text:
In some types of arthritis of the knee, only the medial (inside) part of the joint is affected. In this situation it is possible to replace the damaged part of the knee (partial knee replacement) without resorting to a total knee replacement.
In some types of arthritis of the knee, only the medial (inside) part of the joint is affected. In this situation it is possible to replace the damaged part of the knee without resorting to a total knee replacement.
Initially, arthritis can be treated with painkillers, anti-inflammatories, physiotherapy and, in the earlier stages, arthroscopy (keyhole surgery) but as the knee progressively wears the only long-term treatment is to replace the damaged part of the joint.
We can't display a fee for this procedure just now. Please contact us for a quote.
Our patients are at the heart of what we do and we want you to be in control of your care. To us, that means you can choose the consultant you want to see, and when you want. They'll be with you every step of the way.
All of our consultants are of the highest calibre and benefit from working in our modern, well-equipped hospitals.
Our consultants have high standards to meet, often holding specialist NHS posts and delivering expertise in complex sub-specialty surgeries. Many of our consultants have international reputations for their research in their specialised field.
You will have a formal consultation with a healthcare professional. During this time you will be able to explain your medical history, symptoms and raise any concerns that you might have.
We will also discuss with you whether any further diagnostic tests, such as scans or blood tests, are needed. Any additional costs will be discussed before further tests are carried out.
We've tried to make your experience with us as easy and relaxed as possible.
For more information on visiting hours, our food, what to pack if you're staying with us, parking and all those other important practicalities, please visit our patient information pages.
Our dedicated team will also give you tailored advice to follow in the run up to your visit.
The surgery involves removing a very small thickness of damaged bone from the inside part of the knee. Much less bone is removed than in a total knee replacement and only from one side of the knee. The partial knee replacement fits inside this prepared space and is fixed to the bone with cement.
The operation takes about an hour and involves an 8cm incision on the medial (inner) side of the kneecap. This small incision does not involve cutting any muscle or tendons (as with a total knee replacement), thus enabling quicker recovery from surgery.
The unicompartmental knee replacement comes in three parts. The femoral component is made of metal, is curved and highly polished. The tibial component is made of the same metal and has a flat upper surface. A plastic component, which is curved on the top and flat on the underside, sits on the flat tibial surface and can slide backwards and forwards. This mimics the meniscal cartilage in the normal knee. The upper part of this plastic insert articulates with the femoral component. This type of knee replacement is called a meniscal bearing and has the advantage of sharing the load through the knee over a large surface area, which helps to reduce wear and hence make the knee replacement last longer.
The day after the operation your exercise regime begins. With the aid of a physiotherapist you will get out of bed and begin to exercise your new knee replacement. With perseverance, you should be able to climb stairs by day 2 or 3 and go home the following day.
You will need to continue attending physiotherapy as an outpatient. For most people it will take around 4 weeks to be walking reasonably. After three months you should be able to walk well without pain, climb stairs (leading with your operated leg) and be capable of a range of movement with your new knee from 0 degrees to at least 120 degrees.
We are committed to delivering excellent individual care and customer service across our network of hospitals, clinics and specialist care centres around the UK. Our dedicated and highly trained team aim to achieve consistently excellent results. For us it's more than just treating patients, it's about looking after people.
The treatment described on this page may be adapted to meet your individual needs, so it's important to follow your healthcare professional's advice and raise any questions that you may have with them.
Our location between the towns of Farnham and Fleet allows us to provide medical and surgical treatments to patients from Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire and West Sussex.
Crondall Lane
COVID-19 testing or antibody tests are not available as a standalone service at Spire Clare Park Hospital.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Your browser does not support frames. Click Here for our Quick Links page.
A-1 Domestic Professional Services, A-1 Home Care, A-1 Caregiver Agency & A-1 Nannies is a Licensed, Bonded, Insured NON-MEDICAL HOME CARE & NANNY / BABYSITTER service agency providing experienced Home Care Professionals for proper nursing care during convalescence or rehabilitation to the area of South Gate. Services range from continuous 3 hour care to 24 hours, 7 days a week live-in care. We provide flexible same day short and long term care. Our goal is to provide seniors, the terminally ill, developmentally challenged & handicapped adults or children with quality non-medical care, incontinence assistance and companions to minimize any trauma they are experiencing. Additionally, we also provide nannies, babysitters, homemakers and mother's helpers for all of your child care needs.
One of the most important decisions to make when is "Who will look after our children." Naturally, you need to feel confident about the Nanny or Babysitter and her ability to care for your children. Our specialty is In-Home Child Care for Active and Special Need Children. A-1 Domestic has different types of Child Care Providers with Early Childhood Education Training, Nursing Background or trained Professionals in the field of Autism, Down Syndrome, Tourettes, ADHD, Dyslexia, Central Auditory Processing Disorder, Developmentally Disabled, etc.
We have built our reputation on quality and caring service since 1991. We are dedicated to creating wonderful experiences for all of our customers including you. Our goal is to build ongoing and nurturing relationships with all our customers. You can count on us. We are your extended family!
Call us now at 877-929-8499 for your FREE IN-HOME ASSESSMENT. A-1 Home Care Agency is the only name you need to know for In-Home Care of elderly, seniors, other adults and children.
A-1 Domestic, A-1 Home Care, A-1 Caregiver Agency & A-1 Nannies has thousands of satisfied customers in Los Angeles County, including residents of South Gate. We have been a Southern California based business since its establishment in 1991 and like nothing more than to provide our services to the residents of our community. Click Here and see below for a list of cities we serve in Los Angeles County or Here for a full list of cities throughout Southern California.
"It Takes Two Helping Hands and a Golden Heart to Serve Others®"


text:
This Twin Disc MG5170 is a new surplus unit ratio 6:1
Model: | MG 5170 New Surplus Transmission |
Manufacturer: | TWINDISC |
Qty: | 1 |
Ratio: | 6:1 |
Transmission: | 5170 |
Fob: | SW USA |
Vessel Information | |
Vessel Length: | 0 |
IMPORTANT: Our automatic e-mail quotes (e-mails you a price usually in 10 minutes 24 hours a day 7 days a week) and is designed to give you an approximate price for a requested unit as quickly as possible. The final cost of a unit is affected by other factors including freight, storage, repairs, quantity, discounts, etc. If the approximate price of the unit is within your range, please contact us more directly by phone, e-mail, or fax to get a more exact price. Specific used units may be sold at any time and are subject to prior sale. You may wish to inquire about our NO RISK 100% REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT--it is contingent on your inspection or inspection by a qualified mechanic or Factory Authorized Dealer. If the quoted unit(s) meet your needs and budget, we suggest you move quickly. This will e-mail you a quote for the item number shown above.


text:
Main Page
Free Demo and Download
- Demo - see Sandbox info for login
- Release notes
- Installation
- Installation services
How to use Archivematica
- User and administrative manuals at archivematica.org
- Training services
This is the Archivematica development wiki. For user and administrative manuals, as well as installation information, please visit archivematica.org.
Archivematica gets its own issues repo
Artefactual has moved towards a centralized Issues repository on Github to track all bugs, enhancements and feature requests in the Archivematica environment.
From now on issues should be filed against the Issues repo instead of against a repo in the Artefactual organization.
What is Archivematica?
Archivematica is a free and open-source digital preservation system that is designed to maintain long-term access to digital memory. Archivematica is packaged with the web-based content management system AtoM for access to your digital objects.
The overview section provides a detailed description of Archivematica's functionality and technical architecture. This screencast gives a demo of the core features in the most current release of the system.
Archivematica uses a micro-services design pattern to provide an integrated suite of software tools that allows users to process digital objects from ingest to access in compliance with the ISO-OAIS functional model. Users monitor and control the micro-services via a web-based dashboard. Archivematica uses METS, PREMIS (events, agents, rights and restrictions), Dublin Core, the Library of Congress BagIt specification and other best practice standards and practices to provide trustworthy, authentic, reliable, and interoperable archival packages (AIPs) for storage in your preferred repository.
Open source
All Archivematica code is released under a GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL 3.0) – giving you the freedom to study, modify, improve, and distribute it. We believe that an important part of preservation is transparency, and that memory institutions should be able to demonstrate at every stage what happens when they process cultural heritage materials for preservation. Archivematica code is always freely available, and our documentation is also released under a Creative Commons Share-alike license.
Flexible and customizable
Archivematica provides several decision points that give the user control over choices about format identification tools, printing the original order of the directories ingested, examining contents for private and personal information, extracting contents of packages and forensic images, transcribing content, and more. Users may also preconfigure most of these options for seamless ingest to archival storage and access. Archivematica offers many ingest workflows: metadata and submission documentation import, zipped and unzipped Bag ingest, digital forensic image processing, SIP arrangement, manual normalization, and dataset management.
Compatible with hundreds of formats
In the Format Policy Registry (FPR), Archivematica implements its default format policies based on an analysis of the significant characteristics of file formats. The FPR also offers an editable, flexible framework for format identification, package extraction, transcription and normalization for preservation and access. Your institution can update tools, rules and commands in your local FPR from the Artefactual-managed FPR server. You can also add your own, local policies to your internal FPR. The FPR is integrated with PRONOM.
Advanced search and storage management
You can easily search your backlog and your archival storage from within your Archivematica web-based dashboard. This means you can download stored AIPs as complete packages, individual objects, or every package in an AIC. You can also manage your storage and processing locations using the Archivematica Storage Service, including a two-step deletion process that requires justification and approval to eliminate a stored AIP.
Integration with third-parties
Memory institutions have dedicated voluminous resources over the past couple of decades to implement various software platforms and tools to manage digital objects. For this reason, we believe in leveraging the strength of other tools and integrating with them wherever possible. Highlights include: AtoM, DSpace, CONTENTdm, Islandora, LOCKSS, DuraCloud, OpenStack and Archivists' Toolkit
The software applications integrated into Archivematica are each released under their own open source license. These are checked for license compatibility before they are integrated into the project. A full list of applications with their respective license is available on the external software tools page.
Lead developers and partners
This project is managed by Artefactual Systems. Key funding contrbutors have included UNESCO Memory of the World's Subcommittee on Technology, the City of Vancouver Archives, Harvard Business School Baker Library, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), the University of Alberta Libraries, the University of British Columbia Library, the Rockefeller Archive Center, Simon Fraser University Archives and Records Management, Yale University Library, Zuse-Institute Berlin, Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL), Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan, Duraspace, MIT Libraries, Ontario Council of University Libraries, National Library of Wales, Canadian Council of Archives and a number of other collaborators.


text:
Orthodox Church Fathers: Patristic Christian Theology Classics Search Engine
Tractate XVIII.
John V. 19.
1. John the evangelist, among his fellows and companions the other evangelists, received this special and peculiar gift from the Lord (on whose breast he reclined at the feast, hereby to signify that he was drinking deeper secrets from His inmost heart), to utter those things concerning the Son of God which may perhaps rouse the attentive minds of the little ones, but cannot fill them, as yet not capable of receiving them; while to minds, of somewhat larger growth, and coming to a certain age of inner manhood, he gives in these words something whereby they may both be exercised and fed. You have heard it when it was read, and you remember how this discourse arose. For yesterday it was read, that "therefore the Jews sought to kill Jesus, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." This that displeased the Jews, pleased the Father. This, without doubt, pleases them too that honor the Son as they honor the Father; for if it does not please them, they will not be pleasing. For God will not be greater because it pleases thee, but thou wilt be less if it displeases thee. Now against this calumny of theirs, coming either of ignorance or of malice, the Lord speaks not at all what they can understand, but that whereby they may be agitated and troubled, and, on being troubled, it may be, seek the Physician. And He uttered what should be written, that it might afterwards be read even by us. Now we have seen what happened in the hearts of the Jews when they heard these words; what happens in ourselves when we hear them, let us more fully consider. For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued; and what we have not yet been able to understand, that we lay aside doubting, and defer the understanding of it for a time; that is, even if we do not yet know what it is, that still we doubt not in the least that it is good and true. And as for me, brethren, you must consider who I am that undertake to speak to you, and what I have undertaken: for I have taken upon me to treat of things divine, being a man; of spiritual things, being carnal; of things eternal, being a mortal. Also from me, dearly beloved, far be vain presumption, if my conversation would be sound in the house of God, "which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."1 In proportion to my measure I take what I put before you: where it is opened, I see with you; where it is shut, I knock with you.
2. Now the Jews were moved and indignant: justly, indeed, because a man dared to make himself equal with God; but unjustly in this, because in the man they understood not the God. They saw the flesh, the God they knew not; they observed the habitation, of the inhabitant they were ignorant. That flesh was a temple, within it dwelt God. It was not the flesh that Jesus made equal to the Father, it was not the form of a servant that He compared to the Lord; not that which He became for us, but that which He was when He made us. For who Christ is (I speak to Catholics) you know, because you have rightly believed; not Word only, nor flesh only, but the Word was made flesh to dwell among us. I recite again concerning the Word what you know: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God:" here is equality with the Father. But "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Than this flesh the Father is greater. Thus the Father is both equal and greater; equal to the Word, greater than the flesh; equal to Him by whom He made us, greater than He who was made for us. By this sound catholic rule, which you ought particularly to know. which you who know it hold fast, from which your faith ought not in any case to slip, which is to be wrested from your heart by no arguments of men, let us measure the things we do understand; and the things which, it may be, we do not understand, let us defer, to be hereafter measured by this rule, when we shall be competent to do this. We know Him, then, as equal to the Father, the Son of God, because we know Him in the beginning as God the Word. Why, then, sought the Jews to slay Him? "Because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God:" seeing the flesh, not seeing the Word. Let Him therefore speak against them, the Word through the flesh; let Him, the dweller within, speak for through His dwelling-place, that whoso can, shall know who He is that dwells within.
3. What saith He then to them? "Then answered Jesus, and said unto them," being indignant because He made Himself equal with God, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing." What the Jews answered to these words is not written: and perhaps they said nothing. Certain, however, who wish to be esteemed Christians, are not silent, but from these words somehow conceive certain opinions in contradiction to us, which are not to be despised, both for their and for our sakes. The Arian heretics, namely, while they assert that the Son, who took upon Himself flesh, is less than the Father, not by the flesh, but before taking flesh, and not of the same substance as the Father, take a handle of misrepresentation from these words, and reply to us: "You see that the Lord Jesus, observing the Jews to be moved with indignation at his making himself equal to God the Father, subjoined such words as these, to show that he was not equal with God. For the Jews," say they, "were provoked against Christ, because he made him self equal with God; and Christ, wishing to cure them of this impression, and to show them that the Son is not equal to the Father, that is, to God, saith this, as if he said, Why are ye angry? Why are ye indignant? I am not equal to God, since 'the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he seeth the Father doing.' Now," say they, "he who 'cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing,' is surely less, not equal."
4. In this distorted and depraved rule of his own heart, let the heretic hear us, not as yet chiding, but still as it were inquiring, and let him explain to us what he thinks. For, I suppose, whoever thou art (for we may regard him as here present in person), thou dost hold with us, that "in the beginning was the Word." I do hold it, saith he. And that "the Word was with God"? This too, saith he, I hold. Proceed then, and hold the stronger saying that follows, that "the Word was God." Even this, says he, I hold: but yet, this, God the greater; that, God the less. Now this somehow smells of the pagan: I thought I was speaking with a Christian. If there is God the greater, and God the less, then we worship two Gods, not one God. Why, saith he; dost not thou, too, affirm two Gods, equal the one to the other? This I do not assert: for I understand this equality as implying therein also undivided love; and if undivided love, then perfect unity. For if the love that God put in men doth make of many hearts of men one heart, and doth make many souls of men into one soul, as it is written of them that believed and mutually loved one another, in the Acts of the Apostles, "They had one soul and one heart toward God:"2 if, therefore, my soul and thy soul become one soul, when we think the same thing and love one another, how much more must God the Father and God the Son be one God in the fountain of love!
5. But to these words, by which thy heart is disturbed, bend thy thought, and reflect with me on that which we were seeking out concerning the Word. We already hold that "the Word was God:" I join to this another thing, that, having said, "This was in the beginning with God," the evangelist immediately subjoined, "All things were made by Him." Now will I urge thee by questioning, now will I move thee against thyself, and sue thee against thyself: only keep this in memory concerning the Word, that "the Word was God, and all things were made by Him." Hear now the words by which thou wast moved to assert that the Son is less, forsooth, because He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Just so, saith he. Explain to me this a little: This is, I presume, how thou thinkest: that the Father doeth certain things, and the Son observes how the Father doeth, that He may also Himself be able to do those things which He seeth the Father doing. Thou hast set up two artisans, as it were: the Father and the Son just like master and learner, like as artisan fathers are wont to teach their sons their craft. Behold, I come down to thy carnal sense: for the moment I think as thou doest: let us see if this our conception finds an issue in harmony with the things which we have just now alike spoken and alike hold regarding the Word, that "the Word was God," and that "all things were made by Him." Suppose, then, the Father, as an artisan, doing certain works, and the Son as a learner, who "cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing:" He keenly watches, in a manner, the Father's hands, that, as He seeth Him fashioning aught, so He may Himself in like manner fashion something similar by His own works. But the Father here doeth all those things that He doeth, and wishes the Son to give heed to Him, and to do the like also Himself; by whom doeth the Father? Come! now is the time for thee to stand to thy former opinion, which thou didst recite with me, and didst hold with me; that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him." But thou, after holding with me, that all things were made by the Word, dost again, with thy carnal wit and childish fancy, imagine with thyself God making something, and the Word giving heed; so that when God has made, the Word also may make the like. Now, what does God make without the Word? For if He doeth aught, then were not all things made by the Word; thou hast given up the position which thou didst hold. But if all things were made by the Word, correct what thou didst understand amiss. The Father made, and made only by the Word: in what way does the Word give heed to see the Father making without the Word, what the Word may do in like manner? Whatever the Father hath made, He made it by the Word; else is it false that "all things were made by Him." But it is true that "all things were made by Him." Perhaps this did not seem enough for thee? Well, "and without Him was nothing made."
6. Withdraw, then, from this wisdom of the flesh, and let us inquire in what manner it is said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Let us inquire, if we are worthy to apprehend. For I confess it is a great thing, and altogether difficult; to see the Father doing through the Son: not the Father and the Son doing each His particular works, but the Father doing every work whatsoever by the Son; so that not any works are done by the Father without the Son, or by the Son without the Father, because "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." These truths being most firmly established in the foundation of faith, what now is the nature of this "seeing"? Thou seekest, as I suppose, to know the Son doing: seek first to know the Son seeing. For what, in fact, saith He? "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Note what He said, "but what He seeth the Father doing." The seeing comes first, the doing follows: He seeth in order to do. As for thee, why seekest thou at present to know how He doeth, whilst thou understandest not as yet how He seeth? Why runnest thou to that which comes later, leaving that which comes first? He declares Himself as seeing and doing, not doing and seeing; because "He cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Wilt thou that I explain to thee how He doeth? Do thou explain to me how He seeth. If thou canst not explain this, neither can I that. If thou art not yet competent to understand this, neither am I to understand that. Wherefore let each of us seek, each knock, that each may merit to receive. Why dost thou, as if thou wert learned, unjustly blame me who am unlearned? I in respect of the doing, thou in respect of the seeing, being both unlearned, let us inquire of the Master, not childishly wrangle in His school. We have already, however, learned together that "all things were made by Him." Therefore it is manifest that it is not a different kind of works that the Father doeth, that, seeing them, the Son may do other works like them; but the very same doeth the Father by the Son, because all things were made by the Word. Now, as to how God doeth, who knows? How made He, I will not say the world, but thine own eye, in thy carnal attachment to which thou comparest visible things with invisible? For thou conceivest of God such things as thou art wont to see with these eyes. But if God might be seen with these eyes, He would not have said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Accordingly, thou hast an eye of the body to see an artificer, but thou hast not yet the eye of the heart to see God: hence, what thou art wont to see in an artificer, thou wouldest transfer to God. Leave earthly things on the earth; set thy heart on high.
7. What then, beloved, are we going to explain that which we have asked, how the Word seeth, how the Father is seen by the Word, what the seeing of the Word is? I am not so bold, so rash, as to promise to explain this, for myself or for you: however I estimate your measure, still I know my own. Therefore, if you please, not to delay it longer, let us run over the passage, and see how carnal hearts are troubled by the words of the Lord; to this end troubled, that they may not continue in that which they hold. Let this be wrested from them, as some toy is wrested from children, with which they amuse themselves to their hurt, that, as persons of larger growth, they may have more profitable things planted in them, and may be able to make progress, instead of crawling on the earth Arise, seek, sigh, pant with desire, and knock at what is shut. But if we do not yet desire, not yet earnestly seek, not yet sigh, we shall only be throwing pearls to all indiscriminately, or finding pearls ourselves, regardless of what kind. Wherefore, beloved, I would move a longing desire in your heart. Good character leads to right understanding: the kind of life leads to another kind of life. One kind of life is earthly, another is heavenly: there is a life of beasts, another of men, and another of angels. The life of beasts is excited with earthly pleasures, seeks earthly pleasures alone, and grovels after them with immoderate desire: the life of angels is alone heavenly; the life of men is midway between that of angels and of beasts. If man lives after the flesh, he is on a level with the beasts; if he lives after the Spirit, he joins in the fellowship of angels. When thou livest after the Spirit, examine even in the angelic life whether thou be small or well-grown. For if thou art still a little one, the angels say to thee, "Grow: we feed on bread; thou art nourished with milk, with the milk of faith that thou mayest come to the meat of sight." But if there be still a longing for filthy pleasures, if the thoughts be still of deceit, if lies are not avoided, if perjuries be heaped on lies, shall a heart so foul dare to say, "Explain to me how the Word sees;" even if I be able to do so, even if I myself now see? And further, though not perhaps of this character myself, and I am nevertheless far from this vision, how must that man be weighed down with earthly desires, who is not yet rapt with this desire from above! There is a wide difference between loathing and desiring; and again, between desiring and enjoying. If thou livest as do the beasts, thou loathest: the angels have full enjoyment. If, on the other hand, thou livest not as the beast, thou hast no longer loathing: something thou desirest, and dost not receive: thou hast, by the very desire, begun the life of the angels. May it grow in thee, and be perfected in thee; and mayest thou receive this, not of me, but of Him who made both me and thee!
8. Yet the Lord also has not left us to chance, since, in that He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing," He meant us to understand that the Father doeth, not some works which the Son may see, and the Son doeth other works after He has seen the Father doing; but that both the Father and Son do the very same works. For He goes on to say, "For what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son in like manner." Not after the Father hath done works, doeth the Son other works in like manner; but, "whatever He doeth, these also the Son doeth in like manner." If these the Son doeth which the Father doeth, then it is by the Son that the Father doeth: if by the Son the Father doeth what He doeth, then the Father doeth not some, the Son others; but the works of the Father and of the Son are the same works. And how doeth the Son also the same? Both "the same," and "in like manner." In case you should think them the same, but in a different manner, the "same," saith He, and "in like manner." And how could they be the same and not in like manner? Take an example, which I presume is not too big for you: when we write letters they are first formed by our heart, then by our hand. Certainly: why otherwise have you all agreed, but because you perceived it to be so? It is as I have said, it is manifest to us all. The letters are made first by our heart, then by our body; the hand serves, the heart commands; both the heart and the hand make the same letters. Dost think the heart doeth some letters, the hand some others? The same indeed doeth the hand, but not in like manner: our heart forms them intelligibly, but our hand visibly. See how the same things are made, but not in like manner. Hence it was not enough for the Lord to say, "What things soever the Father doeth, these also the Son doeth;" He must add, "and in like manner." For what if thou shouldst understand this just as thou understandest whatever thy heart doeth, this also thy hand doeth, but in a different manner? Here, however, he added, "These also the Son doeth in like manner." If He both doeth these, and in like manner doeth, then awake; let the Jew be crushed, let the Christian believe, let the heretic be convinced: The Son is equal to the Father.
9. "For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth." Here is that "showeth." "Showeth," as it were, to whom? Of course, as to one that sees. We return to that which we cannot explain, how the Word seeth. Behold, man was made by the Word; but man has eyes, ears, hands, divers members in the body: he is able by the eyes to see, by the ears to hear, by the hands to work; the members are diverse, their offices diverse. One member cannot do the office of another; yet, by reason of the unity of the body, the eye sees both for itself and for the ear, and the ear hears for itself and for the eye. Are we to suppose that something like this holds good in the Word, seeing all things are by Him; and Scripture has said in the psalm, "Understand, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, at length be wise. He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? And He that formed the eye, shall He not see?"3 Hence, if the Word is He that formed the eye, for all things are by the Word; if the Word is He that planted the ear, for all things are by the Word: we cannot say the Word doth not hear, the Word doth not see; lest the psalm reprove us, and say, "Fools, at length be wise." Therefore, if the Word heareth and seeth, if the Son heareth and seeth, are we yet to search for eyes and ears in Him in separate places? Does He by one part hear, by another see; and cannot His ear do what His eye doth; and cannot His eye do what His ear can? Or is He not all sight, all hearing? Perhaps yes; nay, not perhaps, but truly yes; whilst, however, that seeing of His, and that hearing of His, is in a way far other than it is with us. Both to see and to hear exist together in the Word: seeing and hearing are not diverse things in Him; but hearing is sight, and sight is hearing.
10. And we, who see in one way, and hear in another way, how know we this? We return perhaps to ourselves, if we are not the trangressors to whom it is said, "Return, O trangressors, to your heart."4 Return to your heart: why go from yourselves, and perish from yourselves? Why go the ways of solitude? You go astray by wandering: return ye. Whither? To the Lord. 'Tis quickly done: first return to thine own heart; thou hast wandered abroad an exile from thyself; thou knowest not thyself, and yet thou art asking by whom thou wast made! Return, return to thy heart, lift thyself away from the body: thy body is thy place of abode; thy heart perceives even by thy body. But thy body is not what thy heart is; leave even thy body, return to thy heart. In thy body thou didst find eyes in one place, ears in another place: dost thou find this in thy heart? Or hast thou not ears in thy heart? Else of what did the Lord say, "Whoso hath ears to hear, let him hear?"5 Or hast thou not eyes in thy heart? Else of what saith the apostle. "The eyes of your heart being enlightened?"6 Return to thy heart; see there what, it may be, thou canst perceive of God, for in it is the image of God. In the inner man dwelleth Christ, in the inner man art thou renewed after the image of God, in His own image recognize its Author. See how all the senses of the body bring intelligence to the heart within of what they have perceived abroad; see how many ministers the one commander within has and what it can do by itself even without these ministers. The eyes report to the heart things black and white; the ears report to the same heart pleasant and harsh sounds; to the same heart the nostrils announce sweet odors and stenches; to the same heart the taste announces things bitter and sweet; to the same heart the touch announces things smooth and rough; and the heart declares to itself things just and unjust. Thy heart sees and hears and judges all other things perceived by the senses; and, what the senses do not aspire to, discerns things just and unjust, things evil and good. Show me the eyes, ears, nostrils, of thy heart. Diverse are the things that are referred to thy heart, yet are there not diverse members there. In thy flesh, thou hearest in one place, seest in another; in thy heart, where thou seest, there thou hearest. If this be the image, how much more mightily He whose the image is! Therefore the Son both heareth and seeth; the Son is both the hearing itself and the seeing: to hear is to Him the same thing as "to be;" and to see is to Him the same thing as "to be." To see is not the same thing to thee as to be; for if thou lose thy sight, thou canst be; and if thou lose thy hearing, thou canst be.
11. Do we think we have knocked? Is there raised up within us something whereby we may even slightly conjecture whence light may come to us? It is my opinion, brethren, I that when we speak of these things, and meditate upon them, we are exercising ourselves. And when we are exercising ourselves, and are as it were bent back again by our own weight to our customary thoughts, we are like weak-eyed persons, when they are brought forth to see the light, if perchance they had no sight at all before, and begin in some sort to recover their sight by the assiduous care of physicians. And when the physician would test the progress of recovery, he tries to show them something which they sought to see, but could not while they were blind: and while the eyesight is now somewhat recovered, they are brought forth to the light; and as they see it, are beaten back in a manner by the very glare; and they answer the physician, as he points out the object, This moment I did see, but now I cannot. What then does the physician? He brings them back to their usual ways, and applies the eye-salve to nourish the longing for seeing that which was seen only for a moment, so that by the very longing he may cure more completely; and if any stinging salves are applied for the recovery of soundness, let the patient bear it bravely, and, inflamed with love of the light, say to himself, When will it be that with strong eyes I shall see what with sore and weak eyes I could not? He urges the physician, and begs him to heal him. Therefore, brethren, if, it may be, something like this has taken place in your hearts, if somehow you have raised your heart to see the Word, and, beaten back by its light, you have fallen back to your wonted ways; pray the Physician to apply sharp salves, the precepts of righteousness. There is that which thou mayest see, but not that whereby thou canst see. Thou didst not believe me before that there is that which thou mayest see: thou art now, as by the guidance of reason, brought to it: thou hast drawn near, strained thine eyes to see it, throbbed, and shrunk back. Thou knowest for certain that there is what thou mayest see, but that thou art not yet meet to see it. Therefore be healed. What are the eye-salves? Do not lie, do not swear falsely, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not defraud. But thou art used to these, and it is with some pain thou art drawn away from old habits: this is what bites, but yet heals. For I tell thee freely, by fear of myself and of thee, if thou give up the healing, and scorn to become meet to enjoy this light, by weakness of thine eyes, thou wilt love darkness; and by loving darkness, wilt remain in darkness; and by remaining in darkness, wilt be cast even into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. If the love of light has effected nothing in thee, let the fear of pain effect something.
12. I think I have spoken long enough, and yet I have not concluded the Gospel lesson: if I go on to declare what remains, I shall burden you, and I fear lest even what has been drawn may be lost; therefore let this be enough for you now, beloved. We are debtors, not now, but always as long as we live; because we live for you. However, do you, by good living, comfort this life of ours, so weak, toilsome, and full of peril in this world; do not afflict and wear us out by your evil manners. For if, when offended with your evil life, we flee from you and separate ourselves from you, and no longer come to you, will ye not complain, and say, And if we were sick, ye might care for us; and if we were weak, ye might have visited us? Behold, we do care for you; behold, we do visit you; but let it not be with us as you have heard from the apostle, "I fear lest I have bestowed labor upon you in vain."7


text:
FG Con starts Friday, April 16th and runs through Sunday April 18th, 2021
FG Con Fantasy Grounds Virtual Convention (19 Viewing)
A place for all to schedule events for the convention, work through logistics and request specific games or demos.
196 Threads3,601 PostsOctober 2nd, 2023, 21:14 by Poe the Homunculus
FGDaze (9 Viewing)
Information for the FGDaze 1-day online gaming conventions.
114 Threads1,484 PostsJanuary 21st, 2020, 00:42 by damned
Users Browsing this Forum
There are currently 34 users browsing this forum. (0 members & 34 guests)


text:
As you may know, The Constitutional Law for a Changing America Resource Center went open access in 2021. To help provide the same level of instructor support and timely updates to the Resource Center and the Case Archive, we have migrated the resources to separate resource sites.
Constitutional Law for a Changing America: A Short Course Ninth Edition
Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice, Eleventh Edition
Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints, Eleventh Edition
The Case Archive continues to be open access for all students and instructors to view. The cases are now organized by chapter and can be found using the left-hand navigation pane. To download the Instructor Resources, instructors will need to create an account.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact your sales rep.


text:
- Description
Look good, feel better & Keep It Cute.
Model is wearing size Small top & bottom.
We recommend getting your normal sizing.
Shipping and Returns
Returns Policy
We will send you an email when your return package is delivered back to our warehouse. Please note, returns take up to 10 business days to process upon reaching facility. Once return is processed and credit is issued, you will receive a confirmation email.
Items must be returned unworn, unwashed, undamaged, unused, and with all original tags attached. Please see the tips below for keeping your items in returnable condition. If you receive an item that is damaged, please contact customer service immediately at firstname.lastname@example.com
NO REFUNDS. NO CANCELLATIONS. Store credit only. Items purchased from KEEP IT CUTE FITNESS are eligible for store credit within 7 days after delivery.
Customer is responsible for return shipping .
NO CHANGES may be made once an order has been placed.


text:
The United Nations Human Rights "Report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict" has been released and the word genocide appears only once, to define what an International Crime is.
Even though the numbers speak for themselves, the treatment of the occupying army and the population it besieges as some kind of equals, with equal responsibility and military ability, in this report is glaring. We feel that the report, while detailing Israel's individual war crimes, both in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank, during Israel's attack last summer, intentionally glosses over the context of 68 years of colonization and its subsequent on-going genocidal effects.
A crime of this magnitude- which lasted 51 consecutive days and resulted in the extermination of 89 whole families and the deaths of scores of others, and in devastating damage to civilian property and infrastructure in the context of Israel's ever-tightening de-facto stranglehold on Palestinian land and lives and infinitely superior fire-power- cannot be assessed under the laws of war, but under the laws of genocide. We appeal to the United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda to investigate the possibility that Israel is committing the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people.
We also call on each and every one of you, who agree with our appeal, to send this email below to the relevant offices. Seeing this report, we cannot stress enough the importance of such civil society action. Please help us preasure the UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the ICC Prosecutor. Together we will end Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.
UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, International Criminal Court Prosecutor, International Court of Justice President: Investigate the Possibility that Israel is Committing the Crime of Genocide Against the Indigenous Palestinian People


text:
Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Introduction
[image omitted]
Excudebat Horatius Hart
Typographus academicus
1. THE AUTHOR. The prominent position occupied by Eusebius of Caesarea in the Arian controversy and the Council of Nicaea has given rise to so many important treatises on his life and character, that it would be quite superfluous to prefix a formal biography to the present edition of one among his many literary works. It will be sufficient to mention a few of the best sources of information accessible to the English reader.
(1) The article in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography on Eusebius of Caesarea by the late Bishop G. E. L. Cotton.
(2) Testimonies of the Ancients, in favour of and against Eusebius, collected by Valesius (Henri de Valois), and appended to the Prolegomena on The Life and Writings of Eusebius in Dr. McGiffert's English edition of the Church History (Parker, Oxford, 1890).
(3) The very interesting and learned Introduction to the Greek text of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, edited for the Clarendon Press by the late Dr. W. Bright, Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, 1872.
(4) Bishop Lightfoot's article, Eusebius of Caesarea, in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography (ii. 308-48), of which Dr. McGiffert says with perfect truth: 'Lightfoot's article is a magnificent monument of patristic scholarship, and contains the best and most exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of Eusebius that has been written.'
In each of these works the student will find abundant references to earlier sources of information.
There is, however, one interesting and important |vi question concerning Eusebius, for a satisfactory explanation of which I have sought in vain even in these copious and excellent biographies. What was the true relation of Eusebius to Pamphilus? In other words, What is the exact meaning of the title Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου?
The inquiry is interesting because it is in connexion with Pamphilus that we first hear of Eusebius; and it is not unnecessary, because the older traditional explanations are very various, while in our own more critical days we find the title sometimes rendered as 'Eusebius Pamphilus,' and even as 'Eusebius the beloved of all,' a strange designation for one who was so well hated by his more orthodox brethren.
It will be convenient to begin with the summary account of the traditional notices given by Fabricius in his great work Bibliographia Graeca, Tom. vi. p. 30: 'Eusebius Pamphili, not the martyr's son, nor his sister's son (consobrinus), nor his slave, but a friend so peculiarly intimate that he took his name from him.'
On the supposed relationship it is sufficient to quote Bishop Lightfoot's judicious remark: 'Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. vi. 37) makes him a nephew (ο τουτου αδελφιδους) of the martyr. Yet it is somewhat strange that he himself should never allude to this connexion, if it were so close. On the contrary, he speaks of his becoming acquainted with Pamphilus in such a manner as to suggest that there was no existing relationship which brought them together.'
In a note on the passage already quoted Fabricius defends the rendering 'friend of Pamphilus' by supposed examples of a similar usage. 'Thus C. Avianus Philoxenus acquired the name Avianus from his friend Flaccus Avianus, as Cicero writes, Epist. ad Familiares, xiii. 35: "The name Avianus he received because there was no man with whom he was more intimate than with Flaccus Avianus, who, as I think you know, was my own most intimate friend."' |vii
Of this example it is enough to say that the Latin usage is no authority for the Greek.
In the same note Fabricius adds: 'Etiam Iudas Iacobi et Petrus Damiani dictus uterque a fratre.' On Luke vi. 16 Ιουδαν Ιακωβου Meyer remarks that it is usually rendered '"Judas the brother of James," and therefore the son of Alphaeus; but without any foundation in exegesis. . . . Hence here and in Acts i. 13, we must read "Judas son of James," of which James nothing further is known': and on Acts i. 13 Meyer again remarks that 'The relationship is arbitrarily defined as "brother of (the younger) James." It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James.' This interpretation is now almost universally accepted. Thus Huther on Jude 1 writes: 'It is arbitrary to supply to Ιακωβου αδελφος instead of the usual supplement υιος,' and Reuss, Introduction to Jude: 'Cette derniere formule doit signifier necessairement "fils de Jacques," et non frere de Jacques.' Compare Viger, De Idiotismis Graecis, p. 12 'o( vel involvit substantivum ὑιος aut παῖς, filius, vel pro illo sumitur.' On which Hermann remarks Annot. ad Vig. De Idiot, p. 701 'Σωκρατης ο Σωφρονισκου significat aut hunc fuisse Sophronisci unicum, aut illum esse cui pater fuerit Sophroniscus, quo ab aliis Socratibus distinguatur. Σωκρατης Σωφρονισκου dicitur qui Sophroniscum, non alium, habet patrem.'
Even, however, if we could admit the rendering 'brother of James,' this extension of the genitive of kindred would not justify its further extension to the relation of 'friend': and the same objection applies to 'Petrus brother of Damianus,' as to whom see Fabric. Tom. viii. p. 88; Tom. xiii. p. 814.
St. Jerome, writing about sixty years after the death of Eusebius, speaks of him as the 'friend, eulogist, and companion' of Pamphilus: Apolog. adv. Rufin. i. 9 'Ipse Eusebius amator et praeco et contubernalis Pamphili tres libros scripsit elegantissimos vitam Pamphili continentes.' Again in the Preface to his translation of the work of |viii Eusebius On the names of places in Holy Scripture Jerome mentions that 'he took his surname from the blessed martyr Pamphilus'; while in the Preface to his Commentary on Isaiah and elsewhere he calls him simply 'Eusebius Pamphili.'
If it seems strange that Jerome, who lived in the next generation to Eusebius, has failed to give a correct paraphrase of his adopted name, we must remember that Latin, not Greek, was Jerome's native language, and that in the Preface to his translation of the Chronicon of Eusebius he speaks in the strongest terms of the difficulty of rendering 'the peculiar and, so to speak, the native idiom of the language.'
On this point the Greek writers of Church History are better witnesses than Jerome. Socrates in the first words of his Ecclesiastical History (circ. 430 A. D.) calls him simply Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου, without any comment on the surname, which ought therefore to be taken in its usual and well-known sense.
Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, in his Hist. Eccles. i. 1. 9 writes Ευσεβιος ο επικλην Παμφιλου, where επικλην may imply a patronymic, and may be illustrated by Xenophon, Oeconom. vii. 3 ονομαζοντες με Ισχομαχον πατροθεν προσκαλουνται.
In a much later age Photius, Epist. 73, begins a bitter invective against the reputed heretic with the words EusebioV o tou Pamfilou eite douloV eite sunhqhV. Upon this the editor Baletta makes the usual remark that 'Eusebius was the disciple and friend of the martyr Pamphilus, from whom he took his surname': but it is evident that Photius himself either was or pretended to be ignorant of the actual meaning of the title; and his insolent insinuation, eite douloV, is of course rightly rejected, as we have seen, by Fabricius. Bishop Lightfoot in the article already referred to writes with just indignation: 'It was either a blundering literalism or an ignoble sarcasm, which led Photius (Ep. 73 Baletta) to suggest the |ix explanation that he was the slave of Pamphilus. Any man might have been proud to wear the slave's badge of such a devotion.'
We come at last to the positive testimony of one who at least knew the proper sense of the title ο Παμφιλου.
The oldest MS. of the Praeparatio Evangelica (Paris, n. 451) has a Scholion on the passage i. 3 (Vig. 7 c 3) which refers to the works of earlier Christian writers. 'Such,' says the Scholiast, 'as were holy Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Clement the author of the Miscellanies, Origen, and moreover Pamphilus himself the father of our present author Eusebius, Παμφιλος ο του παροντος Ευσεβιου πατηρ.'
Dr. Harnack in his description of this MS. in Texte u. Untersuch. i. 1. 34 remarks on this Scholion: 'It is worthy of notice that Pamphilus is described as the father of Eusebius (Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου). So obscure already was the Scholiast's historical knowledge.'
In a foot-note to this passage Dr. Harnack asks 'why Pamphilus is mentioned here at all. Did the author perhaps think of Lucian, or allow himself to be misled by the title of the Apology for Origen?' Again on p. 177 Dr. Harnack says: 'This Scholion is of later origin. . . . Add to this that the learned Arethas cannot have supposed Pamphilus to be the father of Eusebius.'
As to Dr. Harnack's first objection, there is nothing to surprise us in the Scholiast's mention of Pamphilus as one of the 'recent authors' of whom Eusebius might have been thinking. His literary work was of a different character, less popular, and less generally known than the writings of the Apologists previously mentioned, and for these reasons, as it seems, the Scholiast in adding his name to theirs introduces it by the words καὶ αυτος ετι Παμφιλος.
Dr. Harnack's passing remark that 'the Scholion is of later origin' is not accepted by his very learned co-editor Oscar v. Gebhardt, who made a most careful examination of the Codex, and assigned this particular Scholion to the |x hand of Arethas himself (Texte u. Unters. i. 3. 183, n. 70).
Thus, instead of an ignorant Scholiast of a later age, we have the learned Archbishop Arethas asserting that the title is to be understood in its proper sense, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus,' and this we shall find to be consistent with all that we know of the relations between Pamphilus and Eusebius.
Pamphilus, we know, was many years older than Eusebius, was the director as well as the partner of his studies, and is always mentioned by him in terms not only of admiration and affection but of the most profound respect. Thus he calls him 'the great glory of the diocese of Caesarea, most admirable of the men of our time1,' of all my companions by me most fondly regretted, a man most glorious of the martyrs of our time for every virtue2,' 'the name to me thrice dear,' 'a man who through his whole life shone pre-eminent in every virtue3'; and when we add to such language the still more remarkable expressions quoted by Bishop Lightfoot 4 from Cureton's edition of the Syriac Martyrs of Palestine, that 'heavenly martyr of God,' 'my lord Pamphilus,' 'for it is not meet that I should mention the name of that holy and blessed Pamphilus without styling him "my lord5"'----with such testimony of filial reverence we can hardly doubt that when Eusebius adopted the patronymic o Pamfilou, he meant it in its full and proper significance, that henceforth he would call no man 'father' save this best and dearest friend of his early manhood. 'How else,' as Bishop Lightfoot says,' could he express the strength of his devotion to this friend, who was more than a friend, than by adopting his name. He would henceforward be known as "Eusebius of Pamphilus."' Let us only complete the title, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus,' and so do justice to the old Scholiast, that is, to the learned archbishop himself. |xi
A further explanation of the patronymic may probably be found in the prevalent custom of adoption. We know that Pamphilus 'had gathered about him a collection of books which seems to have been unrivalled in Christian circles' (Lightfoot, ibid.), and of which Eusebius became the possessor and made a catalogue (Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 32). It is therefore most probable that Pamphilus had made Eusebius his heir, and 'the only way in which a childless individual could acquire an heir was by adopting him' (Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Expositor, Sept. 1898, p. 204). Cf. Hermann, Political Antiquities of Greece, § 120 'The appointment of an heir, even by will, could take place only by adoption.' This statement that the heir was necessarily an adopted son is confirmed, among other passages, by Plato, Laws 924 A, and by Isaeus 66. 31 ουτε αν εισεποιουν εις τουτον τον κληρον υιον Αρισταρχω, 'they would not have represented that a son had been adopted by Aristarchus into this inheritance.' If Eusebius was thus made the heir of Pamphilus, his legal and usual designation would henceforth be 'Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου.' And in any case, whether he was actually adopted, or took the patronymic as a symbol of respect and affection, the only true rendering is, I believe, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus.'
2. THE DATE. The work itself contains no direct statement of the date at which it was written, and it is difficult to determine this very closely from the allusions to contemporary events, especially to the persecutions of the Christians and the subsequent prosperity of their religion.
The persecution commenced by Diocletian (February 24, A. D. 303), and continued by Galerius, ceased by his edict A. D. 311. Speaking of this persecution Eusebius says (Eccl. Hist. viii. 16) that having begun to decrease after the eighth year 'through the grace of God it ceased altogether in the tenth year.' After the defeat of Maxentius (A. D. 312) Constantine and Licinius gave freedom to the Christians, which was confirmed by the Edict |xii of Milan late in the same year (Eus. Eccl. Hist. x. 5).
With these historical statements we have to compare the allusions to the condition of the Christians in the two portions of the great apologetic work of the same author.
We may notice first certain passages which seem to have been written just before, or immediately after, the final cessation of the persecution.
Praep. Ev. 584 a, b 'Even up to the present time the noble witnesses (martyrs) of our Saviour throughout the whole inhabited world, while practising "not to seem but to be" just and devout, have suffered all things that Plato enumerated.' Here the words εις δευρο πεπονθασιν imply that the persecution if not still raging had very recently ceased.
Another passage which seems to have been written before the persecution had come to an end is found in the Demonstration of the Gospel, iii. 5. 78. Commenting on our Saviour's prophecy (Matt. xxiv. 9; Luke xxi. 12) that his disciples should be brought before rulers and kings for His name's sake, he adds 'and shall suffer all kinds of punishment for no fault or other good reason, but all this solely for His name's sake: and we may marvel at the prediction when we see this working up to the present time: for the confession of the name of Jesus is wont to inflame the wrath of the rulers, so that though no fault has been committed by one who confesses Christ, they punish him cruelly for His name's sake.'
Here again the present tenses εις δευρο θεωρουντας ενεργουμενον seem to imply that persecution was still raging.
A strong contrast to the language of these earlier passages is found in the Demonstration, v. 3. 11 'Who therefore on seeing the Churches of our Saviour flourishing (ανθουσας) in the midst of the cities, and in villages and country places throughout the whole inhabited world, and the peoples being ruled (κυριευομενους) by Him. . . .' |xiii
Again in the Praep. Ev. 9 d 7 Eusebius speaking of the Christian religion says: 'after these many years of persecution it shines forth far more brightly, and daily becomes more conspicuous, and grows and multiplies more and more.'
From such a description it is evident that a great change had occurred in the policy of the Roman Emperors towards the Christian religion, and we may fairly conclude that the earlier passages were written shortly before or shortly after the cessation of the persecution, and the later after some years of peace and prosperity.
Considering that the Preparation and the Demonstration are the two connected portions of one great work which must have been a long time in execution, we cannot be surprised at finding indications of different dates occurring in different parts of the two treatises. And though unable to fix a precise date either for the commencement or for the completion of the whole work, we can hardly be wrong in saying that it was begun about the year 312 A.D., but not finished till a few years afterwards.
On this latter point we have an interesting note of time in Praep. Ev. 135 c 4 'many of the most highly inspired even of their chief hierophants, and theologians, and prophets, who were celebrated for this kind of theosophy, not only in former times but also recently in our own day, under cruel tortures (διὰ βασανων αικιας) before the Roman courts declared that the whole delusion was produced by human frauds.' The passage evidently refers to the punishment of the false prophets and hierophants described by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ix. 11 'Licinius on arriving at the city of Antioch made a search for impostors, and tortured (βασανοις ηκιζετο) the prophets and priests of the newly erected statue, asking them "for what reason they practised their deception." And when under the stress of torture they were no longer able to conceal the matter, they declared that the whole mystery was a fraud contrived by the art of Theotecnus. He therefore meted out just |xiv judgement to all of them, and first put Theotecnus himself to death, and then his confederates in the imposture, after innumerable tortures (μετα πλειστας οσας αικιας).'
These executions took place immediately after the death of Maximinus in A. D. 313, and were followed by a further decree of toleration for the Christians. We cannot be wrong therefore in saying that the words 'recently in our time' (εναγχος καθ ημας) were written neither before nor much after A. D. 314.
3. THE OCCASION. The time thus indicated in the work itself was especially opportune for such a defence of Christianity as Eusebius was undertaking. Persecution had ceased for the present, and there was no immediate need of such appeals to the justice or mercy of Pagan Emperors as had formed a chief subject of the first Christian Apologists. But the remembrance of the sufferings endured especially by the martyrs of Palestine, and witnessed if not actually shared by Eusebius himself, was still fresh; nor could there be any assurance that persecution would not be renewed under emperors less favourable to Christianity or less prudent than Constantine.
The wavering attitude of the emperor himself at this period is well described by Gibbon, c. xx 'The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius of the Sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the God of Light and Poetry.' . . . 'As long as Constantine exercised a limited sovereignty over the provinces of Gaul, his Christian subjects were protected by the authority, and perhaps by the laws, of a prince who wisely left to the gods the care of vindicating their honour. If we may credit the assertion of Constantine himself, he had been an indignant spectator of the savage cruelties which were inflicted by the hands of Roman soldiers on those citizens whose religion was their only crime.' |xv
If the prudent policy of the emperor was dictated by a sense of the growing power of Christianity in the State, nothing could help so much to strengthen this feeling and turn it into a permanent conviction as a full exhibition of the contrast between the effete superstitions and gross immorality of Paganism and the pure and vigorous spirit of the new religion.
The conflict was not ended, but it had assumed a new character: persecution had failed, but other weapons not less formidable remained. The old charges of atheism, apostasy, and hostility to the State though often refuted were constantly renewed. Learning and philosophy lent their aid both in attacking the supposed credulity of the Christians, and in endeavouring to infuse new life into the ancient Polytheism.
Porphyry, the most learned and able philosopher of his age and the bitterest opponent of Christianity, was but lately dead, and had left behind him a work in fifteen books Against the Christians. As far as we can judge from the fragments that remain this was the most comprehensive and powerful attack that had yet been made upon the new faith. Eusebius was keenly alive both to the ability of the author, and to the dangerous character of his criticism: and there was need as well as opportunity for a new and comprehensive defence of the truth so vehemently attacked.
4. THE METHOD. In explaining the plan of his treatise Eusebius promises (7 a 1) that his purpose shall be worked out in a way of his own, differing from the methods of the many Christian authors who had preceded him. This promise is further explained (17 a 1) as meaning that his arguments will not depend on his own statements, but will be given in the very words of the most learned and best known advocates of the Pagan religions, that so the evidence alleged may not be suspected of being invented by himself. The cogency of |xvi this mode of argument truthfully and fairly conducted is unquestionable, but it had not in this case such entire novelty as Eusebius seems to claim for it. We shall find as we proceed that many of his arguments are the same as those of the earlier Apologists, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen; that he constantly borrows long passages from their writings, including the same quotations from Greek authors, reproduced word for word with due acknowledgement. Those earlier authors had in fact adopted the very same method which Eusebius announced as distinctive of his own work. The quotations thus borrowed are however few in comparison with the great multitude gathered by Eusebius himself from all parts of the Greek literature of a thousand years, from works both known and unknown of poets, historians, and philosophers.
The peculiar value of the Praeparatio resulting from this wealth of quotation is universally acknowledged. 'This book is almost as important to us in the study of ancient Philosophy as the Chronicon is with reference to History, since in it are present specimens of the writings of almost every philosopher of any note whose works are not now extant' (G. E. L. Cotton, Dict. Gk. and R. Biogr., 'Eusebius,' 116b).
'The Preparation exhibits the same wide range of acquaintance with the classical writers of Greece which the History exhibits in the domain of Christian literature. The list of writers quoted or referred to is astonishing for its length (see Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vii. 346). Some of these are known to us, even by name, only through Eusebius, and of several others he has preserved large portions which are not otherwise extant. . . . It was chiefly the impression produced by this mass of learning which led Scaliger to describe it as "divini commentarii," and Cave to call it "opus profecto nobilissimum" (H. L. i. p. 178)' (Lightfoot, Smith and "Wace's Dict. Chr. Biogr. ii. 331). |xvii
5. THE STYLE. It follows from the nature of the method thus described that the value of the treatise does not depend on the literary style of Eusebius. His part in the work is that of an editor or compiler rather than of an original author. His own contributions are small, except in a few places such as Book VI, chapter 6, on the subject of Fate and Free Will, and the earlier chapters of Book VII, in which he describes the religious ideas and mode of life of the original Hebrews. For the most part he is content to give short notices of the numerous authors whom he quotes, and such brief comments as serve either to connect the passages selected or to explain their meaning and force.
It is thus a matter of less importance that his own style is not attractive: the sentences are often of inordinate length, and the constructions awkward and confused. On the other hand the diction is simple, appropriate, and free from all affectation of eloquence or rhetorical artifice. Bishop Lightfoot's judgement is, as usual, very accurate when he speaks of the want of 'rhetorical vigour and expression,' but adds that 'the forcible and true conceptions which it exhibits from time to time, more especially bearing on the theme which may be briefly designated "God in history," arrest our attention now, and must have impressed his contemporaries still more strongly; while in learning and comprehensiveness it is without a rival.'
The same great critic passes a less favourable judgement on the arrangement of the contents: 'The divisions,' he says, 'are not kept distinct; the topics start up unexpectedly and out of season.' On this point I may be allowed to plead on behalf of Eusebius that if he deserves the censure, it is not from want of very careful endeavours to avoid it. His best defence is to be found in his very frequent explanations of the purpose and arrangement of his work. |xviii
6. THE CONTENTS. In his first sentence Eusebius shows us that the proper title of his proposed work as a whole is The Demonstration of the Gospel (Αποδειξις Ευαγγελικη), of which the first part (Προπαρασκευη της Ευαγγελικης Αποδειξεως, or more briefly Ευαγγελικη Προπαρασκευη) is intended to explain beforehand the objections which are likely to be urged against the Christians and their religion by both Greeks and Jews.
These objections refer to three main points:----
(i) The abandonment of the ancestral religion of the Greeks (5 a 2).
(ii) The acceptance of the foreign doctrines of the Barbarians, i. e. Jews (5 b).
(iii) The inconsistency of rejecting the Jewish sacrifices, rites, and general manner of life, while appropriating their sacred Scriptures and promised blessings (5 c).
The third point, however, is not included in the Preparation for the reason stated in the closing sentence (856 a 6), but is left for consideration in the Demonstration.
The fifteen books containing the discussion of the first two points are divided into five groups of three each, and this distribution is clearly indicated at the beginning of each group in Books I, IV, VII, X, XIII, while in the first chapter of Book XV we have a clear summary of the whole preceding argument, showing how the several divisions have been treated each in three books.
The first three books discuss the threefold system of Pagan Theology, Mythical, Allegorical, and Political (788 b 3-d 3). The next three, IV-VI, give an account of the chief oracles, of the worship of daemons, and of the various opinions of Greek philosophers on the doctrines of Fate and Free Will.
Books VII-IX give reasons for preferring the religion of the Hebrews founded chiefly on the testimony of various authors to the excellency of their Scriptures and the truth of their history. |xix
In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses.
In the last three books the comparison of Plato with Moses is continued, and the mutual contradictions of other Greek philosophers, especially the Peripatetics and Stoics, are exposed and criticized.
A like orderly arrangement is observed in the smaller divisions of each group.
Book I. After stating the general purpose and plan of his intended work (chapters 1-5), Eusebius takes a brief survey of the earliest notions of the origin of the world, of mankind, and of the gods from the writings of Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Xenophon, Plato, and Porphyry (chapters 6-9, 17 b-30 d), showing that a simpler worship of sun, moon, and stars had preceded the endless theogonies and bloody sacrifices of the manifold forms of superstition among the heathen nations. The remainder of the book (31 a-42 d) is occupied by Philo's translation of Sanchuniathon's account of the Phoenician theology.
In Book II the religions of Egypt and of Greece are described in the words of Diodorus and of Clement of Alexandria; after which Eusebius himself states his reasons for rejecting both the gross legends of the older mythology and the physical explanations by which later philosophers endeavoured to throw a decent veil of allegorical interpretation over the shameless obscenities of their ancestral religion, and ends the book by a description of the comparatively purer religion of Rome from Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
In Book III the physical explanations of the Greeks and the allegorical theology of the Egyptians are further described in the language of Plutarch, Diodorus, and Porphyry, with brief criticisms by Eusebius himself (chapters 1-8). Then after quoting the Orphic Hymn, in which Zeus is described as the All, both body and soul |xx of the universe, with Porphyry's comments upon it, Eusebius proceeds 'to examine quietly and at leisure what after all the verses declare Zeus to be' (102 a). On this passage Gesner founded a charge of forgery against our author, whom he supposed to have introduced the verses in order to show that the Orphic poem taught the existence of the One true God, and even Cudworth strangely fell into the same error (Intellectual System, iv. 17). Fortunately Eusebius, while refuting Porphyry, has given us his own interpretation of the verses, showing at considerable length (102a-108a) that they represent the world as a great animal to which the name of Zeus is applied, his mind being nothing else than the ether. Compare Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo, xxvi. After quoting Porphyry again on the physical theologies of Greece and Egypt (108b-117d), Eusebius himself exposes their contradictions and absurdities in the five remaining chapters of the book (118 a-127 c).
In the second group of three books (IV-VI) he passes on from the mythical and physical systems of Greek theology to the political forms of religion upheld and enforced by the laws of the several states.
Books IV and V are mainly occupied with discussions on the oracles and their pretended prophecies and healings, which are attributed both by Eusebius and by the witnesses whom he quotes to the activity of evil daemons. The evidence on these subjects is for the most part taken from Porphyry's work On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, fragments of which are preserved by Eusebius, and his extant and well-known work On Abstinence from Animal Food. The last nine chapters are devoted to the subject of human sacrifices, the chief witnesses being Porphyry, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Diodorus Siculus.
In Book V the nature and operation of daemons, the incantations by which they may be controlled, and their regard for the images in which they are supposed to be |xxi present, are described in extracts from Plutarch On the Cessation of Oracles, from Porphyry's works already mentioned, and from his Epistle to Anebo. The latter half of the book is occupied by a most interesting and witty satire upon the oracles from the work of Oenomaus entitled The Detection of Impostors.
Book VI is devoted to the subject of Fate and Free Will in connexion with astrology, the evidence being supplied by Porphyry, Oenomaus, Diogenianus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Bardesanes the Syrian, and Origen.
In the sixth chapter we have a good specimen of the clear argumentative style of Eusebius himself: with much force and earnestness he defends 'the freedom of the Will against the fatalism of pagan religion,' and especially of the Stoic philosophy.' By the independence with which he maintains the cause of Liberty, Morality, and Duty it is evident that no such teaching as that of Pelagius had as yet disturbed men's minds, or called forth the decisions of the Church on the doctrines of grace' (Dictionnaire des Sciences philosophiques, ii. 340).
The next group consisting of Books VII-IX deals with the religion of the Hebrews.
Of Book VII the first half (298 d-322 d) is the work of Eusebius himself, describing the lives and religion of the Patriarchs, and the doctrines of Moses and the Prophets on Divine Providence, on God as the First Cause of the Universe, and on the Word as the Second Cause. In the latter half of the book the same subjects are illustrated from Jewish and Christian authors, Philo, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, and Methodius.
Beck VIII consists of the history of the Septuagint as described by Aristeas, of quotations concerning the Exodus and the Law from Philo, Josephus, and Eleazar the High Priest, on the Biblical anthropomorphisms from Aristobulus, and two accounts of the Essenes from Philo, followed by his views of Creation, and of Providence.
Book IX contains the testimony of heathen writers |xxii who have made mention of the Jews, a third account of the Essenes by Porphyry, quotations by Josephus from Hecataeus of Abdera, Clearchus the Peripatetic, Choerilus the poet, Abydenus, author of the Assyrian History, the Sibyl, and others on the Deluge and Tower of Babel. The remaining twenty-six chapters of the book are chiefly occupied by several important extracts from the work of Alexander Polyhistor, Concerning the Jews, which include long passages from the Iambic poems of Theo-dotus and Ezekiel on events in Jewish history, the spurious letters of Solomon to Vaphres king of Egypt, and Suron (Hiram) of Tyre; with descriptions of Jerusalem and other matters by various authors.
In the next group, Books X-XII, Eusebius gives examples from Clement, Porphyry, and Diodorus of the plagiarism of Greek authors both from each other and, as they argue, from the much older Scriptures of the Hebrews. The testimony to their antiquity is drawn from the Chronography of Africanus, and from Tatian, Clement, and Josephus.
In Book XI Eusebius proposes to show the agreement of Plato, as the representative of Greek Philosophy, with the Hebrew Scriptures. Adopting the threefold division of Ethics, Dialectic, and Physics, he notices the moral teaching of the sacred writers, their literary methods, accurate reasoning, and correct use of significant names, their knowledge of the natural world, and their contemplation of the 'true being' of things unseen (chapters 1-9). He then quotes the comments of Numenius, and his saying, What else is Plato than Moses speaking Attic Greek?, and Plutarch's treatise on the Ei0 at Delphi (10, 11).
Other points of comparison are the ineffable nature of God, His unity, the Second Cause as contemplated by Philo, Plotinus, Numenius, and Amelius, the Third Divine Power of the Ps.-Platonic Epinomis (chapters 12-30).
The nature of the Good and of the Ideas, as stated by Plato in the Republic and Timaeus, is illustrated by |xxiii quotations from Numenius, Philo, and Clement of Alexandria (21-25). The existence of evil powers, the immortality of the soul and the Divine image, as taught in the Alcibiades and Phaedo, and illustrated from Porphyry's answer to Boethus On the Soul, the creation of the world and of the heavenly bodies, the goodness of God's works, their changes and dissolution, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgement, are all brought into the comparison, and illustrated from the Timaeus, Republic, Politicus, and Phaedo, and from a fragment of Plutarch On the Soul.
In Book XII the comparison of Plato with the Hebrew Scriptures is continued on the simple instruction of children, the need of faith, the qualifications of rulers as described in the Laws, the Gorgias, and the Republic (chapters 1-9); the picture of the just man and his fate in the Republic; Paradise and the garden of Zeus, and the origin of mankind male and female, in the Symposium; the Deluge, the right foundation of law, religious training, the use of poetry, music, and wine, and the control of the passions, all illustrated from the Laws (chapters 10-28).
Other subjects brought into the comparison are the contrast of true philosophy and spurious wisdom (Theaetetus), the education of women (Republic), and passages of the Laws and Republic corresponding to the Hebrew Proverbs and laws of Moses on 'the memory of the just,' riches and poverty, and the honour due to parents, on slaves, landmarks, and thieves (chapters 29-42). Other coincidences are found in the use of certain examples and figures of speech, in the division of a nation into twelve tribes, in the situation of the chief city, and in Plato's thoughts on faults in education (Republic), on atheism, on God, and Divine providence (Laws).
In Book XIII Eusebius quotes with approval Plato's opinions on the absurdities of Greek mythology in the Timaeus, Republic, and Eutliyphron (chapters 1-5), on stedfast adherence to truth even unto death in the Crito |xxiv and the Apology of Socrates (chapters 6-11), adding the testimonies of Aristobulus and Clement to the agreement of Plato and other Greek philosophers with the Hebrew Scriptures (chapters 12, 13).
The remainder of the book treats of matters in which Plato's teaching is condemned concerning the belief of the common people (Timaeus and Republic), a multitude of inferior gods and daemons, the nature of the soul (Timaeus) criticized by the Platonist Severus, the worship of the heavenly bodies (Laws and Timaeus), the treatment of women (Laws and Republic), unnatural vice, and the laws of murder.
In Book XIV the consistent truth of Hebrew doctrines adopted by Christians is contrasted with the contradictions and conflicts of Greek philosophers, showing how Plato criticized his predecessors in the Theaetetus and Sophista, and was himself criticized by his followers in the successive Academies, who in their turn are subjected to the keen satire of Numenius (chapters 1-9). The subject is continued in quotations from Porphyry, Xeno-phon, Plato, Plutarch, and especially from Aristocles On Philosophy against the schools of Parmenides who rejected the evidence of the senses, of Aristippus, Metrodorus, and Protagoras who believed them alone, and of the Pyr-rhonists who believed nothing at all. The doctrines of Epicurus are refuted from the writings of Aristocles, Plato, and Dionysius of Alexandria (chapters 21-47).
In Book XV the moral character of Aristotle is defended against the slanders of Epicurus and others by Aristocles; but where he differed from Plato and the Hebrews in regard to virtue and happiness, the ideas of God and His providence, the creation of the world, the fifth corporeal essence, the nature of the heavenly bodies, and the immortality of the soul, his doctrines are severely criticized by Atticus the Platonist (chapters 2-9).
His description of the soul as an enteleceia is further criticized by Plotinus, Porphyry, and Atticus (10-13); |xxv the Stoic philosophy is discussed by Aristocles, Areius Didymus, Porphyry, Longinus, and Plotinus (14-22), and the remainder of the book is occupied with a long extract from Plutarch, De placitis Philosophorum, on the various physical theories of the world, followed by the judgement of Socrates on such questions from the Memorabilia of Xenophon.
After this survey of the contents of the Preparation as described chiefly by Eusebius himself, I think we are in fairness bound to acquit him of the charge of confusion in the divisions of the work and the arrangement of its topics. His occasional repetitions are for the most part confined to quotations, and especially to certain well-known and striking passages of Plato which are used more than once in different branches of the subject, and with different applications.
7. QUOTATIONS. The literary value of the Preparation for the Gospel will be most fully appreciated by considering a separate list of the chief fragments of ancient authors for the preservation of which we are indebted to Eusebius in that work.
(a) Fragments of Poetry.
1. An interesting epigram by Callimachus on the simplicity of the primitive statues (99 b): this is contained in a fragment of Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus.
2. A fragment of Euripides, Melanippe Captiva, on the characters of bad and good women (466 d).
3. Large extracts in iambic verse from the Exodus, a tragedy by the Jewish dramatist Ezekiel (438 c 10-446 d 2), on which see Schürer, Jewish People, ii. 3. 224.
4. Fragments of an epic poem On Jerusalem by a Jew named Philo, 421 c, d, 430 c, 453 a. Cf. Schürer, ibid. 222.
5. Eight extracts from the epic poem of Theodotus On the Jews, describing Sichem, and narrating the story of the sons of Emmor (426 b-429 a). Cf. Schürer, ibid. 224. |xxvi
6. Many of the oracles quoted by Oenomaus in The Detection of Impostors (209 c-234 a).
7. All the oracles contained in the work of Porphyry On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles (123 d-124 b, 145 a-146 b, 168 b, 175 c). These oracles with their contexts are carefully edited by Wolff in his work Porph. De Philos. ex Oraculis haurienda, of which they form the chief substance.
8. Pindar, Fr. Incert. 2 (105), Paean. 10 (33), both in 687 b.
9. The remarkable epigram on the Tetragrammaton and the Name of seven vowels (520 a).
10. Part of the Orphic Hymn to Zeus, of which vv. 19-42 (except two or three) are found first in the fragment of Porphyry Peri Agalmatwn preserved by Eusebius P. E. 100 c 5-101 c 1.
(b) Historical Fragments.
1. In history we have first the long extract from the translation by Philo Byblius of Sanchuniathon's Phoenician History contained in a fragment of Porphyry's work Against the Christians preserved by Eusebius (31 a-42 b). If we could fully trust Porphyry's testimony to the truthfulness of Philo, and to the genuineness and antiquity of the work of Sanchuniathon, the historical value of the extract could hardly be over-estimated: and we cannot wonder that the question of its authenticity has been a most fruitful source of criticism and controversy from the time of Scaliger and Grotius to our own days. 'Few problems, in fact, in the circle of Semitic studies and of ancient history in general are of more importance than this.' So writes M. Renan. Memoire sur l'Origine et le Caractere veritable de l'Histoire phenicienne qui porte le nom de Sanchoniathon, p. 6.
2. Diodorus Siculus. In 59 c 2-61 a we have an interesting fragment of the sixth book of the Bibliotheca, confirming his account of the sources of Greek theology from the Ιερα αναγραφη, or Sacred Record of Euemerus, |xxvii and adding the wonderful narrative of Euemerus concerning his voyage to the fabulous island of Panchaea in the Indian Ocean.
3. The large fragments of Philo Judaeus first known from Eusebius will be found in 322 d 11 on the Word or Second God, in 336 b Concerning Providence, in 355 c-361 b on the Exodus and the Law from a work otherwise unknown, entitled Hypothetica, and in 379 a-400 a a very long and important passage from the Apology for the Jews.
These fragments will be found placed together at the end of the sixth volume of Richter's edition of the Greek text of Philo.
4. Among the most important of the historical fragments preserved for us by Eusebius are the long extracts from the work of Alexander Polyhistor Concerning the Jews, which occupy the larger part of Book IX, and have been very carefully edited in a special monograph by Dr. J. Freudenthal. The value of these extracts is much increased by quotations from lost works of authors otherwise unknown, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Molon, a certain Philo, and Demetrius, who all wrote on the history of the Jews. On the importance of the fragments see Schürer, ibid. ii. 3. 197.
5. The extract from the Chronicon of Julius Africanus (487 d-491 b) was edited from Eusebius by Dr. Routh in Rell. Sacr. ii. 269-78, who enlarged the text from Georgius Syncellus and added copious notes (423-37).
6. From the lost work of Abydenus On Assyrian History we have most interesting notices of the Flood of Sisithrus, i. e. Noah (414 d), of the Tower of Babel (416 b), of Nebuchadnezzar's madness and of his fortification of Babylon (456 d).
(g) Philosophical Fragments.
It is in the region of Greek Philosophy that the wealth of quotation is most remarkable.
1. Among the Neo-Platonists we find Atticus, whose commentary on the Timaeus is sharply criticized by |xxviii Proclus, but of whose own writings there remain only the important fragments preserved by Eusebius; the first of which describes the threefold division of Philosophy into Ethics, Physics, and Logic, and eulogizes Plato as 'a man from nature's mysteries new-inspired,' and 'in very truth sent down from the gods, in order that Philosophy might be seen in its full proportions,' (509 b-510 a). Also in the long and important extracts contained in Book XV, chapters 4-9, 12, 13, Atticus appears as a passionate defender of Plato against Aristotle.
2. From the Epitome of Areius Didymus we have a short extract on the Platonic Ideas (545 b), and several passages on the Stoic doctrines in Book XV, chapters 15, 20.
3. Numenius the Neo-Pythagorean is known almost exclusively from the long and numerous extracts preserved by Eusebius. From the contemplation of true 'Being' with Plato (525 c-527 a) he passes on to the nature of 'the First and Second God' (537 a), and to 'the only Good' transcending all essence, which can be contemplated only apart from sense 'in a certain, immense, ineffable, and absolutely Divine solitude' (543 d). In 650 d we find him defending Plato for 'preserving both life and truth' by withdrawing from Athens; and in 727 b-739 he describes The revolt of the Academics against Plato, under the leaders of the three, or more, Academies.
4. The fragments of Aristocles the Peripatetic contain an interesting criticism of Socrates and Plato, and of the divergent Socratic Schools (510 b-511 c), a defence of the veracity of the senses against the Eleatics Xenophanes and Parmenides (756 b-757 d), a long refutation of the Sceptics Pyrrho and Timon (758 c-763 d), strong and able censures of the Sophists, Cyrenaics, and Epicureans (764 c-768 d), and lastly a defence of the moral character of Aristotle against the slanderous |xxix attacks of Epicurus, Timaeus of Tauromenium, Alexinus the Eristic, Eubulides, Demochares, Cephisodorus, and Lycon (791 a-793 c).
5. Of the three known fragments of Euemerus, the most important is contained in a fragment of the sixth book of Diodorus Siculus, itself preserved by Eusebius (Diod. Sic. iv. 179, Dindorf).
6. On the falsehood of oracles we have first a valuable fragment of Diogenianus directed against the fatalism of Chrysippus (136 d 3); then the vigorous and amusing invective of Oenomaus occupying no less than eighteen chapters of Book V (209 b-234 c); and the long series of extracts from the work of Porphyry On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, mentioned above (p. xxvi).
7. Of other works of Porphyry Eusebius has preserved many fragments of the Epistle to Anebo (92 a, 197 c, 740 d), on which see Parthey's edition of Iamblichus De Mysteriis; a large part of the treatise De Statuis (97 d 2 note); several fragments of a work On the Soul, against Boethus; three long extracts from the Philological Lecture; fragments of the famous treatise Against the Christians (31 a, 179 d, 485 b).
8. A fragment attributed to Plotinus on the Entelecheia of Aristotle, which is inserted by Creuzer after Ennead. iv. 2.
9. From Plutarch's treatise on the Daedala, or primitive wooden statues at Plataeae, and the worship connected with them Eusebius has preserved two very interesting fragments (83 c, 99 b); and though the long extracts from the Stromateis (22 b-25 b) and the De placitis Philosophorum (836 a-852 c) are not the work of Plutarch, but a compilation by some unknown writer from the Epitome of Aetius, this very ancient error in the title does not detract from their value. We are equally indebted for their preservation to Eusebius, to whose accuracy and fidelity Diels (Proleg. 5-10) pays an emphatic and even enthusiastic testimony. |xxx
8. CONCLUSION. The work which has been my chief occupation and my delight for several years is now drawing to a close. I have to renew my thanks to friends already mentioned in the Preface to vol. i; to Dr. Sanday, whose counsel and encouragement first led me to add to the English translation a revised text; to Dr. Redpath, by whose many useful suggestions and careful correction of the proof-sheets I have been aided throughout; to Dr. John Mayor, the Professor of Latin in the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Joseph Mayor; to the Rev. W. R. Inge, one of the rare students of Plotinus; to Dr. H. H. Turner, F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Astronomy; and last not least to the Delegates, Secretary, and other Officers of the Clarendon Press, to whose unfailing kindness and invaluable help I am most deeply indebted.
Of the inadequacy of my own work I am painfully conscious. To do full justice to so large a compilation from all branches of ancient literature the editor himself should be historian, poet, philosopher, archaeologist, astronomer, ethnologist; and I certainly am none of these. For all errors and defects which remain un-corrected I can only trust to receive the indulgence for which old age not often pleads in vain.
153 c 3 'how far they proceed who need'] read 'how far in need.'
168 c 3 'Then fragrant incense and dark blood of grapes'] read 'Dark blood of grapes pour'd on the blazing pyre.'
302 d 1 'mariners' stars'] read 'star-fish.'
210 d 7 'He killed with his spear Carnus son of Phylander an Aetolian knight'] read 'Hippotes son of Phylander kill'd with his spear Carnus the Aetolian.'
224 d 3 'No spot on earth . . .' Omit this line.
294 c 3 'not only'] read 'I do not mean.'
404 b 11 'upon God'] read 'upon them as gods.'
448 d 5 'as soon as they cease to be wanted'] read 'as being no longer wanted.'
634 c 9 ' had become indestructible'] read when once created were indestructible.'
642 b 1 'and by those who are growing elderly and'] read 'and as they grow older.'
734 b 4 ' such as they were '] read 'whether few or many.'
734 c 2 ' house '] read ' room.'
737 b 1 ' to the leadership'] read ' Hegesinus.' Cf. note.
756 d 7 ' the existing thing'] read ' being.'
778 a 8 ' simultaneous circular revolution'] read ' synodical revolution.'
782 c 9 'show evidence'] read ' find evidence.'
823 b 9 'it is '] read ' they are.'
826 c 1 'universals'] read ' wholes.'
830 d 7 'wrist'] read ' palm.'
836 b 4 'the sun out of] read ' the Sun, or out of.'
850 a 5 ' pillar supporting the surfaces'] read ' pillar: but of the surfaces....' See note.
[Footnotes have been placed at the end]
This text was transcribed by Peter Kirby, and reformatted by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts |