This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.
Quade, Michael Friedrich, 1682-1757; Meyer, Salomon · 1708

from this that there is a great impudence in Arnoldus, because he sometimes shamelessly appeals to the writings of authors which neither he himself has ever laid eyes upon, nor are they found anywhere in the whole world, at least not to the end that he might impose upon the simple and unlearned reader.
The other error, by which he reveals his remarkable, if not perhaps malicious, ignorance in the knowledge of ecclesiastical writers, is a chronological error: while he claims Isaac the Syrian is a writer of the 4th century, when by everyone's confession he flourished in the 5th century. See Trithemius on Ecclesiastical Writers and Casimir Oudin’s Supplement to Bellarmine, p. 71; and Gennadius in the aforementioned place, the last of whom states that he died during the reigns of Leo and Martianus (correct this with Lambecius in the aforementioned place to read Majorianus), that is, according to the calculation of Miraeus in his scholion to Gennadius, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, p. 63, in the year of Christ 450. But the blind Arnoldus follows the blind Echellensis in this regard with blind obedience. Indeed, this error of his was propped up by another error, when he had called Isaac the Syrian a disciple of Ephraem the Syrian; Ephraem, however, he had affirmed in his notes to the Catalogue of Ebedjesu, ch. 60, to have lived in the 3rd century, not without a significant parachronism chronological error. How then could Echellensis do otherwise, lest his own chronological calculation be put at risk, than to establish Isaac the Syrian, as a disciple of Ephraem, a father of the 3rd century, as approximately one hundred years older, and to refer his age from the 5th century back to the beginnings or the middle of the preceding 4th century? Although the learned conjecture of the illustrious Tenzelius does not seem to be without merit, by which he believes that Echellensis mistook the name of Ephraem: for the reason that he might denote not that Ephraem the Edessene, the Deacon famous in the 4th century;