii'ccg h rccTg zdXovpjivdig ” Afidig (three times, 
 and presently "Afidg) uzu z.t.X. As Wesseling says: 
 “ Qucerendce sunt Abce istce Arabicce ,” which, of course, gives 
 great force to the coincidence. Twice Diodorus (lib. xiv. cc. 
 38, 58) speaks of a Locrian town roig ovof/jd^of/j'zvdg "Aficcg. 
 It would seem plain that the "Aficcg of Apollodorus recalled 
 to the mind of the writer of the excerpt the "A (Bag of 
 Diodorus. 
 
 (3.) In Tatius’ account of the elephant, we observe the 
 words /3/ov yocp dVTco Xs yovGiv uwsp ty\v 'H Gidbov zopdiVTjv. 
 toiccvtt] igtiv zkstydVTwv 7] ysvvg, old tojv fiowv Igtiv tj zs<pd\r]. 
 gv pAv yocp ccv ihdiv, li^toig zipdg sypiv di)Toj biTrXovv to GTop>d. 
 He uses apparently Plut. ii. p. 415. Just above the words quoted 
 from Peregrin. 33, on p. 193, we find p,dzpd ypApziv (ppocGdg 
 (iElian applies these words to Calanus, and they are therefore 
 here applied to Proteus, vid. sup. p. 172), QdVdTiooVTi G0(piGT/\ 
 (Proteus), tov iniratyiov idVTOv wpo rekevrqg bis<giovTi, 7r\yjv 
 
 Toys T0G0VT0V STTYjZOVGd' S<p Y\ ydp QovXSGQdl XpVGCO /3ia yjpVGr\V 
 
 zopdvqv sniQiivdi. Comp., both with Tatius and Peregrinus , 
 Horn. II. iv. 109 sq. tov zipd \z zzCpdkrjg Izzdibzzdbapd 
 ‘7re<pvzst, | zdi Td pAv dGzr\Gdg zzpdo^oog qpdpe tsztoov , | wav 
 b’ sb XeiYiwg, ypvGsqv iniGrizi zopdvyjv, with bi7rXoog in line 133. 
 It would seem that Tatius, though taking his meaning of 
 zopdvyjv from Plutarch, still “ looked at” Homer as the writer of 
 Peregrinus evidently did. This is confirmed by line 141, dig b’ 
 ots Tig t zXepdVTd ywy (poivizi pjiyvq M rjovig (Lydian). Comp. 
 Tatius’ didv sig tov \ \s(pdVTd Avbi'rj fidKTSi yvvrj, quoted on p. 
 208. Homer is describing a bow, and thus it would seem that 
 the joke of the bow, in the account of the capture of the 
 elephant given in the excerpt from Agatharchides, appears in 
 Tatius’ description of the elephant in another form, and in 
 Peregrinus in yet another. The writer of Peregrinus , it must 
 be observed, equally with Tatius made use of Plutarch, for 
 in § 41, speaking of the tomb of Proteus, he says Tivdg 
 ZOpCOVdg OVZ l7ri7TT7]GZG0dl, ZdQdrtZp \*l TOV * lAGldboV Td(pOV. 
 Editors have perplexed themselves over these zopdvdg, and 
 their connection with the tomb of Hesiod. The connection 
 of ideas in the mind of the writer of Peregrinus is, however, 
 
220 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 very simply explained. A^lian (JV. H. vi. 7) says that in 
 Egypt KopwvTjg Tocpog (obs.) huxvvrut, and he goes on to give 
 the reason. There was, he says, a certain king named Marres, 
 who had zopojvv\g dpepopooc ttccw tyi/jSpoir zcci tuv iniGToXojv ag 
 efiovXeTo oi zof/jKrOijvui ttoi, Quttov ezbpAGev ocvrrj, zoci rp uyyeXoov 
 wk'igtyi, zed cczovgocgoc, qhei ev6a iQvvui he! to TTTepov , — where- 
 fore when it died Marres honoured it, zod gttjXt] zod Tupoo. 
 Accordingly, the writer of Peregrinus goes on at once to speak 
 of Proteus’ eTiGToXoig , and the vezpuyyeXovg by whom they 
 were to be conveyed (vid. sup. p. 34 sq.). The tomb of Hesiod 
 is brought in for the sake of the joke, and of a glance at 
 Plutarch. We shall probably conclude that Tatius and the 
 author of Peregrinus , if they were different persons, were 
 pretty intimately acquainted with one another’s secrets. This 
 is to some small extent confirmed by the circumstance, that in 
 lib. i. 3, Tatius has the expression g py}Tui zogj'iZpov IffiGToXyiv. 
 Comp, with uElian. 
 
 (4.) While describing the elephant’s proboscis, Tatius says, 
 av is ti roov abporspav thy, TOVTcp ‘repifidXXei zvzXcp rrjv dcypav 
 TrepiGpiy^oig, zod to Grdiv bevezovpiGe, and after four lines g ihov 
 he ttots zed Qeupju zotivov. The description of the phoenix is 
 close by, as we have said, and we have just referred to it. It 
 is there said, gVsra; Sg uuTojj %opog mKXm bpviQoov uGnep Sopy- 
 popoov , zal eoizev 6 opyig cc7roh?if/jOvyTi fiocGiXeX Comp, zed hrj 
 GrepiftoCktov eccvTcp 6 HocfifiuTiog oCXvgiv goeyiGT^v tu TpcLyj\X c p'> 
 zed Gihriponehoug eavTov 7repiGpiy^ag } TrepizXeiei eocvTOv ev Toig 
 . . . zovpoig, and after two lines not) ihov zod vtto GTpccTOTe'hav 
 hopvpopav ppovpovfjeevog fiaGiXevg, and presently ov noTe eihov. 
 Tlieoph. xviii. Vid. sup. p. 208. 
 
 In a note on p. 68, a coincidence is pointed out between 
 Clem. Ep. ii. 19 (to which many references have been made 
 of late) and c. xxx. p. 454 of the so-called excerpts from 
 Agatharchides. If we turn to the same excerpt, we find it to 
 be said of the Troglodytes that, when they are old and unable 
 to follow their flocks, some of them TrepiOevTeg (3oog ovpccv tts pi 
 tov c&v-fcevu tov mvtojV) zod tov 07riGco tov TpocyyiXov heGf/jOV ev 
 ueccXoc ‘7repiGpi'y<gccvTeg, affoXvovGi tov fiiov. This is so, the 
 writer says, not only of the aged c&XXa zod ovg rj v'oGog e^ripijovog 
 71 p >eXojv Tivog TYipuGig btyjpriGTOvg eig to Toclg ayeXoug TocpccG- 
 zevccGei GvvedreGOcii, with zvzXcp a few lines above. Comp. 
 
ACHILLES TATI US. 
 
 221 
 
 with Tatius and Theophilus. The passage is founded on Diod. 
 iii. 33, but the words zTi'f/jOVog % (Jbzkav . . . dyjpriGTOvg . . . 
 Tccpsffzsvdffst are not there. These last three words may be 
 thought to have become connected together through the czzvog 
 of 2 Tim. ii. 21, which is one of the (/jZKSjv of the 
 whole body. So Clement has ra hi \ \dyjGTM /msKij tov (rdf/jccrog 
 r,[jjav dvocyzalot zcct oXco rco (TapbccTf dWd 7rdvTcc 
 
 (JWTTVZi z.t.X.. Ep. i. 37. So in lib . viii. 6, Tatius, who is 
 expanding Ovid’s {Met. i. 691 sq.) story of the metamorphosis 
 of Syrinx into reeds, and Pan’s discovery of the <xup/y|, says 
 that the god Mf/jpopfoocg ovv rd tst[Jj'/i[/jSvoc, tmv zakdpjojv ug 
 tov t T&ffjbocTog , zoci (rvvOeig s ig sv advpboi, sl%s hid yjupav rag 
 Topodg ruv zakdfjjoov zaroc<pi\cov, &>g rrjg zopyjg TpccvptjaToc. effreve 
 h’ £ poor inov STiQeig to GTopba, zoci ivewvei . . . zee) y) avpiyi sl%s 
 <p&)V7]v. Clement’s Gvvnvii seems thus to be explained. 
 
 In Ep. i. 46, 47, Clement writes : — 
 
 i’va rt . . . GynGijjara, noXsfjjbg ts sv bfjjTv ; . . . iva ti . . . diaGTufisv ra fjj'sXri 
 too XpiGToo, xai GTaGid?o/xsv Tpbg to Goj/xa to 7diov . . . ojGts sTiXa$sGi)ai 
 r,;xdg on iLZkv\ (obs.) sg/Jj'sv dXXijXuv ; [AvriGdriTS tuv Xoyuv T rjGoo too 
 K opioo yi/JjOjv (Clement borrows everything he writes, and here from 
 Acts xx. 35)’ sits ydp, Obai tu> dvQpwTo) sxstvoj' xaXov v\v aoTcp s i 
 obx eyewr/dyi, r) sva tuiv sxXs xtuv /JjOo GxavbaXiGai xps?TTUv rjv abrti <7rspi- 
 Tzdr\\)ou (obs.) fj^oXov xai xaTatrovTiGdrivai sig Trjv OdXaGGav, r\ sva tujv 
 / uxpojv [xoo GxavhaXiGai. to GyjGix.a v ToXXobg S/sGrps-^/sv, ToXXobg 
 sig aQoiu/a v s(3aXsv, ToXXobg sig hiGTayihbv, Tobg TavTag ri^dg sig XoTr\v' 
 xai srl^ovog (obs.) vpvuv sGnv y] GTaGig. § 47. dva XdffsTS ty\v ItiGtoXy^ 
 (1 Cor. obs.) too fxaxapioo UabXoo too aToGToXoo • r/ TpuiTov b[iTv sv 
 dpyy j too sbayysX/oo sypa^sv (obs.); using 1 Cor. i. 10 sq. . . . vvvi dz 
 xaTavoijGaTs t/vsc bfjjdg disGTp s-\av (obs.) xai to gs/xvov TY\g Tspi(3o7]Too 
 (piXadsX<piag b[jj&v s/xs/uGav (“ comp. § 1, ojgts to gs/JjVov xai TspifioYiTov 
 . . . ovof^a . . . fiXaG(pr\[jjiriQY\vai” Light.) . . . &gts xai f3XaG<pr)/iJ,/ ag sti- 
 p'spsGOai to) bvo/xaTi x.opioo (“ comp. Rom. ii. 24,” Light.). 
 
 Insert here after (JjvXov the words Tspt tov Tpdyyfkov out of 
 one of the gospels used in the above passage, and which pro- 
 perly belong to it, and then compare with the excerpt. It is 
 impossible that the coincidences can have accidentally arisen. 
 
 The word h/S(TTps\psv has an interest of its own. Clement 
 of Alexandria, Strom, iii. 18, p. 561, gives the above citation 
 from the gospels, with small variation. He adds, however, 
 after OakatJGotv, the clause rj sva, tuv \ zXszt&jv {lov hiuGTpi^cu, 
 and proceeds : to ydp avowee tov 0s ov @7.a(j<py;pjUTCci hi’ avTovg 
 
222 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (Rom. ii. 24)* oOei/ yencci'oog 6 ’ AftocrroXog, "Eypcc^ce (obs.) v/jav , 
 (pqciv, \v T/j i TTifTroXyi (obs.) fjjTj z.t.\. (1 Cor. v. 9). The coin- 
 cidence in the use of hictffrptyeiv (§ 46 in our Clem.) by the two 
 Clements, as showing that they did not at this point write inde- 
 pendently of one another, has been observed by Lightfoot and 
 earlier editors. They conclude that Clem. Alex, copied our 
 Clement. This is not the natural and obvious conclusion. Let 
 us call the passage as it stands in Clem. Alex. A., and in our 
 Clement B. If these two passages were put into the hands of 
 a person ignorant of their history, we imagine that he would 
 say that A. is giving a continuous citation, and that the hiia- 
 rps\pev of B. is the recollection of the clause in which A. has 
 hiocffTps\poci , — a clause, however, which B. did not care to take. 
 But when this coincidence, the force of which is acknowledged, 
 is considered in connection with the other coincidences between 
 the two Clements (which are not less noteworthy, and which 
 tell their own tale), and with those between our Clement’s 
 passage and the forged excerpt from Agatharchides, Theo- 
 phi/us, and Tatius, it seems necessary on any principles of fair 
 criticism to conclude that the writer of Clement’s Epistle 
 copied from Clement of Alexandria ; and, if a different person 
 from the author of the excerpt, exercised a perverse ingenuity 
 in extracting suggestions for his forged epistle, from an 
 excerpt which was interpolated into Photius’ Bibliotheca , long 
 after Photius’ times. 
 
 8. In Orat. iii. (quoted on p. 181) are the words rcevpovg 
 zee) eXctpov avzXcov cov (jev^corrip eg stvsov Tvp. Attention has been 
 specially directed to these words, on the ground that, as Syl- 
 burg points out, the description given of the stag applies more 
 properly to the bull. A parallel has been produced out of 
 Phot. Bibl. 190 1 (vid. sup. p. 187). In lib. iv. 2, Tatius 
 describes the hippopotamus as JW ov bl ccvrov rov N stkov 
 Izdikovv oi A lyvTcrtoi. zee) sari fjbh iW og, cog 6 \byog~ 
 fiovXzrcu . . . (Jbvzrrjp far) pAyoc ziyiryvoog, zee) nvkcov wvpcuby} 
 
 1 The words are on 'SsTkos (obs.) o C H pxxXtjs xoro yinaus <pnnv IxxXuto (obs.) 
 ioru ''Hpav iffuaiv iTsp^ofiivov uvry uvskeov tov . . . vrvpi'X'voov r iyavru } p. 147. 
 Comp, with Tatius. 
 
 2 Almost directly after the passage quoted from Orat. iii. we find the ex- 
 pression U( Xoyos {vid. sup. p. 181). Comp, also o ffTpartjyos ( o hlo; Xoyos) ov 
 Povkiroti ffufAXTuv uXxriv x.r.x., Orat. v. (quoted on p. 177). Tatius here 
 describes the size, strength, etc., of the hippopotamus. 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 223 
 
 zccirvov, a description very like that applied to the stag in the 
 Oratio, and equally as appropriate. Diodorus has a descrip- 
 tion of the animal, and of the method of its capture, in lib. i. 
 35, p. 42. Tatius makes up his account, not as one might 
 suppose, from this page of Diodorus, but from those pages 
 which were used for the manufacture of the forged excerpts 
 from Agatharchides. He uses, for example, lib. iii. 35, and 
 transfers Diodorus’ description of the (Gocpzo(pdiyog) rocvpog 
 (obs.) to the hippopotamus, as the wTiter of the Oratio does to 
 the stag. Immediately above the description of the Echidna 
 (vid. sup. p. 202), Eustathius mentions a marvellous beast to 
 (/j'iyeQog ogov f3 oog, loizbg rbv rov rcpoGoorrov Tvrrov IXccfia, zuXov- 
 pjivov TGcpccvlog, bvGdqpocrov, bid ty\v (jjirocfio\riv. Like the 
 
 chameleon, he says, it changed its colour (rag yjpoocg rcov 
 Tpr/fiv). It may be that we have here the origin of the {aztu - 
 fioXrj of which Sylburg complains, and in which Tatius seems 
 to follow the writer of the Oratio. Comp, the of 
 
 Eustathius with the Oratio. Tatius has here, only two lines 
 above the words quoted, pJiytQog Sg kutm fiovv top p>(yiGT0V , 
 ovpdt fipayeTu, tlou rpiycov. Comp, with Eustathius. 
 
 9. Tatius not only describes the animal itself, but also the 
 method 1 by which it is captured. He uses ^Elian, H. A. v. 
 53, for one point, as the editors show, and proceeds : — 
 
 drrdrri d& ruvrr) rradyzi rr t v dypav. smrripriGavrzg yap avrov rag 
 dtarpiBag, opvy/xa Toiriffd^svoi, errntaXvnrovfftv avwQsv xaXd^yj jca > 
 yjjifjjaGi))' vrro ds rijv rtiv xaXdfim [ir\yavriv effravai xaroj £vX/vov 
 0 /Ttrifj.u, rag Qvpag dveuiyfizvov s/g rov opo<pov rov fibdpovg xai rr\v rrruaiv 
 rov 6r\pbg Xoyav’ rov [Xzv yap srtifiavra (pzpsffQa/ svOvg, xai ro o’lxrifjja 
 (puXzov d/xqv vTobeysodai, xai rovg %vvr\yzrag sxQopovrag svQvg stixXsjsiv 
 rov T^iLarog rag tivpag, xai zyziv dvro) rrjv d^pav, sere/, rrpog yz ro 
 xaprspov, ovdsig av avrov xparrjozi&v (3/cf,' rd yap aXXa sariv dXxi[i>d- 
 rarog, xai ro dsp/xa, ug bpare, (p'spsi rpayy, xui ovx sQ'sXzi ‘TruQzadai 
 (ubripov rpav/xart, dAX’ sffn v, ug elffsTv, sXztyag A lyvnriog. iv. 3. 
 
 As we have said above, Tatius uses, not lib. i., where 
 Diodorus expressly describes the hippopotamus and the method 
 of its capture, but lib. iii., where the elephant is spoken of. In 
 the account of the elephant-hunters, given in § 26, we observe 
 
 1 This, as well as the description, is found almost word for word in pseudo- 
 Eustathius’ Hexoemeron. A connection between this spurious treatise and 
 several members of our “ group of writings ” will be pointed out in chap. vi. 
 
224 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 naparyipovct ruv IXetpdvrav rag sirobovg zai rag Izrpondg. 
 Compare. A few lines above, in § 25, we find (rapzo(payov<ri 
 rd ‘kqpO'tvra, a cct anavicog (Jj\v v no roov d’kzip>cjraroov Zpjcov avroi 
 bta(p@sipovrai, rd cig noXKd bohu (obs.) rrjv \z (3 lag vmpoy^v 
 yjtpovvrat. These words plainly suggest the “ carnivorous 
 bull,” as we shall see directly. Diodorus goes on to say that 
 if the u hunters ” lacked flesh, they cook the hides of beasts 
 previously killed, and, singeing off the hair, rd heppara btat - 
 p overt, zai zareffOtovreg fisfitafff/jivojg, nXyjpovfft (dvanXyipovct, v.l. 
 obs.) TYjv svbetav (obs.) rovg 5g avqfiovg nalhag yvpjvaCpvciv In i 
 Gzonov fidWeiv, zai [hbvotg btbbaat rpofiyjv rdig intrvyovat (obs.). 
 Comp, the words here specially marked out for observation 
 with a passage from Tatius, given on p. 216, and which is com- 
 pared with the language of Diodorus in lib. xvii. Diodorus’ 
 ryjv zvhuav here, Tatius alters into rb Ivbeig, just as in the same 
 clause he alters Diodorus’ raig lf/jnsipiaig in lib. xvii. into rb 
 efjtneipov. Diodorus says that the “hunters” used stones as 
 well as darts in attacking their prey. Comp, with Tatius on 
 p. 215. But this is not all, for the word g nirqpTjtravreg, which 
 Tatius employs there as well as here , makes the use of Diodorus 
 in both passages a matter of certainty. 
 
 It was pointed out on p. 100, when these pages of Diodorus 
 were being compared with the excerpt manufactured out of 
 them, that 1 Cor. xii. 11 seemed to be used in the words of 
 the excerpt npbg rrjv lavrov ypst'av zzaarog rd (JjsXtj btatpovGiv. 
 This last word is here among those just given out of Diodorus. 
 A few lines below it we remark ro tbtov vaf/ja, a few lines 
 above it btano\t(jjOvc>i be npbg aXhrfhovg . . . zai . . . btaandat 
 rovg ystpuQsvr ag. The most of these people die of hunger 
 Diodorus goes on to say, orav . . . rb (rdfjba <rrep?j0/j rrjg dvay- 
 zaiag . . . ypttag. 1 Cor. xii. 11 might thus easily have been 
 suggested to the writer of the excerpt ; and that it was, will 
 appear probable if we refer to the passage from Clem. Ep. i. 46, 
 quoted on p. 221, and compare it with the words which we have 
 just been giving out of Diodorus. Lightfoot refers to 1 Cor. 
 xii. 12 in illustration of Clement. Observe also the language 
 of Tatius given on the same p. 221, which also may be com- 
 pared with 1 Cor. xii. 11. 
 
 We now turn to § 35, in which Diodorus gives an account 
 of the “ carnivorous bull : ” tan Sg rb Qyipiov akzr\ rs zai 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 225 
 
 hvvdcu>ei hid(popov, cog ocv eTiTtQef/jevov roig ockzipjcoTUTOig toov ZJjcov, 
 zcci ty\v rpo(p7jv eycov ez rrjg rav ye ipooQevToov Gocpzo^ocyiocg. hiccp- 
 Qeipei (comp, with Diodorus’ language in § 25, vid. sup. p. 224) 
 . . . Xsysrcci he zcci to heppjoc ccrpoorov eye iv . . . ovhevoc zccTiGyp- 
 zevcu. to h’ elg opvypjoc maw, % hi oiXKrjg ocnrdcTY\g yeipcoQev . . . 
 T7\g £g 7ruvTojv zpocTiGTrig Gth/jpov pvGecog ov y tittu^livov. Comp, 
 with Tatius, quoted on p. 223. If we turn to Phot. Bibl . 250, 
 c. xxxix., we find that the writer of the excerpt has abbreviated 
 Diodorus. Some only of the coincidences just pointed out are 
 there. F or example, hepp>oc is not there ; nor is M7TDCT7]g, for 
 which the writer substitutes SoXov, taking it apparently from 
 Diodorus’ § 25. We observe, however, in the excerpt a^po- 
 Tepov, which Tatius uses in his description of the elephant (vid. 
 sup. p. 220) ; and also the words Gihijpco he ov y V7relzov, which, 
 from a certain similarity of their own to the parallel words of 
 Tatius, suggest that the same mind coined both expressions 
 out of Diodorus. All the coincidences, indeed, which we have 
 been finding between Diodorus and Tatius, are such as we 
 should expect to find if the writer of the love story under 
 Tatius’ name was not a Greek but a late scholar, comparatively 
 speaking, whose mind was stored with the language of Diodorus, 
 as the mind of the compiler of the forged excerpts from 
 Agatharchides would necessarily be stored. No “ Alexandrine 
 rhetorician,” such as Achilles Tatius is thought to have been, 
 could possibly have used a Greek author in the fashion that 
 the writer of Tatius’ love story has used Diodorus. 
 
 We have been particular in pointing out the use made of 
 Diodorus, because we shall necessarily conclude from it that 
 other authors were manipulated the same way, and that the 
 whole of Tatius’ Greek, given on p. 223, will be found on ex- 
 amination to be marked by those characteristics which we have 
 already seen to belong to a portion of it. We may be perfectly 
 certain that almost every word of it may be traced to a source, 
 if only we look for that source with sufficient diligence. 
 
 In Peregrin. 32, in the sentence immediately preceding that 
 which was just now (p. 219) illustrated out of Tatius’ descrip- 
 tion of the elephant, the writer has pjcczpd yocipeiv <ppocGccg 
 Qgcvgcticovti GopiGT/i (Proteus), tov eniTupiov eocvTov yrpo Te\evT?jg 
 hie^iovTi. -ZElian, Var. Hist . iv. 6, speaks of Calanus as Go(piG- 
 Trjg fjjoczpd yocipeiv (ppdcGccg ’A Xe%ccvhpcp. We had occasion to 
 
 P 
 
226 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 refer just now (p. 220) to Tatius’ account of the phoenix, which 
 is, as we have said, close by in the last section of lib. iii. We 
 find efjbvpvyg yocp j SmXov rrjg s vahecrurrig, ogov izavov Tp og opvitfog 
 Tapriv, opvrrei rs toj GTogoaTi, zai zoiXaivei zaTa {Jj'igov, zai to 
 opvyfjjd (obs.) Oqzri yivsrai too vzzpoo. Ivdsig 5s zai evap/uoGag tov 
 bpviv ty\ Gopoo, p'epei zai sig to yjxGgta yr[ivoo yjv^otn (obs.) ini 
 tov Ns/Xoy. ovToog 'inrurui to spyov pipoov. Comp, with Tatius’ 
 description of the trap for the hippopotamus. The next 
 sentence is quoted on p. 220. Tatius proceeds, after three lines, 
 brj Tig hpsvg 1 A iyvTTiog fiifiXiov g| abvToov ptpoov, zai 
 bozigjdZpi tov dpviv \z Trig ypapijg. 6 5s olbsv a TiGTOvgoevog, zui 
 tcc ocwoppriTM paivsi tov GoogoaTog, zai tov vszpov STibstzvvTai, 
 zcu sgti STiTapiog GopiGTrig. Comp, the last two words with 
 those of Peregrin. 32 just given. In Peregrin. 27, it is said 
 that Proteus called himself Phoenix, because the Indian bird 
 of that name was wont to ascend the funeral pyre. Presently 
 the writer says, (jjapTbpopoai 5s, 5j (ATjv zai kpsag avTov aTO- 
 'bziyfiriGZG&ai z.t.X. Comp, with Tatius. The writer of Pere- 
 grinus says, moreover, in the same place, oi zaTapaTOi 5s ovtoi 
 {A ccOriTcci ai)Tov zou y^pTjGTTjpiov , olfjjcu , zou ahvTov (obs.) s 7ci T/j 
 tv pa f/j^avfjGovTai. And in § 25, immediately after the 
 passage quoted on p. 172, and which is still specially in hand, 
 we find si (A?], OTSp (pact, (jjyi^avyjGSTai (3aQe7av yevsG0ai zai Iv 
 fioOpop (obs.) ty\v Tvpdv. And in § 21, it is said that Proteus 
 was fioOpov (obs.) opvTTuv zai z.t.X. Comp, with Tatius’ 
 account of the phoenix and of the capture of the hippopotamus. 
 There is an evident association of the phoenix with Proteus in 
 the mind of our WTiters, and of the receptacle which the bird 
 hollowed out with the receptacle which Proteus was said to 
 intend to contrive in the funeral pyre. What is the origin of 
 this joke? We have said on p. 172 that Calanus was taken 
 by the writer of Peregrinus as the model, in many respects, 
 for the death of Proteus. We have just seen that some words 
 of ASlian, said by him of Calanus, are applied in Peregrinus to 
 Proteus. It is to Calanus that we must turn for the explana- 
 tion of Proteus’ secret receptacle. 
 
 In lib. xv. p. 717, Strabo tells us that the authorities which 
 
 1 Comp, ol ovv li pus iori<niz‘7r<rovra.i r as avooypoc.<pxs t*/v %povuv xoct ivpitrxovnv 
 avrov vriv<rxxotrio<Trov iron s ‘Tsorkvpw/u.'ivou ikt]Xv&'ivai, Clem. Ep. i. 24. We are not 
 aware that any other writer mentions the inspection by the priest. 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 227 
 
 lie consulted varied in their narratives of the manner of 
 Calanus’ end : — 
 
 aX>.’ 0/ fi'sv . . . yivo[iin\g ds nvpdg xa/' redsfoqg sc r aurrjg ypuff/jg 
 xX/vijg, xaraxXidsvra s/g aurjjv, syxotXw^dfisvov (obs.) ifiTprjGOrjvai' 01 d's 
 ('v'kivov (obs.) oJxov (obs.) y& vsadou, (pvWddog (obs.) d’ s/x^Xrjffdsvrog xa/ 
 scr/' rjjg <sr\yv\g rrvpocg yevopsvqg syx'kfuldevra (obs.) . . . pi-^pavrcc \ avr'ov 
 ug ccv doxov Govs^priff^/ivai r& o/xw. 
 
 If we suppose that it occurred to our writer to make a pun 
 upon the word bozov, 1 and to translate the closing words of 
 Strabo by “ as seeming or pretending to be burned along with 
 the house,” the secret receptacle for the safety of Proteus 
 would have an easy explanation. Nor does it seem possible to 
 doubt that the joke arose in some such way, if we compare 
 Strabo’s words with Tatius’ description of the capture of the 
 hippopotamus, given on p. 223, and consider certain other 
 coincidences which can be produced. 
 
 (1.) Attention was just now (p. 224) specially directed to 
 iTTiTYipriGOLvrzq, which Tatius uses in the passage {lib. iv. 3) now 
 under consideration. Two lines after this passage he has zai 
 azrjzocc 7rccpbb tojv uzpiftcog eiboTcov Trig yiviaiwg ccvrov rqv <pvGiv 
 cog <7rupccbo%oy. In Peregrin. 8, the writer, speaking of to 
 dyaXgjOc (Proteus) to zccu^GogijSyov, says azovGocTS (obs.) goov, 
 l^ocpyijg Grapci^vkaJgoLVTog ty\v yvcof/jyjv ccutov , zcci tov fiiov \%i- 
 Tr/prjGccvTog (obs.)* g via be napd (obs.) toov ttoXituv avTOv Iwvv- 
 Oavoguriv, za) olg avdyzrj r\v azpiftdog (obs.) iibsvai (obs.) avTov. 
 to yap Trjg (pvGScog (obs.) z.tX. If due allowance be made for 
 the cumulative force of the many coincidences which have 
 been shown to exist between Peregrinus and Tatius , it seems 
 impossible to deny that at any rate Proteus, the representative 
 of Calanus, was in the mind of the writer of the passage from 
 Tatius -which we are examining. 
 
 (2.) We observe that Strabo’s (pvXXabog is altered by Tatius 
 into zoXag^ and zaXagjCov. This invites us to examine the 
 passage from the third Book of Maccabees, quoted on p. 173, 
 which is so curiously connected with the passage from Peregrin. 
 
 1 Leucippe twice seemed to die. Once she was sacrificed in parody of Iphi- 
 genia. On the second occasion the head of a woman, supposed to be Leucippe, 
 was cut off. Tatius, in lib. vii. 5, alludes to to7s -^/zvVzffi 6 u.vu.tois ixztvois, and says 
 to (jt.\v Tpurov, okov <rou to trupu.' to vrepov, xolv rbv xzQuXbv }oxuv (obs. ), ftb e%uv. 
 
 Our writers took some interest in Docetism. 
 
228 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 25 now in hand, and in which zcckdcpjovg is found. If we 
 reflect for a moment, we see that Tatius’ expression ttjv tmv 
 { jjYf/jxvriv exactly explains the device of the writer of 
 3 Macc. It was jj tojv (ypoctyifcuv) zoCkaybcov wyjz vr\. Nor is 
 this all, for the expression of 3 Macc. r/jg kzpvyyjg no 
 
 less aptly expresses the device of which the writer of Peregrinus 
 speaks immediately (obs.) after the passage connected with 
 3 Macc., whereby, as some suppose, Proteus was to explain 
 death. This, of course, makes the coincidences between 
 Peregrinus and 3 Macc., pointed out on p. 173, far more 
 noticeable. 
 
 (3.) On p. 173 we referred, in illustration of 3 Macc., to 
 Arr. De Exped. Alex. vii. 1. In the sentences referred to is 
 the word biccrpifiui. Tatius, as we see, has hiocrpi^ocg. Farther 
 down, Arrian, who adopts Strabo’s first version of the death of 
 Calanus, has ov (Jjrjv bvv/iQrjvat ys ov^s rov 'innov iTnfirjvui (obs.), 
 aXXoc iffi zhivrjg yap xopjtcQrivui (pspogtjzvov (obs.) z.r.X. Comp, 
 with Tatius, whose zocprzpev might have come from the same 
 source ( vid . sup. p. 173, note 2). If we look back to the close 
 of lib. vi., we find that Arrian is there speaking of the tomb of 
 Cyrus, and the repairs executed by Alexander. He uses the 
 word oix7](/jDc. Comp, with Tatius. He uses also rfpoa, e.g. 
 xui rov goh (TMgtjocrog offarrzp ’in <tmcc y\v, xaraQzivoci kg rrjv ttvzKov, 
 7tou to IxiQzivtti. Tatius uses as we see, in very 
 
 much the same sense. Now there is not room even for the 
 shadow of a doubt as to Tatius’ use of Arrian. For in lib. 
 iii. 15, where Leucippe is supposed to be sacrificed in parody 
 of Iphigenia, we are told that the body of Leucippe, with its 
 disembowelled false stoma,ch, was laid in the coffin : to Goog>(i 
 hOzvrzg rrj aopoj TcotroCkziTrovGi, t 7roopjM kip avrrjg inifavTig. 
 Comp, with Arrian. Tatius goes on to say that Clitophon, 
 who supposed Leucippe to be really dead, determined to 
 destroy himself. He was prevented by the timely appearance 
 of his friends, who laid hold on his hand. He exclaimed 
 TpoV Qzoov p (J jOi (pOovyiarirz Qoivarov zulkov. Arrian says that 
 the inscription upon Cyrus’ tomb ended with the words p>ri 
 ovv (pQovzi ((pQovforjg v.l.) p>ot rov pjvqpjccrog. It is very plain 
 then that Tatius 1 did use Arrian in the passage which we are 
 
 1 On p. 96, the use of Arr. Exped. Alex. vi. 20 in the forged excerpts from 
 Agatharchides is pointed out. 
 
3 MACCABEES. 
 
 229 
 
 considering. But if the use of Arrian is conceded, the use of 
 Strabo can hardly be denied, and it would seem to be suffi- 
 ciently proved that Tatius used more than one account of 
 Calanus in his description of the capture of the hippopotamus. 
 
 (4.) We turn now to 3 Macc. We observe that the writer 
 goes on, as Tatius does, to speak of elephants. Only a very 
 few lines after the passage which we have quoted, he uses the 
 word 7T0[Jj(x. Tatius, as we have seen, has sr^aa, a different 
 word. Here again is a change in 3 Macc. verv like the changes 
 which mark the coincidences between 3 Macc. and Peregrinus 
 (vid. sup. p. 173). In the same place 3 Macc. has apccporoog. 
 The word is a rare one, and Suicer was able to say “ Omittunt 
 hoc adverbium Lexica.” It is used both by Diodorus and 
 the excerpt in the description of the “ carnivorous bull,” 
 which we have shown to be used by Tatius in the passage 
 before us. The word is not used in the LXX. except in 
 3 Macc., and Schleusner refers to Diodorus. Immediately 
 after the passage containing the word -r^a, Arrian has zotl 
 TTjV dyp/5a 5g u,(puv'iGoci> and then says that Alexander sGrps/3- 
 XaiGiv the guards of Cyrus’ tomb who had neglected their duty. 
 In 3 Macc. iv. 14, a few lines, that is, above the passage quoted 
 on p. 173, we find GTpefiXotjOsvrcig 5g rcclg 7rupy]yye'kujSvocig 
 ctizlaig to rsXog c&ficivicrui (obs.) f/jidg vto zuipov riguspccg. The 
 writer of 3 Macc. goes on to say that the scribes toiled on, 
 sitting at their work from morning till night, for forty days. 
 At the end of this time they were brought to the king (ver. 
 17), (JjTjzzti layjjzw ty\v ruv ’I ovhuiwv M7roypci(p7jv -To/g/b^a/ 5/a 
 ty\'j c&gArp^TOV ccvTcov t 7r\7j()vv. The description answers well to 
 that given by Strabo of the Indian Sophists, who, whether 
 they were standing, or sitting, or lying naked upon the ground, 
 so remained until the evening, or who stood on one leg holding 
 up a block of wood with both hands, and so remained through- 
 out the whole day. Directly, speaking of Calanus, Strabo 
 has (p. 716) [/jyjhh iGypcrsi rrjg cupe'kzloig i7rthzi%iv 
 Compare. 
 
 This chapter of 3 Macc. contains some other very noticeable 
 points. Ver. 4 will be found to be illustrated in Appendix A. 
 out of Diod. xvii. 31, p. 182. This is the first of those pages 
 of Diodorus to which so many of our writings have been shown 
 to be indebted (vid. sup. pp. 23, 74, 88, 216). 
 
230 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 In ver. 6, the writer says cti 5s dpn npog fiiov zoivooviav 
 yapbizov vneXrjXvQviat nat rrov vzdvihzg, dvr) rspxf/sovg pbzraXa- 
 fiovaai yoovg . . . Qprjvov dvtf vpbsvaiovv z.r.X., in ver. 7 5s cpbiai 
 5s 5 ypbooiai fjoeypi rrjg s ig ro nXohv hpbfioXrjg s iXzovro, in ver. 8 
 dvr) s vovyiag za) v&ovrepizrjg paflvpbiag roig s niXoinovg rovv 
 yapbovv ijpbspag Iv Qprjvoig hrjyov, napd nohag $5 y\ rov ahqv opovvreg 
 zzipbzvov. The writer no doubt used, as Grotius points out, 
 1 Macc. i. In ver. 22, we remark rd anovhiia za) rag 
 (piaXag za) rag 6vt<rzag rag ypvaag . . . za) rov zonpbov rov 
 ypvrovv z.r.X ., ver. 23 za) sXa/3s ro apyvpiov zai ro ypvoiov. 
 ver. 24 enoirjffs (povozroviav, ver. 26 ro zdXXog rav yvvaizuv 
 yiXXoiojQyj, ver. 27 nag vvpb(piog dvsXafie Qprjvov, zai zaOijpbevy] kv 
 naarov \yinro Iv nsvQei. If we turn to the lament over the 
 dead Charicles, which has already (p. 210) been in our hands, 
 we find vvp/j(piz pblv arzXrj, inn w 5s 5 varvyvj. rd<pog pbzv aoi , 
 rezvov, 6 QaXapbog' yapbog 5s 6 Qavarog' Qp yjvog 6 vpbz vaiog (obs.)* 
 o 5s zovzvrog ruv ydpboov ovrog , dvbaX . . . (piaXrj yap ovz r\v 
 XpTjayj (obs.), rj anzvhwv . . . (paXapaig dpyvpaTg , ypvaalg 
 yjviaig. oipboi HapizXsig. Izoapbrjad aoi rov (povsa yjpvaco . . . 
 s ppi'ipag daropys ro zaXXog yapjoai. Compare. In lib. v. 9, 
 Tatius has hvqyop/jqv ro eniXotnov rr\g qpbspag, ovzir syovv 
 IXniha aovrripiag * % 5^ 5s zapjovovv, and after five lines, which 
 describe the opportune arrival of a ship, oi 5s s (psiXzvadv pb s 
 (into the ship) sj a vrovv rovv rov Qavarov nvXovv' ZnXsi 5s ro 
 nXoiov z.r.X. Comp, with vv. 7, 8. Observe the $5 rj zeipbzvov 
 of 3 Macc. and the yjhri zapbvovv of Tatius. 3 Macc. affords 
 many examples of this kind of coincidence. 
 
 In ver. 10, the writer has rov zadvnepOe nvzvov aavihdvpban, 
 and in ver. 11 rovroov 5s s n) rrjv Xzyopbzvrjv ayibiav dyQzvroov. 
 Grotius remarks u Multum falluntur qui ayzhiav hie sumunt 
 pro rate: — verum Schedia locus est in ^ICgypti parte inferiore 
 quatuor Schoenis ab Alexandria, navale habens, ut nos docet 
 Strabo libro xvii.” Strabo, p. 800, has rrjv In ) 'Sy&btav dyovaav. 
 The so-called excerpts from Agatharchides in c. ix. take up 
 the same passage of Strabo, and we observe oi 5s H,yzhiav 
 zaXovaiv (obs.). In the following column we find dyOrj, and a 
 few lines below, on the same page, rov aavihovpbarog with 
 nvzvovg after two lines, ^avibcopjoa is an uncommon word. 
 
 From the foregoing coincidences we must needs conclude 
 that the “ marvel ” spoken of, 3 Macc. iv., is simply a joke. 
 
3 MACCABEES. 
 
 231 
 
 It takes its rise apparently from Eccles. i. ( e.g . ver. 15, zed 
 vffrep7](Acc ov hvvfozrcci cipiOgbriOyjvcci). The author uses Eccle- 
 siastes after the same fashion as the writer of the Evangelium 
 Thomce ( vid . sup. p. 42 sq.). Coincidences between 3 Macc. 
 and the Metaphrasis of Gregory Thaumaturgus prove this to 
 be the case. We must reserve these for some future oppor- 
 tunity, for an adequate discussion of them would occupy far 
 more space than we can spare at the present time. One 
 coincidence, however, which concerns the use of a word 
 already noticed, we may point out. 3 Macc. v. 4 runs : 6 hi 
 eksficcvrup'x/jg to Trpoarccyh apccporag (vid. sup. p. 229) "E pfjbav 
 (rvvsreXsi. In Metaph. i. 7, Gregory has zod rd g>lv ug sig 
 rovrovi trvvrzkovvTa yjgdv tov fitov, ovrcog oipocpz. Hesychius does 
 not give dpupoTojg, but he has ’ Ap ccpaccci (dpuporoog or upapag 
 is conjectured) upgbohEg TrpocrippbOGpijlvoog. ' Apfio^ovrcvg, tLatyotr 
 Xbog, oQsv zed to apeepag Kwy'iwg, hlhuzTcti. A little above 
 this Hesychius has "Apapsy, fip[Jjb(T0rj, yj Truyioog hlhiTMi yj 
 zzzpiTGCi. Our conjecture that the Evang. Thom, and 3 Macc. 
 go hand in hand in their jesting use of Ecclesiastes, seems 
 to receive some confirmation from the fact that in lib. vi. 11 
 Tatius has ecvccGTyjOi zed Qvz . . . ’A (ppohiTy]’ (Jjvyjgjbvevi hi 
 zocfjjov, which may be compared with very nearly the same 
 words of the Evang. Thom, quoted on p. 62, and that in lib. 
 v. 5, Tatius manifestly uses the Aves of Aristophanes to which 
 the Evang. Thom, has been shown to be indebted (vid. 
 sup. p. 66). 
 
 (5.) We have pointed out on p. 219 that some words applied 
 in Peregrinus to Proteus are by AElian applied to Calanus in 
 Var. Hist. v. 6. Turning to ^Elian, the eye falls upon the 
 closing words of chapter v., which are very remarkable. The 
 chapter consists of two sentences only. The first tells us that 
 Epaminondas hoe uyi rptfioovee, zed uvtov pVTavru, and that 
 when it was sent to the “ wash,” he was obliged to remain at 
 home (in bed?) for the lack of another. The author of 
 Peregrinus does not let this go by unnoticed. In § 36, he says 
 that at the closing scene Proteus hiroQigjivog . . . to Tpifidviov 
 . . . ’ivT/] h oQovr) pverdcrri dzpifioJg. Tatius has the same thing 
 in mind perhaps when he describes a woman as IppvTroogijhy) to 
 (T& jgbcc, yjTtovu bevi^ejGgjhyj oiQ'kiov ttocvv. v. 17. He has Tyjv 
 bQovriv a few lines above in § 16, and again in § 24. 
 
232 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 JElian’s second sentence informs us that Epaminondas 
 refused to receive a large sum of money sent to him by the 
 Persian king. .Elian adds zai si' n syov vocu, {bsyoChoppovia- 
 rspog Jjv rov hbovrog 6 (joy Xocfiojy. This might have given 
 Clement the first suggestion for his saying ( vid . sup. p. 21) 
 i]hov bihovrsg rj \apj$uvovrsg ( Ep . i. 2), and its connection with 
 humility (-ram? rs sraKSivoppovelre z.r.X.). Tatius again steps 
 in to confirm the conjecture, for in lib. viii. 17, in his descrip- 
 tion of a wonderful reformation that had been wrought in a 
 certain man, he says, ro [/jsycckofipov \$vhurrs Kpog rovg h 
 %ps/a rov Xa/3s 7v bid ksviccv ovrccg. 
 
 Elian’s cap. 6 is on the voluntary death of Calanus. Among 
 the first words are those to which we just now referred as 
 being used in Pereyrinus of Proteus. Elian says that Calanus 
 made the funeral pyre of all kinds of sweet-smelling wood, 
 and describes him as o ks pi\y](p()eig rrjg (pXoyog. The writer of 
 Peregrinus, in the next sentence to that containing the mention 
 of the “ dirty shirt,” says that Proteus cast in frankincense 
 into the fire, and adds directly, cxXha Kspisayp^rj vko rrjg 
 (pXoyog. 
 
 Elian says also that Calanus, after his usual exercises (Ijy 
 yap avro hpogtjog) avsXQuv ski [hsarig ryjg Kvpag sgty\ (obs. cf. 
 Proteus in his “ dirty shirt,” vid. sup. 231) SGTSfiocvcuf/j'svog 
 zccXdf/jOv zopjTj. zai 6 fih f/ H?ao£ ccvrov KpocsfiaWsv 6 yap 
 avrov Kpoaszvvsi. In § 39, the author of Peregrinus says that 
 some people expected that Proteus would destroy himself in 
 the early morning, cog Kpog ccvia^ovroc rov ccGKcccocpjSvog 
 
 (ooGKSp afjj'sXsi zee) rovg Bpocx/ubcvcicg cpccn kois7v) SKififosGQca 
 rrjg Kvpug. Compare. With Elian’s zccXccyoov zogori, compare 
 Tatius’ zccXccgcri za) yfijyjuaiv in the passage quoted on p. 223. 
 The coincidence is of the same kind as those (yccprypiec 
 (3 Macc.) zccprspioc ( Peregrin .), Kogecc (3 Macc.) Kcvgoec (Tat.), 
 zcckecybog (3 Macc.) K akecvog { Peregrin .), dcvtzyjrog (3 Macc.) 
 cczivrjrog {Peregrin.) ecv's ypvreci {Peregrin.)) which have been 
 pointed out on pp. 173, 229 (see also p. 230), and which are 
 all connected together in the closest possible way. Nor does 
 Tatius’ joke here seem at all doubtful, for in lib. viii. 6 he has 
 bpopjov (obs.) spojnzov. and after two lines zccXecf/jovv Ss zogeriv, 
 and presently in the same section SGTStpccvaycsvy) rrjv zsfiaXrjy 
 Kirvog Kopjttig. Compare. 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 233 
 
 (6.) We have mentioned (p. 223) that Tatius, immediately 
 before the passage now in our hands, makes some use of ^Elian, 
 H. A. v. 53. ^Elian has a second and very brief account in 
 H. A. vii. 19 GZGzfiz gtoctov £g 6 noTagjiog i7T7rog, yzvzrca yap 
 xai rov narpbg. This might have suggested one of the 
 pseudo-Helladian jokes. Plato, it is said, called Aristotle a 
 horse xai ycip 6 iW og rov zavrov (pXz7 Gcarzpa bdxvziv ( vid . 
 sup. p. 53). A few lines below H21ian has ziGzOopz (obs.) 
 S.a nvog dnooy[LZV7\g (obs.) Qvpibog (obs.). Comp, with Tatius 
 (vid. sup. p. 223). .ZElian’s story is of an ape which, having 
 been spectator when a child was being washed, watched its 
 opportunity, jumped in through the open window, seized and 
 stripped the child, and then poured hot water over it. If 
 Tatius referred to -zElian’s second mention of the hippopotamus, 
 as we know he did to the first, in the composition of the 
 passage before us, this is an indication of his researches such 
 as we should expect to find. 
 
 (7.) We have seen (p. 227) that Tatius altered the oixov of 
 Strabo into oizrjfjtjcc on the suggestion (p. 228) of Arrian. We 
 may ask, however, why he uses o'ixr\{Jja in the sense of “ cage ” 
 or u prison.” Pseudo-Helladius (Cod. 279, p. 535) informs us. 
 Speaking of the dislike of the ancients to use words of ill- 
 omen, he says, S/o xai to $zg poor?] p toy o’ix 7 ](/jM z xaXovv. He 
 goes on to give the words quoted on p. 50 in illustration of 
 the Oratio. The writer concludes his sentence on euphemisms 
 by saying that some persons call the ape xaXKiav. We have 
 just seen that Tatius seems to interweave the language of a 
 story about the ape into the passage in which he uses oixqf/ja 
 in the sense of 'bzGpjoorripiov. In lib. vi. 14, Tatius says that 
 Clitophon’s friends learning that he was shut up zv too bzG[/joo- 
 Tripioj . . . Trig vvxTog z vOug fart to oi'xrgjba Gorovb/j TrapqGay, 
 xai qQzXov avTov xaTapjZivai gvv spot (Clitophon) * 6 iz zti 
 rwv bz Gf/iSv refused and sent them away. Clitophon said to 
 them, however, si ‘xapayzvoiTO (Leucippe), nzp] ty\v zoo GTovd/j 
 7rpog fobs rizziv. Comp, with pseudo-Helladius. Comp, also 
 Peregrin. 12 . . . aXKa G7rovbiri zyiyvzro * xai zoofl zv pizv zioQvg 
 rpo opdv vapd too izGf/jooTyjpiop TCzpigozvovTa ypaltia, %?]pag nvccg, 
 xca Tocihia oppava' ol 5g zv tzKzi avToov x.tX., and presently oov 
 Tixov Tivzg . . . Trapuf/jvQyjGOf/jZvoi tov dv'bpa (Clitophon’s object in 
 requesting his friends to bring him early tidings of Leucippe). 
 
234 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 This very passage is placed in comparison with pseudo-Galen 
 on p. 88. Pseudo-Galen’s crspi ryjv 'ico is here exactly found. 
 Comparison of the three passages, one with another, suggests 
 that all three were from the same hand. 
 
 10. Achilles Tatius, in lib. vi. 5, writes thus : — 
 
 ayu 8s [ls s/g to bsGfAurTjpiov, xai napabibojGiv syx\7ifia ryjg [loiys'iag 
 snipspw v. sfMZ 8s sXvnsi rovrwv [asv oubsv, ovd’ 7 ] rojv 8 sG[auv v(3pig, O'jQ ’ 7 ] 
 tuv Xoyuv atr/a. xai yap eQappovv tGj Xoyuj nspisGSGQai [ir\ fioiyog slvat, 
 yrjjjjat 8s s[A<pavug. 8sog 8s [as nspi rr\g As vx/nff 7 i$ sJ% sv ovnu Ga<pug 
 avrYiv anohafiovra’ ^u%ai 8s ns (pvxaGt [Aa^rstg ruv xaxuv, insi tuv ts 
 ayaOuv TjxiGra sx [Lavrsiag S'jtu-^oZiasv. 
 
 With this passage, which we shall call A, comp, yfivniv yap 
 ftefivze ryjy ^vy/jv to ccyccOov. 'On (showing a new excerpt) 
 yy^of/jivov lari ra aura, TroXhdzig Tdytiv . . . hid 6 ’ Aya/ziy^y 
 opyi'CpiLzvog tm K aA%am Iv roig avrdig pyigbaai rrjv fiXGCfrprjfjbiav 
 Trspipepei, Mam, Xey&v, zottcMV (Horn. II. i. 106) z.tX., Phot. 
 Bibl. 2 70 (pseudo-Helladian excerpts). It would be unreason- 
 able to suppose this coincidence to have accidentally arisen. 
 Besides, we have just seen that Tatius seems to use pseudo- 
 Helladius, p. 53 5. We have, moreover (on p. 225), found 
 good reason for supposing that Tatius was indebted to the 
 forged excerpts from Agatharchides. We must therefore 
 conclude that Tatius made use of Photius’ Bibliotheca , and 
 that therefore his love story cannot be the writing which is 
 described in the Bibliotheca , unless the descriptions therein 
 given are themselves only interpolations. 
 
 It must be observed that the passage from pseudo-Helladius 
 just quoted has been already in great part given in a note on 
 p. 82. It is there brought forward in support of the con- 
 jecture that pseudo-Galen, whose treatise we were then showing 
 to belong to our “ group of writings,” had 1 Kings xxii. in his 
 mind in a certain sentence which he was writing. Pseudo- 
 Galen does not use the expression (jbdvmg ruv xoczoov, but he 
 is speaking of prophets of evil things. If we turn to Tatius, 
 we find an unmistakeable reference to Acts xx. 22 sq. : u And 
 now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not 
 knowing the things that shall befall me there : save that the 
 Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city (gbdvTSig zockgov^ e.g. 
 Agabus in xxi. 11) Xsyov on becf/jd gbs xut 0\i\ Jszig gbtvovcmr 
 ccW oubevog Xoyov 7roiovgbcci ( sed nihil horum vereor. Vulg.), 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 neither count I my life clear unto myself,” etc. Tatius’ yijf/jcu 
 lf/j(pavdjg is a reference to lib . v. 14, where we find 7 7 sig "E^zgov 
 71(/jgjv a$i<gig answering to S. Paul’s fjbZTa Trjv atpfyv (JjOv (from 
 the Ephesian elders) in ver. 29; and in § 15 r/j hi imovay 
 . . . toj hi KXz mot zhozzi (joy} (JjZ zaTaikiTrzlv, aXka 'EQzgov 
 
 cvf/j^XzvffavTa, zai Tiva ypovov hjccrp/xpccvroz tyi ttoXzi, znavzhQziv 
 z.t.X. answering to rrj zviovgyi in ver. 15, and szpivz yap 0 
 II avXog t 7rapa e 7rXzvaai rrjv "E^zgov, dncog (JjY) yzvrjrai auraj yjpovo- 
 Tpi$r\Gai zv rri ’A via in ver. 16. Section 17 begins with dm 
 hi tojv ztgrjg Yj^zpdov hiavvaavTzg tov tXovv Yizofjozv zig rrjv "Efizvov. 
 Comp. Acts xxi. 6 rj^zig tov ttXovv hiavvcavTzg dvro . . . zig 
 z.t.X. There are many more coincidences between Tatius 
 and the Acts of the Apostles, but these suffice to show that 
 Acts xx. 22 was used by Tatius in connection with (jodvTZig 
 zazuv. The conjecture which we hazarded with respect to 
 pseudo - Galen thus receives some support out of Tatius. 
 Pseudo-Galen himself, it will be remembered, makes use of 
 the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 Clitophon (in Tatius’ passage above), it will be observed, 
 gives, as S. Paul does, an example of d e 7cdQzia. We should 
 expect, from what w T e have seen, that our writer would look not 
 merely at a notable passage in the Acts (as he does), but also, 
 as Stephens would say, at some other “ celebrem historiam,” 
 or “historici cujuspiam sententiam” ( vid . sup. p. 16). On p. 
 97, we have pointed out that the compiler of the excerpts from 
 Agatharchides paid more than ordinary attention to what 
 Diodorus has to say in lib. iii. 18, p. 187, on the to tojv uttuGuv 
 AIQiokojv zGvog. If for that reason we turn to Diodorus, we 
 find ctWiag (obs.) . . . ovtz yap l ;fyog GTraaapj'zvov Tivog zai 
 zaTafizpovTog VTrztgzcpvyov, ovO’ vfipiv (obs.) ovtz TrXyjydg VTOfjoz- 
 vovTzg ripzGiZpvTO . . . ovhzp>iav z^aaiv opyy\g rj ftdXiv zXzovg 
 hihovTzg. In § 13, half a dozen lines above the passage quoted 
 in illustration of oizr}(/ja , Tatius writes : — 
 
 oxs^pa/ xara <rou , ri a/MZivov, xai onug /j^rjbzv rovruv (obs. this note of 
 connection with A), npbg Qzpaavdpov spz?g, xai fiij fi’apof'v vr,g ypqffroi/ 
 dvbpa. opyicQzig yap apopqrog sffriv' ypr^rorrig yap Tuyyuvovffa (izv 
 ydpirog, zn /xdXXov av^zrar vportrjXaxniQzura b'z, tig opyriv zpzdi^zrat. 
 
 Comp, this passage, which we shall call B, with Diodorus. 
 Now, observe, if we turn to the forged excerpt we find that 
 the coincidences just given out of Diodorus have disappeared, 
 
236 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 and instead we have outs '7Tpo t 7rrfkotziG(ijw (obs.) spsQi%SG0ui. 
 Comp, with Tatius. There is no escape from this interesting 
 coincidence. If Tatius (so-called) was the author of the 
 excerpt, all is explained. If he was not, then he must have 
 copied from the excerpt, and also from Diodorus, to whose 
 narrative the excerpt is indebted. No other explanation is 
 possible. 
 
 Another curious fact now appears. Wesseling on 06 A 
 Vj 3piv z.tX. says, tc Jo. Tzetzes Chiliad, vi. 742 (? 735) hsec in 
 oculis habuit zoci Trauovrcc rag atpopqToug OXtyeig. x,a) yap 
 xal roug A lOionag roug anatosig x.r.\- Comp. Tatius’ apopyj- 
 rog. 
 
 We have just come to the conclusion that Tatius either 
 wrote or used the excerpt. In confirmation of this we shall 
 refer to pseudo-Galen. He has f 7Tpo e xri7MX.iZ ) o(JbSvog on p. 626, 
 and yj 7rpog auroug GUvouGia in the next line but one. This last 
 word is a very noticeable one, — not in Diodorus, for it is not 
 there, — but in the excerpt. We find in the excerpts, some few 
 lines above ‘7rpo7r?]\aziG(/jM i the words TCpog d/hoiig avapQpoig zal 
 Tpog Tccig GuvouGiaig (obs.) ra7g vraihiag (ftaihsiag, v.l.) yjapiv 
 yivoy>svaig, uk ouhsvog ‘repiGTruf/jevoi, d/a rr\v tuzoftiav ryjg 
 rpofirjg. There is a jest here which should have betrayed the 
 falsity of these excerpts on the very first occasion of their 
 being critically examined. Diodorus says (iii. 17) that the 
 Ichthyophagi pursue their fishing for four days %ai ra7g 
 avapOpoig ovha7g aTCkyfkoug ^uyjayuyouvT eg. vrpog dg rouroig stti- 
 (jj'iGyovrui rocig yuvai^iv alg av tu^jgi, Gcaihorroi'iag bsza' 7raG7]g 
 aGypkiag a7ro\s\u(Jb'evoi, d/a rr\v suTtOTciav . . . Trjg rpopyjg (guv 
 Ta/d/a nine lines below). The writer of the excerpt takes the 
 beginning and the end of Diodorus’ sentence, and puts his own 
 transparent joke in the middle. Pseudo-Galen observed this, 
 for he has here . . . rcov ysvoyJivuv' zai f/j?j d/a navTog aGypkiav. 
 The excerpt has, not here, but presently (for a sufficient reason), 
 yivsrai, Tpog aG^oXiav, so that pseudo-Galen may be thought 
 to have diligently compared the excerpt with Diodorus. 
 2 uvouGi'a is thus a very noticeable word. 
 
 Pseudo-Galen has here ecvccTrvorj rs zai pavy} yivsrai. A jest 
 underlies both these words. 
 
 (1.) Diodorus immediately proceeds : rq dg Tg^xr/j Tpog rqv 
 uirupsiav ineiyovrcct srayd^g/, ttotou %ap/v, h6a GuppuGS/g 
 
ORATIO. 
 
 237 
 
 yXvzeoov vhocToov eifft, Kpog oug ol voftuhzg roig uyekocg tmv $pg/A- 
 (jjurcov ‘7roriZ > ov(riv. r\ &g ohoiftopia rovrwv KupotTrXfoiog yiverca 
 (obs.) rcug ayg Xccig ruv fiowv, tt^vtoov (poovrjv (obs.) a^nvrm ovz 
 g 'vapQpov z.rX. The writer of the excerpt improves on this, 
 for he says that these people go down on their knees and drink 
 fioqbov, ov Trpog [jJccv uvunvorig (obs.) op/^r z.tX. ’ Avunvori 
 thus becomes a noticeable word. 
 
 (2.) In Orat. iii. (quoted on p. 181) Hercules is said opyj 
 ‘Tryjhfoccg tv a, \dfiri vhap g votpOpov (obs.) (pavriv (obs.) uTohihdv, ojg 
 A oyog. Comp, with Diodorus, and observe his Trpog rrjv vvapetocv 
 Wetyovrai Tccvbrifjijei, kotov %ap/r. We imagine that it occurred 
 to the writer of the Oratio to substitute VTep for vtto, and to 
 read Tpog ty\v virepoptav instead of t. t. vnape tocv. The notion 
 of jumping over the mountains would then immediately follow. 
 Tzetzes, the scholiast on Lycophron, has an amusing passage, 
 in which he sa}’s : “ Little didst thou think, O Lycophron, 
 that I was standing by thee when thou wast reading Hip- 
 ponax!” And here we seem to be standing at the elbow of 
 our writer and listening to his chuckle of delight as he wrote 
 dprj nrihriGocg z.rX. We can prove, so far as a thing of this 
 kind can be proved, that this joke arose in the way that we 
 suppose. 
 
 We may observe here, in Diodorus, that MGyjXiug and 
 VTTcupetocv are in succeeding lines. Photius (?) in Cod. 213 
 says that Agatharchides was an imitator of Thucydides. No 
 doubt he was. In lib. viii. 72, Thucydides has zat rr\v VTrepoptov 
 cca^oXtccv eg obb h ^payf/jci z.rX. Some MSS. read virepoptuv. 
 The origin of the joke is thus very apparent. But, observe, 
 the excerpt has irpog ourfoohiuv zcci (Jbeptfivccv oiibevog (obs.) 
 ctnofiXeTOVTav uvtuv -rp ayybccTog (obs.). With this coincidence 
 to crown all, it would be unreasonable to deny the joke. 
 Hwovcrta, acy/Xici, ccvaKVori, and (puvri are thus, all of them, 
 very noticeable words in connection with 7rpo7rrXMztG[jjco in the 
 excerpt. It would be absurd to contend that accident only 
 has brought them into close company with TrpoxrfkcczrQeiv in 
 pseudo-Galen. 
 
 In Diodorus, on the same page, is the false reading aoupov 
 ayuQav (azccvQwv). In the Oratio , after a few lines we find 
 (Tapoj tojv zazdov. In Tatius, a few lines above A, we observe 
 GCnjpov ocyccQctjv, while a few lines above B, Tatius has awpbv 
 
238 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ccXkoTpicov lyzcoybcov. Leucippe is speaking in this last place to 
 Sosthenes, whose name is mentioned. She says \p,o) 5s ovhb 
 pJiXu tovtcov. Comp. Acts xviii. 17 “Then all the Greeks 
 took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him 
 before the judgment-seat.” zai ovhb tovtcov too YoChXicovi 
 efjjzkzv. In lib . yiii. 15 tov HcoffObyjv 7 jyov it?) Tovg upypvTag and 
 g Tci ueuvovg. 
 
 The sentence of the Oratio having thus come before us, it 
 will be well to examine it more closely. It is very short, still 
 there is room in it for a glance at some “ celebrem historiam.” 
 The most notable instance on record of procuring water, is no 
 doubt the supply provided for the children of Israel in their 
 journeyings. If we turn to those pages of Philo, out of which so 
 many coincidences with our writings have already been produced 
 ( vid . sup. pp. 27, 90), we find a section devoted to a descrip- 
 tion of the joy of the Israelites at finding a certain well. 
 Philo says zee) yap ’irvyp ob %ep<riv ihooTcov, aXXa j8 ugXzcov, 
 ccvotTeTf/jyjffdcti (piXoTif/j^bTouv cog Xoyog, ov (joovov mp) tov (ppeaTog 
 ZCCTMffZBVTJV, iv’ g Z T7jg TOXvTSXu'ocg fiuaiklZOV (patVTJTUl to spyov 
 
 z.tX . Comp, with the Oratio , and note the cog Xoyog. A few 
 lines below, Philo has -rgp/s (TZcOcti exactly used in Tatius’ 
 passage A. The next word in Philo begins a sentence, quoted 
 on p. 28, in illustration of Philostratus. Philostratus is there 
 describing the Hercules spoken of in connection with the 
 cutting through the Isthmus of Corinth. Vid. sap. p. 190, 
 and observe the jjvreipov ciwoTZpjziv and the general parallel. 
 
 With the words of Philo just given, comp, from the pages 
 of pseudo-Galen, which we have just been using, tiOtjzoov yap 
 ovhlv s<p7jv hticQui ttjv avocTOfoo/jv (obs.) ofjootcog ti Trjv zuTccffzevyjv 
 (obs.) lypvTcov ov (Jbovov (obs.) tovtcov tcov Z,cocov y a XXa zai (obs.) 
 zeel 5TS Zpov aypbov dnuvTcoV oVa h\ pcov/jv ’iypi [JbsyoiXriv, iTTiTrjhsio- 
 TSpa tcov [/jizpoqocovcov elvcci z.tX. Pseudo-Galen also uses here 
 uvotTi(Jjveiv. We may think that pseudo-Galen has in his mind 
 the articulate and inarticulate voices of Diodorus, the excerpt, 
 and the Oratio. 
 
 11. We shall use Achilles Tatius to illustrate one other 
 point to which attention has already been directed. It is one 
 of very great interest. 
 
 On p. 204 sq., we had occasion to point out a certain con- 
 nection between Clement’s Epistles and Hippolytus’ description 
 
STEPHANUS GOBARUS. 
 
 239 
 
 of the opinions and teaching of Justin the Gnostic, in the use 
 of 1 Cor. ii. 9. The two epistles, though they are commonly 
 supposed to have been written by different persons, are not 
 independent of one another in their use of this text. Thus, 
 on Ep. ii. 11, Lightfoot says that “the coincidence of two 
 remarkable quotations,” one of them being 1 Cor. ii. 9, “in 
 this very chapter, which occur also in the first Epistle, besides 
 other resemblances ( e.g . § 3), seems to prove that our writer 
 was acquainted with and borrowed from the genuine Clement.” 
 We have seen that both Epistles seem also to be connected 
 with Hippolytus’ account of Justin. 
 
 On Clement’s use of 1 Cor. ii. 9 in Ep. i. 34, Lightfoot 
 remarks : — 
 
 “ It was, at all events, a favourite text with certain early Gnostic 
 sects, who introduced it into their formula of initiation, and applied 
 it to their esoteric teaching ; see Hippol. Hcer. v. 24, 26, 27 ; vi. 24. 
 This perverted use of the text was condemned by their contemporary 
 Hegesippus (as reported by Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. 232), 
 as contradicting our Lord’s own words / iccndpioi oi o<pQa\uo/ v/JjSjv 
 > i.r.X. In other words, he complained that they would restrict to the 
 initiated few the knowledge which Christ declared to be laid open to 
 all. But Stephanus Gobarus himself, writing some centuries later, 
 and knowing 1 the text only as it occurs in S. Paul, is not unnatur- 
 ally at a less to know what Hegesippus means by this condemnation 
 (oux old ’ o 7i xct/ Kadwv /Jjdryjv fj,zv s/p^ffdai raZrcc Xsys/ x.r.A.),” p. 115. 
 
 The authorities for “the perverted use” of 1 Cor. ii. 9 by 
 the “ Gnostic sects,” to whom Lightfoot appeals, are thus 
 Hippolytus ( vid . sup. p. 204) and Hegesippus at third hand. 
 Some fragments of Hegesippus’ writings survive, but nothing 
 that contains the objection which Gobarus ascribes to him. 
 The knowledge of Gobarus and his writings would seem to 
 have been confined to Photius or the interpolator of his Biblio- 
 theca. It is quite possible that Hegesippus never said anything 
 of the kind. Something of ridicule or irony may be thought 
 to lurk in the words ovx oB’ o n zca TruOtoV, an expression 
 
 1 Yet Gobarus, near the close of Cod. 232, refers to statements of Hippolytus, 
 which are found in the work to which Lightfoot refers, and not in any other 
 extant work or fragment from the pen of Hippolytus. It is not a sufficient 
 answer to this to say that another statement which Gobarus ascribes to Hippo- 
 lytus is not found in any one of the eight out of the ten books of the Refutatio 
 which have survived. 
 
240 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 near akin to ovx oW onoog, which often implies a good deal 
 more than it expresses. A connection between Clement’s 
 Epistles and Hippolytus has been observed, and we turn there- 
 fore with some interest to the excerpts from Stephan us 
 Gobarus, or rather to the short summaries of the contents of 
 Gobarus’ book found in Phot. Bibl. 232. 
 
 The column (1096, Migne) in which the reference to Hege- 
 sippus is found contains six summaries: — 1. On “the situation 
 of Paradise ; ” 2, on “ Hegesippus and 1 Cor. ii. 9 ; ” 3, on 
 “ punishment ; ” 4, on “ corruption ; ” 5, on the question 
 “ whether 6 [h'iKkwv aicov is the eighth or ninth ; ” 6, on “ the 
 nature of the Lord’s body after His resurrection.” The dis- 
 cussion of these subjects must have occupied a considerable 
 space in Gobarus’ volume, and any coincidences which we 
 may find between this column and Clement’s Epistles, in the 
 neighbourhood of his use of 1 Cor. ii. 9, cannot have arisen 
 from Gobarus’ use of Clement. 
 
 1. Clement closes Ep. i. 34 with 1 Cor. ii. 9. He then says 
 (jjccpcapioc zoti Qocvpjoccrru roc lupoc rod Ssod, and after two 
 
 lines zoct rccdrcc VKiTriffriv rruvrcc vrro rqv hiduoiocv rjfjbcov. 
 Gobarus connects S. Matt. xiii. 16 [Aoizapioi (obs.) ot bpflcc'kpjoi 
 vf/j&jv x.rX. with 1 Cor. ii. 9 in the second summary, and in 
 the sixth he has zoci VTron'Trrov oc<p/j. 
 
 2. Clement closes Ep. ii. 11 with 1 Cor. ii. 9. His remarks 
 in § 12 have been given on p. 206, and a connection with 
 Tatius in the expression “tw T o bodies” has been pointed out 
 on p. 208. In the sixth summary, to which we have just 
 referred, Gobarus speaks of “two bodies,” the natural and 
 spiritual. 
 
 3. In Ep. ii. 14, which is only a continuation of the subject 
 of § 12, we observe brjkovGa tjuav on, socv ng qpjoov ryipr,G7] 
 ccbrrjv (obs.) \v ry Gccpxi xoci [Jj 7\ (pflsipri (obs.). In the fourth 
 summary, in a quotation (obs.) from Titus Bostrensis, we find 
 g / ^g i \avryjv s (pQzipev with hyjXov on (introducing the excerptor’s 
 own remarks) after three lines. In Clement we have on 
 IxxXtjgioc Goopboc Igtiv Xp/rrroy . . . r\ IxxXtjgicc 7rvev(j>unz7) 
 ... 7 \ ycip Gocp^ ccvTT] uvrirv7rog \cnv rod ttvz vfjoccrog. In the 
 sixth summary (already twice referred to) we find on ro rod 
 ^corrjpog yiUjqov T tjgov Xp iarod Gcofjocc . . . xocl rrvzvpjocnxoy . . . 
 zcti cog ro aojybcc enpov \an . . . xcci c&vrirvwov. 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 241 
 
 It is well-nigh impossible that these coincidences can have 
 accidentally arisen. We must remember the coincidences 
 that have been shown between Clement and Hippolytus, and 
 the fact that nothing would have been heard of Gobarus if it 
 had not been for Photius’ interpolated Bibliotheca. There is 
 good ground for suspecting that the use of 1 Cor. ii. 9 is 
 simply profane jesting. 
 
 The words in which Gobarus refers to this text are these: — 
 
 on rd r,T 0 i{jja 6 fjjSva roTg dinaioig dyad d ours opdaXfibg sldsv, ours oug 
 yxovcsv, ours sen' xa pd/av avdpuvov ave fir}. 'H yrjGiererog psvroi, dpyjaibg 
 rs dvr\p xa / deroGroXiy.bg, lv rip ers perrp ru v * Tero/uvripdruv, oux oid ’ 6 n 
 xa/' 1 eraduv, /iarjjv psv stprjGdai raura X'sysi, xa/ xara-^psudscdat roug 
 raura papAvoug, ruv rs dsiuv Tpapuv xa/' rou K upiou Xsyovrog * Maxdpioi 
 x.r.X., S. Matt. xiii. 6. 
 
 In lib. v. 11, Tatius writes : — 
 
 a xou'sru (obs.) dr) xa) b KXeiv'tag. r\ ’A ppodirr) pzya rouru erapsGysv 
 (xa/ rr)v ’ Appodirrig yapiv aurr) erap'sGy^ov erpb gou . lib. vii. 5, vid. sup. 
 p. 218) a yadbv (obs.), 6 d ’ oux Id'sXsi Xa(3s?v (obs. pdrr)v sipr)Gdai). 
 yvva/xa yap s^s/xrjvsv eer' 1 aurbv erdvu xa Xrjv, uGrs dv iduv (obs.) aurr)v 
 tleroig dyaXpa? ’Epsfflav ro ysvog, ovopa MsX/rrr)v. erXourog eroXvg, xa/ 
 rjXrxia vsa. rsdvriKSv ds aurr) erpocpdrug avr)p xara ddXarrav' BouXsrai be 
 rourov eyetv dsGerbrr)v‘ ou yap dvdpa Ipu (obs. this addition to the good 
 things offered for acceptance)’ xa/ diduGiv eaurrjv xa/' eraGav aurrjg rr)V 
 ouGiav. di’ aur'ov yap duo pr)vag vuv ivdads bisrpi-^sv, axoXoudr)Gai dso/usvr). 
 o 5s oux oida ri eraduv (obs. all these words) uerspripavsT, vopi^uv aurp 
 Asuxierer^v avafiiuffsaQai. § 12. xa/' 6 KXsiviag' oux aero rpberou box sT 
 pot, pr)Giv, 6 2a rupog Xsysiv. xdXXog yap , xa/' erXourog, xa/' s pug si 
 guvt)X6sv seri as, ou% sdpag 3 oud' dva (3oXr)g. ro psv yap xdXXog rjdovrjv, b 
 ds erXourog rpupijv, o be spug aibu. piG s? ds b Qsbg roug dXa^ovag. peps 
 ersiG0r)n* rp "Zarupu, xa/' idpuGai rp 6s p. 
 
 1 “ Om. B.,” Migne. 
 
 2 Comp, xx) us xv ns ilvroi, I'uv xyxXpx, xx) fixffiXuxs xv^pixvra, x'otrfuov ru ovti 
 xa.) fiaaiXixov its xxXXos xippxarov xa.) afjt.vt^a.vov avto^Mras, and after six lines lv 
 u.va.p>o\a.7s, Niceph. Dedic. H. E. p. 5 ; "v ’ lv aol nvx 'l^puatv, p. 8, with iHpxv in 
 the next line, and after nine lines Z,uv xptrys ayaX/xx aixvrov <jrxp>i<rx i is. Comp, 
 with Tatius. A number of coincidences between this Dedicatio of Nice- 
 phoros and some members of our group of writings will be given in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 8 11 E. Bacchylide hcec ducta ,” Mitsch. See the preceding note. 
 
 4 This sentence has a ring in it which resembles Clement of Alexandria. It 
 reminds us of the close of the Oratio, which is indebted to Clem. Alex. vid. 
 sup. p. 178, where, in the note, a parallel will be found for Tatius’ words here. 
 Half a dozen lines above Clement’s fipuay rov &tov, we remark <ru0%vxi at hnlyofiai^ 
 Tatius after two lines has l Tttyouaa. 
 
 Q 
 
242 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 The words ovz oiha r/ vraQduv, which form the verbal coinci- 
 dence with Gobarus, are not simply such as the writer would, 
 naturally employ. In § 21, the lady herself offers all that is here 
 implied. Her favours are, however, again declined by Clitophon, 
 who excuses himself by saying aKk’ ovz oTha ri srg TOvQa, v'oGog 
 (vtztzivov Trig vogov rrjv VTrozpiGiv) yap g>oi Zcgatyvrjs Wzttzgzv. 
 It is evident, then, that the words in question are mere jest. 
 And with this jest before us, forming as it does the coincidence 
 with Gobarus’ remarks upon the use of 1 Cor. ii. 9, is it 
 possible to doubt that the whole passage in Tatius is intended 
 as a parody upon that text? Besides, Tatius here plainly 
 jests upon Jas. iv. 6. We can show that in the use of 
 that text Tatius is in the closest possible contact with 
 Clement, whose connection with Gobarus has been already 
 shown. 
 
 Tatius uses vTzpyj(pavel in the sense of “ despise” or “ reject.” 
 This makes the resemblance to Gobarus more close. He, per- 
 haps, remembered Luc. Nigrin. 31 to hi zv zaipcu ... dug zvTzXlg 
 vnzpritpavovvTag. In the same sentence Lucian has TOVTOvg yap 
 zhai Tovg to TroXvTzXlg o^ov dovovguevovg, zai to\> ohov z.t.X. 
 Tatius has presently, in § 13, toiov yap o\pov, z (prj, fjboi ttoXv- 
 TzXzg ; r\ 7ro7og ohog TigoiduTzpog Trig Grjg o\pscug ; In the preceding 
 sentence Lucian has z’lzaZgziv r]%iov, an expression used in 
 Peregrin. 25, in a sentence which contains the word zz vohd^ovg, 
 and in which the vainglory of the Brahmins is the uppermost 
 idea. Tatius would appear to have been pondering the mean- 
 ing and use of this and kindred words, for he is, as we have 
 said, plainly indebted to Jas. iv. 6 guziZ^ova Sg hihooGi %apiv hio 
 Xzyzi, 6 @zog vvrzp rjfiavoig ai/TiTaGGZTai , Tanzivolg hi hthouGi 
 yjapiv. Comp. Tatius’ gbiGzT z.t.X., and obs. his iavT/jv (yO'P lv ) 
 zai naGav avTrjg Trjv ovGiav (goziZ^ova xdpiv). With Tatius’ 
 use of xapiv in lib. vii. 5 (quoted above) before us, we cannot 
 doubt the parody. Clement closes § 34 with 1 Cor. ii. 9. In 
 the opening sentences of § 35, we have shown coincidences 
 with Gobarus. Clement goes on to use (in his own fashion) 
 Rom. i. 29 sq., and has airopp/\pavTzg d<p zavTciuv GtaGav dhiziav 
 zai dvog>iav . . . iQvpiGgjOvg tz zai zaTaXaXidg , OzoGTvyiuv , 
 V7rzprj(paviav (obs.) tz zai akaZpvziav (obs.), zzvoho^lav (obs.) tz 
 zai dtpiXo^zviav. TavTa yap oi xpaGGOVTzg GTvyrjToi (obs.) tcu 
 S zou V7rdpXMW- Comp, with Tatius. The circumstances 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 243 
 
 under which these coincidences are found should be carefully 
 observed. 
 
 In illustration of the passage from Tatius given above, we 
 have quoted some words from lib. vii. 5. The whole sentence 
 is this, to 5g rrjg Ms Xirryg Grstpovevzs gs GreipoiTTjpiov. 6 bs ccvoGiog 
 zai ugs fi?jg s ya, ty\v avbpopovov gov Kocre^ikrjGoc GroKkuzig, xcci 
 gvvstXccztiv fJbSfjbiocGfJbsvocg GV(jj7r'kox,ug, zoci rrjv ’A (ppobtrqg %ap/J< 
 Gcvrij t 7rcipsGy j ov srpo gov. In Ep. i. 30, Clement has (psvyovTsg 
 . . . (Jbiupdg (obs.) ts zui c&vdyvovg Gvp>7rXozdg (obs.) . . . fibs Xvzttjv 
 v'rspyftccv/'civ. 0goY yap, (pyjGiv, V7rep7](pdvoig ocvtituggstoci, toctsi- 
 voig bl btbcoGiv %ap iv. Y±oKk7}Qap>sv ouv szsivoig oig tj yjzpig clgco 
 tov 0go£> bsborcci. svbvGovpjsOa, rrjv opbovoiccv . . . axo GrcivTog 
 '\pi@vptG(Jbov Ttca zuTuXoikidg moppet) kavTovg gt oiovvTsg , spyotg 
 bizcciovpjsvoi zee) p>ri Xoyoig. Xsysi ydcp * Job xi. 2, 3. 'O g '.Groeivog 
 7}[Jjojv sgtcj sv 0g£ not) p,^ g| mvtovv, ccvTSGToeivsTovg yap p>iGsl 6 
 0so£. Comp. Tatius’ p,iGSi 6 Osog z.t.X. Observe Clement’s 
 use of Jas. iv. 6, and in his asro GravTog z.tX. the plain con- 
 nection with his § 35, where the other parallel with Tatius is 
 found. After seven lines Tatius has bozcv Sg svpTjzsvcci rob 
 Qccvmtov zoXXigttiv bbov , §/’ r,g ovbs r\ 9s dig syfipde MsX/rr^ 'ravra- 
 gtccgiv a 9uog UGCoXX&gSTcti. Comp, here with Clement’s GTvyr\- 
 roi tcj 0g£ in § 35 (just quoted). Tatius’ language appears to 
 be borrowed from Jas. iv. 4 sy9poe tov @sov . . . syfipbg tov 
 @sov. Comp, also with Tatius the opening words of Clement’s 
 § 36 ccvtji 7] obbg IV 7] SVpOfJjSV TO GCOTTjpiOV TJfJbMV Z.tX. (vid. Slip. 
 p. 22). 
 
 Clement quotes, as we see, Job xi. 2, 3. Ver. 4 runs peij 
 yap Xgyg, on zoc9oep6g sip>i Tolg spyoig , and ver. 14 g / oevopbov n 
 
 S GTIV IV %ZpGl GOV , GroppM GTOITJGOV CCVTO CCTO GOV. Comp, with 
 Clement. It would seem, then, that he paid some attention to 
 the verses adjoining those which he quotes. There are twenty- 
 two verses in Job x. In ver. 14 we find ct9aov, in ver. 17 
 iGCYiyuysg 5g gsr’ spis -rg/par^p/a, in ver. 19 ovz u,Gr7]Wd,y7jv. 
 Comp, with Tatius. 
 
 No one, we should suppose, will now venture to deny that 
 Tatius made use of Jas. iv. 6, or that his love-story is very 
 closely connected with Clement’s Epistle. When, then, all the 
 circumstances of the case are considered, — this parodical use of 
 S. James, this connection with Clement (at a point where 
 Clement uses 1 Cor. ii. 9), and of Clement (at that point) 
 
244 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 with Gobarus, the general parallel to the verse of Scripture, 
 the verbal coincidence with Gobarus’ remarks upon that verse, 
 — we must hold it to be sufficiently proved that Tatius wrote 
 that portion of lib. v. 11, which is quoted above, in parody 
 upon 1 Cor. ii. 9. This circumstance does not prove that the 
 excerpts under the name of Gobarus are not genuine, but it 
 does cast great doubt upon them. It is not easy to understand 
 why the writer of Clement’s Epistles should take such an 
 interest in Hippolytus’ and Gobarus’ use of 1 Cor. ii. 9, nor 
 why Tatius should seize upon a certain expression, if these 
 writers were not aware of some jesting in Gobarus’ remarks 
 generally, and in the expression in particular on which Tatius 
 lays hold. We believe that we can show the history of the 
 jest, at least so far as the particular expression ovx o r iV o n 
 'TTuOav is concerned. 
 
 In H. E. iii. 36, Eusebius speaks of the epistles of Ignatius, 
 and gives some short extracts from some of them. He was, it 
 appears, greatly struck by certain words (Xuflere, 
 
 xoci there, on ovx sif/ji 'boufjjoviov ctCMf/jMTOv) ascribed by 
 Ignatius to our Lord, the source of which he could not recog- 
 nise. Jerome, however, supplies the source ( Evangelium 
 Hebroeorum) in his account of Ignatius in Vir. Illustr ., and 
 also in the preface to lib. xviii. of his Commentaries upon 
 Isaiah. With this apocryphal gospel Eusebius was, however, 
 familiar. He refers indeed to its contents in cap. 39. This 
 fact marks out the words of Ignatius as noticeable, and creates 
 a certain parallelism between them and 1 Cor. ii. 9, as com- 
 mented upon by Gobarus. Now, between Eusebius and 
 Gobarus there is here a curious coincidence. Eusebius says, 
 o 5’ uvrog 'Sf/jvpmtoig (§ 3) yputpav, ovx onofov (obs.) pqrolg 
 (TvyziXpTjrai x.t.X. Comp. Gobarus’ ovx olh’ o n ffaQoov f/jccry]v 
 (Jblv tiprjoQoti tgcvtcx, Xiysi x.rX. We believe that we can give 
 good reason for supposing that we have here in Eusebius’ 
 words the origin of the joke in Gobarus’. 
 
 We have already seen that Gobarus speaks of the nature of 
 the Lord’s body after His resurrection, and inquires whether it 
 could be touched. Ignatius says that the disciples 5 jypccvro and 
 believed. This gives us at once a second point of contact 
 between Gobarus and Ignatius. Gobarus proceeds on 6 
 Xpjffrog OVX, OC7TS0STO TY\'J (TUpXGC (JjZTGC T^V aVCCfTTCCffiV, CiXXoC f/jSTCl 
 
STEPHANUS GOBARUS. 
 
 245 
 
 Trig vupzog sv hs^ia zaGlZysTai tov IT aTpbg' z&d lx rod avTizsi- 
 {jAvov, ug IXsvgstoci [it h zpivai Z^wvrccg zod vszpovg, ovzsn hi 
 Gapza syjvv, aXXd OsosihsGTSpov ecoyoa. on ov yoSTa eapzog, aXXci 
 yvyovij r/j OsoTrjn zaTa ty\v hsvTspav Trapoveiav 6 As GnoTrig 
 GtapayivsTai. Then follow some remarks of Photius’, and 
 presently on 6 rod Ssov A oyog oXog sgtiv Iv too navn za) V7rlp 
 to irdv, zed oXog sgtiv Iv too GobyoocTi o zaQ' vttogtocgiv tyvooGSV 
 savToo' zod a^Xobg rj T?jg 6s oTJjTog oveia za) (fives i z.t.X. on oi 
 ayysXoi zed oi haiyoovsg Gooyjaeiv voovTai . . . on ai ^vyjxd toov 
 ayoapTooXoov haiyoovia yivovTai , za) TovvavTiov , oti deapzoi ovTsg 
 z.t.X. Earlier, Gobarus says that the angels are aGooyoaToi, 
 and he uses avOpouTroyoopfiov three lines above. Comp, with 
 Ignatius as quoted by Eusebius. If we turn to Smyrn. (obs.) 3, 
 we find as the closing sentence yosTa £s ty\v avaGTaeiv Gvvsfiaysv 
 avToig za) gvvsttisv cog Gapzizog, zaiTSp rjvooyesvog (obs.) too 
 II ocTpi. In the third line of § 4, Ignatius has av6poo7roybbp(fioov . 
 If, now, we turn to the interpolated version, we find in lieu of 
 Ignatius’ sentence, ov yorjv hs, aXXd nod yosTa to STihsl^at 
 savTov avToig , on aXqOoog aXX’ ov too hozCiv lyrjyspTai za) 
 Gvvsfiaysv avToig, zed gvvstisv . . . zee) ovtoo gvv T/j Gapz) (obs.) 
 . . . avsX^fiOrj <7rpog tov aTOGTSiXavTa aioTov, gvv avT/i (obs.) 
 vraXiv spy J 6ybsvog yes too hofyg zod hwayos cog, (fiae) yap too Xoyia' 
 O vTog 6 T rieovg . . . ovToog IXsvGSTai (obs.) z.t.X. (Acts i. 11). 
 si hi dvzv GooyoaTog (fiaeiv spyjseGai fact GWTsXsiop tov aibovog . . . 
 aGooyobcToov (obs.) yap ovts sihog, ovts yjapazTrip sgtiv . . . hia to 
 anXovv (obs.) Trjg (fivesoog , with av6poo7roybbp<fioov after three lines 
 in § 4. Gobarus may thus be thought to have used both 
 versions of Ignatius. The interpolator appears to “look,” as 
 Gobarus certainly does, at Heb. i. 3, where alone in the N. T. 
 yapazTYip is found. 
 
 At the close of § 2, the interpolator speaks of the brazen 
 serpent as a type of Christ, in which he is followed presently 
 by Gobarus. 
 
 We turn to Jerome’s preface to lib. xviii. Comment, in Isa. 
 He speaks of the diversity of opinion which prevailed on many 
 religious questions. Gobarus’ work, if it was ever written, 
 could have been little more than a catalogue of such differing 
 opinions. He quotes the words ( incorporale deemoniam) of 
 which Eusebius speaks, and immediately quotes, as the inter- 
 polator of Ignatius also immediately does, S. Luke xxiv. 38, 39, 
 
246 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 and S. John xx. 27. He then says “Denique ad probandam 
 corporis veritatem, sumpsisse scribitur cibos,’ , etc. Comp, 
 with the words of the interpolated version quoted above. 
 Jerome then says “Non quo post resurrectionem manducemus 
 et libamus, ut milliarii nostri volunt,” etc. Gobarus has or/ 
 npoTzpov oi hizaioi dvaaTrjaovToci, zoci avv ccvroTg Tavra ra 
 Z^coa, zoci stti xikia, sttj Tpvpyiffovrai \ ffOiovreg zoci arivovTzg 
 
 Z.T.X. 
 
 Eusebius in the same place also quotes two short passages 
 from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans. One of these — on 
 airog zifjji 0go£, zoci 5/’ ohovToov Qripioov bckr)0o(jjoci, hoc zccdccpbg 
 dp rog zvpzOco — Eusebius quotes from Irenseus v. 28. Almost 
 immediately above this in Irenaeus there is a passage explain- 
 ing the six days of the creation and the seventh day of rest as 
 a prophecy of things to come : (pccvspov ovv, bn 7} avvTzkzicc (cf. 
 with the interpolated Ignatius) avrwv to s STog zano. The 
 Greek 1 of the whole passage is found in “ Cod. 3445 (2215) 
 Biblioih. Beg . Par.” The ms. proceeds, as if still quoting 
 Irenaeus, zoci Trj % zpivzi rrjv o\zov[Ezn\v' zed r9j rj\ zariv 
 6 pozEKoov aibov, rovg fjbh Trccpocbibcoaiv g Ig zokccaiv ccicuviov, rovg £g 
 g lg ZpjYiv. The third summary (vid. sup. p. 240) from Gobarus’ 
 volume, that is, the one next following the mention of Hege- 
 sippus, begins with bn oi zv rzj zoXocazi < 7rocpochihb{JbZvoi tuv 
 dfAccpTooXcov z.r.X.; and the fifth runs thus: bn 6 gj'zXhcov 
 aicbv byloog Ian’ zed j to bcvTizzipczvoVy cog ovz oyboog, ccKk’ 
 z ivccTog. Compare. 
 
 The coincidences which have been pointed have not been 
 accidentally found, and cannot have accidentally arisen. It 
 seems perfectly plain that the compiler of the so-called 
 excerpts from Gobarus derived his ovz o/5’ o n tocQcov from 
 Eusebius, and that he paid special attention to those passages 
 from Ignatius and Irenaeus to which Eusebius refers. The 
 excerpts are not what they pretend to be, summaries of the 
 contents of a genuine work, but manufactured, as they stand 
 in the pages of Photius’ Bibliotheca , after the same fashion as 
 the so-called excerpts from Agatharchides and Helladius. 
 This is to some extent confirmed by the fact that Clement in 
 Ep. i. 34, before citing 1 Cor. ii. 9, writes 6 ccyocQog zpyccTrjg 
 g,ZTd ‘TOcppTjaiccg \ocpjfidcvzi tov ccpTOv tov zpyov ocvtov . . . b'z ot 
 1 Quoted in Cotel. Patr. Apost. Barn. 15. 
 
ACHILLES TATIUS. 
 
 247 
 
 ovv \criv Tpo0v[/jovg rj^ag shcu sig uyoiQoTroii'ocv. Comp, with 
 the saying of Ignatius quoted by Irenseus, also with Ignat. 
 Polyc. 7 ( vid . sup. p. 22). It must also be observed that 
 Nicephorus, in H. E. iii. 16, while greatly altering Eusebius’ 
 language, still preserves his ovz oT5’ okoQsv, and that he speaks, 
 as Eusebius does not, of fjbjjh iv ti tov TTpocriKOVTog (ppovrjf/jccrog. 
 Gobarus in the third summary, to which we have just referred, 
 has a\r]0sg rijg ’JLxxkqcnag (ppovyjyboc, ovhsig x.rX. 
 
 In our next chapter we shall discuss Phot. Bibl. 126. The 
 reason of the interest shown in this portion of Eusebius’ 
 history will then be apparent. 
 
 It will not be necessary to carry the investigation into 
 Achilles Tatius’ love-story any further. On p. 211, w j e 
 promised to produce out of it illustrations of a great number 
 of matters in connection with Peregrinus and other writings, 
 to which attention had previously been directed. This promise 
 has been fulfilled. The various writings previously examined 
 have come up again, and point after point has had fresh light 
 cast upon it. These various writings have been shown to be 
 more or less closely connected with Peregrinus , — we could, had 
 we been so minded, have started the examination of each of 
 them from its pages, — and now we have found them to be 
 woven like threads into the web of Achilles Tatius’ love-story. 
 We also promised to prove this story to be indebted to the 
 Bibliotheca of Photius. We have done this, not in one instance 
 only, but again and again. It cannot, therefore, be the writing 
 described in the Bibliotheca , unless such description is an inter- 
 polation, or the Bibliotheca a fraud from beginning to end. 
 This is not the place to sum up the evidence against the 
 various members of the group of writings which we have been 
 examining, for several of them will come before us again before 
 we have completed our task. Still, would it not seem as if 
 Lucian, and Clement, and Galen, etc., were but so many 
 “ aliases,” and the love-story of Achilles Tatius only another 
 shape which it pleased our literary Proteus to assume ? The 
 description of Achilles, given by Suidas, agrees well with this 
 conclusion. He speaks of him as an Alexandrian, the writer 
 of a love-story, a Christian and a bishop, the author of works 
 upon the sphere and etymology, and of a volume of miscel- 
 laneous histories of many and great and wonderful men. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PHOT II BIBLIOTHECA. 
 
 E believe that we have sufficiently fulfilled the promise 
 
 made in chap. i. to prove “ that literary frauds of 
 
 some magnitude have been actually perpetrated.” It remains 
 for us, however, to connect these frauds with the times of the 
 revival of learning. This, then, is the main object of this 
 chapter. It will not be necessary to trace each one of the 
 writings which have been more or less closely examined 
 down to the fifteenth century or thereabouts. They are all so 
 intimately connected together, that if we can show satisfactorily 
 that one or two of them are of very late date, we shall have 
 fulfilled the purpose of this volume, which is to show the 
 existence of frauds, not to settle the many and difficult 
 questions which are connected with them. We are acquainted 
 with several ways in which this may be done. We shall select 
 that which will least of all raise up new questions for inquiry, 
 and which will most of all support the conclusions at which 
 we have already arrived. We shall therefore choose Photius’ 
 Bibliotheca for further investigation. To it all our writings 
 are related, and it will be well once again to test its integrity. 
 Out of the Bibliotheca we shall select Codices 126, 244 ; Cod. 
 126, because it gives a description of Clement’s Epistles, and 
 by testing the genuineness of the description, we shall be once 
 more testing the genuineness of the epistles themselves ; Cod. 
 244 (excerpts from Diodorus), because we have declared it to 
 be false, but have not yet fully proved it to be so. 
 
COD. 126. 
 
 249 
 
 cyj<Sfj.cLGi rfjv ‘rpsKovtiav aurolg ziprjvriv xa/ ojaovoiav zfnroXirzvzGQai Xvcav- 
 rag, xai rapamT navffadai rou xaxou. 'A irXoug bz xara rv[v <ppd<uv 
 xai 6 a<prjg sffn xai zyyug rou sxxXrjffiacnxou xai arts pi'zpyou yapaxrr\pog. 
 Ainaffoiro d’ dv rig aurbv sv rauraig bn rz rou flxsavou z^u xoff[ioug 
 nvag urtondzrai zlvai, x.ai bzurspov iffug on ug rravaX^zardro) r$ xara 
 rbv (poivixa rb opvzov unobz'r/iLan xsyprirai, xa i rpirov bn dpyispsa xai 
 rrpo6rdrr,v rbv Kup/ov 7 }(JjcL iv ’i rjtrouv Xpiffrbv z^ovopd^uv, oubs rag dzortpz- 
 •rzTg xai b^pqXorspag aprjxz rcz pi aurou pwvdg' ou [lt\v ou5’ dffapaxa- 
 Xunrug aurbv ouba t aij sv rouroig fiXafftprjfAZ?. *H bz bsurspa xai aurfi 
 vo’jdzaiav xai irapanzffiv xpzirrovog ziffdyzi (3iou, xai sv dpyri Qsbv rbv 
 Xpiffrov xr,pu6ffzi , rrXriv bn pr\rd nva dg a no rr\g 6z lag Tpacprig ^zv/^ovra 
 *, rapziadyzr dv oub’ r\ rrpdrri dnrr\XXaxro n avrsXdg . Kai epfirjveiag bz 
 
 pqrdv nvuv dXXoxoroug £%£/. ” AXXcag rs bz xai rd sv auraTg vorj/xara 
 
 sppifjjixzva rzoig xai ou duvzyr\ rr\ v axoXouQiav unripyz (puXarrovra. 
 
 ’Ev r r jj aurd bz (3i(3Xibapio) dvsyvdffdri xai UoXuxdp^ou ’E ‘7n6roXr\ rrpbg 
 ^iXi‘7r‘7rr l 6iovg, ysfiouca noXXi jg vouh&iag [izrd 6a<pr\vziag xai dnXorrirog 
 xara rbv sxxXqffiaGnxbv rrjg zpfirivztag ruvov. A zyzt 5s xai rag s^r/o’- 
 roXag auroTg ’I yvariou rou 0so(p6pov d^zoraXx'zvai , xai airzTrai dvabiba- 
 yjir\vai Kap' 1 aurdv s7 n nzpi sxzivou biaxouffaizv. 
 
 1. Our attention is first of all arrested by the words ov \JjY\v 
 ovh’ GCTrapcczGc'k. z.r.X. For the form in which the sentence is 
 cast, comp. pseudo-Helladius (Cod. 279), p. 531 ov p>7jv ccX\’ 
 ovll (pou'vsToci r, 0[J(j7ipog cca Xccyov xp7]<rd(Jbevog r/j (pavy. He adds 
 almost immediately xau diXKoc It hrn fyviZpvru, (obs.) \v roig 
 'OfJjtipov. It is not, however, the form of the sentence which 
 specially deserves attention, but its emphatic protestation that 
 Clement does not in anywise openly blaspheme. This is surely 
 a marvellous sentence in the mouth of Photius, who in Cod. 113 
 identifies Clement of Pome with the Clement of Phil. iv. 3, 
 and pronounces his first Epistle to the Corinthians to be af/G- 
 Xoyov, and informs us that it was at one time so highly esteemed 
 that it was read in public. The sentence before us loudly 
 protests, but its protestations only give emphasis to the word 
 dTccpaxaXvTroog, and point out its irony. The word itself is 
 somewhat rare. It occurs in Just. Dial. 76. Photius here, 
 as we see, complains of the apocryphal quotations found in 
 Clement’s second epistle, and, in a less degree, in his first. A 
 quotation of this kind, found in Ep. i., has been examined and 
 its falsity exposed ( vid . sup. p. 136 sqq.). In Appendix B, an 
 apocryphal quotation from Ep. ii. is similarly dealt with, and 
 it is there shown that Just. Dial. 76 was used in the manu- 
 facture. Justin’s string of inaccurate quotations from the 
 
250 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 gospels, of which the writer of Ep. ii. makes use, is ushered in 
 by the words ovrog goovog omoipcMoikvTrTwg (obs.) Wi'bo^zv. The 
 word may have been selected by the writer of Cod. 126, with 
 an ironical reference to this apocryphal quotation. 
 
 In the next place, we must point out that there seems to be 
 a far closer connection between Peregrinus and Cod. 126 than 
 we have any right to expect between two writings on such 
 totally different subjects. 
 
 (1.) In Peregrin. 24, the w r riter says tov ovv (decoy evrj tovto 
 (/j&XtG'Tcc uitimgooito (obs.) av Tig , oti (obs.) tccKKco (obs.) ZrfkZv 
 Toovdpog, ovy^ sttstoci too hihooGJtakw. Photius complains of the 
 application of the word <rp OGTUTrjg to our Lord (the “Master”). 
 This word is used in Peregrin. 11, in a passage which has a 
 parallel in Cod. 279, where pseudo - Helladius speaks of 
 “opposing the Master” (vid. sup. p. 53). The close connec- 
 tion between Peregrin. §§ 11, 24, can be shown, but the limits 
 which we have assigned to ourselves for this volume will not 
 allow of the discussion of this point, which is not very material 
 to the general argument (vid. sup. p. 47). As the case stands, 
 however, compare the words just given from Peregrin . 24 with 
 Cod. 126, and observe not only the verbal coincidences, but the 
 parallel which lies behind. 
 
 (2.) On p. 36, a coincidence between Peregrin. 41 and Cod. 
 126 is pointed out. The words of Peregrinus are these : . . . 
 'ETxXqv&Jv, olg %ai eTeGTcckzivcci (obs.) eXeyov (obs.), and in the 
 next line (pouri he ndauig Gyphov Tocig evholgoig nokeGiv eniGToXag 
 (obs.) hiDC7rsf/j\pai ocvtov , . . . zcci 7rccpcciveGeig (obs.). It is not, 
 of course, the words themselves that are noticeable, but the 
 circumstance that these coincidences, such as they are, concern 
 the Ignatian Epistles, which the writer of Peregrinus imitates 
 in § 41, from which the words now given are taken. It must 
 further be observed that Poly carp’s mention of these epistles, 
 to which Cod. 126 so specially calls our attention, is contained 
 in a passage quoted by Eusebius in II. E. iii. 36. We can 
 now understand the interest w 7 hich our writers would seem to 
 have felt in this chapter of Eusebius (vid. sup. p. 244). 
 Chapter 37 is very short. Chapter 38 is on Clement’s 
 Epistles, and appears to be used by Photius in Cod. 113, and 
 perhaps here in Cod. 126. It begins with uGTep ovv bopdeXei 
 k.tX. The writer of Peregrinus , shortly before in § 39, has 
 
COD. 126. 
 
 251 
 
 affTSp dpJeXei zat z.rX. ( vid . sup. p. 232). In the forged 
 excerpts from Agatharchides (Cod. 250), c. ix. p. 446, the 
 compiler speaks of ‘7c'o\eig hdo%ovg (comp, with Peregrin. 41, 
 quoted above). He says a good deal upon these, and presently 
 has g yyvg rov Ttpenovrog 'igtcctou, and eiGocyei Sg goerd Ga.(p^veiocg 
 zed Tr\g TptTOVGrjg Xoyoo zoGpjioryjrog, p. 447. Comp, with 
 Cod. 126. 
 
 (3.) On p. 48, a portion of Peregrin. 11 is given. From it 
 comp. zai ndvrcc goovog ccurog uv. . . . zoc) TrpoGrdrriv (obs.) 
 breypu<pov. rov (Peyctv yovv ezelvov . . . eiGrjyayev (obs.) eg rov 
 fiiov (obs.) with Cod. 126. On p. 51, it has been shown that 
 ‘7TpoGrotrriv e7reypcc<pov might well have been taken from Arist. 
 Pac. 667. 
 
 In 657, Mercury inquires what kind of person Cleonymus 
 may be in warlike matters. Tryggeus replies, ipvyfjv dpiGrog, 
 rXriv y on ovz rp> dp , ouTep (p?]Giv eivccij rov tt ccrpog. Comp. 
 Photius’ ‘ 7 r\rjv on z.rX. Nothing can be more appropriate to 
 the ironical description of Clement’s Epistles in Cod. 126 than 
 this glance at Aristophanes. It will seem, perhaps, too far- 
 fetched. Observe, then, that Clement in Ep. i. 61 has the 
 expression of which Photius here complains. Clement says, 
 o goovog ivmrbg Troirjaai rocvra not) rrepiGGorepcc dyuQd goed’ 
 rgjjSjv, go) e^ogooKoyovgoedu hid rov dp^iepeoog zcci npoGTocrov roov 
 ypvXfi/v rjgodv ’I. X. z.rX. Comp, with the words ^ from 
 Peregrin. 11, just quoted, also with gjovururog ydp el gv Trdvrcov 
 a’inog , zcci rdv zoczdv zcci ruv bcyccQobv . . . IIAOT. e yen 
 togccvtcc hvvocrog eifP ejg ojv KoeTv, Arist. Plut. 181 sq., quoted 
 on p. 47, in connection with Peregrin . 11 (obs.). Clement 
 goes on almost immediately to say irdvrcc rocrov e^Xoc(pr]Gocf/jev. 
 In Pac. 673 ( TpoGT . ereyp., 667), Aristophanes has Tpo rov 
 gob ovv 6\p2]Xcc<p£fJ0 ev ev Gzorco rd rrpdygjccrcc vvvi S’ dcnocvrcc 
 z.rX. Clement no doubt “examined every passage” and 
 “ handled every topic ” in his own fashion. If we turn to 
 Tlieopli. 18 (to which we have had occasion to refer again and 
 again), v, r e find rrpoGrdrriv (Serapis), and a little above it . . . 
 Gzorog ^r\koc<pr\rbv' zcci ihov . . . ficcGXevg, goegoovagoevog, yvgovog 
 zcci donkog. Comp, with Clement and with Aristophanes, who 
 has in Pac. 661 GCTofioXigjCcTog ruv otX&jv, and in 669 yvgovog uv. 
 It is the person concerning whom the Trkrjv on is said who was 
 given to casting away his arms ; and however improbable it 
 
252 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 may seem at first sight, it may be that the writer of Cod. 126 
 takes the expression from no other place than this. 
 
 (4.) We have just now given rov gozyccv ycvv out of Peregrin. 
 11, where ‘rpoGrurqg is used. On p. 48 sq., it has been shown 
 that this is taken from Arist. Plut. 170 pozyag Ss fiaGiXzvg 
 ovy) S/a rovrov nopea ; We have given the whole of Cod. 126. 
 The very next words are PvGzfiiov rov TIupopiXov rj tig Y^oov- 
 Gruvrivov rov pozyccv fiaGjXzcc rzrpafijfiXog. These words form 
 the title of Cod. 127. This must be an accidental coincidence, 
 it will be said. We must not be too sure of this. 
 
 Clement has the combination of which Photius complains, 
 not only in § 61, where we have just found it, but also in 
 § 36. Some portion of this section will be found on p. 22. 
 We shall now add a few lines in order that its contents may 
 be sufficiently before us. Clement adds, S/a rovrov tjGzXtjgzv 
 6 hzGworrig rf? ccGavarov yvooGZcog ripbotg yzvGGCGOar og cov a7rav- 
 yccGf/jOc ryjg [jjZyuXooGvvrig avrov roGovroo pjziZpv ZGriv uyyzXoov, 
 ogco hiupopeorzpov ovopoa, KZxXrjpovoptjrjzzv (Heb. i. 4). yzypcc7rrai 
 yap ovroog ' 'O koiwv rovg a yyzXovg . . . wpog (pXoya (Heb. i. 7). 
 . . . xcci ttccXiv Xzyzi Tpog avrov' KaOov zz hzfyevv poov, zoog av 
 Geo rovg zyfipovg gov V7T07rohiov rouv nohoov gov (Heb. i. 13). On 
 rov ap%/spsa z.r.X ., Lightfoot says : “ This is founded on the 
 teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 17, iii. 1, iv. 14, 15, 
 etc.), of which Clement’s language throughout this section is 
 an echo.” In Heb. iv. 14, our Lord is called apyjzpza pozyuv. 
 We believe that the pJzyag fiuGtXzvg of Aristophanes, which 
 is taken up by rov pozyav in Peregrin. 11, in connection with 
 ‘ zpoGrdrr\v , and by ro nuiViov pozya in the Evang. Thom. ( vid . 
 sup. p. 61), to be taken up by pozyoeg ficcGiXzvg in the Bibliotheca 
 and in Tlieophilus , and by apyjzpz a in Clement. 
 
 It will be seen on examination that Clement has S/a rovrov 
 five times over (vid. sup. pp. 22, 61). Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Strom, iv. 16, p. 613, who is supposed to quote some 
 part of our § 36, supplies only one. Aristophanes has S/a 
 rovrov exactly five times ; and each one of Clement’s clauses, 
 wdiich he ushers in with S/a rovrov , is represented in Plutus. 
 It will be remembered that in this play the god Plutus is 
 brought upon the scene zv Gy/ipoan dvipog, as the scholiast says. 
 He appears as blind, and explains that Zeus had blinded him 
 that he might not be able to discriminate between good 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 253 
 
 persons and bad. In the part of the play now before us, 
 two persons, by name Chremylus (5s Gnorrjg) and Cario 
 (Qtpdnwv), offer to get Plutus’ blindness removed, and try to 
 overcome his dread of Zeus by explaining to him how much 
 greater he is, and how much more power and influence he 
 exerts in the world. 
 
 A/a tovtov occurs in the line (170) already quoted: [Piyag 
 5s fiaGiXivg ovy) 5/a tovtov pcogoa (s -ra/psra/, OaWi i, 1 Scliol.) ; 
 Comp. Clement’s 5/a tovtov . . . dvaQaKkii. In 133 sq. we 
 find XP. Qvovci 5’ avToo 5/a r/V; ov 5 id tovtovi; KA. za) 
 V7) A/’ ivypvTai ys nXovTiiv dvTizpvg. XP. ovzovv o5* igtiv 
 uiTiog; . . . IIA. ti Xe yug ; 5/’ fas Ovovgiv ocvtm. XP. <pfa’ 
 lyoj. za) vrj A/’, s / ti y zgti Xagbnpov za) zaXov jj ydpuv 
 dvOpwnoiGi, 5 id g\ yiyviTai (to 5s Xa gonpov in) o^picog, Schol.). 
 Comp. Clement’s 5/a tovtov aTiviGcogbiv z.t.X. 5/a tovtov 
 ivonTpiZjogbida . . . o\J/tv z.t.X., and observe that the words tov 
 ap^/spsa tcjv npoGfiopuv facuv immediately precede. 
 
 In 114 Chremylus says to Plutus, ofaai gvv 6i5j 5’ ilpfaiTai, 
 TavT7]g dnuXXalgziv gs T?jg 6<pQaX(/jtag , fiXeipei nofaag (el naXiv 
 dvafiXi-^ztag. 95). Comp. Clement’s 5/a tovtov fa&j^rjGav 
 z.t.X. 
 
 In 160 Chremylus says Tiyvai 5s naGai 5/a g\ za) goQig- 
 fi/OCTCi Iv toIgiv dvOpunotGiv igO’ ivprjgbiva. Comp. Clement’s 
 5/a tovtov r\QiXr\Gav 6 'hiGnoTng (TocvTrjg 5 iGnoTqg, Plut. 201), 
 ddavaTov yvuGiag fa dg yivGaGbai. 
 
 In 128 Chremylus says to Plutus lyoo yap dnohlfigco gi tov 
 A log v roXv (JbiiZ^ov hwagoivov. Comp, og &v z.t.X., and observe 
 that zpiiTToov , not / niZfiov , is used in Heb. i. 4. The alteration 
 appears to be a glance at Aristophanes. 
 
 Now it must be observed that we have neither searched 
 Aristophanes for something suitable for our purpose, nor yet 
 Clement for a passage out of which a parallel for Aristophanes 
 might, by the exercise of some ingenuity, be extracted. The 
 lines of Aristophanes and the section of Clement are both 
 alike definitely marked out for us. Plut. 168 is one of the 
 passages to which editors of Lucian specially refer in illustra- 
 tion of a story told in Peregrin. 9. We have seen (p. 45) 
 that this story is taken up in the Evang. Thom., and further 
 
 1 Comp. Diodorus, quoted on p. 152 (Nos. 3, 8), with the scholiast and 
 Clement, vid. sup. p. 22. 
 
254 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (p. 61), that the lines of Plutus are used elsewhere in the 
 gospel, as well as in Peregrin. 11, where the word Tpoorar^ 
 occurs. In the use of this word, made specially noticeable by 
 Photius’ animadversions in Cod. 126, a connection has been 
 pointed out between Peregrin. 11 and the pseudo-Helladian 
 excerpts, at a point where the writer of the excerpts expressly 
 uses Plut. 182. We are now examining Cod. 126. The word 
 '7TpOGrocrric comes up again for examination. We turn to the 
 pseudo-Helladian excerpts, to Peregrin . 11, to Plutus , and we 
 find in each some point of contact with Cod. 126. Photius’ 
 complaint opens to us those passages of Clement where the 
 word complained of is used. We take up, first, § 61, and find 
 a coincidence not only with Pax (where npoGTaTYig is used), 
 but also with Plutus ; then § 36, and find Plutus to all appear- 
 ance to be so used in this section, that the lines of Plutus read 
 like a parody upon Clement (vid. sup. p. 18). Can these 
 things be accidental ? 
 
 2. We have some rather important evidence to bring 
 forward to prove that they are not. 
 
 (1.) The “scholia” on Plut. 21 ( ov yap pe TVTTT^aeig 
 GTzpavov g ypvTa ye) are two in number. The first has these 
 words, t 7Toipp7]<jiciZ ) srcci (6 Kap/W) Trpog tov Ssttot^v {Plut. 201 
 he(T7rorrjg m zvptog, Schol.) ; the second to Tyjg Tvy/jg vwoheeg. 
 Attention has been called to this last word, “ which is very 
 rare in the positive,” on p. 23 sq. Two examples of its use 
 are there given, each of which shows a connection with 
 Clement. Here is another example, and here also is another 
 connection with Clement, for in Ep . i. 53 he says (of Moses) 
 TrappyciaZgeTai tfepccTav ftpog zvpiov. Comp, with the scholiast. 
 The coincidence is made more remarkable from the circum- 
 stance that C reads he(T7roTy]g instead of Oepancov. Neither of 
 these words is in the context to catch the scribe’s eye. Both 
 are virtually in the scholiast, for Cario was 6 0epaT&v, and is 
 so called in lines three and five. 
 
 In the scholion on Plut. 27 is the word zepfiaXeov. It is 
 used in Clem. Ep. ii. 20 el yap tov (JjujOov tcov hzatav 6 Seog 
 avvTogjcog MTrebi'bov, evQ'zojg epoTopiav ^(jzovpjev zai ov Qeoaefieiav’ 
 ehozovpbev yap elvai htzaioi, ov to eiurefieg aXXd to zephaXeov 
 hiuzovTzg' zai face tovto 6eia zpiaig e/3Xa\psv Tvevpoa (xri ov 
 hi'zaiov, zai e/3apvvev dstr/aoTg. The scholion on line 88 is too 
 
EVANGELIUM THOMiE. 
 
 255 
 
 long for transcription, but our readers will find that it supplies 
 an excellent parallel. A few lines below it the scholiast has 
 fiapvyst. In comparing it with Clement, his § 10, the close of 
 § 19, and the whole of § 20 should be read. Plut. 50, 28 sq., 
 33 sq., 37, etc., and the scholiast’s language on lines 11, 
 15, should also be observed and compared with Clement. 
 The close connection of Clement’s Ep. ii. with Aristophanes 
 and his scholiast cannot be mistaken. 
 
 (2.) With the close of the passage just given from ii. 20, 
 comp. Trag. in Lycurg. c. Leocr. p. 159 orav yap opyr\ 
 'boufjjovuv /3 Xcctt/] nva, tout avrd ‘Fpcvrov, \\a$aipiiTai (ppzvcov 
 tov vovv roy z.r.X. This passage is quoted by Lightfoot ; 
 
 we found it, however, wdien we were verifying the scholiast’s 
 reference to the same page in illustration of pbovararog in 
 Plut. 182 (vid. sup. p. 48). In Theoph. 15, we observe ftaaav 
 uip r cTix,riv fipsvofiXaftejuy hsazstiatrsy, on TIveupoa &sou z.rX. 
 with 7 ] Oela hixri a few lines above. 
 
 (3.) When the Evang. Thom, was under discussion (p. 61), 
 a ha rovrov (comp. Clement) was pointed out in A 7, and a 
 connection between Aristophanes and that part of the gospel 
 w r as shown. 
 
 The Evang. Thom, has the following : — 
 
 Tayct rovro ftpb rjjg zoopofto/fag sffriv ysysvv7]/xsvov. ftota yaorr\p rovro 
 s(3doraosv, ftoia d's firjrpa rovro s^sdps-^sv, syd ayvod. . . . ov ftapaxoXov- 
 rr j biavoia avrov' . . . yiyuvi?6/j,7i v eysiv fj.adrjri )v, xa/' svpsQr\ v eysiv 
 didaoxaXov. . . . xa/' syoj sxxaxrjoai xa/' dftodavsTv did rovrov rov ftaidog 
 (’I. X.)‘ ov dvva/xai yap sv rlj) dpa ravrr\ sp(3Xs^ai sig rr\v o-^iv avrov. 
 . . . ovrog ri ftors p,sya ( ovrog [Proteus] ds ri psya, Peregrin. 25), 
 soriv, ri 6sog % ayysXog, % ri siftoi ovx olda. § 7. . . . sysXaos ro ftaidiov 
 [Tzya %ai slftsv . . . xa/' (SXsft'sruoav oi ru<pXoi rf; xapd/rp syd dvudsv 
 ftdpsi/xi ha . . . sig ra dvu xaXsou . . . xa/' dg rb ftaidiov xarsftavffs rbv 
 Xoyov x.r.X., § 8. . . . syd ds ftXsiu vp,dv iftiora/aai’ ftpo yap rdv aidvoiv 
 s ifJj'r xa/' oida tots sysvvqOriffuv oi ftarspsg rdv ftarspuv V[mojv, xa/' 
 sftiora/xai ftboa srr\ rr\g b[j.dv . . . on siftov v/j,?v on olda ft off a srr\ rr,g 
 
 £&>Sjg v/udv" aXyOdg olda ftors sxrioOrj o xbtipog. B. 6 (the parallel passage). 
 
 Comp. (vid. sup. pp. 22, 252) Clement’s did rovrov svoftr. rr\v 
 I'lpiv avrov' 3 . r. rjv. r\. oi b<pdaXp.oi rrjg xapdiag * d. r. t\. da. x. so. 
 diavoia r,. dvaddXXsi sig rb 6avp,a6rbv avrov <pdg (“ comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9 
 rov sx oxbrovg vp,vz xa Xsoavrog (obs.) sig r'o 6av/xaor'ov avrov <pdg” 
 Light.)* d. r. 7}0. 6 ds&. rr,g uOavdrov yvdoswg (“ S. translates mortis 
 scientioe , i.e. Qavdrov yvdasug” Light. Comp, with Evang. Thom. 
 We shall find ftboa errj presently in Theophilus)' og £v . . /xsi^on 
 
 CjvV . 
 
256 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ear iv dyyeXuv x..r.\., § 36. Comp, also from § 35 ravra vareanarrsv 
 rrdvra varo rr\v bidvoiav ripuiv. ... 6 byjfuovpyog xai ararrjp ruv aidvuv 6 
 rravdytog avrog yivdaxei rr\v rroabrrira xai rqv xaWovriv avruv. r^/xeTg 
 ovv ayooviad/xeQa eupeOfjvoc/ . . . id v iaTripiy/xevri fi 7] biavoia . . . axoXov- 
 QriCMfiev rr; x.r.X. 
 
 It must be here again remembered that the passage from 
 the Evang. Thorn, is not one which has been found after 
 diligent search, but a passage definitely marked out for us. 
 
 (4.) The presence of the word arpoffrocrng in Theoph. 18 has 
 been pointed out on p. 251, and in the same place coincidences 
 between this section and Aristophanes and Clement (§ 61) in 
 the use of the word. We must now compare Theoph. 18 with 
 Clement’s § 36. 
 
 We are informed in this section that the emperor Leo 
 applied himself to the investigation of curious questions, and 
 sought out soothsayers and astrologers. He called a certain 
 person, Basil by name, to his help, w r ho found a man named 
 Sabbatius who was cunning in pjocvreiocig re tcoa oicovifffjbocffi, and 
 varoriflerai (Cod. 126) ccvrw to speak all things according to the 
 wishes of the emperor. This Sabbatius, in order (apparently) 
 to play upon the fears of Leo, arrayed himself in chains and 
 shut himself up ev roig rov A otyicreag (j^eyaXov Xovrpov rdov 
 zapiivwv xovtyoig. Basil then brought the emperor to Sabbatius. 
 The writer proceeds : — 
 
 be (3a0e7a tjv, xai axbrog ^/rfKa^rbv (Arist. Clem.) ... a) vug 
 oi 6eXovreg l eJvai aotpoi i/xwpdvOrjaav {ypdaxovreg eivai aofioi i/xupdvOriaav, 
 Rom. i. 22)! ri ovv b /aeyag . . . (3aai7.evg (Arist. Cod. 126); vpo- 
 xvXivberrai 2 roTg rroai rov Uvdojvog' y^p^a/Awboriag a/rsirai, damp c 
 ’ AXs^dvbpog arore . . . eiae\6uv eig rov 'lepamv . . . xai bp a nvag aarpaor- 
 rovrag ix ruv b<p6a\f/,5)V avaxei/xevovc , 3 sva ds Xeyovra a ur&, Xa/po/g 
 ’AXs^a vbpe’ olbdg /as rig ei[u\ 0 be' Ilwc, xvpie ; b be p,dyoc (vid. sup. 
 
 1 Comp. Clement’s r) 6 iXv<nM o 'bi<r<roT*i$ tvs a 6 a.Md.T 0 u yMUffteos y/xas ytv<rx<r 6 ai, 
 vid. sup. p. 252. He uses Rom. i. 21 (Lightfoot). 
 
 2 Comp. TauTX $e f. cot 0 1 Akil'xv'bpoc (obs. ) 0 Ixrpos %inyy<raro, puTax\n 6 sis, u; 
 ino-xoirriff mv (comp.) xurov ityn ouv xxTxXxfhtiv alroy % x[xx / xv\iopivoM (obs. ), xxi 
 tom tpxoyfxoM ol <pipoMTx, xx) y]/u^poM xitoumtx (obs.) x.t.x., and advising Proteus to 
 accept the death that seemed to be at his door, rather than seek for some 
 unusual mode of dying. Peregrin. 44. 
 
 8 Comp. S. Matt. xxii. 11, 12. Ver. 10 is used earlier in the section. On 
 p. 220, coincidences are shown between this section and the forged excerpts from 
 Agatharchides, and on p. 100, the use of S. Matt. xxii. in those excerpts. 
 Comp, also S. Luke xxiv. 4 %vo dy^pss . . . iv io 6 fi<ri<riM xaTparrouxat;, and observe 
 Clement’s dyyixuv and o<p 6 xXy.oi, vid. sup. pp. 22, 252. 
 
EPISTOLA AD THEOPHILUM. 
 
 257 
 
 p. 49)' ’Eyw s//A/ 2 sffody . . . ov roffovrov 1 2 d } s VTvyyjffa, offov Cv' xat 
 ffys/g ovofia u&uvarov . . . E/ffsXh svdov , iva Qeatfri rov npo6rurr\v ( Peregrin . 
 Clem. Cod. 126)* tnskpyjrai ’AAsga vdpog hhov' opcji b/jjtykriv nvpccvyri? 
 xci} xccfle^o/isvov 3 * 1 <k) Opovov, ov nor s sldsv sv 'Pa xovvndi TtpoGxvvovgjivov 
 (3poro?g '2&pa t riv’ sine 5s 6 ’A Xs^avdpog' Kvpis , to<scl tm j (comp, 
 
 here with Evang. Tho?n., quoted p. 255) ; 
 
 The footnotes sufficiently bring out the close connection 
 between Clement’s § 36 and Theoph. 18, a section, observe, 
 distinctly marked out for us by the use of wpooTar?^. The 
 parallel with the Evang. Thom, forms also another connecting 
 link with Clement, seeing that the gospel is itself in close 
 connection with Clement. Observe again Clement’s double 
 reading : rrjg aQotvurov (and Oocvutov) yvaczcog ( vid . sup. p. 255). 
 
 Observe, further, that Clement concludes § 35 with a 
 quotation from LXX. Ps. xlix. In the last verse but one 
 Clement reads (in A.), (atittotz MpKocffy] &>g Xzcov, zai p>7\ jj 6 
 pvbpbzvog. C. prudently omits this passage. Lightfoot re- 
 marks : “ The words cog Xzav are absent from the LXX., as 
 also from the Hebrew 7 . They must come from Ps. vii. 3, 
 either as a gloss in Clement’s text of the LXX., or as inad- 
 vertently inserted by him in a quotation made from memory.” 
 No doubt the writer of Clement’s Epistle intended some such 
 interpretation to be put upon the interpolated ag Xzuv. There 
 is, however, another interpretation which is, under the circum- 
 stances, far more natural. Comp. LXX. Ps. xxi. 13 fyoi<guv 
 zt z(Tz to GTopjCt ttVTouv, ug Xz oov 6 upTTuZpov Tea) djpvogozvog 
 (6 pvogbzvog). Now 7 , mark, in Theoph. 18, the emperor’s name 
 is As oov, and on the preceding page we find uXX’ uvQig yruXiv 
 ri[uv $z p6uvv(jjog rrjg hvcczSztcig Qrjp, cug Xz uv apTrcc^cw, zai thpvo- 
 {Jjzvog hzGKY^zv. Two lines above we observe toj p> zyocXoo 
 apyjzpzi applied to Nicephorus. Comp, with Clement’s ccpytzpza. 
 (applied to our Lord) in the beginning of § 36 {vid. sup. 
 p. 252). 
 
 We need not comment on these coincidences, which are 
 fatal alike to Clement’s Ep. i. and to Theophilus, further than 
 
 1 Comp. Clement’s os uv . . . rot rovru (obs.) (vid. sup. p. 253) I <rr)v 
 
 ctyyikuv, orco (obs.) 'SixQopuripov ovopoi (obs.), vid. SUp. p. 252. We have just 
 seen Clement’s Mxvurov. 
 
 2 Comp. Clement’s *vpos Qkoyu, vid. sup. p. 252. 
 
 3 Comp. Clement’s x«.6ov x.r.k., vid. sup. p. 252. 
 
 K 
 
258 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 to point out that it is now quite evident that the oip/g of 
 Clement’s 5/a tovtov howTp/CppjzQoe r/jv dpbufjbov zai vnepTocTriv 
 o^/v ccvtov (vid. sup. p. 255) is represented in Theophilus by 
 the vision of Serapis vouchsafed to Alexander, and that the 
 word TTpoo-raryg is deliberately assigned to Serapis in jesting 
 justification of the equally jesting protest of Cod. 126. 
 
 There is still, however, something to be said. With 
 Clement’s words just given, comp. Plut. ii. p. 695 . . . zcci 
 zarcczepfJbccTi%eiv. dXhoe ydp dXkovg . . . TpoV rrjv \pv!giv (o\p/v. 
 v.l.y sTrsircc 7/j o\ps/ e 7CMpiypi zccQocparccrov (obs.) ho'xrp/aciGQcti 
 . . . ZOCl (TUi/zpOTOCrOV dvTOLz\d (?) TO (pug ST/ T9JV 0\plV. Comp, 
 with Clement above, and on p. 22. With Plutarch, comp. 
 dWd dXKog dviriKhiv (vid. infr . p. 262) rikiog zccTcezipf/jOCT/^uif. 
 Achill. Tat. v. 2. A few lines above, in § 1, we find TpoV rtjv o^/v. 
 But Tatius is here giving an account of Alexandria, and spe- 
 cially, in § 2, of the city as illuminated in honour of Serapis. 
 With Theopli. 18, as quoted above, comp. Tatius’ dcTpurtTOV 
 with bpQuXfJbOvg in the next line ; oV . . . 2s pccT/v 5s zodhova/v 
 A iyvnr/oi . . . zodi tovto pJiy/arov \Qi affd[/j7jv sWspa poh ydp 
 . . . zodi vv% T[V ovhccpjov' . . . tots ydp zihov ttoK/v ip I^ovgccv 1 
 Tsp/ zdXhovg ovpuvob . . . oiuvog. Both Tatius and the writer 
 of Theophilus have df/j^oev/oev. Tatius has here also 6 ydp 
 Xoc/pzag Tpo 7roXkov rr\g AsiWttt^ zhdvQccvev s puv, zcci hid tovto 
 fjjepjfjvvzi to (pdppccczov, with hpipov after a few lines. In Pere- 
 grin. 45, almost immediately after the words quoted in a note 
 on p. 256 in illustration of Theophilus , we find s yob 5s ovh' 
 ccvTog Tpo TroXhuv (obs.) rjpjzpuv zihov ccvtov zyzzyjpiGpj'zvov^ dbg 
 drcohcczpvGZ/z tu hp/pczl (obs.) papfjbdzu. 2 
 
 Other coincidences might be pointed out, but these suffice 
 to show how closely Cod. 126, Clement’s Epistles , Peregrinus , 
 the Evang. Thom ., and Tatius’ love-story are connected 
 together. If five authors produced these five sets of writings, 
 
 1 Comp, to xakkos a/x^a>ov, ov xai ip'itravra ortp’i xakkovs x.r.k. Phot. Bibl. 190. 
 A coincidence between this sentence and Cedrenus is pointed out on p. 200. It 
 is amusing to observe that the writer is speaking of the various celebrated 
 personages of the name of Achilles. 
 
 2 The writer proceeds : ov or avv rou ; apL(o\vwrovv7as o Aiaxos •ru.potVt%tra.i. 
 ofioiov us it t/j itfi ffraupov avafoniricrOai piikkuv, to iv tu £ axrvku <rpotr<rrxnrp.a 
 dipxirtvoi. Comp. Plut. ii. p. 73 apfikvs iv t ols fAtyiffrois vov&iruv tarai xai 
 a-rpctxros , uffirtp laTpo ; tipifiv ipapftuxov, and after half a dozen lines xai yap iarpos 
 QiXotj/aos, ipt-irvov Trip) rtftxp av6pu<7rov ^ti^avros aiiru tov daxrvkcv bkxupc'iVOV x.r.k. 
 
DE SPIRIT!! SANCTO. 
 
 259 
 
 they must needs have been well acquainted with each other’s 
 secrets. 
 
 3. We shall now invite our readers to the consideration of 
 Bas. De Spir . Sand. c. xxix. This chapter is remarkable as 
 containing the only reference to Clement’s Epistles which is to 
 be found in Basil’s writings. If we are right in supposing 
 these epistles to be frauds, we shall, almost of a certainty, find 
 some evidence to show that their author consulted Basil, as he 
 must have done, seeing that the words which Basil quotes are 
 found in Up. i. 58. If, again, we are right in supposing 
 Photius’ Bibliotheca to have been interpolated, and that Cod. 
 126 in particular has been fraudulently inserted, it will pos- 
 sibly be the case that some recollections, of a chapter so 
 interesting to the writer as Basil’s c. xxix. must have been, 
 will be found. The question is, however, complicated by 
 another circumstance. Some of the later chapters, and among 
 them c. xxix., have been pronounced spurious by Erasmus. It 
 is true that Isaac Casaubon answered Erasmus very u satis- 
 factorily,” as many think. Still the fact remains that 
 Erasmus, no mean judge, pronounced against c. xxix., among 
 others, on grounds which he deemed sufficient. If the close 
 of De Spir. Sand, is a spurious addition, we shall naturally 
 suspect that it was added to support Clement’s Ep. i. (if a 
 forgery), and expect to find in it some plain indications of 
 authorship. If, on the other hand, these closing chapters are 
 really from the pen of Basil, and Cod. 126 from the pen of 
 Photius, and Clement’s Ep. i. from the pen of the Boman 
 bishop, it is certainly most unlikely that we shall find a suffi- 
 ciency of accidental circumstances on which to argue with any 
 show of reason (1) that the author of Clement’s Epistles made 
 use of Basil; (2) that c. xxix. was used, if it was not written, 
 by the author of Cod. 126; and (3) that the close of Basil’s 
 treatise is connected with, and belongs to, the group of writings 
 which we have been examining. This, nevertheless, is what 
 we propose to do. We have three lines of argument to take, 
 and three sets of coincidences to produce. We have been 
 already taught ( vid . sup. p. 77) that the cumulative force of 
 coincidences must not be set aside, even though each in itself 
 is insufficient to prove the case to which it relates. 
 
 1. We must observe at the outset that this chapter contains 
 
260 
 
 PEREGEINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 two examples of the use of the word TrpoGTaryig, of which, as 
 applied to our Lord, Cod. 126 complains. We shall give the 
 passages presently in which the word is found ; meanwhile we 
 note the fact. The complete expression, as mentioned in 
 Cod. 126, is found in Clement’s Ep. i. 61 rov dpyjipioog 
 scat npoGTarov (obs.) too v yp vyjov Tipjoov ’I. X., fo’ ov goi rj ho%a 
 scoot 7] pjiya\ooavvr\ sc.rX. Lightfoot says that “this is a 
 favourite (obs.) form of doxology in Clement,” and refers us 
 to § 20 5/ct rov K vpiov yj^oov T. X., oo rj ho^a scat r\ fJbsya'kooGvvr; 
 g Ig rovg aidovag roov aioovoov. It happens that Basil has here a 
 good deal to say upon doxologies, and cites, not Clement, but 
 Africanus as writing . . . II ccrpt scat K. ’I. X. a ri 5o|a, 
 f/jByaXooGvvr] avv ayioo ILg vf/jan g ig rovg alavag. We must 
 either believe this interesting coincidence to be purely acci- 
 dental, or else concede that the writer of Clement’s Epistle 
 borrowed from Basil, unless, indeed, he was the author of a 
 spurious addition to Basil’s treatise. 
 
 On p. 62, Basil writes : — 
 
 ru 5s xatvoro^iav syxaXov/xsvu dvayxa Tov e/g /xaprvp/av did rov 
 ypbvov ryv apyatorvira, rovro Sq xai <7 rpoOfiffW s5o£s roTg narpadtv 7]fLuv, 
 and presently on the same page sxsTvog (Gregory) xai norajuuv psTdpa 
 (Jjsrz<srr\6sv (1 Cor. xiii. 2), Inird^ag avroTc sv ru ovo/uart rip iisydXu 
 rov Xpiffrov' xai Xi/JjVyiv s^yjpavsv vnbQsctv noXsfiov (p'epovoav dbsXtpoTg 
 nXsovsxratg * ai 5s ruv (AsXXovruv npoayopsvfSstg roiavrat , ug poridh ruv 
 aXXuv dnobsTv npotpriruv. xai oXug [x>axpbv dv sh j rov avdpog dtriysTodai 
 rd Oavpara, og rr\ vnspfioXri ruv iv avru yapiff/uaruv (1 Cor. xii. 31), 
 ruv svspyovjusvuv vno rov nvsvfiarog sv nd(Sr\ dvva fist xai tirifisiotg xai 
 ripam (Heb. ii. 4) dsvrspog 1 Muvffrjg . . . dvYjyopsvsro. 
 
 Basil’s e 7roTa[Loov pzlQpa suggested to us the examination of 
 Philo ( De Mund.) i. p. 31 : — 
 
 ruv 5s siprtfisvuv ovx dnodsT (obs.) xai ro fisXXov (obs.) X'eysffOat. 
 nacri fjjTjrpt xaOdnep dvayxaibrarov (obs.) fi'spog r\ <pv<Stg nrjyd^ovrag 
 dvshuxs [uatsrovg . . . nap’ o xai roTg npurotg (obs.) sdo^ev (obs.) avrrjv 
 (yrjv) AyjfJOTirpav xaX'sffat (obs.), ro (Ar\rpbg xai yvjg ovo/a a (obs.) cvvdsTstv 
 (obs.) . . . sixorug ovv xai yf,... dv'sduxsv 7j <pv<ftg } o7a /uasrovg, nora/xuv 
 (obs.) psTdpa (obs.) xai nrjyuv, iva . . . xai norov dpQovov syot navra rd 
 %ua, with £u rjg after two lines. Higher up on p. 31, Philo has uv 
 6 xofSfiog sdyifMovpyrjdyj. 6 M uufftjg 5s . . . (SrorysTov fisv o’tsrat sJvat rqv 
 fjjSydXriv OdXarrav, fioTpav rsrdprqv ruv tiv/undvruv, rjv oi fisr 1 avrov 
 
 1 Is this serious writing, or was Achilles as well as Moses in the writer’s mind 
 ( vid . sup. p. 188)? 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 261 
 
 uxeavbv npoffayopevovreg, rd crap' i]p7v nXwra neXa yr\ Xipevcov eyeiv Xoyov 
 vopi^ovcr to 6e yXuxy xai cronpov vdup . . . Gvveyerai. 
 
 Clement, Ep. i. 20 (obs.), writes : — 
 
 yXtog re xai . . . e^eXiGGovGiv rovg emraypevovg (Basil) avro7g (Basil) 
 opiffpovg. yij xvotpopovffa (obs.) . . . £wo/g(obs.) avar'eXXei rpotpyjv (obs.) . . . 
 ro7g avro7g evveyerat (obs.) rrpoGrdypaGiv . . . dXXd xadug dt'era^ev avrfj 
 . . . uxeavog (obs.) a vdpuirroig dn'epavrog xai oi per avrbv 1 (obs.) xoGpoi 
 (obs.) rcug ctbrcug ra.yot.7g rob de Gcrorov dievQvvovrai . . . devao’i re crriyai 
 (obs.) rrpbg arroXavff/v xai vyetav dyipiovpyr)Qe7<fai (obs.) hiya. eXXei^/eojg 
 rrape^ovrat rovg crpog £ ojrig (obs.) avOpdnoig paZpvg (obs.). ra re 
 eXdyjGra ruv rag ffvveXevceig avruv ev bpovota xai e/pfjvri nroiovvraC 
 
 ravra 'ravra o peyag dqpiovpybg . . . <rpoGera^ev ehai x.r.X. 
 
 On an earlier page (p. 8), Philo [first brings forward the 
 idea for which Clement seems to be indebted to him : — 
 
 b'rug o7a prjryjp . . . (3pwGiV re xa/ rroGiv <rapeyr\ (obs.)* dib <pXe(3ag 
 pa cro7g x.r.X. Directly afterwards Philo has ravra diara^dpevog 
 (obs.), bvbpara (obs.) avro7g erlQet , rr\v p'ev £ ripdv (obs.), and, after a few 
 lines, on p. 9 eig . . . drrbXavGiv (obs.) ^duv ruv avrixa yevrjGopevuJV. o 
 p'ev dq rrpoGrdrrei (obs.) rfj yfj ravra yevvr\Gai (obs.)’ rj 6s wGrrep ex. 
 
 ‘ roXXov xvotpopovGa (obs.) . . . rpotpai (obs.) t^doig (obs.). 
 
 Comp, with Clement and Basil. 
 
 We can hardly think it possible that any one will contend 
 that these coincidences, found as they have been, have acci- 
 dentally arisen, or that Clement and Basil (or either of them) 
 can reasonably be thought to have used Philo in the fashion 
 indicated by these coincidences. The idea that these bishops, 
 while composing, the one a letter to the Corinthians, the other 
 a treatise on the Holy Spirit, lingered over the pages of Philo 
 considering how best they might make Philo’s ideas, and still 
 more Philo’s Greek, serve their own purpose, is too ludicrous to 
 
 1 “ This passage is directly quoted by Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12 (p. 693), by 
 Origen de Princ. ii. 6 (I. pp. 82, 83), Select, in Ezech. viii. 3 (III. p. 422), by 
 Jerome ad Ephes. ii. 2 (VII. p. 571).” Lightfoot. It is also quoted, and in 
 some respects more completely, by Didymus, Expos, in Ps. cxxxviii. (LXX. ) 9 
 (p. 1596, Migne). He does not, however, mention Clement’s name. It becomes 
 an interesting question whether Philo’s words suggested the sentence, as 
 obviously they might have done, or simply its position in § 20. It is worth 
 observing that Clem. Alex, ushers in the subject with vvoriPiTou. Accordingly, 
 Cod. 126 has this word exactly in the parallel passage. Clem. Alex, also has a 
 curious atuvvpus, which Sylburg would change to cwuvvpus. It was doubtless 
 the scribe’s mistake or — joke. At any rate, the name of Clement of Rome is not 
 mentioned. 
 
262 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 be entertained for one moment. We shall produce presently 
 a writer who did this kind of thing, but he lived in times when 
 men went back to ancient books for their Greek, and desired 
 nothing so much as to be able to write in the style of an old 
 author. It is obviously natural to conclude from the coinci- 
 dences before us, that the writer of Clement’s Epistles was 
 also the writer of De Spir. Sand. xxix. It is, however, possible 
 that Basil’s expression ttotuiJjOjv pg/$pa may have been a sug- 
 gestion to others besides ourselves to consult Philo. 
 
 Before we pass on to our second point, we must call special 
 attention to an expression of which Clement makes use. On 
 the words Koiffiv Zfijoig kvt&riKkii rpotpijv, Lightfoot says, “ comp. 
 Epiphanes in Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 2, p. 512 %X/og zoivoig 
 rpo(pccg c (Jmg oLnctaiv MvccTiKksi (mss. c&vuTzKkziv), which closely 
 resembles our Clement’s language here” ( vid . sup. p. 258). 
 If Clem. Alex, had written these words, it would no doubt be 
 concluded that he had taken them from Clement of Rome. It 
 is necessary, therefore, to consider whether there is anything to 
 show that we have not stumbled upon a “striking” but still 
 purely accidental coincidence. The quotation from Epiphanes 
 in Clem. Alex, runs on to the middle of p. 513. At the top of 
 p. 514, Epiphanes is again quoted. At the conclusion of this 
 second quotation Clem. Alex, says zcci rocvroc o'l yzvvaioi 
 KccpTOZpccTtuvof doy/aar/tyva/. Our Clement has rwv 
 / AtOLriGi/jbotJv in the same sentence with the words under con- 
 sideration. Clem. Alex, after one line proceeds, ov yap 
 ciyccyrrjv eiToifA av sycoys rrjv Gvvikwciv ctvrav. Comp. Clement’s 
 ffvvehevffeig avrcov in § 20 (obs.), quoted above. After a few 
 lines we observe in a quotation from Xanthus an example of 
 the use of Ozerov without a negative. Our Clement’s Ep. 
 i. 63 begins with Qzfj,iT 0 V ovv, and Lightfoot remarks that “ the 
 use of this word seems to be extremely rare, except with a 
 negative.” 2iwsXs vffig is not a common word. As it stands 
 in Clem. Alex, it suggests a double meaning ; and as it stands 
 in our Clement it is capable, as Lightfoot points out, of such 
 double meaning. 2 vvovaioc is another and classical word of the 
 same kind. It may be remembered that a joke by pseudo- 
 Agatharchides in the use of this last word has been pointed 
 out on p. 236. If, for this reason , we turn to the excerpts, we 
 find, a few lines below the use of the word, ovh \ rqv ikuyjcrriv 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 263 
 
 'bihoctGiv hvoiocv. Comp. Clement’s gXa%/ora, and observe that 
 (. MTocnGipocbihoaGiv (A.) or pLZTccbihbuGiv (C.) is here in § 20. 
 The words of the excerpt are not in Diodorus, and they may 
 be remembered as supplying a possible indication of a joint 
 authorship of the excerpts and Clement’s Epistle. 
 
 We turn now to the parallel passage in Diodorus (iii. 17, 
 p. 186). We find ourselves in pages over which not pseudo- 
 Agatharchides only, but also pseudo-Galen, Tatius, and the 
 writer of the Oratio made themselves very merry. The close 
 connection between pseudo-Agatharchides and Clement has 
 been pointed out on p. 220. We naturally, therefore, consider 
 how our pseudo-Clement, w r ith his proneness to parody, of 
 which we have already had so many examples, would be likely 
 to contemplate these pages. Diodorus’ narrative, we may 
 remark, cannot possibly be read without a smile at least ( vid . 
 sup. p. 236). We observe at once npog rfjv . . . ccTro'kavGiv 
 (obs.) in a sentence which speaks of babes in their mothers’ 
 arms, and children weaned from their mothers’ milk, of 
 y\vx,sav (obs. p. 261) vhdrtav to which the people young and 
 old hurry on t\ j ts/att?] (yjfjbs pa), and which could not fail to 
 recall to the recollection of a student of Philo, in search of a 
 parody, the passage which we have shown to have been used in 
 Clement § 20. On the preceding page we observe ag Gvp>- 
 [Lirpug fypccvOeiffag (comp. Basil) zuQ'iGuvTig zuTSvaypvvTui, ov 
 p>rjv irpog [LSTpov rj gtmQujOv IcOtovreg, ccXKd ftpog ty\v ihfav 
 S/cugtov fiov’krjGiv . . . ocftokcivakcog (obs.) 7repiypu(p7]V' avszXsiT- 
 rcog (obs.) . . . g lg rr\v yfpGov xv\iv^e7rott zvfjboc . . . tu, [mv yap 
 ZVT7} GVVTplfioVGl . . . T7jV GwlyplUV T 00 V TTVeUf/jCCTOUV. Comp, 
 with those portions of Clement’s § 20, which have been 
 quoted on p. 261. In the same section Clement has xura to 
 O e'krjf/ja gcvtov ro7g ihtotg ... to zvTog . . . sag abs fy&ig, zcti to. 
 
 KV(JjUTU GOV Iv G01 GVVTplfiqGSTCll . . . C&VSfJbaV GTuQ{/j01 %MTU TOV 
 
 ihiov Kuipov ttjv XsiTovpyiocv clvtuv awpoaxoTag (vid. sup. p. 24) 
 IthtsXovgiv. On ocvspoav gtuQ[/j 0 i, Lightfoot says, “ From Job 
 xxviii. 25 kroirjGSv £g avs^av GTccQfJbov zui vhuTav p£rpa, where 
 it means ‘ weight,’ as the original shows.” Comp, with Dio- 
 dorus. See also p. 114, where the alteration in meaning is 
 mentioned along with one or two other changes of a similar 
 character. With Clement, comp, also ovy) TruvTtg sigi Xs /- 
 Tovpyizu TTVivpjUTa z.t.K., Heb. i. 14. Observe Diodorus’ 
 
264 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 ‘7rv&v(/jCCT&)v (ventorum). Heb. i. 12 may also be used in 
 § 20. In chap. ii. 2 we remark nuGu TrupdficcGig. Clement 
 has hi'xcc TrocGrig Tccpa/SccGS^g (C. wupexficiartcug, A.). Verse 4 
 runs (rvvi‘7n(Jijocprvpovvrog tov @s ov (ryjfjbu'oig ts xai ripuai, xoci 
 < zoi7ti\cug hvvdfjbSGt, xcci Tvsvf/jMTog ayiov fJoepiGyrng, xctTci r/jv 
 ccvtov OtkYiGiv. Comp, the last clause with Clement, and the 
 remainder of the verse with Basil, quoted on p. 260. This 
 last coincidence draws the connection between Basil and 
 Clement much closer. Other things will be pointed out 
 directly in Diodorus, but these amply suffice to show the use 
 to which his pages were put by Clement, as well as by the 
 other writers mentioned above, for it would be unreasonable 
 to contend that the coincidences which have been pointed out 
 between Diodorus’ account of the Ichthyophagi, and Clement’s 
 Hexsemeron, as we may call it, have accidentally arisen. We 
 must remember that it was pseudo- Agatharchides’ jesting use 
 of the GvvovGtoc (GWikzvGig in Clement) which guided us to 
 Diodorus. 
 
 If any one is curious to know the way in which Clement 
 has built up the sentence containing gvvi\i vGig, and con- 
 trived to combine, as it were, its two meanings, he may look 
 back to p. 130, where it is shown that the word is found in 
 Basil’s Horn, in Ps. cxxxii. (LXX.). We shall not repeat 
 what is there said, but we may return for one moment to the 
 Homily, We observe jJ y,\v VKoOtGig tuv ocieXQuv (comp, with 
 Basil, quoted on p. 260) GvyzporqGicog lx tie iov '7rpoGTccyp,ctTog 
 dvv7rzpfi\7]T0v iiy$. to kuXov, with r?jg lx, tov TrXrjGiov dyd^rrig 
 after one line. Comp, u (JbsydXrjg ctydirrig, u reXsior^rog 
 dwftipfrkriTOV. Clem. Ep, i. 53. This adds another to the 
 coincidences pointed out on p. 130. The coincidence with 
 the passage from De Spir, Sand, xxix. confirms the view which 
 we have been taking of the connection of Clement with that 
 chapter ( vid , infr. p. 271, n.). 
 
 We can now hardly doubt that our Clement made use of the 
 quotation from Epiphanes, found in Clem. Alex. There is 
 still, however, something to be said. Lightfoot supposes 
 Clement to mean by his ol fJbsr ocvtov koG(/jOI , “ some unknown 
 land in the far west beyond the ocean,” and says that u tin's 
 interpretation is quite consistent with the fact that Clement 
 below (§ 33) speaks of the ocean as to Tsp/s%ov rrjv yrjv vfia p.” 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 265 
 
 So in the quotation from Epiphanes, a few lines above the 
 words cited, we find . . . ovpavog, zvrSku ryjv yqv nspisypi naGav. 
 In § 33, 1 Clement writes : — 
 
 aurbg yap 6 drjfiioupybg xa / decrorrig ruv arrdvruv eni roTg epyoig 
 aurov ayaXX/arai' ru) yap ‘Ta/x/ueyedeordru aurou xpdrei oupavoug 
 iffrfjpiffev, xai rfj dxaraXrjnru aurou cuv'eoei diexoafiriGev auroug * yrjv re 
 hieydpiGiv (ey^dpiGev, Damasc.) anb too repi'eyovrog aurijv udarog xai 
 t\ dpaffsv eri tov acfiaXij rov idiou fiouXijf/jarog 6e/j,eXiov \rd re ev avrfj 
 ^uia poiruvra rrj eaurou diara^ei exeXeuGev s/va /* OaXaGGav re xai rd ev 
 aurrj ^tia rrpobrifiioupyriGag e v'exXeice (C. ev'exXicev, A.) rfj eaurou 8uv a/£s/]. 
 erri naGi to e^o^drarov xai <7ra l a[Leye6eg [xara diavo/av"], avQpunov, ra7g 
 Upa7g xai djxdjaoig yzpGiv errXaGe, rr\g eaurou e/xovoc yapaxrr\pa . 
 
 This section forms a supplement to § 20, and was plainly 
 written at the same time ; for, if we take up Diodorus exactly 
 where we left off, we find in the same sentence with 5/a rijv 
 Gvvsyyiav ruv vrvsvf/jdruv (yid. sup. p. 263) the words zai rr\v 
 siuQv7av Orjpav ruv iyfivuv szzXsig/i. Compare. Above, in 
 Diodorus, we observe syzezXifJbs'vuv, which would, with s xxXufffj, 
 naturally suggest both the true and the corrupt (?) reading. 
 Diodorus proceeds si $g j\ sz ruv zbyypv rpo<p?j GKaviZyi, zara- 
 <ps vyovGiv S7ri rov ruv azavOuv Gupov (yid. sup. p. 237). We 
 take up the words of Clement in § 20 also where we left off 
 (vid. sup. p. 261) . . . KpoGsrafev shut (cf. § 33), svspysruv 
 rd Tavroc, VTSps zvrspiGGug £g 7][bdg rovg GrpoGrrs^svyorag ro7g 
 oiznpfJsoTg avrov z.r.X. Comp, with Diodorus. Now mark 
 the connection of ideas. Comp, zai VTspTSp/GGug (vTrspsz- 
 TTSptGGug, v.l. d.u.i. Alf.) s\s %k7\GGovro> \syovrsg , K a\ug vravra 
 rrsxoirizs (= Clement’s svspysruv rd navra) z.r.X. S. Mark 
 vii. 37. The miracle of the feeding of the four thousand im- 
 mediately follows. Comp. Diodorus’ rpoQrj Gnavi^si. The 
 GTrkayyyiZypjai of S. Mark viii. 2 plainly suggests the oiznp- 
 (jjo7g of Clement. There will be no further doubt as to the 
 use of Diodorus. 
 
 1 This passage is found in J. Damasc. Sacr. Par. lit. A, tit. viii. p. 310, 
 also in some extracts under the name of Leontius and John (still in ms. Cod. 
 Gh'cec. Vat. 1553, f. 22 ; Lightfoot, Addend, p. 426). The words in brackets 
 are, however, peculiar to our Clement, and special notice should be taken of this 
 circumstance in considering the coincidences which will be given out of Philo 
 and Diodorus. It will be a question whether the page of Philo suggested the 
 composition of the passage, or merely its position in our Epistle. Leontius and 
 John and the Damascene are not independent of one another, as the omissions 
 and a peculiar reading so-rara belonging to them both sufficiently show. 
 
266 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 We turn now to Philo, and go on with the first passage 
 ( vid . sup. p. 260) exactly where we left off . . . Grdvra rd Zfoa. 
 [Lera he ravrd QqGiv, on "E GrXaGev 6 Geog dvOpooGrov, yjovv 
 Xc&i Qoov aGeo rrjg yrjg, xai eve$vGr\Gev e Ig to gtpogoogtov avrov Grvorjv 
 Zp)Y\g. evapyeGrara zai hia rovrov gt ap Igtyigiv, on hia<popa 
 woijJjfAeysflqg, fan rod re vvv GchaG&evrog d vQpcoGrov, zai rov zard 
 rrjv eizova Seov yeyovorog Grporepov, with Qvqrov [Lev zard to 
 gm/JjCc, zard 5g rr\v hiavoiav aOavarov a few lines below. Comp, 
 with Clement’s § 33. 
 
 We now go on with the passage from Philo (p. 8), and once 
 more exactly where we left off : g/ra hiazoG[L Civ dpyerai rrjv 
 yrjv (vid. sup. p. 261). On p. 10, Philo has 6 Sg ovpavog hiezoG- 
 p>eiro. Comp, with § 33. 
 
 We do not observe rot Zfoa (poirovvra in Philo. We find 
 the expression, however, a few pages further on in Diodorus : 
 hid rrjv hi'ipccv Zfocov (poirojvrav fan rov togtov. c. xxxvi. p. 202. 
 N coOpov follows after a few lines in Diodorus, and vooQpog is 
 found in the second line of Clement’s § 34. If our readers 
 will consult Diodorus, they will understand why Clement 
 speaks, as he does, of the good workman and his reward. 
 
 We must return for a moment to Philo. On p. 19 he has 
 hrjXov ydp cog evyoapeGrepov rov rd p>r\ ovra e ig to that Gtapaya- 
 ye7v z.rX. Comp, with Theoph. iii., quoted on p. 122, also 
 with o Ik rov [lt\ ovrog g ig to ehai Gcapayayuv GVfLGravra, 6 
 zriGag rov avQpooGrov Tear eizova zai 6[loIcogiv, zai Gcavrl gov 
 ypcpiGpjOcri zarazoG[L^Gag, zai hihovg alrovvn Go^lav zai GvveGiv. 
 Chrys. Lit. tom. iv. p. 525. Wust. (Prayer of the Trisagion.) 
 Comp, with Clement’s § 33. After three lines we find zai 
 Grp0G7reGe7v ro7g oiznp[Lo7g gov. 1 Comp, with Clement’s § 20. 
 Comp, also Clement’s § 9 literal yevoyoevoi rov eheovg zai rrjg 
 XprjGrorrjrog avrov GrpoGGrfaoopjev zai eGriGrpe^coybev IgtI rovg 
 olzr ipybovg avrov . In the liturgy ev r5j yjpriGrorYirl gov follows 
 after two lines. Clement has directly areviGcoybev elg rovg 
 reXelcog XeirovpyrjGavrag r/j... ho%rj avrov. A few lines above, 
 in the liturgy, we observe elg Xeirovpylav rrjg Gr\g ho\r\g. 
 
 1 The Liturgia Constantinopolitana (ad normam hodie acceptam) is given in 
 Liturgies Eastern and Western , Hammond. Oxford 1878. The omission of 
 the words to which this note is appended forms the only noticeable verbal 
 difference between the two versions of the Prayer of the Trisagion. Two or 
 three lines at the end are indeed also omitted, but they are found immediately 
 above the prayer in the liturgy printed amongst S. Chrysostom’s works. 
 
CLEMENT. 
 
 267 
 
 In the liturgy, in the next line but one to \v r/j xpyjGrbrrjrt 
 gov, we find . . . hsGTrorcc . . . iv OGioryjn, and, a few lines above, 
 GryoGniGooiLiv Xp/<rr£. In § 48, Clement has TpoGTZGcopjSV rco 
 hsGTor?}, followed after a few lines by iv oGiorqrt. 
 
 The close connection between our Clement and the liturgies, 
 and specially S. Mark’s and the Clementine, is acknowledged. 
 We doubt not that the writer of Ep. i. intended that it should 
 be supposed to be in some sort the parent of the liturgies of 
 the church. It is a trap into which every one must fall, as 
 we did ourselves, who holds Clement’s Ep. i. to be genuine. 
 From the coincidences with S. Mark’s liturgy, it cannot be 
 determined whether Clement copied or was copied. The fore- 
 going coincidences, however, seem to show that he was the 
 copyist. The question is capable of a more decisive answer. 
 
 In the Epistola ad Theopliilum we find a liturgical section. 
 The writer, addressing the emperor (obs.), has afizg rovg vzvz- 
 zpa[dzvovg iv ctGefieiot, fiuGiXelg Occ^cci . . . ccgs/ 3 auv yap not, romi- 
 rrrovruv, hi'zcc ioi ez<po/3oj yivovroti. ri ovv zed gv beyoeQl hzG^orcc 
 . . . I'TCifih&'iftov ird rqv TpoGSv^v rcov roetfeivav, zed pjrj i\ovhzvw- 
 G\ ig rr\v hzr\Giv ctvruv . . . rovg \v OXfyei ‘TccpcczccXsGov . . . rovg 
 uiyjjjoCkurovg uvoezezXzGai, rovg iGzop e riG[hivovg x iTriGvvuyccyz 
 zed Gvvccipov rrjv ay. zciQoX. zed ccwoGr. izzX. . . . s ig ficcQuuv 
 upyjvyjv . . . i^iyzipov zed oizrziprjGov rov Xcc bv gov, rov hitGzopftiG- 
 peivov zed foeGTCipfAmv, ojg air oXooXora Tpofiarec oizov ’Lrpa^A. 
 § 29. Comp, odgiovfjuzv gs , hsGTorcc . . . rovg iv OXfyzt (obs.) 
 yjf/j&jv gojgov rovg rccnrzivovg (obs.) eXsqGOV rovg TZTcruzbreig 
 (obs.) g ysipov ro7g bzop/ezvoig (obs.) s<r/<pa inj0f rovg aGsfieTg (obs.) 
 ’/ccGar . . . XvrpuGeei rovg hsGf/jiovg (obs.) jjf/jav . . . xapa- 
 zaXeGov (obs.) rovg oXiyo^vyovvrag . . . 7ip>zig Xccog gov zed 
 •rpOjSara (obs.) rijg vop>yjg gov, and presently d<peg yjpuv z.r.X. 
 Clem. Ep. i. 59. Clement uses S. Marc. Lit. Ren. p. 138. 
 Now, observe, in S. Mark’s liturgy, immediately above the 
 passage used, we find rug irriGwoeycoydg riphuv . . . i%zyip0rjn, 
 K^p/s, zod bioeGzopTriG&TirMGoev ot iyfipoi gov . . . rov hi Xccov gov 
 z.r.X. Compare with Theophilus. Observe also, and this 
 especially, that on Clement’s hiGnoru, Lightfoot notes “ Domine 
 bone S.” Comp, with Theophilus. We shall now understand 
 Clement’s GCGsfeTg, which has caused the editors some perplexity, 
 
 1 Cf. fia.6 . . . . up. . . . rov; \ffxoptf. ivriffvvay. . . . xut ffuv a*^. rn ccy. aav x.a.Qo'k. 
 
 kcc) Krtorr. ixxX. . . . ctl%uci\urovs . . . AnaphS. Bas. Hammond, p. 120. 
 
268 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 and which is not in S. Mark’s liturgy. The words rovg ev 
 O'ktyei are not in the liturgy. 
 
 Hitherto we have made no use of the Apostolical Consti- 
 tutions , though they are full of coincidences with Clement. 
 Annexed to the Constitutions are the Apostolical Canons. 
 These would seem to have been interpolated in the interest of 
 Clement’s Epistles (vid. Light, p. 274 sq.). Whether the 
 interpolator busied himself with the Constitutions as well as 
 with the Canons , is one of the questions which has to be con- 
 sidered, and on which we shall endeavour to throw some 
 light. 
 
 On Clement’s Ep. i. 20, Lightfoot ( Addend . p. 419) quotes 
 from Apost. Const, viii. 12 (Clementine liturgy), and says that 
 “the resemblances” which he points out “cannot be accidental.” 
 This chapter is given by Hammond (p. 95) as the Eucharistic 
 Preface , and he says in a note, “ With much of what follows, 
 cf. 1 Clem. c. xx.” Now it happens that in this chapter, 
 which is thus confessedly connected with Clement’s § 20, the 
 writer uses the words which we have produced first out of 
 Philo, then out of Theophilus , and S. Chrysostom’s Prayer of 
 the Trisagion . If we run our eye down the chapter, we are 
 struck not merely by the resemblances with Clement’s § 20, 
 of which Lightfoot speaks, but also by what seem to be recol- 
 lections of the various points specially noticed in the pages of 
 Diodorus, which lie open before us for the examination of 
 Clement’s § 20, and which have been previously examined in 
 connection with pseudo-Agatharchides, etc. 
 
 We will take fifty lines only for consideration. They 
 include the resemblances to which Lightfoot has called atten- 
 tion. 
 
 With Philo, etc., the writer has 6 roc Truvru ex rov pbrj ovrog 
 tig to ehoti ‘Tccpayccycuv. We turn to Philo (p. 19), and find 
 after a few lines, on p. 20, irpog dvrohotuv, and almost directly 
 hio xoci Qzuffdif/jevci kocvtol hid ttmtoov rjfJbtpaQr], 1 with ccTiQotGGOvg 
 after one line. In Apost. Const, we find ryPepoig xoti dritodaGoig, 
 and a little above 6 Toifrag vhcop Tpog kogiv xoci xctQotpaiv, depot 
 Zjunxov orpog (obs.) e hxvotjv (“ Vind. add. xoti dvocTvofjv, quod 
 
 1 Philo proceeds : xx) otrx <njv (pu<riv xypieorxrx, xxrx rb v •rpeornv svDus ‘Tp'offo^/ti 
 ly'iviro xuponO'itrrxrx, rxs /x\v xri6x<r<rovt Xwrraj x.r.x. The words may be re- 
 membered, for we shall find some presently (p. 273) very like them in Diodorus. 
 
CONSTITUTIONES. 
 
 269 
 
 arridet Clerico,” Ultzen) zcci (pcovyjg ccToht offiv (obs.) . . . Tpog 
 evheiag u,V0L7r\rip60(nv. These words bring up the discussions on 
 p. 236 of the use of Diodorus’ pages now before us by pseudo- 
 Agatharchides, the gvvovgioc and ccvccttvotj re zed (pcovri (obs. 
 combination) of pseudo-Galen, and the (poovrjv KTrdhihdv (obs. 
 combination) of the Oratio. If we turn to Diodorus (p. 186), 
 we find rrjv dcvocTXrjpcoGii/ rrjg evheiocg. Compare. From the pre- 
 ceding line <7rpdg octoXocvgiv was taken into Clement’s § 20, into 
 one of the sentences for which Lightfoot produces (out of the 
 fifty lines before us) a coincidence which, standing as it does 
 with others, he thinks cannot be accidental. 
 
 In these lines we also observe gv 7 oip el 6 tov ovpccvov cog 
 zccfjbdpccv GrriGag z-t.\., Isa. xl. 10. For the discussion 011 
 zccfjjccpa , vid. sup. pp. 68 sq., 106 sq. The word is here in 
 Diodorus on p. 188, and in the next line avTohihazTOV Teyyriv. 
 Here, in the Constitutions , we remark rj c&hihazTog goQioc, 6 
 Trpcorog r/j (pvGei zoct (Jbdvog, with hid tov (Jbovoyevovg after one 
 line. In the parallel passage in the excerpt we remark qogti 
 of/joyevovg oyzov zoci [Liocv tyvciv eypvrog. This looks very like 
 a joke, for Diodorus contents himself with rrjv (pvGtv g^s;. The 
 excerpt has zopvpccg, and after three lines a and in the 
 next line opei and ffeGapevTcci. Diodorus has these words. So 
 also in our fifty lines we observe GeGojpevpj'evoc. and in the next 
 line dfjjf/jov , and in the next zopvpcuv eig opecov. The excerpt 
 (not Diodorus) has (pariZjziv , and so also the Apost. Const. It 
 will be remembered that the excerpt, though it borrows 
 zccfjodpa, from this place of Diodorus, does not use it here but 
 in c. xxx. Turning to the passage, we find ourselves in the 
 near neighbourhood of KepiGpiylguvTeg, which forms part of a 
 coincidence both with Theophilus and Tatius (vid. sup. p. 220). 
 A little above it are KepiO'evreg , Tcpaivvovai (not in Diodorus). 
 In our fifty lines is TrepiGCpiy^ocg, with f iripiQeig and ‘xpccvvoov a 
 little above. Lastly, we observe in our fifty lines 0 rrjv fjoeyoc- 
 Xw QccXocgggcv ypopiaag rrjg z.r.X. Comp, with Clement’s § 33, 
 quoted on p. 265. 
 
 It is impossible that these singular coincidences can have 
 accidentally arisen. One explanation of them alone seems 
 possible. Clement’s Epistle, the excerpts from Agatharchides, 
 and that portion of the Clementine liturgy which we have been 
 examining, must have been written virtually by the same hand. 
 
270 
 
 FEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 If any one is curious to know more about our fifty lines and 
 their neighbourhood, he may learn a great deal by very care- 
 fully reading Euseb. De Laud . Const, vi. The coincidences 
 there, both with the Apost . Const, here and Clement’s § 20, 
 are too numerous and too noticeable to have accidentally 
 arisen. For example, we find there zpeirrwv Travrog upidpjov, 
 with ctipzrrjpiug not far off, just as we find them here in the 
 Apost. Const. We also find there the word ^sraTapad/Sa^/. 
 Clement uses it in § 20, and Lightfoot says “ again a rare 
 word, of which a few instances are collected in Hase and 
 Dindorf’s Steph . Thes .” We do not know whether the instance 
 we have supplied is among them. We shall have occasion 
 presently to refer to Eusebius’ treatise. 
 
 We must now return to Basil’s De Spir. Sand. We started 
 with the intention of showing that the writer of Clement’s 
 Epistle borrowed from Basil’s c. xxix. We think that we have 
 proved this to be the case, if we believe c. xxix. to be genuine 
 (vid. sup. p. 261 sq.). We have seen reason, however, for 
 supposing Erasmus’ suspicions to have been well founded. 
 
 2. We now go on to show that the author of Cod. 126 used 
 (if he was not the author of it) Basil’s c. xxix. 
 
 From what has been already pointed out, it is quite plain 
 that these two writings are closely connected. Cod. 126 
 singles out three matters in Clement’s Ep. i. for censure. The 
 second of these relates to the phoenix, which is not mentioned 
 by Basil. The first matter for blame is found in § 20, the third 
 in § 61 (as well as elsewhere). These two sections are united 
 by the doxology which they have in common with Africanus, as 
 quoted by Basil. We have further found our way, on the sug- 
 gestion of an expression of which Basil makes use, to the very 
 words in § 20 of which Cod. 126 complains. Basil supplies us, 
 moreover, with two examples of the use of so much 
 
 disliked (?) by the author of Cod. 126. We find these things 
 here in Basil, and yet turn to c. xxix. only because it professes 
 to contain a quotation from Clement, and because Erasmus 
 ventured to pronounce this with some other chapters to be 
 spurious. Cod. 126 is short, and some coincidences with other 
 writings have been pointed out ; we cannot therefore expect 
 to find in Basil many resemblances in language. He has, 
 however, a sentence which might well have been written by 
 
DE SPIRITU SANCTO. 
 
 271 
 
 the author of Cod. 126. Shortly before the quotation (p. 61) 
 from Africanus, Basil says that Origen’s opinions concerning 
 the Holy Spirit were not in all respects sound : TrXtjv aXXa 
 TroXXayov real ccurog , rrjg ffvvijtiua eg to layppov hvGouTrovfJbevog, Tag 
 evtrefisTg (p&tvag aprjze Tspi tov II vtvpjaTog. Comp, with Cod. 
 126 (vid. sup. p. 249). The general parallel and ring of the 
 sentence have to be considered, as well as the verbal coinci- 
 dences. 
 
 3. We have now to show that we have good reason for 
 believing that the close of De Spir. Sand, belongs to our group 
 of writings. 
 
 In the words last quoted we observe ffvvrj^stu. This word 
 comes up again and again in the chapters before us. Thus 
 we find it very early in c. xxix. : — 
 
 urrccpidfjjriffof/jou ovv v/jL/v rovg rrpodrdrag (first use of the word) rov 
 Xbyov' ov yap y\/xuv up/irjrai rrpurov, to&zv ; X&i^o't ring ovrug y/xeTg, 
 Kara r'ov rov Tdj3 Xoyov, rrpog ys rodovrov xpovov, rov rjjg duvrjfofag ravrrjg 
 TjXrxiurrjv. lyu fiz v ovv avrbg, si ^prj /xs rov/xov 7 diov um?v, went p nvd 
 xXrjpov rrurpuov rrjv < puvrjv ravrr\v diutpvXdrru, rrapaXafiuv x.r.X. 
 
 Diodorus, in the pages already so familiar to us, has a notice- 
 able passage : — 
 
 dXX 1 o/xug oi xaroixovvrzg . . . ovy oTov (pzvyziv (3ovXovrut . . . svsxa 
 rov (X7\ fiiadQrivai diairqg zrepag xai fitov mipu§r\vai. ovrug avrotpveg 1 
 zyji n cpiXrpov rrada duvrjdrjg (obs.) ydpa, xai rrzpiy'mrai rr\g lx ruv 
 dlpuv xaxovaQz'tag b yjpovog (obs.), 6 rr^v lx vr^iov rrapaXafiuv (obs.) 
 TjXixtav (obs.), p. 199. 
 
 Pseudo- Agatharchides writes : — 
 
 ovrug zyit n piXrpov (izya rtdda dvvrjQeia (obs.), xai vix a rr\v drrb rov 
 rrzpisyovrog bvoylpuav o yjpbvog o rqv rrpurriv (obs.) bi^d[xzvog s/g rov (3iov 
 rjXixia v. c. xxxii. 2 
 
 1 Comp, to S’ ivtp'upyov {vid. Cod. 126, quoted on p. 249) sl$ a.<pp<3 iryv HSiov 
 fAuXXov rov orokvorpayfAovos. avroQvri yap i%u t*jv faovbv. Achill. Tat. V. 27. 
 
 2 This chapter is headed: “ Quod non tanta locorum sit distantia, quanta 
 morum .” Just above, the writer uses 1 Cor. xii. as we have shown on p. 224. 
 Here he seems to have 1 Cor. xiii. in mind {vid. Basil, quoted on p. 260). 
 Just above the words now quoted he has uXk’ opus, rotruvrtis ovtrns tUs ro?nx?js 
 ’Siuo’ruffiuf, u)>vTtp(iX*iTov t%ov<ri <Tpos iXXriXous (one Would expect ayavrtiv) . . . rbv 
 ^/a^epetv, cirri •xumvitrSou tf/ip ir'ipots too •xup aXXois rvv^n ts xut ofiokoyov/u.ivot, 
 fjonVt trrtyitv x.r.k. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 7 T<x,vra trrtyu, oravTa •xurrivu. Vid. 
 sup. p. 264, where a coincidence is shown, in which iwr'ipPXvTo? is concerned, 
 with the very place of Basil where 1 Cor. xiii. is used. Of the use of this 
 chapter we shall have a curious confirmation presently (p. 275). The thing is 
 of importance only as showing that the same hand is at work. 
 
272 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 If we can find another passage in De S pir; Sand. c. xxix. 
 which takes us to exactly the same spot in Diodoriis and the 
 excerpts from Agatharchides, the two passages will support 
 one another in their seeming use of Diodorus. 
 
 We shall now give the second example of the use of <rpo< 7 - 
 Tccrqg. Basil writes : nag ovv zaivoTogbog syco, zai vscoTspcov 
 pypurcov hrjpjiovpyog . . . zai eOog vrdffrjg fJwrjfJtsTjg d vOpooTivr,g 
 KpsafivTSpov, zai avhpag . . . npoGTaTag rrjg (pcovrjg Trapsyp^og ; 
 with to sz Trig Xs \iwg yprjGigjOv four lines above, and cog sgboiys 
 ovhh (pofispcoTSpov nine lines below. In Bibl. 213, Photius (?) 
 describes the writings of Agatharchides (obs.), and says, akT 
 si Tig akXog hrjgbiovpyog Trjg Trip) Tag "hs^sig yprjGeoog, and after 
 two lines cog t/jv ts zamToguiav [hr\ hozsiv shai zaivoTopj'iav, zai 
 to (Tufieg ovz sXccttov tcov s\ sOovg Xs|s uv vrapsysiv (ending a 
 sentence, obs.), with aXka yap sgcoiys hozs7 ovhlv ska ttov a few 
 lines below, and sig ^vrigoriv dvaysi, h do zai TSTa vaOai tov 
 ypapziv hiu Tivdg ts ahiag z.t.X. a few lines above. Comp, 
 these last words with the ojv rj Tp doTr\ hi’ ah lag avTovg ay si . . . 
 TravGacQai tov zazov in the opening lines of Cod. 126, quoted 
 on p. 248. The resemblances between Cod. 126 and Cod. 213 
 are perfectly natural, and indicate the same hand. But the 
 resemblances between Basil and Cod. 213 are precisely of the 
 same character, and in fairness should be held to point to the 
 same conclusion. There is evidence close at hand to show that 
 this is the necessary conclusion. 
 
 Seeing that Agatharchides appears to be in Basil’s mind, it 
 is natural to consider whether we can observe at this point 
 any recollections of the forged excerpts from Agatharchides. 
 The eye falls almost directly upon the words h FhsvyoaTi 
 T’paoTriTog za i dyanrig zaTaGTaXrjvai * si h’ dpa TavTSKcog 
 s^rjypicovTai zai dTiOaaasvToog s yovtuv. The word aTiQaGtJSVTog 
 is not common. In Cod. 250, c. xxxviii., just above the account 
 of the “ carnivorous bull,” we find dypiov Sg VTsp/3oXrj zai 
 TsXsicog aTiQaGGSVTOv , zai tt}v o^iv s g>(paivov and ts tcov otppvcov 
 za) tcov b(/j[jjdTcov avGTrjpav. Comp, with Basil. The latter 
 part of the sentence has been quoted on p. 100, in illustration 
 of the very passage from the Evang. Thom, which we have 
 found a little while ago to be so closely connected with 
 Clement (vid. sup. p. 255). It will be remembered that the 
 close connection between these forged excerpts and Clement 
 
DE SPIRITU SANCTO. 
 
 273 
 
 has been several times pointed out. Now, observe, if we turn 
 to Diodorus (iii. 35) we find aypiovTCcrcc Sg rccvrcc too Zpjoo zoo) 
 •jroovrzXag gotiQcoggzvtgo rrjv cotto roov otppvuv GrpoGo^iv ocvGT^po- 
 Tspa v g^g/. (See note on p. 268.) The GtuvTikoig tells a tale. 
 A few lines below, in the account of the bull, 1 Diodorus has 
 the word pofieparspoc, which we have just seen in Basil, whose 
 sentence we will quote, together with a few additional 
 words : — 
 
 I'x'i rovroig ro koXs/joixov rovro xa§ yj/uouv Gvyxsx/vrirai Gr/pog. nraGa d's 
 rroXig xa) xw/ 4?], xa/ zGyarta) naGai, ^Xripug ruv Yjfjosrspuv diafioXuv, and 
 after two lines npog rovroig xa/' fypog G7 iX(3o{jgQo), xa / vsXsxvg axovaGdu, 
 xa) ‘Trvp xaisGdu rov Ba(3vXuv/ou Gpodpbrspov , xa i <nruv xivsigSoj Ip r t (jj ag 
 bpyavov xoXaGrqpiov' ug sp>oiys oi/dsv pofispdrspov x.r.X. 
 
 The excerpt does not use (pofiepurspog where Diodorus does. 
 A few lines below, however, where Diodorus has nothing of 
 the kind, the excerpt has GtpohporBpGcv, and after two lines 
 •xpoiov (obs.) rov ccypiov, ojgts (Jjti&Iv tojv uKkcov vopotZpiv (joyitz 
 rifjjspourspov (Jjtjts (pofispvrepov. Comp, with Basil. We turn 
 back again in the excerpts to cc. xxxiii., xxxiv. (same p. 455), 
 which we shall give entire : — 
 
 c. xxxiii. or/ oi xara rrjv * Apafiiav Xsovrsg, pr\Gi y ^ iXorspoi /zsv s/Gt 
 xa) OpaGvrspoi, r& ^pdfian ds ojxaXoi xa&avrsp oi yi\b[Lsvoi mpi rrjv 
 Ba(3uXuv!av (obs.) ovru ds roTg rpryd^aGi Gr/X(3ovrsg (obs.) wore aero 
 tuv av^svuv ^avOorrira arroXa/jj^siv yjpvGp vra paGrXyjGiav. c. xxxiv. 
 (<rs pi fjjvp/AYixoXsovruv) robv ds xaXov/xsvwv fjjvpfjjrjxuv oi /xsv rcXsToroi xara 
 rr\v ideav ruv Xo/ttuiv ovdsv rrapaXXarrovGi , ryjv ds ruv a/doiuv puG/v avcsG- 
 rpa/a/xsvriv s yovgiv, svavr/av roTg aXXoig. 
 
 These words, which follow those quoted on p. 271, have 
 nothing answering to them in Diodorus ; but since the writer 
 has been using iii. 34, and goes on to use c. 35, we turn to 
 Diodorus, and find. ,ro Tup, rag g GypoTicog, and Comp, 
 
 with Basil. We do not see rriXizvg. but we observe that the 
 elephant is here spoken of, and that the word g <goci(/jOg is used 
 both in Diodorus and the excerpts, which occurs, as we have 
 had occasion to point out, in the account of the elephant 
 hunters (vid. sup . p. 62), as given in the excerpt. We 
 remember that there great stress is laid upon the exceeding 
 
 1 Diodorus has here also uvarvs. This av-aryis is the very word taken by 
 Tatius (vid. sup. p. 225 ). Basil has it exactly a few lines below the passage 
 now in hand. In the excerpts we also observe orx'/iv on. See Cod. 126 . 
 
 S 
 
274 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 sharpness of the niXt zvg. These things lead us to look some- 
 what closer at the various passages before us. We observe 
 that Diodorus says that the inhabitants of the country which 
 he describes do not seek to escape the evils which surround 
 them, but willingly bear them hs&u rov fiiuGQrjvui bidtrocg 
 i iTspag xoci j 6/ov Tg/pa$^m/. ovrag uvrofiv eg n (piXrpov 
 vcdGd GVt/qOqg ( vid . sup. p. 271). The words are taken 
 
 over as we see in a somewhat altered form by the writer of 
 the excerpts. They are words likely to attract attention, and 
 Wesseling quotes Ovid in illustration of them. Tatius, more- 
 over, seems to have used them (vid. sup. p. 271 n.). They 
 very obviously, however, suggest Daniel, and the ol Itt'i rrjg 
 B ocfivXavioig Trcclbsg, as Basil calls them, as we shall see pre- 
 sently. Now, observe, exactly at this point the writer of the 
 excerpts breaks the thread of his connection with Diodorus, 
 and interpolates an account of the Arabian lions, being careful 
 to tell us that they are more fierce than the Babylonian lions. 
 He thought it unnecessary to describe these last. Does he 
 refer to those well-known lions of sacred story? A few lines 
 above the writer uses the word hbsXzxfig. It is not in 
 Diodorus, but it occurs several times in the narrative of 
 Daniel and the den of lions. 
 
 Now it must be observed that the writer of the excerpts 
 goes on immediately to speak srgp i f/jvpf/jtixoXeovTwv. This is 
 thoughtful of him, for in LXX. Job iv. 11, where (jjVpfA q- 
 zoXiuv is found, the meaning is not understood. 
 
 Strabo, in lib. xvi. p. 474, writes thus : wXtjQvzi S’ IXtyounv 
 7\ %apd (ccvro ryjg As tprjg ^s%p/ Noroy zepcug) zoci Xs ovai ro7g 
 zocXovpjkvoig fjbvpfjb^iv' dirsffrpdf/jfJijem b’ roc cuboid * xctl 
 
 yjpvGozibzig %poav, ikdrzpoi b\ ruv zoctcc ryv Apafituv. 
 Here then is the greater part of the language of the two 
 excerpts, which are obviously manufactured 1 out of Strabo, 
 with some little assistance from other sources. In lib. xvii. 42, 
 -ZElian has \v rrj B ccfivXwvicc (obs.) <y?j yivovrcu [JjVpfAyz eg z.r.X. 
 He goes on to speak of the TroipbaXig and then of the pivoxzpoog. 
 The editors suppose that he copied Agatharchides. -ZElian, in 
 describing the fight between the elephant and the rhinoceros, 
 uses the word KiXzxvg, as the writer of the excerpt does not. 
 Comp, with Basil. 
 
 1 This proves quite decisively that the excerpts from Agatharchides are forgeries. 
 
DE SP1RITU SANCTO. 
 
 275 
 
 The history of the two excerpts is now sufficiently explained. 
 The language is taken from Strabo and AElian. The Ba|3i>- 
 Xoovicc of the latter, together with the passage quoted above 
 from Diodorus, suggested the reference first to Dan. i., then to 
 Dan. vi. Now, observe, in Dan. i. 14 we are told that the 
 chief of the eunuchs g Treipcurev (obs.) Daniel and his friends, 
 and in ver. 15 that after a trial of ten days, when at ihscci 
 avroov were compared with those of the other youths, the com- 
 parison was in favour of Daniel and his friends. Comp, the 
 zcctu, rrjv tbkav roov Xomcov of pseudo- Agatharchides. 
 
 There seems, therefore, to be some good reason for conjec- 
 turing that the reference to the Babylonian lions in the 
 excerpt is only a sneering glance at the lions which spared 
 the life of Daniel. This makes the coincidence with Basil 
 more noticeable. If pseudo- Agatharchides was the writer of 
 the chapters of Basil’s De Spir. Sand, now under consideration, 
 the coincidences which have been pointed out would have a 
 natural explanation. 
 
 On the use of t rrihfieiv we shall have something to say 
 hereafter (p. 289). 
 
 The other reference to the Babylonian youths is this : — 
 
 to'jtujv f/j'ev ovv ndvruv zvzxzv zdzi, aW dvQzTXxz yap zrzpojflzv rj 
 
 aydftri, ou fyrouffa to zaurr^g, xai vncav d^iouda vrdffav xaipuv xai 
 <7rpay/xdruv dutfyzpziuv. zdida^av dz yj/adg %a\ o) ztS Ttjg Ba(3u\wv/ag 
 KaTdzg, xai (Arjdzvog bvrog tou ffuvTiOzftzvov rrj z u<fz{3z/q, xa& zauTOug to 
 sn/fidWov sjctb'XsTv' oi yz ftz<srig rfjg (pXoybg rov 0zov dvu/xvouv, ttr\ \oyt- 
 ^o/JjZvoi to ffXrjOog tojv ty\v d\r]Qziav ddzTovvTM, aXA’ uWqXoig dpxovf/jzvoi, 
 TpzTg bvTzg. De Spir. Sand. xxx. 
 
 This passage we shall find presently to be of considerable 
 importance. 1 Meanwhile, comp, with pseudo- Agath., and 
 observe the use of 1 Cor. xiii. 5 ou ZyjreT toc iccvryjg . . . ou 
 ’koyiZprcci z.t.X. ( vid . sup. p. 271 n.). 
 
 If we return to Cod. 213 we observe a somewhat noticeable 
 sentence : aXX’ 7] uno npaypjUToov irzpcov eig srgpa . . . [M rd- 
 
 1 It will perhaps be well so far to anticipate what is to follow, as to quote the 
 passage to which Basil (?) is indebted : rcov act#’ couroug xaipeov . . . in S’ ol p&v rag 
 oroiXouag puGoXoyutg ri j» 'hua^ipuav Trig <z pay poor ilag ooTi'boxlpourciv. ol n jv 
 
 voroffrutriv rrjg iffi&okrig ou truviriXiffoov piffoXoo&nllivrig k.t.X. Diod. i. 3. We shall 
 find presently that these words are used by another writer in a passage closely 
 connected with De Spir. Sand. xxx. Basil certainly never wrote a sentence 
 made up of the language of S. Paul and of Diodorus. 
 
276 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ficccig. The man that wrote these words might well have 
 composed the opening sentence of the following passage from 
 the same chapter of Basil’s treatise : — 
 
 / isrdficL dr) (aoi aero rrjg s/xovog ir? avro rou xa xou ro dpyzruTov, ouyi 
 rrdXa/ f/jSV '7rwg sdoxsi rb ’ A ps/ccvbv Gylg^cc, s/g dvr/tfaXov fxoTpav uTOxp/dsv 
 T7) ’ExxXyjff/cp rou <dsou, sv toXs/Uj/uv rdi^s/ aurb xa6' sauro /xovov dvr/xuQ's- 
 Zt<sQ(U\ ors 5s I % rr\g fjjcexpdg xa /' ycL\i t Kr\g s pidog s/g Tpotpctvr) 7 )/xTv dyuvee 
 dvrixccrs6rr)ffsv , tots dq s/g ToXXd fJjspr/ xara /xup/oug rponoug o ToXsfjjOg 
 d/s/f^/gQ?). De Spir. Sanct. xxx., with . . . (pspo/xsvyjg, roug sT/fidrag 
 dXXrjXo/g rrjg ruv Tpurs/uv sp/dog /JjY) ixp/sgQ a/ as the preceding words. 
 
 In Cod. 213, the writer says that Agatharchides was a 
 ZjikooTYig Sovzvb/bov. He had in his mind perhaps Luc. 
 Quorrt. Hist. 15 g rspog bs Sovzvb/bov fyiXcorrjg azpog, oiog, sv 
 fJodcXa too dpysTVToj (obs.) g /zuffpj'svog, zcci rqv dpyyiv ojg szslvog , 
 (jvv too sctvTOv bvofJjCCTi vjp^ccTO z.t.X. We have had an interest- 
 ing illustration of pseudo -Agatharchides’ method of using 
 Thucydides on p. 237. Pseudo-Basil (as we shall now call 
 him) was also an admirer and copyist of Thucydides. In lib. 
 i. 3 we remark ov [/jYjv o^s /3ccp/3ccpovg sipYjze bid to fjutjbl 
 r 'EXXqvctg too obg spot bozs 7 uvt/tgcXov sg sv bvopjoc ccTOzszpicOcu. 
 Comp, with pseudo-Basil, and note his Toug sbozsi. Thucydides 
 has STccyofjj'svojv sl few lines above, and pseudo-Basil SToeyopjSva/ 
 a few lines below. The writer obviously uses Thucydides for 
 the mere sake of his Greek. From this passage alone we might 
 dismiss the idea that Basil wrote the later chapters of the work 
 which bears his name. Comp, the note on p. 275. 
 
 We may now profitably compare pseudo-Basil’s first sentence 
 (with its resemblance to Cod. 213) with Basil’s words in this 
 same De Spir. Sanct. : ovts yap to zpocTog ayjZpTcu, ovts yj 
 bo^cc btocf/jSpiZpTMi (obs. how pseudo-Basil’s b/sayja&Y) is obtained). 
 ojg yap Y] zpocTovaoe Yjf/juv ap yj\ zoci Yj Scgovv/'a, f/j/cc , ovtoj zoci yj 
 Tup Yip>ojv bo^oXoy/cc po/a (perhaps suggesting c. xxix.), zee/ ov 
 ToXKoer b/oTi y\ Tfjg sizovog T/p>Yj It) to TpouTOTVTOv biccfiu'ivsi. 
 Of these last words pseudo-Basil’s first words appear to be an 
 imitation. The peculiar use of Thucydides in pseudo-Basil’s 
 next words confirms this notion. Pseudo-Basil’s imitation of 
 Basil is exactly such as we should expect to find from the pen 
 of a writer on whose mind Basil’s words had been specially 
 impressed from his ow T n (perhaps jesting) use of them. This 
 writer we can produce. In the middle of Theoph. xxx., a 
 
NICEPHOKUS CALLISTUS. 
 
 277 
 
 section to which attention has been particularly called on 
 p. 118 sq., the writer has zard rov [Azyav ’BaGiA.ziov' on q rr\g 
 2 izovog nfjjTj z.rX. A few lines above the writer has dzard- 
 vavGrog 6 6v[Aog rov avriTraXov (obs.) bia(3oXov zard rijg 
 ay lag z izovog (obs.) z.rX. The words follow those quoted on 
 p. 267, and dzaranavGrog is taken from the liturgy of 
 S. Mark. 
 
 We shall now bring upon the scene a writer to whom refer- 
 ence has been occasionally made, a fifteenth century u Thucy- 
 dides Ecclesiasticus,” as he has been called, who begins his 
 Ecclesiastical History with N izrj(popog 6 K aXKiGrov rrjv zzzKtjgi- 
 aanzrjv iGropiav Guvzra%zv, ap^afAZvog evOug ano ryjg zard Gapza 
 rov Hwrrjpog z Tipavziag XpiGrov, \oyiGa[Azvog yzvvaiav (AaXazai 
 d^iav 'hoyov sgbgOcci r tjv GTOvhrjV, in imitation of Thucydides’ 
 opening words: Qovzvithijg ' AQy\vaiog %vvzypa\pz rov TroXzfAov 
 . . . dp\d[Azvog zvOvg za0iGra(Azvov zai z Xic'iGag (Azyav rz ZGZG&ai 
 zai d\io\oydrarov r£v yrpoyzvqfAzvav. Having begun with 
 Thucydides, Nicephorus turns to the opening pages of Diodorus’ 
 Bibliotheca. He does not transfer Diodorus’ sentences bodily 
 into his own columns, nor does he simply imitate them. He 
 recasts them. He goes to them for his Greek, and is indebted 
 to them for the most common words. The comparison of his 
 pages with those of Diodorus is singularly instructive, and proves 
 conclusively that a writer of his day did not always trust to 
 his own knowledge of the Greek language, but did, at any 
 rate sometimes, build up his sentences out of the words and 
 scraps of sentences gathered, perhaps from one page of a 
 Greek author, perhaps from several, with the occasional ad- 
 mixture of language borrowed from other sources. His third 
 sentence runs thus : g yooy ovv (Azy'iGrriv yjdpiv o[Ao\oyz7v oiOfAai 
 hz7v roig rag zoivdg iGropiag ihlav wpayiAarziav Trzr'oiyjfAzvoig' 
 Ivzi roi yz ro (pXonfAOv ov za& zavrovg 2 % 2 /v, aTXd zoivq rov 
 (3 iov u(pz\z7v ypzOtGavro, vrrovpyoi nvzg rw ovn Qziag irpovoiag 
 dvahzizvvfjjzvoi , cog V7ro (Aiav TrpayfAarziav rag hiapopovg 7rpa<gzig 
 zaQd'rzp zig n zoivov rafAizlov aToypa\pa[Azvoi. 
 
 Diodorus begins his work thus : roig rag zoivdg iGropiag 
 Trpayf/jarzvGafJbzvoig (az yd\ag yjdpirag d^ovzfAZiv bizaiov vravrag 
 dvQpuwovg, on ro7g ihioig novoig d<pz\7jGai rov zoivov (3iov z <pXo- 
 nf/j?]0?iGav. After a few lines Diodorus has z(pXori[AyjQyiGav 
 V7T0 fAiav zai rrjv avrqv GvvraXgiv dyayz7v, aiG7rzp nvzg vvrovpyoi 
 
278 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 rrjg Oeiag irpovoiag ye vqDevreg, and after four lines oi re rag 
 zoivdg T?jg oizovf/j'evyjg yrpd<geig, zatianep [biag (obs.) ndkewg, 
 dvaypa^avreg, eva (obs.) \dyov zai zoivdv ypy]G[/jariGr'/jpiov rwv 
 Gvvrere\eG[devwv adebei^av rag eavrwv Trpayf/jareiag , . . . zard 
 rov fiiov e yeiv. Observe the little joke in zaQarrep eig n (g Jg 9 
 u>ia, ev), and the interchange (a common trick with our writers) 
 of prepositions in composition. Nicephorus paused a while 
 over Diodorus’ ypyjGf/jariGriipiov. Wesseling might have quoted 
 him as favouring the meaning of cerarium , w 7 hich he himself 
 prefers, for in lib. xiv. 47, Diodorus a 7 robe 7 <gai rrjv ArjXov zoivdv 
 ra[oie7ov, zai rd ypyj^ara rd Gvvayd^eva eig ravrrjv zarari- 
 Qeadai. 
 
 On the next page (p. 34) Nicephorus has ov (Jjyjv zai Kpog rd 
 zoiv/j GV[/j(p'epov navrdrraGiv e%eipyaG0ai rdg avrwv 7Tpay(/jareiag 
 g hozif/jdffafjjtv. . . . rw rvjg ft irr ewg Xdyw, zai vpdg dvrintakov 
 (obs.) Izeivw zaraGrjjvai [/joipav (obs.)* zdv eg vGrepov rd eizora 
 (ppovijGai %vve Qq, r/j npog ovg bia(pepovro epibi (obs.) rd ToKhd 
 (obs.) t Kapa\e\oi e 7rdreg' ovbe ovroi ef/j7rebov azpai<pvwg rd a|/o- 
 Trurrov eyovGiv, zairoi ye aXkwg, Xoyov bwa^ei zparovvreg zai 
 rw rrjg ypaffig fiaOei, en be zai rw vrepi Xp/oroV rroQw zai tyXw, 
 rwv za6 ’ rjfjbo eg rd Gipwreiov (obs.) (pepeiv (obs.) bieviGra^evoi. 
 Compare with pseudo-Basil. Thucydides has vGrepov in the next 
 line, and zoivy epyaGa^evy; a little above in the same § 3. The 
 writer of Theophilus has azpakpveGrarov a few lines after, and 
 azpakpveGrarov n'lGrewg a few lines before the passage quoted 
 from Basil in § 30. In his Dedicatio (p. 20) Nicephorus has 
 eye iv eizovog apyervTo v f with rwv rrpwreiwv a few lines above. 
 Compare with pseudo-Basil. 
 
 We must now consider how far Nicephorus is indebted to 
 Diodorus. 
 
 On p. 6, Diodorus has sn 5’ oi [dev . . . bid rqv bvGyepeiav 
 ryjg ftpaypoareiag (obs.) ave bozifJoaGav (obs.). oi 5g rr\v vkog- 
 raGiv rrjg eTi/3ok?jg ov GwerekeGav (on p. 35, Nicephorus has 
 rd rrjg TTpay^areiag bvGyepeg V 7 r 6 koyiGd[Ji>evoi, and rrjv rrjg 
 e mfioXyjg vnoesraaiv 'r\ziara avverehevav), and, a few lines above, 
 ov (/j?jv kcgeipyavDai ftp dg rd Gvfjbpepov. Above, again, but on p. 5, 
 he has Xoyov bvvafuv . . . eva rwv 'roKXwv . . . wg rovro rd TpwreTov 
 ry aperijg TepmToiqfAevovg. eig rtkeiw Sg [i!epr\ rovrov birjpq- 
 [ o'evov , Gvf/jfiaivei z.rX . Compare with Diodorus’ ro erpwreiov 
 
 . . eig TrXeiw Sg (j^epr) rovrov biripov^'evov, pseudo-Basil’s rwv 
 
NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS. 
 
 279 
 
 Kpcuretcuv . . . tots hrj tig noWd [hipri . . . hsff^iffdrj ( vid . sup. 
 p. 276). 
 
 We have thus, then, now before us a passage from pseudo- 
 Basil which appears not to be independent of a passage in 
 Nicephorus. The latter writer uses Diodorus, and takes to 
 KpuTslov from him. This word forms part of the coinci- 
 dence between pseudo-Basil and Nicephorus. The line follow- 
 ing TTpcoTSiov in Diodorus supplies a coincidence with pseudo- 
 Basil. Is it possible to come to any other conclusion, than that 
 pseudo-Basil and Nicephorus are but different names for the 
 same person ? This conclusion is supported by the examination 
 of the passage from pseudo-Basil, which stands upon p. 275. 
 The note below shows that it is indebted to the very words of 
 Diodorus which Nicephorus uses. We have just given his 
 manipulation of the passage. It contains the word vKOhoyiad- 
 (Jjivoi. Comp. pseudo-Basil’s fjbrj "KoyiZppjSvoi, for whose ofeiovcoc 
 Nicephorus has a parallel zoctocQovgu (vid. infr. p. 286). It 
 is perfectly plain that the close of De Spir. Sand, was not 
 written by Basil, but belongs to our “ group of writings.” 
 This necessary conclusion gives immense force to the argu- 
 ments under the other two heads of this section. The writer 
 of the spurious addition to Basil’s treatise had perhaps several 
 objects in view. The evidence against the genuineness of 
 Clement’s Epistles has been continually accumulating, and will 
 continue to accumulate even to the very last sentence that we 
 write. They must be forgeries, and if they are, we cannot 
 doubt that c. xxix. was added to Basil’s treatise that the 
 quotation from Clement which it contains might support the 
 forged epistle. The genuineness of Phot. Bibl. 126 cannot 
 be maintained. The epistles, the description of them in the 
 Bibliotheca , the quotation from them in De Spir. Sand., are all 
 alike frauds, and with these frauds Nicephorus Callistus, or 
 whoever passes under his name, is very evidently connected. 
 
 § 2 - 
 
 Cod. 244. 
 
 This “ codex ’* professes to give excerpts from Diodorus 
 Siculus. It is very long, and no useful purpose would be 
 served by discussing it from end to end. If one or two of the 
 
280 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 excerpts can be proved to be frauds, the genuineness of the 
 rest cannot be maintained. We shall content ourselves with 
 discussing three. 
 
 1. The first two excerpts describe two hermaphrodites, Herais 
 and Callo, and their change from women, as they were for 
 some years supposed to be, to men. The accounts, which have 
 been often referred to in the foregoing pages, appear to be 
 mere jests. The main joke in each has been pointed out on 
 p. 190. This view of these excerpts has been confirmed out 
 of Tatius on pp. 214-216. Their connection with Clement’s 
 Epistles and other writings has been shown on pp. 89, 90, 
 148. The use of Apollodorus in them as well as in Tatius’ 
 love story has been pointed out on p. 218. It will not, we 
 think, be necessary to do more than (1) to draw somewhat 
 closer the connection which has been already pointed out 
 between them and Aristophanes; and (2) briefly to show that 
 they are indebted to Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 (1.) On p. 60, the connection between the Evang. Thom . and 
 certain lines of Arist. Plat, is pointed out. From line 515, 
 the words yyjg ocporpoig pq<gccg are quoted, and the scholiast’s 
 remark hi aporpov Gyjactg, repav rrjv e7ri<pdcveiav. Reference to 
 p. 190 will show how these words are taken up in our excerpts. 
 
 On p. 46, the connection of Arist. Nub. 967-1066 with 
 Peregrinus is pointed out, and on p. 61, with the Evang. Thom. 
 On p. 202, the way in which the same lines appear to be used 
 in the Oratio is shown. In line 947, Aristophanes has p yfeov 
 (pavriv, 7} nvi yjzipeig zoci rqv aavrov (pvciv g/Vg, with hei^erov in 
 939. In the excerpts we are told that the judges were called 
 together to decide whether Herais should go to the husband 
 or remain with the father, — the change of sex being at that 
 time unknown. The writer says Kipotg rcov zpiroov olopj'evuv 
 heiv azoXovOeTv rccvhpi rr\v yccf/jJiQeiffuv, rr\v ahyjGeiotv hiuGuffiGcti 
 ro ryjg (pvGecog appev, zui OvfJba reroX[jj^^6n rrjv zuQv7rozpivo- 
 f/j'svrjv 1 SG@rjru \vgo,gocv hei<gcii ttoIgi, p rjtgoci re (poovriv heivoftccOovGccy, 
 ei nveg avocyzci^ovGi avvoi/ceiv ch^p/ rov ccvhpoc. Compare. In 
 351, where Aristophanes describes the various forms assumed 
 
 1 Comp. Joseph. Ant. XV. 7. 7, p. 684, xm0v7roxpivo/u.tvns &<T%riy.ovw; ) xai roX- 
 pufft is. The excerpt has ro\pu<rvs a few lines above. Josephus’ account of 
 Herod the Great is used in these excerpts as well as elsewhere. Nicephorus has 
 ftiyaXtiv pyiyvutra Quvriv in Dedicat. H. E. p. 2. 
 
COD. 244. 
 
 281 
 
 by the clouds, we find GiTo<pocivov(rca rrjv (pvffiv ccurov, followed 
 in 355 by zcu vvv, stTSp nvi (cf. et ring) zctkkoj (obs.) ovpocvo- 
 P'/]^dctb za,[Jboi (pajvrjv. The name of the second hermaphro- 
 dite is Callo. Here, again, as so often in these pages, it is 
 the way in which these coincidences have been found, wdiich 
 is above all to be observed. 
 
 (2.) The first excerpt uses the rather uncommon word p - 
 (piucucrQui. It is not ill chosen. JElian, N. A. i. 14, uses it of 
 the chameleon. It is used also in pseudo-Eustathius’ Heocce- 
 meron , p. 770, in the waiter’s paraphrase of Gen. xxxviii., 
 containing the story of Judah and Tamar. If our readers will 
 compare pseudo-Eustathius with the excerpts, they will at once 
 perceive the parody, and on closer examination find several 
 coincidences. 
 
 On p. 745, pseudo-Eustathius speaks of the hyaena, and 
 takes over a considerable portion of the remarks of Clement 
 of Alexandria in Peed. ii. 10, p. 222. Clem. Alex, speaks of 
 the hyaena in connection with the hermaphrodite . So does the 
 writer of the excerpts, and his language shows a number of 
 resemblances to Clement. Clement’s remarks upon the hyaena 
 are used, however, to adorn the filthy jokes which are pointed 
 out on p. 190. It is unnecessary to refer to these at length. 
 It will suffice to say that Clem. Alex., speaking of the liycena , 
 has S/’ \g unonrvzrcu rot TrspiTTTMfjjOCTcc and the excerpt, 
 
 speaking of the hermaphrodite , an answering it ojv i^oohzvovTO rd 
 , 7rspi7rrw(JijOCTC(, z.t.X., where, on 5/ oov, Wesseling says, “ 
 
 nisi enallagen statuas, potius foret.” We cannot think that 
 anything further is necessary to prove that these two excerpts 
 were not written by Diodorus. 
 
 Of the treatise bearing the name of Eustathius nothing 
 whatever is known, except that it is most certainly spurious. 
 It has been mentioned, in a note on p. 223, that Tatius’ 
 description of the method of capturing the rhinoceros is found 
 almost word for word in this treatise. It has been shown that 
 that description is part and parcel of Tatius’ work. Pseudo- 
 Eustathius 1 must therefore be held to have borrowed from 
 Tatius, unless, indeed, w T e prefer to think that he is Tatius 
 under another name. 
 
 1 We ought, perhaps, to mention that pseudo-Eustathius (Hexcem. p. 764, 
 Migne) while quoting Josephus alters vrapxarccrv; into , xpoaTu.rns. 
 
282 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 2. We shall now give some extracts out of Cod. 244, p. 381. 
 
 At the top of the page, Photius makes some remarks upon 
 Diodorus’ account of the manners and customs of the Jews. 
 Then follows out of the 48th book an account of the death of 
 Catulus ; then from the 31st book an account of a Phodian 
 embassy to Pome ; then from some part of the same book a 
 few words to say that the Romans are very ready to praise 
 one another ; then, still from some part of the same book, an 
 excerpt from Diodorus’ account of Perseus, the last king of 
 Macedonia. This excerpt speaks of the prison in which he 
 was confined, and of the foul smell which arose from the 
 number of prisoners which it contained. It concludes with 
 the account of his death. This excerpt is nearly as long as 
 the others, which we have mentioned, put together, and in- 
 cludes a few lines of p. 382 : — 
 
 1. ... ■^zvho’ko'yuM (Diodorus) ra <rXs/<j ra, xai hizpyofizvog rrpog rovg 
 sX's'y^ovg vraXiv wy xarz-^zvtiaro rr\g dXri&ziag . . . Ircdyzi yap' II zpl [x\v 
 ruv T ovdaihjv 'ExaraTog 6 MiXrjffiog ravra icropy yxzv. 
 
 E libro quadragesimo octavo. 
 
 2. "On o Xzyzrai Gvvzvzyjfyv at a’inov davdrov rtapd nvuv T ofiiavtt r& 
 SaffiXzT, to xaraxoijUOYiOyivai sv o/xw vzwtiri xzxoviafxzvw, rrvpi 5/a rqv 
 -v^u^/y bnoQzpiAUivofjj'zvw xa / dr/xovg d<pi'zvn rovg lx rr\g vzvontifAzvqg xoviag, 
 rovro zxbvra vkzXQz/v ieropzT A lodupog KdrXov xa ra rovg noXX Si rraXaio- 
 rzpovg yjpbvovg. d>?j si ydp Iv fxr{ Xoyvj rrpog r/j dpyr\ on oi rczpi rov 
 Kivvav xa/ M dpiov avvzdpzvaavrzg [xzrd ruv sKipavztirarojv Yiyz/xovuv 
 l(3ovXzvovro orroig (3z(3a/wg xaratfr /jcwov rrjv sipvjvyiv’ rzXog sdoj'zv a vroTg 
 rovg l‘7Ti(f)avz<frdrovg ruv zydpojv xa/ dvvafjj'evovg a/x(piff(3r)ry}ffai ^paygdruv 
 rrdvrag d^oxrzTvai, oirug xa Oapag yzvog,zvr\g r$jc /5/as a)pz6zug xa/ fxzp/dog 
 adzug to Xoirrbv, xa/ wg ay (3ovXuvrai , fizra ruv (p/Xuv dioixuci rd xard 
 ry\v i]yz[xov'iav. EvQvg ovv ruv /xzv yzyzvrifi'zvuv GvvOzczw xa/ rc'icrzm 
 rgjj'zXrid ay, cpayai 5 z ruv xara^yi(piff6zvruv avroTg axpiroi xa/ rtavrayov 
 zyivovro. KoYvrog 5s Aovrdnog 6 Ka TXog, rz0p/a/xl3zvxwg [xzv z<iritirgu/}g 
 aero K!{/j(3pwv, dya^dfxzvog 5s vrrb ruv ‘roXiruv rrzpirrbrzpov , vrro nvog 
 hy\g,dpyov xarqyopiag zrvyyavzv Iv rw 5 rgio) davdrov. ®o[3ov{/jZvog 5s rov 
 lx TY\g 6vxo<pavriag x/vdvvov fjxzv ztg rov Mdpiov, dzo/xzvog rvyuv fioridz/ag. 
 *0 5s to fizv z{A‘7Tpo6@zv zyzyovzi <ptXog, rorz 5’ sx nvog vrro-^/ug aXXorp'/ug 
 zyoiv rrpog avrbv rovro [xbvov dffzxp/Orj, 0ays Tv 5 zT. K at 6 K drXog ano- 
 yvovg asy rag rr\g ffwrrjpiag zX^tdag, <rersu5wy 5s yoi pig vfipzug xaraffrpz-^/ai 
 rov (3/ov, zavrov rov £5jy fjozrzffrrjffzv idivj riv) xat t rapYiXXay/izvu) rponoo. 
 2vyxXz/0&g zavrov zig olxov vzbyjpasrov, xa/ rrjv lx rr\g xoviag dva(popav l 
 
 1 The word is not commonly used in this sense. Comp, lx tvs uvaipopas 
 ar/Jboov. Pseudo-Eustath. Hexcem. p. 712. 
 
COD. 244. 
 
 283 
 
 rrvpi xai xarrvu duvuv^foug, rjj rrjg dvarrvo/jg <pQopd rtspirevry^g 1 ysvo- 
 [isvog dre^XXo^sv. 
 
 Ex tricesimo primo. 
 
 3. ” Afia ds rovroig nparrofitvoig sig ‘Pw/atj v rrapsy'svovro <zpsd(3svrui 
 'Podiuv, rag ysysvrj/isvag dia(3oXag xar avruv drroXvdadOai . . . firiosv ds 
 dvjovrsg uv enpsdfisvov sig ddv/itav svsmrrrov, xai [isrd daxpvuv srroioitvro 
 rug ivrsv^e/g . . . rtoXXd 5s rrpog dsr\Giv xai rrapairridiv sirrovrsg, xai ro 
 rzXsvra/bv xard rfiv rrpooifiiav ro xvxvsiov adavrsg, fioXig sXa (3ov drroxpi- 
 ds/g, 5/ ’ uv rov fisv bXodyspovg <po(3ov rrapzXvd^dav, rrspi 5s ruv syxXr\- 
 [idruv mxpug uvsididdr^dav. 
 
 4. . . . *Ev (isv yap roTg aXXoig rroXirsv/iadi Z^iXorvreovdiv dXXijXovg, 
 ' Pu[iu7oi 5s srrutvovd/v. ’E% ov dvfi(3a/vsi [idXidra roi/g fisv rrpdddsiv rd 
 xuXXidru ruv spyuv, dfii7^Xu[isvovg av^s/v ro xoivy dv/Kpspov, roi/g d’ 
 aXXovg ad/xodo^ovvrag xai rag dX7.r\Xuv zmftoXug Xv/iuivofisvovg (3 Xu-tt- 
 rsiv rrjv rear pi da. 
 
 5. . . . ruv xard rtbXiv drparrjyuv sig sve(3aXev avrbv sig rov zv ”AX(3aig 
 xdpxapov fizrd ruv rsxvuv. sdn ds o xdpxupog opvyfia xurdysiov (3u6v, 
 ro [isv (isys&og sypv o’/xov [id Xidrd rcug evvsaxX/vov, dxbrov ds nXripsg xai 
 dvdodfiiag did ro rrXr]6og ruv rrapadsdofisvuv sig rovrov rov rbrtov dvdpuv, 
 . . . xai rr[V dXXrpv rrddav yjptiav avyjxovruv rravruv Iv ravrti rrscpvpfisvuv 
 rodavryjv rrpodrrirrrsiv dvdud/av dvv's(3uivsv, uors firid'sva ruv rrpodibvruv 
 papdiug dvvadbui xaprspr\dai' . . . dvfirca&sig yap obroi yivofisvoi . . . disrr\ 
 yap yjpbvov <ptXo-^pvyriGag, xai rrpodxo-^ag roTg (pvXurrovdi (3ap(3dpoig } 
 xuXvo/isvog Ire sxsivuv uvrvov rvysTv srsXsvryjdsv. 
 
 With No. 2, comp. KdrXog £g A ovranog, M ocpfco gvvu p^ag, 
 zcci (rvvOpiafjijfieOmg a7ro KifJbfipav, Iwei rrpog rovg heofjjsvovg 
 vrrep civtov zed rrapaiTOvpjivovg 6 Map/0£ roGovrov (aovov sittsv. 
 ’ Arrodavslv her zccTcczXziGGCf/jevog sig oifC7][/jOc, zcci rroKkovg ccvtfpcc- 
 nug S7tC ) u'7rvp , iGug, unsKviyYi. Plut. Mar. 44, p. 540. Obs. the 
 dsqGti> z. TrupccirYiGiv sirrovTSg of No. 3. Presently, but upon 
 a different subject, Plutarch has sig cc7ropiag Ws^ittts, and after 
 two lines (pofiovfAtvog rag aypU7m'ccg, svsficcksv, with \zz in the 
 next line but one. Comp, with Nos. 2, 3, and 5. Presently 
 Plutarch (p. 543), speaking of the death of Marius, has zou 
 7roX\d (piXo^vfcTiGag {JjUTyiv . . . avTog mvtov Gcrrezreiv sv. Comp, 
 with No. 5. These coincidences show 2 that Plutarch and the 
 
 1 This is a rare word. Pseudo- Agatharchides (c. xxxix. ) follows Diodorus 
 (iii. 35, p. 201, yivtra .1 TipiTviyis, xai t>jj iXivfapiag ov^a/aug aXkamrui (ohs. ) 
 x.r.x.) in using it of the death of the “ carnivorous bull.” 
 
 2 The argument here is the same as that to which attention is particularly- 
 called on p. 222. If it were necessary, it would require nothing hut more space 
 than we have at command to show that both Achilles Tatius (v. 7) and the 
 author of Peregrinus (§§ 23 sq., 38) make use of the same pages of Plutarch. 
 
284 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 writer of the excerpts are not simply using the same source of 
 information. The two writers are not independent of one 
 another, and as Plutarch could not have used the excerpts, we 
 must necessarily conclude that the writer of these borrowed 
 from Plutarch, and therefore was not Diodorus. 
 
 Wesseling points out that in excerpt No. 3, the writer makes 
 use of Polyb. Reliq. xxx. 4, \x tuv hriv&M zoci zoivy . . . s ig 
 
 U0V[JIj1CIV . . . g ViTTlTTTOV . . . dXkd hilG^OU [LITM hcCZpVOt) V . . . OTS 
 
 iq zocTd ty\v 7rocpoipj'iu v to zvzmov Ityiy/iGuvTzg, e. Xufiov aTrozpi- 
 G?.ig TOiuvTug, hi uv rov fjoh okoGy}povg (pofiov rov zcctu tov 
 K o'kefJbov Ihozovv ‘7rccp<xXeXvG0ocr irspi hs ruv zccTd f/j'spog lyzXrj- 
 (Jjcctuv otvToig 7} g vyzXyjTog ‘zrizpwg zee) fZapeag dvzi'hiGSV. Comp, 
 with Nos. 3, 4, and notice the deliberate alteration of Polybius’ 
 language, so as to introduce the word fjeoXig. In § 5, Polybius 
 has, in the same sentence, to 7roXiTSV(JjU . . . Gyzhov t&v IttiQgcmg- 
 tutuv zou zclXXigtgov g pyoov, obz ImnoiriTO Trpog avTOvg gv[a- 
 pjuyjuv. Comp, with No. 4. Polybius’ subject is very 
 different from that of the excerpt. The latter appears to be 
 indebted to Polybius here simply for words. This treatment 
 confirms the opinion that the writer of the excerpt borrowed 
 from Plutarch. These excerpts appear to be nothing but 
 compilations, if not by Photius, then by some later hand. 
 This is again confirmed by a fact, otherwise inexplicable, that 
 accounts of the death of Jovianus and Catulus, found else- 
 where, have, each of them, a special note of connection with 
 the narrative in the excerpt. We will refer to several of 
 these, and point out the special (only) connection in each. 
 
 In Zonar. Annal. xiii. 14, we remark Xg ysTCci . . . hid to tov 
 \pvxovg . . . g z Tfjg zoviag. 
 
 In Hist. Compend . p. 540, Cedrenus supplies us with 
 IzoifjjrjQq h oIzigzco vzugt) zszoviocf/jim . . . ceTp>ov. 
 
 Nicephorus Callistus describes the death of Jovianus in 
 II. E. x. 43. We observe voTig (cf. with Photius’ w T ords) \x 
 tmv vioyjpiGToov (cf. with Diodorus’) Toiyoov . . . dvaTrvsvGTizovg 
 (cf. dvoc 7 rvojjg ), and after a few lines, but on a different subject, 
 and in the beginning of the next book 7rvpog (pXoycc ccpisvTci 
 (cf. dtyMVTl), 
 
 Ng oy^piGTog is a rare word. It is used in Appian’s account 
 of the death of Catulus (obs.) ; KarXflf 5’ ev oizrjf/jCCTi 
 v'oypiGTco . . . izuv k < jci < 7cviyr\. De Bell . Civ. i. p. 395 (Steph.). 
 
COD. 244. 
 
 285 
 
 Comp, the ezovrcc of the excerpt, which is Photius’ not Dio- 
 dorus’ word. A little above Appian has zcct vo\e[Liog eypqpi- 
 Zjzro, and after three lines, and in the sentence in which he 
 introduces Catulus, [Lerd roGovffie (povovg c&zpirovg. Comp, 
 with No. 1. Plutarch has Gtpccy yj, and as we have seen zuru- 
 z\eiad[Levog. The language of the excerpt, so far as it 
 relates the death of Catulus, is now almost entirely accounted 
 for. 
 
 We have shown that the excerpts are not honest extracts 
 from Diodorus’ writings, but manufactured out of Plutarch 
 and Polybius, and, as it now appears, Appian, Zonaras, 
 Cedrenus, and Nicephorus. Who compiled them? We ven- 
 ture to suggest that veoyjpiGTog points out Nicephorus, if that 
 be the rightful name, as the author. For the compiler we 
 want a man versed in history, both ecclesiastical and secular. 
 Nicephorus answers to the description, and, if we are right in 
 supposing him to have written the spurious close of Basil’s 
 treatise, sufficiently unscrupulous. We have some evidence to 
 bring forward in support of this view. 
 
 Glycas ( Annul . iii. p. 254) mentions, though he does not 
 describe, the death of Jovianus. He says that he died [Leya, 
 vevOog a,<petg. Comp, the ctipievra, of the excerpt which just 
 now we supposed to be taken from Nicephorus. Glycas goes 
 on immediately to say that Valentinianus came to the throne, 
 and that his brother Yalens was associated in power with him. 
 This Yalens he calls ocIg-^igtov, saying that he burnt eighty 
 priests who had been sent to him vpe<rfiefcig evezev. When 
 Yalens sought gv[L[Lcc/Jclv^ Yalentinianus oh [Lovov ovz ehcozev, 
 aXKot zcci weihiaev ovrvg elver “ It is not right to help a man 
 who fights against God.” Yalens, Glycas goes on to say, vvo 
 vo\e(jj'iot)v h a%ap £vi vvp) vocpochiiorocr 6 5s [Lovocy^og ezelvog 
 * \audziog ekeyypv [Lev avrov , lea [LooQeig 5s vup ccvrov zca eipzTri 
 vapcthoQelg, ua(ppd vOrj ev r/j (pvhazrj rrjg hvcahiGcg ezzavO'e vrog 
 ezeiae. cog elpyjrocr 6 [Levroi O baXevnviocvog zoci rov ctycoyov 
 cuzohofJjrjGS zccl to vhoo p eig rrjv vokiv ela/iyayev. These things, 
 including the death (obs.) of Jovianus, occupy twenty lines 
 only. Comp, with Nos. 2, 3, 5, and notice that the sentence 
 in No. 3 with poXig, to which special attention was called on 
 p. 284, has a parallel in Glycas in which [LoXig is altered into 
 ov [Jjovov z.rX. Observe also Polybius’ Gv[L[Luyjuv. 
 
286 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 If we turn to the parallel passage in Nicephorus, H. E. xi. 4, 
 we find “ the bringing in of the water ” of which Glycas speaks 
 (though attributed to Valens), and also mention of certain 
 persons who came as suppliants to the king. It is said, 6 hi 
 zaiirsp Trspiopyrjg coo, f/jio, opcog rrjv TTpscfistav IhsysTO. 
 
 Observe Nicephorus’ fjeoXig. 
 
 Cedrenus, in the parallel passage, has (p. 546) OvaXsvTiviavog 
 hi omlhiGS (obs.) OvaX svTa too aheXfiov cog zazoho^ov (obs. the 
 ahizoho<govvTag of No. 4), fjuyj ns f/j^ag avToo fiorjOsiav . . . 
 ulrovvri (comp, with No. 2); and on p. 550, speaking of the 
 hvGcohlav of Valens’ death, sycov (Valens) rag (pp kvag aGV[LTa- 
 Qslg za) nccvTog sXsovg aXXoTpiag. Comp, with No. 5, and 
 with GV(jj7rcc0rig ^g vug g Ig sXsov oivOpoonog azpoaTtjg aXXoTpicuv 
 zazoov. Achill. Tat. iii. 14. 
 
 The coincidences pointed out, and specially those between 
 Glycas and our excerpts, cannot have accidentally arisen. 
 What is the meaning of them % It seems to us quite plain 
 that Nicephorus did not content himself with simply drawing 
 the parallel in No. 1 between the deaths of Jovianus and 
 Catulus, but manufactured and arranged the following excerpts 
 so as to suit the narrative which Glycas gives. 
 
 We have, of course, more evidence to adduce in proof that 
 Nicephorus wrote the excerpts before us. In No. 3 is the 
 expression ^rpog to zoivri GVfJbpspoo. It is also among the words 
 quoted from Niceph. ( H . E. i. 1) on p. 278. Nicephorus writes: 
 . . . \oyovg sv tizovgi za) syzcofjoicov artipocvoig zaTafyovva, 1 
 a^ioXoyovg IpyaZ^Tar olg hijra, zee) rovg S7nysoofJL>svovg sv fJbaXa 
 irporpeTSTcci, tojv zaXXiGToov s pycov (obs. these words, and comp. 
 Polybius), zee) r\ ho^a^sio (obs.) nsp) to Og/oy yjpsoov STiG/jg 
 szsivoig avGaKTScQai. . . . a7rohoyyjg ^icoGafocsv’ ov (Jjyjv zee) Trpog 
 to zotvri Gvpbplpov (obs. these words), ‘KaoTanaaiv s^sipyaGOai 
 Tag avTcov erpaytAaTSiag shozi^aGaphSo. ov fjblv yap avToov, [hr\ 
 too vyiaivovTi Xoycp ^v^aivovTsg (obs.) . . . a^pic, fiyjTOVGio (obs.) 
 . . . Trjv npoaipsaiv zaQapog (obs.) 2 ojzpaTrig, to ic'spag Izsioov 
 apyyjo toov Ihicov (obs.) z.t.X . 
 
 Comp, the a(Ji><piG^7iTrjGai TpaypoaTcov navTag a e 7rozTs'ivat , 
 oTcog zaQapag ysoofjosoyjg T/jg Ihiag of No. 2, and the Iwaivovciv 
 . . . GVfjbftafozi . . . Ta zaKKiGTa toov spy coo ... to zoivij gv(Jj- 
 
 1 Cf. the a^iovffa, of pseudo-Bas., quoted on p. 275. He borrows from the 
 passage of Diodorus which Nicephorus here uses, vid. sup. p. 279. 
 
NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS. 
 
 287 
 
 < pzpov , rovg 5’ aXkovg d hizoho^ovvrag real rag aXXrjXav \ TiftoXag 
 \v(JL>aivo(/jivoug filaKrziv rrjv rrarpiha of No. 4. 
 
 Nicephorus uses for the manufacture of his sentences Dio- 
 dorus, p. 4, rovg 5’ rjyzf/jbvag ra ha rrjg ho^rjg (obs.) adavarifff/ja 
 rrporpzTrzrai rolg zaXXicroig rav gp yav (cf. the form of this 
 expression with No. 4) zmyzipzlv. yppig hi rovrav , rovg [Pzv 
 crpanoorag rolg fjozra rijv rzXzvrijv znaivoig (obs.) iroif/jorzpovg 
 KaraczzvaZpi rrpbg rovg vvrlp rrjg Trarpihog (obs.) rcivhvvovg, and 
 p. 5 ruv hi dXXcov (obs.) ay atom avhpav . . . irdvrzg £g p hzydXav 
 Z7raivav (obs.) 7j<gidflr]<rav, rag dpzrdg avrav rrjg ivropi'ag ana- 
 QavariZfiVGY\g ( vid . svp. p. 154). . . . ra 7 : dvr a raXXa Xvyi>aivb- 
 fjbzvov (obs.) yjpbvov g%g/ <pvXarca rrjg alaviov Trapahoa zag rolg 
 ZTnyivof/jZVoig. . . . real rovg dyadovg dvhpag cdgiovg Xbyov npoG- 
 ayopzvofjtjzv, dg rovro ro rrparzlov rrjg apzrrjg TCipncncoiYiihivovg' 
 g Ig TrXzia hi fjb'zpr] rovrov hi^prj^zvov, GVf/jfiatvzi (obs.) rrjv [Pzv 
 ‘7roi7]rtzrjv rlpTTSiv (juaXXov rj7rzp dpzXziv . . . rd Sg (/jZ(/jiy[/jSV7]v 
 z%ziv ra <rv[/j(pzpovri rrjv fiXafirjv (obs.) g via Sg zarz^zvadai rrjg 
 aXrjdziag (comp, here with No. 1, p. 282), . . . bpdadai yap 
 avrrjv 7rporpzTO(jozvr]v z tt'i hizaioavvrjv . . . g yzafjoid^ovcav rovg 
 ayadovg . . . dnohoyrjg rvyyjdvovrag . . . ob fjbrjv z\zipydadai 
 Trpog ro (Tvf/jpzpov . . . rrjg rrp ay^arziag aTTzhoTcigbacrav. oi hi rrjv 
 ZTi{ QoXrjv (obs.) rc.r. A. If these coincidences are considered, 
 and the way in which they have been found, and the use of 
 tcoivri in the expression rb 7 coivrj avf/jpzpov, both by Nicephorus 
 and the writer of the excerpts, — both writers having taken the 
 rb (TV(jj<pzpov (but not Tcoivy) from Diodorus, — the conclusion 
 seems necessarily to follow, that Nicephorus, or whoever passes 
 under that name, compiled the excerpts from Diodorus in 
 Cod. 244, and is the interpolator of Photius’ Bibliotheca of 
 whom we are in search. 
 
 There are one or two other things still to be noticed. Our 
 excerpt No. 4 appears to take the word av^aivzi from 
 Diodorus’ cvfjbfi. rrjv (/jIv TrotririTcrjv rzprrziv (jjdXXov rj7rzp dpzXzlv. 
 Upon these words Wesseling says “ Sequitur Agatharchidem 
 De Mar. Rubr. p. 12 (c. v.) atque Eratosthenem, quern cen- 
 suisse TTOirjrfjv -rra^ra ^ vyjxyayiag (sroyaZ^zadai ov hihaartaXiag 
 tradit ac indignatur Strabo , i. p. 13 (p. 7) B., and p. 28 
 (p. 15) B.” Now, it will be seen from our p. 147 that ^vy^a- 
 yayiav has found its way into the second Preface to the Sacr. 
 Par., and from p. 148 that this word forms part of the coinci- 
 
288 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 deuce with Cod. 244 avccyputpyjs 7 i%kv(Toi(JjZV, ov ^vyjzy. z.tX. 
 Here in Diodorus is the word rfeiwQyiGctv. We have seen that 
 Nicephorus altered that word into rjfyuffocf/jtv, which is the 
 exact word of Cod. 244. This supports the conclusion as to 
 the authorship at which we have just arrived. 
 
 If our readers will turn to Phot. Bibl. 250, c. v., they will 
 see that the passage out of which Wesseling has given some 
 words — it is too long for quotation — is so transparently an 
 imitation of Strabo as to be almost sufficient in itself to prove 
 that Agatharchides did not write the excerpts which bear his 
 name. 
 
 We believe that we have now with sufficient clearness 
 brought home the authorship of a certain portion of Phot. 
 Bibl. 244 to the person who passes under the name of Nice- 
 phorus Callistus. We cannot suppose that this was the extent 
 of his misdeeds. We must naturally believe him to have 
 written some, if not all, of the other spurious “ codices ” 
 which have been pointed out. But those “ codices ” are so 
 inextricably mixed up with the other writings wffiich have 
 been examined, that it seems necessary to suppose that Nice- 
 phorus had some hand in those writings. Accordingly, we 
 have found good reason for concluding him to have been the 
 author of the spurious addition to Basil’s Be Spir . Sand . 
 The type of person who is required, by the evidence which 
 has been brought forward, as the author (there may have 
 been more than one) of our 6i group of writings ” is a man of 
 wide reading, an imitator, a plagiarist, a scholar, and yet 
 content to pick to pieces the pages of an author, and to use 
 the materials in his own composition. Such, undeniably, was 
 Nicephorus. We believe that we might safely leave the 
 matter here. As, however, we have accumulated a large 
 amount of evidence tending to connect him very closely with 
 those spurious writings which have been in our hands, we shall 
 bring forward a few out of the multitude of coincidences 
 which we observe in his Procemium ( H . E. i. 1) and Dedicatio. 
 
 1. The pages of Diodorus which Nicephorus uses are those 
 to which the Prefaces to the Sacra Parallela of John of 
 Damascus have been shown to be indebted. In fact, some of 
 Diodorus’ language, which is quoted on pp. 156, 157, is used 
 by Nicephorus. Thus he has hq, ug ys direct, zcci fAuXu 
 
NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS. 
 
 289 
 
 TrXsiffToc, fjbh dotpdktjGca IvvYiOtiri rovg Ivrvyypdvovrug, 'ihdtryiGru 
 h’ kvoyfrjGSt ro7g Tspi ccvrtjv iXopbhoig zyp iv fourpifiqv. Diodorus 
 (p. 7) has rdi 7r\diGroc (Jbh djtpeXrjGcci 'hvvdpjzvrjv, ihwyjGru, z.r.X. 
 The rest of the sentence is quoted on p. 156. Nicephorus 
 concludes his chapter with g m\ S ’ t\[Iav VKoOeGig ccvtt], hs7 
 (rctfprjveiccg yjzpiv zod nvcc TSp/ rrjg oXyjg TrpccyfJjccrsiocg TrpohiopiGocr 
 iGreov, dog fj pdzv fiifiXog rrdGcc g Ig rop>ovg fjpdiv hfipTjroci if. 
 Diodorus has ts pi dXrjg r?jg rrpccypjocniccg immediately after the 
 ^rpo^iopiGcci given on p. 157. Finding then, as we do, that these 
 two writers (if they be two) make use of the same sentences 
 of Diodorus, is it not natural to conclude that Nicephorus’ 
 lariov dog here before us forms a true note of connection with 
 the Prefaces, seeing that the expression is found in them and 
 not in Diodorus ? Both writers have /3 ovkopdivoig (p. 147) 
 and xuTcc\7]\piv (p. 156), but not Diodorus. The one has 
 g vhrjffrog (p. 156), the other ivGX^Trog. Both of them are 
 looking at the same passage, but Diodorus uses neither word. 
 Nicephorus has vfi ofyyovvn 0g£, and the second Preface 
 Tddgig o^yjyovGCc, with g vGrbyjxg a few lines above where the 
 writer is contrasting his own weakness with divine help. In 
 the beginning of his Dedicatio Nicephorus has ohyyovpj'zvov, 
 with g vGToypog in the next line. 
 
 2. In Appendix A (p. 341) we have supposed Clement to use 
 some words in Diodorus’ pp. 6, 7. We shall continue the pas- 
 sage from p. 6 : rdov iGropioypcc<pdov ovhdig S7rs/3ceXsro ccvrcis poioig 
 Gvvrcdgeag Tsp/ypcctpy 7rpay[JbccrsvGaGdcci. Nicephorus has rdov 
 £g zed) dcfig xpovoov rdg tepccg Trpcdgzig cLyjpi hrj zed \g hsvpo, zoctTsp 
 TroWdig zed (jjiyukug ovGccg nodi oby^ /jrrov rj Izzivca, ovhzvi ttco 
 rdjv gu iGropziv si'boroov g ig vovv lyivsro (ua ‘7rsptypcc<p/j Gvvrctigscog 
 Izeivccg rg zed ruvrccg v(f sv Tpay/eeccrsuGccG^cci. Cf. p. 341. 
 
 3. On p. 273 the words of pseudo -Basil and pseudo- 
 Agatharchides are compared. Both of them use GriXfieiv. 
 Nicephorus uses this word, and seems unable to shake himself 
 free from pseudo-Agatharehides’ language. Thus in Dedic. 
 p. 25, we find yjpvGov GCipikecpr^iGiv tihv n GTikftbvrwv, on p. 18 
 GnXfiov, a zed eg rpiype. Comp, with pseudo- Agath. On 
 p. 3 we observe zoivij sgticc . . . XriGrpizov ezz70ev TjXuvvero, 
 (ppdgocv 'djGnip zodi Gvvrpjfiev, and after one line are dq rTj 
 GTiXfiovfJjiVTi zccr aiirdjv rTj p of/jfipciGC, (comp. pseudo-Bas., vid. 
 sup. p. 273) izfiicd^of/jsvot, diXKog ccKkoexou hzhibpuGzov. zed 
 
 T 
 
290 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 toivvv ocvt'71 o/a gov iraGiv rjfdiv avg/ra/, TCCtl GO t Tpofiog ccpiGrq zai 
 TiOrivog yivsTai, and after four lines t 7rspi^aXof/j / svu. This is 
 a very instructive passage. Comp. Epist. Jer. ver. 17 aWgp 
 yap Gzevog avQpouTrov GWTpifih aypsiov yivSTUi, ver. 18 vno toov 
 X rjGTalv, ver. 24 to yap yjpvGiov o mpizsiVTai sig zaXXog, lav pbrj 
 rig Izpbodgri tov iov, ov [lt\ gtiX^oogiv z.t.X., ver. 12 TrepifiefiXqfoevav. 
 In Appendix A (p. 344) the use of vv. 11, 12 in Clement’s 
 § 12 is suggested. On p. 270 special attention is directed to 
 the coincidences which may be found in Euseb. De Laud. Const. 
 vi. with Clement’s § 20 and the Apost. Const. In the midst 
 of those coincidences we find . . . yjp oof/jaTi, ojGmp Tivd ypvGo'vprj 
 \p7]y(/jaTa, GTikfaiv, and presently TavT/]v 5’ SGTiav zai tiOtjvov 
 zai f/jrjTspa Zpioov z.t.X. Comp, with pseudo-Agath. and Nice- 
 phorus. Turn now to the coincidence with Clement’s § 20, 
 given (p. 262) out of the quotation from Epiphanes in Clem. 
 Alex. Half a dozen lines below that coincidence we remark 
 Tpo(p ?] ts zoivr) ya g>ai vepbof/jlvoig avsiTai ttolgi z.t.X. Any 
 amount of this kind of interlacing may be shown in the 
 Dedication for its Greek is the very same as that of Peregrinus , 
 Clement’s Epistles, etc. Nothing can be more instructive 
 than the comparison of the Procemium in chap. i. with the 
 Dedicatio. The first shows Nicephorus’ method of dealing 
 with the pages (mainly) of a single author (Diodorus), where 
 it can be studied without difficulty, while the Dedicatio shows 
 the same method applied to the pages of various writings. 
 
 4. Let us take another example of the same kind. In § 20, 
 in the celebrated passage concerning the “ worlds beyond the 
 ocean ” ( vid . sup. p. 261), Clement uses the word hsvOvvsiv. He 
 uses it also in § 61, and Lightfoot there refers to § 20, and 
 adds “ otherwise it is not a common word.” Clement writes : 
 
 . . . Taig ai)Taig Tayccig (“ an unusual word ”) tov ^sgkotov 
 hisvfivvoiTai, zaipoi lapivoi zai Qepivoi zai pjST07raopivoi zed 
 ysip>spivoi Iv siprivy p>STaGrapaL>iVoaGiv (“a rare word”). This 
 last word we affirmed (p. 270) to be taken from the treatise 
 which we were just now using, Euseb. De Laud. Const . vi. 
 The passage (so far as is necessary) is this : ysipospiovg (obs.) 
 fjblv aipag gap/ (obs.) Trspiypa^ag, sapog S’ IviavGicov copcov apy/jv 
 iGoppoTroig TaXavTSvGug Zguyolg’ zanziTa sapog ‘ToXvzapTia tov 
 GV f/jTravTa GTityavwGag aioova, Cspovg (obs.) azpori tovtov pbSTa- 
 Grapalllojzsv (obs.), with (jbSTaTwpivoji (obs.) in the next line. 
 
NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS. 
 
 291 
 
 Didymus (Expos. Ps. (LXX.) cxxxviii. 9) is supposed to 
 quote Clement’s passage on the “ worlds.” He reads hiarocycclg 
 and bdOvvovrou, but in the next line he has Tuycfig (obs.) rrjg 
 sccvroO Tpovotccg hioizov(Jbiw IQvmtcu. In Dedic. p. 13, Nice- 
 phorus has a sentence of seven lines : zctv (ropy nvi ^rpovolop 
 (obs.) 0goc . . . oWsp ti fiupog oti/TiTccXocvrevGoig (obs.) rovroig 
 tugiv iGoppovov (obs.) . . . 'buQvvuv (obs.) tc.tX. In the previous 
 sentence Nicephorus has jj yocp uv togovtov zheppsi GrTQog 
 lyjpcov, rrjv cizpuKpvyj ttigtiv. With the first clause comp. 
 pseudo-Basil quoted on p. 273. Nicephorus has kpyriybg two 
 lines above, as pseudo-Basil also has. He describes the em- 
 peror presently as another Noah or Moses. Pseudo-Basil has 
 shortly before said that Gregory was a second Moses ( vid . sup. 
 p. 260). In Tkeopli. 29 we find rrjg bczpccKpveGTccrov TriGrecog 
 only a few lines above the passage quoted from Basil (vid. 
 sup. p. 276). A few lines above, Nicephorus describes Dema- 
 ratus’ feelings on seeing Alexander seated upon his throne ; 
 and the way in which he writes recalls Theoph. 18 and Alex- 
 ander’s vision of Serapis (vid. sup. p. 256). * AffrpbcTrrovroig is 
 there, and GWOCGrpocTrovroc is here. An “ immortal name ” 
 is there, and to (juzya, ovopjoc is here. This at once recalls a 
 familiar page in pseudo-Galen (vid. sup. p. 91). These things 
 are all on p. 13 in Nicephorus ; and on the same page, two 
 lines below huQvvav, we remark 7rzpippebvrcdV (hzivuv). This 
 calls up Or at. 5 kccjccov Trzpippzbvroov (vid. sup. p. 192). In this 
 section is the expression Gotpiu ctTUpocf/jiWrirq (vid. sup. p. 177). 
 The last "word appears, as is fitting, in Nicephorus in its later 
 form cc7rupd(jji‘k\og. He uses it with yv&jffig (vid. sup. p. 177, 
 n. 1) on p. 27, and with Gvnaig on p. 20. A few lines above 
 (p. 20) we observe Osorevzrov (vid. sup. p. 179), and half a 
 dozen lines below hievXccfiovf/j'evcv. As we have seen (pp. 176, 
 179), the Oratio uses QeorevzTog in § 1. A few lines below it, 
 in § 2, is foev'kufinO'e vroc. From the fresh standing ground 
 which this page of Nicephorus affords, it would be easy to 
 call upon the stage almost every one of the writings which 
 have been examined. But it surely is unnecessary. We shall 
 only notice one thing more. We observed just now, on p. 13, 
 ocvTiTGcXavrsvGcig, or as it is in the parallel passage in Eusebius 
 TotkubTivGccg. The word is familiar to us. We will refei, 
 however, to the example of its use, which ought least of all 
 
292 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 to bring to light coincidences with Clement’s first Epistle to 
 the Corinthians. The word is used by Achilles Tatius in his 
 description of the death of Charicles ( vid . sup. p. 210). We 
 must give the passage : o 5s zoczohaipLuv Xccp/zXrig, vffo tov 
 rrjg Iffffeiocg TotkuvTgvbfiZvog zvf/jOCTog, \z Trjg shpocg |<r<pa/p/^gro, 
 ffOTS (Jbh Iff ovpccv zaToXiaOccivav, ffOTS 5s iff i rpuy/ikov zv/3 igtoov. 
 6 5s tov zXvhoovog \ffkZfiv kvtov yjzifjjuv, tuv 5s p VTripojv ovzsti 
 zpocTeTv 5 vvafMvog, 5 ovg 5s Iccvtov , ofjbcog toj tov hpof/jov ffvevfJbUTi, 
 Trig Tvyjig r\v. 6 5s iffffog, pdofjbri deoDv IzTpgff&Tcci rrjg Xscotpbpov 
 z.tX. In Nicephorus we observe xXvh oovog. A coincidence 
 with Clement’s § 20, in the words IfjbffohiZ^ofJbSvog s Ig tov 5po^or, 
 found a few lines below in Tatius, has been pointed out on 
 p. 211. We turn to Eusebius and observe, a few lines above 
 the passage first quoted from De Laud. Const, vi., s ig uvu- 
 ffocvXav zoci ^v[LY\bi(xv touv \v ccvtco tov T7\g hiiffffgvbvTcov 
 
 (obs.) 5 pbe/jov (obs.). cog yccp zai Tdig \ff sAcr/5 i fipafieiuv \v 
 ayavi Tovg bpof/jovg fodgctvvovGt, with rj As apopog after one line, 
 and presently 5 iccvvovgi. In § 20, Clement has 5 pop,ov hiuvvovGiv 
 (Jj7\ 5sr aXkrjXoig IpjffohiZfiVTU (obs.). In Apost. Const, viii. 12, in 
 the fifty lines formerly under our hands {vid. sup. p. 268), 
 we find s ig oivdiffocv Acer. There also we have 6 Trjv [LgycChriv 
 OuXocggocv yjup'iGug (cf. Clement’s § 33) Trig *a/ *77* fth 
 avochsi%ccg, ffXaTrjv, . . . Ttjv 5s . . . (3 OTccvuig GTecpccvcvGocg zai 
 oivdwi zaWvvag . . . zai ffrjyalg azvvdoig (JbsQvGag, optai 5s 
 ff2pi(T(piy<gccg tig sfipccv ccTpsfJbrj yrjg aGpaXz gt&tyiv . . . IviavTuv 
 zvzSkoig. A little below we observe ffavToioov (fivTav and avqzag. 
 Half a dozen lines above the passage quoted, Eusebius has 
 fftjyag ccs vvdovg, IviavToov zvzXoi, and as we follow down the 
 column we observe zdtXkiaiv s GTepavaGev, oo zai OakaTTav 
 ffXcoTrjv ccvrjzz zai yrjv ffavTOioig (pvTolg iGTifidvarGev. A few 
 lines below this, Eusebius has the iGoppoffOig TaXavTevGag 
 Zpyolg before commented upon, the TakavTBVGag of which is 
 here used. In Achill. Tat. vi. 19, we find . . . tccXccvtsvstch. 
 fjjCcxzTat 5s cLp><pct) ffgpi Trjg poffrjg . with Trjg oizziocg zhpag s zffg- 
 govtcc half a dozen lines below. There is evidently the closest 
 possible connection between Clement, §§ 20, 33, Tatius, De 
 Laud . Const., the Apost. Const., and Nicephorus. A connec- 
 tion between the Apost. Const, and pseudo-Agatharchides in 
 the use of the word ff 6piG<piy<gag has been pointed out on p. 
 269. The passage is this : ffgpi&kvTzg /3oog ovpccv ffspt tov airy^va 
 
NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS. 
 
 293 
 
 tovv ccvtovv, zed tov birtGco tov Tpay/f^ov hsGfJbov g’u [/jukoc 
 TSp iGQiylgciVTSg, ccttoXvovgi tov fiiov. Comp, now with Tatius. 
 With all this remarkable interlacing, as it were, of these 
 various writings before us, is it possible for one moment to 
 doubt that the s^poev ccG^cchsGTUTrjv of the Apost. Const, must 
 be referred to the g z rrjg sbpccg iG^oupiZ^To of Tatius, and 
 the kzzpovSTcci rrjg ebpccg which follows. In confirmation of 
 this, observe that Clement in § 33 (obs.) has hizzoGp^Gev 
 (obs.) ccuTOvg’ yrjv (obs.) rg ^izypjpiGiv (k^dp/GSv (obs.) Damasc.) 
 a-ro rov mpii^ovTog ctvT/jv vhaTog zod /jbpocGSv (obs.) sti tov 
 aG^oXrj (obs.) tov ihiov (3 ovkripjCCTog Qipdihiov (obs.). In Leontius 
 and John, the reading is sbpocGSV (!). In Dedic. 9, Nicephorus 
 has hioXiG&ocivovGi (cf. Tatius) tov togovtov Gukov, and after 
 two lines zed 'hrjT ZGyp (JbsyiGTTjv sipoev (obs.) ts zed uG(pukziuv 
 (obs.) g lg zog(JjOv (obs.) g iprjvrjg hoc , zod zvzkov (obs.) bpOoho^iocg 
 z.T.k. With both Clement and Nicephorus, comp, the words 
 from the Apost. Const, opiGi ^g TepiG^iy^ccg s lg sfipccv ccTpepjij 
 yrjg ocGtpcckzGTccTriv' g TrkripdGocg yocp gov tov zoGfJbov zod hiezoG- 
 fjo^Gccg ocvtov , with g viocvt&v zvzkoig after two lines. 
 
 It seems impossible to come to any other conclusion than 
 that the writings which we have been examining belong all to 
 the same family, if not all to the same author, however diverse 
 soever they may seem to be the one from the other, and that 
 they are jest and parody from the beginning to the end. We 
 have traced them down to the fifteenth century ; for though 
 Nicephorus Callistus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, is sup- 
 posed to have died about the middle of the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, yet there is no proof, besides that which is derived from 
 the single MS. which contains the work under his name, that 
 he wrote any ecclesiastical history whatever, and this MS. is of 
 later date. We believe that we have now, not so well as we 
 could wish, yet still sufficiently, redeemed our pledge. We 
 have shown, we think conclusively, the existence of a great 
 literary fraud, and have given good reason for supposing that 
 it was committed in the times of the revival of learning. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 § I- 
 
 I F in tlie majority of instances the coincidences which have 
 been produced in the foregoing pages have accidentally 
 arisen, it will be obvious to every thoughtful mind that a very 
 large number of duplicates must have been found, seeing that 
 the coincidences themselves are made up for the most part of 
 words in fairly common use. Our readers are fully able to 
 judge what amount of difficulty has been found in dealing with 
 such duplicates, for we have made it our rule, when comparing 
 two passages together, to give every verbal coincidence which 
 we could detect. It has thus come to pass that a great number 
 of coincidences are given of very trifling importance in them- 
 selves, and which owe whatever force they possess simply to 
 the circumstances under which they were found. It must be 
 observed, however, that there was for the most part an exceed- 
 ing opportuneness in the time when those trifling coincidences 
 came to hand. They were the coincidences which we should 
 expect to find if we really were, as we supposed we were, 
 following upon the track of writers who used ancient authors 
 in the same way as Nicephorus used Diodorus, but with more 
 caution. 
 
 We are perfectly well aware that accidental coincidences 
 can be produced ; but we know also that coincidences that can 
 be proved to be accidental are far less numerous than some 
 persons perhaps imagine. Coincidences, whether accidental or 
 not, may be found by the laborious process of reading through 
 volume after volume, and comparing the language with that of 
 the writing for which the coincidences are desired. Such 
 coincidences are exceedingly difficult to find, and there is one 
 noticeable peculiarity which always attends them. A coinci- 
 dence may be found for (say) Diognet. 2, the next will be for 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 295 
 
 § 5 or § 10, and so on. When a few coincidences have been 
 collected it is impossible to show the connection between them, 
 and to explain how they found their way into the writing 
 which is supposed to have borrowed them. It is true that 
 these may not be accidental, but until you have discovered the 
 method on which the writing in question is composed, you 
 cannot prove that the resemblances have not accidentally arisen. 
 When we entered upon the inquiry, of which this volume is the 
 narrative, it was with the knowledge of the method on which 
 the documents with which we had to deal were composed. We 
 knew certain treatises and certain pages of those treatises to 
 be used by our writer. These pages formed the starting-points 
 of our examination. We then considered whether it was possible 
 to reconstruct any considerable portions of the writing under 
 examination out of the pages in which we thus found ourselves. 
 We put ourselves for the time being into the position of our 
 writer, and tried to imagine what ideas the language of the 
 author we had for the moment in hand would be likely to 
 suggest, and what points would probably be followed up by the 
 examination of other authors. We referred to those authors, 
 but always on some hint previously supplied that a search in 
 such directions would be fruitful. It has thus come to pass 
 that in the foregoing pages not one coincidence is given which 
 was accidentally found. The element of accident or chance is 
 eliminated at any rate from the discovery of the coincidences, 
 and the value of the coincidences found is tested at every step. 
 It thus happens that for every set of coincidences which has 
 been brought before our readers, there is an additional circum- 
 stance to be considered, viz. the way in which we were led to the 
 place in which they were found. It is impossible adequately 
 to show on paper the irresistible force which this circumstance 
 gives even to coincidences in themselves very trifling. 
 
 Accidental coincidences may, however, be found. If a com- 
 parison is made between two writings upon the same subject, 
 e.g. “ the common places of Christian teaching,” there will be 
 found, and “ it would be strange if there were not found;” at 
 least some “ coincidences in insulated words and occasional 
 phrases.” 1 And if the various writings which have been 
 examined had been either all of them, or those of them 
 1 Alf. Proleg. 2 Pet. § iv. p. 148, 1st ed. 
 
296 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 which are the most closely connected, upon the same subject, 
 it would be necessary to believe a great many of the coinci- 
 dences which we have pointed out to be purely accidental. 
 But no two of our writings are upon the same subject, and 
 those of them which upon examination appear to be the most 
 closely connected are just those which are the furthest 
 removed from one another in subject and general tone and 
 character. What can seem more opposite to an epistle 
 expostulating with the Corinthians on their divisions than the 
 love story of Achilles Tatius ? yet what can be closer than 
 
 243 ^2 9 2 connec ^ on between these writings at certain points? 
 
 What community of thought is there between De Morte 
 Peregrini and the excerpts from Helladius the grammarian ? 
 
 P. 51 . yet how close is the connection ! It will be well to enumerate 
 some of the subjects of the writings whose honesty we have 
 impeached, that their incongruity in character may be clearly 
 seen. We have an account of the life and death of a vain- 
 glorious fool, an apocryphal gospel, hortatory and didactic 
 epistles, a description of these epistles, summaries of gram- 
 matical remarks, historical excerpts descriptive of men and 
 manners, accounts of hermaphrodites, a love story, the praise 
 of classical study, prefaces to a volume of extracts from divers 
 authors, and a synodical letter on image- worship. It must be 
 confessed that this is a motley group of writings, and yet the 
 members of this motley group seem to be very closely con- 
 nected together, not only amongst themselves, but also in the 
 authors which they used in common. It cannot be pretended 
 that the coincidences which have been given in the foregoing 
 pages between the various members of our group of writings 
 are such as must necessarily arise when two or more writers 
 are treating of the same subject. 
 
 Now it must be observed that this dissimilarity in subject 
 and character — and yet (oftentimes) similarity in language — 
 and this community in the use of authors is exactly what must 
 be found if our theory is correct, and the writings in question 
 of very late authorship. We argue that their author (or 
 authors) belonged to the times of the revival of learning, that 
 he was a sufficient scholar, a man possessed of a keen relish 
 for jest and parody, and unscrupulous. Such a man would 
 personate an ancient author, not with a polemical end in view, 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 297 
 
 not with the desire of doing good, but simply for his own 
 amusement, and for the sake of feeling his own literary power, 
 and from his love of that kind of often innocent deceit whicli 
 finds a pleasure in assuming a character which is not one’s 
 own, a pleasure which belongs as much to playgoers as to play- 
 actors, and -which is not confined to them. Such a man in 
 carrying out his literary deceptions would not write a number 
 of treatises upon the same subject — there would be little 
 amusement in such repetition, — nor would he write always 
 under the same name. If he did either of these two things, 
 his detection would be certain. He would provoke that very 
 comparison of his treatises which we have just made, and 
 which he would seek by all means to avoid. He would be 
 necessarily, and perhaps unconsciously, a literary Proteus. He 
 would have his favourite authors, whicli would leave their 
 mark upon almost everything written by him. He would jest 
 upon a passage, but he would not forget his jokes, and would 
 repeat them again and again in altered forms. Our literary 
 Proteus may not have been a single individual. The pheno- 
 mena which have been pointed out in the foregoing pages may 
 as well be ascribed to two or more writers acting in concert, 
 or in perfect knowledge of each other’s secrets, as to a single 
 individual. Differences in style would, if necessary, be thus 
 explained. There was some single individual doubtless who 
 led the way, and who to a great extent marked out the methods 
 and laid down the lines on which treatises not actually his 
 own would be composed. Anybody, indeed, possessed of some 
 ability in writing Greek sentences could follow along the road 
 by which we have taken our readers, and could manufacture 
 out of the pages passing under his eye a treatise on any subject 
 “ grave or gay.” If the writer put his sentences well together, 
 and rigidly adhered to the golden rule of never borrowing too 
 much from any one page or treatise, and if he adapted his 
 language and ideas fairly well to the circumstances surrounding 
 the ancient author whose character he assumed, the treatise 
 would defy detection until some one discovered its method of 
 composition, and compared it with the proper documents. It 
 would remain unsuspected, for it would be compared with 
 writings of like character and subject, and to these it would 
 show no unnatural affinity. But if that writing were once 
 
298 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 compared with the foregoing pages and with the passages to 
 which those pages refer, the fraud would be at once apparent. 
 We have shown how the writings with which we have been 
 dealing were put together. If any one is minded to add another 
 of his own composition to the group, he will not find much 
 difficulty in his way. There are still some things in Aristo- 
 phanes, and in the other authors which have been in our 
 hands, with which a quick wit may make itself merry. How- 
 ever ill such wit may agree with the temper of the scholars of 
 to-day, it was such as Henry Stephens and the scholars of his 
 day thoroughly delighted in (yid. sup . p. 16). 
 
 §2 \ 
 
 The documents whose authenticity has been denied in the 
 foregoing pages are as follows : — 
 
 1 , De Morte Peregrini , ascribed to Lucian ; 2, the apocryphal 
 Evangelium Thomce ; 3, Epistolce duce ad Corinthios , bearing the name 
 of Clement, one of which has been commonly supposed to be genuine ; 
 4, Photius’ Bibliotheca , Cods. 126, 232, 244, 250, 279 ; 5, De 
 Prcenotione ad Epigenem Liber , ascribed to Galen ; 6, De Legendis 
 Libris Gentilium , ascribed to Basil; 7, De Spiritu Sancto , cc. xxix. xxx., 
 also ascribed to Basil; 8, Epistola ad Diognetum , ascribed to Justin 
 Martyr; 9, Oratio, also ascribed to Justin; 10, Epistola ad Theo- 
 philum , a “ synodical letter ” found amongst the works of John of 
 Damascus; 11, Prcefationes duce to the Sacra Parallela of John of 
 Damascus; 12, Clitophontis et Leucippes Amores , ascribed to Achilles 
 Tatius ; 13, Macccibceorum iii. 
 
 It is not, of course, maintained that the evidence against 
 the genuineness of these "writings is equally conclusive in all 
 cases. Some of these have been only slightly examined. We 
 have plenty of evidence still in hand, if it should be called for. 
 We believe, however, that nothing further is necessary, because 
 there are tw T o points specially to be borne in mind. 
 
 (1.) In the first place, the singular way in wdiich all the 
 writings above mentioned are connected together must be con- 
 sidered. We began with Peregrinus , and showed that it was not 
 P. 52. written by Lucian. Then, as treatise after treatise was taken 
 up, we continually found coincidences -with Peregrinus. The 
 r. 39. Evang. Thom, came upon the scene at an early stage in the 
 inquiry, and was then lost sight of for a long time, but it 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 299 
 
 appeared again at the close. Achilles Tatius’ love story was p. 255 . 
 shown to have something in common with every one of our writ- 
 ings, and was itself shown to have borrowed again and again Pp. 236, 
 from the Bibliotheca , which describes it, and consequently to 
 be a fraud. Care has been taken to make the evidence the 
 strongest in the case of those writings which are the most 
 strongly supported, e.g. Clement’s Epistles. The solitary strong 
 point in favour of the antiquity of 3 Macc. is the fact that it 
 is found in the Codex Alexandrinus. This will be no longer 
 a strong point if the evidence adduced suffices to show that 
 Clement’s Epistles, which are also in that codex, are of late 
 date. The point to be observed is that all the writings named 
 above are closely connected, that all show signs of unfair 
 dealing, and that the dishonesty of some of them is indisput- 
 able. 
 
 (2.) In the next place, as we have again and again re- 
 marked, the circumstances under which the coincidences 
 produced were found must be remembered. We shall call 
 attention presently to a number of sets of coincidences. The 
 individual force of these is very considerable, but in nearly 
 every case the force is immensely increased, and in some cases 
 almost entirely consists in the circumstances under which a 
 particular set was found. 
 
 The table of contents prefixed to this volume supplies the 
 means of tracing out the evidence bearing upon the several 
 members of our group of writings. Among those examined 
 there are, however, two of very considerable importance, the 
 Bibliotheca of Photius, and Clement’s Epistles. The first has 
 the greatest intrinsic value, the second raises the most difficult 
 questions. It will be well, therefore, to give a brief summing 
 up of the principal points in the evidence bearing upon these 
 two. In the course of our remarks nearly all the other writ- 
 ings will necessarily come into view. 
 
 §3. 
 
 The Myriobiblion seu Bibliotheca of Photius is unquestionably 
 one of the most extraordinary, and, if its contents can be 
 trusted, one of the most valuable books that was ever written. 
 
 It has been described as 6< an extensive review of ancient 
 Greek literature by a scholar of immense erudition and sound 
 
300 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 judgment.” 1 A prefatory letter informs us that the work 
 contains the account of 279 Volumes or “codices” which 
 Photius had read during his embassy “ to the Assyrians ” 
 (whatever that may mean), and was written at the request of 
 his brother Tarasius, to whom the letter is addressed. The 
 embassy doubtless was a long one, and the libraries to which 
 Photius had access rich in works which have not come down 
 to us. It is a noticeable circumstance that the excerpts with 
 which we have been concerned in the foregoing pages are, 
 without exception, from works which no longer survive. The 
 writings of Agatharchides, Helladius, Ptolemgeus, Stephanus 
 Gobarus, and the books of Diodorus from which the excerpts 
 are made, are lost. This is a very significant fact. 
 
 Extraordinary as is the value of the Bibliotheca , it somehow 
 or other has not received the attention of authors which it de- 
 served. In Migne’s edition (p. 14) are “ Eruditorum aliquot de 
 Photio P. C. judicial Zonaras and Cedrenus are referred to, 
 but neither of these writers mention the Bibliotheca. The third 
 name is that of F. Turrianus, who in his Prooem. Apost. Const. 
 1578, several times mentions this work. Earlier notices, no 
 doubt, may be found. H. Stephens, for example, published 
 the excerpts from Agatharchides in 1557, and those from 
 Diodorus in 1559. Gregory of Constantinople, moreover, 
 appears to refer to it. Still the book would not seem to have 
 attracted the attention which might be expected, nor does 
 there seem to be in existence any such notice of it as will 
 identify our present Bibliotheca with the work which Photius 
 compiled. There is, indeed, in Suidas, under the head of 
 'Hpcc'hrzog, a considerable passage which is found in Phot. Bibl. 
 242. It is, however, idle to appeal to a book so notoriously 
 interpolated as Suidas’ Lexicon . The circumstances, moreover, 
 under which the passage appears in Cod. 242 are such as to 
 excite a suspicion of foul play. 
 
 The mss., however, would seem to have received almost an 
 undue share of the attention of celebrated scribes. Bekker 
 describes four MSS. The handwriting of the first, he says, is 
 “ Similis Aristophani Pavennati ; ” of the third, “ Joanni Rhoso 
 of the fourth, 6 ‘ Angelo Vergecio ” (vid. sup. p. 8). The second 
 MS., he says, is u non antiquus.” 
 
 1 Smith, DigL Or. Rom. Biog., art. “Photius.” 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 301 
 
 The Bibliotheca has been roundly charged with being inter- 
 polated by Kiister (in Suidas) and others. We need not detail 
 their reasons. They have not hitherto materially shaken the 
 credit of the volume, and probably would not do so if they 
 were again advanced. It may be stated, however, that Cod. 
 
 244 has confessedly received a clumsy, and we believe purposely 
 clumsy, addition. If the volume has been tampered with to a 
 considerable extent, it is obvious that it might be very convenient 
 to have at an immaterial point plain tokens of a very clumsy 
 interpolator. To this person could be referred any consider- 
 able mistakes into which the real interpolator might fall. 
 
 In the foregoing pages the genuineness of Cods. 126, 232, 
 
 244, 250, and 279 has been denied for reasons which we 
 believe to be sufficient. 
 
 Chap. vi. is devoted to the examination of cods. 126 and 
 244 ; and as these will come before us presently in connection 
 with Clement’s Epistles, we may pass them by for the present. p - 313 - 
 
 The authenticity of Cod. 232 (Stephanus Gobarus) is denied 
 on the ground of its plain connection with Tatius, Clement, 
 Eusebius, and the interpolated Epistles of Ignatius. The 
 “ codex ” contains short summaries of remarks which must 
 have occupied a considerable space in the original volume, if it 
 ever existed. The coincidences pointed out are not with one 
 of these summaries only, but with a number. The conclusion 
 that the excerpts have been manufactured, appears to be a 
 necessary one. 
 
 Cod. 250, which contains the excerpts from Agatharchides, 
 has been much more completely examined. The evidence ^oi. 9 ~ 
 shows very plainly that these excerpts combine the language of 
 Diodorus and Strabo, and occasionally of ^Elian. We need 
 not repeat it. We must add, however, that the conclusions 
 arrived at after a formal examination of the codex is confirmed 
 in later pages by two sets of coincidences, either of which p P- 233 , 
 suffices to prove that the codex does not contain honest 
 excerpts from Agatharchides, and by the peculiar connection 
 which has repeatedly been pointed out between the codex and 
 various members of our group of writings, e.g. Theophilus , 
 
 Tatius, Clement, etc., which can only be explained on the p - 221 * 
 theory that the codex is a fraud. 
 
 Cod. 279 contains summaries of the grammatical remarks of 
 
302 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Helladius. The evidence is very much the same as that which 
 convicts Cod. 232 of dishonesty. The summaries are very 
 brief, while the remarks themselves must have occupied con- 
 siderable space. The summaries are, however, indebted to 
 P. 53. Aristophanes and his scholiast. It was not therefore Helladius, 
 but the person who borrows his name, who used Aristophanes. 
 This conclusion is confirmed by coincidences, of a curious 
 P.55, nature, with Cyril of Jerusalem, and also by the connection 
 P. 234. which is shown to exist between two summaries and a single 
 sentence of Achilles Tatius. 
 
 The evidence against the integrity of the Bibliotheca has, of 
 course, a cumulative force. If the evidence against anyone of 
 these codices is conclusive, it must then be considered whether 
 coincidences which in one case certainly arise from fraud must 
 not in other cases be held to arise from the same cause. The 
 fact that we have not even in one instance been brought into 
 contact with excerpts from books which are now in existence, 
 must not be lost sight of. We must hold it to be sufficiently 
 proved that at least five “ codices ” of the Bibliotheca , including 
 the description of Clement’s Epistles, are spurious. 
 
 It has been shown that H. Stephens published the Oratio , 
 P. 196. a treatise ascribed to Justin Martyr, well knowing it to be 
 spurious. As we have just observed, he also published the 
 spurious excerpts from Agatharchides and Diodorus. He seems 
 to have exercised some strange spell over the Bibliotheca. He 
 possessed a MS., and had it in his power to have published it. 
 This he would not do ; and it would seem that he was able also 
 to hinder its publication at the hands of others. The Bibliotheca 
 was first printed in 1601, some years after Stephens’ death. 
 
 §4- 
 
 We pass on to consider how the case stands with respect to 
 Clement’s Epistles. 
 
 1. We did not originally intend to do more in the present 
 volume than show that the genuineness of these epistles is not 
 so clear and self-evident a matter as is commonly supposed. In 
 the course of the foregoing inquiry, however, the evidence on 
 this point has accumulated to such an extent that we feel sure 
 that we have in hand sufficient not merely to justify us in ask- 
 ing, but also to enable us to answer the question, Are the two 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 303 
 
 epistles under the name of Clement what they pretend to be? 
 the one the genuine work of Clement of Rome, the other a 
 really ancient writing, though erroneously ascribed to the 
 Roman bishop? So far as we know, this question has not 
 been asked since the discovery of C. and the consequent publi- 
 cation of the epistles in a complete form. The old answer 
 to the question is not now sufficient. The problem to be solved 
 is not in all respects the old one, and a new solution is required. 
 
 The meagreness of our information with respect to the past 
 history of the three mss. of Clement’s Epistles is pointed out 
 in the Appendix. This will probably not be thought to be P. 329. 
 any very serious objection, seeing that not a few important 
 mss. are in the same predicament. Still it is necessary to 
 observe that no argument in favour of the genuineness of these 
 mss. can be deduced from their past history. The genuine- 
 ness of the mss. can only be proved by proving the genuineness 
 of their contents. 
 
 It is, of course, at once admitted that there is a mass 
 of evidence which seems at first sight to prove the authen- 
 ticity of the contents of the mss., i.e. the epistles themselves. 
 Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, 
 Photius, and others, have in one way or other shown their 
 knowledge of Clement’s Epistles — of one or of both. In 
 our epistles are found passages to which these writers may 
 be supposed to refer. The conclusion has seemed neces- 
 sarily to follow, that our epistles are those which these 
 writers used. The list of such writers has been gradually 
 extended since the publication of the Editio Princeps in 
 1633 ; and thus the tracing of the supposed acknowledgment 
 of our epistles from author to author, and from century to 
 century, is a very conspicuous feature in all modern editions 
 of Clement. We must not, however, shut our eyes to the 
 fact that evidence of this kind must necessarily be found in our 
 epistles. Whether they are or are not, they at any rate claim 
 to be the two Epistles to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome. 
 
 The existence of this evidence proves the claim. What further 
 does it prove ? What forger, desiring to pass off two epistles 
 of his own as the veritable epistles bearing the name of Clement, 
 would omit the references made by antiquity, and content him- 
 self with simply writing the title at the head of his ms. ? As 
 
304 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 well might the utterer of a base coin omit its distinctive 
 marks, and flatter himself that by simply calling it a shilling 
 he would deceive a credulous public. A forger of an ancient 
 writing may possibly err by saying too much, or by saying 
 too little, or by the total omission of some reference which 
 has escaped his researches, — we shall point out presently 
 one or two defects of these kinds found in our epistles, — but 
 it is perfectly certain that he will endeavour to satisfy every 
 reference of antiquity on which he can lay his hands. Until 
 lately it has been impossible to test the value of the evidence 
 of this kind adduced in favour of our epistles. If it was con- 
 tended that a reference (say) by Irenaeus to our 1st Epistle 
 was not fully satisfied, it was obvious to answer that an un- 
 mutilated copy would probably fulfil all requirements. There 
 is no longer any room for this reply. The newly-discovered 
 MSS. have completed both epistles for us. They ought now r to 
 satisfy all references and respond to all allusions. The absence 
 of a single letter from the superscription which ought to be on 
 a coin will suffice to prove it a forgery, though the presence of 
 every letter will not be sufficient as a proof of genuineness. 
 We cannot, for very obvious reasons, deal as rigorously in this 
 respect with our epistles as with a coin. Still it is evident that 
 the weight of the argument founded on evidence of this kind 
 passed over to the other side on the completion of our epistles. 
 Previously, the important matter was the presence in them of 
 certain quotations, etc.; now, the important point is the absence 
 from them of passages which may reasonably be looked for. It 
 must be added, that even if it be possible to explain away or 
 account for such omissions, we shall not then have arrived at a 
 proof of the genuineness of our epistles. If every one of the 
 allusions of antiquity to Clement’s Epistles could be satisfied 
 out of our documents, this would not do more than raise a 
 strong presumption in their favour. 
 
 P. 332. It is shown, however, in the Appendix, that though we 
 now have these epistles in a complete form, there are still 
 some of the allusions of antiquity unsatisfied. The 1st Epistle 
 P. 336. does not answer in all respects to the description which Irenaeus 
 gives of it. Neither the first nor the second supplies an answer 
 p. 332. to a reference made by pseudo-J ustin. In this last case one 
 editor suggests the existence of a lacuna in the 2d Epistle, 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 305 
 
 p. 337. 
 
 another an alteration in pseudo- J ustin’s text. These sugges- 
 tions unmistakeably point out the natural inference to be drawn 
 from the omission. Neither of these suggestions, however, 
 even if they are legitimate, will explain the discrepancy in 
 Irenseus’ description, for there is in Ep. i. an expression which, 
 if the epistle be genuine, marks it out as the document to which App. 
 Irenseus refers. Nor are these the only omissions, for the 2d 
 Epistle does not contain a passage which the pseudo-Damascene A PP^ g 
 apparently extracted from it. 
 
 We remarked just now that the forger of an ancient writing 
 might possibly err, not only by saying too little, but also by 
 saying too much. Clement’s Ep. i. contains a very remarkable A PPj 
 statement concerning S. Paul, which, since 1633 (the date of 
 the Editio Princeps ), has been supposed to show that the apostle 
 fulfilled his purpose (mentioned in Rom. xv. 24), and travelled 
 to Spain. On this statement antiquity is perfectly silent. 
 Writers, such as Jerome and Cyril of Jerusalem, made use to App. 
 all appearance of Clement’s Ep. i., and still never allude to p * 332 ' 
 this statement, even when expressly speaking of S. Paul and 
 of the extent of his labours. 
 
 We do not, of course, say that these facts are in themselves 
 a sufficient reason for summarily dismissing our epistles as mere 
 impositions, but we do say that they fully justify any one who 
 has a real value for truth in casting a suspicious eye over 
 them. They are awkward facts when placed at the end of 
 the train of coincidences in the foregoing pages, which seem 
 to show that our epistles are utterly fraudulent. 
 
 2. These coincidences vary very much in value as a matter 
 of course, but it is quite easy to pick out from amongst them 
 some sets or groups, the individual force of which is un- 
 deniably great, while their cumulative force would seem to be 
 perfectly irresistible. 
 
 (1.) Take, for example, the remarkable fact, that certain p. 25. 
 lines from Sophocles and Euripides are found almost side by 
 side in Stobseus’ Florilegium, and that these lines, as the editors 
 of Clement point out, seem to be used in a certain passage in 
 Ep. i. On later pages the notion that Clement made use of 
 the Florilegium , and even of the Sermo, in which the coincid- P. 168. 
 ence referred to is found, is confirmed by another set of curious 
 coincidences. 
 
 U 
 
306 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 (2.) In Ep. i. Clement uses the word vnofotg. A very com- 
 petent authority pronounces it to be “ very rare in the positive.” 
 P. 24. Three examples of the use of the positive have been supplied. 
 All three supply coincidences with Clement. Strangely enough, 
 the first furnishes a special coincidence with S., the second 
 P. 254. with A., and the third with C. The third example is from 
 the scholiast on Aristophanes. Scholia in the immediate 
 neighbourhood seem to have been used in Clement’s Ep. ii. 
 
 (3.) A remarkable set of coincidences between Clement’s 
 342 23 ’ Ap* i. 12 and Diodorus has been pointed out. The writer of 
 p 216 Aera/nraws, pseudo-Galen, and Tatius seem to use the same 
 pages and sentences. Another set of very remarkable coin- 
 P.263sq. cidences between Clement and Diodorus has also been pointed 
 out. It is incredible that two such groups — not to speak of 
 l?/*195* sin £ le coincidences — have accidentally arisen. Their nature 
 shows conclusively that Clement used Diodorus in jest, and 
 therefore was not the Roman bishop. 
 
 (4.) Special attention has been directed in chap. vi. to two 
 passages, the one in Clement’s Ep. i., treating of repentance, 
 P. 132. the other in Epistola ad Diognetum , treating mainly of man’s 
 free-will. These passages, — which we shall call C. and D., — 
 upon comparison, show no coincidences the one with the other. 
 They appear, however, to use the same portions of the LXX. 
 We find, moreover, in the Sacra Parallela of John of Damascus 
 a short sentence, seemingly a translation from the Latin of 
 Pp.131, Irenaeus, one-half of which is closely represented in D., while 
 an expression out of the other half occurs in C. On examina- 
 P. 133. tion of other passages apparently used in D., we find a pas- 
 sage from Hippolytus and two from Clement of Alexandria 
 which supply coincidences also with C. One of the passages 
 (on free-will) from Clement of Alexandria is contained in 
 P. 134. the Sacra Parallela under the head of “Free-will.” We 
 P. 134. naturally turn to the Parallela , and we observe there a verse 
 of Holy Scripture on repentance (cited in C.) so altered by a 
 certain Eusebius as to give very nearly some words of Clem. 
 Alex, on free-will which stand close by. This seems to give 
 the connecting link between the subject of C. and that of 
 D. Taking this as an indication that our Clement con- 
 P. 136. suited John of Damascus, we turn in the Parallela to the 
 head of “ Repentance.” We there find two passages from 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 OAK 
 
 o(J / 
 
 Clement of Alexandria separated in Clem. Alex, by only a 
 few lines. These few lines contain a remarkable quotation 
 cited by the editors of Clement, as in great part identical wdth P. 137. 
 a so-called apocryphal quotation which occurs in C. Further 
 examination seems to show that Clement’s so-called apocryphal P- 138. 
 quotation is only a manufacture by himself out of Clem. P. 356. 
 Alex, and Holy Scripture. It has to be considered whether 
 all these things are accidental ; for if they are not, it must 
 be conceded that our Clement made use of his Alexandrian 
 namesake and of John of Damascus, and that Ep . i. is very 
 closely connected with Diognetus. 
 
 (5.) It has been shown that a quotation founded on Holy p. 221. 
 Scripture, but possibly derived from some apocryphal source, 
 occurs in our Clement’s Ep. i., and also in Clement of Alex- 
 andria. In this quotation, as given by Clem. Alex., a word is 
 found which is used by our Clement just outside the quotation. 
 
 From this coincidence critics with one consent argue that the 
 two Clements are not independent of one another in their use 
 of the quotation in question. We have pointed out, however, 
 that this same word occurs again a little further on in our 
 Clement, and then in the midst of language which carries us 
 back to an earlier part of Ep. i., where the same language is 
 found in connection with a certain verse of Holy Scripture, 
 which our Clement, moreover, seems to glance at in the 
 neighbourhood of the passage first referred to. This verse 
 Clement of Alexandria cites immediately after the apocryphal 
 quotation. The presence of some other curious coincidences 
 between the two Clements at that exact spot have also been p. 221 v 
 pointed out, coincidences which by no means look like 
 honest work such as is to be expected from Clem. Alex., but 
 which seem rather to indicate the hand of a man playing upon 
 and trifling with the language of Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 From these coincidences it seems, indeed, necessary to believe 
 that one or other of the two Clements is dishonest. Which 
 of them is the literary rogue ? One answer to this question 
 alone seems possible. If this were the only set of coincidences 
 of like character to be found in our Clement we should hardly 
 hesitate. But we have already had several such sets before us, 
 and have seen reason to conclude from them that Clement was 
 a jesting copyist, and a copyist, moreover, of Clement of Alex- Pp. 71,122. 
 
308 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 andria. We have no need, however, to rely only on what has 
 already been observed, for here in the very place of Clement 
 now in our hands a second set of coincidences has been 
 P. 221. shown, a set with the excerpts from Agatharchides of the 
 same character as that between the two Clements, and in 
 which the very quotation above referred to is implicated. The 
 dilemma is an interesting one. We must either argue that 
 both Clement of Alexandria and the excerptor of Agatharchides 
 amused themselves with our Clement’s language, — which seems 
 incredible, — or else that our Clement borrowed from Clem. 
 Alex, and from the excerpts, unless, indeed, he wrote them. 
 The idea that our Clement, and not his Alexandrian namesake, 
 p. 262. was the borrower, is confirmed on later pages. We may, 
 indeed, cut the knot by imputing everything to accident. If 
 we do, we necessarily set aside the coincidence which critics, 
 having no fear of consequences before their eyes, have already 
 pronounced trustworthy. Such reversal of judgment would 
 be far more disastrous than the loss of many such epistles as 
 those which bear the name of Clement. 
 
 (6.) Along with the Epist. ad Diognet., to which we were 
 P. 13. just now referring, H. Stephens published the Oratio ad 
 p. 191. Grcecos. It has been shown that Stephens annotated and 
 published this treatise well knowing it to be spurious. His 
 notes are specially mixed up with the coincidences between the 
 p. 193. Oratio and Euripides. It has been also shown that these very 
 coincidences are coincidences also with Clement’s Ep. i. 
 P. 195. Euripides uses words which naturally suggest a certain verse 
 of Holy Scripture. That verse is used by Clement in the same 
 place. The coincidences altogether at this point are among 
 the most curious which we have produced. 
 
 (7.) In the course of the examination of the Oratio we came 
 p. 202. upon a passage in Eustathius’ scholia on Dion. De Sit. Orb ., 
 p. 203. and then upon a parallel passage in Hippolytus’ Refutatio. In 
 Hippolytus we find some coincidences, first with Clement’s 
 Ep. i. 44, then with Ep. i. 33 and ii. 14. Hippolytus copies 
 p. 206. from Herodotus, and in Herodotus some coincidences are found 
 with Clement’s Ep. ii. Both Hippolytus and Clement use the 
 text 1 Cor. ii. 9. The text is a noteworthy one, from the 
 r. 239. remarks upon it by Hegesippus, quoted by Stephanus Gobarus 
 p. 240. in Phot. Bill. 232. Coincidences are found between Cod. 232 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 309 
 
 and all the passages in which Clement uses 1 Cor. ii. 9. A 
 noticeable expression in Cod. 232, shown to be derived from p. 244. 
 Eusebius’ account of the Epistles of Ignatius, occurs in a pas- P. 241. 
 sage in which Achilles Tatius appears to parody 1 Cor. ii. 9. 
 
 Here again coincidences are found with Clement, and a very 
 remarkable connection in the use which both writers make of P. 242. 
 Jas. iv. 6. 
 
 In the course of the examination of Achilles Tatius’ love 
 story, many other coincidences with both of Clement’s Epistles E.g. pp. 
 have been observed, both writers applying themselves to the 212 ’ 21 8.’ 
 same pages of other authors, and occasionally to the same P. 216. 
 sentences. At the close of the inquiry, Clement and Achilles P. 292. 
 Tatius were found to be very intimately connected with the 
 Apost. Const., Eusebius’ De Laud. Const., and Nicephorus. 
 
 (8.) It is almost impossible to express in a few words the 
 singular relation of Clement’s Epistles to Peregrinus. 
 
 (a) The writer of Peregrinus appears to make use of certain 
 lines of Aristophanes. Comparison with Clement’s Ep. i. P. 47. 
 shows that the connection of these lines with the epistle is so 
 close that they read as if they were a parody upon Clement’s P. 253. 
 language. It appears also that the scholia upon those lines p. 254. 
 w'ere used by Clement in both epistles. 
 
 (/3) The connection between Peregrinus and the description 
 of Clement’s Epistles in Phot. Bibl. 126 is exceedingly close. P. 250. 
 
 1. Pseudo-Photius (Cod. 126 has been shown to be spurious) 
 complains of the use which Clement makes of the fabulous P. 249. 
 account of the phoenix. The writer of Peregrinus speaks of 
 this bird, so also does Achilles Tatius. Coincidences between P. 226. 
 them are shown, and those coincidences are coincidences also P. 226 n. 
 with Clement. The author of Peregrinus goes on to give some 
 Sibylline verses which appear to be in some sort a parody upon App. 
 certain Sibylline verses found in the Apost. Const, in company p " 33> * 
 with the account of the phoenix. On the testimony of pseudo- 
 Justin, Clement’s Ep. i. ought to contain some Sibylline verses Do. 
 
 — the same now found in the Apost. Const. It is pointed out 
 in the Appendix that almost directly after Clement’s account P. 334. 
 of the phoenix there are certain coincidences with 2 Pet., 
 w’hich seem to show that the Sibylline verses once stood in that 
 part of the epistle, or at least that the question was at one 
 time under consideration. 
 
310 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 2. Pseudo-Photius also complains of Clement’s use of the 
 r. 249. word TrpoGTdryjg. The circumstances attending the use of this 
 word by our writer or writers are so curious that it is impos- 
 sible not to suppose that the word was used in jest. It is 
 P. 48. found in Peregrinus in the passage to which we just now 
 
 p. 251. referred as indebted to certain lines of Aristophanes. This 
 
 Do. passage shows coincidences with pseudo-Photius in Cod. 126, 
 P. 50. and with pseudo-Helladius in Cod. 279, who in the same place 
 also uses the lines of Aristophanes. Pseudo-Lucian, pseudo- 
 P. 55. Helladius, and Clement seem, all of them, to be indebted to 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, who uses the word in question. Cyril 
 Do. speaks of “ the keys.” His language is taken hold of by 
 pseudo-Helladius grammatically, as becomes a grammarian, 
 p. 56 . It seems to have given rise also to Clement’s use of “ the 
 
 P. 84. keys,” which cannot be thought to be anything else than jest- 
 
 p. 216. ing. Pseudo- Galen and Tatius take up the joke. 
 
 The author of Peregrinus in his use of the word appears to 
 51- be indebted to certain other lines of Aristophanes. These 
 P. 251. lines show coincidences with Clement in his use of the word, 
 Do. also with Theophilus , where again the word is found, and with 
 P. 256. it coincidences with Clement. 
 
 There are a great number of places scattered up and down 
 the foregoing pages where Clement’s Epistles and Peregrinus 
 come in contact with one another. It must, however, be 
 enough to add that those pages of Diodorus which have been 
 P. 216. shown above to have been used by Clement show coincidences 
 with Peregrinus as well as with pseudo-Galen and Tatius. 
 
 (9.) The coincidences, however, between Clement’s Epistles 
 and the Epist. ad Theoph. are perhaps more curious than any 
 others which have been pointed out. The connection between 
 these writings is as close as it is curious. They are related to 
 one another not only directly in the language and ideas which 
 r. 251 sq. they have in common, but also indirectly through Aristophanes, 
 P.131 sq! Eusebius, Tatius, Diognetus , etc. 
 
 p 117 (L) Attention was first of all directed to the combination 
 
 r. 114. of two passages of Scripture by Clement in Ep. i. 27, and by 
 the writer of Theophilus in § 31. A passage from Diognetus 
 was then in hand containing parallels both with Clement and 
 Theophilus . The same place of Theophilus with its immediate 
 neighbourhood furnishes coincidences with Clement’s Ep. i. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 311 
 
 §§ 40, 41, 42, 43. This last section contains Clement’s jest- p - 118 sc t* 
 ing upon 6i the keys,” and it appears that both writers, if there 
 were two, made use of the Oratio Manas sis. P. 120. 
 
 (2.) We pointed out that there were a good many indica- 
 tions that Clement’s Ep. i., the closing chapters of Diognetus , P. 115 sq. 
 and Theophilus were jestingly intended to set forth three 
 stages of doctrinal development, and specially so in the case of 
 %ap/£. At a later stage in the inquiry this notion was con- 
 firmed by the use made of by Tatius in a passage which Pg 217, 
 
 was shown to be very closely connected with Clement. We 
 found this w r ord used in Theophilus in a passage which P. 122. 
 appeared to be indebted to a quotation from the Roman 
 Clement found in Jerome, Comment. Isa. lii. Our Clement 
 uses the words, of which Jerome gives the Latin, in Ep. i. 
 
 They form the preface to Isa. liii. We consulted Jerome’s P. 123 sq. 
 Commentary and also Eusebius, and found that both Ep. i. and 
 Theophilus appeared to be indebted to these writers. 
 
 (3.) It was afterwards shown that Theophilus as well as p. 267. 
 Clement’s Ep. i. has its liturgical section, and that both docu- 
 ments appear to be indebted to the same liturgy. In corro- 
 boration of the theory that Theophilus is nothing but a satirical Do. 
 and jesting application of the special points of Clement’s Ep i., 
 it has been pointed out that the language of the liturgies is 
 addressed to the emperor. 
 
 (4.) It has been also remarked that the word 7rpoffrdcr'/]g 
 is used in Theophilus , and that for the use of it the writer 
 appears to have had Aristophanes in his hands, or very dis- P. 251. 
 tinctly in his mind. The passage in which it is found tells us P. 256. 
 of a vision of Serapis vouchsafed to Alexander, and is alto- 
 gether very remarkable. The writer seems to parody Clement’s 
 ideas in Ep. i., and to seek to justify pseudo-Photius’ complaint P. 249. 
 of the use of the word srpoorar?^. At this point we find that 
 Clement (in the passage referred to) and Tatius meet together, P. 258. 
 as it were, in a certain sentence found in Plutarch. Curiously 
 enough, Tatius’ use of Plutarch occurs in a passage which Do. 
 describes Alexandria illuminated in honour of Serapis. Coin- 
 cidences with Theophilus are there found. Particular notice 
 should be taken of a curious version which Clement gives here 
 of a verse in the Psalms, and which is taken up by Theophilus. P. 257. 
 The jest, for it is nothing else, is as much Clement’s as T/ieo - 
 
312 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 pliilus. The same passage of Clement is, moreover, shown 
 P. 255. to be connected with the Evang. Thom, in a passage which 
 supplies coincidences with the vision of Serapis found in 
 P. 257. Theophilus. The connection of these writings one with another 
 is very remarkable. 
 
 (5.) We shall notice only one more set of coincidences. 
 The close of Theophilus , which has been just now spoken of as 
 being so closely related to Clement’s Ep. i., contains a passage 
 p. 276. from Basil’s De Spir. Sand. It has been shown that that 
 passage is imitated by pseudo-Basil in the spurious addition to 
 p. 270. Basil’s treatise. An intimate connection between that addi- 
 tion and Clement has been pointed out by ns. 
 
 Though we have called our readers’ attention to nothing 
 like all the noticeable groups of coincidences which have been 
 furnished in the course of the foregoing inquiry, we have 
 nevertheless now pointed out no less than nine such groups, 
 each of which contains group within group, and all of which 
 are immensely strengthened by the circumstances which sur- 
 round them. How are they to be explained ? Our contention 
 is that Clement’s Epistles and the writings which show such 
 singular affinity to them are written virtually by the same 
 person. It would be absurd to speak of accident with such a 
 multitude, not of single coincidences, but of groups of coinci- 
 dences before us. No other theory but some such as that 
 which we have propounded will satisfy all the conditions of 
 the problem. When each of these sets of coincidences is 
 examined as it stands in the foregoing pages, and the way in 
 which they were severally found is considered, and when 
 account is taken of their cumulative force, it must be conceded 
 that Clement’s Epistles are nothing else than frauds of a late 
 date. 
 
 3. Another, and in some respects perhaps the most damaging 
 part of the evidence against the authenticity of our epistles 
 P. 303. has still to be considered. The editors of Clement supply a 
 very imposing array of writers who have quoted, described, or 
 in some way referred to Clement’s Epistles. It is shown, how- 
 P. 332. ever, in the Appendix , that all the references to Clement’s 
 Epistles are not satisfied in those epistles which are now in our 
 hands under Clement’s name. This has been remarked upon 
 above, and it is not necessary to say anything further upon it. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 313 
 
 We must now, however, remind our readers that Dionysius 
 of Corinth (in Eusebius) mentions and to a certain degree de- P. 113. 
 scribes Clement’s Ep . i., and that coincidences have been given 
 which seem to show that the writer of Ep. i. made use of 
 Dionysius, or rather of Eusebius. Good reasons have also been 
 advanced above for concluding that the language of the Alex- 
 andrian Clement, who quotes his Roman namesake again and Vp. 306, 
 again, has been copied into our epistle and not out of it. If 30 ' - 
 this conclusion is a just one, then the principal testimony to the 
 genuineness of our epistle is very effectually disposed of. 
 
 From Clement of Alexandria we turn to Basil, who in De 
 Spir. Sand. c. xxix. quotes some words of Clement of Rome p. 259. 
 which are found in our Ep. i. 58. Basil speaks of doxologies, P. 345. 
 and we find here in c. xxix., in the mouth of Africanus, p. 260. 
 Clement’s “ favourite doxology,” and which he uses in Ep. 
 i. 20. Certain expressions of which Basil makes use guide us Do. 
 to a particular page in Philo where, along with those expres- 
 sions, we find coincidences again with our Ep. i. 20, which 
 cannot be thought to have accidentally arisen. It is obvious 
 to infer that the writer of Ep. i. made use of Basil, — if, that is, 
 
 Basil was really the author of De Spir. Sand. c. xxix., — and 
 copied into it Basil’s quotation from the Roman Clement, p. 262. 
 This seemingly necessary inference confirms and is confirmed 
 by what has been already observed as to the use made by our 
 writer of Eusebius (Dionysius of Corinth) and Clement of 
 Alexandria. 
 
 Photius now comes upon the scene. In his Cod. 126 he 
 gives a description of Clement’s Epistles, which is an accurate P. 248. 
 description of those now in our hands. He complains of 
 various matters found in them, but is careful to add that 
 Clement does not openly blaspheme. The way in which he P. 249. 
 writes suggests that some ironical meaning lies behind. We 
 know the Bibliotheca to have been interpolated, and the sus- 
 picion arises that Cod. 126 was not written by Photius. The 
 writer of this “ codex ” complains, among other things, of 
 Clement's use of apocryphal quotations. Two of these 
 quotations have been examined, and shown to be of Clement’s p. 13 G sq . 
 own manufacture. Clement’s use of the word -rpo^rrar^ forms p. 351 sq. 
 another ground of complaint in Cod. 126. The word is used in 
 Peregrinns, with which Cod. 126 is found on examination to be P. 250. 
 
314 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 very closely connected. It is used also in De Spir. Sand. c. 
 
 p. 260. xxix., and between this chapter and Cod. 126 a connection has 
 P. 270. . 1 
 
 been pointed out which we have no right to expect. In the 
 
 page of Philo to which Basil’s language guides us, as has been 
 
 P. 261. just remarked, we find a singular coincidence with certain 
 
 words found in our Ep. i. 20, and of which again Cod. 126 
 
 complains. 
 
 The relations one to another of our epistles, Cod. 126, and 
 De Spir. Sand. c. xxix., are most unnatural on the supposition 
 that we have to do with three independent writers. What is 
 p. 259. the explanation % Erasmus comes to the rescue. He long ago 
 expressed his belief that Basil did not write the concluding 
 chapters of De Spir. Sand. We have not concerned ourselves 
 with Erasmus’ reasons, which Casaubon is supposed to have 
 P. 271 sq. adequately answered ; but we have examined the language of 
 De Spir. Sand. cc. xxix. xxx., and have found convincing proof 
 that Basil did not write these chapters, but that they are the 
 P. 277 sq. work of a far later hand. When this fresh light is cast upon 
 the singular relations subsisting between these chapters and 
 Cod. 126, and between these chapters and our epistles, the 
 conclusion seems irresistible that we have to do not with three 
 independent writers, but virtually with one, that is to say, either 
 with one or with three acting in concert. 
 
 It must be observed that the singular and damaging facts 
 of which we have been latterly speaking have come to light 
 simply through the cross-examination, so to say, of some of the 
 witnesses for the defence. We have brought them forward, 
 not as the principal proof in the argument that our epistles 
 were not written by Clement, — though this we might have 
 done, — but to support the conclusions to which we are driven 
 by the cumulative force of the various sets of coincidences to 
 which attention has specially been directed. Our epistles are 
 not those epistles which were of old ascribed — the one rightly, 
 the other wrongly — to Clement of Rome, but of far later date. 
 If this is admitted, everything is at once explained. They 
 belong to our “group of writings,” and, as a matter of course, 
 betray their connection with Peregrinus, Theophilus, Tatius’ love 
 story, and the other members of the group. We have to do 
 with a literary Proteus, who at one time derides the vainglo- 
 rious Peregrinus, at another portrays primitive purity in faith 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 315 
 
 (or perhaps in mode of living), or lashes with his satire the 
 extravagant developments of later times. Again, like the 
 chameleon, which adapts itself to the colour of the ground on 
 which it finds itself, as the interpolator of Photius’ Bibliotheca 
 he gives excerpts from history ecclesiastical or secular, and 
 fictitious accounts of documents which were never written, or 
 true accounts of writings of which he was himself the author. 
 Wearied of these shapes, he assumes the form, it may be, of a 
 medical treatise, or laughs at us in an indecent love story. We 
 have shown above that the Oratio , printed by H. Stephens in 
 1592, is one of the members of the “group,” and that it was 
 published by him with the full knowledge of its spurious 
 character. We know him to have been equally w T ell aware of 
 the true character of the equally spurious Epistola ad I)iog - 
 netum , the companion of the Oratio, An interesting light is 
 thus thrown upon his reference to Proteus in connection with p - 17, 
 his own parodies. 
 
 §5. 
 
 We have still to inquire to what period the frauds which have 
 been pointed out must be assigned. The character of the various 
 documents whose authenticity has been impugned appears 
 to us to give no uncertain answer to this inquiry. They might 
 have been written in the times of the revival of learning. 
 
 It is difficult to imagine any other period in which they could 
 have been written. They are literary not polemical frauds, and 
 therefore, as has been shown above, such as we might expect in p - 
 days w r hen the keen pursuit of classical learning had but too 
 little of any real principle to restrain and guide it. Our 
 evidence, however, would seem to be very clear upon this point. 
 
 The addition to Basil’s De Spir. Sanct. was made by the p . 279 . 
 author of the Dedicatio and Procemium to Nicepliorus’ Ecclesi- 
 astical History. He was also guilty of writing the excerpts from 
 Diodorus, and of interpolating them into Photius’ Bibliotheca. p - 287 - 
 On both these points we believe the evidence as nearly to 
 approach a demonstration as can reasonably be expected. But 
 reasons have been given for supposing that the author of the 
 
 addition to Basil’s treatise was also the author of Phot. Bibl. p p- 270 - 
 
 279 
 
 126, and, though he may not have been alone in the work, of 
 Clement’s Epistles and the other members of our group of 
 
316 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 writings. If this be so, then Nicephorus is the literary Proteus 
 of whom we are in search. The evidence afforded by his own 
 writings that this is actually the case seems to us perfectly 
 P. 288 sq. decisive. We have given no more than seems to us to be 
 necessary, but it might be almost indefinitely increased. 
 
 Now it must be observed that in Nicephorus we have 
 exactly the person we require. We want a man of 
 scholarly attainments, yet still a man who -was content to make 
 up his sentences out of ancient authors, and to lean upon them 
 even for the commonest words and expressions. Nicephorus 
 has gained for himself the name of Thucydides Ecclesiasticus, 
 and yet it cannot be denied that his Procernium, starting with an 
 imitation of Thucydides, is made up most carefully out of the 
 language of Diodorus. We want, too, a man capable of writing 
 the most arrant nonsense. Nicephorus is known also by the 
 name of Theologorum Plinius. We want a man well acquainted 
 with all that Eusebius and other ecclesiastical writers have 
 written on certain subjects, such as Clement of Rome. Nice- 
 phorus wrote an ecclesiastical history, taking his materials from 
 Eusebius, Theodoretus, and others. We want a man to whom 
 the idea of literary fraud, and the passing off of writings as 
 something other than they really are is familiar, and who 
 therefore makes provision that his own work shall be able in 
 all time to come to maintain its identity. In H . E. i. 43, Nice- 
 phorus speaks of it as a common thing for persons to try to 
 pass off the writings of another as if they were their own, — a 
 fraud the very opposite of, yet still near akin to, that which we 
 have been exposing. To make his own work sure, he begins, he 
 tells us, each one of the eighteen books into which it is distri- 
 buted with a letter of his own name. Nicephorus was thus, it 
 seems, fond of his little joke. We can conceive it possible that 
 a man of his ingenious turn of mind might hit upon the device 
 of establishing the credit of (say) Clement’s Epistles by a mock 
 quotation in Basil. It would be hardly possible, indeed, to find 
 a man more eminently fitted for our literary Proteus than the 
 person who takes such pains to identify himself with Nice- 
 phorus Callistus, sometime patriarch of Constantinople, but of 
 whom almost nothing is known beyond what the History itself 
 acquaints us with. This work is found in one MS. only, which 
 is not the original one, if the work was really written by Cal- 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 317 
 
 listus. It is said to have been at one time in the library of M. 
 Corvinus, and on the capture of Buda by the Turks, to have p. 9, 
 been taken to Constantinople, and to have been conveyed 
 thence by “ a certain Christian man,” and by him sold to the 
 library at Vienna. This is possible enough, for Corvinus had 
 scribes constantly at work, both at Florence and Buda, and 
 he eagerly bought up all Greek MSS. which came in his way. P. 9 n. 
 
 We have thus traced the literary fraud which we have been 
 exposing down to the times of the revival of learning. It has 
 been already shown that such frauds were the natural outcome p. 3. 
 of the spirit in which the study of classical learning was then 
 pursued, and that frauds of this kind — not always of small Pp. 5, 6. 
 dimensions — were actually attempted. It has also been shown 
 that men of dishonest minds turned their attention to Diodorus P. 6. 
 Siculus, a fact which accords well with the extraordinary 
 interest which, in the case of every member of our “ group of P. 306. 
 writings,” the author seems to take in Diodorus. Another 
 fact which concerns the period of which we are speaking must 
 be noticed. In the year 1470 (not earlier, though possibly 
 somewhat later) a Syriac ms. 1 was written which claims quasi- 
 canonical authority for two epistles on Virginity, bearing the 
 name of Clement, but which are not found in any other ms., 
 and which are not mentioned in any ecclesiastical catalogue. 
 
 These epistles follow, 2 in the MS., the Philoxenian version of 
 the epistle of S. Jude. The Syriac MS. (S.), which contains 
 Clement’s two epistles to the Corinthians, gives the Philo- 
 xenian version of the N. T., and places these epistles after S. 
 
 Jude. Both MSS. loudly proclaim the date to which they 
 ought to be assigned — the one to the year 1170, the other to 
 the year 1470. It is interesting to see the likemindedness 3 of 
 
 1 Purchased at Aleppo for Wetstein, who published the epistles in 1752. 
 
 2 Epiphanius ( Hcer . xxx. 15, p. 139) speaks of “encyclical letters,” in which 
 Clement “ teaches virginity but as he says that these letters were “read in the 
 holy churches,” it is probable that he has in his mind those letters to which 
 Eusebius and Jerome refer, of the contents of which we are ignorant if the 
 epistles to the Corinthians now in our hands are frauds. The language of 
 Epiphanius may, however, be thought to give a reason for the position which 
 the scribe of 1470 assigns to the epistles on Virginity in his ms. 
 
 3 Speaking of these unknown and spurious epistles on Virginity, the writer 
 of the article on Clemens Romanus in the Dictionary of Christian Biography 
 (Smith and Wace) says: “After the epistle to the Hebrews, the last in the 
 Peshito Canon, the scribe adds a doxology, and a note with personal details (‘ A 
 
318 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 these two scribes, separated from one another, as it seems, by 
 the exact term of 300 years, and to observe that the claim of 
 canonical authority for the epistles on Virginity, which, whether 
 ancient or not, were certainly never written by Clement of 
 Rome, was made (apparently for the first time) at the very 
 period when a claim of the same nature was being made for the 
 epistles to the Corinthians, which we have found good reason 
 to believe to be spurious. There may be nothing in the coin- 
 cidence : it is at any rate worth noticing. 
 
 § 6 . 
 
 It must not be supposed from our previous silence that 
 we are insensible to the difficulties which lie in the way of 
 accepting the conclusions to which we ourselves have felt 
 obliged to come. We are well aware that the contents of the 
 “ codices,” in which the three MSS. of Clement’s Epistles are 
 found, raise questions which do not allow of an off-hand 
 solution. We are, however, persuaded that if these difficulties 
 were tenfold greater than they really are, they could not even 
 then in any sort equal the difficulty of supposing that the 
 coincidences which have been produced have accidentally 
 arisen. No theory except that of “accident,” or some such 
 theory as we have advanced, will explain them. These coinci- 
 dences are facts which must be explained. It is a fact, too, 
 that by some means or other we have contrived, out of the im- 
 mense number of Greek treatises in existence, to select a few, 
 and upon the coincidences found in these few treatises, to build 
 
 long account of himself, and the circumstances under which the ms. was written,’ 
 Light, p. 15) by which we are enabled to date the ms. a.d. 1470, and then 
 proceeds ‘ We subjoin to the epistles of Paul those epistles of the apostles which 
 are not found in all the copies,’ on which follow 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude 
 (obs.), from the Philoxenian (obs.) version ; and then, without any break (obs.), 
 these letters, with the titles : ‘ The first epistle of the blessed Clement, the dis- 
 ciple of Peter the apostle,’ and ‘ the second epistle of the same Clement.’ ” In 
 his description of the contents of S. , which contains the whole of the Philo- 
 xenian version, Lightfoot (p. 233) says: “The Catholic Epistles are followed 
 immediately on the same page by the Epistles of Clement, the epistle of S. 
 Jude with its colophon ending one column, and the First Epistle of Clement 
 beginning the next. This latter is headed : The Catholic Epistle of Clement the 
 disciple of Peter the Apostle to the Church of the Corinthians. At the close is 
 written : Here endeth , etc. Then follows : Of the same, the Second Epistle to the 
 Corinthians .” This ms. as loudly protests that it was written in the year 1170 
 as the first ms. does that it was written in 1470. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 319 
 
 up an elaborate, and, we venture to think, consistent theory of 
 literary fraud at a certain period. Will ingenuity, and dili- 
 gence aided by accident, explain the accomplishment of this 
 stupendous feat? for stupendous it is, if such are the means 
 by which it has been achieved. Ours was, however, a simpler 
 task. The treatises and coincidences were found without much 
 difficulty, when once the method was mastered upon which the 
 treatises, the authenticity of which we have denied, were 
 composed. The facts which we have brought to light will 
 justify the charge of fraud against these treatises, and especi- 
 ally against Clement’s Epistles. What evidence can be brought 
 forward in refutation of the charge? Not the difficulties at 
 which we have hinted, for they arise for the most part from 
 our ignorance. Not the circumstance that a great many 
 references by the ancients to Clement’s Epistles are verified in 
 ours, for if ours are forgeries this will equally be the case. 
 Not the weight of external testimony to the antiquity of our 
 MSS., for there is none. Not the fact that these mss. have 
 every appearance of belonging to the dates to which they 
 are respectively assigned, for this follows necessarily if such 
 was the forger’s intention and if he had the skill to carry out 
 that intention. It cannot be maintained that a successful 
 forgery of a MS. was impossible in times when the transcrip- 
 tion of MSS. was an everyday occupation, and imitative 
 writing one of the fine arts. The interpolation once so 
 common must have necessitated in very many cases the pro- 
 duction of mss. apparently older than they really were. 
 Constantine Simonides has taught us that a successful forgery 
 of MSS. is hardly impossible even in this 19th century. He 
 forged, and for a while deceived. It is very instructive 
 to turn to the records, which are preserved, of his case (see 
 the Report of the Council of the Royal Society of Literature on 
 some of the Mayer Papyri and the Palimpsest MS. of Uranius , 
 belonging to M. Simonides , London 1863). He failed to 
 satisfy the court of inquiry which sat upon his mss. ; but then 
 its suspicions had been thoroughly aroused by the man’s 
 own conduct. He lived, moreover, in the 19th century, 
 when the preparation of MSS. was a long- forgotten trade. 
 He, nevertheless, nearly succeeded. Suppose he had kept 
 his mss. for some years longer in his own possession, arti- 
 
320 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ficially hastening those processes of nature by which the 
 marks of age are naturally produced, and the tell-tale tokens 
 of recent handiwork are obliterated, and then had caused them 
 to be deposited in a library not too often explored, to be one 
 day accidentally discovered dusty and time-worn. Is there no 
 possibility that they would have been unsuspiciously received, 
 and accepted as genuine ? There would have been then 
 no alteration of a MS. which had been previously inspected, 
 an awkward fact that alone, it seems, prevented the volumes 
 of Simonides from adorning the shelves of at least one library. 
 If Simonides had shown a little more scholarship in the use of 
 words, a little more common sense in the “ lining” of his mss., 
 a little more caution in the manipulation of them after they 
 had been inspected, a little more craft in bringing them into 
 notice, he would have succeeded, it may be, in his evil work. 
 It would be easy to point out several persons in earlier times 
 who far surpassed Simonides in the qualities essential to a 
 successful forger, and whose facilities for perpetrating the 
 fraud exposed in the foregoing pages were unrivalled. It has 
 been shown that Henry Stephens knew of this fraud, and lent 
 himself to it right willingly. He was an accessory after the 
 fact certainly, possibly one of the principals ; but we must look 
 to somewhat earlier times than those of Henry Stephens for 
 the person who took the initiative. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 It was originally proposed to publish an examination of the Epistle to 
 Diognetus , followed in the same volume by an examination of the Two 
 Epistles to the Corinthians bearing tbe name of Clement of Rome. The 
 introduction and some portions of the investigations relating to the Two 
 Epistles were, for certain reasons, put in type in a tentative form. Part of 
 this introductory matter, and the whole of these portions of the investiga- 
 tions, are now printed as an Appendix. It is thought that it may be of 
 some interest to see to what extent later discoveries (the interpolations in 
 Photius’ Bibliotheca , the dishonesty of Peregrinus , Tatius’ love story, Galen’s 
 treatise, etc.) have confirmed, modified, or refuted earlier conclusions. 
 
 All new matter is printed in small type, and enclosed in brackets. 
 
 The marginal references are to the foregoing pages. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 1. 
 
 HE two epistles which bear the name of Clement of Rome, 
 
 and which we propose to examine, are so well known, 
 that the briefest possible account of their history will here 
 
 1. These epistles are now found in three MSS., of which two 
 are in Greek and one in Syriac. 
 
 (1.) They were first printed in 1633, by P. Young, out 
 of the Codex Alexandrinus. This celebrated codex was sent, 
 in 1628, to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, and takes its name from Alexandria, where Cyril had 
 previously been patriarch, and from which city, as is supposed, 
 he brought it. This MS. does not give our epistles in a com- 
 plete form ; for of the 1st Epistle (consisting of sixty-five sec- 
 tions) the last sentence of § 57 and the whole of §§ 58-63 
 inclusive are wanting ; while the 2d Epistle (of twenty 
 sections) breaks off in § 12 in the middle of a sentence. 
 This ms. is ascribed to the 5th century, and we shall refer to it 
 by the letter A. 
 
 (2.) In 1875, Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Serrse, 
 published Clement’s Epistles out of a MS. discovered in the 
 library of the Most Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople. Both 
 epistles are here found in a complete form. This MS., which 
 we shall call C., claims to be of the 11th century. 
 
 (3.) The Syriac ms., which we shall call S., professes to be of 
 the 12th century, and, like the preceding, contains our epistles 
 in a complete form. It was purchased at Paris for the Cam- 
 bridge University Library, — soon after the publication of C., — 
 out of a collection of mss. formerly belonging to M. Jules 
 
 suffice. 
 
326 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 Mohl. Whenever we shall have occasion to refer to this ms., 
 our reference will be to Canon Lightfoot’s S. Clement of Rome , 
 Appendix, 1877. This MS. claims canonical authority for our 
 epistles, and divides them into lessons for public reading. 
 
 2. The editions and considerable notices of our epistles are 
 too numerous to mention. The editions of P. Young in 1633, 
 and of Bryennios in 1875, have an interest peculiarly their 
 own. Of the rest, the edition of Canon Lightfoot in 1869 — 
 followed in 1877 by an appendix volume, containing the newly 
 discovered portions of both epistles, and the various readings of 
 the Syriac ms. — is by far the most complete and suggestive ; 
 and on this account we shall make considerable use of it in the 
 course of our inquiry. The two volumes of this edition are 
 intended to form one book, and the paging is consecutive 
 throughout. The appendix volume begins with p. 223. 
 
 § 2 - 
 
 Canon Lightfoot has made a most elaborate analysis and 
 comparison of the various readings of the three mss. It will 
 be well to notice some of the inferences which he draws : — 
 
 “ (1.) In A. C. S. we have three distinct authorities for the text. 
 Each has its characteristic errors, and each preserves the genuine text 
 in some passages, where the other two are corrupt. 
 
 11 (2.) The stream must be traced back to a very remote antiquity 
 before we arrive at the common progenitor of our three authorities. 
 This follows from their mutual relations. 
 
 “ (7.) Looking at the dates and relations of our authorities, we may 
 be tolerably sure that, when we have reached their archetype, we 
 have arrived at a text which dates not later, or not much later, than 
 the close of the 2d century. On the other hand, it can hardly have 
 been much earlier. For the phenomena of the text are the same in 
 both epistles ; and it follows therefore, that in this archetypal ms. the 
 so-called 2d Epistle must have been already attached to the genuine 
 Epistle of Clement, though not necessarily ascribed to him. 
 
 11 (8.) But, though thus early, it does not follow that this text was 
 in all points correct. Some errors may have crept in already and 
 existed in this archetype, though these would probably not be nume- 
 rous. — And it would seem also that this text had already undergone 
 slight mutilations.” — Lightfoot, p. 244 sq. 
 
 The argument is then this : Our earliest ms. carries us back, 
 indeed, to the 5th century ; but the comparison of the three 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 327 
 
 MSS. leads us to postulate an archetypal MS. written at the close 
 of the 2d century, in which the textual errors would be neither 
 numerous nor considerable. The combined evidence of the 
 MSS. carries us, in short, very nearly to Clement’s own times. 
 
 It does not appear quite obvious why the phenomena, w r hich 
 the comparison of the three texts reveals, should set us down 
 exactly at the close of the 2d century. Lightfoot was no 
 doubt guided in his opinion by the date (a.d. 120-140) which 
 he gives for the authorship of the 2d Epistle. Hilgenfeld, 
 who believes Clement of Alexandria to have written this 2d 
 Epistle, must necessarily place the archetype considerably 
 later. We do not, however, dispute the soundness of Canon 
 Lightfoot’s main position. We admit, and are prepared to 
 argue, that the three MSS. are apparently three distinct wit- 
 nesses to the existence of an archetypal MS., the date of which 
 has not yet been accurately determined. We entirely believe 
 that such a ms. did at one time exist. But we do not admit 
 that this fact proves the genuineness of our epistles ; for if 
 these epistles were either early or late frauds, the same pheno- 
 mena would be found, on comparison of our three mss., which 
 are now found. 
 
 1. Let us suppose them to have been frauds of the 4th 
 century. Transcripts of the MS. then made would follow one 
 another in due course ; and the whole train of phenomena 
 would be produced naturally, which the comparison of our MSS. 
 now shows. From these MSS. we should infer, as we do now, 
 the existence of a more ancient archetype, pointing again by 
 some defects to a still earlier original. 
 
 2. If, on the other hand, we suppose our epistles to have 
 been late frauds, the three MSS. will be forgeries, and must 
 have been written by the same man, or at least have been the 
 offspring of one and the same mind. In this case the arche- 
 type may have been the forger’s own original draft (or some- 
 body else’s draft), or possibly only in his thoughts. But 
 whether it were there only, or also in writing, the three 
 MSS. would be carefully referred to this archetype ; and the 
 departures from it wmuld be so contrived as to imitate what 
 would come to pass in the natural order of things. The 
 object in forging three MSS. would be to have, as we have now, 
 three distinct witnesses to our epistles ; and consequently the 
 
328 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 very same phenomena would be found which now appear in 
 A. C. and S. if only the forger’s skill were sufficient. The 
 work would not be easy, and it is probable that the forger, 
 however careful, would be betrayed into some inconsistencies, 
 and we shall show presently that such inconsistencies do exist 
 in the case of our epistles. 
 
 It would seem then that the inferences, which are fairly 
 enough drawn from the comparison of A. C. and S. with one 
 another, cannot be held to prove the genuineness of our 
 epistles. 
 
 §3. 
 
 3. We have already pointed out (in § 2) that forged MSS., 
 when compared together, must necessarily present the same 
 phenomena as genuine ones. For the forger will have in his 
 mind the archetype, from which he intentionally departs from 
 time to time. Guided by his experience of ancient writings, 
 he will introduce the mistakes and alterations of which he con- 
 ceives that the honest scribe, whose part for the moment he 
 plays, would be guilty. If, however, he has writings of con- 
 siderable length to forge, or if he has more writings than one 
 in hand at the same time, it is more than probable that he will 
 fall into some inconsistencies through his forgetfulness of the 
 part which, for the time being, he is assuming. These will 
 occur, however, not in the forms of the letters, and the like, of 
 which his eye would at once inform him, but in the alterations 
 of the original text. Something of this kind, it might be con- 
 tended, would seem to have actually befallen the Epistles of 
 Clement. Dr. Donaldson, in The Theological Review for Janu- 
 ary 1877, has a keen and critical article upon “The New MS. 
 (C.) of Clement of Rome.” On p. 40, he calls attention to 
 certain differences between A. and C., “a large number of 
 which,” he says, “ consist in the adoption of different tenses.” 
 These, he thinks, must be “ the result of deliberate alteration.” 
 On p. 41, after speaking of some instances in which the read- 
 ings of C. are, in his judgment, to be preferred, Dr. Donaldson 
 writes : — 
 
 “But, strangely enough, when we come to the 2d Epistle, we are 
 forced to an opposite conclusion. There is the same deliberate altera- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 329 
 
 tion ; but in all cases the Alexandrian Codex seems to us correct, 
 and the Constantinopolitan wrong.” 
 
 And yet the two epistles in A. are said to be by the same hand ; 
 a remark which applies equally to C., for anything that appears 
 in Bryennios to the contrary. On p. 42, Dr. Donaldson points 
 out that A. 
 
 “ has many Hellenistic forms, where C. has the Attic forms, or 
 rather the forms of the koivyi didXexrog ; ” but he adds, that C. “ is not 
 altogether free from freaks in this matter.” 
 
 We do not, of course, contend that these things are not capable 
 of an honest explanation, or that Dr. Donaldson’s own solutions 
 are not admissible. We only urge that the inconsistencies, of 
 which we spoke just now as probable, are actually found when 
 A. and C. are compared, and that their presence suggests a 
 careful inquiry as to how they have arisen. 
 
 §4. 
 
 It will now be proper to consider whether the idea of 
 forgery, at any rate of a late date, is inconsistent with the 
 ascertained history of our MSS. 
 
 We have already said that Cyril Lucar, the reforming 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, gave the Codex Alexandrinus, to 
 which A. is appended, to Charles I. in 1628. We need not 
 doubt that he brought it with him from Alexandria ; and we 
 may think, if we please, that he took it with him to Alexandria. 
 The ownership of A. cannot be traced back beyond Cyril. 
 
 Canon Lightfoot, in speaking of the commission to purchase 
 S., makes the following remarks : — 
 
 “ The Syndicate of the Cambridge University Library, when they 
 gave a commission for its purchase, were not sanguine enough to 
 suppose that the entry in the catalogue would prove correct. — It 
 seemed incredible that such a treasure as a Syriac version of the 
 Epistles to the Corinthians, forming part of a well-known collection, 
 should have escaped the notice of all Oriental scholars in France.” 
 — P. 232. 
 
 It is not known who was the previous possessor of this “ the 
 only Syriac MS. in M. Mohl’s collection.” 
 
 With respect to the discovery of C., Lightfoot remarks : — 
 
 “ It is strange that this discovery should not have been made 
 
330 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 before. The library of the Most Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople is 
 attached to the patriarchate of Jerusalem in that city, and therefore 
 has something of a public character. It has moreover been ex- 
 amined more than once by learned men from Western Europe.” 
 — P. 225. 
 
 The Canon states that a catalogue of the MSS. in this library 
 was made by Bethmann, and that no mention of C. is found 
 in that catalogue. Dr. Donaldson, in The Theological Review 
 (Jan. 1877, p. 36), calls attention to the insufficiency of the 
 evidence. He complains that Bryennios “ supplies us with no 
 external testimony to its antiquity,” and argues that “ when 
 a MS. is discovered, all the external testimony that can be 
 adduced should be adduced.” Speaking of information which 
 might have been given as to the Codex Sinaiticus, he says : — 
 
 “ All this information would be exceedingly interesting in itself, 
 and very valuable for posterity. This generation may have perfect 
 confidence in Bryennius and Tischendorf. But circumstances might 
 arise at a long subsequent period which might awaken doubts as to 
 the genuineness of the manuscripts. The appeal to internal evidence 
 may prove to be unsatisfactory. And then what is there ? It might 
 well be urged, that if a Tischendorf were inclined to forge a manu- 
 script, he had unrivalled opportunities of so doing. No one was so 
 well versed in manuscripts as he. None knew so well all the forms 
 of the letters, all the mistakes of copyists, all the various readings. 
 And it might also be said that there is no guarantee that the terrible 
 results of a discovery of such a practice would be sufficiently 
 deterrent. Chatterton was not deterred. Constantine Simonides 
 was not deterred. Nor were these influenced by a base love of gain, 
 but an eager desire to show their power. A fascination was upon 
 them which blinded them to all consequences. We cannot, therefore, 
 but think it a grave error both in Tischendorf and Bryennius that 
 they have not adduced external testimony to the history of their mss.” 
 — P. 37. 
 
 Dr. Donaldson’s remarks forcibly point out the importance 
 of the fact that there is no external testimony to the antiquity 
 of our three mss. A. C. S. 
 
 §5. 
 
 Clement’s 1st Epistle contains a statement which has 
 strangely remained unnoticed by antiquity. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 0 O -f 
 
 001 
 
 In Ep. i. 5, Clement speaks of S. Paul as preaching to 
 the whole world, and going ivr) to repgboc rrjg hixrzcug. Lightfoot 
 translates this expression by “ the extreme west.” He says : — 
 “ In the Epistle to the Romans (xv. 24) S. Paul had stated his 
 intention of visiting Spain. From the language of Clement here it 
 appears that this intention was fulfilled.” 
 
 In corroboration of this statement Lightfoot refers to Fragm. 
 Murat . only. In support of his translation of the Greek ex- 
 pression he gives some references. He adds some other inter- 
 pretations which have been proposed, and ends his note by 
 saying 
 
 “ Such attempts are a strong testimony to the plain inference 
 which follows from the passage simply interpreted.” 
 
 Clement’s words, then, are very important, and stand almost 
 alone in early times as throwing any light upon the history of 
 S. Paul beyond what the N. T. affords. On this account, 
 ever since they were first printed in 1633, they have been con- 
 stantly referred to ; and yet prior to that time no mention of 
 them can be found. We readily allow that the appeal to the 
 silence of antiquity is oftentimes precarious. This, however, is 
 no ordinary case. The statement concerning the apostle is 
 supposed to occur in a document described by Jerome {Be Vir. 
 Illustr. 15) as — 
 
 “ valde utilem epistolam, quas et in nonnullis locis publice 
 legitur,” 
 
 and with which he was so well acquainted that he adds : — 
 
 11 Quae mihi videtur characteri epistolae, quas sub Pauli nomine ad 
 Hebraeos fertur, convenire.” 
 
 Jerome, nevertheless, preserves a profound silence as to this 
 statement of Clement, even when, as in Be Vir . Illustr. 5, 
 he is giving an account of S. Paul, and actually mentioning 
 Clement’s name. In his Comment, in Isa. ix. 1, p. 130, Jerome 
 speaks of the extent of S. Paul’s preaching. The quotation 
 of Clement would be exceedingly appropriate. He does not 
 give it, though on Isa. lii. he quotes Clement by name. See 
 also Jer. Isa. xi. 10, 11, p. 163. In his comment on Eph. iii. 
 13, Jerome writes concerning S. Paul : — 
 
 u Videbat quippe se de Jerusalem usque ad Illyricum Evangelium 
 prasdicasse, ipse Romam, ad Hispanias, vel perrexisse, vel ire dis- 
 
332 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ponere. Totus mundus ad doctrinam ipsius de potestate principis 
 tollebatur,” etc. — P. 596. 
 
 He makes no mention of Clement’s statement, though in the 
 previous chapter (ii. 2), as well as in the following one (iv. 1), 
 he quotes Clement, and by name. An argument of exactly 
 the same kind might be founded on the comparison of Cyr. 
 Jer. Cat . xviii. 8 with Cat . xvii. 26. It is certainly a note- 
 worthy fact that Clement’s words should have been so per- 
 sistently ignored by antiquity. We cannot help adding that 
 we should expect that a forger, with his eye perhaps on some 
 local controversy, would here and there err by saying a little 
 too much. 
 
 § 6 . 
 
 Some passages which ought to he found in our epistles, now 
 that we have them, as is alleged, in a complete form, are not 
 found there. 
 
 (1.) Pseudo- Justin, Qucest . ad Ortliod. 74, writes : g / rrjg 
 TnxpovfTTjg zMTUGT&Gioog to ri\og ivr'iv y\ rov Trvpog zp iaig tojv 
 aGzfiav, zccOd, <paaiv a! Tpapai TTpopYirav rs zoci cc7TO(rr6'kouv, sn 
 dg zoci rrjg 2 ifivMjjg, zaQag (prjGiv 6 p>oczdcpiog K \r\[i>r\g h 77j ftpog 
 KopivQiovg I vrtffroTtf, The 2d Epistle of Clement, as we now 
 have it, sufficiently satisfies the first part of pseudo- Justin’s 
 reference ; but neither the 1st nor the 2d has any mention of 
 the Sibyl. To account for this, the possibility of a lacuna in 
 some portion of the 2d Epistle has been suggested ; so also has 
 the possibility of a corruption in pseudo- Justin’s text. Such 
 suggestions point out the inference which naturally follows 
 from this omission of the Sibyl’s name. 
 
 We must now notice a circumstance which, though it will 
 throw little actual light upon this point, will, to say the least, 
 do nothing to remove from our minds any suspicions that 
 this omission may have given rise to. In Apost. Const . v. 7 
 there is an account of the phoenix, which is thought to be in 
 part taken from Clement’s Ep. i. 25. It is immediately pre- 
 ceded by the lines of the Sibyl to which pseudo- J ustin refers. 
 If we compare the context in the Apost. Const . with that in 
 pseudo- Justin, we see some reason for supposing that the one 
 has copied from the other. Thus both writers speak of a 
 certain conflict between the Christian and the Gentile. Both 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 333 
 
 speak of the Scriptures, and both call them al ypoc(poct. Both 
 of them speak of Daniel, the one before, the other after the 
 reference to the Sibyl. Both use the exact word aGefiav. 
 The one follows the quotation with it rolvvv . . . (Aurnv , and 
 presently g / roivvv . . . ri (Accrrjv, the other with dXhcog re el 
 . . . wag ov (Jjdrriv. The one writes zdv yj uvrav Grpotpijrig, the 
 other zdv nveg avruv. The closing words of Qucest. lxxiii. 
 (that is to say, only twelve lines above the passage quoted) are 
 ro 6'ecriv rov ovrog hihoafAe v rco [ati ovn, dXka, rr\v TrocvreXij dvui- 
 piGiv rov (Ar, ovrog. In the Apost. Const., almost immediately 
 after the account of the phoenix, and still in c. 7, we find zoa 
 rbre (Aev [av\ ovra rov oivOpunov ez })ia(p6poov enoiYiaev avQpuTrov, 
 hovg avroj rzjv ^vy^v e z rov [ay\ ovrog. It is difficult to suppose 
 that all these coincidences, taken in connection with the lines 
 quoted or referred to, can be accidental. We may think that 
 there is something behind the scenes in this reference to the 
 Sibyl which is not straightforward. It would be easy to give 
 a conjectural explanation. It would be, however, just as 
 arbitrary as the conjecture of a lacuna, or a corruption in 
 the text. If we prefer to think that both the writer of the 
 Constitutions and pseudo- Justin were indebted to the true 
 Clement, we shall only make the omission of the Sibyl’s name 
 in our epistles a still more important matter. 
 
 [We have three reasons for believing that pseudo-Justin’s reference 
 was fully satisfied in the original draft of Clement’s Ep. i. 
 
 1. Because pseudo-Justin does refer to Ep. i., — this is the natural, 
 if not the necessary conclusion from his words, — and his writings 
 were well known to our author. 
 
 2. Because the writer of Peregrinus amuses himself with the very 
 lines to which pseudo - Justin refers, and which are quoted in the 
 Apost. Const. 
 
 In § 29 the writer cites some Sibylline verses which he supposes 
 Theagenes to have introduced into his speech in honour of Proteus 
 (vid. sup. p. 32). He follows these immediately by a mocking ora- 
 cular utterance attributed to Bacis : (pr^l ds 6 Baxig ovru ccpodpa fy 
 sksigtu) V j ’AAX’ okotccv ?c.r.A. The third line begins with 3% tots to ug 
 uWovg. The supposed Sibylline verses, which speak of the fire into 
 which Proteus was to leap, and of the blessedness which he was thereby 
 to attain (compare), begin with a A A’ onorav, and the fourth line with 
 dri rore Grdvrug. The writer of the Apost. Const, introduces the Sibyl 
 oiiru Trug civroTg Xsyovffcc xc&ru, "ks^iv. ’AAA’ okot 1 7)3r t tl.t. A. The 
 filth line begins with xal tots 3i). The writer uses eneiwojv (an 
 
334 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ■uncommon word) a few lines above. The verses are upon the fire 
 one day to overtake the world, upon the reward of the godly, and 
 the punishment of the ungodly. But this is not all : for both writers 
 here speak of the phoenix, the one before, the other after the citation 
 of the verses. These coincidences cannot be accidental, and in them- 
 selves alone go a long way towards proving that Peregrinus was not 
 written by Lucian. Seeing then that pseudo- Justin declares that 
 there was in Clement a reference to the Sibylline verses upon the 
 destruction of the world by fire, — a declaration which, as we shall 
 see directly, is partly borne out by Irenseus, — and that the author 
 of Peregrinus jests upon the very verses which must have been in 
 Clement if any were there, and that the connection between 
 Clement’s Epistles and Peregrinus is of the most intimate cha- 
 racter, it is reasonable to conclude that the verses in question, and 
 the subject of which they treat, did originally form part of Clement’s 
 Ep. i. 
 
 3. We have a third reason for concluding such to have been the 
 case. We believe that the exact spot which these verses occupied in 
 Ep. i. can be determined with a considerable amount of accuracy. 
 
 Lightfoot, before the discovery of C., supposed that the close of 
 the 1st Epistle dwelt upon the end of all things, — the destruction of 
 the world by fire. “ For such a conclusion,” he says, “ the threats 
 taken from the Book of Proverbs (§ 57) would prepare the way ; and 
 it would form a fit termination to a letter of warning,” p. 167. The 
 close of the epistle would therefore be the natural place to look for 
 indications that such an allusion had at one time actually been made. 
 But on that very account any indications that might be found would 
 be of very small value. We shall therefore make no search in that 
 direction. 
 
 In the Apost. Const, the Sibylline verses are in close connection 
 with the phoenix, for the account of which the writer seems to be 
 indebted to the description of that bird which occupies the whole of 
 Clement’s Ep. i. 25. In Peregrinus there is a brief mention of the 
 phoenix. This is followed by a glance at the “ resurrection” in the 
 writer’s own fashion, and by a scoffing allusion to the miracles some- 
 times supposed to have been worked by saints after their death, and 
 then by the mock Sibylline verses. These authorities thus mark out 
 the neighbourhood of Clement’s § 25 as the position which the 
 Sibylline verses once occupied in this epistle. If we may trust 
 Peregrinus , they stood after § 25, and not before it. Here, then, we 
 have a definite spot marked out for us, but not, as at the close of the 
 epistle, by a line of thought which would make the subject of the 
 destruction of the world by fire natural and fitting. Indications that 
 such a subject was once treated of, if they can be found here, will be 
 far more noticeable than if they were found at the close of the 
 epistle. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 335 
 
 Clement’s § 26 contains less than nine lines. Half of these are 
 occupied by two quotations ; in the remaining lines a coincidence is 
 found with the Apost. Const, in its account of the phoenix. In the 
 first sentence of § 28, Clement has urroXsIwupisv <pabXuv spyuv puapdg 
 faido/ulag, iva ru sX'ssi abrob Gxsvaadu/xsv drrb ruv fisXXovruv xpifidruv 
 (A. C. ; too /u'sXXovrog xpi/uarog, S., Light, p. 423)* IIoD yap rig x.r.X. 
 The words ruv (isXX. xpifi. and still more too plsXX. xpipi. would have 
 been naturally used if § 27 — which in its opening sentence speaks of 
 God as faithful in His promises (snayysXlaig) and just in His judg- 
 ments (xpifiaffni ) — had contained an allusion to the destruction of the 
 world by fire. On this subject S. Peter’s 2d Epistle is the great 
 authority, and 2 Pet. iii. 7 appears to have been in the mind of 
 pseudo-Justin, as may be seen from the words quoted above. In 
 chap. ii. 20, S. Peter has g / yap dnopoyovrsg rd gjiacpLara (comp, with 
 words just given) x.r.X., in iii. 3, 4 xard rag 18 tag abruv snidofilag 
 (obs.) ^opsobpisvoi, xai Xsyovrsg IIoD (comp, with words just given) 
 x.r.X., in ver. 5 Xav6dvsi (obs.) yap abrobg robro 6s Xovrag (obs.), on 
 obpavoi (obs.) qoav sxnaXai , xai yri s% vdarog xai 8i * vdarog Govsffruffa 
 (obs.), ru too ©g oo Xoyu (obs.), in vv. 7, 8 oi dg vov obpavoi xai r\ yy\ 
 abrob Xoyu rsSrjGavpiGp/j'svoi s/dl, rtopi rrjpob/xsvoi sig rgjj'spav xp'icsug xai 
 dvruXstag ruv affs(3uv dvdpuftuv (comp, with pseudo-Just.)' iv 8s robro 
 g.r\ Xav6avsru x.r.X., in ver. 9 ob (3pa8bvst 6 K bpiog rr\g srrayysXiag 
 (comp, with opening sentence of § 27) x.r.X., in ver. 10 fi^si 6g 57 yj/x'spa 
 Kvp/ov ug xXsrrrrig iv voxri, iv f) oi obpavoi . . . napsXsoGovrai x.r.X. 
 These last words recall S. Matt. xxiv. 33 sq. obru xai bfi s?g, orav i'dqrs 
 (obs.) rravra (obs.) rabra, yivuffxsrs on iyybg (obs.) fan v irti 6bpaig 
 {r^xsiv abrov [ 6avarov] ini rag 6bpag abropiarov. Peregrin. 44)* dpL,r\v 
 X'syu bfiTv, 00 /Jjfi rrapsX6'/i (obs.) 53 ysvsu abryj, s ug dv ndvra rabra 
 ysvyrar b obpavbg xai 57 yr\ napsXsoGovrai, oi dg Xoyoi pio 0 00 p,r\ napsX- 
 6ugi. Comp, with that portion of § 27 which is quoted on p. 111. 
 Specially observe S. Peter’s ver. 5, and the clever turn which is given 
 in Clement to S. Peter’s obpavoi. These coincidences are strong in 
 themselves, and if the circumstances under which they are found are 
 considered, the conclusion seems almost necessarily to follow that in 
 the original draft of Clement’s Epistle the Sibylline verses were con- 
 tained, and also some quotation from or palpable allusion to 2 Pet. iii., 
 which another hand toned down so as to escape any but the closest 
 scrutiny. 
 
 This opinion is to a small extent confirmed by an examination of 
 the language of Peregrinus. Pseudo-Lucian speaks of Proteus as 
 hoping to become after death dal/xova voxro<pbXaxa. No one knows 
 exactly what the writer means. Can it be that voxrotpbXax a (Xen. 
 Anab. vii. 2, referred to on p. 105) is a jesting combination of 
 S. Peter’s ug xX'snrrig iv voxn in iii. 10, with S. Matthew’s no'ta <poXaxr\ 
 b xXsnrrig in the parallel verse, c. xxiv. 43 ? Pseudo-Lucian prefaces 
 his mock Sibylline verses with (dsaysvyg 8s svayyog, ug fioi ng ruv 
 
336 
 
 PEEEGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 sraipuv arr/jyysiXs, xai 2//3uXXav % <prj ‘7rpoupy)xsvai Kept rovruv xa l rd gV>j 
 yap a‘7rt[jjvri[jj()vz\)zv. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 2 ihvr[Gbr\vai (obs.) ruv < 7 rpoupri- 
 juivuv (obs.) piyudruv vko ruv ccy/uv rrpo<priruv (tfpotpring 2//3uXXa Apost . 
 Const.), and ver. 15 xadug (comp, here) xai 6 dya^yjrog q/xuv ddsX(p'og 
 TLavXog . . . sypa-^/sv bpuv, ug xai h rcdtiatg ra?g siriffroXa/g, XaXuv h 
 abraTg 7ts pi rovruv (obs.). 
 
 On p. 117 the close connection between Clement’s § 27 and 
 Theoph. xxxi. is pointed out. On p. 122, a coincidence between § 27 
 and Theoph. iii. is shown. With the words given, comp, b hvvdij,u 
 ro fjjY\ ov ug rb uvai rrapayayuv , found here in the Apost. Const, in the 
 account of the phoenix. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, for the foregoing reasons that the Sibylline 
 verses, together with an allusion very much in the words of S. Peter, 
 originally stood in Clement’s Ep. i. 27. The hand of a reviser 
 struck out the verses and toned down the language of S. Peter, so 
 that there might be no obvious reference to S. Peter’s 2d Epistle. 
 Both these things he would naturally do, for he could not prove the 
 Sibylline verses to be ancient, and might well suspect them to have 
 been written after the times of Clement of Rome, and the 2d 
 Epistle of S. Peter is not manifestly used, as the reviser would know 
 very well, by any early Christian writer. Both Erasmus and Calvin, 
 as we may remember, expressed doubts concerning its authenticity. 
 The reviser may have shared their doubts. 
 
 We have not space to state and examine our reasons for supposing 
 Clement’s Epistles to have been revised by a somewhat later hand 
 than that which originally drafted them. Such an examination would 
 bring under review almost the whole of that portion of the two 
 epistles which remains untouched in the foregoing pages, as well as 
 the whole of the Epistle to Diognetus. The question is of no import- 
 ance to the object of the present volume, which is simply to prove 
 that a great literary fraud was committed at a very late date. We 
 record our opinion, and point to the curious facts connected with the 
 Sibylline verses as to some extent a confirmation of it, merely as a 
 suggestion to any person who may feel disposed to act upon it.] 
 
 (2.) Irenseus (Hcer. iii. 3. 3) writes : — 
 
 s< 7 Tt rovrov ovv rov K Xrj/usvrog craffeug ovx dXtyrjg roTg ev K opivQu 
 ytvo/jj'evrig udtX<po?g, WiGruXiv i] iv 'Poj/a?j ’ExxXr/ff/a \xavurdrr\v ypa(pr\v 
 roTg K opiv&ioig, ug elprivqv ovfifSifidfyuffu abrobg, xai avaveoOffa rr\v kigtiv 
 avruv, xai yv vsuffri anb ruv drrocrbXuv rrapaboGiv uX7)<pu , annuntiantem 
 unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, plasmatorem 
 hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum et advocaverit Abraham, qui 
 eduxerit populum de terra iEgypti, qui collocutus sit Moysi, qui 
 legem disposuerit et prophetas miserit, qui ignem prceparaverit diabolo 
 et angelis ejus. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 337 
 
 It was on the strength of this passage that Lightfoot, writing 
 before the discovery of C., concluded that the words of pseudo- 
 Justin, given on p. 332, referred to the missing portion of 
 Clement’s 1st Epistle. He says : — 
 
 “This description corresponds with the contents of our epistle, 
 excepting the last clause which I have italicized ; and the insertion 
 of a statement so remarkable could not have been an accidental error 
 on the part of Irenaeus. Wotton indeed supposes that these words 
 do not give the contents of Clement’s epistle, but that Irenaeus is 
 describing in his own language the general substance of the Apostolic 
 tradition. To this interpretation however the subjunctive proepar- 
 civerit is fatal, for it shows that the narrative is oblique and that 
 Irenaeus is speaking in the words of another. It seems then that 
 Clement towards the close of the epistle dwelt upon the end of all 
 things, the destruction of the world by fire.” — P. 166. 
 
 There is nothing, however, in the newly-discovered portion 
 of our 1st Epistle to answer to the italicized clause. Still it 
 must be remarked that the force of Canon Lightfoot’s argu- 
 ments is in no respect weakened by anything that has come to 
 light. There is no better reason now than formerly for sup- 
 posing “ an accidental error ” on the part of Irenaeus. The 
 argument founded on the word prceparaverit is precisely what 
 it was. So far, indeed, from being weakened, the general 
 argument is made far stronger by the new discovery. It is 
 now thought to be possible to identify Irenaeus’ izavarurw 
 ypdcpqv as the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians now in our hands. 
 In Ep . i. 62, Clement writes : Kepi pAv tmv avrjzovrav r/j 
 0p7](T%eiGl 7 ](JjO)V, TtOtA TOOV OJ^sXlfJbOtJTOCTOtJV . . . IKOLVug STreffTSlXcCf/jSV 
 vpfiv. On this Bryennios refers to the passage from Irenaeus 
 quoted above. The writer of the article on Clemens Bomanus 
 in the Diet. Christ. Biogr. (Smith and Wace) observes: “It 
 may be added, that the epithet applied by Irenaeus to the 
 epistle IzotvarurYi turns out to have been suggested by a phrase 
 in the letter itself, ixocvoUg iKiGTiih(tp>ev” (p. 558). Whether 
 it is quite fair to claim in this way the testimony of Irenaeus 
 to our epistle, without a word to show that this testimony 
 breaks dow n utterly in one very important particular, we leave 
 to our readers to decide. 
 
 The case stands thus. From the discovery of the new mss., 
 we have stronger reason than formerly for supposing Clement’s 
 
 Y 
 
338 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 1st Epistle to be referred to by Irenseus, and therefore for 
 expecting to find in it something answering to the italicized 
 clause given above. There is, however, nothing. While we 
 believed in the honesty of our epistles, we took refuge in the 
 conjecture that Irenseus included the 2d Epistle (which might 
 perhaps be held to justify his language) with the 1st. We 
 had not then observed that Clement’s Izai/oug stsots thocfiev, in 
 Ep. i. 62, seems distinctly to point out the 1st Epistle as the 
 Ikmcotuty] ypocp?] of Irenseus ; nor yet that his au(pe\t(jbCt)T(x,rct)V, 
 in the same sentence, must have in like manner either sug- 
 gested or been suggested by the valde utilem epistolam of 
 Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. 15. It seems strange that Irenseus 
 should fix upon the one word, and Jerome upon the other. It 
 seems altogether more natural to suppose that the sentence, 
 in which these coincidences are found, was written by some 
 one perfectly familiar with the two accounts of Clement’s 
 Epistles, and who intentionally glances at the one with his ipcuv&Jg, 
 and at the other with his &j<pe If we entertain the 
 idea of forgery, the explanation of the omission, which has 
 been pointed out, is so simple that it can hardly be called a 
 conjecture. The Greek, which gives the coincidence between 
 our epistle and Irenseus, is found only in Euseb. H. E. v. 6. 
 The Latin continuation of the quotation is in Irenseus only. 
 The forger, we may think, failed to compare, sufficiently at any 
 rate, Eusebius and Irenseus. It was one of the pitfalls into 
 which a forger was likely to stumble. 
 
 (3.) John of Damascus, Sacr. Par. (ms. Rupef.) p. 787, 
 gives a short passage, as from the 2d Epistle of Clement to 
 the Corinthians. It is not, however, to be found in either 
 epistle. Lightfoot, in his A ddenda, p. 459, writes : — 
 
 “ I seem to see now that the style of the fragment quoted by the 
 pseudo-Damascene betrays a different hand from our author’s. Its 
 vocabulary is more philosophical, and altogether it shows more 
 literary skill.” 
 
 He therefore supposes the omission to have arisen from some 
 displacement of the pseudo-Damascene’s memoranda. 
 
 [The inconsistency in vocabulary and style fully accounts for the 
 excision of the passage by the later hand, who in Clement’s Ep. ii. 
 plays the part of an author of small literary ability. See the account 
 of Ep. ii. in Phot. Bibl. 126, quoted on p. 249.] 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 339 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 We shall begin our examination of the Epistles of 
 Clement by referring to Diodorus Siculus. He lived about 
 B.c. 59. The coincidences, therefore, which we shall bring 
 forward cannot be escaped on the plea that Diodorus was 
 possibly acquainted with our epistles. But where shall we 
 open the two folio volumes of our edition ? If the things 
 which we have to mention are purely accidental, it cannot 
 matter where we open the volumes, nor whether the writings 
 which we offer for comparison with the pages of Diodorus be 
 the Epistles of Clement or that to Diognetus, the Apologies of 
 Justin or the Homilies of Basil. The history of Diodorus is 
 as much, or as little, related to one as to another. We shall 
 not, however, open the volumes of Diodorus at haphazard, but p. 202 . 
 we shall take the hint which Cedrenus (art. 2, “ Diognet.”) 
 supplies, and refer to Diodorus’ narrative of the behaviour of p. 200 , 
 Alexander to the wife and daughters of Darius. This, with 
 the portion of history which leads up to it, begins lib . xvii. 31, 
 
 p. 182. 
 
 On this page Diodorus writes : a,To<rrekkeiv crpocrriyov . . . rrjg 
 ubixov ripbcopiag . . . bioi Tuppricri'ccv olxccipov roiavryjv ’ivy} rqv rov 
 filOV %UTCHTTpO(priV . . . blOTS p bvilpOTOkOVpjZVOg ruig M.uxsbbvav 
 ccpsraTg, xcci rjjv mpyziav rrjv ’AXs <gavbpov Tpo o$QaChpjuv kccpj- 
 /3 ocvuv IZfarzi, crpMTYiybv pecuv, rov bicchs^ofjbzvov rrjv riyzpjoviocv. 
 
 Comp. 3 Macc. iv. 1, pjzrd TdpprjGicig ; ver. 4, ovra yccp p,srcc 
 Tixpoig zed uvoizrov ^vyrjg vto rwv zard t'o\iv arpurriyovv p. 229 . 
 6{jjo0v(JijGch6v k^ccTOffrekkovro, wars It) rocTg \\aXkoig npjcopiaig zod 
 nvag ruv zyfipwv, kccf/jficivovrccg Tpo ruv btpQukpjuv rov zoivov eke ov, 
 zed koyiCppAvovg rrjv olhqkov rov fiiov zccrcc(rrpo(pr]v, bazpveiv 
 avruv rpicuOkiov etgccTOffrokrjv. This looks like obligation on 
 one side or the other. Clement, however, writes in Ep. i. 5 : 
 kccfiaf/jzv Tpo btyOukiJjwv yi(/jmv rovg ccyccQovg ocToarokovg. f O 
 Uerpog z.r.k. No argument can, of course, be founded on 
 the use of the expression key 3. Tpo bpQak. in itself. Still it 
 shows a possible connection of Clement with Diodorus, or with 
 3 Macc., or with both. It suggests further examination in Pp- i T 3, 
 both directions. There are some few indications of Clement’s 229 b<1 ' 
 
340 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 knowledge of 3 Macc. These will be fully considered here- 
 after. Our business now is with Diodorus. The e&TOO'roXqi' 
 of 3 Macc. may have attracted attention, and have given rise 
 to Clement’s uftOGTohovg. Such a conjecture no doubt implies 
 that, in our opinion, the writer of the epistles did not possess 
 that grave and reverent spirit naturally to be looked for in 
 Clement of Rome. This charge is perhaps made a little 
 prematurely on our part. Sooner or later it must be made. 
 It may be thought, moreover, that something of a jesting 
 disposition lies in Clement’s selection of ayafloug as applied to 
 the apostles. On the use of this epithet, Lightfoot remarks 
 . 22. (p. 406) : “ Harnack appositely quotes Clem . Horn. i. 16 6 h’ 
 uyctdbg Ylsrpog TrpoG^'/ihfn 7ug, z.tX The Homily describes the 
 introduction of Clement to S. Peter, and it was upon the 
 mention of his name that the apostle sprung up and kissed 
 him, and showed him every mark of attention. The epithet 
 ayocOog is thus most appropriate in Clement’s mouth, who, as 
 we see above, has S. Peter specially in his mind, and perhaps 
 marks his remembrance of that touching scene. 
 
 On the same page (p. 182) Diodorus uses the word zmty\v- 
 TYjGocv. In Ep. i. 6, only a few lines, that is, below the coinci- 
 dence with Diodorus pointed out above, Clement has g tti . . . 
 hpopjov KccT7]vrri(Tciv. We shall have occasion to deal with these 
 same pages of Diodorus in our next chapter, and we shall then 
 show how hpopjov comes to be associated with zoctccvtuv. 
 
 On p. 185 (we shall return to the intervening pages directly) 
 Diodorus writes : zai vopjiGocg to (pXabeXfiov rrjg ^vyjig o’iveiv 
 uvtSj Trepifiorirov trapd UspGocig bo^ccv ; and presently Xvgoci tt)v 
 (TSfjjVOTTjTcc ryjg TTpoaTocfTiccg, zai tov Trocpcc Uzpcaig Toig fiaaXevGi 
 zzi^zvov vo(JjOV V7rep(Zrjvut. Comp, to GefAvov Trjg TrepifioqTov fiXa- 
 bzhpiag, Ep. i. 47, and p,yj Trapzzfiaivav tov upiGp>zvov Trjg XeiTovp- 
 ytag avTOv zavova sv GspjVOTrjTi, Ep. i. 41. 
 
 Clement, perhaps, was curious about the word mpifioriTog, 
 which is found in the LXX. in 2 Macc. ii. 23, and not at all in 
 the N. T. In lib. xiv. 76, p. 701, Diodorus writes : onoog (Jbrj 
 tov opeXopjevov Trj (pbcti OavaTov anohovg ccQaog ysvrjTai. toov 
 aa fiyjf/jMTMV (ocyijOcpTyipjCCTMV, just below), uXh! ev T/j TccTp/di 
 TrzpifibriTov Zyyyj tov fiiov, V7ro nravTuv bvzihiZp(jjZvog‘ g ig togovto 
 209. ( togovtov , v.l.) b' 7\ \Qev aTvyjag. . . . ttoXv p>oXXov l^zzavaav. . . . 
 afybyjpzovg. This is a remarkable passage. Cf. GcOtiog ehai 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 341 
 
 . . . ovk mv aQoyjpzus sysvSTO 5/a tov Ihiov Qmvmtov to yjpjSTSpov 
 MTrobibovMi o<p\?i(/jM . . ., Steph. Bud. Fid. p. 45 ; and rip^slg 5s 
 mQmoi sGoposOM mko TMVTrjg rrjg Mf/jocprtocg, Ep. i. 59 ; and Jjv okiyM 
 yrpoffcjToc Kpo'KSTYi km) uvQuhr] vxdcpxovTM sig roaovrov uvrovoicig 
 stg'sKMWMV, uffTS to trspovov km) KipifioriTOV k.t\.> Ep. i. 1. Re- 
 turning now to p. 188, we find Diodorus speaking of Alexander’s 
 kindness to the family of Darius, and saying ^oXKmv km) km'Kmv 
 spy mv vtt ’ AXs^ccvbpov avvTSTShiGp*svuv pbrjhsv tovtcov posi^ov vkm p- 
 %siv f/j7]he PjmXKov m£,iov MVMypM(pijg km) pjvr\[Lv\g iGTOpiKrjg sIvmi. 
 
 We call to mind a parallel passage in lib. i. 3, p. 7 : iffTOpiKrjv . . . 
 si yocp Tig TMg s ig fjbvrjfjbyjv TMpMbsboposvMg tov avpj'TMVTog Koffpoov 
 TrpM^sig ; and ttoKKoov 5g km) posyocXovv tmv (jostm tmvtm irpM^suv p. 289. 
 MTToXsXsifJjf/jSVMV (JjSyjp) TOV KM$ 7]{/jMg (3 iov, p. 6. Comp. tfoKkUV 
 ovv km) (jjSyMkoov km) svho^ojv pjSTSiXrjpoTsg 'Tpodgsoov syrMVMbpccpjMfjjSv 
 S7r) tov Vg Mpyyjg TTMpMbsbopjSvov Tjpiiv Trig s iprjvrjg gkottov, km) 
 MTSviGMfjjSV s ig tov Ilargpa km) ktkjttiv tov GvfJbTTMVTog Kovrov, 
 km) TMlg (/jSyMkovrpSTSffi km) VTrspfiMXXovGMig mvtov hovpSMlg Trjg 
 sipTjvTjg svspysa'iMig ts KoXk^MpbSV, Ep. i. 19. In Diodorus, p. 189, 
 we have (josyMKoftpsirslg OveiMg . . . TipofaMg TMlg cx^iMig SKMGTOvg 
 bupsofig (sTMVMTpsxa Tpog tov M,pyj\g A SGTroTyjv, Bas. Ps. cxv. 5, P. 130. 
 p. 375; pjsyMkMi 5?j km) VTrspfiuXkovGMi boupSMi — boopzdig km) v%sp- 
 $uXkovar\g svspysGidcg , Philo, i. pp. 587, 588). It would certainly 
 seem that a great part of Clement’s sentence is made up out 
 of Diodorus. There is more to be said, however. The passage 
 of Diodorus (p. 188) just quoted, concerning Alexander, re- 
 minded us of a saying of Agesilaus to much the same effect, 
 recorded by Plutarch, Mor. p. 2 1 5. We read through Plutarch’s 
 account of Agesilaus on Cedrenus’ suggestion, as we have 
 shown in art. 2, u Diognet.” Plutarch writes : si yocp ti kmXov 
 spyov WSTTOiriKM , T0VT0 (JjOV pjVrip>sloV SGTMl, Slhs ovh ’ 01 TTMVTSg 
 ccvbpiMVTsg , ]8 mvmvgmv ovhsvog m%imv spyM ovTsg. Comp, ovhh 
 (3mvmvgov sv MyM7Tty Ep. i. 49. Four lines above we observe 
 to pjSyMXslov used also by Plutarch, p. 214. On the same 
 page Plutarch has the rare word hiGTMypjbg, for which see 
 Ep. i. 46. 
 
 On p. 184 is c. 33. This chapter might be thought, by one 
 on the look-out for such resemblances, to have something in 
 common with the scriptural narrative of the taking of J ericho. 
 
 It opens with the mention of spies, and gives a description of a 
 battle in which the sounding of the trumpet and the shouting 
 
342 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 of the armies hold a very conspicuous position. There is a 
 verbal coincidence with Josh. vi. 20. Clement must have 
 observed this, for there are altogether too many coincidences 
 here with his Ep. i. 12 to be accidental. In this section, which 
 we shall give entire, Clement speaks of the hospitable conduct 
 of Rahab to the spies who had been sent to view Jericho. 
 
 § 12 . 
 
 1. A/a gt'igtiv zai (ptXo^Bviav i gojOyi 'P aa/3 y\ GropvT]. 2. bzgtb[jo<P- 
 Qzvrcov yap vgto ’ \rjGov rov N avrj zaraGzoGrcov Big 'I Bpiyd, eyvoo 6 
 fiavikBvg rrjg yyjg bn qzaGi zaraGzoGTBvGai rrjv yfjpav avrdv, 
 zai b^bgtb[Jj^bv avhpag rovg GvKk7i^o(/0Bvovg avrovg, OGTcvg GvKkqp- 
 Owreg QavarooQdGiv. 3. rj ovv (piko^Bvog 'PaajS BiGhBlgayoevrj avrovg 
 
 SZpV\pSV Big TO VGTBpUOV VGTO T/JV XlVOZaXd(/07]V 4. BT'lGTa^BVTOUV 
 5g ruv Gcapd rov /3 aGikBwg zai XByovrav IIpoV gb BiGrjXQov oi zara- 
 gzogtoi rr\g yrjg yjyotiv, llgayayB avrovg • 5. 6 yap fiaGikBvg ovroo 
 
 zbKbvbi, 7! 5g aGTBzpiQyi E tGTjXQov (jobv oi avbpBg ovg ZyirBirB GTpog (job, 
 aAA’ Bv^Bcog ItgijXQov zai GropBvovrai ryj ohd, VGrobBizvvovGa 1 avroig 
 g vaXha%- 6 . zai bigcb GTpog rovg avbpag T ivdazovG a yivuGzco \yd 
 on zvpiog 6 0 g og vyoovv GrapabibaGiv vyoiv rrjv yyjv ( A . gtoXiv) 
 ravrriv' 7. o yap (pofiog zai 6 rpopoog vyodv bgtbgtbgb ro7g zaroi- 
 zovgiv avr/jv. 8 . dg lav ovv yBvrjrai Xa/3s iv avryv v(bdg, haavGarB 
 (job zai rov oizov rov Grarpog (joov 9. zai BiGrav avrri "E Grai 
 ovrcfjg dig \B\ahrizag rjfJoTv’ dg idv ovv yvdg 7rapayBvo(JOBVOvg yjfjoag , 
 GvvcdgBig Gravrag rovg Govg vgto ro Griyog , zai hiaGaOriGovrai' ogoi 
 yap av BvpBOwGiv b^co rrjg oiziag, aGrdkovvrai. 10 . zai GrpoGB&Bvro 
 avrri lovvai gyi[l€iov , oGTug IzzpBfJoaG rj \z rov oizov avrrjg zozzivov , 
 Grpblrfkov GroiovvrBg, on bid rov aifjoarog rov zvpiov XvrpcoGig BGrai 
 GraGi rdig gtigtbvovgi zai bXgti%ovgiv bgt) rov Ssov. 11 . opars, 
 ayaGTrjroi, bn ov (joovov GTiGng aXka zai GTpofirjrBia \v ryj yvvaizi 
 ByBvyjQri ; 
 
 (The text of this section is that of Bryennios. For the sake of 
 convenience ice have , however, broken it up into paragraphs.) 
 
 Diodorus, c. 33, begins with rdv zaraGzoGrojv. Clement has 
 the exact w r ord in par. 2. On p. 183, Diodorus has GrpoGifevro ; 
 Clement uses the exact word in par. 10. Diodorus, in c. 33, 
 
 1 Comp, with pars. 3,4, 5: rov fia,<ri\tu>s rov$ <pl\ovs lxSs%op,svouf o c '~Ef)fiuv TccpcMrra; 
 IxaXu -rpog <ri )v t^ov, vvroSuxvvav, x. <r.x., 3 Macc. v. 26. A connection between 
 3 Macc. and the pages of Diodorus which we are using is pointed out above. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 343 
 
 lias the word 2 evocWoi^; so has Clement in par. 5. Diodorus’ 
 language here, as also in lib. xi. 22, p. 421, would suggest 
 Clement’s interpretation, “ in opposite directions.” In some of 
 the MSS. of Diodorus, in the place last referred to, lvaXkdi% is 
 omitted. Accordingly, A. has only the first letter of the word 
 and the first stroke of the second. We say accordingly , because 
 we shall see hereafter not a few instances of the same kind of 
 coincidence. Lightfoot calls attention to the construction in 
 par. 2 : rovg ffvXX. z.t.\. Comp. Diod. p. 183, GvKkYjtyQzig . . . Pp. 74, 86. 
 IT ocpyjzvicovci fjb Iv . . . awgoTS/As TrpozuXri'i^oyjevov rag z.tX. We 
 have already seen tov btochs^opjsvov, p. 182 ; and on p. 187 we 
 have £%e'7re{jjypsv svcc tmv (pXoov . . . zcci 'TrcipGcfAvQriffoyjevov rag z.tX. P. 88. 
 Diodorus has among the last words of c. 32, p. 184, 5/a rrjg 
 ihiag zpiceag ^pozfryif/jccivov roig Bap/3apo/£ rqv vizriv. Clement 
 ends § 11 with g lg apiece zcci tig (TTifJbeiojGig nruauig rccTg ysvsoc7g 
 yivovTcci. 
 
 It is simply impossible that the coincidences which we have 
 now given out of Diodorus with Clement’s Epistles — notably 
 with Ep. i. 12 — can have arisen accidentally. If any of our P. 263 sq. 
 readers are still unconvinced on this point, let them turn to 
 chap. ii. We must conclude, therefore, that Diodorus was 
 used. 
 
 If, however, Clement made use of Diodorus in Ep. i. 12, 
 he must have done so in jest. It is therefore probable that if 
 the section be closely examined, other things will be found of 
 the same character. 
 
 Josh. ii. supplies Clement with the story of Rahab, but not 
 with the language which he puts into the mouths of the various 
 speakers. Yer. 6 of that chapter describes Rahab as taking the 
 spies g$ri to huyoa (It/ tov bougoccTog). Clement, in par. 3, takes 
 them sig to vnipwov. His word, <rrgyof, in par. 9, moreover, is 
 not found in Josh, ii., nor, indeed, anywhere in the LXX. p - 45 - 
 except in Ep. Jer. 10, 3 where it is used in a bad sense. From 
 these things one would feel disposed to argue that Clement 
 had not the Book of Joshua in his hands, or even very clearly 
 
 2 Part of a bedstead is called IvxXXdxryi; (crossbar?) in Evang. Thom. A. 13, P- 65. 
 p. 144, Tischendorf, 1853. Aquila (Isa. iii. 4) uses the word in the sense of 
 
 ‘ ‘ exchanger. ” It is not found elsewhere. See note 8 of this chapter. 
 
 3 riyos is here a v.l. Accordingly A. reads: roroiyos, Light, p. 65, where see 
 his note. 
 
344 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 in his mind. Lightfoot pleads il a slip of memory,” and a 
 possible lack of “ familiarity with Eastern customs,” as excuses 
 for Clement’s inapplicable vmpwov. But, cn the other hand, 
 we cannot fail to see that Clement takes a very deep interest 
 in the contents of Josh. ii. There are not wanting indications 
 that he was familiar with its language. The '7]X,ugi %ccrccG?co- 
 gcivgui, for example, of par. 2 is exactly found in Josh. ii. 3. 
 Besides, on par. 7 the editors point out that Clement “ seems 
 to have had in his copy of the LXX. (Josh. ii. 9) certain 
 words which are wanting in all the best MSS., though supplied 
 in the Complutensian edition, and represented in the original 
 Hebrew.” These things do not seem quite consistent, and lead 
 one to suspect that there is more behind than meets the eye. 
 
 We notice that Clement speaks of the scarlet thread (ro 
 xozzivov). There is no reason why he should not, for it is a 
 distinctive feature in the sacred narrative. We cannot forget, 
 however, that it plays an unpleasant part, if we mistake not, 
 in the accounts which the apocryphal gospels give of the 
 Virgin Mary. We remark, further, that at the close of § 11 
 Clement uses the expression nuGuig rocig yevecug, as he does also 
 in §§ 7, 51. The expression is identified with the Virgin 
 Mary, and is therefore of frequent use in the apocryphal 
 gospels in connection wdth her. Having reason to suspect 
 some jesting in Clement’s § 12, it is not unnatural to turn to 
 the apocryphal gospels, with which Diognetus (cc. xi. xii.) has 
 made us acquainted, for an explanation of it. 
 
 In Evang. Thom. A. 9, p. 142 (we have just referred to p, 
 144), we find h v^repaa followed, after three lines, by ccto rov 
 Greyov. That the writer is conversant with other forms of 
 expression is evident, for in the same place he writes ttzgoov cctto 
 p. 290. rov hugbarog xoirco. In Ep . Jer . 10 the words are rcug farl rov 
 Griyovg Tropvcug, with biuGoJCpvrui in the next verse. Clement 
 has vko ro ariyog gov , zoci hccGwOriGovrGii. There would be, 
 of course, a certain appropriateness in using this word of 
 doubtful meaning in connection with Bahab ; and if we may 
 judge from other parts of the apocryphal gospels, the same 
 kind of reason guided their writers in selecting this word for 
 the place in which we have found it. The words of the Evang. 
 p.45. Thom, are these: xccreKrjfyGev 6 ’lyjGovg ccto rov Grzyov, xcci 
 iGrr\ Tccpcc ro rrrcopjcc rov ffaihiov, zcct sxpoc^ s <pcuvq fjoeycchri kua 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 345 
 
 e Inev. In the parallel passage in Evang. Thom. B. 8, p. 153, 
 the words are za) areviZpvreg ooveihiZ^ov avrov * 6 he I rjGovg ihoov 
 evQeoog zarenfjhriGev and rov hiareyov z.r.X. They seem taken 
 in part from Gen. xxiv. 64, 65, za) avafiXtyaGa 'Pefiezza roig 
 opQaXgboTg, elihe rov ’I Gaaz' za) zarenrjhrjGev and rrjg zagorjXov. za) 
 line roo naih), rig eanv 6 avOpconog ezeivog 6 nopevoguevog. Yer. 66, 
 za'i hir\yr,Garo 6 nalg rev T Gaaz. Yer. 67, eiGrfkAe he ’lcaaz elg 
 tov oizov rrjg gorjrpdg avrov • za) eXa/3e rrjv 'Pefiezzav, za ) eyevero 
 avrov yvvrj. In the opposite page in Evang. Thom. A., speaking 
 of our Lord, the writer says: negonei avrov fi gorjrrip avrov 
 vhcop avrXrjGai (Gen. xxiv. 43) za) (pepeiv ev rev oizov ; and in the 
 parallel passage in Evang . Thom. B., nopevogoevog he Gvverpifir] r\ 
 vhpia avrov with za) Xafieov after one line, and presently, p. 155, 
 hir^yriaaro rrj M apiago 6 ’IcoGrjp. It would certainly seem that 
 Gen. xxiv. was used in the Evang. Thom. But Clement makes 
 Bahab say: dog eav ovv yevrjrai Xafieiv avrrjv vgoag, hiaaovaare (a e 
 za) rov oizov rov narpog g»ov' za) elnav avrrf "Parai ovroog cog 
 eXa XrjGag rjgdiv, cog eav ovv yveog napayivogoevovg rjgoag. Comp. Gen. 
 xxiv. 67, quoted above, and ver. 7 og eXa/3e goe ez rov oizov rov 
 narpog goov, za) ez rrjg yrjg yjg eyevvrjfyv, og eXaXrjGe gooi. Clement’s 
 words now given remind us of Elijah’s eav ihr\g goe avaXagofia- 
 vogoevov ano gov , za) earai goi ovroog, za) iav gorj, ov gjYj yevrirai. 
 
 2 Kings ii. 11. In this chapter we remark Zfi zvpiog za) c Qj 
 z.r.X . several times. In Ep. i. 58, 4 this mode of speech appears. 
 
 It seems to be taken up in the apocryphal gospels again and 
 again as a joke. 2 Kings ii., moreover, appears to be used in 
 the Evang. Thom, in the very place to which we have just been 
 referring. On p. 142, the cursing of Jesus is spoken of, which 
 may be compared with that of Elisha, and the vnepcoov spoken 
 of may be nothing else than the little chamber (vnepcoov) made 
 for the prophet ; and on p. 143 there is an accident with an P. 43» 
 axe, leading to a miracle, which one suspects to be suggested 
 
 4 « ®to$ xa.) o xvpio; 'introv; Xpttrres xcu to ‘Z’nvfia to ay/ov. Comp. 
 
 aXviSus Xiytrs on Zfi o ®io ; xeci ovrag a,r.n0eu{ ov vpu$ iffrcovpuffoiri, Evang. Nicod. 
 xiii. p. 295 (for references to same place see below, c. 4). Basil gives the 
 words just quoted from Ep. i. 58 in De Spir. Sanct. 29, p. 61, as a quotation P. 259. 
 from Clement of Rome. In the same place Basil refers to Irenaeus, Dionysius, 
 and Africanus. In c. 2 we show that Dionysius is used in Ep. i. 20, and that 
 the doxology from Basil’s quotation of Africanus is used in the same § 20. P. 260, 
 Coincidences with Iren. v. cc. 8, 9, to which Basil refers, are found in Ep. 
 ii. 14. 
 
346 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 by Elisha’s miracle. Moreover, on the same p. 143 it is said : 
 o hz o-^kog Ihoov to yzyovog TrpoGi7Lvvv\Guv to vruihlov, XzyovTzg, 
 
 ’ AXTjQag Trvzvfjbu Qsov zvoinzl \v tco Truth too tovtco ; while in 
 2 Kings ii. 15 it is said: %ul sihov uvtov ol viol tmv Trpo^yjTMV . . . 
 
 ’E TaVUTTZTrUVTUl TO TTVZVfJjU ’HX/Ol) in) f E XlGUlZ ZUl . . . TTpoai- 
 P . 4 ?. tcvvyiguv uvtoj eTi T/jv yyjv. In ver. 1 9 , utzzvzIv is used as it 
 also is in Orat. iii. 
 
 In the Evang. Thom., part B. is only another version of part 
 A., and pp. 143 and 154 are parallel. On p. 154, out of the 
 words given as a parallel to Diognet. xi., we observe the words 
 uvtXtjc rag vhcop \x Trig tfyiyfe sttXtjg zv uvtov . In Ex. ii. an 
 account is given of the seven daughters of the priest of Midian, 
 and of their coming to the well to water their father’s flock ; 
 and in ver. 16 it is said : Trupuyzvopjzvut 5g tjvtXovv zcog evrXrjGuv 
 Tag hz\u[LZVug. This supplies the missing TCupuyzvogJzvovg for 
 § 12, par. 9. (Ex. ii. 14 is quoted in Ep. i. 4 ; and comp, goy 
 uvzXzTv (JjZ gv Oikzig with otuv tfikri uvzkzi uvttjv, Ep. i. 21.) The 
 apocryphal gospels take an interest in the early part of the 
 Book of Exodus because of its account of the midwives (see 
 Protev. Jacob, xix. p. 34 sq.). For a reason of the same kind 
 P. 281. they make use of Gen. xxxviii. The words of ver. 20, utt'zg- 
 tziKz £g T ovhug . . . xopjiGUGOut, offer a parallel to the half-dozen 
 lines p. 154, to which we have already twice referred, where 
 we find uttzgtziK zv uvtov M.upiufJb . . . xoguiGut vhap. These 
 things come too readily to our hands to be accidental, and we 
 therefore cannot but feel certain that there are jesting and 
 unpleasant allusions in the words which Clement puts into the 
 mouth of Rahab in par. 5. This chapter (Gen. xxxviii.) has the 
 expression over and over again, ziGrj'hQz Trpog avT/jv . . . vrpog gz . . . 
 Trpog [JjZ. EvOug z^rihtozv is said of the birth of Phares. In ver. 4 
 is GvKkafiovGu ; in ver. 10, g Ouvutugz. In this § 12, Clement 
 has orug GvWrjtpQzvTzg duvuTuOojGtv. Clement’s words, observe, 
 are distinctly chosen by him ; for they are not in the sacred 
 narrative given in Josh, ii., which steers quite clear of all 
 doubtful expressions with regard to Rahab. They are, of course, 
 necessary expressions in the narrative of Gen. xxxviii. The 
 above conclusion is strengthened by observing that Clement’s 
 words, just preceding those which he puts into the mouth of the 
 king’s messenger, vrpog gz ziGrfhOov ol kutugkottoi Trjg yrjg rjpjoov, 
 zguyuyz uvTovg , seem obviously a recollection of the words of 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 347 
 
 the men of Sodom to Lot ttov eiGiv ol ocvbpeg oi e IffeXQovreg irpog 
 os rrjv vvzroc; g| ocyocye ccvrovg, Gen. xix. 5. The words in 
 Joshua are e^ayccye rovg ocvbpocg rovg g/Wg-r opevfjoevovg eig rrjv 
 oiziocv gov rrjv vvxroc, ii. 3. Clement tells the story of Lot in 
 the preceding section (§ 11). The notion that the conver- 
 sation of this § 12 is a mere patchwork of bits taken here 
 and there, according to the fancy of the writer, is further 
 borne out by the consideration of a sentence given to the spies 
 in par. 9, which we have already partly discussed. The words 
 in Josh. ii. 18 are rov £g Trocr'epoc gov, rcoci rrjv (/jrjrepoc gov, zcci 
 rovg ubeXfiovg gov, zcci Trccvroc rov oUzov rov rrocrpog gov ovvoc^eig 
 Trpog oeccvrrjv eig rrjv oiziocv gov. zcci eoroci Trocg og ccv g|g \Qrj rrjv 
 Ovpocv rrjg oiziocg gov s<gw, e voypg eccvru eoroci. There is enough 
 of resemblance here to show that Clement can recollect when 
 he is disposed to do so. And it is none the less plain that his 
 words are an amalgamation of Josh. ii. 18 with Ex. ix. 19 vvv 
 ovv zccrccGTSvoov ovvccyocyeiv roc zrijvjj gov, zoci ogcc goi eoriv \v 
 r£ vebioo. ^rocvreg yoip oi ccvOpuTroi, xoci roc rcrrjvrj, ogcc sccv evps^rj 
 ev rolg Tebioig, noci p>r\ eioekQri eig oirciocv, 7reori 5g erf ocvroc rj 
 XpXocCpc, reXevrrjoei. From Ex. ix. 31 appears to be taken 
 r'ccpeor^rcvioc, used by Clement ( Ep . i. 23, ii. 11*) in what pro- 
 fesses to be a quotation. 
 
 If § 12 be now examined, it will be found to be covered to 
 a great extent by the references which we have supplied. We 
 shall produce, immediately, one whole sentence and something 
 more out of Origen ; and, hereafter, ocoiei orpobrihov, for par. 10, 
 out of a page of Diodorus, and ocTroXovvroci, for par. 9, out of P. 263 sq. 
 Heb. i. 
 
 Let us consider how the case stands with respect to the 
 coincidences already given. 
 
 1. For a certain specified reason the historical Bibliotheca of 
 Diodorus is opened at a particular page. There, and in the 
 pages immediately following, are found a number of coinci- 
 dences with Clement’s Ep. i., and specially with § 12. Acci- 
 dental coincidences may, no doubt, be occasionally found, but 
 not such as these. These cannot be accidental. It is therefore 
 necessary to suppose that Clement made use of Diodorus. The 
 coincidences with this writer are, however, of such a character 
 as to lead to the idea that the use so made is of a jesting 
 5 itTK erTa<fv>.yi vra.pi<rr*xv7a. (“ripe”). Lightfoot refers to Ex. ix. 31. 
 
348 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 nature. This idea is confirmed by reference to the Evang. 
 Thom ., which is nothing else than jest from the beginning to 
 the end. 
 
 2. When we became of opinion that § 12 of our 1st Epistle 
 was not written in a very grave and serious spirit, we made 
 some examination of the Evang . Thom . We consulted this 
 apocryphal gospel, and a particular page of it, because that 
 page had already supplied us with two parallels for Diognet. 
 chap. xi. xii. Let us see how the case stands with respect to 
 this gospel. 
 
 The Evang . Thom, has two versions, which Tischendorf calls 
 A. and B. A certain page of Evang. Thom. B. appears to be 
 used in Diognetus. The Evang. Thom . A. (in the parallel place) 
 r. 63. uses the word wccKkuzryjg (see note 2), deriving the meaning 
 apparently from \volKKol\ when used, as in Ep. i. 12, in “ the 
 somewhat strange” sense, as Lightfoot remarks, of “ crosswise.” 
 In the Evang. Thom. A., also, and in the same neighbourhood, 
 are found in close companionship two words, which as used by 
 Clement (also in § 12) are noticeable. Investigation of the 
 p. 42 sq. language of the apocryphal gospel in its parallel places shows 
 P. 65. that it is taken from various chapters of Holy Scripture. These 
 same chapters supply some coincidences with those conversa- 
 tional parts of § 12 which confessedly are not drawn from 
 Josh, ii., in which chapter they are naturally looked for. It is 
 of course admitted that many of the coincidences are of slight 
 importance, and in themselves alone not at all to be relied 
 upon. The whole case has, however, to be considered; and 
 the aptness with which the coincidences, such as they are, have 
 come to hand, must be observed. Many of these resemblances 
 may be set aside as unworthy of notice, but there will still 
 remain two sets of coincidences — the one with Diodorus, the 
 other with the Evang. Thom. — not so summarily to be disposed 
 of. Each of these has its own specially noteworthy features. 
 They are not, however, independent of one another, but are 
 closely connected in the words g vuKkd% and IwKkcixryjg. It is 
 incredible - that this double set of coincidences should have 
 accidentally arisen. It is incumbent on any one who thinks 
 this to be possible, to produce two equally remarkable sets of 
 coincidences for a piece of Greek of equal length with 
 Clement’s Ep. i. 12, and which he can prove to be purely 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 349 
 
 accidental. He will not then have proved that the coinci- 
 dences before us are accidental, but he will, no doubt, have 
 shown that they may be. 
 
 The conjecture that the author of the apocryphal gospel 
 was acquainted with Clement’s Epistles, we must remark, does 
 not meet the case. It does not explain the phenomena which 
 Ep. i. 12 presents. There is plainly a connection of some kind 
 between Clement and the apocryphal gospel. What this is 
 does not yet appear, and we do not intend to discuss the question 
 further at this time. We shall again and again come across 
 the Evany. Thom . in the course of our examination of our 
 epistles. For the present we take our stand on the fact, which 
 we think we have sufficiently proved, viz. that our 1st Epistle, 
 in the form in which we now have it, was not written by 
 Clement, Bishop of Rome, but by some later author of an 
 unknown age. 
 
 Under this view, then, let us look once more at § 12, and see 
 whether we cannot get some further light upon it. There is 
 no doubt that the epistle, by whomsoever written, was intended 
 to pass as that of Clement of Rome, and to take the place 
 which the genuine epistle once occupied. To sustain the 
 character, it must seem to bear within it the seeds of succeed- 
 ing Christian thought. It must be so carefully written that 
 succeeding writers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others, 
 may seem in their language to be recollecting Clement of 
 Rome. It happens that Justin Martyr (Dial. Ill 6 ) speaks of 
 Rahab, and of the scarlet thread as being a symbol of the blood 
 of Christ. Irenaeus (iv. 20. 12) speaks also of Rahab. It is 
 quite evident that he has Justin before him. He has, how- 
 ever, a distinct feature in his remarks, for he speaks of Rahab 
 as having been preserved with her whole house “fide signi 
 coccini,” adding — 
 
 “ Sicut et Dominus dicebat his qui adventum ejus non excipiebant, 
 Pharisaeis scilicet, et coccini signum nullificant, quod erat pascha, 
 redemptio et exodus populi ex iEgypto.” 
 
 Origen also writes, in Jes. Horn. iii. 4 (tom. ii. p. 403) : — 
 
 “ Sed et ista meretrix, quae eos suscepit, ex meretrice efficitur jam 
 propheta. Dicit enim, Scio quia Dominus Deus vester tradidit vobis 
 
 6 See Diognet. vii., where Dial. 110 is plainly used. 
 
350 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 terrain hanc. Yides (cf. par. 11) quomodo ilia, quae aliquando erat 
 meretrix et impia et immunda, nunc jam Spiritu Sancto repleta est ; 
 et de praeteritis quidem fatetur, de praesentibus vero credit, prophetat 
 autem et praenunciat de futuris.” 
 
 Origen’s proplieta supplies, then, a third distinct feature. The 
 words which Clement, in § 12, par. 6, puts into the mouth of 
 Rahab, are a very nearly exact translation of Origen’s. Clement 
 writes : yivoovnovGcc yivooGnaj lyoj on nvpiog 6 Qeog v(/jojv Trccpct- 
 hi'hajffiv v(jav rrjv yrjv (A. reads iroXtv) rctvrrjv. In Josh. ii. 9 we 
 read on etiazsv vpfiv nvpiog rrjv yrjv, and in ver. 14 
 
 ug otv TTccpabu nvpiog rjfjotv rrjv nohiv. Clement’s language looks 
 very much like a combination of vv. 9, 14, which might well 
 have been suggested by Origen. A very simple explanation 
 of this matter may be offered. Let us suppose the writer of 
 our epistle to have had the Latin version of Origen before 
 him, or in his mind, and not the Greek. This Latin version 
 of Rahab’ s words looks as though it might be an amalgamation 
 of Josh. ii. 9 with ver. 14. Our writer, we shall suppose, 
 wished Origen to be considered as bearing witness to his § 12. 
 He therefore himself combined vers. 9, 14, and, having been 
 thus induced to vary from the language of Josh. ii. in this 
 particular sentence, preserved his consistency by giving no 
 part of the conversation in § 12 in the language of Josh. ii. 
 
 Let us now look at the concluding words of § 12, bearing 
 in mind the references made above to Justin, Irenaeus, and 
 Origen. 
 
 He tells us that the spies instructed Rahab to hang the scarlet 
 line from her house, and that by so doing they made it plain on 
 S/a rov uif/jurog rov nvpiov (Justin) ’kvrpcocrig (Irenaeus) zaroti 
 vrotGiv roig manvovaiv (Origen) not) skTri^ovciv It) rov (dzov. 
 'Opars (Origen) otyotnyiroi, ov [Jjovov viang (Irenaeus) btKkot 
 rrpoprireict (Origen) sv rrj yvvctiz) yiyoviv. Nothing can well 
 exceed the skill with which this sentence is drawn. It will be 
 observed that Clement does not say in what respect Rahab 
 showed the gift of prophecy. He gives no prominence to 
 Origen’s view, and yet he might be claimed as favouring it. 
 We remark that Clement’s words meet the views of Justin, 
 Irenaeus, and Origen, but they are then themselves exhausted. 
 We have to consider whether the passage of Clement is not a 
 little too cleverly drawn, and whether the conclusion — when 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 351 
 
 all four passages are brought together, and all considerations 
 of authorship and date are put on one side — ought not to be 
 that Clement’s is the later account. It is beyond dispute very 
 like the pithy sentences of Diognetus , which gather into them- 
 selves some distinct feature from each of half a dozen different 
 parallels. If we adopt the conclusion that our Clement was 
 the later writer, we shall find support for it in Justin, who 
 speaks of the death of the first-born of the Egyptians. This 
 explains how the language of Ex. ix. comes to be used in § 12, 
 par. 9. 
 
 We shall continue to use the name of Clement for con- 
 venience sake ; but we shall only mean by the name the person 
 who wrote or compiled the epistles which are now ascribed to 
 Clement of Rome. 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 It will be necessary now to show that the 2d Epistle of 
 Clement is of the same character as the 1st, and that we may 
 fairly examine the two together as though they were by the 
 same author, and formed but one writing in two parts. 
 
 Photius, Bill. Cod . 126, speaks of apocryphal quotations as p. 249*. 
 a distinct feature of the 2d Epistle, and in a less degree of 
 the 1st. Accordingly citations of this character are found in 
 both epistles. This is, of course, no proof of genuineness. 
 Whether the remarks of Photius are really his or not, the 
 presence of these citations is as necessary in our epistles as 
 the queen’s head upon the coin that claims to belong to the 
 reign of Queen Victoria. The presence of this feature proves 
 nothing, though the absence of it would be fatal. If examina- 
 tion should show that these quotations, or any one of them, are p. 137. 
 not from some apocryphal source, but simply manufactures by 
 the writer himself, then the very characteristic of Clement’s 
 Epistles, which Photius supplies, instead of supporting our 
 epistles, will the more fatally condemn them. 
 
 In Ep. ii. 4 is found the following citation : si ttsv 6 xvpiog. 
 
 ’Eav /its (AST IfJjOv cvv/iypj'svot sv too (/jOv, xat fjjjj < 7 roi/jrs 
 
 rdg svrokoig f/jov, v(Jt>dg xui Ipoj vpJiv 'TVaysrs cct 
 
352 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 \ f/jOVj ovz oihu vf/jag ttoGsv sots, spyaTai uvopotcig. In illustra- 
 tion of the imagery and language, Lightfoot refers to Isa. xl. 
 11 ; Prov. xxx. 4 ; S. Luke xiii. 27 ; and to Justin, Apol. i. 16, 
 Dial. 76. He supposes it to be ‘‘taken from the gospel of 
 the Egyptians,” which is used (by the help of Clement of 
 Alexandria) in Ep. ii. 12 ; and upon this use he founds a con- 
 jecture as to the country to which the writer of this 2d 
 Epistle belonged. The inference is a just one if the citation 
 before us be, what it clearly professes to be, the citation of a 
 saying of our Lord out of some apocryphal source. 
 
 What is it, however ? 
 
 Of the words which we have given, S. Luke xiii. 27 will 
 supply v(jj7v, ovz vfjodg TroOev sots. In Apol. i. 16, Justin 
 quotes this verse thus : zou tots Ipu avToig • anoyjupiiTi asr’ 
 s (jjOVy epyccTcci Tijg dvof/siocg. To complete the latter part of the 
 citation we only want vitdySTS. For this we go to Dial. 76. 
 There Justin writes : zccl ipa avTOig' ’ A.vocyjups'iTS drr s p>ov. 
 K oti \v a XKoig \dyoig olg zocTahzdZ^siv Tovg avafy'ovg Gatp adai 
 
 (Jj'sXKsi^ s <p?i ipziv 'Y^raysrs s ig to azoTog to s<guTepov z.tX. We 
 thus get the VTruysTS ; but it is not in the quotation with which 
 we are dealing, but in another. It is difficult to suppose this 
 to be accidental, and we naturally look for other indications 
 that Clement’s eye was upon Justin. In Apol. i. 16, S. Luke 
 xiii. 27 is the fourth of several quotations strung together 
 without any remarks of Justin’s. S. Matt. vii. 21, 24, 22 
 precede. S. Matt. vii. 21 (“Not every one that saith unto me, 
 Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he 
 that doeth the will (o ttoiuv to DeX/ipoa,) of my Father which is 
 in heaven ”) is prefaced by ctKkd Tovg zoci tcc spycc TrpccTTOVTocg , 
 au^as ffQat s<pr\. E/Vs ydp ovToog • ovy) vug z.tX. Clement 
 prefaces his quotation thus : tovto towtol qfjbouv ‘TrpccffffdvTcM, 
 
 S17TSV 6 zvpiog z.tX. He uses J ustin’s o^asa&oti in his version 
 of part of S. Matt. vii. 21, which he gives in this same § 4, and 
 which is this : Oi) nrdg 6 "ksyuv f/joi zvpis, zvpis, gmO/igstcci, aXX* 
 6 Koidov T7jv hizaiotrvvriv. The ttoioov to dskripjoc, which Justin 
 uses, Clement uses in the sentence following the quotation 
 which we are discussing, where he says : 7ror/i(ToufjjSv to dsXripja 
 tov zoXkauvTog rjfJbdg. The evidence, then, that Clement used 
 Justin for the latter part of his quotation, is as strong as it can 
 be, short of being such as would have exposed the fraud on the 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 353 
 
 first occasion of the comparison of the two writers. The 
 expression, however, 6 ttoicov rrjv hixGciOGvvqv, which Clement 
 selects for his version of S. Matt. vii. 21, is worth a little 
 attention. It is a recollection of 1 John ii. 29, as his words a 
 few lines before (in § 3) sufficiently show. He writes : togov- 
 rov ovv ekeog KoiriGccvrog ccvrov s ig Tjpbccg, Tpcorov pclv, on 7\[Jjiig oi 
 Zpvrsg ro7g vsxpdig 6zo7g ov Ovopcsv xcci ov < rpoGxvvovf/jSv ocvrdig , 
 cc\7i eyvcupcsv hi ccvrov rov Tar spec rijg ocXqOsiag. ’Tig v\ yvcvGtg 
 rrjg ukqOeic&g ij to (js/) apvs 7 gQgu rov hi ov syvwfjjsv ccvrov ; For 
 the latter part compare on tocv \psvhog sx ryjg aXyjQeiccg ovx sgti. 
 
 Tig Igtiv 6 ivGTrig (on \psvGrqg sgti xa) 6 Tccnjp ccvrov , S. J ohn 
 viii. 44), si (ss/j 6 apvovpcsvog on T rjGovg . . . Tag 6 kpvovfjosvog rov 
 T iov ovhl rov II arspa sysi, 1 John ii. 21-23. We shall hardly 
 question the use of S. John’s Epistle, or the way in which the 
 expression rov Tarspa r?jg ccXrj^siccg was suggested. It is too 
 apt to be accidental. What kind, we may well ask, of work is 
 this ? Not surely the work of a man preparing a homily (such 
 as Ep. ii. is supposed to be) for use in church? We shall ask 
 the question with more astonishment if we observe that for 
 the earlier part of the words now given from § 3, 1 Thess. iv. 
 
 15-17 was used. Compare on 7\[LSig oiZfivrsg . . . xai oi vsxpol 
 Iv XpiGrti ccvocGrrjGovrcct Tpwrov st sir a x.rX. This idea is con- 
 firmed by the Syriac version, which “ translates” aTX’ lyvapcsv Pp.24. 142, 
 “ as if it had read STStra hi on” (Light. Add. p. 451). Does 257 ’ 267 ! 
 any one suppose that half a dozen lines of honest Greek can be 
 the victim of two sets of accidental coincidences, if they be 
 accidental ? If thev are not accidental, will anv one argue 
 that the man who had had the Epistles of S. Paul and S. John 
 in his hands, and made such careful use of them, could not 
 have written the quotations from S. Matthew and S. Luke as 
 they stand in the gospels, if he had been so disposed ? We 
 need not, however, be surprised. Lightfoot points out that 
 § 1 of this epistle is coloured by the language, though not by 
 the thought, of Heb. xii. 1. Stephens calls this kind of w r riting P. 14. 
 
 “ parody.” 
 
 Some further considerations will strengthen the position 
 which we have taken up as to the use of Justin. In § 2, 
 
 Clement quotes Isa. liv. 1, and writes : Its) spyjf/jog Ihoxsi sheet 
 ccto rov Osov 0 Xccog fyjjoov, vvvi hi TiGrsvGavrsg TXsiovsg lysvo- 
 (jaQcc rwv hoxovvrcov syjiv Osov. xai srspcc hi ypeefiq Esyst, "On 
 
 z 
 
354 
 
 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS. 
 
 ovz v\k&ov zaXsaai hizaiovg, aXXd dfiapTaXovg. This last text is 
 quoted in J ust. Apol. i. 15 (we were just now using § 1 6). The 
 first text is quoted in Apol. i. 53. Justin says: ojg srpog^- 
 tsvQyi on TrXs'iovsg oi d%d tuv sOvwv mGTSvovTsg tojv and T ovhaicov 
 zai ^apjapscov . . . spfjfioc yoip jjv navTa to, s6vq dXri&ivov ®sov, 
 %s ipuv spyoig XaTpsvovTa- T ovbaloi 5s zai HaftapsTg, sypvTsg rot/ 
 napa 'Tov Osov Xoyov . . . yiyvdrjGav. Clement’s sentence looks 
 very much as though it were made up out of Justin. Light- 
 foot gives the reference, but not the words of Justin. 
 
 Photius, Bibl. 126, when describing the Epistles of Clement, 
 p. 249, says : ov f/jijv ovh ’ dnapazaXvnTwg avTov ovhapjfj Iv rovroig 
 $\aa$Y\pjCi. In Just. Dial. 76 (used above), anapazaXvnTovg, a 
 word but rarely found, is usea. The whole sentence, as applied 
 to the celebrated Clement of Rome, seems strange. It is very 
 emphatic, but perhaps may be thought to “ protest too much,” 
 as though something of irony and satire lurked beneath the 
 WOrd MrtOLpOL7LM\\) e 7rTOOg. 
 
 We are now in a position better to appreciate the force of 
 the evidence, which we shall proceed to bring forward, as to 
 the way in which the rest of the apocryphal citation given 
 above was put together. 
 
 In chap. ii. we shall have occasion to refer to Eusebius, 
 Comment, in Ps. (LXX.) lxxvi. 6, p. 891. A little above, in the 
 same page, we observe oGazig dp,apTY\GavTag avTOvg anofiaXav ; 
 cf. zai fjbij noirjTS Tag svToXag [/. »ov , anofiaXu vp,dg of Clement’s 
 quotation. Eusebius is there commenting on LXX. Ps. lxxiii. 1, 
 Ivan , o ©soV, dnooGa s ig TsXog , oopy'ta&ri 6 Qvfjoog gov In npofiartt. 
 vofjb/jg aov ; If we refer to this psalm and to this verse of it, we 
 find Eusebius, p. 854, quoting it, and saying, p,sC r\v zai sic 
 TsXog amfiXriQriGav. tovto hs zai 6 ^currjp avrog napiGTr] Xsyoov. 
 II OGazig YiCskriGa sniGvvayaysiv ra Tszva gov , ov Tponov opvic 
 p. 128 . eniGwaysi ra voGGta vno rag nPspvyag, zai ovz rjQsXrjGaTS (S, 
 Luke xiii. 35 ) ; — ysvofjosva npofiaTa vofjjrjg avrov. But ver. 11 
 we observe, runs : Ivan anoGTpspsig Trjv ysipa gov zai rrjv bs<gia i 
 gov Iz [josgov rov zoXnov gov g/c PsXog\ Eusebius says: 6 zoXnoc 
 tov © sov ayadwv sgti nXrjpyjg, bid XsXszTai. Movoysvrjg 1C log ( 
 ovv s ig tov zoXnov tov naTpog, szslvog stgrjyrjGaTo. The suggestior 
 P. 69sq. is now made easy to Isa. xl. 11 “He shall gather the lamb. 1 
 with His arm, and carry them in His bosom.” 
 
 The history of Clement’s quotation may now be sufficient!} 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 355 
 
 explained. In Eusebius’ comment on Ps. Ixxvi. we find a 
 parallel for the central words of the quotation. That parallel 
 is contained in a discussion of a verse from Ps. lxxiii. In 
 Ps. lxxiii. this verse is again connected with aTroftdXkiiv and 
 followed immediately by the quotation of S. Luke xiii. 35, 
 which not only supplies a parallel to the first v'ords of the 
 quotation, but is in S. Luke only a little below the verse on 
 which the closing w r ords of the quotation are founded. For 
 those closing words we have shown that Clement was indebted 
 to Justin. Further on, in Ps. lxxiii., we find the hint for 
 Clement’s \v too jcoKttoo. There is no room here, w*e must 
 remember, for knowdedge of Clement on the part of Justin and 
 Eusebius. The things which we have pointed out must neces- 
 sarily be accidental, or mean w T hat we say they mean. It is 
 worthy of remark that Eusebius’ comment on Ps. lxxiii. w T as 
 just as interesting to Stephens as to Clement. One example 
 ■we will take from the comment on ver. 1, immediately above 
 the quotation of S. Luke xiii. 35, where Eusebius says that the 
 Jewish nation often fell into sin : s ir STriGrpl^cov avrovg dve- 
 \d[jbfiavsv 6 Gsog ' . . . ovhsTrors hi avrovg a rrwQCiro s ig rekog. In 
 his comment on ver. 19, he writes : fjov'/iG^n rr^g Gvvdr^g gov . . . 
 7taivy\v hiaOqzTiv avroig hid rov Xp iGrov . . . aWa gv (jorj . . . diroG- 
 rpaffig rag izzrripiag. We remember also the oGazig df/japr/j- 
 Gavrag avrovg drroflaXouv of the parallel passage in Ps. Ixxvi. 
 Stephens, in a prayer, Rud. Fid. p. 312, reminds God that the 
 Israelites of old oftentimes provoked Him, and brought down 
 upon themselves His chastisements: a\F ofjooog OGazig fJOSravofjGag 
 IrriGrp e\pe 7Tpog gs, roGanig roov guv irvyov olxnpfjjuv . . . rag 
 . . . GvvQr,zag . . . Gv^opdg d-TSGrps^ag, ooGrz rag avrvv obhiKon 
 a KOdGaGtiai zvyjdg, going on to speak of the better covenant in 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 The foregoing argument may be materially strengthened by 
 some further considerations. We see before us in Eusebius 
 an easy suggestion of Isa. xl. 11 rd fipaytovi avrov Gvvddgu 
 dpvag xat \v r£ tloKtcu avrov fiaGraGU. The latter clause, as 
 Lightfoot points out, is only found in some inferior mss. of the 
 LXX., though it is in the Hebrew original. Aquila and 
 Symmachus give it. Aquila, however, reads apvi'a instead of 
 dpvag. In Clement’s § 5 there is a return to the metaphor of 
 the lambs, and dpv'ia is used : a zyzi yap 6 K vpiog, "Egsg0s ug 
 
 P. 128 . 
 
PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 356 
 
 apvia \v [Tiaoj Kvz&jv. This might be suggested by Just. Apol. 
 i. 16 (used above), bgcoQbv £g ovrsg Xvxoi apKcty ig (S. Matt, 
 vii. 15), etgaOev [Tbv Bvhehvf/j'evoi hipyjara TTpof^droov. Clement 
 has in this § 5 another apocryphal quotation in hand, com- 
 pounded of S. Luke x. 3 (or S. Mark x. 16), S. Matt. x. 28, 
 S. Luke xii. 4, 5 (“Fear not them that kill the body,” etc.). 
 Lightfoot quotes these, and adds the saying as it is read in Clem . 
 Horn. xvii. 4, and in Justin, Apol. i. 19. We shall now tran- 
 scribe this second apocryphal citation as it stands in Clement, 
 noting the coincidences with the various forms of the saying 
 given in Lightfoot’s note: “ M?} $o$ug6wguv ” (the gospels) 
 “ ra apviu ” (Aquila) “ rovg Xvxovg” (suggested by S. Matt, 
 vii. 15) “ poera to oc7ro0av b7v” (Justin) gcvtgc. xai vgoelg “ fjbrj 
 (pofaTffQz” (S. Matt.) “ rovg a.'XOXTBVVovTU.g” (the gospels) vptjoig 
 xa) f/jTjhlv vyiiv “ hvvcc[jjZvovg ttoibIv” (Justin and Homily ), oCkXol 
 pof 3e7<r0e tov ii f/jsroi to unoQuviiv” (Justin) vyjcig “ Byovrcc g gov- 
 gimv” (S. Luke) “ ^vy/jg xai awf/jurog” (order of S. Matt,.), 
 “ tov fiuXeh g Ig yeevvocv 7rvpog” ( Homily ; the order original). 
 It cannot be denied that Clement’s apocryphal quotations have 
 every appearance of being his own careful manufacture. 
 
 We have one thing more to notice with respect to Clement’s 
 quotation given at the beginning of this section, and it will 
 p. 42. form a very suitable conclusion. “ For the expression avvayBiv 
 iv xohrrco, ‘ to gather in the lap Lightfoot says, “ see LXX. 
 Prov. xxx. 4 (xxiv. 7).” The verse referred to runs : rig av s/3q 
 Big tov ovpavov xoci zcctb^ti ; rig GWYiyuyBv ocvsyoovg ev xoXtco ; rig 
 (TUVBO'TpSxpSV vbojp SV If/jOCTM ; Tig BXpaTTlGB TTOCVTAIV TOUV oixpuV Tjjg 
 
 yrjg. The third 7 of these clauses is parodied in Evang. Thom. 
 B. x. p. 154, where our Lord, being sent to the well for water, 
 and having broken the pitcher 8 ((rwerpifori r; vhpicc avrov ), is 
 said to have taken off His garment (g TSvdvrqv) and filled it. 
 The fourth clause is dealt with also in the Evang. Thom ., and 
 on the same page. Joseph is there engaged in making a bed- 
 
 7 The first clause may be thought to be taken up in Ep. i. 28, where an 
 extraordinary version is given of Ps. cxxxviii. 7-10, which we discuss at length 
 in chap. ii. 
 
 8 From Eccles. xii. 6 (<rvvrpifiri ulpia. Wi rv wyy), as the l» rjj <r > jyjj in the same 
 P.42sq. line in EJvang. Thom. B., the igriryiffiv roZ i upu* of ver. 10 used just below, the 
 
 word avua-ra, of Cant. ii. 10 exactly used just above, and various other small 
 coincidences (il*.xu<rxv, <rk*itrlov, x.r.k.) sufficiently show. To the parallel passage 
 in Evang. Thom. A. p. 144, we referred in note 2 of this chapter. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 357 
 
 stead, and having found one of two pieces of wood too short for 
 his purpose, is directed to place them side by side. The story 
 goes : tots zpccTTjtrocg zai o T 7j<rovg to STspov dzpov sY'facvtrsv ccvtov P. 63. 
 T7)v uXkqv 7rpoTO[/jf)V STOiTja'Sv zuzsivo taov tov ocKkov %vkov. It 
 is from these fables and this page that the parallels are taken 
 which are given in Diognet . xi. xii. The language of the first 
 of these inventions is taken partly from Eccles. xii., the closing 
 verses of which are parodied in Orat. i. 9 In § 1 we have shown 
 that these pages are connected with Clement’s Ep. i. 12. Is it 
 a rash conclusion that the second clause of the verse of the 
 Book of Proverbs is taken up in Clement’s 2d Epistle, and that 
 this epistle is just as apocryphal as its companion the Evang. 
 Thom, f 
 
 § 2 . 
 
 We shall endeavour to strengthen the conclusion at which 
 we have just arrived, by referring to Hippolytus. Canon Light- 
 foot ( Addenda , p. 470) gives some parallels out of Hippol. Lib. 
 adv. Graze, to be compared with Clement’s ii. 17, and says 
 that “ these resemblances suggest that our Clementine homily 
 {Ep. ii.) was known to this writer.” We may assume that a 
 connection of some kind is acknowledged between Hippolytus p. 114 . 
 and Clement, and have only to consider on which side the 
 obligation rests. Of the treatise to which Lightfoot refers we 
 shall say only that it deals with the statements of Plato con- 
 cerning a future state as these are set forth, in part at least, 
 in Axiochus, which bears Plato’s name; that we have given 
 a parallel out of the very place to which Hippolytus may be 
 thought to refer in Diognet . viii. 1, and that Hippolytus’ tov 
 tojv ttuts poov (hizuioov, Sacr. Par.) ypjpov would very naturally 
 
 9 Eccles. xii. ends : oroXXa lt,Yi 77 i<nv ixxXYitriatT 7 Yt( tov iupiTv Xoyovs 6 iX 7 iy.ot. 70 s . . . 
 oi orapa 7 uv trvv 6 iyaTuv ih'o 6 ntrav lx oroiylvos ‘ivos. — 7 tXos Xoyov , 70 orav axovi. tov ©sov 
 tpofhov, xa) 7 ccs \v70Xas otv 7 ou tpvXatrtn, 071 70Z70 ora; 0 ccv 6 puoro;. 071 trvyorav 70 oro'tviya 
 0 &to; cii'ii tv xpttru x. 7 .X. Comp, oitliv yap Iv aitroT; litpov otriov oj 6 ioCpiXt;' at>7a yap 
 7 a 7 uv oroi 7 i 7 uv lyuv trvv 6 lya 7 a XvtrtTYi; xa'i axpatrias ltr 7 iyvYiy.ua. — aoro Xiorpov oroiyivo; Pp. s 175 
 . . . ortpt ruv oorXuv xpltriv . . . 'Iva toJV ' Oyvipov yv 6 oi; oruCuyar ttT 7 i yap fi 7r0t.tr a 191. 
 pa^opSla, ’I Xiabo; 7 i xa\ 'Gihufftrua; otp% 7 i xa) 7 tXo;, yvvri y Orat. 1 . Note the double 
 meaning of which oroinya is capable, the pointed opposition of ywi, to av 6 puoro 
 that rvv 6 nya (not trvv 6 iya) is used in Orat. 5 . For the expression apx} 1 x.a) 7'iXos, 
 see Evang. Thom. A. vii. 141 . See preceding note. 
 
358 
 
 PEREGRIN US PROTEUS. 
 
 suggest rov tqjv svgs/3 gjv ywpov of Axioch. p. 371, and which is 
 used in Ep. i. 50. As so often Clement might be thought to 
 have combined both passages in his own words. Hippolytus 
 writes : cxXkoi zed ov rov ruv Gcaripoov yfip ov zcci rovg hizociovg 
 opaiGi, p. 798. In Axioch. p. 371, we have oGOig p>h ovv sv ra 
 Zfiv hcApjajv ctyuQog I'ki'kvivgiv, g Ig rov rcov svGsfiav yfipov olz'i- 
 Zj ovrcci . Clement says : a>A’ ot iv hydicvi rekeiaOevrtg zarci rv\v 
 rov Qeov yjxpiv ’iypvGiv yfipov evGsfiav oi (puvepaQijGovrcti h r\ ) 
 Itigzott^ rrig (ZocGiktiug rov 0s ov, i. 50. 
 
 In Contr. Noet. xvi. p. 825, Hippolytus writes : a/A’ yj IDs vpoa 
 rovrkanv 6 A oyog ; oXTi Ipzig p>or YLag yeyevvrjrcci ; T?}v pAv 
 zccroi ai hiyjyy]Giv, ug lyzvvrjGcci, ov hvr/j s|s/ts7v, zuiroi ryjg izccGrrjg 
 y\[jj zpug opoov rrjv zccroi ccvOpcuTov ociriocv , zoci rijv Trepi rovrov oizo- 
 vopciccv oczpifioog tfgemsTv ov hvvaGoci. Compare 6 roiovrog ovv ov 
 (/jSrcckrj\pzroci rov irvevpjocrog, o SGnv 6 XptGrog, and (omitting 
 two lines) ovrs VganCiv rig hvvccrcci ovrs XccX^gcci z.r.X., Ep. ii. 14. 
 We remark, however, that Theophilus begins Autol. ii. 12 by 
 saying: ryjg p,lv ovv 'YlgocripApov ovheig a vOpwTuv hvvccrog zccr occgiccv 
 rrjv zlgyjyyjGiv (hiriyriGiv, just below) zoci rqv oizovofjjiccv t 7rccGocv 
 I<gei7rs7v . . . ccW’ ovh s s / povpioig sreGi fiiovGU rig .. . ovfi s ovrag sGroci 
 izccvog ftpog rccvrcc odgioog n iiniiv z.rX. If to this w r e add, Ep. 
 i. 49 rig hvvocroci s^yjyyjGocGdat ; ro pot yaXwv rrjg zccXkovyjg ocvrov 
 rig ccpzerog ifyiftCiv ; and, after a few lines, in § 50 ovz SGnv 
 VghyVGig * rig izocvog Iv ccvrij 6vpe0?}vcci z.rX ., we have as pretty a 
 piece of literary entanglement as can be desired. It is made 
 the more interesting by observing that the passage in Theo- 
 philus is the preface to the parallel which we have given to 
 Diognei. viii. ; that the words now given from Ep. i. 50 are 
 only two or three lines above the passage which we just now 
 saw might have been in part taken from Hippolytus, and in 
 part from Axiochus ; and that the parallel for Diognetus from 
 Axiochus was also for § viii. 1. We remark, further, that a 
 connection between Theophilus and Clement’s Ep. i. is not 
 doubtful, since Lightfoot, in dealing with Ep. i. 23, refers to 
 “the parallel passage” in Autol. i. 13. 
 
 Looking now at the passages which we have brought to- 
 gether, if we suppose Clement’s to be of the earlier date, we 
 must further suppose that Hippolytus, with one eye upon 
 Clement’s Ep. ii., had the other fixed upon Theophilus in a 
 passage wdiere he has Clement’s Ep. i. in his mind. Does it 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 359 
 
 not seem a simpler view, to suppose Clement to be the later 
 writer ? That he used Hippolytus in one passage and Theo- 
 philus in the other ? That Hippolytus had some knowledge of 
 Theophilus, and that Theophilus was the independent writer % 
 It is of course perfectly useless to argue the question as it 
 stands. We must look for further evidence, which is, however, 
 close at hand. Theophilus, in the place referred to, as also in 
 Antol. iii. 1, uses the word g jcctcuokovicc , which is not at all of 
 common use. Lucian in his Dial. Mort. uses it ; and from the 
 place where he does so use it we took the parallel which we 
 have given to Diognet . viii. 4. To Diognet. viii. 2, observe, we 
 have given the passage itself from Theophilus, which contains 
 the word, as a parallel. Turning to Lucian, Dial. Mort. x. 8, 
 we find that he brings a philosopher upon the scene, and that, 
 after a few lines in which the parallel for Diognetus just re- 
 ferred to is found, he makes Mercury say: zutclOov gv to 
 G y/jf/joc, 7rpoorov . . . OGrjv pdev rr\v bCkedCpveiecv zogei^ei . . . zed e piv 
 zed zevoho^iccv . . . ccXXoi zed pjUTUionoviccv (JbdcXu 7roXXyjv, zeci 
 Xyjpov ( Diognet . viii. 2) ovz oXiyov . . . zed yihvTrccdeiccv he . . . zed 
 opy/jv, zed Tpvfirjv . . . zed to ^pevhog he GC7rb0ov, zed toi / Tvpov , 
 zed to oieGQoei ccgueivav eivoci tqjv aXXoov, and presently ccTrod'egjevog. 
 Cf. cLrto'ki'TcbvTeg ty\v (jjaTuionoviav ty\v Te epiv zed to eig Quvutov 
 elyov ZfiXog, and, after one line, Xoefi&jfjjev ’E vurfo og ev V7rcezori 
 hizuiog evpeQeig geeTeTeQ?], Ep. i. 9 ; vn^zoov yeveGOut, Ep. i. 10 ; 
 and also TccTreivoppovyjGapjey ovv, ctheXfioi, aTroQepjei/oi TruGuv 
 dXecZpveie&v zed Tvpog zed c&ippoGvvqv zed opyccg , Ep. i. 13. Any 
 one may observe from time to time in Lucian what appear to 
 be recollections of the N. T. In the passage just quoted there 
 are obvious resemblances to Phil. ii. 3 f/jyjheu zceTci eptOeiav yj 
 zevohofycev, ceXXci r5j Tct7reivo<ppoGvvri ceXX ijXovg rjyovf/jevoi vvrepe- 
 ypvTug eccvTMV', and, ver. 8 zed GyrgiiCLTi evpedeig ug olvOpwrog, 
 eToeneivuGev eccvTov , yevog>evog V7rf]zoog pdiyjP 1 ^oemrov. Observe 
 how these two verses fill in the passages just given out of 
 Clement. Taking all the circumstances of the case into con- 
 sideration, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Lucian 
 was used by Clement, and that he must necessarily therefore 
 have copied from Theophilus, and probably from Hippolytus. 
 
 THE END. 
 
MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
 
 PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Publications. i 
 
 In Twenty-four Handsome 81 >o Volumes , Subscription Price f~6, 6s. od., 
 
 &ntc=NTicene ffiljiistiau Hiliratj). 
 
 A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE 
 CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NICOSIA. 
 
 EDITED BY THE 
 
 KEY. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. 
 
 M ESSRS. CLARK are now happy to announce the completion of this Series. 
 
 It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the 
 Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what 
 has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn- 
 ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult 
 task. 
 
 The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the 
 Subscription price. 
 
 The Works are arranged as follow : — 
 
 FIRST YEAR. 
 
 APOSTOLIC FATHERS, comprising 
 Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians ; 
 Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyr- 
 dom of Polycarp ; Epistle of Barnabas ; 
 Epistles of Ignatius (longer and shorter, 
 and also the Syriac version) ; Martyr- 
 dom of Ignatius ; Epistle to Diognetus ; 
 Pastor of Hermas; Papias ; Spurious 
 Epistles of Ignatius. In One Volume. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS. 
 In One Volume. 
 
 TATIAN ; THEOPHILUS; THE CLE- 
 mentine Recognitions. In One Volume. 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume 
 First, comprising Exhortation to Hea- 
 then ; The Instructor; and a portion 
 of the Miscellanies. 
 
 SECOND YEAR. 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Refutation 
 of all Heresies, and Fragments from 
 his Commentaries. 
 
 IREN2EUS, Volume First. 
 
 TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION. 
 
 CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles, 
 and some of the Treatises. 
 
 THIRD YEAR. 
 
 IREN.EUS (completion); HIPPOLYTUS 
 (completion); Fragments of Third 
 Century. In One Volume. 
 
 ORIGEN : De Principiis ; Letters ; and 
 portion of Treatise against Celsus. 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume 
 Second ; Completion of Miscellanies. 
 
 TERTULLIAN, Volume First; To the 
 Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, 
 etc. 
 
 FOURTH YEAR. 
 
 CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion) ; 
 Novatian; Minucius Felix; Fragments. 
 
 METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY- 
 copolis ; Peter of Alexandria ; Anato- 
 lius; Clement on Virginity; and 
 
 CYTTl ATI \ Q 
 
 TERTULLIAN, Volume Second. 
 
 APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, ACTS, AND 
 Revelations ; comprising all the very 
 curious Apocryphal Writings of the 
 first three Centuries. 
 
 FIFTH YEAR. 
 
 TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (comple- 
 tion). 
 
 CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO- 
 lical Constitutions. In One Volume. 
 
 ARNOBIUS. 
 
 DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMA- 
 turgus ; Syrian Fragments. In One 
 Volume. 
 
 SIXTH YEAR. 
 
 LACTANTIUS; Two Volumes. 
 
 ORIGEN, Volume Second (completion). 
 12s. to Non-Subscribers. 
 
 EARLY LITURGIES AND REMAIN- 
 ing Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscri- 
 bers. 
 
 Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets ; but any Volume 
 may be had separately, price 10s. 6d., — with the exception of Origen, Vol. II., 12s. ; 
 and the Early Liturgies, 9s. 
 
2 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 Just published, in demy 8 vo, price 9s., 
 
 HIPP0LYTU8 AND CALLISTU8; 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 
 THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 By J. J. Ign. von DOLLINGER. 
 
 Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Appendices, 
 
 By ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., 
 
 MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM. 
 
 4 That this learned and laborious work is a valuable contribution to ecclesiastical 
 history, is a fact of which we need hardly assure our readers. The name of the writer is 
 a sufficient guarantee of this. It bears in all its pages the mark of that acuteness which, 
 even more than the unwearied industry of its venerated Author, is a distinguishing 
 feature of whatever proceeds from the pen of Dr. Dollinger.’— John Bull. 
 
 Just published, in Two Volumes, demy 8 vo, price 12s. each, 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH 
 To A.D. 429. 
 
 jfrom tije ©rtgtnal ©ocumcnts. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF 
 
 C. J. HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Rottenburg. 
 
 ‘ This careful translation of Hefele’s Councils.’ — Dr. Pusey. 
 
 ‘ A thorough and fair compendium, put in the most accessible and intelligent form.’ — 
 Guardian. 
 
 4 A work of profound erudition, and written in a most candid spirit. The book will be 
 a standard work on the subject.’ — Spectator. 
 
 4 The most learned historian of the Councils.’ — P&re Gratry. 
 
 4 We cordially commend Hefele’s Councils to the English student.’ — John Bull. 
 
 In demy 8 vo, 700 pages, price 12s., 
 
 A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BOOK OF PSALMS. 
 
 WITH A NEW TRANSLATION. 
 
 By JAMES G. MURPHY, LL.D., T.C.D, 
 
 AUTHOR OF COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOKS OF GENESIS, EXODUS, ETC. 
 
 , 4 This work aims, and not unsuccessfully, at bringing out the sense and elucidating 
 the principle of each psalm. The notes are plain and to the purpose. It has plenty of 
 matter, and is not diffuse.’ — Guardian. 
 
 4 Dr. Murphy’s contribution to the literature of the Psalms is a most welcome addition. 
 ... We have no hesitation in predicting for it a cordial reception from all who can appre- 
 ciate a sound and scholarly exegesis, and who are anxious to discover the full and exact 
 meaning of the inspired word.’ — Baptist Magazine. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 Just published, in crown 8 vo, price 6s., 
 
 SERMONS 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN YEAR. 
 
 ADVENT— TRINITY. 
 
 By Professor ROTHE. 
 
 Translated by WILLIAM R. CLARK, M.A. Oxon., 
 Prebendary of Wells and Vicar of Taunton. 
 
 4 The volume is rich in noble thoughts and wholesome lessons.’ — Watchman. 
 
 4 The sermons before us are wonderfully simple in construction and expression, and at 
 the same time remarkably fresh and suggestive. ... It is a mind of real keenness, 
 singularly pure and gentle, and of lofty spirituality, that expresses itself in these dis- 
 courses.’ — Weekly Review. 
 
 Just published, in two vols., large crown 8 vo, price Is. 6 d. each , 
 
 THE YEAR OF SALVATION. 
 
 WORDS OF LIFE FOR EVERY DAY. 
 
 A BOOK OF HOUSEHOLD DEVOTION. 
 
 By J. J. van OOSTERZEE, D.D. 
 
 4 A work of great value and interest. To the clergy these readings will be found full 
 of suggestive hints for sermons and lectures; while for family reading or for private 
 meditation they are most excellent. The whole tone of the work is thoroughly practical, 
 and never becomes controversial.’ — Church Bells. 
 
 ‘The very best religious exposition for everyday use that has ever fallen in our way.’ — 
 Bell's Weekly Messenger. 
 
 4 This charming and practical book of household devotion will be welcomed on account 
 of its rare intrinsic value, as one of the most practical devotional books ever published.’ 
 — standard. 
 
 4 Massive of thought, persuasive, earnest, and eloquent.’ — Literary Churchman. 
 
 4 As might have been expected from so clear and vigorous a thinker, every passage is 
 valuable either as an exposition or a suggestion.’ — Henry Ward Beecher in Christian 
 Union. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 Just published, in crown 8 vo, price 65., 
 
 MOSES: 
 
 A BIBLICAL STUDY. 
 
 4 Our author has seized, as with the instinct of a master, the great salient points in the 
 life and work of Moses, and portrayed the various elements of his character with vivid- 
 ness and skill. . . . The work will at once take its place among our ablest and most 
 valuable expository and practical discourses.’ — Baptist Magazine. 
 
 4 A volume full of valuable and suggestive thought, which well deserves and will 
 amply repay careful perusal. We have read it with real pleasure.’ — Christian Observer. 
 
4 T. and T. Claries Publications. 
 
 Dr. LUTHARDT’S WORKS. 
 
 In three handsome crown 8 vo volumes , price 6 s. each. 
 
 * We do not know any volumes so suitable in these times for young- men 
 entering on life, or, let us say, even for the library of a pastor called to deal 
 with such, than the three volumes of this series. We commend the whole of 
 them with the utmost cordial satisfaction. They are altogether quite a 
 specialty in our literature.’— Weekly Review. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Fourth Edition. 
 
 By C. E. LUTHARDT, D.D., Leipzig. 
 
 ‘ From Dr. Luthardt’s exposition even the most learned theologians may derive in- 
 valuable criticism, and the most acute disputants supply themselves with more trenchant 
 and polished weapons than they have as yet been possessed of.’ — Bell's Weekly Messenger. 
 
 apologetkTlectures 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Third Edition. 
 
 ‘Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and expresses himself 
 on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, clearness, and force.’ — Literary World. 
 
 apologetTc” lectures 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MORAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 1 The ground covered by this work is, of course, of considerable extent, and there is 
 scarcely any topic of specifically moral interest now under debate in which the reader 
 will not find some suggestive saying. The volume contains, like its predecessors, a truly 
 wealthy apparatus of notes and illustrations.’ — English Churchman. 
 
 Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s., 
 
 ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 By Professor C. E. LUTHARDT, 
 
 Author of ‘ Fundamental Truths of Christianity,’ etc. 
 
 Translated and the Literature enlarged by C. R. Gregory, Leipzig. 
 
 ‘ A work of thoroughness and value. The translator has added a lengthy Appendix, 
 containing a very complete account of the literature bearing on the controversy respect- 
 ing this Gospel. The indices which close the volume are well ordered, and add greatly 
 to its value.’ — Guardian. 
 
 ‘ There are few works in the later theological literature which contain such a wealth 
 of sober theological knowledge and such an invulnerable phalanx of objective apolo- 
 getical critit»'.€ m .’ — Professor Guericke. 
 
 Crown 8vo, 5s., 
 
 LUTHARDT, KAHNIS, AND BRUCKNER. 
 
 The Church : Its Origin, its History, and its Present Position. 
 
 ‘A comprehensive review of this sort, done by able hands, is both instructive and 
 suggestive.’ — Record. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Publications . 5 
 
 Just ■published , in One Volume , 8i - o, price 12s., 
 
 Final Causes. 
 
 By PAUL JANET, Member of the Institute, Paris. 
 ^Translated from tl)e Jfrenci) bp OTtlli'am 8f9ccb, 23. 23. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Preliminary Chapter— The Problem. Book I. — The Law of Finality. Chapter i. 
 The Principle. — ii. The Facts. — iii. The Industry of Man and the Industry of Nature. — 
 iv. Organ and Function. — v. Mechanism and Finality. — vi. Objections and Difficulties. 
 — vii. The Doctrine of Evolution. Book II. — The First Cause of Finality. Chapter i. 
 Tbe Physico-Theological Argument. — ii. Subjective and Immanent Finality. — iii. 
 Finality and Intention. — iv. Pure Idea and Creative Activity. — v. The Supreme End of 
 Nature. Appendix. — i. The Problem of Induction. — ii. Cuvier’s Law. — iii. Lesage, of 
 Geneva, and Final Causes. — iv. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire and the Doctrine of Final Causes. 
 — v. Final Causes in the Sankhya Philosophy.— vi. Optimism — Voltaire and Rousseau. 
 
 This work of Janet on the Causes Finales is really an event in science, and 
 ought to have a large circulation among the educated classes. 
 
 In One Volume , 8 vo, price IOs. 6c/., 
 
 The Doctrine of the Apocalypse , 
 
 And its Relation to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. 
 
 Br HERMANN GEBHARDT. 
 
 4 A contribution of decided value to the doctrinal and spiritual exposition of the mystic 
 volume, and in this respect worthy of careful study .’ — Church Bells. 
 
 * The Author has instituted and carried out a thorough and exhaustive examination of 
 the Book of Revelation ; ... he has subjected the whole text of that highly symbolic, 
 and, to ordinary readers, mysterious and incomprehensible book, to a minute and searching 
 scrutiny.’ — Scotsman. 
 
 In Tu'o Volumes , demy 8vo, price 21s., 
 
 Growth of the Spirit of Christianity , 
 
 FROM THE FIRST CENTURY TO THE DAWN OF 
 THE LUTHERAN ERA. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., B.D., 
 
 author of 4 aids to the study of german theology. 
 
 ‘Mr. llatheson’s work is fresh, vigorous, learned, and eminently thoughtful.’ — 
 Contemporary Review. 
 
 ‘This work is a contribution of real value to the popular study of Church History.' 
 — Pall Mall Gazette. 
 
 1 These volumes are the work of a very able and pious and cultured thinker.’ — Church 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
 In crown 8 uo, Third Edition , price 4s. 6c/., 
 
 Aids to the Study of German Theology. 
 
 4 The Author has done iiis work well, and has given us a real help to the understanding 
 of German theology .’ — Princeton Review. 
 
 4 A work of much labour and learning, giving in a small compass an intelligent review 
 of a very large subject.’ — Spectator. 
 
 4 The writer or compiler deserves high praise for the clear manner in which he has in 
 a brief compass stated these opinions .’ — Christian Observer. 
 
6 T. and T. Clark s Publications. 
 
 In crown 8 vo, Eighth Edition , price 7s. 6'Z, 
 
 THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR; 
 
 OR, MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE 
 SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 
 
 By F. W. KRUMMACHER, D.D. 
 
 ‘ The work bears throughout the stamp of an enlightened intellect, under the teaching 
 of the Holy Spirit, and of a profound study of the word of God.’ — Record. 
 
 1 The reflections are of a pointed and practical character, and are eminently calculated 
 to inform the mind and improve the heart. To the devout and earnest Christian the 
 volume will be a treasure indeed.’ — Wesleyan Times. 
 
 ‘ The work will be prized by experienced Christians throughout the world ; and is 
 destined, we trust, to as wide a circulation and as long a life as the gifted Author’s 
 “ Elijah.”’ — English Presbyterian Messenger. 
 
 ‘ Having already spoken of it in terms the most cordial and admiring, we have only 
 to repeat our testimony to its peculiar excellence.’ — Church of England Magazine. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 Just published , Second Edition , in crown 8 i>o, price 7s. 6<7., 
 
 DA 1 HD, THE KING OF ISRAEL: 
 
 A PORTRAIT DRAWN FROM BIBLE HISTORY AND THE BOOK 
 OF PSALMS. 
 
 ‘ Dr. Kvummacher’s work on David’s life resembles that of his “Elijah ” in its eloquence, 
 its graphic description, its devout and earnest spirit, and will be widely welcomed.' — 
 Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 At the close of two articles reviewing this work, the Christian Observer says: ‘Our 
 space will not permit us to consider more at large this very interesting work, but we 
 cannot do less than cordially commend it to the attention of our readers. It affords 
 such an insight into King David’s character as is nowhere else to be met with; it is 
 therefore most instructive.’ 
 
 ‘ A pleasant household reading-book for many people.’ — Literai'y Churchman. 
 
 In demy 8 vo, price 7s. 6c?., 
 
 SERMONS TO THE NATURAL MAN. 
 
 By WILLIAM (>. T. SHEDD, D.D., 
 
 Author of ‘A History of Christian Doctrine,’ etc. 
 
 ‘ These sermons are admirably suited to their purpose. Characterized by profound 
 knowledge of divine truth, and presenting the truth in a chaste and attractive style, the 
 sermons carry in their tone the accents of the solemn feeling of responsibility to which 
 they owe their origin.’ — Weekly Review. 
 
 In One Volume , crown 8 vo, price 5 s. f Third Edition , 
 
 LIGHT FROM THE GROSS: 
 
 SERMONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD. 
 
 Translated from the German of A. THOLUCK, D,D,, 
 
 Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. 
 
 ‘ With no ordinary confidence and pleasure, we commend these most noble, solemnizing 
 and touching discourses.’ — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
r 
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 7 
 
 In Three Volumes , 8vo, price 315. 6d., 
 
 A COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 BY F. GODET, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATEL. 
 
 ‘ This work forms one of the battle-fields of modern inquiry, and is itself so rich in 
 spiritual truth that it is impossible to examine it too closely ; and we welcome this treatise 
 from the pen of Dr. Godet. We have no more competent exegete, and this new volume 
 shows all the learning and vivacity for which the author is distinguished.’ — Freeman. 
 
 Just published, in Two Volumes, 8vo, price 2 Is., 
 
 A COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 
 
 By F. GODET, 
 
 DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATEL. 
 
 Translated from the Second French Edition. 
 
 ‘ We are indebted to the Publishers for an English translation of the admirable work 
 which stands at the head of this review. . . . It is a work of great ability, learniug, and 
 research .’ — Christian Observer. 
 
 ‘ Marked by clearness and good sense, it will be found to possess value and interest as 
 one of the most recent and copious works specially designed to illustrate this Gospel.’ — 
 Guardian. 
 
 Just published, in demy 8 vo, Third Edition, price 10.9. 6*7., 
 
 MODERN DOUBT & CHRISTIAN BELIEF. 
 
 A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest 
 Seekers after Truth. 
 
 By THEODORE CHRISTLIEB, D.D., 
 
 UNIVERSITY PREACHER AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BONN. 
 
 Translated, with the Author’s sanction, chiefly by the Rev. H. U. Weitbrecht, 
 Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kingsbury, M.A., Vicar of Easton 
 Royal, and Rural Dean. 
 
 ‘ We recommend the volume as one of the most valuable and important among recent 
 contributions to our apologetic literature. ... We are heartily thankful both to the 
 learned Author and to his translators.’ — Guardian. 
 
 ‘All the fundamental questions connected with revealed religion are handled more or 
 less fully. The volume shows throughout intellectual force and earnestness.’ — 
 Athenxum. 
 
 ‘We express our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed in this work, and of 
 the spirit of deep piety which pervades it ; and whilst we commend it to the careful 
 perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that in those days of reproach and blasphemy, 
 so able a champion has come forward to contend earnestly for the faith which was once 
 delivered to the saints.’ — ChHstian Observer. 
 
8 T. and T. Claims Publications. 
 
 ‘ This series is one of great importance to the biblical scholar ; and as regards its 
 general execution it leaves little or nothing to be desired.’ — Edinburgh Review. 
 
 KEIL AND DELITZSCH’S COMMENTARIES 
 ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 In 25 Volumes, demy 8 vo. 
 
 M ESSRS. CLARK have resolved to offer complete sets of this work at the Original 
 Subscription Price of <£6, 11s. 6d. Single volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d. 
 
 Just published, in demy 4 to, Second Edition, price 25s., 
 
 BIBLIC0-THE0L0GICAL LEXICON OF NEW 
 TESTAMENT GREEK. 
 
 By HERMANN CREMER, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF THE SECOND EDITION 
 
 (WITH ADDITIONAL MATTER AND CORRECTIONS BY THE AUTHOR) 
 
 By WILLIAM URWICK, M.A. 
 
 ‘If the reader will search here for that which the Author professes to provide for 
 him, he will, we think, never be disappointed. On the contrary, he will feel that Pro- 
 fessor Cremer has placed him under deep obligation, and will have veins of rich and 
 beautiful thought continually revealed.’ — British Quarterly Review. 
 
 1 We venture to express our conviction that the student will derive from it informa- 
 tion which he will in vain seek in any other work of the same description.’ — Christian 
 Observer. 
 
 Just published, in One large 8 vo Volume, Eighth English Edition, price 15s., 
 
 A TREATISE ON THE 
 GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, 
 
 IhprtrtEr as % |5asts cf fttto Ctstamcut 6«gests. 
 Translated from the German [of Dr. G. B. WINER]. 
 
 With large additions and full Indices. Second Edition. Edited by Rev. W. 
 F. Moulton, D.D., one of the New Testament Translation Revisers. 
 
 i We gladly welcome the appearance of Winer’s great work in an English translation, 
 and must strongly recommend it to all who wish to attain to a sound and accurate 
 knowledge of the language of the New Testament. We need not say it is the Grammar 
 of the New Testament. It is not only superior to all others, but so superior as to be by 
 common consent the one work of reference on the subject. No other could be mentioned 
 with it.’ — Literary Churchman. 
 

 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \