Numenius and Greek Sources of Justin's Theology



Yüklə 83,69 Kb.
tarix17.11.2018
ölçüsü83,69 Kb.

Numenius and Greek Sources of Justin's Theology
Marian Hillar

Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies

Houston, TX
Introduction

Someone estimated that there have been about 23,000 Christianities. I would venture to say further that there are probably as many Christianities as there are believers claiming to be Christians. Such a statement, however, is not productive for the evaluation of evolution of a religion. It would be better if we could differentiate some general patterns in the development of a key religious doctrine. It seems that the evolution of Christianity can be analyzed in terms of four general patterns:

1. Jewish messianism with the figure of the messiah as a glorified man and the expected earthly

Kingdom of God. This is the basic message of the Gospels.

2. Hellenistic Christianity in its two forms: in one the messiah figure was transformed into cosmic

Greek Logos; and the other Gnostic, in which Logos is only one of many divine manifestations.

3. Trinitarian or syncretic Christianity which tends to reemphasize the unitarian character of the

divinity preserving the Greek triadic speculations and incorporating especially the Egyptian triune doctrine.

4. Servetian unitarian Christianity which interprets divinity and its manifestations as a historical,

modalistic process.

My interest in studying Christianity is focused on the evolution of this religion and finding the sources of theological doctrines and links between its various stages.

Justin Martyr (114-165 C.E.) is the first Christian apologist who speculated on religious matters in philosophical terms of his time and developed one of the first systems of Christian theological thought.i Due to his background in Greek schooling, he reinterpreted the story of the New Testament in terms of Greek religious-philosophical concepts just like Philo reinterpreted the Old Testament, and followed his road to Hellenization of the Hebrew myth. The primary influence exerted on him was the writings of Philo of Alexandria, whom he mentions by name three times in the Dialogue with Trypho,ii and the Greek Middle Platonic philosopher Numenius.



Justin=s Triadic Formula

When Justin mentions that Christians believe in the Triad -- the Most true God who is the Father, the Second (God), and the Third (God) -- he refers directly to the discussion among his contemporary Middle Platonists. We have testimony of this discussion preserved in the fragments of the philosophical writings of Numenius of Apamea in Syria (fl. ca 150 C.E.).iii We know nothing about his life. Johannes Laurentius Lydus (ca 410-465 C.E.), a Byzantine philosopher, mentions his name with the sobriquet Roman (Νoυμήvιoς  Ρωμαoς) which would indicate that Numenius stayed in Rome.iv His name is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (ca 150-215 C.E.).v Preserved fragments are from: On the Good (Περ τγαθo), a work modeled on the dialogues of Plato; a treatise, On the Infidelity of the Academy to Plato (Περ τς 'Ακαδημαϊκv πρς Πλάτωvα διαστάσεως); On the Secrets of Plato (Περ τv παρά Πλάτωvι πoρρήτωv); On the Incorruptibility of the Soul (Περ φθαρσίας ψυχς).

The triadic speculations are nothing new. We find them in Greek philosophy, as well as in Egyptian religion.vi Particularly striking is the agreement of the Numenius doctrine with that presented in the so-called Chaldaean Oracles.vii The reason probably is because both the Numenius and the Chaldaean Oracles have the same source, namely, the Platonic tradition via Xenocrates. This was the current theological doctrine of the second century. Numenius, in turn, influenced the Christian apologist, Justin, the Greek philosophers Plotinus and Porphyry, and later Eusebius of Caesarea.

Greek Sources of Justin=s Theology

Xenocrates of Chalcedonviii (d. 314 B.C.E.) was the second successor of Plato in his Academy after Speusippus. We have only fragments of their writings and testimonies left by others about their doctrines. They both elaborated further on the existence of cosmic principles stated by Plato in his Philebus.ix Eventually such speculations led to the abandonment of the theory of Ideas as separate entities and to postulating the Ideas as the thoughts of the divine intellect. As Pythagoras ascribed a great role to the numbers and Plato described the cosmos as an expression of geometrical and mathematical regularities,x it seems that Speusippus and Xenocrates substituted numbers for the Ideas just fusing the ideal and mathematical entities. Xenocrates, however, claimed that there are no separate numbers from sensible things.xi

Xenocrates's philosophy constitutes an important transition to Middle Platonism. He derived everything that exists from the supreme Monad (κ τo voς) identified with the Intellect and from the Non-One (εvάov) which he identified with matter or the indefinite Dyad ( oρηστoς δυάς) due to its multiplicity.xii He tried to preserve the Platonic concept of Ideas as the models of things so he treated them as numbers because just as numbers are defining things, so Ideas are defining matter. They are the invisible, comprehensible by intellect, and incorporeal principles of the sensible reality imparted from the supreme Monad.


In his theology, Xenocratesxiii differentiated two cosmic principles as divinities -- the Monad ( μovάς) and the Dyad ( δυάς). One was the masculine divinity, and, as such, had a role of the Father and ruled in heaven. He proclaimed it to be the one (singular) and the intellect. This was the supreme deity, the First God, immovable and unchanging, called Zeus. The other was the feminine divinity, that had a role of the Mother of Gods and ruled over the gods beneath the heaven -- she was the Soul of the Universe. Clement of Alexandria ascribed to Xenocrates the distinction between Zeus the supreme God, the Father, and the other inferior God, the Son (τov μv πατov Δία, τv δ vέατov καλv, μφασιv πατρς πoλείπει κα υo).

Others, like Tertullian, claimed that Xenocrates differentiated only two groups of Gods:

the astral Olympians and the Titans derived from earth. Thus the astral bodies would be the instruments of the Monad, and the sublunar Titans and Demons linked to the invisible corporeal elements would represent the manifestations of the Dyad.

Numenius: Immediate Source of Justin=s Theology

Numenius is most interesting because he developed further such concepts of Greek philosophical tradition (as One, Demiurge, Father, Logos, Mother, World Soul) into a theological system by introducing explicitly a system of hierarchical cosmic entities, two or three Gods, interrelated by πρόσχρησις, which signifies a desired dependence and provenance. Such a conception could have an appeal to the philosophically oriented early Christians who operated within the framework of the biblical formulations. Moreover, Numenius was acquainted with the Hebrew and Christian scriptural tradition,xiv a fact which could have gained for him sympathy from the Christian side. Eusebius praised Numenius for deriving his ideas from Plato and Moses. Numenius himself declared Plato to be just "Moses who speaks the Attic language."xv There is a complete correlation between the two systems, that of Justin and that of Numenius (Table 1). The major difference is in the identification by Justin of the historical Jesus with the Second and subordinate Divinity, and his transformation into a cosmic being: Christ, Logos or Son of God.

The starting point for Justin, as well as later for Tertullian, is the baptismal formula which had a significance defined by its Hebrew and ritualistic original character. Justin and Tertullian added to it a cosmic dimension and transferred it from the religious platform to the philosophical level explaining it in cosmic ontological terms. Justin was influenced by the triadic Middle Platonic solution of Numenius and adopted his cosmic ontological concepts to Christian historical mythology. Tertullian will mix it later with the Egyptian trinitarian pattern.xvi

The innovation which was introduced by Numenius to the Pythagorean-Platonic religious doctrines was the introduction of a second transcendental and noetic entity between the supreme being and the universe. He, undoubtedly influenced by Plato's statement about the three principles in the universe transmitted by Xenocrates, derived the concept of the three Gods from distinguishing "all things in their rank and order." First, after thorough analysis of the Platonic concepts of Being and Becoming, he establishes, that which exists is incorporeal (σώματov) and intelligible (voητόv), and has the name of Substance and Being (τo σωμάτo εvαι voμα oσίαv κα v).xvii Having established that Existing Substance and the Idea are intelligible and the Mind is their cause, Numenius concludes that the Mind alone is Good.xviii Now from the life-process of the supreme Divinity (Mind) he derives his statement about the three Gods (or Minds):



The First God, who exists in himself, is simple; for as He absolutely deals with none but Himself, He is in no way divisible; however, the Second God and the Third God are One. When however this (unity) is brought together with Matter, which is Doubleness, the (One Divinity) indeed unites it, but is by Matter split, inasmuch as Matter is full of desires, and in a flowing condition. But inasmuch as He is not only in relation with the Intelligible, which would be more suitable to His own nature, He forgets himself, while He gazes on Matter, and cares for it. He comes into touch with the Perceptible, and busies Himself with it; He leads it up into His own nature, because He was moved by desire for Matter.xix

Thus the First God is characterized as the First Mind, the Good-in-itself (ατoαγαθov), Self-existence (ατ v). He exists in himself, is simple and not divisible.xx He does not create and remains idle (ργόv) from all the labors of the creation as would a king.xxi

The Second God, the Creator (πoιητής, δημιoυργός) rules by passing through the heavens. What is his function? On his passage the mind is projected down to earth on all who are destined to participate. Whenever the divinity looks on any of us, life and animation of bodies is the result, and whenever the divinity turns himself toward himself, all animation is extinguished.xxii

The Second Divinity remains in a subordinate position to the First One. As the Creative Divinity he is the principle of Becoming (γεvέσεως), so must the Good be principle of existing Being (oσίας). And the Creative Divinity is analogous to the First, so must Becoming be related to Being (Substance), because he is his image (εκώv) and imitation (μίμημα).xxiii


The Second Divinity in this theory is the Demiurge who has a double character -- either he participates in the First God, then he is called the Second God, or he turns himself to the matter and produces the World out of formless matter (since his nature is being Creator), then he is called the Third God and even may be regarded as the World. His essence, too, inasmuch as he is the Good of Becoming, must be Good-in-itself connatural or cognate (σύμφυτov) to the substance of the First God. Thus Numenius classifies the Demiurge, the Second God, as analogous to the First God, his image and imitation.

The Second God and the Third God are one whenever he is united with the Matter (dyad). Because the Second God not only remains in relation with the intelligible (appropriate for his nature), but also with the perceptible, so, whenever he gazes on Matter, he forgets himself and comes into touch with the perceptible moved by desire for Matter.xxiv

In this philosophy, since the First transcendental God was unknown to man, did not create, was impassible, and contented himself with contemplation, the Second God was needed as an agent of creation and animation. Moreover, if it was not necessary for the First God to create, then he could be considered the Father of the Second God, the Demiurge. And it was for reason of piety that Numenius denied the direct creative function to the First God. The

Demiurge rules in heaven, and is busy with both the intelligible and the sensible, through him happens all that happens.xxv Just as the pilot who sails at sea and looks to the sky to find his way, similarly does the Creator that is linked to matter by many connections, regulates its harmony through ideas. By looking up to God on high he receives his critical judgment, but his impulsive motion from the desire for Matter.xxvi



And we humans exist in our terrestrial life when the Intellect (animation) is sent down to us. When God looks at us and turns to each one, the bodies become alive by uniting with his radiation (divine nous). When God turns away, all that animation is extinguished while the Intellect continues its blissful life.xxvii

The participatory relation between the First God and the Second God Numenius illustrates by using several analogies: that of a farmer and planter, that of donor and receiver, of a fire kindled from another fire, of knowledge partaken by the receiver from the donor.xxviii This participation of the Second God in the First becomes still more pronounced as he receives his goodness from the First by a process of thought so that the Good is One (τ γαθv τι στv v). He really becomes one with the First God.

This relation to the First God remains in complete accord with the Platonic paradigm of Ideas: just as humans and everything else are modeled on Ideas, so the Good which is the Idea of Good is the Idea of the Demiurge.xxix

In another fragment Numenius is reported to teach a triad formulated using another metaphor, namely that there are three Gods -- the First whom he calls Father (πατέρα), the Second, whom he calls Creator (πoιητv), and the Third -- Creation (πoίημα). Thus the Creator would be double -- as the First and the Second God. And using poetic language, they could be described in terms of filial descendance as the Fore-Father (πάππov), Offspring or Son (γγovov), and Descendant or Grandson (πόγovov).xxx Thus, in the final analysis, the First God is the cause of everything and has absolute control. For though he is impassible, he has an innate motion from which derives the order (i.e. beauty) of the world, and the salvation of all.xxxi And he uses the Second God who is his different function to organize the Matter, thus creating the world:

Numenius relates the First (Mind) to that which is really alive(κατ τ  στι ζov); and he says, that it thinks, out of desire (v πρoσχρήσει) for the Second (God). The Second Mind he relates to the Intellect that becomes creative out of desire for the Third; and the Third he relates to discursive Thinking (κατ τv διαvooύμεvov), that is human thinking.xxxii

In conclusion to this reasoning, Numenius declares that there are four entities (πραγμάτα) with the following names:

1. The First God who is the Good-in-itself, pure Intellect;

2. The good Demiurge, God Creator, his imitator;

3. The one Substance (Essence) which is shared by the two -- the First God, and the Second God;

4. The copy of this Substance (Essence), the beautiful (i.e. ordered) World which is

beautified, i.e. ordered from disorder, by its participation in the Beauty.xxxiii

Conclusions


Justin=s theology derived from the Hellenistic interpretation of the scriptural material and constitutes the first step leading to Nicaea.

According to Justin, there are three (or two) separate divine entities popularly worshiped by the Christians: God the Father whose substance is God's Pneuma, the second Pneuma is the Logos or the Son of God, and the third Pneuma is the Holy or Prophetic Pneuma. Justin, however, claims that in reality the two Pneumas, the Holy Pneuma and the Logos Pneuma are one and the same Pneuma and, only according to the functions it performs, it assumes different characteristics and identities, and therefore is described by different names. The names of the three divine entities are derived from biblical terms found in the Old and New Testament and the baptismal formula. These terms were hypostatized and interpreted in the light of Greek philosophical and theological speculations.

By extension, the three Pneumas differentiated by Justin must be the same as God's Pneuma since they originated from it. So they would be three aspects or functions within the unity of God's substance. Such an interpretation can also be applied to the Greek divinities. But this point was not emphasized by Justin, on the contrary, he insisted on the subordination of these two Pneumas to the First Pneuma, God the Father. Thus there is no trace of the post-Nicaean Trinity in Justin's writings understood as the triune divinity, but a hierarchically organized triad as he believed in only one God, God the Father. The Logos and the Holy Pneuma had subordinate ranks, being in the second and third place, respectively, and entirely dependent on the will of God the Father.

Table 1

Comparison of the Two Systems:


Justin Martyr

God is the Father,

the First God;

Father of all

His substance is Pneuma;

He is ungenerated (unbegotten);

He is unchangeable;

He is impassible;

He is ineffable (unutterable);

He is nameless;

He is eternal (always existing);

He is Demiurge, creator or begetter of all things but not directly, through the second God, his Son or Logos;

He sows the Logos;

He is Master of all;

He is the cause of the second God's power and existence.

He is principle of life;

Numenius
The First God,

The First Mind;

Father of the Second God;

He is simple, indivisible;

Good-in-itself, source of being

and idea;

He is principle of being();

Is idle, does not create directly;

Is impassible (stable);

Is occupied with the intelligibles;

In final analysis He is the cause

of everything;

From him comes the order of the world, its eternity and salvation;

He thinks out of desire () for the Second God;

The First God is related to the

Second like farmer to the planter, for he sows the seeds of all souls;

He is related to that which is alive, is a principle of life;




The Second in rank:

the Logos (Word), the Son, Jesus Christ; Scond)Pneuma;

First Power of God;

Identified with Logos;

Logos is with? God and is

his first-generated (begotten) of God as the Son of God;

It (He) came from the Father

before the beginning of the

world;


Logos generated the universe out

of shapeless substratum;

It (He) generated himself as a

man Jesus (quite in Greek manner of Zeus's sons) by taking shape of man through the power and will of the Father;

It (He) depends on the Father;

is identified often with the

Third entity in rank, the

Prophetic Pneuma);

It (He) is a teacher;

Every human partakes of Logos

i.e. has a part of it;

It (He) is Seed of God;

Son and Logos as generated being has names:

as Christ - name associated with being anointed by God for ordering all things

as Jesus - name associated with being Savior and for the destruction of demons; Lawgiver of the new covenant;

also angel and apostle;

Justin identified Logos with the

World Soul of Plato;

He does not accomplish anything

without the power and will of God the Father


The Second God or Mind

It (He) direct agent of creation, Demiurge;

Is agent of animation;

It (He) is occupied with the intelligibles and sensibles;

It (He) becomes creative out of desire for the third God;

when he is turned toward us the bodies are animated by his

radiations with which they are

united;


It (He) is principle of becoming;

The Second God, the lawgiver,

transplants and distributes what was planted from above, i.e. by the First God;

The Second God is good by participating in the Good of the First;

As God Demiurge is to the Good

so is becoming to being

(substance) i.e. as image

to an imitation;

It (He) has double character

- when he participates in the First God then he is the Second God,

- when he participates in the world (matter) which he creates then he is the Third God;

It (He) produces from himself his own Idea and the World;

It (He) generates the world out of desire for the Third God;

It (He) implants, distributes, and

transplants into each of men

the seed planted by the First

God -- the noetic part of the soul.


The Third in rank

The Prophetic Pneuma (Spirit);

also called the Holy Pneuma (Spirit);

Divine Pneuma (Spirit);

often identified with the

Second in rank, with the

Logos and God;

It (He) moves prophets;

It (He) speaks as a human person;

It (He) speaks as person of God;

It (He) speaks as person of Christ;

It (He) speaks as person of people;

If it (he) is separate from the Second Pneuma its generation must be by analogy the same as that of the Second in rank;
Relationship between the

Three
The Son, Logos born by

emanation from the Father without abscission, by analogy to fire kindled from the fire, rays of sun to the sun, voice uttered from the source.

The same mechanism must be supposed for the Prophetic Pnuema (Spirit) since in reality it is the same being.

The Third God or Mind

The Third God - Creation;

As world it is produced by the Second God.

As intellect it is related to human discursive thinking.


Relationship between the

Three
Relationship between the First and the Second is as:

fire kindled from the fire, farmer and planter,

donor and receiver, knowledge partaken by the receiver from the donor;

Relationship as between Father- Creator to Creation;

Other metaphor:

Father - Son (Offspring) - Descendant (Grandson)

There are four things ():

1. the First God, Good in itself;

2. his imitation, good Demiurge;

3. being (substance) () which is shared between the two: that of the First God and that of the Second God;

4. imitation of being (substance) which is beautiful cosmos, ordered (beautified) by participating in the Beauty of the First God.

Everything is in everything;

The Good is one because the second God partakes of the First.






Notes and Bibliography

ii. Leslie William Barnard, Justin Martyr. His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1967). Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr. An



Investigation into Conceptions of Early Christian Literature and its Hellenistic and Judaic

Influences (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968; reprint of the first edition, Jena, 1928). Giuseppe

Girgenti, Giustino Martire: il primo cristiano platonico con il appendice 'Atti del martirio di



San Giustino.' Presentazione di Claudio Moreschini (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1995).

Theodore Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Society of

Biblical Literature, 1975). Eric Francis Osborn, Justin Martyr (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck],

1973). Cullen I.K. Story, The Nature of Truth in 'The Gospel of Truth' and in the Writings



of Justin Martyr; a Study of the Pattern of Orthodoxy in the Middle of the Second Christian

Century (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970). Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the

Classical Tradition; Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1966). Giorgio Otranto, Esegesi biblica e storia in Giustino (Dial. 63-84) (Bari:

Istituto di letteratura cristiana, Università, 1979).


ii. Miroslav Marcovich, Edouardo Des Places, editors, Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone (New

York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997). cc. IX, X, XIII.

Writings of Justin in English translation in: Rev. Robert Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, MDCCCLXVII); Vol. II, Justin and Athenagoras. Saint Justin Martyr, The First Apology. The Second Apology. Dialogue with Trypho. Exhortation to the Greeks. Discourse to the Greeks. The Monarchy or The Rule of God, translated by Thomas B. Falls (New York: Christian Heritage, Inc., 1948); St. Justin Martyr, The First and Second Apologies, translated with introduction and notes by Leslie William Barnard (New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1997).

Greek editions of Justin's works: Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis, (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994); Miroslav Marcovich, Edouardo Des Places, eds., Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997); Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Justin Cohortatio Ad Graecos; Oratio Ad Graecos (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990); Jacques P. Migne, ed., Cursus Patrologiae, series graeca, (Paris: 1844-1855), Vol. VI.



iii. Numénius Fragments, texte établi et traduit par Édouard des Places (Paris: Société d'Édition Les Belles Lettres, 1973). The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius. Collected and translated from the Greek by Kenneth Guthrie with forward by Michael Wagner (Lawrence, KS: Selene Books, 1987; first published in 1917).

iv. Lydus, De Mensib. IV.80 in Numenius Frag. 57 (Des Places).

v. Clément d' Alexandrie, Les Stromates Introduction de Claude Mondésert. Traduction et notes de Marcel Caster (Paris: Édition du Cerf, 1951), Tome I. Introduction et notes de P. Th. Camelot, texte grec et traduction de Cl. Mondésert (Paris: Édition du Cerf, 1954), Tome II. T. I.22.150.4.

vi. John Gwyn Griffiths, Triads and Trinity (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996).

vii. Hans Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Mysticism Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire. Nouvelle édition par Michel Tardieu (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1978. First published in 1956). Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians. Translated from the Greek by Thomas Taylor (London: Bertram Dubell and Reeves and Turner, 1895. First published in 1821).

viii. Senocrate, Ermodoro, Frammenti edizione, traduzione e commento a cura di Margherita Isnardi Parente (Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1982).

ix. Plato, Philebus cc. 23c - 27e.

x. It is quite interesting to compare the mathematical/geometrical metaphysical concepts of the nature with modern string theories. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999).

xi. Xenocrates, Frag. 112.

xii. Xenocrates, Frag. 101.

xiii. Xenocrates, Frags 213-230.

xiv. Edwards, M. J., ”On the Platonic schooling of Justin Martyr,” in JTS, 42 (1991), 17-34. p. 33.

xv. Numenius, Frag. 8 (Des Places).

xvi. John Gwyn Griffiths, op. cit.

xvii. Numenius, Frags. 20,21,22 (Guthrie); Frags. 6,7,8 (Des Places).

xviii. Numenius, Frag. 25 (Guthrie); Frag. 16 ( Des Places).

xix. Numenius, Frag. 27 (Guthrie); Frag. 11 (Des Places).

xx. Numenius , Frags. 26,31 (Guthrie), Frag. 11 (Des Places); Frag. 25 (Guthrie), Frag. 16 (Des Places); Frag. 31 (Guthrie), Frag. 17 (Des Places).

xxi. Numenius, Frag. 12 (Des Places); Frag. 27a (Guthrie).

xxii. Numenius, Frag. 27a (Guthrie); Frag. 12 (Des Places).

xxiii. Numenius, Frag. 25 (Guthrie); Frag. 16 (Des Places).

xxiv. Numenius, Frag. 26 (Guthrie); Frag. 11 (Des Places).

xxv. Numenius, Frag. 12 (Des Places); Frag. 27a,b (Guthrie).

xxvi. Numenius, Frag. 13,18 (Des Places);

Frag. 28,32 (Guthrie).



xxvii. Numenius, Frag. 12 (Des Places); Frag. 27a,b (Guthrie).

xxviii. Numenius, Frags. 13, 14 (Des Places); Frags. 28, 29 (Guthrie).

xxix. Numenius, Frag. 19, 20 (Des Places); Frag. 33, 34 (Guthrie).

xxx. Numenius, Frag. 21 (Des Places); Frag. 36 (Guthrie).

xxxi. Numenius, Frags. 13, 14, 15 (Des Places); Frags. 28, 29, 30 (Guthrie).

xxxii. Numenius, Frag. 39 (Guthrie); Frag. 22 (Des Places).

xxxiii. Numenius, Frag. 16 (Des Places); Frag. 25 (Guthrie).



Dostları ilə paylaş:


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2019
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə