THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
sest manuscripts are not confined to Biblical texts, those of concern in this work are manuscripts which carry in the earlier writing some portion of the text of the Bible. Illustrations of manuscripts of this kind employed as noted above are Codex Ephraem (C), which contains as the earlier or lower writing parts of the Septuagint and also parts of the New Testament, and as the upper or later writing parts of the works of Ephraem Syrus; and Codex Nitriensis (R), in which the lower writing is a portion of Luke's Gospel, over which is written in Syriac a comparatively unimportant work by Severus of Antioch.
The most important palimpsests are, for the Greek of the Old Testament: Codex Ephraem (C), at Paris; Petropolitanus (H), at St. Petersburg; a Leipsic set of fragments (K), in the university library of that place; the Dublin codex (O), fragments at Trinity College ; some fragments found by Tischendorf, known as Z; Codex Cryptoferratensis (r). Besides these there are some fragments of the version of Aquila, part of these from the Cairo genizah. Of the Greek New Testament the more important palimpsests are: Codex Ephraem (C), ut sup.; Petropolitanus (I), at St. Petersburg; Guelferbytanus, I. and II. (P1( Q2), at Wolfenbiittel; Nitriensis (R^, in the British Museum; Neapolitanus (Wb), at Naples; Dublinensis (Z), at Trinity College, Dublin; Porphyrianus (P2), at St. Petersburg; Codex Zacynthus (2), with the British and Foreign Bible Society, London; and Patiriensis (32), in the Vatican Library at Rome. These New-Testament manuscripts are more closely described under Bible Text (vol. ii., pp. 103-106 of this work) . Of the Syriac New Testament there are the important Sinaitic Syriac (described in Bible Versions, A, III., 1, § 3); and some important fragments from the genizah at Cairo. Several palimpsests contain fragments of the early Latin (Itala) version, including: Bernensia fragmenta (t), at Berne; Fleury Palimpsest (h) at Paris; Bobiensis (s) at Vienna; Guelferbytanus (gue), at Wolfenbiittel; and two other fragments, one at Wiirzburg and the other at Munich. One palimpsest of the Vulgate in the Escurial in Spain contains part of Numbers and of Judges; and there is also a fragment containing a part of the Acts of the Apostles.
Bibliography: P. Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, p. 100, New York, 1883; F. H. A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, i. 25, 141, London, 1894; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fasc. xxx., cols. 2053-57.
PALLADIUS : Bishop of Helenopolis and Aspona, b. in Galatia about 368; d. at Aspona, Galatia, about 430. About the age of twenty he went to Egypt because of his admiration of the ascetic life, and after sojourning with various monks in the vicinity of Alexandria, he resided about nine years in the Nitrian desert, forming a lasting friendship with Evagrius Ponticus (q.v.), who increased his .attachment to the teachings of Origen. Palladius also seems to have visited the Scetic desert and the Thebaid, but ill-health compelled him, probably in 400, to return to Alexandria, and thence, by way of Palestine, to Asia Minor. Soon afterward he was consecrated bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia by
John Chrysostom, then patriarch of Constantinople but was involved, after 403, in the anti-Origenistic attacks on his patron. He probably visited Rome about 405 to gain the support of the Emperor Honorius for Chrysostom and himself; but after his return to Asia Minor (about 408) he was exiled by Arcadius to Syene in Upper Egypt, where he was subjected to ill-treatment and deprivation. At last, however, he was released, and (date unknown) exchanged his see of Helenopolis for that of Aspona.
To Palladius are ascribed two works: the Historia Lausiaca (so called because dedicated to a certain Lausus), a collection of instructive histories of monks; and the Dialogus de vita Sarwti Johannis Chrysostomi. The Historia Lausiaca (ed. in Latin by G. Hervetus, Paris, 1555; and by H. Rosweyde in his Vitce Patrum, Antwerp, 1628) exists in two Greek recensions; the shorter and more original called Palladii Helenopolitani Historia Lausiaca (ed. J. Meursius, Leyden, 1616; also several recensions of the same text, known elsewhere as the Paradisus Heraclides), and the more comprehensive (ed. with omissions by F. Ducseus, in Auctarium bibliothecm patrum, vol. iv., Paris, 1624; emended by J. Cotelerius, in Monumenta ecclesiw Grcecce, vol. hi., Paris, 1686; reprinted, MPG, xxxiv. 995-1260), interpolated with a Historia monadic-rum in Mgypto. The history is further interpolated in the Syriac recension (ed. P. Bedjan, in his Acta martyrum et sanctorum, vol. vii., Paris, 1897), and the textual problems are still more complicated by fragments of Armenian and Coptic versions. Nevertheless, the Historia Lausiaca is of great value as history, for in spite of all its coloring and its exaggerations for purposes of edification, and overwhelming admiration of the ascetic fathers, there is no evidence of wilful or legendary invention, especially in view of the accurate and concrete accounts of the lives, words, and deeds of the saints described.
The " Apothegms of the Fathers," appended by Rosweyd to the Historia as an alphabetic monastic lexicon, are of later date and contain many apocryphal additions side by side with much genuine and ancient material. Whether the " Dialogue " (ed. E. Bigot, Paris, 1680; conveniently reprinted in MPG, xlvii. 5-82) was written by the Galatian Palladius who wrote the Lausiaca (who may not have been the same as the Helenopolitan Bishop Palladius) has been questioned. At the same time, the similarity of style and the warm admiration of the author of the Lausiaca for Chrysostom and Olympias are in favor of the identity of authorship, though no certain external evidence can be adduced to determine the problem. It is clear, however, that there is no basis for the hypothesis which identifies the author of the " Dialogue " with the deacon Palladius sent by Celestine I. to Ireland about 430 (see Celtic Church, I., 2, §3).
A small treatise, De gentibus India et de Bracnmanis (ed. Camerarius, in his Liber gnomologicus, Leipsic, n.d.; Bissa'us, London, 1665), also ascribed to Palladius, was probably written by a later author, though the grounds for this assumption are not decisive. (O. ZocKLERf.)