The Literary Legacy of Byzantium: Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of Joseph A. Munitiz SJ 9782503583549; 9782503583556, 2503583547

Table of contents :

Front Matter ("Contents", "Dedication", "Autobiographical tesserae", "List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ", "Abbreviations"), p. i
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.118755

Free Access

Eustathius, Letter concerning the Two Natures against Severus (CPG 6810): An English Translation, p. 25
Pauline Allen
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117143


An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom, p. 57
Theodora Antonopoulou
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117144


Etymologicum Symeonis Ζ, p. 77
Davide Baldi
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117145


The Slavonic Catena also known as the ‘Commentary of Philo’ and the Greek Catena Hauniensis on the Song of Songs, p. 109
Reinhart Ceulemans, Margaret Dimitrova
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117146


Athanasius’s Letter to Marcellinus as Psalter Preface, p. 145
Barbara Crostini
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117147


La prise de Jérusalem en 614 : les autorités, le peuple, les dèmes et le clergé, p. 167
José Declerck
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117148


An Ascetic Miscellany from the Late Thirteenth Century: the Atheniensis, Bibliothecae Nationalis 322, p. 189
Eva De Ridder
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117149


El florilegio de los mss. F H en la letra Alfa del Florilegio Coisliniano, p. 213
Tomás Fernández
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117150


The Transmission of the so-called ‘First Chapter Titles’ in the Second Recension of the Florilegium Coislinianum, p. 239
José Maksimczuk
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117151


La date de la composition du Corpus de S. Maxime le Confesseur : nouvelles données, p. 255
Basile Markesinis
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117152


Ramón Llull Y El Mundo Bizantino, p. 289
Juan Nadal-Cañellas
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117153


Est-ce qu’on a découvert la profession de foi de Métrophane de Smyrne ?, p. 321
Stefaan Neirynck, Peter Van Deun
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117154


The Reception of the ‘Catalogue of Inventors’ in Gregory of Nazianzus’ Sermon 4, 107-109 in Pseudo-Nonnus’ Commentary on Sermon 4 and Beyond: An end or a beginning?, p. 333
Jennifer Nimmo-Smith
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117155


Polémique antimanichéenne et controverse théologique : les combats d’un évêque du ive siècle, Titus de Bostra, p. 357
Paul-Hubert Poirier
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117156


La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas, p. 381
Antonio Rigo
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117157


A Dyothelite Florilegium in the Run-up to the Lateran Council (a. 649). Maximus the Confessor’s tomos to Stephen of Dor against the Ekthesis (CPG 7697. 15), p. 415
Bram Roosen
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117158


Back Matter ("Index of Authors", 'Index of Scholars", "Index of Manuscripts", "Tabula Gratulatoria), p. 535
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.118756

Citation preview

THE LITERARY LEGACY OF BYZANTIUM

BYZANTIOς Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 15 Series Editors Michael Altripp Lars Martin Hoffmann Christos Stavrakos Editorial & Advisory Board Michael Featherstone (CNRS, Paris) Bojana Krsmanović (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade) Bogdan Maleon (University of Iasi) Antonio Rigo (University of Venice) Horst Schneider (University of Munich) Juan Signes Codoner (University of Valladolid) Peter Van Deun (University of Leuven) Nino Zchomelidse (Johns Hopkins University)

THE LITERARY LEGACY OF BYZANTIUM Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph A. Munitiz SJ

Edited by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun

H

F

© 2019, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2019/0095/43 ISBN 978-2-503-58354-9 E-ISBN 978-2-503-58355-6 ISSN: 1371-7677 eISSN: 1371-8401 DOI 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.116632 Printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS

Charalambos Dendrinos, Dedication

1

Joseph A. Munitiz, Autobiographical tesserae

5

List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ

15

Abbreviations

21

Pauline Allen, Eustathius, Letter concerning the Two Natures against Severus (CPG 6810): An English Translation

25

Theodora Antonopoulou, An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

57

Davide Baldi, Etymologicum Symeonis Ζ

77

Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova, The Slavonic Catena also known as the ‘Commentary of Philo’ and the Greek Catena Hauniensis on the Song of Songs

109

Barbara Crostini, Athanasius’s Letter to Marcellinus as Psalter Preface

145

José Declerck, La prise de Jérusalem en 614 : les autorités, le peuple, les dèmes et le clergé

167

Eva De Ridder, An Ascetic Miscellany from the Late Thirteenth Century: the Atheniensis, Bibliothecae Nationalis 322

189

Tomás Fernández, El florilegio de los mss. F H en la letra Alfa del Florilegio Coisliniano

213

José Maksimczuk, The Transmission of the so-called ‘First Chapter Titles’ in the Second Recension of the Florilegium Coislinianum

239

CONTENTS

Basile Markesinis, La date de la composition du Corpus de S. Maxime le Confesseur : nouvelles données

255

Juan Nadal Cañellas (†), Ramón Llull Y El Mundo Bizantino 289 Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun, Est-ce qu’on a découvert la profession de foi de Métrophane de Smyrne ?

321

Jennifer Nimmo Smith, The Reception of the ‘Catalogue of Inventors’ in Gregory of Nazianzus’ Sermon 4, 107–09 in Pseudo-Nonnus’ Commentary on Sermon 4 and Beyond: An End or a Beginning?

333

Paul-Hubert Poirier, Polémique antimanichéenne et controverse théologique : les combats d’un évêque du ive siècle, Titus de Bostra

357

Antonio Rigo, La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

381

Bram Roosen, A Dyothelite Florilegium in the Run-up to the Lateran Council (a. 649). Maximus the Confessor’s tomos to Stephen of Dor against the Ekthesis (CPG 7697. 15)

415

Index of Authors

535

Index of Scholars

545

Index of Manuscripts

555

Tabula gratulatoria

561

VI

Charalambos Dendrinos

Dedication The present Festschrift in honour of Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ was prepared by former, present, and future contributors to the Series Graeca of the Corpus Christianorum (CCSG), as a token of profound respect, appreciation, and admiration felt towards the eminent Byzantinist and cofounder of the CCSG. The volume has been produced especially in order to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Series foundation, in 1977. Over the last four decades, and under the leadership of successive directors, the CCSG has successfully produced more than eighty volumes containing critical editions of unpublished or previously published Greek theological, religious, and spiritual texts that between them cover many centuries of Byzantine thought. In the process, the Series has proved ground-breaking for the ways in which it has approached Greek patristic and byzantine texts, for setting new scholarly standards in the field of textual criticism, and for adopting innovative editorial practices and conventions that have been increasingly followed by scholars around the world. Our honorand has been actively involved with the Series Graeca since its inception, and has contributed significantly to the shaping of its identity and the development of its life and work. The CCSG and its sister series, Corpus Christianorum in Translation (CCT) are proud to include a number of model volumes produced by Father Joseph Munitiz, namely Theognosti Thesaurus (CCSG, 5 [1979]), Nicephori Blemmydae Autobiographia sive curriculum vitae necnon epistula universalior (CCSG, 13 [1984]), and Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et Responsiones (co-edited with † Marcel Richard, CCSG, 59 [2006]), all of which he subsequently annotated and translated: Nikephoros Blemmydes: A Partial Account (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents, 48 [1988]), Anastasios of Sinai: Questions and Answers (CCT, 7 [2011]), and Theognostos: Treasury (CCT, 16 [2014]). Alongside these volumes, Father Munitiz has published extensively throughout his long career on Byzantine historical, autobiographical, theological, homiletical, catechetical, hagiographical, and spiritual literature, as well as on areas of palaeography. A substantial part of his work has also focused on St Ignatius of Loyola

Charalambos Dendrinos

and the Society of Jesus. We refer readers to the bibliography for further details. Father Joseph Munitiz is a true scholar, an inspiring mentor, and an affectionate teacher. Always ready to listen, help, and advise, over the years he has guided, supported, and encouraged novices, students and fellow scholars, many of whom have become his devoted friends and disciples. Those who are fortunate to know him personally, as well as those who are acquainted with him through his work benefit greatly from his erudition and deep understanding of the Orthodox tradition and spirituality. His emphasis on detail, and his conviction that sound knowledge of both philology and palaeography are essential for young scholars who wish to acquire a thorough appreciation of Byzantine history, literature, and culture was put to good use during his tutorials and seminars, including the postgraduate working seminar on editing Byzantine texts at Royal Holloway, University of London, which he co-founded in the 1980s and which has continued up to the present day. Given his unassuming nature we considered it more appropriate, instead of composing an extensive laudatio in his honour, to invite Father Joseph to write an autobiographical sketch, although we did not reveal our intention of including it in this Festschrift. He graciously accepted our invitation, and in his Autobiographical tesserae in this volume, he reflects on his life and work, and highlights important aspects that shaped his choices, interests, and career. By including Father Joseph’s own tesserae along with those represented by the essays of the contributors to this volume, a rich and colourful mosaic is formed as a tribute to a leading Byzantinist who has greatly enriched our field with his scholarship. It is with a deep sense of gratitude but also with some degree of nervousness that the Institute of Palaeochristian and Byzantine Studies of the Catholic University of Louvain, in co-operation with the Hellenic Institute of Royal Holloway, University of London, presents this volume to Dr Joseph A. Munitiz: nervousness, because to offer a Festschrift to a scholar like Father Joseph is a demanding task and, as editors and contributors, we can only hope to have approached the high standards of Father Joseph’s own scholarly work; gratitude, for his major contribution to Byzantine Studies and for bringing greater understanding between the Greek East and the Latin West.



Dedication

Bringing knowledge and greater understanding has also been a major goal of the editorial endeavour that is the CCSG. It is symbolized by the icon of the two clerical figures supporting the Church that adorns the front cover of each volume of the Corpus Christianorum. Hopefully, this Festschrift will bring us one small but appreciated step further towards that goal. Together with friends, readers, publishers, supporters, and contributors, we wish the honorand and the Series Graeca, Εἰς ἔτη πολλά!



Joseph A. Munitiz

Autobiographical tesserae As I have been asked to give some account of my life, let me begin, following the wise counsel of Horace in medias res. I feel that if my life has been of any use, it is due to the publications I have been able to give to the world. The most important of these sprang from a discovery I made sitting in the Benaki Library in Athens (1972) while collating one of their manuscripts. I was working on the critical edition of the Θησαυρός attributed to an unknown “Theognostos” who was thought to have lived in the fourteenth century. But while comparing his text in one manuscript with the same text in another, I saw that there was a different reading at one point: instead of saying that a round number of years had passed since the death of Christ, the Benaki manuscript text stipulated the exact number of years. With that I could place Theognostos securely in the previous century, the thirteenth. It was one of those “eureka” moments that make a scholar’s life worthwhile. It may also open a window on what has been the work of my life. The world of books had had an attraction for me from many years earlier. Even as a novice to the Society of Jesus, it was the text of the Jesuit ground-plan for teaching, the Ratio studiorum, in which I delved to produce a short study on its originality. But while reading, I also felt the need to ask questions and the desire to divulge my findings to others. My Oxford tutor must have been surprised when a couple of years after leaving Oxford I sent him an article on Cicero’s tirade against Catilina. Fortunately, both of the articles mentioned have been lost as now they would only embarrass me by their naivety. I was born from Spanish Basque parents in 1931 – my father a shipchandler and my mother at one time a professional singer – in the beautiful city of Cardiff, with its noble castle, so magnificently restored by the mediaeval-minded Marquis of Bute. Of those early years my most vivid memories are of the incendiary bombs falling during World War 2 on the sacristy of our local church, Our Lady of the Angels. It was winter time, and by the following morning the water thrown to put out the flames had become a sheet of ice. My father’s business, which had relied a lot on Spanish shipping, collapsed with the Spanish Civil War followed

Joseph A. Munitiz

by the World War. The worry caused a sudden heart-attack when he was only 60. My mother followed him, a victim of tuberculosis, three years later (1943). Fortunately, a kindly aunt stepped in and saved my sister, my brother and myself from an orphanage. We then moved to live in Crosby, Liverpool, and I attended a day-school, St Mary’s College, run by the Irish Christian brothers. My links with Spain were held in abeyance until in 1947 I was sent, with my brother, to a boarding school in Vitoria. A year there brought back to life the Castilian I must have spoken as a child. At the same time, I discovered that the germ of a vocation had begun to grow in me. More and more I knew that I would be happy only with the choice of a life dedicated to the service of Christ. My readers may find it ironic that this was also the period when I discovered that I needed knowledge of Greek. Although my years at St Mary’s Crosby had equipped me with some knowledge (not much appreciated) of Latin, no Greek letters had ever crossed before my eyes. But Spain gave me a much-needed introduction to the language that would later become my profession. In the initial stages, I taught myself, but was given some help in the Junior Seminary of Comillas, where a remarkable Jesuit scholar, Domingo Mayor, was active and where one year was devoted exclusively to the classics. This was due to the initiative of Fr Pedraz, a great believer in the value of the classics, and the course he organized (CEHUC as it was called) began to open my eyes to the beauty of language. One companion from that time who remains unforgettable was José Luis Blanco Vega, a poet from his birth; he preceded me into the Society and later did wonders with the Castilian version of the liturgy. When I announced at home my intention of becoming a Jesuit, the news was greeted with approval, although it was only many years later that I discovered that I was not the first in the family to have taken such a decision: Juan, my father’s brother had tried his vocation but subsequently left the order. At that time, 1950, entry into a religious order meant separation from one’s family, but this was less of a hardship for me, since my parents were dead and my siblings, Arthur and Marie, were branching out in different directions. The academic training I underwent in the Society was notable for its thoroughness and length. Classics were present in what was called the “Juniorate”, a year designed to follow the novitiate and ensure a certain level of education. The teacher I most admired then was Christopher Devlin, an English scholar who produced a critical edition of Gerard Manley Hopkins, and it may be from him that the importance of ed-



AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL TESSERAE

iting texts first began to dawn on me. The philosophy course that followed at Heythrop College was narrowly scholastic in scope but at least it brought me into contact with thinkers, and the works of David Hume especially caught my attention. However, it was the Greats course at Oxford that really opened my eyes to critical thought. My abiding memory of those four years is of considerable stress as I felt far from competent in my knowledge of Latin and even less of Greek. But much more memorable is the extraordinary kindness shown by my tutors, men and women (Iris Murdoch among them) who showed real interest and support. My original hope had been to abandon the classics and devote myself to the Spanish Golden Age literature that I had discovered while in Spain. But in the 50s teachers were needed in the Jesuit schools, and mainly those able to teach the classics. How things have changed! I finished finals with a “second” to my great disappointment as I had been expecting a “first”. My single memory of the final examination is of an oral in which Gilbert Ryle asked me what I meant when I spoke of a “function” in one answer and I could only bluff in reply. After an unhappy year teaching at the secondary level I asked the Provincial to send me to Spain for my four years of theology and so found myself back in Comillas, an isolated handsome building overlooking the Bay of Biscay. It also commanded a breath-taking view of the Picos de Europa, a mountain range to the West, where I spent many happy hours trekking and climbing. This was the area where I also gained my first pastoral experience in the mountain villages that kept me in touch with the reality of life. The period coincided with the Second Vatican Council, when a seismic shift in theological thinking shook the Roman Catholic Church. However, the repercussions were hardly felt in Spain which had been cut off by ecclesiastical and state censorship. Only a few of the Spanish bishops, like Tarancón and Cirarda, grasped the importance of the new policy – ecumenical and tolerant – adopted by the Council, but I was fortunate in that Mgr Cirarda was a distant relative and he came to Comillas for my ordination in 1965. Among the professors, the New Testament scholar, Fr Mateos made an impression on me by his openness and pastoral gifts, but on the whole I gained little theologically from those years except for a first acquaintance with the writings of Karl Rahner. Out of the blue a letter arrived from my Provincial Superior telling me that I was to go to Rome to study for a licentiate in oriental theology at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, the plan being that I would eventually join the teaching staff there. Later I discovered that the prime



Joseph A. Munitiz

mover behind the letter was Joseph Gill, the distinguished historian of the Council of Florence, then Rector of the Orientale who was looking for new staff. The letter caught me by surprise as I had never heard of the Orientale, and the “Orthodox” Churches had appeared only far away on the horizon of my theological studies. Also, my Greek had grown rusty from lack of use. I would like to say that once I arrived in Rome I grew in the knowledge and love of the Greek language, but the sorry fact is that I found the organization of studies, with the emphasis on rote-learning anything but inspiring. The break came when I attended the lectures of Irénée Hausherr, the great expert on oriental spirituality and an original kindly man. With his backing I asked to take Symeon the New Theologian as the subject of my thesis work. The then specialist on Symeon was a French Jesuit scholar, Joseph Paramelle, living in Paris and I suggested that I move to the Sorbonne for my doctorate. The authorities at the Orientale generously agreed, but politely added that perhaps I had better not expect to return. It was clear that I was not suited for that institution – and looking back, I am very grateful that they had the good sense to see this. On my arrival in Paris in 1969, I dutifully went to call on Fr Paramelle, who was then working under a French abbé, Marcel Richard, at the Greek section of the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes (a branch of the enlightened French CNRS). The three of us discussed a possible theme for a thesis and the abbé Richard reached up and pulled out a volume made up of photographs of a Greek manuscript which he had found on Mount Athos and which he thought interesting. It was the Θησαυρός attributed to Theognostos. “Why not take that as the subject of your thesis?” he suggested with Fr Paramelle’s support. That was the real start of my career. I was to spend seven years before finishing the critical edition that served as my doctoral thesis. It may seem a long period, but I began with minimal knowledge of Byzantium and its history, and fortunately I realized that a working knowledge of modern spoken Greek would be an invaluable asset. Given the network of Jesuit residences in Europe, it was easy to arrange to have a year in Greece, spending time in Athens, Thessaloniki and the Catholic island of Syros. This idyllic setting was where I typed out the text of the Θησαυρός while also serving as assistant priest and – one of my treasured memories – performing a baptism in Greek! Perhaps what most impressed me as I came to know more and more of mediaeval Byzantium was the realization that the narrow view I had previously held of the Church and the Papacy needed complete reform.



AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL TESSERAE

Here was a vibrant Church with valid sacraments independent of Rome and, despite all its obvious faults, blessed with a spirituality of extraordinary richness. For me personally it was not the liturgy that took me in its grip (though I could understand that for others that would be the case), but the texts that spoke so eloquently of contact with God. As I came to the end of my studies the abbé Richard once again proved to be the pivotal agent for the next stage of my life. Through his friendship with the Flemish scholar, Maurice Geerard, he had been appointed to direct the new Greek Series of the Corpus Christianorum, about to be launched in Leuven (Flemish Louvain). He arranged for me to join the editorial team, though sadly he did not live long enough himself to join us. Before his death he asked me to see through the press the work he had started on editing the “Questions and Answers” of Anastasios Sinaita. In this way I arrived in Leuven with two major projects before me: these would eventually find completion as two volumes in the Corpus Christianorum, one containing the Θησαυρός and the other the erotapokriseis of Anastasios. They represent many years of work, but my heart was in that patient collation of manuscripts, where fascinating problems are hidden that need solving. Those who have experienced the joy of editorial work are aware of the constant surprises it affords. I was later to evoke this in an inaugural lecture given to the Spanish Society of Byzantine Studies: “The importance of the secondary”. It is in the detail that a scholar finds his or her quarry: the marginal note, the unexpected variant that can change everything. One feature of these two volumes (CCSG, 5 and 59) is that they both deal with popular, as opposed to speculative or professional, theology. Both Theognostos and Anastasios were writing for a lay public, Theognostos outlining (probably for the benefit of a nobleman) what a Christian should know about religion, and Anastasios answering the very practical questions put to him by married people. In addition, I had followed up the short synopsis on the Councils to be found in the Θησαυρός and discovered that it was one of several. It seemed to me clearly intended originally to be a teaching text, either for clerics or for educated lay people. Other chapters in the work of Theognostos (the summary of the Bible, the outline of Mariology, the short exhortation to a prince) convinced me that there was scope for a wider study of the way religion was taught in Byzantium. Unfortunately, I lacked the time to tackle what could have been a magnum opus. Ideally it would have compared the techniques common in Constantinople with those em-



Joseph A. Munitiz

ployed in the West. My hope is that some day a competent scholar will be inspired to continue where I had to leave off. While in Leuven, my office work consisted of copy-editing the work of other scholars, and my inspiration was my colleague, the great Walloon scholar and former Bollandist, Jacques Noret, probably the most exacting scholar I have ever met. But for psychological support, the person who helped me most was Professor Albert Van Roey, the director of the section in which I was working. Other outstanding colleagues of those years were (the future professors) Pauline Allen in Australia and Luk van Rompay at Duke in the States. A friend outside the Faculty was a Walloon scholar, Françoise Petit, then engaged (despite secondary teaching) in her monumental edition of the early catenae on Genesis. She subsequently moved to Louvain-la-Neuve, where our friendship continued. Another scholar friend, this time a member of the history faculty and an indefatigable editor of symposia, was Werner Verbeke. Married to a lady from Aragón, he opened his house to me, a small island of Spanish culture, and put me ever into his debt. Quite by chance I undertook a third project: I was living in what had been the Flemish Jesuit theologate and a large, but uncared-for library was attached to the old building. While working on Theognostos I felt the need to know more about his possible thirteenth-century acquaintances. While rummaging among the Teubner volumes I came across the work of Nikephoros Blemmydes, clearly a contemporary. I opened his autobiography and was quite annoyed to find that I could hardly understand his difficult Greek: it seemed so complicated. In my frustration, I felt I had to struggle with this text at all costs. To cut a long story short, I saw the need for a new edition, admirable as the work of the first editor, the great Heisenberg, had been. Fortunately, with time I was able to collate the relatively few manuscripts involved and could work out the meaning of the abstruse style. The work, an autobiography written with great character, proved to be of major interest and brought alive the culture of the Empire of Nicaea as no other work has done for me. In this case the need for a published translation was so obvious that I set about it at once and it was published before translations of my other two volumes in the Greek Series. These appeared quite recently through the initiative of the publishing house Brepols, based in Turnhout, which realized that for today’s students translations are more and more necessary. However, economic forces were at play, cutting back the funds necessary for supporting the editorial team in Leuven and my seven happy years there came to an end in 1983. My debt to Belgium is great: one



AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL TESSERAE

cannot live in Flanders without drawing inspiration from such great cultural cities as Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Brussels. The intelligent investments by successive governments in education have allowed the classics to flourish there when in so many European countries they were in demise. Also, the skill shown in balancing the legitimate demands of Flemish and French cultures made a great impression on me. I was able to witness the birth and growth of the university at Louvain-la-Neuve, while also seeing the strengthened development of the Flemish-speaking university with its defence of its own sweet tongue. Being in the happy position of a go-between, I was privileged to find friends on both sides of the linguistic frontier. On returning to London, I was able to continue my editorial work while joining the administrative staff of Heythrop College, then strategically housed in Cavendish Square. I took over from the distinguished Syriac scholar and Jesuit, Robert Murray, the editorship of The Heythrop Journal, which obliged me to renew a badly-needed acquaintance with theological trends. At the same time, I was able to continue editorial work, mainly with the Anastasian volume. But a happy coincidence brought me into contact with Julian Chrysostomides, who was just launching (along with Athanasios Angelou) a reading-seminar and had selected the text of Blemmydes, unaware that I had just finished a new edition. A very happy and fruitful collaboration ensued. Once we had completed our first translation project, we found another presented by my good friend, Christopher Walter. We had met as English speakers when we were both based in Paris, and I greatly admired his studies of Byzantine iconography. In fact, he was one of several Assumptionist scholars who had helped me during my thesis years, among them Jean Darrouzès and Albert Failler. Most outstanding of these was the director of my thesis, Jean Gouillard, who had left the order but continued to write works of great sensitivity about spiritual themes. Christopher pointed out that little was known about a letter supposedly written by three of the Eastern Patriarchs to the Emperor Theophilos in the first phase of the iconoclast controversy. The seminar group decided to collate the relevant manuscripts and embark on an edition and translation. Eirene Harvalia-Crook was an enthusiastic member of the seminar and we were fortunate to have Charalambos Dendrinos to ensure accuracy in the reading of the manuscripts. The venture culminated in a very happy week spent on the pistachio farm of Athanasios (in the island of Aegina) when we reread the final version and prepared the publication (1997).



Joseph A. Munitiz

In 1989 I had been appointed Master of Campion Hall, Oxford, and for nine years much of my time was taken up with administration. My main preoccupation was to ensure, as far as I could, the well-being of the community made up largely of Jesuits. These were resident for three to four years at a time, and most were very busy with undergraduate or graduate studies. We also had a number of men who were not Jesuits but had joined us because of their links with the Society. It was a happy time for me as it allowed me to develop a second string to my bow: the publication of texts related to the Society of Jesus. Many years earlier I had begun using my knowledge of Spanish to translate key documents, the first being the Spiritual Diary of our founder, St Ignatius Loyola. The presence at the Hall of two good friends, Billy Hewett and Philip Endean, enabled me to see this text into print on two occasions, the second as part of a very successful collection, The Personal Writings of St Ignatius, included in the Penguin Classics series and appearing just in time for the centenary celebrations of the Hall in 1996. These were graced by a former Archbishop of San Francisco, Mgr John Quinn, who kindly provided a historic lecture calling for the reform of the Papal office. The centenary was also marked by the publication of a volume edited by an American Jesuit friend, Thomas M. McCoog, The Reckoned Expense: Edmund Campion and the Early English Jesuits: Essays in Celebration of the First Centenary of Campion Hall, Oxford (1896-1996) [Boydell Press, 1996; now republished]. Another memorable guest during those years was the leading American exegete, Raymond Brown; and René Girard also came and spoke on one occasion. The chance to have contact with such memorable figures was an enormous boost for my own self-confidence, as by nature I lack great social gifts. An important link I forged during these years was with a Flemish Jesuit, Paul Mommaers. He had directed the Antwerp Institute specializing in studies on Ruusbroec and took a special interest in the writings of the mystic, Hadewijch. I invited him to give a series of lectures at Campion Hall (published as The Riddle of Christian Mystical Experience: The Role of the Humanity of Jesus, 2003) and we continued to have a close collaboration as I helped him with his English-language publications. On retiring from Campion Hall in 1998 I took a sabbatical year (surely well-earned as it was my first and I had reached my 67th year) and spent several months in the Jesuit theologate in Granada and six months in a small Jesuit house that we then owned in Cambridge. As my brother had studied at King’s many years earlier, I was delighted to have the chance to become acquainted with the “other place”, so similar



AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL TESSERAE

to Oxford yet with a character all its own. St Edmund’s College kindly accepted me as a Visiting Scholar, and thanks to their meals I was able to survive as my own cooking abilities are almost non-existent. I continued to work on Ignatian material and made great progress (helped by Alexander Eaglestone) with a work of which I am particularly fond: the Memoriale of Luís Gonçalves da Câmara. This was written by a close friend of Ignatius, shortly before the latter’s death and recounts in detail his daily life in Rome, 1554-1555: probably the most-revealing of all biographical documents. In September 1999, I moved to Birmingham where the Jesuits have their novitiate, as the Provincial wanted me to accompany the newly appointed Novice Director, Brendan Comerford. I had asked if I might be posted in my retirement to a house near to a centre for Byzantine studies and the choice seemed to be between Birmingham and Belfast. In this second city I had good friends as Margaret Mullett had involved me in an ambitious translation project, the Synagoge put together by Paul of Evergetis. But providentially, as my ties with the centre set up by Prof. Anthony Bryer were much stronger, Birmingham was chosen. The university building was only half-an-hour’s walk from the novitiate and I developed (thanks to Prof. Bryer) a close relationship with his centre and was able to take part in some of the projects then under way. Notable among these was work (with Mary Cunningham) on Syropoulos (his account of the Orthodox journey to Venice for the Council of Florence) and (with Ruth Macrides and Dimiter Angelov) on the text on court procedure of Pseudo-Kodinos. The first benefited from the enthusiasm of some outstanding students who have published an electronic version and commentary; the second saw the light of day (thanks to very hard work by Ruth). Among the many happy memories of my days in Harborne, I must mention first of all the pastoral experience with young people that I had thanks to a remarkable venture of the British Jesuits which unfortunately has recently been discontinued: the JVC programme (an abbreviation for the Jesuit Volunteer Communities). Small groups of four or five men and women would undertake to live together in very simple circumstances while giving voluntary aid at various social projects in the city. My job was to provide some link with the Jesuits and act as a counsellor if necessary. The contact with these high-minded youngsters confirmed my faith in today’s youth which is frequently criticised as it no longer finds inspiration in institutional religion. A second happy memory: thanks to Prof. Bryer my name was put forward for an honorary doctor-



Joseph A. Munitiz

ate from Birmingham University (2004) – a gesture kindly meant but somewhat overwhelming. I was pleased to accept, however, as it was one way to bring Byzantine studies to public notice and I had the pleasure and honour to meet, along with my sister, Mrs Marie O’Brien, the then Chancellor, Sir Dominic Cadbury. After eleven years in Harborne, the Provincial suggested that I move back to Campion Hall. I accepted willingly, though I was apprehensive that the incumbent Master, Br Brendan Callaghan, might be loath to have a former Master returning to the Hall. I need not have worried, as he proved a most gracious host. There have been some health complications with my advancing years, but the excellent medical facilities in Oxford have been a great help. My work now is focussed on translation projects, a boon for an academic. I have been able to see through the press a series of articles on spirituality originally written in Spanish or French, and the contact I had made with Dimiter Angelov, now appointed to Harvard, meant that I could join him in translating the complicated writings of Theodore II Laskaris (thus bringing me back to my work on Blemmydes). As the end comes in sight, I realize that books cannot be taken with me, though I am glad to have produced some to leave behind me. There is so much for which I am grateful! Byzantine studies have brought me above all such wonderful friendships. I have constantly met scholars, some of outstanding calibre, who were generous with me, and I can honestly say that, although not so gifted, I have tried to follow their example. People may think that life in a library is very shut in; they may not be aware that libraries with Greek manuscripts are often very far apart and in beautiful sites. My studies have taken me round the world, even to Beijing, thanks to my generous friend, Dr Lap Chuen Tsang (author of a key work on “the sublime”). Again, my life in Campion Hall and responsibility for its art collection opened my eyes to a world of beauty of which I was woefully ignorant. To close, the words that come to mind are those I quoted in Birmingham when receiving my honorary degree. They come from the Jesuit poet Gerard Manley Hopkins and I feel they apply to my own life as a Jesuit Byzantinist: These things, these things were here and but the beholder Wanting: which two when they once meet, The heart rears wings, bold and bolder And hurls for him, O half hurls earth for him off under his feet.



List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ Books Byzantina –, Theognosti Thesaurus (CCSG, 5), Turnhout – Leuven, 1979. –, Nicephori Blemmydae Autobiographia sive curriculum vitae necnon epistula universalior (CCSG, 13), Turnhout – Leuven, 1984. – with C. Laga & L. van Rompay (ed.), After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday (OLA, 18), Leuven, 1985. –, Nikephoros Blemmydes: A Partial Account (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents, 48), Leuven, 1988. –, Catechisms in the making: Questions and answers in the eighth century and today (Aquinas Memorial Lecture 1993), Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, 1993. – with J. Chrysostomides, E. Harvalia-Crook & Ch. Dendrinos (ed.), The Letter of the Three Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos and Related texts, Camberley, 1997. – with M. Richard (†), Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et Responsiones (CCSG, 59), Turnhout – Leuven, 2006. –, Anastasios of Sinai: Questions and Answers, transl. with introduction and notes (CCT, 7), Turnhout, 2011. – with R. Macrides & D. Angelov (ed.), Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and Ceremonies (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies, 15), Farnham, 2013. –, Theognostos: Treasury, transl. with introduction and notes (CCT, 16), Turnhout, 2013 [2014].

Ignatiana/Jesuitica – with Ph. Endean (ed.), Saint Ignatius of Loyola: Personal Writings, Reminiscences, Spiritual Diary, Select Letters including the text of the Spiritual Exercises, transl. with introductions and notes (Penguin Classics), Harmondsworth, 1996. – (ed.), Sydney Smith, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus, Leominster, 2005. – with A. Eaglestone (ed.), Remembering Iñigo: Glimpses of the Life of Saint Ignatius of Loyola: the “Memoriale” of Luis Gonçalves da Câmara, ­Leominster – St Louis, 2005.

List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ

– (ed.), Keeping in Touch: Michael Ivens, Posthumous Papers on Ignatian Topics, Leominster, 2007. – (ed.), An Approach to Saint Ignatius of Loyola by Michael Ivens, SJ, Oxford, 2008. – (ed.), Chosen by God: Pedro Arrupe’s Retreat Notes 1965, Oxford, 2010. –, Ignatian Spirituality: A Selection of Continental Studies in Translation, Oxford, 2016.

Articles –, Estudio sobre la moralidad en “el Burlador de Sevilla”, in Humanidades, XV/35 (1959), p. 5-23. –, Problemas ideológicos de un Obispo anglicano [Honest to God], in Sal Terrae, 53 (1965), p. 3-9. –, The Church at Prayer: Ecclesiological Aspects of St Gregory of Nyssa’s In Cantica Canticorum, in Eastern Churches Review, 3 (1971), p. 385-395. –, The Spiritual Diary of Ignatius Loyola, in The Way Supplement, 16 (1972), p. 101-116. –, A Note on the Ps.-Chrystostom Sermon On not fearing death, in SYMPOSION. Studies on St John Chrysostom (Analekta Blatadon, 18), Thessalonike, 1973, p. 120-124. –, Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council, in REB, 32 (1974), p. 147186. –, A Greek “Anima Christi” Prayer, in Eastern Churches Quarterly (1975), p. 170-179. –, The manuscript of Justel’s Anonymi Tractatus de synodis, in Byz, 47 (1977), p. 239-257. –, Synoptic Byzantine Chronologies of the Councils, in REB, 36 (1978), p. 193218. –, A Fragment Attributed to Theognostus, in JThS, 30 (1979), p. 56-66. –, Religious Instruction in the Mid-XIIIth Century: The Evidence of an Unpublished Greek Thesauros, in Actes du xve Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Athènes, Septembre 1976, t. IV, Athens, 1980, p. 253-258. –, Self-Canonisation: The “Partial Account” of Nikephoros Blemmydes, in S. Hackel (ed.), The Byzantine Saint, London, 1981, p. 164-168. –, Le Parisinus Graecus 1115 : description et arrière-plan historique, in Scriptorium, 36 (1982), p. 51-67. –, A “Wicked Woman” in the 13th Century, in JÖB, 32/2 (1982), p. 529-537. –, The Link Between Some Membra Disiecta of John Moschus, in AB, 101 (1983), p. 295-296.



List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ

–, A Clavis to the “Florilegia on the Eucharist” Attributed to John of Oxeia, in Ἀντίδωρον. Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer l’achèvement de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Wetteren, 1984, p. 177-200. –, Two Stories from the Monidia, in C. Laga, J. A. Munitiz & L. van Rompay (ed.), After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday (OLA, 18), Leuven, 1985, p. 233-254. –, A Missing Chapter from the Typicon of Nikephoros Blemmydes, in REB, 44 (1986), p. 199-207. –, Fragments of Philo on Genesis, in Heythrop Journal, 27 (1986), p. 63-65. –, Jewish Controversy in Byzantium, in Heythrop Journal, 28 (1987), p. 305-308. –, Loyola’s Spiritual Diary, I. Ignatius’ Idea of Discernment; II. The Problem of Personal Sanctity, in The Month (1988), p. 719-724 & p. 895-900. –, Photius’ Bibliotheca Restored, in Heythrop Journal, 29 (1988), p. 461-462. –, Catechetical Teaching-Aids in Byzantium, in J. Chrysostomides (ed.), Καθηγήτρια: Essays presented to Joan Hussey for her 80th birthday, Camberley, 1988 [1989], p. 69-83. –, An Alternative Ending to the Letter of the Three Patriarchs (BHG 1386), in OCP, 55 (1989), p. 411-419. –, Blemmydes’ Encomium on St John the Theologian (BHG 931), in AB, 107 (1989), p. 285-346. –, Parisinus graecus 1115, in Ch. Astruc et al. (ed.), Les manuscrits grecs datés des xiiie et xive siècles conservés dans les Bibliothèques Publiques de France, Paris, 1989, p. 46-48. –, Théognoste, in Dsp, 15 (1990), col. 443-445. –, A Reappraisal of Blemmydes’ First Discussion with the Latins, in Bsl, 51 (1990), p. 20-26. –, Communicating Channels: Letters to Reveal and to Govern, in The Way Supplement, 70 (1991), p. 64-75. –, Joseph Gill, S.J. (8.ix.1901 – 15.x.1989), in OCP, 57 (1991), p. 5-10. –, Ignatius and the University, in The Month (1991), p. 315-317. –, Hagiographical Autobiography in the 13th Century, in Byzantinoslavica, 53 (1992), p. 243-249. –, Nicephorus Blemmydes (1197/8-1269[?]), in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, XXIV, Berlin – New York, 1994, p. 457-460. –, War and Peace Reflected in Some Byzantine Mirrors of Princes, in T. S. Miller – J. Nesbitt (ed.), Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., Washington, D.C., 1995, p. 50-61. –, Dedicating a Volume: Apokaukos and Hippocrates (Paris. gr. 2144), in C. N. Constantinides et al. (ed.), Φιλέλλην. Studies in Honour of Robert Browning (Istituto Ellenico di studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, Bibliotheke, 17), Venice, 1996, p. 267-280.



List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ

–, Wonder-Working Ikons and the Letters to Theophilos, in L. Garland (ed.), Conformity and Non-Conformity in Byzantium (Byzantinische Forschungen, 24), Amsterdam, 1997, p. 115-123. –, Nikephoros Blemmydes on John: A Byzantine Scholar’s Reactions to John’s Prologue, in C. Rowland – D. H. T. Fletcher-Louis (ed.), Understanding, Studying and Reading. New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton (Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series, 153), Sheffield, 1998, p. 247-253. –, Anastasius of Sinai as Preacher, in P. Allen – M. B. Cunningham (ed.), Preacher and Audience. Studies in Early Christiana and Byzantine Homiletics (New History of the Sermon, 1), Leiden – Boston, 1998, p. 227-245. –, Anastasios of Sinai’s Teaching on Body and Soul, in L. James (ed.), Desire and Denial in Byzantium. Papers from the 31st Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Brighton, March 1997, Aldershot, 1999, p. 49-56. –, Blemmydes: Typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes for the Monastery of the Lord Christ-Who-Is at Ematha near Ephesos, in J. Thomas – A. Constantinides Hero (ed.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, vol. 3 (DOS, 35), Washington, 2000, p. 1196-1206 (doc. 36). –, The Predetermination of Death: The Contribution of Anastasios of Sinai and Nikephoros Blemmydes to a Perennial Byzantine Problem, in DOP, 55 (2001), p. 9-20. –, Anastasian Questions and Answers among the Sinai New Finds, in REB, 60 (2002), p. 199-207. –, Blemmydes Revisited: the letters of Nikephoros Blemmydes to Patriarch Manuel II, in Ch. Dendrinos – J. Harris – E. Harvalia-Crook – J. Herrin (ed.), Porphyrogenita: Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot, 2003, p. 369-387. –, “Here you have me, Lord!” Fr Arrupe’s First Retreat as Superior General of the Society of Jesus, in The Way, 42/2 (2003), p. 63-77. –, Francisco Suárez and the Exclusion of Men of Jewish or Moorish Descent from the Society of Jesus, in Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 73 (146), 2004, p. 327-340. –, Hurdles in Greek, in M. Mullett (ed.), Metaphrastes, or, Gained in translation: Essays and Translations in Honour of Robert H. Jordan (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, 9), Belfast, 2004, p. 22-27. –, In the Steps of Anastasius of Sinai: Later Traces of his Erotapkriseis, in B. Janssens – B. Roosen – P. Van Deun (ed.), Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (OLA, 137), Leuven, 2004, p. 435-454. –, St Ignatius of Loyola and Severe Depression, in The Way, 44/3 (2005), p. 5769.



List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ

–, The Stonyhurst Letter of St Ignatius, in The Stonyhurst Magazine, LIV/501 (2005), p. 77-84. –, Facetten van Ignatius, de algemene overste, in J. Haers – H. van Leeuwen – M. Rotsaert (ed.), De heer van de vriendschap, Averbode, 2006, p. 115-130; English version: Glimpses of Ignatius the Superior General, in The Lord of Friendship, Oxford, 2011, p. 97-116. –, St Aloysius Gonzaga: Autograph Letter in Manresa House Novitiate, in Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 76 (2007), p. 139-149. –, An Exhortation by Manuel Philes to Pay Attention, in P. Armstrong (ed.), Ritual and Art: Byzantine Essays for Christopher Walter, London, 2006, p. 28-43. –, A tribute to Professor Bryer, in L. Brubaker – K. Linardou (ed.), Eat, drink, and be merry (Luke 12:19) – Food and Wine in Byzantium. Papers of the 37th Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, In Honour of Professor A. A. M. Bryer, Aldershot, 2007, p. 3-4. –, The Writings of John L. Russell: A Tribute to his Academic Work, in Heythrop Journal, 49 (2008), p. 665-669. –, Writing for the Heart: The Spiritual Literature of Byzantium, in P. Stephenson (ed.), The Byzantine World, London – New York, 2010, p. 248259. –, Leo of Ochrid: the new Kephalaia, in OCP, 76 (2010), p. 121-144. – with O. Walker, Glimpses of Newman, 1801-1890, in The Way, 49/4 (2010), p. 7-16. –, La importancia de lo secundario, Inaugural Address, in Estudios Bizantinos, 1, (2013), p. 1-12. –, Ignacio Iglesias: An Ignatian Enthusiast, in The Way, 53/3 (2014), p. 105-108. –, Thoughts on Hell, in The Way, 54/2 (2015), p. 41-44.

Book reviews W. Hörander, Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte, in Erasmus, 28 (1976), p. 813-816. J. Grosdidier de Matons (ed.), Romanos le Melode. Hymnes, t. v, in VigChr, 36 (1982), p. 406-409. D. Balfour (ed.), Symeon of Thessalonica: Theological Works, in JHS, 104 (1984), p. 273-274. F. Halkin & A.-J. Festugière (ed.), Dix textes inédits tirés du ménologe impérial de Koutloumous, in JHS, 106 (1986), p. 268-269. M.-H. Congourdeau (ed.), Nicolas Cabasilas. La vie en Christ, in JÖB, 42 (1992), p. 398-401.



List of publications by Dr Joseph A. Munitiz SJ

P. Gautier (ed.), Michaelis Pselli theologica I, and D. J. O’Meara (ed.), Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora II, in The Classical Review, 41 (1991), p. 229-230. H. Gauer, Texte zum byzantinischen Bilderstreit. Der Synodalbrief der drei Patriarchen des Ostens von 836 und seine Verwandlung in sieben Jahrhunderten, in BZ, 88 (1995), p. 162-165. M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081-1261, in Catholic Historical Review, 83/4 (1997), p. 771-772. R. Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium 843-1118, in JHS, 117 (1997), p. 268. A. Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and its Archetypes, in JThS, 49 (1998), p. 417-422. M.-Fr. Auzépy, La vie d’Étienne le Jeune par Étienne le Diacre (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 3), in Catholic Historical Review, 84/4 (1998), p. 731-732. S. Efthymiadis, The life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon (BHG 1698) (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 4), in Catholic Historical Review, 85/4 (1999), p. 601-602. P. Allen & B. Neil, Maximus the Confessor and his Companions. Documents from Exile (Oxford Early Christian Texts), in JÖB, 54 (2004), p. 304307. G. Prinzig, Demetrii Chomateni ponemata diaphora (CFHB, Series Berolinensis, 38), in Südost-Forschungen, 61/62 (2002/2003 [2004]), p. 507509. O. Peri, Christianity under Islam in Jerusalem. The Question of the Holy Sites in Early Ottoman Times (The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage, 23), in Cristianesimo nella storia, 25 (2004), p. 1055-1057. I. D. Polemis, Theodori Dexii opera omnia (CCSG, 55), in JÖB, 55 (2005), p. 319-322. A. Louth & A. Casiday (ed.), Byzantine Orthodoxies. Papers from the Thirtysixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23-25 March 2002, in JÖB, 57 (2007), p. 346-349.



Abbreviations AB ACO BA BBGG BETL BHG BSGRT Byz BZ CCSG CCCM CCT CFHB CIG CIL CJ CPG

CPL CSCO CSEL

Analecta Bollandiana Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Byzantinisches Archiv Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana Byzantion Byzantinische Zeitschrift Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum in Translation Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Codex Justinianus M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vol., Turnhout, 1983, 1974, 1979, 1980 and 1987; M. Geerard – J. Noret, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Supplementum, Turnhout, 1998; J. Noret, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, III A, editio secunda, anastatica, addendis locupletata, Turnhout, 2003. A thoroughly revised and updated version of volume IV has recently been published by J. Noret (Turnhout, 2018). E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum (CCSL), Steenbrugis, 19953 Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

Abbreviations

CSHB DOP DOS Dsp EEBS Ehrhard, Überlieferung

EL EO ETL GCS GNO IP(M) JHS JÖB JThS Lampe, Lexicon LBG LSJ

MEG MOG Mus OCA OCP

Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae Dumbarton Oaks Papers Dumbarton Oaks Studies Dictionnaire de spiritualité Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, Erster Teil. Die Überlieferung, 1-3(TU, 50-52), Leipzig, 1937-1952 Estudios Lulianos Échos d’Orient Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten (drei) Jahrhunderte Gregorii Nysseni Opera Instrumenta Patristica (et Mediaevalia) Journal of Hellenic Studies Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik The Journal of Theological Studies G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961 Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität H. G. Liddell – R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, a new edition revised and augmented throughout by H. S. Jones, Oxford, 1940, with a Supplement ed. by E. A. Barber, Oxford, 1968 (several reprints) Medioevo Greco I. Salzinger, Raimundi Lulli Opera Omnia, Magúncia, 1721-1722 Le Muséon Orientalia Christiana Analecta Orientalia Christiana Periodica



Abbreviations

OLA OLP PG PL PLP PmbZ1

PmbZ2

PO PTS RAC RE REB Regestes

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Wien, 1976-1996 Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–867), hrsg. von der BerlinBrandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, nach Vorarbeiten F. Winkelmanns erstellt von R.-J. Lilie, C. Ludwig, Th. Pratsch, I. Rochow, B. Zielke u. a., Berlin – New York, 1998-2001 Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Zweite Abteilung (867-1025), hrsg. von der BerlinBrandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, nach Vorarbeiten F. Winkelmanns erstellt von R.-J. Lilie, C. Ludwig, Th. Pratsch, B. Zielke, unter Mitarbeit von H. Bichlmeier, B. Krönung, D. Föller sowie A. Beihammer, G. Prinzing, Berlin – New York, 2009-2013 Patrologia Orientalis Patristische Texte und Studien Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum Real-Encyclopädie (Pauly-Wissowa) Revue des études byzantines V. Grumel, V. Laurent, J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople (Le Patriarcat byzantin, Série I). Vol. I. Les actes des Patriarches, Fasc. 1-7, Paris, 1932-1991



Abbreviations

RGK

RHE RHT ROC RSBN SBHC SC SH ST Suppl. VigChr TB TLG TM TU VigChr ZaC

E. Gamillscheg, D. Harlfinger, H. Hunger, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 8001600. 1. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Grossbritanniens. 2. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Frankreichs. 3. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Roms mit dem Vatikan (Österreichische Aka­demie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik, 3), Wien, 1981, 1989 and 1997 Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique Revue d’Histoire des Textes Revue de l’Orient chrétien Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici Byzantioς. Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization Sources Chrétiennes Subsidia hagiographica Studi e Testi Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae C. G. Conticello, V. Conticello (ed.), La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, I/1 et II, Turnhout, 2015 et 2002 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, TLG®, registered trademark of the University of California: http:// www.tlg.uci.edu/ Travaux et Mémoires Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Vigiliae Christianae Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum



Pauline Allen*

Eustathius, Letter concerning the Two Natures against Severus (CPG 6810): An English Translation Abstract – The article offers the first English translation of Eustathius’ Epistula de duabus naturis or Letter concerning the Two Natures against Severus (CPG 6810). This translation of the monk Eustathius’ Letter concerning the Two Natures against Severus is based on my edition of the work, which appeared in 1989 as volume 19 in the Series Graeca of the Corpus Christianorum. 1 In the course of preparing the edition I received much gentle and insightful support from the honorandus of this volume, Rev. Dr J. A. Munitiz, SJ, whose generous friendship and collegiality since those days I have appreciated greatly. Apart from my introduction to the text in the CCSG, which summarises previous secondary literature up to that point, 2 there is little to add, except for the contribution of the late Cardinal Alois Grillmeier, SJ, in his Christ in Christian Tradition, which situated the monk Eustathius in the mid- or late-sixth century and established him as a defender of strict Chalcedonian language. 3 The monk’s main aim is to prove that the anti-Chalcedonian Severus, patriarch of Antioch from 512-518, 4 contradicts himself when speak* Pauline Allen Dphil, Dlitt, FAHA, FBA is Professor of Early Christian Studies and Research Associate at the University of Pretoria and at Sydney College of Divinity. 1 See Eustathii monachi Epistula de duabus naturis, in J. Declerck – P. Allen (ed.), Diversorum Postchalcedonensium Auctorum Collectanea, 1 (CCSG, 19), Turnhout – Leuven, 1989, p. 391-474. 2 Cf.  Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 397-398. 3 Christ in Christian Tradition, II. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604), 2. The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century [translated by J. Cawte and P. Allen from the German original, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Band 2/2, Freiburg i. B., 1989], London – Louisville, KY, 1995, p. 262-270. 4 On whom, see P. Allen – C. T. R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch (The Early Church Fathers), London – New York, 2004; F. Alpi, La route royale. Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512-518) (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 188), Beirut, 2009. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 25–56 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117143

Pauline Allen

ing christologically. To this end Eustathius quotes Severus in the Greek original, still obviously available to him, although the patriarch’s works were meant to be burnt after his condemnation in 538. Many of these citations can be found in the early Syriac translations of Severus’ corpus; others cannot be traced. 5 In addition to the Severan materials, for which his testimony is precious, the monk had access to the writings of other anti-Chalcedonians like Dioscorus (d. 454), who was condemned by the council of 451, and Dioscorus’ supporter, Timothy Aelurus (d. 477), who was instrumental in organising opposition to Chalcedon in Egypt. Eustathius also had at his disposal similar sources to those used by other pro-Chalcedonian authors of the sixth century like Ephrem of Antioch, Emperor Justinian, Leontius of Jerusalem, Leontius of Byzantium, Pamphilus the theologian, and Eulogius of Alexandria, as well as by seventhcentury works like the Doctrina Patrum and the Hodegos of Anastasius of Sinai. In the course of his polemical letter against Severus Eustathius uses unusual words and neologisms, which have been indicated in the notes to the translation. For details of the single manuscript in which the Letter concerning the Two Natures against Severus is transmitted, i.e. Vaticanus gr. 2195 (s. X), p. 185-208, and of the lacunae in it, the reader is referred to the introduction to my edition. 413

A letter of Theodoulos, also known as Eustathius the monk, to Timothy scholasticus 6 on the two natures, against Severus 1. The matters that we, Timothy, dearest lover of the truth, have recently been investigating in our chance conversations, I have not hesitated to discuss them further with you in writing too, since that was your instruction. 2. Those phantasy lovers, who fabricated the story that Christ lived in this life without a body, predictably taught that he is one nature, while not even being of sound mind about the Godhead itself, but calling it ‘Christ’. And they abused those who affirm that God the Word came in the flesh, on the grounds that these people confess two natures. 3. Let the Manichaean in his letter to Addan persuade you: “We held in the greatest ridicule the Galileans who assert that Christ has two na5 On this problem, see P. Allen, Greek citations from Severus of Antioch in ­Eustathius Monachus, in OLP, 12 (1981), p. 261-264. 6 Scholasticus was a term applied to lawyers and rhetors. This Timothy is unknown from elsewhere.



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

tures. And we did so, because they are unaware that the essence of light does not mix with another substance, but is pure, incapable of being united with another essence, even if it appears to be conjoined to it. The designation Christ is a misapplied name, being a signifier neither of form nor of essence. The uppermost light, however, joined essentially with the things that are proper to itself, showed itself as a body among material bodies, being one nature in its entirety.” 7 And he writes similar things to the Scythian: “The son of the eternal light demonstrated his own essence on the mountain, not having two natures but one, in the seen and the unseen.” 8 Marcion and Valentinus expressed similar ideas in writing. 9 4. In their wake, Timothy, nicknamed Aelurus, says in his eighth chapter: “Christ’s nature is one sole Godhead, even if he was enfleshed without change.” 10 And in his writings against Leo, patriarch of Rome, 11 he says: “For Christ’s flesh is neither his essence nor his nature, but the law of the divine plan correctly carried out for our salvation.” 12 And again: “If the Word performs what is his, as the new Nestorius thinks, to be seen and to be grasped is foreign to his divine and unmixed nature, but, conversely, proper to his human nature.” 13 And again: “The dyophysites will show us the difference between his two natures, as they say.” 14 7 From Mani’s Letter to Addan. This text was also cited by other sixth-century writers: Emperor Justinian, Pamphilus the theologian, and Eulogius of Alexandria. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 413, at l. 10-19. 8 From Mani’s Letter to the Scythian, which is also cited by Justinian, Pamphilus, and Eulogius. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 413, at l. 19-22. 9 On the second-century doctrines of Marcion, Valentinus, and their followers, see the contributions by H. Räisänen and I. Dunderberg in A. Marjanen – P. Luomanen (eds), A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’, Leiden – Boston, 2008, p. 100-124 and p. 64-99 respectively. 10 From Timothy Aelurus’ Against Those Who Say Two Natures (CPG 5475). The same fragment is found in Justinian, Pamphilus, and Anastasius of Sinai. Details in ­Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 414, at l. 24-25. 11 Leo, bishop of Rome from 440-461, was best known in the debate over Chalcedon for his Tome to Flavian (CPG 8922), a text cited several times by Eustathius, who calls Leo ‘pope’ and ‘patriarch’. 12 Probably from Timothy Aelurus’ Refutation of the Synod of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo (CPG 5482). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 414, at l. 26-28. 13 Unidentified. Possibly either from Timothy Aelurus’ Refutation of the Synod of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo (CPG 5482), or from his Against Those Who Say Two Natures (CPG 5475). 14 From Timothy Aelurus’ Against Those Who Say Two Natures (CPG 5475). A similar fragment is found in Syriac and in Justinian. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 414, at l. 32-33.



414

Pauline Allen

415

416

5. Up to the present day the Severans do not communicate with Timothy and his followers and they call them ‘headless’. 15 Nevertheless, Severus himself accepts Timothy when he makes such statements. For he writes to Niciotes in his synodical letter: “I honour and embrace the struggles of Dioscorus and Timothy, the strugglers for the truth, who supported their feet immutably on the rock, and who resisted the rolling swell of the sea, being washed all around quite violently, but not washed away.” 16 That so-called ‘orthodox’ man, the one who through antipathy to the holy synod favoured every illusionist, who clothed our sentiments with their words, as those do who in images embellish the white clothes and unadorned faces with colour, look at the people that man accepts. You know who devised the one nature and for what reason they did so. 6. Severus himself bears witness to the fact that the orthodox Fathers said that Christ is two natures, for he says the following in his treatise entitled Exposition of Faith: “To speak of two natures in Christ is replete with every accusation, even if it was said by the majority of the holy Fathers.” 17 And soon after: “And do not say again that some of the Fathers used the expression ‘the two natures’, for they used it blamelessly, as we have said. But in the time of blessed Cyril, when the disease of Nestorius’ empty words was spreading throughout the churches, the expression was mostly rejected.” 18 And again: “That the words of the Fathers,

15 The ‘headless ones’ (akephaloi) was a term applied to those more rigorous antiChalcedonians in Egypt who did not accept the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno, promulgated in 482, and who separated themselves from their patriarch. Thus, they had no visible hierarchy and were ‘headless’. The adherents of Chalcedon came to use the term ‘headless’ pejoratively for all anti-Chalcedonians. See also below, n. 105. 16 John Niciotes was the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria from 505 to 516. Severus’ letter to John (CPG 7081.1) appears to survive only in Eustathius (see also chapter 12 below). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 415, at l. 38-42. 17 Apparently from Severus’ First Speech to Nephalius (CPG 7022), part of which has not survived. The same fragment appears in Justinian and Leontius of Jerusalem. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 415, at l. 52-54. 18 From Severus’ First Speech to Nephalius (CPG 7022). The same fragment appears in Justinian, Leontius of Jerusalem, the Doctrina Patrum, and Anastasius of Sinai. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 415, at l. 54-59. On the Alexandrian Nephalius, who changed his position on the Council of Chalcedon, see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2/2 [see n. 3], p. 47-52. For the christological conflict between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, referred to frequently by Eustathius, see e.g. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic, London – New York, 2004.



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

who used the expression blamelessly, cannot be adduced, even if they were the words of Cyril himself.” 19 7. Almost every doctrinal term can be used maliciously by the heretics, but we do not completely or always avoid those words on that account. We pay attention to the aim of the speaker and either accept or reject these terms according to their meaning. Therefore, following ‘the Fathers in their blameless use of the expression’, 20 we speak of two natures in Christ, even if it seems to Severus to be ‘replete with every accusation’, 21 and the advocate and opponent ordains that ‘the words of the Fathers cannot be adduced’. 22 For us it is sufficient that Severus provides evidence that the expression of two natures comes from holy Fathers, and a majority of Fathers, for it is not just one or two of them. Therefore, it is not the person who accuses heretics of having invented the expression who is telling the truth, but the one who says that the holy ones used this expression against heretics. It is both pretentious and mad to throw out the words of the holy and the many, even if Severus alleges that that expression was rejected because of Nestorius: it was, however, rejected by him and his followers. For when blessed Cyril wrote his letter to Eulogius after Nestorius, he spoke in it in defence of the Easterners who talked about two natures. 23 8. Elsewhere too says: “Many words, which were spoken by the Fathers blamelessly, were later, after Nestorius, perceived as unsafe.” 24 Therefore, if also we shall say:‘Many words were spoken by the Fathers blamelessly; later, after Eutyches, 25 they were considered to be unsafe’, what is the conclusion? The words ‘two natures’ will be thrown out because of Nestorius, the words ‘one nature’ because of Eutyches. But if we abrogate A paraphrase of a passage in Severus’ First Speech to Nephalius (CPG 7022), which also appears in Justinian. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 415, at l. 59-61. 20 Cf. chapter 6. 21 Cf. chapter 6. 22 Cf. chapter 6. 23 Refers to Cyril’s Commonitorium ad Eulogium presbyterum (CPG 5344). The presbyter Eulogius was Cyril’s representative (apocrisiarius) in Constantinople. For the text of the letter and a translation, see L. R. Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, 1983, p. 62-69. 24 From Severus’ First Speech to Nephalius (CPG 7022), apparently from that part of the text after the incipit that is missing. A similar fragment occurs in Anastasius of Sinai. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 416, at l. 82-84. 25 Eutyches (d. 454), who compared Nestorians to the upholders of dyophysite christology, was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. His name and that of his followers are cited frequently by Eustathius. 19



417

Pauline Allen

418

words of holy Fathers because the heretics use them maliciously, we shall also reject many words of the holy Scriptures because of the heretics’ equally malicious use of them. And there are holy fathers who used the expression ‘two natures’ before the heretics, while the heretics were the inventors of ‘one nature’, before its use by the Fathers, as written above. In particular Apollinaris, the dimoirite, 26 expounded on this. But if it is necessary, because of the heretics, to remove words of orthodox writers, and not rather to use them appropriately against the heretics, because of Sabellius the word ‘co-essential’ will be removed, because of Apollinaris and Eunomius and Arius the word ‘Theotokos’, 27 and, thus, because of unruly consequences Christians in the future will be kept fully employed in inventing new vocabulary. Therefore, it is good for us to follow the holy Fathers and not be persuaded by those who make ordinances in opposition to them. 9. Yet, there are occasions when they themselves are beaten by the power of the truth and confess the things which they eagerly taught and ordained should be denied. I mean, in his book against the Grammarian Severus says: “Look, it is permitted only to the mind’s imagination to see two, as it is the mind which discerns the difference wich is in the natural quality.” 28 And again in the same book he says: “How can those replete with impudence, when speaking of two natures, deny that they are speaking of two hypostases and persons, because the persons are thought of together with the natures or hypostases, even if they are distinguished in thought? For, when one is distinguished from the other, immediately it is assigned its own person. But together with the natures out of which the one Christ is, when they exist in a composition, and they have resulted in one hypostasis and nature, that of the only-begotten Word enfleshed and inhumanised, together with these natures also the duality of the hypostases and persons that was imagined in the mind ceases to exist: this duality contracts into one, the one hypostasis from two, and διμοιρίτης. See Lampe, Lexicon, p. 372, s v. on the use of this term to designate the followers of Apollinaris of Laodicea, who denied the existence of a true soul in Christ’s humanity. 27 This is a blanket condemnation of Sabellius, who in the third century stressed the unity of the Godhead, and of Apollinaris of Laodicea, Eunomius, and Arius, who were considered in one way or another to have denied the true humanity of Christ. 28 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian III, 1, 18 (CPG 7024). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 417, at l. 108-110. The grammarian was John, presbyter of Caesarea, on whom see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2/2 [see n. 3], p. 52-79. A grammarian was a philologist/scholar specialising in aspects of linguistics or literature. 26



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

consequently ‘one’ is predicated with regard to the person. I mean, for the two not to appear in two persons belongs to the impossible.” 29 Now, when Severus says these things, does it not seem fit to you after the composition or union to know and name two natures in Christ, enhypostatic natures that is? At will Severus divides these natures as if they are two and brings them together into one, as if he has licence both to say and to do what he wants – he who contradicts himself in everything; he who overturns the argument with the argument; he who through the very means by which he wants to put together one nature sets up two natures and through them makes his own escape, as someone might say, since he does not want to halt in these natures. Because of his characteristic earthly virtue, that is wise in its own conceit, to him alone and not to someone else that grace was given, so that at will the one nature would be revealed to him and would appear to him to be two, while after the illusion of the two natures, the one nature is closed again and brought back to itself. 10. Severus himself, therefore, is indeed the first who is ‘replete with all impudence’, since he both confesses two natures – for he did not say that the nature was ‘distinguished’ in thought but that ‘the natures were distinguished’, nor that when the nature exists ‘in the composition’, but when ‘the natures exist’ 30 – and he not only observed and spoke of them, but also put them down in writing (and this after Nestorius, after eighty years and more). He who dissuaded others and said  31 to say two natures, but was unable to deny them completely himself, he who confessed them rather weakly and enigmatically in the quoted expressions, but exclaimed more clearly in another place in the same writing: “Let nobody write that the synod of Chalcedon spoke of Christ as ‘two natures’ – heaven forbid – but that it refused to speak of the hypostatic union and the expression ‘from two’.” 32 In the first work to Sergius 33 he says the same: “Go on, then, with the same mind apply yourself also to pro This long fragment is not extant in Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024) as it has come down to us. 30 All foregoing words between quotation marks are repetitions from the foregoing chapter. 31 This siglum is used here and in the rest of the translation to indicate a lacuna. 32 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), again a passage that has not come down to us otherwise. 33 This is in fact Severus’ Second Letter to Sergius (CPG 7025); text and translation in I. R. Torrance, The Correspondence of Severus and Sergius (Texts from Christian Late Antiquity, 11), Piscataway, NJ, 2011, p. 106-108. 29



419

Pauline Allen

420

gress, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead (Phil. 3, 13), and of that wrong opinion which leads that from which Christ exists without confusion to one  34 For, when you said that you do not confess at the same time the particularity of the natures from which Christ exists without confusion, and when again you confuse and confound everything into one essence and particularity, I found myself gathering from your confession a sheaf inadequate for making flour’ (Os. 8, 7).” 35 ‘Nature’ and ‘essence’ are the same also for Severus. Therefore, he who blames the one who brings together into one essence or nature the elements from which Christ is, does he not clearly accept those who confess ‘two’ also after the union? 11. And in the second letter to the same Sergius, an Eutychean grammarian, 36 Severus says: “How is it not ridiculous also to speak of two particularities or two activities? For each nature has many things, and not only two; human nature, for example, is tangible visible, mortal, subject to hunger and thirst and to other things in a similar way. There are also many things particular to the divine nature: it is invisible, impalpable, eternal, uncircumscribed. Similarly, there are also many different activities, and as many as, one would say, there are divine and human actions.” 37 Look, he was able to say ‘each’ nature even after the union, but with regard to one nature ‘each’ nature is not said, but with regard to two it is. And the person who says ‘divine’ nature on the subject of Christ intimates that he knows also the contrasting human nature. And he speaks of the ‘particularities’ and ‘activities’ of these natures – the man who in several of his writings anathematises those who speak of particularities and activities on the subject of Christ, and who in his great wisdom studies every opinion and opposes all of them, each, however, with the opposing opinion. 12. Indeed, against the Eutycheans or the ‘phantasianists’ he takes a stand by means of the dogmas of the church: he speaks of ‘nature and nature’, and ‘each’ and ‘divine’ and ‘human’, and their ‘particularities’ 34 The lacuna is supplied from Severus’ text surviving in Syriac. See text and translation in Torrance, The Correspondence [see n. 33], p. 106-107: “Lord and God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and tell it you have recovered, and especially so, if you are about to ‘write to those in Macedonia’” (cf. Phil. 3, 13). 35 From Severus’ Second Letter to Sergius (CPG 7025). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 418-419, at l. 152-161. 36 On the term ‘grammarian’ see n. 28 above. 37 From Severus’ First Letter to Sergius (CPG 7025); text and trans. in Torrance, The Correspondence [see n. 33], p. 24-25.



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

and ‘activities’. But when he fights against the church he anathematises the terms which he put forward against the illusion, and uses the latter’s constituent arguments against the truth, so that he is the so-called ‘subverter of doctrine’, the man who fights against both himself and all the holy Fathers. For, how does he not fight against the Fathers, when in his Exposition of Faith he says that the holy Fathers spoke of ‘two natures’, 38 while in his synodical letter to Niciotes he anathematises them in writing: “Therefore, we anathematise those who say or said that our one Lord Jesus Christ is ‘two’ natures after the ineffable union.” 39? Through the word ‘said’ he anathematised the holy Fathers, who spoke the word ‘blamelessly’, 40 according to Severus’ evidence. For he did not specify and say ‘who maliciously used’ the expression, but spoke loosely of those who ‘said’ two natures. Through the word ‘say’ he anathematises himself, for he said it also himself, as was demonstrated before. 13. Severus deserves to be wondered at also when he declares: “For the two not to appear in two persons belongs to the impossible.” 41 In short, in saying everywhere to see two ‘natures’ in Christ, he assuredly also states that there are two ‘persons’ in Christ as well, according to his assertion. And if he considers the natures in Christ illusional, it follows that he considers the persons illusional as well. But if they are real (οὐσιώδεις) and according to truth, he truly considers also the persons to be real (ἐνυπόστατα). Therefore, in saying two ‘natures’ in Christ and two ‘persons’, how is he not saying two ‘Christs’ as well? Just as he says that Christ is ‘from two natures’, he also literally says that he is ‘from two persons’ in his book against the Grammarian. 42 It is the way he demonstrably thinks too. Also the fact that in many passages he says that there is no nature without a person shows this. 14. We, however, renounce that assertion of Severus and say that Christ is from two natures, just as the one body is from many limbs and parts, but not that he is also from two persons – heaven forbid –: the human part of Christ never existed in a self-subsistent fashion, and what never existed in a self-subsistent fashion ‘will not be assigned its own person’, 43 Severus, Second Speech to Nephalius (CPG 7022), passim. On this letter see n. 16 above. 40 Cf. chapter 6. 41 Cf. chapter 9. 42 Severus, however, explicitly denies this in his book against the Grammarian. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 421, at l. 213-216. 43 Cf. chapter 9. 38 39



421

Pauline Allen

422

as Severus himself thinks too. Sometimes when we say of Christ that he is ‘from two natures’ and ‘two natures’, we also say that he is ‘in two natures’, while maintaining the rationale that there is no confusion nor diminution. For if the natures, according to which he is said ‘from two’, result in the one person, how is not also the full result ‘from two’? Those are the things from which the very result is established. But if those do not exist, assuredly also the full result is like foreign natures in another. Consider, please, the absurd and stupid things that arise from this. The man who anathematises those who say that Christ is in two natures does he not in fact anathematise himself ? For by observing and saying and writing two natures in Christ, he is forced to confess him ‘in two natures’, and not only in two natures, but also in two persons, in keeping with his new-fangled expression. Indeed, he declared that ‘it is impossible for two not to appear in two’. 44 15. But if our bellicose opponent is speaking the truth in his homily On the Nativity, when he says: “For what was brought together from two things did not confound the things out of which it was made.” 45, and if he has denied that the duality firmly remains, how then does he see again two natures in Christ, and these also ‘existing in the composition’ 46 and in such a way two, that he also divides them in his mind and imagination and thought and reason? Let him tell us: does he divide the one nature or the two, the real or the unreal, the enhypostatic or the anhypostatic? One of the two is true: either the duality remains firmly in place even after the union, so that he can also observe it; or, if it does not remain in place, he observes nothing and lies when he says he is observing what does not exist; but then the one who says “Each remains what it is by nature” 47 is also lying, as is Severus himself when he says in his work against the Grammarian: “Since the parts from which Christ is, remain undiminished and unchangeable, and subsist in the composition.” 48 However, if the two natures have become one, how can he observe two natures after the union and not one, and speak further as about ‘one’ Already cited twice, in chapter 9 and chapter 13. From Severus’ Homily on the Nativity, i.e. his fourth Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3; 7081.2). This work is also cited below in chapters 29 and 34. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 421, at l. 241-242. 46 Cf. chapter 9. 47 From Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentaries on John (CPG 5208). The text also appears in Justinian. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 422, at l. 252. 48 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), a text also cited by Leontius of Jerusalem. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 422, at l. 253-255. 44 45



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

without the words ‘of each nature’, and about ‘the natures’, ‘the nature of the flesh’ and ‘the nature of the divinity’, ‘the humanity’ and ‘the divinity’? I mean, his writings are full of these expressions. If the two natures, that is, the divinity and the humanity, have become one nature, let him say what its name is. That name should be one, as a signifier of one nature. And he should not speak of one nature, while on the other hand applying to that one nature the names of the two natures, so that he would not again dissolve the ‘one’ into the ‘out of which’, something he forbids. Is it only the names of the constituent natures that remain, while the result itself is anonymous? Will also the pregnant virgin be magnified by the kind of name he conjures up? I know that for that reason his followers say that Christ, in so far as he is Christ, is of the same essence as nobody and is neither God nor human being. But if this is true, neither is Christ God, nor is the virgin Theotokos, but, as they say like Nestorius, ‘Christotokos’; their opinions are far worse than Nestorius’. But neither does that which is ‘brought together from two things’ 49 preserve its constituents without fusion – wine and water when co-mingled flow together, just as gold and silver too in the furnace –, nor will that which is ‘out of two’ ever be recognised as being out of two, unless after the union and the result. How the manifold Severus contradicts himself on the topic of the activities and the particularities, sometimes anathematising those who speak of them, sometimes confessing them, those who read his works from a love of truth know. 16. But if you learn how he says that the Fathers ‘used the expression of the two natures blamelessly’ 50 and ‘faultlessly’, I do not know who you will scorne more, Severus or those deceived by him. For perversely picking out the expression, he calumniated the Fathers on the grounds that they envisage that expression just as he does. When John the Grammarian cited the following passage from blessed Amphilochius’ homily The Father who sent me is greater than I: “For the rest, separate the natures, that of God and that of man. For, neither did he become man by falling out of God, nor did he become God by progressing from man. Speaking about God and man, and attribute the passions to the flesh and the miracles to God, of necessity, even though unwillingly, you attribute the humble words to the human being born of Mary, and the sacred

49 From Severus’ fourth Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3; 7081.2) and cited above at the beginning of this chapter (see n. 45). 50 Cf. chapter 6.



423

424

Pauline Allen

425

and God-fitting words to the Logos, who exists from the beginning.” 51, Severus decides to interpret this passage while condemning the Grammarian for considering it maliciously, and he says: “We have already demonstrated this in previous chapters too: all the orthodox teachers argued against the godless Arians, because contrary to the truth they tried hard to refer the humble words and passions, fitting to the incarnation and its voluntary poverty, to the eternal existence of the only-begotten, that is his naked and fleshless divinity; and in order to refute the impiety of the Arians, they distinguished the times in an orthodox way, both the times before the inhumanisation and those after the inhumanisation, and they showed that the passions and the humble speech do not fit God the Word considered without flesh in any way, but that the miracles befit him being God by nature and enfleshed. For they taught to distinguish the natures by the difference of time, and what the nature of the fleshless God is and what the nature of the one who had become human without change in accord with the divine plan.” 52 17. Well, the senselessness and the deceit of that wise man! For, either he has not understood what he said, or he wished to deceive his audience, and has done something similar to hares: when they sense in their flight that they are being overtaken by their pursuers, they stir up the underlying dirt, fill the surrounding air with dust, then turn back, intending by that wile to obscure the sight of the trackers, while themselves concentrating on escaping. But the experienced among those in pursuit will not be unaware of the trick, and searching out the tracks will lay hold of the escaping animal. The word of truth is simple. Why do you run far away to riddles and gossip, fellow, confusing and confounding everything, so that, by throwing your listeners into dizziness, with your absurd explanations you may secretly flee the truth through the words of truth? 18. The holy man, ‘attributing the passions to the flesh and the miracles to God’, 53 without any quibbling apprehended the natures, the flesh and the divinity, and said that he distinguished them, in thought that is. For he did not speak of separating times and, together with the difference of time, 54 of distinguishing your one nature into two natures, insubstantial 51 From Amphilochius of Iconium’s Homily on John 14, 28 (CPG 3241), a muchcited fragment. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 423, at l. 290-297. 52 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 424, at l. 299-314. 53 Part of the citation taken from Amphilochius in chapter 16. 54 This is an echo from the passage cited in chapter 16 from Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024).



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

ones. For, you say that the one nature is substantial and enhypostatic. But if you were to count that one nature as two, you say that there are two natures, not by adding to the one nature of the divinity the nature of the flesh which God the Word assumed, on account of which also the expression ‘out of two natures’ is used, but you say that the one, divine essence, or nature itself, is divided into two chronologically. But if, in that way, Christ is one nature according to you – may the truth be silent –, consequently in (the writings of the) Fathers the expression ‘from two natures’ will not mean from divinity and humanity, but Christ, being from one nature, will be said to be out of two times (it is clearer to say ‘because of the two times’) ‘from two natures’, that is, from a fleshless nature and again from that nature made flesh: the flesh contributes nothing to the concept of nature, but the distinction of time has bestowed on the one, divine nature both the being and the being called ‘two natures’. 19. Well then, you know-all: if you call the divinity when it is deprived of flesh ‘one nature’, then how can you call the divinity ‘one’ after it has assumed the nature of the flesh, if it is preserved? Also you sometimes do this, when you say that the nature of the flesh and the nature of the humanity are assumed, and that you see natures existing in composition, not just one nature. But if after its assumption the human nature kept all its other names, viz. ‘humanity’, ‘soul’, ‘body’, ‘flesh’, but only lost the appellation ‘nature’, alas what a stupid absurdity invented by those who love the docetists. 55 For our part we say this: just as of the assumption (of the humanity) everything else is preserved and used, without the loss of the proper names on account of the union, so also is the nature called ‘nature’, without being confounded and rendered invisible because of the composition. For, each nature remains not only ‘what it is by nature’, but also keeps the name it has by nature, just as you, Severus, think too when you speak about each nature in its own right. For you decline on many occasions to name the two natures, in order not to upset the docetists completely. 20. Well then, the one nature of God the Word and the assumed nature of the flesh both are and are called two natures. You, however, omit to mention the one nature of the flesh: you do not count it with the divinity, but drag it along and ridicule it by saying ‘made flesh’, not even calling it ‘nature’, if not in a special way, as I said. But by naming only the nature of the divinity, and distinguishing this, as you say, chronologically, you conjure for us a new physiology, or rather morology, calling Φιλοδοκήταις; according to Lampe, Lexicon, p. 1478 s.v., a hapaxlegomenon.

55



426

Pauline Allen

427

the one nature ‘two natures’, that is, if you had said more clearly what you envisaged, a first and a second nature. And while you are unwilling to confess the two natures of Christ as ‘two’, you are not ashamed of saying that the one nature is ‘two’, but although you have passed over many topics, you have been unable to avoid the truth completely. For, in saying that the Arians apply to the divinity the humble words suitable to the inhumanisation, 56 you have shown, even against your will, that those words do not fit the one nature – that is the divine nature, which in that passage you are forced to call also just ‘nature’, something you took over from Aelurus –, but that they fit another nature, evidently the one of his humanity, which is essentially united with God the Word. For, how is the inhumanisation of God the Word different from his being in humanity? But if, with regard to nature, both the passions and the humble speech do not fit God the Word, surely with regard to nature they fit his humanity and, according to his appropriation of it, in line with the divine plan, they also fit God the Word himself, who united humanity to himself substantially – we also say that the humanity is flesh ensouled with a rational soul –, and who was united with it substantially. Thus, Christ is both without passion in the divinity, and capable of suffering in the flesh that is substantially united with him. 21. Why then do you accuse the Arians? They did not say that the divinity received the passions of the flesh – the cross, the whippings, the penetration of the nails and death – before the inhumanisation, but not after the inhumanisation either, but that perhaps it received the passions suited to the soul by nature, grief and suffering and similar. Exerting himself against them Amphilochius apportioned the passions and the humble speech to the nature of the flesh, i.e. of his humanity, the miracles, however, to the nature of the divinity. And he said to distinguish those natures. Therefore, Amphilochius, or any other of the orthodox Fathers, did not imagine that the one nature was natures, nor did he speak of distinguishing time, and of distinguishing with that time the one nature into two natures. No, only you do so, Severus, you who pervert what is correct because of your own aim, as do those who are persuaded by you, you who teach your physiology of juggling or, better, your monstrous tales, to those who want to be separated from the truth. 22. We say again in resuming our argument: if because of the differentiation of time the one nature is called ‘two’, and if Christ is not two natures because of the union of the divine and the human nature, then neither is Cf. chapter 6.

56



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

Christ from two natures. But if in fact he is ‘from one nature’, but is said to be ‘from two’, while he is not – the differentiation of time ensures that the one nature is called ‘two’, according to the much-variegated wisdom of Severus –, and if the differentiation of time has ensured that the one nature is called ‘two’, and came about through the descent from heaven of the one nature and its dwelling with us, then the one nature, having dwelt with the spirits in prison (I Petr. 3, 19), will be called ‘three natures’. And again, having ascended above all the heavens (Eph. 4, 10) to appear in the person of God, it will be ‘four natures’. And on this account let us not only ask ‘what is the nature of the fleshless God’ 57 and what of the enfleshed, but also what is the nature of God who is only ensouled – fleshless he dwelt with those in Hades – and what is the nature of God, enfleshed but incorruptible and immortal in the flesh. To that nonsense the monstrous teachings of Severus guide us. 23. Let this too be known: when in the Lover of Truth he said: “It is vain to ask with regard to Christ what nature (there is). For that is no different from exactly dissolving the union”, 58 on that point also Severus himself instructed us like pope Leo, by saying “who” and “who”, to enquire “what kind of nature hung on the wood of the cross”. 59 Those who wish will ask also who is the one who died, the fleshless God, or the enfleshed one, and who is the one who went and proclaimed (I Petr. 3, 19) to those in Hades, the enfleshed or the ensouled God, and who is the one who was seen by the angels. 24. Through everything that has been said Severus is found to be not only in contradiction with the Fathers, but also at variance with himself. I mean, when he wants to, he divides the one nature and both produces and speaks of two natures. But, whenever he sees fit on the grounds of the union, he renders and names the two one, and that (is done by) the man who approximately six hundred years after the union confesses that he discerns two natures in Christ and says that these subsist, and at the same time anathematises those who say two natures after the union. If through the union the two became one, how, after so many years of union, does he observe two natures in Christ? How can he deny what he observes and says and writes, and, like those who juggle with pebbles 57 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), a passage given at greater length in chapter 16. 58 From Severus’ Lover of Truth (Philalethes) (CPG 7023), by which Cyril of Alexandria is meant. This fragment does not survive in the work as it has come down to us. 59 From Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian (CPL 1656; CPG 8922). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 428, at l. 441-442.



428

Pauline Allen

429

now show the pebbles, now make them disappear, he too similarly now confesses that he observes two, now denies it, combining the two into one. Get rid of unstable opinion! He should either not confess what he denies or not deny what he confesses. 25. I shall juxtapose other passages too from his various writings by which may be recognised more accurately the absurdity and wilful malice of the man as he fights truth in his enquiry. In his book against the Grammarian he writes: “Also the separation in every aspect is closely united with the difference.” 60 Then, contradicting himself, he says in another part of the same book: “For it is not because the Word was not a body, nor indeed because the body that was born from Mary did not change from being Word, that precisely on that account the difference of essence will necessarily be followed by separation too.” 61 And again in the same book he says: “In saying that Emmanuel is ‘from two natures’ we do not consider the natures to be essences which are indicative of community and contain many hypostases, but the one hypostasis of the Word and the one flesh that was intellectually ensouled, from which he was brought together into one and composed without change. And the enfleshed (nature) of the Word is one nature and hypostasis; and as a result of that we are not limited to speaking of the union as also ‘from two persons’.” 62 First, let us make this point: one and one do not make one, but two; while you see in your mind and speak of one and one, you are both seeing in your mind and speaking of two. But if, according to your definition ‘an impersonal nature does not exist’, then how, if Christ is from two natures, is he not also from two persons in your view? 26. And again in the same writing you said: “But if someone were to seek to observe the component parts, only by distinguishing them in the imagination of the mind and in subtle contemplation and in thought, does he observe the coming together of two natures, that is hypostases, and imagines in some way that he can grasp the person of each nature. But when also the power of the union enters into the mind and has shown the one hypostasis out of both, it does not allow for that which is observed in the mind as two in the hypostasis to remain two. You see, after the thought of the union, when the one nature of the enfleshed 60 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), a passage that does not survive otherwise. 61 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 428, at l. 469-472. 62 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 428-429, at l. 473-480.



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

Word appears, the thought of the two persons or natures or hypostases that have been imagined departs.” 63 For this he adduces a long quotation from someone, which ends like this: “We say that of necessity the union of the persons themselves was accomplished through the convergence of the hypostases towards oneness.” 64 You should not have said ‘union of persons’. But since you said it, why deny it? If a union of persons took place, first there existed the human being and then he was united with the pre-existent God the Word. Not even Nestorius dared to speak of a ‘union of persons’, but only of ‘union of a person’. 27. I am amazed how, after the union took place and the one nature appeared, you can separate it again, dissolve it into its constituent parts and contemplate the one as two, not only natures but also persons. Or perhaps you have the ability both to dissolve the union and bring it together, and,whenever you wish, you contemplate the natures, but when you do not wish, they depart? But if they have departed, having become invisible, they neither are nor are they contemplated as two or one, since the result has disappeared together with what it resulted from. But if, when the one nature has appeared, only the thought of it departs, it is impossible for you to think of it any more. Know that the expression ‘in thought’ is sometimes used in order to distinguish (it) from the expression ‘according to activity’. Thus, not even we separate the natures by activity, and as one might say ‘in fact’, but they are divided in our thought. But if thought and activity are the same, then you will say that the one nature too came about ‘in thought’, or you will state that the two natures as well exist ‘by activity’ and essentially after the union. But if you recognise the natures in thought alone, you are fabricating their non-existence and non-essence, or their confusion and disappearance, something you rather long for, but do not reveal. For not only did you say ‘distinguishing in thought’, but also ‘observing’ the natures, which you now agree do not remain independently – you who in many places, thanks to that typical inconsistency of yours, say that they remain in their composition. 28. Because you are forced to speak of the union from the natures that have been distinguished, let us refute you on the basis of your own words as the teacher of those who hold two persons 65 in Christ. You 63 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), another passage that does not survive otherwise. 64 Perhaps these lines come from the end of Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), but they have not come down to us. Nor could the author that is purportedly quoted by Severus be identified. 65 διπροσωπιτῶν; according to Lampe, Lexicon, p. 374 s.v., a hapaxlegomenon.



430

Pauline Allen

431

said: “Where there is separation, there is also duality; and where there is duality, there too follows separation.” 66 If at all events separation follows the word ‘two’, also at all events will the fact that the union came about from what was distinguished and existed before follow the expression ‘from two’. Thus, you do not refuse to use also the expression ‘from two persons’. However, what is said will be demonstrated more distinctly and clearly. In the same book against the Grammarian he says: “Therefore, it would reasonably be thought that the perfect hypostases, existing separately, are also divided into two persons, with each hypostasis claiming its own person, since it exists in its own entity.” 67 And again: “There are not two Lords, there are not two Sons, there are not two Christs, because of the non-existence of the essences or hypostases or natures as distinct, separate and partial entities.” 68 And again: “In the idea of the natures or hypostases that are distinguished in thought also the persons are included: for when one is distinguished from the other, immediately it is assigned its proper person.” 69 If that which exists as distinct entities is assigned its proper person, and if that which exists distinctly, separately and partially is distinguished into persons, and if Christ is not only from two natures but also from two persons, according to Severus, then first the natures existed distinctly and separately and partially and as distinct entities, so that each was assigned its individual person, and then they were united, and thus Severus’ Christ resulted from two natures and from two persons. If this is so, it is not only more Nestorian 70 than Nestorius but also more senseless than Severus himself. Let us then flee the serpent with two persons. 29. In his homily On the Nativity, which begins “Just as the light of day rising”, Severus says: “Therefore of what nature may we say walking on water (cf. Mt. 14, 25-27) is the proper activity? Let those who introduce the two natures after the union answer us. Is it of the divine nature? And how is it proper to the divine nature to walk with corporeal feet? Is it of the human nature? And how is proceeding on a wet substance not foreign to a human being? You see, you, who seek out the two natures, if This expression cannot be traced. From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), another passage that does not survive in this work. 68 From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 430, at l. 542-544. 69 These words of Severus cannot be traced. They were quoted by Eustathius also in chapters 9 and 10. 70 Νεστοριανώτερον, a word not attested in Lampe, Lexicon. 66 67



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

you will assign such an activity As you can see, he has put to flight your two natures. But it is manifest and in no way ambiguous, unless we are purposely drunk, that of God the Word who became enfleshed for our sakes, being one and undivided, also the activity is undivided. And it was proper to him to tread on water, having in the same person what is God-fitting and what is human.” 71 30. When Severus was arguing those points, I think he was playing games with his audience by conceiving empty illusions. If walking on water belonged neither to the divine nor to the human nature, either it was an illusion or belonged genuinely neither to a divine nor a human nature, but to a nature that is a mixture of both and that came about through confusion, so that neither of them was preserved inviolately. Let us grant that walking on water belongs to the one nature, whichever one it may be, so that also the activity is one and undivided. Walking around on dry land, did that belong to the divine nature or the human? For nothing God-fitting can be seen in the laws of human nature when feet walk around on earth: or has the one nature been divided on that occasion, and the humanity by itself, divided from the divine, demonstrated its proper activity? No, ‘it is manifest and in no way ambiguous, unless we are purposely drunk’ 72 and play games with what should not be trifled with, 73 how many humble statements and deeds are to be ascribed to the body of the Lord and how many glorious actions to the divinity of the Word: when he was hungry after fasting (cf. Mt. 4, 2; Lc. 4, 2), his body was defeated; when from five loaves of bread he fed five thousand men, not counting women, and there were twelve baskets of scraps left over (cf. Mt. 14, 17. 20-21 + par.) – the work of the divinity of the Word. When he fell asleep on the cushion in the boat (cf. Mc. 4, 38) – the work of physical rest; when walking on the sea he kept away the waves and the winds (cf. Mt. 14, 25 + par.), he immediately heard the solemn confession from those in the boat: Truly he is the son of God (Mt. 14, 33). For it followed after assuming a body that he would demonstrate what was proper to the body, so that the illusion of the godless Manichaean would not prevail. Again, it followed that when he walked around in bodily form, he would not hide what was proper to the divinity. But everything was not demonstrated at once on every occasion, but in a way that was 71 From Severus’ Homily on the Nativity, i.e. his fourth Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3; 7081.2). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 431, at l. 560-573. 72 From the lines from Severus’ Homily on the Nativity quoted in chapter 29. 73 ἄπαικτα, a word not attested in the dictionaries.



432

Pauline Allen

433

434

adapted to and congruent with the time and circumstance. Therefore, the walking around was the work of the body’s feet, while the walking around on the water was the work of the divine power. For, just like it is not possible for the properties of the flesh to be contemplated in the Word who is from the beginning (Io. 1, 1), in the same way it is not possible to think of what is proper to the divinity in the nature of the flesh. No, if we recognise what is proper to each and look at both of them acting as from one, we are believing correctly. 31. Again in his work called Loverof Truth he writes: “If the Lord performs things of the Word, while the body accomplishes the things of the body, and the one shines by means of its miracles, the other is subject to suffering, the partnership of the forms is incidental and the result of a purposeful arrangement, just as the insane Nestorius said. But if, which is true, the Word transformed the body into his own glory and activity, how again could we say in line with the Tome of Leo: ‘For each nature retained its own property without defect’? 74 For on many occasions, the Word does not seem to have allowed his own body to walk in accordance with the laws of the flesh. I mean, how is it proper to the body to walk on water, or, after breathing his last breath, to gush forth a stream of blood and water, as a result of the wound from the lance?” 75 32. Heavens, the malice of the accuser and scoffer, who does not want to interpret anything of the words of pope Leo according to Leo’s intention and according to the truth, but who thinks and says everything with the intention of slandering him. Since blessed Athanasius says in his letter to Epictetus: “For quite a huge advance has happened to what is human from the partnership and union of the Word with it”, 76 the censure of that querulous man about the ‘partnership of the forms’ 77 is vain. Just as blessed Cyril writes in his letter to Succensus: “Each remaining and being thought of in their natural property”, 78 so too pope Leo See n. 83. From Severus’ Lover of Truth (Philalethes) (CPG 7023). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 433, at l. 612-624. 76 From Athanasius of Alexandria’s Letter to Epictetus (CPG 2095). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 433, at l. 630-632. 77 A quotation from the passage taken from the Lover of Truth cited in chapter 31. 78 From Cyril’s Second Letter to Succensus (CPG 5346); text and trans. in Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters [see n. 23], p. 88, l. 9-10 (p. 89). The same text is quoted by Ephrem of Antioch, Pamphilus the theologian, and the Doctrina Patrum. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 433, at l. 634-635. 74 75



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

said: “For each nature retains its own property without defect.” 79 With the property of the human body he means, like also Severus thinks in his writings to Sergius, the material, the tangible, the visible, the circumscribed. 80 For Leo presented that throughout his entire Tome as well, as he exerted himself against Eutyches, who was sick with illusion and consequently denied that the Lord had assumed a true body. This is why he also continued to reject the expression ‘from two natures’, although under duress he accepted the word, as the synod under Flavian in Constantinople shows. 81 Therefore, pope Leo, wishing to show that God the Word assumed not only the shape of a body but a true body, and so true as to also preserve its property so that it had the capacity to suffer, said: “For that very reason, in the pure and perfect nature of a truly human being a true God was born, complete in his attributes and complete in ours.” 82 Then he adds: “For each nature retains its own property without defect.” 83 And so that we may perceive what the words ‘without defect’ mean, he subjoins: “And just as the form of God does not destroy the form of the servant, so the form of the servant did not diminish the form of God (Phil. 2, 6-7).” 84 Therefore, the expressions ‘complete in his attributes and complete in ours’ and ‘without defect’ are laid down against diminution and imperfection. For not only, Leo says, did a union come about of essences or natures, but these essences or natures as well as properties which are considered theirs also remained unmixed and undiminished. Therefore, each nature had ‘its own property without defect’ even after the union. And according to blessed Ambrose, “just as nothing was lacking in God, so nor was it in the reconciliation with the human being, in 79 From Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian (CPL 1656; CPG 8922). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434, at l. 636-637. See also n. 69 and 78. 80 A paraphrase from a passage in Severus’ First Letter to Sergius. See Torrance, The Correspondence [see n. 33], p. 16-17. 81 Flavian, elected patriarch of Constantinople in 446, summoned a local council in 448 at which the views of Eutyches were condemned. The addressee of Leo’s Tome, Flavian was himself violently beaten by his christological enemies in 449 and subsequently died. Cf. chapter 46 below. 82 From Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian (CPL 1656; CPG 8922). This text is also quoted by Eulogius of Alexandria. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434, at l. 648650. 83 From Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian (CPL 1656; CPG 8922). This text is also quoted by Eulogius of Alexandria. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434, at l. 650651. 84 From Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian (CPL 1656; CPG 8922). This text is also quoted by Eulogius of Alexandria. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434, at l. 652655.



435

Pauline Allen

436

order to be perfect in each nature.” 85 But if the natural properties of the flesh became properties of God the Word, this happened not according to nature but to the rationale of the divine plan. 33. But if, because the Lord walked on water, Severus says that there was a defect of the natural property of his body, we shall repeat what we have said: 86 when he walked around on dry land, was there a defect in the natural property of God the Word? There is nothing ‘God-fitting’ about going on foot on earth. Similarly too, when he was hungry after fasting by the natural law of the body, since he did not make the stones into loaves of bread (cf. Mt. 4, 2; Lc. 4, 2), and when he was wearied from the journey (Io. 4, 6), since his muscles and sinews were strained to the uttermost (cf. Mc. 14, 33), and when he was in anguish, distress and pain, since in the same way he did not show the supra-natural properties of the divinity, and when he was overpowered by the Jews, since he did not disappear from their midst, surely the divine nature did not ‘retain its own property without defect’? Let Severus’ wisdom, which panders to human beings, speak. But God the Word did not even prevent his own flesh from walking on the waters because of the laws of the flesh, as ‘going about on foot shows’. The walking around on water did not constitute the removal of the property of the body, but an advance in power coming from divine activity. Therefore, “the body accomplished the things of the body, as walking around on foot shows, while the Word performed the things of the Word, as the miracles proclaim.” 87 34. Does the chameleon himself not say the same in his homily On the Nativity? “Take heart, it is I. Have no fear (Mt. 14, 27; Mc. 6, 50). The words it is I are indicative of the truth and get rid of every illusion. Indeed, it is I, the one who did not change or alter himself, but remained God, as the miracle proclaims; and the same one who in truth both became and appeared as a human being, as walking around on foot shows.” 88 And in his letter to Julian, which begins: “I have received the letter you wrote to 85 From Ambrose of Milan’s Letter to Sabinus (Letter 32.5) (CPL 160). The text is quoted more extensively in Justinian and Leontius of Byzantium, and partially by Leontius of Jerusalem and Eulogius of Alexandria. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434-435, at l. 662-664. 86 Cf. chapter 30. 87 An unidentified fragment from Severus’ Homily on the Nativity, i.e. his fourth Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3; 7081.2). Compare with the quote from this same text in chapter 34. 88 An unidentified fragment from Severus’ Homily on the Nativity, i.e. his fourth Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3; 7081.2). Compare with the quote from this same text in chapter 33.



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

me”, he says: “Just as death happened naturally when he wished it, and the God-fitting miracle of the resurrection followed it supra-naturally, so too, after his last breath, as John the evangelist says, when his side was pierced by the lance (cf. Io. 19, 34) – for to be cut is proper to the body, even if it is without a soul –, the magnificent divine activity and the greatest of wonders was combined with it, the wonderful gush of divine blood mixed with life-giving water.” 89 And again: “See, with regard to the flesh that feels and is in pain, since the ensouled body is naturally disposed to feel and to be in pain, the activity of the sufferings is in truth everywhere.” 90 And a little further on: “Insofar as he was God, he was without suffering, feeling completely nothing together with his body so that even if the sufferings of the body and of the soul were according to nature, they are still said to be proper to the enfleshed Word with regard to his intellectually ensouled flesh, which is also naturally disposed to suffer these things.” 91 35. If there is one nature of the Word and the flesh, do not distinguish. No, since you say that the sufferings are clearly proper to the flesh and the soul ‘according to nature’, say that they are also proper to the Word. But if you do not dare to do so, you who dare everything, surely the sufferings are proper to the Word in another way, and not ‘according to nature’. Then how is Christ not two natures? I mean, if something happens to one nature in a natural way, then that is said to be proper to it ‘according to nature’, but if something happens ‘beyond nature’, it comes from an activity of another nature. But he who said that the activity is undivided in order to posit one nature defined the piercing in the side by saying that it was pierced in a natural manner and that that is proper to the body, not to the divinity, but defined the gush of blood and water by saying that it pertained to the divine, not the bodily, activity. Therefore, regarding the body that was pierced and was naturally disposed to feel pain and was receptive of sufferings, pope Leo spoke well when he said that that body was subject to sufferings and insults, but that the divinity, which supra-naturally resurrected its own body, shone by its miracles. 92 89 From Severus’ Third Letter to Julian (CPG 7026). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434, at l. 696-704. On the doctrines of Julian, anti-Chalcedonian bishop of Halicarnassus, who like Severus was exiled to Egypt, see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2/2 [see n. 3], p. 79-111. 90 From Severus’ Third Letter to Julian (CPG 7026). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434, at l. 704-707. 91 From Severus’ Third Letter to Julian (CPG 7026). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 437, at l. 725-729. 92 A reference to the Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian (CPL 1656; CPG 8922). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 434, at l. 707-712.



437

Pauline Allen

438

36. But if the flesh has a nature capable of sufferings, whereas the divinity has a nature capable of enacting what is beyond the nature of the body, ‘each nature’ really ‘retains its own property’, 93 and it is rightly confessed that Christ has two natures and that their properties are preserved, which Severus confesses he too knows, saying in his works against the Grammarian the following: “For we know and confess, as was already said, property and difference and otherness of the natures from which one Christ ineffably was brought together, as in a natural quality and the natures stand apart from each other.” 94; and again: “Since the natural otherness and difference are not extinct because of the unconfusedness of the union.” 95 37. Pay attention to the fact that he says ‘stand apart’, and not ‘the nature’, but ‘the natures’. The one who in that passage confesses both ‘property’ and ‘otherness’ of the natures anathematises in many of his writings those who confess those things. And the one who says that the sufferings belong to the flesh and to the soul according to nature, and that death happens by nature to the body, but that the divinity is impassible and the resurrection is God-fitting, 96 says in his work on the Trisagion, which begins “Perhaps you think that I rejoiced”: “But if he is going to be recognised in two natures after the union, the union is dissolved, separated by the duality, the mystery will be divided, and we will assign immortality to the divine nature but death to the human nature.” 97 38. The one who jests in everything and stops at nothing has confused all that is proper to the divinity by nature and all that is proper to the humanity by nature by preparing to contemplate what is proper to the humanity by nature as if it is proper according to the divine plan, so that of the divine properties none is preserved any more in any nature. But let us remind him of what is written by the Nyssan in his fourth speech against Eunomius: “For if he accuses those who attribute suffering to the human nature, he certainly wants to subject the divinity itself to suffering.” 98 Perhaps out of shame his followers will rather confirm Cf. chapter 32. From Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 437, at l. 735-739. 95 An unidentified fragment, possibly from Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024). 96 See chapter 34. 97 From Severus’ Homily on the Annunciation, i.e. his second Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 438, at l. 749-753. 98 From Gregory of Nyssa’s Against Eunomius (CPG 3135). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 438, at l. 760-762. 93 94



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

what he said against Julian: “We will not say that he fitted suffering to the impassible essence of the divinity.” 99 39. This is how the confuser 100 pours everything together. When supposedly arguing against the docetists, he puts forward the properties of the natures; while when arguing with those who advocate the properties of the natures, he replaces that which is said as concerning and from one person with that which is said as concerning and from one nature. Indeed, sometimes he does not know the difference between nature and person, so that as a lover of chaos and jest he has the licence to fight with everyone on every occasion. But if a difference between nature and person does not exist, whenever he says ‘natures’ in the plural,or ‘nature and nature’, he also says ‘persons’. 40. In his homily on his ordination, which begins “Going up once to Mesopotamia”, he says: “When will shine on those on earth and accepted his voluntary emptying for our sake, he will become a ladder for us, leading up to heaven those lying on the ground by sin and Adam’s transgression, as well as a conspicuous gate of heaven, disclosing to us the Father and himself, and the Holy Spirit, and the lordship in the holy Trinity.” 101 He made these statements while attacking the holy synod, which said: “For concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it teaches perfection, and shows the inhumanisation of the Lord to those who receive it with faith.” 102 If, therefore, the synod spoke of a tetrad, Severus speaks of a hexad. 41. In his homily on My God, my God (Mt. 27, 46), which begins “Perhaps some of those who disunite”, he said: “Except not as I wish but as you do (Mt. 26, 39). That these words pertained to teaching and not to cowardice the Gospel writings will show clearly. I mean, how was Christ going to be afraid of death when he approached it with the utmost desire and said: ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover (Lc. 22, 15)’?” 103 Then with his habitual self-contradiction he writes in his second work to Sergius: “For insofar as Emmanuel is God he suffered in appearance, 99 From Severus’ Third Letter to Julian (CPG 7026). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 438, at l. 764-765. 100 Φύρτης; according to Lampe, Lexicon, p. 1491 s.v., a hapaxlegomenon. 101 From Severus’ first Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 438, at l. 776-782. 102 From the definition of Chalcedon. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 438, at l. 784-786. 103 From Severus’ Sermo in Matthaeum 27, 46, i.e. his 22nd Cathedral Homily (CPG 7035.3; 7053). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 438, at l. 789-794.



439

440

Pauline Allen

441

whereas insofar as he was a human being he suffered in truth.” 104 And in his second book against John the Grammarian he says: “The same one, insofar as he was God, did not fear death, whereas insofar as he was a human being he appropriated to himself also the reluctance to die, and voluntarily conceded to accept natural suffering inflicted on his flesh.” 105 42. I have provided a few passages from many, because I wanted to prove that the man is at variance also with himself, and that when he says that the natural parts of the body are different from the natural parts of the divinity he anathematises those who say ‘two natures’, but even more so himself. For also he himself knows two natures in Christ and that they are established and constant, and in turn – I do not know how – he combines them into one, and in turn condemns those who unite and combine the natures into one, as was demonstrated before. But if Christ is one nature, it is superfluous to say ‘insofar as’ and ‘insofar as’, and ‘nature of the body’ and ‘nature of the divinity’, and ‘born to suffer’ and ‘not born to suffer’. I mean, these are statements made about the two natures; let the one who speaks subtly about superfluous things say whether something is natural or born without a nature. 43. The person who says ‘one nature of God the Word made flesh’ and ‘ensouled with a rational and intellectual soul’, 106 and who does not confess two natures is similar to the person who says ‘one, a half, a third, a sixth’, but does not want to say that these things are ‘two’ in the whole. When Severus says in his works against Julian: “The flesh suffered the voluntary and blameless passions according to the laws of nature, because God the Word granted (it). But the miracles, on the other hand, were accomplished and performed through the body itself beyond the laws of nature” 107 – for the signs and wondrous acts are beyond the boundaries of nature –, let he be asked: if Christ is one nature and this nature ‘suffered the passions according to the laws of nature’, 108 the signs and wondrous acts which surpass that one nature that was fit to receive the passions, the things that are beyond that nature, how or from where did they come about? Indeed, he will be forced, I think, either to say that This quotation cannot be found in Severus’ extant correspondence with Sergius. This passage must have belonged to the end of Book 2, which ends abruptly. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 440, at l. 798-801. 106 These terms are those of Cyril of Alexandria. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 441, at l. 816-817. 107 From Severus’ Third Letter to Julian (CPG 7026). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 441, at l. 820-824. 108 Repetition of part of the foregoing fragment. 104 105



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

they came about as an illusion or that they came about from another nature. 44. Severus, as his writings show, says two natures and one, with the two natures respecting the truth, with the one nature satisfying his teachers, the illusionists Timothy Aelurus and Dioscorus. The doctrine of Timothy has been demonstrated before, 109 while those who do not know Dioscorus’ doctrine will learn about it from the letter he wrote from Gangra, in which he writes the following: “The only-begotten Son Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, having become a human being without sin and change, shared the human passions, not through nature but through grace.” 110 And again: “Unless the blood of Christ is by nature of God and not of a human being, how does it differ from the blood of goats and calves and the ashes of a heifer (Hebr. 9, 12-13)? For, that too is earthly and corruptible, and the blood of those who are by nature human beings is earthly and corruptible. No, heaven forbid that we should say that the blood of Christ is of the same substance as the blood of one of the living beings.” 111 45. That is Dioscorus and Timothy; such are the teachers of Severus. Having taken over from them the one nature, but being displeased with some of their ideas, he moulded our thoughts around the one nature, thus beautifying the harlot’s body with modest clothing: he kept the expression of one nature as an inheritance from his fathers, but wrapped the notions that indicate the two natures around it, and, while in practice he presented two natures, he mostly rejected the expression ‘two’. Hence instability accrues to him in his explanations. I mean, not wanting to travel on the king’s highway (Num. 20, 17) he wanders around and is buffeted everywhere up and down, leading his followers around with him. Because nothing he does is consistent, he anathematises Eutyches, but accepts Dioscorus and ‘loves and honours the struggles’ 112 of the latter, which he fought on behalf of Eutyches up until his condemnation and anathematisation and exile. 46. But if someone were to say that Dioscorus accepted tracts full of regret from Eutyches and therefore protected him, he is lying. For the tract Cf. chapter 4. Dioscorus, Letter from Gangra (CPG 5455), a fragment otherwise unknown. 111 Dioscorus, possibly from the same letter from Gangra. The fragment also appears in Justinian and Pamphilus. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 441, at l. 842847. 112 A fragment from Severus’ Letter to John Niciotes (CPG 7081.1), cited in chapter 5 above (see footnote 16). 109 110



442

Pauline Allen

443

which was given to Dioscorus by Eutyches contained not a statement of repentance but of blame against blessed Flavian: he anathematised him, although he had been orthodox from the cradle. But let us grant that Eutyches’ tract contained a statement of repentance: the repentance was the result of a mistake. Then on account of whom did he kill Flavian, who anathematised Eutyches when he was still mistaken? Why does Severus anathematise the one who after repenting was accepted by Dioscorus? 47. And as for Dioscorus, since he did not confess that the blood of Christ was co-essential with the blood of naturally human beings, it is obvious that he does not say either that the body of Christ is reasonably ‘one nature’. Similarly, Timothy too knows only the divine nature of Christ, while he knows the flesh neither as nature nor as essence. The upshot is that for them there is only flesh in name. Therefore, both of them, following each other, taught one nature and fought against those who anathematised Eutyches. But Severus, who against his teachers confesses that the body of Christ is co-essential with us, who asserts that there are ‘natures’ in Christ, and who ‘observes’ them after the union, as well as ‘difference’ and ‘otherness’, the ‘unconfusedness’ and the ‘separation of the soul at the time of death’, which is a division of the whole – I mean, the soul was separated from the body only: for the divinity was essentially united with each –, let the one who judges dispassionately decide if he sensibly confesses ‘one nature’ and anathematises those who say ‘two natures’. 48. And yet in his writings against the Grammarian, in order to accuse and condemn himself further, Severus said: “In other words, the two, from which the union is, in being united are by composition distinguished from each other only in the mind. For in no way do they cease to be two also by the hypostases.” 113 Let the sober one hear from the drunkard – what his mind decided, he has revealed by his mouth – that the two hypostases were not changed even after the union, but are two. Well then, having confirmed that this is so, he says in the same book: “The one hypostasis of God the Word, which is discerned only in contemplation, and the one hypostasis of the intellectually ensouled flesh taken from the Theotokos, are considered in the composition as unchangeable and remain what they are.” 114 If he says that what is discerned in contempla113 This quote from Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024) cannot be traced. 114 From book II of Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 443, at l. 899-903.



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

tion also exists only in contemplation, he knows that everything is an illusion. But if the hypostases are essential, what rubbish does he speak in his war of words when he speaks of two essences in Christ, and when he knows nothing else so well, as to speak maliciously of those who say ‘two natures’, like himself, and who do not distinguish them in actual fact, but only in the imagination? 49. I find that Severus knows that Christ is two natures according to one existence, but says that they are ‘one’ in his illusion and only in order to ruin those who are persuaded by him. I mean, if the hypostases ‘remained in the composition what they are’, and if they are two, and ‘never cease to be two also by the hypostases’, and if in the mind they are contemplated as two, it is obvious that even after the union – for that is the meaning of ‘in the composition’ 115 – they really exist and are observed and called to be what they are according to Severus himself. But the socalled ‘one’ nature, is referred to only in thought, or, to speak more truly, as the result of human conjecture and invention, but does not exist. For, two mutually opposing words cannot refer to the same and both be true. 50. If someone were to say that there are two natures as well as one nature, that there are two natures as parts of a whole and as constituents of a result – for the result cannot be something unless its constituents remain, neither can the whole be a whole, unless the parts remain –, but that there is one nature as a whole and as a result, let such a one hear that the fork-tongued snakes do not want this – for in truth it would have been endurable –, but that they invented and put forward the one nature in order to get rid of the two. That is why they also anathematise those who say ‘two’ natures after the union, while they themselves are forced by the consistency of the matter often to say ‘two’ natures, as has been demonstrated. However, like blessed Gregory of Nyssa said to Apollinaris: “How are the two natures one?” 116 For, like Apollinaris himself said in the book according to chapter, the man who employed that expression to the utmost: “The simple is one, but the composite cannot be one.” 117 If, therefore, the composite, insofar as it is composite, cannot be one, since it would no longer be a composite, how is it pos All words between quotation marks in this chapter are repetitions from chapter

115

48.

116 From Gregory of Nyssa’s Refutation against Apollinaris (CPG 3144). The same text is cited by Ephrem, Justinian, Leontius of Byzantium, the Doctrina Patrum, and Anastasius of Sinai. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 444, at l. 936. 117 From Apollinaris of Laodicea’s To Diodore (CPG 3657), a work surviving only in fragments. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 444, at l. 938-939.



444

Pauline Allen

445

446

sible for the object that is composed from two and contains those two in itself and is the things from which it is composed, to be and be called one, unless of course in a person? Therefore, the Fathers rightly stated that Christ is two natures, because of his being formed and composed from them and his being these things, and that the composite itself, not insofar as it is a composite but insofar as it is a result, is one person – as such they do not destroy the component parts, but also name them as remaining according to their existence – and they confess the coming together of those things into a unity or into one person. For the parts of the whole must be called ‘parts’, and the whole must not be said to be a ‘part’, but a ‘whole’. 51. But if the two natures became one, the result is indeed of a different nature, as blessed Cyril said in his Against the Synousiasts. 118 And if it is of a different nature from that out of which it came together, that is from the divinity and the humanity, undeniably according to them, as was also said above, Christ is neither God nor human being, nor one of the Trinity, nor is the virgin Theotokos, nor the Trinity a Trinity, but rather a duality. For if the Son was enfleshed, and on that account became one nature of a different nature from the Father and the Holy Spirit, how will he be counted together with them, with whom he is not of one essence? Into the abyss of oblivion with such rubbish from the truly headless ones! 119 52. Therefore, following the holy Fathers who speak the truth, we will say that Christ is two natures, but one person. For, saying ‘two natures’ in Christ is nothing other than what Severus too says, the snake with forked tongue: ‘in no way does he cease to be two also by the hypostases’, 120 and after the union they ‘remain and are observed as what they are’, 121 namely the natures. What is the difference between saying ‘Christ is in two natures’ or that which also Severus, the two-headed fox, says according to blessed Cyril: ‘perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity’, and ‘the two not to appear in two is impossible’? 122 – but he is not in persons. For Christ is not two persons either.

A reference to Cyril of Alexandria’s Book against the Asserters (CPG 5230). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 445, at l. 952-954. 119 On this term see n. 15 above. 120 Cf. chapters 48 and 49. 121 Cf. chapter 48. 122 Cf. chapter 9. 118



EUSTATHIUS, LETTER CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES AGAINST SEVERUS

53. But the blessed Cyril says, he said: “So that the two are no longer two, but through both the one being has resulted.” 123 Let those who distort what is right listen: the teacher did not say that through both one ‘nature’ has resulted but that ‘the one being has resulted’, which is the same as saying that one ‘person’ has resulted. For, how is he telling the truth when he says: ‘But each remains what it is by nature’? 124 How too will Severus’ statement hold up, namely that ‘in the composition they remained what they are’, 125 that is the natures, and not the one nature? Therefore, the holy man did not consider two to be two beings, which is why he also added the expression ‘resulted in the one being’. 126 54. Therefore, let the liars cease from propping up a stick of reed for themselves. Just as they say: ‘When the one nature resulted, it is no longer possible for them either to be or to be called two natures, for the statement is contradictory’, so also we will say after having reversed the expression: if there are two natures, those that are two cannot be called ‘one’. That there are two natures of Christ Severus not only said but also wrote. But even if Severus had not said it, it is one or the other: either the natures remain and are preserved or they are lost. If they are lost, they are neither two nor one, but if they remain, which rather is the true case, and are named, then how will it be acknowledged that they remain, or how will the expression ‘remain’ be meant? Surely therefore no-one can have the possibility to make or call those that are two one. The very expression ‘composite’ signifies the converging of two objects, and the one who ponders the ‘composite’ imagines two things from which the very composite is composed, which it has in itself and which it is, as long as the composite is truly ‘composite’. If, therefore, Christ is composite, he has not only been brought together from two natures, but also contains them in himself, since he is composed from them, and is them, so that he would not be like one in others; and the rationale of the composition is also preserved. 123 The quote is from book I of Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), but Eustathius seems to quote it on the basis of Cyril’s Epistula 46, i.e. his Second letter to Succensus (CPG 5346) The same Cyrillian fragment occurs in Ephrem, Leontius of Jerusalem, Justinian, and the Doctrina Patrum. Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 446, at l. 976-978. 124 From Cyril’s Commentary on John 4, 2 (CPG 5208). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 446, at l. 982. 125 A quote from Severus’ Against the Impious Grammarian (CPG 7024), cited above in chapter 48 (see footnote 114 above). 126 See footnote 123 above.



447

Pauline Allen

55. Therefore, the one who wants to journey behind the truth in simplicity of heart (Col. 3, 22) has the truth guiding him and keeping deceit at bay. But you, O man of God, being fortified in the truth (II Petr. 1, 12) of faith, by the very words of Severus, the enemy of the church, curb those who are unwilling to confess the two natures of Christ also after the union and who understand the words ‘one nature of God the Word enfleshed’ maliciously and not according to blessed Cyril, who used those words against the ‘temporary’ union of Nestorius. 127 For, it was not to destroy the two natures, as the liars and insane ones babble, but rather to sustain them and their essentially undivided and unchanged and undiminished union, as Cyril’s writings testify, but especially his letter to Eulogius his apocrisiarius, 128 and his speech of address, which begins: “I do not accept what has been mixed.” 129

Unfortunately, it was all too easy to use Cyril’s words against himself. See Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2/2 [see n. 3], p. 23: ‘The historical development of Cyril was in fact so ambivalent that his works could become a common arsenal for contrary christologies depending upon what one sought in them’. 128 On Eulogius, see n. 23 above. 129 Refers to Cyril’s Homily Addressed to the Alexandrians about Faith (CPG 5265). Details in Allen, Eustathii [see n. 1], p. 447, at l. 1018-1025. 127



Theodora Antonopoulou

An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom Abstract – The present article focuses on an anonymous iambic canon on St John Chrysostom, a work which had long been considered lost. The canon is re-edited with corrections and accompanied by the necessary apparatuses. An introductory study deals with various aspects of the text, which make clear the peculiarities of this representative sample of the meagre tradition of Byzantine Greek iambic canons. It is with great pleasure that I am offering the present contribution to the Festschrift for the Revd. Dr Joseph Munitiz, the highly revered scholar and teacher. 1 This article comprises a study and re-edition of an anonymous iambic canon on St John Chrysostom, a work which had long been considered lost. It is intended as a bridge between my two editions in the CCSG: 2 among the Homilies of Emperor Leo VI there is a long encomium of St John Chrysostom (Homily 38), while Merkourios the Grammarian composed an iambic canon on the same saint (opus IV of the edition). The anonymous canon consists of 155 verses in 31 stanzas (troparia) and displays an acrostic which forms a dodecasyllabic verse: Πανευμενῶς δέχοιο τοὺς λόγους, πάτερ. It was found in a manuscript housed on Mt Athos, the paper codex Laura Λ 170 of the fifteenth century. This is also the unique manuscript that transmits Merkourios’ works. Since details on the manuscript are provided in the Introduction to my edition of Merkourios, I will confine myself to the minimum necessary for the understanding of the canon’s survival. The canon was written on f. 135-136 of the codex. These folios formed part of a now missing quaternion (f. 132-139) containing three 1 Years ago, Dr Munitiz acted as the “internal examiner” of my doctoral thesis at the University of Oxford (1995). 2 See Th. Antonopoulou, Leonis VI Sapientis Imperatoris Byzantini Homiliae (CCSG, 63), Turnhout, 2008; Ead., Mercurii Grammatici Opera iambica (CCSG, 87), Turnhout, 2017.

The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 57–75 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117144

Theodora Antonopoulou

additional iambic canons: a lost canon on St Basil by Caesar John (f. 132135), Merkourios’ aforementioned canon (f. 136-137v), and a lost canon on St Theodore Teron by the patrician John Vestes (f. 138-139). The two canons on Chrysostom survive only thanks to their edition by Manuel Gedeon, who had at his disposal a copy made before the loss of the quaternion. 3 His edition, however, was included in an obscure publication from the year 1911 and remained completely unknown until very recently, when it was brought to light by Stavros Kourousis. 4 The practical inaccessibility of the only existing witness to the text is the first reason that this canon is worth republishing. Another reason is that we are presented with one of the few iambic canons composed in Byzantium, though it is impossible to provide a precise number of such canons in the present state of our knowledge. In the case of canons on John Chrysostom, I have gathered 32 published and unpublished works, 5 among which there are just two other iambic canons, namely the one by Merkourios and another which is anonymous. 6 Thus, the present canon is an important link in this rather rare hymnographic tradition. Thirdly, Gedeon’s edition is not without errors and his publication lacks any remarks on the work. Therefore, although no manuscript basis seems to exist nowadays and the 1911 edition remains the only source for the text, the anonymous canon is being re-edited here for the additional reason that a critical edition, which aspires to correct errors of the first edition and is accompanied by the necessary apparatuses as well as a study of various issues concerning the canon, will be provided. Regarding the dating of the text, there is no sure way it can be determined, apart from the fact that the manuscript’s dating to the fifteenth century is the obvious terminus ante quem for the composition of the canon. The other canons contained in the missing quire might offer some help, if we assume that they were all contemporary, although noth3 Ed. M. Gedeon, Κανὼν ἰαμβικὸς εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον, οὗ ἡ ἀκροστιχὶς «Πανευμενῶς δέχοιο τοὺς λόγους Πάτερ», in Ἀρχεῖον ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας, 1 (1911), p. 75-80. 4 See S. Kourousis, Ἰαμβικοὶ κανόνες περισωθέντες, in Ἀθηνᾶ, 84 (2009-2012), p. 50. 5 See the list in Antonopoulou, Mercurii Grammatici Opera iambica [see n. 2], p. XLIII-XLVII. On the various kinds of hymns on John Chrysostom see now the lists in D. A. Kaklamanos, Ἡ βυζαντινὴ ὑμνογραφικὴ παράδοση γιὰ τὸν ἅγιο Ἰωάννη τὸ Χρυσόστομο, in Κληρονομία, 38 (2014-2015 [publ. 2017]), p. 111-154. 6 For the latter see no. 8 of my list mentioned in the previous note; ed. A. Komi­ nis, Analecta Hymnica Graeca, III. Canones Novembris, Rome, 1972, Canon 32, p. 392399. The canon edited here is no. 4 on the list.



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

ing compels us to do so. Nonetheless, if this were true, then the anonymous one would be contemporary with Merkourios, whose activity I have placed in the period from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, with the years around 1300 being a serious possibility, as I explain in the Introduction to Merkourios’ edition. Some textual clues also point in the same direction. 7 The canon in honour of Chrysostom praises the saint for his pastoral activity on various fronts and for his exile, as these are known from his Vitae, and in particular the Vita par excellence, composed by George of Alexandria in the seventh century (BHG 873). For this reason and with the intention of a better understanding of the canon, references to George as published by F. Halkin are given in the apparatus fontium; they are usually accompanied by the phrase “ex(empli) gr(atia)”, given that no lexical borrowings have been traced. The canon consists, as is usual, of eight odes, numbered 1 and 3 to 9. Most odes have four stanzas each except the first two odes, which have three stanzas each, and the final ode, which has five stanzas. Each stanza consists of five verses, so that, as mentioned above, the whole canon extends to 155 verses. As regards its contents, the canon develops as follows. Initially, in a traditional manner, the hymnographer requests the saint’s help for praising him in a befitting manner; otherwise, he would be unable to do so (Ode 1, trop. 2). Immediately afterwards, he commences with the praise, moving constantly from the past of John’s life and work to his impact at present and in eternity, with prayers being interspersed throughout the text. While still in the flesh, John was an immaterial angel and lived for God alone; he may, therefore, teach us by his ascetic example even more than by his words (trop. 3). He taught the consumption of evil passions by the fire of divine desire, in this way leading people to paradise; may he save through his entreaties those who praise him. Thanks to the honey dripping from his wise lips, he sweetened the bitterness caused by the First Sin, which had led to nakedness and death (Ode 3, trop. 2-3). Due to his advice to avoid unworthy thoughts and gold, which ruined superior matters, and to show contempt towards sloth, John emerged as a preacher second only to John the Forerunner. May he chase away the storm destroying human soul, that is, the depravity caused by impure actions, so that everybody may praise him. John earned paradise as a prize for his modest, humble and upright way of life; may we too be judged worthy of paradise through See below, footnote 8 on the winged Baptist and p. 61 on φεραύγεια.

7



Theodora Antonopoulou

the prayers of the Golden Mouth (Ode 4, trop. 2-4). He was a shining star among bishops, having cut off heretical errors, while sowing the divine seed and cultivating orthodoxy’s grain to a multiple degree in his fiery speeches. His lips moved for Christ, nourished the starving human souls like the mannah, and filled them with rejoicing. He followed in the steps of the Fathers and joined them in heaven; for this reason, we entreat him to mediate with the Word to abolish the enemies’ machinations against us (Ode 5, 2-4). He was the select dwelling of the Holy Spirit and the melodious organ of the angels, which like David’s lyre, chased away evil sounds. With his piety he made clear the light of the Holy Trinity, and with his bravery he stopped every hostile blasphemy, he who was the fountain of wonders and the basket of God’s graces. The Lord revealed John’s words as a two-edged sword, against heretics and in intelligent support of orthodox dogmas (Ode 6, 2-4). A namesake of John the Forerunner, he resembled him in both manners and life; for he winged himself towards Heaven, 8 having melted his flesh by sleeping on the ground, lack of food, and ascesis. In his works he resolved the perplexing passages of the Bible and taught its wisdom; the result was everybody’s joy and strengthening in Christian life. He, who was a great orator against wrong beliefs, grew like a palm tree and flourished like a Lebanese cedar (Ode 7, 2-4). His words traversed the ends of the earth like a lightning, shining brightly and dissipating darkness. His stance against the impious woman (namely the empress Eudoxia), whom he justly condemned like Elijah Jezebel, led to his exile. By the grace of the Spirit he clarified the Scriptures and made evident their inner beauty in a divinely inspired manner; in this way, an easy explanation became available to people (Ode 8, 2-4). Blessed with grace, he displayed especial fervour for Paul, together with whom he explained the Scriptures clearly, thus receiving eternal reward from God. Who could deservedly enumerate all the pains and the struggles John went through? We entreat him to sympathize with us who praise him. May he, the tower of Church, help his flock and protect it without delay, mediating with the divinity for his servants who cry out for him (Ode 9, 2-4).

As noted in the app. font. of the edition below, the implied reference to John the Forerunner as an angel reflects Mc. 1, 2. The earliest surviving iconography of the winged Baptist dates from the end of the thirteenth century, which accords well with the proposed dating of the canon; see E. Weis, Johannes der Täufer, in E. Kirschbaum – W. Braunfels (eds), Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, VII, Rome – Freiburg – Basel – Vienna, 1974, col. 164-190, esp. 166-167, 170. 8



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

It should be noted that throughout the canon the hymnographer addresses John in the second person. The first stanza of each ode does not concern the saint, but has as its subject, or is loosely connected with, the respective biblical canticle that traditionally provided inspiration, as noted in the apparatus fontium. No care is taken to connect the introductory stanza to the rest of each ode. The first stanza of the third, the fifth and the sixth odes addresses the Lord with prayers, while the first and the fifth stanzas of the ninth ode contain chairetismoi to the Theotokos, who is praised for the mystery of the Incarnation and the salvation of humankind through it. Little can be inferred concerning the hymnographer from internal evidence. He undoubtedly displays genuine devotion to the saint, to whom he applies a wide range of poetic addresses and metaphors. Moreover, the first stanza of the sixth ode is a personal, although typical, prayer of the poet to be saved from the tempest of his own passions. With regard to his language as an indication of his education, he displays a penchant for unusual words. Those which are absent from LSJ, Lampe, Lexicon, and LBG are the following: 34 ἀνθρωπομορφόσωμος, 127 ἐνθεοτρόπως, 138 εὐσαφῶς (cf. εὐσαφής LBG), 144 εὐσυγγνωμόνως, 25 παμμακάρτατος, 149 πανίλεος (cf. πανίλαος Lampe, Lexicon), 69 πονηρόπλεκτος, 84 πυρσοφωτόχρυσος. Another word, 129 ἔκλυσις (on which see LSJ and Lampe, Lexicon), has a new meaning, that is, “interpretation”. It is also noteworthy in connection with the dating of the canon that 118 φεραύγεια is attested from the twelfth century onwards. Furthermore, the study of the metre of the canon, the results of which will be presented immediately below, has proved, unequivocally, in my opinion, that the anonymous cannot be identified with Merkourios. He handles the demanding metre of an iambic canon adequately, but rather more loosely than Merkourios in comparison to his model. As far as the metre is concerned, all of the heirmoi of the canon were derived from the famous iambic canon on Epiphany usually attributed to John of Damascus. 9 Iambic canons combine the principles of dodecasyllabic poetry with those of rhythmotonic hymnography, namely isosyllaby and homotony. It thus comes as no surprise that the anony9 Ed. A. Nauck, Iohannis Damasceni Canones iambici cum commentario et indice verborum, in Mélanges gréco-romains tirés du Bulletin de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VI, St Petersburg, 1894, p. 199-223, esp. 205-210; also, W. von Christ – M. Paranikas, Anthologia Graeca carminum Christianorum, Leipzig, 1871 (Hildesheim, 1963), p. 209-213. For bibliography on the three iambic canons attributed to the Damascene, see Antonopoulou, Mercurii Grammatici Opera iambica [see n. 2], p. LII, n. 93 – LIII.



Theodora Antonopoulou

mous adheres to prosody, displaying on the whole correct use of the long and short vowels. Exceptions are encountered at v. 7 with a long ὁ, v. 77 σκήνωμα with a short η, and v. 82 ἀριστεύς with a short ευ. As usual, dichrons and proper names (71 Ἰωνᾶν with a short α) are treated freely. At 59 πολυπλάσιον, ι before a vowel is long. The combinations of two consonants which can render the preceding vowel short are extended beyond the muta cum liquida rule to γρ (72), δρ (17), μν (18, 130), ρμ (54), χρ (35). Οn two occasions, where a short vowel is expected before a double ρ in Gedeon’s edition, I have deleted the second ρ (v. 50 χρυσορῆμον, for the extra reason that the word in question is attested with a single ρ as well [see LBG], and v. 146 ἀρωγός, which is the grammatical form). Hiatus between words is generally avoided. Accordingly, I have made slight corrections at v. 64 (ἔπλησε) and 78 (ὤφθη). Moreover, δι᾽ἥν at v. 125 and δι᾽οὗ at v. 133 are not regarded as cases of hiatus proper due to the elision and the joint pronunciation of these words. Thus, the only cases of hiatus left are at v. 72 προγράψαντᾱ ἀ˘νάστασιν and v. 86 πάγχρυσε˘ ’Ēκκλησίας, which concern the same consecutive sounds. Isosyllaby is guaranteed by the consistent number of twelve syllables of the dodecasyllable in all verses (a synizesis occurs at v. 86 Ἐκκλησίας). Homotony is also served with regard to the main stress of the dodecasyllable before the end of the verse, and the secondary one before the internal pause. In particular, the final stress corresponds to the expected paroxytony of the dodecasyllable, which is observed in 91.6% of the verses, whereas thirteen verses (8.4%) display a proparoxytone ending (ς2 × 2, ζ5 × 4, η1 × 4, η4 × 3: v. 77, 82, 95, 100, 105, 110, 111, 114, 116, 119, 121, 126, 129). Regarding these choices, it should be noted that the poet follows the heirmoi of the model canon; in fact, he deviates from his model only whenever he employs a paroxytone ending instead of a proparoxytone one. Internal pauses make clear the mixture of the prosodic and the rhythmotonic metrical systems. In the prosodic system of the canon, pause B5 prevails largely over pause B7. Ιn several cases, where both pauses are equally acceptable, the respective model heirmos helps determine which pause is preferable, since on the whole the poet follows the model canon and applies the same pause in the corresponding verses of an ode. Thus, B7 occurs in verses δ4 (× 4), ε3 (× 4), ε4 (× 4), ς1 (× 4), ς2 (× 2, namely apart from v. 72 and 77), ς4 (× 4), η2 (× 3, namely apart from v. 117, where a B5 is also possible in the model heirmos), θ5 (× 5), that is in a total of 30 verses (19.4% of the canon). In verse ς2 there is a B6 in strophes 1 and 2 (2 v., or 1.3% of the canon). The rest of the canon,



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

which amounts to 123 verses (79% of the canon), displays a B5. It is noteworthy that B6 does not occur in the heirmoi at all, thus marking a slight departure of the poet from his model. The pattern of the stress before the internal pause is the following: Β5 Proparoxytone 31 (20%), Paroxytone 70 (45.2%), Oxytone 22 (14.2%) 10 Β7 Prop. 24 (15.5%), Par. 5 (3.2%), Ox. 1 (0.6%) 11 B6 Prop. 2 (1.3%) 12 Therefore, a strong tendency for a stress on the fourth or the fifth syllable of the verse concerns 76.2% of the 155 verses (B5 Par. 45.2% plus B6 Prop. 1.3%, and B5 Ox. 14.2% plus B7 Prop. 15.5% of the whole respectively), followed by a preference for a stress on the third syllable (Β5 Prop. 20%). It emerges that the poet is not very consistent in keeping to the same stress before the internal pause in the corresponding verses of an ode; however, a move of the stress by one or two syllables was acceptable in rhythmotonic poetry. 13 The poet also makes an effort to keep to the other secondary stresses of his model, one in each half-verse, but, here again, variations and fluctuations are observed throughout the poem. Consequently, on the one hand, the practice described above as regards internal pauses and the stress before them derives to a large extent from the model canon; on the other, there are also considerable deviations, which means that the poet treated his model with liberty either on purpose or due to restricted metrical skills. In the edition that follows, references in the critical apparatus are to Ge(deon)’s edition in place of the lost manuscript basis. 10 Analytically (a dash is used only for subsequent verses belonging to the same stanza): Β5 Prop.: γ × 2 (v. 24, 29), ζ × 11 (v. 93-95, 99-100, 103-105, 108-110), η × 8 (v. 111, 115, 116, 120, 121, 125, 126, 130), θ × 10 (v. 132, 135, 137, 140, 142, 145, 147, 150, 152, 155); Par.: α × 12 (v. 1-4, 6-8, 11-15), γ × 10 (v. 17-19, 22-23, 25, 26-28, 30), δ × 11 (v. 31-33, 35, 37, 40, 42-43, 45, 48, 50), ε × 9 (v. 51-52, 56-57, 61-62, 65, 66-67), ς × 7 (v. 73, 75, 78, 83, 85, 88, 90), ζ × 8 (v. 91-92, 96-97, 101-102, 106-107), η × 8 (v. 113-114, 118-119, 123-124, 128-129), θ × 5 (v. 133, 138, 143, 148, 153); Ox.: α × 3 (v. 5, 9-10), γ × 3 (v. 16, 20, 21), δ × 5 (v. 36, 38, 41, 46-47), ε × 3 (v. 55, 60, 70), ς × 1 (v. 80), ζ × 1 (v. 98), η × 1 (v. 117), θ × 5 (v. 131, 136, 141, 146, 151). 11 Analytically (a dash is used only for subsequent verses belonging to the same stanza): Β7 Prop.: δ × 4 (v. 34, 39, 44, 49), ε × 8 (v. 53-54, 58-59, 63-64, 68-69), ς × 9 (v. 71, 74, 76, 79, 81, 84, 86-87, 89), η × 3 (v. 112, 122, 127); Par.: θ × 5 (v. 134, 139, 144, 149, 154); Ox.: ς × 1 (v. 82). 12 ς × 2 (v. 72, 77). 13 See footnotes 10-12 above for details which make these deviations obvious.



Theodora Antonopoulou

ANONYMI CANON IAMBICUS IN S. IOANNEM CHRYSOSTOMUM Traditio manuscripta – Editio

Ge. M.  Gedeon, Κανὼν ἰαμβικὸς εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον, οὗ ἡ ἀκροστιχὶς «Πανευμενῶς δέχοιο τοὺς λόγους Πάτερ», in Ἀρχεῖον ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας, 1 (1911), p. 75-80, qui textum edidit e foliis nunc perditis codicis Athoi, Laurae Λ 170 (s. XV)

Abbreviationes bibliographicae

EE S.  Eustratiades, Εἱρμολόγιον (Μνημεῖα Ἁγιολογικά) (Ἁγιορειτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 9), Chennevières-sur-Marne, 1932 Follieri E.  Follieri, Initia hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae, I-V.2 (ST, 211215bis), Città del Vaticano, 1960-1966 Halkin F. Halkin, Douze récits byzantins sur saint Jean Chrysostome (SH, 60), Bruxelles, 1977



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

Κανὼν ἰαµβικὸς εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστοµον, οὗ ἡ ἀκροστιχίς· «Πανευµενῶς δέχοιο τοὺς λόγους, πάτερ» Εἱρµός. ᾽Ωιδὴ α´. Ἦχος β´. Πρός· «Στείβει θαλάσσης.» Πάλαι τυράννου τριστατῶν πανοπλίαν ῥάβδος βυθίζει τοῦ θεόπτου Μωσέως, σώζει δὲ πάλιν Ἰσραὴλ στρατηγίαν ᾄδουσαν ᾆσµα τῷ Θεῷ, σωτηρίας 5

τούτου κραταιὰν χεῖρα δόντος ὑψόθεν. Ἄνθρωπε θεῖε, µύστα τῶν κεκρυµµένων, λόγους βραβεύοις ὡς ἂν ὁ κατ'ἀξίαν λέγων ἁπάσας αἰνέσεις σου προσφόρως· εἰ µὴ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐµβραβεύσεις σὴν χάριν,

10

οὔκουν δυνηθῶ σοὺς ἐπαίνους ἐκφράσαι.

Εἱρµός – θαλάσσης] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίηµα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, III, 533 1/5 cf. Ex. 14, 15 – 15, 19 1 τριστατῶν ] cf. Ex. 15, 4 2 ῥάβδος ] cf. Ex. 14, 16 βυθίζει ] cf. Ex. 15, 5 θεόπτου ] cf. Ex. 33, 23 4 ᾄδουσαν – Θεῷ ] cf. Ex. 15, 1 σωτηρίας ] cf. Ex. 15, 2 5 χεῖρα ] Ex. 14, 31 ; cf. ibid. 15, 6 4 τῷ Θεῷ ] scripsi, τοῦ Θεοῦ Ge.; cf. Ex. 15, 1 Τότε ᾖσεν Μωυσῆς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ τὴν ᾠδὴν ταύτην τῷ θεῷ 6 Ἄνθρωπε – κεκρυµµένων ] Ἄµεµπτε µύστα τῶν θείων µυστηρίων habet codex supra lineam secundum Ge. 8 αἰνέσεις ] scripsi, αἰνέσει Ge.



Theodora Antonopoulou

2

Νέκρωσιν οὕτως σαρκὸς ἀσκήσας, πάτερ, ἄϋλος ὤφθης ἄγγελος σὺν σαρκίῳ· κόσµῳ θανὼν δὲ καὶ Θεῷ ζήσας µόνῳ, ἔργοις διδάσκοις ἢ λόγοις κακουχίαν, 15

φέρουσαν ἔξω τῆς παθῶν τυραννίδος. Εἱρµός. ᾽Ωιδὴ γ´. Πρός· «Ὅσοι παλαιῶν.» Ἔρεισον ἡµῶν σῷ φόβῳ τὰς καρδίας, αὐτὰς ἑδράσας ἐντολῶν σου τῇ πέτρᾳ, ὅπως ὑµνῶσι πανσθενές σου δὴ κράτος· οὔτις γὰρ οἶδεν ἄλλον ἐκτός σου Λόγον

20

οὕτως πρὸς ἡµᾶς συµπαθῶς ἀφιγµένον. Ὕλην πονηρῶν πυρπολεῖν θείῳ πόθῳ

p. 76

παθῶν διδάσκων, προξενεῖς Ἐδὲµ τρίβον, οὐρανοφάντωρ καὶ Θεοῦ θυηπόλε· καὶ προσφέροντας αἶνον εὐχαριστίας 25

σώζοις λιταῖς σου, παµµακαρτάτη κάρα.

Εἱρµός – παλαιῶν] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίηµα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, ΙΙΙ, 166 11/15 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys., ex. gr. 6, p. 91­93; 24, p. 137­139 (ed. Halkin) 16/17 cf. ex. gr. Andr. Cret., Canon magnus, hirm. γ´, EE 170, num. 240 Στερέωσον, Κύριε, ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν τῶν ἐντολῶν σου σαλευθεῖσαν τὴν καρδίαν µου 16 cf. I Regn. 2, 1 19 cf. Is. 26, 13; cf. etiam ex. gr. Πεντηκοστάριον χαρµόσυνον, Romae, 1883, p. 17 troparium Ἀνάστασιν Χριστοῦ θεασάµενοι ... σὺ γὰρ εἶ Θεὸς ἡµῶν, ἐκτός σου ἄλλον οὐκ οἴδαµεν 21/22 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys., ex. gr. 22, p. 132­135; 24, p. 136­137 (ed. Halkin)



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

3

Μέλι σταλάσσων τῶν σοφῶν σου χειλέων, βροτῶν γλυκαίνεις γεύσεως τὴν πικρίαν, ἥνπερ παρέσχε δαίµονος πονηρία, τὸν πρωτόπλαστον ἀπατήσασα ξύλῳ, 30

γύµνωσις οὗπερ ἐξεχύθη καὶ µόρος.

Εἱρµός. ᾽Ωιδὴ δ´. Πρός· «Πυρσῷ καθαρθείς.» Ἐπεὶ προεῖδεν Ἀββακοὺµ παρουσίαν Χριστοῦ, προδήλως τὴν θεοπτίαν λέγει, οὕτως βοήσας· «Θαιµὰν ἥξει Δεσπότης ἀνθρωποµορφόσωµος εἰς κατοικίαν 35

ὄρους», ἀχράντου µητροπαρθένου κόρης. Νοεῖν χαµερπῆ νουθετήσας µηδόλως, χρυσόν τε φεύγειν, τὴν φθορὰν τῶν κρειττόνων, νέµειν τ'ἀµοιβὴν ὧν ὀκνοῦντας τυγχάνειν, τῦφον, καταφρόνησιν ἀσκεῖν ὡς δέον,

40

κῆρυξ ἐδείχθης δεύτερος τοῦ Προδρόµου.

Εἱρµός – καθαρθείς] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίηµα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, ΙΙΙ, 386 28/30 cf. Gen. 3 29 cf. Gen. 3, passim 30 cf. Gen. 1, 7. 10­11 31/35 cf. Hab. 3, speciatim 3 36/39 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys., ex. gr. 24, p. 137 (ed. Halkin) 40 cf. Mt. 3, 1­12, speciatim 1; Mc. 1, 2­ 8, speciatim 4. 7; Lc. 3, 1­18, speciatim 3 (Io. 1, 19­28) 33 Θαιµὰν ] intellige ἐκ Θαιµὰν, ut Hab. 3, 3; cf. app. font. scripsi, ἱκνοῦντας Ge. 39 τῦφον ] scripsi, τύφον Ge.



38 ὀκνοῦντας ]

Theodora Antonopoulou

4

Ὡς ἂν ἀληθῶς ἐκ Θεοῦ βροτοῖς κτέαρ, ψυχῆς διώκοις τὴν πανώλεθρον ζάλην, τὴν ἐκ βεβήλων πράξεων µοχθηρίαν, ὅπως σε, παµπόθητε καὶ πιστῶν στύλε, 45

ἅπας γεραίρῃ καὶ κλεΐζῃ γνησίως. Σεµνόν, ταπεινὸν καὶ πανέντιµον βίον σοφῶς διαµπὰξ ἐξανύσας, τρισµάκαρ, εἴληφας ἆθλον τὴν Ἐδὲµ κατοικίαν·

p. 77

ἧς ἀξιωθείηµεν εὐχαῖς σου, πάτερ, 50

ὦ χρυσορῆµον καὶ µελίρρυτον στόµα. Εἱρµός. ᾽Ωιδὴ ε´. Πρός· «Ἐχθροῦ ζοφώδους.» Διασκεδάζοις ἀχλὺν ἐζοφωµένην ὁ φῶς ἀνάψας τοῖς βροτοῖς ἑωσφόρου — σὺ γὰρ παρεκπέφυκας ἐκ φάους φάος —· πάρασχε δ'εἰρήνην τε σήν, πανοικτίρµον,

55

εἰρηνοποιέ, Χριστέ µου, παντοκράτορ.

Εἱρµός – ζοφώδους] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίηµα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, Ι, 574 51/52 cf. Is. 26, 9 53 ἐκ – φάος ] cf. Symbolum Nicaeno­ Constantinopolitanum φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ed. G. L. DOSSETTI, Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli. Edizione critica, Roma – Freiburg – Basel – Barcelona – Wien, 1967, p. 244, l. 4 54 cf. Lc. 24, 36; Io. 20, 19. 21. 26 Εἰρήνη ὑµῖν 55 cf. Col. 1, 20; cf. etiam, Mt. 5, 9 44 στύλε ] sic accent. metri gratia Ge.; cf. infra, v. 86 50 χρυσορῆµον ] scripsi metri gratia, χρυσορρῆµον Ge. 54 πάρασχε ] scripsi, πάρεσχε Ge. πανοικτίρµον ] scripsi, πανοικτίρµων Ge.



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

5

Ἐν ποιµενάρχαις ἀστέρος λάµπεις δίκην, τὰς φρυγανώδεις αἱρετιζόντων πλάνας κόψας, κατασπείρας τε τὸν θεῖον σπόρον, στάχυν πολυπλάσιον ὀρθοδοξίας 60

ξένως γεωργεῖς ἐν λόγοις πυριπνόοις. Χριστῷ δυάς σου χειλέων κινουµένη, ψυχὰς τακείσας ἐν λιµῷ ψυχοφθόρῳ ἔθρεψεν, ὡς πάγχρυσος ἄρτος ἀγγέλων, ἔπλησεν ἀφθόνως τε τῆς θυµηδίας,

65

λύπην σοβοῦσα δυσχερῶν πολυτρόπων. Οὕτως κατ'ἴχνος πατέρων θείων ἔβης, ὡς προστεθῆναι τῶν χορῶν τούτων ἄνω· ὅθεν δυσωποῦµέν σε πρεσβεύειν Λόγῳ πᾶσαν πονηρόπλεκτον ἐχθρῶν δυστρόπων

70

παῦσαι καθ'ἡµῶν µηχανὴν κινουµένην.

56/60 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys., ex. gr. 23, p. 135­136; 30­31, p. 153­158 (ed. Halkin) 58/60 cf. Mt. 13, 3. 8; Mc. 4, 3. 8; Lc. 8, 5. 8 61/65 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys., ex. gr. 26, p. 140­142 (ed. Halkin) 63 cf. Ps. 77, 24­25 64 ἔπλησεν ] scripsi, ἔπλησε Ge.



Theodora Antonopoulou

6

Εἱρµός. ᾽Ωιδὴ ϛ´. Πρός· «Ἱµερτὸν ἐξέφηνε.» Ἰωνᾶν ὡς σέσωκας ἐκ κάτω βάθους τὴν σὴν προγράψαντα ἀνάστασιν, Λόγε, ῥῦσαι παθῶν µε τοῦ κακοῦ κλυδωνίου· ἄβυσσος ἐσχάτη γὰρ ἐγκυκλουµένη 75

p. 78

βάλλει βυθῷ µε τοῦ πολυστρόφου βίου. Ὁ χρηστός, ὁ γλύκιστος, ὁ χρυσογράφος, πλέον τὸ Πνεύµατος σκήνωµα πρόκριτον, εὔηχον ὤφθης ὄργανον µελῳδίας τῶν πνευµάτων, ἅπασαν, ὡς Δαβὶδ λύρα,

80

τρέπων πονηρὰν µηχανὴν ἐκκρουµάτων. Τὸ τριττὸν ἐτράνωσας εὐσεβοφρόνως σέλας, φανεὶς ἀριστεὺς ἀνδρικώτατος, στήσας τε πᾶσαν δυσµενῶν βλασφηµίαν, ὦ πυρσοφωτόχρυσε θαυµάτων βρύσις,

85

κιστίς τε θεία τῶν Θεοῦ χαρισµάτων.

Εἱρµός – ἐξέφηνε] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίηµα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, ΙΙ, 211 71/75 cf. Ion. 2, 2­11, speciatim 4. 6 14­16. 23

79/80 cf. I Reg. 16, 14­23, speciatim

71 κάτω ] scripsi, κατω(τάτου) supplevit Ge., ut videtur 78 ὤφθης ] scripsi, ὤφθη Ge.; cf. ex. gr. infra, v. 106­110 85 κιστίς ] scripsi, κίστις Ge.



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

7

Ὁ Δεσπότης, πάγχρυσε Ἐκκλησίας στύλε, ῥοµφαίαν ἐξέφηνε δίστοµον λόγοις σέ, τὰς κακίστας τῶν κακῶν γλωσσαλγίας τέµνουσαν, ἐξαίρουσαν εὐεπηβόλως 90

πανορθοδόξων δογµάτων θείους ὅρους. Εἱρµός. ᾽Ωιδὴ ζ´. Πρός· «Ἔφλεξε ῥείθρῳ.» Ὕβριν δοκοῦντες οἱ θεόφρονες νέοι τὸ προσκυνήσειν τοῦ τυράννου τὸν τύπον, πῦρ εἰσέδυσαν καµίνου τῆς παµφάγου· δρόσον δ'ἔδωκεν ἀγγέλου παρουσία

95

τούτοις, ᾄδουσιν ᾆσµα χαριστήριον. Συνωνυµήσας τῷ προφήτῃ Προδρόµῳ ὅµοιος ὤφθης καὶ τρόπῳ τε καὶ βίῳ· ὅλον γὰρ αὑτὸν ἐπτέρωσας πρὸς πόλον, τήξας ἄριστα σαρκίον χαµευνίᾳ,

100

ἀσιτίᾳ τε καὶ πόνοις ἀσκήσεως.

Εἱρµός – ῥείθρῳ] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίηµα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, Ι, 570 89/90 cf. supra, v. 56­60 91/95 cf. Dan. 3 92/93 cf. Dan. 3, 12­22 94 cf. Dan. 3, 49­50 98 cf. Mc. 1, 2 99/100 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys., ex. gr. 14, p. 107 (ed. Halkin) 86 στύλε ] sic accent. metri gratia Ge.; cf. supra, v. 44



Theodora Antonopoulou

8

Λόγων πλοκαῖς σου τῶν Γραφῶν τὰς πλεκτάνας λύεις, σοφίας καὶ διδάξας εὖ µάλα. Τῷ τοι πρόδηλον· πᾶς λύσιν τῶν δυσκόλων ἔχων γέγηθε καὶ κρατύνεται πλέον 105

p. 79

πρὸς σεµνότητα καὶ βίον τὸν ἔνθεον. Ὁ ῥητορεύων καὶ πλατύνων τὸ στόµα πρὸς τὰς βεβήλους καὶ κενὰς δόξας λόγων, φοῖνιξ πέφυκας ποιµνίου θάλλων µέσον, κέδρου δίκην τε Λιβάνῳ τεθηλότος

110

ὅλως πέφυκας πληθύνων, σοφώτατε. Εἱρµός. ᾽Ωιδὴ η´. Πρός· «Ἐλευθέρα µὲν ἡ κτίσις.» Γεγηθότες µὲν οἱ νέοι τὴν κάµινον εἰσδύντες, οὐ θέλουσιν εἰδώλοις σέβας δοῦναι· Θεὸν γὰρ ἦσαν ἐνστερνισµένοι. Δρόσος δὲ θεία τοὺς ἔσω τοῦ Πνεύµατος

115

τηρεῖ, φλέγονται δ'οἱ φλογὸς πάρεξ ξένως.

Εἱρµός – κτίσις] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίηµα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, Ι, 418 101/102 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys., ex. gr. 17, p. 114­116; 27, p. 142­147 (ed. Halkin) 108/110 cf. Ps. 91, 13 111/115 vide supra, v. 91­95 111 cf. Dan. 3, 15­25. 51 ; vide supra, v. 93 112 cf. Dan. 3, 12. 18 (LXX) 114 vide supra, v. 94 115 cf. Dan. 3, 23. 48 108 φοῖνιξ πέφυκας ] scripsi, φοίνιξ πέφηκας Ge.



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

9

Ὁ ῥηµάτων σου τῆς χθονὸς τὰ τέρµατα ῥυθµὸς διελθών, ἀστραπῆς φωτὸς τρόπον, ὡς σφόδρα λάµπει καὶ φεραύγειαν φέρει φαιδράν, σοβοῦσαν τοῦ σκότους τὸ δύσλυτον· 120

λαµπρὰς φέρεις γὰρ τὰς βολὰς διδαγµάτων. Ὑπερτέραν σου τῶν λόγων τὴν ἔνστασιν δεικνύς, πρὶν ἐξήλεγξας ἐνδίκῳ δίκῃ γνώµην γυναίου δυσσεβοῦς παναθλίου, ὡς ὁ προφήτης Ἠλίας Ἰεζάβελ,

125

δι'ἣν ἄγῃ, φεῦ, σῶν προβάτων µακρόθεν. Σαφηνίσας µὲν τῇ χάριτι Πνεύµατος, Γραφὰς διετράνωσας ἐνθεοτρόπως, ἔνδον τὸ κάλλος ἔµφυτον κεκτηµένας· ἔχει δὲ κόσµος εὐκόλως τὴν ἔκλυσιν

130

αὐτῶν, ὅθεν σε πανυµνεῖ τρισολβίως.

121/123 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys. 28, p. 148­151 ; 34­35, p. 167­172 ; 41­ 42, p. 191­198 ; 51, p. 223­224 ; 58, p. 236­237; 67, p. 257­262 (ed. Halkin) 123 sc. Eudoxia imperatrix 124 cf. III Regn. 20 ; cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys. 41, p. 195 (ed. Halkin) 125 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys. 45­46, p. 202­213 (ed. Halkin) 126/130 vide supra, v. 101­102 122 ἐξήλεγξας ] scripsi, ἐξήλεγξαν Ge. proparox.), σὲ Ge.



130 σε ] scripsi (caesura interna: 5

Theodora Antonopoulou

Εἱρμός. ᾽Ωιδὴ θ´. Πρός· «῍Ω τῶν ὑπὲρ νοῦν.» Πᾶς σου λογισμὸς οὐ σθένει τόκον, Κόρη, φράσαι — πέλει γὰρ θαῦμα θαύματος ξένον —· δι'οὗ λαβόντες λύτρον ἡμαρτημένων,

p. 80

ἐφύμνιον φωνοῦμεν, ὡς θέμις, λόγον, 135

Χαίροις, λέγοντες, τῶν βροτῶν ἡ προστάτις. Ἄρρηκτον εὑρὼν πλουσίαν τε τὴν χάριν, Παύλου δέδειξαι ζῆλον ἐνστερνισμένος· μεθ'οὗ σαφήσας εὐσαφῶς Γραφάς, πάτερ, ἐπάξιον βραβεῖον ἐκ Θεοῦ δέχῃ,

140

δόξης ἄληκτον καὶ χαρᾶς μετουσίαν. Τίς, ποιμεναρχῶν ἀκρότης, κατ'ἀξίαν ὅλως φράσειε τοὺς τρόπους καὶ τοὺς κόπους καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας οὓς ὑπέστης ἐμμόνως; Ἐφ'ᾧ σε δυσωποῦμεν εὐσυγγνωμόνως

145

ὑμνηπόλοις σου συμπαθῆσαι, τρισμάκαρ.

Εἱρμός – νοῦν] EE 37, num. 50 Εἰς τὰ Φῶτα. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀρκλᾶ; cf. Follieri, V/1, 239 134/135 cf. ephymnium Hymni Acathisti Χαῖρε, νύμφη ἀνύμφευτε, ed. C. A. TRYPANIS, Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica (WBS, 5), Wien, 1968, p. 29-39 135 cf. Lc. 1, 28 136/138 cf. Georg. Alex., Vit. Chrys. 27, p. 142-147 (ed. Halkin) 132 φράσαι ] scripsi, φρᾶσαι Ge.



An Anonymous Iambic Canon on St John Chrysostom

11

Εἴης ἀρωγὸς θρεµµάτων σου, ποιµνίου θεῖε πρόµαχε, πύργε τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, παρὼν ἐπόπτης καὶ ταχύς τις προστάτης, πανίλεον τὸ θεῖον εὐχαῖς σου φέρων 150

τοῖς οἰκέταις σου, πρέσβυν ἐκκαλουµένοις. ῾Ρέοντας ἡµᾶς, µητέρων ὦ τερπνότης, τῶν παρθένων τε κόσµε κεχρυσωµένε, πρὸς τὴν ἀγήρω νῦν µετέστησας φύσιν, καινῶς Θεὸν τεκοῦσα καὶ ξενοτρόπως·

155

Χαίροις, ὅθεν σοι προσβοῶµεν, Παρθένε.

155 vide supra, v. 134­135 146 ἀρωγὸς ] scripsi metri gratia, ἀρρωγὸς Ge.



Davide Baldi*

Etymologicum Symeonis Ζ «Originem linguarum scire, etsi negotiosum sit, magnam tamen in se continet utilitatem, quod paucis multa memoriae comprehendantur.» [H. Cardanus, De sapientia …, Norimbergae 1544, p. 101]

Abstract – The Etymologicum Symeonis is an important Byzantine dictionary, which was compiled in the first half of the twelfth century. It has been transmitted in two redactions: the Etymologicum Symeonis proper, and the Magna Grammatica. The latter is a version of the Etymologicum Symeonis that has been enlarged, around the middle of the thirteenth century, on the basis of the Etymologicum Magnum. The first redaction is preserved in two manuscripts and the second in three mss. This edition of letter Z is based upon a meticulous collation of the five manuscripts and on a study of the primary sources used by the compiler of this dictionary (the unpublished Etymologicum Genuinum and other lexicographical texts). The lemmata α – ἀίω of the Etymologicum Symeonis were published in 1968 by Hartmut Sell, 1 while in 1972 Günter Berger edited the letter beta; 2 then in 1976 and in 1992 François Lasserre and Nikolaos A. Livadaras presented the synoptic text of the Etymologicum Genuinum, the Etymologicum Symeonis and the Etymologicum Magnum regarding the glosses α-βώτορες; 3 and, finally, in 2013 I published the letters γ-ε of the * I am very grateful to Robert Black and Nerida Newbigin, who offered many useful linguistic observations, and to Augusto Guida for his lexicographic suggestions. 1 H. Sell, Das Etymologicum Symeonis (α – ἀίω) (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 25), Meisenheim am Glan, 1968. 2 G. Berger, Etymologicum Genuinum et Etymologicum Symeonis (β) (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 45), Meisenheim am Glan, 1972. 3 F. Lasserre – N. A. Livadaras, Etymologicum magnum genuinum, Symeonis etymologicum una cum Magna grammatica, Etymologicum magnum auctum, I. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 77–108 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117145

Davide Baldi

Etymologicum Symeonis. 4 It is my intention to continue the edition of the unpublished letters: in this article I am presenting the letter ζ. I examined the manuscript tradition in detail in the introduction to my edition for the Series Graeca of the Corpus Christianorum, 5 but it is useful to briefly rediscuss it. There are two manuscripts of the Et. Sym. and three of the Magna Grammatica: F = Vindobonensis, Phil. gr. 131: second half of the thirteenth century; II, 172 f.; oriental paper; 245/250 × 160/165 mm; f. 1-171 Et. Sym. ἀασάμην – ὡρολογεῖον.

Bibliogr.: H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, I. Codices historici, Codices philosophici et philologici (Museion, N.F., 4.1), Wien, 1961, p. 240-241; R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der griechischen Etymologica, Leipzig, 1897 (= Amsterdam, 1964), p. 259; Sell, Das Etymologicum [see n. 1], p. XVI; Lasserre – Livadaras, Etymologicum [see n. 3], I, p. XV.

E = Parmensis, Bibliotheca Palatina 2139: thirteenth-fourteenth century; 104 f. (with f. 44 and f. 45 having switched places); oriental paper; 170 × 125 mm; f. 1-104v Et. Sym. ἀασάμην – ὠκυάλου.

Bibliogr.: P. Eleuteri, I manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Palatina di Parma (Documenti sulle arti del libro, 17), Milano, 1993, p. 70-71, tav. XXIV; Reitzenstein, Geschichte [see bibliogr. on F], p. 259; Sell, Das Etymologicum [see n. 1], p. XVI-XVII; Lasserre – Livadaras, Etymologicum [see n. 3], I, p. XV.

C = Florentinus, Mediceus-Laurentianus, San Marco 303: dated 1290 on f. IIv; II, 212, II’ f.; oriental paper except f. 120-127 contemporary parchment; 6 250 × 170 mm; f. 1-209 Magna Gramm. πόθεν ἄλφα – ὤψ (but f. 84-85, 86, 90v, 138, 209-211 contain letters of Maximus Planudes, Michael Psellus et alii). α-ἀμωσγέπως [recte ἁμωσγέπως], Roma, 1976; II. ἀνά-βώτορες, Athina, 1992. For a review of volume I, see F. Montanari, in Athenaeum, n.s. 59 (1981), p. 557-561. 4 D. Baldi, Etymologicum Symeonis, γ-ε (CCSG, 79), Turnhout, 2013. For reviews of this edition, see R. Tosi, Una nuova edizione dell’Etymologicum Symeonianum, in Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica, 144 (2016), p. 175-181 and E. Magnelli, Gli studi etimologici bizantini e la recente editio princeps di Etymologicum Symeonis γ-ε, in MEG, 16 (2016), p. 321-331. 5 Baldi, Etymologicum Symeonis [see n. 4], p. XXIV-XXVI. 6 This is an example of a composite manuscript made with paper gatherings and, in the middle of the codex, one gathering in parchment. There are many other such cases, especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; sometimes also palimpsest sheets are used.



ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

Bibliogr.: F. Del Furia, Supplementum alterum ad Catalogum Codicum Graecorum Latinorum Italicorum qui a saeculo XVIII exeunte usque ad annum MDCCCXLVI […] in Bibliothecam Mediceam Laurentianam translati sunt […], Florentiae, 1846-1858 [handwritten], IV, f. 130-135v; A. Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century in the Libraries of Italy, I, Urbana – Chicago – London, 1972, p. 67-70 + plates 49-51 in vol. II; Reitzenstein, Geschichte [see bibliogr. on F], p. 259-261; Sell, Das Etymologicum [see n. 1], p. XVII-XVIII; Lasserre – Livadaras, Etymologicum [see n. 3], I, p. XV-XVI.

P = Pragensis, Národní Knihovna České Republiky XXV C 31: 7 fourteenth century, 168 f.; oriental paper; 238 × 150/155 mm; f. 1-121v, mutilated at the beginning, Magna Gramm. ποιεῖν τὰ πάθη. ἀλάστωρ – ὤψ; f. 123-166 excerpta varia grammaticalia.

Bibliogr.: J.-M. Olivier – M.-A. Monégier du Sorbier, Manuscrits grecs récemment découverts en République tchèque. Supplément au Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de Tchécoslovaquie (Documents, études, répertoires, 76), Paris, 2006, p. 205-221; B. Mondrain, Les écritures dans les manuscrits byzantins du xive siècle. Quelques problématiques, in RSBN, n.s. 44 (2007), p. 169.

V = Lugdunensis Batavorum, Bibliotheca Universitatis, Vossianus gr. Q. 20: 8 second half of the thirteenth century; miscellaneous manuscript: I f. 1-232, II f. 233-252, III f. 253-328; oriental paper; 232 × 160/165 mm; first unit f. 7-209 Magna Gramm. πόθεν ἄλφα – ὦρτο. A copy of this codex is preserved in the seventeenth-century ms. Lugdunensis Batavorum, Bibliotheca Universitatis, Vossianus gr. F.16. Bibliogr.: K. A. De Meyier, Codices manuscripti, VI. Codices Vossiani Graeci et miscellanei, Lugduni Batavorum, 1955, p. 118-120 (and p. 19 for the copy of the seventeenth century); Reitzenstein, Geschichte [see bibliogr. on F], p. 261-262; Sell, Das Etymologicum [see n. 1], p. XVIII-XIX; Lasserre – Livadaras, Etymologicum [see n. 3], I, p. XVI.

The principal source of the Et. Sym. is the Et. Gen., which was completed in the second half of the ninth century and is preserved in two codices from the end of the tenth century: 7 This witness has been uncovered in the Prague collection only in the recent catalogue (published in 2006); therefore, it has never been considered in philological literature and has for the first time been collated here and used for the constitutio textus. 8 This witness had the siglum V in the edition by Th. Gaisford (cf. Etymologicum Magnum seu Lexicon sapientissime vocabulorum origine indagans ex pluribus lexicis scholiastis et grammaticis anonymi cuiusdam opera concinnatum ad codd. mss., Oxford, 1848, p. 4), the siglum D in Reitzenstein, Geschichte [see bibliogr. on F], p. 261, and in subsequent studies such as Sell, Das Etymologicum [see n. 1], p. XVIII et alibi.



Davide Baldi

A = Vaticanus gr. 1818: 9 parchment; 284 f.; mutilated at the beginning and at the end (with some lacunae caused by mechanical damage; the correct sequence of folios is: 1-146, 185, 147-184, 186-279, 281-284, 280); lemmata ἀλευρόττησις [mutilated at the beginning] – φωριαμός.

Bibliogr.: P. Canart, Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 1745-1962, I, In Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1970, p. 205-208; II, In Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1973, p. XXXIX-XL.

B = Florentinus, Mediceus-Laurentianus, San Marco 304: parchment; 273 f.; mutilated at the first folio; f. 1-262 lemmata ἀγανοῖς – ᾤχωκε. On f. 262, l. 18 Ἐτυμολογίαι διάφοροι ἀπὸ διαφόρων ἐτυμολογικῶν ἐκλεγεῖσαι is read and the glosses ἄφρων – ὁρῶ follow. The text ends ex abrupto on f. 273v. These twelve folios are the only witness of the Et. Parvum. 10 The f. 1-262 show a double system of lemmatization, both in the inner margin of the text: if the gloss begins in the middle of a line it normally has the lemma both in the margin (at the line) and before the interpretamentum; if instead the beginning of the gloss coincides with the beginning of the line, there is only a marginal lemma.

Bibliogr.: E. Miller, Notice sur l’Etymologicum Magnum de Florence portant le numéro 304 S. Marci, in Id., Mélanges de littérature grecque, Paris, 1868, p. 6-9; Reitzenstein, Geschichte [see bibliogr. on F], p. 3-6; K. Alpers, Marginalien zur Überlieferung der griechischen Etymologika, in D. Harlfinger – G. Prato, with the collaboration of M. D’Agostino and A. Doda (ed.), Paleografia e codicologia greca. Atti del II colloquio internazionale (Berlino-Wolfenbüttel, 1721 ottobre 1983), Alessandria, 1991, p. 523-532; P. Orsini, Pratiche collettive di scrittura a Bisanzio nei secoli IX e X, in Segno e testo, 3 (2005), p. 271, 322-324.

The archetype (α) of the Et. Gen. seems to have bifurcated into two branches (β and γ), of which A and B represent two versions, both abbreviated and mutilated in the first part; the Et. Sym. is connected to the source of B, because, like B, it is usually characterized by: – the omission of the source 11 at the end of a glossa; – the abbreviation of quotations; – the concordance with B when A differs from B. The manuscript presents a more complete and richer recensio than the one in B. R.  Pintaudi, Etymologicum parvum quod vocatur, Milano, 1973, p. XIII-XVII. 11 Very widespread among the sources, as becomes clear when reading manuscript A (which has an indication of the source), is the λεξικὸν ῥητορικόν or simply ῥητορικόν. On its identification with the Lexicon of Photius, see Ch. Theodoridis, Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, I (Α-Δ), Berlin – New York, 1982, p. XXXV-LX and K. Alpers, Das Lexicon des Photius und das Lexicon Rhetoricum des Etymologicum Genuinum, in JÖB, 38 (1988), p. 171-191. 9

10



ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

For this and other aspects I refer to my edition. 12 The Magna Gramm. is a recensio of the Et. Sym. augmented with the Et. Magnum and also with epimerismi and scholia of hitherto unknown origin. 13 It dates back to the mid-thirteenth century. The compilers of the Et. Magnum had a variety of lexical material at their disposal and obviously preferred to proceed with greater liberty. In fact, they did not use the predominant sources of other texts: certainly the Et. Gen., of which the compilers probably used the intermediate ring β, is less used (in contrast to what occurs in the Et. Sym.), while the presence of the Etymologicum Gudianum is slightly more marked. 14 The Et. Magnum 15 was constructed in the middle of the twelfth century. Its bipartite textual tradition is constituted by numerous manuscripts, the most representative of which are: – Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Auctarium X 1.1 (D’Orville 2), parchment, fifteenth century. – Venetus, Marcianus gr. 530, 16 f. 4-372, paper, end of the thirteenth century. They must be considered together with the additions contained in Lugdunensis Batavorum, Bibliotheca Universitatis, Vossianus gr. Q. 20, which, as already said is a witness (V) also of the Magna Gramm. In the early seventies Günter Berger showed that the Et. Sym. is older than the Et. Magnum and that the latter depends on the former. 17 The constitutio textus is based on the two manuscripts of the Et. Sym. (EF) and on the three of the Magna Gramm. (CPV). To establish the text, it is necessary to collate all five witnesses, then verify this collation with the two manuscripts of the Et. Gen. and with other sources such as

Baldi, Etymologicum Symeonis [see n. 4], p. XXVIII-XXXIII. The Magna Gramm. did not use the Et. Gen. directly, and the lemmata, that derive from it, are actually extrapolated from the Et. Sym. 14 Cf.  A. Cellerini, Introduzione all’Etymologicum Gudianum (Bollettino dei classici. Suppl., 6), Roma, 1988, p. 68 regarding the sources of Et. Gud. See p. 30-63. 15 See also Reitzenstein, Geschichte [see bibliogr. on F], p. 212-253; Lasserre – Livadaras, Etymologicum, I [see n. 3], p. XVII-XXII; Cellerini, Introduzione [see n. 14], p. 66-67. 16 On the ms., see E. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices graeci manuscripti, II. Thesaurus antiquus. Codices 300-625 (Indici e cataloghi, n.s., 6), Roma, 1985, p. 417-418. 17 Cf.  Berger, Etymologicum [see n. 2], p. XVII-XXV. 12

13



Davide Baldi

the Et. Gud. and the Lexicon Zonarae, that sometimes preserve a better version 18 than the one preserved in the two manuscripts of the Et. Sym. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that from the archetype (α) of the Et. Sym. two branches originated: the first (β) gave rise to two recensiones that produced, by filiation, E and F, while the second branch (γ), which appears to be less corrupt, was used for the compilation of the Magna Gramm. and perhaps also for the recensio from which E then originated. In this way, one can explain both the errores coniunctivi of EF and their not infrequent differences, and at the same time also the readings of ECPV as opposed to F. Sometimes CPV present the same reading as the Et. Gen. against E and F. This suggests that the branch of the Et. Sym. they belong to, i.e. the branch γ, was less corrupt than the branches α and β, from which E and F derive. C and P derive from the archetype of the Magna Gramm. but are separated from it by a seemingly intermediate ring (δ). It is important to note, finally, that the stemma codicum proposed below is not fully satisfactory, not only because the tradition is actually much more contaminated than such a stemmatic simplification suggests, but also because it is based on only a partial analysis of the Et. Sym., i.e. on the study of the few letters that I have published. In this edition a second apparatus (app. fontium) collects the sources of the Et. Sym. in order to highlight patterns of dependence in its formation. Accordingly, I offer a transcription of the text in two versions, A and B, without correcting any errors, in order to provide an objective picture of the same source. Moreover, I have reported only the reliable sources. In considering the textual typology, I have preferred to give the reader a clear and secure text on the basis of the assessment of the sources rather than accumulate loci paralleli without demonstrable utility. The free use of the sources that is revealed by this second apparatus demonstrates that the Et. Sym. is an autonomous work and not a simple copy of the Et. Gen. The etymologica are ‘open’ texts and their production never met criteria of scrupulous observance of the original. Whoever transcribed them changed the model through interpolations

K. Alpers, Zonarae Lexicon, in RE, Neue Bearbeitung, X.A, München, 1972, col. 741-742; Cellerini, Introduzione [see n. 14], p. 67. Because the only edition we have is hardly critical, I believe that its use, as presenting a better recensio than that consisting in EFCPV, should be undertaken with some caution. A critical edition, based on the study of the entire manuscript tradition, would undoubtedly constitute a significant advantage for the establishment of the text of the Et. Sym. 18



ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

and abridgements, adding extra materials or curtailing sections that were deemed unnecessary. 19 Lexicography, perhaps more than other disciplines, stems precisely from a dual motive: conservative and taxonomic. On the one hand, the great lexika are like stores of human knowledge with the primary purpose of preserving a significant amount of material from neglect or ruin; on the other hand, such a polymorphic textual mass can be used only if it is structured in a logical way that also allows an overview of the discipline. The final outcome of etymologica far exceeds the simple sum of the elements they have taken from their sources, because in the process of reelaboration those elements have been repurposed and reordered and have acquired new and additional meanings.

Fig. 1 Stemma codicum

R. Tosi, Prospettive e metodologie lessicografiche (A proposito delle recenti edizioni di Oro e di Fozio), in Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi, 4 (1984), p. 192-199; R. Tosi, review of Ch. Theodoridis, Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, II (Ε-Μ), Berlin – New York, 1998, in BZ, 94 (2001), p. 350. About the problems which this textual flexibility involves during the cataloguing and the study of manuscripts, see also D. Baldi, Il catalogo dei codici greci della Biblioteca Riccardiana, in E. Crisci – M. Maniaci – P. Orsini (ed.), La descrizione dei manoscritti: esperienze a confronto (Studi e ricerche del Dipartimento di Filologia e Storia, 1), Cassino, 2010, p. 151. 19



Davide Baldi

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ Codices Et. Symeonis E F

Parmensis, Bibliotheca Palatina 2139 (s. XIII-XIV) Vindobonensis, Phil. gr. 131 (s. XIII p.m.)

Codices Magnae Grammaticae

C P V

Florentinus, Mediceus-Laurentianus, San Marco 303 (s. XIIIex.) Pragensis, Národní Knihovna České Republiky XXV C 31 (s. XIV) Lugdunensis Batavorum, Bibliotheca Universitatis, Vossianus gr. Q. 20 (s. XIII p.m.)

Codices Et. Genuini

A B

Vaticanus gr. 1818 (s. Xex.) Florentinus, Mediceus-Laurentianus, San Marco 304 (s. Xex.)

Tabula notarum in apparatibus adhibitarum add. = addidit, addiderunt cf. = confer loc. = locus, locum marg. = in margine om. = omisit, omiserunt praeb. = praebet, praebent praem. = praemisit, praemiserunt ras. = rasura s.l. = supra lineam s.v. = sub voce trsp. = transposuit, transposuerunt



ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

Ζῆτα· τὸ στοιχεῖον ἀπὸ Ζητοῦ τοῦ Bορέου, οὗ μέμνηται ὁ * Ἀπολλώνιος.

Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ τοῦ Ζ στοιχείου Ζάγκλον· τὸ δρέπανον. Καλλίμαχος· κέκρυπται γυνὴ 1 ζάγκλον ὑποχθονίη. Παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὸ ἀγκύλον, γίνεται ζάγκυλον, καὶ κατὰ συγκοπήν, ζάγκλον, τὸ λίαν ἀγκύλον.

5

Ζαγρεύς· ὁ Διόνυσος, παρὰ τοῖς ποιηταῖς· δοκεῖ γὰρ ὁ 2 Ζεὺς μιγῆναι τῇ Περσεφόνῃ, ἐξ ἧς χθόνιος ὁ Διόνυσος. Καλλίμαχος· υἷα Διόνυσον ζαγρέα γειναμένη. Παρὰ τὸ ζα, ἵν'ᾖ ὁ πάνυ ἀγρεύων· τινὲς γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶναι φασὶ τὸν Πλούτωνα. Ζαὴν ἄνεμον· τὸν σφοδρῶς πνέοντα. Ὅμηρος· ὦρσε δ'ἐπὶ 3 ζαὴν ἄνεμον. Ὥσπερ παρὰ τὸ πέτω γίνεται πετήν, οὕτως καὶ παρὰ τὸ ἄω, τὸ πνέω, γίνεται ἀὴν καὶ μετὰ τοῦ ζα * V marg. sup. 1 EFCPV 2 EFCPV 3 EFCPV * Comm. in Dion.Thr. p. 321, 29-31. 1 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro ἀγκύλον, γίνεται ζάγκυλον (l. 2/3) praeb. κοῖλον. 2 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro μιγῆναι (l. 2) praeb. μιχθῆναι, pro ἐξ ἧς (l. 2) praeb. ἐξῆς, pro Διόνυσον (l. 3) A praeb. Διώνυσον, deinde post αὐτὸν (l. 4) sic desinunt φασὶ εἶναι τῷ Πλούτωνι. 3 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post πετήν (l. 2) A add. ὡς παρ'Ἡσιόδῳ οἷον [Hes. fragm. inc. sed. *27 Hirschberger = 336 M.W.]· αἰὲν [forsitan αἰετὸν, cf. Zon. 949, 1] μὴ πετῆνα γενέσθαι; pro μορίου (l. 4) praeb. ἐπιτατικοῦ et post πετῆνα (l. 4) sic desinit εἰ μὴ κατ'ἔκθλιψιν γέγονε. Ὠρίων [cf. etiam Philox. fragm. **657]. *.2 Ἀπολλώνιος] scripsi, ἥλιος V Tit.1 σὺν Θεῷ] om. V 1.1 γυνὴ] γὺπῃ EF, γυνῇ CP 2 ὑποχθονίη] ὑποχθονίῃ EFCP 3 κατὰ συγκοπήν] συγκοπῇ CPV 2.1 Διόνυσος ] Διόνυσσος E 1/2 ὁ2 – μιγῆναι] μιγῆναι ὁ Ζεὺς E 2 ἐξ ἧς ] ἑξῆς EFCP Διόνυσος] Διόνυσσος E 3 Διόνυσον] Διόν E, Διώνης F γειναμένη] γινόμενον EFCP 4 φασὶ ] φη(σὶ) E * cf. Ap. Rhod. Arg. I. 211 1 Callim. Aet. fragm. 43, 71 fragm. 43, 117 3 Hom. Od. XII. 313

 1

2 Callim. Aet.

Davide Baldi

5

μορίου ζαήν· τὸ γὰρ τέλειον ζαῆνα ὡς πετῆνα· ζαὴν γὰρ ζαῆνος κλίνεται, ἀλλὰ κατ'ἔκθλιψιν. Ζαθέην· ἄγαν θείαν ἤτοι θαυμαστὴν καὶ πολλῆς θέας 4 ἀξίαν.

5

Ζάκορος· νεωκόρος, ἤγουν ἡ διακονοῦσα περὶ τὸν ναόν, 5 ἢ ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ τὸν ναὸν σαρῶν. Κορεῖν γὰρ τὸ σαίρειν παρὰ Ἀττικοῖς· τὸ γὰρ ζα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐνταῦθα ἐπιτατικόν, ἀλλ'ἀντὶ τῆς διά προθέσεως ἵν'ᾖ διάκορος· ἔστι γὰρ ὅτε ἐπίτασιν σημαίνει· τρέπεται δὲ ὑπὸ Αἰολέων καὶ γίνεται ζα, ὡς διάπλουτος ζάπλουτος, διαφλεγής ζαφλεγής. Ζάκοτος· ὁ ἄγαν ὀργίλος· κότος γὰρ ἡ ὀργή· ζάκοτος 6 ζακότου.

4 EFCPV 5 EFCPV 6 EFCPV 4 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζαθέην· ἄγαν θείαν ἤτοι θαυμαστήν· παρὰ τὸ θέαν καὶ τὸ ζα ἐπιτατικὸν μόριον· ὡς καὶ τὸ ἡ γαθέην ἡ θαυμαστὴ καὶ πολλῆς θέας ἀξία. 5 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζάκορος· νεωκόρος ἤγουν ἡ διακονοῦσα περὶ τὸ ἱερόν· Μένανδρος Δὶς ἐξαπατῶντι [fragm. 5 Sand.]· οὐ μεγάβυζος ἦν ὅστις γένοιτο ζάκορος· καὶ πάλιν παρ'αὐτῷ [Men. com. fragm. 257 K.-Th.]· ζάκορος ἡ κοσμοῦσα τὸν ναὸν τέκνον. καὶ ὁ ὑπηρέτης, Λευκαδίᾳ· ἐπίθες τὸ πῦρ ἡ ζάκορος ὑπηρέτης (ὑ. om. A qui add. οὑτωσὶ καλοῦσι ἢ ὁ ἱερεὺς) ἢ ζάκορος (ἢ ζ. om. A) ὁ τὸν ναὸν σαρῶν. κορεῖν γὰρ τὸ σαίρειν παρὰ Ἀττικοῖς, τὸ γὰρ ζα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐνταῦθα ἐπιτατικόν, ἀλλ'ἀντὶ τῆς διά προθέσεως ἵν'ᾖ διάκορος. οἱ Αἰολεῖς γὰρ καὶ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τὴν διά ζα φασί. 6 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζάκοτος· ὁ ἄγαν ὀργίλος· κότος γὰρ ἡ ὀργὴ ἢ παρὰ τὴν διά πρόθεσιν ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ ἐπίτασιν σημαίνει· τρέπεται δὲ ὑπὸ Αἰολέων καὶ γίνεται ζα· ὡς διάπλουτος ζάπλουτος, καὶ διαφλεγής ζαφλεγής καὶ ἁπλῶς τὸ διά εἴτε πρόθεσιν σημαίνει, εἴτε καὶ μόνας συλλαβάς, τρέπουσιν αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ ζα καὶ γὰρ τὴν καρδίαν κάρζαν καὶ τὸ διάκοτος καὶ (κ. om. A) διαμενής ζάκοτος ζαμενής [AB] λέγεται [A]. 4.1 ἤτοι] ἤγουν E θαυμαστὴν] ζαθέην add. E 5.1 ἤγουν ] ἱέρεια add. CPV διακονοῦσα – ναόν] περὶ τὸν ναὸν διακονοῦσα CPV 4 ἀλλ'ἀντὶ] ἀλλὰ διὰ F τῆς] λέξεως E 6 ζα] διά F

 2

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

Ζάλη· ἡ ταραχὴ τῆς θαλάσσης, ἢ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀπὸ τοῦ 7 σφόδρα ἁλίζεσθαι. Παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὴν ἄελλαν· Πλάτων ἐν Πολιτείαις οἷον· ἐν χειμῶνι ὑπὸ κονιορτοῦ καὶ ζάλης ὑπὸ πνεύματος φερομένου· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζέειν τὴν ἅλα. Ζάμολξις· κλίνεται ζαμόλξιδος.

7 EFCPV 8 EFCPV 7 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post ἁλίζεσθαι (l. 2) sic sequitur μεγάλην γὰρ ἄελλαν δηλοῖ· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὴν ἄελλαν, Πολιτείαν [Plat. Resp. 496d 6-7]· οἷον ἐν χειμῶνι ὑπὸ κονιορτοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ὑπὸ ζάλης φερομένου· καὶ ἐν Τιμαίῳ [Plat. Tim. 43c 3]· εἴτε ζάλῃ πνεύματος ὑπὸ ἀέρος φερομένη καταλεφθείη. συστροφὴν γὰρ καὶ συρμὸν βούλεται δηλοῦν· τινὲς ἄνεμος λάβρος, πνεῦμα θορυβῶδες. κλήμης δύναται ζάλη τις εἶναι. 8 cf. Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζάμολξις (ζάμορξις A)· Πυθαγόρᾳ δουλεύσας· ὡς Ἡρόδοτος τετάρτῃ [cap. 95], Σκύθης· ὃς ἐπανελθὼν ἐδίδασκε περὶ τοῦ ἀθάνατον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. Μνασέας (ἀνασέας B) [FHG III 153 fragm. 23] δὲ καὶ (om. A) παρὰ Γέταις τὸν χρόνον τιμᾶσθαι καὶ καλεῖσθαι Ζάμολξον (Ζάμολξιν B). Ἑλλάνικος (Ἐλλανικὸς B) δὲ ἐν τοῖς Βαρβαρικοῖς Νόμοις (νομίμοις Α) φησίν, ὅτι Ἑλληνικός [FGrHist 4 F 73] τε γεγονώς, τελετὰς κατέδειξεν Γέταις τοῖς ἐν (om. B) Θράκῃ (θράκοις B), καὶ ἔλεγεν ὅτι οὔτ'ἂν αὐτὸς ἀποθάνοι, οὔθ'οἱ μετὰ τούτου, ἀλλ'ἕξουσι (ἔξουσι Β) πάντα ἀγαθά. ἅμα δὲ ταῦτα λέγων, ᾠκοδόμει οἴκημα κατάγαιον· ἔπειτα ἀφανισθεὶς αἰφνίδιον ἐκ Θρακῶν, ἐν τούτῳ διῃτᾶτο. οἱ δὲ Γέται ἐπόθουν αὐτόν. τετάρτῳ δὲ ἔτει πάλιν φαίνεται· καὶ οἱ Θρᾶκες αὐτῷ πάντα ἐπίστευσαν. λέγουσι δέ τινες, ὡς ὁ Ζάμολξις ἐδούλευσε Πυθαγόρᾳ μνησάρχου σαμίῳ, καὶ ἐλευθερωθεὶς ταῦτα ἐσοφίζετο. ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρότερόν μοι δοκεῖ ὁ Ζάμολξις Πυθαγόρου γενέσθαι. ἀθανατίζουσι δὲ καὶ Τέριζοι καὶ Κρόβυζοι (Κρόβυζοι καὶ Τέριζοι Α)· καὶ τοὺς ἀποθανόντας ὡς Ζάμολξις φησὶν (φασὶ Α) οἴχεσθαι, ἥξειν δὲ αὖθις. καὶ ταῦτα ἀεὶ νομίζουσιν ἀληθεύειν. θύουσι δὲ καὶ εὐωχοῦνται, ὡς αὖθις ἥξοντος τοῦ ἀποθανόντος. De Pythagora vide Porphyr. Vita Pyth. 14; Iambl. Vita Pyth. 173. 7.1 ἢ] ἡ E

2 ζα] ζαν CPV 3 Πολιτείαις] Πολίταις EF

7 Plat. Resp. 496d

 3

8

Davide Baldi

Ζάραξ· Λυκόφρων· ὀφέλτα καὶ μύχουρε χοιράδων Ζάραξ· 9 ὄρη Εὐβοίας περὶ ἃ γέγονε τὰ ναυάγια τῶν Ἑλλήνων· Ζάραξ ὠνομάσθη ἀπὸ Ζάρακος τοῦ Πετραίου υἱοῦ Καρύστου.

5

Ζατρεύω· τὸ ἐν μύλωνι κυρίως βασανίζω· παρὰ τὸ ζα ἐπι- 10 τατικὸν μόριον καὶ τὸ τρέω, τὸ φοβοῦμαι, ζατρεύω. Ὅθεν καὶ ζητρεῖον τὸ τῶν δούλων δεσμωτήριον· ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἐδεσμεύοντο οἱ δοῦλοι. Παρὰ τὸ δεῖν, τὸ δεσμεύειν, καὶ τὸ τρεῖν, τὸ φοβεῖσθαι, ζητρεῖον τροπῇ τοῦ δ εἰς ζ καὶ τῆς ει εἰς τὸ η· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὸ τρεῖν, ζατρεῖον καὶ ζητρεῖον, τροπῇ τοῦ α εἰς η. Ζατρεφέων· ἄγαν εὐτραφῶν· παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὸ τρέφω, ὁ 11 ζατρεφής. Ζαφλεγέες· ἄγαν καὶ μεγάλως πεφλεγμένοι, ἢ λαμπροί· 12 ἐκ τοῦ ζα καὶ τοῦ φλέγω.

9 EFCPV 10 EFCPV 11 EFCPV 12 EFCPV 9 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post loc. Lyc. add. ζάραξ καὶ ὀφέλτα (ὀφελτὰ B) et pro ἀπὸ A praeb. ἐκ. 10 usque ad βασανίζω Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζατρεύω· τὸ ἐν μυλῶνι κυρίως βασανίζειν ἀπὸ τοῦ ζητρείου ὃ σημαίνει, κατὰ Ἴωνας, τὸ βασανιστήριον. παρὰ τὸ ζα – τροπῇ τοῦ α εἰς η cf. Choer. Orth. AG II, p. 215, 27-34 (s.v. ζήτρειον). 11 usque ad τρέφω Et. Gen. AB s.v. 12 cf. Apoll. Lex. Hom. s.v.; Eusth. In. Il. IV, 539, 12-13 e 18-19. 9.1 μύχουρε] μοίχουρε CPV χοιράδων] χυράδων E, χιράδων F 2 ἃ] om. P ναυάγια] difficile lectu E ναυάγια – Ἑλλήνων ] trsp. CPV 4 Καρύστου ] Καράστου C, Καρόστου PV 10.2 μόριον] om. ECPV 6 τὸ1 ] om. CPV 11.1 ζα ] ζῶ CPV 9 Lycophr. Alex. 373 12 Hom. Il. XXI. 465

 4

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

5

10

Ζάφελος· ὅτε κεν τιν'ἐπιζάφελος χόλος ἵκοι· σημαίνει τὸ 13 ἄγαν ηὐξημένον παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὸ ὀφέλλω, ὃ σημαίνει τὸ αὔξω, ἢ ὠφελῶ. Βαρύνεται δὲ τὸ ζάφελος λόγῳ τοιούτῳ· τὰ εἰς οσ λήγοντα συγκείμενα παρὰ τὸ ζα προπαροξύνονται οἷον ζάθεος ζάκοτος. Οὕτως οὖν καὶ ζάφελος· κλίνεται δὲ ζαφέλου. Τὸ δὲ ζαφελῶς, τὸ ἐπίρρημα περισπᾶται, ἐπειδὴ τὰ διὰ τοῦ λως ἐπιρρήματα παραληγόμενα τῷ ε, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον φιλεῖ περισπᾶσθαι, οἷον εὐτελῶς ἐπιμελῶς οἷς καὶ τὸ ζαφελῶς συνεξέδραμε· πρόσκειται ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον διὰ τὸ εὐτραπέλως.

13 EFCPV 13 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζάφελος (ζάφελον A cum σ s.l.) ubi post ηὐξημένον (l. 2) pergunt παρὰ τὸ ζα ἐπιτατικὸν μόριον καὶ τὸ ὀφέλλω ὃ σημαίνει (ὃ σ. om. A) τὸ αὔξω (αὐξάνω A) et statim B desinit ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ ζάπλουτος ζάκοτος; pergit autem A ἢ ὠφελῶ καὶ τὸ μὲν ζάφελος βαρύνεται λόγῳ ... et om. κλίνεται δὲ ζαφέλου (l. 6) et pro τῷ ε (l. 8) praeb. τὸ ε et in fine add. εἰκέλως· [Hom. Il. IX. 516] ἀλλ'αἰὲν ἐπιζαφελῶς χαλεπαίνου. B s.v. ζαφελῶς· σημαίνει τὸ μεγάλως ὠφελημένον ἢ ἐπιμόνως ἠυξημένον παρὰ τὸ ζα ἐπιτατικὸν μόριον καὶ τὸ ὀφέλλω τὸ αὔξω, ἢ ὠφελῶ καὶ τὸ μὲν ζάφελος βαρύνεται λόγῳ ... et post οὖν καὶ ζάφελος (l. 5/6) sic pergit τὸ δὲ ζαφελῶς περισπᾶται ... et pro τῷ ε (l. 8) praeb. τὸ ε et in fine add. εἰκέλως· [Hom. Il. IX. 516] ἀλλ'αἰὲν ἐπιζαφελῶς χαλεπαίνοι. 13.1 ὅτε] ὅττε CPV ἐπιζάφελος ] ἐπιζάφιλος EF τὸ] τὸν CPV 2 ὃ σημαίνει] om. ECPV 3 αὔξω] in ras. P 3/4 λόγῳ τοιούτῳ] τῷ τοιούτῳ λόγῳ CP 4 τοιούτῳ] τῷ praem. V 5 προπαροξύνονται] προπαροξύνεται CP οἷον] om. E, ζάπλουτος add. CPV ζάκοτος] ζάκορος add. CP οὖν ] om. CPV 6 ζάφελος] τὸ praem. CPV κλίνεται δὲ] om. CPV τὸ] om. CPV 7 ἐπειδὴ] ἐπεὶ E 8 ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον] ἐπιτοπλεῖστον V 9 εὐτελῶς] παντελῶς add. CPV 10 συνεξέδραμε] ξυνέδραμε F ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον] ἐπιτοπλεῖστον V 13 Hom. Il. IX. 525

 5

Davide Baldi

5

Ζαχρειής· κυρίως ζαχρηές ἐστι τὸ βιαίως ταῖς χερσὶ 14 πραττόμενον· παρὰ γὰρ τὰς χεῖρας πεποίηται ἡ λέξις ζαχερής, καὶ ὑπερθέσει ζαχρεὴς καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ι ζαχρειής. Ἢ ἔστι ῥῆμα χρῶ τὸ δηλοῦν τὸ πλησιάζω παρὰ τὸν χρῶτα παράγωγον χραύω, ῥηματικὸν ὄνομα χρὴς καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ε καὶ τοῦ ζα ἐπιτατικοῦ ζαχρεὴς καὶ ζαχρειής· σημαίνει τὸν ἄγαν χρειώδη ἢ τὸν σφοδρὸν οἷον· ζαχρηέων ἀνέμων. Ζειαί· αἱ ὀλύραι αἳ εἰσὶν εἶδος κριθῆς, ἢ αὐτὴ ἡ κριθή· 15 παρὰ τὸ ζέειν ζεὰ καὶ πλεονασμῷ ζειά· αἱ τοῦ ζέειν αἴτιαι, ἤγουν ζωῆς τοῖς ἀλόγοις γινόμεναι.

14 EFCPV 15 EFCPV 14 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi in principio A add. οἷον [Ap. Rhod. Arg. I. 1159]· ἔμπης δ'ἑγρομένοιο σάλου ζαχρειῇσιν αὗραις, B pro ὑπερθέσει (l. 3) praeb. καθ'ὑπερβιβασμὸν et AB pergunt ζαχρεὴς καὶ ζαχρειὴς Ἀπολλώνιος [cf. supra Ap. Rhod. Arg. I. 1159]· ἢ ὡς λέγει Ὠρίων [p. 67, 1] ἐστὶ ῥῆμα ... et post χραύω (l. 5) pergunt ὡς ψαύω οἷον· [Hom. Il. V. 138] χραύση μὲν τ' (τῆς A) αὐλῆς ὑπεράλμενον (ὑ. om. A)· ῥηματικὸν ὄνομα χρὴς καὶ κατὰ πλεονασμὸν τοῦ ε (ρ B) καὶ (μετὰ add. B) τοῦ ζα ἐπιτατικοῦ μορίου γίνεται ζαχρεὴς καὶ ζαχρειὴς κατὰ πλεονασμὸν τοῦ ε (ι B)· σημαίνει ... 15 cf. Choer. AG II, p. 215, 17-19 (s.v. ζειά); cf. etiam Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζειαί· αἱ ὀλύραι· κατὰ δὲ ἑτέρους αὐτὴ ἡ κριθή, πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ζ, εἰαί τινες οὖσαι. εἰαὶ γὰρ αἱ τροφαί, οἷον· [cf. Hom. Il. XIII. 103] θώων πορδαλίων τε λύκων τ'ἤια πέλονται. ὅτι ζώων εἰαί εἰσιν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζέω ζεαὶ καὶ ζειαί, αἱ τοῦ ζῆν αἴτιαι· ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ζεὺς ὅτι Διὸς εὕρημα ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸν μῦθον. 14.1 Ζαχρειής] ζαχρηής EF ζαχρηές ] ζαχρειές CPV χερσὶ ] om. CP 4 ζαχρειής] ζαχρηής EF 5/6 καὶ πλεονασμῷ] κατὰ πλεονασμὸν V 6 πλεονασμῷ] κατὰ πλεονασμὸν CP ζα ἐπιτατικοῦ] trsp. CPV 2 7 τὸν ] ἄγαν add. CP 8 ζαχρηέων ] ζαχρεῖων ECV 15.1 ὀλύραι ] correxi cum Et. Gen., ὀλλύραι EFV, ὄλλυραι CP 2 πλεονασμῷ] τοῦ ι add. E 14 Hom. Il. V. 525

 6

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

Ζείδωρος· ἡ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν δωρουμένη, τροπῇ Βοιωτικῇ 16 τοῦ η εἰς τὴν ει, ὡς οὐτήσω ὠτειλή, ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζέειν ζεείδωρος καὶ κράσει τῶν δύo εε. Ζειρά· σημαίνει ζώνην καὶ χιτῶνα καὶ χλαμύδα· παρὰ τὸ 17 δεῖν, τὸ δεσμεύειν, δειρὰ καὶ μεταθέσει τοῦ δ εἰς ζ ζειρά. Ζέλεια· ἀπὸ Ζέλυος τινὸς ὠνόμασται, ἢ διὰ τὸ τὸν ἥλιον 18 ἐν αὐτῇ λίαν εὐσεβεῖσθαι. Ζέμα· τὸ θερμόν· παρὰ τὸ ζέω ζέμα.

16 EFCPV 17 EFCPV 18 EFCPV 19 EFCPV 16 cf. Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζείδωρος· ἡ τὸ ζῆν δωρουμένη, τροπῇ τοῦ η εἰς τὴν ει δίφθογγον, ὡς οὐτήσω οὐτηλή (οὐτειλή A cum -η- s.l.); καὶ ὠτειλή· καὶ (ἢ A) παρὰ τὸ κέκαυται καυτῆρος καυστῆρος (καυστειρός A). ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζεῖν (ζειὰς A) ζειόδωρος, ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζέω (ζέει A) ζέεις ζέει ζεέδωρος καὶ ἐν συναιρέσει ζείδωρος καὶ τὸ ζῶ γὰρ λέγεται ζέω [AB]· ἡ τὸ ζῆν δωρουμένη [A]. 17 cf. Choer. AG II, p. 215, 14-16; Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζειραί· χιτῶνες ἀνακεκολαμμένοι, ἢ ἀνάκωλοι. Ξενοφῶν [Xen. An. 7. 4. 4. 4-6]· καὶ ζειρὰς μέχρι τῶν ποδῶν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ'οὐ χλαμύδας. οὕτως εἰς τὸ ῥητορικόν. ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ ζώνην καὶ χλαμύδα σημαίνειν τὴν λέξιν φασί· παρὰ τὸ εἴρειν, πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ζ, ἡ ἐνειρμένη· τινὲς δὲ παρὰ τὸ δεῖν, ὅ ἐστι δεσμεύειν, δειρὰ καὶ ζειρὰ λέγουσιν. 18 Et. Gen. AB s.v. 19 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi in fine add. εἵρηται (B trsp. in fine) εἰς τὸ δέμα. Cf. Et. Gen. AB s.v. δέμα· ζητεῖται περὶ τοῦ δέμα καὶ ζέμα πῶς οὐ λέγεται δεῦμα καὶ ζεῦμα, ὥσπερ πνέω πνεῦμα καὶ ῥέω ῥεῦμα. ἄλλως τε (καὶ add. B) εἰ (ἡ B) ἔζεκα ὁ παρακείμενος, ὤφειλεν εἶναι τὸ ῥηματικὸν ὄνομα ζέσμα· ἔζεσμαι (ἔζεσμε A) γὰρ ὁ παρακείμενος. λέγεται (λέγει A) ὅτι τὸ δέμα (καὶ add. B) ὑγιές ἐστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ δέδεμαι παρακειμένου καὶ τὸ ζέσμα παρῃτήσατο [παρῃτήσαντο A] τὸ σ, οὕτως Φιλόξενος [fragm. 376] [AB] εἰς τὸ ῥητορικόν [A]. 16.2 τὴν] om. EF ει ] ε EF ὡς] τέθεικα καὶ add. CPV ὠτειλή ] ὠτειλῆ C, ὠτείλη P 17.2 μεταθέσει] τροπῇ E τοῦ – ζειρά] om. E 18.1/2 ἢ – λίαν] om. CP 2 εὐσεβεῖσθαι ] εὐσεβεῖσται CP

 7

19

Davide Baldi

5

10

Ζευγίσιον· ἰστέον ὅτι παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις τέσσαρες τάξεις 20 ἦσαν· οἱ πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι ἐκ τοῦ πεντακόσια μέτρα τελεῖν ξηρὸν καὶ ὑγρόν· καὶ οἱ ζευγῖται, οἵτινες καὶ διακοσιομέδιμνοι λέγεται, ἐκ τοῦ σ μέτρα τελεῖν· καὶ οἱ ἱππεῖς οἵτινες ἐτέλουν ἵππους ἦσαν· καὶ οἱ θῆτες, οἵτινες μὴ εὐποροῦντες τί τελέσαι, ἐθήτευον ἐν μισθῷ. Λυκοῦργος ἔταξε πεντακοσιομεδίμνους τοὺς μέτρα πεντακόσια ποιοῦντας πρώτους· δευτέρους δὲ τοὺς ἵππον δυναμένους τρέφειν· καὶ τοὺς τοὺς ἱππάδας τελοῦντας ἐκάλουν· ζευγίται δὲ οἱ τοῦ τρίτου τμήματος ὀνομασθέντες, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐκαλοῦντο θῆτες. Ζεύγλη· τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ ζυγοῦ· καθ'ὃ ἐντίθησι τοὺς τραχή- 21 λους τὰ ζῶα· παρὰ τὸ ζεύξω ζεύγλη ὡς ἀίξω αἴγλη. Ζεῦγμα· οὐ τὸ σχοινίον, ἀλλ'ἡ ἐζευγμένη σχεδία ἐν ποτα- 22 μῷ ἢ ἐν θαλάττῃ.

20 EFCPV 21 EFCPV 22 EFCPV 20 cf. Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζευγίσιον (ζευγήσιον B)· ὁ ἐτέλει ὁ ζευγίτης· τρεῖς δὲ τάξεις Ἀθήνῃσιν ἦσαν· πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι, οἱ πλουσιώτατοι· ἱππεῖς, οἱ ἱππάδα τελοῦντες καὶ τὸ θητικόν· οἱ μὲν πλουσιώτατοι πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι ἐκαλοῦντο [AB]. ῥητορικόν [A]; Schol. vet. in Plat. Remp. 550c. 21 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post ἀίξω (ἀίσσω A) (l. 2) sic desinunt αἴγλη μετὰ συναίρησιν. 22 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi in fine add. loc. Thuc. VII. 64. 4. 20.1 Ζευγίσιον] ζευγίδιον CPV 3 ξηρὸν] ξηρῶν CPV ὑγρόν] ὑγρῶν CPV διακοσιομέδιμνοι] διακόσιοι μέδιμνοι CP 4 λέγεται] ἐλέγοντο CPV 5 οἵτινες1 ] εὗρον τοὺς ἱππάδας add. Cmarg. P ἐτέλουν ἵππους] trsp. ECPV 6 τί] om. CPV 8/9 δυναμένους τρέφειν] trsp. CPV 9 τρέφειν] τροφεῖν PV cum -έ- s.l. τοὺς2 ] τὰ V s.l. ἱππάδας] ἵππους δὲ CPV 21.2 ζεύξω] ζεύγω EF 22.2 θαλάττῃ] θαλάσσῃ CPV

 8

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

Ζευγνοίην· ὡς γνοὺς γνόντος γνοίην, οὕτως ζευγνὺς 23 ζευγνοῦντο ζευγνοίην. Ζεῦγος· οὐ μόνον τὸ ἐκ δυοῖν τινῶν ζευγνύμενον, ἀλλὰ 24 καὶ τὸ ἐκ πλειόνων. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ Ἰσοκράτης τέθριππον ζεῦγος εἶπεν, ὥστε κἂν ἐκ δ κἂν ἐκ ε ζεῦγος καλοῦσι· γίνεται δὲ παρὰ τὸν ζεύγω ἐνεστῶτα, ὡς τεύχω τεῦχος. Ζεῦξαι· τὸ βόας ἢ ἡμιόνους ἑνῶσαι ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν ζυγόν, 25 καὶ ζεύξειν τὸ πρᾶγμα. Παρὰ τὸ Ζεύς· αὐτὸς γὰρ πρῶτος ἔζευξεν ἡμιόνους ἐπὶ σπορᾷ καρποῦ. Ζευξιδία· ἡ Ἥρα, οὕτως τιμᾶται ἐν Ἄργει.

26

Ζευξίλεως· ᾧ ὑπεζευγμένοι εἰσὶν οἱ λαοί.

27

23 EFCPV 24 EFCPV 25 EFCPV 26 EFCPV 27 EFCPV 23 Cf. Choer. II, p. 272, 24-27; cf. etiam Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζευγνύην· εἴρηται (om. B) εἰς τὸ ὁμνύην (ὁμνύειν B) ubi nihil est, AB nam praeb. solum: ὁμνύω· παρὰ τὸ ὁμῶ ὁμωνύω, καὶ ἐν (κ. ἐ. om. A) συγκοπῇ ὁμνύω. 24 Et. Gen. s.v. ζεῦγος· τὸ ἐκ δυοῖν (δυεῖν A) τινῶν ζευγνύμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐκ πλειόνων. καὶ γὰρ (om. A) Ἰσοκράτης τέθριππον ζεῦγος εἶπεν, καὶ Αἰσχύλος [Aisch. fragm. 346 Radt]· ζεῦγος τεθρίππων. ὥστε κἂν ἐκ τεσσάρων, κἂν ἐκ πέντε ᾖ, ζεῦγος αὐτὸ καλοῦσιν· γίνεται δὲ παρὰ τὸ ζεύγω ἐνεστῶτα, ὡς τεύχω τεῦχος. 25 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi B scripsit τοὺς βόας pro τὸ βόας et ἔζευξε πρῶτος pro πρῶτος ἔζευξεν (l. 2/3). 26 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post Ἄργει sic pergit φασὶ γάρ, ὅτι Ἄπις μεταναστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἄργους εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἔπεμψε βόας Ἄργει βασιλεύοντι, καὶ τὴν τοῦ σπόρου ἐργασίαν ἐδίδαξεν· ὅθεν ζεύξας ἐπὶ τῷ σπόρῳ τὰς βοῦς, Ἥρας ἱερὸν ἀνέθηκεν. ὅτε δὲ τοὺς στάχυς συνέβαινε βλαστάνειν καὶ ἀνθεῖν, ἄνθεα Ἥρας ἐκάλεσε. 27 Et. Gen. AB s.v. 24.1 δυοῖν ] δυεῖν EF ζευγνύμενον] συνεζευγμένον EF 2 καὶ2 ] om. CP 3 ὥστε] ὅτε CPV καλοῦσι ] ἀποκαλοῦσι ECPV 25.2 ζεύξειν] correxi cum Et. Gen., ζεύξεια EFCPV 2/3 πρῶτος ἔζευξεν] trsp. CPV 26.1 Ζευξιδία] ζευξίδια EF 24 Isocr. 16, 25

 9

Davide Baldi

5

5

Ζεύς· ὁ θεός· Κορνοῦτος ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ θεολογίᾳ ὅτι 28 ψυχή ἐστι τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου. Παρὰ τὸ ζωὴ καὶ αἰτία εἶναι τοῖς ζῶσι τοῦ ζῆν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο βασιλεὺς λέγεται τῶν ὅλων, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ἡ ψυχή· ἢ ὅτι ἔζησε μόνος τῶν ἄλλων παίδων καὶ οὐ κατεπόθη· ἢ παρὰ τὸ δεύω, τὸ βρέχω, δεύσω δεὺς καὶ Ζεύς (αἴτιος γὰρ ὑετοῦ)· ἢ παρὰ τὴν ζέσιν (θερμότατος γὰρ ὁ ἀήρ)· ζέω Ζεύς. Ζέφυρος· ὁ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν πνέων ἄνεμος· οἱονεὶ ζωοφόρος 29 τις ὢν ὁ τὰ πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν φέρων, ἐπειδὴ τὰ φυτὰ κυίσκειν ποιεῖ, Ὅμηρος· αὔρη ζεφυρίη πνείουσα τὰ μὲν φύει ἄλλα δὲ πέσσει· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζόφος ζόφυρος καὶ ζέφυρος· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ ζόφου ῥεῖν.

28 EFCPV 29 EFCPV 28 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi in principio pro τῇ praeb. τῷ περὶ, pro ζωὴ (l. 2) B habet ζῶ, pro εἶναι (l. 3) AB habent οὖσα, pro βασιλεὺς (l. 3) A praeb. βασιλὲα, pro λέγεται (l. 3) AB habent λέγουσι, post ὅλων (l. 4) om. ὡς, pro αἴτιος γὰρ ὑετοῦ (l. 6) praeb. ὑέτιος γὰρ et in fine add. ὡς τρέω τρεύς καὶ ἀτρεύς. 29 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post πρὸς om. τὴν (l. 2) et in fine add. δυτικὸς γάρ· ζόφος δὲ καλεῖται ἡ δύσις. 28.1 ὁ θεός] om. CPV 29.1 ὁ] om. CP ἀπὸ δυσμῶν] ἀποδυσμῶν C 2 τὴν] om. E ἐπειδὴ] ἐπεὶ E 5 ζόφου] ἤγουν δώσεως add. CPV 28 cf. Corn. cap. 2 29 Hom. Od. VII. 119

 10

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

5

Ζῇ· ἔστι ῥῆμα ἄω, τὸ πνέω, κατ'ἐπίτασιν τῆς ζα συλλα- 30 βῆς ζάω ὥσπερ πλοῦτος ζάπλουτος· εἶτα κατὰ κράσιν γίνεται ζῶ καὶ πάλιν ζάεις ζάει, καὶ κατὰ κράσιν δωρικὴν τοῦ ε καὶ α εἰς η ζῆ γίνεται. Μηδεὶς γὰρ οἰέσθω ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ζάεις ζᾷς συνῃρημένου γέγονε τὸ ζῇς καὶ ζῇ κατὰ τροπὴν τοῦ α εἰς η, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ζάεις ζάει γέγονε

30 EFCPV 30 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζῆ· ἔστι ἄω, τὸ πνέω, τοῦτο γίνεται ζάω· κατ'ἐπέκτασιν (ἐπίτασιν B) τῆς ζα συλλαβῆς ζάω (om. Α) ὥσπερ πλοῦτος ζάπλουτος· εἶτα κατὰ κράσιν γίνεται ζῶ, καὶ πάλιν ζάεις ζάει καὶ κατὰ κράσιν δωρικὴν (κράσει δωρικῇ Α) τοῦ α ε (ε om. Β) εἰς η γίνεται ζῇς ζῇ. μηδεὶς γὰρ οἰέσθω ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ζᾷς καὶ ζᾷ συνῃρημένου γέγονε τὸ ζῇς καὶ ζῇ κατὰ τροπὴν τοῦ α εἰς η, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ζάεις ζάει γέγονε δωρικῇ κράσει τοῦ α καὶ ε εἰς τὸ (om. Β) η· οἱ γὰρ Δωριεῖς τὸ ε α εἰς η κιρνῶσιν ὡς τὸ βοάεις βοῇς καὶ γελάεις γελῇς τούτου ὁ παρατατικός, ἔζαον ἔζων, ἔζαες ἔζης, ἔζαε ἔζη [AΒ]· καὶ τὸ προστακτικὸν ζῆ, ὡς παρ'Εὐριπίδῃ ἐν Ἰφιγενείᾳ τῇ ἐν Ταύροις [Eur. Iph. T. 699]· Ἀλλ'ἕρπε καὶ ζῆ καὶ δόμους ἤκεις. πάλιν ἐν Φρίξῳ, παρὰ τὸ αὐτῷ [Eur. fragm. 826 Kannicht]· δι'ἐλπίδος ζῆ, καὶ δι'ἐλπίδος τρέφου [A]. τὸ γὰρ ζῆθι κατ'ἐπέκτασιν ἔχει τὴν θι συλλαβήν· εὕρηται δὲ παρὰ Φιλήμονι (cf. fragm. 194 K.-A.) μετὰ τῆς σύν προθέσεως [AΒ] εὕρηται καὶ παρὰ Φερεκράτει (cf. fragm. 246 K.-A.) [A]· τινὲς δὲ (om. Α) λέγουσι τὸ ζῇς καὶ ζῇ καὶ μὴ ἔχειν τὸ ι προσγεγραμμένον, κατασκευάζοντες αὐτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς μι οἷον ἀπὸ (οἳ ἐν Α) τοῦ ζῆμι· οἵτινες οὐκ ἀκριβῶς λέγουσιν πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ εἰ ἦν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς μι ὤφειλεν εἶναι ἡ μετοχὴ ζάς, ὥσπερ στάς (σάς Β), καὶ τὸ θηλυκὸν ζᾶσα, ὡς στᾶσα· νῦν δὲ ζῶν ἐστὶν ἡ μετοχή· καὶ τὸ θηλυκόν ζῶσα, ὥσπερ βοῶν βοῶσα· δεύτερον δὲ εἰ ἦν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰς μι, ζάμεν ὤφειλεν εἶναι τὸ πρῶτον πρόσωπον τῶν πληθυντικῶν, ὥσπερ φαμέν· νυνὶ δὲ ζῶμεν ἐστίν (ἐ. ζ. Β), ὥσπερ βοῶμεν ἄρα οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς μι [AB]. 30.1 Ζῇ – ῥῆμα] om. EF πνέω] καὶ add. CPV συλλαβῆς ] om. E 2 πλοῦτος] om. CP, V s.l. ζάπλουτος] τὸ praem. CPV 3 ζάεις] τὸ δεύτερον praem. CPV ζάει] τὸ τρίτον praem. CPV κατὰ κράσιν] κράσει CPV δωρικὴν ] δωρικῇ CPV 4 ε] α CPV καὶ ] om. E α] ε CPV, γράφεται ει add. P s.l. γίνεται ] om. ECPV 6 γέγονε ] om. CPV

 11

Davide Baldi

10

κράσει τοῦ ε καὶ α εἰς η (οἱ γὰρ Δωριεῖς τὸ ε καὶ α εἰς η κιρνῶσιν), ὃ παρατατικὸς ἔζαον ἔζων ἔζαες ἔζης ἔζαεν ἔζη· τὸ προστακτικὸν ζῆ, ὡς παρὰ τῷ Εὐριπίδῃ· ἀλλ'ἕρπε καὶ ζῆ καὶ δόμους ἵκεις. Πάλιν καὶ πάλιν δι'ἐλπίδος ζῆ καὶ δι'ἐλπίδος τρέφου· τὸ γὰρ ζῆθι κατ'ἔκτασιν ἔχει τὴν θι συλλαβήν· εὕρηται δὲ καὶ μετὰ τῆς σύν σύζηθι. Ζῆθος· ὁ ἥρως, παρὰ τὸν ζήσω μέλλοντα, Ζῆθος, ὡς 31 ἐρίσω ἔριθος· ἢ ὅτι ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ ἐζήτησεν εὐμαρῶς τεκεῖν αὐτόν, Εὐριπίδης· τὸν μὲν κίκλησεν Ζῆθον· ἐζήτησε γὰρ τόκοισιν εὐμάρειαν ἡ τεκοῦσά νυν. Ζηρυνθία· Ἀφροδίτη ἐν Θράκῃ· ζηρύθιον γὰρ ἄντρον ἐν 32 Θράκῃ.

31 EFCPV 32 EFCPV 31 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post ἥρως pergunt οὗτος γὰρ καὶ Ἀμφίων ἐτείχισαν τὰς θήκας ὡς παρὰ Ἀπόλλωνι [Ap. Rhod. Arg. II. 426]· ἐν δ'ἔσαν (ἔαν A) Ἀντιόπης (om. Α) Ἀσωπίδος υἱέες (ὑέες B) δοιώ· Ἀμφίων καὶ Ζῆθος ἀπύργωτος δ'ἔτι Θήβη κεῖτο πέλας, τῆς οἵγε νέον βάλλοντο (βάλοντο Α) δομαίους (δόμους B), εἴρηται παρὰ τὸ ζήσω ... 32 Et. Gen. AB [A ante ζητῶ, Β post ζωστήρ] s.v. ubi in fine add. οὐ γὰρ μὸνον Ἄρεως ἱερά ἐστι ἡ Θράκη ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀφροδίτης [AB] ἐν τῇ Λυκόφρονος [B] [Lycophr. Alex. 449, 958, 1178]. 7 κράσει] κατὰ κράσιν δωρικὴν CPV ε1 ] α CPV α1 ] ε CPV cum ει s.l. οἱ – η2 ] om. CP ε2 – α2 ] α ε V 11 ἔκτασιν] ἐπέκτασιν CP 12 σύν] προθέσεως add. CPV 31.2 ἢ] om. CPV 3 κίκλησεν] κίκλησκεν CPV 32.1 ζηρύθιον ] ζηρύνθιον CPV 30 cf. Eur. Iph. T. 699

31 Eur. fragm. 181 Kannicht

 12

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

5

Ζῆλος· παρὰ τὸ ζέω καὶ τὸ λίαν γίνεται ζέελος καὶ ζῆλος· 33 ὁ γὰρ ζῆλος θερμός ἐστι λίαν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζέειν, ὅ ἐστι ἐκκαίεσθαι καὶ φλέγεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν ποιῶν· ἢ ὁ ζητῶν πρός τινα ἄλλον ζῆν, τὰ δὲ παρὰ τοῦ ζῆλος τὴν αὐτὴν φυλάττουσι γραφήν, οἷον πολύζηλος ἀρίζηλος ζηλωτός. Ζημία· ἡ τῶν ὄντων πρὸς τὸ ζῆν μείωσις, παρὰ τὴν ζέσιν 34 τὴν γινομένην ὑπὸ θυμοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐκτίνειν τὰ ἐπαγόμενα· ἢ τὴν ζωὴν μειοῦσα, τουτέστιν τὴν περιουσίαν· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ποιητὴς ζωὴν τὴν περιουσίαν καλεῖ. Ζήτης· ὁ υἱὸς Βορρᾶ οἷον· Ζήτης Kάλαίς τε Bορήιοι υἷες 35 ἱκέσθων· παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὸ ἀήτης ὁ μεγάλως πνέων.

33 EFCPV 34 EFCPV 35 EFCPV 33 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζῆλος· ζῆλος δ'ἀνθρώποισιν οἱ ζυροῖσιν ἅπασιν. παρὰ τὸ ζέω καὶ τὸ λίαν γίνεται ζέλος καὶ ζῆλος [AB]· ὁ γὰρ ζῆλος [Β] θερμός (γὰρ add. Α) ἐστι λίαν (ὁ ζῆλος add. Α). ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζέειν ὁ φλεγμαίνειν καὶ ἐκκαίεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν ποιῶν· ἢ ὁ ζητῶν πρός τινα ἄλλον ζῆν (ζῆν om. Β). ζηλοῖ δέ τε γείτονα γείτων, τὰ δὲ παρὰ τὸ ζῆλος συγκείμενα εἶτε καταρχὰς (καταρχὴν Β) λέξεως εἶτε κατὰ τὸ τέλος τὴν αὐτὴν φυλάττει γραφὴν οἷον πολύζηλος ἀρίζηλος ζηλωτός [AB]. 34 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro μείωσις B praeb. ζημίωσις et in fine AB add. οἷον [Hom. Od. XVI. 429]· ἡ δὲ κατὰ ζωὴν φαγέειν μενοεικέα πολλήν· ἢ δημία τίς οὖσα ἡ πολιτική. 35 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro Βορήιοι υἷες ἱκέσθων praeb. Βορῆος ὑεές ἱκέσθην et add. Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Ῥόδιος ἐν τοῖς Ἀργοναυτικοῖς [Ap. Rhod. Arg. I. 211], ζαήτης, pro ἀήτης (l. 2) hab. ἄης et in fine sic desinunt υἱὸς γάρ ἐστι τοῦ Βορρᾶ. 33.1 γίνεται ] γέγονε E, om. CP ζέελος] ζέιλος EF καὶ2 ] om. F 2 ἐστι2 ] om. CPV 3 φλέγεσθαι] φλεγέσθαι C cum -μαι s.l., φλεγμαίνεσθαι P, φλέγμαι V cum -εσθαι s.l. τὴν ψυχὴν] om. CP 4 τοῦ] τὸ V 5 ζηλωτός] καὶ [om. CV] ζηλότυπος add. CPV 34.2 ἐκτίνειν] ἐκτείνειν CPV 35.1 Ζήτης2 ] καὶ add. CPV Bορήιοι] Βορήος V υἷες] υἱὼ V 34 cf. Hom. Od. XVI. 429 35 Ap. Rhod. Arg. I. 211

 13

Davide Baldi

Ζητηταί· ἀρχὴ τίς ἦν Ἀθήνῃσι κατὰ καιροὺς καθιστα- 36 μένη, πρὸς ἣν ἐμηνύοντο οἱ ὀφείλοντες χρήματα τῇ πόλει καὶ μὴ ἀποδεδωκότες. Ζητῶ· παρὰ τὸ ζα ἐπιτατικὸν μόριον καὶ τὸ αἰτῶ γίνεται 37 ζητῶ· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὸ τω, γίνεται ζατῶ καὶ ζητῶ. Ζητρεῖον· ζήτει εἰς τὸ ζατρεύω.

37a

Ζιζάνιον· τὸ ἄνευ σπορᾶς παραφυόμενον τῷ σίτῳ· παρὰ 38 τὸ σῖτος καὶ τὸ ἱζάνω τὸ ἐπικάθημαι, σιτοιζάνιον τὸ τῷ σίτῳ παρεδρεῦον.

5

Ζόφος· παρὰ τὸ νέφω νόφος, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ ζα ζάνοφος 39 καὶ συγκοπῇ καὶ ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ν, ἐπεὶ διπλῷ συμφώνῳ οὐχ ὑποτέτακται· ἢ παρὰ τὸ φάος κατὰ προσέλευσιν τοῦ ο ὄφαος, καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ζ ζόφος, κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ α· ἢ παρὰ τὸ νέφω νόφος καὶ γνόφος καὶ δνόφος ποτὲ δὲ καὶ διὰ τοῦ ζ ζόφος, κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ ν.

36 EFCPV EFCPV

37 Ζητῶ-ζητῶ1 EFCPV | ἢ-ζητῶ2 CPV

37a CPV

39

36 Et. Gen. AB s.v. 37 usque ad γίνεται ζητῶ Et. Gen. AB s.v. 37a Vide supra ζ10 38 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro σιτοιζάνιον B praeb. σιτοζάνιον (l. 2) et in fine addunt καὶ συναυξάνον. 39 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζόφος· παρὰ τὸ νέφω νόφος, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ ζα ζάνοφος, καὶ ἀποβολῇ (ἐγβολῇ Α) τοῦ ν· ἐπεὶ (ἐπειδὴ Α) διπλῷ συμφώνῳ οὐχ ὑποτάττεται ἢ παρὰ τὸ φάος κατὰ προσέλευσιν τοῦ ο ὄφαος καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ζ ζόφος, κατὰ ἐγβολὴν (κατὰ ἐ. om. Β) τοῦ α (ἀποβλήθη add. Β)· ἢ ζόφος δηλόν ἐστι κατὰ ἀποβολὴν (ἐγβολὴν Α) τοῦ ν. 36.1 καθισταμένη ] καθισταμένους V 37.1 παρὰ – μόριον] ἐπιτατικὸν μόριον παρὰ τὸ ζα EV ἐπιτατικὸν μόριον] om. CP 2 ἢ – ζητῶ2 ] V in marg. 38.1 παραφυόμενον] φυόμενον E, περιφυόμενον FCP 39.2 ἐπεὶ] ἐπειδὴ CPV 6 καὶ] om. CP

 14

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

5

Ζύγαστρον· κιβωτός· κυρίως δὲ ἡ ξυλίνη σορὸς Σοφο- 40 κλῆς· κοίλῳ ζυγάστρῳ. Παρὰ τὸ ἐνεζεῦχθαι καὶ ἐνδεδέσθαι ἀλλήλαις ταῖς σανίσιν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἐζυγῶσθαι τὰς σανίδας. Παρὰ Δελφοῖς δὲ ζύγαστρον καλεῖται τὸ γραμματοφυλάκιον.

5

Ζυγομαχεῖν· τὸ στασιάζειν, ὡς οἱ βόες ἐζευγμένοι. 41 Μετῆκται δὲ ἡ λέξις ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν βοῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους μάχης τῶν μὴ συμφώνως ἐργαζομένων· ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ πολλάκις ὅταν ἕλκωσι κάμνοντες τὸ βάρος πρὸς ἀλλήλους.

40 EFCPV 41 EFCPV 40 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post σανίδας (l. 4) A praeb. τοῦ Εὐριπίδου, B ante ζύγαστρον (l. 4) add. καὶ et in fine A add. ῥητορικόν. 41 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi in principio om. τὸ, pro τῶν μὴ (l. 3) praeb. καὶ μὴ, pro πολλάκις (l. 4) B praeb. πολλοὺς et in fine AB add. κέχρηται Ὑπερίδης [Hyperid. fragm. 245 J.]. ἢ ἀπὸ (ἐγ Α) μεταφορᾶς τῶν εἰς τὸν σταθμὸν φιλονεικούντων. ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τοῖς πλοίοις ζυγῶν ἐπεὶ παρὰ αὐτῶν φιλονεικοῦσιν οἱ ἐρέται, ῥητορικόν. De Hyperide vide Phot. ζ 57. 40.2 ἐνεζεῦχθαι ] ἀνεζεύχθαι CPV 41.1 στασιάζειν] ζόφος add. F 40 Soph. Trach. 692

 15

Davide Baldi

5

10

Ζυγός· εἴρηται καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν καὶ ἐπὶ ἁρμάτων καὶ 42 πλοίων καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν τάλαντον ἤγουν ἡ πρυτάνη λέγεται ζυγὸς καὶ ὁ πῆχυς τῆς κιθάρας, εἰς ὃν ἔγκεινται οἱ κόλλαβοι· οὕτως δὲ λέγεται οἱ πάσσαλοι ὧν ἐξάπτονται αἱ χορδαὶ παρὰ τὸ κεκολλῆσθαι. Εἴρηται δὲ παρὰ τὸ δύο ἄγειν δυαγὸς καὶ ζυγὸς δωρικῶς. Ἰστὲον δὲ ὅτι τὸ ζ διαλύουσιν οἱ Δωριεῖς εἰς σ καὶ δ, οἷον ζυγός σδυγός, θερίζω θερίσδω, συρίζω συρίσδω, μελίζω μελίσδω, Θεόκριτος· ἃ ποτὶ ταῖς παγαῖς μελίσδεται· ἤγουν μελίζεται καὶ ἠχεῖ καὶ ἀποτελεῖ μελωδίαν. Ζύμη· τὸ σταῖς τὸ συμπεφθὲν εἰς ὄπτησιν· παρὰ τὸ ζέω 43 ζύμη, ὡς λύω λύμη, τὸ ζέον σταῖς. 42 Ζυγός-συρίσδω EFCPV | μελίζω-μελωδίαν CPV 43 EFCPV 42 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζυγός· εἴρηται καὶ (κ. om. Β) ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν καὶ ἁρμάτων καὶ πλοίων, καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν τάλαντον ἤγουν ἡ τρυτάνη. τρυτάνη δέ ἐστι τὸ στάσιμον καὶ ὁ περικείμενος ἡμὰς (ἱμὰς Β) τοῖς δακτύλοις πλαγίοις ἐπὶ τῶν σανδαλίων καὶ ἐν τοῖς τακτικοῖς τὸ ἐκπαρεστηκότων ἀλλήλοις πλῆθος [ΑΒ]. τοῦτο εἰς τὸ ῥητορικόν [Α]. λέγεται δὲ ζυγὸς καὶ ὁ πῆχυς τῆς κιθάρας εἰς ὃ (ᾧ Β) ἔγκεινται οἱ κόλλαβοι· οὕτως δὲ λέγονται (λέγεται B) οἱ πάσσαλοι ὧν ἐξάπτονται αἱ χορδαὶ παρὰ τὸ κεκολλῆσθαι· [Hom. Il. IX. 187] ἐπὶ δ'ἀργύρεον ζυγὸν ἦεν. εἴρηται δὲ ζυγὸς παρὰ τὸ δύο ἄγεσθαι καὶ ἐφέλκεσθαι ὑπ'αὐτοῦ δυγὸς καὶ δωρικῶς ζυγός, ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι τὸ ζ διαλύουσιν οἱ Δωριεῖς εἰς σ καὶ δ, οἷον ζυγός σδυγός (σδ. ζ. Α), θερίζω θερίσδω, ζευκτῆρες σδευκτῆρες [AB]. 43 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi B in principio om. τὸ σταῖς. 42.1 Ζυγός] καὶ ζυγὸν οὐδετέρως add. CPV ἁμαξῶν] ἀμαξῶν F ἁρμάτων] ὠς τό· [Hom. Il. IX. 187] ἐπὶ δ'ἀργύρεον ζυγὸν ἦεν· καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν καθεδρῶν τῶν add. CPV καὶ3 ] om. CPV 2 πλοίων ] ἐφ'οἷς οἱ ἐρέσσοντες κάθηνται add. CPV 3 λέγεται] δὲ add. CPV πῆχυς – κιθάρας] trsp. EF 4 λέγεται] ὀνομάζονται CPV 6 δωρικῶς] δωρικὸς E 7 ὅτι – ζ] om. CP 43.1 σταῖς ] σταὶς FCPV ζέω] ζύω add. CPVs.l. 2 σταῖς] σταὶς FCPV 42 Theocr. Id. I. 2

 16

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

Ζυμήτης· παρὰ τὸ ζέω ζύω, ὡς ξέω ξύω· ζύμη καὶ ζύμωμα 44 ἐκ τοῦ ζέσαντος σταιτὸς γέγονεν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ζύμη ζυμήτης. Ζῶ· τὸ τῆς ζωῆς σημαντικὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ζέω κατὰ μετα- 45 φοράν· ἀναπνέομεν γὰρ ἕως πάρεστιν ἡμῖν τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ἡ ζέσις τοῦ αἵματος.

5

Ζωγράφος· οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ι· ἔστι γὰρ ζῶον ζώου ζωγράφος 46 καὶ ἐπειδὴ οὐδέποτε μεταξὺ τοῦ ι ὄντος ἢ τοῦ υ, ἢ συμφώνου κρᾶσις γίνεται, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον ἀποβάλλει αὐτό, καὶ οὕτως ἡ κρᾶσις γίνεται οἷον βελτίονα βελτίω, τῷ ἐμῷ τὠμῷ, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τἀνθρώπου· τούτου χάριν καὶ τὸ ζωγράφος πρῶτον ἀποβάλλει τὸ ι, καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖ τὴν κρᾶσιν τοῦ ω καὶ ο εἰς ω, χωρὶς τοῦ ι. Ζώγρει· ζῶντα λάμβανε· παρὰ τὸ ζῶ καὶ τὸ ἀγρεύειν, ὁ 47 τὰ ζῶντα ἀγρεύων.

44 EFCPV 45 EFCPV 46 EFCPV 47 EFCPV 44 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζυμήτης· οὕτως ἄρτος ποιός, οἷον [Xenoph. Anab. VII. 3, 21]· ἄρτοι ζυμῆται μεγάλοι. παρὰ τὸ ζέω ζύμη ὡς ξέω ξύω, χέω χύω, ζύμη καὶ ζύμωμα ἐκ τοῦ ζέσαντος σταῖς γέγονε (γεγονός Α). 45 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζῶ καὶ ζῆν· τὸ τῆς ζωῆς σημαντικὸν (ῥῆμα add. Α) ἀπὸ ... et A add. ἐν ante ἡμῖν (l. 2) et in fine post αἵματος AB add. ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἄω τὸ πνέω καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ζ ζάω καὶ ζέω καὶ ζῶ. 46 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζωγράφος· Θεόκριτος [Theocr. XV. 81]· ποῖοι ζωογράφοι τἀκριβέα γράμματ'ἔγραψαν. οὐχ ὅτι γράμματι χρῆται (χρῆσται Α), ἀλλ'ὅτι τῇ γραφίδι προσκαταξύει· γράψαι γὰρ τὸ ξύσαι. οὐκ ἔχει δὲ τὸ ι προσγεγραμμένον. ἔστι γὰρ ζῶον ζώου ζωογράφος καὶ ἐπειδὴ ... et post τἀνθρώπου (l. 5) add. καὶ τὸ ἄνθρωπος τἄνθρωπος. 47 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζώγρει (ζωγρεῖ Α)· ζῶντας λαμβάνει, οἷον [AΒ]· ζῶντας λάμβανε καὶ [Β]· [Hom. Il. VI. 46] ζώγρει Ἀτρέος (Ἀτρέως Β) υἱέ (ὕε Β)· παρὰ ... et B pro ἀγρεύειν praeb. ἀγρεύω. 44.1 Ζυμήτης] ζυμίτης EF ὡς – ξύω] om. E 2 ζυμήτης] ζυμίτης EF 45.1 ζωῆς ] ζῶ EF 2 ἡμῖν] ἐν add. CPV 46.3 ἀποβάλλει] ἀποβάλλουσι CPV 5 τὸ] τοῦ CP 47.1 ἀγρεύειν] ἀγρεύω CPV

 17

Davide Baldi

Ζῴδιον· σὺν τῷ ι, ἐπειδὴ εὕρηται κατὰ διάστασιν ζωΐδιον· 48 ἢ ἔστι ζῷον ζῴου καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἡ τελευταία συλλαβὴ τῆς γενικῆς τοῦ πρωτοτύπου ἀπὸ φωνήεντος ἄρχεται, γίνεται ζωίδιον σὺν τῷ ι, τοῦ ι ἀπὸ πρωτοτύπου ὄντος.

5

Ζῴη· ζάω ζῶ, ὁ ζάων ὁ ζῶν, τοῦ ζάοντος τοῦ ζῶντος, 49 ζάοιμι ζῷμι ὡς βοῷμι, τὸ δεύτερον ζῷς ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ ζάοις, τὸ τρίτον ζάοι ζῷ· ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ προσώπῳ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ προστιθέασι τὸ η καὶ γίνεται ζῴη καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τρίτου ποιοῦσι τὸ δεύτερον προσθέσει τοῦ σ ζῴης καὶ πάλιν τροπῇ τοῦ σ εἰς ν τὸ πρῶτον ζῴην, ὡς ἀγαπῴην.

48 EFCPV 49 EFCPV 48 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post διάστασιν sic pergunt οἷον [Ar. Phaen. 343]· ζωίδιον δὲ (δ. om. Β) κύκλον ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν. ἢ ἐπειδή ἐστι ζῷον ζῴου, ὅπερ ἔχει προσγεγραμμένον τὸ ι· καὶ ἐπειδὴ ... et in fine pro σὺν τῷ ι (l. 4) praeb. ὡς εἰρήκαμεν. 49 cf. etiam Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζῴη· σὺν τῷ ι, οὗτος μὲν εἶναι ζῴη· καὶ ὑγιαίνει. ἔστι δὲ εὐκτικῶς ἀττικῶς· ζῴην γὰρ ζῴης καὶ ζῴη, τρίτου προσώπου; Et. Gud. s.v. ἀγαπῴην; Et. Sym. s.v. ἀγαπῴην (LASSERRE-LIVADARAS, Etymologicum magnum I [see n. 3], p. 21) 48.1 Ζῴδιον ] ζῳδίον V 4 ζωίδιον] ζῴδιον CPV τοῦ ] τῷ CP 49.1 Ζῴη ] ζῴνην P, ζῴην CV 2 ὡς2 – ζάοις] om. ECPV 3 ζάοι] om. ECPV ζῷ] καὶ οἱ Ἴωνες ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις εὐκτικῶς εἰώθασιν ἐπιτιθέναι τῷ τρίτῳ προσώπῳ τὴν ην συλλαβὴν καὶ [καὶ om. C] μετὰ τρίτον αὐτὸ εἰς πρῶτον ἢ γίνεται κατὰ μεταπλασμὸν τῆς μι εἰς ην ἢ κατὰ ἐνίους τῷ ζῷ add. CPV ἐν ] om. CPV 4/6 καὶ2 – ἀγαπῴην] om. CPV qui praeb. τοῦτο προσθήκη τοῦ σ, δεύτερον γίνεται τὸ δεύτερον δὲ τρέπον εἰς ν τὸ σ, ποιεῖ τὸ πρῶτον· ἕτεροι δὲ τὴν μι εἰς ην τρέποντες καὶ τὸ ο εἰς ω ἐκτείνοντες ποιοῦσιν αὐτό

 18

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

5

Ζωή· τὸ ζω μέγα ὡς παρὰ τὸ ῥέω ῥοὴ χέω χοὴ οὕτως ζέω 50 ζωὴ αὐξήσει τοῦ ο· τὸ δὲ ζέω ἐκ τοῦ ζάω, ὅπερ ἐκ τοῦ ζα καὶ τοῦ ἄω τὸ πνέω ἔστιν. Τὰ γὰρ οὖν παρ'αὐτῶν συγκείμενα διὰ τοῦ ω μεγάλου γράφεται οἷον ζωοτόκος ἀείζωος, πλὴν τοῦ φυσίζοος. Ζῶμα· τὸν χιτῶνα ἀπὸ τοῦ ζώννυσθαι· οἱ δὲ τὸν θώρακα, 51 ἀλλὰ κυρίως τὸ ζῶμα.

5

Ζώνη· τὸ τοῦ σώματος εἴρηται μέρος· παρὰ τὸ ζῶ, ἐν ᾧ 52 μάλιστα τὸ τοῦ ζώου ἐστὶ ζωτικόν, καὶ τὸ περὶ αὐτὸ ὕφασμα ζώνη ὁμωνύμως· ἢ παρὰ τὸ δεῖν, δώνη καὶ ζώνη, ἡ περιδεομένη, διὸ καὶ τὰ παρ'αὐτοῦ συγκείμενα, διὰ τοῦ ω μεγάλου γράφεται ἄζωνος.

50 EFCPV 51 EFCPV 52 EFCPV 50 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ζωή· τὸ ζῶ μέγα ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥέω ῥοὴ καὶ χέω χοή, οὕτως καὶ (κ. om. Β) ἐγ (sic A ; ἀπὸ Β) τοῦ ζέω γίνεται ζωή, καὶ τροπῇ τοῦ ο εἰς ω ζωή. τὰ γοῦν παρ'αὐτῶν συγκείμενα τὴν αὐτὴν φυλάττει γραφήν, οἷον ζωηφόρος, ζωοτόκος, ἀείζωος. 51 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro οἱ praeb. ἄλλοι et post θώρακα sic desinunt οἱ δὲ κυρίως τὸ ζῶμα εἰρήκασι. 52 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi ante ζωτικόν (l. 2) add. δεικτικὸν καὶ τὸ et post ὁμωνύμως (l. 3) add. ὡς καὶ θώραξ τὸ μέρος τοῦ σώματος καὶ τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὅπλον. 50.1 ῥοὴ] καὶ add. CPV οὕτως] καὶ ἀττικῶς add. E, καὶ παρὰ τὸ add. 3 γὰρ οὖν] γοῦν ECPV CPV 2 ζάω] ζάω CPV ἐκ2 ] ἀπὸ CPV 4 γράφεται] om. E οἷον] ζωηφόρος add. CPV 5 πλὴν – φυσίζοος] om. ECPV 51.1 τὸν2 ] om. CPV 2 ἀλλὰ] ἄλλοι CP 52.1 εἴρηται] om. E εἴρηται μέρος] trsp. CPV 3 ζώνη1 ] ζώνυ CP 4 ἡ] ὡς CPV 5 γράφεται ] om. E, οἷον εὔζωνος, καλλίζωνος add. CPV

 19

Davide Baldi

Ζώντειον· προπαροξυτόνως ὁ μύλων· παρὰ τὸ ζέας, αἳ 53 καὶ ζειαὶ καλοῦνται· ὅπου αἱ ζειαὶ ἐκόπτοντο, ζεόντειον καὶ ζώντειον· ἡ δὲ τόπου ὄνομα ὅπου ἐκολάζοντο.

5

Ζῷον· τὸ γενικὸν ὄνομα παρὰ τὸ ζῶ, ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς· 54 γράφεται δὲ διὰ τοῦ ι ἐπειδὴ εἴρηται κατὰ διάστασιν ζώιον· ἢ διὰ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῶν διὰ τοῦ ωον· τὰ γὰρ διὰ τοῦ ωον οὐδέτερα μονογενῆ θέλουσι πάντως ἔχειν τὸ ι, οἷον πτῷον, ὄνομα ὅρους, προστῷον. Ζωπυρῆσαι· ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τοῦ πυρός, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐξ ἀρρω- 55 στίας ἀναρρωννυμένους. Ζωρότερον· ζωρὸς ὁ ἄκρατος, καὶ ζωρὸν τὸ οὐδέτερον καὶ 56 ζωρότερον ποτόν· ἀπὸ τοῦ ζῶ ζωρότερον πλεονασμῷ τοῦ

53 EFCPV 54 EFCPV 55 EFCPV 56 EFCPV 53 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi in principio pro ὁ praeb. ὡς et post ζεόντειον (l. 2) sic desinunt οἱ δὲ τόπου ὄνομα ὅπου ἐκολάζοντο οἱ οἰκέται· Ἀριστοφάνης Βαβυλωνίοις [Aristoph. fragm. 95 K.-A.]. 54 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro εἴρηται praeb. εὕρηται (l. 2), post διάστασιν (l. 2) sic pergunt ὡς παρὰ Σιμωνίδη φησὶ γάρ [Semon. fragm. 13 West]· τοδ'ἡμῖν ἑρπετὸν παρέπτατο ζώιον κάκιστον· καὶ διὰ ..., bis pro ωον praeb. ωιον, pro θέλουσι (l. 4) praeb. θέλουσα, post πτῷον (l. 5) add. ἔστι et in fine sic desinunt περιστῷον ὑπερῷον. οὕτως οὖν καὶ ζῷον σὺν τῷ ι. 55 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post ἀρρωστίας sic desinunt ἀναρωννυμένους λέγουσι [AB]. ῥητορικόν [A]. 56 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post ἀπὸ τοῦ (l. 2) sic pergunt ζεῖν (ζῆν Β) ἢ ζῆν ζωότερον καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ρ ζωρότερον ἐν, pro καὶ σημαίνει (l. 5) praeb. ὃ σημαίνει et in fine sic add. οἶνος καὶ εὔποτος ὑπὲρ τὸν νέον. 53.1 Ζώντειον] ζώντιον EF, cum -ει- V s.l. 2 ζεόντειον] ζώντιον EF, -τιcum -ει- C s.l. V s.l. 3 ζώντειον] ζώντιον EF, -τι- cum -ει- C s.l. V s.l. ἡ] οἱ CPV ἐκολάζοντο] ἐκολάζοντα EF 54.2 εἴρηται ] εὕρηται CPV 3 τῶν] τὸν V 55.1 τοὺς] τῶν CPV 2 ἀναρρωννυμένους] ἀναρρνυμένων CPV 56.1 Ζωρότερον] Ὅμηρος [Ho m. Il. IX. 203]· ζωρότερον κέραιρε· add. CPV 2 ζωρότερον2 ] ζωρώτερον E 56 Hom. Il. IX. 203

 20

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

5

ρ, ἐν ᾧ οἶνος οὐκ ἠφάνισται, ἀλλ'ἔτι ζῇ καὶ θερμότερος ἔστιν· ἀπὸ δὲ τούτου τὸ ἀκρατότερον ἐμφαίνει καὶ ἰσχυρόν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ζα καὶ τὸν ὦρον, καὶ σημαίνει τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, ζάωρος καὶ ζωρός ὁ πολυετὴς καὶ παλαιός. Ζώοντα καὶ ζώουσιν· εἴρηται ὁ κανών εἰς τὸ γνώωσι, καὶ 56a ζήτει αὐτὸν ἐκεῖσε.

5

10

Ζῶς· ἀξιοῖ ὁ Ἀσκαλωνίτης τοῦτο περισπᾶσθαι· οὐχ ὑγιῶς· 57 μόνον γάρ ἐστι τὸ σῶς περισπώμενον ἀρσενικὸν εἰς ως λῆγον, εἴτε ἀπὸ τοῦ σῶος, γέγονεν, εἴτε ἀπὸ τοῦ σάος ὅπερ ἄμεινον. Εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ζωὸς ἀξιοῖ αὐτὸ περισπᾶσθαι, ἴστω ὅτι τὰ ἐξ ὀξείας καὶ βαρείας συναιρούμενα, πάλιν βαρύνονται. Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ εἰς ως μονοσύλλαβα εἰ ὀξύνονται περιττοσυλλαβῶς κλίνονται χωρὶς τοῦ ζώς· τοῦτο γὰρ ἀποβολῇ τοῦ σ ποιεῖ τὴν γενικήν, οἷον ὁ ζὼς τοῦ ζώ. Καὶ ταύτην ἔχει τὴν ἀπολογίαν ὅτι ἀπὸ συναιρέσεως γέγονεν· ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ ζωὸς ζωοῦ γέγονε κατὰ κράσιν ὁ ζὼς τοῦ ζῶ τῆς βαρείας καὶ ὀξείας εἰς ὀξείαν συναιρεθεῖσαν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑσταὼς ἑστώς. Ἐμάθομεν δὲ ὅτι 56a CPV 57 EFCPV 56a cf. Et. Sym. γ 135 Baldi. 57 usque ad βαρύνονται (l. 6) Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi pro περισπᾶσθαι praeb. περισπᾶν, ante ἀρσενικὸν (l. 2) add. μόνον, post ὅτι τὰ (l. 5) sic pergunt ἐκ βαρείας καὶ ὀξείας, πάλιν ... et in fine add. εἰ μέντοι κλίνει αὐτὸ ἰσοσυλλάβως εὑρεθήσεται· γίνεται δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ζῶ ζωός καὶ ζώς. ἰστέον ὅτι – τὰ συνῃρημένα cf. Hdn. II, p. 712, l. 12-14, 20-33. 4 ἀκρατότερον] ἀκρώτερον CP, ἀκρατώτερον V 5 τὸν1 ] τὸ P καὶ2 ] ὃ CPV 6 ζωρός] ζῶρος EF 57.1 ἀξιοῖ – τοῦτο] τοῦτο ἀξιοῖ ὁ Ἀσκαλωνίτης CPV 2 περισπώμενον] περισπωμένως E, μονοσύλλαβον add. CPV 4 δὲ] om. C ἐκ] om. CP 5 τὰ – βαρείας] καὶ βαρείας τὰς ἐξ ὀξείας CP 8 οἷον ] om. CPV 10 γέγονεν] γενικῆς EF ζωὸς ζωοῦ] ζῶος ζώου EF 11 ὀξείαν] βαρεῖαν CPV cum γρ. ὀξεί- s.l. συναιρεθεῖσαν ] συναιρεθέντων CPV 57 cf. Hdn. II, p. 712

 21

Davide Baldi

15

τὰ συνῃρημένα τὴν τῶν ἐντελῶν φυλάττουσιν κλίσιν, οἷον Ἑρμέας Ἑρμέου Ἑρμῆς Ἑρμοῦ, ὁ σῶος τοῦ σώου, ὁ σῶς τοῦ σῶ, ὁ ζωὸς τοῦ ζωοῦ, ὁ ζὼς τοῦ ζώ· ταῦτα εἶναι εἰ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν κατάληξιν ἐφύλαξαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐφύλαξαν κλίσιν· ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ ἐντελῆ αὐτῶν ἰσοσυλλάβως κλίνονται οὕτως καὶ τὰ συνῃρημένα. Ζωστήρ· τόπος τῆς Ἀττικῆς καὶ Ζώστριος Ἀπόλλων· 58 Εὐφορίων· οὗτος μὲν Ζωστήρ, Φοίβου πέδον. Φασὶ γὰρ τὴν Λητὼ ὠδίνουσαν ἐκεῖ τὴν ζώνην λῦσαι.

58 EFCPV 58 Et. Gen. AB s.v. ubi post πέδον (l. 2) add. καί· [Schol. in Lyc. 1278, 5] ἥδ'ἐπαπειλήσαν ζωστηρίῳ Ἀπόλλωνι et in fine pro ἐκεῖ (l. 3) praeb. ἐκεῖσε. 13 συνῃρημένα] συνηρῃμένα C ἐντελῶν] ἐντολῶν C EF ζωοῦ] ζώου EF εἶναι] om. EV εἰ ] καὶ add. CPV ἐτήρησαν CPV 58.1 τόπος ] τὸ EF τῆς] om. CPV 58 Euphor. fragm. 95

 22

15 ζωὸς] ζῶος 17 ἐφύλαξαν]

ETYMOLOGICUM SYMEONIS Ζ

Index avctorvm Ap. Rhod. Arg. I. 211 Callim. Aet. fragm. 43, 71 43, 117 Corn. cap. 2

XII. 313 XVI. 429

3 34

Hom. Il. V. 525 IX. 203 IX. 525 XXI. 465

14 56 13 12

Isocr. 16, 25

24

*, 35 1 2 28

Euphor. fragm. 9558 Eur. Iph. T. 69930 Eur. fragm. 18131 Hdn. II, p. 712

57

Hom. Od. VII. 119

29

Lycophr. Alex. 3739 Plat. Resp. 496D7 Soph. Trach. 69240 Theocr. Id. I. 2

42

Index glossarvm Ζάγκλονζ1 Ζαγρεύςζ2 Ζαὴν ἄνεμον ζ3 Ζαθέηνζ4 Ζάκοροςζ5 Ζάκοτοςζ6 Ζάληζ7 Ζάμολξιςζ8 Ζάραξζ9 Ζατρεύωζ10

Ζατρεφέωνζ11 Ζάφελοςζ13 Ζαφλεγέεςζ12 Ζαχρειήςζ14 Ζειαίζ15 Ζείδωροςζ16 Ζειράζ17 Ζέλειαζ18 Ζέμαζ19 Ζευγίσιονζ20



Davide Baldi

Ζεύγληζ21 Ζεῦγμαζ22 Ζευγνοίηνζ23 Ζεῦγοςζ24 Ζεῦξαιζ25 Ζευξιδίαζ26 Ζευξίλεωςζ27 Ζεύςζ28 Ζέφυροςζ29 Ζῆθοςζ31 Ζῇζ30 Ζῆλοςζ33 Ζημίαζ34 Ζηρυνθίαζ32 Ζήτηςζ35 Ζητηταίζ36 Ζητρεῖονζ37a Ζητῶζ37 Ζιζάνιονζ38 Ζόφοςζ39

Ζύγαστρονζ40 Ζυγομαχεῖνζ41 Ζυγόςζ42 Ζύμηζ43 Ζυμίτηςζ44 Ζῶζ45 Ζωγράφοςζ46 Ζώγρειζ47 Ζῴδιονζ48 Ζῴηζ49 Ζωήζ50 Ζῶμαζ51 Ζώνηζ52 Ζώντειονζ53 Ζῷονζ54 Ζωπυρῆσαιζ55 Ζωρότερονζ56 Ζώοντα καὶ ζώουσιν ζ56a Ζῶςζ57 Ζωστήρζ58



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova*

The Slavonic Catena also known as the ‘Commentary of Philo’ and the Greek Catena Hauniensis on the Song of Songs

Abstract – The exegetical treatise on the Song of Songs published by A. A. Alekseev in 2002 is not the Slavonic translation of Philo of Carpasia’s commentary, but a catena (CPG C 88) that combines excerpts taken from the commentaries and homilies of Philo (CPG 3810), Hippolytus of Rome (CPG 1871), Gregory of Nyssa (CPG 3158) and Origen (CPG 1433). The second half of the Slavonic compilation (Cant. 5, 14b – 8, 14) is not related to the epitome of Procopius of Gaza (CPG 7431), but to the catena Hauniensis on the Song of Songs (CPG C 85.3). In 2002, A. A. Alekseev published a Slavonic catena on the Song of Songs. 1 Although the text had not been printed earlier, its existence was already known before. Its precise nature, however, has long been unclear, and even after the publication by Alekseev some confusion remains concerning the identity of this work. 2 The title offered in the oldest manuscript and retained by Alekseev in his edition identifies the text as the commentary on the Song by Philo of Carpasia (Ɵилона Карпафиискаго тълкъ о пѣснехъ пѣснии). This commentary (CPG 3810) has been preserved in Greek and in other languages, but the form of the original, Greek text and the precise identity of its author are problematic. Philo might have been a bishop in Cypriote

* With gratitude the authors acknowledge the role played by Lara Sels in establishing contact between them. Note. All references to biblical passages follow the verse numbering of the Greek Septuagint text (which differs from the edition mentioned in the following note). 1 A. A. Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej v drevnej slavjano-russkoj pis’mennosti (Rossijskaja akademija nauk. Institut russkoj literatury), St Petersburg, 2002, p. 40-122. Earlier, Alekseev had edited particular sections: see further below. 2 See n. 13 below. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 109–144 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117146

Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

Carpasia in the fourth/fifth century. 3 Greek versions of his commentary are transmitted in a direct (but apparently reduced) tradition 4 as well as in the catenae on the Song. 5 In addition, four passages are cited by Cosmas the Indian traveler (Topogr. 10, 57-58). Next to a translation of the full text into Latin, made in the sixth century by Epiphanius the Scholar at the request of Cassiodorus, 6 a lesser known gɘ’ɘz version of the first part of the commentary exists (on Cant. 1, 2-14a). 7 The problem is that all of these traditions are very divergent: no uniform text emerges when one compares them amongst each other. 8 How the Slavonic text fits in 3 On the author, see now L. Van Hoof – P. Manafis – P. Van Nuffelen, Philo of Carpasia, Ecclesiastical History (CPG 7512), in RHE, 112 (2017), p. 35-52. Note that in the manuscripts of the Slavonic text edited by Alekseev, variation exists with regard to the geographical provenance of Philo: Карпафиискаго, Кариафиискаго and Пиавскаго. 4 The edition by M. Giacomelli (1772) was ultimately reprinted in PG 40, 9-153, which in turn is reprinted (with slight modification) by K. Chatziôannou, Ἡ ἀρχαία Κύπρος εἰς τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πηγάς, Τόμος Γ´ – Μέρος Α´. Γράμματα – Ἐπιστῆμαι (ἰατρική) – Τέχναι, ἀπὸ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν χρόνων μέχρι τοῦ 395 Μ.Χ. (Ἔκδοσις Ἱερᾶς Ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς Κύπρου ἐπὶ τῷ ἔτει παλιγγενεσίας), Lefkosia, 1975, p. 412-533. On the origins of this line of the tradition, see the remark by M. Cassin, in Semitica et Classica, 5 (2012), p. 277. 5 Excerpts can be found in almost all Greek catenae: see R. Ceulemans, Origène dans la catena Hauniensis sur le Cantique des cantiques, in S. Kaczmarek – H. Pietras – A. Dziadowiec (ed.), Origeniana Decima. Origen as Writer. Papers of the 10th International Origen Congress, Kraków, Poland, 31 August – 4 September 2009 (BETL, 244), Leuven – Paris – Walpole MA, 2011, p. 318-319. Only the excerpts included in the epitome of Procopius of Gaza have been edited critically; they are studied by J.-M. Auwers, L’interprétation du Cantique des cantiques à travers les chaînes exégétiques grecques (IPM, 56), Turnhout, 2011, p. 360-387. See also p. 14-21 of the edition mentioned in the following note and M. A. Barbàra, L’interpretazione del Cantico dei cantici attraverso l’Epitome di Procopio di Gaza (CChr.SG 67), in Adamantius, 23 (2017), p. 466 and passim. 6 Critical edition of the Latin translation: A. Ceresa-Gastaldo (ed.), Philonis Carpasii Commentarium in Canticum Canticorum ex antiqua versione latina Epiphanii Scholastici (Corona Patrum, 6), Torino, 1979. This Latin version is famous for its biblical lemma text: see R. Ceulemans, The Latin Patristic Reception of the Book of Canticles in the Hexapla, in VigChr, 63 (2009), p. 374. 7 A.  Tedros, La versione gɘ’ɘz (etiopica) del commento al Cantico dei Cantici 1,214a di Filone di Carpasia, in Laurentianum, 49 (2008), p. 71-119. According to Tedros (p. 90 n. 39), no link can be perceived between this translation and the gɘ’ɘz catena edited by S. Euringer, Ein äthiopischer Scholienkommentar zum Hohenlied, in Biblica, 18 (1937), p. 257-276 and 369-382. 8 Recent summaries of the research are offered by Auwers, Interprétation [see n. 5], p. 359-360 and M. A. Barbàra (ed.), Origene, Commentario al Cantico dei Cantici (Biblioteca patristica, 42), Bologna, 2005, p. 77-78. A critical edition of the Greek text (at one point envisaged but now abandoned by S. J. Voicu apud Tedros, Versione gɘ’ɘz [see n. 7], p. 71) is in preparation by Jean-Marie Auwers (Louvain-la-Neuve). The importance of that undertaking is underlined by Barbàra, Interpretatione [see n. 5], p. 477-478.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

precisely, and which version of Philo’s commentary it represents, has not yet been investigated. 9 In any case, that translation does not cover the complete commentary. The Slavonic title cited above is misleading: the text that follows it and was edited by Alekseev is not a Slavonic version of Philo’s commentary. It includes pieces of Philo’s work but these are combined with excerpts from other sources: the Slavonic text is a catena. This is even expressed in a title that one finds attested in a few younger manuscripts and which names Philo but also Hippolytus of Rome and St Gregory: Толкование премудрѣишаго Филона Пиавскаго и Ипполита папы Римскаго и свѧтаго Григориа. 10 Hippolytus (CPG 1871) and Gregory of Nyssa (CPG 3158) indeed explained the Song of Songs, and the Slavonic text in fact contains several excerpts from their exegesis, next to those taken from Philo’s commentary. Some of the excerpts, but certainly not all of them, are accompanied by attributions that identify (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) Philo, Hippolytus or Gregory as the author. Attributions to other authors cannot be found. 11 This clearly shows that the Slavonic text is a catena and not a commentary. 12 Nonetheless, because of the misleading title it continued to be characterised in secondary literature as the commentary by Philo. 13 A wide range of different suggestions with regard to the sources, methods and provenance of the Slavonic text have added to this confusion. More specifically, the origins of the work are heavily discussed (partly in view of a heated debate on the Slavonic versions of the Song’s biblical text). The present article surveys the state of the research on the Slavonic catena, and signals an important discovery that involves an earlier un See n. 55 below. Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 43 mentions four manuscripts that transmit this particular title, all of them from the seventeenth or eighteenth century. The first three of them had been used by Bonwetsch in 1902 (see further). 11 With the exception of one fragment that is attributed to Origen in two manuscripts: see below (with n. 56). 12 Already identified as such expressis verbis in 1980: A. A. Alekseev, “Pesn’ pesnej” v drevnej slavjano-russkoj pis’mennosti. Čast’ I: Vvedenie, teksty, kommentarii, spisok sokraščenij. Čast’ II: Issledovanie (Predvaritel’nye publikatsii, vyp. 133-134, Problemnaja gruppa po èksperimental’noj i prikladnoj lingvistike), Moskva, 1980, II, p. 41-42. Very recently, the Slavonic catena has indeed been included by J. Noret in the revised edition of CPG vol. IV, as C 88 (2018). 13 Confusion is kept alive by unfortunate terminological choices such as those of H. G. Lunt, Philo of Carpasia’s “Commentary on the Song of Songs” in Early Slavonic Translation, in Die Welt der Slaven, 49 (2004), p. 201-210. 9

10



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

known Greek catena on the Song and which is relevant to the question of the origins of the Slavonic work.

1. Editions and translations of the Slavonic catena The Slavonic catena was already known to N. Bonwetsch, when in 1897 he prepared the edition of Hippolytus of Rome’s commentary on the Song of Songs. This text, which does not explain the Song beyond verse 3, 7, has been preserved not in Greek (apart from a short excerpt and a later paraphrase) but in several oriental translations. 14 Bonwetsch assembled fragments from many of those versions; among them, he included the – until then unknown – Slavonic tradition, i.e.: the catena that is the topic of the present article. 15 He consulted three witnesses of the Slavonic text: MS Moscow, Russian State Library (RSL), Φ 304 (= collection of the Trinity Lavra of St Sergius), 370 from the sixteenth century, and MSS Moscow, State Historical Museum (SHM), Synodal collection, 548 and 673 (both from the seventeenth century). 16 Although he did not comment on the nature of the Slavonic text, his citing of the abovementioned title that includes the names of Philo and Gregory, together with his frequent mention (in the apparatus) of attributions to Hippolytus, clearly brings forward the compilatory character of the work. Bonwetsch translated (without an edition but with a critical apparatus) the sixteen fragments that he found attributed to Hippolytus in the Slavonic catena (nos II-XVII in his edition). 17 In 1901, N. Marr published the same fragments, together with a few other ones, from another witness of the catena: MS Moscow, SHM, Uvarov collection, 31 (formerly MS 579 of the Tsarskij Library). 18 Com14 References in CPG 1871, to which can be added: V. Saxer, Marie Madeleine dans le commentaire d’Hippolyte sur le Cantique des Cantiques, in Revue bénédictine, 101 (1991), p. 220-221. 15 See G. N. Bonwetsch (ed.), Hippolytus, Werke. Erster Band: Exegetische und homiletische Schriften. Erste Hälfte: Die Kommentare zu Daniel und zum Hohenliede (GCS Hippolytus, 1), Leipzig, 1897, p. XXI-XXII and 344-359. 16 All three codices are known to Alekseev: cf. Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 42 (nos 10 and 16-17). 17 An accompanying study was published as G. N. Bonwetsch, Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts zum Buche Daniel und Hohen Liede (TU, 16.2 = nF 1.2), Leipzig, 1897. 18 N. Marr (ed.), Ippolit. Tolkovanie pesni pesnej. Gruzinskij tekst po rukopisi X veka, perevod s armjanskogo (s odnoj paleografičeskoju tablitseju) (Teksty i razyskanija



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

parison with the then newly discovered Georgian version of Hippolytus’ work allowed Marr furthermore to identify five fragments in the Slavonic catena – without attribution and therefore not included by Bonwetsch – as additional excerpts from Hippolytus’ text, and to expose Bonwetsch’s fragments V-VI as inauthentic. 19 On the basis of Marr’s edition and the four manuscript witnesses in question, Bonwetsch thereupon translated anew (again, with a critical apparatus) the new total of nineteen excerpts from Hippolytus’ commentary preserved in the Slavonic catena. 20 In 1980, Alekseev published the lemma text of the catena, without any exegetical materials. 21 He founded his edition on MS Moscow, RSL, Φ 205 (= collection of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities), 171, a witness from the late thirteenth century and therefore significantly older than the ones used before. 22 The manuscript ends mutilated and breaks off in the section on Cant. 5, 4a; for the remaining part Alekseev relied on MS Moscow, RSL, Φ 113 (= Volokolamsk collection), 13 from the sixteenth century. He furthermore identified several other copies, the variants of six of which he documented in the apparatus. 23 The edition was accompanied by a brief study which would turn out to form the nucleus of Alekseev’s later publications on the catena. 24 po armjano-gruzinskoj filologii, 3; = Izdanija fakul’teta vostočnykh jazykov Imperatorskago S.-Peterburgskago universiteta, 5), St Petersburg, 1901. 19 Four other fragments that Marr’s Slavonic manuscript attributed to Hippolytus (Ippolit [see n. 18], p. XXXII-XXXIII) were later exposed by Bonwetsch to be excerpts from Philo and Gregory (see p. 14-15 of the publication mentioned in the following note). 20 G. N. Bonwetsch (ed.), Hippolyt’s Kommentar zum Hohenlied. Auf Grund von N. Marrs Ausgabe des grusinischen Textes (TU, 23.2 = nF 8.2), Leipzig, 1902. 21 “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], I, p. 9-29 (odd pages). At this point it is worth mentioning that the biblical lemmata of the catena do not add up to the complete version of the Song: entire verses and parts of other verses are absent. See the overview (with Greek verse numbers) in F. J. Thomson, The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament, in J. Krašovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible. The International Symposium in Slovenia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 289), Ljubljana – Sheffield, 1998, p. 836-837. On this lemma text, see further below. 22 In fact, this manuscript is the oldest known witness of the catena. 23 Some of those copies only contain the catena’s lemma text, without the exegetical sections. See further below on this matter. 24 “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 31-43. These pages were further developed in Alekseev’s later studies, most notably those from 1988 and 2002 mentioned elsewhere in this article (see our notes 25 and 1 respectively). At this point it can be mentioned that Alekseev authored around a dozen publications on the Slavonic Bible versions of the Song of Songs between 1980 and 2002, with some overlap between them. We only mention those most relevant to the topic at hand.



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

In 1988, Alekseev edited the exegetical sections on Cant. 1, 3ab and 1, 1a (in that order) from MS Moscow, RSL, Φ 205, 171. 25 That partial edition closes a longer study of the catena, which includes, amongst other topics, a survey of all known manuscript witnesses and a study of the provenance of the exegetical fragments. 26 The survey lists 22 manuscripts of the catena. 27 Some of them are complete, others are partial witnesses, but all of them are East Slav codices from the late thirteenth to the eighteenth century. A 23rd manuscript – Moscow, RSL, Φ 310 (= Undol’skij collection), 1 from the fifteenth century – is particular in the sense that it transmits both the full catena and a Slavonic version of the Song reconstructed from the biblical lemmata excerpted from the catena (f. 269-295 resp. 449-451). 28 Isolating the lemmata from the catena and putting them together to form a continuous biblical text, this manuscript anticipates what shortly afterwards (in the late fifteenth century) would be done by the redactors of the Gennadian Bible. Alekseev’s survey indeed lists six further manuscripts that contain only the lemma text of the catena (nos 24-28 and 30), five of them (nos 24-28) being witnesses of the Gennadian Bible 29 – again, all of them are East Slav codices. 30 25 A. A. Alekseev, K istorii russkoj perevodčeskoj školy XII v., in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, 41 (1988), p. 194-196. 26 In fact, all of the manuscripts mentioned in the survey (K istorii [see n. 25], p. 155-158) had already been listed by Alekseev in his Perevodčeskoe nasledie Kirilla i Mefodija i ego istoričeskie sud’by (Pesn’ pesnej v drevnej slavjanskoj pis’mennosti), Avtore­ ferat, Leningrad, 1984, p. 10. That list in turn builds on his “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 31-36. The three codices at the end of the latter list (p. 35-36) that contain only small fragments were not included in the 1988 survey. 27 Still other witnesses might exist: see the last two codices suggested by N. Bonwetsch apud A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Erster Theil: Die Überlieferung und der Bestand der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Bearbeitet unter Mitwirkung von E. Preuschen, Leipzig, 1893, p. 896. 28 Further on this manuscript: Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 838839 (and n. 1101). 29 The numbers refer to K istorii [see n. 25], p. 155-158. In the same study, Alekseev printed the lemma text from the Gennadian Bible and compared it in an apparatus with eleven regular witnesses of the full catena (p. 190-194; compare with his 1980 study mentioned in n. 21 above). The inadvertent inclusion of some exegetical phrases of the catena into the Gennadian Bible is reported by Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 839 (repeated in F. J. Thomson, A Brief Survey of the History of the Church Slavonic Bible from its Cyrillomethodian Origins until its Final Form in the Elizabethan Bible of 1751, in Slavica Gandensia, 33/2 [2006], p. 55). 30 Note, however, that Alekseev took the features of Middle Bulgarian orthography in both manuscripts that only contain the lemma text without being witnesses of the Gennadian Bible (nos 23 = 29 and 30 in his list) to indicate that they might depend – whether directly or through an intermediary copy – on a Middle Bulgarian



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Finally, in 2002 Alekseev published the full text of the catena. 31 He diplomatically edited the text from MSS Moscow, RSL, Φ 205, 171 (up to Cant. 5, 4a) and Moscow, RSL, Φ 113, 13 (for the remaining section), occasionally citing variants from some other witnesses in the apparatus. 32

2. The origins of the catena: diverging opinions While a printed text of the complete Slavonic catena may now be available, its origins have proven hard to unravel and have caused much debate. Bonwetsch refrained from commenting on this matter, 33 and only much later discussion would spark. Fuel for this debate was found in the observation (a) that all complete and most partial witnesses are East Slav manuscripts (but see n. 30 above), and (b) that the lemma text of the catena shows awareness of the earliest Slavonic translation of the Greek Song. 34 The interpretation of these observations has caused dissent; the

model. This might retrace the extraction of the lemmata to fourteenth-century Bulgaria: cf. Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 44 and earlier his Perevodčeskoe [see n. 26], p. 10 and his Tekstologija slavjanskoj Biblii, St Petersburg (= Textgeschichte der sla­vischen Bibel [Bausteine zur slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte. Neue Folge, Reihe A: Slavistische Untersuchungen, 24], Köln – Weimar – Wien), 1999, p. 177. Alekseev more specifically linked this extraction to the intellectual circle of patriarch Euthymius of Tărnovo in his Perevodčeskoe [see n. 26], p. 13 and Der Stellenwert der Textologie bei der Erforschung altkirchenslavischer Übersetzungstexte, in Die Welt der Slaven, 31 (1986), p. 428. 31 See n. 1 above. The edition is preceded by a study of the manuscripts that essentially takes up the one from 1988 mentioned above (which in turn relies on Alekseev’s work from 1980). No new witnesses are added to the 29 he listed earlier. (The survey lists thirty witnesses, but MS Moscow, RSL, Φ 310, 1 is counted twice: see above.) Throughout the introduction, Alekseev articulated his views on the relations between some manuscripts, but he did not crystallize them in the establishment of the text. In fact, elsewhere he described the oldest witness on which his edition relies as being “kein Kronzeuge für die Rekonstruktion des Archetypus” and representing “einen jüngeren Textbefund” (Stellenwert [see n. 30], p. 423, on MS Moscow, RSL, Φ 205, 171). Earlier, some stemmatological hints had already been articulated by Bonwetsch, Hippolyt’s Kommentar [see n. 20], p. 18-19. 32 A very (and arguably too) critical appraisal of the edition was articulated by Lunt, Philo [see n. 13], p. 207 and 209. 33 Bonwetsch, Hippolyt’s Kommentar [see n. 20], p. 19: “die Zeit der altsla­visch­ en Übersetzung vermag ich nicht zu bestimmen.” 34 For a recent introduction to the Slavonic versions of the Song of Songs, see A. M. Bruni, Old Church Slavonic Translations [of the books of Ruth, Canticles, Qohelet, Lamentations and Esther], in A. Lange – E. Tov (ed.), Textual History of the Hebrew Bible, Volume 1C. Writings, Leiden – Boston MA, 2017, p. 419-420.



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

importance of the second aspect explains why the debate has focused on the lemma text of the catena. 2.1 Biblical text In his studies of the catena, Alekseev repeatedly stressed the exclusively East Slav nature of its documented transmission. He paired it with citations of the text in East Slav works, while contrasting it with the absence of citations by South Slav authors prior to the fourteenth century he perceived. Together with his linguistic and stylistic interpretation of the lemma text, this led Alekseev to consider that lemma text as an originally East Slav translation from the second half of the twelfth century. 35 He saw the lemma text as a new translation, made directly from the Greek biblical text; he did not deny but played down the resemblances with the oldest Slavonic version of the Song. 36 This view met with severe criticism from H. G. Lunt. 37 Finding Alekseev’s analysis of the linguistic evidence and his downplay of the resemblances with the earliest Slavonic version unsatisfactory, he stressed the fact that several works that have been transmitted only in East Slav manuscripts are known to have originated not in the East Slav world but in Symeonic Bulgaria. Correspondingly, Lunt – as well as F. J. Thomson – held the biblical text of the catena to be a revision, made in Bulgaria in the tenth century, of the oldest Slavonic version of the Song. 38 35 “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 11; Tekstologija [see n. 30], p. 177; Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 49 and 60. Alekseev’s view on the details and realia is not always consistent. In his earliest publication, he proposed that the East Slav translator operated not in Kievan Rus’, but in Constantinople or on Mount Athos (“Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 43, 60, 63 and elsewhere), but later he changed that view (see n. 49 below). 36 Cf., for example, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 59. Alekseev articulated these insights mainly in: “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12]; Perevodčeskoe [see n. 26]; Stellenwert [see n. 30]; K istorii [see n. 25]; and Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], but also mentioned them in several other articles. 37 H. G. Lunt, The OCS Song of Songs: One Translation or Two?, in Die Welt der Slaven, 30 (1985), p. 292-293 and 296-297. See also Lunt’s reply on Alekseev, Stellenwert [see n. 30], in Die Welt der Slaven, 31 (1986), p. 437-438. Later on, the debate between both scholars lost courtesy, without many meaningful arguments being advanced, witness their discussion in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, 51 (1999): G. G. Lant [H. G. Lunt], Ešče raz o mnimykh perevodakh v Drevnej Rusi (Po povodu stat’i A. A. Alekseeva), p. 435-441 and A. A. Alekseev, Po povodu stat’i G. G. Lanta “Ešče raz o mnimykh perevodakh v Drevnej Rusi”, p. 442-445. 38 See F. J. Thomson, “Made in Russia”: A Survey of the Translations Alledgedly Made in Kievan Russia, in G. Birkfellner (ed.), Millennium Russiae Christianae. Tausend Jahre Christliches Russland 988-1988. Vorträge des Symposiums anläßlich der Tausendjahrfeier der Christianisierung Russlands in Münster vom 5. bis 9. Juli 1988



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Secondary literature’s focus on the biblical lemma text of the catena can be explained by its overall importance to the Slavonic biblical tradition. 39 As mentioned earlier, a few manuscripts excerpted the lemmata from the catena to transmit it as a new Slavonic version of the Song of Songs, and in the same way such a version entered the Gennadian Bible. 40 Through the latter, famous Bible, it found its way – heavily altered – into the Ostrog (or Ostrih) Bible. 41 Traces of the catena’s lemma text occur furthermore in citations of the Song by patriarch Euthymius of Tărnovo 42 and by other authors. 43 In addition, it was one of the sources on which the Slavonic translator of a Greek catena on the Song (CPG C 81 B2) relied when translating the biblical lemmata of his Greek source. 44 In all of those cases, the lemma text of the catena (Schriften des Komitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Förderung der slawischen Studien, 16), Köln, 1993, p. 312, as well as Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 836-837. 39 Cf.  Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 837 (on the catena’s lemma text): “Of all the versions of the Song of Songs this is the most important.” 40 See above (with n. 29). Note that this way of singling out the biblical lemma text has also been documented for another Slavonic catena on the Song: see below. 41 The version of the Song in the Ostrog Bible has been described as a new version, created through a strong revision of the Gennadian version with the help of two other Slavonic ones as well as the Greek text. See A. A. Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej v Ostrožskoj biblii. Sostav i istočniki teksta, in Fedorovskie čtenija (1981 [publ. 1985]), p. 116-124 (non vidimus, but the conclusions are summarised in Alekseev, Stellenwert [see n. 30], p. 426 and 431); Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 839-840 (summarised in Brief Survey [see n. 29], p. 64); and Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 185-186. 42 See A. A. Alekseev, Tsitaty iz Pesni pesnej v slavjanskoj pis’mennosti (tsitaty i tekstologija), in Starobălgarska literatura, 18 (1985), p. 80; Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 838; and M. Dimitrova, The Old Testament Commentaries in Medieval South Slavonic Manuscripts. Metatext, Context, and Translation, in S. H. Aufrère et al. (ed.), On the Fringe of Commentary. Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures (OLA, 232), Leuven – Paris – Walpole MA, 2014, p. 415. 43 Alekseev, Stellenwert [see n. 30], p. 420-421. 44 This translation was presumably made in a South Slav milieu in the late fourteenth century (in Tărnovo or an adjacent monastery) or rather in the early fifteenth century on Mount Athos (in the Hilandar monastery?). On the biblical lemma text, cf. Dimitrova, Old Testament Commentaries [see n. 42], p. 415-416 and M. Di­ mitrova, Biblical Quotations in the Late South Slavonic Translation of Catena B2 with Commentaries on the Song of Songs, in A. Kulik et al. (ed.), The Bible in Slavic Tradition (Studia Judaeoslavica, 9), Leiden, 2016, p. 234-235. Five manuscripts testify to the isolation of the lemma text of this catena, to form a new Slavonic version of the Song: see M. Dimitrova, Tălkuvanija na Pesen na pesnite v răkopis 2/24 ot Rilskata sveta obitel (Biblioteka Otec’ Neofit’’ Rylskyj, 4), Sofia, 2012, p. 52-54. The very same lemma text ended up being used in the partial Bible edition of Matthew ‘the Tenth’, as reports Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 838.



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

published by Alekseev is conflated with readings from other Slavonic Bible versions; a similar phenomenon occurs in the manuscript transmission of those versions, which at times exhibits influence from the biblical text of the catena. 45 2.2 Exegetical section The important role played by the lemma text of the Slavonic catena explains why it was in the focus of research on the origins of the compilation. As a rule, less attention was paid to the exegetical part. Studies that do mention the commentary sections explicitly, as a rule reflect the discussion over the origins of the lemma text. 46 In several publications, Alekseev expressed his opinion that the exegetical section of the catena be an originally Slav compilation. 47 From the fact that the lemma text betrays influence from the commentary text and vice versa, and that the lemma and the exegesis share some errors, he concluded that the biblical text and the exegetical part form an inseparable unity. That assumption in turn brought him to conclude that both sections of the catena originated together. Moreover, he believed that all of the source texts excerpted into the catena had first been translated into Slavonic separately, by two or more East Slavs. 48 Shortly afterwards – still in Alekseev’s view – an East Slav compiler (who was not one of those translators, which would explain inconsistencies in the structure of the catena), excerpted the Slavonic translations that had just been made 45 Thomson, Slavonic Translation [see n. 21], p. 838. A case in point is singled out by Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 14-15. 46 For a recent such study of the section on Cant. 4, 9ab, see M. Dimitrova, The Earliest Slavonic Translation of the Song of Songs from Greek: A Possible Influence from the Vulgate?, in Scripta & e-Scripta, 16-17 (2017), p. 63-65. 47 For what follows, compare “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 37-43; Perevodčeskoe [see n. 26], p. 12; Stellenwert [see n. 30], p. 428-435; K istorii [see n. 25], p. 167-177; Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 51-60. 48 Cf.  K istorii [see n. 25], p. 167-177 and Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 51-61. This conviction (which marks a departure from his earliest suggestion in “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 43 and elsewhere) was voiced on a general level. In more specific terms, Alekseev only proposed a pre-existing Slavonic translation of Gregory of Nyssa’s homilies on the Song, which he believed to have been of poor quality and therefore perhaps produced by a disciple or a young and unexperienced scribe. No such translation of Gregory’s full work is known: see L. Sels, The Slav Reception of Gregory of Nyssa’s Works: An Overview of Early Slavonic Translations, in V. H. Drecoll – M. Berghaus (ed.), Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor Treatises on Trinitarian Theology and Apollinarism: Proceedings of the 11th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (Tübingen, 17-20 September 2008) (Suppl. VigChr, 106), Leiden, 2011, p. 599-600.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

and compiled an originally Slavonic catena. 49 This process took place in the middle or the second half of the twelfth century, so Alekseev, and in its course a new Slavonic translation of the biblical text would have been made (see above). It is this view that Alekseev ultimately advanced in his 2002 edition. 50 A very different hypothesis with regard to the origins of the Slavonic text was put forward by Thomson, who identified the exegetical text as the translation of an untraced Greek catena. 51 This assumption was based on linguistic evidence and the broader picture of Greek-Slavonic translation activities. Following a suggestion by H. G. Lunt, Thomson placed the translation in tenth-century Symeonic Bulgaria. 52 Combined with both those scholars’ opinions on the origins of the lemma text of the Slavonic catena, this view stipulates that in the tenth century the unidentified Greek catena was translated into Slavonic and added to the earliest Slavonic translation of the Greek Song of Songs, which was revised on the occasion. 53 Recent literature tends to side with Thomson and Lunt in seeing the Slavonic catena as a translation, made in tenth-century Bulgaria, of a hitherto unknown Greek catena on the Song, but without necessarily Early on, Alekseev argued that the East Slav compiler had worked on Athos or in Constantinople (see n. 35 above), but later he abandoned that hypothesis, suggesting – on the basis of the assumed poor quality of the translation of Gregory’s work – that neither the translators nor the compiler operated in the said regions, notwithstanding their access to several Greek sources (K istorii [see n. 25], p. 175-177 ≈ Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 59-61). 50 He did, however, raise the possibility of a translation made directly from a Greek catena: Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 54 (≈ K istorii [see n. 25], p. 172). 51 Cf.  Thomson, “Made in Russia” [see n. 38], p. 312, and F. J. Thomson, The Three Slavonic Translations of the Greek Catena on Job. With an Appendix on the Author of the First Prologue to the First Translation: Polychronius or Photius?, in Kulik et al. (ed.), Slavic Tradition [see n. 44], p. 154. Earlier, see F. J. Thomson, The Nature of the Reception of Christian Byzantine Culture in Russia in the Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries and Its Implications for Russian Culture, in Slavica Gandensia, 5 (1978), p. 110, with the specification offered in his The Reception of Byzantine Culture in Mediaeval Russia (Variorum Collected Studies Series), Aldershot, 1999, p. 2 of the addenda to the reprinted article. General opposition against Alekseev’s thesis is also breathed by the two articles of H. G. Lunt, although he did not formulate as concrete a counter hypothesis as did Thomson: OCS Song [see n. 37], p. 232-304 and Philo [see n. 13], p. 201-210. 52 Cf.  Lunt, OCS Song [see n. 37], p. 232-304. Note, however, that later Lunt allowed for the possibility that the translation was made “in some Balkan or Holy Land monastery before about 1050” (Philo [see n. 13], p. 207 n. 27). 53 Especially Lunt, Philo [see n. 13], p. 201-210 and (in addition to the earlier references) Thomson, Brief Survey [see n. 29], p. 51. 49



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

agreeing with their characterisation of the lemma text as a revision instead of a new translation. 54

3. The supposed link between the Slavonic catena and the epitome of Procopius The tendency of post-Bonwetsch research to focus on the lemma text of the Slavonic catena has led to a relative disregard of the exegetical section. As a consequence, the identification of its contents and its sources leaves much to be desired. One aspect, at least, that has been clear since Bonwetsch’s research, is the fact that the Slavonic text is a catena (see also n. 12 above). Even the quickest glance at the text printed by Alekseev (2002) confirms the compilatory nature of the text, notwithstanding its title that identifies it as Philo’s commentary on the Song. The lay-out easily allows the reader to appreciate the catena structure. Most telling in this regard are the attributions that Alekseev edited from his two manuscript sources and which name not only Philo, but also Hippolytus and Gregory as sources of particular fragments. This agrees with the alternative title (cited above), which identifies those three authors as the sources for the text. Several passages in the Slavonic catena, whether with an attribution or anonymous, have indeed been found to belong to the exegesis of Philo of Carpasia (CPG 3810), Hippolytus of Rome (CPG 1871) or Gregory of Nyssa (CPG 3158). 55 However, matters turn out to be more complicated. The attentive reader of Alekseev’s edition notices that two witnesses from the fifteenth century once – and once only – attribute a passage to 54 See, for example, T. Slavova, Biblejski prevodi, in A. Miltenova (ed.), Istorija na bălgarskata srednovekovna literatura, Sofia, 2008, p. 100 and Dimitrova, Old Testament Commentaries [see n. 42], p. 409. A way of overcoming the deadlock in the discussion might be to approach the lemma text as a ‘secondary’ or ‘dependent translation’: see M. Dimitrova, New Testament Quotations in a Medieval Slavonic Manuscript with Commentaries on the Song of Songs, in M. Bauks – W. Horowitz – A. Lange – B. Hene (ed.), Between Text and Text. The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements, 6), Göttingen, 2013, p. 205 and Dimitrova, Earliest Slavonic Translation [see n. 46], p. 60-61. 55 Only in the case of Hippolytus has the catena transcended research on Slavonic literature (notably in the form of Bonwetsch’s studies). Publications on the Greek textual tradition of Philo and Gregory do not mention the existence of a Slavonic tradition. The absence of any references in the said CPG entries is illustrative, in this regard.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Origen (Оригеново, on Cant. 5, 14b). 56 Alekseev did not retain this attribution in the main text but referred it to the apparatus (p. 113). Nonetheless, it is on the basis of that reference that already in his first study of the catena and its sources, he had mentioned Origen’s name, next to those of Philo, Hippolytus and Gregory. 57 In that context, the notoriously crippled and indirect transmission of Origen’s exegesis of the Song of Songs (CPG 1432-1434) had urged Alekseev to survey the corpus of Greek catenae in an attempt to identify a further source of the Slavonic catena. 58 Driven by that research, he moved on to replace Origen’s name with that of Procopius of Gaza, as the fourth source of the Slavonic compilation. 59 The epitome on the Song of Songs attributed to Procopius of Gaza (CPG 7431 = C 82) is a Greek exegetical compilation that contains excerpts from authors from the third century (Origen) down to Procopius himself (c. 475-528). It is probable but not certain that the work depends on an earlier, lost compilation. 60 Ever since the standard 1902 study of catenae on the Song, 61 scholarship has assigned a central position to the epitome: remains of otherwise lost commentaries on the Song are reconstructed on its basis, 62 the identity of other catenae is often expressed in relation to Procopius’ text, 63 and it is the only exegetical compilation on the Song to have been edited in its entirety. 64 It is this epitome Alekseev came to identify as the fourth source of the Slavonic catena (although none of the manuscripts mention Proco56 The manuscripts in question are nos 8 and 12 listed in Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 41-42 ≈ K istorii [see n. 25], p. 157-158. 57 Alekseev, “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 41-42. In later publications and having advanced his study of the sources, Alekseev would still single out the name of Origen: K istorii [see n. 25], p. 163 ≈ Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 43. 58 Alekseev, “Pesn’ pesnej” [see n. 12], II, p. 42-43. 59 First in Alekseev, Perevodčeskoe [see n. 26], p. 11. Here and later (see e.g. n. 67 below), Alekseev – surprisingly – identified the author of the text in question as a pseudoProcopius. Later on he corrected this error (Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 58 and elsewhere). 60 See p. XVII of J.-M. Auwers’ edition mentioned in n. 64 below. 61 M.  Faulhaber, Hohelied-, Proverbien- und Prediger-Catenen (Theologische Studien der Leo-Gesellschaft, 4), Wien, 1902, p. 1-73. 62 Such is the case for, amongst others, Origen (CPG 1433). 63 For example, the catena of Polychronius (CPG C 83) and the catena Cantabrigiensis (CPG C 85.1) have been described as daughter compilations depending on Procopius’ epitome (while this is in fact not certain). 64 It was edited twice: A. Mai’s 1837 edition (reprinted in PG 17, 253-288 and PG 872, 1545-1753) is replaced by J.-M. Auwers (ed.), Procopii Gazaei Epitome in Canticum canticorum (CCSG, 67), Turnhout, 2011.



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

pius’ name: neither in the title, nor as an attribution in the text or the margin). Alekseev surmised that through Procopius’ text on the Song of Songs, excerpts from Origen were included in the Slavonic catena. 65 In his more in-depth study of the catena’s exegetical contents (1988) and in his edition (2002), he identified the same epitome as the source of excerpts not only from Origen, but also from other patristic authors: he identified Procopius’ epitome as the source of around a dozen fragments from Origen (labeled Ориг[ена]-Пр[окопия] in the edition), about as many from Philo of Carpasia (Фил.-Пр.), a single one from Cyril of Alexandria (Кирилл.-Пр.) 66 and some ten other ones that he was unable to identify (Аноним-Пр.). In this way, he retraced a total of 32 (short) excerpts to Procopius. 67 In conclusion, Alekseev identified four sources from which excerpts ended up in the Slavonic catena: the commentaries/homilies of Philo, Hippolytus and Gregory, and Procopius’ epitome. 68 Remarkably, all of the excerpts that Alekseev retraced to Procopius, occur only in the second half of the catena: he identified verse 5, 14 as the point from whereon excerpts from the epitome had started to be included. 69 In this way, one can distinguish two sections in the Slavonic catena, with Cant. 5, 14 being the point of transition. 70 This observation stirs interest, since the very same verse also marks a shift in one particular 65 See n. 59 above. In putting forward this view, Alekseev was followed by Thomson: Reception [see n. 51], addenda p. 2 and “Made in Russia” [see n. 38], p. 94. 66 The mistaken mention of Cyril of Jerusalem in Lunt, Philo [see n. 13], p. 202 relies on a lapsus in Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 62 (vs correctly elsewhere, e.g. p. 58). On the place of Cyril, see n. 82 below. 67 Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 58 (≈ K istorii [see n. 25], p. 174). Alekseev’s identifications rely on the edition by Mai (see n. 64 above). 68 For some 25 passages (marked by an M-dash in his edition), Alekseev was unable to find a Greek parallel: cf. Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 58 (≈ K istorii [see n. 25], p. 174) and 62. 69 Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 58 (≈ K istorii [see n. 25], p. 174). In an attempt to explain this observation, he suggested – in line with his abovementioned views on the catena’s origins – that towards the end of the Song, the Slavic compiler pursued a quick finish and started to prefer shorter excerpts from Procopius’ compilation over more extensive ones from Philo’s commentary. 70 The first section concludes with the excerpt Филѡ(͠ н). Чревоу быти мню с͠ ты(х) ликъ ч(с͠ )ть, и ꙗко и кер’стица слонова … въ н͠б(с)наѧ въсходѧ(т) въ цр(с͠ )тво (on Cant. 5, 14a), while the second starts with the excerpt Самѳѵра зрѧ ꙗвлѧе(т) же ср(д)ца нашего вышенїе смыслити же и зрѣти, идѣже съкровище положено, тамо и лицоу почивати … ꙗко не имѣти мотыль ѿ закона (on Cant. 5, 14b – see the paenultimate table of the present article), both on p. 113 of the edition. The transition coincides with the catena’s only attribution to Origen (mentioned above). For the fishhooks, see n. 106 below.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Greek catena on the Song: the catena Hauniensis (which was only discovered after Alekseev’s edition had been published). 71 In the epitome of Procopius, on the other hand, Cant. 5, 14 is not a section marker, nor is it in any other catena on the Song. Further comparison between the Slavonic catena (from hereon: Slav) and the catena Hauniensis (= Haun), confirms that many parallels exist between both compilations. 72 In fact, every single fragment in Slav that Alekseev believed to have been taken from Procopius’ epitome turns out to be closer to Haun than to Procopius. 73 The exegesis of two consecutive lemmata proves this sufficiently: Slav

Haun

Procopius’ epitome

on Cant. 7, 14bc Всѧкъ ви(д), плѡ(д) творѧи, при двере(х) быти г͠летсѧ. (p. 120, identified as ‘anon.Procop.’ by Alekseev)

Πάντα τὰ ἤδη καρποφοροῦντα πρὸς ταῖς θύραις εἶναι λέγεται. (f. 150)

Tὰ ἤδη καρποφοροῦντα πρὸς ταῖς θύραις φησί· δηλοῖ δὲ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν καὶ νέαν ἀνθοῦντας. (no. 340; cf. PG 872, 1737B) 74 Excerpt from Philo of Carpasia (no. 341)

deest

deest

71 R. Ceulemans, A Catena Hauniensis Discovered for the Book of Canticles, in ETL, 85 (2009), p. 63-70. For the role of verse 5, 14, see p. 65-66 as well as Ceulemans, Origène [see n. 5], p. 311-312. 72 In all of the following tables, Slav is always cited after Alekseev’s edition, and Haun (unedited) after MS Copenhagen, Gamle Kongelige Samling, 6,2° (s. X), f. 142v151. Citations from this manuscript are diplomatic in the sense that punctuation and abbreviations are tacitly adjusted resp. completed. In all of the tables, the respective verse of the Song of Songs is always identified on the basis of Haun (and not Slav or any other text included in the table). In the exegetical sections, we italicize only those biblical citations that take up the lemma in question or that need to be highlighted in order to appreciate the fragment’s syntax. 73 In the table we cite Procopius from Auwers, Procopii Epitome [see n. 64]. To facilitate comparison with Alekseev’s edition, we also quote the reference to the now superseded PG edition. 74 Both Auwers (Procopii Epitome [see n. 64], p. lxxxix) and Barbàra (Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 477 and 492) suggested to attribute this excerpt to Origen. From another perspective, a similar claim was advanced by Ceulemans (in Byz, 82 [2012], p. 502).



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

Slav on Cant. 8, 1a Мти е(с҃) невѣстѣ вышнїи, истачаѧ млеко и ме(д). Млекѡ (ж) ѿ съсцѫ има(т) роженіѧ. (p. 120, identified as ‘Philo’ by Alekseev) Ꙗвлѧе(т) оубо, ꙗко вышнїи Ер(с͡ )лимъ истачае(т) млеко, в не(м)же ꙗсти хоще(т) невѣста съ женихѡ(м). Млекѡ (ж) не мни з(д) ѣ мѧгкїа пища, но нелестное и питателное. (p. 120, identified as ‘anon.-Procop.’ by Alekseev) Ос͠ щаетсѧ пища невѣстьі съвъкѫплѧющи(с) женихоу, имъ(ж) н͠нѣ молитсѧ снитїѧ Сп͠сова Цр͠ кви бьіти къ иоудѣистѣи, да съсе(т) Б(ди)цѫ. (p. 120, identified as ‘CyrilProcop.’ by Alekseev)

Haun

Procopius’ epitome

Μήτηρ ἐστὶ τῆς νύμφης ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ ῥέουσα μέλι καὶ γάλα· τὸ δὲ γάλα ἀπὸ μαστῶν ἔχει τὴν γένεσιν. (f. 150)

Τῆς ἄνω, φησίν, Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἧς ἡ ἐπὶ γῆς σύμβολον, ἐπὶ γῆς κειμένη, ῥεούσης γάλα καὶ μέλι,

Δηλοῖ οὖν ὅτι καὶ ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ῥέει γάλα, ἐν ᾧ συνεστιᾶσθαι βούλεται ἡ νύμφη τῷ νυμφίῳ. Τὸ δὲ γάλα ἐνταῦθα μὴ λάβῃς ἐπὶ τῆς ἀπαλωτέρας τροφῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀδόλου καὶ τρυφητικῆς. (f. 150)

ἐν ᾗ βούλεται τῷ νυμφίῳ συνεστιᾶσθαι· γάλα δὲ νῦν, ἡ ἄδολος καὶ τρυφικὴ τροφή (no. 342; cf. PG 872, 1737C) 75

Ἁγιάζεται οὖν ἡ τροφὴ τῆς νύμφης συνευωχουμένης τῷ νυμφίῳ· εἰς ἣν εὔχεται τὴν ἐπιδημίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡ ἐκκλησία γενέσθαι πρὸς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, ἵνα θηλάσῃ τὴν θεοτόκον. (f. 150)

Ἁγιάζεται οὖν ἡ τροφὴ τῆς νύμφης συνευωχουμένου Χριστοῦ· ἤγουν εὔχεται τὴν ἐπιδημίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἡ ἐκκλησία γενέσθαι, κατὰ πρόνοιαν τοῦ δόντος αὐτὸν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πατρός, ἵνα θηλάσῃ τὴν θεοτόκον. (no. 343; cf. PG 872, 1737C) 76 Excerpt from Philo of Carpasia (no. 344) Excerpt from Nilus of Ancyra (no. 345)

deest

deest

deest

deest

75 Edited as part of Origen’s commentary by Barbàra, Origene, Commentario [see n. 8], no. 70 (and see more recently her Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 494). 76 Different suggestions on the provenance of this excerpt are made by Ceulemans (in Byz, 82 (2012), p. 506) and Barbàra (Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 494). Compare with n. 82 below.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

These examples (which can easily be multiplied) show how Slav is closer to Haun than to Procopius’ epitome. It is not only with regard to the wording of the excerpts that Slav and Haun are very close to one another: as will be argued below, both compilations are nearly identical in terms of structure from Cant. 5, 14b onwards. In that section, Slav and Haun offer almost the same selection and sequence of excerpts (belonging to Philo, Gregory, Origen). 77 The structure of Procopius’ epitome, on the other hand, is quite different. One can conclude with certainty that the link between Slav and the epitome of Procopius, which was brought up by Alekseev, taken up in secondary literature, and expressed in the edition of Slav, is fictional. Procopius’ compilation was certainly not among the sources of Slav: all of the parallels perceived by Alekseev are more easily explained by Haun.

4. The catena Hauniensis on the Song 78 Unfortunately, not very much is known about Haun: discovered rather recently, it is unedited, absent from standard overviews of Greek catenae on the Song and hardly studied 79 . Its manuscript transmission is quite limited: in its complete form it can only be found in the so-called Bible of Nicetas (attested in manuscripts from the tenth century) and its apographs. 80 The stemmatological position of a partial, Athonite copy On a possible other source, Cyril of Alexandria, see n. 82 below. This section builds on both articles mentioned in n. 71 (where the reader can find more precise references to MSS etc.) but also expands on them. In the present study, we only focus on Haun’s exegetical section, not on its biblical lemma text. 79 It is not mentioned by Faulhaber, Hohelied-Catenen [see n. 91] nor by G. Karo – I. Lietzmann, Catenarum graecarum catalogus, in Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse (1902), p. 312-319. But note that very recently, the catena Hauniensis was included by J. Noret in the revised edition of CPG vol. IV, as C 85.3 (2018). It also occurs more than once in the recent study by Barbàra, Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 463-499. 80 Principal studies on the Bible of Nicetas are: H. Belting – G. Cavallo, Die Bibel des Niketas. Ein Werk der höfischen Buchkunst in Byzanz und sein antikes Vorbild, Wiesbaden, 1979; J. Lowden, An Alternative Interpretation of the Manuscripts of Niketas, in Byz, 53 (1983), p. 559-574; J. Lowden, Illuminated Prophet Books. A Study of Byzantine Manuscripts of the Major and Minor Prophets, University Park PA – London, 1988, p. 14-22 and 111-114. Today, three manuscripts together form the remains of that Bible; one of them contains the catena Hauniensis on the Song (see n. 72 above). At one point the first ternion of MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. I. inf. 2.12 (Misc. 320) was identified as a fourth remaining part (by R. Barbour in Greek Manuscripts in the Bodlei­ an Library. An Exhibition held in connection with the XIIIth International Congress of 77 78



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

(fourteenth century) has not yet been determined, but could point to a transmission independent from the Bible of Nicetas. The origins of Haun and its place within the corpus of exegetical compilations on the Song have not yet been identified, but the following at least can be said. The almost complete lack of author attributions and the overwhelming presence of one particular source do not make the text appear a typical catena. 81 Down to Cant. 6, 9 included, by far most of Haun is excerpted from Gregory of Nyssa’s fifteen homilies on the Song. The title indeed identifies the text as a summary of that work (f. 142v: Tοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγο Νύσσης ἑρμη εἰς τὰ ᾌσματα τῶν ᾈσμάτων ἐν συντόμῳ). But while those homilies conclude with the exegesis of Cant. 6, 9, Haun nonetheless continues with Cant. 6, 10 down to the end of the book. It does so by offering a compilation of excerpts that, with the help of other catenae, can be identified as belonging to Origen and Philo of Carpasia. 82 Even in the part up to Cant. 6, 9 included, Haun features fragments that do not belong to Gregory (although they are few in number). The first excerpt that cannot be retrieved in his homilies and with certainty can be retraced to another author, occurs in the exegesis of Cant. 5, 14bα. With this excerpt a new section starts, the first ending with the interpretation of Cant. 5, 14a. This break is marked by the first marginal attribution that can be found in Haun, and which accompanies the said excerpt on 5, 14bα: Ὡριγέ (f. 148mg, breathing sic). 83 Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 1966, p. 13 no. 2), but this was disproven by I. Hutter (see the Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturhandschriften, Band 3.1. Oxford, Bodleian Library, III, Textband, Stuttgart, 1982, p. 28-29 no. 17; and also Lowden, Prophet Books, p. 20-22). Remarkably, some recent catalogues (that mention Hutter but did not read her analysis?) keep including the Oxford pages as part of Nicetas’ Bible: see M. Brown (ed.), In the Beginning. Bibles Before the Year 1000, Washington, 2006, p. 305-306 no. 69 and M. Bernabò, L’illustrazione del Vecchio Testamento e la rovina dei manoscritti; Catalogo numeri 21-22, in M. Bernabò (ed.), Voci dell’Oriente. Miniature e testi classici da Bisanzio alle Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Firenze, 2011, p. 175-177 no. 22. 81 The Copenhagen MS counts only two marginal author attributions. The second of them accompanies a fragment on Cant. 6, 8 (Γρηγ Νύσσης, f. 148v mg). The first attribution is mentioned below. 82 Some other excerpts are found in similar forms in both the catena of Ps-Eusebius (see n. 84) and the epitome of Procopius, which attributes them to Cyril (i.e., of Alexandria, CPG 5205.4). Ceulemans questioned that authorship, suggesting that Cyril’s exegesis was unknown to the compiler of the catena of Ps-Eusebius (Byz, 82 (2012), p. 503-506). A different opinion, trusting the authorship of Cyril, was formulated by Barbàra (Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 492-495). 83 The attribution is the only hint as to a break in the catena. No codicological or palaeographical element offers any clues in this direction.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Haun’s falling apart into two different sections (Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a and 5, 14b – 8, 14) becomes particularly clear when one takes a closer look at its relations with Gregory’s homilies and with the principal catena tradition on the Song (= PCT). This is the tradition to which most of the catenae on the Song belong, the oldest and most relevant among them being the anonymous catena known as that of Ps-Eusebius (= PsEus) 84 and Procopius’ epitome mentioned above (= Proc). 85 4.1 The catena Hauniensis on Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a Virtually all of the text in this section of Haun can be retraced to Gregory’s homilies. These are also the principal source of PsEus and Proc. 86 Nonetheless, the excerption and summarization of the homilies that Haun reflects, was performed independently from PCT, as can be deduced from a number of observations: 1. Haun and PCT reflect different choices of selection: many excerpts from Gregory that can be found in Proc and/or in PsEus have no counterpart in Haun and vice versa. 2. In cases where Proc and/or PsEus, on the one hand, and Haun, on the other hand, coincidentally did select by and large the same passage from Gregory, there is no parallel as to the way they dealt with it. In terms of formulation, summarising or rephrasing, The attribution of this catena (CPG C 84) to Eusebius is incorrect: see R. Ceulemans, On a Commentary Attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea and Nilus (the Monk / the Anchorite), in Adamantius, 18 (2012), p. 286-288. We retain the nomenclature here simply because it has established itself in the research. A more appropriate name would be catena Tyrnaviensis, after its oldest and most valuable witness: MS Tyrnavos, Δημοτικὴ βιβλιοθήκη 25 (tenth century). This manuscript is our way of access to the catena: in the following tables, PsEus is always cited from the pages of that codex. 85 Other catenae belonging to this tradition (such as those mentioned in n. 63 above) are of secondary importance (although recently the value of the catena Cantabrigiensis was stressed by Barbàra, Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 484-486 and passim). PsEus and Proc are arguably the oldest representatives of PCT and are mutually related, as is shown by the many parallels between them. The nature of that relation, however, is yet undetermined: PsEus has been called a source of Proc by Th. Zahn, but most scholars tend to agree with M. Faulhaber that both depend on a common, lost catena. See Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, II. Theil. Der Evangeliencommentar des Theophilus von Antiochien, Erlangen, 1883, p. 248-254 vs Faulhaber, Hohelied-Catenen [see n. 61], p. 58-64. 86 For PsEus: Zahn, Forschungen [see n. 85], p. 240-242 and 249-250 as well as Faulhaber, Hohelied-Catenen [see n. 61], p. 56 and 58-62; for Proc: Auwers, Interprétation [see n. 5], p. 247-248 (and following). Some excerpts from Gregory are shared by Proc and by PsEus (although the source text is treated differently in both catenae), but each of both compilations (especially PsEus) also has excerpts that cannot be found in the other. 84



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

Haun never agrees with Proc and/or PsEus against Gregory’s text. In general, Haun preserves more of the original wording than do Proc and/or PsEus. At this stage, in sum, Haun and PCT appear mutually independent in their exegesis of Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a. 87 That independence is confirmed by the impossibility to retrieve in PsEus or Proc any of the excerpts in Haun that could have been taken from a source other than Gregory’s homilies. 88 4.2 The catena Hauniensis on Cant. 5, 14b – 8, 14 Haun’s excerpts from Gregory in this section all have a counterpart in PCT, particularly in PsEus. Some form of kinship between Haun and the PCT strand represented by PsEus is undeniable: 1. The passages from Gregory that ended up being selected for Haun and for PsEus (not Proc), are the same. 2. PsEus (not Proc) and Haun rephrased certain passages from Gregory in a similar way: they share readings that are absent from Gregory’s text. 89 Next to excerpts from Gregory’s text, Haun furthermore counts many excerpts (and from Cant. 6, 10 onwards: exclusively) that have another provenance and which are paralleled in PCT (especially PsEus, less often Proc). The original authors to whom they can be traced are Origen and Philo of Carpasia. 90 In terms of structure, selection and wording, Haun and PsEus tend to be close to one another, against Proc (and Philo). 91 At the same time, Haun in several cases undeniably sides with Proc (or Philo) against PsEus. Parallels between Proc and PsEus against Haun can also be found.

87 With one exception, so it seems. Haun’s section on Cant. 4, 4-8b (f. 146) partly parallels the corresponding part of PsEus (not Proc). There is no ready explanation for this observation. 88 This is precisely why these excerpts in Haun have so far dodged certain identification (Ceulemans, Catena Hauniensis [see n. 71], p. 66). 89 And absent from Gregory’s textual tradition, as documented in the critical apparatus of H. Langerbeck (ed.), Gregorii Nysseni In Canticum Canticorum (GNO, 6), Leiden, 1960 [repr. 1986]. 90 On Cyril of Alexandria, see n. 82 above. 91 Only for Philo a Greek text independent of PCT is available for comparison. But see the difficulties mentioned in the opening part of this article.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

5. The Slavonic catena and the catena Hauniensis compared Our above replacement of Proc with Haun as a compilation with which Slav is related, warrants a comparive analysis of the latter two works. The remarkable fact that in both of them, Cant. 5, 14 cuts between two sections and that the beginning of the second section is marked by the only attribution to Origen, further fuels the assumption that Haun and Slav can be related. This assumption is indeed confirmed by a comparison of Slav (as edited by Alekseev in 2002) 92 and Haun (as preserved in the Copenhagen manuscript, see n. 72), which yields the following observations. 93 5.1 The section on Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a All of the passages in this section of Slav that Alekseev retraces to Gregory’s homilies, have a counterpart in Haun. In these passages, Slav and Haun share many features against the direct tradition of the homilies (and against PCT). The following examples show that the selection and combination of fragments, also when remarkable, are identical in Haun and Slav: 94 Slav on Cant. 3, 11c – 4, 1a Григори. И похвалѧеть ѥи къіиждо оудъ, очи оубо ꙗко исполненѣ ст҃ го Д҃ ха. Око же ѥсть Цр҃кви самоуилъ, видѧ и павелъ, неиздреченъімъ видитель […] (p. 93-94)

Haun

Gregory of Nyssa

[…] καὶ ἐπαινεῖ αὐτῆς ἕκαστον μέλος, τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς [μὲν] ὡς πεπληρωμένους ἁγίου πνεύματος. Ὀφθαλμὸς δὲ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐστὶ Σαμουὴλ ὁ βλέπων, Παῦλος ὁ τῶν ἀρρήτων θεατὴς […] (f. 145v)

[…] καὶ πρόσφορον ἑκάστῳ ποιεῖται τὸν ἔπαινον. Ἄρχεται δὲ τῶν ἐγκωμίων ἀπὸ τῶν κυριωτέρων μελῶν. […] ὀφθαλμὸς ἦν Σαμουὴλ ὁ βλέπων […] (p. 216.16-18 and 217.7)

β

92 As far as one can deduce from Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 43 (≈ K istorii [see n. 25], p. 163), the divisions of the exegetical excerpts in his edition are informed by the manuscript tradition only insofar as they are marked by the use of red ink (i.e.: they follow a rubricised biblical lemma or author attribution, or their initial is rubricised). All other divisions appear to have been introduced by Alekseev himself, in order to clarify his views on their provenance (cf. also Lunt, Philo [see n. 13], p. 203 n. 9). They are open to improvement and are indeed more than once exposed as incorrect by the comparison with Haun. 93 In every case, only a couple of examples are listed; they can be multiplied. 94 In the following examples, Gregory’s homilies are always cited from Langerbeck’s edition (see n. 89 above). The page numbers that are mentioned are those identified by Alekseev (with tacit correction of some mistakes).



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

Slav

Haun

Gregory of Nyssa

on Cant. 4, 9c Григории. Еже то въ ѥдиномь съгласьно ѥсть: “Ѥдино око твоѥ, – река, – въ единомь монистѣ шиѧ твоꙗ”. Око ѥдино ѥсть, вънегда зрѣти въіспрь, и д҃ ша ѥдина, за не на различьнъіѧ похоти влѣкомоу бъіти и монистоу шиѧ твоꙗ съвершенъ имѣти бж(с҃) твьнъіи ꙗремъ. (p. 98)

Τὸ ἐν μιᾷ σύμφωνόν ἐστι τῷ ἑνὶ ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου, ἤγουν δι’ἑνὸς τῶν ὁρμίσκων τοῦ τραχήλου σου, τουτέστιν ὅτι ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου εἷς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ βλέπειν τὰ ἄνω· καὶ ψυχὴ μία, διὰ τὸ μὴ πρὸς διαφόρους διαθέσεις ἕλκεσθαι, καὶ ἡ θέσις τοῦ τραχήλου σου τὸ τέλειον ἔχει τὸν θεῖον ζυγὸν ἀραμένη […] (f. 146v)

[…] ὡς τὸ μὲν ἐν μιᾷ σύμφωνον εἶναι τῷ ἑνὶ ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου […] τὸ ἐνθέματι τραχήλου σου. Ὡς ἄν τις ὅλον πρὸς τὸ σαφέστερον μεταλαβὼν εἴποι ὅτι σου καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς εἷς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὸ ἓν βλέπειν καὶ ψυχὴ μία διὰ τὸ μὴ πρὸς διαφόρους διαθέσεις μερίζεσθαι καὶ ἡ θέσις τοῦ τραχήλου σου τὸ τέλειον ἔχει τὸν θεῖον ζυγὸν ἐφ’αὐτῆς ἀραμένη. […] [Ἔνθεμα δὲ τοῦ τραχήλου τῆς νύμφης ὁ ζυγός ἐστι καθὼς εἴρηται.] (p. 259.4 – 260.9)

In these and other examples, Slav summarises a larger passage or combines non-consecutive passages of Gregory’s homilies, which complicated Alekseev’s identification of the Slavonic excerpt. 95 In some of those cases, additional complications arise from the difficulty to retrieve in the summarised and combined excerpt in Slav words from Gregory’s original text. Here too, the agreement between Slav and Haun is obvious, as the following case shows (on Cant. 1, 16):

Note the “cf.” in the identifications proposed by Alekseev. For the first example cited here, Alekseev moreover explicitly questioned his identification of the Greek source (Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 62: Сокращение ср говорит о том, что отождествение оригинала не является надежным). 95



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Slav

Haun

Gregory of Nyssa

Съосѣни бо въ немь одѣни плотьскаго подобиѧ, да тако възможеть того видѣти, бж(с҃)тва бо ѥго чистѣ никтоже ѿ члв҃къ видѣти или разоумѣвати не можеть. (p. 73-74)

Συνεσκίασε γὰρ ἑαυτὸν τῇ περιβολῇ τοῦ σωματικοῦ ἀφομοιώματος, ἵν’οὕτως δυνηθῇ τοῦτον κατοπτεῦσαι· τὴν γὰρ αὐτοῦ θεότητα καθαρῶς οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων θεάσασθαι ἢ ἐννοῆσαι δεδύνηται. (f. 144)

Εἰ γὰρ μὴ συνεσκίασας αὐτὸς σεαυτὸν τὴν ἄκρατον τῆς θεότητος ἀκτῖνα συγκαλύψας τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ, τίς ἂν ὑπέστη σου τὴν ἐμφάνειαν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὄψεται πρόσωπον κυρίου καὶ ζήσεται. Ἦλθες τοίνυν ὁ ὡραῖος, ἀλλ’ὡς χωροῦμεν δέξασθαι τοιοῦτος γενόμενος· ἦλθες τὰς τῆς θεότητος ἀκτῖνας τῇ περιβολῇ συσκιάσας τοῦ σώματος. (p. 108.1-7)

This example shows that Slav and Haun are close to each other, not only in terms of the selection and demarcation of excerpts from Gregory, but also with regard to the wording. Even those passages in Slav in which Gregory’s text can easily be recognised, turn out to be in closer verbal agreement with Haun than with the original homilies: Slav on Cant. 5, 2cd Григор. Прикаѥтьсѧ оуже двьрехъ слово. Двьри же разоумѣваи скоудьноѥ на добродѣтели съмъіслъ, имиже въводитьсѧ разоумѣваѥмоѥ. […] (p. 104)

Haun

Gregory of Nyssa

Ἅπτεται τοίνυν τῆς θύρας ὁ λόγος· θύραν δὲ νόει τὴν στοχαστικὴν τῶν ἀρετῶν διάνοιαν, δι’ἧς εἰσοικίζεται τὸ νοούμενον. […] (f. 147)

Ἅπτεται τῆς θύρας ὁ λόγος. Θύραν δὲ νοοῦμεν τὴν στοχαστικὴν τῶν ἀρρήτων διάνοιαν, δι’ἧς εἰσοικίζεται τὸ ζητούμενον. […] (p. 324.13 – 325.5)



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

Slav

Haun

Gregory of Nyssa

on Cant. 1, 2-3a Отъ мѣстьнаго положениꙗ ср(д҃ )це назнаменънъіваѥть. Ср(д҃ )це же съкръвено – неиздреченьноу силоу бж҃ ства гл҃ть. […] (p. 63-64)

[…] ἐκ τῆς τοπικῆς θέσεως τὴν καρδίαν ὑποσημαίνει· καρδίαν δὲ τὴν κεκρυμέννην καὶ ἀπόρρητον τῆς θεότητος δύναμιν λέγει […] (f. 143)

[…] ἐκ τῆς τοπικῆς θέσεως διὰ τῶν μαζῶν τὴν καρδίαν ὑποσημαίνουσα. Πάντως δὲ καρδίαν μὲν τὴν κεκρυμμένην τε καὶ ἀπόρρητον τῆς θεότητος δύναμιν νοῶν τις οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεται. […] (p. 33.15-20)

on Cant. 2, 3 Похотѣваѥть же и подъ сѣнию ѥго сѣсти, да плодъ его боудеть сладъкъ въ грътани ѥѧ. Тъгда бо и сладъка бъіваѥть грътань д҃ ши моудростью словесъ, […] (p. 75) 96

[…] Ἐπιθυμεῖ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ καθίσαι, ἵν’ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ γένηται γλυκὺς ἐν λάρυγγι αὐτῆς. Ἐπειδὴ τότε γλυκαίνεται ὁ λάρυγξ τῆς ψυχῆς τὰ τῆς σοφίας λόγια, […] (f. 144)

Ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐπεθύμησα καὶ ἑκάθισα καὶ ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ γλυκὺς ἐν τῷ λάρυγγί μου. Τότε γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς γλυκαίνεται τῷ λόγῳ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια, […] (p. 118.16 – 119.3)

As these examples show, the agreement with Haun explains readings in Slav that differ from Gregory’s homilies. 97 That being said, not all excerpts from Gregory in Slav are mirrored in Haun to the same extent as in the above examples. Some Gregorian passages in Slav are clearly shorter than the corresponding fragment in Haun. Yet in those cases, Slav can be considered as a paraphrase of the version recorded in Haun, as it again shares elements with Haun against Gregory’s source text:

96 Admittedly, two elements make this fragment appear closer to Gregory’s original text than to the version in Haun: Slav lacks a counterpart of γένηται, and Тъгда бо translates Τότε γὰρ rather than Ἐπειδὴ τότε. 97 See, for example, Alekseev’s comment on the first excerpt (on Cant. 5, 2cd), that the Slavonic translator had read ἀρετή instead of Gregory’s ἄρρητος (Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 58: “Вместо ἄρρήτος [sic] ‘невыразимое’ переводчик читал ἀρετή”). Actually, his source probably read Haun’s τῶν ἀρετῶν.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Slav on Cant. 1, 10b Се же не мала похвала д͠ши, ѥже къ себе зрѣти и на бж(с҃)твьноѥ течениѥ въсходити, и всѧ ѿ лоукаваго полагаѥмъіꙗ съблазнъі превъсходѧщи. (p. 71)

Ѥсть бо и монистоу немощьно красноу бъіти бес камениꙗ и бисера, тако и д͠ши безъ добродѣтели. (p. 71)

on Cant. 5, 6c Григор. Ѡ, блаж͠нъі исходе, егоже ра(ди) сходи(т) словꙋ послѣдоующи д͠ша: “Г(с҃)ь бо храни(т) вхѡ(д) твои”. Тъ е(с҃) истинны(и) исхо(д), абїе вхо(д) коупно бывае(т). Исхо(д) бо и вхо(д) ѡ прележащи(х) бл͠гъ бывае(т). (p. 107)

Haun

Gregory of Nyssa

[…] Τοῦτο δὲ οὐ μικρὸς ἔπαινος ψυχῆς τὸ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν βλέπειν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεῖον δρόμον κατεπείγεσθαι πάντα τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τιθέμενα σκάνδαλα ὑπερβαίνουσαν.

[…] τοῦτο δὲ οὐ μικρὸν εἰς εὐφημίαν ἐστὶ ψυχῆς τὸ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν βλέπειν καὶ δι’ ἀσφαλείας πάσης πρὸς τὸν θεῖον δρόμον ἐπείγεσθαι πάντα τὰ ἐκ πειρασμῶν τινων ἐγγινόμενα πρὸς τὸν δρόμον ἑμπόδια διαλλομένην καὶ ὑπερβαίνουσαν […] (p. 80.9-13) […] ἔστω σοι καὶ ἕτερος ὅρμος ὁ τοὺς τιμίους λίθους τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιείργων καὶ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ τῆς δέρης πλεονάζων τὸ κάλλος, ἔστω σοι καὶ ἄλλος κόσμος περιαυχένιος ἡ εὐσεβής τε καὶ ὑγιαίνουσα πίστις κύκλῳ τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐχένα διαλαμβάνουσα. […] (p. 82.8-12)

Ἔστι δὲ ὅρμος καὶ ὁ λιμὴν ὁ μικρός· ἐκ δὲ τῆς τούτου ὁμοιότητος λέγεται ὅρμος καὶ ὁ περιδέρραιος κόσμος. Ὥσπερ οὖν οὗτος ὁ κόσμος ἐκ λίθων τιμίων καὶ μαργάρων ἔστι κεκοσμημένος, οὕτως ἐστὶ καὶ ψυχὴ ἡ τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐγκλοιωσαμένη τιμία τῷ νυμφίῳ· […] (f. 143v)

Ὦ μακαρίας ἐξόδου, ἣν ἐξέρχεται ἡ τῷ λόγῳ ἑπομένη ψυχή. Κύριος γὰρ φυλάξει τὴν εἴσοδόν σου καὶ τὴν ἔξοδόν σου. Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀληθινὴ ἔξοδος, ἅμα καὶ εἴσοδος γινομένη· ἡ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐσμεν ἔξοδος, εἴσοδος τῶν ὑπερκειμένων ἀγαθῶν γίνεται. […] (f. 147v)



Ὦ μακαρίας ἐξόδου ἐκείνης ἣν ἐξέρχεται ἡ τῷ λόγῳ ἑπομένη ψυχή. Κύριος φυλάξει τὴν ἔξοδόν σου καὶ τὴν εἴσοδόν σου, φησὶν ὁ προφήτης. Αὕτη ἐστὶν ὡς ἀληθῶς ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ φυλασσομένη τοῖς ἀξίοις ἔξοδος ἅμα καὶ εἴσοδος γινομένη· ἡ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐσμεν ἔξοδος τῶν ὑπερκειμένων ἀγαθῶν γίνεται. […] (p. 353.16 – 354.2)

Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

In the second example, Slav lacks a counterpart for τὴν ἔξοδόν σου and ἡ γὰρ … ἐσμεν of Haun. The first example is a single passage in the manuscripts of Slav (just like in Haun), but was broken down by Alekseev into two fragments, in order to come to grips with their provenance. 98 While he could identify the passage in Gregory’s homilies that corresponds with the first part (Се … превъсходѧщи), he used a question mark to express difficulties in doing the same for the second (Ѥсть … добродѣтели). In fact, the first lines in Slav are closer to Haun than to Gregory’s original text. The lines that follow (Ѥсть … добродѣтели) differ from both Gregory and Haun, but they read as a paraphrase of Haun’s version (with modified syntax). The above examples show that Slav shares a fair number of agreements with Haun, against Gregory’s original homilies. This does not mean that nowhere in the entire section on Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a, Slav and Haun differ. Exceptionally, one finds Slav to agree with Gregory’s original text, against Haun. A case in point is the section dealing with Cant. 4, 11bc. Both Slav (p. 99) and Haun (f. 146v) use a cento of passages from Gregory’s homilies to interpret these verses. The selection and wording runs quite parallel, but while Haun ends the section with Τὸ δὲ λίβανον ἐξαιρέσεως εἰς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ τιμήν ἐστιν ἀφωρισμένον (a phrase quite different from Gregory’s p. 272.20-21 but mirrored in Slav’s Ливанъ же издрѧдьнѣѥ на б(и҃)ю ч(с҃)ть ѥсть ѿлоученъ), Slav offers an additional passage (Таче навъікаимъ въ прочихъ, како кто бъіваѥть гн҃ь братъ и сестра. Створениѥ заповѣдии бл҃говонѧние Хо҃у): only the first part of this phrase is paralleled in Gregory’s homilies (compare Таче … сестра with p. 272.23 – 273.1) but the entire additional passage is absent from Haun. Nonetheless, such cases are few in number, and they are outweighed by the agreements between Slav and Haun. The resemblance between both works is indeed further illustrated by their sharing of passages for which a clear counterpart in Gregory’s homilies cannot be found and which might have another provenance: 99

This at least is how we read the edition: see n. 92 above. Compare n. 88 above.

98 99



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Slav

Haun

Gregory of Nyssa

Ибо трьми чювьствъі весельѧ бъівають ѧблъко: ꙗкоже оубо очима възрѣнїꙗ свѣтло и мюромъ бл(д҃ )ти вселѧща бъіваеть, ꙗко обонѧти воню бл҃гооуханиꙗ разоума его и въ въкоусѣ пришествиѧ ѥго ожївлѧюща, – “вѣдъіи бо то, – вѣща, живъ боудеть въ вѣкъі”.

Ἐπεὶ γὰρ ταῖς τρισὶν αἰσθήσεσιν εὐφρασίας παραίτιον τὸ μῆλον γίνεται, ὡς οὖν τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἄνοιξιν καὶ φωτισμόν, καὶ τῷ μύρῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ κατευφραίνοντα καὶ εὐωδιάζοντα ὡς ἀποπνεῖν τὴν ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῇ γευστικῇ παρουσίᾳ δὲ αὐτοῦ ζωοποιοῦντα (ὁ γὰρ φαγὼν αὐτὴν ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, φησίν)

Ꙗблъкомь именова жениха.

μῆλον τὸν νυμφίον ὠνόμασεν,

И ѥще же възѧтиꙗ ради нашеи плъти: и не бѣлостию ꙗблъка ꙗвлѧѥть плъть, ѧко чермьно ѥсть кръвь. (p. 75)

ἔτι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀνειληφέναι τὴν ἡμετέραν σάρκα· καθὸ μὲν γὰρ ὑπόλευκον τὸ μῆλον αἰνίττεται τὴν σάρκα, καθὸ δὲ ὑπέρυθρον, τὸ αἷμα. […] (f. 144)

[…] ἡ δὲ τοῦ μήλου χάρις πρὸς τὰς τρεῖς αἰσθήσεις ἁρμοδίως καταμερίζεται καὶ ὀφθαλμὸν εὐφραίνουσα τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τὴν ὀσφραντικὴν ἡδύνουσα αἴσθησιν διὰ τῆς εὐπνοίας καὶ τροφὴ γινομένη καταγλυκαίνει τὰ γευστικὰ αἰσθητήρια. Καλῶς οὖν εἶδεν ἡ νύμφη τὸ ἑαυτῆς πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην διάφορον, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος μὲν ἡμῖν καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν γίνεται χάρις φῶς γινόμενος καὶ μύρον [ἐν] τῇ ὀσφρήσει καὶ ζωὴ τοῖς ἐσθίουσιν (ὁ γὰρ φαγὼν αὐτὸν ζήσεται, καθώς φησί που τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) […] (p. 117.5-14) […] Διὰ τοῦτο βλέπει τὸν νυμφίον ἡ κεκαθαρμένη ψυχὴ μῆλον ἐν τοῖς τοῦ δρυμοῦ ξύλοις γενόμενον […] (p. 117.19-20) deest

In both Slav and Haun, this explanation of Cant. 2, 3 is one continuous passage. In accordance with his identification of the source, Alekseev broke down the Slavonic fragment into three pieces. He was not able to identify any source for the third section, which closely resembles the corresponding lines in Haun.



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

All of the above shows that, as far as the excerpts from Gregory’s homilies (and the occasional unidentified excerpt in Haun) are concerned, Slav and Haun are related in their interpretation of Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a. In terms of selection and wording, the parallels between both works are of such a nature that they exclude that Slav and Haun accessed Gregory’s homilies independently from one another. Neither can PCT, a catena outside PCT or a manuscript documented in Langerbeck’s edition have been the source. From the outset, one would expect that Slav was translated from Haun. The following observations, which build on the examples presented above, would appear to favour such an assumption: 1. Haun has excerpts from Gregory’s homilies that are absent from Slav. 2. There is not a single fragment in Slav, attributed to Gregory by Alekseev, that cannot be found in Haun; also some excerpts in Slav that were not identified by Alekseev have a counterpart in Haun. 3. For almost all of the passages that are shared by Slav and Haun, the version in Slav is identical with or shorter, but not longer than that in Haun; vice versa, the text of Haun is almost always identical with or longer, but not shorter than the one found in Slav. The italicised restriction in the last observation demands caution: however rare and limited, the isolated agreements between Gregory and Slav against Haun contradict the assertion that Slav was translated directly from Haun (see the example of Cant. 4, 11bc above). That one needs to count with another source, is demonstrated by the fact that 4. not a single passage in Slav attributed to Hippolytus or Philo (either in the manuscripts or by Alekseev), can be retrieved in Haun. The very close relation between Haun and Slav only applies to the excerpts from Gregory’s homilies (and the occasional unidentified excerpt). As far as those from Hippolytus and Philo are concerned, Slav is independent of Haun.



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

5.2 The section on Cant. 5, 14b – 8, 14 The final observation above shows that in terms of the relation between Slav and Haun, one needs to distinguish in the section on Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a between excerpts that can be traced to Gregory, and those that were taken from Hippolytus and Philo. As far as the first group is concerned, Slav and Haun are very close to one another, but regarding the second, there is no point of agreement whatsoever. Such a distinction does not apply to the section on Cant. 5, 14b – 8, 14. Regardless of the ultimate source to which the excerpts can be retraced (those known so far are: Gregory of Nyssa, Origen and Philo of Carpasia), 100 Slav and Haun are very close to one another. A randomly chosen example may prove their similarity: Slav

Haun

Тлкъ. По въскресенїи бо пасѧше по мѣсто(м) Цркви, събирати слова пр(о͠ )рчьскаѧ, ти бо пре(ж) въздохноуша ѡ Боѕѣ слово и тако събра ч(с҃)тныѧ д͠ша. (p. 114)

Καὶ γὰρ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐποίμανε τὰς κατὰ τόπον ἐκκλησίας συλλέγειν τὰ λόγια τῶν προφητῶν (οὗτοι γὰρ πρῶτοι ἔπνευσαν τὸν εἰς θεὸν λόγον), καὶ οὕτως συνέλεξαν αἱ καθαραὶ ψυχαί. (f. 148v)

In an attempt to identify the provenance of this passage on Cant. 6, 2c, Alekseev referred to the commentary of Philo as well as to a passage of Philo in Proc. In fact, the Slavonic text agrees nicely with the corresponding fragment in Haun. 101 Several comparable examples can easily be found. The correspondence between Slav and Haun is not always exact. Particularly the order of the biblical lemmata and the exegetical frag-

On Cyril of Alexandria, see n. 82 above. The ultimate origins of the Greek fragment are unclear. Light might be shed on the matter by Auwers’ study of the corresponding excerpt in Proc (Interprétation [see n. 5], p. 399 on excerpt no. 267: he mentions Philo and Cyril) and by the fact that PsEus (p. 489) attributes the corresponding part to Philo. Further reflections by Barbàra (Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 493, taking up the question after Ceulemans in Byz, 82 (2012), p. 504-505). (Slav is closer to Haun than to either Proc or PsEus.) 100 101



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

ments might differ. Additional variants between both texts can be observed: Slav on Cant. 6, 8 102 Се (ж) мнѣ мнитсѧ различіе двою чиноу: по числоу различіе ꙗвлѧе(т) оукаѕы, ѿ ни(х)же сѫ(т) заповѣди, и(х)же ра(ди) цр(с͠ )тво десны(м) готовае(т)сѧ. Поразоумѣ[н]имъ оубо си(х), коуюж(д)о вл(д)камъ быти таланто(м), еже пріемле(т) ѿ вѣрнаго раба десѧ(т), сѫгоубити дѣланіа ра(ди). (p. 116) on Cant. 6, 12 103 Тлкъ. Въ невидѣніи, – вѣща – сѫщи пръвѣе б͠лговоленіи ѡ͠ца колесницоу положи. (p. 117) Се (ж) е(с͠ ) пріимающимъ б͠а. (p. 117) Аминодавъ бо тлъкоуетсѧ “ѡ͠ца б͠лговоленіе”. (p. 117)

Haun […] Ταύτην ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ τὴν διαστολὴν τῶν δύο ταγμάτων τῇ κατὰ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς διαφορᾷ παραδηλοῦν δι’ αἰνίγματος. Ἕξ εἰσιν αἱ ἐντολαὶ δι’ ὧν ἡ βασιλεία τοῖς δεξιοῖς ἑτοιμάζεται. Λογισώμεθα οὖν τούτων ἑκάστην τὸ δεσποτικὸν εἶναι τάλαντον ὃ προσήκει παρὰ τοῦ πιστοῦ οἰκέτου δεκαπλασιασθῆναι διὰ τῆς ἐργασίας. […] (f. 148v) Ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ, φησίν, οὖσαν τὸ πρότερον ἡ εὐδοκία τοῦ πατρὸς ἅρμα αὐτοῦ με ἔθετο, τουτέστιν ὑποδεχομένην θεόν. Ἀμιναδὰβ γὰρ ἑρμηνεύεται ‘πατρὸς εὐδοκία’. (f. 149)

Differences such as these probably result from translational mistakes. Nonetheless, they make one wonder if in some cases Slav could represent a Greek source other than Haun. When that issue is raised, the question immediately comes up whether Slav might in fact be closer to PsEus than to Haun, as these two Greek compilations are very akin to one another from Cant. 5, 14b onwards (see above). Prima facie one indeed detects some points of agreement between PsEus and Slav, against Haun: 104

The excerpt ultimately belongs to Gregory’s last homily (p. 462.16 – 463.1). Alekseev breaks down the Slavonic fragment into three sections, but it is one continuous fragment indeed. Like the counterpart in Haun, it can be retraced to Philo’s commentary (see PG 40, 121A and Proc no. 299, with the comments by Auwers, Interprétation [see n. 5], p. 374-376). 104 As said above (n. 84), we cite PsEus from the Tyrnavos manuscript. 102 103



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Slav

Haun

PsEus

on Cant. 6, 11d 105 Тлкъ. Останкы свершены дѣлы и словесы принесоу ти (p. 117)

Τὰς δύο διαθήκας τετελεσμένας ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ προσοίσω. (f. 149)

Φίλω. Τὰς δύο διαθήκας τετελεσμένας ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ προσοίσω σοι. (p. 493)

Ἔστι δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κοιλία τοῦ λόγου οἱ χωρητικοὶ τῶν μυστηρίων, τουτέστιν οἱ κοῖλοι πρὸς ὑποδοχήν· πυξίον δέ, οἱ πρὸς διατήρησιν ἐπιτήδειοι· ἐλεφάντινον, διὰ τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ καθαρόν. Ὅσοι οὖν εἰσι κοιλία τοῦ λόγου, οὗτοι ἀπὸ φόβου αὐτοῦ ἐν γαστρὶ λαμβάνοντες ὠδίνουσι καὶ τίκτουσι πνεῦμα σωτηρίας. Διατοῦτο καὶ τῶν εἰς θυσίαν ἀναφερομένων ζώων τὰς κοιλίας πλύνεσθαι προστάττει, ὡς μηδὲν ἔχειν κοπρῶδες παρὰ τοῦ νόμου. [2] (f. 148, on Cant. 5, 14bα)

[…] Οὐρανοειδὴς δὲ ἡ τοῦ σαπφείρου αὐγή. Τὸ οὖν τοιοῦτον αἴνιγμα σύμβολον γίνεται τοῦ τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖν τε καὶ βλέπειν, ὅπου τὸν θησαυρὸν ἀποτίθεται, κἀκεῖ τὰς ὄψεις τῇ ἐλπίδι προσαναπαύειν, ὥστε μὴ κάμνειν ἐν τῇ προσοχῇ τῶν θείων παραγγελμάτων. [1] (p. 488)

on Cant. 5, 14b  106 Самѳѵра зрѧ ꙗвлѧе(т) же ср(д)ца нашего вышенїе смыслити же и зрѣти, идѣже съкровище положено, тамо и лицоу почивати. [1]

105 The ultimate source is Philo’s commentary (see PG 40, 120CD and Proc no. 299). In this regard, one or both of the Greek catena excerpts cited in the table, are mentioned by Auwers, Interprétation [see n. 5], p. 375 n. 23 and Barbàra, Interpretazione [see n. 5], p. 478 n. 50. 106 The attribution and the opening word (here between fishhooks) are not included by Alekseev into the main text but are referred to the apparatus. They are attested in two of the manuscripts upon which his edition relies: see n. 56 above.



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

Slav

Haun

PsEus

А ꙗко(ж) Цр͠ кви “чрево” – словоу вмѣстилище таиньствоу, “слоново” (ж) на съблюденїе лѣпо, свѣтло и ч(с͠ )҃ то, елико оубо сѫ(т) чрева словоу и ѿ страха въ оутробѣ прїимаю(т) и болѧ(т) и раж(д)аютъ д҃ хъ с҃псенїа. Сего ра(ди) и на жрътвы приводимыѧ животы чрева иѕмывати повелѣваемъ, ꙗко не имѣти мотыль ѿ закона. [2] (p. 113)

Οὐρανοειδὴς ἡ τοῦ σαπφείρου αὐγή. Δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖν τε καὶ βλέπειν, ὅπου τὸν θησαυρὸν ἀποτίθεται, κἀκεῖ τὴν ὄψιν ἐπαναπαύειν. [1] (f. 148, on Cant. 5, 14bβ)

Ὠρ. Κοιλία ἐστὶν τοῦ λόγου οἱ χωρητικοὶ τῶν μυστηρίων, τουτέστιν οἱ κοῖλοι πρὸς ὑποδοχήν· πυξίον δὲ, οἱ πρὸς διατήρησιν ἐπιτήδειοι· κατὰ δὲ τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ σαφές, ἐλεφάντινον εἶναι λέγεται. Ἐπιβέβηκε δὲ ἡ τοιαύτη κοιλία, ἐλεφάντινον οὖσα πυξίον λίθῳ τιμίῳ τῷ σαπφείρῳ· οὗτος δὲ ὁ λίθος ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός. Ὁπόσοι οὖν εἰσι κοιλία τοῦ λόγου, οὗτοι ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου κυρίου ἐν γαστρὶ λαμβάνοντες 107 ὠδίνουσι καὶ τίκτουσι πνεῦμα σωτηρίας. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ ἐγκοίλια τῆς θυσίας ἐν τῷ Λευϊτικῷ πλύνεται, ὡς μηδὲν ἔχων κοπρῶδες. [2] (p. 488)

The second example requires some explanation. In Slav, the two sections form one continuous fragment, which in some witnesses is attributed to Origen. This attribution is not entirely correct: while the second section can indeed be retraced to Origen [2], 108 the first lines belong to Gregory’s homilies [1]. 109 The order of both sections in Slav corresponds to PsEus, 110 against Haun (where [2] precedes [1]). However, agreements between Slav and PsEus such as the ones listed above do not have much weight, and they are overshadowed by many more and stronger parallels between Slav and Haun, against PsEus. In the last example above, Slav might agree with PsEus in terms of the se λαμβάνοντες p.corr.] λαμβάνουσι a.corr. Compare Proc, no. 258 (with Byz, 12 (2012), p. 501 on the parallel with PsEus). 109 See p. 415.6-9. 110 Differently from Slav, however, [1] and [2] are two separate excerpts in PsEus. In the same catena PsEus, [1] moreover is only the end of a larger fragment from Gregory (p. 413.18 – 415.9). 107 108



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

quence of excerpts, but the text itself of Slav is much closer to Haun than to PsEus. 111 There are enough other cases that offer further confirmation, among which the following example from the section on Cant. 6, 1: Slav

Haun

PsEus

Тлкъ. Прашаю(т) ѿроковица, где оубо е(с͠ ) жени(х), да оувѣдевши поклонѧютсѧ: иде(ж) стоꙗстѣ ноѕи е(г͠), взыще(м) его. (p. 114)

Πυνθάνονται αἱ νεάνιδες ποῦ ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ νυμφίος, ἵνα μαθοῦσαι προσκυνήσωσιν εἰς τὸν τόπον οὗ ἔστησαν οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ. Kαὶ ζητήσωμεν αὐτόν.

Повелѣвае(т) бо и(м) Писанїе, г҃лѧ: “Взыщете Г(с҃)а и оутвердите(с͠ ), възыщете Г(с҃)а всегд(а)”. (p. 114)

Προτρέπεται γὰρ αὐταῖς ἡ γραφὴ λέγουσα· ζητήσατε τὸν κύριον καὶ κραταιώθητε, ζητήσατε τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ διαπαντός. (f. 148v)

Πυνθάνονται τῆς νύμφης αἱ νεάνιδες, ποῦ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἀδελφιδός σου ἢ ποῦ ἀπέβλεψεν, ἵνα πάντως ὅπου μέν ἐστι μαθοῦσαι προσκυνήσωσιν εἰς τὸν τόπον οὗ ἔστησαν οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ, ὅπου δὲ βλέπει διδαχθεῖσαι 112 οὕτω στήσωσιν 113 ἑαυτάς, ὥστε καὶ αὐταῖς 114 ἐποφθῆναι τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. (p. 489) Ζητήσατε τὸν κύριον, πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι αὐτοῦ (p. 489)

Of the two excerpts that Alekseev distinguished, he could identify the provenance of only the first. 115 Those lines align with Haun (against PsEus). Also the second part of the excerpt in Slav, unidentified by Alekseev, is quite close to Haun (again against PsEus). 116 This example also shows that despite their close agreement, Haun and Slav are not entirely identical. The words τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ in the citation of Ps. 104, 4 closing the excerpt in Haun cannot be retrieved in Slav, which instead has Г(с҃)а (for Господа = τὸν κύριον), possibly under 111 In fact, a simple explanation for the difference in order between Slav and Haun may be the fact that Slav (with PsEus) combines Cant. 5, 14bα and 5, 14bβ into one single lemma, while they are separated in Haun. 112 διδαχθεῖσαι scripsimus] διδαχθῆσαι cod. 113 στήσωσιν scripsimus] στήσουσιν cod.a.corr., στήσωυσιν (sic) cod.p.corr. 114 αὐταῖς scripsimus] αὐτοὺς cod. 115 It can be retraced to Gregory’s homilies (p. 435.2-4). 116 The ultimate source remains unknown (could it be Philo? see PG 40, 112D).



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

the influence of the immediately preceding occurrence of that phrase (взыщете Г(с҃)а = ζητήσατε τὸν κύριον). 117 All of the above shows that in their exegesis of Cant. 5, 14b – 8, 14, Slav and Haun are undoubtedly related. In terms of selection and wording, Slav is closer to Haun than to the source text of Gregory’s sermons (and Philo’s commentary) or to PsEus (and to any other catena in or outside PCT). The parallels between Slav and Haun are of such a kind that they exclude that both compilations accessed their source texts independently from one another. The agreement between them goes further than in the section on Cant. 1, 1 – 5, 14a, because it is visible in all of the excerpts, regardless of their authorship or provenance. Again one would be tempted to suggest that Slav was translated from Haun, in view of the following observations: 1. All of the excerpts in Slav, regardless of their authorship, have a counterpart in Haun. 2. Haun has excerpts that cannot be found in Slav (but in relative terms, they are fewer in number than in the section up to Cant. 5, 14a included). 3. In the excerpts that are shared by both catenae, the version of Slav is identical to or shorter, but never longer than the version found in Haun; vice versa, the text of Haun is identical to or longer, but never shorter than the version found in Slav. Again, however, caution is still in order, because in some passages there is no exact correspondence of the order of biblical lemmata and commentaries between Slav and Haun, and the text of Slav does not always fully agree with Haun (in terms of sentence displacement and lexical differences).

6. Conclusions and suggestions The above analyses show that some relation exists between the compilations Slav and Haun. That relation relegates the link between Slav and Proc, perceived by Alekseev and other scholars after him, to the realm of fantasy: among the known Greek catenae on the Song, there is none that is closer to Slav than is Haun. Influence from the opening words of Soph. 2, 3 or Is. 55, 6 is also possible, but less likely. 117



SLAVONIC CATENA ON THE SONG OF SONGS

The observation that it is related to Haun, is of great importance to research on Slav. It allows to identify the provenance of some of the c. 25 excerpts in Slav for which Alekseev was unable to do so (see n. 68 above), and exposes as incorrect several identifications that have been offered, as well as the division of numerous passages (see n. 92 above). Also earlier remarks on Slav’s translation technique can be jettisoned: research in this area needs to be redone. 118 Likewise, Alekseev’s hypothesis on the ‘quick finish’ of Slav turns out to be wrong (see n. 69 above). The relation with Haun furthermore confirms that Cant. 5, 14 is a crucial point in Slav, and that attempts to distinguish other sections within the catena need to be abandoned. 119 In sum, the newly discovered link with Haun contributes to our knowledge of the modus operandi and structure of Slav, not to mention its possible sources. This of course has consequences for the scholarly debate on the origins of Slav, which through its lemma text plays a pivotal role in the history of Slavonic versions of the Song of Songs: it amasses further evidence against Alekseev’s hypothesis of an originally East Slav compilation made on the basis of Slavonic translations of each of the patristic authors involved. Not only research on Slav will benefit from the insights put forward here: they also bear on the study of Haun. If turning out to depend at least in part on Haun, Slav could constitute a further and significant element in a corpus of texts that testifies to the reception of this Greek catena. 120 If, on the other hand, Slav and Haun would turn out to share a common, unknown source, the Slavonic text could be the key to reconstruct the textual history that precedes Haun and which, in view of its yet unexplained close relation with PsEus, is too complex to have been unravelled so far. Both for Slav and for Haun, of course, the precise significance of the link between them can only be fathomed once that relation has been identified in more detail. Problematic in this regard is the fact that the level of agreement between both compilations is not uniform for the entire Song: the absence of any excerpts from Philo and Hippolytus in For remarks on the translation technique: Alekseev, Pesn’ pesnej [see n. 1], p. 51-59 (≈ K istorii [see n. 25], p. 167-175) and Lunt, Philo [see n. 13], p. 204-205. On the other hand, the new insights corroborate Lunt’s suggestion that Slav did not proceed on the basis of Gregory’s homilies themselves, but from a later Greek redaction that had already shortened and modified the original homilies (Philo [see n. 13], p. 205). 119 Cf. the three-fold division proposed by Lunt, Philo [see n. 13], p. 203 n. 10. 120 For other certain and less certain forms of reception of Haun, see R. Ceulemans, Nouveaux témoins manuscrits de la chaîne de Polychronios sur le Cantique (CPG C 83), in BZ, 104 (2011), p. 615-616 and 626 n. 93. 118



Reinhart Ceulemans & Margaret Dimitrova

Haun’s section down to Cant. 5, 14a complicates the possibility that Slav would have been translated from Haun. Various scenarios that could explain that and other issues need to be tested (did Slav look at more than one source? was Haun extended at a later phase?, etc.). It would seem that only one of both compilations changed its sources and approach from Cant. 5, 14b onwards, but that this change was reflected also in the other catena. Haun would appear the most likely candidate for this inconsistency, but to reach certainty one needs to include PsEus (and PCT in general) into the research 121 and to investigate within Slav the uniformity of the treatment of Gregory and Philo before and after the break of Cant. 5, 14. 122

121 Seeing that the relations between Haun and PsEus (and PCT) are not uniform throughout their entire exegesis of the Song either. 122 In addition, the question needs to be asked to what extent the title that mistakes Slav for Philo’s commentary is meaningful.



Barbara Crostini*

Athanasius’s Letter to Marcellinus as Psalter Preface Abstract – This article analyzes an abbreviated version of the Letter to Marcellinus by Athanasius of Alexandria as transmitted in three eleventh-century psalters, where it is used as a preface. It highlights the changes made to the text in the process of adaptation for its purpose of guiding the recitation of psalms. In Vaticanus gr. 752, this preface is also illustrated by a miniature where Marcellinus is labeled king. The identification echoes the use of Carolingian psalter prefaces as mirrors for princes. In the absence of a critical edition of this text, the variants in the three manuscripts can only be considered in comparison with the long recension transmitted by the codex Alexandrinus and printed in the Patrologia Graeca. One of the titles given by the manuscripts to the Letter to Marcellinus (CPG 2097) includes, besides the standard attribution to Athanasius of Alexandria, a description of this text as a ‘protreptic interpretation’ (ἑρμηνεία προτρεπτική) of the Psalms, i.e. an interpretation ‘intended to persuade or instruct’. The typology of the relationship of the two protagonists in the Letter, the wise teacher Athanasius, and the weak, yet fervent, Marcellinus, bonded by faith and by the reading of the Sacred Scriptures, seemed an appropriate foil for the celebration of my doctoral supervisor, the dedicatee of this volume; and, although Joe’s style of supervision was hardly explicitly ‘protreptic’, his patience succeeded in turning me towards Greek texts according to the etymology of the verb προτρέπειν. I could not anticipate the impact that these choices would have on my own life. This article is, therefore, an homage to my teacher, displaying but a small sample of the riches to be gained by gazing at manuscripts and texts beyond the printed page.

* My thanks to the editors of the volume, and to my friend and colleague Reinhart Ceulemans, for their useful suggestions towards the final draft of this essay. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 145–166 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117147

Barbara Crostini

1. The Letter to Marcellinus in Manuscripts and in Print 1.1 Editions of the Letter A critical edition of the Letter to Marcellinus (CPG 2097) is still a desideratum. 1 The standard text available remains the one printed in PG 27, 11-46, which reproduces the early eighteenth-century edition by John Ernest Grabe, 2 based on only one, albeit very important, manuscript: the fifth-century codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, Royal 1. D. V-VIII). 3 Fortunately, a modern English translation of the text is now available, 4 as well as several scholarly articles, some discussing the attribution of the letter to Athanasius, 5 others commenting on the contents of the Letter from a theological point of view. 6 Mentioning this text in the increasingly articulate discussions of the epistolary genre may be the next step in its reception and appreciation. 7 Given the antiquity of the Alexandrinus, which chronologically makes it the closest witness to Athanasius’s original, not to mention the venerable status of this manuscript as a pillar of biblical tradition, further work of collation was probably deemed unnecessary; at any rate, none was ever carried out. A list of manuscripts is given by Rondeau, 8 divided according to the classification into families proposed by Opitz in his comprehensive

1 Status quaestionis in Th. Böhm, Exegetische Schriften: Epistula ad Marcellinum, in P. Gemeinhardt (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch, Tübingen, 2011, p. 271-274. 2 J. E. Grabe, Septuaginta interpretum tomus, IV, Oxford, 1709. 3 Only the fourth volume of this codex (containing the Gospels) is available online at the time of writing at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_ MS_1_d_viii [consulted: 26 June 2018]. The online description includes a full bibliography. 4 R. C. Gregg, Athanasius: The Life of Anthony and the Letter to Marcellinus, London, 1980, p. 101-129. 5 H.-J. Sieben, Athanasius über den Psalter. Analyse seines Briefes an Marcellinus, in Théologie philosophique, 48 (1973), p. 157-173; M.-J. Rondeau, L’épître à Marcellinus sur les Psaumes, in VigChr, 22 (1968), p. 176-197. 6 Th.  Böhm, Athanasius, An Marcellinus. Der Psalter als Mitte des Lebens der Kirche, in Bibel und Liturgie, 77 (2004), p. 155-160; P. R. Kolbet, Athanasius, the Psalms and the Reformation of the Self, in Harvard Theological Review, 99 (2006), p. 85101; H. Tanaka, Athanasius as Interpreter of the Psalms: His Letter to Marcellinus, in Pro Ecclesia, 21.4 (2011), p. 422-447. 7 See the introduction by O. Hodkinson and P. Rosenmeyer to O. Hodkinson et al. (ed.), Epistolary Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature, Leiden, 2014, p. 1-36, at p. 34-35. 8 Rondeau, L’épître à Marcellinus [see n. 5], p. 179 and n. 19.



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

work on the transmission of Athanasius. 9 In addition, Rondeau provides a new list of witnesses from the catena tradition of the Psalter, according to the typology of catenae by Karo-Lietzmann. 10 In his list of Psalter prefaces, Georgi Parpulov includes an examination of these Psalter witnesses and points out that the recension of the Alexandrinus was abridged and adapted from time to time in order to fulfill a new, tailor-made role among the prologues to the Psalms. 11 One of the witnesses to this short recension is the manuscript that mainly concerns us here, the eleventhcentury Psalter Vaticanus gr. 752 (catena type XXII; CPG C 35). 12 Much work remains to be done on all fronts – from compiling a complete and detailed list of manuscripts that feature the Letter as prologue within a full inventory of prologues to the Psalms, 13 to preparing a critical edition of the Letter that takes into account the medieval witnesses of both short and long recensions. Here, I set myself the much more limited task of studying the text of the abridged version as found in Vaticanus gr. 752 (V). At least two other witnesses present the same recension, namely, Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53 (T) and Vaticanus gr. 342 (M), to which I have compared the text of V. Premised as prologue to the Psalter, these abbreviated recensions hightlight the use of the text as a practical guide to the reading and praying of Psalms. H.-G. Opitz, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 23), Berlin – Leipzig, 1935. Although the work by Opitz is still fundamental, it is hardly reader-friendly. 10 Rondeau, L’épître à Marcellinus [see n. 5], p. 180, n. 20. Clearly, Rondeau made no attempt at a more detailed description of the manuscripts’ contents. See, for example, the case of Vaticanus, Ottobonianus gr. 398 as discussed in B. Crostini with M.-C. Fincati, Hesychius of Jerusalem’s Prologue to the Psalms Revisited in the Light of Vat. gr. 752 and its Illustrative Programme, in B. Crostini – G. Peers (ed.), A Book of Psalms from Eleventh-Century Byzantium: the Complex of Texts and Images in Vat. gr. 752 (ST, 504), Vatican City, 2016, p. 335, n. 24. 11 G. R. Parpulov, Toward a History of Byzantine Psalters, Plovdiv, 2014: see p. 53 and his appendices; the book is available online at https://ia802700.us.archive. org/19/items/ByzPsalters/ByzPsalters.pdf. 12 A study of Vaticanus gr. 752 was the focus of my research within the programme Ars edendi at Stockholm University (2010-2015). I am grateful to this research group and to Riksbankens Jubileumsfond for supporting my work and providing the means to acquire the necessary reproductions both for the project and for this article. Only more recently has a full colour reproduction of Vaticanus gr. 752 been made available on the Vatican Library website (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.752.pt.1 and https:// digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.752.pt.2). 13 The seminal work on this topic by G. Mercati, Osservazioni a proemi del Salterio di Origene, Ippolito, Eusebio, Cirillo Alessandrino e altri (ST, 142), Vatican City, 1948, esp. p. 1-8, addresses many puzzles that continue to remain open questions in this field. 9



Barbara Crostini

1.2 The Letter in Vaticanus gr. 752 In Vaticanus gr. 752, the Letter occupies f. 11v-16v. It is set in two columns like the rest of the codex, with the last couple of lines written in the upper margin of f. 17. The question whether this text belongs to the initial planning of the manuscript can be answered in the affirmative with the help of some paleographical and codicological observations. According to Francesco D’Aiuto’s analysis of the scribal hands collaborating in the writing of Vaticanus gr. 752, the Letter was copied by hand C, 14 whose work had already begun with the previous prologue text on f. 9v. Scribe C uses a distinctive Perlschrift, characterized by D’Aiuto as the “most professional” among the hands in the codex. After completing the prologue texts, hand C also took part in the writing of the catena commentary from f. 84 onwards, taking over completely from f. 99 until the end of the manuscript (with the exception of f. 444r-v where hand A substitutes it). 15 Scribe C is more skilled than scribe A in coordinating the alignment between psalm verses and their respective scholia, which resulted in a neater, more competent overall effect. As concerns the codicological structure of the prologues, the first sixteen folios make up two regular quaternions. The work of hand A pertains to the first, and that of hand C to the second quire. However, the presence of hand B at the transition between the quires, where a text of pseudoAthanasius’ Synopsis scripturae sacrae (CPG 2249 and 6202) straddles the two codicological units, complicates matters. 16 The excerpt that begins in the middle of the second column of f. 8v, towards the end of the first 14 F.  D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752: fattura materiale, scrittura, mise en page (con qualche osservazione sul Salterio Hierosol. S. Sepulcri 53), in Crostini – Peers (ed.), A Book of Psalms [see n. 10], p. 43-156, esp. p. 65-80. 15 D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 75. The changes of hand at f. 84 and f. 99 do not coincide with the end of Ps. 26 (which is at f. 84v) nor with the end of Ps 32 (at f. 99v). It seems to me that Hand A is still detectable in the upper half of the catena column at f. 99v (two scholia only). 16 This text is printed in PG 84, 28 B12 – 29 B3, where it features as part of Theodoret’s Method, published from Vaticanus gr. 752 with the help of Vindob. theol. gr. 177/336 (see PG 84, 20, ‘Admonitio ad lectorem’; Parpulov, Toward a History [see n. 11], Appendix D2, text H1, p. 156). D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 103 n. 106, describes it in the following manner: “[H1] G, ff. 4v-5v = V, ff. 8v-9v (ex CPG 2249) Synopseos scripturae sacrae excerptum de commentatoribus Psalmorum, in Theodoreti catena insertum (ed. PG 84, coll. 28B12-29B3; cf. etiam PG 28, col. 433B11-436B3; 106, col. 124C2-125A12, ubi sub nomine Ioseppi ponitur)”, where H1 is the sigla in Parpulov’s inventory of prefaces, G is Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53 and V is our manuscript. The order of the texts in Vaticanus gr. 752 does not correspond exactly to the sequence in PG 84.



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

quire, carries over into the beginning of the second quire and ends at f. 9v. Its title, τίνες ἐρμήνευ(σαν) (sic) τὸ ψαλτήριον καὶ πόσοι καὶ πότε, in gold lettering, and the first seven lines only (inc.: Πρώτη ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν) until the end of f. 8v are written by hand A. Then hand B takes over and completes the recto of f. 9, while the concluding passage, the first twelve lines of f. 9v, is penned by hand C. This rapid alternation of hands within a short text suggests that the introductory texts followed a pre-established model. The existence of another manuscript containing an identical sequence of prefatory texts, viz. Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53 (f. 1-12v) offers tangible and indeed rare proof of the duplication of this set of prologues, which usually display an extraordinary variety in number and combinations. 17 As a matter of fact, Parpulov identified the work of hand A in both codices. 18 Was the Jerusalem manuscript (T) the direct model for the Vatican manuscript (V), or perhaps vice-versa? Or were they both copied from a common model (currently unknown and probably lost)? For the time being, it is interesting to point out that what emerges as a pre-established set of prologues is in marked contrast with the current scholarly opinion that the catena of Vaticanus gr. 752 was an ad hoc composition. According to D’Aiuto, observations of the dynamics of scribal work confirm a piecemeal composition for the catena extracts, drawn from disparate sources and models and even gradually expanded. 19 The same conclusion is reached by Reinhart Ceulemans in his thorough review of Adrian Schenker’s work on this catena. According to Ceulemans, “the creation of catena type XXII coincides with the confection of codex Vat. gr. 752 and […] no earlier archetype ever existed: the exegetical compilation was created ad hoc when the different hands put together the text of the manuscript”. 20 Henceforth, the burden of proof lies on those who wish to prove that the catena was not an original com17 For a detailed list of the prefaces in the two manuscripts, see D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 103 n. 106. 18 Parpulov, Toward a History [see n. 11], p. 124, 130; D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 103 and n. 106. 19 D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 112: “Questo indizio di carattere grafico – ovvero l’alternanza regolare, nella trascrizione dell’uno e dell’altro commento, delle due mani A e C all’interno dei ff. 84r-97v – ci testimonia, quindi, direttamente e visivamente che l’assemblaggio e l’incastro dei due diversi commentari non fu attinto da un precedente antigrafo […], ma venne realizzato ad hoc per il Vat. gr. 752 partendo da distinti modelli”; at n. 117 D’Aiuto reviews the previous scholarship on this issue. 20 R.  Ceulemans, The Catena of Vat. gr. 752 (with an Appendix on Giovanni Mercati’s Unpublished Notes on the MS), in Crostini – Peers (ed.), A Book of Psalms [see n. 10], p. 278.



Barbara Crostini

position of these scribes. In other words, catena type XXII was created by and for the Vatican Psalter, in conjunction with its images. Its twin Psalter now in Jerusalem did not include a catena, but only presented the text of the Psalms with select illustrations mainly in the form of author portraits. 21 Thus, the similarities between these manuscripts are limited to the section of the prologues and the dedicatory poems that are part of the introductory materials, while their differences explain to some extent the features that are proper to Vaticanus gr. 752, which emerges as the more scholarly effort of the two. Though stemming from the same milieu of production, as the presence of the same hand attests, these books were the result of different expectations, probably due to the intentions and financial means of their commissioners. 1.3 A Puzzling Last Line A curious piece of evidence with regard to the making of Vaticanus gr. 752 is the displacement of the final lines of the Letter onto the upper margin of the recto of the next folio, f. 17. This situation is somewhat puzzling, and understanding its dynamics has a bearing on the reconstruction of the codicology of this section, as well as on our understanding of how the scribes collaborated. It is unclear why the scribe of the Letter did not use the space in the lower margin of f. 16v to complete his text. The idea of marring a page otherwise containing the elegant epigrams of dedication in chrysography accompanied by miniatures, the current f. 17-18v, 22 by scribbling words in the upper margin of f. 17 is incongruous, and even, from a modern perspective, distasteful. Granted that aesthetic criteria of this sort may not be applicable to the Middle Ages, there remains another puzzle. The ink of the lines written in the upper margin of f. 17 is offset back onto the upper margin of f. 16v, which caused the partial erasure of the original writing. How can one reconstruct what happened at this point? There are two possible interpretations. The first, outlined by D’Aiuto, is predicated on the understanding that the same hand is responsible for the Letter as well as for its concluding lines and that, regardless of the preciousness of the following pages, the scribe went on to use f. 17 because the bifolio 17-18 was present and complete when he had to copy 21 A full description of the miniatures can be found in D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 140-152. 22 See now A. Acconcia Longo, Il ‘Poema’ di introduzione del Salterio Vat. gr. 752, in Crostini – Peers (ed.), A Book of Psalms [see n. 10], p. 157-178.



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

the end of the Letter. The offset then was caused by the pages having been closed while the ink was still wet. D’Aiuto argues that the task of copying the epigrams had been assigned to a scribe working in a miniaturists’ workshop and specialized in chrysography and ornamental writing. 23 In this reconstruction, there is no need to posit a loss of leaves between f. 16 and f. 17, a hypothesis raised by Devreesse. 24 Indeed, a second hypothesis postulates the existence, at some point, of an additional leaf or leaves between the end of the Letter and the sumptuous frontispiece bifolio. This lost material and the illuminated bifolio may or may not have been part of the same quire. Devreesse assumes that f. 17-18 were the central bifolio of a quaternion of which the external bifolia had been cut out, thus creating a lacuna of three leaves per side. Rather, an original page which we can call f. 17* may have been part of a new quire altogether. It is thus possible to envisage that the Letter was originally completed at the start of such a new quire. When it became clear, however, that the new quire would contain only a couple of lines, because the dedicatory poems and the related illustrations had already been executed – or were then being commissioned – on a separate bifolio, this new quire became redundant and was eliminated. The last lines of the Letter were then written at the first opportunity on what became f. 17, when the illustrated bifolio was inserted in its place in the codex. Two factors remain unclear in assessing the evidence. It is quite problematic to judge the writing style in the upper margin of f. 17: the sample of letter-shapes is very limited and their outlines are partly blurred by the erasure. Yet, despite these difficulties, their general aspect and detailed morphology are very similar to the handwriting of the Letter, and D’Aiuto is confident that this addition is the work of hand C. 25 This synchronization between the scribes of the prologues and the production of the bifolio would support D’Aiuto’s opinion that the chrysographer was a separate scribe, which he calls hand F, as against the idea expressed by Parpulov that the gilt majuscule was executed by the same hand as the Letter’s. 26 In the latter case, the scribe surely would have been better in control of the structure of the pages than the current situation suggests. D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 106. D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 51 and n. 29, with reference to the catalogue description of the manuscript by R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani graeci, III. Codices 604-866, Vatican City, 1950, p. 267; see also p. 114 and n. 109. 25 See above, n. 21. 26 See D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], Addendum, no. 5; Parpulov, Toward a History [see n. 11], p. 123. 23 24



Barbara Crostini

As to the offset, it is hard to evaluate whether it occurred instantly (and thus could have been avoided, had the writer of the marginal addition been more careful in letting the ink dry before closing the book), or simply happened at some later point in time, because of humid conditions or some such factor. Other instances of offset in the manuscript 27 make it likely that its conservation conditions were less than ideal and did indeed favour this kind of transfer, which the interleaved thin paper sheets now seek to prevent. If so, the situation at f. 16v-17 does not carry any special significance with respect to the initial conditions of confection of the manuscript. Nevertheless, this irregularity in the completion of the Letter is a symptom of departure from a preexisting model and betrays the need to adapt the present creation for a new purpose. Although the same verses of dedication are also present in Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53, the plain red-ink majuscules there 28 are substituted in V by the special golden ornate majuscule script of f. 17r-v. The change marks a higher quality and enhanced ambition for the production of the Vatican copy of the Psalter. 1.4 The Miniature for the Letter The miniature included at the beginning of the Letter (f. 12) also bears witness to a process of adaptation. It is not placed next to the title, which occupies the last lines of the previous verso and is written in red. Instead, it is positioned awkwardly in the intercolumnar space where the text begins, and its parasitic use of blank parchment appears to indicate that its inclusion was an afterthought. However, closer inspection reveals that half of the first column where the text begins must have been reserved for the illustration before the copying of the text, avoiding overlap or the loss of text. The gold background was applied roughly within the squarish frame drawn in red ink, so that a space approximately intended to cover the area of the present figure must have indeed been left blank on purpose. 29 The text was then written around this space, and the miniature completed after that. By contrast, the regularly shaped, rectangular 27 See, for example, the design of the headpiece at f. 3, offset onto f. 2v with a clear imprint of the monkeys, fountain, and blue patterned motif; a similar transfer occurred in the writing between f. 8v and 9, so that neither are clearly legible now in their upper half; the note on the top margin of f. 23v is also mirror-printed onto f. 24. 28 For a colour reproduction of these pages, see Acconcia Longo, Il ‘Poema’ di introduzione [see n. 21], fig. 3-5. I worked on a reproduction obtained from the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., on the basis of the black-and-white microfilm of the codex taken during the Sinai expedition of 1950. 29 The presence of two arches in the background, barely visible, suggests that perhaps the original frame envisaged rounded tops creating bell-shaped frames similar to



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

miniature in Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53, f. 8, is neatly placed to the side of the title, with a margin between the word endings and its frame, and extends downwards into the lower margin. 30 The iconography is also noteworthy. While the Jerusalem manuscript depicts the solemn, single figure of Saint Athanasius intent on writing the Letter, while sitting evangelist-like on a scribal bench, Vaticanus gr. 752 combines the whole action of writing, sending, and receiving the Letter in a single scene: to the left, a stern, ascetic Athanasius (without a halo) is writing at a desk; in the middle, a young figure in a bright red tunic bordered in gold is carrying a scroll; and on the right another aged, bearded man is sitting on a throne, raising his hand in a gesture of allocution and thereby receiving the scroll. 31 The caption specifies that the seated figure is Marcellinus and further designates him as king – ὁ βασιλεὺς μαρκελίνος (sic). 32 This surprising designation is in line with the iconography in this miniature, where Marcellinus’ royal status is made visible through his stately attire and golden crown. As far as I know, this is the only instance where the otherwise shadowy figure of Marcellinus is characterized as royal. 33 This unusual departure from tradition is reminiscent of the iconography of the Letter of Aristeas (CAVT 273), perhaps used as a model for this depiction. Both Letters fulfil the function of prefaces, to the Octateuch and the Psalms respectively. As Iacobini argues in the case of the representation of King Ptolemy in Vaticanus gr. 747, f. 2v, the historical figure of the king may have acted as an alter-ego for the dedicatee of the book. 34 Could it be that the odd designation of Marcellinus, calqued on the figure of King Ptolemy as letter receiver, points to someone of royal status as the dedicatee of the Vatican Psalter? Although opinions those for the miniatures on f. 11v. The frame may only have become square in the course of the drawing process. 30 Detailed description in D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 140. 31 For other depictions of letter dispatch in Middle Byzantine manuscripts, see A. Iacobini, La ‘Lettera di Aristea’: un prologo illustrato al ciclo degli Ottateuchi mediobizantini, in Arte medievale, ser. 2, 71 (1993), p. 79-95. 32 The captions are now very faded. The transcription by de Wald is thus useful in reconstructing them: see E. T. de Wald, The Illustrations in the Manuscripts of the Septuagint, III. Psalms and Odes, 2. Vaticanus Graecus 752, Princeton – London – The Hague, 1942. The caption between Athanasius and the letter-bearer should read: ὁ ἅ(γιος) ἀθαν(άσιος)/ [ἐ]πιστολ(ὴ) πρὸ(ς)/ μαρκελίνον (sic). The other is written partly above the king’s head, and partly in the space between the two facing heads of the messenger and the king. 33 Attempts to identify Marcellinus with an historical figure have failed. 34 Iacobini, La ‘Lettera di Aristea’: un prologo illustrato [see n. 25], p. 91.



Barbara Crostini

as to the royal (or imperial) dedication of V are divided, 35 this piece of evidence should be taken into account in this debate. Relevant to this issue is the designation of Marcellinus as a monk in a third witness to the abbreviated recension of the Letter, found in Vaticanus gr. 342 (M), f. 1, where the title reads: πρὸς Μαρκελλῖνον μοναχὸν, ἑρμηνεία προτρεπτικὴ τῶν ψαλμῶν. 36 In this case, the choice is fitting for the monastic context of this manuscript and may thus further confirm a propensity for this character’s representative function undergoing various adaptations. In other words, the representation and labeling of Marcellinus as monarch in V was not the only possibility available to the redactors and illustrators of this manuscript.

2. The Text of the Abbreviated Recension of the Letter to Marcellinus 2.1 Structure and Contents of the Abbreviated Recension A comparison of the text printed in PG with the text as transmitted by Vaticanus gr. 752 shows that the latter is a drastically shortened version of the text transmitted in the Alexandrinus. In fact, most of the significant, spiritual passages that make the Letter both famous and appealing to a modern audience, such as chapters 10-13, are entirely omitted. This radical pruning need not signify an active opposition to the ideas expressed by those passages, but it does frustrate a commentator’s opportunity of drawing on these passages to understand the intellectual background to the redactor’s work. The chapters used by the short recension in V and T are: ch. 1 (shortened); ch. 2 until the beginning of ch. 5; ch. 14 (modified); ch. 15-25 (lists shortened and psalm numbers altered); ch. 31 (last sentence only). Clearly, the sections that most interested the compiler were practical lists such as those in ch. 14, where Psalms are distributed according to genre, and those in ch. 15-25, enumerating Psalms for specific occasions. The compiler kept but a short remnant of the framework, barely enough to D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 130 and n. 132-134. For more information on this manuscript, see below, n. 49.

35 36



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

pin the text down to its addressee and contextualize it into a view of Scripture that gives utter prominence to the book of Psalms. This method of working within a set text of which incipit and desinit alone are preserved in recognizable fashion is of course typical of medieval excerptors. A more detailed look at ch. 1 can exemplify the work of the compiler. Below, the texts of the PG and of V are set in parallel columns, so that the gaps visibly highlight the omitted passages. Underlining is used to mark differences in the textual readings, and the punctuation of V is reproduced without changes. 37 PG 27, 12 A1 – B1

Vaticanus gr. 752, f. 12

Ἄγαμαί σε τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ προαιρέσεως, φίλε Μαρκελλῖνε. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸν παρόντα πειρασμὸν, καίτοι πολλὰ παθὼν ἐν αὐτῷ, καλῶς φέρεις, καὶ τῆς ἀσκήσεως οὐκ ἀμελεῖς. Πυνθανόμενος γὰρ τοῦ κομίσαντος τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, πῶς ἄρα καὶ μετὰ τὴν νόσον διάγεις, ἔμαθον πρὸς μὲν πᾶσαν τὴν θείαν Γραφὴν ἔχειν σε τὴν σχολὴν, πυκνότερον δὲ μάλιστα τῇ βίβλῳ τῶν Ψαλμῶν ἐντυγχάνειν τὲ καὶ φιλονεικεῖν, ἐν ἑκάστῳ ψαλμῷ νοῦν ἐγκείμενον καταλαμβάνειν. Kαὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ἀποδέχομαί σε, πολὺν ἔχων εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν βίβλον κἀγὼ πόθον, ὥσπερ καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν Γραφήν. Καὶ γὰρ οὕτως ἔχων, συνέτυχόν τινι φιλοπόνῳ γέροντι, καὶ βούλομαι καί σοι, ἅπερ ἐκεῖνος κατέχων τὸ Ψαλτήριον περὶ αὐτοῦ μοι διηγήσατο, γράψαι· ἔχει γάρ τινα χάριν καὶ πιθανότητα μετ’εὐλόγου τοῦ διηγήματος. Ἔλεγε γὰρ οὕτως· 38

Ἄγαμαί σε τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ προαιρέσεως, φίλε Μαρκελλῖνε, ὡς τῇ βίβλῳ τῶν Ψαλμῶν ἐντυγχάνειν τὲ καὶ φιλονεικεῖν· τὸν ἑκάστῳ ψαλμῷ νοὖν 39 ἐγκείμενον· καταλαμβάνειν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ἀπὸδεχόμεθά σε· πολὺν ἔχων εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν βίβλον· κἀγὼ τὸν πόθον· ὥσπερ καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν Γραφήν.

37 In this diplomatic transcription, I record the text as transmitted in the manuscript, including spelling irregularities. Fr. Munitiz often commented on how many features of the manuscripts are expunged from editions in the name of grammatical correctness and editorial conventions. Although recording each of these idiosyncrasies may be a hopeless task, exposing the reader to their existence is not altogether pointless. 38 English transl. by Gregg [see n. 4], p. 101. 39 ψαλμῶν οὖν ut videtur V: the line ends with ψαλμῶν and the following line starts with οὖν.



Barbara Crostini

In this abbreviated version, the opening of the Letter is reduced to the following elements, stringed together by the added particle ὡς: I admire you, dear Marcellinus, for your preferential choice for Christ, […] because you read the book of Psalms and struggle to understand (the meaning) that is embedded in each of the Psalms, and because of this then we approve you, since I too have much desire for this book, just as for the whole Scripture. (my transl.)

Marcellinus keeps his role as the one beloved by the narrator, but loses his personal characterization as someone who has been struck by hardship (πειρασμὸν) and illness (νόσον), while continuing to practice an ascetic lifestyle (ἀσκήσεως): he is treated simply as the reader par excellence. Two further characters are expunged altogether: the messenger bringing news to and from Marcellinus, even though he is present in the illustration; and the outer voice of the ‘learned old man’ (τινι φιλοπόνῳ γέροντι). This ‘geron’ figure provided a narrative frame to the story by transferring the authority of Athanasius’s instruction to an external voice. By doing away with the sophisticated embedded narrative of the original Letter, 40 the short recension establishes a more direct teacherdisciple communication between Athanasius and Marcellinus. 2.2 The Psalter as Garden The scene is set for praising the Psalter as a book in the Bible and for offering a key to its meaning. The reference to the Holy Scripture at the end of the passage is used as a bridge, leading straight to the comparison between the Psalter and the other books of the Bible offered in ch. 2. While the first paragraph of ch. 2 is omitted, the vocative ὦ τέκνον it contains is transposed to the next sentence, thus retaining the personal address to the disciple, Marcellinus. Ch. 2 is then reproduced in its entirety. Ch. 2 concludes with a famous comparison between the book of Psalms and a garden. The abbreviated version contains a slightly different wording:

On ‘embedded narrative’ as a narratological category, see I. J. F. De Jong, Narratology and Classics. A Practical Guide, Oxford, 2014, p. 34-37; W. Nelles, Frameworks: Narrative Levels and Embedded Narrative (American University Studies, XIX. General Literature, 33), New York, 1997. 40



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

PG 27, 12 C3-6

Vaticanus gr. 752, f. 12v, col. a

Ἡ δέ γε βίβλος τῶν Ψαλμῶν, ὡς παράδεισος τὰ ἐν αὑτῇ φέρουσα, μελῳδεῖ, καὶ τὰ ἴδια δὲ πάλιν μετ’αὐτῶν ψάλλουσα δείκνυσι. Yet the Book of Psalms is like a garden containing things of all these kinds, and it sets them to music, but also exhibits things of its own that it gives in song along with them. (transl. Gregg, p. 102)

Ἡ δέ γε βίβλος τῶν Ψαλμῶν· ὡς παράδεισος ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ ἄνθεα φέρουσα· μελωδεῖ ἐπ’αὐτ(ῶν) 41 καὶ ψάλλουσα δείκνυσι. But the Book of Psalms, like a garden that bears within itself the flowers, sings on them and shows (them) by chanting psalms. (my transl.)

The contrast between the Psalter and the other biblical books, which are described as each having a separate message or agenda, is marked by the strongly adversative particle δέ. The metaphor of the garden is usually interpreted as continuing the idea expressed in this chapter, that the Psalter comprises in itself all the messages from the other books, while at the same time having its proper grace due to its poetic language set to music. In other words, the Psalter has an additional charm in conveying meanings and makes its voice comprehensible in a wider, deeper sense. Gregg’s translation, 42 while hardly a literal rendition of the Greek, suggests this interpretation. Admittedly, the passage as it is transmitted in the Alexandrinus, where it occurs at the end of the first column of text and is no longer clearly readable, 43 is not easily comprehensible. A spot-check in one of the earliest medieval witnesses to the long recension, the tenth-century codex Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 4. 1, 44 provides a variant reading: Ἡ δέ γε βίβλος τῶν ψαλμῶν· τά τε γε πάντων ὡς παράδεισος ἐν αὑτῇ πεφυτευμένος φέρουσα μελῳδεῖ· καὶ τὰ ἴδια δὲ πάλιν μετ’αὐτῶν ψάλλουσα δείκνυσιν.

41 Abbreviation by suspension with small tau written above the upsilon and circumflex accent. Possible readings are also ἐπ’αὐτ(ῇ) or ἐπ’αὐτ(ῷ). 42 Letter to Marcellinus, transl. Gregg [see n. 4], p. 102. 43 I must express my thanks to Felix Albrecht, of the Göttingen Septuaginta Unternehmen, for letting me work on some images of the codex. 44 On this manuscript, see I. Hutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften, I, Stuttgart, 1977, no. 18, p. 27-28, abb. 105 (f. 24v), 106 (f. 25v), 107 (f. 13v) and 108 (f. 15v: David), with bibliography.



Barbara Crostini

The variants here (τά τε γε πάντων … πεφυτευμένος) emphasize a process of sprouting or engendering in the metaphorical garden that hints at the transformation of the input – namely, the information found in other biblical books – as it is received and re-processed in the Psalms by setting it to music. In fact, Gregg’s translation supplied the words found explicitly in the Bodleian codex: “things of all these kinds” (he translates τὰ, but here we find the yet more articulate τά τε γε πάντων), while φέρουσα is here augmented by the pluperfect participle of the verb ‘to sprout’, making the flower imagery more concrete. In the abbreviated version in Vaticanus gr. 752, the comparison is completed by supplying τὰ ἄνθεα as the object of the garden’s flourishing. The addition is of course an obvious one in the context. But, by making the flowers explicit, the metaphorical reference to other biblical books is partly lost, crushed, as it were, by the concreteness of the flowers. Note also the change of preposition from μετὰ to ἐπὶ, which perhaps also contributes to keeping the action within the garden rather than following the metaphor beyond it to the biblical books signified. The παράδεισος here is used in its basic meaning as garden, with flowers, but one could also understand it to refer to a special, Eden-like location, to which the musical performance of the sacred words is contributing. The short version also suppresses the circumlocution καὶ τὰ ἴδια δὲ πάλιν μετ’αὐτῶν, where emphasis returns symmetrically to the special content of the Psalter, or at least to its special virtue placed in the actual chanting. Thus, the parallelism between the metaphor of the Psalter as garden and the concept of it being a biblical book comprising stories from other books, yet exuding a flavour of its own (through poetry and music), is somewhat lost in favour of a simple comparison between the Psalter and a garden producing beauty (flowers) and delight (music). In comparing ch. 2 not only with the text in the Patrologia Graeca, but also with a tenth-century witness such as Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 4. 1, one realizes the need for a better edition of the Letter before any conclusions can be drawn regarding its modifications, especially shorter additions or omissions. There is, indeed, no reason to assume that the original compiler of the short version worked from the ‘long’ recension exactly as found in the Alexandrinus. It is, indeed, much more likely that at least some of its readings were caused by intermediary stages in the Letter’s transmission.



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

2.3 Changes to Chapters 3-5 The structure and sequence of chapters 3 to 5, which detail how each Old Testament book is reflected in the content of a specific Psalm, is kept in the short version. However, throughout the text the compiler abbreviates the Psalm quotations by citing only the first few words of the incipits, as was customary. He also attempted to rationalize the lists by grouping together Psalm numbers. In the Patrologia Graeca the Letter proposes first Psalms 77 and 113 as containing stories from Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and then Psalms 104 and 105 with separate quotations. The version in Vaticanus gr. 752, however, lists Psalms 77, 104, 105 and 113 together and in this order. After the enumeration, it adds the incipit to the quotation from Psalm 104, thus mentioning this psalm twice, but then omits the incipit of Psalm 105 and pushes on to the next biblical book. A more radical omission is that of the greater part of ch. 5, including all examples and quotations of the Christological psalms (these are Psalms 49, 117, 106, 44, 109, 32, as specified in the Letter as read in the PG). The typological references in ch. 6 are also entirely omitted. One wonders to what extent the textual omissions here may reflect an overall exegetical approach that tends to avoid typological exegesis. It has been remarked that this kind of approach to biblical interpretation was equally shunned in the commentary and the illustrations of Vaticanus gr. 752, which do not emphasize traditional typology. 45 Still, the general point that the prophecy of Christ is found in the Psalter is retained, but the expected one-to-one correspondences, including some anti-Jewish polemics at ch. 7, are left out. 2.4 The Letter’s Function as Prologue The mise-en-page of the Letter in Vaticanus gr. 752 highlights that it was conceived as two separate parts, marked by a simple ornamental divider in red ink on f. 14v. The text before the divider ends with the prescription of Psalm 99 at ch. 14, and ch. 15 begins with words that are transformed into a title-rubric in red ink. The rubric appears to have a liturgical function, and reads thus: + τοιαύτης οὔσης τ(ῆς) διατάξεως τῶν ψαλμῶν· ὀφείλη ψάλλειν οὕτως τυπικὰ τοῦ ψαλτῆρο(ς): (Transl.: Since this is the order of the Psalms, it is necessary to sing the “typika” of the Psalter in this way.) 45

de Wald, The Illustrations [see n. 31], p. 47.



Barbara Crostini

The first part of the rubric is the opening of ch. 15 (PG 27, 28 C6-7), but the second part adds a reference to the “typika of the psalter”. This layout, together with the use of red ink in writing the numbers of the prescribed psalms, emphasizes the use of Athanasius’s Letter as a practical guide to the recitation of the Psalter. Such a visual division is not present in Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53. However, another manuscript signaled by Parpulov as having a similar approach to the Letter as Vaticanus gr. 752, the coeval codex Parisinus gr. 164, bears a close resemblance to this utilitarian presentation. Treating the Letter exclusively as a list of reading prescriptions of psalms, Parisinus gr. 164 begins the text from ch. 15, using part of that chapter (PG 27, 28D) as title-rubric, and simplifies the wording of each prescription, regularly beginning with the particle Ἐὰν…, and adding a numbering for each sentence from α´ until νβ´. 46 Having thus lost its entire framework and its more theological paragraphs, the Letter is reduced to the nuts-and-bolts of a recipe for the recitation of Psalms in specific situations. These disparate versions bring to mind the central problem for the textual editor who is faced with such variation within an ostensibly identical text. In the case of Latin Psalter prologues, this problem was exposed in a lucid and learned article by Jonathan Black. 47 From the over two hundred manuscripts transmitting a version of the introductory text, Black singled out two recensions that he presented in parallel columns with a full apparatus, conscious that identifying variations is important in assessing changing attitudes towards a text. Moreover, Black also considered the historical background of this text, which is attributed to Alcuin in his role as instructor to Charlemagne. Although Alcuin’s authorship could be doubted – just as Athanasius’s authorship of the Letter has been called into question –, precisely because such texts are, after all, mere lists of prescriptions that anyone with a minimal education could have compiled, Alcuin’s Life directly attests to his interest in compiling such a work for the instruction of the king: 46 Parpulov, Toward a History [see n. 11], Appendix D2, text A3, p. 145. He gives the reference to PG 27, 28D – 37C, and although the first and last points are correct, the text is in fact radically different and would need a much more detailed comparison. This manuscript is available online through https://gallica.bnf.fr. I am planning to study this text in a separate article. 47 J.  Black, Psalm Uses in Carolingian Prayerbooks: Alcuin and the Preface to De psalmorum usu, in Medieval Studies, 64 (2002), p. 1-60.



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

he [Alcuin] also taught him [Charlemagne] which psalms of penance to sing all his life with litany, collects, and preces; which psalms to sing for special prayer; which ones to sing in praise of God; which ones to sing for any tribulation; and which psalm to sing in order to occupy himself with divine praises. 48

Not surprisingly perhaps, the use of the psalter as a mirror for princes is emphasized and confirmed by the use of texts such as De usu psalmorum as prefaces in the editions of the Psalter. Another parallel worth noticing is that, like Athanasius’s Letter, also Alcuin’s text began with the praise of the Psalter as emphasized in its title, De laude psalmorum. But while the two traditions, Greek and Latin, seem to run parallel in function and elaboration, they are not identical in contents: there appears to be no evidence that Athanasius’s Letter was translated into Latin until the late humanist period, 49 and the Carolingian usus seems to follow its own logic in linking specific psalms to particular needs and uses. 50 2.5 A Psalm for Schism The text of Vaticanus gr. 752 shows that variation in the use of Psalms is found also within Byzantine practice. One striking alteration to the text concerns the Psalm prescribed by the Letter “in case of schism”. Psalm 83 is transposed from the previous prescription, here omitted, to the next, substituting Psalm 86 in the reworked text. The resulting sequence can be shown as follows:

48 Vita Alcuini, 15, ed. W. Arndt, MGH. Scriptores, 15.1, Hannover, 1887, p. 193, after Black, Psalm Uses in Carolingian Prayerbooks [see n. 47], p. 4 and n. 11. 49 For the later fortune of the Letter, see Böhm, Exegetische Schriften [see n. 1], p. 272. 50 The tradition enumerates eight uses, and the following psalms grouped under each: 1) Confession of sins and forgiveness, like David: 6/37 (domine ne in ira tua); 101/142, 31, 50, 129; 2) Prayer: 24, 70 (In te domine speravi), 85, 69, 53, 66, 16; 3) Praise: 102-103 ‘Hallel psalms’, 104-106, 110-115, 116, 117, 134, 135, 145, 146-150, 18 (11), 118 (103); 4) In tribulations and temptations: 21, 63, 68; 5) Being tired of this life: 41, 83; 6) Feeling abandoned by God: 12, 43, 55, 54, 30; 7) In prosperity and calm: 33, 102, 144, The three in the fiery furnace (canticle also in adversity); 8) Contemplate future life: 118.



Barbara Crostini

PG 36, ch. 22, A3-5, 8-11

Vaticanus gr. 752, f. 16v

Καὶ ἐὰν, βλέπων τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ αἰώνια αὐτοῦ σκηνώματα, τὸν πόθον ἔχῃς εἰς αὐτὰ, ὡς εἶχεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος, λέγε καὶ σὺ τὸν πγ´ ψαλμόν. [A6-8, πδ´ + ρκε´] Καὶ τὴν μὲν διαφορὰν τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας πρὸς τὰ σχίσματα ἐὰν θέλῃς γινώσκειν, καὶ ἐντρέπειν ἐκείνους, δύνασαι λέγειν τὰ ἐν τῷ πς´ γεγραμμένα. And seeing the house of God and his eternal tabernacles, should you have zeal for these, as the Apostle did, say also Psalm 83. […] And if you want to know the excellence of the Church catholic in comparison with the convictions and actions of the schismatics, and to reprove the latter, you may say the words written in Psalm 86. (transl. Gregg, p. 120)

[A6-8, πδ´, abbreviated] ἐὰν δὲ γίνωνται σχίσματα τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν· πγ´.

If schisms between churches occur: [say Psalm] 83.

This change in Vaticanus gr. 752 is also found in its twin, Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53. However, a third witness of the short recension, Vaticanus gr. 342 (M), f. 1-2v, preserves the number 86 of the original prescription, appending it to the rewritten, abbreviated notice about schisms. It reads: Ἐὰν δὲ γένωνται σχίσματα τῆς ἐκκλησίας· πς´. This manuscript, dated 1087, is also an illuminated Psalter. It has been associated with the Constantinopolitan monastery of Michael Attaleiates. 51 Although the first two folios where the Letter is written are by 51 R.  Devreesse, Codices Vaticani graeci, II. Codices 330-603, Vatican City, 1937, p. 15-18; F. Bernard, Writing and Reading Byzantine Secular Poetry, 1025-1081, Oxford, 2014, p. 320, endorses this attribution. See, however, G. Mercati, Confessione di fede di Michele Categumeno del monastero fondato da Michele Attaliate, in A. Acconcia Longo (ed.), Collectanea Byzantina, I, Bari, 1970, p. 609-617 (edition of epigrams at p.



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

a different hand, they are probably contemporary with the main text. 52 According to Parpulov, this manuscript preserves the greatest number of prefaces ever contained in a Psalter. 53 Although their sequence is not the same as that in V and T, the manuscript does transmit an essentially identical abbreviated version of the Letter, 54 thus testifying to a broader circulation of this text. 55 I have argued elsewhere 56 that the change of “destination” of Psalm 83 in Vaticanus gr. 752 is particularly appropriate in view of how that Psalm is illustrated in this manuscript. The scene depicted (f. 265) is that of the celebration of the Eucharist, a topic which, as is well known, touched the central issue of the 1054 schism between the Greek and the Latin churches, 57 just five years before the first date of Easter recorded in this manuscript’s tables. If the choice of Psalm is, indeed, particularly significant for the interpretation of this manuscript, we must try to assess more carefully its originality. Was the scribe of Vaticanus gr. 752 also the author of the short recension? Or was he responsible for making the aforementioned changes to an already abbreviated text? By reviewing the relationship of V with the other witnesses, and especially T, we can try to address this question.

617-618) [originally published in OCP, 21 (1955), p. 265-273]. It may be important to take Mercati’s view into account in a future study of this manuscript. 52 The integral reproduction of this manuscript is now available from the Vatican Library website (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.342). 53 Parpulov, Toward a History [see n. 11], p. 63. 54 Changes in the text mainly concern the writing out of numerals in full and the presence or absence of the determinative article associated with psalm numbers. Some of the readings agree with the text in the Patrologia Graeca against the short version as transmitted by V and T. 55 M informs us that the short version certainly circulated in Constantinople in the middle of the eleventh century. Unfortunately, the localization of V and T is uncertain. According to the latest opinion the origin of the manuscript is to be situated outside the capital, perhaps in the Eastern provinces (Antioch or Palestine). However, some elements of the culture of the Byzantine centre remain in V, especially in the style of some ornamented initials: see D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 128. 56 B. Crostini, Editing a Greek Catena from a Single Illuminated Manuscript (Vat. gr. 752), in E. Göransson – G. Iversen et al. (ed.), The Arts of Editing Medieval Latin and Greek: A Casebook, Toronto, 2016, p. 54-71, at p. 62. 57 See among others, M. H. Smith III, And Taking Bread…: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054, Paris, 1978.



Barbara Crostini

2.6 A Comparison of the Short Recension in V and T The text of the Letter to Marcellinus in Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53 is written on f. 8-12, starting on the second quire and continuing on the third. Originally, both these quires were regular quaternions, but now, according to D’Aiuto’s codicological description of the manuscript, several folios are missing, with the third quire consisting only of f. 12-16. 58 One such loss, probably of the original external bifolio, left a lacuna of one folio between f. 11 and f. 12, thus affecting the text of the Letter. 59 The relative dating of T and V is a factor in considering their textual dependence. The dating of T is debated, but recently D’Aiuto argued once more for its ‘traditional’ dating to 1053/1054 on the basis of the year recorded in a computational text at f. 227v. 60 If true, this text was finished a few years before that of V, dated by its canon tables to 1059, but therefore probably started one or two years earlier at least. This chronology and the possibility that both manuscripts had their origin in the same atelier or centre of copy seem to suggest a direct dependency of V on T. This initial hypothesis is not supported by our collations, however, since two passages found in V are absent in T. 61 In other words, T cannot have been the model for V, or at least not the only model. T may still have been used by V together with another copy from which V filled these lacunas. For this hypothesis to hold true, we have to assume that the scribe noticed the omissions and had a source at his disposal from which to remedy them. This additional witness may even have been another copy of the long recension, since in these two passages the wording of the two recensions does not differ. Whether this more complex 58 D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 92 n. 81 and p. 93, also observes that f. 14 is a single folio, but he is uncertain of the structure of the pairs 12+16 and 13+15 in the present state of the manuscript. 59 The missing text corresponds to the reworking of ch. 18-20, cf. PG 27, 32 A1 – 33 B12. 60 D’Aiuto, Il Vat. gr. 752 [see n. 14], p. 91 and n. 78, argues against the dating by Dufrenne to the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century, S. Dufrenne, L’illustration des psaumes dans le Psautier de Jérusalem, cod. Taphou 53: Rôle des tituli, in D. Mouriki et al. (ed.), Byzantine East, Latin West. Art-Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, Princeton, 1995, p. 347-354, 8 figs, at p. 347-348. 61 The first omitted phrase is the following instruction: Οἱ δὲ διαγράφοντες τὸν ἐνάρετον βίον εἰσὶ ε´· οἷον· ιδ´: ρια´: ριη´: ρκδ´: καὶ ρλβ´ = PG 27, 28 A13–14; the second omission is towards the conclusion, where the liturgical instructions are curtailed: on f. 12v, T omits the Psalms assigned for Sunday through to Wednesday, while keeping the first instruction (for Saturday) and the last ones (for Thursday and Friday).



ATHANASIUS’S LETTER TO MARCELLINUS AS PSALTER PREFACE

reconstruction is a viable option may indeed be questioned, especially since there are other factors that do not indicate philological mastery on the part of the scribe of V. The alternative, i.e. that V was the model for T, would entail a rearrangement of their relative chronologies, at least as concerns the quires with the prologue texts. This hypothesis is not inconceivable, as V only omits one word from a biblical quotation. It is, however, more likely that T and V go back to the same ancestor, from which they derived the errors they have in common, but to which each scribe added his own (it must be remembered that although the two manuscripts share the work of scribe A, in V the Letter was copied by scribe C). Orthographical differences between T and V may perhaps be best explained by a process of oral dictation from a common model. It is more difficult to evaluate differences in Psalm numberings, given that in Greek numbers are written as letters. Some of these variations may have been due to misreadings, despite the attempt to minimize such a problem by writing lists of Psalms in red ink and small capitals, each item separated by colons rather than normal punctuation. If we postulate the existence of a common model for T and V, then how does it compare to the text as transmitted in Vaticanus gr. 342 (M)? Some readings in T coincide with the text in M and with the long version as printed in the Patrologia Graeca, against V. For example, in the case of a string of numbers V only has the first item (οη´), while T and M (and PG) also mention Psalms οθ´, ρη´. T and M also share the omission of some particles and some readings. With regard to the question of the Psalm in case of schism, as we saw above, M follows the numbering of the long version, against the reading shared by T and V. This agreement may have been dependent on their common model, or it could reflect a deliberate modification on the part of the T-V branch of the abbreviated text regarding Psalm 83. The later copy, M, may have gone back to the reading of the long version, which presumably was not an unfamiliar text in eleventh-century Constantinople. 62

The Pinakes database lists 61 extant witnesses of which 21 are dated between the tenth (2 witnesses) and the twelfth centuries. 62



Barbara Crostini

3. Conclusions Different versions of Athanasius’ Letter to Marcellinus have come down to us. The version as found in Vaticanus gr. 752 was clearly shortened with respect to the text from the Alexandrinus as printed in PG 27. The text takes on a practical function as preface to the Psalter, seen primarily as a liturgical book, while the depiction of Marcellinus as a king alludes to the use of Psalters as mirrors of princes. Alcuin’s preface to the Latin Psalter for Charlemagne suggests the same function. Was the scribe of the Letter in Vaticanus gr. 752 also the original redactor of the short recension? The strong arguments for an ad hoc catena in this manuscript make the hypothesis an attractive one. One change in the Psalm number references for a Psalm read ‘in case of schism’ suggests a purposeful coordination between the redaction of the Letter and the making of this Psalter. Compared to its twin, Jerusalem, Hagiou Taphou 53, this edition of the Psalter is more ambitious not only on the formal level (larger book format, more miniatures with gold backgrounds, etc.), but also with regard to the level of scholarship and engagement with the meaning of the Psalm texts, notably through the assembly of a new catena commentary. Could it be that the Letter to Marcellinus as prologue in this short version was also created for this production? Because of the alternation of scribes in the initial fascicules of V, containing the prologue materials, it seems more likely that they were following, at least for this part of the manuscript, a pre-existing model. The same set of texts is found in T, a codex closely associated with the production of V and dated a few years earlier. The possibility that T was the model of V was analyzed by collating the text of the Letter. Further, a third copy of this short version was identified in the Constantinopolitan luxury psalter Vaticanus gr. 342, dated 1087. These three manuscripts, all of them illuminated copies of the Psalter and dated to the second half of the eleventh century, are not interrelated by any obvious model-copy relationship. Rather, their variant readings suggest a contaminated tradition that presupposes multiple copies handled by each scribe with a degree of freedom to fit the specific production. In conclusion, while it would be unsafe to state that V was the creator of the short version of the Letter as Psalter preface, it is still possible that its specific readings matched the requirements of the production of this Psalter, and reflect a V-T recension of this abbreviated version.



José Declerck

La prise de Jérusalem en 614 : les autorités, le peuple, les dèmes et le clergé* Abstract – The Sacra (Parallela) were compiled in the early seventh century by a monk and priest named John (not to be confused with his famous namesake John of Damascus), who added his own annotations (σχόλια) to the cited scriptural or patristic texts. Two of his annotated texts shed light upon the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 ad. Both have been known since M. Le Quien’s 1712 edition, but are published here with an assessment of all their different readings. The author expresses distress that the churches of the Cross and the Resurrection had fallen into the hands of a defiled nation and that the relics of the Holy * Sources citées en abrégé : Agapius – A. Vasiliev, Kitab al-῾unvan. Histoire universelle écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj, II (PO, 8.3), Paris, 1912, p. 397-550 ; Anastase le Sinaïte – M. Richard († ) – J. A. Munitiz, Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et responsiones (CCSG, 59), Turnhout – Louvain, 2006 ; Chronicon Guidi – I. Guidi, Chronicum Anonymum, dans Chronica minora, I (CSCO, Scriptores Syri, 2), Paris, 1903, p. 15-32 ; Chronicon Paschale – L. Dindorfius, Chronicon Paschale. Ad exemplar Vaticanum (Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae), Bonn, 1832 ; Chronicon 724 – I.-B. Chabot, Chronicon miscellaneum ad annum Domini 724 pertinens, dans Chronica minora, II (CSCO, Scriptores Syri, 4), Paris, 1904, p. 61-119 ; Eutychius – M. Breydy, Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien. Ausgewählte Geschichten und Legenden kompiliert von Sa῾id ibd Batrīq um 935 A.D (CSCO, 472 [Scriptores arabici, 45]), Louvain, 1985 ; Jean de Nikiou – H. Zotenberg, Chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou, Paris, 1883 ; Michel le Syrien – I.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199), II, Paris, 1909 ; Nicéphore de Constantinople – C. Mango, Nicephoros Patriarch of Constantinople Short History (CFHB, XIII), Washington, D. C., 1990 ; Ps.-Sebèos – Fr. Macler, Histoire d’Héraclius par l’évêque Sebèos, Paris, 1904 ; Strategius – G. Garitte, La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614 (CSCO, 202-203 [Scriptores Iberici, 12-13]), Louvain, 1960 ; Théophane le Confesseur – C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, Vol. I. Textum graecum continens, Leipzig, 1883 ; Vie de S. Georges de Choziba – C. Houze, Sancti Georgii Chozebitæ confessoris et monachi Vita, auctore Antonio ejus discipulo, dans AB, 7 (1888), p. 95-144, 336-359 ; The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 167–188 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117148

José Declerck

Cross had been removed from Jerusalem. Noticeably, he blames the Blue and Green factions who enjoyed the moral (perhaps even active) support of (most of ) the clergy. In his eyes, the fall of the city was the divine punishment for the bad behaviour of its inhabitants. John’s concise view of events is corroborated further by Strategius and Ps.-Sebeos, who recorded the circumstances preceding and during the capture of Jerusalem more extensively. Des pièces à conviction probantes, connues depuis longtemps mais sans qu’on en ait tiré la bonne conclusion, ainsi qu’une série d’indices relevés récemment par nous-même, 1 contraignent à dater la rédaction des Sacra (Parallela) du premier quart du viie siècle. La version primitive de cette immense compilation (Ancien et Nouveau Testaments, Pères de l’Église, Philon d’Alexandrie et Flavius Josèphe) est perdue, mais de larges sections en sont conservées dans un certain nombre de florilèges, 2 qui nomment un prêtre et moine Jean comme compilateur/auteur. 3 Dans une partie de la tradition manuscrite ce personnage est identifié à Jean Damascène (mort avant 754), auteur ecclésiastique prolifique, qui s’est distingué par sa résistance à la politique iconoclaste de l’empereur Léon III et que l’Église orthodoxe considère comme son théologien principal. C’est cette triple auréole, nous semble-t-il, qui explique pourquoi l’identification du compilateur des Sacra avec Jean Damascène a été assez généralement acceptée et au besoin défendue avec acharnement. Nous reviendrons ici sur les pièces qui excluent clairement l’attribution traditionnelle des Sacra au Damascène, à savoir les deux « scholies » (voir n. 3) qui ont été publiées une première fois en 1712 par Michel Le Quien sur base du Florilegium Rupefucaldinum, 4 une deuxième fois, indépendamment de Le Quien, par M. B. Flusin en 1992, 5 qui a utilisé 1 J. Declerck, Les Sacra Parallela nettement antérieurs à Jean Damascène : retour à la datation de Michel Le Quien, dans Byz, 85 (2015), p. 27-65. 2 Voir à ce sujet M. Richard, Florilèges grecs, dans Dsp, fasc. 33-34, Paris, 1962, col. 476-486 (= Opera minora, I, Turnhout – Louvain, 1976, n° 1). 3 Plusieurs sections de l’ouvrage sont en effet de la plume du compilateur luimême : les prologues, les titres (parfois amples) des chapitres et surtout un certain nombre de textes qui sont désignés comme σχόλια et qui fournissent soit des renvois à des chapitres apparentés, soit de petits commentaires relatifs aux passages cités. 4 Sancti patris nostri Joannis Damasceni … opera omnia quae exstant et ejus nomine circumferuntur, Paris, 1712, p. 749 et 750 (= PG 86, 472, 43-50 et 473, 18-26). 5 B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse et l’histoire de la Palestine au début du viie siècle, II. Commentaire. Les moines de Jérusalem et l’invasion perse (Le monde byzantin), Paris, 1992, p. 50-51.



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

le Florilegium La, 6 et une troisième fois par nous-même en 2018 7. En dehors de leur importance pour la datation des Sacra, les deux petits textes jettent quelque lumière sur les circonstances dans lesquelles Jérusalem est tombée aux mains des Perses en mai 614, événement dramatique qu’apparemment le compilateur des Sacra a vécu d’assez près, ce qui implique qu’il résidait alors en Palestine, soit à Jérusalem même, soit dans la périphérie. À en juger par le grand nombre d’auteurs et d’ouvrages auxquels il a eu accès, il a travaillé dans une bibliothèque bien fournie, peut-être celle de la Grande Laure de S. Sabas. Si cette hypothèse est exacte, on peut partiellement reconstruire ce qui a été le sort de Jean en 614 et pendant les premières années qui suivirent. Une semaine avant la chute de Jérusalem, la Grande Laure a été attaquée par une bande de Sarrasins, qui ont volé les vases sacrés de l’église et coupé en morceaux les quarante-quatre moines qui n’avaient pas pu ou voulu s’enfuir, les autres ayant cherché refuge en Arabie. 8 Lorsque ceux-ci revinrent, ils trouvèrent les corps de leurs frères assassinés. Modeste, le futur patriarche de Jérusalem, 9 insista pour que les moines revenus se réinstallassent dans la Grande Laure, mais deux mois plus tard, terrifiés par des rumeurs de nouvelles incursions, ils quittèrent la laure pour la seconde fois et se réfugièrent dans le monastère abandonné de S. Anastase, à vingt stades de Jérusalem, où ils restèrent pendant deux ans environs. Ensuite, toujours à la demande de Modeste, ils retournèrent à la Grande Laure. 10 Les scholies relatives à la prise de Jérusalem figurent dans le livre II des Sacra, plus particulièrement dans la seconde recension de ce livre 11 6 Le Florilegium La est en substance un exemplaire du Florilegium Rupefucaldinum, enrichi par quelques emprunts au Florilegium PMLb ; cf. Richard, Florilèges [voir n. 2], col. 482. 7 Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, VIII/6. Iohannis monachi (VII saeculo ineunte) Sacra olim Iohanni Damasceno attributa. Liber II. De rerum humanarum natura et statu. Zweite Rezension. Erster Halbband. A–E (*II21–1592). Besorgt von J. Declerck (PTS, 76), Berlin – Boston, 2018, p. 117 (*II2158 / T cap. A 6, 26) et 147 (*II2225 / T cap. A 12, 6). 8 Comme l’avaient fait avant eux une partie des moines du monastère de Choziba ; cf. Vie de S. Georges de Choziba, 31 (p. 129, 14-16) et 34 (p. 133, 13-15) ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 177. 9 À son sujet (vie, reconstruction des sanctuaires de Jérusalem, réoccupation des monastères abandonnés), on verra Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 172-180. 10 Nous devons le récit de ces événements à Antiochus de S. Sabas, qui faisait partie des moines survivants (PG 89, 1422-1428) ; traduction française et commentaire chez Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 177-179. 11 La première scholie figure dans un des chapitres du livre III qui ont été introduits dans la seconde recension du livre II (Declerck, Sacra [voir n. 7], LXXXIV).



José Declerck

(ce qui ne diminue pas leur signification pour la datation de l’ensemble). Voici les florilèges (et les manuscrits) dans lesquels elles se trouvent : Florilegium Thessalonicense : Salonique, Vlatadon 9 (xe siècle ; sigle T) ; Florilegium Hierosolymitanum (livre III) : Jérusalem, S. Sépulcre 15 (xie siècle ; sigle HIII) et sa copie directe, l’Athènes, Metochion du S. Sépulcre 274 (xive siècle ; sigle AIII) ; Florilegium Lc : Florence, Laurent., plut. VIII, 22 (xive siècle ; sigle Lc), f. 74-189 ; Florilegium Rupefucaldinum : Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, gr. 46 (Phillipp. 1450) (xiie siècle ; sigle R) ; Florilegium La : Florence, Laurent., plut. VIII, 22 (xive siècle ; sigle La), f. 1-45 ; 12 Florilegium PMLb : Paris, Bibliothèque nationale gr. 923 (ixe siècle ; sigle P) ; Venise, Marc. gr. 138 (xe-xie siècles ; sigle M) et Florence, Laurent., plut. VIII, 22 (xive siècle ; sigle Lb), f. 46-73. La première scholie (Sacra *II2158 / T cap. A 6, 27) 13 voit dans la prise de la ville par les Perses l’accomplissement de deux passages combinés (12, 1-2 et 7, 24) d’Ézéchiel (Et le Seigneur m’a dit : Fils d’homme, tu habites au milieu des injustices de ceux qui ont des yeux pour voir et ne voient pas, et des oreilles pour entendre et n’entendent pas, car c’est une maison provocatrice. Pour cela je mettrai fin à l’orgueil qu’ils mettent en leur force, et leurs sanctuaires seront profanés). Σχόλιον. Τοῦτο καὶ ἡμῖν ἐξ ἡμετέρων συμβέβηκεν ἁμαρτημάτων· καύχημα γὰρ καὶ δόξασμα1 παντὸς γένους2 Χριστιανῶν ὁ σωτήριος Σταυρὸς3 καὶ ἡ ζωηφόρος4 Ἀνάστασις ὑπῆρχον5· ἅτινα διὰ τὸ μεμιαμμένον6-7 Βενετοπράσινον ὄνομα6 ὃ8 ἐπεθήκαμεν ἑαυτοῖς9, καὶ ἐβδελύχθημεν10 ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἁγιάσαντος ἡμᾶς τῷ θείῳ αὐτοῦ11 ὀνόματι, εἰς χεῖρας μεμιαμμένων12 παρεδόθησαν καὶ ἐμιάνθησαν.

Témoins (apographes inclus): T cap. A 6, 27 (18rB[4]5-17) ; HIII cap. A 4, 27 (115vB[mg]15-27) ; AIII cap. A 4, 27 (199v[mg]14-20) ; R cap.

12 Les sections que le rédacteur du Florilegium La a reprises au Florilegium Rupefucaldinum [voir n. 6] semblent avoir été copiées directement du Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, gr. 46 (Phillipp. 1450) ; Declerck, Sacra [voir n. 7], p. XCII-XCVI. 13 Voir ci-dessus, n. 7.



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

A 6, 28 (26r[33]33-38) ; La cap. A 6, 28 (29v[25]25-29) ; M cap. A 6, 27 (25vA7-18) ; Lb cap. A 6, 27 (60v30-33) ; deest in Lc P (lac.)

Lemma : Σχόλιον] om. MLb 1δόξα Lb 2παντὸς γένους] παντων (sine acc.) Μ 3 Σταυρὸς] add. ἐστιν M 4ζωηφόρος] πάντων Μ 5ὑπῆρχον] om. M 6μεμιαμμένον – ὄνομα] βενετοπρασὶνονομα Μ 7μεμιαμένον T HIIIAIII, μεμϊασμένον Lb 8 ὃ] om. HIIIΑΙΙΙ 9αὐτοῖς T HIIIAIII Lb 10ἐβδελύχημεν Ra.c.. 11θείῳ αὐτοῦ] τιμιω αὐτου καὶ θείω Μ 12μεμιαμένων HIIIAIII Μa.c., μεμϊασμένων La Lb « Ceci est arrivé également à nous, suite à nos péchés : car (les églises de) la Croix salvatrice et de la Résurrection vivifiante étaient la fierté et la gloire de tous les chrétiens ; or, à cause du nom souillé ‘Bleu-ou-Vert’ que nous nous sommes donné à nous-mêmes et (à cause duquel) nous sommes devenus un objet de dégoût pour le Christ qui nous avait sanctifiés par son nom divin, ces églises ont été livrées aux mains de (gens) souillés et elles ont été profanées. »

Les leçon αὐτοῖς (T HIIIAIII Lb) et ἑαυτοῖς (R La) sont des variantes morphologiques banales : à l’époque où les scholies ont été rédigées, le pronom αὐτοῖς pouvait aussi bien être réfléchi que non réfléchi, l’ancienne forme ἑαυτοῖς n’étant employée que si on voulait insister ou éviter une ambiguïté. Dans ce cas-ci, il est difficile de dire dans quelle direction le texte a évolué (de ἑαυτοῖς à αὐτοῖς ou vice versa), puisque les manuscrits principaux T et R remontent indépendamment l’un de l’autre à un modèle commun. La seconde scholie (Sacra *II2225 / T cap. A 12, 6) 14 commente Osée 4, 1-4 (Écoutez la parole du Seigneur, fils d’Israël, car le Seigneur est en procès avec les habitants du pays, parce qu’il n’y a pas de vérité ni de compassion ni de connaissance de Dieu dans le pays ; malédiction, mensonge, meurtre, vol et adultère se sont répandus sur le pays, et ils mélangent le sang au sang. Pour cela le pays sera en deuil et sera diminué avec tous ceux qui l’habitent, pour que nul n’intente un procès et que nul ne reproche à l’autre). Dans le Florilegium PMLb, le chapitre entier (Περὶ ἀναρχίας, ὅτι ἐπιβλαβὴς καὶ ἐπικίνδυνος καὶ συγχύσεως αἰτία) a été omis. Σχόλιον. Μάθωμεν διὰ τοῦ θείου τούτου1 καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς, τί τὸ αἴτιον τῆς καταλαβούσης ἡμᾶς ἀναρχίας2 καὶ συγχύσεως, καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ3 ἐπαφήσας4 ἡμῖν τὴν καταδυναστείαν5 τὴν ἐξ ἐθνῶν5. Ἐμολύναμεν γὰρ πρὸς τοῖς μυρίοις6 ἡμῶν ἀτοπήμασιν, καὶ7 ἐμφυλίῳ αἵματι τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ τῷ παντὶ8 κόσμῳ σεβασμίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν πόλιν, ὡς καὶ μετανάστην γενέσθαι ταύτης τὸν τίμιον σταυρόν, τὴν9 ζωὴν ἡμῶν7 (Col. 3, 14). Voir ci-dessus, n. 7.

14



José Declerck

Témoins (apographes inclus) : Τ cap. A 12, 6 (22vB[10]11-23) ; HIII cap. A 10, 6 (119vA[1]1-15) ; AIII cap. A 10, 6 (204v[mg]11-18) ; R cap. A 12, 6 (31v[18]1824) ; Lc cap. A 45, 5 (189v[23]23-25)  ; La cap. A 12, 6 (36r[12]12-17) 1 τούτου] add. οὗ Τ ΗΙΙΙΑΙΙΙ, add. ῥήματος Flusin 2ἀναρχείας Τ ΗIII 3ὁ] om. HIIIAIII 4ἐπαφείσας Τ, ἐπαφϊεὶς AIII, ἐπαφεὶς Lc 5καταδυναστείαν – ἐθνῶν] ἐξ ἐθνῶν καταδυναστείαν T HIIIAIII Lc 6μυρίοις] om. Lc 7καὶ – ἡμῶν] desunt in Lc (lac.) 8 παντὶ τῶ T HIIIAIII 9τὴν] καὶ Τ ΗΙΙΙΑΙΙΙ « Apprenons par cette parole de Dieu et par celles qui suivent, ce qui a été la cause de l’anarchie et de la confusion qui se sont emparées de nous, et que Dieu, qui a envoyé sur nous la domination des nations, n’est pas injuste. Car en plus des innombrables folies que nous avons commises, nous avons également souillé notre ville sainte, qui est vénérée du monde entier, par le sang de nos concitoyens, de sorte que même l’ait quittée la Croix précieuse, notre vie (Col. 3, 14). »

Les mots καὶ (διὰ) τῶν ἑξῆς renvoient aux quatre textes figurant après le scholion (Hab. 1, 14 ; Is. 3, 1-5 ; Ibid., 24, 1-3 ; Ez. 7, 26), où de fait est décrite la désolation que Dieu fera descendre sur les hommes. Comme dans la première scholie, on distingue facilement les deux branches de la tradition, sans que le stemme détermine laquelle des deux l’éditeur doit suivre : τὴν καταδυναστείαν τὴν ἐξ ἐθνῶν (R) contre τὴν ἐξ ἐθνῶν καταδυναστείαν (T), τῷ παντὶ κόσμῳ (R) contre παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ (T), et (τὸν τίμιον σταυρόν), τὴν (ζωὴν ἡμῶν) (R) contre (τὸν τίμιον σταυρὸν) καὶ (ζωὴν ἡμῶν) (T). Les seules choses qu’on puisse observer est que la répétion de l’article dans le premier passage accentue encore la gravité de la punition, et que dans le deuxième passage l’ordre des mots en R est moins commun que celui en T. L’anarchie et la confusion dont il est question dans la seconde scholie, sont celles qui ont marqué le règne désastreux de Phocas (602-610), tandis que les faits concrets nommés dans l’une et l’autre scholie – la profanation des églises de la Croix et de la Résurrection ainsi que le vol des reliques de la Croix – se sont produits lors de la prise de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614. Il est vrai que les scholies n’apportent rien qui soit vraiment nouveau, mais la pénurie d’informations sur cet épisode justifie qu’on essaie d’interpréter au mieux leur contenu. Nos clés seront deux récits indépendants et contemporains (ou presque) des événements : le De Persica captivitate de Strategius, autre moine de S. Sabas, et l’Histoire d’Héraclius d’un Ps.-Sebèos (arménien). Le récit de Strategius, qui semble être un amalgame de plusieurs documents, est virulemment anti-Perse, mais le matériel fourni peut être utilisé sans crainte, mais évi-



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

demment non sans un certain discernement. 15 Quant à l’ouvrage du Ps.-Sebèos, dans lequel les derniers faits rapportés datent de 655, en règle générale, là où on peut la vérifier, sa version des faits se révèle fiable. 16 D’après l’auteur des scholies, Dieu a permis que les Perses occupassent Jérusalem afin de punir les péchés commis par ses habitants – l’usage de la première personne du pluriel (Ἐμολύναμεν) souligne la culpabilité de l’ensemble des chrétiens –, ceux-ci ayant souillé la ville en versant le sang de leurs concitoyens (ἐμφυλίῳ αἵματι). 17 Strategius a lui aussi reconnu la main punissante de Dieu, et il allègue la même cause, en invoquant plus particulièrement les massacres perpétrés à Constantinople sous Justinien, 18 et (plus récemment) à Antioche et à Laodicée, et en pleurant les innombrables victimes de Bonose, 19 comes Orientis de Phocas. En 608, Bonose avait été envoyé à Antioche, avec une armée sous les ordres du général Cottanas, 20 pour mettre fin à des émeutes dont il n’est plus tout à fait clair aujourd’hui qui en étaient les instigateurs : les Juifs et les monophysites ont été pointés du doigt, 21 mais la responsabilité principale semble

J. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis. Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century, Oxford, 2010, p. 164-167 ; voir aussi la bibliographie rassemblée par Y. Stoyanov, Defenders and Enemies of the True Cross. The Sasanian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 and Byzantine Ideology of Anti-Persian Warfare (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 819. Band), Vienne, 2011, p. 12, n. 11 (à laquelle on ajoutera G. W. Bowersock, Polytheism and Monotheism in Arabia and the Three Palestines [DOP, 51], Dumbarton Oaks, 1997, p. 9-10). Sur la façon dont Strategius a conçu et structuré sa narration, voir R. L. Wilken, The Land Called Holy. Palestine in Christian History and Thought, New Haven – London, 1992, p. 219-224. 16 Howard-Johnston, Witnesses [voir n. 15], p. 71-74. 17 Même lien de cause et effet dans le Chronicon Guidi (p. 22, 18-20), qui rappelle l’exécution de l’empereur Maurice et de ses enfants. 18 Sur les faits et le souvenir durable qu’ils ont laissé chez les byzantins, voir G. Greatrex, The Nika Riot : A Reappraisal, dans JHS, 117 (1997), p. 60-86, et G. Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire. Études sur le recueil des “Patria” (Bibliothèque Byzantine, 8), Paris, 1984, p. 168-169. 19 Strategius, III, 7-11 (p. 6, 3-27). Après avoir mentionné les victimes de Bonose, Strategius invoque encore les malheurs de Jérusalem (III, 12 [p. 6, 27-32]), mais il semble que là il s’agisse de ce qui est advenu après et non avant la prise de la ville par les Perses. 20 ὁ δὲ Φωκᾶς ἐποίησε κόμητα ἀνατολῆς Βώνοσον καὶ Κοττανᾶν στρατηλάτην καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς κατ’αὐτῶν (Théophane le Confesseur, A. M. 6101 [p. 296, 21-23]) ; cf. également Ps-Sebèos, 21 (p. 55-56). 21 Les Juifs selon Théophane le Confesseur (A. M. 6101 [p. 296, 17-18]), les monophysites selon Jean de Nikiou (104 [p. 419-420]). 15



José Declerck

avoir été du côté des dèmes. 22 La révolte fut violemment réprimée, 23 et Bonose, qui adhérait lui-même aux Bleus, fit éliminer un grand nombre de Verts. 24 Si nous supposons que Strategius a cité les villes dans l’ordre chronologique du passage de Bonose – géographiquement, ce trajet semble logique –, d’Antioche le comes Orientis descendit vers le sud, restaura l’ordre à Laodicée 25 et se rendit de là à Jérusalem ; il est possible que Cottanas et son armée soient restés à Antioche (voir ci-dessous), Bonose se faisant escorter à Jérusalem uniquement par des hommes des dèmes. Aux dires de Strategius, Jérusalem était à cette époque à la merci des Bleus et des Verts, que l’on reconnaissait grâce à la couleur de leurs vêtements. 26 Pendant le patriarcat de Zacharie, lequel devait son installation à Bonose, de nouveaux groupes de partisans étaient arrivés et s’étaient joints à ceux qui étaient sur place depuis longtemps ; 27 bien que cela ne soit pas dit expressément, les nouveaux venus pourraient être les hommes que Bonose avait emmenés avec lui d’Antioche. 28 Les deux factions se bagarraient continuellement entre elles ou cherchaient querelle aux autres habitants de la ville, s’adonnant aux pires excès (coups, vols, blessures et même homi22 G. Dagron – V. Déroche, Juifs et Chrétiens dans l’Orient du viie siècle. Introduction historique. Entre histoire et apocalypse par G. Dagron (Bilans de recherche, 5), Paris, 2010, p. 9-10 ; D. M. Olster, The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century : Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium, Amsterdam, 1993, p. 101sqq. ; en ce qui concerne le rôle supposé des Juifs, voir J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford, 2001, p. 273, n. 119. 23 Chronicon Paschale (p. 700, 4-6) : …Βόνωσος, ὅστις τὰ πάνδεινα ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ κατ’ἐπιτροπὴν Φωκᾶ διεπράξατο… 24 À partir de 603, malgré leur sympathie initiale, les Verts étaient devenus très hostiles à Phocas. 25 Le seul autre auteur qui ait nommé Laodicée dans le cadre de la révolte en Orient, est Mahboub, évêque chalcédonien de Menbidj (xe siècle), mieux connu sous son nom grec latinisé, Agapius. Phocas aurait imposé des amendes à Antioche, à Laodicée et dans toute la Syrie et la Mésopotamie, parce que les chrétiens y avaient massacré des Juifs sous prétexte que ceux-ci projetaient d’éliminer les chrétiens et de détruire leurs églises (p. 449), la mesure impériale étant, on s’en doute, plus inspirée par le besoin d’argent que par sa sympathie pour les Juifs (cf. Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 103, n. 10). Selon Eutychius (270 [p. 101,20 – 102,13]), la ville de Tyr aurait été attaquée par une armée de 20.000 Juifs ; cf. Dagron, Juifs et Chrétiens [voir n. 22], p. 24-25 ; voir également ci-dessous n. 46. 26 Strategius, II, 3 (p. 4, 24-26) ; Michel le Syrien (p. 401-402). 27 Strategius, II, 1-2 (p. 4, 19-24) : « Nam Zacharias patriarcha Hierosolymae … pascebat greges suos decenter et disposite et grate Deo. Et in illis diebus advenerunt homines aliqui mali et habitaverunt in Ierusalem ; et nonnulli ex illis constituti erant antea in civitate hac sancta… ». 28 Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 113.



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

cides). 29 On peut supposer que les Juifs ont été particulièrement ciblés. 30 Il n’y a pas d’indices que les confrontations aient eu un caractère politique, opposant partisans et adversaires de Phocas, 31 ni qu’il y ait eu des tueries à grande échelle comme à Antioche. Strategius présente Bonose comme le chef naturel des deux dèmes, 32 sans qu’apparemment il ait dû s’imposer par la force. Le but principal du séjour de Bonose à Jérusalem peut avoir été la déposition du patriarche Isaac (601-609) et l’installation de son successeur Zacharie, 33 qui avait été skeuophylax (gardien du trésor) de Sainte-Sophie à Constantinople. 34 On a suggéré qu’Isaac n’était pas à la hauteur de sa tâche et qu’il fallait quelqu’un qui eût une certaine expérience administrative et dont les antécédents fussent de nature à lui garantir la confiance de l’empereur. 35 Comment Bonose 36 a-t-il réussi à faire collaborer les dèmes rivaux de Jérusalem, les Verts consentant (temporairement, comme nous le verrons) à oublier leurs collègues tués à Antioche ? La meilleure façon de réconcilier des ennemis jurés est de leur trouver un ou plusieurs adversaires communs. À cette époque, cela n’était pas très difficile. Directement en 29 Strategius, II, 4 et 6-7 (p. 4, 26-30 et p. 5, 11-16). D’après Olster (Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 113), qui s’en rapporte à Antiochus Monachus (c’est-à-dire à Strategius ; sur cette confusion, fréquemment commise, voir Bowersock, Polytheism [voir n. 15], p. 109, n. 33), les émeutes ne commencèrent qu’après le départ de Bonose ; à notre avis, le récit de Strategius ne permet pas une telle conclusion. 30 « Les Juifs sont certainement impliqués, comme acteurs ou victimes … dans tous les troubles urbains de l’époque » ; Dagron, Juifs et Chrétiens [voir n. 22], p. 12. 31 Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 113 (opinion contraire chez Dagron, Juifs et Chrétiens [voir n. 22], p. 27). 32 Strategius, IV, 7 (p. 7, 18-21) : « Et dux … fuit malignus hic Bonosus, quia omnino plenus erat impietate et attendens civitatum destructioni et ecclesiarum devastationi cum antea memoratis hominibus malignis... ». 33 Strategius, IV, 7 (p. 7, 22-24) : « …et in-animo-habebat etiam comprehendere et necare patriarcham qui erat ante Zachariam patriarcham, et ecclesias perdere. » On voudrait bien savoir ce que Strategius entendait exactement par ‘ecclesias perdere’, et il est curieux que Strategius ne mentionne pas le nom du prédécesseur de Zacharie (probablement, il lui était opposé). 34 Chronicon Paschale (p. 699, 4-7) : παύεται δὲ καὶ Ἰσάκιος ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων, καὶ γίνεται ἀντ’αὐτοῦ Ζαχαρίας ἀπὸ πρεσβυτέρων καὶ σκευοφυλάκων τῆς ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως… 35 Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 113. 36 Les sources contemporaines n’ont strictement rien de bon à dire au sujet de ce sinistre personnage ; voir Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 143-144 (avec la n. 71). On ajoutera qu’Anastase le Sinaïte, 65, 12 (p. 116) l’appelle ‘Bonose le bourreau’ (διὰ Βωνόσου τοῦ δημίου).



José Declerck

ligne de mire, il y avait les Juifs et les Perses. Les premiers rêvaient depuis longtemps de secouer le joug de l’état byzantin, et le moment de passer à l’action semblait plus propice que jamais. À l’intérieur, l’empire était en effet menacé par des discordes politiques 37 et religieuses, 38 aggravées par l’antagonisme traditionnel des factions, lequel avait atteint des sommets bien tristes. À l’extérieur, depuis que le roi perse Chosroès II avait déclaré la guerre à Phocas pour venger l’exécution de l’empereur Maurice et de sa famille, l’empire devait faire face à un ennemi redoutable, qui pouvait compter sur la sympathie des chrétiens monophysistes et surtout sur celle des Juifs. Ces derniers ont vu, au moins pendant un certain temps, en Chosroès un libérateur et cru que l’arrivée des Sassanides annonçait la venue imminente du Messie. 39 Que les Juifs aient prêté main-forte aux envahisseurs ne fait pas de doute. Ainsi, lorsqu’en 609/10 (ou 611/12) les troupes du général Shaïn (ou de Bahram) s’approchaient de Césarée en Cappadoce, les chrétiens prirent la fuite, mais les Juifs allèrent à la rencontre des Perses et leur remirent la ville, 40 et après la grave défaite d’Héraclius et de son cousin Nicétas près d’Antioche (en 613), les Juifs de Palestine firent cause commune avec les vainqueurs et, se sentant désormais protégés par leurs nouveaux alliés, s’en prirent aux chrétiens. 41 Après la chute de Jérusalem, on dit que des Juifs auraient incendié des églises 42 et

37 L’usurpation de Phocas n’a jamais été acceptée par tout le monde, et bon nombre de Byzantins haïssaient son régime sanglant, comme en témoignent les révoltes menées par Narses en 603 (Théophane le Confesseur, A. M. 6095 [p. 291, 27 – 293, 2]) et plus tard, en 608, par Héraclius père et fils. 38 Entre Chalcédoniens et monophysites (cf. J. F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century : the Transformation of a Culture, Cambridge, 1990, p. 286-289) ; ces derniers seront avantagés par Chosroès, parce qu’ils constituaient la majorité de la population des régions nouvellement conquises. 39 Voir Averil Cameron, Blaming the Jews : the seventh-century invasions of Palestine in context, dans Mélanges Gilbert Dagron (TM, 14), Paris, 2002, p. 62 (avec la bibliographie fournie dans la note 31) ; Bowersock, Polytheism [voir n. 15], p. 9 ; Stoyanov, Defenders [voir n. 15], p. 51-55. 40 Ps.-Sebèos, 23 (p. 63) ; Α. Ν. Στρατος, Τὸ Βυζάντιο στὸν ζʹ αιωνα, Τόμος αʹ. 602626, Athènes, 1965, p. 159 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 81-83, 152 n. 3 ; C. Foss, The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity, dans The English Historical Review, ccclvii (1975), p. 722-723. 41 Ps.-Sebèos, 24 (p. 67-68) ; Στρατος, Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 264-265 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 78-79 ; W. E. Kaegi, Heraclius : emperor of Byzantium, Cambridge, 2003, p. 76-77. 42 On verra la lettre de Modeste à Koumitas, citée par le Ps.-Sebèos (p. 71 : « eux … qui ont brûlé cette place véritable »), Strategius (IX, 9 [p. 18, 23-25] : « Iudaei … coeperunt manibus suis destruere et incendere sanctas ecclesias quae remanserant non



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

participé au massacre de la population chrétienne. 43 Il est vrai que les sources qui dénonçent ces actes, portent toutes une signature chrétienne et sont donc forcément tendancieuses. 44 Mais même s’il y a eu moins d’incendies et de victimes qu’elles ne le prétendent, 45 elles décrivent une situation historique bien réelle, à savoir que les Juifs se sont rangés du côté des Perses, parce qu’ils espéraient pouvoir récupérer ainsi Jérusalem et leurs lieux saints. L’importance de l’enjeu, combinée avec les frustrations d’une minorité religieuse mal vue, rend plausibles les cruautés rapportées dans les source et qui ont d’ailleurs été commises des deux côtés. 46 Face à ces menaces et se rendant compte de la faiblesse militaire de l’empire, Bonose a sans aucun doute organisé et préparé Bleus et Verts à défendre la ville, au cas où il n’y aurait pas ou pas assez de troupes byzantines sur place. 47 Si une telle situation devait se présenter, on pourrait voir les dèmes se transformer en une milice citadine, et assister, voire remplacer l’armée régulière. 48 Que les partisans aient opéré sous les ordres du comes Orientis doit avoir augmenté leur prestige auprès de la population : en fin de compte, les membres des dèmes, malheureusement bien plus bravaches et fanfarons que soldats aguerris, étaient le dernier rempart contre l’ennemi, et dans cette perspective beaucoup, sinon tout, pourrait leur être pardonné. 49 destructae ») et Eutychius (268 [p. 98, 29 – 99, 3] : « Die Juden … halfen den Persern bei der Zerstörung der Kirchen »). 43 Strategius, X, 1-4 (p. 17, 23 – 18, 8) et Eutychius, 268 (p. 99, 8-10). 44 Voir Stoyanov, Defenders [voir n. 15], p. 50, n. 126, et p. 60. Dans l’historiographie chrétienne la participation active des Juifs aux représailles contre les chrétiens, à été mise en relief, tandis que les historiens juifs en parlent le moins possible ; cf. E. Horowitz, “The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger than Their Avarice” : Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614, dans Jewish Social Studies, New Series, Vol. 4, N°. 2 (Winter, 1998), p. 1-39. Averil Cameron, Blaming the Jews [voir n. 39], p. 58-78, a situé le reproche de collaboration avec l’ennemi (perse et plus tard arabe) dans le cadre plus vaste de la polémique anti-judaïque de l’époque. 45 Voir ci-dessous, n. 76. 46 Ainsi, d’après Eutychius (voir ci-dessus, n. 25), les chrétiens de Tyr auraient décapité, sur les remparts, 2000 Juifs, 100 pour chaque église à laquelle les Juifs venaient de mettre le feu en dehors de l’enceinte. 47 Il y avait eu des antécédents ; voir Alan Cameron, Circus Factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium, Oxford, 1976, p. 105-111, qui a cependant minimalisé l’importance militaire des dèmes. 48 Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 113 et 115 ; Liebeschuetz, Decline [voir n. 22], p. 277-278. 49 En temps normaux, la solidarité de la population avec les actions menées par les dèmes ne devrait pas être surestimée (voir à ce sujet M. Whitby, Factions, Bishops, Violence and Urban Decline, dans J.-U. Krause – Chr. Witschel (éd.), Die Stadt in



José Declerck

Le séjour de Bonose à Jérusalem ne saurait avoir été de longue durée. D’après Jean de Nikiou, Phocas avait reçu une lettre de trois haut dignitaires égyptiens qui lui étaient restés loyaux (Théodore, patriarche chalcédonien d’Alexandrie, Jean, gouverneur de la ville, et Théodore le trésorier), l’informant d’une conjuration contre sa personne ; 50 cette lettre doit avoir été écrite avant qu’Alexandrie ne tombe aux mains des rebelles (fin de l’été 608). 51 Dans une colère noire, Phocas décida d’envoyer sur place son général Cottanas, qui se trouvait toujours à Antioche ; l’empereur « avait auparavant expédié Bonose, par mer, avec des lions, des léopards et d’autre bêtes féroces, que l’on devait conduire à Alexandrie … Il y envoya aussi des instruments de torture de différentes sortes, des chaînes et des carcans ». 52 Un peu plus loin, Jean de Nikiou affirme que « c’est à Césarée, en Palestine, que Bonose apprit que (les insurgés) avaient … pris Alexandrie ». 53 Il semble donc que Cottanas et Bonose n’opéraient plus ensemble et qu’ils ont été envoyés à Alexandrie à deux moments différents : Bonose peu avant que Phocas ait reçu la lettre des trois dignitaires, Cottanas, lequel est ici mentionné pour la dernière fois dans l’histoire, peu après. Où Bonose se trouvait-il lorsque l’ordre de Phocas lui a été communiqué ? Peut-être toujours à Jérusalem, d’où ensuite il s’est rendu à Césarée maritime pour embarquer, peut-être déjà à Césarée, où il s’était rendu pour des raisons que nous ignorons. En tout cas, il apprit qu’il arriverait trop tard à Alexandrie, les insurgés étant déjà au pouvoir. Probablement le comes Orientis ne s’est-il mis en route qu’au printemps de 609, après avoir passé l’hiver en Palestine, à Jérusalem peut-on supposer, 54 puisque durant l’hiver 608/609 des solidi der Spätantike – Niedergang oder Wandel ? Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums in München am 30. Und 31. Mai 2003 [Historia, 190], Stuttgart, 2006, p. 443-445), mais dans ce cas-ci les chrétiens de Jérusalem se trouvaient face à une menace sans précédent, dont les enjeux étaient la survie même de leur ville et la leur propre. 50 Jean de Nikiou, 107 (p. 422) ; Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 123. 51 Les rebelles au pouvoir, le patriarche dut se retirer dans l’église de S. Athanase, le gouverneur et le trésorier, qui avaient pris avec eux le coadjuteur Ménas pour le livrer à Bonose, lorsque celui-ci arriverait en Égypte, dans celle de S. Théodore ; cf. Jean de Nikou, 107 (p. 423). Sur la date, voir Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 121. 52 Jean de Nikiou, 107 (p. 422). Que les bêtes féroces et les instruments de torture soient arrivés à Alexandrie, est confirmé un peu plus bas (ibidem, 107 [p. 423]). Déjà à Antioche, des opposants au régime avaient été livrés aux fauves (ibidem, 105 [p. 420]). 53 Jean de Nikiou, 107 (p. 424). 54 En faveur de l’hypothèse selon laquelle Bonose a passé l’hiver de 608/609 à Jérusalem, Olster (Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 107) avance deux arguments : un passage d’Antiochus Monachus (c’est-à-dire Strategius [voir ci-dessus, n. 29]), sans toutefois indiquer l’endroit précis, et le fait que dans cette ville il y avait une monnaie (ibidem,



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

à l’effigie de Phocas semblent y avoir été frappés : 55 Bonose aura eu besoin d’argent pour payer ses troupes et on peut comprendre qu’il a voulu superviser de près le monnayage. Bonose ne réussit pas à endiguer la révolte en Égypte et dut quitter le pays début 610, partant de Péluse. Lorsqu’il arriva en Palestine, il fut chassé par les habitants : non seulement il avait perdu la guerre, mais également son autorité. Il retourna à Constantinople, 56 où il était supposé empêcher le débarquement des soldats d’Héraclius le fils, mais ses hommes (et parmi eux surtout les Verts, vengeant ainsi ce qu’il leur avait fait à Antioche), l’abandonnèrent. Bonose fut tué le 4 octobre 610 par un de ses excubitores ; Phocas subira le même sort le lendemain. 57 La progression des armées perses ne s’arrêta pas avec l’élimination de Phocas. Pour défendre la Syrie, Héraclius fit venir d’Égypte son cousin Nicétas, 58 qui aurait remporté une victoire (modeste) près d’Émèse, 59 mais qui devait être vaincu en 613 aux alentours d’Antioche, l’empereur y ayant tenté une contre-offensive. 60 On peut supposer qu’entre ces deux campagnes l’armée de Nicétas est restée en Palestine et que le quartier p. 113-114). Selon S. Bendall (The Byzantine coinage of the mint of Jerusalem, dans Revue numismatique, 6e série, 159 [2003], p. 316), il y a une petite chance que ce soit à Césarée de Palestine que Bonose a hiverné. 55 Bendall, Coinage [voir n. 54], p. 314 (type 2). 56 Στρατος, Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 208-213. 57 Ibidem, p. 218-212. 58 Nicétas s’était emparé d’Égypte vers 610 et il y était Praefectus augustalis (cf. Kaegi, Heraclius [voir n. 41], p. 53). Pendant longtemps on a identifié le neveu d’Héraclius au patrice homonyme que le Chronicon Paschale (p. 705, 5-11) cite pour avoir envoyé l’Éponge et la Lance à Constantinople, respectivement en septembre et octobre 614. Récemment, H. A. Klein (Niketas und das Wahre Kreuz. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Überlieferung des Chronicon Paschale ad annum 614, dans BZ, 94 [2001], p. 580587) a montré que le patrice Nicétas était probablement un des fils de Shahrbaraz et que l’arrivée des deux objects sacrés à Constantinople doit être située en 629 plutôt qu’en 614. 59 Sur cet événement pauvrement documenté, voir Agapius, p. 450 ; Στρατος, Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 254 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 78-79 ; Kaegi, Heraclius [voir n. 41], p. 78 (en 614) ; Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 85-86 (en 612). Le Chronicon 724 (p. 113, 17-19) et Théophane le Confesseur, A. M. 6102 (p. 299, 14-16 [avec la correction de Ἔδεσαν en Ἔμεσαν proposée par Tafel]) signalent la prise d’Émèse par les Perses, mais ne soufflent mot d’une victoire préalable des byzantins. 60 Ps.-Sebèos, 24 (p. 67). Héraclius aurait remporté quelque succès près des Portes Ciliciennes, mais pas de nature à bousculer le cours de la guerre ; Στρατος, Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 260-261 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 78-79 ; Kaegi, Heraclius [voir n. 41], p. 76-77 ; Olster, Usurpation [voir n. 22], p. 86 ; Foss, The Persians in Asia Minor [voir n. 40], p. 723 ; W. E. Kaegi, New Evidence on the Early Reign of Heraclius, dans BZ, 66 (1973), p. 328-329.



José Declerck

général fut établi à Jérusalem, en raison de l’importance stratégique de la ville, qui était la dernière place forte barrant la route de l’Égypte, et à cause de sa grande valeur symbolique comme haut-lieu de la chrétienté ; en tout cas, entre novembre 610 et le commencement du siège (printemps 614), des solidi y ont été frappés, sans doute pour payer les soldats de Nicétas. 61 À un moment donné – soit après la reddition de Damas en 613, 62 soit plus probablement après celle de Césarée maritime au début de 614 63 –, n’étant pas à même de stopper l’avance des Perses, Nicétas quitta les lieux, abandonnant les habitants de Jérusalem à eux-mêmes 64 et à la protection des dèmes. À Alexandrie, où après la défaite de Bonose, les Verts (pro Héraclius) avaient mené la vie dure aux Bleus (pro Phocas), Nicétas avait réussi à restaurer la paix entre les deux partis. 65 Probablement il a essayé de mener cette politique de réconciliation également à Jérusalem, espérant pouvoir préparer ainsi les dèmes à défendre la ville, laquelle était alors beaucoup plus menacée que cinq ans auparavant lors du passage de Bonose. Jérusalem tomba en mai (le 5 ou les 17-20) 614, après un siège d’à peine trois semaines. 66 Selon Strategius, arrivés devant la ville, les Perses avaient proposé de faire la paix. En l’absence de toute autorité civile, 67 le patriarche Zacharie était prêt à accepter cet offre, afin de sauver des vies et de préserver les lieux saints, mais il en fut empêché par les dèmes, qui lui reprochaient de sympathiser avec l’ennemi et estimaient qu’il ne fallait se rendre à aucune condition. 68 Zacharie céda et envoya Modeste Bendall, Coinage [voir n. 54], p. 315-316 (type 3). Michel le Syrien (p. 490) ; Στρατος, Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 263-264 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 79 et 152. 63 Strategius, III, 2 (p. 5, 25-26) ; Ps.-Sebèos (p. 68) ; Michel le Syrien (p. 490) ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 152-153. 64 Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 159 : « on ne voit pas qu’il y ait eu à Jérusalem de garnison régulière, ou du moins celle-ci n’est pas mentionnée ». 65 Jean de Nikiou (p. 430) ; Στρατος, Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 213-214. 66 Cette période a été jugée trop brève pour permettre aux Perses d’installer leurs engins de guerre et aux assiégés de frapper des folles de cuivre (Bendall, Coinage [voir n. 54], p. 312-314 [type 3]). 67 Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 146. Le déficit du pouvoir civil dans les villes de province était souvent compensé par les évêques, surtout dans les régions frontières ; cf. M. Whitby, Deus Nobiscum : Christianity, Warfare, and Morale in Late Antiquity, dans M. Austin – J. Harries – C. Smith (ed.), Modus Operandi : Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman (Bulletin of the Institue of Classical Studies. Supplement, 71), London, 1998, p. 191-208 ; Liebeschuetz, Decline [voir n. 22], p. 154. 68 Στρατος (Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 267) affirme que les moines ont appuyé les dèmes lors de cette confrontation avec Zacharie ; cela ne se lit pas explicitement dans le 61 62



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

à Jéricho pour demander l’aide de la garnison byzantine qui y stationnait. Entre-temps les Perses, blessés dans leur amour-propre parce que la main tendue avait été repoussée, lancèrent des attaques contre la ville. Modeste revint avec les soldats stationnés à Jéricho, mais après avoir vu le campement des Perses, les Byzantins estimèrent que la situation était sans espoir et s’enfuirent, poursuivis par l’ennemi. 69 La version des faits du Ps.-Sebèos est plus accablante pour les habitants de Jérusalem et justifie peut-être mieux la cruauté avec laquelle les Perses (et les Juifs) se sont comportés après la prise de la ville. 70 Se trouvant encore à Césarée maritime, le général perse Shahrbaraz avait promis que les Hiérosolymitains auraient la vie sauve s’ils se soumettaient de leur propre gré. La proposition fut acceptée et de grands présents furent envoyés aux princes perses. Des ostikans (« administrateurs, gouverneurs, préfets ») furent accueillis et hébergés dans la ville. Cependant, quelques mois plus tard, des « jeunes gens », terme par lequel le Ps.-Sebèos désigne les dèmes, 71 s’insurgèrent et tuèrent les ostikans. On peut se demander ce qui les a poussés à cet acte d’hostilité, puisque même les têtes brûlées les plus fanatiques ne pouvaient s’imaginer qu’une telle trahison resterait impunie. 72 Les conditions de paix imposées par les Perses récit de Strategius, mais il est vrai que ce dernier donne l’impression que le patriarche était seul pour faire face à ses adversaires. Pourtant les Juifs étaient eux aussi favorables à ce que la ville se rende sans se battre (cf. Dagron, Juifs et Chrétiens [voir n. 22], p. 23). 69 Strategius, V, 7-21 (p. 8, 15 – 10, 1) et VII, 1-3 (p. 13, 8-16). Les prisonniers faits à Jérusalem furent déportés vers Damas en passant par Jéricho, laquelle était donc à ce moment sous le contrôle des Perses ; cf. Vie de S. Georges de Choziba, 29 (p. 127, 6-8) et 31 (p. 130, 9-10). Strategius, XV, 6 (p. 32, 22-23) confirme que de Jérusalem la colonne des prisonniers est partie dans la direction de Jéricho. 70 Voir le dénombrement des victimes, fait par un certain Thomas et sa femme, et intégré dans l’ouvrage de Strategius, XXIII, 10-44 (p. 51, 27 – 53, 7) ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 159-161. En ce qui concerne les Perses, pendant toute la durée de leurs campagnes, ils se sont montrés impitoyables vis-à-vis des villes qui leur avaient résisté ; voir Foss, The Persians in Asia Minor [voir n. 40], p. 728. 71 Alan Cameron, Circus Factions [voir n. 47], p. 76 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 147 ; Dagron, Juifs et Chrétiens [voir n. 22], p. 23. Dans le Chronicon Paschale (p. 625, 12-13) et chez Théophane le Confesseur (A. M. 6024, p. 185, 6) il est question de νεώτεροι Πράσινοι. Des inscriptions retrouvées à Alexandrie (petit théâtre) et à Aphrodisias (Odéon) montrent que des places y étaient réservées aux νέοι, qui auraient constitué un sous-groupe au sein des dèmes ; cf. Ch. Roueché (with contributions by J. M. Reynolds), Aphrodisias in late antiquity. The late Roman and Byzantine inscriptions including texts from the excavations at Aphrodisias conducted by Kenan T. Erim (Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Journal of Roman Studies, Monographs no 5), Londres, 1989, p. 222. 72 Selon le Ps.-Sebèos (p. 68), avant l’attaque, toute la populace s’était réunie et on est en droit de supposer qu’une forme d’hystérie collective a neutralisé tout bon sens.



José Declerck

s’étaient-elles revélées plus pesantes qu’on ne l’avait espéré ? Ou est-ce que les Juifs, profitant de leur nouvelle liberté sous l’égide des Perses, s’étaient mis à harceler outre mesure les chrétiens ? Nous l’ignorons. Le massacre des Perses fut suivi par un combat entre Juifs et chrétiens. 73 Ces derniers ayant eu le dessus, les Juifs qui avaient réussi à s’échapper, sollicitèrent l’aide de Shahrbaraz, qui procéda alors au siège de la ville. 74 Strategius confirme que les Juifs avaient quitté la ville, et n’ont en rien contribué à sa défense. 75 Strategius et le Ps.-Sebèos sont d’accord sur le fait que la destruction de Jérusalem n’avait pas été programmée préalablement par les Perses, qui au contraire avaient voulu épargner la ville et ses habitants 76. Dans les récits de l’un et de l’autre, la responsabilité des dèmes est écrasante : ils ont soit violé un pacte déjà conclu, lequel garantissait le bien-être de la population (Ps.-Sebèos), soit rejeté une proposition de paix favorable (Strategius) ; 77 c’est de leur faute si les Perses se sont emparés de la ville par la force et se sont vengés sur la population. Ce qui frappe le plus dans la première scholie, c’est que le compilateur des Sacra s’est accusé lui-même avec tous les chrétiens d’avoir préféré le nom de Bleu-ou-Vert (τὸ μεμιαμμένον Βενετοπράσινον ὄνομα ὃ ἐπεθήκαμεν 73 Tous ceux qui n’adhéraient pas à l’un de ces deux groupes, c’est-à-dire les païens, semblent avoir quitté la ville ; cf. Bowersock, Polytheism [voir n. 15], p. 10. 74 Ps.-Sebèos, 24 (p. 68) ; pour l’interprétation du terme ostikan, voir l’‘Index de quelques termes techiques’ au début de l’édition de Macler. La version du Ps.-Sebèos est de plus en plus privilégiée par les historiens : voir Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 147 ; R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It : A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 13), Princeton, New Jersey, 1997, p. 126 ; C. Foss, The Persians in the Roman Near East (602-630 AD), dans Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, 13 (2003), p. 152-153 ; Bendall, Coinage [voir n. 54], p. 312. 75 Strategius, X, 6 (p. 18, 11-15). M. Flusin (Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 152, n. 3) a judicieusement remarqué que, sur ce fait, Strategius corrobore la version du Ps.-Sebèos. 76 Howard-Johnston, Witnesses [voir n. 15], p. 166. Les recherches archéologiques suggèrent que les destructions matérielles causées par les Perses et leurs alliés Juifs à Jérusalem ont été beaucoup moins importantes que ne le font croire les sources écrites ; par contre, les fouilles semblent confirmer les violences physiques exercées contre la population. Voir G. Stemberger, Jerusalem in the Early Seventh Century : Hopes and Aspirations of Christians and Jews, dans L. I. Levine (éd.), Jerusalem, its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 1999, p. 271-272 (n. 8) ; G. Avni, The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 c.e.) – An Archaeological Assessment, dans Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 357 (February 2010), p. 3548 ; Stoyanov, Defenders [voir n. 15], p. 18-21. 77 Version des faits comparable dans le Chronicon Guidi (p. 22, 13-15) : « Alter ex ducibus, cui nomen erat Sahrbara̅z, Hierosolymam cito petiit et multam operam dedit ut incolae sibi portas aperirent, sed facere recusaverunt. ».



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

ἑαυτοῖς) à celui de chrétien. La seule interprétation possible est que la population chrétienne de Jérusalem et des alentours, y compris le clergé et les moines, ait largement appuyé les agissements des dèmes, sinon en actes, 78 au moins par leurs paroles et dans leur conscience, les deux attitudes étant repréhensibles pour des serviteurs du Christ. La seconde scholie ne met plus directement en cause les dèmes, mais laisse entendre que la communauté chrétienne a été mêlée au massacre de concitoyens. L’expression ἐμφύλιον αἷμα est vague : le compilateur des Sacra peut avoir voulu désigner l’ensemble des tueries commises dans l’empire, comme l’a fait Strategius ; si par contre il songeait uniquement à la situation de Jérusalem, le « sang versé des concitoyens » a dû être principalement celui des Juifs. 79 Strategius a lui aussi mis en évidence la responsabilité (au moins morale) des habitants de Jérusalem. Dans ce qui leur est arrivé en 614, il a vu l’accomplissement d’une prophétie d’Ezéchiel, qui annonçait que Dieu livrerait Jérusalem à ses ennemis, parce qu’elle avait fabriqué des idoles et leur avait sacrifié ses fils (cf. Ez. 16, 17-21). Sortant du contexte vétero-testamentaire, Strategius a identifié les idoles aux Verts et aux Bleus de son temps ; 80 il ne précise pas ce qu’il entend par le sacrifice des fils, 78 Michel le Syrien, X, 25 (p. 378) mentionne qu’après la chute de Daras (Mésopotamie) en 606, la forteresse de Mardê (Mardin) fut abandonnée par tous, sauf par les moines, qui, tous prêtres, demandèrent à Basile, évêque de Kafartûthô, s’il leur était permis de tuer des Perses. La réponse de l’évêque n’est pas connue, Michel ajoutant seulement que la forteresse fut livrée à l’ennemi (en 607) ; cf. Στρατος, Βυζάντιο [voir n. 40], p. 152-153 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 74 ; Liebeschuetz, Decline [voir n. 22], p. 259. L’anecdote n’a pas été relevée par A. Palmer (Monk and mason on the Tigris frontier. The early history of Ṭur ῾Abdin, Cambridge, 1990), bien que ce dernier souligne la loyauté des habitants du Tur Abdin durant la guerre contre les Perses de 572591 (p. 152). D’après Jacques d’Édesse (mort en 804), les moines ou les prêtres qui vivaient sous occupation arabe pouvaient participer aux combats lorsqu’ils y étaient forcés par l’occupant, mais devaient être temporairement suspendus pour faire pénitence, s’ils avaient tué quelqu’un (Hoyland, Seeing Islam [voir n. 74], p. 606 et 162). 79 Seul Ps.-Sebèos admet explicitement que la population juive de Jérusalem a souffert des violences de la part des chrétiens. On en perçoit peut-être un écho très faible chez Strategius, lorsque dans une envolée rhétorique, marquée par l’anaphore ‘non/nec fleo’ (voir Wilken, The Land [voir n. 15], p. 325-326, n. 11), il affirme : « Non fleo ego de sacerdotibus qui interficiebant prophetas et de populo qui crucifixit Dominum… » (I, 14 [p. 3, 15-17]). Un peu plus loin, il dira : « Sed fleo ego et lugeo … de sacerdotibus sanctificatis et de populo fideli qui sine-misericordia interfecti sunt » (I, 16 [p. 3, 2528]). Cette antithèse pourrait suggérer qu’il y a eu des victimes dans les deux parties, l’auteur ne se sentant affecté que par le sort de l’une d’entre elles. D’après Stemberger (Jerusalem [voir n. 76], p. 261), cependant, Strategius fait allusion à la conquête de la ville en 586 avant J.-Chr. par les Babyloniens, et à celle de 70 après J.-Chr. par Titus. 80 Strategius, II, 5-6 (p. 4, 30 – 5, 9) ; Bowersock, Polytheism [voir n. 15], p. 10 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 145 ; Stemberger, Jerusalem [voir n. 76], p. 261-262.



José Declerck

mais quelques lignes plus haut, avant de citer le texte d’Ezéchiel, il avait évoqué les crimes contre les habitants et les homicides dont les dèmes se rendaient coupables ; 81 les victimes de ces derniers pourraient être « les fils que Jérusalem sacrifiait à ses idoles ». Ceci suggère que dans les années qui précédèrent la chute de la ville, les Verts et les Bleus doivent avoir bénéficié d’une bienveillance extrême de la part de la population. 82 Quant à la responsabilité du clergé, elle est dénoncée également dans la vision qu’aurait eue un autre moine sabaïte, un certain Jean qui vivait au monastère de l’Heptastome. 83 Un jour qu’il était en train de méditer, se demandant si la ville tomberait et, si oui, sur ce qui attendrait ses habitants, il eut le sentiment d’avoir été saisi par quelqu’un et transporté sur le rocher du Golgotha. Là, il vit une foule qui demandait pitié, le Christ sur la Croix et près de lui la mère de Dieu, Marie, qui intercédait en faveur du peuple. Mais le Christ refusa « parce qu’ils ont souillé mon temple et corrompu ma sainteté ». Tout le monde se dirigea alors vers l’église de S. Constantin, où jadis avait été retrouvée la sainte Croix. S’étant agenouillé et ayant mis sa tête à l’emplacement de la Croix, Jean en vit sortir un torrent de boue, qui remplit l’église entière. Comme il se plaignait que dans ces conditions il était impossible de prier, deux vieillards de la ville lui répondirent : « Tout cela vient de la malice des prêtres et de leur impureté ». Les vieillards ajoutèrent que l’endroit ne pourrait être purifié avant que le feu du ciel ne descendît sur lui. 84 M. Flusin a souligné le caractère traditionnel de cette vision, et dans la boue qui envahissait le Saint-Sépulcre, il a reconnu les débordements des dèmes. 85 La critique des vieillards vise cependant explicitement les prêtres, et, si on met tout ensemble, il est presque inévitable de conclure que le clergé a été impliqué d’une manière ou d’une autre dans les actions des dèmes. Les trois témoignages – les scholies de l’auteur des Sacra, la vision de Jean de l’Heptastome et le récit de Strategius – sont indépendants dans le sens que l’un n’a pas servi de modèle aux autres, mais ils offrent une lecture identique des faits : celle qui circulait dans les monastères de Strategius, II, 4 (p. 4, 26-30) ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 144. D’après Bowersock (Polytheism [voir n. 15], p. 10), Strategius s’est offusqué du fait que des chrétiens avaient participé aux actions des dèmes, parce que les origines et la formation de ces groupes n’étaient pas liées avec la religion. 83 Jean aurait raconté sa vision à un disciple qui l’interrogeait sur l’avenir ; cf. Strategius, VI, 1-4 (p. 11, 20 – 12, 1). 84 Strategius, VI, 5-11 (p. 12, 2-29) ; traduction française, à laquelle nous avons emprunté quelques extraits, par Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 141-142. 85 Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 142. 81 82



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

S. Sabas et probablement dans toute la Palestine. La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses y était interprétée selon l’enchaînement classique de péché et de punition : à l’origine il y avait la turpitude morale et le comportement criminel des dèmes, fortifiée ensuite par la complicité du clergé et de la population, et enfin le châtiment justifié, envoyé par Dieu sous forme d’un envahisseur étranger. 86 S’il faut évoquer une circonstance atténuante : Chosroès était zoroastrien, et ainsi, dans l’esprit des contemporains une guerre essentiellement territoriale prit l’allure d’un conflit religieux. La peur de l’ennemi était à l’avenant, surtout à Jérusalem, que, selon Strategius, les Perses voulaient prendre à tout prix, justement « parce que cette ville est le refuge de tous les chrétiens et la force de leur empire ». 87 Cette peur était-elle fondée ? M. Flusin a montré que Chosroès n’a pas ordonné de persécutions systématiques contre les chrétiens sur son territoire, ceci n’empêchant pas que régulièrement des chrétiens y aient été mis à mort, mais davantage parce qu’ils avaient enfreint la loi, qu’en raison de leur religion. 88 Les sentiments personnels du roi vis-à-vis de la religion chrétienne semblent avoir été ambigus. Sa bienveillance à l’égard de l’Église perse (nestorienne) aurait été feinte pour plaire à l’empereur Maurice, tandis qu’en vérité le roi haïssait les chrétiens. 89 Surtout lorsque les chances de la guerre eurent tourné, ses sympathies pour les chrétiens, si jamais elles ont existé, ont dû vite se dissiper. Après la défaite de Dastagerd (le 12 décembre 627), quelques mois avant sa mort, Chosroès aurait déclaré que le bruit du simandre lui était odieux et que, s’il remportait la victoire, espoir qui était à ce moment totalement chimérique, il détruirait toutes les églises et les simandres de son royaume. 90 On sait aussi que le roi perse n’avait pas l’habitude de ménager la sensibilité religieuse des chrétiens. Ainsi, dans une espèce d’ultimatum rapporté par le Ps.-Sebèos, 91 Chosroès demanda pourquoi le dieu d’Héraclius n’avait Pour ce qui est de Strategius, voir Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 217. Strategius, VIII, 4 (p. 13, 31-34). 88 Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 118 sqq. 89 Chronicon Guidi, p. 19, 32-34. 90 Ibidem, p. 24, 14-21 ; Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 127. 91 La missive – ‘an arrogant and haughty response’ (Kaegi, Heraclius [voir n. 41], p. 85) – semble liée à la présence des troupes de Shaïn devant Chalcédoine en 615 (Chronicon Paschale, p. 706, 11-13). On observera cependant qu’Alexandrie ne tombera aux mains des Perses qu’en 619 ; d’autres auteurs encore (Théophane le Confesseur [A. M. 6107, p. 301, 9-13], Michel le Syrien [p. 401] et Nicéphore de Constantinople [6, 1-9, p. 44]) placent l’arrivée de Shaïn à Chalcédoine après la chute d’Alexandrie ; cf. Flusin, Anastase [voir n. 5], p. 88. Chalcédoine et Constantinople ont été assiégées une seconde 86 87



José Declerck

pas aidé Césarée, Jérusalem et Alexandrie, et comment le Christ, lequel n’avait pu se sauver lui-même d’être crucifié par les Juifs, pourrait empêcher qu’Héraclius ne tombât entre ses mains. 92 Une autre fois, il aurait répondu à des envoyés qui étaient venus avec une proposition de paix de la part d’Héraclius : « Je ne vous épargnerai pas jusqu’à ce que vous ayez renié le crucifié, que vous dites être un dieu, et que vous vous soyez prosternés devant le soleil. ». 93 Dans le bulletin de victoire annonçant la mort de Chosroès et lu de l’ambon de Sainte-Sophie le dimanche de Pentecôte 628, le roi est accusé d’avoir blasphémé contre le Christ et la Mère de Dieu. 94 Si le compilateur des Sacra était moine à la Grande Laure (voir ci-dessus), il n’a pas pu être impliqué personnellement dans ce qui s’est passé à Jérusalem ; ce qu’il en savait, il a dû l’apprendre après coup, par ouï-dire. Confronté aux malheurs de la ville (massacres, déportations, églises incendiées, vol des reliques de la Sainte Croix…), il lui a semblé, comme à beaucoup d’autres, que la fureur des Perses avait été déclenchée par l’attidude funeste adoptée par les dèmes soit avant le siège (version de Strategius) soit déjà pendant l’occupation (version du Ps.-Sebèos), surtout que les factions avaient eu à l’époque – il le savait – le support inconditionnel de la majorité de la population chrétienne. Voilà comment, à notre avis, il faut interpréter les deux scholies relatives à la chute de la ville en 614. Quant aux raisons qui ont poussé leur auteur à rappeler cet événement, la plus importante est sans aucun doute qu’il a voulu montrer que les prophéties de l’Ancien Testament n’avaient pas fini de se réaliser, mais, à côté de cela, on a l’impression qu’il n’a pas pu s’empêcher d’extérioriser son affliction devant des événements qui sont encore péniblement frais dans sa mémoire (il semble bien que les reliques de la Croix n’ont pas encore été restituées, le terminus ante quem des scholies pouvant ainsi être fixé en 630).

fois, en 626, par le général perse Shahrbaraz, lequel avait conclu une alliance avec le Khan des Avares. 92 Ps.-Sebèos, 26 (p. 79-80). Il est vrai qu’il y a quelques doutes sur l’authenticité du document ; cf. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos. Translated, with notes by R. W. Thomson. Historical commentary by J. Howard-Johnston. Assistance from T. Greenwood (Translated Texts for Historians, 31), Liverpool, 1999, p. 214. 93 Anecdote rapportée par Théophane le Confesseur (A. M. 6109 [p. 301, 2324]) ; voir Stoyanov, Defenders [voir n. 15], p. 61-62. 94 Chronicon Paschale, p. 728, 7-10.



LA PRISE DE JÉRUSALEM EN 614

Le sort ultérieur des dèmes est bien connu. À Constantinople, Héraclius a réussi à les pacifier 95 et par la suite on leur a accordé un rôle dans les cérémonies de la cour impériale, ce qui les a rendus respectables ; 96 à partir d’un certain moment, il semble même qu’on ait permis aux « anagnostes » (lecteurs, ordre mineur du clergé) d’adhérer à un des dèmes. 97 En Orient, par contre, il n’y avait plus de place ni pour les Bleus, ni pour les Verts : les Perses, puis un peu plus tard les Arabes, ne toléraient pas de fauteurs de troubles sur leur territoire. Anastase le Sinaïte, dont les Quaestiones et responsiones ont été publiées et traduites par le P. Munitiz, lequel a comblé par là un desideratum urgent et ancien, compare l’état des dèmes à un sommeil dont ils pourraient se réveiller si un jour l’Orient, l’Arabie et la Palestine retrouvaient leur liberté. 98 L’histoire en a voulu autrement.

Kaegi, Heraclius [voir n. 41], p. 100-101. Voir à ce sujet G. Dagron, Idées byzantines, t. II (Bilans de recherche, 8/II), Paris, 2012, p. 460-463, 465-467, 489-492, 503-504. 97 Rapportée au xiie siècle par Théodore Balsamon (PG 137, 596, 8-13), cette permission d’adhérer à un des dèmes est un des arguments avancés par ceux qui estimaient que le canon 24 du Concile quinisexte (692) avait été trop sévère en décidant que les religieux qui avaient assisté aux jeux hippiques ou à d’autres spectacles, devaient être déposés ; cf. Αἰκ. Χριστοφιλοπουλου, Οἱ ἐκτὸς τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως βυζαντινοὶ δῆμοι, dans Χαριστήριον εἰς Ἀναστάσιον Κ. Ὀρλάνδον. Τόμος βʹ, Athènes, 1966, p. 333-334. 98 Anastase le Sinaïte, 65, 39-43 (p. 117). Voir la traduction de J. A. Munitiz, Anastasios of Sinai. Questions and Answers (CCT, 7), Turnhout, 2011, p. 178. 95 96



Eva De Ridder

An Ascetic Miscellany from the Late Thirteenth Century: the Atheniensis, Bibliothecae Nationalis 322 Abstract – The article offers a detailed and comprehensive description of manuscript 322 of the National Library in Athens, an ascetic miscellany from the late thirteenth century, containing texts by authors such as John Klimakos, Evagrios Pontikos, Isaac of Nineveh or Hesychios of Jerusalem. As such, it replaces all previous (partial) descriptions.

1. Introduction The present article offers a description of the Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 322. I examined this manuscript as part of my research on the Anthologium gnomicum (CPG 7716), a late eleventh- or early twelfth-century collection of monastic chapters by Elias Ekdikos. 1 The Atheniensis transmits the Anthologium gnomicum on f. 166-173. While not the oldest in existence, the manuscript is still a relatively early textual witness of the Anthologium, dated to the close of the thirteenth century. During my research, I soon noticed that the contents of the Atheniensis have never received a detailed description and that, perhaps because of this, the manuscript is often absent from the critical editions of the works it contains. The description in the 1892 catalogue of the National Library of Greece by John and Alkibiadis Sakkelion 2 is, to date, the only one to 1 I carried out research on the Anthologium gnomicum in the framework of a doctoral dissertation at the Institute for Early Christian and Byzantine Studies (KU Leuven). The Greek text is critically edited in E. De Ridder, The Fruitful Vineyard of Prayer. A Critical Edition of the Anthologium gnomicum by Elias Ekdikos (CPG 7716), unpublished dissertation, Leuven, 2015. For a concise description of the Atheniensis, see p. 152-153. – In this article Greek names are cited from ODB. Names that do not occur in the dictionary are spelled accordingly. 2 I. & A. I. Sakkelion, Κατάλογος χειρογράφων της Εθνικής Βιβλιοθήκης της Ελλάδος, Αθήναι, 1892, p. 34.

The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 189–212 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117149

Eva De Ridder

give account of the entire contents of the Atheniensis, but given its age it no longer meets modern expectations. Parts of the manuscript have been discussed within the framework of modern critical editions, viz. by Georges-Matthieu de Durand in his article on the textual transmission of several works by Mark the Hermit (compare f. 225-260), 3 by Marcel Pirard in his critical edition of the Sermones ascetici (CPG 7868) by Isaac of Nineveh (compare f. 63-148), 4 and by Paul Géhin, who very recently edited Evagrios Pontikos’ De oratione (CPG 2452) (compare f. 148-149 and f. 192v-196v). 5 François Halkin summarily listed the hagiographic contents of the manuscript that concern John Klimakos (f. 1v-3), the Epistulae mutuae (f. 3r-v), Mark the Hermit (f. 271v-276), and Philemon the Anchorite (f. 276v-277). 6 Despite these contributions, no up-to-date description of the manuscript currently exists, neither in print nor in the online database of the Pinakes undertaking by the IRHT in Paris. 7 Because of this, I considered it useful to provide a complete description in the hope that it may contribute to further research on the works and authors contained in the manuscript. The primary focus of the present article is philological rather than codicological, although some deductions on the manuscript’s history are formulated in the second chapter. The description that follows is based on a high-quality digital reproduction of the complete manuscript, generously supplied by the National Bank of Greece Cultural Foundation (MIET).

G.-M. de Durand, La tradition des œuvres de Marc le Moine, in RHT, 29 (1999), p. 10. 4 M.  Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου. Λόγοι ἀσκητικοί, Ἅγιον Ὄρος, 2012, p. 104105. 5 P.  Géhin, Chapitres sur la prière de Évagre le Pontique (SC, 589), Paris, 2017, p. 94-95 and 98. 6 F.  Halkin, Catalogue des manuscrits hagiographiques de la Bibliothèque nationale d’Athènes (SH, 66), Bruxelles, 1983, p. 37. 7 See http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/2618 (last accessed February 2019). 3



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

2. General information and history Codex Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 322 is a late thirteenth-century manuscript that consists of 293 bombycine folios 8 and measures 253 × 165 mm. The colophon on f. 148, written in dodecasyllables, provides some general information on the manuscript’s purpose, the identity of the scribe, and the date of confection. The verses 9 are highlighted in red and structured in two columns that should be read A-B-A-B, etc. 10 In the transcription below I changed punctuation and orthography to improve comprehension: Τὸ ἐπίγραμμα τῆς βίβλου· 1 5 9

Θησαυρὸς ἁβρὸς γραφικῶν διδαγμάτων, γέμων χαρίτων χῶρος ἀνθῶν ἐνθέων, Δρέπου, κρατῶν τὴν βίβλον ὃς τύχῃς ἔχων, καὶ πνευματικὸν ἐκροφῶν χανδὸν πόμα. μᾶλλον δὲ τὸν γράψαντα Ἀββακοὺμ ταῦτα

ψυχῶν τροφὴ, τὸ χρῆμα, λειμὼν ἡδύνων, ὧν ἦν γεωργὸς ἡ χάρις τοῦ Πνεύματος. τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς ὡς σαφῶς νοοτρόφον Εὐχαῖς ἀμείβου τὸν συνάξαντα τάδε ἐν ἔτει ˏϛω´ ινδ.

2 6 10

With its ascetical and didactic texts (of which I am leaving the details to the next section), the manuscript served an instructive purpose (cf. γραφικῶν διδαγμάτων; ψυχῶν τροφὴ; νοοτρόφον). In this respect, Albert Ehrhard listed the Atheniensis as a typical example of ascetical collections from which monks could profit in their spiritual development. 11

8 The folios are numbered twice in pencil in two places, viz. in the upper right corner and in the bottom margin of each recto. The latter numeration is often faint and seems to be lacking on f. 1-20 and f. 60-63. 9 The colophon is also transcribed in Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 104, and Ehrhard, Überlieferung, I/3, p. 934 (n. 1). Ehrhard’s transcription, which he received from Paul Marc, omits the major part of the colophon. Attestations of this particular kind of colophon in manuscripts other than the Atheniensis can be searched in The Database of Byzantine Book Epigrams (DBBE), a project from the Department of Literary Studies (Greek Section) at Ghent University, http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/. They will also be discussed briefly in note 15. For the attestation of the epigram in the Atheniensis, see http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occ/8536, where accentuation, punctuation and orthography are transcribed as is. 10 Two other portions of text have this same lay-out, viz. on f. 173v and f. 186. They are discussed further on in this article. 11 Ehrhard, Überlieferung, I/3, p. 934.



Eva De Ridder

The colophon was signed by Abbakoum, 12 the main scribe who copied most of the manuscript. 13 Abbakoum is also known as the scribe of the Athous, Philotheou 56, 14 a manuscript containing Isaac of Nineveh, Neilos of Ankyra, John Klimakos, Theodore of Edessa, the Paraphrasis christiana of Epiktetos’ Encheiridion, and John of Karpathos, authors who are likewise featured in the Atheniensis. What is more, the colophon in the Philotheite manuscript 15 bears remarkable similarities 12 PLP I, p. 3 (no. 34); M. Vogel – V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen. Beihefte, 33), Leipzig, 1909, p. 1. Abbakoum is also listed in P. Dimitrakopoulos, Συμβολὴ εἰς τοὺς καταλόγους Ἑλλήνων κωδικογράφων, in EEBS, 45 (1981), p. 306, no. 95. 13 The handwriting seems to differ around f. 260v-283v. Throughout the manuscript there are several marginal writings (e.g. f. 1, 157, 183v, 192v, 198, 225). 14 For this manuscript, see Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 114; G. Boter, The Encheiridion of Epictetus and its Three Christian Adaptations. Transmission and Critical Editions (Philosophia antiqua, 82), Leiden – Boston – Köln, 1999, p. 199; de Durand, La tradition des œuvres de Marc le Moine [see n. 3], p. 10; S.P. Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, I, Cambridge, 1895, p. 155. The Philotheite manuscript is the only one listed under Abbakoum in Vogel – Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber [see n. 12], p. 1. More information on the Philotheou monastery and its intellectual history through the study of its manuscript acquisitions can be found in R. W. Allison, The Acquisition of Manuscripts at Philotheou Monastery in the Byzantine Period. A Paper Presented at the International Congress of Byzantine Studies Moscow, August, 1991, to be consulted online at http://abacus. bates.edu/~rallison/philacquisitions/growth.html (last update October 25, 1995). A summary of Allison’s paper is included in XVIII Meždunarodnyj kongress Vizantinistov. Reziume soobščenij. Moskovskiy Gosudarstvennyy Universitet im. M. V. Lomonosova, 8-15 avgusta 1991, I, Moskva, 1991, p. 51-52. There is no conclusive evidence whether the Athous, Philotheou 56 was written at the monastery or acquired in the centuries following its confection (see Table 4, in which the Philotheou is listed under the number of the monastery itself [no. 41]). 15 The colophon in the Philotheou is found after a work of John Klimakos (folio unknown to me). Lampros, Catalogue [see n. 14], p. 155 only transcribed its beginning (Τὸ ἐπίγραμμα τῆς βίβλου) and end (τὸν συντάξαντα τάδε μᾶλλον δὲ τὸν γράψαντα Ἀββακοὺμ ταύτα [sic acc.] ἐν ἔτει ̗ϛω´ ἰνδ…). See also http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/ occ/1901 and Ph. Euangelatou-Notara, Συλλογὴ χρονολογημένων “σημειωτάτων” ἐλληνικῶν κωδίκων 13ος αἰ., Αθήναι, 1984, p. 150-151. Interestingly, lines 1-8 of the colophon are also attested in at least three other manuscripts: 1) Athous, Lavras K 111 (Eustratiadis 1398) (s. XIV), f. 222v, for which see http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occ/4159, Spyridon of Lavra – S. Eustratiadis, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Laura on Mount Athos. With Notices from Other Libraries (Harvard Theological Studies, 12), Cambridge – Paris – London, 1925, p. 240, and I. Vassis, Initia carminum byzantinorum (Supplementa byzantina. Texte und Untersuchungen, 8), Berlin – New York, 2005, p. 347. No extra verse was ­added revealing the scribe’s name; 2) Athous, Lavras Λ 38 (Eustratiadis 1528) (s. XVI), f. 172v. The scribe is named in line 9: μᾶλλον δὲ τὸν γράψαντα Ματθαῖον θύτην. Another three verses are added at the end (ἐλαχίστῳ τάλανι οἰκτρῷ ἀθλίῳ / ὅπως λυτρωθῶ τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς γεέννης / ἀμὴν ἀμὴν



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

with the one transcribed above and is dated to the same year: the Byzantine year ̗ϛω´ (6800) in the colophon of both the Philotheou and the Atheniensis converts to our year 1292; in both manuscripts, the indiction is left open. In the margin next to the colophon of the Atheniensis, a date in Arabic numbers is written in red ink that is brighter than the ink used for the colophon: this date originally stated the year 1392, but it was corrected in pencil into 1292. The Atheniensis provides us with two clues about its historical whereabouts. First, a possessor’s note in the upper margin of f. 1 indicates that, at a given point in time, the codex was preserved in one of the Meteora monasteries. 16 In all likelihood it specifically concerns the Metamorphosis monastery, which is also called Μονὴ τοῦ Μετεώρου. 17 Second, we have the National Library of Athens as the codex’ current depository. 18 The link between the Meteora monasteries and Athens goes back to the end of the nineteenth century, when hundreds of codices from the Meteora monasteries, 104 of which came from the Metamorphosis monastery, were transferred to the National Library of Athens by N. Kalogeras and S. Phindiclis after the annexation of Thessaly in 1882. The Atheniensis likely figured among these codices. 19 γένοιτο τριὰς ἁγία), cf. Spyridon – Eustratiadis, Catalogue, p. 270, and J. A. Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (CCSG, 5), Turnhout – Leuven, 1979, p. XLIV-XLV. These three extra verses make the colophon of the Lavras Λ 38 the most extensive of all; 3) Neapolitanus, Bibliotheca nationalis gr. II B 9 (s. XV), f. 333v (http://www. dbbe.ugent.be/occ/2359). The beginning of the epigram reads Θησαυρὸς αὑτὸς; despite the addition of a ninth line, the copyist remains anonymous: μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ τὸν γράψαντα ταῦτα. See also E. Mioni, Catalogus codicum Graecorum bibliothecae nationalis Neapolitanae I, 1 (Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali. Indici e Cataloghi. Nuova serie, VIII), Roma, 1992, p. 112; G. Pierleoni, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae I (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. Indici e Cataloghi. Nuova serie, VIII), Roma, 1962, p. 146. 16 The possessor’s note reads: Βιβλίον τοῦ Μεταιωρ [sic]. 17 J.-M. Olivier, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel Richard (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout, 1995³, p. 538, followed by Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 104. 18 The shelf mark no. 322 is written on f. 1, but only after two previous attempts: first Ἀριθ. 113 222 φ. 293 was written in black ink; someone then corrected number 222 to 322 in pencil. A stamp of the National Library can be seen on f. 5. 19 See N. A. Beis, Τα χειρόγραφα των Μετεώρων: κατάλογος περιγραφικός των χειρογράφων κωδίκων των αποκειμένων εις τας Μονάς των Μετεώρων, I. Τα χειρόγραφα της Μονής Μεταμορφώσεως. Εκ των καταλοίπων N. A. Béis. Προλεγόμενα, προσθήκαι L. Branousis, D. Z. Sophianos, Αθήνα, 1998², p. *39; M. L. Politis, Κατάλογος Χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀρ. 1857-2500 (Πραγματείαι της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών, 54), Αθήναι, 1991, p. ια´-ιβ´; L. Politis, La section des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale, in L’Hellénisme contemporain, 4 (1940), p. 243.



Eva De Ridder

There are no decisive elements to reconstruct the history of the Atheniensis prior to its conservation in the Meteora monastery, but collations made for critical editions of texts that are contained in the Atheniensis seem to hint at an Athonite origin. Indeed, the Atheniensis is connected to two other manuscripts from Mount Athos. First, with regard to the section on Isaac of Nineveh’s Sermones ascetici (CPG 7868), Marcel Pirard considered the Atheniensis to be a sibling of the Athous, Philotheou 56, which was copied, as mentioned above, by the same hand (Abbakoum) in the same year (1292). 20 Even though it cannot be established whether the Philotheite manuscript was written in the Philo­ theou monastery or, if not, when it entered the monastery, 21 it is not unlikely that Abbakoum was active on Mount Athos. Second, my collations of the Anthologium gnomicum by Elias Ekdikos point towards the Atheniensis as the chief model for the text in the Skiathos, Monè Euaggelismou 10, f. 432-453v and f. 804-807. 22 Since the Skiathos manuscript is known to have been copied in the years 17681770 in a Skete of the Pantokrator monastery on the Holy Mountain by a monk named Constantine 23 and is presently considered to be one of the predecessors of the orthodox collection of the Philokalia, 24 it argues for either an Athonite origin or conservation for the Atheniensis. The close family ties of the Athenian with the Skiathos manuscript suggest Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 105, 114, and 157-167. See note 14. 22 The recent contribution by P. Van Deun, Encore une philocalie avant la lettre: le Skiathos Μονὴ τοῦ Εὐαγγελισμοῦ 10, in A. Rigo (ed.), Da Teognosto alla Filocalia (XIII-XVIII secolo). Testi e autori (Έκδοσις, 13), Bari, 2016, p. 163-198 describes the contents of the Skiathos manuscript in utmost detail and replaces the catalogue description by P. Dimitrakopoulos, Κατάλογος χειρογράφων της Ιεράς Μονής Ευαγγελισμού Σκιάθου, Αθήναι, 2012, p. 38-40. Another, summary description is that by S. A. Paschalidis, Autour de l’histoire d’une collection ascétique: la Philocalie, les circonstances de son édition et sa tradition manuscrite, in Rigo (ed.), Da Teognosto, p. 208-212. In the critical edition of Elias Ekdikos’ Anthologium gnomicum, the Atheniensis and the Skiathos manuscript form, together with MS Sinaiticus gr. 1612 (dated to the year 1844), one stemmatological group in the classification of the witnesses, cf. De Ridder, The Fruitful Vineyard of Prayer [see n. 1], p. 240-245. 23 L.  Politis – M.  L. Politis, Βιβλιογράφοι 17ου-18ου αιώνα: Συνοπτική καταγραφή, in Δελτίο Ιστορικού και Παλαιογραφικού Αρχείου, 6 (1994), p. 529. 24 See for instance P. Van Deun, La collection de chapitres attribuée à l’énigmatique Théognoste (xiiie siècle), in Rigo (ed.), Da Teognosto [see n. 22], p. 107; Paschalidis, Autour de l’histoire in ibid., p. 208-212; P. Van Deun, Exploration du genre byzantin des Kephalaia. La collection attribuée à Théognoste, in A. Rigo – P. Ermilov (ed.), Theologica minora. The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature (SBHC, 8), Turnhout, 2013, p. 57. When applicable, I added references to the Philokalia. 20 21



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

that in the late eighteenth century, the Atheniensis circulated in Kollyvadic circles on Mount Athos. 25 Perhaps shortly after its role in the Kollyvadic movement, the codex was transported to the Meteora monasteries to ultimately end up in Athens.

3. Contents Characterised by the colophon as a “delicate treasure of teachings” that are worthy of its paper, the Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 322 features a miscellany of ascetical works and authors that range from the fourth to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. – f. 1-62v: section on the life and oeuvre of John Klimakos: 1. f. 1: Inc. Ὁ τὴν ἰσάριθμον ἡμῖν – Des. τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ λόγων ἀρξώμεθα = The Protheoria (BHG 882aa) of the Vita Johannis Climaci (BHG 882) by Daniel of Raithu. 2. f. 1r-v: a pinax that lists the works of the section on John Klimakos. 26 3. f. 1v-3: Inc. Τίς μέν ἐστιν ἡ τὸν θεῖον τοῦτον ἄνδρα – Des. ἔσωθεν δὲ θεωρητικὰ περιεχούσας διδάγματα. = The Vita rectractata (BHG 822c-d); followed by an “adiecta librarii nota” (Inc. Παρακαλῶ τοὺς ἐντευξομένους – Des. Γρηγορίου μονάχου.). This addendum is characteristic of the Atheniensis. 27 4. f. 3r-v: Inc. Τῷ ὑπερφυεστάτῳ ἰσαγγέλῳ – Des. ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς μισθοὺς ἀποδίδωσιν. = The Epistulae mutuae (BHG 883d, BHG 883db, CPG 7850) between John of Raithu and John Klimakos. 28 5. f. 3v-56: Inc. Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ὑπεραγάθου – Des. μείζων δὲ πάντων ἡ ἀγάπη. = The Scala paradisi (CPG 7852) by John Klimakos. 29 The scope of this article refrains us from enlarging on the complex history of the Philokalia, its possible sources (including the Skiathos manuscript), and its cultural and religious breeding ground. I refer to the relatively recent volume of Rigo (ed.), Da Teognosto [see n. 22], which concentrates on these questions. 26 Compare the 30 rungs of the Scala Paradisi in the pinax with the list in PG 88, 629. 27 F.  Halkin, Auctarium Bibliothecae Hagiographicae Graecae (SH, 47), Bruxelles, 1969, p. 100. 28 PG 88, 624-628. 29 PG 88, 632-1160. 25



Eva De Ridder

6. f. 56: Inc. Τοῖς ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς ζωῆς – Des. οὐρανοδρόμου ταύτης ἀνόδου … ἡ τῶν γηΐνων ἀποταγή. Τέλος δὲ ὁ τῆς ἀγάπης Θεός. = The inauthentic Prologus of the Scala paradisi (CPG 7851). 30 The rest of the folio, i.e. approximately twenty-six lines on the lower half, is blank. 7. f. 56v features a simple drawing of the heavenly ladder. Next to it is a pinax of its thirty rungs. 8. f. 56v: Inc. Ἀναβαίνετε, ἀναβαίνετε, ἀδελφοί, ἀναβάσεις ἐν καρδίᾳ προθύμως – Des. εἰς ἀορίστους αἰῶνας. = A short exhortation that recapitulates the contents of the Scala paradisi. 31 9. f. 57-62: Inc. Ἐν τῇ κάτω μὲν βίβλῳ – Des. ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός. = The Liber ad pastorem (CPG 7853) by John Klimakos. 32 10. The lower half of f. 62 (approximately 16 lines) and the whole of f. 62v are blank. – f. 63-148: section on Isaac of Nineveh: 1. f. 63-138v: Inc. Ὁ φόβος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀρχὴ τῆς ἀρετῆς – Des. οὐκ οἶδε κατάνυξιν. = Sermones ascetici 1-48 (CPG 7868) by Isaac, 33 translated into Greek by two Palestine monks of Mar Saba, Abramios and Patrikios. 34 2. f. 138v: Σχόλια καὶ δηλώσεις περὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς μαρτυρίαις διαφόρων νοημάτων. Ποία ἐστὶ χρεία ἑκάστου τούτων. Inc. Αἴσθησις πνευματική ἐστιν ἡ ποιωθεῖσα δέξασθαι – Des. ἐκ τοῦ κωλύματος τῶν καιρῶν καὶ τῶν τόπων καὶ τῶν προσώπων. = Sermo asceticus 56 (CPG 7868). 35 3. f. 139-148: Inc. Ἡ ἐπιστολή σου, ὦ ἅγιε, οὐχὶ λόγοι – Des. διδαχῆς αὐτοῦ τῆς ἁγίας, … τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν, followed by PG 88, 628-629. PG 88, 1160, 53 – 1161, 15. The Atheniensis omits the title Προτροπὴ ἐπίτομος καὶ ἰσοδύναμος τῶν διὰ πλάτους εἰρημένων that is attested in the PG. 32 PG 88, 1165-1208. 33 In the edition of Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 213-650. Note that the demarcation of the sermons in the Atheniensis is different from that in Pirard’s edition. Incipits are listed with their old and new numerations on p. 881-883. 34 Cf. the last part of the title: (…) ἑρμηνευθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν ὁσίων πατέρων ἡμῶν Ἀβραμίου καὶ Πατερικίου τῶν φιλοσόφων καὶ ἡσυχαστῶν ἐν τῇ λαύρᾳ τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάβα. The Greek translation of Isaac’s Sermones ascetici is dated to the ninth century (see e.g. Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 62-65; A. Di Berardino, Patrologia, V. Dal Concilio di Calcedonia (451) a Giovanni Damasceno († 750). I Padri orientali [Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum], Genova, 2000, p. 231). 35 Ιn the edition of Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 700-702. 30 31



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

γένοιτο γένοιτο Κύριε διὰ τῆς Θεοτόκου. = The Epistula Isaaci ad Symeonem, which is in fact the Greek version of a letter of the Syriac miaphysite prose writer Philoxenos of Mabboug to Patrikios of Edessa (CPG 7868 notanda b). 36 – f. 148: the colophon, written by Abbakoum, is treated above. 37 – f. 148-149: section that presents itself as a selection from the Institutio sive Paraenesis ad monachos (CPG 2454) 38 by Neilos of Ankyra. In fact, only the first two fragments stem from this text, whose real author is Evagrios Pontikos. The other 46 fragments are taken from Evagrios’ De octo spiritibus malitiae, Capita paraenetica, and De oratione, and from the Sententiae by Hesychios of Jerusalem: 1. f. 148: Evagrios Pontikos’ Institutio sive Paraenesis ad monachos (CPG 2454): 39 1) Inc. Ἀκρασίαν βρωμάτων περικόπτει νηστεία – Des. ὅπλον οὐκ ἔχει εἰς τὸν πόλεμον. = PG 79, 1236, 7-41. 2) Inc. Ἔστω σοι πᾶς ὁ ἐναντιούμενος – Des. μὴ δὲ συνεσθίειν καλόν. = PG 79, 1240, 22-24. 2. f. 148: Evagrios Pontikos’ De octo spiritibus malitiae (CPG 2451): 40 3) Inc. Στύλος ἐπερείδεται βάσει – Des. ἐπαναπαύεται κόρῳ. = Ch. 5 (partim), PG 79, 1149, 39-40. 4) Inc. Κενοδόξου ἐγκράτεια – Des. διαλυθήσεται ἀμφότερα. = Ch. 15 (partim), PG 79, 1160, 54-55. 5) Inc. Ἀστραπῆς ἔκλαμψις – Des. παρουσία κενοδοξίας. = Ch. 17 (partim), PG 90, 1161, 29-31. 36 The letter of Philoxenos of Mabboug ended up in the oeuvre of Isaac of Nineveh as the Epistula Isaaci ad Symeonem (the fourth letter of the Epistulae attributed to Isaac) and is published as letter no. 5 in Pirard, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου [see n. 4], p. 825861 (brief introductions on p. 63-65 and 801-802). See also the general introduction of René Lavenant, who edited the Syriac text and supplied it with a French translation, cf. R. Lavenant, La lettre à Patricius de Philoxène de Mabboug. Édition critique du texte syriaque et traduction française (PO, 30/5), Paris, 1963, p. 725-727. 37 See chapter 2. General information and history. 38 The title reads Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νείλου ἐκ τῶν πρὸς μοναχοὺς παραινέσεων αὐτοῦ. 39 PG 79, 1235-1240; see also J. Muyldermans, Evagriana: Le Vatic. Barb. Graec. 515, in Mus, 51 (1938), p. 191–226. 40 PG 79, 1145-1164; see also J. Muyldermans, Une nouvelle recension du De octo spiritibus malitiae de S. Nil, in Mus, 52 (1939), p. 249-255. A new edition is in the pipeline according to Géhin, Chapitres sur la prière [see n. 5], p. 186.



Eva De Ridder

3. f. 148: Evagrios Pontikos’ Capita paraenetica (CPG 2443): 41 6) Inc. Ἀυτὸν ἐφεστάναι δόκει – Des. πράττεις ἑκάστοτε. = Ch. 26, PG 79, 1252, 19-20. 7) Inc. Νύκτωρ καὶ μεθημέραν – Des. τὴν ἐσχάτην ἀπόβλεπε. = Ch. 31, PG 79, 1252, 27-28. 8) Inc. Καὶ πόθος οὐδείς σε τοῦ βίου, πρὸς τὴν σὴν καθελκύσει. = Unidentified. This fragment follows our no. 7 in the Florilegium asceticum composed by Mark the Monk, 42 but is not cited in the PG. 9) Inc. Ἐν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς – Des. ἐστὶ τὸ φάρμακον. = Ch. 3637, PG 79, 1252, 37-40. 10) Inc. Ἡ προσευχὴ μετὰ νήψεως – Des. οὐκ ἀρέσκεται. = Ch. 42, PG 79, 1252, 48-49. 11) Inc. Περιποιοῦ τοὺς πτωχοὺς – Des. τὸν κριτὴν καταλλάσσουσιν. = Ch. 55, PG 79, 1253, 22-23. 12) Inc. Ὅπλον ἡγοῦ τὴν νηστείαν – Des. διηνεκὴς κατάνυξις. = Ch. 53-54, PG 79, 1253, 18-21. 13) Inc. Ὅταν λοιδορηθῇς, σκόπει – Des. τὴν λοιδορίαν νόμιζε. = Ch. 89, PG 79, 1257, 1-3. 4. f. 148-149: Evagrios Pontikos’ De oratione (CPG 2452): 43 14) Inc. Κέχρησο τοῖς δάκρυσι – Des. προσευχὴν δεχόμενος. = Ch. 6. 15) Inc. Ἀγωνίζου στῆσαι – Des. δυνήσῃ προσεύξασθαι. = Ch. 11. 16) Inc. Καὶ θυμοῦ ὁπλιζόμενος – Des. μετὰ πολλοῦ φόβου. = Ch. 27-28. 17) Inc. Εἰ προσεύξασθαι ποθεῖς – Des. πᾶν κληρονομήσῃς. = Ch. 37. 18) Inc. Ἀγώνισαι μὴ ἔθει – Des. στεναγμῶν ἀφώνων. = Ch. 4243. 19) Inc. Προσευχόμενος τὴν μνήμην – Des. ἢ τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ λελυπηκότος. = Ch. 45-46. 20) Inc. Οὐδεὶς ἐρῶν ἀληθοῦς – Des. ἐκταράσσοντι. = Ch. 65. PG 79, 1250-1264. In the edition of Ph. Roelli, Marci Monachi Opera ascetica (CCSG, 72), Turnhout, 2009, p. 57, f. xxvii, l. 9-10. 43 In the edition of Géhin, Chapitres sur la prière [see n. 5]. This specific selection is attested in at least seven other manuscripts, amongst which the Athous, Philotheou 56, f. 190v-191v, cf. Géhin, ibid., p. 94-95. Evagrios’ work on prayer is copied in full on f. 192v-196v of the Atheniensis. 41 42



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

21) Inc. Ἐπιγινώσκων τὰ μέτρα σου – Des. παρεστάναι. = Ch. 79. 22) Inc. Γίνωσκε ὅτιπερ ἅγιοι – Des. ἀκαθάρτοις συντυγ­ χάνομεν. = Ch. 81. 23) Inc. Ἐὰν ἀληθῶς προσεύχῃ – Des. φωτιοῦσι. = Ch. 80. 24) Inc. Προσεύχου ἐπιεικῶς – Des. οἰκείαν ἐνέργειαν. = Ch. 82-83. 25) Inc. Ἡ γνῶσις, καλλίστη – Des. τῆς θείας γνώσεως. = Ch. 86. 26) Inc. Κἂν μετὰ Θεοῦ δοκῇς εἶναι – Des. καὶ φόβου. = Ch. 90. 27) Inc. Ἄρτος τροφὴ σώματι – Des. ἡ πνευματικὴ προσευχή. = Ch. 101. 28) Inc. Παραπέμπου τὰς ἀνάγκας – Des. τῆς προσευχῆς σου. = Ch. 105. 29) Inc. Τινὶ τῶν ἁγίων προσευχομένῳ – Des. αὐτοῦ ἀπερευ­ γομένου. = Ch. 106-107. 30) Inc. Λαλοῦντος τοῦ ἀββᾶ – Des. ἐξηγούμενος τὸ πρᾶγμα. = Ch. 108. 31) Inc. Ἑτέρου πνευματικοῦ – Des. τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. = Ch. 109-112. 32) Inc. Μοναχός ἐστιν, ὁ ἑαυτὸν μετὰ πάντων ἡγούμενος – Des. τὸ ἀνοίκειον. = Ch. 125-127. 5. f. 149: Hesychios of Jerusalem: Sententiae (CPG 6583 [b]): 44 33) Inc. Τὴν ὑπομονὴν ἄσκει – Des. ἡμεῖς ἀπαιτούμεθα. = Sent. 7, PG 79, 1241, 1-3. 34) Inc. Ἐγγὺς τὸ τέλος – Des. ἑτοιμαζέσθω πρὸς μάστιγας. = Sent. 13, PG 79, 1241, 18-19. 35) Inc. Οὐ μακρὰν τὸ θέρος – Des. τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπαλλάξωμεν. = Sent. 14, PG 79, 1241, 20-21. 36) Inc. Πρὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, αἰσχύνου – Des. τῆς βιωτικῆς ἐκβάλλεται. = Sent. 16-17, PG 79, 1241, 24-29. 37) Inc. Μήποτε πτωχὸν παρίδης – Des. προσευχῆς τὰ δάκρυα. = Sent. 22, PG 79, 1241, 39-40. 38) Inc. Βούλει τὴν ἀρετὴν – Des. ὡς αἰώνιον. = Sent. 29, PG 79, 1244, 3-5. 39) Inc. Εἰ κρατεῖς γαστρὸς – Des. ἀνόητος ἐλεύθερος. = Sent. 35, PG 79, 1244, 19-21.

PG 79, 1239-1250.

44



Eva De Ridder

40) Inc. Εἰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ποθεῖς – Des. ἀνίπτασθαι. = Sent. 47, PG 79, 1244, 48-49. 41) Inc. Λουτὴρ ἀγαθὸς – Des. ἐδάκρυσας. = Sent. 58, PG 79, 1245, 21-23. 42) Inc. Ἑαυτοὺς κρίνωμεν – Des. σκορπίζοντα. = Sent. 63, PG 79, 1245, 35-37. 43) Inc. Λέγειν τί μέλλων – Des. ἑκατέρων ἄμετρον. = Sent. 7172, PG 79, 1248, 7-11. 44) Inc. Μὴ σπεῖρε πονηρὰ – Des. ἐκδέχεται. = Sent. 74, PG 79, 1248, 15-16. 45) Inc. Πᾶσα πονηρὰ πρᾶξις – Des. κέχρηται. = Sent. 76, PG 79, 1248, 20-22. 46) Inc. Ψυχὴ μὴ ἀμέλει – Des. φοβεροῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. = Sent. 98, PG 79, 1249, 17-19. 47) Inc. Οὐαὶ τῷ ῥαθύμῳ – Des. ἐδαπάνησεν, καὶ οὐχ´εὑρήσει. = Sent. 82, PG 79, 1248, 36-37. 48) Inc. Βούλει τὸν ἐχθρὸν ἀσθενεῖν – Des. ὡς στρουθίον ἐμπαίζεται. = Sent. 77, PG 79, 1248, 24-26. – f. 149: two apophthegms: 1. ἐκ τοῦ Γεροντικοῦ. Inc. Εἶπε γέρων· Ἐὰν θέλῃ τις ἡσυχάσαι, εἰς ἔρημον οἰκῆσαι ἢ εἰς λαῦραν ἐν μέσῳ πολλῶν ἀδελφῶν. Ἐὰν δὲ ἐγγίον καὶ οἰκήσῃ εἰς τόπον ἐγγύτερον καὶ παραμέρος, εὑρίσκει πολλὴν ὄχλησιν· ὅταν γάρ τις ἔλθῃ εἰς τὸν τόπον, ἀνάγκην ἔχει ὑπαντῆσαι αὐτῳ. Οὐ γὰρ ἔχει που ἀναπαῆναι ἀλλαχοῦ. Ἐὰν δὲ εἰς τόπον μέγαν ᾖς, κἂν σὺ μὴ δέξῃ αὐτόν, οὐ θλίβεταί σου ὁ λογισμός· εὑρίσκει γὰρ ἀλλαχοῦ ἀνάπαυσιν, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀδελφῶν γίνεταί σοι σκέπη (?), καὶ δύνῃ ἀναπαῆναι. = Unidentified lines from the Apophthegmata Patrum (CPG 5560-5569). 45 2. ἀπὸ τοῦ Λαυσαϊκοῦ. Inc. Εἶπε τις τῶν ἁγίων· Ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς τελείαν ἀπάθειαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν καθαρότητα τῆς καρδίας, καὶ κατορθώσει τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ πλησίου, εἴ τι φαντάζεται ὅτι θεωρεῖ, πλάνης ἐστίν. = Unidentified apophthegm from the Historia Lausiaca or the Lausaicon by Palladios of Hellenopolis (CPG 6036; BHG 1435-1438v). 46 45 Not found in the editions of J. Wortley, The Anonymous Sayings of the Desert Fathers: A Select Edition and Complete English Translation, Cambridge, 2013; J.-C. Guy, Les Apophtegmes des Pères. Collection systématique (SC, 387, 474 et 498), Paris, 1993, 2003, 2005; and P. B. Paschos, Το Γεροντικόν, ήτοι Αποφθέγματα Αγίων Γερόντων, Αθήναι, 1961. 46 Not found in the edition of G. J. M. Bartelink, Palladio. La storia lausiaca (Scrittori greci e latini; Vite dei santi, 2), Verona, 1998.



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

– f. 149v-165v: Inc. Ἰδοὺ πρὸς τῷ περὶ ἀσκητικοῦ βίου λόγῳ – Des. ἐπειδὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν. Αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. = De caritate (CPG 7693) by Maximos the Confessor. 47 The last (approximately twelve) lines of f. 165v are blank. – f. 166-173: Inc. Ἔξεστι παντὶ Χριστιανῷ τῷ ὀρθῶς πιστεύοντι – Des. εὐθυνουμένην ψυχὴν θεωρίαις ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. = The Anthologium gnomicum (CPG 7716) by Elias Ekdikos, who is to be situated around the turn of the twelfth century. The chapter collection – in all likelihood the only known work by the Ekdikos – is sometimes attributed to Maximos the Confessor, be it not in the Atheniensis. 48 – f. 173r-v: Inc. Πρᾶξιν προτιμήσειας ἢ θεωρίαν – Des. εἰ καὶ τὰ πάντα σὺν λόγῳ πορεύεται. = A fragment from the Tetrastichae sententiae (Carmina moralia, 33, l. 1-112) (CPG 3035) by Gregory of Nazianzos. 49 The verses are written in two columns. – The remaining part of f. 173v is filled with 18 dodecasyllables on the intellectual praxis of the Holy Fathers. 50 Like the colophon, 47 In the edition of A. Ceresa-Gastaldo, Massimo Confessore. Capitoli sulla carità (Verba seniorum N.S., 3), Roma, 1963, p. 48-238; Φιλοκαλία τῶν ἱερῶν νηπτικῶν συνερανισθεῖσα παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ θεοφόρων πατέρων ἡμῶν, II, Ἀθῆναι, 1974-19764, p. 3-51. 48 In the edition of De Ridder, The Fruitful Vineyard of Prayer [see n. 1], p. 331415. The Anthologium is included twice in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, once – incorrectly – under the name of Maximos the Confessor (PG 90, 1401-1461), once under that of Elias Ekdikos (PG 127, 1127-1176). The Greek text in volume 127 was taken from the Philokalia, cf. Φιλοκαλία, II (see n. 47), p. 289-314. For a discussion on the wrongful attribution of the Anthologium to the Confessor (and other names as well) see M.-Th. Disdier, Élie l’Ecdicos et les Ἕτερα κεφάλαια, attribués à saint Maxime le Confesseur et à Jean de Carpathos, in EO, 31 (1932), p. 17-43, and more recently E. De Ridder, Elias Ekdikos as the Author of the Anthologium gnomicum (CPG 7716): A Research Update, in REB, 73 (2015), p. 203-227. 49 PG 37, 928, 3 – 936, 6. 50 These dodecasyllables are also found in the following manuscripts (cf. Vassis, Initia [see n. 14], p. 642 and DBBE): 1) Vaticanus gr. 735 (s. XIV), f. 241v (http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occ/1065), see R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci, III. Codices 604-866 (Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti), Città del Vaticano, 1950, p. 244; 2) Meteora, Monè Barlaam 162 (s. XIII), f. 213 (http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/ occ/6679), see N. A. Beis, Τὰ χειρόγραφα τῶν Μετεώρων. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων τῶν ἀποκειμένων εἰς τὰς μονὰς τῶν Μετεώρων, II. Τὰ χειρόγραφα τῆς Μονῆς Βαρλαάμ (Ακαδημία Αθηνών. Κέντρον Ερεύνης του Μεσαιωνικού και Νέου Ελληνισμού), Ἀθῆναι, 1984, p. 208. Beis only transcribes the beginning (Πρᾶξις νοερὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων / ἐνταῦθα γέγραπται τοῖς βουλομένοις) and end (here: ἐνταῦθ’ἐφεύροις· εἰ μετέλθοις σὺν πράξει); 3) Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Cromwellianus 6 (s. XV), p. 464 (http://www.dbbe. ugent.be/occ/8560), see H. O. Coxe, Bodleian Library. Quarto Catalogues. I. Greek Manuscripts, Oxford, 1969², col. 424;



Eva De Ridder

these lines are written in red ink and spread over two columns that have to be read from left to right at every turn. Note that the title also forms the beginning of the first sentence. The transcription below keeps the visual lay-out, but punctuation and spelling are changed at some occasions to maximise readability: 51 Πρᾶξις νοερὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων 1

ἐνταῦθ’ἀναγέγραπται τοῖς βουλομένοις ἥνπερ ἐξεικόνισεν ὁ Πλάστης πάντων 52 5 ἡδονήν τε δόξαν καὶ χρήματα πάντα πέσει, προσκυνήσεται 54 ἔδει γαίης, 9 τῶν πατέρων ὅμιλος ἱεραρχῶν τε, ταύτην ἐνεχάραξαν πίναξι θείαις 13 βαίνειν ἐθελήσωσι συν ὅλῳ πόθῳ, ὡς βασιλικωτάτην ὡς θείαν τρίβον, 17 τὰ δεξιά τε καὶ εὐώνυμα πάντα. 57

πρὸς τὴν κατ’ἐχθρῶν ἀποδύσασθαι μάχην, ἐν τῷ τρισσῷ πολέμῳ τῷ τοῦ Βελίαρ, δώσειν ὑπισχνούμενος, 53 εἴπερ ἀκούσῃ, ἥνπερ οἱ ἀπόστολοι παραλαβόντες, πᾶσα ἡ ὁμήγυρις τῶν θειοτάτων, τοῖς μετ’αὐτούς γε τὴν ὁδὸν ταύτην, εἴπερ πλάνην μηδαμῶς ὑποπτεύειν ἐν ταύτῃ, 55 ἶσα παρεκκλίνασεν τῶν ἑκατέρων 56 +·+·+·+·+·+·+·+

– f. 174-177v: Inc. Τῶν ὄντων, τὰ μὲν ἐφ’ἡμῖν – Des. μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμὴν = The Paraphrasis christiana (CPG 6075), an adaptation of Epiktetos’ Encheiridion dated before the tenth century. 58

4) Alexandrinus, Bibliothecae Patriarchalis 71 (date unknown), f. 203-215 (http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occ/8561), see Th.  D. Moschonas, Κατάλογοι τῆς Πατριαρχικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης, Τόμος Α’. Χειρόγραφα (Studies and Documents, xxvi), Salt Lake City, 19652, p. 58. Vassis and the DBBE also mention manuscripts Scorialensis, Y.III.2 (gr. 272), f. 158 (http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occ/7284) and Scorialensis, Ψ.IV.24 (gr. 498), f. 24 (http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occ/7128), but in these manuscripts the words πρᾶξις νοερὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων are part of different texts. 51 The DBBE-website (http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occ/8559) reflects the original accentuation, punctuation and orthography. 52 This line is almost identical to one from Hymnus 21 by Symeon the New Theologian, cf. J. Koder, Syméon le Nouveau Théologien, II. Hymnes 16-40 (SC, 174), Paris, 1971, p. 160, l. 399, or A. Kambylis, Symeon Neos Theologos. Hymnen (Supplementa byzantina. Texte und Untersuchungen, 3), Berlin – New York, 1976, p. 182, l. 398. 53 Compare e.g. II Par., 1, 12. 54 Compare e.g. Mt. 4, 9 or Lc. 4, 6-8. 55 Vaticanus gr. 735 reads ἐνταῦθα. 56 Vaticanus gr. 735 has ὡς ἵσα παρεκλίνουσαν ἐξ ἑκάτερα μέρι [sic]. 57 Compare e.g. Ios. 23, 6. 58 In the edition of Boter, The Encheiridion of Epictetus [see n. 14], p. 369-394.



2 6 10 14

AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

– f. 177v-183: Inc. Ἐπειδήπερ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ χάριτι – Des. καὶ γαλήνη σταθηρὰ πανταχόθεν διαδείκνυται. = Chapters 1-87 of the Capita ascetica by bishop Theodore of Edessa. 59 – f. 183-185v: a selection of letters: 1. f. 183r-v: Inc. Οὐ φέρω τὴν Τιβερινὴν ἐγκαλούμενος – Des. αἱ πόλεις μοχθηρὰ φέρουσιν, and Inc. Ἃ μὲν πρότερον ἐπιστέλλομεν – Des. ἢ ἀπὼν τοῖς ἰνδάλμασιν. = Epistulae 2 and 6 of Gregory of Nazianzos (CPG 3032), 60 both addressed to Basil of Caesarea. 2. f. 183v-185: Inc. Ἐπέγνων σου τὴν ἐπιστολὴν – Des. τῶν σπουδαζομένων ἐπιζητοῦντος. = Epistula 2 from Basil to Gregory (CPG 2900). 61 3. f. 185r-v: Inc. Φησὶν ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος – Des. μετὰ πολλῆς ποιεῖν τῆς νήψεως. = paragraphs 1-6 of the Epistula ad monachos by pseudo-John Chrysostom (CPG 4627). 62 – f. 185v-188v: section on Symeon the New Theologian: 1. f. 185v-186: part of a known citation of (Ps.-)Symeon on the subject of the (in)visible sun. The citation occurs in De 59 Φιλοκαλία, I [see n. 47], p. 304-320. It is commonly known that a lot of the material of the Capita ascetica is drawn from the works of Evagrios Pontikos, cf. A. Guillaumont – C. Guillaumont, Évagre le Pontique. Traité pratique ou Le moine, I (SC, 170), Paris, 1971, p. 313-314; J. Gouillard, Supercheries et méprises littéraires: l’œuvre de saint Théodore d’Édesse, in REB, 5 (1947), p. 137-157. The Capita ascetica frequently accompany the Vita Theodori by Basil of Emesa (BHG 1744-1744e) and are considered to have been compiled to provide the fictional figure Theodore of Edessa in fact was with an oeuvre. The dating of both the Capita ascetica and the Vita Theodori are uncertain, but both texts are generally situated in the tenth or eleventh century; see P. Géhin, Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège, in Rigo – Ermilov, Theologica minora [see n. 24], p. 26-27. 60 In the edition of P. Gallay, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres, I (Collection des Universités de France), Paris, 1964, p. 1-2 and 7-8, respectively. 61 In the edition of Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile, Lettres, I (Collection des Universités de France), Paris, 1957, p. 5-13. 62 In the edition of P. G. Nikolopoulos, Αἱ εἰς τὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον ἐσφαλμένως ἀποδιδόμεναι ἐπιστολαί (Αθηνά. Σύγγραμμα Περιοδικόν της εν Αθήναις Επιστημονικής Εταιρείας, 9), Ἀθῆναι, 1973, p. 480, l. 1 – 484, l. 77. More information on the Epistula ad monachos can be found in A. Rigo, L’epistola ai monaci (e l’epistola ad un igumeno) di uno pseudo-Crisostomo: un trattato dell’orazione esicasta scritto nello spirito dello pseudo-Macario, in Studi e ricerche sull’Oriente Cristiano, 6/3 (1983), p. 197-215 and Nikolopoulos, Αἱ εἰς τὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον, p. 216-223. For its relation to the Expositio regulae by John the Hermit, see V. Desprez – A. Rigo, L’Exposition de la règle de Jean l’Ermite et sa fortune sous le nom de Jean Chrysostome aux 11e-13e siècles, in A. Biggeli – A. Boud’hors – M. Cassin, Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin (OLA, 243), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, 2016, p. 283-336 (passim).



Eva De Ridder

sobrietate et custodia cordis from Nikephoros the Hagiorite. 63 1) Inc. Ὥσπερ ὁ διηνεκῶς ἀτενίζων τῷ αἰσθητῷ ἡλίῳ – Des. τὸν ἥλιον τῆς δικαιοσύνης. = No. 24 (Darrouzès, Syméon le Nouveau Théologien [see n. 63], p. 195-196). 2) Inc. Τρία εἰσὶ τὰ ἐν οἷς ἁμαρτάνουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι· ἡ διάνοια, ἡ λαλιὰ καὶ ἡ πρᾶξις – Des. δόξαν Θεοῦ πράττειν οἴονται. = Not cited by Darrouzès. 3) Inc. Ὅσοις ἔτι ἡ διάνοια ἀνίατος – Des. ὅτι αὐτὸς ὄψεται τὸν Κύριον. = Not cited by Darrouzès. 4) Inc. Oἱ μὴ ἔχοντες Πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον – Des. καὶ πυρὶ τῷ ἀσβέστῳ. Twenty-two lines, two thirds of which are taken from Symeon’s Hymnus 21. 64 Lines 1-4 form fragment 63 The citation varies greatly in length and contents. It traditionally begins with Ἄδειαν εὗρεν ὁ διάβολος and ends with Ὥσπερ ὁ διηνεκῶς. For more information, see the appendix in J. Darrouzès, Syméon le Nouveau Théologien. Chapitres théologiques gnostiques et pratiques (SC, 51 bis), Paris, 1980², p. 193-196, where he lists an example of a long recension consisting of 24 fragments. The short recension of the citation in the Atheniensis is to be found in more or less the same form in at least five other manuscripts: 1) Vaticanus, Reginensis gr. 23 (s. XVI), f. 221-222, see H. Stevenson, Codices manuscripti graeci Reginae Svecorum et Pii P. II Bibliothecae Vaticanae (Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti), Romae, 1888, p. 18. The Reginensis contains the same excerpts as the Atheniensis: Ὥσπερ ὁ διηνεκῶς; Τρία εἰσὶ τὰ ἐν οἷς; Ὅσοις ἔτι ἡ διάνοια; and Oἱ μὴ ἔχοντες Πνεῦμα; 2) Parisinus gr. 362 (s. XIV), f. 298v-299, cf. J. Muyldermans, À travers la tradition manuscrite d’Évagre le Pontique. Essai sur les manuscrits grecs conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 3), Louvain, 1932, p. 20. The Parisinus has the same selection as the Reginensis; 3) Athous, Vatopedinus 57 (s. XIII), f. 431v-432, cf. E. Lamberz, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften des Athosklosters Vatopedi, I. Codices 1-102 (Κατάλογοι ἐλληνικων χειρογράφων Αγίου Όρους, 2), Thessaloniki, 2006, p. 264, which attests the following excerpts: Ὥσπερ ὁ διηνεκῶς; Ἄδειαν εὗρεν ὁ διάβολος; Τρία εἰσὶ τὰ ἐν οἷς; and Oἱ μὴ ἔχοντες Πνεῦμα (up to and including πῶς σεαυτὸν χριστιανὸν ὀνομάζεις); 4) Serdicensis, C’rkovno-istoričeskija i archiven Institut, gr. 839 (s. XIII-XIV), f. 53v-54v, cf. D. Getov, A Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts at the Ecclesiastical Historical and Archival Institute of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria. Volume I: Bačkovo Monastery, Turnhout, 2014, p. 144. The Serdicensis contains the fragments Ὥσπερ ὁ διηνεκῶς; Τρία εἰσὶ τὰ ἐν οἷς; and Ὅσοις ἔτι ἡ διάνοια; 5) Athous, Dionysiou 626 (s. XVII), f.  56-57v, see E.  Dionysiatis, Συμπληρωματικὸς κατάλογος Ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς Διονυσίου Ἁγίου Ὄρους, in EEBS, 27 (1957), p. 241. I happened upon this attestation thanks to the personal notes of P. Van Deun on the Dionysiou. The manuscript contains fragments Ἄδειαν εὗρεν ὁ διάβολος; Ὥσπερ ὁ διηνεκῶς; Τρία εἰσὶ τὰ ἐν οἷς; and Ὅσοις ἔτι ἡ διάνοια. 64 Hymnus 21 is a letter “πρὸς μοναχὸν ἐρωτήσαντα”, a description that obscures the real addressee Stephen of Nicomedia (cf. Darrouzès, Syméon le Nouveau Théologien [see n. 63], p. 195 [no. 6]). Lines 1-4 in the Atheniensis correspond with l. 193-196 of Symeon’s Hymnus 21 (cf. Koder, Hymnes 16-40 [see n. 52], p. 146; Kambylis, Symeon Neos



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

no. 5 in Darrouzès’ appendix, lines 5-17 no. 6, and lines 18-22 no. 7. These lines are the third and last portion of text in the Atheniensis that stands out by its particular layout (red ink, two columns with horizontal reading direction). They are transcribed as follows: 1

Oἱ μὴ ἔχοντες Πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ ἐνοικοῦν ἀνεκφράστως 5 Εἰ γὰρ οὐκ ἔγνως ὀφθαλμὸν ἀνοιγέντα εἰ οὐκ ᾐσθήθης γλυκύτητος τῆς θείας, 9 εἰ οὐκ ἔκλαυσας δάκρυα ἀνωδύνως, εἰ καθαρθεῖσαν οὐκ ἔγνως σὴν καρδίαν 65 13 καὶ ἀνελπίστως εὗρες Χριστὸν ἐντός σου καὶ ἐπελάθου φύσεως ἀνθρωπίνης 17 πῶς σεαυτὸν χριστιανὸν ὀνομάζεις; 66 καὶ μὴ ζητοῦντες τὸν αὐτὸν, ἐνταῦθ´ἑνωθῆναι 67 21 μηδὲ δουλείας τῶν παθῶν 68 τὰς ψυχὰς λυτρωθέντες,

ἐν διανοίᾳ λαμπάδος δίκην λάμπον τῷ αἰωνίῳ παραπέμπονται σκότει. τῆς διανοίας τῆς σῆς καὶ φῶς ἰδόντα, εἰ οὐκ ἐλάμφθης τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ θείῳ, εἰ ἐκπληθέντα σου τὸν νοῦν οὐκ ἐθεάσω, καὶ ἐκλάμψασαν φαιδρὰς ἀντανακλάσεις καὶ ἐξεπλάγης κάλλος ἰδὼν τὸ θεῖον ὅλον σεαυτὸν βλέπων 69 ἠλλοιωμένον, Οἱ 70 δὲ ἐκ τῶν ὧδε πέλοντες Χριστοῦ κεχωρισμένοι 71 σπουδάσαντες ἱδρῶτι 72 καὶ πόνοις τῆς καρδίας, ἐν σκότει ἐλαθήσονται καὶ πυρὶ τῷ ἀσβέστῳ.

Theologos [see n. 52], p. 175). Lines 5-16 correspond with l. 161-172 of the same hymn (cf. Koder, Hymnes 16-40, p. 142-143; Kambylis, Symeon Neos Theologos [see n. 52], p. 173-174). Lines 17-22 are likely to have been puzzled together from various hymns of Symeon (see J. Koder, Syméon le Nouveau Théologien, I. Hymnes 1-15 [SC, 156], Paris, 1969, p. 32). Lines 18-19 and 21 indeed match l. 213-215 of Hymnus 42 (cf. J. Koder, Syméon le Nouveau Théologien, III. Hymnes 41-58 [SC, 196], Paris, 1973, p. 54; Kambylis, Symeon Neos Theologos [see n. 52], p. 351). Apart from the Vaticanus, Reginensis gr. 23, Athous, Vatopedinus 57, and the Parisinus gr. 362, the verses are also attested in manuscripts: 1) Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Baroccianus, gr. 69 (s. XIV), f. 18r-v (up to and including πῶς σεαυτὸν χριστιανὸν ὀνομάζεις), cf. Coxe, Bodleian Library [see n. 50], col. 108; 2) Vindobonensis, theologicus gr. 274 (s. XIV), somewhere on f. 195-201 (exact folio unknown to me), cf. H. Hunger – W. Lackner – C. Hannick, Katalog der Griechischen Handschriften der Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Teil 3/3. Codices Theologici 201-337 (Museion. N.F. Reihe 4. Veröffentlichungen der Handschriftensammlung, Bd. I), Wien, 1992, p. 248; 3) Skiathos, Monè Euaggelismou 10 (a. 1768-1770), f. 802v (up to and including πῶς σεαυτὸν χριστιανὸν ὀνομάζεις), cf. Van Deun, Encore une philocalie [see n. 22], p. 197. 65 Cf. Mt. 5,8. 66 Compare Hymnus 44, l. 247 and l. 305 (ed. Koder, Hymnes 41-58 [see n. 64], p. 88 and 92; Kambylis, Symeon Neos Theologos [see n. 52], p. 367 and 369). 67 Καὶ μὴ ζητήσαντες αὐτὸν ἤ τούτῳ ἑνωθέντες in Hymnus 42, l. 214 (ed. Koder, Hymnes 41-58 [see n. 64], p. 54; Kambylis, Symeon Neos Theologos [see n. 52], p. 351). 68 This phrasing also occurs in l. 215 of Symeon’s Hymnus 42 (ed. Koder, Hymnes 41-58 [see n. 64], p. 54; Kambylis, Symeon Neos Theologos [see n. 52], p. 351). 69 βλέπον a.c. 70 The manuscript reads εἰ. 71 Οἱ δὲ κἂν ὅλως πέλοντες τούτου κεχωρισμένοι in Hymnus 42, l. 213 (ed. Koder, Hymnes 41-58 [see n. 64], p. 54; Kambylis, Symeon Neos Theologos [see n. 52], p. 351). 72 ἱδρῶσι a.c.



2 6 10 14 18 22

Eva De Ridder

– –

– –

2. f. 186-188v: Inc. Τρεῖς εἰσὶ τῆς προσοχῆς καὶ προσευχῆς οἱ τρόποι – Des. τὸν πνευματικὸν οἶκον ἀπαρτίζοντες, τέλος τίθεμεν (…) εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμὴν. = The Methodus orationis hesychastici, a work which the manuscript tradition tends to attribute to the New Theologian, 73 concludes the section. f. 188v-192: Inc. Καλὰ ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ τὰ πάντα γεγόνασι – Des. ἐκείνῳ αἱρετὸν ἦν. = The first 70 Capita theologica et gnostica (CPG 7856) by John of Karpathos. 74 f. 192: Inc. Ὁ πνευματικὸς λόγος ἀκενόδοξον ἀεὶ τὴν ψυχὴν διατηρεῖ – Des. ἐν θερμῇ μνήμῃ τοῦ θεοῦ. Inc. Οἶδα 75 ἐγώ τινα τοσοῦτον τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶντα – Des. ἡμᾶς ἀγαπῶντος κυρίου. = Chapters 11 and 13, respectively, of the Capita centum de perfectione spirituali (CPG 6106) by the anti-monophysite bishop Diadochos of Photike. 76 f. 192v-196v: Inc. Εἴ τις βούλοιτο εὐῶδες – Des. εὕρηκας προσευχὴν ἀληθῶς. = De oratione (CPG 2452) (without the prologue) by Evagrios Pontikos. 77 f. 196v-197: Inc. Προσκαρτερεῖν μὲν γὰρ καλὸν τῇ προσευχῇ – Des. εἴωθεν ἡ διάνοια = An excerpt from the De voluntaria paupertate ad Magnam (CPG 6048) entitled Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Νείλου. 78 The remaining part of f. 197 (approximately 8 lines) is blank.

73 The text is found in I. Hausherr, La méthode d’oraison hésychaste (OCA, 36), Roma, 1927, p. 150-172. On the attribution of the Methodus, see M. Jugie, Les origines de la méthode d’oraison des hésychastes, in EO, 30, no. 162 (1931), p. 179-185; I. Hausherr, Note sur l’inventeur de la méthode d’oraison hésychaste (OCA, 20), Roma, 1930, p. 179-182; Hausherr, La méthode d’oraison hésychaste, p. 111-134. 74 In the edition of D. Balfour – M. B. Cunningham, A Supplement to the Philokalia. The Second Century of Saint John of Karpathos (Archbishop Iakovos Library of Ecclesiastical and Historical Sources, 16), Brookline, 1994, p. 42-90. See also D. Ossieur, Tekstuitgave van de Capita παρακλητικά en de Capita ἀσκητικά van Johannes Carpathius, met inleiding en tekstkritische aantekeningen, diss., Gent, 1972-1973, p. 1-18. 75 Εἶδα in the manuscript. 76 In the editions of É. des Places, Diadoque de Photicé. Œuvres spirituelles (SC, 5 bis), Paris, 1966, p. 89 and 90-91, and J. E. Rutherford, One Hundred Practical Texts of Perception and Spiritual Discernment from Diadochos of Photike (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, 8), Belfast, 2000, p. 20 and 22, respectively. See also Φιλοκαλία, I [see n. 47], p. 237-238. 77 In the edition of Géhin, Chapitres sur la prière [see n. 5]; Φιλοκαλία, I [see n. 47], p. 176-189. A selection of 29 chapters is found on f. 148-149. 78 The Atheniensis divides the selected text in 9 chapters of which chapters 1-6 are taken from chapters κβ´-κδ´ of the De voluntaria paupertate ad Magnam, and chapters 7-9 from chapters κζ´-κη´. The chapter demarcations in the manuscript are as follows: 1) Inc. Προσκαρτερεῖν μὲν γὰρ καλὸν τῇ προσευχῇ – Des. ἀφηρίστων (sic codex) λογισμῶν



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

– f. 197v-224v: section on Niketas Stethatos: 1. f. 197v: Inc. Τίς σκοπὸς τῆς τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ ἀποταγῆς – Des. ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν Θεὸν ὄψονται. = Some ἐρωταποκρίσεις that are identified as a sermon by Symeon’s pupil Niketas Stethatos. 79 2. f. 197v-224v: Inc. Τέσσαρας οἴομαι τὰς αἰτίας εἶναι – Des. ᾗ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. = Niketas’ Capita practica, physica et gnostica. 80 Except for the final twelve lines of Niketas’ chapters, f. 224v is blank. – f. 225-260: section of writings that are ‒ correctly or falsely ‒ attributed to the ascetic author Mark the Hermit: 1. f. 225-228: Inc. Ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἐβουλήθητε – Des. εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. = De lege spirituali (CPG 6090). 2. f. 228-233v: Inc. Ἡ τῶν ἔξωθεν κακοπιστία – Des. τοὺς συνετῶς ψάλλοντας ἐν Κυρίῳ. Αὐτῷ (…) τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. = De his qui putant se ex operibus iustificari (CPG 6091). 81

(PG 79, 997, 21-33); 2) Inc. Ὅταν οὗτος τὰ δοκοῦντα ἀντιλέγει ἐκείνῳ – Des. ἑκάστῳ ὡς οἶδε (PG 79, 997, 33-53); 3) Inc. Πρὸς ἕκαστον τὴν γνώμην διατιθέναι – Des. συμφέρει καὶ σώματι (PG 79, 997, 53 – 1000, 18); 4) Inc. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ἔργον καὶ προσευχὴν – Des. αὖθις τὴν δύναμιν (PG 79, 1000, 18-25); 5) Inc. Παρηγορεῖται γὰρ αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον – Des. τὸ ἐνδιαιτώμενον πάθος (PG 79, 1000, 25-37); 6) Inc. Ἀντὶ τοῦ προσομιλεῖν Θεῷ – Des. πρὸς ἃ πεποίωται (PG 79, 1000, 38-43); 7) Inc. Ἔστιν μὲν γὰρ προηγουμένη τῶν τελείων – Des. μαρτυρίαν περὶ ἐμοῦ (PG 79, 1004, 8-22); 8) Inc. Οὕτως ὁ Πέτρος ἀνελθὼν ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα – Des. τούτου παραδηλῶν (PG 79, 1004, 22-31); 9) Inc. Δευτέρα δὲ μετὰ τὴν πρώτην ἐστὶ προσευχὴ – Des. εἴωθεν ἡ διάνοια (PG 79, 1004, 33-48). The same selection is attested in Parisinus gr. 362, f. 158-159v, and possibly Vaticanus, Reginensis gr. 23, f. 235, which has the same first incipit. 79 Other questions in the text are: Τίς ἡ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἀρχή?; Τί τὸ μέσον τῆς ἐναρέτου ζωῆς?; Τί τὸ τέλος τῆς εἰρημένης ζωῆς?; Τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς τελειότητος? The text can be found in I. Hausherr, Un grand byzantin mystique. Vie de Syméon le nouveau théologien (9491022) par Nicétas Stethatos (Orientalia Christiana, 12), Roma, 1928, p. XXXIV-XXXV. The text in Hausherr is a transcription of manuscript Parisinus, Supplementum gr. 28, f. 203r-v. Other attestations are found in e.g. the Vindobonensis, theologicus gr. 274, f. 364365, its copy Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Baroccianus, gr. 69, f. 65-66v, and Skiathos, Monè Euaggelismou 10, f. 627-628. 80 PG 120, 851-1010; Φιλοκαλία, III [see n. 47], p. 273-355. 81 Originally, De lege spirituali and De his qui putant se ex operibus iustificari probably formed one work. They are discussed together in G.-M. de Durand, Marc le Moine. Traités, I (SC, 445), Paris, 1999, p. 59-73, and were edited on p. 73-129 and on p. 130-201, respectively. The texts are also included in Φιλοκαλία, I [see n. 47], 96-108, and 109-126.



Eva De Ridder

3. f. 233v-237: Inc. Ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός – Des. τῷ ἐπουρανίῳ βασιλεῖ Χριστῷ, ᾧ (…) τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. = De paenitentia (CPG 6092). 82 4. f. 237-245v: Inc. Ἐπειδὴ οἱ μέν, τέλειον λέγουσι – Des. ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι´αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα. Αὐτῷ (…) τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν. = De baptismo (CPG 6093). 83 5. 245v-249v: Inc. Ἐπειδήπερ πρώην πολὺς – Des. τῆς χάριτος βασιλευούσης ἐν αὐτῇ, ἐν Χριστῷ … εἰς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. = The inauthentic Ad Nicolaum praecepta animae salutaria (CPG 6094). 84 6. 249v-250: Inc. Χάρις τῷ Θεῷ χάρις – Des. τιμὴ καὶ κράτος σὺν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. = The inauthentic Responsio Nicolai ad Marcum (CPG 6095). 85 7. 250-252: Inc. Ὥσπερ ἐκ τῶν φανερῶν ἔργων – Des. εἰς ὑπουργίαν τῶν αὐτοῦ ἐντολῶν· ἀμήν. = Sermon 36 of the Sermones lxiv (Typus I = collectio B) (CPG 2410) by Ps.-Makarios/Symeon but attributed to Mark. 86 8. f. 252-253: Inc. Ἄκουε ψυχὴ λογική, κοινωνὲ – Des. ἀπολέσας αὐτήν, εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον εὑρήσει αὐτήν· αὐτῷ (…) εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. = Consultatio intellectus cum sua ipsius anima (CPG 6098). 87 9. f. 253-259v: Inc. Ἠρώτησέ τις τῶν ἐλλογίμων – Des. κινήσεις εἶναι βουλόμενοι καὶ ἑαυτοὺς τηροῦντες· ἐν Χριστῷ (…) εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. = Disputatio cum quodam causidico (CPG 6097). 88 In the edition of de Durand, Marc le Moine, I [see n. 81], p. 203-259. The work De baptismo is discussed together with the Consultatio intellectus cum sua ipsius anima in de Durand, Marc le Moine, I [see n. 81], p. 261-295 and is edited on p. 296-397. 84 In the edition of de Durand, Marc le Moine. Traités, II (SC, 455), Paris, 2000, p. 97-155; Φιλοκαλία, I [see n. 47], p. 127-138. 85 PG 65, 1052-1053. 86 In the edition of H. Berthold, Makarios/Symeon. Reden und Briefe. Die Sammlung I des Vaticanus 694 (B), II. Die Logoi B 30-64 (GCS), Berlin, 1973, p. 45-50. Other sermons of Typus I = collectio B of Ps. Makarios/Symeon that are attributed to Mark the Hermit are nos 4, 9-11 and 8, 1, l. 1-4a (ibid., I. [GCS], p. XXX and LXXIV). Another manuscript that transmits this sermon from Ps.-Makarios/Symeon after the Responsio Nicolai ad Marcum is Skiathos, Monè Euaggelismou 10, f. 173-177v, see Van Deun, Encore une philocalie [see n. 22], p. 173. 87 In the edition of de Durand, Marc le Moine, I [see n. 81], p. 398-415. 88 In the edition of de Durand, Marc le Moine, II [see n. 84], p. 13-93. 82 83



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

10. f. 259v-260: Inc. Προσήκει τοὺς ἀσκοῦντας – Des. καὶ ἀτελευτήτους αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν. = De ieiunio (CPG [6099]), 89 a work that should probably be attributed to Markianos of Cyrrhus. 90 The lower part of f. 260 (approximately five lines) is blank. – f. 260v-271v: Inc. Πόθος πρὸς Θεὸν ὁλικῶς τεταγμένος – Des. ὡς προείρηται συναΐδα· μεθ´ὧν (…) τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν. = Centuriae IV de caritate et continentia (CPG 7848) by abbot Thalassios the Libyan, the well-known friend and correspondent of Maximos the Confessor. 91 – f. 271v-277: a section focusing on two men devoted to the solitary life: 1. f. 271v-276: Inc. Διηγήσατο ἡμῖν ὁ ἀββᾶς Σεραπίων – Des. καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων ἀμήν. = The Vita S. Marci Atheniensis (BHG 1039-1041), on the life of the fourth-century recluse who allegedly lived on an Ethiopian mountaintop. 92 2. f. 276v-277: Inc. Ἔλεγον περὶ τοῦ ἀββᾶ Φιλήμονος – Des. τὴν τοῦ νοῦ φυλακὴν καὶ νῆψιν. = A part of the text on Philemon the Anchorite (BHG 2368) that is included in the Philokalia, 93 but also found in e.g. manuscripts Vaticanus gr. 703 (f. 226234v), Athous, Lavras Γ 40 (Eustratiadis 280) (f. 25-38), and Mosquensis, Bibliothecae Synodalis 327 (Vladimir 427) (f. 434449v). 94 The bottom of f. 277 (approximately eleven lines) is left open. – f. 277v-293v: Inc. Πρῶτος ὅρος τῆς πίστεως – Des. χρηστότητος τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ (…) τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν. = The Capita centum de perfectione spirituali (CPG 6106) by Diadochos of Photike. 95 In the edition of de Durand, Marc le Moine, II [see n. 84], p. 158-167. See CPG suppl. 5542 = CPG 3891. 91 PG 91, 1428-1470; Φιλοκαλία, II [see n. 47], p. 205-229. 92 The Vita S. Marci Atheniensis is critically edited in C. Angelidi, Ὁ βίος τοῦ Μάρκου τοῦ Ἀθηναίου (BHG 1039-1041), in Σύμμεικτα, 8 (1989), p. 33-59. 93 Φιλοκαλία, II [see n. 47], p. 241, l. 4 – 242, l. 18. For its place in the Philokalia, see V. Conticello – E. Citterio, La Philocalie et ses versions, in TB II, p. 1006-1007. The work is also discussed in A. Rigo, Mistici bizantini, Torino, 2008, p. XXVIII. 94 See Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci, III [see n. 50], p. 184; Spyridon – Eustratiadis, Catalogue [see n. 15], p. 37; and A. Vladimir, Sistematičeskoe opisanie rukopisej Moskovskoj sinodalnoj (patriarščej) biblioteki. IV. Rukopisi greceskiia, Moskva, 1894, p. 646, respectively. 95 In the editions of des Places, Diadoque de Photicé [see n. 76], p. 84-163 and Rutherford, One Hundred Practical Texts [see n. 76], p. 12-154. 89 90



Eva De Ridder

Incipits cited in the article Ἀγωνίζου στῆσαι 198 Ἀγώνισαι μὴ ἔθει 198 Αἴσθησις πνευματική ἐστιν ἡ ποιωθεῖσα δέξασθαι 196 Ἄκουε ψυχὴ λογική, κοινωνὲ 208 Ἀκρασίαν βρωμάτων περικόπτει νηστεία 197 Ἃ μὲν πρότερον ἐπιστέλλομεν 203 Ἀναβαίνετε, ἀναβαίνετε, ἀδελφοί, ἀναβάσεις ἐν καρδίᾳ προθύμως 196 Ἀντὶ τοῦ προσομιλεῖν Θεῷ 207 Ἄρτος τροφὴ σώματι 199 Ἀστραπῆς ἔκλαμψις 197 Ἀυτὸν ἐφεστάναι δόκει 198 Βούλει τὴν ἀρετὴν 199 Βούλει τὸν ἐχθρὸν ἀσθενεῖν 200 Γίνωσκε ὅτιπερ ἅγιοι 199 Δευτέρα δὲ μετὰ τὴν πρώτην ἐστὶ προσευχὴ 207 Διηγήσατο ἡμῖν ὁ ἀββᾶς Σεραπίων 209 Ἐὰν ἀληθῶς προσεύχῃ 199 Ἑαυτοὺς κρίνωμεν 200 Ἐγγὺς τὸ τέλος 199 Εἰ κρατεῖς γαστρὸς 199 Εἰ προσεύξασθαι ποθεῖς 198 Εἴ τις βούλοιτο εὐῶδες 207 Εἰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ποθεῖς 200 Εἶπε γέρων· Ἐὰν θέλῃ τις ἡσυχάσαι 200 Εἶπε τις τῶν ἁγίων· Ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος 200 Ἔλεγον περὶ τοῦ ἀββᾶ Φιλήμονος 209 Ἐν τῇ κάτω μὲν βίβλῳ 196 Ἐν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς 198

Ἔξεστι παντὶ Χριστιανῷ τῷ ὀρθῶς πιστεύοντι 201 Ἐπέγνων σου τὴν ἐπιστολὴν 203 Ἐπειδὴ οἱ μέν, τέλειον λέγουσι 208 Ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἐβουλήθητε 207 Ἐπειδήπερ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ χάριτι 203 Ἐπειδήπερ πρώην πολὺς 208 Ἐπιγινώσκων τὰ μέτρα σου 199 Ἔστιν μὲν γὰρ προηγουμένη τῶν τελείων 207 Ἔστω σοι πᾶς ὁ ἐναντιούμενος 197 Ἑτέρου πνευματικοῦ 199 Ἡ γνῶσις, καλλίστη 199 Ἡ ἐπιστολή σου, ὦ ἅγιε, οὐχὶ λόγοι 196 Ἡ προσευχὴ μετὰ νήψεως 198 Ἡ τῶν ἔξωθεν κακοπιστία 207 Ἠρώτησέ τις τῶν ἐλλογίμων 208 Θησαυρὸς ἁβρὸς γραφικῶν διδαγμάτων 191 Ἰδοὺ πρὸς τῷ περὶ ἀσκητικοῦ βίου λόγῳ 201 Καὶ θυμοῦ ὁπλιζόμενος 198 Καὶ πόθος οὐδείς σε τοῦ βίου, πρὸς τὴν σὴν καθελκύσει 198 Καλὰ ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ τὰ πάντα γεγόνασι 206 Κἂν μετὰ Θεοῦ δοκῇς εἶναι 199 Κενοδόξου ἐγκράτεια 197 Κέχρησο τοῖς δάκρυσι 198 Λαλοῦντος τοῦ ἀββᾶ 199 Λέγειν τί μέλλων 200 Λουτὴρ ἀγαθὸς 200 Μὴ σπεῖρε πονηρὰ 200 Μήποτε πτωχὸν παρίδης 199



AN ASCETIC MISCELLANY FROM THE LATE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

Μοναχός ἐστιν, ὁ ἑαυτὸν μετὰ πάντων ἡγούμενος 199 Νύκτωρ καὶ μεθημέραν 198 Ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός 208 Ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ἔργον καὶ προσευχὴν 207 Ὁ πνευματικὸς λόγος ἀκενόδοξον ἀεὶ τὴν ψυχὴν διατηρεῖ 206 Ὁ τὴν ἰσάριθμον ἡμῖν 195 Ὁ φόβος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀρχὴ τῆς ἀρετῆς 196 Οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες Πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον 204 Οἶδα ἐγώ τινα τοσοῦτον τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶντα 206 Ὅπλον ἡγοῦ τὴν νηστείαν 198 Ὅσοις ἔτι ἡ διάνοια ἀνίατος 204 Ὅταν οὗτος τὰ δοκοῦντα ἀντιλέγει ἐκείνῳ 207 Ὅταν λοιδορηθῇς, σκόπει 198 Οὐ μακρὰν τὸ θέρος 199 Οὐ φέρω τὴν Τιβερινὴν ἐγκαλούμενος 203 Οὐαὶ τῷ ῥαθύμῳ 200 Οὐδεὶς ἐρῶν ἀληθοῦς 198 Οὕτως ὁ Πέτρος ἀνελθὼν ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα 207 Παρακαλῶ τοὺς ἐντευξομένους 195 Παραπέμπου τὰς ἀνάγκας 199 Παρηγορεῖται γὰρ αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον 207 Πᾶσα πονηρὰ πρᾶξις 200 Περιποιοῦ τοὺς πτωχοὺς 198 Πόθος πρὸς Θεὸν ὁλικῶς τεταγμένος 209 Πρᾶξιν προτιμήσειας ἢ θεωρίαν 201

Πρᾶξις νοερὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων 202 Πρὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, αἰσχύνου 199 Πρὸς ἕκαστον τὴν γνώμην διατιθέναι 207 Προσευχόμενος τὴν μνήμην 198 Προσεύχου ἐπιεικῶς 199 Προσήκει τοὺς ἀσκοῦντας 209 Προσκαρτερεῖν μὲν γὰρ καλὸν τῇ προσευχῇ 206 Πρῶτος ὅρος τῆς πίστεως 209 Στύλος ἐπερείδεται βάσει 197 Τέσσαρας οἴομαι τὰς αἰτίας εἶναι 207 Τὴν ὑπομονὴν ἄσκει 199 Τινὶ τῶν ἁγίων προσευχομένῳ 199 Τίς μέν ἐστιν ἡ τὸν θεῖον τοῦτον ἄνδρα 195 Τίς σκοπὸς τῆς τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ ἀποταγῆς 207 Τοῖς ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς ζωῆς 196 Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ὑπεραγάθου 195 Τρεῖς εἰσὶ τῆς προσοχῆς καὶ προσευχῆς οἱ τρόποι 206 Τρία εἰσὶ τὰ ἐν οἷς ἁμαρτάνουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ∙ ἡ διάνοια, ἡ λαλιὰ καὶ ἡ πρᾶξις 204 Τῷ ὑπερφυεστάτῳ ἰσαγγέλῳ 195 Τῶν ὄντων, τὰ μὲν ἐφ’ἡμῖν 202 Φησὶν ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος 203 Χάρις τῷ Θεῷ χάρις 208 Ψυχὴ μὴ ἀμέλει 200 Ὥσπερ ἐκ τῶν φανερῶν ἔργων 208 Ὥσπερ ὁ διηνεκῶς ἀτενίζων τῷ αἰσθητῷ ἡλίῳ 204



Tomás Fernández*

El florilegio de los mss. F H en la letra Alfa del Florilegio Coisliniano Abstract – The article presents the edition of 10 fragments that are found as part of the letter A in only two manuscripts of the so-called Florilegium Coislinianum, viz Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 329 and Vaticanus gr. 491. These fragments belong to John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite, John of Damascus, Gregory of Nyssa and Anastasius of Sinai. In this way, the article is an addition to the author’s edition in Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca (number 66). I. Esta contribución brinda la edición crítica de diez fragmentos presentes únicamente en dos testigos de un vasto florilegio bizantino, el Florilegio Coisliniano (s. IX-X): Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 329 (sigla F, s. XIII-XIV) y Vaticanus gr. 491 (sigla H, s. XIII); no incluye las lecciones de dos manuscritos derivados de F que contienen parcialmente estos fragmentos, Vaticanus gr. 728 (a. 1566-1567) y Oxoniensis, Canonicianus gr. 56 (s. XVI). 1 Los diez fragmentos de F H pertenecen a un bloque textual paralelo al del Florilegio Coisliniano, claramente enmarcado en una de sus tradiciones – la llamada « recensión breve » por M. Richard 2 –, pese a no ser parte integrante de ella. Entre estos fragmentos figura una de las Quaestiones et responsiones de Anastasio Sinaíta, editados en la Series Graeca del Corpus Christianorum por J. A. Munitiz junto a M. Richard. 3 Esta modestísima contribución a la tradición indi* El autor desea expresar su agradecimiento a Conicet-UBA, que generosamente financia su investigación en el ámbito de los florilegios bizantinos. También desea agradecer a Jacques Noret y Basile Markesinis por diversas sugerencias relativas al establecimiento del texto griego, y a José Maksimczuk, que señaló la presencia en catenae de los fragmentos noveno y décimo que aquí se editan. 1 Tampoco las de un manuscrito muy fragmentario y tardío, el Monacensis gr. 551 (s. XV); véase una breve descripción en R. Ceulemans et al., Sur le mensonge, l’âme de l’homme et les faux prophètes: la Lettre Ψ du Florilège Coislin, en Byz, 83 (2013), p. 53. 2 M.  Richard, Florilèges spirituels grecs, en Dsp, fasc. 33-34, Paris, 1962, col. 485 (= M. Richard, Opera minora, I, Turnhout – Leuven, 1976, n° 1). 3 M. Richard (†) – J. A. Munitiz, Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et responsiones (CCSG, 59), Turnhout – Leuven, 2006. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 213–237 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117150

Tomás Fernández

recta de las Quaestiones pretende ser también un respetuoso homenaje al erudito jesuita, a quien he tenido la oportunidad de conocer en una de sus visitas a Lovaina. La edición de estos fragmentos se inserta en un proyecto más vasto. Un equipo de investigación radicado en Lovaina está abocado, desde hace casi una década, al Florilegio Coisliniano. 4 La historia de la publicación de dicha antología es complicada. En primer término fue dada a la luz la letra Gamma, luego Beta, luego Eta, luego Psi, luego Xi, luego Theta, por último Rho, junto con unos pocos fragmentos de otras letras; 5 la edición de Alfa, que constituyó mi tesis doctoral, ha sido publicada por Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca. 6 Esta publicación dispersa y parcial, que por motivos prácticos ha resultado inevitable, tuvo como consecuencia la multiplicación y repetición de información en distintas publicaciones. Por dicho motivo me limito a remitir aquí, para detalles sobre el Florilegio Coisliniano y su tradición manuscrita, a las publicaciones indicadas, subrayando que estas, por lo demás, resultan imprescindibles para la cabal comprensión de la función en el conjunto del Florilegio Coisliniano de los fragmentos que aquí se editan. En este marco, ¿cuál es el interés de estos capítulos? Hay muchas respuestas posibles. Una de ellas es la siguiente: en un campo relativamente poco explorado como el de las aportaciones que las antologías pueden hacer a la historia de la lectura bizantina, 7 estos capítulos adicionales, en tanto testimonio explícito de lecturas, proveen de pistas concretas sobre el modo de trabajar de los compiladores de antologías, la circulación y Ver infra, n. 5. Ver en último término R. Ceulemans et al., La lettre Rhô du Florilège Coislin, en Byz, 87 (2017), p. 143-158; R. Ceulemans et al., La vision des quatre bêtes, la Théotokos, les douze trônes et d’autres thèmes: la Lettre Θ du Florilège Coislin, en Byz, 86 (2016), p. 91-128 así como R. Ceulemans et al., Questions sur les deux arbres du paradis: la lettre Ξ du Florilège Coislin, en Byz, 84 (2014), p. 49-79. Otras contribuciones recientes son P. Van Deun, Un extrait pseudo-chrysostomien sur l’intempérance et la lèpre (CPG 4878), en F. P. Barone – C. Macé – P. A. Ubierna (eds), Philologie, herméneutique et histoire des textes entre Orient et Occident. Mélanges en hommage à Sever J. Voicu (IPM, 73), Turnhout, 2017, p. 1037-1052 y J. Maksimczuk, Chapter E 17 of the Florilegium Coislinianum and its Relationship with Earlier Iconodule Anthologies, en MEG, 16 (2016), p. 165-183. J. Maksimczuk, por su parte, concluirá en breve la edición de las letras delta, épsilon y zeta. (Cuando este artículo estaba en prensa, se publicó también la letra N en Byz, 88 [2018]) 6 T.  Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum A (CCSG, 66), Turnhout, 2018. 7 Piénsese en el reciente encuentro Βυζαντιναὶ ἀκοαί: leer y escuchar en Bizancio. Primer coloquio bizantino de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 20 y 21 de agosto de 2015, donde J. Maksimczuk abordó la problemática del compilador del Florilegio Coisliniano en tanto lector. 4 5



LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

ubicación geográfica de sus manuscritos, el interés puntual que tenía un público lector del que ellos formaban parte y del que a la vez dejaban testimonio material. Si es verdad que cualquier antología puede hacer aportaciones valiosas a la historia de la lectura, las de una incrustada en un conjunto mayor, con el que presenta, como en este caso, diferencias nada desdeñables, pueden ser aun mayores. Sobre estas diferencias me detendré brevemente en lo que sigue. En particular me propongo abordar, para los casos en donde esto resulte posible, la relación de los fragmentos adicionales de F H y los de la tradición directa de dichos fragmentos, para compararlos con el modus compilandi habitual en el Florilegio Coisliniano y definir diferencialmente, al menos en esta medida, su naturaleza. II. El equipo de Lovaina ha sido el primero en publicar un capítulo inédito del ms. F presente en la letra Xi del Florilegio Coisliniano (el texto del ms. H no se conserva en esta parte de la antología). Los autores brindan allí información detallada sobre este capítulo, un análisis de su contenido y una breve caracterización de su lugar y relación con el conjunto del Florilegio Coisliniano. 8 Este capítulo adicional tiene muchos puntos de contacto con los fragmentos que aquí se editan. 9 En efecto, el texto adicional integra un florilegio mayor, conservado en los mss. F H, que puede considerarse en su conjunto una recensión aumentada o ampliada de la recensión breve del Florilegio Coisliniano. Antes de referirme a los fragmentos de Alfa, y con el objetivo de ofrecer un panorama más completo, consideraré el capítulo suplementario de F en Xi. Este capítulo contiene dos extractos. El primero, perteneciente a Contra Manicheos de Tito de Bostra, tiene un interés limitado a los fines de esta contribución, ya que las diferencias entre el texto de F y el de la tradición directa de esta obra, limitada a un solo manuscrito, son menores. Sobre el segundo fragmento, atribuido a Severiano de Gabala, vale la pena hacer una mención más detallada. Ceulemans et al. señalan que, aunque F lo transmite como un todo, « on peut y distinguer trois par Ceulemans et al., Lettre Ξ [ver n. 5], p. 62-67. También con otros capítulos adicionales, ubicados en distintas secciones del Florilegio Coisliniano. Cf. en último término Ceulemans et al., Lettre Ξ [ver n. 5], p. 62-63, para los fragmentos que sólo F conserva al final del Florilegio Coisliniano, probablemente análogos a los fragmentos adicionales de Alfa y Xi. Más información sobre el mismo tema aparece en R. Ceulemans – P. Van Deun, Réflexions sur la littérature anthologique de Constantin V à Constantin VII, en B. Flusin – J.-Cl. Cheynet (eds), Autour du Premier humanisme byzantin & des Cinq études sur le xie siècle, quarante ans après Paul Lemerle (TM, 21/2), Paris, 2017, p. 361-388. 8 9



Tomás Fernández

ties différentes. Les deux premières sections […] proviennent clairement des Homélies sur l’Hexaèmeron de Sévérien, plus particulièrement de sa sixième homélie […] ». 10 En la misma letra Xi del Florilegio Coisliniano, prosiguen los estudiosos, figura un fragmento de esa misma homilía: se trata del fragmento 5. Pero el fragmento suplementario de F es mucho menos literal: las dos primeras partes « se composent de bribes du texte de Sévérien recueillies par-ci, par-là, ce qui leur donne plutôt l’impression [sic] d’une métaphrase ou d’un résumé d’un passage entier de la source », 11 mientras que la tercera lleva la paráfrasis a tal nivel que, aun­ que parece provenir de la misma homilía, resulta imposible reconocer más allá de toda duda la fuente última (« nous ne l’avons pas retrouvée telle quelle dans l’édition imprimée de Sévérien» 12). En nota, agregan una información preciosa: « On trouve un texte similaire dans la chaîne sur la Genèse (à propos de Gen. 2.17): voir Petit, La chaîne sur la Genèse, I, p. 190 (fragment 276.1) ». 13 « Tous ces éléments nous permettent de conclure que le second extrait de F semble s’inspirer directement de la sixième homélie sur l’Hexaèmeron de Sévérien », 14 afirman. Esta conclusión puede quizá ser matizada: es probable que los extractos de F o, según el caso, de F H, no provengan sin intermediarios de la fuente última. En efecto, el hiparquetipo de F H (cuya existencia ha quedado probada desde la primera edición de fragmentos del Florilegio Coisliniano) no tiene el hábito de alterar sistemáticamente sus fuentes. Basta con cotejar los fragmentos del hiparquetipo de la recensión breve del Florilegio Cois­ liniano, a la que pertenecen F H, con el testimonio de F H: los desvíos son menores y generalmente involuntarios. Si no altera estos fragmentos en aquellas partes donde estos pueden compararse fehacientemente con un hiparquetipo de mayor jerarquía, ¿por qué pensar, cuando ninguna comparación es posible, que acorta y parafrasea un material tomado directamente de la fuente última? Por el contrario, puede postularse que el hiparquetipo de F H deriva su texto, al menos parcialmente, de una o varias antologías más alejadas de la fuente última que el Florilegio Coisliniano en su conjunto: antologías elaboradas sobre la base de otras antologías, más que sobre la de lecturas directas de la fuente. Las diferencias observadas en los fragmentos adicionales de la letra Alfa, que pueden 12 13 14 10 11

Ceulemans et al., Lettre Ξ [ver n. 5], p. 65-66. Ibidem, p. 66. Ibidem. Ibidem, n. 93. Para la cita bibliográfica, cf. infra, n. 21. Ibidem, p. 66, mis itálicas.



LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

observarse en el aparato de comparación con la fuente, refuerzan esta conclusión: los fragmentos de F H están más alejados de la fuente última que los del Florilegio Coisliniano, y con toda probabilidad dependen de compilaciones intermedias. Quizá pueda decirse algo más acerca de estas (aunque, naturalmente, solo se trata de una hipótesis): posiblemente se trate de florilegios exegéticos más próximo al género de las catenae que el Florilegio Coisliniano, y hayan tomado parte de su material de una o varias catenae, por mucho que sea imposible referirlos a una tradición determinada. En este punto, de nuevo se hace necesario citar a los editores de la letra Xi: « Les liens qu’on a constatés entre cet extrait [de Severiano, cit. supra] et la chaîne sur la Genèse […] sont […] dus au hasard et peuvent être expliqués par le recours des deux compilations à la même source. » 15 Es cierto que no puede establecerse ninguna relación de dependencia directa entre F y esa catena particular, y que el azar posiblemente explique la semejanza del texto conservado en F (o, según el caso, en F H) con las catenae particulares. Sin embargo, y con las limitaciones que enseguida veremos, el carácter katenenartig 16 de algunos de los fragmentos de F H sí puede defenderse. III. El hilo conductor de los primeros siete fragmentos adicionales de F H es la naturaleza de los ángeles, al menos en parte disparado por una frase bíblica, Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα (Ps. 103, 1). El primer fragmento comienza como un comentario exegético en regla, sin siquiera un verbo principal: Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα – τουτέστι κούφους καὶ μεταρσίους – καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα· οὕτως οἶδε Μωυσῆς τὸν ἄγγελον ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς λαλοῦντα αὐτῷ. Al texto bíblico sigue una pequeña exégesis, introducida por Ἐπισημαντέον. El fragmento es un ejemplo claro de lo enunciado supra: si bien presenta conexiones con el género de las catenae, no puede ser reconducido a ninguna catena conservada. Ibidem, n. 94. Sobre este adjetivo, véase Ehrhard sobre el monje Doxopatres o Doxapatres (luego identificado como Nilo Doxapatres), a quien define como « Autor einer katenenartigen Gesamtdarstellung » (De oeconomia Dei), A. Ehrhard, Prosaische Literatur. Theologie, en K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, I, München, 1897, p. 209. Véase, para esta cita y para la identificación con Nilo, S. Neirynck, The De oeconomia Dei by Nilus Doxapatres: a Tentative Definition, en P. Van Deun – C. Macé (eds), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? Proceedings of the International Conference held in Leuven, 6-8 May 2009 (OLA, 212), Leuven – Paris – Walpole (ma), 2011, p. 259. 15 16



Tomás Fernández

En este punto conviene recordar la afirmación de un reconocido especialista en el tema (y también editor del Florilegio Coisliniano), R. Ceulemans, con relación al entrecruzamiento entre catenae propiamente dichas y florilegios en general: « The custom of creating new works by compiling earlier ones is typical for Byzantium, but only the specifically exegetical florilegia are called catenae. » 17 Como el mismo Ceulemans señala, estos florilegios exegéticos deben seguir un orden determinado – el del texto bíblico – para ser catenae en sentido estricto. 18 El principio organizador de los fragmentos es diverso, ya que en F H se suceden siguiendo un tema común más que el texto bíblico. De todos modos se acercan más al género de las catenae – cuyas barreras son muy lábiles – que otros florilegios, incluyendo el mismo Florilegio Coisliniano; por ello, estimo, no es casual que un cierto número de fragmentos, además del de Severiano, aparezcan también, con variaciones más o menos importantes, en catenae. Tras este excursus sobre las catenae puede retomarse el breve análisis de los fragmentos. El primer fragmento, como hemos visto, se refiere al carácter espiritual de los ángeles (Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα) y su afinidad con el fuego (καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα). El segundo fragmento, de Basilio de Cesarea, insiste sobre estas características: Ἡ μὲν οὐσία αὐτῶν, ἀέριον πνεῦμα […] ἢ πῦρ ἄϋλον κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, desarrollándolas a continuación, tras una cita literal de Ps. 103, 1, que el compilador de los fragmentos de F H no reproduce. El tercer fragmento, de Dionisio Areopagita, se refiere a otro aspecto de la naturaleza de los ángeles: no son ἀλώβητοι παντελῶς, sino pasibles de caída. El cuarto fragmento, también de Dionisio, explica que los órdenes celestes inferiores son instruidos en asuntos divinos por los superiores, τὰς μὲν ὑφειμένας τῶν οὐρανίων οὐσιῶν διακοσμήσεις πρὸς τῶν ὑπερβεβηκότων εὐκόσμως ἐκδιδάσκεσθαι τὰς θεουργικὰς ἐπιστήμας. El quinto fragmento, atribuido a Juan Damasceno, es el más extenso y, por su contenido, fácilmente podría integrar catenae propiamente dichas. No sólo « podría integrar »: una selección semejante de su texto referido a los ángeles, que de todos modos no está relacionada textualmente con los fragmentos de F H, aparece efectivamente en una Catena in epistulam ad Romanos editada por Cramer. 19 R.  Ceulemans, Catenae, en R. S. Bagnall et al. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, Chichester, 2013, p. 1371. 18 Ibidem. 19 J. A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, IV, Oxford, 1844 (Hildesheim, 1967), p. 300, 19 – 302, 8 y p. 302, 20-30. 17



LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

El sexto fragmento, atribuido a Gregorio de Nisa y posiblemente el más intrigante del conjunto, comienza con una oración cuyo sujeto son, precisamente, los ángeles, aunque no se los mencione expresamente. Sigue una interpretación tipológica de estos en relación con Jesucristo. El séptimo fragmento, brevísimo, es una continuación del segundo fragmento de F H. Tomados en su conjunto, ambos tienen un carácter exegético claro. Con él se cierra la primera parte de estos fragmentos adicionales, cuya estructura tiene puntos de contacto con una Ringkomposition: de dos fragmentos estrechamente ligados (el primero y el segundo) se pasa a un séptimo que es una continuación textual del segundo. Asimismo, el cierre de este primer ciclo de fragmentos adicionales se ve confirmado por el hecho de que, entre el séptimo y el octavo fragmento, aparece uno de los fragmentos presentes en la tradición del Florilegio Coisliniano; para más detalles, véase la sección siguiente de esta introducción. Los últimos tres fragmentos tienen una unidad peculiar, ya que, en realidad, están tomados de una fuente única – Anastasio Sinaíta –, por más que en F H aparezcan como plenamente separados. El octavo es la quaestio de Anastasio Sinaíta, vinculada a la tradición de las catenae; en nota a Qu. 23, 9-11 (Οἷός φησιν ὑπῆρχεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος μέσος φθορᾶς καὶ ἀφθαρσίας γενόμενος, τοιοῦτος ἦν καὶ ἔτι ἐστὶν ὁ παράδεισος), el P. Munitiz indica la cercanía de este texto, por un lado, a Ad Autolycum (2, 24) de Teófilo de Antioquía, pero también a una catena relativa a Génesis. 20 No sorprenderá a esta altura que partes del noveno y décimo fragmento de F H aparezcan también en catenae (Petit, fragmentos 233-235 y Petit, fragmento 225, respectivamente). 21 Indudablemente, las Quaestiones no son catenae, pero presentan varios puntos de contacto con ellas; basta con observar la frecuencia con que estas aparecen mencionadas en el aparato de fuentes de las Quaestiones. V. Los diez fragmentos adicionales de F H se hallan en el cuarto capítulo de la letra Alfa del Florilegio Coisliniano, intitulado Ἀπόδειξις ὅτι θʹ τάγματά εἰσιν οἱ ἄγγελοι; se trata del último capítulo sistemático sobre la problemática de los ángeles (el quinto capítulo, Περὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὧν 20 Ver M. Richard, Les fragments exégétiques de Théophile d’Alexandrie et de Théophile d’Antioche, en Revue biblique, 47 (1938), p. 389-390 (= Opera minora, II, Turnhout – Leuven 1977, n° 38), donde se publica y estudia brevemente, precisamente, el texto de Teófilo retomado en catenae. 21 F.  Petit, La chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale, I. Chapitres 1 à 3 (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 1), Leuven, 1991.



Tomás Fernández

ἐφιλοξένησεν Ἀβραάμ, parece ser un agregado ad hoc con el objetivo de incorporar al conjunto un fragmento pseudo-crisostómico sobre el tema del título [fragmento 15º], acompañado por otro pequeño fragmento de procedencia dudosa [fragmento 16º]; me inclino a pensar que no aparecía en el plan primigenio del Florilegio Coisliniano, por más que actualmente los conserven casi todos sus testigos). El primer fragmento de ese cuarto capítulo (12º de la letra Alfa) contiene Io. Dam., Exp. fidei, 17, 66-74. El segundo (13º de la letra Alfa), Ps.-Athan. Alex., Quaest. ad Ant., PG 28, 616, 24-41 y 601, 46-50. A continuación, aparecen en F H los fragmentos adicionales con sus correspondientes atribuciones: 1. Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου. F f. 60v; H f. 108v-109. Athan. Alex., Expos. in Ps., PG 27, 437, 5-9 (ad Ps. 103); Ps.-Io. Chrys., In Psalmos 101107, PG 55, 647, 40-48 (no he hallado la fuente de otras partes de este fragmento). 2. Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου. F f. 60v; H f. 109. Bas. Caes., De Spiritu s., 16, 38, 48-54. 3. Tοῦ ἁγίου Διονυσίου. F f. 60v; H f. 109. Ps.-Dion. Ar. , De eccl. hier., p. 119, 18-22. 4. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ. F f. 60v-61; H f. 109. Ps.-Dion. Ar., De coel. hier., p. 30, 1-11. 5. Tοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ. F f. 61; H f. 109-110 Io. Dam., Exp. Fidei, 17, 2-86. 6. Τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Νύσης. F f. 62; H f. 110. Fuente no encontrada. 7. Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου. F f. 62; H f. 110r-v. Bas. Caes. , De Spiritu s., 16, 38, 54-57. Entre los fragmentos 7 y 8 aparece el fragento 14 de la letra Alfa del Florilegio Coisliniano (F f. 62-62v; H f. 110v); F H omiten el fragmento 15 de Alfa. 8. (En lugar de una atribución, aparece la ἐρώτησις de Anastasio, sin mención de autor.) F f. 62v; H 110v. Anast. Sin. , Quaest. et resp., 23, 1-27. 9. Ἐπιφανίου. F f. 62v-56; H f. 110v-106. Anast. Sin. , Quaest. et resp., qu. 23, PG 89, 540, 33 – 541, 22. (Fuente última: Epiph., Ancor., 55, 1, 1, – 58, 8, 3; la referencia a Orígenes, presente en la quaestio de Anastasio, falta en Epifanio..) 10. Διονυσίου Ἀλεξανδρέως ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ὠριγένην. F f. 56; H f. 106. Anast. Sin. , Quaest. et resp., 23, PG 89, 541, 23-36. (El fragmento, atribuido por F H a Dionisio de Alejandría, aparece con muchas



LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

diferencias en Sacra Parallela, PG 96, 537, 30-39, atribuido a Hipólito de Roma.) Sigue el fragmento 16º de la letra Alfa del Florilegio Coisliniano. 22 VI. En lo que concierne a los principios de edición y ortografía, procuro atenerme a la práctica habitual del Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca. Para la acentuación, sigo el último artículo de J. Noret que, pese a su aparición reciente, ya constituye un pequeño clásico en el tema. 23 Agrego, para evitar confusiones, unas pocas precisiones sobre los principios de esta edición: 1. Iota suscripta: no se agrega a la raíz, e.g. χρήζοντες (5.52), Νειλῶα (8.5), pero sí cuando tiene un valor morfológico (verbigracia, en los subjuntivos presentes de tercera persona singular). 2. Crasis: se agrega, sin indicar la situación en los mss. ni en la edición de la fuente: ταὐτὸν (5.56, crasis no indicada en mss.) κἀκεῖσε (5.56, crasis no indicada en edición de la fuente). 3. Combinación inconsistente de numerales: se mantiene, e.g. ρπεʹ χιλιάδας ἀνεῖλεν εἷς (1.24). 4. Según la práctica de los mss., conservamos διατοῦτο en una palabra; μὴ δὲ separatim o no, según aparezca en los mss., sin indicación en aparato. 5. Acentos: no se indican las variantes que conciernen la naturaleza del acento pero no su posición, salvo si ambos tipos de acentos son posibles en la palabra en cuestión; así, no se señala que el ms. F escribe νοερᾶ (nominativo femenino, 5.11). 6. Enclíticos: se sigue a los mss., aun cuando no respeten la norma clásica ni sean consistentes, sin indicación en aparato crítico ni de 22 Las ediciones críticas utilizadas en la presente edición son las siguientes: Anastasio Sinaíta, Quaestiones et responsiones [CPG 7746], ed. Richard – Munitiz, Quaestiones et responsiones [ver n. 3] – Basilio de Cesarea, De spiritu sancto [CPG 2839], ed. B. Pruche, Basile de Césarée. Traité du Saint-Esprit (SC, 17bis), Paris, 1968 – Ps.-Dionisio Areopagita., De coelesti hierarchia [CPG 6600] y De ecclesiastica hierarchia [CPG 6601], ed. G. Heil – A. M. Ritter, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae (PTS, 36; Corpus Dionysiacum, 2), Berlin, 1991, p. 5-59 y p. 63-132 – Juan Damasceno, Expositio fidei [CPG 8043], ed. B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, II (PTS, 12), Berlin, 1973, p. 3-239 – Epifanio de Constancia, Ancoratus [CPG 3744], ed. K. Holl, Epiphanius, I. Ancoratus und Panarion (GCS, 25), Leipzig, 1915, p. 1-149. 23 J.  Noret, L’accentuation byzantine : en quoi et pourquoi elle diffère de l’accentuation ‘savante’ actuelles, parfois absurde, en M. Hinterberger (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature (SBHC, 9), Turnhout, 2014, p. 96-146.



Tomás Fernández

comparación con la fuente. Si los mss. difieren, se sigue de preferencia a F, e.g. en el fragmento 5 in fine, donde conservo en el texto la lección de F, θεός ἐστιν (5.85), sin indicación en aparato, aunque H tiene θεὸς ἐστὶν, o en la pregunta que encabeza el fragmento 8, donde esta edición conserva la lección de F, αἰσθητός ἐστιν, sin indicación de que H tiene αἰσθητὸς ἐστὶν. 7. El texto de la fuente citado en el aparato de comparación con la fuente aparece tal como lo acentúa el editor, sin mención de los enclíticos; el lector podrá fácilmente subsanar las pequeñas omisiones resultantes (e.g., si en el texto aquí editado se lee φύσιν τὲ y la fuente provee ἔφεσίν τε, el aparato de fuentes proveerá: « φύσιν] ἔφεσίν » [5.9]; el lector repondrá que el coordinante τε no lleva acento en la edición de la fuente, por más que esto no se señale explícitamente). 8. El aparato de comparación con la fuente no registra variantes del tipo iota suscripta agregada, nu eufónica o casos análogos como οὕτω / οὕτως. 9. En líneas generales, no se corrigen errores del modelo de F H, salvo que dichos errores entorpezcan la comprensión del pasaje en cuestión; ese modelo, efectivamente, es el arquetipo que esta edición intenta reconstruir, y es posible que, desde ese punto de vista, los “errores” no deban ser considerados tales, teniendo en cuenta el estándar gramatical y el contexto intelectual en el que se elaboró el mencionado modelo. Los errores, de todas formas, pueden subsanarse mediante la consulta del aparato crítico o el de comparación con la fuente. En el ms. F, dañado por la humedad, resultan ilegible unos pocos pasajes de los fragmentos que aquí se editan. En la presente edición no se indican cuáles son esos pasajes, salvo cuando algún elemento permita sospechar que la lección ilegible podría no coincidir con la de H (por ejemplos en el caso de divergencias entre H y la fuente).



LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

FLORILEGII COISLINIANI LITTERA A FRAGMENTA ADDITICIA Traditio manuscripta

F H

Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 329 (s. XIII-XIV) Vaticanus gr. 491 (s. XIII)



Tomás Fernández

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

5

10

15

Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα – τουτέστι κούφους καὶ μεταρσίους – καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα· οὕτως οἶδε Μωυσῆς τὸν ἄγγελον ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς λαλοῦντα αὐτῷ. Ἐπισημαντέον δὲ ὅτι οὐδὲ τούτων Μωυσῆς ἐμνήσθη. Ὁ δὲ Δαυῒδ ἀναπληροῖ τὴν παράλειψιν, καὶ δείκνυσι τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεόν, οὐ τῶν ὁρατῶν μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀοράτων δημιουργόν· τοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ πνεῦμα καὶ πῦρ προσαγορεύει, τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ ταχὺ δι'ἑκατέρων διδάσκων· ὀξεῖα μὲν γὰρ τοῦ πνεύματος ἡ φύσις, ἰσχυρὰ δὲ τοῦ πυρὸς ἡ ἐνέργεια. Ἀγγέλοις δὲ χρώμενος ὑπηρέταις ὁ θεός, καὶ εὐεργετεῖ τοὺς ἀξίους, καὶ κολάζει τοὺς πταίοντας, ὅθεν τὰ σεραφὶμ ἐμπρησταὶ ἑρμηνεύονται· διατοῦτο καὶ πυρὸς ἐμνημόνευσε, τὴν κολαστικὴν σημαίνων ἐνέργειαν, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν λειτουργῶν τὸν δεσπότην γνωρίζει· εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἄγγελοι πνεύματα νοερὰ καὶ πῦρ ἄϋλον, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὁ κύριος ἀσώματος. Ἄλλως δέ· ἐνταῦθα οὐ τί ποτέ εἰσι τὴν οὐσίαν παρίστησιν, ἀλλὰ 1.2/5 Ὁ – αὐτῷ] Athan. Alex., Expos. in Ps. 103 (PG 27, 437, 5-9) 2Ὁ– πνεύματα] Ps. 103, 4 3/4 καὶ2 – φλόγα] Ps. 103, 4; cf. Heb. 1, 7 4/5 Μωυσῆς – αὐτῷ] cf. Ex. 3, 2 5/6 Ἐπισημαντέον – ἐμνήσθη] locum non inueni 6/8 Ὁ – δημιουργόν] locum non inueni, cf. Athan. Alex., Expos. in Ps. 94 (PG 27, 413, 34-36): Ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ θάλασσα. Δείκνυσιν, ὡς αὐτὸς, ὢν δημιουργὸς πάσης κτίσεως ὁρατῆς τε καὶ ἀοράτου 7/16 καὶ – ἐνέργειαν ] Ps.-Io. Chrys., In Psalmos 101-107 (PG 55, 647, 40- 48) 16/25 καὶ – ἀποστέλλωνται] locum non inueni 1.4 τὸν] ὄντα H

7 παράληψιν H

10 ὀξεία F; illeg. H 11 ἡ1 ] illeg. codd.

1.2/3 τουτέστι – μεταρσίους] Ὁ κούφους, φησὶ, καὶ μεταρσίους τοὺς ἀγγέλους ποιῶν Athan. 4 πυρὸς φλόγα] πῦρ φλέγον Athan. εἶδε Athan. 4/5 ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Athan. 7/8 καὶ – ὁρατῶν] Ἔδειξεν οὐ τῶν ὁρατῶν αὐτὸν Ps.-Chrys. 9 προσηγόρευσε Ps.-Chrys. 12 ὑπηρέταις ὁ] ὑπουργοῖς ὁ τῶν ὅλων Ps.-Chrys. 13 πταίοντας] ἐναντίους Ps.-Chrys. 14 ὅθεν – ἑρμηνεύονται ] non hab. Ps.-Chrys.



1

LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

20

25

τὴν ἐνέργειαν διὰ τῶν στοιχείων τούτων ἐμφαίνει, δεικνὺς αὐτῶν τὸ κοῦφον, τὸ δυνατόν, τὸ ταχύ, τὸ ὀξυκίνητον, τὸ δραστήριον, τὸ νῆφον, τὸ σφοδρόν, τὸ τιμωρητικόν, ἡνίκα ἂν κελεύσῃ θεός. Οὕτω γοῦν ἐν νυκτὶ μιᾷ ρπεʹ χιλιάδας ἀνεῖλεν εἷς, καὶ ἕτεροι οʹ, καὶ πολλὴ αὐτῶν ἡ ῥύμη, ἐπειδὰν ἀποστέλλωνται. Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου

5

10

Ἡ μὲν οὐσία αὐτῶν, ἀέριον πνεῦμα, εἰ τύχοι, ἢ πῦρ ἄϋλον κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον. Διὸ καὶ ἐν τόπῳ εἰσί, καὶ ὁρατοὶ γίνονται ἐν τῷ εἴδει τῶν οἰκείων αὐτῶν σωμάτων τοῖς ἀξίοις ἐμφανιζομένοις. Ὁ μέντοι ἁγιασμὸς αὐτῶν ἔξωθεν ὢν τῆς οὐσίας – οὐ γὰρ φύσει ἁγίαι αἱ τῶν ἀγγέλων δυνάμεις, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἀναλογίαν τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ὑπεροχῆς –, τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ τὸ μέτρον παρὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχουσι, τῆς τελειώσεως αὐτοῖς παρὰ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπαγομένης.

23/24 ἐν – εἷς ] cf. IV Reg. 19, 35 2.2/6 Ἡ – οὐσίας] Bas. Caes., De Spiritu s. 16, 38, 48-53 2/3 Ἡ – γεγραμμένον] cf. Ps. 103, 4 6/9 οὐ – ἔχουσι ] Bas. Caes., De Spiritu s. 16, 38, 42-45 9/10 τῆς – ἐπαγομένης] Ibid. 53-54 2.1 Τοῦ – Βασιλείου] βασιλείου H 2.3 post γεγραμμένον] Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα hab. Bas. 5 ἐμφανιζόμενοι Bas., ut exspectaueris 6 αὐτῶν] non hab. Bas. ἁγίαι] ἅγιαι Bas. 7 ἀγγέλων] οὐρανῶν Bas. post δυνάμεις ] ἢ οὕτω γ'ἂν οὐδεμίαν πρὸς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα τὴν διαφορὰν ἔχοιεν hab. Bas. 9 ἔχουσι ] ἔχουσαι Bas. 9/10 τῆς – ἐπαγομένης ] τὴν τελείωσιν αὐτοῖς ἐπάγει διὰ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ Πνεύματος Bas.

 2

2

Tomás Fernández

Tοῦ ἁγίου Διονυσίου

5

3

Ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτι μὲν ἀλώβητοι παντελῶς εἰσὶ καὶ τὸ πάναγνον ὑπερκοσμίως ἔχουσι ὁμολογήσαιμι πάντως, εἰ μὴ παντελῶς ἀποπέσοιμι τοῦ ἱερωτάτου νοός· εἰ γάρ τις αὐτῶν ὑπὸ κακίας ἑάλω, τῆς μὲν οὐρανίας καὶ ἀμιγοῦς ἀποπεπτώκει τῶν θείων νόων ἁρμονίας, εἰς τὴν ἀλαμπῆ δὲ τῶν ἀποστατικῶν πληθύων ἐφέρετο πτῶσιν. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

5

10

15

4

Τοῦτο γοῦν οἱ θεολόγοι σαφῶς δηλοῦσι, τὸ τὰς μὲν ὑφειμένας τῶν οὐρανίων οὐσιῶν διακοσμήσεις πρὸς τῶν ὑπερβεβηκότων εὐκόσμως ἐκδιδάσκεσθαι τὰς θεουργικὰς ἐπιστήμας, τὰς δὲ πασῶν ὑψηλοτέρας ὑπ'αὐτῆς θεαρχίας, ὡς θεμιτόν, τὰς μυήσεις ἐλλάμπεσθαι· τινὰς μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν εἰσάγουσι πρὸς τῶν προτέρων ἱερῶς μυουμένας τὸ Κύριον εἶναι τῶν οὐρανίων δυνάμεων καὶ Βασιλέα τῆς δόξης, τὸν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς ἀναληφθέντα, τινὰς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν Ἰησοῦν διαπορούσας καὶ τῆς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν θεουργίας τὴν ἐπιστήμην μαθητιώσας, καὶ ταύτας αὐτὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀμέσως μυοῦντα καὶ πρωτοδότως αὐταῖς ἐκφαίνοντα τὴν αὐτοῦ φιλάνθρωπον ἀγαθουργίαν. Ἐγὼ γάρ φησι διαλέγομαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν σωτηρίου.

3.2/8 Ἐγὼ – πτῶσιν] Ps. Dion. Ar., De eccl. hier., p. 119, 18-22 4.2/16 Τοῦτο – σωτηρίου ] Ps. Dion. Ar., De coel. hier., p. 30, 1-11 8/9 Κύριον – δόξης] Ps. 23, 10 9/12 τὸν – μαθητιώσας ] cf. Is. 63, 1-2 15/16 Ἐγὼ – σωτηρίου] Is. 63, 1 4.11 αὐτὸν] αὐτῶν H; illeg. F 3.6 νοῶν Ps.-Dion. 4.4 ὑπερβεβηκυιῶν Ps.-Dion. hab. Ps.-Dion. 11 αὐτῶν] αὐτοῦ Ps.-Dion.

 3

6 ante θεαρχίας] τῆς

LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

Tοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ

5

10

15

20

25

Αὐτὸς τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐστὶ δημιουργὸς καὶ ποιητής, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγαγὼν αὐτούς, κατ'οἰκείαν εἰκόνα κτίσας αὐτούς, φύσιν ἀσώματον καὶ οἷόν τι πνεῦμα ἢ πῦρ ἄϋλον, ὡς φησὶν ὁ θεῖος Δαυΐδ· Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα, τὸ κοῦφον καὶ διάπυρον καὶ θερμὸν καὶ τομώτατον καὶ ὀξὺ καὶ διάπυρον περὶ τὴν θείαν φύσιν τὲ καὶ λειτουργίαν διαγράφων καὶ τὸ ἀνωφερὲς αὐτῶν καὶ πάσης ἐννοίας ἀπηλλαγμένον. Ἄγγελος τοίνυν ἐστὶν οὐσία νοερά, ἀεικίνητος, αὐτεξούσιος, ἀσώματος, θεῷ λειτουργοῦσα, κατὰ χάριν ἐν τῇ φύσει τὸ ἀθάνατον εἰληφυῖα, ἧς οὐσίας τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸν ὅρον μόνος ὁ κτίστης ἐπίσταται· ἀσώματος δὲ καὶ ἄϋλος λέγεται, ὅσον πρὸς ἡμᾶς· πᾶν γὰρ συγκρινόμενον πρὸς θεὸν τὸν μόνον ἀσύγκριτον παχὺ τὲ καὶ ὑλικὸν εὑρίσκεται· μόνον γὰρ ὄντως ἄϋλον τὸ θεῖον ἐστὶ καὶ ἀσώματον. Ἔστι τοίνυν φύσις λογική, νοερά τε καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, τρεπτὴ κατὰ γνώμην ἤτοι ἐθελότρεπτος· πᾶν γὰρ κτιστὸν καὶ τρεπτόν – μόνον γὰρ τὸ ἄκτιστον ἄτρεπτον –, καὶ πᾶν λογικὸν αὐτεξούσιον· ὡς μὲν οὖν λογικὴ καὶ νοερά, αὐτεξούσιος ἐστίν, ὡς δὲ κτιστή, τρεπτή, ἔχουσα ἐξουσίαν καὶ μένειν καὶ προκόπτειν ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον τρέπεσθαι.

5.2/71 Αὐτὸς – ἡμῖν] Io. Dam., Exp. Fidei 17, 2-56 103, 4

5/7 Ὁ – φλόγα ] Ps.

5.1 Tοῦ – Δαμασκηνοῦ] τοῦ δαμασκηνοῦ H 12/13 θεῷ λειτουργοῦσα κατὰ χάριν ἐν τῇ φύσει, τὸ ἀθάνατον εἰληφυῖα sic interpunx. codd. 5.2 ποιητὴς καὶ δημιουργὸς Dam. 4 καὶ] om. Dam. 8 καὶ διάπυρον] non hab. Dam. 9 φύσιν] ἔφεσίν Dam. 10 ante ἐννοίας] ὑλικῆς hab. Dam. 15 λέγεται καὶ ἄυλος Dam. 21 γὰρ] δὲ Dam.

 4

5

Tomás Fernández

30

35

40

45

50

Ἀνεπίδεκτος μετανοίας, ὅτι καὶ ἀσώματος· ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀσθένειαν τῆς μετανοίας ἔτυχεν. Ἀθάνατος οὐ φύσει, ἀλλὰ χάριτι – πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ἀρξάμενον καὶ τελευτᾷ κατὰ φύσιν· μόνος δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀεὶ ὤν, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸ ἀεί· οὐχ'ὑπὸ χρόνον γὰρ ὁ τῶν χρόνων ποιητής. Φῶτα δεύτερα νοερά, ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ ἀνάρχου φωτὸς τὸν φωτισμὸν ἔχοντα, οὐ γλώσσης καὶ ἀκοῆς δεόμενα, ἀλλὰ ἄνευ λόγου προφορικοῦ μεταδιδόντα ἀλλήλοις τὰ ἴδια νοήματα καὶ βουλήματα. Διὰ τοῦ λόγου τοίνυν ἐκτίσθησαν πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι, καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος διὰ τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ ἐτελειώθησαν, κατὰ ἀναλογίαν τῆς ἀξίας καὶ τῆς τάξεως, τοῦ φωτισμοῦ καὶ τῆς χάριτος μετέχοντες. Περιγραπτοί· ὅτε γάρ εἰσιν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐν τῇ γῇ, καὶ εἰς τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀποστελλόμενοι, οὐκ ἐναπομένουσιν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· οὐ περιορίζονται δὲ ὑπὸ τειχῶν καὶ θυρῶν καὶ κλείθρων καὶ σφραγίδων. Ἀόριστοι· ἀορίστους δὲ λέγω· οὐ γὰρ καθὸ εἰσὶν ἐπιφαίνονται τοῖς ἀξίοις, οἷς ὁ θεὸς φαίνεσθαι αὐτοὺς θελήσει, ἀλλ'ἐν μετασχηματισμῷ, καθὼς δύνανται οἱ ὁρῶντες ὁρᾶν· ἀόριστον γάρ ἐστι κυρίως καὶ φύσει μόνον τὸ ἄκτιστον· πᾶν γὰρ κτίσμα ὑπὸ τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτὸ θεοῦ ὁρίζεται. Ἔξωθεν τῆς οὐσίας τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἔχοντες, διὰ τῆς θείας χάριτος προφητεύοντες, μὴ γάμου χρήζοντες, ἐπειδήπερ μὴ εἰσὶ θνητοί.

31 γὰρ ὁ γὰρ sic H 38 ἀξίας – φωτισμοῦ ] τάξεως τοῦ φωτισμοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀξίας H 43 τοιχῶν (sic acc.) FH 46 καθὼς δύνανται] om. H, spatio 10 litterarum relicto 51 προφητεύοντες] om. H, spatio 12 litterarum relicto 31 post γὰρ] ἀλλ'ὑπὲρ χρόνον hab. Dam. 34 ἀλλ' Dam. 38 κατ' Dam. 44 post Ἀόριστοι] γὰρ hab. Dam. 47 φύσει καὶ κυρίως Dam.

 5

LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

55

60

65

70

75

Νόες δὲ ὄντες, ἐν νοητοῖς καὶ τόποις εἰσίν· οὐ σωματικῶς οὐδὲ τριχῆ εἰσὶ διαστατοί, ἀλλὰ τῷ νοητῶς παρεῖναι καὶ ἐνεργεῖν ἔνθα ἂν προσταχθῶσι, καὶ μὴ δύνασθαι κατὰ ταὐτὸν ὧδε κἀκεῖσε εἶναι καὶ ἐνεργεῖν. Εἴτε ἴσοι κατ'οὐσίαν εἴτε ἀλλήλων διαφέροντες, οὐκ ἴσμεν· μόνος δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ ποιητὴς θεὸς ἐπίσταται, ὁ καὶ τὰ πάντα εἰδώς· διαφέροντες ἀλλήλων τῷ φωτισμῷ καὶ τῇ στάσει, εἴτε πρὸς τὸν φωτισμὸν τὴν στάσιν ἔχοντες ἢ πρὸς τὴν στάσιν τοῦ φωτισμοῦ μετέχοντες, καὶ ἀλλήλους φωτίζοντες διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς τάξεως ἢ τῆς φύσεως. Δῆλον δὲ ὡς οἱ ὑπερέχοντες τοῖς ὑποβεβηκόσι μεταδιδόασι τοῦ τε φωτισμοῦ καὶ τῆς γνώσεως. Ἰσχυροὶ καὶ ἕτοιμοι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ θείου θελήματος ἐκπλήρωσιν, πανταχοῦ εὐθέως εὑρισκόμενοι, ἔνθα ἂν ἡ θεία κελεύσῃ ἐπίνευσις, τάχει φύσεως, καὶ φυλάττοντες μέρη τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐθνῶν καὶ τόπων προϊστάμενοι, καθὼς ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐτάχθησαν, καὶ τὰ καθ'ἡμᾶς οἰκονομοῦντες καὶ βοηθοῦντες ἡμῖν. Καὶ μετ'ὀλίγα. Τινὲς μὲν οὖν φασὶν ὅτι πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως ἐγένοντο, ὡς ὁ θεολόγος λέγει Γρηγόριος· Πρῶτον ἐννοεῖ τὰς ἀγγελικὰς δυνάμεις καὶ οὐρανίους καὶ τὸ ἐννόημα ἔργον ἦν· ἕτεροι δὲ ὅτι μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὸν πρῶτον οὐρανόν· ὅτι δὲ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ

72/86 Τινὲς – δοξαζόμενος ] Io. Dam., Exp. Fidei 17, 75-86 74/75 Πρῶτον – ἦν·] Greg. Naz., Or. 38, 9, 4-6 = Or. 45 (PG 36, 629, 10-12) 56 τ'αὐτὸν F; ταυτὸν H fonte; ὅσοι codd.

κακεῖσε FH

57 ἶσοι H

63 ὡς οἱ] scripsi cum

53 post σωματικῶς ] περιγραφόμενοι (οὐ γὰρ σωματικῶς κατὰ φύσιν σχηματίζονται) add. Dam. 57 διαφέροντες ἀλλήλων Dam. 58 αὐτοὺς – ποιητὴς] ὁ ποιήσας αὐτοὺς Dam. 59 post διαφέροντες] δὲ hab. Dam. 63 τῆς] non hab. Dam. 67 ante πανταχοῦ] καὶ hab. Dam.

 6

Tomás Fernández

80

85

ἀνθρώπου πλάσεως, πάντες ὁμολογοῦσιν. Ἐγὼ δὲ τῷ θεολόγῳ Γρηγορίῳ συντίθεμαι· ἔπρεπε γὰρ πρῶτον τὴν νοερὰν οὐσίαν κτισθῆναι, καὶ οὕτω τὴν αἰσθητήν, καὶ τότε ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Ὅσοι δὲ φασὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους δημιουργοὺς τῆς οἱασδήποτε οὐσίας, οὗτοι στόμα εἰσὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν τοῦ διαβόλου· κτίσμα γὰρ ὄντες οὐκ εἰσὶ δημιουργοί. Πάντων δὲ ποιητὴς καὶ προνοητὴς καὶ συνοχεὺς ὁ θεός ἐστιν, ὁ μόνος ἄκτιστος, ὁ ἐν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι ὑμνούμενός τε καὶ δοξαζόμενος. Τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Νύσης

5

10

15

Κυκλοῦσι δὲ τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἀποκρύπτουσι τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς πόδας. Τοῦτο δὲ αἴνιγμα εἰς τὴν ἐπίκρυψιν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν, ἐν ᾗ ἀγνοεῖται δύο ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἥ τε θεότης, ἣ χαρακτηρίζεται καθάπερ προσώπου μὴ γινωσκομένου διὰ τὸ σχῆμα τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, καὶ ἡ δευτέρα παρουσία συγκεκαλυμμένη, δηλουμένη δὲ ἐν τῷ τέλος εἶναι τοὺς πόδας. Δύο δὴ ταῦτα καὶ ἀγνοήσας, ὁ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπέτυχε τῆς χάριτος, δίκην ἐκτλήσας, ἣν καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς τῇ ὁράσει δηλοῖ, ὧν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐμνημόνευσε, ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀνοίᾳ τῇ περὶ Χριστὸν λέγων· ταῦτα εἶπεν Ἠσαΐας ὅταν εἶδε τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλάλησε περὶ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα· τιμωρητικῶν οὖν δυνάμεων καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ἔχουσιν αἱ κυκλοῦσαι καὶ ἀποκρύπτουσαι θεόν· ἑρμηνεύονται γὰρ τὰ σεραφὶμ ἐμπιπρῶντες, τιμωρία δὲ αὕτη κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ τὸν 6.2/23 Κυκλοῦσι – υἱός] locum non inueni Is. 6, 2 13/14 ταῦτα – αὐτοῦ ] Ιο. 12, 41

2/3 Κυκλοῦσι – πόδας] cf.

81 οἱανδήποτε Fa.c.H 85 καὶ υἱῷ] om. H 6.7 δευτέρα] om. Fut uid. 8 δὲ] om. F 12 τῶν] om. Fut uid. 13 ὅταν] ὅτου Fe corr. εἶδε] ἴδε FH 17 τοῦ] τὸν Fa. vel p.c. 17/18 ἀγνοήσαντος τὸν χριστὸν Fa.c.

 7

6

LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

20

Χριστὸν ἀγνοήσαντος. Οὕτως οὖν νοουμένων τῶν θρόνων καθὸ ὑποδέχονται θεόν, καὶ τὰς κυριότητας κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον νοήσομεν, ὡς τῆς ὄντως κυριότητος δεκτικάς, οὐκ ἴδιον ἐχούσας τὸ κυριεύειν καθὸ καὶ λέγονται κύριοι πολλοί, κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον· Eἷς δὲ κύριος ὁ υἱός. Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου

7

Φυλάσσουσι δὲ τὴν ἀξίαν τῇ ἐπιμονῇ τοῦ καλοῦ, ἔχουσαι μὲν καὶ ἐν προαιρέσει τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, οὐδέποτε δὲ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσεδρείας ἐκπίπτουσαι. *** Ἐρώτησις· αἰσθητός ἐστιν ὁ παράδεισος ἢ νοητός, 8 φθαρτὸς ἢ ἄφθαρτος;

5

Ὥσπερ δύο Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ Γραφὴ λέγει, οὐράνιον καὶ ἐπίγειον, οὕτως καὶ δύο παραδείσους, ἕνα πνευματικὸν καὶ ἕτερον αἰσθητόν· ἐξ οὗ καὶ τὰ Νειλῶα καὶ 23 Eἷς – υἱός] cf. I Cor. 8, 6; Eph. 4, 5 7.2/4 Φυλάσσουσι ἐκπίπτουσαι] Bas. Caes., De Spiritu s. 16, 38, 54-57 8.1/2 Ἐρώτησις ἄφθαρτος ] Anast., Quaest. et resp. 23, 1-2 (p. 49) 3/10 Ὥσπερ γραφήν] Anast., Quaest. et resp. 23, 19-27 (p. 50) 3/4 Ὥσπερ ἐπίγειον] cf. Apoc. 21, 2; Gal. 4, 25-26 18 νοουμένων] νοούμ... (illeg.) H 8.5 Νειλῶα] ταῦτα add. F

7.2 δὲ] καὶ add. H

– – – –

4 τοῦ] om. H

7.3 καὶ ] non hab. Bas. 4 ante ἀγαθοῦ] ὄντως hab. Bas. 8.1/2 Ἐρώτησις – ἄφθαρτος] ΕΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ Ὁποῖον ἡμᾶς χρὴ φρονεῖν ὑπάρχειν νῦν τὸν παράδεισον, αἰσθητὸν ἢ νοητόν, φθαρτὸν ἢ ἄφθαρτον Anast. 3/4 ἡ – ἐπίγειον] οἶδε λέγειν ἡ Γραφή, ἐπίγειον καὶ οὐράνιον, καὶ δύο κόσμους, ὁρώμενον καὶ νοούμενον Anast. 5 καὶ ἕτερον] τὸν κατὰ τὸν λῃστὴν καὶ τὸν ἅγιον Παῦλον, ἔνθα φασὶν εἶναι καὶ τὰς τῶν δικαίων ψυχάς, καὶ ἕτερον παράδεισον Anast. ἐξ – τὰ] ὅθεν ταῦτα τὰ αἰσθητὰ καὶ Anast.

 8

Tomás Fernández

10

Φρατήσια ὕδατα ἐκπορεύονται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔνθα ὁ Ἀδὰμ καὶ ἡ Εὖα καὶ ὁ ὄφις καὶ τὰ φυτά. Εἰ γὰρ τὸν ὄφιν καὶ τὰ φυτὰ καὶ τὰ ὕδατα ἀλληγορικῶς ἐκλάβωμεν, πάντως που καὶ τὸν Ἀδὰμ καὶ τὴν Εὖαν, καὶ ἀνατρέψομεν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀθετήσομεν, τὴν θείαν γραφήν. Ὥσπερ οὖν ὑπῆρχεν ὁ Ἀδὰμ μέσος φθορᾶς καὶ ἀφθαρσίας, τοιοῦτος καὶ ἐστὶν ὁ παράδεισος. Ἐπιφανίου

5

9

Εἰ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπὶ γῆς ὁ παράδεισος, καὶ οὐκ ἀληθῆ τὰ ἐν τῇ Γενέσει γεγραμμένα, ἀλλὰ ἀλληγοροῦνται, οὐδὲν ἀληθεύει τῆς ἀκολουθίας, πάντα ἀλληγορούμενα· ἐν ἀρχῇ γὰρ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ πάντα. Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, ἀλλὰ βλεπόμενα, καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ὄντα ἐποίη-

6/7 ἔνθα – φυτά] cf. Gen. 2, 8 – 3, 5 11/12 Ὥσπερ – παράδεισος] Anast., Quaest. et resp. 23, 10-11 (p. 49) 9.1/42 Ἐπιφανίου – Ὠριγένην] Anast., Quaest. et resp. 23 (PG 89, 540, 33 – 541, 22) 5/6 ἐν – γῆν] Gen. 1, 1 7 τὰ φυτά] τὸν φυτὸν Fa. uel p.c. 8 ἀληγορικῶς F ἀθετήσωμεν F 9.7 ὄντα] om. F

10 ἀνατρέψωμεν F

6 Φρατήσια] Εὐφρατήσια Anast. τῆς ] non hab. Anast. 6/7 ὁ – φυτά] καὶ ὁ ὄφις, καὶ τὰ φυτά, καὶ ἡ Εὔα, καὶ ὁ Ἀδὰμ ἐτύγχανεν Anast. 7 Εἰ] ἐὰν Anast. 8 καὶ1 – φυτὰ] non hab. Anast. 8/10 ἀλληγορικῶς – γραφήν] πνευματικὰ εἴπωμεν, καταλύομεν καὶ ἀνατρέπομεν τὴν θείαν Γραφήν Anast. 9 Εὔαν Anast. 11/12 Ὥσπερ – παράδεισος] Οἷός φησιν ὑπῆρχεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος μέσος φθορᾶς καὶ ἀφθαρσίας γενόμενος, τοιοῦτος ἦν καὶ ἔτι ἐστὶν ὁ παράδεισος Anast. 9.1 Ἐπιφανίου ] Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἐπιφανίου ἐκ τοῦ Ἀγκυρωτοῦ Anast. (PG 89, 540) 2 Εἰ ] Ὅτι Anast. οὐκ2 ] non hab. Anast. 3 ἀλλ'ἀλληγορεῖται Anast. 5 post γὰρ] φησὶ hab. Anast. 7 βλεπόμενα] ὁρώμενα Anast. 7/8 ἐποίησεν – καὶ2 ] ποιήσας ὁ Θεὸς, ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ [τῆς τρυφῆς]· οὕτω τοίνυν καὶ ὁ Ἀδὰμ, τεθεὶς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τῆς τρυφῆς Anast.

 9

LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

10

15

20

25

σεν ὁ θεός, καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν παραδείσῳ αὐτὸν καὶ ἔφαγεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου. Ὁ δὲ παράδεισος φησὶν ἐν Ἐδὲμ κατὰ ἀνατολάς. Πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐξ Ἐδὲμ καὶ ἐπότιζε πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς· καὶ οὐκ εἶπε Κατέβαινεν, ἵνα μὴ νομίσωμεν ἐν οὐρανῷ εἶναι τὴν Ἐδέμ. Εἰ γὰρ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἦν, ἄνωθεν εἶχεν εἰπεῖν ὅτι κατήρχετο, ἀλλὰ φησὶν ὅτι ποταμὸς πορεύεται ἐξ Ἐδέμ, καὶ ἀφορίζεται εἰς τέσσαρας ἀρχάς. Ὄνομα τῷ ἑνὶ Φησών, ὁ παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Ἰνδοῖς καὶ Αἰθίοψιν Γάγγις καλούμενος, παρ'Ἕλλησι δὲ Ἰνδὸς προσαγορευόμενος, καὶ περικυκλῶν πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Εὐιλάτ, τήν τε Μικρὰν Αἰθιοπίαν καὶ τὴν Μεγάλην, τὰ μέρη τῶν Εὐιλέων – Εὐιλέους γάρ φασιν εἶναι τοὺς ἐσωτέρους Ἰνδούς –, διαπερᾷ δὲ τὴν Μεγάλην Αἰθιοπίαν, καὶ πίπτει πρὸς νότον καὶ δύσιν ἔσωθεν τριῶν Δίρων εἰς τὸν μέγαν Ὠκεανὸν τὸν κυκλοῦντα πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. Δεύτερος δὲ Γεών, ὁ καὶ Νεῖλος, κατὰ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν κατερχόμενος καὶ διαπερῶν τὴν Μικρὰν Αἰθιοπίαν, Ἀνουβίτην τὲ Βλεμμύαν καὶ Ἀξομίτην, καὶ περικλύζων τὰ μέρη Θηβαΐδος καὶ Αἰγύπτου εἰς ταύτην ἐκπίπτειν τὴν θάλασσαν. Εἰ δέ τις ἀπιστεῖ, ἀκουέτω Ἱερεμίου· Ἵνα τί ὑμῖν καὶ τῇ γῇ

9/10 Ὁ – ἀνατολάς ] Gen. 2, 8 10/11 Πηγὴ – γῆς] Gen. 2, 6; cf. Gen. 2, 10 14/15 ποταμὸς – ἀρχάς] Gen. 2, 10 15 Ὄνομα – Φησών] Gen. 2, 11 17/18 περικυκλῶν – Εὐιλάτ] Gen. 2, 11 23/25 Δεύτερος – Αἰθιοπίαν] cf. Gen. 2, 13 28/29 Ἵνα – τεθολωμένον] Ier. 2, 18 15 φησσών HFp.c.

16 Γάγγης Fp.c.

23 γιών H; γεών Fa. uel p.c.

10/11 καὶ – γῆς] non hab. Anast. 12 νομίσωμεν] νοήσωμεν Anast. 13 κατέρχεται Anast. 14 ὅτι] non hab. Anast. ἐκπορεύεται Anast. 15 ἀρχὰς τέσσαρας Anast. τῷ] δὲ Anast. Φείσων Anast. 16 Ἰνδοῖς] Ἰνδικοῖς Anast. Γάγγης Anast. 17 περικυκλῶν] περικυκλοῖ Anast. 19/20 γάρ φασιν] δέ φησι Anast. 20 ἐσωτέρους] ἐσωτάτους Anast. 22 Δίρων] Γαδείρων Anast. 25 Ἀνουβίτη Anast. 26 Ἀξονίτην Anast. ἐπικλύζων Anast.

 10

Tomás Fernández

30

35

40

Αἰγύπτου τοῦ πιεῖν ὕδωρ Γεὼν τὸ τεθολωμένον; Τρίτος δὲ Τίγρης ὁ πορευόμενος κατέναντι τῶν Ἀσσυρίων, καὶ διατέμνων τὰ μέρη τῆς Ἀνατολῆς καὶ δύνων ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν, ἀνίσχει ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀρμενίας, κατὰ μέσον Καρδυέων καὶ Ἀρμενίων, καὶ ἀναπηγάζει πάλιν καὶ ἀνατέμνεται εἰς τὴν γῆν τῶν Ἀσσυρίων. Τέταρτος δὲ Εὐφράτης, ὁμοίως καὶ οὗτος δύνων ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ἀνέρχεται ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀρμενίας ἐπικλύζων τὴν Περσίδα. Εἰ τοίνυν οὐκ ἔστι παράδεισος αἰσθητὸς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πάντως οὐδὲ πηγὴ οὐδὲ ποταμοὶ οὐδὲ τέσσαρες ἀρχαὶ οὐδὲ συκῆ οὐδὲ ξύλον. Εἰ οὐκ ἔνι ξύλον, οὐκ ἔνι Εὖα ἡ ἑξ αὐτοῦ φαγοῦσα· εἰ οὐκ ἔνι Εὖα, οὐδὲ Ἀδάμ· εἰ οὐκ ἔνι Ἀδάμ, οὐδὲ εἰσὶν ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλὰ μῦθος λοιπὸν ἡ ἀλήθεια, καὶ ἀλληγορεῖται πάντα κατὰ τὸν θεήλατον Ὠριγένην. Διονυσίου Ἀλεξανδρέως ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ὠριγένην Ἐὰν δὲ τὸν παράδεισον μὴ τοῦ κόσμου μέρος εἶναι λέγοις, μὴ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ γεγονέναι, μὴ δὲ σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ κατέπαυσεν ὁ θεὸς γεγράφθαι, ἀλλ'ὑ-

29/30 Τρίτος – Ἀσσυρίων] Gen. 2, 14 34 Τέταρτος – Εὐφράτης] Gen. 2, 14 10.1/12 Διονυσίου – ἐκλογῆς] Anast., Quaest. et resp. 23 (PG 89, 541, 23-36) 4 κατέπαυσεν] Gen. 2, 2 29 γιών H 34 Τέταρτος] δ' H Εὐφράτης ] Ἀφράτης H 38 οὐδὲ συκῆ] om. H 39/40 ἡ ἐξ αὐτοῦ φυγοῦσα H; ἡ φαγοῦσα ἐξ αὐτοῦ F 42 καὶ] om. H 10.1 Ὠριγένην] ὠριγέ... (illeg.) H 3 λέγοις] λόγος H 30 Τίγρις Anast. 32 Καρδυέων] Καρδιαίων Anast. 33 ἀνατέμνεται] διατέμνεται Anast. 34 γῆν] non hab. Anast. δὲ] non hab. Anast. 38 ποταμὸς Anast. οὐδὲ2 ] οὐ Anast. 39 ἔνι2 ] ἔστι Anast. Εὔα Anast. 40 Εὔα Anast. ante εἰ2 ] Καὶ hab. Anast. 41 ἄνθρωποί εἰσιν Anast. 42 post ἀλληγορεῖται] λοιπὸν hab. Anast. τὸν] non hab. Anast. 10.1 Ὠριγένους Anast.

 11

10

LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

5

10

περκόσμιον χωρίον, πῶς τὸν γήϊνον καὶ πλαστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκεῖσε ἤγαγε; Πῶς δὲ ἐκεῖ ἔπλασεν ἔτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς ὁ θεὸς πάντα τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὅπου τὸν Ἀδὰμ καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα, καὶ ἤγαγε πρὸς αὐτὸν ἰδεῖν τί καλέσει αὐτά; Ποῦ ξύλον θανατηφόρον καὶ ἀπατεὼν ὄφις ἐκεῖ; Οὐκοῦν λογιζέσθω πᾶς ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἀλλ'ὄντως ἐν τῇ γῇ πεφύτευται· ἔστι γὰρ τόπος Ἀνατολῆς καὶ χωρίον ἐκλογῆς.

5/6 τὸν – ἄνθρωπον] cf. Gen. 2, 7

6/9 ἔπλασεν – αὐτά] Gen. 2, 19

5 χωρίων Ha.c. 5/6 καὶ – ἤγαγε] ἐκεῖ πλάσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰσήγαγε Anast. 6/7 ἔτι – θεὸς] ὁ θεὸς ἔτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς Anast. 8 Ἀδὰμ] ἄνθρωπον Anast. ἤγαγε] ἤγαγεν αὐτὰ Anast.

 12

Tomás Fernández

Index locorum Sacrae Scripturae Gen. 1, 1 Gen. 2, 2 Gen. 2, 6 Gen. 2, 7 Gen. 2, 8 – 3, 5 Gen. 2, 8 Gen. 2, 10 Gen. 2, 11 Gen. 2, 13 Gen. 2, 14 Gen. 2, 19 Ex. 3, 2 IV Reg. 19, 35

9.5-6 10.4 9.10-11 10.5-6 8.6-7 9.9-10 9.10-11, 14-15 9.15, 17-18 9.23-25 9.29-30, 34 10.6-9 1.4-5 1.23-24

Ps. 23, 10 4.8-9 Ps. 103, 4 1.2, 3-4; 2.2-3; 5.5-7 Is. 6, 2 6.2-3 Is. 63, 1-2 4.9-12 Is. 63, 1 4.15-16 Ier. 2, 18 9.28-29 Io. 12, 41 6.13-14 I Cor. 8, 6 6.23 Gal. 4, 25-26 8.3-4 Eph. 4, 5 6.23 Heb. 1, 7 1.3-4 Apoc. 21, 2 8.3-4

Index fontium

Anast., Quaest. et resp. Anastasius Sinaita, Quaestiones et responsiones, ed. Richard – Munitiz, Quaestiones et responsiones [ver n. 3] (CPG 7746) 23, 1-2 (p. 49) 8.1-2 23, 10-11 (p. 49) 8.11-12 23, 19-27 (p. 50) 8.3-10 23 (PG 89, 540, 33 – 541, 22) 9.1-42 23 (PG 89, 541, 23-36) 10.1-12 Athan. Alex., Expos. In Ps. Athanasius Alexandrinus, Expositiones in Psalmos, PG 27, 60-545 (CPG 2140) 94 (PG 27, 413, 34-36) 1.6-8 103 (PG 27, 437, 5-9) 1.2-5 Bas. Caes., De Spiritu s. Basilius Caesariensis, De Spiritu sancto, ed. Pruche, Traité du Saint-Esprit [ver n. 22] (CPG 2839) 16, 38, 42-45 2.6-9 16, 38, 48-53 2.2-6 16, 38, 53-54 2.9-10 16, 38, 54-57 7.2-4



LA LETRA ALFA DEL FLORILEGIO COISLINIANO

Ps. Dion. Ar., De coel. hier. Ps. Dionysius Areopagita, De coelesti hierarchia, ed. Heil – Ritter, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita [ver n. 22], p. 7-59 (CPG 6600) p. 30, 1-11 4.2-16 Ps. Dion. Ar., De eccl. hier. Ps. Dionysius Areopagita, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, ed. Heil – Ritter, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita [ver n. 22], p. 63-132 (CPG 6601) p. 119, 18-22 3.2-8 Greg. Naz., Or. 38 Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio 38. In natiuitatem vel In Theophania, ed. Cl. Moreschini – P. Gallay, Grégoire de Nazianze : Discours 38-41 (SC, 358), Paris, 1990, p. 104-148 (CPG 3010.38) 38, 9, 4-6 5.74-75 Greg. Naz., Or. 45 Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio 45. In sanctum Pascha IIa, PG 36, 624-664 (CPG 3010.45) 45 (PG 36, 629, 10-12) 5.74-75 Ps. Io. Chrys., In Psalmos 101-107 Ps. Iohannes Chrysostomus, In Psalmos 101-107, PG 55, 635-674 (CPG 4551) PG 55, 647, 40-48 1.7-16 Io. Dam., Exp. Fidei Iohannes Damascenus, Expositio fidei, ed. Kotter, Johannes von Damaskos, II [ver n. 22] (CPG 8043) 17, 2-56 5.2-71 17, 75-86 5.72-86



José Maksimczuk*

The Transmission of the so-called ‘First Chapter Titles’ in the Second Recension of the Florilegium Coislinianum Abstract – The article discusses the debated question of the relationship between two manuscripts of the second recension of the alphabetically arranged Florilegium Coislinianum, viz Atheniensis, Bibliotheca nationalis 464 and Parisinus graecus 924. On the basis of a close examination of the titles of the first chapters of each letter in the florilegium it is argued that the Parisinus is the model of the Atheniensis.

1. Introduction a. The Florilegium Coislinianum and its recensions The Florilegium Coislinianum is a monumental anthology composed sometime between the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century. The place of its composition has not been identified yet, but some evidence points to an Italo-Greek origin. 1 The main feature of this work is its alphabetical arrangement, comparable with the one of the Hi* I thank my promotors Prof. P. Van Deun and Prof. R. Ceulemans who read different versions of this paper and made many insightful remarks. I also thank T. Fernández and B. Markesinis for their valuable comments. Lastly, I want to express my gratitute to Dr. C. Förstel, Dr. V. Liakou, Dr. A. Kokkini and Dr. A. Chatzichristos, who kindly allowed me to study de visu the Parisinus graecus 924 and the Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 464. The present paper would not have been possible without the generous support of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. 1 As to the date of the Florilegium Coislinianum, see R. Ceulemans – I. De Vos – E. Gielen – P. Van Deun, La continuation de l’exploration du Florilegium Coislinianum: la Lettre Èta, in Byz, 81 (2011), p. 90-92 and T. Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum A (CCSG, 66), Turnhout, 2018, p. XXI. With regard to the place of composition, see Ceulemans et al., Lettre Èta, p. 92-93; R. Ceulemans – P. Van Deun – S. Van Pee, La vision des quatre bêtes, la Theotokos, les douze trônes et d’autres thèmes: La Lettre Θ du Florilège Coislin, in Byz, 86 (2016), p. 101-102; J. Maksimczuk, Books Δ-Ζ of the Florilegium Coislinianum, Leuven, 2018, p. XXVII-XXX (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 239–254 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117151

José Maksimczuk

era. 2 The Coislin anthology is divided into twenty three books, each of which represents a letter of the alphabet and includes a certain number of chapters. 3 Each chapter features in its title a key-word that starts with the same letter as the one assigned to the book in which it is included. Thus, for instance, book Ε includes chapters such as Πῶς νοητέον ἐπὶ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐμφύσημα, Περὶ εὐχῆς and Περὶ εἰκόνων προσκυνήσεως. Since 2008 the research team of the Leuven Institute for Early Christian and Byzantine Studies, led by P. Van Deun, has edited different sections of the Florilegium Coislinianum. Today, books Α-Θ, Ν-Ξ, Ρ and Ψ have been published. In his study on spiritual florilegia, M. Richard distinguished three recensions of the Florilegium Coislinianum. 4 Richard’s observation was confirmed and developed by the editors of the anthology: – the first recension (Flor.Coisl. rec. I) transmits an extensive version of the work and is attested in the important Parisinus, Coislinianus 294 (s. XI-XII) (A). 5 The Florilegium Hierosolymitanum, an important supplementary witness of the Florilegium Coislinianum, is related to this recension. 6 Two important manuscripts of the Florilegium Hierosolymitanum have come down to us, For the main characteristics of the Hiera, see M. Richard, Florilèges spirituels grecs, in Dsp, fasc. 33-34, Paris, 1962, col. 476-477 (= M. Richard, Opera minora, I, Turnhout – Leuven, 1976, n° 1) and A. Alexakis, Byzantine Florilegia, in K. Perry (ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics, West Sussex, 2015, p. 19. For the date and place of composition of the Hiera, see J. Declerck, Les Sacra Parallela nettement antérieurs à Jean Damascène. Retour à la datation de Michel Le Quien, in Byz, 85 (2015), p. 27-65. 3 Book Ω is absent from all the available witnesses of the Florilegium Coislinianum and from the preserved pinakes. See R. Ceulemans – P. Van Deun, Réflexions sur la littérature anthologique de Constantin V à Constantin VII, in B. Flusin – J.-Cl. Cheynet (ed.), Autour du Premier humanisme byzantin & des Cinq études sur le xie siècle, quarante ans après Paul Lemerle (TM, 21/2), Paris, 2017, p. 376-380. 4 See Richard, Florilèges spirituels grecs [see n. 2], col. 484-485. 5 Richard indeed named the whole compilation after this manuscript (cf. Flori­ lèges spirituels grecs [see n. 2], col. 484). 6 I follow Fernández’s view which is based on errores coniunctivi found in both A and T and absent from the other witnesses of the anthology (Florilegium Coislinianum A [see n. 1], p. XCVIII-CI). My own collation of Flor.Coisl. Δ-Ε yielded more evidence to support the hypothesis that A and T are related to the same hyparchetype (Books Δ-Ζ [see n. 1], p. XCI-XCII). I. De Vos et al. reached a different conclusion in the editions of B-Γ, i.e., that T might be a witness of an independent branch of the Florilegium Coislinianum (see I. De Vos – E. Gielen – C. Macé – P. Van Deun, L’art de compiler à Byzance: la lettre Γ du Florilège Coislin, in Byz, 78 [2008], p. 166 and Id., La lettre Β du Florilège Coislin: editio princeps, in Byz, 80 [2010], p. 75). However, they indicated that a thorough analysis of Flor.Coisl. A might indeed prove that A and T descend from the same hyparchetype (De Vos et al., Lettre B, p. 79, n. 9). 2



SECOND RECENSION OF THE FLORILEGIUM COISLINIANUM

namely Hierosolymitanus, Sancti Sepulcri 15 (s. XI) (T) and its apograph Atheniensis, Metochion Sancti Sepulcri 274 (s. XIV). 7 – the second recension (Flor.Coisl. rec. II) transmits a text that is slightly shorter than the one of Flor.Coisl. rec. I. Its oldest witnesses are the manuscripts Atheniensis, Bibliotheca nationalis 464 (s. X) (B) and Parisinus graecus 924 (s. X) (C). – the third recension (Flor.Coisl. rec. III) offers a much shorter version of the anthology, lacking several original chapters and excerpts. The five main witnesses are: Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus Q 74 sup. (s. X) (D), Argentoratensis, Bibliotheca nationalis et universitatis gr. 12 (a. 1285-1286) (E), Atheniensis, Bibliotheca nationalis 329 (s. XIII-XIV) (F), Athous, Iviron 38 (a. 1281-1282) (G) and Vaticanus graecus 491 (s. XIII) (H). As to the relationship between the three recensions, the editors proved that the manuscript tradition of the Florilegium Coislinianum is bipartite: Flor.Coisl. rec. II-III descend from the same hyparchetype (= Δ), whereas Flor.Coisl. rec. Ι represents a different branch. 8 b. The debated relation between B and C Whereas most of the stemma established by the editors of Flor.Coisl. Γ, the first book to have been published, 9 was confirmed in subsequent editions of other books, the relationship between B and C has proven a point of discussion. Two different hypotheses were brought forward: in the editions of Flor.Coisl. Γ and B, De Vos et al. identified B and C as brothers, 10 whereas, in his doctoral dissertation on book A of Flor. Coisl., Fernández argued that C was the model of B. 11 See J. Maksimczuk, The Textual Tradition of the Florilegium Hierosolymitanum (and its Relations with the Florilegium Coislinianum), in JÖB, 67 (2017), p. 81101. 8 See (in chronological order): De Vos et al., Lettre Γ [see n. 6], p. 169 and Lettre Β [see n. 6], p. 77; Ceulemans et al., Lettre Èta [see n. 1], p. 83; R. Ceulemans – P. Van Deun – F. A. Wildenboer, Questions sur les deux arbres du Paradis: la Lettre Ξ du Florilège Coislin, in Byz, 84 (2014), p. 52-56; Ceulemans et al., Lettre Θ [see n. 1], p. 93-99; Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum A [see n. 1], p. LXXV-CI; Maksimczuk, Books Δ-Ζ [see n. 1], p. LXIX–CXIII ; R. Ceulemans – J. Maksimczuk – P. Van Deun, La Lettre N du Florilège Coislin, in Byz, 88 (2018), p. 105-108. 9 De Vos et al., Lettre Γ [see n. 6], p. 169. 10 De Vos et al., Lettre Γ [see n. 6], p. 167 and Lettre B [see n. 6], p. 77. 11 T.  Fernández, Book Alpha of the Florilegium Coislinianum: A Critical Edition with a Philological Introduction, Leuven, 2010, p. CVI-CXI (unpublished doctoral 7



José Maksimczuk

My own collations of Flor.Coisl. Δ-Ζ supply strong evidence to support the view that C is the model and not a brother of B. 12 However, it also revealed a remarkable phenomenon that would seem to contradict that hypothesis and which is related to the title of the first chapter of book Δ. In the Florilegium Coislinianum, the title of the first chapter of a book immediately follows the title of the book itself. For example: book Ξ opens with the general title Στοιχεῖον Ξ (= ‘book heading’). Below this title, one finds the title of the first chapter of the book: Περὶ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως. My collations of the manuscripts show that, for the first chapter of book Δ, B offers a title that is very close to the one transmitted by other witnesses of the Florilegium Coislinianum, but that the title of Δ 1 is missing from C. This finding and certain particularities of the first chapter titles in the books already edited 13 motivated a thorough study of the way B and C transmit the heading of the initial chapter of every book of the Florilegium Coislinianum (= ‘first chapter titles’). In the present paper, my main goal will be to argue 1) that only a small number of first chapter titles and book headings were written by the main scribes of B and C; 14 2) that later hands provided most of the first chapter titles in both manuscripts; 3) that when doing so they most likely proceeded on the basis of the pinakes available in their exemplars; 4) that the intervention of the second hand of C occurred most likely dissertation, see now Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum A [see n. 1], p. LXXVILXXXI). In most of the partial editions of the Florilegium Coislinianum, the editors have retained a stemma in which B and C are brothers, although they adopted a more cautious position (see Ceulemans et al., Lettre Èta [see n. 1], p. 80-81; J. Michels – P. Van Deun, On the Topaz Island: Diodorus of Sicily and the Byzantine Florilegium Coislinianum, in Byz, 83 [2013], p. 287). In turn, the most recent editions offer a stemma where B is a copy of C: R. Ceulemans – J. Maksimczuk – P. Van Deun – C. Gazzini, La Lettre Rhô du Florilège Coislin, in Byz, 87 (2017), p. 145–147; Maksimczuk, Books Δ-Ζ [see n. 1], p. LXXI-LXXIV; Ceulemans et alii, La Lettre N [see n. 8], p. 105–107; P. Van Deun, Un extrait pseudo-chrysostomien sur l’intempérance et la lèpre (CPG 4878), in F. P. Barone – C. Macé – P. A. Ubierna (ed.), Philologie, herméneutique et histoire des textes entre Orient et Occident. Mélanges en hommage à Sever J. Voicu (IPM, 73), Turnhout, 2017, p. 1037-1052. 12 See the reference to my dissertation in the previous note. 13 See De Vos et al., Lettre Γ [see n. 6], p. 181 and Id., Lettre B [see n. 6], p. 85; Ceulemans et al., Lettre Èta [see n. 1], p. 95 and R. Ceulemans – E. De Ridder – K. Levrie – P. Van Deun, Sur le mensonge, l’âme de l’homme et les faux prophètes: la Lettre Ψ du Florilège Coislin, in Byz, 83 (2013), p. 68. 14 In what follows, I use the terms ‘main scribe’ and ‘scribe’ to refer to the copyists who copied the texts of B and C, whereas the term ‘second/later hands’ denotes later readers of these manuscripts who completed certain missing titles and added chapter numbers.



SECOND RECENSION OF THE FLORILEGIUM COISLINIANUM

after B had been made; 5) that oddities in the first chapter titles in C caused changes in the layout and, more importantly, in the text of B.

2. Presentation of manuscripts Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 464 (s. X) (B) 15 The manuscript consists of 428 pages (279 x 210 mm) written in one column of 25-26 lines. It transmits only the Florilegium Coislinianum. The handwriting is close to ‘minuscule bouletée’. 16 The orthography is correct and the scribe used abbreviations only for the usual words and the nomina sacra. The codex is in a bad shape and throughout the manuscript many folios have gone missing: the text starts abruptly at the twelfth chapter of Flor.Coisl. A 17 and ends, also abruptly, at the middle of the first chapter of book T. In its current state, B records no pinax, but originally it must have included one, since one of its apographs, the Bruxellensis, Bibliothèque royale Albert ie, IV 881 (a. 1542) (S), does have one (f. 2-6v). 18 Different later hands are distinguishable throughout the codex: one of them (= al. man.1) added a few chapter titles and some marginal notes (see the notes on p. 52 for instance); another (= al. man.2) copied the chapter numbers (in red ink) and most of the missing first chapter titles (in red or brown ink); yet a third hand (= al. man.3) rewrote the text of several pages (using a strong dark ink) as their original ink faded (for instance p. 140-141) and (re)wrote some first chapter titles. Nothing is known about the scribe or the origins of B. However, it is certain that the codex was in Venice by the middle of the sixteenth century, as its two known apographs, i.e. manuscripts S and Parisinus graecus 1906 (P) were copied there and then. 19 According to a note on the current first folio of the codex, B was bought in Athens in March 15, 1845. Catalogue description: I. & A. I. Sakkelion, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Ἀθήναι, 1892, p. 92. I studied the manuscript de visu in September 2018. 16 See M. L. Agati, La minuscola “bouletée” (Littera Antiqua, 9, 1-2), Città del Vaticano, 1992. 17 According to Ι. & A. I. Sakkelion, the first 44 pages are missing (Κατάλογος [see n. 15], p. 92). 18 For S as an apograph of B, see De Vos et al., Lettre Β [see n. 6], p. 76-77 and Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum A [see n. 1], p. LXXXII-LXXXIII. 19 Fernández, Florilegium Coislinianum A [see n. 1], p. XLI-XLVI. 15



José Maksimczuk

Parisinus graecus 924 (s. X) (C) 20 The manuscript consists of 370 folios (330 x 240) written in two columns of 23 lines each. It contains only the Florilegium Coislinianum. The handwriting is elegant and close to “tipo Efrem”. 21 The orthography is correct and the scribe employed abbreviations only for the usual words and the nomina sacra. The volume opens with a pinax that includes the titles of στοιχεῖα Α-Ψ (f. 1-5v) 22 and ends mutilated in the middle of the second chapter of book Ψ which bears the number σμε´. As the Florilegium Coislinianum most likely did not have a book Ω, only a small number of pages of C must have gone missing. The scribe of C wrote only few chapter numbers (f. 6-23): the rest were added by two later hands (f. 23v-292v and 292v-370v respectively). The second of those later hands also added some missing book headings and first chapter titles. Nothing is known about the scribe or the origins of C. As for its later history, the codex resided in Nicosia for some time, where Johann Michael Wansleben bought it for the Royal Library in June 1671, as a note on the first folio of C attests: Vanslebius emit Nicosia pro Bibl. Regis Chr. Anno 1671. 23

20 Catalogue description: H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des Départements, I, Paris, 1886, p. 177. I studied the manuscript de visu in November 2017. 21 See E. Follieri, La minuscola libraria dei secoli IX e X, in La Paléographie grecque et byzantine (Colloques internationaux du CNRS, Paris, 21-25 octobre 1974), Paris, 1977, p. 148. See also J. Irigoin, Pour une étude des centres de copie byzantins, II, 2. Le scriptorium d’Ephrem, in Scriptorium, 13 (1959), p. 177-209; G. Prato, Il monaco Efrem e la sua scrittura. A proposito di un nuovo codice sottoscritto (Athen. 1), in Scrittura e Civiltà, 6 (1982), p. 99-115 [= G. Prato, Studi di paleografia greca (Collectanea, 4), Spoleto, 1994, p. 13-30] post 1-8 + tav. 1-8; L. Perria, Γραφίς. Per una storia della scrittura greca libraria (secoli IV a.C. – XVI d.C.) (Quaderni Νέα Ῥώμη, 1), Roma, 2011, p. 84-86. 22 Compare with note 3. 23 I thank Dr. G. Cattaneo for his help in deciphering the note. Wansleben visited Cyprus between the 13th and the 26th of June 1671 (see A. Hamilton, Johann Michael Wansleben’s Travels in the Levant, 1671–1674 [The History of Oriental Studies, 4], Leiden, 2018, p. 23). Between the 15th and the 21st, he visited Nicosia where he purchased 47 manuscripts, six of which recorded Greek texts. By the end of June, Balthasar Sauvan, the French consul in the island, sent the volumes to Paris (see H. Omont, Missions archéologiques françaises en Orient aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, I, Paris, 1902, 76–78). Nicolas Clément drew up a list with a succinct description of the contents of the codices Sauvan had sent (H. Omont, Missions archéologiques françaises en Orient aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, II, Paris, 1902, p. 879). I could not identify C with any of the volumes in Clément’s list.



SECOND RECENSION OF THE FLORILEGIUM COISLINIANUM

3. The transmission of first chapter titles in B and C An analysis of the beginnings of each book in C shows that the scribe somehow experienced problems copying most of the first chapter titles and book headings. Those of Β-Δ and Ζ-Η remained absent, whereas many of the first chapter titles that are present were in fact added by a latter, sloppy hand which only occasionally delivered book headings. These lacunae could result either from the fact that most of first chapter titles and book headings were already missing in the model of C or from the fact that the scribe of C somehow failed to include them. The occasional absence of the initial letter – most of them easy to guess – of the first word of the first fragment in the first chapter of certain books might support the view that the scribe of C deliberately decided not to copy first title chapters and book headings but to leave them to be supplemented by a rubricator 24 (see, for instance, f. 140, 147v, 161 – chapters Ζ 1, Η 1 and Θ 1). Unfortunately, some first chapter titles in B cannot be analyzed, because in its current state the manuscript is severely mutilated (see the description above). However, as far as one can verify, seven first chapter titles were added by three different later hands, whereas only six were written by the main scribe. The list below, which is based upon my own collation of the codices, compares all first chapter titles in B and C – those written by the main scribes as well as those added by later hands – with the ones in the other main witnesses of the Florilegium Coislinianum. 25 I also added the information that can be found in the pinakes of C and S, since – as we will see – this is relevant to the argument. A 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. Ι et III: Περὶ δημιουργίας ἀγγέλων. C: Περὶ δημιουργίας ἀγγέλων. B: folium deest. Pinax C: Περὶ δημιουργίας ἀγγέλων. Pinax S: Περὶ δημιουργίας ἀγγέλων.

However, this never occurred and there is no trace of rubrics in C. The other witnesses of the Florilegium Coislinianum I took into account are A T D E F H. In G most of the titles are illegible on the microfilm available to me. No witness of Flor.Coisl. rec. I includes books Π-Ψ as T ends after chapter 17 of book E and A at the beginning of chapter 7 of book O. H in turn ends mutilated in the middle of chapter 5 of book Κ. 24 25



José Maksimczuk

B 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. Ι et III: Τί ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου βλασφημία, καὶ πῶς τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸ βλασφημοῦσιν οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται, οὔτε ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι; (cf. Mt. 3, 28-29; Lc. 12, 10). C: titulum deest. B: folium deest. Pinax C: Τί ἐστιν ἡ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον βλασφημία, καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸ βλασφημοῦσιν, οὔτε ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι; Pinax S: Τί ἐστιν ἡ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον βλασφημία, καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸ βλασφημοῦσιν, οὔτε ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι; Γ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I: Ἐρώτησις. Flor.Coisl. rec. III: caput deest. C: titulum deest. B (al. man.1): Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁ γεγενημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ; (cf. I Io. 3, 9). Pinax C: Πῶς ὁ γεγενημένος […] 26 οὐ ποιεῖ; Pinax S: Πῶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ; Δ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Τί τὸ δρέπανόν ἐστιν ὃ ὁ προφήτης Ζαχαρίας τεθέαται καὶ τί τὸ μέτρον τοῦ μήκους καὶ τοῦ πλάτους καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς; 27 (cf. Zach. 5, 1-2). C: titulum deest. B (al. man.1): Περὶ τοῦ τί τὸ δρέπανον ὃ ὁ προφήτης τεθέαται καὶ περὶ τοῦ πλάτους καὶ μήκους αὐτοῦ; Pinax C: Τί τὸ δρέπανον ὃ ὁ προφήτης τεθέαται καὶ περὶ τοῦ πλάτους καὶ μήκους αὐτοῦ; Pinax S: Τί τὸ δρέπανον ὃ ὁ προφήτης τεθέαται καὶ περὶ τοῦ πλάτους καὶ μήκους αὐτοῦ; E 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Πῶς νοητέον ἐπὶ θεοῦ τὸ ἐμφύσημα; C (al. man.): Περὶ τοῦ ἐμφυσήματος. B (al. man.3): Περὶ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ θείου ἐμφυσήματος. Pinax C: Περὶ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ θείου ἐμφυσήματος. Pinax S: Περὶ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ θείου ἐμφυσήματος. 28

Some words are illegible in the manuscript. The words καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς are omitted in D, E and F. The bad state of the manuscript does not allow to see whether or not the wording in question is recorded in H. 28 Cited in the pinax as the last item of στοιχεῖον Δ (see f. 3v, l. 5). 26 27



SECOND RECENSION OF THE FLORILEGIUM COISLINIANUM

Z 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I: Ποσαχῶς ἑρμηνεύεται Ζοροβάβελ πρὸς τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνὴν μεταφερóμενος; Flor.Coisl. rec. III: caput deest. C: titulum deest. B: folium deest. Pinax C: Περὶ πῶς Ζοροβάβελ καὶ πωσαχῶς ἑρμηνεύεται Ζοροβάβελ. Pinax S: Περὶ πῶς Ζοροβάβελ καὶ πωσαχῶς ἑρμηνεύεται Ζοροβάβελ. H 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Περὶ τῆς τῶν νομίμων ἡμερῶν τιμῆς. C: titulum deest. B: titulum deest. Pinax C: Περὶ τῆς τῶν νομίμων ἡμερῶν τιμῆς. Pinax S: Περὶ τῆς τῶν νομίμων ἡμερῶν τιμῆς. Θ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων 29 θηρίων ὧν ὁ 30 Δανιὴλ ἐθεάσατο. (cf. Dan. 7) C (al. man.): Περὶ τῶν δ´ θιροίων (sic) ὧν ὁ Δανιὴλ τεθέαται. B (al. man2 et al. man.3): Περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων θηρίων ὧν ὁ Δανιὴλ τεθέαται. 31 Pinax C: Περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων θηρίων ὧν ὁ Δανιὴλ τεθέαται. Pinax S: Περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων θηρίων ὧν ὁ Δανιὴλ τεθέαται. Ι 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Ἐπαπορητικὰ κεφάλαια κατὰ ἰουδαίων. 32 C (al. man.): Κατὰ ἰουδαίων ἐπαπορητικὰ κεφάλαια κδ´. B: folium deest. Pinax C: Κατὰ ἰουδαίων ἐπαπορητικὰ κεφάλαια κδ´. Pinax S: Κατὰ ἰουδαίων ἐπαπορητικὰ κεφάλαια κδ´. Κ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I: Περὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως. Flor.Coisl. rec. III: caput deest. C: Περὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως. B: Περὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως. Pinax C: Περὶ τῆς ἐπὶ Κορνηλίου ἀποκαλύψεως τοῦ ἀποστόλου Πέτρου. Pinax S: Περὶ τῆς ἐπὶ Κορνηλίου ἀποκαλύψεως τοῦ ἀποστόλου Πέτρου. 29 Τεσσάρων is omitted in all the witnesses of rec. III of the Florilegium Coislinianum. 30 F omits the article. 31 Al. man.3 rewrote the title originally written by al. man.2, which leads to the conclusion that al. man.3’s interventation postdates that of al. man.2. 32 F adds κεφάλαια δ´ after ἰουδαίων.



José Maksimczuk

Λ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Ἐρώτησις· 33 Τίς ἡ λυχνία ἣν Ζαχαρίας ὁ προφήτης τεθέαται; Καὶ διατί χρυσῆ; Καὶ τί τὸ λαμπάδιον τὸ ἐπάνω αὐτῆς; Τίνες 34 οἱ ἑπτὰ λύχνοι καὶ τίνες αἱ 35 ἑπτὰ παρυστρίδες (sic) τῶν ἑπτὰ λύχνων καὶ τίνες αἱ δύο ἐλαῖαι; Καὶ διατί ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων τοῦ λαμπαδίου; (cf. Zach. 4, 2-3) C: Ἐρώτησις· τίς ἡ λυχνια ἣν ὁ προφήτης Ζαχαρίας εἶδεν καὶ διατί χρυσῆ; B: […]φήτης Ζαχαρίας εἶδε[…] χρυσή. 36 Pinax C: Περὶ τῆς λυχνίας ἧς ὁ προφητης Ζαχαρίας τεθέαται. Pinax S: Περὶ τῆς λυχνίας ἣν ὁ προφήτης Ζαχαρίας τεθέαται. Μ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Περὶ μεθυστῶν. 37 C: Περὶ μέθης. B: Περὶ μέθης. Pinax C: Περὶ μεθύσων. Pinax S: Περὶ μεθύσων. Ν 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Περὶ νοσούντων, 38 ὅτι χρὴ ἐπισκέπτεσθαι αὐτούς. 39 C: Περὶ νοσούντων. B: Περὶ νοσούντων. Pinax C: Περὶ νοσούντων, καὶ ὅτι χρὴ ἐπισκέπτεσθαι αὐτούς. Pinax S: Περὶ νοσούντων, καὶ ὅτι χρὴ ἐπισκέπτεσθαι αὐτούς. Ξ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Περὶ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως. (cf. Gen. 2, 9). C: Περὶ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως. B: Περὶ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως. Pinax C: Περὶ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως. Pinax S: Περὶ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως.

33 Along with the chapter title, manuscripts D, E and F cite Zach. 4, 2-3: Καὶ εἶπε πρός με Τί συ βλέπεις; Kαὶ εἶπα καὶ Ἑώρακα καὶ ἰδοὺ λυχνία χρυσῆ ὅλη, καὶ τὸ λαμπάδιον ἐπάνω αὐτῆς, καὶ ἑπτὰ λύχνοι ἐπάνω αὐτῆς, καὶ ἑπτὰ ἐπαρυστρίδες τοῖς λύχνοις τοῖς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς· καὶ δύο ἐλαῖαι ἐπάνω αὐτῆς, (καὶ hab. F) μία ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ λαμπαδίου καὶ μία ἐξ εὐωνύμων. In D and E the text can be found before the title, in F after the title. A also quotes this biblical passage, but in the margin. 34 Instead of Τίνες, D and E read Καὶ τίνες. 35 The article is not recorded in A. 36 This title is barely legible as B is severely mutilated. 37 F does not record this chapter. 38 Instead of νοσούντων, A reads νοσούτων (sic). 39 This chapter is not recorded in F.



SECOND RECENSION OF THE FLORILEGIUM COISLINIANUM

Ο 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. I et III: Περὶ ὀρφανῶν. C: Περὶ ὀρφανῶν. B: Περὶ ὀρφανῶν. Pinax C: Περὶ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρῶν. Pinax S: Περὶ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρῶν. Π 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: caput deest. C: Περὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ σωτηριώδους πάσχα καὶ τοῦ κύκλου τῶν φλβ´ ἐτῶν B: folium deest. Pinax C: Περὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πάσχα καὶ τοῦ κύκλου τῶν φλβ´ ἐτῶν. Pinax S: Περὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πάσχα καὶ τοῦ κύκλου τῶν φλβ´ ἐτῶν. Ρ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: Περὶ ῥεύσεως σωματικῆς. C (al. man.): Περὶ ῥεύσεως σωματικῆς. B (al. man.2): Περὶ ῥεύσεως σωματικῆς. Pinax C: Περὶ ῥεύσεως σωματικῆς. Pinax S: Περὶ ῥεύσεως σωματικῆς. Σ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: Περὶ σκανδάλων. C (al. man.): Περὶ σκανδάλων. B (al. man.2): Περὶ σκανδάλων. Pinax C: Περὶ σκανδάλων. Pinax S: Περὶ σκανδάλων. Τ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: Περὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος. C (al. man.): Περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμουσίου τριάδος. B (al. man.2): Περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμουσίου τριάδος. Pinax C: Περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμουσίου τριάδος. Pinax S: Περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμουσίου τριάδος. Υ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: Περὶ ὑπερηφάνων. 40 C (al. man.): Περὶ ὑπερηφανίας. B: folium deest. Pinax C: Περὶ ὑπερηφανίας. Pinax S: Περὶ ὑπερηφανίας. Φ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: Περὶ φιλαργυρίας. 41 C (al. man.): Περὶ φιλαργυρίας. B: folium deest.

Instead of ὑπερηφάνων, D reads ὑπεριφά (sic). Instead of φιλαργυρίας, F reads φιλαργύρων.

40 41



José Maksimczuk

Pinax C: Περὶ φιλαργυρίας. Pinax S: Περὶ φιλαργυρίας. Χ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: Ὅσα περὶ Χριστοῦ γέγραπται ὅτι Χριστὸς ὁ θεός. 42 C (al. man.): Ὅσα περὶ του ὀνόματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. B: folium deest. Pinax C: Ὅσα περὶ Χριστοῦ γέγραπται ὅτι θεὸς ὁ Χριστός. Pinax S: Ὅσα περὶ Χριστοῦ γέγραπται ὅτι θεὸς ὁ Χριστός. Ψ 1 Flor.Coisl. rec. III: Περὶ ψεύδους καὶ συκοφαντίας. C (al. man.): Περι ψεύδους και συκοφαντίας. B: folium deest. Pinax C: Περὶ ψεύδους καὶ συκοφαντίας. Pinax S: Περὶ ψεύδους καὶ συκοφαντίας.

4. Analysis of the first chapter titles written by the main scribes of B and C The above list reveals that, as far as one can compare, the main scribe of B and that of C recorded the same headings, namely those of K 1, Λ 1, Μ 1, Ν 1, Ξ 1 and Ο 1. The scribe of C also wrote the titles of A 1 and Π 1; unfortunately, the folios of B in which these chapters must have been transmitted are missing and there is no way of knowing whether or not the scribe recorded their titles. In most first chapter titles, the scribe of C appears to have altered his handwriting. 43 It nonetheless remains clearly recognizable especially in letters and combinations such as ξ, φ, λ, χε and χν. In comparison with the first chapter titles added by the second hand, two features are characteristic of the layout of those written by the main scribe: 1) they are preceded by the book heading; 44 2) the book headings in turn are preceded by a symbol similar to a plus sign (+). 45 42 F does not record this chapter. The order of the words Χριστὸς ὁ Θεός is changed into Θεὸς ὁ Χριστός in D. 43 The only exception is Π 1, of which the first chapter titel is identical in handwriting and layout with the titles of chapters other than the first ones. Moreover, Π 1 is not preceded by any book heading. 44 In the case of Λ 1, the book heading follows the chapter title. See below. 45 This sign is absent from the titles of Ξ 1. In the case of Μ 1 and of Ο 1 it is repeated after the last word of the chapter title. In turn, in A 1 and Λ 1 it also appears before the first word of the chapter title.



SECOND RECENSION OF THE FLORILEGIUM COISLINIANUM

Furthermore, in C the titles of Κ 1, Λ 1, Μ 1 and Ξ 1 were written in a very careless way: the main scribe most likely added them only after having copied the text of the chapter each of them introduces. The title of K 1 occupies the entire upper margin of f. 190v. The text of Ξ 1 begins on the second column of f. 262, whereas its title occupies l. 19-21 of the first column. Conversely, in the case of Λ 1, the scribe left blank the last seven lines of the first column of f. 218v and wrote the chapter title and the book heading – in this order – in a sloppy way in the upper margin of the second column. Lastly, also the title of M 1 was copied in a very careless way and, moreover, differs from the version attested in the other witnesses of the Florilegium Coislinianum. Despite these oddities, one can rule out the possibility that the scribe made up all of the titles in question, since they are similar to those of the whole tradition of the Florilegium Coislinianum. He cannot have copied them from the pinax of his copy either, since most of the titles mentioned in that list differ from those in the main text. 46 One needs to suppose, then, that all of those titles were already present in the model of C. With regard to B, the book headings and the first chapter titles written by the main scribe were neatly copied and they run smoothly between the last excerpt from the preceding book and the text they introduce (the only exception is the case of K 1 47). All of the first chapter titles written by the main scribe are preceded by book headings and an asterisk is placed at the beginning of each of them, except in the case of Κ 1, in which a plus sign is found instead (see page 240). 48 When the scribe of C recorded neither first chapter titles nor book headings, the scribe of B left two lines blank between the end of one book and the beginning of the next (later the second hands of B filled those blank spaces by adding the titles in question). It is interesting to observe that any variation from the standard procedure by the scribe of C is in one way or the other mirrored in B. Such is the case with the

The pinax tends to offer a fuller and better version of first chapter titles than does the main text. Compare, however, the cases of Κ 1, Λ 1 and Ο 1, for which the main text of C presents versions closer to the most prominent witnesses of the Florilegium Coislinianum than does the pinax. 47 See below n. 50. 48 A second asterisk is placed at the end of the book headings of Ξ and O. In the case of book M, it occurs after the last word of the first chapter title. 46



José Maksimczuk

titles of Δ 1 49 and Κ 1, 50 but especially with that of Λ 1, which cites almost all of Maximus the Confessor’s Quaestio LXIII ad Thalassium. As mentioned above, the scribe of C wrote the title of chapter Λ 1 and the heading of book Λ carelessly in the upper margin of the second column of f. 218v. It is, moreover, the only case where the chapter title precedes the book heading. In B, as far as one can tell from the badly mutilated p. 274, the whole chapter title is transposed after the words αὐτὴν καιν. 51 Conversely, in the rest of the witnesses of the Florilegium Coislinianum, C included, these words are followed by the brief subtitle Τίς ἡ λυχνία. The variation in B can easily be explained, if we consider it to be an apograph of C. The repetition of the question Τίς ἡ λυχνία in both the title and the subtitle, the sloppy way in which the title of Λ 1 was recorded and the fact that it precedes the book heading in C must have misled the scribe of B into thinking that the copyist of his model had written the subtitle only partially in the main text and that he had completed it in the upper margin.

5. Analysis of the first chapter titles written by later hands in B and C A comparison of the handwriting of the titles studied here reveals that some of them were copied by second hands in B and C. As far as one can see, the later hands of B copied the first chapter titles of books Γ-Δ (al. The first excerpt of book Δ is an extensive one, which the scribe of C deliberately started at a new page (f. 101v). After the last chapter of book Γ he wrote a dotted line while leaving the last four lines of the second column of f. 101 blank. Correspondingly, the scribe of B left a blank space of four instead of two lines between the end of book Γ – here too marked by a dotted line – and the beginning of the text of Δ 1 (p. 112). The book heading of Δ and the title of Δ 1 were recorded neither by the main scribe of C nor by the one of B. At a later stage the first title chapter of Δ was supplemented by the second hand of B on the first two lines of the blank space. 50 In C, chapter K 1 opens on f. 190v although the last excerpt of book Ι (marked by a dotted line) ends only in the middle of the second column of f. 190: the last ten lines of that page were left blank. The scribe of B for his part left an unnecessary blank space of two lines between the end of book Ι – also marked by a dotted line – and the book heading of στοιχεῖον Κ (p. 240). In both this case and the one mentioned in the previous note, an explanation for the additional blank lines inserted by the copyist of B is that he might have thought that some sections of the work were missing in his model. 51 See C. Laga – C. Steel (ed.), Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones ad Thalassium, II. Quaestiones LVI-LXV una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita (CCSG, 22), Leuven – Turnhout, 1990, p. 145.15-16. Most of these words are missing from the badly damaged page, but S (f. 118v) allows to faithfully reconstruct the text of B. 49



SECOND RECENSION OF THE FLORILEGIUM COISLINIANUM

man.1), Θ, Ρ-Τ (al. man.2), and Ε and Θ (al. man.3).The later hand of C in turn delivered the titles of the first chapters of books Ε, Θ-Ι and Ρ-Ψ. For some reason it did not supply those of Β-Δ and Ζ-Η. The title of Η 1 was not recorded by any of the second hands of B either, as the main scribe had left no blank space between the end of book Ζ and the beginning of Η 1 (p. 183). That the main scribe of B did not record any of the titles written by the second hand of C suggests that the latter’s intervention postdates the confection of B. The handwriting of the later hand of C has an insecure and sloppy touch and spirits or accents are rare. 52 Furthermore, the ink is darker than the one used by the main scribe. The second hand of C added but few of the book headings that were missing. In those cases (books Υ-Χ), it wrote before the first chapter title in question the wording ἀρχὴ τοῦ … στοιχείου. 53 In contrast, the later hands of B were much more careful: their handwriting is clear and spelling mistakes are non-existent. Some characteristics distinguish the titles they recorded: 1) the ink differs from the one used by the main scribe; 2) the hands did not add any book heading. In turn, al. man.2 appears to have tried to follow the layout of the first chapter titles written by the main scribe by adding a sloppy asterisk next to the first chapter titles of books Θ and Ρ-Τ. The titles written by the later hands of B and C are virtually identical with those found in the pinakes of C and S: this suggests that the titles omitted by the main scribes were supplied through the pinakes in the manuscripts (i.e., that of C and the now lost pinax of B). In C, the only exceptions are E 1 and X 1, for which the later hand provided rather general titles, which he most likely came up with himself. The title of E 1 was modeled after the first lines of the excerpt it introduces: Πολλοὶ ἐνόμισαν ὅτι τὸ ἐμφύσημα αὐτὸ ἦν ἡ ψυχὴ κτλ. For the heading of Χ 1, the second hand for some reason changed the title of the pinax. 54 In turn, the only variant in the titles written by the second hands of B vis-à-vis the pinax of S is the addition of the formula περὶ τοῦ in Γ 1 and Δ 1 (both copied by al. man.1).

The handwriting is specially careless in Φ 1, Χ 1 and Ψ 1. The book heading ἀρχὴ τοῦ Χ στοιχείου was placed at the beginning of book Φ by accident. 54 Note that both in the pinax and in the main text of C, the title starts with the word Ὅσα. 52 53



José Maksimczuk

6. Concluding remarks Our study reveals that only a small number of the first chapter titles in B and C were written by the main scribes of these manuscripts and that many others are additions by later hands. In both manuscripts, differences in ink, handwriting and layout make it possible to distinguish the first chapter titles written by the main scribes from those added by second hands. The fact that the scribe of B copied exactly the same first chapter titles that were recorded by the main scribe of C, but not those delivered by the second hand, suggests that the second hand of C added the missing titles only after the confection of B. A comparison of the first chapter titles written by the second hands of B and C and those transmitted in the pinakes of C and S shows that they are almost identical with each other. The most likely scenario suggests that the later hands of B and C delivered the missing titles through the pinakes available in their exemplars. Lastly, our study also provides new evidence to support the hypothesis that C is the model, not the brother of B. Firstly, it offers an argument in favor of the view that B depends on C: some oddities in the arrangement and the text of Δ 1, Κ 1 and Λ 1 in B can be explained on the basis of the way in which the scribe of C recorded the titles of those chapters. Secondly, it does away with an observation that would seem to oppose the said hypothesis: the presence in B of certain first chapter titles that are absent from, or recorded in a poorer version in C, can be explained by the fact that they were only added later in B.



Basile Markesinis

La date de la composition du Corpus de S. Maxime le Confesseur : nouvelles données Abstract – This article studies the origins of the manuscript transmission of the corpus of St Maximus the Confessor’s writings. It focuses on the most ancient witness of that corpus: a codex copied c. 954 by the scribe Ephrem, of which today only remains survive, in the form of MSS Genavensis, Bibliothecae Publicae et Universitatis 30 (G) and Lugdunensis Batavorum, Scaligeranus gr. 33 (L). Those remains include a table (« Χρόνων ἀρίθμησις καὶ ὁμάς ») that follows the Computus ecclesiasticus in G-L and which records the chronology from Adam down to the Byzantine emperors. Research on the chronological table and a collation of further readings show that two other important witnesses of the corpus, MSS Angelicus 120 and Vaticanus gr. 1502, both depend independently from one another on L. A careful analysis of the chronological table furthermore shows that the original exemplar of the Computus and of the entire corpus of Maximus’ writings must have been copied before the joint reign of Constantine VII and Romanos I Lekapenos had ended (i.e., December 921 or December 944). An appendix surveys the views on the relations between L and Va proposed by A. Capone in his edition Pseudo-Atanasio, Dialoghi IV e V sulla santa Trinità (2011). Corpus de S. Maxime, tel est le nom que C. Laga et C. Steel, 1 dans l’introduction au premier volume de leur édition des Quaestiones ad Thalassium (CPG 7688), ont donné les premiers à une vaste collection dans laquelle ont été rassemblés à peu près quarante textes de S. Maxime le 1 Cf. C. Laga – C. Steel, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones ad Thalassium, I. Quaestiones I-LV una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita (CCSG, 7), Turnhout – Leuven, 1980, p. XLII.

The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 255–287 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117152

Basile Markesinis

Confesseur, « qui étaient disponibles à un certain moment dans la tradition orientale ». Le présent article a pour but, en mettant en avant des données passées jusqu’ici inaperçues, de déterminer avec plus de précision l’époque à laquelle la collection de ce Corpus de S. Maxime a vu le jour. Mais avant d’exposer ces nouvelles données, il sera bon de passer en revue les dates qui, ne fût-ce qu’implicitement, ont été envisagées jusqu’à présent pour la constitution de ce Corpus. Pour C. Laga et C. Steel, les plus anciens des manuscrits par lesquels la collection nous a été transmise sont les suivants : le Romanus, Angelicus gr. 120 (T. 1. 8) (Ang), xie s., 2 le Parisinus, Coislinianus 90, xiie s., 3 le Vaticanus gr. 1502 (Va), xiie s., 4 et le Taurinensis c.III.3 (Pasinus XXV.b.V.5), un document transcrit de la main du copiste Théophane, qui était actif au Monastère d’Iviron entre 1004 et 1023. 5 Presque détruit lors de l’incendie qui, le 26 janvier 1904, ravagea la Biblioteca Nazionale de Turin, 6 le Taurinensis ne nous est connu que par l’ancienne description (1749) de J. Pasinus, A. Rivautella et F. Berta. 7 Très probablement, deux manus2 Cf. G. Muccio – P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Index codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Angelicae, dans Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 4 (1896), p. 159-161 ; Laga – Steel, Thalassium, I [voir n. 1], p. XLVII-XLVIII ; P. Van Deun, Maximi Confessoris Opuscula exegetica duo (CCSG, 23), Turnhout – Leuven, 1991, p. XXIV-XXV ; Idem, Maximi Confessoris Liber Asceticus, adiectis tribus interpretationibus latinis sat antiquis editis a S. Gysens (CCSG, 40), Turnhout – Leuven, 2000, p. XCIII-XCIV. 3 Cf.  R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin (Bibliothèque nationale. Département des manuscrits. Catalogue des manuscrits grecs, 2), Paris, 1945, p. 78-79 ; Laga – Steel, Thalassium, I [voir n. 1], p. LIV-LVI ; Van Deun, Opuscula [voir n. 2], p. XXXIII-XXXIV ; Idem, Liber Asceticus [voir n. 2], p. LXXXVII-LXXXVIII. 4 Cf.  C. Giannelli, Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 1485-1683 (Bybliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti), Città del Vaticano, 1950, p. 32-36 ; Laga – Steel, Thalassium, I [voir n. 1], p. L-LI ; Van Deun, Opuscula [voir n. 2], p. XLI-XLII ; Idem, Liber Asceticus [voir n. 2], p. CV-CVI. 5 Cf.  E. Lamberz, Die Handschriftenproduktion in den Athosklöstern bis 1453, dans G. Cavallo – G. De Gregorio – M. Maniaci (éd.), Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio. Atti del seminario di Erice (18-25 settembre 1988), I (Biblioteca del “Centro per il collegamento degli studi medievali nell’Università di Perugia”, 5), Spoleto, 1991, p. 37-41. 6 Sur cet incendie, voir G. Gorrini, L’incendio della R. Biblioteca Nazionale di Torino, Torino – Genova, 1905 ; voir aussi Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino, Manoscritti danneggiati nel incendio del 1904. Mostra di recuperi e restauri. Torino, febbraio-marzo 1986 (Quaderni della Biblioteca Universitaria di Torino, 9), Torino, 1986, p. 5-14. 7 Cf.  J. Pasinus – A. Rivautella – F. Berta, Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae Regii Taurinensis Athenaei per linguas digesti, et binas in partes distributi, in quarum prima Hebraei, et Graeci, in altera Latini, Italici, et Gallici, I, Torino, 1749, p. 94-96 ; Laga



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

crits, les Mediolanenses, Ambrosiani B 137 sup (gr. 147) et B 139 sup (gr. 146), dus à la main du prêtre et humaniste écossais David Colvill (15811629), 8 sont des répliques du Taurinensis ; Colvill les aurait copiés sur le Taurinensis, alors qu’il séjournait à Turin (1628/1629) en tant qu’interprète du Duc de Savoie, Charles-Emmanuel Ier. 9 C. Laga et C. Steel, ne connaissant aucun témoin du Corpus plus ancien que le Taurinensis, ont voulu voir dans ce manuscrit l’ancêtre commun de tous les autres (Ang, Va, Coislinianus 90, Ambrosiani B 137 sup et B 139 sup). Par conséquent, pour ces érudits, le Corpus aurait vu le jour au Mont Athos et, dans le temps, il ne remonterait pas plus haut que le xie s. 10 Cette hypothèse a été corrigée par R. Bracke, lequel a encore le mérite d’avoir ajouté à la liste de C. Laga et C. Steel deux autres manuscrits, d’abord le Genavensis, Bibliothecae Publicae et Universitatis 30 (G) 11 et ensuite le Lugdunensis Batavorum, Scaligeranus gr. 33 (L), 12 dans lesquels il a reconnu des débris d’un ancien codex du Corpus. Et de fait, les preuves de cette assertion ne manquent pas. 1) En L (parchemin ; 220 × 270 mm. ; 26 + II f. ; 1 col. ; 45 l.) 13 on trouve les restes d’une numérotation ancienne des cahiers, – Steel, Thalassium, I [voir n. 1], p. XLIII-XLIV ; Van Deun, Opuscula [voir n. 2], p. XL-XLI. 8 C. Laga et C. Steel (Thalassium, I [voir n. 1], p. XLIV-XLV), ainsi que P. Van Deun (Opuscula [voir n. 2], p. XXV et Liber Asceticus [voir n. 2], p. LVII), se basant sur l’étude déjà ancienne de G. Mercati, Il Catalogo dei Codici Greci dell’Escuriale compilato avanti l’incendio del 1671 da D. Colvill, dans Alcune note di letteratura patristica, VIII (Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Ser. II, 31), Milano, 1898, p. 1221-1229, reprise dans G. Mercati, Opere minori, II (ST, 77), Città del Vaticano, 1937, p. 100-107, ont situé la confection des deux Ambrosiani vaguement vers 1600. La date que nous proposons vient des études suivantes : J. Durkan, Three Manuscripts with Fife Associations : And David Colville of Fife, dans The Innes Review, 20 (1969), p. 47-58 ; Idem, David Colvill : An Appendix, ibidem, p. 138-149 ; E. Galbiati, L’orientalistica nei primi decenni di attività, dans Storia dell’Ambrosiana. Il Seicento, Milano, 1992, p. 114. 9 Cf.  Laga – Steel, Thalassium, I [voir n. 1], p. XLV-XLVI. 10 Cf.  ibidem, p. XLIII-XLIV. 11 Cf.  R. Bracke, Some Aspects of the Manuscript Tradition of the Ambigua of Maximus the Confessor, dans F. Heinzer – C. Schönborn (éd.), Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur, Fribourg, 2-5 septembre 1980 (Paradosis. Études de littérature et de théologie anciennes, 27), Fribourg, 1982, p. 102-103. 12 Cf.  R. Bracke, Two Fragments of a Greek Manuscript containing a Corpus Maximianum: Mss Genavensis gr. 30 and Leidensis Scaligeranus 33, dans The Patristic and Byzantine Review, 4 (1985), p. 111-114. 13 Sur ce manuscrit, voir les descriptions sommaires données par P. C. Molhuysen, Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis. Codices manuscripti, II. Codices Scaligerani



Basile Markesinis

qui sans interruption aucune continue en G (parchemin ; 221/25 × 268/82 mm. ; 30 + II f. ; 1 col. [sauf f. 22-30 : 2 col.] ; 45 l.). 14 Les signatures sont apposées dans le coin inférieur intérieur du premier recto et du dernier verso : des premières sont conservés les chiffres λβ´, λγ´, λδ´ (f. 3, 11, 19 de L), λε´, λϚ´ et λζ´ (f. 1, 9 et 17 de G) ; des secondes, les chiffres λα´, λβ´, λγ´, λδ´ (f. 2v, 10v, 18v et 26v de L), λε´, et λϚ´ (f. 8v et 16v de G). 15 2) La simple mise en regard des photos de L et de G suffit à y reconnaître l’œuvre du même scribe. 3) Le contenu des deux manuscrits, de L à G, reproduit une tranche d’œuvres de S. Maxime qui nous est connue tant par Ang que par Va. Le tableau suivant illustre les parallèles entre les quatre manuscrits. L – – – –

Ang

Va

… Mystagogia (CPG 7704 ; f. 221v-233) Expositio in psalmum 59 (CPG 7690 ; f. 233235v) Liber asceticus (CPG 7692 ; f. 236-244v) De Caritate I-IV (CPG 7693 ; f. 245-264v)

… Mystagogia (f. 236v-248v) Expositio in psalmum 59 (f. 248v-251)

(praeter orientales), Lugduni Batavorum, 1910, p. 8, et par Bracke, Two Fragments [voir n. 12], p. 111-112. 14 Les descriptions sommaires de ce manuscrit par H. Omont, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs des Bibliothèques de Suisse : Bâle, Berne, Einsiedeln, Genève, Saint-Gall, Schaffhouse et Zürich, dans Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 3 (1886), p. 434, et par Bracke, Aspects [voir n. 11], p. 102-103, et Two Fragments [voir n. 12], p. 110-111, ont été remplacées par l’étude exhaustive de P. Andrist, Genavensis gr. 30. Un manuscrit d’Ephrem dans la bibliothèque de Théodose IV Princeps ?, dans Scriptorium, 52 (1998), p. 12-36, pl. 9-15 ; voir aussi Idem, L’étude scientifique des manuscrits anciens. L’exemple de deux manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque de Genève (Association Genevoise pour l’Etude des Manuscrits Anciens), Genève, 2006, p. 23-24, et A. Capone, Pseudo-Atanasio. Dialoghi IV e V sulla santa Trinità (testo greco con traduzione italiana, versione latina e armena) (CSCO, 634 [Subsidia, 125]), Louvain, 2011, p. 16-18, qui puise entièrement dans l’article de 1998 d’Andrist. 15 Les f. 24v-25 de G ne portent pas de signature.



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

L

Ang

–

Capita theologica et oeconomica I-II (CPG 7694 ; f. 265-280) Capita XV (CPG 7695 ; f. 280-281v) Computus ecclesiasticus (f. 282-297) Computus alter (f. 298-305)

Computus ecclesiasticus (CPG 7706 ; f. 1-16) Computus alter (f. 17-26v)

Va

om. Dialogi I-V de S. Trinitate (f. 251-276v) 16 De anima (f. 276v-277v)

G Dialogi I-V de S. Trinitate (CPG 2284 ; f. 1-20v) De anima (CPG 7717 ; f. 21r-v) 17 Vita, recension I (BHG 1234 ; f. 22-23v, 25r-v, 24r-v, 26-30v)

–

Dialogi I-III de S Trinitate (f. 306-322v)

Computus ecclesiasticus (f. 278-292v)

om.

Computus alter (f. 293-301v) om.

Vita, recension II (f. 323-331v) 18

Liber asceticus (f. 302311v) De Caritate I-IV (f. 312-330v) Capita theologica et oeconomica I-II (f. 330v-345v) Diversa capita I-V (f. 346-384) 19

om.

Le volume dont L et G sont les seuls restes connus comportait donc au moins 302 folios (288 folios jusqu’à la fin du cahier λϚ´, plus les 5 folios du cahier λζ´, plus les 9 folios contenant la Vita) 20 et il était entièrement 16 Sur le déplacement et l’addition de textes qui caractérisent la forme du Corpus en Va, voir Van Deun, Opuscula [voir n. 2], p. XLI-XLII et p. LVIII. 17 À partir de PG 91, 353 D5. 18 Sur les recensions I et II de la Vita, voir B. Roosen, Maximi Confessoris Vitae et passiones graecae : The Development of a Hagiographic Dossier, dans Byz, 80 (2010), p. 435-439. 19 Le f. 384 a été ajouté tardivement. 20 Selon Andrist (Genavensis gr. 30 [voir n. 14], p. 20-22 ; Idem, Deux manuscrits grecs [voir n. 14], p. 15), ces 9 folios, écrits par le même scribe que les autres textes, mais sur



Basile Markesinis

occupé par le Corpus de S. Maxime. Deux des trois notes de possesseurs écrites au f. 30v de G et éditées par Andrist parlent de « τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου » 21 et se réfèrent encore à un codex (« βιβλίον ») 22 du deux colonnes et sur des cahiers non numérotés, constituent « une deuxième unité codicologique » ; provenant d’un volume d’œuvres de S. Maxime, ils auraient été ajoutés aux débris – l’actuel G ; à l’époque, Andrist ignorait L – d’un autre manuscrit maximien. Selon une première hypothèse, le démembrement des deux manuscrits, ainsi que leur réarrangement, aurait eu lieu à l’époque des Paléologues (xiiie s.) ; selon une seconde hypothèse, tout cela serait déjà (!) survenu au xe s., dans le scriptorium même où les deux manuscrits ont vu le jour (Genavensis gr. 30 [voir n. 14], p. 24-25). La première hypothèse n’est pas tenable : la Vita faisait déjà partie intégrante de G-L lors de la confection de Ang (xie s. ; comme nous le verrons plus bas, ce dernier dépend de L). La seconde hypothèse nous semble peu convaincante : le fait que la Vita soit transcrite sur deux colonnes ne signifie pas nécessairement qu’elle a été tirée d’un autre manuscrit ; le scribe de G-L pourrait bien avoir reproduit les deux colonnes du manuscrit qui lui a servi de modèle pour la copie de la Vita ; en effet, et indépendamment de G, dans la plupart des mss qui se situent haut dans le stemma (aimable communication de Monsieur B. Roosen), comme les Constantinopolitanus olim Chalcensis, Panagias Kamariotisses 17 (xie s.), Athous, Cutlumusiou 26 (xie/xiie s.), Athous, Lauras 456 (Δ 180 ; xiie-xiiie s.), Athous, Vatopedinus 500 (429) (xive s.), Parisinus gr. 1453 (xie s.), Patmiacus 180 (xive s.), Vaticanus, Palatinus gr. 245 (xiie s.), la Vita est copiée sur deux colonnes. Il est donc plus raisonnable de supposer que la Vita a été ajoutée comme appendice en fin de volume, une fois que le corpus du « Scaligeranus-Genavensis » eut été copié. 21 De ces trois notes, éditées par Andrist, la première (« Ὅστις ἂν ἀφέληται / τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου / ἔνθα κεῖται τὸ ταπεινὸν σῶ/μα ἐμοῦ Θεοδοσίου τοῦ / πρίγκιπος ἔστω ἀφο/ρισμῶ ἀλύτω καθυ/ποβεβλημένος· / ἀπὸ Πατρὸς Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου [om. Andrist] Πνεύματος· καὶ ἡ με/ρὶς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ / Ἰούδα τοῦ / προδότου »), actuellement lavée, nous apprend qu’au xiiie s. il appartenait à la collection qu’avait constituée le Patriarche d’Antioche Théodose IV Princeps (± 1275-1283) ; sur la vie et la bibliothèque de cet ecclésiastique, qui, né (vers 1220) d’une famille princière (très probablement celle des Villehardouin) dans le Péloponnèse, fut successivement moine à la Montagne Noire (près d’Antioche), au Nymphaion (près de Smyrne), archimandrite du Monastère du Christ Pantocrator (1261-1265), hiéromoine au Monastère des Hodèges (1265-1275) dans lequel, très probablement, il continua à résider même après son élévation au trône d’Antioche, voir PLP, no 7181 ; C. N. Constantinides, Ὁ βιβλιόφιλος Πατριάρχης Ἀντιοχείας Θεοδόσιος IV Πρίγκιψ (1275-1283), dans Ἐπετηρὶς τοῦ Κέντρου Ἐπιστημονικῶν Ἐρευνῶν, 11 (1981-1982), p. 371-384 ; V. Cuomo, Athos Dionysiou 180 + Paris, Suppl. grec. 495 : Un nuovo manoscritto di Teodosio Principe, dans BZ 98 (2005), p. 24-34. Quant à la seconde note, écrite en grec vulgaire sur les vestiges de la précédente (« ἡγοράσθη [sic spir. G] τὸ πα/ρὸν βιβλίον τὸ τοῦ / ἁγίου Μαξίμου δι/ὰ ὑπέρπηρα [sic G ; ὑπέρπερα Andrist] ὀκτὼ / ἀπὸ τῶν μοναχῶν, Νίφων »), elle est ambiguë ; le moine Niphon peut avoir été soit l’acheteur soit le vendeur du volume ; la seconde hypothèse semble être la bonne, à cause de la troisième note (« ἐγὼ ὁ Ἀρσένιος τὸ ἡγόρασα [sic spir. G ; ἠγόρασα Andrist] »), qui par sa rédaction correspond à la précédente. L’échange entre Niphon et Arsène, dont la seconde note est la quittance, doit avoir eu lieu en 1442, car « ἔτους ͵αυμβ´ » se lit immédiatement sous cette note. 22 Sur l’emploi du terme βιβλίον – devenu équivalent de βίβλος – pour désigner un codex, voir B. Atsalos, La terminologie du livre-manuscrit à l’époque byzantine, I. Termes désignant le livre-manuscrit et l’écriture (Ἑλληνικά. Περιοδικὸν σύγγραμμα Ἑταιρείας Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν. Παράρτημα, 21), Θεσσαλονίκη, 1971, p. 53, 60 et 70-73.



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Corpus complet plutôt qu’à ses débris. Une autre note – « τὸν παρόντα διάλογον, οἱ μὲν τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου, οἱ δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου φασὶν εἶναι » – au f. 1 de G, au-dessus du titre des Dialogi de S. Trinitate, n’a de sens que si les écrits pseudo-athanasiens semblaient faire irruption dans un volume entièrement consacré au Confesseur. P. Andrist 23 a le mérite d’avoir réussi, au bout d’une analyse détaillée de toutes les données disponibles, tant codicologiques que paléographiques, à attribuer G, y compris la Vita, à la main du moine Éphrem , 24 qui fut actif à Constantinople vers le milieu du xe s. ; 25 parmi les manuscrits datés de ce copiste, le plus proche de G serait selon Andrist le Venetus, Marcianus gr. 201, copié en 954. Avant Andrist, Bracke avait fixé la date de L et de G à 962, 26 date à laquelle, par ailleurs, a été copié le Patmiacus 136, un manuscrit dont l’écri23 Cf. Andrist, Genavensis gr. 30 [voir n. 14], p. 17-18, 22 et 27-32 ; Idem, Deux manuscrits grecs [voir n. 14], p. 12 et 15. 24 Cette attribution a ensuite été approuvée par L. Perria, Un aspetto inedito dell’attività del copista Efrem : l’uso delle abbreviazioni nel Laur. 28, 3, dans BBGG, 63 (1999), p. 97, puis dans A. Iacobini – L. Perria, Un Vangelo della Rinascenza macedone al Monte Athos. Nuove ipotesi sullo Stavronikita 43 e il suo scriba, dans RSBN, 37 (2000), p. 86, et dans Γραφίς. Per una storia della scrittura greca libraria (secoli IV a.C. – XVI d.C.) (Quaderni di Νέα Ῥώμη, 1), Roma – Città del Vaticano, 2012, p. 85 ; voir aussi E. Crisci, Il periodo mediobizantino, dans E. Crisci – P. Degni (éd.), La scrittura greca dall’antichità all’epoca della stampa. Una introduzione, Roma, 20142, p. 145. – À propos du scribe Éphrem, voir RGK, III, no 196 ; on trouvera la bibliographie le concernant, dans F. D’Aiuto, Un’attività di famiglia ? Un copista “discendente del calligrafo Efrem”, dans RSBN, 48 (2011), p. 74-75, n. 8. 25 Il est très probable que ce copiste Éphrem soit aussi le moine du même nom qui fut élève d’un « professeur anonyme », lequel vivait à Constantinople entre 870 et 945, y dirigeant une école d’enseignement avancé, et composa, entre 920 et 930, 122 lettres aujourd’hui conservées dans le Londinensis, Addit. 36749, f. 135v-232 (cf. L. Perria, Un nuovo codice di Efrem. L’Urb. gr. 130, dans RSBN, 14-16 [1977-1979], p. 34-39 ; Iacobini – Perria, Un Vangelo [voir n. 24], p. 85-86 ; A. Markopoulos, Anonymi professoris epistulae [CFHB, XXXVII, Series Berolinensis], Berolini – Novi Eboraci, 2000, p. 38*, n. 12) ; quatre de ces lettres, les lettres 12, 62, 64 et 72, ont été adressées au « moine Éphrem » (« Ἐφραὶμ μοναχῷ » ; cf. Markopoulos, op. cit., p. 9, 57, 58-59 et 65). Montrant, dans l’Ep. 64, 46-47, l’estime qu’il portait à son élève – et cela malgré le fait que ce dernier avait, entre temps, quitté l’école –, l’anonyme qualifie Éphrem d’« ami de son maître, mais plus encore qui aime apprendre et être instruit » (« φιλοδιδάσκαλον, μᾶλλον δὲ φιλομαθῆ καὶ τῆς παιδείας ἐραστήν » ; cf. Markopoulos, op. cit., p. 59), tandis que dans l’Ep. 20, 13, adressée à l’évêque Arsène, il l’appelle « bon » et le classe parmi les membres éminents de l’école (« ὁ χρηστὸς Ἐφραὶμ καὶ οἱ τῆς σχολῆς πρόκριτοι » ; ibidem, p. 15). – Sur la vie et l’œuvre de cet anonyme, qui fut encore, outre professeur, copiste de manuscrits et, à sa manière, éditeur de textes, voir ibidem, p. 1*-22*. 26 Cf. Bracke, Two Fragments [voir n. 12], p. 111-112. Auparavant, Bracke (Aspects [voir n. 11], p. 103) avait proposé de dater G « before the year one thousand » et de situer le terminus ante quem du Corpus « at the end of the tenth century ». Pour ce



Basile Markesinis

ture lui semblait proche de celle de L et de G. Bracke avoue avoir repris cette date au chronologiste français Joseph Juste Scaliger. 27 Ce dernier, en fait, dans la troisième édition, revue, de son De emendatione temporum (1598), et plus précisément dans le préambule des notes (« Notae in eclogas magni computi ex Maximo monacho ») attachées au « Ψηφισμὸς τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐτῶν ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Μαξίμου », 28 un texte compilé à partir d’extraits du Computus ecclesiasticus, 29 affirme que ces extraits ont été tirés d’un manuscrit (notre L) écrit « avant 636 ans » – 1598636 = 962 –, que lui avait fourni une personne « d’une piété et d’une érudition remarquable ». 30 Bracke a cru que Scaliger disait ainsi avoir reçu L de Th. de Bèze, lequel l’aurait également renseigné sur la date du manuscrit. 31 Mais cette interprétation s’avère indéfendable. qui concerne le terminus post quem, le même Bracke, constatant que ni la Bibliothèque de Photius, ni la traduction des Ambigua ad Ioannem faite entre 862 et 864 par Jean Scot, ni la seconde recension de la Vie grecque de S. Maxime (xe s.), ne connaissent la conjonction des Ambigua ad Ioannem (CPG 7705 [1]) avec les Ambigua ad Thomam (CPG 7705 [2]), comme ils sont transmis dans le Corpus (ibidem, p. 103-106), en avait conclu que « in the ninth century and at the beginning of the tenth century a Constantinopolitan corpus did not exist » (ibidem, p. 106). Cette conclusion, avec quelques précisions, a été reprise par P. Van Deun (Opuscula [voir n. 2], p. LI). 27 Sur J. Scaliger (Agen, 6 août 1540 – Leyde, 21 janvier 1609), voir A. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger. A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, vol. I. Textual Criticism and Exegesis; vol. II. Historical Chronology (Oxford-Warburg Studies), Oxford, 1983 et 1993. 28 Cf. I. Scaliger, Opus de emendatione temporum : castigatius et multis partibus auctius, ut novum videri possit. Item veterum Græcorum fragmenta selecta, quibus loci aliquot obscurissimi Chronologiæ sacræ et Bibliorum illustrantur, cum notis eiusdem Scaligeri, Lugduni Batavorum, 15983, p. 691-700 (= Idem, Opus novum de emendatione temporum in octo libros tributum, Lutetiæ,15831, p. 358-366). 29 Sur cette œuvre, que S. Maxime aurait adressée au Patrice Pierre (« Τῷ πανευφήμῳ πατρικίῳ Πέτρῳ, Μάξιμος ταπεινὸς μονάζων ») « between October 5, 640 (the beginning of Heraclius’ 31st year) and the news of Heraclius’ death (February 11, 641) reaching Africa » (cf. P. Sherwood, An annotated Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor [Studia Anselmiana, 30], Roma, 1952, p. 45 [n. 65a]), voir J. Lempire, Le Comput ecclésiastique de saint Maxime le Confesseur. Édition, traduction et commentaire de la première partie (thèse dactylographiée, Université Catholique de Louvain. Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres. Département d’Études Grecques, Latines et Orientales), Louvain-la-Neuve, 2004 ; Idem, Le calcul de la date de Pâques dans les traités de S. Maxime le Confesseur et de Georges, moine et prêtre, dans Byz, 77 (2007), p. 269-271, 274-280, 293-299 ; A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, 2008, p. 77-78, 104, 159-160, 203, 245, 254-255, 281-282, 314-315 etc. 30 Cf.  Scaliger, De emendatione temporum, 15983 [voir n. 28], p. 701 : « Donatus sum vetustissimo Computo Graeco Maximi Monachi a quodam viro spectatissimae pietatis et eruditionis. Liber iste optimae notae scriptus ante DCXXXVI annos ». 31 Cf. Bracke, Two Fragments [voir n. 12], p. 111-112. L’interprétation selon laquelle L aurait été envoyé à Scaliger par Th. de Bèze a également été prônée par Andrist (Deux manuscrits grecs [voir n. 14], p. 19-20).



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

En fait, c’est de François Portus, 32 professeur de grec à l’Académie de Genève depuis 1562, que Scaliger avait reçu L : 33 dans la lettre qu’il a envoyée le 4 septembre 1581, de Chantemille (Limousin) où il s’était retiré, à Florent Chrestien, 34 Scaliger dit que Th. de Bèze, chef de la Le Crétois François Portus (22 août 1511 – 5 juin 1581 ; Grafton situe le décès au 7 juin, voir ci-dessous, n. 35), ayant enseigné à Modène et à Ferrare, après le procès qui lui fut intenté à Venise en 1558 pour ses sympathies envers la Réforme, s’installa à Genève à partir de 1562. C’est là qu’il noua des liens d’amitié avec Scaliger, quand celui-ci résida dans la même ville, entre 1572 et 1574. Pour plus d’informations sur la vie et l’œuvre de François Portus, on consultera M. I. Manoussacas – N. M. Panagiotakis, Ἡ φιλομεταρρυθμιστικὴ δράση τοῦ Φραγκίσκου Πόρτου στὴ Μόδενα καὶ στὴ Φερράρα καὶ ἡ δίκη του ἀπὸ τὴν Ἱερὰ Ἐξέταση τῆς Βενετίας (1536-1559), dans Θησαυρίσματα, 18 (1981), p. 7-118 ; S. Kaklamanis, Τὰ πρῶτα χρόνια τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Φραγκίσκου Πόρτου (1511-1525), dans Ἀριάδνη, 3 (1985), p. 283-294 ; H. Kallergis, Ὁ κρητικὸς λόγιος Φραγκίσκος Πόρτος (16ος αἰ.), dans Κρητολογικὰ γράμματα, 5/6 (1992), p. 3-12 ; N. Panagiotakis, Ὁ Φραγκίσκος Πόρτος στὴ Γενεύη τοῦ Καλβίνου, dans O. Reverdin – N. Panagiotakis (éd.), Οἱ ἑλληνικὲς σπουδὲς στὴν Ἑλβετία τοῦ Καλβίνου, Ἀθήνα, 1995, p. 55-91 ; M. Papanicolaou, Francesco Porto e il greco volgare nei rapporti con Scaliger, Crusius, Gesner, dans Ἀθηνᾶ, 82 (1997-1999), p. 257-298 ; Eadem, In margine alla Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, dans Pan, 20 (2002), p. 253-275 ; Eadem, Autografi non noti di Francesco ed Emilio Porto, dans T. Creazzo – G. Strano (éd.), dans Atti del VI congresso nazionale dell’Associazione italiana di Studi Bizantini. Catania-Messina, 2-5 ottobre 2000 (Siculorum Gymnasium, N.S. a. LVII), Catania, 2004, p. 585-632 ; Eadem, Identificazione del dotto copista anonimo di un manipolo di manoscritti greci databili al decennio 1526-1535 : Francesco Porto, dans Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, vol. 21, n° 3-4 (2010), p. 427489 ; P. Tavonatti, Francisci Porti Cretensis Commentaria in Aeschyli Tragoedias (thèse de doctorat, Università degli Studi di Trento – École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales 2010), p. 11-161. 33 Les débris de l’ancien codex, L et G, rachetés par le Sénat de la Ville « a Graeculo quodam hac transeunte » (voir la lettre de Th. de Bèze, Omnibus in utraque Polonia, Lituania, dans Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, t. XI [1570] [Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance, CXCV], Genève, 1983, p. 322), se trouvaient à Genève dès avant 1570 ; Th. de Bèze, qui a séjourné à Genève dès 1558, a en effet utilisé l’actuel G pour son édition princeps (1570) des Dialogi I-V du Ps.-Athanase ; contrairement à l’actuel G qui, emporté par H. Commelin à Heidelberg en 1595, a regagné Genève en 1619 (cf. Andrist, Genavensis gr. 30 [voir n. 14], p. 25-27), L n’a jamais été restitué ; en 1593, Scaliger l’emporta avec lui de France à Leyde, et c’est ainsi qu’après sa mort (1609) L est entré par testament, avec les autres Scaligerani, dans la bibliothèque de Leyde (cf. Molhuysen, Codices Scaligerani [voir n. 13], p. III-VIII). 34 Cf. éd. A. Grafton, From De die natali to De emendatione temporum : The Origins and Settings of Scaliger’s Chronology, dans Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 48 (1985), (Appendix II), p. 136 (= éd. P. Botley – D. van Miert, The Correspondence of Joseph Justus Scaliger, vol. I. April 1561 to December 1586 [THR (voir n. 33), DVII/1], Genève, 2012, p. 317, 50-53) : « le bon homme Portus est mort ces iours passés, comme ἐκκλησιαστὴς praecipuus de ces quartiers m’a mandé, lequel m’a envoié un tres beau et tres ancien livre de Maximus Monachus de Computo Graecorum ». – Sur Florent Chrestien (Orléans, 26 janvier 1542 – Vendôme, 23 octobre 1596), qui fut précepteur d’Henry de Navarre (le futur Henri IV), voir B. Jakobsen, Florent Chres32



Basile Markesinis

Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève, lui avait fait part du décès récent de François Portus (5 juin 1581), lequel lui avait envoyé un très ancien manuscrit avec le Computus de S. Maxime. 35 Scaliger n’a pas reçu la date de L de celui qui le lui a prêté ; il l’a calculée lui-même, après avoir étudié L à fond, en vue de l’édition révisée (1598) du De emendatione temporum. Quand il a lu les notes de Scaliger attachées aux extraits tirés du Computus de S. Maxime, Bracke s’est arrêté à leur préambule. Or, ce que Scaliger y dit de la date de L n’est qu’un résumé succinct de ce qu’il développe en détail dans sa note consacrée à la table chronologique portant le titre « Χρόνων ἀρίθμησις καὶ ὁμάς » dans le Computus de S. Maxime. 36 Située presque à la fin du Computus, comme une sorte d’Appendice, cette table (L, f. 13-14) 37 commence par Adam et ses descendants, et passant par les Patriarches, les Juges et les Rois de l’Ancien Testament, continue par les rois Babyloniens, Perses et Macédoniens (Alexandre et les Ptolémées), pour aboutir aux empereurs Romains, païens et chrétiens. À la différence d’autres tables chronologiques du Computus – p. ex. celle des Conciles Œcuméniques, qui est intitulée « Δήλωσις τῶν ὑποκειμένων κεφαλαίων, πότε, καὶ ἐπὶ τίνος αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἐπληρώθη », tien : Ein Protestant und Humanist in Frankreich (Münchener romantische Arbeiten, 32), München, 1973, p. 10-45. 35 C’est ainsi que le passage a été compris par Grafton (Origins and Setting [voir n. 34], p. 136, n. 7 : « Franciscus Portus died 7. VI. 1581 in Geneva ; the computus that he sent to Scaliger is now Leiden University Library MS Scaliger 33 » ; voir aussi, Idem, Joseph Scaliger, vol. II [voir n. 27], p. 101 et p. 329, n. 11). Dans leur commentaire du passage, Botley et van Miert (The Correspondence of Joseph Justus Scaliger, vol. III. January 1597 to June 1601 [voir n. 34], p. 317, n. 10) reprennent d’abord mot à mot la note de Grafton, puis ils ajoutent « It is unclear whether this computus was sent by Portus or by ἐκκλησιαστής ». Toutefois, ailleurs dans leurs notes, ils considèrent que c’est de Portus que Scaliger a reçu L (cf. ibidem, p. 57, n. 10 ; p. 234, n. 1). 36 Scaliger, De emendatione temporum [voir n. 28], 15983, p. 714-715 : « Χρόνων ἀρίθμησις καὶ ὁμὰς] Trecentis annis et amplius posterior est Maximo haec ὁμὰς χρόνων, quod quidem constat ex ultimis imperatoribus Constantinopolitanis, qui hic ultimi ponuntur, Constantino, et Romano : quorum tempora ideo non ponuntur, quia sub illis haec Chronologia scripta est, anno Christi plus minus 960, aliquot annis 320 post annum XXXI Heraclij. De litera nos statim iudicavimus hunc Computum scriptum fuisse ante annos 600, aut amplius. Nam optimae notae est character. Postquam vero incidimus in hos duos ultimos imperatores, tunc recte de vetustate libri nos judicasse sensimus. Itaque Computus Maximi, unde has eclogas excepimus, scriptus est ante annos plus minus 636. Tota autem haec Chronologia ne semel quidem verum dicit, nisi fortasse in posterioribus imperatoribus. Similem et geminam edidit Fridericus Sylburgius in fine Zosimi ». 37 Cf.  Scaliger, De emendatione temporum [voir n. 28], 15831, p. 362-365 ; De emendatione temporum [voir n. 28], 15983, p. 697-699 ; PG 19, 1272 C14 – 1277 B1.



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

et qui s’arrête au ve Concile (553), 38 la liste des empereurs chrétiens se prolonge, au-delà du temps de S. Maxime, jusqu’aux cinq premiers empereurs de la dynastie Macédonienne. Comme on peut le voir dans le tableau suivant, Θεόφιλος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Μιχαὴλ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ σὺν τῇ μητρὶ Θεοδώρᾳ Μιχαὴλ μόνος Μιχαὴλ καὶ Βασίλειος Βασίλειος ὁ Θρᾶξ Λέων καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ Κωνσταντῖνος ἀνεψιός Κωνσταντῖνος μόνος Κωνσταντῖνος καὶ Ῥωμανὸς ὁ πενθερὸς αὐτοῦ

ιβ´ ιδ´ ια´ α´ ιθ´ κστ´ α´ ζ´

͵Ϛτλγ´

(L, f. 14ra ; Scaliger, De emendatione temporum [voir n. 28], 15983, p. 699 ; PG 19, 1277 A 7-21)

tous les noms jusqu’à celui de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, durant son premier règne (7 juin 913 – 17 déc. 920), sont accompagnés d’un premier chiffre indiquant la durée du règne, tandis qu’un second chiffre, indiquant la date (selon l’ère d’Alexandrie) à laquelle le règne a pris fin, n’accompagne les noms que jusqu’à celui de Théophile (oct. 829 – 20 janv. 842). Pourquoi cette différence ? Selon toute probabilité, parce que, comme l’a déjà vu V. Grumel, 39 celui qui a continué la liste après Théophile pratiquait non l’ère alexandrine mais l’ère byzantine et a été surpris par le chiffre 6333 et non 6350 qu’il attendait pour le décès de Théophile. Seuls les derniers noms de la table, ceux des co-empereurs Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et Romain Ier Lécapène (17 déc. 920 – 20 déc. 944), ne sont suivis d’aucun chiffre. 40

38 Voir L, f. 14v (Scaliger, De emendatione temporum [voir n. 28], 15831, p. 366 ; De emendatione temporum [voir n. 28], 15983, p. 700 ; PG 19, 1280 C3-5) : « Ἐν ἔτει κϚ´ βασιλείας Ἰουστινιανοῦ ἡ ε´ γέγονε σύνοδος· ἦν δὲ τῶν μὲν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ τὸ ͵Ϛμε´, τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ φμε´ ». 39 Cf.  V. Grumel, L’année du monde dans l’ère byzantine, dans EO, 34 (1935), p. 320-321. – Grumel a rencontré notre liste parmi les Appendices rassemblés dans L. Dindorf, Chronicon Paschale, vol. II (CSHB, 11), Bonnae, 1832, p. 78-86. 40 La même disposition à la fin de la table chronologique se trouve dans tous les autres témoins du Computus, à savoir Ang (f. 296), le Parisinus gr. 886 (f. 334v), l’Athous, Vatopedinus 164 (f. 183), Va (f. 291), le Cantabrigiensis, Bibliothecae Universitatis Dd. II. 22 (f. 141v), le Monacensis gr. 363 (f. 269), le Parisinus gr. 2402 (f. 56v) et le Vaticanus gr. 505 (f. 241).



Basile Markesinis

Constatant cette dernière particularité, Scaliger en a, à juste titre, conclu que la table chronologique, et par extension, que L lui-même, a été copié durant le co-règne de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et Romain Ier Lécapène. Dépendant de la chronologie des empereurs romains dont il disposait, Scaliger a situé la date de L autour de 961/962, 320 ans à peu près après la rédaction du Computus (la 31e année du règne de l’empereur Héraclius = 641), ou encore 636 ans plus au moins avant 1598, année de l’édition révisée du De emendatione temporum. Ainsi, pour Scaliger, les indices chronologiques contenus dans la table chronologique ont confirmé l’impression qu’il avait eue dès son premier examen de l’écriture de L : le manuscrit aurait été copié plus ou moins 600 ans plus tôt. 41 Scaliger n’est pas le seul à avoir utilisé ces mêmes données pour dater la table chronologique du Computus. Le rédacteur d’une note (fin du xvie ou début du xviie s.) qu’on lit sur le f. Iv (un folio de garde) du Cantabrigiensis, Bibliothecae Universitatis Dd. II. 22, 42 en a aussi conclu que la « Series Imperatorum Chronologica » avait été composée durant le co-règne de « 26 ans et 9 mois » de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et Romain Ier Lécapène ; toutefois, mieux renseigné que Scaliger sur la chronologie byzantine, il a placé le début de ce co-règne en 921 (l’an 6413 de l’ère alexandrine = 6429 de l’ère CPolitaine) et sa fin, coïncidant avec la mort de Lécapène, en 947 (6455 de l’ère CPolitaine). 43 La première estimation de Scaliger, que L aurait été copié 600 ans auparavant, se trouve déjà dans sa lettre adressée le 28 août 1597 à David Hoeschel (cf. éd. Botley – van Miert, The Correspondence, vol. III [voir n. 34], p. 57, 20-21 : « est penes me computus magnus Graecus Maximi Monachi optimo charactere ante sexcentos annos scriptus »). 42 Voici la note : « Cùm series impp. desinens in Constantino et Romano, eorum annos / non adnotet, hinc patet scriptam esse postquam Romanus cum Constantino / jam cœperat regnare, hoc est juxta Auctoris rationes Ao Mdi 6413 / Ærae Alexandrinæ, seu Ao. Mdi 6429. CPolit. Ær., quam sequitur / Auctor Breviarii sub Nicephori nomine in MS. Laud. C. 73. / Annus autem ex utraque Æra correspondet Ao AEr. C. vulg. 921. / Romanus porrò annos 26. mens. 9. cum Constantino isto Porphyro/geneto imperavit ex eod. MS. Laud. ; ac proinde obiit Ao Mdi 6455 Ær. / CPolit. labente, i. e. Ao C. 947. Inter igitur utrumque terminum scil. A.C. 921 / ac 947 exarata est illa series ». La même note, transcrite au propre avec quelques légères retouches stylistiques, se lit également au f. II du même manuscrit. 43 Le rédacteur d’une autre note écrite au f. III de Va (« Hic Maximus monachus in chronologia versus / finem huius libri facit mentionem Constan/tini 7i. orientis Imperatoris et Romani / Lacapeni eius vitrici et ulterius non pro/greditur. Unde constat eum vixisse circa / Annum doi 904 quo ijdem imperatores regnarunt »), mauvais connaisseur de l’histoire, a utilisé le co-règne inachevé du Porphyrogénète et de son beau-père, qui marque la fin de la « Series imperatorum » (f. 291ra de ce ms.), comme repère chronologique pour la vie du « moine Maxime » : celui-ci aurait vécu autour de l’an 904 et n’aurait donc pas été Maxime le Confesseur ! 41



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Mais revenons maintenant à notre question de départ – celle de la date du Corpus de S. Maxime – à la lumière de cette nouvelle donnée : le corègne de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et Romain Ier Lécapène. Ce co-règne délimite-t-il la période où fut copié L-G, comme l’a supposé Scaliger, ou indique-t-il l’époque de son modèle ? Autrement dit, L-G est-il une partie du Corpus original, ou d’une de ses premières copies ? Pour y répondre, nous allons procéder en deux étapes : nous établirons d’abord les relations qui existent entre L-G et le reste des témoins du Corpus, puis nous montrerons que L-G n’a pas été copié pendant mais après le co-règne de Constantin et Romain. L-G ne conservant que quelques pièces de la fin du Corpus, nous ne pouvons déterminer sa relation aux autres témoins qu’à partir des données fournies par le Computus, la seule pièce attestée intégralement tant en L qu’en Ang et en Va. L’argument qui éclaire plus qu’aucun autre les relations entre ces trois mss se trouve de nouveau dans la table chronologique (« Χρόνων ἀρίθμησις καὶ ὁμάς »), et plus précisément dans la manière dont cette table en deux colonnes a été copiée en Ang et en Va. À vrai dire, le lecteur ne comprendra vraiment notre texte que s’il regarde en même temps les photos de L, de Ang et de Va qui se trouvent en fin de cet article. En Ang, chaque fois qu’on passe d’une colonne ou d’une page à l’autre, parfois même d’une ligne à la suivante au milieu de la même colonne, les noms présentent une chronologie aberrante. Ainsi Nahor, le grand-père d’Abraham, est suivi immédiatement par le roi d’Édom Chusan Rasathaïm (« Χουσαρσαθέμ »; f. 295ra, l. 20 / f. 295rb, l. 1) ; le juge Samson, par le père d’Abraham, Terah (« Θάρρα »; f. 295rb, l. 19 / f. 295va, l. 1 ; Fig. IV-V) ; les Anciens (« οἱ πρεσβύτεροι »), par Goliath (« Γολιάθ »), faute pour Γοθολία (Athalie), mère d’Ochozias et reine de Juda (f. 295va, l. 11/12) ; le Pharaon Ptolémée Épiphane, par la période d’Anarchie et de paix (« ἀναρχίας καὶ εἰρήνης »; f. 295va, l. 45 / f. 295vb, l. 1) ; le roi d’Israël Ochozias par l’empereur romain Claude (f. 295vb, l. 12/13 ; Fig. V) ; l’empereur Théodose Ier par le Pharaon Ptolémée Philométor (f. 295vb, l. 45 / f. 296ra, l. 1) ; l’empereur Caïus (Caligula), par l’empereur Arcadius (f. 296ra, l. 12 / f. 296rb, l. 1 ; Fig. VI). Ces étranges aberrations s’expliquent pleinement lorsqu’on observe la fin et le début de chaque colonne de la table chronologique en L : – au f. 13, la première colonne débute par Adam et aboutit aux Anciens (« οἱ πρεσβύτεροι »)  ; la seconde débute par Chusan Rasathaïm (« Χουσαρσαθέμ ») et finit au roi Ochozias (Fig. I) ;



Basile Markesinis

– au f. 13v, la première colonne débute par la reine de Juda Athalie (« Γοθολία »), et aboutit à l’empereur Caïus (Caligula), tandis que la seconde colonne débute par l’empereur Claude et aboutit à l’empereur Héraclius (Fig. II); – au f. 14, la première colonne commence par l’empereur Constantin III et aboutit au co-règne non encore achevé de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et Romain Ier Lécapène (Fig. III). Il est évident que, par une fidélité peu éclairée à son modèle, le copiste de Ang a copié ligne par ligne les deux colonnes à la fois, sans comprendre qu’il ne pouvait pas commencer à transcrire les noms de la seconde colonne avant d’avoir recopié tous ceux de la première. 44 Bien qu’en Va la liste présente une chronologie normale, elle aussi garde toutefois des traces du modèle employé. Ainsi, à la l. 32 de la première colonne du f. 290, le chiffre η´, indiquant la durée du règne du roi d’Édom Chusan Rasathaïm (« Χουσαρσαθέμ »), est précédé par le mot « ἔτη », superflu à cet endroit, puisque déjà écrit en tête de la même colonne (Fig. VII). Apparemment, le scribe a copié scrupuleusement son modèle : en effet, en L le nom de Chusan Rasathaïm, se trouvant en haut d’une nouvelle colonne, est suivi du mot « ἔτη », ce qui est normal étant donné cette position. D’autre part, le copiste de la liste a laissé les 10 premières lignes de la seconde colonne du f. 290 blanches, pour que cette colonne finisse sur le nom d’Ochozias, comme en L. La dépendance de Ang et de Va par rapport à L, qui ressort clairement des photos que nous venons d’interpréter, n’est pas contredite par l’examen des leçons.

44 Toutefois, des tentatives pour rétablir l’ordre à suivre dans la lecture de ces colonnes n’ont pas manqué. Une première tentative a été faite au moyen de signes diacritiques : le signe renvoie des Anciens (f. 295va, l. 11 ; Fig. V) à Chusan Rasathaïm (f. 295rb, l. 1 ; Fig. IV) ; le signe renvoie d’Ochozias (f. 295vb, l. 12) à Goliath (f. 295va, l. 12 ; Fig. V) ; le signe renvoie de Ptolémée Épiphane (f. 295va, l. 45 ; Fig . V) à Ptolémée Philométor (f. 296ra, l. 1 ; Fig. VI) ; le signe renvoie de Gaïus (f. 296ra, l. 12 ; Fig. VI) à Claude (f. 295vb, l. 13 ; Fig. V). Une seconde tentative a été faite par trois notes plus explicites, d’une main plus tardive : la première (« ζήτει τὸν Θάρρα εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ἄλλου τοῦ καταβατοῦ »), écrite dans la marge inférieure du f. 295 (Fig. IV), en dessous de Nahor, le dernier nom de la première colonne, indique qu’on doit chercher la suite, à savoir le nom de Terah, au début (de la première colonne) de la page suivante (f. 295v) ; la seconde (« ζήτει τὴν ἀναρχίαν εἰς τὸ ἄλλο τὸ καταβατόν »), écrite elle aussi dans la marge inférieure du f. 295 (Fig. IV), en dessous du dernier nom de la seconde colonne, Samson, indique qu’on doit chercher la suite, à savoir la période d’Anarchie, à la page suivante (f. 295v), au début de la seconde colonne ; la troisième note (« ζήτει ὀπίσω »), écrite dans la marge extérieure du f. 295v (Fig. V), en face des Anciens, renvoie pour la suite, à Chusan Rasathaïm, au début de la seconde colonne de la page précédente (f. 295).



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Tout d’abord L, Ang et Va se caractérisent par six fenestrae, 45 toutes ouvertes dans le chap. Β´ (« Περὶ τῆς διαγραφῆς τοῦ μέσου τροχοῦ ») du deuxième livre du Computus ; en voici les détails : – une première fenestra (2 lettres en L et Va, et 4 en Ang) entre δ- et τοῦ τελεῖσθαι 46 (II, Β´, 40 [PG 19, 1257 A11]) ; 47 – une seconde (24 lettres en L, 38 en Ang, et 25 en Va) entre κἀν τοῖς το et ἔτεσιν (II, Β´, 64-65 [1257 C7]) ; – une troisième (21 lettres en L, 20 en Ang, et 24 en Va) entre τὴν τῆς et εἰς Κυριακῆς ἡμέραν (II, Β´, 65-66 [1257 C8-9]) ; – une quatrième (20 lettres en L, 23 en Ang, et 18 en Va) entre τοῦ νομικοῦ et Πάσχα (II, Β´, 66-67 [1257 C10]) ; – une cinquième (16 lettres en L, 14 en Ang et en Va) entre τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι et μόνῃ στιγμῇ (II, Β´, 68-69 [1257 C11-12]) ; – une sixième (74 lettres [1 et 1/5 l.] en L, 67 [1 et 1/7 l.] en Ang, et 61 [1 l.] en Va) entre μηδὲ μίαν στιγμὴν et κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν (II, Β´, 70-72 [1257 C13-14]). Vingt autres fenestrae, en L, Anga.corr. et Va, affectent la table chronologique (« Χρόνων ἀρίθμησις καὶ ὁμάς ») ; en effet, on ne voit aucun chiffre à la place réservée aux années du monde à hauteur de chacune des personnes de la liste qui, à partir de Sem, fils de Noé, se succèdent jusqu’aux Anciens (IV, 13-32 [PG 19, 1272 D11 – 1273 A14]). Commencée à partir de Seth, υλε´ = 435 (IV, 3 [1272 D2]), l’annotation des années du monde s’arrête à Noé, ͵βρμβ´ = 2142 (IV, 12 [1272 D10]), pour ne reprendre qu’avec Chusan Rasathaïm ͵γϠθ´ = 3909 (IV, 33 [1273 A15]). Pour obtenir dans une seconde colonne l’année du monde de chaque personne de la table, on procède de la manière suivante : à l’année du monde du prédécesseur on ajoute les chiffres de la première colonne indiquant soit l’âge que la personne en question avait lors de la naissance de son successeur ou lors d’un événement important, soit la durée d’un règne ou d’un régime. Si, suivant ce procédé, on ajoute à l’année du monde ͵βρμβ´ = Comme J. M. Moore (The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius [Cambridge Classical Studies], Cambridge, 1965, p. 172), L. Perria (Un nuovo codice [voir n. 25], p. 51, n. 1 ; Iacobini – Perria, Un Vangelo [voir n. 24], p. 87) et J. Irigoin (La tradition des textes grecs. Pour une critique historique [L’Âne d’or], Paris, 2003, p. 105-110) l’ont déjà noté à propos du Polybe du Vaticanus gr. 124, Éphrem pousse si loin sa minutie que, tenant compte de toutes les lacunes de son modèle – des plus grandes jusqu’à celles d’une lettre –, lorsqu’il laisse une fenestra, il reproduit sur chaque ligne le même nombre de syllabes que son modèle. 46 Cette fenestra, le copiste du Monacensis gr. 363, un des apographes de Va, a préféré la remplacer par sa conjecture (δ)ιά. 47 La première des deux références renvoie à la nouvelle édition du Computus que nous avons entreprise avec Monsieur J. Lempire. 45



Basile Markesinis

2142 (qui est l’année où Noé engendra Sem), tous les chiffres qui dans la première colonne marquent l’âge des personnes, depuis Sem jusqu’aux Anciens, on obtient pour Chusan Rasathaïm l’année du monde ͵δρμβ´ = 4142, 48 très différente de l’année ͵γϠθ´ = 3909 que lui attribue en fait la table chronologique. Il n’y a donc pas de doute que certains des chiffres de la première colonne (marquant l’âge des personnes) ont été mal copiés. – La première erreur à relever est sûrement celle qui situe la naissance de Terah en l’an σο´ = 270 (IV, 21 [1273 A3]) de Nahor. Or, comme Gen. 11, 24 l’affirme, Nahor a donné naissance à Terah à l’âge de 79 ans. La faute est survenue par une confusion des formes rondes de ΟΘ´ (79) avec celles de CΟ´ (270). 49 – Une seconde faute est celle qui indique ν´ = 50 ans pour la durée du régime des Anciens (IV, 32 [1273 A14]) ; selon Georges le Syncelle, ce régime n’a duré que ιη´ = 18 ans. 50 La faute a été produite cette fois par l’absorption de l’haste de l’I dans le premier trait vertical du H, et la confusion, assez commune, de H avec Ν. 51 Il y a d’autres chiffres susceptibles d’avoir été faussés. Ce sont : – celui qui situe la naissance de Lévi en l’an πε´ = 85 (IV, 25 [1273 A7]) de la vie de Jacob ; pour Georges le Syncelle, elle a eu lieu alors que le Patriarche était dans sa πβ´ = 82e année ; 52 une disparition de l’extrémité droite du B oncial a probablement amené un copiste à lire E au lieu de B ;

La main tardive qui, suivant le même procédé, a entrepris de suppléer en Ang les années du monde manquantes, de Sem aux Anciens, a annoté pour ces derniers l’année du monde 4104 ; si à ce chiffre on ajoute les η´ ans du règne de Chusan Rasathaïm, on obtient pour lui l’année du monde 4112, alors qu’on s’attendrait à 4142 ; cela tient à une erreur propre à Ang, dans lequel la naissance de Phalec a eu lieu alors qu’Éber était âgé de ρδ´ = 104 ans, au lieu de ρλδ´ = 134. 49 Cf.  F. Ronconi, La traslitterazione dei testi greci. Una ricerca tra paleografia e filologia (Quaderni della Rivista di Bizantinistica, 7), Spoleto, 2003, p. 89-90, 94 et 96 ; Irigoin, La tradition des textes grecs [voir n. 45], p. 17. 50 Cf.  A. Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chronographica (BSGRT), Leipzig, 1984, p. 175, 24 et 204, 2-3 ; voir aussi Chronographia brevis ex cod. Coislin. CXCIII fol. 242v, éd. C. de Boor, Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula historica (BSGRT), Leipzig, 1880, p. 219, 17. 51 Cf.  Ronconi, La traslitterazione [voir n. 49], p. 83 et 89. 52 Cf.  Georg. Sync. Ecl. [voir n. 50], p. 120, 3 ; voir aussi Chron. brevis [voir n. 50], p. 219, 11. 48



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

– celui qui situe la naissance d’Amram en l’an ξβ´ = 62 (IV, 27 [1273 A9]) de Caath ; selon Georges le Syncelle, elle a eu lieu alors qu’il avait ξ´ = 60 ans ; 53 – enfin celui qui assigne λβ´ = 32 (IV, 31 [1273 A13]) ans à la durée du pouvoir de Josué sur les Hébreux ; selon Georges le Syncelle, Josué n’eut le pouvoir que pendant κζ´ = 27 ans. 54 Quoi qu’il en soit, si on refait l’addition, en y intégrant les chiffres du Syncelle, on obtient pour Chusan Rasathaïm exactement l’année du monde ͵γϠθ´ = 3909 ! Pour le reste, tout au long du Computus, L, Ang et Va ont encore en commun quelques fautes mineures. μηδὲ μίαν … ἡμέραν διαίρεσιν pour μηδὲ μίαν … ἡμέρας διαίρεσιν (I, Η´, 25 [PG 19, 1225 A14]) ; καυτὸς pour καυτὸν (I, Η´, 48 [1225 C8]) ; τῆς τε τῶν ἐμβολίμων ἡ ἀρτιότης pour ἥ τε τῶν ἐμβολίμων ἡ ἀρτιότης (I, Ι´, 8 [1228 B67]) ; κέκτηται pour κέκτηνται (I, ΙΑ´, 6 [1228 C5-6]) ; ἑξηκοστὸν (ἐξηκοστὸν Va) pour ἑξηκοστὴν (I, ΙΒ´, 19 [1229 A9]) ; τὴν pour τὰς (I, ΙΓ´, 17 [1229 D10]) ; ἐκ pour εἰς (titre de I, ΚΒ´ [1233 C5-6]) ; l’om. par homoiotéleuton de τοῦ après αὐτοῦ (I, ΚΒ´, 4 [1240 C7]) ; ἐπὶ pour ἐπεὶ (IΙ, Β´, 42 [1257 A14]) ; τρίτη (γ´ Va) pour δευτέρᾳ (II, Ε´, 49 [1261 D6]) ; φιλοπόνως pour φιλοπόνων (III, Α´, 2 [1264 A12]) ; l’om. par saut du même au même de (ἐντ)υγχανόντων, ἔν τ(ε τοῖς) (III, Α´, 2-3 [1264 A12]) ; ια´pour ιγ´ (III, Ζ´, β´, 8 [1269 B1]) ; ξξ´pour ξζ´ (III, Ζ´, δ´, 3 [1269 C1]) ; συμπεριβάλλοντας pour συμπαραλαβόντας (III, Ζ´, θ´, 11 [1272 A11]) ; 55 Ἀράμ pour Ἀμράμ (IV, 28 [1275 A10]) ; l’om. de ὁ après Ἰουστῖνος (IV, 151 [1276 C19]). 56 53 Cf.  Georg. Sync. Ecl. [voir n. 50], p. 126, 3 ; voir aussi Chron. brevis [voir n. 50], p. 219, 13. 54 Cf.  Georg. Sync. Ecl. [voir n. 50], p. 175, 23 et 204, 2 ; voir aussi Anonymi Chronographia Syntomos e codice Matritensi No. 121 (nunc 4701), éd. A. Bauer (BSGRT), Leipzig, 1909, p. 12, 9 ; Chron. brevis [voir n. 50], p. 219, 16. 55 Le participe présent du verbe συμπεριβάλλω (envelopper entièrement) – un verbe rare par ailleurs (dans le TLG, il ne se rencontre que 13 fois, dont 9 chez Grégoire Palamas !) –, ne s’accorde pas avec le contexte. D. Pétau (Uranologion sive systema variorum authorum qui de sphaera, ac sideribus, eorumque motibus Graecè commentati sunt, Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1630, p. 350, col. b, l. 25 = cf. PG 19, 1272, n. 93) avait proposé de le corriger en συνεπιβάλλοντας. Nous lui avons préféré la conjecture συμπαραλαβόντας. Le verbe συμπαραλαμβάνω (prendre ensemble) ainsi que son dérivé συμπαράληψις sont employés ailleurs dans le Computus (cf. I, ΚΘ´, 7 [1248 A8-9], Θ´, 5 [1225 D11 – 1228 A1] et ΚϚ´, 18 [1225 D11 – 1245 A3] respectivement). La faute doit s’être produite lors de la translittération de l’onciale à la minuscule, par la confusion de l’abréviation de παρὰ en περὶ et par la confusion ΛΑΒ/ΒΑΛ, très fréquente dans les traditions manuscrites (sur ce point, voir Irigoin, La tradition des textes grecs [voir n. 45], p. 17). 56 L’ὁ est attesté en IV, 144 (PG 19, 1276 C12 ; Θεοδόσιος ὁ νέος). L’omission peut s’expliquer par haplographie, facilitée par la forme ronde des trois lettres (Ἰουστῖν)ΟC



Basile Markesinis

Au bout de ce long exposé, nous estimons amplement démontré que LG est dans l’ascendance de Ang et Va. 57 Nous allons maintenant montrer qu’il ne date pas du co-règne de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et Romain Ier Lécapène. Aujourd’hui, compte tenu des précisions apportées par l’historiographie moderne à la chronologie de la dynastie macédonienne, ce co-règne s’étend du 17 décembre 920 au 20 décembre 944. Or les trois manuscrits du scribe Éphrem portant une date se situent après cette période : le tétraévangile de l’Athous, Vatopedinus 949 est daté de 948, 58 l’Organon aristotélicien du Venetus, Marcianus gr. 201, de novembre 954, 59 et le Polybe du Vaticanus gr. 124, soit de 947 soit de 962. 60 Bien sûr, les années 947 et 948 ne sont pas très loin de la dernière année du co-règne (944), de sorte qu’on ne peut pas exclure absolument la possibilité que L-G ait été copié vers la fin de ladite période ; L-G serait alors une œuvre de jeunesse d’Éphrem. Rappelons toutefois que, comme l’a justement observé Andrist, 61 de tous les manuscrits d’Éphrem, celui qui est le plus proche de l’écriture de L-G est le Venetus, Marcianus gr. 201, copié en 954, dix ans après la fin du co-règne (944). Ο qui se succèdent. – Notons encore que Lp.corr., Ang et Va ont σαββάτων pour σαββάτου (I, ΙΕ´, 3 [1233 C13]) ; que L, Ang et Vaa.corr. ont τ´ pour Ϛ´ (I, ΙϚ´, 21 [1233 B13]) ; que La.corr., Ang et Va ont ὑπεραναβεῖν pour ὑπεραναβῆναι (IΙ, Α´, 11 [1253 A10]) ; que La.corr., Ang et Va ont τριασοῦν pour οἱασοῦν (III, Ζ´, β´, 6 [1269 A13]) ; que L, Anga.corr. et Va ont ͵εϞγ´ pour ͵ετϞγ´, et ͵εϞϚ´ pour ͵ετϞγ´ respectivement (IV, 101 et 102 [1276 A8 et 9]) et que La.corr., Anga.corr. et Vaa.corr. ont ͵εϠι´ pour ͵Ϛι´ (IV, 148 [1276 C16]). 57 Un stemma un peu différent du nôtre a été proposé par Capone, Dialoghi [voir n. 14], p. 38-40 ; nous en discuterons les détails dans l’Appendice. 58 Notons toutefois que la souscription qu’on lit au f. 287 est une copie faite d’une main tardive à partir de l’original ; cf. K. Lake – S. Lake, Dated Greek Minuscule Manuscripts to the Year 1200, III. Manuscripts in the Monasteries of Mount Athos and Milan, Boston, 1935, n. 86, Pl. 153 ; A. Diller, Notes on Greek Codices of the Tenth Century, dans Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 78 (1947), p. 186. 59 Cf.  E. Mioni, Codices graeci manuscripti bibliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum, vol. I. Thesaurus antiquus. Codices 1-299 (Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali. Indici e cataloghi, Nuova serie, VI), Roma, 1981, p. 314. 60 Selon la souscription qu’on lit au f. 304, Éphrem acheva le Polybe du Vaticanus gr. 124 le 5 avril de la 5e indiction (cf. Moore, Manuscript Tradition [voir n. 45], p. 10) ; or, cette dernière coïncide soit avec l’an 947, soit avec 962. Perria, après avoir opté pour la première date (Un nuovo codice [voir n. 25], p. 40), resta neutre dans la suite (Un Vangelo [voir n. 24], p. 86) ; entre-temps G. Prato (Il monaco Efrem e la sua scrittura. A proposito di un nuovo codice sottoscritto [Athen. 1], dans Cultura e Civiltà, 6 [1982], p. 109-110) s’était prononcé en faveur de l’an 962. 61 Cf. Andrist, Genavensis gr. 30 [voir n. 14], p. 17-18.



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Mais si L-G est postérieure au co-règne de Constantin et Romain, pourquoi alors la table chronologique ignore-t-elle les phases successives de ce co-règne ? Celui-ci, comme suggéré plus haut (voir p. 267), semble indiquer plutôt l’époque où fut copié le modèle de L-G. En effet, au sens strict, Constantin VII n’a régné, au moins formellement, comme premier empereur, secondé par Romain Ier, que pendant un an, du 17 décembre 920 à décembre 921 ; à cette date, Romain s’est propulsé, de sa propre initiative, à la première place et Constantin s’est retrouvé à la seconde ; dans le nouvel ordre de préséance établi par Lécapène, ses fils, Christophe – co-empereur à partir du 20 mai 921 – et Étienne et Constantin – co-empereurs à partir du 25 décembre 923 –, tenaient les troisième, quatrième et cinquième rangs respectivement, derrière Constantin VII. Cet ordre se maintint jusqu’au 10 octobre 927, date à laquelle Christophe passa à la seconde place et le Porphyrogénète descendit à la troisième. Constantin ne regagna la seconde place qu’à la mort de Christophe, survenue en août 931, et il y resta jusqu’au renversement de Romain, le 20 décembre 944. 62 De toutes ces vicissitudes du co-règne de Constantin VII et Romain er I , la table chronologique du Computus ne souffle mot. Or, la même table ne manque pas de détailler les règnes compliqués des dynasties isaurienne et amorienne, comme p. ex. celui de Constantin VI 63 ou de Michel III, 64 et est attentive aux premières phases du règne de Constantin VII. 65 Très probablement, celui qui a introduit dans la table chronologique la mention du co-règne n’en a connu que le début – lorsque Constantin VII y tenait encore la première place, avant que Romain ne la lui dérobe (décembre 921) et que la promotion de Christophe ne le dégrade à la troisième place (10 octobre 927) ; 66 par conséquent, l’auteur de la fin de cette Cf.  PmbZ2, no 23734 et no 26833. 63 D’abord avec sa mère Irène, puis seul, et enfin écarté par sa mère (cf. IV, 170-173 [PG 19, 1277 A3-6]). 64 D’abord avec sa mère Théodora, puis seul, enfin avec Basile Ier (cf. IV, 180-183 [1277 A13-16]). 65 D’abord avec son oncle Alexandre, puis seul (cf. IV, 187-189 [1277 A18-20]). 66 Par ailleurs, notre hypothèse est soutenue par la table des règnes des empereurs qu’on lit aux f. 64v–65v du Lugdunensis Batavorum, Bibliothecae Publicae gr. 78 (ixe s., pendant le règne de Léon V l’Arménien [813-820]) : la main, qui au xe s. – apparemment après la mort de Christophe (août 931) et avant la chute de Romain (944) – mit la table à jour, ne manqua pas de noter, sans années de règnes, à côté des noms de Romain Ier et Constantin VII, ceux d’Étienne et de Constantin, les deux fils de Romain (cf. A. Tihon, Πτολεμαίου Πρόχειροι Κανόνες. Les Tables Faciles de Ptolémée, vol. 1a. Tables A1 – A2. Introduction, Édition critique [Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 62



Basile Markesinis

liste des empereurs ne peut pas être le scribe Éphrem, qui travailla à la confection de L-G une dizaine d’années (autour de 954) après la fin de ce co-règne tourmenté (20 décembre 944) ; tout simplement, Éphrem, en copiste minutieux qu’il était, 67 a reproduit la mention du co-règne telle qu’il l’a trouvée dans son modèle. Ce modèle ne se réduisait pas au seul Computus, mais il englobait déjà les autres pièces constitutives du Corpus, excepté la Vita, laquelle, transcrite sur un cahier de neuf folios, non signé, semble être entrée dans le Corpus en L-G par les soins du scribe Éphrem. 68 Ce modèle, achevé dans la première année du co-règne, pourrait-il être l’original du Corpus de S. Maxime ? C’est la conclusion qui semble s’imposer ; à notre connaissance, il n’y a strictement rien qui suggère le contraire. Il est sûr en tout cas qu’aucun des manuscrits maximiens que Photios recensa, environ 50 à 75 ans avant 920/921, dans sa Bibliothèque 69 – cod. 192-195 70 – ne correspond au contenu du Corpus constantinopolitain du Confesseur. 59a], Louvain-la-Neuve, 2011, p. 27-28 et 31), et cela en respectant l’ordre hiérarchique des quatre co-empereurs. 67 Voir ci-dessus, n. 45. 68 Voir ci-dessus, p. 259-260, et 261. 69 Sur les discussions que suscite encore la date – entre 838 et 858, voire après 876 – de la Bibliothèque, voir, entre autres, A. Markopoulos, Νέα στοιχεῖα γιὰ τὴ χρονολόγηση τῆς “Βιβλιοθήκης” τοῦ Φωτίου, dans Σύμμεικτα, 7 (1987), p. 165-181 ; L. Canfora, Libri e biblioteche, dans Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, vol. II. La recezione e l’attualizzazione del testo, Roma, 1995, p. 29-64 ; J. Schamp, Le projet pédagogique de Photios, dans P. Van Deun – C. Macé (éd.), Encyclopedical Trends in Byzantium ? Proceedings of the International Conference held in Leuven, 6-8 May 2009 (OLA, 212), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, 2011, p. 67-75. Tout récemment encore, F. Ronconi (The Patriarch and the Assyrians: New Evidence for the Date of Photios’s Library, dans Segno e Testo, 11 [2013], p. 387-395 ; Idem, Pour la datation de la Bibliothèque de Photius. La Myriobiblos, le Patriarche et Rome, dans E. Juhász [éd.], Byzanz und das Abendland, II. Studia Byzantino-Occidentalia [Antiquitas – Byzantium – Renascentia, XII (Bibliotheca Byzantina, II)], Budapest, 2014, p. 135-153) a proposé une nouvelle date : Photius aurait mis son point final à la Bibliothèque – ou au moins à une première version – dans les années 870-871, c’est-à-dire après qu’il eut été excommunié (février 870) lors de la xe session du Concile Constantinopolitain de 869-870, et avant qu’il parte pour l’exil. Le même Ronconi, au bout de son analyse stratigrafique du Venetus, Marcianus gr. 450 (L’automne du patriarche. Photios, la Bibliothèque et le Venezia, Bibl. Naz. Marc., gr. 450, dans J. Signes Codoñer – I. Pérez Martín [éd.], Textual Transmission in Byzantium : between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung [Lectio. Studies in the Transmission of Texts and Ideas, 2], Turnhout, 2014, p. 93-128), considère « vraisemblable que la Bibliothèque soit le résultat d’un travail commencé vers l’automne de la vie du savant, plus précisément lors de son premier patriarcat, et qui pourrait ne pas s’être interrompu à sa mort » (ibidem, p. 119). 70 Cf. éd. R. Henry, Photius. Bibliothèque, t. III. « Codices » 186-222 (Collection byzantine), Paris, 1962, p. 74-89.



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Appendice Mise au point sur la relation existant entre le Vaticanus gr. 1502 et le Genavensis, Bibliothecae Publicae et Universitatis 30 Ayant établi depuis longtemps notre stemma pour le Computus, nous avons parcouru avec intérêt la nouvelle édition critique des Dialogi IV-V par A. Capone, 71 et nous avons été étonné par le rapport qu’il croit pouvoir établir entre G et Va. 72 Le classement des deux manuscrits qu’il propose diffère en effet du nôtre. 73 Pour nous, L-G se trouve dans l’ascendance de Ang et de Va, et la preuve que nous venons d’en donner semble irréfutable. 74 Pour Capone en revanche, à l’intérieur de la « famiglia y », composée de G (il ignore l’existence de L), Va et les descendants de ce dernier, 75 les manuscrits G et Va 76 « si distribuiscono chiaramente in due rami : a uno appartengono i manoscritti A (= notre Va) » et ses descendants, « all’altro il codice G », 77 et « nessuno dei manoscritti superstiti derivi (sic) da G, il testimone greco più antico della tradizione ». 78 Pour arriver à ces conclusions, Capone s’est basé sur un certain nombre de leçons qui ne se lisent qu’en G et semblent donc exclure que ce manuscrit ait jamais été copié ; quelques exemples en sont donnés dans une note, 79 et le reste, on doit le trouver en parcourant l’apparat critique. Voici la liste de ces leçons, telle que nous avons pu la reconstituer :

Capone, Dialoghi [voir n. 14]. Le Romanus, Angelicus gr. 120 n’est pas mentionné par Capone : les Dialogi IV-V en sont en effet absents. 73 Dans l’édition du Dialogus IV publiée en 1970 par Ch. Bizer (Studien zu pseudoathanasianischen Dialogen der Orthodoxos und Aëtios, Bonn, 1970, p. 286-287) les manuscrits sont classés sommairement par familles, sans que les rapports à l’intérieur des familles ne soient discutés. 74 Voir ci-dessus p. 267-271. 75 Il s’agit des manuscrits suivants : Monacensis gr. 363, Vaticanus gr. 505 (= N), Vaticanus, Palatinus gr. 76 (= R), ainsi que les Vindobonenses Theol. gr. 109 (= C) et 307 (= T). 76 Pour se référer au Vaticanus gr. 1502, Capone emploie le sigle A. Dans ce qui suit, nous gardons pour ce manuscrit notre sigle Va, tout en y joignant entre parenthèses le sigle de Capone. 77 Cf.  Capone, Dialoghi [voir n. 14], p. 38. 78 Cf.  ibidem, p. 39. 79 Cf.  ibidem, p. 38, n. 125. 71 72



Basile Markesinis

Dialogus IV 1) l’om. de ἁγίου (tit. [éd. Capone, Dialoghi [voir n. 14], p. 68]) ; 2) ἂν ex corr. pour ἀνθρώπου (117 [ibidem, p. 76]) ; 3) l’om. d’ΟΡΘ (170 [ibidem, p. 80]) ; 4) l’om. d’ΑΠΟΛ (171 [ibidem]) ; 5) l’om. d’ΟΡΘ (172 [ibidem]) ; 6) εἰλήφα pour εἰλήφασιν (175 [ibidem]) ; 7) κωλλώμενος pour κολλώμενος (191 [ibidem, p. 82]) ; 8) Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ψυχῆς χωρισμὸς θάνατος (corrigé en Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος χωρισμὸς τῆς ψυχῆς θάνατος) à la place d’Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος χωρισμὸς τῆς ψυχῆς θάνατος (224 [ibidem, p. 84]) ; 9) ψυχῇ pour ψυχὴ (247 [ibidem, p. 86]) ; 10) ζωόσας pour ζωώσας (291 [ibidem, p. 88]) ; Dialogus V 11) Χριστοῦ pour Θεοῦ (12 [ibidem, p. 134]) ; 12) l’om. de καὶ (91 [ibidem, p. 140]) ; 13) l’add. de ὁ devant Θεὸς (95 [ibidem, p. 142]) ; 14) l’om. de Ὁ (102 [ibidem]) ; 15) l’om. de καὶ (109 [ibidem]) ; 16) l’add. de ὁ devant ἐξ (152 [ibidem, p. 146]) ; 17) la correction in marg. de ὥστε en οὖν (154 [ibidem]) ; 18) l’itération de τῷ (422 [ibidem, p. 166]) ; 19) αὐτὰ καὶ (tit. fin. [ibidem, p. 172]). Interpelé par le classement de Capone, nous sommes allés vérifier les passages énumérés ci-dessus tant en G qu’en Va (= A de Capone). Voici, numéro par numéro, les résultats de notre enquête. no 1) Au f. 16, l. 1 de G, on lit bel et bien ἁγίου, en toutes lettres. Ch. Bizer aussi n’avait remarqué là aucune omission. 80 no 2) Comme on peut le voir au f. 16v, l. 20 de G, cette correction classicisante consiste à ajouter un accent grave sur ἀν- et à biffer le -ου, lequel pourtant reste encore visible. Ch. Bizer se demandait si cette correction, qui ne correspond guère à la manière de faire des Grecs, ne provenait pas de Th. De Bèze. 81 À noter qu’une autre correction de G (f. 17v, l. 37), Cf.  Bizer, Studien, p. 307. Cf.  ibid., p. 318, l. 1256, 27 : « corr. in ἂν : β (= G)c (= Beza ?) ». Th. de Bèze a utilisé G pour son editio princeps des Dialogi I-V, parue à Genève en 1570 (cf. Bizer, Studien [voir n. 73], p. 24 et 59 ; Andrist, Genavensis gr. 30 [voir n. 14], p. 25 ; Capo80 81



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

celle de ἄνθρωπον en ἄνθρωπος (IV, 300) 82 avec adjonction d’une ponctuation après ce mot corrigé se lit également en Va (= A), f. 273ra, l. 48. 83 nos 3-5) Au f. 17, l. 7-8 de G, on constate un phénomène analogue à celui que Capone a déjà relevé au même endroit en Va (= A), f. 272ra, l. 32, 34 et 35 : une main, on ne sait pas si c’est celle du scribe ou celle d’un correcteur, ni de quand elle date, a effacé 84 les erreurs que le scribe de G avait d’abord commises en y changeant, par inadvertance, l’ordre des noms des interlocuteurs de ΟΡΘ. … ΑΠ. … ΟΡΘ. en AΠ. … ΟΡΘ. … ΑΠ. 85 Tandis qu’en Va (= A) les espaces occupés par les fautes corrigées ont été remplis par les noms corrects – faciles d’ailleurs à retrouver pour un lecteur attentif –, en G ils sont restés vides. 86 Dès lors l’apparat critique doit être reformulé de la manière suivante : 170-172 ΟΡΘ. … ΑΠ. … ΟΡΘ.] ΑΠ. … ΟΡΘ. … ΑΠ. Ga.corr. Va (= A)a.corr., om. Gp.corr.. no 6) Comme on a pu le constater au f. 17, l. 10 de G, il s’agit de la forme abrégée de εἰλήφασιν (εἰλήφα, avec une barre en dessous du -φ-) ; les mots οἱ ἅγιοι qui précèdent, de même que la place de l’accent, ne laissent aucun doute. no 8) À regarder de près le f. 17, l. 38 de G, on constate qu’initialement n’étaient écrits que les signes /, devant le mot θάνατος, et //, devant les mots τῆς ψυχῆς, de sorte que l’ordre des mots Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ψυχῆς χωρισμός, θάνατος λέγεται a changé en Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος θάνατος τῆς ψυχῆς χωρισμὸς λέγεται, ce qui en a déformé le sens. Pour le restaurer, une encre plus foncée a laissé le // devant τῆς ψυχῆς, a introduit un nouveau / devant χωρισμὸς et a ajouté // au-dessus du / initial (lire Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος χωρισμὸς τῆς ψυχῆς, θάνατος). Si on regarde maintenant en Va (= A), f. 272va, l. 19-20, on constate avec étonnement que le scribe de ce manuscrit a reproduit exactement l’ordre des mots de G après sa première et malheureuse correction : Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος θάνατος, τῆς ψυχῆς ne, Dialoghi [voir n. 14], p. 17). C’est en préparant cette édition que de sa propre main Th. de Bèze a apporté quelques corrections en G (cf. Andrist, op. cit., p. 19 ; Capone, op. cit., p. 16). 82 Elle n’est pas signalée par Capone. 83 On peut se demander si ce n’est pas le scribe de Va (= A) qui a introduit cette correction en G au moment où il l’a transcrit. 84 Notons qu’au même f. 17 et aux l. 5 et 25 respectivement sont lavées également les répétitions d’ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς ὢν Θεὸς ὁ Λόγος (IV, 167 [éd. Capone, Dialoghi [voir n. 14], p. 80]), de καθάπερ γὰρ ἑνωθεῖσα ψυχὴ σώματι (IV, 202-203 [p. 82]) et d’ἑνωθέντα (IV, 202). 85 Aux l. 7-8, des traces des leçons lavées sont encore visibles. 86 Plus nuancé que Capone, Bizer (Studien [voir n. 73], p. 322, 1257, 40-42) avait explicité ces omissions comme des « lacunae ».



Basile Markesinis

χωρισμὸς λέγεται ; puis, se rendant compte du non-sens de la phrase, il a écrit la lettre α au-dessus des mots ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, la lettre β au-dessus des mots τῆς ψυχῆς χωρισμός, et la lettre γ au-dessus de θάνατος, restaurant ainsi l’ordre des mots qu’on trouve en G avant sa première correction : Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ψυχῆς χωρισμός, θάνατος λέγεται. Apparemment, le scribe de Va (= A) n’a pas connu la seconde correction de G, celle de « l’encre plus foncée » (voir ci-dessus), qui semble lui être postérieure. L’édition aurait dû éditer le texte de Ga.corr., très clair si on remarque (et reprend) sa ponctuation : Ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ψυχῆς χωρισμός, θάνατος λέγεται, ἢ οὔ ; Dialogus V no 11) Comparée au tracé élégant de la lettrine Θ(εοῦ) à la l. 40 du f. 273rb, l’épaisseur et la noirceur de la même lettrine à la l. 44 du même folio, ne laissent pas de doute : il s’agit là d’une correction, et Va (= A)a.corr., comme G, avait Χ(ριστο)ῦ. no 12) Au f. 18v, l. 3 de G, on lit bel et bien (Θεὸς) καὶ (νῦν μετὰ τὸ ταῦτα γενέσθαι) ; no 13) À lire l’apparat critique de Capone en V, 95, on retire l’impression qu’à cet endroit G a toujours eu Εἰ ὁ Θεός. Or notre inspection du f. 18v, l. 4 de G a montré que l’ἐι (sic), accompagné d’une flèche (^) d’insertion infra lin., a été ajouté supra lin. d’une main postérieure. Au f. 17, l. 44, une flèche analogue écrite infra lin. sert à marquer l’insertion d’un (ἐ)μ(ψύχοι) supra lin. (IV, 233), le mu en question provenant indubitablement d’une main tardive. 87 Or, au f. 4v, l. 41 et 42 de G, dans le Dial. I, des flèches analogues (^) ont été employées par Th. de Bèze pour insérer dans le texte deux de ses corrections marginales. 88 Par contre, le scribe Éphrem, pour insérer ses corrections dans le texte, recourt à l’obel (÷). 89 Notre inspection du même passage au f. 273vb, l. 45 de Va (= A) a montré que la leçon originale n’y était pas non plus Εἰ Θεός. D’habitude en Va (= A) le noyau de la ligature epsilon iôta est de forme allongée et Ce que Capone ne signale pas. Avant lui, Bizer (Studien [voir n. 73], p. 328, 1261, 15) avait noté comme leçon de G ἐμψύχοι, sans plus de précision. En fait, à cet endroit, G portait ἐψύχοι, et la correction dont il est question en a fait ἐμψύχοι. La leçon ἐψύχοι se lisait également en Va (= A), f. 272va, l. 35, avant qu’une main ne transforme l’iôta final en ypsilon (lire ἐψύχου), que Bizer a corrigé tacitement en ἐψύχον. 88 Pour marquer respectivement l’add. in marg. d’un ἢ après ἢ ἀναίτιον ὂν (PG 28, 1145 B6) et d’un -ν après τό (1145 B11). – Pour l’attribution de ces corrections à la main de Th. de Bèze, voir ci-dessus n. 81. 89 Cf. f. 4v, l. 44 ; f. 9, l. 17 ; f. 18v, l. 36 ; f. 19v, l. 34. 87



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

la haste ascendante, de gauche à droite, très oblique. 90 Or à la l. 45, le noyau de la ligature a la forme ronde d’un omicron, et les deux hastes, ascendante et descendante, lui sont accolées maladroitement, de sorte qu’elles forment une verticale, légèrement inclinée à droite. De plus, l’esprit doux actuel laisse apparaître les traces de l’esprit rude original. Par conséquent, la leçon originale tant en Va (= A) qu’en G était la même, et l’apparat critique doit être reformulé de la manière suivante : Εἰ Θεὸς] ὁ θ(εὸ)ς Ga.corr. Va (= A)a.corr., εἰ ὁ θ(εὸ)ς Gp.corr.. no 14) Au f. 18v, l. 7 de G on lit très clairement l’article Ὁ (γὰρ νῦν κληθεὶς Ἰησοῦς), d’ailleurs nécessaire devant γὰρ dans la phrase. no 15) Au f. 18v, l. 10 de G on lit bel et bien καὶ (σώζει Χριστός). no 16) Si on examine de près le f. 18v, l. 30 de G, on constate que l’ὁ en question, qui n’aurait aucun sens, n’est autre chose qu’un gros point, après le mot σὰρξ (οὐδενὸς ἀν[θρώπ]ου ἡ σὰρξ· ἐξ οὐ[ρα]νοῦ) ; un petit point qu’on pourrait prendre comme l’esprit rude au-dessus de l’ο présumé, n’est autre chose que la fin « bouletée » de la ligature epsilon-xi qu’on lit à la l. 29 (ἐξ ενώσεως [sic]). 91 no 17) La correction in marg. de ὥστε en οὖν ne peut en aucune manière influencer la discussion sur le rapport entre G et Va (= A) : notre inspection du f. 18v, l. 32 de G, a montré que l’οὖν en question provient de la même main que celle qui a apporté les corrections marginales au f. 19, c’est-à-dire celle de Th. de Bèze. 92 no 19) Notre examen du tit. fin. au f. 20v, l. 34 de G a montré que même ce manuscrit, à l’instar de Va (= A), f. 276vb, l. 16), a αὐτάς – et non αὐτὰ καί –, l’-ας étant écrit en forme abrégée ( ) au-dessus du tau. La note critique le concernant doit être enlevée. Les nos restants, 7, 9-10 et 18 ne sont que des fautes d’orthographe 93 ou encore une itération, évidemment faciles à corriger. Ayant passé en revue la liste des leçons que Capone a présentées comme propres à G, et avant de conclure notre exposé, nous ne manquerons pas de nous arrêter sur le cas suivant. Dans l’apparat critique de V, 159, l’érudit italien a noté, sans autre précision, que la famille y (= G, Va [= A] et ses descendants) a λέγεις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ au lieu de ἐξ οὐρανοῦ λέγεις. Cf. f. 273vb, l. 36 (λαβ)εῖ(ν) et l. 44 (ἔχ)ει. La même fin « bouletée » est encore observée à la l. 32 : ἐξ οὐ(ρα)νοῦ. 92 Cf. l. 7 θεῖον pour ἀνθρώπινον ; l. 9 οὖν pour οὐκ ; l. 12 ὡ(μολόγησας) pour ὁμολόγησας ; l. 29 l’add. de θ(ε)ὸς après θ(ε)ῷ ; l. 33 λέγων pour ἑκών ; l. 43 λόγῳ pour χ(ριστ)ῷ. 93 À ces quatre fautes d’orthographe il faut encore ajouter les deux suivantes : ὠφθῆναι pour ὀφθῆναι (IV, 37 [p. 70]) et τὸν λόγων pour τῶν λόγων (V, 481 [p. 172]). 90 91



Basile Markesinis

Il lui a échappé qu’en G (f. 18v, l. 33) et par des signes / et //, pareils à ceux que nous avons déjà rencontrés plus haut, en IV, 224, l’ordre des mots a été changé de λέγεις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ en ἐξ οὐρανοῦ λέγεις (lire ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ λέγεις). Ce nouvel arrangement ne porte aucun préjudice au rapport entre G et Va (= A) : soit que les dits signes aient été introduits en G après la confection de Va (= A), soit que le copiste de Va (= A), vu de leur petitesse, ne les ait pas aperçus ou encore qu’il ait préféré de garder ἐξ οὐρανοῦ λέγεις pour éviter la suite de deux ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Notons que le même choix a été fait par les anciennes éditions de Th. De Bèze (Athanasii Dialogi V, de sancta Trinitate. Basilii libri IIII, adversus impium Eunomium. Anastasii et Cyrilli compendiaria orthodoxa fidei explicatio …, Genève, 1570, p. 173) et de P. Felckmann (Operum sancti patris nostri Athanasii archiepiscopi Alexandrini Tomus Secundus, continens ea, quæ a diversis interpretibus ex græco in latinum sermonem conversa sunt …, Heidelberg, 1600, p. 213). À la suite de ce qui vient d’être exposé, l’affirmation de Capone « che nessuno dei manoscritti superstiti » de la famille y « derivi da G » perd toute sa substance. La seule possibilité envisageable est que Va (= A), et à travers lui ses copies, descende de G. 94

94 Saisissons ici l’occasion de signaler quelques corrections que notre relecture de G et Va (= A), mais aussi du Vaticanus gr. 504 (= Q de Capone) – le plus ancien manuscrit (1105) de la famille x – nous a permis d’apporter tant au texte qu’à l’apparat critique des Dial. IV-V. Concernant le texte, tout d’abord il faut y intégrer les quatre mots suivants qui, bien que présents dans les trois manuscrits ainsi que dans l’édition du Dial. IV par Bizer, sont paradoxalement absents du texte critique de Capone : ἦν devant Θεὸς (IV, 165 [éd. Capone, Dialoghi [voir n. 14], p. 80]), ἐν devant αὐτῇ (IV, 209 [p. 82]), τὰς devant ψυχικὰς (IV, 262 [p. 86]), et αὐτὸν devant ὅλον (IV, 311 [p. 90]). On corrigera aussi la forme erronée φάγετε, après ἐάν, en φάγητε (IV, 267 [p. 86]), ainsi que les coquilles Οὐκ κατηξίωσεν (IV, 280 [p. 88]), παραλλέλου (V, 388 [p. 164]) et ἀμέρους (V, 483 [p. 172]), respectivement en οὐ κατηξίωσεν, παραλλήλου et ἀμεροῦς. Il faut enfin changer l’ordre des mots ἐνεργῶν τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν en τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν ἐνεργῶν (V, 394-395 [p. 164]), qui est attesté en G, Va (= A) et Q.



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Fig. I – Lugdunensis Batavorum, Scaligeranus gr. 33, f. 13 [© Leiden, University Library]



Basile Markesinis

Fig. II – Lugdunensis Batavorum, Scaligeranus gr. 33, f. 13v [© Leiden, University Library]



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Fig. III – Lugdunensis Batavorum, Scaligeranus gr. 33, f. 14 [© Leiden, University Library]



Basile Markesinis

Fig. IV – Romanus, Angelicus gr. 120, f. 295 [with permission of the Ministry for Arts and Culture and Tourism; no reproductions permitted]



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Fig. V – Romanus, Angelicus gr. 120, f. 295v [with permission of the Ministry for Arts and Culture and Tourism; no reproductions permitted]



Basile Markesinis

Fig. VI – Romanus, Angelicus gr. 120, f. 296 [with permission of the Ministry for Arts and Culture and Tourism; no reproductions permitted]



LA DATE DE LA COMPOSITION DU CORPUS DE S. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR

Fig. VII – Vaticanus gr. 1502, f. 290 [© 2019 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; reproduced with permission of Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved]



Juan Nadal Cañellas (†)

Ramón Llull Y El Mundo Bizantino* Abstract – This posthumously published article focuses on Ramon Llull, a great mystic theologian and writer from Majorca, and more particularly on his profound knowledge of the Eastern and Byzantine world. En vísperas de la conmemoración del séptimo centenario de la muerte de Ramón Llull, aquel genio medieval a quien el interés apostólico condujo a otorgar al mundo bizantino una atención insólita en su tiempo, me es especialmente grato dedicar a mi compañero y amigo de vieja data, Joseph Munitiz, bizantinista de vocación también él, unos apuntes sobre la relación del sabio mallorquín con el Imperio cristiano de Oriente. La principal amenaza a la civilización europea, después de la invasión de los territorios del ya cristianizado Imperio romano por los bárbaros del Norte, quienes, sin embargo, fueron muy pronto romanizados, vino de la expansión musulmana. El Islam invadió Europa por el sur, tanto en Occidente como en Oriente, atenazándola entre sus garras. Su dominio ha durado, en algunos territorios del Este europeo, hasta fechas relativa* The untimely death of the author made it difficult for the editors to finish this article. Not being specialists on Ramon Llull ourselves (nor sufficiently proficient in Spanish), we gladly and gratefully accepted the help of Fernando Domínguez Reboiras and Tomás Fernández. It was pointed out to us that the article does not in all aspects present the most recent status quaestionis, for example concerning the name Blanquerna/ Blaquerna, or concerning Llull’s influence on Kircher, Leibniz and Sebastián Izquierdo. However, since these issues do not affect the essence of this article and remedying them would result in parts of the article having to be rewritten, it was decided not to intervene. For most texts we did change the references and quotations in the article to the most recent edition available, except in the case of the following three works: Blanquerna = Llibre d’Evast i de Blanquerna, ed. S. Galmés – M. Ferrà (Obres de Ramon Llull, IX), Palma de Mallorca, 1914; Doctrina pueril = Doctrina pueril, ed. M. Obrador y Bennassar (Obres de Ramon Llull, I), Palma de Mallorca, 1906, pp. 1–199; Liber de Sancto Spiritu = Liber de Sancto Spiritu, ed. I. Salzinger, Raimundi Lulli Opera Omnia, II, Mainz, 1722. For the most up to date bibliography we refer to the excellent Ramon Llull Database of the University of Barcelona (http://www.ub.edu/llulldb/index.asp). A large selection of works by Raimundus Lullus, together with an updated ‘clavis’ of all his works, is now available in the series Corpus Christianorum. Scholars Version. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 289–319 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117153

JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

mente recientes, cuando las naciones balcánicas han logrado obtener su propia soberanía. Hace muchos años, siglos incluso, un hombre clarividente había previsto exactamente este problema, igualmente presente en su época, y consagró toda su vida a hacerse oír de los potentes de la tierra para que obrasen en consecuencia y previniesen la amenaza. 1 Este hombre era Ramón Llull, una de las personalidades más geniales, más audaces y emprendedoras del Medioevo europeo. Ramón Llull nació, en 1232 ó 1233, en Mallorca, isla que durante cuatrocientos años había pertenecido al Imperio Romano de Oriente, hasta que fue ocupada por los árabes del emirato de Córdoba en 902, pero que entonces era nuevamente un reino cristiano, reconquistado a los musulmanes por Jaime I de Aragón, el 31 de diciembre de 1229. Durante su juventud, Ramón frecuentaba la corte del reino mallorquín y había trabado amistad con el Infante Jaime, futuro Jaime II de Mallorca, ocho años más joven que él. Jaime II, coronado rey en 1276, a la muerte de su padre, le nombró senescal y mayordomo. 2 A pesar de estar casado con Blanca Picany, de quien había tenido dos hijos, Ramón llevaba una vida licenciosa. Pero, a la edad de treinta y dos años, cambió radicalmente. Según lo que él refiere en su Vita coaetanea, un texto que dictó, hacia el mes de septiembre de 1311, a un monje de la cartuja de Vauvert, cerca de París, tuvo hacia 1267, a sus treinta años de edad, una serie de cinco visiones de Cristo crucificado en cinco noches consecutivas, que le pedía que dejase el mundo y se dedicase enteramente a la conversión de los infieles. Retirado, a causa de esto, a una gruta para consagrarse a la meditación, afirma que recibió una iluminación divina que le inducía a escribir un libro para la conversión de los infieles; un libro que debía ser el mejor libro del mundo. Al mismo tiempo esta iluminación le desvelaba la manera según la cual debía confeccionarse el libro desde el punto de vista estructural, no doctrinal. 3 De ahí nació el Arte combinatorio luliano, un método racional para probar las verdades reveladas. Consciente del peligro que supondría para la cristiandad que los musulmanes convirtieran a su fe a los tártaros, escribe a los responsables de la Universidad de París para prevenirles de que esto va a suceder nisi sapientia et deuotio vestra, qua tota christianitas sustinetur, Saracenorum perfidiae opponat clypeum salutarem (Epistula Raimundi ad studium Parisiense, l. 51-53, ed. F. Domínguez Reboiras, Raimundi Lulli Opera latina 142-153 anno 1309 composita [CCCM, 266], Turnhout, 2017, p. 332). 2 Para la significación e importancia de estas funciones cortesanas, véase: I. Sánchez Casabon, Los cargos de Mayordomo, Senescal y Dapifer en el reinado de Alfonso II de Aragón, en Aragón en la Edad Media, 8 (1989), p. 599-610. 3 Cf.  Vita coaetanea § 2-9, ed. H. Harada, Raimundi Lulli Opera Latina 178-189 Parisiis MCCCXI composita (CCCM, 34), Turnhout, 1980, p. 272-278. 1



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

El hecho milagroso de su iluminación, expuesto por Ramón en la narración de su Vita coaetanea, está representado en una de las miniaturas del manuscrito llamado Breviculum de Kalsruhe, un códice magníficamente miniado, encargado por el médico de la corte real de Francia, Tomás de Myésier, discípulo de Llull, y destinado a ser regalado a la reina Juana de Borgoña-Artois, esposa de Felipe V. 4 En el folio IV, se ve a Ramón en la montaña de Randa, en Mallorca, en el momento de recibir la inspiración celeste de su Arte. Sobre su figura puede leerse esta plegaria: « Dios, que por tu gracia me has manifestado hoy los principios substanciales y accidentales de todo, principios con los cuales me has enseñado a hacer estas dos figuras, concédeme… » Ramón hace aquí alusión a figuras. Se trata de las figuras de su Arte, que materialmente se reduce a un mecanismo, construido con formas geométricas y círculos concéntricos que se combinan para mostrar la correspondencia y perfecta harmonía de los tres órdenes de la existencia: Dios, hombre, mundo. En el centro del primero de estos círculos se encuentra la letra « A », que representa a Dios, y, en su periferia, se hallan, por orden, dieciséis otras letras del alfabeto que suponen igual número de atributos, a los que Llull llama también « dignidades divinas ». Cada uno de estos atributos se halla unido a la « A » central y a los demás atributos por medio de líneas rectas que hacen del círculo un tejido muy complicado de líneas entrecruzadas. Estos dieciséis atributos – que en obras lulianas posteriores se reducirán a nueve – sirven para formar las cuatro figuras principales y pueden ser combinadas de 120 maneras diferentes. De este modo, el Arte de Llull se presenta como un ensayo de metafísica y un método deductivo que tiene por finalidad fundar, en base a una idea unitaria, una ciencia universal, aplicable a todos los conocimientos. Los principios absolutos se identifican con las dignidades divinas y, puesto que éstas no son conocidas sino por las huellas que han dejado en el mundo creado, el hombre debe irse elevando progresivamente, partiendo del mundo sensible, hasta descubrir a Dios (ascensión de la inteligencia). Una vez contempladas las dignidades divinas, la inteligencia desciende a continuación hasta el mundo de la contingencia (descenso de la inteligencia). Este doble movimiento, ascendente y descendente, reviste una importancia capital. Sirve al sistema luliano par librarse de la acusación de ser racionalista y de someter

Bibliothèque de Karlsruhe, ms Sanct Peter, perg. 92. Para la atribución de la dedicatoria del manuscrito a Juana de Borgoña-Artois, como la más verosímil, véase J. N. ­Hillgarth, Ramon Llull i el naixement del lul·lisme (Textos i Estudis de Cultura Catalana, 61), Barcelona, 1998, p. 209-211. 4



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

la fe a la razón. El descenso de la inteligencia, de hecho, presupone la ascensión de ésta hasta Dios, y esta ascensión se realiza por la fe. 5 Y, puesto que nos hemos referido al Arte combinatorio de Llull, añadamos sólo una palabra para hacer notar que este sistema luliano de hallar la verdad por medio de círculos concéntricos y combinaciones de letras, que sedujo a personajes tan célebres como Nicolás von Cues, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Cornelio Agripa von Nettesheim, Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples y Giordano Bruno, y que halló su desarrollo en los trabajos de Leibniz en el siglo XVII 6 y de George Boole hacia mediados del siglo XIX, 7 puede ser considerado, con razón, como un precursor genial El Arte luliano fue, en determinados círculos, especialmente próximos a la orden de los dominicos, calificado de herético a causa de su doctrina sobre la fe y la ciencia, sin tener en cuenta que maestro Ramón había enseñado, sin ser contradicho, hacia finales de 1287, su Ars generalis en la Sorbona, y que el 26 de octubre de 1290 el padre general de los franciscanos, Raymond de Gaufredi, había recomendado por escrito la enseñanza de Llull a los provinciales de Italia; sin considerar tampoco que cuarenta maestros y bachilleres de la universidad de París aprobaron, el 10 de febrero de 1310, su doctrina, y que el 2 de agosto del mismo año, Felipe el Hermoso la recomendaba por carta a toda la cristiandad. El portaestandarte del antilulismo fue el inquisidor general de Aragón, el dominico Nicolás Eymeric que, hacia 1357, redactó un catálogo de supuestas proposiciones heréticas de Llull. Se ha demostrado, sin embargo, que absolutamente todos los pasajes incriminados habían sido contrahechos por el odio antiluliano de Eymeric (cf. J. Perarnau i Espelt, De Ramon Llull a Nicolau Eymerich. Els fragments de l’Ars amativa de Llull, en còpia autògrafa de l’inquisidor Eimeric integrats en les cent tesis antilul·lianes del seu Directorium Inquisitorum, en Arxiu de Textos Catalans Antics, 16 [1997], p. 7-129). Sobre la ortodoxia de Llull existe una abundante bibliografía; pueden consultarse los siguientes artículos: J. Stöhr, Las “Rationes Necessariae” de R. Lull a la luz de sus últimas obras, en EL, 20 (1976), p. 5-52; B. Xiberta, El presumpte racionalisme de Ramòn Llull, en EL, 7 (1963), p. 153-165; Id., La doctrina del maestro Ramón Lull sobre la demonstración de los dogmas, juzgada a la luz de la Historia y de la Teología, en EL, 18 (1974), p. 152-179 (= Studia Monographica et Recensiones, 1 [1947], p. 5-32); B. Mendía, El Bienaventurado Maestro Ramón Llull vindicado de la nota de racionalismo, en Studia Monographica et Recensiones, 11 (1954), p. 135-152. 6 Su Disertatio de arte combinatoria, de 1666, es la mejor crítica y el mejor homenaje que Llull haya recibido jamás. Reconoce sus méritos por haber aplicado sus ideas a las necesidades de la ciencia moderna. La fuente de la admiración del joven Leibniz por el Arte combinatoria de Llull fueron los escritos del célebre jesuita alemán Athanase Kircher (ver G. Gabrieli, Carteggio kircheriano, en Atti della Reale Accademia d’Italia. Rendiconti della classe di scienze morali e storiche, serie VII, vol. II [1940], p. 10-17; J. E. Fletcher, A brief Survey of the unpublished Correspondence of A. Kircher, S. I., en Manuscripta, 13 [1969], p. 150-160) y los del español, igualmente jesuita, Sebastián Izquierdo (R. Ceñal, El P. Sebastián Izquierdo y su ‘Pharus scientiarum’, en Revista de Filosofía 1 [1942], p. 127-154; Id., La combinatoria de Sebastián Izquierdo, Madrid, 1974), uno y otro, defensores incondicionales del pensamiento y del sistema de Ramón Llull. 7 Ver su introducción al The mathematical Analysis of logic. Being an Essay Towards a Calculus of Deductive Reasoning, Cambridge – London, 1847: http://www.gutenberg. org/files/36884/36884-pdf.pdf. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511701337.002]. 5



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

de la lógica matemática moderna, por la creación de un lenguaje artificial, en el que los signos substituyen las operaciones del lenguaje común. Además, su cuarta figura puede pasar como una rudimentaria máquina de calcular e incluso de pensar. 8 No ha sido superfluo referirnos al sistema luliano de hallar la verdad cuando vamos tratar de los contactos de Ramón con el mundo bizantino. Como se verá, Ramón Llull se fijará la tarea de resolver los conflictos que separan a los cristianos orientales de los occidentales, y, para esto, deberá investigar quién posee la verdad en las cuestiones en litigio. De ahí, la función que el Doctor Iluminado, como le llamaban sus discípulos, encomendará a su Ars inveniendi veritatem, en los debates entre los sabios de las dos partes de la cristiandad. Ramón, después de haber recibido la iluminación y haber cambiado de vida, no se interesó enseguida por la cuestión de la unidad de los cristianos. A algunos eruditos modernos esto les llama la atención, especialmente por el hecho de no haber mostrado interés por un acontecimiento significativo de su época, la asamblea ilusoriamente unionista que fue el Concilio II de Lyon, al que no se refiere en ninguna de sus obras. Creemos, sin embargo, que, de ello, existe una explicación plausible. La conversión de Ramón tuvo lugar hacia 1263 ó 1264. De momento, se quedó en Mallorca, convencido de que debía prepararse para la misión que Dios le confiaba. Ésta era – de esto estaba convencido – muy precisa: trabajar en la conversión de los musulmanes y padecer el martirio por amor a Jesucristo. Así pues, compró un esclavo árabe más que para aprender la lengua, para instruirse en el pensamiento islámico, y comenzó a frecuentar el convento de los franciscanos y el Studium arabicum en la Ciudad de Mallorca, poco después de la conquista de Mallorca por Jaime I, en 1229. Quería conocer a fondo la religión del Islam. De hecho, se conservan las notas que, como estudiante, tomó de la obra Las tendencias de

8 A propósito de Ramón Llull como precursor de la informática moderna, se pueden consultar: E. W. Platzeck, La combinatoria luliana. Un nuevo ensayo de exposición e interpretación de la misma a la luz de la filosofía general europea, en Revista de Filosofía, 12-13 (1953-1954), p. 575-609 i 125-165; Id., Raimund Lull. Sein Leben. Seine Werke. Die Grundlagen seines Denkens, I-II (Bibliotheca Franciscana, 5-6), Roma – Düsseldorf, 1962-1964; Id., Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz y Raimundo Lull, en EL, 16 (1972), p. 129193; J. Carreras i Artau, De Ramón Llull a los modernos ensayos de formación de una lengua universal, Barcelona, 1946; A. H. Maróstica, Ars combinatoria and time: Llull, Leibniz and Peirce, en EL, 32 (1992), p. 105-134; E. Colomer i Pous, De Ramon Llull a la moderna informàtica, en EL, 22 (1979), p. 113-135; T. Sales, La informàtica moderna, hereva intel·lectual directa del pensament de Llull, en EL, 38 (1998), p. 51-61.



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

filósofos, de Al-Ghazali. 9 Esta preparación le ocupó nueve años. Durante éstos no salió de la isla más que para emprender un peregrinaje al famoso santuario de Notre Dame de Rocamadour, 10 etapa habitual en el camino de Santiago de Compostela, a donde se encaminó después, y para ir a Montpellier, hacia finales de 1274 o comienzos de 1275, llamado por su amigo, el Infante Jaime, heredero del reino de Mallorca. La permanencia entre los dominios franceses de la corona de Aragón fue, sin duda, para él, de gran utilidad. Franciscanos y dominicos tenían allí Studia para el estudio de la teología, y no se puede olvidar que Montpellier era también sede de una famosa facultad de medicina. Ramón pudo además entablar relación con sabios musulmanes que, en Montpellier, podían libremente ejercer su profesión. Esta fue, pues, la primera gran ocasión que tuvo Ramón de descubrir Europa y el resto del mundo conocido, y enterarse de los acontecimientos notables de su época. La estadía de Llull en Montpellier fue corta. En 1276, estaba de nuevo en Mallorca donde, con la ayuda del Infante Jaime, fundó el monasterio de Miramar para el aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, aprobado por el papa Juan XXI con su bula Laudanda tuorum, de 16 de octubre de 1276. 11 Antes de que Ramón fuese a Montpellier, había tenido lugar, del 7 de mayo al 17 de julio de 1274, el segundo Concilio de Lyon. Pese a haber sido invitados los reyes de Europa, Jaime I de Aragón fue el único monarca que asistió. No pudo, sin embargo, estar presente hasta el final, habiendo debido regresar a su reino después de la segunda sesión conciliar, el 12 de junio. Ramón se encontraba entonces todavía en Mallorca y, por consiguiente, no pudo coincidir con Jaime I cuando éste pasó por la ciudad de Montpellier, de regreso del Concilio. Esto explica en parte el silencio de Llull con respecto a aquella asamblea eclesiástica que, sin embargo, se había fijado tres finalidades que iban a ser los ejes de su vida y de su actividad: la reforma de la Iglesia, la liberación de Tierra Santa del dominio musulmán, y la unión de los cristianos. Es el tratado en que Al-Ghazali expone sumariamente la doctrina y teorías enseñadas por los filósofos. Este libro es un resumen de la filosofía peripatética, según la comprendían y explicaban los filósofos musulmanes, especialmente Al-Farabi y Avicena. 10 Tal vez el monje de Vauvert, redactor de la Vita coaetanea (ed. Harada [ver n. 3]), confundió Rocamadour, famoso santuario mariano en Francia, con Montserrat, abadía catalana que parecería más lógico que Ramón visitase, yendo de camino hacia Santiago de Compostela. 11 Sobre este monasterio, véase: S. Garcías Palou, El Miramar de Ramón Llull, Palma de Mallorca, 1977. 9



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

Bien es verdad que Ramón pudo conocer, incluso con detalle, las actividades del Concilio cuando, clausurado éste, Pedro de Morella, obispo de Mallorca, que había asistido a la asamblea, pasó por Montpellier, de regreso a Mallorca, en 1276. O, tal vez se informó más tarde, cuando, ya en la isla, se encontró con el prelado. Lo que parece cierto es que, de hecho, Ramón se puso al corriente de lo acontecido en Lyon, y que tuvo igualmente noticia del fracaso de los acuerdos allí tomados: en primer lugar, de que, por la desconfianza papal sobre la sinceridad de la unión de la Iglesia griega con Roma, el cisma seguía todavía en pie, y, en segundo lugar, de que las dificultades surgidas para la puesta en marcha de la cruzada de Tierra Santa, invalidaban los esfuerzos de la asamblea. Conociendo el temperamento de Ramón, no es difícil de imaginar que después de haber puesto en funcionamiento su escuela de lengua árabe en Miramar, tanto desde el punto de vista material como desde el estructural y educativo, corriese a informarse personalmente de la situación de la fe cristiana en el mundo, interesándose tanto por los infieles como por los que él consideraba cismáticos, los griegos, o herejes, los nestorianos y los jacobitas. Recordemos que había fijado como meta de su vida reconducir todo el mundo a la fe cristiana católica, y que su optimismo, apoyado en la infalibilidad de su Arte, en cuanto sistema inspirado por Dios, 12 no conocía límites. El ya difunto especialista en estudios lulianos, Rdo. Sebastián Garcías Palou, asociándose a una opinión sugerida precedentemente por otros conocidos lulistas, como Salvador Galmés, E. Longpré, M. André, J. Aninyó, J. Borras, Francisco Sureda y Blanes y Joaquín Carreras i Artau, documenta de manera concluyente que, entre 1279 y 1282, Ramón Llull realizó un viaje por el Oriente cristiano, partiendo tal vez de Roma y « recorriendo casi todo el mundo antiguo ». Para probar su tesis, Garcías Palou se basa en los datos biográficos esparcidos acá y allá en las obras de Llull, a partir de los cuales se puede reconstruir el itinerario de su viaje: Ramón Llull habría partido de Roma, dirigiéndose hacia el Para percatarnos de la convicción de Ramón en la eficacia de su Arte probatoria, basta leer lo que escribió en su petición a Celestino V, en 1294 (l. 59-66): Hic idem modus posset teneri cum schismaticis, et esset conueniens, quod illis dicerentur tam fortes rationes et tam necessariae, cum quibus uincerentur omnes illorum obiectiones et positiones, et quod illi non possent soluere nostras obiectiones nec destruere nostras positiones; et istis rationibus ita necessariis est multum bene munita sancta ecclesia. Ego Raimundus Lullus indignus aestimo me multas tales habere… (ed. V. Tenge-Wolf, in C. Colomba – V. Tenge-Wolf, Raimundi Lulli Opera latina 54-60 annis 1294-1296 composita [CCCM, 248], Turnhout, 2014, p. 432). Sobre este tema, puede consultarse S. Garcías Palou, San Anselmo de Canterbery y el beato Ramón Llull, en EL, 1 (1957), p. 69-72. 12



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

Norte de Italia. Su expedición comenzó, pues, por el norte del patriarcado romano; penetró a continuación en las tierras de los que, para él, eran cismáticos, los griegos del patriarcado de Constantinopla y, después, bordeando el Mar Negro hasta Georgia, llegó a la Turquía asiática. Luego, atravesando el patriarcado de Antioquia, descendió hasta la ciudad santa de Jerusalén, dato que ciertos autores establecen malinterpretando tal vez la afirmación de Ramón de haber visto allí un altar sobre el que había dos lámparas, de las cuales una estaba rota, texto que, a nuestro parecer, podría referirse más acertadamente al altar de la Natividad, en la ciudad de Belén. 13 De Palestina descendió a Egipto; entró en el patriarcado de Alejandría y, remontando el Nilo, visitó Etiopía. De allí, descendiendo hacia las costas de Alejandría, descubrió la pequeña isla de Rayset (Roseta, famosa a causa de su « piedra »), a la que más tarde se referirá en algunas de sus obras. 14 Durante su pasaje por la Cirenaica, Ramón pudo 13 En el pasaje del Liber de fine (cf. II.1, ed. A. Madre, Raimundi Lulli Opera latina 120-122 in Monte Pessulano anno MCCCV composita [CCCM, 35], Turnhout, 1981, p. 272-273) en el que se halla la alusión a las dos lámparas, Ramón, después de haber ponderado la suntuosidad del altar de la basílica de San Pedro en Roma, para recalcar la necesidad de reconquistar Tierra Santa y devolver a los lugares sagrados la magnificencia que les es debida, escribe: Sed aliud altare est, quod est exemplar et dominus omnium aliorum. Et quando uidi, in ipso duae lampades solae erant; una tamen fracta est. Ciuitas depopulata est, eo quia ibi quasi quinquaginta homines non morantur; sed hic multi serpentes in cauernulis commorantur; et illa ciuitas est excellentissima super omnes alias ciuitates; et hoc intelligo quo ad Deum. Sed quo ad nos, quid est et dedecus quale est, in quo est, a quo uenit et quantum est, uideatis. Et nonne sumus christiani? Aut quid sumus? (ibid., l. 734742 [p. 273]). Jordi Gayà en su artículo Atención al Oriente griego y armenio en la misión de Ramón Llull, en J. Nadal Cañellas (ed.), Relaciones inéditas entre España y Grecia, Atenas, 1986, p. 294, a la vista del texto anterior, que él cree que hace referencia a Jerusalén, pone en duda que Ramón haya ido personalmente a Tierra Santa, porque Jerusalén no se ha hallado jamás en un estado tal de degradación. Nos preguntamos si este texto no se referirá más bien a Belén que a Jerusalén. De hecho, Belén había sido conquistada, en 1250, por los mamelucos circasianos que rompieron el clima de tolerancia y coexistencia que había caracterizado la historia de la ciudad. En 1263, sus murallas y bastiones fueron demolidos y las autoridades cristianas expulsadas. Luego, poco a poco, hasta el final del siglo, franciscanos y agustinos occidentales pudieron volver a instalarse allí. En 1300, la ciudad podía, pues, presentar un aspecto muy parecido al que describe Ramón. Por lo que se refiere a la denominación de « la más excelente de todas las ciudades » atribuida a Belén, no hay que olvidar que Ramón Llull era un cristiano occidental y que en Occidente se ha puesto siempre el acento más sobre el nacimiento de Jesús que sobre su resurrección, aunque litúrgicamente Pascua sea la fiesta de las fiestas cristianas. El cristianismo occidental es claramente un cristianismo de encarnación, mientras que el de Oriente es un cristianismo de resurrección. Llull, de hecho, escribió un Liber natalis pueri paruuli Christi Iesu (Op. 169), sobre la encarnación, mientras que las alusiones a la resurrección de Cristo son en él más bien raras. 14 Liber de acquisitione Terrae sanctae, I, 2, 95 (ed. Domínguez Reboiras [ver n. 1], p. 211); Liber de fine, II.3 (ed. Madre [ver n. 13], p. 276).



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

recoger información acerca del centro de África, « una tierra en medio de la arena donde hay una ciudad que se llama Gana », como escribirá en su libro Blanquerna, 15 « cuyos habitantes se llaman genovinos »; « los habitantes de aquellas tierras » –añade– « son numerosos; son negros y no tienen ley ». Podemos, por tanto, afirmar que después de 1282, fruto de los citados viajes, Llull tenía una idea bastante precisa de las creencias de los cristianos que no estaban en comunión con Roma, lo mismo que de la religión de los otros pueblos paganos, especialmente de los musulmanes. Dejaremos de lado lo que Ramón escribe sobre los nestorianos, jacobitas y paganos, que no entra en el objeto de esta exposición, para centrarnos en lo que dice acerca de los, según su punto de vista, cismáticos griegos. Durante los doce o trece primeros años de su actividad apostólica, como hemos anotado antes, Llull no dice una palabra de los cristianos no católico-romanos. Esto cambia radicalmente después del regreso de su primer viaje a Oriente. La primera alusión clara al cisma griego la encontramos en el opúsculo Doctrina pueril, acabado de escribir en 1283 y dedicado a su hijo Domingo. He aquí lo que allí escribe: « Los griegos son cristianos, pero pecan contra la Santísima Trinidad de nuestro Señor, porque dicen que el Espíritu Santo procede del Padre solo. Sin embargo, dado que tienen muy buenas costumbres y están muy cercanos a la fe católica, será fácil conducirles a la Iglesia romana si alguien quiere aprender su lengua y escritura y tiene una devoción tan grande de no dudar en aceptar la muerte para honrar a Dios, y va a predicarles la excelente verdad de que también el Hijo divino tiene que dar procesión al Espíritu Santo. » 16 Como se ve, la referencia a los griegos es exacta. Son cristianos y tienen muy buenas costumbres. Se hallan separados de la Iglesia romana porque, según él, creer que el Espíritu Santo procede del Padre solo es un error dogmático. Este texto se reduce a pocas líneas, pero es un argumento sólido para acreditar un conocimiento directo del mundo griego de parte de Ramón. Al final de la obrita Doctrina pueril, dirigiéndose a su hijo, Llull dice expresamente que tiene prisa por terminar aquel escrito para comenzar el Libro de Blanquerna. El Libro de Blanquerna, ya a partir del título mismo, refuerza la convicción de que Ramón había estado personalmente en Constantinopla. Blanquerna, cap. 84, n. 6, p. 326. Doctrina pueril, n. 4, p. 128-129.

15 16



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

¿Por qué Llull puso el nombre de Blanquerna, tan insólito en catalán, al protagonista de su novela más famosa? Es útil señalar, como lo prueba el mejor manuscrito de la Crónica de Ramón Muntaner, de 1342, que el nombre bizantino de Blaquernes (el palacio de Blaquernes, en Constantinopla) está transcrito en aquella Crónica « Blanquernes ». Muntaner conocía muy bien Constantinopla; si escribió Blanquernes y no Blaquernes en su Crónica, puede pensarse la « n » que marca la diferencia entre las dos grafías del nombre es simplemente una « n » eufónica, como sucede con otros patronímicos. También hay que tener en cuenta que el profesor José Tarré, en la publicación de los códices lulianos de la Biblioteca de París, 17 afirma que la forma primitiva del nombre que aparece en los manuscritos más antiguos de la novela de Llull era Blaquerna y no Blanquerna. En todo caso, los intentos de ciertos autores de hacer derivar el nombre de Blanquerna de « blanquer » o « blanqueria », que, en catalán, significan curtidor y curtiduría, no satisface en absoluto, puesto que no se ve la más mínima relación de estos significados con el personaje. Por el contrario, es muy plausible que Ramón, habiendo estado en Constantinopla y teniendo una inmensa devoción por la Madre de Dios (recordemos que inmediatamente después de su conversión emprendió una peregrinación a los santuarios marianos más famosos), haya dado a su personaje principal el nombre de la advocación mariana más célebre de la capital bizantina: la Madre de Dios de Blaquernes, a cuya imagen el pueblo fiel de Constantinopla atribuía un milagro habitual cada vienes al ponerse el sol. 18 Creemos, pues, bien fundado que el personaje de la novela de Llull se llamaba Blanquerna, o mejor, Blaquerna, por devoción al icono constantinopolitano de la Madre de Dios. En la novela de Blanquerna, enteramente escrita con la intención de ofrecer un modelo de reforma de la Iglesia, Ramón cita a los griegos en el capítulo 61, en una de las más bellas páginas de la piedad mariana del Medioevo. Blanquerna, que en la novela que lleva su nombre va pasando por los diversos grados de la jerarquía eclesiástica, proponiendo en cada uno de ellos el modelo de la reforma que precisaba hacerse en él, habiendo sido elegido abad de un monasterio, designó a un monje para que, sin cesar, dirigiese alabanzas a la Madre de Dios en nombre de toda la humanidad. El abad, queriendo conocer cómo cumplía el monje su misión, le

En Analecta sacra Tarraconensia, 14 (1941), p. 159, n. 9. V. Grumel, Le miracle habituel de Notre-Dame des Blachernes, en EO, 30 (1931), p. 126-146. 17 18



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

pidió qua alabase a Nuestra Señora en su presencia. El monje se arrodilló entonces ante la imagen de María y pronunció esta plegaria: « ¡Os saludo, María! Vuestro servidor os saluda de parte de los ángeles, de los patriarcas, de los profetas, de los mártires, de los confesores y de las vírgenes, como igualmente de todos los santos del paraíso. ¡Os saludo, María! Os elevo los saludos de todos los cristianos, justos y pecadores. Los justos os saludan porque sois digna de ser saludada y porque Vos sois la esperanza de su salvación. Los pecadores os saludan también y os piden perdón; esperan que Vos dirijáis sobre ellos una mirada de compasión e intercedáis ante vuestro Hijo bendito para que tenga misericordia de ellos, recordándole la gran pasión a la que se sometió para expiar sus pecados. ¡Os saludo, María! Os dirijo el saludo de los moros, los judíos, los griegos, los mongoles, los tártaros, los húngaros de Hungría la Menor, los comanes, los nestorianos, los rusos, los genovinos, los armenios y los georgianos. Todos éstos, y otros todavía, cismáticos e infieles, os saludan a través de mí, que soy su abogado. Con esta plegaria de saludo que os dirijo, os los confío, a fin que vuestro piadoso Hijo quiera acordarse de ellos y les envíe, por intercesión vuestra, predicadores fervorosos, capaces de guiarlos y de enseñarles a conoceros a Vos y a vuestro Hijo glorioso; de esta manera podrán ser salvados y sabrán, con todas sus fuerzas, serviros y honraros. » 19

Avanzando en la narración, Blanquerna, ya papa, decreta, entre otras cosas, la creación de escuelas para el aprendizaje de las lenguas de los países donde debe predicarse la fe verdadera, países de infieles o de aquellos que, según la mentalidad de la época, estaban habitados por cismáticos. El papa Blanquerna divide, pues, el mundo en doce regiones, a la cabeza de las cuales coloca igual número de procuradores. Éstos, leemos en la novela, « traerán de Alejandría y de Georgia, de la India y de Grecia, para que vivan con nosotros, algunos cristianos religiosos, cuyo plan apostólico coincida con el nuestro. » 20 El diálogo con los griegos bizantinos en su propia lengua, estaba, pues, previsto en el programa de Ramón. Dicho esto, fijémonos en los vestigios dejados por el mundo griego en el espíritu de Llull. El misionero mallorquín emprenderá próxima19 Blanquerna, cap. 61, n. 1-6, p. 327-330. La repetición de la invocación « ¡Os saludo, María! » antes de cada estrofa de la plegaria de Ramón, recuerda una invocación semejante antes de cada estrofa del himno Acáthisto. ¿Puede ser esto una confirmación suplementaria de que Ramón conoció en Constantinopla el culto de nuestra Señora de Blaquernas? 20 Ibid., cap. 80, nº 4, p. 297.



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

mente un nuevo viaje a Oriente, pero antes de que esto suceda, Ramón, apoyándose en la experiencia de sus contactos con el mundo bizantino, 21 comienza a escribir un libro sobre lo que, según el sentir de la época, era la causa fundamental de la separación de las Iglesias de Oriente y Occidente, es decir, la procesión del Espíritu Santo. Está convencido de un hecho, válido aún hoy en día: la unión de los cristianos no la pueden realizar las instancias superiores del Estado o de la Iglesia. Ramón conocía sin duda el fracaso de la ficticia unión de Lyon II, impuesta por el papa Gregorio X y decretada por el emperador Miguel VIII Paleólogo en contra de la voluntad de pueblo ortodoxo. Es el pueblo fiel quien debe estar convencido de la verdad para que desparezcan las barreras de la división. Es aquí donde encajan el optimismo luliano y su convicción inquebrantable en la efectividad de su Arte. La tarea es organizar, con espíritu fraterno, discusiones para dirimir, entre las dos posiciones, cuál es la más sólida. Así pues, Ramón nos presenta en este momento su Liber de Sancto Spiritu, estucturado – dice – « secundum Artem compendiosam inveniendi veritatem. » 22 Recordemos que en aquella época, como acabamos de decirlo, se creía que la esencia del cisma consistía en la diferencia doctrinal a propósito de la procesión del Espíritu Santo, que para los griegos procedía del Padre, como dicen los Evangelios (Io. 15, 26), mientras que para los latinos procedía del Padre y del Hijo (Filioque). El Liber de Sancto Spiritu comienza presentándonos a dos sabios, uno de los cuales es latino y el otro griego, que el día de Pentecostés se reúnen a la vera de una hermosa fuente. Allí, la Sabiduría estaba abrevando su caballo a la sombra de un frondoso árbol que tenía diez flores, sobre la cuales había diez letras escritas con oro y plata. Los sabios preguntaron a la Sabiduría qué significaban aquellas letras. Representan, les respondió, las diez condiciones del Arte por medio de las cuales podréis conocer cuál de las dos posiciones, a propósito de la procesión del Espíritu Santo, la latina o la griega, es más verdadera y, por consiguiente, cuál es la que debe ser afirmada y retenida. Dicho esto, la Sabiduría se marchó, pero in21 S. Garcías Palou, en su libro Ramón Llull en la historia del ecumenismo, Barcelona, 1986, cap. III, p. 44, duda de que Ramón haya podido mantener un diálogo con los bizantinos, por el hecho de ignorar la lengua griega. A nuestro parecer, este autor no tiene en cuenta la existencia, desde siempre, de truchimanes o intérpretes en toda la cuenca mediterránea que hablaban todas las lenguas, y, en segundo lugar, no valoriza suficientemente el carácter de Ramón quien, sin duda, como lo hacía siempre, habría agotado todos los medios para llegar a su fin. Por lo demás, no era pobre y podía pagarse fácilmente los servicios de un truchimán. 22 Liber de Sancto Spiritu, MOG, vol. II, p. 1, col. 1.



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

mediatamente se presentó un musulmán que, después de haber saludado a los sabios, les dijo: « He venido aquí, a Constantinopla, para hacerme cristiano y creer lo que enseñan los griegos. Pero cuando he entrado en una iglesia y he visto a dos personas, un latino y un griego, que disputaban sobre los artículos de la fe, me ha asaltado la duda. Así pues, quiero ir a Roma para conocer la verdad, a saber, si la Persona del Espíritu Santo procede del Padre y del Hijo, o si, como dice el griego, el Espíritu Santo procede del Padre solo. Por esta razón no puedo recibir el bautismo antes de haber adquirido la certeza sobre este artículo de la fe. » 23 Aquí se hace evidente la finalidad primordial que Ramón se había fijado desde el comienzo de su vida apostólica: la conversión de los musulmanes. Está convencido de que la abolición del cisma es absolutamente necesaria para suprimir el escándalo que provoca en los musulmanes la división de los cristianos. En una obra posterior, repetirá lo mismo a propósito de la división provocada en la Iglesia por las herejías de nestorianos y jacobitas. Al comienzo del Liber de Sancto Spiritu, los sabios echan suertes para saber cuál de ellos, el griego o el latino, debe empezar a exponer su dogma. La suerte designa al griego. Este defiende su creencia de que la procesión del Espíritu Santo es a partir del Padre solo, con diez argumentos (recuérdese que el árbol bajo el que se hallaban tenía diez hojas), sin ser interrumpido en ningún momento por el latino. Sólo el musulmán le hace preguntas. Luego toca al latino sustentar su posición, también con diez razones. El griego le deja hablar y es otra vez el musulmán quien plantea objeciones. Como puede verse, la discusión se ha desarrollado sin el más mínimo ataque ni virulencia, en una atmósfera de calma, casi fraternal. Y lo que más admira es que al final de las dos exposiciones, el sarraceno, no convencido por las explicaciones ni de uno ni de otro, manifiesta su deseo de permanecer toda la jornada a la sombra del hermoso árbol, meditando las razones que ha oído exponer, antes de decidirse por cuál de los dos está en posesión de la verdad. Los dos sabios cristianos, por su parte, satisfechos, deciden establecer un pacto y asociarse durante el resto de su vida, para contactar con los latinos y griegos en sus respectivos territorios, argumentando sobre cuál de las dos creencias es la más adecuada a la Santísima Trinidad, a la que unos y otros adoran.

Ibid., p. 2.

23



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

Inútil es decir que esta actitud de comprensión, de imparcialidad y de respeto mutuo, de parte de un apologeta como Ramón Llull, es la prueba más extraordinaria de la grandeza de ánimo del misionero mallorquín. Otras obras sobre el cisma salieron de la pluma de Ramón durante el período 1283-1300, la mayor parte de ellas opúsculos o instancias dirigidas a los papas, a fin de que se interesasen por sus proyectos de expansión de la fe cristiana. Para Llull, esta cuestión debió hacerse más apremiante en 1291 cuando, el 18 de marzo, bajo el pontificado de Nicolás IV, los musulmanes tomaron por asalto la ciudad fortificada de San Juan de Acre, el baluarte más firme de los cristianos, y además conquistaron Tiro, Sidón y Beirut. La pérdida de Palestina y Siria produjo una viva consternación en el mundo cristiano occidental. En vano el papa Nicolás IV trató de organizar una nueva cruzada para la conquista de Tierra Santa. Por lo que se refiere a Ramón Llull, los documentos que dirigió a Nicolás IV, en 1292: Quomodo Terra Sancta recuperari potest 24 y Tractatus de modo convertendi infideles, 25 testimonian la impresión que estos acontecimientos produjeron en su ánimo y su determinación de ayudar a la reconquista de los Santos Lugares y a la unión de las Iglesias desmembradas, premisa necesaria para recuperar Tierra Santa. Tenemos que detenernos un momento en el último opúsculo indicado. Teniendo en cuenta la finalidad que Ramón se propone en este escrito, la unión con los griegos no es más que un preámbulo para la reconquista de Tierra Santa. Y porque, dice, spectat ad dominum Papam maiorem zelum habere ad exaltandum fidem quam ad aliquem alium, 26 Ramón propone que este acuda personalmente a la frontera de los griegos, acompañado de un rey y de los grandes maestres del Temple, del Hospital y de la Orden Teutónica, lo mismo que por religiosos y laicos scientes et sapientes in theologia et philosophia, habentes rationes necessarias ad destruendum scisma eorum. Éstos deberían reunirse con los griegos, invitados por el papa, ad disputandum de fide, y manifestarles claramente que si se noluerint unire cum Ecclesia, oportebit eos terram amittere et gladium corporale subire. 27 24 Ed.  B. Gari – F. Domínguez Reboiras, Raimundi Lulli Opera latina 49-52 (CCCM, 182), Turnhout, 2003, p. 96-98. 25 Ibid., p. 335-353. Sobre el momento de composición de este opúsculo, Ramón escribe: in isto tempore in quo omnes sunt in tristitia de amissione Terrae sanctae (IV, l. 5557 [p. 346]). 26 Ibid., II, l. 6-7 (p. 337). 27 Ibid., II, l. 11-17 (p. 338). Ramón legitima la iniciativa del papa de ir al encuentro de los griegos para convencerlos de unirse a él o ser castigados, con el falso argumento



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

Aquí se ve claramente que Llull distingue entre la unión con la Iglesia romana en materia de fe, y la sumisión de los griegos obtenida por las armas. Esto nos lleva a constatar la contradicción existente en el espíritu de Ramón Llull, como, por lo demás, en el de otros pensadores de la época. Ramón no busca directamente la paz. Esta será la consecuencia natural de la implantación de una civilización cristiana universal, fruto del diálogo conciliador de opiniones contradictorias. Para la obtención de esta paz, Ramón admite la intervención de la espada y del brazo secular, representados por la Caballería. 28 Ésta « ha sido creada para mantener la justicia », sin embargo « el caballero debe ser apreciado más por sus virtudes que por su lanza o espada. » 29 Llull es, pues, un pacifista sui generis. 30 La causa de esto hay que buscarla en la forma mentis de los europeos de Occidente de aquella época y, desgraciadamente, también de muchos de los que, en nuestros días, están convencidos de la superioridad de sus propios valores culturales, religiosos, e incluso raciales, sobre los del resto del mundo. Quien logre liberarse de esta impronta mental, habrá obtenido la más noble de las victorias del espíritu. Ramón Llull llegó a este resultado en lo que toca a la comprensión de las opiniones ideológicas ajenas, como lo hemos visto en el caso del Liber de Sancto Spiritu y lo volveremos a ver aún. Sin embargo, no llegó a este resultado por lo que concierne a su opinión sobre la supremacía latina: « Cierto es –escribe en el Liber de Sancto Spiritu– que Roma ha sido siempre caput mundi », y así, para hacer comprender que el poderío romano debe someter a su dominio el mundo entero, argumenta que « según la vida de san Silvestre, 31 el dominio de Roma fue concedido al Santo Señor de las dos espadas, según el cual el papa de Roma tendría plenos poderes tanto en el campo de la fe y las costumbres (espada espiritual) como en el de la política (espada temporal), de manera que los reyes no serían más que simples subalternos suyos. Esta absurda teoría, expuesta por san Bernardo de Claraval en su Liber de consideratione (PL 182, 51-752), y consagrada por el despótico Bonifacio VIII en su bula Unam sanctam, la expresión más radical de la hierocracia pontificia, fue admitida entonces casi como un dogma de fe. 28 Llull es autor de un famoso tratado de caballería, el Llibre de l’ordre de cavalleria, ed. de A. Soler i Llopart (Nostres clàssics, Col·lecció A, 127), Barcelona, 1988. 29 Proverbis de Ramon, cap. CCLXXV, nº 19, ed. S. Galmés, Proverbis de Ramon. Mil Proverbis. Proverbis d’ensenyament (Obres de Ramon Lull, XIV), Palma de Mallorca, 1928, p. 301. 30 Sobre este tema puede verse F. de Urmeneta, El pacifismo luliano, en EL, 2 (1958), p. 197-208. 31 Alusión a la Donatio Constantini, un falso documento de comienzos del siglo IX, según el cual el emperador Constantino el Grande, yéndose a fundar Constantinopla, habría cedido al papa Silvestre el dominio de Roma y de otros vastos territorios. A pesar



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

Apostólico de manera milagrosa. Y puesto que Dios ha constituido a san Pedro administrador del mundo, y que éste, junto con san Pablo, fue a Roma, y puesto que allí se encuentra su tumba, es evidente que el emperador romano debe dominar al emperador griego. Más aún, puesto que el patriarca griego no es un príncipe (como lo es el obispo de Roma) y que el dominio sobre Constantinopla no ha sido concedido a la Iglesia griega (como el de Roma lo ha sido a la Iglesia latina), se deduce que los latinos conducen una vida mejor y más noble que los griegos. » 32 Los argumentos de Ramón, de orden netamente político, hacen aparecer una vez más la dicotomía de su pensamiento. Por una parte defiende la supremacía del dogma que debe ser probado y decidido por medios de razones necesarias; 33 por otra, sostiene la supremacía política y territorial que tiene que ser impuesta, si hace falta, por las armas. En todo caso, lo que hay que retener es que, en Llull, no hay que mezclar la cuestión política con la cuestión dogmática, y que el papado y el imperio, potencias en gran parte mundanas, caen dentro de la esfera política. He aquí la explicación de por qué en las discusiones con los no católicos en vistas a la unión, Ramón no aborda jamás el tema del primado romano. En su actividad y en sus obras, actúa siempre como misionero, no como teólogo, como lo hace Tomás de Aquino. 34 de que Lorenzo Valla y el cardenal Nicolás von Cues demostraron en el s. XV la falsedad del documento, éste continuó a ser presentado por los papas, junto con otras falsificaciones, como las Decretales pseudoisidorianas, como fundamento indiscutible del poder pontificio, hasta épocas muy recientes. La bibliografía sobre este falso documento es muy numerosa. Ver, por ejemplo, D. Maffei, La donazione di Costantino nei giuristi medievali, Milano, 1980; L. Rojas Donat, Para una historia del derecho canónico-político medieval: la donación de Constantino, en Revista de Estudios Histórico-Jurídicos, 26 (2004), p. 337-358. 32 Liber de Sancto Spiritu, parte II, cap. IX, p. 9. 33 Ramón llama « razones necesarias » a argumentos de orden filosófico que no pueden ser refutados, aplicados a justificar o verificar asertos teológicos. No se trata de probar la fe por medio de la razón, sino únicamente de constatar la concordancia y conformidad de las verdades de la fe con los preceptos de la razón y, de esta manera, corroborarlas. 34 Véase, por ejemplo, su Contra errores Graecorum, ed. Opuscula theologica, I, Turín, 1954. En este opúsculo, es la cuestión de la procesión del Espíritu Santo la que Tomás trata más ampliamente, pero no olvida, en los últimos capítulos, referirse a las prerrogativas del primado romano. Su única finalidad consiste en destruir la teología de la Iglesia griega. Por el contrario, para Ramón Llull, la finalidad primordial es la de expandir la fe en Jesucristo en el mundo entero, en primer lugar en el de los cismáticos, a fin de que éstos contribuyan luego a la conversión de los musulmanes y los tártaros que no tienen ley. Lo dice claramente en la Petitio dirigida a Celestino V, en 1294: Conveniret etiam, quod ecclesia recuperaret schismaticos et illos sibi uniret, quos potest recuperare cum disputatione mostrando veritatem, et quod illi sint in errore et Latini in veritate; quia cum illis melius



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

La prosecución de su actividad literaria nos lleva a 1294, año en el que escribe el libro más importante sobre el Cisma de Oriente, su Disputatio quinque hominum sapientium. 35 En esta obra, Llull nos remite al escenario habitual: un gran bosque, un árbol frondoso de refrescante sombra junto a una encantadora fuente. Una asamblea de cuatro sabios, un católico romano, un griego, un nestoriano y un jacobita, disputan, convencidos de que hace falta buscar el modo de refutar los errores y ponerse de acuerdo sobre cuál es la verdadera fe. Para esto, deciden iniciar un debate general permanente sobre los cismas y diferencias que separan a los cristianos, 36 porque, dice el cuarto sabio, Cum Christianitas sit in tot et tantis periculis subiugata, postquam omnes Christiani de mundo concordantiam habent in credendo sanctissimam trinitatem Dei et suam incarnationem, quare non habent unitatem et confoederationem simul? Y continúa afirmando que si los cristianos estuviesen entre ellos de acuerdo, podrían vencer fácilmente a los sarracenos y convertirlos, y llevar así la fe cristiana a los Tártaros y demás paganos. 37 Los cuatro sabios se ponen pues de acuerdo para comenzar su debate. Al comienzo discuten acerca de la procesión del Espíritu Santo, luego acerca de la cuestión de las dos personas que los nestorianos afirman que Cristo posee y, finalmente, acerca sobre la unicidad de la naturaleza, puesta en entredicho por los jacobitas. En este momento se presenta el quinto sabio, un musulmán, diciendo que después de haber practicado durante toda su vida el mahometanismo, comienza hora a tener dudas, fundadas en razones filosóficas. Dice que, en primer lugar, había ido a visitar a un ermitaño quien le dijo que no podía penetrar en la fe por medio de demostraciones racionales. Esta respuesta no le convenció para hacerse bautizar y ahora se dirigía a los cuatro sabios para saber si existían razones necesarias que pudieran convencerle de que se convirtiera, aunpossent destrui Saraceni et haberi participatio et amicitia cum Tartaris (l. 37-41, ed. Tenge-Wolf [ver n. 12], p. 430). 35 Ed.  Tenge-Wolf [ver n. 12], p. 274-404. 36 Esta asamblea permanente de cristianos de diversas confesiones, que debía continuar sus trabajos hasta la completa desaparición de los cismas y las herejías, fue una idea fija de Ramón, expuesta por él en muchas de sus obras. Dicha asamblea no debía estar compuesta por obispos – también ésta una afirmación constante de Llull – sino por teólogos capaces de convencer a fuerza de razones necesarias. A este propósito, véase: S. Garcías Palou, Una asamblea cristiana de teólogos, medio ecuménico, ideado por Ramón Llull en 1294, en Verdad y Vida, 32 (1974), p. 375-388. 37 Disputatio quinque hominum sapientium, Prol. l. 32-40 (ed. Tenge-Wolf [ver n. 12], p. 277).



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

que no pudiese darse una demostración tangible de la fe cristiana, como si se tratase de un teorema geométrico. El desarrollo que hace Ramón de los tres puntos dogmáticos que los cuatro sabios van a discutir es muy interesante, pero para no salir del tema que nos hemos fijado, nos centraremos en la cuestión de la procesión del Espíritu Santo, es decir, en la divergencia entre griegos y latinos. Su examen nos aportará además una demostración, importante en nuestra opinión, de que Ramón Llull había ido a Bizancio antes de 1294, año, como se ha dicho, de la composición del Disputatio quinque hominum sapientium, y nos dará la clave de por qué expone de una manera tan exacta y auténtica la opinión dogmática de lo griegos. De hecho, en este libro, refuta punto por punto los once argumentos en favor de la procesión del Espíritu Santo a partir del Padre solo, expuestos en la Mistagogía del patriarca Focio, 38 aunque no lo nombre. Sebastián Garcías Palou ha dedicado diferentes trabajos al estudio de este punto, finalmente resumidos en su artículo « El tratado De Spiritu Sancto Mystagogia, de Focio, en el Liber de quinque sapientibus, del Bto. Ramón Llull». 39 Este autor presenta frente por frente, en dos columnas, la opinión de Focio a la derecha y la refutación luliana a la izquierda. Es obligado decir, en honor de Ramón Llull, que él ha sido el único teólogo occidental que ha estudiado directamente las fuentes teológicas griegas. Ni Tomás de Aquino, 40 ni Anselmo, 41 ni Buenaventura, 42 ni Mateo de Aquasparta, 43 lo hicieron en sus refutaciones de la pneumatología bizantina. Este hecho sitúa a Llull en una posición singular, ciertamente única, entre los autores del Medioevo latino que se interesaron por el Cisma de Oriente. Como se ha indicado, el viaje de Ramón a Oriente de los años 12791282, no fue el único. En 1300, encontrándose en Mallorca repasando los escritos filosóficos y teológicos que tenía ya comenzados o esbozados, llegó, con un año de retraso, la noticia de una gran victoria de Ghassan de Persia, gran khan de los tártaros, sobre los musulmanes mamelucos de Siria. Inmediatamente, impulsado por su dinamismo innato, Ramón se puso en viaje hacia Oriente. Sin duda partió de Mallorca hacia el final PG 102, 793-821. En Revista Española de Teología, 23 (1963), p. 309-331. 40 Contra errores graecorum. 41 De processione Spiritus Sancti. 42 In quatuor libros sententiarum expositio. 43 Tractatus de aeterna Spiritus Sancti Processione ex Patre Filioque. 38 39



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

de 1300, ya que en setiembre de este año está fechado en la isla su Libre de Déu. La nave comercial en la que embarcó le llevó a Chipre. Allí le informaron de que la victoria de los tártaros en Nedjamâa-el-Morudi, el 23 de diciembre de 1299, no había conseguido la liberación de Jerusalén, a pesar de la alianza de los tártaros con el rey Aito de Armenia, con Enrique II de Chipre y con los caballeros del Temple y del Hospital, refugiados también éstos en Chipre y parapetados en Limasol, después de la caída de la Ciudad Santa. Para comprender la prontitud con la que Llull emprendió este segundo viaje a Oriente, hay que tener en cuenta que los mongoles tártaros constituían para él un colectivo importante en su organigrama de cristianización del mundo, por temor de que no se convirtiesen al Islam, lo que habría asegurado la supremacía de los musulmanes sobre los cristianos. Hacia 1287, encontrándose Ramón en Roma, había llegado a la Ciudad Eterna un embajador del khan de Persia, Arghun, para proponer de palabra al papa Honorio IV, que no había respondido a su carta de 1285, una acción conjunta contra los mamelucos de Egipto. El embajador era un cristiano nestoriano, el monje Rabban Bar Sauma. Es muy probable que Ramón lo hubiese conocido. Si no lo hizo en aquel momento, tuvo todavía dos otras ocasiones de hacerlo, pues, casi al mismo tiempo ambos se encontraron en París y luego, otra vez, en Roma, después de la elección del nuevo papa Nicolás IV. 44 Sería difícil no ver en estos encuentros la razón de ser del libro que en aquel momento redactó Ramón, probablemente en París, y que tituló Liber super Psalmum Quicumque vult, conocido también como Liber tartari et christiani. 45 En esta obra, siguiendo el método empleado precedentemente en escritos semejantes, como, por ejemplo, el Libre de gentil e los tres savis o el Disputatio quinque hominum sapientium, instaura un diálogo del personaje luliano Blanquerna con un tártaro « que habitaba junto a la frontera de los sarracenos, muy sabio y experimentado en filosofía ».

44 Los sucesos de la embajada de Rabban Bar Sauma se han conservado con gran cantidad de detalles en la Histoire du Patriarche Mar Jabalaha III et le moine Rabban Sauma, obra anónima, escrita por un nestoriano de Ajerbadjan, hacia 1317. Ed. y comentario de I.-B. Chabot, en Revue de l’Orient Latin, 1 (1893), p. 567-610 y 2 (1894), p. 73-142, 235-304, 566-643. 45 Ed.  J. Batalla – Ó. de la Cruz Palma – F. Rodríguez Bernal, Ramon Llull. Llibre del Tàrtar i el Cristià o bé Llibre sobre el salm Quicumque vult (Traducció de l’Obra Llatina de Ramon Llull, 4), Turnhout – Santa Coloma de Queralt, 2016. Sobre esta obra de Llull puede verse el artículo de A. Soler i Llopart, El Liber super Psalmum Quicumque de Ramon Llull i l’opció pels Tàrtars, en EL, 32 (1992), p. 3-19.



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

Habiendo tenido precedentemente estos contactos, Ramón se halla, pues, en Chipre, como se ha dicho, en una fecha ciertamente previa a setiembre de 1301. Su deseo era llegar a Tartaria para conocer de visu la situación. Y, puesto que en aquel momento, el único camino para llegar allí era por Asia Menor a través de la Pequeña Armenia, solicitó el apoyo de Enrique II, rey de Chipre, para obtener los salvoconductos necesarios y poder así ir a convertir el sultán de Babilonia y el rey de Siria y Egipto. El rey le recibió en Nicosia, en su residencia habitual, y escuchó una segunda petición de Ramón, además de la del salvoconducto, la de permiso para iniciar discusiones con los monofisitas, los nestorianos y los infieles de la isla. 46 El rey no dio, sin embargo, respuesta alguna a estas dos peticiones. 47 La actitud del monarca es de alguna manera comprensible. Cuando el 8 de mayo de 1191, Ricardo Corazón de León conquistó Chipre, la isla pertenecía al Imperio Romano de Oriente y sus habitantes eran cristianos ortodoxos. Luego, como es sabido, Ricardo vendió Chipre a los caballeros templarios. La población, que anteriormente había padecido ya razias de parte de los templarios, se sublevó, y los nuevos señores no dudaron en masacrar la población de Nicosia. La isla fue de nuevo vendida por los templarios a Guy de Lusignan y la población ortodoxa sometida a la jerarquía latina, lo que provocó la huida de una parte notable de la población, especialmente de eclesiásticos y monjes, que se instalaron en Constantinopla. Para el rey Enrique II, reinar sobre una comunidad eclesiásticamente hostil y deber imponer, bajo la presión constante de Roma, una jerarquía latina a los ortodoxos, no hacía sino crear problemas. No era, pues, deseable conceder un permiso regio a Ramón para promover disputas teológicas. Aunque Chipre no debía ser, en los planes de Ramón, más que la etapa de un viaje más largo, su permanencia en la isla no fue infructuosa. Sabemos que, a pesar del desinterés de Enrique II, trató con los nestorianos y los jacobitas y residió en el monasterio de San Juan Crisóstomo,

46 La Vita coaetanea § 34 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 295, l. 521-522) dice que Ramón había pedido permiso para predicar y disputar con quosdam infideles atque schismaticos, uidelicet Iacobinos, Nosculinos, Momminos. Las dos primeras apelaciones son fácilmente comprensibles. Se trata de los jacobitas monofisitas y de los nestorianos. En cuanto a los Momminos debe tratarse, por exclusión, de los maronitas, pues nadie está al corriente de que existiese otra comunidad cristiana en aquella época, en la isla. 47 Rex autem de his omnibus non curauit, dice la Vita coaetanea § 34 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 295, l. 527-528).



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

un famoso convento bizantino sobre el monte Koutsouvendis, donde terminó la redacción de su libro Rhetorica nova, en setiembre de 1301. 48 No cabe duda que durante su estancia en Koutzouvendis, Ramón tuvo ocasión de charlar con los monjes. En aquel momento el francés era la lengua común en la isla a causa de la dinastía reinante, aunque probablemente los monjes no lo hablaban y Ramón debió tener que servirse de un intérprete. Un reducido número de monjes habitaba entonces el monasterio de san Juan Crisóstomo, y, sin duda no eran especialmente doctos en teología. Probablemente por esta razón, una vez acabado su libro, Ramón se marchó a vivir a un ambiente más dinámico donde poder llevar a cabo sus coloquios y disputas con los otros grupos cristianos no unidos a Roma. Fijó, pues, su residencia en Famagusta donde, en diciembre de 1301, terminó otro de sus libros, el Liber de natura. 49 Es indudable que la composición del Liber de natura la decidió Ramón a consecuencia de sus disputas con los jacobitas monofisitas. De hecho, este pequeño libro es una obra filosófico-teológica destinada a clarificar el concepto de naturaleza, punto clave de la controversia con los monofisitas de Oriente, quienes negaban que Jesucristo tuviese una naturaleza humana. La estructura del libro se ajusta a la estructura del Arte general luliano, del que se ha hablado anteriormente. Lo dice Ramón mismo: el libro ha sido compuesto secundum processum Artis generalis, y se propone « investigar, siguiendo sus principios y reglas, la naturaleza y sus enigmas, por medio del sistema del Arte » (secundum sua principia et suas regulas… naturam et sua secreta artificialiter inuestigare). Así pues, se convierte en unum membrum Artis generalis. 50 En este punto de la vida de Ramón Llull, el texto de la Vita coaetanea que dictó al monje de la cartuja de Vauvert es bastante confuso. Después de haber dicho que Enrique II no dio respuesta alguna a las peticiones, el texto continúa: « Entonces, Ramón, confiando en la ayuda de nuestro 48 Istum tractatum compilauit Magister Raimundus Catalanus secundum uulgarem stilum in insula Cypri, in monasterio sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, anno domini millesimo trecentesimo primo, in mense Septembris, sed eiusdem domini anno millesimo trecentesimo tertio fuit in latinum translatus in Ianua, gloriosa Italiae civitate (cf. Rhetorica Noua IV, 198-203 [p. 77]; sobre este libro ver la nota siguiente). 49 Finiuit Raimundus istum librum in Cypro, in ciuitate Famagustae, mense decembris, anno incarnationis domini nostri Iesu Christi millesimo trecentesimo primo, cuius nomen sit benedictum in saecula saeculorum. Amen (Liber de Natura, interpret. II, p. 137, l. 12-15). Este libro ha sido editado también por J. Medina, Raimundi Lulli Opera Latina 97-100 (CCCM, 184), Turnhout, 2005, p. 81-101 (Introducción) y p. 102-137 (texto). 50 Liber de Natura, interpret. II, prol. 11-14 (ed. Medina [ver n. 49], p. 103).



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

Señor, comenzó a trabajar con aquellos, con sola la ayuda de Dios, por medio de predicaciones y disputas. Pero, finalmente, a causa de su pertinacia en la predicación y la enseñanza, cayó gravemente enfermo. » 51 El texto, se ha visto, nos ponía al corriente de las dos peticiones de Ramón al rey de Chipre: poder discutir con los herejes de la isla y obtener un salvoconducto para ir a Egipto y Siria a dar a conocer la fe católica a sus reyes sarracenos. Pero este « trabajar con aquellos » ¿se refiere a los herejes de la isla o a los sarracenos? En el primer caso, debería deducirse que Ramón no salió de Chipre; en el segundo, que, a pesar de la displicencia de Enrique II, partió hacia la Pequeña Armenia, camino obligado para llegar a Siria. A decir verdad, leyendo atentamente el texto, uno se siente tentado a decidirse por la primera hipótesis, si no fuese que un dato incontestable obliga a escoger la segunda. Un nuevo libro de Ramón, un catecismo que titula Libre de què deu home creure de Déu (Libro de lo que hay que creer sobre Dios), fue terminado en Ayas, puerto de Armenia Menor, en enero de 1302. Ayas era el puerto más importante de Cilicia de los Armenios, y mantenía una conexión naval regular con Chipre. Es allí donde, en 1271, desembarcó Marco Polo antes de emprender su segundo viaje hacia China, describiéndolo en su libro Il millione, más conocido como Los viajes de Marco Polo, como gran ciudad comercial. Como lo hace notar, a justo título, el eminente lulista Jordi Gayà, los francos se hallaban en Ayas en situación de tránsito. Aventureros, buscadores de fortuna, comerciantes en viaje y mercenarios constituían la mayor parte de los pobladores de aquella ciudad marinera. Con ellos, convivían los armenios que gozaban de una posición privilegiada en su propia ciudad y que religiosamente profesaban, por lo menos en gran parte, el monofisismo. Frente a esta sociedad heteróclita, Ramón Llull debe haberse planteado su perenne cuestión: ¿cómo se puede sostener que la religión cristiana sea la verdadera, si los que la profesan la aprecian tan poco? La abigarrada población de aquel puerto, hombres alejados de sus hogares y sometidos a toda clase de inclemencias, no sabían responder a las más elementales preguntas sobre su fe. Ramón se pone al trabajo. Para estos cristianos que no saben cómo expresar el contenido de su fe ni responder a las objeciones de los herejes y de los infieles, escribe el Libre de què deu home creure de Déu. Se trata de un breve catecismo, donde expone las verdades fundamentales de la fe y sugiere las respuestas a las objeciones que pueden venir de parte de los sarracenos, los nesto51 Cf.  Vita coaetanea § 34 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 295-296, l. 529-532): Tunc Raimundus, confidens in illo, qui uerbum euangelizat in uirtute multa, praedicationibus et disputationibus apud illos cepit cum solo Dei auxilio uiriliter operari.



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

rianos, los jacobitas, e incluso « de aquellos que creen que existe un dios autor del mal, o un dios que tiene figura corporal ». Sin duda, en este último grupo quiere incluir a los budistas mongoles, puesto que estas dos creencias habían sido tratadas en la disputa interreligiosa del franciscano Guillermo de Rubrouck, en la corte del gran Khan. 52 Ramón había preparado, pues, el instrumento para dar a conocer lo esencial de la fe católica. Pero lo había escrito en catalán y era evidente que hacía falta traducirlo y multiplicar los ejemplares. Debió ser, buscando llevar a cabo este trabajo, que tomó como domésticos a un sacerdote y su sirviente, lo mismo que en Mallorca, al comienzo de su conversión, había comprado un esclavo moro para aprender la lengua y la filosofía árabe. La historia se repitió. El moro había intentado entonces asesinarle 53 y, ahora, fueron el sacerdote y su sirviente que decidieron envenenarle « para, con sus manos criminales, arrebatarle sus bienes ». 54 Sin embargo, la estratagema no les salió bien porque Ramón « cuando se dio cuenta de que ellos le envenenaban, los despidió gentilmente ». 55 Después de haber consignado este episodio, la Vita coaetanea continúa: Perveniens in Famagostam… 56 Suponiendo que el incidente del envenenamiento haya tenido lugar en Armenia, este cambio de domicilio exige, evidentemente, el viaje de retorno a Chipre. Ramón habría, pues, regresado a Famagusta de donde había partido, postrado, sin embargo, por el agotamiento, porque, a parte el hecho de que ya rondaba los setenta años, edad muy provecta para la época, hay que tener en cuenta además su debilitamiento, debido a la enfermedad y al envenenamiento padecido en Armenia. Tres años más tarde, hablando de Armenia, también dirá Ramón que aquella es una de las regiones más insalubres del mundo, y añade « lo sé, porque estuve allí ». Guillermo de Rubrouck fue enviado por su íntimo amigo, el rey de Francia, san Luis, como embajador a Mongolia, a la corte del gran Khan. La narración de este viaje, precedente al de Marco Polo, se encuentra en la carta latina que, de vuelta de su misión, el franciscano escribió a Luis IX (Cl. y R. Kappler, Guillaume de Rubrouck, Voyage dans l’empire mongol, 1253-1255, Paris, 1983 [1993]). 53 Cf.  Vita coaetanea § 11 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 279, l. 124-125): Saracenus uero, rancore nimio inde concepto, ex tunc coepit mente tractare, quomodo dominum suum posset occidere. 54 Cf.  ibid. § 34 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 296, l. 535-538): Duo autem sibi seruiebant, clericus scilicet et famulus. Qui non ponentes Deum ante conspectum suum, suae salutis immemores, cogitarunt uiri Dei bona scelerosis manibus extorquere. 55 Cf.  ibid. § 34 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 296, l. 538-539): Et dum se cognosceret per illos toxicatum, Raimundus eos a suo seruitio mansueto corde fugauit. 56 Cf.  ibid. § 35 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 296, l. 540). 52



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

¿Qué hacer entonces? El gran maestre del orden del Temple se encontraba en Chipre y Ramón lo conocía. Se habían encontrado por lo menos en una ocasión, en Nápoles, cuando la renuncia de Celestino V al papado, el 13 de diciembre de 1294, y la elección de su sucesor, Bonifacio VIII, el 24 de diciembre del mismo año. Jacques de Molay era sin duda la única puerta a la que Ramón podía llamar. Y lo hizo. Según la Vita coaetanea, el gran maestre « lo recibió con alegría » y lo retuvo en su casa hasta que hubo recuperado plenamente le salud. En este texto se dice que esto tuvo lugar en Limasol. 57 De hecho, la casa del Temple en Famagusta no era más que un simple albergue para los caballeros de pasaje. La sede oficial era Limasol, donde los templarios guardaban su tesoro. Curiosa coincidencia de Llull con el infortunado último maestre de los templarios que, en 1314, uno o dos años antes de la muerte de Ramón, también moriría, pero quemado vivo, pretendidamente a causa de los presuntos crímenes de su orden, pero, en realidad, a causa de la avidez de un rey sin escrúpulos y la villanía de un papa marioneta. 58 Por lo que se refiere a Ramón, sabemos por la Vita coaetanea que, una vez recuperada la salud, se embarcó, dirigiéndose a Génova. 59 De vuelta a Occidente, y una vez superada una grave crisis psicológica, consecuencia de su último fracaso en Oriente, 60 Ramón reemprende su actividad, a pesar de que, durante nueve años, no puede apelar a los papas para que se interesen por la conversión de los cismáticos y de los musulmanes. 57 Cf.  ibid. § 35 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 296, l. 540-542): … receptus est hilariter per magistrum Templi, qui erat in ciuitate de Limisson, stans in domo eius, quousque recuperasset pristinam sanitatem. 58 Existe todavía otro hecho curioso en la relación de Ramón con Jacques de Molay. Pese a que este se había comportado tan atentamente con Llull, no salió de los labios de éste ni una sola palabra de desaprobación durante el ignominioso proceso contra los templarios. Más aún, manifiestamente partidario de la política francesa, aceptó la destrucción de la orden, afirmando que le habían comunicado, dice, una horribilis reuelatio, a causa de la cual periclitatur navicula sancti Petri (Liber de acquisitione Terrae sanctae, III, 2, 64-69, ed. Domínguez Reboiras [ver n. 1], p. 227), y se limitó a pedir que las inmensas riquezas de la orden no acabasen en el bolsillo de reyes y eclesiásticos, sino que fuesen destinadas exclusivamente a la conquista de Tierra Santa. Sobre este punto, véase S. Garcías Palou, Ramón Llull y la abolición de los Templarios, en Hispania Sacra, 26 (1975), p. 123-136 y J. García de la Torre, Preocupación de Ramón Llull por el destino de los bienes del Temple, ante la disolución de la Orden, en EL, 23 (1974), p. 197-201. 59 Cf.  Vita coaetanea § 35 (ed. Harada [ver n. 3], p. 296, l. 543-544): Post haec auem Raimundus, transfretans Ianuam, quamplures edidit ibi libros. 60 Mucho se ha escrito sobre esta crisis. Baste aquí recomendar la exposición sobre esta enfermedad, desde el punto de vista médico, contenida en J. I. Valentí, La Nostra Terra, 7, Mallorca, 1934, p. 341-156.



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

A la muerte de Bonifacio VIII, el 11 ó 12 de octubre de 1303, su sucesor, Benedicto XI, reinó sólo ocho meses. Su muerte repentina dejó vacante la sede apostólica hasta el 5 de junio de 1305, año en el que, como veremos, fue elegido Clemente V. Durante todo este largo compás de espera, iba aumentando la impaciencia de Ramón al no saber a quién dirigirse para exponer sus planes de propagación de la fe católica, aprovechando las experiencias de su último viaje a Oriente. Impulsado por su celo, en espera de una elección pontificia estable que no iba a tardar, en abril de 1305, compuso su Liber de fine. La obra estaba acabada cuando, dos meses más tarde, la Iglesia romana encontró un nuevo guía en Clemente V. Éste, yendo a hacerse coronar en Lyon, se reunió con Jaime II de Aragón en Montpellier, y Ramón aprovechó esta circunstancia para pedir al rey, su amigo, que entregase personalmente su nuevo libro al papa. 61 El Liber de fine fue concebido como síntesis de todo lo que Ramón había escrito para ad bonum statum reducere universum, et ad unum ovile catholicum adunire. El autor lo indica en el prólogo: Libellus iste Finis omnium erit dictus. 62 Lleno de audacia, cita a comparecer ante Dios, en el día del Juicio, a aquellos a quienes ha mostrado, de palabra y por escrito, la manera de atraer a los cismáticos, a los herejes y a los paganos a la unidad de la fe católica, y no lo han hecho. 63 La razón de este desinterés es quia bonum publicum amicos non habet. Et si quos habet, pauci sunt, ut apparet ueritatem unicuique intuenti. Nam deuotio et caritas quasi in omnibus sunt oblitae. 64 Al fin, declara sin ambages que hay que culpar a la Iglesia de la existencia de los cismas, que hubieran podido desaparecer

61 Ramón lo dirá expresamente en una obra suya, escrita en 1308, la Liber disputationis Raimundi Christiani et Homeri Saraceni: Et de hac materia largius sum locutus in Libro finis. Quem dominus Papa habet; quem dominus rex Aragoniae misit ad eum. Qui quidem in Monte Pessulano obtulit suam personam, suam terram, suam militiam et suum thesaurum ad pugnandum contra Saracenos omni tempore, quo placeret domino Papae et dominis cardinalibus. Et de hoc sum certus, quia ego ibi eram. (III, 94-99; ed. A. Madre, Raimundi Lulli Opera Latina 130-133 in Monte Pessulano et Pisis anno 1308 composita [CCCM, 114], Turnhout, 1998, p. 264). 62 Liber de fine, Prolog., l. 31 (ed. Madre [ver n. 13], p. 251). 63 … in die iudicii me excusabo coram summo iudice, sic dicendo et etiam cum digito demonstrando: Domine iudex iuste. Ecce illos personaliter, quibus dixi, et per scripta, ut melius potui, demonstraui modum per quem, si uoluissent, potuissent conuertere infideles, et reducere nostrae fidei catholicae unitatem … Tunc super ipsos iudicium quale erit, non est licitum mihi scire; solum illi pertinet, qui sciuit omnia ab aeterno. (Liber de fine, Prologus, l. 43-51; ed. Madre [ver n. 13], p. 251). 64 Liber de fine, Prologus, l. 26-28 (ed. Madre [ver n. 13], p. 251).



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

si el papa y los cardenales hubiesen querido poner en práctica lo que se enseña en este libro. 65 El Liber de fine puede ser, pues, considerado el testamento espiritual de Llull; resume en él toda la experiencia adquirida durante sus viajes y en sus conversaciones y relaciones con los miembros de otras religiones o confesiones cristianas. Comienza con un prólogo en el que declara que después de haber hecho numerosas tentativas y escrito numerosos libros, va a hacer todavía un último esfuerzo; y adoptando un tono apocalíptico, repite las palabras de Cristo: « ¡El que tenga oídos, que oiga! » (Mt. 11, 15). 66 Después del prólogo, dos partes componen el Liber de fine. De estas, la primera, comprende cinco subdivisiones: la primera de estas trata de la formación de colegas para el aprendizaje de la lenguas de los pueblos que hay que convertir o reconducir a la unidad católica, según el modelo de su monasterio de Miramar; la segunda, de la conversión de los sarracenos; la tercera de la conversión de los judíos; la cuarta, de la desaparición de los cismas; y, finalmente, la quinta, de la conversión de los tártaros o de los paganos que no tienen ley. En los apartados consagrados a la conversión de los musulmanes, judíos y paganos, Ramón resume todo lo que había escrito en su Disputatio quinque hominum sapientium, y, en el apartado siguiente, recapitula los argumentos para inducir a los cismáticos a unirse a la Iglesia católica, que había expuesto en el Liber de Sancto Spiritu. En la cuarta subdivisión de la primera parte, que empieza diciendo: in libro isto aliqua contra schismaticos uolumus pertractare, 67 Ramón refuta las objeciones de los cristianos no católicos en tres capítulos: contra graecos, 68 contra jacobinos 69 et contra nestorianos. 70 Nos interesa el que hace referencia a los griegos. Llull subraya una vez más que la causa fundamental de la división entre griegos y latinos es la opinión divergente acerca de la procesión del Espíritu Santo. El método para ajustar este desacuerdo le parece simple y racional: exponer las razones necesarias y ver con cuál de las dos opinio65 … propter defectum ecclesiae schismata sunt in mundo; quae possent destrui, si dominus papa et domini cardinales uolebant facere ea, quae in hoc volumine continentur (Liber de fine, I, 529-531 ; ed. Madre [ver n. 13], p. 266). 66 Liber de fine, Prologus, l. 55 (ed. Madre [ver n. 13], p. 252). 67 Liber de fine I.4, l. 292-293 (ed. Madre [ver n. 13], p. 260). 68 Liber de fine I.4.1, l. 294-385 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 260-262). 69 Liber de fine I.4.2, l. 386-438 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 262-264). 70 Liber de fine I.4.3, l. 439-531 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 264-266).



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

nes estas razones concuerdan mejor. La mayor concordancia de estas razones necesarias con una u otra de las opiniones teológicas, indicará cuál de las dos es la verdadera. Animado por su fe en el propio método, Ramón, en pro de la brevedad, expone sólo seis razones necesarias en apoyo de su tesis, pero añade que se podrían aducir muchas más contra el error de los griegos, para mostrarles que su doctrina no tiene fundamento: Primera razón – Es necesario que Dios sea un principio perfecto. Ningún principio puede, sin embargo, ser perfecto si en él no existe: 1) un principio principiante, no principiado, 2) un principio principiado y principiante, y 3) un principio principiado y no principiante. La concepción perfecta de Dios se halla únicamente en la doctrina católica, porque los griegos no aceptan un principio que sea al mismo tiempo principiado y principiante, el Hijo. 71 Segunda razón – Es necesario que las tres divinas Personas sean perfectamente iguales. En la opinión de los griegos esta condición no existe, pues mientras que el Padre tiene dos funciones (Llull las llama « pasiones »): la primera, la de engendrar al Hijo, y, la otra, la de expirar el Espíritu Santo, el Hijo no tiene más que una, la de ser engendrado, y lo mismo el Espíritu Santo, que sólo tiene la de ser expirado. Los griegos, por tanto, no conceden a la Trinidad la igualdad que le conceden los latinos, quienes atribuyen dos funciones a cada una de las Personas divinas. 72 Tercera razón – Es necesario que las tres Personas divinas estén en concordancia mutua. Esta proposición se verifica mejor en la doctrina católica que en la doctrina griega, porque para los latinos el Padre y el Hijo constituyen un solo y único principio que concurre a la expiración del Espíritu Santo. Por el contrario, según los griegos, el Espíritu Santo no procede del Hijo y, por esta razón, queda abolida la concordancia entre el Padre y el Hijo, lo mismo que entre el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo. 73 Cuarta razón – Es necesario que la naturaleza de las Personas divinas tenga un acto común. Esto se confirma mejor en la doctrina latina que en la doctrina griega, porque, según los latinos, por lo que refiere al Padre y al Hijo, la naturaleza actúa engendrando, como también, por lo que toca a ellos, su naturaleza actúa expirando el amor, que es el Espíritu Santo. Por el contrario, en la doctrina de los griegos, el lazo de amor personal de naturaleza entre el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo no existe; la naturaleza

Liber de fine I.4.1, l. 295-323 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 260-261). Liber de fine I.4.1, l. 324-339 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 261). 73 Liber de fine I.4.1, l. 340-349 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 261). 71 72



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

divina, por tanto, en este caso, sería una naturaleza privada de acto, cosa imposible y falsa. 74 Quinta razón – Es necesario que en la esencia divina el « amar » exista como vínculo entre el que ama y el que es amado, lo mismo que el « conocer » debe existir entre el que conoce y el que es conocido, y el « hacer bien » entre el que hace el bien y lo que está bien hecho. « Así es – concluye Ramón – entre los latinos y no entre los griegos. » 75 Sexta razón – Es necesario que las divinas Personas estén sumamente próximas las unas a las otras y sumamente alejadas de cualquier mutua separación. Esto es lo que sucede en la doctrina latina sobre la procesión del Espíritu Santo y no en la doctrina griega. Según los latinos, del hecho de que el Espíritu Santo proceda también del Hijo, existe una proximidad personal entre el Hijo y el Espíritu por causa de la expiración. Por el contrario, en los griegos, el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo se alejan el uno del otro, porque no hay entre ellos un acto productivo personal. Esto puede representarse con una figura plana de dos líneas formando un ángulo; esta figura, para estar acabada, precisa dos otros ángulos agudos. Dicho de otra manera, el primer ángulo representa el Padre que engendra al Hijo y expira al Espíritu Santo, pero si el Hijo no expira también él al Espíritu Santo, faltan dos ángulos para formar un triángulo completo en el que cada uno de los ángulos represente una de las tres divinas Personas. 76 Esgrimiendo los argumentos propuestos arriba, sería difícil, creemos, convencer a alguien y hacerle aceptar una posición contraria a la suya. Pero el optimismo de Llull y su convicción de la eficacia de sus razones necesarias, no tenían límites. La segunda parte del Liber de fine trata de la cruzada para la reconquista de Tierra Santa, que Ramón augura que sea guiada por Jaime II de Aragón. Dejaremos de lado esta cuestión, que no guarda relación con el tema de estas páginas. Con el Liber de fine, Ramón, como había anunciado en el prólogo, debía poner fin a su producción apologética enderezada a la cristianización del mundo entero. Pero, después de 1305, las circunstancias sociopolíticas experimentaron algunos cambios y creyó necesario adaptar a ellos los planes expuestos en la obra. Así pues, en 1309, compuso un opúsculo en el que trata otra vez de los que él considera cismáticos, aunque, en realidad, la finalidad principal de este Liber de acquisitione Terrae Liber de fine I.4.1, l. 350-358 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 261-262). Liber de fine I.4.1, l. 359-364 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 262). 76 Liber de fine I.4.1, l. 365-382 (ed. Madre [ver. n. 13], p. 262). 74 75



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

sanctae, era interesar a la santa sede para que salvaguardase los bienes de los templarios. 77 En 1309, la orden del Temple aún no había sido suprimida, pero Llull sabía sin duda que la supresión iba a ser inminente, porque escribe: Quantum ad sapientiam, potestatem et caritatem dico, quod posito quod ordo Templariorum destruatur, quod bona eorum tradantur magistro generali, militi religioso supradicto, ut thesaurus ecclesiae multiplicetur contra homines infideles. 78 Este maestre general al que se refiere, tenía que ser, según lo había expuesto precedentemente, el miembro de una orden militar, diversa de la del Temple, que iba a ponerse al frente de las órdenes militares fusionadas en una sola, y de esta manera estar al servicio del papa para dirigir la cruzada. Como se ha hecho notar precedentemente, Ramón es ante todo un misionero. Quiere que todo el mundo sea cristiano, comenzando por los musulmanes, es decir, los que han ocupado la Tierra Santa que ahora hay que recuperar, a los cuales habrá luego que convertir por medio de un diálogo fundado en razones necesarias. En primer lugar, pues, hace falta en este momento, en previsión de la adversidad que comportará la desaparición de la orden del Temple para la conquista de Tierra Santa, ocuparse de la cruzada y buscar la mejor manera de ponerla por obra. Ramón piensa que, para asegurar el éxito, hay que contar con la colaboración de Bizancio: Figuratum est, quod ciuitas Romana et Constantinopolitana se debent habere contra infideles, quoniam olim imperator Romanus cum ciuitate Constantinopolitana habebat uictoriam de inimicis. Et sic necesse est concordare ambo imperia ad acquisitionem Terrae sanctae. 79 Hablando de los dos imperios, ¿a qué imperio de Oriente se refiere Ramón? Piensa, por desgracia, en el imperio latino de Constantinopla. La colaboración con los bizantinos es ciertamente, según él, necesaria, y puede obtenerse de dos maneras: aboliendo el cisma por medio de discusiones teológicas, o por medio de la espada « del venerable señor Carlos (de Valois) y del reverendo maestre del Hospital ». 80 Ramón apoya así las reivindicaciones de Carlos de Valois, pretendiente del trono latino 77 De acquisitione Terrae sanctae iam feci unum librum – escribe Ramón en el prólogo (l. 27-30) – et fuit domino papae Clementi quinto presentatus. Sed propter casum Templariorum materiam illius aliquo modo me oportet uariare in materia huius libri. Ed. Domínguez Reboiras [ver n. 1], p. 206. 78 Liber de acquisitione Terrae sanctae, I, 4, 222-226 (ed. Domínguez Reboiras [ver n. 1], p. 216). 79 Ibid., I, 2, 68-72 (ed. Domínguez Reboiras [ver n. 1], p. 210). 80 Ibid., I, 2, 75-76 (ed. Domínguez Reboiras [ver n. 1], p. 210): uenerabilis domini Caroli et reuerendi magistri Hospitalis.



JUAN NADAL CAÑELLAS

de Constantinopla, que en aquel momento, 1309, intentaba apoderarse de la compañía catalana de los Almogávares para utilizarla en provecho propio, poniendo a su cabeza a su hombre de confianza, Thibault de Chepoy. Es la primera vez que Llull defiende abiertamente una cruzada militar contra los griegos, aunque intenta justificarla en la segunda parte del libro, diciendo que esta conquista militar pretende únicamente crear un clima favorable para poder comenzar la discusión que, a fuerza de argumentos persuasorios, deberá llevar a la conversión. ¿Sólo optimismo o dicotomía del pensamiento? En todo caso, impaciencia y malestar frente a una situación del mundo en la que el cristianismo – este cristianismo que Ramón quería ver reinar sobre todos los pueblos y por el que había consumido su vida y su actividad –, en lugar de avanzar, retrocedía frente a los asaltos victoriosos del Islam. Ramón murió en 1315, a la edad de 84 años. Había pasado los primeros años de su vida « en los caminos de la insensatez y en obras de pecado », 81 y el resto lo había consagrado a buscar la glorificación del Señor Jesucristo, predicando la fe cristiana en el mundo entero. Durante esta larga y dinámica vida de apostolado, Ramón Llull estuvo en contacto con todos los pueblos y todas las religiones del mundo entonces conocido. Aquí, hemos querido examinar solamente su relación con el mundo bizantino. Desde el comienzo hemos notado su simpatía por el pueblo griego: « Los griegos son cristianos… y tienen muy buenas costumbres. » Sin embargo, no puede no lamentar su desunión con los latinos por causa del error relativo al dogma del Espíritu Santo, causa del cisma, que impide la expansión del cristianismo en los territorios asiáticos. Para restablecer la unidad, propone un método infalible: la discusión a base de razones necesarias. Recordemos el clima casi fraterno en el que se desarrollaban los debates en el Liber de Sancto Spiritu o en el de los cinco sabios. La insistencia de Llull en que se utilice su método en la discusión entre eruditos nos revela que se ha dado cuenta de que la unión no se hará jamás imponiendo la propia voluntad y las propias ideas, por81 En su Libre de contemplació (cap. 70, n. 22-23), Ramón escribe: « Fui un loco desde los primeros años de mi vida hasta la edad de treinta años, cuando empecé a acordarme de vuestra sabiduría y a desear vuestra alabanza, recordando vuestra pasión. De la misma manera que el sol va a brillar con más esplendor a mediodía, lo mismo yo. Hasta el mediodía de mi edad había vivido como un loco, falto de sabiduría, pero la vuestra, Señor, es tan grande, que me hizo partícipe de ella para el resto de mis días, a fin de que toda mi vida estuviese consagrada a las buenas obras. » (Ed. M. Obrador y Bennassar, Libre de Contemplació en Deu, II [Obres de Ramon Llull, III], Palma de Mallorca, 1906, p. 65-66).



RAMÓN LLULL Y EL MUNDO BIZANTINO

que las diferencias dogmáticas responden a profundas convicciones de cada uno de los pueblos de las dos partes de la cristiandad. Dicho de otra manera, Ramón, reflexionando sabiamente sobre lo que había sucedido en la falsa unión del segundo concilio de Lyon, se da cuenta de que el pueblo griego se identifica más con la Iglesia que con el imperio. Esta visión exacta de la realidad se hará evidente, desgraciadamente, después de 1453, con la caída de Constantinopla. Llull tiene el honor de haber sido el primer occidental que se dio cuenta de ello. Es verdad que al final de su vida, a causa de acontecimientos que perturbaban la promoción del cristianismo, Ramón se volvió hacia una solución que no había previsto sino para un caso extremo: la conquista por las armas. 82 Es para imponer la paz – dice excusándose – y poder así entablar el diálogo. Nadie está exento de defectos y el defecto de Ramón fue que su dinamismo engendró la impaciencia y su impaciencia le hizo traicionar sus propias ideas. Sea lo que sea, Ramón Llull, por lo ingenioso de sus intuiciones matemáticas, por su dinamismo y su coraje en denunciar la apatía de papas y reyes, por su atención personalizada al mundo oriental y la percepción exacta del núcleo central del helenismo cristiano, es un personaje único que debe ser contado entre las personalidades más notables del Medioevo occidental.

82 La oposición de Ramón al uso de las armas hasta este momento, se hace patente en su novela Blanquerna donde, hablando el papa a los cardenales en el consistorio, « un sarraceno le presentó una carta de parte del sultán de Babilonia. En ella se decían muchas cosas y, entre otras, el sultán decía al papa que se maravillaba mucho de él y de todos los príncipes cristianos porque, para conquistar Tierra Santa de ultramar, echaban mano de la manera que lo había hecho Mahoma, que había conquistado aquellas tierras con las armas; y porque no querían poner en práctica la procedimiento de Jesucristo y de los apóstoles, quienes, por medio de la predicación y del martirio, convirtieron el mundo. Por esto, por no haber querido el papa y los cristianos seguir el método de sus fundadores para conquistar Tierra Santa, Dios no quería que ellos poseyesen aquella Tierra de ultramar » (Libre de Evast i de Blanquerna, parte IV, cap. 80, p. 295).



Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun

Est-ce qu’on a découvert la profession de foi de Métrophane de Smyrne ? Abstract – After an overview of what we currently know about the elusive ninth-century bishop of Smyrna, Metrophanes, the article tries to establish whether the confessio fidei preserved in Parisinus gr. 887 under the bishop’s name is really his work. En 2007, Gerard H. Ettlinger et Jacques Noret ont publié dans la Series Graeca l’édition critique d’un long commentaire sur l’Ecclésiaste longtemps attribué à Grégoire d’Agrigente ou à Grégoire de Nysse (CPG 7950). 1 On sait ce qui s’est passé depuis la parution de ce livre impressionnant. Dans une contribution achevée en 2008, 2 nous avons démontré que ce texte, tout comme un nombre d’autres ouvrages restés anonymes, revient à Métrophane, évêque de Smyrne et adversaire acharné de Photius. Sur Métrophane, on ne sait pas grand-chose. Vers le milieu du ixe siècle, il est devenu métropolite de Smyrne ; en 859, comme partisan du patriarche Ignace, il est déposé de son siège et exilé dans la presqu’île de Crimée ; en 869-870, il a pu récupérer son siège, mais avant le Synode de 879-880, il est définitivement exilé en Crimée, où il est décédé avant octobre 912. 3 1 Pseudo-Gregorii seu Pseudo-Gregorii Nysseni Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (CCSG, 56), Turnhout – Leuven, 2007. 2 P. Van Deun, La chasse aux trésors : la découverte de plusieurs œuvres inconnues de Métrophane de Smyrne (ixe-xe siècle), dans Byz, 78 (2008), p. 346-367 ; à cet article, on ajoutera une autre contribution de P. Van Deun, Trésors inconnus de la littérature byzantine des ixe-xe siècles, dans Annuaire EPHE. Sciences religieuses, 117 (2008-2009), p. 273-276. J. Noret a bien esquissé l’histoire de la découverte dans un article intitulé Comment a-t-on trouvé le véritable auteur du commentaire sur l’Ecclésiaste longtemps attribué à Grégoire d’Agrigrente ?, dans Ho theológos. Rivista della Facoltà Teologica di Sicilia, 30 (2012), p. 159-165. 3 Sur sa vie, consulter surtout PmbZ1, n° 4986 et 4986A ; PmbZ2, n° 25088 et 25088A, intégrant l’information publiée en 2000 ; malheureusement, ces lemmes n’ont pas suffisamment tenu compte de ce que nous avons écrit à ce propos. On ajoutera encore deux articles, très intéressants, qui manquent dans la bibliographie de la PmbZ. On notera tout d’abord qu’en Crimée, le lieu d’exil de Métrophane, on a découvert le sceau de Métrophane ; sur ce μολυβδόβουλλον on lit les mots [Μ]ιτ[ροφα]νης [μητ]ροπο[λιτ] ης Σμ[υρ]νης, accompagné de l’effigie de S. Polycarpe ; à ce propos, voir l’article de N. A. Alekseenko, Pečat’ Mitrofana Smirnskago iz Chersona : ssyl’nyi mitropolit v Tavrike,

The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 321–332 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117154

Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun

Ces dernières années, on a pu saluer un nombre de publications centrées sur cet écrivain important. De là, il est bon de donner l’état de la question, en nous concentrant sur son œuvre qui s’avère être monumentale. 4 1. Une Διάλεξις κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων, très longue, éditée par Michiel Hostens dans la Series Graeca. 5 Le texte n’est conservé que dans un seul manuscrit, qui date de la première moitié du xe siècle (Florentinus, Mediceus-Laurentianus, plut. VII, 1) ; dans ce codex, l’œuvre, restée anonyme, s’arrête abruptement, ce qui nous permet de conclure qu’on n’a plus l’intégralité du texte. Il est très probable que l’Adversus Iudaeos date des années 907-908, donc sous le règne de l’empereur Léon VI. 2. Le commentaire In Ecclesiastem, déjà mentionné ci-dessus (CPG 7950) ; on peut consulter ce long texte remarquable dans l’édition critique établie par G.H. Ettlinger et J. Noret, qui ont étudié les quatre témoins manuscrits qui nous sont parvenus : le Parisinus, Coislinianus 57, vraisemblablement transcrit dans la première moitié du xe siècle ; le Hierosolymitanus, Sabaiticus 579, de la fin du xiie siècle ; le Romanus, Casanatensis 198, datant du deuxième quart du xive siècle ; le Neapolitanus, Bibliotheca Nationalis II B 13, dont la première partie a été transcrite par le jésuite Pierre Poussines à dans Sacrum et Profanum, 3 (2007), p. 11-15. – Un manuscrit qui se trouve actuellement à la Bibliothèque Nationale d’Athènes (codex 1062) et qui date du deuxième quart du xvie siècle, contient deux poèmes inconnus en honneur de Métrophane, qui, selon toute probabilité, appartiennent au genre des “book epigrams” ; à ce propos, voir l’article de F. Pontani, Spigolature Bizantine. Paolo all’Areopago in Sofonia. Versi per Metrofane di Smirne, dans Istituto Lombardo. Accademia di Scienze e Lettere. Rendiconti. Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche, 144 (2010), p. 23-50, plus particulièrement, p. 36-44. 4 De son œuvre, on doit exclure définitivement deux textes. Tout d’abord, il y a la Vie d’Euthyme de Sardès (BHG 2146) attribuée à un moine Métrophane (pour l’édition de ce texte, voir A. Papadakis, The Unpublished Life of Euthymius of Sardis : Bodleianus Laudianus graecus 69, dans Traditio, 26 [1970], p. 63-89) ; l’hypothèse que ce Métrophane puisse être identifié avec Métrophane de Smyrne (cf. H. G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich [Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, XII, 2, 1], München, 1959, p. 512) est fautive ; en effet, ayant comparé ce texte avec les ouvrages authentiques de Métrophane, nous avons constaté que le vocabulaire et la syntaxe caractéristiques de l’évêque de Smyrne, sont totalement absents de la Vita Euthymii (voir également PmbZ1, n° 4984). – Dans quelques manuscrits, la Mystagogia de Photius est attribuée à Métrophane, à tort, comme l’a démontré tout récemment, de manière convaincante, V. Polidori, Photius and Metrophanes of Smyrna : The Controversy of the Authorship of the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, dans MEG, 14 (2014), p. 199-208. 5 Anonymi auctoris Theognosiae (saec. IX/X) Dissertatio contra Iudaeos (CCSG, 14), Turnhout – Leuven, 1986. Sur ce texte, voir également M. Hostens, À la découverte d’un auteur byzantin inconnu du ix/xe siècle, dans A. Schoors – P. Van Deun (éd.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii (OLA, 60), Leuven, 1994, p. 423-433, ainsi que quelques pages chez A. Külzer, Disputationes Graecae contra Iudaeos. Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild (BA, 18), Stuttgart – Leipzig, 1999, p. 175-179.



LA PROFESSION DE FOI DE METROPHANE DE SMYRNE

Rome dans la seconde moitié du xviie siècle. Du texte, il existe une traduction en géorgien. 6 L’attribution du texte à Grégoire d’Agrigente ou à Grégoire de Nysse (deux noms qui circulent dans la tradition manuscrite) est fautive. Il est malheureusement impossible de dater l’œuvre avec précision. 3. Une série d’homélies sur S. Jean et S. Matthieu, dont l’édition critique est due à Karl Hansmann, bien que sous le titre un peu trompeur de « Kommentar zum Johannesevangelium ». 7 L’œuvre n’est conservée que dans un seul manuscrit, le Londinensis, British Library, Additional 39605, du début du xe siècle. 8 Malheureusement, ce témoin vénérable est mutilé, ce qui a entraîné la perte du huitième sermon, ainsi que des parties d’autres discours ; le nom de l’auteur a été gratté dans le manuscrit (f. 1) et est devenu illisible. Les dix homélies semblent avoir été achevées entre la déposition du patriarche Nicolas Mystikos (février 907) et la mort de l’empereur Léon VI (mai 912), et constituent, très probablement, un commentaire des péricopes lues à partir de Pâques jusqu’aux premières semaines suivant la fête de Pentecôte, lorsque la lecture de l’Évangile de Matthieu débute. 9 4. Un Commentaire sur les Épîtres Catholiques, dont on connaissait déjà depuis longtemps l’existence et qui est explicitement attribué à Métrophane de Smyrne. 10 Ce texte très long n’est conservé que dans un codex unicus, l’Athous, Dionysiou 227, transcrit au xve siècle, au monastère de Dionysiou, par un moine Maxime. Pour la plus grande partie, l’œuvre est restée inédite, sauf pour ce qui est de trois petits échantillons ; 11 Peter Van 6 Pour l’édition de la version géorgienne, voir K. Kekelidze, Commentarii in Ecclesiastem Metrophanis, Metropolitae Smyrnensis (Monumenta Georgica. Publicationes Universitatis Tphilisensis, I. Scriptores Ecclesiastici, 1), Tiflis, 1920. 7 Ein neuentdeckter Kommentar zum Johannesevangelium. Untersuchungen und Text (Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte, 16, 4/5), Paderborn, 1930. On sait que la découverte de ces λόγοι revient à H. I. Bell, Sermons by the Author of the Theognosia, attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, dans JThS, 26 (1925), p. 364-373. 8 Maintenant disponible sous forme digitale (http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/ FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_39605). 9 À ce propos, voir surtout Th. Antonopoulou, Homiletic Activity in Constantinople around 900, dans M. B. Cunningham – P. Allen (éd.), Preacher and Audience. Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, Leiden – Boston – Köln, 1998, p. 336-339 ; cet article a été repris, dans une traduction grecque (sous le titre Η ομιλητική δραστηριότητα στην Κωνσταντινούπολη γύρω στο έτος 900), dans Th. Antonopoulou, Βυζαντινή ομιλητική. Συγγραφείς και κείμενα, Athènes, 2013, p. 99-102 ; je remercie l’auteur de m’avoir envoyé un exemplaire de ce beau livre. 10 À ce sujet, voir B. Georgiadès, Μνημεῖα ἐκκλησιαστικὰ ἀνέκδοτα, I, ̓Εκ τῶν τοῦ μητροπολίτου Σμύρνης Μητροφάνους (865), dans ̓Εκκλησιαστικὴ Α ̓ λήθεια, 3 (1883), p. 513517, plus particulièrement p. 517. 11 En effet, trois fragments de ce Commentaire ont été édités par B. Georgiadès, sur base du manuscrit de Dionysiou : Μητροφάνους μητροπολίτου Σμύρνης ἑρμηνεία τῆς



Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun

Deun a récemment publié l’édition critique du λόγος donnant l’exégèse du début de la première Lettre de S. Pierre. 12 Les 20 sermons dont on n’ignore la date de confection, sont successivement centrés sur la Lettre de Jacques (5 λόγοι), la première Lettre de Pierre (également 5 λόγοι), la seconde Lettre de Pierre (3 λόγοι), la première Lettre de Jean (5 λόγοι), la seconde Lettre de Jean (1 λόγος) et, finalement, la Lettre de Jude (1 λόγος). Cette succession reflète parfaitement celle de l’Apostolos, contenant les péricopes prises aux Épîtres Catholiques, dans l’ordre où elles doivent être lues pendant le cours de la liturgie des jours de la semaine (en dehors des dimanches et des jours fériés) – l’Ἀπόστολος τῆς ἡμέρας – ; la période en question débute avec la 31e semaine (après Pâques) et s’achève avec la semaine de la Tyrophagie, à la veille du Carême. 13 Finalement, on notera que cette œuvre de Métrophane a été pillée par Nicodème l’Hagiorite (1749-1809) pour son Commentaire sur les Épîtres Catholiques, en grec vulgaire, publié à Venise en 1806. 14 ̓Ιωάννου δευτέρας ἐπιστολῆς, dans Σωτήρ, 4 (1880), p. 33-42 ; Μητροφάνους μητροπολίτου Σμύρνης ἑρμηνεία τῆς ̓Ιωάννου τρίτης ἐπιστολῆς, dans ̓Εκκλησιαστικὴ Α ̓ λήθεια, 3 (1883), p. 541-544 ; Μητροφάνους μητροπολίτου Σμύρνης ἑρμηνεία τῆς τοῦ ̓Ιούδα ἐπιστολῆς, dans ̓ λήθεια, 3 (1883), p. 557-561 et 573-577. On notera que Jean Bekkos, ̓Εκκλησιαστικὴ Α patriarche de Constantinople de 1274 à 1282, a cité un fragment du commentaire sur la première Lettre de Jean dans ses Epigraphae sive praescriptiones in dicta ac sententias sanctorum Patrum a se collectas de processione Spiritus Sancti (PG 141, 692A1 – B4). 12 Le Commentaire de Métrophane de Smyrne sur la Première Epître de Pierre (Chapitre 1, versets 1-23), dans Travaux et Mémoires, 21/2 (2017), p. 389-415. 13 Nous remercions notre collègue Basile Markesinis de tous ces détails. Voici l’inventaire détaillé de cette lectio divina : ΛΑ ἑβδομάς (après Paques) Mercredi : Iac. 1, 11-18 Jeudi : Iac. 1, 19-27 Vendredi : Iac. 2, 1-13

ΛΔ ἑβδομάς Lundi : II Petr. 1, 20-21 et 2, 1-9 Mardi : II Petr. 2, 9-22 Mercredi : II Petr. 3, 1-18 Jeudi : I Io. 1, 8-9 et 2, 1-6 Vendredi : I Io. 2, 7-17 ΛΕ ἑβδομάς Lundi : I Io. 2, 18-29 et 3, 1-8 Mardi : I Io. 3, 9-22 Mercredi : I Io. 3, 21-24 et 4, 1-11 Jeudi : I Io. 4, 20 – 5, 21 Vendredi : II Io. 1, 1-13 ἑβδομὰς τῆς Τυρινῆς Lundi : III Io. 1, 1-15 Mardi : Iud. 1-10 Jeudi : Iud. 11-25

ΛΒ ἑβδομάς Lundi : Iac. 2, 14-26 Mardi : Iac. 3, 1-10 Mercredi : Iac. 3, 11-18 et 4, 1-6 Jeudi : Iac. 4, 7-17 et 5, 1-9 Vendredi : I Petr. 1, 1-25 et 2, 1-10 ΛΓ ἑβδομάς Lundi : I Petr. 2, 21-25 et 3, 1-9 Mardi : I Petr. 3, 10-22 Mercredi : I Petr. 4, 1-11 Jeudi : I Petr. 4, 12-19 et 5, 1-5 Vendredi : II Petr. 1, 1-10

14 Nous avons consulté ce texte dans la troisième édition parue à Thessalonique en 1986, sous le titre : ̔Ερμηνεία εἰς τὰς ἑπτὰ Καθολικὰς ᾿Επιστολὰς τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων ᾿Ιακώβου, Πέτρου, ᾿Ιωάννου καὶ ᾿Ιούδα.



LA PROFESSION DE FOI DE METROPHANE DE SMYRNE

5. Un commentaire sur l’Hexaéméron que, malheureusement, nous n’avons pas pu retrouver ; d’après Nicodème l’Hagiorite, 15 l’ouvrage serait conservé dans des manuscrits appartenant à la bibliothèque du monastère du Pantokrator au Mont Athos. 6. Un commentaire sur les Psaumes qui semble être perdu, mais dont on trouve des bribes dans les chaînes. 16 7. La Laudatio Polycarpi Smyrnensis (BHG 1563), dont, récemment, Ilse De Vos et Peter Van Deun ont établi le texte critique, accompagné d’une traduction anglaise. 17 Cet opuscule, explicitement attribué à Métrophane de Smyrne, n’est conservé que dans deux témoins : l’Athous, Lavra Δ 62, du xiiie-xive siècle, et son apographe, le Constantinopolitanus, Halki, Schol. 39, de l’année 1559. 18 La date du texte est inconnue. 8. La Laudatio archangelorum Michael et Gabriel (BHG 1292), dont, récemment, l’édition critique, accompagnée d’une traduction anglaise, a paru dans Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 19 Ce texte de 272 lignes, attribué à Métrophane de Smyrne, n’est conservé que dans un seul témoin manuscrit, l’Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Auctarium E.5.12 (Miscellaneus 77), de la fin du xiie siècle. On ne connaît pas la date du texte. 9. La Θεογνωσία (CPG 3223) dont on n’a conservé que des parties considérables dans la Panoplie dogmatique d’Euthyme Zygadène (achevée entre 1115 et 1118), qui les a attribuées à Grégoire de Nysse ; on ajoutera encore des citations plus courtes qu’on trouve dans un grand nombre d’auteurs tardifs, tels Andronic Kamatèros, Nicéphore Blem Voir l’édition de Nicodème citée à la note précédente, p. 22-23. Pour ces extraits, voir J.-M. Olivier, Les fragments “Métrophane” des chaînes exégétiques grecques du Psautier, dans RHT, 6 (1976), p. 31-78. Une édition de ces fragments est préparée par R. Ceulemans, J.-M. Olivier et P. Van Deun. 17 The Panegyric of Polycarp of Smyrna attributed to Metrophanes of Smyrna (BHG 1563), dans J. Leemans (ed.), Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Antique Christianity. Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter (BETL, 241), Leuven – Parijs – Walpole (MA), 2010, p. 311-331. Cette édition remplace l’édition, peu fiable, de B. Georgiadès, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μητροφάνους μητροπολίτου Σμύρνης ̓Εγκώμιον εἰς τὸν ἱερομάρτυρα Πολύκαρπον, dans ̓Εκκλησιαστικὴ Α ̓ λήθεια, 3 (1883), p. 299-302. 18 Récemment, Th. Antonopoulou a relevé l’importance du texte : A Survey of Tenth-Century Homiletic Literature, dans Parekbolai, 1 (2011), p. 10-11 ; cet article a été repris, dans une traduction grecque (Επισκόπηση της ομιλητικής γραμματείας του δέκατου αιώνα), dans Antonopoulou, Βυζαντινή ομιλητική [voir n. 9], p. 118-119. 19 E. Gielen – P. Van Deun, The Invocation of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel Attributed to Metrophanes Metropolitan of Smyrna (BHG 1292), dans BZ, 108(2) (2015), p. 653-671. Cette édition remplace celle de B. Georgiadès, Μητροφάνους μητροπολίτου Σμύρνης Προσφωνητικὸς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους ἀρχαγγέλους Μιχαὴλ καὶ Γαβριήλ, dans ̓ λήθεια, 7 (1887), p. 386-393. ̓Εκκλησιαστικὴ Α 15 16



Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun

myde, Jean Bekkos et Grégoire Palamas. La Theognosia, antérieure aux Homiliae in Ioannem et Matthaeum relevées ci-dessus, a été rédigée en Crimée, l’endroit d’exil de Métrophane. 20 10. Un bon nombre de canons liturgiques, ainsi que l’Hymne sur la Trinité, écrit en vers anacréontiques. 21 11. Deux interventions assez longues lors du Synode de 869-870, ainsi qu’une lettre adressée à Manuel, patrice et λογοθέτης τοῦ δρόμου, 22 centrée sur la déposition de Photius et rejetée en appendice aux Actes de ce même Synode. 23 12. Une profession de foi attribuée à Métrophane de Smyrne. C’est sur cet opuscule, resté inédit jusqu’ici, 24 que sont centrées les pages qui suivent. Comme c’est le cas de la plupart des œuvres de Métrophane, cette profession de foi ne nous est parvenue que dans un seul témoin, notamment le Parisinus gr. 887. De ce manuscrit, Henri Omont a donné une description succincte ; 25 la dissertation de doctorat de Bram Roosen 26 renferme une excellente description détaillée, relevant toute la richesse de ce manuscrit remarquable. Résumons brièvement ce qu’on sait actuellement. Ce manuscrit de papier, pour lequel on a relevé un seul filigrane (une fleur de lys, surmontée d’un fleuron ou quatrefeuilles : très proche de Briquet n° 7080), se divise en deux parties bien nettes : les f. 1-112v de ce codex dateraient de 1540, tandis que les f. 113-223 reviendraient à l’an Pour une édition et une étude de tout le matériel, voir P. Van Deun, Le Liber de cognitione Dei de Métrophane de Smyrne (CPG 3223). Un bilan des fragments conservés, dans MEG, 17 (2017), p. 241-280. 21 Voir notre état de la question à ce propos : Van Deun, La chasse aux trésors [voir n. 2], p. 361. 22 Voir PmbZ1, n° 4707 et PmbZ2, n° 24869. 23 Consulter l’édition dans J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XVI, Venise, 1771, col. 344D – 345A et 349D – 353C (les deux interventions de Métrophane) ; col. 413E – 420D (sa lettre à Manuel). 24 Erronément, la base de données de Pinakes (http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/ cote/50475/ ; consultation le 12 juin 2018) dit que le texte aurait été édité par Bernard de Montfaucon dans sa Bibliotheca Coisliniana olim Segueriana, Paris, 1715, p. 88 sq. 25 Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des départements, I, Paris, 1886, p. 167 ; III, Paris, 1888, p. 394 ; on ajoutera également H. Omont, Les manuscrits grecs datés des xve et xvie siècles de la Bibliothèque nationale et des autres bibliothèques de France, Paris, 1892, p. 155. 26 Epifanovitch Revisited. (Pseudo-)Maximi Confessoris Opuscula varia : a critical edition with extensive notes on manuscript tradition and authenticity, dissertation de doctorat, non publiée, Leuven, 2001, p. 154-158. 20



LA PROFESSION DE FOI DE METROPHANE DE SMYRNE

née 1539 ; de cela témoigne la présence de deux colophons : Παχώμιος (μον)αχ(ὸς) ἐν τῇ τ(ῆς) σεβασμί(ας) Λαύρας μονῇ, ˏαφμ. (f. 112v) et Παχώμιος (μον)αχ(ὸς) ἐν τ(ῇ) τ(ῆς) σεβασμί(ας) Λαύρ(ας) μονῇ, ˏαφλθ. (f. 223). Ces souscriptions suggèrent que la totalité du codex manuscrit a été transcrite par le moine Pachôme, au monastère de la Grande Laure au Mont Athos, dans les années 1539-1540. 27 La plupart des érudits ont identifié ce Pachôme avec le célèbre scribe et falsificateur Constantin Paléocappa, mais cette identification et un séjour de Paléocappa à la Sainte Montagne font l’objet d’un débat. 28 En effet, le filigrane que nous avons relevé ci-dessus, est étroitement apparenté à un autre filigrane attesté pour Paris et daté de l’année 1542, ce qui met en question la véracité des colophons conservés dans le Parisinus. Il semble donc que le manuscrit n’ait pas écrit au Mont Athos, mais en Occident, probablement à Venise ou à Paris même, et que la datation en 1539-1540 soit également fictive ; quoi qu’il en soit, le codex est antérieur à l’année 1550 lorsqu’il est répertorié dans le catalogue de la collection de Fontainebleau. 29 Finalement, on notera que le Parisinus gr. 887, tout comme deux autres témoins parisiens, contient une fraude de Paléocappa, un traité contre les Juifs attribué à Thaddée de Péluse, prétendu patriarche de Jérusalem, qui l’aurait achevé en 1298 ; mais, cette œuvre n’est autre qu’un chapitre de la Chronique de Georges le Moine ou de celle de Georges Kedrenos. 30 Aux f. 22-24v, on lit un texte introduit par les mots τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Μητροφάνους ἐπισκόπου Σμύρνης, ἔκθεσις πίστεως, donc un opuscule qui pourrait être la profession de foi épiscopale de Métrophane au moment de son installation au siège de Smyrne.

Sur Pachôme et Paléocappa, voir le RGK, I, n° 225 ; II, n° 316 ; et III, n° 364. Consulter à ce propos F. J. Leroy, Les énigmes Palaeocappa, dans Travaux de l’Université de Bujumbura, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, 11 (1968), p. 3-16 (pour compliquer le cas, Leroy n’exclut pas l’existence de deux ou même trois Constantin Paléocappa différents), ainsi que C. García Bueno, El copista Cretense Constantino Paleocapa : un estado de la cuestión, dans Estudios bizantinos, 1 (2013), p. 198-218 (un article faisant partie d’un grand projet sur Paléocappa). 29 On sait que Paléocappa a collaboré à l’établissement de ce catalogue de manuscrits grecs de Fontainebleau. 30 À ce propos, voir surtout G. Bardy, Thaddée de Péluse. Adversus Iudaeos, dans ROC, 22 (1920-1921), p. 280-287 ; S. G. Mercati, Il Trattato contro i Giudei di Taddeo Pelusiota è una falsificazione di Costantino Paleocappa, dans Bessarione, 39 (1923), p. 8-14 ; P. Andrist, Pour un répertoire des manuscrits de polémique antijudaïque, dans Byz, 70 (2000), p. 300-301. 27 28



Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun

En voici le texte, accompagné d’une traduction 31 : Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων Πατέρα 32 καὶ παντοκράτορα, τὴν ὑπερούσιον καὶ τῶν ἁπάντων ἐξῃρημένην 33 τὲ καὶ συνεκτικὴν αἰτίαν, 34 καὶ εἰς ἕνα Υἱόν τε καὶ κύριον, τὸν συναΐδιον καὶ ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι’οὗ τὰ πάντα τὴν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος 35 εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγωγήν τε καὶ πάροδον ἔσχηκε, καὶ εἰς ἓν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, 36 τὸ ζωαρχικὸν καὶ ἰσοκλεὲς τῷ Λόγῳ καὶ τῷ Πατρί, τὸ πᾶσιν ἐπιφοιτῶν τοῖς ἀξίοις καὶ διαιροῦν τὰ θεῖα καὶ ποικίλα χαρίσματα διαφόρως, κατὰ τὴν ἐφ’ἑκάστῳ τῆς ἀρετῆς προσοῦσαν ἀναλογίαν. 37 Καὶ τούτων μὲν ἕκαστον ἰδικῶς ὑφεστάναι δοξάζω καί τινας ἔχειν γνωριστικὰς ἰδιότητας, καθ’ἃς θάτερος θατέρου τὴν διάκρισιν ἀσύγκριτον ἔχων φαίνεται, ὡς ἔχειν μὲν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα 38 ἐξαίρετόν τι καὶ ἰδιάζον γνώρισμα, τὸ πεφυκέναι τὲ καὶ καλεῖσθαι Πατέρα, καὶ μηδ’ἔκ τινος ὑφεστάναι τὸ παράπαν αἰτίας, τὸν δὲ Υἱόν, τὸ μόνως μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτως τὲ καὶ ἀνάρχως ὄντος γεννηθῆναι Πατρός, καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ μόνου φωτὸς ἀναιτίου, τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι 39 καὶ μηδεμίαν κατ’αὐτὸ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν ἢ πρὸς τὸν ἐξ οὗ ἐκπεπόρευται, τοῦτο δὲ μᾶλλον σημεῖον αὐτοῦ εἶναι τῆς οἰκείας ὑποστάσεως ἰδιαζόντως καὶ γνώρισμα.

L’importance de la source principale de cette profession, c’est-à-dire une lettre pseudo-basilienne, sera relevée en détail après la traduction. Nous remercions notre collègue Basile Markesinis de toutes ses remarques et suggestions qui nous ont permis d’améliorer notre traduction. 32 Eph. 4, 6. 33 Les mots ἁπάντων ἐξῃρημένος utilisés pour parler de Dieu, s’inspirent du Pseudo-Denys et se rapprochent d’une tournure qui se lit également chez Métrophane de Smyrne (ὁ τῶν ὅλων ou πάντων ἐξῃρημένος θεός) ; voir à ce propos Hostens, Dissertatio contra Iudaeos [voir n. 5], p. XXVII. 34 Par exemple, Dieu comme συνεκτικὴ αἰτία se lit également chez Grégoire de Nazianze, Oratio XXVIII (CPG 3010 [28]), 6, 1-2 (p. 110 de l’édition de P. Gallay, avec la collaboration de M. Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 27-31 [Discours théologiques] [SC, 250], Paris, 1978). 35 ὄντως cod. 36 Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν … Πατέρα … παντοκράτορα … καὶ εἰς ἕνα Υἱόν τε καὶ κύριον … ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι’οὗ τὰ πάντα … καὶ εἰς … Πνεῦμα ἅγιον : reprise du Symbole de Nicée-Constantinople. 37 καὶ εἰς ἓν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον – ἀρετῆς προσοῦσαν ἀναλογίαν : toutes ces lignes s’inspirent clairement de Rom. 12, 6-8 (surtout 12, 6) ; I Cor. 7, 7 et 12, 4-11 (surtout 12, 11) ; Eph. 4, 7 ; I Petr. 4, 10. 38 Eph. 4, 6. 39 Io. 15, 26. 31



LA PROFESSION DE FOI DE METROPHANE DE SMYRNE

Ἀλλὰ γὰρ τούτοις τοῖς χαρακτηρικοῖς ἰδιώμασιν ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τῇ Τριάδι θεωρουμένων εὐσεβῶς διακρίνοντες καὶ Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦντες ἀληθινόν, οὐ τρεῖς ἀρχὰς ἢ θεοὺς ἐκφύλους 40 δυσφήμως δοξάζομεν, ἄπαγε, μίαν δὲ τῶν ἁπάντων ἀρχὴν καὶ Θεὸν ἕνα διὰ τὸ τῆς φύσεως κοινὸν καὶ τὴν τῆς γνώμης σύμπνοιάν 41 τε καὶ συμφυΐαν κηρύττομεν.

« Je crois en un seul Dieu, le Père tout puissant qui est au-dessus de toutes choses et par toutes choses, la cause supersubstantielle qui transcende et maintient (dans l’être) toutes (les choses) ; et en un seul Fils et Seigneur, qui est coéternel et consubstantiel au Père, par lequel toutes les choses ont eu leur adduction et leur venue du néant à l’être ; et en un seul Esprit Saint, source de la vie et égal en gloire au Verbe et au Père, qui descend à tous ceux qui sont dignes et qui distribue de différentes manières les multiples dons divins, proportionnellement à la vertu qui se trouve en chacun. Je crois aussi que chacune de ces trois hypostases existe d’une manière qui lui est propre et possède des propriétés caractéristiques, d’après lesquelles elle se montre, d’une manière incomparable, distincte des autres, de sorte que Dieu le Père, qui est au-dessus de toutes choses, a comme caractéristique exclusive et propre (à lui) le fait d’être Père et d’être appelé ainsi, et d’exister sans aucune cause du tout ; le Fils, le fait d’être seul engendré comme Fils unique du Père inengendré et sans commencement, et d’avoir sa cause dans cette même première lumière qui, seule, est sans cause ; le Saint Esprit, le fait de procéder du Père ; pour cette raison, il n’a en lui rien de commun avec le Fils ou avec celui duquel il a procédé ; par contre, d’une manière exclusive, cela (le fait de procéder du Père) est plutôt le signe et la marque distinctive de sa propre hypostase. La triple structure générale de cette briève profession, qui est restée assez vague et impersonnelle, est très claire. Après avoir confessé sa foi 40 L’expression θεοὺς ἐκφύλους a des parallèles (trinitaires) chez Grégoire de Nazianze ; à ce propos, voir, à titre d’exemples, Oratio II (CPG 3010 [2]), 36, 10-13 (τὸν αὐτὸν Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ὑπολαμβάνουσιν μήτε εἰς τρεῖς ἢ ἐκφύλους καὶ ἀλλοτρίας διαιρεθέντα ἢ ἀτάκτους καὶ ἀνάρχους, καὶ οἷον εἰπεῖν, ἀντιθέους, πρὸς κακὸν ἴσον ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων μεταπεσεῖν) (voir l’édition de J. Bernardi, Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 1-3 [SC, 247], Paris, 1978, p. 136) ; Oratio XX (CPG 3010 [20]), 5, 22-23 (οὔτε διαιροῦμεν εἰς τρία ἔκφυλα καὶ ἀλλότρια) (voir l’édition de J. Mossay, avec la collaboration de G. Lafontaine, Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 20-23 [SC, 270], Paris, 1980, p. 6668) ; Oratio XXI (CPG 3010 [21]), 13, 14-15 (τὸ … τὰ τρία διαιρεῖν φύσεσι, κατατομὴν θεότητος ἔκφυλον) (voir Mossay – Lafontaine, Discours 20-23, p. 136). 41 La première attestation de l’expression γνώμης σύμπνοια se lit chez Grégoire de Nazianze, Oratio XXIX (CPG 3010 [29]), 2, 10 (p. 178 de l’édition de Gallay – Jourjon, Discours 27-31 [voir n. 34]).



Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun

en un Père, Fils et Esprit-Saint en termes proches du Symbole de Nicée-Constantinople, l’auteur se concentre sur leurs propriétés permettant de bien définir chaque hypostase, en insistant sur l’incommunicabilité de ces attributs hypostatiques. Finalement, il souligne que, malgré la distinction en trois personnes, on doit confesser bien un seul Dieu trinitaire, avec une nature commune. On notera que la discussion sur les ἰδιότητες est plus détaillée que les deux autres sections de l’opuscule. En examinant le vocabulaire et le contenu du texte, on essayera d’esquisser les antécédents avec lesquels l’auteur, consciemment ou pas, entre en dialogue. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que l’auteur s’est inspiré d’une partie du chapitre 4 de la 38e Lettre attribuée à Basile le Grand, en réalité pseudépigraphique, car on sait qu’elle revient à Grégoire de Nysse, sous le titre Ad Petrum fratrem de differentia essentiae et hypostaseos (CPG 2900 et 3196). 42 Voici les éléments permettant d’étayer le lien entre la profession et la lettre. Pour décrire l’acte créatif de Dieu, la tournure ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι est évidemment un lieu commun, mais elle se lit également telle quelle dans la Lettre pseudo-basilienne (38, 4, 16-17) ; en effet, on comparera τὰ πάντα τὴν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγωγήν τε καὶ πάροδον ἔσχηκε (notre texte) avec πάντα (…) ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παράγεται (Pseudo-Basile). La combinaison de ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ἐπιφοίτησις/ἐπιφοιτάω, διαιρέω et (ποικίλα) χαρίσματα, dans le sens que l’Esprit-Saint inspire et distribue à chacun un ou plusieurs χαρίσματα, se rattache clairement à plusieurs passages bibliques (Rom. 12, 6-8 ; I Cor. 7, 7 et 12, 4-11 ; Eph. 4, 7 ; I Petr. 4, 10), mais se rencontre également dans la Lettre du Pseudo-Basile (38, 4, 4-8), où on lit : τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται. Ζητοῦντες δὲ εἰ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν χορηγία τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα οὕτω παραγίνεται τοῖς ἀξίοις, ce qui n’est pas trop éloigné de notre texte (ἓν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον […] τὸ πᾶσιν ἐπιφοιτῶν τοῖς ἀξίοις καὶ διαιροῦν τὰ θεῖα καὶ ποικίλα χαρίσματα διαφόρως, κατὰ τὴν ἐφ’ἑκάστῳ τῆς ἀρετῆς προσοῦσαν ἀναλογίαν).

42 Nous avons consulté ce texte dans l’édition d’Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile, Lettres, I (Collection des Universités de France), Paris, 1957, p. 84-87 ; l’édition plus récente, celle de M. Forlin Patrucco, Basilio di Cesarea. Le lettere, I (Corona Patrum, 11), Turin, 1983, p. 182-186, n’apporte rien de nouveau (voir toutefois les p. 407-408 pour une discussion intéressante sur la paternité de l’ouvrage).



LA PROFESSION DE FOI DE METROPHANE DE SMYRNE

Les mots γνωριστικαὶ ἰδιότητες présents dans notre texte sont bien connus dans un contexte trinitaire ; on les retrouve, à deux reprises, dans la Lettre pseudo-basilienne ; il s’agit respectivement de 38, 4, 2728 (γνωριστικὸν τῆς κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον) et de 38, 4, 40-42 (τῇ Τριάδι γνωρίσματα δι’ὧν ἡ ἰδιότης παρίσταται τῶν ἐν τῇ πίστει παραδεδομένων προσώπων). L’expression διάκρισις ἀσύγκριτος qu’on lit dans la profession, pourrait être comparée avec 38, 4, 83-84 et 89-91 du Pseudo-Basile (respectivement τις ἄρρητος καὶ ἀκατανόητος ἐν τούτοις καταλαμβάνεται καὶ ἡ κοινωνία καὶ ἡ διάκρισις et ὥσπερ ἐν αἰνίγματι, καινὴν καὶ παράδοξον διάκρισίν τε συνημμένην καὶ διακεκριμένην συνάφειαν). La similitude entre la phrase de la profession (ὡς ἔχειν μὲν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα ἐξαίρετόν τι καὶ ἰδιάζον γνώρισμα, τὸ πεφυκέναι τὲ καὶ καλεῖσθαι Πατέρα, καὶ μηδ’ἔκ τινος ὑφεστάναι τὸ παράπαν αἰτίας) et ce qu’on lit chez le Pseudo-Basile (38, 4, 35-38 : Ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ἐξαίρετόν τι γνώρισμα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ὑποστάσεως τὸ Πατὴρ εἶναι καὶ ἐκ μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας ὑποστῆναι μόνος ἔχει, καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν τοῦ σημείου καὶ αὐτὸς ἰδιαζόντως ἐπιγινώσκεται), est vraiment frappante. De plus, les expressions ἰδιάζον γνώρισμα et ἰδιαζόντως (…) γνώρισμα, qu’on lit dans notre texte, sont proches de la Lettre du Pseudo-Basile : 38, 4, 32-33 (τὸ ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων), 38 (ἰδιαζόντως ἐπιγινώσκεται) et 87 (également τὸ ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων). L’auteur de la profession écrit τὸν δὲ Υἱόν, τὸ μόνως μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτως τὲ καὶ ἀνάρχως ὄντος γεννηθῆναι Πατρός, καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ μόνου φωτὸς ἀναιτίου, et puis il continue τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι καὶ μηδεμίαν κατ’αὐτὸ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν ἢ πρὸς τὸν ἐξ οὗ ἐκπεπόρευται, tandis que le Pseudo-Basile (38, 4, 29-35) disait sur le Fils : Ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ὁ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον Πνεῦμα δι’ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μεθ’ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων, μόνος μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτὸς ἐκλάμψας, οὐδεμίαν κατὰ τὸ ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἢ πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς εἰρημένοις σημείοις μόνος γνωρίζεται. La parenté entre ces deux passages s’impose nettement. Les mots ἀγεννήτως (…) καὶ ἀνάρχως de Métrophane se lisent également chez le Pseudo-Basile (38, 4, 18) Le dernier lien qu’on peut relever porte sur les mots τὸ τῆς φύσεως κοινόν de Métrophane, ce qui n’est pas si loin de τὸ τῆς φύσεως συνεχὲς du Pseudo-Basile (38, 4, 85-86). ***



Stefaan Neirynck & Peter Van Deun

On est arrivé à nos conclusions. Est-ce qu’on a devant nous la profession de foi de Métrophane, évêque de Smyrne ? Pour étayer cette thèse, on n’a que l’attribution explicite qu’on lit dans le témoin unique du texte. Si cela est vrai, on aura noté que cette profession semble être fragmentaire ; en effet, elle se concentre uniquement sur la Trinité, tandis qu’il n’y a rien sur la christologie, ni sur la querelle des icônes, encore d’une grande actualité au temps de Photius et de Métrophane ; la question du Filioque y est passée sous silence ; le texte ne renferme pas la glose de Photius ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, ni la formule δι’Υἱοῦ, laquelle se lit pourtant dans la Lettre 38 du Pseudo-Basile ; un lien éventuel entre ce texte peu personnel et les conciles antiphotiens ou l’opposition de Métrophane à Photius n’est pas clair. De plus, les caractéristiques bien nettes qui singularisent le langage et le vocabulaire de Métrophane, sont absentes dans la profession ; 43 la lettre 38, pseudo-basilienne, qui a été une des sources principales de la profession, n’est pas citée ni utilisée dans d’autres textes de Métrophane ; finalement, il y a le scribe du codex unicus qui est surtout connu comme falsificateur. Il n’est pas exclu qu’on ait découvert la profession de Métrophane de Smyrne ou une partie de celle-ci, mais quelque prudence s’impose nettement.

43 Les mots ἁπάντων ἐξῃρημένος (cf. ci-dessus, n. 32) se lisent dans les ouvrages de Métrophane, mais également dans un bon nombre d’autres auteurs ; il s’agit donc d’un cas peu probant à ce propos.



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

The Reception of the ‘Catalogue of Inventors’ in Gregory of Nazianzus’ Sermon 4, 107-109 in Pseudo-Nonnus’ Commentary on Sermon 4 and Beyond: An End or a Beginning?* Abstract – While Gregory’s learned allusions in his ‘List of inventors’ provide rich material for commentators, scholiasts and scholars alike, his plea for universal access to all kinds of skills and knowledge moves the argument far beyond those of his predecessors. The impact of Gregory of Nazianzus’ Sermons 4 and 5 1 on the reputation and beliefs of Emperor Julian was great indeed, although well balanced by Libanius’ eulogies and Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of his reign. 2 * Throughout the article the following abbreviations are used: ELF = J. Bidez – F. Cumont, Imp. Caesaris Flavii Claudii Iuliani Epistulae Leges Poematia Fragmenta Varia, I (Nouvelle collection de textes et documents), Paris, 1922 Gallay = P. Gallay, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Correspondance, Tome I. Lettres I-C (Collection des Universités de France. Série grecque, 165), Paris, 1964 – Tome II. Lettres CIII-CXLIX (Collection des Universités de France. Série grecque, 179), Paris, 1967 H. = F. C. Hertlein, Juliani imperatoris quae supersunt praeter reliquias apud Cyrillum omnia, I [BSGRT], Leipzig, 1875 Wright = W. C. Wright, The Works of the Emperor Julian with an English Translation, I-III (The Loeb Classical Library, 13, 29 and 157), London – New York, 1913, 1913 and 1923 (2003). 1 The first modern edition of the Sermons was published in Paris in 1983 by J. Bernardi, Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 4-5 contre Julien (SC, 309), on the basis of some early manuscripts. It was followed by A. Kurmann’s commentary, Gregor von Nazianz. Oratio 4 Gegen Julian. Ein Kommentar (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 19), Basel, 1988, and by L. Lugaresi, Gregorio di Nazianzo. Contro Giuliano l’Apostata, Orazione IV (Biblioteca Patristica, 25), Firenze, 1993 and Idem, Gregorio di Nazianzo. La Morte de Giuliano l’Apostata, Orazione V (Biblioteca Patristica, 29), Firenze, 1997. For an English translation, see C. W. King, Julian the Emperor: Containing Gregory Nazianzen’s Two Invectives and Libanius’ Monody, with Julian’s Extant Theosophical Works, London, 1888, 1-121. 2 For a brief survey of his and others’ admiration of Julian, see S. Tougher, Julian the Apostate (Debates and Documents in Ancient History), Edinburgh, 2007, p. 5-9 and G. Kelly, Ammianus Marcellinus the Allusive Historian (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge, 2008, p. 96-98. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 333–355 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117155

Jennifer Nimmo Smith

Gregory’s sermons were circulated, most probably in sequence, at some time after Julian’s death in battle against the Persians in 363. Although the tone and timing of Gregory’s attacks have disconcerted many (but not all) of Gregory’s readers, it reflects the relief the Christians felt at Julian’s death in the midst of a determined and subtle campaign to revive paganism. 3 As is well-known, and much discussed, Julian was born, baptised and brought up a Christian, but had become disillusioned with the faith during his later pagan studies in Asia Minor 4 and, as a result, had become an initiate of their mysteries and dedicated to sacrificial rites. 5 Once proclaimed Emperor, his letters describe his plans and their progress, from his open worship of the gods (in which he was joined by a large part of the army), his reproaches to an official for showing disrespect to a pagan priest, his praise in 362 of a crypto-pagan bishop he had met in 354, and his appointment of Theodore as high priest over An honourable exception is to be found in the work of C. Moreschini, Filosofia e letteratura in Gregorio di Nazianzo (Platonismo e filosofia patristica. Studi e testi, 12), Milano, 1997, p. 165-166, who describes them as a justified, but not objective criticism, a view I endorsed in an unpublished paper, Rhetoric of Anger or Rhetoric of Revenge? Some questions about Gregory of Nazianzus’ attacks on the Emperor Julian in Sermons 4 and 5, read at New College, Edinburgh, on 1 March 2010. I am grateful to Sara and Paul Parvis for their invitation to speak, and for their helpful comments. In this paper I also referred to M. Guignet, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze et la rhétorique, Paris, 1911, p. 322323, who classes them as epideictic compositions and “un parfait exemple de la souplesse de Grégoire, souplesse qui contraste avec la raideur de la technique de l’École”. S. Elm’s close analysis of the contrasting ideologies and careers of Julian and Gregory (cf. Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome [Transformation of the Classical Heritage], Berkeley – London, 2012), takes full account of these sermons, and reviews the reactions to them on p. 338-340. See p. 341344, for discussions of the date (or dates) and composition of the sermons. 4 J. Bouffartigue, Philosophie et anti-christianisme: l’empereur Julien, in M. Narcy – É. Rebillard (ed.), Hellénisme et christianisme (Mythes, imaginaires, religions), Villeneuve d’Asq, 2012, p. 120-121, describes Julian’s two accounts of his conversion, one through study and instruction (cf. Or. 7, To the Cynic Heracleios, 235a-c), the other by ‘a heavenly light shining all around him’ (ὅτι με τὸ οὐράνιον πάντη περιήστραπτε φῶς; cf. Or. 4, Hymn to King Helios Dedicated to Sallust, 131a). Note that Julian uses the verb περιαστράπτειν as in Act. 9, 3 and Act. 22, 6, where it is used of the conversion of St Paul. Julian speaks of Christianity as a disease he suffered before his conversion, when Zeus asked Helios to swear to heal him: ὄμοσον οὖν τὸ ἐμόν τε καὶ τὸ σὸν σκῆπτρον ἦ μὴν … ποιμαίνειν αὐτὸ καὶ θηρεύσειν τῆς νόσου (cf. Or. 7.229d). For Julian’s orations I refer to Wright I-II. 5 For recent general works, with full surveys of primary and secondary sources and studies, see K. Rosen, Julian. Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser, Stuttgart, 2006; S. Tougher, Julian the Apostate (Debates and Documents in Ancient History), Edinburgh, 2007; and N. Baker-Brian – S. Tougher, Emperor and Author, The Writings of Julian the Apostate, Swansea, 2012. 3



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

all the temples in Asia. 6 At the beginning of his reign he removed Christian insignia from his coinage and diverted state funding from Christian churches to pagan temples, yet also allowed all bishops exiled by Constantius as pro-Nicenes to return to their sees (though not to their thrones). A law of 17 June 362 generally held to have been expanded in a letter (the so-called Rescript on Christian Teachers) then barred the appointment of all but those of the ‘highest moral character’ to state teaching posts, 7 while in August he prohibited the violent conversion of the Christians in Bostra, expressing sympathy for them as people ‘afflicted by disease’. 8

6 The text of the Teubner edition of Julian’s Letters by F. C. Hertlein (= H.) is reprinted with an English translation in Wright III. The edition, with a French translation, by J. Bidez – F. Cumont (henceforth ELF), appeared too late for Wright to take it into account (see Wright III, p. XXIX). For the public worship, see H. 38; Wright III 8, 415c-d; and ELF 26. For the reproaches to an official, see H. 62; Wright III 18; and ELF 88. For the praise, see H. 78; Wright III 19; and ELF 79. And for the appointment of Theodore, see H. 63; Wright III 20; and ELF 89a. His ‘Hellenism’ and the setting-up of a pagan church (see H. 49; Wright III 22; ELF 84a), is doubted by some (see P. Van Nuffelen, Deux fausses lettres de Julien l’Apostat (La Lettre aux Juifs, Ep. 51 [Wright], et la Lettre à Arsacius, Ep. 84 [Bidez]), in VigChr, 56 [2002], p. 136150), but not by others (see, e.g., Tougher, Julian [see n. 5], p. 58; G. Dorival, Julien et le christianisme d’après les Lettres: entre haine, compassion et fascination, in D. Auger – É. Wolff [éd.], Culture classique et christianisme. Mélanges offerts à Jean Bouffartigue [Textes, Histoire et Monuments de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Age, 8], Paris, 2008, p. 36-37; Elm, Sons of Hellenism [see n. 3], p. 382, n. 12) and, in part, supported by J. Bouffartigue, L’empereur Julien et la culture de son temps (Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 133), Paris, 1992, p. 596-597 and p. 644, and Idem, Philosophie et antichristianisme [see n. 4], p. 129 (‘son projet, certes très vague, de fondation d’une église païenne’). 7 Cod. Theod. XIII,3,5 (17 June 362): Magistros studiorum doctoresque excellere oportet moribus primum, deinde facundia… (‘Masters of studies and teachers must excel first in character then in eloquence…’ in the translation by C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, Princeton, 1952, p. 388). The rescript is H. 42, Wright III 36, p. 116-122, and ELF 61c. At the end of the rescript (424c) indulgence is granted to Christians, as diseased, and therefore in need of teaching, not punishment. While it has been argued that the two texts are not necessarily connected (see T. M. Banchich, Julian’s School Laws: Cod. Theod. 13.3.5 and Ep. 42, in The Ancient World, 24 [1993], p. 5-14 and A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition [Greek Culture in the Roman World], Cambridge – New York, 2007, p. 146), it seems clear that the Christian rhetor Prohaeresius resigned from his post despite Julian’s permission to continue teaching (cf. Jerome, Chron. a. 363) and that Ammianus Marcellinus criticised Julian for banning Christian rhetoricians and teachers from teaching (Res Gestae 22.10.7 and 25.4.20). For Gregory’s reaction, see his Ep. 10, discussed in footnote 14 below. 8 ὡς τοῖς μὲν ἐνεχομένοις νόσῳ τινι συναλγοῦμεν (438c) in H. 52; Wright III, 41; ELF, 114.



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

Gregory, too, had combined Christian learning with classical paideia, but was brought up in a security unknown to Julian. 9 His father, Gregory the Elder, was a well-established landowner, and the Bishop of Nazianzus. His mother, Nonna, who had converted her husband to Christianity, had dedicated her son to God at his birth, and had given him the Scriptures to read in early youth. 10 While he was well-qualified to teach rhetoric after his years of study in Cappadocian Caesarea and Caesarea Maritima, Alexandria and Athens, and had, indeed, done so – he had even given rhetorical performances for his friends – once back in Nazianzus, 11 he preferred study over display. Unfortunately, the austere monastic refuge of his friend Basil at Annesi, which he visited from time to time, was too far away for the support his elderly parents required. 12 The more active support his father then demanded by ordaining him against his will, in late 361 or early 362, set him a difficult task for which he felt unprepared. 13 Julian’s law had been another blow which implicitly excluded him from a world of letters he loved to remember, and one which, in later years, he intended to adapt to the service of the Word. 14 9 For straightforward accounts of Gregory’s family, birth and education, see J. Bernardi, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Le Théologien et son temps (330-390) (Initiations aux Pères de l’Église), Paris, 1995, p. 101-123, and B. E. Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus (The Early Church Fathers), Abingdon, 2006, p. 3-7. However, the first remains P. Gallay, La Vie de saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Lyon – Paris, 1943, which was later summarised in the introduction to his Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres, Tome I (Collection des Universités de France), Paris, 1964, p. VII-X. J. A. McGuckin, St Gregory of Nazianzus, An Intellectual Biography, Crestwood, 2001, p. 1-83, gives many insightful details drawn from Gregory’s works. 10 Cf. Gregory’s Carm. II.1.1. 437, ed. A. Tuillier – G. Bady (trans. J. Bernardi), Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Œuvres Poétiques, Poèmes personelles II, 1, 1-11 (Collection des universités de France. Série grecque, 433), Paris, 2004. 11 In Ep. 3 (ed. Gallay, I) Gregory gracefully thanks Evagrius for his congratulations on his son’s progress in eloquence under his tuition. See Carm. II.1.10, 265-269 and 274 for his ‘dancing’. 12 A point Gregory makes to Basil in the first of his collected letters (ed. Gallay, I). 13 See R. R. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rhetor and Philosopher, Oxford, 1969 (= Ohio, 2003), p. 28-33, and most recently, Elm, Sons of Hellenism [see n. 3], p. 147-212, and J. Nimmo Smith, Some Observations on “Being All Things to All Men to Save All” and Apparent Inconsistency in the Works of Gregory of Nazianzus, the Emperor Julian and the Apostle Paul, in Studia Patristica, 74 (2015), p. 169-180. 14 In an elaborately rhetorical letter to Candidianus, a pagan local judge under Julian (Ep. 10, ed. Gallay, I), Gregory regrets that he cannot give his eloquence the praise it deserves because he has abandoned public declamation (§ 2), and ‘though foaming, snorting and stamping like a spirited horse, I remain, nevertheless, within the barrier, as the law does not allow me to run’ (§ 3, my translation). His hope, in § 15, that Candidianus will join him as one of the persecuted (that is, be converted to Christianity) and



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

Julian’s death and Jovian’s instant restoration of the status of Christianity, followed by the repeal of the teaching law in 364, gave Gregory an appropriate opportunity to make use of his pagan studies. 15 Gregory offered his Sermon 4 ‘as a thank offering to God’ (Λόγον γὰρ ἀναθήσω τῷ Θεῷ χαριστήριον, Or. 4.3), a ‘sacrifice of praise and the honour, unstained by blood, paid in words’ (… θυσίαν αἰνέσεως … τὴν ἀναίμακτον τῶν λόγων τιμήν …, Or. 4.4) and challenged Julian on his use of the word ‘Greek’ to refer to the worship of the Greek gods rather than to the speaking of the Greek language (Or. 4.5). Gregory’s arguments have been evaluated in full elsewhere, 16 and are only touched on here to set the subject of this paper, his ‘catalogue of inventors’ (Or. 4.107-109), in context. This catalogue follows the claim in Or. 4.106, that ‘a language is not the property of those who invented it, but of all those who share in the same, like any skill or occupation …’, 17 and that while the ‘Craftsman and Creator, the Word, had established an inventor for each of these skills or occupations, all skills and occupations were put forward alike for all who wished’. 18 To be the discoverer or inventor of any craft, skill or technique was a well-known rhetorical element in the praise of individuals, nations or gods in ancient Greek literature, and an important part of Greek historinot as a persecutor, is telling. Elm discusses, but does not support, the suggestion that his ordination might have prevented him from teaching (cf. Sons of Hellenism [see n. 3], p. 151, n. 17). For Gregory’s later plans, see J. Nimmo Smith, A Christian’s Guide to Greek Culture. The Pseudo-Nonnus Commentaries on Sermons 4, 5, 39 and 43 by Gregory of Nazianzus (Translated Texts for Historians, 37), Liverpool, 2001, p. XVI-XXIX. 15 It should be remembered that Gregory prepared a self-portrait for posterity by revising all his extant sermons with the help of his cousin, Eulalius, during his retirement in Arianzus. He had also made a collection of his letters. As for his poetry, see J. A. McGuckin, Gregory: The Rhetorician as Poet, in J. Børtnes – T. Hägg (ed.), Gregory of Nazianzus. Images and Reflections, Copenhagen, 2006, p. 193-212, for a thoughtful and sensitive analysis of his poetry, its timetable of composition and its aims, and the contribution by N. McLynn, Among the Hellenists: Gregory among the Sophists, p. 213-238 in the same miscellany. 16 Discussed in detail by Kurmann, Kommentar [see n. 2], ad loc.; Lugaresi, Orazione IV [see n. 2], ad loc.; Elm, Sons of Hellenism [see n. 3], p. 378-396 (especially p. 394, n. 58); and recently, M. Alexandre, La culture grecque, servante de la foi. De Philon d’Alexandrie aux Pères grecques, in A. Perrot (ed.), Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme. Identités religieuses et culture grecque de l’Antiquité tardive (Études de littérature ancienne, 20), Paris, 2012, p. 57-58. 17 … οὔτε φωνὴ τῶν εὑρομένων μόνον ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ πάντων τῶν μετεχόντων, οὔτε τέχνη τις ἢ ἐπιτήδευσις … 18 … οὕτω … ὁ τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς Λόγος ἄλλον μὲν ἄλλης τινὸς ἐπιτηδεύσεως ἢ τέχνης εὑρετὴν προὐστήσατο, πάντα δὲ εἰς μέσον προὔθηκε πᾶσι τοῖς βουλομένοις.



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

cal writing. 19 It was adopted by Jewish apologists from the second century bc onwards, i.e. after the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, in order to establish the priority of their wisdom to that of the Greeks. It was later taken up by Christian apologists, to answer pagan criticisms of Christianity’s ‘newness’ and lack of culture. 20 Among the latter, Tatian, was the first, in his turn, to combine a ‘catalogue of inventors’ (1.1-2), with a chronology for the priority of Moses (31, 36-41) in his Oratio ad Graecos [CPG 1104]. 21 His assertion that all the Greeks’ arts and sciences (divination by dreams, reading of the stars, augury, sacrificial rites, astronomy, magic, geometry, the written word, poetry and initiation, sculpture, the writing of history, the playing of the double flute, the panpipes and the trumpet, metal working and the writing of letters) had been invented by other races 22 (Telmesians, Carians, Phrygians and Isaurians, Cypriots, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Orpheus, a Thracian, Etruscans, Egyptians, the Phrygians Marsyas and Olympus, the Tyrrhenians, the Cyclopes, and a Persian, respectively) was quite common in Greek literature, and listed in rhetorical handbooks. 23 His description of them all as ‘barbarians’, however, links them with how he learnt from ‘barbarian writings which were older and more divine than the error of the Greeks’ (29.1-2), and which were inspired by Mo K. Thraede, Erfinder II, in T. Klauser (ed.), RAC, 5, Stuttgart, 1954, col. 1191-1241. 20 ibidem, col. 1241-1278. A. J. Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, 26), Tübingen, 1989, gives a clear general account of the sources and development of this significant theme, i.e. the ‘dependency theory’, in Jewish writers and historians and the early Christian apologists. See G. R. Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study of its Development from the Stoics to Origen, Oxford, 2001, p. 80 and p. 179-181 for a more nuanced approach to the development of the theory from its beginnings to its use in the later Hellenistic and Imperial periods by Jewish writers. 21 Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos has recently been edited with a new German translation by J. Trelenberg, Tatianos. Oratio ad Graecos. Rede an die Griechen (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 165), Tübingen, 2012. An edition with English translation is provided by M. Whittaker, Tatian. Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, 1982. See Droge, Homer or Moses? [see n. 20], p. 91-101, and the remark on p. 92 that Tatian’s use of chronology was also ‘without precedent in early Christian literature.’ 22 Whittaker, Tatian [see n. 21], p. 2 translates with ‘foreigners’, though not throughout, while Trelenberg, Tatianos [see n. 21], and most discussions of the work, refer to ‘Barbaren’. 23 See J. A. M. Kremmer, De catalogis heurematum [dissertation], Leipzig, 1890, p. 8-16, Thraede, Erfinder II [see n. 19], col. 1251, and Droge, Homer or Moses? [see n. 20], p. 82-91. Kremmer’s dissertation can be found on https://archive.org/details/decatalogisheur01kremgoog . 19



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

ses, ‘the author of barbarian wisdom’ (31.1). 24 He ends with a statement of his own origins in Assyria, and his education in both Greek learning and in the new faith he now proposes to proclaim: Ταῦθ’ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανὸς συνέταξα, γεννηθεὶς μὲν ἐν τῇ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων γῇ, παιδευθεὶς δὲ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ ὑμέτερα, δεύτερον δὲ ἅτινα νῦν κηρύττειν ἐπαγγέλλομαι (42.1). 25 In his Stromata [CPG 1377] Clement of Alexandria copies and expands Tatian’s list of inventors with a list of sources 26 (Strom. 1.16.74-80), and later praises Tatian’s chronology (Strom. 1.21.101.2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica [CPG 3486] Eusebius of Caesarea begins with the inventors of writing (PE 10.5, 1-2), and states that they were the Phoenicians, or, ‘as some say, the Syrians, who would be Hebrews, …’, 27 then in PE 10.6, repeats Clement’s lists. Like Tatian, both Clement and Eusebius consider the ‘barbarians’ (or Hebrews) as the source of Greek wisdom. 28 Julian, however, vehemently challenged this in his Contra Galileos: ‘Furthermore, as regards the constitution of the state, the administration of the law courts, the administration of cities and the excellence of the laws, progress in learning and the cultivation of the liberal arts, were not all these in a miserable and barbarous state among the Hebrews? And yet the wretched Eusebius will have it that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them, …’. 29 24 A very brief summary of the full and detailed discussion in Trelenberg, Tatianos [see n. 21], p. 66-71. 25 It is interesting to note that Kremmer’s own life (cf. Kremmer, De catalogis heurematum [see n. 23], p. 116) showed parallels with that of Tatian, from his birth abroad in Tranquebar, in a missionary family, to his travel to Germany for his education. 26 As discussed by Kremmer, De catalogis heurematum [see n. 23], p. 16-43; Thraede, Erfinder II [see n. 19], col. 1251; Droge, Homer or Moses? [see n. 20], p. 144; and Trelenberg, Tatianos [see n. 21], p. 84, n. 1. 27 His addition of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet is discussed by Droge, Homer or Moses? [see n. 20], p. 188 and A. P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, 2006, p. 134-135 and n. 38-40. 28 See the discussion of Eusebius, PE 10.8.17, with Clement, Strom. I.72.4, in D. Ridings, The Attic Moses: The Dependency Theme in Some Early Christian Writers (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Studia graeca et latina Gothoburgensia, 59), Göteborg, 1995, p. 158-160. 29 Ἀλλ’ὁ τῆς πολιτείας θεσμὸς καὶ τύπος τῶν δικαστηρίων, ἡ δὲ περὶ τὰς πόλεις οἰκονομία καὶ τὸ κάλλος, ἡ δὲ ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν ἐπίδοσις, ἡ δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἐλευθερίοις τέχναις ἄσκησις οὐχ Ἑβραίων μὲν ἦν ἀθλία καὶ βαρβαρική; καίτοι βούλεται ὁ μοχθηρὸς Εὐσέβιος εἶναί τινα καὶ παρ’αὐτοῖς ἑξάμετρα, καὶ φιλοτιμεῖται λογικὴν εἶναι πραγματείαν παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις, ἧς τοὔνομα ἀκήκοε παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι. (ed. Wright III, 221e-222a [translation: p. 383] with n. 1, for the reference to Eusebius, PE 11.5.5). Julian’s Contra Galileos was



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

Gregory’s list of inventors has parallels with Tatian’s, and is as polemical, though with some different elements and in a different order. 30 His intention is to show the disparate origins of Julian’s Greek learning and culture, claimed by him to belong only to those who believed in their teachings: ‘Is (speaking) Greek yours? And writing then the property of the Phoenicians…?’ He begins, as Eusebius did, with the invention of writing – whether by the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, or the Hebrews, with their divinely inscribed tablets of the Law –, but continues with an invention not found in Tatian, Clement or Eusebius, i.e. that of calculation, arithmetic, measurement and military tactics by Palamedes, an Euboean, ‘who discovered many things and was hated for it and condemned to death for that reason in Troy’: 31 the reclamation of both by their races would lead to the ridiculous plight suffered by the jackdaw who lost his borrowed plumes. 32 Poetry is, according to Gregory, not inspired by Orpheus, but by the rebuke of an angry old woman to a boisterous young man, though he retains the Cyclopes as the inventors of metal working. The discovery of purple by the Tyrians in general and a (partly) reconstructed from Cyril of Alexandria’s Contra Julianum imperatorem [CPG 5233], which was composed between 423 and 428 in twenty books (only the first ten survive, see PG 76, 490-1066) by K. J. Neumann, Juliani imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt, Leipzig 1880 (re-edition of Neumann’s text by E. Masaracchia, Giuliano Imperatore Contra Galilaeos. Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione (Testi e commenti, 9), Roma, 1990, retaining the numeration of Neumann’s fragments, and the divisions of Wright’s text). At the end of Julian’s excerpt, Cyril grimly adds that a very large number of works had already shown that the books of Moses were older than those of the Greeks (cf. Masaracchia, Fr. 53, 11-13; = Cyrill. Alex. , Contra Julianum 7, 222 [PG 76, 840 A5-9]). So far, only Books 1 and 2 of Cyril’s work, have recently been edited, by P. Burgière – P. Évieux, Cyrille d’Alexandrie, Contre Julien, Tome I. Livres I et II (SC, 322), Paris 1985. 30 Noted in Kremmer, De catalogis heurematum [see n. 23], p. 43-51. Thraede, Erfinder II [see n. 19], col. 1254-1255, Kurmann, Kommentar [see n. 1], ad loc., Trelenberg, Tatianos [see n. 21], ad loc. See Appendix A for the text and translation of the full passage. 31 Palamedes was also included by Athanasius among his list of human inventors (cf. Contra Gentes 18.29-31 in E. P. Meijerling, Athanasius: Contra Gentes. Introduction, Translation and Commentary [Philosophia Patrum. Interpretations of Patristic Texts, 7], Leyden, 1984, p. 69), because he invented the ‘composition of letters, numbers, measures and weights’. Athanasius identified both gods and men as inventors and argued that it was inconsistent of the pagans to regard some men as gods because of their inventions, but not all of them (cf. Meijerling, Athanasius: Contra Gentes, p. 67-69, with Thraede, Erfinder II [see n. 19], col. 1264-1265). 32 Cf. Aesop, 103. Tatian (cf. Oratio ad Graecos 26.1) uses this comparison to describe the quandary of the Greek philosophers, if each city were to take its own phraseology back (ἑκάστη πόλις ἐὰν ἀφέληται τὴν ἰδίαν ἀφ’ὑμῶν λέξιν αὐτῆς, ἐξαδυνατήσουσιν ὑμῖν τὰ σοφίσματα).



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

shepherd’s dog eating shells on the beach in particular is another addition to the list, targeting Julian’s alleged pride in it, as is that of agriculture, and Demeter’s ‘shameful mystery, rightly held at night’. Shipbuilding is reclaimed to the Athenians from the Libyans. 33 Gregory’s mocking list ends in the order in which Tatian’s began, with (pagan) worship and initiation from the Thracians, rites of sacrifice, and the well-established studies of astronomy, geometry, magic, divination by dreams and augury. Astrology is not mentioned here, but it is condemned by Gregory in Or. 5.5. Gregory ends by describing Julian as the first of the Christians to devise a rebellion against his Lord, as the Scythian slaves (the lowest of the low in society) 34 had rebelled against their masters. While this list contains traditional elements, it reflects an audience which has no need for reassurance of its Christianity, which had been relieved and encouraged by Julian’s death. Tatian’s early emphasis on the ‘barbarian’ origins of Christianity is continued in Clement and Eusebius. Some of Gregory’s ‘barbarians’, on the other hand, are the foes which surround the Roman Empire in the East and in the West, the Persians and the Goths, or pagan or anti-Nicene persecutors of Christians or Jews. 35 Despite his citing of Col. 3, 11 (Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all) in Or. 7.23 and 30.6, other references to them are more classical and antagonistic. The wisdom of Greeks and barbarians ‘makes little mention of self-control, though barbarians hold virginity

33 Added by Clement (cf. Strom. 1.16.75) to Tatian’s list. See Kurmann, Kommentar [see n. 2], ad loc., p. 360, with reference to W. Burkert, Greek Religion [translated by John Raffan], Cambridge, Mass., 1985, p. 141, n. 24, for Homer (Athena’s inspiration of ship-builders, Iliad 15, 412); A. Breitenbach, Der Schiff-bau – eine Erfindung der Athener: zu Gregor von Nazianz, or. 4,108, in Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, N.F. 24 (2000), p. 123-137, finds its source in the gift of seafaring from Poseidon to Athens, in Sophocles, O.C., 707-719. 34 See the discussion of Col. 3. 11 in J. Barton – J. Muddiman (ed.), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford, 2001, p. 1196. In his Misopogon (Wright II, 352a), Julian, praises his tutor, the Scythian Mardonius, for teaching him his restrained and sober ways. 35 For Constantius’ conquests over Persians and Germans, see Or. 4.34.2, for example; for conquered foes in general, see Or. 4.80.3; for Julian’s proposed expedition against the Persians, see Or. 5.8.2; for Theodosius’ defeats of the Goths, see Carm. II.1.11, 10011003, 1280, 1897. For an attack on Christians as if on barbarians, see Or. 4.86.3, and for Valens’ troops as a barbarian incursion, see Or. 43.31. Lines 634-635 of Carm. I.2.10 (ed. C. Crimi, Gregorio Nazianzeno. Sulla virtù carme giambico [1,2,10] [Poeti cristiani, 1], Pisa, 1995, ad loc.) hint at Daniel’s refusal of Babylonian (barbarian) food.



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

in honour’; 36 Nicoboulus praises education to his father, stating ‘Not a little does rhetoric polish speech and a barbarian accent’. 37 Gregory strongly criticises an (unknown) Armenian as an ‘outright barbarian’ in a letter to Amphilochius the Younger, after praising his injunction as not barbaric, but Hellenic, or rather Christian in 373; 38 and in a letter to Modarius, a magister militum under Theodosius I and probably a Goth, Gregory describes him as evident proof that the difference between barbarian and Greek was physical, not spiritual. 39 A touching poem, Carm. II.1.5, against the devil (PG 37, 1402, 1-5), bids him ‘Flee from the letters, barbarian, … Flee all evil, Christ is inscribed in me…’. 40 As Bouffartigue has eloquently described, 41 Julian had been so gravely disappointed by the Greeks in Antioch, that he reverted to the Mysian roots of his great-grandfather Constantius Chlorus in Thrace for a barbarian paideia, perhaps remembering, too, a proverb found in Libanius, which was later used by Gregory, of his own disappointment in Constantinople, viz ‘Far apart lie (the lands of ) the Mysians and the Phrygians.’ 42 36 Greg. Naz., Carm. I.2.10, 580-582: Τῆς δ’ἐγκρατείας μικρὰ μὲν τὰ τῶν πάλαι / Σοφῶν παρ’Ἕλλησι τε καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων./ Καὶ βαρβάροις γὰρ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἦν τις λόγος. (my translation, with Crimi, Sulla virtù [see n. 35], ad. loc.). 37 … οὐκ ὀλίγον δὲ / Γραμματικὴ ξύουσα λόγον, καὶ βάρβαρον ἠχὴν, my translation of Carm. II.2.4, 64 (PG 37, 1510, 8), with McLynn, Among the Hellenists [see n. 15], p. 235-237. 38 Greg. Naz., Ep. 62 (ed. Gallay, I, p. 81, with n. 1), translated by C. G. Browne – J. E. Swallow, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in P. Schaff – H. Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church, VII, Michigan, 19962, p. 468. 39 Greg. Naz., Ep. 136 (ed. Gallay, II, p. 24, with n. 4 and 5, and p. 153). See also his Carm. II.1.11, 825 (ed. Tuillier – Bady, Œuvres Poétiques [see n. 10], p. 91, with p. 166, n. 141). 40 Φεῦγ’ἄπο τὰς γραμμὰς, ὦ βάρβαρε,… ./ Φεῦγε, πονηρὸς ἅπας·Χριστὸς ἐμοὶ γράφεται, translated by S. R. Abrams, Speaking for Salvation. Gregory of Nazianzus as Poet and Priest in his Autobiographical Poems (unpublished PhD Dissertation), Brown University, 2003, p. 418. 41 Bouffartigue, L’empereur Julien [see n. 6], p. 667, and, id., L’empereur Julien et les barbares: réalisme et illusion, in M. Sot (ed.), Haut Moyen-Age: culture, éducation et société. Études offertes à Pierre Riché, Nanterre, 1990, p. 49-58. 42 The saying Χωρὶς τὰ Μυσῶν καὶ Φρυγῶν … is a fragment from an unkown tragedy (see Fr. 560 in A. Nauck – B. Snell, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Hildesheim, 1964, p. 950). See Libanius, Ep. 1351.7 (i.e. Ep. 104 in A. F. Norman, Autobiography and Selected Letters [Loeb Classical Library], Cambridge [Mass.], 1992, translated on p. 167), and Gregory’s Carm. II.1.11, 1240 (ed. Tuillier – Bady, Œuvres Poétiques [see n. 10], n. 229), and Carm. II.1.39, 102 (PG 37, 1336 A13). It is added, perhaps as



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

In the fifth century, Theodoret of Cyrus’ Graecarum affectionum curatio [CPG 6210] clearly shows that ‘barbarian’ wisdom had not lost its value in Christian apologetics, although Theodoret’s intention, like that of Julian’s above, is to heal the sick. 43 His ‘list of inventors’ in Book 1, 12-23, for example, returns to the barbarians as the source of Greek wisdom, and is composed of selections from Tatian, as mediated by Clement, 44 with possibly one reminiscence from Gregory, Or. 4, 109. Gregory’s Sermons 4 and 5 provide polemical material for Theodoret’s Historia ecclesiastica [CPG 6222]. 45 In contrast, Cyril of Alexandria, in his Contra Julianum imperatorem, cites the praise of the Egyptian Hermes Trismegistus, who, with some partial and imperfect knowledge of Moses’ learning, made a long list of discoveries on his own. 46 In the sixth century, Pseudo-Nonnus, a Christian, wrote Commentaries on Gregory’s Sermons 4, 5, 39 and 43 [CPG 3011], attracted, it would

a comment by Julian on Christian arguments, in Cyril of Alexandria’s Contra Julianum imperatorem, II, 46 (ed. Burgière – Évieux, Contre Julien I [see n. 29], p. 298). 43 Y. Papadogiannakis, Christianity and Hellenism in the Fifth Century Greek East: Theodoret’s Apologetic against the Greeks in Context (Hellenic Studies Series, 49), Cambridge Mass. – London, 2012, p. 34, n. 9. 44 Kremmer, De catalogis heurematum [see n. 23], p. 59-62, whose identification of Clement as Theodoret’s source is followed by Ridings, The Attic Moses [see n. 28], p. 198 and Thraede, Erfinder II [see n. 19], col. 1255-1256. Th. Halton, Theodoret of Cyrus: A Cure for Pagan Maladies (Ancient Christian Writers, 67), New York, 2013, adds the reference (209 for 109) to n. 27 on Theodoret’s Graecarum affectionum curatio 1, 19. In Cur. 2, 89-92, Theodoret later explains that even the opponents of the truth so admired it that they embellished their own works with stolen fragments, which shine forth like a pearl in a ditch. 45 See A. Martin, Théodoret et la tradition chrétienne contre l’empereur Julien, in D. Auger – É. Wolff (ed.), Culture classique et christianisme. Mélanges offerts à Jean Bouffartigue (Textes, histoire et monuments de l’Antiquité au Moyen Age, 8), Paris, 2008, p. 73, on Book III of Theodoret’s Historia ecclesiastica. 46 After describing his organisation of farming, irrigation and land divisions in Egypt, the well-known items recur: καὶ πρός γε ἀρίθμους καὶ λογισμοὺς καὶ γεωμετρίαν ἀστρονομίαν τε καὶ ἀστρολογίαν, καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν καὶ τὴν γραμματικὴν ἅπαντα εὑρόντα παραδοῦναι. (Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum imperatorem, I, 41) ‘(Who, but Hermes …) has at any rate discovered everything to pass on (to us) numbers, calculations, geometry, astronomy and astrology, music and grammar?’ (my translation). Burgière and Évieux state that the text is not a part of the Corpus Hermeticum, but a quotation from an otherwise unknown apologetic work (cf. Cyrille d’Alexandrie [see n. 29], p. 188, n. 1). For the history of the Christian reaction to Hermes Trismegistus, and reference to Cyril in particular, see B. P. Copenhaver, Hermetica. The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a new English translation, with notes and introduction, Cambridge, 1992, p. XIII, n. 1, and p. XLI-XLIII, n. 50-52.



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

seem, by his many allusions to classical learning. 47 I have described his ‘detached and almost academic attitude to his subject matter’ in his accounts elsewhere. 48 Eleven comments (Com. 4, 62-72) explain the references to Palamedes, the jackdaw who lost its feathers, poetry, the Cyclopes, the discovery of purple, agriculture and shipbuilding, initiation and worship, sacrifice, astronomy, geometry and magic, divination by dreams and augury, some with more detail than others. 49 A full explanation of Gregory’s hint of Palamedes’ unpopularity is given, and Aesop’s fable of the jackdaw is retold. The first person Pseudo-Nonnus introduces as the discoverer of poetry (the Sibyl Phimonoë, described as a woman called Sibylla by some, Phimonoë by others) certainly discovered hexameters, but Gregory is referring to the discovery of iambics, the metre of abuse. 50 The Cyclopes are given names and linked with cannibalism, thunder and a ‘round island’; the shepherd’s concern for his dog’s bleed47 The Greek title of each of these four commentaries, edited by me as PseudoNonniani in IV Orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni Commentarii (CCSG, 27; Corpus Nazianzenum, 2), Turnhout – Leuven, 1992, and translated with an introduction and notes in my A Christian’s Guide [see n. 14], reads: Συναγωγὴ καὶ ἐξήγησις ὧν ἐμνήσθη ἱστοριῶν ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ … λόγῳ. An historia is a reference to a classical topic (a person, an anecdote, a line of verse, etc.), however fleeting, which would be recognised by others of similar learning. Such allusions might be less well known in the sixth century, though still of interest, and copies of the Commentarii are often included in the manuscripts of Gregory’s Sermons. Their author is unknown (see p. 3-9 in the introduction to my aforementioned edition Pseudo-Nonniani … Commentarii); for speculations that he might have been Nonnus of Panopolis, see the discussion in J. Nimmo Smith, Nonnus and Pseudo-Nonnus: the Poet and the Commentator, in C. N. Constantinides – N. M. Panagiotakes – E. M. Jeffreys – A. D. Angelou (ed.), ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝ, Studies in Honour of Robert Browning (Biblioteca dell’Istituto Ellenico di Venezia, 17), Venice, 1996, p. 281-301. My article refutes this identification by a close comparison of the accounts of the contents of Pseudo-Nonnus’ Com. 5 and parallel episodes in the Dionysiaca, pace D. Hernandez de la Fuente, « Bakkhos anax ». Un estudio sobre Nono de Panopolis (Nueva Roma, 30), Madrid, 2008, p. 31, n. 42, who on p. 283, n. 12 mistakes my citation of D. Accorinti’s argument (see Sull’autore degli scoli mitologici alle orazioni di Gregorio di Nazianzo, in Byz, 60 [1990], p. 5-24) as my argument itself. I note that Prof. Accorinti has recently written in support of my conclusion in The Poet from Panopolis: An Obscure Biography and a Controversial Figure, in D. Accorinti (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Nonnus of Panopolis (Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies), Leiden, 2016, p. 37. 48 See my Magic at the crossroads in the sixth century, in E. M. Jeffreys (ed.), Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilisation, In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Cambridge, 2006, p. 227 and Alan Cameron, Greek Mythography in the Roman World, Oxford, 2004, p. 67. 49 See A Christian’s Guide [see n. 14], p. 43-52, for the translation of, and sources used by, these historiae. 50 A good riposte to Julian’s criticism of Eusebius given above, if Gregory had known the Contra Galilaeos in detail, but see L. Lugaresi, La Morte [see n. 1], p. 260.



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

ing mouth explains why he wiped it. Men ate acorns (fagein) from oaks (fēgoi) before Demeter’s gratitude to Triptolemus led to the distribution of seeds. Pseudo-Nonnus does the best he can with his sources for the ‘Athenians’ invention of shipbuilding’. 51 Dionysus gives Icarius the vine, by the cultivation of which he meets his death, and his daughter, who learnt of his death from his dog, showed such grief that the gods, in pity, immortalised her in the stars. The rites of Eleusis, Pseudo-Nonnus says, are regarded by the Greeks (Hellēnes) in the same way as the Christians view baptism. He repeats and explains Gregory’s etymologies for initiation and worship, adding another of his own. While sacrifices, astronomy and geometry are straightforward repetitions, magic is another story. 52 The term for the ‘divination of dreams’, oneiromanteia, makes its first appearance in Pseudo-Nonnus (from the noun oneiromantis, known from the fifth century bc). Augury is expanded to cover all sorts of omens, in the house, on the way, palmistry and involuntary movements. Com. 4, 73, finally, gives Herodotus’ account of the Scythian slaves. No attention is paid to the invention of writing. This modest commentary in the plainest of prose had a wide circulation, even though it only explained the historiae in Gregory’s Sermons 4, 5, 39 and 43, and gave little but the most obvious comments on his thought. 53 There is a far more partisan approach in the Scholia Alexandrina [CPG 3013], which date from later in the sixth century. Unlike the Commentaries, which were composed apart from their sermons (but often accompanied them), these Scholia are found in the margins of some manuscripts of Gregory’s sermons. 54 A selection of them, namely on Gregory’s Or. 4 and 5 and known as the Scholia Oxoniensia [CPG 51 Much commented on by Gregory’s editors and many others, such as Breitenbach, Der Schiff-bau [see n. 33]. 52 See my Magic at the crossroads [see n. 48], p. 227-231, where the alteration of Gregory’s verb, μαγεύειν, ‘to be learned in the lore of the Magians’, to the noun, μαγεία, with its sub-divisions of γοητεία and φαρμακεία, is discussed. 53 As discussed in A Christian’s Guide [see n. 14], p. XXXVIII-XLIV. The language of the Commentary is analysed in the introduction to B. Coulie – J. Nimmo Smith (ed.), Thesaurus Pseudo-Nonni. Commentarii in IV orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni (Corpus Christianorum. Thesaurus Patrum Graecorum), Turnhout, 1999, p. IX-XLIX. 54 Cf. J. Nimmo Smith, The Early Scholia on the Sermons of Gregory of Nazianzus, in B. Coulie (ed.), Studia Nazianzenica, I (CCSG, 41; Corpus Nazianzenum, 8), Turnhout, 2000, p. 69-146, where the earlier history of these scholia and a list of their lemmata is given. They were added after the notes giving the occasions for, or loci of, individual sermons (cf. V. Somers, Histoire des collections complètes des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze [Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain, 48], Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997, p. 12-15, 46, 182 and 187).



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

3014], was first printed in 1610 at Henry Saville’s Press (Eton) and was later reprinted by J.-P. Migne (PG 36, 1205-1256). The editor, Richard Montagu, used a tenth/eleventh-century Oxford manuscript. 55 The scholiast’s first comment on Julian is hostile: ‘the idolator’ he calls him (PG 36, 1208 B5) and his attempt to stop the Christians from teaching the ‘universal culture’ are ‘a crime’ (PG 36, 1209 A 13-15), etc. His praise of Gregory’s words in Or. 4.106, cited above, is mixed with blame of Julian: ‘Αll (were put) forward: To reason and speak in such a way is natural for your holy and devout soul, not the superstitious soul of that worshipper of evil and those like him.’ 56 The scholiast adds the invention of the alphabet (PG 36, 1236 C9 – D4), then copies Pseudo-Nonnus’ Com. 4, 62-73 in full. Such enthusiasm for Gregory is also found in another commentator, Cosmas of Jerusalem [CPG 3043], who made full use of Pseudo-Nonnus’ Commentaries and, as such, played a significant part in their tradition. 57 His work is wider in scope than the latter’s and covers Gregory’s references to Scripture as well as to ‘the poets and historians from outside’. His importance in the indirect transmission of Gregory’s poetry has long been noted, 58 and is emphasized in the recent edition of his text

55 This edition omits some comments and most of the Pseudo-Nonnus Historiae included on the margins as a part of its text. The nature and contents of the scholia, with Tables giving the lemmata of all the scholia and the contents of those that are omitted by Montagu, are described in my Sidelights on the Sermons. The Scholia Oxoniensia on Gregory Nazianzen’s Orations 4 and 5, in A. Schmidt (ed.), Studia Nazianzenica, II (CCSG, 73; Corpus Nazianzenum, 24), Turnhout, 2010, p. 135-201, with Plate 21. 56 My translation for: Πάντα δὲ εἰς μέσον. Τὰ τοιαῦτα λογίζεσθαι καὶ διεξέρχεσθαι τῆς σῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ θεοφιλοῦς ὑπῆρχε ψυχῆς, οὐ τῆς δαιμονιώδους ἐκείνης τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς, καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων (PG 36, 1236 C5-8). For a passage of similar enthusiasm, see J. Nimmo Smith The River Alpheus in Greek, Christian and Byzantine Thought, in Byz, 74, 2 (= Volume offert au Professeur Jean Balty) (2004), p. 428-429. 57 As described in the introduction to Nimmo Smith, Pseudo-Nonniani … Commentarii [see n. 47], p. 9-13, 42-43. 58 F. Lefherz, Studien zu Gregor von Nazianz. Mythologie, Überlieferung, Scholiasten (Dissertation), Bonn, 1958, p. 157-160, with reference to Th. Sinko, De traditione orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni, Pars secunda: De traditione indirecta (Meletemata Patristica, III), Cracow, 1923, p. 31-36, and, more recently, Crimi, Sulla virtù [see n. 35], p. 59-64, with an edition of Cosmas’ commentary on that poem, as preserved on f. 146v166 of Vaticanus graecus 1260, described below. L. Bacci, Gregorio Nazianzeno AD OLYMPIADE [carm. II.2.6] (Poeti cristiani, 2), Pisa, 1996, p. 136-139 also presents an edition of f. 127v-128v, in her work. There is a further evaluation of the relationship between Cosmas’ text and Gregory’s tradition in Tuillier – Bady, Œuvres Poétiques [see n. 10], Introd., p. LXIV-LXV and CLXVIII-CLXX.



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

by Giuseppe Lozza. 59 Although this commentator, like Pseudo-Nonnus before him, 60 was associated by the Byzantines with a well-known poet, in this case, Cosmas the Melodist, the link has long been questioned, and is still under debate. 61 The Commentary itself is now generally set in the eighth century. 62 Lozza’s edition is based on the twelfth-century Vaticanus graecus 1260, the more complete version of the text. 63 Cosmas’ title, which shows the influence of the Commentaries, 64 reads as follows: The collection and explanation of the historiae from both the divinely inspired Scripture and the poets and historians from outside mentioned by the divine Gregory in 59 Cosma di Gerusalemme. Commentario ai Carmi di Gregorio Nazianzeno (Storie e testi, 12), Naples, 2000, p. 11, 29-33. 60 For Pseudo-Nonnus, see n. 47 above. 61 In the first of three articles (cf. Kosmas of Jerusalem: A More Critical Approach to his Biography, in BZ, 82 [1989], p. 122-132) A. Kazhdan (with S. Gero) looks at the biography of Cosmas the Hymnographer; in the second (cf. Kosmas of Jerusalem: 2. Can We Speak of his Political Views?, in Mus, 103 [1990], p. 329-346), he considers his attitude to Iconoclasm; in the third (cf. Kosmas of Jerusalem: 3. The Exegesis of Gregory of Nazianzus, in Byz, 61 [1991], p. 397-412), he suggests from internal evidence that the Commentary was written in the tenth century. In reply to the first article, Lozza agreed that while the author cannot be securely identified, Cosmas the Melodist certainly was a great admirer of Gregory’s poetry (cf. L’esegesi di Cosma di Maiuma ai Carme di Gregorio Nazianzeno, in C. Moreschini [ed.], Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica. Atti del terzo Convegno dell’Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi [Collectanea, 9], Napoli, 1995, p. 237-247). 62 C. Crimi, Aspetti della fortuna di Gregorio Nazianzeno nel mondo bizantino tra VI e IX secolo, in C. Moreschini – G. Menstrina (ed.), Gregorio Nazianzeno teologo e scrittore, Bologna, 1992, p. 207 (8 c.), and K. Demoen, Sulla cronologia del commentario di Cosma di Gerusalemme ai carmi di Gregorio Nazianzeno. Intono ad una nuove ipotesi, in Byz, 67 (1997), p. 360-374, reply to Kazhdan, Kosmas of Jerusalem 3 [see n. 61]. Lozza also dates the work to the first half, if not the first decades, of the eighth century (cf. Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], Introd., p. 10). In another publication, Kazhdan in collaboration with L. E. Sherry and C. Angelidi, A History of Byzantine Literature, 650-850 (The National Hellenic Research Foundation. Research Series, 2), Athens, 1999, p. 124, still dates the work to the tenth century, but is less sure about the identity of its author. 63 S. Papaioannou (cf. Michael Psellos, Rhetoric and Authorship in Byzantium, Cambridge, 2013, p. 59, n. 33) mentions an earlier ms from the year 1018, viz Athens, EBE 2209, which contains passages from Cosmas on f. 409v-414v, with a copy of his Commentarium in Or. 39. On this manuscript, see S. Kotzabassi, Βυζαντινά χειρόγραφα από τα μοναστήρια της Μικράς Ασίας, Ephesus, 2004, p. 27-31, Item 35, and J. Mossay, Repertorium Nazianzenum: Orationes. Textus Graecus, III. Codices Belgii, Bulgariae, Constantinopolis, Germaniae, Graeciae (pars prior), Helvetiae, Hiberniae, Hollandiae, Poloniae, Russiarum, Scandinaviae, Ucrainiae et codex vagus (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, N.F. 2, 10), Paderborn, 1993, p. 120. 64 See Lozza, Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], p. 341, n. 2.



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

his metrical works; a work of Cosmas of Jerusalem, the Philogregorian. 65 A long and elaborate introduction 66 compares his work to that of a pearl fisher, and describes his determination to bring the hidden treasures of Gregory’s words into the light of day, thus explaining the other title he gave the work, i.e. The pearl. 67 Cosmas further explains how, although he was at first overwhelmed by the number of historiae he wished to explain for his readers, he decided not to check their sources, but to compile and cite his material, fully relying on Gregory’s supernatural assistance. 68 Yet, despite his inexperience, all was set in due order, with no omissions or repetitions: ‘The marvel was that at its end I could not say when asked, whether or not I had toiled and studied over what I had so easily and improvisedly written; such benevolence had been shown to me by Gregory, or rather God’s workings through Gregory, persuaded by his servant’s intercession’. 69 Cosmas divided his work into three parts: the first and longest part (henceforth Cosmas I) explains the references to the Scripture and to the poets and historians ‘from outside’ in Gregory’s poems; 70 the second part (henceforth Cosmas II) collects 32 historiae from Pseudo-Nonnus’ Commentaries for which he has found no application in Gregory’s po65 Συναγωγὴ καὶ ἐξήγησις ὧν ἐμνήσθη ἱστοριῶν ὁ θεῖος Γρηγόριος ἐν τοῖς ἐμμέτρως αὐτῷ εἰρημένοις ἔκ τε τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν ποιητῶν καὶ συγγραφέων· Κοσμᾶ Ἱεροσολυμίτου πόνημα φιλογρηγορίου. 66 See p. 64-67 in the edition by Lozza, Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59] for the text of the introduction and p. 11-17 of that same edition for a full description. 67 The comparison is quite common in the Fathers. Lozza cites a parallel passage in Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. I.182, viz μαργαρίτης κέκληται (ὁ κύριος) ἐπειδὴ τῷ βυθῷ τῆς θεότητος ἥνωται (cf. Lozza, Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], p. 341, n. 8), while Theodoret (see n. 44 above) compares the fragments of truth he finds in pagan philosophers to a pearl shining in a ditch. 68 See Lozza, Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], p. 14-15: ‘Pur consapevole della propria inadeguatezza all’arduo compito, Cosmas ha però creduta di poter rinunciare ad appunti preliminari (ὡς μηδὲ σχεδαρίοις δεῆσαι προτυπῶσαι), a un’opera di minuta indagine sulle fonti, preferendo invece affidarsi alla compilazione e alla citazione (ἀλλ’ἅμα παρεκβάλλειν καὶ σχεδίαζειν) sicuro dell’assistenza sopernaturale che immancabilmente il santo e misericordioso Gregorio avrebbe prestato al suo fedele’. 69 My translation of a further passage cited by Lozza (cf. Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], p. 65, l. 7-10): καὶ τὸ θαυμαστὸν ὅτι μετὰ τὸ γράφειν ἐρωτώμενοι ἠποροῦμεν, εἰ μὴ πόνῳ καὶ σχολῇ μετέπειτα μεμαθήκαμεν, ἅπερ ἀπόνως αὐτοσχεδίως γεγράφημεν· τοσαῦτα Γρηγόριος ἡμῖν, μᾶλλον διὰ τοῦ Γρηγορίου Θεός, ταῖς τοῦ θεράποντος πρεσβείαις πειθόμενος εὐμενέστατα, a claim, as Lozza notes, of Divine inspiration. 70 Part I consists of 153 numbered subdivisions, or Λόγοι, with the title of each poem, and the verses concerned, followed by the explanations. Cross-references are frequently and efficiently used.



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

ems, but which he still considers should be included ‘to prevent any misunderstanding of any of his (sc. Gregory’s) words at all by the students who use this book’; 71 the third part, finally gives accounts of references to natural history in the poems he has already discussed, in the order in which he has discussed them. This is the most discursive section of his work. In part I, Cosmas applies every passage from Pseudo-Nonnus’ Commentaries he can in an attempt to elucidate Gregory’s allusions to pagan culture, quoting them word for word, and sometimes combining information from more than one historia. 72 Even isolated sentences are woven into his text, if they are thought to be relevant. 73 Others, as explained above, are listed separately in part II. Gregory’s list of inventors, therefore, still further loses its significance, as far as their diverse origins are concerned. 74 The historia on Palamedes (Com. 4.62), together with those on worship and initiation (Com. 4.69), oneiromanteia (Com. 4.71), augury (Com. 4.72) and the Scythian slaves (Com. 4.73) are placed in the second section; the rest are scattered throughout the text. 75 The crow’s loss of feathers is applied appropriately enough to the ageing faces of Cf.  Lozza, Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], p. 194, l. 24-25: ὅπως ἂν μηδὲν τῶν παντελῶς αὐτῷ λελεγμένων ἄδηλον εἴη τοῖς τῇδε τῇ βίβλῳ φιλοπόνως ἐντυγχάνουσιν. 72 A list of these passages on the basis of the first edition of Cosmas’ text (A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, II 2, Rome, 1839, p. 1-373, as reprinted by J.-P. Migne in the PG 38, 339-680) is given by F. Trisoglio, Mentalità ed atteggiamenti degli scolasti di fronte agli scritti di S. Gregorio di Nazianzo, in J. Mossay (ed.), II. Symposium Nazianzenum (Louvain-la-Neuve, 25-28 août 1981). Actes du colloque international organisé avec le soutien du Fonds National belge de la Recherche Scientifique et de la Görres-Gesellschaft zur Pflege der Wissenschaft (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, Neue Folge. 2. Reihe: Forschungen zu Gregor von Nazianz), Paderborn – München – Wien – Zürich, 1983, p. 208-210, n. 83 and 84; see also the apparatus to the historiae in Nimmo Smith, Pseudo-Nonniani… Commentarii [see n. 47]. 73 A point first made by E. Patzig, De Nonnianis in IV Orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni Commentariis, in Abhandlung zu dem Jahresberichte der Thomasschule zu Leipzig für das Schuljahr von Ostern 1889 bis 1890, Leipzig, 1890, p. 14. Lozza (cf. Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59]) meticulously links almost every passage of Cosmas’ text to that of the Commentaries by a note; only one passage, to my knowledge, has escaped his attention, that of l. 24-25 on p. 185, which comes from Com. 4.79, 13-15. 74 Moses, however, remains a source of pagan wisdom for Cosmas (as in Cyril of Alexandria, above) according to the interpretation of a reference to the ‘involuntary support (οὐδὲ θέλων)’ of Hermes Trisaristos (sic) in Gregory’s poem of thanks to Nemesius, the pagan governor of Cappadocia, encouraging him to convert to Christianity (cf. Carm. II.2.7, 245-246). See Lozza, Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], p. 186, l. 1119, with Lozza’s notes 992-995, and the reference to Copenhaver, Hermetica [see n. 46] (on Hermes Trismegistus). 75 See Appendix B at the end of this article for full references to the Cosmas text. 71



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

women who used cosmetics in Carm. I.2.29, 57-59; the invention of poetry by the old woman explains Gregory’s attack on Maximus’ ‘inspiration’ (Carm. II.1.41, 15-19), to which Cosmas adds accounts of Homer and Hesiod; the ‘new wrought thunder’ of Prohaeresius’ eloquence (Epitaphion 5.5, PG 38, 13 [CPG 3038]) is made by the Cyclopes in Sicily. The explanation of the discovery of purple fits in well with the reference to the ‘might of purple’ for the presence of the Emperor at the chancel in church (Carm. II.1.11, 1360). While there is no mention of Demeter in Carm. II.2.7, 104-105, a description of ‘halfdragon gods’ leads to Demeter’s gift of agriculture to mankind, the seeds being scattered by Triptolemus from winged dragons, to improve the diet of acorns; a second passage about ‘hidden rites’ in Carm. II.2.7, 260, leads to a similar account, with some details from Com. 39.3, and then describes the mysteries, with the comparison of them to baptism from 4.68, 15-22. Gregory’s words ‘your stars’ in Carm. I.1.5, 30 (On Providence) remind Cosmas of the historiae of catasterisms in the comment on Or. 5.5 (Com. 5.1), to which he adds that of Erigone (Com. 4.68), and its cause, the invention of wine by Dionysus. Another part of Gregory’s appeal to Nemesius in Carm. II.2.7, 241, mentions Orpheus, identified as a Thracian, from whom ‘worship’ originated (Com. 4.69.1). The passage continues with the whole of Com. 4.70, and much else. Unfortunately, despite his devotion to Gregory and his dedication to the interpretation of his work, Cosmas’ work had few followers. 76 It is time to consider the question posed in my title. Was the reception of Gregory’s list of inventors in the Pseudo-Nonnus Commentaries and beyond, an end or a beginning? Only the Scholia Alexandrina and Oxoniensia of the works mentioned above paid any attention to Gregory’s plea for the common use of all inventions in Or. 4.106; Pseudo-Nonnus and Cosmas divide the inventions and inventors up and explain them separately. Cosmas, in addition, applied the explanations to Gregory’s poetry, and added Scriptural exegeses to his work. Their work has been criticised: Cosmas’ style is not admired even by its editor, 77 while to me

76 As is shown by the very few copies of his text. See, however, Kazhdan, Byzantine Literature [see n. 62], p. 124, and C. Simelidis, Selected Poems of Gregory of Nazianzus, I.2.17; II.1.10, 19, 32: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary (Hypomnemata, 177), Göttingen, 2009, p. 75, for a further explanation for σχεδιάζειν, and its later history. 77 Cf.  Lozza, L’esegesi di Cosma di Maiuma [see n. 61], p. 237, on Trisoglio, Mentalità [see n. 72], p. 207, n. 77, and his Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59], p. 10-11.



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

Pseudo-Nonnus’ ‘learning appears wide, but not deep’. 78 Nevertheless, these commentaries were of use 79 in their troubled times, as they preserved an accessible record of an extra dimension in Gregory’s thought, beyond that of theological debate from the fourth century onwards. 80 They were neither an end nor a beginning, but, as sincere and devout admirers of Gregory, they were a humble part of the steady rise of interest in his works over the centuries in Byzantium and beyond. 81

Ps. Nonniani … Commentarii [see n. 47], Introd., p. 6. As A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Greek Culture in the Roman World), Cambridge, 2007, p. 163, n. 118, reluctantly admits for Pseudo-Nonnus, and as Papaioannou, Michael Psellus [see n. 63], p. 59-60 admits, with more enthusiasm, for both. 80 See C. Macé, Gregory of Nazianzus as the authoritative voice of Orthodoxy in the sixth century, in A. Louth – A. Casiday (ed.), Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the Thirty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23-25 March 2002 (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies – Publication 12), Aldershot, 2002, p. 7-14, and J. Noret, Grégoire de Nazianze, l’auteur le plus cité, après la Bible, dans la littérature ecclésiastique byzantine, in Mossay (ed.), II. Symposium Nazianzenum [see n. 72], p. 259-294, and Papaioannou, Michael Psellus [see n. 63], p. 59-60, 106. 81 For the later use by other scholiasts of Pseudo-Nonnus’s Commentaries, see Patzig, De Nonnianis… Commentariis [see n. 73], p. 14-24; Trisoglio, Mentalità [see n. 72], passim; and my A Christian’s Guide [see n. 14], p. XLVI. 78 79



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

APPENDIX A: Gregory’s Or. 4, 107-109 with the translation by C. W. King (with some adaptations): 107. Σὸν τὸ ἑλληνίζειν; Εἰπέ μοι· τί δέ, οὐ Φοινίκων τὰ γράμματα, ὡς δέ τινες, Αἰγυπτίων, ἢ τῶν ἔτι τούτων σοφωτέρων Ἑβραίων, οἳ καὶ πλαξὶ θεοχαράκτοις ἐγγραφῆναι τὸν νόμον παρὰ Θεοῦ πιστεύουσι; Σὸν τὸ ἀττικίζειν; Τὸ πεττεύειν δὲ καὶ ἀριθμεῖν καὶ λογίζεσθαι δακτύλοις, μέτρα τε καὶ σταθμὰ καὶ ἔτι πρὸ τούτων τὰ τακτικὰ καὶ πολεμικά, τίνος; Οὐκ Εὐβοέων, εἴπερ Εὐβοεὺς ὁ Παλαμήδης, ὁ πολλῶν εὑρετὴς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπίφθονος καὶ μέντοι καὶ δίκας τῆς σοφίας ἀπαιτηθεὶς καὶ κατακριθεὶς τοῖς ἐπὶ Ἰλίου στρατεύσασι; Τί οὖν ἂν Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Φοίνικες, Ἑβραῖοι τε, οἷς ἡμεῖς συγχρώμεθα πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν παίδευσιν, τί δ’ἂν οἱ τὴν νῆσον οἰκοῦντες Εὔβοιαν μεταποιῶνται τούτων ὡς αὐτοῖς διαφερόντων κατὰ τὰς σὰς ὑποθέσεις, τί δράσομεν ἢ τί δικαιολογησόμεθα πρὸς αὐτούς, τοῖς οἰκείοις ἑαλωκότες νόμοις; Ἢ πᾶσα στέρεσθαι τούτων ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ τοῦ κολοιοῦ πάσχειν, γυμνοὺς εἶναι τῶν ἀλλοτρίων περιαιρεθέντας πτερῶν καὶ ἀσχήμονας; 108. Σὰ τὰ ποιήματα; Τί δέ, οὐ τῆς γραὸς μᾶλλον ἐκείνης ἣ τὸν ὦμον σεισθεῖσα παρά τινος συντόνως ἀντιπαριόντος, ὡς λόγος, εἶτ’ἐνυβρίζουσα τῷ σφοδρῷ τῆς ὁρμῆς ἔπος ἐφθέγξατο; Καὶ τοῦτ’ἀρέσαν τῷ νεανίᾳ λίαν καὶ φιλοπονώτερον μετρηθὲν τὴν θαυμασίαν σου ταύτην ἐδημιούργησε ποίησιν; Τί τἄλλα; Εἰ δὲ τοῖς ὅπλοις μέγα φρονεῖς, παρὰ τίνων σοι τὰ ὅπλα, ὦ γενναιότατε; Οὐ τῶν Κυκλώπων, ἐξ ὧν τὸ χαλκεύειν; Εἰ δέ σοι μέγα καὶ μέγιστον τῶν ὄντων ἡ ἀλουργίς, ἐξ ἧς σοφὸς σὺ καὶ τῶν τοιούτων νομοθέτης, τί, οὐκ ἀποθήσῃ ταύτην Τυρίοις, παρ’ὧν ἡ ποιμενικὴ κύων, ἡ τῇ κόχλῳ βρωθείσῃ καὶ τὰ χείλη καθαιμαξάσῃ, τῷ ποιμένι τὸ ἄνθος γνωρίσασα καὶ διὰ τούτων παραδοῦσα τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ὑμῖν τὸ πένθιμον [τοῖς κακοῖς] ῥάκος καὶ ὑπερήφανον; Γεωργίας δὲ καὶ ναυπηγίας, τί φήσομεν, ἂν ἀπελαύνωσιν ἡμᾶς Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰς Δήμητρας καὶ τοὺς Τριπτολέμους διηγούμενοι καὶ τοὺς δράκοντας, ἔτι δὲ Κελεούς τε καὶ Ἰκαρίους καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν περὶ ταῦτα μυθολογίαν ἣ καὶ μυστήριον ὑμῖν αἰσχρὸν ταῦτα ἐποίησε καὶ νυκτὸς ὄντως ἄξιον; 109. Βούλει, τἄλλα παρείς, ἐπ’αὐτὸ τὸ κεφάλαιον ἀναδράμω τῆς σῆς ἐμπληξίας, εἴτ’οὖν θεοβλαβείας. Αὐτὸ δὲ πόθεν σοι τὸ μυεῖσθαι καὶ τὸ μυεῖν καὶ τὸ θρησκεύειν; Οὐ παρὰ Θρᾳκῶν; Καὶ ἡ κλῆσις πειθέτω σε. Τὸ θύειν δὲ οὐ παρὰ Χαλδαίων, εἴτ’οὖν Κυπρίων; Τὸ ἀστρονομεῖν δὲ οὺ Βαβυλώνιον; Τὸ δὲ γεωμετρεῖν οὐκ Αἰγύπτιον; Τὸ δὲ μαγεύειν οὐ Περσικόν; Τὴν δὲ δι’ὀνείρων μαντικήν, τίνων ἢ Τελμησέων ἀκούεις; Τὴν οἰωνιστικὴν δὲ τίνων; Οὐκ ἄλλων ἢ Φρυγῶν, τῶν πρώτων περιεργασαμένων ὀρνίθων πτῆσιν τε καὶ κινήματα; Καὶ ἵνα μὴ μακρολογῶ, πόθεν σοι τὸ καθ’ἕκαστον; Οὐχ ἓν ἐξ ἑκάστων, ὧν πάντων εἰς ταὐτὸ συνελθόντων ἓν δεισιδαιμονίας συνέστη



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

μυστήριον; Τί οὖν; Δεξόμεθα, πάντων ἀποχωρησάντων εἰς τοὺς πρώτους εὑρομένους, μηδὲν ἔχειν ἡμέτερον πλὴν τῆς κακίας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸ θεῖον ταύτης καινοτομίας; Πρῶτος γὰρ Χριστιανῶν ἐπανάστασιν τῷ Δεσπότῃ, καθάπερ οἱ δοῦλοί ποτε τοῖς Σκύθαις, ὥς φασιν, ἐπενόησας. Πολλοῦ μέντ’ἂν ἄξιον ἦν, εἴ σοι διελύθη τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦτο σύνταγμα κατὰ τοὺς σοὺς ὅρους καὶ νόμους, ἵν’ἡμεῖς ἦμεν πραγμάτων ἀπηλλαγμένοι καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας εὐδαιμονίας τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπῆρχεν ὁρᾶν, πάσης ἀπηλλαγμένην ἐμφυλίου στάσεως, ὃ τοῦ παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν πολέμου πολλῷ φευκτότερόν ἐστι καὶ φοβερώτερον, ὅσῳ τὰς οἰκείας δαπανᾶν σάρκας τῶν ἀλλοτρίων φευκτότερον. 107 Is Greek yours? Tell me: is writing the property of the Phoenicians, or, as some have said, of the Egyptians, or of the Hebrews, still wiser than they, who believe that the Law was written by God on divinely inscribed tablets? Is Attic Greek yours? Who discovered the game of draughts and reckoning and how to count with one’s fingers, measurements and weights, and even before these, military tactics and strategems? Was it not the Euboeans, if Palamedes was an Euboean, who discovered many things and was hated for that and was even called to judgement for his cleverness and condemned to death by those fighting against Troy? Which then would the Egyptians and Phoenicians, with the Hebrews, from whom we have acquired our own culture, which of these would those who dwell on the island of Euboea claim as their own according to your principles? What shall we do or how shall we justify ourselves before them, caught as we have been in our own snares? Or must we be deprived of all of them and suffer the fate of the jackdaw, disgraced and stripped of others’ feathers? 108 Is poetry yours? What, not that of the old woman whose shoulder was jostled by a hurrying passer-by, as the story goes, who then, insulted as she was by the the speed of his passage, shrieked out a phrase? And did not this take the young man’s fancy greatly and, once worked up into more of a metre by him, create this marvellous poetry of yours? What about the rest? If you, most noble of all, pride yourself on arms, from whom did you acquire them? Wasn’t it from the Cyclopes, from whom came working in metal? If the purple is great in your eyes and greatest of all that is, from which you draw your wisdom and this kind of legislation, why, will you not set this to the account of the Tyrians, amongst whom the shepherd’s dog, by eating the shellfish and staining its mouth, made its bloom known to the



Jennifer Nimmo Smith

shepherd, and in this way handed over to you kings your arrogant and wretched rag? What shall we say if the Athenians were to ban us from agriculture and ship-building, as they tell us their stories of Demeters and Triptolemuses and the dragons, as well as Celeuses and Icariuses and the whole mythology about these things, which has made them into a shameful act of worship, one rightly carried out at night? 109 Would you like me, omitting the rest, to go straight to the main part of your stupidity, if not blasphemy? Whence do you think being initiated and initiating and worship derives? Is it not from the Thracians? Let the noun itself convince you. Is not sacrifice from the Chaldaeans, if not the Cyprians? Is not astronomy a Babylonian invention? Is not geometry Egyptian? Magic Persian? As for oneiromancy, do you know of others than the Telmesians for its source? Who discovered augury? Was it no others than the Phrygians who first wasted their time on the flight and movements of birds? To cut my words short, where has everything of yours come from? Have not all of these combined into one single unit, a celebration of superstition? What then? Shall we receive nothing for ourselves, once all have reverted to their first inventors, except evil and this revolt of yours against the Divine? You are the first of the Christians to devise a revolt against the Lord, just as the slaves once did against the Scythians, as they say. It would have been of great value if this evil device of yours had been dissolved according to your regulations and laws (i.e., torn into its constituent pieces, as each invention is returned to its inventor), so that we could have been rid of troubles and it would have again been to possible see the Roman Empire in its previous blessedness, freed from all civil strife, which is a thing far more to be shunned and one which inspires more fear than a war from outside, as is the destruction of one’s own flesh more to be shunned than that of strangers.



THE RECEPTION OF THE ‘CATALOGUE OF INVENTORS’

APPENDIX B: Correlation of the list of inventors in Pseudo-Nonnus’ Commentary 4 (ed. Nimmo Smith, PseudoNonniani … Commentarii [see n. 47]) with its use in Cosmas I and II (ed. Lozza, Cosma di Gerusalemme [see n. 59]) Inventions/Inventors

Pseudo-Nonniani … Cosma di Gerusalemme Commentario Commentarii

Palamedes

4.62

Crow

4.63

Invention of poetry The Cyclopes Discovery of purple Demeter Icarius, Erigone Mysteries Worship, initiation

II, ιη´, p. 299, 2-19, n. 1683

I, Λόγος ξε´ (I.1.29, 55-57), p. 201, 13-23, n. 1106 4.64 I, Λόγος ρμζ´ (II.1.41, 15-19), p. 289, 31 – 290, 5, n. 1616 4.65 I, Λόγος πγ´ (Epitaphion 5, 5), p. 217, 22-29, 30-31, n. 1228 4.66 I, Λόγος ρμς´ (II.1.11, 1360), p. 286, 23-30, n. 1601 4.67 (+ Com. 39.3) I, Λόγος ξδ´ (II.2.7, 105), p. 179, 35 – 180, 6, n. 926; (II.2.7, 261), p. 190, 1-13, n. 1035 4.68 I, Λόγος νβ´ (I.1.5, 27-33), p. 157, 4-14, n. 716 4.68 I, Λόγος ξδ´ (II.2.7, 261), p. 190, 11-17, n. 1037 4.69 II, ιθ´, p. 299, 20-26, n. 1684

Sacrifice, astronomy, geometry, magic Oneiromanteia

4.70 4.71

I, Λόγος ξδ´ (II.2.7, 241-249), p. 182, 1-15, n. 944 II, κ´, p. 299, 28 – 300, 1-4, n. 1686

Augury

4.72

II, κα´, p. 300, 5-24, n. 1687

Scythian slaves

4.73

II, κβ´, p. 300, 25 – 301, 1-13, n. 1693



Paul-Hubert Poirier

Polémique antimanichéenne et controverse théologique : les combats d’un évêque du ive siècle, Titus de Bostra 1 Abstract – Titus of Bostra is best known for the monumental philosophical and biblical refutation of Manichaeism which he composed between 361 and 364. Although he did not seem to have played a leading role, Titus of Bostra also took part in the theological controversies raging in the second half of the fourth century. In this paper, we seek to clarify his theological “posture” on the basis of the few clues we have, from the Against the Manichaeans and the Homilies on Luke of Titus, and the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates of Constantinople. We also appeal to the testimony of some of his contemporaries, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. Ce que nous savons de la vie de Titus de Bostra 2 se ramène à peu de choses : le fait qu’il était évêque de la métropole de la province romaine d’Arabie, ce qui lui a valu son épithète toponymique (Τίτος Βόστρων ou Τίτος ὁ Βόστρης) ; ses démêlées avec l’empereur Julien, alors que celui-ci séjournait à Antioche, entre la mi-juillet 362 et le début du mois de mars 363, 3 et la recommandation de chasser l’évêque de la ville, qu’adresse l’empereur aux Bostréniens dans une lettre datée du 1er août 1 Une première version de ce texte a fait l’objet d’une communication présentée à une rencontre du Groupe suisse d’études patristiques, le 22 mai 2015, à Fribourg. Il me fait plaisir d’offrir cette modeste contribution en hommage au professeur Joseph A. Munitiz et, à travers lui, à tous les artisans de la Series Graeca du Corpus Christianorum et aux Éditions Brepols. 2 Sur Titus de Bostra, voir les notices de R. P. Casey, Titus v. Bostra, dans RE, neue Bearbeitung, zweite Reihe, sechster Band, p. 1586-1591 et de A. Solignac, Titus de Bostra, dans A. Derville – P. Lamarche – A. Solignac (éd.), Dsp, tome XV, Paris, 1991, p. 999-1006, ainsi que N. A. Pedersen, Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God. A Study of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos. The Work’s Sources, Aims and Relation to its Contemporary Theology (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 56), Leiden – Boston, 2004. 3 Cf.  J. Bidez, La Vie de l’Empereur Julien (Collection d’études anciennes), Paris, 1930, p. 277-299 (sur Titus de Bostra, p. 294) ; voir aussi J. Bouffartigue, Iulianus

The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 357–379 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117156

Paul-Hubert Poirier

362 ; 4 la composition d’un Contre les manichéens, sub Iuliano et Ioviano, au témoignage de Jérôme, 5 donc entre mai 361 et février 364 ; toujours d’après Jérôme, 6 sa mort sous Valens, entre le 28 mars 364 et le 9 août 378. 7 Jérôme témoigne également de l’importance de sa culture et de son activité littéraire. Dans la lettre 70 (4) à Magnus, datée de 397-398, dans laquelle il revendique pour les chrétiens le droit d’utiliser les auteurs païens, Jérôme mentionne Titus parmi ceux qui « ont si copieusement farci leurs ouvrages des doctrines et maximes des philosophes, qu’on ne sait ce que l’on doit admirer surtout chez eux, l’érudition profane ou la science des Écritures (eruditionem saeculi an scientiam scripturarum) ». 8 Dans cette lettre, Titus est nommé en compagnie de Basile de Césarée et de Grégoire de Nazianze, d’Athanase d’Alexandrie et d’Eusèbe d’Émèse. Le témoignage de Jérôme est corroboré par celui de Sozomène de Constantinople. Dans son Histoire ecclésiastique, dans un chapitre qui énumère « les saints hommes qui, en ce temps-là, fleurissent en Égypte » et qui donne « la liste d’un très grand nombre d’autres saints », Sozomène termine par ces mots : « Il y avait aussi un nombre extraordinaire d’hommes très doctes qui brillaient au même temps dans les Églises. Les plus distingués (ἐπισημότατοι) d’entre eux furent Eusèbe qui gouverna le clergé d’Émèse, Titus de Bostra, Sérapion de Thmuis, Basile d’Ancyre, Eudoxe de Germanicie, Acace de Césarée et Cyrille, qui gouverna le siège de Jérusalem. Ils composèrent des écrits qui témoignent de leur culture (σύμβολα δὲ τῆς αὐτῶν παιδείας) et ils nous ont laissé beaucoup d’ouvrages dignes d’estime » (III, 14, 42). 9 Ainsi donc, dès la fin du ive (Julien l’Empereur), dans R. Goulet (éd.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, III, Paris, 2000, p. 969. 4 Lettre 114 (52 Hertlein), éd. et trad. J. Bidez, L’Empereur Julien. Œuvres complètes. Tome I, 2e partie, Lettres et fragments (Collection des Universités de France, série grecque, 22), Paris, 1924, p. 193-195 ; sur cet épisode, cf. M. Sartre, Bostra. Des origines à l’Islam (Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 117), Paris, 1985, p. 104-106. 5 De viris inlustribus 102, éd. E. C. Richardson, Hieronymus, Liber de viris inlustribus. Gennadius, Liber de viris inlustribus (TU, 14, 1), Leipzig, 1896, p. 48. 6 Ibid. 7 Cf.  D. Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle, Darmstadt, 1996, p. 330. On peut donc conclure, avec Pedersen (cf. Demonstrative Proof [voir n. 1], p. 417), que Titus était déjà évêque de Bostra en 362 et qu’il le demeura jusqu’en 378 au plus tard. 8 Éd. et trad. J. Labourt, Saint Jérôme, Lettres, tome III (Collection des Universités de France, série latine, 140), Paris, 1953, p. 213. 9 Éd. et trad. G. Sabbah – A. J. Festugière – B. Grillet, Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres III-IV (SC, 418), Paris, 1996, p. 138-141.



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

siècle, Titus figure parmi les gloires littéraires de l’Église et il est considéré comme un ἐπισημότατος. À ces données, il faut ajouter, et c’est ce qui nous intéressera plus particulièrement ici, la participation de Titus au synode d’Antioche de 363, confirmée par sa signature apposée, avec celle de vingt-six autres de ses collègues de Syrie et d’Asie mineure, 10 au βίβλιον ‒ ou au λίβελλος, d’après Théodore le lecteur 11 – que les évêques adressèrent à l’empereur à l’issue du synode. Cette assemblée eut lieu vraisemblablement à la fin d’octobre ou au début de novembre 363. 12 Ce que nous savons de ce « petit concile », pour reprendre les mots de Pierre Maraval, 13 nous vient essentiellement de Socrate de Constantinople, 14 qui cite, pour le texte du libelle, le Recueil des synodiques (Συναγωγὴ τῶν συνοδικῶν) de Sabinos d’Héraclée, un évêque du parti homéousien. 15 Le récit de Socrate est repris par Sozomène. 16 10 Pour la répartition par provinces des sièges épiscopaux représentés à Antioche en 363, voir P. Périchon – P. Maraval, Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres II-III (SC, 493), Paris, 2005, p. 356, n. 3. 11 Epitome 157, éd. G. C. Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte (GCS, neue Folge, 3), Berlin, 1995, p. 62, 20-23. 12 D’après J. Zachhuber, The Antiochene Synod of ad 363 and the Beginning of Neo-Nicenism, dans ZaC, 4 (2000), p. 84. 13 P. Maraval, Le christianisme de Constantin à la conquête arabe (Nouvelle Clio. L’histoire et ses problèmes), Paris, 1997, p. 335. M. Simonetti présente ainsi le concile de 363 : « Dans le contexte de la réaction antiarienne qui suivit la mort de Constance (362), Mélèce réunit à Antioche une vingtaine d’évêques de tendance homoousienne et homéenne de la région syro-palestinienne. Ceux-ci acceptèrent, pour le bien de tous, le symbole nicéen de 325 mais, dans la lettre où ils communiquaient cette décision à l’empereur Jovien, ils donnèrent à l’homoousios une interprétation plus étendue, dans le sens où ce terme indiquait que le Fils, engendré par l’ousia du Père, est semblable à lui par ousia. De cette manière homoousios est pris dans le sens de homoiousios » (M. Simonetti, Antioche de Syrie. II. Conciles, dans A. Di Berardino [éd.], Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien, volume I, Paris, 1990, p. 155). 14 Histoire ecclésiastique III, 25, éd. et trad. Périchon – Maraval, Socrate IIIII [voir n. 9], p. 352-359 ; on trouvera le signalement des sources secondaires dans H. C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer. Der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 73), Tübingen, 1988, p. 173, n. 96. 15 Voir P. Périchon – P. Maraval, Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livre I (SC, 477), Paris, 2004, p. 30-31 ; F. Geppert, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, 3, 4), Leipzig, 1898, p. 82-111 ; W.-D. Hauschild, Die antinizänische Synodalaktensammlung des Sabinus von Heraklea, dans VigChr, 24 (1970), p. 105-126; et W. A. Löhr, Beobachtungen zu Sabinos von Heraclea, dans Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 98 (1987), p. 386-391. 16 Histoire ecclésiastique VI, 4, éd. et trad. Sabbah – A. J. Festugière – B. Grillet, Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres V-VI (SC, 495), Paris, 2005, p. 260-267 ; sur



Paul-Hubert Poirier

D’après Socrate, sitôt après l’avènement de Jovien, à l’été de 363, « ceux qui présidaient les religions (θρησκειῶν) faisaient des démarches auprès de l’empereur, en espérant obtenir de lui une assurance contre ceux qu’ils tenaient pour des adversaires ». 17 Toujours d’après l’historien, Jovien, « dès le début, était attaché à la foi consubstantielle (τῇ ὁμοουσίῳ πίστει), mais il se conduisait alors pacifiquement envers tous ». 18 C’est alors que « ceux qui avaient pris le nom de Macédoniens (οἱ Μακεδονιανοί) » lui présentèrent un libelle « demandant que ceux qui tenaient la doctrine du dissemblable (τὸ ἀνόμοιον) soient chassés des églises et qu’eux-mêmes prennent leur place ». 19 Ce groupe se réclamait de Macédonios, 20 évêque de Constantinople déposé en 360 par le concile présidé dans la capitale par Acace, le successeur, en 340, d’Eusèbe sur le siège de Césarée et comme lui, antinicéen modéré. 21 Ce concile jeta les bases de « l’arianisme historique » 22 ou homéisme. De leur côté, les Macédoniens se voulaient une via media entre les deux extrêmes que représentaient à leurs yeux nicéens et anoméens, comme le déclare très explicitement l’un d’entre eux, Sophronios de Pompeioupolis : Les Occidentaux, dit-il, étaient maladivement attachés au consubstantiel (τὸ ὁμοούσιον), tandis qu’Aétios, en Orient, avait introduit la doctrine pervertie du dissemblable selon la substance (τὸ κατ’οὐσίαν ἀνόμοιον), et ces deux formules étaient illégitimes. Ceux-là liaient de manière inconsidérée les hypostases distinctes du Père et du Fils dans une unité, en les attachant, au moyen du mot consubstantiel, par une mauvaise corde ; celui-ci dissociait complétement la parenté de nature du Fils avec le Père par l’expression dissemblable selon la substance. Puisque tous deux tombaient dans des extrêmes opposés, la voie médiane (ἡ μέση ἀμφοῖν ὁδὸς) entre les deux la question de la dépendance de Sozomène par rapport à Socrate de Constantinople, voir G. Sabbah dans G. Sabbah – L. Angliviel de la Beaumelle – A. J. Festugière – B. Grillet, Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres VII-IX (SC, 516), Paris, 1983, p. 59-87. 17 Histoire ecclésiastique III, 25, 1, éd. et trad. Périchon – Maraval, Socrate IIIII [voir n. 9], p. 352-353. 18 Histoire ecclésiastique III, 24, 2, éd. et trad. ibid., p. 350-351. 19 Histoire ecclésiastique III, 25, 2, éd. et trad. ibid., p. 352-353. 20 Sur ce personnage, voir J. C. Means, Macedonius 3. Of Constantinople (1), dans W. Smith (éd.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Vol. II, Londres, 1846, p. 880-881. 21 Sur Acace, voir M. Simonetti, Acace de Césarée, dans A. Di Berardino (éd.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien, volume I, Paris, 1990, p. 14. 22 Pour reprendre une expression de P. Maraval (cf. Le christianisme [voir n. 12], p. 333).



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

nous a paru détenir suffisamment la piété véritable, celle qui dit que le Fils est semblable au Père selon l’hypostase. (ὅμοιον … καθ’ὑπόστασιν) 23

À la requête des Macédoniens, Jovien répondit par une fin de non-recevoir en leur déclarant : « Pour ma part, je déteste l’esprit de querelle, j’aime et je vénère ceux qui sont partisans de la concorde ». 24 Au dire de Socrate, ces paroles iréniques amadouèrent « ceux du parti d’Acace […], toujours du côté de ceux qui gouvernent », 25 qui se rapprochèrent de Mélèce, l’évêque d’Antioche, 26 « qui peu auparavant s’était séparé d’eux parce qu’il avait pris parti pour le consubstantiel », et ensemble, ils rédigèrent un texte (βιβλίον) par lequel ils reconnaissaient le consubstantiel et ratifiaient la foi de Nicée, qu’ils présentèrent à l’empereur revêtu de la signature de Mélèce et de vingt-six autres évêques. 27 Rappelons ici que, depuis 360, un schisme au sein de l’Église d’Antioche 28 opposait les partisans de Mélèce, homéousiens qui acceptaient Nicée, et que l’on désignera comme « néonicéens », promoteurs, avec Basile de Césarée, de la distinction des termes οὐσία et ὑπόστασις, et, d’autre part, la « minorité vieille-nicéenne », 29 qui, reprenant l’identification de l’οὐσία et de l’ὑπόστασις de l’anathématisme de Nicée, 30 refusait obstinément 23 Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique III, 10, 7-10, éd. et trad. Périchon – Maraval, Socrate II-III [voir n. 9], p. 294-295 ; Socrate cite ici encore Sabinos d’Héraclée. 24 Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique III, 25, 4, éd. et trad. ibid., p. 352-353. 25 Ibid., III, 25, 6, éd. et trad. ibid., p. 352-353. 26 Sur Mélèce d’Antioche, voir M. Simonetti, Mélèce d’Antioche, dans A. Di Berardino (éd.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien, volume II, Paris, 1990, p. 1610. 27 La présence d’Acace de Césarée parmi les signataires de la déclaration d’Antioche a été jugée invraisemblable par H. C. Brennecke (cf. Studien [voir n. 13], p. 175176), qui suggère de retirer son nom de la liste ; J. Zachhuber (cf. The Antiochene Synod [voir n. 11], p. 85) pense que le document original, dans lequel la mention des sièges épiscopaux ne figurait peut-être pas, aurait pu porter le nom d’Acace de Tarse. 28 De fait, les prodromes du schisme d’Antioche remontent aux environs de 327, avec la déposition et l’exil d’Eustathe, un des prédécesseurs de Mélèce (voir F. Cavallera, Le schisme d’Antioche (ive-ve siècle), Paris, 1905, p. 33-56 et M. Simonetti, Antioche de Syrie. III. Schisme, dans A. Di Berardino [éd.], Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien, volume I, Paris, 1990, p. 157). 29 Je reprends ces étiquettes à A. De Halleux, “Hypostase” et “personne” dans la formation du dogme trinitaire (ca. 375-381), dans RHE, 79 (1984), p. 316-317, qui ajoute à ces deux partis « la petite communauté des apolinaristes (sic), dirigée par Vital ». 30 Voir A. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole und der Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche, Breslau, 1897, p. 161, § 142 et G. Alberigo – J. A. Dossetti – P.-P. Joannou –



Paul-Hubert Poirier

les trois hypostases et qui avait à sa tête Paulin, ordonné évêque nicéen d’Antioche en 362 par Lucifer de Cagliari et reconnu par Athanase d’Alexandrie. 31 Le biblion ou la synodique du concile d’Antioche d’octobre-novembre 363, traduisait le consensus auquel étaient parvenus certains de ceux qui s’étaient naguère opposés au consubstantiel. Ils exprimaient ainsi ce qu’ils considéraient être « la définition de la foi orthodoxe (ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως τὸν χαρακτῆρα) » : Pour qu’on ne croie pas que nous sommes de ceux qui falsifient la doctrine de la vérité, nous faisons savoir à ta Piété que nous acceptons et tenons ferme la foi du saint concile réuni voici longtemps à Nicée, puisque le terme qui, en elle, semblait étrange à quelques-uns – nous voulons dire celui du consubstantiel (τὸ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου) – a été interprété de manière sûre par les Pères, signifiant que le Fils a été engendré de la substance du Père (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ἐγεννήθη) et qu’il est semblable au Père selon la substance (ὅμοιος κατ’οὐσίαν τῷ Πατρί). On ne doit pas penser, à propos de la génération ineffable, à une passion quelconque, et le terme de substance (τὸ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας) n’est pas pris par les Pères selon l’usage des Grecs, mais pour réfuter l’expression « tiré du néant », qu’Arius a eu l’audace impie d’appliquer au Christ, ce que les Anoméens aussi, récemment apparus, affirment sans honte, de manière encore plus audacieuse et téméraire, pour la ruine de la concorde de l’Église. C’est pourquoi nous avons joint à notre recours la copie de la foi qui a été exposée à Nicée par les évêques qui s’y étaient réunis, que nous aussi chérissons. 32

Telle était la déclaration synodale à laquelle Titus de Bostra souscrivit à l’automne 363. Sozomène rapporte les évènements à peu près dans les mêmes termes. 33 Le pivot de cette déclaration réside dans l’expression « semblable au Père selon la substance (ὅμοιος κατ’οὐσίαν τῷ Πατρί) », qui propose une interprétation du ὁμοούσιος acceptable à toute une

C. Leonardi – P. Prodi, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta (Strumenti), Bologne, 2002, p. 5. 31 Voir Maraval, Le christianisme [voir n. 12], p. 335 ; sur le schisme d’Antioche, voir toujours Cavallera, Le schisme [voir n. 27], ainsi que Simonetti, Antioche de Syrie. III [voir n. 27], p. 157-158. 32 Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique III, 25, 13-16, éd. et trad. Périchon – Maraval, Socrate II-III [voir n. 9], p. 354-355. 33 Histoire ecclésiastique VI, 4, 8-10, éd. et trad. Sabbah – Festugière – Grillet, Sozomène V-VI [voir n. 15], p. 264-267.



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

branche de l’épiscopat oriental, celle des homéens, 34 qui avait des hésitations par rapport au mot-clef de Nicée, au nombre desquels on peut compter Basile de Césarée, comme le montre la première lettre adressée à Apollinaire de Laodicée et datable de 362 : Pour notre part, voici notre avis : ce que l’on a pris par hypothèse pour la substance (οὐσία) du Père, il est absolument nécessaire de le prendre aussi pour celle du Fils. Par conséquent, si l’on dit que la substance du Père est une lumière intelligible, éternelle, inengendrée, on dira aussi que la substance du Fils est une lumière intelligible, éternelle, engendrée. Pour exprimer une telle idée, l’expression exactement semblable (ἡ τοῦ ἀπαραλλάκτως ὁμοίου φωνή) me semble convenir mieux que celle de consubstantiel (τοῦ ὁμοουσίου). Car d’une lumière qui n’a aucune différence en plus ou en moins avec une lumière, on dirait à bon droit, je pense, qu’elle n’est pas la même, parce que chacune existe dans une individualité de la substance qui lui est propre, mais qu’elle est rigoureusement et exactement semblable selon la substance (ὅμοιον δὲ κατ’οὐσίαν ἀκριβῶς καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως). 35

La Lettre 9 de Basile, adressée au philosophe Maxime et datée de 361 ou 362, exprime encore plus clairement la même conviction : Pour moi, s’il fait émettre mon opinion personnelle, l’expression « semblable par la substance » (τὸ ὅμοιον κατ’οὐσίαν), si l’on y joint le mot absolument (τὸ ἀπαραλλάκτως), je l’accepte, comme revenant au même que le terme consubstantiel, d’après la saine acception évidemment de consubstantiel. 36 C’est bien ce qu’ont pensé ceux de Nicée, quand, après 34 Cf.  V. H. Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von Cäsarea. Sein Weg vom Homöusianer zum Neonizäer (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 66), Göttingen, 1996, p. 17 : « Personell gesehen bestand diese Gruppierung [sc. les évêques presents au concile de 363] zu einem erheblichen Teil aus solchen Bischöfen, die 360 ausdrücklich die homöische Position vertreten hatten. […] Durch die Synode von Antiochien 363 hatte sich jedoch eine neue Gruppierung gebildet, die fortan das Nizänum samt ὁμοούσιος im Sinne des ὅμοιος κατ’ούσίαν akzerptierte ». 35 Lettre 361, éd. H. de Riedmatten, La correspondance entre Basile de Césarée et Apollinaire de Laodicée I, dans JThS, n. s. 7 (1956), p. 202, 20-28 (= Y. Courtonne, Basile de Césarée, Lettres, tome III [Collection des Universités de France, série grecque, 148], Paris, 1966, p. 221, 24-35). Sur l’authenticité basilienne et la datation de la correspondance entre Basile et Apollinaire (Lettres 361-364), voir Drecoll, Die Entwicklung [voir n. 33], p. 21-28, ainsi que CPG 2900 ; de façon plus générale, sur la position théologique de Basile, voir J. Zachhuber, Basil and the Three-Hypostases Tradition. Reconsidering the Origins of Cappadocian Theology, dans ZaC, 5 (2001), p. 65-85. 36 Une telle argumentation ne convaincra pas l’auteur de l’opuscule pseudo-athanasien intitulé Réfutation de l’hypocrisie des partisans de Mélèce et d’Eusèbe de Samosate contre le consubstantiel [CPG 2242], rédigé en réaction au concile de 363 : « Celui qui



Paul-Hubert Poirier

avoir appelé le Fils Unique Lumière de Lumière, vrai Dieu de vrai Dieu, et lui avoir donné les autres noms semblables, ils ont ajouté comme conséquence le mot consubstantiel. […] Mais si l’on disjoint du mot semblable le mot absolument, ce que précisément ceux de Constantinople 37 ont fait, je tiens ce mot-là pour suspect, parce que j’estime qu’il rapetisse la gloire du Fils Unique. 38

Compte-tenu de sa présence au concile d’Antioche de 363 et de la signature qu’il a apposée à la lettre synodale adressée à Jovien, comment peuton caractériser la situation de Titus de Bostra dans le paysage doctrinal et ecclésiastique que nous venons d’évoquer à grands traits et par rapport aux courants théologiques du troisième quart du ive siècle ? Pour répondre à cette question, il nous faut glaner les indications que Titus aurait pu laisser dans les deux ouvrages qui nous sont parvenus de lui, le Contre les manichéens [CPG 3575] et les Homélies sur l’Évangile de Luc [CPG 3576]. Le premier ouvrage est intégralement conservé sinon dans le grec original, du moins dans une très ancienne version syriaque, 39 du second, nous ne possédons plus que des fragments transmis par la tradition caténique. 40 Deux passages de ces œuvres reflètent clairement les débats doctrinaux contemporains de l’auteur. interprète le consubstantiel comme semblable par la substance (ὡς ὅμοιον τῇ οὐσίᾳ) parle d’une substance différente mais rendue semblable à Dieu » (PG 28, 88 A 6-8 ; trad. X. Morales, La théologie trinitaire d’Athanase d’Alexandrie, thèse de doctorat, section des sciences religieuses, École pratique des hautes études, Paris, 2002, III, p. 102) ; sur cet écrit, voir X. Morales, La théologie trinitaire d’Athanase d’Alexandrie (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, série Antiquité, 180), Paris, 2006, p. 142-147. 37 Basile fait référence ici au concile de Constantinople de janvier 360, présidée par Acace de Césarée, dont la formule ὅμοιον τῷ γεννήσαντι αὐτὸν πατρὶ ne qualifie pas la ressemblance du Fils avec le Père dans le sens souhaité par Basile (texte dans Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole [voir n. 29], p. 208, § 167 ; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Londres, 1972, p. 293) ; sur ce concile, voir Maraval, Le christianisme [voir n. 12], p. 332-333. 38 Basile, Ep. 9, 3, éd. et trad. Y. Courtonne, Basile de Césarée, Lettres, tome I (Collection des Universités de France, série grecque, 132), Paris, 1957, p. 39 ; sur cette lettre, voir Drecoll, Die Entwicklung [voir n. 33], p. 38-42. 39 Édition du texte grec et de la version syriaque A. Roman – P.-H. Poirier – É. Crégheur – J. Declerck, Titi Bostrensis Contra Manichaeos libri IV (CCSG, 82), Turnhout, 2013 ; trad. A. Roman – T. S. Schmidt – P.-H. Poirier, Titus de Bostra. Contre les Manichéens (CCT, 21), Turnhout, 2015. 40 Éd. J. Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra. Studien zu dessen Lukashomilien (TU, 21, 1), Leipzig, 1901 ; traduction des scholies de la chaîne de Nicétas dans J.-M. Lavoie, Titus de Bostra, lecteur des Écritures. Fragments du Commentaire sur l’Évangile de Luc, Mémoire (M.A.) en études anciennes, Faculté des lettres, Département des littératures, Université Laval, Québec, 2006 ; voir J.-M. Lavoie – P.-H. Poirier – T. S.



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

Le premier extrait est emprunté au livre III du Contre les manichéens. Pour le situer, rappelons l’architecture de l’œuvre : les deux premiers livres procèdent à une réfutation rationnelle et dialectique, basée essentiellement sur les « notions communes » (κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι), des thèses manichéennes relatives aux deux principes, à la matière et à l’origine du mal (livre I), et à la liberté de l’homme, au gouvernement divin et à la raison d’être des créatures dans leur diversité et leur apparente inégalité (livre II) ; les livres III et IV, en revanche, sont explicitement consacrés à l’interprétation que les manichéens faisaient des Écritures, celles de l’Ancien (livre III) et du Nouveau Testament (livre IV). 41 Dans le livre III, après un examen de passages de la Genèse et de l’Exode, et des prescriptions relatives aux sacrifices, Titus élabore un exposé hérésiologique (chap. 68-74) pour montrer que l’attitude de Mani à l’égard de l’Ancien Testament a été anticipée par celle de Marcion, Basilide et Valentin, qui tous professent l’existence d’une discorde entre l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament, alors que l’Église catholique et les premiers disciples, même sans écrits ni culture, reçoivent l’un et l’autre, et proclament leur harmonie. Les hérétiques et, avec eux, les manichéens, font donc face à un dilemme : mépriser les Écritures, qui les réfutent, ou abandonner leurs propres doctrines. Mais tout en reprochant aux hérétiques de se dénommer d’après leurs chefs et non d’après le Christ, Titus, tout comme, plus tard, Augustin, 42 ne peut esquiver l’objection des dissensions doctrinales au sein de l’Église que ses adversaires ne manquaient sûrement pas de lui opposer. Et c’est avec une totale franchise et un brin d’exaspération qu’il évoque le contre-témoignage que constituaient ces divisions : 43

Schmidt, Les Homélies sur l’Évangile de Luc de Titus de Bostra, dans L. DiTommaso – L. Turcescu (éd.), The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Montréal Colloquium in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11-13 October 2006 (The Bible in Ancient Christianity, 6), Leiden – Boston, 2008, p. 253-285. 41 On trouvera un plan détaillé de l’ouvrage dans Roman – Poirier – Crégheur – Declerck, Titus Bostrensis [voir n. 39], p. LXXXIX-XCVIII, et dans Roman – Schmidt – Poirier, Titus de Bostra [voir n. 38], p. 22-31. 42 Augustin (Contra Faustum Manichaeum 13, 12, éd. I. Zycha, Sancti Aurelii Augustini De utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus contra Fortunatum, Contra Adimantum, Contra epistulam Fundamenti, Contra Faustum [CSEL, 25. 1], Pragae – Vindobonae – Lipsiae, 1891, p. 391-392) reconnaît pareillement l’embarras que cause au polémiste antimanichéen l’existence de dissensions et d’hérésies au sein même de l’Église. 43 Les chiffres en gras et entre parenthèses qui figurent dans les deux textes cités annoncent les commentaires qui suivent. Sur ce passage, cf. Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 99-100.



Paul-Hubert Poirier

Mais si quelqu’un nous méprise à cause du débat de maintenant et de longtemps, et de la division 44 qu’il y a dans l’Église catholique (1), qu’il apprenne que ce n’est pas sur la question de savoir si ces réalités (2) existent ou non dans des hypostases (3) que cette division s’est produite chez nous, mais, alors que nous confessons ces réalités et ces hypostases conformément au décret des Écritures auxquelles nous croyons tous également, nous divergeons cependant sur la manière de (comprendre) à leur sujet comment quelque chose de (ces réalités) est dans l’hypostase (4) car une recherche comme celle-là advient par le grand orgueil de ceux qui, dès le commencement, usèrent de perfidie (5). Car il est tout autant possible aussi d’être accomplis dans la crainte de Dieu sans tenter d’entreprendre une recherche au sujet de ces choses, d’approcher simplement les Écritures divines et d’accepter qu’existent les choses qui sont en vérité dans l’hypostase (6). Mais (quant à savoir) comment elles sont, à cause de (notre) bassesse et de la crainte de Dieu, ne le recherchons aucunement, ce pourquoi, nous, nous ne supportons pas davantage une opinion mesquine et vile pour porter une accusation contre le seul qui est, et à juste titre nous enrageons et nous répudions ceux qui ont innové dans une recherche comme celle-là, car ce n’est pas comme des chercheurs qu’ils la suscitent, mais ils l’enseignent comme des espions (7) et, par le biais des paroles des Écritures qui sont davantage (sujettes) au doute et qui ne témoignent pas en leur faveur, ils professent une opinion mesquine et pauvre pour une partie des choses auxquelles nous croyons également de façon générale. Maintenant, ces réalités ne sont ni moins que ce qu’elles sont ni plus, mais elles sont crues pour elles-mêmes par tous, également, d’une façon générale, et tous, nous confessons unanimement un seul principe sans commencement (8). Et nous n’avons pas d’affrontement au sujet des doctrines, mais (sur) cette seule chose essentielle, qui porte sur la question de savoir à quel point il convient que nous honorions le Fils (9), sur ce sujet, il est évident qu’il n’en va pas sans tempête ni danger pour ceux qui diminuent la mesure de son honneur, car, comme de juste, celle-ci est pour nous incompréhensibilité. Sienne est en effet cette parole : Afin que quiconque honore le Fils comme il honore le Père (Io. 5, 23) (10). En cela donc qu’il existe, nous sommes d’accord. Donc, tout comme l’honneur du Père n’est saisi par personne, de même, non plus, celui du Fils n’est saisi. Car Jésus le Christ est Seigneur

Déjà en III, 69, 5-10, Titus évoque la même objection, de la part, cette fois, des païens : « Ceux-là, quand nous leur avons dit et montré que les doctrines des Grecs païens ne tiennent pas à cause de l’affrontement des sectes qu’ils ont établies chez eux, cherchent aussitôt à nous réduire au silence (en disant) que “chez vous aussi, il y a de nombreuses divisions”, ce qui se produit par le biais des hérétiques dont on a précédemment parlé ». 44



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

à la gloire de Dieu, son Père (Phil. 2, 11), ce à cause de quoi il n’est pas inconvenant que nous blâmions ceux-là. (Contre les manichéens III, 73)

L’interprétation de ce passage est délicate en raison de son caractère allusif – du moins pour nous – et surtout du fait que nous ne le lisons plus que dans la version syriaque qui masque les termes techniques que l’auteur a pu employer. Dans le cadre de cette contribution, nous nous en tiendrons à quelques éléments de commentaire. (1) En mentionnant « le débat (beʿāṯāʾ) de maintenant et de longtemps » et la « division (pālgūṯāʾ) » qui s’en suivit, Titus de Bostra évoque en raccourci tout ce qui s’est passé depuis « le saint concile réuni voici longtemps (πάλαι πρότερον) à Nicée », 45 mais surtout les assemblées synodales qui se sont tenues entre 350 et 361, sous le règne de Constance II. 46 (2) Le syriaque ṣeḇūṯāʾ (ici au pluriel : ṣeḇwāṯāʾ), très fréquemment employé par Titus (73 occurrences) rend habituellement le grec πρᾶγμα / πράγματα. 47 Le terme grec a été utilisé dans un contexte trinitaire et christologique. 48 À titre d’exemple, citons Origène : « Nous rendons un culte au Père de la Vérité et au Fils qui est la Vérité : ils sont deux réalités par l’hypostase (δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα), mais une seule par l’humanité, la concorde, l’identité de la volonté » ; 49 et plus proche de Titus, Basile de Césarée : « Celui qui dit que le Père, le Fils et le Saint-Esprit sont une seule réalité en plusieurs personnes (ἓν πρᾶγμα πολυπρόσωπον), et qui n’admet pour les trois qu’une seule hypostase (μίαν τῶν τριῶν τὴν ὑποστασιν), que fait-il sinon nier la préexistence éternelle du Fils unique ? ». 50 Le terme n’apparaît pas chez Athanase dans un sens théo45 Lettre synodale du concile d’Antioche de 363, reproduite par Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique III, 25, 13, éd. et trad. Périchon – Maraval, Socrate II-III [voir n. 9], p. 354-355. 46 Maraval, Le christianisme [voir n. 12], p. 327-333, en donne une présentation claire et documentée. 47 R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus syriacus, Tomus II, Oxford, 1901, col. 3353. 48 Lampe, Lexicon, p. 1126a ; cf. E. Hammerschmidt, Die Begriffsentwicklung in der altchristlichen Theologie zwischen dem ersten allgemeinen Konzil von Nizäa (325) und dem zweiten allgemeinen Konzil von Konstantinopel (381), dans Theologische Revue, 51 (1955), col. 148. 49 Contre Celse VIII, 12, éd. et trad. M. Borret, Origène. Contre Celse. Tome IV (Livres VII et VIII) (SC, 150), Paris, 1969, p. 200-201. 50 Lettre 210, 3, 15-18, de 375, éd. et trad. (modifiée) Y. Courtonne, Basile de Césarée, Lettres, tome II (Collection des Universités de France, série grecque, 149), Paris,



Paul-Hubert Poirier

logique ; les deux occurrences que signale le lexique de Müller 51 sont des citations par Athanase de l’Ecthèse macrostiche du synode d’Antioche de 344, qui mentionne la confession des « trois réalités et trois personnes » du Père et du Fils et de l’Esprit saint selon les Écritures (πράγματα καὶ τρία πρόσωπα) et qui affirme qu’il ne faut pas prendre « de façon impie les trois noms pour une seule et même personne (πράγματός τε καὶ προσώπου) ». 52 Titus recourt lui-même au terme πρᾶγμα dans la scolie sur Luc que nous citons ci-après. 53 (3) Le terme que nous rendons par « hypostase », qenomāʾ (pl. qenomēʾ), n’est pas des plus faciles à traduire. 54 D’après le Thesaurus syriacus, 55 qui le fait dériver de qām (« se lever », « être debout »), il admet deux acceptions principales, celle de substantia, res vera, res per se subsistens, et celle de persona, individuum. 56 Il sert aussi de substitut au pronom réfléchi. 57 Dans les textes traduits du grec, il rend régulièrement le substantif ὑπόστασις ou des dérivés de ὑφίστημι. James Franklin Bethune-Baker a étudié les différents emplois du terme. 58 Il ressort clairement de cette étude que le sens le plus courant que les auteurs syriaques depuis Éphrem ont donné à qenomāʾ est celui d’hypostase entendue comme substance ou substrat, c’est-à-dire ce en quoi l’essence, l’οὐσία, existe ou subsiste concrètement et réellement. Ce qui revient au sens que lui donne Ba1961, p. 192. 51 G. Müller, Lexicon Athanasianum, Berlin, 1952, p. 1241 ; ces deux emplois ne sont donc pas à attribuer à Athanase, comme le laisse entendre Morales, La théologie (2006) [voir n. 35], p. 22. 52 Cité par Athanase, De Synodis 26 (IV, 1), 60-61, et 26 (VII, 1), 109-110, éd. et trad. A. Martin – X. Morales, Athanase d’Alexandrie. Lettre sur les synodes. Texte critique H. G. Opitz (Athanasius Werke II, 1). Synodale d’Ancyre. Basile d’Ancyre, Traité sur la foi (SC, 563), Paris, 2013, p. 262-263 et 266-267. 53 Éd. Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 195, 52. 54 Cf.  J. F. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching. A Fresh Examination of the Evidence, Cambridge, 1908, p. 220, qui écrit que, par comparasion aux autres termes qu’il considère (ʾītūtāʾ, « être, essence », ʾītīāʾ, « être concret, étant », kyānāʾ, « nature », parṣopāʾ, « visage, individu [πρόσωπον] »), qenomāʾ « is the most difficult of the terms which we have to deal with, and at the same time by far the most important theologically ». 55 Payne Smith, Thesaurus [voir n. 46], col. 3667-3668. 56 Ces deux sens fondamentaux sont développés par M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, Winowa Lake – Indiana/Piscataway – New Jersey, 2009, p. 1380a. 57 T.  Nöldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1898, p. 169, § 223 ; sur cet usage, voir Bethune-Baker, Nestorius [voir n. 53], p. 220-222. 58 Bethune-Baker, Nestorius [voir n. 53], p. 220-232.



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

sile de Césarée dans l’ἀντίγραφον πίστεως qu’il dicta à Eustathe de Sébaste en 373, où on lit qu’il faut confesser avec les Pères de Nicée que « le Père est dans une hypostase particulière, le Fils dans une hypostase particulière, et l’Esprit saint dans une hypostase particulière (ἐν ἰδίᾳ μὲν ὑποστάσει τὸν Πατέρα, ἐν ἰδίᾳ δὲ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ ἐν ἰδίᾳ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον), comme les Pères l’ont eux-mêmes clairement exposé ». 59 Déjà, dans une lettre à Grégoire de Nysse, datable de 369 ou 379, il écrivait : Nous affirmons donc ceci : ce qui est dit d’une façon propre est indiqué par le mot hypostase. En effet, lorsqu’on dit homme, on introduit dans l’oreille, par la signification indéfinie de ce mot, une idée quelque peu diffuse ; de sorte que, si la nature est indiquée en vertu de ce nom, la chose qui se tient dessous et qui indiquée proprement par son nom n’est pas signifiée. Au contraire, lorsqu’on dit Paul, on montre la nature subsistant dans la chose indiquée par ce nom. C’est cela l’hypostase : ce n’est pas la notion indéfinie de substance, qui ne trouve aucune stabilité par suite de la communauté de la chose signifiée, mais cette notion qui délimite et définit ce qu’il y a de commun et d’indécis dans certain objet déterminé, à l’aide de ses propriétés manifestes. 60

On peut donc considérer que le terme qenomāʾ qui figure dans la version syriaque du Contre les manichéens traduit ὑπόστασις, d’autant que l’expression ὑπόστασις τοῦ μονογενοῦς apparaît dans l’extrait des Homélies sur Luc de Titus, que nous présentons ci-dessous. 61 (4) Cette phrase de Titus est particulièrement elliptique. On se demande en particulier quel peut être le référent de meddem menhon (l. 10 du syriaque), « quelque chose d’eux/elles » ? Il ne peut s’agir « des réalités et des hypostases » dont Titus vient de dire (l. 7-8) qu’elles sont les unes et les autres reçues « conformément au décret des Écritures », mais plutôt des seules « réalités » qui existent dans les hypostases, c’est-à-dire, fort probablement, des caractéristiques ou propriétés individuelles des personnes divines. 62 Lettre 125, 1, 43-46, éd. et trad. Courtonne, Basile II [voir n. 49], p. 32. Lettre 38, 3, 1-12, éd. et trad. Courtonne, Basile I [voir n. 37], p. 82-84. 61 Éd. Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 194, 26-27. 62 Sur les « propriétés », voir Basile de Césarée, Contre Eunome II, 28, 31-37 : « Les propriétés (ἰδιότητες), telles des caractéristiques et des formes considérées dans la substance, font une distinction dans ce qui est commun grâce aux caractéristiques qui les particularisent, mais elles ne brisent pas la connaturalité de la substance. Par exemple, la divinité est commune, mais la paternité et la filiation sont des propriétés (ἰδιώματα) ; et de la combinaison du commun et du propre, s’opère en nous la compréhension de 59 60



Paul-Hubert Poirier

(5) Titus fait sans aucun doute allusion ici aux dissensions auxquelles le synode d’Antioche de 363 entendait tant bien que mal remédier, mais surtout du schisme, évoqué ci-dessus, qui divisait l’Église d’Antioche depuis plusieurs décennies, partagée entre proariens et pronicéens. (6) Titus de Bostra promeut ici une attitude irénique qui tranche avec l’intransigeance dogmatique de certains de ses collègues évêques, notamment des « vieux-nicéens » et d’Athanase. Le refus d’une « recherche au sujet de ces choses » et l’invitation à professer leur existence sans chercher à en connaître le comment correspondent à une mise en garde qui reviendra constamment dans la polémique antieunomienne et que l’observe déjà chez Basile de Césarée : Laissons donc cette préoccupation déplacée concernant la substance, comme une chose inabordable, et obéissons au simple conseil de l’Apôtre, quand il dit : « Il faut croire tout d’abord que Dieu existe, et qu’il se fait le rémunérateur de ceux qui le cherchent » (Hebr. 11, 6). Car ce n’est pas nous enquérir de ce qu’il est, mais confesser qu’il est, qui nous prépare le salut. 63

(7) Le terme « espion » (bāʿūyāʾ) désigne ceux qui entreprennent des recherches indiscrètes sur la divinité et qui sont portés à la dispute dans les questions la concernant. (8) Face à ses adversaires, Titus adopte une position prudente, qui consiste à passer sous silence ou à amenuiser les divergences dogmatiques qui séparent les chrétiens pour mettre l’accent sur ce en quoi ils sont unanimes, la confession d’« un seule principe sans commencement (ḥedāʾ rišnūtāʾ dlāʾ šūrāy) », s’opposant ainsi en bloc, et sans divergence cette fois, au dualisme manichéen. (9) Cette « question » était au cœur de la controverse arienne, à savoir s’il faut ou non honorer le Fils comme absolument égal au Père en divinité.

la vérité » (éd. et trad. B. Sesboüé – G.-M. de Durand – L. Doutreleau, Basile de Césarée. Contre Eunome, suivi de Eunome, Apologie, tome II (SC, 305), Paris, 1983, p. 118-121). 63 Contre Eunome I, 14, 40-45, éd. et trad. B. Sesboüé – G.-M. de Durand – L. Doutreleau, Basile de Césarée. Contre Eunome suivi de Eunome, Apologie, tome I (SC, 299), Paris, 1982, p. 222-225.



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

(10) Cette citation de Io. 5, 23 figure dans le florilège scripturaire de la fin du De synodis d’Athanase : « le fait d’être honoré comme le Père : car Afin qu’ils honorent le Fils, comme ils honorent le Père, dit-il ». 64 Elle revient aussi dans la controverse antieunomienne, chez Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de Nysse. 65 La version syriaque du Contre les manichéens donne un texte identique à celui de la Peshitta et de la Vetus Syra. 66 Le deuxième texte susceptible de jeter un éclairage sur la situation de Titus en matière de théologie trinitaire provient de ses Homélies sur l’Évangile de Luc dont d’assez nombreux extraits ont été conservés par les chaînes exégétiques. Celui qui nous intéresse commente la confession du Père par le Fils en Lc. 10, 21-22 (ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτηρ). Ce fragment, la plus longue des scolies exégétiques de Titus, est tout entier consacré au problème théologique de la nature du Christ et de sa relation avec le Père. Il reflète bien les discussions qui eurent cours en Syrie durant l’épiscopat de Titus et que nous venons d’évoquer, et qui devaient solliciter l’attention des évêques à l’égard de leurs fidèles. En voici le texte, que nous divisons en quatre paragraphes pour en faciliter la lecture et faisons suivre de quelques notes : 67 Le Père est son père ; il est en revanche Seigneur du ciel et de la terre. N’est-il donc pas aussi Père du ciel ? Il est Père du ciel et de la terre comme Créateur ; mais du Monogène, unique en tant que véritable, il est père par nature comme père de son propre rejeton (1). En effet, puisque le fils est monogène en tout, il l’est aussi sous ce rapport-là : autre, donc, est la manière d’être Père des choses qui sont venues à l’être par l’intermédiaire du Christ et autre celle (d’être Père) de l’incompréhensible génération du Monogène (2). Dans le premier cas, en effet, les choses venues à l’être sont issues du néant par l’intermédiaire du Christ : celui par qui ces choses sont tirées du néant n’est pas lui-même issu du 64 49, 4, 23-25, éd. et trad. Martin – Morales, Athanase d’Alexandrie [voir n. 51], p. 344-345. 65 Basile de Césarée, Contre Eunome I, 26, 28-29 (éd. et trad. Sesboüé et al., Contre Eunome I [voir n. 62], p. 264-267) ; Grégoire de Nysse, Contre Eunome I, deuxième partie, xxiv, 333 (éd. et trad. R. Winling, Grégoire de Nysse. Contre Eunome I, 147-691 [SC, 524], Paris, 2010, p. 132-133) et II, 16 (éd et trad. R. Winling, Grégoire de Nysse. Contre Eunome II [SC, 551], Paris, 2013, p. 112-113). 66 Voir G. A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonius, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions. Volume Four. John (New Testaments Tolls and Studies, 21, 4), Leiden – New York – Cologne, 1996, ad loc. 67 Nous laissons de côté la partie centrale du fragment, sur les deux sens du verbe ἐξομολογεῖσθαι (Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 194, 12-23), et la dernière, sur les degrés de l’amour et de la connaissance, et leur relation (ibid., p. 195, 77 – 196, 94).



Paul-Hubert Poirier

néant, mais il est le seul à être issu de façon incompréhensible de la cause qu’est le Père ; voilà pourquoi il est Fils unique (3). […] Dès lors, quand le Fils dit au Père : « je te confesse », cela revient à dire : « je te glorifierai » – or, de ce que le Fils glorifie le Père, ne sois pas surpris. Personne en effet ne glorifie celui qui engendre comme le fait celui qui est engendré de lui. « Toute langue confessera donc que Jésus-Christ est Seigneur, pour la gloire du Dieu Père » (Phil. 2, 11), et toute l’hypostase du Monogène est gloire de celui qui l’a engendré (4) : gloire sont ceux qui sont venus à l’être, et gloire du démiurge, le ciel, les anges, les choses de moindre importance et les réalités en général. Mais puisque ces choses sont inférieures, tout à fait basses et terre à terre en regard de la dignité du créateur, elles ne procurent qu’à moitié la gloire à celui qui les a faites. Puisque le Fils, par nature, tend vers le haut (5) en direction de son père – que dis-je « tend », puisqu’il est exactement semblable à son engendreur, puisqu’Unique, il est issu de l’Unique, puisque parfait dans sa nature, il conserve l’empreinte du Père, puisqu’il est l’image absolument identique du Dieu invisible (6), puisque il ne diffère en rien de lui selon la nature – en effet, le Père, en engendrant, n’a rien soustrait de sa propre ressemblance à celui qu’il engendrait ; nulle faiblesse ne le contraignait, et nulle jalousie ne le retenait – puisque certes, parfait, issu du parfait et parfaitement parfait – pas parfait tout court ! –, seul Jésus Christ est « pour la gloire de Dieu le Père » (Phil. 2, 11). Donc, lorsqu’il dit : « je te confesse », c’est l’engendreur que glorifie le rejeton qui fut engendré avant les siècles sous un mode incompréhensible ; en effet, il convient que rien ne s’interpose entre l’Engendrant et l’Engendré en ce qui concerne l’indicible génération. Il n’est donc pas possible d’y insérer un temps médian ou quelque intervalle que ce soit, car l’ancienneté du Fils (7) et la manière dont le Fils est issu du Père sont (des réalités) incompréhensibles. Puisque donc elles sont incompréhensibles, allons-nous pour autant rougir pour cela de notre ignorance ? Au contraire, ne reconnaissons-nous pas en ceci la vérité qui concerne l’abîme, dans le fait que nous savons qu’elle n’est pas soumise à une mesure ? N’es-tu pas honteux de dire que la chose est incommensurable ? La connaissance à son sujet ne résiderait-elle pas (justement) dans le fait de savoir qu’elle est incommensurable ? Or, si quelqu’un veut mesurer la distance depuis la terre jusqu’au ciel, ne comprends-tu pas alors tout aussitôt qu’il est complètement ignorant ? En effet, tu dirais probablement : « celui-là, s’il savait, il n’essaierait pas de mesurer » alors qu’il faut savoir qu’en raison de notre nature, cette distance, nous ne la saisissons pas, mais celui qui l’a faite la connaît. Compte, si tu peux, les étoiles, compte les grains de sable des mers. Tu ne peux pas, bien sûr, faire le compte des grains (de



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

sable). Donc, si tu ne peux ni mesurer l’étendue de l’eau, ni compter les étoiles ni saisir l’espace occupé par l’air, si pour toi la compréhension des œuvres démiurgiques tient, dans ce qui est insaisissable, de la vue et de la mesure, et si la compréhension que tu en as tient dans le fait de reconnaître qu’elle dépasse notre entendement, alors la connaissance de la manière dont le Fils est issu du Père ne tient-elle pas à son tour dans le fait de savoir qu’on ne peut comprendre, par nature, ce qui dépasse toute nature ? En quoi consiste, alors, la compréhension de celui-ci ? C’est la connaissance du fait de savoir qu’il est impossible de comprendre. Car, si quelqu’un venait à essayer, il est convaincu d’ignorance, de même que, si quelqu’un venait à avoir la connaissance la plus vraie, il ne s’aventurerait jamais à essayer de comprendre l’incompréhensible. Le Fils, le seul qu’il faut suivre, dit donc : « Je te confesse, Père », c’est-àdire, « je te glorifie ». Mais lorsque tu entends le Père répondre au Monogène : « J’ai glorifié et glorifierai de nouveau » (Io. 12, 28), observe le don réciproque de gloire du Fils comme vers le Père et du Père comme vers le Fils. En effet, il aime son propre rejeton. 68

(1) « Père par nature comme père de son propre rejeton (φύσει πατὴρ ὡς γεννήματος ἰδίου πατήρ) » (p. 193, 4). Le terme γέννημα, « rejeton » ou « progéniture », utilisé par Titus par trois fois dans ce fragment (ici et en p. 194-195, 43-44, et 195, 76), a une longue histoire théologique. Opposé à ποίημα et à κτίσμα, il désigne le Fils engendré par le Père, mais il figure surtout dans la controverse arienne, repris aussi bien par les orthodoxes que par les partisans d’Arius jusqu’aux eunomiens. 69 On trouve plusieurs attestations du terme chez Athanase d’Alexandrie. 70 Ainsi dans ces deux passages du Contre les ariens : Concevoir et comprendre le Fils, c’est connaître le Père, puisqu’il est le propre rejeton issu de la substance de celui-ci (διὰ το ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἴδιον εἶναι γέννημα). Et de même que personne d’entre vous ne dira plus que le fait d’être participé soit une passion et une division de la substance de Dieu – car on a montré et reconnu que Dieu est participé et qu’être participé et engendrer sont une même chose –, de même le rejeton (τὸ γέννημα) n’est pas une passion ni une division de cette substance bienheureuse. Il Éd. Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 193-196 ; trad. (modifiée) dans Lavoie et al., Les Homélies [voir n. 39], p. 272-275 ; sur ce passage, cf. Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 101-102. 69 Très bon aperçu dans Lampe, Lexicon, p. 311b-312a, et dans G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, Londres, 1964, p. 154-156 (= id., Dieu dans la pensée patristique, Paris, 1955, p. 140-141). 70 Voir Müller, Lexicon [voir n. 50] 1952, col. 221-222. 68



Paul-Hubert Poirier

n’est donc pas incroyable que Dieu ait un Fils qui soit le rejeton de sa propre substance (τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας τὸ γέννημα). Et nous ne signifions donc pas non plus une passion ou une division de la substance de Dieu lorsque nous parlons de Fils ou de rejeton (λέγοντες υἱὸν καὶ γέννημα), mais bien plutôt c’est en reconnaissant l’authentique, véritable et unique Fils issu de Dieu que nous croyons de la sorte. Cela étant manifesté et montré, à savoir que le rejeton issu de la substance du Père est le Fils (τὸ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας γέννημα τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ υἱός), il ne peut plus être douteux pour personne, mais il doit être évident qu’il est la Sagesse et le Verbe du Père, en lequel et par lequel celui-ci crée et fait toutes choses. (I, 16, 4-6). 71 Par conséquent, si Dieu est non venu à l’existence (ἀγένητος), son Image, qui est son Verbe et sa Sagesse, n’est pas pour autant venue à l’existence (οὐ γενητή) mais est un rejeton (ἀλλὰ γέννημά ἐστιν). (I, 31, 4). 72

Basile de Césarée, pour sa part, tout en rejetant vigoureusement le terme γέννημα comme non scripturaire, 73 y recourra tout de même au moins une fois, en Homélie 24, 4 (Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomœos) : « Le Fils qui existe à partir du Père sous le mode de la génération (γεννητῶς) et, par nature (φυσικῶς), porte en lui-même l’empreinte du Père, d’une part, en tant qu’image, possède l’absence de tout différence (τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον), d’autre part, en tant que rejeton (ὡς δὲ γέννημα), il maintient le fait d’être consubstantiel (τὸ ὁμοούσιον) ». 74 La façon dont Titus s’exprime en désignant le Fils comme τὸ ἴδιον γέννημα du Père est tout à fait dans la ligne d’Athanase et des Cappadociens. (2) « L’incompréhensible génération du Monogène (τῆς ἀκαταλήπτου γεννήσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς) » (p. 193, 7-8). L’adjectif ἀκατάληπτος est fréquemment utilisée en théologie trinitaire, aussi bien pour le Père que 71 Éd. K. Metzler – K. Savvidis, Athanasius Werke, erster Band, erster Teil. Die dogmatischen Schriften, 2. Lieferung. Orationes I et II Contra Arianos, Berlin – New – York, 1998, p. 126, 10-21 ; trad. (modifiée) par A. Rousseau dans A. Rousseau – R. Lafontaine, Athanase d’Alexandrie. Les Trois Discours contre les ariens (Donner raison, 15), Bruxelles, 2004, p. 55-56. 72 Éd. Metzler – Savvidis, Athanasius Werke I, 1, 2 [voir n. 70], p. 141, 14-15 ; trad. (modifiée) par Rousseau dans Rousseau – Lafontaine, Athanase d’Alexandrie [voir n. 70], p. 76-77. 73 Contre Eunome II, 1-8, éd. et trad. Sesboüé et al., Contre Eunome II [voir n. 61], p. 27-35 ; cf. spécialement II, 8, 1-4 (p. 30-31) : « Mais, dit-il [sc. Eunome], si Dieu a engendré, pourquoi ne doit-on pas appeler rejeton (γέννημα) celui qui a été engendré ? Parce que c’est pour nous une chose redoutable d’appeler par nos propres noms celui que Dieu a gratifié du nom qui est au-dessus de tout nom ». 74 PG 31, 608 A 2-5.



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

pour le Fils, 75 ainsi chez Épiphane : « Le Père est donc toujours inengendré, incréé et incompréhensible ; le Fils est engendré, mais incréé et incompréhensible ». 76 L’adjectif et l’adverbe (ἀκαταληπτῶς) reviennent fréquemment dans la controverse antiarienne et antieunomienne. 77 Dans le Contre les manichéens (III, 70, 12), Titus appelle « le Christ de Dieu » « le Dieu monogène ». (3) « Il est le seul à être issu de façon incompréhensible de la cause qu’est le Père ; voilà pourquoi il est Fils unique (μόνος ἀκαταλήπτως ἐξ αἰτίου τοῦ πατρός, διὸ καὶ μόνος υἱός) » (p. 194, 10-11). Dieu a été assez tôt qualifié de cause première, 78 par exemple chez Justin : « Ce qui pour tous les autres est cause d’existence (τοῦ εἶναι … αἰτίον) : cela, de fait, est Dieu ». 79 La mention du Père comme cause du Fils est apparemment plus rare. Elle apparaît tout de même in bonam partem chez un contemporain de Titus, Grégoire de Nazianze, dans le troisième Discours théologique : « (Le Fils et l’Esprit) ne sont donc pas sans principe du point de vue de la cause (οὐκ ἄναρχα τῷ αἰτίῳ) ; mais la cause (τὸ αἴτιον), évidemment, n’est pas antérieure à ceux dont elle est cause, pas plus que le soleil n’est antérieur à sa lumière ». 80 Elle suscitera cependant de l’opposition, comme on le voit chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie : « Quant à la cause et au causé (αἴτιον δὲ καὶ αἰτιατόν), il n’est même pas permis d’en faire mention ; il conviendrait bien mieux, dans le cas de Dieu, de parler d’un Père et d’un Fils qu’il a engendré ». 81 La réticence de Cyrille vient du fait que le terme n’est pas scripturaire : « La cause et le causé… je ne sais pas d’où ils nous ont pris ces noms-là. Ils ne vont pas dire, au moins, que c’est dans la sainte Écriture ». 82 Voir Lampe, Lexicon, p. 59 (B.2.). Panarion 74, 12, 8, éd. K. Holl – J. Dummer, Epiphanius III. Panarion haer. 65-80. De fide (GCS), Berlin, 1985, p. 330, 17-19. 77 Voir M.-O. Boulnois, Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Herméneutique, analyses philogiques et argumentation théologique (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, série Antiquité, 143), Paris, 1994, p. 37, n. 46. 78 Voir les références données dans Lampe, Lexicon, p. 54b. 79 Dialogue 3, 5, éd. et trad. P. Bobichon, Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon. Édition critique. Volume I (Paradosis, 47, 1), Fribourg, 2003, p. 192-193. 80 Discours 29, 3, 17-19, éd. et trad. P. Gallay – M. Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 27-31 (Discours théologiques) (SC, 250), Paris, 1978, p. 182-183. 81 Dialogue sur la Trinité II, 446 C, éd. et trad. G.-M. de Durand, Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinité. Tome I. Introduction. Dialogues I et II (SC, 231), Paris, 1976, p. 308-309. 82 Ibid., II, 435 E, éd. et trad. de Durand, Cyrille [voir n. 80], p. 278-279. 75 76



Paul-Hubert Poirier

(4) « Toute l’hypostase du Monogène (ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ μονογενοῦς) est gloire de celui qui l’a engendré » (p. 194, 26-27). Le terme ὑπόστασις 83 occupe une place centrale dans les débats trinitaire du ive siècle, en raison de sa présence dans l’anathématisme de Nicée, qui le donne pour un équivalent d’οὐσία, 84 et de son interprétation ultérieure au sens de personne. Le fait que ce terme figure dans les Homélies sur Luc de Titus justifie de voir dans le qenōmāʾ de la version syriaque du Contre les manichéens une traduction de ὑπόστασις. Il est clair que Titus entend ici le terme grec au sens d’individualité propre, de réalité substantielle individuelle, en d’autres termes, de personne. L’expression même qu’utilise Titus (« l’hypostase du Monogène ») ne semble guère attestée 85 mais apparaît tout de même à deux reprises chez Grégoire de Nysse, dont voici la première attestation : « Si tu considères celui qui est issu de lui, c’est l’hypostase du Monogène (ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπόστασις) que la dénomination de Père fait connaître ; mais si tu cherches à savoir ce qui est avant lui, l’appellation de Père fait connaître que celui qui a engendré le Fils est, quant à lui, sans principe ». 86 Le second passage est le suivant : « Mais si ce premier Père n’a pas de cause supérieure à lui pour sa propre subsistence et si l’hypostase du Monogène (τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ ὑπόστασις) est sans aucun doute aussi affirmée implicitement par l’appellation de Père, pourquoi cherchent-ils à nous effrayer comme avec un épouvantail au moyen de ces sophismes artificieusement entortillés, avec la volonté de nous convaincre ou plutôt de nous faire admettre par tromperie que, 83 De l’abondante littérature portant directement ou indirectement sur le substantif ὑπόστασις, on retiendra R. E. Witt, Ὑπόστασις, dans H. G. Wood (éd.), Amicitiae Corolla. A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris, D. Litt. on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, Londres, 1933, p. 319-343 ; F. Erdin, Das Wort Hypostasis. Seine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Entwicklung in der altchristlichen Literatur bis zum Abschluss der trinitarischen Auseinandersetzungen (Freiburger theologische Studien, 52), Freiburg im Breisgau, 1939 ; E. Hammerschmidt, Die Begriffsentwicklung [voir n. 47] ; H. Dörrie, Ὑπόστασις. Wort- und Bedeutungsgeschichte, dans Id., Platonica minora (Studia et testimonia antiqua, 8), München, 1976, p. 12-69 ; De Halleux, “Hypostase” [voir n. 28] ; J. Hammerstaedt, Hypostasis, dans E. Dassmann (éd.), RAC, Band XVI, Stuttgart, 1994, col. 985-1035 ; B. Meunier, La personne dans le christianisme ancien (Patrimoines, Christianisme), Paris, 2006, p. 159-242, G. Greshake, Der dreieine Gott. Eine trinitarische Theologie, Freiburg, 2007, p. 81-82, et surtout Boulnois, Le paradoxe trinitaire [voir n. 76], p. 287-311. 84 Hahn, Bibliothek [voir n. 30], p. 161, § 142 ; Alberigo et al., Decreta [voir n. 29], p. 5. Sur l’anathématisme de Nicée et sa reprise par Athanase dans les années 360370, voir Morales, La théologie (2006) [voir n. 35], p. 41-44. 85 Du moins si l’on se fie au TLG. 86 Contre Eunome I, deuxième partie, xxxviii, 581, éd. et trad. Winling, Contre Eunome II [voir n. 64], p. 286-287.



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

si la notion d’agennésie du Dieu suprême était exprimée à travers l’appellation de Père, l’idée d’une relation du Père avec le Fils serait évacuée ? ». 87 (5) L’expression ἄνω νένευκε (p. 194, 32), « (le Fils) tend vers le haut » est un peu paradoxale, dans la mesure où la νεῦσις désigne plutôt une inclinaison vers le bas (κάτω), mais elle n’est pas tout à fait singulière puisqu’on en trouve des équivalents chez Plotin et dans la littérature gnostique. 88 (6) « Il est l’image exactement identique du Dieu invisible (ἀπαράλλακτός ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου) » (p. 194, 36). L’adjectif ἀπαράλλακτος, « non différent », « tout à fait semblable », est très fréquemment employé en contexte trinitaire, notamment pour qualifier εἰκών. 89 À titre d’exemple, il suffira de citer Athanase d’Alexandrie, qui invoque l’analogie de la génération humaine pour illustrer celle du Fils du Père : « Lors même que le père n’avait pas de fils avant de l’engendrer, cependant, lorsqu’il l’a, ce n’est pas comme venu du dehors ni comme étranger, mais c’est comme issu de lui-même, comme propre à sa substance et comme son image exacte (ἀπαράλλακτον … εἰκόνα) qu’il l’a eu, en sorte qu’on puisse voir le père dans le fils et contempler celui-ci en celui-là ». 90 (7) « L’ancienneté du Fils (ἥ τε ἀρχαιότης τοῦ υἱοῦ) » (p. 195, 48). Le substantif ἀρχαιότης, « ancienneté », « antiquité », fréquent pour désigner l’antériorité ou l’antiquité de quelque chose, par exemple chez Flavius Josèphe pour l’antiquité des Juifs, apparaît aussi, mais pas très fréquemment, en contexte théologique. Ainsi, Alexandre d’Alexandrie affirme que, pour le Fils, les termes ἦν, ἀεί, πρὸ αἰώνων ne sauraient exprimer que « l’extension du temps » (χρόνων εἶναι παρέκτασις ταῦτα) et non l’éternité, et « ne peuvent signifier dignement la divinité et, en quelque sorte, l’ancienneté du Monogène (τὴν μέντοι κατ’ἀξίαν τοῦ

Ibid., 556, éd. et trad. Winling, Contre Eunome II [voir n. 64], p. 274-275. Voir à ce sujet P.-H. Poirier, À propos de la νεῦσις dans les textes de Nag Hammadi, dans D. Brakke – S. J. Davis – S. Emmel (éd.), From Gnostics to Monastics. Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton (OLA, 263), Louvain – Paris – Bristol, CT, 2017, p. 143-153. 89 Voir Lampe, Lexicon, p. 174b-175b. 90 Contre les ariens I, 26, 4, 16-19, éd. Metzler – Savvidis, Athanasius Werke I, 1, 2 [voir n. 70], p. 136 ; trad. par Rousseau dans Rousseau – Lafontaine, Athanase d’Alexandrie [voir n. 70], p. 69-70. 87 88



Paul-Hubert Poirier

Μονογενοῦς θεότητα, καὶ οἷον ἀρχαιότητα σημαίνειν μὴ δυνάμενα) ». 91 Basile de Césarée y recourt pareillement pour parler du Fils : « On trouvera que l’existence du Dieu Verbe qui était au commencement auprès de Dieu est antérieure à tout ce qui peut être conçu dans l’ordre de l’ancienneté (παντὸς … τοῦ δυναμένου εἰς ἀρχαιότητος λόγον ἐπινοεῖσθαι) ». 92 On notera que, dans les deux cas, le terme ἀρχαιότητος n’est pas employé de manière absolue (… en quelque sorte …, … tout ce qui peut être conçu dans l’ordre de …). Appliquée au Père, la notion d’ancienneté intervient dans la controverse antieunomienne, comme on le voit chez Grégoire de Nysse, qui se demande si Eunome n’a pas « imaginé quelque supériorité d’ordre temporel, en attribuant le plus selon l’antériorité en âge, et [affirmé], à cause de cela, de la seule ousie du Père qu’elle est “la plus élevée” ». 93 Grégoire de Nysse reprend aussi le terme à son compte au sujet des propriétés du Père dont aucune n’est antérieure à l’autre : « Il n’est pas possible, écrit-il, que celui qui se livre à la réflexion sur l’un de ces attributs, que la piété prête à Dieu, rencontre une autre réalité ou une autre conception qui puisse surpasser en ancienneté (ἀρχαιότητος) celle dont il est question ». 94 Pour Cyrille d’Alexandrie, « même s’il est engendré, [le Fils] porte par lui-même témoignage d’une antiquité sans commencement (πρὸς ἄναρχον ἀρχαιότητα), parce qu’issu du Père selon la nature ». 95 Ici, l’ἀρχαιότης est celle du Père, comme chez Titus de Bostra. Il ressort de l’examen des deux textes de Titus de Bostra que nous avons analysés brièvement, que celui-ci se situe bien dans la perspective du synode d’Antioche de 363, qui en était une de ralliement au consubstantiel à la condition, pour reprendre les termes de la lettre à Jovien, de l’interpréter « de manière sure (ἀσφαλοῦς … ἑρμηνείας) », comme les Pères de Nicée, en comprenant « que le Fils a été engendré de la substance du Père (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς) et qu’il est semblable au Père selon la substance (ὅμοιος κατ’οὐσίαν τῷ Πατρί) ». 96 D’autre part, l’ex Lettre à Alexandre de Byzance 12, PG 18, 565 D4 – 568 A3. Contre Eunome II, 13, 28-31, éd. et trad. Sesboüé et al., Contre Eunome II [voir n. 61], p. 50-51. 93 Contre Eunome I, deuxième partie, xv, 171, éd. et trad. Winling, Contre Eunome I [voir n. 64], p. 24-25. 94 Contre Eunome Ι, deuxième partie, xxxviii, 588, éd. et trad. Winling, Contre Eunome II [voir n. 64], p. 290-293. 95 Dialogues sur la Trinité II, 452 D 32 – E 1, éd. et trad. de Durand, Cyrille [voir n. 80], p. 328-329. 96 Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique III, 25, 14-15, éd. et trad. Périchon – Maraval, Socrate II-III [voir n. 9], p. 354-355. 91 92



POLÉMIQUE ANTIMANICHÉENNE ET CONTROVERSE THÉOLOGIQUE

pression « l’hypostase du Monogène (ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ μονογενοῦς) » 97 qu’utilise Titus suggère qu’il souscrit à la formule de la μία οὐσία et des τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, de l’unique substance ou ousie et des trois hypostases individuelles. Enfin, la modération que manifeste Titus dans ces questions controversées n’est pas sans rappeler l’attitude d’Athanase d’Alexandrie qui, dans le Tome aux Antiochiens, 98 reconnaît la légitimité et l’orthodoxie à la fois de la théologie orientale des trois hypostases et de celle de l’unique hypostase ou ousie des nicéens de stricte observance. Joseph Sickenberger, qui considère le synode d’Antioche de 363 comme « zweifellos semiarianisierend » et se demande si Titus n’était pas lui-même quelque peu semiarianisant, dans la mesure où il comptait parmi « les proches partisans du patriarche » d’Antioche, conclue néanmoins qu’en dépit de sa souscription à la formule antiochienne, il ne devait pas l’être plus que le futur président du concile de Constantinople de 381, Mélèce d’Antioche. 99 Mais plutôt que de vouloir à tout prix étiqueter l’évêque de Bostra, qu’il suffise de dire que, sur le plan de la doctrine trinitaire, il devait partager les convictions théologiques de ceux de ses contemporains – je pense notamment à Basile de Césarée –, qui, tout en affirmant la pleine divinité du Fils et son égalité avec le Père, travaillaient à rétablir la paix dans les Églises.

97 In Lucam 10, 21-22 (éd. Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 194, 26-27). 98 5-6, PG 26, 800 C – 804 A, trad. Morales, La théologie (2002) [voir n. 36], III, p. 85-88 ; voir le commentaire de A. Segneri, Atanasio. Lettera agli Antiocheni. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento (Biblioteca patristica, 46), Bologne, 2010, p. 122-141. 99 Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra [voir n. 39], p. 98-103.



Antonio Rigo*

La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas Abstract – The article presents Nicholas Pepagomenos’ letter to Gregory Palamas. A biographical reconstruction of the life of the author and a study of the circumstances that inspired this writing introduce the edition of the text. This contribution analyses also the other edited and unedited works by Nicholas : a letter to Nikephoros Gregoras and the encomium of Isidore of Chios. Quelques manuscrits des œuvres de Grégoire Palamas contiennent une lettre que lui adressa Nicolas Pépagoménos, personnage relativement bien connu grâce à deux autres écrits, une lettre à Nicéphore Grégoras et l’éloge du martyr Isidore de Chios.

1. L’auteur et le contenu de la lettre Nicolas Pépagoménos est attesté comme correspondant de Nicéphore Grégoras, auquel il envoya une lettre (vers 1329/30), conservée dans un manuscrit de l’épistolaire de ce dernier, Vaticanus gr. 1086. 1 Parmi les nombreux membres de la famille connus à la période paléologue, Nicolas est vraisemblablement identifiable avec le Pépagoménos correspondant de Théodore Hyrtakénos 2 et avec le Pépagoménos correspondant de Manuel Gabalas (vers 1327-1328). 3 L’Évangéliaire Sinaiticus gr. 172 (de l’année 1067) semble lui avoir appartenu (note de possession * Nous adressons nos plus vifs remerciements à Marie Cronier et à Luigi D’Amelia pour leurs relectures et conseils. – Abréviation supplémentaire utilisée dans notre article : PS = P. K. Chrêstou et al. (éd.), Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα, i–vi, Thessaloniki, 1962–2015. 1 P. L. M. Leone, Un’epistola di Nicola Pepagomeno a Niceforo Gregora, dans Byz, 42 (1972), p. 523-531, texte 529-531 (= P. L. M. Leone, Nicephori Gregorae epistulae, ii, Matino, 1982, p. 421-422 [n° 20]) ; v. PLP 22371. 2 PLP 22341. 3 PLP 22344. The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 381–414 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117157

Antonio Rigo

au f. 168 Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγομένου). 4 Selon le titre de ses ouvrages, c’était un simple laïc, mais renommé pour son instruction et sa sagesse (λογιώτατος, σοφώτατος). Presque quinze ans après la lettre à Nicéphore Grégoras, Nicolas écrivit une missive à Grégoire Palamas, pendant la guerre civile et au plus fort des controverses théologiques (1342-1343). Nous reviendrons dans la suite sur ce texte. Nicolas Pépagoménos est aussi l’auteur d’un ouvrage hagiographique, l’éloge du martyr Isidore de Chios, encore inédit, et dont la date reste à établir. Dans la Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, l’ouvrage est signalé sous le n° 961e avec l’incipit : Ἰσίδωρον τὸν γενναῖον λόγοις ἐγκωμιάσαι τῶν καθάπαξ ἂν εἴη, et sous le numéro suivant, 961f, avec l’incipit : Ἡ μὲν ἀληθὴς καὶ προσήκουσα τοῖς μάρτυσιν εὐφημία ζῆλος οἶμαι τῆς ἐκείνων ἀνδρείας. À notre connaissance, BHG 961e est conservé dans un seul manuscrit, Vaticanus gr. 1587, qui contient selon A. Ehrhard une série de textes « ohne menologische Ordnung », suivie par un homiliaire. Le manuscrit a été copié par Michel nomophylax (en 1389). 5 Aux f. 58-73 on lit le texte, sous le titre Τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κῦρ Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου ἐγκώμιον εἰς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἔνδοξον μεγαλομάρτυρα Ἰσίδωρον. BHG 961f est conservé dans le manuscrit Athous, Dionysiou 228 (3762), copié à Chios en 1420-1421 par le prêtre Michel Katrarios nomophylax de la métropole. 6 Il faut aussi signaler dans la collection contenue dans ce manuscrit la présence d’un autre texte lié à l’île, l’éloge de Matrona de Chios (BHG 1220), composé par Nil Myrsiniotès de Rhodes. L’ouvrage de Nicolas Pépagoménos occupe les f. 240-254v : Τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κῦρ Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου ἐγκώμιον 4 Cf.  D. Harlfinger – D. R. Reinsch – J. A. M. Sonderkamp in Zusammen­ arbeit mit G. Prato, Specimina Sinaitica. Die datierten griechischen Handschriften des Katharinen-Klosters auf dem Berge Sinai 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1983, p. 33-34 (n° 15). 5 Cf.  C. Giannelli, Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 1485-1683, Città del Vaticano, 1950, p. 199-207 ; Ehrhard, Überlieferung, i/2, p. 258-261 ; aussi A. Turyn, Codices Graeci Vaticani saeculi xiii et xiv scripti annorumque notis instructi, Città del Vaticano, 1964, p. 176-177 ; RGK, 3, n° 473. 6 Cf.  S. P. Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, i, Cambridge, 1895, p. 375-377 ; Ehrhard, Überlieferung, i/3, Leipzig, 1952, p. 839840 ; S. Kotzabassi, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der rhetorischen und hagiographischen Werke des Gregor von Zypern (Serta Graeca. Beiträge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte, 6), Wiesbaden, 1998, p. 45-49 ; et en dernier lieu D. I. Moniou, Το εγκώμιο και η ακολουθία στην οσία Ματρώνα την Χιοπολίτιδα του Νείλου μητροπολίτου Ρόδου, dans Parekbolai. An electronic journal for byzantine literature, 5 (2015), p. 87 ; sur Michel Katrarios v. aussi la notice dans PLP 11547.



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

εἰς τὸν ἐν μάρτυσι μάρτυρα καὶ περιβόητον Ἰσίδωρον. Une copie de l’éloge du manuscrit de Dionysiou a été effectuée au début du xxe siècle par Gabriel de Stavronikita : l’actuel Athous, Skêtê Kausokalyba 86, p. 243272 (juin 1913). 7 On retrouve aussi BHG 961f dans l’Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 2046 (xve siècle), 8 aux f. 175-188v, sous le titre Τοῦ φιλοσοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυροῦ Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου λόγον εἰς τὸν ἅγιον μεγαλομάρτυρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰσίδωρον τὸν ἐν τῇ Χίῳ, mutilé à la fin. Une lecture de l’éloge conservé dans les manuscrits du Vatican et de Dionysiou nous a permis de constater que BHG 961e et 961f sont en réalité deux rédactions du même texte écrites par l’auteur. La seule différence se trouve dans le prologue, légèrement plus long dans BHG 961f, tandis que la suite, après cette section initiale, est complètement identique jusqu’à la fin. BHG 961e Vaticanus gr. 1587, f. 58-73 Τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κῦρ Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου ἐγκώμιον εἰς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἔνδοξον μεγαλομάρτυρα Ἰσίδωρον. Εὐλόγησον δέσποτα Ἰσίδωρον τὸν γενναῖον λόγοις ἐγκωμιάσαι τῶν καθάπαξ ἂν εἴη χαλεπωτάτων οὐκ ἐμοὶ μόνον τῷ περὶ λόγους οὕτω πως ἔχοντι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅσοις λαμπρῶς διηγωνισμένοις ἐξεγένετο μέγα κληρώσασθαι τοὔνομα. Τῶν γὰρ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ τοῦ πάντων δεσπότου καὶ ποιητοῦ διηγωνισμένων καὶ ἠθλικότων καὶ καρτερὰν ἐνδειξαμένων τὴν ἔνστασιν μέχρις αἵματος. Εἷς καὶ οὗτος ἐστὶν καὶ τῷ καταλόγῳ δήπου τῶν μεγάλων ἠριθμημένος, ὅσῳ

BHG 961f Athous, Dionysiou 228 (3762), f. 240-254v Τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κῦρ Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου ἐγκώμιον εἰς τὸν ἐν μάρτυσι μάρτυρα καὶ περιβόητον Ἰσίδωρον. Εὐλόγησον πάτερ Ἡ μὲν ἀληθὴς καὶ προσήκουσα τοῖς μάρτυσιν εὐφημία ζῆλος οἶμαι τῆς ἐκείνων ἀνδρείας καὶ τοῖς πρὸς τὰ δεινὰ καρτερίας, καὶ πολλῶν ἐκείνοις χαλεπῶν ἐπιρρεόντων παραπλησίως ἀήττητος ἔνστασις, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδ’αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις ἀπέχρησεν ἐρασταῖς εἶναι, καὶ διὰ θαύματος ἄγειν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ἀλλ’εἰ μὴ καὶ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἱερεῖα λογικὰ θύματα τέλεια τῷ Σωτῆρι προσενεγκάμενοι δείγμασι καὶ μαρτυρίοις ἐναργεστάτοις τὸ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον πιστωσάμενοι σέβας ἀποδειχθεῖεν, ἥκιστ’οὐδὲν ἀξίως τοῦ ἐκείνου θύματος καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἑκούσιον ἑλομένου σφαγὴν ὤοντο δρᾶν. Προσενεκτέον τοίνυν τοῖς | μάρτυσιν εὐφημίας ἀφ’ὧν ἐκείνοις τε

7 Cf.  E. Kourilas, Κατάλογος τῶν κωδίκων τῆς ἱερᾶς Σκήτης Καυσοκαλυβίων καὶ τῶν καλυβῶν αὐτῆς, Paris – Chennevières-sur-Marne, 1930, p. 57. 8 Cf.  L. Politis – M. Politi, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀρ. 1857-2500 (Πραγματεῖαι τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν), Athêna, 1991, p. 94.



Antonio Rigo

τοίνυν ὑπὲρ τὴν φύσιν εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ ἀλογῆσαι τῆς φύσεως καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα προδοῦναι βασάνοις παντοδαπαῖς καὶ κολάσεσι καὶ τῷ μεγίστῳ τῶν τιμωριῶν αὐτῷ τῷ θανάτῳ τελευταίῳ, τοσοῦτο καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν λέγειν λίαν ἐστὶ δυσχερές τε καὶ ἐπικίνδυνον. Καθάπερ γὰρ οἱ τῶν μαρτύρων ἀγῶνες, etc. ; des. : τὸ πᾶν ἀκωλύτως διεξελθεῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κ. τ. λ. Ἀμήν.

χαριζοίμεθα, καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς πρὸς ὄνησιν φροντίδα ποιεῖσθαι δοκοῖμεν, καὶ οἷς ἐκεῖνοι τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους ἐγκωμίοις ἐχρήσαντο πρὸς πάντας κινδύνους αὐτομολήσαντες 9 καὶ πᾶσαν ὑπενεγκόντες δυσχέρειαν, τούτοις καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐν τοῖς πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπιχειριτέον ἐπαίνοις, ἵν’ὅτι μάλιστα προσηκόντως ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ἐγκωμίων ἐπιβαλοίμεθα. Ἀλλ’εἰ μὲν τῇ παρούσῃ χρείᾳ καὶ τοῖς συνειλεγμένοις ἐνταῦθα τοιαύτης ἔδει τῆς ἀποδείξεως ἐκείνην ἂν ἅπασαν ἄλλην καταλελοιπότας ῥαδίως ἐνδείκνυσθαι καθ’ὅσον οἷόν τε, πᾶς τίς ἔφη χρεών. Ἐπεὶ δὲ λόγων μαρτυρικῶν ἐπιδειξομένους ἀγῶνας καὶ κατὰ τῶν ἀντιπάλων τρόπαια τῷ παρόντι καιρῷ· πρὸς δὴ καὶ πόθος συνήλασεν ἡμᾶς ἐνταῦθα τῶν κατὰ τὸν θεῖον μάρτυρα διηγημάτων ἐπακροάσασθαι, τὸν λαμπρὸν ἀριστέα φημί, τὸν ὁπλίτην Χριστοῦ, τὸν ἀήττητον στρατιώτην, τὸ μέγα κλέος μαρτύρων Ἰσίδωρον τὸν πάνυ λέγω· ἐκείνῳ τὸν λόγον πιστεύσαντες ὅποιπερ ἄμεινον καὶ φίλον ἄγει αὐτῷ  10 καὶ πάντα ῥάδια τὰ χαλεπὰ δρᾶν ἐπικαλεσάμενοι, οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς ἡγουμένῳ κατ’ἴχνος ἑψόμεθα. Εἰ γὰρ ἡμῖν συνεφάπτοιτο καὶ συχνάκις εἰωθότος ἐπικουροίη, ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἀπολελαύκαμεν τῶν παρ’αὐτοῦ δωρεῶν κατὰ πάσης ἐπιβοώμενοι δυσχερείας, τῆς μὲν ἀξίας ἥκι|στα ἂν ἐφικοίμεθα κρείττονος, ἢ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους προσδεομένης δυνάμεως. Καθάπερ γοῦν οἱ τῶν μαρτύρων ἀγῶνες, etc. ; des. : τὸ πᾶν ἀκωλύτως διεξελθεῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κ. τ. λ. Ἀμήν.

Sur la base des informations disponibles, il nous est impossible de connaître les motivations qui ont poussé Nicolas à la composition de cet éloge. On pourrait penser à quelque lien de Nicolas avec l’île de Chios, ou avec quelque sanctuaire non identifiable, ou encore à son désir de

αὐτομολήσαντας s. l. αὐτὸν s. l.

9

10



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

composer un texte qui rende hommage au patriarche Isidore Boucheiras. 11 Mais nous sommes dans le domaine des hypothèses. *** Venons-en donc à la lettre envoyée par Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas, en commençant par une analyse de son contenu. La missive, très dense, contient bon nombre d’allusions à la situation contemporaine, mêlées à des évocations et des citations de la Bible et à des réminiscences de figures et de textes de l’Antiquité : les sirènes de l’Odyssée (l. 40-44), les philosophes anciens, Pythagore, Antisthène, Cratès, Phérécidès, Socrate, Platon (l. 181-226). Un passage nous semble particulièrement important pour établir la chronologie de la lettre mais également pour entrevoir les circon­stances de sa composition. En effet, Nicolas Pépagoménos écrit en réponse à un envoi de la part de Grégoire et mentionne trois livres que Grégoire Palamas lui a donnés peu de temps auparavant (τοῖς ἔναγχος ἡμῖν ἐπεσταλμένοι τρισὶ βιβλίοις), et en particulier celui sur les divines énergies (καὶ μάλιστα τῷ γε δήπου περὶ θείων ἐνεργειῶν) (l. 50-54). Ce dernier livre, consacré aux divines énergies, est évidémment l’Apologie, comme on le voit dans le titre complet de l’ouvrage : Ἀπολογία διεξοδικωτέρα πρὸς τοὺς οἰομένους δύο δείκνυσθαι θεοὺς ἐκ τοῦ τὴν θεοποιὸν δωρεὰν τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἧς ὑπέρκειται κατ’οὐσίαν ὁ Θεός, οὐκ ἀγένητον μόνον θέωσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεότητα ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ὀνομάζεσθαι· ἢ περὶ θείων ἐνεργειῶν καὶ τῆς κατ’αὐτὰς μεθέξεως. 12 Pour l’identification des deux autres livres, 13 il faut analyser de manière plus générale les problèmes de la chronologie et de la succession Déjà Leone, Un’epistola [voir n. 1], p. 528 avait fait le rapprochement (« È infatti oltremodo significativa la coincidenza del nome del patriarca, Isidoro […] con quello del martire di cui tesse l’elogio Nicola Pepagomeno. Il quale volle forse render grazie al suo benefattore, indirettamente, celebrando cioè le lodi del santo del quale egli portava il nome ; o fu forse lo stesso patriarca a suggerirgli il tema dell’encomio »), mais sur la base de l’identification erronée de Nicolas Pépagoménos avec le prêtre Pépagoménos de la lettre de Démétrios Cydonès (PLP 22351). 12 Éd. PS ii, p. 96-136. 13 Les trois livres évoqués par Pépagoménos pourraient rappeler au premier abord les remarques des chercheurs sur un petit groupe de trois œuvres de Palamas de cette période. J. Meyendorff avait parlé de « trois antirrhétiques contre Akindynos » composés par Palamas : Apologie, De la divine et déifiante participation, Le dithéisme de Barlaam et Akindynos. À propos du premier ouvrage (l’Apologie) il observait : « ce traité toujours lié aux deux suivants (…). Cette Apologie fait partie, avec les deux traités suivants, d’une sorte de Triade contre Akindynos ». En conclusion, il proposait comme date pour 11



Antonio Rigo

des œuvres de Palamas de la période envisagée. La chronologie communément acceptée 14 est la suivante : De l’union et de la distinction (été 1341) Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite (automne 1341) Apologie (automne 1341) De la divine et déifiante participation (automne 1341) Dialogue de Théophane avec Théotime (début automne 1342) Le dithéisme de Barlaam et d’Akindynos (fin 1342).

Les données fournies par les manuscrits des œuvres complètes de Grégoire Palamas ne nous semblent pas décisives pour établir la chronologie, mais plutôt intéressantes pour faire le lien entre un ouvrage et un autre. Les écrits de Grégoire contre Akindynos constituent le deuxième tome de la collection, divisé en deux livres : Livre I (Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Laudianus gr. 87 ; Parisinus gr. 1238) Lettre à Athanase de Cyzique De l’union et de la distinction Antirrhétiques i-vii contre Grégoire Akindynos Lettre au moine Damien Lettre au moine Denys Description des impiétés de Barlaam et d’Akindynos.

les trois traités : « fin 1342 – début 1343 ? » ( J. Meyendorff, Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas [Patristica Sorbonensia, 3], Paris, 1959, p. 357-358). P. K. Chrêstou, par la suite, chercha à réconsidérer la question sur la base des manuscrits. Il exclut ainsi Le dithéisme de Barlaam et Akindynos, et établit la succession suivante pour les ouvrages qui, à son avis, constituaient la trilogie : 1. De l’union et de la distinction, 2. Apologie, 3. De la divine et déifiante participation (PS ii, p. 45-47), en faisant remarquer que la conclusion du traité De l’union et de la distinction contient un renvoi à l’ouvrage suivant, c’est-à-dire l’Apologie. Au contraire, Juan Nadal Cañellas affirme que la “Triade” contre Akindynos n’a jamais existé : « il nous paraît insoutenable que Palamas ait composé une trilogie apologétique, comme le suppose Meyendorff, et cela même après la correction, qu’apporte le Professeur Chrêstou ». Selon Nadal, la continuation du traité De l’union et de la distinction est « le prétendu Premier antirrhétique de Palamas, qu’il suit d’ailleurs dans les manuscrits » ( J. Nadal Cañellas, Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus Dialogus inter orthodoxum et barlaamitam [CCSG, 31], Turnhout – Leuven, 1995, p. xxxiii n. 20, xxx ; mais cf. déjà Meyendorff, Introduction, p. 361). 14 R. E. Sinkewicz, Gregory Palamas, dans TB, ii, p. 140-141 ; M. M. Bernatskij, Grigorje Palama, dans Pravoslavnija Enziklopedija, 13 (2006), p. 18-19 ; cf. déjà Meyendorff, Introduction [voir n. 13], p. 353-361 ; P. K. Chrêstou dans PS ii, p. 47, 53, 55, 59, 63.



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

Livre II (Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus i 24 sup. [gr. 457] ; Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Laudianus gr. 87 ; Parisinus gr. 1238 ; Parisinus, Coislinianus gr. 99) Apologie De la divine et déifiante participation Le dithéisme de Barlaam et d’Akindynos Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite Dialogue de Théophane avec Théotime … Lettres.

Les textes contenus dans chacun des deux livres ne sont pas organisés selon l’ordre chronologique de composition, et la division en deux livres ne correspond pas à une répartition chronologique, mais dans chacun il est possible de reconnaître des ouvrages étroitement liés : ainsi, la fin du traité De l’union et de la distinction annonce déjà le ier Antirrhétique qui le suit 15 et la conclusion de l’Apologie la relie au De la divine et déifiante participation qui vient ensuite. 16 Si l’ordre des ouvrages dans les manuscrits n’est d’aucune utilité pour la datation, une analyse de chacun des textes nous permet d’arriver à des résultats d’un certain intérêt. Le Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite 17 a été écrit par Palamas en 1341, 18 après les synodes et la publication du Tome synodal (août). 19 Il fait, dans un passage, une mention rapide de la situation confuse du présent (τῆς νυνὶ συγχύσεως), 20 qui semble évoquer les débuts de la guerre civile (octobre-novembre 1341). Nous pensons que Palamas a composé cet ouvrage après son départ de Constantinople, quand il s’établit dans le monastère de Saint-Michel-de Sosthénion, 21 et nous proposons la date novembre-décembre 1341. Il faut souligner que, dans « ζητητέον ἂν εἴη καὶ περὶ ταύτης διακρίσεως καὶ τῶν κατ’αὐτὴν ἐνεργειῶν καὶ διευκρινητέον εἰς δύναμιν (…) ὡς ἄν (…) εὐχερῶς τὴν βαρλααμίτιδα πλάνην συνορᾶν καὶ καθαιρεῖν δυνώμεθα », De l’union et de la distinction, 35 (éd. PS ii, p. 95, l. 11-15). 16 «  Ἀλλὰ τούτων μὲν ἅλις. Ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν προτεθειμένην ἀκολουθίαν τὸν λόγον ἐπανακτέον », Apologie, 52 (éd. ibid., p. 136, l. 31-32). 17 PS ii, p. 164-218 ; cf. Sinkewicz, Gregory Palamas [voir n. 14], p. 141 (n° 8). 18 «  Ὑμεῖς οὖν ὄντες οἱ διθεΐαν αἰσχίστην περιφανῶς νενοσηκότες, ὡς κἀπὶ τῆς συνόδου τῆτες ἐφωράθητε », § 12 (éd. PS ii, p. 174, l. 19-21). 19 § 1 (éd. ibid., p. 164, l. 2-3), § 2 (p. 165, l. 3-4), § 6 (p. 168, l. 24 – 169, l. 2), § 14 (p. 175, l. 23-24). 20 § 28 (éd. ibid., p. 192, l. 2-3). 21 Pour les déplacements de Grégoire pendant la période, cf. en premier lieu Meyendorff, Introduction [voir n. 13], p. 98-104 ; P. K. Chrêstou dans PS ii, p. 30-34 ; 15



Antonio Rigo

le Dialogue, Palamas mentionne ses accusateurs avec une expression générique et les appelle « partisans de Barlaam » (οἱ τῷ Βαρλαὰμ ἑπόμενοι), 22 sans nommer personne. Dans l’Apologie également, 23 mentionnée avec l’ouvrage précédent dans le Dialogue de Théophane et de Théotime, 24 Grégoire Palamas évoque ses adversaires sous une forme impersonnelle. 25 C’est seulement vers la fin qu’il mentionne « la fuite » de Barlaam après le synode de juin 1341 et parle de l’apparition d’un « deuxième Barlaam », peu-après, et d’un deuxième synode qui le condamna. 26 Il est tout à fait évident que Palamas, avec ces mots, désire évoquer, mais sans le nommer, Akindynos. Nous pensons que Grégoire écrivit l’Apologie, comme sa suite, pendant l’hiver 1341-1342, toujours pendant son séjour au monastère de Saint-Michel de Sosthénion. Nous voudrions souligner que dans un dernier traité également, De la divine et déifiante participation, 27 les adversaires restent anonymes. 28 Dans les ouvrages suivants, Grégoire Palamas mentionne d’une manière explicite Akindynos. Dès le Dialogue de Théophane et de Théotime, 29 sûrement postérieur à l’Apologie et au Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite, 30 il parle génériquement de ses opposants (οἱ ἀντιλέγειν σπεύδοντες ὑμῖν), 31 mais il associe en deux endroits Barlaam et AkinRegestes, n° 2225 Chronologie. Nous publierons bientôt un article consacré à la chronologie et à la biographie de Grégoire Palamas de la fin été 1341 au printemps 1343. 22 § 41 (éd. PS ii, p. 204, l. 29) ; cf. aussi § 56 (p. 217, l. 19-20). 23 PS ii, p. 96-136 ; cf. Sinkewicz, Gregory Palamas [voir n. 14], p. 140 (n° 6). 24 § 11 (éd. PS ii, p. 235, l. 2-4) ; pour le Dialogue cf. aussi § 1 (p. 219, l. 2) et § 10 (p. 234, l. 13-14). 25 « τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσιν ἡμῖν », § 6 (éd. ibid., p. 100, l. 24-25) ; § 8 (p. 103, l. 1) ; « οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἡμῖν », § 25 (p. 114, l. 23) ; « οἱ πολεμοῦντες ἡμῖν », § 45 (p. 130, l. 28-29) ; « οἱ τοῦ Βαρλαὰμ διάδοχοι », § 47 (p. 132, l. 16) ; « οἱ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτι ἀντικείμενοι », § 28 (p. 123, l. 18-19). 26 § 50 (éd. ibid., p. 135, l. 10-30) ; cf. § 45 (p. 130, l. 24-29). Je voudrais aussi remarquer que, dans ce passage, Palamas évoque la présence au synode de juillet du patriarche, de Cantacuzène – nommé, et pour cause, de manière elliptique (τῶν προεστηκότων τῶν πολιτικῶν πραγμάτων) – et des juges généraux. 27 PS ii, p. 137-163 ; cf. Sinkewicz, Gregory Palamas [voir n. 14], p. 141 (n° 7). À la fin les quartines de Théoctiste Studite et d’Arsène Studite en l’honneur de Palamas (PS ii, p. 163 app.). 28 « οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἡμῖν », § 29 (éd. ibid., p. 162, l. 15). 29 Éd. ibid., p. 219-262 ; cf. Sinkewicz, Gregory Palamas [voir n. 14], p. 141 (n° 9). 30 Cf. plus haut n. 24. 31 § 31 (éd. PS ii, p. 259, l. 11).



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

dynos 32. Dans le traité De l’union et de la distinction 33, son adversaire Akindynos est nommé plusieurs fois, seul 34 ou avec Barlaam (ainsi dans le titre de l’ouvrage). 35 Enfin, Le dithéisme de Barlaam et d’Akindynos 36 attaque directement Akindynos « de Prilep » (ὁ ἐκ τῆς περιχώρου τοῦ Πριλλάπου Ἀκίνδυνος), 37 qui s’opposait à Palamas dans son enseignement et ses écrits. 38 Ces trois ouvrages nous semblent postérieurs à ceux que nous avons cités plus haut et nous les daterions bien après le séjour de Palamas à Constantinople au printemps 1342 et même après son départ pour Héraclée. Grégoire écrivit ces traités quand il habitait dans la ville de Thrace ou, plus vraisemblablement, quand il fut reconduit à Constantinople et mis à résidence dans un monastère par le patriarche Calécas (octobre 1342). La chronologie des œuvres de Palamas est à rétablir de la manière suivante : Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite (novembre-décembre 1341) Apologie (hiver 1341-1342) De la divine et déifiante participation (hiver 1341-1342) Dialogue de Théophane avec Théotime (automne 1342) De l’union et de la distinction (automne 1342) Le dithéisme de Barlaam et d’Akindynos (automne-hiver 1342).

Revenons donc à la lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos. Il affirme que Palamas lui a donné trois livres, dont l’un est l’Apologie. Le fait que le traité De la divine et déifiante participation constitue la suite de l’Apologie nous conduit à penser qu’à cette occasion Nicolas avait reçu aussi cet ouvrage. Il nous reste à identifier le troisième livre. Les observations sur la chronologie des œuvres de Grégoire de cette période et les mots mêmes de Pépagoménos dans sa lettre qui, lorsqu’il parle des opposants de Palamas, emploie les expressions génériques (οἱ ἀντιλέγοντές σοι, l. 72 ; cf. l. 251) utilisées par Palamas dans ses écrits de l’hiver 1341-1342, nous conduisent à conclure que le troisième livre envoyé par Palamas à Pépa § 1 (éd. ibid., p. 219, l. 11) et § 10 (p. 233, l. 5-6). Éd. PS ii, p. 69-95 ; cf. Sinkewicz, Gregory Palamas [voir n. 14], p. 140 (n° 5). 34 § 6 (éd. PS ii, p. 73, l. 8) et § 29 (p. 90, l. 19-20). 35 Titre (éd. ibid., p. 69) ; § 3 (p. 70, l. 14) ; § 4 (p. 71, l. 14) ; § 5 (p. 73, l. 2) ; § 7 (p. 73, l. 28) ; § 8 (p. 74, l. 26) ; § 9 (p. 75, l. 13-14) ; § 10 (p. 76, l. 24) ; § 11 (p. 76, l. 28) ; § 18 (p. 81, l. 29 et p. 82, l. 10) ; § 20 (p. 84, l. 1) ; § 22 (p. 85, l. 3) ; § 23(p. 86, l. 13) ; § 27 (p. 88, l. 29-30) ; § 32 (p. 92, l. 25) ; et § 35 (p. 95, l. 1). 36 Éd. PS ii, p. 263-277 ; cf. Sinkewicz, Gregory Palamas [voir n. 14], p. 141 (n° 10). 37 § 4 (éd. PS ii, p. 265, l. 7-8). 38 § 15 (éd. ibid., p. 274, l. 4). 32 33



Antonio Rigo

goménos était le Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite. Il faut aussi ajouter qu’un autre indice nous montre le lien de la lettre de Pépagoménos avec au moins les deux premiers ouvrages de Palamas, l’Apologie et De la divine et déifiante participation. En effet, dans deux manuscrits des œuvres de Grégoire, la lettre de Pépagoménos précède ces deux écrits. La datation définitive de cet envoi de la part de Palamas est possible après l’examen de quelques autres endroits de la lettre. Dans un passage de la deuxième partie de sa missive, Nicolas Pépagoménos fait allusion à des « apparences de tribunaux » mis en scène en profitant de l’absence de Palamas (… σοῦ γε ἀπόντος, κατὰ σοῦ συσκευάζεται δικαστήρια, μᾶλλον δὲ δικαστηρίων προσχήματα πρὸς τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἐξαπάτην, l. 268-270). Il fait ici allusion au départ de Grégoire Palamas de Constantinople et à son séjour à Héraclée de Thrace (juin – fin septembre 1342). Pendant son absence, une réunion du synode s’est tenue contre lui dans la capitale. Les sources antipalamites, en racontant l’affaire, désignent le départ de Palamas pour Héraclée comme une « fuite » pour éviter la condamnation, 39 tandis que le protagoniste même deux ans après (1344), dans ses lettres aux Pères de l’Athos et à Philothée 40 et en d’autres endroits, parlera d’une injuste condamnation promulguée in absentia. Il est intéressant d’observer que, dans son récit aux Pères de l’Athos, Palamas utilisera la même expression que Pépagoménos pour définir le jugement synodal (προσχήματα συνόδων πλάττεσθαι καθ’ἡμῶν ἀπόντων) : 41 ce n’est peut-être pas un hasard. Les allusions de ces lignes aux événements historiques sont donc claires, tout comme la lecture qu’en fait Pépagoménos et qui le place dans le champ palamite. Les deux derniers passages de la lettre qui nous semblent d’un intérêt historique font allusion au fait que Grégoire Palamas est enfermé en prison (πανούργως νῦν ἐπήρειαν ὑφιστάμενος καὶ προόδων εἰργόμενος καὶ φρουραῖς καθειργνύμενος, l. 248-250 ; σε μὲν ἀπρόϊτόν τε καὶ ἀνομίλητον Cf. par exemple Jean Calécas : H. Hunger – O. Kresten – E. Kislinger – C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, ii (CFHB, 19/2), Wien, 1995, n° 145, p. 336, l. 117-123 ; Grégoire Akindynos : A. Constantinides Hero, Letters of Gregory Akindynos (CFHB, 21), Washington D. C., 1983, n° 42, l. 142-157, p. 182-184 ; Ignace d’Antioche : PS ii, p. 636, l. 11-12. 40 Sur ces lettres, cf. A. Rigo, Le Mont Athos entre le patriarche Jean xiv Calécas et Grégoire Palamas (1344-1346), dans B. Miljković – D. Dželebdžić (éd.), ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΟΣ. Mélanges offerts à Mirjana Živojinović, i (Institut d’études byzantines de l’Académie Serbe des Sciences et des arts, 44, 1), Beograd, 2015, p. 270-272. 41 Lettre aux Pères de l’Athos, § 4 (éd. PS ii, p. 512) ; cf. aussi la iie Lettre à son frère Macaire, § 4 (p. 542, l. 13 : προσχήματα συνόδων). 39



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

ἐν εἰργμῷ καθῆσθαι παρασκευάζουσιν, l. 261-262). Nous savons que Grégoire Palamas, interné dans un monastère de Constantinople sur l’ordre du patriarche vers la fin du mois de septembre 1342 et transféré dans un autre monastère en décembre, fut finalement enfermé dans la prison du palais impérial au mois d’avril 1343. 42 Il nous semble que les mots employés par Pépagoménos (φρουραῖς, ἐν εἰργμῷ) font référence à la réclusion de Palamas dans la prison du palais plutôt qu’à son internement dans un monastère sans communication avec l’extérieur. Résumons les éléments tirés de notre analyse : Grégoire Palamas avait envoyé à Nicolas Pépagoménos trois ouvrages (Apologie, De la divine et déifiante participation, Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite) pendant la première moitié de 1342, très vraisemblablement au printemps, quand il séjournait à Constantinople. Nicolas Pépagoménos lui répondit, en manifestant son appui dans la controverse théologique, à une époque bien difficile pour Palamas, après son arrestation et son emprisonnement. La lettre de Nicolas remonte en effet au printemps 1343, ou au plus tôt à l’automne-hiver 1342. Le fait qu’il ait exprimé son soutien à l’époque explique aussi que sa lettre ait été insérée dans la collection des œuvres complètes de Grégoire Palamas. Le soutien de Pépagoménos apparaît de manière claire grâce aux expressions et aux adjectifs utilisés quand il parle de Palamas. Le début de la lettre affirme que tout le monde connaît les luttes pour la vérité de l’« homme de Dieu », Grégoire (l. 4-5). Son âme sainte (l. 49) et courageuse possède le Règne de Dieu (l. 242-243) et la force de ses paroles provient de l’inspiration de l’Esprit (l. 67-70), tandis que ses opposants, qui falsifient les écrits des saints et enseignent une nouvelle voie de salut (l. 72-73), et altèrent aussi les lettres de Palamas (l. 300-301), ont peur des paroles et de la force spirituelle du même Grégoire (l. 251-253). Pépagoménos affirme avec clarté la doctrine palamite de la distinction de l’essence divine et des énergies (l. 86-101) et critique les opposants qui blasphèment Dieu et le dépouillent de son énergie éternelle et de la grâce déifiante (l. 275-277). Les affirmations faites par Pépagoménos reproduisent d’une manière évidente les formulations du même Palamas et il nous semble possible de déterminer l’origine concrète de ses mots : ainsi quand Nicolas parle de l’imitation naturelle (φυσικὴ μίμησις) 42 Pour la chronologie, cf. les références citées plus haut n. 21, et en particulier, pour la période février - avril 1343, voir A. Rigo, Gregorio Palamas rifugiato a Santa Sofia (inizi febbraio - inizi aprile 1343), dans S. Pedone – A. Paribeni (éd.), «Di Bisanzio dirai ciò che è passato, che passa e che sarà». Scritti in onore di Alessandra Guiglia, I, Roma, 2018, p. 201-211.



Antonio Rigo

(l. 124-147), il résume les pages consacrées à l’argument dans le traité De la divine et déifiante participation (un des ouvrages que Grégoire lui avait envoyés) et également quand il évoque deux citations (Basile de Césarée, un pseudo-Athanase) (l. 85) présentes dans un autre ouvrage de Palamas. La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos, écrite entre la fin de 1342 et le printemps 1343, est donc le témoignage de son soutien personnel à Grégoire Palamas et aussi de son acceptation de la doctrine théologique de la distinction essence – énergies divines. Il nous reste à faire quelques observations sur un dernier élément d’un certain intérêt. Deux manuscrits (M et O), en marge d’une phrase de la lettre (l. 85), présentent deux gloses. La première est un simple renvoi à l’ouvrage attribué à Athanase d’Alexandrie, Dialogi contra Macedonianos, tandis que la deuxième contient une référence au traité De Spiritu sancto de Basile de Césarée, suivie par des observations sur lesquelles nous reviendrons d’ici peu. Les passages en question de Basile et du pseudo-Athanase sont assez souvent cités par Grégoire, et également dans les ouvrages de cette période. 43 Quelques lignes du Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite, qui donnent les deux citations à la suite, constituent un précédent clair. 44 La suite de la deuxième glose contient l’affirmation que Barlaam le premier avait utilisé l’expression « supérieure » (τὸ ὑφειμένον) à propos de la Divinité, suivie par d’autres considérations, que nous pouvons retrouver avec des mots très semblables dans les ouvrages de Grégoire Palamas. 45 Nous pensons que les deux gloses, qui ne sont clairement pas de Pépagoménos, ont été écrites par Grégoire en marge du passage de la lettre de son correspondant. Nous avons donc une trace, 43 Par ex. Basile de Césarée, De Spiritu sancto (CPG 2839), dans Apologie, § 21 (éd. PS ii, p. 112, l. 8-15) et Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite, § 20 (p. 183, l. 2-8) – Pseudo-Athanase d’Alexandrie, Dialogi contra Macedonianos (CPG 2285), dans Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite, § 20 (p. 182, l. 24-25) ; Lettre à Arsène Studite, § 5 (p. 318, l. 18-20) ; Dialogue de Théophane avec Théotime, § 8 (p. 228, l. 8-10) et § 13 (p. 237, l. 13-15) ; Lettre au nomophylax Syméon, § 9 (p. 404, l. 24-26). 44 « Τῆς οὖν θεότητος, δηλαδὴ τῆς προαιωνίου θεατικῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐνεργείας τοῦ τὰ πάντα εἰδότος πρὸ γενέσεως Θεοῦ, ἣν κατωτέρω μὲν τοῦ Πνεύματος ὁ μέγας εἴρηκε Βασίλειος, δευτέραν δὲ τῆς φύσεως ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος », § 20 (éd. PS ii, p. 183, l. 9-12). 45 « (…) καὶ ὡς παρ’ἑαυτοῦ εἰσάγει κατὰ τῶν ἁγίων τὸ ὑφειμένον, οὐ παρ’ἡμῶν εἰρηκότων προτέρων εὑρηκώς, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν ἁγίων θεολογίαις ἑπόμενον, καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Βαρλαὰμ πρὸ αὐτοῦ », Lettre à Gabras, § 8 (éd. ibid., p. 334, l. 32 – 335, l. 3) ; et encore : « Ὅτι δ’ἡμεῖς οἱ παρὰ σοῦ διωκόμενοι κατὰ τὸ κτιστὸν καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον τὸ ὑποβεβηκός, ταυτὸν δ’εἰπεῖν τὸ ὑφειμένον καὶ ὑπερκείμενον ἔφημεν, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦ Βαρλαὰμ εἰπόντος », Antirrhétiques contre Grégoire Akindynos, ii, 9, 36 (éd. PS iii, p. 110, l. 10-13) ; et « ἀλλ’οὐ κατὰ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατόν, ἀλλ’οὐ κατὰ τὸ κτιστὸν καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον (…) κατὰ τὸ κτιστὸν καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατὸν καὶ τἄλλα », Antirrhétiques contre Grégoire Akindynos, iii, 16, 61 (p. 207, l. 2-3, 7-9).



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

quoique ténue, de la lecture et de la réaction de Grégoire à la missive de Nicolas Pépagoménos.

2. Les manuscrits et le texte de la lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas À notre connaissance la lettre de Pépagoménos est conservée seulement dans quatre manuscrits qui contiennent les ouvrages de Grégoire Palamas. M Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus i 24 sup. (gr. 457), papier, xive siècle (1350 environ), xve siècle (pour les f. 295v-296v), 214 × 138, f. vi, 296 (+ 224a). 46 Le manuscrit contient le deuxième livre du tome des œuvres de Grégoire Palamas contre Grégoire Akindynos, précédé (f. 1-5v) par , inc. mut. : φροῦδα παρασκεύασαι τἀκείνων οἰχήσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ μόνον ἓν ὁποιονοῦν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν, des. : καθ’ἡδονὴν δ’οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῦτ’ἂν εἴη κἀμοί. Infra, p. 402-411, l. 65334, suivie immédiatement par Apologie (f. 7-28v), De la divine et déifiante participation (f. 28v-41v), Théoctiste Studite et Arsène Studite, Vers en l’honneur de Grégoire Palamas (f. 41v) et Le dithéisme de Barlaam et d’Akindynos (f. 43v-51v). Dans l’index général du livre, les titres sont suivis par l’incipit (f. v-viv) et la lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos est ainsi enregistrée : Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν ἱερώτατον μητροπολίτην Θεσσαλονίκης κῦρ Γρηγόριον τὸν Παλαμᾶν τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου κῦρ Νικολάου. Il faut signaler dans ce manuscrit la présence de nombreuses corrections, intégrations et notes, dans le texte et dans les marges, effectués par l’auteur même, Grégoire Palamas (cf. e.g., Planches 1 et 2), comme nous avons pu l’établir grâce à l’aide de bien d’autre manuscrits que nous connaissons de ses ouvrages (sur lesquel je reviendrai ailleurs) et au fragment du ii Traité Apodictique conservé dans le Vindobonensis theologicus gr. 78 (Planche 3). 47 Dans le manuscrit de Milan, Grégoire Palamas a aussi copié, entre autres, les œuvres suivantes: Le dithéisme de Barlaam et 46 Cf. Aem. Martini – D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, i, Milano, 1906, p. 547-550. Une nouvelle et complète description du manuscrit est présentée dans une publication qui paraîtra très prochainement, consacrée à la tradition manuscrite des ouvrages de Grégoire Palamas pendant la guerre civile. 47 Cf. E. Kaltsoghianni, Δύο άγνωστα αποσπάσματα του δεύτερου Ἀποδεικτικοῦ λόγου του Γρηγορίου Παλαμά περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, dans Ἑλληνικά, 59 (2009), p. 89-100, en particulier 96.



Antonio Rigo

d’Akindynos (f. 43v-51v), la Troisième lettre à Akindynos (f. 250-257) et la Réfutation du patriarche d’Antioche (f. 258-266v). O Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Laudianus gr. 87, papier, xive siècle (1350 environ), 280 × 415, f. iv, 452, iv. 48 Le manuscrit présente la collection des œuvres complètes de Grégoire Palamas en deux tomes, dont le premier (f. 4-208v) comprend les ouvrages contre les Latins, les écrits liés à la polémique avec Barlaam et Nicéphore Grégoras, le Tome hagiorétique et le Tome synodal de 1341, tandis que le deuxième (f. 214-452v), divisé en deux livres, contient les écrits contre Grégoire Akindynos. La lettre ouvre ici le premier tome : (f. 1-3v) Nicolas Pépagoménos, Lettre à Grégoire Palamas, titre : Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου τῷ θεσπεσιωτάτῳ πατρὶ καὶ δεσπότῃ μου κυρίῳ Γρηγορίῳ τῷ Παλαμᾷ, inc. : Ἄνθρωπε τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας διηνυσμένους σοι πόνους πᾶς τις οἶμαι, des. : οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῦτ’ἂν εἴη κἀμοί. Infra, p. 400-411. Dans l’index général de la collection (f. 4-5v), la lettre est absente. P

Parisinus gr. 1238, papier, 299 × 305, f. ii, 301. 49 Le manuscrit est constitué de trois unités distinctes. i. (f. 1-46) xvie siècle, copiste c. (f. 1-41v) Florilège palamite en xvi chapitres. Ce florilège se retrouve dans au moins sept autres manuscrits, Vaticanus gr. 705 (xive siècle), f. 1-133v ; Venetus, Marcianus gr. Z 163 (491) (xive siècle), f. 1-223 ; Mosquensis, GIM, Synod. gr. 206 (Vladimir 337) (xive siècle), f. 88-220v ; Athous, Batopediou 262 (xive siècle), f. 1-89, 95v-108v ; Parisinus gr. 970 (xive siècle), f. 278-317v, 319-350v, 359-361v ; Atheniensis, Bibliotheca Nationalis 2583 (xve-xvie siècles), f. 107-110v, 115-143, 102v-103 ; Monacensis gr. 285 (environ 1535), f. 1-177 ; cf. B. Markesinis, Un florilège composé pour la défense du tome du Concile de 1351, dans A. Schoors – P. Van Deun (éd.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii (OLA, 60), Leuven, 1994, p. 470-473 et A. Rigo, Il Monte Athos e la controversia palamitica dal Concilio del 1351 al Tomo sinodale del 1368, dans A. Rigo (éd.), Gregorio Palamas e oltre. Studi e documenti

48 Cf.  H. O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, i, Oxonii, 1853, p. 571-575 et A. Rigo, Gregorio Palamas, Tomo aghioritico. La storia, il testo e la dottrina, (à paraître). 49 Cf.  H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des Départements, i, Paris, 1886, p. 274.



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

sulle controversie teologiche del xiv secolo bizantino (Orientalia Venetiana, 16), Firenze, 2004, p. 57 et n. 3. (f. 41v-46v) , Récit sur la discussion entre Grégoire Palamas et Nicéphore Grégoras, inc. : Ὁρισθεὶς παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ἡμῶν αὐθέντου. Éd. PS iv, p. 191-230. F. 47r-v, 48r-v blancs. ii. (f. 49-52) Milieu du xive siècle, un binion, copiste a, 34 l. (f. 49) , fragm., inc. : ὀφειλέτας ἐπὶ πᾶσί τε, des. : καταπαύσαντες. Éd. D. G. Tsamis, Δαβὶδ Δισυπάτου λόγος κατὰ Βαρλαὰμ καὶ Ἀκινδύνου πρὸς Νικόλαον Καβάσιλαν (BKM, 10), Thessaloniki, 1973, p. 94, l. 30-95, l. 5. (f. 49-52v) , Vers iambiques contre Grégoire Akindynos, titre : Τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς Ἀκινδύνου στίχους. Éd. R. Browning, David Dishypatos’ Poem on Akindynos, dans Byz, 25-27 (1955-1957), p. 723-739. iii. (f. 53-300) Milieu du xive siècle, copiste b, 34 l. La numérotation des cahiers est encore visible en bas à gauche du dernier folio à partir de δ´ (f. 64v) et jusqu’au dernier, λγ´ (f. 295v). Œuvres de Grégoire Palamas contre Grégoire Akindynos. (f. 53r-v) Lettre à l’impératrice Anne Paléologine. Éd. PS ii, p. 545-547. (f. 53v-54) Index des 10 titres du livre i contre Grégoire Akindynos (avec l’incipit), suivis par la lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos: Τοῦ σοφωτάτου Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου ἐπιστολή, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή· Ἄνθρωπε τοῦ Θεοῦ. (f. 54-65v) Lettre à Athanase de Cyzique, numérotée α´. Éd. PS ii, p. 411-454. (f. 65v-72) De l’union et de la distinction, numéroté β´. Éd. PS ii, p. 69-95. F. 72v blanc. (f. 73-183) Antirrhétiques i-vii contre Grégoire Akindynos (chacun est précédé par l’index). Éd. PS iii, p. 39-506. (f. 73-83v) i numéroté γ´ ; (f. 84102v) ii numéroté δ´, suivi par Dorothée Blatès, Vers en l’honneur de Palamas (Θείοις ἄριστα συμπεφραγμένος λόγοις, éd. PS iii, p. 159 app.) ; (f. 102v-122) iii numéroté ε´ ; (f. 122-132) iv numéroté Ϛ´ ; (f. 132-152v) v numéroté ζ´ ; (f. 152v-172) vi numéroté η´ ; (f. 172v-183) vii numéroté θ´. (f. 183-188v) Lettre au moine Denys. Éd. PS ii, p. 479-499. (f. 188v-190v) . Éd. PS ii, p. 579-586. F. 191r-v blanc. (f. 192) Livre ii contre Grégoire Akindynos (Βιβλίον δεύτερον indiqué en haut du folio). (f. 192-194) Nicolas Pépagoménos, Lettre à Grégoire Palamas, titre : Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου τῷ θεσπεσιωτάτῳ μοι δεσπότῃ κυρίῳ Γρηγορίῳ τῷ Παλαμᾷ, inc. : Ἄνθρωπε τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοὺς



Antonio Rigo

ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας διηνυσμένους σοι πόνους πᾶς τις οἶμαι, des. : οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῦτ’ἂν εἴη κἀμοί. Infra, p. 400-411. (f. 194v) Livre ii contre Grégoire Akindynos (Γρηγορίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης βιβλίον δογμάτων τὸ δεύτερον indiqué en haut du folio). (f. 194v-204) Apologie. Éd. PS ii, p. 96-136. (f. 204-209v) De la divine et déifiante participation. Éd. PS ii, p. 137163. (f. 210-213) Le dithéisme de Barlaam et d’Akindynos. Éd. PS ii, p. 263-277. (f. 213-224v) Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite. Éd. PS ii, p. 164-218. (f. 224v-234v) Dialogue de Théophane avec Théotime. Éd. PS ii, p. 219262. (f. 234v-244v) Ἀντίθεσις πρὸς ἃ συνέθηκεν ὁ Ἀκίνδυνος κατὰ τοῦ Παλαμᾶ δῆθεν, ὡς ἀληθῶς δὲ κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτῆς καὶ τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἁπάντων, ἐκληφθεῖσα παρὰ διαφόρων τοῦ Παλαμᾶ λόγων, καὶ παριστᾶσα σαφῶς ὅτι τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου πρὸς συνηγορίαν οἰκείαν ἐκ τῶν πατερικῶν λόγων καὶ παρ’ἑαυτοῦ προβαλλόμενα οὐ συνηγοροῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατηγοροῦσιν αὐτόν, précédée par l’index (f. 234v-235) et par , Vers en l’honneur de Grégoire Palamas (f. 235), (Πηγὴν ἀληθῶν δογμάτων θεηγόρων), v. I. Vassis, Initia Carminum Byzantinorum, Berlin – New York, 2005, p. 616. Cf. aussi Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Laudianus gr. 87, f. 388v-397v ; Scorialensis Y. II. 15 (323), f. 54v-67 ; Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus i 24 sup. (gr. 457), f. 118-144 ; Parisinus, Coislinianus gr. 99, f. 61v-77v ; Parisinus gr. 970, f. 415v-437v ; v. PG 150, 829-831 ; Meyendorff, Introduction [voir n. 13], p. 398-399 (nous reviendrons ailleurs sur cet ouvrage). (f. 244v-254) Lettre à Jean Gabras. Éd. PS ii, p. 325-362. (f. 254-259) Lettre à Daniel d’Aenos. Éd. PS ii, p. 375-394. (f. 259-262v) Lettre au nomophylax Syméon. Éd. PS ii, p. 395-410. (f. 262v-266v) Troisième lettre à Grégoire Akindynos. Éd. PS i, p. 296312. (f. 266v-267) Arsène Studite, Lettre à Grégoire Palamas. Éd. Ch. Sabbatos, Ἀρσενίου τοῦ Στουδίτου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν Γρηγόριο Παλαμᾶ, dans Ἑλληνικά, 52 (2002), p. 70-77 (texte : 76-77). (f. 267-269v) Lettre à Arsène Studite. Éd. PS ii, p. 315-324. (f. 269v-272v) Lettre à Paul Asen. Éd. PS ii, p. 363-374. (f. 272v-281v) . Éd. PS ii, p. 587-623. (f. 281v-287) . Éd. PS ii, p. 624-647.



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

(f. 287-292) . Éd. PS ii, p. 649-670. (f. 292-297v) . Éd. PS ii, p. 517-538. (f. 298-299v) . Éd. PS ii, p. 509-515. (f. 299v-300) . Éd. PS ii, p. 505507. F. 300v, 301r-v blancs. Q Parisinus gr. 970, papier, xive siècle (troisième quart), 205/145 × 125/85, f. ii, 482 (numérotés, 1-94, 53-482). 50 Ce manuscrit, copié pour la plus grande parte par Jean Holobo 51 los, après des ouvrages patristiques (Basile de Césarée, Jean Damascène, etc.), de polémique antilatine (Photius, patriarche Germain ii) et quelques écrits de Nicolas Cabasilas, contient une série d’œuvres de Grégoire Palamas, divisées en trois blocs, parmi lesquelles on retrouve la lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos. (f. 214-233v) Discours sur la présentation de la Vierge (BHG 1095). Éd. PS vi, p. 551-585. (f. 233v-238) Homélie sur la présentation de la Vierge (BHG 1091). Éd. PS vi, p. 543-550. (f. 238-244) Homélie pour le dixième dimanche de Luc. Éd. PS vi, p. 586-596. (f. 246-255) Homélie sur la croix (BHG 425). Éd. PS vi, p. 132-147. (f. 255-260v) Homélie sur la présentation du Seigneur (BHG 1969). Éd. PS vi, p. 82-91. (f. 260v-265v) Homélie sur l’Annonciation (BHG 1118g). Éd. PS vi, p. 164-172. (f. 266-271) Première homélie sur l’Ascension. Éd. PS vi, p. 247-255. (f. 271-276) Deuxième homélie sur l’Ascension. Éd. PS vi, p. 256-264. F. 276v, 277rv blancs. (f. 278-317v, 319-350v, 359-361v) Florilège palamite en xvi chapitres. Cf. plus en haut, p. 394.

50 Cf.  Omont, Inventaire sommaire, i [voir n. 49], p. 188-189 ; P. J. Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana universalis. A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea, i, Turnhout, 1993, p. 77-78 ; Markesinis, Un florilège [voir p. 394], p. 473474. 51 Cf.  Markesinis, Un florilège [voir p. 394], p. 473 ; B. Mondrain, Lire et copier Hippocrate – et Alexandre de Tralles – au xive siècle, dans V. Boudon-Millot – A. Garzya – J. Jouanna – A. Roselli (éd.), Ecdotica e ricezione dei testi medici greci. Atti del v Convegno Internazionale. Napoli, 1-2 ottobre 2004, Napoli, 2006, p. 380, n. 23.



Antonio Rigo

(f. 362-364v, 318r-v, 358r-v, 351-355v) , Récit sur la discussion entre Grégoire Palamas et Nicéphore Grégoras, inc. : Ὁρισθεὶς παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ἡμῶν αὐθέντου. Éd. PS iv, p. 191-230. (f. 355v-357v, 365-368) Nicolas Pépagoménos, Lettre à Grégoire Palamas, titre : Τοῦ σοφωτάτου κῦρ Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου πρὸς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις πατέρα ἡμῶν Γρηγόριον ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Θεσσαλονίκης, inc. : Ἄνθρωπε τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας διηνυσμένους σοι πόνους πᾶς τις οἶμαι, des. : οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῦτ’ἂν εἴη κἀμοί. Infra, p. 400-411. (f. 368-393) Dialogue d’un orthodoxe et d’un barlaamite. Éd. PS ii, p. 164-218. (f. 393v-415) Dialogue de Théophane avec Théotime. Éd. PS ii, p. 219262. (f. 415v-437v) Ἀντίθεσις πρὸς ἃ συνέθηκεν ὁ Ἀκίνδυνος κατὰ τοῦ Παλαμᾶ δῆθεν, ὡς ἀληθῶς δὲ κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτῆς καὶ τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἁπάντων, ἐκληφθεῖσα παρὰ διαφόρων τοῦ Παλαμᾶ λόγων, καὶ παριστᾶσα σαφῶς ὅτι τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου πρὸς συνηγορίαν οἰκείαν ἐκ τῶν πατερικῶν λόγων καὶ παρ’ἑαυτοῦ προβαλλόμενα οὐ συνηγοροῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατηγοροῦσιν αὐτόν, précédée par l’index (f. 415v-416v) et par , Vers en l’honneur de Grégoire Palamas (f. 416v). Cf. plus en haut, p. 396. (f. 437v-460) Apologie. Éd. PS ii, p. 96-136. (f. 460-473v) De la divine et déifiante participation. Éd. PS ii, p. 137163. (f. 473v) Théoctiste Studite, Vers en l’honneur de Grégoire Palamas. Éd. PS ii, p. 163 app. et Arsène Studite, Vers en l’honneur de Grégoire Palamas. Éd. PS ii, p. 163 app. On retrouve les vers de Théo­ ctiste et d’Arsène dans le Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus i 24 sup. (gr. 457), f. 41v. (f. 474-481v) Le dithéisme de Barlaam et d’Akindynos. Éd. PS ii, p. 263-277. Au f. 482 une note tracée par une main postérieure sur la Chute de Constantinople, f. 482v blanc. Je présente ici l’édition de la lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas. Après la collation des quatre témoins, il apparaît clairement que M (malheureusement mutilé au début), manuscrit qui provient de Palamas, conserve le meilleur texte. Les autres manuscrits dérivent d’une manière indépendante, directement ou par un intermédiaire perdu, de M.



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

NICOLAI PEPAGOMENI EPISTVLA AD GREGORIVM PALAMAM Traditio manuscripta

M O P Q

Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus i 24 sup. (gr. 457), f. 1-5v Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Laudianus gr. 87, f. 1-3v Parisinus gr. 1238, f. 192-194 Parisinus gr. 970, f. 355v-357v, 365-368



Antonio Rigo

Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου τῷ θεσπεσιωτάτῳ πατρὶ καὶ δεσπότῃ μου κυρίῳ Γρηγορίῳ τῷ Παλαμᾷ 5

10

15

20

25

Ἄνθρωπε τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας διηνυσμένους σοι πόνους πᾶς τις οἶμαι καὶ ὅτῳ μὴ πολὺ τῶν δικαίων ἐμέλησε, διὰ θαύματος ἄγειν καὶ περιαγγέλειν ὅση γε δύναμις, ἥκιστ'ἂν ἀναβάλλοιτο τὴν ὑφέρπουσαν δῆθεν τῶν πολλῶν δυσωπούμενος βασκανίαν. Τί γάρ σοι τῶν καλῶν οὐ μεθ'ὑπερβολῆς ἐκπεπόνηται, ἢ τίσι τῶν πάλαι θρυλλουμένων προβόλων τῆς ἀσεβείας, οἵπερ ὁσημέραι τῷ σπορεῖ τῶν ζιζανίων ἀντικαθίσταντο; Προσφιλὴς οὐκ ἂν εἴης, ἐφάμιλλα δράσας εἰς τὸν ἄρτι κρατυνόμενον ἀγῶνα κατὰ τῆς ἐλπίδος τῶν σῳζομένων, ὑπέρβαινε τείχη καὶ ὀχυρώματα, καὶ πάσης περιγίνου τῆς τοῦ πονηροῦ παρατάξεως. Ἐκείνου γὰρ εἶναι πέπεισμαι τὸν ἤδη καθιστάμενον ἀγῶνα σαφῶς, καὶ οὐδενὸς ἀποδεῖν, ὅσοι τούτῳ γε πρόσθεν ἐξεύρηνται τοὺς τρέχοντας ὑποσκελίζειν προθυμουμένῳ καὶ πρὸς δόξης ἑτέρας κληρονομίαν ἐπειγομένους, ἵνα μικρὸν τὸ προσδοκώμενον ἆθλον τοῖς φιλοπόνοις ἀκηκοόσι καὶ τῶν χρόνων ὀψιγενέστερον ῥᾳστώνην ἐμποιήσῃ τινὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ στάδιον μέλλησιν· τοιαύταις καὶ πάλιν ἀναπετάσας πάροδον ὑποθήκαις. Τί δήπουθεν εἰκῆ καὶ μάτην ἄνθρωποι λέγων, τοσοῦτον ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ προσφιλοῦς ὑπερορᾶν καὶ συντρόφου σαρκίου; Τί τὸν θρίαμβον τῆς ἐμῆς ἐξουσίας περιφρονεῖτε; Τί

11/12 τῷ – ζιζανίων] Mt. 13, 25 1/3 Νικολάου – Παλαμᾷ] Τοῦ σοφωτάτου κῦρ Νικολάου τοῦ Πεπαγωμένου πρὸς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις πατέρα ἡμῶν Γρηγόριον ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Θεσσαλονίκης Q 2 πατρὶ καὶ] μοι P 6 περιαγγέλειν] περιαγγέλλειν OQ 18 πρόσθεν] προσθῷ P 23 μέλλησιν] μέλησι P 26 καὶ συντρόφου] om. O



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

30

35

40

45

50

55

τοσοῦτον ἀπεχθάνεσθε ταῖς τῆς παρούσης ζωῆς ἡδοναῖς, ἐξὸν ἀπολαύειν πόνων ἀφισταμένους καὶ τῆς διὰ βίου ταλαιπωρίας; Κτιστῆς ἀπολαύσετε χάριτος, οὐδενὸς τῶν ἀϊδίων μεθέξετε, μὴ τῶν ἀψύχων ἐκ τῶν πόνων πλέον κομιεῖσθε Θεοῦ, τοῦ πάντα κατ'οὐσίαν ἐπίσης πληροῦντος. Τοιούτοις μὲν τοὺς ἀπαγεῖς ὁ σοφιστὴς ὑπερχόμενος τῆς κακίας, καταστρατηγεῖν ἐπιτίθεται. Σὺ δὲ μὴ ἀποκάμης τὰς ἑλεπόλεις αὐτοῦ κατασείων, καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς περιγέγονεν ὀργάνῳ χρησάμενος τῷ δοκεῖν, ἐπανάγων τῷ λόγῳ τῆς εὐσεβείας· τὰ μὲν λόγοις, τὰ δὲ γράμμασιν ἀνακτώμενος, οἷς οὐκ οἶδ'εἴ τις ἐντυχών, οὐ παιδιὰν ἡγήσαιτο τὰ σειρήνων, αἳ τῷ κάλλει τῆς μούσης τοὺς παριόντας κατεγοήτευον καὶ πάντα δεύτερα τιθέναι τῆς ᾠδῆς προσηνάγκαζον, ἢ λωτὸν ἐκεῖνον οὗ τοὺς ἐδηδοκότας ἀμνημοσύνη παντελὴς τῶν οἰκείων εἰσῄει. Ταῦτα μὲν ἡ ποίησις ἔφη, καὶ οὐ μάλα σοι προσήκουσαν ἡγοῦμαι τὴν ἐκ τῶν ἐπῶν εὐφημίαν. Τί γάρ σοι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὅλῳ γινομένῳ τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ μηδὲν ἐπιχρωννυμένῳ τοῖς πλάσμασιν, οἷς ὁ κόσμος τοὺς ἀνοήτους ἐξαπατᾷ; Ἀλλ'ἐγὼ νὴ τὴν ἱεράν σου ψυχήν, ἣν ἡγοῦμαι τέμενος ἐξῃρῆσθαι τῇ χάριτι, τοῖς ἔναγχος ἡμῖν ἐπεσταλμένοις τρισὶ βιβλίοις προσέχων τὸν νοῦν, καὶ μάλιστα τῷ γε δήπου περὶ θείων ἐνεργειῶν, πολλάκις ἔγνων ὑφ'ἡδονῆς κρείττων ἐμαυτοῦ γενόμενος, καὶ μικροῦ τοῖς ἐνθουσιῶσι παραπλησίως διατεθείς, οἳ τὸ πάθος ὁποῖον οὐκ ἴσασιν, ἢ μᾶλλον οὐ πόρρω καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδοξα, τῶν μετοχῆς εἶναι τοιαύτης ἠξιωμένων. Εἰ καὶ μέγα τοῦτό μοι φᾶναι καὶ οὐ προσῆκον, κἀκείνους ᾠήθην προσβλέπειν τοὺς λίθους, οὓς ὁ Δαβὶδ κατὰ 58/59 τοὺς – προσελάβετο] I Reg. 17, 40-49 46 γινομένῳ ] γενομένῳ P 58 ᾠήθην] ὠήθον P

 2

Antonio Rigo

60

65

70

75

80

τοῦ Γολιὰθ προσελάβετο· μὴ ὅτι γε σύστημα τηλικοῦτον, πᾶσαν ἱκανὸν πολεμίων ἐντρέψαι παράταξιν, καὶ φροῦδα παρασκευάσαι τἀκείνων οἰχήσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ μόνον ἓν ὁποιονοῦν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποχρῆν καταπαλάσαι γε τὸν ἀντίπαλον καὶ καιρίαν βαλεῖν ἡγησάμενος. Τοιαύτην ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος μάχαιρα τὴν ἰσχὺν τοῖς χρωμένοις παρέχεται· τοιούτοις ὁ φραξάμενος ὅπλοις ἀήττητος ἐν παντὶ διαγίνεται. Οὐ σὰ ταῦτα καὶ τῆς τοῦ λόγου δυνάμεως, ἀλλ'ἡ ζῶσα πηγὴ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἣν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύουσιν ἄρδην ἐγχέασθαι τὸ ποτιμώτατον τοῦτο καὶ χάριεν ἀναδίδωσιν ἅμα. Παλαιὸς μὲν οὖν ἐστι λόγος ὡς ἄρα οὐ χρὴ κινεῖν εὖ κείμενον. Οἱ δ'ἀντιλέγοντές σοι τὰς τῶν ἁγίων κακουργοῦσι γραφὰς καὶ καινὴν ὁδὸν ὑποτίθενται σωτηρίας, μήπω τῷ πλήθει τῶν ἁγίων ἐξευρημένην, καὶ τὸν νοῦν αὐτῶν φιλοπραγμονεῖν πανούργως βιάζονται, μηδὲν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπαισθανόμενοι μήτ'εἰδότες ὅθεν καὶ τίνες ἔνιοι τούτων εἰσί, χθὲς καὶ πρότριτα μετρίου τυχόντες ὀνόματος· καὶ οὐ λέγω τὰ πλείω, δόξαν τοῦ κωμῳδεῖν παραιτούμενος· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν ῥήμασιν ὦ τὰν τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν ἡμῖν ἐστὶ διοιστέον οἷς πραγμάτων ἀποδείξεως κρειττόνων περίεστιν· οὐδὲ λόγοις μόνοις προσέχοντας, ἔτι σκιᾷ καὶ νόμῳ δουλεύειν καὶ τὸν νοῦν πειρᾶσθαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ διαφθείρειν. Μὴ δή σε τοίνυν ἄνθρωπε ταραττέτω τὸ

64 ἡ – μάχαιρα] Eph. 6, 17 67/68 ἀλλ'ἡ – ἐπηγγείλατο] Io. 4, 14 71/72 οὐ – κείμενον] Platon, Philebus, 15c9 83 τὸν – Χριστοῦ] I Cor. 2, 16 61 φροῦδα] inc. M 78 μετρίου – ὀνόματος ] τυχόντες μετρίου ὀνόματος PQ 80 ἐστὶ] om. P

 3

La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

85

90

95

100

105

εἰρημένον, ὅτι δεύτερον καὶ κατώτερον τοῖς ἁγίοις κληθέν, ὑφειμένον ὑπὸ τούτου προσείρηται. Μὴ δὴ ξενίζου πᾶσαν οὐσίαν ὑπερκεῖσθαι τῶν ἑαυτῆς ἐνεργειῶν πυνθανόμενος. Μὴ δὲ σύνθεσιν ἐντεῦθεν εὐήθως μᾶλλον δὲ σκαιῶς ἀναπόλει τινά, συνάπτων τῇ φύσει τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν θεωρούμενα. Ὥρα δέ σοι μάλιστα τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς, φῶς καὶ σκότος, μέγα τε καὶ μικρὸν τὸ θεῖον καλούσης, σύνθετον ἐκ τούτων εἶναι διϊσχυρίζεσθαι, καὶ οὐκ ἔχεις μαθεῖν ὡς ἑκάστῳ τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων ἴδιος πλοῦτος ἐνορᾶται σοφίας, καὶ οὐδ'ἡτισοῦν διαφορὰ τοπαράπαν ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίως ἔχειν ἀνακύπτει δοκούντων. Μὴ δὲ τὴν αἰώνων ἐπέκεινα καὶ πάντων ὑποστάτιν οὐσίαν καὶ δι'ὅλων ἀχρόνως ἥκουσαν, ἐπίκτητον οἴου προσλαβέσθαι τὸ παντοδύναμον, καθάπερ ἐπιδεᾶ τῆς κτίσεως γενομένην, ἵνα τοῖς οὖσι τὸ εἶναι παρασχομένην τὸ εὖ εἶναι παρὰ τούτων κομίσηται. Τοῦτο δὴ τοῖς ἐργολαβοῦσιν ἴδιον πρόσεστι καὶ βαναύσων προϊσταμένοις τεχνῶν ὄργανα κατασκεύαζειν ἐπίτηδες, ἵν'ἐκείνοις χρώμενοι, τὰ τῆς τέχνης περαίνωσι καὶ τῷ βίῳ σφῶν ὠφέλειαν ἐκπορίζωσιν ὡς ἀκερδοῦς παντά85 ὅτι δεύτερον] Ζήτει ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Μακεδονίου τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου. MO | καὶ κατώτερον] Ζήτει ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου· καὶ τοῦτο δὲ ἴσθι ὅτι πρῶτος ὁ Βαρλαὰμ ἄρα τὸ ὑφειμένον ἔφη· τοῦτο δὲ προσήκατο πρὸς ἐπιστολήν, κατὰ μὲν τὸ κτιστὸν καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον οὐδαμῶς ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κατὰ δὲ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατὸν καὶ παραπλήσια, καθ'ἃ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι τὸ δεύτερον καὶ τὸ κατώτερον ἐπὶ τῶν θείων καὶ ἀκτίστων τίθενται ἐνεργειῶν. MO (O partiellement illisible) 85 δεύτερον] *Athanase d’Alexandrie, Dialogi contra Macedonianos, I (PG 28, 1313A) κατώτερον ] Basile de Césarée, De Spiritu sancto, 19, 49: B. PRUCHE, Basile de Césarée. Traité du saint-Esprit (SC, 17bis), Paris, 1968, p. 201, l. 1 91 φῶς – σκότος] Cf. Is. 58, 10 95 τοπαράπαν] τὸ παράπαν P 103 κατασκεύαζειν] παρασκευάζειν P

 4

Antonio Rigo

110

115

120

125

130

135

πασι καθεστηκυίας τῆς τέχνης μὴ τῶν ὀργάνων πρόσθεν γεγενημένων. Γνῶθι σαυτόν, ὦ βέλτιστε, καὶ ἧ τῶν δεινῶν προκεχώρηκας μόλις ἐν αἰσθήσει γενοῦ. Εἶτα τοσοῦτον κατάλογον ἀκμῆτα πρὸς ἀγῶνας θεώμενος, ὑπεριδόντα σαρκὸς καὶ ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ἀφειδήσαντα καὶ τὰ πάντα προέμενον καὶ πρὸς πόνους ἑαυτοὺς καθεικότα διηνεκεῖς, ἵνα τὰ θέλγητρα τοῦ σοφιστοῦ τῶν κακῶν διαδράντες δόξης ἀϊδίου μετάσχωσιν· οὐκ αἰδῆ τοπαράπαν; Οὐ συγκαλύπτῃ μάτην ἄρασθαι τὴν τοσαύτην ἀγωνίαν ἐκείνους διατεινόμενος καὶ κτιστὰ διδοὺς ἆθλα τοῖς τηλικούτοις καὶ γενητὴν ἀπονέμων θεότητα; Καὶ οὐ δέδοικας τὴν ἠπειλημένην διχοτομίαν, ἣ δὲ καὶ σαφῶς τὴν ἀποβολὴν ἐπισείει τῆς ὑπὸ σοῦ κωμῳδουμένης χάριτος, ὡς μηδενὶ κολαστηρίῳ χώραν οὖσαν μὴ πρότερον αὐτῆς περιῃρημένης, ἵνα μὴ κενὸς ὑπολειφθῇς, ὅ γε ἀπεύχομαι μάλιστα; Τὰ γὰρ ἑξῆς ἐμοὶ λέγειν οὐκέτ'ἀσφαλές, ἀλλ'αὐτὸς οἶδας ὁποία πάντως ἐστί. Κἀκεῖνο δὲ λέγων οὐκ ἐρυθριᾷς ὡς φυσικῇ τινι μιμήσει τῶν ὑπὲρ φύσιν τυγχάνοιεν ἄνθρωποι καὶ μόνον ἀρκοῦν εἴη πρὸς κτῆσιν θεότητος, τὰς σωματικὰς ἀποθέσθαι κηλίδας καὶ τῶν καθαρτικῶν ἀρετῶν προσεδρεῦσαι τῷ καταλόγῳ; Καὶ οὐκ ἐνθυμῇ τοπαράπαν ὡς μάταιος ἀνθρωπεία πᾶσα σπουδή, μὴ δωρεᾶς ἐληλυθυίας πνευματικῆς καὶ τοῦ Λόγου μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐπιδεδημηκότος καὶ μονὴν εἰργασμένου παρ'ᾧ βούλοιτο; Φυσικῇ μιμήσει Μωϋσῆς ὁ θεόπτης τοσοῦτον παρὰ πάντας ἐγένετο, καὶ διήκουσαν ἔνδοθεν εἶχε τὴν δόξαν ἄχρι καὶ τῶν ἐκδήλων τοῦ σώματος, ὡς ἀφόρητος εἶναι τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ καθορᾶσθαι, μὴ 136/137 ἀφόρητος – ἐπισκιάζουσι ] Ex. 34, 29-30 118 δὲ ] σα (sic) O

123 οὐκέτ' ] οὐκέτι P

 5

La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

140

145

150

155

160

παραπετάσμασι τὰς ὄψεις ἐπισκιάζουσι; Τί δὲ καὶ Ἡσαΐας ὁ μέγας; Φυσικῇ μιμήσει καὶ οὗτος ἐναργῶς προκαθεώρα τὰ πάντως ἐσόμενα, καὶ ὡς ἤδη παροῦσι τοῖς μέλλουσιν ἐφιστάμενος, τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους παρουσίαν κατήγγελλεν, ὅπως πράοτητι μὲν ἥξει, καὶ ἀφανείᾳ πλείστῃ τοπρότερον, μὴ δὲ τοῖς ἐγγὺς γινωσκόμενος, ἐπιεικής, τοῖς λοιδοροῦσιν ἀόργητος, τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων προκατευχόμενος, οὐδὲν ἀπειλῶν τι μέγα, οὐ φανητιῶν, οὐ κομπάζων, ἐπιτέλει δὲ τῶν αἰώνων μετὰ δόξης ὅσης ἀφίξεται, πάντα μεταποιήσων ὡς βούλεται, καὶ ζῶντας ὁμοῦ καὶ νεκροὺς ἀγωνίᾳ καὶ δέει συνεχομένους εἰς λόγον προκαλεσόμενος τῶν εἰργασμένων αὐτοῖς; Ἢ καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τὸν ἄνδρα κατὰ φύσιν ἐρεῖς ἀναγγέλειν συνδέσμους καὶ διαλύειν κρατούμενα, ὃς τὰς ἐν βίῳ καταμέρος ἐσομένας ἀρχὰς προηγόρευσε μέχρις ἂν ὁ μόνος ἀφίκηται Κύριος, τὰς ἐπικήρους καθαιρῶν δεσποτείας, καὶ πάσας μὲν ἄλλας ἀνοήτων θηρίων δίκην παρεῖναι τῷ κόσμῳ κυριττούσας ἀλλήλας καὶ καθ'ἑαυτῶν ἐπανισταμένας, μόνην δὲ λογικὴν τὴν τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐχρησμώδησε βασιλείαν; Κατὰ φύσιν οἱ τοῦ Σωτῆρος μαθηταὶ καὶ αὐτόπται καὶ κήρυκες περὶ δίκτυα καὶ κύρτους ἀσχολούμενοι· Πέτρος μὲν ἐξαίφνης ἀναπέφανται δημηγόρος, πάσας λογικὰς εὐχερῶς διαλύων ἐφόδους, καὶ τὴν ἔντεχνον ἐξελέγχων σοφίαν, καὶ κόσμον ὅλον εἴσω τοῦ κηρύγματος περικλείων; Καὶ οὔπω λέγω τῶν τεραστίων τὴν δύναμιν, ὡς ἐπέθει κούφως τοῖς κύμασι καθάπερ 149/150 τῶν2 – ἄνδρα] Dan. 9, 23 et 10, 11. 19 157 τοῦ – βασιλείαν] Dan. 7, 9. 13. 22 164/165 ὡς – θαλάσσῃ] Mt. 14, 24-27 138 Φυσικῇ – οὗτος] Φυσικῇ καὶ οὗτος μιμήσει Q 142 τοπρότερον] τὸ πρότερον PQ 150 κατὰ φύσιν] καταφύσιν Q 152 καταμέρος] κατὰ μέρος PQ

 6

Antonio Rigo

165

170

175

180

185

190

ἠπείρῳ χρώμενος τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ μόνον ἁφῇ κρασπέδου τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ἐπεῤῥώννυ, καὶ κειμένοις ἀναβίωσιν ἐχαρίζετο καὶ ζῶντας Θεὸν ψευδομένους τῷ θανάτῳ παρέπεμπεν. Ἰωάννῃ δὲ μόνη μίμησις ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπέχρησε τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου γέννησιν ἄναρχον ἐμπνευσθῆναι καὶ τὰ πᾶσιν ἀθεώρητα τρανῶς ἐξειπεῖν καὶ σχεδιάσαι λόγους, ἐν οἷς οἱ τῆς πίστεως ἀποτέθεινται θησαυροί, μηδὲν εἰδότι πρόσθεν βεβαίως, πλὴν ἢ τοῖς συμπλέουσιν ἐγκελεύεσθαι τὸ δίκτυον εὐφυῶς αἴρειν, ἵνα μὴ λάθοιεν ἐκδραμόντα τὰ θηρευθέντα; Τί δὲ φήσῃς τὸν Παῦλον, ὃς καὶ ἁρπαγῆς ἠξιώθη περικείμενος ἔτι τὸν δεσμὸν τῆς σαρκός, καὶ ἠκροάσατο ῥημάτων ἀρρήτων, ὅσα τοῖς μὴ τ'ἀνθρώπειον ὑπερβεβηκόσι μέτρον, οὐκ ἔξεστι λέγειν ἀποτολμᾶν, κατὰ φύσιν οὗτος τὰ τοιαῦτα μεμυσταγώγηται; Εἶτα, πῶς οὐκ ἐν Ἕλλησι Πυθαγόρας μετέσχε τῶν τηλικούτων, ὃς ἀμυθήτῳ τὸ σῶμα ταλαιπωρίᾳ κατέτρυχε, καὶ σιωπὴν ἀσκεῖν ἐξεπαίδευεν, ὡς μηδ'ἂν εἰ περὶ ψυχῆς αὐτῆς κινδυνεύοιεν ἐκφορὰν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν ἀπορρήτων καὶ τῶν δεδογμένων ἀφίστασθαι; Πῶς οὐκ Ἀντισθένης ὁ τοσοῦτον ἡδοναῖς ἁπάσαις ἀπεχθανόμενος καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἡδυπάθειαν ἀμείλικτος ὤν, ὡς μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην συχνάκις διεξιέναι; Πῶς οὐχ ὁ θηβαῖος Κράτης, ὅστις ἀθρόον ἅπασαν ἀφεὶς τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ καταλιπὼν ἐλευθέραν οἷς ἂν ἦ διαρπάσαι προθυμουμένοις, τοῖς εὐπορίστοις μόνοις διῆγε, κρυμῷ καὶ πνίγει ταλαιπωρούμενος καὶ 165/166 μόνον – ἐπεῤῥώννυ ] Mt. 9, 20-22 177/179 ἠκροάσατο – ἀποτολμᾶν ] II Cor. 12, 4 188 μανείην – ἡσθείην] Antisthène, Fragmenta varia, 108b-d: F. DECLEVA CAIZZI, Antisthenis fragmenta, Milano, 1966, p. 53. 173 πρόσθεν βεβαίως] βεβαίως πρόσθεν Q

 7

175 φήσῃς] φήσεις OPQ

La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

195

200

205

210

215

220

πᾶσιν ἀντέχων τοῖς ἐπιοῦσιν ὑπ'ἀνάγκης δεινοῖς; Φερεκύδη δὲ πάντως οἶδας, τὸν ὑπὸ πλήθους ἀπολωλότα φθειρῶν, καὶ χρῷ μόνον δῆλα τοῖς ἐρωτῶσιν ἀποκρινόμενον. Ἀλλὰ καὶ Σωκράτει πάντες οἶδ'ὅ τι μαρτυρήσουσιν, ὡς τὸ τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἠθικὸν διαφερόντως ἐξεπονήθη, καὶ πρὸς μὲν ἡδονὰς ἐγκρατέστατος ἦν, πρὸς δὲ πόνους ἀνένδοτος, ἀγώνων δὲ προκειμένων ἐπιεικῶς ἀκατάπληκτος, οὐδεμιᾶς ἡττώμενος τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων χρείων, φέρων εὐψύχως τὰ συμπίπτοντα χαλεπά, κώνειον δὲ καταψηφισθεὶς ἐκπιεῖν, ἐξὸν τὴν δίκην ἀποφυγεῖν ζημιωθέντα χρήμασιν, οἷς ἕτεροι καταβαλεῖν ἠβουλήθησαν· ὁ δὲ θανάτου τιμώμενος ἦν ἑαυτῷ, καὶ τούτου καταφρονεῖν τοὺς προσιόντας ἀνέπειθε, καὶ μηδενὶ τρόπῳ πειρᾶσθαι τὰ κυρωθέντα συγχεῖν ὑπηγόρευε. Πλάτωνι δὲ μικρὰ τὰ παρ'ἐνίων εἰς ἀρετὴν ἐπιφημιζόμενα; Τὰ γὰρ περὶ λόγους ἐξαίρειν λόγου τοῦτον χρεών· ὃς τὸ μὲν διανοητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς τοσαύταις λόγων ἀνάγκαις συνέδησε καὶ οὕτως ἀχείρωτον ἀπειργάσατο καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ἤσκησεν εἰς κάλλους περιουσίαν, ὡς οὐ βραχεῖ τινι μέτρῳ πάντας ὑπερβαλέσθαι. Τὸ δὲ παθητικὸν αὐτῆς καὶ τῶν τῆς ὕλης ἀπλήστως καλῶν ἐφιέμενον, συχνοῖς ἐξεμελέτησε πόνοις, ὥστε πολλάκις καὶ τὰ νοσωδέστερα μᾶλλον αἱρεῖσθαι τῶν χωρίων οἰκεῖν, ἵνα τὸ φλεγμαῖνον κολάζῃ τῆς ὕβρεως καὶ δύνηται καθιστᾶν εὐπειθέστερον. Ἄλλως δὲ τοῖς εὐτελέσι διέζη τῷ προστυχόντι σιτούμενος καὶ τῶν πλειόνων τοῖς βουλομένοις παραχωρῶν. Ὀψὲ γὰρ τοῦ χρόνου τῆς σικελικῆς ἐγεύσατο θοίνης· οὐ κατ'ἔρωτα πολυτελῶν ὄψων οἶμαι τὴν τοσαύτην στειλάμενος ἐπὶ 195 χρῷ – δῆλα ] E. g. Michel Psellos, Theologica, 106, l. 120: P. GAUTIER, Michaelis Pselli Theologica, I, Leipzig, 1989, p. 421. 209 λόγου τοῦτον] τοῦτον λόγου P

 8

Antonio Rigo

225

230

235

240

245

250

θαλάττης πορείαν, ἀλλ'ἵνα τῷ τε Δίωνι τὰ πρὸς τὸν τύραννον γένηται, διὰ θαύματος ἄγοντα τοὺς ἐκείνου λόγους, κἀκεῖνον ἀπαλλάξῃ τῶν τῆς τυραννίδος κακῶν. Πῶς τοίνυν οὗτοι τοσαύτην φροντίδα τοῦ τρόπου ποιησάμενοι, τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων οὐδενὸς ἐν μεθέξει γεγόνασιν, ἀλλὰ παραπλησίως τοῖς τὰς ὄψεις διεφθορόσι πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπ'αὐτῶν λεγομένοις προσέπταιον καὶ πονεῖν ἐδόκουν ἀπέραντα; Τὴν γὰρ ὁδὸν ἠγνοήκασιν, ἣν ὁ Πέτρος καὶ εἴ τις κατ'ἐκεῖνον χάριτι θείᾳ προσειληφώς, ἀπταίστως καὶ ἀνυσίμως πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀπήντησε τῶν ἐφετῶν τὴν ἀκρώρειαν, τά τε παρόντα καὶ μέλλοντα καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα διηνεκῶς ἐνεργούμενος, καὶ τὰ παρ'αὐτῶν σπουδαζόμενα κάτω πρὸς γῆν ἀφιεὶς ἐνασχολεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀτελέσιν, οἷς ὁ ζῶν οὐκ ἐπιδεδήμηκε Λόγος. Ἱκανὰ καὶ ταῦτα τοὺς ὑβριστὰς ἐντρέψαι, μὴ τοιαύτης καταυθαδιάζεσθαι χάριτος, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῖς μὲν ἐθελοκακεῖν αἱρουμένοις, οὐδεμία πρὸς μεταβολὴν ἀποχρῶσα πειθώ. Σὺ δ'ὦ πάντα γενναῖε διάγγελλε τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ βασιλείαν, ἣν ἔνδον ἔχεις οἰκοῦσαν ἐν σοί, τοῖς ἐπιπολῆς προσορῶσιν ἀθεώρητον μένουσαν, ὑποστελλόμενος οὐδαμῶς φέρων εὐψύχως τὰς τοῦ καιροῦ παροινίας, προπετοῦς ἀνεχόμενος γλώττης, τὴν ἐφ'οἷς κοινῇ πρότερον ἔφθης ψήφῳ περιγενόμενος, καὶ κρεῖττον ἢ παγκρατιαστὴς ὀλυμπιάσιν ἀναρρηθείς, πανούργως νῦν ἐπήρειαν ὑφιστάμενος καὶ προόδων εἰργόμενος καὶ φρουραῖς καθειργνύμενος· δεῖγμα καὶ ταῦτα περιφανὲς τοῦ κατὰ τῶν ἀντιλεγόντων σοι κράτους ὡς ἄμαχον, δεδίττῃ γὰρ αὐτοὺς καὶ μόνον ὁρώμενος. Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὰ χείλη διάρας, ἔκφορον θείης τὴν ἐνδιαιτωμένην ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας σοι δύναμιν, πάντων ἐπιστρέ229 τοῖς] om. P

 9

La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

255

260

265

270

275

280

φεις τὸν νοῦν, καὶ τοὺς ὑπ'αὐτῶν ἀναπεπεισμένους, μεταπείθεις ῥᾳδίως καὶ μετάγεις ἀπὸ δεινοῦ σκότους τοῦ ψεύδους ἐπὶ τὸ θεῖον φῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Τοῦτ'ἐκεῖνοι τῇ πείρᾳ γνόντες, τί μὲν οὐ πράττοντες; Τί δὲ οὐκ εἰσφέροντες; Τί δὲ οὐ λέγοντες; Ἔσθ'ὅτε γε μὴν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἡ πονηρία νικᾷ, προνοίᾳ μειζονι τοῦ κρείττονος ἐνδιδόντος, σὲ μὲν ἀπρόϊτόν τε καὶ ἀνομίλητον ἐν εἰργμῷ καθῆσθαι παρασκευάζουσιν· αὐτοὶ δὲ πολλὴν καταχέουσι τῶν τὰς ἀκοὰς ὑπέχειν αἱρουμένων σφίσι τὸν φλήναφον. Ἔδει μὴ μόνον ὑπὲρ νίκης καμεῖν σε τὸν ἀθλητήν, ἀλλά τοι καὶ σύμβολα τῶν ἀγώνων ἐναργέστερα φέρειν, ἵνα σοι λαμπρότερον τὸ βραβεῖον ὁ μόνος τῶν τοιούτων ἀγωνοθέτης παράσχηται. Διὰ τοῦτο σοῦ γε ἀπόντος, κατὰ σοῦ συσκευάζεται δικαστήρια, μᾶλλον δὲ δικαστηρίων προσχήματα πρὸς τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἐξαπάτην, ἃ δὴ καὶ τάχιστ'ἂν διελύθη δίκην ἀραχνίων τινῶν ὑφασμάτων. Σοῦ γε ἀπηντηκότος καὶ τὴν τῶν λογίων ἰσχὺν παραδείξαντος, εἰ μή τις αὐτόχρημα βία κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπανασταίη. Πλὴν οὐ μέγα σοι, μᾶλλον δὲ μέγα καὶ μέγιστον τρόπον ἕτερον, τό τε μετὰ Θεοῦ βλασφημεῖσθαι, τοῦ παρ'αὐτῶν γυμνουμένου πάσης ἀεὶ οὔσης ἐνεργείας καὶ τῆς θεοποιοῦ χάριτος. Βραχὺς ὁ παρών ἐστι βίος, ἐν ᾧ συσκιάζεται πολλάκις ἀλήθεια, καὶ συκοφαντία περίεστιν. Οὐδὲ γὰρ πᾶσι χωρητός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας. Μάλιστα μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ τοῦτ'ἄν τις ἴδοι καθάπαξ γινόμενον ἐπὶ μακρὸν λεληθέναι τὸ βέλτιον, ἵνα μὴ κακία τὰ πάντα σοβῇ καὶ τῇ συχνῇ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποκναίῃ κακοπραγίᾳ. Κρατυνθέντα δὲ πρὸς βραχὺ τὰ τοῦ 278 Βραχὺς – βίος ] E. g. Jean Chrysostome, In cap. XIV Genes. Hom. 43 (PG 54, 396) 259/260 ἐν – τοιούτοις] om. Q

263 πολλὴν] πολὴν OP 279 γὰρ] om. P

 10

Antonio Rigo

285

290

295

300

305

310

ψευδοῦς, φωρᾶται ποτὲ παρ'ἀμείνοσι δικασταῖς καὶ μεταπεσόντος ὀστράκου κατάγεται μὲν ἡ πρὶν ἐξόριστος ἀλήθεια, καὶ μετὰ συνηγόρων ἐπάνεισι, πᾶσαν ἐμπιπλῶσα ψυχὴν ἡδονῆς, ἀπελαύνεται δὲ τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἐξοικίζεται, μὴ δὲ πρότερον ἀγνοούμενον. Καὶ οἶδα μὲν ὡς ἀήθη τινὰ τοῖς οὐκ εἰδόσι λέγειν δοκεῖς, οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐφικέσθαι τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν λεγομένων, οὐδ'ἧ κακῶν ὑπ'ἀγνωμοσύνης ἐληλάκασι συνιδεῖν· οἳ κατὰ τῶν θείων ὁπλίζονται ῥήσεων, καὶ ταῖς μὲν αὐτῶν ἀντιλογίαν προσάπτειν πειρῶνται· τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς διαστρέφειν ἐπιχειροῦσιν, οὐδέ τινα δίκην ὑπολογίζονται τῶν κακουργουμένων. Καὶ ταῦτα μηδὲν πρὸς ἔπος τὸ τοῦ λόγου φθεγγόμενοι, μὴ δ'ὅπως ἁλίσκονται τοῖς οἰκείοις πτεροῖς συνορῶντες, ὅσα τε προτείνονται καθ' ὑμῶν, ἐκ τῶν ὑμετέρων δῆθεν ἀφελόντες γραμμάτων, οὐδ'αὐτὰ ταῦτα διαβολῆς ἀμιγῆ, καίτοι γε οὐχ ὁρῶ καθ'ὅτι ἂν αὐτοῖς συνενέγκῃ τὸ τοῖς λόγοις παρεγχειρεῖν καὶ τὸ κάλλος ἀφανίζειν τῶν εἰρημένων, ὥσπερ οἱ φῶρες διαφθείρειν οὐκ ἀποκνοῦσι τὰ κλέμματα, μήποτ'εὐφώρατοι γένωνται, τῶν συληθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ σχήματος σῳζομένων. Οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν ἀπεικός, εἰ τοῖς παρὰ σοῦ λεγομένοις ξενίζοιντο· καὶ Παῦλος γὰρ ὁ τῶν ἀπορρήτων ἐκείνων μύστης τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ κηρύττων ἀΐδιον Λόγον, καινοῦ τινος καὶ ἀδήλου παντάπασιν ἠκηκόει καταγγελεύς, ἀλλ'οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο τῶν λόγων ἐπέσχε, μέχρις ὅτου παρελθὼν εἰς μέσον καὶ συστησάμενος ἀγῶνα λαμπρόν, θήραμα

298/299 ἁλίσκονται – πτεροῖς ] Cf. e. g. Eschyle, Fragm. 139, 4: S. RADT, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, III, Göttingen, 1985, p. 252 307/316 καὶ – Θεῷ ] Act. 17, 17-34 285 φωρᾶται ποτὲ] φωρᾶταί ποτε P 299 ὑμῶν] ἡμῶν P 300 ὑμετέρων] ἡμετέρων P 305 συληθέντων ] συλλεφθέντων P

 11

La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

315

320

325

330

πρῶτον τηλικαύτης σαγήνης ἄξιον τὸν σοφὸν ἐκεῖνον εἰσεποιήσατο Διονύσιον, καὶ πάντας σχεδὸν ἀθηναίους ἀνέπεισε τῷ τέως ἠγνοημένῳ καὶ μόνῳ ζῶντι λατρεῦσαι Θεῷ. Οἷς δὲ τῶν ὀρθῶς εἰρημένων μεταποιεῖσθαι σπουδή, τοῖς εἰωθόσι προσδιατρίβων ἂν φαίνοιο. Κἀκεῖνα λέγων ὅσα φθάνει τοῖς θεοφόροις προτεθρυλλημένα Πατράσι, καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὑφηγηταῖς· οἳ μηδὲν ἕτερον εἰδέναι διϊσχυρίζοντο πλὴν ἢ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον. Οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν οὐδενὶ προσέχοντες τῶν ὅσα τοῖς ἄλλοις διὰ φροντίδος ἐστίν, ἐπειδὴ πᾶσα τούτοις ἐτεθνήκει τῆς φύσεως ἀσχολία πρὸς κτῆσιν ἐπειγομένοις τοῦ κρείττονος. Ἴσως δ'ἂν καὶ τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσί ποτε μετάμελος τῶν ἤδη γένοιτο ῥαδιουργουμένων, πολλὰ τῆς ἔμπροσθεν καταγνοῦσιν ἐνστάσεως, καὶ τὸ θεῖον σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἐξευμενισαμένοις, κἂν οὕτω τύχῃ συμβάν, εὐκτὸν μέν σοι τῷ τῆς εἰρήνης μάλιστα μαθητῇ, καὶ μηδὲν ἕτερον ἐπὶ τῆσδε τῆς διαφορᾶς σκοπουμένῳ, πλὴν ἢ τὸ μεταθέσθαι καὶ περὶ τῶν κακῶς ἐκείνοις ὑπειλημμένων, ἐξευρεῖν τινὰ δυνηθῆναι πειθώ, καθ'ἡδονὴν δ'οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῦτ'ἂν εἴη κἀμοί.

320/321 εἰδέναι – ἐσταυρωμένον] I Cor. 2, 2 331 καὶ] s. l. M

 12

Antonio Rigo

Planche 1 – Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus i 24 sup. (gr. 457) , f. 267



La lettre de Nicolas Pépagoménos à Grégoire Palamas

Planche 2 – Mediolanensis, Ambrosianus i 24 sup. (gr. 457) , f. 268



Antonio Rigo

Planche 3 – Vindobonensis theologicus gr. 78, f. 363/1



Bram Roosen

A Dyothelite Florilegium in the Run-up to the Lateran Council (a. 649). Maximus the Confessor’s tomos to Stephen of Dor against the Ekthesis (CPG 7697. 15) Abstract – The article presents the summary, the critical edition on the basis of the full manuscript tradition, and the first English translation of Maximus the Confessor’s Tomos to Stephen of Dor against the Ekthesis. The text, numbered 15 among Maximus’ Opuscula theologica et polemica (CPG 7697) is famous for the florilegium it features, which has clear similarities with the florilegia in the acts of the Lateran Council of 649. Forty years ago, when the first volume of the Series Graeca of the Corpus Christianorum saw the light, scholarly views about the seventh-century monoenergist and monothelete controversies, were quite clear-cut: dyoenergism and dyotheletism equalled orthodoxy; monoenergism and monotheletism were variants of monophysitism and were concocted for political reasons; and both Maximus the Confessor and Pope Martin I fell victim to the imperially sanctioned violence directed against those who refused to leave the path of orthodoxy. That was, in very broad terms, the framework scholars worked in, and, to be sure, Maximus and his followers would have been delighted with this narrative: it is the narrative they seem to have nurtured themselves in the so-called Documenta. 1 Since then, however, a number of groundbreaking studies has fundamentally altered our perception of how and why things developed the 1 With Documenta we refer to the group of texts containing among others the Disputatio Bizyae and the Relatio Motionis and edited by P. Allen – B. Neil, Scripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantia una cum latina interpretatione Anastasii Bibliothecarii iuxta posita (CCSG, 39), Turnhout – Leuven, 1999. The two editors also published an English translation of these texts, entitled Maximus the Confessor and His Companions: Documents from Exile (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, 2003. For some text critical additions to the edition, see B. Roosen, On the Recent Edition of the Disputatio Bizyae. With an Analysis of Chapter XXIV De providentia of the Florilegium Achridense and an Index manuscriptorum in Appendix, in JÖB, 51 (2001), p. 113-131.

The Literary Legacy of Byzantium. Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of ­Joseph  A. Munitiz, ed. by Bram Roosen & Peter Van Deun, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 15 (Turnhout, 2019), p. 415–533 © FHG10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117158

Bram Roosen

way they did. From Riedinger’s edition of the Lateran acts and his conclusion that the Greek acts are the original and the Latin acts the translation, 2 over Wolfram Brandes’ close reading of the documents regarding Maximus’ and Martin’s trials, 3 until the introduction to Richard Price’s translation of the Lateran acts: 4 they among others have called into doubt the generally accepted narrative and replaced it with a more balanced account, in which the unorthodoxy and disruptive intent of monenergism and monotheletism has been toned down and the intransigent attitude of Maximus and his circle (and in the end, also the Roman papacy) has come under more intense scrutiny for being more politically motivated or at least more political in its outcome than they themselves wanted to admit. 5 The following pages will provide the first critical edition, English translation 6 and extensive identification of the sources of a text deeply rooted in the aforementioned controversies: Maximus’ Spiritalis tomus ac dogmaticus as it is called in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum [7697. 15; See the edition of the acts by R. Riedinger, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series secunda, I. Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, Berlin, 1984 and the articles he wrote in preparation of or following this edition. Most of these articles have been reprinted in R. Riedinger, Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsakten des 7. Jahrhunderts (IP, 34), Turnhout, 1998. 3 W. Brandes, „Juristische“ Krisenbewältigung im 7. Jahrhundert? Die Prozesse gegen Papst Martin I. und Maximos Homologetes, in Fontes Minores, X (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, 22), Frankfurt am Main, 1998, p. 141-212. See more recently also the very interesting contributions by H. Ohme (Maximos Homologetes († 662): Martyrium, Märtyrerbewusstsein, “Martyriumsucht”?, in ZaC, 20 [2016], p. 306-346; and Der lange Widerstand gegen eine offizielle Heiligenverehrung des Maximos Homologetes († 662) im byzantinischen Reich, in BZ, 109 [2016], p. 109-150). 4 Cf.  R. Price – Ph. Booth – C. Cubitt, General Introduction, in R. Price, The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649 (Translated Texts for Historians, 61), Liverpool, 2014, p. 5-108. 5 I cannot help but wonder about Maximus’ mindset. Was he, indeed, so convinced of the truthfulness of what he stubbornly defended that he was completely blind for the world around him, blind for the political implications of his actions and for the fight for power between the different patriarchates and other players in which he inevitably became involved? In other words, was he a naive or an active participant in this game of strategy? Was Maximus’ “provocative theological stubbornness”, as Ohme calls it (cf. Maximos Homologetes [see n. 3], p. 306), intentionally or unintentionally provocative. 6 The French translation by E. Ponsoye (Saint Maxime le Confesseur, Opuscules théologiques et polémiques. Introduction par Jean-Claude Larchet, traduction et notes par Emmanuel Ponsoye [Sagesses chrétiennes], Paris, 1998) is virtually useless (see my review of it in VigChr, 54, 2 [2000], p. 214-217), while also both the Italian translation (A. Ceresa-Gastaldo, Massimo il Confessore, Meditazioni sull’agonia di Gesù [Collana di testi patristici, 50], Rome, 1985) and the Spanish translation that is based on it (I. Garzón-Bosque, Máximo el Confesor, Meditaciones sobre la Agonía de Jesús [Biblioteca de Patrística, 7], Madrid, 1990), show several deficiencies. 2



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

henceforth Op. 15] after the first four words of its title. It is Maximus’ most direct, most virulent attack against the Ekthesis, a document promulgated by Heraclius in 638 (or 636 7) and preserved in the Acts of the Lateran Council (CPG 7607). 8 Partly based on texts by Patriarch Sergius, partly on Justinian’s Confessio fidei (CPG 6885) and very similar to the so-called Psèphos of 633/634, 9 the Ekthesis prohibits further discussions about the number of energies in Christ, but, at the same time, introduces the doctrine of one will. 10 In his Op. 15 Maximus targets not so much the dogmatic basis of monenergism and monotheletism, but mainly the claim, frequently and emphatically repeated by the Ekthesis itself, that the assumption of one will in Christ is no innovation, let alone a heresy, but in complete harmony with the teachings of the Bible, the holy fathers and the ecumenical councils. Evidently, the weapon of choice in such a situation is the florilegium: if Maximus can prove that this argumentum ab auctoritate of the Ekthesis is nothing but a phantasy, worse, that the only authorities that can be found are confirmed heretics, then monenergism and monotheletism are sitting ducks. The considerable length of Op. 15 limits the possibilities of this article to provide an extensive historical introduction. 11 In the following 7 The generally accepted date of 638 for the promulgation of the Ekthesis has recently been called into question by Marek Jankowiak in his 2009 doctoral dissertation (Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme, Paris – Warsaw, 2009). While I have not been able to read his dissertation, some details can be deduced from what is said on p. 10-11 of the introduction, written by R. Price – Ph. Booth – C. Cubitt, to Price, The Acts of the Lateran Synod [see n. 4]. Apparently Jankowiak wants to equate the Edict, which in the Syriac life of Maximus the Confessor is mentioned as the outcome of the 636 council of Cyprus, with the Ekthesis. See § 15-16 of the Syriac vita of Maximus as edited by S. Brock, An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor, in AB, 91 (1973), p. 299-346 (reprinted as article XII in id., Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, London, 1984). 8 See ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 156, l. 20 – p. 162, l. 13. 9 For a discussion of the sources of the Ekthesis, see R. Riedinger, Aus den Akten der Lateran-Synode von 649, in BZ, 69 (1976), p. 19-29 (Id., Kleine Schriften [see n. 2], n. I). 10 For the possible influence Pope Honorius’ first letter to Sergius (CPG 9375) had on the development of the monothele concept, see Ch. Lange, Mia energeia, Untersuchungen zur Einigungspolitik des Kaisers Heraclius und des Patriarchen Sergius von Constantinopel (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 66), Tübingen, 2012, p. 599 and p. 608 with footnote 402. 11 For excellent recent accounts, see Ph. Booth, Crisis of Empire. Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 2013, p. 186-223 (chapter 5: “The Making of the Monenergist Crisis”); the introduction to Price, The Acts of the Lateran Synod [see n. 4], p. 5-108. More in line with the traditional presentation of monenergism and monotheletism is C. Hovorun, Will, Action and Freedom. Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century (The Medieval Mediterranean, 77), Leiden – Boston, 2008, while a more theological approach can be found in Lange, Mia



Bram Roosen

pages I will primarily discuss the general outline of this text and present the first critical edition together with a detailed apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum and, to our knowledge, the first English translation. It will not be possible to go into each single excerpt of the florilegium that constitutes the core of our text. This is unfortunate as a most tantalizing question is that of the exact relationship between the florilegium in our text and those in the acts of the Lateran Council of 649. 12 In any case, the extensive apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum accompanying the text is drawn up to facilitate such future research.

1. The title and the date of the text The doubtlessly authentic title of Op. 15 (l. 1/12) is delightfully clear about the purpose of the text, the place where it was written, its addressee, and indirectly also about the time when it was written. The addressee is Stephen, bishop of Dor in Palestine I, 13 who in the letter he sent to the Lateran Council (CPG 9399.1) recounts how Sophronius took him to Calvary and “bound him with indissoluble bonds” to go and seek help in Rome against the newly introduced dogmata. 14 From this letter it is clear that Stephen came to Rome at least thrice 15 and it is generally assumed that he contributed to the prepaenergeia [see n. 10]. Unfortunately, as already said in n. 7, I have not been able to get hold of Marek Jankowiak’s unpublished doctoral dissertation. 12 See J. Pierres, Sanctus Maximus Confessor, princeps apologetarum synodi Lateranensis anni 649 (Pars historica), Romae, 1940, p. 3*-56*, where a comparison can be found between the florilegia in the fifth session of the Lateran Council and in Maximus’ Op. 15. Of the five possible relationships between the acts and Op. 15 listed on p. 52*, Pierres rightly considers only the first two acceptable: either that Op. 15 and the acts go back to the same source or that the acts go back to Op. 15 and another source. For a more recent discussion of the relationship, see Price, The Acts of the Lateran Synod [see n. 4], p. 288-290. Now that both the acts and Maximus’ Op. 15 are available in critical editions the problem needs to be reconsidered. 13 On Stephen, see PmbZ1, n. 6906. Compare Στέφανον τὸν ἁγιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον Δώρων, τελοῦντα ὑπὸ τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἀποστολικὸν θρόνον τῆς ἁγίας Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν πόλεως (l. 10-12), with the address of Stephen’s letter to the Lateran Council: Στέφανος, ἐλέει θεοῦ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ πρῶτος τῆς ὑπὸ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἀρχιερατικὸν θρόνον τελούσης δικαιοδοσίας (ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 38, l. 14-16) and with the subscription, Στέφανος, ἐλέει θεοῦ ἐπίσκοπος Δώρων καὶ πρῶτος τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν πατριαρχικὸν Ἱεροσολύμων θρόνον τελούσης ἁγίας συνόδου (ibid., p. 46, l. 33-34). 14 Cf.  ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 40, l. 23-38 (for the quote, see l. 27). 15 Cf.  ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 42, l. 9-10: ἐξ οὗ καὶ τρίτον ἤδη φαίνομαι τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς ὑμῶν ἴχνεσι προσορμισθείς. On Stephen’s travels and the important role he played in the



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

ration of the acts of the Lateran Council. Maximus himself resided in Rome when he wrote the Tomus (cf. l. 9: ἀπὸ Ῥώμης) and l. 24 might suggest that also Stephen was there at the time (καθάπερ ἀκοῇ τήμερον μεμαθηκότες). With an expression very similar to canon 18 of the Lateran Council, the title also presents additional evidence for the fact that the actual author of the Ekthesis is not Heraclius, but Sergius. 16 And, finally, the title specifies that the purpose of the text is to show that the innovations introduced by the Ekthesis are not concordant with the Bible and the fathers, but with those heretics who introduce confusion and division into the mystery concerning Christ. This is an accurate description of the content and structure of the text. It is all the more remarkable that hardly anyone until now seems to have noticed that Op. 15 contains considerable quotations from the Ekthesis. But more on that further down. Now, as for the date, on the one hand, Op. 15 evidently postdates the Ekthesis, issued in 638, 17 and Maximus’ arrival in Rome, which in its turn postdates Maximus’ dispute with Pyrrhus in North Africa in July 645. 18 The terminus ante quem, on the other hand, is based on arguments from silence: there is no reference whatsoever to the Lateran Council of 649, nor to the so-called Typos promulgated by Constans II in 648 and forbidding every discussion about the number of wills or energies, nor to the letter of Paul II of Constantinople to Pope Theodore from the year 646-647 (CPG 7620). However, while Maximus himself was in Rome during the Lateran Council, the two other documents hardly help to narrow down the date of Op. 15: information and texts spread slowly in those days. As contacts between Rome and Palestine, see M. Jankowiak, Travelling Across Borders: A Church Historian’s Perspective on Contacts between Byzantium and Syria in the Second Half of the 7th Century, in Arab-Byzantine Coins and History. Papers presented at the 13th Seventh Century Syrian Numismatic Round Table held at Corpus Christi College Oxford on 11th and 12th September 2011, London, 2012, p. 13-26. 16 Compare the words on l. 1/4 of the title with what is said in Canon 18 of the Lateran Council: τὴν ἐξ ὑποβολῆς τοῦ αὐτοῦ Σεργίου γενομένην παρὰ Ἡρακλείου τοῦ βασιλέως κατὰ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ἀσεβεστάτην ἔκθεσιν (cf. ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 382, l. 1-4). 17 See, however, footnote 7 above. 18 This date, however, should be accompanied by a small caveat. It is based on the title / introductory paragraph of the Disputatio cum Pyrrho (cf. PG 91, 288 A9: μηνὶ Ἰουλίῳ, ἰνδικτίωνος γ´). However, if J. Noret (La rédaction de la Disputatio cum Pyrrho (CPG 7698) de Saint Maxime le Confesseur serait-elle postérieure à 655?, in AB, 117 [1999], p. 291-296) is correct – and his case is quite strong and convincing – in dating the writing of the D.P. to 655 or later, in other words, at least ten years after the discussion actually took place, there is certainly reason to not just take this date at face value.



Bram Roosen

such, it seems prudent to assume a date somewhere between 645 and 648, although the traditional date 646-647 seems the most likely option. 19

2. The line of reasoning 2.1 Part I. The Evidence Op. 15 has no clearly delimited introduction, but quite elegantly and in one nearly uninterrupted movement works towards the christological subject of the text: starting from the eschatological image of the two people of whom at the second coming of Christ one will be taken, one will be left behind (Mt. 24, 41 and Lc. 17, 34), an image he interprets allegorically (l. 13-23), Maximus turns to the classical image of his own inferiority (πρὸς ὕφεσιν τοῦ πτωχοῦ τε καὶ πένητος) in comparison with the superiority of the addressee (l. 23-25) and from there proceeds to the question why it is necessary to assume two wills and two energies in Christ. Each time the link is a similarity, that between Maximus and the person who will be left behind 20 – both are fond of “pleasure and shallowness” – and that between Stephen’s willing descent to Maximus’ level and the incarnation of the Logos respectively 21 – like the God Word lowered himself to raise man, Stephen lowered himself to raise Maximus –. Once arrived at the subject of Christ’s incarnation, Maximus’ immediate concern is to prove the need to assume also a human will and energy in Christ incarnate. The central argument is the famous soteriological ἀπρόσληπτον – ἀθεράπευτον formula of Gregory of Nazianzus (l. 4546), on which Maximus elaborates in two parallel rhetorical questions (l. 46-55 and l. 55-59). The conclusion is obvious: if the Logos assumed 19 In the new date-list of Maximus’ writings, M. Jankowiak and Ph. Booth date the text to the year 647 (cf. A New Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, in P. ­Allen – B. Neil (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, Oxford, 2015, p. 65-66. 20 The text as it was known until now, viz. Τί δὲ κρατεῖσθαι (l. 23), is not the text of the manuscripts and is unsatisfactory, as it does not provide an explanation for the presence of this biblical image at the beginning of the text. While our manuscript O has a lacuna at this point (φιλο[…]κεκρατῆσθαι), G reads the grammatically impossible τίς καὶ κρατεῖσθαι. Prof. Jacques Noret suggested to me that τίς is the consequence of a rubricator not doing his job: one of the ancestors of G probably only read ις, its copier “correcting” this into τίς. 21 Compare ἔνδειξιν ἐθέλοντες ὕψους ποιεῖσθαι τὴν αὐθαίρετον ὕφεσιν τῆς ὑπερτάτης ὑμῶν καλλονῆς (l. 32-33) concerning Stephen, with κενώσει τᾖ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ τῆς οἰκείας δόξης ἀπεριγράφως ὕψος ἐπιδεικνῦντος (l. 35-36) concerning the Logos.



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

a complete and perfect human nature (τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, l. 61), with the exception of course of the sin, He must have assumed also its free will (αὐτεξούσιος θέλησις, l. 64) and its rational and vital energy (λογική τε καὶ ζωτικὴ ἐνέργεια, l. 69). If this is not the case, He did not assume the human nature and the economy is a phantasy. And silently alluding to a famous fragment from Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus states that it is impossible for a φύσις to be or to be named without its innate δυνάμεις, by which each φύσις is characterized (l. 84-87). With the words ὥς τισι τῶν πάλαι καὶ νῦν ἔδοξεν αἱρετικῶν (l. 90-91), finally, Maximus closes the theoretical part, and turns towards the real purpose of the text, to prove with biblical, patristic and heretical texts that the Ekthesis, and thus the monenergist and monothelite dogma, is contradicted by the Bible and the Fathers, but supported by known heretics, or as it is said in the title: ἀπάδουσαν μὲν τῶν ἱερῶν λογίων τε καὶ πατέρων, συνάδουσαν δὲ τοῖς ἀνιέροις αἱρετικοῖς (l. 5-7). Op. 15 is indeed particularly famous for the biblical, patristic and heretic florilegium that constitutes its core and which is, if not the only, at least the longest florilegium by Maximus the Confessor that has come down to us. 22 It serves 22 Actually, in the case of Maximus the use of florilegia is quite remarkable. For while Maximus’ genuine writings testify to his profound knowledge of older authors and his extensive use, both explicit as well as tacit, of their writings, and notwithstanding the edited title of Add. 19 and the existence of texts like Op. 23, Op. 26 – Add. 24 and Op. 27 – Add. 25, our text contains the only florilegium for which Maximus’ authorship is not subject to serious doubts. As concerns Add. 19, the title as it was edited by S. L. Epifanovič (Матеріалы къ изученію жизни и твореній преп. Максима Исповѣника, Kiev, 1917, p. 66, l. 2-3) reads Τοῦ αὐτοῦ (= Max.) περὶ θελημάτων καὶ ἐνεργειῶν κεφάλαια ι´ μετὰ πατρικῶν ἀποδείξεων. However, this is not the original title of this text, the words μετὰ πατρικῶν ἀποδείξεων probably having been inferred from the beginning of the first chapter, where Gregory of Nazianzus is quoted (Εἰ ἐμὲ μετὰ τῶν ἐμῶν ὁ θεὸς λόγος κατὰ τὸν μέγαν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον προσείληφεν …). In any case, in the quite extensive manuscript tradition of this text, there is no sign of any πατρικαὶ ἀποδείξεις in the sense of a florilegium. — The fact that Op. 23 is frequently considered as a florilegium is solely based on the editio princeps: F. Combefis printed these five short texts and fragments one after the other. It is the situation he encountered in the manuscript he used, viz. Vaticanus, B.A.V., graecus 504. Actually, only the third part, an excerpt from Ep. 13 (PG 91, 528 A14 – B7), is genuinely Maximian. The four other parts are either wrongly attributed to Maximus, have nothing to do with Maximus, or lack any attribution whatsoever. On Op. 23, and especially the part attributed to Eulogius of Alexandria, see B. Roosen, Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt. Old and new fragments from Eulogius of Alexandria’s oeuvre (CPG 6971-6979), in MEG, 15 (2015), p. 151-190. — Also Op. 26 is a composite resulting from the editio princeps, the definitions of φύσις, οὐσία, ἄτομον and ὑπόστασις (CPG 7697. 26a; see also CPG 7707. 20) having little to do with the definitions of θέλησις that follow. These Definitiones de voluntate (CPG 7697. 26b + 7707. 24), as well as the Definitiones de energia (CPG 7697. 27 + 7707. 25) are not likely to be of Maximus’ hand either. The former contains some excerpts from Maximus himself and presents some



Bram Roosen

a double purpose: on the one hand to illustrate and support Maximus’ previous statements; on the other hand to provide the necessary ammunition to attack the Ekthesis in the second half of the text. 2.1.1 The biblical florilegium The biblical florilegium consists of two parts of unequal length: the first and longest part contains seven quotations from the New Testament – three from Marc, two from John and two from Matthew (in that order) – and evidences Christ’s human will and energy; the second part consists of only one quotation from the Gospel according to John and illustrates Christ’s divine will and energy. 23 The method of working is the same in both parts: once the full passages are quoted, Maximus repeats the most relevant words of each of them, states that they prove that Christ had a human/divine will as well as a human/divine energy, then further distinguishes between the will to act and the act itself. This biblical florilegium is certainly not unique. Three other seventhcentury dyothelite texts present very similar lists of biblical passages, an indication, if not of contact, at least of the existence of a common arsenal of biblical evidence circulating among dyothelites: – In the D.P. Maximus is reported to have discussed a list of biblical passages which is four passages longer than the one in Op. 15. 24 – In one of the extant fragments from Ps. Irenaeus’ letter to Demetrius concerning faith (CPG 1320), an established dyothelite forgery, there is one extra passage and the order is inversed: the biblical evidence for Christ’s divine will and energy comes first. 25 terminological problems, while part of the latter shows extensive similarities with the Definitiones de voluntate, part is based on earlier florilegia. The details on the aforementioned texts can be found in my doctoral dissertation B. Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited. (Pseudo-) Maximi Confessoris Opuscula varia: a critical edition with extensive notes on manuscript tradition and authenticity, Leuven, 2001. I revised the edition of CPG 7697. 26a + 7707. 20 together with CPG 7707. 38 under the title “What Theodosius of Gangra wanted to know from Maximus the Confessor”, in B. De Mulder – P. Van Deun (ed.), Questioning the World. Greek Patristic and Byzantine Question and Answer Literature (forthcoming in the Lectio series, Brepols Publishers). 23 The reason for this inequal length is of course that the existence of Christ’s human will and energy was much more controversial than the existence of his divine will and energy. 24 Cf.  PG 91, 320 D11 – 328 A7. 25 Ed.  M. Richard, Un faux dithélite – Le traité de S. Irénée au diacre Démétrius, in P. Wirth (ed.), Polychronion. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag (Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Reihe D: Beihefte. Forschungen zur griechischen Diplomatik und Geschichte, I), Heidelberg, 1966 (reprinted



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

– This same inversion, finally, is also encountered in the Allocutio of Pope Martin I to the Lateran Council (CPG 9398. 2), but the number of passages mentioned is reduced. 26 In the table below, the numbers in bold italics refer to the passages that are quoted as evidence for Christ’s divine will and energy. Op. 15 Ps. 39, 7-9 Mt. 15, 32 Mt. 23, 37-38 Mt. 26, 17 Mt. 27, 34 Mc. 6, 48 Mc. 7, 24 Mc. 9, 30 Io. 1, 43 Io. 5, 21 Io. 7, 1 Io. 17, 24 Phil. 2, 8

D.P.

Ps. Irenaeus

Martin I, Allocutio

10 6 6 7 1 2 3 4 8 5

11 8 3 7 6 5 1 12 4 2 9

8 9 3 7 5 4 1 2

5 2 3 4 1

Maximus ends his discussion of the biblical evidence with virtually the same expression that opens the discussion of the biblical evidence in D.P. (PG 91, 320 C10-14): Ἀλλὰ τούτοις μὲν αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν διὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν κατ’ἄμφω τὰς αὐτοῦ φύσεις ἐξ ὦν καὶ ἐν αἷς συνέστηκε, θελητικὸν ὑπάρχοντα φύσει καὶ ἐνεργητικὸν παρίστησι τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ὁ λόγος (l. 140-143). The expression was evidently dear to Maximus and is encountered also on a number of other occasions. 27 in M. Richard, Opera minora, III, Turnhout – Leuven, 1977, n. 65), p. 436 (Fragm. III, l. 6-17). I re-edited the fragments from this letter in my doctoral dissertation (cf. Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 760 [Fragm. 4, l. 9-17]), which enabled me to make a number of corrections to Richard’s edition. 26 The Allocutio is only partially preserved in Greek: see ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 17, l. 4-5 (lat.) and p. 16, l. 10-14 (gr.). 27 See the Apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum at l. 141-143 for a list of passages.



Bram Roosen

2.1.2 The patristic florilegium Contrary to what is suggested by the opening lines of the florilegium (l. 143-149), which refer to both the human and divine will and the human and divine energy of Christ, the patristic, like the biblical florilegium actually consists of two different parts. The first part of the patristic florilegium holds ten fragments proving that their authors believed in the existence of both a human and a divine will in Christ. These authors are Athanasius (1 fragm.), Gregory of Nazianzus (1 fragm.), Gregory of Nyssa (4 fragm.), John Chrysostom (1 fragm.), Cyril of Alexandria (2 fragm.) and Severian of Gabala (1 fragm.). With the exception of the last excerpt from Severian of Gabala, the order is chronological, starting with Athanasius and ending with Cyril. But also for another reason the last excerpt is exceptional. While all the other fragments are quite faithful to the original text and differ only marginally from the text in present-day critical editions, the situation is different for the excerpt from Severian’s homily: the words οὐχ’ἡ θεότης μου· ἀπαθὲς γὰρ τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἀτάρακτον καὶ ἀδείλαντον (l. 269-270) and ὥστε δύο θελήματα ἐμφαίνει, τὸ μὲν θεῖον, τὸ δὲ ἀνθρώπινον (l. 272-273) are nowhere to be seen in the original text. Especially the latter addition is a clear, dyothelite intervention and it should come as not too big a surprise that this exact same excerpt with the same interventions is also found in the Florilegium de voluntatibus of the Lateran Council and in the Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi. 28 The second part of the patristic florilegium deals with the two energies in Christ and presents six excerpts from five different authors: Ambrose of Milan (1 fragm.), Cyril of Jerusalem (1 fragm.), Pope Leo I (1 fragm.), John Chrysostom (2 fragm.) and Cyril of Alexandria (1 fragm.). The conclusion that follows this second part of the patristic florilegium (l. 338-359) is a general one, referring to both the energy and the will of Christ, not the energy alone. Its wording is similar to that of the short conclusion following the first part (l. 274-276), and echoes some lines in Maximus’ Op. 7, 29 but now Maximus goes on to state that the essential difference between that from which, in which and which Christ is rejects the possibility of illusion, confusion as well as division with regard to the incarnation (l. 351-355). This is a Cyrillian concept, 28 See the Apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum at l. 264-273 for the exact references. 29 See the Apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum at l. 345-349 for the exact references.



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

one that is encountered frequently throughout Maximus’ christological writings – the same is true for the words καθ’ἕνωσιν τὴν ἀδιάσπαστον. 30 Moreover, the mention of σύγχυσις and διαίρεσις is the link with the heretic florilegium that follows immediately after. 2.1.3 The heretic florilegium Merely introduced by the words Οἱ δὲ τῆς ἐναντίας καὶ ἀντιπάλου μοίρας, τὸ ἔμπαλιν (l. 359-360), this third florilegium consists again of two different parts. The first part, comprising seven excerpts, viz. from Apolinarius (3 fragm.), Polemon (2 fragm.) and Themistius (2 fragm.) respectively, concerns those heretics who promote confusion (σύγχυσις) of the divine and human nature in Christ. The second parts, with only four fragments, viz. from Theodore of Mopsuestia (1 fragm.), Nestorius (2 fragm.) and Paul the Persian (1 fragm.) respectively, is devoted to heretics preaching division (διαίρεσις). Most of these fragments are not known from sources other than seventh-century dyothelite florilegia, a situation which is not exactly conducive to us placing blind trust in the faithfulness of these quotations. 2.2 Part II. The Refutation of the Ekthesis The heretical florilegium lacks a proper conclusion. Instead, Maximus immediately turns his attention towards the Ekthesis, which in the manuscripts (and in the edition by Combefis) is described as ἡ οὐκ οἶδ’ὅπως νῦν διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἐπεισφρήσασα κατὰ τῆς ἀμωμήτου πίστεως … ἕνωσις (l. 463-465). The word ἕνωσις, however, makes little sense – it is quite unlikely that Maximus would have spoking about the Ekthesis in terms of a union 31 –, but it is quite easy to imagine that ἕνωσις is a corruption of ἔκθεσις with which it shares the first and the last three letters. In any case, the result is that the presence of parts of the Ekthesis in Op. 15, has never been formally noted. 32 In the rest of the text, the word ἔκθεσις, or ἕνωσις for that matter, is not mentioned anymore, but a See the Apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum at l. 355 for the exact references. 31 The solution proposed by Pierres (cf. Sanctus Maximus Confessor [see n. 12], p. 52*, n. 219), viz. that ἕνωσις should be understood as “conciliatio cum Haereticis” is not entirely convincing. 32 In the Italian translation of Op. 15 by A. Ceresa-Gastaldo e.g. none of the quotes from the Ekthesis is identified and concerning one of them it is even said: “È difficile stabilire da chi provenga questa citazione.” (see Meditazioni sull’agonia di Gesú [Collana di testi patristici, 50], Roma, 1985, p. 90, n. 171). 30



Bram Roosen

considerable number of verbs (and pronouns) show a female form that supposes a female word (ἔκθεσις or ἕνωσις) to be the subject. 33 In fact, the structure of the second part of the text is most easily described by looking at the quotes from the Ekthesis: 1a. (l. 467-470) from ACO Ser. II, 1, p. 160, l. 24-26: the Ekthesis decrees one will in Christ. 1b. (l. 471-472) from ACO Ser. II, 1, p. 160, l. 13-16: the Ekthesis assumes a link between the number of wills and the number of energies and thus, because it assumes one will, it also assumes one energy. 34 Refutation: repetition of the most telling passages from the patristic florilegium, thus proving that the Ekthesis does not follow the Fathers. 2. (l. 534-540) broader and more literal quotation of ACO Ser. II, 1, p. 160, l. 13-19 (see 1b). Refutation: repetition of the most telling passages from the heretic florilegium, thus proving that the Ekthesis is in unison with acknowledged heretics. 3. (l. 593-596) from ACO Ser. II, 1, p. 160, l. 20-22 Refutation: The line of reasoning in this passage from the Ekthesis is clear: if even Nestorius, with his stress on the division of the two natures in Christ, does not dare to profess two wills in Christ, but ταυτοβουλία, how can we, the orthodox, i.e. the monothelites? The author of the Ekthesis clearly designed this as an argumentum ad absurdum, obviously not as an approval of nestorianism. This time, however, Maximus only paraphrases the Ekthesis: he is careful to leave out the concessive clause (καίπερ διαιρῶν τὴν θείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐνανθρώπησιν καὶ δύο εἰσάγων υἱοὺς) and adds the words τουτέστι ἓν θέλημα after ταυτοβουλίαν. 35 As such, he can use See e.g. ἐπειγομένη (l. 476), φάσκουσα (l. 533), κατακολουθήσασα (l. 581-582), ὁριζομένη (l. 583), φρονοῦσα (l. 585), τιθεμένη (l. 586), αἱρουμένη & προκρίνουσα (l. 587), αὐτὴ βοῶσα (l. 593), κατὰ ταύτην (l. 597), λέγουσαν ἑαυτὴν (l. 602), οὖσαν (l. 604), παραγραφομένην (l. 605), ἐπιγραφομένην (l. 606), ταύτην (l. 607) and ταύτης (l. 610). 34 At first sight the use of this second passage is strange, as the words quoted by Maximus seem to state exactly the opposite, viz. that there are two energies and two wills in Christ. However, as Maximus explains in the following lines, since the Ekthesis assumes one will (first passage) and since it explicitly links the number of wills with the number of energies (second passage), this also means that if there is one will, there is, according to the Ekthesis, only one energy. It is this reciprocity of reference Maximus aims at by quoting the second passage. 35 The manuscripts read αὐτοβουλίαν instead of ταυτοβουλίαν. See our critical apparatus at l. 595. 33



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Nestorius as the archetypal heretic, leave out the intended suggestion of absurdity and turn the argument around: if Nestorius – and Maximus also adds Apolinarius and the other heretics – professes only one will, we, the orthodox should assume two wills. 4. (l. 615-621) ACO Ser. II, 1, p. 160, l. 29-33 Refutation: With this last passage from the Ekthesis, Maximus turns his attention to the one authority he has left aside until now, the ecumenical councils. Why, Maximus asks, was the Ekthesis introduced? Is it because we had no faith? But all those who maintained the true word were Christians also before the Ekthesis. Is it because we had faith? But then it is superfluous and because it is not backed up by the Gospel, nor by the Fathers, nor by the ecumenical councils, it can only be meant as a bait for those less educated to make them abandon the true faith. From here it is a small step for Maximus to the symbol of the council of Chalcedon which explicitly forbids the propagation of a “ἑτέρα πίστις”. After having quoted the relevant part of the symbol of Chalcedon (l. 637648), Maximus wonders who would be prepared to abandon the true faith in favour of an innovation, considering that this is condemned synodically, unless of course one prefers the separation from God over God’s glory. Therefore, we should, Maximus says, with all our strength stay far from this innovation. With II Cor. 10, 4-5 (λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες καὶ πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, l. 674-676) Maximus turns to the Bible once again, thus colouring the end of his text with several different passages. Christ’s warning against the ψευδόχριστοι and the ψευδοπροφῆται (see Mt. 24, 23 together with Lc. 17, 23) in the apocalyptic passage on which also the first lines of our text were based, provides Maximus with an easy chance of attacking his adversaries once more, an attack that culminates in the words πιθανότητι μύθων παραρρυεὶς, ἀλλ’οὐκ ἀποδείξει πατρικῶν λόγων βεβαιωθείς (l. 687-689). As a remedy against the danger of being lead astray, Maximus quotes the words Christ spoke to his drowsy disciples in Getsemane (Mt. 26, 41). And, finally, by calling Stephen θεοδήγητος (l. 697) and himself lame (τοὺς κατ’ἐμὲ τὸν ὑμέτερον ἐπ’ἀμφοτέρων χωλάναντας τῶν ἰγνύων, l. 697-698), Maximus returns to the inferiority theme of the beginning of the text, demanding Stephen to obey the divine law of the able having to carry the loads of the weak and as such to lead him along “the straight and royal path” towards the “never-fading light”.



Bram Roosen

3. The edition 3.1 The manuscripts and their interrelations Now let us turn our attention to the manuscript tradition of this text, or rather the near absence of a tradition. In the manuscript database of Maximus’ oeuvre of the Institute for Palaeochristian and Byzantine Studies of the KULeuven no more than six manuscripts are mentioned, most of them already investigated for the edition of other Maximian texts: G Cryptoferratensis B.α.IV (before 991), f. 205-210v O Oxoniensis, Bibl. Bodl., Baroccianus 27 (between 1315/1316 and 1323/1324), f. 108v-117 Grabe Oxoniensis, Bibl. Bodl., Joh. Ern. Grabe Adversariorum 20 (s. XVII-XVIII), f. 49-53 Br Vaticanus, B.A.V., Barberinianus graecus 452 (between 1549 and 1556), f. 69-85v L Vaticanus, B.A.V., Ottobonianus graecus 319 (s. XVII), f. 95118v Vind Vindobonensis, B.N., Theologicus graecus 216 (s. XVI), f. 91-99 The database, however, does not mention the quite sizeable excerpt in Athous, Vatopediou 594 (olim 507), while manuscript 20 of the John Ernest Grabe Adversaria can hardly be considered as an actual copy of the text. It is a record of the textual differences between the text in our manuscript O and the edition by Franciscus Combefis, 36 or, as Grabe himself 37 writes on f. 49: “Maximi Tomus dogmaticus contra Heraclii | Imperatoris Ecthesin, collatus cum MS | Cod. Barocc. XXVII. fol. 108 pag. 2 usq(ue) fol. 117. p. 1. | Tomo 2. Operum Maximi ex edit. Combefisii”. As such this “manuscript” can be left aside in the following pages. On this edition, see further down in this article. Born a Lutheran in Germany in 1666 he went to England in 1697, where he converted to the Anglican faith. In 1706 Oxford University conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity. His most notable scholarly achievement was the edition of the Septuaginta on the basis of the Codex Alexandrinus. He willed his manuscripts to Dr George Hickes, after whose death they were passed on to George Smalridge, Bishop of Bristol († 1719). In 1724 the manuscripts became part of the Bodleian Library. For some bibliographical information focussing briefly also on Grabe’s personal library, see the article by R. Hooper in L. Stephen – S. Lee (ed.), The Dictionary of National Biography, VIII. Glover – Harriott, Oxford, 1937-19383, p. 306-307. For his library, see also W. Dunn Macray, Annals of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, ad 1598 – ad 1867; With a Preliminary Notice of the Earlier Library Founded in the Fourteenth Century, Oxford, 1868, p. 149, where, however, the date of his death should be changed from 1712 into 1711. 36 37



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

I start with O, 38 which is considerably less old and famous than G, but which has the advantage of presenting a very characteristic text. The main scribe of O 39 was identified by Nigel Wilson with the Cypriot Romanus Anagnostes Chartophylax, of whom so far ten manuscripts have been identified, all of them dating from the period 1315/1316 – 1323/1324 it appears. The manuscript was acquired by the Venetian book collector Giacomo Barocci (1562-1617). He inherited a large number of manuscripts from his uncle Francesco Barocci, but it is unclear whether our manuscript was part of this inheritence. Some ten years after Giacomo Barocci’s death, O was shipped to England together with the rest of the man’s manuscript collection. There it was one of the 218 Barocciani bought and presented to Oxford University by William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke and at that time chancellor of the university. There are two clearly distinct parts in O, each introduced by a πίναξ. The first part is devoted mainly to Maximus the Confessor (f. 5-122v), the second mainly to Gregory of Nyssa (f. 123-335v). Op. 15 is found on f. 108v-117 and is immediately preceded by Maximus’ Myst. (f. 85-103), the Historia mystica ecclesiae catholicae by Germanus I of Constantinople (CPG 8023) (f. 103-106v) and an excerpt from Maximus’ letter to

38 Bombycinus, but f. I-III and f. 325-335: chartaceus; 178/180 × 122/124 mm.; 1 col.; 25-27 l.; III. 335 f., but some twelve folios are lost before f. 5, one after f. 314 and probably also some after f. 320. The quires are mostly quinions, but there are also some senions. More or less detailed descriptions of this manuscript can be found in the catalogue by H. O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, Pars prima. Recensionem Codicum Graecorum continens, Oxford, 1853, col. 41-45; N. Wilson, Mediaeval Greek Bookhands: Examples selected from Greek Mss. in Oxford Libraries, Cambridge, Mass., 1972-1973, p. 31 and plate 66; C. N. Constantinides – R. Browning, Dated Greek Mss. from Cyprus to the Year 1570 (Texts and Studies of the History of Cyprus, 18; DOS, 30), Nicosia, 1993, p. 173-176 and plates 54-56; K.-H. Uthemann, „Die Ἄπορα des Gregorius von Nyssa“? Ein Beitrag zur Geistmetaphysik in Byzanz mit einer Edition von CPG 1781, in Byz, 63 (1993), p. 260 (reprinted in K.-H. Uthemann, Studien zu Anastasios Sinaites mit einem Anhang zu Anastasios I. von Antiochien [Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 174], Berlin – Boston, 2017, p. 224-225); B. Markesinis, Un extrait d’une lettre de Nicétas Stéthatos à Philothée l’Higoumène, in K. Demoen – J. Vereecken (ed.), La spiritualité de l’univers Byzantin dans le verbe et l’image. Hommages offerts à Edmond Voordeckers à l’occasion de son éméritat (IP, 30), Steenbrugge, 1997, p. 173-192 (especially p. 174-178); Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 138-140. 39 Constantinides – Browning, Dated Greek Mss. [see n. 38], p. 175-176 also distinguished two other scribes, one responsible for the two πίνακες (f. 3r-v and f. 124v) and one responsible for f. IIIv, f. 1-2v and f. 4r-v. Markesinis (cf. Nicétas Stéthatos [see n. 38], p. 176) is probably correct in thinking that the folios written by this last scribe were taken from another Cypriot manuscript to serve as flyleaves.



Bram Roosen

John the chamberlain on the right dogmata of the church and against Severus (CPG 7699. 12), viz. PG 91, 469 A1 – 473 B3 (f. 106v-108v). Characteristic of O is the substitution of almost half the text (l. 359632) with the words:

5

10

Οὐ γὰρ δήπου μίαν εἶναι φυσικὴν τὴν ἐνέργειαν δώσομεν θεοῦ καὶ ποιήματος, ὡς οἱ τῆς συγχύσεως πρόμαχοι καὶ τῆς διαιρέσεως ἡγεμόνες, Ἀπολινάριος φημὶ ὁ δυσμενὴς καὶ θεομάχος, καὶ Πολέμων ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας πολέμιος, καὶ Θέμιστος ὁ ἀθέμιτος, καὶ Θεόδωρος ὁ θεόπληξ, καὶ Νεστόριος ὁ παραπλὴξ, καὶ Παῦλος ὁ καὶ τὴν γνώμην Πέρσης, τάδε περὶ τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ βλασφημοῦντες καὶ θεομαχοῦντες ἔδειξαν, μίαν εἶναι τούτου τὴν θέλησιν, μίαν τὴν ἐνέργειαν, κατὰ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐξουσίαν προαγομένην. Ἀλλ’εἰ ταῦτα παρέδοσαν, τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις, ἢ πόθεν ἐκείνοις τῶν τοιούτων δογμάτων ἡ πίστωσις. Ἄλλως τε τὰς ἁγίας προεχόντων ἡμῶν, καὶ ὁμολογούντων συνόδους, δῆλον, ὡς τῶν ἐπεισάκτων κίβδηλος ἡ ἐφεύρεσις.

1 (Οὐ – ποιήματος) txt., l. 331-332 (= l. 526-527) 2 (οἱ – ἡγεμόνες) txt., l. 556557 2/3 (Ἀπολινάριος … δυσμενὴς) txt., l. 559 3 (Πολέμων – πολέμιος) txt., l. 562-563 4 (Θέμιστος ὁ ἀθέμιτος) txt., l. 568 (Θεόδωρος ὁ θεόπληξ) txt., l. 572 (Νεστόριος ὁ παραπλὴξ) txt., l. 574 5 (Παῦλος – Πέρσης) txt., l. 576 5/6 (τάδε … θεομαχοῦντες) txt., l. 559 6/7 (ἔδειξαν … προαγομένην) txt., l. 430432 (= l. 572-574) 7/10 (Ἀλλ’εἰ – ἐφεύρεσις) txt., l. 621-625 4 Θέμιστος] sic O 9 προσεχόντων] correxi; προεχόντων O

At a level with the end of these lines the marginal note καὶ μετ’ὀλίγα is read. The fact that this text is made on the basis of words and sentences from the part that was left out is a clear indication that this substitution was not the result of an accident during the transmission of the text. It is unclear whether O itself is to be held responsible for this substitution or one of its near or distant ancestors. The text in Vind 40 is characterized by the same substitution, proof that also for Maximus’ Op. 15 it is a copy of O. 41 The manuscript dates from the 40 Chartaceus; 210/215 × 143/153 mm.; 1 col.; 24 l.; now III. 268 f., but two folios are lost at the end. For a detailed description of this manuscript, please refer to the catalogue: H. Hunger – W. Lackner – C. Hannick, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, 3.3. Codices Theologici 201-337 (Museion. Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, N.F. 4, 1), Wien, 1992, p. 60-63. 41 See also the edition of John of Caesarea’s Capitula contra monophysitas (ed. M. Richard, Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici Opera quae supersunt [CCSG, 1], Turnhout – Leuven, 1977, p. XXIX), of Maximus’ Op. 23a, Op. 24, Add. 14 and Add. 19 (ed. Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 282), of Gregory of Nyssa’s De professione christiana ad Harmonium (CPG 3163) and De perfectione christiana ad Olympium



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

early second half of the sixteenth century and was probably copied by one of the amanuenses of Andreas Darmarius, who himself only wrote some of the titles. 42 On the basis of what is known about Darmarius’ biography and the recent history of O, it is likely that Vind was copied in Venice. Via the collection of the famous Viennese book-collector Iohannes Sambucus, the manuscript entered the Hofbibliothek in Vienna, either in 1578 or in 1587. As the contents of Vind is near-identical to that of O, it is quite sufficient for the present purpose to state that Op. 15 is found on f. 91-99. G is by far the oldest as well as the most famous manuscript containing Op. 15. 43 The four different scribes who worked on this beautiful manuscript are to be situated before the year 991, 44 probably in Calabria, as their handwritings bear the characteristics of the “scuola niliana”. G only contains works by Maximus: scribe I copied L.A., Car., Th.Oec. and Cap. XV; scribe II Qu.Thal. and Qu.Theop.; 45 scribe III Ep. 15 and Myst.; and scribe IV Op. 15. Also the last two manuscripts, Br and L, are devoted exclusively to Maximus the Confessor and have exactly the same contents: L.A., Ep. monachum (CPG 3164) (ed. W. Jaeger, Gregorii Nysseni Opera ascetica [GNO, VIII, 1], Leiden, 1952, p. 104-106 and p. 146-147 respectively) and of Gregory’s Oratio catechetica magna (CPG 3150) (ed. E. Mühlenberg, Gregorii Nysseni Oratio catechetica. Opera dogmatica minora, pars IV [GNO, III, 4], Leiden – New York – Köln, 1996, p. XCVII). 42 See especially the titles on f. 1 and from f. 147v onwards. 43 Parchment; 233 × 175 mm.; 2 col.; 26 l., 32 l., 38 l. and again 38 l. in the four parts respectively; 210 f., on the basis of the script and some codicological details to be divided into f. 2-59, f. 60-185, f. 186-204 and f. 205-210 respectively. For descriptions of this manuscript, one can refer to the old catalogue by A. Rocchi, Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiae Cryptae Ferratae in Tusculano, Frascati, 1883, p. 59-62; to the additional data found in C. Laga – C. Steel, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones ad Thalassium, I. Quaestiones I-LV una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita (CCSG, 7), Turnhout – Leuven, 1980, p. XVIII-XIX; to the most detailed description by S. Lucà, Manoscritti “Rossanesi” conservati a Grottaferrata. Mostra in occasione del Congresso internazionale su S. Nilo di Rossano (Rossano 28 sett. – 1 ott. 1986). Catalogo, Grottaferrata, 1986, p. 43-45 (+ pl. VI-VII) and to the recent edition of Maximus’ L.A. by P. Van Deun, Maximi Confessoris Liber Asceticus. Adiectis tribus interpretationibus latinis sat antiquis editis a Steven Gysens (CCSG, 40), Turnhout – Leuven, 2000, p. LX. 44 For a diplomatic transcription of the note on f. 1v on which this terminus ante quem is based, see the description by Lucà mentioned in the foregoing footnote (p. 44). 45 I edited this text together with Prof. Peter Van Deun: A Critical Edition of the Quaestiones ad Theopemptum of Maximus the Confessor (CPG 7696), in The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 55 (2003), p. 65-79 (on G, see p. 69). On the exact meaning of l. 92-97 of this text, see J. Noret, Un texte de Maxime le Confesseur parlant indirectement de l’enclise byzantine, in Byz, 74 (2004), p. 205-209.



Bram Roosen

15, Myst. and our Op. 15 respectively, in other words the first text and the last three texts of G. Notwithstanding the lack of a subscription, P. Canart was able to identify the scribe of Br 46 with the Cretan scribe Emmanuel Provataris, who worked for most of his life in Rome. More exactly, our manuscript would date from the period 1549-1556. Before the manuscript arrived in the library of the Barberini, it passed through the hands of the Cypriot monk Νεόφυτος Ῥοδινός (1576/1577 – 1659). 47 Already for two of the four texts in this manuscript, viz. for the L.A. and the Myst., collations have revealed that Br was copied from G. 48 Suffice it to state that my collations of Op. 15 confirm this conclusion. The seventeenth-century manuscript L is of Roman origin. 49 The manuscript was successively acquired by Christina of Sweden, after her death in 1689 by Pope Alexander VIII Ottoboni and in 1740 by Pope Benedict XIV for the Bibliotheca Vaticana together with the rest of the Bibliotheca Ottoboniana. The editions of Maximus’ L.A. and Myst. confirm the picture that emerges from our collations of Op. 15, viz. that L is a copy of Br. 50 In Athous, Vatopediou 594 (olim 507), finally, a fragment is found without an attribution and covering l. 99-124 of our text (πῆ μὲν βοῶσα – γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος 51). It is the first excerpt of a small florilegium of 13 fragments, entitled Ἔτι μὴν χρήσεις περὶ δύο θελημάτων, ἃς ὑστέρηται ὁ πανδέκτης, 46 Chartaceus; 240 × 170 mm.; 1 col.; 22 l.; 85 (+ 2) f. To the old and very concise description by S. de Ricci, Liste sommaire de manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheca Barberina, in Revue des bibliothèques, 17 (1907), p. 114, one can add the data provided by P. Canart, Les manuscrits copiés par Emmanuel Provataris (1546-1570 environ). Essai d’étude codicologique, dans Mélanges Eugène Tisserant VI (ST, 236), Città del Vaticano, 1964, p. 235 and by Van Deun, Liber Asceticus [see n. 43], p. CXIII-CXIV. 47 See the note on f. 1. On Neophytus, see G. Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft (1453-1821). Die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Konfessionen des Westens, München, 1988, p. 201-205. 48 Cf.  Van Deun, Liber Asceticus [see n. 43], p. CLXX and C. Boudignon, Maximi Confessoris Mystagogia una cum latina interpretatione Anastasii Bibliothecarii (CCSG, 69), Turnhout, 2011, p. L-LII. 49 Chartaceus; 220 × 161 mm.; 1 col.; 118 f. The catalogue description by E. Feron – F. Battaglini, Codices manuscripti graeci Ottoboniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae (Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manuscripti recensiti), Roma, 1893, p. 169 has been updated by Van Deun, Liber Asceticus [see n. 43], p. CXIV-CXV. 50 Cf.  Van Deun, Liber Asceticus [see n. 43], p. CLXVIII-CLXIX and Boudignon, Mystagogia [see n. 48], p. L-LII. 51 As such, the fragment both starts and ends in the middle of a sentence.



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

ἔκ τε τῶν εὐαγγελίων καὶ σποράδην τῶν πατέρων and partly edited, partly analyzed by F. Diekamp. 52 This florilegium was designed as an extra chapter of the Doctrina Patrum, which is found on the preceding folios (f. 17v-147v). The small number of variants our collation on the basis of Diekamp’s edition have revealed, did not allow us to determine the exact position of this fragment in the stemma. In any case, it is clear that on textual grounds Vat cannot go back to G, 53 while on chronological grounds it cannot go back to O either. In other words, Vat goes back to a phase in the textual transmission of Op. 15 that precedes the two extant manuscripts. Therefore, I have added its readings to the critical apparatus. 3.2 The edition by Combefis As for the majority of Maximus’ oeuvre, the editio princeps of Op. 15 is due to Franciscus Combefis, 54 who in the Elenchus operum Sancti Maximi he drew up in the year 1660, wrote: “Spiritualis & dogmatica oratio de innovatione Imperatoris Heraclii ad Stephanum Dorensem Episcopum ex Eminentissimo Cardinali Barberino Cod.”. 55 The manuscript referred to is without a doubt our Br, but Combefis did not collate the manuscript himself, for in the right-hand margin of p. 81, he states: “Sequuntur Tractatus alii aeque theologici ac polemici, S. D. N. Alexandri papae VII indulgentia e Vaticanis & Em. Fr. Barb. Card. Romae codicibus, L. Holstenii primum, tum L. Allatii τῶν μακαρίτων, opera exscripti et recensiti, adnitentibus Em. Card. Picolomineo & Rev. Joan. Bap. de Marinis Orb. Praed. Generali Magistro”. Although Combefis does not specify which text was copied by Lucas Holstenius, which text by Leo Allatius, from the way the marginal note is phrased it would appear that it was Holstenius who was responsible for the transcription of Op. 15.

52 See F. Diekamp, Analecta patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik (OCA, 117), Roma, 1938, p. 223-229. 53 This is most apparent on l. 135/136, where the Augensprung that scars the text in G is not found in Vat. 54 Cf.  F. Combefis, S. Maximi Confessoris, Graecorum Theologi eximiique Philosophi, Operum Tomus primus (secundus). Ex probatissimis quaeque mss. Codicibus, Regiis, Card. Mazarini, Seguierianis, Vaticanis, Barberinis, Magni Ducis Florentinis, Venetis, etc., eruta, nova Versione subacta, Notisque illustrata, vol. II, Parisiis, 1675, p. 81-98. 55 See the edition of the Elenchus by B. de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, olim Segueriana, Paris, 1715, p. 310-311, who mistakenly added “Non reperitur in edit. Combefis”. Combefis appears to have circulated different prospectuses, on which see the article by B. Janssens, François Combefis and the Edition of Maximus the Confessor’s Complete Works, in AB, 119 (2001), p. 357-362.



Bram Roosen

Combefis’ edition is not faultless and adds some mistakes to those already present in Br. Most of them are small and need not be listed here. But the most remarkable interference into the text as it is found in Br, is the addition of the words ἀλλὰ τοῦ καθ’ἡμᾶς· ὡς τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, οὐ πάντως ἑπομένου τῷ θείῳ, ἀλλ’ἀντιπίπτοντος ὡς τὰ πολλὰ καὶ ἀντιπαλαίοντος at the end of the excerpt from Gregory of Nazianzus’ Or. 30 (l. 160-166). Although these words are part of Gregory’s oratio and complete the sentence, 56 they are found nowhere in the textual tradition of our text. As a matter of fact, also in two other seventh-century florilegia and in Pope Agatho’s letter to Emperor Constantine IV the same fragment is found, ending with the words θεωθὲν ὅλον. 57 The relationships established above can be schematized as follows:

G

Vat

O

Vind

Br (Holstenius) L

Combefis PG 91, 153-184

Grabe

3.3 Ratio edendi and translation As can be expected in the case of this particular Festschrift, the edition I present is made with the editorial principles of the CCSG in mind. This means that it is made with as much respect for the manuscripts as can be 56 Cf.  Or. 30, 12, 7-9 (p. 248-250) in the edition by P. Gallay – M. Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 27-31 (Discours théologiques). Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (SC, 250), Paris, 1978. 57 See the Apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum at l. 160-166 for the exact references.



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

justified on the basis of present-day scholarly standards. I draw special attention to the following: – punctuation: the manuscripts have been double-checked for the position of the punctuation marks. As a result, every punctuation mark in our edition corresponds to a punctuation mark in the majority of the manuscripts, although not all punctuation marks have been preserved. – accentuation and hyphenation: special attention has been paid to the accentuation in the manuscripts, which, as is well-known, differs from the rules in school grammars. 58 As such, the reader will find ταναντία, ἵνα τίς γνῷ (although τίς is indefinite) or ἀπαρχῆς. Moreover, since the use of a gravis before ‘weak punctuations’ like a comma is quite common in manuscripts (and, as a matter of fact, quite justified), I decided to preserve also this feature. 59 – apostrophe: except in fairly late manuscripts, scribes rarely end a line with an apostrophe, and would rather write καθ’ὑ-|πόστασιν than καθ’|ὑπόστασιν. It is a clear indication for the close connection between the apostrophized word and the next word. Therefore, as in French or Italian, I never added a space (or punctuation) after an apostrophe. – Words or sentences taken from the Bible are printed in italics. Printed in bold are Maximus’ own words, while the words or sentences taken from other texts are printed in light type. Most of Maximus’ texts are notoriously difficult to translate. The length of the sentences, the subtlety or rather complexity of his thoughts, the care with which he chose his words… everything seems to conspire to

58 See most recently J. Noret, L’accentuation byzantine: en quoi et pourquoi elle diffère de l’accentuation “savante” actuelle, parfois absurde, in M. Hinterberger (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature (SBHC, 9), Turnhout, 2014, p. 96-146. 59 See e.g. S. Panteghini, La prassi interpuntiva nel Cod. Vind. Hist. gr. 8 (Nicephorus Callisti Xanthopulus, Historia ecclesiastica): un tentativo di descrizione, in A. Giannouli – E. Schiffer (ed.), From Manuscripts to Books. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Textual Criticism and Editorial Practice for Byzantine Texts (Vienna, 10–11 December 2009) (Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 431. Band), Wien, 2011, p. 142: “Anzi, parrebbe in molti casi che la scelta dell’accento discenda da una percezione del grado d’indipendenza di un κῶλον all’interno della superiore gerarchia sintattica: si dipende da un verbo finito che si trova altrove – o nell’enunciato principale o nel κῶλον successivo –, o se è in relazione stretta con elementi che lo circondano, la μέση non determina quel grado di indipendenza che le consente di impedire la baritonesi.”



Bram Roosen

make the translator want to abandon the arduous task he has set himself. The translation I present here is, as far as I know, the first English translation of Op. 15. English is quite badly equipped to reproduce the length and tortuous structure of Maximus’ sentences. My goal it was to present a readable and autonomous English text, rather than a text that is understandable only if one knows what is written in Greek. Whether I have succeeded in doing so, I leave to the reader to decide.



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

MAXIMVS CONFESSOR SPIRITALIS TOMVS AC DOGMATICVS Traditio manuscripta

G O

Vat

Cryptoferratensis B.α.IV (ante 991), f. 205-210v Oxoniensis, Bibl. Bodl., Baroccianus 27 (c. 1315/1316 – 1323/1324), f. 108v-117 Athous, Vatopediou 594 (olim 507) (s. XII in.), f. 147v, fragm. ut edidit F. Diekamp, Analecta patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik (OCA, 117), Roma, 1938, p. 225

Editio

Comb. F. Combefis, S. Maximi Confessoris, Graecorum Theologi eximiique Philo­sophi, Operum Tomus primus (secundus). Ex probatissimis quaeque mss. Codicibus, Regiis, Card. Mazarini, Seguierianis, Vatica­ nis, Barberinis, Magni Ducis Florentinis, Venetis, etc., eruta, nova Versione subacta, Notisque illustrata, vol. II, Parisiis, 1675, p. 81-98; inde PG 91, 153-184



Bram Roosen

5

10

Πνευματικὸς τόμος καὶ δογματικὸς, ἀποδεικνὺς τὴν κατὰ καινοτομίαν γεγονυῖαν ἐπείσακτον ἔκθεσιν Ἡρακλείου τοῦ βασιλέως, ἐξ ὑποβολῆς Σεργίου τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως προέδρου, ἀπάδουσαν μὲν τῶν ἱερῶν λογίων τε καὶ πατέρων, συνάδουσαν δὲ τοῖς ἀνιέροις αἱ|ρετικοῖς, τοῖς τήν τε σύγχυσιν ἅμα καὶ τὴν διαίρεσιν τερατολογοῦσιν ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸν ἡμῶν μυστηρίου· γραφεὶς ἀπὸ Ῥώμης πρὸς Στέφανον τὸν ἁγιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον Δώρων, τελοῦντα ὑπὸ τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἀποστολικὸν θρόνον τῆς ἁγίας Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν πόλεως. Νυκτὶ μὲν τὸν παρόντα βίον, μύλωνι δὲ τὴν τούτου κίνησιν, καὶ κλίνῃ τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν ἀπεικάσας ὁ κύριος,

15

τῶν ἐν ἑκατέροις ὄντων, μύλωνί τε λέγω καὶ κλίνῃ, τὸν μὲν αἴρεσθαι, τὸν δὲ ἀφίεσθαι διωρίσατο· καὶ αἴρεσθαι μὲν τυχὸν, τὸν ἐκείνης μὲν διὰ θεωρίας, ταύτης δὲ διὰ πράξεως ἀπολυθέντα, καὶ μήτε περιγραφῇ διαστημάτων, ἐν οἷς ὁρᾶται τῶν ὁρωμένων ἡ κίνησις, μήτε

1/4 ἀποδεικνὺς – προέδρου] cf. Conc.Later., Can. 18 (p. 382, l. 1- 4) 10/12 Στέφανον – πόλεως] cf. Steph. Dor., Lib. (p. 38, l. 14-16) 13/22 Νυκτὶ – φιλομετέωρον] cf. Mt. 24, 41 una cum Lc. 17, 34 Attrib. τοῦ ἁγίου μαξίμου καὶ ὄντως ἀθλιτοῦ καὶ μάρτυρος τῆς ἀληθείας ἀσκητοῦ μοναχοῦ καὶ ἀληθῶς φιλοσόφου G; τοῦ αὐτοῦ μαξίμου. ἀθλητοῦ καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἀληθῶς φιλοσόφου O 1 Πνευματικὸς ] πνευματικοῦ O καὶ] om. O 3 ὑποστολῆς G 4 προέδρου] om. O 5 μὲν ] μετὰ O τε] τὲ O 9 γραφεῖσα G 13 μύλωνι] sic acc. GO, cf et l. 15 14 κλήνη G 15 μύλωνί] sic acc. GO, cf. et l. 13 κλήνη G 16 αἴρεσθαι1 ] scripsi; αἵρεσθαι GO διωρήσατο G αἴρεσθαι2 ] scripsi; αἵρεσθαι O; αἵροντα G 19 ὁρᾶτε Ga. corr. ὁρομένων G



153

156

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Spiritual and doctrinal tome demonstrating that the innovative Ekthesis introduced by Emperor Heraclius, but suggested by Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, is incongruous with the holy sayings and fathers, but congruous with the unholy heretics, those who maintain the absurd theory that there is confusion in the case of the mystery surrounding Christ our Lord, as well as those heretics who maintain that there is division; written from Rome to Stephen, the most holy bishop of Dora, which is under the jurisdiction of the Holy and Apostolic See of the holy city of Christ our Lord. Our Lord compared the present life with the night, its motion with a mill and its repose with a bed, and he ordered that of the two people in each, in the mill I mean and in bed, one be taken, the other be left behind; that he (I think) be taken, who through contemplation (θεωρία) is set free from the mill and through praxis from the bed and who does not have a propensity to stay within the limits of the space in which the motion of the visible world is seen, nor to stay in



Bram Roosen

20

θρύψει παθῶν, ἐν οἷς ἡ ἀνάπαυσις, ἐναπομείναντα κατὰ διάθεσιν· ἀφίεσθαι δὲ, τὸν τούτοις αὐθαιρέτως ἐνισχημένον διὰ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς φιλήδονόν τε καὶ φιλομετέωρον. [τ]Οἶς κεκρατῆσθαί με τὸν ὑμέτερον δοῦλον πείρᾳ πρότερον καθάπερ ἀκοῇ τήμερον μεμαθηκότες,

25

θεολαμπεῖς καὶ πανάριστοι, πῶς ἂν οἷς γεγράφατε συμπαθῶς εἵλεσθέ γε πρὸς ὕφεσιν οὕτως ἀχθῆναι τοῦ πτωχοῦ τε καὶ πένητος, οἱ τοσοῦτον ἀπὸ γῆς ἀρθέντες κατὰ θεοῦ χάριν καὶ ὑψωθέντες, ὥστε τὸν βίον τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τὸν νοῦν τῷ πνεύματι τῶν τῇδε καὶ ὑπὲρ τὰ

30

τῇδε διάραι, τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ τὴν εἰκόνα προσοικειούμενοί τε καὶ ἑνίζοντες, ἢ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον, ἔνδειξιν ἐθέλοντες ὕψους ποιεῖσθαι τὴν αὐθαίρετον ὕφεσιν τῆς ὑπερτάτης ὑμῶν καλλονῆς, ὡς ἂν τῷ περιόντι καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀγάγοιτε πρὸς τὸ μέτριον τοῦ ὑπε-

35

ραπείρου μιμήσει λόγου, κενώσει τῇ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ τῆς οἰκείας δόξης ἀπεριγράφως ὕψος ἐπιδεικνῦντος, ἐφ'ᾧ τε μεταπλάσαι τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τὸ θειότερον, ὅσῳπερ ἂν σαρκὶ δι'ἡμᾶς αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐπλαστούργησε πρὸς τὸ ταπεινότερον, φύσει γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος

35 κενώσει – ἡμᾶς] cf. Phil. 2, 7 20 θρύψη Op. corr. 21 τὸν ] om. O 21/22 αὐθερέτως ἐνησχημένον G 22/23 φιλομετέωρον – κεκρατῆσθαί] correxi; φιλομετέωρον. τίς καὶ κρατεῖσθαί G; φιλο [lacuna 1,5 l.] κεκρατῆσθαι O. Cf. introductionem, n. 20. 26 εἵλεσθαί G 27 τε] τὲ O 29 πνεύματι] κυρίω G τῶν ] τὸν G 30 διάραι] sic acc. GO (διάρε G) τὴν εἰκόνα] fenestram habet O 30/31 προσοικειοῦντας τὲ καὶ ἑνίζοντας O 32 αὐθέρετον G 33 ὑπερτάτης ] ὑπὲρ ταύτης O καλλωνῆς G τῷ] τὸ G 34 ἡμᾶς] ὑμᾶς O 35 μιμήσει] μηεῖ sic G καινώσει G ἡμᾶς] ὑμᾶς Oa. corr. 36 ἐπιδεικνῦντος] sic acc. GO 37 ἐπὶ – θειότερον] ἐπιποθειότερον vel ἐπιποθείστερον G 38 ἐπλαστούργησεν G

 2

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

the debauchery of passions, in which the repose of the visible world is seen; that he, however, be left behind, who of his own accord remains in them because of his mind's fondness of pleasure and of shallowness. Since you have become well-aware (before through experience, today through hearing) of the fact that I myself, your servant, are ruled by such a fondness, how would you, who shine with divine light and are best of all, by what you have written sympathetically choose thus to be brought down to the lowliness of the beggar and the poor, you who through divine grace are lifted from the earth and are elevated so much that with reason (λόγος) and spirit (πνεῦμα) you have raised your life and mind respectively from this world and from what surpasses it? Thus, you unite the image with its archetype, or to speak more truly, you want to make the voluntary abasement of your sublime beauty an indication of your sublimity, so that by your superiority (τῷ περιόντι) you would lead also us to humbleness in imitation of the more than infinite Word, who by emptying himself towards us gave limitless proof of the height of his own glory, with a view to refashioning us so much towards the more divine, as he fashioned himself in the flesh because of us towards

 2

Bram Roosen

40

δίχα τροπῆς καὶ συγχύσεως, ὁ διαφερόντως φιλάνθρωπος, ἐλλείψας οὐδὲν εἰς πρόσληψιν τῶν ἡμετέρων, ἵνα μὴ καὶ ἑαυτῷ τὴν χάριν, καὶ ἡμῖν ἐλλείψῃ τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὐχ'ὅλην τῇ φύσει διδοὺς, ὡς μὴ ὅλην τὴν φύσιν λαβὼν, ἀλλὰ κατ'ἐκεῖνο μειώσας ἐκείνην, καθ'ὅπερ ἂν

45

οὐ προσείληφε ταύτην; «Τὸ γὰρ ἀπρόσληπτον, ἀθεράπευτον», φησὶν ὁ μέγας Γρηγόριος. Πῶς γὰρ ὁ ὑπερούσιος δι'ἡμᾶς σαρκωθεὶς θεὸς λόγος ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς ἀειπαρθένου καὶ θεομήτορος, προσλήψει σαρκὸς ψυχὴν ἐχούσης τὴν νοεράν τε καὶ λογικὴν

50

νέος τε χρηματίσας φύσει καὶ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, καινουργήσει τὸν πάλαι, μὴ διόλου καὶ ὅλον λαβὼν, μόνης δίχα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἐξ ἧς ἡ παλαίωσις, καὶ δι'ἣν ὁ θάνατος κατεκρίθη τῆς φύσεως, τροφὴν ἔχων τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς, ὅσον ἐκείνης γεγεύσμεθα, τοῦ ξύλου

55

πικρῶς ἐμφορηθέντες τῆς παραβάσεως; Πῶς δὲ κενωθεὶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀναστήσει τὸν πεπτωκότα, μὴ διόλου καὶ ὅλον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἄκρας συλλήψεως ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ 40 δίχα – συγχύσεως ] Cyrill. Alex., Apol. XII anathem. c. Theodor., Apol. anathem. II (p. 115, l. 14-15); id., Quod unus sit Christus 736a, 7 (p. 372) ὁ – φιλάνθρωπος ] Ps. Dion. Areop., Ep. 4 (p. 160, l. 7-8); cf. eund., Div. Nom. I, 4 (p. 113, l. 6) 45 Τὸ – ἀθεράπευτον ] Greg. Naz., Ep. 101, 32 (p. 50). Eadem verba adferuntur a Max. Conf., Op. 9 (PG 91, 128 D5), ab eodem in D.P. (PG 91, 325 A14) et a Const. IV imp., Edict. (p. 842, l. 6-7) 46/48 ὁ2 – ἀειπαρθένου ] Conc.CP, Symb., l. 6- 8 (p. 246) 52 μόνης – ἁμαρτίας ] cf. Hebr. 4, 15 54/55 τοῦ – παραβάσεως ] cf. Isid. Pelus., Ep. I, 51 (PG 78, 213 C5); Ps. Io. Chrys., In s. Pascha, l. 46-47 (p. 109) 55 κενωθεὶς ] cf. Phil. 2, 7 43 ὅλην1 ] ὅλη O 44 κατεκεῖνο G καθόπερ O 45 προσείληφεν αὐτήν O 47 θεὸς ] om. O 50 τε ] τὲ O καὶ ] om. O 51 πάλαι ] παλαιὸν O 54 ὅσον ] ὃς G; an ὡς scribendum sit? γεγεύσμεθα ] ἐγευσάμεθα O 55 καινωθεὶς G 56 τὸν πεπτωκότα ] fenestram habet O 57 ἑαυτῷ ] αὐτῶ G

 3

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

what is lower. For he who is especially benevolent became man by nature without change or confusion: he left out nothing in assuming what is ours, so that for himself he would not fall short as concerns grace, nor for us as concerns salvation, by not giving full salvation to nature. That would be the case, had he not assumed the whole nature, but had lessened salvation as much as he did not assume nature. "For, says the great Gregory, that which is not assumed, is not cured." Indeed, how will the supraessential God Word, who became flesh because of us out of the holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary, mother of God, and who by the assumption of flesh endowed with an intelligent and rational soul is called new by nature and has become man, how, I ask, will he renew the old man without assuming him fully and completely, except only for his sin? Because of this sin nature was condemned to ageing and to death, which feasted on us as much as we, who bitterly filled ourselves with the tree of transgression, have tasted of sin. How will the God Word, having emptied himself, raise the one who has fallen, had he not fully and completely united

 3

Bram Roosen

καθ'ὑπόστασιν δίχα μόνου τοῦ ὀλισθήματος, ἐξ οὗ τὸ σύντριμμα,| καὶ δι'ὃ τὸ ἐπιτίμιον; Ταύτῃ τοι ψυχὴν 60

νοεράν τε καὶ λογικὴν μετὰ τοῦ συμφυοῦς αὐτῇ σώματος, τουτέστι τέλειον ἄνθρωπον, παντὸς μώμου χωρὶς προσλαβὼν καὶ ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ καθ'ὑπόστασιν αὐτὸς ὁ ὑπὲρ φύσιν θεὸς, καὶ τὴν αὐτῆς φυσικὴν λαβὼν, εἶχε πάντως αὐτεξούσιον θέλησιν· εἰ παραβάν-

65

70

τες τὴν ἐντολὴν θελήσει, ἀλλ'οὐ θελήσεως δίχα παρέβημεν, ἐδεόμεθα τῆς κατ'αὐτὴν ἰατρείας, τῇ προσλήψει τοῦ ὁμοίου τὸ ὅμοιον αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦ σαρκωθέντος θεοῦ θεραπεύοντος. Οὕτω δ'ἂν καὶ τὴν ταύτης προσλαβὼν λογικήν τε καὶ ζωτικὴν εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν, ᾗ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ὡς εἴθε μή ποτ'ἂν λογισάμενοί τε καὶ

75

ἐνεργήσαντες, ἐχρῄζομεν τῆς κατ'αὐτὴν σωτηρίας, τῇ προσλήψει μολυσμοῦ παντὸς ταύτην ἀποκαθαίροντος, καὶ ὅλην τῇ σαρκώσει θεουργοῦντος τὴν ἡμετέραν φύσιν. Εἰ γὰρ οὐσιωδῶς ταῦτα ἔχουσαν ταύτην ἐδημιούργησε θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος, τήν τε θέλησιν φημὶ

80

καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, καὶ τὴν μὲν αὐτεξούσιον, τὴν δὲ ἐνεργοῦσαν παρέστησε, δῆλον ὡς οὕτω τὴν φύσιν λαβὼν ἥνωσεν ἑαυτῷ καθ'ὑπόστασιν, ὡς ἀπαρχῆς ταύτην ἐδημιούργησε, τουτέστι θελητικὴν φύσει καὶ ἐνεργητικὴν, ἵνα μὴ τὴν φύσιν μόνον παθοῦσαν, 69 λογικήν – ζωτικὴν ] ut pars definitionis voc. θέλησις in Max. Conf., Op. 1 (PG 91, 13 A1-2 et 4-5) et in Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de vol., sub nomine Ps. Eustath. Ant. (PG 91, 277 A10; = l. 28-29 [p. 782] ; = fragm. 144 [p. 202]) et sub nomine Ps. Synes. Cyr. (p. 74, l. 1; = l. 49 [p. 783]) 60 συμφυοῦ αὐτῆς G 64 εἰ ] ἠ G 65 θελήσει ] θελήσεως G 68 Οὕτω ] αὐτῶ G 69 ᾗ ] scripsi cum Comb.; ἢ GO 70 εἴθε ] εἰ O 71 ἐχρίζομεν G 74 ταῦτα – ταύτην ] ταύτην ἔχουσαν O 77 ἐνεργοῦσαν ] ἐνεργὸν οὖσαν O 78 καθ'ὑπόστασιν ] τὸ praem. G 79 ἐδημιούρσεν sic G θεληματικὴν O

 4

157

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

himself with him hypostatically from the very moment of the assumption of the flesh, without, however, the fall that led to our destruction and because of which we were punished? Thus, by taking up an intelligent and rational soul together with the body that surrounds it, i.e. a perfect man, without any defilement and by uniting it with himself hypostatically, the supernatural God himself, having assumed also the natural will of that soul, had an absolutely free will: if in transgressing the command, we transgressed it willingly, but not without will, we needed to be cured accordingly, since the incarnated God himself cured something similar by the assumption of something similar. In the same way he also assumed the rational and vital energy of that soul: we considered and executed the sin through this energy (oh how I wished we hadn't), so that we needed salvation accordingly, and by assuming that energy, (the incarnated God) purified it from every defilement and deified the whole of our nature by the incarnation. For if the Word, being God, created that nature as having these things in essence, I mean the will and the energy, and if he made the will free and the energy active, it is clear that, when assuming that nature, he united it with himself hypostatically exactly like he created it from the start, i.e. willing and active by nature, in order to heal not only the nature in its suffering, but also the inborn faculties in their

 4

Bram Roosen

85

90

95

ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς αὐτῆς ἐμφύτους δυνάμεις ἰάσηται πεπονθυίας· εἰ γὰρ μὴ τὰς αὐτῆς δυνάμεις προσείληφεν, οὐδ'ἂν τὴν φύσιν προσείληφεν, ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἐφάντασεν. Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὴν ἡμετέραν, ἢ τῶν ὄντων ἑτέραν εἶναι ποτ'ἂν ἢ ὀνομάζεσθαι φύσιν τῶν αὐτῆς ἐμφύτων δίχα δυνάμεων, αἷς οὐσιωδῶς πᾶσα χαρακτηρίζεσθαι πέφυκεν. Ὅθεν οὐκ ἀνεθέλητος ἡ ἡμετέρα φύσις, ἐπεὶ μὴ δὲ ἄνους· οὔτε μὴν ἀνενέργητος, ἐπεὶ μὴ δὲ ἄψυχος. Εἰ δὲ ἀνεθέλητος ἦν καὶ ἀνενέργητος τὸ καθ'ἡμᾶς, ὥς τισι τῶν πάλαι καὶ νῦν ἔδοξεν αἱρετικῶν, οὐδὲ καθ'ἡμᾶς ὅλως γέγονεν ὁ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, μὴ πιστούμενος τὸ ἡμέτερον τοῖς ἡμετέροις καὶ οἷς αὐτὸς ἀρχῆθεν δημιουργήσας ἐχαρακτήρισε φυσικῶς, αὐτεξούσιον καὶ ἐνεργὸν ποιήσας κατὰ φύσιν τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Καίτοι τούτων ἑκατέραν ἀναντιρρήτως προσειληφέναι πιστοῦται τὴν δύναμιν, οἷς ὡς ἄνθρωπον δι'ἡμᾶς εἰσάγει τὸν ὑπερούσιον λόγον θέλοντά τε καὶ ἐνεργοῦντα τῶν ἁγίων εὐαγγελίων ἡ σύνταξις, πῆ μὲν

100

βοῶσα· «Καὶ περὶ τετάρτην φυλακὴν τῆς νυκτὸς ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ ἤθελε

84/87 Ἀδύνατον – πέφυκεν ] cf. Greg. Nyss., Ad Zenod., l. 4-5 et l. 10-13 (p. 14-15; fragm. adfertur a Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de energ. [PG 91, 281 A5-8 et A15 – B4; = l. 30-31 et l. 37-39 (p. 820)]); Max. Conf. in R.M., l. 299-300 (p. 35) 100/102 Καὶ – αὐτούς ] Mc. 6, 48. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 321 D5-7); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 8-9; = fragm. 4, l. 11 [p. 760]) 87 πᾶσα ] πᾶς G 88 δὲ ] δ' O τησὶ sic G 92 πιστευόμενος O

89 δὲ1 ] δ' O δὲ2 ] δ' O 97 ὡς ] om. G

 5

90 ὥς τισι ] ὡς

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

suffering. Indeed, had he not assumed nature's powers, he would not have assumed nature, but he would have created an illusory appearance of the incarnation (οἰκονομία). For it is impossible for our nature or another nature ever to be or to be called nature without its innate faculties, by which each nature is characterized in essence. Therefore, our nature is not without will, because it is not without mind, nor is it without energy, because it is not without soul. If, however, he were without will and energy as concerns our nature (τὸ καθ'ἡμᾶς), as some of the old and present heretics believe, the one who is above us would not have become one of us: he would not prove what is ours by what is ours and by which he, the original creator, characterized man naturally, that is with a free will and active.

And indeed, in the passages where the holy gospels introduce the supra-essential Word because of us willing and acting as man, it is proved beyond contradiction that he assumed each of these powers. For in some place the gospels state loudly: "And about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have

 5

Bram Roosen

105

110

παρελθεῖν αὐτούς», πῆ δέ· «Καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος, καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν, οὐδένα ἤθελε γνῶναι, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθη λαθεῖν», καὶ πάλιν· «Ἐκεῖθεν ἐξελθόντες παρεπορεύοντο διὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τίς γνῷ», καί· «Τῇ ἐπαύριον ἤθελεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν», καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν· «Περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ· οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι», καί· «Ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν», καί·| «Ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ ὄξος μετὰ 102/104 Καὶ – λαθεῖν ] Mc. 7, 24. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 321 C10-13); a Mart. I papa, Alloc. (p. 16, l. 10-11); ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 74, l. 17-18); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 11-12; = fragm. 4, l. 13-14 [p. 760]) 105/106 Ἐκεῖθεν – γνῷ ] Mc. 9, 30. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 321 C1-3); a Mart. I papa, Alloc. (p. 16, l. 11-12); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 10; = fragm. 4, l. 12 [p. 760]) 106/107 Τῇ – Γαλιλαίαν ] Io. 1, 43. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 320 D12 – 321 A1); a Mart. I papa, Alloc. (p. 16, l. 12-13); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 9-10; = fragm. 4, l. 11-12 [p. 760]) 108/110 Περιεπάτει – ἀποκτεῖναι ] Io. 7, 1. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 321 B7-10); ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 74, l. 16-17); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 7-8; = fragm. 4, l. 9-10 [p. 760]) 110/111 Ποῦ – φαγεῖν ] Mt. 26, 17. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 324 A6-7); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 12 [lege Ποῦ θέλεις pro τοῦ „Θέλεις]; = fragm. 4, l. 14-15 [p. 760]) 111/112 Ἔδωκαν – πιεῖν ] Mt. 27, 34. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 321 A13-14); a Mart. I papa, Alloc. (p. 16, l. 13-14); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 14-15; = fragm. 4, l. 16-17 [p. 760]) 102 ἦλθεν ] om. G 103 οἰκείαν G 106 τίς ] τις G 107 ἤθελεν ] ἠθέλησεν O, cf. Io. 1, 43, sed vide infra, l. 115 τὴν ] om. Vat 108 περιπατεῖ G ὁ ] om. Vat ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ ] Γαλιλαίαν Vat 109 οἱ ] om. Vat 110 Ποῦ θέλεις ] in marg. iteravit O ἑτοιμάσωμέν ] ἑτοιμάσομέν O 111 τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν ] ord. 3.1.2. Vat

 6

160

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

passed by them", elsewhere: "And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid", and further: "And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it", and: "The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee", and again after that: "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him", and: "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?", and: "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he

 6

Bram Roosen

115

120

125

χολῆς μεμιγμένον, καὶ γευσάμενος οὐκ ἠθέλησε πιεῖν». Ταῦτα γὰρ, φημὶ δὴ τὸ «Ἤθελε παρελθεῖν αὐτοὺς», καὶ «Ἤθελε μηδένα γνῶναι», καὶ «Οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τίς γνῷ», καὶ «Ἤθελεν ἐξελθεῖν», καὶ «Οὐκ ἤθελε περιπατεῖν», καὶ «Θέλειν φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα», καὶ «Μὴ θέλειν τὸ ὄξος πιεῖν», τὴν καθ'ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνην αὐτοῦ πιστοῦται θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν, οἷον τὸ μὲν θέλειν καὶ οὐ θέλειν παρελθεῖν, ἢ φαγεῖν, ἢ βαδίζειν, ἢ πιεῖν, προδήλως τὴν θέλησιν, δι'ἧς φύσει θελητικὸς ὢν ἐγνωρίζετο· τὸ δὲ γεύσασθαι, καὶ φαγεῖν, καὶ ἐξελθεῖν, καὶ μεταβατικῶς πορεύεσθαι καὶ βαδίζειν, δηλαδὴ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, δι'ἧς ἐνεργητικὸς ὑπάρχων ἐδείκνυτο, καθ'ὃ φύσει δι'ἡμᾶς ὕστερον γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ'οὐ καθ'ὅπερ ὑπῆρχεν ἀνάρχως δι'ἑαυτὸν φύσει θεὸς, ἐπεὶ μὴ δὲ πέφυκεν, ᾗ θεὸς ἦν καὶ θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν υἱὸς ὁ λόγος, σωματικῶς ἐθέλειν τί καὶ ἐσθίειν, ἢ μεταβατικαῖς κινήσεσι τοπικῶς περιστέλλεσθαι, πανταχοῦ καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν ἀπειράκις ἀπείρως ὑπάρχων.

113/127 Ταῦτα – ἐσθίειν ] cf. Severian. Gabal., In s. crucem, fragm. apud Andron. Camat. Ἱερὰν ὁπλοθήκην (p. 148, n. 3) et in Flor.Achrid. XIV, 32 (p. 178, l. 5-13) 113 Ἤθελε – αὐτοὺς ] vide supra, l. 101/102 114 Ἤθελε – γνῶναι ] vide supra, l. 104 Οὐκ – γνῷ ] vide supra, l. 106 115 Ἤθελεν ἐξελθεῖν ] vide supra, l. 107 Οὐκ – περιπατεῖν ] vide supra, l. 108/109 116 Θέλειν – πάσχα ] vide supra, l. 110/111 116/117 Μὴ – πιεῖν ] vide supra, l. 111/112 129 ἀπειράκις ἀπείρως ] Ps. Dion. Areop., Div. Nom. VIII, 2 (p. 201, l. 6). Eadem verba saepe inveniuntur apud Max. Conf. (e.g. Op. 1 [PG 91, 36 A7]; Th.Oec. I, 7 [PG 90, 1085 B9-10]; Q.Thal. LVI, 149 [p. 11], LX, 42 [p. 75], LXIII, 230 [p. 159]) 112 ἠθέλησε ] ἤθελε Vat οὐκ ἤθελε add. in marg. περιφανῶς Vat δι'ἧς ] ὑπάρχειν Vat καθὸ O G; εἰ O 127 τί ] τι G

114/115 μηδένα – Ἤθελεν ] om. G; ἤθελε καὶ O 117 τὴν ] τε add. Vat 122 δηλαδὴ ] om. G 123 ἐνεργητικῶς G ὑπάρχων ] 124 καθόπερ O 125 ᾗ ] scripsi cum Combefis; ἡ

 7

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

had tasted thereof, he would not drink". These passages, I mean "He would have passed by them", and "He would have no man know it", and "He would not that any man should know it", and "He would go forth", and "He would not walk (around)", and "Wanting to eat passover", and "Not wanting to drink vinegar" prove his human will and energy; more exactly, willing and not willing to pass by, eat, walk or drink clearly prove his will, through which he has become known to be naturally willing; but to taste and to eat and to go forth and to go and walk from one place to another, clearly prove his energy, through which he was shown to be active, in so far as by nature he later became man because of us, not in so far as he was eternally by nature God because of himself: in so far as the Word was God and according to his nature the Son of God, and, thus, everywhere and infinitely infinite above all, he was not naturally disposed to physically want or eat something, or to change places by moving to and fro.

 7

Bram Roosen

130

135

140

Οὕτω δ'ἂν καὶ τὴν θείαν αὐτὸν καὶ πατρικὴν ὑπερουσίως ἔχοντα θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν παριστῶσα διδάσκει σαφῶς· «Ὥσπερ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρῃ τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζωοποιεῖ, οὕτω καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζωοποιεῖ». Κἀνταῦθα τοίνυν, τὸ μὲν τοὺς νεκροὺς ἐθέλειν ζωοποιεῖν, τὴν τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεϊκὴν μαρτύρεται θέλησιν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ζωοποιεῖν, τὴν παντουργὸν αὐτοῦ κυρίως ἐνέργειαν. Καὶ ἁπλῶς, εἴτιπερ ἄλλο τοιοῦτο τῆς ἐξειρημένης τῶν ὄντων ἐξήρτηται φύσεως, εἰς τὴν ταύτης ὡς οἷόν τε δήλωσιν. Ἀλλὰ τούτοις μὲν αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν διὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν κατ'ἄμφω τὰς αὐτοῦ φύσεις ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἐν αἷς συνέστηκε, θελητικὸν ὑπάρχοντα φύσει καὶ ἐνεργη-

132/133 Ὥσπερ – ζωοποιεῖ2 ] Io. 5, 21. Idem versus adfertur a Max. Conf. in D.P. (PG 91, 325 C12-14 et 349 A2-4); a Mart. I papa, Alloc. (p. 17, l. 4-5 [lat.]); ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 74, l. 9-10); a Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. (fragm. III, p. 436, l. 7; = fragm. 4, l. 9 [p. 760]) 141/143 κατ'ἄμφω – λόγος] Eadem vel simillima verba saepe inveniuntur apud Max. Conf. (vide e.g. Op. 6 [PG 91, 68 C15 – D3]; Op. 9 [PG 91, 128 C6-9]; Qu. de vol. et energ. nat. [p. 66, l. 15-16; = γ´, l. 5- 6 (p. 689)]; eundem in D.P. [PG 91, 289 C4-6 et 320 C8-14]; eundem in R.M., l. 288-290 [p. 35]; eundem in D.B., l. 733-734 [p. 141]). Conc.Later., Can. 10 et 11 (p. 374, l. 14-17 et l. 23-25) e Max. Conf. derivare inter omnes constare videtur: cf. G. BAUSENHART, „In allem uns gleich außer der Sunde”. Studien zum Beitrag Maximos' des Bekenners zur altkirchlichen Christologie (= Tübinger Studien zur Theologie und Philosophie, 5), Mainz, 1992, p. 148, n. 274 130 Οὕτω] in marg. iteravit O 132 Ὥσπερ] in marg. iteravit O 134 τὸ] τοῦ O ζωοποιεῖν] καὶ praem. O 137 ἄλλω G τοιοῦτον O a. corr. 138 ἐξηρημένης O ἐξήρτησται G φύσεως] in marg. iteravit O 139 δήλωσιν] θέλησιν O 142 ὑπάρχοντα – ἐνεργητικὸν] om. O

 8

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

In the same way the holy gospels teach that he supraessentially has the divine and fatherly will and energy, when they clearly teach: "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will". Now then, the words 'willing to quicken the dead' bear witness to the divine will of the same, while to quicken in itself properly bears witness to his energy that accomplishes all. And simply put, if there is something similar that depends on the said nature of things, it adds proof to it as far as possible. In this way the Word presents himself through his disciples as naturally willing and productive of our salvation, and this according to both his natures, from which and in which he was.

 8

Bram Roosen

145

150

155

τικὸν παρίστησι τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ὁ λόγος. Οἱ δὲ μετ'ἐκείνους ἐκείνων διάδοχοι, καὶ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ τοῦ λόγου θεοφανείας ἐκφάντορες θεόκριτοι τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας πατέρες, ἑκατέραν ὁμοίως τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τήν τε θείαν καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν, οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ τὴν θέλησιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν κηρύττοντες, τάδε μεγαλοφώνως φασίν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀθανασίας ἐπώνυμος, ἐν τῷ περὶ σαρκώσεως καὶ τριάδος λόγῳ· «Καὶ ὅταν λέγῃ, Πάτερ εἰ δυνατὸν παρελθάτω ἀπ'ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο, πλὴν μὴ τὸ ἐμὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω θέλημα, καὶ πάλιν, Τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενὴς, δύο θελήματα ἐνταῦθα δείκνυσι, τὸ μὲν ἀνθρώπινον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῆς σαρκὸς, τὸ δὲ θεϊκόν· τὸ γὰρ ἀνθρώπινον διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς παραιτεῖται τὸ πάθος, τὸ δὲ θεϊκὸν αὐτοῦ πρόθυμον»· 151/158 Καὶ – πρόθυμον ] Ps. Athan. Alex. (immo Marcell. Ancyr.), De incarn. et c. Arian. 21 (PG 26, 1021 B11 – C4). * Idem fragm. adfertur a Max. Conf., Op. 7 (PG 91, 81 C1-10); in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 282, l. 26-30 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 15]); ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 70, l. 13-18); a Const. IV imp., Edict. (p. 842, l. 23 – p. 844, l. 2); in DPatr. 18, I (p. 117, l. 14-15); in Flor.Achrid. XI, 1 (p. 163, l. 14-17). * Fragm. longius adfertur in Conc.CP III, Act. IX (p. 268, l. 24 – p. 270, l. 3 et 6- 8) et in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 298, l. 9-18 [flor. de vol. et operat., 7]). * Fragm. sicut citatum est in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 360, l. 5-9) pars est fragmenti apud Ephr. Ant., Apol. Conc.Chalc. 64 (p. 360, l. 3 – p. 362, l. 2). Fons huius fragm. apud Ephr. Ant. aeque ac fons fragm. apud Sever. Ant., C. imp. Gramm. III, 33 (p. 181, l. 10-17 [p. 132, l. 2-8]) florilegium est quod Io. Gramm. subdidit Apol. Conc.Chalc. (l. 816- 831 [p. 34-35; fragm. syr. 87]) 151/152 Πάτερ – τοῦτο ] Mt. 26, 39 152/153 πλὴν – θέλημα ] Lc. 22, 42 153/154 Τὸ – ἀσθενὴς ] Mt. 26, 41 145 θεόκριτοι ] θεόκλητοι Oa. corr. 150 ὁ – ἐπώνυμος ] ἀθανάσιος περὶ θελήματος in marg. scripsit O 151 λέγῃ ] scripsi; λέγει G; non liquet O 151/152 Πάτερ εἰ ] in marg. iteravit O 152 παρελθάτω ] ἀπελθέτω O, cf. et l. 245 155/156 ὅπερ – ἀνθρώπινον ] om. G

 9

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Those who came after the apostles, their successors and attestors of the manifestation of the Word in the flesh, Goddetermined fathers of the universal church, in a similar way also proclaim not only both natures of the same, a divine and a human nature, but also both wills and energies. Loudly they say the following: he who is named after immortality (ἀθανασία) in his treatise on the incarnation and the trinity: "And when he said: 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done', and further: 'The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak', then he shows two wills, one human, that is of the flesh, the other divine. For his human will declines the passion, because of the weakness of the flesh; his divine will, however, is willing.";

 9

Bram Roosen

160

165

Γρηγόριος δὲ ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος ἐν τῷ περὶ | υἱοῦ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ· «Ἕβδομον λεγέσθω, τὸ καταβεβηκέναι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν υἱὸν, οὐχ'ἵνα ποιῇ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντος. Εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ παρὰ τοῦ κατεληλυθότος ταῦτα ἐλέγετο, εἴποιμεν ἂν ὡς παρὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τυποῦσθαι τὸν λόγον, οὐ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα νοουμένου· τὸ γὰρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, οὐδὲ ὑπεναντίον θεῷ θεωθὲν ὅλον»· ὁ δὲ τούτου ὁμώνυμος τῆς Νυσσαέων γενόμενος καθηγητὴς, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς οἰκουμένης διδάσκαλος,

160/166 Ἕβδομον – ὅλον ] Greg. Naz., Or. 30, 12, 1- 6 (p. 248). * Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 284, l. 25-29 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 20]); ab Agath., Ep. ad. Const. IV imp. (p. 84, l. 2-6); et in DPatr. 19, XI (p. 123, l. 18-19). * Fragm. longius adfertur in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 330, l. 4-16 [flor. de vol. et operat., 26]). * Cum alio initio adfertur a Max. Conf., Op. 4 (PG 91, 61 A13 – B5), Op. 6 (PG 91, 65 A11 – B9) et Op. 20 (PG 91, 233 B6-9). 160/162 τὸ – πέμψαντος ] Io. 6, 38 165/166 τὸ – ὅλον ] Pernota est haec sententia: separatim adfertur a Max. Conf., Op. 3 (PG 91, 48 A15 – B1); a Pyrrh. CP, Ep. ad Io. IV papam (p. 338, l. 20) et ab eodem in D.P. (PG 91, 316 C6-7); in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 350, l. 29); in Conc.CP III (Act. IX [p. 270, l. 15-16]; Act. XVII [p. 724, l. 2-3]; Symbol. [p. 774, l. 33-34]); a Const. IV imp., Edict. (p. 844, l. 21-22). Hanc sententiam recusat Polem. Apolin. (infra, l. 388/389). 159 Γρηγόριος – ἐπώνυμος ] τοῦ θεολόγου γρηγορίου in marg. scripsit O 161 ποιῇ ] scripsi; ποιεῖ G; ποιήση O τὸ2 ] om. O 163 ταῦτα ] ταῦτ' O 165 νοούμενον G οὐδὲ ] οὐδ' O 166 θεωθὲν ] scripsi cum Combefis et Max. Conf., Op. 20 (PG 91, 233 D1 sq.); θεοθὲν G; θεόθεν O 167/168 ὁ – καθηγητὴς ] γρηγορίου νύσσης in marg. scripsit O 167 ὁμώνυμος ] ὁμόνυμος G Νυσσαέων ] correxi, νυσαέων G, cf. et l. 488

 10

161

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Gregory, who is named after theology (θεολογία), in his second treatise on the Son: "Let them quote in the seventh place that the Son came down from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him. If this had not been said by the one who came down himself, we would say that the phrase was modelled on the human nature, not on him who is conceived of as the Saviour. For his human will cannot be opposed to God, because it was altogether deified."; his namesake, who became guide of the church of Nyssa, or rather teacher of the world, in his treatise on Passover:

 10

Bram Roosen

170

175

ἐν τῷ εἰς τὸ πάσχα λόγῳ· «Προσέρχεται ὁ λεπρὸς διερρυηκὼς ἤδη καὶ ἠχρειωμένος τῷ σώματι. Πῶς γίνεται ἐπὶ τούτῳ παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡ ἴασις; Ἡ ψυχὴ θέλει, τὸ σῶμα ἅπτεται, δι'ἀμφοτέρων φεύγει τὸ πάθος· ἀπῆλθε γάρ φησιν ἀπ'αὐτοῦ παραχρῆμα ἡ λέπρα»· καὶ αὖθις ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ· «Πάλιν τοὺς ἐν πολλαῖς χιλιάσι κατὰ τὴν ἔρημον αὐτῷ προσεδρεύοντας, ἀπολῦσαι μὲν νήστεις οὐ θέλει· ταῖς χερσὶ δὲ διακλᾷ τοὺς ἄρτους. Ὁρᾷς πῶς δι'ἀμφοτέρων συμπαρομαρτοῦσα ἡ θεότης δημοσιεύεται, τῷ τε ἐνεργοῦντι σώματι, καὶ τῇ ὁρμῇ τοῦ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινομένου θελήματος;»·

169/170 Προσέρχεται – σώματι ] cf. Mt. 8, 2 169/179 Προσέρχεται – θελήματος ] Greg. Nyss., De tridui spatio (p. 292, l. 13-17 et 17-22). * Eadem fragm. adferuntur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 286, l. 9-11 et l. 23-26 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 23 et 25]), ubi vero (cf. Secr. V [p. 286, l. 15-19 (flor. de nat. Christi vol., 24)]) et tertium fragm. huius tractatus adfertur, i.e. Greg. Nyss., De tridui spatio (p. 292, l. 6-13). Eadem tria fragm. adferuntur in DPatr. (cf. 19, V [p. 122, l. 10-11]). Ad fragm. in Flor.Achrid. (cf. XII, 7 [p. 165, l. 26 – p. 166, l. 6]), vide Greg. Nyss., De tridui spatio (p. 292, l. 11-16 et l. 17-22). * Refert ad Greg. Nyss., De tridui spatio (p. 292, l. 15-16 [cf. supra l. 171/172]) Pyrrh. CP in D.P. (PG 91, 317 A3-4). Ad Max. Conf. interpretationem huius sententiae, cf. ibid. (PG 91, 317 A813). 171/172 Ἡ – ἅπτεται ] Mt. 8, 3; Lc. 5, 12-13 172/173 ἀπῆλθε – λέπρα ] Lc. 5, 13 176 ἀπολῦσαι – θέλει ] Mt. 15, 32 176/177 διακλᾷ – ἄρτους ] Mt. 15, 36 169 ὁ λεπρὸς ] in marg. iteravit O διερρυηκὸς G 170 ἠχριωμένος G 173 ἀπ'αὐτοῦ ] παρ'αὐτοῦ O παραχρῆμα ] παρὰ χρῆμα O 174 ὁ αὐτὸς ] om. O Πάλιν ] om. O 176 θέλη G 177 ἡ ] om. O 178 θειότητος Out videtur τῷ τε ] scripsi; τότε G; τοῦτ' O

 11

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

"There came a leper already wasted away and bodily disabled. How does the lord heal this man? His soul wills, his body touches, because of both the illness flees. For immediately, the gospel says, the leprosy departed from him."; and again the same author in the same treatise: "Again, he will not send away fasting the many thousand that sat near him in the desert, but with his hands he breaks the loaves. You see how his divinity, which accompanies both, manifests itself through both, with his body that acts, and with the impulse of his will originating in his mind?";

 11

Bram Roosen

180

ἐν δὲ τοῖς κατ'Εὐνομίου τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς αὐτῷ πονηθεῖσι δευτέρου λόγου· «Πῶς ὁ κύριος τὸν κόσμον ἑαυτῷ καταλλάσσων, ἐπεμέριζε ψυχῇ τε καὶ σώματι τὴν παρ'αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γινομένην εὐεργεσίαν, θέλων μὲν διὰ τῆς ψυχῆς, ἁπτόμενος δὲ διὰ τοῦ σώματος;»·

185

καὶ αὖθις ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Ἀπολιναρίου φησιν· «Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἄλλο τὸ ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα, καὶ τὸ θεῖον ἄλλο, φθέγγεται μὲν ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ τῆς φύσεως πρόσφορον ὁ τὰ ἡμέτερα πάθη οἰκειωσάμενος· ἐπάγει δὲ τὴν δευτέραν φωνὴν, τὸ ὑψηλόν τε καὶ θεοπρεπὲς βούλημα κυρωθῆναι παρὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίας θέλων. Ὁ γὰρ εἰπὼν Μὴ τὸ ἐμὸν, τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τῷ λόγῳ ἐσήμανεν· προσθεὶς δὲ Τὸ σὸν, ἔδειξε τὸ συναφὲς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα θεότητος, ἧς οὐδεμία θελήματός ἐστι διαφορὰ διὰ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς φύσεως»·

190

195

181/184 Πῶς – σώματος ] Greg. Nyss., Refut. confess. Eunomii 179 (p. 388, l. 3-7). * Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Lat., Secr. V (p. 286, l. 3-5 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 22); ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 84, l. 9-11); in Flor.Achrid. XIV, 24 (p. 175, l. 15-17). 181/182 τὸν – καταλλάσσων ] II Cor. 5, 19 183/184 θέλων – ἁπτόμενος ] Mt. 8, 3; Lc. 5, 12-13 186/195 Ἐπειδὴ – φύσεως ] Greg. Nyss., Antirrh. adv. Apolin. (p. 181, l. 18-27). * Fragm. longius adfertur in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 300, l. 4 – p. 304, l. 18 [flor. de vol. et operat., 8), in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 286, l. 30 – p. 288, l. 5 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 26]) et ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 84, l. 14-23) * Fragm. brevius adfertur a Const. IV imp., Edict. (p. 844, l. 8-13) et in DPatr. 17, IV (p. 116, l. 2-3) 186/187 ἄλλο – ἄλλο ] vide et Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 316, l. 31) 192 Μὴ – ἐμὸν ] Lc. 22, 42 193 Τὸ σὸν ] ibid. 180 κατ'Εὐνομίου ] κατε in marg. iteravit O 181 δευτέρου λόγου ] δευτέρῳ λόγῳ O 182 τε ] τὲ O 183 τοῖς – γινομένην ] γινομένην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις G 185 φησιν ] in marg. iteravit O 193 ὑπεσήμανεν O

 12

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

and in the second book of the work he wrote against the impious Eunomius: "How did the Lord when reconciling the world unto himself, distribute with his mind and with his body the benefit that passed from him to mankind, willing through his mind, touching through his body?"; and again, the same says in his writing against Apolinarius: "Now, since his human will is different from his divine will, he who has made our sufferings his own expresses as from man that which fits the weakness of man’s nature; but then he adds the second word, because he wants the sublime and godworthy will to be established alongside the human will on behalf of the salvation of mankind. For when he said 'Not my will', he indicated the human will; but by adding 'Your will', he indicated the connection of his divinity with the Father: between them there is no difference of will because of the fact that they share the same nature.";

 12

Bram Roosen

200

205

210

ὁ δὲ τὸν τῆς βασιλίδος καταφαιδρύνας θρόνον Ἰωάννης ὁ θεῖος, ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ λόγῳ, Πρὸς τοὺς ἀπολειφθέντας τῆς συνάξεως, καὶ τοῦ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρὶ | ἀπόδειξις, οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ, «Πάλιν ἱπποδρομίαι, καὶ πάλιν ὁ σύλλογος ἡμῖν ἐλάττων γέγονεν»· «Ὁρᾷς πῶς καὶ τὴν προτέραν αὐτοῦ ἡλικίαν προανεφώνησεν; Ἐρώτησον τοίνυν τὸν αἱρετικὸν, Θεὸς δειλιᾷ καὶ ἀναδύεται καὶ ὀκνεῖ καὶ λυπεῖται; Κἂν εἴπῃ ὅτι Ναὶ, ἀπόστηθι λοιπὸν, καὶ στῆσον αὐτὸν κάτω μετὰ τοῦ διαβόλου, μᾶλλον δὲ κἀκείνου κατώτερον, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος τολμήσει τοῦτο εἰπεῖν. Ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὅτι Οὐδὲν τούτων ἄξιον θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ὅτι Οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ εὔχεται θεός· χωρὶς γὰρ τούτων, καὶ ἕτερον ἄτοπον ἔσται, ἂν τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα ᾖ. Οὔτε γὰρ ἀγωνίαν μόνον ἐμφαίνει τὰ ῥήματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ δύο θελήματα, ἓν μὲν υἱοῦ, ἓν δὲ πατρὸς, ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις. Τὸ γὰρ εἰπεῖν Οὐχ'ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ'ὡς σὺ, τοῦτο ἐμφαίνοντός ἐστι. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνοι ποτὲ συνεχώρησαν, ἀλλ'ἡμῶν ἀεὶ λεγόντων τὸ Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμὲν ἐπὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, ἐκεῖνοι ἐπὶ 197/199 Πρὸς – ἀπόδειξις ] Io. Chrys., De consubst., Tit., l. 2-3 (p. 108) 199/201 Πάλιν – γέγονεν ] ibid. l. 1-2 (p. 108) 201/241 Ὁρᾷς – ἄνθρωπος ] ibid., l. 496-535 (p. 152-156). * Fragm. brevius adfertur in Max. Conf., Op. 24 (PG 91, 268 B9 – C10; = p. 731, l. 10-20), in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 288, l. 10-19 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 27]), ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 84, l. 27 – p. 86, l. 6), in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 294, l. 2 – p. 296, l. 2 [flor. de vol. et operat., 5]), in DPatr. 18, VII (p. 119, l. 8-9), in Flor.Achrid. XIV, 17 (p. 172, l. 9-14), in Flor. cod. Vatic. gr. 1142 (f. 73v-74) et Rom., Casan. 1357 (f. 237-238), cf. p. 438 (n. 23) 211/212 Οὐχ'ὡς – σὺ ] Mt. 26, 39 214 Ἐγὼ – ἐσμὲν ] Io. 10, 30 196/197 ὁ – θεῖος ] τοῦ χρυσοστόμου ἰωάννου in marg. scripsit O 196 βασιλεῖδος G 198 τοῦ ] τὸ G 205 κατωτέρω G 207 οὐδὲ ] οὐδ' O 209 ᾖ ] εἶ G 210 καὶ ] om. G καὶ δύο ] in marg. iteravit O 211 Οὐχ'ὡς ] οὐχ' Ga. corr.; in marg. iteravit O 212 ἀλλ'ὡς ] ἀλλ' Ga. corr. οὐδὲ ] οὐδ' O 214 Ἐγὼ – πατὴρ ] in marg. sup. iteravit O

 13

164

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

and the divine John, who adorned the throne of the imperial city, writes in the treatise entitled "To those absent from religious service and Demonstration that the Son is of the same essence as the Father" (it starts with the words: "Again there are horse-races, and again our assembly is less numerous"): "You see how he (= Isaias) predicted also his (= Christ’s) childhood? Now, ask the heretic: 'Does God fear, shrink back and hesitate and is he distressed?' Should he say 'Yes', stand aloof and put him down below together with the devil, even further down than the devil, as even he will not dare to make such a statement. But should he say 'Nothing of these things is worthy of God', say to him: 'Then God does not pray either', as apart from these things, also something else will be strange, viz. if the words were God's. Indeed, the words not only indicate agony, but also two wills, one of the Son, one of the Father, contrary to each other. For to say 'Not as I will, but as thou wilt', clearly come from someone who wants to show that fact. They, however, never admitted that and, while we always say that the expression 'I and my Father are one' refers to their power, they

 13

Bram Roosen

215

220

225

230

235

τῆς θελήσεως εἰρῆσθαι τοῦτο φασὶ, λέγοντες πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ μίαν εἶναι βούλησιν. Εἰ τοίνυν πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ μία βούλησίς ἐστι, πῶς φησιν ἐνταῦθα· Πλὴν οὐχ'ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ'ὡς σύ; Ἂν μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος τὸ εἰρημένον ᾖ τοῦτο, ἐναντιολογία τις γίνεται, καὶ πολλὰ ἄτοπα ἐκ τούτου τίκτεται· ἂν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς σαρκὸς, ἔχει λόγον τὰ εἰρημένα, καὶ οὐδὲν γένοιτ'ἂν ἔγκλημα. Οὐ γὰρ τὸ μὴ θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν τὴν σάρκα κατάγνωσις· φύσεως γάρ ἐστι τοῦτο· αὐτὸς γὰρ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἅπαντα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ἐπιδείκνυται, καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς περιουσίας, ὥστε τὰ τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἐμφράξαι στόματα. Ὅταν οὖν λέγῃ Εἰ δυνατὸν παρελθάτω ἀπ'ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο, καὶ Οὐχ'ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ'ὡς σὺ, οὐδὲν ἕτερον δείκνυσιν, ἀλλ'ἢ ὅτι σάρκα ἀληθῶς περιβέβληται φοβουμένην θάνατον. Τὸ γὰρ φοβεῖσθαι θάνατον καὶ ἀναδύεσθαι καὶ ἀγωνιᾶν, ἐκείνης ἐστί. Νῦν μὲν οὖν αὐτὴν ἐρήμην ἀφίησι, καὶ γυμνὴν τῆς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας, ἵνα αὐτῆς δείξας τὴν ἀσθένειαν, πιστώσηται αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν φύσιν· νῦν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀποκρύπτει, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐ ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος ἦν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ εἰ διὰ παντὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἐδείκνυτο, τοῦτο ἂν ἐνομίσθη, οὕτως εἰ διὰ παντὸς τὰ τῆς θεότητος ἐπετέλει, ἠπίστήθη ἂν ὁ τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγος. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ποικίλλει καὶ ἀναμίγνυσι καὶ τὰ ῥήματα καὶ τὰ πράγματα, ἵνα μήτε τῇ Παύλου τοῦ Σαμωσατέως, μήτε τῇ Μαρκίωνος καὶ Μανιχαίου νόσῳ καὶ μανίᾳ

217/218 Πλὴν – σύ ] Mt. 26, 39 223/224 χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ] Hebr. 4, 15 225 ἐμφράξαι στόματα ] Ps. 106, 42 226/227 Εἰ – σὺ ] Mt. 26, 39 218 τὸ ] om. O 221 γένητ'ἂν O 226 λέγῃ ] correxi, λέγει G, λέγει ὅτι O Εἰ δυνατὸν ] εἰ δυνατὸ et in marg. iteravit O παρελθάτω ] παρελθέτω O 229 θάνατον1 ] τὸν praem. O 230 ἀγωνιᾶν ] correxi, ἀγωνιὰν GO 231 ἵνα ] ἵν' O 233 δὲ ] δ' O 235 τοῦτο ] τοῦτ' O 236 ἠπιστήθει G 237 πυκίλλει G ἀναμείγνυσι G 239/240 μανεία παράσχει G

 14

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

assert that it is said with regard to their will, stating that the Father and the Son have one will. Now, if the Father and the Son have one will, then how can he say: 'Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'. Indeed, if that expression concerns the divinity, a contradiction arises, resulting in many absurdities. However, if it concerns the flesh, then the expression makes sense and no reproach would exist. Indeed, the fact that the flesh does not want to die is no cause for blame, since it is typical of physical nature, and Christ shows all characteristics of physical nature without sin, with a lot of surplus even, so as to shut the mouths of the heretics. So, when he says 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me', and 'Not as I will, but as thou wilt', he only indicates that he is really covered with flesh that fears death. For, to fear death, to shrink back and to be distressed belongs to the flesh. Sometimes he leaves the flesh bare and devoid of the energy that is proper to it, so that by showing its weakness, he would prove also its nature. Sometimes, however, he hides it, so that you would learn that he is no mere human. For, had he shown in every aspect that which is human, that would have been the opinion. In the same way, had he accomplished in each case the things proper to his divinity, the word of the economy would have lost credibility. That is why he varies and mixes both his words and deeds, so as not to speak out for the illness and folly either of Paul of Samosata, or of Marcion and Manichaeus. That is also why

 14

Bram Roosen

240

245

250

παράσχῃ πρόφασιν. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ προλέγει τὸ ἐσόμενον ὡς θεὸς, καὶ ἀναδύεται πάλιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος». Τί δὲ καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων καθηγητὴς Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ τετάρτῳ τοῦ θησαυροῦ κεφαλαίῳ παιδεύει, σαφῶς ἐπακούσωμεν· «Ὅταν οὖν φαίνηται δειλιῶν τὸν θάνατον καὶ λέγων· Εἰ δυνατὸν παρελθάτω ἀπ'ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο, ἐννόει πάλιν ὅτι δειλιῶσα τὸν θάνατον ἡ σὰρξ, ἐδιδάσκετο φορουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου μηκέτι τοῦτο πάσχειν· ἔλεγε γὰρ | πρὸς τὸν πατέρα· Οὐχ'ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ'ὡς σύ. Οὐκ ἐφοβεῖτο μὲν γὰρ καθὸ λόγος ἐστὶ καὶ θεὸς τὸν θάνατον αὐτὸς, ἀλλ'εἰς τέλος διεξάγειν τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἠπείγετο. Τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός. Ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν, διὰ τὸ παραιτεῖσθαι τὴν σάρκα τὸν θάνατον φυσικῶς».

244/253 Ὅταν – φυσικῶς ] Cyrill. Alex., Thes. 24 (PG 75, 397 A3-13). * Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 292, l. 33 – p. 294, l. 3 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 36]); ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 86, l. 9-14). * Fragm. longius adfertur in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 332, l. 1-9 [flor. de vol. et operat., 27]), in Flor.Achrid. XI, 5 (p. 164, l. 16 – p. 165, l. 1) et XIV, 28 (p. 176, l. 16-26), in DPatr. 18, V (p. 118, l. 23). * Fragm. brevius adfertur a Const. IV imp., Edict. (p. 842, l. 19-21) 245/246 Εἰ – τοῦτο ] Mt. 26, 39 248/249 Οὐχ'ὡς – σύ ] Mt. 26, 39 251/252 Τοῦτο – πατρός ] Io. 6, 40 242/243 ὁ – παιδεύει ] κυρίλλου ἀλεξανδρείας in marg. scripsit O 243 εἰκοστῷ τετάρτῳ ] κ´ τετάρτω G, κδ´ O τῶν θησαυρῶν O 244 σαφῶς ] om. O ἐπακούσωμεν ] ἄκουσον O φαίνεται G 245 λέγον Oa. corr. Εἰ δυνατὸν ] in marg. iteravit O ἀπελθέτω O, cf. l. 152 248 ἔλεγεν G 251 διεξάγει G ἠπήγετο G ἦν ] ἐστι G 253 τὴν σάρκα ] om. O

 15

165

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

he predicts the future as God and shrinks back again as man." Let us clearly listen to what also the guide of the church of the Alexandrians, Cyril, teaches in the 24th chapter of the Treasure: "When he seems to fear death and to say 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me', consider again that although it fears death, the flesh is taught, when being worn by the God Word, not to suffer that fear anymore. Indeed, he said to his Father: 'Not as I will, but as thou wilt'. For as Word and God he himself did not fear death, but he quickly wanted to bring the economy to its fulfilment. For that was the will of the Father. And another reason for his not wanting to die is that by nature the flesh refuses to die."

 15

Bram Roosen

255

260

265

270

Οὕτως δὲ καὶ τὸν μέγαν εὐαγγελιστὴν Ἰωάννην ὑπομνηματίζων φησὶν ὁ αὐτός· «Τὸν ἐπὶ τούτῳ λόγον ἐποιήσατο ὁ Χριστὸς διδάσκων, ὅτι τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντων τεθνάναι, θελητὸν μὲν ἔχει διὰ τὸ οὕτως βεβουλῆσθαι τὴν θείαν φύσιν· ἀνεθέλητον δὲ, διὰ τὰ ἐπὶ τῷ σταυρῷ πάθη. Καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἧκεν εἰς τὴν σάρκα παραιτουμένην τὸν θάνατον, τὰ τοιαῦτα φησίν». Ὁ δὲ Γαβάλων ἐπισκοπήσας Σευηριανὸς ὁ θεσπέσιος, εἰς τὸ Πάτερ παρελθάτω τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ'ἐμοῦ, καὶ εἰς τὸ Πάτερ σῶσόν με ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης· «Προλαβὼν ὁ κύριος ἐμφράττει τῶν αἱρετικῶν τὰ στόματα. Ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι τὸ πολυπαθὲς τοῦτο ἐνεδύσατο σῶμα, τὸ ἀγωνιῶν τὸν θάνατον, τὸ τρέμον τοῦ θανάτου τὴν βίαν, τὸ λυπούμενον καὶ ταραττόμενον πρὸς τὸ τοῦ βίου τέλος, λέγει· Νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται. Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου, οὐχ'ἡ θεότης μου· ἀπαθὲς γὰρ τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἀτάρακτον καὶ ἀδείλαντον.

255/260 Τὸν – φησίν ] Cyrill. Alex., Comm. in Io. IV, 1 (p. 495, l. 29 – p. 496, l. 4). * Fragm. longius adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 296, l. 3-8 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 41]) et in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 322, l. 12 – p. 324, l. 3 [flor. de vol. et operat., 21]). 262 Πάτερ – ἀπ'ἐμοῦ ] Mt. 26, 39 263 Πάτερ – ταύτης ] Io. 12, 27 264/273 Προλαβὼν – ἀνθρώπινον ] Sever. Gabal., In illud: Pater, transeat a me calix iste (p. 11, l. 25-29 et p. 12, l. 16) * Idem fragm. cum eodem titulo adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 292, l. 4-9 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 34]); et in DPatr. 18, VIII (p. 119, l. 13 – 120, l. 3). 264/265 ἐμφράττει – στόματα ] Ps. 106, 42 268 Νῦν – τετάρακται ] Io. 12, 27 268/269 Περίλυπός – θανάτου ] Mt. 26, 38 254 Οὕτως ] οὗτος G μέγαν ] om. O 255 τούτῳ ] τοῦτο O 256 ὅτι ] in marg. iteravit O 257 οὕτως ] om. G 261 Ὁ – θεσπέσιος ] σευηριανοῦ γαβάλων in marg. scripsit O Γαβάλων ] γαβαλῶν G θεσπέσιος ] μέγας O 262 Πάτερ ] in marg. iteravit O παρελθάτω ] παρελθέτω O 265 δείξει O ἐνεδύσατο ] om. O 266 τὸ1 ] τοῦτο O, sed cf. fontem: τοῦτο τὸ τρέμων O 269 μου2 ] om. O

 16

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Thus, also in his commentary on the great evangelist John the same says: "Christ made that statement, teaching us that he died voluntarily for all of us because such was the will of his divine nature; involuntarily, however, because of his sufferings on the cross. And he says such things in so far as the fact is concerned that his flesh renounced death." And the holy Severian who was bishop of Gabala writes with regard to the words 'Father, let this cup pass from me' and 'Father, save me from this hour': "From the start the Lord shuts the mouths of the heretics. In order to show that he put on that body which is subject to much suffering, which fears death, trembles for the violence of death, is distressed and troubled by the end of its life, he says: 'Now is my soul troubled' and 'My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death'. He does not say 'my divinity'. For, the divine is impassible,

 16

Bram Roosen

Τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα φησιν ὁ κύριος, πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενὴς, ὥστε δύο θελήματα ἐμφαίνει, τὸ μὲν, θεῖον, τὸ δὲ, ἀνθρώπινον». 275

280

285

Ἀλλ'οἶμαι ἱκανῶς δεδεῖχθαι τοῖς θεοφόροις τὸν περί τε δυάδος θελημάτων τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγον, καὶ ἄλλου καὶ ἄλλου, καὶ θείου καὶ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, καὶ τοῦ θελητὸν εἶναι καὶ ἀνεθέλητον τῷ σωτῆρι τὸν θάνατον, τὸ μὲν διὰ τὸ ὅπερ ἦν ἀπαρχῆς, τὸ δὲ διὰ τὸ ὅπερ ὕστερον γέγονεν. Ἀρκτέον δῆτα καὶ τοῦ περὶ διαφορᾶς ἐνεργειῶν καὶ δυάδος λόγου, κατὰ τάξιν ἡμῖν ταῖς τῶν θεηγόρων καὶ τοῦτον ἐπισφραγίζουσι μαρτυρίαις πατέρων. Αὐτίκα γοῦν ὁ μέγας ὁμολογητὴς καὶ διδάσκαλος Ἀμβρόσιος, ὁ Μεδιολάνων ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, ἐν τῷ πρὸς Γρατιανὸν δευτέρῳ λόγῳ, τάδε διέξεισιν· «Ἴσος οὖν ἐν τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ μορφῇ, ἐλάττων δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ προσλήψει τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῷ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πάθει. Ποίῳ γὰρ τροπῳ δύναται ἡ αὐτὴ ἐλάττων εἶναι καὶ ἴση φύσις; Πῶς δὲ εἰ

271/272 Τὸ – ἀσθενὴς ] Mt. 26, 41 285/293 Ἴσος – οὐσία ] Ambros. Med., De fide II, 8, 70 (p. 81, l. 91-98). * Idem fragm. adfertur in DPatr. 12, XI (p. 75, l. 9-15) et 15, II (p. 92, l. 15). * Fragm. longius adfertur ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 92, l. 20-26), a Prob. et al., Ep. ad Paul. CP (p. 84, l. 3-13), in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 258, l. 16-22 [flor. de nat. operat., 2]) et in Flor. dyothel. in Vat. gr. 1455, f. 165-176 servato (p. 426, n. 11) * Fragm. brevius adfertur a Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de energ. (PG 91, 285 A7-10; l. 119121 [p. 823]) 285/286 ἐν – μορφῇ ] Phil. 2, 6 271 Τὸ – πνεῦμα ] in marg. iteravit O 272 δύο ] in marg. iteravit O 274 τὸν ] τῶν O 280 ἀρκταῖον O τοῦ ] om. O 282 ἐπισφραγίζουσιν G 283/284 ὁ – ἀρχιεπίσκοπος ] ἀμβροσίου in marg. scripsit O 283 μέγας ] om. O 284 Ἀμβρόσιος ] ἀμβρώσιος G, cf. l. 513 ἀρχιεπίσκοπος ] ἐπίσκοπος O 285 γρατιανῶ O διέξησιν G 286 ἔλαττον G 288 ἔλαττον G

 17

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

undisturbed and without fear. Indeed, the Lord says 'The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak' and as such shows two wills, one divine, the other human." I think that the doctrine about the duality of his wills, about one and the other will, divine and human, has been proved sufficiently by these divinely inspired men. The same is true for the fact that death is willed and not willed by the Saviour, the former through what he was from the beginning, the latter through what he later became.

Now it is time for us also to talk about the difference and the dyad of energies, as well as confirm that with the testimonies of the fathers who speak of God. In the first place, the great confessor and teacher, Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, states the following in his second treatise to Gratian: "Thus, in the form of God he was identical, but lower in his assumption of the flesh and his human suffering. For in what way can the same nature be both

 17

Bram Roosen

290

295

300

ἐλάττων ἐστὶν, ἡ αὐτὴ ὁμοίως ποιεῖ ἅπερ ὁ πατὴρ ποιεῖ; Ποίῳ γὰρ τρόπῳ ἡ αὐτὴ ἐνέργεια ἐκ διαφόρου ἐστὶν οὐσίας; Μὴ | γὰρ οὕτω δύναται ἡ ἐλάττων, ὥσπερ ἡ μείζων ἐνεργεῖν; Ἢ δύναται μία ἐνέργεια εἶναι, ὅπου διάφορος ἐστὶν οὐσία;» Καὶ μὴν καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἱεροσολυμητῶν ἱεράρχης Κύριλλος ὁ ἀοίδιμος, ἐν τῷ εἰς τὸ εὐαγγελικὸν ῥητὸν λόγῳ, ἔνθα ὁ κύριος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον ἐποίησεν, οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ, «Θαῦμα καὶ τοῦτο θαῦμα»· «Ἐγεννήθη, ἐθαυματούργησεν, ἔδειξε τὴν διπλὴν ἐνέργειαν, πάσχων μὲν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐνεργῶν δὲ ὡς θεὸς ὁ αὐτός· οὐ γὰρ ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, εἰ καὶ ἄλλως καὶ ἄλλως.» Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τῆς μεγάλης Ῥωμαίων ἔξαρχος ἐκκλησίας Λέων ὁ παναλκὴς καὶ πανίερος, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Φλαβιανὸν κατὰ Νεστορίου καὶ

289 ὁμοίως – ποιεῖ2 ] Io. 5, 19 295/296 ἔνθα – ἐποίησεν ] cf. Io. 2, 1-11 (praesertim 2, 9) 297/300 Ἐγεννήθη – ἄλλως2 ] Ps. Cyrill. Hierosol., Hom. aquae in vinum conversae, fragm. 2 (PG 33, 1181 B4-7). * Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 310, l. 26-28 [flor. de nat. Christi operat., 27]), in DPatr. 15, V (p. 93, l. 12-14) et in Flor.Achrid. X, 4 (p. 163, l. 11-13) 289 ἔλαττόν G 291 Μὴ ] bis acc. GO, cf. l. 514 ἔλαττον G 294 Καὶ ] ὁ add. G 294/295 ὁ – ἀοίδιμος ] κυρίλλου ἱεροσολύμων in marg. scripsit O 295 ὁ ἀοίδιμος ] om. O 297 ἐγενήθη G 298 διπλὴν ] sic acc. GO, cf. l. 313 301/302 ὁ – πανίερος ] λέοντος πάπα ῥώμης in marg. scripsit O 301 μεγάλης ] om. O 302 παναλκὴς καὶ ] om. O πανίερος ] πάπας add. O ἐν τῷ ] om. O 303 Νεστορίου ] sic GO, sed Νεστωρ... alibi (cf. l. 437, 452, 574, 595, 598 et 603)

 18

168

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

lower and the same? And if it is lower, how does this same nature do likewise what his Father does? For in what way can the same energy be from a different essence? How could it be that the lower energy operates in the same way as the higher energy? Or can there be one energy, where there is a different essence?". And also the famous Cyril, patriarch of the Jerusalemites, writes in his homily dealing with the passage in the Gospels where the Lord turns water into wine (the homily starts with the words: "A wonder, also that a wonder"): "He was born, worked wonders and showed his double energy by suffering as man and operating as God: for he did all this not as one and another, although he did do them in one way and in another way."; thus, also the primate of the great church of the Romans, the all-powerful and all-holy Leo, writes in the dogmatic tome

 18

Bram Roosen

305

310

Εὐτυχοῦς τῶν δυσωνύμων δογματικῷ τόμῳ· «Ἐνεργεῖ γὰρ [ἐν] ἑκατέρα μορφὴ μετὰ τῆς θατέρου κοινωνίας, ὅπερ ἴδιον ἔσχηκε, τοῦ μὲν λόγου κατεργαζομένου τοῦθ'ὅπέρ ἐστι τοῦ λόγου· τοῦ δὲ σώματος ἐκτελοῦντος ἅπέρ ἐστι τοῦ σώματος· καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτῶν διαλάμπει τοῖς θαύμασι, τὸ δὲ ταῖς ὕβρεσιν ὑποπέπτωκεν.» Ὁ δὲ τὸ στόμα χρυσοῦν μᾶλλον δὲ Χριστοῦ κεκτημένος Ἰωάννης, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ εἰς τὴν χήραν, τὴν τὰ δύο λεπτὰ προσενέγκασαν ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· «Ἁπλὴ μὲν ἡ τῆς νηστείας προσηγορία»· «Καὶ ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν συναφθεισῶν φύσεων διάφορος ἡ

315

ἐνέργεια τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, καὶ τῆς θεότητος διάφορος ἡ ἰσχὺς, οἷόν τι λέγω· κάτω κοπιᾷ, καὶ ἄνω συγκροτεῖ τὰ στοιχεῖα· κάτω πεινᾷ, καὶ ἄνωθεν ὑετοὺς χορηγεῖ· κάτω 304/309 Ἐνεργεῖ – ὑποπέπτωκεν ] Leo papa, Tom. (p. 14, l. 27 – p. 15, l. 1). * Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 298, l. 29-32 [flor. de Christi operat., 3]) et in Conc.CP III, Act. II (p. 32, l. 16-19). * Fragm. brevius adfertur a Sophr. Hier., Ep. Synod. (p. 442, l. 15-18), a Const. IV Imp., Edict. (p. 846, l. 21-23), a Iust. imp., in fragm. Ep. dogm. ad Zoilum servato in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 354, l. 2-4 [flor. de vol. et operat., 43]) et in Conc.CP III, Act. XVIII (p. 776, l. 3-5). * Fragm. longius adfertur ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 94, l. 3-7) et in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 336, l. 23 – p. 338, l. 3 [flor. de vol. et operat., 31]) * Verba prima (usque ad κοινωνίας vel ἔσχηκε) saepe laudantur. 311/312 χήραν – γαζοφυλακίῳ ] Lc. 21, 1-2 et Mc. 12, 41-42 313/322 Ἁπλὴ – φιλανθρώπους ] Io. Chrys., Hom. de vidua, fragm. * Idem init. et fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 310, l. 34 – p. 312, l. 3 [flor. de nat. Christi operat., 28]) et in flor. codd. Vatic. gr. 1142 (f. 73v) et Rom., Casan. 1357 (f. 236v-237), cf. p. 437- 438 (n. 22). * Fragm. longius (sine init.) adfertur in DPatr. 15, I (p. 91, l. 21 – p. 92, l. 12). 305 ἐν ] seclusi, cf. fontem et l. 519 310/311 Ὁ – Ἰωάννης ] τοῦ χρυσοστόμου ἰωάννου in marg. scripsit O 310 μᾶλλον – κεκτημένος ] om. O 312 προσενεγκαμένην O ἐν – γαζοφυλακίῳ ] om. O 313 Ἁπλὴ ] ἀπὴ sic O, cf. l. 298 316 οἷον τί O

 19

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

he sent to the holy Flavian against the hateful Nestorius and Eutyches: "Each form by aid of its union with the other operates what it has proper: the Word achieves that which is of the Word; the body accomplishes the things that are proper to the body. The former shines by its miracles, the latter has succumbed to violence." John with the mouth of gold, or rather of Christ, writes in his homily concerning the widow bringing two mites in the treasury (the homily starts with the words: "Simple is the term 'fast'"): "Also in the other elements of the united natures, the energy of his humanity is one thing, the power of his divinity is something else. I mean: below he toils and above he gathers the elements; below he is hungry and from above he provides rain; below he is afraid and above he thunders; below he stands trial and from above he judges

 19

Bram Roosen

320

325

330

δειλιᾷ, καὶ ἄνω βροντᾷ· κάτω δικαστηρίῳ παρέστηκε, καὶ ἄνωθεν ἑαυτὸν θεωρεῖ. Περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην, συντρέχει τὸ τῆς διπλῆς ἐνεργείας· ὁ γὰρ ἄνωθεν ἐκ τῶν χερουβὶμ βραβεύων τοῖς ἐλεήμοσιν, οὗτος πρὸ τοῦ γαζοφυλακίου καθήμενος δοκιμάζει τοὺς φιλανθρώπους.» Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ εἰς Θωμᾶν τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν λόγῳ· «Ταῦτα ἀκούσας, ἐκάθαρα τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπιστίας· ἀπεδυσάμην τὴν ἀμφίβολον γνώμην, ἀνέλαβον τὸ πεπεισμένον· ἡψάμην τοῦ σώματος χαίρων καὶ τρέμων· ἐξήπλωσα μετὰ τῶν δακτύλων καὶ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα, καὶ δύο λοιπὸν ἐνεργειῶν ᾐσθόμην.» Ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ ὁ σοφώτατος Κύριλλος ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων πρόεδρος, ἐν τῷ τριακοστῷ δευτέρῳ τοῦ θησαυροῦ κεφαλαίῳ· «Οὐ γὰρ δήπου μίαν εἶναι φυσικὴν τὴν ἐνέρ-

321/322 τοῦ – καθήμενος ] Mc. 12, 41 324/328 Ταῦτα – ᾐσθόμην ] Ps. Io. Chrys., In Thom. (PG 59, 500, 10-14). * Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 312, l. 7-9 [flor. de nat. Christi operat., 29]), in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 340, l. 14-16 [flor. de vol. et operat., 35]); in flor. cod. Vatic. gr. 1142 (f. 73) et Rom., Casan. 1357 (f. 234v), cf. p. 431- 432 (n. 11). * Fragm. longius adfertur in DPatr. 15, XXXIII (p. 101, l. 10-11). 326/328 ἡψάμην – ὄμμα ] cf. Io. 20, 24-29 331/337 Οὐ – σώζεσθαι ] Cyrill. Alex., Thes. 32 (PG 75, 453 B14 – C5). * Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc. Later., Secr. V (p. 268, l. 21-23 + l. 3-4 [flor. de nat. operat., 32 + 29]), in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 348, l. 19 – p. 350, l. 2 [flor. de vol. et operat., 41]), in DPatr. 12, VII (p. 74, l. 13-14) et in Flor. dyothel. in Vat. gr. 1455, f. 165-176 servato (p. 429, n. 29). * Fragm. brevius adfertur a Iustin. imp., in fragm. Sermonis adv. Nest. et Aceph. servato in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 350, l. 20-22 [flor. de vol. et operat., 42]), ab eodem, in fragm. Ep. dogm. ad Zoilum servato ibid. (p. 354, l. 5- 8 [flor. de vol. et operat., 43]), in Conc.CP III, Act. XVIII (p. 776, l. 6-8) 323 δὲ ] δ' O καὶ ] om. G 324 Ταῦτα ] ταῦτ' O ἐκάθηρα O 325 ἀπιστείας G 329 δὴ ] om. O 329/330 ὁ1 – πρόεδρος ] κυρίλλου ἀλεξανδρείας in marg. scripsit O 329 σοφώτατος – ὁ2 ] om. O 330 πρόεδρος ] κύριλλος O τριακοστῷ δευτέρῳ ] λβ´ O

 20

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

himself. But with regard to his mercy, that which is proper of his double energy concurs: he who from his throne (ἐκ τῶν χερουβίμ) decides on who is merciful, sits in front of the treasury scrutinizing those who are benevolent." The same father writes in his treatise concerning the apostle Thomas and against the Arians: "Having heard those things, I cleaned my spirit of unbelief; I took off my doubtful opinion and put on conviction; I touched his body while rejoicing and trembling; with my fingers I uncovered also my mind's eye, and finally I noticed his two energies." But also the most wise Cyril, leader of the church of the Alexandrians, writes in the 32nd chapter of the Thesaurus: "For surely we will not grant that God and creation have

 20

Bram Roosen

335

340

345

γειαν δώσομεν θεοῦ καὶ ποιήματος, ἵνα μήτε τὸ ποιηθὲν εἰς τὴν θείαν ἀναγάγωμεν οὐσίαν, μήτε μὴν τῆς θείας φύσεως τὸ ἐξαίρετον εἰς τὸν τοῖς γενητοῖς πρέποντα καταγάγωμεν | τόπον. Ὧν γὰρ ἡ ἐνέργεια καὶ ἡ δύναμις ἀπαραλλάκτως μία, τούτοις ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν τοῦ γένους ἑνότητα σώζεσθαι.» Ταῦτα μὲν οἵδε διαπρυσίως οἱ τῆς εὐσεβείας πατέρες, οὓς ἐκ πολλῶν ἢ ἀπείρων, καὶ παντὸς οἷον γραφικῶς εἰπεῖν τοῦ τῶν μαρτύρων νέφους, κατ'ἐπιδρομὴν τὸν τοῦ γράμματος περιστελλόμενοι προκεκομίκαμεν ὄγκον εἰς ἐναργεστάτην ἀπόδειξιν τῆς αὐτῶν περὶ τοῦ παντὸς σωτῆρος ἀληθογνωσίας Χριστοῦ, καθ'ἣν ὁρμισθέντες ταῖς ἁγίαις Ἐκκλησίαις πνευματοκινήτως παρέδοσαν δύο καθάπερ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς τὰς φύσεις, οὕτω καὶ ἰσαρίθμους ταῖς φύσεσι τά τε τοῦ αὐτοῦ θελήματα καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας πρεσβεύειν, καὶ ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην, καὶ θείαν καὶ ἀνθρωπίνην

338 διαπρυσίως ] cf. Max. Conf., Op. 7 (PG 91, 84 B7) 340 τοῦ – νέφους ] Hebr. 12, 1 345/349 δύο – ἐνέργειαν ] Simillima verba inveniuntur apud Max. Conf., Op. 7 (PG 91, 84 B5-11). Cf. et supra l. 274/276. 333 ἀγάγωμεν G 335 Ὧν γὰρ ] in marg. iteravit O 338 Ταῦτα ] καὶ praem. O οἷδε διαπυρσίως G 340 γραφηκῶς G 341 γράμματος ] πράγματος O προκεκομήκαμεν G 342 ἐνεργεστάτην G 344 ὁρμησθέντες O 345 παρέδωσαν G 346 οὕτω καὶ ] οὕτως G εἰς ἀρίθμους G, cf. l. 548 348 καὶ2 ] om. O

 21

169

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

one natural energy, so as not to raise the creation to divine essence, or to lower the distinctiveness of the divine nature to the place befitting that which is created. Indeed, it is necessary that of those whose energy and power are indistinguishably one, also the oneness of the class is safeguarded." These are the things these fathers of piety say in a loud voice. We have brought them forward cursorily (to compress the length of our letter) out of many or innumberable and, in biblical terms, out of the whole cloud of witnesses to show in the most manifest way their knowledge of the truth of Christ our Saviour. On the basis of this knowledge they taught the holy churches under the inspiration of the Spirit to advocate that just like one and the same has two natures, he also has wills and energies in equal numbers to his natures, one and another, a divine and

 21

Bram Roosen

θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν, εἰς δήλωσιν τῆς τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐν 350

οἷς τε καὶ ἅπέρ ἐστιν ὁ αὐτὸς οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς, τήν τε φαντασίαν ὁμοῦ καὶ τὴν σύγχυσιν, καὶ σὺν ταύταις παντελῶς τὴν διαίρεσιν ἀποσκευαζομένης, ὡς ἑνὶ καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ δι'ἡμᾶς σαρκωθέντι θεῷ λόγῳ τὰ ἐξ ὧν ἐστι πραγματικῶς καὶ ἀνεπιθολώτως γνωριζού-

355

σης καθ'ἕνωσιν τὴν ἀδιάσπαστον. Διαφορᾶς γὰρ οὐσιώδους ἐπὶ τῆς καθ'ὑπόστασιν ἄκρας ἑνώσεως ἀσυγχύτως οὐ γνωριζομένης αὐτῶν τε τῶν ἡνωμένων καὶ τῶν προσόντων αὐτοῖς φυσικῶς, οὐδ'ὁ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἀσυγχύτως γνωρισθήσεται λόγος. Οἱ δὲ τῆς

360

ἐναντίας καὶ ἀντιπάλου μοίρας, τὸ ἔμπαλιν.

349/350 τῶν – ἐστιν] Eadem vel simillima verba saepe inveniuntur apud Max. Conf. (vide e.g. Op. 1 [PG 91, 36 C6-7]; Op. 6 [PG 91, 68 A9-10]; Op. 8 [PG 91, 96 B4-5]; Op. 19 [PG 91, 221 B4-5]; Ep. 12 [PG 91, 488 C3- 4]; in R.M., l. 328-329 [p. 37]). Cf. P. PIRET, Christologie et théologie trinitaire chez Maxime le Confesseur, d'après sa formule des natures «desquelles, en lesquelles et lesquelles est le Christ, in F. HEINZER - C. SCHÖNBORN, Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur Fribourg, 2-5 septembre 1980 (= Paradosis, XXVII), Fribourg, 1982, p. 215-222 355 καθ'ἕνωσιν τὴν ἀδιάσπαστον] Eadem vel simillima verba saepe inveniuntur apud Cyrill. Alex. (vide e.g. Ep. 45, 6 [p. 153, l. 17-18]; Ep. 46, 3 [p. 159, l. 16]; Quod unus sit Christus 725b, 10 [p. 336] et 734a, 7 [p. 366]; C. Nest I, 3 [p. 22, l. 11]) et inde apud Max. Conf. (vide e.g. Op. 7 [PG 91, 76 A15 – B1 et 85 A8]; Op. 8 [PG 91, 101 A3-4]; Op. 20 [PG 91, 229 C12]; Ep. 12 [PG 91, 472 D5]; Ep. 17 [PG 91, 581 D3 et 584 A9]; Ep. 18 [PG 91, 585 B12 et 585 D12 – 588 A1]) 349 τῆς] τοῖς G 353 τὰ] om. G 358 αὐτοῖς] αὐτῶ G φυσικῶς] δὲ add. O 359/632 Οἱ – ὑφαρπαγήν] om. O et scripsit ... (vide txt. in introd.) 360 μύρας G

 22

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

a human will and energy, in order to show the essential difference of that from which, in which and which he is. It is this difference which refutes the illusion as well as the confusion and at the same time also the division, as it really and clearly shows for one and the same God Word, who became incarnate because of us, the elements from which he is in their inseparable union. For if with regard to the consummate hypostatic union the essential difference of the things that are united and the things that naturally belong to them is not professed without confusion, then neither will the concept of union be professed without confusion.

However, their opponents and rivals state the opposite.

 22

Bram Roosen

365

370

Ἀπολινάριος μὲν γὰρ ὁ δυσσεβὴς οὕτω φησὶν ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ αὐτῷ λόγῳ «Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ'ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου»· «Καὶ οὐ μνημονεύουσιν ὅτι τὸ θέλημα τοῦτο ἴδιον εἴρηται, οὐκ ἀνθρώπου τοῦ ἐκ γῆς καθὼς αὐτοὶ νομίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ θεοῦ τοῦ καταβάντος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.» Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς πάλιν ἀβέλτερος, ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ «Εἰς τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τὴν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ θεοῦ»· «Εἷς γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς θεϊκῷ θελήματι μόνῳ κινούμενος, καθ'ὃ καὶ μίαν οἴδαμεν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἐν διαφόροις θαύμασι καὶ παθήμασι τῆς μιᾶς αὐτοῦ φύσεως προσϊοῦσαν. Θεὸς γὰρ ἔνσαρκός ἐστι καὶ πιστεύεται.»

361/366 Ἀπολινάριος – οὐρανοῦ ] Fragm. ex Apolin. Laod., Demonstr., deperdita praeter fragm., quorum maxima pars servatur apud Greg. Nyss., Antirrh. adv. Apolin. Cf. Lietzmann, fragm. 13-107 (p. 208-232). 362/363 Ἀπόδειξις – ἀνθρώπου ] Idem tit. adfertur a Greg. Nyss., Antirrh. adv. Apolin. (p. 132, l. 27-28 et p. 133, l. 1-2). Cf. et Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 322, l. 8-9 [test. confund. haeret., 4]) 363/366 Καὶ – οὐρανοῦ ] Lietzmann, fragm. 63 (p. 218, l. 20-23). Idem fragmentum adfertur a Greg. Nyss., Antirrh. adv. Apolin. (p. 179, l. 14-17), in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 322, l. 11-12 [test. confund. haeret., 4]) et in Conc.CP III, Act. XI (p. 508, l. 10-11 [Test., II. 2]) 367/379 Ὁ – διαφοράν ] Apolin. Laod., In dei in carne manifestat., deperdit. praeter fragm. in flor. saec. VII. Cf. Lietzmann, fragm. 108-109 (p. 232-233) ex opusculo nostro 368 Εἰς – θεοῦ ] Idem titulus adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 322, l. 14 [test. confund. haeret., 5]). Cf. et Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 104, l. 1-2) 368/372 Εἷς – πιστεύεται ] Lietzmann, fragm. 108 (p. 232). Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 322, l. 16-18 [test. confund. haeret., 5]) et ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 104, l. 3-5) 369 θεϊκῷ ] correxi, cf. Conc.Later. et Agath., θεϊκῶς G

 23

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Indeed, the impious Apolinarius writes the following in the treatise entitled 'Demonstration concerning the divine incarnation in likeness of man': "And they do not remember that this will is said to be proper, not to man, who comes from the earth like they think, but to God, who came down from heaven."; and the same stupid man writes again in the treatise entitled 'Concerning the incarnate epiphany of God': "For Christ is one, being moved by his divine will alone. Accordingly, we know that also his energy is one, showing itself in various miracles and sufferings of his one nature. Indeed, he is and is believed to be God incarnate.";

 23

Bram Roosen

375

380

385

390

Καὶ μετὰ βραχέα· «Καὶ τὸ Πάτερ εἰ δυνατὸν παρελθάτω τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ'ἐμοῦ, πλὴν μὴ τὸ ἐμὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν θέλημα γενέσθω, οὐκ ἄλλου καὶ ἄλλου θελήματος ἔμφασιν ἔχει μὴ συμβαινόντων ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλ'ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεϊκῶς μὲν ἐνεργουμένου, οἰκονομικῶς δὲ παραιτουμένου τὸν θάνατον· ἐπεὶ θεὸς ἦν σαρκοφόρος ὁ τοῦτο λέγων, μὴ δὲ μίαν ἐν τῷ θέλειν ἔχων διαφοράν.» Ὁ δὲ ἐκείνου τῆς ἀσεβείας μαθητὴς καὶ διάδοχος καὶ φερωνύμως τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγῳ πολέμιος, Πολέμων ὁ αἱρετικὸς, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους πατέρας ἀντιρρητικῷ, τάδε δυστρόπως φησίν· «Ὅλος γὰρ | θεὸς ἦν ὁ Χριστὸς, καὶ τελειότητι σαρκὸς ἑνωθεὶς καὶ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος οὐ τὸν τρεπτὸν νοῦν ἑαυτῷ καταμίξας θελήματι φυσικῶς ἐπὶ ταναντία κινούμενον, ἑαυτῷ δὲ μᾶλλον γενόμενος νοῦς ἀτρέπτῳ θελήματι θεϊκῶς πάντα πεποίηκεν. Ἀλλ'οὐ τὸ μὲν θεῖον, τὸ δὲ θεωθὲν, κατὰ τὸν Καππαδόκην Γρηγόριον, ἐπεὶ τρεπτόν. Τὸ γὰρ θεωθῆναι δυνηθὲν, καὶ γεωθῆναι πάντως ἠδύνατο κατὰ τὸν πρῶτον Ἀδάμ.»

373/379 Καὶ2 – διαφοράν ] Lietzmann, fragm. 109 (p. 233). Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 322, l. 22-26 [test. confund. haeret., 6]) 373/374 Πάτερ – ἀπ'ἐμοῦ ] Mt. 26, 39 374/375 πλὴν – γενέσθω ] Lc. 22, 42 380/391 Ὁ – Ἀδάμ ] Polem. Apolin., Antirrh., deperdit. praeter hoc unum fragmentum in flor. saec. VII. Cf. Lietzmann, fragm. 173 (p. 274) ex opusculo nostro 380/382 μαθητὴς – ἀντιρρητικῷ ] Cf. tit. in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 324, l. 1 [test. confund. haeret., 8]) 383/391 Ὅλος – Ἀδάμ ] Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 324, l. 3-7 [test. confund. haeret., 8]) 388/389 Ἀλλ'οὐ – Γρηγόριον ] cf. Greg. Naz., Or. 30, 12, 5-6 (p. 248). Vide et supra, l. 165/166 390/391 τὸν – Ἀδάμ ] cf. I Cor. 15, 45 381 φερονύμως G 383 Ὅλος ] correxi, cf. Conc.Later., ὁ λόγος G 387 θεϊκῶς ] correxi, cf. Conc.Later. et φυσικῶς (l. 386), θεϊκῶ G 388 θεωθὲν ] scripsi, cf. ad l. 166, θεοθὲν G

 24

172

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

and a little further: "And the words 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done', are not the expression of two different, incompatible wills, but of one and the same will divinely acting, but incarnately rejecting death: for, he who said the aforementioned words was God wearing flesh, without any difference in the act of willing.". His pupil and successor in impiety, the well-named enemy (πολέμιος) of the word of truth, Polemon the heretic, in his antirrhetic against the holy fathers evilly states: "Christ was complete God, united with perfectness of body. He became man without having adopted a mind liable to change, which the will naturally moves to the opposite. But rather, since the will in the mind he appropriated was unchangeable, he did everything in a divine way. But it is not so that one will is divine, the other deified, as Gregory the Cappadocian upheld, because that would mean it is liable to change. Indeed, what could be deified, could definitely also become earth just like the first man, Adam.";

 24

Bram Roosen

395

400

405

Καὶ ἐν ἕκτῃ τῶν πρὸς τὸν Τιμόθεον αὐτῷ γεγραμμένων ἐπιστολῇ, τὸν αὐτῷ συνεργάτην καὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας συλλήπτορα πονηρόν· «Ὁ δύο θελήματα λέγων Χριστοῦ κατὰ τοὺς πάλαι καὶ νῦν φυσωμένους, ἢ τὸν ἕνα δύο τινὰς εἰσάγει Χριστοὺς ἀλλήλων οὐ φύσει μόνον ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ ἀπεχθείᾳ διῃρημένους, ἢ τὸν αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ διδάσκει μαχόμενον· ἔνθα γὰρ δυὰς, πάντως διαίρεσις.» Ἀλλὰ καὶ Θεμέστιος ὁ τῆς μὲν Σευήρου συμμορίας ὑπασπιστὴς, τῆς δὲ τῶν ἀγνοητῶν ἔξαρχος κακοφροσύνης, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ μαʹ λόγου δευτέρου, τῶν κατὰ τοῦ ἐπιδοθέντος τόμου Θεοδώρᾳ τῇ βασιλίδι παρὰ Θεοδοσίου τοῦ αἱρεσιάρχου τῶν ἀπ'αὐτοῦ κατονομασθέντων αἱρετικῶν, τάδε θεοστυγῶς· «Οὐ γὰρ ἐπείτοι καὶ ἱερὸς Ἀθανάσιος δύο θελήματα ἔφη τὸν Χριστὸν δεικνῦναι κατὰ τὸν τοῦ πάθους καιρὸν, ἤδη καὶ δύο θελήσεις αὐτῷ περιθήσομεν καὶ ταύτας μαχομένας ἀλ392/398 Καὶ – διαίρεσις ] Polem. Apolin., Ep. 6 ad Tim., deperdit. praeter hoc unum fragm. in flor. saec. VII. Cf. Lietzmann, fragm. 175 (p. 275) ex opusculo nostro 392/394 Καὶ – πονηρόν ] Cf. tit. in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 324, l. 9 [test. confund. haeret., 9]) 394/398 Ὁ – διαίρεσις ] Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 324, l. 11-13 [test. confund. haeret., 9]) 399/410 Ἀλλὰ – θεοπρεπῶς ] Themist. diacon. Alex., Antirrh. c. tom. Theodos., deperdit. praeter fragm. in flor. saec. VII 399/404 Ἀλλὰ – θεοστυγῶς ] Tit. simil. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 326, l. 27-29 [test. confund. haeret., 18]). Vide et Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 370, l. 6-7 [flor. haeret., 1]) et Act. XI (p. 506, l. 19-20 [test., I. 2]). 402/404 τοῦ – αἱρετικῶν ] Refert ad Theodosii Alexandrini Tomum ad Theodoram augustam (CPG 7133) 404/410 Οὐ – θεοπρεπῶς ] Idem fragm. e c. II, 41 adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 326, l. 31-34 [test. confund. haeret., 18]) et in Conc.CP III, Act. XI (p. 506, l. 21-24 [test., I. 2]). * Fragm. longius adfertur in Conc.CP III, Act. X (p. 370, l. 8-14 [flor. haeret., 1]) 405/406 δύο – καιρὸν ] vide supra, l. 151/158 395 φησωμένους G 400 ἀγνωητῶν G 402 βασιλείδη G 404 ἐπείτοι ] correxi, cf. Conc.Later. et Conc.CP III, ἐπεί τε G 405 ὁ ] addidi 406 δεικνῦναι ] sic acc. G 407 περιθήσωμεν G

 25

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

and in his sixth letter to Timothy, his fellow worker and evil helper in impiety: "He who follows those who of old and now snort that Christ has two wills, either introduces the one Christ as two Christs, divided from each other, not only by nature, but also by enmity; or he teaches that the same is in conflict with himself. For, wherever there is a dyad, there is definitely division." But also Themestius, the supporter of Severus' faction and the founder of the folly of the agnoetes, writes, in a way hateful to God, the following things in the 41st chapter of the second book of his treatise against the tome given to Empress Theodora by Theodosius, the heresiarch of the heretics named after him: "It is not because also the holy Athanasius asserted that Christ showed two wills (θελήματα) in the hour of his passion, that now we will follow those syllogisms of yours and also attribute to him

 25

Bram Roosen

410

415

420

λήλαις κατὰ τοὺς σοὺς τούτους συλλογισμούς· ἀλλ'εἰσόμεθα εὐσεβῶς τὴν ὡς ἑνὸς μίαν θέλησιν τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ, πῆ μὲν ἀνθρωπίνως κινεῖσθαι, πῆ δὲ θεοπρεπῶς.» Ὁ δ'αὐτὸς πάλιν δυσάντητος αἱρετικὸς, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ νβʹ λόγου γʹ τῆς κατὰ Κολλούθου τοῦ συμφυλέτου τῆς αὐτοῦ δυσσεβείας γεγονυίας αὐτῷ πραγματείας· «Μίαν φημὶ τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, καθ'ἃ καὶ τὴν θέλησιν. Σκόπει οὖν οὕτως· ὁ ἄτρεπτος ὡς θεὸς, ὁ παντὸς πάθους ἀνώτερος, ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς κινηθεὶς κατὰ τὴν θέλησιν, παραιτεῖται τὸ πάθος, θεοπρεπῶς δὲ πάλιν πρὸς τὸ πάθος ἀναθαρρεῖ, καὶ διὰ σαρκὸς τούτων ἑκάτερον.» Καὶ ταῦτα οἵδε δυστρόπως. Οἱ δὲ τούτων ἐπίσης καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀντίφρονες, τοὺς τῆς διαιρέσεως λέγω καθηγητὰς, πρὸς τὴν ἴσην ἐκείνοις καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν περί τε θελήματος ἑνὸς καὶ μιᾶς ἐνεργείας συνελαυνόμενοι κακοδοξίαν, εἰ καὶ τὴν

425

ἐν σχέσει γνωμικὴν ἐπρέσβευον ἕνωσιν, τάδε περιβομβοῦσι·

411/419 Ὁ – ἑκάτερον ] Themist. diacon. Alex., C. Colluth., deperdit. praeter fragm. in flor. saec. VII 411/413 Ὁ – πραγματείας ] Tit. simil. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 328, l. 1-2 [test. confund. haeret., 19]) 414/419 Μίαν – ἑκάτερον ] Idem fragm. e c. III, 52 adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 328, l. 4-7 [test. confund. haeret., 19]) 408 εἰσόμεθα ] ἰσόμεθα G, cf. et l. 568

 26

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

two wills (θελήσεις), and these fighting each other. But we will piously know that the one will as of one Emmanuel is moved on the one side humanly, on the other side in a way befitting God." The same obnoxious heretic states again in the 52nd chapter of the third treatise of his dealing against Colluthus, the companion of his heresy: "I say that Emmanuel has one knowledge and energy, just as he has one will. Now look: he who is unchangeable like God, who is above all passion, and who is moved according to his will in a way befitting man, he rejects the passion. In a way befitting God, however, he regains courage again for that passion, and both these things happen through the flesh." That is what these (heretics) peevishly assert.

Their adversaries, who at the same time are adversaries of the truth, I mean the advocates of division, arrive at the same false opinion concerning one will and one energy, even though they advocated the relational unity of the will. They buzzed around the following:

 26

Bram Roosen

430

435

440

Θεόδωρος μὲν ὁ κακόφρων καὶ δύσερις, ὁ τὴν Μομψουεστινῶν ληϊσάμενος, ἐν τοῖς | εἰς τὰ θαύματα παρεξηγηθεῖσιν αὐτῷ λόγου δευτέρου· «Θέλω καθαρίσθητι, πρὸς τὸν λεπρὸν εἰπὼν ὁ σωτὴρ, ἔδειξε μίαν εἶναι τὴν θέλησιν, μίαν τὴν ἐνέργειαν, κατὰ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐξουσίαν προαγομένην, οὐ λόγῳ φύσεως, ἀλλ'εὐδοκίας, καθ'ἣν ἡνώθη τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ ὁ κατὰ πρόγνωσιν ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυῒδ ὕστερον γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, ἐξ αὐτῆς μήτρας τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐνδιάθετον ἔχων οἰκείωσιν»· ὁ δὲ τῆς ἐκείνου μανίας ὁπαδὸς καὶ διάδοχος, Νεστώριος ὁ ἀλητήριος, ἐν τῇ λεγομένῃ αὐτῷ «Ἐμφανεῖ μυήσει» λόγου δευτέρου τῆς κατ'αὐτὴν πραγματείας τῷδε κακούργως· «Ἀσυγχύτους φυλάττομεν τὰς φύσεις οὐ κατ'οὐσίαν, γνώμῃ δὲ συνημμένας, δι'ὃ καὶ μίαν αὐτῶν τὴν θέλησιν ἐνέργειάν τε καὶ δεσποτείαν ὁρῶμεν ἀξίας ἰσότητι δεικνυμένας. Ὁ γὰρ θεὸς λόγος ἀναλαβὼν ὃν προώρισεν ἄνθρωπον τῷ τῆς ἐξουσίας 427/435 Θεόδωρος – οἰκείωσιν ] Theodor. Mops., Fragm. in Mt. 8, 3. Ed. Swete II, p. 339 et PG 66, 1004 D3-11 ex opusculo nostro et Conc.Later. (cf. PG 66, 64 A6-B3) 427/429 Θεόδωρος – δευτέρου ] Tit. simil. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 332, l. 17-18 [test. divid. haeret., 1]) 429/435 Θέλω – οἰκείωσιν ] Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 332, l. 20-23 [test. divid. haeret., 1]) 429 Θέλω καθαρίσθητι ] Mt. 8, 3 433/434 ἐκ – ἄνθρωπος ] Rom. 1, 3 436/450 ὁ – διαιρούμενον ] Nest. CP, Sermones de myster. Epiphan., deperdit. praeter haec duo fragm. e serm. 2 et 4 in flor. saec. VII. Cf. Loofs, p. 224 e Conc.Later. et Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. 437/438 Ἐμφανεῖ μυήσει ] Idem tit. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 332, l. 33 [test. divid. haeret., 3]) et ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 104, l. 18) 439/445 Ἀσυγχύτους – διάθεσιν ] Idem fragm. e Nest. CP Serm. 2 de myster. Epiphan. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 332, l. 35-38 [test. divid. haeret., 3]) et ab Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. (p. 104, l. 19-22) 443 προώρισεν ] Rom. 8, 29 428 λιησάμενος G 436 ὁπαδὸς ] sic spir. G, cf. l. 682 437 Νεστώριος ] sic G, cf. ad l. 303 ἐμφανῆ G 439 κακοῦργος G 443 τῷ ] τὸ G

 27

173

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

the malignant and quarrelsome Theodorus, who ravaged the church of Mopsuestia, in the second treatise of his misinterpretations concerning the miracles: "When the Lord said to the leper 'I will; be thou clean', he showed that his will is one, that his energy is one, brought forward according to one and the same authority by the command not of nature, but of favour. It was this authority according to which he was united with the God Word, he who later presciently became man from the seed of David, with whom he has an ingrained association from the womb itself."; his fellow and the successor in his folly, the wicked Nestorius, mischievously writes in the second book of his treatise entitled "Famous revelation" in the following way: "We guard the natures unconfused, as they are connected not in essence, but by will (γνώμῃ), and are shown to be of equal worth. That is why we also see their will (θέλησις), energy and power as one. For when by virtue of his power (ἐξουσία) the God Word took up man whom he

 27

Bram Roosen

445

λόγῳ, πρὸς αὐτὸν οὐ διεκρίθη διὰ τὴν προγνωσθεῖσαν διάθεσιν»·

450

ὁ δ'αὐτὸς αὖθις παράφρων ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ λόγου δʹ· «Οὐκ ἄλλος ἦν ὁ θεὸς λόγος, καὶ ἄλλος ὁ ἐν ᾧ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος· ἓν γὰρ ἦν ἀμφοτέρων τὸ πρόσωπον ἀξίᾳ καὶ τιμῇ προσκυνούμενον παρὰ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, μηδενὶ τρόπῳ ἢ χρόνῳ ἑτερότητι βουλῆς καὶ θελήματος διαιρούμενον».

455

460

Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Παῦλος ὁ Πέρσης ψευδοδιάκονος ὢν τῆς Νεστωρίου μιαρωτάτης αἱρέσεως, ἐν τῷ περὶ κρίσεως αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, τάδε σὺν ἐκείνοις φθέγγεται θεομαχῶν· «Ἐπειδὴ κατ'οὐσίαν ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς ὃν ἀνέλαβεν ἄνθρωπον οὐ γέγονεν ἕνωσις, μία φύσις οὐ γέγονεν· εἰ δὲ μία φύσις οὐ γέγονεν, μία μονοπρόσωπος ὁ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπόστασις· οὐκοῦν κατ'εὐδοκίαν ἡ ἕνωσις βουλῆς καὶ γνώμης ταυτότητι κρατουμένη, ἵνα καὶ τὸ διάφορον τῶν φύσεων ἀσύγχυτον δείκνυται, καὶ τὸ τῆς εὐδοκίας μυστήριον μονάδι βουλήσεως διαδείκνυται.» Οἷς ὡς ὁρᾶτε πανάριστοι τά τε γράμματα καὶ πρὸ τούτων διασκοποῦντες τὰ δόγματα, λίαν ἐν πᾶσιν

444 προγνωσθεῖσαν ] ibid. 446/450 Οὐκ – διαιρούμενον ] Idem fragm. e Nest. CP Serm. 4 de myster. Epiphan. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 334, l. 3-5 [test. divid. haeret., 4]) 451/460 Ἀλλὰ – διαδείκνυται ] Paul. Pers., De iudicio, deperdit. praeter hoc unum fragm. in flor. saec. VII 452/453 ἐν – λόγῳ ] Tit. simil. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 334, l. 12 [test. divid. haeret., 6]) 454/460 Ἐπειδὴ – διαδείκνυται ] Idem fragm. adfertur in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 334, l. 14-18 [test. divid. haeret., 6]) 444 προγνωσθεῖσαν ] προγνωσθῆσαν G 449 κτήσεως G 452 Νεστωρίου ] sic G, cf. ad l. 303 460 μονάδη G 461 ὁρᾶται G

 28

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

predestinated, he was not different from man because of the foreknown disposition."; and again the same madman in the fourth book of the same treatise: "The God Word and man in whom he was born are not one and another: the person (πρόσωπον) of both was one in dignity and honour, being worshipped by the whole of creation, in no way or at no time divided by a difference of intention (βουλή) and will (θέλημα).". But also Paul the Persian, false deacon of Nestorius' most abominable heresy in his treatise on judgement wars against God and utters the following on top of that: "Since there was no essential union of the God Word with the man he assumed, he did not become one nature; and if he did not become one nature, Christ is not one unipersonal (μονοπρόσωπος) hypostasis. Thus, the union came about on the basis of good will strengthened by the identity of his will (βουλῆς καὶ γνώμης ταυτότητι), in order that also the difference of his natures be shown to be unconfused and that the mystery of his good will be plainly shown by the unity of will."

 28

Bram Roosen

ὁμόφωνός τε καὶ ὁμόλογος ἡ οὐκ οἶδ'ὅπως νῦν διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἐπεισφρήσασα κατὰ τῆς ἀμωμή465

του πίστεως καθέστηκεν ἔκθεσις, τὸ ἓν ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ θέλημα κυροῦσα, καὶ τὴν μίαν ἐνέργειαν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄφροσι, τὸ μὲν ἓν θέλημα, διὰ τοῦ λέγειν· «Ὅθεν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἐν ἅπασι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ κατακολουθοῦντες, ἓν θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμο-

470

λογοῦμεν»· τὴν δὲ μίαν ἐνέργειαν, διὰ τοῦ φάσκειν· «Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἕπεσθαι ταύτῃ, τουτέστι τῇ ῥήσει τῶν δύο ἐνεργειῶν, τὸ καὶ δύο πρεσβεύειν θελήματα». Καὶ γὰρ εἰ ἕπεσθαι τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τὰ θελήματα διορίζεται, πᾶσά πως ἀνάγκη τοῦ ἑπομένου πρὸς αὐτῆς κυρωθέντος, λέγω

475

δὴ τοῦ ἑνὸς θελήματος, κυροῦσθαι καὶ τὸ ἡγούμενον ἤγουν τὴν μίαν ἐνέργειαν. Ταύτη γὰρ ἐπειγομένη σοφιστικῶς τῇ μιᾷ θελήσει συνεισαγαγεῖν, ἕπεσθαι τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τὴν θέλησιν κατὰ δόξαν ἐθέσπισεν. Διὸ | καὶ πατέρας οἶδεν οἷς ἐν τούτῳ καὶ πᾶσι κατηκολούθησεν,

480

οὐ τοὺς ὄντως, ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὴ δ'ὅλως ἁγίους. Οὐ γὰρ δήπου

ποτ'ἂν περὶ ἑνὸς

θελήματος φήσειέ

τις

Ἀθανάσιον τὸν ἀοίδιμον διαρρήδην βοῶντα καθάπερ φθάσαντες

παρέστημεν·

«Δύο

θελήματα

ἐνταῦθα

δείκνυσι, τὸ μὲν ἀνθρώπινον, τὸ δὲ θεϊκόν»· οὐ Γρηγό467/469 Ὅθεν – ὁμολογοῦμεν ] Heracl. imp., Ekthesis (p. 160, l. 24-26) 471/472 Ἀλλὰ – θελήματα ] ibid. (p. 160, l. 15-16) e Sergii patr. Ep. ad Honor. papam (p. 542, l. 12-13) 471/472 τῇ – ἐνεργειῶν ] ibid. (p. 160, l. 13-14) ex eodem loco (p. 542, l. 11) 473 ἕπεσθαι – θελήματα ] vide supra, l. 471 477 ἕπεσθαι ] vide supra, l. 471 478/480 Διὸ – ἁγίους ] vide supra, l. 467/469 483/484 Δύο – θεϊκόν ] vide supra, l. 154/156 463 ὁμοφώνως Ga. corr. 465 ἔκθεσις ] correxi; ἕνωσις G correxi, ταύτη G ἐπιγομένη G 478 ἐθέσπησεν G 482 ἀοίδημον G

 29

476 Ταύτην ] 481 φήσιέ G

176

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

As you see, best of all, when examining their writings and more importantly their beliefs, this Ekthesis, which (I do not know how) is introduced now because of our sins against the immaculate faith, is very much unisonous and homologous in everything, as it states in the same way as those foolish people that there is one will and one energy in Christ: one will, by saying: "That is why, following the holy fathers in everything and in this, we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ has one will"; one energy by stating: "But that it also follows from that, i.e. the statement of two energies, to advocate also two wills." And indeed, if it is determined that the wills follow the energy, it is fully necessary that when the latter (τοῦ ἑπομένου), I mean the one will, is determined on the basis of the former, also the former (τὸ ἡγούμενον), i.e. the one energy, is being determined. For, by hastily introducing in a sophistic way the one energy together with the one will, it (sc. the Ekthesis) decreed it seems that the will follows the energy. That is why it also knew of fathers it could follow in this and in everything, of course no real fathers, but those who are not holy in every respect. Surely no one would ever contend that the famous Athanasius explicitly talks about one will, in the quote we presented earlier: "Then he shows two wills, one human, the other divine"; nor does Gregory the theologian, when he

 29

Bram Roosen

485

490

495

500

505

ριον τὸν Θεολόγον περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρωπικοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος θελήματος λέγοντα· «Τὸ γὰρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, οὐδὲ ὑπεναντίον θεῷ θεωθὲν ὅλον»· οὐ τὸν ὁμώνυμον αὐτῷ τῆς Νυσσαέων καθηγητήν· «Ἡ ψυχὴ θέλει, τὸ σῶμα ἅπτεται» φάσκοντα, καὶ «Τῷ ἐνεργοῦντι σώματι, καὶ τῇ ὁρμῇ τοῦ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινομένου θελήματος», καὶ «Θέλων μὲν διὰ τῆς ψυχῆς, ἁπτόμενος δὲ διὰ τοῦ σώματος», καὶ «Ἄλλο τὸ ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα, καὶ τὸ θεῖον ἄλλο», καὶ «Εἰπὼν Μὴ τὸ ἐμὸν, τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τῷ λόγῳ ἐσήμανεν· προσθεὶς δὲ Τὸ σὸν, ἔδειξε τὸ συναφὲς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα θεότητος»· οὐ τὸν Χρυσόστομον Ἰωάννην παιδεύοντα· «Οὐ γὰρ ἀγωνίαν μόνον ἐμφαίνει τὰ ῥήματα, ἀλλὰ δύο θελήματα», καὶ «Ἂν μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος τὸ εἰρημένον ᾖ τοῦτο, αντιολογία τις γίνεται· ἂν δ'ἐπὶ τῆς σαρκὸς, ἔχει λόγον τὰ εἰρημένα. Οὐ γὰρ τὸ μὴ θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν τὴν σάρκα κατάγνωσις· φύσεως γάρ ἐστι τοῦτο· αὐτὸς δὲ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἅπαντα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ἐπιδείκνυται, καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς περιουσίας»· οὐ Κύριλλον τὸν Ἀλεξανδρείας σοφῶς ἐκδιδάσκοντα· «Τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς, εἰς τέλος διεξαγαγεῖν τὴν οἰκονομίαν. Ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν, διὰ τὸ παραιτεῖσθαι τὴν σάρκα τὸν θάνατον φυσικῶς», καὶ «Θελητὸν μὲν ἔχει τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντων τεθνάναι, διὰ τὸ βεβουλῆσθαι τὴν θείαν φύσιν· ἀνεθέλητον δὲ, διὰ τὴν 486/487 Τὸ – ὅλον ] vide supra, l. 165/166 488 Ἡ – ἅπτεται ] vide supra, l. 171/172 489/490 Τῷ – θελήματος ] vide supra, l. 178/179 490/491 Θέλων – σώματος ] vide supra, l. 183/184 492 Ἄλλο – ἄλλο ] vide supra, l. 186/187 493/495 Εἰπὼν – θεότητος ] vide supra, l. 192/194 496/497 Οὐ – θελήματα ] vide supra, l. 209/210 497/502 Ἂν – περιουσίας ] vide supra, l. 218/224 501 χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ] Hebr. 4, 15 503/506 Τοῦτο – φυσικῶς ] vide supra, l. 250/253 507/509 Θελητὸν – φυσικῶς ] vide supra, l. 256/260 488 Νυσσαέων ] correxi, νυσαέων G, cf. l. 167 498 ᾖ ] correxi, cf. l. 219, εἶ G ἐναντιολογία ] correxi, cf. l. 219, ἀντιολογία G

 30

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

says about the human will of the Saviour: "For his human will cannot be opposed to God, because his will was altogether deified"; nor his namesake, leader of the church of Nyssa, who says: "His soul wills, his body touches", and "With his body that acts, and with the impulse of his will originating in his mind", and "Willing through his mind, touching through his body", and "His human will is different from his divine will", and "When he said 'Not my will', he indicated the human will; but by adding 'Your will', he indicated the connection of his divinity with the Father"; nor John Chrysostom, when he teaches: "Indeed, the words not only indicate agony, but two wills", and "If that expression concerns the divinity, a contradiction arises. However, if it concerns the flesh, then the expression makes sense. Indeed, the fact that the flesh does not want to die is no cause for blame, since it is typical of physical nature, and Christ shows all characteristics of physical nature without sin, with a lot of surplus even"; nor Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, when he wisely teaches: "For that was the will of the Father, viz. to quickly bring the economy to its fulfilment. And another reason for his not wanting to die is that by nature the flesh refuses to die", and "He died voluntarily for all of us because such was the will of his divine nature; involuntarily, however, because his flesh renounced death

 30

Bram Roosen

510

515

520

525

530

σάρκα παρουμένην φυσικῶς»· οὐ Σευηριανὸν τὸν τῶν Γαβάλων πρόεδρον μαρτυρούμενον· «Ὥστε δύο θελήματα ἐμφαίνει, τὸ μὲν, θεῖον, τὸ δὲ, ἀνθρώπινον». Ἀλλ'οὐδὲ περὶ μιᾶς ἐνεργείας τὸν μέγαν ὁμολογητὴν Ἀμβρόσιον ἐμφρόνως κηρύττοντα· «Ποίῳ γὰρ τρόπῳ ἡ αὐτὴ ἐνέργεια διαφόρου ἐστὶν οὐσίας. Μὴ γὰρ δύναται μία ἐνέργεια εἶναι, ὅπου διάφορος οὐσία ἐστίν;»· οὐ Κύριλλον τὸν Ἱεροσολύμων παρεγγυώμενον· «Ἔδειξε τὴν διπλὴν ἐνέργειαν, πάσχων μὲν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐνεργῶν δὲ ὡς θεὸς ὁ αὐτός»· οὐ Λέοντα τὸν θεῖον, ἀποφωνοῦντά τε συνετῶς· «Ἐνεργεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρα μορφὴ μετὰ τῆς θατέρου κοινωνίας, ὅπερ ἴδιον ἔσχηκεν»· οὐ τὸν Χρυσόστομον αὖθις· «Καὶ ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν συναφθεισῶν φύσεων διάφορος ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος καὶ τῆς θεότητος. Περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην, συντρέχει τὸ τῆς διπλῆς ἐνεργείας», καὶ «Δύο λοιπὸν ἐνεργειῶν ᾐσθόμην»· οὐ Κύριλλον ὁμοίως τὸν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἱερώτατον καθηγητήν· «Οὐ γὰρ μίαν δήπου εἶναι φυσικὴν τὴν ἐνέργειαν δώσομεν θεοῦ καὶ ποιήματος».| Τούτους ἢ τινὰς τούτων οὐχ'ἁγίους οὔτε μὴν ἐγκρίτους εἶναι διαγορεύει τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγοὺς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν αὐτῶν περί τε θελημάτων δύο καὶ ἐνεργειῶν περίδοξον ὁμολογίαν, δυσσεβῆ τυγχάνειν καὶ ἀλλοτρίαν τοῦ χριστιανικοῦ δόγματος ἀποφαίνεται. 510/511 Ὥστε – ἀνθρώπινον ] vide supra, l. 272/273 513/515 Ποίῳ – ἐστίν ] vide supra, l. 290/291 et 292/293 516/518 Ἔδειξε – αὐτός ] vide supra, l. 298/299 519/520 Ἐνεργεῖ – ἔσχηκεν ] vide supra, l. 304/306 521/524 Καὶ – ἐνεργείας ] vide supra, l. 313/315 et 319/320 524 Δύο – ᾐσθόμην ] vide supra, l. 328 526/527 Οὐ – ποιήματος ] vide supra, l. 331/332 509 παραιτουμένην ] correxi, cf. l. 259, παρουμένην G 510 μαρτυρώμενον G 513 Ἀμβρόσιον ] ἀμβρώσιον G, cf. l. 284 514 Μὴ ] bis acc. G, cf. l. 291 516 παρεγγυόμενον G 517 διπλὴν ] sic acc. G, cf. l. 298 524 ἠσθώμην G 527 δόσωμεν G 528 οὐχ' ] οὐκ G

 31

177

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

by nature"; nor Severian, the bishop of Gabala, when he testifies: "And as such he shows two wills, one divine, the other human". Nor would anyone contend that the great confessor Ambrose talks about one energy, when he wisely states: "For in what way can the same energy be from a different essence? How could it be that the lower energy operates in the same way as the higher energy?"; nor Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, when he writes: "He showed his double energy, suffering like a man and operating like a God"; nor the divine Leo, intelligently stating: "Each form by aid of its union with the other operates what it has proper"; nor again Chrysostom: "Also in the other elements of the united natures, the energy of his humanity is one thing, the power of his divinity is something else. But with regard to his mercy that which is proper of his double energy concurs", and "finally I noticed his two energies"; nor Cyril, the most holy leader of Alexandria: "For surely we will not grant that God and creation have one natural energy". The Ekthesis refuses to call these or at least some of them holy, let alone authoritative teachers of the Church, and also declares that their illustrious agreement concerning two wills and energies is impious and alien to the Christian dogma. It proves this by stating the following to us: "That in

 31

Bram Roosen

535

540

545

550

555

Πιστοῦται γὰρ τάδε φάσκουσα τῶν λόγων ἡμῖν· «Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν δύο ἐνεργειῶν ῥῆσιν πολλοὺς σκανδαλίζειν, ὡς μήτε τινὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἐγκρίτων τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγῶν εἰρημένην, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἕπεσθαι αὐτῇ τὸ δύο πρεσβεύειν θελήματα ἐναντίως πρὸς ἄλληλα ἔχοντα, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν δύο τοὺς ταναντία θέλοντας εἰσάγεσθαι, ὅπερ δυσσεβὲς ὑπάρχει καὶ ἀλλότριον τοῦ χριστιανικοῦ δόγματος». Ἰδοὺ σαφῶς καὶ γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον οὐχ'ἁγίων ὑπάρχειν, οὔτε μὴν ἐγκρίτων ὁρίζεται τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγῶν, τὸ δύο πρεσβεύειν θελήματα καὶ τὰς κατ'αὐτὴν ἡγουμένας ἰσαρίθμους αὐτοῖς ἐνεργείας, δυσσεβῶν δὲ μᾶλλον, ὡς δυσσεβὲς καὶ ἀλλότριον ᾗ φησὶ τοῦ χριστιανικοῦ δόγματος, καὶ δύο τοὺς ταναντία θέλοντας ἐπεισάγον τοῖς ταῦτα κηρύττουσιν, ἤγουν τὰ δύο θελήματα καὶ τὰς ἰσαρίθμους αὐτοῖς ἐνεργείας, πνευματοκινήτοις πατράσιν, οἷς οὐδὲ εἵλατο κατακολουθεῖν, ἢ ἁγίους τούτους ἀποκαλεῖν, ἢ ὅλως κατ'ἐκείνους σὺν ἐκείνοις ταῦτα πρεσβεύειν εἰς τὴν τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ μυστηρίου βεβαίωσιν, ἀλλὰ τισὶ καὶ τινὰς τοὺς περὶ ὧν καὶ οἷς ἔφησε τὴν τῆς μιᾶς ἐνεργείας εἰρῆσθαι φωνὴν καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν ἐν τούτῳ καθὰ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι πρὸς τὸ ἓν θέλημα Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁμολογεῖν, οἵ τε περιφανῶς ὄντες διεδείχθησαν οἵ τε τῆς συγχύσεως πρόμαχοι καὶ τῆς διαιρέσεως ἡγεμόνες, οἷον – οὐκ ἀπεικὸς γὰρ εἰς πίστωσιν καὶ αὖθις ἐπιτόμως ἐπιδραμεῖν –, Ἀπολινάριος ὁ δυσμενὴς, τάδε θεομαχῶν· «Εἷς γὰρ ὁ 534/538 Ὡσαύτως – ἔχοντα ] Heracl. imp., Ekthesis (p. 160, l. 13-16) e Sergii patr. Epistula ad Honorium papam (p. 542, l. 11-13) 538/540 καὶ – δόγματος ] ibid. (p. 160, l. 18-19) ex eodem loco (p. 542, l. 1516) 559/561 Εἷς – ἐνέργειαν ] vide supra, l. 368/370 538 τ'ἀναντία G 541 οὐχ' ] οὐκ G 546 τ'ἀναντία G ἐπεισάγων G 548 εἰσαρίθμους G, cf. l. 346 549 εἵλατο ] correxi, ἥλατο G 557 οὐκ ἀπεικὸς ] correxi; οὐκαπεικὼς G

 32

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

the same way also the statement of two energies scandalizes a lot of people, as this statement is not made by any of the saints or by any of the authoritative teachers of the church; for that consequently one also has to advocate two wills contrary to each other, which leads to the introduction of two persons willing opposite things, which is impious and alien to the Christian dogma". You see, clearly and with the head naked so to speak (i.e. shamelessly), it is ordained that it is not of holy, let alone authoritative teachers of the church, to advocate two wills and the energies of which it assumes that they are equal in number with the wills, but rather of the impious, since, as the Ekthesis says, it is impious and alien to the Christian dogma, and since it introduces two persons willing opposite things into those who proclaim the two wills and the energies equal in number with them. Although they are inspired fathers, the Ekthesis chose not to follow them or call them holy, or on the whole to advocate these things according to them and together with them in firmly establishing the bodily mystery of Christ our God. It chose, however, to follow and call holy some of those concerning whom it declares that they state one energy, and whom it declares to follow in everything and thus also in their confession of one will of Christ our God. These we have clearly shown to be the champions of confusion and the leaders of division, like (and in order to prove our point it is not unreasonable to repeat their words in short) the hostile Apolinarius, who says the following in

 32

Bram Roosen

560

Χριστὸς, θεϊκῷ θελήματι μόνῳ κινούμενος, καθ'ὃ καὶ μίαν οἴδαμεν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν», καὶ «Μὴ δὲ μίαν ἔχων ἐν τῷ θέλειν διαφοράν»· Πολέμων ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας πολέμιος· «Ἀτρέπτῳ θελήματι θεϊκῶς πάντα πεποίηκεν. Ἀλλ'οὐ τὸ μὲν, θεῖον, τὸ δὲ, θεωθὲν, κατὰ τὸν Καππα-

565

δόκην Γρηγόριον», καὶ «Ὁ δύο θελήματα λέγων Χριστοῦ κατὰ τοὺς πάλαι καὶ νῦν φυσωμένους, ἢ τὸν ἕνα δύο τινὰς εἰσάγει Χριστοὺς, ἢ τὸν αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ διδάσκει μαχόμενον»· Θεμέστιος ὁ ἀθέμιτος· «Ἀλλ'εἰσόμεθα τὴν ὡς ἑνὸς μίαν θέλησιν τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ, πῆ μὲν ἀνθρω-

570

πικῶς κινεῖσθαι, πῆ δε θεοπρεπῶς», καὶ «Μίαν φημὶ τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, καθ'ἃ καὶ τὴν θέλησιν»· Θεόδωρος ὁ θεόπληξ· «Ἔδειξε μίαν εἶναι τὴν θέλησιν, μίαν τὴν ἐνέργειαν, κατὰ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐξουσίαν προαγομένην»· Νεστώριος ὁ παράπληξ· «Δι'ὃ

575

καὶ μίαν αὐτῶν τὴν θέλησιν ἐνέργειάν τε καὶ δεσποτείαν ὁρῶμεν»· Παῦλος ὁ καὶ τὴν γνώμην Πέρσης· «Κατ'εὐδοκίαν ἡ ἕνωσις βουλῆς καὶ γνώμης ταυτότητι κρατουμένη, καὶ τὸ τῆς εὐδοκίας μυστήριον μονάδι βουλήσεως διαδείκνυται». Τούτους δὴ τοὺς ἐναγεῖς καὶ ἀλάστορας,

561/562 Μὴ – διαφοράν ] vide supra, l. 379 563/565 Ἀτρέπτῳ – Γρηγόριον ] vide supra, l. 387/389 565/568 Ὁ – μαχόμενον ] vide supra, l. 394/398 568/570 Ἀλλ'εἰσόμεθα – θεοπρεπῶς ] vide supra, l. 408/410 570/572 Μίαν – θέλησιν ] vide supra, l. 414/415 572/574 Ἔδειξε – προαγομένην ] vide supra, l. 430/432 574/576 Δι'ὃ – ὁρῶμεν ] vide supra, l. 440/442 576/578 Κατ'εὐδοκίαν – διαδείκνυται ] vide supra, l. 457/460 564 θεωθὲν ] correxi, cf. ad l. 166, θεοθὲν G 566 φυσομένους Ga. corr. 568 ἀθέμητος G Ἀλλ'εἰσόμεθα ] ἀλλισόμεθα sic G, cf. et l. 408 572 ἔδειξεν G 574 Νεστώριος ] sic G, cf. ad l. 303 575 δεσποτίαν G 578 μονάδι ] correxi, cf. l. 460; μοναδικῆς G

 33

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

his war against God: "For one is Christ, being moved by his divine will only, on the basis of which we know that also his energy is one", and "Having no difference in his act of willing"; or like Polemon, the enemy (πολέμιος) of the truth: "He did everything in a divine way with an unchangeable will. But the one will is not divine, the other will deified, as Gregory the Cappadocian upheld", and "He who says that Christ has two wills like those vain people in the past and now, either introduces the one as two Christs or teaches that the one struggles with himself"; or like the wicked (ἀθέμιτος) Themestius: "But we will know that the one will as of one Emmanuel is moved on the one side humanly, on the other side in a way befitting God" and "I say that Emmanuel has one knowledge and one energy, just as he has one will"; the God-smitten Theodore (θεόπληξ): "He showed that his will is one, that his energy is one, brought forward according to one and the same authority"; the mad (παράπληξ) Nestorius: "That is why we also see their will, energy and power as one"; or Paul, who was Persian also in thoughts: "The union that is strengthened according to favour (εὐδοκία) by the identity of will, also plainly shows the mystery of his favour by the unity of

 33

Bram Roosen

580

πατέρας ἁγίους ὁρίζεται. Τούτους ἐγκρίτους οἶδε τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγοὺς, οἷς ἐν πᾶσι κἀν τούτῳ κατακολουθήσασα, καὶ μίαν Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ σὺν ἐκείνοις ὁριζομένη θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν, τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας ὁμοίως αὐτοῖς συγχεῖ τε καὶ διατέμνει λόγον.|

585

Πῶς οὖν τὰ τῶν ἐναντίων φρονοῦσα, φρονεῖν ἑτέρως ὑπείληφεν, ἐναλλὰξ τιθεμένη τὰς ψήφους, καὶ τοῦ ὄντος τὸ μὴ ὂν αἱρουμένη τε καὶ προκρίνουσα; Καὶ γὰρ ἀληθείας οὐκ ἀδικίας κρινούσης, παντὶ τὸ σαφὲς, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἐκείνοις ὑπάρχων σύμφωνος καὶ ὁμόλογος, οὐχ'ὁ λέγων ἃ μὴ λέγουσιν, ἀλλ'ὁ πρεσβεύων ἃ δογματίζουσιν, εἴπερ ἀσυμφωνία μὲν τὸ ἑτερόδοξον, συμφωνία δὲ, τὸ ὁμόδοξον οἶδε χαρακτηρίζειν. Καίτοι μαρτύρεταί πως καὶ αὐτὴ βοῶσα, μὴ δύο τετολμηκέναι θελήματα φάναι ποτ'ἂν τὸν μιαρὸν Νεστώριον, ἀλλὰ ταυτοβουλίαν τουτέστιν ἓν θέλημα τῶν πλαττομένων αὐτῷ δύο προσώπων ὁμολογεῖν. Εἰ τοίνυν καὶ κατὰ ταύτην, οὐ δύο μὲν, ἓν δὲ θέλημα πρεσβεύει Νεστώριος, τοῦτο δὲ καὶ Ἀπολινάριος καὶ οἱ ἀπ'ἐκείνων δυσσεβεῖς ἅπαντες, καὶ μέντοι καὶ μίαν ἐνέργειαν ὡς ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν, ἀναμφηρίστως ἄρα δύο μὲν ἡμᾶς λέγοντας κατὰ τοὺς θείους πατέρας, ἑτερόφρονας πάντη, μίαν δὲ λέγουσαν ἑαυτὴν ὁμό-

590

595

600

580/581 ἐγκρίτους – μυσταγωγοὺς ] vide supra, l. 535/536 581 ἐν – κατακολουθήσασα ] vide supra, l. 468/469 593/596 μὴ – ὁμολογεῖν ] Heracl. imp., Ekthesis (p. 160, l. 20-22) 587 ὄντος ] ὄντως G 588/589 παντὶ – σαφὲς ] an cum Combefis παντί που σαφὲς scribendum sit? 595 Νεστώριον ] sic G, cf. ad l. 303 ταυτοβουλίαν ] correxi cum fonte et Lampe, s.v. αὐτοβουλία, αὐτοβουλίαν G 598 Νεστώριος ] sic G, cf. ad l. 303 600 ἆρα G

 34

180

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

will." Those are the accursed and wicked writers the Ekthesis defines as holy fathers. Those it knows as authoritative teachers of the church, whom it will follow in everything as well as in that matter: together with them the Ekthesis determines that Christ has one will and energy and as a result, just like them, it confuses and disunites the principle of the economy. Now, how is it that the Ekthesis, while thinking the thoughts of the adversaries, assumes to think differently, changing the opinions and choosing and preferring what is not over what is? For with the truth, not injustice as judge, it is clear to all that not he who says what they do not say is in unison and of one mind with them, but he who advocates what they teach as a doctrine, if disagreement can characterize that which is of a different belief, agreement, however, that which is of the same belief. And indeed, the Ekthesis itself states emphatically that the foul Nestorius never would have dared to say two wills, but that he confessed identity of will, that is one will of the two persons (πρόσωπα) invented by him. Now, if also according to the Ekthesis Nestorius does not advocate two wills, but one, just like Apolinarius and all those impious people after them, as well as one energy, as the text has shown, then unambiguously, by what it decrees, the Ekthesis presents us who follow the holy fathers in saying two (sc. wills and energies) as in every way differently-minded, and it

 34

Bram Roosen

605

φρονα Νεστορίῳ τε καὶ Ἀπολιναρίῳ, καὶ τοῖς ἀμφ'αὐτοῖς οὖσαν οἷς δογματίζει παρέστησε, καὶ τοὺς μὲν θείους παραγραφομένην ὡς ἔφην, τοὺς δὲ ἐναγεῖς, οἰκείους πατέρας ἐπιγραφομένην. Τίνος δὲ ταύτην ἢ ποίας ἐκβιασαμένης αἰτίας κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς εἰσκεκόμικεν ὁμολογίας; Εἰ μὲν ὡς οὐκ ἐχόντων πίστιν ἡμῶν, ψευδὴς ὁ λόγος· χριστιανοὶ γὰρ

610

καὶ πρὸ ταύτης ἅπαντες οἱ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον πρεσβεύοντες. Εἰ δὲ ὡς ἐχόντων, φευκτὸς ὁ τρόπος, τὸ περιττὸν ὡς κίβδηλον ἐπεισάγων, ᾧ τὴν αὐτῶν συσκιάζοντες πανουργίαν, καὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδὲ μίαν συνόδου καθάπαξ ἢ πατρὸς ἢ γραφῆς χρῆσιν προκομίζειν εἰς τὴν τῶν

615

οἰκείων ἔχοντες μαρτυρίαν, ταῦτα φασὶ πλαττόμενοι τῆς εὐσεβείας τὰ δόγματα ἃ παρεδώκασιν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπαρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου γενόμενοι, καὶ οἱ τούτων μαθηταὶ καὶ διάδοχοι καθεξῆς, θεόπνευστοι τῆς

620

ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλοι, ταυτὸν δὲ εἰπεῖν, αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ οἰκουμενικαὶ εʹ σύνοδοι τῶν μακαριωτάτων καὶ θεοφόρων πατέρων. Ἀλλ'εἰ ταῦτα παρέδοσαν, τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις ἢ πόθεν ἐκείνοις τῶν τοιούτων δογμάτων ἡ πίστωσις; Ἄλλως τε τὰς ἁγίας προσεχόντων ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολο-

625

γούντων συνόδους, δῆλον ὡς τῶν ἐπεισάκτων κίβδηλος ἡ ἐφεύρεσις. Εἰ δὲ μὴ ταῦτα τῶν ἁγίων συνόδων, τίς ὁ τοῦ δράματος ὄγκος, κλήσει τῶν πανευφήμων τὸ δύσφημον ἐπικάμπτων, ὡς ἂν δέλεαρ ᾖ τοῖς ἁπλουστέροις εἰς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπόστασιν τῶν περιδό615/621 ταῦτα – πατέρων ] 616/617 παρεδώκασιν – γενόμενοι ] Lc. 1, 2

ibid. (p. 160, l. 29-33) 621 παρέδοσαν ] ibid.

603 Νεστορίῳ ] sic G, cf. ad l. 303 608 εἰσκεκόμηκεν G 610 ἅπαντες ] αἱ πάντες G 613 πανουργείαν G συνόδου ] correxi cum Combefis, σύνοδον G 624 ἐπισάκτων G

 35

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

presents itself, saying one (sc. will and energy), as being of one mind with Nestorius and Apolinarius and those around them, and as rejecting, like I said, the holy fathers, while claiming the accursed as its own fathers. But who or what reason forced him (sc. Heraclius or Sergius) to introduce the Ekthesis against the pious confession? If it was because we did not have faith, the reason is false: also before the Ekthesis all those who advocated the correct word were Christians. If, however, it was because we did have faith, this method should be shunned as it introduces the superfluous as well as erroneous. And using it to obscure their own villainy and because they can produce not one quote from not even one synod or father, nor from the Bible to support their own opinions, they invent the following: "These are the dogmas of piety which they delivered unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, and their pupils and successors after them, divinely inspired teachers of the church, that is, the five holy and ecumenical synods of the most blessed and God-bearing fathers." But if they delivered these things, where is the proof? Where did they get their confirmation for such dogmas from? And besides, when we turn our attention to the holy synods and profess them, it is clear that the invention of additions is fraudulent. But if these things are not to be found in the synods, then what is the import of this fantasy? It bends what is blasphemous by quoting the wholly famous, so that the names of the illustrious fathers and synods be a bait for the more simple-

 35

Bram Roosen

630

635

640

645

ξων πατέρων τε καὶ συνόδων ἡ προσηγορία, τοῖς ἑτερό|φροσιν ἄνωθεν ἐξαρχῆς εὐμηχάνως ἐξηυρημένη, πρός τε τὴν τῶν οἰκείων ὡς ἔφην συγκάλυψιν, καὶ τῶν ὑπαγομένων δολερὰν οἷον ὑφαρπαγήν. Ὅθεν εἰς παντελῆ τῶν τοιούτων κατάργησιν, λέγω δὴ τῶν κατὰ καιροὺς τὰς ἀπατηλὰς ἐξερευνώντων ἐξερευνήσεις κατὰ τῆς πίστεως, καὶ συνοδικῶς ὁρίζεται κάλλιστα νόμος τῆς ἁγίας ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συντάξεως τῶν μακαρίων πατέρων ὧδε παρακελευόμενος· «Ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος, ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προσφέρειν, ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἢ συντιθέναι ἢ φρονεῖν ἢ διδάσκειν ἑτέρως· τοὺς δὲ τολμῶντας ἢ συντιθέναι πίστιν ἑτέραν, ἤγουν προκομίζειν ἢ διδάσκειν ἢ παραδιδόναι ἕτερον σύμβολον τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν ἐπιστρέφειν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐξ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἢ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ, ἤγουν ἐξ αἱρέσεως οἱασδηποτοῦν, τούτους, εἰ μὲν εἶεν ἐπίσκοποι ἢ κληρικοὶ, ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐπισκόπους τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, καὶ τοὺς κληρικοὺς τοῦ κλήρου· εἰ δὲ μονάζοντες ἢ λαϊκοὶ εἶεν, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι αὐτούς». Τίς οὖν ἆρα τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ᾐσθημένων θεοῦ καὶ τῆς

650

αὐτοῦ παμφαοῦς δόξης ἐξηρτημένων, παρ'οὗ καὶ δι'οὗ καὶ εἰς ὃν ἡ σωτηρία τῶν εὐσεβῶς ὁμολογούντων αὐτὸν, ἕλοιτ'ἂν τὴν διὰ τῶν θεσπεσίων λογίων τὲ

637/648 Ὥρισεν – αὐτούς ] Conc.Chalc., Symb. (p. 130, l. 5-11). Vide et Conc.Later., Secr. IV (p. 224, l. 21-27) 643 εἰς – ἀληθείας ] I Tim. 2, 4; II Tim. 2, 25 et 3, 7 630 εὐμηχάνως ] a. ἄνωθεν trsp. Ga. corr. 632 Ὅθεν ] καὶ μετ'ὀλίγα in marg. scripsit O 636/637 τῆς – πατέρων ] δη΄ in marg. scripsit O 639 συγγραφὴν O 642 σύμβολον ] in marg. iteravit O 649 ἆρα ] in marg. iteravit O 652 ἕλοιτ'ἂν ] correxi, ἔλοιτ'ἂν O, ἔτ'ἂν G

 36

181

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

minded to depart from the truth. It is a method skilfully designed from the start by the heterodox in order to cover up what is proper to them, as I said, and to treacherously deceive so to speak those who are being led astray. Therefore, in order to completely disarm such people, I mean such who successively come up with deceptive inventions against the right faith, also synodically a law was ordained, and very well so, by the holy synod of the blessed fathers in Chalcedon. This law decrees the following: "The holy and ecumenical synod has decreed that no one is allowed to present, put to writing, construct, devise, or teach in another way another faith; that those who dare construct another faith, or who dare bring forward, teach or present a different creed to those willing to turn from hellenism or judaism, or from whatever heresy unto the knowledge of the truth, if they be bishops or clerics, have to be degraded, the bishops from the episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but that if they be monks or laics, they have to be anathematized." Now, who of those who somehow mentally perceive God and depend upon the all-shining glory of him, from, through and in whom the deliverance is of those piously confessing him, who of those, I ask, would choose to leave behind the orthodox faith that was transmitted to us from

 36

Bram Roosen

655

660

665

670

675

καὶ πατέρων ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραδεδομένην ἡμῖν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν ἀπολιπεῖν, καὶ προκρίναι τὴν πρόσφατον καινοτομίαν, καθ'ἧς ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ πάσης ἑτέρας παρὰ τὸν εὐσεβῆ λογισμὸν ἐξηυρημένης τοῖς ἑτερόφροσιν, ὁ τῆς ἐγκρίτου καὶ συνοδικῆς ἀρᾶς ἔνθεσμος ἐξενήνεκται τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνειλεγμένων ἁγίων πατέρων ὅρος, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν, εἰ μή που τῆς οἰκείας καταναρκήσας ζωῆς, τῆς ἀπὸ θεοῦ δόξης τὴν ἀλλοτρίωσιν προτετίμηκε; Διὸ δὴ πράγμασιν αὐτοῖς θεώμενοι δέσποτα, καὶ κατανοοῦντες πρόοδον οὖσαν φανερῶς ἀναφανδὸν καὶ προκήρυξιν εἴς τε θεοσεβείας ἁπάσης ἀνατροπὴν καὶ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἐξάρνησιν ἀληθοῦς ἐπιγνώσεως, ἐσχάτης τὲ πλάνης καὶ τοῦ τελευταίου θηρός – κατὰ τὴν τῶν ταῦτα φαμὲν ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας θείας καὶ μακαριωτάτης ἐλλάμψεως προαγόρευσιν, εἰς ἡμετέραν φρουρὰν τῶν τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατειληφότων –, ταύτην δὴ τὴν ἐπείσακτον καινοτομίαν παντὶ σθένει τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι καρδίας τηρήσωμεν, ὡς ἂν μὴ συναπαχθῶμεν ἀπεριμερίμνως οἷον καὶ ἀτημελῶς, ἀλλ'οὐκ ἐμβριθῶς λίαν καὶ ἀνδρικῶς κατὰ πάσης ἀσεβείας ἱστάμενοι, λογισμοὺς γραφικῶς εἰπεῖν καθαιροῦντες καὶ πᾶν ὑψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ. Ταύτῃ τοι καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ τῶν ὅλων σωτὴρ κύριος ἡμῶν καὶ θεὸς, φιλανθρώπως ἡμᾶς 665 ἀληθοῦς ἐπιγνώσεως ] cf. ibid. 669 τὰ – αἰώνων ] I Cor. 10, 11 674/676 λογισμοὺς – θεοῦ ] II Cor. 10, 4-5 653 παραδεδωμένην G 654 ἀπολειπεῖν G καὶ ] om. O προκρίναι ] sic acc. G, κρίναι O 656 εὐσεβεῖ G λόγον ἐξευρημένης O 657 ἐκκρίτου O 658 ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ] ἐν χαλκηδόνι δ΄ in marg. scripsit O 659 πατέρων ] om. O ὅρος ] om. G 661 προτετίμηκεν G 663 φανερῶς ] om. (fort. recte) O 666 τελευτέου G 667 ἐπινοίας O 668 ἐλάμψεως O προσαγόρευσιν O 669 τέλει G 671 τῆς ] τὰς G 672 συναρπαχθῶμεν ἀμερίμνως O 675 ἐπαιρώμενον G

 37

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

the past and from the beginning through the divine scriptures and the fathers, and would choose to prefer the recent innovation, against which (in the same way as against any other innovation discovered by the heterodox in violation of the pious argument) the lawful dogmatic decision of the authoritative and synodic curse was issued by the holy fathers assembled in Chalcedon, like the quote showed? Who would make such a choice, unless he has grown tired of his own life and has preferred the alienation from God's glory. Therefore, Sir, seeing and considering in the facts that clearly and openly the Ekthesis leads to the subversion of every piety and to the denial of the real knowledge of the only-begotten Son and that it announces an extreme error and the final beast – we say this on the basis of what the holy fathers foretold from divine inspiration and the most blessed illumination, in order to protect us, who have reached the end of times –, let each one of us with all his strength keep that newly introduced innovation away from his heart, so that we would not be carried away unthinkingly as well as carelessly, by not standing firm with much severity and bravery against every disregard for God (in biblical terms, Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God). That way also the Saviour of all himself, our lord and God, in his love for mankind strengthens us,

 37

Bram Roosen

680

685

690

695

ἀσφαλιζόμενος, Τότε φησὶν ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ· ἴδε ὧδε ὁ Χριστὸς, ἴδε ὧδε, μὴ πιστεύσητε, τὰς κιβδήλους περὶ αὐτοῦ τῶν ἐπιλόξων καὶ διαφόρους πίστεις καὶ ὑπολήψεις, τοῦ κατ'αὐτὸν πορρωτάτω μυστηρίου διαπεμπόμενος, καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους ὁπαδοὺς ἀλλοτρίας ἁπάσης ἀνείργων, αἷς τὸ | εἰλικρινὲς τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ὁμολογίας ἐκταράττειν εἰώθασιν ἅμα καὶ πολεμεῖν οἱ τὸν τρόπον ἐριστικοὶ καὶ ἀντίφρονες, ὡς ἂν μή ποτ'ἂν ὁ εὐσεβὴς καθ'ἡμᾶς καὶ φιλόθεος νοῦς τινὶ τούτων ἁλοὺς ἀποπέσοι τῆς ἀληθείας, πιθανότητι μύθων παραρρυεὶς, ἀλλ'οὐκ ἀποδείξει πατρικῶν λόγων βεβαιωθείς. Γρηγορεῖτε γοῦν καὶ προσεύχεσθε, παρεγγυᾷ διὰ τοῦτο πάλιν ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν, ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμὸν, ἐγρηγόρσει μὲν τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ νῆψιν, προσευχῇ δὲ τὴν αὐτοῦ κατὰ χάριν ἀντίληψιν βουλόμενος ἡμῖν ἐμποιῆσαι. Πειρασμὸν δὲ τὸν ἐκ πλάνης, οὐκ ἀνάγκης ἐνταῦθα φησὶν, εἰς ὃν οἴκοθεν, οὐχ'ἑτέρωθεν εἰσαγόμεθα, τῆς εὐθείας παρεκκλινόμενοι τρίβου καὶ βασιλικῆς, ἣν ἰθυτομοῦντες αὐτοὶ θεοδήγητοι, καὶ τοὺς κατ'ἐμὲ τὸν ὑμέτερον ἐπ'ἀμφοτέ-

678/679 Τότε – πιστεύσητε ] Mt. 24, 23 (cf. et Lc. 17, 23) 689/691 Γρηγορεῖτε – πειρασμὸν ] Mt. 26, 41 (cf. et Lc. 22, 46) 695/696 τῆς – τρίβου ] Is. 40, 3; Mt. 3, 3; Mc. 1, 3; Lc. 3, 4 678 ἐάν τις ] in marg. iteravit O ὑμῖν ] ἡμῖν G ἴδε ] om. O 678/679 ὧδε – Χριστὸς ] in marg. sup. iteravit O 679 ἴδε ὧδε ] ἢ ἐκεῖ O, cf. Lc. 17, 21 πιστεύσηται G κηβδήλους G 681 κατ'αὐτὸν ] κατ'αὐτῶν Oa. corr. πορρωτάτου G 682 ὁπαδοὺς ] sic spir. G, cf. et l. 436, ὀπαδοὺς O 684 ἅμα ] om. O 685 αἰριστικοὶ G 686 εὐσεβεῖς G καθ'ἡμᾶς ] correxi cum Combefis, καθ'ὑμᾶς GO 687 πειθανότητι G 688 παραρυῆς G 689 γρηγορεῖται G, γρηγο in marg. scripsit O προσεύχεσθαι G παρεγγυᾷ ] γὰρ ἐνεγγύη G, παρῃνεγγύει O 690 εἰσέλθηται G 691 αὐτοῦ ] τοῦ G 694 ἐνταῦθα φησὶν ] φησὶν ἐνταῦθα Ga. corr. ut videtur εἴκοθεν O 695 ἑτέροθεν G 696 ἰθυτομοῦντες ] scripsi; ἡθυτομοῦντες G, ἱθυτομοῦντες O

 38

184

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

saying: “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, lo here he is; believe it not”. With these words he rejects the fraudulent and aberrant beliefs and assumptions about him of the mistrustful (ἐπιλόξων) very far from the mystery that surrounds him, and keeps back his own followers from every strange belief, with which those captious and contrary people use to confuse and fight the purity of the belief in him, so that the mind that like you is pious and devout, if caught by one of them, would never defect from their truth, because it has drifted away due to the persuasiveness of the stories, but was not strengthened by the proof of the writings of the fathers. Therefore, the Word commands us again, Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. With wakefulness he wants to create in us vigilance concerning him, with prayer his charitable (κατὰ χάριν) help. With temptation he means the temptation that comes about through error, not through necessity, the one to which we are led from within, not from without, by deviating from the straight and royal track. Guided by God yourself, you cut this track straight and have wisely guided also those that

 38

Bram Roosen

700

705

710

715

ρων χωλάναντας τῶν ἰγνύων σοφῶς ὁδηγήσατε, πρὸς τὸ ἄσκιον ἀνακομίζοντες φῶς καὶ ἀνέσπερον τῆς τοῦ λόγου θειοτάτης ὁμολογίας καὶ πολιτείας, πρὸς τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἀμοιβὴν ἀποβλέποντες, ἐπεὶ καὶ νόμος παρακελεύεται θεῖος, τοὺς καθ'ὑμᾶς δυνατοὺς τῶν ἀσθενούντων τὰ βάρη βαστάζειν, καὶ οὕτω τὸν νόμον ἀναπληροῦν. Βαρὺ δὲ βάρος εἴπέρ τι ἄλλο καθέστηκε τῶν δυσχερῶν, ἡ περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀδιαφορία λόγον ἐγγινομένη τοῖς νηπιωδεστέροις, χρόνων τὲ καὶ προσώπων ὑπαλλαγαῖς, ἀπάτῃ τυχὸν, ἢ ἀπειλῇ τῶν κολακευόντων, σαινόντων ἢ ἐκφοβούντων, καὶ ἐν καιρῷ μάλιστα τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἀνωμαλίας ἀσχέτως ἐπιφυομένων. Χεῖρα τοιγάρτοι συμπαθῶς ὀρέγοντες τῷ ὑμετέρῳ μὴ διαλείποιτε πρόσφυγι, τοῦτο μὲν λόγῳ καθαίροντες ἐπιστημόνως, τοῦτο δὲ προσευχῇ στηρίζοντες φιλανθρώπως, καὶ αὐτῷ προσοικειοῦντες τὲ καὶ προσάγοντες τῷ παρ'ὑμῶν ὀρθῶς τε πιστευομένῳ καὶ λατρευομένῳ θεῷ λόγῳ καὶ παμβασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, νῦν τε καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φοβερὰν ἐπιφάνειαν, ᾧ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι τιμὴ κράτος δόξα προσκύνησις εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.

702/704 τοὺς – ἀναπληροῦν ] Rom. 15, 1 una cum Gal. 6, 2 698 ὁδιγήσαται G 703 βάρη ] βάρει G 706 νηπιωδεστέροις ] νηπιοδεστέροις G 708 κολακευόντων ] om. (fort. recte) O καὶ ] om. O 709 ἀνομαλίας G 710 τοιγάρτι O 711 τῷ ] τὸ G πρόσφυγι ] e corr. G, πρόσφυγοι O 715 καὶ λατρευομένῳ ] om. O 716 τε καὶ ] om. O 718 προσκύνησις ] om. O ἀμήν ] om. O

 39

A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

like me, your (servant), are lame on both legs. You brought them back to the unshaded and never-setting light of the most divine confession and disciplina of the Word by paying attention to the reward coming from there, for also the divine law stipulates that those that like you are strong ought to bear the burdens of the weak and so fulfil the law. And if among the difficulties there is a heavy burden, it is the indifference with regard to the meaning of a word that comes about in the less educated: they interchange times and persons, maybe because they are tricked by flatterers or because they are threathened by people who cause fear, which happens mostly when everything is in disarray. Therefore, please do not cease to stretch out your hand in sympathy to the one who seeks your protection, wisely purifying him with the word and benevolently supporting him with prayer, nor cease to unite him with and to lead him towards the God Word, the universal souvereign of the ages, who is correctly believed in and worshipped by you, now and at the time of his fearful second coming. To him together with the Father and the Holy Spirit let there be honour, strength, glory and worship in eternity. Amen.

 39

Bram Roosen

Index locorum Sacrae Scripturae Ps. 106, 42 225, 264-265 Is. 40, 3 695-696 Mt. 3, 3 695-696 Mt. 8, 2 169-170 Mt. 8, 3 171-172, 183-184, 429 Mt. 15, 32 176 Mt. 15, 36 176-177 Mt. 24, 23 678-679 Mt. 24, 41 13-22 Mt. 26, 17 110-111, (116) Mt. 26, 38 268-269 Mt. 26, 39 151-152, 211-212, 217-218, 226-227, 245-246, 248-249, 262, 373-374 Mt. 26, 41 153-154, 271-272, 689-691 Mt. 27, 34 111-112, (116-117) Mc. 1, 3 695-696 Mc. 6, 48 100-102, (113) Mc. 7, 24 102-104, (114) Mc. 9, 30 105-106, (114) Mc. 12, 41 321-322 Mc. 12, 41-42 311-312 Lc. 1, 2 616-617, 621 Lc. 3, 4 695-696 Lc. 5, 12-13 171-172, 183-184 Lc. 5, 13 172-173 Lc. 17, 23 678-679 Lc. 17, 34 13-22

Lc. 21, 1-2 311-312 Lc. 22, 42 152-153, 192, 193, 374-375 Lc. 22, 46 689-691 Io. 1, 43 106-107, (115) Io. 2, 1-11 (praes. 2, 9) 295-296 Io. 5, 19 289 Io. 5, 21 132-133 Io. 6, 38 160-162 Io. 6, 40 251-252 Io. 7, 1 108-110, (115) Io. 10, 30 214 Io. 12, 27 263, 268 Io. 20, 24-29 326-328 Rom. 1, 3 433-434 Rom. 8, 29 443, 444 Rom. 15, 1 702-704 I Cor. 10, 11 669 I Cor. 15, 45 390-391 II Cor. 5, 19 181-182 II Cor. 10, 4-5 674-676 Gal. 6, 2 702-704 Phil. 2, 6 285-286 Phil. 2, 7 35, 55 I Tim. 2, 4 643, 665 II Tim. 2, 25 643, 665 II Tim. 3, 7 643, 665 Hebr. 4, 15 52, 223-224, 501 Hebr. 12, 1 340



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Index fontium Agath., Ep. ad Const. IV imp. Agatho Romanus, Epistula ad Constantinum IV imperatorem, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 2, 1, p. 52, l. 12 – p. 122, l. 4 (CPG 9423 [1]) p. 70, l. 13-18 151-158 p. 74, l. 9-10 132-133 p. 74, l. 16-17 108-110 p. 74, l. 17-18 102-104 p. 84, l. 2-6 160-166 p. 84, l. 9-11 181-184 p. 84, l. 14-23 186-195 p. 84, l. 27 – p. 86, l. 6 201-241 p. 86, l. 9-14 244-253 p. 92, l. 20-26 285-293 p. 94, l. 3-7 304-309 p. 104, l. 1-2 368 p. 104, l. 3-5 368-372 p. 104, l. 18 437-438 p. 104, l. 19-22 439-445 Ambros. Med., De fide Ambrosius Mediolanensis, De fide (Ad Gratianum), ed. O. Faller, Sancti Ambrosii Opera. Pars VIII: De fide (Ad Gratianum) (CSEL, 73), Vindobonae, 1962 (CPL 150) II, 8, 70 (p. 81, l. 91-98) 285-293, (513-515) Andron. Camat., Ἱερὰ Ὁπλοθήκη Andronicus Camaterus, Ἱερὰ Ὁπλοθήκη Vide sub Severian. Gabal., In s. crucem Apolin. Laod., Demonstr. Apolinarius Laodicenus, Demonstratio de divina incarnatione ad similitudinem hominis, fragmenta, ed. H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, I, Tübingen, 1904, p. 208-232 (fragm. 13-107; CPG 3652) fragm. 63 (p. 218, l. 20-23) 363-366



Bram Roosen

Apolin. Laod., In dei in carne manifestat. Apolinarius Laodicenus, In Dei in carne manifestationem, fragmenta, ed. H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, I, Tübingen, 1904, p. 232-233 (CPG 3653) fragm. 108 (p. 232) 368-372, (559-561) fragm. 109 (p. 233) 373-379, (561-562) Ps. Athan. Alex. (immo Marcell. Ancyr.), De incarn. et c. Arian. Ps. Athanasius Alexandrinus (immo Marcellus Ancyranus), De incarnatione et contra Arianos, PG 26, 984-1028 (CPG 2806) 21 (1021 B11 – C4) 151-158, (405-406), (483-484) Conc.Chalc., Symb. Symbolum Concilii Chalcedonensis, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, II, 1, 2, p. 129-130 (CPG 9005) p. 130, l. 5-11 637-648 Conc.CP, Symb. Symbolum Concilii Constantinopolitani (a. 381), ed. G. L. Dossetti, Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli. Edizione critica (Testi e Ricerche di Scienze Religiose, 2), Roma, 1967, p. 244-251 (CPG 8599) l. 6-8 (p. 246) 46-48 Conc.CP III Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 2, 1-2 (CPG 9420-9437) Act. II (p. 32, l. 16-19) 304-309 Act. IX (p. 268, l. 24 – p. 270, l. 3 et 6-8) 151-158 Act. IX (p. 270, l. 15-16) 165-166 Act. X (p. 294, l. 2 – p. 296, l. 2 [flor. de vol. et operat., 5]) 201-241 Act. X (p. 298, l. 9-18 [flor. de vol. et operat., 7]) 151-158 Act. X (p. 300, l. 4 – p. 304, l. 18 [flor. de vol. et operat., 8]) 186-195 Act. X (p. 322, l. 12 – p. 324, l. 3 [flor. de vol. et operat., 21]) 255-260 Act. X (p. 330, l. 4-16 [flor. de vol. et operat., 26]) 160-166 Act. X (p. 332, l. 1-9 [flor. de vol. et operat., 27]) 244-253



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Act. X (p. 336, l. 23 – p. 338, l. 3 [flor. de vol. et operat., 31]) 304-309 Act. X (p. 340, l. 14-16 [flor. de vol. et operat., 35]) 324-328 Act. X (p. 348, l. 19 – p. 350, l. 2 [flor. de vol. et operat., 41]) 331-337 Act. X (p. 350, l. 20-22 [flor. de vol. et operat., 42]) 331-337 Act. X (p. 354, l. 2-4 [flor. de vol. et operat., 43]) 304-309 Act. X (p. 354, l. 5-8 [flor. de vol. et operat., 43]) 331-337 Act. X (p. 360, l. 5-9) 151-158 Act. X (p. 370, l. 6-7 [flor. haeret., 1]) 399-404 Act. X (p. 370, l. 8-14 [flor. haeret., 1]) 404-410 Act. XI (p. 506, l. 19-20 [Test., I. 2]) 399-404 Act. XI (p. 506, l. 21-24 [Test., I. 2]) 404-410 Act. XI (p. 508, l. 10-11 [Test., II. 2]) 363-366 Act. XVII (p. 724, l. 2-3) 165-166 Act. XVIII (p. 776, l. 3-5) 304-309 Act. XVIII (p. 776, l. 6-8) 331-337 Conc.CP III, Symb. Symbolum Concilii Constantinopolitani tertii, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 2, 2, p. 768-796 (CPG 9437[1]) p. 774, l. 33-34 165-166 Conc.Later. Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 1 (CPG 9398-9402) Secr. IV (p. 224, l. 21-27) 637-648 Secr. V (p. 258, l. 16-22 [flor. de nat. operat., 2]) 285-293 Secr. V (p. 268, l. 3-4 [flor. de nat. operat., 29]) 331-337 Secr. V (p. 268, l. 21-23 [flor. de nat. operat., 32]) 331-337 Secr. V (p. 282, l. 26-30 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 15]) 151-158 Secr. V (p. 284, l. 25-29 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 20]) 160-166 Secr. V (p. 286, l. 3-5 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 22]) 181-184 Secr. V (p. 286, l. 9-11 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 23]) 169-179 Secr. V (p. 286, l. 15-19 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 24])  cf. ad 169-179 Secr. V (p. 286, l. 23-26 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 25]) 169-179 Secr. V (p. 286, l. 30 – p. 288, l. 5 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 26]) 186-195 Secr. V (p. 288, l. 10-19 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 27]) 201-241



Bram Roosen

Secr. V (p. 292, l. 4-9 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 34]) 264-273 Secr. V (p. 292, l. 33 – p. 294, l. 3 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 36]) 244-253 Secr. V (p. 296, l. 3-8 [flor. de nat. Christi vol., 41]) 255-260 Secr. V (p. 298, l. 29-32 [flor. de nat. Christi operat., 3]) 304-309 Secr. V (p. 310, l. 26-28 [flor. de nat. Christi operat., 27])297-300 Secr. V (p. 310, l. 34 – p. 312, l. 3 [flor. de nat. Christi operat., 28])313-322 Secr. V (p. 312, l. 7-9 [flor. de nat. Christi operat., 29]) 324-328 Secr. V (p. 316, l. 31) 186-187 Secr. V (p. 322, l. 8-9 [test. confund. haeret., 4]) 362-363 Secr. V (p. 322, l. 11-12 [test. confund. haeret., 4]) 363-366 Secr. V (p. 322, l. 14 [test. confund. haeret., 5]) 368 Secr. V (p. 322, l. 16-18 [test. confund. haeret., 5]) 368-372 Secr. V (p. 322, l. 22-26 [test. confund. haeret., 6]) 373-379 Secr. V (p. 324, l. 1 [test. confund. haeret., 8]) 380-382 Secr. V (p. 324, l. 3-7 [test. confund. haeret., 8]) 383-391 Secr. V (p. 324, l. 9 [test. confund. haeret., 9]) 392-394 Secr. V (p. 324, l. 11-13 [test. confund. haeret., 9]) 394-398 Secr. V (p. 326, l. 27-29 [test. confund. haeret., 18]) 399-404 Secr. V (p. 326, l. 31-34 [test. confund. haeret., 18]) 404-410 Secr. V (p. 328, l. 1-2 [test. confund. haeret., 19]) 411-413 Secr. V (p. 328, l. 4-7 [test. confund. haeret., 19]) 414-419 Secr. V (p. 332, l. 17-18 [test. divid. haeret., 1]) 427-429 Secr. V (p. 332, l. 20-23 [test. divid. haeret., 1]) 429-435 Secr. V (p. 332, l. 33 [test. divid. haeret., 3]) 437-438 Secr. V (p. 332, l. 35-38 [test. divid. haeret., 3]) 439-445 Secr. V (p. 334, l. 3-5 [test. divid. haeret., 4]) 446-450 Secr. V (p. 334, l. 12 [test. divid. haeret., 6]) 452-453 Secr. V (p. 334, l. 14-18 [test. divid. haeret., 6]) 454-460 Secr. V (p. 350, l. 29) 165-166 Conc.Later., Can. Canones Concilii Lateranensis, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 368-388 (CPG 9402[5]) 10 (p. 374, l. 14-17) 141-143 11 (p. 374, l. 23-25) 141-143 18 (p. 382, l. 1-4) 1-4



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Const. IV imp., Edict. Constantinus IV imperator, Edictum, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 2, 2, p. 832-856 (CPG 9438) p. 842, l. 6-7 45 p. 842, l. 19-21 244-253 p. 842, l. 23 – p. 844, l. 2 151-158 p. 844, l. 8-13 186-195 p. 844, l. 21-22 165-166 p. 846, l. 21-23 304-309 Cyrill. Alex., Apol. XII anathem. c. Theodor. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Apologia XII anathematismorum contra Theodoretum, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I, 1, 6, p. 110-146 (CPG 5222) Apol. anathem. II (p. 115, l. 14-15) 40 Cyrill. Alex., C. Nest. id., Libri V contra Nestorium, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I, 1, 6, p. 13-106 (CPG 5217) I, 3 (p. 22, l. 11) 355 Cyrill. Alex., Comm. in Io. id., Commentarius in Ioannem, ed. P. E. Pusey, S.P.N. Cyrilli Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium, vol. I-III, Oxonii, 1872 (= Bruxelles, 19652) (CPG 5208) IV, 1 (p. 495, l. 29 – p. 496, l. 4) 255-260, (507-509) Cyrill. Alex., Ep. 45 id., Epistula 45 (Ad Successum episcopum Diocaesareae), ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I, 1, 6, p. 151-157 (CPG 5345) 6 (p. 153, l. 17-18)

355

Cyrill. Alex., Ep. 46 id., Epistula 46 (Ad Successum episcopum Diocaesareae), ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I, 1, 6, p. 157-162 (CPG 5346) 3 (p. 159, l. 16)

355



Bram Roosen

Cyrill. Alex., Quod unus sit Christus id., Quod unus sit Christus, ed. G.-M. de Durand, Deux dialogues christologiques. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (SC, 97), Paris, 1964, p. 30-514 (CPG 5228) 725b, 10 (p. 336) 355 734a, 7 (p. 366) 355 736a, 7 (p. 372) 40 Cyrill. Alex., Thes. id., Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate, PG 75, 9-656 (CPG 5215) 24 (397 A3-13) 244-253, (503-506) 32 (453 B14 – C5) 331-337, (526-527) Ps. Cyrill. Hierosol., Hom. aquae in vinum conversae, fragm. Ps. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Homilia de aqua in vinum conversa, deperdita praeter fragmenta in florilegiis saeculi septimi (CPG 3590) fragm. 2 (PG 33, 1181 B4-7) 297-300, (516-518) Ps. Dion. Areop., Div. Nom. Ps. Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, ed. B. R. Suchla, Corpus Dionysiacum, I. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus (PTS, 33), Berlin – New York, 1990 (CPG 6602) I, 4 (p. 113, l. 6) 40 VIII, 2 (p. 201, l. 6) 129 Ps. Dion. Areop., Ep. 4 id., Epistula IV ad eundem, ed. G. Heil – A. M. Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum, II. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae (PTS, 36), Berlin – New York, 1991, p. 160-161 (CPG 6607) p. 160, l. 7-8 40 DPatr. Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi, ed. F. Diekamp – B. Phanourgakis – E. Chrysos, Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, Münster, 19812 (CPG 7781) 12, VII (p. 74, l. 13-14) 331-337



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

12, XI (p. 75, l. 9-15) 15, I (p. 91, l. 21 – p. 92, l. 12) 15, II (p. 92, l. 15) 15, V (p. 93, l. 12-14) 15, XXXIII (p. 101, l. 10-11) 17, IV (p. 116, l. 2-3) 18, I (p. 117, l. 14-15) 18, V (p. 118, l. 23) 18, VII (p. 119, l. 8-9) 18, VIII (p. 119, l. 13 – 120, l. 3) 19, V (p. 122, l. 10-11) 19, XI (p. 123, l. 18-19)

285-293 313-322 285-293 297-300 324-328 186-195 151-158 244-253 201-241 264-273 cf. ad 169-179 160-166

Ephr. Ant., Apol. Conc.Chalc. Ephraem Antiochenus, Apologia Concilii Chalcedonensis, deperdita praeter fragmenta capitum 56 et 64 in Conc.CP III, p. 356, l. 20 – p. 358, l. 17 et p. 360, l. 3 – p. 362, l. 2 (flor. de vol. et operat., 45-46) et fragmenta inedita capitum 19, 46 et 47 in Flor.Achrid. XVI, p. 184, l. 18-28, p. 184, l. 28 – p. 185, l. 11, p. 185, l. 11-16 (CPG 6902) 64 (p. 360, l. 3 – p. 362, l. 2) 151-158 Ps. Eustath. Ant. Ps. Euthatius Antiochenus Vide sub Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de vol. Flor.Achrid. Florilegium Achridense, i.e. florilegium quod extat in cod. Achridensi 84 (Cat. 86) (s. XIII), p. 133-212 X, 4 (p. 163, l. 11-13) 297-300 XI, 1 (p. 163, l. 14-17) 151-158 XI, 5 (p. 164, l. 16 – p. 165, l. 1) 244-253 XII, 7 (p. 165, l. 26 – p. 166, l. 6) cf. ad 169-179 XIV, 17 (p. 172, l. 9-14) 201-241 XIV, 24 (p. 175, l. 15-17) 181-184 XIV, 28 (p. 176, l. 16-26) 244-253 XIV, 32 (p. 178, l. 5-13) 113-127



Bram Roosen

Flor. cod. Vatic. gr. 1142 et Rom., Casan. 1357 Florilegium quod extat in cod. Vaticano graeco 1142 (s. XIII) et Romano, Casanatensi 1357 (s. XVI). De fragmentis Io. Chrys., vide G. Bardy, Les citations de Saint Jean Chrysostome dans le florilège du cod. Vatican. graec. 1142, in ROC, 23 (1922-1923), p. 427-440 324-328 (f. 73) et (f. 234v), p. 431 (n. 11) v v 313-322 (f. 73 ) et (f. 236 -237), p. 437-438 (n. 22) 201-241 (f. 73v-74) et (f. 237-238), p. 438 (n. 23) Flor. dyothel. in Vat. gr. 1455, f. 165-176 servato Florilegium dyotheleticum in Cod. Vat. gr. 1455 (a. 1299), f. 165176, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 368-388 p. 426, n. 11 285-293 p. 429, n. 29 331-337 Greg. Naz., Ep. 101 Gregorius Nazianzenus, Epistula 101, ed. P. Gallay – M. Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres théologiques. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (SC, 208), Paris, 1974, p. 36-68 (CPG 3032) 32 (p. 50) 45 Greg. Naz., Or. 30 id., Oratio 30 (Theologica IV), ed. Gallay – Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 27-31 [see n. 56], p. 226-274 (CPG 3010 [30]) 12, 1-6 (p. 248) 160-166, (486-487) 12, 5-6 (p. 248) 388-389 Greg. Nyss., Ad Zenod. Gregorius Nyssenus, Tractatus ad Zenodorum, fragmentum ed. Diekamp, Analecta Patristica [see n. 52], p. 14-15 (CPG 3201) l. 4-5 et l. 10-13 (p. 14-15) 84-87 (vide et sub Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de energ.) Greg. Nyss., Antirrh. adv. Apolin. Gregorius Nyssenus, Antirrheticus adversus Apolinarium, ed. F. Müller, Gregorii Nysseni Opera dogmatica minora, pars I (GNO, III, 1), Leiden, 1958, p. 131-233 (CPG 3144) p. 132, l. 27-28 (= Apolin. Laod., Demonstr.) 362-363 p. 133, l. 1-2 (= Apolin. Laod., Demonstr.) 362-363



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

p. 179, l. 14-17 (= Apolin. Laod., Demonstr.) 363-366 p. 181, l. 18-27 186-195, (492 et 493-495) Greg. Nyss., De tridui spatio Gregorius Nyssenus, De tridui inter mortem et resurrectionem domini nostri Iesu Christi spatio, ed. E. Gebhardt, in Gregorii Nysseni Sermones, Pars I (GNO, IX), Leiden, 1967, p. 273-306 (CPG 3175) p. 292, l. 6-13 cf. ad 169-179 p. 292, l. 11-16 cf. ad 169-179 p. 292, l. 13-17 et 17-22 169-179, (488 et 489-490) Greg. Nyss., Refut. confess. Eunomii Gregorius Nyssenus, Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii, ed. W. Jaeger, Contra Eunomium libri, Pars altera: liber III (vulgo IIIXII); Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii (vulgo lib. II) (GNO, II), Leiden, 19602, p. 312-410 (CPG 3136) 179 (p. 388, l. 3-7) 181-184, (490-491) Heracl. imp., Ekthesis Heraclius imperator (re vera Sergius Patriarcha), Ekthesis, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 156-162 (CPG 7607) p. 160, l. 13-16 534-538, (580-581) p. 160, l. 13-14 471-472 p. 160, l. 15-16 471-472, (473), (477) p. 160, l. 18-19 538-540 p. 160, l. 20-22 593-596 p. 160, l. 24-26 467-469, (478-480), (581) p. 160, l. 29-33 615-621 Io. Chrys., De consubst. Iohannes Chrysostomus, De Consubstantiali, ed. A.-M. Malingrey, Jean Chrysostome. Sur l’égalité du Père et du Fils. Contre les Anoméens, homélies VII-XII. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (SC, 396), Paris, 1994, p. 108-162 (CPG 4320) Tit., l. 2-3 (p. 108) 197-199 l. 1-2 (p. 108) 199-201 l. 496-535 (p. 152-156) 201-241, (496-497), (497-502)



Bram Roosen

Io. Chrys., Hom. de vidua, fragm. Iohannes Chrysostomus, Homilia εἰς τὴν χήραν τὴν τὰ δύο λεπτὰ προσενέγκασαν ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ, deperdita praeter fragmenta in florilegiis (CPG 4495 [2])  313-322, (521-524) Ps. Io. Chrys., In s. Pascha Ps. Iohannes Chrysostomus, In sanctum pascha, ed. C. Baur, Drei unedierte Festpredigten aus der Zeit der nestorianischen Streitigkeiten, in Traditio, 9 (1953), p. 108-110 (CPG 4751) l. 46-47 (p. 109) 54-55 Ps. Io. Chrys., In Thom. id., In Sanctum Thomam apostolum sermo, PG 59, 497-500 (CPG 4574) 500, 10-14 324-328, (524) Io. Gramm., Apol. Conc.Chalc. Iohannes Grammaticus, Apologia Concilii Chalcedonensis, ed. Richard, Iohannis Caesariensis opera [see n. 41], p. 6-58 (CPG 6855) l. 816-831 (p. 34-35; fragm. syr. 87) 151-158 Ps. Iren. Lugd., De fide ad Demetr. diacon. Ps. Irenaeus, De fide ad Demetrium diaconum Viennensem, ed. Richard, Un faux dithélite [see n. 25], p. 431-440; = ed. Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 759-763 (CPG 1320) fragm. III, p. 436, l. 7; = fragm. 4, l. 9 (p. 760) 132-133 fragm. III, p. 436, l. 7-8; = fragm. 4, l. 9-10 (p. 760) 108-110 fragm. III, p. 436, l. 8-9; = fragm. 4, l. 11 (p. 760) 100-102 fragm. III, p. 436, l. 9-10; = fragm. 4, l. 11-12 (p. 760) 106-107 fragm. III, p. 436, l. 10; = fragm. 4, l. 12 (p. 760) 105-106 fragm. III, p. 436, l. 11-12; = fragm. 4, l. 13-14 (p. 760) 102-104 fragm. III, p. 436, l. 12; = fragm. 4, l. 14-15 (p. 760) 110-111 fragm. III, p. 436, l. 14-15; = fragm. 4, l. 16-17 (p. 760) 111-112 Isid. Pelus., Ep. Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistulae, PG 78, 177-1645 (CPG 5557) I, 51 (213 C5) 54-55



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Iust. imp., Ep. dogm. ad Zoilum Iustinianus imperator, Epistula dogmatica ad Zoilum, fragm. in Conc.CP III (CPG 6879) 304-309 331-337 Iustin. imp., Sermo adv. Nest. et Aceph. Iustinianus imperator, Sermo adversus Nestorianos et Acephalos, fragm. in Conc.CP III (CPG 6895) 331-337 Leo papa, Tom. Leo papa, Tomus (Epistula 3 Leonis ad Flavianum), ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, II, 1, 1, p. 10-20 (CPG 8922) p. 14, l. 27 – p. 15, l. 1 304-309, (519-520) Mart. I papa, Alloc. Martinus I papa, Allocutio, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 10-20 (CPG 9398[2]) p. 16, l. 10-11 102-104 p. 16, l. 11-12 105-106 p. 16, l. 12-13 106-107 p. 16, l. 13-14 111-112 p. 17, l. 4-5 (lat.) 132-133 Max. Conf., Ep. Maximus Confessor, Epistulae, PG 91, 364-649 (CPG 7699) 12 (472 D5) 355 12 (488 C3-4) 349-350 17 (581 D3) 355 17 (584 A9) 355 18 (585 B12) 355 18 (585 D12 – 588 A1) 355 Max. Conf., Op. Maximus Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica, PG 91, 9-285 (CPG 7697). Ad Op. 24 vide et editionem criticam in Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 731-732 (text) and p. 948-951 (apparatus) 1 (13 A1-2) 69



Bram Roosen

1 (13 A4-5) 1 (36 A7) 1 (36 C6-7) 3 (48 A15 – B1) 4 (61 A13 – B5) 6 (65 A11 – B9) 6 (68 A9-10) 6 (68 C15 – D3) 7 (76 A15 – B1) 7 (81 C1-10) 7 (84 B5-11) 7 (84 B7) 7 (85 A8) 8 (96 B4-5) 8 (101 A3-4) 9 (128 C6-9) 9 (128 D5) 19 (221 B4-5) 20 (229 C12) 20 (233 B6-9) 24 (268 B9 – C10; = p. 731, l. 10-20)

69 129 349-350 165-166 160-166 160-166 349-350 141-143 355 151-158 345-349 338 355 349-350 355 141-143 45 349-350 355 160-166 201-241

Max. Conf., Q.Thal. Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, ed. C. Laga – C. Steel, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones ad Thalassium, I-II (CCSG, 7 et 22), Turnhout – Leuven, 1980 et 1990 (CPG 7688) LVI, 149 (p. 11) 129 LX, 42 (p. 75) 129 LXIII, 230 (p. 159) 129 Max. Conf., Qu. de vol. et energ. nat. Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones de voluntatibus et energiis naturalibus, ed. Epifanovič, Матеріалы [see n. 22], p. 66-67; = ed. Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 689-691 (text) and p. 930-934 (apparatus) (CPG 7707. 19) p. 66, l. 15-16; = γ´, l. 5-6 (p. 689) 141-143



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Max. Conf., Th.Oec. Maximus Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, PG 90, 1084-1173 (CPG 7694) I, 7 (1085 B9-10) 129 Max. Conf. in D.B. Maximus Confessor prout loquitur in Disputatione Bizyae, ed. Allen – Neil, Scripta [see n. 1], p. 73-151 (BHG 1233; CPG 7735) l. 733-734 (p. 141) 141-143 Max. Conf. in D.P. Maximus Confessor prout loquitur in Disputatione cum Pyrrho, PG 91, 288-353 (CPG 7698) 289 C4-6 141-143 317 A8-13 cf. ad 169-179 320 C8-14 141-143 320 D12 – 321 A1 106-107 321 A13-14 111-112 321 B7-10 108-110 321 C1-3 105-106 321 C10-13 102-104 321 D5-7 100-102 324 A6-7 110-111 325 A14 45 325 C12-14 132-133 349 A2-4 132-133 Max. Conf. in R.M. Maximus Confessor prout loquitur in Relatione Motionis inter Maximum et principes, ed. Allen – Neil, Scripta [see n. 1], p. 13-51 (BHG 1231; CPG 7736) l. 288-290 (p. 35) 141-143 l. 299-300 (p. 35) 84-87 l. 328-329 (p. 37) 349-350 Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de energ. Ps. Maximus Confessor, Definitiones uariae de energia, PG 91, 280-285 una cum addit. in Epifanovič, Матеріалы [see n. 22], p. 76, l. 1 – 77, l. 8; ed. crit. Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 819-823 (CPG 7697.27+7707.25)



Bram Roosen

281 A5-8 et A15 – B4; = l. 30-31 et l. 37-39 (p. 820) 285 A7-10; = l. 119-121 (p. 823)

84-87 285-293

Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de vol. Ps. Maximus Confessor, Definitiones de uoluntate, PG 91, 276-280 una cum addit. in Epifanovič, Матеріалы [see n. 22], p. 72, l. 25 – 75, l. 25; ed. crit. Roosen, Epifanovitch Revisited [see n. 22], p. 781-786 (CPG 7697.26b+7707.24) 277 A10; = l. 28-29 (p. 782), sub nomine Eustath. Ant. 69 p. 74, l. 1; = l. 49 (p. 783), sub nomine Synes. Cyr. 69 Fragmentum sub nomine Eustathii Antiocheni denuo edidit J. H. Declerck, Eustathii Antiocheni, patris Nicaeni, Opera quae supersunt omnia (CCSG, 51), Turnhout – Leuven, 2002. Vide fragm. 144 (p. 202). Nest. CP, Sermones de myster. Epiphan. Nestorius Constantinopolitanus, Sermones de mysterio Epiphaniae, fragmenta, ed. F. Loofs, Nestoriana, Die Fragmente des Nestorius, Halle a.S., 1905, p. 224 (CPG 5757) Serm. 2 (p. 224a) 439-445, (574-576) Serm. 4 (p. 224b) 446-450 Paul. Pers., De iudicio Paulus Persa, Sermo de iudicio, fragmentum in Conc.Later., Secr. V (p. 334, 14-18 [flor. divid. haeret., 6]) (CPG 7014)  451-460, (576-578) Pole2m. Apolin., Antirrh. Polemon Apolinarista, Antirrheticus, fragmentum apud H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, I, Tübingen, 1904, p. 274 (CPG 3710) fragm. 173 (p. 274) 380-391, (563-565) Polem. Apolin., Ep. 6 ad Tim. Polemon Apolinarista, Epistula sexta ad Timotheum, fragmentum apud H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, I, Tübingen, 1904, p. 275 (CPG 3712) fragm. 175 (p. 275) 392-398, (565-568)



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Prob. et al., Ep. ad Paul. CP Probus et alii, Epistula ad Paulum patriarcha, ed. R. Rie­ dinger, ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 80, l. 9 – p. 90, l. 34 (CPG 9399.6) p. 84, l. 3-13 285-293 Pyrrh. CP, Ep. ad Io. IV papam Pyrrhus Constantinopolitanus, Epistula ad Iohannem IV papam, fragmentum in Conc.Later., p. 338, 18-22 (CPG 7616) p. 338, l. 20 165-166 Pyrrh. in D.P. Pyrrhus Constantinopolitanus prout loquitur in Disputatione cum Pyrrho, PG 91, 288-353 (CPG 7698) 316 C6-7 165-166 317 A3-4 cf. ad 169-179 Sergius patr., Ep. ad Honor. papam Sergius patriarcha, Epistula ad Honorium papam, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 2, 2, p. 534-546 (CPG 7606) p. 542, l. 11-13 534-538 p. 542, l. 11 471-472 p. 542, l. 12-13 471-472 p. 542, l. 15-16 538-540 Severian. Gabal., In illud: Pater, transeat a me calix iste Severianus Gabalensis, Homilia in illud: Pater transeat a me calix iste (Matth. 26, 39), ed. J. Zellinger, Studien zu Severian von Gabala (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8), Münster i. W., 1926, p. 9-21 (CPG 4215) p. 11, l. 25-29 264-273 p. 12, l. 16 264-273 fragm. ut adfertur a txt. nostro et flor. aliis saec. VII  264-273, (510-511) Severian. Gabal., In s. crucem Severianus Gabalensis, In sanctam crucem, fragmentum quod adferunt Andronicus Camaterus, Ἱερὰ Ὁπλοθήκη, ed. Ch. Martin, Saint Irénée et son correspondant, le diacre Démètre de Vienne, in RHE, 38 (1942), p. 148, n. 3 et Flor.Achrid. XIV, 32 (p. 178, l. 5-13) 113-127



Bram Roosen

Sever. Ant., C. imp. Gramm. Severus Antiochenus, Liber contra impium Grammaticum. Orationis tertiae parts posterior, ed. (et interpretatus est) J. Lebon (CSCO, 101 [et 102]. Scriptores Syri, 50 [et 51]), Louvain, 1933 (CPG 7024) III, 33 (p. 181, l. 10-17 [p. 132, l. 2-8]) 151-158 Sophr. Hier., Ep. Synod. Sophronius Hierosolymitanus, Epistula Synodica ad Sergium Constantinopolitanum, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 2, 1, p. 410-494 (CPG 7635) p. 442, l. 15-18 304-309 Steph. Dor., Lib. Stephanus Dorensis, Libellus, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 1, p. 38-46 (CPG 9399[1]) p. 38, l. 14-16 10-12 Ps. Synes. Cyr. Ps. Synesius Cyrenensis Vide sub Ps. Max. Conf., Def. de vol. Themist. diacon. Alex., Antirrh. c. tom. Theodos. Themistius Diaconus Alexandrinus, Antirrheticus contra tomum Theodosii, fragmenta in Conc.CP III, ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Ser. II, 2, 1, p. 370, l. 8-14; p. 374, l. 1-5, 9-10 et 13-17; p. 506, l. 21-24 (CPG 7285) II, 41 399-410, (568-570) Themist. diacon. Alex., C. Colluth. Themistius Diaconus Alexandrinus, Contra Colluthum, fragmenta in Conc.Later., Secr. III (p. 146, 5-22) et Secr. V (p. 328, 4-7 [flor. confund. haeret., 19]) (CPG 7286) III, 52 411-419, (570-572)



A DYOTHELITE FLORILEGIUM IN THE RUN-UP TO THE LATERAN COUNCIL

Theodor. Mops., Fragm. in Mt. 8, 3 Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Fragmentum in Matthaeum 8, 3, ed. H. B. Swete, Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli commentarii II, Cambridge, 1882 (1962), p. 339; PG 66, 1004 D3-11 (CPG 3840) p. 339; 1004 D3-11 427-435, (572-574) Theodosius Alexandrinus, Tomus ad Theodoram augustam (CPG 7133)  cf. ad 402-404



Index of Authors A Abbakoum, scribe 192, 194, 197 Abraham 267 Abramius, monk of Mar Saba 196 Acacius of Caesarea 358, 360, 361, 364 Acacius of Tarsus 361 Adam 49, 264, 267 Addan 26 Aesop 340, 344 Aetius of Antioch 360 Agapius 167, 174, 179 Agatho 434 Aito II of Armenia 307 Alcuin 160, 161, 166 Alexander 273 Alexander of Alexandria 377 Alexander the Great 264 Alexander VIII Ottoboni 432 Al-Farabi 294 Al-Ghazali 294 Ambrose of Milan 45, 46, 424 Ammianus Marcellinus 333, 335 Amphilochius of Iconium 35, 36, 38 Amphilochius the Younger 342 Amram 271 Anastasius of Sinai 26-29, 53 Anastasius Sinaita 167, 175, 187, 213, 219-221 Andreas Darmarius 431 Andronicus Camaterus 325 Anna Palaeologina 395 Anselm of Canterbury 306 Antiochus Monachus 175, 178

Antiochus of St Sabas 169 Antisthenes 385 Apollinaris of Laodicea 30, 53, 363, 425, 427 Arcadius 267 Arghun Khan 307 Arians 36, 38 Aristotle 272 Arius 30, 362, 373 Armenians 342 Arsenius 260 Arsenius, Bishop 261 Arsenius the Studite 388, 392, 393, 396, 398 Athaliah 267, 268 Athanasius Kircher 289, 292 Athanasius of Alexandria 44, 145-148, 153, 156, 160, 161, 166, 220, 261, 263, 340, 358, 362, 363, 367, 368, 370, 371, 373, 374, 376, 377, 379, 392, 424 Athanasius of Cyzicus 386, 395 Athenians 341, 345, 354 Augustine of Hippo 365 Avicenna 294 B Babylonians 183, 264, 338 Bahram 176 Balthasar Sauvan 244 Barlaam of Calabria 385-389, 392-396, 398 Basilides 365 Basilius, bishop of Kafartûthô 183

Index of Authors

Basilius I 273 Basilius of Caesarea 58, 336 Basil of Ancyra 358 Basil of Caesarea 203, 218, 220, 221, 328, 330-332, 358, 361, 363, 364, 367, 369371, 374, 378, 379, 392, 397 Basil of Emesa 203 Benedict XI 313 Benedict XIV 432 Bernard of Clairvaux 303 Bible of Nicetas 125, 126 Blanca Picany 290 Bonaventure 306 Boniface VIII 303, 312, 313 Bonosus, comes Orientis 173175, 177-180 Byzantines 347

Charles Emmanuel I 257 Charles of Valois 317 Chosroès II 176, 185, 186 Christina of Sweden 432 Christopher Lecapenus 273 Chronicon 724 167, 179 Chronicon Guidi 167, 173, 182, 185 Chronicon Paschale 167, 174, 175, 179, 181, 185, 186 Chusan Rasathaïm 267-271 Claudius 267, 268 Clement of Alexandria 339-341, 343 Clement V 313 Constans II 419 Constantine III 268 Constantine IV 434 Constantine Lecapenus 273 Constantine, monk in a Skete of the Athonite Pantokrator mon. 194 Constantine Paleocappa 327 Constantine the Great 303 Constantine VI 273 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 265-268, 272, 273 Constantius I Chlorus 342 Constantius II 335, 341, 367 Cosmas Indicopleustes 110 Cosmas of Jerusalem 346-350, 355 Cosmas the Hymnographer 347 Cosmas the Melodist 347 Cottanas, Byzantine general 173, 174, 178 Crates 385 Cyclopes 338, 340, 344, 350, 353, 355 Cyprians 354

C Caath 271 Caesar John 58 Caligula 267, 268 Candidianus, pagan judge 336 Carians 338 Carthusian monk from Vauvert 290, 294, 309 Cassiodorus 110 Catena Cantabrigiensis 121, 127 Catena Hauniensis 123, 125132, 134-138, 140-144 Catena of Ps-Eusebius 126-128, 137, 138, 140-144 Catena Tyrnaviensis 127 Celestine V 295, 304, 312 Celeus 354 Chalcedonians 176 Chaldaeans 354 Charlemagne 160, 161, 166



Index of Authors

Cypriots 338 Cyril of Alexandria 28, 29, 34, 39, 44, 50, 54-56, 122, 125, 126, 128, 137, 340, 343, 349, 375, 378, 424 Cyril of Jerusalem 122, 358, 424

Emmanuel 40, 49 Emmanuel Provataris 432 Ephraem Syrus 368 Ephrem of Antioch 26, 44, 53, 55 Ephrem, scribe 261, 269, 272, 274, 278 Epictetus 44, 192, 202 Epiphanius of Salamis 220, 221, 375 Epiphanius Scholasticus 110 Epitome of Procopius 110, 120123, 125-129, 137-140, 142 Erigone 350 Etruscans 338 Etymologicum Genuinum 77, 79-82 Etymologicum Gudianum 81, 82 Etymologicum Magnum 77, 81 Etymologicum Parvum 80 Etymologicum Symeonis 77-82 Euboeans 340, 353 Eudoxia 60 Eudoxius of Constantinople 358 Eulalius, cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus 337 Eulogius of Alexandria 26, 27, 45, 46, 421 Eulogius presbyter 29, 56 Eunomius of Cyzice 374, 378 Eunomius of Cyzicus 30, 48 Eusebius of Caesarea 127, 339341, 344, 360 Eusebius of Emesa 358 Eustathius of Antioch 361 Eustathius of Sebaste 369 Eustathius the monk 25-29, 42, 55 Euthymius of Tărnovo 115, 117

D Damian the philosopher 386 Daniel 341 Daniel of Ainos 396 Daniel of Raithu 195 David 60 David Colvill 257 David Dishypatus 395 David Hoeschel 266 Demeter 341, 345, 350, 354, 355 Demetrius 422 Demetrius Cydones 385 Diadochus of Photice 206, 209 Dionysius of Alexandria 220 Dionysius the monk 386, 395 Dionysus 345, 350 Dioscorus 26, 28, 51, 52 Dioscorus I of Alexandria 51 docetists 37, 49 Doctrina Patrum 26, 28, 44, 53, 55, 433 Domingo, son of Ramon Llull 297 Dorotheus II Blates 395, 396, 398 dyophysites 27 E Easterners 29 Eber 270 Egyptians 338, 340, 353 Elias Ecdicus 189, 194, 201 Elijah 60



Index of Authors

Euthymius Zygadenus 325 Eutycheans 32 Eutyches 29, 45, 51, 52 Eutychius of Alexandria 167, 174, 177 Evagrius 336 Evagrius Ponticus 190, 197, 198, 203, 206 Ezekiel 183, 184

George the Monk 327 Germans 341 Germanus I of Constantinople 429 Germanus II of Constantinople 397 Giacomo Barocci 429 Giordano Bruno 292 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 292 Goliath 267, 268 Goths 341, 342 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 289, 292 Greeks 338, 340-342, 345 Gregory Acindynus 385-390, 392-396, 398 Gregory, father of Gregory of Nazianzus 336 Gregory of Agrigento 321, 323 Gregory of Nazianzus 201, 203, 328, 329, 333-337, 340352, 358, 375, 420, 421, 424, 434 Gregory of Nyssa 48, 53, 111113, 118-122, 125-132, 134, 136-138, 140-144, 219, 321, 323, 325, 330, 369, 371, 376, 378, 421, 424, 429-431 Gregory Palamas 271, 326, 381, 382, 385-398 Gregory X 300 Guy of Lusignan 308

F Flavian I 27, 39, 45, 47, 52 Flavius Josephus 168, 377 Florent Chrestien 263 Florilegium Coislinianum 213221, 239-245, 247, 251, 252 Florilegium Hierosolymitanum 170, 240 Florilegium La 169, 170 Florilegium Lc 170 Florilegium PMLb 169-171 Florilegium Rupefucaldinum 168-170 Florilegium Thessalonicense 170 Francesco Barocci 429 François Portus 263, 264 G Gabriel, monk of Stavronikita 383 Gaius 268 Galileans 26 Gennadian Bible 114, 117 George Boole 292 George Cedrenus 327 George Hickes 428 George of Alexandria 59 George Phakrases 395, 398 George Smalridge 428 George Syncellus 270, 271

H Headless (akephaloi) 28, 54 Hebrews 339, 340, 353 Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim 292



Index of Authors

Helios 334 Henry II of Cyprus 307-310 Henry IV of France 263 Heraclius 262, 266, 268, 417, 419 Heraclius filius 176, 179 Heraclius pater 176, 179, 180, 185-187 Hermes Trisaristos 349 Hermes Trismegistus 343, 349 Herodotus 345 Hesiod 350 Hesychius of Jerusalem 197, 199 Hippolytus of Rome 111-113, 120-122, 136, 137, 144, 221 Homer 341, 350 Honorius IV 307

James I of Aragon 290, 293, 294 James II of Aragon 313, 316 James II of Majorca 290, 294 Jerome 335, 358 Jews 46, 173-177, 181-183, 186, 338, 341 Jezebel 60 Joan II, Countess of Burgundy 291 Johann Michael Wansleben 244 John Chrysostom 57-61, 203, 220, 424 John Climacus 190, 192, 195, 196 John Ernest Grabe 146, 428 John Gabras 392, 396 John, governor of Alexandria 178 John Holobolos 397 John, monk at the mon. of Heptastomos 184 John Niciotes 28, 33, 51 John of Caesarea, the Grammarian 30, 31, 33-36, 39-42, 48, 50, 52, 55, 430 John of Damascus 61, 168, 218, 220, 221, 397 John of Karpathos 192, 206 John of Nikiou 167, 173, 178, 180 John of Raithu 195 John, priest and monk 168, 169 John Sambucus 431 John Scotus Eriugena 262 John the Baptist 59, 60 John the chamberlain 430 John the Evangelist 323 John the Hermit 203 John VI Cantacuzenus 388 John XI Beccus 324, 326

I Icarius 345, 354, 355 Ignatius II of Antioch 396 Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople 321 Iohannes Vestes 58 Irenaeus of Lyon 422 Irene, mother of Constantine VI 273 Isaac of Nineveh 190, 192, 194, 196, 197 Isaac, patriarch of Jerusalem 175 Isaurians 338 Isidore I Boucheiras 385 Isidore of Chios 381, 382 Isidore of Pelusium 348 J Jacob 270 Jacob of Edessa 183 Jacques de Molay 312 Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples 292



Index of Authors

John XIV Calecas 389, 390, 396, 397 John XXI 294 Joseph Justus Scaliger 262-267 Joshua 271 Jovian 337, 359-361, 364, 378 Julian 333-337, 339-344, 346, 357 Julian of Halicarnassus 46, 47, 49, 50 Justinian I 26-29, 34, 46, 51, 53, 55, 173, 417 Justin Martyr 375 K Khan of the Avars 186 Koumitas 176 L Leo I 27, 39, 44, 45, 47, 424 Leo III 168 Leo V the Armenian 273 Leo VI 57, 322, 323 Leontius of Byzantium 26, 46, 53 Leontius of Jerusalem 26, 28, 34, 46, 55 Lexicon Zonarae 82 Libanius 333, 342 Libyans 341 Lorenzo Valla 304 Louis IX of France 311 Lucifer of Cagliari 362 M Macarius, brother of Gregory Palamas 397 Macedonians 264, 360 Macedonius I of Constantinople 360

Magna Grammatica 78, 79, 81, 82 Magnus, correspondent of Jerome 358 Mani 27, 365 Manichaean 26, 43 Manuel Gabalas 381 Manuel, patrician and λογοθέτης τοῦ δρόμου 326 Marcellinus 145, 153, 154, 156, 166 Marcianus of Cyrrhus 209 Marcion 27, 365 Marco Polo 310, 311 Mardonius, tutor of Julian 341 Mark the Hermit 190, 207, 208 Mark the Monk 198 Marsyas 338 Martin I 415, 416, 423 Mary 61 Matrona of Chios 382 Matteo d’Acquasparta 306 Matthew the Evangelist 323 Matthew ‘the Tenth’ 117 Maurice 173, 176, 185 Maximus 350 Maximus Confessor 201, 209, 252, 255, 256, 258, 260262, 264-267, 274, 415433, 435, 436 Maximus, monk and scribe 323 Maximus Planudes 78 Maximus the philosopher 363 Meletius of Antioch 359, 361, 379 Menas 178 Mercurius the Grammarian 5759, 61 Metrophanes, monk 322



Index of Authors

Metrophanes of Smyrna 321328, 331, 332 Michael III 273 Michael Katrarios, priest, nomophylax and scribe 382 Michael, nomophylax and scribe 382 Michael Psellus 78 Michael the Syrian 167, 174, 180, 183, 185 Michael VIII Palaeologus 300 Modarius, magister militum 342 Modestus, patriarch of Jerusalem 169, 176, 180, 181 Möngke Khan 311 Monks from the mon. of Choziba 169 monophysites 173, 176 Moses 338-340, 343, 349 Mysians 342

Nicetas, patrician 179 Nicetas Stethatus 207 Nicholas Cabasilas 397 Nicholas Eymerich 292 Nicholas I Mysticus 323 Nicholas IV 302, 307 Nicholas of Cusa 292, 304 Nicholas Pepagomenus 381, 382, 384, 385, 389-395, 397, 398 Nicoboulus 342 Nicodemus the Hagiorite 324, 325 Nicolas Clément 244 Nilus Doxapatres 217 Nilus Myrsiniotès 382 Nilus of Ancyra 124, 192, 197, 206 Niphon, monk 260 Noah 269, 270 Nonna, mother of Gregory of Nazianzus 336 Nonnus of Panopolis 344

N Nahor 267, 268, 270 Narses 176 Νεόφυτος Ῥοδινός 432 Nemesius, pagan governor of Cappadocia 349, 350 Nephalius 28, 29, 33 Nestorians 29 Nestorius 27-29, 31, 35, 41, 42, 44, 56, 425, 427 Nicephorus Blemmydes 326 Nicephorus Gregoras 381, 382, 394, 395, 398 Nicephorus I of Constantinople 167, 185 Nicephorus the Hagiorite 204 Nicetas, cousin of Heraclius pater 176, 179, 180 Nicetas of Heraclea 364

O οἱ πρεσβύτεροι 267-270 Ochozias 267, 268 Olympus 338 Origen 111, 121-126, 128, 129, 137, 140, 220, 367 Orpheus 338, 340, 350 Ostrog Bible 117 P Pachomius, monk and scribe 327 Palamedes 340, 344, 349, 353, 355 Palladius of Hellenopolis 200 Pamphilus the theologian 26, 27, 44, 51



Index of Authors

Patricius, monk of Mar Saba 196 Patricius of Edessa 197 Paul 60 Paul Asanes 396 Paul II 419 Paulinus II of Antioch 362 Paul the Apostle 334 Paul the Persian 425 Pedro de Morella 295 Peleg 270 Pepagomenus 381 Pepagomenus, priest 385 Persians 169, 170, 172, 173, 176, 177, 179-183, 185-187, 264, 334, 338, 341 Petrus, Patrician 262 phantasianists 32 Pherecides 385 Philemon the Anchorite 190, 209 Philip IV the Fair 292 Philip V of France 291 Philokalia 194, 195, 201, 209 Philo of Alexandria 168 Philo of Carpasia 109, 111-113, 120-126, 128, 136-139, 141-144 Philotheus Coccinus 390, 397 Philoxenus of Mabboug 197 Phimonoë, Sybil 344 Phocas 172-176, 178-180 Phoenicians 338-340, 353 Photius 262, 274, 306, 321, 322, 326, 332, 397 Phrygians 338, 342, 354 Plato 385 Plotinus 377 Polemon 425 Polybius 269, 272 Polycarp 321

Polychronius 121 Poseidon 341 Principal catena tradition on the Song 127-129, 136, 142, 144 Procopius of Gaza 121, 122 Prohaeresius, Christian rhetor 335, 350 Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite 218, 220, 221, 328 Ps.-Eusebius 127 Ps.-Macarius/Symeon 208 Ps.-Nonnus 343-351, 355 Ps.-Sebèos 167, 172, 173, 176, 179-183, 185, 186 Ptolemeans 264 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 267, 268 Ptolemy VI Philometor 267, 268 Pyrrhus I 419 Pythagoras 385 R Rabban Bar Sauma 307 Ramon Llull 289-319 Ramón Muntaner 298 Raymond de Gaufredi 292 Richard I of England 308 Romanus Anagnostes Chartophylax 429 Romanus I Lecapenus 265-268, 272, 273 S Sabellius 30 Sabinus of Heraclea 359, 361 Sacra (Parallela) 168, 169, 182184, 186, 240 Samson 267, 268 Saracens 169 Sassanids 176



Index of Authors

Scythian 27 Scythians 341, 345, 349, 354, 355 Sebastián Izquierdo 289, 292 Sem 269, 270 Serapion of Thmuis 358 Sergius I 417, 419 Sergius the grammarian 31, 32, 45, 49, 50 Seth 269 Severans 28 Severian of Gabala 215-218, 424 Severus of Antioch 25, 26, 2856, 430 Shahrbaraz, Persian general 179, 181, 182, 186 Shaïn, Persian general 176, 185 Slavonic catena on the Song of Songs 109, 111-113, 115, 117-123, 125, 129-132, 134-138, 140-144 Socrates 385 Socrates of Constantinople 359362, 367, 378 Sophocles 341 Sophronius I 418 Sophronius of Pompeioupolis 360 Sozomen of Constantinople 358-360, 362 Stephen Lecapenus 273 Stephen of Dor 418-420, 427 Stephen of Nicomedia 204 Strategius 167, 172-178, 180186 Succensus 44, 55 Sylvester 303 Symeon nomophylax 392, 396 Symeon the New Theologian 202-205, 207

Synousiasts 54 Syrians 339 T Tatian 338-341, 343 Telmesians 338, 354 Terah 267, 268, 270 Thaddaeus of Pelusion 327 Themistius 425 Theoctistus the Studite 388, 393, 398 Theodora, mother of Michael III 273 Theodore Balsamon 187 Theodore, Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria 178 Theodore, high priest over all the temples in Asia 335 Theodore Hyrtacenus 381 Theodore I 419 Theodore Lector 359 Theodore of Edessa 192, 203 Theodore of Mopsuestia 425 Theodore Teron 58 Theodoret of Cyrus 343, 348 Theodore, treasurer of Alexandria 178 Theodosius I 267, 341, 342 Theodosius IV Princeps, Patriarch of Antioch 260 Theophanes 386-389, 392, 396, 398 Theophanes Confessor 167, 173, 176, 179, 181, 185, 186 Theophanes, scribe 256 Theophilus 265 Theophilus of Antioch 219 Theotimus 386-389, 392, 396, 398 Thibault de Chepoy 318



Index of Authors

Thomas and his wife 181 Thomas Aquinas 304, 306 Thomas le Myésier 291 Thracians 338, 341, 350, 354 Timothy Aelurus 26-28, 38, 51, 52 Timothy scholasticus 26 Titus of Bostra 215, 357-359, 362, 364-371, 373-376, 378, 379 Titus, Roman emperor 183 Triptolemus 345, 350, 354 Tyrians 340, 353 Tyrrhenians 338

V Valens 341, 358 Valentine gnosticus 365 Valentinus 27 Villehardouin 260 Vita S. Georgii Chozibitae 167, 169, 181 W William Herbert 429 William of Rubruck 311 Z Zacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem 174, 175, 180 Zeno 28 Zeus 334



Index of Scholars A Abrams, S. R. 342 Acconcia Longo, A. 150, 152, 162 Accorinti, D. 344 Agati, M. L. 243 Alberigo, G. 361, 376 Albrecht, F. 157 Alekseenko, N. A. 321 Alekseev, A. A. 109, 111-125, 129, 130, 132, 134-139, 141-143 Alexakis, A. 240 Alexandre, M. 337 Allatius, L. 433 Allen, P. 25-30, 32-34, 36, 39, 40, 42-56, 323, 415, 420 Allison, R. W. 192 Alpers, K. 80, 82 Alpi, F. 25 André, M. 295 Andrist, P. 258-263, 272, 276, 277, 327 Angelidi, C. 209, 347 Angelou, A. D. 344 Angliviel de la Beaumelle, L. 360 Aninyó, J. 295 Antonopoulou, Th. 57, 58, 61, 323, 325 Arndt, W. 161 Atsalos, B. 260 Aufrère, S. H. 117 Auger, D. 335, 343 Austin, M. 180 Auwers, J.-M. 110, 121, 123, 127, 137-139 Avni, G. 182

B Bacci, L. 346 Bady, G. 336, 342, 346 Bagnall, R. S. 218 Baker-Brian, N. 334 Baldi, B. 78, 81, 83 Balfour, D. 206 Banchich, T. M. 335 Barbàra, M. A. 110, 123-127, 137, 139 Barbour, R. 125 Bardy, G. 327 Barone, F. P. 214, 242 Bartelink, G. J. M. 200 Barton, J. 341 Bassi, D. 393 Battaglini, F. 432 Bauer, A. 271 Bauks, M. 120 Beis, N. A. 193, 201 Bell, H. I. 323 Belting, H. 125 Bendall, S. 179, 180, 182 Berger, G. 77, 81 Berghaus, M. 118 Bernabò, M. 126 Bernard, F. 162 Bernardi, J. 329, 333, 336 Bernatskij, M. M. 386 Berta, F. 256 Berthold, H. 208 Bethune-Baker, J. F. 368 Bidez, J. 333, 335, 357, 358 Biggeli, A. 203 Birkfellner, G. 116 Bizer, Ch. 275-278, 280 Black, J. 160, 161

Index of Scholars

Black, R. 77 Bobichon, P. 375 Böhm, Th. 146, 161 Bonwetsch, G. N. 111-115, 120 Booth, Ph. 416, 417, 420 Borras, J. 295 Borret, M. 367 Børtnes, J. 337 Boter, G. 192, 202 Botley, P. 263, 264, 266 Boud’hors, A. 203 Boudignon, C. 432 Boudon-Millot, V. 397 Bouffartigue, J. 334, 335, 342, 357 Boulnois, M.-O. 375, 376 Bowersock, G. W. 173, 175, 176, 182-184 Boys-Stones, G. R. 338 Bracke, R. 257, 258, 261, 262, 264 Brakke, D. 377 Brandes, W. 416 Braunfels, W. 60 Breitenbach, A. 341, 345 Brennecke, H. C. 359, 361 Breydy, M. 167 Briquet, C. M. 326 Brock, S. 417 Browne, C. G. 342 Browning, R. 395, 429 Brown, M. 126 Bruni, A. M. 115 Burgière, P. 340, 343 Burkert, W. 341 C Cameron, Alan 177, 181, 344 Cameron, Averil 176, 177 Canart, P. 80, 432

Canfora, L. 274 Capone, A. 258, 272, 275-280 Carreras i Artau, J. 293, 295 Casey, R. P. 357 Casiday, A. 351 Cassin, M. 110, 203 Cattaneo, G. 244 Cavallera, F. 361, 362 Cavallo, G. 125, 256 Cawte, J. 25 Cellerini, A. 81, 82 Ceñal, R. 292 Ceresa-Gastaldo, A. 110, 201, 416, 425 Ceulemans, R. 110, 123, 124, 126-128, 137, 143, 145, 149, 213-216, 218, 239242, 239 Chabot, I.-B. 167, 307 Chatzichristos, A. 239 Chatziôannou, K. 110 Cheynet, J.-Cl. 215, 240 Chrêstou, P. K. 381, 386, 387 Citterio, E. 209 Colomba, C. 295 Colomer i Pous, E. 293 Combefis, F. 421, 425, 428, 433, 434, 437 Commelin, H. 263 Constantinides, C. N. 260, 344, 429 Constantinides Hero, A. 390 Conticello, V. 209 Copenhaver, B. P. 343, 349 Coulie, B. 345 Courtonne, Y. 203, 330, 363, 364, 367, 369 Coxe, H. O. 201, 205, 394, 429 Cramer, J. A. 218 Creazzo, T. 263



Index of Scholars

Crégheur, É. 364, 365 Crimi, C. 341, 342, 346, 347 Crisci, E. 83, 261 Cronier, M. 381 Crostini, B. 147-150, 163 Cubitt, C. 416, 417 Cumont, F. 333, 335 Cunningham, M. B. 206, 323 Cuomo, V. 260 Cupane, C. 390 D D’Agostino, M. 80 Dagron, G. 173-175, 181, 187 D’Aiuto, F. 148-151, 153, 154, 163, 164, 261 Daley, B. E. 336 D’Amelia, L. 381 Darrouzès, J. 204, 205 Dassmann, E. 376 Davis, S. J. 377 de Bèze, Th. 262, 263, 276-280 de Boor, C. 270 de Boor, D. 167 Declerck, J. 25, 168-170, 240, 364, 365 de Durand, G.-M. 190, 192, 207209, 370, 375, 378 Degni, P. 261 De Gregorio, G. 256 De Halleux, A. 361, 376 De Jong, I. J. F. 156 Del Furia, F. 79 De Meyier, K. A. 79 Demoen, K. 347, 429 de Montfaucon, B. 326, 433 De Mulder, B. 422 de Ricci, S. 432 De Ridder, E. 189, 194, 201, 242 de Riedmatten, H. 363

Déroche, V. 174 Derville, A. 357 des Places, É 206, 209 Desprez, V. 203 de Urmeneta, F. 303 De Vos, I. 239-243, 325 Devreesse, R. 151, 162, 201, 209, 256 de Wald, E. T. 153, 159 Di Berardino, A. 196, 359-361 Diekamp, F. 433, 437 Diller, A. 272 Dimitrakopoulos, P. 192, 194 Dimitrova, M. 117, 118, 120 Dindorf, L. 167, 265 Dionysiatis, E. 204 Disdier, M.-Th. 201 DiTommaso, L. 365 Doda, A. 80 Domínguez Reboiras, F. 289, 290, 296, 302, 312, 317 Dorival, G. 335 Dörrie, H. 376 Dossetti, J. A. 361 Doutreleau, L. 370 Drecoll, V. H. 118, 363, 364 Droge, A. J. 338, 339 Dufrenne, S. 164 Dummer, J. 375 Dunderberg, I. 27 Dunn Macray, W. 428 Durkan, J. 257 Dželebdžić, D. 390 Dziadowiec, A. 110 E Ehrhard, A. 191, 217, 382 Eleuteri, P. 78 Elm, S. 334-337 Emmel, S. 377



Index of Scholars

Epifanovič, S. L. 421 Erdin, F. 376 Ermilov, P. 194, 203 Ettlinger, G. H. 321, 322 Euangelatou-Notara, Ph. 192 Euringer, S. 110 Eustratiadis, S. 64, 192, 193, 209 Évieux, P. 340, 343

Gari, B. 302 Garitte, G. 167 Garzón-Bosque, I. 416 Garzya, A. 397 Gayà, J. 296, 310 Gazzini, C. 242 Gedeon, M. 58, 62, 64 Géhin, P. 190, 197, 198, 203, 206 Gemeinhardt, P. 146 Georgiadès, B. 323, 325 Geppert, F. 359 Gero, S. 347 Getov, D. 204 Giacomelli, M. 110 Giannelli, C. 256, 382 Giannouli, A. 435 Gielen, E. 239, 240, 325 Göransson, E. 163 Gorrini, G. 256 Gouillard, J. 203 Goulet, R. 358 Grabe, J. E. 146 Grafton, A. 262-264 Greatrex, G. 173 Greenwood, T. 186 Gregg, R. C. 146, 155, 157, 158, 162 Greshake, G. 376 Grillet, B. 358-360, 362 Grillmeier, A. 25, 28, 30, 47, 56 Grumel, V. 265, 298 Guida, A. 77 Guidi, I. 167 Guignet, M. 334 Guillaumont, A. 203 Guillaumont, C. 203 Guy, J.-C. 200 Gysens, S. 256, 431

F Faulhaber, M. 121, 125, 127 Fedwick, P. J. 397 Felckmann, P. 280 Fernández, T. 214, 239-243, 239 Feron, E. 432 Ferrà, M. 289 Festugière, A. J. 358-360, 362 Fincati, M.-C. 147 Fletcher, J. E. 292 Flusin, B. 168, 169, 172, 175, 176, 179-185, 215, 240 Follieri, E. 64, 244 Forlin Patrucco, M. 330 Förstel, C. 239 Foss, C. 176, 179, 181, 182 Franchi de’ Cavalieri, P. 256 G Gabrieli, G. 292 Gaisford, Th. 79 Galbiati, E. 257 Gallay, P. 203, 328, 329, 333, 336, 342, 375, 434 Galmés, S. 289, 295, 303 García Bueno, C. 327 Garcia de la Torre, J. 312 Garcías Palou, S. 294, 295, 300, 305, 306, 312 Gardthausen, V. 192



Index of Scholars

H Hägg, T. 337 Hahn, A. 361, 364, 376 Haldon, J. F. 176 Halkin, F. 59, 64, 190, 195 Halton, Th. 343 Hamilton, A. 244 Hammerschmidt, E. 367, 376 Hammerstaedt, J. 376 Hannick, C. 205, 430 Hansen, G. C. 359 Hansmann, K. 323 Harada, H. 290, 294, 308, 310312 Harlfinger, D. 80, 382 Harnack, A. 114 Harries, J. 180 Hauschild, W.-D. 359 Hausherr, I. 206, 207 Hayward, C. T. R. 25 Heil, G. 221 Heinzer, F. 257 Hene, B. 120 Henry, R. 274 Hernandez de la Fuente, D. 344 Hertlein, F. C. 333 Hillgarth, J. N. 291 Hinterberger, M. 221, 435 Hodkinson, O. 146 Holl, K. 221, 375 Holstenius, L. 433 Hooper, R. 428 Horowitz, E. 177 Horowitz, W. 120 Hostens, M. 322, 328 Houze, C. 167 Hovorun, C. 417 Howard-Johnston, J. 173, 182, 186 Hoyland, R. G. 182, 183

Hunger, H. 78, 205, 390, 430 Hutter, I. 126, 157 I Iacobini, A. 153, 261, 269 Irigoin, J. 244, 269-271 Iversen, G. 163 J Jaeger, W. 431 Jakobsen, B. 263 Jankowiak, M. 417-420 Janssens, B. 433 Jeffreys, E. M. 344 Joannou, P.-P. 361 Johnson, A. P. 339 Jouanna, J. 397 Jourjon, M. 328, 329, 375, 434 Jugie, M. 206 Juhász, E. 274 K Kaczmarek, S. 110 Kaegi, W. E. 176, 179, 185, 187 Kaklamanis, S. 263 Kaldellis, A. 335, 351 Kallergis, H. 263 Kalogeras, N. 193 Kaltsoghianni, E. 393 Kambylis, A. 202, 204, 205 Kappler, Cl. 311 Kappler, R. 311 Karo, G. 125, 147 Kazhdan, A. 347, 350 Kekelidze, K. 323 Kelly, G. 333 Kelly, J. N. D. 364 Kienast, D. 358 King, C. W. 333, 352 Kiraz, G. A. 371



Index of Scholars

Kirschbaum, E. 60 Kislinger, E. 390 Klauser, T. 338 Klein, H. A. 179 Koder, J. 202, 204, 205 Kokkini, A. 239 Kolbet, P. R. 146 Kominis, A. 58 Kotter, B. 221 Kotzabassi, S. 347, 382 Kourilas, E. 383 Kourousis, S. 58 Krašovec, J. 113 Krause, J.-U. 177 Kremmer, J. A. M. 338-340, 343 Kresten, O. 390 Krumbacher, K. 217 Kulik, A. 117, 119 Külzer, A. 322 Kurmann, A. 333, 337, 340, 341

Leemans, J. 325 Lee, S. 428 Lefherz, F. 346 Lempire, J. 262, 269 Leonardi, C. 362 Leone, P. L. M. 381, 385 Le Quien, M. 168 Leroy, F. J. 327 Levine, L. I. 182 Levrie, K. 242 Liakou, V. 239 Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 174, 177, 180, 183 Lietzmann, J. 125, 147 Livadaras, N. A. 77-79, 81 Löhr, W. A. 359 Longpré, E. 295 Louth, A. 351 Lowden, J. 125, 126 Lozza, G. 347-350, 355 Lucà, S. 431 Lugaresi, L. 333, 337, 344 Lunt, H. G. 111, 115, 116, 119, 122, 129, 143 Luomanen, P. 27

L Labourt, J. 358 Lackner, W. 205, 430 Lafontaine, G. 329 Lafontaine, R. 374, 377 Laga, C. 252, 255-257, 431 Lake, K. 272 Lake, S. 272 Lamarche, P. 357 Lamberz, E. 204, 256 Lampe, G. W. H. 30, 37, 41, 42, 49, 61, 367, 373, 375, 377 Lampros, S. P. 192, 382 Lange, A. 115, 120 Lange, Ch. 417 Langerbeck, H. 128, 129, 136 Lasserre, F. 77-79, 81 Lavenant, R. 197 Lavoie, J.-M. 364, 373

M Macé, C. 214, 217, 240, 242, 274, 351 Macler, Fr. 167, 182 Madre, A. 296, 313-316 Maffei, D. 304 Magnelli, E. 78 Mai, A. 121, 122, 349 Maksimczuk, J. 213, 214, 239, 241, 242 Manafis, P. 110 Mango, C. 167 Maniaci, M. 83, 256 Manoussacas, M. I. 263



Index of Scholars

Mansi, J. D. 326 Maraval, P. 359-362, 364, 367, 378 Marjanen, A. 27 Markesinis, B. 213, 324, 328, 394, 397, 239, 429 Markopoulos, A. 261, 274 Maróstica, A. H. 293 Marr, N. 112, 113 Martin, A. 368, 371 Martini, Aem. 393 Masaracchia, E. 340 McGuckin, J. A. 336, 337 McLynn, N. 337, 342 Means, J. C. 360 Medina, J. 309 Meijerling, E. P. 340 Mendía, B. 292 Menstrina, G. 347 Mercati, G. 147, 162, 257, 327 Metzler, K. 374, 377 Meunier, B. 376 Meyendorff, J. 385-387, 396 Michels, J. 242 Migne, J.-P. 346, 349 Miljković, B. 390 Miller, E. 80 Miltenova, A. 120 Mioni, E. 81, 193, 272 Molhuysen, P. C. 257, 263 Mondrain, B. 79, 397 Monégier du Sorbier, M.-A. 79 Moniou, D. I. 382 Montagu, R. 346 Montanari, F. 78 Moore, J. M. 269, 272 Morales, X. 364, 368, 371, 376, 379 Moreschini, C. 334, 347 Moschonas, Th. D. 202

Mossay, J. 329, 347, 349, 351 Mosshammer, A. 262, 270 Mouriki, D. 164 Muccio, G. 256 Muddiman, J. 341 Mühlenberg, E. 431 Müller, G. 368, 373 Munitiz, J. A. 25, 57, 145, 155, 167, 187, 193, 213, 219, 221, 289, 357 Muyldermans, J. 197, 204 N Nadal Cañellas, J. 296, 386 Narcy, M. 334 Nauck, A. 61, 342 Neil, B. 415, 420 Neirynck, S. 217 Nelles, W. 156 Neumann, K. J. 340 Newbigin, N. 77 Nikolopoulos, P. G. 203 Nimmo Smith, J. 336, 337, 344346, 349, 355 Nöldeke, T. 368 Noret, J. 111, 125, 213, 221, 321, 322, 351, 419, 420, 431, 435 Norman, A. F. 342 O Obrador y Bennassar, M. 289 Ohme, H. 416 Olivier, J.-M. 79, 193, 325 Olster, D. M. 174, 175, 177-179 Omont, H. 244, 258, 326, 394, 397 Opitz, H.-G. 146, 147 Orsini, P. 80, 83 Ossieur, D. 206



Index of Scholars

P Palmer, A. 183 Panagiotakis, N. M. 263, 344 Panteghini, S. 435 Papadakis, A. 322 Papadogiannakis, Y. 343 Papaioannou, S. 347, 351 Papanicolaou, M. 263 Paranikas, M. 61 Paribeni, A. 391 Parpulov, G. R. 147-149, 151, 160, 163 Parvis, P. 334 Parvis, S. 334 Paschalidis, S. A. 194 Paschos, P. B. 200 Pasinus, J. 256 Patzig, E. 349, 351 Payne Smith, R. 367, 368 Pedersen, N. A. 357, 358 Pedone, S. 391 Peers, G. 147-150 Perarnau i Espelt, J. 292 Pérez Martín, I. 274 Périchon, P. 359-362, 367, 378 Perria, L. 244, 261, 269, 272 Perrot, A. 337 Perry, K. 240 Pétau, D. 271 Petit, F. 216, 219 Pharr, C. 335 Phindiclis, S. 193 Pierleoni, G. 193 Pierres, J. 418, 425 Pietras, H. 110 Pintaudi, R. 80 Pirard, M. 190-194, 196, 197 Platzeck, E. W. 293 Podskalsky, G. 432 Poirier, P.-H. 364, 365, 377

Polidori, V. 322 Politis, L. 193, 194, 383 Politis, M. L. 193, 194, 383 Ponsoye, E. 416 Pontani, F. 322 Poussines, P. 322 Prato, G. 80, 244, 272, 382 Prestige, G. L. 373 Preuschen, E. 114 Price, R. 416-418 Prodi, P. 362 Pruche, B. 221 R Räisänen, H. 27 Rebillard, É. 334 Reinsch, D. R. 382 Reitzenstein, R. 78-81 Reverdin, O. 263 Reynolds, J. M. 181 Richard, M. 167-169, 213, 219, 221, 240, 422, 423, 430 Richardson, E. C. 358 Ridings, D. 339, 343 Riedinger, R. 416, 417 Rigo, A. 194, 195, 203, 209, 390, 391, 394 Ritter, A. M. 221 Rivautella, A. 256 Rocchi, A. 431 Roelli, Ph. 198 Rojas Donat, L. 304 Roman, A. 364, 365 Ronconi, F. 270, 274 Rondeau, M.-J. 146, 147 Roosen, B. 259, 260, 326, 415, 421-423, 429, 430 Roselli, A. 397 Rosen, K. 334 Rosenmeyer, P. 146



Index of Scholars

Roueché, Ch. 181 Rousseau, A. 374, 377 Ruether, R. R. 336 Rutherford, J. E. 206, 209

Smith III, M. H. 163 Smith, W. 360 Snell, B. 342 Sokoloff, M. 368 Soler i Llopart, A. 303, 307 Solignac, A. 357 Somers, V. 345 Sonderkamp, J. A. M. 382 Sot, M. 342 Spyridon of Lavra 192, 193, 209 Steel, C. 252, 255-257, 431 Stemberger, G. 182, 183 Stephen, L. 428 Stevenson, H. 204 Stöhr, J. 292 Stoyanov, Y. 173, 176, 177, 182, 186 Strano, G. 263 Στράτος, A. N. 176, 179, 180, 183 Sureda y Blanes, F. 295 Swallow, J. E. 342

S Sabbah, G. 358-360, 362 Sabbatos, Ch. 396 Sakkelion, A. I. 189, 243 Sakkelion, I. 189, 243 Sales, T. 293 Salzinger, I. 289 Sánchez Casabon, I. 290 Sartre, M. 358 Saville, H. 346 Savvidis, K. 374, 377 Saxer, V. 112 Schamp, J. 274 Schenker, A. 149 Schiffer, E. 435 Schmidt, A. 346 Schmidt, T. S. 364, 365 Schönborn, C. 257 Schoors, A. 322, 394 Segneri, A. 379 Sell, H. 77-79 Sels, L. 118 Sesboüé, B. 370, 371, 374, 378 Sherry, L. E. 347 Sherwood, P. 262 Sickenberger, J. 364, 365, 368, 369, 371, 373, 379 Sieben, H.-J. 146 Signes Codoñer, J. 274 Simelidis, C. 350 Simonetti, M. 359-362 Sinkewicz, R. E. 386-389 Sinko, Th. 346 Slavova, T. 120 Smith, C. 180

T Tanaka, H. 146 Tarré, J. 298 Tavonatti, P. 263 Tedros, A. 110 Tenge-Wolf, V. 295, 305 Theodoridis, Ch. 80, 83 Thomson, F. J. 113, 114, 116119, 122 Thomson, R. W. 186 Thraede, K. 338-340, 343 Tihon, A. 273 Torrance, I. R. 31, 32, 45 Tosi, R. 78, 83 Tougher, S. 333-335 Tov, E. 115 Trelenberg, J. 338-340



Index of Scholars

Trisoglio, F. 349-351 Tsamis, D. G. 395 Tuillier, A. 336, 342, 346 Turcescu, L. 365 Turyn, A. 79, 382

W Weis, E. 60 Wessel, S. 28 Whitby, M. 177, 180 Whittaker, M. 338 Wickham, L. R. 29, 44 Wildenboer, F. A. 241 Wilken, R. L. 173, 183 Wilson, N. 429 Winling, R. 371, 376-378 Wirth, P. 422 Witschel, Chr. 177 Witt, R. E. 376 Wolff, É. 335, 343 Wood, H. G. 376 Wortley, J. 200 Wright, W. C. 333-335, 339-341

U Ubierna, P. A. 214, 242 Uthemann, K.-H. 429 V Valentí, J. I. 312 Van Deun, P. 194, 204, 205, 208, 214, 215, 217, 239-242, 256, 257, 259, 262, 274, 321, 322, 324-326, 394, 422, 431, 432 Van Hoof, L. 110 van Miert, D. 263, 264, 266 Van Nuffelen, P. 110, 335 Van Pee, S. 239 Vasiliev, A. 167 Vassis, I. 192, 201, 202, 396 Vereecken, J. 429 Vladimir, A. 209 Vogel, M. 192 Voicu, S. J. 110 von Christ, W. 61

X Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Αἰκ. 187 Xiberta, B. 292 Z Zachhuber, J. 359, 361, 363 Zahn, Th. 127 Zotenberg, H. 167 Zycha, I. 365



Index of Manuscripts A Alexandria, Βιβλιοθήκη τοῦ Πατριαρχείου 71 202 Athinai, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος 322 189-212 Athinai, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος 329 213, 223, 241, 245-250 Athinai, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος 464 239, 241-243, 245-254 Athinai, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος 1062 322 Athinai, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος 2046 383 Athinai, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος 2583 394 Athinai, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Μετόχιον τοῦ Παναγίου Τάφου 274 170, 241 B Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, gr. 46 (Phillipp. 1450) 170 Bruxelles, Bibliothèque royale Albert Ie, IV 881 243, 245250, 252-254 C Cambridge, University Library Dd. II. 22 265, 266

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barberinianus graecus 452 428, 431-434 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottobonianus graecus 319 428, 431, 432 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottobonianus graecus 398 147 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Palatinus gr. 76 275 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Palatinus gr. 245 260 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reginensis gr. 23 204, 205, 207 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 124 269, 272 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 342 163 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 491 213, 223, 241, 245, 246 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 504 280 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 505 265, 275

Index of Manuscripts

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 703 209 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 705 394 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 728 213 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 735 201, 202 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 1086 381 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 1260 346, 347 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 1502 256-259, 265-269, 271, 272, 275280, 287 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 1587 382, 383 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 1818 80, 82, 84 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 2195 26 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 342 147, 154, 162, 165, 166 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 504 421

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 747 150, 153 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 752 147-150, 152-155, 157-166 Copenhagen, Gamle Kongelige Samling, 6,2° 123, 126, 129 E Escorial, Real Biblioteca Y. II. 15 (gr. 323) 396 Escorial, Real Biblioteca Y.III.2 (gr. 272) 202 Escorial, Real Biblioteca Ψ.IV.24 (gr. 498) 202 F Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurentiana, San Marco 303 78, 81, 82, 84 Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurentiana, San Marco 304 80, 82, 84 Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, plut. VII, 1 322 Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, plut. VIII, 22 170 G Genève, Bibliothèque publique et universitaire 30 257-263, 267, 272, 274-280 Grottaferrata, Biblioteca della Badia Greca, B.α.IV 420, 428, 429, 431-433, 437



Index of Manuscripts

H Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου 57 204, 205 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου 164 265 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου 262 394 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου 500 (429) 260 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου 594 (olim 507) 428, 432, 437 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου 949 272 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Διονυσίου 227 323 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Διονυσίου 228 382, 383 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Διονυσίου 626 204 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Ἰβήρων 38 241, 245 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Κουτλουμουσίου 26 260 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας K 111 192 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Γ 40 209 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Δ 62 325 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Δ 180 260 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Λ 38 192, 193 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Λ 170 57 Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Φιλοθέου 56 192-194, 198 Hagion Oros, Σκήτη Καυσοκαλυβίων 86 383

I Istanbul, Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, Θεολογικὴ Σχολή 39 325 Istanbul, Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, Μονὴ Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 17 260 J Jerusalem, Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, Παναγίου Τάφου 15 170 Jerusalem, Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, Παναγίου Τάφου 53 147-150, 152154, 160, 162-166 Jerusalem, Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, Παναγίου Τάφου 274 240, 241, 245 Jerusalem, Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, Τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα 579 322 L Leiden, Bibliotheca Universitatis, Vossianus gr. F.16 79 Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Vossianus gr. Q. 20 79, 81, 82, 84 Leiden, Scaligeranus 33 257-269, 271, 272, 274, 275, 281-283 London, British Library, Additional 39605 323 London, British Library, Additional Ms 36749 261 London, British Library, Royal 1 D. V-VIII 146, 147, 154, 157, 158, 166



Index of Manuscripts

M Meteorai, Μονὴ Βαρλαὰμ 162 201 Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana B 137 sup (gr. 147) 257 Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana B 139 sup (gr. 146) 257 Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 24 sup. (gr. 457) 387, 393, 396, 398, 399, 412, 413 Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana Q 74 sup. 241, 245, 246, 248-250 Moskva, Государственный Исторический музей, Синодальное собрание рукописей 327 209 Moskva, Государственный Исторический музей, Синодальное собрание рукописей, 548 112 Moskva, Государственный Исторический музей, Синодальное собрание рукописей, 673 112 Moskva, Государственный Исторический Музей, Синодальное собрание рукописей gr. 206 (Vladimir 337) 394 Moskva, Государственный Исторический музей, Собрание рукописей А. С. Уварова, 31 112 Moskva, Российская Государственная Библиотека, Φ 113, 13 113, 115

Moskva, Российская Государственная Библиотека, Φ 205, 171 113-115 Moskva, Российская Государственная Библиотека, Φ 304, 370 112 Moskva, Российская Государственная Библиотека, Φ 310, 1 114, 115 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, gr. 285 394 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, gr. 363 265, 269, 275 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, gr. 551 213 N Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, Fondo greco II B 9 193 Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, Fondo greco II B 13 322 O Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium D. 4. 1 157, 158 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium E.5.12 (Miscellaneus 77) 325 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium I. inf. 2.12 (Misc. 320) 125 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium X 1.1 (D’Orville 2) 81



Index of Manuscripts

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci gr. 27 428-431, 433, 437 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci gr. 69 207, 208 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canonici, gr. 56 213 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Cromwell 6 201 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Joh. Ern. Grabe Adversariorum 20 428 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. gr. 87 386, 387, 394, 396, 399

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 1238 386, 387, 394, 399 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 1453 260 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 1906 243 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 2402 265 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Fonds Coislin 57 322 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Fonds Coislin 90 256, 257 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Fonds Coislin 99 387, 396 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Fonds Coislin 294 240, 245, 248 Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Fondo Palatino 2139 78, 81, 82, 84 Patmos, Μονὴ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου 136 261 Patmos, Μονὴ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου 180 260 Praha, Národní Knihovna, Universitní Knihovna XXV C 31 79, 81, 82, 84

P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 164 160 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 362 204, 205, 207 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 886 265 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 887 326, 327 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 923 170 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 924 239, 241-254 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ancien fonds grec 970 394, 396, 397, 399



Index of Manuscripts

R Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, gr. 120 256-258, 260, 265, 267-272, 275, 284-286 Roma, Biblioteca Casanatense 198 322 S Sinai, Μονὴ τῆς Ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης 1612 194 Sinai, Μονὴ τῆς Ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης, gr. 172 381 Skiathos, Μονὴ τοῦ Εὐαγγελισμοῦ 10 194, 195, 205, 207, 208 Sofia, Църковно-исторически и архивен институт при Българската Патриаршия, gr. 839 204 Strasbourg, Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire gr. 12 241, 245, 246, 248 T Thessaloniki, Μονὴ Βλατάδων 9 170 Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria c.III.3 (Pasinus XXV.b.V.5) 256, 257 Tyrnavos, Δημοτικὴ βιβλιοθήκη 25 127, 138 V Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Fondo antico, gr. 138 170

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Fondo Antico, gr. 201 261, 272 Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Fondo Antico, gr. 450 274 Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Fondo Antico, gr. 530 81 Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Fondo Antico, gr. Z 163 (491) 394 W Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Phil. gr. 131 78, 81, 82, 84 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theol. gr. 109 275 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theol. gr. 177/336 148 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theol. gr. 307 275 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theologicus gr. 78 393, 414 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theologicus gr. 216 428, 430, 431 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theologicus gr. 274 205, 207



TABULA GRATULATORIA Pauline Allen, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia & University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Dimiter Angelov, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Theodora Antonopoulou, Faculty of Philology, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece Pamela Armstrong, Campion Hall, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Davide Baldi, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Florence, Italy André Binggeli, IRHT – CNRS, Paris, France Sebastian Brock, Oriental Institute, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Alessandra Bucossi, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice, Italy Reinhart Ceulemans, KU Leuven, Greek Studies, Leuven, Belgium Costas N. Constantinides, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece Soteroula Constantinidou, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece Barbara Crostini, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Mary B. Cunningham, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Malgorzata Dabrowska, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland José Declerck, Ghent, Belgium Alberto del Campo Echevarria, IES San Cristobal de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain Charalambos Dendrinos, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK Eva De Ridder, KU Leuven Libraries, Maurits Sabbe Library, Leuven, Belgium Margaret Dimitrova, St Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, Bulgaria Rob Faesen S.J., KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Tomás Fernández, Universidad de Buenos Aires – Conicet, Buenos Aires, Argentina Antonia Giannouli, Department of Byzantine & Modern Greek Studies, Faculty of Letters, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus Geoffrey Greatrex, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Jonathan Harris, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK George Huxley, Trinity College Dublin & Maynooth University, Dublin, Ireland Bart Janssens, Corpus Christianorum Library & Knowledge Centre, Turnhout, Belgium

TABULA GRATULATORIA

Elizabeth & Michael Jeffreys, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Stavros E. Kamaroudis, University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, Florina, Greece Michael Kohlbacher, Independent Scholar, Sinn, Germany Nike Koutrakou, Independent Scholar, Papagou, Athens, Greece Clement A. Kuehn, Center of Byzantine Studies, New Haven, CT, USA Erich Lamberz, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany Daniel A. Madigan S.J., Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA José Maksimczuk, KU Leuven, Greek Studies, Leuven, Belgium Basile Markesinis, KU Leuven, Greek Studies, Leuven, Belgium Gamon McLellan, School of Oriental  & African Studies, University of London, London, UK Rosemary Morris, University of York, York, UK Juan Nadal Cañellas S.J. (†) Stefaan Neirynck osb, Abdij Keizersberg, Leuven, Belgium Jennifer Nimmo Smith, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Jacques Noret, Brussels, Belgium Ken Parry, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Rosario Pintaudi, Accademia Fiorentina di Papirologia, Florence, Italy Paul-Hubert Poirier, Membre de l’Institut de France & de la Société royale du Canada, Université Laval, Québec, Canada Günter Prinzing, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, Germany Claudia Rapp, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Antonio Rigo, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice, Italy Bram Roosen, KU Leuven, Latin Literature, Leuven, Belgium Charlotte Roueché, London, UK Mossman Roueché, London, UK Elisabeth Schiffer, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Division of Byzantine Studies, Vienna, Austria Douwe Tj. Sieswerda, formerly University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Juan Signes-Codoñer, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain Luigi Silvano, Università di Torino, Turin, Italy Michael Slusser, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Eric Southworth, St Peter’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Michel Stavrou, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France Ronald Truman, Christ Church, Oxford University, Oxford, UK



TABULA GRATULATORIA

Peter Van Deun, KU Leuven, Greek Studies, Leuven, Belgium Lucas Van Rompay, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Werner Verbeke, Leuven, Belgium Corpus Christianorum Library & Knowledge Centre, Turnhout, Belgium Institut des Sources chrétiennes, Lyon, France Institute for Early Christian and Byzantine Studies, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Institut français d’études byzantines, Paris, France Société des Bollandistes, Brussels, Belgium

