Undiscussed testimonium of Ta huper Thoulen apista

DANA, NS . AD DAN DANA UNDISCUSSED TESTIMONIUM OF TA YIIEP 80YAHN AIIETA (EUSEBIUS, C. HIER. 17) T& brèp OoûAnv Gmota, the strange novel of Antonius Diogenes!, preserved only in Photius’ epitome (Bibl., cod. 166, 109 a — 112 a) and some fragments, is also known from a few testimonia (but it seems well that, in comparison with the novels preserved, The Incredible Things beyond Thule enjoyed more testimonies). One of these testimonies appears to have been overlooked by those interested in this novel. This short notice concerns Eusebius’ mention of novel’s title, in the early fourth century, implying, in addition, a meaning of highly unreliable account for Antonius’ writing. The text runs as follows: Eusebius, Contra Hieroclem 17: Tata Kai and tod Sevtépov mapadépevor tapev Eni TÔ tpitov ta Kat& toc PePonévoug érowópevor Bpaypôvas: Evda Ei Tè drip OobAnv Anıcra Kal el ti nep GAAO tepatddéc note puBokóyorg tioiv dvanémAaota, ed pada mort Kal GAnoEotata, ds Ev rapadtgeı Tobrwv, dvapavOrjcetat’. And, in Conybeare’s translation: “After setting before you these incidents out of the second book, let us pass on to the third, and consider the stories about the ! See M. Fusillo, s.u. Antonios [3, Diogenes], in Der Neue Pauly, 1, Stuttgan, 1996, 806-807. 7 Ed. É. des Places, Paris, 1986, 138, Il. 1-5 (Eusèbe de Césarée, Contre Hierocles. Introduction, traduction et notes par M. Forrat; Texte grec établi par É. des Places, Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1986 [Sources Chrétiennes, 333}). tt is noteworthy that des Places recognized without difficulty Antonius’ novel (mentioned in his apparatus for Fontes), since he had published few years before a new critical edition of Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras (Paris, Belles Lettres, 1982), where this novel is an important source. Consequently, M. Forrat translated as “les «Merveilles d’au-delä de Thulé»” (p. 139, and n. 1; and then follows: “et tout autre récit prodigieux jamais inventé par les mythologues apparaîtront tout à fait dignes de foi et véridique, en comparaison de cette histoire"), this is the usual French translation, and also the translation from des Places’ edition of Porphyry (but see René Henry's more appropriate Les merveilles incroyables d'au delà de Thulé). Another editor of Porphyry, A. Nauck, mentioned too Eusebius’ passage for the novel (Porphyrii philosophi platonici opuscula setecta, Leipzig. 1886. XI n. 5). SICH XXXIV-XXXVI 1998-2000, Bucuresti, p. 141-143 …

Dan Dana far-famed Brahmans. For here we shall have to admit that The Incredible Things beyond Thule, and any other miraculous legends ever invented by any story-tellers, turn out to be by comparison with these quite reliable and perfectly true”. M. Forrat dated Hierocles’ anti-Christian treatise (traditionally known as Lover of the Truth) to 303, and Eusebius’ refutation to 31 1-312". The method of Hierocles (pagan governor of Bithyny under Diocletian)’ consisted mainly in raising a parallel between Jesus and his religious hero, the divine Apollonius of Tyana (by charging the founder of Christianity of imposture and lesser importance in comparison with Apollonius); and, since his main source was Philostratus’ “hagiographic” Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Eusebius's refutation was directed 3 Undiscussed testimonium of Ta brèp Ooùnv &mota 143 So, this testimony’ turns out to be, chronologically, the second, after Porphyry’s large use of the novel in his Life of Pythagoras*. More important is furthermore the treatment of Eusebius: he implies a highly unreliable image for The Incredible Things beyond Thule, as an obvious fictional work, in the field of paradoxographical and mythological literature. December 2000 Ecole Doctorale en Sciences Sociales 1 Schitu Magureanu Su. 70626 Bucharest principally against the work of the Athenian rhetor. Hierocles attacks Jesus Christ in two ways: the proof of magic; and the Euhemerism. Therefore, the critical method used by Eusebius consisted in returning to Hierocles the charge of credulity (which he imputed to the Christians); he begins by refuting the historicity of Philostratus’ work (choosing his weakest points: incoherence, contradictions, untruthfulness, excess of marvels). Even if he gives to the reader the impression that he follows with accuracy the development of Philostratus, in fact he chooses everything good for ruining Apollonius’ reputation, namely the prodigies the most untrustworthy (as, by example, his insistence on the Brahmans, chapp. 17~25)°. 3 Trans. F. C. Conybeare, Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. The Epistles of Apolfonius and the Treatise of Eusebius, Il, Cambridge (Mass.}-London, Loeb, 1950, 525 and 527. Conybeare gives simply, in his translation, “the tales of Thule”. As pointed Higg, Contra Hieroclem has through the centuries been secured life and potential readership principally as a regular appendix to the editions of V. Apoll. * Recently, T. Hägg asserted that the author of Contra Hieroclem was not the famous bishop of Caesarea, and consequently this theory would have the merit of solving the contradictions conceming the chronology as well as the paradox of “Eusebius the sophist™; the title of Hierocles' treatise would have been Ovradnens Aóyog pds Xprotiavovs (“A truthful discourse (directed) to the Christians” ]; also for him, the date of his redaction is before the persecutions (cf. Hieroctes the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist, SymbOsl, 67, 1992, 138-150); accordingly. T. D. Barnes seems to accept that the author of Contra Hieroctem is an otherwise unknown accidental homonym (probably a Christian sophist in Asia Minor) (Scholarship or Propaganda? Porphyry Against the Christians and its Historical Setting, BICS, 39, 1994, 60 and n. 35). $ For Hierocles, see T. D. Barnes, Sossianus Hierocles und the Antecedents of the “Great Persecution”, HSCPh, 80, 1976, 239-252; and M. Forrat, passin. ° M. Format, op. cit. esp. 56-74. ” Other testimonies are collected in the excellent work of S. A. Stephens-J. J. Winkler, Ancient Greek Novels. The Fragments (Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary), Princeton (New Jersey), 1995, 120-129: Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 1.33.8 (kai Aroyévy tov tè &miote ypdwavra): Servius, ad Georg. 1.30; Synesius. Ep. 128 (onép t@v Enexeiva GobAns) (these three treat the novel as a benchmark of unbelievable, just like Eusebius’ passage, unfortunately overlooked); Schol. Lucian Ver. Hist. 2.12 (1a Ozêp CovAnv tepatokoyoüpeva — Rabe, 21, 23) (Stephens-Winkler, 130-147, including Photius’ epitome too [from which we may cite, for the title, 109 a: "Avtwviov AloyEvovg Tv brëp Bobinv äriotwv Aóyor «5; and 110 b: cai ouprAnpottar "Avtovio Atoyévet 6 eixootds tpitos Aóyos tv Onép GovAnv êmypapopévav rietwv]); consider also the fragments from John Lydus (De mens. 3.5: Aroyévmg év tots bnèp GovAny Get: and 4.42: Awyévng dE Ev tots tmoxmdexärm dniotwv), and Porphyry (for instance V. Pyth. 10, Atoyévous 5 Ev toig vmép üniotorg). From among he papyri proposed to belong to our novel, only two are undoubtedly convincing: PSI 1177, and P. Oxy. 3012. It is uncertain if the first one to mention the “Amora is Serenus Sammonicus (d. 212, mentioned by Servius in the company of Diogenes). M. Marcovich put in relation Porphyry V. Pyth. 44, Lydus De mens. 4.42, and Hippolytus Ref. 1.2.14-15, about the bean taboo; the common “Urquelle” would be Antonius Diogenes. expressly cited by Lydus. who indicates the text as belonging to the thirteenth book (Pythagorica, “Philologus”, 108, 1964, 29-44, esp. 29-32; see also his edition of Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium, Berlin-New York, 1986, 18, 51, 60-61). Some of the testimonia were mentioned previously in W. von Christ-O. Stählin-W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Il. Munich, 1913°, 650 n. 7. Another testimony: Olympiodorus, in Meteo. 1.13 (AG XII. p.108). # See the discussion for Antonius Diogenes’ date in Stephens-Winkler, op. cit, 118-199: the two papyri mentioned above may be assigned to the late second or early third centuries.