Letter 50: Theodore Studite, Letter 50; Greek heading: Ναυκρατίῳ τέκνῳ.

You are ardent, beloved child, in asking about and learning what is profitable. The thing is praiseworthy, but I am not competent to resolve your perplexities; nevertheless, for the common benefit, I must contribute even now what lies within my power. Your question concerns those in a second marriage [digamoi]: that there is a dispute about their union, namely, whether they are to be crowned [in the marriage rite, as the wedding crowns are placed on the heads of the couple] as in the case of those in a single marriage [monogamoi], or not; and how, if this should come about, there could be a union, when they are not joined together by the priest. For an account is current that, from the days of the impious Constantine [Constantine VI, deposed and blinded 797], the custom of crowning a second marriage prevailed, arising from his own third marriage, since it did not exist in the times before him. For my part, I do not reject the reliability of this account on these grounds; yet those who love the truth must nevertheless not confirm matters from the mere drift of an account, as it chances, or from human custom, but from the God-inspired Scripture itself and from the patristic and canonical tradition. Now second marriage has, plainly, been conceded by the holy Apostle, and through him by Christ, yet not as a law, as Gregory the Theologian [Gregory of Nazianzus] also says, but as a concession; and a concession would not be granted in the case of one blameless and faultless (for how, and why?), but in the case of some defeat and of a deed that has been captured [by passion]. For the divine Apostle hinted at this very thing when he said, "If they do not exercise self-control, let them marry." But incontinence, having lost the strength of manliness, is the offspring of defeat and of a falling away. Set in motion from this point, the divine Fathers subjected those in a second marriage to a penance: those of the synod in Laodicea indefinitely, by saying, "When a short time has passed and they have devoted themselves to prayers and fasting, we have determined that communion be restored to them, in accordance with pardon"; but Basil the Great determined it definitely, for he says, "Concerning those in a third marriage [trigamoi] and those in many marriages [polygamoi] they laid down the same canon"—the Fathers, plainly—"as also, proportionally, in the case of those in a second marriage: for in the case of those in a second marriage one year, but others two years." It has therefore been shown from what has been said that second marriage, having come to be under the category of the faulty, received the penance. For on this account also the holy Fathers of the synod in Neocaesarea forbade a presbyter even to be feasted at the wedding of one entering a second marriage, saying, "Since the one entering a second marriage is asking for repentance, who will the presbyter be who, by his feasting, gives his assent to the marriage?" What then is the conclusion drawn of necessity? That the first marriage, as being properly a law, has fittingly been crowned by the priesthood as untouched, as undefiled, as not captured by the passion of fornication, and on this account crowned as a victor over sin. Upon which there follows also the partaking of the holy things [Communion], and the feasting of the one who crowned them and of every other priestly person at such a marriage. Just as also our Lord and God deigned to dine at Cana of Galilee, by his feasting there blessing every marriage banquet. But indeed he himself, taking the lead, established the blessing of the joining-in-crowning upon our forefather Adam. How? "And God made man; according to the image of God he made him; male and female he made them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it." This, then, is the blessing of the marital union, from which comes every well-blessedness of a single-marriage joining; since Adam too was in a single marriage. And it is to be observed that the invocation of the crowning also took its origin from there, commemorating the fashioning of the first man and the joining to him of the woman from his side. But the second marriage, even if it has been conceded, has nevertheless been subjected to penance. For how could it be worthy of crowning, having been defeated and not having conquered? And who is the presbyter who would crown it, who has been forbidden by the Fathers even simply to be feasted at the banquet pertaining to it? And how will he partake of the divine Communion, who for this very reason is barred from the holy things for one and two years? And of what, or of what kind, is the prayer of blessing pronounced over his union, there being no other besides the one prayer of the single and first marriage? It has therefore been gathered from everything, both scripturally and patristically, that the second marriage has no share in crowning, and on this account is not even joined by the priest, nor indeed has it been handed down [as a rite], but is then accepted, whenever there is fulfillment of the penance given in whatever way according to priestly judgment; after which it will have also the partaking of the divine gifts, they being thereupon blessed as it were as at a crowning, in a secondary sense, after a concession. For the gift [Communion] is then a blessing and a sign of the union on the part of the priest, who from that point is no longer forbidden to be feasted together with those in a second marriage, as in the case of those in a single marriage. And thus the second marriage is set in motion by a law of concession according to the Apostle, knowing that it holds the second place to the single marriage, and not unreasonably seeking the rightful claims of the first, which it had already forfeited. You might say: And how then are they to come to the union? By human propriety, just as also those in a third marriage and those in many marriages (for so the union after the third has been called by the Fathers)—or let those too be crowned. But indeed the excessive dissolution of the canons, or rather of the Gospel, has brought it about that now not only those in a second and a third marriage, but even adulterers, are crowned by the priests; so that it even persecutes and anathematizes, as alien to Christ, those who in this matter do not concur with it by holding fast to the divine law—those who take their stand on behalf of his commandment and his truth. Be astonished, O heaven, at this! The things above are below, righteousness is lawlessness, light is darkness, from the things which the Moechians [the "adulterers' party," Theodore's name for those who supported Constantine VI's uncanonical second marriage] say and do; this is shown to those blind and deaf in soul, and from this they bring forward the forerunners of the Antichrist. Perhaps you might also say this: If one party should be a virgin, how do some say that the one is crowned on the head, while the other, being from [a previous] marriage, [is crowned] on the shoulder, the prayer of crowning being made [thus]? And to me, besides the absurdity, it still appears ridiculous. For let it be granted that a person is entering a third marriage: and where would the crown be placed, on the hand or on the knee? And if indeed the woman being married be from widowhood, will she receive the crown on the shoulder? These things are absurd. And who is the one crowning, and how will the undivided prayer be divided? Will one of the parties, as unstained and as having conquered, be blessed, but the other not? These belong to the ridiculous and the impracticable. How will the one partake of the Communion, but the other not? Since they are under penance. And if indeed this party should be the man—the man being the head of the woman, and both who have come together being into one body—will the rest of the body partake, but the head not? Will what has been joined be straightway cut asunder by the very priest who joins them—this being perhaps granted to him to do by concession (for the sum and end of the joining is the holy and unitary body and blood of Christ)—or will he impart to both? And indeed we are rid of this idle chatter. For such a one will manifestly be no priest, but a transgressor of the divine ordinances, and on this account also fallen from the priesthood, when not even to be feasted at such a marriage has been conceded—let alone to commit so great a lawlessness. What then, you would say, does the virgin party lose the crown of victory together with the blessing, and does that which has not been defeated not rather prevail to bless together and crown together and share the Communion together with itself the party that has been defeated through the second marriage? If this were so, it would have been prescribed by the patristic canons; but no such distinction had come into being. And that which has not been clearly distinguished and prescribed by patristic testimony, it is treading on emptiness to conceive and to say and to do. But I say this: that the virgin party would fittingly fail of the single-marriage tradition; for, it being permitted to enjoy this through a partner of equal rank—since the pure must be joined to the pure, and virgin to virgin, and the conqueror to the conqueror—a person falls away if he has wished to be joined to a non-virgin, and from this would dishonor the glory of virginity, which perhaps he did not even possess, or, possessing it, by the passionate disposition toward the one in a second marriage has in some manner cast it down; and from this he will not rather lead himself up, but will drag himself down into the penance of the party in a second marriage. These things have been found out and stated by me as far as was possible, O fair child. But if the truth seems to you, or to anyone else, to be otherwise—only from a scriptural and patristic and canonical demonstration, with the contribution of one's own reflective faculty following upon these—then we too are ready to be guided and eager to be illuminated by the torch-bearing of others, being in want of light most of all.

Θερμὸς εἶ, τέκνον ἠγαπημένον, περὶ τοῦ ἐρωτᾶν καὶ μανθάνειν τὰ χρήσιμα. καὶ τὸ μὲν χρῆμα ἐπαινετόν, οὐχ ἱκανὸς δὲ ἐγὼ λύειν τὰς ἀπορίας σου· ὅμως διὰ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον εἰσενεκτέον καὶ νῦν τὰ κατὰ δύναμιν. Ἡ ἐρώτησίς σου περὶ τῶν διγάμων· ὅτι ἀμφισβητούμενόν ἐστι περὶ τῆς συναφείας αὐτῶν, ἆρα στεφανοῦσθαι αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν μονογάμων ἢ μή; καὶ πῶς, ἐὰν τοῦτο γενήσεται, εἴη συνάφεια, μὴ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱερέως ζευγνυμένων αὐτῶν; ὅτι φέρεται λόγος ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς Κωνσταντίνου κρατῆσαι τὴν συνήθειαν τοῦ διγαμικοῦ στεφανώματος ἐκ τοῦ κατ' αὐτὸν τριγαμήματος· ἐπεὶ μὴ εἶναι ἐν τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ χρόνοις. ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχειν μὲν τὸν λόγον τὸ πιστὸν ἐντεῦθεν οὐκ ἀποδοκιμάζω· δεῖ δὲ ὅμως τοῖς ἀληθείας ἐρασταῖς μὴ ἐκ φορᾶς, ὡς ἔτυχεν, λόγου ἢ συνηθείας ἀνθρωπίνης πιστοῦσθαι τὰ πράγματα, ἀλλ' ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς καὶ τῆς πατρικῆς καὶ κανονικῆς ἐκδόσεως. Ἡ μὲν οὖν διγαμία παρακεχώρηται δῆλον ὅτι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ παρὰ Χριστοῦ, οὐ μὴν νόμος, ὥσπερ ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος, ἀλλὰ συγχώρησις· συγχώρησις δὲ οὐκ ἐπὶ ἀμέμπτου καὶ ἀπταίστου γένοιτ' ἂν (πῶς γὰρ καὶ διατί;), ἀλλ' ἐπὶ ἥττης τινὸς καὶ ἁλωσίμου δράματος. αὐτὸ γὰρ τοῦτο ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος ᾐνίξατο εἰπών, εἰ οὐκ ἐγκρατεύονται, γαμησάτωσαν. ἡ δὲ ἀκρασία, τὸ κράτος τῆς ἀνδρείας ἀπολέσασα, ἥττης ἐστὶν καὶ ἀποπτώσεως ἔκγονον. ἐντεῦθεν ὁρμηθέντες οἱ θεῖοι πατέρες ἐπιτιμίῳ ὑπέβαλον τοὺς διγάμους, οἱ μὲν τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ συνόδου ἀορίστως διὰ τοῦ εἰπεῖν, ὀλίγου χρόνου παρελθόντος καὶ σχολάσαντας ταῖς προσευχαῖς καὶ νηστείαις κατὰ συγγνώμην ἀποδίδοσθαι αὐτοῖς τὴν κοινωνίαν ὡρίσαμεν, ὁ δὲ Μέγας Βασίλειος ὡρισμένως· φησὶ γάρ, περὶ τριγάμων καὶ πολυγάμων τὸν αὐτὸν ὥρισαν κανόνα, οἱ πατέρες δῆλον ὅτι, ὃν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διγάμων ἀναλόγως· ἐνιαυτὸν μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν διγάμων, ἄλλοι δὲ δύο ἔτη. Δέδεικται τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν ῥηθέντων ὡς ὑπὸ τὸ πταιστὸν γεγονυῖα ἡ διγαμία εἰλήφει τὸ ἐπιτίμιον. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ οἱ τῆς ἐν Νεοκαι σαρείᾳ συνόδου ἅγιοι πατέρες ἀπεῖρξαν καὶ τοῦ ἑστιαθῆναι πρεσβύτερον εἰς διγαμοῦντος γάμον, λέγοντες· ἐπεὶ μετάνοιαν αἰτοῦντος τοῦ διγαμοῦντος, τίς ἔσται ὁ πρεσβύτερος ὁ διὰ τῆς ἑστιάσεως συγκατατιθέμενος τοῖς γάμοις; τί οὖν τὸ συμπεραινόμενον ἐξ ἀναγκαίου; ὅτι ὁ μὲν πρῶτος γάμος ὡς κυρίως ὢν νόμος εἰκότως ἐστεφάνωται ὑπὸ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ὡς ἀνέπαφος, ὡς ἄρρυπος, ὡς ἀνάλωτος πορνικῷ πάθει καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὡς νικητὴς τῆς ἁμαρτίας κατεστεμμένος. ἐφ' ᾧ ἕπεται καὶ ἡ τῶν ἁγιασμάτων μετάληψις, καὶ ἡ τοῦ στεφανώσαντος καὶ παντὸς ἄλλου ἱερατικοῦ ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ γάμῳ ἑστίασις. καθὰ καὶ ὁ Κύριος καὶ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐν Κανᾷ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἠξίωσεν ἀριστῆσαι, διὰ τῆς ἐκεῖσε ἑστιάσεως πάντα γαμικὸν ἄριστον κατευλογήσας. ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς στεφανικῆς ἁρμογῆς αὐτὸς προλαβὼν τὴν εὐλογίαν ἔθετο ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀρχιπάτορος ἡμῶν Ἀδάμ· πῶς; καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον· κατ' εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς. καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεός, λέγων· αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε καὶ πληρώσατε τὴν γῆν καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτήν. Αὕτη οὖν ἡ εὐλογία τῆς γαμικῆς συναφείας, ἀφ' ἧς πᾶσα εὐλογιστία μονογαμικῆς συζεύξεως· ἐπεὶ καὶ μονόγαμος Ἀδάμ. ἐπιτηρητέον δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἡ στεφανικὴ ἐπίκλησις ἐκεῖθεν ὥρμηται, τὴν τοῦ πρώτου ἀνθρώπου διάπλασιν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐκ πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ γυναῖκα σύζευξιν ὑπομνηματίζουσα. ὁ δὲ δεύτερος γάμος, εἰ καὶ συγκεχώρηται, ἀλλ' ἐπιτετίμηται. πῶς γὰρ ἂν καὶ εἴη στεφανώσεως ἄξιος, ἡττηθεὶς ἀλλ' οὐ νικήσας; τίς δὲ καὶ ὁ στεφανώσων τοῦτον πρε σβύτερος, ὃς καὶ τὸ ἁπλῶς ἑστιαθῆναι ἐν τῷ κατ' αὐτὸν ἀρίστῳ πατρικῶς κεκώλυται; πῶς δὲ καὶ μεθέξει τῆς θείας κοινωνίας ὁ δι' αὐτὸ τοῦτο εἰργόμενος χρόνῳ ἑνὶ καὶ δυσὶ τῶν ἁγιασμάτων; τίνος δὲ ἢ οἵας τῆς εὐλογητικῆς προσευχῆς γινομένης ἐπὶ τῆς συναφείας αὐτοῦ, μὴ οὔσης ἄλλης παρὰ τὴν μίαν τῆς μονογαμικῆς καὶ πρώτης; Συνῆκται οὖν ἐκ πάντων γραφικῶς τε καὶ πατρικῶς ἀμέτοχον εἶναι στεφανώματος τὴν δευτερογαμίαν, διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱερέως ζευγνυμένην, ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ παραδεδομένην, τότε δὲ προσδεδεγμένην, ὁπηνίκα εἴη πλήρωσις τοῦ ὁπωσοῦν κατὰ ἱερατικὴν δοκιμασίαν δοθέντος ἐπιτιμίου· μεθ' ἣν ἕξει καὶ τῶν θείων δώρων τὴν μετάληψιν, ἐντεῦθεν εὐλογουμένους αὐτοὺς οἱονεὶ ὡς ἐπὶ στεφανώματος, κατὰ δεύτερον λόγον μετὰ συγχώρησιν. εὐλογία γὰρ τὸ δῶρον τηνικαῦτα καὶ συναφείας παρὰ τοῦ ἱερέως δεῖγμα, ἔκτοτε μὴ κεκωλυμένου αὐτῷ συνεστιαθῆναι τοῖς διγαμήσασιν ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν μονογάμων. καὶ οὕτω νόμῳ ὁρμᾶται συγχωρητικῷ ἡ διγαμία κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον, γινώσκουσα τὰ δευτερεῖα ἔχειν τῆς μονογαμίας καὶ μὴ ἀλόγως τῆς πρώτης ἐπιζητοῦσα τὰ δικαιώματα, ἅπερ προαπήλαυκεν. Φαίης δ' ἄν· καὶ πῶς ἔλθωσιν ἐπὶ τὴν συνάφειαν; τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις καθήκουσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ τρίγαμοι καὶ πολύγαμοι (οὕτω γὰρ κέκληται ἡ μετὰ τὴν τρίτην πρὸς τῶν πατέρων), ἢ στεφανούσθωσαν κἀ κεῖνοι. ἀλλ' ὄντως ἡ ἄγαν διάλυσις τῶν κανόνων, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, οὐ διγάμους νῦν καὶ τριγάμους, ἀλλὰ καὶ μοιχοὺς στεφανοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἱερέων πεποίηκεν, ὡς καὶ τοὺς τῇ ἀντοχῇ τοῦ θείου νόμου μὴ ἐν τούτῳ συναιρουμένους διώκουσα καὶ ἀναθεματίζουσα ὡς ἀλλοτρίους Χριστοῦ, τοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐντολῆς καὶ ἀληθείας αὐτοῦ ἐνισταμένους. ἔκστηθι, οὐρανέ, ἐπὶ τούτῳ· τὰ ἄνω κάτω, ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἀνομία, τὸ φῶς σκότος, ἐξ ὧν οἱ μοιχειανοὶ λέγουσιν καὶ πράττουσιν, δείκνυνται, τοῦτο τοῖς τυφλοῖς καὶ κωφοῖς κατὰ ψυχήν, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου τὰ πρόλαβα φέρουσιν. Τάχα δ' ἂν κἀκεῖνο εἴποις· εἰ τὸ ἓν μέρος εἴη παρθένον, πῶς λέγουσί τινες ὡς τὸ μὲν στεφανοῦται ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ γάμου ἐν τῷ ὤμῳ γενομένης τῆς στεφανικῆς εὐχῆς; καί μοι πρὸς τῇ ἀτοπίᾳ ἔτι καὶ γελοῖον φαίνεται. δεδόσθω γὰρ τριγαμεῖν· καὶ ποῦ τεθείη ὁ στέφανος, ἐν τῇ χειρὶ ἢ εἰς τὸ γόνυ; εἴ γε καὶ ἡ γημωμένη εἶεν ἀπὸ χηρείας, ἐν τῷ ὤμῳ τὸν στέφανον δέξεται; ἄτοπα ταῦτα. τίς δὲ ὁ στεφανῶν καὶ πῶς ἡ ἀμέριστος εὐχὴ μερισθήσεται; θάτερον τῶν μερῶν, ὡς ἀκηλίδωτον καὶ νικῆσαν, εὐλογούμενον, θάτερον δὲ μή; τῶν γελοίων καὶ ἀμηχάνων. πῶς τὸ μὲν ἓν μεθέξει τῆς κοινωνίας, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον οὔ; ἐπείπερ ἐν ἐπιτιμίοις; εἴ γε καὶ εἴη τοῦτο ὁ ἀνήρ, ἀνὴρ κεφαλὴ γυναικὸς καὶ εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἄμφω τὰ συνελθόντα· μεταλήψεται τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα, ἡ κεφαλὴ δὲ οὔ; τμηθήσεται τὸ ζευχθὲν εὐθὺς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ συνάπτοντος ἱερέως, τοῦτό γε κατὰ συγχώρησιν δοθέντος τυχὸν ποιεῖν αὐτὸν (κεφάλαιον γὰρ καὶ τέλος τῆς ζεύξεως τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἑνιαῖον σῶμα καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ), ἢ ἀμφοῖν μεταδοίη; Καί γε ἀπηλλάγμεθα ἀδολεσχίας. ἔσται γὰρ ἀριδήλως ὁ τοιοῦτος οὐχ ἱερεύς, ἀλλὰ παραβάτης τῶν θείων διατάξεων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἔκπτωτος, ὁπότε οὐδὲ ἑστιαθῆναι τῷ τοιούτῳ γάμῳ παρακεχώρηται, οὐχ ὅτι τοσοῦτον ἀνομῆσαι. τί οὖν, φαίης, ἀπόλλυσι τὸ παρθενικὸν μέρος τὸν νικητικὸν στέφανον σὺν τῇ εὐλογίᾳ καὶ οὐκ ἐκνικᾷ τὸ μὴ ἡττηθὲν μᾶλλον συνευλογῆσαι καὶ συστεφανῶσαι καὶ συμμεθέξαι τῆς κοινωνίας ἑαυτῷ τὸ ἡττημένον διὰ τῆς διγαμίας μέρος; εἰ ἦν τοῦτο, ἐτυπώθη ἂν παρὰ τῶν πατρικῶν κανόνων· ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐγεγόνει τις διαφορά. ὃ δὲ ὑπὸ πατρικῆς μαρτυρίας μὴ ᾖ διευκριθὲν καὶ ὑποτυπωθέν, κενεμβατεῖν ἐστι καὶ ἐννοεῖν καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν. ἐγὼ δὲ ἐκεῖνό φημι, ὅτι εἰκότως ἂν τὸ παρθενικὸν μέρος ἀποτυγχάνῃ τῆς μονογαμικῆς παραδόσεως· ἐξὸν γὰρ δι' ὁμοταγοῦς ἀπόνασθαι ταύτης, ἐπειδὴ καθαρὸν καθαρῷ συναπτέον καὶ παρθένον παρθένῳ καὶ νικῶν νικῶντι. ἀποπίπτει δέ τις μὴ παρθένῳ ἐθελήσας συναφθῆναι, κἀντεῦθεν ἀτιμάζοι τὸ παρθενικὸν κλέος, ὃ μηδὲ εἶχεν τυχόν, ἢ καὶ ἔχων τῇ προσπαθητικῇ σχέσει τοῦ διγαμοῦντος καθ' οἱονοῦν τρόπον κατέβαλεν· κἀκ τούτου οὐ μᾶλλον ἀνάξει, ἀλλὰ κατάξει αὑτὸν εἰς τὸ ἐπιτίμιον τοῦ διγαμοῦντος μέρους. Ταῦτά μοι κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν εὕρηται καὶ λέλεκται, ὦ παῖ καλέ. εἰ δέ σοι ἑτέρως ἔχειν δοκεῖ τἀληθὲς ἤ τινι ἄλλῳ, μόνον ἐκ γραφικῆς καὶ πατρικῆς καὶ κανονικῆς παραστάσεως, συνεπομένης τούτοις καὶ τῆς οἴκοθεν διανοηματικῆς ἐπιδόσεως, καὶ ἡμεῖς γε ποδηγηθῆναι ἕτοιμοι καὶ ἐλλαμφθῆναι πρόθυμοι τῆς παρ' ἄλλων δᾳδουχίας, ἐνδεεῖς φωτὸς ὑπάρχοντες ὅτι μάλιστα.