A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

52 ORIGENES. ORIGENES.
mystical or prophetical, and moral significance. except a few fragments cited by Jerome or by Pam(Orig. Homnil. XV FI. in Genesim, c. 1.) His philus, in his Apologia pro Origene, or by Origen
desire of finding continually a mystical sense led himself in his De Principiis (Delarue, vol. i. pp.
him frequently into the neglect of the historical 32-37).
sense, and even into the denial of its truth. This 3. 5rptoparTe7 s. tpwta'rtcov Ao-yoi 1'. Strocapital fault has at all times furnished ground for matewv (s. Stromatum) Libri X., written at Alexdepreciating his labours, and has no doubt ma- andria, in the reign of Alexander Severus (Euseb.
terially diminished their value: it must nlot, how- H. E. vi. 24), in imitation of the work of the same
ever, be supposed that his denial of the historical name by Clemens Alexandrinfis. [CLEMENS
truth of the Sacred Writings is more than occasional, ALEXANDRINUS.] The tenth book was chiefly
or that it has been carried out to the full extent composed of Schlolic on the Epistle of Paul to the
which some of his accusers (for instance, Eusta- Galatians. Nothing is extant of the work, except
thius of Antioch) have charged upon him. His two or three fragments cited in Latin by Jerome.
character as a commentator is thus summed up (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 37 —41.)
by the acute Richard Simon (Hist. Critique des 4. fepl dpXcov, De Principiis. This work,
Principaux Commentateurs du N. T. ch. iii.): - which was written at Alexandria (Eusebius, H. E.' Origen is every where too long and too much vi. 24), was the great object of attack with Origen's
given to digressions. He commonly says every enemies, and the source from which they derived
thing which occurs to him with respect to some their chief evidence of his various alleged heresies.
word that he meets with, and he affects great It was divided into four books. The first treated
refinement in his speculations (il affecte de pa- of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit; of the
roitre subtil dans ses inventions), which often leads fall, of rational natures and their final restoration
him to resort to airy (sublimes) and allegorical to happiness, of corporeal and incorporeal beings
meanings. But notwithstanding these faults, we and of angels: the second, of the world and the
find in his Commentaries on the New Testament things in it, of the identity of the God of the old
profound learning and an extensive acquaintance dispensation and of the new, of the incarnation of
with every thing respecting religion; nor is there Christ, of the resurrection, and of the punishment of
any writer from whom we can learn so well as the wicked: the third book, of the freedom of the
from him what the ancient theology was. He had will, of the agency of Satan, of the temptations of
carefully read a great number of writers of whom man, of the origin of the world in time and of its
we now scarcely know the names." His proneness to end: the fourth, of the divine original and proper
allegorical and mystical interpretations was probably mode of studying the Scriptures. The heterodoxy
derived from, at least strengthened by, his study of of this work, according to the standard of the day,
Plato, and others of the Greek philosophers. or rather perhaps of the next generation, was asIII. Otleer Works. The exegetical writings of cribed by Marcellus of Ancyra to the influence of
Origen might well have been the sole labour of a the Greek philosophy, especially that of Plato,
long life devoted to literature. They form, how- which Origen had been recently studying, and had
ever, only a part of the works of this indefatigable not taken time maturely to consider. Eusehius
father. Epiphanius affirms (Haeres. lxiv. 63) that replied to Marcellus by denying the Platonism
common report assigned to him the composition of of Origen, and Pamphilus, in his Apologia pro
" six thousand books " (iattctoXtAioUs /lBiovs); Origene, attempted to prove that he was orthoand the statement, which is repeated again and dox. On the outbreak of the Arian controversy,
again by the Byzantine writers, though itself an Origen was accused of having been the real author
absurd exaggeration, may be taken as evidence of of that obnoxious system; and Didymus of
his exuberant authorship. Jerome compares him Alexandria, in his Scholia on the Iepl dppXCv
to Varro, the most fertile author among the Latins of Origen, in order to refute this charge, endea(Hieron. ad Paulamn Epistol. 29, ed. Benedictin, voured to show how far he differed from them.
33, ed. Vallars., et apud Rufin. Invectiv. lib. ii. 19), [DDYaMus, No. 4.] But as the limits of orthodoxy
and states that he surpassed him and all other became more definite and restricted, this mode of
writers, whether Latin or Greek, in the number defence was abandoned; and Rufinus, no longer
and extent of his works. Of his miscellaneous denying the heterodox character of many passages
works the following only are known: — with respect to the Trinity, affirmed that they
i.'Erro'foXaf, Epistolae. Origen wrote many were interpolations. When, therefore, at the
letters, of which Eusebius collected as many as close of the fourth century, he translated the rlepl
he could find extant, to the number of more than dpXrcv into Latin, he softened the objectionable
a hundred (H. E. vi. 36). Most of them have features of the work, by omitting those parts relong since perished. Delarue has given (vol. i. lating to the Trinity, which appeared to be hetep. 1-32) those, whether entire or fragmentary, rodox, and illustrating obscure passages by the inwhich remain. sertion of more explicit declarations from the author's
2. IEpil dvaoara'osw, De Resurrectione. Euse- other writings. On other subjects, however, he was
bius says this work was in two books (H. E. vi. said to have rather exaggerated than softened the
24), and was written at Alexandria before the objectionable sentiments. (Hieron. Contra Rufin.
Commentaries on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, i. 7.) Such principles of translation would have
in which they are referred to. Jerome (ibid.) seriously impaired the fidelity of his version, even
adds that he wrote two other Dialogi de Resur- if his assertion, that he had added nothing of his
rectione; and in another place (Ad Panmmach. own, were true: but as he did not give reference
Epistol. 61, edd. vet., 38, ed. Benedictin.; Lib. to the places from which the inserted passages
Contra Joanneen Jerosolymitanum, c. 25, ed. Val- were taken, he rendered the credibility of that
larsi) he cites the fourth book on the resurrection, assertion very doubtful. Jerome, therefore, to exas if he regarded the two works as constituting pose, as he says (Ibid.), both the heterodoxy of the
one. The works on the resurrection are lost, writer and the unfaithfulness of the translatr,