TWOGIG
Philopatris : A Satirical Dialogue (circa 331-363 AD)
• [Baldwin] Of unknown authorship, uncertain date, and debatable purpose, the Philopatris is one of the more curious documents to emanate from later antiquity. It's frequently peculiar language and its attempt to fuse traditional elements of Platonic/ Lucianic dialogue with the new demands of Christian orthodoxy conspire to make it a work of considerable interest to the student of late Greek literature.
(Baldwin, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, 1982, p. 321)
• [Marciniak] The Philopatris falls naturally into two parts. The first one is a discussion between Triephon and Kritias, seeking to prove that mythological stories are nonsensical and that Christianity (though this term itself is never used) is the true religion. The second part tells the story of the encounter of Kritias first with people of the agora of a city and then with some unidentified gloomy characters, prophesying a disaster that will soon befall the native land of Kritias (perhaps Constantinople, but this is disputable). The text ends with the sudden appearance of a certain Kleolaos and the praise of an unnamed emperor.
(Marciniak, Chapter 9 The Power of Old and New Logoi: The Philopatris Revisited, 2020, p. 180)
• [Baldwin] Three considerations rule out the satirist [Lucian as the author]. First, the indifferent Greek, with its faltering syntax and confusion of dialects. Second, much of the piece is a ”centro” of phrases and effects from genuine Lucianic works. Finally, the mention of [the term] ἐξισωτής* or peraequator, (i.e.,”an official") [the use of which is] not attested before the reign of Constantine [306-327 AD].
(Baldwin, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, 1982, p. 321)
• [Macleod] *ἐξισωταὶ (Latin peraequatores) were officials first heard of under Constantine, whose duty was the fair division of taxes. (Lucian, Vol. 8, Translated by M.D. Macleod, 1967, p. 451, fn 1)
• [Baldwin] The idea that the Philopatris is a Byzantine work originated in 1813 with
C.B. Hase. ...Apparent precision and victory came in 1902 with the detailed study of
Salomon Reinach, who narrowed it down to the reign of Nicephorus Phocas, the spring or either 969 or 965. This dating has acquired almost a canonical status, although in point of fact the arguments for it are few and weak. ... Reinach essentially rested his case on two items: 1) linguistic detail [the Greek term στρατηγέτης] and 2) an alleged historical allusion [recapture of Crete from the Saracens in 961].
1. ...The word στρατηγέτης has come to light in an inscription from Miletus of 196 BC. [Hence overturning this date marker claimed by Reinach.]
2. Crete suffered a great deal in the Byzantine period and one hardly requires formal corroboration from history or chronicle to assume the frequency of atrocity. For obvious instances, many must have perished when the Saracens occupied the island in 826, or during the brief reoccupation of the island by the logothete (i.e., prime minister) Theoctistus in 843-844. The allusion of Triepho simply cannot be pinned down. And it may well not refer to anything historical at all. The mention comes in a sequence of exclusively literary and mythological items. It is preceded by Athene and
the Gorgon, and postluded by Hera. Nothing precludes the notion that Triepho is alluding to the sacrifice of maidens in a Cretan ritual: the Minotaur very likely, or something to do with Britomartis*
. ... And with regard to the apparently contemporary nature of the Cretan episode, it will again be remembered that items from Greek mythology are presented in the dialogue as recent events. Close scrutiny of the language reinforces suspicion that the virgins of Crete are simply one more in a literary sequence. ... On all counts, the supposed reference to Nicephorus Phocas hardly stands up: its place in the dialogue suggests that it is just one of the agglomeration of mythological examples, and in terms of language, nothing more than a literary cento. With the passage eliminated as a contemporary [historical] allusion, Reinach's dating loses its foundations. There is no other clue so seemingly tangible - the general situation envisaged in the dialogue suits any number of periods.
* Note: Britomartis was Greek goddess of mountains and hunting, who was primarily worshipped on the island of Crete.
• Baldwin, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, 1982, p. 324-326.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VBgJfKA1ZAwC&pg=PA324
• [Marciniak] Triephon, one of the two interlocutors, mentions a massacre of virgins on Crete, and such a massacre took place when the island was recaptured by Phokas in 961. However, Baldwin might be right in thinking that Triephon refers to yet another mythological story such as the myth of the Minotaur.
(Marciniak, Chapter 9 The Power of Old and New Logoi: The Philopatris Revisited, 2020, p. 180)
• [Baldwin] As Reinach and others have observed, an attack on pagans makes no sense after the sixth century or thereabouts, for the good reason that there were no pagans as such to attack. A Julianic date [331-363 AD] might look attractive here, or the reign of Justinian [527-565 AD], for obvious reasons, and the references to the external enemies and frontiers would suit either of these. So might the choice of a peraequator to be Critias' friend, since we have seen that that official [the term/title] is best attested to in these two periods.
(Baldwin, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, 1982, p. 343)
• [Baldwin] If it could be shown that Philopatris had a definite purpose, it might be possible to assign it plausibly to some particular period, even reign [of a particular ruler]. But as we have seen, there is no agreement over this. The older view was that it was an attack on Christianity; Reinach and others have tended to reverse that notion. Macleod [editor of the Loeb edition] sensibly calls its purpose uncertain, suggesting that the first part is ”a light-hearted attack on contemporary humanists who had excessive enthusiasm for classical culture", whilst the second half ”is more serious and appeals to all patriots to support the emperor in his great campaigns.”
(Baldwin, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, 1982, p. 340-341)
• [Baldwin] Philopatris would appear to be a piece of self-advertisement for the author, to be taken along with the hint at poverty and hopes for suitable imperial largess expressed in the final section.
(Baldwin, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, 1982, p. 341)
HITS:
Critias: And by whom shall I swear?
Triepho: The mighty God that rules on high, Immortal dwelling in the sky, the Son [begotten] from
the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, one in three and three out of one, think him
your”Zeus", consider him your God.
Critias: You’re teaching me to count, and using arithmetic for your oath. For you are counting like
Nicomachus, the Gerasene. For I don’t know what you mean by”three in one and one in three”.You
don’t mean Pythagoras four numbers, or his eighty, or his thirty.
Triepho:”Speak not of things below that none may tell.”We don’t measure footprints of fleas here. For I
shall teach you what is all, who existed before all else and how the universe works. For only the other
day, I too was in the same state as you, when I was met by a Galilean with receding hair and a long
nose, who walked on air into the third heaven and acquired the most glorious knowledge, he
regenerated us with water, led us into the paths of the blessed and ransomed us from the impious
places. If you listen to me, I shall make you too a man in truth.
Critias: Speak on, most learned Triepho; for fear is upon me.
Triepho: Have you ever read the poetic composition of the dramatist Aristophones called”The Birds”?
Critias: Certainly I have.
Triepho: He wrote the following words:
“At first Chaos there was and night,
Black Erebos and Tartarus broad,
But naught of earth or air or sky”
Critias: Bravo! Then what followed?
Triepho: There was light imperishable, invisible, incomprehensible, which dispels the darkness and
has banished this confusion; by a single word spoken by him, as the slow-tongued one recorded, he
planted land on the waters, spread out the heavens, fashioned the fixed stars, appointed the course of
the planets which you revere as gods, beautified the earth with flowers and brought man into existence
out of nothingness. He exists in the heavens, looking down upon the just and the unjust, and writing
down their deeds in his books, and he shall requite all men on his own appointed day.
• Lucian, Philopatris, in Loeb library Lucian Vol. 8, 1967, Translated by M.D. Macleod, p. 435, 437, 439, 441.
ΚΡΙΤΙΑΣ [12] Καὶ τίνα ἐπομόσωμαί γε;
ΤΡΙΕΦΩΝ Ὑψιμέδοντα θεόν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα, υἱὸν ἐκ πατρός, πνεῦμα ἐκ
πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἓν ἐκ τριῶν καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία, τοῦτον νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ' ἡγοῦ θεόν.
ΚΡΙΤΙΑΣ Ἀριθμέειν με διδάσκεις, καὶ ὅρκος ἡ ἀριθμητική· καὶ γὰρ ἀριθμέεις ὡς Νικόμαχος ὁ
Γερασηνός. οὐκ οἶδα γὰρ τί λέγεις, ἓν τρία, τρία ἕν. μὴ τὴν τετρακτὺν φῂς τὴν Πυθαγόρου ἢ τὴν
ὀγδοάδα καὶ τριακάδα;
ΤΡΙΕΦΩΝ Σίγα τὰ νέρθε καὶ τὰ σιγῆς ἄξια. οὐκ ἔσθ' ὧδε μετρεῖν τὰ ψυλλῶν ἴχνη. ἐγὼ γάρ σε
διδάξω τί τὸ πᾶν καὶ τίς ὁ πρῴην πάντων καὶ τί τὸ σύστημα τοῦ παντός· καὶ γὰρ πρῴην κἀγὼ
ταῦτα ἔπασχον ἅπερ σύ, ἡνίκα δέ μοι Γαλιλαῖος ἐνέτυχεν, ἀναφαλαντίας, ἐπίρρινος, ἐς τρίτον
οὐρανὸν ἀεροβατήσας καὶ τὰ κάλλιστα ἐκμεμαθηκώς, δι' ὕδατος ἡμᾶς ἀνεγέννησεν, ἐς τὰ τῶν
μακάρων ἴχνια παρεισώδευσε καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀσεβῶν χώρων ἡμᾶς ἐλυτρώσατο. καὶ σὲ ποιήσω, ἤν
μου ἀκούῃς, ἐπ' ἀληθείας ἄνθρωπον.
ΚΡΙΤΙΑΣ [13] Λέγε, ὦ πολυμαθέστατε Τριεφῶν· διὰ φόβου γὰρ ἔρχομαι.
ΤΡΙΕΦΩΝ Ἀνέγνωκάς ποτε τὰ τοῦ Ἀριστοφάνους τοῦ δραματοποιοῦ Ὄρνιθας ποιημάτια;
ΚΡΙΤΙΑΣ Καὶ μάλα.
ΤΡΙΕΦΩΝ Ἐγκεχάρακται παρ' αὐτοῦ τοιόνδε· Χάος ἦν καὶ Νὺξ Ἔρεβός τε μέλαν πρῶτον καὶ
Τάρταρος εὐρύς· γῆ δ' οὐδ' ἀὴρ οὐδ' οὐρανὸς ἦν.
ΚΡΙΤΙΑΣ Εὖ λέγεις. εἶτα τί ἦν;
ΤΡΙΕΦΩΝ Ἦν φῶς ἄφθιτον ἀόρατον ἀκατανόητον, ὃ λύει τὸ σκότος καὶ τὴν ἀκοσμίαν ταύτην
ἀπήλασε, λόγῳ μόνῳ ῥηθέντι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὁ βραδύγλωσσος ἀπεγράψατο, γῆν ἔπηξεν ἐφ'
ὕδασιν, οὐρανὸν ἐτάνυσεν, ἀστέρας ἐμόρφωσεν ἀπλανεῖς, δρόμον διετάξατο, οὓς σὺ σέβῃ
θεούς, γῆν δὲ τοῖς ἄνθεσιν ἐκαλλώπισεν, ἄνθρωπον ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ἐς τὸ εἶναι παρήγαγε, καὶ ἔστιν
ἐν οὐρανῷ βλέπων δικαίους τε κἀδίκους καὶ ἐν βίβλοις τὰς πράξεις ἀπογραφόμενος·
ἀνταποδώσει δὲ πᾶσιν ἣν ἡμέραν αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο.
• Lucian, Philopatris, in Loeb library Lucian Vol. 8, 1967, p. 434, 436, 438, 440.
Comments:
[Marciniak] The Philopatris has been transmitted in six manuscripts, of which
the earliest dates back to the 14th century. With the exception of the Escurialensis Σ I 12 (14th c.) the dialogue is transmitted in the company of other Lucianic texts. This obviously resulted in the false impression that it was a genuine work of Lucian. Yet, Lucianic authorship was denied already by the Byzantines. (Marciniak, Chapter 9 The Power of Old and New Logoi: The Philopatris Revisited, 2020, p. 179)
[Baldwin] Triepho is a very rare name - indeed, some older commentators wished to alter it to Tripho or Trupho. ...but in view of his theological emphasis on the Trinity, it seems likely that the name was intended to connote the Trinity and his devotion to it ("Three-in-one").
(Baldwin, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, 1982, p. 342)
[Burton] There can be no doubt, that when this dialogue was written, it was commonly known to the heathen, that the Christians believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though in one sense three, in another sense to be one: and if the dialogue was written by Lucian, who lived in the latter part of the second century, it would be one of the strongest testimonies remaining to the doctrine of the Trinity. This was acknowledged by
Socinus, who says in one of his works, ”that he had never read any ”thing which gave greater proof of a worship of ”the Trinity being then received among Christians, than the passage which is brought from the” dialogue entitled Philopatris, and which is reckoned among the works of Lucian [Defens. Animadv. adversus Gab. Eutropium, c. 15. p. 698]. ”He then observes, that the dialogue is generally supposed by the learned to be falsely ascribed to Lucian; and he adds some arguments which might make the passage of less weight, in proving that all Christians of that day believed a Trinity in Unity. I have no inclination to notice these arguments: but Socinus was correct in saying that the learned had generally decided against the genuineness of this dialogue as a work of Lucian.
Bishop Bull [Def. Fid. Nic. II. 4, 11. Jud. Eccl. Cath. IV. r.] believed it to be genuine, and
Fabricius [Bibl. Gr. vol. III. p. 504. Lux Evang. p. 153.] was inclined to do the same. Some have ascribed it to a writer older than the time of Lucian; others, to one of the same age; and others, to much later periods. I need only refer the reader to discussions of the subject by
Dodwell [De Jure Laicorum Sacerdotali, p. 284],
Blondell [De episcopis et Presbyteris, p. 228],
Lardner [Credibility, Art. Lucian. vol. VII. p. 285, etc.], &c.: but J. M.
Gesner has considered the question in a long and able Dissertation [Published in Vol. III. of the edition of
Lucian by Reitzius, 1743], the object of which is to prove that the Philopatris was written in the reign of Julian the apostate. His arguments appear to me to deserve much attention; and though the learned do not seem in general to have adopted his conclusion, I feel so far convinced by them, that I cannot bring forward this remarkable passage, as the testimony of a writer of the second century.
(
Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, 1831, p. 31-33)
[Cave] Now let us turn to the dialog itself [Philopatris], the primary aim of which is to ridicule Christians and their faith, rites and customs. This is what both pages are all about, and it thrusts itself on the eyes of anyone who looks. I will give a single example out of many. It concerns the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Critias asks who that-God-is by whom he must swear. Triephon (whom the author portrays as a Christian catechumen) replies that it is a God reigning on high, great, eternal and ethereal, ”a Son of the Father, a Spirit proceeding from the Father, one out of three and three out of one: think these (three) to be Zeus, consider that (one) as God. ”Nothing could have been said more precisely or more eloquently. Where did a Gentile get this from? You will say, ”from the common doctrine of Christians in this period.” I will say,”No, but rather from the sacred source of the New Testament, and from no other passage than this same of St John, as the very sayings of the Apostle are being used expressly, sayings that are found laid out in so many words nowhere else in the whole New Testament, nor even in any of the Holy Fathers of the previous three centuries. This will become clear from the following parallel. You perceive here every thing consonant; the same sense brought forward on each side or column, in almost the same words. By an argument to me more than probable, it appears to have been taken out of the testimony of St. John; and hence this text of the Heavenly Witnesses must have had a place in the most ancient Codices.
(Cave,”St. John, the Apostle”in Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria, 1720, vol 1, p. 17.)
o William Cave (30 December 1637 – 4 August 1713)[1] was an English divine and patristic scholar. Cave was born at Pickwell, Leicestershire, of which parish his father, John Cave was vicar. He was educated at Oakham School and St John's College, Cambridge.[2] He took his B.A. degree in 1656, his M.A. in 1660, his DD in 1672, and in 1681 he was incorporated DD at Oxford. He was vicar of St Mary's, Islington (1662–91), rector of All-Hallows the Great, Upper
Thames Street, London (1679–89), and in 1690 became vicar of Isleworth in Middlesex, at that
time a quiet place which suited his studious temper. Cave was also chaplain to Charles II, and
in 1684 became a canon of Windsor, where he died. He was buried at St Mary's, Islington, near
his wife and children. The merits of Cave as a writer consist in the thoroughness of his research,
the clearness of his style, and, above all, the admirably lucid method of his arrangement.[4] The
two works on which his reputation principally rests are the Apostolici; or, The History of the
Lives, Acts, Death and Martyrdoms of those who were contemporary with, or immediately
succeeded the Apostles (1677), and Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria (1688).
Dowling says that the works of Cave”rank undoubtedly among those which have affected the
progress of Church-history. His smaller works greatly tended to extend an acquaintance with
Christian Antiquity; his Lives of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers, which may be regarded as
an Ecclesiastical history of the first four centuries, is to this very day [i.e. 1838] the most learned
work of the kind which has been written in our own language; and his Historia Literaria is still the
best and most convenient complete work on the literary history of the Church."[5] Though he is
sometimes criticised for not being critical with his sources, that failing means that many of his
works, particularly Antiquitates Apostolicae and Apostolici contain a wealth of legendary
material, culled from a wide variety of sources, much of which is not readily available elsewhere.
Cave is said to have been”of a learned and communicative conversation;”he is also reported to
have been”a florid and eloquent preacher,”and the printed sermons he has left behind bear out
this character.
(William Cave. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cave>)
