Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.iii-xxxv.  Introduction

NESTORIUS

The
Bazaar of Heracleides

Newly translated from the Syriac and edited with an
Introduction
Notes & Appendices
by

G. R. DRIVER, M.A.
&
LEONARD HODGSON, M.A.
Fellows of Magdalen College., Oxford.

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
1925

Oxford University Press
London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai 
Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY

PRINTED IN ENGLAND

PREFACE

The present volume is the result of collaboration between two colleagues, the one a student of the Semitic languages, the other of Christian doctrine. After the former had prepared an English translation of the whole work, the manuscript was handed over to the latter, who read it carefully through; the difficulties were then jointly discussed. The editors hope that by this means they are able to offer a reliable rendering of the original text. The absence of any English edition of a work which has given rise to much theological discussion has, in their opinion, justified them in undertaking the task; but, although their edition is based on an independent study of the Syriac version itself, they desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to MM. Bedjan and Nau, the editors of the Syriac text and of the French translation respectively, their reliance on whom is evident on every page of the translation and in almost every note; indeed, if they had not already covered the ground, it is unlikely that the present work would ever have been accomplished.

We wish to express our gratitude also to those whose encouragement and assistance has enabled us to complete our work: to the President and Fellows of Magdalen College and to the Trustees of the Denyer and Johnson Fund for most generous financial grants; to the staff of the Clarendon Press for their courtesy and care; to the Rev. F. W. Green for reading the proofs, and to him and to Mrs. Margoliouth for |vi many valuable suggestions; to Dr. B. J. Kidd for permission to draw on his History of the Church to A.D. 461 in compiling the historical section of our Introduction; to the editors of the proposed Patristic Lexicon for putting at our disposal for the purpose of Appendix III the material which they had collected, and to the Rev. T. G. Jalland for his help in drawing up that appendix; and to the proprietors of the Journal of Theological Studies for permission to reprint Appendix IV from their pages.

G. R. D.
L. H. 

MAGDALEN COLLEGE,
OXFORD. 
October, 1924.

|vii

CONTENTS

|viii

ABBREVIATIONS

|ix

INTRODUCTION

i. History of The Bazaar.

The Council of Ephesus met in June, A.D. 431, and was dissolved in September by the Emperor Theodosius II without the two parties, the Orientals and the followers of Cyril of Alexandria, having come to an agreement. Nestorius was bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in his place. In August 435 imperial edicts forbade the meetings of Nestorians and decreed heavy penalties against all who should copy, preserve, or read the writings of their master, which were ordered to be burned. By a rescript of the following year Nestorius himself was banished to Arabia, but he was actually sent to Egypt, where from a reference in Socrates he is known to have been in 439.¹ But he was not left in peace in Egypt, for besides being on one occasion made prisoner by Lybian marauders, the ill will of his Egyptian opponents led to his being somewhat harshly treated by the imperial agents responsible for the supervision of his exile.²

In 1825 Augustus Neander, in referring to the citations made by Evagrius ³ from a history of his misfortunes written by Nestorius during his exile, wrote 'That the work bore the title of "Tragedy" is reported by Ebedjesu, a Nestorian metropolitan of the fourteenth century, in his list of Syrian ecclesiastical writers in Assemani bibliotheca orientalis, T. iii, p. i, f. 36. This work of Nestorius has unfortunately not come down to us, unless, perhaps, it may be somewhere found in a Syrian translation.' ⁴ As a matter of fact, Ebedjesu mentions six works of Nestorius as extant in Syriac in his day, the Tragedy, the Book of Heracleides, a Letter to Cosmos, a Liturgy, a book of Letters, and a book of Homilies and Sermons,⁵ and Neander's prophetic hope has been fulfilled |x by the discovery, not indeed of the Tragedy, but of The Bazaar of Heracleides.

This work was introduced to English readers by Dr. Bethune-Baker of Cambridge in 1908 in his monograph Nestorius and his Teaching.⁶ In his preface Dr. Bethune-Baker gives the following account of the work.

The book must have been written by Nestorius in the year 451 or 452, seeing that there are references to the death of Theodosius II in 450, and to the flight of Dioscorus of Alexandria.⁷ Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but though formally deposed by the Council in October of that year was not condemned to banishment until the following July. On the other hand, Nestorius, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith of Flavian and Leo, does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. It appears, therefore, that Dioscorus must have fled when the Council decided against him, and that when Nestorius wrote he must have heard of his flight, but not of the formal decision of the Council or of the imperial decree by which sentence of exile was pronounced upon him.

Dr. Bethune-Baker identifies this work with that mentioned by Evagrius. He conjectures that the Syriac translation may have been undertaken at the instance of Maraba, Catholicos of the Eastern Church, between 525 and 533, but no absolute certainty can be attained on this point.⁸ Apart from the reference to it by Ebedjesu it is not again heard of until the nineteenth century. The original manuscript is at Kotchanes in Kurdistan, and for several years its existence has been known to members of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyrian Christians, some of whom obtained copies of it. It was noticed in the last decade of the nineteenth century by two German scholars,⁹ and attention was called to it by Dr. Loofs of Halle in his Collection of Nestorian remains published in 1905.¹⁰ In 1908 Dr. Bethune-Baker published |xi his monograph, and in 1910 a Syriac text was published in Leipzig by P. Bedjan ¹¹ and a French translation in Paris by F. Nau.¹²

ii. The Text.

Our translation is based on Bedjan's Syriac text.¹³ Nestorius himself wrote his defence in Greek; his works were condemned to be burnt and only a few sermons and letters have survived in Greek and Latin.¹⁴ Now only the Nestorian liturgy and The Bazaar of Heracleides are known.

The Syriac translation of the latter work was made about 535 under the patriarch Paul, according to Bedjan ¹⁵; of this there is extant only one mutilated manuscript, which is preserved in the library of the Nestorian patriarch at Kotchanes, in Kurdistan. This manuscript has suffered considerable damage, chiefly at the hands of the Kurds on the occasion of the massacre of Nestorian Christians by the Kurdish chief Bedr Khan Bey in 1843.¹⁶ Of this manuscript Bedjan ¹⁷ says: 'According to the blank pages in the manuscripts which I have had in my hands, and according to certain brief notes of the copyists, I have reckoned that at page 146 of my edition [i. e. Syr., p. 146, as given at the top of each page in our translation] there are very nearly 55 pages which have |xii disappeared; at page 161, 42 pages are missing; at page 209, 36 pages have been lost. One can only make this calculation approximately. Further, there are passages where some lines have been left blank; other places of no considerable length have been obliterated by age.'

There are four copies of this manuscript, the first made in 1889 for the library of the American mission at Urmiyah. From this two other copies were made: one for the University of Cambridge, and the other for that of Strassburg. In addition to these, Bedjan had a copy, written partly at Van and partly at Kotchanes, from the original in the possession of the Nestorian patriarch. Of these manuscripts only the last mentioned, which is the archetype of all the others, is of any value for the text; Bedjan himself confesses that, where his text differs from that, the variations are errors or conjectural emendations of an original which was not accessible to him.

iii. Value of the Syriac Translation.

That the Syriac text is a translation is definitely stated by the writer of the 'Translator's Preface'.¹⁸ Fortunately, although the Greek original has been lost, we are in a position to estimate the value of this translation, since the Greek of certain passages has been preserved in the Fathers. In the first place, Bedjan ¹⁹ is undoubtedly right in seeing in the title 'the Bazaar of Heracleides' a mistake; the original Greek word seems to have been πραγματεία which connotes both 'business' and 'treatise', which the Syriac translator rendered by te'gurta 'merchandise'! There are, however, very few bad blunders in that part of the Syriac text which can be checked by a reference to the original Greek, as the following list shows, while in many cases the cause of the error can be detected:

[Omitted from the online text]

|xiii

Besides these obvious blunders, there is at least one instance of error through homoeoteleuton,²⁰ and one where an imperative is translated as if it were an optative.²¹

Secondly, there are a few errors for which no palaeographical explanation can be found:

[Omitted from the online text]

|xiv

No reason also can be assigned either for the fact that in the phrase 'he who begins and grows and is perfected is not God, although he is so called on account of the gradual growth' the translator always substitutes 'revelation' or 'manifestation' for 'growth' (Gk. αὔξησις),²² or for the fact that the name Aethericus regularly appears as Atticus in his version.²³

Seeing then that a certain number of errors can be charged to the account of the Syriac translator and proved against him, it is not too bold to assume in a few passages similar mistakes.

Finally, three other passages where the Greek and Syriac texts diverge may be mentioned.

[Omitted from the online text]

There seem also to be two passages where the double negative οὐ μή in Greek has led the translator into error. On p. 259, for the Syriac 'For I have not denied that Christ is not God', the context requires 'For I have not denied that Christ is God' ...; on p. 324, for the Syriac 'how do they escape from saying that the human attributes do not belong to the ousia of God the Word?', the context requires 'how then do they escape from saying that the human attributes belong to the ousia of God the Word?' ... Another Greek |xv construction over which the translator seems to have blundered is that of the double accusative. ...

[Omitted from the online text]

Against these errors there can be set a few passages where the Syriac version is clearly superior to the Greek original, and several others where it can be used to decide between alternative readings. In the first class come such passages as that on p. 234, where for the Greek ὑπόστασις the Syriac substitutes πρόσωπον in conformity with the regular usage of Nestorius; again, the Syriac rightly assigns the quotation on p. 244 to St. Luke, where the Greek has St. John.

In the second category fall the following passages:

[Omitted from the online text]

|xvi

The Syriac translation may therefore be accounted good after its kind. Though occasionally pedantically accurate, as when the see of Beroea of the original text is called by the translator that of Aleppo,²⁴ it aims generally rather at representing the sense of the original than at reproducing the Greek word for word; for the retention of the Greek redundant negative even against the sense in a few passages is due rather to the tendency of the Syriac language to model itself on Greek, regardless of the requirements of Semitic idiom, than to the slavish fidelity of the translator to his original. This is proved not only by the loose rendering of individual words and phrases----for example, of αἰδέσιμοι by 'beloved' (on p. 103)----but also by a certain laxity in regard to the translation of technical or semi-technical terms, due largely to the relative poverty of the Syriac language in comparison with the Greek; ... Against this, the translator accurately renders ἐκκαπηλεύειν, 'to adulterate' (on pp. 323-4), according to its peculiar usage in the Cyrillian writings.

The present editors, therefore, mindful of the fact that they are translating into a third language a translation----and that one which possesses no grace of style or elegance of diction----of a lost work, whose meaning depends solely on the precise value assigned to a number of technical terms, have frequently sacrificed the English to an endeavour to render faithfully the Syriac version, keeping as far as possible the same English word for the corresponding Syriac even at the cost of a certain harshness or awkwardness in many passages; for they have regarded it as their aim not so much to present the reader with their view of what Nestorius said as to enable him to form his own opinion from a careful and accurate version of the Syriac text. |xvii 

iv. History of the Controversy.²⁵

v. The Argument of The Bazaar.

Nestorius' apologia contains two lines of defence, historical and doctrinal. Although the one shades off into the other, as the doctrinal issues are called to his mind by the memory of the wrongs he has suffered, and vice versa, yet on the whole three sections of The Bazaar may be distinguished as historical sections²⁷ in contrast to the remainder of the book which is mainly occupied with theological discussion.

The references to the text in the Historical Summary above provide almost all the introduction needed for Nestorius' historical sections. His argument is twofold. He claims to show, first, that his own condemnation at Ephesus was unjust, and secondly, that the vindication of Flavian, who had suffered from the same causes and for the same faith as |xxx himself, was the vindication of all that he had stood for. To this end he gives a detailed account of the two Ephesian Councils of 431 and 449, showing how at the first Cyril by violence and bribery won imperial and episcopal assent to a verdict which was no genuine verdict of a council constitutionally assembled, while at the second Flavian had suffered in similar fashion at the hands of Dioscorus. But there was this difference. The injustice done to Flavian had been recognized by the Church and redressed, while that done to himself had not. So he claims that he never had a fair hearing, but was condemned untried for defending the faith which was ultimately accepted by the Church.²⁸

But though he is not lacking in a lively sense of the wrongs he has suffered, Nestorius realizes that the triumph of the truth is of more importance than his own fate. Indeed, in a notable passage he asserts his determination not to press his claim to have been vindicated in the vindication of Flavian lest the odium of his name should delay the complete victory of the true faith.²⁹ It is that victory for which he chiefly cares, and hence the main bulk of The Bazaar is occupied with the doctrinal discussion of the Christian faith in the Incarnation.

In Book I, Part I, Nestorius sets forth his views in contrast to those which he holds to be erroneous. The section, which is divided into ninety-three numbered sub-sections, to which titles have been added by the Syriac translator, is cast in the form of a dialogue with one Sophronius. Here Nestorius sets forth as it were the theme of his thesis, and the remaining doctrinal discussions are little more than variations on it. He begins by a brief review of errors. The heathen, the Jews, the Manichaeans, the followers of Paul of Samosata, of Photinus, and of Arius are described, and their doctrines criticized. The theories which deny either the true godhead or the true manhood of Christ, or which involve the changing of one into the other, or the production of a third nature by the combination of divine nature with human, are pilloried. In the fifty-fourth sub-section,³⁰ in passing over to the positive assertion of his own christological beliefs, he directly denies that he teaches |xxxi that there were 'Two Sons' in Christ, and the remaining sub-sections are mainly occupied with a statement of his own position, though the last five are again devoted to criticisms of other views already mentioned. Similar criticisms compose the short Part II of Book I. Having thus laid down his doctrinal position, in Part III Nestorius begins his historical review of the controversy between himself and Cyril. The remaining doctrinal discussions, lengthy as they are, do not carry us farther. They are concerned with contrasting his own views with those of Cyril and his followers, and repeat over and over again two points. On the one hand his own doctrines are shown to be consistent with the Scriptures,³¹ the faith of Nicaea,³² and the writings of accepted Fathers of the Church;³³ on the other hand the teaching of Cyril is exhibited as self-contradictory ³⁴ and, on the points at issue between Cyril and himself, as having affinities not with orthodoxy ³⁵ but with the heretics described in the opening section of the book.³⁶ The place of that opening section in the plan of the book can therefore clearly be seen. In it Nestorius describes the general doctrinal issues in the field of Christology, and sets the stage for the discussion of the particular points of the controversy between himself and Cyril.

What precisely did Nestorius teach? This is the question over which controversy has raged since the discovery of The Bazaar. It is not the object of the present volume to enter upon the discussion of this problem, but to provide English-speaking theologians with the necessary material to study it for themselves.³⁷ The following summary of undisputed facts may, however, be given without entrenching upon the questionable ground. It will be well first to state what Nestorius denies, and what he assert? |xxxii 

(i) He denies that the unity of Christ is a 'natural composition' in which two elements are combined by the will of some external 'creator'.³⁸

(ii) He denies that the Incarnation was effected by changing godhead into manhood or vice versa, or by forming a tertium quid from those two ousiai.³⁹

(iii) He denies that God was in Christ in the same way as in the saints.⁴⁰

(iv) He denies that either the godhead or the manhood of Christ are 'fictitious' or 'phantasmal', and not real.⁴¹

(v) He denies that the Incarnation involved any change in the godhead, or any suffering on the part of the Divine Logos who, as divine, is by nature impassible.⁴²

(vi) He denies that the union of two natures in one Christ involves any duality of sonship.⁴³

(vii) He asserts that the union is a voluntary union of godhead and manhood.⁴⁴

(viii) He asserts that the principle of union is to be found in the prosopa of the godhead and the manhood; these two prosdpa coalesced in one prosopon of Christ incarnate.⁴⁵

(ix) He asserts that this view alone provides for a real Incarnation, makes possible faith in a real atonement,⁴⁶ and provides a rationale of the sacramentalism of the Church.⁴⁷

It is clear that the crux of the question is to be found in the eighth of these points, and that the difficulty arises from the difficulty of determining the sense in which Nestorius used the word prosopon. His own theory can be stated almost in a dozen words. It is this: Christ is the union of the eternal Logos and the Son of Mary, the principle of the union being |xxxiii that the πρόσωπον of each has been taken by the other, so that there is one πρόσωπον of the two in the union. Did one know precisely what Nestorius meant by the word πρόσωπον, one would know precisely how he thought of the Incarnation, and would be able to decide whether the logical implications of his teaching are those of Nestorianism or of orthodoxy. It is certain that he himself did not wish to teach what is known as 'Nestorianism'. His denunciations of Paul of Samosata and his followers show that he had no sympathy with those who think of the Incarnation on adoptionist lines, and when accused of 'Nestorianism', as on pages 19 and 47, he indignantly repudiates any such views. The intention of his doctrine is accurately summed up in the heading inserted by the Syriac translator to the fifty-fourth section of the first part of The Bazaar----'Concerning this: that God the Word became incarnate and there were not two sons but one by a union.' ⁴⁸

Nestorius, then, accepted as a matter of religious belief the faith of the Church in a Christ who was truly God and truly man and truly one, and through reflection on this he produced a theological theory which he thought adequately related this belief to the knowledge of the universe gained by metaphysical investigation. The positive teaching of The Bazaar of Heracleides is simply an elaboration of this theory of a prosopic union. With wearisome iteration it is put forward again and again, and is shown to be satisfactory when tested by reference to the teaching of Scripture, the doctrine of the Fathers, the needs of religion, and the demands of the intellect.⁴⁹ In contrast to this the 'hypostatic union' of Cyril is shown to be unscriptural, unorthodox, destructive of true religion, and unintelligible----unscriptural because it ignores the scriptural distinction between the use of the words 'Logos' and 'Christ';⁵⁰ unorthodox since it involves if not Arianism, then docetism or Apollinarianism;⁵¹ destructive of true religion in that it abolishes the work of Christ as High Priest of the human race, undermines the doctrine of the Eucharist, and |xxxiv empties the Atonement of its meaning;⁵² and unintelligible to such an extent that sometimes one is simply baffled by the contradictions in his teaching,⁵³ and sometimes forced to conclude that he has confused the essential distinction between godhead and manhood, thus undermining the true humanity of Christ and dishonouring his divinity.⁵⁴

It seems possible that in this last point lies the solution of the vexed problem of what was at issue doctrinally between Cyril and Nestorius. Perhaps the most difficult task for Christian philosophy is the thinking out of its doctrine of creation, in which it is essential that man be conceived both as owing his existence to God and 'made of nothing' other than God, and yet also as in a real sense distinct from and other than God. If sometimes we are tempted to abandon the quest as hopeless, it is well to remember that even if we give up our Christianity we do not thereby remove our difficulty. The relation of the temporal to the eternal is no less difficult a problem for the secular philosopher than for the religious. Now in the fifth century the implications of the doctrine of creation do not seem to have been thought out. In the struggle with Arianism the Church had been forced, it seems for the first time, openly to face the question whether or no God could create directly and not only through some intermediate being, and the assertion that the Logos 'through whom all things were made' is 'of one substance with the Father' denies the impossibility of direct creation by God Himself. Before the implications of this assertion had time to be fully assimilated, the Church was stirred by the Christological controversies. In these all parties seem to have assumed a conception of the relations between godhead and manhood which made impossible any union of the two in Christ such as the Christian religion demanded. It was not noticed that it would also have made impossible any such direct creation by God as the Fathers at Nicaea had asserted, and was, in fact, a conception belonging to certain strains of ante-Nicene thought which ought to have been abandoned |xxxv through being found to require an Arian rather than an Athanasian Logos. But Apollinarius provoked reply too soon.

It is the heretics, Apollinarius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, who are the logically consistent upholders of this outworn conception of the relation between godhead and manhood. Cyril's teaching, no doubt without his realizing the fact, was inconsistent, for he had not consciously abandoned this ante-Nicene position, with the result that his positive teaching on the Incarnation, while consistent with the Nicene doctrine of Creation, demanded a revision of his conception of godhead and manhood, a fact which he does not seem to have realized. But, as has happened so often in the history of thought, the inconsistency of a thinker great enough to recognize truth at the cost of his system won for his thought a place in posterity far above that of the barren coherence of his rival.

Nestorius has been called a confused thinker, but careful study of The Bazaar of Heracleides makes it clear that, whatever he was, he was certainly not that. His few points are repeated again and again with monotonous consistency. His trouble was rather that that confusion in the apparent nature of things which is the challenge to thought was too many-sided for so narrow and precise a thinker as he. The Bazaar may be long, and full of needless repetition, but it never contradicts itself, and were it not for two facts might well be studied in an abbreviated edition. Only, first, when a man has been for centuries condemned unheard, it is hardly fair to enforce a closure on the time allotted to him for his defence; and, secondly, when there is difficulty in determining precisely what he is trying to say, it is possible that in the course of often repeating an argument some little variation of detail may give a clue to the meaning of the whole.

[Most of the footnotes have been reproduced here, but renumbered]

1. ¹ Socrates, Hist. Eccl. VII. xxxiv.

2. ² Cp. Evagrius, I. vii.

3. ³ Id. ib.

4. ⁴ Neander, Church History (Eng. Tr., T. and T. Clark, 1855), vol. iv, p. 207. 

5. ⁵ See p. xi, n. 4.

6. ¹ Cambridge University Press.

7. ² See below, pp. xxviii, 369, 375.

8. ³  See p. xi, and especially n. 5.

9. ⁴  H. Goussen, Martyrius Sahdona's Leben und Werke (Leipzig, 1897), and Braun, Das Buch der Synhodos (Stuttgart, 1900).

10. ⁵ Loofs, Nestoriana (Halle, 1905).

11. ¹  Nestorius, Le Livre d'Heraclide de Damas, édite par Paul Bedjan, P.D. L. M. (Lazariste), avec plusieurs appendices (Leipzig and Paris, 1910).

12. ²  Nestorius, Le Livre d' Heraclide de Damas, traduit en francais par F. Nau (Paris 1910).

13. ³  See Bedjan, op. cit., pp. viii-xi, whence our account of the text is drawn.

14. ⁴  At the end of the thirteenth century it is clear from the catalogue of the Bishop of Nisibis that most of Nestorius' works in Greek and Latin had disappeared; only a Syriac version of his Tragoedia, his Letter to Cosmos, his Liturgy, a volume of letters and another of sermons, besides The Bazaar of Heracleides, survived at that time (op. cit., pp. vii-viii).

15. ⁵ This date, however, seems to be at variance with the fact that the translator calls the Bishop of Beroea 'Bishop of Aleppo'; now if, as Nau states on this passage, the name of the see was changed from Beroea to Aleppo in a. d. 638, the translation must have been made after that date, provided that the original Syriac manuscript also has Aleppo (see p. 330, n. 1). The new (Eastern) name, however, may have been current long before the name of the see was officially changed.

16. ⁶ See p. 192.

17. ⁷ Op. cit., pp. viii-ix.

18. ¹ See p. 3.

19. ² Op. cit., p. viii, n. 2.

20. ² See pp. 241-2, and crit. n. on p. 400.

21. ³ See pp. 302-3.

22. ²  See p. 200, n. 1.

23. ³ See p. 355, n. 3.

24. ¹ See p. 330, n. 1.

25. ¹ This summary is compiled from B. J. Kidd; A History of the Church to A.D. 461 (Oxford University Press, 1922), vol. iii, chs. xi-xvi.

26. ¹ τῆς θεοτόκου.

27. ² pp. 96-142, 265-93, 329-80.

28. ¹ See pp. 176, 374.

29. ² P. 378, cp. p. 370.

30. ³ P. 47.

31. ¹ Pp. 46-55, 64-70, 164-7, 188, 192-203, 207, 228-30, 256-9.

32. ² Pp. 143-6, 168-71,181-2, 263-5

33. ³ Pp. 168, 191-203, 214 -17, 220-2, 223-5, 261-3, 316. 

34. ⁴ Pp. 150-6, 161, 169, 170, 303, 316-17, 322-3. 

35. ⁵ Pp. 142-3, 146-50, 173-5.

36. ⁶  Pp. 129, 162, 176-81, 210-11, 240-1.

37. ⁷  A contribution to the discussion by one of the two editors is reprinted as Appendix IV, and it has not been possible entirely to keep his views out of the notes on the text, though this has been done as far as could be.

38. ¹  Pp. 9, 36-43, 84-6, 161, 179, 294, 300-1, 303-4, 314.

39. ²   Pp. 14-18, 24-8,33-7, 80, 182.

40. ³ P. 52.

41. ⁴   Pp. 15, 80, 172-3, 182, 195, 208.

42. ⁵  Pp. 39-41, 92, 93, 178-9,181, 184, 210-12.

43. ⁶  Pp. 47-50, 146, 160, 189-91, 196, 209-10, 215, 225, 227, 237-8, 295-302, 314- 317.

44. ⁷ Pp. 37, 179, 181, 182.

45. ⁸  Pp. 23, 53-62, 81, 89, 156-9, 163-4, 172, 182, 207, 218-19, 227, 231-3, 245-8, 260-1.

46. ⁹  Pp. 62-76, 205, 212-14, 253.

47. ¹⁰ Pp. 32, 55, 254-6.

48. ¹ P. 47.

49. ² E.g., pp. 188 sq., 263. 33 and 213, 308-10.

50. ³ E.g., pp. 188 sq.

51. ⁴ E.g., pp. 150, 304.

52. ¹ E.g., pp. 248 sq., 212.

53. ² E.g., pp. 257, 297, 303.

54. ³ E. g., pp. 232, 238-40, 250, 294.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.