Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

and others) that his Apology was his last work, for Eusebius mentions it last in his list. At the same time, it is quite as possible that Eusebius enumerates Melito’s works simply in the order in which he found them arranged in the library of Cæsarea, where he had perhaps seen them. Of the dates of his episcopacy, and of his predecessors and successors in the see of Sardis, we know nothing. In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius, who does not pretend to give a full list, we find in Anastasius Sinaita’s Hodegos seu dux viæ c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled εἰς τὸ π€θος and περὶ σαρκώσεως χριστοῦ (the latter directed against Marcion), which cannot be identified with any mentioned by Eusebius (see Harnack, I. 1, p. 254). The Codex Nitriacus Musei Britannici 12,156 contains four fragments ascribed to Melito, of which the first belongs undoubtedly to his genuine work περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος , which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius. The second purports to be taken from a work, περὶ σταυροῦ , of which we hear nowhere else, and which may or may not have been by Melito. The third fragment bears the title Melitonis episcopi de fide, and might be looked upon as an extract from the work περὶ πίστεως , mentioned by Eusebius (as Otto regards it); but the same fragment is four times ascribed to Irenæus by other early authorities, and an analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of Irenæus is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack mentions a work, περὶ πίστεως , which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Irenæus, and from which the quotation may have been taken (see Harnack, ibid. p. 266 ff.). The fourth fragment was taken in all probability from Melito’s work, περὶ π€θους , mentioned by Anastasius. An Apology in Syriac, bearing the name of Melito, is extant in another of the Nitrian mss. in the British Museum (No. 14,658), and has been published with an English translation by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. (p. 41–51). It has been proved, however, that this Apology (which we have entire) was not written by Melito, but probably by an inhabitant of Syria, in the latter part of the second, or early part of the third century,—whether originally in the Greek or Syriac language is uncertain (see Harnack, p. 261 ff., and Smith and Wace, Vol. III. p. 895). In addition to the genuine writings, there must be mentioned also some spurious works which are still extant. Two Latin works of the early Middle Ages, entitled de transitu Mariæ and de passione S. Joannis Evangelistæ, and also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Apocalypse, and a Clavis Scripturæ of the Carlovingian period (see below, note 18), bear in some mss. the name of Melito. This fact shows that Melito’s name was not entirely forgotten in the Occidental Church of the Middle Ages, though little exact knowledge of him seems to have existed. On Melito and his writings, see Piper’s article in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1838, p. 54–154; Salmon’s article in Smith and Wace, and especially Harnack’s Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 240–278. The extant fragments of Melito’s writings are given in Routh’s Rel. Sac. I. 111–153, and in Otto’s Corp. Apol. IX. 374–478, and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 750–762.

On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.

Marcus Aurelius.

The following list of Melito’s works is at many points very uncertain, owing to the various readings of the mss. and versions. We have as authorities for the text, the Greek mss. of Eusebius, the History of Nicephorus, the translation of Rufinus, chap. 24 of Jerome’s de vir. ill., and the Syriac version of this passage of Eusebius’ History, which has been printed by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. p. 56 ff.

The quotation from this work given by Eusebius in §7, perhaps enables us to fix approximately the date at which it was written. Rufinus reads Sergius Paulus, instead of Servilius Paulus, which is found in all the Greek mss. Sergius Paulus is known to have had his second consulship in 168, and it is inferred by Waddington that he was proconsul about 164 to 166 (see Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, chap. 2, §148). No Servilius Paulus is known in connection with the province of Asia, and hence it seems probable that Rufinus is correct; and if so, the work on the Passover was written early in the sixties. The fragment which Eusebius gives in this chapter is the only part of his work that is extant. It was undoubtedly in favor of the Quartodeciman practice, for Polycrates, who was a decided Quartodeciman, cites Melito in support of his position.

The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a number of mss. τὸ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν , making but one work, On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets. Many mss. followed by Valesius, Heinichen, and Burton, read τὰ instead of τό , thus making either two works (one On the Conduct of Life, and the other On the Prophets), or one work containing more than one book. Rufinus translates de optima conversatione liber unus, sed et de prophetis, and the Syriac repeats the preposition, as if it read καὶ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ περὶ προφητῶν . It is not quite certain whether Rufinus and the Syriac thought of two works in translating thus, or of only one. Jerome translates, de vita prophetarum librum unum, and in accordance with this translation Otto proposes to read τῶν προφητῶν instead of καὶ προφητῶν . But this is supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted. No fragments of this work are extant.

ὁ περὶ ἐκκλησίας . Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.

ὁ περὶ κυριακῆς λόγος . Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.

Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the mss. , read περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου , On the Nature of Man. Four important mss. , however, read περὶ πίστεως ἀνθρώπου , and this reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac; whether by Jerome also, as claimed by Harnack, is uncertain, for he omits both this work and the one On the Obedience of Faith, given just below, and mentions a de fide librum unum, which does not occur in Eusebius’ list, and which may have arisen through mistake from either of the titles given by Eusebius, or, as seems more probable, may have been derived from the title of the work mentioned below, On the Creation and Generation of Christ, as remarked in note 15. If this supposition be correct, Jerome omits all reference to this work περὶ πίστεως ἀνθρώπου . The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage πίστεως is better supported by tradition than φύσεως , and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.

ὁ περὶ πλ€σεως . Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.

All the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων : “On the subjection (or obedience ) of the senses to faith.” This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως, καὶ ὁ περὶ αἰσθητηρίων , and Rufinus translates, de obedientia fidei, de sensibus, both of them making two works, as I have done in the text. Jerome leaves the first part untranslated, and reads only de sensibus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς (or ἀκοῆς ) πίστεως , omitting the second clause. Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως, ὁ περὶ αἰσθητηρίων , concluding that the words ὁ περὶ after πίστεως have fallen out of the Greek text. I have adopted this reading in my translation.

A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek mss. read ὁ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἢ νοός , while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the ἢ νοός entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read ἦν ἐν οἷς , which is evidently simply a corruption of ἢ νοός , so that the Greek mss. are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crusè, and Salmon read καὶ νοός , but there is no authority for καὶ instead of ἤ , and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of ἤ to καὶ will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words ἢ νοός did not stand in the original, but that the word νοός , (either alone or preceded by ἤ or καί ) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to ψυχῆς , perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after ψυχῆς and σώματος , under the impression that it was an alternative title of the book. My reasons for this opinion are the agreement of the versions in the omission of νοός , the impossibility of explaining the ἢ before νοός in the original text, the fact that in the Greek mss. , in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος are repeated further down in the list,—a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting νοός confirms the omission of it in the present case,—and finally, a fact which seems to me decisive, but which has apparently hitherto escaped notice, that the νοός , follows instead of precedes the σώματος , and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.

ὁ περὶ λουτροῦ ; Jerome, de baptismate.

Apolinarius (according to chap. 27) also wrote a work On Truth, and the place which it holds in that list, between an apologetical work addressed to the Greeks and one addressed to the Jews, makes it probable that it too bore an apologetic character, being perhaps devoted to showing that Christianity is pre-eminently the truth. Melito’s work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character, as suggested by Salmon.

Six mss. , with Nicephorus, read κτίσεως , “creation,” but five mss. , with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read πίστεως . The latter reading therefore has the strongest external testimony in its favor, but must be rejected (with Stroth, Otto, Heinichen, Harnack, etc.) as evidently a dogmatic correction of the fourth century, when there was an objection to the use of the word κτίσις in connection with Christ. Rufinus divides the one work On the Creation and Generation of Christ into two,— On Faith and On the Generation of Christ, and his prophecy, connecting the second with the next-mentioned work. Jerome omits the first clause entirely at this point, and translates simply de generatione Christi librum unum. The de fide, however, which he inserts earlier in his list, where there is no corresponding word in the Greek, may be the title which he omits here (see above, note 9), displaced, as the title de sensibus is also displaced. If this be true, he becomes with Rufinus and the Syriac a witness to the reading πίστεως instead of κτίσεως , and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.

All the Greek mss. read καὶ λόγος αὐτοῦ περὶ προφητείας , which can rightly mean only “his work on Prophecy”; but Jerome translates de prophetia sua librum unum, and Rufinus de prophetia ejus, while the Syriac reads as if there stood in the Greek περὶ λόγου τῆς προφητείας αὐτοῦ . All three therefore connect the αὐτοῦ with the προφητείας instead of with the λόγος , which of course is much more natural, since the αὐτοῦ with the λόγος seems quite unnecessary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require περὶ προφητείας αὐτοῦ or περὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ προφητείας , and there is no sign that the αὐτοῦ originally stood in such connection with the προφητείας . We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.

περὶ φιλοξενίας . After this title a few of the mss. , with Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος , a repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).

ἡ κλείς ; Jerome, et alium librum qui Clavis inscribitur. The word is omitted in the Syriac version. The nature of this work we have no means of determining. It is possible that it was a key to the interpretation of the Scriptures, designed to guide the reader in the study especially of the figures of the prophecies (cf. Otto, p. 401) and of the Apocalypse. Piper is right, however, in saying that it cannot have been intended to supply the allegorical meaning of Scripture words, like the extant Latin Clavis of Pseudo-Melito, mentioned just below; for Melito, who like Tertullian taught the corporeality of God, must have been very literal—not allegorical—in his interpretation of Scripture. A Latin work bearing the title Melitonis Clavis Sanctæ Scripturæ was mentioned by Labbe in 1653 as contained in the library of Clermont College, and after years of search was recovered and published by Pitra in 1855 in his Spicileg. Solesm. Vols. II. and III. He regarded the work as a translation, though with interpolations, of the genuine κλείς of Melito, but this hypothesis has been completely disproved (see the article by Steitz in the Studien und Kritiken, 1857, p. 184 sqq.), and the work has been shown to be nothing more than a mediæval dictionary of allegorical interpolations of Scripture, compiled from the Latin Fathers. There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito’s Key.