^{page 144 note 1} See xi. 6.13, Flood and Tower of Babel; 239–242, the Jews suffer from famine; 307–314, the Roman conquest of Egypt is a punishment for the oppression of the Israelites; xii. 103–112, the conquest of Palestine under Vespasian; 132, ούράνιος σαβαώθ; 152, sufferings of the Jews under Trajan; 291–2, against idolatry; 16. 283, the ‘Kingdom of God’; 360–1, rule of the άγνòν έθνος. In xii. 195–200 there is mention of rain sent by ‘the God of heaven’ in answer to the prayer of Marcus Aurelius: the writer apparently assumes that the pious emperor prayed to the true God (of the Jews).

^{page 145 note 1} Of the Sibylline Oracles, some are the work of Jews, some are Jewish documents rewritten or revised by Christians, and some were composed by Christians.

^{page 145 note 2} That is the method adopted, for instance, by the Cassandra of Aeschylus, when she speaks of the past history of the House of Atreus. Similarly, in the story told by Herodotus (i. 47), the Pythia of Delphi convinced Croesus of the truth of her utterances, by telling his messengers what was going on in his kitchen.

^{page 145 note 3} Cf. Theophilus, ad Autolycum (180–190 A.D) 2. 2: πλεļονες … έγενήθησαν παρά έβραļοις (SC. προφήται), άλλά και παρά Έλλησιν, τά τε πρò αύτών γεγενημένα και τά κατ αύτούς γεγονòτα και τά καθ ήμάς νυνι τελεļούμενα διď και πεπεισμεθα και περι τών μελλ óντων οϋτως έσεσθαι, καθώς και τάπρώřα άπήρτιοται. See Sib. IV. 18–22.

^{page 146 note 1} Die Oracula Sibyllina, 1902, and Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Orac. Sibyll., 1902. Geffcken says ‘Der Verfasser von Buch XIV. ist durchaus Phantast ’: here and there emerges, at most, ‘ein voriibergehender vernunftiger Moment in der allgemeinen Raserei.’ ‘ In Buch XIV. tobt ein Ignorant, der gar nichts kennt als Namen der Vblker, Lander, und Stadte, und diese beliebig durcheinander wirft, bald mit diesem, bald mit jenem Motiv der Tradition gedankenlos spielend.’ The writer is a ‘ Faselprophet,’ and his work a ‘ Phantasmen. tanz’ (Kompos. und Entstehungszeit, pp. 66 sq.). He places the date of Book XIV. ‘ in the fourth century at the earliest.’

^{page 146 note 2} Ewald, Abhandlungen der K. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, Bd. VIII. 1858–9; Hist.Phil. Klasse, pp. 43–152. A more recent attempt to explain the book as a description of historical persons aud events has been made by A. Wirth (Das vierzehnte Buch der Sibyllinen, Wiener Studien, XIV. 1892, pp. 35 sqq.).

^{page 148 note 1} M = Codex Ambrosianus E 64 sup.: fifteenth century. Q = Codex Vaticanus 1120: fourteenth century. V = Codex Vaticanus 743: fourteenth century. H = Codex Monacensis Gr. 312: A.D. 1541. Ω = MQVH.

^{page 148 note 2} The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 1902. ‘The subject,’ he says, ‘has been wrapped in profound obscurity; to enter upon it was to enter a gloomy labyrinth of contradictions. … I have been forced to disagree with nearly all the received conclusions upon the subject of the conquest.’

^{page 148 note 3} So Chron. Pasch.: cf. Gerland, Die persischen Feldziige des K. Herahleios, in Byzantimsche Zeitschr. III. 1894, pp. 330 sqq. Theophanes puts this attack of the Avars in 619 A.D.; but Chron. Pasch is the better authority.

^{page 150 note 1} Butler, p. 119, and p. 116, n. 2. See the letter of Chosroes to Heraclius (Bury, Hist. of Latey Roman Emtire, II. p. 220), in which the Persian king speaks of himself as ‘the king and master of the whole earth.’

^{page 150 note 2} Bury, II. 171.

^{page 151 note 1} Geffcken here wrongly alters ‘ωμη into ‘Pωμη. The phrase is imitated from such passages as Jeremiah xlvi. II, λάβε ῥητίνην τή παρθένω θυγατπι Aιγύπτου;Isaiah xlvii.I, κάθισον έπί γήν παρθένος Bαβρ; Isaiah xxxvii. 22,έμυκτήρισεν σε παρθένος σειων (the virgin daughter of Zion).By an extension of the same usage, παρθένοςάγνή is employed by Christian Sibyllists to signify the People of God–i.e. the Church: VIII. 270, 291, 358; II. 312; I.359 ππ. Cf. the νύμφη of Apoc. Joh.

^{page 151 note 2} Bury, II. p.200: ‘Phocas conceived the ill-timed idea of constraining all the Jews to, become Christians. The consequence of this policy was a great revolt of the Hebrews in Antioch…. Bonosus. a creature of Phocas, who was …sent to put down the rising, cast out all the Jews from the city (610 A.D.).’

^{page 151 note 3} Butler, pp. 843, based on John of Nikiou.

^{page 152 note 1} Other possible words are κτίστωρ, οἰκιστήρ, and οίκήτωρ. μνηστήρ or μνησήρ would give good sense, but the change is greater.

^{page 152 note 2} IIάρθων, for instance, might stand for Persians as appropriately as 'Iταλίη for Byzan tines.

^{page 152 note 3} Cf. Agathias ii. 30. When Justinian closed the schools of Athens (529 A.D.), the last pagan philosophers migrated to Persia, which they p, believed to be a sort of Ideal Republic, ruled by a a Platonic philosopher-king, τούτοἰς δή τοίς ύπό των πολλων περιαδομένοις άναπεπεισμένοι, ως εἰη παῥ έκείνοις δικαιьτατον μήν τò âρχον, … σωφρον δ⋯ ⋯ς μάλιστα καί κότήκοον, και ούτε φ⋯ρες χρημάτων ούτε άρπαγες άναφύονται,κ,τ,λ.‘Common talk’ to this effect may well have reached the ears of our Sibyllist also.

^{page 153 note 1} Theophylactus expressly states that he gives the exact words of the original letter; but if that is the case, the Persian king (or his secretary) must have learnt Greek composition in the same school as the Byzantine historian. Professor Bury's account of this incident, and of the arguments used by Chosroes (Hist. Later Roman Empire, II. III), differs considerably from that of Theophylactus (iv. II), the only authority to which he refers.

^{page 155 note 1} For a description of the Persian conquest of Egypt from the point of view of the Copts, see a prophetic narrative contained in the Life of Shenoudi (or Anba Shanudah), the Coptic original of which was written about A.D. 685 or 690 (Amelineau; Butler, p. 88): ‘The Persians shall come down into Egypt and make great slaughter: they shall plunder the goods of the Egyptians and shall sell their children for gold–so fierce is their oppression and their iniquity. Great calamities shall they cause to Egypt: for they shall take the holy vessels from the churches and drink wine before the altar without fear, and they shall dishonour women before their husbands. The evil and the suffering shall be very great; and of the remnant one-third shall perish in distress and affliction, Then after a while the Persians shall leave Egypt.’

^{page 157 note 1} The substitution of παιδει for Πέραι in two different places gives cause to suspect some intentional mystification. It is possible that the writer, or some transcriber, had a reason for not making the application of the passage apparent to every reader, and adopted the device of substituting for the significant name another word with the same initial. It is to be noted that the prophecy predicting the rule of another race in place of the Romans, 11. 2803, which immediately precedes the beginning of the section on Egypt, contains the line παιδες και παιδων γενεηασάλεντος ύπάρξει. (Compare VIII. 131–136.) The author of the Egyptian section had this line before his eyes; and whatever may have been the original application of that prediction, a reader whose thoughts were full of the over throw of the Roman power by Chosroes would necessarily apply it to the Persians. From his point of view, then, the words παιδες και Περσών γενεή;and this may have suggested the substitution of παîδες for Πέρσαι in 11. 289 and 300.

^{page 157 note 2} Sebeos, as quoted by Drapeyron, L'Empereur Heraclius et I'empire byzantine, p. 133; Bury II.p.220.

^{page 157 note 3} Caesarea (in Cappadocia), taken by the Persians in A.D. 609 (?); Jerusalem, in A.D. 615; Alexandria, in A.D. 617.

^{page 157 note 4} Another possible solution would be to interchange Πέρσαι and τρις, and read όπóταν πέρσαιτρισολύμπια νικήνωνιν, in the sense ‘have won incomparable victory.’ (Cf. τρισαρειοπαγιτης, a stern judge, Cic. Att. 4. 15. 4.) The phrase τρισολύμπια νικηνωσιν might have been suggested the compound τρισολύμπιοικης.

^{page 157 note 5} Cf. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4. 702: πρώτα μένάτρέπτοιο λντήριον ήγøóνοιο|τειναμένη καθύπερθεσυòς τέκος ής έτι μαξοι|πλήμμυρον λοχιης έκ νηδύος, αιματιλείρας|τέγγεν, έπιτμήγονσα δέρηνEustath. ad odyss.(Anrich, Antike Mysterienwesen, p. 53):δτι και δι αιματος έν κáθαρσις… óποια καιή τών øονέν οî αιματι νιπτόμενοι καθá ρ ςσιον ειχοναύτό

^{page 157 note 6} It is true that the practice of sacrificing animal victims was retained in the Coptic Church (Eutychius, Migne, Patr. Gr. t. iii, col. 1005, in Butler, p. 374, n. 1) and in other Eastern Churches; and a Jew would know the g rules of animal sacrifice as laid down in the book of his Law. But what possible reason could the writer have for referring to such sacrifices in this passage ? The line, in its present position, appears to depend on the preceding θέσøνρα λέξη but the Sibyllist certainly could not speak of a purificatory sacrifice as a thing commanded, in his own day, by any oracle which he recognized.

^{page 158 note 1} On the other hand, Micah 5. 8, καì éσται τòúπóλιμμα' Iακὼβ èν τοîς èθνεσιν èν μέσΨ πολλŵν λαŵν ὡς λéων èν κτήνεσιν κ.τ.λ. (And in the song Moses in Deuteronomy, Judah is a lion.) But this is a reversal of the more usual imagery.

^{page 158 note 2} Cf. the proceedings of Bonosus at Antioch, mentioned above.

^{page 158 note 3} Wilamowitz objects that lions do not wield lances. But symbolical lions are subject to no oisuch restrictions; and in 1. 319 the Lion holds a sceptre.

^{page 158 note 4} τινάσση (Rzach) might seem a more suitable word than τανúση; but the change is hardly of necessary; cf. XIV. 128: èκτανúσει λóγχην θυμοøθóρον ' Aρμενíοισιν. If the long υ is questionable, it is easy to write τανúσóη.

^{page 158 note 5} For χρŵτα καθή in this sense, cf. Lucian, Dial. Meretr., 13. 3: εìτ' èπιδραμὼν άπεδειροτóμησα τή τή σπάθη καì … èπανήλθον … λελουμéνος τΨ øóνΨ. In Sib. III. 695, πάντες ήíματι λοúσονται, the sense is different: ‘the wicked will be drenched in their own blood.’

^{page 159 note 1} Also Sib. VIII. 332 (Christian): τούς προτέρους δ σπόθυ κσι λουσομαι σιμαρορ. (προτ⋯ρους δ' ⋯π⋯θου ΦΨ: πρότερου δ' ⋯πωθο⋯ Ω—λούσομαι Ω: λ⋯σον άø' ΦΨ). Read και λούσαι αø αιμαρος αύτον: ‘Put away your former gods, and wash in the blood of Christ.’ αø, as in Hdt. 3. 23, áποκρηνης λονμενος

^{page 159 note 2} This statement gives further support to the os view that these lines were written at a time the power of Chosroes was not yet overthrown, and the Persians still held possession of Egypt.

^{page 160 note 1} The line in III.—if ŕρεîς is the true reading there—may have been derived from some oracle originally referring to three Roman tyrants—e.g. the Triumviri.

^{page 162 note 1} Butler, p. 76. The story told by Severus implies that all the inhabitants of Alexandria were Melkites-that is, adherents of the Orthodox Imperial Church and opponents of the Monophysite Copts; and he consequently speaks of the slaughter with complacency. A large number of the inhabitants of the city no doubt were Melkites; and the Melkites, as they were the one party that had unquestionable reason to desire the continuance of the Roman rule, were likely to suffer the worst severities at the hands of the Persians.

^{page 162 note 2} Dr.Butler (pp. 82–3), while denying that the Copts sided with and helped the Persian invaders, admits that the Jews probably did so.

^{page 162 note 3} The word βάρβρoι is applied to the Romans in VIII. 95: αία σι, ITαλή Xώρη µηγα βάρβαρOν φνoς.

^{page 164 note 1} Bury, II. 220. See note on 11. 287–295.

^{page 164 note 2} Bury, II. 218, describes the political position of Heraclius in similar terms: ‘His actions were limited by the aristocracy, which seems to have assumed an independent position; he was, in point of power, rather the first man of the senate than an emperor raised above all alike.’ The distinction between the Roman and the Persian constitution is rightly marked by speaking of the Roman emperor as a leader of free-born men, and the Persian king as a master of slaves; though the Jew, a slave under either ruler, prefers the good master to the bad.

^{page 164 note 3} In XIV. 247–9, έπώνυµoν should be restored The MSS. there give—

καί τότε τρεῖς βασιλεῖζ ⋯π' ⋯γλα⋯ τε⋯χεα 'Pώµης ἔσοOνται, δύΟ µέν πρŵτον άριθµŵν κατέχogr;ντες, είς δέ φέρων νέικος τò µετὡνυµον οίά περ οδεις (247 βασιήες conj. Alexandre. —248 πρŵτον κατέχοντες άριθµóν v conj. Nauck.) These three rulers have not been identified, As to the third line, Alexandre (altering νείκς into νικος) says: ‘Aperte nomen aliquod intelligendum victoriae affine, ut Nicias, Nicetas, Nicephorus,’ etc. But what can be meant by Tò µεTνυµον? ‘The name that was given him in place of another name’ ?

The line becomes much more intelligible if we read ελç δè øéρων εìκοστòν (sc. άπιθμòν) èπὡνυμον, ‘bearing the twentieth number to signify his name.’ We have then the three initials A, A, and K.

The Sibyllist's account of these three men (XIV. 247–260) suits the three rulers of 238 A.D., Imperator Pupienus Augustus, Imperator Balbinus Augustus, and Gordianus Caesar—at least if we take αὐτοì in 1. 250 (and consequently all that follows) to apply to the two Augusti only, the actual rulers, as opposed to the boy-Caesar, who was nominally associated with them. The writer has in this instance given the initials of the titles (A, A, K), instead of the personal names. Indeed, the words οîά περ οὐδegr;íç in the third line almost necessarily imply that it is a title that is spoken of. Gordianus could be said to bear the title Caesar ‘ as no one else did ’; for he was the only living person (besides the two Augusti) on whom that honour was conferred; but it would be absurd to say that he was named Gordianus ‘as no one else was.’

But it is possible to assign a more definite meaning to οῖά περ οὐδεíç. In an Egyptian contract dated September, 238 A. D. (Papyr. Erzherzog Rainer, Mittheil. Bd. II. p. 31), the titles of these three rulers are given in full: L β αὐτοκρατοροç καισαροç μαρκοὐ κλωδιου πουπιηνου ευσεβ ευτυχιου καλουινου και αυτοκρατος καισαρος δεκιμου καιλιου καλουινου βαλβεινου ευσεβους εντυχους σεβαστου και μαρκου αντωνιου γορδιανου του ιερωτατου καισαρος. Gordianus was not merely Caesar, but Nobilissimus Caesar; and íερὡτατος is here substituted for the Latin nobilissimus. (Cf. row γενναιοοτατου και επιøανεστατου καισαρος, of the younger Philippus, in a document of 251 A.D., ib.) The words οîά περ οὐδεíς, then, are probably the Sibyllist's equivalent for the superlative adjective of the official title.

For another instance of the indication of titles by numerals, see XIII. 21–5: αúτíκα δ' αὖτ' άρξει øιλοπóρøυρος αìχμητής τε | èκ συρíης προøανεíς Aρεος øóβος éν τε καì υíΨ | Kαíσαρι, κα` πεíσει (πéρσει, Alex.) πάâσαν χøóνα τοδνομα δ' αùτοîς | èκ (éν, Alex.) πéλετ' àμøοτéροισιν èπì πρὡτου κεìκóστου | πéντ' (πéνθ', Alex) éκατοντάδες εìσì τεθειμéναι. The context makes it certain that Tεθειµναι The context makes it certain that the two Philippi, father and son, are the persons meant. The initials indicated are AΦ and Kɸ. Does A stand for AῠγονσTος or AùTοκράTωρ? In two documents, dated 246 A.D. (Erzh. Rainer, ib. p. 25) the titles stand thus; αúTοκρς Καισαρος κùισαρος µ. ιονλιου Øιλιππου ε. ε. και µ. ιολιυ Øιλιππου Tου γευυαιοTαTου και και επιøανεσTαTου καισαρου σεβασTων Cf. C. I. G. 5010, Tων κυριων ηµων Øιλιππων σεβασTων. Both father and son then are σεβαασTοι —i.e. Augusti: but the father alone is αúTοΚράTωρ. Hence the initials given by the Sibyllist must be taken as standing for AùTοκράTωρ Φιλιππος and Kαιίσαρ Φιλιππος. (The son's title Caesar is also given in full in 1. 23 of the Sibylline text; but as it would be superfluous to give it twice over, and the phrase in which it occurs is unintelligible, the word Kaiirapiis probably a marginal explanation which has made its way into the text. Read e.g. Aρμς for Kαισαρι.)

Accordingly, the A, A, and K. of XIV. 248–9 may be taken as representing AυTο (πουπιης), AùTοκράTωρ (Bαλβεῖνος), and (Ó ιερώTος) Kαι7δαρ (ορδιανóς). Now at the beginning of XIII. there is a gap in the prophetic chronicle, extending from the death of Alexander Severus in 235 A. D. to the beginning of the Persian War of Gordianus in 241 A.D. Between these two points we have only a few detached verses (XIII. 7–12), which may be referred to the reign of Maximinus, 235–8 A.D. That which is missing, then, between 11. 12 and 13 of Book XIII. is an account of the ephemeral reign of Pupienus and Balbinus and the accession of Gordianus; and that is precisely what we find in XIV. 247–60. It therefore seems almost certain that XIV. 247–60 originally stood between XIII. 12 and XIII. 13. The paragraph accidentally slipped out of its proper place, but was preserved as a detached fragment, and was ultimately written in, with other detached fragments, at the end of the continuous chronicle.

^{page 165 note 1} For a paraphrase of αιTΟΚράTώρ, cf. αιδεσθŵµεν Tò ‘Pωµαιων αὐTοδσποtον κράTον ΚραTος, in a speech of Heraclius in Theophanes (ed. De Boor, I. p. 307), which is evidently borrowed from an iambic poem-probably a lost poem of Georg. Pisid. (Bury, II. 231, n. 1). In the original, perhaps, αιδεισφε ‘Pώµης αὐTοδησποTον ΚρáTος.