...

μάρτυς εἷς τις ἐγνωρίζετο Πιόνιος . . . Ἑξῆς δὲ καὶ ἄλλων... ὑπομνήματα μεμαρτυρηκότων φέρεται, Κάρπου καὶ Παπύλου, καὶ γυναικὸς ̓Αγαθονίκης. Here then we recognise one volume which lay before the historian as he wrote; and it is important to observe his method in dealing with it. In the course of his narrative he has touched upon most of the prominent ecclesiastics who flourished under Antoninus Pius. Before passing on to the times of Marcus Aurelius he extracts a passage from Irenaeus giving an account of Polycarp.' Then, having recorded the accession of Aurelius,' he goes on to describe Polycarp's martyrdom, which, according to his chronology, took place in this reign. For an account of this event he has recourse to the volume which we are now considering. Its first treatise suffices for his immediate purpose; but having opened the book he does not again close it till he has given a list of the remaining tracts included in it. The Acts of Pionius had for him a special interest,' and he is therefore not content with merely mentioning it, but adds a summary of its contents. This order of proceeding is similar, as we shall see, to that which he adopts in other cases.

The other volumes of tracts, as we suspect them to be, used by Eusebius, may be noticed in the order in which they are alluded to in the History.

2. H. E. ii. 18, §§ 6, 7. Three works of Philo.-'Eπì TOÚTOLS ὁ περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαύλον. 'Ωι ἑξῆς ἐστὶν ὁ περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι. Μεθ ̓ οὓς συντέτακται αὐτῷ ὁ περὶ βίου θεωρητικοῦ ἢ ἱκετῶν. The words printed in spaced type indicate that these three treatises were comprised in one volume.

It may be that this was not the only set of Philo's writings which Eusebius found collected in a volume. The series which we have just noticed is separated from a

1 H. E. iv. 14.

2 lb. § 10.

3 He included them in his Book of Martyrdoms, H. E. iv. 15, § 47.

preceding group of tracts (μονόβιβλα) by the phrase ἐπὶ TOÚTOLS. Another group (§ 5), introduced with the words TOOS TOÚTOLS, Consists of discussions on the Book of Exodus. While another (§§ 3, 4) yields five treatises on Genesisπρὸς τούτοις ὁ περὶ, κτλ. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τὰ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθόντα τῶν εἰς τὴν Γίνεσιν—other works on Genesis having been previously mentioned.

3. H. E. iv. 11-13; 16-18. Works of Justin Martyr.This volume contained the following:-(1) The treatise (or treatises) Adv. Graecos; (2) Apol. i.; (3) The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius addressed to the Commune Asiae; (4) Apol. ii. Let it just be remarked that if we are right in supposing that these tracts were collected in one volume the procedure of Eusebius with regard to Justin is similar to that which he followed in the case of Polycarp. He mentions two prominent writers of the time of Pope Anicetus, Hegesippus and Justin, and cites a passage from each which fixes his date.1 For the latter writer the passage is taken from the first Apology. The volume containing it is open, and therefore having made his extract, Eusebius proceeds to give an account of its contents. He names (1) and (2), from the latter of which he makes a further extract; he transcribes (3), which he ascribes to Antoninus Pius. Having got so far, his description is interrupted, for (4) does not (as he supposes) belong to the reign of Pius, of which he is at the moment treating, but to that of his successor. Hence the account of Polycarp is inserted, as it were parenthetically. This finished, he returns to Justin in ch. 16, mentioning (4), and making from it a lengthy quotation. The parallelism of all this to his treatment of Polycarp and the others mentioned along with him, lends a certain probability to our hypothesis. But it is supported by other considerations. In the first place, why is Justin's work against the Greeks

1 H. E. iv. 11. §§ 7–9.

mentioned in iv. 11? It has no obvious relevance to the context; it is not a book which had any special attraction for Eusebius, since he makes no extract from it, and gives no account of its argument; and it is named again in its proper place in ch. 18, where a formal list is given of the writings of its author. Our answer is simple. It stood first in the volume which Eusebius was using at the time, and therefore, according to his habit, he named it in connexion with the other more important treatises with which it was bound. Again, if Eusebius found (2), (3), (4) succeeding one another in this order, his manuscript of these writings resembled the only known extant manuscripts which contain them. The two complete copies of the Apologies of Justin insert after the first the letter of Marcus Aurelius (followed by another spurious imperial epistle).' And lastly, our hypothesis partially removes a difficulty which has perplexed critics. Eusebius is so apparently contradictory in his references to Justin's Apologies that some writers have contended that what he names the Second Apology is a lost work, and that our first and second apologies were by him regarded as a single treatise and called the First Apology. This indeed appears, on any showing, very unlikely, since in H. E. iv. 16 he quotes from our Second Apology, and expressly tells us that his extract is from "the second book on behalf of our doctrines." But what are the arguments on the other side? They are two in number. In iv. 8, after quoting from the First Apology, he introduces an extract from the second with the words ἐν ταὐτῷ . . . ταῦτα γράφει, which has been rendered, "In the same work," &c. But there seems

1Otto, Corpus Apologetarum, vol. i., p. xxi, sqq. The MSS. referred to are not independent of one another. The order in them is (4), (2), (3); and there is evidence that in other manuscripts the two Apologies were transposed.

Ib., p. xxviii, sq.

2 This is explained away, not very satisfactorily, by making the words èv τῇ δεδηλωμένῃ ἀπολογίᾳ in § 2 refer, not to the work mentioned in § 1, but to the First Apology, quoted in ch. 13.

to be no need to translate the words in this way. May we not understand some such word as ßißlíq' after raury, and translate, 'In the same volume? There remains only iv. 17, where ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἀπολογίᾳ is certainly intended to refer to (our) Second Apology. We cannot safely build a theory on such a slender foundation. We may suppose that #porépa is a slip either of Eusebius or of a scribe, or that it is to be taken in an unusual sense, as equivalent to dednλwμévy.

4. H. E. iv. 23. The Epistles of Dionysius of Corinth.Seven Catholic' Epistles are mentioned, and a letter addressed to a lady named Chrysophora. It has been remarked' that, in a note appended (as it seems) to the letter to the Romans, Dionysius complains that his epistles had been tampered with by heretics; that two of them are addressed to Churches in Crete, and that these are not named consecutively; from which the inference is drawn, "that the letters had already been collected into a volume, and that they are enumerated by Eusebius in the order in which he found them there." I confess that, while admiring the acuteness of the argument, I was not at first convinced by it. But the scale is turned when we find it confirmed by the words of Eusebius himself. After describing five of the letters, he introduces the sixth with the words ταύταις ἄλλη ἐγκατείλεκται

TOTOλń. The verb seems naturally to imply a volume. A cognate word is used elsewhere of a treatise which Eusebius included in his lost book of Acts of Martyrdom. If the Epistles of Dionysius were already gathered into a volume in the lifetime of their writer, it would appear that additions had been made to the collection before it fell into the hands of Eusebius. In the volume

1 Cf. H. E. v. 20, and below, p. 49, note 2.

2 Dict. Christ. Biog. i. 849. 3§ 7.

4 Η. Ε. v. 4, 8 (sc. σύγγραμμα) καὶ αὐτὸ τῇ τῶν μαρτυρίων συναγωγῇ πρὸς ἡμῶν, ὡς γοῦν ἔφην, κατείλεκται. Compare iii. 24 init.; 37 (al. 38); vi. 36.

HERMATHENA-VOL. XI.

D

which he used the sixth Catholic Epistle seems to have been followed by the reply to it, addressed to Dionysius by Pinytus, Bishop of the Cnossians, a paraphrased extract from which is given by Eusebius,' and at the end, after the note of Dionysius already referred to, came the letter to Chrysophora.

5. H. E. iv. 26. Works of Melito of Sardis.-As in the case of the writings of Philo, discussed above, Eusebius. seems to divide those of Melito into several groups, which may very possibly represent separate volumes. The several groups are indicated, as before, by the connecting particles. Μελίτωνος τὰ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα δύο καὶ τὰ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν, κτλ. ἔτι δὲ ὁ περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὁ περὶ πλάσεως, κτλ. καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ὁ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἢ νοὺς καὶ ὁ περὶ λουτροῦ, κτλ. καὶ λόγος αὐτοῦ περὶ προφητείας καὶ ὁ περὶ φιλοξενίας, κτλ. ἐπὶ πᾶσι καὶ τὸ πρὸς ̓Αντωνίνον βιβλίδιον. The first three groups apparently contain four treatises each, the last group six. After giving this list as a complete enumeration of the works of Melito known to him, Eusebius proceeds to quote from the first and last of the series, and then makes an extract from Melito's Selections (įkλoyaí), a work not included in his list. The explanation which may be suggested of this discrepancy is of this kind. By the writings of Melito which had come to his knowledge, Eusebius meant those which lay in one of the libraries to which he had constant access. The extract from the Selections may have been made from a copy borrowed from a friend, or may have been taken at second hand from an earlier writer.

2

6. H. E. vi. 22. Works of Hippolytus.-Of the writings of this famous person, Eusebius confesses that he had but little knowledge. He enumerates seven as having come into his hands, but adds that a very large number of others

1 § 8.

2 τούτων (sc. Μελίτωνος καὶ ̓Απολλι

ναρίου) εἰς ἡμετέραν γνῶσιν ἀφίκται τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα.