EN XVIa: ἐπίστησον μή (or εἰ μή)

The expression ἐπίστησον εἰ, or ἐπίστησον μή, or ἐπίστησον εἰ μή, calling for the reader’s attention, is characteristic of Origen and Didymus, who both used it and appear extremely keen to apply the elegant rhetorical construction (thirty-one instances in the former, forty-six in the latter). Eusebius used it only once. Origen may have taken it up from Plutarch. Later still, Proclus followed suit. Consequently, use of this simple construction is generally a strong indication that either Origen or Didymus is the author of a certain text. Since Cassian himself never used either of those constructions, it is certain that he quotes from Didymus’ Commentary on the Apocalypse.

EN XVIb: ἐφαρμόζει τὸ ὄνομα

The expression τὸ ὄνομα ἐφαρμόζειν (‘this name applies to’) comes from Aristotle. Alexander of Aphrodisias, who was preceded by Philo, characteristically used it. Origen took it up, which comes as no surprise, since Alexander was the author from whom Origen had learnt almost everything he knew about Aristotle, and above all the notion of homonyms. It was then natural for Gregory of Nyssa to follow. Theodoret fails to use it, even though it occurs in a theologian he admired, namely Theodore of Mopsuestia. On the other hand, that Didymus used this is one more strong indication that this Scholion quotes ad verbum from his Commentary on the Apocalypse.

1

Verginius Rufus has received a state funeral. He was not only great but fortunate, living thirty years beyond his moment of glory, dying under a good emperor, and receiving a funeral oration from Tacitus. He had a good life, but we shall miss him, I myself especially: as my guardian he showed me the love of a parent and more. Hence my grief – but I am consoled by his undying glory.

Book 2 opens in grand style and with a grand subject. As governor of Germania Superior in ad 68, Verginius Rufus had crushed Julius Vindex's revolt against Nero, then pledged loyalty to Galba rather than pursue the throne himself; he returned to prominence as an octogenarian consul in Nerva's new principate (Jan. 97). His death and funeral, and the dramatic date of this letter, can be fixed to the last two months of that year (§6n. laudatus). P. revisits his great deeds in 6.10 and 9.19, quoting Verginius’ self-composed epitaph (hic situs est Rufus, pulso qui Vindice quondam | imperium asseruit non sibi sed patriae); he begins here with his death.

Epistles in brief

The early second century ad saw publication of the Epistles, a nine-book collection of 247 letters. Together with the Panegyricus (an address to Trajan) and 124 letters to and from Trajan known as Epistles 10, this collection comprises the surviving literary legacy of Pliny the Younger.

The second book is a typical medley of twenty pieces addressed to a range of elite personal acquaintances. Their status as letters is self-evident from the formulaic trappings of heading (e.g. C. Plinivs Romano svo s.) and sign-off (vale) and from the invocation of epistolary topoi – brevity, intimacy, humility – marking them as specific, personal and occasional. Yet these conventions are not uniformly invoked: nothing about 2.7, for instance, beyond heading and sign-off marks it as a letter, while explicit signs of epistolarity are confined to the opening and close of the long, elaborate 2.11 (Priscus) and 2.17 (villa). Editing is obvious: details, dates and names have been smoothed away, the particular is turned to the general, and the sheer complexity of structure and literary texture strains against ephemerality. As a scripted collection (this commentary will argue), Epistles 1–9 constitutes an open, public and monumental work of very grand design.

EN IVa: Τοὺς τρεῖς χρóνους

Changing the non-capital lambda of the word λóγος to a capital one (Λóγος) makes a substantial difference. A lower-case lambda means, ‘the teaching (of this passage of Revelation) has included all three tenses (of the verbs used therein)’. In that case, λóγος betokens ‘teaching’, and the author would have suggested ‘the teaching of this scriptural passage’. This rendering, however, can be definitely excluded on account of the sentence that follows: ‘Being aware of this, John the Theologian says . . .’ What John ‘is aware of’ is obviously not the ‘three tenses’ of verbs, which he himself used, but the deeper meaning of the statement, ‘the Logos encompasses all time’. This time is understood to be a ‘tripartite’ one (past, present, future): the Logos is the Lord of all time, and dominates all History, which is a quotation from Clement of Alexandria styling the Logos ‘the alpha and the omega’.

This Scholion integrates two major traditions: one, the Hellenic (Stoic) concept of the Logos as a universal principle, which is ‘god’, even though the term is employed by John in a substantially different context. Second, the biblical concept of Christ (also transformed in import), which is dominant in Paul’s theology. The aim is to show that this passage of Revelation is compatible with both John and Paul, since it expresses the same theology about the Second Person of the Trinity. Hence the parallel expressions referring to John and Paul respectively: Τοῦτο ἐπιστάμενος ὁ θεολóγος Ἰωάννης, and Χριστòν αὐτòν ἐπιστάμενος, ὁ ἀπóστολóς φησιν.