PALLADIUS. of the Blemmyes. (Dial, de Vita CJirysost c. 4, 1 9, pp. 30, &c., 192, &c.) Tillemont supposes that after the death of Theophilus of Alexandria, the great enemy of Chrysostom (a. d. 412), Palladius obtained some relaxation of his punishment, though he was not allowed to return to Helenopolis, or to resume his episcopal functions. He places in the interval between 412 and 420, when the Lausiac History was written, a residence of four years at Antinoe or Antinoopolis, in the Thebaid (c. 81, Meurs., ^Q., Bihl. Patr. and of three years in the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem (c. 63, Meurs., 103, Bibl. Pair.), as well as the visits which Palla- dius paid to many parts of the East. After a time he was restored to his bishopric of Helenopolis, from which he was translated to that of Aspona or Aspuna in Galatia (Socrat. vii. 36) : but the dates both of his restoration and his translation cannot be fixed: they probably took place after the healing of the schism occasioned by Chrysostom's affair, in a. d. 417, and probably after the com- position of the Lausiac History, in A. D. 419 or 420. Palladius was probably dead before a. d. 431, when, in the third General (first Ephesian) Council, the see of Aspona was held by another person. He appears to have held the bishopric of Aspona only a short time, as he is currently desig- nated from Helenopolis. The works ascribed to Palladius are the follow- ing : 'H -Kpos AaxxTwva tov TrpamocnTov iaropia vepUxovaa fiious oaiuv iraTepuv, Ad Lausum Praepositum Historia, quae Sanctorum Patrum vitas compiectitur, usually cited as Historia Laiisiaca, " the Lausiac History.' This work contains bio- graphical notices or characteristic anecdotes of a number of ascetics, with whom Palladius was per- sonally acquainted, or concerning whom he received information from those who had known them per- sonally. Though its value is diminished by the records of miracles and other marvels to which the author's credulity (the characteristic, however, of his age and class rather than of the individual) led him to give admission, it is curious and interesting as exhibiting the prevailing religious tendencies of the time, and valuable as recording various facts relating to eminent men. Sozomen has borrowed many anecdotes from this work, but without avow- edly citing it. Socrates, who mentions the work {H. E. iv. 23), describes the author as a monk, a disciple of Evagrius of Pontus, and states that he flourished soon after the death of Valens. The date, and the absence of any reference to his epis- copal dignity, might induce a suspicion that the author and the bishop were two different persons ; but the coincidences are too many to allow the casual and inaccurate notice of Socrates to out- weigh them. The Lausus or Lauson (the name is written both ways, AaOtros and Aaucrwi/), to whom the work is addressed, was chamberlain (TrpaiTro- criros row koitwvos, praepositus cubiculo), appa- rently to the Emperor Theodosius the Younger. The Historia Lausiaca was repeatedly translated into Latin at an early period. There are extant three ancient translations, one ascribed by Heribert Rosweyd, but improperly, to Rufinus, who died before the work was written ; and two others, the authors of which are not known ; beside a compa- ratively modern version by Gentianus Hervetus. The first printed edition of the work was in one of the ancient Latin versions, which appeared in the infancy of the typographic art in the Vitae YOU III. PALLADIUS. 07 Patrum, printed three times without mark of year or place, or printer's name. It was reprinted iu the Prototypus Veteris Ecclesiae of Theodoricus Loher a Stratis, fol. Cologn. 1547. The version ascribed by Rosweyd to Rufinus had also been printed many times before it appeared in the first edition of the Vitae Patrum of that editor, fol. Antwerp, a. d, 1615. The remaining ancient Latin version, with several other pieces, was printed under the editorial care of Faber Stapulensis, fol. Paris, 1 504, under the following title : Paradysus Heraclidis (Panzer, Annal. Typ. vol. vii. p. 510), or more fully Heraclidis Eremitae Liber qui dtcitur Paradisus, seu Palladii Galatae Historia Lausiaca. (Fabric. Bibl. Grace, vol.x. p. 194.) The first edition of the Greek text, but a very imperfect one, was that of Meursius, who added notes, small 4to. Ley den, 1616. Another edition of the Greek text, fuller than that of Meursius, was contained in the Auctarium of Fronto Ducaeus, vol. ii. fol. Paris, 1624, with the version of Hervetus, which had been first published 4to. Paris, 1 555, and had been repeatedly reprinted in the successive editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum, the Vitae Patrum of Ros- weyd, and elsewhere. The Greek text and ver- sion were reprinted from Xhe Auctarium of Ducaeus, in the editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum, fol. Paris, 1644 and 1654. Our references are to the edition of 1654. Some additional chapters are given in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta of Cotelerius, vol. iii. 4to. Paris, 1686. It is probable that the printed text is still very defective, and that large additions might be made from MSS. 2. AidXoyus ta-TopLKos UaWaMov 'EAfVou- TToAews yeuo/xeuos irpos ©eoSupov SiaKouov 'P<^/i7js, Trepl fiiov Koi iroXiTeias tov fxaKapiov 'ludpyov firicncSTrov KcovcrTavTivoTruXews rod Xpv(TO(rT6fxov. Dialogus Historicus Palladii episcopi Helenopolis cum Theodora ecclesiae Romanae diacono, de vita eJ conversatione Beati Joannis Chrysostomi, episcopi Constantinopolis. This inaccurate title of the work misled many into the belief that it was really by Palladius of Helenopolis, to whom indeed, not only on account of his name, but as having been an exile at Rome for his adherence to Chrj'sostom, it was naturally enough ascribed. Photius calls the writer a bishop {Bibl. cod. 96. sub init.), and Theodoras of Trimithus, a Greek writer of uncer- tain date, distinctly identifies him with the author of the Historia Lausiaca. A more attentive exa- mination, however, has shown that the author of the Dialogus was a different person from the bishop, and several years older, though he was his companion and fellow- sufferer in the delegation from the Western emperor and church on behalf of Chrysostom, which occasioned the imprisonment and exile of the bishop. Bigotius thinks that the work was published anonymously ; but that the author having intimated in the work that he was a bishop was mistakenly identified with Palladius, and the title of the work in the MS. given accordingly. The Dialogus de Vita S. Chrysostomi first appeared in a Latin version by Ambrosius Camaldulensis, or the Camaldolite, 8vo. Venice, 1532 (or 1533), and was reprinted at Paris and in the Vitae Sanctorum of Lipomannus, and in the Latin editions of Chrysostom 's works. The Greek text was pub- lished by Emericus Bigotius, with a valuable preface and a new Latin version by the editor, with seve- ral other pieces, 4to. Paris, 1680, and was reprinted 4to. Paris, 1738. Tillemont, assuming that the
