Theologica Minora: The Minor Genres Of Byzantine Theological Literature 978-2-503-55102-9 (printed version)

894 119 5MB

English Pages 163 Year 2013

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Theologica Minora: The Minor Genres Of Byzantine Theological Literature
 978-2-503-55102-9 (printed version)

Table of contents :
abbreviations vii
preface ix
paul géhin, Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance
et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège 1
peter van deun, Exploration du genre byzantin des kephalaia: la
collection attribuée à Théognoste 51
reinhart ceulemans, Malachias the Monk as a Textual Critic
of LXX Proverbs 67
antonia giannouli, Catanyctic Religious Poetry. A Survey 86
pavel ermilov, Towards a Classification of Sources in Byzantine
Question-and-Answer Literature 110
antonio rigo, Questions et réponses sur la controverse palamite.
Un texte inédit d’origine athonite et son auteur véritable
(Marc Kyrtos) 126
michel asmus, Les énigmes d’un presbytre de Constantinople 152
inmaculada prez martn, The Transmission of Some Writings
by Psellos in Thirteenth-century Constantinople 159
illustrations 175
index 187
1. List of Illustrations 189
2. Manuscripts 190
3. Names of Persons: Ancient and Medieval 192
4. Modern Authors 197

Citation preview

THEOLOGICA MINORA THE MINOR GENRES OF BYZANTINE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

BYZ N IOς Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 8 Series Editors: Michael Altripp Lars Martin Hoffmann Editorial & Advisory Board Michael Featherstone (CNRS, Paris) Bojana Krsmanović (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade) Bogdan Maleon (University of Iasi) Arietta Papaconstantinou (University of Reading) Antonio Rigo (University of Venice) Horst Schneider (University of Munich) Juan Signes Codoner (University of Valladolid) Christos Stavrakos (University of Ioannina) Peter Van Deun (University of Leuven) Yannis Varalis (University of Volos) Nino Zchomelidse (Johns Hopkins University)

THEOLOGICA MINORA THE MINOR GENRES OF BYZANTINE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Edited by Antonio Rigo in collaboration with Pavel Ermilov & Michele Trizio

H

F

Cover illustration Hagia Sophia, Monembasia – Photo Michael Altripp, Greifswald Cover design by Moxie, Turnhout © 2013, 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/2013/0095/253 ISBN 978-2-503-55102-9 (printed version) ISBN 978-2-503-55125-8 (online version) Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

Table of Contents

abbreviations

vii

preface

ix

paul géhin, Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège

1

peter van deun, Exploration du genre byzantin des kephalaia: la collection attribuée à Théognoste

51

reinhart ceulemans, Malachias the Monk as a Textual Critic of LXX Proverbs

67

antonia giannouli, Catanyctic Religious Poetry. A Survey

86

pavel ermilov, Towards a Classification of Sources in Byzantine Question-and-Answer Literature 110 antonio rigo, Questions et réponses sur la controverse palamite. Un texte inédit d’origine athonite et son auteur véritable (Marc Kyrtos) 126 michel asmus, Les énigmes d’un presbytre de Constantinople

152

inmaculada prez martn, The Transmission of Some Writings by Psellos in Thirteenth-century Constantinople 159 illustrations

175

index

187 189 190 192 197

 1. List of Illustrations  2. Manuscripts  3. Names of Persons: Ancient and Medieval  4. Modern Authors



abbreviations

BHG CCSG CFHB CPG PG PLP PS SC

Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca. Bruxelles. Corpus Christianorum. Series graeca. Turnhout. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Turnhout. Migne Patrologia graeca. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. Vienna. Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα, I-V, ed. P. K. Chrestou & others, Thessaloniki 1962-92. Sources chrétiennes. Paris.



Preface

Since 1959 Hans-Georg Beck’s Kirche und theologische Literatur im ­byzantinischen Reich has been the leading reference work for anyone ­studying Byzantine theological literature. The reader of this book is faced, expecially in the latter half, with a single interpretive structure for the entire Byzantine period, from the Iconoclasm, through Photios up to the palamite controversy and the debate over the union of the Churches. According to this structure, all this material can be clas­ sified using a few labels, such as dogmatic and polemic, homiletic, ascetic and mystic, hagiographic, exegetic, hymnographic or as canon law. Obviously this approach, which partly conformed to the editorial standards of the Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft series, favored only the most important Byzantine theological writers and works, i.e. those who easily fitted Beck’s “Theologie der Byzantiner”, a paradigm which only included the dogmatic and polemical literature, the panoplies, the anti-Latin or anti-heretic writings. Other texts, such as florilegia or collections of texts composed for specific purposes found no place within this narrative.
 However, over the last years, following Marcel Richard’s seminal work, such texts have received growing attention, as witnessed by the projects of the Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes  – Section grecque (Paris) and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Recognising this renewed interest, the 22th annual conference of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University of Moscow (21-22 November 2011) hosted a conference specifically devoted to theological texts and related literary genres that have so far been under-investigated as part of a project on the theology and religious history of Byzantium, organized in collaboration with the Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice.



Preface

The present volume presents the proceedings of this conference investigating a variety of texts (chapters, dialogues, questions and answers etc.) and authors from the 4th to the 15th century often marginalized in modern scholarship. Special thanks go to the individual contributors and to Matthieu Cassin for reading some of the papers in this volume. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to my friends Lars Hoffmann, Michael Altripp and Bart Janssens for accepting the volume into this series. Venice, April 2013

A. R.



paul géhin

Les collections de kephalaia monastiQues  Naissance et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège 1 Les recueils byzantins transmettent une grande variété de kephalaia monastiques. Au mot κεϕάλαια se trouve souvent associé un adjectif qui en souligne soit l’aspect admirable (ὡραῖα, θαυμαστά), soit l’utilité spirituelle (ὠϕέλιμα, ψυχωϕελῆ), ou bien en précise le contenu. Dans ce dernier cas, on parlera par exemple de chapitres pratiques (πρακτικά) et gnostiques (γνωστικά) ou plus fréquemment de chapitres neptiques (νηπτικά), c’està-dire de chapitres invitant à la nepsis, la sobriété de l’âme, une des vertus particulièrement prisée des moines. La célèbre Philocalie des Pères neptiques rassemblée par Nicodème l’Hagiorite et Macaire de Corinthe à la fin du 18e siècle (éd. originale Venise 1782) 2 ne retient presque que des écrits de ce genre, et c’est grâce à elle et à ses sœurs slavonne et russe que ces collections atteindront un large public à l’époque moderne 3. La compilation de Nicodème et Macaire comporte cependant quelques faiblesses  : les notices biographiques placées en tête des extraits sont souvent dépourvues d’esprit critique et de sens historique, et les textes eux-mêmes, édités à partir de manuscrits tardifs, se présentent à plusieurs 1 Nous adressons nos plus vifs remerciements à Marie Cronier et à Matthieu Cassin pour leurs relectures et corrections. Le titre est le même que celui d’une communication présentée au 7e Colloque International de Paléographie Grecque (MadridSalamanque, 15-20 septembre 2008) qui n’a pas été publiée. L’Appendice I (ci-dessous. 41-4) résume cette communication de Madrid dont l’objet principal était la mise en page des kephalaia dans les manuscrits byzantins. 2 Φιλοκαλία τῶν ἱερῶν νηπτικῶν συνερανισθεῖσα παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ θεοϕόρων πατέρων ἡμῶν, Venetiis 1782 ; rééd., vol. I-V Athinai 1957-1963. Tous nos renvois seront faits selon la réédition athénienne, et non selon l’édition originale. 3 Sur la Philocalie, sa formation et sa postérité, voir E.  Citterio, Nicodemo Agiorita, dans C. G. Conticello, V. Conticello (éd.), La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, Corpus Christianorum, t. II. Turnhout 2002, 905-78, en particulier 919-21, ainsi que l’Appendice de V. Conticello, E. Citterio, La Philocalie et ses versions, 999-1021 ; P. Géhin, Le filocalie che hanno preceduto la ‘Filocalia’, dans A. Rigo (éd.), Nicodemo l’Aghiorita e la Filocalia. Bose-Magnano 2001, 83-102 ; V. Kontouma, The Philokalia, dans A. Casiday (éd.), Orthodox Christian World. London 2012, 451-63.

The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 1-50 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101917

peter van deun

Exploration du genre byzantin des kephalaia La collection attribuée à Théognoste Depuis des années, l’équipe byzantine de l’Université de Leuven s’est concentrée sur la littérature byzantine des florilèges et des compilations. Ainsi nos recherches sont centrées par exemple sur les chaînes exégétiques, sur le Florilège de Coislin (une anthologie monumentale du IXe-Xe siècle, dans laquelle les extraits ont été rassemblés dans l’ordre alphabétique), sur la célèbre Panoplie dogmatique d’Euthyme Zygadène (composée à Constantinople entre 1115 et 1118), sur l’anthologie inédite de Nil Doxapatrès (compilée très probablement en Sicile au milieu du XIIe siècle) et sur la vaste collection de Joseph le Philosophe ou Rhakendyte (compilée très probablement à Thessalonique, au XIIIeXIVe siècle). Mon équipe louvaniste a établi l’édition critique intégrale ou partielle de ces florilèges et a préparé plusieurs articles, ainsi qu’une monographie dans lesquels nous avons essayé de mieux comprendre la fonction, le public et les mécanismes de cette sorte de littérature 1. Ces dernières années, nous nous sommes interessé à un genre littéraire apparenté qui, jusqu’ici, n’a pas encore reçu l’attention qu’il mérite. Il s’agit de textes qui ne constituent pas un discours continu, mais sont rédigés sous la forme d’une série de chapitres (κεϕάλαια) qui semblent être indépendants les uns des autres. Dans ce même recueil, notre ami Paul  Géhin a brillamment esquissé l’histoire de ce format littéraire 2. Il suffira de noter que, souvent, ces ouvrages comptent cent chapitres, constituant ainsi ce qu’on appelle une centurie (ἑκατοντάς); le souci d’éviter des interpolations et surtout la signification mystique et symbolique du nombre cent, semblent avoir été à l’origine des collections de 100 chapitres. On notera également que, dans un petit nombre de ces ouvrages – par exemple dans les quatre centuries De caritate et continentia de l’abbé Thalassius (CPG 7848), ami de Maxime le Confesseur 1 P. Van Deun/C. Macé (éd.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? Proceedings of the International Conference held in Leuven, 6-8 May 2009, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 212. Leuven / Paris / Walpole (MA) 2011. 2 Voir p. 1-50.

The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 51-66 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101918

peter van deun

–, les lettres initiales des chapitres forment un acrostiche, ce qui donne l’air d’une certaine cohérence et évite en même temps l’interpolation de la collection, car de tels textes se prêtent parfaitement à être enrichis de nouveaux chapitres. Dans mon équipe de recherche à Leuven, on prépare actuellement l’édition critique et une étude de plusieurs œuvres appartenant à ce genre. Tout d’abord il y a un petit traité de Maxime le  Confesseur qui a pour titre De duabus Christi naturis (CPG 7697 [13]) et dont l’édition critique est préparée par Katrien Levrie, une de mes collaboratrices louvanistes; l’opuscule ne contient que dix chapitres, dix, un autre nombre parfait et accompli, qui, selon les Pères, symbolise les dix commandement ou même Jésus, car le nom du Seigneur commence par la lettre iota, c’est-à-dire dix. Maxime a d’ailleurs écrit plusieurs opuscules de 10 chapitres 3. L’édition critique d’un autre texte divisé en chapitres, les Capita gnostica (CPG 7707 [11]), s’établira également par les soins de Katrien Levrie. La paternité maximienne est douteuse, mais ne peut pas être exclue; dans deux manuscrits seulement, on lit 100 chapitres, tandis qu’un troisième compte actuellement 95 chapitres et les deux autres donnent un nombre encore moins élevé. Une autre œuvre appartenant au genre littéraire des capita est la collection spirituelle des Capita alia (CPG 7716). Eva De Ridder, qui, à l’Université de Leuven, prépare une dissertation de doctorat sous ma direction, établira l’édition critique de cette œuvre, conservée dans une bonne septentaine de témoins grecs. Le nombre de chapitres varie d’un manuscrit à l’autre, à partir de 238 jusqu’à 252. Dans les codex, les Capita alia sont restés anonymes ou sont attribués à Maxime le Confesseur, à Jean de Karpathos et à l’énigmatique Élie l’Ekdikos (probablement du XIe-XIIe siècle), qui a toutes les chances d’être l’auteur de cette collection de chapitres. Dans une dizaine de témoins, on lit une sélection mise sous le nom de Nil d’Ancyre. Concentrons-nous maintenant sur une petite collection de chapitres attribuée à un certain Théognoste. On peut lire le texte dans la Philocalie de Macaire de Corinthe et Nicodème l’Hagiorite, dont la première

3 Les Capita X (CPG 7694a), ainsi que deux ouvrages anti-monothélètes (les Capita X de duplici voluntate Domini [CPG 7697 (25)] et les Capita X de voluntatibus et energiis [CPG 7707 (19)]).



EXPLORATION DU GENRE DES KEPHALAIA

édition a paru à Venise en 1782; nous avons consulté cette œuvre dans la quatrième édition 4. L’histoire du texte dont il sera question dans les pages qui viennent, se lit comme “Les dix petits nègres”, probablement le roman policier le plus connu d’Agatha Christie: tout comme les dix personnages de ce roman, les témoins manuscrits de notre texte disparaîtront l’un après l’autre. La base de données de Pinakes, cet instrument de travail indispensable, ainsi que nos propres recherches permettent à première vue de dresser une liste de dix témoins du texte, allant du XIVe siècle jusqu’à la fin du XVIIIe siècle. On laissera de côté un manuscrit qui se trouve actuellement à Bucarest, dans la bibliothèque de l’Académie (codex gr.  1335); il est daté des années 1834-1836 et contient, aux f.  25-28, quelques extraits de notre texte 5; mais ce manuscrit n’a aucun intérêt, car il s’agit d’une copie, partielle, de l’édition imprimée de la Philocalie 6. Quant aux dix autres témoins, nous les présenterons très brièvement. Tout d’abord, il y a le Vaticanus gr. 470, qui daterait du XIVe siècle; la plus grande partie de ce codex vénérable contient des œuvres de Grégoire de Nazianze; au folio 187v, on lit un fragment qui est attribué à un Théognoste, mais n’est pas tiré de notre texte, bien que, dans un article paru en 1979, J. A. Munitiz 7, suivant un article de J. Gouillard 8, pense avoir trouvé quelques convergences de mots entre le fragment du Vaticanus et le chapitre 47 de notre texte; peut-être, dit-il, ce chapitre est-il une Φιλοκαλία τῶν ἱερῶν νηπτικῶν, II. Athènes 1975, 255-271. De l’opuscule, il existe un bon nombre de traductions en langues modernes; on ne citera ici que celle de J. Touraille, Philocalie des Pères Neptiques, I. Abbaye de Bellefontaine, Bégrolles en Mauges 2004 (= 1995), 618-633 (une traduction que nous avons suivie dans cet article), ainsi que celle, excellente, d’A. Rigo, Mistici Bizantini. Torino 2008, 327-347. 5 Il s’agit des extraits tirés des chapitres 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 19, 36-44, 46-49, 61, 65, 67-68 et 70. 6 À son propos, consulter l’article de I. Chivu, Κολλυβαδικὰ χειρόγραϕα εἰς τὰς βιβλιοθήκας τοῦ Βουκουρεστίου, dans Πρακτικὰ Α´ ἐπιστημονικοῦ συνεδρίου «  Ἅγιος Νικόδημος ὁ Ἁγιορείτης· ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία του », II. Goumenissa 2006, 159-191, plus particulièrement 173-182. 7 A Fragment Attributed to Theognostus. The Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., 30 (1979) 56-66 (il donne le texte grec, accompagné d’une traduction anglaise, aux p. 56-58). Pour une description du manuscrit, consulter R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci, II, Codices 330-603, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti. Città del Vaticano 1937, 247-249. 8 J. Gouillard, L’acrostiche spirituel de Théognoste (XIVe s. ?). Échos d’Orient 39 (1940) 126-127. 4



peter van deun

scholie accompagnant le fragment vatican, qui, selon cette thèse, serait plus ancien. Mais les éléments que mon collègue donne pour étayer sa thèse, ne nous ont pas convaincu. Quoi qu’il en soit, pour la constitution de notre texte, le Vaticanus ne joue aucun rôle. « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que neuf », dit Agatha Christie. Le second témoin présupposé de notre texte se trouve actuellement à la Bibliotèque Marcienne de Venise (codex III 12); il s’agit d’un manuscrit de papier qui date de l’année 1467 et qui constitue un recueil monastique hétéroclite 9. Au f. 126rv, on lit trois extraits attribués à Théognoste, mais, malheureusement, ceux-ci ne sont pas pris à notre texte, mais au Thesaurus dit de Théognoste, dont on parlera encore ci-dessous; respectivement, il s’agit des lignes 617-627, 628-636 et 637-645 du chapitre  XV2 du Thesaurus; l’éditeur de cette œuvre, le Père J.  Munitiz 10, connaît ce manuscrit et signale toute une série de fragments du Thesaurus à partir du f. 216, mais les trois extraits du f. 126rv, lui ont échappé. Malheureusement, encore un témoin complet de notre texte qui disparaît: « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que huit ». Le candidat suivant est un codex tardif du XVIIe siècle qui appartenait à la Sainte Montagne: l’Athous, Simonos Petras  153, qui, pour la plus grande partie, contenait des hymnes de Thékaras, a été détruit, avec toute la bibliothèque du monastère, par un incendie en 1891; le catalogue de Sp. P. Lambros 11 suggère que, dans ce témoin, on ne pouvait lire qu’un seul ou plusieurs extraits (« ἀποσπάσματα ») de notre texte. « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que sept ». On arrive maintenant à un manuscrit qui est bien connu des éditeurs d’œuvres d’Évagre le Pontique 12: l’Oxoniensis, Bodleianus, Canonicianus graecus 16, manuscrit de papier, qu’on date maintenant non du XVe siècle (comme dans le catalogue de la bibliothèque bodléienne 13), mais, sur base des filigranes, autour de 1325 14. Il fait suite au manuscrit  15 9 Pour une description du manuscrit, on consultera E. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices Graeci Manuscripti, I, 2. Roma 1972, 176-190. 10 Theognosti Thesaurus, CCSG, 5. Turnhout/Leuven 1979, xxii. 11 Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων, I. Cambridge 1895, 127. 12 Voir A. et C. Guillaumont, Évagre le Pontique. Traité Pratique ou Le moine, I, SC, 170. Paris 1971, 226-230; A. et C. Guillaumont, Évagre le Pontique. Le Gnostique ou À celui qui est devenu digne de la science, SC, 356. Paris 1989, 44; P. Géhin/​ C. Guillaumont, Évagre le Pontique. Sur les pensées, SC, 438. Paris 1998, 60. 13 Cf. H. O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, III, Codices graecos et latinos Canonicianos complectens. Oxford 1854, 17-21. 14 Aimable communication de Paul Géhin.



EXPLORATION DU GENRE DES KEPHALAIA

de la même bibliothèque et ne contient que des œuvres ascétiques. Le manuscrit d’Oxford semble être très prometteur, car aux f. 280v-285, on lit toute une section attribuée à Théognoste et consacrée effectivement à notre texte. Mais tout de suite, nous avons perdu notre enthousiasme initial, en lisant le lemme qui précède cette section: ἐκ τῶν κεϕαλαίων Θεογνώστου ἱερομονάχου κεϕάλαια ὡραιότατα; en effet, on n’y lit qu’un petit choix de chapitres de notre texte; il s’agit des κεϕάλαια 1, 5, 7-12, 23-25, 27, 30, 33, 36-37, une partie de 45, suivie des chapitres intégraux 46-47, 68-69 et 75; il semble que celui qui a fait ce choix, ait délibérément écarté la plupart des fragments qui traitent explicitement de la prêtrise. Donc jusqu’ici, on n’a pas encore pu relever un témoin complet de notre texte: « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que six ». Passons à un autre manuscrit athonite, le Lavra Λ 38, manuscrit ascétique du XVIe siècle qui a été transcrit par un certain moine Matthieu (Ματθαῖος θύτης) qui n’est connu par ailleurs 15. Ce sont les f. 77v-82 qui nous intéressent, mais, malheureusement, il ne s’agit ici que des mêmes fragments déjà relevés pour le manuscrit précédent, introduits par le lemme identique ἐκ τῶν κεϕαλαίων Θεογνώστου ἱερομονάχου κεϕάλαια ὡραιότατα. Donc « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que cinq ». On continue avec un autre manuscrit qui fait actuellement partie de la bibliothèque de la Grande Laure, Κ 3, selon le catalogue un témoin du XVe siècle 16; son contenu est très varié, allant de textes ascétiques jusqu’aux traités plutôt dogmatiques; l’auteur le plus récent cité dans ce volume est Jean XIV Kalékas, patriarche de Constantinople de 1334 à 1347 (PLP 10288). Concentrons-nous sur les f.  9v-11; là, on ne lit, malheureusement, que les chapitres 73 et 75 de notre texte, précédés du lemme περὶ τῆς ἁγίας κοινωνίας 17, Θεογνώστου ἱερομονάχου. L’histoire se répète: « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que quatre ». Le candidat suivant est le Sabaiticus 420, un manuscrit de papier dont le catalogue dit qu’il daterait du XIVe siècle 18. Le manuscrit actuel se divise en deux parties bien nettes. Tout d’abord, il y a la recension brève 15 Spyridon  Lauriotès/S.  Eustratiadès, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Laura on Mount Athos with Notices from other Libraries, Harvard Theological Studies, 12. Cambridge (MA)/Paris/London 1925, 269-270. 16 Spyridon/Eustratiadès (cf. n. 15) 214-215. 17 « Sur la sainte participation » ou « sur la sainte eucharistie ». 18 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ βιβλιοθήκη ἤτοι κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀποστολικοῦ τε καὶ καθολικοῦ ὀρθοδόξου πατριαρχικοῦ θρόνου τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ πάσης Παλαιστίνης ἀποκειμένων ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων, II. St. Pétersbourg 1894, 540-541.



peter van deun

du florilège des Loci Communes du Pseudo-Maxime (CPG 7718), suivie d’extraits de Vies de saints (f. 1-88v). Une grande partie du codex (f. 89198v) est occupée d’une vaste collection de fragments dont le contenu est clairement ascétique. Parmi les extraits pris à plusieurs œuvres de Maxime le Confesseur, on lit quelques bribes du texte de Théognoste. Aux f. 170171 (olim f. 175-176), précédés du lemme Θεογνώστου ἱερομονάχου, on trouve une partie du chapitre 1, suivie de l’intégralité des capita 4 et 12, ainsi que d’une partie du chapitre 47 et de la totalité du chapitre 62; le f. 180rv (olim f.  185rv) contient encore l’intégralité du chapitre  32, précédé lui aussi du lemme Θεογνώστου ἱερομονάχου. Ce choix, on l’aura pu constater, diffère de celui qu’on a rencontré dans le Canonicianus et l’Athous Lavra Κ 3. Malheureusement, on ne dispose pas encore d’un témoin complet de notre texte: « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que trois ». Il y a encore un autre manuscrit de Jérusalem, le Sancti Sepulchri 483 19, qui est beaucoup plus récent que le Sabaiticus 420; il revient à un scribe bien connu dont les 31 manuscrits datés vont de 1759 à 1797 20; il s’agit de Ἰωαννίκιος, moine au monastère de Saint-Sabas tout près de Jérusalem, qui y a achevé ce manuscrit, probablement en 1789, en utilisant le manuscrit précédent comme modèle 21; il ne contient donc que les mêmes extraits de notre texte qu’on a déjà relevés pour le Sabaiticus. « Dix petits nègres et il n’en resta plus que deux ». On dispose encore d’un dernier manuscrit du Mont Athos, le Lavra M 54, qui, lui, donne la totalité de notre texte, aux pages 853-868; le catalogue le rattache au XVe siècle 22, mais, les spécialistes du dossier 19 Pour une description, voir Papadopoulos-Kerameus (cf. n. 18), I. St. Pétersbourg 1891, 439. 20 À son propos, voir, par exemple, J. Patrich, The Sabaite Heritage: an Introductory Survey, dans J. Patrich (éd.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church From the Fifth Century to the Present, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 98. Leuven 2001, 10; A. Peristeris, Literary and Scribal Activities at the Monastery of St. Sabas, ibidem, 176. 21 Il a d’ailleurs laissé son nom au verso du folio de garde initial du Sabaiticus (une note datée du 17 octobre 1789). 22 Pour une description succincte, voir Spyridon/Eustratiadès (cf. n.  15) 312-313. On ajoutera encore: A. et C. Guillaumont, Traité Pratique (cf. n. 12) 267270; Géhin/Guillaumont, Sur les pensées (cf. n. 12) 60-61; P. Géhin, Le filocalie che hanno preceduto la « Filocalia », dans A. Rigo (éd.), Nicodemo l’Aghiorita e la Filocalia. Atti dell’VIII Convegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualità ortodossa. Sessione bizantina. Bose, 16-19 settembre 2000, Magnano 2001, 83-102, plus particulièrement 97-98; S. A. Paschalidès, Συμβολὴ στὴν ἔρευνα τῆς χειρόγραϕης παράδοσης τῆς Φιλοκαλίας, dans Ἁγιορετικὴ Ἑστία. Πρακτικὰ Δ´ ἐπιστημονικοῦ συνεδρίου « Ὁ Ἅγιος Νικόδημος ὁ Ἁγιορείτης καὶ ἡ ἐποχὴ του », Thessalonique, sous presse (nous remercions Antonio Rigo de nous avoir envoyé une version des épreuves de cet article).



EXPLORATION DU GENRE DES KEPHALAIA

évagrien, comme Antoine et Claire Guillaumont, et Paul  Géhin, ont montré de façon convaincante que ce codex est d’une date beaucoup plus récente, du XVIIe siècle ou même de la seconde moitié du XVIIIe siècle. On sait également qu’en 1797, le manuscrit faisait partie de la bibliothèque d’Anthimos de Smyrne, le futur patriarche de Constantinople (connu comme Anthimos III), et qu’en 1844, il est arrivé au Mont Athos, plus précisément au monastère d’Esphigmenou. Malgré sa date récente, le manuscrit n’est pas dépourvu d’importance; en effet, il y a des indices permettant de supposer qu’au moins pour ce qui est des trois ouvrages d’Évagre cités dans la Philocalie, Macaire de Corinthe et Nicodème l’Hagiorite auraient utilisé un manuscrit qui est étroitement apparenté à ce codex de la Sainte Montagne, qui, en effet, constitue une des multiples philocalies avant la lettre. Finalement, il faut encore signaler un autre témoin complet de notre texte, qui est très proche du manuscrit précédent: il se trouve actuellement dans la bibliothèque du monastère τοῦ Εὐαγγελισμοῦ sur l’île de Skiathos, une des Sporades 23; il s’agit du codex 10, un recueil monumental – 803 folios ! –, encore une autre philocalie avant la lettre. Le scribe, un moine Κωνστάντιος, qui a été un membre important du mouvement des Kollyvades, a achevé le volume entre 1768 et 1770, dans une σκήτη τοῦ Παντοκράτορος au Mont Athos. Les chapitres de Théognoste se lisent aux f. 453v-470. Une conclusion semble s’imposer: pour ce qui est de notre texte et, très probablement aussi pour beaucoup d’autres ouvrages 24, la source principale de la Philocalie ne peut pas être identifiée avec l’Athous, Lavra Μ 54 25, comme l’a été suggéré pour d’autres textes, mais avec le manuscrit de Skiathos. Il y a plusieurs éléments permettant d’étayer cette thèse. En effet, le texte de Théognoste tel qu’il se lit dans le codex de Skiathos, et le texte imprimé de la Philocalie sont presque identiques et il y a des variantes qui ne se lisent que dans l’édition imprimée et dans ce manuscrit; par exemple, les trois soustitres (à trois reprises περὶ ἱερωσύνης) ne se trouvent que dans ce codex 23 À son propos, on consultera la brève description faite par Tr. E. Euangélidis, Ἡ νῆσος Σκίαθος καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὴν νησίδες. Μελέτη τοπογραϕικο-ἱστορικὴ μετὰ χάρτου τῆς νήσου καὶ εἰκόνων. Athènes 1913, 195-196; consulter également l’article sous presse de Paschalidès, qui a consacré plusieurs pages à ce manuscrit; nous préparons une description détaillée du manuscrit. 24 Voir la contribution de Paschalidès, qui, lui aussi, pense que le manuscrit de Skiathos a été une des sources principales de la Philocalie. 25 En effet, il y a quelques fautes et variantes qui caractérisent Lavra Μ 54 seul et qui sont absentes de l’édition imprimée; voir, par exemple, chapitres 19 (l’omission de λοιπὸν) et 64 (l’omission de τοῦ θεοῦ).



peter van deun

(en marge) et dans l’édition imprimée (respectivement aux p. 257, 264 et 269); l’apposition ἀργοὶ δηλονότι τῶν ἀρετῶν a été mise entre parenthèses seulement dans l’édition imprimée (p. 263, l. 38) et dans le manuscrit de Skiathos (à propos du chapitre 44). Les quelques divergences entre l’édition et le codex semblent souvent être dues à une mauvaise lecture du manuscrit de la part des éditeurs de la Philocalie: voir, par exemple, les chapitres 52 (βασιζόμενον au lieu de βασταζόμενον) et 54 (ἀμϕίκρηνον au lieu de ἀμϕίκρημνον); à d’autres endroits, Macaire et Nicodème semblent avoir simplifié le texte de leur modèle, en remplaçant des mots assez rares par d’autres qui sont beaucoup plus connus; on ne citera ici que les chapitres 13 (τῷ θανάτῳ au lieu de τῇ θνήσει) et 19 (ϕοβῇ au lieu de δεδίττῃ). On notera enfin qu’une main postérieure a ajouté tout au long du manuscrit de Skiathos plusieurs notes explicatives et aussi un bon nombre de fragments supplémentaires; ces extraits se trouvent dans les marges et n’ont pas toujours un lien direct aux textes à côté desquels ils se trouvent. Dans les marges de notre texte, on lit par exemple un fragment tiré du De Abrahamo de Philon d’Alexandrie (f. 455), un extrait puisé au De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate de Cyrille d’Alexandrie (f. 468v) et un autre pris à l’Homilia pseudo-chrysostomienne De legislatore (f. 465). De ce survol de la tradition manuscrite quelques conclusions peuvent être tirées. Tout d’abord, il en ressort clairement que la transmission de ce texte est très pauvre, ce qui nous permet de supposer que l’ouvrage était destiné à l’usage privé ou n’a circulé que dans un cercle monastique très restreint; mais il ne s’agit pas d’un cas exceptionnel; en effet, on connaît pas mal d’œuvres, de contenu semblable et surtout de l’époque byzantine tardive, qui ne sont conservées que dans quelques témoins; on ne citera ici que le Discours parénétique aux vierges de Luc Adialeiptos (Xe siècle) 26, les œuvres de Grégoire du Sinaï (XIIIe-XIVe siècle) 27 et les 23 26 Édité très récemment par A. Rigo, Un autore spirituale sconosciuto del X secolo: Luca Adialeiptos. Byzantion, 79 (2009) 306-359, plus particulièrement 319-328 (deux témoins seulement). 27 En utilisant la base de données de Pinakes, on constatera que, par exemple, ses Capita per acrostichidem ne sont conservés que dans 7 témoins et ses Capita alia dans 5 manuscrits; le De quattuor hierarchiis n’est préservé que dans deux témoins (voir A. Rigo, Il monaco, la chiesa e la liturgia. I Capitoli sulle gerarchie di Gregorio il Sinaita, La Mistica Cristiana tra Oriente e Occidente, 4. Firenze 2005, xxixxxiii).



EXPLORATION DU GENRE DES KEPHALAIA

Discours monastiques de Théolepte de  Philadelphie (également XIIIeXIVe siècle) 28. De ce qui précède, on peut également déduire que deux foyers monastiques s’imposent dans la diffusion du texte – la Sainte Montagne et le monastère de Saint-Sabas à Jérusalem 29 –, et que la première attestation de l’ouvrage date des années 20 du XIVe siècle. On sait que les compilateurs de la Philocalie disposaient de plusieurs sources manuscrites; le petit dossier des Chapitres de Théognoste nous a également permis de conclure qu’une des sources majeures de la Philocalie a été le manuscrit monumental de Skiathos. Actuellement, nous préparons l’édition critique du texte, en tenant compte des deux manuscrits complets, ainsi que des cinq témoins partiels et de l’édition imprimée. La collation nous a montré que le Lavra Μ 54 et le manuscrit de Skiathos sont des frères qui descendent, indépendamment l’un de l’autre, d’un modèle commun, perdu aujourd’hui. La même constatation vaut pour l’Oxoniensis et le Lavra  Λ  38, lesquels, pour ce qui est des fragments qu’ils ont conservés, donnent parfois des leçons qui les caractérisent de tout le reste de la tradition. Finalement, le petit choix de chapitres qu’on trouve dans le Lavra Κ 3 d’une part et dans les deux manuscrits de Jérusalem de l’autre, ne permet pas de tirer de conclusions sûres sur leur place à l’intérieur de la tradition du texte. Concentrons-nous maintenant sur quelques problèmes plus généraux soulevés par le texte; comme point de départ, nous avons pris ce que le Père J. Munitiz a écrit à leur propos 30. Tout d’abord, il y a le titre de l’ouvrage. Dans l’Athous Lavra Μ 54, ainsi que dans le manuscrit de Skiathos, le texte s’intitule περὶ πράξεως καὶ θεωρίας καὶ περὶ ἱερωσύνης («  sur l’action et la contemplation et sur le sacerdoce »), un titre qui est repris tel quel dans l’édition impri28 À ce propos, on consultera avec profit le livre de R. E. Sinkewicz, Theoleptos of Philadelpheia. The Monastic Discourses. A Critical Edition, Translation and Study, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Studies and Texts, 111. Toronto 1992, 67-69 et 74-75; la collection intégrale des Discours monastiques n’est conservée que dans deux témoins; on ajoutera quelques manuscrits qui contiennent seulement les discours 1 et 23. 29 Pour ce qui est du Thesaurus de Théognoste, on est arrivé à la même constatation; voir Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) xxvi. 30 Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n.  10) xxvi-xliv, lxxxvii-xciii, c-cvi et cxxi. Voir également le livre de J. Munitiz contenant la traduction anglaise du texte : Theognosti Thesaurus, Corpus Christianorum in Translation, 16. Turnhout 2013, 12-13. À plusieurs reprises, nous avons pu ajouter de l’information supplémentaire et corriger ce que notre ami avait écrit dans l’introduction qui précède son édition.



peter van deun

mée et qui semble avoir toutes les chances d’être original. Les témoins partiels ne témoignent pas de ce long titre, comme nous l’avons déjà signalé: l’Oxoniensis et l’Athous Lavra Λ 38 ont ἐκ τῶν κεϕαλαίων … κεϕάλαια ὡραιότατα; les deux chapitres cités dans l’Athous Lavra Κ 3, ont pour titre περὶ τῆς ἁγίας κοινωνίας; malheureusement, les manu­ scrits de Jérusalem ne donnent aucun titre. Nous avons également déjà relevé le fait que le manuscrit de Skiathos (en marge) et l’édition imprimée (dans le texte même) ont introduit trois sous-titres qui semblent être secondaires: περὶ ἱερωσύνης à trois reprises (respectivement devant les chapitres 13, 49 et 70). Un problème difficile est celui de l’auteur. Ce serait un certain Théognoste (Θεόγνωστος) (PLP 7079), mais s’agit-il d’un personnage réel ou non? En effet, un texte qui insiste beaucoup sur la θεογνωσία, “la connaissance de Dieu”, peut facilement être attribué à un Théognoste, “celui qui est connu par Dieu”. Quoi qu’il en soit, les deux témoins de Jérusalem, ainsi que le manuscrit d’Oxford et les Athoi Lavra Λ 38 et Κ 3 ont introduit les extraits par le lemme Θεογνώστου ἱερομονάχου, de Théognoste étant donc moine et prêtre. Cette information donnée par les témoins partiels, ne coïncide pas tout à fait avec ce qu’on lit dans les deux témoins complets, ainsi que dans l’édition imprimée. Là, le titre de l’œuvre (περὶ πράξεως καὶ θεωρίας καὶ περὶ ἱερωσύνης) est immédiatement suivi des mots ἧς ἡ ἀκροστιχίς· τοῖς ὁσιωτάτοις πατράσι Λαζάρῳ καὶ Βαρλαὰμ Θεόγνωστος πανευτελὴς ἀνάξιος τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου. On notera tout d’abord que seule l’édition imprimée a ajouté ἥδε après ἀκροστιχίς, que les mots ἧς ἡ ἀκροστιχίς se trouvent en marge du manuscrit de Skiathos, et que, dans l’édition imprimée, le titre est précédé de τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Θεογνώστου, ce qui ne se trouve dans aucun manuscrit. Malheureusement, les deux prêtres, Lazare (PLP 14349) et Barlaam (PLP 91452), auxquels l’œuvre est dédiée, ne sont pas connus par ailleurs. La même constatation vaut d’un autre personnage auquel Théognoste s’adresse directement au chapitre  74: un certain Πισήνιος, un nom qui ne se retrouve nulle part dans l’onomastique byzantine et qui est absent du PLP; le texte semble s’adresser également à ce même Pisènios dans les chapitres 31 (ὦ ὀκνηρὲ … καὶ ἀπείραστε, bien que ὦ ὀκνηρὲ fasse partie de la citation biblique qui précède [Prov. 6, 6)]), 38 (ἀδελϕέ) et 54 (ταλαίπωρε); mais s’agit-il ici réellement d’un personnage existant? En effet, le fait de s’adresser à quelqu’un, sans qu’il s’agisse d’une personne réelle, est un lieu commun dans cettte sorte de littérature; d’ailleurs, également le Thesaurus de Théognoste en est plein (par ex. VIII, 165; XV1, 53; XVI, 127, 140, 158, 163, 212, 380, 422 et 490, respectivement



EXPLORATION DU GENRE DES KEPHALAIA

ταλαίπωρε, ἀδελϕέ, ταπεινέ, ταλαίπωρε, ὦ  ϕιλόχριστε, ἀγαπητέ, ταπεινέ, ὦ ϕίλε, ὦ ϕιλόθεε et ἀδελϕέ). De plus, selon le Père Munitiz 31, il serait possible que ce nom Πισήνιος soit une corruption d’un adjectif peu connu: πίσυνος (« qui a de la confiance », « obéissant ») ou πειθήνιος (« obéissant »); surtout cette dernière suggestion nous semble intéressante, car – et cela a échappé à l’attention du Père Munitiz – le mot πειθήνιος se lit également dans le Thesaurus de Théognoste, tout à la fin de l’exhortation à l’empereur, immédiatement après une invocation (XIX, 181: … καὶ σύ, θεόστεπτε δέσποτα, πειθήνιος τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγοις ὀϕθείς). Concentrons-nous sur l’acrostiche qui pose beaucoup de problèmes. Au lieu de 79 chapitres promis par les 79 lettres de l’acrostiche qui suit le titre (τοῖς ὁσιωτάτοις πατράσι Λαζάρῳ καὶ Βαρλαὰμ Θεόγνωστος πανευτελὴς ἀνάξιος τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου), l’état actuel du texte ne donne que 75 chapitres; le chapitre 75 débute par la lettre kappa, la première lettre du mot κόσμου; donc les 5 dernières lettres de κόσμου ne sont pas représentées; mais le chapitre 75 a tous les traits d’une conclusion pour supposer une suite; l’acrostiche demeure donc incomplet. Mais il y a encore un autre inconvénient: le chapitre 26 de notre texte, qui n’est conservé que dans les deux témoins complets, reprend littéralement l’intégralite du long chapitre 25 de la première centurie des Capita hortatoria ad monachos in India de Jean de Karpathos (CPG 7855); ce chapitre, qui commence par la lettre mu (Μαχόμενος), ne faisant pas partie de l’acrostiche, il est bien probable qu’il soit une interpolation postérieure. Revenons maintenant au problème très difficile de l’identité de Théognoste, l’auteur présupposé de notre texte. On l’aura déjà pu constater: le titre de ἱερομόναχος ne se lit qu’exclusivement en tête des témoins fragmentaires; les manuscrits complets et l’édition imprimée ne donnent aucune information supplémentaire sur Théognoste. Quand vivait-il? La seule chose qu’on puisse en dire, est que le témoin le plus ancien de notre texte, un témoin fragmentaire il est vrai, le manuscrit d’Oxford, témoigne de l’existence du texte dans les années 20 du XIVe siècle 32, ce qui donne un terminus ante quem pour la datation du texte. Dans un article paru en 1940, Jean Gouillard 33 a montré que notre auteur ne peut pas être identifié avec Théognoste d’Alexandrie, théologien du IIIe siècle mentionné par Photius, ni avec Théognoste, partisan Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) xxxi, n. 80. On ajoutera un autre témoin fragmentaire du texte, le Sabaiticus 420, qui, malheureusement, est vaguement daté du XIVe siècle. 33 Gouillard (cf. n. 8) 126-137, plus particulièrement 129-130. 31 32



peter van deun

du patriarche Ignace et adversaire de Photius 34; sans donner aucun argument qui puisse étayer sa thèse, le savant byzantiniste suggère le nom de Théognoste, hiéromoine, puis exarchos du Péloponnèse et métropolite de Corinthe, qui a vécu à la fin du XIVe et au début du XVe siècle (PLP 7070). On notera également que les liens entre notre Théognoste et un Théognoste, higoumène et auteur de poésie liturgique, d’un côté 35, et celui entre notre Théognoste et un Théognoste Jean, médecin et ami du patriarche Grégoire II de Chypre, de l’autre 36, sont assez douteux. Un piste prometteur s’ouvre grâce à la découverte d’un autre texte qui est attribué à un Théognoste et qui a déjà été mentionné plusieurs fois dans notre article. En 1979, Joe Munitiz 37 a brillamment édité une œuvre qui se présente comme une anthologie monumentale et qui s’intitule Thesaurus (“Trésor”); on situe la composition de l’œuvre entre les années 1204 et 1252, la période donc de l’empire de Nicée; l’auteur ou le compilateur si on veut, serait un certain Théognoste qui résiste malheureusement à toute identification précise; il semble qu’il ait été en bonne relation avec la cour impériale et avec la famille des Apokaukoi 38. Mais ce qui semble être assuré, est que le Théognoste du Trésor est lié au Théognoste de notre texte; il n’est pas impossible qu’il s’agisse d’une seule personne, thèse défendue d’ailleurs par J. Munitiz. En effet, cette parenté est confirmée par plusieurs éléments. Tout d’abord, il y a quelques lieux parallèles probants, parfois avec des mots et des expressions repris littéralement. On citera ici comme exemple 39 Thesaurus XVII, 621-627 (édition Munitiz) vis-à-vis du chapitre 21 de notre texte (édition que nous avons établie en utilisant les deux seuls témoins de ce chapitre, l’Athous Lavra Μ 54 et le manuscrit de Skiathos); en caractères gras, nous avons indiqué les mots du Thesaurus qui sont repris dans le chapitre 21: 34 À son propos, on consultera l’article du Père M. Jugie, La vie et les œuvres du moine Théognoste (IXe siècle). Son témoignage sur l’immaculée conception. Bessarione 22 (vol. 34) (1918), 162-174. 35 Ce lien est défendu par S. Eustratiadès, Ποιηταὶ καὶ ὑμνογράϕοι τῆς ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας. Νέα Σιών 53 (1958) 294-295; voir également Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) xxxii-xxxiv. 36 À son propos, consulter Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) xxxiv-xxxv. 37 Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10); Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf n. 30) 38 Voir Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n.  10) xxxv et xxxix-xliii; Munitiz pense même que le Thesaurus a été un livre de famille des Apokaukoi, et plus particulièrement de Manuel Doukas Apokaukos (né en 1318). 39 Pour d’autres exemples, voir Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) xxxvxxxviii.



EXPLORATION DU GENRE DES KEPHALAIA

Thesaurus XVII, 621-627

Chapitre 21

Καί τις τῶν σοβαρῶν καὶ πλάσμα περικείμενος ἁγιότητος καὶ πολλοῖς τῇ ἔξωθεν ἐπιϕανείᾳ τίμιος νομιζόμενος, τὴν θείαν ἐπιτελῶν λατρείαν, ἐπεὶ τῇ τοῦ Χερουβικοῦ προσήγγισεν ὑμνωδίᾳ, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ κλίνας αὐχένα ὡς σύνηθες ἔμπροσθεν τῆς ἁγίας τραπέζης, καὶ τὸ Οὐδεὶς ἄξιος ὑπαναγινώσκων ἐξάπινα ὤϕθη νεκρός, ἐπὶ τοιούτου σχήματος καταλιπούσης αὐτὸν τῆς ψυχῆς  

Ἱερεὺς γάρ τις ἐν ταυτῷ ἅμα καὶ μοναχός, εὐλαβείας δόξαν ἔχων καὶ πολλοῖς τῆς ἔξωθεν ἐπιϕανείας τίμιος νομιζόμενος, ἔνδοθεν δὲ κρυπτῶς λαγνεύων καὶ μολυνόμενος, τὴν θείαν καὶ ἱερὰν ἐπιτελῶν λατρείαν, ἐπεὶ τῇ τοῦ Χερουβικοῦ προσήγγισεν ὑμνωδίᾳ, τὸν αὐχένα ὑποκλίνας ὡς σύνηθες ἐπίπροσθεν40 τῆς ἁγίας τραπέζης, καὶ τὸ Οὐδεὶς ἄξιος ἐπαναγινώσκων, ἐξαίϕνης εὑρέθη νεκρός, ἐπὶ τοιούτου σχήματος καταλιπούσης αὐτὸν τῆς ψυχῆς

En second lieu, on notera que les sources qui sont citées dans les deux textes ou auxquelles les deux ouvrages ont fait allusion, sont similaires; on citera, à titre d’exemples, Jean de Karpathos, dont on a déjà parlé, les discours de Grégoire de Nazianze, l’Expositio fidei de Jean Damascène – le même passage pris au chapitre 86 de ce texte, l. 95-96 –, les Capita de caritate de Maxime le Confesseur, les ouvrages du Pseudo-Macaire, l’Historia Lausiaca de Pallade et les Apophthegmata Patrum. De plus, les deux auteurs sont fascinés de thèmes identiques, tels la mort, le statut, la dignité et les devoirs des prêtres, la vie spirituelle qui mène à l’apathie totale (combien de fois le mot ἀπάθεια revient-il dans les deux textes !), et la connaissance de Dieu (la θεογνωσία). Finalement, les deux textes se singularisent par un vocabulaire et un langage très caractéristiques; voici quelques exemples 41: τὸ θεῖον pour Dieu; le verbe ἀκτινοϕωτοβολέω (« envoyer des rayonnements de lumière »), un mot qui, semble-t-il, ne se rencontre que dans les deux textes de Théognoste; l’hapax legomenon λευχειμοσύνη (« le fait d’être habillé en blanc ») qui se lit dans notre chapitre 18, tandis que le Thesaurus, VII, 51, a l’adjectif correspondant λευχείμων, lequel, lui aussi, est rare; ἱεροτελεστία, un mot spécial pour désigner la sainte messe; l’adjectif προὐργιαίτερος (« plus efficace », « préférable », « meilleur »); le C’est la leçon des deux manuscrits; dans l’édition imprimée, on lit ἔμπροσθεν. Un nombre de ces caractéristiques sont déjà signalées par Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) c-cvi. 40 41



peter van deun

verbe défectif δεδίττομαι, assez rare (« avoir peur de »), qui se rencontre deux fois dans le Thesaurus (deux fois l’impératif δέδιθι: XVI,  326 et XIX,  48) et également dans notre chapitre  19 (les manuscrits ont la forme δεδίττῃ, l’édition de la Philocalie a changé en ϕοβῇ, comme nous l’avons déjà noté); l’adverbe ἀπεντεῦθεν (Thesaurus XV1, 69 et XVI, 192; nos chapitres 34 et 44); des formes composées dont le premier élément est θεο- (θεοκατάλλακτος, θεοχάριτος, θεόγνωστος et θεόστεπτος dans le Thesaurus; θεόπλαστος, “créé par Dieu” dans le Thesaurus XVI,  166 et dans notre troisième chapitre); l’utilisation fréquente des formules comme εἰ (μὴ) βούλει (par ex. Thesaurus II, 131; notre texte, dans les chapitres 6, 13 et 45), εἰς ἄκρον (par ex. Thesaurus II, 9; nos chapitres 29 et 69), τὸ ποθούμενον (Thesaurus XX, 713; nos chapitres 5, 23 et 25), et τὸ τηνικαῦτα (Thesaurus X, 34, XV2, 597 et XVI, 229; nos chapitres 3 et 66); une préférence, dans les multiples exhortations, pour les formes courtes de l’impératif (par exemple ἔα, κάμε, δράμε, ὅρα, σύνες, ἅπτου, ἔσο, ἄγε, εὑρέ, ἔχε, ἔρα, βόα, νόει, θροοῦ, ἴθι, ἴσθι, νῆϕε, ἴδε, χέε, ϕύγε et θέα), ce qui donne aux textes un rhythme saccadé; des accords ambigus: dans tous les témoins qui ont conservé le chapitre 4, on lit ἐκϕάσεων ou ἐμϕάσεων suivi du masculin λυθέντων au lieu de ἐκϕάσεων ou ἐμϕάσεων et λυθεισῶν, un phénomène déjà relevé par l’éditeur du Thesaurus 42. Tout comme le Père Munitiz 43, nous avons l’impression que, quand il est question de lieux parallèles entre les deux textes – une dizaine de fois –, les Chapitres donnent plutôt l’air d’être des résumés de ce qui est dit dans le Trésor, ce qui suggère que notre texte serait postérieur au Thesaurus. Concentrons-nous, pour finir, sur le genre littéraire de notre texte et sur son contenu. L’ouvrage ne constitue pas un traité continu, mais donne une série de capita, chaque chapitre formant clairement une unité en soi. Chaque jour, ces chapitres offrent aux lecteurs une pensée autonome qui peut être méditée en elle-même. La longueur de nos chapitres varie de quelques lignes à une demi-page; dans notre ouvrage, tout comme dans d’autres collections de chapitres, on trouve des définitions 44, de longues citations Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) cv. Theognosti Thesaurus (cf. n. 10) cxxi-cxxii. 44 Voir par ex. chapitre 35: « L’homme de raison n’est pas celui qui s’exprime par la parole – cela, tout homme le fait –. L’homme de raison est celui qui, par la raison, cherche à trouver Dieu et le suit à la trace ». 42 43



EXPLORATION DU GENRE DES KEPHALAIA

patristiques 45, de courtes sentences 46 et un grand nombre de prescriptions et d’exhortations 47. Le caractère décousu et cette manque de cohérence ne veut pas dire qu’il y a nullement une connection entre les chapitres; ainsi nous avons pu constater que les chapitres ont parfois été regroupés autour de certains sujets; il y a aussi des sujets qui reviennent tout au long du texte. Donnons quelques exemples. Nous l’avons déjà dit: la mort, la crainte et au même temps le désir et l’attente de la mort, l’ange de la mort, ce sont là des thèmes qui servent de fil conducteur dans un bon nombre de chapitres; notre auteur s’oppose à toute forme de désespoir (voir les chapitres 1, 2, 12, 19, 27, 61, 64, 67, 69 et 75). À plusieurs endroits, l’auteur exhorte les hommes d’avoir une pleine certitude de la vision de Dieu (la πληροϕορία), en combinaison toutefois avec une humilité sincère (ταπεινοϕροσύνη) (par exemple les chapitres 24 et 44). Beaucoup de chapitres sont centrés sur la dignité sacerdotale et la vie des prêtres; à trois reprises dans le manuscrit de Skiathos et dans l’édition imprimée, le sous-titre περὶ ἱερωσύνης avertit le lecteur qu’il y a un changement de sujet et que l’auteur reprend le thème du sacerdoce qui lui est très cher; ainsi on a trois grandes sections qui parlent exclusivement de la vie sacerdotale, respectivement les chapitres 13 à 21, 49 à 60 et 70 à 74; on mentionnera ici également un autre chapitre, apparenté, le n° 67, qui pourrait facilement être utilisé dans les dicussions qui animent actuellement l’Église: notre auteur loue le célibat des prêtres, mais en même temps il avoue que ce choix de vie est au-dessus des forces humaines (ὑπὲρ ϕύσιν). Il s’agit donc d’un texte qui n’a pas joui d’une grande popularité, mais qui n’est pas dépourvu d’importance; malheureusement, il pose pas mal de problèmes; espérons qu’un jour, tout comme dans les romans d’Agatha Christie, la vérité se révèlera. Prof. Dr. Peter Van Deun, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven [email protected]

45 Dans notre texte, il n’y a que le chapitre 26, pris à Jean de  Karpathos; mais comme nous l’avons déjà remarqué, ce chapitre serait une addition postérieure. 46 On citera, à titre d’exemples, les chapitres 5 (« Rien n’est meilleur que la prière pure ») et 22 (« Rien n’est meilleur qu’une parole et une connaissance droites »). 47 Introduites par les formules « il faut que … », « le prêtre doit … », « garde-toi de … », « ne nous soucions pas de … ».



peter van deun

Abstract Exploration du genre byzantin des kephalaia: la collection attribuée à Théognoste The present paper offers a study of the manuscript tradition and text of an ascetic collection of capita attributed to a certain Theognostus. The complete version of this work, available in the unreliable edition of the Philokalia, seems to have been preserved in only two very recent manuscripts, with five other witnesses containing a few fragments. Special attention is paid to the acrostic structure and to the difficult question of authorship. A clear relation can be discovered with the so-called “Thesaurus” of Theognostus, written between 1204 and 1252: it is possible that both these Theognosti are one and the same person.



reinhart ceulemans

Malachias the Monk as a Textual Critic of LXX Proverbs 1. Introduction 1 The identity and the oeuvre of the author Malachias the Monk have been researched only to very little extent. 2 Almost no scholarly publications can be found on any of the three works that are transmitted under his name – all of them commentaries on Old Testament books: Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. 3 None of them have been edited either. As will be discussed below, the commentaries on Wisdom and Ben Sira have been consulted by J. Ziegler for the critical edition of the lxx text of those books. For one of those commentaries (that on the Wisdom of Solomon), research was later continued by J. Busto Saiz. The commentary on Proverbs, which of the three texts in question is by far the most extensive one, has never been studied. On the latter commentary, only a brief note by D.  Moldenhawer can be found, who in 1784 wrote down some of its characteristics. 4 He 1 NB. (1) For all the manuscripts for which it is possible, I use the sigla assigned by A. Rahlfs for identification. See A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Hand­schriften des Alten Testaments. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 2. Berlin 1914. (2) The verse numbering of lxx Proverbs I use is that of Rahlfs’ manual edition: Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Edidit A. Rahlfs. Editio altera quam recognovit et emendavit R. Hanhart. Duo volumina in uno. Stuttgart 2006, II, 183–238. 2 His name does not occur in standard surveys of Byzantine (theological) literature, such as those of K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527–1453). Zweite Auflage bearbeitet unter Mitwirkung von A. Ehrhard/H. Gelzer. Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 9.1. München 1897 nor in H.-G.  Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 12.2.1 = Byzantinisches Hand­buch im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaft, 2.1. München 1959. 3 Unlike G. de Andrés in his catalogue description (see n. 8), I look upon Malachias’ writings as commentaries rather than homilies. With regard to the texts on Wisdom and Ben Sira, I rely on J. Ziegler and J. Busto Saiz (see below) for doing so: they also used the term ‘commentary’. Regarding Proverbs, see section four of the present article. 4 A general overview of Moldenhawer’s life is offered by Chr. Schmitt, Moldenhawer, Daniel Gotthilf. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon 6 (1993) 38–41. For more information on his activities as a cataloguer of Escorial manuscripts (which is the

The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 67-85 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101919

reinhart ceulemans

observed that Malachias explained the Proverbs twice (literally as well as spiritually) and that in doing so, he compared various copies of the Bible text and cited many variant readings. In light of this and inspired by the observation that Malachias is completely unknown and not cited by other Greek Christian exegetes, Moldenhawer concluded that Malachias definitely deserves to be studied and edited. 5 Moldenhawer’s note is written on a piece of paper that was glued on an in-folio at the beginning of the manuscript Scorialensis Ω.I.7 (gr. 508). 6 This is the only known witness of Malachias’ three commentaries. 7 These texts can be found on f. 7r–279v (on Proverbs), f. 281r– reason why he is mentioned in the present article), see A. Adler, Catalogue supplémentaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque royale de Copenhague. Avec un extrait du catalogue des manuscrits grecs de l’Escurial rédigé par D. G. Moldenhawer, in Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter. 7. Række, Historisk og filosofisk Afdeling, II.5 [= Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et des Lettres de Danemark, Copenhague, 7e série, Section des Lettres, II.5]. København 1916, 301–402, here 337–340 and P. A. Revilla, Catálogo de los Códices Griegos de la Biblioteca de El Escorial. Patronato de la Biblioteca Nacional. Madrid 1936, I, cxxii–cxxv. A part of Moldenhawer’s catalogue was printed by Adler (see her p. 386 for the manuscript that is the topic of the present article). 5 A transcript of Moldenhawer’s Latin note can be found in G. de Andrés, Catálogo de los Códices Griegos de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial. Madrid 1967, III, 126. My English translation runs as follows: “The mention of the Proverbs of Solomon brings to mind manuscript I.Ω.7, which contains the treatise on those Proverbs by Malachias the monk and priest. It is divided into 84 sermons, in which the author uses the following method and principle: in first instance he explains the literal meaning [of the biblical text] and [afterwards] he builds an anagogical interpretation upon that explanation, to the usefulness undoubtedly of those who instruct the life of Christ and the teachings of the Gospel. The entirety of the sermons as well as each individual one are highly fruitful: indeed, they are very useful for collecting the variety of readings in the text, for the author compared several copies (manuscripts, if you like) of the Proverbs with one another and meticulously indicated the divergence of readings, when he spotted a variant. These 84 sermons are followed by six others on those parts of the Wisdom of Solomon that seem in need of explanation, and finally by an exegesis of the book of Jesus Sira or Ecclesiasticus. It is easy to know whether either of the latter collections of sermons – just like the first collection [i.e., that on Proverbs] – have been edited or rather: not have been edited: I did not manage to retrieve the name of Malachias in the overviews of Gesnerus, Fabricius, Cavaeus or other scholars. The author deserves to be brought forward into the light even more so, since among the eloquent and pious interpreters of Holy Scripture, not a single known passage can be found that depends on him”. 6 The note, which is dated and signed by Moldenhawer, was cut out from its original source (which is unknown) and pasted into f. iii of the El Escorial manuscript. The opening words of the note seem to hint that it was written in a document that contains or at least mentions the book of Proverbs, since it is such a presence or reference that prompted Moldenhawer’s comment. The identity of this document, however, is unknown. 7 The prologue of the commentary on Proverbs can also be found in the Scorialensis Η.I.9 (gr. 591), but this is a copy that was made at the end of the 18th century on the basis of manuscript Ω.I.7. See De Andrés (cf. n. 5) III, 246–247.



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

305r (on the Wisdom of Solomon) and f. 307r–425v (on the Wisdom of Ben  Sira). In addition, the manuscript also contains fragments of Basil of Caesarea’s Homily on the beginning of the Proverbs and Ps.-John Chrysostom’s synopsis of Proverbs (see below). According to the catalogue description by G. de Andrés, the manuscript was written towards the end of the 14th century. 8

2. State of the research on Malachias As Moldenhawer observed (see n.  5), the fact that Malachias was so interested in textual criticism of the biblical texts he commented upon not only is quite remarkable (especially in view of the rather late dating of the author suggested by Busto  Saiz, see below), but also makes his exegesis quite a useful source for retrieving variant readings of the Greek Bible. By consequence, the three commentaries in question are rather valuable for present-day textual critics of the Septuagint. 9 In that regard, it is no surprise that the few scholars who paid attention to any of Malachias’ texts were biblical rather than patristic/Byzantine scholars and that they were more interested in identifying the precise nature of the Bible version used by Malachias and in using his commentary as a witness to the lxx text than in shedding more light on the identity of this unknown author. In 1962, J. Ziegler included Malachias’ commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon among the witness he consulted for his critical edition of that Bible book. 10 Three years later, he did the very same thing with regard to Malachias’ commentary on Ben Sira in his edition of that book. 11 Unsurprisingly, Ziegler’s focus lied on the character of the biblical text used by Malachias. Above all, he drew attention to the importance of his exegesis for research on the biblical text by underlining that Malachias often 8 De Andrés (cf. n. 5) III, 124–126. (In providing the folio numbers of the commentaries on Wisdom and Ben Sira, I rely on this description.) 9 See also N. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Leiden/Boston, MA/ Köln 2000, 285 n. 47. 10 Sapientia Salomonis. Edidit J. Ziegler. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, 12.1. Göttingen 1962 [2nd ed. 1980], 12–13 (and, to a lesser extent, 56–61). 11 Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach. Edidit J.  Ziegler. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, 12.2. Göttingen 1965 [2nd ed. 1981], 12–13 (and, to a lesser extent, 64–69).



reinhart ceulemans

consulted more than one biblical manuscript. He cited a few examples where Malachias introduced a variant reading or where he mentioned that a variant reading or omission could be found in one or more manuscripts. As for the character of the Bible text that emerges from such and other remarks and from Malachias’ lemma text itself, Ziegler concluded that, in the case of the Wisdom of Solomon, it often concurs with manuscripts B and 248. In view of the second of these connections, Ziegler arranged Malachias among the witnesses to the Lucianic recension (which in the Wisdom of Solomon is not very different from the Old Greek text, so Ziegler). The agreement with both these manuscripts is so remarkable that Ziegler suggested that Malachias knew them through a copy. 12 In the case of Ben  Sira, Ziegler concluded that the basis for Malachias’ text was a type that was compiled on the basis of the Lucianic recension and (to a lesser extent) the Hexaplaric recension and B. For each of both books, Malachias’ text also contains variant readings (of limited value, so Ziegler) that cannot be found anywhere else. He probably gleaned them from codices that are now lost, but it is not unlikely that several of them were made up by himself. Like Ziegler had done, J. Busto Saiz in his 1985 article on Malachias’ exegesis of the Wisdom of Solomon focused on the character of the biblical text used in the commentary. 13 His study of the citations and lemma text of this book and of citations of other Biblical books offered by Malachias in his commentary on Wisdom allowed him to confirm Ziegler’s conclusions (i.e., he had access to Greek manuscripts that are lost to us; his Bible text often concurs with the Lucianic recension, especially with minuscule 248; agreement with B can also be found) and to formulate some additional insights (the agreement with B is not that strong; Malachias sometimes offers readings that can only be found in daughter translations of the Septuagint). Apart from these studies, no research has been published on Malachias or any of his writings. Together with Ziegler’s and Busto Saiz’ very specific interest with regard to this author, this resulted in a complete 12 Of 248, one such copy is known to exist in the form of manuscript 478. See Rahlfs, Verzeichnis (cf. n. 1) 148; Ziegler (ed.), Sapientia Salomonis (cf. n. 10) 12; Ziegler (ed.), Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach (cf. n. 11) 11. 13 J. R. Busto Saiz, The Biblical Text of ‘Malachias Monachus’ to the Book of Wisdom, in N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros”, 34. Madrid 1985, 257–269.



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

lack of knowledge regarding his identity. Ziegler fully refrained from commenting upon the dating or localisation of Malachias. Busto  Saiz mentioned in passing that in his commentary on Wisdom, Malachias made “frequent mention [...] of the ‘Constitutiones Apostolorum’ and of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, which came to life in all probability in Syria”. 14 Unfortunately, he did not specify the nature of this ‘frequent mention’. Nevertheless, he suggested that “Syria [could] be the concrete geographic zone where we will have to place [Malachias]” and that “a late Byzantine exegete appears the most likely possibility”. 15 The latter suggestion could be taken to be supported by Moldenhawer’s observation that he did not find any citations of Malachias’ text by other authors, although in this case, too, such an observation, formulated in passing and without being accompanied by any concrete data, needs to confirmed with firm evidence. More research has to be carried out in order to identify Malachias or to provide more information as to the date of confection of his works or their place of origin. Undoubtedly, useful insights will be produced by codicological research on the Scor. Ω.I.7; 16 a palaeographical study of its hand; 17

Busto Saiz (cf. n. 13) 269. Busto Saiz (cf. n. 13) 269. 16 On the basis of its watermarks, the paper is suggested to have been produced in Siena or Genoa towards the end of the 14th century: see Busto Saiz (cf. n. 13) 257. It belonged to a collection of manuscripts bequeathed to the Escorial library by the Italian humanist Angelo Giustiniani toward the end of the 16th century. See Revilla (cf. n. 4) xcviii–ci. 17 Not too long ago, B. Mondrain carefully suggested that ‘Malachias’ could have been the name of the copyist known as the anonymus Aristotelicus, who operated in the intellectual circle of John VI Cantacuzene, who is known to have copied and commented upon Aristotle and other authors and whose scribal activities were meticulously laid bare by Mondrain. It is interesting to observe that the floruit of Mondrain’s scribe coincides with the dating of the Scor. Ω.I.7. See B. Mondrain, La constitution de corpus d’Aristote et de ses commentateurs aux XIIIe–XIVe siècles. Codices manuscripti 29 (2000) 11–33, esp. 23 and 31–32 pl. 2–3; B.  Mondrain, L’ancien empereur Jean  VI Cantacuzène et ses copistes, in A. Rigo (ed.), Gregorio Palamas e oltre. Studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del XIV secolo bizantino, Orientalia Venetiana, 16. Firenze 2004, 249–296, esp. 267–268, 280, 284, 293; P. Augustin, À propos d’un catalogue récent : remarques philologiques et historiques sur quelques manuscrits grecs conservés à la Bibliothèque de la bourgeoisie de Berne ou ayant appartenu à Jacques Bongars. Scriptorium 63 (2009) 121–141, here 130. Since I did not yet see the original Scor. Ω.I.7 (but only a reproduction), I did not yet investigate the possibility that Mondrain’s Malachias and the one who is the topic of this paper (and whom Mondrain did not mention) were one and the same. 14 15



reinhart ceulemans

and a prosopographical one of the name Malachias. 18 In addition to such research (which I hope to be able to carry out in the near future) on Malachias in general, it will certainly also be useful to investigate the sources of the individual writings of this author. In this regard, the commentary on Proverbs will certainly yield interesting insights. Not only is this by far the most extensive of Malachias’ three writings (273 double-sided, two-columned pages, which is almost twice the quantity of both other texts combined), but it is also completely unstudied: none of the abovementioned scholars studied the commentary on Proverbs. One need not read very far in this text to observe its value: in the section on Prov 1,7ab (in λόγος η΄), for example, one finds a clear citation of Maximus the Confessor’s 54th Quaestio ad Thalassium. 19 This citation immediately offers a terminus post quem that is more useful for the dating of Malachias (since being much more concrete) than any of the scarce information offered in previous literature and allows us to look upon him as a clearly Byzantine author.

3. Research question As a Byzantine exegete, Malachias is somewhat of an outsider. In selecting the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Ben  Sira as biblical books to comment upon, he went off the beaten track: almost no Greek commentaries have been written on these books. A second and more significant way in which he distinguished himself from other Byzantine exegetes is through the content of his commentaries: his interest in textual criticism of the Bible text, which is articulated by the great many of citations of variant lxx readings, is at odds with the standard view that in Byzantine exegesis every interest in this topic ceased to exist. 20 18 Consultation of PLP 16465–16504 informs us that several persons by the name of Malachias are known that have lived in the 14th century. Some of them have been monks (from the Holy Mountain), or copyists, or both, but one hardly knows more of them than their name and the contents of the manuscript(s) they copied. One of them has recently stepped out of the light: see the previous note. 19 Scorialensis Ω.I.7, f. 42vII: … ϰαϑ’ ὅν ϕασι σύγϰρασις γίνεται τῶν φυσιϰῶν δυνάμεων πρὸς τοὺς τρόπους ϰαὶ τοὺς λόγους τῶν ὄντων κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀρετὴν κατάθεσις. Διατοῦτ’ οἶμαι κτλ. Compare with Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones ad Thalassium. I. Quaestiones I–LV una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita ediderunt C. Laga/C. Steel, CCSG 7. Turnhout/Leuven 1980, 461 l. 325–326. 20 Cf. e.g. Krumbacher (cf. n. 2) 123: “Für die biblische Textkritik hörte jedes Verständnis auf ”.



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

In view of the subject matter of this volume (i.e., the way in which certain Byzantine theological writings differ from the majority), I will investigate how this particular feature of Malachias’ exegesis – that is: his text-critical occupation with the Bible text – surfaces in the commentary on Proverbs (and reserve other aspects of this commentary and of Malachias for future study). This commentary is very suitable for this research: not only does it contain very much text-critical remarks, but it also has received even less attention than both other writings of Malachias have and thus allow us to break new ground. I will look into the remarks with which Malachias introduces (and discusses, in some cases) variant lxx readings and investigate the origins of those readings. 21 The question is whether anything can be said with regard to the identification of the sources he took them form. The answer to this question will not only allow us to use Malachias in a critical way as a witness to the lxx text but will also enable us – in the best of cases – to obtain an insight into the library he had in front of him or into the genesis of his commentary. Malachias’ text-critical notes on the biblical text of Proverbs make his commentary a valuable witness for a critical edition of that text. Since Proverbs is an lxx book (unlike those of Wisdom and Ben Sira) of which the editio critica maior has not yet appeared, research of these notes should constitute a useful contribution to the preparation of such an edition. At the same time, the absence of the editio maior of lxx Proverbs complicates our research: since the tradition of this text has not yet been fully documented in any critical apparatus, it is of course difficult to assess the value of the variant readings that are cited by Malachias, to identify their position in the tradition of the lxx text or to characterize the text type(s) Malachias witnesses to. In order to avoid drawing unsound conclusions, I will therefore limit myself to comparing Malachias’ remarks with individual lxx manuscripts, not with text types. 22 In doing so, the best way to proceed – at least in this maiden study of 21 In examining the text-critical remarks of Malachias, I benefited greatly from unpublished notes made in 1957 by E. Große-Brauckmann for the Septuaginta-Unternehmen der Akademie der Wissenschaften. 22 I accessed these manuscripts through the collation books of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen, which cover more witnesses than does the apparatus to Proverbs in Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus. Editionem a R. Holmes inchoatam continuavit J. Parsons. Oxonii 1823, III (no page numbers). With the Göttingen edition lacking, no manuscript groupings or recensions have been identified: by consequence, I enumerate manuscripts in an order that carries no qualification within (i.e. in ascending order according to the Rahlfs sigla [cf. n. 1], with uncials preceding minuscules).



reinhart ceulemans

Malachias’ commentary on Proverbs – is to take Ziegler’s and Busto Saiz’ observations as a starting point, and to see whether similar conclusions can be reached with regard to Malachias’ remarks on Proverbs.

4. Malachias’ commentary on Proverbs In the Scor. Ω.I.7, Malachias’ commentary on Proverbs is preceded by two texts, which both treat the same biblical book: – Basil of Caesarea’s Homily on the beginning of the Proverbs (f.  1r– 4v, entitled Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Βασιλείου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Καισαρείας Καππαδοκίας ὁμιλία εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν Παροιμιῶν); – the section on Proverbs of (Ps.-)John Chrysostom’s Synopsis of Holy Scripture (f. 5r–6v, entitled Ὑπόθεσις εἰς τὰς Παροιμίας Σολομῶντος). 23 As G. Bady and J. Paramelle recently remarked, the text in the Scor. Ω.I.7 is different and longer than the one that can be found in the printed edition of the Synopsis (PG 56, 370-375). 24 Undoubtedly, this redaction is the same as the one that F. Barone (who prepares a critical edition of the Synopsis) identified in two manuscripts of the Synopsis and which is still unedited. 25 The authorship of this text is debated. Whereas some scholars doubt the attribution to Chrysostom, G. Dorival recently proclaimed to trust it: see his article La Protheôria de la Synopse de Jean Chrysostome. Theologische Zeitschrift 62 (2006) 222–247. 24 J. Paramelle/G. Bady, Le début inédit du prologue de la Synopse attribuée à Jean Chrysostome, in M. Loubet/D. Pralon (eds.), Eukarpa – Εὔκαρπα. Études sur la Bible et ses exégètes en hommage à Gilles Dorival. Paris 2011, 289–293, here 289 n. 2. 25 See the description Barone offered of the section on Proverbs as it is transmitted in the Neapolitanus, Bibliothecae Nationalis II.A.12 and the Romanus, Casanatensis 1106 (gr. III.03): F. Barone, Pour une édition critique de la Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae du Pseudo-Jean Chrysostome. Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 83 (2009) 7–19, here 13–14. I have not seen the manuscripts in question but rely on her description in concluding that their redaction of the section on Proverbs is the same as that in the Scor. Ω.I.7. According to Barone, this redaction is a secondary one that does not belong to the original Synopsis: see her Pour une édition critique, 18–19 and her La Synopse de la Sainte Écriture du Ps. Chrysostome transmise par le Barberinianus gr. 317, in Loubet/Pralon (eds.), Eukarpa (cf. n. 24), 295–303, here 302. At the same time she admits that future research is necessary and that the provenance of the text in question is unknown. The Scor. Ω.I.7 is not the only evidence of transmission of (Ps.-)Chrysostom’s synopsis of Proverbs outside of the text’s own direct tradition: it has also been transmitted as the section on Proverbs of a collection entitled Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ βιβλίου τοῦ Ἑξασοϕίου· Ὑπόθεσις εἰς τὰς Παροιμίας Σαλωμῶντος, Ἐκκλησιαστήν, Ἆσμα 23



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

The introductive content or nature of both texts makes clear that their insertion in front of Malachias’ commentary is no coincidence. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the synopsis is preceded by the word παλαιόν (upper margin of f. 5rI), in an apparent attempt to highlight the novelty of the commentary that follows. In addition, the overview of the κεϕάλαια of the Proverbs that conclude the synopsis are accompanied by a numbering in the margin that corresponds to those of the chapters of Malachias’ commentary (see below): 26 this is certainly no coincidence. 27 The commentary of Malachias himself can be found on f. 7r–279v, each folio counting two columns, with a column counting 54 lines of text. The text is divided into 84 λόγοι and is entitled Μαλαχίου μοναχοῦ καὶ πρεσβυτέρου ἐξήγησις εἰς τὰς Παροιμίας Σολομῶντος κατά τε τὴν πρόχειρον ἔννοιαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὑψηλοτέραν διάνοιαν ἀναγωγικῶν τοῖς κατὰ Χριστὸν καὶ εὐαγγελικῶν ζῶσι κτλ. It opens with a long introduction on the design of the commentary. The actual exegesis starts on f. 31r with λόγος ε΄. The average λόγος is 6 folios or 12 columns long. In view of several specific characteristics (presence of a prologue; treatment of the biblical book in its entirety; consistent set-up of quoting the biblical text before commenting upon it; etc.), it is more advisable to look upon the 84 λόγοι as chapters of a commentary than as individual sermons. 28 Citations of Proverbs are highlighted with double quotation marks in the margin left to each column; citations of other biblical books with single quotation marks. Sometimes the margins contain additional notes or annotations to the main text (in the form of a proper name that identifies a source, the word ἠθικῶς that accompanies a particular section of the commentary etc.). All of them appear to have been written by the hand that also copied the main text. 29

Ἀσμάτων, Σοϕίαν Σαλωμῶντος, καὶ τὸν Ἰώβ that I discovered in two more recent manuscripts: the Cantabrigiensis, Collegii Trinitatis O.10.33 (s. XVII), f. 1r–14r (Proverbs: f.  1r–4v) and the Londinensis, Bibliothecae Britannicae Harley  1837 (ca. a.  1640– 1659), f. 1r–34r (Proverbs: f. 1r–11r). These manuscripts are not mentioned by Barone. 26 This was observed before me by G. Bady in unpublished notes of his on Malachias’ commentary. I sincerely thank Dr. Bady for having shared his insights. 27 Observe that the numbering differs from the ones in the manuscripts of London and Cambridge mentioned in n. 25. I do not know if and how these chapters are numbered in both manuscripts of the Synopsis that contain the same text (i.e., the codices of Naples and Rome mentioned in the same n. 25). 28 Compare n. 3 of the present article. 29 De Andrés (cf. n. 5) III, 126 informs us that these marginalia are written in rubrics.



reinhart ceulemans

In the course of the commentary, Malachias somewhat changed his approach. After having explained ca. one third of the biblical text, he concluded that his commentary would become too long if he would continue in that way. In order to avoid causing weariness and boredom, he proceeded from λόγος  μγ΄ onwards (starting with the exegesis of Prov 11,12) in a more succinct fashion (συντομία). 30 Although from this point onwards, the interpretations are indeed shorter, Malachias did not change his methods: the structure of his exegesis remains the same from the first until the last folio. This structure is mentioned in the title and in the long preface: Malachias explained the biblical text twice. Each time, he first expounded the literal meaning (διάνοια) of a particular verse or text segment (e.g. λόγος ε΄ for the first section) and then its deeper, spiritual meaning (e.g. λόγος  Ϛ΄ for the same section). Often, the second interpretation is preceded by the words εἰς τὰ αὐτά, (ἐξήγησις) κατὰ ἀναγωγήν or similar formulations (ἀναγωγικῶς etc.). Sometimes, however, both interpretations are combined into one λόγος. 31 Within each chapter and section, the structure is the one that is typical to the genre of the commentary: Malachias let each of both explanations be preceded by a citation of the respective verse(s)/section of the biblical text. As a result, the same biblical verse tends to be cited twice as a lemma text (and again repeated in the exegetical sections). Quite often, the biblical text that Malachias cites in the anagogical interpretation, differs from that of the literal exegesis (see below). In both types of interpretation, Malachias provided many text-critical comments on the biblical text. Most of the time, these comments consist in the simple citation of variant readings that he took from different manuscripts: he very frequently used turns of phrase such as ἤ ... ὡς ἐν ἑτέροις; ἔν τισι; a simple ἤ; etc. Often he limited himself to mentioning the variant readings, without choosing one over the other. As a consequence, one can observe that in several cases, both variants are used next to each other in the literal and/or anagogical commentary. Sometimes he did evaluate the readings, for example by stating that one is better than the other. It should be pointed out that, in quoting 30 In correspondence to this turning point, the words βιβλίον δεύτερον are written in the upper margin of f.  154rI; in the lower margin of f.  153vII, one reads τέλος τοῦ α΄βιβλίου. 31 See, for example, the chapters  νγ΄ on Prov  15,13-29a (f.  179vIIsq.); ξβ΄ on Prov 19,13–20,2 (f. 206rIIsq.); ξε΄ on Prov 21,4-18 (f. 215vIsq.); ξη΄ on Prov 22,21–23,9 (f. 225vIIsq.); οθ΄ on Prov 27,5-18 (f. 260rIsq.).



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

variant readings, Malachias was only interested in the lxx text, not in other Greek Bible versions (such as those of Aquila, Symmachus or Theodotion).

5. Malachias’ textual criticism of lxx Proverbs 5.1. Access to different biblical manuscripts Before examining the origins of the variant readings that Malachias cited in his text-critical remarks on Proverbs and assessing what they can tell us about the biblical manuscripts he had in front of him, one first needs to know for certain that Malachias had several of those manuscripts containing the text of Proverbs at his disposal. Is it possible that this was not the case and that he instead excerpted the variant readings in question from earlier exegesis on Proverbs that he could have had in front of him? 32 The answer is certainly negative: not only are the variant readings that Malachias cited far too many in number to allow one to suppose that all of them were already given by earlier writers, but he also made frequent and explicit mention of ἀντίγραϕα (as some of the examples given below show). Moreover, the content of some particular remarks show beyond doubt that those manuscripts were biblical ones. 33 One does not have any reason to presume that the numerous variant readings offered by Malachias were not taken from biblical codices. Following the lead of the conclusions formulated by Ziegler and Busto Saiz regarding the books of Wisdom and Ben Sira, some insights can be reached on the identity of these manuscripts consulted by Malachias for his exegesis of Proverbs. 32 As mentioned earlier, the sources that Malachias used in his exegesis have not yet been investigated. For his commentaries on Wisdom and Ben Sira, this topic is of less importance, but for Proverbs – a biblical book that has known an extensive exegetical tradition in Greek – Malachias’ dependence upon (or independence from) earlier commentaries and homilies certainly requires research. See below for some insights regarding his dependence upon catena traditions. 33 By way of example one can refer to the last chapter of Malachias’ commentary, in which he commented (both literally and anagogically) upon Prov 31,10-31. In the introduction to this chapter, he included the following remark: Τέλος ἤδη τῇ πάσῃ ποιούμεθα τῆς ἐξηγήσεως τῶν Παροιμιῶν πραγματείᾳ, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τελευταῖον ἐτέθη ἐν Παροιμίαις παρὰ τῶν ταύτας συντεταχότων εἰς ἓν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις τῶν ἀντιγράϕων εὑρίσκομεν (f. 275rI). This remark shows that he was aware of manuscripts that witness to a different sequence of the biblical text. Undoubtedly, these were biblical codices (whether plain lxx manuscripts or catenae).



reinhart ceulemans

5.2. Readings not attested in the lxx manuscript tradition Firstly and in a manner similar to the remarks made by Ziegler with regard to Wisdom and Ben Sira, one notices that also in his commentary on Proverbs, Malachias occasionally cited variant readings that cannot be found elsewhere. This can be illustrated by an example taken from the section of Prov 12,13a-28, which was commented upon by Malachias first in chapter με΄. There he cited v. 26bc as follows: Ἁμαρτάνοντάς φησι ϰαταδιώξεται ϰαϰά ἤτοι ϰαϰωτιϰά, οὐϰ ἔξωϑεν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ ϰαὶ ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν· ἡ δὲ ὁδὸς γάρ φησι τῶν ἀσεβῶν πλανήσει αὐτούς. (f. 162rI)

In his second explanation of this pericope in chapter μϚ΄ (εἰς τὰ αὐτά, κατὰ ἀναγωγήν), he offered a citation of v. 26bc that is somewhat different but nevertheless features the same variant reading: ἁμαρτάνοντας δὲ καταλήψεται κακά, ἤτοι κακωτικά (f. 164rII). The reading κακά is agreed upon by the entire manuscript tradition of the lxx  text. The variant κακωτικά that is cited twice by Malachias cannot be found in any known manuscript. Not being of great significance, it could have been created by Malachias himself. 34 Cases such as these add only very little to modern textual criticism of lxx Proverbs. 5.3. Ambiguous information Of more interest among the readings cited by Malachias as variants are those that are attested in biblical manuscripts – particularly those cases, where the reading cited by Malachias can only be found in a small number of manuscripts: these are cases that, if studied throughout the entire commentary, could lead one to identify specific manuscripts as sources that were available to Malachias. In this research, however, caution needs to be preserved. This can be illustrated on the basis of Malachias’ treatment of Prov 15,15. When first commenting upon this verse, he cited it as follows in his lemma text: πάντα τὸν χρόνον οἱ ὀϕθαλμοὶ τῶν κακῶν ἐκδέχονται κακά (f. 180rI). The reading ἐκδέχονται can only be found in two manuscripts: 130 and 106, two complete lxx Bibles that date to respectively the 12/13th and the 14th century. All other known codices have the reading προσδέχονται (which is also the one edited by Rahlfs). 35 It would 34 Observe that Malachias did not state explicitly that the variant reading in question is taken from any particular manuscript. 35 See the reference provided in n. 1.



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

be tempting to conclude that Malachias had access to one of these codices, but caution is in order. In his anagogical explanation of this verse (which just like his first comment can be found in chapter νγ΄), he cited the lemma text differently and in agreement with the bulk of the manuscript tradition: πάντα τὸν χρόνον οἱ ὀϕθαλμοὶ τῶν κακῶν προσδέχονται κακά (f. 181rI). In addition, attention needs to be drawn to Malachias’ comment that immediately follows his first lemma citation: ... ἐϰδέχονται ϰαϰά. Προορῶσι ταραχάς, ἢ ἀϰόλουϑον ταῖς ἑαυτῶν πράξεσιν ἐϰδέχονται τιμωρίαν, ϰαϰὰ ζητοῦσιν, ϰαϰὰ λέγουσιν, ϰαϰὰ προσδέχονται. (f. 180rI)

This case is a nice example of the variation that can be found in Malachias’ treatment of the biblical text, and of the divergences that can be found between the lemma texts of the first and of the anagogical commentary, and between those lemma texts and the exegesis itself. It is not only clear that Malachias certainly was aware of the standard reading (προσδέχονται), but also that he varied at will between this one and the variant one. One needs to be careful, then, in concluding that it was determinedly taken from one of both abovementioned codices. At this point (as said before), it is more prudent to limit us to cases where Malachias explicitly mentioned one or more manuscripts as the source(s) for a variant reading he gave. The below examples, tentatively as they may have been chosen, uncover some tendencies that tie in with the observations formulated by Ziegler and Busto Saiz. 5.4. A link with manuscript 248? In this regard, Prov 22,11ab is an interesting case. In Malachias’ treatment of this verse (which can be found in chapter ξϚ΄ on Prov 21,19– 22,20), one reads as follows: Ἀγαπᾷ ϰύριος ὁσίας ϰαρδίας, δεϰτοὶ δὲ αὐτῷ πάντες ἄμωμοι· ἔν τισι πρόσκειται ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν (f. 220rI). The remark concerning the addition that can be found ‘in some (i.e., manuscripts)’ bridges the gap between the lemma text and the commentary section, which is a position in which many of Malachias’ text-critical remarks can be found. As in many cases, he limited himself to citing this reading, without using the information in his exegesis of the stichoi in question. In his anagogical interpretation of this verse, however, Malachias not only repeated the addition but also commented favorable upon it and



reinhart ceulemans

used it to build his interpretation upon (i.e., by citing Bible verses that mention the ‘walking in Gods ways’): Ἀγαπᾷ ϰύριος ὁσίας ϰαρδίας, δεϰτοὶ δὲ αὐτῷ (αὐτοὶ cod.) πάντες ἄμωμοι· ἔν τισι πρόσϰειται ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν. Δοϰεῖ δὲ τοῦτο ϰαλῶς προσϰεῖσϑαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἀργίᾳ ἐπαινετὸν τὸ ἄμωμον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ τῶν ϰαλῶν ἐργασίᾳ. Διὸ ϰαὶ περὶ τῶν Ἰωάννου γέγραπται γεννητόρων· ἦσαν δίϰαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐναντίον τοῦ ϑεοῦ πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς ϰαὶ διϰαιώμασιν τοῦ ϰυρίου ἄμεμπτοι, 36 ϰαὶ ὁ Δαυίδ· μαϰάριοι οἱ ἄμωμοι ἐν ὁδῷ, οἱ πορευόμενοι ἐν νόμῳ ϰυρίου. 37 (f. 223rII)

The addition ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν that is cited by Malachias cannot be found in Rahlfs’ edition, which is not remarkable, since it has only been transmitted in three manuscripts: 68 161 248. 38 This is quite interesting in view of Ziegler’s mention of frequent agreement between Malachias’ variant readings and manuscript 248. 39 I did not yet find, however, other clear examples of such agreement in the commentary on Proverbs: in this text, the link between Malachias’ remarks and 248 appears to be less strong than in the commentaries on Wisdom and Ben Sira. 5.5. The link with codex B This observation brings us to the question whether in the commentary on Proverbs Malachias cited readings that can also be found (exclusively or almost exclusively) in the famous 4th-century uncial manuscript B, since this is also a link that was emphasized by Ziegler (although it was toned down somewhat by Busto  Saiz). The answer to this question is clearly affirmative, as some examples may show. In his literal interpretation of Prov 22,19 (chapter ξϚ΄), Malachias cited the following lemma text of this verse: ἵνα σου γένηται ἐπὶ κύριον ἡ ἐλπὶς καὶ γνωρίσῃ σοι τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ (f. 220vI). This citation differs somewhat from the text one finds in most of the manuscripts (as well Luke 1,6. Ps 118,1. 38 It is possible that the words in question were added under the influence of Prov 11,20 (βδέλυγμα ϰυρίῳ διεστραμμέναι ὁδοί, προσδεϰτοὶ δὲ αὐτῷ πάντες ἄμωμοι ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, in Rahlfs’ edition). 39 Manuscript 161 is very closely related to 248, as was pointed out by E. Klostermann in his De libri Coheleth versione Alexandrina. Dissertatio Inauguralis. Kiel 1892, 11 and 17 and in his Analecta zur Septuaginta, Hexapla und Patristik. Leipzig 1895, 16, 39 and 69. Codex 161 was not mentioned by Ziegler (nor Busto Saiz) since, unlike 248, it does not contain the books of Wisdom and Ben Sira. 36 37



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

as in Rahlfs’ edition), and which has τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ. Then again, the plural reading offered by Malachias is not without attestation either. 40 Of more interest is the way in which he cited this verse in his anagogical interpretation (chapter ξζ΄) and which differs from his first lemma text: Ἵνα σου γένηται ἐπὶ ϰύριον ἡ ἐλπὶς ϰαὶ γνωρίσῃ σοι τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐν δ’ (δὲ cod.) ἑτέροις τὴν ὁδόν σου. (f. 224rI)

Not only did he abandon the plural form τὰς ὁδούς in favor of the more common singular one, but he also added a variant reading that he found ‘in other (i.e., codices)’. There are only two Greek manuscripts in which this reading τὴν ὁδόν σου can be found: B and 109. In the last chapter of his commentary (πδ΄), Malachias provided both the literal and the anagogical interpretation of Prov  31,28a. As the first lemma, he cited a text that is almost identical to the one that can be found in Rahlfs’ edition: στόμα δὲ ἀνοίγει σοϕῶς καὶ νομοθέσμως (f. 275vII; compare with Rahlfs: τὸ στόμα κτλ.). This is the text that one finds in most of the manuscripts. Malachias’ anagogical comment on this stich reads as follows: Καὶ τοῦτο διδάσκει σαϕέστερον λέγων· στόμα δὲ ἀνοίγει σοφῶς ϰαὶ νομοϑέσμως, ἤτοι οὐκ ἀνοήτως καὶ ἀτάκτως oὐδ’ ἐπὶ ματαίῳ, ἀλλ’ ὅτε δεῖ καὶ ἐϕ’ οἷς δεῖ καὶ καθόσον καὶ ὡς ὁ θεῖος διαγορεύει νόμος. Εὕρηται ἔν τινι τῶν ἀντιγράϕων τὸ στόμα δὲ ἀνοίγει σοφοῖς νομοϑέσμως, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὅτι ἡ θεία σοϕία τοὺς ἁγίους διδάσκει θεωρήματα θεοδίδακτα παρὰ θεοῦ νομοθετηθέντα, εἴτε διὰ γραμμάτων εἴτε κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον, καθὼς προεπηγγέλλετο θεὸς διὰ τοῦ προϕήτου· ἐπὶ τῆς ϰαρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω τοὺς νόμους μου. 41 (f. 277vII)

The text he gave as the lemma is identical to the one he cited some pages earlier, but he also added a variant reading, which – so he said – can be found in a (one?) manuscript and which he used to develop his argument. The article that precedes στόμα can be found in only a few witnesses (manuscripts B 534 613 as well as the Apostolic Constitutions and Clement of Alexandria). Neither is the alternative ending σοϕοῖς 40 It is attested in 16 manuscripts. It is not uninteresting to observe that the majority of them are catenae (109 139 147 295 297 560 657 692 705 732 733; the non-catena codices are 46 157 602 631 797): see below for further treatment of this topic. 41 Jer 38,33.



reinhart ceulemans

νομοθέσμως that is mentioned by Malachias attested in many codices: it can only be found in B and 534. 42 Together with other ones, these examples constitute rather strong evidence in favor of the assumption that for Proverbs (as for Wisdom and Ben Sira), Malachias was aware of a B-like text. 5.6. Dependence on catena manuscripts To a reasonable extent, the insights that have been formulated in the previous sections tie in with those articulated by Ziegler and Busto Saiz. At the same time, however, the analysis of Malachias’ commentary on Proverbs allows one to make an additional observation that is not without interest. In chapter νγ΄, Malachias combined the literal and anagogical interpretation of Prov 15,13-29a. In the lemma text, he cited verse 19 as follows: Ὁδοὶ ἀεργῶν ἐστρωμέναι ἀϰάνϑαις, αἱ δὲ τῶν ἀνδρείων, τετριμμέναι ἢ λεῖαι. (f. 180rI)

The reading τετριμμέναι is the one that is most dominant in the lxx manuscript tradition, and has also been chosen by Rahlfs in his edition. When one takes a look at the manuscripts that transmitted the variant reading λεῖαι that is cited by Malachias, the relatively large number of catena manuscripts is striking. Out of 14 codices in which this reading (or the variant λεῖοι) can be found, 9 catena manuscripts can be counted. 43 In another example the statistics are even more striking. In chapter κβ΄ of his commentary, Malachias offered the following citation of Prov 3,31-32: Μὴ ϰτήσῃ ϰαϰῶν ἀνδρῶν ὀνείδη μηδὲ ζηλώσῃς τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν· (32) ἀϰάϑαρτος γὰρ ἔναντι ϰυρίου πᾶς παράνομος. Ἔν τισι δὲ πρόσκειται ἐν δὲ δικαίοις οὐ συνεδριάζει. (f. 85vI)

(31)

This citation is shorter than the text one finds in most of the manuscripts (and in the edition of Rahlfs): the addition of which Malachias stated 42 Similar variant readings are also attested only weakly: σοϕῶς καὶ νομοθέσμως] σοϕοις νομοθεσμους S*; σοϕοις και νομοθεσμοις 766. 43 109 147 139 260 390 560 692 733 734 (catenae) vs. V 252 336 728 613 (noncatenae).



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

that it can be found ‘in some (i.e., codices)’ is in fact the one that is attested most strongly throughout the manuscript tradition. The shorter text quoted by Malachias can only be found in 12 manuscripts. Interestingly, 10 of them are catena codices. 44 Cases such as these, in which Malachias cited a biblical text that is attested most strongly in the catena tradition, invite one to assume that he had one or more catena manuscripts at his disposal. Certain confirmation of this assumption is provided by the example of Prov  21,30. In his first, non-anagogical explanation of this verse (which can be found in chapter ξϚ΄), Malachias made the following remark: Οὐϰ ἔστι σοφία, οὐϰ ἔστι ἀνδρεία (ἀνδρία, cod.), οὐϰ ἔστι βουλὴ ϰατέναντι ϰυρίου· οὕτω γὰρ εὕρηται ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράϕων, ἐν ᾧ καί τίς ϕησιν “ἀπαράθετα γὰρ τὰ θεῖα τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις”. (f. 219rII)

As his lemma text, Malachias cited the reading κατέναντι κυρίου instead of πρὸς τὸν ἀσεβῆ, which is that of most codices (and the one chosen by Rahlfs). But, so Malachias hastened to clarify, the reading κατέναντι κυρίου can be found in several manuscripts. In one of them, he continued, also the explanation can be found that divine objects cannot be compared to human ones. The latter remark, of clearly exegetical coloring, invites us to believe that Malachias cited a non-biblical source here. When one looks into the manuscripts that have κατέναντι κυρίου, one observes that many of them are catenae, but almost as many are not. 45 The reading is in other words not so typical to the catena tradition as the ones from the previous examples. Nevertheless, one can be certain that Malachias had a catena manuscript at his disposal: the comment he found in one of his source codices (ἀπαράθετα γὰρ κτλ.) can be found in the exegetical section of a particular catena on Proverbs, i.e. the one that is ascribed to the enigmatic Polychronius the Deacon (CPG C 90). This catena type is transmitted in almost all of the catena manuscripts that contain the variant reading that is cited by Malachias (109 139 147 560 657 692 581 732 733).

44 They are 109 147 139 390 560 581 657 692 732 733. Both non-catena manuscripts that have the shorter text are 125 602. 45 109 139 147 295 560 657 581 692 732 733 (catenae) vs. V 46 157 252 261c 336 602 631 728 (non-catenae).



reinhart ceulemans

This last example shows beyond doubt that Malachias had one or more catena manuscripts in front of him, which he used in his commentary on Proverbs. He regularly used the biblical section of that catena(e) as a source of variant readings of the lxx text. Furthermore, the example of Prov 21,30 also makes clear that he did not lose sight of the exegetical section of that/those catena manuscript(s). The extent to which he relied upon the excerpts of previous commentaries that were compiled in the catena(e) remains to be investigated.

6. Concluding remark The investigations that were carried out in this paper have been modest: only a few specific leads (i.e., those that are supplied by the studies of Ziegler and Busto Saiz) have been looked into with regard to the origins of the variant lxx readings cited by Malachias in his commentary on Proverbs. This modesty was chosen deliberately: it seemed appropriate for the maiden study of this text. It allowed us to uncover interesting insights, which open up new perspectives for future research on Malachias and his exegesis of Proverbs. A discussion of some particular examples showed that precisely as in his exegesis of Wisdom and Ben Sira, Malachias displayed a remarkable interest in textual criticism of the Septuagint in his commentary on Proverbs. This makes him a very interesting object for study, both for philologists who deal with the Greek Old Testament and for Byzantine scholars, who have the opportunity to investigate a text that stands out in the genre of Byzantine Bible commentaries. The sources that he used for finding the information need to be identified more precisely in future studies, but our preliminary study confirms Ziegler’s opinion that one of those sources was in close agreement with the uncial codex B. A new aspect that was laid bare and certainly invites further research is the observation that Malachias depended on catena manuscripts. Previous studies on Malachias’ commentaries on the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Ben Sira make no mention of such dependence, and this for obvious reasons: since the number of commentaries that have been written on those books were few to none, no catenae on them have been compiled upon which Malachias could have relied. His consultation of the exegetical chains in his exegesis of Proverbs, however, proves quite interesting, not only in view of his biblical text-critical interest,



MALACHIAS THE MONK AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC

but also regarding other aspects: future research on Malachias’ exegetical sources – which seems an interesting path of research with regard to the dating of this Byzantine author – could benefit from looking into the question whether a particular catena on Proverbs was used intensively by Malachias. Dr. Reinhart Ceulemans, Septuaginta-Unternehmen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen – KU Leuven [email protected] Abstract Malachias the Monk as a Textual Critic of LXX Proverbs This article contains the first study of the Byzantine commentary on the Old Testament book of Proverbs that is attributed to a certain Malachias the Monk. By displaying a remarkable interest in textual criticism of the Greek Bible, Malachias is somewhat of an outsider compared to other Byzantine exegetes. This makes him an interesting object for study, not only for Byzantine but also for biblical scholars. This study investigates the biblical manuscript sources that were consulted by Malachias, and from which he gleaned variant readings of the Septuagint. Among these sources, there was a manuscript that is in close agreement with the famous uncial codex Vaticanus. Furthermore, Malachias also relied on catena manuscripts in a two-fold way: not only did he record the readings of their biblical text but he also appears to have used their exegetical sections as a source.



antonia giannouli

Catanyctic Religious Poetry A survey* Despite the often questionable authenticity of the term ‘κατανυκτικόν’ 1 in their lemmata careful study of these ‘catanyctic’ religious poems and hymns reveals the meaning of the term, the purpose of such compositions and the recurring popularity of the topic of contrition over time. On the basis of the religious poems and hymns which have come down to us with this specific designation or have traditionally been regarded as catanyctic, we observe that the term is either used with a specific meaning, i.e. for verses advocating or expressing contrition, or in a more general sense, i.e. for verses concerning the topic as such (περὶ κατανύξεως). In the latter the author speaks about catanyxis to an audience, whereas in the former he is performing a personal act of catanyxis, addressing either God or his own soul. Thus, while the verses addressed to an audience serve predominantly didactic purposes, the other form is meant to * This contribution achieved its present form as a result of the stimulating comments of Professors Antonio Rigo, Paul Géhin and Peter Van Deun, for which I am most grateful. I would also like to thank my Professors Johannes Koder, Wolfram Hörandner (both Vienna) and not least my colleague Martin Hinterberger (Nicosia) for their valuable suggestions. 1 In this paper, the Greek terms ‘κατάνυξις’ and ‘κατανυκτικός’ and their anglicized derivatives have been used rather than various translations or renderings in other languages, following M. D. Lauxtermann, The Spring of Rhythm. An Essay on the Political Verse and Other Byzantine Metres, Byzantina Vindobonensia, 22. Vienna 1999, 31–35, chapter on catanyctic alphabets. Their equivalents ‘compunctio’ and ‘compunctionalis’, though established in Latin, do not justify the use of their derivatives in modern languages. Other more appropriate terms have been suggested instead, such as ‘contrition’ in English and French, and ‘Zerknirschung’, ‘Tränen’, ‘Weinen’ in German. For discussion of the translation of ‘catanyxis’ and ‘penthos’ in French see I. Hausherr, Penthos: la doctrine de la componction dans l’orient chrétien, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 132. Rome 1944, 14–17, esp. 17; and L. Brottier, Les “propos sur la contrition” de Jean Chrysostome: le destin d’écrits de jeunesse méconnus. Paris 2010, 10f. In English see H. Hunt, Joy-bearing Grief: Tears of Contrition in the Writings of the Early Syrian and Byzantine Fathers, The Medieval Mediterranean, 57. Leiden 2004, xi (n. 1) and 3f.; In German see B. Müller, Der Weg des Weinens. Die Tradition des ‘Penthos’ in den Apophthegmata Patrum, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 77. Göttingen 2000, 14–15. In this regard cf. M. Hinterberger, Tränen in der byzantinischen Literatur. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Emotionen. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 56 (2006) 27–51, esp. 33–38. The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 86-109 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101920

CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

support the practice of contrition as a means of experiencing it and has ‘therapeutic’ intent. 2 In the present study we shall focus on these more personal religious poems, which can truly lay claim to the designation catanyctic in its specific meaning. 3 It should be borne in mind that in hymnography a poet, as the collective voice, conveys the dogmatic and moral teachings of the church, since hymns are designed to be chanted during the services. By contrast, the writer of religious poetry is not restricted either in terms of content or form but is free to express his personal thoughts and feelings in any way he wishes. The present survey aims to trace the variety of forms such poems take and the various grounds for their composition. Associated with the ascetic practices of catanyxis and penthos, these poems also reflect the corresponding spiritual literature. 4 The earliest extant works – whether in prose or verse – on the subject of catanyxis reveal that initially Christian writers dealt with the topic theoretically in their paraenetic treatises and sermons. By browsing through the Clavis Patrum Graecorum alone we can single out five cases of Church Fathers, from the fourth to the seventh century, who were already explicitly mentioning catanyxis and penthos in the titles of 2 For the didactic verses see e.g. G. T. Stathes, Ἡ δεκαπεντασύλλαβος ὑμνογραϕία ἐν τῇ Βυζαντινῇ μελοποιίᾳ καὶ ἔκδοσις τῶν κειμένων εἰς ἓν Corpus (= G.  T.  Stathis, L’hymnographie en vers quinze-syllabes dans la mélopée Byzantine et l’édition des textes dans un Corpus, Institut de Musicologie Byzantine: Études, 1). Athens 1977; the catanyctic verses on the vanity of the world (nos. 108–115) exhort a listener (ἄνθρωπε) to contrition, with precepts and warnings. Likewise, the catanyctic Canon on the Holy Criminals takes up the story mentioned by John Klimax (PG 88, 764D–776B), in order to present them as “a model of sincere sorrow and penitence”, as its acrostic explicitly declares; see the edition by J. R. Martin, The Illustration of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus. Princeton 1954, 128–149. For the verses expressing or urging contrition cf. A. Giannouli, Die Tränen der Zerknirschung: zur katanyktischen Kirchendichtung als Heilmittel, in: P. Odorico/P. A. Agapitos/M. Hinterberger (ed.), « Doux remède...  ». Poésie et Poétique à Byzance. Actes du quatrième colloque international philologique EPMHNEIA, Paris, 23–25 février 2006, Dossiers Byzantins, 9. Paris 2009, 141–155. 3 Catanyctic religious poems (in various metres and forms) have been edited and discussed in the following publications: D.  N.  Anastasijewić, Alphabete. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 16 (1907) 479–501, who divides catanyctic poems into ‘Bußlieder’ and ‘Bußgebete’ according to their content; F. Ciccolella, Cinque poeti bizantini. Anacreontee dal Barberiniano greco 310, Hellenica, 5. Alessandria 2000. Cf. also Lauxtermann (1999, cf. n. 1); Idem, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres. Texts and Contexts, Wiener Byzantinischen Studien, 24. Wien 2003. 4 For relevant bibliography see n. 1 above. On spiritual literature in Byzantium see also Mistici bizantini, a cura di A. Rigo (pref. di E. Bianchi). Torino 2008; cf. also J. Munitiz, Writing for the Heart: The Spiritual Literature of Byzantium, in: P. Stephenson (ed.), The Byzantine World. London/New York 2010, 248–259.



antonia giannouli

their works: John Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian (in Greek translation), Severianos, bishop of  Gabala, John Klimax and Antiochus the Monk. 5 Three sermons under Ephraim’s name are transmitted in Greek as catanyctic, but the term should be understood in its general sense. 6 Already in these works there are definitions and distinctive features of terms relevant to contrition and penthos, as well as information about ascetic practices 7 and models of contrition. 8 Regarding hymnography, biblical persons associated with repentance and contrition appear in the early hymns, before Romanos the Melodist; later on, these became recurring themes in catanyctic hymns. 9 In the kontakia by Romanos, biblical models of contrition increasingly appear, as he dramatizes the thoughts and contrite prayers of penitents. Their designation as catanyctic, in almost all cases, should be understood in terms of its general sense. But Romanos was also familiar with the catanyctic prayer in its specific form, as at least one kontakion evidences. 10 Following and appropriating Romanos, Andrew of Crete drew upon the Old and New Testaments, in order to provide a comprehensive 5 John Chrysostom (CPG 4308, 4309) and Ephraim the Syrian (CPG 3916, 3940, 4006, 4042; as well as 3908, 3917, 3918, see also n. 6). On the authenticity of Ephraim’s Sermons in Greek, see CPG 3900 and K. G. Phrantzolas, Ἔργα τοῦ Ὁσίου Ἐϕραὶμ τοῦ Σύρου, vol 1, Thessaloniki 1988, 3–33. Further writers on compunction include: Severianos, bishop of Gabala (CPG 4186); Antiochos the Monk, who devoted one homily to the subject of contrition in his Pandectes (CPG 7843), hom. 107, repr. in: PG 89, 1762– 1766. For the 7th step of the Ladder of Divine Ascent by John Klimax see n. 7 below. This selection does not include sermons on the similar subject of penitence, nor other spiritual works, which refer to tears and compunction here and there or even use them as a leitmotiv. 6 See CPG 3908, 3917, 3918: in all three Ephraim exhorts his ‘brothers’ to contrition; two of them (CPG 3908 and 3917) contain extensive catanyctic sections. 7 John Klimax, Ladder of Divine Ascent: Step 5 (Περὶ μετανοίας: PG 88, 763–781), Step 6 (Περὶ μνήμης ϑανάτου: ibid. 793–800) and Step 7 (Περὶ τοῦ χαροποιοῦ πένϑους: ibid. 801–817). Antiochos the Monk also devoted a chapter of his ‘Pandectes’ to penitence (hom. 77: PG 89, 1658–1666) in addition to the one on catanyxis mentioned above in n. 5. On the terms ‘penthos’ and ‘catanyxis’ see also Müller (cf. n. 1) 83–85 (ch. 4.1). 8 For example David, employed as a model of contrition by John Chrysostom: Brottier (cf. n. 1) 91–99. 9 See the kontakia on the expulsion from paradise and on Adam’s lament, published by P.  Maas, Frühbyzantinische Kirchenpoesie, Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen, 52/3. Berlin 1931, 13–20; both kontakia pre-date Romanos according to Maas: ibid. 12. 10 I refer to the prayer of penitence (Hymn LV) edited in: Romanos le Mélode, Hymnes, ed. J. Grosdidier de Matons, tome 5, SC, 283. Paris 1981, 512–524; it is the only one of the ten kontakia transmitted as catanyctic which deserves this designation in its more specific sense.



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

image of the sinful and repentant in his catanyctic Great Canon. Identified with this image by writing in the first person, Andrew compared and contrasted himself to all the sinful and virtuous characters of the Bible, in order to present a complete form of contrite confession in the ca. 250 strophes (troparia) of his hymn. 11 Due to its central place in the Triodion, the service book for Lent, the Great Canon had a considerable impact on later hymnography and religious poetry. 12 It is not possible to examine catanyctic hymnography here. But before we turn to catanyctic religious poetry, it should be stressed that both present the repentant sinner praying in a state of contrition in the presence of the divine or face-to-face with God. 13 In particular, they present: a) his penitence, b) his confession of sins, c) his sorrow and contrition, while meditating on his own sins, the vanity of the world, the Second Coming, the punishment at the Last Judgement, and anticipating God’s magnanimity, 14 d) his admonition and exhortation addressed to his own soul with appeals for repentance and constant vigilance, often full of expressions of self-reproach, 15 e) his supplication to Christ, the Theotokos or saints with a petition. 16 These elements do not always appear in a given order or structure, as will be observed below. 17 While hymnography is principally based on the Bible and written in the Byzantine Koine, Religious poetry sought to introduce variety. Aside from these common features, catanyctic religious poetry displays a greater variety in form, language or metre and purpose than hymnography of the same type. In order to give some idea of this variety, I shall now present a brief survey, in chronological order, of the religious A. Giannouli, Die beiden byzantinischen Kommentare zum Großen Kanon des Andreas von Kreta: Eine quellenkritische und literarhistorische Studie, Wiener Byzantinischen Studien, 26. Wien 2007, 35–36. 12 For example, the intercessory hymn to the Theotokos by the monk and Synkellos Euthymios in the Euchologion, contains several parallels: see the edition in the Euchologion sive Rituale Graecorum, ed. J. Goar. Venice 21730, 685–688. Regarding its influence on religious poetry see the iambic verses entitled Εἰς ἑαυτόν by Theodore Stoudites, and the catanyctic Anacreontics, discussed further below. 13 On repentance and ascetics’ prayer see J. Chryssavgis, John Climacus: From the Egyptian Desert to the Sinaite Mountain. Aldershot 2004, 211–232. 14 On these reflections, presented in detail by Peter Damaskenos, see further below; they go back to earlier ascetic teachings on the λογισμοί: cf. e.g. Évagre le Pontique, Sur les pensées, éd. par P. Géhin, SC, 438. Paris 1998, ch. 14–15 (202–204). 15 ‘Bußlieder’ by Anastasijewić (cf. n. 3) 479f. 16 ‘Bußgebete’, ibid. 487. 17 Cf. for example the recommended sequence in prayers (thanksgiving, confession and petition) ordained by John Klimax: Chryssavgis (cf. n. 13) 223f. 11



antonia giannouli

poems which have come down to us as catanyctic. 18 The aim is to obtain a clearer view of this specific form in the Byzantine era and a better understanding of its function.

1. The earliest examples date from the second half of the ninth century and are Anacreontics with an alphabetical acrostic. A poem by Sophronios of Jerusalem may have been an earlier representative of this type, but it has not survived. 19 Until it was used by Gregory of Nazianzus and Synesios of Cyrene for composing religious poetry in the fourth and early fifth centuries A.D., the Anacreontic metre was associated with the themes of wine and love. Four centuries later it was considered suitable for expressing a contrite confession of sin. 20 The verses were melodically and rhythmically adapted to model stanzas (heirmoi) of earlier hymns, though they were not intended for liturgical purposes. An Ἀναϰρεόντειον ϰατανυϰτιϰόν was written by Elias Synkellos of Jerusalem (second half of the ninth century), a poet who can be identified with the delegate of the Patriarch of Jerusalem at the 869–870 Council of Constantinople. 21 The poem consists of 24 strophes (of four lines each) forming an alphabetical acrostic, in which every line of each strophe begins with the same letter. It was to be sung in the fourth plagal mode like a church hymn and, regarding content, it displays specific parallels with the catanyctic hymns of Romanos the Melodist and

18 The starting point for this study lies in the publications mentioned in n. 3. In this regard, it is important to note the discrepancies in the transmission of the titles with regard to the use of the term ‘catanyctic’, the individual editors’ decisions to keep this term in their edited texts or not or to add it, even if not attested in the textual witnesses: to a certain degree, these are reflected in I. Vassis, Initia carminum Byzantinorum, Supplementa Byzantina, 8. Berlin/New York 2005, a useful tool for this survey. 19 On this, no longer extant, poem by Sophronios of Jerusalem, entitled Εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἤτοι εἰς τὸν ἄσωτον, perhaps composed in Anacreontic verses see: Lauxtermann (2003, cf. n. 3) 67. Only the title of the poem has been preserved, see: M. Gigante, Sophronii Anacreontica. Rome 1957, 108 (no. 15). 20 T. Nissen, Die byzantinischen Anakreonteen, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, Jahrgang 1940, Heft 3. Munich 1940, 3f. 21 The poem (inc.: Ἀπὸ καρδίας) has been edited recently by Ciccolella (cf. n. 3) 6–16.



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

Andrew of Crete. 22 The poet as penitent acknowledges his sin and his human weakness and mourns his sufferings. In an exhortation addressed to his own soul he criticizes its indifference and places special emphasis on graves, their darkness and the dead within. He further dwells on the transience of the world and on the Last Judgement. Fearing the punishment he will undergo and knowing that nobody else will come to his assistance on Judgement Day, the penitent turns to Christ, praying for healing. The same poet also wrote a Lament on Himself, which has not been transmitted as catanyctic, but shares many common elements with catanyctic verse. 23 Leo  VI (886–912) is regarded as the author of the Ὠιδάριον ϰατανυϰτιϰόν consisting of 30 strophes (of six octosyllabic verses each) arranged in an alphabetical acrostic. 24 The poem contains all the above mentioned elements together with the image of hell and the Last Judgement; it was obviously influenced by the catanyctic hymns in the Triodion. 25 The lamenting penitent reflects on the dead in their gloomy graves and the punishments in hell (v. 1–24), on Tartaros (v. 31–54), on the Second Coming (v. 67–84), and on the Last Judgement (v. 151–162). Then he addresses his own soul with reproach and exhortations (v. 61– 66, 91–114, 127–132, 163–168) and he prays alternately to Christ (v.  25–30, 85–90, 145–150, 169–174), to the Virgin Mary (v.  115– 120, 181–188), and to the Holy Trinity (v. 175–180). It is worth noting here that, on the evidence of the Vita of Patriarch Euthymios, Paul Maas associated these verses with Leo’s act of repentance for the sin of

22 Cf. P. Speck, Jamben auf verschiedene Gegenstände, Supplementa Byzantina, 1. Berlin 1968, no. 97. 23 The Θρηνητιϰὸς εἰς ἑαυτόν (inc.: Ἁγίων τις ἆρα) has been edited by Ciccolella (cf. n. 3) 20–30. It consists of 22 strophes (of four verses each) with an alphabetical acrostic (lacking Η and Ω, apparently for metrical reasons), which does not include the four additional verses at the end. The poet as penitent laments over his sufferings, addresses David (verse 5) and sheds tears meditating upon his death and the Last Judgement. The rhetorical questions aim to express his deep despair. He offers some autobiographical elements: the abandonment of his home and family to become a monk, the death of his brother Nicholas etc., and finally his hope that God will not ignore a penitent like him. 24 The Ὠιδάριον (inc.: Ἆρά τις γῆθεν) has been edited by F. Ciccolella, Il carme anacreontico di Leone VI. Bollettino dei Classici ser. ΙΙΙ 10 (1989) 17–37, esp. 21–24. The acrostic contains some double and triple letters: 2Δ, 2M, 2Π, 2Y, 3Ω. On the question of authorship see Nissen (cf. n. 20) 57–58. 25 Cf. Speck (cf. n. 22) 259.



antonia giannouli

tetragamy. 26 It is also worth noting, that other poems too have come down to us under Leo’s name 27. Apart from one other Anacreontic, which has come down to us without the designation catanyctic but functions as such, there are no other known representatives of the form in this metre. 28

2. Almost two centuries later, a group of religious poems in political verse dating from the end of the eleventh and the twelfth century, transmitted as catanyctic, are related to the ascetic milieu. 29 Referring to meditation 26 P.  Maas, Literarisches zu der Vita Euthymii. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21 (1912) 436–440, esp. 437. On the text see P. Karlin-Hayter, Vita Euthymii patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Bibliothèque de Byzantion, 3. Bruxelles 1970, 81,30–32. On the connection with the Anacreontic poem see Lauxtermann (cf. n. 1) 34–35. On Leo  VI’s tears of repentance in this narration see Hinterberger (cf. n.  1) 36–37. On the relevant incidents in the year 906 see also M.  Grünbart, Der Kaiser weint. Anmerkungen zur imperialen Inszenierung von Emotionen in Byzanz. Frühmittelalterliche Studien 42 (2008) 89–108, esp. 99–104. In his work Οἰακιστικὴ ψυχῶν διατύπωσις, Leo VI speaks about tears relieving the soul’s pain and considers them part of the divine dispensation; on this see Hinterberger (cf. n. 1). 27 The following Alphabets are falsely ascribed to Leo VI: An Alphabet in political verse, entitled Εὐχὴ ἑτέρα ἱϰετήριος εἰς τὸν ϰύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν (inc.: Ἀνείκαστε), is transmitted as catanyctic in part of the manuscript tradition, but it is more of a general prayer to Christ asking for remission of sins than a confession of sins and grief; see edition by Anastasijewić (cf. n. 3) 498–499 (II 6). On its authorship see ibid. 489. On its characterization as catanyctic see ibid. 498. Another Alphabet in political verse (inc.: Ἀδὰμ τὸν πρῶτον), edited by E. D. Kakoulide, Νεοελληνικὰ θρησκευτικὰ ἀλϕαβητάρια, ΕΕΦΣΑΠΘ, Parartema, 9. Thessaloniki 1964, 110–111 (no 23), is not transmitted as catanyctic, nor is it related to catanyxis at all: Lauxtermann (1999, cf. n. 1) 35, n. 61. It belongs to the so-called ‘Weiberspiegel’, see W. Hörandner, Ein Alphabet in politischen Versen über Schöpfung und Verlorenes Paradies, in: Lirica greca da Archiloco a Elitis. Studi in onore di Filippo Maria Pontani, Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 14. Padua 1984, 273–289, esp. 286. 28 This is the case of the 105 Anacreontic verses ( J.  F.  Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca e codicibus regiis, tom. 3. Paris 1831, repr. Hildesheim 1962, 456–460) written by a certain John Komnenos Sozopolites; the penitent poet admits his sins and despair and prays for healing. But, another Anacreontic by Ignatios the Deacon [Ciccolella (cf. n. 3) 42–54], transmitted as catanyctic, contains the confession of sins of the poet’s deceased disciple, named Paulus; thus, the designation can be understood in its general meaning. On the authenticity of the title see ibid. 40. 29 On the metre, see J. Koder, Der Fünfzehnsilber am kaiserlichen Hof um das Jahr 900. Byzantinoslavica 33 (1972) 214–219; M. J. Jeffreys, The Nature and Origins of the Political Verse. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 28 (1974) 141–195; J. Koder, Kontakion und politischer Vers. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 33 (1983) 45–56; Lauxtermann (1999, cf. n. 1) 21–40.



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

and prayer, these poems reflect ascetic ideas and practices leading to catanyxis and penthos, as the following evidence indicates: Philip Monotropos wrote his Κλαυϑμοί, initially known as Dioptra, in the year 1095 according to the psephismos at the end of the poem. In 371 lines of political verse, which are later described as catanyctic, the poet as penitent begins with self-accusation addressed to his own soul, urging it to repent. 30 He describes the moment of death, the separation of the soul from the body (v. 16–31), and includes a dialogue between the soul (v. 32–37) and angels, who criticize the soul for its carelessness (v. 38–52). Continuing with self-reproach and warnings to his own soul, in particular that nothing and nobody from this vain world will come to offer assistance at the moment of death, the repenting poet dwells on the corruption of each part of the body (eyes, tongue, ears, hands, feet) in the grave (v. 53–82). He further reflects upon the fighting between angels and demons over the soul and the outcome (v. 83–117), on paradise, which the soul will experience if its virtues prevail (v. 118–164), and then on hell (ᾅδης), lest its sins prevail (v. 165–188). Afterwards, he meditates on the Last Judgement (v. 189–238), the words of the Judge to the righteous and the sinners (v. 239–256), and ends up with a lament (v. 257–300) calling for repentance (v. 301–329). Subsequently, Philip turns to the monks, addressing them as “brothers and fathers”, and invites them to lament for and with him as well as to pray for him (v. 330–339). 31 Thus, Philip explicitly indicates his monastic milieu and refers implicitly to ascetic practices leading to contrition, such as those discussed below. Then, he confesses his sins to God, prays for remission whether he wills it or not (v. 340–365), 32 and concludes with praise to God (v. 366–371). A metrical prayer preserved in the Life of Saint Cyril of Philea written by Nicholas Kataskepenos (ca  1015–1110/1120) is linked to the This poetic composition entitled Κλαυϑμοὶ ϰαὶ ϑρῆνοι μοναχοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ ϰαὶ ξένου, δι’ ὧν ϰαὶ διελέγετο πρὸς Ψυχὴν τὴν ἰδίαν (inc.: Πῶς κάθῃ;) was published by Ε. Auvray, Les pleurs de Philippe. Poème en vers politiques de Philippe le Solitaire, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences historiques et philologiques, 22. Paris 1875, 18–107; and later with Philip’s other work by Spyridon  Lauriotes, Βίβλος ἡ καλουμένη Διόπτρα. Ὁ Ἄϑως 1 (1920) 1–264. A thirteenth-century scribe wrote next to the title of the Κλαυϑμοί: “Στίχοι κατανυκτικοὶ καὶ πάνυ ψυχωϕελεῖς” (ed. Auvray, ibid. 18). A critical edition is in preparation by Eirini Afentoulidou-Leitgeb. 31 This appeal to the ‘brothers’ goes back to the exhortation in Epist. Jacobi 5,16: “ἐξομολογεῖσθε οὖν ἀλλήλοις τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων, ὅπως ἰαθῆτε”. 32 The same bold request as Philip uses in his prayer (v. 365: “ἀλλὰ κἂν θέλω σῶσόν με, Χριστέ μου, κἂν μὴ θέλω”) is also used by Neophytos the Enkleistos to close his prayer (see below n. 41). 30



antonia giannouli

ascetic practices of catanyxis and penthos and it is necessary to consider it here, though it is not explicitly designated as catanyctic. The 25 lines of political verse are more a penitent’s supplication to Christ for mercy, than a contrite confession of sins. According to Kataskepenos, St Cyril repeated the prayer with self-reproach and sorrow, while he pursued contrition by meditating on death, hell and punishment. 33 Drawing on a long tradition of this ascetic practice, Kataskepenos, in a special chapter on tears (ch. 42), mentions further forms of contemplation, through which one could attain catanyxis, i.e. by meditating on one’s own sins, on the sufferings of the poor or needy and on the passion of Christ. 34 Furthermore, he includes two narratives, in order to illustrate how catanyctic hymns can induce tears of contrition, as well as to distinguish between the tears sent by God and those produced by demons. 35 In this he is drawing on earlier spiritual writings, since the distinction, as indicated by Antonio Rigo, harks back to Isaac of Nineveh. 36 The influence of Abba Isaac on Kataskepenos is also manifested in the aforementioned prayer, which is basically a metrical paraphrase of one of the Syrian bishop’s own prayers. 37 Further examples are to be found in the so-called Πεντηϰονταϰέφαλον by Neophytos the Recluse (Enkleistos), written around 1179. The context of the poems in this work deserves a closer look, because it highlights the connection of the catanyctic poems with ascetic practices. In the nineteenth chapter, Neophytos deals with the themes of catanyxis and penthos and in it he repeatedly states that there are various types of “spiritual contemplation” (νοηταὶ θεωρίαι), which need to be accompanied by the proper words, in order for a human to experience catanyxis. 38 33 See edition of the verses (inc.: Ἐλέησον, ἐλέησον) by É. Sargologos, La vie de Saint Cyrille le Philéote moine Byzantin (+1110), Subsidia Hagiographica, 39. Bruxelles 1964, ch. 8,3,2–26 (71–72). On his meditation see ibid. 8,2 (71–72); the major part is made up of a mixture of various spiritual texts. On his act of contrition see ibid. 8,3,1 (71) and 8,3,27–30 (72). The repetition of the prayer reflects the advice of John Klimax, that the prayer must be continual: Chryssavgis (cf. n. 13) 227. 34 On these meditations see Sargologos (cf. n. 33) 42,1,18–23 (195). 35 For the tears sent by God see ibid. 42,9–10 (200–202). Tears bound up with human passions, such as anger and arrogance, are demonic and therefore ineffective; on this see ibid. 42, 12 (203–204). 36 See Rigo (cf. n. 4) LIV. 37 The information is in a marginal note in Codex Athos Lavra H  191: see ibid. 8,3,1 app. crit. (71). Regarding this prayer, J. Munitiz indicates that Isaac “in his turn was drawing on John of Dalyatha”: Munitiz (cf. n. 4) 251. 38 Πεντηκοντακέϕαλον, ed. by P.  Soteroudes, in: I.  E.  Stephanes/P.  Soteroudes, Ἁγίου Νεοϕύτου τοῦ Ἐγκλείστου Συγγράμματα, τόμ. Α΄: Δέκα Λόγοι περὶ τοῦ



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

Then he embarks on a lengthy but illuminating digression (ch. 19–23) on these various types and the appropriate words. He begins (ch. 19) with the type of contemplation, in which someone reflects upon his own death as if it was impending, and upon what will follow after it, and prays for divine aid. To illustrate this, he cites a prayer written in anapestic verses, in which the lamenting penitent confesses his sins and finally prays to the Lord to grant him forgiveness. 39 Another type of contemplation, Neophytos continues, is when someone remembers his own faults and the sins of human nature and laments, praying to Christ for mercy. In this case, he recommends reciting 16 lines of political verse in the vernacular, termed “θρηνῳδίας ῥήματα”. 40 They constitute a lament and a confession of sins and conclude with a prayer to Christ asking for salvation, whether the penitent wills it or not. 41 Another type of contemplation, suggested in the next two chapters, involves reflecting on the passion of Christ and what humans can do in return (ch. 20), as well as on the passions of the martyrs (ch. 21); it is accompanied by the relevant prayers (in prose). At the end of chapter 21, Neophytos concedes that another type should have been mentioned at the beginning, namely contemplating the lost Paradise; this correction of the order of the types is not fortuitous, as will become apparent later. Thus, in the next chapter (ch. 22), he cites two poems. The first, on Adam’s fall from paradise and consisting of 40 lines of political verse, begins with the disobedience of Adam, but then it turns to a lament on the author himself and an exhortation to his own soul for watchfulness and closes with a prayer. 42 Its designation as catanyctic is justified Χριστοῦ ἐντολῶν – Πεντηκοντακέϕαλον. Paphos 1996, 19,1 (279,3–5): Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ διάϕοροι θεωρίαι πεϕύκασι νοηταὶ κινοῦσαι τὸν νοῦν πρὸς κατάνυξιν, διαϕόρων πάντως καὶ λόγων αἱ τοιαῦται θεωρίαι προσδέονται; likewise ch. 22,3 (287,10–12). 39 Neophytos advises his readers to reflect upon their own death, both inevitable and unforeseen (πῶς ἄρα τὸ τέλος) and to dwell on what happens after death by saying the appropriate words (inc.: Ἆρα δὲ τί τὸ τέλος ἐκεῖνο): ibid. 19,1 (279,10–15), and 19,2 (279,16–279,27). On the poem in anapestic verse (inc.: Οἴμοι, οἴμοι, βοήθησον) see ibid. 19,3–6 (279,28–281,3). For a metrical analysis see I. Tsikmopoulos, Ἡ ποιητικὴ παραγωγὴ τοῦ Ἐγκλείστου Ἁγίου Νεοϕύτου. Kypriakai Spoudai 16 (1952/3) 41–49, esp. 44–45 (Γ). 40 These verses (inc.: Ἐμέν’ οὐ πρέπει νὰ λαλῶ) have been edited by Soteroudes (cf. n.  38) 19,8 (281,17–282,2) and 19,9 (282,3–17). They have also been separately edited; cf. Soteroudes’ introduction to the edition, ibid. 223–224. On the verse see Jeffreys (cf. n. 29) 160. 41 Soteroudes (cf. n. 38) 19,8 (282,2): Σὺ δέ, Σωτήρ μου, σῶσόν με, κἂν θέλω κἂν μὴ θέλω. 42 On the poem (inc.: Τοῦ παραδείσου τὸ ϕυτόν) see ibid. 22,1 (284,25–286,8).



antonia giannouli

by its second part. In the second poem, consisting of 23 lines of political verse, the penitent first praises paradise for its beauties and then asks paradise to intercede for him, so that he may dwell therein. 43 It contains no confession of sins nor does it express contrition, but its inclusion in this context suggests that it fulfils the same function as the previous one, though less obviously. At the end of chapter 23, Neophytos apologizes for his digression on penthos, and announces his intention of reverting to his initial subject. Up to that point, he has described five types of contemplation leading to contrition, intentionally arranged in a particular order, as his last correction evidences. Both, the term “νοηταὶ θεωρίαι” as well as the sequence in which Neophytos arranges them, point to a work by a younger contemporary of his, Peter Damaskenos, entitled Περὶ τῶν ὀϰτὼ νοητῶν ϑεωριῶν dating around 1156/7. In the eighteenth century this work was incorporated in the Φιλοϰαλία τῶν ἱερῶν νηπτιϰῶν compiled by Nikodemos Hagioreites and Makarios Notaras, Metropolitan of Corinth. 44 Relying on Dorotheos of Gaza, John Klimax, Isaac of Nineveh, Gregory of Nazianzus and other Church Fathers, Peter Damaskenos describes eight stages of contemplation that lead to catanyxis and penthos. 45 He also offers detailed guidance on how one should stand and act, and what kind of prayers or hymns one should say at each stage. It is worth mentioning that, in terms of their content and the use of first-person speech, the prayers and hymns are no different from the poems mentioned above that have been transmitted as catanyctic. According to Damaskenos, the first three stages purify the soul through tears and are thus suitable for the ascetic practice (πρακτικόν), while the other five pertain to contemplation (θεωρητικὸν ἤτοι γνωστικόν) and help to maintain watchfulness. Since the sixth type On the poem (inc.: Παράδεισε τερπνότατε) see ibid. 22,2 (286,10–287,6). Makarios of Corinth/Nikodemos Hagioreites, Φιλοκαλία τῶν ἱερῶν νηπτικῶν συνερανισθεῖσα παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ θεοϕόρων πατέρων ἡμῶν […], vol.  3. Athens 31960 (Venice 1782) 32–60; Rigo (cf. n.  4) 235–270, esp. 235; The Philokalia: The Complete Text Compiled by St  Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St.  Makarios of Corinth, transl. from the Greek and edited by G. E. H. Palmer/P. Sherrard/​K . Ware, vol. 3. London/Boston 1984, 108–144 (text), 70–73 (introductory note), esp. 70. On the sources see ibid. 71. 45 Cf. his introductory note [Makarios of Corinth/Nikodemos Hagioreites (cf. n.  44) vol.  3, 32–33; transl. Palmer/Sherrard/Ware (cf. n.  44) 108–109]. Damaskenos presents the eight stages of contemplation as the knowledge of: a) the loss of paradise and the damage caused by the sin, b) one’s own faults, c) the terrible things that await one before and after death, d) the Lord’s incarnation and the actions of the saints and martyrs, e) the changeable nature of all things on earth, f ) God’s visible creation, g) God’s spiritual creation, h) knowledge of God. 43

44



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

of contemplation presupposes the acquisition of the habit of detachment (ἀπροσπάθεια), 46 we may assume that it is no accident that Neophytos ends his digression with the fifth type. Given their remarkable similarities in terms of content, there may be a direct relationship between Neophytos and Damaskenos; however, this is not certain, even though Neophytos concedes that he is commenting on practices which are not born of experience but of which he had heard and read. 47 The ascetic practices of catanyxis and penthos, described at length by Damaskenos and in part by Kataskepenos and Neophytos, suggest an increase in ascetic theoria and praxis in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. But, as the earlier ascetic literature demonstrates – including catanyctic hymnography and the aforementioned religious poems – these practices are part of a long tradition, attested in the patristic literature at least as far back as the writings of John Chrysostom. 48 From the explicit evidence on the various stages of contemplation leading to contrition, we may infer that every similar text (whether in verse or prose) reflecting one of these types of contemplation functions as catanyctic. Because they were composed in political verse – an already popular metre at that time – and in simple koine or even in the vernacular, these poems sounded all the more intimate and sincere; they were also easier for monks to remember and repeat while meditating. 49

46 For the translation of the Greek term see Peter Damaskenos, transl. Palmer/ Sherrard/Ware (cf. n. 44) 134; cf. Rigo (cf. n. 4) 261: il distacco dalle passioni. 47 Soteroudes (cf. n. 38) 23,4 (288,29–289,3): Ἐγὼ δέ, ἐπεὶ ὡς ἄϕρων καὶ θρασὺς καὶ αὐθάδης ἐγενόμην ἐξηγητὴς θεωρημάτων διαϕόρων ὁμοῦ καὶ ῥημάτων, ὧν τὴν πεῖραν οὐκ ἔγνων, δέον ἡγοῦμαι κἂν ἀρτίως ἀνασῶσαι τὸν λόγον εἰς τὸ προκείμενον. 48 In the Περὶ ϰατανύξεως λόγος πρῶτος, written in his youth for the monk Demetrios, Chrysostom explains how one can cultivate a state of compunction and grieving through meditation; see PG  47, 410B: ἀλλὰ (scil. τὸ πενθεῖν ἐστι) τὸ διαπαντὸς τὴν μνήμην τῶν οἰκείων ἀναστρέϕειν κακῶν, καὶ βασανίζειν τὸ συνειδὸς τούτοις τοῖς λογισμοῖς, τὸ συνεχῶς ἀναμετρεῖν τῆς ὁδοῦ τὸ μῆκος, ἀπολειπόμεθα τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. 49 Koder (1983, cf. n. 29) 53; Jeffreys (cf. n. 29) 175. It is worth noting here, that these sources do not speak about chanting. Chants were not considered appropriate for prayer, especially that of monks; see A. Longo, Il testo integrale della «Narrazione degli abati Giovanni e Sofronio» attraverso le «Ἑρµηνεῖαι» di Nicone. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici n.s. 12–13 (1965–1966) 223–267, esp. lines 265–270 (264–265) and 293–298 (266). On the attitude to be assumed in prayer according to Abba Isaac and John Klimax cf. also Chryssavgis (cf. n. 13) 212f. and 222f.



antonia giannouli

3. Especially from the second half of the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth century onwards, religious poems transmitted as catanyctic attest to the fact that the expression of personal contrition was a favourite topic among intellectuals and further suggest that it had become an essential component of literary self-representation. Theodore Metochites (1270–1332) wrote several poems “on himself ”, which share common elements with the catanyctic ones, though they lack this designation. But six catanyctic poems “de style ecclésiastique” in alphabetical acrostic by his good friend Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos (ca. 1256 – ca. 1335) – whom Theodore praises for his vita contemplativa – have come down to us. 50 They display an interesting variety of combinations of the confession of sin and expression of fear of punishment with praise of the Theotokos and supplication for her intercession. Theodore Metochites’ intellectual circle also included Dionysios Euzoitos, the metropolitan of Mytilene (1315–1327), who commissioned a certain Phialites to improve the style and versification of the Κλαυϑμοί by Philip Monotropos. The paraphrase known as Διόρϑωσις was written between 1315 and 1327, more than two centuries after the composition of the original work, a fact which suggests that it enjoyed continuing popularity. 51 Manuel Philes (ca. 1275 – ca. 1345), another friend of Dionysios, 52 also appears as the writer of a catanyctic poem of twelve political verses, in which he makes a confession of sins urging his own soul to M. Jugie, Poésies de Nicéphore Calliste Xanthopoulos. Byzantion 5 (1929/30) 357-390, esp. 362–365 (I), 366–370 (III), 370–372 (IV), 373–375 (V), 383–386 (VIII), 386–390 (IX). Metochites dedicated a poem to Nikephoros, in which he praises him for his vita contemplativa: M. Cunningham – J. Featherstone – S. Georgiopoulou, Theodore Metochites’s Poem to Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7 (1983 = C.  Mango/O.  Pritsak with U.  M.  Pasicznyk, Okeanos. Essays presented to Ihor Ševčenko on his Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students) 100–124, esp. 101. 51 The paraphrase (inc.: Πῶς κάθῃ;) consists of 371 political verses. On the edition see Auvray (cf. n. 30) 19–108; cf. also n. 30 above. 52 Philes wrote three short poems for him. On Dionysios and Philes’ poems see A. Kaldellis/S. Euthymiades, The Prosopography of Byzantine Lesbos, 284–1355 A.D.: A Contribution to the Social History of the Byzantine Province, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, 22. Wien 2010, no. 191 (135–136); cf. also L. M. Hoffmann, Die ‚Dioptra‘ des Philippos Monotropos: eine Studie zu Verfasser, Werk und dessen Quellen (unpublished PhD thesis). Wien 1992, 35f. 50



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

watchfulness. 53 In addition to these verses, there are others by the court poet – which will be discussed further below – that can be considered catanyctic, though they have not been transmitted as such.

4. There is evidence that catanyctic verses were written until the end of the fifteenth century: The Κεφάλαια ϰατανυϰτιϰὰ διὰ στίχων, preserved under the name of Manuel II Palaeologos (1350–1425), consist of 40 lines of seven-syllable verse. They present a confession of sins addressed to Christ with comparisons involving the dives and the prodigal son, expressions of grief, and a prayer for healing. 54 Two anonymous catanyctic Alphabets can be dated to the same period: an Alphabet, falsely ascribed to Athanasios of Alexandria, addressed to the author’s own soul 55 and an anonymous prayer addressed to the Theotokos. 56 Finally, a group of catanyctic verses in political metre, ascribed to poets and melodists from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, provides further evidence in this respect. They have been edited by Stathes under the post-Byzantine term ‘μαθήματα’. Though they are not entirely original compositions – since they were based on earlier ecclesiastical hymns or religious poems –, they were popular with cantors (ψάλται) and it is

53 For an edition of the verses (inc.: Νῆϕε, ψυχή μου) see Stathes (cf. n. 2) 226 (no. 117). 54 For the edition of the Κεφάλαια (inc.: Διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναί με | ἄξιον σοῦ μετασχεῖν) see PG 156, 576B–D. They should not be confused with the monastic kephalaia, discussed by Paul Géhin in the present volume. 55 The Ἀλφάβητος has been edited by Anastasijewić (cf. n. 3) 495–497 (I 4). It consists of 24 strophes of three lines of political verse each. The penitent confesses his own sins expressing his fear of punishment, when he finds himself worse than the (unrepentant) robber on the Cross, Judas, the foolish Virgins and Adam. Then he addresses his own soul with an exhortation, reproaching it for its indifference and urging it to immediate repentance and to vigilance, praying to God for mercy. On its composition date, sometime between the 14th and the 17th century, see ibid. 486. 56 The Εὐχὴ ϰατανυϰτιϰὴ εἰς τὴν ὑπεραγίαν Θεοτόϰον (inc.: Ἄχραντε, πανάσπιλε) has been edited by Anastasijewić (cf. n. 3) 501 (II 8). It consists of 24 verses that form an alphabetical acrostic. It constitutes a penitent’s invocation to the Theotokos to show mercy and cleanse his soul of sin. For similarities to Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos, see ibid. 490.



antonia giannouli

assumed that they would have been sung mostly in monasteries. 57 Prominent among the composers of such catanyctics are John Koukouzeles, Xenos Korones, John Kladas, and Manuel Chrysaphes. 58

5. Apart from the poems transmitted as catanyctic mentioned above, the following Alphabets in political verse, dated between the second half of the tenth and the first half of the thirteenth century, are considered to be of the same type. (Similar examples have survived from the postByzantine and modern Greek period.) 59 Under the name of Symeon Metaphrastes two Alphabets survive, one of which is considered a genuine work: in 24 pairs of political verses the penitent addresses Christ with a confession of sins and a prayer for atonement, and then his own soul, urging it to repentance; only once does he invite merciful people to mourn with him (v.  7: δεῦτε, ψυχαὶ

57 On the term see Stathes (cf. n. 2) 67. See also ibid. 79. Stathes classifies the catanyctic verses in three categories according to their addressee: a) the ones to the writer’s own soul, urging it to repentance, b) the ones addressed to God, praying for mercy, and c) the ones addressed to the faithful (ἄνθρωπε) for their timely repentance. But, such a classification is problematic for the following reasons: The distinction between the first two categories is often not possible, since the penitent poet usually addresses both his own soul and God. Moreover, in the third category the poet does not speak as a penitent, but he is just addressing an imaginary listener and exhorting him/her to contrition. Hence, the third category is actually didactic (περὶ ϰατανύξεως); cf. also n. 2 above. On the singing of the verses, see ibid. 154. 58 In the edition of Stathes (cf. n. 2), the following names appear as the authors of catanyctic verses: from the 14th century a certain Melissenos (no. 91), a priest Koukoulas (no. 12), John Koukouzeles (nos. 5, 7–8, 10, 96–98, 104, 129, 133–134, 139), Isidoros the patriarch of Constantinople (no. 116), Georgios Kontopetres (nos. 100, 128), Xenos Korones (nos. 103–104, 106–107, 122–125, 131–132, 137, 140), from the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century a certain Palamas from Anchialos (no. 102), John Kladas (nos. 11, 101, 119), in the first half of the 15th century a John Dukas Laosynaptes (no. 136), Manuel Chrysaphes (nos. 118, 120, 126–127, 130, 135) and a hieromonk Markos (no. 121). On the issue of these verses’ often questionable authorship see ibid. 88. 59 On political verse in catanyctic Alphabets see Lauxtermann (1999, cf. n. 1), 31–35; Jeffreys (cf. n. 29) 168f; cf. also D. N. Anastasijewić, Die paränetischen Alphabete in der griechischen Literatur, (Diss). Munich 1905, 51f. On post-Byzantine catanyctic Alphabets, see Kakoulide, (cf. n. 27), esp. 51 (no. 14), 54 (no. 15): those Alphabets transmitted as catanyctic constitute exhortations to repentance, addressed to an imagined listener (ἄνθρωπε).



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

ϕιλάνθρωποι). 60 The other Alphabet is spurious: in 24 lines of political verse the penitent reproaches his own soul for its reluctance to engage in virtuous deeds and gives a warning about the Last Judgement. 61 Symeon also appears as the writer of other poems with similar content. 62 Symeon’s contemporary Nikephoros Ouranos († after 1007) is the author of an Alphabet of 24 strophes, of three lines of political verse each, in which he expresses his repentance to Christ with a confession of sins and self-reproach, praying for mercy. 63 He intermingles addresses to his own soul, blaming it for carelessness and urging it to repentance and vigilance. The same format as that used by Ouranos, i.e. confession of sins, selfreproach, exhortation to the soul and prayer, is observed in another Alphabet of 24 pairs of political verses by Kyriakos, bishop of Chonai (second half of the tenth century), a contemporary of Symeon Metaphrastes. 64 The Alphabet entitled Εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν by a certain Niketas, bishop of Klaudioupolis (end of the tenth/eleventh century), shows parallels with Symeon’s genuine Alphabet. 65 In 24 strophes – of three political verses each – the penitent, aware of his distance from God (v. 40–43), addresses alternately his soul, urging it to repentance, confession and watchfulness, and God, asking for healing. 60 The Alphabet (inc.: Ἀπὸ βλεϕάρων) has been edited by L.  Allatius, repr. in: PG 114, 132–133 (A΄). It is referred to as catanyctic by Lauxtermann (2003, cf. n. 3) 15. 61 The Alphabet (inc.: Ἀναλογίζου) has been edited by Allatius, repr. in: PG 114, 133Β–C  (B΄). On the spurious authorship, see Lauxtermann (1999, cf. n.  1) 22, n. 14. 62 In nine political verses Εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν ψυχήν (inc.: Ψυχὴ, στέναζε) the poet exhorts his own soul to watchfulness, warning of death and the wrath of God; see edition by Allatius, repr. in: PG 114, esp. 133 (Γ΄). 63 The Alphabet (inc.: Ἀπὸ χειλέων) has been edited by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Βυζαντινὰ ἀνάλεκτα. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8 (1899) 66–81, esp. 68–70; on some corrections to the text, see E. Kurtz, Das parainetische Alphabet des Nikephoros Ouranos. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 25 (1925) 18. It is mentioned as catanyctic by Lauxtermann (2003, cf. n. 3) 14. On its verse see Lauxtermann (1999, cf. n. 1) 22f.; and Jeffreys (cf. n. 29) 168. 64 See the more recent edition of the Alphabet (inc.: Ἀπὸ χειλέων ῥήματα) by Lauxtermann (1999, cf. n. 1) 101–102. It is also referred to as catanyctic by Lauxtermann (2003, cf. n. 3) 13. 65 The Alphabet entitled Περὶ τοῦ ματαίου βίου τούτου (inc.: Ἀπόστηθι) has been edited by Anastasijewić (cf. n.  3) 491–492 (I  1). On its relationship to Symeon’s Alphabet, see ibid. 482–483. For his identification with a metropolitan of Klaudioupolis, owner of a 10th-/11th-century seal, see E. McGeer/J. W. Nesbitt/N. Oikonomides (†), Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, vol. 4: The East. Washington, D.C. 2001, 21.



antonia giannouli

An Alphabet of 24 pairs of political verses, composed by the monk Makarios Kaloreites (first half of the thirteenth century), probably from Kalon Oros in Cilicia, displays the same elements as the aforementioned catanyctic Alphabets. Only the sequence differs, since the repenting poet addresses his own soul in the first part (v.  1–32) and Christ in the second. 66 Another anonymous Alphabet is not an authentic work, since it contains elaborations of earlier catanyctic verses. 67

6. The preceding survey has focused only on religious poems, transmitted as and considered catanyctic in the specific sense of the term. It does not claim to be exhaustive or complete 68. But it may suffice to attest the use of the term for a particular thematic type of religious poetry from the end of the ninth century. Furthermore, it shows that the topic enjoyed a certain popularity until the end of the Byzantine era and reveals various reasons for the composition of such verses. Moreover, there are also other themes pertinent to contrition, which cannot be covered here. 69 However, some cases, mainly poems of personal self-examination in iambic and dactylic verse, though lacking this designation, will be discussed 66 The Alphabet (inc.: Ἀπὸ ψυχῆς) has been edited by Anastasijewić (cf. n. 3) 493–494 (I 2). The editor points to similarities with Ouranos’ Alphabet: ibid. 484. On Makarios Kaloreites see now C.  Schabel, Martyrs and Heretics, Intolerance of Intolerance: the Execution of Thirteen Monks in Cyprus in 1231, in: Idem, Greeks, Latins, and the Church in Early Frankish Cyprus, Variorum Collected Studies series 949. Farnham/Burlington 2010, study no. III, 1–33, esp. 6. (I owe this reference to Martin Hinterberger, who kindly brought it to my attention). For a different explanation of the name ‘Kaloreites’ see N. Bănescu, Deux poètes byzantins inédits du XIIIe siècle. Bucharest 1913, 4–6. 67 In the Alphabet (initium mutilum) consisting of 25 strophes – of four political verses each –, the anonymous author laments his sinfulness and alternately reproaches his soul, exhorting it to repentance, and addresses Christ, praying for salvation; see edition by M. Tziatzi-Papagianni, Ein bisher unediertes byzantinisches Alphabet, in: I. Vassis/​G. S. Henrich/D. R. Reinsch (Hrsg.), Lesarten. Festschrift für Athanasios Kambylis zum 70. Geburtstag, dargebracht von Schülern, Kollegen und Freunden. Berlin/New York 1998, 226–239, esp. 228–231. 68 Cf. n. 18. 69 Poems such as those on the Second Coming (written by Manuel Philes, Leo Bardales, Michael Grammatikos, Michael Apostoles), on the vanity of human affairs, on the instability of life, and other topics connected to catanyxis (including those περὶ μετανοίας and περὶ κατανύξεως), but which have not been transmitted as catanyctic, could not be examined in this study.



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

below; they are evidence of the variety of poetic forms used for this topic and may also further clarify the function of this thematic poetry. Under the influence of hymnography, Theodore Stoudites (759– 826) composed twelve iambic dodecasyllables entitled Εἰς  ἑαυτόν, in which he, as a penitent, exhorts his own soul to repentance, reminding it of impending death, the vanities of life, and meditating on the forthcoming punishment. In terms of content and wording it shows remarkable parallels with catanyctic hymns by Romanos the Melodist and Andrew of Crete. 70 Theodore’s awareness of the theme is further attested in one of the 124 homilies of his Great Catechesis, which he designates as catanyctic, though the term is to be understood here in its general sense. 71 In 56 lines of political verse, a certain hieromonk Michael, probably from the twelfth or thirteenth century, contritely offers a somewhat rhetorical confession of sins. 72 He invites the mountains and the valleys to mourn with him (v. 17), begs the sun not to burn him (v. 30–40), and the devil not to torment him anymore (v. 41–48), exhorts his own soul to repentance (v. 49–55), and prays to Christ for salvation (v. 56). A Lament consisting of 70 lines of political verse attributed to Germanos II, patriarch of Constantinople (1222–1240), constitutes an interesting variation on the penitent’s prayer and self-reproach. Showing a striking degree of influence from the catanyctic hymns sung during the Triodion, it also contains mythological references. 73 The repenting poet begins with a prayer to Christ for tears and salvation in the first strophe 70 On the edition of the poem (inc.: Ψυχὴ ταπεινή) see Speck (cf. n. 22) nos. 97 (257–258). On its relationship to catanyctic hymnography, see ibid. 258–259. According to Lauxtermann (2003, cf. n.  3) 144, its twelve verses constitute a catanyctic poem “εἰς ἑαυτόν”, not an epigram. 71 The homily (nr. 95), Κατανυϰτιϰή, ϰαὶ περὶ τῆς ϰοιμήσεως τοῦ ϰυρίου Ῥαφαήλ, has been edited in: Τοῦ Ὁσίου Θεοδώρου τοῦ Στουδίτου Μεγάλη Κατήχησις, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus. St  Petersburg 1904, 677–685. Theodore takes advantage of the death of the virtuous brother to address an exhortation to the monks to fight their passions and remain watchful through chants, prayers and contemplation. 72 The verses (inc.: Ὢ πῶς ἀγνώμων) have been edited by S. G. Mercati, Collectanea Byzantina, vol. I. Bari 1970, 114–120 [= Idem, Intorno a Μιχαὴλ γραμματικὸς ὁ ἱερομόναχος. Bessarione 21 (1917) 199–217], esp. 118–119. On Mercati’s “whimsical identification” of two poets bearing the same name as one person see Lauxtermann (2003, cf. n. 3) 318. I am grateful to Marc Lauxtermann for bringing the dating evidence for the poet to my attention. 73 The poem entitled Θρῆνος Γερμανοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως consists of six strophes – of ten lines each – with a refrain at the end; see edition by N. S. Demkova/I. P. Medvedev. Palaeoslavica 10/11 (2002) [= P.  Schreiner/O.  Strakhov (eds), Χρυσαὶ Πύλαι. Essays presented to Ihor Ševčenko on his eightieth birthday by his colleagues and students)] 37–53, esp. 51–53.



antonia giannouli

and continues with a reproach to his own soul in the next four. He criticizes the soul’s impenitence and obduracy, while contrasting it to biblical characters (Adam, Joseph, and David) as well as to mythological ones (the Heliades weeping over the death of their brother Phaethon). The reproach ends by reminding the soul that life on earth is a vale of tears, and urging it to pray to Christ for tears and salvation. The end of the poem points back to its beginning. In his poem Πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν Manuel Philes presents himself as a man who, shortly before his own death, is recalling his life and, recognizing the worthlessness of his own actions, prays to God for healing (v.  27–30). 74 Thus, the poem corresponds to the second type of contemplation, as described by Damaskenos and Neophytos. Poems by Philes on the steps of the Heavenly Ladder of John Klimax also survive in which he mainly addresses exhortations to a listener (βέλτιστε, ἄνθρωπε, ταλαίπωρε). In only one of them, poem (no. 8) on penthos, does he address his own soul. 75 Two short poems in political verse under the name of Maximus Planudes (ca. 1255 – ca. 1305) also reflect the second type of contemplation, mentioned above. In the first one, consisting of seven lines, the penitent sorrowfully confesses his sins to Christ and prays for healing. 76 In the second, made up of nine lines, the penitent criticizes his own soul, because its offences exceed those of the sinful figures of the Bible, and closes with an exhortation to immediate and contrite penitence. 77

7. More obviously imitating and drawing on the poems “εἰς  ἑαυτόν” by Gregory of Nazianzus, the poets mentioned below do not deviate from 74 See edition in Manuelis Philae Carmina, ex codicibus Escurialensibus, Florentinis, Parisinis et Vaticanis nunc primum edidit Ε. Miller, vol. 2. Paris 1857, 421–422 (Carmen LXIII). 75 See edition of the poems entitled Εἰς τοὺς λόγους τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ τῆς ϑείας ϰλίμαϰος in ibid., vol. 1. Paris 1855, 380–388 (CCXI). 76 The verses (inc.: Μετὰ κλαυθμῶν) under the name of Planudes have been edited by Boissonade (cf. n. 28) v. 3, 461 (β΄); and S. P. Lampros, Ἐπιγράμματα Μαξίμου Πλανούδη. Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 13 (1916) 420. The same verses with slight variations – but ascribed to John Koukouzeles – were edited by Stathes (cf. n. 2) 218 (nr. 99). 77 The poem (inc.: Ψυχὴ λῃστὴν ἐνίκησας) was edited by S.  P.  Lampros, Ἐπιγράμματα Μαξίμου Πλανούδη. Νeos Hellenomnemon 13 (1916) 414–421, 420, no. 6; earlier by Boissonade (cf. n. 28) v. 3, 461, α΄.



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

the usual pattern: they address their own souls with reproach, reflect on the state of their lives, deplore their condition and entreat God for salvation. 78 In this regard, their poems are very similar to the aforementioned catanyctics. However, written in dactylic verses and in epic language and permeated as they are with antique reminiscences, they sound more pretentious and ostentatious than contrite and repentant; especially, if we take into account the advice by John Klimax, that prayer should be simple, not verbose and loquacious. 79 With his poems “εἰς  ἑαυτόν” John Geometres (ca.  935/40–1000) follows the same literary tradition. 80 For he addresses his soul in the form used in ancient epigrams (θυμέ), refers to hell in terms of its classical equivalent Tartaros or confronts life and death fearfully, as if caught between “Scylla and Charybdis”. 81 Apart from these poems, it is worth pointing to two other poems, in which Geometres expresses repentance and contrition and prays for mercy, showing awareness of the brevity of life, the vanity of the world and of the Last Judgement. The first is his Ἐξομολόγησις, written in elegiac distichs and in a language inspired by the Homeric tradition, 82 in which he addresses himself to Christ (v. 1 ὦ μέδον), and invites the whole creation – on earth and in heaven – to weep for ‘John’ (v. 5–10). 83 The second is Δέησις, in which Geometres, as penitent, addresses the heavenly powers, the Theotokos, the Apostles, and the saints, laments for his lost youth, his belongings and his city, for not having followed the example of virtuous characters and saints (up to v. 62), and concludes with a prayer to the Holy Trinity (v. 63–84), and to the Theotokos (v.  85–150). 84 Given that this poem is composed in 78 Cf. M.  Hinterberger, Autobiographische Traditionen in Byzanz, Wiener Byzantinischen Studien, 22. Wien 1999, 73. 79 PG 88,1132B (Step 28); Chryssavgis (cf. n. 13) 228. 80 These poems have recently been edited by E.  M.  van Opstall, Jean Géomètre: Poèmes en hexamètres et en distiques élégiaques, The Medieval Mediterranean, 75. Leiden/Boston 2008, poems 53–55, 81, 200, 280. On Geometres’ life see ibid. 3–14. 81 See e.g. ibid. poems 53,1 and 54,1: θυμὲ τάλαν, τί πέπονθας; poem 53,17: Τάρταρος. On the metaphor of Scylla and Charybdis see poem 53,19–20. 82 The poem  289 (inc.: Οἴμοι καὶ πάλιν ἤλιτον), consisting of 45 lines, has been edited in ibid. 456–462. 83 Geometres inserts his own name in his poems several times, which is taken as his signature, cf. ibid. 356, note to verse 8. Another representative example is the poem 211. For similar invocations by Ephraim and others see ibid. 457, note to v. 5–10. 84 The poem (inc.: Οὐρανίων στρατιῶν), consisting of 150 lines in its preserved form, has been edited in ibid. 468–492, poem 290.



antonia giannouli

elegiac distichs and uses elaborate language recalling poetry by Gregory of Nazianzus, quite apart from the allusions to the poet’s adventurous life, it seems unlikely that the poem was destined for recitation by monks. 85 Similarly, Theodore Metochites composed several poems “on himself ” in dactylic hexameter imitating epic language, in which he laments over the calamities of his life, reflects on the instability and unfairness of worldly life and prays to Christ for help. 86 Finally, we should mention the 61 elegiac distichs by Michael Trivolis, better known as Maximus the Greek (ca. 1470–1556?), in which he addresses his own soul, concerning the transience of life and the vanity of the world, and urges it to exercise vigilance. 87 The poem contains an impressive number of autobiographical references, but not exactly a contrite confession of sins.

8. From this overview of catanyctic religious poems it emerges that Byzantine poets versified their catanyctic prayers in a variety of ways, using various metres (Anacreontic, dactylic, iambic), verse lengths (of seven-, eight-, twelve-, and fifteen-syllables), levels and styles of language (learned, simple koine or even vernacular), and poetic genres. In particular, the albeit scattered examples of religious poetry, designated by their authors as catanyctic or traditionally considered as such, 85 Cf. Van Opstall (cf. n. 80) 30–31: “cet hymne, dans lequel le poète se réfère à ses confrères, était vraisemblablement adapté pour être récité dans l’ambiance de son monastère”. On the allusions he makes to his life see ibid. 500, with comments on v. 25– 32; cf. also F. Scheidweiler, Studien zu Johannes Geometres. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 45 (1952) 277–319, esp. 300f. On the use of relevant rhetorical topoi see Van Opstall, ibid. 35–36. 86 Cf. especially poem XVI, edited by J.  M.  Featherstone, Theodore Metochites’s Poems “To Himself ”. Introduction, Text and Translation, Byzantina Vindobonensia, 23. Wien 2000, 17 and 56–71; this poem was probably written before Theodore’s banishment from Constantinople in 1328 (ibid. 15). See also Hinterberger (cf. n. 78) 72–73. 87 The poem, entitled Ἔπη ἡρωελεγιαϰὰ προτρεπτιϰὰ εἰς μετάνοιαν, has been edited by I.  Ševčenko, On the Greek poetic output of Maksim Grek. Byzantinoslavica 58 (1997) 1–70, esp. 10–16. He is known as Maximus after his arrival in Muscovy. On the autobiographical elements, see e.g. v. 39–40, in which the poet mentions the name of his birthplace, Hemath, which he had left behind; v. 11–12 in which he admits that: “neither changing places, nor cheap rags are enough for the worship of God” (transl. by Ševčenko); cf. also 11, n. 3.



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

attest to the use of the term in this context from the end of the ninth century until the end of the Byzantine era. These poems were composed for various reasons: they are attested as an aid to catanyctic contemplation for ascetics and laymen (e.g. Kataskepenos, Neophytos, Theoleptos). Because they were written in simple koine or the vernacular and in political verse, they sounded more personal than those in high flown language and in Anacreontic or dactylic verses; and they were easier to remember and repeat while meditating. The expression of personal catanyxis could also be favoured as a mode of self-representation (e.g. Philes); the variety of combinations and arrangement of the elements in a catanyctic prayer discloses the literary tendencies and personal taste of the writer. This type of poem is also found as an apologia or a way of demonstrating personal penitence (e.g. Leo VI). Elements of the catanyctic prayer became standardized themes recurring in combination with real autobiographical data; a fact which has led to misinterpretations by some modern scholars. 88 The poets, mostly monks and clerics, were already familiar with the topic through hymnography: the kontakia by Romanos the Melodist, the Great Canon by Andrew of Crete and similar hymns of the Triodion. The redaction of the Triodion by Theodore Stoudites and his brother Joseph 89 further promoted catanyctic hymnography and influenced religious poetry, in terms of content and form. The reform of monastic life spearheaded by Theodore Stoudites through the organization of monastic foundations and the subsequent increase in mystic spirituality 90 created favourable conditions for catanyctic hymnography and poetry. Both were important in ascetic practice as an aid to contemplation, something which was implicit in their content, and also explicitly confirmed by the ascetic writings of the eleventh and

88 For example the contemplation of impending death, which became a topos, has misled some modern scholars as regards the age of writers of catanyctic poems; cf. Speck (cf. n. 22) 259, comment on v. 3. 89 G. Wolfram, Der Beitrag des Theodoros Studites zur byzantinischen Hymnographie. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 53 (2003) 117–125, esp. 118–121; K.  Unterburger, Aufbau und Geschichte der byzantinischen Liturgiebücher. Das Horologion, Triodion, Pentekostarion, Oktoechos und die Menäen. Der Christliche Osten 49 (1994) 44–53, esp. 44f. and 50. On the influence of the Triodion see e.g. Ciccolella (cf. n. 3) LIII. 90 On Theodore see Rigo (cf. n.  4)  xiv. See also the preface by E.  Bianchi in ibid.  7, for details on the two most important periods of Byzantine mysticism (950– 1150 and 1250–1400).



antonia giannouli

twelfth centuries. 91 Moreover, all extant religious poems of this kind come from the great periods of Byzantine mysticism and literary creativity. Finally, eschatological expectations may have been another factor in the continuous popularity of catanyctic poetry: catanyctic contemplation based on the anticipation of the Second Coming and the Last Judgement has an obvious eschatological orientation. 92 And catanyctic poems as vehicles for this contemplation reflected these feelings. As has occasionally been pointed out before and recently more amply demonstrated by Paul Magdalino, an awareness that the end of time could come at any moment, was constantly cultivated by various predictions and calculations for the near future; as time passed these were readjusted or replaced by others throughout the Byzantine era. 93 Even if there was no explicit dependence of catanyctic religious poetry on eschatological expectations, we may assume that its eschatological orientation made it more popular with laymen too. Assist. Prof. Dr. Antonia Giannouli, University of Cyprus, Nicosia [email protected] Abstract Catanyctic Religious Poetry. A survey The study of religious poems and hymns designated or traditionally regarded as catanyctic reveals that this term is either used with a specific meaning (i.e. for verses advocating or expressing contrition) or in a more general sense (i.e. for verses concerning the topic of penitence itself ). In particular, a brief survey of religious poems with the designation catanyctic, used in its specific sense, confirms that the term was employed in this way from the end of the ninth century until the end of the Byzantine era. However, religious poems of the same type transmitted without the designation can be traced back even earlier (e.g. Theodore Studites). All these poems are closely related to the corresponding liturgical hymns, 91 Nicholas Kataskepenos, for example, offers evidence of monks reciting catanyctic poems and hymns, that have the same effect, i.e. contrition. 92 Cf. Müller (cf. n. 1) 153. 93 P. Magdalino, The End of Time in Byzantium, in: W. Brandes/F. Schmieder (Hrsg.), Endzeiten, Millennium Studies, 16. Berlin 2008, 119–133, esp. 128f; Cf. C. Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome. New York 1980, 216.



CATANYCTIC RELIGIOUS POETRY

examples of which appear as early as Romanos the Hymnographer's day (i.e. the sixth century). Despite their common features, catanyctic religious poetry displays a greater variety in form, language or metre and function than hymnography. Such poems are composed in various metres (Anacreontic, dactylic, iambic), verse lengths (of seven-, eight-, twelve-, and fifteen-syllables), levels and styles of language (learned, simple koine or even vernacular), and poetic genres. Serving a variety of ends they may be a personal catanyxis, an aid to catanyctic contemplation for ascetics or laymen, an apologia or a way of demonstrating personal penitence, or even a mode of self-representation.



pavel ermilov

Towards a Classification of Sources in Byzantine Questionand-Answer Literature 1

This article offers a contribution to the continuing discussion surrounding various attempts towards a more precise definition of erotapokriseis. Some scholars are inclined to speak of questions-and-answers as a simple literary form 2; others on the contrary wish to identify this style as a separate literary genre. Yet it seems to me that this very question, that is, whether questions-and-answers are either form or genre, is in itself misleading. What do we actually mean by erotapokriseis? It is a text organized as a series of questions and answers. The Greek word itself signifies only a rhetorical form. In fact, what else could the epithet “questions-andanswers” mean if not simply an indication of a format? Basing ourselves solely on this proposal, is it then possible to speak about the generic particularities of texts written in such a format without taking any account of their content and purpose? Perhaps if all the texts were similar in content one could describe the genre through the form. However, it is an almost common fact that the literature of questions-and-answers does not constitute a homogeneous corpus of texts. Naturally, this necessitates a differentiated approach 3. From this point of view our starting 1 This article has been written within the framework of a research project supported by the Cariplo Foundation Fellowship 2011 (The Landau Network – Centro Volta). 2 Y. Papadoyannakis, Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis, in S. F. Johnson (ed.), Greek literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didactism, Classicism. Aldershot 2006, 92, n. 3: “… to speak of a ‘genre’ when referring to late antique and Byzantine collections of questions and answers is to overdetermine the degree to which these collections follow a well-defined set of features. I prefer the term literary form with the understanding that it allows for more fluidity in the way that this literature was perceived by the ancient authors”. 3 “Come la struttura comunicativa [la tradizione delle «quaestiones»] non è univoca, così le produzioni di questioni si presentano differenziate. Se si accetta questo punto di vista, si tratta di riconoscere le «quaestiones» come un genere comprensivo di specie diverse, sia pure senza livellare forme letterarie e finalità distinte”, L. Perrone, Sulla preistoria delle “quaestiones” nella letteratura patristica. Presupposti e sviluppi del

The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 110-125 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101921

QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

question is not only logically, but also methodologically defective, because Byzantine question-and-answer literature is here treated as a whole, which, however, is clearly not the case. Searching for a definition of erotapokriseis under these circumstances becomes a rather unpromising enterprise since it results in nothing but superficial generalizations in the form of: “question-and-answer texts are texts written in the format of questions and answers” 4. But a typology of Byzantine erotapokriseis has already been expounded in Hermann Dörries’s well-known article. There he divides his quoted sources into two main groups: “Zetemata-Literatur” and “Eisagogische Erotapokriseis” 5. Initially, I found this classification provisional and insufficient, but I subsequently became convinced of its relevance after having arrived at the same conclusion myself following my own study of the sources. It is my grounds for this that I would like to expound in the present article. It is only logical to begin with data gleaned from the prefaces or prologues of certain anthologies of erotapokriseis. Although few sources contain προοίμια, it is notable that almost all follow a common pattern and contain numerous lexical and conceptual intersections. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in Quaestiones Euangelicae ad Marinum that in his previous two volumes of “problems and solutions of difficult points” (ἀπορούμενα ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις) he dealt with the opening sections of the Gospels. But then he began to deal with their closing fragments, and turned his attention to those things “everyone wants to find out” (τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα). It was the will of God, working through the “injunctions” (ἐπιτάγματα) of the “most industrious” (ϕιλοπονώτατος) Marinos that “had prompted” (παρορμησάσης) Eusebius to undertake this task 6. genere letterario fino al IV sec. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 8/2 (1991) 486. “Il est clair qu’il est presque impossible d’arriver à une définition de ce genre littéraire simple et claire, qui puisse rendre compte du large éventail d’où rayonne une quantité formidable de textes disparates”, C. Zamagni, Une introduction méthodologique à la littérature patristique des questions et réponses: le cas d’Eusèbe de Césarée, in A.  Volgers/ C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question and Answer Literature in Context. Louvain 2004, 10. 4 “Up to the present day, the most commonly held definition of erotapokriseis is: ‘a literary genre, in which the author treats a subject in the form of questions and answers’”, A. Volgers, Preface, in Volgers/Zamagni (cf. n. 3). 5 H. Dörrie, H. Dörries, Erotapokriseis, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum IV (1966) 342–370. 6 R. Pearse (ed.), Eusebius of Caesarea. Gospel Problems and Solutions. Ipswich 2010, 97 (transl. D. Miller).



pavel ermilov

In his Quaestiones in Octateuchum Theodoret mentions the many “inquisitive persons” (ϕιλομαθεῖς ἄνδρες) who had already promised to resolve some problems (διαλῦσαι ζητήματα) inherent in the Sacred Scriptures. A certain Hypatios had insisted that he undertake this task (σὺ τοῦτό με πρᾶξαι παρώτρυνας). Theodoret warned that a few ill-intentioned people “inquire irreverently” (δυσσεβῶς ἐρωτῶσι). Others, on the other hand, “search because they love learning and long to find an answer to their question” (ϕιλομαθῶς ζητοῦσι καὶ ποθοῦσιν εὑρεῖν τὸ ζητούμενον). His own intention is “to provide the latter with solutions to their difficulties” (τούτοις τῶν ἐπαπορουμένων τὴν λύσιν προσοίσομεν) 7. Maximus the Confessor stated in Quaestiones ad Thalassium that he was inspired in his work by both the “request” (παραίτησις) and the “exhortation” (κέλευσις) of Thalassios, who while pouring over the Scriptures “zealously” (εὐτόνως) uncovered “many difficulties” (πολλὰ ἀπορούμενα κεϕάλαια) and asked him for answers (ζητῶν ἑκάστου κεϕαλαίου τὴν ἀπόκρισιν) 8. Photios in his Amphilochia wrote that it was only as a gesture of respect to the sincere “diligence” (σπουδή) of Amphilochius which forced him to comply with the “request” (αἴτησιν) of the latter and to deal with the “multitude of problems” (πλῆθος ζητημάτων) which had been addressed to him. Many of these “puzzling questions” (ἀπορημάτων) had by that time been “solved” (ἐπιλέλυται) either by Photios himself or by other authors. Amphilochius had already proposed certain “questions” (ἐρωτήματα) by word of mouth and Photios had resolved these “difficulties” (τὸ ἄπορον) in his presence. Later authors also followed this scheme. If we turn our attention to the preface of the Solutiones quaestionum Georgii Drazini by Joasaph of Ephesus (15th c.) it is apparent that a certain person is again always proposing various “problems” to Joasaph and that this is what prompts him to finally decide to “solve” them. Again it is “diligence” (σπουδή and προθυμία) that is praised and a “desire for learning” (ϕιλομαθία) that is welcomed 9. John Argyropoulos (15th  c.), in his Responsa ad J. Petruccione (ed.), Theodoret of Cyrus. The Questions on the Octateuch, I. Washington 1997, 2–5 (transl. R. Hill). 8 Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, CCSG, 7. Turnhout 1980, 16–48. 9 “Ἀποδέχομαί σε τῆς σπουδῆς καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ καλὰ προθυμίας, οὐδέποτε γὰρ παύῃ ἐρωτῶν ἡμᾶς καὶ ζητήματα προβαλλόμενος, ἅπερ τῶν ἄλλων σοι τῶν ἐνταῦθα ὁμοτίμων οὐδενὶ ἐρωτῆσαί ποτε ἐπῆλθε. τοῦτο δέ σοι μαρτυρεῖ πολλὴν τὴν περὶ τὰ θεῖα σπουδὴν καὶ τὸ βούλεσθαι πολυμαθῆ γενέσθαι. ἔσο ϕιλομαθής· διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ μετὰ προθυμίας πρὸς τὰς λύσεις τῶν ἐρωτημάτων διανέστην καὶ ἤδη γράϕω σοι τὰ κεχαρισμένα” (A. I. Alma7



QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

quaestiones, noted that one erudite and wise man “became puzzled” (ἠπόρηται) and asked him to solve some “difficulties” (τὰ ἀπορούμενα). This he accomplished thoroughly, leaving no place for further perplexity (τὰ ἀμϕιβαλλόμενα πάνυ ἀκριβῶς ἐλέλυτο, μηδενὸς ἀπορίας τόπου καταλειϕθέντος) 10. In all these situations, the authors define the “questions” (ἐρωτήσεις) they are dealing with as “difficulties” (ἀπορίαι) and “problems” (ζητήματα), and speak of answering these questions as “solving” them (λύειν). The use of such terminology takes on a specialized or even technical meaning and further suggests that these Byzantine authors spoke of their works written in the form of questions and answers as ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις or at least they wished to define them in this way. As proof, we have the titles of various anthologies of questions and answers. I am only aware of a very few sources which bear the “neutral” title of ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις or its variants: ἐρωταποκρίσεις, ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀνταποκρίσεις, ἀποκρίσεις πρὸς ἐρωτήσεις, ἀποκρίσεις πρὸς ἐπερωτήσεις, ἐρωτήσεις, ἐρωτήματα, πεύσεις. The majority of sources bear more specific titles with complete indications of the problematic nature of the questions and the corresponding nature of the answers. Among these are the following: ἐρωτήσεις καὶ λύσεις, ἀποκρίσεις περὶ ζητημάτων, ζητήματα, εἰς τὰ ζητούμενα, ζητημάτων ἐπίλυσιν, ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις, εἰς τὰ ἄπορα, περὶ ἀπορῶν, περὶ ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων, ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις, ἀπορίαι καὶ ἐπιλύσεις, λύσεις ἀποριῶν, λύσεις ἀποριῶν καὶ ζητημάτων, λύσεις διαϕόρων κεϕαλαίων, συναγωγὴ ἀποριῶν καὶ ἐπιλύσεων, etc. The identification of erotapokriseis by means of ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις, however, gives us no reason to jump to conclusions regarding the revival of a more ancient, classical genre in Byzantine literature. Very few sources, such as those already cited by Eusebius or the Collectio difficultatum by Hesichius of Jerusalem, can to a certain extant be traced to the aporiai of the Aristotelian model. Most of these texts, on the contrary, have nothing in common with those of the antique times. Obviously, zov, Канонические ответы Иоасафа, митрополита Ефесского (Малоизвестный памятник права Греческой Церкви XV  в.) [Kanoničeskie otvety Ioasafa, mitropolita Efesskogo (Maloizvestnij pamyatnik prava Grečeskoj Cerkvi XV v.)]. Odessa 1903, 14–15). An almost identical prologue is found in an anonymous collection of questions and answers from the Laurentianus 59.13 and Dresdensis A 187. The prologue was published by G. Heinrici, Griechisch-Byzantinische Gesprächsbücher und Verwandtes aus Sammelhandschriften, in Abhandlungen der Philologisch-Historischen Klasse der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 28. 8. Leipzig 1911, 76. 10 Sp.  P.  Lampros, Ἀργυροπούλεια: Ἰωάννου Ἀργυρόπουλου λόγοι, πραγματείαι, ἐπιστολαί. Athina 1910, 142–144.



pavel ermilov

these indications must be understood in a different way. One could suggest that they provide a certain definition of the substance of the text, and pinpoint the aporetic character of the questions. At the same time, however, we must be aware that often, under this makeshift cover, they contain conventional and relatively general questions. As one example, I might cite the aporiai by Mark Eugenikos (15th c.). This text, which only recently became available in a critical edition, is entitled Πρός τινα ἀπορήσαντα or Λύσεις πρός τινα ἀπορήσαντα τὰς παρούσας ἀπορίας 11 and comprises nineteen questions and answers: Ποίου σχήματος ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός; Εἷς οὐρανός ἐστιν ἢ πολλοί; Τί ἐστι οὐρανός; Τί ἐστιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς; Εἰ ὅλη ἡ θεότης κατῆλθεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὅλη ἐσαρκώθη ἐν τῇ παναγίᾳ; • Εἰ ὁ δαίμων πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κτίσεως ἦν; • Πῶς εἶπεν ὁ δαίμων πρὸς τὸν Χριστόν· ἐὰν πεσὼν προσκυνήσης μοι, δώσω σοι πάσας τὰς βασιλείας; • Ὁ παράδεισος ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστιν ἢ ἐπὶ γῆς; • Ἡ κόλασις αἰωνία ἐστὶ, ἢ οὔ; • Τὰ τετράποδα ζῶα καὶ τὰ πτηνὰ ἔχουσι κρίσιν ἢ οὔ; • Παντὸς ἐνεργουμένου ἐν τῷ σώματι ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ϕαύλου σύμβολός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ ἢ οὔ; • Ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ πόσων στοιχείων συνίσταται καὶ ποίων; • Οἱ συμβαματικοὶ θάνατοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὅρον ἔχουσι παρὰ Θεοῦ ἢ οὔ; • Οἱ ἐπερχόμενοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις σωματικοὶ πειρασμοὶ τοῦ δαίμονος εἰσὶν ἢ παρὰ Θεοῦ; • Πῶς οἱ εὐάρεστοι ἄνθρωποι τῷ Θεῷ πένονται καὶ λιμώττουσι καὶ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ εὐτυχοῦσιν; • Μετὰ τὴν συντέλειαν τοῦ αἰῶνος τί γενήσεται ὁ κόσμος οὗτος καὶ ὁ οὐρανός; • Μετὰ τοὺς ἑπτὰ αἰῶνας ἔστι τέλος τοῦ κόσμου ἢ οὔ; • Πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος ποῖον ἐστὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἰσχυρότερον; • Αἱ ψυχαὶ τῶν δικαίων καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως ἐπίστανται τὴν διαδεξομένην αὐτὰς κατάστασιν ἢ οὔ; • • • • •

P. Ermilov, Le ‘inedite’ domande-risposte di Marco di Efeso. Miscellanea graecolatina 1 (2013) 269-281. 11



QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

Although they are not aporetic in content, these questions are nevertheless labeled as ἀπορίαι, showing that this word was not always used in a specific sense. Perhaps Byzantine authors felt justified to use it as a type of marker distinguishing their works from other sources that also employed the question-and-answer pattern, but for other purposes. In fact, these observations derive from a reading of Photios. In his Bibliotheca, he mentions several sources that were written in the form of questions and answers. What captures our attention, however, is that Photios, who was expert in matters of style and literary art, clearly distinguished those texts which belonged to the ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις, from those which were “arranged in the question-and-answer form” (λόγος εἰς ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ἐσχηματισμένος). Theodoret’s Quaestiones in Octateuchum are described as ἐξηγήσεις εἰς τὴν Ὀκτάτευχον, although they are arranged as a sequence of difficulties and solutions (κατὰ τὸ ἀπορούμενον καὶ ἐπιλυόμενον τὸ βιβλίον διατετυπῶσθαι) (cod.  204). Whilst ps.-Justin’s Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos are ἀποριῶν ἐπιλύσεις (cod.  125); the Quaestiones et responsiones by ps.-Caesarius on the contrary are described as: εἰς ἐρωτήσεις δὲ καὶ ἀποκρίσεις μεθ’ ὑποβολῆς προσώπων τὸ τοῦ λόγου σχῆμα πεποίηται (cod. 210). Basilios’ of Caesarea Asceticon (Regulae) is ὅρους τινὰς ἀσκητικοὺς ὡς ἐν ἐρωτήσει καὶ ἀποκρίσει προηγμένους (cod.  191). De baptismate by Mark the  Monk is λόγος εἰς τύπον ἐρωτήσεως καὶ ἀποκρίσεως ἐσχηματισμένος (cod. 200). While Photios speaks of Maximus’ Quaestiones ad Thalassium as ἀπορημάτων λύσεις (cod.  192), the Liber asceticus by the same author is described as: λόγος ἀσκητικὸς εἰς πεῦσιν ἐσχηματισμένος καὶ ἀπόκρισιν (cod. 193). The noted distinctions by Photios would seem to refer more specifically to the titles of the sources, which contain an indication of the way the texts are designed: κατ’ ἐρώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν. Basilios’ Asceticon is entitled ὅροι κατ’ ἐρώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν and Maximus the Confessor’s Liber asceticus bears the title: λόγος ἀσκητικὸς κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν. The Quaestiones of ps.-Caesarius are neutrally entitled: πεύσεις, although in the Slavic tradition they appear under the new title: “Истолкованiе” (= ἐξήγησις) 12. The De baptismate by Mark the Monk bears various titles in manuscripts, but is best represented by the simple title: περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος. Yet it is the Syriac tradition that provides the title we have been seeking all along: De baptismo in quaestione et in responsione. Cf. Y. Miltenov, Диалозите на Псевдо-Кесарий в славянската ръкописна традиция. Sofia 2006. 12



pavel ermilov

Having taken account of all this, we may conclude that in Byzantine literature there existed a clear but internal differentiation of erotapokriseis. Moreover, it is apparent how Photios juxtaposed two different types of erotapokriseis and that for him the first type is not a part of the question-and-answer literature but is erotapokriseis par excellence, since the texts are, to use Photios’ terminology, only arranged in a question-and-answer form. This group was spotlighted by means of a specific technical lexicon, which always pointed out the problematic nature of the questions (ἀπορίαι, ζητήματα, ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις). The titles of texts reflect this throughout the whole Byzantine period, beginning with the earliest sources and continuing through the latest ones. Further detection of the specific features of Byzantine question-and-answer literature should naturally be based on an examination of the sources belonging to the group of, what we would call, classic erotapokriseis. However, it is all too clear that, since we are dealing with a large variety of sources, detecting a common model even within this group is almost impossible. After having established the existence of one type of source material, we may continue on to an examination of the other group of erotapokriseis described by Photios. In these texts, the question-and-answer form has but secondary significance. It does not have the same purpose as in the case of aporiai. Rather, it is employed in order to arrange a text better and has to do with the structuring and perception of the text itself. These functions are inherent to the question-and-answer form and they precipitated the wide employment of this rhetorical strategy in didactic practice. But the chief distinction between aporiai and this source type is probably that these other sources are represented by single texts in which separate questions and answers form components of the entire narration. In the case of aporiai, on the other hand, each question-and-answer constitutes a self-dependent unit, which, depending on the circumstances, may be unrelated to both the previous and subsequent blocks of text. Besides the sources Photios mentions, other examples of this type are: the Catechesis and the Visio by Diadochus of Photike, the Quaestiones et responsa senum de tentationibus (CPG 5564) 13, the Oratio 18 by Isaac the Syrian, as well as a group of erotapokriseis which are usually labeled as Quaestiones de fide 14. These texts, in their basic form, are rather similar to dialogues but 13 J.-C. Guy, Un dialogue monastique inédit. Revue d’ascétique et de mystique 33 (1957) 177–182. 14 Explicatio fidei orthodoxae (CPG 6969); ps.-Athanasius, Quaestiones aliae (CPG 2261); Gennadius Scholarius, Expositio brevis fidei christianae, etc. Cf. also ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἔκθεσις πίστεως σύντομος, A. Mai (ed.), Scriptorum veterum nova col-



QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

differ substantially in their lack of description of the conversational situation as well as of the interlocutors’ actions and emotions, though certain works do contain phrases introducing each question and answer 15. We should finally be aware of the indistinct character of the boundary between these two groups of erotapokriseis. The Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem by ps.-Athanasius seems to be a typical collection of aporiai, as indicated by its title 16. But John of Damascus quoted from this source in his Contra imaginum calumniatores III 59 and described it as follows: τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀθανασίου ἐκ τῶν γραϕέντων ἑκατὸν κεϕαλαίων πρὸς Ἀντίοχον τὸν ἄρχοντα κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν 17. Moreover, the text of the Quaestiones shows traces of clear planning from within 18 and demonstrates that, at least at first, it was not a mere collection of separate solutions, but rather a consistent, single, and well planned work. This division of Byzantine question-and-answer literature into two parts is very important for its further study, but this source classification is certainly not all-inclusive. For example, a common practice in Byzantine literature was the incorporation of erotapokriseis within a text 19. Such examples cannot constitute a third group of our typology. Still less can they represent a real contrast to the other two groups, since they lack an independent character and simply form a section of another larger text. They nevertheless deserve some attention. lectio e Vaticanis codicibus. Vol. VIII. Romae 1833, 135–137 and S. Lilla, Un opuscolo sulla teologia trinitaria in quattro codici Vaticani. Vetera Christianorum 10 (1973) 52–54. 15 Cf., e.g., Maximus Confessor, Liber Asceticus: “Ὁ ἀδελϕὸς ἠρώτησε τὸν γέροντα – Ὁ γέρων ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε”. Another example from Vindobonensis theol. gr. 153, ff. 294v–297v: Ἐξήγησις Βαρνάβα μοναχοῦ καὶ ἀναχωρητοῦ περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Questions and answers are introduced here in the following way: Ἐρώτησις. Ἠρώτησάν τινες ἐκ τῆς μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Εὐθυμίου ἀδελϕοὶ τὸν μοναχὸν Βαρνάβαν τὸν ἀναχωρητὴν εἰ ἀληθῶς ὁ Κύριος εἰργάζετο ὡς κοινὸς ἄνθρωπος πρὸς τῆς ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ὅτε ἦν εἰς Ναζαρὲτ οὗ ἦν τεθραμμένος. Ἀπόκρισις. Καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Βαρνάβας καὶ εἶπεν… Ἐρώτησις. Πάλιν λέγει ὁ πρεσβύτερος μονῆς τῶν Κελλίων πρὸς τὸν μοναχὸν Βαρνάβαν… Ἀπόκρισις. Ἀπεκρίθη ὁ μοναχός…, etc. 16 Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀθανασίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας πρὸς Ἀντίοχον ἄρχοντα περὶ πλείστων καὶ ἀναγκαίων ζητημάτων, τῶν ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραϕαῖς ἀπορουμένων καὶ παρὰ πᾶσι χριστιανοῖς γινώσκεσθαι ὀϕειλομένων. 17 B. Kotter (ed.), Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, III. Berlin 1975, 69. 18 Cf. Qu. 16: Ἀκόλουθον ἡγούμεθα μετὰ τὸν περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀγγέλων λόγον, τρίτον τὸν περὶ ψυχῶν λοιπὸν λόγον εἰς μέσον προσενεχθῆναι… 19 Ps.-Makarios, Sermones 2, 4, 6, Marcus Eremitus, Disputatio cum causidico and De temperantia, Anastasius Sinaita, Viae dux II, 2, Joannes Damascenus, De fide contra Nestorianos, Symeon Novus Theologus, De tribus modis orationis, Leo mtr Russiae, De azymis, Ioseph Bryennius, De incarnatione, etc.



pavel ermilov

There is a further case that should be singled out on the basis of other criteria. I am referring to the quite widespread practice of reworking normal texts into a question-and-answer format 20. The key feature of these texts is that they are not original and can therefore scarcely be considered on a par with sources that were originally composed in a question-andanswer format. I will cite several examples in illustration of this practice. Erotapokriseis was employed in order to better commit to memory various pieces of information. This was a common practice of the schools. Therefore, we often encounter anthologies of various definitions existing in both formats: Ps.-Athanasius, Liber de definitionibus

Ambrosianus gr. 520, f. 1

Ἄτρεπτόν ἐστι τὸ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχον.

Ἐρώτησις. Τί ἐστὶν ἄτρεπτον; Ἀπόκρισις. Ἄτρεπτόν ἐστι τὸ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχον καὶ μηδέποτε ἐξιστάμενον τοῦ εἶναι.

Φυσικόν ἐστι τὸ ἐν τῇ ϕύσει κείμενον, ἢ τὸ ἀληθῶς ἀληθὲς γνωριζόμενον.

Ἐρώτησις. Τί ἐστὶ ϕυσικόν; Ἀπόκρισις. Φυσικὸν ἐστὶ ἢ τὸ ἐν ϕύσει κείμενον ἢ τὸ κατὰ κοινὴν καὶ καθολικὴν συνήθειαν γινόμενον, τὸ ἀληθὲς ἀληθῶς γνωριζόμενον.

Παρὰ ϕύσιν ἐστὶν, ὃ ὁ Θεὸς οὐχ οὕτω πεποίηκεν, ἢ ὅπερ ὅλως οὐ πεποίηκεν, οἷόν ἐστιν ἡ ἁμαρτία καὶ ὁ θάνατος,

Ἐρώτησις. Τί ἐστὶ παρὰ ϕύσιν; Ἀπόκρισις. Παρὰ ϕύσιν ἐστὶ ὃ ὁ Θεὸς οὐχ’ οὕτω πεποίηκεν ἢ ὅπερ ὅλως οὐ πεποίηκεν, οἷόν ἐστι ἁμαρτία καὶ ὁ θάνατος.

ὑπὲρ ϕύσιν ἡ παρθενία,

Ἐρώτησις. Τί ὑπὲρ ϕύσιν; Ἀπόκρισις. Ὑπὲρ ϕύσιν ἐστὶ τοῦ κρείττονος οὗ γέγονε μεταποιούμενον.

20 Transferring a text into the question-and-answer form was in fact a common practice of not only the Byzantine tradition. It was used in both the Latin and the nonByzantine Eastern Christian traditions as well. Cf. A. Andrés Sanz, Una reelaboración de textos isidorianos en forma de «interrogationes et responsiones». Helmantica 172 (2006) 29–48; A.  Mingana, Synopsis of Christian Doctrine in the Fourth Century According to Theodore of Mopsuestia. Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 5 (1919) 296–316.



QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

καὶ κατὰ ϕύσιν μὲν ἔστιν ὁ γάμος·

Ἐρώτησις. Τί κατὰ ϕύσιν; Ἀπόκρισις. Καὶ κατὰ ϕύσιν μὲν ὁ γάμος ἐστίν.

παρὰ ϕύσιν ἡ πορνεία...

Ἐρώτησις. Τί παρά ϕύσιν; Ἀπόκρισις. Παρὰ ϕύσιν δὲ ἡ πορνεία.

Another example of the same case: Joannes Damascenus, De partibus animae (fragmentum) [Dub.] (PG 95, 229–232) Cf. Ambrosianus gr. 735, f.  34v– 35

Ambrosianus gr. 506, f. 98

Τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς μέρη τρία λέγεται – λογιστικόν, θυμικὸν καὶ ἐπιθυμητικόν.

Ἐρώτησις. Πόσα εἰσὶν τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς; Ἀπόκρισις. Τρισσόν ἐστιν ἐστὶν τὸ παθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος – θυμικόν, ἐπιθυμητικὸν καὶ λογιστικόν.

Ἀρεταῖς δὲ τέσσαρσι τεθρόνισται ὁ ἱερώτατος νοῦς – ϕρονήσει, ἀνδρείᾳ, δικαιοσύνῃ, σωϕροσύνῃ.

Ἐρώτησις. Πόσαι εἰσὶν ἀρεταὶ τῆς ψυχῆς; Ἀπόκρισις. Τέσσαρές εἰσιν ἀρεταὶ τῆς ψυχῆς – ϕρόνησις, δικαιοσύνη, ἀνδρεία καὶ σωϕροσύνη.

Τέσσαρά ἐστι στοιχεῖα, ἔχει δὲ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ποιότητας δύο. τὸ μὲν πῦρ θερμὸν καὶ ξηρόν, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ ὑγρὸν καὶ ψυχρόν, ὁ ἀὴρ θερμὸς καὶ ὑγρός, ἡ γῆ ξηρὰ καὶ ψυχρά.

Ἐρώτησις. Πόσα εἰσὶν τοῦ κόσμου στοιχεῖα; Ἀπόκρισις. Τέσσαρα – πῦρ, καὶ τὸ μὲν πῦρ ξηρὸν καὶ θερμόν. ἀήρ, θερμὸς καὶ ὑγρός. ὕδωρ, ψυχρὸν καὶ ὑγρόν. γῆ, ξηρὰ καὶ ψυχρά.

Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ γινόμενα γίνεται τὰ μὲν κατ’ εὐδοκίαν, τὰ δὲ κατ’ οἰκονομίαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ συγχώρησιν.

Ἐρώτησις. Ὅτι τὰ γινόμενα γίνεται καὶ πῶς γίνονται; Ἀπόκρισις. Τὰ μὲν κατ’ εὐδοκίαν, τὰ δὲ κατ’ οἰκονομίαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ παραχώρησιν.

Αἰσθήσεις εἰσὶ πέντε – ὄψις, ἀκοή, ὄσϕρησις, γεῦσις, ἁφή.

Ἐρώτησις. Πόσαις αἰσθήσεις εἰσὶν ἐν ἡμῖν; Ἀπόκρισις. Πέντε – ὄψις, ἀκοή, ὄσϕρησις, γεῦσις καὶ ἁφή.



pavel ermilov

Τρισσὸς ὁ νόμος – ϕυσικός, γραπτὸς, καὶ ὁ ἐν χάριτι πνευματικός.

Ἐρώτησις. Πόσος ὁ νόμος; Ἀπόκρισις. Τρισσὸς – ϕυσικός, γραπτὸς καὶ ἐν χάριτι πνευματικός.

Τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς δυνάμεις εἰσὶ πέντε – νοῦς, δόξα, διάνοια, ϕαντασία, αἴσθησις.

Ἐρώτησις. Πόσαι εἰσὶν τῆς ψυχῆς αἱ δυνάμεῖς; Ἀπόκρισις. Πέντε – νοῦς, διάνοια, δόξα, ϕαντασία καὶ αἴσθησις.

The question-and-answer format was also employed in other cases for improving the arrangement of a text: Quaestiones in Evangelia, PG 28, 700–701

J.   A.  Cramer (ed.), Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, t. 1. Oxonii 1844, 11

Ἐρώτησις.  “Ὤϕθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος Κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ λέγων”.  Διὰ τί μὴ ϕανερῶς ϕαίνεται ὁ ἄγγελος τῷ Ἰωσὴϕ, καθάπερ τοῖς ποιμέσι καὶ τῷ Ζαχαρίᾳ; Ἀπόκρησις. Ὅτι σϕόδρα πιστὸς ἦν ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ οὐ δεόμενος τῆς τοιαύτης ὄψεως. Ἐρώτησις. “Μὴ ϕοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου”.  Διὰ τί εἶπε· “Μὴ ϕοβηθῇς”; Ἀπόκρησις. Δεικνὺς αὐτὸν δεδοικότα μὴ προσκρούσῃ τῷ Θεῷ, ὡς μοιχαλίδα ἔχων. Ἐρώτησις. Διὰ τί εἶπε “τὴν γυναῖκά σου”; Ἀπόκρησις. Ὡς μὴ διεϕθαρμένης αὐτῆς οὔσης. καλεῖ δὲ αὐτὴν γυναῖκα ἀπὸ τῆς μνηστείας· ὥσπερ εἰώθαμεν γαμβροὺς λέγειν καὶ προγάμους τοὺς μνηστῆρας.

[Text] Ἰωσὴϕ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν παραδειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρα ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. [Scholium] … Διὰ τί δὲ μὴ ϕανερῶς αὐτῷ ϕαίνεται ὁ ἄγγελος, καθάπερ τοῖς ποιμέσι; ὅτι σϕόδρα πιστὸς ἦν καὶ οὐ δεόμενος τοιαύτης ὄψεως. ἕνεκεν δέ τίνος εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος “Ἰωσὴϕ υἱὸς Δαβίδ”; ἀναμνῆσαι αὐτὸν βουλόμενος τοῦ Δαβὶδ ὅθεν ὁ Χριστὸς ἔμελλεν τίκτεσθαι· τὸ δὲ “μὴ ϕοβηθῇς” προσέθηκεν, δεικνὺς αὐτὸν δεδοικότα, μὴ προσκρούσῃ τῷ Θεῷ, ὡς μοιχαλίδα ἔχων· “τὴν γυναῖκά σου” δὲ εἶπεν, ὡς μὴ ἐϕθαρμένης· καλεῖ δὲ γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς μνηστείας· ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰώθαμεν γαμβροὺς λέγειν, καὶ πρὸ τοῦ γάμου τοὺς μνηστῆρας…

More often this practice occurs in biblical commentaries where works of exegesis attributed to celebrated authors are transposed into a



QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

question-and-answer format. One example is from the Escorialensis gr. 406, f. 15 and 25rv:  Ἐρώτησις. Ποῖα εἰσὶν τὰ ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα τοῦ Κάϊν· τοῦτ’ ἐστι διὰ τὶ ἑπτὰ ἐκδικήσεις ζητητέον καὶ διὰ τὶ ἑπτὰ ὑπὲρ ἐνὸς ϕόνου; Ἀπόκρισις. Ἐν μὲν τοῖς παρ’ αὐτοῦ Κάϊν τετολμημένοις, πρῶτον ἁμάρτημα, ϕθόνος, ἐπὶ τῇ προτιμήσει τοῦ Ἄβελ. Δεύτερον ὁ δόλος μεθ’ οὗ διελέχθη τῷ ἀδελϕῷ εἰπών· “Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον”. Τρίτον, ϕόνος. Τέταρτον προσθήκη τοῦ κακοῦ, ὅτι καὶ ἀδελϕοῦ ϕόνος μείζων ἡ ἐπίτασις. ὅτι πρῶτος ϕονεὺς ὁ Κάϊν πονηρὸν ὑπόδειγμα τῷ βίῳ καταλιπών. Ἕκτον ἀδίκημα, ὅτι γονεῦσιν πένθος ἐνεποίησεν. Ἕβδομον, ὅτι Θεὸν ἐψεύσατο. Ἐρωτηθεὶς γὰρ, “Ποῦ Ἄβελ ὁ ἀδελϕός σου;” εἴπεν, “Οὐκ οἶδα”20.

Ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Κάϊν τετολμημένοις, πρῶτον ἁμάρτημα ϕθόνος ἐπὶ τῇ προτιμήσει τοῦ Ἄβελ. Δεύτερον δόλος μεθ’ οὗ διελέχθη τῷ ἀδελϕῷ, εἰπών· “Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον”. Τρίτον ϕόνος, προσθήκη τοῦ κακοῦ. Τέταρτον, ὅτι καὶ ἀδελϕοῦ ϕόνος, μείζων ἡ ἐπίτασις. Πέμπτον, ὅτι καὶ πρῶτος ϕονεὺς, ὁ Κάϊν πονηρὸν ὑπόδειγμα τῷ βίῳ καταλιπών. Ἕκτον ἀδίκημα, ὅτι γονεῦσιν πένθος ἐνεποίησεν. Ἕβδομον, ὅτι Θεὸν ἐψεύσατο. Ἐρωτηθεὶς γὰρ, “Ποῦ Ἄβελ ὁ ἀδελϕός σου;” εἴπεν, “Οὐκ οἶδα” (Basilius Caesariensis, Ep. 260: Ad Optimum episcopum, PG 32, 957).

Ἐρώτησις. Τὶ δήποτε τοὺς λευΐτας ὁ Θεὸς τῶν τριχῶν γυμνωθῆναι προσέταξεν; Ἀπόκρισις. Αἰνίττεται δὲ ἡ τριχῶν ἀϕαίρεσις τὴν τοῦ νοῦ κάθαρσιν, ἣν ἐϕ’ ἡμῖν ὁ θεῖός τε καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πάσαν μάχαιραν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος ἐργάσατο, οὗ πρόῤῥιζον ὥσπερ τὴν εἰς ἐμϕύτους ἐπιθυμίας ἀναβοθρεύων κίνησιν. τετήρηται γὰρ τὸ τελείως ἅγιον εἰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰῶνα, κατανεκροῖ δὲ μᾶλλον καταϕυομένην καὶ ἀνίσχουσαν ἡμῖν.

…Οὐκοῦν ἡ τριχῶν ἀϕαίρεσις τὴν νοῦ κάθαρσιν ὑπαινίττεται, ἣν ἂν ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ θεῖός τε καὶ τομώτερος ἐργάζεται τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος… πρόῤῥιζον ὥσπερ, τὴν ὡς ἔμϕυτον ἐπιθυμίας οὐκ ἀναβοθρεύει κίνησιν τετήρηται γὰρ τὸ τέλειον ἅγιον εἰς αἰῶνα τὸν μέλλοντα, κατανεκροῖ δὲ μᾶλλον ἀναϕυομένην καὶ ἀνίσχουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν… (Cyrillus Alexandrinus, De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate, PG 68, 777).

21 Compare also Quaestiones in Scripturam sacram 62, PG 28, 737: Ἐρώτησις. Τί λέγει ὅτι “πᾶς ὁ ἀποκτείνας Κάϊν ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα παραλύσει”; – Ἀπόκρισις. Τοῖς παρ’ αὐτοῦ Κάϊν τετολμημένοις πρῶτον ἁμάρτημα ϕθόνος...



pavel ermilov

We can find another interesting example in the Vindobonensis theol. gr. 153, f. 263r–287v: Ἑρμηνεία σύντομος τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ νέας διαθήκης Θεοδωρίτου καὶ ἄλλων διαϕόρων πατέρων. This text shows the same practice of reworking sources together with some abridged versions of Theodoret’s Quaestiones in Octateuchum. [f. 263v–264: Qu. 7, Βασιλείου]

[Basilius Caesariensis, Homiliae in hexaemeron I 7–8].

Ἐρώτησις. Ποῖον γέγονε πρῶτον ὁ οὐρανὸς ἢ ἡ γῆ; Ἀπόκρισις. Τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς γενέσεως ἀποδοὺς· τὴν δὲ γῆν, δευτερεύειν· πάντως δὲ καὶ εἴ τι τούτων μέσον συναπεγενήθη τοῖς πέρασιν· ὥστε κἂν μηδὲν εἴπῃ περὶ τῶν στοιχείων· πυρὸς, ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος· ἀλλὰ σὺ νόει ὅτι πάντα μέμικται· ἐκ λίθου μὲν πῦρ ἐξάλλεται καὶ ἐκ σιδήρου· ἐν ταῖς παρατρίψεσιν ἀπολάμπει· καὶ ὁ Ἡσαΐας τὴν ϕύσιν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγει· ὁ στερεώσας τὸν οὐρανὸν, ὡσεί καπνὸν· τουτέστι λεπτὴν ϕύσιν οὐσιώσας· καὶ τὸ σχῆμα λέγει· ὁ στήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ καμάραν.

Ἐκ δύο τῶν ἄκρων τοῦ παντὸς τὴν ὕπαρξιν παρῃνίξατο, τῷ μὲν οὐρανῷ τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς γενέσεως ἀποδοὺς, τὴν δὲ γῆν δευτερεύειν ϕάμενος τῇ ὑπάρξει. Πάντως δὲ καὶ εἴ τι τούτων μέσον, συναπεγενήθη τοῖς πέρασιν. Ὥστε κἂν μηδὲν εἴπῃ περὶ τῶν στοιχείων, πυρὸς, καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ ἀέρος, ἀλλὰ σὺ τῇ παρὰ σαυτοῦ συνέσει νόει, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι πάντα ἐν πᾶσι μέμικται, καὶ ἐν γῇ εὑρήσεις καὶ ὕδωρ, καὶ ἀέρα, καὶ πῦρ, εἴγε ἐκ λίθων μὲν πῦρ ἐξάλλεται, ἐκ σιδήρου δὲ, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπὸ γῆς ἔχει τὴν γένεσιν, πῦρ ἄϕθονον ἐν ταῖς παρατρίψεσι πέϕυκεν ἀπολάμπειν… Ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀρκούμεθα τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Ἡσαΐου εἰρημένοις· ὃς ἐν ἰδιωτικοῖς ῥήμασιν ἱκανὴν ἡμῖν τῆς ϕύσεως αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐνεποίησεν, εἰπών· Ὁ στερεώσας τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ καπνόν· τουτέστι, λεπτὴν ϕύσιν καὶ οὐ στερεὰν οὐδὲ παχεῖαν εἰς τὴν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ σύστασιν οὐσιώσας. Καὶ περὶ τοῦ σχήματος δὲ ἱκανὰ ἡμῖν τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰπόντος ἐν δοξολογίᾳ Θεοῦ· Ὁ στήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ καμάραν.



QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

In several manuscripts, a selection from the epistles of Isidore of Pelusium are arranged in a question-and-answer format: Ἰσιδώρου τοῦ Πηλουσιώτου ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ὠϕέλιμαι. Ἰσιδώρου τοῦ Πηλουσιώτου ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ὠϕέλιμαι (Oxford, Bodleianus Cromwell 7, f. 582–607v)

Ἰσιδώρου ἐπιστολαί (PG 78)

Ἐρώτησις. Τί δήποτε τῷ λεπρῷ ὁ Κύριος προσέταξεν. ἄπελθε προσάγαγε τὸ δῶρον τῷ ἱερεῖ; Ἀπόκρισις. Ἵνα δειχθῆ τῶν δύο διαθηκῶν ἡ ὁμόνοια καὶ ὅτι ὁ νῦν τὴν ἴασιν ἐργασάμενος αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ καὶ τὸν νόμον θέμενος.

Ep. 146: Καλῶς ἐρευνᾷς τὰς γραϕὰς ὁ τῶν τιμίων ἔμπορος μαργαριτῶν. καὶ συντόμως ἐρῶ ὃ ζητεῖς. τούτου χάριν τὸ δῶρον προσενεγκεῖν ὁ λεπρὸς ἐκελεύετο, ὅπερ ὁ νόμος προσέταξεν ἵνα δειχθῇ τῶν δύο διαθηκῶν ἡ ὁμόνοια καὶ ὅτι ὁ νῦν τὴν ἴασιν ἐργασάμενος, αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ καὶ τὸν νόμον ἐνθέμενος.

Ἐρώτησις. Τί σημαίνει. εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλθητε καὶ εἰς πόλιν Σαμαρειτῶν μὴ εἰσέλθητε; Ἀπόκρισις. Τὸ μὴ ϕρονεῖν ὡσαύτως καὶ μὴ συνελθεῖν αὐτοῖς εἰς δυσσέβειαν καὶ πονηρίαν.

Ep. 153: Τὸ εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπελθεῖν, μὴ συνελθεῖν αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ϕρόνημα, ὡσαύτως καὶ εἰς πόλιν Σαμαρειτῶν μὴ εἰσελθεῖν, οὐχὶ τῆς συνοικήσεως ἀπεχόμενον, ἀλλὰ τῆς δυσσεβείας καὶ πονηρίας μὴ ἐϕαπτόμενον.

Ἐρώτησις. Τί αἱ ἀκρίδες καὶ τὸ μέλι τὸ ἄγριον ἃ ἤσθιεν Ἰωάννης; Ἀπόκρισις. Ἀκρέμονες βοτανῶν καὶ μέλι πικρότατον ἀπὸ ἀγρίων μελισσῶν γινόμενον

Ep. 132: Αἱ ἀκρίδες αἷς Ἰωάννης ἐτρέϕετο οὐ ζῶά εἰσιν ὥς τινες οἴονται ἀμαθῶς κανθάροις ἀπεοικότα. μὴ γένοιτο. ἀλλ’ ἀκρέμονες βοτανῶν ἢ ϕυτῶν. οὔτε δὲ πόα τίς ἐστι πάλιν τὸ μέλι τὸ ἄγριον, ἀλλὰ μέλι ὄρειον ὑπὸ μελισσῶν ἀγρίων γινόμενον, πικρότατον ὂν καὶ πάσῃ γεύσει πολέμιον. δι’ ὧν τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν κάκωσιν ἐπεδείκνυτο Ἰωάννης, οὐκ ἐνδείᾳ μόνῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τραχύτητι πᾶσαν ὄρεξιν πικραίνων τοῦ σώματος.



τοῦ

Πηλουσιώτου

pavel ermilov

Further examination of all these examples is vital for a deeper understanding of Byzantine question-and-answer literature in all its complexity. Returning to our starting point, I believe that the terminology so far used is inaccurate, since first and foremost it is necessary to establish a preliminary clarification defining the groups of sources which are to be the object of our study. Certainly the two types of sources which we have singled out are radically different. We have already noted how Photios even opposed one to the other. According to him, none of the cited texts are ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις. They are defined not by their form, but rather by their content: λύσεις ἀποριῶν, ὅροι, ἐξηγήσεις or λόγος. With this in mind, it is possible to deduce that ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις are not a case of ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις, but on the contrary ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις are simply a convenient rhetorical strategy for arranging the ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις. According to Photios, the question-and-answer format is proper to the external characteristics of a text, to its σχῆμα; and if the question-and-answer form is merely a type of rhetorical strategy uniting unrelated texts, all attempts to uncover generic features applicable to the entire text corpus of erotapokriseis are doomed to fail. Likewise, a similar fate threatens all such complete classification systems of question-and-answer literature 22. I am sure that if we differentiate and describe the various types of erotapokriseis, they will not constitute a complete classification of sources simply because these types will continue to intersect with each other. Other sources will not fit into any type whatsoever. Texts of entirely different content, including both sophisticated and perfectly conceived anthologies of solutions and trivial mnemonic tests, worthless in themselves, were all composed in one and the same format. It would certainly be wrong to treat all these sources equally. All this suggests that contemporary research errs in positing a “generic character” of erotapokriseis, a hypothesis which seems rather dubious at best; it would be more productive to develop the idea that this rhetorical strategy was adopted by different genres and for different purposes as in the case of ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις. Dr. Pavel Ermilov, St Tikhon’s University, Moscow [email protected] To be honest I am aware of only one classification suggested by A. Miltenova where erotapokriseis are divided into five groups: exegetical and dogmatical, ascetic, canonical, polemical and catechetical (А.  Miltenova, Erotapokriseis. Съчиненията от кратки въпроси и отговори в старобългарската литература. Sofia 2004, 8–12). 22



QUESTION-AND-ANSWER LITERATURE

Abstract Towards a Classification of Sources in the Byzantine Question-andAnswer Literature It is well-known that Byzantine question-and-answer literature does not represent a homogeneous corpus of texts. This necessitates a differentiated approach to the subject. Quite often, however, the treatment of general questions lacks consideration for this complexity of sources, a situation that must be redressed from a methodological point of view. The article is devoted to the search for the typology of Byzantine erotapokriseis. H. Dörries’ suggested division of Byzantine questions and answers into two types is confirmed when addressing the sources. Although this classification is very general, it is highly useful for the modern research. The author examines prologues of various collections of questions and answers and how Photios describes various erotapokriseis in his Bibliotheca. Two groups of sources are singled out: solutions to difficulties arranged as a series of separate units “question–answer” and works where the whole set of questions and answers form a single narration. In addition, two more cases are considered in the article: the incorporation of questions and answers into another text and the transferal of a normal text into the question and answer form. These cases should be taken into consideration in the further study of the entire corpus of Byzantine erotapokriseis.



antonio rigo

Questions et réponses sur la controverse palamite Un texte inédit d’origine athonite et son auteur véritable (Marc Kyrtos) Les textes écrits aux XIVe-XVe siècles, en particulier ceux qui sont liés à la controverse palamite, prennent souvent la forme de dialogues et de discussions. Leur fortune pendant la dernière époque byzantine s’explique vraisemblablement aussi par la double ascendance de cette forme littéraire : classique d’une part (Platon), apologétique et polémique de l’autre. 1 Au contraire, dans la quantité considérable d’ouvrages sur la dispute palamite, une seule œuvre, à notre connaissance, propose la forme bien connue des questions et réponses. La seule mention de l’ouvrage se trouve dans les études modernes chez Jean Meyendorff. Dans la troisième partie de sa monographie consacrée à Grégoire Palamas, il y signala, parmi les anonymes, un « traité hagiorétique sous forme de questions et de réponses contre Akindynos (1343-1347) (...), suivi d’un florilège patristique antiakindyniste ». 2 L’œuvre est conservée en effet, sous forme anonyme, dans un seul manuscrit, Athous Lavras M 88 (1779), f. 128r-166r, sous le titre suivant : 1 Très utile à ce propos l’article de A. M. Ieraci Bio, Il dialogo nella letteratura tardoantica e bizantina, dans A. Garzya (éd.), Spirito e forme nella letteratura bizantina. Napoli 2006, 21-45. – Pour la controverse palamite nous pensons aux textes suivants : Grégoire Palamas, Dialexis d’un orthodoxe avec un barlaamite : PS II, 164-218; Dialexis de Théophanès avec Théotimos : PS II, 219-62. Grégoire Akindynos, Dialexis de l’impie Palamas avec un orthodoxe: J. Nadal Cañellas, Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus Dialogus inter orthodoxum et barlaamitam, CCSG, 31. Turnhout – Leuven 1995, 413-30. Philothée de Selymbrie, Dialexis sur la théologie dogmatique : M. Ch. Bakalopoulou, Φιλόθεος Σηλυβρίας. Βίος καί συγγραϕικό ἔργο. Athina 1992, 183-294. L’anonyme Dialexis d’un savant et philosophe d’après les Écritures : PG 150, 864-7. Les « comptes-rendus » de la discussion entre Grégoire Palamas et Nicéphore Grégoras au palais, Nicéphore Grégoras, Byzantina Historia, lib.  30-31: Bonn, III, 266-374; Phakrasès, Récit de la discussion entre Grégoire Palamas et Nicéphore Grégoras : PS IV, 191230. 2 J. Meyendorff, Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas, Patristica Sorbonensia, 3. Paris 1959, 408.

The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 126-151 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101922

QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

Traité hagiorétique sous forme de questions et de réponses qui démontre que le barlaamite Akindynos et ceux qui sont d’accord avec lui s’accordent en tout avec Sabellius, Arius, Eunome, Apollinaire, les Messaliens, Marcel le Galate, Sophrone et Photin, les Juifs, les Hellènes, les Monothélites, ou mieux les Athélites, les Latins, et sont contraires en tout à l’Église de Dieu et à tous les saints (Λόγος ἁγιορειτιϰὸς ϰατὰ πεῦσιν ϰαὶ ἀπόϰρισιν ἀποδειϰνὺς τὸν βαρλααμίτην Ἀϰίνδυνον ϰαὶ τοὺς ὁμόφρονας αὐτῷ συμφώνους ὄντας ϰατὰ πάντα Σαβελλίῳ, Ἀρείῳ, Εὐνομίῳ, Ἀπολλιναρίῳ, Μεσσαλιανοῖς, Μαρϰέλλῳ τῷ Γαλάτῃ, Σωφρωνίῳ τε ϰαὶ Φωτεινῷ, Ἰουδαίοις, Ἕλλησι, Μονοϑελήταις ἢ μᾶλλον Ἀϑελήταις, Λατίνοις ϰαὶ ἐναντίους παντάπασι τῇ Ἐϰϰλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ϰαὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν). Le traité, un texte d’une certaine étendue (quarante folios à peu près), 3 a comme protagonistes un moine (frère, ἀδελϕός), diligent et désireux d’apprendre (ϕιλόπονος καὶ ϕιλομαθής, f. 128r), mais simple, pas très intelligent et peu cultivé (e.g. διὰ τὸ στενὸν τῆς διανοίας μου, f. 130v), et un ancien (γέρων), affaibli par l’âge, la maladie et les problèmes de vue, qui, vraisemblablement par modestie et humilité monastiques, se considère un complet ignorant (Ὁρᾷς γὰρ ἐμὲ παντελῶς οὐ μόνον ἰδιώτην ὄντα πάντη καὶ ἀμαθῆ, ἀλλὰ καὶ νόσῳ καὶ γήρᾳ καὶ ἀβλεψίᾳ τετρυχωμένον, f.  160v). Le début du Traité hagiorétique rappelle les textes de provenance monastique, dans lesquels un frère interroge un ancien sur le salut, l’acquisition des vertus, la contemplation, etc. 4 Nous commençons par une analyse du texte, dans lequel on peut aisement distinguer quatre sections. I. La première section, qui correspond à peu près à 20% de l’ouvrage, est la seule à être réellement articulée en questions et réponses. La question de départ, posée par le moine à l’ancien est la suivante « Que doit-on faire pour gagner la vie éternelle et quelle voie doiton suivre pour obtenir cette vie-là  »  ? L’ancien, dans sa réponse, rappelle en premier lieu la nécessité de connaître le vrai Dieu, de se libérer des péchés, de vaincre les passions et de garder les commandements divins (f. 128rv). Les thèmes évoqués dans ces lignes sont évidemmment typiques de la littérature spirituelle et édifiante, sans 3 En raison de sa longueur il est évidemment impossible de publier ici l’ouvrage. J’envisage l’édition du texte dans un volume, avec celle d’autres textes palamites inconnus ou anonymes de l’époque de la guerre civile (1341-47). 4 Cf. en premier lieu, avec un incipit semblable, BHG 1450v, Ἀδελϕός τις ἠρώτησε γέροντα λέγων· Παρακαλῶ (...) πῶς δύναταί τις κτήσασθαι ἀρετήν, conservé dans l’Athina EBE 257 (XIVe s.), f. 238v-242v.



antonio rigo

aperçus originaux particuliers. Dans sa réplique, le frère, après avoir fait des considérations sur l’observance des commandements, la foi et les œuvres, insiste sur la nécessité de la connaissance des dogmes orthodoxes pour ne pas s’éloigner de la vraie foi. Ici, il introduit l’argument lié à l’actualité qui sera discuté dans la suite de l’ouvrage : «  Certains, à différentes époques, ont introduit des dogmes corrompus dans la sainte Église, ils ont ruiné plusieurs en les trompant avec leur erreur, pas seulement dans le passé, mais aussi maintenant, de nos jours (καὶ οὐ μόνον τηνικαῦτα ἀλλ’οὖν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος). Nous connaissons certains qui ont souffert à cause de la tromperie du barlaamite Akindynos, parmi les plus simples, mais aussi quelquesuns qui ont passé leur vie dans la piété, hommes et femmes sages, distinguées par la noblesse et la richesse, et d’autres très illustres, parmi lesquels certains sont morts et ont quitté la vie, hélas, dans les dogmes de l’impiété » (f. 129rv). La réponse de l’ancien apparaît claire et sans équivoque. L’hérésie d’Akindynos contient une quantité énorme d’impiétés : il a surpassé son maître Barlaam et les hérétiques de toute époque. Aucune hérésie n’a été aussi pernicieuse que la sienne, parce qu’Akindynos participe à toute hérésie du passé et du présent, défend les Juifs et les Hellènes. Et non seulement Akindynos, mais aussi les siens qui maintenant s’opposent (οἱ τῶν αὐτοῦ νῦν ἰσχυρῶς ἀντιποιούμενοι) (f. 129v-130r). L’ancien désire traiter de l’hérésie akindyniste sans donner l’impression de calomnier les adversaires : c’est pourquoi il présente des passages des écrits d’Akindynos (τινὰς ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ γραμμάτων ῥήσεις) suivis par des excerpta des Pères qui en démontrent l’impiété. Après une courte réplique du moine, qui rappelle que certains ont une opinion différente sur les antipalamites (τινες γὰρ οὐχ οὕτως οἴονται περὶ αὐτῶν), l’ancien affirme que toute erreur dérive de la présomption, de l’ignorance, et de l’absence d’humilité (f. 130v-132v). II. (f.  133r-160v) La deuxième section, qui, du point de vue quantitatif, correspond aux deux tiers du traité, est un long exposé de l’ancien qui s’éloigne immédiatement du genre des questions et des réponses pour prendre la forme du traité théologique, articulé en points différents, dans lesquels les phrases et les affirmations d’Akindynos sont suivies par les citations des Pères. La présence massive d’excerpta patristiques caractérise cette partie de l’ouvrage. L’ancien commence par la distinction entre l’essence et l’énergie et par la lumière du Tabor pour démontrer qu’Akindynos, dans ses affirmations et dans ses écrits, dépasse en impiété les



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

hérétiques du passé, en premier lieu Marcion, Mani, Arius et Sabellius. Et encore : Akindynos et les siens introduisent des dogmes corrompus dans l’Église, les doctrines des Hellènes et des Juifs, d’Eunome, d’Apollinaire, des Messaliens, de Marcel le Galate, de Sophronios, de Photin, des Monothélites, de Cyrus, de Serge et Eutychès et l’hérésie des Latins. À la fin, l’ancien parle des accusations de dithéisme portées par les adversaires de Grégoire Palamas et il termine en exhortant à la lecture des œuvres des Pères pour y retrouver la sûre vérité. III. (f. 160v-161v) Dans la troisième partie (seulement une trentaine de lignes), le traité reprend la forme des questions et réponses. Le frère, après avoir dit que grâce au discours de l’ancien, il a appris l’énormité des hérésies d’Akindynos causées par la superbe et l’orgueil, demande à l’ancien de lui exposer en abrégé «  les blasphèmes de l’hérésie », pour les apprendre facilement (ὡς ἐν κεϕαλαίῳ τὰς τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βλασϕημίας καταριθμῆσαι, ὅπως εὐσύνοπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ τούτων γνῶσιν). IV. (f.  161v-166r) Dans la quatrième section du traité, l’ancien satisfait la demande du frère et expose en 11 propositions les doctrines d’Akindynos et de ses partisans. 1. « Ils blasphèment contre les saints Pères et Maîtres et la divine Écriture toute entière, en disant que Dieu n’a pas une énergie naturelle et essentielle, sans principe et éternelle » ( Ἐναντία τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσι καὶ διδασκάλοις καὶ πάσῃ τῇ θείᾳ Γραϕῇ βλασϕημοῦσι λέγοντες ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἔχει ἐνέργειαν ϕυσικὴν καὶ οὐσιώδη, ἄναρχόν τε καὶ ἀΐδιον). 2. « Ils blasphèment encore contre les énergies de Dieu, que les Pères théologiens définissent comme incréées, créées et non coéternelles à Dieu. Ceux qui affirment ces choses font aussi de l’essence une créature, et manifestement ils se placent du côté des Ariens » ( Ἒτι βλασϕημοῦσι τὰς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἃς οἱ θεολόγοι πατέρες λέγουσιν ἀκτίστους, κτιστὰς ἀλλ’οὐ συναϊδίους τῷ Θεῷ. Ὁ δὲ τοῦτο λέγων ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν συνάγει πεϕυκέναι κτίσμα, καὶ ἀριδήλως Ἀρειανοῖς συντάττεται). 3. « Ils blasphèment encore, en disant que Dieu possède des énergies incréées, mais qu’elles sont le Fils, l’Esprit et rien d’autre » ( Ἔτι βλασϕημοῦσι λέγοντες ὅτι ἔχει μὲν ὁ Θεὸς ἀκτίστους ἐνεργείας, ἀλλὰ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρας).



antonio rigo

4. «  De nouveau ils délirent encore (...), en disant que l’énergie incréée et naturelle est identifiable avec l’essence de Dieu, parce qu’il n’y aucune différence entre l’essence et l’énergie, mais qu’elles sont une seule et même chose  » (  Ἔτι πάλιν ... παραληροῦσι λέγοντες ὅτι αὐτὴ ἡ ἄκτιστος καὶ ϕυσικὴ ἐνέργεια αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσία· οὐδεμία γὰρ διαϕορὰ οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας, ἀλλ’ἓν καὶ ταὐτόν ἐστιν). 5. « Ils blasphèment encore, en disant que la grâce divine n’existe pas. Ensuite, comme en se réveillant de l’ivresse et en se précipitant dans une autre démence, ils affirment que la grâce existe, mais ils ne sont pas en mesure de la dire créée ou incréée, en inventant des sophismes contre eux-mêmes plutôt que contre nous » ( Ἔτι βλασϕημοῦσι λέγοντες ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι χάρις θεία, εἶθ’ὥσπερ ἐκ μέθης ἀνενεγκόντες καὶ εἰς ἑτέραν παραϕροσύνην ἐλθόντες, λέγουσι μὲν εἶναι χάριν, ἄκτιστον δὲ ἢ κτιστὴν οἱ καθ’ἑαυτῶν μᾶλλον ἢ καθ’ἡμῶν σοϕιζόμενοι, οὐκ ἀνέχοντας εἰπεῖν). 6. « Ils blasphèment encore, en disant que Christ, après la Résurrection, quand il souffla sur les Apôtres et leur dit  : “Recevez le saint Esprit” ( Jean  20, 22), ne donna pas la grâce divine et l’énergie, mais la nature même et l’hypostase du saint Esprit » ( Ἔτι βλασϕημοῦσι λέγοντες ὅτι οὐκ ἦν θεία χάρις καὶ ἐνέργεια ἣν ἔδωκεν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐμϕυσήσας καὶ εἰπὼν αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἀλλ’αὐτὴ ἡ ϕύσις καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος). 7. « Ils blasphèment encore, en disant que ceux qui ont été rendus dignes de la participation à Dieu participent de l’essence même de Dieu » ( Ἔτι βλασϕημοῦντες λέγουσιν ὅτι οἱ τῆς μετοχῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀξιούμενοι αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ μετέχουσι). 8. « Ils blasphèment encore contre la sainte lumière qui brillait sur le Tabor, en disant qu’elle était créée, qu’elle était une apparition qui s’est dissoute et a disparu en même temps qu’elle apparaissait, et qu’elle était inférieure à notre intellection » ( Ἔτι βλασϕημοῦσιν εἰς τὸ ἅγιον ϕῶς τὸ ἐν Θαβωρίῳ λάμψαν, λέγοντες αὐτὸ κτιστὸν καὶ ϕάσμα καὶ ἅμα τῷ γενέσθαι διελύθη καὶ ἠϕανίσθη, καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας νοήσεως ὑπῆρχε κατώτερον). 9. «  Ils blasphèment encore, en disant que nous sommes déifiés par un habitus perfectif de la nature et non par une autre grâce, énergie, déification, illumination ou divinité  » (  Ἔτι βλασϕημοῦσι λέγοντες ὅτι καθ’ἕξιν τελειωτικὴν τῆς ϕύσεως



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

θεούμεθα, ἀλλ’οὐ καθ’ἑτέραν χάριν τε καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἢ θέωσιν ἢ ἔλλαμψιν ἢ θεότητα). 10. « Ils blasphèment encore, en calomniant les saints, parce qu’ils affirment qu’il y a une différence entre l’essence et l’énergie et les appellent dithéistes, tandis qu’ils sont dithéistes ou polythéistes  » (  Ἔτι βλασϕημοῦσι εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους συκοϕαντοῦντες αὐτοὺς διὰ τὸ λέγειν διαϕορὰν οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας καὶ διθεΐτας ἀποκαλοῦσι, αὐτοὶ τοῦτο μᾶλλον ὄντες ἢ καὶ πολύθεοι). 11. «  Ils disent encore une absurdité en affirmant: puisque vous dites que est l’un et l’autre et que l’essence de Dieu est différente de son énergie, Dieu n’est pas simple mais composé » ( Ἔτι ληροῦσιν ὅτι ἐπειδὴ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο ἐστὶν ὡς λέγετε καὶ διαϕέρει τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ οὐσία τῆς ἐνεργείας αὐτοῦ, ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἁπλοῦς, ἀλλὰ σύνθετος). Le traité se termine abruptement après les propositions par une phrase laconique de l’ancien: «  Ce sont, frère, en abrégé les blasphèmes des hérétiques apparus tout récemment, les uns ouvertement affirmés par eux-mêmes, les autres tirés de leurs discours  » (Αὗταί εἰσιν, ἀδελϕέ, ὡς ἐν κεϕαλαίῳ, αἱ βλασϕημίαι τῶν νεοϕανῶν κακοδόξων, αἱ μὲν ϕανερῶς λεγόμεναι παρ’αὐτῶν, αἱ δὲ πάλιν ἐκ τῶν λόγων αὐτῶν συναγόμεναι). Un jugement sur le Traité hagiorétique, au delà des évidents déséquilibres et des défauts de composition (un texte qui devrait appartenir au genre des questions et des réponses, comme on peut le voir d’après le titre et la première partie, qui prend dans la suite un autre aspect, etc....), doit commencer par une discussion sur la date de composition, le milieu de provenance et ensuite, si c’est possible, sur son auteur. Mais il faut procéder dans l’ordre. La datation du traité ne présente pas de difficultés grâce à quelques éléments fournis par le texte même. Le patriarche Jean XIV Calécas, évoqué sous forme anonyme avec Akindynos (ὁ δ’Ἀκίνδυνος μετὰ τοῦ τηνικαῦτα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας προΐστασθαι λαχόντος, f.  141v), est évidemment déjà déposé (février 1347). Les nombreuses mentions de Grégoire Palamas comme métropolite de Thessalonique (τῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἱεράρχῃ Θεσσαλονίκης τῷ Παλαμᾷ, f. 159r, τὸν θεῖον ἱεράρχην ἐκεῖνον Θεσσαλονίκης, τοῦ θείου ἱεράρχου Θεσσαλονίκης, f.  165r) nous conduisent à la période postérieure à sa nomination (mai/juin 1347). Parmi ses adversaires, seuls Barlaam et Akindynos sont nommés, tandis que les autres sont évoqués sous forme anonyme. J’y reviendrai dans un



antonio rigo

instant. Une analyse plus serrée du contenu nous montre que l’auteur du Traité hagiorétique utilise le Tome synodal du février 1347. 5 L’absence de référénces au Tome du 1351 nous amène à croire que l’ouvrage a été écrit avant cette date. Quelques arguments présents dans le traité refont surface dans les discussions du 1351. L’allusion générique et sans renseignements concrets aux opposants actifs au moment de la composition (οἱ τῶν αὐτοῦ νῦν ἰσχυρῶς ἀντιποιούμενοι, f. 130r, οἱ νῦν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ σπουδάζοντες κακοδόξως λέγουσί τε καὶ ϕρονοῦσι, f. 133r, etc.) rappelle l’atmosphère peu de temps avant. Nous croyons que le Traité hagiorétique a été écrit vers 1350, pendant la phase préparatoire du concile de l’année suivante. Un terminus ante pour la date de composition du traité est la moitié des années ’50, quand Philothée Kokkinos utilise le traité, sans le nommer, dans son VIe  Antirrhétique contre Nicéphore Grégoras. 6 5 Par exemple: « Ὁ δὲ διὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων Ἀκίνδυνος τουτὶ τὸ ϕῶς καὶ οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ κτίσμα λέγων δυσσεβῶς, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀθέως, ἄκουσον αὖθις τί ϕησίν. Ἐγὼ κακίζω καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον καὶ τὸ κτιστὸν τῆς θεουργοῦ σοϕίας καὶ χάριτος, οὗτοι γὰρ ἡμῖν τὴν ἀντίϕασιν προσκυνητέον, ὥστ’εἰ θάτερον ὑπὸ ἀνάθεμα, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον οὐδὲν ἧττον », f. 138v, cf. H.  Hunger/O. Kresten/E. Kislinger/C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, II, CFHB, 19/2. Wien 1995, n° 147, ll. 317-22, 374; « Ὁ δ’Ἀκίνδυνος μετὰ τοῦ τηνικαῦτα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας προΐστασθαι λαχόντος, ἄκουσον τί περὶ τῆς θείας ταύτης χάριτος ϕησὶ καὶ ὅπως ἀποκηρύττει καὶ ἀναθεματίζει πάντας τοὺς ἀπ’αἰῶνος σὺν ἡμῖν ἁγίους, γράϕων ἐπὶ λέξεως οὐτωσί· Τοῖς ἀποτολμῶσι καὶ λέγουσι τὴν δόξαν τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἑτέραν εἶναι παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀνάθεμα. Καὶ πάλιν· Τοῖς ἀποτολμῶσι καὶ λέγουσι ϕῶς ἄκτιστον ἕτερον παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀνάθεμα. Καὶ πάλιν· Τοῖς λέγουσι θεότητα ἄκτιστον σωματικοῖς ὀϕθαλμοῖς ληπτήν, ἀνάθεμα. Καὶ πάλιν· Μωροὶ καὶ τυϕλοὶ οἱ διὰ τὴν μεταμόρϕωσιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀποτολμῶντες καὶ λέγοντες ἄκτιστον ϕῶς σωματικοῖς ὀϕθαλμοῖς ὁρατόν », f. 141v, cf. ibid., ll. 273-81: 370, etc. 6 Ainsi, «  Οὐκ ἔστιν, ὦ κένε θεολόγε, ἡ θεία χάρις καὶ ἐνέργεια πρόσϕατος καὶ ὑπὸ χρόνον, εἰ καὶ τοῖς κτίσμασι πᾶσι καὶ ἡμῖν προσϕάτως καὶ ὑπὸ χρόνον ἐπιχορηγεῖται, συναΐδιος δὲ τῇ ὑπερουσίῳ Τριάδι καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀεὶ πηγαζομένη καὶ ἐκλάμπουσα, ὅλη ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ὅλη ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὅλη ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τοῦ Παρακλήτου Θεοῦ, kαὶ τῆς τρισυποστάτου ϕύσεως τοῦ ἑνὸς Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἀχρόνως, καὶ ἀειλαμπὴς καὶ ὑπέρϕωτος ἑνιαία αἴγλη καὶ ἀΐδιος ἐνέργεια, ὡς καὶ ὁ θεῖος ἐν ὕμνοις ᾄδει Δαμασκηνός· Τρισσοϕαῆ θεότητα ἑνιαίαν ἐκλάμπουσαν αἴγλην, ἐκ μιᾶς τρισυποστάτου ϕύσεως. (...) Ταύτην οὖν τὴν θείαν καὶ ἑνιαίαν ἔλλαμψίν τε καὶ χάριν καὶ αἴγλην τῆς ὑπερϕώτου Τριάδος, τὴν ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀμερῶς καὶ ταὐτῶς καὶ ὁλικῶς καὶ ἑνιαίως ἐκλάμπουσάν τε ἀεὶ καὶ προερχομένην ἐκ τῆς ὑπερθέου μιᾶς τρισυποστάτου ϕύσεώς ϕασιν οἱ θεοϕόροι Πατέρες, καταποικίλλεσθαι εἰς τὰς ἐκδιδομένας ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀγαθοποιοὺς μεθέξεις τε καὶ δωρεάς, ἃς καὶ ἀπολύτως καὶ ἀρχηγικῶς καὶ πρώτως ἐκ Θεοῦ ὑποστῆναί ϕησιν ὁ τὰ θεῖα πολὺς Διονύσιος, τὴν αὐτοουσίωσιν λέγων, τὴν αὐτοζώωσιν, τὴν αὐτοδύναμιν, τὴν αὐτοειρήνην, τὴν αὐτοαγαθότητα, τὴν θεότητα, καὶ τούτων ὑποστάτην τὸν Θεὸν ἀχρόνως καὶ ἀνάρχως λέγει. Συνῳδὰ δὲ τούτῳ καὶ ὁ θεῖος Μάξιμος ϕθέγγεται εἰς τό· Κατέπαυσεν ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ὧν ἤρξατο ποιῆσαι », f. 157rv = Philothée Kokkinos, Antirrhetici contra Gregoram,  6, ll.  1630-38, 1641-51: D.  B.  Kaïmakis, Φιλοθέου Κόκκινου Δογματικὰ ἔργα, Θεσσαλονιϰεῖς βυζαντινοὶ συγγραφεῖς, 3. Thessaloniki



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

L’œuvre provient des milieux monastiques, comme on peut le voir d’après la première section, les protagonistes du traité et d’autres particularités encore. Ainsi, parmi les nombreux excerpta patristiques figurent quelques auctoritates typiquement monastiques, un épisode de la Vie d’Antoine le Grand, 7 des extraits du pseudo-Macaire l’Égyptien (f. 151v-152r) 8 et de Jean Climaque (f. 152r). 9 Enfin, le titre même nous amène à l’Athos. Le traité a été écrit sur la Sainte Montagne pour des raisons tout à fait pratiques, comme il est possible de le comprendre d’après une allusion rapide du frère, quand il rappelle que tout le monde ne s’accorde pas sur le refus des doctrines d’Akindynos et des siens (τινὲς γὰρ οὐχ οὕτως οἴονται περὶ αὐτῶν, f. 130v). Je passe maintenant à l’analyse du seul manuscrit qui conserve le traité. De cette manière, il sera possible de préciser ultérieurément les résultats obtenus jusqu’ici et de parvenir, enfin, à l’identification de l’auteur de l’ouvrage.

1983, 218 « Εἰ γὰρ πάντων κατέπαυσε τῶν ἔργων, ὧν ἤρξατο ποιῆσαι δῆλον ὡς ἐκείνων οὐ κατέπαυσεν, ὧν οὐκ ἤρξατο ποιῆσαι. Μή ποτε οὖν ἔργα μὲν Θεοῦ ἠργμένα χρονικῶς τοῦ εἶναί ἐστι πάντα τὰ ὄντα μετέχοντα, οἷον αἱ διάϕοροι τῶν ὄντων οὐσίαι; Τὸ γὰρ μὴ ὂν ἔχουσιν αὐτῶν τοῦ εἶναι πρεσβύτερον· ἦν γάρ ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ἔργα δὲ Θεοῦ τυχὸν οὐκ ἠργμένα χρονικῶς τὰ ὄντα μεθεκτά· ὧν κατὰ χάριν μετέχουσι τὰ ὄντα μετέχοντα, οἷον ἡ ἀγαθότης καὶ πᾶν εἴ τι ἀγαθότητος ἐμπεριέχεται λόγῳ, καὶ ἁπλῶς πᾶσα ζωὴ καὶ ἀθανασία καὶ ἁπλότης καὶ ἀτρεψία καὶ ἀπειρία καὶ ὅσα περὶ Θεὸν οὐσιωδῶς θεωρεῖται, ἅτινα καὶ ἔργα Θεοῦ εἰσι, καὶ οὐκ ἠργμένα χρονικῶς. Οὐ γάρ ποτε πρεσβύτερον ἀρετῆς τὸ οὐκ ἦν, οὐδέ τινος ἄλλου τῶν εἰρημένων. Οὐκ ἦν γάρ ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ταῦτα, κἂν τὰ μετέχοντα αὐτῶν κατ’αὐτὰ ἦρκται τοῦ εἶναι χρονικῶς ἄναρχά τε ὄντα χρονικῶς, μὴ ἔχοντα τὸν χρόνον ἑαυτῶν πρεσβύτερον, οἷα τὸν Θεὸν ἔχοντα τοῦ εἶναι μονώτατον ἀϊδίως γεννήτορα. Τὰ μέντοι ἠργμένα χρονικῶς τῇ μετοχῇ τῶν οὐκ ἠργμένων χρονικῶς καὶ εἰσὶ καὶ λέγονται, τοῦθ’ὅπερ εἰσὶ καὶ λέγονται. Ὁρᾷς ἐκ τούτων », f. 157v = 6, ll. 1653-67: 218-9, etc. – Pour la date de l’Antirrhétique de Philothée cf. encore G. Niggl, Prolegomena zu den Werken des Patriarchen Philotheos von Konstantinopel (1353-1354 und 1364-1376). Inaugural-Dissertation. München 1955, 15. 7 « καὶ τοῦτο αὐτό ἐστι τὸ ϕῶς τὸ τῷ μεγάλῳ Ἀντωνίῳ λαλῆσαν, καὶ εἰπόν· ὧδε ἤμεν, ἀλλὰ περιέμενον ἰδεῖν τὴν καρτερίαν σου », f. 134r: Vita Antonii, X, 3: G. J. M. Bartelink, Athanase d’Alexandrie. Vie d’Antoine, SC, 400. Paris 1994, 164. 8 «  Ἡ τελεία τοῦ Πνεύματος ἔλλαμψις – διηνεκὴς ἔλλαμψις  »: Pseudo-Macaire, Opuscula. De libertate mentis, 22, PG 34, 956D-957A; « Ἰστέον ὅτι δυσὶ τρόποις γίνεται – ϕῶς ταῖς ψυχαῖς »: Pseudo-Macaire, Sermones (typus I), 17, H. Berthold, Makarios/ Symeon. Reden und Briefe. Die Sammlung I des Vaticanus Graecus 694 (B), I. Berlin 1973, 188, l. 22-189, l. 2. 9 « Καθαρότης καρδίας – ὁρωμένη ἀοράτως »: Jean Climaque, Scala Paradisi, 7, PG 88, 813B. « Ὁ ἐλλάμψεως Θεοῦ – διδάσκειν ἐθέλοντι »: Scala Paradisi, 25, PG 88, 988AB.



antonio rigo

Le manuscrit Athous Lavras M 88 (1779), 10 actuellement acéphale et mutilé à la fin, a été écrit par un seul copiste vers la fin des années 50 du XIVe siècle. Dans son contenu, il est possible distinguer deux parties, mais les textes ont étés réunis avec une numération continue de 1 à 49 par le même copiste. La première partie (n° 1-15), étudiée par Louis Petit et Jacques Noret pour les œuvres hagiographiques, est dédiée à Athanase de Lavra. Nous lisons, dans l’ordre, la Vita A, l’Encomion, la Vita B, l’acolouthie et les canons en l’honneur d’Athanase. Pour les Vitae et l’Encomion, il s’agit d’une copie d’un manuscrit qui avait appartenu à Lavra, l’actuel Istanbul Haghias Triados 65 (première moitié du XIVe siècle), 11 tandis que pour les canons, il dépend du même modèle qu’un autre manuscrit lavriote, exécuté par Gennadios (décembre 1359). 12 Le Traité hagiorétique (n° 16) ouvre la deuxième partie, liée aux disputes théologiques du XIVe siècle. Les titres n° 17-44 sont une série d’excerpta patristiques précédés par les rubriques correspondantes. Le n° 45 est la lettre envoyée par le moine palamite Marc Kyrtos au patriarche Jean XIV Calécas (1343/44), 13 ici – je souligne dès maintenant le fait – anonyme. Les titres n° 46-48 sont encore des excerpta des Pères précédés par les rubriques et, enfin, le n° 49 est le traité à la moniale Xénè de Grégoire Palamas, 14 avec un titre (Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης...) qui indique implicitement que le métropolite de Thessalonique était déjà mort au moment de la copie du manuscrit (par conséquent après 1357). Les titres n° 17-48 de l’Athous Cf. L.  Petit, Vie de saint Athanase l’Athonite, Analecta Bollandiana 25 (1906),  10-11  ; Spyridon Lavriotis, S.  Eustratiadis, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Laura on Mount Athos, Harvard Theological Studies, 12. Cambridge 1925, 318 ; A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographi­ schen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, III. Leipzig 1939-52, 990-1; J. Noret, Vitae duae antiquae Sancti Athanasii Athonitae, CCSG, 9. Turnhout – Leuven 1982, XXV-XXVII ; I. Polemis, Κανόνες εἰς τὸν ὅσιον Ἀθανάσιον τὸν Ἀθωνίτην. Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις. Athina 1993, 13 ; A. D. Panaghiotou, Ἡσυχαστικά Αʹ. Athina 2006, 38. 11 Noret, Vitae duae (cf. n. 10) XXVIII-XXX, en part. XXIX), cf. A. Tsakopoulos, Περιγραϕικὸς κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράϕων τῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου, 2. Istanbul 1956, 48-9. 12 Polemis, Κανόνες (cf. n. 10) 13-4 ; pour le ms. cf. Noret, Vitae duae (cf. n. 10) LVIII-LIX. 13 S.  Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos, Leben und Briefen. Dissertation. Wien 1987, 121-51; Panaghiotou, Ἡσυχαστικά Αʹ (cf. n. 10) 41-76 (il utilise ce ms. avec la sigle m). 14 PS V, 194-226, l. 13 (καθα[ρῶς) (on utilise ce ms. avec la sigle Λ7). 10



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

Lavras M 88 (1779) ont étés copiés sur la base du Paris. BnF Coisl. 288 (milieu du XIVe siècle): 15 17. (f. 166rv) Ῥῆσις τοῦ ἁγίου Θεοδώρου τοῦ Γραπτοῦ ᾗ χρῆται ὁ Ἀκίνδυνος εἰς μαρτυρίαν ἑαυτοῦ, n° ιζ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 200r. 18. (f. 166v-169v) Ῥήσεις ἕτεραι τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἃς ἀντικομίζουσιν οἱ τοῖς τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου προσιστάμενοι, n°  ιη΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl.  288, f. 200r-203v. 19. (f. 169v-170r) Ῥῆσις τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἐπισκόπου Ἱεροσολύμων, ἣν προϕέρει ὁ Ἀκίνδυνος εἰς βεβαίωσιν τοῦ οἰκείου δόγματος, n°  ιθ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl.  288, f.  204r. (f. 170r) Ῥήσεις ἁγίων ἃς προσκομίζουσιν οἱ τῷ Ἀκινδύνῳ διαμαχόμενοι, Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 204r. 20. (f. 170rv) Ῥῆσις τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀναστασίου τοῦ Σινᾶ ὄρους ἐκ τῆς βίβλου ἧς ἡ ἐπωνυμία Ὁδηγός, n° κ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 204r205r. 21. (f. 170v-172r) Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀναστασίου ἐπισκόπου Ἀντιοχείας ἐκ τοῦ περὶ ἀπεριγράπτου δευτέρου λόγου, n°  κα΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 204r-206r. 22. (f. 172r-173r) Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τῆς ιδ΄ ὁμιλίας τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην, εἰς τό· Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε, n° κβ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 13r-14r. 23. (f. 173r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς νε΄ ὁμιλίας τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον β΄ βιβλίου, n° κγ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 16v-17r. 24. (f. 173rv) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν πράξεων τῆς δ΄ ὁμιλίας, n°  κδ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 17r. 25. (f. 173v-174r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ιη΄ λόγου τῶν αὐτῶν, n° κε΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 17v-18r. 26. (f. 174v-175v) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ πάντα ποιεῖς, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· Ἀρχὴ σωτηρίας ἀνθρώπων ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ϕόβος, n° κς΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 30v-32r. 27. (f. 175v-176r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ περὶ ἀκαταλήπτου α΄ λόγου, n° κζ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 32rv. 28. (f. 176rv) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ γ΄ λόγου περὶ ἀκαταλήπτου, n° κη΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 32v-33r. 15 Sur le Coisl. 288 cf. en premier lieu R.  Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin. Paris 1945, 272  ; Apo­stopoulou, Markos Kyrtos (cf. n.  13) 26-7  ; Panaghiotou (cf. n. 10) Ἡσυχαστικά Αʹ, 37-8.



antonio rigo

29. (f. 176v-177r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ α΄ λόγου τοῦ εἰς τό· Εἶδον τὸν Κύριον καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ, n° κθ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 33rv. 30. (f. 177r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς σκανδαλισθέντας ἐπὶ ταῖς δυσημερίαις καὶ περὶ ἀκαταλήπτου, n° λ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 33v-34r. 31. (f. 177rv) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τό· Εἶδον τὸν Κύριον καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ α΄ λόγου, n° λα΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 34r. 32. (f. 177v) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸν προϕητικὸν Ἡσαΐου τὸν λέγοντα· Καὶ ἐγένητω τοῦ ἑνιαυτοῦ, n° λβ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 34r. 33. (f. 177v) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ περὶ ἀκαταλήπτου καὶ ὅτι οὐδὲ συγκατάβασις ϕορητὴ Θεοῦ τοῖς Σεραϕίμ, n°  λγ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 34rv. 34. (f. 177v-178r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀνατολὴ ἀκούει λόγον, καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὅτι παντοκράτωρ ἐστίν, n° λδ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 34v-35r. 35. (f. 178rv) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ Ἰουδαίους ἀποδεικτικῷ λόγῳ, ὅτι ἔστι Θεὸς ὁ Χριστός, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· Ἐπειδὴ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, n° λε΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 30v. 36. (f. 178v-179r) Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Βασιλείου τοῦ Μεγάλου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον ἀδελϕὸν Γρηγόριον τοῦ Νύσσης μβ΄ ἐπιστολῆς περὶ διαϕορᾶς οὐσίας καὶ ὑποστάσεως, n°  λς΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 51v-52v. 37. (f. 179r-180r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ὅτι ἀκατάληπτος ὁ Θεὸς λόγου αὐτοῦ, n° λζ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 52v-55r. 38. (f. 180v-181r) Τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου Νύσσης ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τό· Καιρὸς τοῦ σιγᾶν καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ λαλεῖν τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστοῦ, n° λη΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 99v-100r, 102r. 39. (f. 181rv) Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀθανασίου τοῦ Μεγάλου ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸν εὐαγγελισμὸν κηρυκτικοῦ λόγου, n° λθ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 115rv. 40. (f. 181v-182r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ πρὸς Σεραπίωνα, n° μ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 114v, 114v-115r, 174rv. 41. (f. 182rv) Τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ θεοϕόρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ περὶ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων τῶν δύο ϕύσεων τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, n° μα΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 186v. 42. (f. 182v-183r) Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὴν μεταμόρϕωσιν λόγου, n° μβ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 223v-224r. 43. (f. 183rv) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς νς΄ ὁμιλίας τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον, n° μγ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 224rv, 225r.



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

44. (f. 183v) Τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου ἐκ τῆς εἰς τὴν μεταμόρϕωσιν θεωρίας, n° μδ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 225r. 45. (f. 184r-198v) , Lettre au patriarche Jean XIV Calécas, tit.  : Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν πατριάρχην Ἰωάννην τὸν ἐπονομαζόμενον Καλέκαν κατὰ τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου βλασϕημοῦντος εἰς τὸ ἐν τῷ Θαβωρίῳ ϕῶς, κτίσμα εἶναι τολμερῶς ἀποϕαινομένου καὶ ποτὲ μὲν ταὐτὸ λέγοντος οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ, ποτὲ δὲ ταύτην εἴ ἐστιν ὁπωσδήποτε κτιστήν, n°  με΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl.  288, f.  291r-306r. Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos, 121-51; Panaghiotou, Ἡσυχαστικά Αʹ, 41-76 (il utilise ce ms. avec la sigle m). 46. (f. 198v-199r) Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τῆς ὁμιλίας τῆς περὶ Εὐτροπίον καὶ εἰς τό· Παρέστη ἡ βασίλισσα ἐκ δεξιῶν σου, n° μς΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 224v-225r. 47. (f. 199r-200r) Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μαξίμου ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ πρὸς Θαλάσσιον τὸν ὁσιώτατον πρεσβύτερον περὶ διαϕόρων ἀπόρων τῆς ἁγίας Γραϕῆς, n° μζ΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 158rv. 48. (f. 200rv-201r) Τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ περὶ τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, n°  μη΄. Cf. Paris. BnF Coisl. 288, f. 159v-161r. Grâce à la note du f.  1r (Τῶν κατηχουμενείων τῆς ἱερᾶς Λαύρας) nous savons que le Paris BnF Coisl. 288 appartenait à Lavra. Les éléments tirés de l’étude du manuscrit qui contient le Traité hagiorétique nous permettent de préciser les résultats déjà obtenus. Très vraisemblablement, l’ouvrage a été composé à Lavra vers 1350, et c’est dans le même mona­ stère qu’il a été copié encore une dizaine d’années après. Mais il y a plus. Pour voir cela, il faut cependant faire une brève digression et considérer plus en détail le manuscrit de Paris que nous venons de rappeler. Le Paris BnF Coisl. 288 est l’exemplaire autographe des œuvres de Marc Kyrtos, déjà nommé. 16 Au f. 1v se trouve une note relatant que le même Marc avait donné le manuscrit au monastère de Lavra (Προσετέθη παρὰ τοῦ τιμιωτάτου ἐν μοναχοῖς κυροῦ Μάρκου τοῦ Κυρτοῦ). En se basant sur le Coisl. 288, Sotiria Apostopoulou a édité, dans sa thèse présentée à Vienne en 1987, la dénonciation à l’empereur Jean VI Cantacuzène (f. 3r-5v Τῷ θεοστέπτῳ, θεοπροβλήτῳ, θεοϕυλάκτῳ, θειοτάτῳ, κρατίστῳ, ἁγίῳ ἡμῶν αὐτοκράτορι καὶ βασιλεῖ Μάρκος μοναχός, εὐτελὴς ῥακενδύτης, 16 Comme déjà observé par Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos (cf. n. 13) 26-9. Panaghiotou, Ἡσυχαστικά Αʹ (cf. n. 10) 37-8 date à tort le ms. du XVe siècle (Αὐτοψία τοῦ χϕ. ἀπέδειξε ὅτι πράγματι ὁ κώδικας εἶναι τοῦ 15ου αἰ.). Marc est absent dans E. Gamillscheg, D.  Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600, 2. Teil Frankreich, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik, 2. Wien 1989.



antonio rigo

ταπεινὸς εὐχέτης, τὰ τῇδ’ἀναϕέρει) 17 écrite vers la fin de 1346-le début de 1347, la lettre au même Jean  VI (f.  213r-221r Τῷ θεοστέπτῳ, θεοπροβλήτῳ, θεοϕυλάκτῳ, θειοτάτῳ, κρατίστῳ, ἁγίῳ ἡμῶν αὐθέντῃ καὶ βασιλεῖ Μάρκος μοναχός, εὐτελὴς ῥακενδύτης, ταπεινὸς εὐχέτης, τὰ τῇδ’ἀναϕέρει), 18 composée un peu plus tard (début 1347), et la lettre au patriarche Jean  XIV Calécas (ff.  291r-306r Τῷ παναγιωτάτῳ ἡμῶν καὶ οἰκουμενικῷ πατριάρχῃ κατὰ τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου βλασϕημοῦντος εἰς τὸ ἐν τῷ Θαβωρίῳ ϕῶς, κτίσμα εἶναι τολμερῶς ἀποϕαινομένου καὶ ποτὲ μὲν ταὐτὸ λέγοντος οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ, ποτὲ δὲ ταύτην εἴ ἐστιν ὁπωσδήποτε κτιστήν) 19 de 1343. Cette dernière lettre a été récemment rééditée par Antonios Panaghiotou (2006) sur la base de ce manuscrit et de l’Athous Lavras M 88. 20 Cependant, aucun des chercheurs n’a remarqué que les œuvres de Marc  Kyrtos du Coisl.  288 forment un tout unitaire, divisé en trois parties et précédé de l’index et d’un long titre, Ce recueil dogmatique d’excerpta , élaboré contre Barlaam et Akindynos, est divisé en trois traités, etc. (Ἡ παροῦσα δογματικὴ συλλογὴ τῶν ῥήσεων ἐπινοηθεῖσα κατὰ τοῦ Βαρλαὰμ καὶ Ἀκινδύνου, διήρηται εἰς πραγματείας τρεῖς ...). La première pragmateia en xvii  titres commence par la dénonciation à Jean VI Cantacuzène. Dans les différents titres, nous trouvons les noms des Pères, dont on a tiré les extraits. La deuxième, en vi titres, commence avec la lettre au même empereur. 21 La troisième, en vi titres se conclut par la lettre à Jean Calécas. Dans la deuxième et troisième pragmateiai, les titres présentent en forme de propositions les doctrines de Barlaam et Akindynos. Une analyse des œuvres de Marc Kyrtos conservées dans le Coisl. 288 nous permet de voir en premier lieu que le Traité hagiorétique en questions et réponses reprend des phrases entières de la lettre de Marc Kyrtos à Jean VI Cantacuzène. Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos (cf. n. 13) 71-6. Ibid., 86-102. 19 Ibid., 121-51. 20 Panaghiotou, Ἡσυχαστικά Αʹ (cf. n. 10) 41-76. Je rappelle ici les « principes » de l’édition de P. : « ὁ κώδικας τῆς Λαύρας εἶναι σὲ ἀρκετὰ σημεῖα ἀξιοπιστότερος ἀπὸ αὐτὸ τῶν Παρισίων. Ἐπειδὴ ὁ τελευταῖος εἶναι σαϕῶς πιὸ εὐανάγνωστος καὶ καλλιγραϕημένος ἀπὸ αὐτὸν τῆς Λαύρας, τὸν χρησιμοποιοῦμε ὡς codex optimus τῆς κριτικῆς ἐκδόσεως » (38). 21 Après le prologue, Marc résume ὡς ἐν κεϕαλαίοις les doctrines de Barlaam et d’Akindynos et les excerpta des Pères qui les réfutent (3 : Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos [cf. n. 13] 87-8). Ces lignes correspondent exactement aux titres présents dans la suite de la pragmateia. 17 18



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

Traité hagiorétique

Lettre à Jean VI Cantacuzène

(...) αὐτὰς αὐτοῦ γυμνὰς ἐκθήσομαι τὰς λέξεις, f. 133r.

ἀλλὰ γυμνὰς καὶ ἀμέσους (...), 1, l.  20: Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos, 86.

(...) κατὰ τὸν θεῖον Μάξιμον. Ὁ μὲν Θεὸς ἑαυτὸν γινώσκει ἐκ τῆς μακαρίας οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ϕησι· τὰ δὲ ὑπ’αὐτοῦ γεγονότα ἐκ τῆς σοϕίας αὐτοῦ, δι’ἧς καὶ ἐν ᾗ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ τὸν Θεὸν γινώσκομεν, ἀλλ’ἐκ τῆς δημιουργίας τῶν ὄντων τὴν ἄπειρον αὐτοῦ σοϕίαν καὶ δύναμιν καὶ ἀγαθότητα κατανοοῦμεν, f. 142v.

(...) ὁ θεῖος Μάξιμος λέγων· Ὁ μὲν Θεὸς ἑαυτὸν γινώσκει ἐκ τῆς μακαρίας οὐσίας αὐτοῦ, τὰ δὲ ὑπ’αὐτοῦ γεγονότα ἐκ τῆς σοϕίας αὐτοῦ, δι’ἧς καὶ ἐν ᾗ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ τὸν Θεὸν γινώσκομεν, ἀλλ’ἐκ τῆς μεγαλουργίας αὐτοῦ καὶ προνοίας τῶν ὄντων τὴν ἄπειρον ἀγαθότητα καὶ σοϕίαν καὶ δύναμιν κατανοοῦμεν, 9, ll. 14-9: 91-2.

(...) ἄθεος καὶ κτισματολάτρης δείκνυται πάνταπασιν, ὡς ταὐτὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ γράϕων καὶ ϕρονῶν, f. 143v.

Ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἄθεος καὶ κτισματολάτρης παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀναϕαίνεται, 8, ll. 1-2: 90.

Ἡμεῖς, ϕησὶν ὁ Ἀκίνδυνος, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἴσμεν ἄκτιστον παρὰ τὴν ϕύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐδ’ὁπωσοῦν διαϕέρον ἕτερον· ἀλλ’εἴ τι δ’ἂν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ κατηγορήσεις, τὴν οὐσίαν παραυτίκα τοῦ Θεοῦ νοεῖς, f. 143v.

Εἴ τι γάρ ϕασιν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ κατηγορήσεις, τὴν οὐσίαν παραυτίκα τοῦ Θεοῦ νοεῖς, καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἴσμεν ἄκτιστον παρὰ τὴν ϕύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 11, ll. 7-9: 93.

Πάσης γὰρ οὐσία, ϕησὶν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, ἡ κατὰ ϕύσιν αὐτῆς ἐνέργεια καθέστηκε πίστωσις ἀνάγουσα τὸν νοῦν ἐξ ἧς ἔχει τὴν πρόοδον, f. 144v.

Ὁ γὰρ μέγας (...) Βασίλειος· Πάσης οὐσίας, ϕησίν, ἡ κατὰ ϕύσιν αὐτῆς ἐνέργεια καθέστηκε πίστωσις ἀνάγουσα τὸν νοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν ϕύσιν, ἐξ ἧς ἔχει τὴν πρόοδον, 8, ll. 5-8: 90.

Καὶ ὁ Νύσσης· Ἐνέργειά ἐστι κίνησις οὐσιώδης χαρακτηριστικὴ τῆς ϕύσεως ἧς ἰδία καθέστηκε· δι’ἧς γινώσκεται τῶν ἄλλων οὐσιωδῶς διαϕέρουσα. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἐνέργειαν εἶναί ϕαμεν τὴν ϕυσικὴν ἑκάστης

Καὶ ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος Γρηγόριος· Ἐνέργειά ἐστι κίνησις οὐσιώδης χαρακτηριστικὴ τῆς ϕύσεως ἧς ἰδία καθέστηκε· δι’ἧς γινώσκεται τῶν ἄλλων οὐσιωδῶς διαϕέρουσα. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἐνέργειαν εἶναί ϕαμεν τὴν



antonio rigo

οὐσίας δύναμίν τε καὶ κίνησιν, ἧς χωρὶς οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε γινώσκεται ϕύσις, ἧς μόνον ἐστέρηται τὸ μὴ ὄν, f. 144v.

ϕυσικὴν ἑκάστης οὐσίας δύναμίν τε καὶ κίνησιν, ἧς χωρὶς οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε γινώσκεται ϕύσις. 8, ll. 12-8: 91.

Ὥσπερ γὰρ οὔτε πῦρ ἄνευ τῆς καυστικῆς ἐνεργείας, οὔθ’ἥλιον ἄνευ τῆς ϕωτιστικῆς ἐστι δυνάμεως τὸ παράπαν συνιδεῖν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ Θεοῦ δηλονότι. Oὐχ οἷόν τε οὐσίαν μόνην ἐννοῆσαι ἄνευ ἐνεργείας, οὔτ’οὖν ἐνέργειαν οὐσίας δίχα, διότι ταύτης μόνον τὸ μὴ ὂν ἐστέρηται, καὶ ἄνευ ταύτης ὁ Χρυσόστομος ϕησίν, οὐδενὶ ϕύσις ἐπίδηλος, f. 144v.

Ὥσπερ οὔτε πῦρ ἄνευ τῆς καυστικῆς ἐνεργείας, οὔθ’ἥλιον ἄνευ τῆς ϕωτιστικῆς ἐστι τὸ παράπαν συνιδεῖν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ Θεοῦ. Oὐχ οἷόν τε οὐσίαν μόνην ἐννοῆσαι ἄνευ ἐνεργείας, οὔτ’οὖν ἐνέργειαν οὐσίας δίχα, διότι ταύτης μόνον τὸ μὴ ὂν ἐστέρηται, καὶ ἄνευ ταύτης, ὁ Χρυσόστομος ϕησίν, οὐδενὶ ϕύσις ἐπίδηλος, 9, ll. 7-12: 91.

Ἀλλ’ὅρα τοῦτον καὶ τοῦ Εὐνομίου μηδ’ὁπωσοῦν διενηνοχότα, ταῦτα δὲ μάλιστα ϕρονοῦντα κἀκείνῳ καὶ λέγοντα· καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνος παραπλήσια τοῖς Ἕλλησι ϕρονήσας, f. 146r.

Ἀλλὰ ταῦτ’οὐδὲν σχεδὸν τῶν τοῦ Εὐνομίου ληρημάτων διενήνοχε· παραπλησίως γὰρ ἐκείνῳ καὶ οὗτοι τὰ αὐτὰ κατὰ λέξιν ἀπερεύγονται, 12, ll. 1-3: 93.

Εἰ τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ οὐσία Θεοῦ, ἕτερα δὲ ταῦτα ταῖς ϕωναῖς, ἀνάγκη τὴν οὐσίαν ἐκείνην οὕτω συγκεῖσθαι κατὰ τὰς διαϕόρους ϕωνάς, ἵν’οἰκείως αἱ ϕωναὶ κατ’αὐτῆς λέγωνται, ἢ μὴ συγκειμένης αὐτῆς, ἀκόλουθον εἶναι ταῦτα τῶν προσόντων τῇ οὐσίᾳ σημαντικά, ἀλλ’οὐκ αὐτὰ οὐσίαν, f. 146v.

Εἰ τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον καὶ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ οὐσία Θεοῦ, ἕτερα δὲ ταῦτα ταῖς ϕωναῖς, ἀνάγκη τὴν οὐσίαν ἐκείνην οὕτω συγκεῖσθαι κατὰ τὰς διαϕόρους ϕωνάς, ἵν’οἰκείως αἱ ϕωναὶ κατ’αὐτῆς λέγωνται, ἢ μὴ συγκειμένης αὐτῆς, ἀκόλουθον εἶναι ταῦτα τῶν προσόντων τῇ οὐσίᾳ σημαντικά, ἀλλ’οὐκ αὐτὰ οὐσίαν, 12, ll. 12-8: 93-4.

Ἀμϕότερα δὲ ταῦτα τῆς τῶν χριστιανῶν εὐσεβείας ἔκϕυλα πεϕύκασιν· ἐπειδὴ τὸ μὲν Ἀρείου εἶναι οἴδαμεν, εἰς κτιστὰ καὶ ἄκτιστα τὸν ἕνα Θεὸν διχοτομοῦντος, τὸ δὲ Σαβελλίου, τὴν διαϕορὰν καθόλου ἀρνουμένου, f. 149r.

(...) οἱ νεοϕανεῖς πολέμιοι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀριδήλως περιπίπτοντες εἰς τὰ κτιστὰ καὶ ἄκτιστα καὶ οὗτοι ποτὲ μὲν τὸν ἕνα Θεὸν διχοτομοῦσι, κατὰ μίμησιν Ἀρείου κτίσμα λέγοντες τὴν θείαν ἐνέργειαν (...) ποτὲ δὲ κατὰ Σαβέλλιον ἑκατέρων τὴν διαϕορὰν ἀποσειόμενοι, 15, ll. 1-6: 95.



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

καὶ ἄθροισμα καὶ πλήρωμα θεότητος κατὰ τοὺς πατέρας καθ’ἑκάστην τῶν τριῶν ἁγίων ὑποστάσεων θεωρούμενά τε καὶ θεολογούμενα, f. 149r.

καὶ ἄθροισμα καὶ πλήρωμα παρὰ τῶν πατέρων λέγεται θεότητος καθ’ἑκάστην τῶν ἁγίων τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐπίσης θεωρούμενά τε καὶ θεολογούμενα, 10, ll.  10-2: 92-3.

Τῶν θείων πατέρων δύο τὰς θελήσεις καὶ τὰς ἐνέργειας καταλλήλους ταῖς δυσὶν οὐσίαις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ παρὰ Χριστοῦ μεμυημένων, μίαν θέλησίν τε καὶ ἐνέργειαν οἱ περὶ Κῦρον τε καὶ Σέργιον ἐδογμάτισαν, σύγχυσιν κατὰ τὸν λῆρον Εὐτυχῆ τῶν ἑκατέρων ϕύσεων εἰσάγοντες. Ἀλλ’οἱ θεῖοι πατέρες, τὴν αὐτῶν ἐξελέγχοντες δυσσέβειαν, τὸ τῆς θείας ϕύσεως θέλημα ἄκτιστον τυγχάνειν εἶπον, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ϕύσεως κτιστόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνθεωρεῖται τῇ θείᾳ ϕύσει τι κτιστόν, οὐδὲ τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ τι ἄκτιστον· καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀνάγκη τὰς δύο ϕύσεις ὁμολογεῖν; Τὴν γὰρ μίαν ἣν ϕατὲ ἐνέργειαν καὶ τὸ ἓν θέλημα ἢ κτιστὰ πάντως ἢ ἄκτιστα εἰπεῖν ἀναγκασθήσεσθε. Kαὶ εἰ μὲν αὐτὰ κτιστὰ ϕήσαιτο, κτιστὴν καὶ μόνην δηλώσει ϕύσιν, εἰ δ’ἄκτιστα, ἄκτιστον καὶ μόνην χαρακτηρίσει ϕύσιν. Δεῖ γὰρ πάντως κατάλληλα ταῖς ϕύσεσι τὰ ϕυσικὰ εἶναι. Ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς ἑκάστου ἐνεργείας ἡ ἑκάστου ϕύσις χαρακτηρίζεται, τῆς μὲν κτιστῆς κτιστὴν δεικνυούσης ϕύσιν, τῆς δ’ἀκτίστου ἄκτιστον.

Τῶν γὰρ θείων πατέρων δύο τε θελήσεις καὶ τὰς ἐνέργειας καταλλήλους ταῖς δυσὶν οὐσίαις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ παρὰ Χριστοῦ μεμυημένων, μίαν θέλησίν τε καὶ ἐνέργειαν οἱ περὶ Κῦρον τε καὶ Σέργιον ἐδογμάτισαν, σύγχυσιν κατὰ τὸν λῆρον Εὐτυχῆ τῶν ἑκατέρων ϕύσεων εἰσάγοντες. Ἀλλ’οἱ θεῖοι πατέρες, τὴν σϕῶν αὐτῶν ἐξελέγχοντες δυσσέβειαν, (...) τὸ τῆς θείας ϕύσεως θέλημα ἄκτιστον τυγχάνειν εἶπε, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ϕύσεως κτιστόν· οὐ γὰρ ἐνθεωρεῖται τῇ θείᾳ ϕύσει τι κτιστόν, οὐδὲ τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ τι ἄκτιστον· καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀνάγκη τὰς δύο ϕύσεις ὁμολογεῖν; Ὁ δέ· Ἢ κτιστὴν ἢ ἄκτιστον ϕησὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν εἰπεῖν ἀναγκασθήσεσθε. Καὶ εἰ μὲν κτιστὴν αὐτὴν ϕήσαιτο, κτιστὴν καὶ μόνην δηλώσει ϕύσιν, εἰ δὲ ἄκτιστον, ἄκτιστον καὶ μόνην χαρακτηρίσει ϕύσιν. Δεῖ γὰρ πάντως κατάλληλα ταῖς ϕύσεσι τὰ ϕυσικὰ εἶναι. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἀπὸ τῆς ἑκάστου ἐνεργείας ἡ ἑκάστου ϕύσις χαρακτηρίζεται, τῆς μὲν κτιστῆς κτιστὴν δεικνυούσης ϕύσιν, τῆς δ’ἀκτίστου ἄκτιστον.



antonio rigo

Πότερον οὖν οἱ τὰ τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου καὶ Βαρλαὰμ ϕρονοῦντες, δύο ϕύσεις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογοῦντες, καταλλήλους ταύταις καὶ τὰς ἐνέργειας πρεσβεύουσιν, ἢ μία ἑκατέρων ἢ τοίνυν οὐδετέραν ὡς αὐτῶν ὁ λόγος; Ἀλλ’εἰ μὲν δύο ἐροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ διαϕορὰν ὅλως ϕύσεως καὶ ἐνεργείας οὐκ ἴσασι, τὰς ϕύσεις πάντως αὐτὰς καὶ ἐνεργείας εἶναι ὅτε δογματίζουσι τελέως ἀναιροῦντες τὸν Χριστόν· ἐξ ἀθελήτων γὰρ καὶ ἀνενεργήτων ϕύσεων ὑπάρχων ὁ Χριστός, οὔτε Θεὸς οὔτε ἄνθρωπος τυγχάνει. Καὶ χωρὶς ϕυσικῆς ἐνεργείας οἱ πατέρες λέγουσιν οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε γινώσκεται ϕύσις, καὶ ἧς μόνον ἐστέρηται τὸ μὴ ὄν. Τὸ γὰρ ὄν, καθά ϕησιν ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος Γρηγόριος, οὐσίας τινὸς μετέχον, καὶ τῆς δηλούσης αὐτὴν ϕυσικῶς μεθέξει πάντως δυνάμεως. Καὶ ὁ ἀποῤῥίπτων οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλήσεως τὴν διαϕορὰν, ὁ θεῖος Ἰουστῖνος ϕησί, καὶ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἀποῤῥίπτει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ποίησιν, ὕπαρξιν μὲν τὴν αὐτοῦ, ποίησιν δὲ τῶν οὐκ ὄντων. Εἰ δὲ μίαν ὁμολογοῦσι, κτιστὴν ἄρα ταύτην λέγουσιν ἢ ἄκτιστον· καὶ εἰ μὲν κτιστὴν εἴποιεν, κτιστὴν δηλώσει πάντως ϕύσιν, καὶ ϕανήσονται λοιπὸν οὐ μόνον ταυτὰ ϕρονοῦντες τοῖς Μονοθεληταῖς, ἀλλὰ δὴ παραπλησίως καὶ τῷ Εὐτυχῇ· οὐκοῦν καὶ τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας μετ’ἐκείνων ἐξοστρακίζονται καὶ τῷ ἀναθέματι καθυποβάλλονται, f. 155v-156r.

Πότερον οὖν ὑμεῖς οἱ τὰ τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου καὶ Βαρλαὰμ ϕρονοῦντες, δύο ϕύσεις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογοῦντες, καταλλήλους ταύταις καὶ τὰς ἐνέργειας πρεσβεύετε, ἢ μία ἑκατέρων ἢ οὐδετέραν ὥσπερ ἔϕθημεν εἰπόντες; Ἀλλ’εἰ μὲν δύο ἐρεῖτε, ἐπεὶ διαϕορὰν ὅλως ϕύσεως καὶ ἐνεργείας οὐκ ἴστε, τὰς ϕύσεις πάντως αὐτὰς καὶ ἐνεργείας εἶναι ὅτε δογματίζετε τελέως ἀναιροῦντες τὸν Χριστόν· ἐξ ἀθελήτων γὰρ καὶ ἀνενεργήτων ϕύσεων καθ’ὑμᾶς ὑπάρχων ὁ Χριστός, οὔτε Θεὸς οὔτε ἄνθρωπος τυγχάνει. Καὶ χωρὶς ϕυσικῆς ἐνεργείας οἱ πατέρες λέγουσιν οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε γινώσκεται ϕύσις, καὶ ἧς μόνον ἐστέρηται τὸ μὴ ὄν. Τὸ γὰρ ὄν, καθά ϕησιν ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος Γρηγόριος, οὐσίας τινὸς μετέχον, καὶ τῆς δηλούσης αὐτὴν ϕυσικῶς μεθέξει πάντως δυνάμεως. Καὶ ὁ ἀποῤῥίπτων οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλήσεως τὴν διαϕορὰν, ϕησὶν ὁ ἅγιος Ἰουστῖνος, καὶ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἀποῤῥίπτει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ποίησιν, ὕπαρξιν μὲν τὴν αὐτοῦ, ποίησιν δὲ τῶν οὐκ ὄντων. (...) Εἰ δὲ μίαν, κτιστὴν ἄρα ταύτην ἢ ἄκτιστον ϕατὲ καὶ εἰ μὲν κτιστὴν ἐρεῖτε, κτιστὴν δηλώσει πάντως ϕύσιν, εἰ δὲ ἄκτιστον, ἄκτιστον χαρακτηρίσει μόνην ϕύσιν κατὰ τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις θεηγόρον Μάξιμον. Οἱ δ’ἑκατέρῳ τούτων ἁλισκόμενοι καὶ τοῖς ἄνωθεν ἀποδειχθεῖσι, τῷ τῆς ἀσεβείας περιπίπτουσι βαράθρῳ καὶ τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐξοστρακίζονται καὶ τῷ ἀναθέματι ὑποπίπτουσι, 16-17, ll. 1-17, 21-7: 95-7.



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

Ὁ μὴ δοξάζων ὡς οἱ θεῖοι λέγουσι πατέρες ἐνέργειαν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ οὐσιώδη τε καὶ ϕυσικήν, ἄχρονόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν οὖσαν, ἀλλ’αὐτὴν οὐσίαν οὐκ οὖσαν, ταὐτὸ δὲ λέγων οὐσίαν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ὡς ὑμεῖς ϕατέ, τὸν Θεὸν ἢ μεθεκτὸν πρεσβεύει πάντως ἢ ἀμέθεκτον. Καὶ εἰ μὲν μεθεκτόν, τίνος ἂν μεθέξειεν ὁ ταύτης ἀξιούμενος τῆς μετοχῆς, ἢ τῆς οὐσίας πάντως, ὅπερ τῆς Μεσσαλιανῶν αἱρέσεως ἐστίν· εἰ δὲ ἀμέθεκτον, τὸ τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον ἀρνεῖται, f. 159v.

Ὁ μὴ δοξάζων ἄλλο εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὖθις ἕτερον περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν οὖσαν, ἀλλ’αὐτὴν οὐσίαν οὐκ οὖσαν, ταὐτὸ δὲ λέγων οὐσίαν καὶ ἐνέργειαν, τὸν Θεὸν ἢ μεθεκτὸν πρεσβεύει ἢ ἀμέθεκτον. Καὶ εἰ μὲν μεθεκτόν, τίνος ἂν μετάσχοιεν οἱ ταύτης ἄξιοι γενόμενοι τῆς μετοχῆς, ἢ τῆς οὐσίας πάντως, ὅπερ δὴ τῆς Μεσσαλιανῶν αἱρέσεως ἐστίν· εἰ δὲ ἀμέθεκτον, τὸ τῆς οἰκονομίας κἂν μὴ βούληται μυστήριον ἀναιρῶν, 7, ll. 2-9: 89-90.

Ailleurs, le traité fait écho à la lettre au patriarche Jean XIV Calécas et en utilises les excerpta patristiques.  Traité hagiorétique

Lettre à Jean XIV Calécas

Φησὶν ὁ πολὺς ἐν θεολογίᾳ θεῖος Διονύσιος· Κυκλικῶς οἱ θεῖοι κινοῦνται νόες, ἑνούμενοι ταῖς ἀνάρχοις καὶ ἀτελευτήτοις ἐλλάμψεσι τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ. Καὶ πάλιν· Τὸ θεῖον παντός ἐστι πέρατος ὑπερηπλωμένον καὶ ὑπὸ μηδενὸς χωρούμενον ἢ καταλαμβανόμενον, ἀλλὰ διατεῖνον ἐπὶ πάντα ἅμα καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα ταῖς ἀνεκλείπτοις ἐπιδόσεσι καὶ ἀτελευτήτοις ἐνεργείαις. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸ ἀτελεύτητον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἄναρχον ὁ θεῖος ἔρως ἐνδείκνυται διαϕερόντως ὥσπέρ τις ἀΐδιος κύκλος διὰ τἀγαθὸν καὶ ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ εἰς τἀγαθὸν ἐν ἀπλανεῖ συνελίξει περιπορεύομενος, f. 134v.

Τὸ θεῖον παντός ἐστι πέρατος ὑπερηπλωμένον καὶ μηδενὶ χωρούμενον ἢ καταλαμβανόμενον, ἀλλὰ διατεῖνον ἐπὶ πάντα ἅμα καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα ταῖς ἀνεκλείπτοις ἐπιδόσεσι καὶ ἀτελευτήτοις ἐνεργείαις. Καὶ αὖθις· Κυκλικῶς οἱ θεῖοι κινοῦνται νόες, ἑνούμενοι ταῖς ἀνάρχοις καὶ ἀτελευτήτοις ἐλλάμψεσι τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ. Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν θεῖον ἔρωτα ἄναρχον καὶ ἀτελεύτητον προσεῖπε· ϕησὶ γάρ· Ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸ ἀτελεύτητον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἄναρχον ὁ θεῖος ἔρως ἐνδείκνυται διαϕερόντως, ὥσπέρ τις ἀΐδιος κύκλος διὰ τἀγαθὸν ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἐν τἀγαθῷ καὶ εἰς τἀγαθὸν ἐν ἀπλανεῖ συνελίξει περιπορεύομενος, 13, ll. 275-87: Panaghiotou, Ἡσυχαστικά A’, 52.



antonio rigo

Καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Μάξιμος· Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Εὐαγγέλιον, πρεσβεία Θεοῦ καὶ παράκλησις πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δι’Υἱοῦ σαρκωθέντος, καὶ μισθὸν δωρουμένου τοῖς πειθόμενοις αὐτῷ τῆς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καταλλαγῆς, τὴν ἀγένητον θέωσιν. Ἀγένητον δὲ λέγω θέωσιν, τὴν κατ’εἶδος ἐνυπόστατον ἔλλαμψιν, ἥτις οὐκ ἔχει γένεσιν, ἀλλ’ἐπινόητον ἐν τοῖς ἀξίοις ϕανέρωσιν, f. 135r.

ὁ θεῖος ... Μάξιμος· Τοῦτό ἐστι λέγων τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Εὐαγγέλιον, πρεσβεία Θεοῦ καὶ παράκλησις πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δι’Υἱοῦ σαρκωθέντος, καὶ μισθὸν δωρουμένου τοῖς πειθόμενοις τῆς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καταλλαγῆς, τὴν ἀγένητον θέωσιν. Ἀγένητον δὲ λέγω θέωσιν, τὴν κατ’εἶδος ἐνυπόστατον ἔλλαμψιν, ἥτις οὐκ ἔχει γένεσιν, ἀλλ’ἀνεπινόητον ἐν τοῖς ἀξίοις ϕανέρωσιν, 6, ll.  10814: 44-45.

Καὶ ὁ θεῖος Δαμασκηνός· Σήμερον ϕωτὸς ἀπροσίτου ἄβυσσος, σήμερον αἴγλης θείας χύσις ἀπεριόριστος ἐν τῷ Θαβὼρ τῷ ὄρει τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐγάζεται. Σῶμα θνητὸν δόξαν πηγάζει θεότητος, ὢ τοῦ θαύματος· οὐκ ἔξωθεν τῷ σώματι προσεγένετο, ἀλλ’ἔνδοθεν ἐκ τῆς ἀρρήτῳ λόγῳ ἡνωμένης αὐτῷ καθ’ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου ὑπερθέου θεότητος.

Σήμερον ϕωτὸς ἀπροσίτου ἄβυσσος, σήμερον αἴγλης θείας χύσις ἀπεριόριστος ἐν τῷ Θαβὼρ τῷ ὄρει τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐγάζεται. Nῦν ὡράθη τὰ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἀθέατα ὄμμασι, σῶμα γήϊνον θείαν ἀπαυγάζει λαμπρότητα, σῶμα θνητὸν δόξαν πηγάζει θεότητος, ὢ τοῦ θαύματος· οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἡ δόξα τῷ σώματι προσεγένετο, ἀλλ’ἔνδοθεν ἐκ τῆς ἀρρήτῳ λόγῳ ἡνωμένης αὐτῷ καθ’ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου ὑπερθέου θεότητος.

ᾯ γὰρ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἀκλινὲς ἐνερείδειν τὸ ὄμμα οὐ σθένουσιν, ἐν τούτῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων οἱ πρόκριτοι τῇ δόξῃ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείας ὁρῶσιν ἐκλάμποντα.

ᾯ γὰρ ἑκάτῳ ἐκείνῳ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἀκλινὲς ἐρείδειν τὸ ὄμμα οὐ σθένουσιν, ἐν τούτῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων οἱ πρόκριτοι τῇ δόξῃ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείας ὁρῶσιν ἐκλάμποντα. Ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς κορυϕαίους (...) τὴν οἰκείαν θεότητα.

Τελείους δὲ εἶναι τοὺς τὴν θείαν δόξαν εἰκὸς κατοπτεύοντας, τὴν ἁπάντων ἐπέκεινα, τὴν μόνην καὶ ὑπερτελῆ καὶ προτέλειον. Ὁ θεῖος

Tελείους δὲ εἶναι τοὺς τὴν θείαν δόξαν εἰκὸς κατοπτεύοντας, τὴν ἁπάντων ἐπέκεινα, τὴν μόνην ὑπερτελῆ καὶ προτέλειον. Ὁ θεῖος



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

γὰρ ὄντως καὶ θεηγόρος Διονύσιος· Οὕτως ὁ δεσπότης ϕησίν, ὀϕθήσεται τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ τελείοις θεράπουσιν, ὃν τρόπον ἐν ὄρει Θαβὼρ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ὀπτάνεται· Ἰωάννην παραλαμβάνει ὡς τῆς θεολογίας παρθένον καὶ καθαρώτατον ὄργανον, ὅπως τὴν ἄχρονον δόξαν τοῦ Υἱοῦ θεασάμενος Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος βροντήσειε.

γὰρ ὄντως καὶ θεηγόρος Διονύσιος· Οὕτως ὁ δεσπότης ϕησίν, ὀϕθήσεται τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ τελείοις θεράπουσιν, ὃν τρόπον ἐν ὄρει Θαβὼρ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ὀπτάνεται· Ἰωάννην παραλαμβάνει ὡς τῆς θεολογίας παρθένον καὶ καθαρώτατον ὄργανον, ὅπως τὴν ἄχρονον δόξαν τοῦ Υἱοῦ θεασάμενος Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος βροντήσειεν. Μήτηρ γὰρ προσευχῆς (...) ἀόρατος ἐχρημάτιζε.

Μεταμορϕοῦται τοίνυν, οὐχ ὃ οὐκ ἦν προσλαβόμενος, οὐδὲ εἰς ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν μεταβαλλόμενος, ἀλλ’ὅπερ ἦν τοῖς οἰκείοις μαθηταῖς ἐκϕαινόμενος, διανοίγων τούτων τὰ ὄμματα καὶ ἐκ τυϕλῶν ἐργαζόμενος βλέποντας. Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τό· μετεμορφώϑη ἔμπροσϑεν αὐτῶν. Μένων γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν ταὐτότητι παρ’ὃ τὸ πρὶν ἐϕαίνετο, ἕτερος νῦν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἑωρᾶτο ϕαινόμενος.

Μεταμορϕοῦται τοίνυν, οὐχ ὃ οὐκ ἦν προσλαβόμενος, οὐδὲ εἰς ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν μεταβαλλόμενος, ἀλλ’ὅπερ ἦν τοῖς οἰκείοις μαθηταῖς ἐκϕαινόμενος, διανοίγων τούτων τὰ ὄμματα καὶ ἐκ τυϕλῶν ἐργαζόμενος βλέποντας. Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τό· μετεμορφώϑη ἔμπροσϑεν αὐτῶν. Μένων γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν ταὐτότητι παρ’ὃ τὸ πρὶν ἐϕαίνετο, ἕτερος νῦν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἑωρᾶτο ϕαινόμενος. Καὶ ἔλαμψε τὸ πρόσωπον (...) οὐ παντελῶς ὁμοιώτατον.

Ἀμήχανον γὰρ ἀπαραλείπτως ἐν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ἄκτιστον εἰκονίζεσθαι.

Ἀμήχανον γὰρ ἀπαραλείπτως ἐν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ἄκτιστον εἰκονίζεσθαι, ἀλλ’ὥσπερ ὁ ἥλιος (...) ἐκκαλύπτεται σήμερον.

Φωνὴ Πατρὸς ἐκ νεϕέλης γέγονε, καὶ δόξα διηνεκὴς καὶ διαιωνίζουσα δείκνυται. Μὴ ζήτει πρὸ καιροῦ τὰ καλά, ὦ Πέτρε· ἔσται ποτέ, ὅταν ἄληκτον τὴν θέαν ταύτην κομίσαιο. Καὶ ὁ θεηγόρος Ἀνδρέας·

Φωνὴ Πατρὸς ἐκ νεϕέλης γέγονε, καὶ δόξα διηνεκὴς καὶ διαιωνίζουσα δείκνυται. Μὴ ζήτει τοιγαροῦν πρὸ καιροῦ τὰ καλά, ὦ Πέτρε· ἔσται ποτέ, ὅταν ἄληκτον τὴν θέαν ταύτην κομίσαιο. Ταῦτα δέ μοι ϕθέγγεται καὶ ὁ μέγας Ἀνδρέας τῆς Κρήτης, ἀρίστος ποιμήν, λέγων οὑτωσί·



antonio rigo

Τοῦτο τοίνυν ἑορτάζομεν σήμερον, τὴν τῆς ϕύσεως θέωσιν, τὴν εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον ἀλλοίωσιν, τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ ϕύσιν ἔκστασιν καὶ ἀνάβασιν· καθ’ἣν καὶ τοῦ κρείττονος ἡ ἐκνίκησις, ἢ τό γε κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν ἡ ἀνεκλάλητος θέωσις. Τοῦτο θαυμάζουσιν ἄγγελοι, τοῦτο δοξολογοῦσιν ἀρχάγγελοι, τούτῳ πᾶσα τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων ἡ νοητὴ διακόσμησις ἀΰλως ἑστιωμένη, τεκμήριον ἐναργέστατόν τε καὶ ἀψευδέστατον τίθεται τῆς περὶ ἡμᾶς τοῦ Λόγου ϕιλανθρωπίας. Οὐ τότε γενόμενος ἑαυτοῦ διαυγέστερος ἢ ὑψηλότερος, ἄπαγε· ἀλλ’ὅπερ καὶ πρότερον ἦν τοῖς τελουμένοις τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ μυουμένοις τὰ ὑψηλότερα κατὰ ἀλήθειαν θεωρούμενος.

Τοῦτο τοίνυν ἑορτάζομεν σήμερον, τὴν τῆς ϕύσεως θέωσιν, τὴν εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον ἀλλοίωσιν, τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ ϕύσιν ἔκστασιν καὶ ἀνάβασιν· καθ’ἣν καὶ τοῦ κρείττονος ἡ ἐκνίκησις, ἢ τό γε κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν ἡ ἀνεκλάλητος θέωσις. Τοῦτο θαυμάζουσιν ἄγγελοι, τοῦτο δοξολογοῦσιν ἀρχάγγελοι, τούτῳ πᾶσα ὑπερκοσμίων ἡ νοητὴ διακόσμησις ἀΰλως ἑστιωμένη, τεκμήριον ἐναργέστατόν τε καὶ ἀψευδέστατον τίθεται τῆς περὶ ἡμᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου ϕιλανθρωπίας.

Οὐκ ἔστι τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει θεωρουμένων, ὃ χωρήσει τούτου τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς λαμπρότητος. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Πέτρος τῇ γεγενημένῃ ϕωτοϕανείᾳ καὶ θεοπτίᾳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἡδόμενος καὶ θελγόμενος, καὶ ὅλως ἔνθους γενόμενος ἐϕερμηνεύειν δὲ τὸ πάθος ἀδυνατῶν καὶ πάλιν διαρρυῆναι σιγῇ τὴν χάριν οὐ καρτερῶν, οὐκ ἀϕροσύνης οὐδὲ ἠλιθιότητος, ὡς ἄν τινες ὑπολάβοιεν ἴσως ἀποϕθέγγεται ῥήματα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἀρρήτου μυσταγωγίας ἐκείνης καὶ θεουργίας γεννήματα καὶ βλαστήματα ποιεῖ τὰ ῥήματα. Ἀπόδειξις δὲ τῶν λεγομένων, αὐτὸ ἂν εἴη τὸ μακάριον πάθος ἐκεῖνο καὶ πολυΰμνητον, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρος πεπόνθασιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἡνίκα

Οὐκ ἔστι τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει θεωρουμένων, ὃ χωρήσει τούτου τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς λαμπρότητος. Ἀλλὰ καὶ Πέτρος τῇ γεγενημένῃ ϕωτοϕανείᾳ καὶ θεοπτίᾳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἡδόμενος καὶ θελγόμενος, καὶ ὅλως ἔνθους γενόμενος ἐϕερμηνεύειν δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ πάθος ἀδυνατῶν καὶ πάλιν διαρρυῆναι σιγῇ τὴν χάριν οὐ καρτερῶν, οὐκ ἀϕροσύνης οὐδὲ ἠλιθιότητος, ὡς ἄν τινες ὑπολάβοιεν ἀποϕθέγγεται ῥήματα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἀρρήτου μυσταγωγίας ἐκείνης καὶ θεουργίας γεννήματα καὶ βλαστήματα ποιεῖ τὰ ῥήματα. Ἀπόδειξις δὲ τῶν λεγομένων, αὐτὸ ἂν εἴη τὸ μακάριον πάθος ἐκεῖνο καὶ πολυΰμνητον, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρος πεπόνθασιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἡνίκα



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

τὸ ἀπρόσιτον καὶ ἄχρονον ϕῶς τὴν οἰκείαν σάρκα μεταμορϕῶσαν τῷ ὑπερβάλλοντι τῆς οἰκείας ϕωτοβλυσίας ὑπερουσίως ἐλάμπρυνε.

τὸ ἀπρόσιτον καὶ ἄχρονον ϕῶς τὴν οἰκείαν σάρκα μεταμορϕῶσαν τῷ ὑπερβάλλοντι τῆς οἰκείας ϕωτοβλυσίας ὑπερουσίως ἐλάμπρυνεν. Ὢ τοῦ θαύματος (....) παιδευθῶσι μυστήριον.

Καὶ ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος·

Οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ μέγας ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ λάμψας Ἀθάνασιος ἄχρονον καὶ ϕυσικὸν τὸ ϕῶς ἐκεῖνο εἶπε, λέξας οὑτωσί·

Ἀναστὰς ὁ Χριστὸς τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν δόξῃ ϕυσικῇ καὶ οὐκ ἐν χάριτι, ἐρχόμενος ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ θεότητι ἐμϕανῶς, ἐκλάμπων ἐκ τοῦ ἐκ Μαρίας σώματος αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἀπόρρητον, ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους ἔδειξεν ἀπὸ μέρους, διδάσκων ἡμᾶς ὅτι καὶ πρότερον καὶ νῦν ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν, ἀναλλοίωτος ὢν ἀεὶ καὶ μεταβολὴν οὐδεμίαν ἔχων περὶ τὴν θεότητα, f.  137r138r.

Ἀναστὰς ὁ Χριστὸς τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν δόξῃ ϕυσικῶς καὶ οὐκ ἐν χάριτι, ἐρχόμενος ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ θεότητι ἐμϕανῶς, ἐκλάμπων ἐκ τοῦ ἐκ Μαρίας σώματος αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἀπόρρητον, ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους ἔδειξεν ἀπὸ μέρους, διδάσκων ἡμᾶς ὅτι καὶ πρότερον καὶ νῦν ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν, ἀναλλοίωτος ὢν ἀεὶ καὶ μεταβολὴν οὐδεμίαν ἔχων περὶ τὴν θεότητα, 18, ll. 43749, 452-61, 476-82, 490-1, 518-22, 19, ll. 524-46, 20, ll. 563-9: 58-63.

Καὶ ὁ θεῖος Μακάριος· Ἡ τελεία τοῦ Πνεύματος ἔλλαμψις οὐχ οἷον νοημάτων μόνων  ἀποκάλυψίς ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ὑποστατικοῦ ϕωτὸς ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς βεβαία καὶ διηνεκὴς ἔλλαμψις· Καὶ πάλιν· Ἰστέον ὅτι δυσὶ τρόποις γίνεται ἡ ἀποκάλυψις, ἤγουν ἡ γνῶσις διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος· ἔν τε νοήμασι καὶ γνώσει γραϕῶν καὶ ἐν ϕωτὶ θεϊκῷ καὶ οὐσιώδει, ὅπέρ ἔστιν ἔπιϕαινόμενον καὶ ἐλλάμπον ὑπὲρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ϕῶς ταῖς ψυχαῖς.

(...) καὶ ὁ Μακάριος ὁ μέγας λέγων· Ἰστέον ὅτι δυσὶ τρόποις γίνεται ἡ ἀποκάλυψις, ἤγουν ἡ γνῶσις διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος· ἔν τε νοήμασι καὶ γνώσει γραϕῶν καὶ ἐν ϕωτὶ θεϊκῷ καὶ οὐσιώδει, ὅπέρ ἔστιν ἔπιϕαινόμενον καὶ ἐλλάμπον ὑπὲρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ϕῶς ταῖς ψυχαῖς. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἡ τελεία τοῦ Πνεύματος ἔλλαμψις οὐχ οἷον νοημάτων μόνων  ἀποκάλυψίς ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ὑποστατικοῦ ϕωτὸς ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς βεβαία καὶ διηνεκὴς ἔλλαμψις. (...)



antonio rigo

Καὶ ὁ τῆς Κλίμακος θεῖος Ἰωάννης· Καθαρότης καρδίας ἐδέξατο ἔλλαμψιν. Ἔλλαμψίς ἐστιν ἄρρητος ἐνέργεια, νοουμένη ἀγνώστως, καὶ ὁρωμένη ἀοράτως, f. 151v-152r.

Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ τῆς Κλίμακος θεῖος Ἰωάννης οὕτω ϕησί· Καθαρότης καρδίας ἐδέξατο ἔλλαμψιν. Ἔλλαμψίς ἐστιν ἄρρητος ἐνέργεια, νοουμένη ἀγνώστως, καὶ ὁρωμένη ἀοράτως, 6, ll. 115-128: 45.

Les extraits des Pères et les autres citations (comme celle de Jean Bekkos) présents dans le Traité hagiorétique dérivent directement de la première pragmateia du Coisl. 288, dont ils reproduisent aussi les titres. 22 Et encore un passage de la dénonciation à Jean VI Cantacuzène a un parallèle avec le Traité hagiorétique. 23 D’autres traits lient le traité et Marc: il suffit de rappeler ici un certain goût pour l’hérésiologie, évident dans l’ouvrage qui nous intéresse et aussi dans la dénonciation à Jean VI, où il rappelle le cas des anciens hérétiques (Arius, Eunome, Apollinaire, Valentin), 24 et dans la lettre adressée au même, en particulier dans la dernière partie, dans laquelle, en considérant hérétiques les antipalamites, Marc parle de la réadmission dans l’Église des différentes catégories d’hérétiques. 25

22 Cf. à titre d’exemple, f. 156v « Φησὶν ὁ Λατῖνος· Τί δέ ἐστι τὸ χορηγούμενον ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ; Ὁ εἷς πάντως τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος Θεός, ὁ Παράκλητος, ἤγουν αὐτὴ ἡ οὐσία καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος χορηγεῖται τῇ κτίσει διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ οὐχὶ ἡ χάρις μόνον. Ἡ γὰρ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια, ἐπεὶ ἡμῖν καὶ ἡμῶν ἕνεκεν ὑπάρχει, πάντως καὶ ὑπὸ χρόνον ἔσται. Προσϕάτου γὰρ οὔσης, καὶ ὑπὸ χρόνον τῆς κτίσεως, πρόσϕατον πάντως καὶ ὑπὸ χρόνον χρὴ οἴεσθαι καὶ τὴν χάριν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν. Ταῦτα τοῦ Λατίνου. Σκόπει γοῦν εἰ μὴ τούτοις τὰ τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου σύμϕωνα· ὅτι αὐτό ϕησιν ὁ Ἀκίνδυνος τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄκτιστον καὶ τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ ἴσον καὶ ὁμοϕυὲς καὶ ὁμότιμον τὸ ἓν τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ἔλαβον διὰ τῆς κατὰ χάριν χρονικῆς πρὸς αὐτοὺς μεταδόσεως οἱ θεῖοι ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλ’οὐ κατ’ἄλλην τινὰ θεότητα παρ’αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον » et Paris. BnF. Coisl. 288, f. 252r Βέκκου τοῦ λατινόϕρονος, inc. : Τί δέ ἐστι τὸ χορηγούμενον ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, des.: ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. Dans la marge  : Κακοδόξου. Τοῦ Ἀκινδύνου σύμϕωνα τῷ Βέκκῳ λέγοντος, inc.: Ὅτι αὐτὸν τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄκτιστον, des. : ϕωτίζουσα ἡμᾶς καὶ μετεχομένη ὑϕ’ἡμῶν. Dans la marge : Κακοδόξου. 23 « Ἀλλ’εἰς μάτην αὐτοῖς τὰ τοῦ σοϕίσματος τοῖς ἰδίοις ὅ ϕασι πτεροῖς ἁλισκομένοις », 8, ll. 1-2: Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos (cf. n. 13) 75 et « Ὁ δ’ἀνόητος καὶ ἐνδεὴς ϕρενῶν Ἀκίνδυνος, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ μαχόμενος καὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις ὅ ϕασι πτεροῖς ἁλισκόμενος  », f. 149r. 24 « ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι πάλαι κατὰ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἀνοσίως ἐκστρατευσάμενοι, Ἄρειος ϕημὶ καὶ Εὐνόμιος, Ἀπολλινάριός τε καὶ Οὐαλεντῖνος, καὶ ὅσοι κατ’αὐτοὺς καὶ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ μετ’αὐτοὺς γεγόνασιν  », 7: Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos (cf. n.  13) 74-5. 25 19-21: Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos (cf. n. 13) 98-102.



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

À la fin de notre analyse il nous paraît clair que l’auteur du Traité hagiorétique doit être identifié avec Marc Kyrtos. Il était déjà possible de déduire un indice en ce sens du manuscrit Athous Lavra M 88 (1779), dans le quel le traité est anonyme et anonyme aussi la lettre de Marc à Jean XIV Calécas (ainsi que les autres titres tirés des pragmateiai). Le Traité hagiorétique a été écrit par Marc  Kyrtos à Lavra vers l’an 1350 et représente une nouvelle étape de la carrière du personnage. Actif à Thessalonique, d’où il est obligé de s’échapper à cause des Zélotes, pour son palamisme et ses sympathies cantacuzénistes (περὶ τὸ θεῖον καὶ τὸ βασίλειον κράτος δυσσεβὴς ὢν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐϕάνη καὶ ἄπιστος). C’est de Chios qu’il écrit (1343) une lettre à Jean XIV Calécas, comme nous en informe Grégoire Akindynos (débuts de 1344). 26 Selon Ignace d’Antioche, Jean XIV Calécas écrivait pendant la même année 1344 (été?) au métropolite de Chios en l’invitant à prendre des mesures contre Marc. 27 Vers la fin de 1346 et au début de 1347, peu de temps avant le concile de février, Marc s’adressa à Jean VI Cantacuzène et l’exorta à la répression contre Akindynos et ses partisans. Autour de 1350, au cours d’un séjour à Lavra, il écrivait le Traité hagiorétique contre les opposants antipalamites, dans une période précédant immédiatement le concile de 1351. Sur le séjour de Marc Kyrtos à Lavra nous avons le témoignage des manuscrits. En plus du Coisl. 288, qui contient ses ouvrages, il a donné autres manuscrits au monastère. En premier lieu, il faut mentionner le Paris. BnF Coisl. 85, 28 dans lequel il copie les œuvres du pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite avec les scholies et la paraphrase de Georges Pachymérès. Au f.  IIv la note  : Προσετέθη παρὰ τοῦ τιμιωτάτου ἐν μοναχοῖς κυροῦ Μάρκου τοῦ Κυρτοῦ. f. 1r Τῶν κατηχουμενείων τῆς ἱερᾶς Λαύρας τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀθανασίου. Le manuscrit Venezia, Marc. gr. II.  89 (1151) (XIVe  s.), 29 œuvres de Michel Glykas, a été écrit par différents copistes. Au f. Iv la note: Προσετέθη ἐν τοῖς κατηχουμένοις παρὰ τοῦ τιμιωτάτου ἐν μοναχοῖς κυροῦ Μάρκου τοῦ Κυρτοῦ. De mains différentes est aussi le Mosq. Syn. 26 Epistula, 37: A.  Constantinides Hero, Letters of Gregory Akindynos, CFHB, 21. Washington D.C. 1983, 130-40. 27 «  ἓν μὲν τιμιώτατον γράμμα πρὸς τὸν Χίον κατά τινος Μάρκου τὰ τοῦ Παλαμᾶ ϕρονοῦντος », Grégoire Palamas, Refutatio Ignatii Antiochensis, 12: PS II, 634, ll. 145; cf. J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I/5 Les regestes de 1310 à 1376. Paris 1977, n° 2246. 28 Cf. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin (cf. n. 15) 74-5 ; Apostopoulou, Markos Kyrtos (cf. n. 13) 27-8. 29 Cf. E. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti, I. Roma 1967, 260-4.



antonio rigo

gr.  439 (Vladimir 425) (XIVe  s.), 30 œuvres de Maxime le  Confesseur, Évagre le  Pontique (sous le nom de Maxime), Philothée le  Sinaïte, abba Isaïe. Au f. 2v la note : Προσετέθη παρὰ τοῦ τιμιωτάτου ἐν μοναχοῖς κυροῦ Μάρκου τοῦ Κυρτοῦ. En conclusions de nos observations sur la carrière et l’activité de Marc Kyrtos, un caveat. Plusieurs chercheurs (S. Apostopoulou, A. Panaghiotou, H.-V. Beyer, etc.), en parlant de la biographie de Marc Kyrtos, ont à tort identifié notre auteur avec d’autres moines homonymes en raison d’un commun séjour à Lavra (quoique à différents moments!), du commun soutien à Palamas, etc. On a ainsi créé une espèce de chimère en utilisant des sources et ouvrages concernant en réalité d’autres personnages. 31 De cette manière, si nous consultons le lemme du Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, 32 nous trouvons tacitement (et à tort) identifiés Marc  Kyrtos, Marc disciple de Grégoire le  Sinaïte (à Lavra vers 1340), 33 Marc Blatès (à Lavra en 1344) 34 et un abba Marc de Lavra, auteur d’un commentaire au typikon de Saint-Sabas (au XIIIe siècle?) ... 35 Une dernière remarque sur le nom Marc Kyrtos. Selon Ihor Ševčenko et bien des chercheurs postérieurs « Kyrtos » est un sobriquet. Il écrivait: « We can even identify the obscure palamite monk Markos, to whom Akindynos alluded in a letter to Patriarch Kalekas as ‘crippled both in 30 Cf. Vladimir, Систематическое описаніе рукописей Московской Синодальной Библіотеки, I. Moskva 1894, 640-2; B.  L.  Fonkič, F.  B.  Poljakov, Греческие рукописи Синодальной Библиотеки. Moskva 1993, 138-9; A. et C. Guillaumont, Évagre le Pontique, Gnostique ou à celui qui est devenu digne de la science, SC, 356. Paris 1989, 47 ; P. Van Deun, Maximi Confessoris Liber asceticus, CCSC, 40. Turnhout – Leuven 2000, LXX-LXXI; R. Ogliari, Ὁ ὅσιος Φιλόθεος ὁ Σιναΐτης καὶ τὰ ἔργα του. Thessaloniki 2002 (diss.), 43. 31 Constantinides Hero, Letters of Gregory Akindynos (cf. n. 26) 368 rappelait l’origine de l’identification de Kyrtos avec le disciple de Grégoire le Sinaïte et observait avec raison: « Meyendorff further identifies Kyrtos with Mark the disciple of Gregory of Sinai (...), but this identification can be only tentative ». 32 PLP 17086. Cf. aussi la récente mise à pointe (parue après le colloque de Moscou) de A. G. Dounaev dans le compte rendu du livre de Antonios Panaghiotou (ici transformé en A. Panaghiotès), Богословские Труды 50 (2012) 571-582. 33 Notice par A. Rigo, Gregorio il Sinaita, dans C. G. et V. Conticello (éd.), La théologie byzantine est sa tradition, II. Turnhout 2002, 68. 34 Notice (avec des fautes et des lacunes) dans PLP 2819. 35 Notice dans PLP 17084. On connaît un manuscrit de l’ouvrage de l’année 1297, Mosq. Syn. gr. 456 (Vladimir 242), cf. Vladimir, Систематическое описаніе рукописей (cf. n. 30) 392-3. L’identification proposée par Ph. Roelli, Marci monachi opera ascetica. Florilegium et sermones tres, CCSG, 72. Turnhout – Leuven 2009, XVIXVII avec le directeur spirituel d’Eulogie Paléologine n’est soutenue par aucune preuve.



QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR LA CONTROVERSE PALAMITE

body and soul’, and the author of a writing ‘against piety’ addressed to the same Kalekas: he was the monk Markos Kyrtos (the hunchback) and Kyrtos’ letter to the Patriarch is itself preserved in a Coislin manuscript ». 36 À notre avis, « Kyrtos » (le bossu) pourrait être un sobriquet (malveillant) s’il était utilisé par les adversaires, mais le mot « Kyrtos » est présent dans les notes des manuscrits donnés par le même Marc à Lavra. Pour cette raison nous pensons qu’il indique un nom de famille (pas attesté!), ou un lieu (monastère ou église). Nous rappelons à ce propos un témoignage plus ancien (fin du XIe siècle). Dans un acte de Lavra (1097) on retrouve la signature « Καθαρὸς πρεσβύτερος τοῦ Κυρτοῦ ». 37 Le mot indique très probablement une église de Thessalonique, mais « on n’excluera pas que le déterminatif soit seulement le patronyme du signataire ». 38 Selon nous « Kyrtos » (au genitif ) était un nom qui derivait d’une fondation religieuse, de Thessalonique, mais le mot se prêtait, dans le cas de Marc, au jeu de paroles des adversaires. Prof. Dr. Antonio Rigo, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia [email protected] Abstract Questions et réponses sur la controverse palamite. Un texte inédit d’origine athonite et son auteur véritable (Marc Kyrtos) This article is devoted to an anonymous treatise: the Logos haghioreitikos preserved in MS Athous Lavras M 88 (1779). The study of the manuscript copied in the monastery of Lavra on Mount Athos circa 1360 and the content analysis of the treatise show that the Logos was written by a known Palamite theologian, Mark Kyrtos. He also authored other works addressed to Patriarch John Kalekas and to John Kantakuzenos and a long florilegium on divine essence and operation (Paris. BnF Coisl. 288). Mark wrote the treatise in the period before the Palamite Council of 1351.

36 Society and Intellectual Life in Fourteenth Century, dans Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Études Byzantines, I. Bucarest 1974, 72. 37 P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra, I, Archives de l’Athos, 5. Paris 1970, n° 53, l. 37: 278. 38 Ibid., 276; cf. R. Janin, Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins. Paris 1975, 391.



michel asmus

Les énigmes d’un presbytre de Constantinople 1. Introduction Avec la grande œuvre historique entreprise par le saint empereur Constantin Isapostolos, la littérature chrétienne connaît un nouveau souffle et un intense développement, comme d’ailleurs tous les aspects de la vie de l’Église. Toute la puissance de la formation et de la pratique rhétorique accumulée durant l’antiquité, enrichie du caractère imagé et de la stylistique de l’Écriture Sainte, est mise au service de l’affirmation des dogmes et des fondements éthiques du Christianisme. Les disciples des plus grands rhéteurs païens se font les coryphées de l’homilétique chrétienne. L’archevêque Jean de Constantinople, dit « Chrysostome » précisément à cause de son activité homilétique, n’est qu’un des représentants, certes le plus marquant et le plus populaire, de toute une pléiade de prédicateurs. L’abondance de la production orale qui a pour objet l’Évangile du Christ, la vie du Sauveur, de la Mère de Dieu et des saints accompagne, et parfois même précède de peu, le développement des fêtes chrétiennes dont s’enrichit peu à peu l’année liturgique. Cela a d’une part entraîné la « canonisation » de l’héritage homilétique des IVe-VIIe siècles et l’apparition de recueils de sermons intitulés Homéliaires ou Lectionnaires patristiques rattachant telles ou telles lectures patristiques à chaque fête ; d’autre part, cela a considérablement influencé le développement de l’hymnographie liturgique byzantine. Le premier genre hymnographique original, né sous la plume de saint Romain le  Mélode, est le kontakion, que la science caractérise fort justement comme une homélie poétique. Le canon ne laisse pas non plus d’avoir subi l’influence de l’homilétique, développant son élément encomiastique et devenant l’un des principaux genres de la liturgie de type byzantin. Si les homélies, les kontakia et les canons peuvent difficilement être rapportés aux genres mineurs auxquels est dédiée cette édition, les innombrables tropaires et les hymnes indépendants peuvent pleinement être envisagés comme opuscula. Dans ces petites formes hymnographiques, on découvrira pourtant des réminiscences de l’homilétique, quand ce ne sont pas des emprunts directs. Ce phénomène s’explique The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 152-158 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101923

LES ENIGMES D’UN PRESBYTRE DE CONSTANTINOPLE

par la grande qualité rhétorique de nombreux sermons, dont certains passages obéissent à des lois littéraires qui les rapprochent de la poésie. Dans la littérature grecque byzantine, il s’agit de différentes consonances sur le mode de la rime, de parallélismes rythmiques, syntaxiques et sémantiques, d’homéotéleutes, etc. Par exemple, le theotokion des matines du dimanche Ὑπερευλογημένη e (2  ton) a dans son corps la structure tripartite suivante : 1. ὁ Ἅδης ἠχμαλώτισται, / L’Enfer est capturé, 1а. ὁ Ἀδάμ ἀναϰέϰληται; / Adam est rappelé ; 2. ἡ ϰατάρα νενέϰρωται, / la malédiction est anéantie, 2а. ἡ Εὔα ἠλευϑέρωται; / Eve est libérée ; 3. ὁ ϑάνατος τεϑανάτωται, / la mort est mise à mort, 3а. ϰαὶ ἡμεῖς ἐζωοποιήϑημεν. / et nous avons été vivifiés. 1 Cette construction est un retraitement rhétorique de la formule tripartite que nous avons rencontré dans une homélie byzantine. Nous reparlerons de son auteur: 1. ὁ Ἀδάμ ἠλευϑερώϑη, / Adam est libéré, 2. ἡ Εὔα τῆς λύπης ἀπηλλάγη, / Eve est délivrée de sa douleur, 3. ἡ ἀνϑρωπότης τῆς ὀδύνης ἐλυτρώϑη. / L’humanité est délivrée de son affliction.

2. Un prédicateur énigmatique Les passages poétiques, cette source potentielle de traitement hymnographique, ont attiré notre attention lorsque nous étudions un certain nombre d’homélies attribué à Léonce, presbytre de Constantinople que les chercheurs n’ont pu jusqu’à présent identifier à aucun de ses homonymes des IVe-VIIe s. connus des historiens de l’Église. Dans les manuscrits (et encore, pas dans tous), seules 11 homélies sont signées de ce nom énigmatique, tandis que les chercheurs, 2 s’appuyant sur des critères litté ‘Ωρολόγιον τὸ μέγα, Athina 1973, 68–69. M.  Sachot, Les homélies de Léonce, prêtre de Constantinople. Revue des sciences religieuses 51/2–3 (1977) 239. Cf. CPG ΙΙΙ, 487 (nota). C. Datema/P. Allen, Leontii presbyteri Constantinopolitani homiliae, CCSG,  17. Turnhout-Leuven 1987. Cf. ID., Leontius, Presbyter of Constantinople: Fourteen Homilies, Byzantina Australiensia, 9. Brisbane 1991. 1 2



michel asmus

raires et différentes autres données lui attribuent la paternité de 3 à 16 sermons, signés dans les manuscrits du nom de prédicateurs aussi fameux que Chrysostome ou Athanase ou de prédicateurs tout aussi inconnus que Léonce, Timothée, prêtre de Jérusalem et Timothée, prêtre d’Antioche. En son temps, la critique scientifique avait attribué ces dubia et spuria soit à Amphiloque d’Iconium, soit à saint Proclus de Constantinople, soit même à Nestorius, à qui son art oratoire avait également valu le siège de Constantinople. Allant de l’avant, disons que tous les auteurs proposés pour ces textes datent d’avant le milieu du Ve siècle, en d’autres termes, d’avant le IVe Concile œcuménique. Quant à Léonce, les chercheurs le datent obstinément du milieu du Ve siècle au plus tôt, 3 quand ce n’est pas du VIe  siècle, faisant de lui un contemporain de deux autres Léonces, de Constantinople et de Jérusalem, qui vécurent à l’époque de Justinien. 4 P.  K.  Chrestou, dans sa Patrologie grecque renvoie même Léonce au VIe siècle ou à la première moitié du VIIe. 5 Le problème de la datation de Léonce s’aggrave du fait de la présence de nombreux recoupements avec d’autres textes authentiques ou anonymes, datés ou rebelles à toute datation. Ces recoupements ont incité les chercheurs à voir en Léonce « un compilateur de grand talent », 6 une représentation qui pourrait être mise en doute si l’on pouvait faire remonter notre auteur à un contexte historique plus ancien. Cette « archaïsation  » de Léonce permettrait non seulement de le délivrer des accusations de plagiat, mais permettrait aussi inévitablement de préciser la chronologie de la formation de certaines fêtes. Ce qui permettrait enfin de déterminer le terminus post quem des opuscula hymnographiques correspondants.

Datema/Allen, Leontii presbyteri (cf. n. 2) 37. M. Aubineau, Hésychius de Jérusalem, Basile de Séleucie, Jean de Béryte, Pseudo-Chrysostome, Léonce de Constantinople. Homélies Pascales (cinq homélies inédites), SC, 187. Paris 1971, 343–44. 5 P. K. Chrestou, Ἑλληνικὴ πατρολογία, t. 5. Thessaloniki 1992, 484–85. 6 Aubineau (cf. n. 4) 344. En réaction à cette hypothèse, cf. P. Allen/C. Datema, Leontius, presbyter of Constantinople – a compiler. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 29 (1980) 9–20; et des mêmes auteurs  : Text and tradition of two Easter homilies of Ps.Chrysostom. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 30 (1981) 98–102. 3 4



LES ENIGMES D’UN PRESBYTRE DE CONSTANTINOPLE

3. Nos observations Nous ne faisons que commencer à travailler sur les textes de Léonce. À la première impression, qu’une étude plus approfondie de ces homélies ne fait que confirmer, toutes : • concernent des thèmes d’actualité, • sont improvisées (style inégal, absence de rédaction, variations dans les volumes), • dépendent directement de la lecture des Saintes Écritures du jour (trait relativement archaïque, remontant au système antique d’explication cyclique annuelle de l’Écriture Sainte). Il serait donc plus juste de chercher la réponse à la question de la datation et de la localisation des sermons dans le texte même. C’est ainsi qu’ont procédé jusqu’ici les chercheurs ayant analysé les détails factuels dans les homélies ou ayant proposé une date possible en partant d’une comparaison du contenu textuel avec les textes d’autres auteurs historiquement mieux situés. Quels sont les résultats de ces études? Pour l’homélie I Sur la nativité du saint prophète et précurseur Jean qui mentionne un tremblement de terre, les éditeurs ont proposé les dates de 477 ou de 487, années où Constantinople subit en effet des séismes, respectivement les 25 et 26 septembre, voire même 557, année où un tremblement de terre dura 10 jours. 7 Dans l’homélie III Sur le dimanche des rameaux, les mêmes auteurs ont discerné une dépendance par rapport à l’homélie de saint Proclus de Constantinople († 446) sur le même sujet. 8 Le cycle des homélies de la Passion sur Job (IV-VII) et l’homélie X Sur la mi-Pentecôte sembleraient indiquer un état de développement avancé de l’année liturgique, correspondant à la fin du Ve siècle ou au début du VIe. Cependant, dans le cas du tremblement de terre, il va de soi qu’un critère donnant un intervalle de 90 ans n’est en aucun cas satisfaisant. Léonce parle d’un petit tremblement de terre, n’ayant pas fait de dégâts sérieux, ayant donc pu ne pas laisser de traces dans d’autres sources. Cette précision évite de tordre le texte, comme le font les éditeurs, pour lesquels il ne s’agirait pas de la nativité du Précurseur (24 juin), mais de sa conception (23 septembre) ou même du deuxième dimanche avant Noël. Datema/Allen, Leontii presbyteri (cf. n. 2) 17. Ibid 37.

7 8



michel asmus

L’homélie de Proclus sur le dimanche des Rameaux, qui présente en effet de nombreuses similitudes avec l’homélie de Léonce, s’en distingue cependant par une plus grande abstraction et une meilleure rédaction rhétorique. On retrouve néanmoins la même élaboration, grâce à des coupures et non à l’élargissement du texte, dans la rédaction alternative du sermon de Léonce présentée par les éditeurs sous le numéro III A. Par ailleurs, Léonce invite les orthodoxes à faire la charité avant Pâques, afin de ne pas obliger les pauvres à s’adresser aux hérétiques. Cette dernière remarque aurait été totalement impossible après les actes juridiques de Justinien de 527, qui privèrent les hérétiques de pratiquement tous les droits. Dans le même temps, elle correspond bien à la situation de la fin du  IVe et de tout le Ve siècles, où différentes sociétés hérétiques convoquaient des conciles, usaient de leurs biens, célébraient leur liturgie et, visiblement, avaient organisé un travail social au même titre que « l’Église officielle ». Le critère éorthologique n’est pas plus fiable  : nos représentations sur le développement de l’année liturgique à cette période de l’histoire chrétienne s’appuient principalement sur le corpus homilétique et les datations ne sont possibles ici qu’en corrélation avec les questions d’attribution des textes et de localisation historique de leurs auteurs. Au contraire, l’homélie II Pour le dimanche des rameaux et la résurrection de Lazare ne permet pas de conclure à l’existence du samedi de Lazare ; elle contient un écho des débats sur la longueur du Grand Carême – est-ce que la Semaine sainte est incluse dans le Carême ou non – un tableau relativement archaïque. L’homélie  X Sur la mi-Pentecôte témoigne de la naissance de cette fête inhabituelle et constitue une tentative de lui donner un autre sens que celui de la fête juive. L’homélie Sur la transfiguration, que Maurice Sachot attribue à Léonce, ne mentionne qu’en passant la Transfiguration, le texte étant principalement consacré au récit évangélique d’après la descente de la montagne. Si l’on tient compte du fait que le katholikon du Monastère du Sinaï édifié sous Justinien était consacré à la Transfiguration, on peut hardiment exclure Léonce du VIe siècle. Ensuite, Michel  Aubineau, dans son commentaire à l’édition des deux homélies pascales de Léonce, à partir de la mention de Marathonius et de Sabbatius a formulé une base probante excellente qui permet de localiser Léonce à Constantinople. 9 Mais, tentant de dater notre homilète, il omet de tenir compte de ce que les sociétés hérétiques n’ont Aubineau (cf. n. 4) 348–351.

9



LES ENIGMES D’UN PRESBYTRE DE CONSTANTINOPLE

pas existé très longtemps : à la fin du Ve siècle, elles sont déjà mentionnées au passé. 10 Le plus étonnant, cependant, est qu’aucun chercheur n’ait prêté attention aux intérêts théologiques de Léonce, qui s’articulent exclusivement autour de l’arianisme et du macédonisme. Bien plus, si ses arguments en faveur de la consubstantialité sont tout à fait convaincants, recourant aux analogies traditionnelles avec la nature (source-eau-rivière), aux termes platonisants de νοῦς–λόγος et à l’étymologie populaire du mot fils (υἱός) rapporté au mot quel (οἷος), la pneumatologie de notre prédicateur ne brille pas par son exactitude : μεταξὺ πατρὸς ϰαὶ υἱοῦ γνωρισϑῇ ϰαὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. 11 Le critère théologique permet de dater encore plus précisément Léonce grâce à un détail certes petit, mais non sans importance. En comparant une des deux homélies pascales de Léonce avec les passages anonymes qui la rappellent le plus, l’œil perçant du chercheur ne manquera pas de remarquer que là où Léonce écrit Vierge (παρϑένος), ses rédacteurs anonymes marquent Mère de Dieu (ϑεοτόϰος). 12 Si l’on compare cette observation avec le seul titre d’une fameuse homélie de Proclus Sur l’incarnation... et sur le fait que la Vierge Marie est la Mère de Dieu..., 13 on est amené à supposer que Léonce, auquel cette problématique était absolument inconnue, a prêché avant Proclus et toute la controverse nestorienne. C’est ici que commencent les nouvelles énigmes du presbytre Léonce de Constantinople, dont il conviendra de trouver la clé : d’une part la convergence avec Astérios le sophiste (fin du IVe siècle), d’autre part l’affirmation irréprochable du point de vue de la christologie orthodoxe de l’unité de la personne en Christ (Homélie VII). C’est là matière à une autre étude. Prof. Fr. Michel Asmus, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University Moscow [email protected] Abstract Les énigmes d’un presbytre de Constantinople The swift development of an oral Christian tradition that occurred after the official Christianization of the Roman Empire actively promoted the Sozomène, L’Histoire de l’Église IV, 20, 27; VII, 18. Datema/Allen, Leontii presbyteri (cf. n. 2) 245–46. 12 Cf. Allen/Datema, Leontius, presbyter of Constantinople (cf. n. 6) 18–19. 13 CPG 5800. 10 11



michel asmus

evolution of the liturgical year. Poetic extracts of the homilies became texts for hymnographic treatment as well as for the various categories of the major (the kontakion and the canon) and minor (troparia, stichira) liturgical forms. Correctly dating the homilies permits us to clarify the dates of the establishment of various liturgical feasts and indirectly, the collections of liturgical hymns. This study attempts to explain several questions related to the homiletic production of an enigmatic priest, Leontios of Constantinople, especially the calculation of the date of his homilies. The most accurate hypothesis for establishing this date at the end of the fourth century or the middle of the fifth is derived by applying dogmatic criteria to the problem, something which has not, until now, been taken into account.



inmaculada prez martn

The transmission of some writings by Psellos in Thirteenth-century constantinople In our Pantheon of Byzantine writers and thinkers, Michael Psellos enjoys a comfortable pre-eminence, both on the grounds of his literary merits, which make him the finest writer in Byzantium, and of the originality and freedom demonstrated in his declarations. 1 The superiority we grant to him is evident from as early as the Italian Renaissance, when students of ancient esoteric wisdom discovered and published some of Psellos’ writings, such as the De operatione daemonum, the authorship of which is now considered dubious, 2 but which made Psellos’ name popular among humanists. Before that, he had also held a uniquely prestigious position in the minds of later Byzantines, 3 a circumstance contrasting strongly with the general scarcity of mentions of earlier Byzantine writers or scholars by their successors –an absence even more evident if we compare it with the pervasive presence of classical and patristic authors. But Psellos does not form part of this scene; on the contrary, the versatility of his thought and his literary quality impressed other Byzantine writers, who were always mindful of his contributions to many fields of knowledge, and put their admiration into words. 4 Byzantine 1 A. Kaldellis, The Argument of Psellos’ Chronographia, Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 68. Leiden/Boston/Cologne 1999; id., Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge 2007, 194–224. 2 P. Gautier, Le De daemonibus du Pseudo-Psellos. Revue des études byzantines 38 (1980) 105–194; D. Hayton, Michael Psellos’ De Daemonibus in the Renaissance, in C. Barber/D. Jenkins eds., Reading Michael Psellos, The Medieval Mediterranean, 61. Leiden 2006, 193–216. 3 S.  Papaioannou, Das Briefcorpus des Michael Psellos: Vorarbeiten zu einer kritischen Neuedition. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 48 (1998) 67–117, here at 68. 4 According to A. Kazhdan, Michael Psellos, in A. Kazhdan et al. (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York/Oxford 1992, 1754, Psellos died ‘forgotten by the new generation’, but Stratis Papaioannou and Anthony Kaldellis have demonstrated how influential he was on 12th-century writers. S. Papaioannou, Language Games,

The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, edited by Antonio Rigo, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 8 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 159-174 © BREPOLSHPUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.SBHC-EB .1.101924

inmaculada pérez martín

manuscripts also reflect the ubiquity of Psellos’ legacy, and it is precisely against this background that these pages hope to make a modest contribution, by putting into context a very small part of the manuscripts that played an important part in making it possible to read Psellos. The long-lasting reputation of Psellos’ works, as well as their variety and quantity, have made it extremely difficult to study their distribution and reception; the efforts of the editors have been directed towards the localization and publication of texts plausibly coming from his pen. However, the publication in 2005 of the Iter Psellianum, providing students with a complete list of Psellos’ works and the manuscripts in which they are preserved, as well as a full bibliography on each document, has radically changed this situation. 5 It is now possible to begin the analysis of Psellos’ written testimonies from a historical perspective 6, giving priority to the context of their reception and use, as these testimonies can show us. In his review of the Iter Psellianum, Stratis Papaioannou 7 used the data furnished by the book to provide some interesting statistics: 1176 Psellian texts (half of them letters) are preserved in 1790 manuscripts – among them, only 1013 texts are actually by our author, preserved in 765 manuscripts. Only 64 texts are transmitted in more than 9 manuscripts; and from 267 testimonies dating from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, only 13 contain more than 10 Psellian items. From the dispersal of Psellos’ legacy we may infer that he either could not or did not wish to organize it. As Nigel Wilson has written: ‘it does not look as if not the Soul’s Beliefs; Michael Italikos to Theodoros Prodromos, on Friendship and Writing, in M. Hinterberger/E. Schiffer (eds.), Byzantinische Sprachkunst: Studien zur byzantinischen Literatur gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner zum 65. Geburtstag, Byzantinisches Archiv, 20. Berlin 2007, 219–233: 232–233: Italikos is one of the scholars who continued Psellos’ radical work in the 12th c. ‘Indeed, I would suggest that as 12thc. intellectualism cannot be understood without Psellos, so also Psellos himself cannot be fully appreciated without a study of the discourses which continued, fashioned and refashioned his work’. More on this, infra n. 36f. 5 P. Moore, Iter Psellianum: A Detailed Listing of Manuscript Sources for All Works Attributed to Michael Psellos, Including a Comprehensive Bibliography. Toronto 2005. Hereafter, the abbreviated references given to the texts of Psellos are those of this work. 6 This is the type of approach taken by S.  Papaioannou, Fragile Literature: Byzantine Letter-collections and the Case of Michael Psellos, in P. Odorico (ed.), La face cachée de la littérature Byzantine: le texte entant que message immédiat, Paris 2012, 289-328; cf. R. Anastasi, Sulla tradizione manoscritta delle opere di Psello, in Studi di filologia bizantina, Siculorum Gymnasium, 2. Catania 1976, 61–91. 7 Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 56 (2006) 340–342: 341. As Papaioannou (ibid. 342 n.  5) warns, Moore’s categorization is somewhat misleading because of the free relationship between form and content in Psellos’ corpus.



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

he kept well-organized master copies from which substantial amounts of his oeuvre could have been transcribed in intelligently subdivided corpora.’ 8 This is especially obvious in the case of Psellos’ correspondence: scholars agree on the fact that an archetype of his letters never existed, which means not only that Psellos never organized his correspondence, but also that the letters we can read today never constituted a proper collection. 9 The rest of Psellos’ work is also characterized by this absence of organization, voluntary or otherwise, 10 to which is added another circumstance that no doubt contributed to the dispersal of Psellos’ legacy: his literary fame, his privileged status at court, and the dominance over the intellectual life accorded to him by his position as ὕπατος τῶν ϕιλοσόϕων, led him from an early stage to distribute his writings among his students or other individuals. 11 One manuscript testifies to this contemporary circulation of his work: the copy of Phi.170 and Phi.84 in Heidelb. gr. 281 (f. 1–152v) was finished in 1040 by the kalligraphos Nikolaos, who worked for Romanos, asekretis and judge of Seleukeia. 12 The starting point of some of Psellos’ compositions, as expressed in the works themselves, particularly the request for information or clarification about a scientific or philosophical topic, would thus explain not only the nature of the text but also that of its circulation, separate from the rest of Psellos’ corpus.

8 N. G. Wilson, review of Moore’s Iter Psellianum in The Journal of Hellenic Studies 128 (2008) 288. 9 Papaioannou, Briefcorpus (cf. n. 3) 72 n. 14. 10 The date of Psellos’ death is a matter of debate. Cf. A. Kaldellis, The date of Psellos’ death, once again: Psellos was not the Michael of Nikomedeia mentioned by Attaleiates. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 104 (2011) 649–661. 11 Psellos himself wrote about this early spreading of his writings: cf. Psellos, Περὶ καινῶν δογμάτων καὶ ὅρων τῶν νομικῶν Ῥωμαιστὶ λεγομένων λέξεων, ed. F. Boissonade, Michael Psellus. De operatione daemonum. Norimbergae 1838, 116 (closing the list of Latin legal words): οἱ πλείους τῶν ἐκλαμβανόντων τὰ ἡμέτερα σχέδια δελτάρια, τὰς διϕθέρας ποιοῦντες, εὐθὺς ἔχουσι βιβλία τὰ γεγραμμένα. Καὶ πλείστοις μὲν ἐντύχοις ἡμετέροις βιβλίοις ὧν ὀγδοηκοστὸν οἶμαι τοῦτο εἶναι. On the school of Philosophy, W. Wolska-Conus, Les écoles de Psellos et Xiphilin sous Constantin IX Monomaque. Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976) 223–243: 231–233. 12 The colophon of the copy is in f.  181: Ἐγράϕη ἡ βίβλος αὕτη διὰ χειρὸς Νικολάου καλλιγράϕου, μηνὶ ἰαννουαρίῳ ιδ’ ἰνδικτιῶνος ὀγδόης ἔτους ‘ςϕμη’· ἐκ πολλῶν πονημάτων Ῥωμανοῦ ἀσηκρῆτις καὶ κριτοῦ Σελευκείας συλλεγεῖσα τοῦ καὶ αὐθέντου μου. Οἱ ἀναγινώσκοντες αὐτήν, εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. See M. Vogel/V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance. Leipzig 1909 (reprint Hildesheim 1966) 362. Neither of the works is attributed to Psellos in this manuscript. Phi.84 in fact consists of excerpts from Philoponos on Aristotle’s De Anima.



inmaculada pérez martín

In fact, the isolated transmission of a single Psellian piece is very frequent, and in several cases it takes place under special circumstances: the Psellian work flanks a main text which is the origin of the one written by Psellos. In the most sophisticated examples, as has been noted in the case of the Psellian doxography on the homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, 13 this operation of juxtaposing his words with those “commented” or “interpreted” or, in other words, of presenting his own subjects and thoughts following the threads of Gregory of Nazianzus, was a doubly successful procedure, since it enabled Psellos’ thinking to be legitimized by the proximity of Gregory of Nazianzus, and guaranteed its conservation next to one of the most copied texts in Byzantium, his Homilies. This is not the only example. Psellos wrote a poem on Psalter’s epigraphs (Poe.1), which usually heads a copy of Psalter. 14 His poem on Grammar (Poe.6), one of his most copied texts, accompanies the Lexikon of Pseudo-Zonaras in ms. Bern, Bibliothèque de la Bourgeoisie, Ms. 288 (end of the 13th c.) 15 and in Vat. gr. 10 (copied in 1253). 16 The transmission of single Psellian works in miscellaneous manuscripts was also very frequent. The reduced size of many of the pieces seems to have obliged them to be copied together with other texts, akin in content. This is the procedure by which Psellos entered the extensive and long-running corpora of tools serving the study of disciplines such as Grammar, Rhetoric, and Philosophy, and which meant that our hypatos could be read by Palaeologan students until the end of Byzantium. 17 J. Duffy, Hellenic Philosophy in Byzantium and the Lonely Mission of Michael Psellos, in K. Ierodiakonou (ed.), Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources. Oxford 2002, 139–156, here at 146. 14 The authenticity of this poem has been questioned; see Moore, Iter (cf. n. 5) 467–469. An example from very near to Psellos’ lifetime is Harvard University, Houghton Library, gr. 3, a. 1105, with Poe.1 in f. 1r–7v. Cf. Moore (cf. n. 5) 467– 469. 15 See L. G. Westerink, Michaelis Pselli Poemata. Stuttgart/Leipzig 1992, XVII; P. Andrist, Les manuscrits grecs conservés à la Bibliothèque de la Bourgeoisie de Berne – Burgerbibliothek Bern. Catalogue et histoire de la collection. Dietikon/Zürich 2007, 163–171. The Lexikon is found on f. 2–272v; Psellos’ Poem in f. 273–278, in a block apart from the codex itself, but by the same copyist. 16 Cf. A.  Turyn, Codices Graeci Vaticani saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi. Città del Vaticano 1964, 14–16; G. Prato, Studi di paleografia greca. Spoleto 1994, 42, 46, etc. and Tavv. 8–9. In Par. gr. 2620 and Par. suppl. gr. 662, Poe.6 again appears, copied as an appendix to other Lexika. 17 See M. Hayduck, Sophoniae in libros Aristotelis de anima paraphrasis, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 23.1. Berlin 1883, 1; J. Nadal Cañellas, Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus dialogus inter Orthodoxum et Barlaamitam, CCSG, 31. Turnhout, 1995, or. 4.19; G. Scholarios, Commentarium 13



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

As far as philosophical works were concerned, Aristotelian philosophy had an overwhelming corpus of ancient commentaries, which Psellos in a sense managed to infiltrate. This achievement must be explained as a success of his teaching, and as proof of his dominance over his contemporaries and the following generations. The different points at which Psellos entered the Corpus Aristotelicum are probably explained by the problems of the authorship of some of Psellos’ philosophical works. Indeed, the fact that the names of successive scholars of Aristotle alternate with that of the Macedonian sage in the titles of various works must be seen as a sign of the moments at which Psellos’ legacy was appropriated; namely, those operations where a student of Aristotle undertook the reading of a work transmitted under the name of Psellos, used it in his own writings, and explained it to his pupils. Certainly, there may be many other circumstances surrounding the attribution of a text to more than one author, but in my view it can be no coincidence that some commentaries, or more modestly, some educational materials, should be attributed both to Psellos and to Michael of Ephesos, 18 Manuel Holobolos, 19 or Georgios Pachymeres, 20 as the case may be. Psellos’ commentaries (Paraphrasis) on Aristotle, De interpretatione (Phi.16) 21 and Analytica priora (Phi.18) are usually transmitted with similar Late Antique commentaries, or with other Psellian texts on Logic. As Moore points out, the first commentary is conserved in 37 manuscripts, in some of which it is no more than fragments or in Aristotelis De interpretatione, § 5.123, M. Jugie/L. Petit/​X . A.​ Sideridès (eds.), Œuvres complètes de Georges (Gennadios) Scholarios, VII. Paris 1936, 238–348. 18 Moore (cf. n. 5) 557 (Misc.61) 560 (Misc.71). 19 Moore (cf. n. 5) 305. Both texts have the mnemonic clues of some basic learning: the categoric syllogisms (that appear in Vat. gr. 1144 [14th c.] under Holobolos’ name, but are derivative from Psellos’ Σύνοψις περὶ τῶν τριῶν σχημάτων, Phi.20) and how many days there are in each month (Μέθοδος τῶν μηνῶν, ὁπόσας ἡμέρας ἕκαστος τούτων ἔχει (Phi.140). In Dresden Da. 61 (16th c.) and Vat. gr. 293 (14th c.) the author is Holobolos; in Vat. Chis. gr. 12 (R.IV.12) and Vindob. Phil. gr. 154, both from the 14th c., the author is Psellos. Ed. R. Kunze, Die anonyme handschrift (Da. 61) der Dresdner königlichen bibliothek. Hermes 34 (1899) 345–262: 361–362. 20 The commentary on the Physica attributed to Psellos by part of the tradition (Phi.27) is actually the work of Georgios Pachymeres; see P. Golitsis, Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d’Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100 (2007) 637–676; cf. Moore, Iter (cf. n. 5) 252–255. 21 On this work, K. Ierodiakonou, Psellos’ Paraphrasis on Aristotle’s De interpretatione, in Ead. ed., Byzantine Philosophy (cf. n. 13) 157–181.



inmaculada pérez martín

annotations in the margin of the Aristotelian text, 22 and the second in only eight. 23 The only manuscript prior to the thirteenth century (with Phi.16) on Moore’s list is the Laur. 10.26, which is however misdated to the twelfth century, and is actually a codex copied around the middle of the thirteenth century. In it, Psellos on the De interpretatione follows the commentaries of Ammonios on Porphyrios and Johannes Philoponos on the Categoriae. A medium sized codex, on parchment, the work of a copyist exemplifying the ‘ΒΓ-style’, Laur. 10.26 may have been copied in the years immediately before or after the recovery of the Polis in 1261. Since no surviving manuscript seems to date from before the midthirteenth century, the circulation of Psellos’ Paraphrasis on the De interpretatione and the Analytica Priora must have been generalized during the Palaeologan period; indeed, their copy in an interesting group of codices containing both commentaries suggests that a considerable part of the tradition came into being in post-1261 Constantinople. These are the manuscripts Par. gr. 1918, Laur. 85.1, Laur. 71.19 and Vat. Barber. gr.  164 24 + Hamburg, Cod.  Philol.  88, 25 the only codex of which we know both the copy date, 1294, and the name of the copyist, Alexios. 26 The Psellian Paraphraseis precede and interrupt the copy of Aristotle’s De Interpretatione and Analytica Priora. 27 The presentation of the works is more straightforward in Laur. 71.19, a small manuscript entirely devoted to Psellos on Aristotle in the last

22 As in Laur.  71.35 f.  61–76 (a manuscript copied in south-east Italy) or in Laur. 72.12 f. 1–18, a codex from the late thirteenth century. 23 Moore (cf. n. 5) 241–247. 24 On Vat. Barber. gr. 164, see Turyn (cf. n. 16) 86 and Tab. 52, 177b; J. Mogenet, Codices Barberiniani Graeci II, Codices 164–281. Città del Vaticano 1989. This Alexios also wrote, at least in part, a codex with writings of Patriarch Gregorios Kyprios, Escorial Ψ.III.15, S. Kotzabassi, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der rhetorischen und hagiographischen Werke des Gregor von Zypern, Serta Graeca, 6. Wiesbaden 1998, 112, Abb. 20; D. Harlfinger, Autographa aus der Palaiologenzeit, in W. Seibt (ed.), Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit. Wien 1996, 43–50 here at 46 and Taf. 4. 25 M.  Molin Pradel, Note su alcuni manoscritti greci della Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek di Amburgo. Codices manuscripti 34/35 (2001) 15–27. 26 E. Gamillscheg/D. Harlfinger/P. Eleuteri, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten III. Rom mit dem Vatikan. Wien 1997, no. 14. 27 In Vat. Barber. gr. 164, Psellos Phi.16 occupies f. 1–16, 29–34, 36–38v; Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, f. 17–28v, 34–35v; Psellos’ Phi.18, f. 43–50, 52v–55, 57v–61, 62r–v; Analytica Priora I f. 39–42v, 51–52v, 55–57, 61r–v, 63–94v.



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

quarter of the thirteenth century. 28 After Psellos, Par.  gr.  1918 includes the annotations of Johannes Philoponos on Analytica Priora (book II), Problemata, Themistios on Analytica Posteriora, Michael of Ephesos on De Sophisticis Elenchis and Johannes Philoponos on De Hypotheticis Syllogismis. 29 Finally, Laur.  85.1 is a famous volume in the large format which had been typical of some profane texts before 1204, and which enabled the compilation of an enormous corpus of Aristotelian commentators, in which fourteen scribes collaborated. 30 The contributions of Psellos have been copied by two scribes who exemplify the ‘Palaiologina-style’: scribe 5 in f. 160v-167 (Phi.16, a separate booklet), scribe 3 in f. 203-217 (Phi.18). 31 The use of professional calligraphers and copyists who were undoubtedly expert secretaries or notaries indicates that the considerable effort represented by Laur. 85.1 was much more than an individual initiative. Cacouros has suggested that its design was linked to Manuel Holobolos, professor of rhetoric (ῥήτωρ τῶν ῥητόρων) from 1265 onwards, 32 but also to Maximus Planudes. 33 In fact, one of the archaic scripts, used to transcribe f.  527-552v, 650-690 l.  39, proves to be that of scribe  A of a codex which it is indeed possible to put precisely into context, Vat. gr. 191 The first part of Laur. 71.19 is a sixteenth-century restoration (f. 1–71) affecting the greater part of Phi.16 (f. 1–89v). The older part (f. 72–89v) is the work of a rapid and somewhat convoluted hand. f. 90–108, containing Phi.18, are the work of another contemporary or slightly later copyist. 29 H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale II. Paris 1888 (reprint 2000) 163. 30 D.  Harlfinger in P.  Moraux et al., Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristoteles I. Alexandrien–London, Peripatoi, 8. Berlin/New York 1976, 275–276; M.  Cacouros, Le Laur.  85, 1, témoin de l’activité conjointe d’un groupe de copistes travaillant dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle, in G. Prato (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V  Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia greca, Cremona, 4–10 ottobre 1998, Papyrologica Florentina, 31. Firenze 2000, I, 285–310. I follow my own analysis of the manuscript, which measures 480/5 x 300/5 mm, 70 lin., f. III.762.III. 31 Scribe 1 of Laur. 85.1, also copied another Aristotelian manuscript, Par. gr. 1917 (f.  17–553), with Pseudo-Psellos on Sophistici Elenchi (f. 475v–538v, Misc.71). Cf. Cacouros, Laur. 85.1 (cf. n. 30) 304. 32 C.  N.  Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the 13th and early 14th Centuries (1204–1310). Nicosia 1982, 52–53; I.  Pérez Martín, Le conflit de l’Union des Églises (1274) et son reflet dans l’enseignement supérieur de Constantinople, in Στέϕανος. Studia byzantina ac slavica Vladimíro Vavrínek ad annum sexagesimum quintum dedicata = Byzantinoslavica 56, Praha [1995] 1996, 411– 422: 414–417. 33 Cacouros (cf. n. 30) 302–303. 28



inmaculada pérez martín

(f.  2-29v, 31-63, 105-107v, 161-169v), again an ambitious collection of astronomical and mathematical texts written in 1296–1303, in the circle of another hypatos ton philosophon, John Pediasimos. 34 However, the similarity of scripts between the two testimonies would have to be greater for us to be able to consider their copying as the product of the same scholarly milieu. 35 The organization of these collective works of copying is ad hoc, and groups of copyists appear to break up after the execution of a specific project. But it must be admitted that both manuscripts correspond to the same ambitious intentions: the Vatican codex shares with Laur.  85.1 not only the large format but also the characteristic mixture of archaic and cursive scripts. As for the transmission of rhetorical works, the fact that Psellos was read and studied at school in the 12th century is proved by the writings of teachers such as Demetrius Chomatenus 36 and John Tzetzes 37, who declared that Psellos’ Praise of the Flea rivalled Lucian’s Praise of the Fly, 38 while Michael Choniates mentions him as a near-contemporary, whose wisdom makes him worthy of being listed after Cato, Cicero, Arrian and Themistius. 39 No doubt this assimilation of the rhetorical legacy lies in the origin of the numerous miscellaneous manuscripts of the Palaeologan period, which respond to the personal taste and requirements of a person gathering basic materials mostly for his legal, rhetorical or

34 I. Pérez Martín, L’écriture de Jean Pothos Pédiasimos d’après ses scholies aux Elementa d’Euclide. Scriptorium 64.1 (2010) 109–119. 35 Other manuscripts copied by the scribes of Vat. gr. 191 have been pointed out by D. Bianconi, Libri e mani. Sulla formazione di alcune miscellanee dell’età dei Paleologi, in E. Crisci/O. Pecere (eds.), Il codice miscellaneo, tipologie e funzioni. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Cassino, 14–17 maggio 2003 = Segno e Testo 2, Cassino 2004, 311–363 : 330–333. 36 G.  Prinzing, Demetrius Chomatenus, Πονήματα διάϕορα, CFHB. Series Berolinensis, 38. Berlin 2002, §  26.7. He discusses a passage of the legal synopsis written by Psellos; probably many other legal authors used Psellos in ways not yet explored. 37 Tzetzes – born one century later – wrote a poem in praise of his Paraphrasis on De interpretatione: J. Duffy, Tzetzes on Psellos, in Chr.-F. Collatz, et al. eds., Dissertatiunculae criticae. Festschrift für Günther Christian Hansen. Würzburg 1998, 441–445. 38 J.  Tzetzes, Chiliades 11.385 (ed. P.  A.  M.  Leone, Napoli 1968, 547, cf. C. Jouanno, Les byzantins et la seconde sophistique: Étude sur Michel Psellos. Revue des études grecques 122 (2009) 113–144: 133. 39 Michael Choniates, ep. 28 (ed. Sp. P. Lampros, Μιχαὴλ Ἀκομινάτου τοῦ Xωνιάτου τὰ σωζόμενα II. Athens 1879–1880, 1–357.



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

philosophical training. 40 This profile of a user or collector fits almost every manuscript with a corpus of Psellian writings copied after 1261, which is to say, nearly all of them except the two oldest manuscripts, Laur.  57.40 41 and Par.  gr.  1182 42 (and its copy Vat.  gr.  671), 43 whose main objective was to compile the greatest possible number of Psellos’ works. Because the Palaeologan manuscripts are personalized copies of multi-authorial collections, they do not transmit Psellos’ writings in an organized way. Their scribes are not trying to preserve an entire corpus of writings for posterity, but to gather in a single ‘act of copying’ a certain group of texts in order to make them available. And since they are not concerned about textual organization or classification, we can find isolated Psellian texts, especially letters and poems, which may be very short, filling the blanks after the end of other texts. In these cases, scribes have been extracting these pieces from a more complete source, copying as many as they could, but not intending to get a complete copy. Nevertheless, other examples could point to a copy of an older miscellaneous manuscript. Let us look at some examples of this kind of transmission of Psellian writings.

40 Among the manuscripts copied in thirteenth-century Constantinople that we shall not deal with here we may mention, due to its interesting Psellian collection, Monac. gr. 384, that brings together three different codicological units, dating from the end of the 13th c. (f. 1–7v), middle of the 13th c. (f. 8–51, three scribes who copied Psellos’ writings mixed with those of Hippocrates and Galen) and the middle of the 14th c. (f. 52–59, copied by the famous scribe F of Euripides). Second, we may mention Marc. gr. 524 (end of the 13th c.), where poems, rhetorical works and scientific treatises by Psellos are collected in f. 153–182. 41 Traditionally dated in the 15th c., the manuscript was actually copied at the end of the eleventh century, as pointed out by D. Bianconi, Età comnena e cultura scritta. Materiali e considerazioni alle origini di una ricerca, in A. Bravo García – I. Pérez Martín (eds.), The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium of Greek Palaeography (Madrid–Salamanca, 15–20 September 2008), Bibliologia, 31. Turnhout 2010, 75–96: 94–96. 42 B. Mondrain dated it at the end of the 12th century, as mentioned by F. Kolovou, Die Briefe des Eustathios von Thessalonike: Einleitung, Regesten, Text, Indizes. München/Leipzig 2006, 76*. 43 L.  G.  Westerink, Le Parisinus Gr.  1182 et le Vaticanus Gr.  671 de Psellos, in J. Dummer (ed.), Texte und Textkritik. Ein Aufsatzsammlung, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 133. Berlin 1987, 695: f. 5–115, is a partial copy (1/7 part) of Par. gr. 1182 produced in about 1350.



inmaculada pérez martín

The Oxford Manuscript, Bodleian Library, Barocci 131 44 is a miscellaneous codex of medium size (255 x 165/70 mm.), dominated by literature from the Komnenian period, 45 although it also conserves a notable number of Psellian writings (letters, orations) and philosophical materials. 46 N. Wilson has determined the presence of seven scribes, whose work may be independent. Nevertheless, scribe B is present in every part of the miscellany, and collaborates with the rest of the scribes, 47 except with scribe E, who, according to Wilson’s identification, was still copying texts at the end of the century, when he collaborated in Vat. gr. 191. 48 This implies a certain unity in the production of the manuscript, although that production could have spanned several years. In fact, academics do 44 A description of the contents of this complex miscellany is in N. G. Wilson, A Byzantine miscellany: MS. Barocci 131 described. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 27 (1978) 157–179. Cf. N.  G.  Wilson, Mediaeval Greek Bookhands. Cambridge, Mass. 1973, 29–30 and Pl. 58–62, and previously id., The Date and Origin of Ms. Barocci 131. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 59 (1966) 305–306. Cf. I. Hutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften III.1–2: Oxford Bodleian Library. Stuttgart 1982, no. 106, Abb. 415–419. 45 But also from the Nicaean period: cf., more recently, P.  Agapitos, Blemmydes, Laskaris, and Philes, in M.  Hinterberger/E.  Schiffer (eds.), Byzantinische Sprachkunst: Studien zur byzantinischen Literatur gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner zum 65. Geburtstag, Byzantinisches Archiv, 20. Berlin 2007, 1–19; E. Schiffer, Codex Baroccianus 131 und Codex Coislinianus 278 als Überlieferungsträger von Texten des Patriarchen Germanos  II., in A.  Giannouli/E.  Schiffer (eds.), From Manuscripts to Books. Vom Codex zur Edition, Proceedings of the international Workshop on Textual Criticism and Editorial Practice for Byzantine Texts (Vienna, 10–11  December 2009). Wien 2011, 185–191. On the problematic authorship of some of its texts, see A. Rhoby/N. Zagklas, Zu einer möglichen Deutung von Πανιώτης. Jahrbuch der Östereichischen Byzantinistik 61 (2011) 171–178. 46 Moore, Iter (cf. n. 5) 733, lists 82 writings, leaving the letters aside. 47 Scribe B copied: – f. 42–105v [= 13 f. (57) + 7 f. (64) + 9 f. (73) + 1 x v (81) + 3 x iv (105)], 154–195v [3 x v (177) + 2 f. (179) + 2 x iv], alternating with the independent copy of scribe A. – f. 220–243v [3 x iv], 292–299v [1 + 7 f.], 318–388 [8 x iv (381) + 6 f. (387) 1 f.], alternating with the independent copy scribe C. – f. 392–446v [1 x iv (395) + 1 x iv (403) + 7 f. (410) + 1 x iv (418) + 1 x vi (430) + 2 x iv (446)], shared with scribe D, who copied f. 388–392. – f. 475v–486v [= 6 f. + 6 f.] – f. 507v–536v [= 1 x iv, etc. the distribution of folios is uncertain here], shared with scribe G (who copied f. 487–507v). 48 In both codices this scribe bears the same initial, E. He has been identified by Wilson, Mediaeval (cf. n. 44) 29 and Pl. 61, in Vat. gr. 191 (a facsimile in Turyn, Vaticani (cf. n. 16) Tab. 59. Scribe E copied in Barocci 131 f. 447–474 [= 6 f. (452) + 1 x  iv (460) + 6 f. (466) + 8 f. (474)] (f. 474v–475r vac.). After he finished, in f. 475v (the first of a quire) the scribe B began the copy of a lapidarium (up to f. 477).



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

not agree on the date of Barocci 131: some consider it to have been copied in the Nicaean Empire, before the reconquest of Constantinople, 49 while others believe it to be slightly later. 50 Some of the copied texts provide points of reference: an independent quire (f. 481-486v) copied by scribe B 51 contains a praktikon composed by a certain Alyates, probably the ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου Nicephoros Alyates, a friend or companion of George Akropolites around 1258. 52 Alyates was at that time an official in the Nicaean administration, and the inclusion of the document in the manuscript has enabled it to be dated to the 1250s. But this date should only be applied to the copy of these folios which, in any case, need not be contemporary with the writing of the document. On the other hand, a later dating is confirmed by the date of composition of the Encomium of Michael VIII by Maximus Holobolos (f. 236240) and his Ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγελικὸν ῥητὸν τὸ ‘ἐὰν ἔχετε πίστιν’ (f. 240–242), 1265-1267, 53 which provides a terminus post quem at least for the copy of f.  220-243v, three quaternions which were written by scribe  B. Also, scribe  C copied another Holobolos’ Encomium of Michael VIII again in f. 244-250, and therefore the dating of at least f. 244– 291v (six quires) must be after 1265-1266. 54 Although the type of literary texts copied by the Barocci scribes may be of interest to many readers, and is typical of many miscellaneous manuscripts containing writings of Psellos, the presence here of a very peculiar group of texts may help us to outline the person responsible 49 Hutter, Corpus (cf. n.  44) 164–165; I.  N.  Pontikos, Anonymi Miscellanea Philosophica. A Miscellany in the Tradition of Michael Psellos (codex Baroccianus Graecus  131) Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Philosophi Byzantini, 6. Paris 1992, xvi. 50 Wilson, Mediaeval (cit. n. 44). 51 Pace Wilson, A Byzantine miscellany (cf. n. 44) 177, the hand of this quire is not scribe F, but scribe B, the main scribe of the manuscript. The definition of a new hand may appear justified by certain differences, which in fact are due to the effects on the writing of the passing of time. 52 An example of his hand is seen in I. Ševčenko, On the Preface to a Praktikon by Alyates. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinische Gesellschaft 17 (1968) 65–72 (f. 485v): 67, and in Pontikos, (cf. n. 49) 111. It is worth mentioning the presence in contemporary documents of scripts similar to that of scribe B, as in the act P. Lemerle/​ G.  Dagron/S.  CirkoviĆ, Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, Archives de l’Athos, 12. Paris 1982, no. 9 and Pl. XXV. 53 D.  Angelov, The Confession of Michael  VIII Palaiologos and King David. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 56 (2006) 193–204, here at 198–199. 54 Ed. M. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli Orationes, Programm des Königlichen Victoria-Gymnasiums zu Potsdam, 95. Potsdam 1906, 51–77.



inmaculada pérez martín

for the structure of Barocci 131. The latter, its main scribe (B), was an individual linked to the imperial administration, first of Nicaea and later of Constantinople. By this I refer to a group of prooimia of chrysoboulla and other documents (f. 67v-69v) copied here as a compositional model. 55 Such a specific text could only be of interest to someone working or preparing himself to work for the imperial or patriarchal administration, and this must be the main argument for locating Barocci 131 in the imperial administration of Michael VIII’s reign. Some of the Barocci documents are also found in Heidelberg. gr. 356 (f. 65v-69v), another very useful manuscript for acquiring the compositional skills required by the administration, copied by five different contemporary hands who alternated continuously, and of which at least one, scribe D, shows chancery-style flourishes which mark him out as a professional from the administration of Michael VIII. 56 The Heidelberg ms. is the only testimony of some Psellian poems (Poe.28, 92) and it may be considered another good example of how Psellos entered the rhetorical canon used in Byzantine schools: his monody on the death of his student John Patrikios (Ora.95) follows (f. 7-9) the one written by Aristides for his pupil, Εἰς Ἐτεωνέα ἐπικήδειος (f. 5–6v). The texts on dogmatic issues included in the manuscript suggest an interest in the controversies raised by the Unification of the Churches (the problem of Submission to Rome) in Psellos’ day, and also at the time the manuscript was copied, which is to say, when the emperor Michael VIII imposed 55 The first chrysoboullon title is Καθολικὸν χρυσόβουλλον ἐπὶ πάσῃ καθολικῇ δωρεᾷ, inc. Χρεὼν εἶναι τὸν βασιλεύοντα des. ὅθεν καὶ ποιεῖ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τόδε καὶ τόδε. They were published by H. Hunger, Prooimion, Wiener Byzantinischen Studien, 1. Wien 1964, from Palat. Heidelb. gr. 356 [see infra]; cf. R. Browning, Notes on Byzantine Prooemia, Wiener Byzantinischen Studien, 1 (Suppl). Wien 1966; N.  Oikonomides, La chancellerie impériale de Byzance du 13e au 15e siècle. Revue des études byzantines 43 (1985) 167–195. 56 A similar hand to that of this scribe wrote Esphigmenou act 6 (a. 1258–9); cf. J. Lefort, Actes d’Esphigmenou, Archives de l’Athos, 6. Paris 1973, Pl. VIII. This is the distribution of the different scripts in Heidelb. gr. 356: – scribe A: f. 4r–v l. 10, 5v–6v, 7v–9 l. 23, 10 l. 1–18, 12 l. 16–13, 13v l. 24– 14  l.  14, 14v  l.  11–15  l.  9, 15v  l.  16–16  l.  2, 18v–22v, 24–25v  l.  12, 26, 34 l. 1–15, 36v–41v l. 8 – scribe B: f. 4v l. 11–5, 7, 9 l. 24–v, 10 l. 18–v l. 15, 11v–12 l. 15, 13v l. 1–23, 15 l. 10–15v l. 16, 25v l. 13–fin, 26v–33v, 36, 41v l. 8–46v l. 12, 51v l. 27–31, 52 l. 1, 58v–101 l. 6, 102–172, 186 l. 1–6, 187 l. 15–16 – scribe  C: f.  14, l.  15–14v  l.  10, 16  l.  2–18, 23r–v, 34  l.  15–35v, 46v  l.  12– 51v l. 26 – scribe D: f. 52 l. 2–58, 101 l. 7–v – scribe E: f. 172v–185v, 187v l. 7–194v [titles are by scribe B].



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

the Union of Lyon (1274). The youngest writer copied is Constantine Stilbes, a professor of the Patriarchal school until 1204, and the entire codex seems to belong to that ecclesiastical and rhetorical tradition. Vat.  gr.  672 is another contemporary manuscript almost entirely dedicated to Psellos’ writings, again with some poems by Theophylact and Stilbes added at the end. 57 It was copied by a cursive hand before 1293, the date of a Latin note in f. 291v (die 23 julii 1293 R[estitutus] a d[omin]o Jo[hannes] de Venetiis) which proves the early interest awoken in Westerners by Michael Psellos. As far as the philosophical section of Barocci 131 is concerned, the Oxford manuscript does not preserve the main works on Aristotelian logic, but minor works published in the Teubner edition of Philosophica minora 58 as well as materials derived from other writers, also published by I. N. Pontikos. 59 Some of Psellos’ philosophical works have survived only in this codex, but what proves most interesting is to realize that its scribes had access not only to little-circulated texts, but also to a dossier of notes taken by Psellos in the course of his philosophical readings. 60 Paleographical analysis of Barocci 131 enables links to other codices to be traced. Scribes B and C are responsible for the copy of the chrysoboulla, the Holobolos monodies and the writings of Psellos, except the letters. They also collaborated in copying Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata and Hermogenes’ Rhetoric in Vat. gr. 106 (Pl. 1). 61 If this copy already found two of the copyists of Barocci 131 together in Nicaea, scribe E was still active in 1296-1303, when he collaborated with Pediasimos on 57 R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci III. Codices 604–866. Città del Vaticano 1950, 122–126; Moore, Iter (cf. n. 5) 745. 58 J. M. Duffy/D. J. O’Meara (eds.), Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora II. Leipzig 1989: J. M. Duffy, Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora I. Leipzig 1992. 59 Pontikos (cf. n. 49). 60 These are the texts published as a miscellany by Pontikos, Anonymi (cf. n. 28) and considered by him to be a reworking of De omnifaria doctrina. We are currently preparing a work on the composition and transmission of those texts which we consider to be material used by Psellos to compose De omnifaria doctrina. Cf. I. Pérez Martín, Michael Psellos’ Writings on Meteorology, in. J. Signes Codoñer (ed.), The Transmission of Byzantine Texts: between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung. Turnhout, in press. 61 Turyn, (cf. n. 16) Tab. 13 (cop. 1, f. 1–257) identified by Wilson as scribe B of the Barocci 131 (Wilson, Mediaeval [cf. n. 44], Pl. 58; Hutter, [cf. n. 44], Abb. 417–419). In Barocci  131, scribe  C (Wilson, Mediaeval [cf. n.  44], Pl.  60) copies f. 244–291v [6 x iv], 300–317v [1 x v (309) + 1 x iv (317)]; (f. 244). In Vat. gr. 106, he copies f. 258–361v. His hand is also very similar to Laur. 10.26.



inmaculada pérez martín

Vat. gr. 191, as we have seen. For his part, scribe G, who in Barocci 131 only copies Eustathios Macrembolites’ De Ismeniae et Ismenes Amoribus (f.  487–507v, in three quires completed by B), has been identified in Vat. gr. 184, an astronomical codex itself annotated by Pediasimos. 62 His handwriting can also be identified in Vat. gr. 1882/XX, a codex compositus whose f. 201–202 (pars XX), on oriental paper, 300 x 225 mm, contain Ptolemy’s Syntaxis Mathematica (Pl. 2). 63 Wilson identified this same scribe G in another outstanding Psellian manuscript, Vat. Barber. gr. 240 (f. 135–218v), 64 where once more Psellos’ writings are interwoven with Komnenian literature. 65 The Barberinus codex contains a very well known collection of Psellian letters, poems and many rhetorical compositions, but also some minor texts on Geometry and Logic. 66 Its content is mostly literary: once more, we find Komnenian poetry (Manasses, Theodoros Prodromos), and again Stilbes is the most recent poet whose work is copied. We also find progymnasmata and ancient (again Aelius Aristides) and Byzantine speeches. The handwriting of scribe G, as well as the hand in f. 71–112, suggests a dating closer to the end of the century. 67 The scribe of f. 11v l. 17–70v (Pl. 3), one of those copying the rhetorical exercises in the first part of the manuscript, collaborated on the copy of Vat. gr. 207, a manuscript that has caught codicologists’ attention, since it was copied on a rare paper from Spanish mills. 68 Its interest is also justified by a list of book loans made between 1268 and 1282 (soon after the volume was produced), Bianconi, Libri e mani (cf. n.  35) 330–333. Scribe  G copied f.  12v–17v, 92–220v. 63 P. Canart, Codices Graeci Vaticani, Codices 1745–1962, I, Codices enarrationes. Città del Vaticano, 1970, 472–488: 486. 64 Five hands are discernible in Vat. Barber. gr. 240: cop. 1: f. 1–11; cop. 2: f. 11v l. 1–16, 113–120v, 122–134v; cop. 3: f. 11v l. 17–70v; cop. 4: f. 71–112; cop. 5: f. 135– 218v. 65 P. Canart, Nouveaux inédits de Michel Psellos. Revue des études byzantines 25 (1967) 43–60. The oriental-paper codex is in a very poor state, after the loss of 28 f. and a restoration that changed the original order of the folios. The real measurements are 250 x 170 mm., increased to 300 x 200 mm. by the restoration. 66 Moore, Iter (cf. n.  5) 743. Some of these texts have also been copied in Par. gr. 1182, but independently. 67 Erroneously, Bianconi, Libri e mani (cf. n. 35) 332 n. 64, identifies him with the scribe K in Vat. gr. 191. 68 P. Canart, À propos du Vaticanus Graecus 207. Le recueil scientifique d’un érudit constantinopolitain du XIIIe siècle et l’emploi du papier à zig-zag dans la capitale byzantine. Illinois Classical Studies 7 (1982) 271–298; P. Canart et al., Une enquête sur le papier de type “arabe occidental” ou “espagnol non filigrané”, in M. Maniaci/P. F. Mu62



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

where many borrowers are members of the clergy of Saint Sophia and patriarchal officials. 69 Vat. gr. 207 brings together several scientific school texts: Euclid, Cleomedes, Ammonius on Porphyrius and Aristotle’s Topika, but also a contemporary text, Holobolos’ Greek translation of Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae (f. 237–278v, Pl. 4). 70 The main scribe, scribe 1, wrote the title and scribe 2, who participated in Barber. gr. 240, wrote the text. As the editor of the translation, Nikitas, has pointed out, Vat. gr. 207 is the only manuscript of the translation to mention Holobolos’ position (ἀξιολογώτατον ῥήτορα κυρὸν Μάξιμον Ὁλόβωλον), where the adjective may suggest a close link with Holobolos. Vat. gr. 207 has no pieces by Psellos, but with it we close the circle of the earliest and most important Palaeologan manuscripts of Psellos, that we can now put into their context: they are the material consequence of the higher education sponsored first by Michael VIII and then by Andronikos II, under the direction of Maximus Holobolos and John Pediasimos. These teachers organized or undertook the copying of ancient scientific and philosophical corpora, into which the Psellian legacy had been incorporated. Nevertheless, the resulting manuscripts were not school books, but conservation copies or private volumes; their production was undertaken by officials trained in those schools, who shared their teachers’ interests and copied Michael Psellos’ writings together with Komnenian literature and technical administrative texts. nafò (eds.), Ancient and Medieval Book Materials and Techniques (Erice, 18–25 September 1992). Studi e Testi, 357–358, Città del Vaticano 1993, 334, n. 38. 69 E. Trapp, Probleme der Prosopographie der Palaiologenzeit. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 27 (1978) 198–199. Constantinides, Higher Education (cf. n. 32) 139 proposes the identity of the owner of the library and of Vat. gr. 207 as Michael Eskammatismenos, chartophylax of Saint Sophia 1277–1285 (PLP 6146). 70 This is how the scribes worked on this copy: – scribe 1: f. 4–63, 87–94v + add. f. 116v l. 1–5 and 117v; 118–124, 125 l. 22– 146 l. 13, 145v, 147–155 l. 12, 189–191 l. 12, 195–220v, 236 l. 18–236v, also the red titles in f.  237 and 238v, as well as the epigrams of Boethius added afterwards. He also wrote the rhetorical schemata by Themistios and Cicero in f. 270 l. 11 and f. 263; 279–334v l. 10, 347–352v, 358r–v. Pl. 5. – scribe 2: f. 63–86v, 95–116, 191 l. 12–26, 194 l. 9–194v, 221–236 l. 18, 237– 270 l. 10, 270v–273 l. 13. – scribe 3: f. 124v–125 l. 21. – scribe 4: f. 155–164, 174 l. 14–180v, 191 l. 26–194 l. 9, 334v l. 11–346v, 353– 7v, 359–366. He is – scribe J in Vat. gr. 191. Cf. Pl. 6 with Turyn, Vaticani (cit. n. 16) Tab. 62. – scribe 5: f.165–174.13. – scribe 6: f. 181–188v.



inmaculada pérez martín

Consequently, this kind of transmission shows that the first generation of Palaeologan cultivated circles had interests as wide as those of Psellos himself, and that it was responsible for new copies of his writings that may be described as individual acts of conservation. Prof. Dr. Inmaculada Pérez Martín, CSIC, Madrid [email protected] Abstract The Transmission of Some Writings by Psellos in thirteenth-century Constantinople This paper pleads the cause for analysing the transmission of written testimonies (in this case, the ubiquitous legacy of Psellian texts) from a historical perspective. That outlook, prioritizing the context of the reception and use of Byzantine texts, allows us not only to understand why and how some of them were preserved but also to conduct an in-depth analysis of the texts as such. After examining some general trends in Psellian textual transmission (such as the early start, the frequent isolated transmission of single pieces, or their infiltration in corpora of ancient philosophical commentaries or of rhetorical texts), the paper examines a group of miscellaneous manuscripts from the early Palaeologan period. Those Psellian manuscripts are Oxford Barocci  131, Heidelberg gr.  356, Vat.  gr.  672, and Vat. Barber. gr. 240, linked to non-Psellian codices such as Vat. gr. 106, Vat. gr. 184, Vat. gr. 191, Vat. gr. 207, and Vat. gr. 1882/XX. They are the material consequence of the higher education sponsored first by Michael VIII and then by Andronikos II, under the direction of Maximus Holobolos and John Pediasimos. These teachers organized or undertook the copying of ancient scientific and philosophical corpora, into which the Psellian legacy had been incorporated. Nevertheless, the resulting manuscripts were not school books, but conservation copies or private volumes; their production was undertaken by officials trained in those schools, who shared their teachers’ interests and copied Michael Psellos’ writings together with Komnenian literature and technical administrative texts. Consequently, this kind of transmission shows that the first generation of Palaeologan cultivated circles had interests as wide as those of Psellos himself, and that it was responsible for new copies of his writings that may be described as individual acts of conservation.



ILLUSTRATIONS

Paul Géhin, Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège, 1-50.

1.  Patmos, Monê tou Hagiou Iôannou tou Theologou, 48, f.  334v  : Évagre, Chapitres sur la prière 111-115.



PAUL GéHIN

2.  Paris, BNF, gr. 913, f. 219r : Évagre, Chapitres sur la prière 61-63 (60-62 cod.)

3.  München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, gr. 498, f. 79v : Évagre, Chapitres sur la prière 139-143.



LES COLLECTIONS DE KEPHALAIA MONASTIQUES

4.  Paris, BNF, Coislin 109, f. 131v : Évagre, Chapitres sur la prière 69-71.

5.  Firenze, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 9.16, f. 76r : Évagre, Chapitres sur la prière 68-72.



Inmaculada Pérez Martín, The transmission of some writings by Psellos in thirteenth-century Constantinople, 159-174.

1.  Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 106, f. 259.



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

2.  Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1882, f. 201v.



INMACULADA PÉREZ MARTÍN

3.  Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barber. gr. 240, f. 39.



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

4.  Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 207, f. 237.



INMACULADA PÉREZ MARTÍN

5.  Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 207, f. 150.



THE TRANSMISSION OF SOME WRITINGS BY PSELLOS

6.  Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 207, f. 157.



Index

1. List of illustrations Paul Géhin, Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Patmos, Monê tou Hagiou Iôannou tou Theologou, 48, f. 334v Paris, BNF, gr. 913, f. 219r München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, gr. 498, f. 79v Paris, BNF, Coislin 109, f. 131v Firenze, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 9.16, f. 76r

Inmaculada Pérez Martín, The transmission of some writings by Psellos in thirteenth-century Constantinople 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 106, f. 259r Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1882, f. 201v Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barber. gr. 240, f. 39r Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 207, f. 237r Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 207, f. 150r Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 207, f. 157r



2. Manuscripts Athina Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος 257127 Μουσεῖο Μπενάκη 37, 43 TA 72 (gr. 53) Bern Burgerbibliothek Ms. 288

71. 35 72. 12 85. 1

164 164 164, 165

Haghion Oros Βιβλιοθήκη τοῦ Πρωτάτου 2627 Μονὴ Ἁγίου Παντελεήμονος 127 (5633) 35 Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου 13 39, 40 3818 5735 66724 Μονὴ Ἰβήρων· 39532 Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Κ 3 (1290) 55, 56, 59, 60 Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Λ 38 (1528) 55, 59, 60 Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Μ 54 (1745) 56, 57, 59, 62 Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας Μ 88 (1779) 126, 134,  138, 149, 151 Μονὴ Σιμωνόπετρα 153 (1421) 54

162

Bucureşti Biblioteca Academiei Române gr. 1335 53 Cambridge University Library Trinity College O.10.33 (1485)75 Dresden Sächsische Landesbibliothek Da. 61 (32) 163 El Escorial Real Biblioteca H. IV. 17 (406) 121 68 H. I. 9 (591) Ω. I. 7 (508) 71, 72, 74

Hamburg Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Philol. 88: 164

Firenze Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana 9. 16 43 9. 18 19 10. 26 164 57. 40 167 71. 19 164, 165

Heidelberg Universitätsbibliothek Palat. gr. 281 161 Palat. gr. 356 170, 174



index

İstanbul Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη Μονὴ Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 6423 Μονὴ τῆς Ἁγίας Τριάδος 65134

München Bayerische Staatsbibliothek gr. 384 167 Napoli Biblioteca Nazionale II. A. 12

Jerusalem Πατριαρχικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη Ἁγίου Σάββα 157 18, 33 42056 Παναγίου Τάφου 48356

Oxford Bodleian Library Barocci 12832 131 168–171, 174 Canonici gr. 15 54 gr. 16 54 38 Clarke 11 Cromwell 7 123

Kalabryta Μονὴ Μεγάλου Σπηλαίου 3424 London British Library Burney 114 Harley 1837 Milano Biblioteca Ambrosiana M 15 sup. (506) M 57 sup. (520) S 61 sup. (735)

74

Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France Coisl. 85 149 Coisl. 109 42 Coisl. 288 135–138,  148, 149, 151 gr. 822 18 39 gr. 852 gr. 913 41 gr. 927 18, 20 gr. 1037 20 gr. 1182 167 33 gr. 1220 gr. 1598 20 gr. 1918 164, 165 gr. 2748 36 Suppl. gr. 64 37

28 75

119 118 119

Moskva Gosudarstvennyj Istoričeskij Muzej Syn. gr. 15 (Vlad. 381) 27, 43 Syn. gr. 151 (Vlad. 200) 22 Syn. gr. 439 (Vlad. 425) 22, 150



index

Patmos Μονὴ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου 4841 18932 44740 Roma Biblioteca Casanatense 1106 (olim gr. III. 3)

1144163 143624 152419 1882 172, 174 202842 223132 223539 Venezia Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana gr. 131 (471) 19, 33, 44 163 gr. 154 (398 gr. 524 (318) 167 gr. app. II. 89 (1151) 149 gr. app. III. 12 (1267) 54

74

Vaticano Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Barber. gr. 164 164 240 172, 173 Chigi gr. 12 163 37 Palat. gr. 146 Reg. gr. 38 39 Vat. gr. 10 162 184172 191 165, 168 207173 293162 37537 47053 672174

Wien Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Theol. gr. 153 122 Theol. gr. 167 18 26 Theol. gr. 305 Wolfenbüttel Herzog August Bibliothek Gud. gr. 97 35

3. Names of Persons: Ancient and Medieval Akindynos Gregory 126, 128,  129, 131, 133, 135,  137, 138, 139, 142,  149, 150, 162 Aelius Aristides 170, 172 14 Agapetus the Deacon Akropolites George 169 Amphilochius of Iconium 154 Amphilochius,112

Ammonas, Monk 13, 16, 49 Ammonius, Philosopher 173 Anastasios of Sinai 117, 135 Andrew of Crete 88, 89, 91,  103, 107, 145 Andronikos II Palaiologos, emperor174 Andronikos-Arsenios Palaiologos 28, 48



index

Anthimos of Smyrna 57 Antiochus monk of Saint Sabbas  18, 40, 88 Anthony the Great 5, 31,  32, 133 (Pseudo-) 32, 40, 48 Aphthonius171 Apollinaris of Laodicea 127,  129, 148 Archilocus92 Aristotle 161, 163, 164, 173 Arius 127, 129, 139, 148 11, 166 Arrian Arsenius the Great 32 Asterius the Sophist 157 Athanasios of Alexandria 5, 99,  133, 134, 136, 147, 154 99, 116–119 (Pseudo-) Athanasios of Athos 134

Constantine IX Monomachos161 Constantine Manasses 172 Constantine Stilbes 170, 171 Constantios, monk 57 Cyril of Alexandria 58, 121 Cyril of Jerusalem 135 Cyril of Philea 93, 94 Cyrus of Alexandria 129, 141 Demetrios Chomatianos 165 97 Demetrios, Monk Diadochus of Photice 20, 32,  35, 48, 116 Didymus the Blind 2, 5 Dionysius bar Salibi 4 6 Dionysius of Aigai Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-) 21, 71, 132,  143, 145, 149 Dionysius Euzoitos 98 Dionysius Exiguus 28, 29, 50 Dorotheus of Gaza 96

Babai the Great 4, 12 Barlaam 27, 28, 60, 61 Barlaam of Calabria 128, 131,  138, 142 Basil of Caesarea 5, 11, 13,  27, 32, 38, 39, 69,  74, 115, 121,  122, 136, 139 Basil of Emesa 26 Boethius173

Elias Ecdicus 19, 22, 25, 32,  47, 48, 52 Elias Synkellos of Jerusalem 90 Elpidius21 Ephraim 16–18, 19, 34, 38,  40, 46, 88, 105 Epictetus10,11,31,32,40,49 Euclides 9, 173 Eunomios 127, 129, 139, 148 Eulogia Paleologa 150 Eusebios of Caesarea 111, 113 Eustathios of Thessalonike 167 Eustathios Macrembolites 171 Euthyches 129, 141, 142 Euthymios the Great 32 Euthymios of Athos 27

Caesarius (pseudo-) 115 Cato the Younger 166 Cicero 166, 173 Clement of Alexandria 11, 81 Cleomedes173 Clitarchus10 Constantine I the Great, emperor152



index

Euthymios Zigabenos 51 Euthymios, Synkellos 89 Eutropius137 Evagrius Ponticus: 2–16, 18,  20–23, 25–27, 28, 29,  32, 34–39, 41–44,  46–50, 54, 57, 89, 150

Isidore, patriarch of Constantinople100 Isidore of Pelusium 123 Isocrates9 (Pseudo-)34 Joasaph of Ephesus 112, 113 John VI Kantakouzenos, emperor 71, 137, 138, 139,  148, 149, 151 John XI Bekkos, patriarch of Constantinople148 John Argyropoulos 112 John XIV Calecas, patriarch of Constantinople 55, 131,  134, 137, 138,  143, 149–151 John of Karpathos 23, 32, 48,  49, 52, 61, 63, 65 John Cassian 36, 37 John Climacus 23, 26, 29,  38, 88, 89, 96, 97,  104, 105, 133, 147 John Chrysostom 32, 37–39,  49, 58, 74, 86, 88,  97, 135, 136, 137,  139, 152, 154 69, 74, 154 (Pseudo-) John Dalyatha 94 John of Damascus 27, 63, 104,  117, 119, 132, 136, 144 John Dukas Laosynaptes 100 87, 105 John Geometres John Kladas 100 John Komnenos Sozopolites 92 John Koukouzeles 100, 104 John Patrikios 170 John Pediasimos 166, 171, 172,  173, 174 John Philoponus 161, 164, 165

Gennadios (George) Scholarios 37, 116, 162-163 Gennadios Lauriotes, copyst134 George Pisides 87 Germanos II, patriarch of Constantinople103 George Akropolites 169 George Kontopetres 100 Gregory of Nazianzus 3, 5,  11, 32, 53, 63, 90,  96, 104, 106, 162 Gregory of Nyssa 136, 139, 142 Gregory of Cyprus 62, 164 Gregory the Sinaite 14, 29, 41,  48, 58, 150 Hermogenes of Tarsus 171 Hesychius of Sinai 26, 46, 48 Hesychius of Jerusalem 18, 26,  48, 49, 113 Hyperechius 14, 16, 35, 46 Ignatius of Antioch 149 Ignatius the Deacon 92 Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople62 Ignatios Xanthopoulos 30, 50 Ioannikios, monk 56 Isaac the Syrian 37, 38, 49, 94,  96, 97, 116 Isaiah abba 13, 16, 17, 19,  46, 49, 150



index

John Scotus Eriugena 72 John Tzetzes 166 John Xiphilinos 161 Joseph Bryennius 117 Joseph the Philosopher (Rhakendites)51 Joseph Stoudites 107 Justin martyr (Pseudo-) 115, 142 Justinian, emperor 14, 154, 156

Manuel II Palaiologos, emperor 99 100 Manuel Chrysaphes Manuel-Matthew Gabalas 28, 49 Manuel Doukas Apokaukos 62 Manuel Philes 98, 102,  104, 107 Marathonius156 Marcellus of Galatia 127, 129 Marcion129 Marcus Aurelius 9, 10 37, 114 Marcus Eugenicus Marcus, hieromonk 100 Marcus Kyrtos 22, 126, 134,  137, 138, 148–151 Marcus the Monk 9, 20, 26, 32,  35, 47, 115, 117 Maximus (Manuel) Holobolos  163, 165, 169, 173, 174 Maximus the Confessor 8, 14,  15, 20–23, 25, 26, 27,  32, 34, 36, 39–41, 46,  47, 49, 51, 52, 56, 63,  72, 112, 115, 117, 132,  137, 139, 142, 144, 150 (Pseudo-)56 Maximos Planudes 104-105 Maximus the Greek (Michael Trivolis)106 Melania the Elder 10 Meletius Galesiotes 14 Melissenos100 Metochites Theodore 98, 106 Michael, Hieromonk 103 Michael VIII Palaiologos, emperor 28, 169, 170, 173, 174 Michael Apostolis 102 Michael Choniates 165, 166 Michael of Ephesus 163, 165

Kallistos Angelikoudes 13, 30,  47, 49 Kallistos I, patriarch of Constantinople 29, 47 Kallistos II Xanthopoulos, patriarch of Constanti30, 50 nople Koukoulas, priest 100 Kyriakos, bishop of Chonai: 101 28, 60, 61 Lazarus Leontius, presbyter of Constan152, 154–158 tinople Leontius of Jerusalem 154 Leo VI, emperor 91, 92, 107 102 Leo Bardales Leo, metropolite of Russia 117 Leo of Ochrid 25, 47 Lucas Adialeiptos 14, 24, 48, 58 Lucian166 Macarius of Corinth 1, 52, 57,  58, 96 5, 147 Macarius of Egypt (Pseudo-) 19, 20, 34, 40, 49,  63, 117, 133 Macarius Kaloreites 102 Malachias the Monk 67–85 Manasses Constantine 172 Mani129



index

Michael Eskammatismenos 173 Michael Glykas 149 Michael Grammatikos 102 Michael Italikos 159 Michael Psellos 159–174 (Pseudo) 165 Michael Trivolis (Maximus the Greek)106 Moises abba 17, 19, 49 Neilos of Ankyra 2, 11, 17–19,  25, 32, 33, 34,  40, 44, 48, 52 (Pseudo-) 33, 46, 48 Neilos Doxapatres 51 Neilos of Rossano 42 Neophytos the Recluse 27, 36,  93–97, 104, 107 Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople154 Nicholas Kataskepenos 93, 94,  97, 107, 108 161 Nicholas, Kalligrapher Nicodemus the Hagiorite 1,  52-54, 57, 58, 65, 96 Nikephoros Alyates 169 Nikephoros Callistus Xanthopoulos 50, 98, 99 Nikephoros Gregoras 126, 132 Nikephoros Ouranos 101 Niketas, bishop of Klaudioupolis101 Niketas Stethatos 15, 24, 25, 49 Nil Sorsky 30

Palamas Gregory 22, 30,  47, 126, 129, 131,  134, 149, 150, 162 Palladius of Galatia 4, 63 Paul, monk 14 Petrus Damascenus 89, 96,  97, 104 Phakrases George 126 Phialites98 Philip Monotropos 93, 98 Philo of Alexandria 58 Philotheos Kokkinos, patriarch of Constantinople 132, 133 Philotheos of Selymbria 126 Philotheos of Sinai 26, 34,  47, 150 Phocylides10 Photinus 127, 129 Photius, patriarch of Constantinople ix, 2, 6, 8, 19,  61, 62, 112, 115,  116, 124, 125 Pisenios60 Planoudes Maximos 165 Plato 9, 126 Plotinus 10, 11 Plutarchus36 Polychronius the Deacon 83 Porphyrius 10, 11, 31,  164, 173 Proclus of Constantinople 154157 Ptolemy172

Origen

Quintus Sextius

2, 10, 16

Pachymeres George 149, 163 Palamas from Anchialos 100

10

Romanos the Melodist 88, 90,  103, 107, 108, 152 Rufinus of Aquileia 10



index

Sabbatius156 Sabellius 127, 129, 139 Serapion of Thmuis 5 Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople 129, 141 Severianos of Gabala 88 Sextus 10, 34 Sophonias162 Sophronios 127, 129 Sophronios of Jerusalem 90 Sozomenus157 Symeon Metaphrastes 19, 100, 101 Symeon the New Theologian 24,  25, 29, 39, 41,  46–48, 117, 133 Symeon the Stoudite 24, 25 Synesius90

Theodore the Stoudite 24, 89,  103, 107, 108 Theodore of Mopsuestia 118 Pseudo-Theodore27 Theodoret of Cyrrhus 112, 115, 122 Theodosius, monk 38 10 Theognis of Megara Theognostus 14, 27, 28, 37, 49,  51-53 , 54–57, 59–64 , 66 Theoleptos of Philadelphia 28,  59, 107 27, 43 Theophanes of Iviron Theophrastus4 Theophylactus of Ohrid 171 Timotheos, presbyter of Antioche:154 Timotheos, presbyter of Jerusalem154

Thalassius of Libya 12, 14, 22,  23, 25, 32, 49, 51,  72, 112, 115 165, 166, 173 Themistius Theocharistos36 Theodore of Edessa26, 35, 40, 47 Theodore Graptus 135 Theodore Metochites 98, 106 Theodore Prodromos 159, 172

Valentinus, Gnostic

148

Xene, nun Xenos Korones Xystus, Pope and Martyr

134 100 10

(Pseudo) Zonaras

162

4. Modern Autors Adler A. 68 Afentoulilidou-Leitgeb E. 93 Agapitos P. A. 87, 168 24, 25 Alfeyev Hilarion Allatius L. 101 Allen P. 152, 154, 155, 157 Almazov A. I. 112 Altripp M. x

Amphoux C.-B. 8 Anastasi R. 160 Anastasijewić D. N. 14, 87, 89,  92, 99–102 Andrés Sanz A. 118 Andrist P. 162 Angelou A. 28 Angelov D. 169



index

Apostopoulou S. 134, 135,  137–139, 148–150 Asmus M. 157 Assemani J.S. 16, 17, 38 Atsalos B. 4 Aubineau M. 154, 156 Augustin P. 71 Augustinos Iordanites 17 Auvray E. 93, 98

Cacouros M. 165 Canart P. 172 Carlini A. 10, 31, 33 Casaubon I. 9 Casiday A. 1 Cassin M. x, 1 Caster M. 11 Ceresa-Gastaldo A. 21 Ceulemans R. 85 Chadwick H. 10 Chivou I. 53 154 Chrestou P. K. Christie A. 53, 54, 65 Chryssavgis J. 89, 94, 97, 105 Ciccolella F. 87, 90, 91, 92, 107 Ćirković S. 169 1 Citterio E. Clément O. 22 Collatz Chr.-F. 166 Constantinides C. N. 165, 173 Constantinides D. K. 28 Constantinides Hero A. 149, 150 Conticello C. G. 1, 29, 30, 150 Conticello V. 1, 29, 30, 150 Coxe H. O. 54 Cramer E. A. 120 166 Crisci E. Cronier M. 1 Cunningham M. 23, 98 Cupane C. 132

Bady G. 74, 75 Bakalopoulou M. Ch. 126 23 Balfour D. Bănescu N. 102 Barber C. 159 Barone F. 74 Bartelink G. J. M. 133 ix, 67 Beck H.-G. Bees N. A. 24 Bernatskij M. M. 20 Berthold H. 133 Besson M. 37 29, 150 Beyer H.-V. Bianchi E. 87, 107 Bianconi D. 166, 167, 172 Binggeli A. 27 92, 104, 161 Boissonade J. F. Bongars J. 71 Borret M. 10 Bossina L. 19 Boter G. 32, 33 Brandes F. 108 Bravo García A. 167 Brisson L. 8 Brottier R. 86, 88 Browning R. 170 Busto Saiz J. 67, 69–71, 74, 77,  79, 80, 84 Butler C. 4 25 Büttner E.

Dagron G. 169 D’Aiuto F. 13 Darrouzès J. 25, 39, 149 Datema C. 152, 154, 155, 157 De Andrés G. 67–69, 75 De Durand G.-M. 9, 20 De Places É. 10, 20 Demkova N. S. 103



index

De Ridder E. 25, 52 Desprez V. 20 Devreesse R. 53, 135, 149, 171 Disdier M.-Th. 12, 22, 23 Dorival G. 74 Dörrie H. 111 Dörries H. 111, 125 20, 150 Dounaev A. G. Draguet R. 17 Duffy J. M. 162, 166, 171 Dummer J. 167 Dyobouniotes K. I. 37

Gelzer H. 67 Georgiopoulou S. 98 Gesner C. 32, 67 Giannarelli E. 14 Giannouli A. 87, 89, 108, 168 Gigante M. 90 Goar J. 89 Golitsis P. 163 Gouillard J. 26–28, 53, 61 Goulet R. 8, 31 Goulet-Cazé M.-O. 8 13 Graf E. Gribomont J. 19 Grosdidier de Matons J. 88 Große-Brauckmann E. 73 Grünbart M. 92 Guillaumont A. 2–5, 7, 9, 11,  12, 18, 27, 44,  54, 56, 57, 150 Guillaumont C. 3, 4, 5, 7, 17,  18, 27, 44, 54, 57, 150 151 Guillou A. Guy J-C. 35, 116

98 Euthymiades S. Ehrhard A. 67, 134 Eleuteri P. 164 Elytis O. 92 Elter A. 10 Epifanovič S. L. 22 Ermilov P. 35, 114, 125 Euangelidis T. E. 57 Eustratiades S. 55, 56, 62, 134 Fabricius J. A. 67 Featherstone J. M. Fernándes Marcos N. Fogielman Ch.-A. Fonkič B. Fredouille J.-C. Fuentes Gonzáles P. P. Funghi M. S.

Hadot P. 9, 10 Hanhart R. 67 Hansen G.-C. 166 10 Harl M. Harlfinger D. 137, 164, 165 5, 12, 22, 31, 86 Hausherr I. Hayduck M. 162 Hayton G. 159 Hemmerdinger-Iliadou D. 17 Heinrici G. 113 Henrich G. S. 102 Henry R. 2, 6, 19 Hinterberger M. 86, 87, 92,  105, 106, 160, 168 Hoffmann L. M. x, 98 Holmes R. 73

98, 106 69, 70 7 150 8 31–33 10, 14

Gamillscheg E. 137, 164 Gardthausen V. 161 Garzya A. 126 Gautier P. 159 Gedeon M. I. 18 Géhin P. 1, 3, 7, 16, 21, 23, 27,  33–35, 41, 50, 51, 54,  56, 57, 86, 89



index

Hörandner W. 86, 92, 160, 168 Hunger H. 132, 170 Hunt H. 86 Hutter I. 168, 169, 171 Ieraci Bio A. M. Ierodiakonou K. Ivánka E. Von

Laga C. 22, 72 Lamberz E. 18, 35, 40 Lambros Sp. P. 54, 104, 113 Laourdas B. 2 Lappa-Zizica E. 37 Lauxtermann M. D. 86, 87, 90,  92, 100, 101, 103 Lefort J. 170 Lemerle P. 151, 169 Leone A. M. 166 Leroy J. 28 23, 52 Levrie K. Lilla S. 39, 116 Longo A. 97 Loubet M. 74

126 162, 163 2, 10

Janin R. 151 Janssens B. x Jeffreys M. J. 92, 95, 97, 100, 101 159 Jenkins D. Johnson S. F. 110 Jouanno C. 166 Jugie M. 62, 98, 163 Kaïmakis D. B. Kakoulide E. D. Kaldellis A. Kaloeidas G. Kalousios D. G. Kambylis A. 102 Karlin-Hayter P. Kazhdan A. Kim S. S. Kirchmeyer J. Kislinger E. Klostermann E. Koder J. Kolovou F. Kontouma V. Kotter B. Kotzabassi S. Kouropou M. Kresten O. Krumbacher K. Kunze R. Kurtz E.

Macé C. Magdalino P. Mai A. Mainardi A. Mango C. Maniaci M. Martin J. R. Maas P. McGeer E. Medvedev I. P. Méhat A. Mercati S. G. Metzger M. Meyendorff J. Miller D. Miller E. Miltenov Y. Miltenova A. Mingana A. Mioni E. Moffat A. Mogenet J. Moldenhawer D. Molin Pradel M.

132 92, 100 98, 159, 161 36 29 92 159 20 26 132 80 86, 92, 97 167 1 117 164 23 132 13, 67, 72 163 101



30, 51 108 116 30 98, 108 172 87 88, 91, 92 101 103 11 17, 103 38 126 111 104 115 124 118 54, 149 28 164 67–69, 71 164

index

Mondésert C. 11 Mondrain B. 71, 167 de Montfaucon B. 167 Moore P. 160–164, 168,  171, 172 Moraux P. 165 Müller B. 86, 88, 108 172 Munafò P. F. Munitiz J. A. 25, 28, 37, 53, 54,  59, 61–64, 87, 94 Muyldermans J. 10, 36 Nadal Cañellas J. Nau F. Nesbitt J. W. Niggl G. Nikitas D.Z. Nikolopoulos P. G. Nissen T. Noret J. Norov A.

126, 162 16 101 133 173 36 90, 91 134 37

O’Brien D. Odorico P. Ogliari R. Oikonomides N. O’Meara D. J. Omont H. Opstall E. M. van

8 87, 160 26, 150 101, 170 171 165 105, 106

Parrinello R. M. Parsons J. Paschalides S. A. Pasicznyk U. M. Patrich J. Pearse R. Pecere O. Pérez Martín I.  Peristeris A. Perrone L. Petit L. Petruccione J. Phrantzolas K. G. Phratsoles K. G. Picot J. Polemis I. Poljakov F. B. Pontani F.M. 92 Pontikos I. N. Possinus P. Pralon D. Prato G. Prinzing G. Pritsak O. Pruche B.

14, 26 73 56, 57 98 56 111 166 165–167, 171, 174 56 110 134, 163 112 88 17 20 134 150 169, 171 19 74 162, 165 166 98 5

Rahlfs A. 67, 70, 73, 78, 80-83 Regnault L. 16 Reinsch D. R. 102 Revilla P. A. 68, 71 Rhoby A. 168 ix, 31, 32, 36, 39 Richard M. Rigo A. 1, 2, 14, 22, 24–30,  37, 53, 56, 58, 71,  86, 87, 94, 96, 97,  107, 150, 151 Rizou-Couroupou M. 37 Roelli Ph. 150 Roosen B.: 22

Palmer G. E. H. 96, 97 Panaghiotou A. D. 134, 135,  137, 138, 143, 150 Papachryssanthou D. 151 Papaconstantinou A. 27 Papadopoulos-Kerameus A. 55,  56, 101, 103 Papadoyannakis Y. 110 Papaioannou S. 159–161 37, 74 Paramelle J.



index

Rutherford J. E.

20

Tsakopoulos A. 134 Tsikmopoulos I. 95 Touraille J. 22, 53 Trapp E. 173 Treu M. 169 Turyn A. 162, 164, 168,  171, 173 Tziatzi-Papagianni M. 102

Sachot M. 152, 156 Sargologos É. 94 Schabel C. 102 Scheidweiler F. 106 Schiffer E. 160, 168 108 Schmieder F. Schmitt C. 67 Schoinas S. 17 Schreiner P. 103 Seibt W. 164 98, 103, 106, Ševčenko I.  150, 169 Sherrard P. 96, 97 Sideridès X. A. 163 Signes Codoñer J. 171 30, 59 Sinkewicz R. E. Solignac A. 23 Soteroudes P. 95, 97 Spanneut M. 31–33 Speck P. 91, 103, 107 37 Speranskij M. N. Spyridon Lauriotes 55, 56,  93, 134 Stathes G. T. 87, 99, 100, 104 22, 72 Steel C. Stephanes I. E. 95 Stephenson P. 87 Stiernon D. 23 Strakhov O. 103 Suares J. M. 19 Svoronos N. 151

Unterburger K.

107

Van Deun P. 15, 28, 30, 39,  51, 65, 86, 150 Van Parys M. 23 90, 102 Vassis I. Vavrínek V. 165 Viller M. 21 Vladimir, arch. 150 Vogel M. 161 111 Volgers A. Volk R. 27 Ware K. 96, 97 Watson W. G. E. 69 2, 162, 167 Westerink L. G. Wilson N. G. 160, 161, 168,  169, 171 Wolfram G. 107 Wolska-Conus W. 161 Zagklas N. Zamagni C. Ziegler J. 



168 111 67, 69–71, 74, 77–80, 84