Universum Hagiographicum: Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. (1934–2003) 9781463216306

Citation preview

Universum Hagiographicum

Scrinium: Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique 2 Editorial Committee B. Lourié (Editor-in-Chief), St. Pétersbourg D. Nosnitsin (Secretary), Hamburg D. Kashtanov, Moscow S. Mikheev, Moscow A. Orlov, Milwaukee T. Senina, St. Pétersbourg D. Y. Shapira, Jérusalem S. Shoemaker, Oregon Secretariat T. Senina, St. Pétersbourg E. Bormotova, Montréal

Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique, established in 2005, is an international multilingual scholarly series devoted to patristics, critical hagiography, and Church history. Each volume is dedicated to a theme in early church history, with a particular emphasis on Eastern Christianity, while not excluding developments in the western church.

Universum Hagiographicum

Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. (1934-2003)

Edited by Basil Lourié A. Mouraviev

9

34 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 2006 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. 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, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

‫ܕ‬

9 ISBN 978-1-60724-082-2 ISSN 1817-7530

Scrinium 2 was originally published by Byzantiorossica, St. Petersburg, 2006.

Printed in the United States of America

Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê. Ëóâýí, 2002 ãîä

Michel van Esbroeck. Louvain, 2002

TABLE DES MATIE´RES Table des matières ............................................................................................. vii R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s.j. (1934–2003). In memoriam .............................. x [† Michel VAN ESBROECK.] Short biography of Michel van Esbroeck ................ xi À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÅÂ, Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ. Êðèòè÷åñêàÿ àãèîãðàôèÿ êàê îáðàç æèçíè. Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê, Î. È. (1934–2003) [A. MURAVIEV, B. LOURIÉ. L’hagiographie critique comme une mode d’existence: Michel van Esbroeck, s.j.] ........................ xiii Samir Kh. SAMIR. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934–2003), le collègue et l’ami ..................................................................................... xxv Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ ................................................ xxxi Liste des abréviations ..................................................................................... lxvii

Articles † Michel VAN ESBROECK. L’alternance politico-religieuse de Justinien II à Léon III .............................................................................. 3 Vladimir A. BARANOV. Unedited Slavonic Version of the Apology on the Cross and on the Holy Icons Attributed to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (CPG 8033) ............... 7 Alessandro BAUSI. La versione etiopica delle Risposte canoniche di Timoteo I attribuite a Pietro di Alessandria (CPG II, nr. 2520) ............ 41 Sebastian BROCK. The genealogy of the Virgin Mary in Sinai Syr. 16 ............. 58 István M. BUGÁR. What did Epiphanius write to Emperor Theodosius? ......... 72 † Sevir B. CHERNETSOV. Ethiopian magic literature ........................................... 92 Vincent DESPREZ. Diadoque de Photicé et le Pseudo-Macaire. Un état des questions ................................................................................. 114 Anna M. KUZNETSOVA. Demons versus Saints in the early Eastern Orthodox monastic Literature ................................... 136 Àëåêñåé Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ. Çàáûòûé ìó÷åíèê sub Juliano Apostata: ãðóçèíñêîå ìó÷åíèå Ñâ. Ëóêèàíà Áààëüáåêñêîãî [Alexey V. MURAVIEV. A forgotten martyr sub Juliano Apostata: a Georgian martyrium of St Lucian of Baalbek] ....................................... 144 Andrei ORLOV. «The Learned Savant Who Guards the Secrets of the Great Gods»: Evolution of the Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero in Mesopotamian and Enochic Traditions .............................................................................. 165

viii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Bernard OUTTIER. Fragments onciaux inédits de l’évangile de Marc en géorgien, Erevan, Matenadaran 2660 ................................................... 214 Vadim B. PROZOROV. The Passion of St. Domnius: the Tradition of Apostolic Succession in Dalmatia ................................... 219 Òàòüÿíà À. ÑÅÍÈÍÀ (ìîíàõèíÿ Êàññèÿ). Äèàëîã Ôåîôèëà è Êàññèè: ëèòåðàòóðíàÿ âûäóìêà èëè ðåàëüíîñòü? [Tatiana A. SENINA (Nun Kassia). Dialogue between Theophilus and Kassia: literary fiction or reality?] .................... 240 Dan D. Y. SHAPIRA. «Tabernacle of Vine»: Some (Judaizing?) Features in the Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino ......................................................... 273 Stephen J. SHOEMAKER. The Georgian Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus the Confessor: Its Authenticity (?) and Importance .............. 307

Notices et recensions Vladimir A. BARANOV. The Vita Tarasii as a Source for Reconstruction of the Iconoclastic Theology ................... 331 Äåíèñ Â. ÊÀØÒÀÍÎÂ. Marginalia Byzantinorossica. Î âèçàíòèéñêî-ðóññêèõ ñâÿçÿõ â òðàêòîâêå Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà [Denis V. KASHTANOV. Marginalia Byzantinorossica. On the Byzantine-Russian connections according to M. V. Bibikov] ....... 340 Âëàäèìèð À. Ë ÈÂØÈÖ. Ñîãäèéöû äàðÿò õóì íåñòîðèàíñêîìó ó÷èòåëþ Éàðóêòåãèíó [Vladimir A. LIVSHITS. Sogdians present a xôm to a Nestorian Teacher YrwS tkyn] ............................................................. 365 Âàäèì Ì. Ë ÓÐÜÅ. Ìåòàòðîí è Ïðîìåòàÿ: Âòîðàÿ êíèãà Åíîõà íà ïåðåêðåñòêå ïðîáëåì [Basil LOURIÉ. Metatron and Prometaja: 2 Enoch at the cross-road of problems] .................................................... 371 Òàòüÿíà À. ÑÅÍÈÍÀ (ìîíàõèíÿ Êàññèÿ). Íåñêîëüêî çàìå÷àíèé ïî ïîâîäó Æèòèÿ ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ Ñàðäñêîãî [Tatiana A. SENINA (Nun Kassia). Some notes on the Life of St Euthymius of Sardes] ........................................................................ 408 Dan D. Y. SHAPIRA. Hâru³t wa-Mâru³t, again .................................................... 418 Dan D. Y. SHAPIRA. Stray Notes on Aksum and Himyar ................................. 433 Ì. Ñ. ÂËÀÄÛØÅÂÑÊÀß, Ðóññêèé äóõîâíûé ñòèõ î Åãîðèè Õðàáðîì è áëèæíåâîñòî÷íûå ñêàçàíèÿ î ñâ. Ãåîðãèè (ñåìàíòèêà èìåíè è ñþæåò â àãèîãðàôèè) [M. S. VLADYSHEVSKAJA. Russian «duxovnyj stix» (folklore spiritual poem) about Egorij the Brave and Near Eastern legends about St. George (semantics of name and plot in hagiography)] (Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ) ................................................... 444

Table des matie´res

ix

Í. È. ÌÈËÞÒÅÍÊÎ, Ñâÿòûå êíÿçüÿ-ìó÷åíèêè Áîðèñ è Ãëåá [N. I. MILJUTENKO, Saint princes-martyrs Boris and Gleb] (Ñ. Ì. Ì ÈÕÅÅÂ) .......................................................................................... 446 Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêèå ïàìÿòíèêè Âîñòî÷íîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ [L. G. KHRUSHKOVA, Early Christian monuments of Eastern Black Sea Region] (À. È. ÐÎÌÀÍ×ÓÊ) ...................................................................................... 456 Íîâûå äèññåðòàöèè, ïîñâÿùåííûå âèçàíòèéñêîé ïàòðèñòèêå [Some new theses dedicated to the Byzantine patristics] (Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ) ..... 463 Àïîêàòàñòàñèñ è ó÷åíèå î ñâîáîäå âîëè [Apokatastasis and the doctrine of the liber arbitrio] (Â. Ì. Ë ÓÐÜÅ) ....... 470 Íîâàÿ ñåðèÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ òåêñòàì Õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà [New series dedicated to the texts of the Christian East] (Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ) ..... 479 Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Íåñòîðèé è Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà [Nicholai SELEZNYOV, Nestorius and the Church of the East] (B. LOURIÉ) ... 481 Íîâûå ïóáëèêàöèè ïî ñèðîëîãèè íà ðóññêîì ÿçûêå [Syrian Christianity: Recent Bibliography in Russian] (Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ, Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ) ......... 481

R. P. MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, S.J. (1934ñ2003) IN MEMORIAM Notre ami et maître le R. P. Michel van Esbroeck est décédé le 21 novembre 2003. Sa mort prématurée et soudaine a surpris tout le monde de ceux qui le connaissaient. Le présent volume que nous supposions de publier en honneur de son 70ème anniversaire, est devenu son mémorial. Le temps s’écoule et on voit de plus en plus la magnitude de la personnalité scientifique du Père van Esbroeck. La science des bollandistes, c’est-àdire l’hagiographie critique, et même nos connaissances de l’Orient Chrétien en général, sont maintenant influencées par lui dans une mesure que nous n’avons pas encore appréciée. La plupart de ses brillants découverts, dispersés dans les chaînes des courts articles, n’étaient arrangée dans un ordre systématique que dans les esprits de lui-même et de quelques-uns de ses lecteurs les plus scrupuleux, capables de le suivre par toutes les courbes de ses références bibliographiques... Lui-même, il ne systématisait ses achèvements que dans quelques cas exclusifs et d’une manière très laconique. Évidemment, la personnalité et l’œuvre du P. van Esbroeck méritent d’être faites l’objet d’une étude spéciale, au même niveau que des autres grandes figures du bollandisme du XX siècle, celles des PP. Delehaye et Peeters. Faute de cela, nous avons essayé dans un autre lieu d’esquisser une partie assez grande de ce que le P. van Esbroeck a fait.1 Le volume présent n’est qu’une collection des articles des ceux qui avaient le bonheur de connaître le P. Michel personnellement ou, du moins, partageaient ces intérêts scientifiques qui ne s’ont été jamais bornés à l’hagiographie au sens stricte. C’est pourquoi ce volume, quoique intitulé Universum hagiographicum, ne se limite pas de l’hagiographie. Une petite notice biographique que nous plaçons tout de suite, est écrite en anglais par le P. van Esbroeck lui-même vers la fin de 1999. B. Lourié A. Mouraviev

Â. ËÓÐÜÅ, Êðèòè÷åñêàÿ àãèîãðàôèÿ, èëè Èñòîðèÿ çåìíîãî íåáà è íåáåñíîé çåìëè îò Åíîõà äî Íèëüñà Áîðà è îò áîëëàíäèñòîâ äî Êóàéíà (â ïå÷àòè) [B. LOURIÉ, L’hagiographie critique, ou l’Histoire du ciel terrestre et de la terre céleste d’Énoch à Niels Bohr et des bollandistes à Quine (à paraître)]. 1

[NOTICE

AUTOBIOGRAPHIQUE]

SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF MICHEL VAN ESBROECK Michel van Esbroeck (= MvE) was born on the 17.06.34 in Malines in Belgium, in a family partly from Flemish and partly from Walloon ascendance: The name is Flemish, but the family language always was French. As his father Prof. Guillaume van Esbroeck († 1974) made his studies in Geology at Columbia University in the years 1921–1923, and his mother Ida Brusselmans († 1965) went at school in London from 1914 to 1918, so English was also spoken at home. MvE achieved the Greek and Latin Humanities in the Collège Saint-Michel in Brussels in 1951. After one year in Laws at the Faculties Saint-Louis in Brussels, MvE entered the noviciate of the south Belgian Province of the Society of Jesus from 1953 to 1955. He then simultaneously prepared a State Licence in Classical Philology at the Jury d’État Belge in 1959, and the three years for the Philosophical degrees at the Pontifical Institute Saint-Albert de Louvain (sj) in the same year, with a work on La prohairesis chez Aristote et chez les rhéteurs grecs. After one year for the military service, he had a class of 32 children for one year. In 1962, MvE was invited to enter the Library of the Bollandist Society in Brussels, where for the first time he was enabled to study ecclesiastical matters. At that moment he obtained the permission to follow the lectures of Prof.Gérard Garitte at the University of Louvain, but only as a free student. The languages were Armenian and Georgian. At that time Prof. Garitte had just edited the Calendrier palestino-géorgien in the publications of the Bollandists. After one year, MvE became aware of the high complexity of the hagiographic literature, which hardly can be treated in only two eastern languages from the first millennium. He then was allowed to study Arabic and Syriac in the University SaintJoseph of Beyrouth, but soon in 1964, he was recalled to make his Theological Studies in Louvain. In 1966, MvE was informed that he could not be ordained with his fellows on the ground of still unexplained reasons. He then forced the superiors to give him the normal time to achieve a Doctorate in Histoire et Philologie Orientale at the University of Louvain. In 1970 he was able to achieve his Theology and was ordained a priest. In 1972 Father François Halkin came back from Paris with the photos of the Georgian manuscript 11 from the Athos. The document had been photographed by Marcel Richard from the Institute of the Manuscripts in Paris. Nobody at that time in Paris was able to read it. MvE transcribed the whole codex, and saw that it belonged to a category of collections, which was given the name Mravalthavi. To collate the others exemplars was the first task. With the recommendation of Prof. Garitte, MvE lived 15 days in 1972 in Tbilissi. His doctorate would

xii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

have been ready in 1972, but Gérard Garitte fell sick with a thrombosis. Only in 1975 MvE obtained his doctorate in the presence of G. Garitte. After that date, he regularly asked the Belgian State to be included in exchange programs of searchers between Soviet Union and Belgium. He made a lot of those exchanges, looking for hagiographic matters in Moscow, Leningrad, Tbilissi and Yerevan. He thus get the opportunity to exercise the contemporary Russian, Georgian and Armenian languages. In 1982, MvE was invited to teach old Armenian and Georgian in the Pontificio Istituto Orientale in Rome. In 1985, he took for one year the chair of Jean-Pierre Mahé in Paris at the Institut Catholique. In 1986, he was asked by the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich to give his candidature to succeed of Prof. Julius Aßfalg in the chair for the Philology of the Christian Orient. This effectively was an ideal possibility to work on the six Christian oriental languages: Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Syriac, Coptic and Ge’ez. MvE was elected in 1987, and since holds the chair. As he was 65 year old in June 1999, he has been put in retirement according to the Law of the University on 31. July 1999. All the time since 1962, MvE worked on several hagiographic and theological matters, his first preoccupation being to signalise and publish documents which were forgotten since more than a millennium, and to measure their impact on the way to write history to-day. MvE is member of the «Deutsche patristische Kommission der deutschen Akademien» and is foreign member of the Academy of sciences in Tbilissi. [After his retirement MvE lived in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). In octobernovember 2003 he taught at the Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome. MvE died on 21 November 2003 in his house in Louvain-la-Neuve. — NdlR]

 –»“»◊≈— ¿fl ¿√»Œ√–¿‘»fl  ¿  Œ¡–¿« Δ»«Õ» ûÿ≈À‹ ¬¿Õ ›—¡–” , Œ. ». (1934ñ2003) Êîãäà-òî ïðåäïîëàãàëîñü, ÷òî Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê èäåéíî âîçãëàâèò ðåäêîëëåãèþ æóðíàëà Scrinium. Âåäü ýòîò æóðíàë çàäóìûâàëñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, äëÿ ðàçâèòèÿ òåõ ïîäõîäîâ ê èçó÷åíèþ àãèîãðàôèè, êîòîðûå â ïîñëåäíèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ áîëåå âñåãî ñâÿçûâàëèñü ñ åãî ðàáîòàìè. Íî Ãîñïîäü ñóäèë èíà÷å. Òåïåðü ìû âûïóñêàåì òîì æóðíàëà, ïîñâÿùåííûé ïàìÿòè î. Ìèõàèëà. Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê îñòàâèë ïî ñåáå òàêóþ èíòåðåñíóþ è ìíîãîîáðàçíóþ ïàìÿòü, ÷òî âìåñòèòü åå â ïðåäåëû îäíîé ñòàòüè ñîâåðøåííî íåâîçìîæíî. È, òåì íå ìåíåå, ìû ïîïûòàåìñÿ.

◊ÂÎÓ‚ÂÍ Îòåö âàí Ýñáðóê è ïðèíàäëåæàë íàøåìó âðåìåíè è íå ïðèíàäëåæàë åìó. Îäíèì èç ïåðâûõ ñðåäè ñâîèõ êîëëåã îí îñâîèë êîìïüþòåð è íå óñòàâàë ïîâòîðÿòü, ÷òî òåõíè÷åñêèå óñîâåðøåíñòâîâàíèÿ â ñèëüíåéøåé ñòåïåíè ïîìîãàþò íàóêå. Îí ëèõî ãîíÿë íà ñâîåì àâòîìîáèëå ïî Åâðîïå, ïîëüçîâàëñÿ ñîâðåìåííûìè òåõíîëîãèÿìè è ïîñòîÿííî èíòåðåñîâàëñÿ íîâèíêàìè íàóêè. Âìåñòå ñ òåì, êîãäà çàäóìûâàåøüñÿ îá î. Ìèøåëå êàê î òèïå ó÷åíîãî, òî â ãîëîâó ïðèõîäèò òîëüêî ñðàâíåíèå ñ ýíöèêëîïåäèñòàìè ïðîøëîãî èëè äàæå ñ âåëèêèìè ãóìàíèñòàìè âðîäå åãî çåìëÿêà Þñòà Ëèïñèÿ èëè Ñêàëèãåðà, íî òîëüêî â äðóãîì ðîäå. Íåâîçìîæíî ÷åòêî îïðåäåëèòü åãî îáëàñòü çàíÿòèé. Öåðêîâíàÿ èñòîðèÿ? Ïàòðîëîãèÿ? Èñòîðèÿ Õðèñòèàíñêîãî âîñòîêà? Ñðàâíèòåëüíàÿ ìèôîëîãèÿ? Ñòðóêòóðàëèñòèêà? Ôèëîëîãèÿ? Âî âñåõ ýòèõ äèñöèïëèíàõ îí îñòàâèë ñâîé ñëåä. Îí èíòåðåñîâàëñÿ ëèíãâèñòèêîé, áèáëåèñòèêîé, èóäàèñòèêîé, çà÷èòûâàëñÿ òðóäàìè Ãåòå, âûïèñûâàë êíèãè è æóðíàëû ïî àñòðîíîìèè… Åãî ÿçûêîâûå ñïîñîáíîñòè ïîðàæàëè âñåõ, êòî âñòðå÷àëñÿ ñ íèì. Ñâîáîäíî çíàÿ äåñÿòêà òðè ÿçûêîâ, îí ïðîäîëæàë èíòåðåñîâàòüñÿ âñå íîâûìè ÿçûêàìè. Îò ïðÿìûõ âîïðîñîâ î òîì, ñêîëüêî ÿçûêîâ îí çíàåò, î. Ìèøåëü ïðåäïî÷èòàë îòäåëûâàòüñÿ òóìàííûìè ðàññóæäåíèÿìè î òîì, ñêîëüêî âñåãî ÿçûêîâ â ìèðå — òî ëè 6000, òî ëè 200, ñìîòðÿ ïî òîìó, ÷òî ñ÷èòàòü ÿçûêàìè, à ÷òî äèàëåêòàìè… Èç ýòîãî êàê-òî ñëåäîâàëî, ÷òî ÿçûêîâ â ìèðå íå òàê óæ ìíîãî, ÷òîáû íåëüçÿ áûëî, õîòü â êàêîé-òî ñòåïåíè, íå çíàòü èõ âñåõ. Åãî çíàíèå ÿçûêîâ íå áûëî çíàíèåì ïîëèãëîòà â

xiv

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

áûòîâîì ñìûñëå: î. Ìèøåëü âåñüìà ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî ãîâîðèë íà ÿçûêàõ, êîòîðûå îí âûó÷èë. Åãî çíàíèå áûëî çíàíèåì ÷èòàþùåãî ó÷åíîãî. Îí áûë çíàòîêîì ïèñüìåííîãî ñëîâà è çíàòîêîì áîãîñëîâèÿ. Åãî çíàíèå áîãîñëîâèÿ áûëî î÷åíü ãëóáîêèì è èíòóèòèâíûì. Ýòè äâå õàðàêòåðèñòèêè íóæäàþòñÿ â ïîÿñíåíèè. Ãëóáèíà åãî ïîíèìàíèÿ áûëà ãëóáèíîé èñòîðèêà. Îí âñåãäà çíàë èñòîðè÷åñêèå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà òîãî èëè èíîãî ìíåíèÿ èëè ó÷åíèÿ, ïîíèìàë âíóòðåííèå ìåõàíèçìû, âûçâàâøèå åãî.  ýòîì ñìûñëå ÌâÝ (îí ñàì òàê íåðåäêî ñîêðàùàë ñâîå èìÿ — MvE) áûë ïîêëîííèêîì èñòîðèçìà, ïîðîæäåíèÿ ðîìàíòè÷åñêîé øêîëû. Èíòóèöèÿ î. Ìèøåëÿ áûëà ñâÿçàíà ñ åãî ìåòîäîì ñòðóêòóðíîãî èçó÷åíèÿ ïðåäìåòà è ñ åãî îãðîìíîé ýðóäèöèåé è íà÷èòàííîñòüþ. Îí áóêâàëüíî ÷óâñòâîâàë, ãäå è ÷òî îí ìîæåò íàéòè íà èíòåðåñîâàâøóþ åãî òåìó. Åãî ôåíîìåíàëüíûé ìîçã âûäàâàë ìíîæåñòâî àññîöèàöèé íà ëþáîé âîïðîñ. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, äàëåêî íå âñå îíè ïîäâåðãàëèñü ðàñêîäèðîâàíèþ è èçëîæåíèþ. Âîîáùå ãîâîðÿ, íà íå çíàþùèõ åãî ãëóáîêî, î. Ìèøåëü ïðîèçâîäèë âïå÷àòëåíèå ÷åëîâåêà î÷åíü õàîòè÷íîãî, íåñîáðàííîãî. È òîëüêî òå, êòî áûë ïîñâÿùåí â ïîäðîáíîñòè åãî èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé êóõíè, çíàë, ÷òî âíåøíÿÿ íåóïîðÿäî÷åííîñòü ñêðûâàëà ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ñëîæíîå âíóòðåííåå óñòðîéñòâî, íàõîäèâøååñÿ â ñòðîãîì ïîðÿäêå. Äåòñòâî î. âàí Ýñáðóêà ïðîøëî â îêêóïèðîâàííîé Áåëüãèè ïîä ñâèñò áîìá. Êîëëåäæ èåçóèòîâ «Ñåí-Ìèøåëü» â Áðþññåëå áûë íåïðîñòûì èñïûòàíèåì äëÿ þíîãî Ìèøåëÿ: ìàëåíüêîãî âàëëîíöà ñ ôëàìàíäñêîé ôàìèëèåé íå ëþáèëè íè ïðîíåìåöêèå ôëàìàíäöû, íè ôðàíêîÿçû÷íûå âàëëîíöû. Ñ òåõ ïîð ó î. âàí Ýñáðóêà îñòàëàñü òðóäíî ñêðûâàåìàÿ èäèîñèíêðàçèÿ êî âñåìó ôëàìàíäñêîìó.  þíîñòè î. Ìèøåëü ìå÷òàë î äîëæíîñòè ïðîïîâåäíèêà Õðèñòîâà ó÷åíèÿ â Êèòàå. Òàêîé âûáîð áûë ïðîäèêòîâàí èñòîðèåé åãî ñåìüè. Îòåö åãî áûë êàêèì-òî ïðåäïðèíèìàòåëåì, èìåâøèì âåñüìà âûãîäíûå äåëîâûå îòíîøåíèÿ ñ êèòàéöàìè. Áóäó÷è ÷åëîâåêîì íåîðäèíàðíûì, îí óâëåêàëñÿ êèòàéñêèì è ÿïîíñêèì, ÷èòàë íà ýòèõ ÿçûêàõ è ïðèâèë ñûíó ëþáîâü ê Âîñòîêó. Íåñìîòðÿ íà áîëüøîé è ðàçíîîáðàçíûé æèçíåííûé îïûò è íåêîòîðûé íàëåò ñêåïñèñà î. Ìèøåëü íà âñþ æèçíü îñòàëñÿ ðîìàíòè÷åñêèì ìå÷òàòåëåì î ìèññèîíåðñêîì ïóòåøåñòâèè â Ïîäíåáåñíóþ èìïåðèþ è îáðàùåíèè ìíîæåñòâà êèòàéöåâ êî Õðèñòó. Íåçàäîëãî äî ñìåðòè åìó äîâåëîñü âïåðâûå ïîáûâàòü â ñòðàíå ñâîåé ìå÷òû — îí ñ ãîðÿùèìè ãëàçàìè ðàññêàçûâàë îá ýòîé ïîåçäêå è ïëàíèðîâàë âåðíóòüñÿ òóäà åùå. Îäíàêî ïîäîáíî ôðàíöóçó Ìàðè-Ôåëèñèòå Áðîññý îí áûë îñòàíîâëåí â ñàìîì íà÷àëå ïóòè â Êèòàé. Êàê èçâåñòíî, òîò ïî ïóòè â Êèòàé îñòàíîâèëñÿ â Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãå, ãäå îæèäàë âûïðàâêè äîêóìåíòîâ, ñèäÿ â áèáëèîòåêå Èìïåðàòîðñêîé Àêàäåìèè íàóê. Êîãäà ôðàíöóç ïîïðîñèë ïðèíåñòè åìó êíèãó íà êèòàéñêîì ÿçûêå, ñëóæèòåëü îøèáñÿ è âûíåñ åìó ãðóçèíñêóþ êíèãó. Ýòî è îïðåäåëèëî äàëüíåéøóþ íàó÷íóþ

Критическая агиография как образ жизни

xv

ñóäüáó Áðîññý.1 Äëÿ âàí Ýñáðóêà òàêîé «êíèãîé» îêàçàëîñü Îáùåñòâî Áîëëàíäèñòîâ.2 Ïîñëå îêîí÷àíèÿ íîâèöèàòà, êîòîðûé çàïîìíèëñÿ èç åãî ðàññêàçîâ òåì, ÷òî ìîëîäûå èåçóèòû ãîâîðèëè ìåæäó ñîáîé èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïîëàòûíè, Ìèøåëü íàäåÿëñÿ ðóêîïîëîæèòüñÿ â ñàí ñâÿùåííèêà è ïîëó÷èòü íàïðàâëåíèå â ìèññèþ â êàêóþ-íèáóäü ÷óæóþ ñòðàíó. Îäíàêî ðóêîâîäñòâî Îáùåñòâà Èèñóñîâà ïî êàêèì-òî (òàê è îñòàâøèìñÿ íåïîíÿòíûì Ìèøåëþ) ñâîèì ïðè÷èíàì îòëîæèëî îðäèíàöèþ. Ýòîò óäàð ñóäüáû âàí Ýñáðóê îñòðî ïåðåæèâàë è 50 ëåò ñïóñòÿ. Íî òîãäà îí îêîí÷èë èåçóèòñêèé êîëëåæ Ñàí-Ëóè â Ëóâåíå è çàùèòèë äèïëîì ïî òåìå «Ïðîàéðåñèñ ó Àðèñòîòåëÿ è ãðå÷åñêèõ îðàòîðîâ». Ïîñëå ïîëóãîäà ñëóæáû â áåëüãèéñêîé àðìèè (îá ýòîì âðåìåíè Ìèøåëü âñåãäà âñïîìèíàë ñî ñìåõîì: îòðàâèâøèñü êàêèìè-òî êîíñåðâàìè, îíè ïðîâåëè áîëüøóþ ÷àñòü ñëóæáû íà êîéêå â ëàçàðåòå) Ìèøåëü âåðíóëñÿ â êîëëåæ Ñâ. Ìèõàèëà è â òå÷åíèå ãîäà ïðåïîäàâàë îáîëòóñàì ëàòûíü. Íî ïî èñòå÷åíèè ãîäà åìó ïîñ÷àñòëèâèëîñü ïîëó÷èòü íàçíà÷åíèå â áèáëèîòåêó Îáùåñòâà Áîëëàíäèñòîâ, íàõîäèâøóþñÿ â òîì æå çäàíèè. Ýòî è ðåøèëî åãî äàëüíåéøóþ ñóäüáó. Íà÷àëî 1960-õ ãã. óæå íå áûëî «çîëîòûì âåêîì» áîëëàíäèçìà, ñêîðåå, ýòî áûë åãî çàêàò. Áëåñòÿùèé ó÷åíûé î. Ïîëü Ïåòåðñ, àâòîð âûäàþùèõñÿ èññëåäîâàíèé, ïîäíÿâøèõ óðîâåíü âîñòî÷íîé àãèîëîãèè íà îãðîìíóþ âûñîòó, óæå äåñÿòü ëåò êàê îòîøåë â èíîé ìèð.3 Ïðîäîëæàòåëü äåëà Èïïîëèòà Äåë¸ý (1859–1941),4 î. Ôðàíñóà Àëüêýí áûë áîëåå âñåãî ãåíèàëüíûì êàòàëîãèçàòîðîì ãðå÷åñêîãî æèòèéíîãî ìàòåðèàëà.5 Åãî îáúåêòèâèñòñêèå âçãëÿäû íà æèòèéíûå èñòî÷íèêè ñîñòàâëÿëè ïðåäìåò Ì. Áðîññå (Marie-Xavier Félicité Brosset, 1802–1880) íà âñþ æèçíü îñòàëñÿ â Ðîññèè, ãäå åãî çâàëè Ìàðèé Èâàíîâè÷. Îá ýòîì ó÷åíîì, ñóäüáà êîòîðîãî èìååò ñòîëüêî âíóòðåííåãî ñõîäñòâà ñ ñóäüáîé Ì. âàí Ýñáðóêà, ñì.: Ã. ÁÓÀ×ÈÄÇÅ, Ìàðè Áðîññå. Ñòðàíèöû æèçíè (Òáèëèñè, 1983). 2 Îá Îáùåñòâå Áîëëàíäèñòîâ ñì.: H. DELEHAYE, L’œuvre des Bollandistes à travers trois siècles. 1615–1915 (Bruxelles, 19132) (Subsidia hagiographica 13a); P. PEETERS, L’œuvre des Bollandistes (Bruxelles, 19612; ðåïðèíò: 1968) (Subsidia hagiographica 24). 3 Îá î. Ïîëå Ïåòåðñå ñì.: P. DEVOS, Le R. P. Paul Peeters (1870–1950), AB 69 (1951) I–LIX [ïåðåèçäàíî êàê Appendice II â: PEETERS, L’œuvre des Bollandistes... 150–202]. 4 Îá ýòîì âåëèêîì áîëëàíäèñòå, ôàêòè÷åñêîì ñîçäàòåëå êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè êàê íàóêè ñî ñâîåé ñîáñòâåííîé òåîðèåé, ñì.: B. JOASSART, Hippolyte Delehaye. Hagiographie critique et modernisme. 2 vols. (Bruxelles, 2000) (Subsidia hagiographica 81). 5 François Halkin (1901–1988), èçâåñòíûé îñîáåííî øèðîêî áëàãîäàðÿ èçäàííîé èì òðåòüåé ðåäàêöèè (1957 ã., ñ äîïîëíåíèÿìè â 1969 è 1984 ãã.) ñïðàâî÷íèêà BHG, ïåðâûå äâà èçäàíèÿ êîòîðîãî ïîäãîòîâèë Äåëåý (1895, 1909). 1

xvi

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

íåðåäêèõ øóòîê î. âàí Ýñáðóêà. Áîëëàíäèçì íà÷èíàëñÿ â XVII â. â óòîïè÷åñêîé íàäåæäå ñîñòàâèòü êðóã âñåõ ñâÿòûõ Öåðêâè, è çàêàí÷èâàëñÿ ïîçèòèâèñòñêèì ðèãîðèçìîì ïåññèìèñòîâ, îòêàçàâøèõñÿ îò ñëåäîâàíèÿ ðåëèãèîçíîé çàäà÷å. Îí ïðåâðàòèëñÿ â ôîðìó çàïàäíîé ãóìàíèòàðíîé íàóêè, êîòîðàÿ ñòðåìèòñÿ îñóùåñòâèòü ïîä âèäîì îáúåêòèâèçìà è ïîëèòêîððåêòíîñòè îòêàç îò ñîáñòâåííî ðåëèãèîçíîé ïåðñïåêòèâû. Ýòî ïðåâðàùåíèå áîëëàíäèçìà â ñâåòñêóþ èñòîðè÷åñêóþ íàóêó, òî÷íåå ãîâîðÿ, ïîòåðþ èíòåðåñà ê ôèëîñîôñêîìó è áîãîñëîâñêîìó àñïåêòó æèòèéíûõ òåêñòîâ î. âàí Ýñáðóê íàçûâàë «ñìåðòüþ áîëëàíäèçìà». «ß, ïðàâî, íå çíàþ, îñòàëèñü ëè åùå áîëëàíäèñòû íà ñâåòå», — ãîâàðèâàë îí. Ãîäû, ïðîâåäåííûå èì â Áðþññåëå, áûëè ôîðìàòèâíûìè äëÿ åãî íàó÷íîãî ñêëàäà. Èìåííî òàì îí âïåðâûå ðåøèë çàíÿòüñÿ õðèñòèàíñêèì Âîñòîêîì. Ïðèäÿ â Îáùåñòâî áîëëàíäèñòîâ çàêîí÷åííûì êëàññèöèñòîì è àðèñòîòåëèàíöåì, îí êàê-òî ïîïàë â êëàññ è ñòàë õîäèòü â Ëóâåíñêèé óíèâåðñèòåò íà êóðñû çíàìåíèòîãî Æåðàðà Ãàðèòòà, ïðîôåññîðà ãðóçèíñêîãî è àðìÿíñêîãî ÿçûêîâ, çíàòîêà êîïòñêîãî è àðàáñêîãî.6 Èìåííî çíàêîìñòâî ñ Ãàðèòòîì îêàçàëîñü äëÿ î. âàí Ýñáðóêà ðåøàþùèì â ëè÷íîì ïëàíå. Ãàðèòò áûë ñòðîãèì è ïåäàíòè÷íûì ó÷èòåëåì, íî óìåë ïðèâèòü ñâîèì ó÷åíèêàì ëþáîâü ê õðèñòèàíñêîé äðåâíîñòè è ñòðàñòü ê ÿçûêàì õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà. Ñàìà èäåÿ âûäåëåíèÿ «õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà» â îòäåëüíóþ îáëàñòü — íå òàê óæ è î÷åâèäíà, íî èìåííî â òîãäà åùå åäèíîì Ëóâåíå â 1960–70-å ãã. áûë ðàñöâåò ýòèõ øòóäèé. Ïîñòåïåííî ãåíèé è ýðóäèöèÿ î. Ìèøåëÿ ðîñëè, è ïðèõîäèâøèå â êîëëåæ Ñåí-Ìèøåëü ê áîëëàíäèñòàì çà êîíñóëüòàöèÿìè ó÷åíûå âñå áîëåå ïîëó÷àëè öåííûå êîíñóëüòàöèè ïî õðèñòèàíñêîìó Âîñòîêó èìåííî îò ìîëîäîãî èåçóèòà Ìèøåëÿ âàí Ýñáðóêà. È âîò, îäíèì èç òåêñòîâ, ïðèíåñåííûõ â áèáëèîòåêó áîëëàíäèñòîâ, îêàçàëñÿ ãðóçèíñêèé ïåðåâîä òðàêòàòà Åïèôàíèÿ Êèïðñêîãî «Î âåñàõ è ìåðàõ», êîòîðûé î. Ìèøåëü ñîâåðøåííî âåðíî îòîæäåñòâèë ñ ãðå÷åñêèì îðèãèíàëîì (à âïîñëåäñòâèè îñóùåñòâèë åãî êðèòè÷åñêîå èçäàíèå â CSCO). Ïîñëå ýòîãî óäà÷íîãî îïûòà ìîëîäîé ó÷åíûé ðåøèòåëüíî îñòàâëÿåò àíòè÷íûå è äàæå ÷èñòî ãðå÷åñêèå àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèå ñþæåòû.  1970-õ ãã. îí âñå áîëåå ïåðåêëþ÷àåòñÿ íà èññëåäîâàíèå èìåííî õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà, ïðè÷åì, ñòàíîâèòñÿ çäåñü ïî÷òè áåçîãîâîðî÷íî ó÷åíèêîì Æåðàðà Ãàðèòòà. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî ñðåäè áîëëàíäèñòîâ èíòåðåñ ê áîãîñëîâñêîé ïðîáëåìàòèêå æèòèéíîé ëèòåðàòóðû áûë äîâîëüíî îêêàçèîíàëüíûì, ìîæíî äàæå ñêàçàòü, ÷òî îí óáûâàë ïî ýêñïîíåíòå. Äëÿ ôàêòè÷åñêîãî îñíîâàòåëÿ âîñòî÷íîé êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè î. Ïîëÿ Ïåòåðñà, âïåðâûå íà÷àâøåãî ïðèìåíÿòü ìåòîäû Äåëåý ê àãèîãðàôèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòî6

Î íåì ñì.: H. MÉTRÉVÉLI, Gerard Garitte (1914–1990), Mus 106 (1993) 373–379.

Критическая агиография как образ жизни

xvii

êà, äåëî îáñòîÿëî íå òàê. Ìû óæå ñêàçàëè î ðîëè Æåðàðà Ãàðèòòà â ôîðìèðîâàíèè íàó÷íîé ôèçèîíîìèè è èíòåðåñîâ âàí Ýñáðóêà. Ïîëü Ïåòåðñ áûë âòîðûì. Ýòîò óäèâèòåëüíûé áîëëàíäèñò, ýðóäèò è ôàíòàçåð áûë â íàó÷íîì ïëàíå ÿâíûì ïðåäøåñòâåííèêîì î. âàí Ýñáðóêà. Ñîòíè åãî ãåíèàëüíûõ, íî ìåñòàìè ÷ðåçìåðíî ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèõ ñòàòåé äî ñèõ ïîð ñîñòàâëÿþò îñíîâó àãèîãðàôèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà. Åãî ãåíèàëüíîñòü âûçûâàëà íå ðàç ñëîæíîñòè â îòíîøåíèÿõ ñ ñîáðàòüÿìè ïî öåõó. Îò÷àñòè ýòîò æå îïûò äîâåëîñü óçíàòü è î. âàí Ýñáðóêó. Íî â òå ãîäû åìó ïîâåçëî è îí áûë íàïðàâëåí äëÿ èçó÷åíèÿ àðàáñêîãî ÿçûêà â Áåéðóò (Êàñëèê), â èåçóèòñêèé êîëëåæ Ñâ. Äóõà. Òàì îí íà÷àë ó÷èòü àðàáñêèé, íî ìåòîäà èçó÷åíèÿ íà îñíîâå ñîâðåìåííîãî ÿçûêà êàòåãîðè÷åñêè íå óñòðàèâàëà åãî — î. âàí Ýñáðóê õîòåë ÷èòàòü ðóêîïèñè. È îí îñâîèë àðàáñêèé ðîâíî íàñòîëüêî, ÷òîáû ÷èòàòü õðèñòèàíñêèå ðóêîïèñè. Âåðíóâøèñü â Áðþññåëü, î. Ìèøåëü ó÷èë óæå îñòàëüíûå ÿçûêè ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî. Ó÷èòü ÿçûêè ñòàëî åãî óâëå÷åíèåì.

œÂÔÓ‰‡‚‡ÚÂθ Ë Û˜ÂÌ˚È Ñíà÷àëà åãî èìÿ èñ÷åçëî ñ òèòóëüíîé ñòðàíèöû æóðíàëà Analecta Bollandiana,7 à çàòåì ñàìî ïðåáûâàíèå â Áðþññåëå îêàçàëîñü ïîä âîïðîñîì. ×ðåçâû÷àéíî ñëîæíî ðàáîòàâøèé ìîçã ó÷åíîãî ìàëî ïðèñïîñàáëèâàëñÿ ê îêðóæàþùèì ëþäÿì, à òå, ìîæåò áûòü, íå âñåãäà ñ ïîíèìàíèåì îòíîñèëèñü ê íåìó. Êîãäà ôðàíöóçñêèå êîëëåãè ïðèãëàñèëè î. âàí Ýñáðóêà çàìåíèòü èõ â òå÷åíèå ãîäà â êà÷åñòâå ïðåïîäàâàòåëÿ ÿçûêîâ õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà â Êàòîëè÷åñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå, òî îí ïî ìåðêàì òîé ïðîïðåäåâòèêè, êîòîðàÿ öàðèò â óíèâåðñèòåòå, íå âïîëíå óäîâëåòâîðèë òðåáîâàíèÿì. Ïîñëå ýòîãî ãîäà îí óæå íå âåðíóëñÿ â Áðþññåëü. Áîëëàíäèñòñêèé ïåðèîä æèçíè î. âàí Ýñáðóêà çàêîí÷èëñÿ. Íà÷àëñÿ ïðîôåññîðñêèé, ïðîäîëæàâøèéñÿ âïëîòü äî ñàìîé åãî êîí÷èíû. Äðàìàòèçì ýòîãî ïåðèîäà ñîñòîÿë â òîì, ÷òî î. Ìèøåëü, êàê ìû óæå óêàçûâàëè, âîâñå íå áûë ïðåïîäàâàòåëåì ïî ñâîåìó ñêëàäó. Îí íå ëþáèë ïðîïåäåâòèêè, ñ òðóäîì ïåðåâàðèâàë ñòóäåí÷åñêîå òóïîóìèå, ÷àñòî íå çíàë, êàê ïåðåäàâàòü ñîáñòâåííîå çíàíèå. Êàê ïðåïîäàâàòåëü ÿçûêîâ îí íåðåäêî áûâàë áåñïîìîùåí ïåðåä áàíàëüíûìè ìåòîäè÷åñêèìè ïðîáëåìàìè. Ê ñ÷àñòüþ, â òåõ óíèâåðñèòåòàõ, ãäå åìó äîâåëîñü ïðåïîäàâàòü, îí íå áûâàë ïåðåãðóæåí ïðåïîäàâàòåëüñêîé ðàáîòîé è âåë â îñíîâíîì çàíÿòèÿ ïî ÷òåíèþ òåêñòîâ ñ ïðîäâèíóòûìè ñòóäåíòàìè. Ó íåãî áûëî ìàëî ìàãèñòðàíòîâ è àñïèðàíòî⠗ îí íå óìåë çàâëåêàòü è ïðèâëåêàòü ìîëîäåæü, êîòîðóþ îòïóãèâàëà ñëîæíîñòü ïðåäìåòà. Åãî ñïàñåíèåì áûëà 7 Äî 1990-õ ãã. æóðíàë èçäàâàëñÿ íå ïðîñòî îò èìåíè «Îáùåñòâà Áîëëàíäèñòîâ» (êàê ñåé÷àñ), à îò èìåíè îäíîãî èëè íåñêîëüêèõ êîíêðåòíûõ ÷ëåíîâ Îáùåñòâà, èìåíà êîòîðûõ âûíîñèëèñü íà îáëîæêó è òèòóëüíûé ëèñò.

xviii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

íàó÷íàÿ ðàáîòà — òîëüêî çà ïèñüìåííûì ñòîëîì îí ÷óâñòâîâàë ñåáÿ ñîâåðøåííî «â ñâîåé òàðåëêå». Êàôåäðà ÿçûêîâ è ëèòåðàòóð õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà Ìþíõåíñêîãî Ludwig-Maximilian óíèâåðñèòåòà ñòàëà äëÿ î. âàí Ýñáðóêà ñàìûì ãëàâíûì ìåñòîì ðàáîòû, òîé áàçîé, ãäå áûëè íàïèñàíû åãî îñíîâíûå òðóäû 1990–2000-õ ãîäîâ. Ïðè âñåé åãî ìàëîé ñîâìåñòèìîñòè ñ íåìåöêèì äóõîì, êëèìàò Áàâàðèè âñå æå áûë åìó ìèë. Êàê ìû óæå ãîâîðèëè, î. âàí Ýñáðóê áûâàë èíîãäà íåëåãêèì â îáùåíèè ÷åëîâåêîì. Íå îáëàäàÿ ïåäàãîãè÷åñêèì äàðîì, îí ñ òðóäîì ìîã ïîäåëèòüñÿ ñ ÷åëîâåêîì ñâîèì çíàíèåì è âíóòðåííèì áîãàòñòâîì. Ó÷åíèêàì ñâîèì âàí Ýñáðóê äàâàë ñðàçó î÷åíü áîëüøóþ ñâîáîäó, íî ïðè ýòîì ñòàâèë íåîáû÷àéíî âûñîêóþ ïëàíêó. Îäíàêî ìàëî êòî çíàåò, ÷òî î. Ìèøåëü áûë ÷åëîâåêîì íåîáû÷àéíîé äóøåâíîé ùåäðîñòè, è òåì, êòî æåëàë óçíàòü íå÷òî, ÷åì îáëàäàë îí ñàì, îí áûë ãîòîâ äàðèòü ÷àñû è äíè ñâîåãî áåñöåííîãî ðàáî÷åãî âðåìåíè. Èìåííî â ó÷åíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè âûðàçèëàñü íàèáîëåå ñèëüíî è ïîëíî òâîð÷åñêàÿ ëè÷íîñòü î. Ìèøåëÿ. Åãî èíòåðåñû áûëè íåîáû÷àéíî øèðîêè, íî âñå æå ìîæíî ïîïûòàòüñÿ îáîçíà÷èòü åãî íàó÷íóþ ñïåöèàëèçàöèþ òàê: èñòîðèÿ áîãîñëîâèÿ íà õðèñòèàíñêîì Âîñòîêå ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî â IV–VII ââ. è ïî àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèì èñòî÷íèêàì. Íî óæå ýòî îïðåäåëåíèå âåñüìà íåäîñòàòî÷íî. Âàí Ýñáðóê çàíèìàëñÿ è ïàòðîëîãè÷åñêèìè è ÷èñòî öåðêîâíî-èñòîðè÷åñêèìè ñþæåòàìè. Îí ïèñàë íà òåìû çàêàâêàçñêîé ìèôîëîãèè è èñòîðèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ. Îí ââåë â îáîðîò (ïðîùå ãîâîðÿ, îïóáëèêîâàë) ïî ðóêîïèñÿì ìíîæåñòâî òåêñòîâ íà êîïòñêîì, àðàáñêîì, ñèðèéñêîì, ãðóçèíñêîì è àðìÿíñêîì ÿçûêàõ. Ðóêîïèñè áûëè åãî ñòðàñòüþ — èìåííî èç-çà ðóêîïèñåé îí ñòàë ïóòåøåñòâåííèêîì. Ê ýòîìó ïóíêòó ìû åùå âåðíåìñÿ. Íî ïðåæäå íàäî îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü íàó÷íûå çàñëóãè î. âàí Ýñáðóêà, ÷òîáû åãî íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèé ïîðòðåò áûë ïîëíûì. Ïåðâîé è äîñòàòî÷íî îáøèðíîé îáëàñòüþ åãî èññëåäîâàíèé íàäî íàçâàòü àãèîãðàôè÷åñêîå äîñüå ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Íåîêåñàðèéñêîãî. Êîãäà âàí Ýñáðóê òîëüêî ïîÿâèëñÿ ó áîëëàíäèñòîâ, åãî ïåðâîé çàäà÷åé ñòàëî èçäàíèå íîÿáðüñêîãî òîìà ñ æèòèåì Ãðèãîðèÿ Íåîêåñàðèéñêîãî. Îäíàêî ýòîé ìå÷òå íå ñóæäåíî áûëî âîïëîòèòüñÿ. Íå òîëüêî ýòîò òîì íå áûë âûïóùåí, íî è ñàìî èçäàíèå Acta Sanctorum áûëî ðåøåíî áîëüøå íå ïðîäîëæàòü. Ïðè÷èíîé ýòîãî áûë ïåðåñìîòð êðèòåðèåâ ïóáëèêàöèè æèòèé ñâÿòûõ, ïðîèçîøåäøèé â ðåçóëüòàòå îôîðìëåíèÿ «êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè». Ýòîò ìåòîä èññëåäîâàíèÿ æèòèéíûõ òðàäèöèé óæå íå èñêàë îãðàíè÷èòü êðóã òåêñòîâ äî «ÿäðà», íî èññëåäîâàë âñå èõ ìíîãîîáðàçèå â ðàìêàõ îòäåëüíûõ «äîñüå» ðàçíûõ ñâÿòûõ. Êðóã òåêñòîâ ïðè ýòîì ðàñøèðÿëñÿ, à ñàìîå ãëàâíîå — ïðèøëîñü ðàñøèðèòü ÿçûêîâîé êðèòåðèé. Åñëè ïðè æèçíè ñàìîãî Áîëëàíäà (Iohannes Bollandus, 1596–1665), Ðîñâåéäà (Heribert Rosweyde, 1569–1629), Ïàïåáðîõà (Daniel Papebrochius

Критическая агиография как образ жизни

xix

= van Papenbroeck, 1628–1714) è äðóãèõ «îòöîâ-îñíîâàòåëåé» ñ÷èòàëîñü âîçìîæíûì îïóáëèêîâàòü òîëüêî ëàòèíñêèå æèòèÿ, à çàòåì ê íèì èíîãäà ïðèáàâëÿëèñü è ãðå÷åñêèå ðåäàêöèè, òî óæå âî âðåìåíà îî. Äåëåý è Ïåòåðñà ñòàëî ÿñíî, ÷òî äëÿ áîëüøèíñòâà ñâÿòûõ èìåííî âîñòî÷íûå âåðñèè (ñèðèéñêàÿ, àðìÿíñêàÿ, ýôèîïñêàÿ, ãðóçèíñêàÿ) âûõîäÿò íà ïåðâûé ïëàí. Êàê ïîäñïîðüå äëÿ ýòèõ èññëåäîâàíèé è ïóáëèêàöèé î. Ïåòåðñ çàäóìàë áîëüøîé àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèé èíâåíòàðü — Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis (BHO, èçä. â 1910), — íî ïðè åãî èçäàíèè óæå âîçíèêëè ïðîáëåìû: ðÿä îáëàñòåé îêàçàëñÿ âûáðîøåí èç èíâåíòàðÿ, à åãî îáúåì â ðåçóëüòàòå ñòàë ìåíüøå, ÷åì ïðåäïîëàãàë î. Ïåòåðñ. Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê ïðèíÿëñÿ çà ñáîð âñåõ âîçìîæíûõ ìàòåðèàëîâ î Ãðèãîðèè Íåîêåñàðèéñêîì. Ðåçóëüòàò ýòîãî ñîáèðàíèÿ îêàçàëñÿ äâîéñòâåííûì: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ñîáðàííûõ ìàòåðèàëîâ áûëî ñòîëüêî, ÷òî èõ íàáðàëîñü íà öåëûé îòäåëüíûé òîì Acta, ÷òî áûëî íåâîçìîæíî ïî ïðèíöèïèàëüíûì ïðè÷èíàì, à ñ äðóãîé — î. âàí Ýñáðóê îáíàðóæèë ðÿä ïåðåñå÷åíèé äîñüå ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ ×óäîòâîðöà ñ äðóãèìè äîñüå — Ãðèãîðèÿ Áîãîñëîâà è Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïðîñâåòèòåëÿ. Ðÿä ïîñëåäóþùèõ ëåò îí çàíèìàåòñÿ äîñüå Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïðîñâåòèòåëÿ, íàä êîòîðûì ê òîìó âðåìåíè óæå î÷åíü äîëãî òðóäèëñÿ Æåðàð Ãàðèòò, ïðè÷åì èíòåðåñ î. Ìèøåëÿ ðàñøèðÿåòñÿ è íà îñòàëüíûõ ïðîñâåòèòåëåé, íà äîñüå ñèðèéñêîãî àïîñòîëà Àääàÿ, íà äîñüå ñâ. Íèíû-ïðîñâåòèòåëüíèöû ãðóçèí, ñâ. Âàðôîëîìåÿ… Ïîñòåïåííî âàí Ýñáðóê âñå áîëåå îòõîäèò îò ÷èñòî ãðå÷åñêîé îáëàñòè è ïîãðóæàåòñÿ â âîñòîêîâåäåíèå. Îí çàäóìûâàåò ðÿä ðàáîò, ïîñâÿùåííûõ æèòèéíûì ñáîðíèêàì (ïðîëîæíîãî òèïà, êîòîðûå â çàïàäíîé íàóêå èìåíóþò «ãîìèëèàðèÿìè» — homéliaires). Âàí Ýñáðóê ïðèíèìàåòñÿ çà îïèñàíèå ãðóçèíñêèõ «ìðàâàëòàâè» — «ìíîãîãëàâîâ» (ýòà ðàáîòà áûëà â 1975 ã. çàùàèùåíà èì â êà÷åñòâå äîêòîðñêîé äèññåðòàöèè), à òàêæå çàíèìàåòñÿ àðìÿíñêèìè ñáîðíèêàìè. Çäåñü èì áûë ñäåëàí êðóïíåéøèé ïðîðûâ â âîïðîñå îïèñàíèÿ ãðóçèíñêèõ ìíîãîãëàâîâ. Òàê ïîñòåïåííî ôîðìèðîâàëñÿ èíòåðåñ âàí Ýñáðóêà ê îáëàñòè ïîãðàíè÷íîé ìåæäó ïàòðîëîãèåé è àãèîëîãèåé. Îí ñòàíîâèòñÿ èñòîðèêîì áîãîñëîâèÿ. Ãëàâíûì åãî èíòåðåñîì ñòàíîâèòñÿ ýïîõà îò Ýíîòèêîíà Çèíîíà (482) äî ïðàâëåíèÿ Þñòèíèàíà (527– 565). Èìåííî â ýòîé ýïîõå âèäåë îí êîðíè áîëüøèíñòâà ðàííèõ æèòèéíî-áîãîñëîâñêèõ ñîáðàíèé. Îí íà÷àë ïîäðîáíî èçó÷àòü âåñü õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê ýïîõè Þñòèíèàíà — îò Ýôèîïèè è äî Ãðóçèè. Ðåçóëüòàòû ýòèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ìîãóò ñîñòàâèòü îòäåëüíûé òîì. Ñî âðåìåíåì ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ è âòîðàÿ îáëàñòü åãî èíòåðåñî⠗ ïðåäàíèÿ îá Óñïåíèè Áîãîðîäèöû. Ýòè ïðåäàíèÿ çàíÿëè î. Ìèøåëÿ â ñâÿçè ñ àòðèáóöèåé Ãðèãîðèþ Íåîêåñàðèéñêîìó ñëîâà íà Óñïåíèå Áîãîðîäèöû. Çäåñü î. âàí Ýñáðóêó ïðèíàäëåæèò ðåøàþùåå ñëîâî â ñîâðåìåííîé êàê ýîðòîëîãèè, òàê è ïàòðîëîãèè. Îòäåëüíûé òîì VARIORUM ñîáðàë â 1995 ã. áîëüøóþ ÷àñòü ýòèõ ñòàòåé ïîä îäíîé îáëîæêîé, ÷åì îáëåã÷èë

xx

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

îçíàêîìëåíèå ñ âêëàäîì âàí Ýñáðóêà â ýòó îáëàñòü. Îñîáåííûé èíòåðåñ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò êàê êëàññèôèêàöèÿ èñòî÷íèêîâ, òàê è ïðèêëàäíîé àñïåêò ýòèõ èññëåäîâàíèé: ðåøåíèå âîïðîñà îá èñõîäíîé òðàäèöèè. Êàêàÿ âåðñèÿ — Âçÿòèÿ ïëîòè Áîãîìàòåðè íà íåáî (Assomption) èëè Óñïåíèÿ (Dormition) Åå áûëà õàðàêòåðíà äëÿ ïåðâûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ? Âàí Ýñáðóê ñ÷èòàë, ÷òî áîãîðîäè÷íàÿ àãèîëîãèÿ íà÷èíàåòñÿ â îáëàñòè àïîêðèôè÷åñêîé è âåäåò íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ê âîñòî÷íîìó ïîíèìàíèþ Óñïåíèÿ. Ó íåãî áûëè ïî ýòîìó âîïðîñó è îïïîíåíòû, ïûòàâøèåñÿ îáâèíèòü åãî â íåäîáðîñîâåñòíîñòè, íî ó ñàìèõ îïïîíåíòîâ íå õâàòàëî ïåðñïåêòèâû è çíàíèé âàí Ýñáðóêà. Çàòî â ýòîé îáëàñòè ó âàí Ýñáðóêà ïîÿâèëñÿ ïðîäîëæàòåëü åãî äåëà, â ÷åì-òî, ðàçóìååòñÿ, êðèòè÷íûé ê åãî âûâîäàì, íî ïðîäîëæàþùèé èìåííî åãî ïîäõîä ê èçó÷åíèþ âñåé ñîâîêóïíîñòè òåêñòîâ îá Óñïåíèè, — Ñòåôåí Øóìåéêåð (Shoemaker).8 Ñî âðåìåíåì îáðàçîâàëàñü åùå îäíà îáëàñòü èññëåäîâàíèé — ãåíåçèñ ìîíîôèçèòñòâà. Îíà âûðîñëà èç ñåðèè èññëåäîâàíèé õðèñòèàíñêîâîñòî÷íûõ òåêñòîâ. Âûÿñíèëîñü, ÷òî âñÿ èñòîðèÿ ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ è ðàçâèòèÿ «ìîíîôèçèòñêîãî» äâèæåíèÿ íóæäàåòñÿ â ñóùåñòâåííîé ïåðåðàáîòêå. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, îêàçàëîñü, ÷òî áûëà íåäîîöåíåíà ðîëü «ýïîõè Ýíîòèêîíà», çàòåì — èñòîðèÿ áîãîñëîâñêèõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé àíòèõàëêèäîíèòñêîé òåíäåíöèè â Àðìÿíñêîé è Ãðóçèíñêîé öåðêâàõ…  ñåðèè ñòàòåé î. âàí Ýñáðóê ïðåäïðèíèìàåò ðåêîíñòðóêöèþ ñîáûòèé è áîãîñëîâñêèõ âçãëÿäîâ ëèäåðîâ ïåðâîé àíòèõàëêèäîíèòñêîé âîëíû. Åìó òàêæå ïðèíàäëåæàò âàæíûå ðàáîòû î ðàçëè÷íûõ îñîáåííîñòÿõ ìîíîôèçèòñêèõ äîêòðèí â Àðìåíèè.  ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû æèçíè î. Ìèøåëü âåñüìà çàèíòåðåñîâàííî ó÷àñòâîâàë â âîçðîæäåííîì (ñ 1999 ã.) æóðíàëå Ðîññèéñêîé Àêàäåìèè Íàóê è Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî Ýðìèòàæà Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê, ãäå îí áûë çàìåñòèòåëåì ãëàâíîãî ðåäàêòîðà. Èìåííî â ýòîì æóðíàëå îí ðàçìåùàë â ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû ñàìûå îáúåìèñòûå èç ñâîèõ ïóáëèêàöèé èñòî÷íèêîâ íà ðàçíûõ ÿçûêàõ õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà.

œÛÚ¯ÂÒÚ‚ÂÌÌËÍ Íàó÷íûå èíòåðåñû î. Ìèøåëÿ ïðèâåëè åãî ñ íåèçáåæíîñòüþ ê ðàáîòå ñ íåîïóáëèêîâàííûìè òåêñòàìè, íàõîäÿùèìèñÿ â ðóêîïèñÿõ. Ìíîãèå íåîáõîäèìûå åìó ðóêîïèñè íàõîäèëèñü íà òåððèòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ — â Ãðóçèè, Àðìåíèè, Ëåíèíãðàäå. Âàí Ýñáðóê íà÷èíàåò åçäèòü â ÑÑÑÐ êàæäûé ãîä, ïðèâîçÿ âñå áîëüøå ôîòîãðàôèé ðóêîïèñåé èç ñâîèõ ïîåçäîê. Ïàðàëëåëüíî îí çíàêîìèòñÿ ñ ðîññèéñêèìè ó÷åíûìè, äåëàåò äîêëàäû â 8 Åãî ìîíîãðàôèÿ ìîæåò ñëóæèòü ñîâðåìåííûì ââåäåíèåì âî âñþ ýòó ïðîáëåìàòèêó: S. J. SHOEMAKER, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002) (Oxford Early Christian Studies).

Критическая агиография как образ жизни

xxi

Ëåíèíãðàäå è Ìîñêâå, ó íåãî ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ çíàêîìñòâà â Òáèëèñè è Åðåâàíå. Ïàðàëëåëüíî îí çíàêîìèòñÿ è ñ ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè ñîâåòñêîãî «ðåëèãèîçíîãî àíäåãðàóíäà» — ó÷àñòíèêàìè ïðîõîäèâøèõ â äîìàøíèõ óñëîâèÿõ íèêåì íå ñàíêöèîíèðîâàííûõ ðåëèãèîçíûõ ñåìèíàðîâ è ïðîñòî âñòðå÷, äëÿ êîòîðûõ îí íà÷èíàåò ââîçèòü â ÑÑÑÐ Áèáëèþ è äðóãèå äóõîâíûå êíèãè. 2 ôåâðàëÿ 1983 ã. îí óñïåâàåò ïîñåòèòü îäíî èç ïîñëåäíèõ çàñåäàíèé ñåìèíàðà «Ñåìèîäèíàìèêà» — ïîëóîôèöèàëüíî ñóùåñòâîâàâøåãî â Ëåíèíãðàäñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå ôèëîñîôñêîãî ñåìèíàðà, ðàçîãíàííîãî ñ áîëüøèì øóìîì óæå ÷åðåç ìåñÿö.9 Âñå åãî ïîåçäêè â ÑÑÑÐ, îñóùåñòâëÿâøèåñÿ â ðàìêàõ òàê íàçûâàåìîãî «íàó÷íî-òåõíè÷åñêîãî îáìåíà» ñ Áåëüãèåé, áûëè îôèöèàëüíî îôîðìëåíû êàê âïîëíå ñâåòñêèå è íàó÷íûå, íî âñåãäà èìåëè ýòó ñêðûòóþ ðåëèãèîçíóþ ñîñòàâëÿþùóþ. Ñî âðåìåíåì êîíòàêòû î. Ìèøåëÿ â ÑÑÑÐ îãðàíè÷èâàþòñÿ òîëüêî Çàêàâêàçüåì.  Òáèëèñè è Åðåâàíå î. âàí Ýñáðóê áûâàë ïî÷òè êàæäûé ãîä âïëîòü äî ñâîåé âíåçàïíîé êîí÷èíû. Îí áûâàë â ñàìûõ óäèâèòåëüíûõ óãîëêàõ Ãðóçèè è Àðìåíèè, íî ãëàâíûì ïðèîáðåòåíèåì âñå æå áûëè ôîòîêîïèè ðóêîïèñåé, ïîçâîëÿâøèå èçäàâàòü íåèçäàííûå òåêñòû.  Ìîñêâå ê âèçèòàì èåçóèòà èç Áðþññåëÿ îòíîñèëèñü ñ ïîäîçðåíèåì. Åãî íåðåäêî ñîïðîâîæäàëè íàâÿç÷èâûå «ãèäû», âñå âñòðå÷è ìîíèòîðèëèñü, à â ìåòðî îí íå ðàç çàìå÷àë çà ñîáîé «õâîñò».  Ìîñêâå î. âàí Ýñáðóê ìíîãî îáùàëñÿ ñî ñâÿùåííèêîì Àëåêñàíäðîì Áîðèñîâûì è äàæå áûë ÷ëåíîì ðåäêîëëåãèè ñîçäàííîãî èì æóðíàëà «Ìèð Áèáëèè». Íî Ìîñêâà íå âëåêëà î. Ìèøåëÿ — îí áûë ïóòåøåñòâåííèêîì ïî Âîñòîêó. Ñî âðåìåíåì åãî ñòàë âñå áîëåå ïðèâëåêàòü Áëèæíèé Âîñòîê — òåì áîëåå, ÷òî ïîñëå îòíîñèòåëüíîé ñòàáèëèçàöèè ñèòóàöèè íà Âîñòîêå òàì ñòàëè ïðîâîäèòü êîíôåðåíöèè. Åãî ðàññêàçû î ïóòåøåñòâèÿõ ïî Âîñòîêó ìîãëè áû ñîñòàâèòü îòäåëüíóþ êíèãó, íî, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, î. Ìèøåëü íå áûë ïèñàòåëåì, à áûë ó÷åíûì, ñ÷èòàâøèì, ÷òî ðàññêàçû ãîäÿòñÿ çà îáåäåííûì ñòîëîì, à íå êàê äåëî æèçíè. Êèòàé ñòàë ïîñëåäíèì åãî ñåðüåçíûì ïóòåøåñòâèåì è â íåêîòîðîì ðîäå êóëüìèíàöèåé åãî ìå÷òû. Îí íå ñòàë êèòàèñòîì è íå ñòàë ïðîïîâåäíèêîì ñðåäè êèòàéöåâ, íî îí ïðèåõàë â ñòðàíó ìå÷òû ñâîåé þíîñòè è ïîíÿë, ÷òî ýòîò ìèð — èíòåðåñåí è áîãàò, íî ýòî ìèð, âíóòðåííèõ ìåõàíèçìîâ êîòîðîãî î. âàí Ýñáðóê íå çíàë, è ñ êóëüòóðîé êîòîðîãî îí áûë Ýòîò ïðîñóùåñòâîâàâøèé âñåãî òðè ãîäà ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíûé ñåìèíàð (óæå âåñíîé 1983 ã. åãî ðàçãðîìèëî ïàðòèéíîå íà÷àëüñòâî ËÃÓ è Ëåíèíãðàäà) ñòàë íà êîðîòêîå âðåìÿ ñâîåîáðàçíûì ôîêóñîì íåïîäöåíçóðíîé ôèëîñîôñêîé è ãóìàíèòàðíîé ìûñëè, ñèëüíî ïîâëèÿâøèì íà âñåõ ñâîèõ ó÷àñòíèêîâ (ôèëîñîôîâ, ìàòåìàòèêîâ, ëèíãâèñòîâ, áèîëîãîâ, âîñòîêîâåäîâ…). Áîëüøèíñòâî èç íèõ âåñüìà çàìåòíî ïðîÿâèëèñü â èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé æèçíè Ðîññèè ëèáî åùå òîãäà æå, ëèáî óæå â 1990-õ ãîäàõ… Ñì.: Ñåìèîäèíàìèêà. Òðóäû ñåìèíàðà / Ïîä ðåä. Ð. Ã. ÁÀÐÀÍÖÅÂÀ (ÑÏá., 1994). 9

xxii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

çíàêîì êóäà ìåíåå ãëóáîêî, ÷åì ñ êóëüòóðîé õðèñòèàíñêîãî Áëèæíåãî Âîñòîêà. Êîðî÷å ãîâîðÿ, Ïîäíåáåñíàÿ îêàçàëàñü íå òîëüêî íåçíàêîìîé è ýêçîòè÷íîé, íî è ÷óæîé ñòðàíîé. Ïóòåøåñòâèå î. Ìèøåëÿ çàêîí÷èëîñü. Óåõàâ èç íå îñîáåííî ëþáèìîé èì Ãåðìàíèè, îí ïîñåëèëñÿ â Ëóâåíå.

◊ÂÎÓ‚ÂÍ ‚Â˚ Âåðà, ðåëèãèîçíàÿ ìîòèâàöèÿ áûëà èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî âàæíîé ÷àñòüþ æèçíè î. Ìèøåëÿ. Êàê èçâåñòíî, èåçóèòû íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ â ïîëíîì ñìûñëå ñëîâà èíî÷åñêèì îðäåíîì, ïîýòîìó â ïðàâèëå ó íèõ ÷àñòíàÿ ìîëèòâà è ìåññà. Êàæäîå óòðî ñïîçàðàíêó î. Ìèøåëü ñëóæèë ÷àñòíóþ ìåññó è íåîòëîæèòåëüíî ÿâëÿëñÿ â öåðêîâü äëÿ ñîâåðøåíèÿ ñåãî ñâÿùåííîãî äëÿ íåãî äîëãà; äàæå â ïóòåøåñòâèÿõ îí ñòàðàëñÿ íå îòñòóïàòü îò ýòîãî ïðàâèëà. Îäíàêî, ïðè ýòîì, â åãî äóõîâíîé æèçíè, òàê êàê îíà âèäåëàñü ñî ñòîðîíû, íàáëþäàëîñü ãëóáîêîå âíóòðåííåå îäèíî÷åñòâî. Îíî áûëî îáóñëîâëåíî íå âíóòðåííåé çàêðûòîñòüþ, à î÷åíü âûñîêîé ñëîæíîñòüþ óìñòâåííîé ðàáîòû è íåîðäèíàðíîñòüþ ìûøëåíèÿ î. Ìèøåëÿ. Ñ ñîáðàòüÿìè îí îáùàëñÿ ðåäêî, íî êîãäà îáùàëñÿ, òî ñ áîëüøîé ñåðäå÷íîñòüþ. Âàí Ýñáðóê â òî æå âðåìÿ æèâî èíòåðåñîâàëñÿ âîïðîñàìè âåðû è îñòðî ïåðåæèâàë äóõîâíóþ êàòàñòðîôó ñîâðåìåííîãî Çàïàäà.  òî æå âðåìÿ, çíàÿ äîïîäëèííî Âîñòîê, îí íå ñòðîèë ñåáå ðîìàíòè÷åñêèõ èëëþçèé îòíîñèòåëüíî ïðàâîñëàâíîãî «Morgenland’»à, ñâîåîáðàçíîãî êàòîëè÷åñêîãî «Áåëîâîäüÿ». Âîñòîê áûë äëÿ íåãî ïðåæäå âñåãî îáúåêòîì íàó÷íîãî èçó÷åíèÿ, íî îí íå áûë «âèçàíòèíèçèðîâàííûì» êàòîëèêîì. Çàïàä è çàïàäíàÿ êóëüòóðà, êàòîëè÷åñòâî áûëè åìó ðîäíîé ñðåäîé, îí íèêîãäà íå èñïûòûâàë æåëàíèÿ ïåðåéòè íà «âèçàíòèéñêèé îáðÿä». Îí çíàë è ëþáèë Èãíàòèÿ Ëîéîëó, ñ÷èòàë íåîáõîäèìûìè äëÿ ñâîåé äóõîâíîé æèçíè è äëÿ ñâîåãî óìà ñîâåðøàåìûå êàæäûì èåçóèòîì «äóõîâíûå óïðàæíåíèÿ», ðàâíî êàê è âïîëíå áëàãîãîâåéíî îòíîñèëñÿ ê âûñîêîé ñõîëàñòèêå.  íåì íå áûëî îäíîé ÷åðòû, õàðàêòåðíîé äëÿ ìíîãèõ ñîâðåìåííûõ êàòîëèêî⠗ àæèòàöèè, ñåíòèìåíòàëüíîñòè è õàðèçìàòè÷åñêîé ýêçàëüòàöèè. Îòåö Ìèøåëü áûë î÷åíü ðîâíûì â äóõîâíîé îðèåíòàöèè ÷åëîâåêîì. Ýòî, âïðî÷åì, íå îçíà÷àëî, ÷òî åãî áîãàòûé äóõîâíûé ìèð ðàáîòàë êàê ÷àñû. Èíîãäà ó íåãî áûâàëè ïðèñòóïû îñòðîãî ïåññèìèçìà, áëèçêîãî ê îò÷àÿíèþ, íî ïðèðîäíàÿ ñêëîííîñòü ê äîáðîäóøèþ, îáùèòåëüíîñòü è ñàìîäèñöèïëèíà áðàëè âåðõ.  êîíöå êîíöîâ, î. Ìèøåëü âñåãäà áûë òðóäîãîëèêîì, è åñëè æàëåë, òî òîëüêî î òîì, ÷òî â ñóòêàõ íå 30 ÷àñîâ. Ãëàâíûì äåëîì åãî æèçíè áûëà íàó÷íàÿ ðàáîòà — íàâåðíîå, îêîëî 70 % ñâîåé æèçíè îí ïðîâåë çà ïèñüìåííûì ñòîëîì èëè â áèáëèîòåêå. Åãî ðàáîòà âî ìíîãîì áûëà åãî ðåëèãèîçíîé ðåàëèçàöèåé. Î ïåññèìèçìå î. Ìèøåëÿ íàäî ïîíèìàòü åùå îäíî: îí ñêåïòè÷åñêè îòíîñèëñÿ ê ðåëèãèîçíîìó àêòèâèçìó, íî îñîáåííî ðàäåë î äåëå ïðîïîâåäè. È ãëàâíûì äåëîì ñ÷èòàë èìåííî ïðîïîâåäü õðèñòèàíñòâà ñðåäè ìóñóëüìàí è ëþäåé Äàëüíåãî Âîñòîêà.

Критическая агиография как образ жизни

xxiii

 îòíîøåíèè ïàòðèñòèêè íàäî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî î. Ìèøåëü çíàë è ëþáèë ïàòðèñòèêó, íî «ýòîñ îòöîâ», êàê âûðàæàëñÿ î. Ãåîðãèé Ôëîðîâñêèé, áûë îòäåëåí îò íåãî íåêîåé êóëüòóðíîé äèñòàíöèåé. Ãîðàçäî áîëåå âíèìàíèÿ îí óäåëÿë áîãîñëîâñêîìó ñîäåðæàíèþ æèòèéíûõ òðàäèöèé â åå ñâÿçè ñ îòå÷åñêèì áîãîñëîâèåì. Ìàëî êòî ëó÷øå íåãî âèäåë âçàèìîñâÿçè ìåæäó ïàòðèñòè÷åñêèìè è æèòèéíûìè òåêñòàìè. Íî ïðè ýòîì ó âàí Ýñáðóêà ñëîæèëîñü íåñêîëüêî îòñòðàíåííîå, «àêàäåìè÷åñêîå» îòíîøåíèå ê äóõîâíîé ðåàëüíîñòè, êîòîðóþ îí èññëåäîâàë — îíî ñëîæèëîñü, âèäèìî, ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì ïîçäíåãî áîëëàíäèçìà. Ó î. âàí Ýñáðóêà áûëà îäíà óäèâèòåëüíàÿ îñîáåííîñòü — îí óìåë è ëþáèë ïîìîãàòü ëþäÿì. Îí áûë ãîòîâ ïðåäîñòàâèòü ëþáóþ ñïðàâêó, ïîäåëèòüñÿ êíèãîé, ñòàòüåé. Îí ìîã ïðåäëîæèòü (è ïðåäëàãàë) ñâîèì áëèæíèì ñàìóþ íåîæèäàííóþ ïîìîùü — ïðàêòè÷åñêóþ èëè ñîâåòîì. Îí áûë áëàãîäåòåëåì äëÿ ìíîæåñòâà âûõîäöåâ èç Çàêàâêàçüÿ, êîòîðûå èñêàëè ïðèñòàíèùà â Çàïàäíîé Åâðîïå, ïîìîãàë ñòóäåíòàì, äðóçüÿì. ×àñòî åãî ïîìîùü áûëà ñîâåðøåííî íåîæèäàííîé, è åäâà ëè íå ñëó÷àéíî óäàâàëîñü óçíàòü, ÷òî îíà èñõîäèëà îò íåãî. Ïî ïðîñüáå ìàëîçíàêîìîãî ÷åëîâåêà îí áûë ãîòîâ çàñåñòü çà ïåðåâîä òðóäíîãî òåêñòà ñ àðàáñêîãî èëè ãðóçèíñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ïðè ýòîì îí äåëàë äîáðûå äåëà êàæäûé äåíü è â ïîðÿäêå ðåãóëÿðíîãî óïðàæíåíèÿ, ÷òî, êàê êàæåòñÿ, äàåò ïðàâî ãîâîðèòü îá î. Ìèøåëå êàê î «åâàíãåëüñêîì ÷åëîâåêå», äëÿ êîòîðîãî îáðàç äîáðîãî ñàìàðÿíèíà áûë äåÿòåëüíûì ðóêîâîäñòâîì.

*** Ìíîãèå âñïîìèíàþò, ÷òî î. âàí Ýñáðóê èìåë îäíó âïîëíå ïðîñòèòåëüíóþ ñëàáîñòü — íå áóäó÷è ìóçûêàíòîì, îí ñòðàñòíî ëþáèë ìóçèöèðîâàòü íà ðîÿëå è âåçäå, ãäå íàõîäèëñÿ èíñòðóìåíò, îí íåïðåìåííî óïðàæíÿëñÿ â áåñêîíå÷íûõ âàðèàöèÿõ â äóõå Ëèñòà. Îí èãðàë íå ïî íîòàì, à ïî ñâîåé ñîáñòâåííîé âíóòðåííåé èíòóèòèâíîé ìåòîäå. Òî÷íî òàê æå îí ðàáîòàë è â íàóêå — íåðåäêî ïðåíåáðåãàÿ ïðàâèëàìè æåñòêîé àêðèáèè, íî ðóêîâîäñòâóÿñü ñâîåé ãëóáîêîé èíòóèöèåé è îãðîìíûì îáúåìîì çíàíèé. Åãî ìåòîä íåïîâòîðèì èìåííî îòòîãî, ÷òî òðåáóåò ñëèøêîì ëè÷íûõ ñâîéñò⠗ íàäî ñòàòü âòîðûì âàí Ýñáðóêîì. Íî ïëîäû åãî òðóäîâ ñîñòàâèëè öåëóþ ãëàâó â èñòîðèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà. Ñàìàÿ ãëàâíàÿ èäåÿ åãî íàó÷íûõ òðóäî⠗ î æåñòêîé, õîòÿ è î÷åíü ñâîåîáðàçíîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó ðàçâèòèåì àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ëåãåíä è ðàçâèòèåì äîãìàòè÷åñêèõ è êàíîíè÷åñêèõ ñïîðîâ, — ïîñòåïåííî âñòðå÷àåò âñå áîëüøåå è áîëüøåå ïîíèìàíèå â íàó÷íîé ñðåäå è, äàëåêî íå â ïîñëåäíþþ î÷åðåäü, â Ðîññèè. Âèäèìî, ýòà èäåÿ è äîëæíà ñòàòü íà áëèæàéøèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïóòåâîäíîé çâåçäîé äëÿ êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè. À. Â. Ìóðàâüåâ Â. Ì. Ëóðüå

xxiv

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

RE S: UME : A. Mouraviev, B. Lourie;

LíHAGIOGRAPHIE CRITIQUE COMME UNE MODE DíEXISTENCE: MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, S. J. Une esquisse biographique du P. Michel van Esbroeck composée par deux ses disciples porte surtout sur ses qualités personnelles de l’homme de foi et du chercheur. Les auteurs tracent de même les lignes principales de ses études de l’Orient Chrétien, ainsi que ses idées magistrales dans le domaine de l’hagiographie critique.

Samir Khalil SAMIR, SJ CEDRAC (Universite : SaintñJoseph, Beirut)

MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, SJ (1934ñ2003), LE COLLE´GUE ET LíAMI1 Vendredi 21 novembre, le P. Michel van Esbroeck (prononcez: Esbrouc) était trouvé mort dans son appartement à Louvain. La nouvelle a été un choc pour ses compagnons jésuites, ses amis et pour les orientalistes, spécialement pour ceux qui l’avaient vu peu auparavant. Michel est né à Malines (= Mechelen, Belgique) le 17 juin 1934. Sa famille, de la bonne bourgeoisie, est de double ascendance: flamande (comme le suggère le nom) et wallonne; cependant, le français était sa langue maternelle et il s’est toujours présenté comme wallon, avec parfois une pointe d’agacement à l’égard des flamands. Son père, Prof. Guillaume van Esbroeck († 1974) étudia la géologie à la Columbia University de 1921 à 1923; et sa mère, Ida Brusselmans, étudia à Londres de 1914 à 1918. De ce fait, l’anglais était aussi parlé à la maison et l’ouverture culturelle faisait partie de l’atmosphère familiale.

A. Les et: udes Michel fut envoyé au Collège Saint-Michel de Bruxelles, des jésuites, et acheva ses «humanités gréco-latines» en 1951. Il étudia alors le droit à Bruxelles aux Facultés Saint-Louis, mais ceci n’était pas sa vocation. Le 14 octobre 1953 il entra dans la Compagnie de Jésus, dans la province de Belgique Méridionale. De 1955 à 1959, il prépara et obtint la licence d’état en philologie classique et la licence ecclésiastique de philosophie à l’Institut Pontifical SaintAlbert de Louvain, avec un mémoire intitulé: «La prohairesis chez Aristote et chez les rhéteurs grecs». Il fit ensuite son service militaire, puis enseigna un an au Collège SaintMichel. C’est là qu’en 1962 il entra pour la première fois dans la bibliothèL’article suivant et la bibliographie que le suit ont été publiés pour la première fois dans les Collectanea Christiana Orientalia [Cordoba, Espagne] 2 (2005) 409– 440. Nous publions ici cette bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck dans l’édition deuxième, augmentée et corrigée par les soins du P. Samir Kh. SAMIR lui-même et les éditeurs du volume présent. Nous voudrions exprimer notre gratitude profonde à tous les amis et collègues qui ont nous aidé à compléter cette bibliographie, et surtout à Dr Grégoire KESSEL (Moscou), Dr István PERCZEL et Dr István BUGÁR (les deux de Boudapest), Dr Dénis NOSNITSIN (Hambourg), Mlle Hélène BORMOTOVA (Montréal), Dr Nathalie VESELOVA (Ottawa), M. Michel KHOLODOV (Mississauga, ON, Canada). — B. L., A. M. 1

xxvi

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

que des Bollandistes, située dans une aile du Collège, et se plongea dans les études hagiographiques et patristiques. Cette année-là, il fut autorisé à suivre, à l’Université Catholique de Louvain, comme auditeur libre, les cours d’arménien et de géorgien du Prof. Gérard Garitte, qui venait de publier chez les Bollandistes le «Calendrier palestino-géorgien». Il prit alors conscience de la complexité des problèmes concernant la littérature hagiographique: le grec, le latin, l’arménien et le géorgien ne pouvaient suffire à maîtriser ces questions. Il fallait nécessairement étudier l’arabe et le syriaque, le copte, le slavon et le ge’ez. Michel part donc pour Beyrouth en 1963, pour étudier l’arabe et le syriaque à l’Université Saint-Joseph (en réalité au Centre d’Etudes Arabes des Jésuites à Bikfaya). Normalement, il faut un minimum de deux ans pour apprendre les rudiments de l’arabe. Lui, arrive en retard et repart après un an, ayant appris suffisamment les deux langues. Il m’expliqua un jour sa méthode: il avait emporté avec lui quelques microfilms de manuscrits arabes hagiographiques du Sinaï. Il les projetait sur le papier et copiait le texte en suivant le tracé lumineux, sans connaître encore l’arabe. Ainsi a-t-il appris à écrire, en même temps qu’il avait transcrit des textes (qu’il éditera plus tard), avant même de connaître la langue! Il utilisa la même méthode pour le syriaque. Mais en 1964 il fut rappelé en Belgique pour commencer ses quatre années d’études théologiques à Louvain. C’est probablement à ce moment qu’il étudie tout seul le copte et le slavon, l’hébreu et le ge’ez. Normalement, à la fin de la 3° année, les jésuites sont ordonnés prêtres, puis font la 4° année. En 1966, Michel fut informé qu’il ne serait pas ordonné avec ses confrères. Cet épisode laissa une blessure profonde en lui; encore à la fin de sa vie, il me racontait ce fait disant que jamais les Supérieurs ne lui en expliquèrent le motif. Il leur demanda alors de pouvoir achever son doctorat en Histoire et Philologie Orientale à l’Université de Louvain. C’est seulement en 1970 qu’il put achever sa théologie et fut ordonné prêtre le 27 juin 1970. Plus tard, le 2 février 1974, il prononça ses vœux solennels de jésuite.

B. Le bollandiste A partir de son ordination et jusqu’en 1975, Michel est mentionné dans les catalogues des Jésuites de Belgique Méridionale comme «préparant un doctorat en histoire et philologie orientales»2 . En outre, en 1971 il est indiqué comme «étudiant l’hagiographie»; et en 1972 comme «associé aux bollandistes». A partir de 1973, il est inscrit comme «bollandiste», titre qu’il 2 Catalogus Provinciae Belgicae Meridionalis Societatis Iesu, ineunte anno 1971 (Louvain: Imprimerie des Saints Cœurs, 1971), p. 13. Et ainsi chaque année jusqu’en 1975 inclus, aux pages 13 ou 14.

Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934–2003), le colle´gue et l’ami

xxvii

conserve pendant 20 ans, jusqu’en 1992. C’est dans le catalogue de 1993 que n’apparut plus ce titre, et ceci fut une grande douleur pour le P. van Esbroeck: il se sentit rejeté par l’équipe. En fait, ses rapports avec les Bollandistes n’étaient pas faciles: Michel avait du mal à entrer dans un système et à se plier à un règlement. En 1972, le P. François Halkin revint de Paris avec les photos du manuscrit géorgien 11 du Mont Athos. Ce document avait été photographié par Marcel Richard, fondateur de la section grecque de l’IRHT (Institut de Recherches et d’Histoire des Textes) de Paris. Mais personne alors à Paris n’était capable de le déchiffrer. Michel transcrivit l’ensemble du codex, l’identifia comme représentant un Mravalthavi et collationna d’autres manuscrits. Encouragé par le Prof. Garitte, il partit pour Tbilissi en 1972. Il acheva bien vite le travail, mais dut attendre 1975 pour soutenir le doctorat en présence de Garitte, qui avait eu entre temps une thrombose. Le travail parut la même année à Louvain, sous le titre de «Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens». A partir de ce moment, il demanda régulièrement à l’état belge d’être inclus dans les programmes d’échanges culturels entre la Belgique et l’Union Soviétique. Il profita souvent de ces voyages pour examiner et rassembler des documents hagiographiques à Moscou, Léningrad, Tbilissi et Erévan. C’était aussi pour lui l’occasion de pratiquer les langues modernes: le russe, le géorgien et l’arménien. Je crois que son cœur inclinait davantage vers le géorgien, et il était fier de pouvoir dire qu’il était «membre étranger» de l’Académie des sciences de Tbilissi.

C. Líenseignement universitaire De 1981 à 1987, Michel fut nommé à Rome, au Pontificio Istituto Orientale, pour y enseigner les langues et littératures arménienne et géorgienne. Il n’avait pas beaucoup d’étudiants, mais ils lui étaient très attachés et reconnaissants. Sa venue à Rome est liée aux manuscrits. Voici pourquoi. Lors du congrès arabe chrétien de Göttingen-Goslar, en septembre 1980, je lui avais dit que je m’apprêtais à acquérir, de la Library of Congress de Washington, l’ensemble des microfilms des manuscrits arabes du Sinaï. Mi-sérieux mi-plaisant, il me dit que si cela se réalisait il serait prêt à venir au Pontificio Istituto Orientale. Les manuscrits arrivèrent, et je l’en informais et lui promis même de les mettre dans sa chambre s’il venait à l’Orientale. Effectivement, j’installai les manuscrits dans sa chambre, mais n’avais pas eu le temps de les classer. Les numéros étaient donc totalement en désordre, ce qui rendait la recherche ardue. Un jour que Michel était parti pour quelque congrès, je décidai de lui faire une surprise: je passai la journée à classer tous les manuscrits de 1 à 696. A son retour, il fut fort déçu: Il avait visualisé la place des manuscrits, et ne se retrouvait plus dans l’ordre (trop facile) des numéros!

xxviii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

En 1985, il remplaça Jean-Pierre Mahé à l’Institut Catholique de Paris, pour la chaire d’arménien. L’année suivante on lui suggéra de présenter sa candidature pour l’université Ludwig-Maximilian de Munich, pour succéder au Prof. Julius Assfalg à la chaire de Philologie de l’Orient Christian. C’était pour lui le poste rêvé: il pourrait enseigner les 6 langues de l’Orient chrétien: arménien, géorgien, arabe, syriaque, copte and ge’ez. Michel van Esbroeck fut élu en 1987, et resta jusqu’à sa retraite en 1999. Après, il continua d’habiter à Munich, chez les Jésuites de la Kaulbachstrasse. Mais en septembre 2001, il dut se transférer à Louvain-la-Neuve, pour des motifs financiers. Etant donné sa très importante bibliothèque, il habita seul dans un appartement, mais rejoignait chaque jour la communauté jésuite proche. Il continua de participer à de nombreux congrès de toutes sortes. Il avançait sérieusement dans l’apprentissage du chinois. Fin octobre 2003 nous nous sommes retrouvés encore à Rome, au Pontificio Istituto Orientale, puis il est rentré à Louvain, en passant par Munich, dans sa grande voiture chargée de livres, selon son habitude. Peu après, le 21 novembre, il mourait de manière inattendue, au milieu de la bibliothèque, et fut enterré le 25 à Louvain-laNeuve.

D. Líhomme et le savant J’ai vécu avec Michel pendant ses six ans à Rome, et nous nous sommes retrouvés pratiquement chaque année lors de congrès. C’était un homme exceptionnel à tous égards, et sous certains aspects génial. Ses immenses connaissances jointes à une intuition extraordinaire lui faisaient établir des corrélations entre les textes les plus éloignés les uns des autres, intuitions souvent exactes et toujours suggestives. La conversation avec lui était simplement passionnante et enrichissante, même si elle pouvait être fatigante du fait qu’il passait parfois d’un sujet à l’autre (sa pensée allait trop vite pour la plupart des gens) et qu’il faisait des allusions qui n’étaient pas évidentes pour tous. Il était chaleureux dans ses relations et agréable, tout en ayant aussi ses manies. Ses relations avec les autres pouvaient être difficiles, pour lui et pour eux, car il avait du mal à se plier à certaines règles (de la bibliothèque en particulier), qu’ils jugeaient absurdes et faites pour freiner l’élan des chercheurs; son comportement pouvait agacer; mais il avait aussi un grand cœur, un peu comme un enfant. Distrait au possible, il fallait toujours revoir les textes qu’il envoyait, et se fâchait même si je n’avais pas corrigé telle erreur … pour lui évidente. Ayant eu à lui publier six fois des textes, comme éditeur, je me suis promis de ne pas recommencer, à cause de ses distractions et de la rapidité de son travail. Il avait les qualités et les défauts des génies. Toujours pressé d’écrire, car il savait trop de choses ignorées de tous et il voulait les transmettre, il se désintéressait de certains détails méthodologiques ou bibliographiques. Son génie

Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934–2003), le colle´gue et l’ami

xxix

même et sa grande sensibilité l’ont fait beaucoup souffrir et l’amenaient à vivre dans la solitude. Mais il suffisait qu’il y ait quelque part un piano et Michel retrouvait sa joie et le bonheur. Il improvisait admirablement et faisait alors l’admiration de beaucoup. C’était sa détente et son plaisir. Sa distraction me faisait penser au professeur Tournesol d’Hergé3 ; parfois, discutant avec lui en français, il passait tout à coup au russe ou au géorgien, suite à une association d’idées, sans même s’en rendre compte. Sa contribution scientifique à l’orientalisme chrétien est considérable et assez unique. Ses connaissances balayaient tout le champ des sciences humaines et des sciences religieuses, et sa connaissance des langues (jamais parfaite mais toujours étonnante) lui permettait de voir ce que le spécialiste confiné dans une ou deux langues ne pouvait voir. Le fait d’embrasser tant de langues et tant de domaines, en négligeant un peu certains points, pouvait être, à juste titre, irritant pour le spécialiste (je pense aux nombreux textes arabes qu’il a publiés). Il n’en reste pas moins qu’il avait le courage de publier des textes que les spécialistes n’osaient pas publier. Ses recherches ont porté presque toujours sur l’hagiographie, mais comprise au sens le plus large possible. Et c’est ce qui rendait ses interventions dans les colloques si riches et si suggestives: il était capable de situer le moindre détail dans un grand tableau panoramique et de lui redonner ainsi sa véritable dimension. C’est aussi peut-être ce qui suscitait quelques réticences chez certains de ses collègues. Je reprendrais ici ce que le P. Robert Godding, jésuite bollandiste, qui fut son élève à Saint-Michel, écrivait lors de l’enterrement: «Dans la tradition bollandienne, qui distingue habituellement trois secteurs de la recherche, confiés à des spécialistes distincts, le latin, le grec et l’oriental, Michel pouvait à lui seul traiter avec compétence tous les aspects d’un dossier. Cette maîtrise l’avait amené à privilégier l’étude de dossiers extrêmement complexes, tels ceux des Apôtres, en particulier S. Barthélemy, de S. Grégoire le Thaumaturge, ou encore les traditions concernant la Vierge Marie. Mais l’hagiographie elle-même s’avérait pour lui un champ trop exigu. C’est ainsi qu’il s’est intéressé de près à l’exégèse, à la patristique et à l’histoire des conciles. Servi par une mémoire prodigieuse, il était seul à pouvoir opérer certains rapprochements totalement inattendus, à déceler des filiations de textes et des influences qui auraient échappé à tout autre érudit»4 . 3 «Hergé» est l’inversion francisée des initiales de Georges Remi (1907—1983), un écrivain belge très populaire. Le professeur Tournesol et le héros principal de son Le Trésor de Rackham le Rouge (1944). — NdlR de Scrinium. 4 Robert GODDING, S.J., “In memoriam. Le Père Michel van Esbroeck (19342003)”, in: Solidarité-Orient 229 (Bruxelles, Janvier-Mars 2004), pp. 3-5, ici p. 4.

xxx

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

L’aspect pédagogique n’était pas précisément son fort, qu’il s’agisse de l’enseignement ou de l’écriture. Peut-être est-il en partie responsable de ce que la chaire d’Orient chrétien de Munich n’ait pas été maintenue. Mais d’autre part, ceux de ses étudiants qui ont réussi à «tenir le coup» et à le suivre ont acquis une formation qu’ils n’oublieront pas. Avec le décès de Michel van Esbroeck l’Orient chrétien a perdu une de ses plus grandes figures. Rien qu’en quantité, ses publications sont impressionnantes: 10 livres, 235 articles, au moins 177 articles d’encyclopédies et peut-être plus de 200 comptes rendus. Pour honorer sa mémoire, ses étudiants et collègues préparaient un volume d’hommage pour ses 70 ans. Le destin les a surpris, le volume paraîtra posthume. Avec Michel van Esbroeck nous avons perdu un ami, un savant et un drôle de génie!

BIBLIOGRAPHIE DU R. P. MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, SJ Notices nec: rologiques1 [Àëåêñåé ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ,]  Ëóâåíå ñêîí÷àëñÿ èçâåñòíûé èñòîðèê õðèñòèàíñòâà Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê [très brève notice avec un photo, publiée au lendemain de la mort de MvE, le 24 novembre 2003, par une indépendante ressource russe d’information religieuse], http://portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news &id=15492&type=view Robert GODDING, SJ, Le Père Michel van Esbroeck (1934-2003), Solidarité-Orient 229 (Bruxelles, Janvier-Mars 2004), p. 3-5. Lucas VAN ROMPAY, Obituary. Michel van Esbroeck (1934-2003), Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, vol. 7 (2004), No 1; cf. http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol7No1/HV7N1OBEsbroeck.html Stiftung KOERBER, Prof. Dr. SJ Michel van Esbroeck [très brève notice]; cf. http://www.stiftung.koerber.de/frames/bgd/frames.php?param = http%3A/ /www.stiftung.koerber.de/bg/recherche/de/person.php%3Fid%3D14115% 26refer%3D Hubert KAUFHOLD, Nachruf auf Prof. Dr. phil. P. Michel van Esbroeck S. J., OrChr 88 (2004), pp. 257-261. Theresia HAINTHALER, In memoriam. Edward Yarnold and Michel van Esbroeck, in: István PERCZEL, Réka FORRAI and György GERÉBY (eds.), The Eucharist in Theology and Philosophy. Issues of Doctrinal History in East and West from the Patristic Age to the Reformation, coll. «Ancient and Medieval Philosophy» de Wulf-Mansion Centre. Series I, XXXV (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. xxv-xxvii [sur le P. M. van Esbroeck spéc. pp. xxvi-xxvii]. Àëåêñåé ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ, Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê, Î. È., Ñèìâîë. Æóðíàë õðèñòèàíñêîé êóëüòóðû [Ïàðèæ] (à paraître).

Remarques prel: iminaires 1. J’avais une bibliographie incomplète, tapée par Michel van Esbroeck et s’arrêtant à l’an 1999. Grâce à l’amabilité du Prof. Dr. Hubert Kaufhold, son collègue à Munich, j’ai reçu une bibliographie plus complète faite par MvE lui-même. J’ai confronté les deux (pour la partie commune) et ai pu compléter certains détails. Cependant, étant donné la distraction bien connue de Michel et le fait que c’était d’abord pour lui-même qu’il rédigeait cette bibliographie, elle est très lacunaire, surtout pour les articles parus dans des congrès. 1

Aucune obituaire ou notice dans les Analecta Bollandiana. — B. L., A. M.

xxxii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

2. J’ai donc réélaboré la bibliographie pour la corriger et la compléter2 . J’ai cherché à indiquer toujours: 1. les prénoms au complet; 2. tous les éditeurs d’un ouvrage; 3. les collections; 4. les titres et sous-titres au complet; 5. si possible, les maisons d’édition. 3. Chaque fois qu’une référence est utilisée plus de deux fois, je lui donne une abréviation. 4. Michel n’a pas jugé nécessaire de dresser la liste des articles d’encyclopédie. J’ai donc commencé à combler cette lacune, en inventoriant les articles de trois d’entre elles3 . 5. Il faudrait ajouter les dizaines (centaines?) de comptes rendus que Michel van Esbroeck a fait dans des dizaines de revues. Ils ont une grande importance scientifique, parce qu’il y fournit souvent des renseignements inédits empruntés aux diverses traditions orientales4 . [6. Les traductions russes d’une douzaine d’articles de MvE qu’on publiait sur le site http://portal-credo.ru depuis 2002, ne sont pas inclues dans la bibliographie car elles ne sont pas encore préparées à la publication définitive. — B. L., A. M.] Enfin, je serais très reconnaissant à toute personne qui m’enverrait des corrections ou des additions, notamment pour les deux catégories manquantes: les encyclopédies et les comptes rendus. Un complément sera publié ultérieurement5 .

Abre v: iations AB AHC Aug BK CE

Analecta Bollandiana (Bruxelles). Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum (Paderborn). Augustinianum (Rome). Bedi Kartlisa (Paris). The Coptic Encyclopedia6 .

Je suis reconnaissant au Prof. Hubert KAUFHOLD pour son aide efficace pour résoudre plusieurs énigmes des abréviations. 3 Le dépouillement de CE est dû à Juan Pedro MONFERRER. Qu’il en soit vivement remercié. [Les éditeurs du volume présent ont en ajouté la quatrième, EAE. — B. L., A. M.] 4 Nous avons ajouté quelques revues de MvE dont l’importance est comparable à celle des notices originales ou même des articles. — B. L., A. M. 5 Comme il est bien évident, même notre deuxième édition de cette bibliographie ne saurait être considérée comme complète. — B. L., A. M. 6 Aziz S. ATIYA (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia. 8 vol. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991). 2

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

CSCO DECA DPAC EAE LTK ML Mus OCA OCP OrChr ParOr RAC REArm StsOC ÕÂ

xxxiii

Coll. «Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium» (Louvain: Peeters) Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien7 . Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiana8 . Encyclopaedia Aethiopica9 . Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche10 . Marienlexikon11 . Le Muséon (Louvain) Coll. «Orientalia Christiana Analecta» (Rome: PIO). Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome). Oriens Christianus (Wiesbaden). Parole de l’Orient (Kaslik). Das Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum12 . Revue des Etudes Arméniennes (Paris). Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano (Rome). Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê [Khristianskij Vostok] (St Pétersbourg— Moscou)

Notice autobiographique “Short biography of Michel van Esbroeck”, in: Basile LOURIÉ, Alexey MOURAVIEV (éds.), Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934-2003), in: Scrinium 2 (2006), pp. x-xi.

A. LIVRES 1. Herméneutique, Structuralisme et Exégèse. Essai de logique kérygmatique (Paris: Desclée, 1968). 2 . Hermeneutik, Strukturalismus und Exegese (München: Kösel, [1968]13 ), 8 + 185 pages, isbn 3-466-20154-3. Angelo DI BERARDINO (éd.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien. 2 vol. (Paris: Cerf, 1990), 32 + 24 + 2641 pp. 8 Angelo DI BERARDINO (a cura di), Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiana. 2 vol. (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1983), 25 + 23 p. + 3630 col. 9 Siegbert UHLIG (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. Vols. 1— (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verl., 2003—). 10 Walter KASPER et al. (Hgg.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 3. Ausg. 11 Bde (Freiburg: Verlag Herder GmbH, 1993—2001). 11 Institutum Marianum Regensburg, Remigius BÄUMER und Leo SCHEFFCZYK (Hgg.), Marienlexikon, 6 Bde (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1988—1994). 12 Franz Joseph Dölger-Institut zur Erforschung der Spätantike, Das Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1941—). 13 Michel VAN ESBROECK donne la date de 1970. J’ai trouvé aussi sur internet les dates suivantes: 1972 et 1974. [Le problème provient du fait que la traduction alle7

xxxiv

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

– cr: Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 (1973), pp. 70-73. – cr par Peter KNAUER SJ, Theologie und Philosophie 48 (1973), p. 598. 3. BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, Sur l’origine de l’homme. Homélies X-XI de l’Hexaéméron, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Alexei SMETS, s.j. et Michel VAN ESBROECK, s.j., coll. «Sources Chrétiennes» 160 (Paris: Cerf, 1970), 360 pages. isbn: 2204038547. 4. Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens. Étude descriptive et historique, coll. «Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain» 10 (Louvainla-Neuve: Peeters, 1975), xxv-369 pages14 . 5. BARSABÉE DE JÉRUSALEM, Sur le Christ et les Églises. Introduction, édition du texte géorgien inédit et traduction française par Michel VAN ESBROECK, coll. «Patrologia Orientalis» 41,2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982). 6. EPIPHANE DE CHYPRE, Les versions géorgiennes d’Epiphane de Chypre. Traité sur les poids et les mesures, Edition, coll. CSCO 460, «Scriptores Iberici» 19 (1984), 45 pages. 7. EPIPHANE DE CHYPRE, Les versions géorgiennes d’Épiphane de Chypre. Traité sur les poids et les mesures, Traduction, coll. CSCO 461, «Scriptores Iberici» 20 (1984), 59 pages. 8. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR, Vie de la Vierge, Edition, CSCO 478 «Scriptores Iberici» 21 (1986). 9. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR, Vie de la Vierge, Traduction [du géorgien], CSCO 479 «Scriptores Iberici» 22 (1986). 10. Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge. Études historiques sur les traditions orientales, coll. «Variorum Reprints. Collected Studies Series» CS 380 (Aldershot [Hampshire]: Ashgate, 1995), 336 pages. Rassemble (en ajoutant “Addenda et Corrigenda”) 15 études en français qui correspondent aux numéros suivants de la liste ci-dessous: Ch. I n

o

II

70 -

15

III IV V

VI VII VIII IX

X

XI

XII XIII XIV XV

147 25 27 31 42 122 125 127 153 143 137 14416 104

mande a paru «ohne Jahr». Il est possible, en outre, qu’on l’avait réimprimée plusieurs fois. — B. L., A. M.] 14 Voir Samir Khalil SAMIR, “Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens et les versions patristiques arabes”, OCP 42 (1976), pp. 217-231. 15 “Etude comparée des notices byzantines et caucasiennes pour la fête de la Dormition”, décrit dans le Table des Matières du volume comme «Première publication d’un rapport donné à Dumbarton Oaks, mai 1988, sous la titre ‘A Comparative Study of the Byzantine and Caucasian Accounts for the Feast of the Dormition’». 16 Traduction française de l’original allemand.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xxxv

B. ARTICLES 1962 11. “Chronique arménienne”, AB 80 (1962), pp. 441-457.

1966 12. “Saint Épimaque de Péluse, I. Un parallèle arabe à la passion prémétaphrastique BHG3 593”, AB 84 (1966), pp. 399-342.

1967 13. “Saint Épimaque de Péluse, II. La translation arabe”, AB 85 (1967), pp. 441-457. 14. “Un recueil prémétaphrastique arabe du XIe siècle”, AB 85 (1967), pp. 143-164.

1968 15. “Une liste d’apôtres dans le codex géorgien 42 d’Iviron”, AB 86 (1968), pp. 139-150. 16. “La lettre de l’empereur Justinien sur l’Annonciation et la Noël”, AB 86 (1968), pp. 352-371; 87 (1969), pp. 442-444.

1969 17. “Salomon de Mak’enoc’ vardapet du VIIIe siècle”, in: Pater Mesrob DJANASCHIAN [= GIANASHIAN] (éd.), Armeniaca: Mélanges d’études arméniennes publiées à l’occasion du 250e anniversaire de l’entrée des Pères Mekhitaristes dans l’Ile de Saint-Lazare (1717-1967) (Venise, Ile de Saint-Lazare, 1969), pp. 33-44.

1971 18. “Nathanaël dans une homélie sur les archanges”, AB 89 (1971), pp. 155-176. 19. “Témoignages littéraires sur les sépultures de S. Grégoire l’Illuminateur”, AB 89 (1971), pp. 387-418. 20. “Un corpus de l’hagiographie géorgienne en géorgien”, AB 89 (1971), pp. 419-420. 21. “Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange”, REArm 8 (1971), pp. 13-171. 22. “Le traité sur la Pâque de Méliton en géorgien”, Mus 84 (1971), pp. 373-394.

1972 23. “Hébreux 11,33-38 dans l’ancienne version géorgienne”, Biblica 53 (1972), pp. 43-64.

xxxvi

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

24. “Nouveaux fragments de Méliton de Sardes dans une homélie géorgienne sur la Croix”, AB 90 (1972), pp. 63-99. 25. “Nouveaux apocryphes de la Dormition conservés en géorgien”, AB 90 (1972), pp. 363-369. 26. “Le roi Sanatrouk et l’apôtre Thaddée”, REArm 9 (1972), pp. 241-283.

1973 27. “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition”, AB 91 (1973), pp. 55-75. 28. “Généalogie de la Vierge en géorgien”, AB 91 (1973), pp. 347-356. 29. “Les oeuvres de Méliton de Sardes en géorgien”, BK 32 (1973), pp. 48-63.

1974 30. “Une homélie sur l’Eglise attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem”, Mus 86 (1974), pp. 283-304. 31. “L’Assomption de la Vierge dans un Transitus pseudo-basilien”, AB 92 (1974), pp. 125-163. 32. “L’homélie géorgienne d’Hésychius de Jérusalem sur la résurrection des morts”, Mus 84 (1974), pp. 125-163. 33. “Le passage d’Eznik (P. 241) dans le «De Universo» d’Hippolyte”, Mus 84 (1974), pp. 441-444. 34. “Un nouveau dictionnaire de la langue géorgienne ancienne”, BK 32 (1974), pp. 86-108. 35. “L’Éthiopie à l’époque de Justinien: S. Arethas de Neðrân et S. Athanase de Clysma”, IV Congresso Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Roma, 1015 aprile 1972). T. I (Sezione storica), in: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Quaderni, Anno 381 (1974) N 191 [1]. Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974), pp. 117-139.

1975 36. “Les formes géorgiennes des Acta Iohannis”, AB 93 (1975), pp. 5-19. 37. “Les apophtegmes dans les versions orientales”, AB 93 (1975), pp. 381-389. 38. “Les Acta Iohannis traduits par Euthyme l’Hagiorite”, BK 33 (1975), pp. 73-109. 39. “Fragments méconnus du Lectionnaire géorgien”, Mus 88 (1975), pp. 361-363.

1976 40. “Fragments sahidiques du panégyrique de Grégoire le Thaumaturge par Grégoire de Nysse”, Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica 6/7 (1975-1976), pp. 555-568.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xxxvii

41. “A propos de l’évangile apocryphe arabe attribué à Saint Jean”, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 49 (1975-1976), pp. 597-603. 42. “Un témoin indirect de l’Histoire euthymiaque dans une lecture arabe pour l’Assomption”, ParOr 6/7 (1975-1976), pp. 479-491. 43. “Saint Philotheos d’Antioche”, AB 94 (1976), pp. 107-135. 44. “La passion arménienne de Saint Gordius de Césarée”, AB 94 (1976), pp. 357-386. 45. “Une forme inédite de la lettre du roi Ptolémée pour la traduction des LXX”, Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 542-549. 46. “Archéologie d’une homélie sur la Pâque attribuée à Chrysostome ou Epiphane de Chypre”, in: Michael STONE (ed.), Armenian and Biblical Studies (Jerusalem: St James Press, 1976), pp. 165-181. 47. “Une chronique de Maurice à Héraclius dans un récit des sièges de Constantinople”, BK 34 (1976), pp. 74-96. 48. “Le résumé syriaque de l’Agathange et sa portée pour l’histoire du développement de la légende”, °ÑæÔ×í ¡äíoðÕÑå [Handes Amsoreay (Vienne)] 90 (1976), col. 493-510.

1977 49. “Le manuscrit Erévan 993. Inventaire des pièces” [avec Ugo ZANETREArm 12 (1977), pp. 123-167 et pp. 479-491. 50. “L’histoire de l’église de Lydda dans deux textes géorgiens”, BK 36 (1977), pp. 109-131. 51. “Abraham le Confesseur (Ve s.), traducteur des Passions des martyrs persans”, AB 95 (1977), pp. 168-179. 52. “Le résumé syriaque de l’Agathange”, AB 95 (1977), pp. 291-358. 53. “Un feuillet oublié du codex arabe or. 4226 à Strasbourg”, AB 96 (1977), pp. 383-384. TI],

1978 54. “Deux feuillets du Sinaiticus 492 retrouvés à Leningrad”, AB 96 (1978), pp. 51-54. 55. “Deux homélies de Sévérien de Gabala conservées en géorgien”, BK 36 (1978), pp. 71-91. 56. “Une courte homélie mariale de Proclus conservée en arménien”, ¢ÑÖäÑî×ê [Pazmaveb (Venise)] 136 (1978), pp. 717-727.

1979 57. “L’homélie «Sur les apôtres» de Sévérien de Gabala en version géorgienne”, BK 37 (1979), pp. 86-101. 58. “L’opuscule sur la Croix d’Alexandre de Chypre et sa version géorgienne”, BK 37 (1979), pp. 102-132.

xxxviii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

59. “Legends about Constantine in Armenian”, in: Thomas J. SAMUELIAN (ed.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, coll. «University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies» 4 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 79-101. 60. “êäìèìâðàãèñ îàêèëîñòóðè ëðàåàêçàåè [Un mravalthavi palimpseste de Léningrade]”, ëðàåàêçàåè. ôèêíêíâèóðè ãà èñòíðèóêè ûèäáàìè [Mravalthavi. Études philologiques et historiques (Tbilissi)] 6 (1979), pp. 81-87.

1980 61. “L’hymnaire de Michel Modrekili et son sanctoral”, BK 38 (1980), pp. 113-130. 62. “La primauté de Pierre (Matth. 16,16-19) et son contexte judaïque”, Revue Théologique de Louvain 11 (1980), pp. 310-324. 63. “Un mravalthavi palimpseste dans le codex A. 737 de Tbilissi”, ëðàåàêçàåè. ôèêíêíâèóðè ãà èñòíðèóêè ûèäáàìè [Mravalthavi. Études philologiques et historiques (Tbilissi)] 7 (1980), pp. 18-21. 64. “Le manuscrit géorgien Sinaïtique 34 et les publications de liturgie palestinienne”, OCP 49 (1980), pp. 125-141. 65. “Une homélie archaïque sur la Transfiguration”, OCP 49 (1980), pp. 418-425. 66. “Le martirika du Catholicos Antoine Ier”, AB 98 (1980), pp. 411-421. 67. “¬ÕæÛæÓðÑÔÛ ½ÑÜïÛßèî-·é×ÔðÛæ ÑæîÑæ àÑæðÑåÛæ ÓððÑÔÑðÑæÛ °ÑåÕð×æ ßðßæÑÓÛð [Un palimpseste arménien de la Bibliothèque Publique SaltykovChtchédrine de Léningrade]”, ¢ÑæÒÕð ´ÑïÕæÑÔÑðÑæÛ [Banber Matenadarani (Erévan)] 13 (1980), pp. 271-274.

1981 68. Les textes syriaques; Les textes arabes; Les textes géorgiens, in: Pélagie la Pénitente. Métamorphoses d’une légende. Tome I. Les textes et leur histoire. Dossier rassemblé par Pierre PETITMENGIN(Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1981), pp. 135-160, 278-288 et 317-349. 69. “Le saint comme symbole”, in: Sergei HACKEL (ed.), The Byzantine Saint. University of Birmingham 14th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, coll. «Studies Supplementary to Sobornost» 5; numéro spécial de Sobornost (London) et d’ Eastern Churches Review, No. 3 (London, 1981), pp. 128-140. 70. “Les textes littéraires sur l’Assomption avant le Xe siècle”, in: François BOVON (ed.), Les Actes Apocryphes des apôtres. Christianisme dans le monde païen (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1981), pp. 51-77. 71. “Les manuscrits de Jean Zosime Sin. 34 et Tsagareli 81”, BK 39 (1981), pp. 63-75.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xxxix

72. “La diffusion orientale de la légende des saints Cosme et Damien”, in: Pierre RICHÉ et Evelyne PATLAGEAN (éds.), Hagiographie, Cultures et Sociétés. IVe-XIIe siècles. Actes du Colloque organisé à Nanterre et à Paris (2-5 Mai 1979) par le Centre de Recherches sur l’Antiquité tardive et le Haut Moyen Âge, Université de Paris X—Nanterre (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1981), pp. 61-77. 73. “Amphiloque d’Iconium et Eunome: l’homélie CPG 3238”, Aug 21 (1981), pp. 517-539. 74. “La légende «romaine» des SS Côme et Damien (BHG 373d) et sa métaphrase géorgienne par Jean Xiphilin: I. Le texte grec”, OCP 47 (1981), pp. 389-425. 75. “La notion d’accomplissement de l’Ecriture, in: Lectures bibliques. Colloque du 11 novembre 1980, coll. «Publications de l’Institutum judaicum» (Bruxelles, 1981), pp. 333-35117 .

1982 76. “Col. 2,11: «Dans la circoncision du Christ»”, in: Julien RIES (éd.), Gnosticisme et Monde hellénistique. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11-14 mars 1980), coll. «Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain» 27 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 1982), pp. 229-235. 77. “La légende «romaine» des SS Côme et Damien: II. Le panégyrique géorgien”, OCP 48 (1982), pp. 29-64. 78. “Bild und Begriff in der Transitus-Literatur: Der Palmbaum und der Tempel”, in: Margot SCHMIDT et Carl-Friedrich GEYER (Hgg.), Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, coll. «Eichstätter Beiträge. Schriftenreihe der Katholische Universität Eichstätt», Abteilung Philosophie und Theologie, 4 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982), pp. 333351. 79. “Saint Épimaque de Péluse, III. Les fragments coptes”, AB 100 (1982), pp. 125-145. 80. “Hésychius de Jérusalem “Sur les Coryphées” en version slavonne”, OCP 48 (1982), pp. 371-405. 81. “L’homélie d’Eustathe d’Antioche en géorgien, OrChr 66 (1982), pp. 189-214. 82. “Remembrement d’un manuscrit arabe de 950, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du premier Congrès d’études arabes chrétiennes, coll. OCA 218 (Rome, 1982), pp. 135-147. 83. “L’Eglise géorgienne des origines au Moyen-Âge”, BK 40 (1982), pp. 186-199. Dans une autre copie de la bibliographie, tapée par Michel VAN ESBROECK, je trouve: “p. 131-141”. 17

xl

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

84. “The Georgian inscriptions”, in: Michael STONE (ed.), The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai, with Appendixes on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by Michel VAN ESBROECK and W. ADLER, coll. «Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies» 6 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 171-179.

1983 85. “L’empereur Jean Tzimiscès dans le calendrier de Georges l’Athonite”, BK 41 (1983), pp. 67-72. 86. “Gli apocrifi georgiani”, Aug 23 (1983), pp. 145-149. 87. “Homélie ephrémienne sur le bon larron en grec, géorgien et arabe”, AB 101 (1983), pp. 327-362. 88. “Deux listes d’apôtres conservées en syriaque”, in: René LAVENANT (éd.), IIIe Symposium Syriacum. Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures, coll. OCA 221 (Rome, 1983), pp. 15-24. 89. “La naissance du culte de saint Barthélémy en Arménie”, in: REArm 17 (1983), pp. 171-195.

1984 90. “The Rise of St Bartholomew’s Cult in Armenia from the Seventh to the Thirteenth Centuries”, in: Thomas J. SAMUELIAN et Michael STONE (eds.), Medieval Armenian Culture, coll. «University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies» 6 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 161-178. 91. “Nouveaux fragments arméniens de Denys d’Alexandrie”, OCP 50 (1984), pp. 18-40. 92. “Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix”, AB 102 (1984), pp. 99-134. 93. “¡ÓÑÙÑæÓÕâèíÛ ÒæÑÓÛð êÑïäèòÙÛèòæÛñ [L’original de l’Histoire d’Agathange]”, ºÑïäÑ-ÒÑæÑíÛðÑßÑæ °ÑæÔÕí [Patma-banasirakan Handes (Erévan)] 105 (1984), pp. 28-34. 94. “Le «De Sectis» attribué à Léonce de Byzance (CPG 6823) dans la version géorgienne d’Arsène Iqaltoeli”, BK 42 (1984), pp. 35-42. 95. “Le «De Fide» géorgien attribué à Hippolyte et ses rapports avec la Didascalie de Grégoire l’Illuminateur dans l’Agathange (BHO 330)”, AB 102 (1984), pp. 321-328. 96. “Témoignages littéraires sur la Mayr Ekeghetsi ou de l’origine de Zouartnots ”, in: Giulio IENI e Gabriella ULUHOGIAN (a cura di), Atti del Terzo Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena (Milano/Vicenza/Castelfranco V./ Piazzola sul Brenta/Venezia, 25 settembre-1° ottobre 1981) (Venezia, San Lazzaro: Casa editrice armena, 1984), pp. 615-627. 97. “Rome l’ancienne et Constantinople vues de l’Arménie”, in: Paolo SINISCALCO e Pierangelo CATALANO (a cura di), La nozione di «Romano» tra cittadinanza e universalità (Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1984), pp. 351-355.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xli

98. “Description du répertoire de l’homéliaire de Mush”, REArm 18 (1984), pp. 237-280. 99. “L’origine de Pemeniay chez Anania Shirakatsi”, REArm 18 (1984), pp. 487-489. 100. “La structure de l’homéliaire de Mush”, in: Gevork Beglari DJAHUKIAN et al. (eds.), International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics, Yerevan, September 21-25, 1982: Reports / Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé ñèìïîçèóì ïî àðìÿíñêîìó ÿçûêîçíàíèþ, Åðåâàí, 21-25 ñåíòÿáðÿ 1982. Äîêëàäû (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, 1984), pp. 282-306.

1985 101. “La date et l’auteur du De Sectis attribué à Léonce de Byzance”, in: Carl LAGA, Joseph A. MUNITIZ et Lucas VAN ROMPAY (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday, coll. «Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta» 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 1985) pp. 415-424. 102. “Les Actes arméniens de saint Héraclide de Chypre”, AB 103 (1985), pp. 115-162. 103. “L’homélie de Pierre de Jérusalem et la fin de l’origénisme palestinien en 551”, OCP 51 (1985), pp. 33-59. 104. “Version géorgienne de l’homélie eusébienne CPG 5528 sur l’Ascension”, OCP 51 (1985), pp. 277-303. 105. “Le sens de la liberté de l’homme éclairé par la foi chrétienne”, in: Droits de l’Homme. IIIe rencontre Islamochrétienne (Tunis: Université de Tunis, 1985), pp. 171-180. 106. “La légende géorgienne de l’Ascète Nisime, Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 1 (1985), pp. 117-125. 107. “Les programmes géorgiens de la Dormition”, Jahrbuch der Österreichisches Byzantinistik 35 (1985), pp. 251-260. 108. “L’homélie de Proclus CPG 5800 dans l’ancien Tônakan arménien”, REArm 19 (1985), pp. 49-53.

1986 109. “Une lettre de Dorothée comte de Palestine à Marcel et Mari en 452”, AB 104 (1986), pp. 145-159. 110. “Les deux Testaments, une même vie”, Communio 11 (1986), pp. 7190. 111. “Les sentences morales des philosophes grecs dans les traditions orientales”, in: Massimiliano PAVAN et Umberto COZZOLI (a cura di), L’eredità classica nelle lingue orientali, coll. «Acta Encyclo-paedica» 5 (Roma: Istituto Enciclopedia Italiana, 1986), pp. 11-23. 112. “L’apport des versions orientales pour la compréhension de l’Asclepius dans les Philosophica d’Apulée”, in: Massimiliano PAVAN et Umberto

xlii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

COZZOLI (a cura di), L’eredità classica nelle lingue orientali, coll. «Acta Encyclopaedica» 5 (Roma: Istituto Enciclopedia Italiana, 1986), pp. 27-35. 113. “Le codex rescriptus Tischendorf 2 à Leipzig et Cyrille de Scythopolis en version arabe”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (ed.), Actes du IIe congrès international d’études arabes chrétiennes, coll. OCA 226 (Rome, 1986), pp. 81-91. 114. “Le substrat hagiographique de la mission khazare de ConstantinCyrille”, AB 104 (1986), pp. 337-348. 115. “Un palimpseste géorgien de l’homélie 38 de Grégoire de Nazianze”, Mus 99 (1986), pp. 309-317. 116. “Verdwenen griekse hagiographie in oosterse vertalingen teruggevonden”, in: Antonius HILHORST (red.), De heiligen-verering in de eerste eeuwen van het christendom (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1986), pp. 99104.

1987 117. “Athanase déguisé en pseudo-Denys dans le Tônakan”, REArm 20 (1986-1987), pp. 167-173. 118. “Who is Mari, the Addressee of Ibas’ Letter?”, The Journal of Theological Studies 38 (1987), pp. 129-135. 119. “Les Actes apocryphes de Thomas en version arabe”, ParOr 14 (1987), pp. 11-77. 120. “Une homélie de Zacharie le Catholicos sur l’Annonciation”, °ÑæÔ×í ¡äíoðÕÑå [Handes Amsoreay (Vienne)] 101 (1987), pp. 487-503. 121. “Das Synodikon vom Jahre 843 in georgischer Übersetzung”, AHC 19 (1987), pp. 300-313. 122. “Un court traité pseudo-basilien de mouvance aaronite conservé en arménien”, Mus 100 (1987), pp. 385-395. 123. “Jalons pour l’histoire de la transmission manuscrite de l’homélie de Proclus sur la Vierge”, in: Jürgen DUMMER (Hg.), Text und Kritik. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, coll. «Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur» Band 133 (Berlin, 1987), pp. 149-160. 124. “Le soi-disant roman de Julien l’Apostat”, in: Han J. W. DRIJVERS, René LAVENANT, Corrie MOLENBERG and Gerrit Jan REININK (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984, Literary Genres in Syriac Litterature (Groningen-Oosterhesselen 10-12 Sept.), coll. OCA 229 (Rome, 1987), pp. 191-202.

1988 125. “Impact de l’écriture sur le concile de Dwin en 555”, AHC 18 (1988), pp. 301-318. 126. “L’aspect cosmologique de la philosophie d’Eunome pour la reprise de l’Hexameron basilien par Grégoire de Nysse, in: Lucas Francisco MATEOSECO y Juan Luis BASTERO (Edición a cargo de), El «Contra Eunomium I» en la producción literaria de Gregorio de Nisa. VI Coloquio Internacional so-

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xliii

bre Gregorio de Nisa, coll. «Collección Teológica» 59 (Pamplona: Eunsa. Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, S.A., 1988), pp. 181-216. 127. “Le culte de la Vierge à Constantinople aux 6e et 7e siècles”, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 46 (1988), pp. 181-190. 128. “La Vision de Vakhtang Gorgasali et sa signification”, in: Elguja KHINTIBIDZE (ed.), ôèðåäêè ñàäðçàøíðèñí éàðçåäêíêíâèóðè ñèëîíæèóëèñ ëàñàêäáè / Ìàòåðèàëû ïåðâîãî ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî êàðòâåëîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñèìïîçèóìà / Proceedings of the First International Symposium in Kartvelian Studies (Tbilisi: University of Tbilisi, 1988), pp. 181-191. 129. “Le dossier hagiograhique de saint Pancrace de Taormine” (avec Ugo ZANETTI), in: Salvatore PRICOCO e Soveria MANNELLI (curato da), Storia della Sicilia e tradizione agiografica nella tarda antichità. Atti del convegno di studi (Catania 20-22 maggio 1986), coll. «Università. Varia» (Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Rubettino Editore, 1988), pp. 155-171. 130. “On the etymology of Georgian Bzoba: The Branch and the Boxtree” in: Fridrik THORDARSON, Studia Caucasologica I, Proceedings of the Third Caucasian Colloquium, Oslo, July 1986 [The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture] (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1988), pp. 42-50. 131. “L’apôtre Thaddée et le roi Sanatruk”, in: Mario NORDIO et Boghos Levon ZEKIYAN (a cura di), Atti del II Simposio Internazionale «ArmeniaAssiria». Istituzioni e poteri nell’epoca Il-Khanide, coll. «Eurasiatica. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Studi eurasiatici dell’Università degli studi di Venezia Ca' Foscari» 9 (Venezia, 1988), pp. 83-106. 132. “Une propagande chalcédonienne du début du VIe siècle: l’histoire des saints Nisthéréon et Katianos”, OrChr 72 (1988), pp. 136-167. 133. “Euthyme l’Hagiorite: le traducteur et ses traductions”, Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 4 (1988) pp. 73-107 [publié en 1990].

1989 134. “Le manuscrit syriaque nouvelle série 4 de Leningrad”, in: Enzo LUCCHESI (éd.), Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont. Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux, coll. «Cahiers d’Orienta-lisme» 20 (Genève: Patrick Cramer Éditeur, 1989), pp. 155-162. 135. “Saint Grégoire d’Arménie et sa Didascalie”, Mus 102 (1989), pp. 131-145. 136. “Incidence des versions arabes chrétiennes pour la reconstitution des textes perdus”, in: Geneviève CONTAMINE (ed.), Traduction et traducteurs au Moyen-Âge. Actes du Colloque International du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, 26-28 mai 1986 (Paris: Éd. du CNRS, 1989), pp. 133-143. 137. “La lettre sur le Dimanche descendue du ciel”, AB 107 (1989), pp. 267-284.

xliv

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

138. “The Credo of Gregory the Wonderworker and Its Influence through Three Centuries”, in: Elizabeth LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia Patristica, vol. XIX — Historica, Theologica, Gnostica, Biblica et Apocrypha (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), pp. 255-266.

1990 139. “Sur quatre traités attribués à Grégoire et leur contexte marcellien”, in: Hubertus R. DROBNER et Christoph KLOCK (Hgg.), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der christlichen Spätantike, coll. «Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements» 12 (Leiden—New York—København—Köln: Brill, 1990), pp. 3-15. 140. “Der von einem Bischof um 514 geschriebene Brief gegen das Christentum und die Verfolgung von seiten Dhu Nuwas”, in: Werner DIEM et Abdoldjavad FALATURI (Hgg.), XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 26. bis 30. September 1988 in Köln. Ausgewählte Vorträge (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990), pp. 105-115. 141. “La religion géorgienne préchrétienne”, in: Wolfgang HAASE, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II, 18. 4 (Berlin—New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1990), pp. 2694-2725. 142. “La version géorgienne de deux commentaires d’Ammonius”, in: Gianfranco FIACCADORI (a cura di), Autori classici in lingue del vicino e medio oriente (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1990), pp. 55-64. 143. “Une homélie arménienne sur la Dormition attribuée à Chrysostome”, OrChr 74 (1990), pp. 199-233. 144. “Ein georgischer liturgischer Kanon für Maria Himmelfahrt”, in: Regine SCHULZ et Manfred GÖRG (Hrsg.), Lingua restituta orientalis. Festgabe für Julius Assfalg, coll. «Ägypten und Altes Testament», Band 20 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verl., 1990), pp. 89-110. [Cf. traduction française: no 10, ch. XIV.] 145. “Une note de Sévère d’Antioche sur Juda Cyriaque”, in: René LAVENANT (éd.), V Symposium Syriacum. Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29-31 août 1988, coll. OCA 236 (Rome, 1990), pp. 183-193. 146. “L’homélie géorgienne de Sévérien de Gabala CPG 4216”, Mus 104 (1990), pp. 73-108. 147. “Les signes des temps dans la littérature syriaque”, Revue de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 39 (1990), pp. 113-149. 148. “La représentativité de la délégation arménienne à Florence: de Sargis de Caffa à Nagash d’Amid”, AHC 22 (1990), pp. 131-145.

1991 149. “Deux homélies pseudo-basiliennes sur le Dimanche et le Vendredi”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du 3e Congrès international d’études arabes chrétiennes, in: ParOr 16 (1990-1991), pp. 49-71.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xlv

150. “Primauté, Patriarcats, Catholicossats, autocéphalies en orient”, in: Michele MACCARRONE (a cura di), Il primato del Vescovo di Roma nel primo millenio. Ricerche e testimonianze. Atti del symposium storico-teologico, Roma, 9-13 ottobre 1989, coll. «Atti e documenti» 4 (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1991), pp. 493-521. 151. “Le contexte politique de la Vie de Pancrace de Tauromenium”, in: Salvatore PRICOCO, Francesca Rizzo NERVO et Teresa SARDELLA (a cura di), Sicilia e Italia suburbicaria tra IV e VIII secolo. Atti del Convegno di studi (Catania, 24-27 ottobre 1989) (Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Rubettino Editore, 1991), pp. 185-196.

1992 152. “Le manuscrit hébreu Paris 755 et l’histoire des martyrs du Nedjran”, in: Pierre CANIVET et Jean-Paul REY-COQUAIS (sous la direction de), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam, VIIe-VIIIe siècles. Actes du colloque international. Lyon, Paris (11-15 septembre 1990) (Damas: Institut français d’Études arabes, 1992), pp. 25-30. 153. “La Dormition chez les Coptes”, in: Marguerite RASSART-DEBERGH et Julien RIES (éds.), Actes du IVe Congrès Copte. Louvain-la-Neuve, 5-10 septembre 1988. II. De la linguistique au gnosticisme, coll. «Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain» 41 (Louvain-la-Neuve : Peeters, 1992), pp. 436-445. 154. “Les Èinka, les Xrafstras et Loki”, in: Catherine PARIS (éd.), Caucasologie et mythologie comparée. Actes du colloque international du CNRS. IVe colloque de Caucasologie (Sèvres, 27-29 juin 1988), coll. «Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France» 332, Numéro spécial 23 (Paris: Peeters, 1992), pp. 115-126 [et p. 497: résumé français et summary anglais]. 155. “Armenien und die Penthektè”, AHC 24 (1992), pp. 78-94.

1993 156. “Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite: Honigmann’s thesis revisited”, OCP 59 (1993), pp. 217-227. 157. “Les Églises orientales non syriennes”, Mus 106 (1993), pp. 97-117. 158. “Les Actes de Prochore en arménien: un nouveau témoin”, in: Henning LEHMANN and Jos J. S. WEITENBERG (eds.), I. Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools, coll. «Acta Jutlandica» 69.1 «Humanities Series» 68 (Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag 1993), pp. 86-91. 159. “Une exégèse rare d’Isaïe 29. 11-12 conservée en arménien”, in: Christoph BURCHARD (ed.), Armenia and the Bible. Papers Presented to the International Symposium Held at Heidelberg July 16-19 1990, coll. «University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies» 12 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 73-78.

xlvi

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

160. “La Sagesse de Balavar à travers la tradition géorgienne”, in: René LEBRUN (éd.), Sagesses de l’Orient ancien et chrétien. Conférences I.R.O.C. 1991-1992, coll. «Sciences Théologiques et Religieuses», 2 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1993), pp. 229-242. 161. “Un panégyrique de Théodore le Studite pour la fête liturgique des sièges de Constantinople”, in: Ephrem CARR, Stefano PARENTI, Abraham-Andreas THIERMEYER and Elena VELKOVSKA (Eds.), ÅÕËÏÃÇÌÁ, Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, SJ, coll. «Studia Anselmiana» 110, «Analecta liturgica» 17 (Rome: Sant’Anselmo, 1993), pp. 525-536. 162. “Le manifeste de Jean III le Nicéote en 505 dans le Livre des Lettres arménien”, REArm 24 (1993), pp. 27-46. 163. “Signification d’un court traité basilien conservé en arménien”, in: L. HOVSEPIAN, N. PARNASSIAN and S. SIMONIAN (eds.), The Second International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics (21-23 September 1987): Proceedings, T. 2 (Yerevan: Armenian Academy Press, 1993), pp. 181-187. 164. “Les versions syriaques du panégyrique de Grégoire le Thaumaturge”, in: Shafiq ABOUZAYD (ed.), A Festschrift for Dr. Sebastian P. Brock, in: ARAM Periodical 5:1&2 (1993), pp. 537-553.

1994 165. “Pierre l’Ibère et Denys l’Aréopagite”, in: Elguja KHINTIBIDZE (ed.), ëäíðä ñàäðçøíðèñí éàðçåäêíêíâèóðè ñèëîíæèóëèñ ëàñàêäáè / Proceedings of the Second International Symposium in Kartvelian Studies (Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press, 1994), pp. 167-177. 166. “Invention des reliques comme attribut impérial: la tunique du Christ à Moscou et son symbolisme”, in: Pierangelo CATALANO (a cura di), Roma fuori di Roma: Istituzioni e imagini (Roma, 21 aprile 1985), coll. «Da Roma alla Terza Roma. Documenti e studi», Studi – V (Roma: Università degli studi “La Sapienza”, [1994]), pp. 225-243. 167. “Neuf listes d’Apôtres orientales”, Aug 34 (1994), pp. 109-199. 168. “La lettre de Justinien pour la fête de l’Hypapante en 562”, AB 112 (1994), pp. 65-84. 169. “Citations apollinaristes conservées en arménien dans la lettre de Sahak III Dzoroporetsi”, OCP 60 (1994), pp. 41-67. 170. “La légende des sept dormants d’Ephèse selon le codex syriaque N. S. 4 de Saint-Pétersbourg”, in: René LAVENANT (ed.), VI. Symposium Syriacum, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity, 30 August - 2 September 1992, coll. OCA 247 (Rome, 1994), pp. 189-200. 171. “Ein unbekannter Traktat ad Thalassium von Maximus dem Bekenner”, in: Cornelia WUNSCH (Hg.), XXV. Deutscher Orientalistentag, Vorträge, München 8.-13.4.1991, coll. «Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Suppl.» 10 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1994), pp. 75-82.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xlvii

172. “La légende des apôtres Pierre, Jean et Paul à Antioche”, OrChr 78 (1994), pp. 64-85. 173. “La question 66 du «Ad Thalassium» géorgien, in: Antoon SCHOORS et Peter VAN DEUN, Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii, coll. «Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta» 60 (Leuven: Peeters, 1994), pp. 329-337. 174. “L’homélie «ÑðÑðÛé ÑðÑðÑÞèñ», ses attributions et ses métamorphoses”, °Ñíß. °ÑåÑÓÛïÑßÑæ ÑäíÑÙÕðÙ [Hask. Hayagitakan amsat’ert’ (Antélias, Liban)], NS. 6 (1994), pp. 44-66. 175. “Die sogenannte Konziliengeschichte des Johannes von Odzun (717728)”, AHC 26 (1994), pp. 31-60. 176. “óãàáìíñ ëðàåàêçàåè. øäãâäìèêíáà ãà ñòðóéòóðà [Mravalthavi d’Udabno: composition et structure]”, in: à. øàìèûèñà ãà æ. ÿóëáóðèûèñ ðäãàõúèèç [Akaki SHANIDZE et Zourab DZHUMBURIDZE (eds.)], óãàáìíñ ëðàåàêçàåè [Mravalthavi d’Udabno] (çáèêèñè [Tbilissi], 1994), pp. 37-42.

1995 177. “Movses Xorenac’i et le Girk’ Eakac’ ”, REArm 25 (1994-1995), pp. 109-124. 178. “La portée politico-religieuse des visions pour la conversion des peuples”, Revue de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 53 (1995), pp. 87-104. 179. “Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691 et quelques dossiers annexes au Quinisexte”, in: Georges NEDUNGATT and Michael FEATHERSTONE (eds.), The Council in Trullo revisited, coll. «ÊáíïíéêÜ» 6 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995), pp. 323-454. 180. “Les Actes syriaques de Philippe à Carthagène en version arabe”, OrChr 79 (1995), pp. 120-145. 181. “La Vie de saint Martinianus en version syriaque”, ParOr 20 (1995), pp. 237-269.

1996 182. “Justinian II. im Synaxar und das Konzil in Trullo”, AHC 27/8 (19951996), pp. 103-108. 183. “Conférence de M. Michel van Esbroeck, directeur d’études invité”, Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études 104 (1995-1996), pp. 379-382. 184. “L’Invention de la Croix sous l’empereur Héraclius”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du Ium Symposium syro-arabicum (Kaslik, septembre 1995), II. Etudes arabes chrétiennes (1), in : ParOr 21 (1996), pp. 21-46. 185. “Bizancio visto desde Oriente: de Marciano a Mauricio. Teología y política”, in: Domingo RAMOS-LISSÓN, Marcelo MERINO et Albert VICIANO (Eds.), El Diálogo Fe-Cultura en la antigüedad Cristiana, «Colección His-

xlviii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

toria de la Iglesia» 26 (Pamplona: Coedición de Ediciones Eunate y Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, 1996), pp. 227-238. 186. “Perpectives pour l’étude des Eglises du Caucase”, in: Robert TAFT (ed.), The Christian East: Its Institutions and its Thought. A Critical Reflection. Papers of the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th Anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, 30 May - 5 June 1993, coll. OCA 251 (Rome, 1996), pp. 129-144. 187. “Von welcher Kirche hängt die georgische Kirche geschichtlich ab?”, Mitteilungen der Berliner Georgischen Gesellschaft 5 (1996), pp. 1-12. 188. “The Memra on the Parrot by Isaac of Antioch”, The Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1996), pp. 464-476. 189. “Les trois formes de l’antichalcédonisme de 451 à 553 et ses répercussions dans le Caucase”, in: Ä. Å. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ (ðåä.) [Dmitri AFINOGENOV, Alexei MURAVIEV (eds.)], Òðàäèöèè è íàñëåäèå Õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà / Traditions and Heritage of the Christian East (Ìîñêâà: Èíäðèê, 1996), pp. 382-398. 190. “Lazique, Mingrélie, Svanéthie et Aphkhazie du IVe au IXe siècle”, in: Il Caucaso: ciernera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (s. IX-XI). Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo [CISAM], Spoleto, 20-26 avril 1995, coll. «Atti delle Settimane di CISAM» XLIII (Spoleto: CISAM, 1996), pp. 195-218. 191. “La Vie de saint Jean Higoumène de Saint-Serge par Joseph le Skeuophylax”, OrChr 80 (1996), pp. 153-166. 192. “Les relations entre Byzance et le Caucase”, in: Ihor ŠEVÈENKO, Gennady G. LITAVRIN (Editors-in-Chief), Walter K. HANAK (Corresponding Editor), Acts. XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Moscow, 1991. Selected papers: main and communications. Vol. II: History, Archaeology, Religion, Theology (Shepherdstown: Byzantine Studies Press, Inc., 1996 [publié en 1998]), pp. 148-159.

1997 193. “Les métamorphoses du Girk’ Eakac’ ”, REArm 26 (1996-1997), pp. 237-245. 194. “La postérité des villes fortifiées de Théodose”, in: Jean-Pierre MAHÉ et Robert W. THOMSON (eds.), From Byzantium to Iran. Armenian studies in Honour of Nina Garsoïan, coll. «Columbia University program in Armenian studies, Suren D. Fesjian academic publications» 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 361-378. 195. “Le discours de Jean Damascène pour la Dédicace de l’Anastasis”, OCP 63 (1997), pp. 53-98. 196. “La triple préface de Phocas”, in: Ysabelle DE ANDIA (éd.), Denys l’Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident. Actes du colloque international, Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994, coll. «Collection des Études Augus-

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

xlix

tiniennes. Série Antiquité» 151 (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1997), pp. 167-186. 197. “The Aphthartodocetic Edict of Justinian and Its Armenian Background”, in: Elizabeth LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia Patristica. Vol. XXIII — Late Greek Fathers, Latin Fathers after Nicaea, Nachleben of the Fathers, Index Patrum and Index Auctorum of Vols. XIX-XXIII (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 573-585. 198. “¢åèòÖÑæÔÑñÛ àÑåßÑßÑæ ôÑâÑôÑÙåèòæØ íßíÑñ µèòíïÛæÛÑæèí ¢-Ûñ äÛæéÕî ¬Õîèæ £”,§ëäÛÑÞÛæ [Etchmiadzine (Etchmiadzine)] (1997)¹ 6-7, pp. 170-180 [Traduction arménienne de “La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien II à Léon III” parue avant l’original français; cf. no 208].

1998 199. “La Vie arabe de Théodose le Cénobiarque”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du 4e Congrès International d’Etudes Arabes Chrétiennes (Cambridge, septembre 1992), in: ParOr 18 (1998), pp. 45-73. 200. “Le monachisme syriaque”, in: Le monachisme syriaque aux premiers siècles de l’Eglise (IIe-début VIIe siècle), I. Textes français, coll. «Patrimoine Syriaque. Actes du colloque» V (Antélias [Liban]: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Religieuses et Orientales (CERO), 1998), pp. 71-80. 201. “La légende d’Apa Jeremias et Apa Johannes et les fragments Chester Beatty Copte 829”, Orientalia [Roma] 67 (1998), pp. 1-63. 202. “L’opposition entre Pierre l’Ibère et Pierre le Foulon (482-491)”, Caucasica. The Journal of Caucasian Studies [Tbilissi] 1 (1998), pp. 60-67. 203. “Les trois croix dans le Kartlis Mokcevay”, Caucasica. The Journal of Caucasian Studies [Tbilissi] 2 (1998), pp. 70-76. 204. “Actes syriaques d’André attribués à Ephrem”, in: René LAVENANT (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII. Uppsala University, Department of Asian and African Languages, 11-14 August 1996, coll. OCA 256 (Rome, 1998), pp. 85-105. 205. “Die Legenden in der Geschichtschreibung”, in: Brigitte SCHRADE et Thomas AHBE (Hgg.), Georgien im Spiegel seiner Kultur und Geschichte. Zweites Deutsch-Georgisches Sympo-sium, 9. bis 11. Mai 1997, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin: Berliner Georgische Gesellschaft e. V., 1998), pp. 84-87. 206. “Les versions orientales de la Bible: une orientation biblio-graphique”, in: Jože KRAŠOVEC (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible = Interpretacija Svetega pisma = Interprétation de la Bible = Interpretation der Bibel: International symposium on the interpretation of the Bible on the occasion of the publication of the new Slovenian translation of the Bible, 17-20 September 1996. Ljubljana, Slovenia, coll. «Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series» 289 (Ljubliana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 399-509.

l

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

207. “Ein Jahrtausend antichalkedonischer Literatur”, AHC 39 (1998), pp. 146-187. 208. “La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien II à Léon III”, StsOC 2,2 (1998), pp. 111-120. [Traduction arménienne: cf. no 198.] 209. “La Vie de saint Jean le Pauvre ou le Calybite en version géorgienne”, OrChr 82 (1998), pp. 153-183. 210. “La place de Jérusalem dans la conversion de la Géorgie”, in: Tamila MGALOBLISHVILI (ed.), Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus, coll. «Iberica Caucasica» 1 (Richmond: Curzon Press 1998), pp. 59-74.

1999 211. “Le martyre géorgien de Grégoire le Thaumaturge et sa date”, Mus 112 (1999), pp. 129-185. 212. “Le discours dogmatique de Grégoire Vkayaser”, ÕÂ N.S. 1 (7) (1999), pp. 38-57. 213. “Un discours inédit de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les icônes”, OCP 65 (1999), pp. 15-51. 214. “Les saints fous de Dieu”, in: Le monachisme syriaque du VIIe siècle à nos jours, coll. «Patrimoine Syriaque. Actes du collo-que» VI (Antélias [Liban]: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Religieuses et Orientales (CERO), 1999), pp. 131-138. 215. “A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals, Attributed to Saint Ephraim”, Hugoye, 2,1 (1999). Voir: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol2No1/ HV2N1Esbroeck.html 216. “Hélène à Edesse et la Croix”, in: Gerrit Jan REININK et A. C. KLUGKIST (eds.), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Prof. Han J. W. Drijvers, coll. «Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta» 89 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), pp. 107-115. 217. “Koptische Fragmente der Apa-Jeremias-Legende”, in: Stefen EMMEL, Martin KRAUSE, Siegfried G. RICHTER , Sofia SCHATEN (Hgg.), Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit, Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20-26 Juli 1996, Band 2. Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt, coll. «Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients», Band 6/2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verl., 1999), pp. 114-116. 218. “Une collection de 35 apocryphes apostoliques”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du 5e Congrès International d’Etudes Arabes Chrétiennes (Lund, août 1996), tome 1, in: ParOr 24 (1999), pp. 179-199.

2000 219. “Un Dialogue entre Basile et Grégoire conservé en géorgien”, ÕÂ N.S. 2 (8) (2000), pp. 56-101. 220. “Le grand dieu svane Phusnabuasdia et saint Boa d’Hiérapolis”, OrChr 84 (2000), pp. 101-116.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

li

221. “Le couvent de Sainte-Croix de Jérusalem selon les sources géorgiennes”, StsOC 4,2 (2000), pp. 139-170. 222. “Zwei armenische Listen mit Konzilien bis zum Jahre 726”, AHC 32 (2000), pp. 264-302.

2001 223. Alexandre à Amasée: un épisode peu remarqué, Mus 114 (2001), pp. 141-151. 224. “Actes d’André d’après la tradition attribuée à Ephrem”, ÕÂ N.S. 3 (9) (2001), pp. 106-151. 225. “L’écorchement rituel aghouanais”, ÕÂ N.S. 3 (9) (2001), pp. 389-402. 226. “L’encyclique de Komitas et la réponse de mar Maroutha (617)”, OrChr 85 (2001), pp. 162-175. 227. “La pénitence de Loth auprès d’Abraham au site de l’église géorgienne de la Croix”, StsOC 5,1 (2001), pp. 57-92. 228. “Some earlier features in the Life of the Virgin”, Marianum. Ephemerides Mariologiae 63 (2001) 297-308.

2002 229. “Die Stellung der Märtyrerin Rhipsime in der Geschichte der Bekehrung des Kaukasus”, in: Werner SEIBT (Hg.) Die Christianisierung des Kaukasus. The Christianization of the Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Albania). Referate des Interna-tionalen Symposions (Wien, 9.-12. Dezember 1999), coll. «Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik», Band IX. (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), pp. 171-180. 230. “L’Année régulière de 364 jours dans la controverse au sujet de Chalcédoine”, in: Madeleine PETIT et Basile LOURIÉ (éds.), Mémorial Annie Jaubert (1912-1980), in: ÕÂ N.S. 4 (10) (2002) [publié 2006], pp. 465-469. 231. “Traité acéphale arménien sur les trois premiers Conciles et son attribution probable à Jean Mayravanetsi”, OCP 68 (2002), pp. 89-174.

2003 232. “Der armenische Ikonoklasmus”, OrChr 87 (2003), pp. 144-153.

2004 233. “Bemerkungen zur syrischen Transitus-Literatur”, in: Martin TAMCKE (Hg.), Syriaca II. Beiträge zum 3. deutschen Syrologen-Symposium in Vierzehnheiligen 2002, coll. «Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte», Band 33 (Münster—Hamburg—Berlin—Wien—London: LIT Verlag, 2004), pp. 357-370. 234. “The Syriac Versions of the Panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa on Gregory the Wonderworker and the life of the same”, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004), pp. 1-13.

lii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

235. “On the Historical Background of the Early Sources concerning the Churches in the Caucasian Mountains”, in: Carl G. FÜRST, Richard POTZ (Hgg.), Die Kaukasischen Kirchen, in: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen, Kanon XVIII (Egling an der Paar: Verl. Roman Kovar, 2004), pp. 1-16. 236. “Origine et portée de l’attribut marial «Trapeza» dans la 3e homélie sur la Dormition de Jean Damascène”, in: Ysabel DE ANDIA und Peter Leander HOFRICHTER (Hgg.), Christus bei dem Vätern. PRO ORIENTE-Studientagung über „Christus bei den griechischen und lateinischen Kirchenvätern im ersten Jahrtausend“ in Wien (7.-9. Juni 2001), Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens, coll. «Tyrolia-Reihe» Bd. XXVII, «Patristische Tagungen» Bd. 1 (Wien: Verl. Tyrolia, 2004), pp. 129-138.

2005 237. “L’implication eucharistique dans le milieu antichalcédonien”, in: István PERCZEL, Réka FORRAI and György GERÉBY (eds.), The Eucharist in Theology and Philosophy. Issues of Doctrinal History in East and West from the Patristic Age to the Reformation, coll. «Ancient and Medieval Philosophy» de Wulf-Mansion Centre. Series I, XXXV (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. 67-79.

2006 238. “L’alternance politico-religieuse de Justinien II à Léon III”, in: Basile LOURIÉ, Alexey MOURAVIEV, Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934-2003), in: Scrinium 2 (2006), pp. 3-6.

C. ARTICLES DE DICTIONNAIRES OU DíENCYCLOP≈:DIES18 CE 239. “Amphilocius of Iconium”, in: CE (1991), I, pp. 114, 116. 240. “Assumption”, in: CE (1991), I, pp. 289-293. 241. “Athanasius of Clysma”, in: CE (1991), I, pp. 304-306. 242. “Catena, Arabic Tradition of”, in: CE (1991), II, p. 475. 243. “Cosmas and Damian, Saints”, in: CE (1991), II, pp. 638-640. 244. “Ephraem Syrus, Saint”, in: CE (1991), III, pp. 963-964. Je n’ai examiné que le LTK3 (1993-2001), le DPAC (1983) = DECA (1990) et la CE (1991). [Deux articles du RAC et cinq articles du ML ont été incorporés dans la bibliographie par MvE lui-même. Les éditeurs du volume présent ont examiné en outre l’EAE. — B. L., A. M.] 18

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

liii

245. “Epimachus of Pelusium, Saint”, in: CE (1991), III, pp. 965-967. 246. “Eusignius, Saint”, in: CE (1991), IV, pp. 1071-1072. 247. “Hilaria, Saint”, in: CE (1991), IV, pp. 1230-1232. 248. “John Colobos, Saint, Arabic Tradition of”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 13611362. 249. “Judas Cyriacus, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1377-1378. 250. “Leontius of Tripoli, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1442-1444. 251. “Maximus and Domitius, Saints”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1576-1578. 252. “Melito of Sardis”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1585-1586. 253. “Mercurius of Caesarea, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1592-1594. 254. “Michael, the Archangel, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1616-1620. 255. “Philotheus of Antioch, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VI, pp. 1960-1961. 256. “Pidjimi, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VI, pp. 1966-1967. 257. “Proclus, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VI, pp. 2016-2019. 258. “Severian of Jabalah, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2122-2123. 259. “Sophia, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2143-2144. 260. “Theognosta, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2243-2244. 261. “Three Hebrews in the Furnace”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2257-2259. 262. “Victor Stratelates, Saint, Coptic Tradition of”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2303-2304.

DPAC / DECA 263. “Abraham de Beth Rabban”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 16-17 = DECA (1990), p. 10. 264. “Acace de Séleucie”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 24 = DECA (1990), pp. 15-16. 265. “Aithalla d’Edesse”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 111 = DECA (1990), pp. 60-61. 266. “Anastase Magundat”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 185 = DECA (1990), p. 115. 267. “Apophtegmata Patrum”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 291-292 = DECA (1990), pp. 192-193. 268. “Arabie, 1. Evangélisation”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 304-305 = DECA (1990), pp. 202-203. 269. “Arabie, 3. Langue et Littérature”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 306-308 = DECA (1990), pp. 203-205. 270. “Athanase Gammâl”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 433 = DECA (1990), pp. 291-292. 271. “Babaï Bar Nesibnayé, le Petit”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 463-464 = DECA (1990), p. 327. 272. “Daniel le Stylite”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 890 = DECA (1990), p. 626. 273. “Dorothée de Thessalonique”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1039 = DECA (1990), p. 727.

liv

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

274. “Géorgienne (Langue, Littérature)”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1459-1462 = DECA (1990), pp. 1039-1040. 275. “Innocent de Maronée”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1784 = DECA (1990), p. 1226. 276. “Isaac d’Amid”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1828 = DECA (1990), p. 1247. 277. “Isaac d’Antioche”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1828 = DECA (1990), pp. 1247-1248. 278. “Isaac d’Edesse”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1829 = DECA (1990), p. 1248. 279. “Isaac le Persan”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1830-1831 = DECA (1990), p. 1249. 280. “Ishobokht de Rev-Ardashir”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1832 = DECA (1990), pp. 1250-1251. 281. “Malabar”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2069 = DECA (1990), pp. 15221523. 282. “Moïse le Sarracène”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2325 = DECA (1990), p. 1660. 283. “Octateuque de Clément”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2548-2549 = DECA (1990), p. 1794. 284. “Pâpâ Bar Aggai”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2638 = DECA (1990), p. 1879.

EAE 285. “ úAbiyä Égziù ”, in: EAE I (2003) 42.

LTK 286. “ ‘Abdallâh ibn al-Fadºl”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17. 287. “ ‘Abdallâh ibn atº-Tº aiyib”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17. 288. “ ‘Abdallâh ibn Zakarîyâ ibn Musâ”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17. 289. “ ‘Anânîschô”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 595. 290. “Aba I. II., ostsyr. Katholikos”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 8-9. 291. “Abchasien”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 16. 292. “Abdas”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17-18. 293. “Abdischo”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 19. 294. “Abido v. Edessa”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 49-50. 295. “Abido v. Nekresi”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 50. 296. “Abo v. Tiflis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 60-61. 297. “Abraham d. Bekenner”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 67. 298. “Abraham de Georgiis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 69. 299. “Abraham Ecchellensis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 68. 300. “Abraham Petrus I. Ardzivian”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 71-72. 301. “Abraham v. Aghbatan”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 66.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

302. “Abraham v. Arbela”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 66. 303. “Abraham v. Kaschkar”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 69. 304. “Abraham v. Natpar, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 70. 305. “Abraham v. Qidun”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 70-71. 306. “Abraham, Mamikonier”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 70. 307. “Abu ’l-Barakât”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 105. 308. “Abû Sº âlihº”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 105-106. 309. “Abuna”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 106. 310. “Achmîm”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 114. 311. “Adana”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 143-144. 312. “Agapios v. Hierapolis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 224. 313. “Agathangelos”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 225-226. 314. “Aghbak”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 233-234. 315. “Akepsimas v. Hº naita”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 288. 316. “Albanien (Aghuanien)”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 321. 317. “Aleppiner”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 357. 318. “Aleppo”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 357-358. 319. “Ananias v. Mokk‘”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 594. 320. “Ananias v. Narek”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 594. 321. “Ananias v. Schirak”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 594-595. 322. “Andreas v. Longjumeau”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 631. 323. “Angamali”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 645. 324. “Ani”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 676. 325. “Antiochien (Orontes) II”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 769. 326. “Antiochos v. Mar Saba”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 770. 327. “Antipater v. Bostra”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 774. 328. “Antonianer I-III”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 782. 329. “Antonios v. Tagrit”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 793. 330. “Antoniuskloster”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 794. 331. “Arabien VI”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 906-907. 332. “Aramäer V”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 914. 333. “Arbela”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 938. 334. “Ardschil”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 953. 335. “Arewordiq”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 956. 336. “Armenien I-VI”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 999-1004. 337. “Artvin”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1048. 338. “Aschot I. III.”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1060. 339. “Assemani”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1086-1087. 340. “Athanasios I. Gammàlâ”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1126. 341. “Azarian, Aristakes”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1325. 342. “Baanes”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1331. 343. “Bâbai bar Nesºîbnâyç”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1331-1332.

lv

lvi

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

344. “Babai d. Große”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1331. 345. “Babgen”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1332. 346. “Babikian, Adeodat”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1332-1333. 347. “Babylon III-IV”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1335-1336. 348. “Bagdad”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1351-1352. 349. “Bagratiden”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1352-1353. 350. “Balai”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1364. 351. “Barba’schmin”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1403. 352. “Barhº adbschabba”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 4-5. 353. “Barsabbaeus”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 33. 354. “Barsºauma d. Nackte”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 34. 355. “Barsºauma v. Nisibis”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 34. 356. “Barsºauma, Archimandrit”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 33-34. 357. “Bartholomaeus de Podio”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 44. 358. “Bartholomaios v. Edessa”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 41-42. 359. “Bartholomiten”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 46-47. 360. “Basileios v. Kilikien”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 70. 361. “Bâwîtº”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 99. 362. “Berekischo”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 244. 363. “Bermudes, João”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 263. 364. “Bochtischo”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 544. 365. “Bodbe”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 546. 366. “Candida”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 920. 367. “Chatsitsarier”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1031. 368. “Chelaschwili, Jona”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1032. 369. “Chosrov Andzewac‘i”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1098. 370. “Damaskus 5”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1384. 371. “David d. Erbauer”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 41. 372. “David v. Bolnisi”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 40. 373. “Demetre I.”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 80. 374. “Dschuanscher”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 384. 375. “Dschulfa”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 384. 376. “Dumbadze, Jakob”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 400. 377. “Dvin”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 417. 378. “Elischç”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 604-605. 379. “Ephräm d. Kleine”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 708. 380. “Erzurum”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 857-858. 381. “Etschmiadzin”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 941-942. 382. “Eudaimon I. Èhetidze”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 976-977. 383. “Eugenios, Mönch”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 980. 384. “Eustathios v. Mzcheta”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1015. 385. “Eustochios v. Jerusalem”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1017.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

lvii

386. “Euthymios Hagioreites”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1020-1021. 387. “Eznik v. Kolb”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1143-1144. 388. “Ezr”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1144. 389. “Faustos v. Byzanz”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1199. 390. “Georgios Mertschule”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 482. 391. “Giwt”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 660. 392. “Golinduch”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 829. 393. “Gregorios Arscharunik‘”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 998. 394. “Gregorios II. Martyrophilos”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1003. 395. “Gregorios III. Pahlawuni”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1010. 396 “Gregorios IV. Tlay”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1026. 397. “Gregorios Magistros”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1003. 398. “Gregorios v. Chandsta”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 999. 399. “Gregorios v. Narek”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1004. 400. “Gregorios v. Tat‘ew”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1026. 401. “Hayrik”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1224. 402. “Hilaria, angeblich Tochter des Ks. Zenon”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 97. 403. “Isbozetes”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 612. 404. “Johannes der Sarkawag”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 965. 405. “Johannes Rufus”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 963. 406. “Johannes v. Bolnisi”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 885. 407. “Johannes v. K‘rna”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 929. 408. “Johannes v. Orotn”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 941. 409. “Johannes XV. Bar Ma‘dani”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 882. 410. “Johannes Zosime”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 978. 411. “Josef v. Hotoc‘im”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1007. 412. “Julianos v. Tabia”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1081. 413. “Kâlçb Ella Asºbehºâbisi LZN”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1141. 414. “Ketevan”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1413. 415. “Komitas”, in: LTK 6 (1997), col. 211-212. 416. “Qardaq”, in: LTK 8 (1999), col. 751.

ML 417. “Arabische christlicher Literatur”, in: ML 1 (1988), pp. 211-214. 418. “Armenische Literatur”, in: ML 1 (1988) pp. 237-239. 419. “Georgien”, in: ML 2 (1989), pp. 618-622. 420. “Kopten”, in: ML 3 (1991), pp. 641-645. 421. “Syrien”, in: ML 6 (1994), pp. 344-349.

RAC 422. “Agathangelos”, in: RAC, suppl. 1/2 (1985), pp. 239-248. 423. “Albanien”, in: RAC, suppl. 1/2 (1985), pp. 257-266.

lviii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

D. PUBLICATIONS POSTHUMES 19 · (¿´ PARAI TRE) 424. “La Theotokos véritable arche d’alliance”, in: Mother of God, an International Conference, National Hellenic research foundation Athens, 1214 January 200120 . 425. “Die Quelle der Himmelfahrt Muhammeds”, in: Akten des XXVIII. Deutschen Orientalistentages. Bamberg, 26.-30. (März, 2001). 426. “Parallelism Between Caucasian and Chinese Cross Representations”, in: First International Conference “Research on Nes-torianism in China”, Salzburg 20-26 May 2003. (À paraître dans la collection “Monumenta Serica”.) 427. “Nino, Théognosta et Eustathe: un dossier hagiographique oriental des IVe-Ve siècles”, ÕÂ N.S. 5 (11) (?).

E. EXEMPLES DES QUELQUES COMPTES-RENDUS IMPORTANTS Discussion sur Joseph et Aseneth: : 428. [cr de M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth (1968), et de Ch. Burchard, Untersuchungen zu „Joseph und Aseneth“ (1965)], AB 86 (1968), pp. 404410. 429. [cr de R. Sh. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph (1998)], XB 2 (8) (2000), pp. 452-454.

´Un pan de la pensee: neo: platonicienneª dans la litter: ature copte dite gnostique: 430. [cr de P.-H. Poirier, Le tonnaire intellect parfait (NH VI, 2) (1995)], AB 115 (1997), pp. 384-385.

Líhistoire de líantichalced: onisme armen: ien avant le VIIIe sie'cle: 431. [cr de N. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (1999)], XB N.S. 2 (8) (2000) 445-452.

19 Cette partie de la bibliographie est très aléatoire: elle est basée sur des souvenirs personnels et des recherches personnelles. 20 Nous ne connaissons que le titre de la communication de MvE d’après le programme de la conférence. Les actes de la conférence n’ont été jamais publiés. — B. L., A. M.

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

lix

F. INDEX DES NOMS HISTORIQUES21 úAbiyä Égziù — 285 ‘Abdallâh ibn al-Fadº l — 286 ‘Abdallâh ibn at -º Tº aiyib — 287 ‘Abdallâh ibn Zakarîyâ ibn Mus⠗ 288 ‘Anânîðô — 289 «Ephrem grec» — 87 «Mari», adressât d’Ibas et de Dorothée — 109, 118 Aaronites — 122, 163 Aba I, Catholicos — 290 Abdas — 292 Abdicho — 293 Abido d’Édèsse — 294 Abido de Nekresi — 295 Abo de Tiflis — 296 Abraham (biblique) — 227 Abraham d’Aghbatan — 301 Abraham d’Arbela — 302 Abraham de Beth Rabban — 263 Abraham de Georgiis — 298 Abraham de Kachkar — 303 Abraham de Natpar — 304 Abraham de Qidun — 305 Abraham Ecchellensis — 299 Abraham le Confesseur — 51, 297 Abraham Pierre I Ardzivian — 300 Abraham, Mamikonien — 306 Abu ’l-Barakât — 307 Abû Sº âlihº — 308 Acace de Séleucie — 264 Achmîm — 310 Achote I — 338 Adana — 311 Agapios d’Hiérapolis — 312 Agathange — 21, 48, 52, 93, 95, 313, 316, 422 Aghbak — 314 Aghouanie (Albanie de Caucase) — 225, 423 L’index contient les noms personnels et géographiques anciens ainsi que les noms des fêtes et des objets de culte qui se trouvent ou sont sous-entendus dans les titres des publications de MvE, munis des numéros correspondants dans la liste bibliographique. En outre, l’index contient quelques rubriques plus générales, telles que «Bible» ou «Église (telle ou telle)». Les noms des Églises dans l’index correspondent aussi bien à l’histoire de ces Églises qu’à leurs traditions hagiographiques, littéraires etc. Les nom des Églises ne sont indiqués que dans les cas où la précision des noms individuels n’est pas possible. 21

lx

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Aithalla d’Edesse — 265 Akepsimas de Hº naita — 315 Aleppo — 317, 318 Alexandre de Chypre — 58 Alexandre le Grand — 223 Amasée — 223 Ammonius, philosophe — 142 Amphiloque d’Iconium — 73, 239 Anania de Mokk‘ — 319 Anania de Narek — 320 Anania Shirakatsi — 99, 321 Anastase Magundat — 266 André de Longjumeau — 322 André, apôtre — 204, 215, 224 Angamali — 323 Ani — 324 Annonciation — 16, 120 Anonyme: évêque, l’auteur d’un épître sur les chrétiens d’Arabie — 140 Anotoine, saint, monastère de — 330 Antioche — 172, 325 Antioche de Mar Saba — 326 Antipatre de Bostra — 327 Antoine de Tagrit — 329 Antoine I, Catholicos — 66 Aphkhazie — 190, 291 Apocryphes, arabes — 41 Apocryphes, géorgiens — 86 Apollinaire de Laodicée — 169 Apophthegmata Patrum — 37, 267 Apôtres — 15, 57, 88, 167, 218 Apulée — 112 Arabie — 268, 269, 331 Araméens — 332 Arbela — 333 Archanges — 18 Ardchil — 334 Arethas de Nejran — 35 Arewordiq — 335 Arménie — 198, 208, 336 Arsène Iqaltoeli — 94 Artvin — 337 Asclepius — 112 Assemani — 339 Athanase d’Alexandrie — 117 Athanase de Clysma — 35, 241 Athanase Gammâl — 270, 340 Azarian, Aristakes — 341

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

Baanes — 342 Bâbai bar Nesºîbnâyç — 271, 343 Babai le Grand — 344 Babgen — 345 Babikian, Adeodat — 346 Babylon — 347 Bagdad — 348 Bagratides — 349 Balai — 350 Balavar — 160 Barba’chmin — 351 Barhºadbchabba — 352 Barlaam et Joasaph — 160 Barsºauma de Nisibis — 355 Barsºauma le Nu — 354 Barsºauma, archimandrite — 356 Barsabbaeus — 353 Barsabée de Jérusalem — 5 Barthélémy d’Édesse — 358 Barthélémy, apôtre — 89, 90 Bartholomaeus de Podio — 357 Basile de Césarée — 3, 126 Basile de Césarée, pseudo- — 31, 122, 149, 163, 219 Basile de Cylicie — 360 Bâwît º — 361 Berekicho — 362 Bermudes, João — 363 Bible, exégèse — 159, 242 Bible, Septante — 45 Bible, théologie — 62, 75, 76, 110 Bible, version géorgienne — 23 Bible, versions orientales — 206 Boa d’Hiérapolis — 220 Bochtischo — 364 Bodbe — 365 Byzance — 192, 194, 198, 208 Candida — 366 Cannibales — 215 Carthagène — 180 Chelaschvili, Jona — 368 Chosrov Andzewac‘i — 369 Christ — 5, 76 Christ, tunique de — 166 Èinka — 154 Côme et Damien — 72, 74, 77, 243 Constantin le Grand — 59 Constantin-Cyrille, apôtre des Slaves — 114

lxi

lxii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Constantinople — 47, 97, 127, 161 Croix — 24, 58, 92, 184, 203, 213, 216, 227 Cyrille de Scythopolis — 113 Damas — 370 Daniel le Stylite — 272 David de Bolnisi — 372 David le Constructeur — 371 Dédicace de l’Anastasis, fête — 195 Demetre I — 373 Denys d’Alexandrie — 91 Denys l’Aréopagite — 117, 156, 165, 196 Dhu Nuwas — 140 Dimanche — 137, 149 Djuancher — 374 Djulfa — 375 Dormition de la Vierge — 10, 25, 27, 31, 42, 70, 78, 104, 107, 125, 143, 144, 147, 153, 233, 240 Dorothée comte de Palestine — 109 Dorothée de Thessalonique — 273 Dumbadze, Jacques — 376 Dvin — 377 Édesse — 216 Église Arménienne — 11, 49, 67, 89, 90, 97, 98, 100, 125, 155, 197, 222, 231, 232, 367, 418, 431 Église Copte — 420 Église de Chine — 426 Église de Perse — 51 Église Géorgienne — 4, 34, 39, 60, 63, 64, 83, 187, 203, 210, 221, 227, 419 Églises — 178 Églises antichalcédoniennes — 207, 230, 237 Églises arabophones — 14, 53, 82, 136, 242, 417 Églises du Caucase — 186, 189, 190, 192, 229, 235, 426 Églises orientales — 150, 157 Églises syriacophones — 134, 200, 421 Elischç — 378 Ephrem le Petit — 379 Ephrem le Syrien — 204, 215, 224, 244 Épimaque de Péluse — 12, 13, 79, 245 Épiphane de Chypre — 6, 7, 46 Erzurum — 380 Éschatologie — 147 Etchmiadzine — 381 Éthiopie — 35 Étienne, protomartyr — 92 Eudaimon I Èhetidze — 382 Eugène, moine — 383

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

Eunome — 73, 126 Eusèbe Pamphile — 104 Eusignius — 246 Eustathe d’Antioche — 81 Eustathe de Mzcheta — 384 Eustathe Placide — 427 Eustochios de Jerusalem — 385 Euthyme l’Hagiorite — 38, 133, 386 Eznik de Kolb — 33, 387 Ezr — 388 Faustos de Byzance — 389 Florence — 148 George, martyr — 20, 50 Georges l’Athonite — 85 Georges Mertchule — 390 Géorgie — 130, 141, 274 Germain de Constantinople — 213 Girk’ Eakac’ — 177, 193 Giwt — 391 Golinduch — 392 Gordius de Césarée — 44 Grégoire Archarunik — 393 Grégoire de Chandsta — 398 Grégoire de Narek — 399 Grégoire de Nazianze — 115 Grégoire de Nazianze, pseudo- — 219 Grégoire de Nysse — 40, 126, 139, 234 Grégoire de Tat‘ew — 400 Grégoire II Martyrophilos — 394 Grégoire III Pahlawuni — 395 Grégoire IV Tlay — 396 Grégoire l’Illuminateur — 19, 95, 135, 138 Grégoire le Thaumaturge — 40, 164, 211, 234 Grégoire Magistre — 397 Grégoire Vkayaser — 212 Hayrik — 401 Hélène, impératrice — 216 Héraclide de Chypre — 102 Héraclius, empereur — 47, 184 Hésychius de Jérusalem — 32, 80 Hilaria — 247, 402 Hippolyte de Rome — 33, 95 Histoire euthymiaque — 42 Homélie «ÑðÑðÛé ÑðÑðÑÞèñ» — 174 Hypapante — 168

lxiii

lxiv

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Ibas d’Édesse — 118 Ichobokht de Rev-Ardachir — 280 Icônes — 121, 213, 232 Innocent de Maronée — 275 Iran — 194 Isaac d’Amid — 276 Isaac d’Antioche — 188, 277 Isaac d’Édesse — 278 Isaac le Persan — 279 Isbozetes — 403 Jean Chrysostome — 46, 143 Jean d’Odznun — 175 Jean Damascène — 195, 236 Jean de Jérusalem — 30, 92 Jean III le Nicéote — 162 Jean le Calybite — 209 Jean Mayravanetsi — 231 Jean Tzimiscès — 85 Jean Xiphilin — 74 Jean Zosime — 71 Jean, apôtre — 36, 38, 41, 172 Jean, higoumène de Saint-Serge — 191 Jeremias, apa — 201, 217 Jérusalem — 210, 221 Johannes de Bolnisi — 406 Johannes de K‘rna — 407 Johannes de Orotn — 408 Johannes le Sarkawag — 404 Johannes Rufus — 405 Johannes XV Bar Ma‘dani — 409 Johannes Zosime — 410 Johannes, apa — 201 John Colobos — 248 Joseph de Hotoc‘im — 411 Joseph et Aséneth — 428, 429 Joseph le Skeuophylax — 191 Juda Cyriaque — 145, 249 Julien de Tabia — 412 Julien l’Apostat — 124 Justinien I — 16, 35, 168, 197 Justinien II — 182, 198, 208, 238 Kâlçb Ella Asºbehºâbisi LZN — 413 Kartlis Mokcevay — 203 Ketevan — 414 Khazarie — 114 Komitas — 226, 415

Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

Lazique — 190 Léon III, empereur — 198, 208, 238 Léonce de Byzance — 94, 101 Léonce de Tripoli — 250 Livre des Lettres arménien — 162 Loki — 154 Loth (biblique) — 227 Lydda — 50 Malabar — 281 Marcel d’Ancyre — 139 Marcel, acémète — 109 Marcien, empereur — 185 Maroutha, mar — 226 Martinianus — 181 Maurice, empereur — 47, 185 Maxime et Domitius — 251 Maxime le Confesseur — 8, 9, 171, 173 Méliton de Sardes — 22, 24, 29, 252 Mercurius de Césarée — 253 Michel Modrekili — 61 Michel, l’archange — 254 Mingrélie — 190 Moïse le Sarracène — 282 Moscou — 166 Mouhammade — 425 Movses Xorenac’i — 177 Nagash d’Amid — 148 Nathanaël (biblique) — 18 Nejran, martyrs de — 35, 140, 152 Nino — 427 Nisime, ascète — 106 Nisthéréon et Katianos — 132 Noël — 16 Octateuque de Clément — 283 Pancrace de Taormine — 129, 151 Pâpâ Bar Aggai — 284 Pâque — 22, 32, 46 Paul, apôtre — 80, 172 Pélagie la Pénitente — 68 Philippe, apôtre — 180 Philosophes grecs — 111, 430 Philothée d’Antioche — 43, 255 Phocas, traducteur de Denys l’Aréopagite en syriaque — 196 Phusnabuasdia — 220 Pidjimi — 256

lxv

lxvi

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Pierre de Jérusalem — 103 Pierre l’Ibère — 156, 165, 202 Pierre le Foulon — 202 Pierre, apôtre — 62, 80, 172 Prochore, apôtre — 158 Proclus — 56, 108, 123, 257 Ptolémée, roi — 45 Qardaq — 416 Reliques — 166 Rhipsimé — 229 Rome — 97 Sahak III Dzoroporetsi — 169, 179 Sainte-Sion — 92 Saints fous de Dieu — 214 Salomon de Mak’enoc’ — 17 Sanatrouk, roi — 26, 131 Sargis de Caffa — 148 Sept dormants d’Éphèse — 170 Sévère d’Antioche — 145 Sévérien de Gabala — 55, 57, 146, 258 Sièges de Constantinople, fête des — 161 Sinaï — 54, 84 Sophia, sainte — 259 Svanéthie — 190 Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie — 121 Thaddée, apôtre — 26, 131 Thalasse (Ad Thalassium) — 171, 173 Théodore le Studite — 161 Théodose le Cénobiarque — 199 Théodose, empereur — 194 Théognoste, sainte — 260, 427 Thomas, apôtre — 119 Transfiguration — 65 Trois Hébreux dans la fournaise — 261 Udabno — 176 Vakhtang Gorgasali — 128 Vendredi — 149 Victor Stratelates — 262 Vierge — 8, 9, 10, 28, 56, 123, 127, 228, 236, 424 Xrafstras — 154 Zacharie, Catholicos — 120 Zénon, empereur — 402 [cf. 247] Zouartnots — 96

LISTE DES ABRE±VIATIONS ÂÂ

—

Âèçàíòèéñêèé âðåìåííèê

ÏÑÐË

—

Ïîëíîå ñîáðàíèå ðóññêèõ ëåòîïèñåé

ÕÂ

—

Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê (Ñåðèÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ èçó÷åíèþ õðèñòèàíñêîé êóëüòóðû íàðîäîâ Àçèè è Àôðèêè)

AAWG

—

Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen

AB

—

Analecta Bollandiana

Byz

—

Byzantion

BZ

—

Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CChr

—

Corpus Christianorum

CCSL

—

Corpus Christianorum. Series latina

CPG

—

M. GEERARD, Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Turnhout: Brepols) I (1973), II (1974), III (1979), IV (1980), Supplementum (1998) (Corpus Christianorum)

CPL

—

E. DEKKERS, Clavis Patrum Latinorum (Steenbrugge, 1951; 19612)

CSCO

—

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium

CSEL

—

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

CSHByz

—

Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae

DOP

—

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

DSp

—

Dictionnaire de Spiritualité

EÆ

—

Encyclopaedia Aethiopica / Ed. S. UHLIG. Vol. I: A–C, Wiesbaden 2003; vol. II: D–Ha, Wiesbaden 2005

JBL

—

Journal of Biblical Literature

JÖB

—

Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik

JSNT

—

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JTS

—

Journal of Theological Studies

MANSI

—

Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio / Ed. J. D. MANSI. T. I sqq. (Florentiae—Venetiis, 1759 sqq.)

MGH

—

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

Mus

—

Le Muséon

lxviii

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

MUSJ

—

Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph (Beyrouth)

OCA

—

Orientalia Christiana Analecta

OCP

—

Orientalia Christiana Periodica

OLP

—

Orientalia Lovaniensa Periodica

OrChr

—

Orientalia Christiana

PdO

—

Parole de l’Orient

PG

—

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca / Acc. J. P. MIGNE (Parisiis, 1857–1866)

PL

—

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina / Acc. J. P. MIGNE (Parisiis, 1841–1864)

PO

—

Patrologia Orientalis

PTS

—

Patristische Texte und Studien

Rad JAZU —

Radova Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti (à présent — Radova Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti)

REArm

—

Revue des Études Arméniennes

RÉB

—

Revue des Études Byzantines

RÉG

—

Revue des Études Grecques

REGC

—

Revue des Études Grecques Classiques

ROC

—

Revue de l’Orient Chrétien

SC

—

Sources Chrétiennes

SP

—

Studia Patristica

ST

—

Studi e Testi

STDJ

—

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

TM

—

Travaux et Mémoires

TU

—

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur

VC

—

Vigiliae Christianae

Ü Michel van Esbroeck

LíALTERNANCE POLITICO-RELIGIEUSE DE JUSTINIEN II ¿" LE O : N III1 Dans un premier temps nous rappellerons brièvement ce que nous avons exposé à Copenhague il y a cinq ans2 sur la base de documents arméniens, qui jusque là n’avaient pas été pris en considération pour l’histoire de cette période. Nous y adjoindrons ici au début de la même période la portée d’une homélie de Jean Damascène pour les Encénies à Jérusalem, sauvée en géorgien,3 et à l’autre bout de la même période, l’homélie de Germain de Constantinople sur les images et la Croix, également préservée en géorgien seulement.4 La période de 688 à 720 comporte sept empereurs, sept papes à Rome, cinq patriarches de Constantinople, quatre khalifes à Damas et trois catholicos d’Arménie. Le traité de 688 avec Abd-alMalik, — Justinien II a alors 19 ans, — et la victoire de Thessalonique la même année permettent à l’empereur d’inaugurer sa politique religieuse universelle. Il envoie trente mille hommes en Arménie, Géorgie et Aghouanie. En vrai successeur de Justinien Ier, il invite en 689/690 cinq évêques arméniens à Constantinople. N’arrivant pas à un accord de fond, il décide d’entériner seulement les usages chrétiens dans le concile de 691 ou Quinisexte, dont il essayera d’universaliser la valeur en accord avec les Arméniens dans un concile à Theodosiopolis vers 693, dont

1 Conférence donnée au XXe Congrès international des Études byzantines, Paris, 19–25 août 2001. Nous publions le texte comme il a été lu par l’auteur, d’après un fichier de son manuscrit préparé pour ce congrès. Toutes les notes sont introduites par la rédaction. 2 Il s’agit du XIXe Congrès international des Études byzantines, Copenhague, 18–24 août 1996. L’auteur a subséquemment publié la conférence qu’il avait donnée là, d’abord, dans une traduction arménienne par Azat Bozoyan [¢åèòÖÑæÔÑñÛ àÑåßÑßÑæ ôÑâÑôÑÙåèòæØ íßíÑñ µèòíïÛæÛÑæèí ¢-Ûñ äÛæéÕî ¬Õîèæ £,§ëäÛÑáÛæ (1997) no 6–7, 170–180], puis, dans l’original français [La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien II à Léon III // Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 2.2 (1998) 111–120]. 3 Éditée par l’auteur comme: Le discours de Jean Damascène pour la Dédicace de l’Anastasis // OCP 63 (1997) 53–98. 4 Éditée par l’auteur comme: Un discours inédit de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les icônes // OCP 65 (1999) 15–51. Mais maintenant il faut tenir compte de la version slavonne publiée par Vladimir Baranov dans le volume présent [V. À. BARANOV, Unedited Slavonic Version of the Apology on the Cross and on the Holy Icons Attributed to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (CPG 8033)]. Voir encore une discussion de l’authenticité dans le même article de Baranov.

"

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

les canons sont préservés en arménien,5 et non moins avec les Latins, d’abord auprès de Serge Ier avant son éviction en 695, puis sans succès avec Jean VII, ensuite avec Sissinios au point de s’attaquer à Ravenne, pour finalement réussir après presque trente ans avec le pape Constantin en 711. La ténacité de son entreprise, en dépit de ses dix ans d’éviction, montre quelle valeur il accordait à ce signe de l’unité religieuse chrétienne. Mais de part et d’autre cet accord n’a pas été acquis sans concessions. Le concile de Théodosiopolis entérine pratiquement tous les usages reprochés aux Arméniens dans quelques canons du Quinisexte, et il en va de même pour l’accord avec les Latins. Le concile de Theodosiopolis se garde de parler de Chalcédoine. La légitimité de ce dernier est en effet jalousement maintenue par Justinien II; déjà Justinien Ier lui avait témoigné une fidélité inflexible. Le patriarche Kallinikos, qui sacrera les deux successeurs intrus après la mutilation de Justinien II, estime que l’empereur est allé trop loin. Le récit touchant la phialle des bleus construite par Justinien II, et pour laquelle une église dût être détruite, entraîne une réplique de Kallinikos pleine d’ironie théologique: Gloire au Christ Dieu qui pâtit! Autrement dit, le patriarche considère que les concessions aux Arméniens à Théodosiopolis impliquent une théologie arménienne théopaschite qu’il rejette. Cette théologie est préservée avec grande éloquence dans le discours du catholicos Sahak III. Le concile de Chalcédoine n’y est pas mentionné, car la théologie avalise le monothélisme et le monoénergisme, rejetés par ceux qui a Constantinople réhabilitèrent Maxime le Confesseur. Sahak traite des natures, des noms, de l’énergie, de la volonté, de la Session à la droite, des bras étendus sur la Croix. Ces thèmes sont repris pour réduire ensuite à l’absurde les opposants. La dernière partie invite à n’adorer Dieu que dans la Croix et non dans les distinctions théologiques de l’homme et de Dieu. En annexe figure un Testament donné à Sembat Bagratouni, qui dit explicitement: Dieu nous a donné comme image la Croix de Dieu à adorer… en effet, toute autre image, Dieu lui-même l’a interdite en disant: Quelle ressemblance vois-tu en moi? Sembat Bagratouni succède à Nerses Kamsarakan, placé à la tête des Arméniens par Justinien II en 689. En 695 ou 697, il fut déporté avec Sahak III à Damas par les Arabes. Il en revint et reçut de Justinien II revenu au pouvoir la permission de se réfugier à Poti, où il demeurera avec les Nakharars arméniens jusqu’en 710 environ. Il accueillit là le spathaire Léon, exilé par Justinien II pour une campagne ossète. C’est grâce aux Nakharars arméniens que Voir surtout les travaux de l’auteur: Armenien und die Penthekte // Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 24 (1992) 78–94; Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691 et quelques dossiers annexes au Quinisexte // The Council in Trullo revisited / Ed. G. NEDUNGATT, M. FEATHERSTONE (Rome, 1995) (ÊáíïíéêÜ 6) 323–454; Justinian II. im Synaxar und das Konzil in Trullo // Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 27/28 (1995/ 1996) 103–108. 5

Michel van Esbroeck

#

ce Léon put regagner Constantinople vers 711, où il deviendra en 717 Léon III. La doctrine qu’il défendra face à Germain de Constantinople est exactement celle décrite par Sahak III dans ce Testament. Le premier à remplacer Justinien II en 695 est Leontios, le général que Justinien avait envoyé en Arménie dix ans auparavant. Un bleu remplace un bleu. A la suite de la perte de l’Afrique en faveur des Arabes, Tibère Apsimaros, cette fois un vert, prend le pouvoir 698, et est pareillement couronné par Kallinikos. Tibère envoie une expédition punitive contre les 30.000 soldats restés fidèles à Justinien II en Arménie, et à n’en pas douter au concile de Théodosiopolis. En 711, Vardan Philipikkos renversa Justinien II et l’exécuta. Il y eut à ce moment un anathème contre Sembat, lequel aurait pillé la ville de Poti le jour de Pâques. Ils auraient enlevé les trésors de l’Église et les auraient emportés dans leur pays. Manifestement, le futur Léon III s’est retiré du Caucase à ce moment. Vardan-Philippikos chassa les Arméniens et les Arabes les établirent dans la région de Mélitene. Or, Vardan-Philipikkos pratiqua une politique ouvertement anti-chalcédonienne, anathématisant le concile de 680, ce que personne avant lui n’avait fait, au point de supprimer une représentation du sixième concile dans le Palais impérial. Ceci, ni Justinien II, ni Sahak III, ni Sembat Bagratouni, ni Léon III ne le firent jamais. Le tour de force du traité de Sahak III était de maintenir la compatibilité avec Chalcédoine et le sixième concile, sans les nommer. Les troupes de l’Opsikion mirent fin au règne de Vardan son règne en 713. Anastase II Artémon qui lui succède a soin de reconnaître officiellement le VIe concile. Théodose III qui lui succède en 713 a été forcé de prendre le pouvoir à son corps défendant, à un moment où déjà le futur Léon III organise l’empire en sous-main. Après ce bref sommaire,6 venons-en à l’homélie du Damascène sur les Encénies. Bien que le texte soit perdu en grec, son authenticité ne saurait être mise en doute. La vraie question est de savoir en quelle année ce discours d’apparat a été prononcé un 14 septembre dans l’église de l’Anastasis. Nous avons donné une série d’arguments qui militent pour une date précoce. L’absence complète de polémique iconoclaste d’une part, et de l’autre le panégyrique du diacre Épiphane au concile de 787, qui lie la volte-face de Jean Damascène vis-à-vis des richesses des Arabes à la glorification de l’église de la Katholikè, c’est-à-dire de l’Anastasis. D’une part le § 16 de l’homélie montre clairement que les fils d’Agar occupent la surface du temple, d’autre part la coupole de l’Anastasis reçoit une glorification universelle au § 30, laquelle avalise les privilèges théocratiques de l’édifice construit par Hélène et restaurée par Modeste. La Croix prêchée par le Damascène n’est pas celle que C’est-à-dire, un sommaire de la conférence donnée au congrès de Copenhague dont le résumé se finie ici. 6

$

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

met en valeur Sahak III. Elle est directement liée à la fois à la coupole de l’Anastasis et à la légitimité théocratique de l’empereur byzantin. Quand pareille assertion est-elle vraisemblable? La Mosquée sur la surface du temple date déjà de ‘Omar al-Khattâb. La vraie question est de savoir si Jean Damascène se serait exprimé comme il le fait après que la Qubbat alSakhr ait été bâtie par Abd-alMalik. Nous pensons que cela n’aurait guère de sens. La base des deux coupoles ne présente qu’une différence de deux centimètres en longueur, et celle du mausolée est évidemment la copie consciente de l’Anastasis plus ancienne. Bien que l’inscription en mosaïques porte la date de 692, on a montré que cette date a été reportée et que l’achèvement de la coupole n’eut lieu sans doute que six ans plus tard, car le Khalife n’eut pas auparavant les loisirs de vaquer à une telle construction. La date a été sciemment assignée avant la date du discours du Damascène. Enfin nous croyons que le Damascène lui-même réagit au concile de 691, où l’empereur Justinien II renoue avec les prérogatives byzantines. Nous voudrions enfin remarquer que la différence entre les deux théologies de la Croix, celle de Sahak avant 691, et celle du Damascène après, permet de comprendre les premières monnaies portant la croix byzantine d’un côté et le Bismillah de l’autre, tandis qu’après cela les monnaies d’Abd-alMalik aboliront la Croix. Venons-en au dernier volet : l’homélie de Germain de Constantinople où l’opposition à l’iconoclasme revêt encore un caractère presque anodin, eu égard à ce qu’il deviendra dans les trois textes de Germain conservés en grec. L’important dans ce texte est la présence de la Croix, que Léon revendique sans figuration du Christ. La problématique est exactement celle que nous citions plus haut dans le Testament de Sahak III à Sembat Bagratouni. La victoire de 717 sur les Arabes a dès le départ une coloration toute différente d’après qu’on se rallie à Léon III avec la Croix seule ou avec Germain portant l’icône de la Vierge. Cette opposition illustre un nouveau changement politico-religieux introduit par l’empereur byzantin. Un autre indice en est le dialogue qui a incontestablement prit cours entre l’éphémère Khalife Omar II (717–720) et l’empereur Léon, et dont des traces retravaillées sont demeurées en arménien et en arabe. Ce dialogue a d’ailleurs donné lieu finalement à un genre littéraire très fourni, dont les affinités se laissent le plus souvent repérer jusqu’à cette époque. Le bref raccourci que nous avons donné ici illustre une alternance politico-religieuse qui dépasse largement le cadre des factions du cirque. C’était là le but de notre communication. Préparé à la publication par Basile Lourié

Vladimir A. Baranov Novosibirsk

UNEDITED SLAVONIC VERSION OF THE APOLOGY ON THE CROSS AND ON THE HOLY ICONS ATTRIBUTED TO PATRIARCH GERMANUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE (CPG 8033) The Apology on the Cross, and on the Holy and Most Blameless Icons, and against the Heretics, in the manuscript tradition attributed to Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople (715–730)1 survived in Georgian and Old Church Slavonic translations. The Georgian translation of the eleventh century by Ephrem Mtsire2 was critically edited by Fr Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. in 1995. Fr Michel van Esbroeck took the face value of the text and attributed it to Patriarch Germanus, connecting it with the Iconophile position of the Patriarch during the Arab siege of the Byzantine capital in 717/718 (with his promotion of the miraculous powers of the Virgin’s Icon) as opposed to the promotion of miraculous powers of the Cross by the Emperor and future initiator of Iconoclasm Leo III.3 The Slavonic translation of the same treatise of an unknown date is contained in a manuscript of the beginning of the seventeenth century, «Êíèãà For the biography and literary activity of Patriarch Germanus see: L. LAMZA, Patriarch Germanos I. von Konstantinopel (715–730): Versuch einer endgültigen chronologischen Fixierung des Lebens und Wirkens des Patriarchen: mit dem griechischdeutschen Text der Vita Germani am Schluss der Arbeit, Das Östliche Christentum n. s. 27 (Würzburg, 1975) 200–240; O. MIENARDUS, The Beardless Patriarch: St. Germanus // Makedonika 13 (1973) 178–186; J. LIST, Studien zur Homiletik Germanos I von Konstantinopel und seiner Zeit (Athens, 1939). More on the literary heritage of the Patriarch see in À. Ï. ÊÀÆÄÀÍ, Èñòîðèÿ âèçàíòèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû (650–850 ãã.) [The History of Byzantine literature (650–850)] (Ìîñêâà, 2002) 82–105, and P. PLANK, Der heilige Germanos I, Patriarch von Konsantinopel (715–730) // Der christliche Osten 40 (1985) 16–21. 2 According to the gloss in one of the manuscripts (M. VAN ESBROECK, Un discours inédits de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les Icônes // OCP 65 (1999) n. 35, p. 30; the information on the manuscripts and their stemma see on pp. 30–31). On Ephrem Mtsire see: M. TARCHNISHVILI, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Vatican, 1955) 182–198, and E. KHINTIBIDZE, Georgian-Byzantine Literary Contacts (Amsterdam, 1996) 107–119. 3 M. VAN ESBROECK, Un discours inédits de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les Icônes // OCP 65 (1999) 29. 1

8

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

ãëàãîëåìàÿ Ðàé. Ïîó÷åíèå ñâÿòûõ îòåö» [The Book which is called Paradise. The Teachings of the Holy Fathers].4 The issue of the authorship will be re-investigated. Certainly, such a method of attribution as language analysis cannot be applied in the case of translations, thus the main method for attribution of the text will be the analysis of inner content against the development of argumentation for and against images in the Iconoclastic controversy, reflected in dated texts, as well as correspondence of the argument

***

5

10

15

4 Tobolsk Branch of the State Archive of the Tyumen Region (ÒÔ ÃÀÒÎ), Collection of hand-written books 229, fols. 218v.–225v. I would like to express our gratitude to V. N. Alexeev for pointing to the presence of our Apology in the manuscript, and to Lisa Marie Baranov for her thorough editing of the article and, especially, the English translation of the Apology. Another edition of the Slavonic translation on the basis of another manuscript is being prepared by Agnes Kríza for Studia Slavica Hungarica. 5 This is an anachronism in the title, since the Feast of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of Great Lent commemorated the the final restoration of icon-veneration and was introduced in the Byzantine Church after the corresponding event in 843. On the Restoration of Icons by Empress Theodora after the death of her husband Theophilus, see Theophanes Contunuatus, IV, 6 (PG 109, 168Cf). On the history of the rite of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of the Lent, see Ïðîò. Ê. ÍÈÊÎËÜÑÊÈÉ, Àíàôåìàòñòâîâàíèå (îòëó÷åíèå îò Öåðêâè), ñîâåðøàåìîå â ïåðâóþ íåäåëþ Âåëèêîãî ïîñòà: èñòîðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå î ×èíå Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ [Anathematizing (excommunication), which is performed on the first Sunday of the Great Lent: Historical research on the Rite of Orthodoxy] (ÑÏá., 1879).

V. A. Baranov

9

with Germanus’ original writings. The representation of the Slavonic text, including punctuation and orthography, is made as authentic as possible. For the convenience of reading in some places, breaks have been supplied between the words. For the convenience of comparison between the Slavonic and Georgian versions, in our translation we preserved the structure of chapters proposed by M. van Esbroeck. Quotations from the Scripture are marked in the translation in italics with references in the original.

*** By Our Holy Father Germanus, the Archbishop of Constantinople. The Apology on the Cross, and on the Holy and Most Blameless Icons,6 and against the Heretics spoken on the first Sunday of Holy Lent, that is on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Father, bless. 1. Since many of those who insanely and senselessly proclaim heresy, in an unlearned and furious manner, through their evil and poisonous statements, and through the inquiries of these ignorant ones and through their blind abstinence due to unruliness, concerning the word about the honourable icons, have become often in the habit of confusing the disciples of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we, calling out: bring forth, bring forth the divine word unto the opening of our mouths, shall say to them: “tell us, oh insane

6 Added in the Georgian version «made-by-hands and not made-by-hands», in spite of the absence of any examples of images «not-made-by-hands» like the Edessa Mandylion of the Savior or the Camuliana image of the Virgin in the treatise.

10

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

20

25

30

5

10

15

Cf. Gal. 6:14. On the theological opposition «soulless–ensouled» in the Iconoclastic Controversy, see V. A. BARANOV, The Role of Christ’s Soul-Mediator in the Iconoclastic Christology // Origeniana Nonna / Eds. Gy. Heidl, R. Somos (Leuven, 2007, forthcoming). 9 Isa. 60:13. 10 Cf. the Peuseis of Constantine V (PG 100, 425D=Fragment 174, H. HENNEPHOF, Textus byzantinos ad Iconomachiam pertinentes in usum academicum (Leiden, 1969) (Byzantina Neerlandica. Series A, fasc. 1) 56). 11 Gal. 3:13. 12 Deut. 21:23. 7 8

V. A. Baranov

11

and dishonest ones, by whose word are you maliciously blaspheming the most blameless icon of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, unrestrictedly proclaiming to venerate His Honourable and Life-Giving Cross?” For as I think, the Cross, even if it is a victorious weapon of divine power against the devil and all his hostile powers, and praise higher than all praise, yet it is of soulless wood, the cypress, I say, the pine and the cedar, and not only that but by the hands of unlawful people was made, using tools for wood, unto the three-day death of the Lord Jesus.13

2. But you say in any case: we are accustomed to honor and venerate the Cross of Jesus because of our Lord and God nailed to it, who was made a curse for us, to make us receive filial adoption being freed from the ancient curse. I will say the same thing: the Cross, as the divine and Holy Spirit says by the Prophet, was the vessel of curse, for he that is hanged on the wood is accursed. If that one who is hanged on the wood is accursed, obviously also is that upon which he is hanged,14 that is the wood of the cross, if it had not turned into a holy thing through the holiness of God who was raised on it. For Christ revealed it by destroying the hostile powers through this victorious scepter. For this reason the judgment is righteous by you and by us — it is venerated in honor and truth for the sake of Christ raised on it. Why only

John of Damascus has a similar argument in Apology II, 19.1–6; Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tres // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos III / Ed. B. KOTTER (Berlin, 1975) (Patristische Texte und Studien 17) 118 [hereafter: KOTTER]. 14 Michael the Syrian provides a text, relating to the Byzantine Iconoclasm of the ninth century, which mentions an alleged order of a Patriarch of Constantinople (Nicephorus?) to have images suspended around peoples’ necks together with crosses (S. GERO, The Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Ninth Century, according to a Syriac Source // Speculum 51 (1976) 2). 13

12

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

20

25

30

5

10

15

20

Ps. 46:6 (King James [KJ]: Ps. 47:5). 2 Tim. 2:15. 17 Ps. 134: 15–16 (KJ: Ps 135: 15-16). 18 2 Cor. 3:6. Cf. John of Damascus, Apology I, 5.11–13 (KOTTER, 78). 19 Cf. Phil. 2:6–7 20 Cf. Ps 92:1 (KJ: Ps 93:1). 15 16

V. A. Baranov

13

do you not venerate His human-like image, who for our sins was nailed to it, buried and resurrected and, as David the Forefather of God said: who has gone up to the heavens with a shout. For we see how the Cross was sanctified through such voluntary and holy nailing and turned into blessing. Yet you do not see that, and venerate the sanctified Cross, but do not venerate the depicted image of the One who sanctified it nor accept it. But what do those of little faith say, who do not want to rightly divide the word of truth, moreover do not know it: The idols of the heathens are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not, and so on. Was it not of these that David, the Forefather of God, sang in the past?

3. Oh, insanity, oh, lack of faith, oh, evil doctrine! Come and see, all who can see, how the letter kills but the spirit gives life. For David sang of these in his word about the idols of the heathens and not about Christian icons. So Christian icons are not considered gods by those who think in the right way. We depict with material colours the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to us, by this raising our mind to his divine and immaterial [nature]. For being God and incircumscribable, he did not neglect to become a circumscribable man for the sake of man, and moreover unto majesty. You know the remembrance of his conception and Nativity, His growing and Baptism, innumerable multitudes of signs and miracles, as well as the slandering by the

14

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

25

30

5

10

15

20

25

21

Most likely:

(cf. Ps. 31:9 [KJ: Ps. 32:9]).

V. A. Baranov

15

Jews, [His] Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Passion on the Cross, three-day Burial, Festal and Glorious and Bright Resurrection, [His] Entrance to the disciples through the closed doors in Zion, Ascension to the Heavens, and again, His fearful Coming.22 And we do not name the painted image God, the Creator of heaven and Earth, of the sea and the abysses, of all things visible and invisible. Let there not be such a thing!23 For this is the work of the madness of the Hellenes and of the godless pagans!

4. If some say such things, let them be covered with shame and disgrace for it is they who sin and not we. But we contemplate God for the sake of those true prophesies as it was spoken. For He was Incarnated for the sake of His mercy according to us from the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Ever-Virgin and the Mother of God, who is the One, Consubstantial to God and the Father, Consubstantial Son and God, in two natures but in one image,24 unmixed, immutable, unchangeable, divisible and indivisible, worshipped by all the faithful. For it is needed to depict in God’s churches [the things] rightly foresaid by the prophets and divine Gospels through the narrated words which were fulfilled in deed for the assurance of those who accept the narrator. Instead of bulls and lions, horses and mules, sheep and goats, birds and the like,25 is it not more appropriate for the beauty of God’s Church to erect 22 Ñf. John of Damascus, Apology I, 8. 59–67 [=Apology III, 8], [KOTTER, 82–83]; the Epistle of Pope Gregory II to Patriarch Germanus mentions the following scenes in a similar context: the Nativity and Veneration of the Magi, Meeting, Flight into Egypt, various miracles of Christ, His Passion, Resurrection and Ascension (J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence—Venice, 1759–1798) Vol. 13 [hereafter: MANSI 13]. 96AC); the Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum gives the list of scenes worthy of depiction in: PG 95, 313D–316A). 23 On the very important issue of the circumscribability of Christ according to his human nature in the icon theology of Patriarch Nicephorus, see P. ALEXANDER, Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1958) 199, 206f; Ch. VON SCHÖNBORN, L’icône du Christ: Fondaments théologiques (Paris, 1986) 204f. The third Antirrheticus of Theodore the Studite is also dedicated to the issue of circumscribability (PG 99, 389–436). 24 Perhaps, an «interpretative» Slavonic translation, since in Georgian this is translated by the standard «hypostasis». A similar translation one may see in chapter 19 of the Apology. The correlation of image and hypostasis plays a very important role in the theology of Theodore the Studite (VON SCHÖNBORN, L’icône du Christ… 223–227) and for the whole later Iconophile tradition. 25 Cf. John of Damascus, Apology I, 20.10–15 [KOTTER, 96]). In the Georgian version the «sea animals» are added to the list.

16

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

30

5

10

15

20

25

30 Cf. Jn. 10:38. Most likely, Greek pra/gma — «deed, matter». 28 Ex. 17:11–13. 29 Gen. 47:31; Cf. Apology I, 8.81–82 [KOTTER, 83]; ñf. the Epistle of Patriarch Germanus to Thomas of Claudiopolis (H. G. THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit (Berlin, 1992) (TU 139) 382.164). 26 27

V. A. Baranov

17

and paint in a sacred manner God’s holy and honorable icons which are a self-speaking book, and the remembrance of the continuous true manifestation, and a brief narration, and moreover, for the sake of those ignorant who do not know the Scriptures?30 5. Not continuing our word about such things, let us move on to other things of ignorance. Bring again the word about the veneration of the divine and honourable icons, and having written a most true word, we will show those who suffer from knowledge, the gathering of the heretics, that those who do not honour the icon of our Saviour Jesus Christ, should not venerate His divine and Life-giving Cross. For I will ask you: as the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, in the same way the Image is in the Cross and the Cross is in the Image, for the Cross and the Image are the same thing. Moses the God-beholder showed this when he defeated sensible Amalek, stretching his arms crosswise on the mountain, representing through himself the Cross as in an Image, that is Jesus in the Cross for the sake of our flesh, and the Cross in Jesus Christ. For the one who honors and venerates His honorable Cross also in honor venerates His honorable Image, and being human-like according to the visible representation, he is represented through human hands by means of material paints.31

6. If there is a spark of unbelief and it burns your mind, and you think me wrong, I beg you to tell me asking, the rod of Joseph, to which Jacob bowed down, signified the bowed person himself or was it the image of Jesus vene-

John of Damascus as well calls icons «books for the illiterate» (bi/blouj a)gramma/twn) (Apology III, 9,59–60 [KOTTER, 99]). 31 Ñf. Theodore the Studite, PG 99, 697BC. The same example of Moses’ arms lifted up is used in other sources of the Iconoclastic time: the Canon on the Exaltation of the Cross by Cosmas the Hymnographer (see ÊÀÆÄÀÍ, Èñòîðèÿ âèçàíòèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû… 153) and in the Iconoclastic inscription of a certain Sergius from the collection of Iconoclastic inscriptions, quoted and refuted by Theodore the Studite (PG 99, 437A). 30

18

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

5

10

15

20

25

30

32

Cf. Mk. 8:18.

V. A. Baranov

19

rated? Did it not show Him honored and venerated? Yes, indeed, I say unto you, that the one who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father. So, the one who does not venerate this historical sacred representation, the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ, will neither be ever able to confess His divine Incarnation other than as a reverie.33 Let such be in every way anathema! Let us leave a hostile devil, an unclean spirit, to those wretched Iconoclasts, and to the repudiators of saints, who say that one should not venerate the icon of Christ, let there be anathema. But we have said already as Moses assured us, that the Cross and the icon are the same thing. In cutting off the icon as not venerable, then let the right wood of the Cross similarly be cut off, which makes the image.

7. If this will happen, what will you then venerate, oh puffed up and ignorant people! Truly, if you have ears to hear and eyes to see, it is nothing other than the form of the literal letter,34 as you have been told, so that understanding what was spoken you would understand and correct yourselves. But if you decree that the beautiful and sacred image of Our Savior Jesus Christ should in no way be venerated because it was depicted by a hand made of dust, making the accusation its being made by hand, tell me, as I again want to ask you: from the Forefather Adam and until now, what is not made-byhands in the whole world? You cannot show me anything of that kind. The only things not made-by-hands are those which our unfalse God desired to create solely with His Word, and fulfilled by the Holy Spirit.

33 Ñf. The Epistle of Patriarch Germanus to Thomas of Claudiopolis (THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre… 381.147f), and Patriarch Germanus’ Epistle to John of Synnada (Ibid. 375.42). 34 The comparison of the Cross with the letter «tau», and thus, allusion to the T-shaped Cross, mentioned in the Epistle of pseudo-Barnabas 9,8 (the Greek text of the Epistle is: Épitre de Barnabé / Eds. R. A. KRAFT, P. PRIGENT (Paris, 1971) (SC 172); on the T-shaped Cross, see «Kreuz» // Reallexikon zur Byzantinische Kunst / Ed M. RESTLE. Bd 5. (Stuttgart, 1995) 2–218, the images are on pp. 25–26) is present only in the Georgian version. Apparently the Slavonic translator or scribe omitted it as incomprehensible and in this way simplified the original argument of the author.

20 5

10

15

20

25

30

5

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

V. A. Baranov

21

8. Both before Noah and after Noah, before Abraham and after Abraham, before Moses and after Moses, before Solomon and after Solomon, the Lord’s altars were set up by men. But they could not create anything uncreated or unmixed or unpainted or not made-by-hands. We see all these things that are of human hands. Similarly God spoke in Moses’ tabernacle in the midst of Cherubim made-by-hands, and the divine Spirit of the Lord lived in Solomon’s Temple made-by-hands. And those who want will find these things in the Old [Testament] and many more things while in the New, that is after the Incarnation of God’s Word. Are there not holy altars made-by-hands created in the whole world, upon which there were erected crosses, some made of gold, some of silver, and some made of copper and iron, and from various [types] of wood? And all of the liturgical vessels of the Church, are they not of human hands? Both they are and they will be. And upon the thankfulness and divine calling of the Most-holy and Life-giving Spirit, the bread of the Offering becomes truly divine flesh. Is it not mixed and broken into pieces by an earthly hand? And according to what has been said before, in receiving and believing without deceit in the divine and saving Blood, is the wine of the divine chalice not made by human hands? Indeed you will tell me, yes.35

35 The standard list of man-made objects (the Cross, the Book of the Gospels and the Eucharist; sometimes church vessels and altar tables are included), whose holiness was accepted without saying, both by the Iconodules and by the Iconoclasts, is often mentioned in the anti-Iconoclastic polemics: MANSI 13, 241CD, 249A, 269D–272A; John of Damascus, Apology I, 15 (KOTTER, 88.14f); Nouthesia gerontos (Á. Ì. ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ , Ãåîðãèé Êèïðÿíèí è Èîàíí Èåðóñàëèìëÿíèí, äâà ìàëîèçâåñòíûõ áîðöà çà ïðàâîñëàâèå â VIII âåêå [George of Cyprus and John of Jerusalem, two little known fighters for Orthodoxy in the eighth century] (ÑÏá., 1901) XVII); Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum (PG 95, 325B); Adversus Iconomachos (PG 96, 1352AB); Theodore the Studite (PG 99, 497Af); Epistle of the Three Patriarchs (Texte zum byzantinischen Bilderstreit: der Synodalbrief der drei Patriarchen des Ostens von 836 und seine Verwandlung in sieben Jahrhunderten / Ed. H. GAUER (Frankfurtam-Main, 1994) (Studien und Texte zur Byzantinistik 1) 52.27–43). On the theological significance of the term «not made-by-hands» in the polemics of the Iconoclastic time, see Â. À. ÁÀÐÀÍÎÂ, Èêîíîáîð÷åñêèå ñïîðû è áîãîñëîâñêîå çíà÷åíèå Íåðóêîòâîðíîãî îáðàçà [Iconoclastic controversy and the theological significance of the Image «Not Made-by-hands»] // Âèçàíòèÿ è ñîâðåìåííûé ìèð. Ìàòåðèàëû âòîðîé íàó÷íî-ïðàêòè÷åñêîé êîíôåðåíöèè ïàìÿòè âèçàíòèéñêîé èìïåðèè. Ïÿòûé ìåæäóíàðîäíûé ôåñòèâàëü «Ýõî Ýëëàäû», Íîâîñèáèðñê, ìàðò 2003 ã. [Byzantium and the modern world. The materials of the second scholarly-practical conference in the memory of the Byzantine Empire. The fifth international Festival «The Echo of Hellas», Novosibirsk, March, 2003] / Ïîä ðåä. Ì. Í. Áóñèê-Òðîôèìóê (Íîâîñèáèðñê, 2006, forthcoming).

22

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

10

15

20

25

30

5

10

Ps. 95:13 (KJ: Ps. 96:13). Mt. 16:27. 38 Jer. 11:19. 39 Jn. 19:15. 40 Mt. 27:25. 36 37

V. A. Baranov

23

9. And we honor with hope and venerate these all with fear and honor, and believe them to be holy and God’s. For what reason is only the icon of our Savior Jesus Christ blasphemed by your irrepressible mouths? Oh savagery, oh woe! Oh terrible wonder! For if we dishonor an earthly king, we receive such vengeance from him! Those who dare this then are given over to deathly judgment, for the king says to them: “Because you dishonored and afflicted me while I was absent, as if present due to my image, thus I command to kill you with a ferocious and fatal death.”41 If these things are done in this way, what will then the heavenly and immortal, and eternal king do to you, great-talkers and blasphemers, who is dishonored by you for the sake of his honorable and most-honorable icon, when he will come to judge the world in righteousness and reward every man according to his works, disbelief or faith?

10. Oh fear, oh trembling! Oh painful torment, which will afflict you at that time! If you do not repent, you will be counted with those, whom the Prophet foreseeing revealed, who made slander upon the Lord — he speaks in their name: let us put the [poisonous] wood into his bread, and hide him alive under the earth. Saying this he manifestly showed the Jews, fighters against God, who, when the prophecy had come true, cried out to Pilate: “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” “His blood be on us, and on our children”. But many times you also destroyed and burnt all sorts of icons, and shamelessly spit and trampled and completely broke them, and made a council to hide and make unknown and to commit to the depths with a stone the icon, similar in form to the Body of the Divine Word. And if anyone Cf. Fragments 1 and 2 of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who interprets creation in the image of God, comparing it to the Emperor’s image, which was left in the city after his departure (F. PETIT, L’homme créé «à l’image» de Dieu. Quelques fragments grecs inédits de Théodore de Mopsueste // Mus 100 (1987) 275–277). Our text is especially reminiscent of the Riot of Statues in Antioch in 387, when in response to the rise in taxation the city population overthrew the statues of the Emperor, after which both the City and the rioters were severely punished by Theodosius I (on the Riot see R. BROWNING, The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire // Journal of Roman Studies 42 (1952) 13–20). On the Byzantine Imperial cult see: G. DAGRON, Empéreur et prêtre: étude sur le cesaropapisme byzantin (Paris, 1996); M. MCCORMICK, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986). 41

24

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

15

20

25

30

5

10

Cf. Mt. 27:24. Mt. 26:24. 44 Jn 6:30, cf.: Mt. 16:1. 45 Mt. 16:4; Mt. 12:39. 42 43

V. A. Baranov

25

washes [his hands] in front of you like Pilate saying, “I am clean from your blood, you see to it,” you would exclaim in the manner of the Jews: “Let every icon be taken, and let this iniquity be upon our heads!”

11. Oh deception, oh diabolic schemes! Oh fatal theft! Be terrified, oh man, thinking of these, and do not be a slanderer of yourself, imagining yourself standing while you have cruelly fallen down. Rise up, oh man, and repenting, you will be saved. If you will be excommunicated with the Jews, it would be good for you if you had not been born, according to the word of the Lord. The heretics, childish in their minds, said this in any time and in any place, and about every thing: “If you want”, [they] said to the master, “us to listen to your teaching, show us an iconic sign from the heaven, like the Crosslike [sign] out of stars,46 and having believed, we will venerate it.” This is similar to what was said by the Jews to the Lord Jesus Christ: “teacher, what sign would you show us from the heaven so we believe you?” But the Lord told them the following words, which we also tell you. Thus says the Lord, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for an iconic sign from heaven and it shall not be given unto it except in my earthly heaven, that is in the Church”. For the Cross was on high for the sake of one or many people of good faith, but until this day for such and for many unbelievers, the Cross and the icon will cause similar things to that wicked generation.

46 Emperor Constantine I’s vision of the starry Cross in the sky on the eve of the battle with Maxentius at the Milvian bridge is described by the majority of historians: Eusebius, Vita Constatnini I. 28f (F. WINKELLMAN, Eusebius Werke. Erster Band. Erster Teil. Über das Leben des Kaisers Constantins (Berlin, 1975, repr. 1991) 29–31); Socrates, Ecclesiastical History I, 2 (PG 67, 37Af); Sozomenos, Ecclesiastical History I, 3 (J. BIDEZ, G. C. HANSEN, Sozomens Kirchengeschichte (Berlin, 1960) (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 50) 11–12); Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 44, 4–6 (Lactance. De la mort des persécuteurs / Ed. J. MOREAU (Paris, 1954) (Sources Chrétiennes 39) 126–127). See also M. DI MAIO, J. ZEUGE, N. ZOTOV, Ambiguitas Constantiniana: The Caeleste Signum Dei of Constantine the Great // Byz 58 (1988) 333–360; F. HEILAND, Die astronomische Deutung der Vision Kaiser Konstantins // Sondervortrag im Zeiss-Planetarium-Jena (Jena, 1948), 1f; T. D. BARNES, The Conversion of Constatine // Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views n.s. 4 (1985) 371–391; H. GRÉGOIRE, La vision de Constantin «liquidée» // Byz 14 (1939) 341–351; A. H. M. JONES, The Fortuitous Event // The Conversion of Constantine / Ed. J. EADIE (New York, 1971), 89–98; P. WEISS, Die Vision Constantins // Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss. Frankfurter althistorische Studien 13. / Ed. J. Bleicken (Kallmünz, 1993) 143–169.

26

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

15

20

25

30

5

10

15

Ps. 32:10–11 (KJ: Ps. 33:10–11). An allusion to the text of the Cherubic Hymn: «Let us who mystically represent the Cherubim and who sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-creating Trinity, now lay 47 48

V. A. Baranov

27

12.To Belial, the initiator of evil, seducer and deceiver, we will say what we had said before: “Woe to you, devil, and all of your servants! Woe to you, devil, and all of your service! Woe to you, devil and all of your reasoning! Woe to you, devil, and all of your incurable violence! Woe to you, devil, and all of your insatiable will! Together with those of like mind, in casting out the holy icons you wanted to preach the divine Incarnation of the Word to be believed as a reverie. But woe to you and your accomplices, all-cunning demon!49 As the Divine Spirit says through the Prophet, “The Lord brings the councils of the heathen to naught, sweeps aside the thoughts of people, and sweeps aside the councils of princes. The Council of the Lord stands forever”. But having left you, I am now fighting with this renegade and evil servant. For I want you, I want your salvation that is in God, I seek your rising from the fall and correction. But one, having fallen from the very beginning due to his arrogance and pride, does not hope to rise.

13. But you, brethren sober up from your drunkenness, I beg you, wake up from your sleep — I mean your foolishness. Rise from your wild fall, for you can if you want to. You see how God, incircumscribable by His nature, manifested Himself to our fathers and prophets, patriarchs and kings, in shadows and images, in shadows and riddles, appearing to them according to their measure. Such are the noetic Cherubim mysteriously represented on the earth, and because of this representation the thrice-holy hymn is brought to the thriceholy and the most holy, consubstantial and life-giving Trinity. Learn how

aside all cares of this life…». On the Hymn, see: R. TAFT, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-anaphoral Rites in the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom (Rome, 1975) 53–118. Cf. Patriarch Germanus, Historia Mystagogica, 34–35 (F. BRIGHTMAN, The Historia Mystagagogica and other Greek Commentaries on the Byzantine Liturgy // JTS 9 (1908) 265.29–266.17). 49 A similar accusatory speech addressed to the devil appears in John of Damascus, Apology II, 6 (KOTTER, 72).

28

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

20

25

30

5

10

15

Mt. 3:16. Cf. Rev. 6:12f. 52 Cf. Mt. 24:30. 50 51

V. A. Baranov

29

when the Lord Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. Admonish how as a great fiery pillar Basil of the great name in a similar image to this divine and most pure dove, made a dove from pure gold and hung it over the altar.53 Learn how the thrice-blessed and allvenerable Mary of the harlots conversed with the icon of the most-holy pure Mother of God as if it was animated, and received such adoption and intercession, that named the holy Mother of God her guarantor for the sake of Her icon.54

14. Learn this, I beg you, my beloved friends and brethren, and in no way oppose the truth. So that walking on a cliff and precipice, you not throw yourselves down forever into the pit of disbelief and perish unto the ages of ages. And you try to say in protest, “when the heavenly powers tremble in the dreadful and terrible coming, when the heavens change, the sun grows dark, the moon disappears, the stars fall down, the earth shakes, the sea dries out, how or where will be manifested this material icon, which you, oh man, teach us to venerate?”

15. I say again, that, oh brethren, the shadow of the Law ended with the coming of grace. In this way, when the beauty of the original image which This practice is mentioned among the accusations of Monophysite Philoxenus of Mabbug concerning Iconoclastic actions — prohibition of liturgical doves, a number of which have survived until now (MANSI 13, 179f). Severus of Antioch also struggled with this practice, although the motives of both bishops were probably far from the Iconoclasm, ascribed to them (S. BROCK, Iconoclasm and the Monophysites // Iconoclasm, Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975 / Eds. A. Bryer, J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977) 53–54). 54 See the Life of Mary of Egypt (PG 87.3, 3713Af; M. GEERARD, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Vol. 3 (Brepols—Turnhout, 1979) ¹ 7675). The fragment with the miracle from the icon of the Virgin appears in the florilegium of John of Damascus, Apology III, 135 [KOTTER, 198–199], in the florilegium of the Second Council of Nicaea (MANSI 13, 85D–89A), and in the florilegium in defence of icons of the Ms. Parisinus Graecus 1115 (A. ALEXAKIS, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype (Washington, 1996) (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 34) 200–201). 53

30

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

20

25

The closest Scriptural allusion for the passage seems to be Heb. 10:1 — «For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…». The first part «the shadow of the Law has ended up…» (h( skia\ tou= no/ mou parh=lqe) appears in pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria, Synopsis scripturae sacrae (PG 28, 413,7). A closer parallel is the Sunday Theotokion of the Second Tone of the Orthodox Church (the composition of the Theotokia is traditionally ascribed to the contemporary of Patriarch Germanus John of Damascus): ïðPéäå ñŒíü çàêhííàÿ, ábãîä@òè ïðèøPäøè: °êîæå áî êóïèíA íå ñãàð@øå ¼ïàë™åìà: ò@êÌ ä2à ðîäèëA MñT, U ä2à ïðåáûëA MñT. âìŒñòî ñòîëïA ½ãíåííàãî, ïð@âåäíîå âîçñȚ ñbíöå: âìŒñòî ìÌÉñPÿ, õròhñú, ñïàñPíÈå ä}øú í@øèõú [The shadow of the law has passed now that grace has come, for as the Bush in flames was not consumed, so as a Virgin you bore a Child and remained a Virgin; instead of a pillar of fire the Sun of righteousness has dawned, instead of Moses Christ, the salvation of our souls]. The author of the Apology either uses the Theotokion itself or a common Patristic source with the author of the Theotokion, which we were unable to identify. 56 Ñf. Stichera of the First Tone at the Little Vespers of the Feast of Transfiguration of the Orthodox Church (the same stichera is repeated at the Aposticha): Væå ñú ìÌÉñPîìú ãëàãhëàâûé äðPâëå íà ãîð ñÈí@éñòýé ½áðàçû, ãëàãhëÿ, Cçú Nñìü á3ú ñ‰é: äíPñü æå íà ãîð Ôàâºðñòýé ïðåÌáð@æüñÿ, íà÷àëîÌáð@çíîå ïîêàçA ëó÷@ìè ¼áëèñò@ÿñÿ. òŒìæå, õròQ, âåëè÷@þ òâî“ ñSëó. [The One who talked to Moses on Mount Sinai through images, saying «I am the God that I am», now transfiguring on Mount Tabor, showed the original image shining with rays. Therefore, oh Christ, I magnify Thy power]. The passage in our Apology alluding to the Transfiguration shows a classical Patristic parallelism between the Transfiguration and the Second Coming (see J. A. MCGUCKIN, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Lewiston, 1986) (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 9) passim) and thus reinforces the continuity between the transfigured yet retained human image of Christ in the Transfiguration being the same as His image of the Second Coming. On the notion of the Transfiguration as a New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament Mosaic revelation in John of Damascus, see V. A. BARANOV, Origen and the Iconoclastic Controversy // Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition / Ed. L. PERRONE. Vol. 2 (Leuven, 2003) (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 164) 1048. 57 Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto, 18, 45 (PG 32, 149C). 58 Mt. 25:21. 55

V. A. Baranov

31

was assumed from the Virgin, then will fearfully shine with divine rays, the material and all-honored iconic vision will end. But the homage, and honor, and veneration, that we pay for the sake of these to God, who became man for our sake will not be depleted. For we wait to receive a reward from Him, having heard that “the honor of an icon is passed over to its prototype.” Because of this, he who is faithful over a few things, is faithful over many.

32

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 1 Tim. 2:4. Ps. 118:106 (KJ: 119:106). 61 2 Tim. 2:25. 59 60

V. A. Baranov

33

If until now we have said many things to you and mentioned only the iconic veneration of the Master and Savior, do not be surprised. It was suitable for us to disclose first the spring to the thirsty, and then the rivers, that is, the honorable and desirable icons of all the saints. 16. By this the disciples of the Church, who philosophize piously and in an orthodox manner, are thus commanded: do not accept those into communion, and do not greet them, and do not admix with them in any way, until they turn into the knowledge of the truth through repentance.

17. And if some of them say, “we have sworn to not venerate any icon at all, this is why we withdraw from dwelling with the orthodox”. Let such a person know what would have been useful for Herod, if only he had broken his oath and did not kill the Forerunner — for the Prophet says: “I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments”. And what he says is this: He says he has “sworn to keep thy righteous judgments”, and not to transgress thy divine commands. And to not keep but to transgress, he neither swore nor performed. For the lawless and cursed Herod fulfilled what he swore, and became the consumption of the eternal fire. He ought by no means swear for the sake of pleasing people, and not God, even if he will be compelled by a deadly persecution. If this is the case, let such repent and escape defiled things, for fearful is the judgment of such an oath, upon those who dumbly swore such things upon the doing of the destroyer and fighter of God.

18. Since as the Apostle says “in meekness one ought to instruct those who oppose themselves”, I will again say a small thing to them for the sake of

34

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

10

15

20

25

30

5

Cf. the Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which decrees to set up the holy representations «in God’s holy churches, on the sacred vessels and on clothes, walls and boards, in houses and on roads (e)n tai=j a(gi/aij tou= Qeou= e)kklhsi/ aij, e)n i(eroi=j skeu/sesi kai\ e)sqh=si, toi/coij te kai\ sani/sin, oi)k / oij te kai\ o(doi=j)» (MANSI 13, 377D). 63 These prayers, absent in the Georgian translation, have parallels in Adversus Iconomachos (PG 96, 1360C). 64 1 Tim. 1:15. 65 Cf. Jas. 2:10. 62

V. A. Baranov

35

mercy. Brethren, I beg your love in the Lord, as you wish, come all together in one mind, overcoming evil with love, and leaving behind the disbelief and seduction of your former foolishness. And we do not kiss the sacred images of our Lord Jesus Christ, depicted on walls and boards and on sacred vessels, and of the Most-pure Mother of God, His Mother according to the flesh, and not only these, but also of all the holy fathers of God, patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs, and of the venerable monks, and of the women — of the holy women-martyrs, who because of their patience turned weakness into fortitude, as gods in the manner of pagan dumbness, since this is a heresy and the ruin of the soul, but we kiss those icons in a theological way as the sincere friends of God and thus say with prayer. If this is the Lord’s icon, we say: “O Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, help us and save us”. If this is of His Most-pure Mother, we say: “Holy Theotokos, the Mother of the Lord, pray to your Son, our true God, to save our souls”. And if of a martyr: “Oh, martyr of the Lord, who shed your blood for Christ, being bold, pray for us”. Similarly we say this about every righteous person and venerable monk. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that this is not only harmless, but also intercedes for crowns. Let us, who despise the impious and deceitful faith of the heterodox, and think of ourselves as faithful, not hear:

19. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” For it is not as some think that the veneration is a tempo-

36

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

10

15

20

25

*** The dating and the authorship of the Apology In general, in its argumentation and the issues discussed, the text shows a significant amount of correspondence with the polemic literature of the first Iconoclasm,66 and, first of all, with the Apologies in Defense of Images of John Damascene: both use the same comparisons, Scriptural examples and arguments. The early period of the Iconoclastic Controversy is also indicated by the lack of a clearly articulated Christological argument and a «didactical» argument on the importance of icons for the illiterate, which apparently later proved to be too weak to be used in defense of icons in comparison with more sophisticated arguments of a Christological and philosophical type. At the same time several points of our text are close to the theological elaborations of later Constantinopolitan Iconodulic authors, such as the argument on circumscribability, which was extensively used in particular by Patriarch Nicephorus, or the argument of the similarity of Cross and image on the basis of Moses’ figure with spread arms. The authorship of Patriarch Germanus is mentioned in the anachronistic title of the Apology and does not have direct support in the text. However, See the corresponding notes above in the text of the Apology, and M. VAN ESUn discours inédits de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les Icônes // OCP 65 (1999) 23. 66

BROECK,

V. A. Baranov

37

rary honor, and then it will die out. But it will in the future by the grace of Christ, give reward due to faith, when the bodies of the saints will be conferred with shining more than the brightness of the sun, praying for us all to our Most-holy and Honorable and Most-blessed Glorious Lady Mother of God and Ever-virgin Mary, whose icon we venerated in honor, moreover will venerate ever, and of all the saints who pleased God from the ages. We in kissing have honored and will honor their wounds and sufferings for Christ according to the iconic representation. To our God, one in substance in three image-constitutions,67 we send our thankfulness, to Him be glory and power, honor and worship and splendor before all ages, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

*** four arguments can be advanced against the dating of the Apology to the earliest stages of the Iconoclastic Controversy, falling into the Patriarchate of Germanus: 1) ex silentio, 2) the presence of the citation from the Definition of Nicaea II (787) in our text, 3) the argument against the canonical prohibition of icon veneration, and 4) explicit contradiction of the whole tenor of the Apology with the «moderate» position of Patriarch Germanus expressed in his authentic three Epistles to the Iconoclastic bishops of Asia Minor. Even if the citation of the text from the Definition of Nicaea II in our Apology (ch. 18) is a later interpolation, why did the treatise, if it had been written by the Champion and Confessor of Orthodoxy Patriarch Germanus, not appear at the Council of Nicaea II? For it would have been invaluable for supporting the position of the Iconodules, who cited three Epistles of the same Patriarch to the Iconoclastic bishops, which had much less polemical power than our Apology but were sanctified by the name of the Orthodox Champion. And our «Apology on the Cross and on the Holy Icons» in its Greek original form had to survive Iconoclasm to be translated into Georgian (on the date of the Slavonic translations we do not have sufficient data) three centuries later. The answer is that our Apology must have existed at the time Most likely, another case of an «interpretative» Slavonic translation (see n. 24 for chapter 4 above). 67

38

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

of Nicaea II, given its general polemic tenor, Scriptural and Patristic examples, and the stage of the development of its argumentation, but was not yet ascribed to Patriarch Germanus and thus could not be used as an authoritative proof-text. The author in chapters 16–17, as it seems, refers to a certain document of canonical character which bound his adversaries not to venerate icons. Most likely our text refers not to some kind of a personal oath and not to a possible «secular» decision of the issue of the icons by an institute like the Imperial silentium,68 but their signature under a formal Synodocal document similar to the Definition of an Iconoclastic council (most likely of Hiereia, since we do not know of any other Iconoclastic councils prior to 754) with its canonical consequences and anathemas. Therefore the author appeals to withdraw from Eucharistic communion with the Iconoclasts, who «swore» not to venerate icons. If this is so, then our Apology has to be dated to the time after year 754. And finally, significant attention (chapters 14–15 and 19), which our author pays to the refutation of the argument that material icons possess only temporary (and thus relative) value, which will be canceled after Christ’s Second Coming and global transformation of the material universe. The Author of the Apology insists that the significance of the image does not depend on a time period, and image veneration will retain its saving value in the age to come. We may compare this position with the opinion of Patriarch Germanus, expressed in his Epistle, written in the very beginning of the Iconoclastic Controversy to his bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis. In this Epistle, that was cited at the Fourth Session of Nicaea II among other testimonies in defense of icons, the Patriarch thus addresses one of his bishops, who decided to destroy icons in his diocese. For justification of images, Patriarch Germanus uses the argument of «usefulness»: One should depict the image of the Lord according to the flesh on icons in the rebuke of the nonsense of heretics, [speaking] that He became man not in a true sense but in imagination; but also as a certain direction for those

In January, 730, Leo III convoked a silentium, a meeting of the high secular and ecclesiastical authorities, to endorse his edict against images. Patriarch Germanus refused to approve the document, insisting on a proper Synodical decision of the problem, and resigned from his post; his former synkellos Anastasius took the position of Patriarch to execute the Imperial Iconoclastic policy (Nicephorus, Short History, 62, ed. and trans. C. MANGO, Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople. Short History (Washington, 1990) (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 10) 130; Theophanes, Chronography / Ed. C. DE BOOR (Leipzig, 1883) 409; trans. C. MANGO, R. SCOTT, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford, 1997) 565). On the institute of silentium, see: A. CHRISTOPHILOPULU, Sile/ntion // BZ 44 (1951) 79–85. 68

V. A. Baranov

39

who are not strong to lift up to the height of spiritual contemplation but have a need in some bodily observation of what they have heard, inasmuch as it is useful and permissible.69

According to the opinion of Patriarch Germanus, one should not reject images, since they can be useful for the less «spiritual» members of the Church. The Patriarch mentions the Incarnation of Christ, yet he does so with polemical purposes, exactly as not long before Anastasius of Sinai did (d. after 700), who used the example of the Crucifix in his polemics with the Monophysites.70 At the same time St. Germanus does not insist, as will the next generation of Iconophile theologians, that icon veneration is indispensable for Orthodox as a testimony of Christ’s true humanity. Moreover, from the words of the Patriarch it can even follow that «those who lifted themselves up to the height of spiritual contemplation» may not need icons at all. We will not discuss here in detail the position of Patriarch Germanus, just noting that he simply follows here an old tradition of «moderate» or «practical» acceptance of sacred images, cut short by the Iconoclastic Controversy which sharply posed the question of «all or nothing» in regard to the cult of religious representations.71 In the light of this tradition and without the existing settlement of the question of icons in a Synodical way, this ambiguity may explain the wavering attitude of Patriarch Germanus at the time of the initiation of the Iconoclastic policies of Leo III since Patriarch Germanus had kept his post of the Head of the Church of Constantinople about four years after the first Iconoclastic actions of Leo, until the Imperial silentium, where he was forced to sign a document which was way too far for Germanus’ irenic attitude.72

69 To\ de\ tou= kuri/ou th=j kata\ sa/ rka i )de/aj e )n ei )ko/si tupou=sqai to\ n carakth=ra, ei )j e/l) egcon me/n e )sti tw=n fantasi/a| kai\ ou)k a)lhqei/a| a)n / qrwpon au )to\ n gene/sqai lhrwdou/ntwn ai(retikw=n, ceiragwgi/an de/ tina tw=n mh\ pa/nth ei )j to\ u(yhlo\ n a)na/ gesqai th=j pneumatikh=j qewri/aj exiscuo/ ) ntwn, a)lla\ deome/nwn kai\ tinoj swmatikh=j katanoh/sewj pro\ j th\ n tw=n a)kousqe/ntwn bebai/wsin. O /( son epwfele/ ) stero/n te kai\ perispoudasto/teron (MANSI 13, 116A = THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre… 381.147–151). 70 A. KARTSONIS, Anastasis: The Making of an Image (Princeton, 1986) 40–67. 71 On this tradition see in more detail: Â. À. ÁÀÐÀÍÎÂ, Î ìàëîèçâåñòíîì äîèêîíîáîð÷åñêîì ó÷åíèè îá «óìåðåííîì» èêîíîïî÷èòàíèè [On the little-known preIconoclastic teaching of «moderate» Iconodulia] // Ìèð Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ 6 (Âîëãîãðàä, 2006, in print). 72 S. GERO, Jonah and the Patriarch // Vigilliae Christianae 29 (1975) 142–143. On the wavering attitude of Patriarch Germanus, see also P. KARLIN-HAYTER, The Age of Iconoclasm // La spiritualité de l’univers byzantin dans le verbe et l’image. Hommages offerts à Edmond Voordeckers. Instrumenta Patristica 30 (Turnhout, 1997) 138.

40

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Therefore putting on one scale the arguments, mentioning Patriarch Germanus’ authorship in the anachronistic title of the Apology, and the arguments rather typical for the first Iconoclasm with the lack of stress on Christological or philosophical argumentation; and on the second scale all the discrepancies mentioned above, we may conclude, that our Apology constitutes a pamphlet against Iconoclasts of a rather popular level, comparable by its target audience to the anti-Iconoclastic Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum. As it seems, the Apology was composed after the Council of Hiereia of 754 and was interpolated after the Second Council of Nicaea (787), at that time still not under St. Germanus’ authorship, which in such case should be rejected. Recently there appeared an MA thesis, defended in 2005 at the Medieval Studies Department of the Central-European University and dedicated to the Georgian translation of the Homily: Natia GABRICHIDZE (Georgia), St. Germanos Patriarch of Constantinople in Old Georgian Translated Sources: Homily on the Cross and Icons.

–≈«fiÃ≈ ¬Î‡‰ËÏË ¿. ¡‡‡ÌÓ‚

Õ≈»«ƒ¿ÕÕ¿fl —À¿¬flÕ— ¿fl ¬≈–—»fl ´—ÀŒ¬¿ Œ  –≈—“≈ » —¬fl“¤’ » ŒÕ¿’ª, œ–»œ»—¤¬¿≈ÃŒ√Œ œ¿“–»¿–’” √≈–ÿՔ  ŒÕ—“¿Õ“»ÕŒœŒÀ‹— ŒÃ” (CPG 8033)  ñòàòüå ïðåäëàãàåòñÿ èçäàíèå ñëàâÿíñêîé âåðñèè àíòèèêîíîáîð÷åñêîãî ïîëåìè÷åñêîãî òðàêòàòà «Ñëîâî î Êðåñòå è ñâÿòûõ èêîíàõ, è ïðîòèâ åðåòèêîâ» ïî ðóêîïèñè íà÷. XVII â. — ñáîðíèêå «Êíèãà ãëàãîëåìàÿ Ðàé. Ïîó÷åíèå ñâÿòûõ îòåö» (Òîáîëüñêèé ôèëèàë Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî àðõèâà Òþìåíñêîé îáëàñòè, ñîáð. ðêï. êíèã ¹ 229, ë. 218 îá.–225 îá.) âìåñòå ñ àíãëèéñêèì ïåðåâîäîì òåêñòà. Ãðå÷åñêèé îðèãèíàë «Ñëîâà» íåèçâåñòåí, ãðóçèíñêàÿ âåðñèÿ «Ñëîâà» áûëà èçäàíà î. Ìèøåëåì âàí Ýñáðóêîì.  îáåèõ âåðñèÿõ «Ñëîâî» ïðèïèñûâàåòñÿ ñâ. Ãåðìàíó I Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîìó (715–730); ýòîé æå àòòðèáóöèè ïðèäåðæèâàëñÿ è ïåðâûé èçäàòåëü òåêñòà.  ñòàòüå ïðåäëàãàåòñÿ àíàëèç àðãóìåíòîâ ïàìÿòíèêà â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ðàçâèòèåì ïðîáëåìàòèêè èêîíîáîð÷åñêîãî ñïîðà, îòðàæåííîé â äàòèðîâàííûõ ãðå÷åñêèõ ïàìÿòíèêàõ òîãî æå ïîëåìè÷åñêîãî æàíðà. Àâòîð ïðèõîäèò ê âûâîäó, ÷òî «Ñëîâî» ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïàìôëåò ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîðöåâ äîñòàòî÷íî ïîïóëÿðíîãî óðîâíÿ, íàïèñàííûé ïîñëå ñîáîðà â Èåðèè 754 ã. è èíòåðïîëèðîâàííûé ïîñëå Ñåäüìîãî Âñåëåíñêîãî ñîáîðà. Àâòîðñòâî ïàòðèàðõà Ãåðìàíà â òàêîì ñëó÷àå äîëæíî áûòü îòâåðãíóòî.

Alessandro Bausi Universit‡´ degli Studi di Napoli ´LíOrientaleª

LA VERSIONE ETIOPICA DELLE RISPOSTE CANONICHE DI TIMOTEO I ATTRIBUITE A PIETRO DI ALESSANDRIA (CPG II, NR. 2520)* L’edizione e traduzione delle Risposte canoniche attribuite a Pietro di Alessandria continua una serie di contributi dedicati a singoli testi del Sinodos, la più importante collezione etiopica canonico-liturgica.1 Al pari dell’Epistola 70 di Cipriano di Cartagine, le Risposte canoniche hanno tradizione minoritaria, e sono tramandate da soli sette testimoni noti:2 1) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, d’Abbadie 65, ff. 141vb–143ra (A);3 2) BerAbbreviazioni: DAE = E. LITTMANN, Deutsche-Aksum Expedition herausgegeben von der Generalverwaltung der königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Band IV. Sabaische, griechische, und altabessinische Inschriften (Berlin, 1913); EMML = Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library; RIÉ = É. BERNAND, A. J. DREWES, R. SCHNEIDER, Recueil des Inscriptions de l’Éthiopie des périodes pré-axoumite et axoumite. 3 voll. (Paris, 1991–2000) (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres). 1 Per una presentazione sintetica delle questioni mi permetto di rimandare a due miei lavori recenti, cfr. A. BAUSI, San Clemente e le tradizioni clementine nella letteratura etiopica canonico-liturgica // P. LUISIER (a c.), Studi su Clemente Romano. Atti degli Incontri di Roma, 29 marzo e 22 novembre 2001 (Roma, 2003) (OCA 268) 13– 55, spec. 27 sgg.; ID., The Aksumite background of the Ethiopic «Corpus canonum» // S. UHLIG (ed.), Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies in Hamburg, 21.–25.7.2003 (Wiesbaden, 2003), ove si troverà indicata ulteriore bibliografia su edizioni e traduzioni, manoscritti e problemi specifici. 2 Per l’Epistola 70 cfr. A. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano di Cartagine in versione etiopica // Aethiopica 1 (1998) 101–130, edizione che non ha potuto tener conto del ms. s (cfr. oltre), che tramanda tra l’altro l’Epistola 70 completa della lista dei mittenti e dei destinatari, cfr. ID., Cyprian of Carthage // EÆ I. 842; cfr. anche ID., Note aggiuntive sull’Epistola 70 di Cipriano: versione etiopica e versione siriaca // M. BERNARDINI, N. TORNESELLO (a c.), Studi in onore di Giovanni Maria d’Erme. Saggi di colleghi e amici in occasione del suo compleanno. 2 voll. (Napoli, 2005) (Series Minor) Vol. I. 99–109, per complementi e la discussione dei rapporti con la versione siriaca; tra gli altri mss. dell’Epistola 70, i mss. RU tramandano anche le Risposte canoniche. 3 Per la bibliografia relativa ai mss. ABR, cfr. A. BAUSI, Il Se¯nodos etiopico. Canoni pseudoapostolici: Canoni dopo l’Ascensione, Canoni di Simone Cananeo, Canoni Apostolici, Lettera di Pietro. 2 voll. (Lovanii, 1995) (CSCO 552–553; Scriptores Aethiopici 101–102) Vol. testo. xiv e xviii; per il ms. U, cfr. ID., L’Epistola 70 di *

"

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

lin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. Fol. 398, ff. 187rb– 188vb (B); Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2, ff. 174vb–176ra (R); Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, O Etiop. 39, ff. 122rc–123va (U); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Éthiopien 181, ff. 124va–125vb (p);4 Etiopia, Collezione privata, ff. 117va–119va (s); 7) Addis Ababa, National Library 239, pp. 186c–189c: di quest’ultimo testimone non è stato possibile tenere conto in questa edizione.5 Come già per l’Epistola 70 di Cipriano, anche per le Risposte canoniche il primato dell’identificazione del testo etiopico spetta a J. M. Wansleben,6 che riconobbe nel testo etiopico attribuito al vescovo Pietro di Alessandria (ca. 300–311) lo stesso testo corrente in greco sotto il nome del patriarca Cipriano... 105 sgg.; per il ms. p, cfr. M. CHAÎNE, Supplément au Catalogue des manuscrits éthiopiens de H. Zotenberg (1877–1912) // Catalogue des manuscrits éthiopiens de la Collection Antoine d’Abbadie (Paris, 1912) 153 sg. (ms. nr. 181); per il ms. s, che sarà oggetto a tempo debito di una presentazione adeguata, cfr. intanto J. MERCIER, La peinture éthiopienne à l’époque axoumite et au XVIIIe siècle // Académie des Inscriptions & Belles Lettres. Comptes Rendues (2000) 35–71, spec. 36, n. 6; BAUSI, The Aksumite background…, con ulteriori riferimenti. 4 L’edizione delle Risposte canoniche era già approntata (cfr. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano... 106, n. 17) quando si è presentata l’opportunità di utilizzare i due testimoni aggiuntivi p, e soprattutto il prezioso s: nell’intenzione di non utilizzare per l’edizione di testi del Sinodos identiche sigle per testimoni diversi, i due sono stati indicati con sigle «non canoniche», normalmente riservate ad archetipi e subarchetipi. 5 Per questo ms. cfr. Catalogue of the Ethiopian Manuscripts in the National Library of Ethiopia (Addis Ababâ, 1962) 104 (ms. nr. 239), che ne è una semplice segnalazione; BAUSI, Il Sçnodos etiopico… Vol. testo. xxi, ove il ms., indicato con n, era stato utilizzato per la costituzione del testo dell’Indice melchita e dell’Indice copto, cfr. Ibid. Vol. testo. 1–8. Il ms. discende con tutta probabilità da un subarchetipo comune al ms. B, con il quale condivide un errore esclusivo e la perfetta sequenza dei testi, cfr. Ibid. Vol. testo. xxvi sgg. 6 Cfr. J. M. VANSLEBIUS, Conspectus Operum Aethiopicorum Quae ad excudendum parata habet R.P. Fr. Joan. Michael Vanslebius (Parisiis, 1671) 17: «IX. Sunt Responsa Canonica Petri Martyris Patriarchæ Alexandrini, ad quatuordecim quæstiones ipsi ab Episcopis, & Clero propositas, quæ tamen rectius Th. Balsamon in sua collectione Canonum Timotheo, ejusdem Urbis Episcopo adscribit. Hæc non habeo Arabice», in occasione della presentazione dell’edizione proposta per la stampa, e mai realizzata, sulla base del ms. R; riassunto anche in J. QUÉTIF, Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum recensiti. 2 voll. (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1719–1721; rist. New York, 1959–1961) Vol. II. 693 sg.: «responsa canonica Petri martyris patriarchae Alexandrini». Nel 1666, come dimostra il suo «Index» nel ms. Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Magliabechiano Cl. III, Cod. 2, f. IIr «Nonnullae quaestiones et Responsiones», si era limitato ad una indicazione sommaria del contenuto, cfr. A. BAUSI, I manoscritti etiopici di J. M. Wansleben nella Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze // Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 33 (1989 [1991]) 5–33, spec. 21.

A. Bausi

"!

alessandrino Timoteo I (380–384)7 . Nei cataloghi di mss. etiopici, la «riscoperta» della corretta identificazione del testo data al 1935.8 Entro l’ampia tradizione orientale9 delle Risposte canoniche, l’attribuzione a Pietro non si 7 Cfr. P.-P. JOANNOU, Discipline Générale antique (IVe–IXe s.). 4 voll. (Grottaferrata [Roma], 1962–1964) (Pontificia Commissione per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale. Fonti 9) Vol. II (Les canons des Pères Grecs, 1963) 240– 258; e già J. B. PITRA, Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta. 2 voll. (Romae, 1864–1868; rist. Roma, 1963) Vol. I. 630–645; per le datazioni tengo conto di A. CAMPLANI, Atanasio di Alessandria: Lettere festali. Anonimo: Indice delle lettere festali (Milano, 2003) (Letture cristiane del primo millennio 34) 636. 8 Cfr. per il ms. A: A. D’ABBADIE, Catalogue raisonné de manuscrits éthiopiens appartenant à Antoine d’Abbadie (Paris, 1859), p. 78 (ms. nr. 65): «21. Questions à Saint Pierre»; CHAÎNE, Supplément au Catalogue… 44 (ms. nr. 65): nessuna segnalazione; per il ms. p, Ibid. 154, ms. nr. 181: «Questions disciplinaires»; C. CONTI ROSSINI, Notice sur les manuscrits éthiopiens de la collection d’Abbadie. Extrait du Journal Asiatique (1912–1914) (Paris, 1914) 167 (ms. nr. 152): «Comment les évêques et les prêtres interrogèrent l’évêque martyr Pierre, car il y avait un néophyte de sept ans»; per il ms. B, che omette l’incipit, A. DILLMANN, Die Handschriften-verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Dritter Band. Verzeichniss der abessinischen Handschriften (Berlin, 1878) 16 (ms. nr. 23): «ohne Überschrift: allerlei casuistischen Fragen aus dem canonischen Recht und Antworten darauf»; e finalmente, per il ms. R, S. GRÉBAUT, E. TISSERANT, Codices aethiopici Vaticani et Borgiani Barberinianus orientalis 2 Rossianus 865. 2 voll. (In Bybliotheca Vaticana, 1935–1936) (Bybliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti iussu Pii XI Pontificis maximi) Vol. I. 774 sg.: «Interrogationes XIII et responsa, hic sub nomine Petri ìAlexandrinií, alias sub nomine Timothei. Textum interrogationum XV graecum a Balsamone enarratum invenies» ecc., con rinvio alla trad. ed edizione del testo siriaco di F. NAU, Littérature canonique syriaque inédite // ROC 14 (1909) 1–49, 113– 130; Concile d’Antioche, lettre d’Italie, canons «des saints pères», de Philoxène, de Théodose, d’Anthime, d’Athanase etc. Textes et traductions d’après le ms. syriaque N. 62 de Paris et le ms. 12155 de Londres, avec un fragment syriaque de voyage de saint Pierre et seize pages de texte syriaque lithographié (Paris, 1909) (Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque 3), e cenni alla versione copta; per il ms. U, O. LÖFGREN, Katalog über die äthiopischen Handschriften in der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala Sowie Anhänge über äthiopische Handschriften in anderen Bibliotheken und in Privatbesitz in Schweden (Uppsala—Stockholm, 1974) (Acta Bibliothecae R. Universitatis Upsaliensis 18) 114 (ms. nr. 35): «14 Fragen an den Bischof Petrus und seine Antworten», si limita al rinvio a GRÉBAUT, TISSERANT, Codices aethiopici… 9 Cfr. in sintesi CPG II, nr. 2520 (Responsa canonica). La versione araba nota risale al XVIII sec., cfr. G. GRAF, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Erster Band. Die Übersetzungen (Città del Vaticano, 1944) (ST 118) 316. Per la tradizione siriaca, credo utile riportare alcuni complementi (cfr. già BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano... 106, n. 17, con ulteriori dettagli che qui non ripeto): la trad. del testo siriaco dal ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Syr. 62, in NAU, Littérature canonique syriaque... 35–37, seguita dalla pubblicazione del testo in facsimile, ID., Concile d’Antioche, lettre d’Italie…, era stata preceduta dall’edizione di F. SCHULTHESS,

""

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

configura come una degenerazione etiopica: la si ritrova tale e quale nella versione copta, ancora inedita;10 non la si ritrova invece nella versione siriaca, mentre la tradizione armena conosce un’attribuzione ad Atanasio.11 La tradizione etiopica si caratterizza poi nella sua totalità per l’omissione di una delle Risposte canoniche — la VII,12 — riducendo così a 14 il numero totale delle risposte, mentre ne contano 15 la tradizione orientale e la migliore greca; entro quest’ultima, una tradizione meno autorevole conosce un’aggiunta di ulteriori 14 risposte, per un totale di 29.13 Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon nebst einigen zugehörigen Dokumenten (Berlin, 1908) (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse N. F. 10/2) 153– 155, sulla base di cinque mss. (London, British Library, Add. 14526, Add. 14527 e Add. 14528; Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Sir. 127; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Syr. 62, cfr. dettagli, Ibid. v–ix); nuova edizione e trad. di A. VÖÖBUS, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition. 4 voll. (Louvain, 1975– 1976) (CSCO 367–368, 375–376; Scriptores Syri 161–164) Testo, vol. I. 140–143; trad., vol. I. 138–141; dal ms. Dam. Patr. 8/11; cfr. ulteriori segnalazioni in W. SELB, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht. Band II. Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Westsyrer (von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit) (Wien, 1989) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 543. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für antike Rechtsgeschichte 6 Herausgegeben von Walter Selb) 111, n. 100, e pp. 120 sg.; per il ruolo del testo in Severo di Antiochia cfr. da ultimo H. KAUFHOLD, Welche Kirchenrechtsquellen kannte Patriarch Severos von Antiocheia (512–518)? // Ius canonicum in Oriente et Occidente. Festschrift für Carl Gerold Fürst zum 70. Geburtstag / Hrsg. H. Zapp, A. Weiß und S. Korta (Frankurt am Main, 2003) (Adnotationes in Ius Canonicum 25) 259–274, spec. 267. 10 Cfr. R.-G. COQUIN, Le Corpus Canonum copte. Un nouveau complément: le ms. I.F.A.O., Copte 6 // Orientalia, n.s. 50 (1981) 39–86, spec. 43 sg. e n. 18, che nel dare notizia del nuovo ms. ritorna su vari punti della collezione copta, correggendo le indicazioni in merito di CPG II, nr. 2520: «CPG, tome II, n° 2520; l’auteur renvoie pour la version copte à Crum, Der Papyruscodex 103 sq., mais Crum n’a pas édité ni traduit le début des Responsa canonica de Timothée, mais seulement la fin et les deux dihgh/mata ajoutés à leur suite dans notre Corpus canonum; on notera, en passant, que la version copte n’a que les quinze premières questions et réponses comme les meilleurs manuscrits grecs. Ce texte copte les attribue à Pierre, le prédécesseur de Timothée»; il riferimento è a W. E. CRUM, Der Papyruscodex saec. VI–VII der Phillippsbibliothek in Cheltenham: koptische theologische Schriften (Strassburg, 1915) (Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg 18). 11 Cfr. JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 238, n. 6; anche su questo punto tace CPG II, nr. 2520. 12 Probabilmente per omoteleuto, dato che le risposte VI e VII sono pressoché identiche, cfr. JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 244, ll. 4 sg. e 12, risposta VI: .U ¸ perqe/sqai o f) ei¿lei eÀwj aÄ n kaqarisqv=, e risposta VII: Ou k ) o )fei¿lei eÀwj aÄ n kaqarisqv=. 13 Cfr. JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 239, testo, e pp. 252–258, trad.

A. Bausi

"#

La pubblicazione della versione etiopica delle Risposte canoniche — testo di per sé trascurabile, a parte il ristretto interesse canonistico — si giustifica per più motivi: 1) fornisce il testo attendibile della versione etiopica delle Risposte, finora inedita, sulla più ampia tradizione attingibile; 2) conferma la necessità di prestare attenzione, entro la tradizione del Sinodos, ad una piccola costellazione di testi, prevalentemente di tradizione minoritaria che sembra ormai configurarsi come il residuo di una fase premedievale della tradizione canonico-liturgica, probabilmente risalente ad età aksumita e derivata, in parte o interamente, direttamente dal greco:14 se così è, è anche vero che della versione etiopica delle Risposte canoniche non possediamo la esatta Vorlage greca, come dimostrano sia le differenze di dettaglio sia la stessa attribuzione a Pietro, condivisa con la versione copta, e probabilmente risalente ad una recensione greca da cui dipendono le due versioni copta ed etiopica; 3) for14 Per questo punto cfr. BAUSI, San Clemente e le tradizioni clementine... 15–18; ID., The Aksumite background…, ove si troveranno ulteriori rinvii; per l’«ellenismo aksumita», cfr. G. FIACCADORI, Aethiopica Minima // Quaderni Utinensi 7 (13/14) (1989 [1993]) 145–164; ID., Un’epigrafe greca aksumita (RIÉth 274) // V. RUGGERI, L. PIERALLI (a c.), EUKOSMIA. Studi miscellannei per il 75° di Vincenzo Poggi S.J. (Soveria Mannelli [Catanzaro], 2003) 243–255; ed ID., Sembrouthes «Gran Re» (DAE IV 3 = RIÉth 275). Per la storia del primo ellenismo aksumita // La Parola del Passato 59 (2004) 103–157; tra le ultime acquisizioni di testi all’età aksumita si contano anche l’Omelia cattedrale XIV di Severo di Antiochia, cfr. D. V. PROVERBIO, Un frammento copto dell’omelia cattedrale L di Severo di Antiochia (In Leontium II) // Augustinianum 41 (2001) 517–520, spec. 518 (nei mss. London, British Library, Orient. 8192, ff. 134rb–136rb ed EMML 1763, ff. 270vb–272va, e 8509, ff. 151v–153r), ed un’omelia pasquale edita ancora dai citati mss. Orient. 8192, ff. 72va–77ra ed EMML 1763, ff. 201vb–204vb (cui ancora si accompagnava il ms. EMML 8509, ff. 92r–102r, cfr. FIACCADORI, Aethiopica Minima... 150, § IV, EMML 7602: il «Libro dei Santi» di Tullu Guddo, con ulteriori riferimenti), attribuita dagli editori O. RAINERI, TEDROS ABRAHA, Filone di Carpasia: un’omelia pasquale trasmessa in etiopico // RUGGERI, PIERALLI, EUKOSMIA... 377–398, assai reticenti su un’ipotesi di Vorlage, a Filone di Carpasia, ma tempestivamente identificata da S. J. VOICU, Filone di Carpasia e Pseudo Ippolito: di un’omelia pasquale tramandata in etiopico // Augustinianum 44 (2004) 5–24, almeno per una parte, con l’omelia In sanctum Pascha dello PseudoIppolito; sul ms. EMML 1763 cfr. i riferimenti in BAUSI, The Aksumite background… § 3.1 (Homily on the sabbaths). Direi ormai abbastanza sicura l’attribuzione all’età aksumita dell’Epistola 70 di Cipriano di Cartagine (cfr. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano…; ID., Note aggiuntive sull’Epistola 70 di Cipriano…); solo possibile, con riserva, quella della Didascalia dei 318 niceni sulla retta fede e la vita monastica — cfr. ID., La versione etiopica della Didascalia dei 318 niceni sulla retta fede e la vita monastica // Ægyptus Christiana. Mélanges d’hagiographie égyptienne et orientale dédiés à la mémoire du P. Paul Devos bollandiste / Curr. E. Lucchesi, U. Zanetti (Genève, 2004) (Cahiers d’Orientalisme 25) 225–248, — che esula dalla categoria dei testi «di tradizione minoritaria».

"$

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

nisce un nuovo esempio di lingua di traduzione di età aksumita, segnata dai limiti e dalle forzature conseguenti all’esigenza di una resa fedele ed immediata, e, aggiungerei, non esposta all’opera continua di revisione cui fu sottoposto il testo biblico nel corso della sua tradizione; 4) infine, permette di identificare una citazione da «Pietro» nella Omelia sui sabati di Retu‘a Haymânot (l’Ortodosso),15 con la XII (aethiopice = XIII graece) delle Risposte canoniche, in una forma che evidenzia alcuni tratti di corruttela,16 e che suggerisce anche che il ms. EMML 1763 (testimone autorevole ed il più antico dell’Omelia, ante 1336/37 o 1339/4017 ) riflette un momento di passaggio cruciale tra la pura conservazione di testi della remota eredità aksumita e la costituzione di un corpus letterario più recente ed aggiornato.18 Seguono l’edizione critica e la traduzione del testo. Nella costituzione del testo, che, come si è accennato, presenta problemi linguistici non indifferenti, si è tenuto conto dei rapporti tra i testimoni come anche dei criteri interni; in pochi casi si è ritenuto di ricorrere a congetture.19 La traduzione non vuole Cfr. G. LUSINI, Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano (secoli XIV–XV) (Napoli, 1993) (Studi Africanistici. Serie Etiopica 3) 130–175 (Appendice. L’omelia «Sui sabati». Testo e traduzione), spec. p. 158, ll. 12 sg., trad. p. 159, ll. 13 sg.; e BAUSI, The Aksumite background… § 3.1 (Homily on the sabbaths) per l’identificazione della citazione e la bibliografia ulteriore, compreso uno status quaestionis sul significato di questa ed altre citazioni entro l’Omelia sui sabati; il testo è tramandato nei mss. EMML 1763, ff. 37va–48va, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. oct. 1269, ff. 71rb–88vb, e Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2 (R della presente edizione), ff. 177r–185v (erroneamente in LUSINI, Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano... 17: «ff. 174r–182v», secondo una numerazione non più valida). 16 Cfr. la risposta XII, apparato dell’edizione e commento alla trad. 17 Cfr. GETATCHEW HAILE, W. F. MACOMBER, A catalogue of Ethiopian manuscripts microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Collegeville. Vol. V: Project Numbers 1501– 2000 (Collegeville, Minnesota — St. John’s Abbey and University, 1981) 218; LUSINI , Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano... 21. 18 Come già ho avuto occasione di notare, cfr. BAUSI, The Aksumite background… §§ 3.1 (Homily on the sabbaths), 3.2 (Further evidence from MS EMML 1763), 4.4 (A role for Dabra Hñ ayq Est‚ ifa¯nos?), con riferimenti ulteriori. 19 Oltre ad un archetipo (lo dimostra da sola l’omissione della VII risposta canonica), risulta chiaramente un subarchetipo comune ad RU (come risultava già per l’Epistola 70 di Cipriano, cfr. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano... 109 sg.; cfr. le varianti I,14; II,6; V,13; XI,13; XII,4,14,15; XIV,8); probabile, ma non dimostrato, anche un subarchetipo comune ad ARU (cfr. III,7,13–14; XII,31: lezioni caratteristiche e non errori); come ugualmente probabile, nulla ostando, è la possibilità che s occupi da solo un ramo di uno stemma bifido, se si considerano, eccezionalmente, — in mancanza di errori — innovazioni significative individuanti un subarchetipo comune ad ABRUp le grafie normalizzate loro proprie, di contro ai numerosi arcaismi 15

A. Bausi

"%

essere (e aggiungerei: non può essere) niente di più che una guida all’interpretazione del testo edito, del quale quindi intende mantenere e rivelare tutte le difficoltà. Il testo in corsivo indica un’aggiunta necessaria per la resa del senso, in casi in cui si è ritenuto che ancora non ricorressero gli estremi per supporre una corruttela e proporre una congettura. Le annotazioni si limitato ai pochi passi per i quali si sono ritenute indispensabili.

Codices A B R U p s

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, d’Abbadie 65, ff. 141vb–143ra. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. Fol. 398, ff. 187rb–188vb. Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2, ff. 174vb– 176ra. Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, O Etiop. 39, ff. 122rc–123va. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Éthiopien 181, ff. 124va–125vb. Etiopia, Collezione privata, ff. 117va–119va.

esclusivi di s (cfr. IV,5; V,11,18,21,22; VII,5; VIII,16; XI,5; XII,4,17,28; XIV,10), che in questa edizione, in ogni caso, sono stati intenzionalmente per lo più rigettati in apparato, nella convinzione che vadano discussi e commentati in un lavoro appositamente dedicato, e che non sia opportuno accoglierli ora a testo senza darne adeguatamente conto.

"&

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Edizione del testo etiopico* [I ] aÕ:1 ™‰K:a2 o]„Dê:3 ÄÂÄÂ\q: ‘c\‘é]q: D„íÃÂï]fÅÂ]:4 mkÆê%:5 [L%q:6 ÃÂí¹Y]:a7 a†K:8 IÇ}:a9 }„ê[:10 ‹X]oñ¥}: ™[mk•oë:11 $M:12 ‘†KAð: FAðe: ‘é†oë: ‘©©c:13 †}™: §cõXké:14 cÿXl{:15 ‘k„牢MY: n„: ‘ocSk:16 M}o:17 KÏq‘é: }´kX:18 §kò:19 ¥¹Me”: †]K: †´™ï„mkGíX:20 Ñé˜:21 [II] aÖ:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê:3 †K:4 }„ê[:5 ‹X]oñ¥}:6 ‘³{ó}:7 noë: E%Dí@é: ‘§Êeªê: „›Lªï@é: §}P†: eªê[: 8 ¹Mco: 9 ‘†K: 10 KÏq‘é{ê:11 §8Ke: ‘†KAð: DNq:12 @D÷:13 ‘§kò:14 ÄÂÄÂ]: a†K:15 „ï}ÃêI:a16 †M³{ó}: K}Ê]:17 X‰ê]:18 „ï§8Ke:19 ‘†K[:20 D²ï™ò: Nq: ‘D{²ï©ö:21 kÃöG: §8Ke:22 [III] a×:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê: D†K: •kï¢:3 ‹X]oñ¥}: ‘é†oë:4 ‘„wœ: ³{ó}:5 D†K: §‰‘é~@é:6 cUmk:7 Deªê]: cÿXl}:8 ‘§kò:9 ÄÂÄÂ]: D†K: §™ò‹X:10 cÿXl}:11 ‘D†KAð: „ï§ÆXÏ: §eSmk:12 a‘é]o:13 cÿXl}:a14 ‘„Œ: ‘qS: ¢„‹D÷: ™kk:15 [}ko:16 ‹X]oñ¥}:17

* Compendia: a. ante; add. addit; al. aliter; con. conieci; del. delevit; em. emendavit; om. omittit; p. post; in m. in margine; in r. in rasura; praep. praeponit; s.l. supra lineam; transp. transponit; (;, ;= etc.) distinxit. [I] 1–7 om. B; Õ: ‘o]†F”: DÃÂí¹Y]: ÄÂÄÂ]: ‘§kòF”: k†}o: }]G; U | 1–2 (om. B; al. U); ™‰K: Rp | 3 (om. B; al. U) o]†Dê: ABRUp | 4 (om. B; al. U); D„íÃÂí]: f" A | 5 (om. B; al. U); om. ARp | 6 (om. B; al. U); ‘[L%q: p | 7 (;= s); (om. B; al. U); ÃÂíÃÂí¹Y]: p | 8-9 †]K: I" A; Õ: †MIÇ|q: R; †K– U; Õ: †K: IÇ}: p | 10 "]: AUs | 11 ×: p; ™mk$oë: s | 12 (; A); $Kq: RU | 13 ‘©c: A; ‘©cc: U; ‘©cñc: p | 14 §cõXmk: Bp; ¥cõ" RU | 15 "}: s | 16 ‘cXk: U | 17 "q: R; M}q{ð: p | 18 (; BRUp) | 19 ‘§kò: p | 20 †´™ï„mk: p; †´™ï„: mkGíX: s | 21 (; ABRUp; ;= s). [II] 1–2 Ö: ‘o]†Dê: A; ‘o[„Dê: B; Ö: o]†Dê RU; ‘o]†Dê: p | 3 om. A | 4 †M: A | 5 "]: Bs | 6 ‘é†oë: add. RU | 7 "{ó{: AR | 8 "]: ABs | 9 (; Bp); "q: Bp | 10 om. A; †K: BRUp | 11 "q‘é: BU | 12 DNo: A | 13 (; ABRUp) | 14 "kòDê: B | 15-16 †KAð: }ÃêI: ABp; †KAð: "G: R; ™„ï}" U | 17 ‘K" RU; ‘†K" s | 18 X‰è]: U | 19 (; AU) | 20 ‘†KAð: p | 21 ‘{²ï´: A; ‘{²ï©ö: BRUp | 22 (; ABRUps). [III] 1–2 {in m. ×:} ×: ‘o]†Dê: A; ‘o[„Dê: B; ×: ‘o]" RU; ‘o]†Dê: p | 3 "§: ABUp | 4 (; U) | 5 ³}}: R | 6 "~: ABp; §‰‘é}Að: U | 7 §eSmk: ARU | 8 (; BRUp) | 9 ‘D†KAð: ‘§kò: B; §kò: RU | 10 §™ò‰X: Up | 11 (; B); "{: RU | 12 §cÿSmk: A | 13-14 cÿXl{: ARU | 15 ™k– U; ™kk– p | 16 "kq: A; [|mkq: B | 17 (; ABRUp; ;= s).

A. Bausi

"'

Traduzione [I] 1 In qual modo i metropoliti ed i presbiteri interrogarono il vescovo, beato martire, Pietro. Se è accaduto che un giovane catecumeno di sette anni, ovvero un adulto, sia entrato inconsapevolmente mentre offrono l’offerta eucaristica e l’ha ricevuta, che cosa conviene che facciamo? Disse: Lo battezzino, perché il Signore lo ha chiamato. [II] 2 Interrogarono e dissero: Se un catecumeno è ossesso da un demone ed i suoi parenti vogliono che riceva il santo battesimo, è conveniente che sia battezzato, tanto più se è prossimo alla morte? Disse il metropolita: Se non è purificato dal demone, spirito impuro, non sia battezzato, ma se è prossimo al momento della morte ed è giunto al momento della sua dipartita, sia battezzato. [III] 3 Interrogarono e dissero: Se è un cristiano battezzato ed è posseduto da un demone, gli è permesso di accostarsi alla santa offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Se l’offerta eucaristica ha l’effetto di richiamare in senno,20 e se egli non bestemmia, si accosti all’offerta eucaristica, e non di continuo, gli è sufficiente ogni domenica.

20 «se l’offerta eucaristica ha l’effetto di richiamare in senno»: traduzione fortemente ipotetica di D†K: §™ò‹X: cÿXl}:; cfr. il greco (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 242, l. 2): ¹Ea\n mh\ e)cagoreu/v to\ musth/rion, trad., Ibid. 242: «S’il ne divulgue pas le sacrement».

#

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

[IV] aØ:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê: D†Kn: ™§©“ñ: ‘™}´•:3 ‘„溜F: o„M~: @§L~q:4 ‘¥]okcÿ•ê:5 [mk„ê:6 ‰K: ¢@mk”:7 ¹Mco: eªê[:8 †}™:9 I¥‘é: ‘é†oë:10 a†K:11 KÏq‘é{ê:a12 {@n:13 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄ]  : KÏq‘é: §}P†:14 †K: }ÃêI: ‘é†oë: †K}Ê]:15 X‰ê]:16 [V ] aÙ:1 ‘o]„F”:a2 ‘§kòF”:3 mk†[ïq: D†K: kòoq: M]D: Mp: ‘Œ{: ÃD÷o: 4 D†K: §‰‘é|@é: 5 q}P†: 6 cÿXl{: 7 ‘§kò: ÄÂ Ä Â ] : „柳‘é~Ké:8 †]K: §ÃXy: Ä‘éD÷]: G“X¥: ‘§mkF:9 „ïqqVGcë:10 kk§|oñ‹Ké:11 ™†}kD: †M}mkSq:12 wkïS‹Ké: k²ï™ò:13 a‘›:14 ™§mkF:a15 ìkí²ï™ò:16 „]oX‹n:17 ‰K: p]oX‹ké: 18 DÃD÷q:19 ‘†M›:20 Š%k:21 q@F’:22 ykéS: ‘‰K:23 „ï§Çmk†‹Ké:24 [§¸}:25 [VI] aÚ:1 ‘o]„F”:a2 ‘§kòF”:3 D†K: mk†[ïoë:4 }„ê[:5 ‹X]oñ¥}: ‘„ÃöGÊq:6 ]L: Do8Mf: ‘k%Do: o8Mf: X†¢q: ™‰K:7 §DMª: „}]q:8 †K:9 KÏq‘é{ê: q8Ke:10 ‘LðK:11 qÃö|I:12 ‘§kò:13 ÄÂÄ]  :14 KÏq‘é: qÃö|I:15 aLðK8{:16 K“%D:17 †]‰: q{ÃöI:a18 [VII] aÛ:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê: D†K: ‘D©q: mk†[ïq:3 k%Do:4 Í[ïŠ:5 †K:6 aqÑéM{ê:7 ‘LðK:a8 §©öIX“{ê:9 q]o§: ‘§{:10 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄÂ]:11 ÅM: k†}o: Q³{: o²mkS:12 |©ö‹N:13 ‘†M‰K[:14 ©ö’§:15 ‘é†oë: KÏq‘é: aqmkE%:16 ‘q]o§:a17 kG\k:18 q‹F:19 [IV] 1–2 Ø: ‘o]†Dê: AU; ‘o[„Dê: B; Ø: ‘o\„Dê: R; ‘o]†Dê: p | 3 ‘™}²•: B | "o: AB | 5 ‘¢]olcÿ•ê: A; ‘¢]omkcÿ•ê: s | 6 "†: A | 7 ¢@ké:”: R | 8 "]: s | 9 †}o: A | 10 ‘†oë: s | 11-12 (12 KÏq‘é:{ê: R); †KÏq" B; †KKÏq‘é{ê: p | 13 (; ABRUp) | 14 om. AR | 15 om. A; K}" B | 16 (; ABRUp; ;= s). [V] 1–2 Ù: ‘o]†Dê: ARU; ‘o]†Dê: Bp | 3 ‘§kòDê:”: Bp | 4 ÃD÷p: A; ÃD÷q: 5 s | §‰‘é}@é: BRUp; §‰‘|@é: s | 6 (; p) | 7 (; BRUp); "}: Ap | 8 (; A); „柳‘é~: p | 9 om. A; †}™: §mkF: p | 10 „ïqqS" Bp | 11 kkò|oñ‹Ké: s | 12 "o: ABp | 13 (; ABU); k²ï™ò@é: RU | 14–15 ‘§mkF: B; ‘™§mkF: p | 16 con.; D²ï™ò: ABRUs; D²ó™ò: p | 17 „]oV{em. X}‹n: B | 18 o]pV‹ké: A; ¥]oX‹ké: p; o]oX‹ké: s | 19 (; BRUp) | 20 ‘†M™: s | 21 ‰%k: s | 22 o@" ARp; "‘é: BU | 23 ‰K: A | 24 „ï§Èl†‹Ké: ABRUp | 25 (; ABRUps). [VI] 1–2 {del. Ú:} ‘o]†F”: A; ‘o[„F”: B; ‘o]†F”: Rp; Ú: ‘o]†F”: 3 U | ‘§kòDê: s | 4 mk†[ïo: U | 5 }„ê]: Bs | 6 ‘„ÃöGÊ: p | 7 k‰K: ABRUp | 8 (; ARU); kKÏq‘é: add. p | 9 †]K: A | 10 o8Kc: s | 11 ‘LôK: p | 12 (; ABRUp); "{y: A | 13 ‘LðK: U | 14 ÑéD÷]: B | 15 (; AB) | 16-18 om. B | 16 (om. B); kK8{: R; K8{: p | 17 (om. B); K“%E: R; K“%F: s | 18 (; ApU); (om. B); qÆ}I: R. [VII] 1–2 {in m. Û:} Û: ‘o]†Dê: A; ‘o]†Dê: BRp; Ú: ‘o]†Dê: U | 3 mk†[ïq‰: 4 B | k„Ãö“K: p | 5 Í]Š: s | 6 †K– B | 7–8 om. A | 8 (om. A); ‘LôK: p | 9 §©öw" RU | 10 (; ARUp); ‘§}: s | 11 ÑéD÷]: B | 12 "Sq: A | 13 (; p); "M: ABRUp | 14 ‘"K: A | 15 ©ö‘é§: U | 16–17 (17 qmkD%: A); q]" ‘qmk" s | 18 kw[mk: B; kG\mk: s | 19 (; ARUp; ;= s). 4

A. Bausi

#

[IV] 4 Interrogarono e dissero: Se c’è uno che è malato e vaneggia e non può fare la professione di fede, e i suoi implorano di conferirgli il santo battesimo mentre è ancora in vita, è conveniente che glielo diamo? Disse il metropolita: Conviene che lo riceva se è purificato dallo spirito impuro. [V] 5 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se una donna ha passato la notte con suo marito ed ha avuto luogo la preghiera, le è possibile ricevere l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Non è loro possibile, perché Paolo apostolo proclama e dice: «Non allontanatevi tra di voi, se non in seguito a comune accordo, ad un certo momento»,21 e questo che dice, «ad un certo momento, di dedicarsi»,22 è «perché vi dedichiate alla preghiera e quindi di nuovo stiate insieme e perché Satana non vi combatta». [VI] 6 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se la sua donna è catecumena ed ha fatto iscrivere il proprio nome per essere battezzata e nel giorno del battesimo si è accorta di trovarsi come avviene alle donne, conviene che sia battezzata, o che attenda? Disse il metropolita: Conviene che attenda tanti giorni finché non sia purificata. [VII] 7 Interrogarono e dissero: Se una donna dovrà partorire nel giorno di Pasqua, osserverà il digiuno e le sarà permesso di bere vino?23 Disse il metropolita: Il digiuno è stato concepito per il nostro corpo, perché noi lo indeboliamo; ma dal momento che è già debilitato, conviene che mangi e beva nella misura che può. 21 «se non in seguito a comune accordo, ad un certo momento» traduce ™†}kD: †M}mkSq: wkïS‹Ké: k²ï™ò:; cfr. il greco, Ibid. 243, ll. 7 sg.: ei¹ mh/ ti aÄn e)k sumfw¯nou pro\j kairo/n; è una citazione da 1 Cor., 7,5, che ricorre identica nella risposta XII, ove però l’etiopico traduce diversamente: ™†}kD: kQX•q: wkïS‹Ké: k²ï™ò:; si può naturalmente ipotizzare che all’origine nei due passi il testo fosse identico, ma è più probabile che la stessa espressione sia stata tradotta all’origine in modo diverso: segnale forse della insoddisfazione della soluzione accolta, della fortissima oscillazione linguistica e della conseguente scarsa (ma non impossibile) «prevedibilità» della traduzione; per lo stesso fenomeno nella Bibbia, cfr. M. A. KNIBB, Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1999) (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995) 92 sgg. 22 «e questo che dice, “ad un certo momento, di dedicarsi”»: traduce ‘›: ™§mkF: ìkí²ï™ò: „]oX‹n:; la congettura si deve alla supposizione che il D²ï™ò: della tradizione (cfr. V,16) sia corrotto dal k²ï™ò: che ricorre prima e nel passo parallelo (cfr. V,13; XII,19); assente nel testo greco, ma con riscontri nell’apparato di varianti (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 243, ad. l. 8, kairo\n): kairo\n de\ le/gei th=j sunousi¿aj, kairo\n de\ le/gw to\n th=j suna/cewj, kairo\n le/gw th\n ou)si¿an sunh/qeian. 23 «le sarà permesso di bere vino» traduce il testo §©öIX“{ê: q]o§: (cfr. similmente IX,7–8 §©öIX”{ê: §mkE%: «gli si deve permettere di mangiare»); cfr. il greco, rispettivamente, Ibid. 244, ll. 15 sg.: ei¹ o)fei¿lei nhsteu=sai kaiì mh\ pieiÍn oiånon, e soprattutto, Ibid. 246, ll. 9 sg.: hÄ a)polu/ei au)to\n o( klhriko\j lamba/nein oÁ du/natai ; il passo potrebbe confermare il significato di «permittere vel concedere», postulato da A. DILLMANN, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (Lipsiae, 1865) C. 1108,

#

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

[VIII] aÜ:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòF”:3 §‰‘é~@é:4 Dc[ï]: §ÃDï:5 †}™: @D÷: M]Dí@é:6 „X¥~]:7 ‘†K{ð:8 l%©ö:9 IXKpq:10 †K:11 ¥S‰è^@é:12 †]K: ‘é†oë: §ÃíDï: ‘§cõXmkAð: 13 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: „ï§ÃíDï:14 †]K: †Me©öK:15 cÿXl}: §mkF: ªï¥f}:16 †}kD: §q„Mwê: †D: „ïqcXké:17 DŽê:18 „ïŒ{‰ò: KÏq‘é: ¢@Dê: „X¥~]:19 †}™: §ÃíDï:20 [IX] aÝ:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê: †Kn: ™§©“ñ: ¹c: ILM:3 k©“õ@é: ‘[§G:4 ‘o}Q„: †M©“õ@é: ‘kÃöG: ÅK:5 Í[ïŠ: †K:6 §©öIX”{ê:7 §mkE%:8 emk„:9 ‘§]o§: ‘§{:10 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄ]  : §©öGX”:11 †]K: ©‹K: k©“õ@é:12 Q³@é: ‘§mkE%Að:13 ‘§]o§Að:14 k„M¸{:15 §‹F:16 [X ] aÞ:1 ‘o]„F”:a2 ‘§kòF”: D†K: Ñé%”: Dc[ï]: aD„]o“]n:3 ‘[M•:4 c[ï]:a5 ‰K: ì[ímk\mk:6 ‰}oë:7 ©cñc: „w‘é:8 ‘†KAð:9 mk†[ïo: †wê@é:10 a‘D†K:11 KÏq‘é{ê:a12 §JX:13 kòo: ›}oë: ‘§´kX: cÿXl{Að:14 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: |@é: qkò: DDï‰: ‰K:15 ‰}oë:16 ì[ímk\mk:17 ‘[M•:18 c[ï]: ‘†M‰K[‰ò:19 a‰}oë:20 „ïŒ{‰ò:a21 KÏq‘é: a§\oÏ:22 ‘é]o: w8ï„q:a23 l%©ö:24

[VIII] 1–2 {in m. Ü:} Ü: ‘o]†Dê: A; ‘o[„Dê: B; Ú: ‘o]†Dê: R; Ü: ‘o]†Dê: U; ‘o]†Dê: p | 3 ‘o§kòF”: p | 4 §‰‘é}@é: ABRUp | 5 §ÃíDï: BU | 6 om. p | 7 (; RU); ‡X¥~]: p | 8 †K{ð: ABR; ‘†KAð: U | 9 l%©: R | 10 "po: Rp | 11 †K– B | 12 §kcÿ˜@é: A; ¥S‰ê^@é: B; ¥S‰è]@é: R | 13 (; AUp); ‘§c" AU | 14 ‘§ÃíDï{del. Að}: B; „ï§Ã" Rp | 15 †Me©öM: s | 16 ›¥f}: s | 17 „ïqcõXké: p; „ïqeXké: s | 18 Äê: A | 19 „X„~]: U | 20 (; ABRUp; ;= s); §ÃDï: p. [IX] 1–2 {in m. Ý:} ‘o]†Dê: A; ‘o[„Dê: B; Û: ‘o]†Dê: R; Ý: ‘o]†Dê: U; ‘o]†Dê: p | 3 ILK: p | 4 ‘[G¢: AR | 5 ÅM: s | 6 †]K: B | 7 §©öw" R; §©öyX{ê: p; §©öIX”}: s | 8 §mkD%: A | 9 kemk„: B | 10 (; ARUp) | 11 §©öyX”{ê: A; §©wX”: R; "IX”: Up | 12 k©“õ: ARU; p. Q³@é: transp. p | 13 §mk" ARU | 14 §]o§Að: p | 15 "}: s | 16 (; ABRUps). [X] 1–2 {in m. Þ:} Þ: ‘o]†F”: A; ‘q]†F”: B; Ü: ‘o]†F”: R; Þ: ‘o]†Dê: U; ‘o]†F”: p | 3–5 om. U | 3 (om. U); D„]p" R | 4 (om. U); ‘]" s | 6 con.; \mk\mk: As; [mk[k: B; [mk\k: Rp; [mk\k: U | 7 ‰}r: U | 8 (; U); „x@é: B | 9 ‘†K{ð: U | 10 (; Ap) | 11–12 ‘D†KÏq’{ê: B | 13 om. R; §GêX: U | 14 (; ABRUp); "l{: A; "l}Að: s | 15 om. p | 16 ‰}r: U; ‘é†oë: add. p | 17 (; p); con.; \mk\mk: As; [mk[mk: B; [mk\k: RU; [mk\mk: p; ‰}oë: add. A | 18 ‘]" s | 19 "‰[‰ò: A; ‘†M‰{s.l. K}[‰ò: B; ‘†M‰K]‰ò: s | 20–21 ‰}r: Œ{‰ò: A | 22–23 (23 ; A); §[" w8ï„q: A; §[" x" B; §\{in r. oÏ: w}8ïo: R; §\" w8ï„o: Up | 24 (; BRU; ;= s); om. A.

A. Bausi

#!

[VIII] 8 Interrogarono e gli dissero: È possibile ad un presbitero di pregare, mentre è in compagnia di un ariano o uno di una fede diversa? lo contamina? perché lui sta pregando e celebrando l’offerta. Disse il metropolita: Non pregherà, perché prima dell’offerta eucaristica il diacono dice: «Voi che non vi comunicate, uscite senza salutare»: non è dunque conveniente che vi siano ariani mentre prega. [IX] 9 Interrogarono e dissero: Se un ammalato soffre gravemente per la sua malattia ed è stremato, si è riavuto dalla sua malattia ed è arrivato il digiuno di Pasqua, gli si deve permettere di mangiare olio e di bere vino? Disse il metropolita: Gli sarà permesso, perché il suo corpo è debilitato a causa della malattia; mangi e beva pure per quanto può. [X] 10 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se hanno chiamato un presbitero per celebrare un matrimonio ed il presbitero ha saputo che il matrimonio non è valido — che si tratta di figli di fratelli o di moglie del fratello — conviene che vada in casa di costui e celebri l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Ecco, tu stesso hai detto che il matrimonio non è valido, ed il presbitero l’ha saputo; e dal momento che non è valido, non è conveniente che partecipi al peccato altrui.

anche se s.v. «dahŠara», per Mt. 19,8, cfr. ora R. ZUURMOND, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice. Part III. The Gospel of Matthew (Wiesbaden, 2001) (Aethiopistische Forschungen 55) 195, accolto anche da W. LESLAU, Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden, 1987) 129 «allow», s.v. «dhŠ r II, dahŠ ara, dehò ra», ed a questo si potrebbe ricondurre la ben nota occorrenza epigrafica aksumita (dahò ara) di RIÉ nr. 187, ll. 15, 21, 26, 27: «permettere» come «lasciar libero di», assolutamente «lasciar libero» e quindi «congedare, smobilitare» (l’ipotesi di «entlassen» per RIÉ nr. 187 = DAE nr. 9, è già di Enno Littmann, cfr. DAE p. 27), o forse ancor meglio «lasciar andare, sbrigliare, scatenare»; probabile la riduzione a questo significato di quello indicato per la radice dhò r dai lessici (cfr. DILLMANN, Lexicon... Cc. 1083 sg. «repudio dimittere, repudiare uxorem»; LESLAU, Comparative Dictionary… 128 «divorce, repudiate (a wife), send away (a wife)»); l’altra occorrenza epigrafica — cfr. già A. J. DREWES, Some features of epigraphical Ethiopic // Semitic Studies In honor of Wolf Leslau On the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday November 14th, 1991 / Ed. A. S. Kaye. 2 voll. (Wiesbaden, 1991) Vol. I. 382–391, spec. 390 sg.; RIÉ nr. 185 I bis, l. 6; impossibile una verifica sulla tavola nr. 102, pressoché illeggibile — si trova in uno solo dei quattro testi paralleli in lingua etiopica nelle due «pseudo-trilingui» RIÉ nrr. 185 e 185 bis; per la seconda, cfr. anche S. UHLIG, Eine trilinguale ‘Ezana-Inschrift // Aethiopica 4 (2001) 7–31, spec. 15 e 23; il testo va quindi, cautelativamente, considerato dubbio (non escluso nemmeno un errore del lapicida, con parziale ripetizione: RIÉ nr. 185 bis I, l. 6 inizia con: hò rm dhò rm), tanto più che la lettura adottata da UHLIG, Eine trilinguale ‘Ezana-Inschrift... 15, e n. 3, è gnym.

#"

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

[XI] aÞÕ:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê: D†K:3 GDK:4 mk†[ï:5 †}™: §[‹mk:6 M]D:7 mk†[ïoë:8 I›l“ñ: ‘{²Y: Dc[ï]: D†K: ¥k‘éJ{ê:9 c[ï]:10 §}P†: cÿXl{:11 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄ]  : D†K: Ïq‘o:12 mk†[ïq: †}™:13 noë: „Œ: KÏq‘é: §}P†: cÿXl{:14 ‘†K[: [§¸}: §Æmk‡:15 ‘kM‹}¥o›:16 ¥XIf: §Êoë: a†McÿXl}:17 eªê]:a18 aKÏq‘é:19 §}P†: cÿXl{:a20 ‘†K„Œ[:21 „ï¢w©öµ:22 oÇmk‡r:23 †K: Êo‘:24 §eSmk:25 ‘é]o:26 cÿXl}:27 [XII] aÞÖ:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê: ‰mkŠmk:3 †D: ¥]o“]ké:4 ŠB|q:5 „¢:6 K“%D:7 §„í››”Ké:8 ì„ïí§]‹ké:9 ykéS: ‘„¥q:10 †L}oë: †D: ]Dê¸}: K“%F:11 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: k‰K:12 †kò: †mkF:13 §†™ò{ð:14 §kò: G“X¥:15 „ïqqVGcë:16 kk§|oñ‹Ké:17 ™†}kD: kQX•q: wkïS‹Ké:18 k²ï™ò: 19 „]oX‹n: 20 DÃD÷q: 21 ‘†M›: Š%k: qqV‰ké: 22 ‰K: „ï§Çl†‹Ké:23 [§¸}: k†}o: Ïq‘q‹Ké:24 b[}ko:25 a„§@é©ö:26 ‘[}ko:a27 ‹X]oñ¥}: †]K: n}oë:28 KQ“%o:29 ™K}Ê]:30 ¥•X²é:b31

[XI] 1–2 {in m. ÞÕ:} ‘o]†Dê: A; ‘o[„Dê: B; Ý: ‘o]†Dê: R; ÞÕ: ‘o]†Dê: U; ‘o]†Dê: p | 3 †K: RU; D†Kn: ™– p | 4 GFK: s | 5 mk†[ò: AUs | 6 §[mk‹: p; §\‹mk: s | 7 K]D: A | 8 "q: BUp; mk†[ïo: s | 9 ¥l" A; ¥k‘éG{ê: B | 10 om. ARU | 11 (; ABRUp); "l}: Bs | 12 Ïq‘{em. o}: R; Ïq‘éq: s | 13 om. RU | 14 (; ARUp); "}: Bs; ‘§kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: add. A | 15 §Ämk‡: A; §ÆF‡: p | 16 ‘kM‹}¥o:›: BU; ‘kK‹}¥q›: s | 17–18 (18 ; U); †Me" cÿ" A | 19–20 om. p | 20 (; AU); (om. p); "}: s | 21 ‘†K{s.l. „}Œ[: B; ‘†K„Œ:[: R; ‘†K: „Œ[: U; ‘†L„Œ]: s | 22 „ï§" B | 23 oÆ" BR | 24 Êo: A | 25 ‘§eSmk: p | 26 om. ARUp | 27 (; ABRUp; ;= s); cÿXk{: A; "{: RUp. [XII] 1–2 {in m. ÞÖ:} ‘o]†Dê: A; Þ: ‘o]†Dê: R; ÞÖ: ‘o]†Dê: U; ‘o]†Dê: 3 p | "k: RU | 4 „‘é[ké: RU; ¥‘]ké: p; ¢]o“]ké: s | 5 "o: As | 6 „§: RU | 7 "F: As | 8 §„훜Ké: p | 9 con.; "‰ké: As; §[" BU; §]‹ké: Rp | 10 ‘„¥o: ABR; ‘„{del. mk}¥o: U; ‘„¥q: K“%D: p | 11 (; ABRUp); D÷Ké: p; "D: s | 12 ™‰K: ABRUp | 13 (; U) | 14 §†™ò:{ð: R; Ä‘éD÷]: add. RU | 15 om. RU | 16 „ïqqS" ABUp; „ïqXGcë: R | 17 kkò|oñ‹Ké: s | 18 (; p); wkò" B | 19 k²ó™ò: A; ‘²ï™ò: p | 20 "S‹n: B; „]oX‰n: s | 21 (; U) | 22 qqS" BU | 23 „ï§Äk" A; „ï§Èl" BUp; „ï§:Ãöl†‹Ké: R | 24 (; AB); Ïq‘éq‹Ké: s | 25–31 cfr. homiliam De sabbato, Retu‘a haymanot vel Orthodoxo auctore: [}ko: ‘[}ko: ‹X]oñ¥}: †]K: nr}: ¥•X²é: KQ“%o: ™K}Ê]: eªê]: | 26-27 om. R | 28 noë: ABp; nr}: RU | 29 "q: s | 30 (; ARU) | 31 (; Bps); (¥%X²é: R) a. KQ“%o: transp. ARU.

A. Bausi

##

[XI] 11 Interrogarono e dissero: Se un uomo ha sognato di giacere con sua moglie, un laico, e ne ha fatto parola con il presbitero, il presbitero gli permetterà di ricevere l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Se persiste in lui il desiderio della moglie, non conviene che riceva l’offerta eucaristica; ma se Satana lo combatte e con questo pretesto desidera allontanarlo dalla santa offerta eucaristica, conviene che riceva l’offerta eucaristica; altrimenti non cesserà di combatterlo, se avrà desiderato di accostarsi all’offerta. [XII] 12 Interrogarono e dissero: I sacerdoti che celebrano il matrimonio, in quali giorni prescriveranno loro di ìnoní giacere insieme24 e quali sono i giorni permessi? Disse il metropolita: Dico come ho detto ora: ha detto l’Apostolo: «Non allontanatevi tra di voi, se non di comune accordo, ad un certo momento, per dedicarsi alla preghiera, e perché quindi stiate insieme di nuovo, perché Satana non vi combatta, a motivo della vostra passione»: il sabato e la domenica, perché in essi si eleva il sacrificio spirituale.25

24 «di ìnoní giacere insieme» traduce il testo congetturale ì„ïí§]‹ké: ykéS:: la negazione sembra necessaria per introdurre l’alternativa tra giorni in cui non è lecito giacere insieme, e quelli in cui lo è; cfr. il greco (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 248, ll. 9–12): periì poi¿wn h m( erw½ n th=j e (bdoma/doj parati¿qesqai xrh\ a)pe/-

xesqai th=j pro\j a)llh/louj koinwni¿aj, kaiì poi¿aj eÃxein e )p' e )cousi¿aj;

«il sabato e la domenica, perché in essi si eleva il sacrificio spirituale» traduce [}ko: „§@é©ö: ‘[}ko: ‹X]oñ¥}: †]K: n}oë: KQ“%o: ™K}Ê]: ¥•X²é:; cfr. il greco, Ibid. 149, ll. 2–5: ¡Ec a)na/gkhj [omesso da alcuni mss.] de\ to\ sa/bbaton 25

kaiì th\n kuriakh\n deiÍ, dia\ to\ e )n au t) aiÍ j th\n pneumatikh\n qusi¿an a)nafe/resqai t%½ qe%½; il passo è citato testualmente nella Omelia sui sabati di Retu‘a Haymânot, ove è

attribuito a Pietro (LUSINI, Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano... 158, ll. 10–13): †]K: DÃÂí¹Y]: „K: §[ò†F”: k„§: K“%F: ¥]oX‹ké: Ê©öÍ©: KÏq‘é: DÃD÷q: †}™: ‘qS: KÏq‘é: ^k: §q‰@F[: {²YKé: ‘§kò: [}ko: ‘[}ko: ‹X]oñ¥}: †]K: nr}: ¥•X²é: KQ“%o: ™K}Ê]: eªê]:, Ibid. 159, ll. 11–14: «poiché quando chiesero a Pietro in quali giorni soprattutto fosse necessario dedicarsi alla preghiera — pur essendo sempre necessario, quando possibile — parlò loro dicendo: “Di sabato e di domenica, poiché in essi offrono il sacrificio dello Spirito Santo”»). Nella citazione dell’Omelia si nota la banalizzazione dell’aggiunta di eªê]: dopo ™K}Ê]:; l’inversione della frase finale e nr}: per il meno comune n}oë: (esclusivo di s), qui a testo (cfr. XII,28, 31), sono condivisi con i mss. RU: un indizio che la fonte dell’Ortodosso discende dallo stesso subarchetipo da cui, per questo testo, dipende quello comune ad RU.

#$

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

[XIII] aÞ×:1 ‘o]„Dê:a2 ‘§kòDê:3 D†K: †}™: „籠MX:4 X†^: coD:5 ‘†L†Œ:6 éöÊ:7 D†K: §²mkT{ê:8 D÷oë: cÿXl{:9 ‘§kò:10 ÄÂÄ]  : §8§e: c[ï]: §Iqq:11 D†K: „L}{ê:12 †}™: „籠MX:13 ²mkS: ™}o: †]Kn: [mk†:14 „›Lªï@é: D™:15 No: §Gí]’:16 ‰K: §´kT:17 D÷oë: cÿXl{:18 ‘§mkDê:19 †}™: „籠MX:20 ²mkS: ™}o:21 ‘†]Kn:22 Š%k: kM}ªkò: [mk†{ð:23 ‘†K„Œ:24 kG™}: o²mkS: ›}oë: ‘„Œ: KÏq‘é: §´kT: D÷oë: cÿXl{:25 †]K: coD: {Ï^: DDï@é: ‘Œ{: k†}o›:26 KÏq‘é:27 §Iqq: ‘§8§e: c[ï]: ‰K:28 „ï§S©ö: ‘é]o: ‰è{{ó:29 [XIV] aÞØ:1 ‘o]„F”:a2 ‘§kòF”:3 D†K: mk†[ïoë: Dmk†[ï: ³{ó}:4 loñ: ‘o•mk©ö: ‘kNeI:5 ¢•emk“:6 ‘§mkF: Mp: „溜F: o•´R: †Mmk†[ïq: ‘§Êe©ö: ¥‘é]mk: ŠF†o:7 ‘§kò: ÄÂÄÂ]:8 G“ñS: mk†[ïo: mk†[ï:9 L†‰D:10 @D÷: ‘é]o›:11 {²X: ‘ì„Fn: 홆ìmkDí‹Ké:12

[XIII] 1–2 {in m. Þ×:} ÞÕ: ‘o]†Dê: A; ‘o[„Dê: B; ÞÖ: ‘o]†Dê: R; Þ×: ‘o]†Dê: U; ‘o]†Dê: p | 3 ‘§kòD: A | 4 "†MX: B; „M}: U; „MX: p | 5 (; U) | 6 ‘†K: „Œ: ARUp; ‘†K„Œ: B | 7 éÊ: ARU; Ãö©Ê: s | 8 §²mkX{ê: p | 9 (; ABRUp); "}: s | 10 {in m. Ö:} ‘§kò: A | 11 §yqo: A; ‘§Iqq: Up | 12 om. A 13 | „牢MX: B; „MX: p; X†^: add. s | 14 [mk„: ABp | 15 D™– ARp | 16 "‘é: A; §Gí]”: B; „ï§Gí]‘é: U | 17 (; B) | 18 (; B); "}: s | 19 ‘§kòDê: U | 20 „MX: Up | 21 (; ABRUp) | 22 ({in m. ×:} praep. A) †]Kn: ABRUp | 23 [mk†{ê: U | 24 ‘†K{ð: A; ‘†K: „Œ: U; ‘†L„Œ: s | 25 "}: s | 26 k†}o:›: B; {²X: add. A | 27 KÏoë: A | 28 bis p | 29 (; ABRUps). [XIV] 1–2 {in m. ÞØ:} ÞØ: ‘o]†F”: A; ‘o]†F”: Bp; Þ×: ‘o]†F”: R; ÞØ: ‘o]†F”: U | 3 ‘§kòDê: s | 4 "{: R | 5 ‘kN{s.l. e}I: B | 6 §†I›“: ‘¢•" A; ¥$e" p | 7 (; ABRUp) | 8 §kò: Ä‘éD÷]: add. RU | 9 "[ò: A | 10 L†‰D÷Ké: p; K†‰D: s | 11 ‘é]o: ›– A; ‘é]o: ›}oë: RU | 12 (; A; ;=; B; ;= s); con.; ‘™†}kDí‹Ké: ABRUps; oÊÃK: ("ÃöK: s) [ï~¬]: ([ò" R) (;=;=; A; ; Rp) add. ARUps; k[EK: †´™ï„mkGíX: D$DK: $DM: „Lô}: ‘„Lô}; D§‰ê}: D§‰ê}; add. U.

A. Bausi

#%

[XIII] 13 Interrogarono e dissero: Se si è ucciso inavvertitamente o se altrimenti è precipitato in un burrone, celebreranno per lui l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Il presbitero si accerti, indaghi se davvero ha fatto questo inavvertitamente; infatti si dà il caso che le persone parenti del morto mentano perché gli si celebri l’offerta eucaristica, e dicono: «L’ha fatto inavvertitamente»; e dato che si dà ancora il caso che ciò sia avvenuto in seguito ad angoscia umana o ad un dolore e non conviene che gli celebrino l’offerta eucaristica, poiché lui stesso si è ucciso, per questo è conveniente che il presbitero indaghi e si accerti, per non incorrere in giudizio. [XIV] 14 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se la moglie di un uomo è indemoniata e folle, e la custodiscono in catene, e suo marito dice: «Non posso mantenermi nella continenza sessuale», e desidera sposare un’altra? Disse il metropolita: Entra in gioco l’adulterio in questa storia, e ìnon so cosa dirvií.26

SUMMARY The Ethiopic version of the Canonical answers attributed to Peter bishop of Alexandria (ca. 300–311) as in the Coptic, and better known as belonging to the patriarch Timotheus I (380–384) as attested by the Greek and Syriac tradition (CPG II, nr. 2520), are critically edited and translated on the basis of six MSS of the Sinodos, the most important Ethiopic canonico-liturgical collection (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, d’Abbadie 65, ff. 141vb–143ra; Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. Fol. 398, ff. 187rb–188vb; Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2, ff. 174vb–176ra; Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, O Etiop. 39, ff. 122rc–123va; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Éthiopien 181, ff. 124va–125vb; Ethiopia, Private collection, ff. 117va–119va). This edition follows some other contributions dedicated to minor texts in the Sinodos (the Epistle 70 of Cyprian of Carthage and, much more hypothetically, the Teaching of the 318 Nicene Fathers on the right faith and the monastic life), which are likely to belong in the oldest layer of the canonico-liturgical tradition, probably dating back to Aksumite age and translated directly from a Greek Vorlage. The Canonical answers are also quoted in the Homily on the sabbaths by Retu‘a Haymânot (ante 1336/37 or 1339/40).

«e ìnon so cosa dirvií» traduce il testo congetturale ‘ì„Fn: 홆ìmkDí‹Ké:, di contro a ‘™†}kDí‹Ké: di tutti i testimoni ABRUps; cfr. il greco (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 250, ll. 16 sg.): kaiì periì tou/tou ti¿ a)pokri¿nasqai ou x) eu r( i¿skw; ho ritenuto necessaria una proposta congetturale; il testo può essersi corrotto prima con eliminazione di „Fn: e quindi con passaggio di ™†mkD‹Ké: a ™†}kDí‹Ké:. 26

Sebastian Brock Oxford

THE GENEALOGY OF THE VIRGIN MARY IN SINAI SYR. 16 No one has done more than Michel van Esbroeck in drawing attention, through his numerous publications of new texts, to the riches of patristic literature that lie hidden in manuscripts written in the languages of the Christian Orient. Among these publications it is not difficult to discern a particular interest in texts the popular traditions that grew up surrounding the Virgin Mary. It is thus a great pleasure to have the opportunity to offer, by way of a small tribute to his great scholarship and learning, a Syriac counterpart, as it were, to his «Généalogie de la Vierge en géorgien».1 The interest of some of the texts in Sinai Syr. 16 became apparent even before the appearance of Mrs A. S. Lewis’ Catalogue in 1894 thanks to J. Rendel Harris’ publication (in 1891), from this manuscript, of the Syriac text of the Apology of Aristides (CPG 1062), and the discovery (by J. A. Robinson) that the underlying Greek text was in fact preserved almost complete, incorporated into the Life of Barlaam and Ioasaph (CPG 8120). Since both Harris and Lewis only provided summary indications of the rest of the contents of Sinai Syri. 16, a much fuller description of its contents is given in Appendix 2, below.2 Among the items in the manuscript of which Harris and Lewis make no mention is the following, on f. 200r. 1: Next, an account concerning the ancestors of the Bearer of God, composed by the Fathers of the circle (d-beth) of Gregory.3 The short ensuing text (f. 200r. 1–2) reads as follows: jOk@ mgJ ‘Mc@ ‡Kd[ eXg i\oJ ¡C‚„ BN‡ ˆ\CJ m\cL ‘‡MC°¡c i\oJ M±[MC°@ nO[‚H[‚G ¯f‡O[ ¡k‚S@N jˆg KS ¯Mc NNL A\ÐlC m[‡ Qt\c@ ¯f‡O[ mg i[‚gN jˆg mg eD[ˆg yoO[ AB 91 (1973) 347–356. I take the opportunity to thank His Grace Archbishop Damianos, the Librarian and the Synaxis of the Holy Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai, for the opportunity to look at this manuscript during my visit to the Monastery to catalogue the Syriac fragments from the New Finds. 3 It is unclear which Gregory is intended; possibly the attribution was suggested by Gregory of Nyssa, On the Nativity (PG 46. 1137D), where a narrative concerning Mary’s parents is mentioned, but without any names being mentioned. 1 2

S. Brock

59

¯yoO\c KcN@ BO~t[N BO~t\c KcN@ Qt\c@ ‚C jˆg ¯L‡ˆk@ Al[J mg i[‚hc KcN@ |NJPN |NJQc KcN@ Qt\c@ ‚C f‡O[N ¯¡[‚_PJ L‡ˆk@ uD…\c@J L±ˆS M±[ˆ[@J ¯i[‚hc ¡_Adg ‚g@J E[ˆ_ jOGKC ¯]`g@J L±ˆS m[J OkL ¯ˆlXC ]_ˆl\S@ uD…\c@ ‘LJ ¯¢JNM[J ZL ¡XD„ mg ¡C@ mgJ a[@ m[J i[‚g ¯ZOcJ ¡XD„ mg m[J ¡g@ mgJ a[@ ¯¡[Mc@ ¡pkOw mg eDCJ ‘ˆ\D„J ¡\kOw ˆC mg OXdS‡@ m[K[L ¯¢JNM[J L‡O`dg L‡O`dhC eXC‡‡J m}N‚w ‘QSˆk jNM[‡ mgJ a[@ ¯ZOcJ L‡OkM_ L‡OkM`CN ¯¡C@ mgJ a[@ ¢JNM[ mg UkJJ ‚g@ˆg ¯¡dCO[ E…S ‘‡ˆk@ mg OcN ¢‚DG mg ¡[DsJ ¢K\s mgJ a[@ ‚\G Mg@J Eleazar (Mt 1:15) had two children, the one Mathan (Mt 1:15), and the other Jotham. Joseph is descended from Mathan and Mary from Jotham. Eleazar’s son Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph. And Eleazar’s son Jotham begot Zadoq, and Zadoq begot Mary by his wife Dina, who is the sister of Elisabeth, the wife of Zechariah. For this reason it is written that the Angel said to Mary, «Behold, Elisabeth your relative has conceived» (Lk 1:36) — that is, the sister of your mother. Now Mary from her father’s side was from the tribe of Judah, but from her mother’s side, from the tribe of Levi. Then the (tribes) were intermingled after the return from the Babylonian captivity through divine providence, so that our Saviour might be seen as being from both of them, in order that, through his kingship, the kingship of Judah might become ineffective, and through his priesthood, the (same would apply to the) priesthood of Levi. It is (thus) said that «he arose from Judah» (Heb 7:14), on his father’s side, for his mother’s genealogy, according to the custom of the Hebrews, reckons from the husband, and not from the wife.

Mary, of course, does not feature at all in the genealogies given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Earlier commentators were more interested in providing explanations for the apparent contradictions between the two lists (exemplified by Joseph’s father being Jacob in Matthew and Eli in Luke). Here, one of the most influential texts was the Letter of Africanus to Aristides (CPG 1693), who neatly solved the problem by reference to levirate marriage (Deut 25:5) and the concept of a legal, alongside that of a natural, son. As will be seen below, this explanation was current in Syriac circles4 in an adapted form, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia. 4 Probably by way of the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Gospel Questions and Answers, for which see G. BEYER, Die evangelischen Fragen und Lösungen des Eusebius in jakobitischer Überlieferung und deren nestorianischen Parallelen // Oriens Christianus ns 12/14 (1925) 50–69.

60

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

A second concern was to provide a Davidic ancestry for Mary, as well as that given in the Gospels for Joseph. This was done by showing how Mary and Joseph were related (see Appendix 1). Yet another concern, which might or might not involve the genealogies, was the matter of Christ’s priesthood. In the New Testament this was seen as being «of the order of Melkizedek» (Hebrews 5:6), that is, non-levitical. Earlier Syriac tradition, represented by Aphrahat and Ephrem (and also found in the Teaching of Gregory the Illuminator, section 433), also had an interest in his levitical priesthood, and saw this as having been transferred to him by John the Baptist at the Baptism.5 Evidently at an early date in Syriac tradition some people wanted to see Christ’s levitical priesthood transmitted directly through the genealogy of Mary, and this is explicitly stated in the Armenian translation of the Commentary on the Diatessaron (I.25), attributed to Ephrem, in contrast to the Syriac text (I.25–26) which goes out of its way to argue that Mary was not of levitical descent, and the Gospel statement that Elisabeth was her «relative» (Luke 2:36) was not to be taken in a literal sense.6 The same concern with Christ’s levitical priesthood is also found in our present text which, in line with the Armenian translation of the Commentary on the Diatessaron, takes this back to his very birth, through the actual construction of a genealogy for Mary. Speculation concerning the parents of Mary first surface in the Protogospel of James, which set the mainstream tradition of naming them as Joachim and Anna. The same work also states that Mary was from «the tribe(!) of David», and it was probably a concern to show Christ’s Davidic descent through Mary, as opposed to Joseph, that speculation about her ancestry developed. A full-blown genealogy for Mary, traced back through Joachim and Anna, was subsequently provided in the Life of the Virgin by Epiphanius the monk (9th century; BHG 1049), whereby she is also related to Joseph and Elisabeth. A related genealogy for Mary is known to Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) who, in one of his Letters, says that «There are some narratives written by certain zealous people on their own authority, without having any testimonies from Scripture, which show that Mary, the holy Virgin, the mother of 5 Aphrahat, Dem. VI.13, XXI.13, XXIII.20; Ephrem, Hymni c. Haereses XXII.19; Comm. Diatessaron IV.3; elsewhere (Sermo de Domino Nostro LIII) Ephrem associates the transfer as having come through Simeon at the Presentation in the Temple. See further R. MURRAY, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge, 19751; 20042) 178–182. 6 See D. G. K. TAYLOR, The priesthood of Christ in early Syriac tradition // SP, forthcoming (I am most grateful to David Taylor for letting me see his paper). For the differences between the Syriac and the Armenian, see C. LANGE, The descent of Mary and the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron // The Harp (Kottayam) 15 (2002) 107–116.

S. Brock

61

Christ, was the daughter of Hanna and of the upright Ioakin, concerning whom those who authored the narratives say that he was the son of Panther, and Panther was the brother of Melki, the son of Yani (Lk 3:24) who descends from the lineage of Levi in the genealogy. He was living in the region of Galilee, in the vicinity of the place where the town of Tiberias was built».7 Jacob’s remarks are quoted by Dionysius bar Salibi (d. 1171) in the course of his lengthy discussion of the Gospel narratives; interestingly, he gives a manuscript variant for a couple of the names: «Jacob of Edessa says: (some) narratives say that Mary was the daughter of Ioiakin, from the tribe of Judah. He was the son of Estir — in (another) manuscript, Panther — and Estir was the brother of Melki, the son of Yani — in (another) manuscript, the one who was from Niri — who is descended in the genealogy from Nathan; and through (his) wife he (sc. Joseph) was from the tribe of Levi, and he was living in Galilee, in the place where the town of Tiberias was built».8 Since Jacob’s main concern in his letter was to demonstrate Mary’s Davidic descent, the link between Mary and the tribe of Levi, found in the narratives «by certain zealous people» receives no comment, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that this was seen as the source of Christ’s priesthood. Although Joachim and Anna as the parents of Mary came to dominate the later tradition in both East and West, they were not the only names to be accorded to them. Indeed, immediately preceding his quotation from Jacob of Edessa, Dionysius bar Salibi says. «It is asked, Who were Mary’s parents? Her father is called Ioaqim, Ioakin, Ionakir,9 Sadoq, Iozedeq; and again his mother is called (both) Hanna and Dina». Slightly earlier in his discussion Dionysius bar Salibi does indeed provide Mary’s parentage through Sadoq and Dina, and the verbal parallels (indicated by italics below) with our text in Sinai Syr. 16 strongly suggest that both texts go back to a common souce. After discussing Julius Africanus’ explanation of Joseph’s genealogy, he continues: British Library, Add. 12172, f. 89r. The passage is printed in Wright’s Catalogue, p. 597, and the full letter was published by F. NAU, Lettre de Jacques d’Edesse sur la généalogie de la Sainte Vierge // ROC 6 (1901) 512–531. The relevant text is on p. 519. The genealogy to which Jacob objects is in fact to be found in the Doctrina Jacobi Nuper Baptizati (CPG 7793; ed. V. DÉROCHE in TM 11 (1991)); a Syriac translation of precisely this passage (I.42) is preserved in British Library Add. 17194, dated 885/6, published with French translation by F. NAU in PO 8 (1912) 721–722. 8 Commentarii in Evangelia I.1 / Ed. I. SEDLACEK, I.-B. CHABOT (CSCO 15–16) 50 (text), 38 (tr.). 9 This is found in the Cave of Treasures (ed. A. SU-MIN RI) XLIV.47 and in the Syriac Life of the Virgin edited by E. A. W. BUDGE, The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of the Likeness of Christ (London, 1899) 5 (this text seeks to harmonize a number of originally separate traditions; a similar harmonization is to be found in Solomon of Bosra, Book of the Bee, XXXIV). 7

62

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

He did not attach the genealogy to Mary and say «N begot Mary, from whom Christ was born», since it was not the custom of the Hebrews for genealogies to be traced through women. For this reason he does not enumerate Mary’s (ancestry), but Joseph’s, so that he should not be seen to be confusing the ordering. We furthermore say that, through the mention of Joseph, it is known that the Virgin, along with him, descends from David, since there was intermarriage within each tribe. Even though a few women married outside their tribe, Joseph and Mary were both grandchildren of two brothers: a certain Eleazar begot two sons, Mathan and Jotham; Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph, while Jotham begot Sadoq and Sadoq (begot) Mary.10 And the name of her mother was Dina, — and she is the sister of Elisabeth, whence the (angel’s) words «Behold, your relative Elisabeth» (Lk 1:36). The matter was arranged by the divine Will so that the kingdom and priesthood, of David and of Levi, should receive fulfilment in Christ.

Basically the same information is to be found in an extract to be found in British Library, Add. 17168, f. 181v, which turns out to be an exact quotation of the opening of the text in Sinai Syr. 16: Eleazar had two sons, one Mathan and the other Yotham. Joseph’s lineage is from Mathan, and Mary’s from Yotham. Eleazar’s son Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph, while Eleazar’s son Yotham begot Zadoq, and Zadoq begot Mary by his wife Dina, who was the sister of Elisabeth, the wife of Zechariah.11

The second half of the text qoted by Dionysius (from «Eleazar begot...» to the end) is also found in the Commentary on the Gospel by the East Syriac scholar Isho`dad of Merv12 (flourished mid ninth century), with wording in the last sentence that corresponds closely with that of Dionysius, against that of Sinai Syr. 16. Since Dionysius is known to have used Isho`dad’s commentaries, he may well be quoting directly from Isho`dad, and not from a common source; Isho`dad, however, speaks of «the priesthood of Aaron» (rather than that of Levi), and he adds at the end «from their shadows (i. e. types)». Sadoq and Dina as the names of Mary’s parents are also known from an East Syriac source attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia. Amongst the prefatory material found in a number of East Syriac Gospel manuscripts is a text on the Gospel genealogies. This starts out by resolving, along the lines of Julius Africanus, the apparent disagreement between Matthew and Luke over The variation between Zadoq and Sadoq is also found for homonym in the Gospel genealogies (Mt 1:14, where the Old Syriac has Zadoq, while the Peshitta and Harklean have Sadoq. 11 The Syriac text is printed in WRIGHT, Catalogue… 800. 12 The Commentaries of Isho`dad of Merv / Ed. M. L. GIBSON (Horae Semiticae 5–6; 1911) 20–21 (text), 12–13 (tr.). 10

S. Brock

63

the ancestors of Joseph; and to help the reader a diagram is also provided. The text reads:13 ¯K[NJ ¡lCOW mg mdD°[ˆg mCŠ°„ e\_L m[‡‡ ¯yoO[J ZLOC@ BO~t[ ‡Oc ¡_‚„J jOh\d„J ¢KS ¯]ds ‡Oc ¡dD[ˆgJ jˆkJ ‘‡‚S@N ¯yoO[J ZLOC@ ‘NL ‚Cˆpg NL v@N ¯¡l_L ¡kL ¡dCO[ m[J ZLNˆ[@ ¯jOh\d„J ¡sP mg eD[ˆgJ NL Qt\c@ ‚C jˆg ­‘ˆo@ M±h„J ‘‡ˆk@ EpkJ ¯‘ˆ[OG ‘ˆGOTCJ ¡h„N ˆs{g ¡h\oJ ZL ¯BO~t\c M±lg KcN@N ¯MplG ˆSk jˆkJ ‘ˆC‚„ mgJ N±L ]`dg ‘ˆoAc M±DpkN jˆg ˆ\gN ¯]cL O[NLJ ]dtc M±lg KcN@N ¯¢‚}ˆg ]cL ¡h„OHC ¯¡g@ mg jOk@ ¡S°@ ]cLN BO~t[ m[J e\`g ¯¡\lÐC ¡cJ ˆ\gN ‘‡ˆk@ ]ds EpkN ¯¡sP Mc i\~kJ L‡ˆkAc M±Dpk ZLOS@ BO~t[ m[K[L ¯¡oOhlC E[ˆ_J a[@ ¯ZˆhC E[ˆ_J a[@ BO~t[ ‚C ˆ[Al\_ ZLNˆ[@J yoO\c M±lg KcN@N ¯¡}Oc Bˆ`gJ a[@ ]cLJ L‚C E…Sˆg ˆ[AoOhkN ¯‘NMk ¡c ¡kŠ°HX~c ¢‡@J ¡l`[@ ¯¡T\…g ZLNˆ[@ K[NJ ‚C ­E…Thc m\Cz ˆ[AoOhk j@N ˆ[Al\_ j@J ¯i\„ ‘ˆCŠ°„ m[M[‡‰°‡J ¡dCO[ ‘ˆ[‚C ‘ˆG OTCJ rK±[ ˆ[NL e\`g ¯yoO\c ¡gKs K[NJ mg ¯‘ˆ[OG ‘ˆGOTCJ m\cL ¡h„N‚CN ¯‘OSˆg ‘ˆCŠ°„J m[MlXcOS NL ¯¡tC{CJ a[@ ¯Md[J ‡Oc ]`dgN LˆC‚„ ‡Oc Qt\c@ ‚C jˆg i\o ¯‘ˆs{hC ¡h\o ‘‡ˆk@ jNM[‰°ˆc ‡NLJ ‘ˆo@N ¯ZLOC@ jˆg ˆC E[ˆ_ L±‚C BO~t[N ¯ZLOC@ ]`dg ‡Oc ¡²k‚S@ L±‚C ]dsN ¯]dsJ L‚C ˆ[AoOhkN BO~t[J L‚C ˆ[Al\_ ZLNˆ[@J yoO[ i\„ m\cL ˆCN ¯rKhc |J±P ¢JL v@N ­yoO[J MplG ˆTkJ ¡`[@ mgJ ¯i[‚g v@ M±[ˆ[@ mg‡ mg ¯Mc NNL m\lÐC m[‰°‡ JO\c@ ‚C Qt\c@J eXg I have used Harvard Syr. 4, dated AG 1511 (= AD 1199/1200), written in the Monastery of Rabban Sabrisho`, and British Library, Or. 2695, dated AG 1514 (= AD 1202/3) and AH 599 (= AD 1200/1) and written in the monastery of Mar Isho`yahb and Mar Ya`qob in Beth Nuhadra. (For these monasteries, see J-M. FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne (Beirut, 1965) I. 130–157, and II. 707–737). The text also features in several other East Syriac Gospel manuscripts of this period. 13

64

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

¯f‡O[ ¡k‚S@N jˆg KS ¯uD…\dsJ L±ˆS L‡ˆk@ ¡l[J mg i[‚hc |NJzN |NJ{c KcN@ jˆgN ¯‘ˆGOSJ ¡\ds ¡h„N‚C m\h\„J a[@ ¯e_ˆo‡J Z‚} ˆ[AkNMg ¡[N‚} ZQS ¯¡l~…xg nNNJ@‡ Z‚g ¡…[K~c K\DsJ ‘ˆCŠ°„ eCO[ id„ . There are two lines, then, which descend from the blessed David, one on Solomon’s side, which reaches to Jacob, the father of Joseph, and the other on Nathan’s side, which descends to Eli, who was also considered to be the father of Joseph. The line of descent is as follows: Mathan, son of Eleazar, descends from the seed of Solomon; he married a wife called Esta: she is to be found in the centre of the diagram, in the inner ring. By her he begot Jacob. Mathan (then) died and Melki married Esta. Now Melki’s family was from the line of Nathan. By her Melki begot Eli, the same person as Heli:14 in the diagram he is called Heli. Thus Jacob and Heli were brothers by the same mother. Eli married, but died without children; his brother Jacob then married his widow in order to establish offspring from him, as it is written in the Law (Deut 25:5). By her he became father of Joseph, who was the natural son of Jacob, as is written in Matthew, but for legal purposes he was reckoned as the son of Heli, as Luke describes — so that there might be no room for fault-finders: whether they wanted to reckon the matter according to nature, or according to law, Christ was still the son of David. Thus you should know that the line of descent of the two families is indicated in the outer ring (of the diagram), running from David to Joseph. By means of the indications in the inner ring, the fusion of the two families is shown, as though (indicated) by a finger. Mathan, son of Eleazar, is listed with his family, and Melki with his, while Esta, who was wife to both, is placed in the middle. Jacob, her son, is inscribed following Mathan his father; following these is marked Joseph, the natural son of Jacob and the legal son of Eli. Thus far, the text is based on Julius Africanus’ explanation in his Letter to Aristides. By way of conclusion, however, a paragraph concerning the genealogy of Mary is added: One should also know that the source from which Joseph’s family descends is the same as that from which Mary’s does too, for Eleazar, son of Eliud (Mt 1:15), had two sons, the one Mathan, and the other Yotham. Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob (begot) Joseph; likewise Yotham begot Sadok, and Sadok (begot) Mary by his wife Dina, who was the sister of Elisabeth, as is indicated in the outer ring (of the diagram). `Eli is (surprisingly) the Harklean form, and Heli that of the Sinaiticus and Peshitta. 14

S. Brock

65

The genealogy constructed by the holy Mar Theodore the Interpreter is ended.

It is at once obvious that this final paragraph comes from the same source as that from which the extract in Sinai Syr. 16 derives. In all likelihood Sinai Syr. 16 is the earliest witness to this variant tradition, that the names of Mary’s parents were not Anna and Joachim, but Dina and Z/Sadoq.15 The precise date, however, of the manuscript has been much disputed, thanks to the extremely conservative nature of the estrangelo hand employed.16 According to Nestle, Sachau was of the opinion that it could belong to the late sixth century, and Draguet (p. 33*) likewise considered a sixth-century date likely. By contrast both Lewis, in her Catalogue, and Harris (p. 4) preferred the seventh century, while Mingana, on the basis of Mingana Syr. 641 (which comes from Sinai Syr. 16), opted for «about AD 850». Although Mingana’s allocation of dates is often very unsatisfactory, in this case there is good reason for thinking that he was at least right to exclude a sixth- or seventh-century date: as Nicole Zeegers-Vander Vorst correctly observed,17 the presence in the manuscript of some extracts taken from Jacob of Edessa, who died in 708, means that the manuscript must accordingly be dated to at least the eighth century. A further pointer to this sort of dating is provided by a scribal note on f. 177v which is written in serto script:18 apart from Harvard Syr. 176 whose dating is uncertain (see HATCH, Album… Pl. XCV, and M. H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Syriac Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library. A Catalogue (Missoula, 1979) 110–111), at present the earliest known dated manuscript in serto script is British Library Add. 14548, of AD 790 (HATCH, Album… Pl. XCVI). Thus, in all likelihood, Sinai Syr. 16 should be dated to the eighth or early ninth century. The tradition is alluded to in a certain number of considerably later writers, but these are not of concern here. 16 Illustrations of it can be found in HARRIS, The Apology of Aristides, Frontispiece, and in R. DRAGUET, Fragments de l’Ambrosienne de Milan à restituer aux mss. syriaques Sinai 46 et 16, in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey / Ed. J. N. BIRDSALL, R. W. THOMSON (Freiburg, 1963) Plate V. 17 Une gnomologie d’auteurs grecs en traduction syriaque // Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205; 1978) 166, n. 13. 18 The scribe identifies himself as Mari son of ’tnws, from Edessa (this, apart from the name Mari, was noted by BUNDY, Mus 96 (1983) 98, where he suggested that the father’s name is a miswriting of Athanasius). Mari writes in a fully developed serto script, as opposed to the cursive hands of scribal notes in British Library Add. 14452 (of AD 509), Add. 14530 (of AD 535) and Add. 14558 (of AD 557); on which see F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, De l’écriture édéssienne à l’estrangela et au serto // Semitica 50 (2000) 81–90; also J. F. HEALEY, The early history of the Syriac script: a reassessment // Journal of Semitic Studies 45 (2000) 55–67. 15

66

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

One further point requires mention: is Sinai Syr. 16 of Melkite or of Syrian Orthodox origin? Links between Sinai and the Melkite community in Edessa can be seen from a number of dated Syriac manuscripts, the earliest being British Library Or. 8606, dated 723;19 the presence in Sinai Syr. 16, however, of quotations from Jacob of Edessa suggests that this particular manuscript may well instead be of Syrian Orthodox origin. In either case, it is witness to interaction between the two communities at some stage or other. Whatever the date of Sinai Syr. 16, it seems likely that the tradition it preserves concerning Mary’s ancestry and Christ’s levitical priesthood has much earlier roots: an interest in the latter in the latter half of the fourth century can clearly be seen in the Commentary on the Diatessaron, I.25–26, where the Syriac text provides objections to Mary’s levitical ancestry, while the Armenian translation promotes it.20 The tradition of Christ’s levitical priesthood — whether it be transmitted through Mary, or through John the Baptist, or through Simeon — is most likely to have a Judaeo-Christian origin, and this means that the wording preserved by Dionysius bar Salibi, that the kingdom of David and the priesthood of Levi were to «receive fulfilment» will represent this tradition more correctly than does the extract in Sinai Syr. 16, which speaks of the Old Testament kingship and priesthood as being rendered ineffective in Christ, reflecting a later supersessionist attitude. Each of the two traditions for the names of Mary’s parents — Joachim and Anna, and Zadoq and Dina21 — will have its roots in a different early Christian milieu: Joachim and Anna make their first appearance in the Protogospel of James, whose various misconceptions about Jewish traditions make a gentile Christian origin likely; while Zadoq and Dina provide a counterpart that very probably originates in Judaeo-Christian circles. Syriac literature provides evidence for other such pairs, notably in the legends of the finding of the Cross, with Constantine’s mother Helena as the heroine in the mainstream tradition, but Claudius’ wife Protonike in the tradition preserved in the Teaching of Addai. Our short text in Sinai Syr. 16 can thus be seen to provide another example of an intriguing phenomenon to which Michel van Esbroeck has drawn attention on a number of different occasions. For details, see S. BROCK, Syriac on Sinai: the main connections // Eukosmia. Studi miscellanei per il 75 di Vincenzo Poggi S. J. / Ed. V. Ruggieri, L. Pieralli (Soveria Mannelli, 2003) 103–117. 20 For a discussion of the problems raised by this contradiction, see TAYLOR, The priesthood of Christ… and LANGE, The descent of Mary... The position taken in the Syriac text has some resemblance to that of Eusebius, in his Questions and Answers on the Gospels (BEYER, Die evangelischen Fragen… 54–55). 21 Whereas Anna/Hanna gets her name from Samuel’s mother, Dina gets hers from Jacob’s daughter. 19

67

S. Brock

APPENDIX 1 The genealogical schemata given for Mary (1) Sinai Sin. 16. Mary is said to descend on her father’s side from the tribe of Judah, and on her mother’s from the tribe of Levi. Eleazar Mathan

Yotham

Jacob

Zadoq = Dina

Joseph = Mary

Elisabeth = Zacharias John the Baptist

(2) Mary’s relationship to Joseph, as added to Julius Africanus’ explanation of Joseph’s genealogy (Apocryphal books apud Jacob of Edessa). David Solomon

Nathan

Eleazar

Yanai

Mathan = (1) Esta (2) = Melki Jacob = (2) anon. (1) = Heli Joseph

Panther Joachin = Hanna/Anna Mary

(3) Syriac Life of Mary (ed. BUDGE). In contrast to Julius Africanus’ schema, where Jacob is Joseph’s natural father and Eli/Heli his legal father, the reverse is the case here. Dina is said to have been called Hanna from the time that she gave birth to Mary.

68

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Solomon

Nathan

Eleazar Mathan

Matath

Yonakir/Zadoq = Dina/Hanna

Jacob = (1) Esta (2) = Heli

Mary

Joseph

(4) Cave of Treasures XLIV.45–46. (There is considerable variation in the spelling of some of the names). Eleazar Sakot/Sabrat = Mathan Hadyat = Jacob

Paqod

Yonakir = Hanna

Joseph

Mary

(5) Epiphanius the monk, Life of Mary, and other Greek texts: Nathan

Solomon

Levi Panther Mattham (priest in Bethlehem) Mary Salome (midwife)

Sobe

Bar Panther Anna = Joachim

Elisabeth John the Baptist

Mary

Melki = (2) anon. (1) = Matthan Eli = (1) anon. (2) = Jacob Joseph

S. Brock

69

APPENDIX 2 The contents of Sin. Syr. 16 The following description of the contents is based on the present foliation (which probably goes back to the time of the microfilming of the manuscripts by the Library of Congress in 1950); it should be noted that the folio numbers given by J. RENDEL HARRIS, The Apology of Aristides (Cambridge, 1891) 3–6, and by A. S. LEWIS, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Convent of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai (Studia Sinaitica 1, 1894) 18–38, in their descriptions of the manuscript will not correspond with those given below, since they were working before the removal of the first quire (folio 1 today represents the first folio of the second quire). ff. 1–27r: Palladius, Lausiac History. R. Draguet’s manuscript H in his Formes syriaques de la matière de l’Histoire Lausiaque (CSCO SS 169–170, 173–174; 1978). The missing first quire of Sinai syr. 16 is to be found in Milan A296 Inf, ff. 174–179 + Mingana syr. 641 + Milan A296 Inf. f.180 (see DRAGUET, Les formes syriaques de la matière de l’Histoire Lausiaque (CSCO, Scr. Syri 169; 1978) 33*– 34*). ff. 27r–56r: Nilus, On Monastic Life. P. BETTIOLO’s manuscript B in his Gli scritti siriaci di Nilo Solitario (Louvain, 1983) 46–151. ff. 56r–68r: Apology of Aristides. Edited from this manuscript by J. RENDEL HARRIS, The Apology of Aristides (Cambridge, 1891) (Texts and Studies I.1). Reedited in B. POUDERON, M-J. PIERRE, B. OUTTIER, M. GUIORGADZÉ, Aristide, Apologie (Sources chrétiennes 470; 2003). ff. 68r–75r: Plutarch. Edited from this manuscript by E. NESTLE, A Tract of Plutarch on the advantage to be derive from one’s enemies (Studia Sinaitica 4; 1904). ff. 75r–84v: Plutarch, Peri askeseos. This is the same text as that edited from British Library Add. 17209 by P. DE LAGARDE, Analecta Syriaca (Leipzig, 1858; repr. Osnabrück, 1967) 177–186. The beginning, missing in Add.17209 (and so also in de Lagarde’s edition), is edited from Sinai Syr. 16 by W. ROHLFS, PseudoPlutarch, Peri Askeseos // Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen, 1968) 176–184. ff. 84v–89r: Discourse of Pythagoras. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by DE LAGARDE, Analecta Syriaca... 195–201. ff. 89r–95v: Plutarch, Peri aorgesias. This is the same text as that edited from Add.17209 by DE LAGARDE, Analecta Syriaca... 186–195. ff. 95v–103r: Lucian, Peri tou me radios pisteuein diabole. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 17209 by E. SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca (Halle, 1870; repr. Hildesheim, 1968) 1–16. ff. 103r–105r: Discourse by a philosopher on the soul. Printed by LEWIS, Catalogue… 19–26. This text is elsewhere attributed either to Aristotle or to Gregory

70

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Thaumaturgus: see my Clavis Patrum Graecorum III, 7717 // JTS ns 32 (1981) 163–177. ff. 105r–108v: Theano, Counsels. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 70–75. German translation by U. POSSEKEL, Der Rat der Theano. Eine pythagoreische Spruchsammlung in syrischer Überlieferung // Mus 111 (1998) 7–36. (Sinai Syr. 16 provides the text for the passages that Sachau could not read; I hope to edit this on another occasion). ff. 108v–109r: Plato, Definitions. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 66–67. f. 109r–v: Plato, Instruction to a pupil. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 67–69. f. 109v: Short definitions, on faith etc. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 69. ff. 109v–114v: Sayings of the Philosophers. These are edited by LEWIS, Catalogue… 26–38. On these sayings, see N. ZEEGERS-VAN DER VOORST // Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205; 1978) 163–177. ff. 114v–177v: John the Solitary, Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Edited from this manuscript by W. STROTHMANN, Der Kohelet-Kommentar des Johannes von Apamea (GOFS 30; 1988). ff. 177v–184v: John Chrysostom, On the Canaanite Woman (CPG 4529). Sinai Syr. 16 is D. BUNDY’s manuscript S in his edition, in Mus 96 (1983) 97–132 ff. 184v–200r: John (yhwnys) Chrysostom, excerpts from his Homilies on Matthew (CPG 4424). 184v «On the young man from whom Legion departed, and on humility». 186r «From Discourse 28». 191r «From the Discourse on the person who has sinned, that he should not despair because he has fallen». 195r «From the Discourse on “If your brother has wronged you, rebuke him between yourselves». f. 200r: «The Fathers of the circle of Gregorios», On the genealogy of the Virgin (the text discussed above). f. 200v: (the title is too faded to read). f. 201r: Jacob of Edessa, On Paradise. (This is not from his work on the Hexaemeron). f. 202r: Ephrem, On Paradise. (This short extract is in 7:7 metre). f. 202v: Mar John (yhwnys). (On Satan counselling despair to the sinner). f. 202v: Mar Jacob. (On «every knee shall bow» before the Bema at the Last Judgement). f. 203r: Questions posed by Yohannan to Jacob (probably, of Edessa). (On Adam’s skull). f. 203v: Mar John (yhwnys), to Gregory the Anagnostes (Reader). (On «Even though heaven and earth will pass away, my words will not pass away»). No addressee with this name is known in John Chrysostom’s correspondence.

S. Brock

71

f. 204 does not belong to the original manuscript. Blank, apart from a note of ownership by the monastery on Sinai in a hand of c. 10th/11th century. Codicological details Material: parchment. Script: neat Estrangelo, one column ff. 1–56r; 2 columns ff.56v–end (the change over —probably involving different scribes — occurs mid text). For published photographs and discussion of the date, see above. Measurements: 16.5 × 24.8 cms; area of writing 10.7 × 16.5 (ff. 1–56r), 11.7 × 17.5 (ff.56v–end). Prickings: these take the form : : (for the single columns) and : : : : (for the double columns). Lines per page: c. 27 (ff. 1–56r); c. 34 (ff. 56v–end). Quire numbering: quires (of 10ff.) are numbered on the inner lower margins of the recto of the first, and verso of the last, folio of each quire for quires 2–5 (= ff. 1r–40v), after which the numbers are only given on the recto of the first folio of each quire (except quire 7; between f.51 and the end the quire numbering indicates that a few folios must be missing here and there). Page headings: these are found with only partial regularity on the verso of the fifth and tenth folio of each quire. Incorporated into the binding at the front and back are two fragments in an estrangelo hand of the sixth century; these can be identified as being from Aphrahat, Demonstration XXIII.59–60 (at the beginning, corresponding to Patrologia Syriaca II, cols. 124–125; at the end, to col. 120).

SUMMARY The Gospels of Matthew and Luke only provide a genealogy for Joseph. Speculation concerning Mary’s ancestry is first found in the Protogospel of James. In due course other writers offered a variety of different genealogies, one of which (to be found in Sinai Syr. 16) is published here. According to this genealogy Mary was the daughter of Zadoq and Dina (rather than the familiar Joachim and Anna). The other witnesses to this variant tradition, and the motivation behind it, are also discussed. In an appendix a full description of the contents of Sinai Syr. 16 is given (among the several important texts is the Apology of Aristides)

Istva;n M. Buga;r University of Debrecen, Hungar

WHAT DID EPIPHANIUS WRITE TO EMPEROR THEODOSIUS?1 1. The problem The subject of my paper is a letter. It does not need an explanation, how great importance a letter can have for understanding an author and his inner development. The significance of the letter concerned, however, is of a different nature. It was used as a conclusive proof in a suit, which has once shaken all the Christian world, and has been resumed several times ever since. The issue debated was the legitimacy of using images in the Christian cult. When this debate first sprang up in oecumenical dimension, the parties started to wage a sort of philological war. They were accumulating, and indeed creating and refuting historical evidence to support their respective case. On the iconoclastic side the main role was played by some writings attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis, a prominent figure of the antiheretical struggles of the fourth century A.D. Besides a Testament attributed to Epiphanius, the Seventh Ecumenical Council names only a letter to the Emperor Theodosius. Now, what does the letter prove? According to the iconoclastic side, that in the golden age of Patristics, the fourth century, there was a significant resistance against the use of sacred images in Christian worship. According to the iconophiles, that except for the author of this letter, nobody shared the iconoclastic position in that golden age.2 Besides, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Concil disproved that the author was Epiphanius, and after iconoclasm had been resumed, patriarch Nicephorus (758–828) elaborated on their An earlier version of this paper was read at the Byzantine Studies Seminar, convened by Prof. E. Jeffreys, Dr. J. Howard and Dr. M. Mango, University of Oxford, 27th April, 1998. I am grateful for inspiration, encouragement and suggestions on different stages of this material especially to the Rt. Rev. K. T. Ware, István Perczel, Andrew Louth, Averil Cameron and Samuel Rubenson. I am also indebted to Basile Markesinis for checking my manuscript readings and to Matthew Suff, who has carefully proofread the final text. A substantial part of the research has been carried out with financial support from the Central European University Foundation. I have collected extensive further material while being an Andrew W. Mellon visiting scholar at the American Academy in Rome. The preparation of the final version has been made possible with the help of the Hungarian National Research Fund (OTKA D 34591) and the Bolyai Fund of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 2 Fr. 2. below with n. 9. 1

I. M. Buga; r

73

argument. His coclusions remained authoritative for a thousand and two hundred years, until Karl Holl, the critical editor of the works of Epiphanius, challanged them.3 In spite of Georg Ostrogorsky’s fierce attack against Holl’s view,4 the overwhelming majority of twentieth century scholars took sides with Karl Holl.5 This view can be represented by Georg Thümmel who last wrote on the issue and edited the fragments á decades ago.6 Now the text is regularly used in handbooks to show the supposedly strong resistance to the use of religious images on the side of church authorities in the fourth century.7 There are however some considerations and evidence ignored by Thümmel that make it worth revisiting the question.

2. The text First, let us start the investigation by trying to establish the text of the letter, the evidence. Nicephorus, fortunately, quotes it abundantly. With a little change of order in Thümmel’s published text8 it will appear that the entire K. HOLL, Die Schriften des Epiphanius gegen die Bilderverehrung // Sitzungberichte der königlichen Preussiscen Akademie der Wissenschaften 11 (1916) 828– 868. 4 G. OSTROGORSKY, Die pseudo-epiphanischen Schriften gegen die Bilderverehrung als Bindeglied zwischen den ikonoklastischen Synoden von 754 und 815 // Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Breslau, 1929; repr. Amsterdam, 1964) 61–113. 5 E. g. J. WILPERT, Die unbekannten bilderfeindliche Schriften des hl. Epiphanius // Historisches Jahrbuch 38 (1917) 532–535; F. DÖLGER [review of] G. Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites // Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 191/8 (1929) 353–372; B. HEMMERDINGER, Saint Épiphane, iconoclaste // SP 10 (1970) (TU 107) 118–120, esp. 118; P. MARAVAL, Épiphane, «docteur des iconoclastes» // Nicée II, 787–1987: Douze siècles d’images religieuses: Actes du colloque international Nicée II tenu au Collège de France, Paris / Ed. E. Bœspflug, N. Lossky (Latour—Marbourg, 1987) 51–62. 6 H. G. THÜMMEL, Die bilderfeindliche Schriften des Epiphanios von Salamis // Byzantinoslavica 47 (1986) 170. 7 E. g. Ja. PELIKAN, Images of the Invisible // The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2 The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700) (Chicago, 1977) 102; C. MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1483: Sources and Documents // Sources and Documents in the History of Art / Ed. H. W. Johnson (Englewood Cliffs, Colo., 1922) 41–42. Cf. CPG; JOHANNES QUASTEN, Patrology. Vol. 3, The Golden Age of Patristic Literature: From the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, (Westminster, Md., 1960) 391–393 (repeated in the 6th edition [1992]). 8 Republished in H. G. THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bildestreit (Berlin, 1992) (TU 139) [henceforth THÜMMEL]. 3

74

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

argument against the images contained in it survives.9 Furthermore, Nicephorus quotes a passage stating the author’s orthodoxy10 and a further one counselling the Emperor concerning fasting on Saturdays.11 We can now add two important fragments to the edition of Thümmel. One is preserved in a ninth-century Syriac manuscript containing a Cononite12 florilegium probably of the late sixth century.13 The cited passage anathematises those who reject the resurrection of the body. The other, more extensive and unpublished fragment comes from codex Vat. gr. 375, a fourteenth-century collection of instructive texts for monks.14 The heading of the passage reads «Emperor Theodoret», and thus became a separate item in the CPG. As a note of P. Maraval testifies, I was not the first who thought that it must come from the same letter that we are discussing now.15 However, Fr. J. P. Paramelle, to whom he refers, to the best of my knowledge has never fulfilled his promise to publish the text. I do not understand the suggestion of Devréesse that the letter would be by Epiphanius of Pavia and addressed to King Theoderic of Ravenna.16 Although we know from the biography of Epiphanius by his sucessor, Ennodius,17 that he maintained good connections with Theoderic for diplomatic reasons, why would a Latin orthodox bishop write in Greek to the Arian king, advise him on prayer and name his wife Augusta? It is much easier to suppose that the fourteenth-century monk copyist of the codex misread the name. Besides the similar pronounciation of the two names in Byzantine Greek (Theodosion/Theodoriton) and the minuscule writing, another source of misSee my reconstruction in the Appendix, fr. 2. Fr. 1.a. 11 Fr. 3.a. 12 The followers of John Philoponus’ teaching on the Trinity, who separated from the non-Chalcedonian Church in the second half of the sixth century, were themselves divided by Philoponus’ writing on the resurrection. Those who rejected it were led by Conon, who had been consacrated as the metropolitan of Tharsus by Jacob Baradaeus. 13 Fr. 1.b. 14 Fr. 3.b. 15 MARAVAL, Épiphane… 56 n. 31. 16 Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana // Codices Vaticanae Graecae. Tom II / Ed. R. DEVREESSE. 67. 17 Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii 109–110; 122–130; 178–189. CSEL 6,359,3–19; 362,16–364,20; 377,13–380,6; cf. Sister GENEVIEVE MARIE COOK (ed., tr., intr., comm.), The Life of Saint Epiphanius by Ennodius // Studies in Medieval and Renaissence Latin Language and Literature 14 (1942) 12–13 (although she claims that Ennodius obviously sought the favour of Theoderic). The Vita does mention letters to Theoderic about Epiphanius’ success in liberating captives and about the needs of the poor: 180–181. CSEL 6, 377,25–378,7. 9

10

I. M. Buga; r

75

spelling could be a sort of error of profession, since the name of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, author on early monasticism, must have been more familiar to him. I have already seen «Posidonius» (i. e. the philosopher) in print instead of «Poseidon» (i. e. the god), or a historian of philosophy saying Heraclitus instead of Heracles (Hercules). The same phenomenon occurs even more frequently in reading. The new fragment advises the Emperor and the Empress to persist in saying the morning and evening prayer, and indeed to strive at uninterrupted prayer.18 Basile Markesinis, to whom I am indebted in editing the text, has suggested me that the script of the manuscript may point to a provenance from Cyprus.19 This would well explain how the compilator got hold of the letter of Epiphanius.

3. External evidence for the history of the text Now I turn to the external evidence for the history of the text. The speaker at the Second Council of Nicaea, deacon Epiphanius of Constantinople, says that he read the whole letter carefully, that is to say, not only an excerpt.20 He may have found it in the patriarchal archives. Whether it was in a collection of letters, and how it reached the patriarchal collection, which was previously for fifty years under iconoclastic control, we do not know anymore. In the refutation the speaker at Nicaea concedes that the letter is contemporary with St. Epiphanius, and thus can make a good argument out of its remark that not a single member of the clergy had taken heed to the author’s concern about the dangers of idolatry. The council, referring to similar cases during earlier ecumenical councils, «refuses the writing but acknowledges the Father».21 Elsewhere the fathers of Nicaea often complain that at Hiereia only extracts were circulated on tablets (ðéôôÜêéá) instead of codices. They themselves were careful to present codices and cite writings with their incipit.22 They also inform us that all over the world there cannot be found even two or Although the authenticity of the sayings attributed to Epiphanius in the alphabetical Apophthegmata is dubious at best, we may note that one among them, No. 3 exactly deals with ceaseless prayer, while No 7. with the seven hours of prayer. 19 Cf. P. CANART, Un style d’écriture livresque dans les manuscrits chypriotes du XVIe siècle: la chypriote «bouclée» // La paléographie greque et byzantine: 21–25 octobre 1974. Colloques Internationaux du C.N.R.S. ¹ 559 (Paris, 1977) 304–321; although this very manuscript is not on Canart’s «provisional list of manuscripts written with “chypriote bouclée”»: ibid. 311–318. 20 See Appendix, n. 9. 21 MANSI XIII. 296D. 22 Sister C. MURRAY, Art and the Early Church // JTS 28 (1977) 315, n. 1 with references. 18

76

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

three manuscripts of the supposedly Epiphanian writing against images, except for some copies that have been made very recently.23 Until recently there was no evidence of the knowledge of the letter before the Iconoclastic Controversy. The source of the Syriac fragment however seems to date well before that period. Moreover, I have found reference to the letter in the Vita Epiphanii,24 which has been recently the subject of a doctoral dissertation at Oxford by Claudia Rapp.25 On the basis of the translation technique of the Syriac version, she believes that the Vita is not later than the mid-fifth century.26 In any case it surely predates Leontius of Neapolis, a mid-seventh-century author.27 Now, according to the Vita, in the Letter to Theodosius Epiphanius asks the Emperor to expel heresies current in Cyprus. Rapp comments that no such laws are known from Theodosius’ antiheretical legislation, neither do we have any evidence that the mentioned heresies were represented to a considerable extent in late fourth-century Cyprus.28 Besides the Letter to Theodosius, the author of the Vita was aware of the letter to John and only one further group of letters pertaining to the debates with Chrysostom and mentioned by Socrates, the possible source of the Vita on the issue.29 There could have been a collection of his letters known at the time of the composition of the Life. The new fragment from Vat gr. 375 as an independent source also confirms the existence of a letter of Epiphanius to Theodosius, which dealt at least with issues other than images. If it is the same letter, it must have got into the monastic florilegium before it was discarded by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

MANSI XIII, 296B: «ôïýôùí ô§í ëïãõäñßùí S êáôN ô§í óåðô§í åkêüíùí ðåñéâïìâï™óé, äýï } ôñåsò âßâëïé PíN ðOóáí ôxí ïkêïõìÝíçí ï¡ðù çœñçíôáé, åk ìx íåùóôr dãñÜöçóáí». 24 Fr. 1.c. 25 C. RAPP, The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis: An Historical and Literary Study. D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, Faculty of Modern History (Oxford, 1991) Vol. 1. 16–40. I am grateful to Kate Leeming for drawing my attention to this dissertation. The dissertation contains a critical edition of the text that was to be published, but has not come out to the best of my knowledge. 26 Ibid. Vol. 1. 94–102; cf. vol. 2. Appendix, 34–35. 27 Rapp is probably right in assuming that a passage in Leontius of Neapolis’ Vita Iohannis Eleaemosynaris (c. 19) rests on the Vita, and the Vita Auxibii, composed between 600 and 649, again uses the Vita Epiphanii: RAPP, The Vita of Epiphanius… Vol. 2. Appendix, 30. 28 Ibid. Appendix, comment on c. 119. 29 Historia Ecclesiastica VI,10,17. 23

I. M. Buga; r

77

4. Faking during the controversy Thus far I seem to have corroborated that the text in discussion is authentic. There is, however, some reason to raise doubts. During the Iconoclastic Controversy another letter of Epiphanius was also adduced as evidence against the case of icons. This letter, quoted as EÅðéóôüëç äïãìáôéêÞ is however rather suspicious.30 As Ostrogorsky has observed,31 it corresponds almost word for word to a paragraph in the Definition of the Iconoclastic Council of Hiereia.32 An interesting parallel can be found among the letters of St. Basil, which states — contrary to the Dogmatic Letter — the iconophile position as if professing faith in the decision of a council.33 I supply the parallels from the Definition of Nicaea II,34 but one can probably find even closer correspondence elsewhere. No scholar would claim that this letter is by St. Basil, or from the fourth century. Luckily, we do have the collection of St. Basil’s letters, and this one seems to have been transmitted extra collectionem. In the case of Epiphanius we, unfortunately, cannot settle the issue so easily, but the highly suspicious Dogmatic letter is in itself enough to raise doubts concerning the other iconoclastic writings attributed to Epiphanius. Elsewhere I have argued that among these the Treatise can hardly be by Epiphanius.35

5. Evidence of the content As for the Letter to Theodosius, the only means to get closer to the answer is to look at the contents of the letter. Holl’s36 only strong argument for the authenticity of the letter is the passage where the author allows fasting on Saturdays.37 This seems to contradict eighth century Byzantine practice, but would be conceivable in the fourth century.38 Holl, however, misinterprets the fourth-century evidence,39 further, there was a fierce debate about fasting THÜMMEL § 36,2–3. P. 76. 32 MANSI XIII, 336E. 33 Epistula 360, Courtonne. M. Bessières has discussed the origin of the fragment in JTS 23 (1922): 345. 34 MANSI XIII, 373E; 376A; C; E; 377A; CE; 380A 35 See I. M. BUGAR; , «Origenist Christology» and Iconoclasm: The Case of Epiphanius of Salamis // Christus bei den Vätern: Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens / Ed. Y. de Andia, P. L. Hofrichter (Tyrolia—Wien, 2003) (Wiener Patristische Tagungen 1) 96–110. 36 «Epiphanius», 370–376. 37 Fr. 3.a. 38 Quinisexta council, canon 55 (= Apostolic Canon 66). 39 In fact the testimonies cited by him prove exactly and unanimously the opposite, especially in relation to Palestine and Cyprus. He misinterprets the — otherwise 30 31

78

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

on Saturdays exactly at the time of the iconoclastic controversy40 — nonetheless I do not believe that an iconoclast forger would risk the force of his «evidence» by introducing another controversial issue. enigmatic — Syriac of Athanasius’ Festal Letter 6: in my understanding the passage says exactly the opposite of what Holl wants: Athanasius exempted the Saturdays from fasting. This is how the author of the monograph on the festal letter, A. CAMPANALI, translates the passage: La lettere festali di Atanasio di alessandria: studio storico-critico (Rome, 1989) (Corpus dei manoscritti copti letterari) 174. I am grateful to Sebastian Brock for drawing my attention to this publication, as well as for checking my interpretation. Egeria, c. 27,1; 6 is absolutely clear about the Jerusalem practice contrasting it with the Western: in Jerusalem they never fasted on Saturdays except Holy Saturday. This is why they calculated Great Lent as lasting for 8 weeks. The Saturday liturgy coincided with the repose from fasting, as it is obvious — contrary to Holl — also from the canons 49 and 51 of Laodicaea. Similarly, the Saturday liturgy on Cyprus (and Cappadocia: Socrates, HE V,22 PG 67,640, cf. Epiphanius, de fide 24,7) not only does not prove that it was a fasting day (OSTROGORSKY, Die pseudo-epiphanischen Schriften… 93), but in fact proves again exactly that it was not. (With Holl’s argument Epiphanius would turn out as approving Sunday fasting as well.) The Apostolic Canon V. mirrors a general practice in the fourth-century East (cf. also Basil, de ieiunio I–II, PG 31, 176,20–21; 181,47–49; 189,25–26; 196,17– 20). As Augustine asserts, the Saturday fast was exclusively a Roman custom, and he himself blames those who wanted to enforce it on Eastern clergy: Ep. 82,14. PL 33,281; cf. Ep. 36 passim. Further, Nicephoros aduces a passage from the Panarion (42,3,4), where Epiphanius reproaches Marcion for having introduced the Saturday fast in order to harass the God of the OT. This seems to suggest that Epiphanius was of the opposite — by Nicephorus’ time orthodox — conviction, but does not exclude the possibility that he gave concessions to the practice of the imperial family. 40 The canon of Quinisexta quoted did not guarantee that the question could not be raised. One has to remember only that questioning the legitimacy of icons also contradicted the Quinisexta council (Canon 82). And indeed, around 700 a fierce debate about times of fasting was shaking the peace of the Church. It was Emperor Heraclius who in the seventh century enforced the eight-week long Lent on the entire Church, by then common mainly among the non-Chalcedonians. Maximus the Confessor opposed him also on this issue: T. MGALOBLISHVILI, The Lent Cycle in Ancient Georgian Homiletic-Liturgical Collections // SP 33 (1997) 559–560. Now a century later, seeing that the «controversy about the sacred fasts is towering up to the high air» St John Damascene dedicated a writing to the issue which he introduced with words similar to the preface to his First Apology against the Iconoclasts: De sacris ieiuniis (quotation from c. 3. PG 95,68,5–6.). He takes sides against those who maintained a seven-week long Lent, but warns also their opponents that they should be more tolerant. In fact he tries to harmonise earlier patristic references by proclaiming a preparatory week of meat-fast, six weeks of Lent until the Friday preceding Palm Sunday, and then Holy Week. He is arguing against the eight-week party in so far as they reasoned their position by claiming that one had to count only five weekdays as fasting days. Damascene answers that on Saturday and Sunday the fasting is less strict and liturgy is offered; nevertheless we must include them to get forty days since

I. M. Buga; r

79

5.1. The Letter to John It is the question of images that will take us further. Although in the extant writings of Epiphanius, there is hardly any reference to any use of Christian images, there is another fragment discussed during the Iconoclastic Controversy, which proves to be genuine by the evidence of Jerome’s translation. In Latin the entire Letter to John of Jerusalem survives, and among other issues it discusses an affair of Epiphanius with an image. Dating from 394, the letter relates how Epiphanius in a church under the jurisdiction of John of Jerusalem tore down a curtain (âyëïí — velum) with an effigy allegedly of a saint or Christ indistinguishable for him.41 He ordered it to be used as a burial shroud for a poor deceased. With the letter, he now sends a curtain to replace the damaged one. What exactly Epiphanius’ concern was that prompted him this iconoclastic act is unclear. In any case, he seems to have considered it a highly unusual decoration in a church. Now depictive art as such was far from being unusual in Christian churches by the end of the fourth century.42 Yet the incident testifies that Epiphanius had scruples at least with some sort of images. In the Letter to Theodosius, too, the author asks the Emperor that curtains with images be torn down and turned into burial shrouds.43 This so far may seem to confirm the authenticity. Holy Week is distinct from the Tessarakoste. He does not detail the argument of the seven-week party, but we cannot exclude that it had been suggested to count Saturdays as fasting days, as in the Roman Church, although the seven/eight-week position not always corresponded exactly to the admitting or rejection of Saturday fasting. The Martyrdom of Shushanik (fifth century) speaks about eight weeks with a liturgy only on Sundays. This may imply fasting on Saturdays of the Great Lent. Conversely, the eighth-century Martyrdom of Abo Tbileli confirms that at the time of its composition Lent lasted seven weeks with liturgy offered on both Saturdays and Sundays: MGALOBLISHVILI, The Lent Cycle… 560. 41 Stretched between columns, such textiles are represented in Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome. See A. GRABAR, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins (Priceton, 1968) (Bollingen Series XXXV.10) 99 and plates 250–251. The velum mentioned in the letter, however, was at the gateway of the church (34,14). See also J. STRZYGOWSKI, Einfarbige Stoffe mit biblischen Darstellungen aus Ägypten // Orient oder Rom: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Spätantiken und Frühchristlichen Kunst (Leipzig, 1901) 110–111. Egeria on the Golgotha marvelled that «et si vela vides, auroclava sunt, si cortinas vides, similiter auroclauvae olosericae sunt» (c. 35, quoted by HOLL, «Epiphanius», 382). 42 For evidence in the sphere of pilgrim sites see e. g. A. GRABAR, Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique (Paris, 1946) Vol. 2: Iconographie; I. BUGAR; , Images and Pilgrimages: On Some Evidence before Justinian // Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU: 1997–1998 / Ed. K. Szende (Budapest, 1999) 201–230 with further literature. 43 Fr. 2,31–34.

80

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

There is however something strange about the issue. The Letter to Theodosius advises that all images be destroyed, except the curtains, which all have to be turned to shrouds. This sounds a little bizarre as an imperial measure. It rather looks as if the author were consciously alluding to this episode of the Letter to John three times,44 and does this, it appears to me, rather awkwardly. In the list of sites with icons, another expression, ïkê² käßv, may also echo the ïkê² êïéí² of the Testament attributed to Epiphanius and certainly quoted in the Iconoclastic Controversy.45 Art historians and antiquarians well know that an object is suspect not so much when it has no parallel as when it has too close parallels. This is exactly the case with our letter. We seem to have detected the source of the possible forger. And there is further evidence that he is indeed a forger.

5.2. Iconography Epiphanius, who could not even distinguish a representation of Christ or some other saint in the Letter to John, appears as an expert on the iconography of Christ and the Apostles in the Letter to Theodosius. He knows exactly where the practice is uniform and where one can find minor differences. He writes as follows: Furthermore, they lie by representing the appearance of saints in different forms according to their whim, sometimes delineating the same persons as old men, sometimes as youths, intruding into things which they have not seen. For these impostors represent the holy apostle Peter as an old man with hair and beard cut short; some represent St. Paul as a man with receding hair, others as being bald and bearded, and the other apostles as being closely cropped. And they paint the Saviour with long hair, and this by conjecture because He is called a Nazarene, and Nazarenes wear long hair. They are in error, those who try to attach stereotypes to Him: for the Saviour drank wine, whereas Nazarenes did not. If then the Saviour had long hair while his disciples were cropped, and so, by not being cropped, He was unlike them in appearance, for what reason did the Pharisees and scribes give a fee of thirty silver pieces to Judas that he might themselves or through others have known by the token of His hair Him whom they were seeking to find, and this without paying a fee?46

Fr 2,8; 11; 31. See St. John of Damascus, Apol. I 25; MANSI XIII, 292CD. 46 Fr 2, 12b–27; translation based on MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1483… 42. 44 45

I. M. Buga; r

81

Holl points out that Epiphanius himself was strongly opposed to the idea that Christ was a Nazirite and to the custom of wearing long hair to imitate him.47 Thus, the argument is very much in the manner of — or based on — Epiphanius. But independently of the question of how Epiphanius suddenly acquired such a familiarity with contemporary art, it is worth asking whether this description really squares with what we know about Christian depictive art of the period. As for the Apostles Peter and Paul there is no problem, since the traits of their portraiture seem to have been fixed by the mid-fourth century with minor exceptions.48 This may be due to the description of their look by earlier apocrypha.49 However, the same is hardly true about Christ. The variety is in fact so wide that Thomas Matthews in a recent study on Late Antique Christian art speaks about the Christ «Epiphanius», 377 quoting Panarion 47,3,3; 30,19,1sqq; 45,4,3sqq, and again the ascetics with long hair: 80,6,6sqq. with De fide 13,3; 23,3. These latter are criticised for falsely imitating Christ, since the Nazirites were justified in wearing long hair only in virtue of being types («ôýðïò») of Christ. Holl is certainly right in pointing out that this idea lays behind the rather elliptic phrase in l. 26: «when they try to transfer the types onto Him». 48 The archaeological material shows a considerable uniformity: cf. M. SOTOMAYOR, S. J., Petrus und Paulus in der frühchristlichen Ikonographie // Spätantike und frühes Christentum / Ed. H. Beck, P. C. Bol (Frankfurt am Main, 1983) 199–210 and F. BISCONTI, Pietro e Paolo: l’invenzione delle immagini, la rievocazione delle storie, la genesi delle teofanie // Pietro e Paolo: La storia, il culto, la memoria nei primi secoli / Ed. A. Donati (Milano, 2000) 43–53; and IDEM, L’origine dell’iconografia di Pietro e Paolo // Pietro e Paolo: il loro rapporto con Roma nelle testimonianze antiche: XXIX incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma 4–6 maggio 2000 (Roma, 2001) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 74) 393–401. The motif of recognizing saints in visions from their common appearance on images, attested from the fifth century also points to such standard physiognomy of depictions: Inventio et passio SS. Gervasii et Protasii (CPL 2194) = [Ambrose] Epistula II/LIII, PL 17, 742–747, CPL 2195, cf. M. AUBINEAU, Jean Damascène et l’epistula de Inventione Gervasii et Protasii attribuée a Ambroise // AB 90 (1972) 1–14, (with a Greek translation used also by St. John Damascene [Apol. II 64] also published); for dating, see also F. SAVIO, Due Lettere falsamente attribuite a S. Ambroggio // Nuovo Bulletino di archeologia cristiana 3 (1897) 153–177, esp. 158–165 (situates the letter in late fith/ early sixth c. Ravenna); C. SALIOU, Du légendier au sermonnaire: avatars de la Passio Sebastiani // Revue des Études Augustiniennes 36 (1990) 286 n. 8 (holds that the older dating and Ambrosian authorship in the case of the Inventio is much more probable than in the case of the Passio Sebastiani); I could not obtain access to B. AGOSTI’s article in Rivista Cistercense 7 (1990) 215–217; concerning the images of the Apostle Paul, the recognition-motif is discussed by G. DAGRON, Holy Images and Likenesses // DOP 45 (1987) 30–33. 49 J. E. WEIS-LIEBERSDORF, Christus- und Apostelbilder: Einfluss der Apokryphen auf die ältesten Kunsttypen, (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1902). 47

82

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

chamaeleon,50 which actually again corresponds to some apocrypha’s describing him as polymorphic.51 Although the later standard bearded type with long hair (the so-called Zeus or Asclepius type) seems to emerge exactly in Rome in the 380s,52 it is T. F. MATHEWS, The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton, N. J., 1993) 115–41. 51 E. JUNOD, Polymorphie du Dieu Sauveur // Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique / Ed. J. Ries, Y. Janssens, J.-M. Sevrin (Louvain, 1982) (Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain: Actes du colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11–14 mars 1980) 27) 38–46. Cf. especially Acta Petri 21. 52 In general, see J. SAUER, Das aufkommen des bärtigen Christentyps in der frühchristlichen Kunst // Strena bvliciana: commentationes gratvlatoriae Francisco Buliæ ob XV vitae: lvstra feliciter peracta oblatae a discipvlis et amicis A.D. IV non Oct. MCMXXI / Ed. M Abramiæ, V. Hoffiller (Zagreb, 1924) 303–329; J. SAUER, Die ältesten Christusbilder (Berlin, 1920) (Wachsmuths Kunsthefte 7); W. SCHÖNE, Die Bildgeschichte // Das Gottesbild im Abendland / Ed. G. HOWE (Witten—Berlin, 1957) (Glaube und Forschung 15) 7–56; W. N. SCHUMACHER, Altchristliche Giebelkompositionen // Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts R. A. 67 (1960) 133– 149; G. STUHLFAUTH, Die ältesten Porträts Christi und der Apostel (Berlin, 1918); W. J. A. VISSER, Die Entwicklung des Christusbildes im Literatur und Kunst der frühchristlichen und frühbyzantinischen Zeit (Bonn, 1934). According to Kollwitz in the fourth century after Nicaea the bearded type comes to prevail, except on scenes of the enthronement in the Passion cycle and on scenes of miracles. From Theodosius this tendency continues in the West except Milan, but in the East still the figure of the young Christ dominates the representations (see Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie / Ed. E. KIRSCHBAUM. Vol. 1: Algemeine Ikonographie, s.v. «Christus, Christusbild 1: Das Christusbild der frühchristlichen Kunst», by J. KOLLWITZ). The finest examples are in the catacomb of Commodilla, fresco in the vault of the «Cubicle of Leo» (J. G. DECKERS, G. MIETKE, A. WEILAND, Die Katakombe «Commodilla»: Repertorium der Malereien (Città del Vaticano, 1994) (Roma sotterranea cristiana 10) No. 5/1 ceiling, with coloured plate 23.) and Christ as Pantocrator in the catacomb of SS. Petrus and Marcellinus (J. G. DECKERS, H. R. SEELIGER, G. MIETKE, Die Katakombe «Santi Marcellino e Pietro»: Repertorium der Malereien (Città del Vaticano, 1987) (Roma sotterranea cristiana 6) No. 3, ceiling, with coloured plate 2–3); cf. also the Traditio legis in Santa Constanza, Rome (G. BOVINI, Edifici cristiani di culto d’età costantiana à Roma. Vol. 1. (Bologna, 1968) 288–297, and S. Gennaro, the baptistery of S. Giovanni in Fonte, Naples (M. VAN BERCHEM, E. CLOUZOT, Mosaïques chrétiennes (Genève, 1924; repr.: Rome, 1965) 105–110 with plate 120 on p. 107), and the Panel with bust of Christ, opus sectile, Ostia Antica, end of fourth century, Ostia, Museo as reproduced in Age of Spirituality… 523–524, cat. No. 468 (K. A. KELLY, Motifs in Opus Sectile and its Painted Imitations from the Tetrarchy to Justinian. Diss. Columbia University, 1986 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1987) No. 20, pp. 225–226 with plate 97; and the Theodosian sarcophagi reproduced in F. GERKE, Christus in der Spätantiken Plastik (Berlin, 1941) Plates 70, 71 and 74 — all these representations are from the late fourth century. An early specimen is the polychrom fragment in the Museo Nazionale, Palazzo Massimo, Rome: E. DINKLER, Ikonographische Beobachtungen zum Christustyp der poly50

I. M. Buga; r

83

far from being generally accepted. Theodorus Lector, writing some two hundred years later, still considers the representation with short curly hair as the authentic one.53 Christ is very commonly represented as young with long frizzy hair, the so-called Apollo or Helios type, as incarnating eternal youth.54 Though Epiphanius speaks explicitly only about the long hair, not the beard, this type hardly conforms to how we imagine a Nazirite in his thirties. Interestingly enough these two types often appear on the same monument. I suspect that in such a case the bearded figure represents Christ as resurrected and glorified, while the youth stands for him in his earthly life.55 There is, however, a type with definitely short hair, current throughout the fourth century especially in Rome.56 This type still has a long career to chromen Fragmente des Museo Nazionale Romana // Gesta 19 (1979) 77–88. Generally, for the bearded Christ in the early period, see Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, s.v. «Christusbilder», by K. WESSEL, vol. 1. 972–974. 53 THEODORUS LECTOR, Historia Ecclesiastica 107,11–108,3 (PG 86,137; preserved in the quotation of Damasc., Apol. III 130, the story concerned Patriarch Gennadius [458–471]); English translation in MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312– 1483… 40. 54 E. g. sarcophagus fragment, Palazzo Massimo, Theodosian period: J. DRESKEN-W EILAND, Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage II: Italien mit einem Nachtrag Rom und Ostia, Dalmatien, Museen der Welt (Mainz, 1998) No. 132; or on the beautiful sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, see E. S. MALBON, The Iconography of the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (Princeton, N.J., 1990); cf. W. F. DEICHMANN, Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage / Ed. and revised by G. BOVINI, H. BRANDENBURG (Wiesbaden, 1967) No. 680. Cf. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, s.v. «Christusbilder», by K. WESSEL. Vol. 1. 968–972. 55 See e. g. Passion Sarcophagus, ca. 380–400, Museo Pio Cristiano cat, no. 31487 (ex. Lateran 151), cf. DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… Cat. no. 49 (p. 208) with reproduction on p. 128; DEICHMANN, Repertorium… No. 58 (p. 56) with pl. 19. Cf. also the sarcophagus at Ravenna, Museo Nazionale: Ibid. II no. 379 where Christ appears young with definitely short hair in the Gospel scene of raising Lazarus (side), and bearded with long hair on the front in His full glory. 56 «Haemorrhoissa», fresco, Catacomb of SS Pietro e Marcellino Deckers-Seeliger-Mietke no. 65/2, with coloured plate 4/3; The Samaritan Woman at the Well, wall painting, catacombs under Via Latina, Rome, as reproduced in A. FERRUA, S. J, Catacombe sconosciute: una pinacoteca del IV secolo sotto la Via Latina (Firenze, 19902) 90, plate 93; Christ Seated in an Assembly of Standing Apostles, wall painting, n.d., Catacomb of Domitilla, Rome, as reproduced in GRABAR, plate 112); sarcophagus with miracles of Christ and scenes from the life of St. Peter, Vatican, Museo Pio Cristiano, early fourth century, as reproduced in E. KITZINGER, Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd–7th century (Cambridge, Mass., 1977) Plate 35 (see also Age of Spirituality… 417, cat. No. 374, Matthews 55 fig. 35); sarcophagus, early fourth century, Frankfurt am Main, Liebighaus as reproduced in A. LEGNER, Zum Fragment eines konstantinischen Sarkophages im Liebighaus // Tortulae: Studien zu altchristlichen und byzatinischen Monu-

84

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

run.57 It again can be mixed with the Helios type.58 One finds even the other menten / Ed. W. N. SCHUMACHER (Rome—Freiburg—Wien, 1966) Plates 51–54; sarcophagus, Ravenna, S. Maria in Porto fuori, DEICHMANN, Repertorium… II. 382-2 (p. 159); sarcophagus fragment with Paul and Christ, in DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… Cat. no. 81; SS. Peter and Paul crowned by Christ, gilded glass bottom of bowl, Rome, mid-fourth century, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, cat, no. 1911,11.91.4; above; Disc or Fragment of Plate with Christ and Saints, Rome, first half of fourth century, gold glass, Oxford, Pusey House (on loan to the Ashmolean Museum), Wilshere Collection, as reproduced in Age of Spirituality… 527, cat. No. 472; silver amula (for keeping Eucharistic wine and water), DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… No. 65 with plate on p. 143, cf. H. HARVARD ÁRNASON, Early Christian Silver from North Italy and Gaul // Art Bulletin 20 (1938) 193–226; esp. 193–205 with plate I. Cf. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, s. v. «Christusbilder», by K. WESSEL. Vol. 1. 967–968. 57 For later examples outside Italy, see the papyrus fragment from Oxyrrhynchus with Christ on the lake Tiberias, Florence, Museo Archaeologico Nazionale, Museo Egizio inv. no. 8683: DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… No. 42 with plate on p. 123; or the ivory pyxis in A. EFFENBERGER, H.-G. SEVERIN, Das Museum für spätantike und byzantinische Kunst (Mainz am Rhein, 1992), under # 48. The Holy Women at the Tomb, an ivory panel, c. 400A.D., Milan, Civico Museo dell’Arte, Castello Sforesco, cat. No. 9 is usually thought to represent a wingless angel with halo at the tomb. Weitzmann, however, has identified the figure as Christ through the close analogy of a preiconoclastic encaustic icon from the Sinai Monastery representing the «chairete» scene from the account of the resurrection according to Matthew, an illustration of the same scene in the Rabbula gospels (fol. 13r) and the Holy Women at the Tomb and the Ascension, ivory panel, Munich, Bayerische Nationalmuseum, c. 400 A.D.: K. WEITZMANN , Eine vorikonoklastische Ikone des Sinai mit der Darstellung des Chairete // Tortulae: Studien zu altchristlichen und byzatinischen Monumenten / Ed. W. N. Schumacher (Rome—Freiburg —Wien, 1966) 317–325, with plates 80–81. On the Munich diptych Christ is represented at the Ascension holding a scroll like the figure on the Milan panel, while the figure before the tomb is still that of an angel according to Weitzmann (no halo, no scroll in his hands though he is holding it in a similar position as the figure on the Milan ivory; to my eye, however, he is identical with he ascending Christ — both beardless with loose long hair). Indeed, on the top of the Milan panel the symbols of Matthew and Luke appear suggesting that the composition follows these gospels. In Luke we read about two angels (24,4) and three, or even more women (24,10), which does not correspond to the representation. In Matthew an angel rolls the stone closing the sepulchre and sits on it (28,2). This may correspond to our representation, which may have misunderstood the stone as a rock blocking the door. Nonetheless in Matthew the women fall on the ground before the angel, while on the ivory panel one of them grabs the leg of the sitting figure, as they indeed did in Matthew when returning from the tomb they met Christ (28,9). Even the gestures of the two women pointing to the figure seem to me to represent the 58 Sarcophag Museo Pio Cristiano ex. 173; DEICHMANN, Repertorium… No. 20 with plate 6. The presence of the two types on this monument has obviously confused the restaurateur.

I. M. Buga; r

85

combination around 400: Christ with trimmed beard and hair.59 Another type with short hair appears exactly under Theodosius. Their hairstyle is typical of the fashion under this Emperor.60 Even if one attributes the bearded type especially to Palestine, that does not solve the problem. If the image mentioned in the Letter to John was unique as a portrait in the Holy Land, Epiphanius must have gained his knowledge elsewhere. And he did travel to Egypt, Rome, and Constantinople. It is hardly conceivable that he has not noticed the flourishing contemporary Christian art in the old and the new capital.

Conclusion So how can we settle the issue? The argument about images seems to be later than Epiphanius and forged. On the other hand the letter is evidenced before iconoclasm. There remains one solution: a forger has inserted the passage about images in the existing letter. Such a procedure was not uncommon recognition of Christ. Thus, according to Weitzmann, the artist conflated the two episodes. To Weitzman’s examples, I would add Auferstehungszene, 6tes Jh, Scheibenfiebel, Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Horreum), as represented in Z. KÁDÁR, Die Menasampulle von Szombathely (Steinamanger, Ungarn) in Beziehung zu anderen frühchristlichen Pilgerandenken // Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 1991 / Ed. E. DASSMANN, J. ENGEMANN (Münster, Germany, 1995) (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Suppl. 20; Studi di antichità cristiana 52) Plate 116e, cf. L. BAKÓCZ, A Sixth Century Cemetary from Keszthely-Fenékpuszta // Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiae Hungariae 20 (1968) 289 with plate LXX-6. 59 Bottom of Bowl with the Traditio Legis, gold glass, Rome, late fourth-early fifth century, Toledo, Ohio, The Toledo Museum of Art, as reproduced in Age of Spirituality… 560, cat. no. 503; San Apollinare Nuovo, Miracle of Cana, drawing made by Ciampiani before the restoration, as reproduced in KUHN, Die Darstellung des Kanawunders im Zeitalter Justinians… Plate 48/c. 60 E. g. «XP enthroned» silver casket, Milan as represented in W. F. VOLBACH, M. HIRMER (photographs), Early Christian Art [translation of «Frühchristliche Kunst: Die Kunst der Spätantike in West- und Ostrom (München, 1958)»] (London, 1961) Pl. 111; Sarcophag fr., Ravenna, Museo Nazionale, beginning of fifth century, as reproduced in J. KOLLWITZ, H. HERDEJÜRGEN, Die Sarkophage der Westlichen Gebiete des Imperium Romanum. Teil 2: Die Ravennatischen Sarkophage (Berlin, 1979) (Antiken Sakophagrelielfs 8.2) No. B2 with plate 26,4 (cf. DEICHMANN, Repertorium… II no. 377 with no reproduction); and for an object of debated authenticity: E. KITZINGER, A Marble Relief of the Theodosian Period // The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies by Ernst Kitzinger / Ed. W. E. Kleinbauer (Bloomington, Ind., 1976) 1–32, cf. S. A. BOYD, G. VIKAN, Questions of Authenticity Among the Arts of Byzantium: Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at Dumbarton Oaks, January 7 – May 11, 1981 (Washington, D.C., 1981) 4–7.

86

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

during the Iconoclastic Controversy. One can produce a nice example, where indeed both versions have survived: the letter of St. Nilus (†430) to a certain Olympiodorus. Whether the iconodules inserted the debated section, as Thümmel argues,61 or the iconoclasts censured the letter, as I believe it happened, in any case, the example proves that such practice existed. We must also remember the complaints of the Fathers at Nicaea about the iconoclasts’ working with extracts and about the fact that the manuscripts with the Letter are rare and quite recent.62 And although the iconodules at the Second Council of Nicaea or Nicephorus were not able to provide the authentic version of the Letter to Theodosius, my arguments indicate that such a version existed and was different from the one cited by the iconoclasts. Placing the iconoclastic passage in the context of the Iconoclastic Controversy explains a good number of details of the argument therein. First, the remark that after the heresies the devil has drawn people to the old idolatry63 appears to be an iconoclastic response to the iconophile apology that Epiphanius has no word about Christian idolatry enumerating, as he claims, all possible heresies.64 Secondly, the episode at the end of the letter, that nobody listened to the author’s warning against images, can also be a response to the iconodule’s defence that Epiphanius is a «single swallow» among the Fathers who otherwise all support the cult of images.65 There were times in Church history — the iconophiles may mean — when a single champion represented orthodoxy, as, for example, St. Maximus the Confessor during the Monothelite Controvesy, and nearly so Epiphanius in the fourth century Origenist debates. Thirdly, the exhortation that the cross should be alone depicted in every place — cultic and private66 — again coincides with the iconoclast’s program. Finally, we may surmise the motivation why to chose the Letter to Theodosius to insert the iconoclastic passage. According to the Vita the letter spoke about the Carpocratians. Ostrogorsky67 rightly remarks that the clearest reference in the Panarion that reveals hostility towards images — a reference that is often quoted in this respect — is a vague remark about the Carpocratians. The passage is in fact a repetition of Irenaeus’ testimony68 concerning the usage of images with Christian subjects by the gnostic Carpocratians: «“...having set up the images, next they perform pagan customs there”. What are these pagan customs?» — asks Epiphanius, interpretH. G. THÜMMEL, Neilos von Ankyra und die Bilder // BZ 71 (1978) 10–21. See p. 75–76 with n. 23 above. 63 Fr. 2,3. 64 Panarion I 156,28sqq Holl. 65 St John Damascene, Apology I 25. 66 Fr. 2,38–9. 67 OSTROGORSKY, Die pseudo-epiphanischen Schriften… 95. 68 Adversus haereses I 25,6. 61 62

I. M. Buga; r

87

ing Irenaeus, to which he replies «Sacrifice and the like».69 One might think that prompted by Irenaeus Epiphanius himself thought that the making of images is the first step in falling back to full idolatry. It would be well in accordance with St. John of Damascus’ explanation of Epiphanius’ possible viewpoint.70 And although the text quoted does not say even as much as this, the iconoclasts must have understood it in this sense, and if it was repeated from the Panarion in the Letter to Theodosius, it could be a good starting point to insert an iconoclastic argument there. Conversely, if one assumes that the passage, together with the other iconoclastic fragments attributed to Epiphanius, is by him, the result is an absurd picture of the old Epiphanius. After arguing for the authenticity of the Epiphanian fragments on images, Holl drew an intellectual biography of Epiphanius’ old age.71 Let us now resume its supposed details. In 394, in extrema senectute Epiphanius describes how in the previous year he saw for the first time a Christian representation and destroyed it immediately. He then spread his worries in his extensive network of acquaintances, circled also a Dogmatic Letter on the issue, but — as the Letter to Theodosius testifies — finds no ears to listen to him: the great hierarchs of the time are all favourable to this rapidly spreading cult. In his final despair he turns to the Emperor. Now he is already an expert on Christian iconography, which expertise he must have gained through extensive travels, since we cannot suppose that the new phenomenon of the cult of images spread in his diocese during that year of his extensive campaign against images. All this must have happened within a single year, since Theodosius died in 395. Was it his death or his well-known patronage of art that prevented the Emperor from issuing legislation in this respect? In any case, Epiphanius must have given up the struggle for the last eight years of his life. Instead, from 400–403 he is again fully dedicated to his former fight against Origen. Was it so because this case proved to be more Panarion I 310,14–311,9. Murray rightly remarks that Kitzinger has mistranslated the Greek: «Art and the Early Church», 341–342. Like in a Chinese whisper, Belting has carried Kitzinger’s mistake further: «Stellt Bilder auf, und ihr werdet sehen, die Bräuche der Heiden tun den Rest» (H. BELTING, Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte de Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (München, 1990) 165). 70 In his Apology Against the Iconoclasts (I 25, written shortly after 730) he metions a logos attributed to Epiphanius, which may refer either to the so-called Tractatus contra imagines or the Testamentum Epiphanii (Damascene describes Epiphanius’ writing act as díïìïèÝôçóåí). He does not refute the authorship of Epiphanius directly, but remarks that such forgery is common. He concedes that Epiphanius may have rebuked some extravagant practices that were dangerous in a pagan environment — just as St. Athanasius called for precautions in connection with the cult of relics. 71 HOLL, Die bilderfeindliche... 859–862. 69

88

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

promising? He convokes a synod in Cyprus and condemns the writings of Origen, writes several letters to Chrysostom trying to gain his support and finally travels to Constantinople to investigate Theophilus’ charges against John. On the voyage back, he delivers his last will to his disciples. He returns once to the issue of images, but already with resignation: it seems that his contemporaries had not even noticed his struggle (as we may gather from the church-historians Socrates and Sozomen). On his deathbed he drops the charge of idolatry, and warns only his pupils to concentrate on inner recollection. An exciting piece of intellectual history. But are we to believe it all? Is it not more than a piece of early twentieth century enlightened hagiography?

APPENDIX Epiphanius Salamiensis, Epistula ad Theodosium Imperatorem 1.a1 {ô’í âáóéëÝá ìåôN ô§í ôÝêíùí dãêùìéÜæùí} Pår ìcí ï¤óá êár ›ð’ “ëßãùí ðÜëáé öõëá÷èåsóá äéN äc ôxí ôï™ EÁñåßïõ êáêïäïîßáí ›ð’ ïkêïõìåíéêyò óõíüäïõ Qãßùí ðáôÝñùí ½ì§í dðéóêüðùí dí Íéêáßu ô† ðüëåé ¿ìïëïãçèåsóá, êáß dóôéí áœôç, ©ò ©ìïëüãçóáí êár ›ðÝãñáøáí ôñéáêüóéïé äåêáïêô¦ dðßóêïðïé, ïš ðñüóöáôïí dêèÝìåíïé ðßóôéí, PëëN ôxí Pår ï¤óáí ¿ìïëïãÞóáíôåò, ïpò êár ½ìåsò ©ò õjïr Pêïëïõèï™íôåò Pð’ íÝáò ½ëéêßáò, ášôïß ôå êár ïj ½ì§í ãïíåsò dí ášô† ãåãåííçìÝíïé, ôxí ášôxí ¿ìïëïãï™ìåí ôå êár êáôÝ÷ïìåí· ©ò êár óý, åšóåâÝóôáôå âáóéëå™. Êáß dóôéí áœôç· Ðéóôåýïìåí åkò fíá èå’í ðáôÝñá ðáíôïêñÜôïñá {êár ôN eîyò ôï™ óõìâüëïõ.} 1.b.2 q\oL e`cN ¢‚pCJ ‘ˆh\} m[JOg ¡cJ m\cMc ml\g‚Tg 1.c3 {LÇóáí äc êár Tëëáé ðëåsóôáé ájñÝóåéò dí ô† Êõðñßùí ÷þñu álôéíÝò åkóéí á£ôáé· Óïöéóôár,4 Óáâåëëéáíïß, Íéêïëásôáé, Óéìùíéáíïß, Âáóéëåéäéáíïß, Êáñðïêñáôéáíïß. Ðåñr ôïýôùí EÅðéöÜíéïò hãñáøåí dðéóôïëxí ô² âáóéëås Èåïäïóßv, ”ðùò Pð’ äéáôÜîåùò âáóéëéêyò ôïýôïõò äéþîåé ôyò íÞóïõ. LÇóáí ãNñ Tíäñåò ðëïýäéïé dí ášôïsò, ïlôéíåò êár díåðéóôåýïíôï ÷ñåßáò äçìïóßáò, êár dôáðåßíïõí ôï™ò “ñèïäüîïõò. THÜMMEL # 37, 8–15. Cf. Ostrogorsky fr. 28. I have used braces to mark paraphrase or indirect testimony. 2 A. VAN ROEY, Un traité cononite contre la doctrine de Jean Philopon sur la résurrection // ÁÍÔIÄÙÑÏÍ: Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer l’achèvement de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum. I, 131 (Wetteren, 1984) Fr. 19 (from British Library Add. 14532, fol 217). 3 Vita Epiphanii 59 // PG 41. Col. 100BC. 4 an EÏösôáé? 1

I. M. Buga; r

89

ÄåîÜìåíïò ï¤í ¿ âáóéëå˜ò ôN ãñÜììáôá ðáñN EÅðéöáíßïõ, êár dðïßçóåí ôýðïí ôïéï™ôïí. Ån ôéò ô² Ðáôñr EÅðéöáíßv ô² dðéóêüðv ôyò Êõðñßùí ÷þñáò ïš÷ ›ðáêïýåé äéN èåßùí ëüãùí, dîåñ÷Ýóèù ôyò íÞóïõ, êár ”ðïõ èÝëåé êáôïéêåßôù. Åk äÝ ôéíåò ößëïé –íôåò êár ôÝêíá ôyò ìåôáíïßáò, êár ¿ìïëïãï™óéí ô² êïéí² Ðáôñr, ”ôé ðëáíçèÝíôåò âïõëüìåèá åkò ôxí ¿ä’í ôyò Pëçèåßáò ¦ dëèåsí· ìåéíÜôùóáí dðr ôyò íÞóïõ äéäáóêüìåíïé ›ð’ ôï™ êïéíï™ Ðáôñüò. Ôï™ ï¤í ôýðïõ ðáñN óôñáôåõïìÝíïõ dëèüíôïò êár dìöáíéèÝíôïò, ðïëëïr dðåßóèçóáí dî ášô§í EÅðéöáíßv. Ïj äc ìx ðåéóèÝíôåò åšèÝùò däéþ÷èçóáí dê ôyò íÞóïõ.} 2.5 ôxí åkäùëïëáôñåßáí dí ô² êüóìv ô† eáõôï™ êáêïôå÷íßu ¿ äéÜâïëïò dìç÷áíÞóáôï êár dí ô² êüóìv hóðåéñå ôï™ôï êár dèåìåëßùóå êár ôï˜ò Píèñþðïõò Pð’ ôï™ èåï™ PðÝóôñåøå· í™í äc ðÜëéí ìåôN ôNò ájñÝóåéò êár ôN ånäùëá åkò Pñ÷áßáí åkäùëïëáôñåßáí ôï˜ò ðéóôï˜ò êáèåßëêõóå êár zðÜôçóå. ÍïÞóåé ãNñ ½ óx åšóÝâåéá êár ½ dê èåï™ óïé äïèåsóá óïößá êár dí âÜèåé íïçìÜôùí dñåõíÞóåé, åk ðñÝðïí dóôrí èå’í h÷åéí ½ìOò æùãñáöçô’í äéN ÷ñùìÜôùí. ëàççà > ëàçà (om. æ. ñàðÿåäêàûä). Une fois aussi, l’infixe sujet de la deuxième personne est omis: 8, 33: (ñàðÿåäêàûä, õàðçóêè... 383–386). On aura reconnu le texte, qui est celui de la recension «proto-vulgate». Les accords les plus nombreux sont avec les manuscrits Sinaï, Monastère Sainte-Catherine, géo 15 (de l’an 978) et géo 30 (de 979), puis Tbilisi, Institut K. Kekelidzé des manuscrits, H-1660 (de 936), Tbeti (de 995), Tbilisi, Institut K. Kekelidzé des manuscrits, A-98 (non daté, dixième siècle) et Berta (avant 988). Quelques leçons propres: 5, 16: om. ëàç. 5, 19: àöåäã. 8, 19: om. þíêí. 8, 27: èò÷íãà. 8, 28: âèìà = Mt 16, 14. 8, 30: add.: èäñí}. Naturellement, on note la présence de variantes anciennes, telles 5, 22 à¸à = WA et l’imparfait äåäãðäáíãà en 5,23 = WB.

218

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Concluons: il n’est jamais insignifiant de trouver des fragments géorgiens des évangiles remontant au dixième siècle.

RES: UME : Le manuscrit 2660 du Matenadaran d’Erevan possède des feuilles de garde géorgiennes du dixième siècle, qui sont des fragments d’un tétraévangile. Deux passages de l’Évangile selon saint Marc sont ici édités pour la première fois.

Vadim B. Prozorov Moscow

THE PASSION OF ST. DOMNIUS: THE TRADITION OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IN DALMATIA St. Domnius (Lat. Domnius, Domnio, Ital. Doimo, Croat Dujam, Duje) was, in fact still is, the holy protector of the metropolis of Salona-Spalato. Late antique Salona, the capital city of the Roman province of Dalmatia was a very important Christian centre in the Mediterranean region without any exaggeration comparable with Ravenna and Aquileia in Italy.1 Spalato (Croat Split) originated very close to ancient Salona and indeed was her successor in respect to ecclesiastical authority when Salona perished in the seventh century. The early history of the Church of Salona is mainly known due two medieval Histories — the History of Archbishops of Salona and Spalato written in the mid-thirteenth century by Archdeacon Thomas of Spalato and the anonymous History of Archbishops of Salona whose earliest manuscript dates back to the early sixteenth century. The latter finishes its narrative in 1185 while the former continues to the middle of the thirteenth century. Both texts are almost identical except some vital interpolations added to the History of Archbishops of Salona. Both Histories, the common text as well as supplementary documents, glorified the Church of Spalato and enhanced its apostolic foundation and old metropolitan status. Who else but a bishop-saint, a bishop-martyr could be a more positive proof of the apostolicity of this Church! And indeed the Histories appeal to this figure of a saintly and apostolic founder — St. DomSee an overview of early Christian antiquities in Salona in E. DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity (Oslo, 1951) (Instituttet for sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Serie A: Forelesninger 21). Besides, there are following useful reports: Forschungen in Salona, veröffentlicht vom Österreichischen Archäologischen Institute. 3 vols. (Vienna, 1917–1939); Recherches à Salone, publié aux frais de la Fondation Rask-Ørsted. 2 vols. (Copenhague, 1928–33); E. CECI, I Monumenti cristiani di Salona (Milan, 1963); Excavations at Salona, Yugoslavia, 1969–1972 / Conducted for the Department of Classics, Douglass College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, by Ch. W. CLAIRMONT, with the collaboration of S. HANDLER AUTH, V. VON GONZENBACH (Park Ridge, N. J., c1975); Salona Christiana (Arheološki muzej — Split, 25.9– 31.10.1994) / Ed. E. MARIN (Split, 1994); Salona: recherches archéologiques francocroates à Salone / Conduites par le Centre A. Merlin (C.N.R.S., Paris — Sorbonne) et le Musée archéologique de Split, dirigées par N. Duval et E. Marin. 3 vols. (Rome— Split, 1994–2000). 1

220

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

nius. Thomas of Spalato reported only basic facts about Salona’s patron saint.2 His more elaborate Passion was inserted among the supplementary documents in the History of Archbishops of Salona (see appendix).3 According to the Passion, Domnius, a native Syrian from Antioch, was sent to Salona by St. Peter the Apostle immediately after St. Titus had been there. The latter’s mission is mentioned in St. Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy (4.11). At the same time as Domnius Pancratius was dispatched to Sicily, Apollinaris went to Ravenna and Marcus — to Aquileia. Domnius successfully preached in Dalmatia and erected here the first church which he dedicated to genetrix Dei (Mother of God). Disturbed by his progress pagan priests accused Domnius before prefectus urbis Maurilius, lamenting that he was seducing people to overthrow cults of pagan gods. The prefect had him imprisoned and tortured. As all his strict measures failed to make Domnius reject the Christian faith Maurilius tried to bribe him, but the saint was adamant and determined to be a martyr. Meanwhile Salonitan Christians supporting the holy prisoner raised a revolt and many of them were executed by the order of the prefect. At this point the Passion turns to St. Domnius’s miraculous power and reports that the prefect along with some prominent citizens of Salona had to approach Domnius asking him to raise from the dead a son of a certain noble widow. Condemning Maurilius’s hypocrisy Domnius worked this miracle. Consequently the number of converts into Christianity increased further. Annoyed pagan priests bribed Maurilius and even threatened him to be punished according to the Roman legislation. Finally, as the Passion goes, Maurilius promulgated the law that sentenced Domnius to death, and the saintly bishop was beheaded. The story of St. Domnius is very simple and recognizable but the background of the Passion is very dim. It caused many questions. First, when did the martyrdom actually take place? Second, when was the Passion compiled? And third, when was the cult of St. Domnius tied with St. Peter, i. e. to what time the tradition of apostolic foundation can be ascribed? If the first question can be easily answered, the second and the third ones are more complicated since we do not have any positive indication of when the Passion was compiled and when the apostolic legend emerged, and can only suggest some moments in history when the compilation and further development of the legend were most possible. The ancient tradition attributed St. Domnius’s mission to the second half of the first century, and his martyrdom to the time of Emperor Trajan (to be 2 THOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana / Ed. F. RAÈKI (Zagreb, 1894) (Monumenta spectantia historiam slavorum meridionalium 26) 8–9. 3 Historia Salonitana maior / Ed. N. KLAIÆ (Belgrade, 1967) 73–75. In fact, several later versions of the Passion are extant. In general they demonstrate a close similarity. D. FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum (Venice, 1751) Vol. 1. 412–427.

V. B. Prozorov

221

more precise his death was fixed in 107).4 But if all the information available to us is deployed it is obvious that Domnius was martyred sometime under Emperor Diocletian. The grounds for this certainly were found in the text of his Passion. While some names here perhaps have symbolic meanings5 the others can be ascribed to real persons. The strongest argument in favour of the martyrdom of the holy protector of Salona in the fourth century is the fact that so-called Prefect Maurilius of Rome who ordered to execute the saint was found in the list of the governors (presides) of Salona under Emperor Diocletian (between 299– 304). His real name was Ì. Aurelius Iulius and thus he can be easily identified as Domnius’s prosecutor Maurilius.6 FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum... Vol. 1. 432. Domnius’s mother’s name is Migdonia which is probably connected with Macedonia, since she is said to be Greek by birth and Mygdonia was a region to the north of modern Thessaloniki (J. ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiénnes dans les provinces romaine de Dalmatie (Paris, 1906) (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences historiques et philologiques 155) 28) or with a region around Antioch (Nisibis) which was named after Greek Mygdonia under Alexander the Great (Der Neue Pauly Enzyklopädie der Antike (Stuttgart—Weimar, 2000) Vol. 8. Col. 569). Domnius is said to have been born in Syria and some names of immigrants from Nisibis were discovered on the funeral tombs in Salona (A. CARAMANEO-MATIASSEVICH, Riflessioni sopra l’istoria di S. Dojmo primo vescovo di Salona e martire // Supplemento al Bullettino di arheologia e storia dalmata (hereafter BASD) 23/12 (1900) 5; DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 25–30, 81–82, 100, 134; G. ALFÖLDI, Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. Mit einem Beitrag von Andras Moscy (Budapest, 1965) 83, 113; J. NIKOLAJEVIÆ, O poreklu orijentalnih uticaja u ranokršæanskoj umetnosti u Dalmaciji [On Roots of Oriental Influences on Early Christian Art in Dalmatia] // Çáîðíèê ðàäîâà ôèëîñîôñêîã ôàêóëòåòà 12 (1974) 125–126). The name of a pagan philosopher Pyrgus who had disputes with Domnius can be derived from the Greek word ¿ ðýñãïò (a tower, a dice-box). The name of a late Roman patrician Diginanus (Dignatius in a later version) whose child was raised from the dead by Domnius could come from the Latin word dignitas and indicate his noble status, although the family of Dignatii was known in Rome. His widow’s name Febronia can be associated with the Latin word febris (fever) and symbolize the illness and death of her child (I. BABIÆ, Splitske uspomene na salonitanske kršcanske starine [Spalato’s Memories of Christian Salonitan Antiquities] // Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku (hereafter VAHD) 85 (1992) 50). The name of Theodosius, Domnius’s father, can also have a symbolic significance, at the same time it is a real name although almost unknown in the first century. 6 F. BULIÆ, M. Aurelius Julus. Praeses provinciae Dalmatiae // BASD 38 (1914) 118–119. The confusing reading Julus suggested by Bulic was corrected into Julius (see Cambi’s conclusion in F. BULIÆ, Izabrani spisi [Collected Papers] / Ed. N. CAMBI (Split, 1984) 633). A. JAGENTEUFEL, Die Statthalter der römischen Provinz Dalmatia von Augustus bis Diokletian (Vienna, 1958) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schriften der Balkankommission. Antiquarische Abteilung 12) 105, 107, 4 5

222

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Further in the Prologi Paschae ad Vitalem Anni CCCXCV, whose earliest manuscript (Ms. Köln) dates from 798–805, St. Domnius was mentioned as a martyr of the late third century. It says: «In the seventh year of the consulship of Diocletian and in the sixth year of the consulship of Maximian (that is 299. — V. P.) Christians suffered the sixth persecution. During this persecution Peter and Marcellinus were martyred in Rome, Domnius and Felix were martyred in Salona».7 Nineteenth century Dalmatian archeologist and historian Frane Buliæ grounding his conclusions on the results of large-scale archeological excavations on the site of ancient Salona thought that St. Domnius’s pontificate fell on 284–304 and Domnius was martyred on 10 April 304 in the Salonitan amphitheatre together with four Diocletian’s bodyguards.8 Thus the antichristian laws of the emperors mentioned in the Passion might be in fact the edicts promulgated by Diocletian and Maximian between 25 February 303 and December 304. Most of the scholars preferred to split the basic sujet of the legend and the formal Passion which stated the apostolic tradition. Their dating vacillates from the fourth to as late as the eleventh century. The composition of the Passion perfectly fits in the pattern of the passions called by Hyppolite Delehaye les passions artificielles, épiques.9 This term designates the passions which were composed considerably later than the events described there took place. Delehaye, having in mind the sujet of the Salonitan legend, considered that its simplicity revealed early emergence, perhaps, in the very time of Diocletian’s persecutions.10 Jacques Zeiller dated the preserved Passion at not 113. A. H. M. JONES, J. R. MARTINDALE, J. MORRIS, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge—London, 1971) Vol. 1 (AD 260–395) 482; J. J. WILKES, Dalmatia (London, 1969) (History of the Provinces of the Roman Empire 2) 422. His name was discovered on two inscriptions: 1) in Salona (H. DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria e della Dalmazia // BASD 23 (1900) 100) — «Fortunae Conservatrici pro salute Marci Aureli Iuli v(iri) c(larissimi) auguris praesidi (sic) provinciae Dassius notarius votum solvit», 2) in Moesia. Besides, there were preases M. Avr. Tiberianus, mentioned on the inscription of Narona c. 280 (JONES, MARTINDALE, MORRIS, The Prosopography… Vol. 1. 912) and Avr. Marcianus c. 277 (Ibid. 557). 7 Prologi Paschae ad Vitalem Anni CCCXCV // MGH. Auctorum antiquissimorum. T. IX: Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII. / Ed. T. MOMMSEN (Berlin, 1892) Vol. 1. 736–738: «Diocletiano septies et Maximiano sexies consulibus Christiani persecutionem sextam passi sunt. in ea persecutione passi sunt Petrus et Marcellinus Romae et Domnius et Felix martyres passi sunt Salona». 8 F. BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone [Through the Ruins of Old Salona] // Prilog VAHD 79 (1986) 134. 9 H. DELEHAYE, Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Bruxelles, 1921) 236–316. 10 DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria e della Dalmazia… 97 (H. DELEHAYE, Saints d’Istrie et de Dalmatie // AB 18 (1899) 369–411).

V. B. Prozorov

223

earlier than the tenth — eleventh centuries,11 though he conceded that the legend might date back to the eighth century.12 Most recently Victor Saxer has supposed that the cult of St. Domnius emerged immediately after his martyrdom and during the second half of the fourth century his name was already inserted into the Syrian martyrology.13 But he attributes the motivation of the legend and its author’s attempts to show Domnius as a disciple of St. Peter to the tenth century, when the canon 1 was interpolated in the acts of the council of Spalato in 925. This canon definitely connected the metropolitan rights of the bishop of Salona (in that time his residence was long established in Spalato) with the foundation of the Church in Dalmatia by St. Domnius. Nothing contradicts Delehaye’s opinion which was grounded on his profound knowledge of the whole corpus of late antique and early medieval passions.14 The usage of ancient topographical terms and imperial terminology (Salonae,15 praefectus urbis, mons Masaron,16 leges augustorum, the river Salona designating the medieval and present-day Jader17 etc.), which were out of date by at least the tenth century, supports his conclusion about the early dating of the composition of St. Domnius’s Passion. However, this conclusion does not clarify the question when the Salonitan apostolic legend emerged. What can be done for the more precise timing of it? I think, looking at similar traditions which flourished in the major Christian centres in the Adriatic that is in Aquileia and Ravenna can shed some light on the mystery. In the end of Late Antiquity and in the beginning of the early Middle Ages some major ecclesiastical centres in Gaul and Italy acquired their own patron saints. They were considered to be disciples of St. Peter the Apostle (other apostles like St. Mark are also mentioned) and founders of their ecclesiastical communities. The main pattern was provided by the letter of Pope Innocent I to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio in 416. It says «everywhere in Italy, Gauls, Spains, Africa and Sicily, and on the adjacent islands there is no Church ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiénnes dans les provinces romaine de Dalmatie… 26. J. ZEILLER, Une légende hagiographique de Dalmatie: S. Doimus de Salone // Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 11 (1906) 193–218. 13 V. SAXER, Les saints de Salone. Examen critique de leur dossier // U službi èovjeka. Zbornik nadbiskupa-metropolite Dr. Frane Franiæa / Ed. D. ŠIMUNDŽA (Split, 1987) 298. 14 DELEHAYE, Les passions des martyrs… 15 A plural form of Óáëùíá. — DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 5– 6, fig. I, 4–5; WILKES, Dalmatia… 223. 16 FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 415; BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone… 11. 17 Farlati (Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 415) refers to Chapter 15 from Miho Madij’s History which says that the river Jader near Spalato was called Salonae (flumen Salonae) in the ancient chronicles and poems. BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone… 11: Croat Solin, Greek Salanchon, Salon, Lat. Jader. 11

12

224

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

which had not been founded by either Blessed Peter the Apostle or his sacerdotal successors».18 Later the letter was included by Dionysius the Little in his Collection of the Decretals of Roman Pontiffs and thus was widely known.19 The Church of Arles promptly responded to this message and after 400, perhaps, under Pope Zosimus (417–418), established its metropolitan jurisdiction over Southern Gaul referring to the legend of the pupil of St. Peter St. Trophimus who allegedly was the first bishop of Arles.20 Between the mid-fifth and mid-seventh century in Ravenna there appeared the legend of the foundation of the Church by St. Apollinaris, another disciple of St. Peter (this compatriot of St. Domnius was named in his Passion). He was first mentioned in the sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus (d. c. 450).21 A hundred years later the Emperor bestowed the title of archbishop on Bishop Maximian of Ravenna (546–556) who fulfilled the project of the elevation of the Basilica in honour of St. Apollinaris started by his predecessors. This title was a sign of appreciation of the support which Maximian provided for the Byzantine authority in Italy during the schism of the «Three chapters». The popes tacitly recognized this title while they maintained their right to consecrate Ravennese bishops in Rome. But in the seventh century Pope Vitalianus (657–672) formerly acknowledged the archiepiscopal title of the bishops of Ravenna. At the same time Archbishop Maurus (644–673) secured a diploma issued of 1 March 666 by Emperor Constans II Pogonatus who conceded the autocephaly to the Church of Ravenna during the new conflict of Rome and Constantinople over Monotheletism. The imperial privilege was PL 20. Cols. 551–552; R. CABIÉ, La lettre du pape Innocent Ier à Décentius de Gubbio (19 mars 416) / Texte critique, trad. et comm. (Louvain, 1973) (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 58) 18–20: «2. Quis enim nesciat aut non advertat, id quod a principe Apostolorum Petro Romanae Ecclesiae traditum est, ac nunc usque custoditur, ab omnibus debere servari; nec superduci aut introduci aliquid, quod auctoritatem non habeat, aut aliunde accipere videatur exemplum? praesertim cum sit manifestum, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, Africam atque Siciliam, et insulas interjacentes, nullum instituisse ecclesias, nisi eos quos venerabilis apostolus Petrus aut ejus successores constituerint sacerdotes. Aut legant, si in his provinciis alius Apostolorum invenitur, aut legitur docuisse. Qui si non legunt, quia nusquam inveniunt, oportet eos hoc sequi, quod Ecclesia Romana custodit, a qua eos principium accepisse non dubium est, ne dum peregrinis assertionibus student, caput institutionum videantur omittere». 19 PL 67. Cols. 237–238. 20 L. LEVILLAIN, Saint Trophime confesseur et métropolitain d’Arles et la Mission des sept en Gaule // Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 13 (1927) 145–189, esp. 180–189. V. Saxer refers to some parallels between the traditions in Arles and Salona: SAXER, Les saints de Salone… 307. 21 Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 128 // PL 52. Cols. 552–555 (in CCSL 24B / Ed. A. OLIVAR. 790–791). R. BUDRIESI, Le origini del cristianesimo a Ravenna (Ravenna, 1970) 11–17. 18

V. B. Prozorov

225

grounded on the forged charter of Emperor Valentinianus III (425–455) granting the metropolitan rights to famous Bishop John of Ravenna (452–494) and on St. Apollinaris’s apostolic legend (BHL 623) which probably was composed shortly before Emperor Constans’s document was issued.22 The legend was later used by Agnellus (805–c. 846) in his Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna. All these facts testify that the Ravennate apostolic tradition was already regarded as a foundation of the special status of the Church of Ravenna by the seventh century. Further some scholars have linked the emergence of the Passion of St. Apollinaris as an apostolic disciple to the events of the fifth and sixth centuries, i. e. to the jurisdictional conflict between the Churches of Ravenna and Milan.23 Unfortunately, this period of Ravenna’s history is meagerly documented and practically as in the case with Salona we do not have much local evidence to definitely tie the use of the apostolic succession in the Life of St. Apollinaris with specific century. In Aquileia, another Adriatic city, an ecclesiastical metropolitanate already in the fourth century, St. Hermagoras, the disciple of St. Mark the Evangelist, was venerated as the first bishop. According to his Passion the earliest versions of which were preserved in the codices of the eleventh — twelfth centuries,24 St. Peter the Apostle took active part in the Christianization of Venice and Istria: he sent St. Mark to Aquileia and consecrated Hermagoras as its first bishop. Austrian scholar Rudolf Egger has demonstrated that the holy protector of Aquileia was in fact a mythical person who, due to scribe’s mistakes, might acquire the name of St. Hermogenes of Singidunum (present-day Belgrade) distorted in one of the manuscripts of the Martyrology of 22 Acta sanctorum. Julii 5. 344–350. The earliest manuscript of the Passio Sancti Apollenaris (Codice fuldense) dates back to the ninth century (G. MONTANARI, Culto e liturgia dal iv al ix secolo // Storia di Ravenna. Vol. 1.2: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana. Ecclesiologia, cultura e arte / Ed. A. Carile (Venezia, 1992) 276, note 1. H. DELEHAYE, L’hagiographie ancienne de Ravenne // AB 47 (1929) 1–30; A. SIMONINI, Autocefalia ed esarcato in Italia (Ravenna, [1969]) 75–96. See the principal bibliography: J.-Ch. PICARD, Les souvenir des évêques. Sépultures, listes épiscopales et culte des évêques en Italie du Nord des origines au Xe siécle (Rome, 1988) 658–659, n. 266–267. 23 G. LUCCHESI, Note agiografiche sui primi vescovi di Ravenna (Faenza, 1941); O. VON SIMSON, Sacred Fortress: Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna (Chicago, 1948) 52; M. MAZZOTTI, Per una nuova datazione della Passio S. Apollinaris // Studi romagnoli 3 (1952) 123–129. 24 The earliest manuscript of the Passio sanctorum Hermagorae episcopi et Fortunati diaconi which dates from the eleventh — twelfth centuries was published by R. Egger in Carinthia 1 (1947) 40–55 (BHL 3841). See the list of the earliest manuscripts and its editions in T. E. A. DALE, Relics, Prayer, and Politics in Medieval Venetia. Romanesque Painting in the Crypt of Aquileia Cathedral (Princeton, NJ, 1997) 124, n. 1 to chapter 1.

226

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Jerome (the fifth century) as Hermagoras.25 The relics of St. Hermogenes the Lector were brought to Aquileia from Singidunum in the early fifth century.26 Egger ascribed the appearance of the Passion of St. Hermagoras to the period immediately after the destruction of Aquileia by Attila in 452, when the previous tradition could be transformed, and the legend of the holy protector of Aquileia St. Hermagoras, the disciple of St. Mark, could emerge.27 Something more important for us here is that towards the middle of the sixth century the mythical disciple of St. Mark could acquire much more significance. From the mid-sixth century Aquileia was one of the centres of the schism of the «Three chapters» ended in 699, and Aquileian bishops appropriated the title of patriarch (since 557). After the Lombard invasion the bishop of Aquileia had to flee and moved his residence to Grado under the Byzantine control. In the first decade of the seventh century the division of the Aquileian clergy over the «Three chapters» led to the establishment of two metropolitan sees — in Byzantine Grado and Lombard Aquileia. In the late eighth century with Charlemagne’s support Aquileia started the campaign in order to maintain its patriarchal title and metropolitan prerogatives in Venice and Istria. For the first time Aquileia’s apostolic tradition was explicitly stated by Paul the Deacon in the eighties of the eighth century.28 As Jacques Zeiller, Richard Adelbert Lipsius and Pio Paschini showed, the Passion of St. Hermagoras composed in the eighth century was a weighty argument for the resolution of the conflict between Aquileia and Grado over metropolitan rights in the province at the synod of Mantua in 827 (?), when Aquileia was acknowledged as the first Church in Italy after Rome.29 BHL 3838–3844, pp. 572–573. R. EGGER, Der heilige Hermagoras, eine kritische Untersuchung // Carinthia 1 (1948) 208–225. Most Italian scholars have not accepted Egger’s hypothesis: S. TRAMONTIN, Origini e sviluppi della leggenda marciana // Le origini della Chiesa di Venezia / Ed. E Tonon (Venice, 1987) 167–186; G. CUSCITO, Martiri cristiani ad Aquileia e in Istria. Documenti archeologici e questioni agiografiche (Udine, 1992) 17–26. 27 E GGER, Der heilige Hermagoras… 228, 238. Pio Paschini and Silvio Tramontin ascribed the Passion of St. Hermagoras to the eighth century while they dated the Marcian tradition to the sixth century: TRAMONTIN, Origini e sviluppi della leggenda marciana… 167–186; P. PASCHINI, Le fasi di una leggenda aquileiese // Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 8 (1954) 161–168. 28 Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus // MGH. Scriptores. Vol. 2 / Ed. G. H. PERTZ (Hannover, 1829) 261. 29 MANSI , Conciliorum 14. Cols. 493–499; MGH. Concilia / Ed. A. WERMINGHOFF. Vol. 2: Concilia aevi Karolini (Hannover, 1908) Pars 2. 589f. J. ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces Romaines danubiennes (Paris, 1918) (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 112) 34–35; R. A. LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden. Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte und zu einer zusammenfassenden Darstellung der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Amsterdam, 1976) Vol. 2/2. 346–347; P. PASCHINI, Sulle origini 25 26

V. B. Prozorov

227

For a long time the Roman popes who had actually suggested this pattern to their fellow bishops did not recognize the tradition of apostolic foundation of other Churches. This is evidenced by the letters of Popes Zosimus and Leo I (5 May 450) to the bishops of Southern Gaul concerning apostolic foundation of the Church of Arles, and by the letter (558–560) of Pope Pelagius I to Exarch John of Ravenna concerning the claim of the bishop of Aquileia to the title of patriarch.30 However the legends of holy martyrs continued to circulate and turned into local traditions or even gained wider European approval. For example, St. Bede popularized the legend of St. Apollinaris of Ravenna and finally the Roman Church firstly referred to it under Pope Gregory VII.31 In the eighth — eleventh centuries even minor Churches in Italy acquired their patron saints, who were considered to be disciples of the apostles, mainly of St. Peter and St. Paul.32 Since the eighth century the prominent Italian sees tried to switch to the strategy of the highlighting of their associations with the apostles (or cults) different from St. Peter (or St. Peter’s): in Aquileia with St. Mark, though St. Peter’s disciple, in Ravenna with St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother, in Milan with St. Barnabas, the co-worker of St. Paul).33 Regardless of the local background the emergence of the apostolic legends can be very often explained either by the ambition of a particular Church to establish metropolitan rights in its province or by the maintenance of some special privileges and relations with Rome. In Arles and Aquileia as well as in Ravenna the apostolic traditions being a part of the Churches’ opposition to Rome later turned to be crucial arguments against the ambitious claims of the Church of Milan.34 The Passion of St. Domnius is very similar to its Italian counterparts.35 The sujet and some topoi of the Passion of St. Hermagoras of Aquileia are della chiesa d’Aquileia // Rivista di scienze storiche 1 (1904) 24–26; P. PASCHINI, La Chiesa aquileiese ed il periodo delle origini (Udine, 1909) 36; P. PASCHINI, Storia del Friuli (Udine, 19532) Vol. 1: Dalle origini alla metà del duecento. 35–37. First Paschini thought that the council influenced the hagiographer but later he adopted the opposite stance. L.-S. LE NAIN DE TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siècles (Venice, 1732) Vol. 2. N. 6. 497–498, 507–508; Acta sanctorum. Julii 3. 250–252, c. 9. 30 EGGER, Der heilige Hermagoras… 225–232. 31 F. L ANZONI, Le diocesi d’Italia dalle origini al principio del secolo VII (an. 604) studio critico (Faenza, 1927) (ST 35) 737–748. 32 Ibid. 78–79. For later similar examples in other parts of Europe (Metz, Trier, Reims, Paris) see: E. EWIG, Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien (München—Zürich, 1979) Vol. 2. 64–74; FLODOARDUS, CANONICUS REMENSIS, Historia Remensis ecclesiae // PL 135. Col. 32. 33 PICARD, Les souvenir des évêques… 698–699. 34 Acta sanctorum. Septembris 7. 10–22. 35 SAXER, Les saints de Salone… 308.

228

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

especially close to the Passion of the first Salonitan pontiff. It is important to note that the three sees actually had special relations. In particular, there is some evidence that the Aquileian and Ravennese cults indeed existed in Christian Salona. According to his Passion exiled St. Apollinaris worked many miracles in Salona.36 Aquileian saints Hermogenes, Fortunatus and Anastasius was also venerated here.37 Since the cult of the first bishops was closely tied with the struggle for metropolitan rights, can we indicate any moment or period in the history of the Church of Salona when, as in Aquileia and Ravenna, the emergence of its own apostolic legend would be most beneficial to the promotion of its primatial ambitions in Dalmatia? At this point I should turn for a while to the question of when the Church of Salona acquired the metropolitan status. The old Salonitan tradition attributes the authorship of the Passion of St. Domnius to Bishop Hesychius of Salona (the early fifth century). Some features of St. Domnius’s legend can be really ascribed to the time not earlier than the fourth or fifth centuries, e. g. Trinitarian arguments deployed by Domnius in the dispute with a philosopher Pyrgus and the dedication of the church to Mary, Mother of God. Dedication of churches to Mary was quite unprecedented for the fourth century (to say nothing of the first). Even in the beginning of the fifth century Bishop Hesychius dedicated a new basilica to Christ and only later the double dedication to Christ and Blessed Mary was introduced.38 Bishop Hesychius was the most noted leader of the Church of Salona after Domnius.39 He was in touch with his prominent contemporaries — John Chrysostom40 and Augustine who in response to Hesychius composed a treatise on the last days.41 36 Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis // Rerum Italicarum scriptores / Ed. L. MURATORI (Bologna, 1924) Vol. 2. Part 3/1. 25. 37 In the Breviary of the Church of Spalato (1291) there is a feast of St. Fortunatus and St. Domnio on April 11 (DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria… 90): «In Salona sancti Domnionis episcopi et Fortunati et aliorum CCXL martirum», Martyrology of Jerome. April 18 is a feast day of St. Hermogenes: «Salona ciuit. Septimi diaconi. Uicturici. et alibi Hermogenis». Hippolyte Delehay thought that this should be St. Hermogenes martyred on December 10 in Egypt (DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria… 89, 104). 38 DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 36; N. CAMBI, The cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Salona and Split from the fourth till the eleventh century in the light of archeological evidence // De Cultu Mariano Saeculis VI–XI. Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani Internationalis in Croatia Anno 1971 Celebrati (Rome, 1972) Vol. 5. 43–71 (repr.: Bogoslovska smotra 44/2–3 (1974) 273–292); J. PELIKAN, Mary Through the Centuries. Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven— London, 1996) 55–65. 39 FARLATI , Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 417. 40 PG 52. Col. 715. 41 PL 32. Cols. 899–925. J.-P. BOUHOT, Hesychius de Salone et Augustin // Saint Augustin et la Bible / Ed. A.-M. La Bonnardière (Paris, 1986) 229–250.

V. B. Prozorov

229

The letter of Pope Zosimus (21 February 418) to Bishop Hesychius has special significance.42 Bishop Hesychius asked papal admonitions concerning the procedure of the ordination of monks and lay people. In his reply the Pope instructed Hesychius to inform bishops of Dalmatian and neighbouring provinces of the papal views.43 Zosimus’s choice of the bishop of Salona as a papal messenger has often been interpreted in the historiography as an indication that Hesychius acted as a metropolitan bishop of Dalmatia.44 Personally I doubt if the text of the letter gives us sufficient evidence for such a definite conclusion. But I am quite convinced that already in the sixth century the Church of Salona indeed had a metropolitan status. For the beginning of the sixth century we have the acts of the councils held in Salona in 530 and 533 which were preserved in the sixteenth century manuscript of the History of Archbishops of Salona. My research on the problem of their reliability demonstrated that their agendas correspond in many points to the agendas of the contemporary councils in Europe (mainly in Italy and Gaul) and there is no reason to doubt their reliability.45 At these councils Bishop Honorius of Salona is shown as a real acting metropolitan of Dalmatia.46 He is called a papa and archbishop. The latter designation is an obvious anachronism, that is, an interpolation of the later period when metropolitan bishops were necessarily granted by archiepiscopal title. But the metropolitan status of the Bishop of Salona in the early sixth century is also testified by other sources. PL 20. Cols. 669–673. Excerpts from the papal letter were included into the Decretum Gratiani (Ñorpus Iuris Canonici / Ed. I. H. BOEHMER (Halae Magdeburgicae, 1747) Vol. 1. Cols. 182–183), distinctio 59: «...nos ne quid meritis dilectionis tuae derogaremus, ad te potissimum scripta direximus, quae in omnium fratrum, et coepiscoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam, non tantum eorum, qui in ea provincia sunt, sed etiam qui vicinis dilectionis tuae provinciis adjunguntur». 44 FARLATI , Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1, 301; A. S. DABINOVIÆ, Kada je Dalmacija pala pod jurisdikciju carigradske patriaršije? [When was Dalmatia subjected to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople?] // Rad JAZU 239 (1930) 179. Dyggve and Wilkes named Hesychius the metropolitan bishop of Dalmatia (DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity…; WILKES, Dalmatia… 430). 45 Â. Á. ÏÐÎÇÎÐÎÂ, Ïîçäíåàíòè÷íàÿ è ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâàÿ èñòîðèÿ Ñàëîíñêîé öåðêâè â îòðàæåíèè àíîíèìíîé «Ñàëîíñêîé èñòîðèè» [Late Antique and Early Medieval History of the Church of Salona through the Anonymous Salonitan History] (Candidate dissertation, Moscow State University, 1997); Â. Á. ÏÐÎÇÎÐÎÂ, Ñîáîð 530 ãîäà â Ñàëîíå è ïðîáëåìà äîñòîâåðíîñòè äîêóìåíòîâ, âêëþ÷åííûõ â Áîëüøóþ Ñàëîíñêóþ èñòîðèþ [The Council of Salona in 530 and the Problem of the Reliability of the Documents Included into the Greater History of Salona] // Âåñòíèê Ðîññèéñêîãî ãóìàíèòàðíîãî íàó÷íîãî ôîíäà 3 (2000) 48–61 (http://www.krotov. org/acts/06/530salo.html). 46 Historia Salonitana maior… 77–85. 42 43

230

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

The mid-sixth century Church of Salona imitated Aquileian example in its relations with Rome. After the Ostrogothic domination and Arian infestation in Dalmatia the schism of the «Three chapters» separated the Salonitan metropolis from the Roman Church under Bishops Frontinianus, Peter and Probinus (the latter later replaced Bishop Paulinus of Aquileia).47 In the second half of the sixth century Dalmatia returned to the communion with Rome and the Salonitan bishops were bestowed with the pallium, a sign of their metropolitan dignity, by the Pope. However this province still was a source of disturbance for the Roman pontiffs. The Salonitan bishops under Gregory the Great were negligent, corrupt and not complying.48 They were very closely linked with the Church of Ravenna and the Byzantine administration and often rejected to subject themselves to the Roman Pope. This alienation of the Church of Salona from Rome in the sixth century created a situation quite similar to Ravennate and Aquileian ones and the Church of Salona needed to establish metropolitan prerogatives on the solid basis of the apostolic legend. There is some evidence that in sixth century Salona the cult of St. Domnius was already tied with the cult of St. Peter. The latter’s relics brought to Salona from Rome were deposited in the Basilica in the cemetery in Manastirine (coemeterium legis sanctae christianae), where St. Domnius and his successors were buried.49 In 640s after the alleged destruction of Salona by the barbarians and translation of St. Domnius’s relics to Rome the mosaic in the Lateran Chapel of St. Venantius in Rome represented him as a bishop to the right of Christ just after St. Peter and John the Baptist.50 As we know from the narratives of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and later of Thomas of Spalato Salona was ruined by the Avars and the Slavs of the Avar Empire.51 Soon after this event, as Thomas reports, the archiepiscopal organization of Salona was renewed on a new site — in the palace of Emperor Diocletian — by a certain John of Ravenna sent by the pope.52 This could BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone… 46–47. THOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana / Ed. F. Raèki (Zagreb, 1894) 24–28. On the correspondence of Pope Gregory I with Dalmatia see F. BULIÆ, S. Gregorio Magno papa nelle sue relazioni colla Dalmazia — a. 590–604 // Supplemento al BASD 27 (1904); R. A. MARKUS, Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge, 1997) 156–159. 49 E. DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 74; E. MARIN, Civitas Splendida Salona. Geneza, profil i transformacija starokršcanske Salone [Civitas Splendida Salona. Genesis, Profile and Transformation of Early Christian Salona] // Salona Christiana (Arheološki muzej — Split, 25.9–31.10.1994) / Ed. E. Marin (Split, 1994) 46–54, 56–58. 50 G. BOVINI, I mosaici dell’oratorio di S. Venanzo a Roma // XVIII Corso di Cultura sull’Arte Ravennate e Bizantina (Ravenna, 1971) 141–154. 51 THOMAS A RCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana… 30. 52 According to the History of Archbishops of Salona, it was John IV (640–642). 47 48

V. B. Prozorov

231

have happened approximately in the middle of the seventh century.53 The pope consecrated him and transferred all privileges of Salona to the Church of Spalato.54 Archbishop John as a real metropolitan of Dalmatia and Sclavonia «restored churches, appointed bishops, established parishes» and started the missionary work in the territories of Dalmatia.55 One of the components of John’s programme, according to Thomas, was the translation of the bodies of SS. Domnius and Anastasius (a martyr from Aquileia in the beginning of the fourth century and member of the holy Salonitan doublet)56 from Salona to Spalato’s church of the Virgin Mary. Thus the 53 THOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS , Historia Salonitana… 33: «Venerabilis ergo Johannes cepit clerum et populum exhortari, ut archiepiscopatum ciuitatis antique intra se instaurare deberent». Nada Klaiæ argued that the story about John of Ravenna was the legend and there was no metropolitan organization in Dalmatia until the first council of Spalato (925), although the idea of the establishment of the metropolitanate was delivered by Pope John VIII. She identified John of Ravenna with Archbishop John of Spalato under whom the tenth century councils of Spalato were held. (N. KLAIÆ, Ivan Ravenjanin i osnutak Splitske nadbiskupije [John of Ravenna and the Foundation of the Archbishopric of Spalato] // VAHD 65–67 (1971) 209–249; N. KLAIÆ, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku [A History of the Croats in the Early Middle Ages] (Zagreb, 1971) 122–125, 238). Ivo Goldstein considered John of Ravenna the personification of the fact that the metropolis of Salona — Spalato was restored by the pope. The time of that event, according to Goldstein, is unknown (I. GOLDSTEIN, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek [Croatian Early Middle Ages] (Zagreb, 1995) 135– 139). Radoslav Katièiæ tried to prove that Thomas of Spalato’s story was based on certain old sources, and proposed new arguments in favour of the authenticity of the persons involved into the restoration of the metropolis of Salona by John of Ravenna (R. KATIÈIÆ, Vetustiores Ecclesiae Spalatensis Memoriae // Uz poèetke hrvatskih poèetaka (Split, 1993) 99–130; N. BUDAK, Prva stoljeæa Hrvatske [The First Centuries of Croatia] (Zagreb, 1994) 83–86). 54 T HOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana… 33: «Ipsi [John of Ravenna] concessum est a sede apostolica, ut totius dignitatis priuilegium quod Salona antiquitus habuit, optineret ecclesia Spaltensium». 55 T HOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS , Historia Salonitana…: «Etenim per Dalmatie et Sclavonie regiones circuendo restaurabat ecclesias, ordinabat episcopos, parochias disponebat, paulatim rudes populos ad informationem catholicam attrahebat». In the catalogue of the archbishops (Ibid. 35) Thomas writes: «Fuerunt autem in ecclesia Spalatensi archiepiscopi multi, quibus ex priuilegio Salonitane ecclesie omnes episcopi superioris et inferioris Dalmatie obediebant utpote suffraganei ab antiquo». Certainly we should remember that Thomas’s aim was to show the antiquity and priority of the metropolitan Church of Spalato over all the bishops of Dalmatia and Croatia. The very word suffraganeus used by Thomas was being introduced from the end of the eighth century (History of the Church / Ed. H. JEDIN (Kent, 1991) Vol. 3. 288). 56 P. BROWN , The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Late Christianity (Berkeley, 1982) 97. Delehaye’s article on St. Anastasius was published in BASD 21 (1898) 57–72. Three versions of the Life of St. Anastasius are represented in FARLATI,

232

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

right of the bishopric of Spalato as a successor to the archbishopric of Salona was definitely established.57 Thomas highlighted the continuity of ecclesiastical organization as he pointed out that despite their residence in Spalato (since the time of John of Ravenna) the archbishops still «were called not of Spalato but of Salona».58 Obviously, this relatively short period of transition in the seventh century was the time, when the Church needed the tradition of its holy protector most. The bishopric on the new site was going to reinforce metropolitan rights of the Church of Salona on the apostolic foundation. The history of the following centuries is obscure due to the lack of information. We can only suppose that it was the period of accommodation of various Slavic and non-Slavic peoples in the Balkans and attempts of the Byzantine administration to secure the remains of its authority at least on the Adriatic coast.59 This period in Dalmatia was marked by the emergence of the bishopric of Nin (ancient Nona) close to Zadar, the capital of Byzantine Dalmatia. Seemingly this bishopric was founded sometime in the mid-ninth century, perhaps under Pope Nicholas I (858–867).60 The first bishop of Nin known to histoIllyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 720–725. On its eleventh — twelfth century manuscripts see R. EGGER, Die Passio Sancti Anastasii und ihr Fortleben // Forschungen in Salona (Vienna, 1939) Vol. 3. 131–148. 57 THOMAS A RCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana… 34. 58 Ibid. 35: «Ipsi autem archiepiscopi non spalatenses sed salonitani appellabantur». 59 I. GOLDSTEIN, Bizant na Jadranu od Justinijana I. do Bazilija I. [Byzantium in the Adriatic from Justinian I until Basil I] (Zagreb, 1992). 60 This famous fragment of the letter of Pope Nicholas I was included into the Decretum Gratiani. There were a lot of opinions concerning the foundation and subordination of the bishopric of Nin in historiography. Several scholars put the date of the foundation in the seventh century: FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 3. 123; Vol. 4. 205; T. SMIÈIKLAS, Hrvatska povijest [Croatian History] (Zagreb, 1882) Vol. 1. 155, 188. However, most of the authors fixed the establishment of the bishopric of Nin in the ninth century: 1) Priruènik izvora hrvatske historije [A Handbook of the Sources of Croatian History] / Ed. F. ŠIŠIÆ (Zagreb, 1914) Vol. 1. 190–191: the early ninth century, the suffragan of Spalato; 2) F. RAÈKI, Nutarnje stanje Hrvatske prije XII. stoljeæa [The Situation in Croatia until the Twelfth Century] // Rad JAZU 116 (1894) 41–42 and S. RITIG, Povjest i pravo slovenštine u crkvenom bogoslužju [History and Right of the Slavonic Language in the Liturgy] (Zagreb, 1910) Vol. 1. 131, 149: under Pope Nicholas I (858–867), the suffragan of Spalato; 3) M. PEROJEVIÆ, Ninski biskup Teodozije [Bishop Theodosius of Nin] // Prilog VAHD 1 (1922) 1–37, assumed that the bishop of Nin (the bishop of the Croats), a former chorbishop, received the title of bishop in the mid-ninth century and was subordinated to the patriarch of Aquileia; 4) M. BARADA, Episcopus Chroatensis // Croatia sacra 1 (1931) 161–215, wrote that the bishopric of Nin was founded between 864 and 867 under Croatian Prince Domagoj, when Dalmatian cities supported Patriarch Photius, whereas the

V. B. Prozorov

233

rians was Theodosius who lived in the second half of the ninth century and was translated to the metropolitan see of Salona.61 Emperor Basil I (867–886) reestablished the Byzantine authority over all the Dalmatian cities. Probably at that time their ecclesiastical organisation was separated from the Roman Church. But there is sofar no evidence that it was joined to the patriarchate of Constantinople. At least, there are no Dalmatian bishops in the lists of the suffragan sees of the patriarchate.62 The problem of the ecclesiastical organization of Dalmatia and Croatia was the main issue on the agenda of the councils of Spalato in 925 and 928.63 Their acts were preserved earliest in the sixteenth century manuscript of the History of Archbishops of Salona and their reliability was questioned many times. I tried to verify it and demonstrated that in some issues their agendas corresponded to the contemporary or slightly earlier councils and synods in Gaul, Germany and Italy and there was no need to falsify these acts.64 They named Bishop Gregory of Nin who was present at the council «the bishop of the Croats».65 It means that at that time the bishopric of Nin was the ecclesiastical centre of the Croatian state and its bishop somehow represented Croatian flock of the Dalmatian metropolitanate. Bishop Gregory even claimed metropolitan rights over Dalmatia and Croatia and challenged the metropoliCroats remained loyal to Rome. The bishop of the Croats was subordinated to the pope, since Dalmatian cities were not under the jurisdiction of Rome, and, although the bishop of Spalato had the title of archbishop, he was not a metropolitan of Dalmatia; 5) KLAIÆ, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku… 232–239, posed a hypothesis, according to which, the bishopric of Nin was founded under Croatian Duke Trpimir, somewhere in the mid-ninth century, and supervised by the patriarchate of Aquileia; 6) N. BUDAK, Prva stoljeæa Hrvatske [The First Centuries of Croatia] (Zagreb, 1994) 92–96, referring to the fact that the Church of Nin continued to exist from Late Antiquity, pointed out that the archpriest of Nin may have been under the jurisdiction of Zadar. He thought that the bishopric of Nin was founded by the clergy of Nin without the pope’s consent. However, it was later subordinated to the Roman Church. 61 Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. T. 1: Diplomata annorum 743–1100 / Continens, ed. M. KOSTRENÈIÆ, J. STIPIŠIÆ, M. ŠAMŠALOVIÆ (Zagreb, 1967) (hereafter CD) 16, no. 12. 62 Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije [Byzantine Sources of the History of the Peoples of Yugoslavia] / Ed. J. FERLUGA et al. (Belgrade, 1966) Vol. 3. 1–4. 63 Historia Salonitana maior… 95–106. Canons 1, 2, 3; canons 8, 9, 11 and 12 deal with the cases of particular bishoprics, although the two last canons have great importance for the ecclesiastical organization of Dalmatia and Croatia in general. 64 V. P ROZOROV, The Councils of Split in 925 and 928: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach. Abstract of the M. A. Thesis // Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU 1994–1995 / Ed. M.-B. L. Davis, M. Sebõk (Budapest, 1996) 68–69; ÏÐÎÇÎÐÎÂ, Ïîçäíåàíòè÷íàÿ è ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâàÿ èñòîðèÿ Ñàëîíñêîé öåðêâè... 65 We can suppose it from the introduction to the letter of Pope John X to the Dalmatian bishops (CD I, no 25. 35).

234

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

tan status of the Church of Spalato. There is no evidence of the legality of this claim, and the anonymous composer of the conciliar texts, a partisan of Salona — Spalato, asserted that the bishop of Nin never had the primacy in Dalmatia. This demarche of the bishop of Nin gave the council of 925 an opportunity to confirm in its acts the rights of the Church of Spalato for the legacy of ancient Salona. According to the canon 1, the primacy of the archbishop of Spalato in Dalmatia and Croatia and his right to convoke councils and consecrate suffragan bishops were confirmed by the authority of the patron saint of Salona — Spalato and the disciple of St. Peter, St. Domnius himself.66 This authority was translated from declined Salona together with the relics of the martyr. This canon is the first direct reference to the Salonitan tradition of apostolic succession apart from the Passion of St. Domnius. The conciliar argumentation echoes the reference of the synod of Mantua to the apostolic legend in the debate of Aquileia and Grado. This decision of the council of Salona coincided with the revival of the interest towards this theme in the late eighth and ninth century Europe.67 The falsified preface to the acts of the council in Nicaea, included in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, clearly connected the foundation of all the archbishoprics (in the initial sense of this institution) with the activities of the Apostles, thus suggesting the pattern of proving the primatial rights for the other metropolises.68 It is interesting to note that, whatever political reasons, the liturgical calendar of Spalato, perhaps, retained the memory of the early version of St. Domnius’s martyrdom. The Calendar of the Church of Spalato of 1291 (supported by the Statute of Spalato of 1312) had two separate feasts, connected with St. Domnius. It celebrated the memory of St. Domnius the Bishop on April 11, and dedicated May 7 to St. Domnius the Martyr.69 CD I, No. 23, p. 23: «Quoniam antiquitus beatus Domnius ab apostolo Petro predicare Salonam missus est constituitque, ut ecclesia ipsa et civitas ubi sancta eius membra requiescunt inter omnes ecclesias provintie huius primatis habeat et metropolis nomine super omnes episcopatus legitime sortiatur, ita dumtaxat, ut ad eius iussionem episcopi, qui per divinam gratiam cathedram ipsam retinuerint, et sinodus celebretur et consecratio episcoporum; quia dicente domino: ubi fuerit (corpus) illuc congregabuntur et aquile». 67 Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus // MGH. Scriptores. Vol. 2 / Ed. G. H. PERTZ (Hannover, 1829) 261. 68 PL 130. Cols. 251–253. 69 A. BERTOLDI, Breviario ad uso della chiesa di Spalato già Salonitana // Archivio Veneto 85–86 (1886) 221–251; Statut grada Splita [The Statute of Spalato] (Split, 1985) 11, cap. 5. The epigraphic material and one more or less reliable manuscript of the Martyrology of Jerome established the exact date of Domnius’s martyrdom on April 10 (not 11) (SAXER, Les saints de Salone… 299–300). 66

V. B. Prozorov

235

There is nothing strange that the Church celebrated two feasts of St. Domnius. But I find it suspicious that in his History Thomas of Spalato tries to specifically explain why Spalatians had two festivals in honour of St. Domnius. He reported that once upon a time certain pilgrims from Spalato stole the body of St. Domnio of Fidenza (Domninus, Ital. Donnino), a martyr of the early fourth century, and since that time there was a confusion of St. Domnius of Salona and St. Domnio of Fidenza who were both venerated in Spalato.70 Though we know St. Domnio of Fidenza, we have no evidence, apart from Thomas’s explanation, that his relics were ever brought to Spalato. Thus the historian’s remark can be explained as an attempt to reconcile the conflicting traditions of Domnius the Martyr and Domnius the Apostolic Bishop. To sum up, I have tried to demonstrate the striking similarity of the development of the apostolic tradition in Dalmatia with apostolic traditions in Ravenna and Aquileia. They probably emerged as a strong argument in favour of the autonomy of the Churches in their tensions with Rome in the fifth and sixth centuries and were further developed in order to secure the leading status of the Churches in their provinces in the seventh — tenth centuries. I think that this comparison supports the hypothesis that the apostolic tradition in Salona could emerge as early as in the sixth century, when the Salonitan Church started to play the role of the real metropolis of Dalmatia, had some tensions with Rome vaguely echoed in the available sources and finally in the first half of the seventh century moved to the new site — the palace of Diocletian, present-day Split. In conclusion I would like to highlight the fact that the figure of St. Domnius and the question of apostolic succession did in no way lose their significance in the modern history of Dalmatia and Croatia. The versions of St. Domnius’s Passion were first published by a prominent Jesuit Daniele Farlati in his Illyricum sacrum in the mid-eighteenth century.71 He did not doubt that the martyrdom and the Passion dated back to the first Christian centuries and all the components of the narrative were reliable.72 Farlati’s tradition domineered the eighteenth and nineteenth century historiography. It totally ignored the suggestion of an early eighteenth century FarlaActa sanctorum. Octobris 4. 988–992; BHL 2264–2267. 341–342. His feast day is October 9. His name appears in the Martyrology of Jerome and the Martyrology of Rabanus Maurus (776 or 784–856). See also G. LAURINI, San Donnino martire e la sua cittá (memorie storiche) (Borgo S. Donnino, 1924); LANZONI, Le diocesi d’Italia… 803–805. 71 F ARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 412–427. 72 Ibid. 408: «…nec dubitarie sint, quin exemplaria illa germana fuerint atque incorrupta, unde Acta S. Domnii, veluti in varios rivos diducta, sine ulla falsitatis admistione, tam pura et sincera manarunt». 70

236

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

ti’s precursor Ante Karamaneo-Matijaševiæ (1658–1721) (Farlati called him oppugnator Actorum S. Domnii)73 who demonstrated that Domnius could only be a martyr of the period of Diocletian and Maximian’s persecutions. In the end of the nineteenth century Dalmatian archeologist and historian Don Frane Buliæ challenged Farlati’s misattributions.74 Buliæ’s dating of martyrdom of St. Domnius to the fourth century led to a heated discussion with partisans of the previous point of view, mostly local clergy (Ivan Devich, Petar Kaer, Ivan Markoviæ)75 and met full support of prominent scholars of that time (Hyppolite Delehaye, Jacques Zeiller and Furio Lenzi).76 The Congregation of Rites in the Vatican accepted Buliæ’s argumentation in 1899,77 although debates were still going and acquired political character.78 It is important to note that the crux of the problems lay in the sphere of ecclesiastical authority and political orientation. As local proponents of St. Domnius the apostolic disciple were the Italianized citizens of Dalmatian towns, they were A. CARAMANEO-MATIASSEVICH, Riflessioni sopra l’istoria di S. Dojmo primo vescovo di Salona e martire // Supplemento al BASD 23/12 (1900) 12, 15, 17; FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 410–411. 74 F. BULIÆ, Storia e leggenda di S. Domnione o Doimo, vescovo e martire di Salona e delle sue reliquie. Saggio storico — critico // Supplemento al BASD 24/1–2 (1901). The same opinion was expressed by DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria e della Dalmazia… 95–100. F. BULIÆ, J. BERVALDI, Kronotaksa solinskih biskupa [The Catalogue of the Salonitan Bishops] // Bogoslovska smotra 1–4 (1912) 15, 19. 75 Don G. D EVICH, Apologia del festeggiamo il nostro patrono san Doimo, discepolo di san Pietro, primo vescovo di Salona le cui sacre e venerate ossa riposano a Spalato (Spalato, 1900). 76 DELEHAYE, Saints d’Istrie et de Dalmatie… 393–411; IDEM, L’hagiographie de Salone d’après les dernières découvertes archéologiques // AB 23 (1904); ZEILLER, Une légende hagiographique de Dalmatie: saint Domnius de Salone… 193–218, 385– 407; J.S.B.L. (J. BERVALDI), Sveti Dujam. Biskup i mucenik solinski. Povjesno-arheološka rasprava [St. Domnius, the Salonitan Bishop and Martyr. Historical and Archaeological Study] (Split, 1906); J. BERVALDI, Alcune osservazioni ai due ultimi opuscoli del sac. Pietro Kaer e del P. G. M. intorno a S. Doimo vescovo e martire di Salona (Fiume, 1910); F. LENZI, San Domnio, vescovo e martiri di Salona (†303) (Roma, 1913); F. BULIÆ, Razvoj arheoloških istraživanja i nauka u Dalmaciji kroz zadnji milenij [The Progress of Archeological Research in Dalmatia through the Last Millennium] // Zbornik Matice Hrvatske o tisucoj godišnjci Hrvatskog kraljevstva (Zagreb, 1925) Vol. 1 / Ed. F. LUKAS. Part 1. 158. 77 BULIÆ, Razvoj arheoloških istraživanja i nauka u Dalmaciji... 148. 78 (Don K. ŠEGVIÆ), Storia e leggenda di S. Doimo e Domione vescovo e martire di Salona e delle sue reliquie. Saggio storico-critico // Supplemento al BASD 24 (1901); I. MARKOVIÆ, Nešto o sv. Dujmu. Poslanica ... otcu Petru-Krstitelju Baèiæu (Some Words on St. Domnius. The Letter …to Father Petar-Krstitelj Baèiæ] (Split, 1906); Don P. KAER, San Doimo, vescovo e martire di Salona nell’archeologia e agiografia (Sebenico, 1908). 73

V. B. Prozorov

237

highly concerned with the growing Croatian nationalism and wished to stress and maintain the historical identity of Dalmatia. Quite contrariwise the tenth century events in Dalmatia were used by the politicians in the twentieth century. Bishop Gregory of Nin who lost his case at the council of Spalato in 925 gained the status of a symbolic figure in Croatia. The partisans of the Croatian national idea represented him as a fighter for the national Church and national state. The Croats in Dalmatia in opposition to the strong Italian influence regarded him as a symbol of the struggle for their national identity and at the same time for the union of all the Southern Slavs under Croatian leadership. The Gregorian myth culminated during the celebration of the millennium of the Croatian kingdom which was thought to be established in the time of the council of Spalato in 925. The festivities in Dalmatia were crowned by the opening of a monumental statue of Bishop Gregory sculptured by a famous Croatian artist Ivan Meštroviæ. The monument was inserted into the very heart of Split. It was erected in the Peristyle of the Palace of Diocletian, close to the entrance of the Cathedral where the relics of St. Domnius were deposited. The Italianized clergy of Split regarded this act as a challenge to the ancient metropolitan rights and the authority of Spalato and openly protested. Later the image of Gregory of Nin was deployed in the Yugoslav propaganda against the Vatican concordat and the Papacy which was associated with the political interests of Italian fascists in the Balkans. In fact, when Dalmatia was occupied by Italian troops Gregory’s statue was removed and restored only after the end of the World War II on a new site, namely out of the Palace of Diocletian, near its Golden Gate. Gregory of Nin is still passing by the entrance of Old Split, the citadel of St. Domnius, and never comes in.

APPENDIX Passio Sancti Domnii (according to the HISTORY OF ARCHBISHOPS OF SALONA) SANCTUS DOMNIUS EPISCOPUS, natione Antiocenus, patre Theodosio ex Syria, matre vero Migdonia ex Grecia, quos cathecuminos fecit et baptizavit beatus Petrus apostolorum princeps qui primus sedit in cathedra episcopatus urbis Antiocene, ubi Domnius puer septem annorum divinitus inspiratus, relictis parentibus et huius mundi diviths, secutus est apostolum. Tempore vero Claudii placuit beato Petro visere populum Cesaree, in cuius fenibus quodam a domino potestatem ligandi atque solvendi suscepit. Inde abiens peragravit Sebastem Capadotiam, Galatiam, Pontum, Bithiniam, Ephesum, Patmos, Athenas, demum ad hostia Tyberina applicuere ingressi sunt. Ubi beatus Petrus multis iam ad fidem Chrysti conversis alias quoque orbis terre partes ab erroris pernitie liberare cupiens, Pancratium destinavit in Siciliam, Appolinarem Ravenam Marcum evangelistam Aquilegiam Domnium vero multis coram positis

238

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

dixit: Ecce fili, ab infantia tua mecum ingressus et egressus es; omnem doctrinam catholicam didicisti. Pete littus maris adriatici et, recto cursu trans mare contra boream vectus veniens in Dalmatiam, que per te non post multos annos Chrysto creditura est. Vade, pax dei sit tecum. Domnius igitur satis prospero cursu mare emersus, Salonas devenit Christique misteria publice ac palam exponere cepit. Ad cuius predicationem multi, corde compuncti, Christo crediderunt, quos omnes in flumine Salono baptizabat. Quendam Pirgum falsum philosophum secum disputantem, cum a suo errore non posset in sua obstinatione reliquens, verbum dei populis predicabat spiritu sancto operante et sermonem confirmante. Ecclesiam in honorem. sancte dei genitricis Marie in eadem urbe construxit pulcherrimo opere, ubi sacerdotes dei, presbiteros et levitas ceterosque sacri ministerii ordines in ea ordinavit. Quibus per Dalmatiam dimissis brevi onmem ferre provinciam diabolo ereptam deo lucratus est. Post multum vero temporis, cum iam dominus servum suum ad coronam et triumphum certaminis provehero vellet, accidit prefectum urbis Maurilium nomine ad predictam civitatem Salonarum venisse, missum a senatu totas provintias Orientis iudicare. Qui cum civitatem intrasset, sacerdotes templorum occurerunt ei dicentes: Seductor quidam Romana urbe profugus ad hanc urbem venit, qui culturam deorum nostrorum non cessat subvertere et Jesum quendam a iudeis crucifixum summum deum astruere. His superba mente prefectus auditis beatum Domnium ad se accersiri iussit, cui et dixit: Ex quo genere es tu aut de qua civitate oriundus? Beatus Domnius respondit: Patre Syro, matre vero Greca progenitus, in civitate Antiocena educatus; ibidem lavacrum regenerationis a beato Petro apostolo suscepi et ab eodem ad hanc provinciam missus pro salute animarum veni. Tunc prefectus iussit eum recludi in carcere quousque exquireret, quibus eum modis aut ad culturam deorum revocaret aut crudelissimis tormentis interire faceret. Peractis quibusdam negotiis et educto eo de carcere, cepit multis sermonibus suadere, quatenus pecunia accepta atque inter amicos eius ascriptus denegaret ac this sacrificaret. Tunc beatus Domnius igne divino succensus dixit: Insane Maurili, pecunia me movere speras cum ego multo majus patrimonium sponte reliquerim, ut cum Christo paupere pauper viverem. Non est opus chrystiano diviths istis, sed fide atque virtute, quibus divitie nunquam interiture parantur in celo. Videns autem prefectus omnia que temptaverat in cassum cedere, expoliari hominem iussit et fustibus nudum cedi. Dum autem Domnius cederetur, fit chrystianorum concursus ad pretorium, insultant Maurilio frementes pre dolore et opprobriantes, quod inique ageretur hominem innocentem per ludibrium suppliciis opprimi. Ille vero, ira percitus, repente emissa armatorurn manu, quadraginta quinque ex his conprehensos nolentesque idolis sacrificare, statim capite truncari iussit. Quorum corpora, noctu a fidelibus inde sublata, ad radices Massaron monte humata sunt. Per eos dies, dum talia geruntur, Febronie vidue filius, cuius pater nomine Diginanus urbis Rome senator fuerat, deffunctus est. De cuius morte tam prefectus quam ceteri Salonarum cives mestiores facti, beatum Domnium submisso capite ac sedata voce poscebant, dicentes: Nunc apparebit virtus Chrysti tui, si in nomine eius, quem tu dicis mortuos suscitasse, cecos illuminasse, demonibus im-

V. B. Prozorov

239

perasse, hunc poteris mortuum suscitare. Ad hec vir dei respondit prefecto: Licet noverim cor tuum a diabolo obcecatum, ne credens salvus fias, propter eos tamen, qui crediderunt, vel qui credituri sunt, ut agnoscant veritatem Chrysti, exurgere hunc feciam. Tunc iuxta cadaver flexit genibus, manibus vero atque oculis in celum sublatis cum orasset, imperavit mortuo in nomine Chrysti, ut resumpto spiritu sese in pedes errigeret atque iterum vivere super terram inciperet. Vix verba finierat et adolescens: tam facile surrexit, ut non a morte suscitatus, sed quasi a somno expergefactus videretur. Quo viso miraculo plurimi ad fidem Chrysti conversi sunt. Sacerdotes vero templorum videntes, quod tanta turba senum, iuvenum, mulierum ac parvulorum ad hoc miraculum confluxerat, quanta theatralibus ludis vel sacrificiis olympici Iovis vix unquam convenerat, omnes maiores natu, vel quorum auctoritas pollebat, in pretorium congregare fecerunt et data pecunia prefecto suggesserunt ei atque dixerunt: Non consideras quantum hic magus, prestigiis suis seducens populum, tibi quoque, nisi caveris, maximum conflat detrimentum et certum interitum. Nam si eius vite peperceris, populum usquequaque subvertentis, senatus Populusque romanus iudicabunt te contrarium legibusque augustorum et donabunt te proscriptioni et morti, nec erit, qui possit succurere tibi. Tunc Maurilius, donis obcecatus ac perversis seductus consiliis, firmato in malum animo, dedit legem: Domnium contrarium legibus imperatorum contemptorem deorum, iubemus capitalem subire sententiam. Mox lictores eum aprehensum extra ciuitatem, ut decolloraretur, eduxerunt. Ubi cum diu in oratione genuflexo procubuisset, unus ex ministris Sathane, impetu facto, amputavit caput eius nonis maii. Historia Salonitana maior / Ed. N. KLAIÆ (Belgrade, 1967) (SANU, Posebna izdanja 299) 73–75

SUMMARY ¬‡‰ËÏ ¡. œÓÁÓÓ‚ ÃÓÒÍ‚‡

Ô◊≈Õ»◊≈—“¬Œ —¬. ƒŒÃÕ»fl: œ–≈ƒ¿Õ»≈ Œ¡ ¿œŒ—“ŒÀ‹— ŒÃ œ–≈≈ד¬≈ ¬ ƒ¿Àÿ÷»»  äàííîé ñòàòüå èññëåäóåòñÿ àãèîãðàôè÷åñêàÿ òðàäèöèÿ îñíîâàíèÿ Ñàëîíñêîé öåðêâè, êîòîðàÿ âåñüìà ðàíî íà÷àëà ïðåòåíäîâàòü íà ðîëü ìèòðîïîëèè ïðîâèíöèè Äàëìàöèÿ. Åå ïðèòÿçàíèÿ áûëè îñíîâàíû íà ëåãåíäå î ìèññèè ó÷åíèêà ñâ. àïîñòîëà Ïåòðà ñâ. Äîìíèÿ (èëè Äîìíèîíà) â Äàëìàöèè è ñîçäàíèè èì öåðêîâíîé îðãàíèçàöèè â Ñàëîíå. Àâòîð äåìîíñòðèðóåò âåðîÿòíîñòü òîãî, ÷òî ëåãåíäà î ñâÿòîì ïîêðîâèòåëå Ñàëîíû îáðåëà ÷åðòû, õàðàêòåðíûå äëÿ å¸ âåðñèè â àíîíèìíîé «Áîëüøîé Ñàëîíñêîé èñòîðèè» óæå ê VII â., à ãëàâíîå, óæå òîãäà ìèññèÿ ñâ. Äîìíèÿ â Äàëìàöèè áûëà ñâÿçàíà ñ èìåíåì ñâ. àïîñòîëà Ïåòðà è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñëóæèëà îñíîâàíèåì äëÿ ñàëîíñêîé òðàäèöèè àïîñòîëüñêîãî ïðååìñòâà.

“‡Ú¸ˇÌ‡ ¿. —ÂÌË̇ (ÏÓ̇ıËÌˇ  ‡ÒÒˡ) —‡ÌÍÚ-œÂÚÂ·Û„

ƒ»¿ÀŒ√ ‘≈Œ‘»À¿ »  ¿——»»: À»“≈–¿“”–Õ¿fl ¬¤ƒ”à¿ »À» –≈¿À‹ÕŒ—“‹?* The family history of the Amorian house is notoriously obscure. (C. Mango)

Î òîì, êîãäà è êàê ïðîõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà (829–842), áûë ëè îí âîîáùå, è ó÷àñòâîâàëà ëè â íåì áóäóùàÿ çíàìåíèòàÿ ïåñíîïèñèöà èíîêèíÿ Êàññèÿ, ñóùåñòâóåò äîâîëüíî áîãàòàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà.  ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ â íàóêå óòâåðäèëîñü ìíåíèå, ÷òî åñëè äàæå âûáîð íåâåñò è ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñòîðè÷åñêèì ôàêòîì, òî Êàññèÿ â íåì íå ó÷àñòâîâàëà, è âñÿ èñòîðèÿ îáìåíà ðåïëèêàìè ìåæäó íåþ è èìïåðàòîðîì — ïîçäíåéøàÿ ëèòåðàòóðíàÿ âûäóìêà.1  ÷àñòíîñòè, ýòó âåðñèþ ïîääåðæèâàåò ðîññèéñêèé èññëåäîâàòåëü Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, âíîâü èçëîæèâ åå â ñâîåé ïîñëåäíåé ìîíîãðàôèè î ñîáûòèÿõ ýïîõè âòîðîãî èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà.2 Îñíîâíûå àðãóìåíòû àâòîðà ñâîäÿòñÿ ê ñëåäóþùåìó: âî-ïåðâûõ, Êàññèÿ íå ìîãëà ïîïàñòü íà âûáîð íåâåñò, áóäó÷è, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ñòàðøå Ôåîôèëà;3 âî-âòîðûõ, ñàì äèàëîã Êàññèè è Ôåîôèëà çàèìñòâîâàí èç Ñëîâà íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå Ïðåñâÿòîé Áîãîðîäèöû (BHG 1128f), «÷òî âíó* Çà ðàçíîãî ðîäà ïîìîùü ïðè íàïèñàíèè äàííîé ñòàòüè âûðàæàþ ãëóáîêóþ áëàãîäàðíîñòü Â. Ì. Ëóðüå (èåðîìîíàõó Ãðèãîðèþ), À. Ã. Äóíàåâó, Â. À. Áàðàíîâó, À. Â. Ìóðàâüåâó, Ä. À. Íîñíèöèíó, Ê. Â. Õðóñòàëåâó è À. Ì. Øóôðèíó. 1 Ýòîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ è àâòîð íàèáîëåå ïîäðîáíîé ìîíîãðàôèè î Êàññèè: I. ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person, den Werken und dem Nachleben der Dichterin Kassia (Berlin, 1967) (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 38) 5–19. 2 Ä. Å. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà» è Òîðæåñòâî Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ (Ì., 2004) (Scrinium Philocalicum IV) 55–56. Ðàíåå òåìà âûáîðà íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà ðàññìàòðèâàëàñü â ñòàòüÿõ òîãî æå àâòîðà: D. AFINOGENOV, The Brid-Show of Theophilos: Some Notes on the Sourse // Eranos (Acta Philologica Suecana) 95 (1997) 10–18; Ä. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, Þ. ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå: íîâûå ðàçîáëà÷åíèÿ // Ó÷åíûå çàïèñêè Ðîññèéñêîãî Ïðàâîñëàâíîãî Óíèâåðñèòåòà àï. Èîàííà Áîãîñëîâà 5 (2000) 5–13. 3 Ýòîò æå àðãóìåíò âûäâèãàëè È. Ðîõîâ è íåêîòîðûå äðóãèå èññëåäîâàòåëè, â ÷àñòíîñòè M. D. LAUXTERMANN, The Byzantine Epigram in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. A Generic Study of Epigrams an Some Other Forms of Poetry (Amsterdam, 1994) 109.

Т. А. Сенина

241

øàåò ñèëüíûå ïîäîçðåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî èñòîðè÷íîñòè âñåãî ðàññêàçà».4 Êðîìå òîãî, èññëåäîâàòåëü ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë, âçÿâ â æåíû Ôåîäîðó, âî ìíîãîì ðóêîâîäñòâîâàëñÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ñîîáðàæåíèÿìè; íî ýòîò àñïåêò â ðàìêàõ äàííîé ñòàòüè ÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü íå áóäó, ïîñêîëüêó ñòðåìëåíèå Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà îáúÿñíÿòü äåéñòâèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ äåÿòåëåé ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ è «êëàíîâûõ» èíòåðåñîâ, çàñëóæèâàåò îòäåëüíîãî ðàçãîâîðà.5

¡˚Î ÎË ‚˚·Ó Ì‚ÂÒÚ? Ë. Ðþäåí, ïî ìíåíèþ Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà, «ñ î÷åâèäíîñòüþ äîêàçàë», ÷òî âûáîð íåâåñò — «ëèòåðàòóðíàÿ ôèêöèÿ».6 Îäíàêî ìíå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà Ðþäåíà íå ïðåäñòàâëÿþòñÿ ñòîëü óæ óáåäèòåëüíûìè.7 Âñå øåñòü èñòîðèé î âûáîðàõ íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðîâ IX âåêà, ïî óòâåðæäåíèþ Ðþäåíà, âûäóìàíû: âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI, îïèñàííûé â Æèòèè ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî — «÷èñòî ëèòåðàòóðíûé ìîòèâ, èñïîëüçîâàííûé Íèêèòîé äëÿ äîñòèæåíèÿ ëèòåðàòóðíîãî ýôôåêòà»;8 âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ñûíà èìïåðàòîðà Íèêèôîðà, î êîòîðîì ïîâåñòâóåò «Õðîíîãðàôèÿ» Ôåîôàíà Èñïîâåäíèêà, ïðèäóìàí íå òî Ôåîôàíîì, íå òî Ãåîðãèåì Ñèíêåëëîì ïðîñòî èç æåëàíèÿ âûñòàâèòü Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà â ñìåøíîì âèäå;9 âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà — âûäóìêà èêîíîÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 55. Îòìå÷ó ëèøü, ÷òî òàêîé ïîäõîä óæå ïîäâåðãñÿ íåêîòîðîé êðèòèêå: Ïðîòîèåðåé ÂÀËÅÍÒÈÍ ÀÑÌÓÑ, [ðåö. íà:] Ä. Å. Àôèíîãåíîâ, Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêèé ïàòðèàðõàò è èêîíîáîð÷åñêèé êðèçèñ â Âèçàíòèè (784–847) (Ì., 1997) // Áîãîñëîâñêèé Âåñòíèê 4 (2004) 497–511. 6 AFINOGENOV, The Bride-Show of Theophilos… 10; òàêîãî æå ìíåíèÿ î äîêàçàòåëüñòâàõ Ë. Ðþäåíà ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ è Ì. Ëàóêñòåðìàíí. 7 Â. Òðåäãîëüä, ïîñâÿòèâøèé äîêàçàòåëüñòâó èñòîðè÷íîñòè âûáîðîâ íåâåñò îòäåëüíóþ ñòàòüþ (W. T. TREADGOLD, The Bride-Shows of the Byzantine Emperors // Byz 49 (1979) 395–413) íåäàâíî, â îòâåò íà êîíòðàðãóìåíòàöèþ Ðþäåíà, îïóáëèêîâàë íîâóþ ðàáîòó, ãäå âíîâü îòñòàèâàåò ñâîè âçãëÿäû: W. T. TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows // JÖB 54 (2004) 39–52. Îäíàêî, åãî ïîçäíÿÿ àðãóìåíòàöèÿ íå ñëèøêîì ìíîãî ïðèáàâëÿåò ê ñêàçàííîìó â åãî áîëåå ðàííèõ ñòàòüÿõ; â ÷èñëå ó÷åíûõ, îïðîâåðãøèõ, ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, àðãóìåíòû Ðþäåíà, Òðåäãîëüä óïîìèíàåò ëèøü äâîèõ (p. 39, n. 3), íî èõ äîâîäû â äàëüíåéøåì ïî÷åìó-òî íèêàê íå èñïîëüçóåò, à â îñíîâíîì ïîâòîðÿåò â ñëåãêà ìîäèôèöèðîâàííîé ôîðìå ñîáñòâåííûå ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Õîòÿ Òðåäãîëüä çàÿâëÿåò â íà÷àëå ñòàòüè, ÷òî ñîáèðàåòñÿ äàòü «áîëåå äåòàëüíûé îòâåò» íà «àòàêó ïðîòèâ èñòîðè÷íîñòè êîíêóðñîâ íåâåñò», åãî ðàáîòà äîâîëüíî áåäíà è íîâûìè àðãóìåíòàìè, è ññûëêàìè. 8 L. RYDÉN, The Bride-shows at the Byzantine Court — History or Fiction? // Eranos 83 (1985) 175–191; öèò. 181. 9 Ibid. 179–180. 4 5

242

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

ïî÷èòàòåëåé, æåëàâøèõ óíèçèòü èìïåðàòîðà-èêîíîáîðöà,10 è ò. ä. Íî çàòåì èññëåäîâàòåëü, âñòàâ ïåðåä âîïðîñîì, ïî÷åìó è îòêóäà ðàññêàçû î âûáîðå íåâåñò ïîÿâèëèñü â âèçàíòèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå IX âåêà è èñ÷åçëè ïîñëå Õ âåêà, ïðèçíàåòñÿ: «ß íå ìîãó äàòü òî÷íîãî îòâåòà íà ýòîò âîïðîñ»,11 — è ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî ñþæåò âîîáùå áûë ñâîéñòâåíåí «àíîíèìíîé ëèòåðàòóðå».12 Ýòî, îäíàêî, ñîâåðøåííî íå îáúÿñíÿåò, ïî÷åìó èìåííî â IX âåêå âîçíèêëî ñòîëüêî «ëèòåðàòóðíûõ ñþæåòîâ» íà äàííóþ òåìó, è ïî÷åìó àâòîðû õðîíèê è æèòèé íåïðåìåííî âûäóìûâàëè èñòîðèè ñ âûáîðàìè íåâåñò îò íà÷àëà è äî êîíöà, à íå âïëåòàëè â ñþæåò ñâîåãî ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ ðåàëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ.13 Äà è â öåëîì ïîñòðîåíèÿ Ë. Ðþäåíà, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, íåäîñòàòî÷íî óáåäèòåëüíû.14 RYDÉN, The Bride-shows at the Byzantine Court... 188. Ibid. 190. 12 Ibid. 191. 13 Êàê ìîãëî áûòü, íàïðèìåð, â ñëó÷àå âûáîðà íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ìèõàèëà III.  Æèòèè ñâ. Èðèíû Õðèñîâëàíòû ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî îíà áûëà îäíîé èç êàíäèäàòîê, íî îïîçäàëà ïðèåõàòü âîâðåìÿ íà âûáîð íåâåñò. Ë. Ðþäåí çàìå÷àåò íåñòûêîâêó â äàòèðîâêàõ ðàçíûõ ñîáûòèé èç æèçíè Èðèíû è äåëàåò âûâîä, ÷òî åå ó÷àñòèå â âûáîðå íåâåñò âîîáùå ÿâëÿåòñÿ âûäóìêîé ñ öåëüþ ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî îíà, êî âñåì ïðî÷èì ñâîèì äîáðîäåòåëÿì, áûëà åùå è êðàñàâèöåé (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows… 190). Ýòî âåñüìà âåðîÿòíî, íî èç ýòîãî ñîâåðøåííî íå ñëåäóåò, ÷òî íå áûëî ñàìîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò. 14  ñòàòüå I. SORLIN, La plus belle ou la meilleure? Note sur les concours de beauté à Byzance et dans la Russie Moscovite des XVIe–XVIIe siècles // EÙyuc…a. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler (Paris, 1998) (Byzantina sorbonensia 16) T. II. 635–650, çàíîâî ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ òåìà âûáîðà íåâåñò. È. Ñîðëýí çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàðàëëåëè, ïðîâåäåííûå Ðþäåíîì ìåæäó èñòîðèÿìè î âèçàíòèéñêèõ êîíêóðñàõ íåâåñò è Êíèãîé Ýñôèðü èëè ñêàçêàìè ïðî Çîëóøêó, äàëåêî íå ñòîëü î÷åâèäíû, êàê ìîæåò ïîêàçàòüñÿ. Êðîìå òîãî, èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà îòìå÷àåò (p. 636) ïàðàëëåëü, èìåþùóþñÿ â Æèòèè ñâ. Êîíñòàíòèíà-Êèðèëëà, ïðîñâåòèòåëÿ ñëàâÿí: â âîçðàñòå 7 ëåò ìàëü÷èê âèäèò ñîí, ãäå ñòðàòèã ñîáèðàåò âñåõ äåâóøåê ãîðîäà è ïðåäëàãàåò Êîíñòàíòèíó èçáðàòü ïîíðàâèâøóþñÿ ñåáå â ñóïðóãè; Êîíñòàíòèí âûáèðàåò ñàìóþ êðàñèâóþ ïî èìåíè Ñîôèÿ, ò. å. Ìóäðîñòü. Á. Ôëîðÿ çàìåòèë, ÷òî õîòÿ «ðàññêàç î ÷óäåñíîì ñíå ñëîæèëñÿ ïîä âëèÿíèåì ñî÷èíåíèé» ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Áîãîñëîâà, â ÷àñòíîñòè, îäíîãî èç åãî ñòèõîòâîðåíèé, îäíàêî, «êàê óêàçûâàë óæå Ô. Äâîðíèê, íàëèöî è ñóùåñòâåííûå îòëè÷èÿ ìåæäó ñòèõîòâîðåíèåì Ãðèãîðèÿ è ðàññêàçîì Æèòèÿ.  ñòèõîòâîðåíèè îòñóòñòâóåò ìîòèâ âûáîðà, äà åùå èç ñðåäû äåâóøåê ãîðîäà, ñîáðàííûõ ñòðàòèãîì.  Æèòèè “ñîí” Êîíñòàíòèíà êàê áû ïðèñïîñîáëåí ê óñëîâèÿì æèçíè IX â., êîãäà ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûì ÿâëåíèåì áûëè òàê íàçûâàåìûå “êîíêóðñû êðàñîòû”» (Á. Í. ÔËÎÐß, Ñêàçàíèå î íà÷àëå ñëàâÿíñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè (ÑÏá., 2004) (Ñëàâÿíñêàÿ áèáëèîòåêà) 206). Åñëè ó÷åñòü, ÷òî Æèòèå ñâ. Êîíñòàíòèíà áûëî íàïèñàíî ìåæäó 869 è 880 ãã. (ñì.: Òàì æå. 17), òî â íåì ìû èìååì åùå îäíî äîñòàòî÷íî ðàííåå óïîìèíàíèå î âûáîðå íåâåñò; à ââèäó òîãî, ÷òî ìîòèâ âûáîðà ïðèáàâëåí ê óæå ñóùåñòâîâàâøåìó äåéñòâèòåëüíî ëèòåðàòóðíîìó è ñèìâîëè÷åñêîìó ìîòèâó èç10 11

Т. А. Сенина

243

Ïåðâûì ïî âðåìåíè îïèñàíèÿ â èñòî÷íèêàõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ñîñòîÿâøèéñÿ, ñîãëàñíî «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ôåîôàíà Èñïîâåäíèêà, â 807 ã. «Çà÷åì óñòðàèâàòü âûáîð íåâåñò, åñëè Ôåîôàíî áûëà óæå ïîìîëâëåíà è, ïî-âèäèìîìó, íå î÷åíü êðàñèâà?»15 — íåäîóìåâàåò èññëåäîâàòåëü è â òî æå âðåìÿ îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî õðîíèñò, ðàññêàçûâàÿ î âûáîðå íåâåñò, íå óêàçûâàåò, ÷òî îòåö Ñòàâðàêèÿ èìïåðàòîð Íèêèôîð âûäóìàë íîâûé îáû÷àé. Íî åñëè, êàê óòâåðæäàåò Ë. Ðþäåí, õðîíèñò ïðèäóìàë èñòîðèþ ñ âûáîðîì íåâåñò ëèøü äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû âûñòàâèòü Íèêèôîðà â ñìåøíîì âèäå,16 òî ëîãè÷íî áûëî áû óïîìÿíóòü î òîì, ÷òî ýòî áûëî òàêîå ñòðàííîå íîâøåñòâî, ââåäåííîå «íå÷åñòèâûì öàðåì». Âïðî÷åì, õðîíèñò íå óïîìèíàåò è î ïðåäøåñòâîâàâøåì âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Êîíñòàíòèíà VI; îäíàêî, íà ýòîì îñíîâàíèè åùå íå ñòîèò îòâåðãàòü åãî èñòîðè÷íîñòü. Ñâîé àíàëèç ðàññêàçà Ôåîôàíà î æåíèòüáå Ñòàâðàêèÿ Ë. Ðþäåí çàêëþ÷àåò âûâîäîì: «Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî îí áûëà íàïèñàí ñîâðåìåííèêîì, ñîâñåì íå ïîõîæå, ÷òîáû îí áûë íàäåæíûì».17 Ïî ñóòè àðãóìåíòû Ðþäåíà ñâîäÿòñÿ ê óòâåðæäåíèþ, ÷òî îí íå âåðèò õðîíèñòó ïðîñòî ïîòîìó, ÷òî åìó íå âåðèòñÿ. Çàòåì èññëåäîâàòåëü ïåðåõîäèò êî âòîðîìó îïèñàííîìó â èñòî÷íèêàõ è ïåðâîìó ïî âðåìåíè âûáîðó íåâåñò — äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI, — ñîñòîÿâøåìóñÿ â 788 ã.; íà ýòîé èñòîðèè ÿ îñòàíîâëþñü íåìíîãî ïîäðîáíåå.18 Íåïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó Íèêèòà, ââåäøèé â îáîðîò äàííûé ñþæåò, äîëæåí áûë íåïðåìåííî åãî âûäóìàòü, äàæå åñëè îí ïðîñòî «ðåøèë ñäåëàòü ñâÿòîãî» èç ñâîåãî äåäà è äëÿ ýòîãî íàïèñàë êðàñèâóþ èñòîðèþ.19 áðàíèÿ â ñóïðóãè Ìóäðîñòè, ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî ïîâîäîì ê òàêîìó äîïîëíåíèþ ïîñëóæèëè ðåàëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýòîò ýïèçîä èç Æèòèÿ ñâ. Êîíñòàíòèíà ìîæåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê êîñâåííîå äîêàçàòåëüñòâî â ïîëüçó òîãî, ÷òî âûáîðû íåâåñò â IX âåêå â Âèçàíòèè äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìåëè ìåñòî. Îáå óïîìÿíóòûå çäåñü ðàáîòû Â. Òðåäãîëüä â ñâîåé ñòàòüå (The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows…) íå ó÷èòûâàåò. 15 RYDÉN, The Bride-shows… 179. Ïî÷åìó Ôåîôàíî áûëà íå î÷åíü êðàñèâà, îñòàåòñÿ íåÿñíûì; âåðîÿòíî, àâòîð äåëàåò òàêîé âûâîä íà îñíîâàíèè ñëîâ õðîíèñòà, ÷òî ñðåäè ó÷àñòâîâàâøèõ â êîíêóðñå íåâåñò áûëè åùå äâå äåâèöû, êðàñèâåå íåå (Theophanis Chronographia / Ed. C. DE BOOR (Lipsiae, 1883) 483), íî Ôåîôàíî áûëà âûáðàíà çà ñâîå âûñîêîå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå; îäíàêî èç ýòîãî åùå íå ñëåäóåò, ÷òî îíà áûëà íåõîðîøà ñîáîé. 16 RYDÉN, The Bride-shows… 179. 17 Ibid. 180. 18 Ñâîè âçãëÿäû, èçëîæåííûå â óïîìÿíóòîé ñòàòüå, Ðþäåí ïîâòîðÿåò è â êîììåíòàðèè ê êðèòè÷åñêîìó èçäàíèþ Æèòèÿ ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî: The Life of St. Philaretos the Merciful Written by his Grandson Niketas / Critic. Ed., Intr., Transl., Notes, Indices L. RYDÉN (Uppsala, 2002) (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 8); ýòî èçäàíèå ìíå îñòàëîñü íåäîñòóïíûì. 19 Ibid. 181.

244

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Ïî ìíåíèþ Ðþäåíà, Íèêèòà ïðè íàïèñàíèè Æèòèÿ áûë âäîõíîâëåí Êíèãîé Èîâà è àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèìè ïðîèçâåäåíèÿìè; íî íè÷åãî ïîõîæåãî íà âûáîð íåâåñò íåò â ýòèõ èñòî÷íèêàõ. Èññëåäîâàòåëü óïîðíî ïûòàåòñÿ îáúÿñíèòü âñå ðàññêàçû î âûáîðàõ íåâåñò «ëèòåðàòóðíûìè ìîòèâàìè» è, ðàññìàòðèâàÿ ïåðâîå ïî âðåìåíè ïîÿâëåíèå äàííîãî «ìîòèâà» â «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ôåîôàíà, ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî õðîíèñò ìîã ïî÷åðïíóòü âäîõíîâåíèå èç îïèñàííîé â õðîíèêå Èîàííà Ìàëàëû èñòîðèè î æåíèòüáå èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîäîñèÿ II; îäíàêî, íåïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó ýòà æå èñòîðèÿ íå ìîãëà ïîäàòü ìûñëü èìïåðàòðèöå Èðèíå óñòðîèòü âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI, ÷òîáû óòåøèòü åãî ïîñëå ðàçðûâà ïîìîëâêè ñ äî÷åðüþ Êàðëà Âåëèêîãî è óñòðîèòü åìó áëåñòÿùèé áðàê ñ âèçàíòèéñêîé äåâèöåé âìåñòî æåíèòüáû íà çàãðàíè÷íîé ïðèíöåññå.20 Êðîìå òîãî, èçäàòåëè Æèòèÿ ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà îòìå÷àþò, ÷òî â Annales regni Francorum ïîä 819 ãîäîì ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî Ëþäîâèê Áëàãî÷åñòèâûé âûáðàë ñâîþ æåíó Þäèôü «inspectis plerisque nobilium filiabus», — è ÷òî ýòî ìîãëî áûòü êàêîé-òî àíàëîãèåé âèçàíòèéñêîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò.21 Åñëè ýòî òàê, òî ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî çàòåÿ èìïåðàòðèöû Èðèíû, èìåâøàÿ îäíîé èç öåëåé, ïî ïðåäïîëîæåíèþ Â. Òðåäãîëüäà, ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü çàïàäíûì âëàäûêàì, ÷òî îíà è áåç íèõ óñòðîèò áëåñòÿùóþ æåíèòüáó äëÿ ñâîåãî ñûíà, â íåêîòîðîì ðîäå óäàëàñü. Ïî ìíåíèþ Ë. Ì. Õàíñ, «ìîæíî óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî èäåÿ ïðîâåäåíèÿ ñìîòðèí äëÿ ìîëîäîãî èìïåðàòîðà Êîíñòàíòèíà â 788 ã. èìåëà ñâîåé öåëüþ âñåèìïåðñêóþ ïðîïàãàíäó ýòîé ñâàäüáû, îòâå÷àÿ íàðîäíûì ïîíÿòèÿì î ðîìàíòèêå».22 Åñëè âñïîìíèòü õàðàêòåðèñòèêó, äàííóþ Ð. Äæåíêèíñîì ïîñëåäíåìó èìïåðàòîðó-èêîíîáîðöó: «Ôåîôèë áûë ýñòåòîì è ðîìàíòèêîì»,23 — òî ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî íà èìïåðàòîðñêèé äîì Âèçàíòèè â êîíöå VIII – IX âåêå íàøëî «ðîìàíòè÷åñêîå ïîâåòðèå». Âîçìîæíî, îíî áûëî ñâÿçàííî ñî «ñâåòñêèì» óêëîíîì, êîòîðûé ïðèäàëè èìïåðàòîðû-èêîíîáîðöû ïðèäâîðíîé æèçíè, ñèñòåìå îáðàçîâàíèÿ è ïð.24 È. Ñîðëýí ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî â ðàññìàòðèâàåìóþ ýïîõó ëèòåðàòóðíûå ñþæåòû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ «ñóäîì Ïàðèñà», ìîãëè ñïðîâîöèðîâàòü äåéñòâèòåëüíûå èçìåíåíèÿ â ïðèäâîðíûõ îáû÷àÿõ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ çàêëþ÷åíèåì áðàêà.25 Êàê ýòî ïðåäïîëàãàåò Òðåäãîëüä: TREADGOLD , The Bride-Shows of the Byzantine Emperors… 396–397. 21 M.-H. FOURMY, M. LEROY, La vie de S. Philarète // Byz 9/1 (1934) 85–170; ñì. 104, n. 4. 22 L. M. HANS, Der Kaiser als Märchenprinz // JÖB 38 (1988) 33–52; öèò. 51. 23 R. JENKINS, Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries A.D. 610–1071 (New York, 1969) 147. 24 Ñì., íàïð.: G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (München, 1963) 145. 25 SORLIN, La plus belle ou la meilleure?… 641.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì ñòîèò çàìåòèòü, ÷òî, íàïðèìåð, ñâ. ïàòðèàðõ Ôîòèé ÷èòàë â ÷èñëå ñâåòñêèõ êíèã è òàêîå «ñëàäî20

Т. А. Сенина

245

Æ. Äàãðîí ñ÷èòàåò èñòîðèè î âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðîâ «ïî áîëüøåé ÷àñòè äîñòîâåðíûìè»26 è çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî «êîíêóðñû êðàñîòû» ïîÿâèëèñü â Âèçàíòèè êàê ðàç òîãäà, êîãäà ïîíÿòèå «ïîðôèðîðîäíûé» ñòàëî íàïîëíÿòüñÿ îñîáûì ñìûñëîì: âûáîðû íåâåñò, ïðîèñõîäèâøèå ñ 788 ïî 882 ã., «òî÷íî ñîîòâåòñòâóþò ïåðèîäó, êîãäà òåðìèí [“ïîðôèðîðîäíûé”] ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ è ñàêðàëèçèðóåòñÿ. Ìû íàõîäèìñÿ â çàìêíóòîì ìèðå, ïðîíèçàííîì âåòõîçàâåòíûìè îáðàçöàìè, òðàäèöèè êîòîðîãî ïîñòîÿííî âîñïðîèçâîäÿòñÿ èêîíîáîð÷åñòâîì. Çäåñü ïðàçäíóþò ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé áðàê òîãî, êòî ïîëó÷èë “ïîìàçàíèå îò ÷ðåâà ìàòåðè” ñ “ñàìîé ïðåêðàñíîé” èç åãî ïîääàííûõ».27 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Äàãðîí íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçûâàåò ïîÿâëåíèå «êîíêóðñîâ íåâåñò» ñ âëèÿíèåì èêîíîáîð÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà. Èññëåäîâàòåëü çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî æåíèòüáà ïîðôèðîðîäíîãî (â ñîáñòâåííîì ñìûñëå èëè â ñìûñëå ñèìâîëè÷åñêîì, êàê «ïîìàçàííèêà Áîñòðàñòíîå» ïðîèçâåäåíèå, êàê ðîìàí Àõèëëà Òàòèÿ «Ëåâêèïïà è Êëèòîôîíò». È õîòÿ Ôîòèé â ñâîåé «Áèáëèîòåêå» îöåíèë êíèãó îòðèöàòåëüíî çà åå «÷ðåçâû÷àéíóþ íåïðèñòîéíîñòü è ïîðî÷íîñòü ìûñëåé» (Êîäåêñ 87), åãî ñîâðåìåííèê Ëåâ Ìàòåìàòèê íàïèñàë íà òó æå êíèãó ýïèãðàììó, òîëêóþùóþ ðîìàí àëëåãîðè÷åñêè, â î÷åíü ïîëîæèòåëüíîì ñìûñëå — ãåðîè àíòè÷íîãî ýðîòè÷åñêîãî ðîìàíà ñòàíîâÿòñÿ çäåñü óæå îáðàçöàìè öåëîìóäðèÿ; ñì.: Anthologia Graeca / Ed. H. BECKBY (München, 1975) T. 3. 124; î ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè ýòîé ýïèãðàììû Ëüâó Ìàòåìàòèêó ñì: P. LEMERLE, Le Premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origins au Xe siècle (Paris, 1972) (Bibliothèque Byzantine: études 6) 169; â àíãë. ïåð.: P. LEMERLE, Byzantine Humanism. The First Phase. Notes and remarks on education and culture in Byzantium from its origins to the 10th century (Canberra, 1986) (Byzantina Australiensia 3) 195. Êàññèÿ íàïèñàëà ïî ìîòèâàì ýòîãî ðîìàíà öåëûõ äâå ýïèãðàììû-ïåðèôðàçû, ãäå ðå÷ü èäåò î æåíñêîé êðàñîòå (ñì.: E. V. MALTESE, Una contemporanea di Fozio, Cassia. Osservazione sui versi profani // La poesia tardoantica e medievale. Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Macerata, 4–5 maggio 1998 / A cura di M. SALVADORE (Alessandria, 2001) 71–83; ñì. 77–78). Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ëèòåðàòóðíûå âêóñû îáðàçîâàííûõ ìîíàõîâ è ñâåòñêèõ ëþäåé òîé ýïîõè íå îòëè÷àëèñü íåðàçóìíûì ïóðèòàíñòâîì; òåì áîëåå ýòî ìîæíî ñêàçàòü îá èìïåðàòîðàõ. Ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, â ðîìàíå Àõèëëà Òàòèÿ òåìå æåíñêîé êðàñîòû îòâîäèòñÿ çíà÷èòåëüíîå ìåñòî. ßáëîêî êàê ñèìâîë èçáðàíèÿ íåâåñòû ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ â èñòîðèè ñ æåíèòüáîé Ôåîôèëîì òîæå íå ñëó÷àéíî, ïîñêîëüêó ÿáëîêî åùå ñ àíòè÷íîñòè áûëî ñâÿçàíî ñ îïðåäåëåííîé ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé íàãðóçêîé (â ÷àñòíîñòè, áûëî ñèìâîëîì ëþáâè è ãîñïîäñòâà íàä ìèðîì), è ýòîò ñèìâîëèçì â Âèçàíòèè íèêîãäà íå çàáûâàëñÿ; ñì. ñïåöèàëüíî ïîñâÿùåííóþ ýòîìó âîïðîñó ðàáîòó: A. R. LITTLEWOOD, The Symbolism of the Apple in Byzantine Literature // JÖB 23 (1974) 33–59. Òî, ÷òî ÿáëîêî èç âñåõ èñòîðèé î âûáîðå íåâåñòû ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ òîëüêî â ïîâåñòâîâàíèè î Ôåîôèëå, òîæå ïðåêðàñíî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ ñ «ðîìàíòè÷åñêèì» õàðàêòåðîì è âûñîêîé îáðàçîâàííîñòüþ ýòîãî èìïåðàòîðà. 26 G. DAGRON, Empereur et Prêtre. Étude sur le «césaropapisme» byzantin (Paris, 1996) 67. 27 G. DAGRON, Nés dans la pourpre // TM 12 (1994) 105–142, öèò. 140.

246

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

æèÿ») íà «ñàìîé êðàñèâîé» äåâóøêå ÿâëÿåòñÿ êàê áû çåðêàëüíîé ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòüþ æåíèòüáû èìïåðàòîðà-«âûñêî÷êè» íà îñîáå öàðñêîé êðîâè: â ïîñëåäíåì ñëó÷àå èìïåðàòîð êàê áû ïîëó÷àåò ëåãèòèìíîñòü ÷åðåç ñâîé áðàê, à â ïåðâîì — íàîáîðîò, äàåò ëåãèòèìíîñòü â ñèëó ñâîåãî ïîìàçàíèÿ, à ïðîèñõîæäåíèå íåâåñòû íå èìååò çíà÷åíèÿ. Ìîäåëüþ äëÿ ïîäîáíîãî áðàêà ïîñëóæèë, ïî ìíåíèþ Äàãðîíà, áðàê èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîäîñèÿ II, êîòîðîãî èññëåäîâàòåëü ñ÷èòàåò íàèáîëåå ÷èñòûì òèïîì «ïîðôèðîðîäíîãî».28 Ë. Ðþäåí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Æèòèå ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà áûëî íàïèñàíî â ñâÿçè ñ æåíèòüáîé èìïåðàòîðà Ìèõàèëà II íà äî÷åðè Êîíñòàíòèíà VI Åâôðîñèíå, ðîäñòâåííèêîì êîòîðîé áûë íàïèñàâøèé Æèòèå Íèêèòà. Íî Æèòèå äàòèðóåòñÿ 821/822 ãîäîì,29 à ïåðâàÿ æåíà Ìèõàèëà II Ôåêëà óìåðëà ïîçæå — îê. 824 ã.30 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ãèïîòåçà Ë. Ðþäåíà îêàçûâàåòñÿ íåñîñòîÿòåëüíîé.31 Íî êàêîâ æå äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìîã áûòü ïîâîä Ñì.: DAGRON, Nés dans la pourpre… 137–140. FOURMY, LEROY, La vie de S. Philarète... 96. 30 Ñì.: Á. ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ, Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè //  8 (1901) 1–37; ñì. 10–11; ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÈÉ, Êîììåíòàðèè // Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, Æèçíåîïèñàíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ öàðåé / Ïåð., ñòàòüè, êîìì. ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÎÃÎ (Ì., 1993) (Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàìÿòíèêè) [äàëåå — ÏÔ] 277–278, ïðèì. 71; Prosopographie der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–867) / Ed. R.-J. LILIE, C. LUDWIG, TH. PRATSCH, I. ROCHOW (Berlin, 1998) # 7259 (ð. 331). Òî, ÷òî Ôåêëà âðÿä ëè ìîãëà óìåðåòü â 821/822 ã., ïîäòâåðæäàåòñÿ íå òîëüêî ïðÿìûì ñîîáùåíèåì Ìèõàèëà Ñèðèéöà (Michel le Syrien, Chronique / Ed. J. B. CHABOT. T. I–IV (Paris, 1899–1924) T. III. 72), íî è êîñâåííûìè ñâèäåòåëüñòâàìè. Íàïðèìåð, Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà ñîîáùàåò î ñìåðòè ïåðâîé æåíû Ìèõàèëà II è åãî íîâîì áðàêå óæå ïîñëå îïèñàíèÿ îêîí÷àíèÿ âîéíû ñ Ôîìîé Ñëàâÿíèíîì (ÏÔ II, 24; Theophanes Continuatus // Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus / Åd. I. BEKKER (Bonnae, 1838) (Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae) 1–481 [äàëåå — ThCont]; ñì. 78:9–79:12); èç êîíòåêñòà 74-ãî Ñëîâà èç Ìàëîãî Îãëàøåíèÿ ñâ. Ôåîäîð Ñòóäèòà («Ïðîòèâ Ìèõàèëà, íå÷åñòèâî öàðñòâîâàâøåã) òàêæå âèäíî, ÷òî çàêëþ÷åíèå âòîðîãî áðàêà îïèñûâàåòñÿ êàê òîëüêî ÷òî ïðîèñøåäøåå ñîáûòèå, à «íèñïðîâåðæåíèå âåðû» óïîìèíàåòñÿ, êàê óæå èçâåñòíîå, ÷òî íèêàê íå ìîãëî èìåòü ìåñòî â 821 ã., êîãäà ïðàâîñëàâíûå åùå áûëè ïðåèñïîëíåíû íàäåæä íà áëàãî÷åñòèå íîâîãî èìïåðàòîðà. Òî, ÷òî âòîðîé áðàê Ìèõàèëà ñîñòîÿëñÿ ïîçæå, ÷åì áûëî íàïèñàíî Æèòèå ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà, îòìå÷àåò è Â. Òðåäãîëüä (TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows… 40), îäíàêî, íè íà ÷òî íå ññûëàÿñü è âñêîëüçü. 31 Âçãëÿä Ðþäåíà íà ðàññêàçû î âûáîðå íåâåñò â öåëîì ðàçäåëÿåò Ì. Âèíñîí (M. VINSON, The Life of Theodora and the Rhetoric of the Byzantine Bride Show // JÖB 49 (1999) 31–60), óòî÷íÿÿ ëèøü, ÷òî âñå îïèñàíèÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò, áóäü òî â õðîíèêàõ èëè â æèòèÿõ, — íå ïðîñòî ëèòåðàòóðíûå ìîòèâû, íî «ðèòîðè÷åñêèå òîïîñû, õàðàêòåðíûå äëÿ ýíêîìèÿ èëè èíâåêòèâû» (p. 33, n. 10). Ïî åå ìíåíèþ, ìîòèâ âûáîðà íåâåñò âîøåë â âèçàíòèéñêóþ ëèòåðàòóðó ñ ïîäà÷è Ôåîôàíà 28 29

Т. А. Сенина

247

äëÿ íàïèñàíèÿ Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî? Ñîãëàñíî òîé õðîíîëîãèè, êîòîðóþ ÿ ñ÷èòàþ áîëåå ïðàâäîïîäîáíîé (î ÷åì íèæå), â 821 ã. ñîñòîÿëñÿ âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà.32 È âîò òóò ìîæíî îòìåòèòü èíòåðåñíûå ïàðàëëåëè. Êàññèÿ òåðÿåò êîðîíó ïîòîìó, ÷òî íå ñìîë÷àëà ïåðåä èìïåðàòîðîì; Ôåîäîðà, íàïðîòèâ, ñòàíîâèòñÿ Àâãóñòîé êàê áû çà ñêðîìíîñòü, ñìèðåíèå è ìîë÷àíèå.33 Òåïåðü çàãëÿíåì â Æèòèå Ôèëàðåòà: «Èç äðóãèõ ìåñò òîæå áûëè ñîáðàíû äåâóøêè, ÷èñëîì äåñÿòü; ñðåäè íèõ è äî÷ü îäíîãî áîãàòîãî ñòðàòèëàòà Ãåðîíòèàíà, äåâóøêà î÷åíü êðàñèâàÿ, íî çàíîñ÷èâàÿ èç-çà ñâîåãî áîãàòñòâà. È âîò, èõ ïîâåëè ê èìïåðàòîðó. Âíóêà ìèëîñòèâöà Ìàðèÿ ïðîñèëà ñâîèõ òîâàðîê, ãîâîðÿ: “Ñåñòðû, äàâàéòå óãîâîðèìñÿ äðóã ñ äðóæêîé òàê: òà èç íàñ, êîòîðàÿ ïî Áîæèåé âîëå ñòàíåò èìïåðàòðèöåé, ïóñòü íå Èñïîâåäíèêà, êîòîðûé â ñâîåé «Õðîíîãðàôèè» èñïîëüçîâàë ðàññêàç î âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ÷òîáû â î÷åðåäíîé ðàç ïîõóëèòü èìïåðàòîðà Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà (p. 42–46), à ïðî÷èå õðîíèñòû èñïîëüçîâàëè ýòîò ñþæåò âñëåä çà íèì; è íè î òîì, êàê íà ñàìîì äåëå ïðîèñõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñòû äëÿ èìïåðàòîðñêèõ ñûíîâåé, íè îá èçáðàííûõ â èòîãå äåâóøêàõ êàê ðåàëüíûõ ëè÷íîñòÿõ ìû èç ïîäîáíûõ ðàññêàçîâ óçíàòü íå ìîæåì (ð. 60). «Âûáîð íåâåñò ó Ëîãîôåòà — íå ìåíüøàÿ ôàëüñèôèêàöèÿ, ÷åì âûáîð íåâåñò â Æèòèè Ôåîäîðû, è ðàñõîæäåíèÿ ìåæäó íèìè ìîãóò áûòü îáúÿñíåíû ðàçíûìè ðèòîðè÷åñêèìè öåëÿìè ýòèõ äâóõ ñî÷èíåíèé» (ð. 41), — óòâåðæäàåò èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà; îíà íàñòîëüêî óâåðåíà â ýòîì, ÷òî äàæå íå ðàññìàòðèâàåò ðàññêàç Ëîãîôåòà â äðóãîé ñâîåé ðàáîòå, ïîñâÿùåííîé âèçàíòèéñêèì «êîíêóðñàì íåâåñò», ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî ñîîáùåíèÿ Ëîãîôåòà ïîëíîñòüþ çàâèñèò îò Æèòèÿ ñâ. Ôåîäîðû (M. VINSON, Romance and reality in Byzantine bride shows // Gender in the Early Medieval World: East and West, 300– 900 / Ed. L. BRUBAKER, J. M. H. SMITH (Cambridge, 2004) 102–120, ñì. 115, n. 8). Íî â òàêîì ñëó÷àå íåïîíÿòíî, êàêèì îáðàçîì ïîïàë ê Ëîãîôåòó ðàññêàç î Êàññèè (ñîìíèòåëüíî, ÷òîáû ôàêò åå ó÷àñòèÿ â âûáîðå íåâåñò îí âçÿë, òàê ñêàçàòü, ñ ïîòîëêà); äà è ðàñõîæäåíèÿ ìåæäó äâóìÿ ðàññêàçàìè ñëèøêîì âåëèêè, ÷òîáû èõ ìîæíî áûëî îáúÿñíèòü îäíèìè çàêîíàìè ðèòîðèêè, êàê ýòî ïûòàåòñÿ äåëàòü Âèíñîí (VINSON, The Life of Theodora… 38–41), äàâàÿ äèàëîãó ìåæäó Êàññèåé è Ôåîôèëîì ñòàíäàðíîå òîëêîâàíèå îáëè÷åíèÿ èêîíîáîðöà áëàãî÷åñòèâîé äåâèöåé è áóäóùåé çíàìåíèòîé ïåñíîïèñèöåé. Îäíàêî íèæå áóäåò ïîêàçàíî, ÷òî äèàëîã íà ñàìîì äåëå èìåë, ñêîðåå âñåãî, ñîâåðøåííî äðóãîé ñìûñë. 32 E. W. BROOKS, The Marriage of the Emperor Theophilos // BZ 10 (1901) 540– 545. 33 Ë. Ðþäåí ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî ïîáåäà Ôåîäîðû «áëàãîäàðÿ ñâîåìó áëàãî÷åñòèþ, à íå êðàñîòå» «äåëàåò âûáîð íåâåñò áåññìûñëåííûì, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ñ èñòîðè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ» (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows… 188–189, n. 52). Ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå íåïîíÿòíî: âî-ïåðâûõ, èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà òîæå áûëà î÷åíü êðàñèâà (ñì.: ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 56–57); âî-âòîðûõ, áëàãî÷åñòèå íåâåñòû öåíèëîñü íå ìåíüøå êðàñîòû — ýòî âèäíî èç òîãî æå Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî.

248

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

îñòàâèò ñâîåé çàáîòîé îñòàëüíûõ”. À äî÷ü ñòðàòèëàòà Ãåðîíòèàíà îòâåòèëà: “ß òî÷íî çíàþ, ÷òî âëàäûêà âûáåðåò ìåíÿ, òàê êàê ÿ ñàìàÿ èç âàñ áîãàòàÿ, çíàòíàÿ, êðàñèâàÿ ëèöîì è îáëèêîì; âû æå — íèùåíêè è íå èìååòå íè÷åãî, êðîìå ïðåëåñòè ëèöà, êîòîðîé êðàñóåòåñü, è ïîòîìó äîëæíû îñòàâèòü íàäåæäó”. Äåâóøêà, óñëûøàâ ýòè ðå÷è, ñìóòèëàñü è ìîë÷àëà, íî â óìå ïðèçûâàëà ñòàðöà ìîëèòüñÿ çà óñïåõ è óäà÷ó».34

Çäåñü ñðàçó âñïîìèíàåòñÿ Æèòèå Ôåîäîðû, ãäå èñòîðèÿ ñ çîëîòûì ÿáëîêîì êàê çíàêîì èçáðàíèÿ, ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â ôàíòàñòè÷åñêóþ èñòîðèþ ñ ñåìè êàíäèäàòêàìè è ñåìè ÿáëîêàìè è ñ âîçâðàùåíèåì Ôåîäîðîé Ôåîôèëó äâóõ ÿáëîê âìåñòî îäíîãî, ïðè÷åì Ôåîäîðà ðàññêàçûâàåò î òîì, êàê ïî ïóòè â Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü îíà ïðîñèëà ìîëèòâ ó ñâÿòîãî ñòàðöà:35 «Îí ñêàçàë ìíå: Àíãåë ñëàâû Áîæèåé âåí÷àåò òåáÿ öàðèöåé; ïðèìè ÿáëîêî, êîòîðîå äàñò òåáå öàðü, è ýòî, êîòîðîå ÿ äàþ òåáå; è êîãäà ãëóìÿùèåñÿ íàä òîáîþ áóäóò æàëîñòíî çàáûòû çà äâåðüìè, òû âðó÷èøü åãî öàðþ».36

Èòàê, ïàðàëëåëè î÷åâèäíû: «ãîðäàÿ» è «çëîÿçû÷íàÿ» Êàññèÿ37 íå õî÷åò ñìèðåííî ïåðåíåñòè âûïàä èìïåðàòîðà ïðîòèâ æåíùèí, è êîðîíà â ðåçóëüòàòå äîñòàåòñÿ «ñìèðåííîé» Ôåîäîðå, êîòîðàÿ ìîë÷èò è óïîâàåò íà ìîëèòâû ñâ. ñòàðöà, — ãîðäÿ÷êà Ãåðîíòèàíà, çëîñëîâÿùàÿ ñâîèõ ñîïåðíèö, ïðîèãðûâàåò ñìèðåííîé Ìàðèè, ïðèçûâàþùåé ìîëèòâû ñâîåãî äåäà ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà.38 Ìîæíî ñäåëàòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Íèêèòà äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìîã íàïèñàòü Æèòèå Ôèëàðåòà, èìåÿ â âèäó óãîäèòü èìïåðàòðèöå — íî íå Åâôðîñèíå, à Ôåîäîðå, ïðîâåäÿ ëåñòíûå äëÿ íåå ïàðàëëåëè, è äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïåðåáðàòüñÿ áëèæå êî äâîðó, — òåì áîëåå ÷òî Ôåîäîðà áûëà ðîÖèòèðóþ ðóñ. ïåð. ïî èçäàíèþ: Âèçàíòèéñêèå ëåãåíäû / Èçä. ïîäã. Ñ. Â. ÏÎ(ÑÏá., 2004) (Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàìÿòíèêè) 107. 35 Ýòî áûë ñâ. Èñàèÿ, çàòâîðíèê Íèêîìèäèéñêèé. 36 Ïðèâîæó ðóñ. ïåð., ñäåëàííûé Á. Ìåëèîðàíñêèì â åãî ñòàòüå (Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè… 12–13). Èññëåäîâàòåëü, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, âåðíî ïðåäïîëîæèë, ÷òî ïîâåñòü î âûáîðå íåâåñò â «Æèòèè Ôåîäîðû» ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé «ïîëåìè÷åñêèé pendant ê ïîâåñòè î Êàññèè, ïåðåøåäøåé â õðîíèêó Ëîãîôåòà» (ñ. 12). 37 Èçâåñòíàÿ êàê àâòîð ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ýïèãðàìì, ïîðîé äîâîëüíî åäêèõ è ðåçêèõ. 38 Ýòó ïàðàëëåëü îòìåòèë è Ë. Ðþäåí, íî ñäåëàë ñâîé îáû÷íûé âûâîä, ÷òî âûáîð íåâåñò ÿâëÿåòñÿ «ëèòåðàòóðíûì ìîòèâîì», â òîì ÷èñëå è ïîòîìó, ÷òî ðàññêàç î Êàññèè áûë ïðèäóìàí, ÷òîáû ëèøíèé ðàç óïðåêíóòü Ôåîôèëà â èêîíîáîð÷åñòâå (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows… 188); îäíàêî íèæå ÿ ïîñòàðàþñü ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî òåìà ïîëåìèêè ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà âî âðåìÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà âîîáùå íå ìîãëà âîçíèêíóòü. 34

ËßÊÎÂÀ

Т. А. Сенина

249

äîì èç Ïàôëàãîíèè, êàê è ñâ. Ôèëàðåò,39 à ïîñëå òîãî êàê Ôåîäîðà ñòàëà æåíîé Ôåîôèëà, åå ðîäñòâåííèêè çàíÿëè âèäíûå ìåñòà ïðè äâîðå. Ýòî íå îáÿçàòåëüíî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî ñàìîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò â 788 ã. íå áûëî — ñêîðåå âñåãî, îí áûë, — íî ìîæåò îçíà÷àòü, ÷òî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà, ñâÿçàííûå ñ òåì, êàê Ìàðèÿ ñòàëà èìïåðàòðèöåé, áûëè îïèñàíû ïîä âïå÷àòëåíèåì òîëüêî ÷òî ïðîèñøåäøèõ ïðè äâîðå ñîáûòèé. 40 Òåïåðü îáðàòèìñÿ ê õðîíîëîãèè.

821-È ËÎË 830-È? Âûáîð íåâåñò è æåíèòüáà èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà äàòèðóåòñÿ 821-ì41 èëè 83042 ãîäîì. Áîëüøèíñòâî ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé ïðèíèìàÁûòü ìîæåò, èõ ñåìüè äàæå çíàëè äðóã äðóãà. Òðåäãîëüä çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî íåñêîëüêî ñòðàííî âûãëÿäåëà áû çàòåÿ Íèêèòû ïåðåáðàòüñÿ áëèæå êî äâîðó ÷åðåç ïðåïîäíåñåíèå Ìèõàèëó ÉÉ è åãî íîâîé ñóïðóãå Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà, åñëè áû èñòîðèÿ ñ âûáîðîì íåâåñò äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI áûëà áû âûäóìêîé, — âåäü åñëè íå Ìèõàèë, òî Åâôðîñèíà äîëæíà áûëà òî÷íî çíàòü ðåàëüíûå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà çàìóæåñòâà ñîáñòâåííîé ìàòåðè, è íåïîíÿòíî, êàê íàäåÿëñÿ Íèêèòà çàñòàâèòü èõ ïîâåðèòü â ñâîþ âûäóìêó (TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows… 40–41). Ýòî, îäíàêî, íå î÷åíü ñèëüíûé àðãóìåíò, âåäü ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Íèêèòà ìîã íàäåÿòüñÿ íà ðåàêöèþ âðîäå: «åñëè áû ýòîãî íå áûëî, ýòî íàäî áûëî áû âûäóìàòü». Íî, êàê óæå áûëî ïîêàçàíî, ñâÿçü ìåæäó íàïèñàíèåì Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà è âòîðîé æåíèòüáîé Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà íåâîçìîæíà õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè. 41 BROOKS, The Marriage of the Emperor Theophilos…; J. B. BURY, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912) 81, 465–467; L. BRÉHIER, Vie et mort de Byzance (Paris, 1948) (L’évolution de l’humanité 32) 105; C. MANGO, Eudocia Ingerina, the Normans, and the Macedonian Dynasty // Çáîðíèê ðàäîâà Âèçàíòèëîøêîã èíñòèòóòà 14–15 (1973) 15–27; A. DIKIGOROPOULOS, The Constantinopolitan solidi of Theophilus // DOP 18 (1964) 353–361; JENKINS, Byzantium… 141; Ph. GRIERSON, A. R. BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection. Vol. III: Leo III to Nicephorus III, 717–1081. Pt. 1 (Washington, 1973) 406; Prosopographie der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit… # 7286 (p. 344, 347, n. 1), # 8167 (p. 629, 632, n. 1). Ò. À. ÌÅÑÕÈ (Æèçíü è òâîð÷åñòâî âèçàíòèéñêîé ïîýòåññû IX â. Êàññèè. Àâòîðåôåðàò äèññåðòàöèè íà ñîèñêàíèå ó÷åíîé ñòåïåíè êàíäèäàòà ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèõ íàóê (Òáèëèñè, 1988) 6) äàòèðóåò âûáîð íåâåñò 823 ãîäîì. 42 Ê. KRUMÂACHER, Kasia // Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der historischen Classe der k. b. Academie der Wissenschaften (1887) Bd. 1. 305– 370; ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ, Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè…; Å. Ý. ËÈÏØÈÖ, Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè âèçàíòèéñêîãî îáùåñòâà è êóëüòóðû VIII – ïåðâàÿ ïîëîâèíà IX âåêà (Ì.—Ë., 1961) 309–338; ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person… 18; W. T. TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage of the Emperor Theophilus // Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975) 325–341; â ïîñëåäíåé ñâîåé ñòàòüå î âûáîðå íåâåñò îí ïðîäîëæàåò íàñòàèâàòü íà ýòîé äàòå: TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows… 43–44. 39

40

250

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

þò ïîñëåäíþþ äàòó, îñíîâûâàÿñü íà ñòàòüå Â. Òðåäãîëüäà,43 ïîýòîìó ÿ õî÷ó ðàçîáðàòü åãî àðãóìåíòàöèþ ïîäðîáíî.

»ÒÚÓ˜ÌËÍË Â. Òðåäãîëüä íàñòàèâàåò, ÷òî èç âñåõ äîøåäøèõ äî íàñ õðîíèê ìû äîëæíû áîëåå âñåãî äîâåðÿòü õðîíèêå Ñèìåîíà Ëîãîôåòà,44 à ê õðîíèêàì Ãåíåñèÿ è Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà îòíîñèòüñÿ î÷åíü êðèòè÷åñêè, ïîñêîëüêó â íèõ ñîäåðæèòñÿ ìíîãî õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîé ïóòàíèöû è ôàëüñèôèêàöèé.45 Ññûëàÿñü íà Æ. Áþðè, èññëåäîâàòåëü óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà ïðè ñîñòàâëåíèè ñâîåé õðîíèêè èñïîëüçîâàë Ãåíåñèÿ è êàêèå-òî èç èñòî÷íèêîâ ïîñëåäíåãî.46 Íî Ï. Êàðëèí-Õàéòåð47 è ß. Ëþáàðñêèé ïîêàçàëè, ÷òî ýòà òåîðèÿ Áþðè íåïðèåìëåìà: Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà è Ãåíåñèé ïèñàëè íåçàâèñèìî äðóã îò äðóãà, õîòÿ è èñïîëüçîâàëè íåêèé îáùèé èñòî÷íèê, èç êîòîðîãî êàæäûé àâòîð áðàë ñâîå, «ïðè÷åì îòíþäü íå îáÿçàòåëüíî òî æå ñàìîå, ÷òî è åãî êîëëåãà», ïðè ýòîì Ïðîäîëæàòåëü è åãî èñòî÷íèê «ãîðàçäî áëèæå ê èñòèíå, íåæåëè Ãåíåñèé».48 Ìåòîäû èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ðàáîòû Òðåäãîëüäà îáùåèçâåñòíû (ñì., íàïð., ñîâåðøåííî óáèéñòâåííûé ðàçáîð îäíîé èç åãî ïîñëåäíèõ ìîíîãðàôèé: W. BRANDES, [ðåö. íà:] W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford, 1997) // BZ 95/2 (2002) 716–725; Áðàíäåñ ãîâîðèò î «øîêèðóþùåì» êîëè÷åñòâå îøèáîê è íåòî÷íîñòåé â ìîíîãðàôèè, ìàëóþ òîëèêó êîòîðûõ îí ðàçáèðàåò â ðåöåíçèè, — è ýòî ïîìèìî êðèòèêè íàó÷íîãî ìåòîäà Òðåäãîëüäà â öåëîì, — è äàæå ïðÿìî ïðåäîñòåðåãàåò ÷èòàòåëåé îò èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè); îäíàêî åãî ñòàòüÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ âûáîðó íåâåñò, ïî÷åìó-òî âûçâàëà ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñåîáùåå äîâåðèå ñðåäè ó÷åíûõ. 44 Ýòîìó âîïðîñó îí ïîñâÿòèë è îòäåëüíóþ ñòàòüþ: W. T. TREADGOLD, The Chronological accuracy of the Chronicle of Symeon the Logothet for the years 813– 845 // DOP 33 (1979) 157–197, ãäå ðàçâèë è ïðîäîëæèë ñîîáðàæåíèÿ, èçëîæåííûå ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî â ñòàòüå î âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà. Îäíàêî, íàïðèìåð, Ê. Ìýíãî çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî åñëè õðîíèêà ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà äåéñòâèòåëüíî òî÷íà â õðîíîëîãèè äëÿ ïåðèîäà öàðñòâîâàíèé Âàñèëèÿ I è Ëüâà VI (äîêàçàòåëüñòâó ÷åãî Ð. Äæåíêèíñ ïîñâÿòèë îòäåëüíóþ ñòàòüþ: R. J. H. JENKINS, The Chronological accuracy of the «Logothete» for the Years A. D. 867–913 // DOP 19 (1965) 91–112), òî äëÿ ïåðèîäà äî Âàñèëèÿ I îíà òî÷íà äàëåêî íå âñåãäà (C. MANGO, When was Michael III born? // DOP 21 (1967) 253–258; ñì. 256–257). Ï. Êàðëèí-Õàéòåð òàêæå îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà è Ãåíåñèé áîëåå ïðàâäèâû, íåæåëè Ëîãîôåò (P. KARLIN-HAYTER, Études sur les deux histories du règne de Michel III // Byz 41 (1971) 452–496; ñì. 469). 45 TREADGOLD, The Chronological accuracy… 160. 46 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 326. 47 KARLIN-HAYTER, Études sur les deux histories... 48 ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÈÉ, Ñî÷èíåíèå Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà. Õðîíèêà, èñòîðèÿ, æèçíåîïèñàíèÿ? // Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, Æèçíåîïèñàíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ öàðåé… 201–265; öèò. 227, 230. 43

Т. А. Сенина

251

Êðîìå òîãî, Ô. Áàðèøè÷ ïîêàçàë,49 ÷òî ïðè íàïèñàíèè êíèãè î Ìèõàèëå II Ãåíåñèé è Ïðîäîëæàòåëü ïîëüçîâàëèñü êàê îñíîâíûì èñòî÷íèêîì íå äîøåäøåé äî íàñ «Èñòîðèåé» Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà, î êîòîðîé óïîìèíàåò ñâ. ïàòðèàðõ Ôîòèé â ñâîåé «Áèáëèîòåêå» (êîäåêñ 67).50 Ýòî F. BARIŠIÆ, Les sources de Génésios et du Continuateur de Théophane pour l’histoire de Michel II (820–829) // BZ 31/2 (1961) 257–271. 50 Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ îòêàçûâàåòñÿ ïðèíÿòü âåðñèþ Áàðèøè÷à, ÷òî «áîæåñòâåííûõ ìóæåé», íà ÷üè ïàìôëåòû ïðîòèâ Ìèõàèëà II îïèðàëñÿ Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, ìîæíî èäåíòèôèöèðîâàòü ñ Ñåðãèåì Èñïîâåäíèêîì, îäíàêî åãî àðãóìåíòàöèÿ ìíå íå êàæåòñÿ óáåäèòåëüíîé. Åå ðàçáîð â ðàìêàõ äàííîé ñòàòüè óâåë áû íàñ äàëåêî â ñòîðîíó îò òåìû, ïîýòîìó îãðàíè÷óñü ëèøü íåñêîëüêèìè çàìå÷àíèÿìè. Âûçûâàåò óäèâëåíèå óòâåðæäåíèå, ÷òî èñòî÷íèê Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ íå áûë «óëüòðà-èêîíîôèëüñêèì», ïîñêîëüêó «èêîíîáîð÷åñòâî äåéñòâèòåëüíî óïîìÿíóòî â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåì ïàññàæå, íî èìïåðàòîð — íåò. Íàïðîòèâ, òàì, ãäå îáëè÷àåòñÿ íå÷åñòèå Ìèõàèëà, èêîíû íå óïîìÿíóòû» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 31, ïðèì. 65). Âîò ÷òî ãîâîðèò Ïðîäîëæàòåëü (ÏÔ II, 8; ThCont 47:16–48:11, 48:19–49:4; öèòèðóþ ïåðåâîä ß. Í. Ëþáàðñêîãî, êóðñèâ ìîé): «Óæå êîãäà âçÿë Ìèõàèë â ñâîè ðóêè ñàìîäåðæàâíóþ âëàñòü è ðàñïîðÿæàëñÿ åþ ïî âîëå ñâîåé, íàïðàâèë åìó ïèñüìî áëàæåííûé Íèêèôîð, ïðîñÿ âîçðîäèòü âåðó è âîññòàíîâèòü ïî÷èòàíèå áîæåñòâåííûõ èêîí. È îòâåòèë åìó Ìèõàèë: “Íå ââîäèòü íîâøåñòâà â äîãìàòû âåðû ïðèøåë ÿ è íå ðàçðóøàòü è óíè÷òîæàòü çàâåùàííîå è óñòàíîâëåííîå. Ïóñòü êàæäûé ïîñòóïàåò ïî ñâîåé âîëå è æåëàíèþ è äà íå ïîçíàåò ãîðÿ è íå âêóñèò ñòðàäàíèÿ”. Íî íå ñîáëþë ñâîåãî ðåøåíèÿ äî êîíöà òîò, êòî è ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà íå áûë èñòèííûì õðèñòèàíèíîì. ×åì äîëüøå âëàäåë îí öàðñêîé âëàñòüþ, òåì ñ áîëüøåé æåñòîêîñòüþ è ïðèðîäíîé çëîáîé ðàçäóâàë Ìèõàèë ïëàìÿ âîéíû ïðîòèâ õðèñòèàí è ñîïëåìåííèêîâ è òî â ïðåçðåíèè ê ìîíàõàì ïîäâåðãàë èõ âñåâîçìîæíûì óæàñàì è âñå âðåìÿ âûèñêèâàë äëÿ íèõ íîâûå íàêàçàíèÿ, òî çàêëþ÷àë â òþðüìû è îòïðàâëÿë â ññûëêó ïðî÷èõ ïðåäàííûõ âåðå. Ïîòîìó-òî è èçãíàë îí èç ãîðîäà Ìåôîäèÿ, âñêîðå ïîòîì çàíÿâøåãî ïàòðèàðøèé ïðåñòîë, à òàêæå Åâôèìèÿ — â òî âðåìÿ Ñàðäñêîãî ìèòðîïîëèòà, òàê êàê îáà îòêàçàëèñü ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ åãî âîëå è íå îòðåøèëèñü îò ïî÷èòàíèÿ èêîí. (…) Æèâîïèñöû âîñïðîèçâîäÿò ïðåêðàñíåéøèõ èç æèâûõ ñóùåñòâ, à ýòîò çà ïðîîáðàç è îáðàçåö âçÿë äëÿ ñåáÿ æèçíü Êîïðîíèìà, êîòîðîé è ñòàðàëñÿ èçî âñåõ ñèë ïîäðàæàòü. Îí äîøåë äî âåðøèí íå÷åñòèÿ: ïðèêàçàë ïîñòèòüñÿ â ñóááîòó è îòòî÷èë ñâîé ÿçûê ïðîòèâ áîæüèõ ïðîðîêîâ, íå âåðèë â ãðÿäóùåå âîñêðåñåíüå (…)». Âî-ïåðâûõ, íåïîíÿòíî, ãäå òóò îñíîâàíèå äëÿ óòâåðæäåíèÿ, ÷òî «“áîæåñòâåííûå ìóæè” Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ íè÷åãî îá èêîíàõ íå ãîâîðÿò» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 31). Âî-âòîðûõ, î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî õðîíèñò (è åãî èñòî÷íèê) îáëè÷àåò Ìèõàèëà íå òîëüêî çà èêîíîáîð÷åñòâî, íî è çà ìíîãèå äðóãèå «íå÷åñòèâûå äåÿíèÿ»; è ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî ýòèõ «äåÿíèé» îêàçûâàåòñÿ ãîðàçäî áîëüøå, ÷åì âûñòóïëåíèé ïðîòèâ èêîí, — âåäü Ìèõàèë íèêîãäà è íå áûë îæåñòî÷åííûì èêîíîáîðöåì. Âðÿä ëè Ñåðãèé Èñïîâåäíèê ïðè âñåì æåëàíèè ìîã íàéòè ìíîãî ñâèäåòåëüñòâ èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà Ìèõàèëà, êðîìå òîãî, ÷òî îí îòêàçàëñÿ âîññòàíîâèòü èêîíîïî÷èòàíèå è çàêëþ÷èë â òåìíèöó ñâ. Ìåôîäèÿ; ïîýòîìó âïîëíå îáúÿñíèìî ïîÿâëåíèå âî îáëè÷åíèå Ìèõàèëà ðàçíûõ äðóãèõ åãî «äåÿíèé». Àôèíîãåíîâ ññûëàåòñÿ íà «óáåäèòåëüíóþ àðãóìåíòàöèþ» Õ. ʸïøòåéí 49

252

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

î÷åíü âàæíûé ôàêò, ïîñêîëüêó Ñåðãèé Èñïîâåäíèê áûë ñîâðåìåííèêîì Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà è îïèñàë, ïî ñëîâàì Ôîòèÿ, èñòîðèþ åãî öàðñòâîâàíèÿ äîâîëüíî ïîäðîáíî. Ìåæäó òåì, îáà õðîíèñòà, íåçàâèñèìî äðóã îò äðóãà, ïîâåñòâóþò î òîì, ÷òî Ôåîôèë âìåñòå ñ îòöîì çàùèùàë Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü âî âðåìÿ îñàäû åãî Ôîìîé Ñëàâÿíèíîì çèìîé 821/822 ãã., — à çíà÷èò, ýòîò ôàêò èìååò âñå øàíñû áûòü ðåàëüíûì, à íå âûäóìàííûì, è êðîìå òîãî, âçÿòûì èç ñîâðåìåííîãî ñîáûòèÿì èñòî÷íèêà.51 Â. Òðåä(èìååòñÿ â âèäó ñòàòüÿ: H. KÖPSTEIN, Zur Erhebung des Thomas // Studien zum 8. und 9. Jahrhundert in Byzanz / Hrsg. H. Köpstein, F. Winkelmann (Berlin, 1983) (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, 51) 61–87; ñì.: 64, n. 24), íî åå âûâîäû íà ñàìîì äåëå âåñüìà îñòîðîæíû: èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà âñåãî ëèøü îòêàçûâàåòñÿ ñ÷èòàòü âåðñèþ Áàðèøè÷à îá àâòîðñòâå Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà îêîí÷àòåëüíîé, çàìå÷àÿ, ÷òî õðîíèêà «äîõîäèò òîëüêî äî âîñüìîãî ãîäà ïðàâëåíèÿ Ìèõàèëà, òàê ÷òî îíà ìîãëà áûòü çàâåðøåíà åùå âî âðåìÿ åãî ïðàâëåíèÿ è â ýòîì ñëó÷àå íå ìîãëà áû áûòü ïîä÷åðêíóòî íåãàòèâíîé». Îäíàêî åñòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Ñåðãèé Èñïîâåäíèê íà÷àë ïèñàòü ñâîþ õðîíèêó óæå ïîñëå ñìåðòè Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà (÷òî áûëî áû íàèáîëåå åñòåñòâåííî), íî íå óñïåë åå äîâåñòè äî êîíöà, ò. ê. áûë îòïðàâëåí â ññûëêó èìïåðàòîðîì Ôåîôèëîì îêîëî 833 ã. — ìîæåò áûòü, âñëåäñòâèå òîãî, ÷òî îáíàðîäîâàë êàêèå-òî îòðûâêè èç ñâîåãî òðóäà (Ñ. MANGO, The Liquidation of Iconoclasm and the Patriarch Photios // Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. University of Birmingham. March 1975 / Ed. A. Bryer, J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977) 133–140; ñì. 139). Åùå îäèí àðãóìåíò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî ïàòðèàðõ Ôîòèé íàçûâàåò «Èñòîðèþ» Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà «Îáëè÷èòåëüíûì ñëîâîì ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîðöåâ» («Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 42). Îäíàêî ʸïøòåéí â êîíöå òîãî ñàìîãî ïðèì. 24 (íà êîòîðîå Àôèíîãåíîâ ññûëàåòñÿ íà òîé æå ñ. 42!) ïèøåò: «Íàäî îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå, ÷òî íàïå÷àòàííûé åùå ó Ìèíÿ (PG 103, 164B) çàãîëîâîê Óåñãßïõ ôï™ FÏìïëïãçôéêï™ óôçëéåõôéê’í ô§í åkêïíïìÜ÷ùí ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé çàìåòêó íà ïîëÿõ, äàòèðóåìóþ 15-ì âåêîì, è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, íå èìåþùóþ êðèòè÷åñêîé âàæíîñòè», ñàì æå Ôîòèé ãîâîðèò òîëüêî, ÷òî «áûëà ïðî÷èòàíà [êíèãà] Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà», — íî Àôèíîãåíîâ îá ýòîì óìàë÷èâàåò, öèòèðóÿ Ôîòèÿ èìåííî ïî PG, õîòÿ ñ òîãî âðåìåíè óæå âûøëî êðèòè÷åñêîå èçäàíèå, â êîòîðîì óïîìÿíóòîãî çàãîëîâêà íå ñîäåðæèòñÿ (PHOTIUS, Bibliothèque / Ed. R. HENRY. 8 vols (Paris, 1:1959; 2:1960; 3:1962; 4:1965; 5:1967; 6:1971; 7:1974; 8:1977) ñì.: Vol. 1. 99). È óæ ñîâñåì ñòðàííî âûãëÿäèò óòâåðæäåíèå Àôèíîãåíîâà («Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 41–42), ÷òî íàèìåíîâàíèå «áîæåñòâåííûå ìóæè» ìîæåò áûòü ïðèëîæåíî ê Ñåðãèþ Èñïîâåäíèêó ëèøü «ñ íàòÿæêîé», ïîñêîëüêó îí «íå áûë íè ñâÿùåííèêîì, íè ìîíàõîì». Òî, ÷òî Ñåðãèé áûë èñïîâåäíèêîì è ïîñòðàäàë çà ïðàâîñëàâèå, — âïîëíå äîñòàòî÷íûé ïîâîä äëÿ òàêîãî íàèìåíîâàíèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó «áîæåñòâåííûå ìóæè» ýòî íå òîëüêî «ïðèíàäëåæàùèå ê äóõîâíîìó ñîñëîâèþ», à âîîáùå ñâÿòûå, êîòîðûå ìîãóò è íå èìåòü íèêàêîãî ñàíà. 51 Õîòÿ «Èñòîðèÿ» Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà ïðåäñòàâëÿëà ñîáîé ïàìôëåò íà èìïåðàòîðà Ìèõàèëà, îíà â òî æå âðåìÿ ñîäåðæàëà ìíîæåñòâî ðåàëüíûõ ôàêòîâ è ïîäðîáíîñòåé; à òàêèå ôàêòû êàê ó÷àñòèå Ôåîôèëà â ñðàæåíèÿõ è â êðåñòíîì õîäå ñ ðèçîé Áîãîìàòåðè ïî ñòåíàì îñàæäåííîãî Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëÿ íèêàê íå ìîãóò áûòü ÷àñòüþ çàâåäîìûõ ïàìôëåòíûõ âûäóìîê.

Т. А. Сенина

253

ãîëüä îòáðàñûâàåò åãî êàê íåäîñòîâåðíûé, àðãóìåíòèðóÿ ýòî òåì, ÷òî ðàññêàç áûë âçÿò èç íåêîåãî «àíîíèìíîãî, êîðîòêîãî è èñêàæåííîãî îïèñàíèÿ îñàäû», ÷òîáû ïðèïèñàòü Ôåîôèëó âîåííûå ïîäâèãè, «êîòîðûõ åìó çàìåòíî íåäîñòàâàëî».52 Ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå ïî ñóòè áåçäîêàçàòåëüíî,53 íî îáúÿñíèìî: âåäü îäèí òîëüêî ôàêò ó÷àñòèÿ Ôåîôèëà â âîåííîé êàìïàíèè 822 ãîäà ñîâåðøåííî ðàçðóøàåò âñþ õðîíîëîãèþ, âûñòðîåííóþ Òðåäãîëüäîì.

–ÓʉÂÌË ‘ÂÓÙË· Ôåîôèë áûë ñûíîì Ìèõàèëà II Òðàâëà îò åãî ïåðâîé æåíû Ôåêëû. Äæ. Õåððèí çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî îêîí÷àòåëüíûé âûâîä îòíîñèòåëüíî äàòû ðîæäåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà çàâèñèò îò ïðèìåðíîé äàòû ñâàäüáû Ìèõàèëà è Ôåêëû, íî, ïî ìíåíèþ èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöû, ýòó äàòó íåâîçìîæíî ÿñíî óñòàíîâèòü.54 Îäíàêî ìíå ýòî íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ñîâåðøåííî íåâîçìîæíûì. Åñëè ïðèíÿòü çà äàòó ðîæäåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà (ñêîðåå âñåãî, ïåðâåíöà Ìèõàèëà) 812/813 ã., òî Ìèõàèë ìîã âñòóïèòü â áðàê îêîëî 811 ã.  òî æå âðåìÿ èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Ìèõàèë íà÷àë ñëóæáó â àðìèè åùå äî 803 ã., «êîãäà âîçìóæàë»,55 ò. å., âåðîÿòíî, äîñòèã âîçðàñòà 18–20 ëåò.  òàêîì ñëó÷àå íå î÷åíü ïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó îí òàê ïîçäíî æåíèëñÿ; åñëè æå âåðèòü ñîîáùåíèÿì õðîíèñòîâ, æåíèëñÿ îí ñóùåñòâåííî ðàíüøå. Ïðàâäèâîé èëè íåò ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñòîðèÿ î æåíèòüáå Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà íà äî÷åðè ñòðàòèãà, åå íàëè÷èå â õðîíèêàõ ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî æåíèòüáà Ìèõàèëà, ñêîðåå âñåãî, èìåëà ìåñòî äî ìÿòåæà Âàðäàíà Òóðêà è, âîçìîæíî, åñëè âåðèòü Ïðîäîëæàòåëþ Ôåîôàíà, äàæå äî òîãî, êàê Âàðäàí áûë íàçíà÷åí ìîíîñòðàòèãîì âîñòî÷íûõ ôåì,56 — è óæ ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå íå ïîçæå èþëÿ TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336. Ñòðàííî âûãëÿäèò óæå òî, ÷òî Òðåäãîëüä îòâåðãàåò ôàêò ó÷àñòèÿ Ôåîôèëà â âîåííûõ äåéñòâèÿõ, íî ïðèíèìàåò, íàïðèìåð, ôàêò åãî ó÷àñòèÿ â êðåñòíîì õîäå (Ibid. 337), õîòÿ ÷åì ìîæíî äîêàçàòü, ÷òî ýòîò ïîñëåäíèé òîæå íå âçÿò èç «èñêàæåííîãî îïèñàíèÿ îñàäû», íåïîíÿòíî. 54 J. HERRIN, Women in Purple. Rulers of Medieval Byzantium (London, 2001) 282, n. 87. 55 Èëè «áûë â ðàñöâåòå ñèë» (ÏÔ II, 5; ThCont 44:11). 56 Ïðîäîëæàòåëü (ÏÔ II, 7; ThCont 46:8–10) ãîâîðèò, ÷òî ïðîðî÷åñòâî ìîíàõà-àôèíãàíèíà, â ðåçóëüòàòå êîòîðîãî Ìèõàèë æåíèëñÿ íà äî÷åðè ñâîåãî ñòðàòèãà, èìåëî ìåñòî ðàíüøå ïðîðî÷åñòâà ôèëîìèëèéñêîãî îòøåëüíèêà Âàðäàíó Òóðêó. Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ ïîêàçàë, ÷òî òåñòü Ìèõàèëà è Âàðäàí — íå îäíî è òî æå ëèöî (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 16–19); â òî æå âðåìÿ ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ ñêàçàíî, ÷òî Ìèõàèë è Ôîìà êî âðåìåíè íàçíà÷åíèÿ Âàðäàíà êîìàíäîâàòü âîñòî÷íûìè ôåìàìè «òîëüêî ÷òî ñòàëè èçâåñòíû âîèíñêèì íà÷àëüíèêàì» (ÏÔ I, 1; ThCont 7:4–5). Ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî ñòðàòèã, íà ÷üåé äî÷åðè æåíèëñÿ Ìèõàèë, áûë ñòðàòèãîì ôåìû Àíàòîëèê äî ïîÿâëåíèÿ òàì Âàðäàíà. 52 53

254

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

803 ã. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Ôåîôèë ìîã ðîäèòüñÿ â 804/805 ã., à çíà÷èò, â 821 ã. åìó áûëî îêîëî 16–17 ëåò — êàê ðàç ïîäõîäÿùèé âîçðàñò äëÿ æåíèòüáû. Ïîñêîëüêó ïîñëå ïðîâàëà ìÿòåæà Âàðäàíà Ìèõàèë ñòàë êîìèñêîðòîì â ôåìå Àíàòîëèê,57 òî Ôåîôèë äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âèäèìî, ðîäèëñÿ â Àìîðèè; òàì æå åãî êðåñòèëè, è êðåñòíûì îòöîì åãî ñòàë Ëåâ Àðìÿíèí, ñ êîòîðûì, êàê äî åãî ññûëêè ïðè èìïåðàòîðå Íèêèôîðå, òàê è ïîñëå åãî âîçâðàùåíèÿ êî äâîðó ïðè Ìèõàèëå I, Ìèõàèë Òðàâë ñîñòîÿë â äðóæåñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ.58

 ÓÓ̇ˆËˇ Àíàëèçèðóÿ îïèñàíèå êîðîíàöèè è ñâàäüáû Ôåîôèëà â õðîíèêàõ ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà, Â. Òðåäãîëüä çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî òå îïèñàíèÿ, ãäå óïîìèíàåòñÿ ñîâåðøåíèå êîðîíàöèè è áðàêà â îäèí è òîò æå äåíü, íå ñîãëàñóþòñÿ ñ ïðîòîêîëîì «Êíèãè öåðåìîíèé», è ÷òî âðÿä ëè ïîäîáíàÿ ïóòàíèöà59 ìîãëà èìåòü ìåñòî ïðè äâîðå Ìèõàèëà II, — à ïîòîìó ñâàäüáà íà ñàìîì äåëå íå ñîâåðøàëàñü â 821 ã. âìåñòå ñ êîðîíàöèåé.60 Òàêîé àðãóìåíò âûãëÿäèò íåóáåäèòåëüíî: õðîíèêà ýòî íå öåðåìîíèàëüíûé ïðîòîêîë, è ñòðàííî áûëî áû òðåáîâàòü îò íåå ñòðîãîé òî÷íîñòè âûðàæåíèé. Êðîìå òîãî, âûðàæåíèå ›ð’ (èëè äéÜ) ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ äîâîëüíî óïîòðåáèòåëüíî ïðè îïèñàíèè êîðîíàöèè ñîïðàâèòåëÿ: íàïðèìåð, Ôåîôàí Èñïîâåäíèê, îïèñûâàÿ êîðîíàöèþ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ãîâîðèò, ÷òî Íèêèôîð âåí÷àë ñûíà íà öàðñòâî «ñ ïîìîùüþ Òàðàñèÿ, ñâÿòåéøåãî ïàòðèàðõà»;61 à ïðè îïèñàíèè êîðîíàöèè Ôåîôèëàêòà Ìèõàèëîì Ðàíãàâå, óïîòðåáëÿåò êàê ðàç âûðàæåíèå ›ð’ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ: «âåí÷àë Ôåîôèëàêòà, ñûíà ñâîåãî, ÷åðåç ïîñðåäÑì.: ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 18. Â. Òðåäãîëüä óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî äî íà÷àëà öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ëüâà ýòîãî íå ìîãëî áûòü, ïîñêîëüêó «Ìèõàèë è Ëåâ, êàê êàæåòñÿ, íå áûëè â õîðîøèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ â òî âðåìÿ», ïîñêîëüêó Ìèõàèë äàæå ãðîçèëñÿ óáèòü Ëüâà, åñëè òîò íå ïðèìåò ïðîâîçãëàøåíèÿ èìïåðàòîðîì â 813 ã. (TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 337). Îäíàêî, êàê ïîêàçàë Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, êàê ðàç ýòîò ýïèçîä ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î òîì, ÷òî â òî âðåìÿ Ìèõàèë óæå «ñ÷èòàëñÿ îäíèì èç ñàìûõ äîâåðåííûõ è ïðåäàííûõ ëþäåé ïðè áóäóùåì èìïåðàòîðå» (÷òî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñ ñîîáùåíèåì Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà I, 4; ThCont 12:10–14), è îòíîøåíèÿ èõ «áûëè áåçîáëà÷íûìè» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 23–24). 59 Íàïðèìåð, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë êîðîíîâàí ïàòðèàðõîì (›ð’ EÁíôùíßïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ), â òî âðåìÿ êàê îí, â êà÷åñòâå ñîïðàâèòåëÿ, äîëæåí áûë áûòü êîðîíîâàí èìïåðàòîðîì Ìèõàèëîì II ëèøü â ïðèñóòñòâèè ïàòðèàðõà; ÷òî ñëîâî óôÝöïò îáîçíà÷àåò âåíåö áðà÷íûé, à íå öàðñêèé; èëè ÷òî âåí÷àíèå ñîèìïåðàòîðà äîëæíî áûëî ïðîõîäèòü â Ñâÿòîé Ñîôèè, à íå â õðàìå Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà. 60 Ñì.: TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 328–329. 61 hóôåøå Íéêçöüñïò ô’í õj’í ášôï™ ÓôáõñÜêéïí äéN Ôáñáóßïõ, ôï™ QãéùôÜôïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ, dí ô² Tìâùíé ôyò ìåãÜëçò dêêëçóßáò åkò âáóéëÝá (Theophanis Chronographia / Ed. C. de BOOR (Lipsiae, 1883) 480:11–13). 57 58

Т. А. Сенина

255

ñòâî Íèêèôîðà ïàòðèàðõà».62 Ïîýòîìó âûðàæåíèå Ëîãîôåòà óôåöèårò ›ð’ EÁíôùíßïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ íå ïîçâîëÿåò äåëàòü òàêèõ äàëåêî èäóùèõ âûâîäîâ, êàêèå ñîäåðæàòñÿ â ñòàòüå Òðåäãîëüäà. Âîîáùå, åñëè ãîâîðèòü î «ïóòàíèöå», òî óæå ñàìà ôðàçà Ëîãîôåòà ñîäåðæèò åå: Ôåîôèë «âåí÷àåò Ôåîäîðó â åâêòèðèè Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà, âåí÷àâøèñü63 è ñàì ñ íåé Àíòîíèåì ïàòðèàðõîì».64 Íî, ñîãëàñíî ïðîòîêîëó «Êíèãè öåðåìîíèé», âåí÷àíèå Àâãóñòû ñîâåðøàåòñÿ íå â õðàìå Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà, à â Àâãóñòåå; Òðåäãîëüä çàìå÷àåò ýòî, íî íå ïðèäàåò íèêàêîãî çíà÷åíèÿ, çàìå÷àÿ ëèøü, ÷òî «òî÷íåå, êîðîíàöèÿ èìïåðàòðèöû ïðîâîäèëàñü êàê ðàç ñíàðóæè õðàìà Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà»,65 — ïî÷åìó-òî íå âèäÿ çäåñü íèêàêîé «ïóòàíèöû».

ΔÂϘÛÊÌ˚È ÚËÍÎËÌ Äàëåå Â. Òðåäãîëüä âûäâèãàåò â êà÷åñòâå àðãóìåíòà òî, ÷òî Æåì÷óæíûé òðèêëèí, â êîòîðîì, ñîãëàñíî Ëîãîôåòó, ïðîõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñò, åùå íå áûë ïîñòðîåí â 821 ã., ò. ê. åãî ïîñòðîèë ñàì Ôåîôèë — êàê ïðåäïîëàãàåò èññëåäîâàòåëü, ñïåöèàëüíî äëÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò.66 Îäíàêî ìû íå çíàåì, êîãäà èìåííî áûë ïîñòðîåí òðèêëèí; â õðîíèêàõ ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà ñòðîèòåëüñòâî, ïðåäïðèíÿòîå Ôåîôèëîì, îïèñûâàåòñÿ áëèæå ê êîíöó åãî öàðñòâîâàíèÿ; åñëè æå ñóäèòü ïî îïèñàíèþ ïîñòðîåê Ôåîôèëà ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà, òî âðÿä ëè ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ïðèíÿëñÿ çà ñòðîèòåëüñòâî ñðàçó æå ïîñëå âîöàðåíèÿ. Óïîìèíàíèå î Æåì÷óæíîì òðèêëèíå â ñâÿçè ñ âûáîðîì íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà ìîæåò ÿâëÿòüñÿ, íàïðèìåð, àíàõðîíèçìîì — âîçìîæíî, â ýòîì òðèêëèíå ïðîõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ìèõàèëà III; â ëþáîì ñëó÷àå, çäåñü ìû íå âûõîäèì èç îáëàñòè ïðåäïîëîæåíèé è äîãàäîê.

´–„ÂÌÚÒÚ‚Óª ≈‚ÙÓÒËÌ˚ Îäíèì èç àðãóìåíòîâ â ïîëüçó ìàëîëåòñòâà Ôåîôèëà âî âðåìÿ öàðñòâîâàíèÿ åãî îòöà Â. Òðåäãîëüä ñ÷èòàåò ñîîáùåíèå Ëîãîôåòà î òîì, ÷òî ïîñëå ñìåðòè Ìèõàèëà II Ôåîôèë âîöàðèëñÿ âìåñòå «ñ ìàòåðüþ ñâîåþ Åâôðîñèíîþ».67 Òðåäãîëüä ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Åâôðîñèíà áûëà íàçíà÷åíà ðåãåíòøåé ïðè þíîì Ôåîôèëå è óäàëèëàñü â ìîíàñòûðü íå ïî ïðèíóæäå62 Ìé÷áxë ¿ ãáëçíüôáôïò hóôåøå Èåïöýëáêôïí, ô’í õj’í ášôï™, åkò âáóéëÝá ›ð’ Íéêçöüñïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ dí ô² Tìâùíé ôyò ìåãÜëçò dêêëçóßáò (Theophanis Chronographia... 494:26–28). 63 óôåöèåßò — àîðèñòíîå ïðè÷àñòèå; ò. å. îí îáâåí÷àëñÿ ñ íåé äî òîãî, êàê âåí÷àë åå öàðèöåé. 64 Leonis Grammatici chronographia / Åd. I. BEKKER (Bonnae, 1842) (CSHByz) (äàëåå — LeoGram) 213:19–21. 65 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 328, n. 17. 66 Ibid. 329. 67 LeoGram 213:6.

256

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

íèþ ïàñûíêà, à äîáðîâîëüíî, ïîñëå òîãî êàê îí óæå æåíèëñÿ, — ññûëàÿñü ïðè ýòîì è íà çàìå÷àíèå Æ. Áüþðè, ÷òî Ôåîôèë, íåñìîòðÿ íà ñâîé «ýíåðãè÷íûé õàðàêòåð», íå ïðîÿâëÿëñÿ íèêàêîé àêòèâíîñòè âî âðåìÿ ñâîåãî ñîöàðñòâîâàíèÿ ñ îòöîì è íå îêàçûâàë âëèÿíèÿ íà åãî ïîëèòèêó.68 Îäíàêî ìû íå èìååì äàííûõ äëÿ ïîäîáíûõ óòâåðæäåíèé. Õðîíèñòû, îïèñûâàÿ öàðñòâîâàíèå òîãî èëè èíîãî èìïåðàòîðà, îáû÷íî äåëàþò óïîð èìåííî íà äåÿíèÿ ãëàâíîãî ãåðîÿ ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ, à ñûíîâüÿ îñòàþòñÿ â òåíè äî âðåìåíè èõ åäèíîëè÷íîãî âîöàðåíèÿ.69 Íî Ôåîôèë êàê ðàç íå îñòàëñÿ â òåíè ïîëíîñòüþ: Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà è Ãåíåñèé óïîìèíàþò î åãî äåÿòåëüíîñòè âî âðåìÿ âîññòàíèÿ Ôîìû. Êðîìå òîãî, ïî êîñâåííûì äàííûì ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë ïîìîùíèêîì îòöà: ñîõðàíèëîñü, íàïðèìåð, ïîñëàíèå Ìèõàèëà II ê Ëþäîâèêó Áëàãî÷åñòèâîìó; íî èçâåñòíî òàêæå, ÷òî Ìèõàèë áûë ÷åëîâåêîì íå î÷åíü ãðàìîòíûì,70 — è, ñêîðåå âñåãî, ñûí è ñîïðàâèòåëü âî ìíîãîì ïîìîãàë åìó â ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ äåëàõ. Íåïîíÿòíî, íà êàêîì îñíîâàíèè Òðåäãîëüä çàêëþ÷àåò, áóäòî èìåííî Åâôðîñèíà îñíîâàëà Ãàñòðèéñêèé ìîíàñòûðü è ó÷èëà ñâîèõ âíó÷åê, äî÷åðåé Ôåîôèëà, ïî÷èòàòü èêîíû.71 Èç «Êíèãè öåðåìîíèé» î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî Ãàñòðèÿ áûëà ôàìèëüíîé óñûïàëüíèöåé èìïåðàòðèöû Ôåîäîðû — òàì áûëà ïîõîðîíåíà åå ìàòü Ôåîêòèñòà, îíà ñàìà è òðîå åå äî÷åðåé, à òàêæå åå áðàòüÿ Âàðäà è Ïåòðîíà è åå ïëåìÿííèöà.72 Åâôðîñèíà æå áûëà ïîõîðîíåíà ñîâñåì â äðóãîì ìîíàñòûðå, â ñîáñòâåííîé ôàìèëüíîé óñûïàëüíèöå, âìåñòå ñî ñâîèìè ðîäèòåëÿìè Êîíñòàíòèíîì VI è Ìàðèåé Àìíèéñêîé è ñ ñåñòðîé Èðèíîé;73 ïîýòîìó è çäåñü, áåçóñëîâíî, ïðàâ íå Ëîãîôåò, à Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, êîòîðûé ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî Ôåîôèë èçãíàë Åâôðîñèíó îáðàòíî â òîò ìîíàñòûðü, ãäå îíà íåêîãäà ïîñòðèãëàñü,74 è ÷òî íå îíà, à ìàòü Ôåîäîðû Ôåîêòèñòà ó÷èëà ñâîèõ âíó÷åê ïî÷èòàòü èêîíû, êîãäà îíè íàâåùàëè åå â Ãàñòðèè.75  ñâåòå ýòîãî ïðåäBURY, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire… 120; TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336, 339. 69 Íàïðèìåð, ýòî ìîæíî âèäåòü â îïèñàíèè öàðñòâîâàíèé Ëüâà Èñàâðà è Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà â «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ôåîôàíà: íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî è Êîíñòàíòèí V, è Ñòàâðàêèé äîñòèãëè âçðîñëîãî âîçðàñòà âî âðåìÿ öàðñòâîâàíèÿ èõ îòöîâ (è Êîíñòàíòèí, íåñîìíåííî, áûë íå ìåíåå ýíåðãè÷åí ïî õàðàêòåðó, íåæåëè Ôåîôèë), ïðàêòè÷åñêè íèêàêèõ èõ äåÿíèé, êðîìå æåíèòüáû, äî íà÷àëà èõ åäèíîëè÷íîãî öàðñòâîâàíèÿ õðîíèñò íå óïîìèíàåò. 70 Ñì.: ÏÔ II, 8; ThCont 49:12–15. 71 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 339. 72 Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris, De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae libru duo / Rec. I. I. REISKE (Bonnae, I:1829, II:1830) (äàëåå — De cer) Vol. I. 647–648. 73 De cer I. 647. 74 ÏÔ III, 1; ThCont 86:8–12. 75 ÏÔ III, 5; ThCont 90:2–91:10. 68

Т. А. Сенина

257

ñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî ñâåäåíèÿ Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ áîëåå òî÷íû, è íèêàêîãî ðåãåíòñòâà Åâôðîñèíû íà ñàìîì äåëå íå áûëî, ïîñêîëüêó Ôåîôèë â 829 ã. «áûë óæå âçðîñëûì ìóæåì».76

‘ÂÓÙËΠ̇ ÏÓÌÂÚ‡ı ÃËı‡Ë· II Êàçàëîñü áû, áîëåå ñåðüåçíûì àðãóìåíòîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðîäåëàííûé Â. Òðåäãîëüäîì àíàëèç ìîíåò Ìèõàèëà II è Ôåîôèëà. Íî è òóò íà ïîâåðêó âñå îêàçûâàåòñÿ íå ñîâñåì òàê, êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ èññëåäîâàòåëþ. Òðåäãîëüä ïðèçíàåò, ÷òî ìîíåòíûå èçîáðàæåíèÿ äîñòàòî÷íî óñëîâíû,77 íî, òåì íå ìåíåå, ðåøàåòñÿ ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàòü ïî íèì ïðåäïîëàãàåìûé âîçðàñò Ôåîôèëà âî âðåìÿ öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà. Äåòè íà ìîíåòàõ, êàê çàìå÷àåò Òðåäãîëüä, èçîáðàæàþòñÿ ÷óòü ìåíüøå ðàçìåðîì, ñ áîëüøèìè ãëàçàìè è áîëåå êðóãëîëèöûìè, ÷åì âçðîñëûå, ïîäðîñòêè áåçáîðî76 ÏÔ III, 1; ThCont 84:17. Â. Òðåäãîëüä ñàì ñåáå ïðîòèâîðå÷èò: òî îí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë â íà÷àëå ñâîåãî åäèíîëè÷íîãî ïðàâëåíèÿ áûë «âåñüìà þí», òàê ÷òî åìó òðåáîâàëàñü ïîìîùü ìà÷åõè (TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336), òî — ÷åðåç íåñêîëüêî ñòðîê — ãîâîðèò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë â ýòî âðåìÿ óæå «âçðîñëûì» è, êàê ïîêàçûâàþò ìîíåòû, ñ áîðîäîé (Ibid. 337). Äæ. Õåððèí ñ íåäîâåðèåì îòíîñèòñÿ ê ñâèäåòåëüñòâó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà âçðîñëîñòè Ôåîôèëà ïðè âñòóïëåíèè íà ïðåñòîë, çàìå÷àÿ, ÷òî îäíè èç âèçàíòèéñêèõ õðîíèñòîâ (êàê Ëåâ Ãðàììàòèê) óïîìèíàþò î ðåãåíñòâå Åâôðîñèíû ïðè þíîì Ôåîôèëå, äðóãèå (Ãåíåñèé) ïðîñòî ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ñòàë ïðàâèòü ïîñëå ñìåðòè îòöà; è «òîëüêî Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë óæå âçðîñëûì ìóæ÷èíîé è íàñëåäîâàë ñâîåìó îòöó. Íî ýòîò èñòî÷íèê ... íàèáîëåå àãðåññèâíî íàñòðîåí ïðîòèâ èìïåðàòîðîâ-èêîíîáîðöåâ äåâÿòîãî âåêà è, ìîæåò áûòü, õîòåë ïðèïèñàòü âñå îøèáêè îäíîìó Ôåîôèëó» (HERRIN, Women in Purple… 169). Ëîãèêà ýòîãî óòâåðæäåíèÿ íå î÷åíü ïîíÿòíà è ñîâåðøåííî íå ñîãëàñóåòñÿ ñ òåêñòîì Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ. Õðîíèñò, ãîâîðÿ î ðàçíûõ íåäîñòàòêàõ Ìèõàèëà II, íèêàê íå óïîìèíàåò åãî ñûíà; è íàïðîòèâ, â êíèãå î Ôåîôèëå, íàðÿäó ñ îòðèöàòåëüíûìè ìîìåíòàìè ïðàâëåíèÿ ýòîãî èìïåðàòîðà (â îñíîâíîì èêîíîáîð÷åñòâîì) îïèñûâàþòñÿ ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ïîëîæèòåëüíûå êà÷åñòâà Ôåîôèëà, òàê ÷òî ìåñòàìè ðå÷ü Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ çâó÷èò, ñêîðåå, êàê ïàíåãèðèê, íåæåëè êàê îáëè÷åíèå «íå÷åñòèâîãî èìïåðàòîðà»: «îí ñòðåìèëñÿ ê ïðàâîñóäèþ è âñåì äóðíûì ëþäÿì áûë ñòðàøåí, à áëàãèì — óäèâèòåëåí» (ÏÔ III, 2; ThCont 86:19–21); ðåâíîñòíî ïî÷èòàë Áîãîìàòåðü, áûë äîñòóïåí äëÿ íàðîäà (ÏÔ III, 3, ThCont 87:9–10,13), ïðîÿâëÿë çàáîòó î ñòðîèòåëüñòâå è áëàãîóêðàøåíèè ñòîëèöû (ÏÔ III, 8, 42–44; ThCont 94:19–95:7, 139:19–148:3) è «âî âñåõ ïîäîáíûõ äåëàõ ÿâëÿë ñåáÿ Ôåîôèë è ïî÷èòàëñÿ âåëèêîëåïíûì è óäèâèòåëüíûì» (ÏÔ III, 10; ThCont 99:4–5; ïîäîáíûõ ýïèòåòîâ ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà íå ñïîäîáèëñÿ äàæå Âàñèëèé Ìàêåäîíÿíèí!). Ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, äàòèðîâêà âûáîðà íåâåñò 821 ãîäîì ðàçðóøàåò è îäèí èç àðãóìåíòîâ Ë. Ðþäåíà — ÷òî íà ñàìîì äåëå íåâåñòó äëÿ Ôåîôèëà âûáðàëà åãî ìà÷åõà Åâôðîñèíà (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows… 187–188), à íå ñàì èìïåðàòîð, è ÷òî, òàêèì îáðàçîì, íèêàêîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò è èñòîðèè ñ Êàññèåé íå áûëî. 77 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336.

258

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

äû, à âçðîñëûå ìóæ÷èíû èìåþò áîðîäó; ïî ìíåíèþ Òðåäãîëüäà, Ôåîôèë íà íåáîëüøîì ÷èñëå ìîíåò èçîáðàæåí ðåáåíêîì, íà áîëüøèíñòâå ìîíåò — ïîäðîñòêîì.78 Íî åñëè ìû îáðàòèìñÿ ê êàòàëîãó Ô. Ãðèðñîíà, òî íèãäå íå íàéäåì ìàëåíüêîãî è êðóãëîëèöåãî Ôåîôèëà: ñîïðàâèòåëü Ìèõàèëà II âåçäå èçîáðàæàåòñÿ ñ áîëåå-ìåíåå ïðîäîëãîâàòûì ëèöîì, ïðèìåðíî ñ òàêèìè æå ãëàçàìè è òàêîãî æå ðîñòà, êàê è åãî îòåö.79 Íåìíîãî áîëåå þíûì Ôåîôèë âûãëÿäèò íà íåáîëüøîì êîëè÷åñòâå ìîíåò, ãäå îí èçîáðàæåí îòäåëüíî íà ðåâåðñå, íî èç ýòîãî íåëüçÿ ñäåëàòü âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî â 821 ã. îí áûë ðåáåíêîì 8 ëåò, êàê óòâåðæäàåò Òðåäãîëüä. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ìîæíî áëèæå ïîäîéòè ê èñòèíå, åñëè ñðàâíèòü ìîíåòû Ìèõàèëà II ñ ìîíåòàìè äðóãèõ èìïåðàòîðîâ, èìåâøèõ ñûíîâåé-ñîïðàâèòåëåé. Ñðàâíèâ ìîíåòû Ìèõàèëà II ñ ñîïðàâèòåëåì Ôåîôèëîì è ìîíåòû Ëüâà III ñ ñîïðàâèòåëåì Êîíñòàíòèíîì, ìû óâèäèì ðàçèòåëüíûé êîíòðàñò. Íà ìîíåòàõ Ëüâà Èñàâðà, êîòîðûå Ô. Ãðèðñîí äàòèðóåò 725–732 ãã., ò. å. âðåìåíåì, êîãäà áóäóùåìó Êîíñòàíòèíó V áûëî 7–12 ëåò, ìû âèäèì íà ðåâåðñå äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìàëü÷èêà — î÷åíü êðóãëîëèöåãî, ñðåäíåãî ðîñòà;80 ëèöî ó Êîíñòàíòèíà ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïðîäîëãîâàòûì òîëüêî íà ìîíåòàõ, äàòèðóåìûõ 737–741 ãã., ò. å. âðåìåíåì, êîãäà ñîïðàâèòåëþ Ëüâà III áûëî óæå 19 è áîëåå ëåò; ëèøü íà ïîñëåäíèõ ìîíåòàõ, î÷åâèäíî, íà òåõ, ãäå Êîíñòàíòèíó óæå çà 20, ó íåãî ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ áîðîäà è îí èçîáðàæàåòñÿ ñîâåðøåííî ïîõîæèì íà îòöà. Òî÷íî òàê æå óñû è áîðîäà ó Ôåîôèëà ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ íà ìîíåòàõ ñàìîãî êîíöà öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ìèõàèëà II,81 ãäå Ôåîôèë óæå, î÷åâèäíî, ñîâåðøåííî âçðîñëûé ìóæ, âî âñåì ïîäîáíûé îòöó; î÷åíü ñîìíèòåëüíî, îäíàêî, ÷òîáû îí ìîã âûãëÿäåòü òàê óæå â 16 ëåò. Åñëè ìû ïðîäîëæèì ñðàâíèâàòü ìîíåòû ðàçíûõ èìïåðàòîðîâ, òî óâèäèì, ÷òî íà òåõ ìîíåòàõ, ãäå Ôåîôèë, ïî ìíåíèþ Òðåäãîëüäà, èçîáðàæåí ðåáåíêîì, îí âî âñåì ïîäîáåí ïî âèäó Ñòàâðàêèþ, ñûíó Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà,82 è Ôåîôèëàêòó, ñûíó Ìèõàèëà Ðàíãàâå.83 Ìåæäó òåì, ìû çíàåì, ÷òî Ñòàâðàêèé âî âðåìÿ ñîïðàâèòåëüñòâà ñî ñâîèì îòöîì óæå íå áûë ðåáåíêîì — â 807 ã. îí æåíèëñÿ; à Ôåîôèëàêòó, êîðîíîâàííîì îòöîì 25 äåêàáðÿ 811 ã. áûëî íå ìåíüøå 18 ëåò — êîãäà îí â 813 ã. ïîñòðèãñÿ â ìîíàõè âìåñòå ñî ñâåðæåííûì ñ ïðåñòîëà îòöîì, åìó, ñîãëàñíî Ïðîäîëæàòåëþ Ôåîôàíà, áûëî 20 ëåò.84 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336–337. Ýòî õîðîøî âèäíî íà âñåõ ìîíåòàõ, íî îñîáåííî íà òåõ, ãäå îáà èìïåðàòîðà èçîáðàæåíû âìåñòå íà àâåðñå; ñì.: GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. Plates XX–XXI. 80 Ñì.: Ibid. Plate I (5.2–5.6, 5.9–5.10). 81 Ñì.: Ibid. Plate XXI (11). 82 Ñòàâðàêèé íà ðåâåðñå ñì.: Ibid. Plate XVI (2b.1, 2b.3, 2c.1, 2c.4, 2c.7). 83 Ôåîôèëàêò íà ðåâåðñå ñì: Ibid. Plate XVII (1à.1, 1à.4, 1b). 84 ÏÔ I, 10; ThCont 20:2–4. Ïðîäîëæàòåëü íàçûâàåò Ôåîôèëàêòà Åâñòðàòèåì; ýòî áûëî èìÿ, ïðèíÿòîå èì â ìîíàøåñòâå, î ÷åì ãîâîðèòñÿ â Æèòèè ïàòðè78 79

Т. А. Сенина

259

Òàêèì îáðàçîì, è íà îñíîâàíèè ñðàâíèòåëüíîãî àíàëèçà ìîíåòíûõ èçîáðàæåíèé, íåñìîòðÿ íà èõ ïîíÿòíóþ óñëîâíîñòü, ëîãè÷íåå áûëî áû ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèëó â 821 ã. áûëî îêîëî 16 ëåò, à ê êîíöó öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ìèõàèëà II îí áûë âïîëíå âçðîñëûì ìóæ÷èíîé 24 ëåò, êîãäà ó íåãî äåéñòâèòåëüíî óæå ìîãëè áûòü òàêèå æå óñû è áîðîäà, êàê ó îòöà.

ƒÓ˜¸ ‘ÂÓÙË· Çˡ Ë Â ·‡Í Ò ¿ÎÂÍÒÂÂÏ ÃÛÒÂΠÑîãëàñíî êàòàëîãó Ô. Ãðèðñîíà, ìîíåòû Ôåîôèëà äåëÿòñÿ íà ïÿòü òèïîâ:85 I — Ôåîôèë îäèí íà àâåðñå, êðåñò èëè íàäïèñü íà ðåâåðñå (äàòèðîâêà ïî Ãðèðñîíó — 829–830/831 ãã.); II — Ôåîôèë íà àâåðñå, åãî ñûí Êîíñòàíòèí íà ðåâåðñå (830 èëè 831 ã.); III — Ôåîôèë íà àâåðñå, Ìèõàèë II è Êîíñòàíòèí íà ðåâåðñå (830/831–840 ãã.); IV — Ôåîôèë, Ôåîäîðà è Ôåêëà íà àâåðñå, Àííà è Àíàñòàñèÿ íà ðåâåðñå (êîíåö 830-õ ãã.); V — Ôåîôèë íà àâåðñå, Ìèõàèë III íà ðåâåðñå (840–842 ãã.). Â. Òðåäãîëüä ïðåäëàãàåò òèïà IV ïîñòàâèòü ïîñëå òèïà I, ïðåäïîëàãàÿ, ÷òî äåòè Ôåîôèëà ðîæäàëèñü â ñëåäóþùåì ïîðÿäêå: Ôåêëà (831), Àííà (832), Àíàñòàñèÿ (833), Êîíñòàíòèí (834), Ìàðèÿ (835), Ïóëüõåðèÿ (836), Ìèõàèë (840).86 Íàèáîëüøóþ ñëîæíîñòü äëÿ õðîíîëîãèè Òðåäãîëüäà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò äàòà ðîæäåíèÿ Ìàðèè è åå çàìóæåñòâî ïðè æèçíè îòöà. Èññëåäîâàòåëü ïûòàåòñÿ ñîâìåñòèòü ñîîáùåíèÿ Ëîãîôåòà è äðóãèõ õðîíèñòîâ î òîì, ÷òî Ìàðèÿ áûëà ìëàäøåé äî÷åðüþ, ñ åå çàìóæåñòâîì â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ôåîôèëà è äåëàåò ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî îíà áûëà íå îáâåí÷àíà, à òîëüêî îáðó÷åíà,87 ïðè÷åì â âîçðàñòå 1 ãîäà.88 Ïûòàÿñü îáîñíîâàòü ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå, Òðåäãîëüä ïðèâîäèò â ïðèìåð èñòîðèþ æåíèòüáû äî÷åðè èìïåðàòîðà Ìàíóèëà I Ìàðèè, îáðó÷åííîé ñ æåíèõîì â âîçðàñòå 11 ëåò, ïîñêîëüêó Ìàíóèë íå èìåë íè íàñëåäíèêà ìóæñêîãî ïîëà, íè ñîâåðøåííîëåòíèõ äî÷åðåé. Íî ýòà ïàðàëëåëü íà ñàìîì äåëå íè÷åãî íå îáúÿñíÿåò: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, 11 ëåò ýòî âñå æå íå 1 ãîä, à ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ó Ôåîôèëà, ïîìèìî Ìàðèè, áûëî åùå íåñêîëüêî äî÷åðåé, ñòàðøåé èç êîòîðûõ â 836 ã., ñîãëàñíî Òðåäãîëüäó, áûëî îêîëî 6 ëåò. Âñå ãîðàçäî ïðîùå, åñëè Ìàðèÿ áûëà ñòàðøåé äî÷åðüþ Ôåîôèëà è ðîäèëàñü îêîëî 822 ã.: â 836 ã. àðõà Èãíàòèÿ (PG 105. Col. 492B). Òðåäãîëüä óïîìèíàåò î òîì, ÷òî ñòàðøåìó ñûíó Ìèõàèëà II â 813 ã. áûëî 20 ëåò, íî ïðè ýòîì ïî÷åìó-òî óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî ñûíîâüÿ Ìèõàèëà Ðàíãàâå è Ëüâà Àðìÿíèíà íå óñïåëè æåíèòüñÿ â öàðñòâîâàíèå ñâîèõ îòöîâ, «âåðîÿòíî âñëåäñòâèè èõ þíîñòè» (TREADGOLD, The Bride-Show… 402), õîòÿ áîëüøèíñòâî èìïåðàòîðñêèõ ñûíîâåé âñòóïàëî â áðàê ãîðàçäî ðàíüøå 20 ëåò. 85 Ñì.: GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. 411–451. 86 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 333, 340–341. 87 Ibid. 330–331. 88 Ibid. 341. Òðåäãîëüä äàòèðóåò îáðó÷åíèå Ìàðèè 836 ãîäîì.

260

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

îíà áûëà êàê ðàç â áðà÷íîì âîçðàñòå, äàëüíåéøèå æå ñîáûòèÿ — âîçâåäåíèå åå ìóæà Àëåêñåÿ Ìóñåëå â äîñòîèíñòâî êåñàðÿ, åãî ó÷àñòèå â òðèóìôàëüíîì âúåçäå â Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü â 837 ã. è ñìåðòü Ìàðèè îê. 838/ 839 ã. — âïîëíå óêëàäûâàþòñÿ â ýòó õðîíîëîãèþ.89 Òðåäãîëüä íàõîäèò åùå îäèí àðãóìåíò â ïîëüçó ñâîåé äàòèðîâêè ðîæäåíèÿ Ìàðèè — òîò ôàêò, ÷òî åå ãðîá â «Êíèãå öåðåìîíèé» íàçâàí óìåíüøèòåëüíûì ñëîâîì ëáñíÜêéïí.90 Òðåäãîëüä êàòåãîðè÷íî çàÿâëÿåò, ÷òî ýòî ñëîâî «èñïîëüçóåòñÿ òîëüêî äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ ìîãèëû ðåáåíêà».91 Îäíàêî ýòî íå òàê.  òîé æå «Êíèãå öåðåìîíèé» ýòèì ñëîâîì — è äàæå íå ïðîñòî ëáñíÜêéïí, à ëáñíÜêéïí ìéêñüí — íàçâàíà ìîãèëà Ôåîêòèñòû, ìàòåðè èìïåðàòðèöû Ôåîäîðû, â Ãàñòðèéñêîì ìîíàñòûðå;92 ëáñíÜêéïí ìéêñüí íàçâàíû è äâå ãðîáíèöû â óñûïàëüíèöå Êîíñòàíòèíà â õðàìå Ñâÿòûõ Àïîñòîëîâ, ïðè÷åì â îäíîé èç íèõ ïîõîðîíåíû ñðàçó äâà ÷åëîâåêà — Âàñèëèé, áðàò Êîíñòàíòèíà Ïîðôèðîðîäíîãî, è Âàðäà, ñûí Âàñèëèÿ Ìàêåäîíÿíèíà.93 Îòñþäà î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ñàìî ïî ñåáå ñëîâî ëáñíÜêéïí óêàçûâàåò ëèøü íà ñàðêîôàã íåñêîëüêî ìåíüøåãî ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ «îáû÷íûì» ðàçìåðà, íî ñîâåðøåííî íè÷åãî íå ãîâîðèò î ðîñòå è âîçðàñòå ïîõîðîíåííîãî â íåì.94

 ÓÌÒÚ‡ÌÚËÌ, Ò˚Ì ‘ÂÓÙË· Â. Òðåäãîëüä óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí óìåð óæå íà ñëåäóþùèé ãîä ïîñëå ðîæäåíèÿ — â 835-ì.95 Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí â ìàëîëåòÎ òîì, ÷òî Ìàðèÿ íà ñàìîì äåëå áûëà ñòàðøåé äî÷åðüþ Ôåîôèëà è ó õðîíèñòîâ íàçâàíà ìëàäøåé ïî îøèáêå âñëåäñòâèå òîãî, ÷òî îáû÷íî ëþáèìûìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ èìåííî ìëàäøèå äåòè, èññëåäîâàòåëè ïèñàëè óæå íåîäíîêðàòíî; ñì., íàïð.: ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ, Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè… 36; BURY, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire… 466. 90 Â. Òðåäãîëüä ññûëàåòñÿ íà ïðåäïîëîæåíèå Ô. Ãðèðñîíà î òîì, ÷òî ñûí Ôåîôèëà Êîíñòàíòèí óìåð â ìëàäåí÷åñòâå, ïîñêîëüêó åãî ãðîá â òîé æå «Êíèãå öåðåìîíèé» íàçâàí larn£kion (GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. 407; ñð.: De cer I. 645). Î òîì æå ïèøåò è À. Äèêèãîðîïóëîñ, íî âûðàæàåòñÿ îñòîðîæíî: «Êîíñòàíòèí óìåð ìîëîäûì, íî íàñêîëüêî ìîëîäûì, ìû íå ìîæåì ñêàçàòü» (DIKIGOROPOULOS, The Constantinopolitan solidi of Theophilus… 353). 91 TREADGOLD, The Chronological accuracy… 174. 92 De cer I. 648. 93 De cer I. 643. 94 Ô. Ãðèðñîí ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî íàëè÷èå íåñêîëüêèõ ñàðêîôàãîâ ìåíüøåãî ðàçìåðà â óñûïàëüíèöå Êîíñòàíòèíà îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ òåì, ÷òî ñî âðåìåíåì òàì îñòàâàëîñü âñå ìåíüøå ìåñòà, òàê ÷òî ïîñëåäíèé ñàðêîôàã (èìï. Êîíñòàíòèíà VIII) ïðèøëîñü ïîñòàâèòü óæå íå ó ñòåíû, à â öåíòð óñûïàëüíèöû: Ph. GRIERSON (with an additional note by C. MANGO and I. ŠEVÈENKO), The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337–1042) // DOP 16 (1962) 1–63; ñì. 21–23. 95 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 340. 89

Т. А. Сенина

261

ñòâå óòîíóë â öèñòåðíå;96 íà «ïàìÿòíûõ» ìîíåòàõ (êëàññ III ïî Ô. Ãðèðñîíó) îí èçîáðàæåí êàê ìàëü÷èê.97 Îäíàêî òî, ÷òî îí ìîã â ãîäîâàëîì âîçðàñòå óòîíóòü â öèñòåðíå çà ïðåäåëàìè äâîðöà, ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íåâåðîÿòíûì: êàê ìîã áû òóäà ïîïàñòü è îñòàòüñÿ áåç ïðèñìîòðà ñòîëü ìàëåíüêèé ðåáåíîê, íàâåðíÿêà îïåêàåìûé ìàòåðüþ è íÿíüêàìè, è ÷òî îí âîîáùå ìîã áû òàì äåëàòü? Ãîðàçäî âåðîÿòíåå, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí óòîíóë â âîçðàñòå 6–7 èëè äàæå áîëåå ëåò,98 êîãäà îí äåéñòâèòåëüíî âî âðåìÿ ïðîãóëêè ìîã ñòàòü æåðòâîé íåñ÷àñòíîãî ñëó÷àÿ. Ïî-âèäèìîìó, Êîíñòàíòèí ðîäèëñÿ åùå äî åäèíîëè÷íîãî âîöàðåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà, ïîñëå Ìàðèè, ìîæåò áûòü, â 824 ã., â 830 ã. áûë êîðîíîâàí îòöîì êàê ñîïðàâèòåëü è, âåðîÿòíî, âñêîðå ïîñëå ýòîãî óòîíóë, â 830/831 ã.99 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, êàê è ïðåäïîëîæèë Ãðèðñîí, ìîíåòû ñ Ôåîôèëîì íà àâåðñå è Êîíñòàíòèíîì íà ðåâåðñå îòíîñÿòñÿ ê ïåðèîäó 830–831 ãã., à ìîíåòû ñ óæå ïîêîéíûìè Ìèõàèëîì II è Êîíñòàíòèíîì íà ðåâåðñå îòíîñÿòñÿ ê 831–840 ãã., ò. å. âûïóñêàþòñÿ äî ñàìîé êîðîíàöèè Ìèõàèëà III.

´—ÂÏÂÈ̇ˇª ÏÓÌÂÚ‡ Ìîíåòó, ãäå èçîáðàæåíû Ôåîôèë ñ Ôåîäîðîé è òðåìÿ äî÷åðüìè, Â. Òðåäãîëüä îòíîñèò ê 833 ã., ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî îíà áûëà âûïóùåíà ïîñëå ðîæäåíèÿ òðåòüåé äî÷åðè è äî ðîæäåíèÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà.100 Íî ó÷èòûâàÿ, ÷òî ïîäîáíûå ìîíåòû — ñ èçîáðàæåíèÿìè ñóïðóãè è äî÷åðåé èìïåðàòîðà — âîîáùå î÷åíü ðåäêè, ëîãè÷íî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî äëÿ åå âûïóñêà áûëà, î÷åâèäíî, áîëåå ñóùåñòâåííàÿ ïðè÷èíà, íåæåëè ïðîñòî ðîæäåíèå òðåõ äî÷åðåé. Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî ïîäîáíàÿ ìîíåòà ìîãëà áûòü âûïóùåíà äî ðîæäåíèÿ Ìèõàèëà III, íî óæå ïîñëå ñìåðòè Êîíñòàíòèíà è Ìàðèè, ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî â 839 ã. Ñèòóàöèÿ ê ýòîìó âðåìåíè áûëà òàêîâà, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ñîñòîÿë â áðàêå óæå 18 ëåò; åãî åäèíñòâåííûé íàñëåäíèê ìóæñêîãî ïîëà óìåð; äî÷ü, ìóæà êîòîðîé Ôåîôèë íàäåÿëñÿ ñäåëàòü íàÑì.: ÏÔ III, 4; ThCont 88:8. GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. Plate XXII, 2à, 3à–å. 98 Ýòî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñ ìîíåòíûìè èçîáðàæåíèÿìè: Êîíñòàíòèí, ñûí Ôåîôèëà, íàïîìèíàåò Êîíñòàíòèíà V âðåìåí åãî ñîïðàâèòåëüñòâà ñ îòöîì, êëàññ 4 è 5 ïî êàòàëîãó Ô. Ãðèðñîíà, êîãäà Êîíñòàíòèí V áûë â âîçðàñòå îò 3 äî 7 è îò 7 äî 14 ëåò ñîîòâåòñòâåííî (ñì.: Ibid. Plate I, 4a–f, 5.2–5.10). 99 Åñòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí áûë êîðîíîâàí â 830 ã. íà Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöó, è åãî êîðîíàöèÿ áûëà ïåðåïóòàíà õðîíèñòàìè ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà ñ êîðîíàöèåé Ôåîôèëà è Ôåîäîðû (DIKIGOROPOULOS, The Constantinopolitan solidi of Theophilus… 360). 100 Ýòîé âåðñèè ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ è Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî ïîñëå ðîæäåíèÿ ïåðâûõ òðåõ äî÷åðåé Ôåîôèë âûïóñòèë ñïåöèàëüíóþ ìîíåòó êàê ñâèäåòåëüñòâî ïðåêðàñíûõ ñåìåéíûõ îòíîøåíèé èìïåðàòîðñêîé ÷åòû (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 56). 96 97

262

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

ñëåäíèêîì, òîæå óìåðëà. Âèäèìî, èìåííî â ýòî âðåìÿ — êàê áû óæå «îò îò÷àÿíèÿ» — áûëè êîðîíîâàíû äî÷åðè Ôåîôèëà Ôåêëà, Àííà è Àíàñòàñèÿ, è êàê ðàç ïî ýòîìó ñëó÷àþ áûëà âûïóùåíà ñòîëü íåîáû÷íàÿ ìîíåòà. Ïðàâäà, âîçíèêàåò âîïðîñ, ïî÷åìó íà íåé íåò ìëàäøåé äî÷åðè — Ïóëüõåðèè. Íåñêîëüêî ñîìíèòåëüíî, ÷òî â 839 ã. îíà åùå íå ðîäèëàñü, ò. ê. âî âðåìÿ èñòîðèè ñ «êóêëàìè», îïèñàííîé ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà, åé áûëî íå ìåíåå äâóõ ëåò îò ðîäó. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, íåèçâåñòíî òî÷íî, êîãäà ïðîèçîøëà ýòà èñòîðèÿ; íè÷òî íå ìåøàåò ïîìåñòèòü åå è â 841 ã. Íî äàæå åñëè Ïóëüõåðèÿ ðîäèëàñü äî 839 ã., òî åå îòñóòñòâèå íà ìîíåòå ìîæåò áûòü îáúÿñíåíî, íàïðèìåð, òåì, ÷òî îíà åùå íå áûëà êîðîíîâàíà, êàê ïðî÷èå ñåñòðû.101 Ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, äàòà ðîæäåíèÿ Ïóëüõåðèè âðÿä ëè ìîæåò ñóùåñòâåííî èçìåíèòü õðîíîëîãè÷åñêóþ êàðòèíó öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ôåîôèëà.102 Íàäî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà ìû ìîæåì íàéòè, êàê áóäòî áû, ïîäòâåðæäåíèå õðîíîëîãèè Òðåäãîëüäà, à èìåííî — óïîìèíàíèå î «öâåòå þíîñòè» â ïðåäñìåðòíîé ðå÷è Ôåîôèëà;103 òàêîå âûðàæåíèå, êîíå÷íî, áîëåå ïîäîøëî áû ïðè ñìåðòè ÷åëîâåêà â âîçðàñòå 28– 29, à íå 37–38 ëåò. Íî, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è 28 ëåò ýòî íå òàêàÿ óæ «þíîñòü», à ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, òîò æå Ïðîäîëæàòåëü â íà÷àëå êíèãè î Ôåîôèëå ãîâîðèò, ÷òî îí ïðèíÿë åäèíîëè÷íóþ âëàñòü, áóäó÷è «âçðîñëûì ìóæåì»; îáîðîò æå ðå÷è, âëîæåííîé õðîíèñòîì â óñòà óìèðàþùåãî èìïåðàòîðà, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ìîæíî ñ÷åñòü ðèòîðè÷åñêèì ïðåóâåëè÷åíèåì, ïðèçâàííûì ðàñòðîãàòü ÷èòàòåëÿ. Èòàê, åñëè ñâåñòè äàòû ñåìåéíîé æèçíè Ôåîôèëà â õðîíîëîãè÷åñêóþ òàáëèöó, òî ìû ïîëó÷èì ñëåäóþùåå: 804–805

Ðîæäåíèå Ôåîôèëà â Àìîðèè.

821

Êîðîíàöèÿ Ôåîôèëà ñîïðàâèòåëåì (â âîçðàñòå 16–17 ëåò) è åãî âåí÷àíèå ñ Ôåîäîðîé.

Òàêîå îáúÿñíåíèå, íàðÿäó ñ ïðåäïîëîæåíèåì, ÷òî Ïóëüõåðèÿ ê òîìó âðåìåíè åùå íå ðîäèëàñü, ïðåäëàãàåò Ô. Ãðèðñîí: GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. 407. 102 Â. Òðåäãîëüä ñòàðàòåëüíî îáúÿñíÿåò «îøèáêó» Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà, êîòîðûé íàçûâàåò ìëàäøåé äî÷åðüþ Ôåîôèëà íå Ìàðèþ, à Ïóëüõåðèþ, — è â òî æå âðåìÿ ëåãêî îòáðàñûâàåò äðóãóþ «îøèáêó» òîãî æå Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ — ðàññêàç î òîì, êàê â 821 ã. Ôåîôèë âîåâàë âìåñòå ñ îòöîì. Êðèòåðèè, ïî êîòîðûì Òðåäãîëüä îöåíèâàåò âàæíîñòü òåõ èëè èíûõ ñîîáùåíèé äàííîãî õðîíèñòà, ñîâåðøåííî íåïîíÿòíû; ïîõîæå, ÷òî êðèòåðèé îäèí — íàñêîëüêî ýòè ñîîáùåíèÿ ïîäòâåðæäàþò âûäâèíóòóþ èññëåäîâàòåëåì êîíöåïöèþ. 103 ÏÔ III, 40; ThCont 138:8. Îá ýòîì ôàêòå êàê îá àðãóìåíòå â ïîëüçó áîëåå ïîçäíåé, ÷åì 805 ã., äàòû ðîæäåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà, óïîìèíàåò Þ. Õåððèí: HERRIN, Women in Purple… 282, n. 87. 101

Т. А. Сенина

263

822

Ðîæäåíèå Ìàðèè.

824

Ðîæäåíèå Êîíñòàíòèíà.

îê. 824

Ñìåðòü Ôåêëû, ìàòåðè Ôåîôèëà, è áðàê Ìèõàèëà II ñ Åâôðîñèíîé.

829, 2 îêòÿáðÿ

Ôåîôèë âîöàðÿåòñÿ åäèíîëè÷íî è óäàëÿåò Åâôðîñèíó â ìîíàñòûðü. Ìîíåòû òèïà I ïî Ô. Ãðèðñîíó.

830, 5 èþíÿ Ôåîôèë êîðîíóåò Êîíñòàíòèíà (â âîçðàñòå îê. (Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöà) 6 ëåò) ñîïðàâèòåëåì. Ìîíåòû òèïà II. 830 èëè 831

Êîíñòàíòèí òîíåò â öèñòåðíå. Ìîíåòû òèïà III.

832–833

Ðîæäåíèå Ôåêëû

833–834

Ðîæäåíèå Àííû

834–835

Ðîæäåíèå Àíàñòàñèè104

836

Ôåîôèë âûäàåò Ìàðèþ (â âîçðàñòå 14 ëåò) çàìóæ çà Àëåêñåÿ Ìóñåëå.

839

Ñìåðòü Ìàðèè. Êîðîíàöèÿ Ôåêëû, Àííû è Àíàñòàñèè. Ìîíåòû òèïà IV.

840, 9 ÿíâàðÿ

Ðîæäåíèå Ìèõàèëà III.

840, Ïàñõà èëè Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöà

Êîðîíàöèÿ Ìèõàèëà III ñîïðàâèòåëåì. Ìîíåòû òèïà V.

842, 20 ÿíâàðÿ

Ñìåðòü Ôåîôèëà (â âîçðàñòå 37–38 ëåò).

Œ ˜ÂÏ ‘ÂÓÙËÎ ÒÔÓÒËÎ  ‡ÒÒ˲? Ïî ìíåíèþ Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà, Ñèìåîí Ëîãîôåò èñïîëüçîâàë ãîìèëèþ Èîàííà Çëàòîóñòà íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå, «÷òîáû ñîçäàòü æèâîé ýïèçîä, íå Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî Ôåêëà è îñòàëüíûå äî÷åðè ðîäèëèñü, ñêîðåå, óæå ïîñëå ñìåðòè Êîíñòàíòèíà — è ïîòîìó, ÷òî êàê ðàç ïîñëå ñìåðòè Êîíñòàíòèíà Ôåîôèë äîëæåí áûë âíîâü îçàáîòèòüñÿ ïîëó÷åíèåì íàñëåäíèêà, è ïîòîìó, ÷òî Ôåêëà ê 866 ã., êîãäà îíà ñòàëà ëþáîâíèöåé Âàñèëèÿ Ìàêåäîíÿíèíà, âñåòàêè íå äîëæíà áûëà áûòü ñëèøêîì óæ âåëèêîâîçðàñòíîé, êàê ýòî áûëî áû, åñëè åå ðîæäåíèå îòíåñòè ê 825–826 ãã. Ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, âòîðàÿ äî÷ü Ôåîôèëà áûëà íàçâàíà â ÷åñòü åãî ïîêîéíîé ìàòåðè; Ìàðèÿ æå, âåðîÿòíî, áûëà íàçâàíà â ÷åñòü Áîãîðîäèöû, êîòîðóþ, êàê èçâåñòíî, î÷åíü ïî÷èòàë Ôåîôèë. 104

264

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

íàäåÿñü, ÷òî ÷èòàòåëü óçíàåò ïðîèñõîæäåíèå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ».105 Òàêîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íå î÷åíü ïðàâäîïîäîáíûì, ïîñêîëüêó õðîíèêè ïèñàëèñü äëÿ îáðàçîâàííûõ ëþäåé, êîòîðûå ÷èòàëè îäíè è òå æå êíèãè, ïðè÷åì êîëè÷åñòâî êíèã áûëî äîñòàòî÷íî îãðàíè÷åííûì, à òàêèå ãîìèëèè, êàê óïîìÿíóòîå Ñëîâî Çëàòîóñòà, äîëæíû áûëè áûòü õîðîøî èçâåñòíû. Äåëî íå ìåíÿåò äàæå òî, ÷òî îáå ðåïëèêè-öèòàòû ïðåäâàðÿþòñÿ ó Ëîãîôåòà ââîäíûìè ñëîâàìè. Îáðàçîâàííûå âèçàíòèéöû, ñïîñîáíûå öèòèðîâàòü íàèçóñòü îòðûâêè èç ìíîæåñòâà ïðîèçâåäåíèé, óçíàëè áû èçâåñòíóþ öèòàòó è â òàêîì çàìàñêèðîâàííîì âèäå.106 Áîëåå òîãî, äëÿ ñîçäàíèÿ ïðîñòî «æèâîãî ýïèçîäà» õðîíèñòó âîîáùå íå îáÿçàòåëüíî áûëî èñïîëüçîâàòü ÷óæîé òåêñò; âðÿä ëè Ëîãîôåò áûë íàñòîëüêî ëèøåí âîîáðàæåíèÿ, ÷òî íå ìîã ñî÷èíèòü äèàëîã ñ íóæíûì åìó ñìûñëîì. Òî, ÷òî õðîíèñò ïîìåñòèë â ñâîå ñî÷èíåíèå èìåííî äèàëîã öèòàò, ãîâîðèò êàê ðàç î òîì, ÷òî îí ëèáî âçÿë åãî èç ãîòîâîãî èñòî÷íèêà, ëèáî ïðèäóìàë íàðî÷íî — íî èìåííî ñ òîé öåëüþ, ÷òîáû ÷èòàòåëü åãî óçíàë. Åñëè æå äèàëîã öèòàò áûë â èñòî÷íèêå, èñïîëüçîâàííîì Ëîãîôåòîì, òî îïÿòü æå íå ñ öåëüþ «ìàñêèðîâêè», à èëè ÷òîáû âûðàçèòü êàêîé-òî ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé ñìûñë, èëè ïîòîìó, ÷òî äèàëîã â òàêîì âèäå èìåë ìåñòî íà ñàìîì äåëå. «Âàæíåå âñåãî äëÿ íàñ òî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, — ïèøóò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ è Þ. Êàçà÷êîâ, — ÷òî “Ñëîâî íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå” âõîäèëî â ñîñòàâ èìïåðàòîðñêîãî ìåíîëîãèÿ òèïà  (…). Ôàêò ïðèñóòñòâèÿ ãîìèëèè â ìåíîëîãèè ãîâîðèò î åå äîñòàòî÷íîé èçâåñòíîñòè â X–XII ââ., à ìîæåò áûòü, è â IX â. Ýòî çíà÷èò, ÷òî íåîáõîäèìî ðàññìîòðåòü äâå âîçìîæíîñòè ïîÿâëåíèÿ öèòàò èç “Ñëîâà” â ðàññêàçå î “êîíêóðñå íåâåñò”. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ìîæíî äîïóñòèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ïðîöèòèðîâàë èçâåñòíûé åìó òåêñò, à Êàññèÿ ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàëà, ÷òî çíàåò è ïðîäîëæåíèå.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå íè÷òî íå ìåøàåò ñ÷èòàòü ðàññêàç âåðíûì îòðàæåíèåì ñîáûòèé. Âî-âòîðûõ, àâòîð èñòî÷íèêà, êîòîðûì ïîëüçîâàëñÿ Ñèìåîí Ëîãîôåò, ìîã ïðîñòî âûäóìàòü îáìåí ðåïëèêàìè (ïî÷åðïíóâ ìàòåðèàë èç ãîìèëèè) ñ öåëüþ âûäàòü åãî çà ÷èñòóþ èìïðîâèçàöèþ, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ñî ñòîðîíû AFINOGENOV, The Bride-Show of Theophilos… 11. Ìàíåðó âèçàíòèéöåâ äàæå â áûòó âûðàæàòüñÿ öèòàòàìè õîðîøî èëëþñòðèðóåò õîòÿ áû èçâåñòíûé ýïèçîä èç «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ìèõàèëà Ïñåëëà (VI.59), ãäå ðàññêàçûâàåòñÿ î òîì, êàê ïðèäâîðíûé ëüñòåö óñïîêîèë ñìóùåííûå óìû ïðèäâîðíûõ, âûíóæäåííûõ ñëåäîâàòü ñâèòîé çà ëþáîâíèöåé èìïåðàòîðà Êîíñòàíòèíà IX Ñêëèðåíîé, ïðîöèòèðîâàâ âñåãî äâà ñëîâà èç ïîýìû Ãîìåðà: «îñóæäàòü íåâîçìîæí (ñì.: Michel Psellos, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077) / Ed. E. RENAULD. T. I–II (Paris, 1926–1928) Ò. I. 146; ðóñ. ïåð.: Ìèõàèë Ïñåëë, Õðîíîãðàôèÿ. Êðàòêàÿ Èñòîðèÿ / Ïåð., ñò. è ïðèì. ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÎÃÎ; ïåð. Ä. À. ×ÅÐÍÎÃËÀÇÎÂÀ, Ä. Ð. ÀÁÄÐÀÕÌÀÍÎÂÎÉ (ÑÏá., 2003) (Âèçàíòèéñêàÿ áèáëèîòåêà. Èñòî÷íèêè) 90). 105 106

Т. А. Сенина

265

Êàññèè. Òîãäà ôàêòè÷åñêàÿ äîñòîâåðíîñòü âñåãî ýïèçîäà îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïîä ñèëüíûì ïîäîçðåíèåì».107 Íî î äîñòàòî÷íîé èçâåñòíîñòè ýòîé ãîìèëèè â IX âåêå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò óæå òî, ÷òî îòðûâîê èç íåå ïðèâîäèò ïàòðèàðõ Íèêèôîð â ÷èñëå 26 ñâèäåòåëüñòâ, ïîìåùåííûõ ïîñëå åãî «Ñëîâà â çàùèòó íåïîðî÷íîé, ÷èñòîé è èñòèííîé íàøåé õðèñòèàíñêîé âåðû è ïðîòèâ äóìàþùèõ, ÷òî ìû ïîêëîíÿåìñÿ èäîëàì»,108 — ïðè÷åì ýòó ãîìèëèþ ñâ. Íèêèôîð ïðèïèñûâàåò Èîàííó Çëàòîóñòó. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, âî âðåìåíà âòîðîãî èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà â îáðàçîâàííûõ êðóãàõ Âèçàíòèè íå òîëüêî çíàëè ýòî «Ñëîâî íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå», íî è àòòðèáóòèðîâàëè åãî èìåííî Çëàòîóñòó. Ãîìèëèÿ 109

Èç 26 ñâèäåòåëüñòâ, ïðèâîäèìûõ ñâ. Íèêèôîðîì110

…PðåóôÜëç Ãáâñéxë, äåéêí˜ò ô’í dí èñüív êár dí óðçëáßv· PðåóôÜëç óôñáôéþôçò, âï§í ô’ ôï™ âáóéëÝùò ìõóôÞñéïí· ìõóôÞñéïí· ãíùñéæþìåíïí ðßóôåé, ïšê dñåõíþìåíïí ðïëõðñáãìïóýíw· ìõóôÞñéïí ðñïóêõíïýìåíïí, ïš æèãïóôáôïýìåíïí· ìõóôÞñéïí èåïëïãïýìåíïí, ïšê dñåõíþìåíïí· ìõóôÞñéïí ¿ìïëïãïýìåíïí, ïš ìåôñïýìåíïí.

EÁðåóôÜëç Ãáâñéxë, äåéêí˜ò ô’í dí èñüív êár dí ô² óðçëáßv· PðåóôÜëç ¿ óôñáôéþôçò, âï§í ô’ ôï™ âáóéëÝùò ìõóôÞñéïí· ìõóôÞñéïí· ãíùñéæþìåíïí ðßóôåé, ïšê dñåõíþìåíïí ðïëõðñáãìïóýíw· ìõóôÞñéïí ðéóôåõüìåíïí, ïš æèãïóôáôïýìåíïí· ìõóôÞñéïí èåïëïãïýìåíïí, ïšê dñåõíþìåíïí· ìõóôÞ ñéïí ¿ìïëïãïýìåíïí, ïš ìåôñïýìåíïí.

Òàêèì îáðàçîì, è Ôåîôèë, è Êàññèÿ, ñêîðåå âñåãî, ìîãëè õîðîøî çíàòü ýòó ãîìèëèþ. Íî â îòíîøåíèè Êàññèè ìû èìååì åùå áîëåå î÷åâèäíîå ñâèäåòåëüñòâî: â ñâîåé ñòèõèðå íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå Ïðåñâÿòîé Áîãîðîäèöû111 ïåñíîïèñèöà öèòèðóåò ýòó æå ñàìóþ ãîìèëèþ. Ñðàâíèì:112 ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå… PG 100. Col. 533B–812Ñ (Ñëîâî); 812C–832A (26 ñâèäåòåëüñòâ). 109 PG 50. Col. 793. 110 PG 100. Ñîl. 821À; ðóñ. ïåð. ñì.: Òâîðåíèÿ ñâÿòîãî îòöà íàøåãî Íèêèôîðà, àðõèåïèñêîïà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî (Ìèíñê, 2001) (Ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ áèáëèîòåêà) 299. Ïîä÷åðêíóòû ðàçíî÷òåíèÿ ñ ãîìèëèåé. 111 Ýòà ñòèõèðà â ñîâðåìåííûõ ãðå÷åñêèõ è ñëàâÿíñêèõ ìèíåÿõ àíîíèìíà, íî âî ìíîãèõ ðóêîïèñÿõ âñòðå÷àåòñÿ ïîä èìåíåì Êàññèè, òàê ÷òî åå àâòîðñòâî âåñüìà âåðîÿòíî (ñì.: ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person… 52). Ñ ó÷åòîì æå ïàðàëëåëåé ñ Ãîìèëèåé Çëàòîóñòà è äèàëîãîì ñ Ôåîôèëîì, ýòà âåðîÿòíîñòü åùå ïîâûøàåòñÿ. 112 Ïàðàëëåëüíûå ìåñòà ïîä÷åðêíóòû. 107 108

266

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

Ñòèõèðà Êàññèè113

Ãîìèëèÿ Çëàòîóñòà114

EÁðåóôÜëç Pããåëïò Ãáâñéxë, / ïšñáíüèåí dê Èåï™, / ðñ’ò ðáñèÝíïí Pìüëõíôïí, / åkò ðüëéí ôyò Ãáëéëáßáò ÍáæáñÝô, / åšáããåëßóáóèáé ášô† ôï™ îÝíïõ ôñüðïõ ôxí óýëëåøéí. / EÁðåóôÜëç äï™ëïò Póþìáôïò / ðñ’ò ôxí hìøõ÷ïí ðýëçí êár ðýëåí íïåñÜí, / ìçíýóáé Äåóðïôéêyò ðáñïõóßáò ôxí óõãêáôÜâáóéí· / EÁðåóôÜëç óôñáôéþôçò ïšñÜíéïò, / ðñ’ò ô’ T÷ñáíôïí ôyò äüîçò ðáëÜôéïí, / ðñïåôïéìÜóáé ô² Êôßóôç êáôïéêßáí Tëçêôïí / êár ðñïóåëè¦í ðñ’ò ášôxí dêñáýãáæå. / ×ásñå, èñüíå ðõñßìïñöå / ô§í ôåôñáìüñöùí ›ðåñåíäïîïôÝñá· / ×ásñå, êáèÝäñá âáóéëéêx ïšñÜíéå· / ×ásñå, –ñïò Pëáôüìçôïí, / äï÷åsïí ðáôÝíôéìïí, / dí óïr ãNñ ðOí ô’ ðëÞñùìá êáô±êçóå / ôyò èåüôçôïò óùìáôéê§ò, / åšäïêßu Ðáôñ’ò ákäßïõ / êár óõíåñãåßu ôï™ Ðáíáãßïõ Ðíåýìáôïò· / ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç, / ¿ Êýñéïò ìåôN óï™.

Ô² ìçír ô² fêôv, öçórí, PðåóôÜëç ¿ Pããåëïò Ãáâñéxë ›ð’ ôï™ Èåï™ ðñ’ò ðáñèÝíïí ìåìíçóôåõìÝíçí Píäñß. (…) PðåóôÜëç Ãáâñéxë ðñ’ò ô’ hìøõ÷ïí ôï™ âáóéëÝùò ô§í PããÝëùí ðáëÜôéïí· (…) PðåóôÜëç äï™ëïò Póþìáôïò ðñ’ò ðáñèÝíïí Pìüëõíôïí· (…) PðåóôÜëç óôñáôéþôçò, âï§í ô’ ôï™ âáóéëÝùò ìõóôÞñéïí· (…) häåé ðñïïäïðïéyóáé ô’í ìçíõôxí ôyò Äåóðïôéêyò ðáñïõóßáò. (…) Tðåëèå ðñ’ò ôxí hìøõ÷ïí ðýëçí (…) ìÞíõóïí áýô† ôyò dìyò ðáñïõóßáò ô’í –ìâñïí· (…) Åqôá íüìéóïí, ÄÝóðïôá, dêås ¬öèçò ô² ðáôñéÜñ÷w dí ô† ðáñïäßv óêçí†, êár ðáñÝäñáìåò ¿ ôN ðÜíôá ðëçñ§í. (…) FÏ èñüíïò óïõ öëÝãåôáé ô† ánãëw ðåñéëáìðüìåíïò (…) ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç, / ¿ Êýñéïò ìåôN óï™.

Èòàê, ãîìèëèÿ íàñòîëüêî ïðèâëåêëà âíèìàíèå Êàññèè, ÷òî îíà öèòèðóåò åå â ñâîåé ñòèõèðå î÷åíü îáèëüíî è ïðàêòè÷åñêè äîñëîâíî. Èíòåðåñíî è òî, ÷òî åå «äèàëîã» ñ Ôåîôèëîì íàõîäèòñÿ â ãîìèëèè î÷åíü âñêîðå ïîñëå çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîé ôðàçû-öèòàòû â ñòèõèðå: ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç, / ¿ Êýñéïò ìåôN óï™. Ϛê hôé ¿ äéÜâïëïò êáôN ó ”ðïõ ãÜñ ô’ ðñ§ôïí hôñùóåí ¿ ðïëÝìéïò, dêås ôxí hìðëáóôñïí ¿ káôñ’ò dðéôßèçóéí· ”èåí ôxí Pñ÷xí ôyò dîüäïõ “ 113 Ïðèâîæó òåêñò ñòèõèðû ïî èçäàíèþ: A. TRIPOLITIS, Kassia: the Legend, the Woman, and her Work (New York—London, 1992) 46. 114 PG 50. Col. 793–795.

Т. А. Сенина

267

èÜíáôïò hó÷åí, dêåsèåí ½ æùx ôxí ånóïäïí ôyò æùyò dôåêôÞôáôï. ÄéN ãõíáéê’ò dñýåé ôN öá™ëá, äéN ãõíáéê’ò ðçãÜæåé ôN êñåßôôïíá. ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç...115

Êîíå÷íî, ìîæíî âîîáðàçèòü, ÷òî àâòîðó óòðà÷åííîãî æèòèÿ Êàññèè, èñïîëüçîâàííîãî Ëîãîôåòîì,116 áûëà èçâåñòíà ýòà ñòèõèðà Êàññèè, ÷òî îí òîæå âèäåë ýòè ïàðàëëåëè è, ñîñòàâëÿÿ ñâîþ õðîíèêó, íàðî÷íî âçÿë «äèàëîã» èìåííî èç òîé ñàìîé ãîìèëèè Çëàòîóñòà, ó÷èòûâàÿ â ïðèäà÷ó è òî, ÷òî îòðûâîê èç íåå ïðèâîäèòñÿ ó ïàòðèàðõà Íèêèôîðà è, çíà÷èò, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäíèì èç ñâÿòîîòå÷åñêèõ òåêñòîâ, áðàâøèõñÿ íà âîîðóæåíèå èêîíîïî÷èòàòåëÿìè ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîðöåâ… Íî ýòî çíà÷èëî áû ïðèïèñàòü ìîíàõèíÿì IÕ âåêà ñëèøêîì áîëüøóþ ëèòåðàòóðíóþ èçîáðåòàòåëüíîñòü; äà èì è íåçà÷åì áûëî áû ïðèäóìûâàòü ñòîëü õèòðîóìíûé ñþæåò, ÷òîáû âîçâåëè÷èòü ñâÿòóþ è óíèçèòü èìïåðàòîðà-èêîíîáîðöà — ýòî ìîæíî áûëî áû ñäåëàòü è áîëåå ñòàíäàðòíûìè ñïîñîáàìè, îáû÷íî èñïîëüçîâàâøèìèñÿ â àãèîãðàôèè è õðîíèêàõ. Êðîìå òîãî, åñëè âûáîð íåâåñò è äèàëîã ìåæäó Ôåîôèëîì è Êàññèåé äåéñòâèòåëüíî ñîñòîÿëñÿ â òîì âèäå, êàê îí ïåðåäàí Ëîãîôåòîì, òî èíòåðåñ Êàññèè ê ãîìèëèè Çëàòîóñòà âïîëíå îáúÿñíèì åùå è ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèìè ìîòèâàìè. Íî ÷òî ìîã îçíà÷àòü ýòîò äèàëîã? «Ïî÷òè íåâîçìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë èñïîëüçîâàë öèòàòó, ÷òîáû ïðåäñòàâèòü âàæíóþ äëÿ íåãî èäåþ, çíàÿ, ÷òî ñëåäóþùàÿ ñòðî÷êà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòü ýòîé èäåè, òàêèì îáðàçîì ëèøàÿ åå êàêîé-ëèáî ñèëû», — ïèøåò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ.117 Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âðÿä ëè áóäóùèé èìïåðàòîð ïûòàëñÿ çàòåÿòü ñî ñâîåé èçáðàííèöåé áîãîñëîâñêèé äèñïóò — ýòî áûëî áû â äàííûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ íå ñëèøêîì óìåñòíî.118 Íî âîçìîæíî, Ôåîôèë õîòåë èñïûòàòü óì èëè ñìèðåíèå PG 50. Col. 795. Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî «àâòîð ýòîãî æèòèÿ äîëæåí áûë ïèñàòü ìíîãî ëåò ñïóñòÿ ïîñëå ñìåðòè ñâîåé ãåðîèíè», îáîñíîâûâàÿ ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå òåì, ÷òî Êàññèÿ ïî âîçðàñòó íå ìîãëà ïîïàñòü íà âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà â 830 ã. Îäíàêî âûøå áûëî ïîêàçàíî, ÷òî ýòî íå òàê, è ïðåäïîëîæåíèå Àôèíîãåíîâà è Êàçà÷êîâà, ÷òî «ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèé àãèîãðàô ñî÷èíèë âåñü ýïèçîä îò íà÷àëà äî êîíöà, èñõîäÿ èç ÷èñòî õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñîñåäñòâà Êàññèè è Ôåîôèëà» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå…), îêàçûâàåòñÿ íè÷åì íå îáîñíîâàííûì. 117 AFINOGENOV, The Brid-Show of Theophilos… 11. 118 Òàê æå íåóìåñòíî âûãëÿäåëà áû è ïîïûòêà Êàññèè îáëè÷èòü èêîíîáîð÷åñòâî Ôåîôèëà, âåäü â 821 ã. èêîíîïî÷èòàòåëè, íàïðîòèâ, î÷åíü íàäåÿëèñü, ÷òî Ìèõàèë II èçìåíèò öåðêîâíóþ ïîëèòèêó ñâîåãî ïðåäøåñòâåííèêà Ëüâà V, è ñâ. Ôåîäîð Ñòóäèò, íàñòàâíèê Êàññèè, íàïèñàë Ìèõàèëó âîñòîðæåííîå ïèñüìî. ×òî êàñàåòñÿ ñàìîãî Ôåîôèëà, òî, êàê çàìå÷àåò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, âî âðåìÿ æåíèòüáû èìïåðàòîðà âðÿä ëè èíòåðåñîâàëè ðåëèãèîçíûå âîççðåíèÿ åãî èçáðàííèöû (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 54–55), âåäü â èòîãå îí âñå ðàâíî æåíèëñÿ íà äåâóøêå èç ñåìüè èêîíîïî÷èòàòåëåé. 115 116

268

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

äåâóøêè? Ïî÷åìó æå òîãäà ïîñëå åå îòâåòà îí, êàê âûðàçèëñÿ Ëîãîôåò, «óÿçâëåííûé åå ñëîâàìè â ñàìîå ñåðäöå, îñòàâèë åå, à ÿáëîêî îòäàë Ôåîäîðå»? Åñëè áû Ôåîôèë ïûòàë Êàññèþ íà óì, òî óâèäåâ, ÷òî îíà ñâîáîäíî ïðîäîëæèëà öèòàòó, îí äîëæåí áûë áû, ñêîðåå, âîñõèòèòüñÿ, ÷òî åãî èçáðàííèöà îêàçàëàñü íå òîëüêî êðàñèâà, íî è óìíà; óÿçâèòüñÿ èç-çà ýòîãî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà îí ìîã áû òîëüêî â ñëó÷àå, åñëè áû ñàì áûë íå î÷åíü îáðàçîâàí; íî î Ôåîôèëå èçâåñòíî ñîâåðøåííî ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîå.119 À åñëè áû ýòî áûëà ñ åãî ñòîðîíû ïðîâåðêà íà ñìèðåíèå, òî «äåðçîñòü» äåâóøêè åãî áû, ñêîðåå, ðàññåðäèëà.  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå òàêîå âûðàæåíèå, êàê «óÿçâëåí â ñàìîå ñåðäöå», òóò íå î÷åíü ïîäõîäèò. Ìîæíî, îäíàêî, ïðåäïîëîæèòü äðóãîå îáúÿñíåíèå. Ôåîôèë äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïîëþáèë Êàññèþ, íî, áûòü ìîæåò, ïî åå âçãëÿäó èëè åùå êàêèìòî îáðàçîì çàïîäîçðèë, ÷òî îíà íå î÷åíü-òî õî÷åò ñòàíîâèòüñÿ åãî æåíîé. Íà âûáîð íåâåñò Êàññèÿ, óæå ðåøèâøàÿ ê òîìó âðåìåíè ñòàòü â áóäóùåì ìîíàõèíåé, êàê ýòî âèäíî èç äâóõ îáðàùåííûõ ê íåé ïèñåì Ôåîäîðà Ñòóäèòà,120 ìîãëà ïîïàñòü âîîáùå ïðîòèâ ñâîåé âîëè — ïîäîáíîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå êîãäà-òî óæå áûëî âûñêàçàíî Ñ. Àâåðèíöåâûì.121 Ïîýòîìó ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íåñîñòîÿòåëüíûì ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî â ñâîèõ ñòèõàõ, íàïðàâëåííûõ ïðîòèâ ãëóïöîâ, â ò. ÷. â âûðàæåíèè íÝïò ¿ ìùñ’ò êár äõíÜóôçò (KRUMÂACHER, Kasia… 362, ñò. 140; TRIPOLITIS, Kassia... 124, ñò. 11), Êàññèÿ èìåëà â âèäó Ôåîôèëà, «íå îöåíèâøåãî» åå óì. 120 Theodori Studitae Epistulae / Ed. G. FATOUROS Vol. 1–2 (Berlin—New York, 1992) (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 31) Epp. 217, 370. Ïðèâîäÿòñÿ òàêæå ó ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person… 20–21. Ðóñ. ïåð.: Ïðåïîäîáíûé ÔÅÎÄÎÐ ÑÒÓÄÈÒ, Ïîñëàíèÿ (Ì., 2003) Êí. 2. 360, 470–472. Ã. Ôàòóðîñ ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ äàòèðîâêè âûáîðà íåâåñò 821 ãîäîì, íî ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Êàññèÿ, ê êîòîðîé ïèñàë ñâ. Ôåîäîð, è îäíîèìåííàÿ ïåñíîïèñèöà âñå ðàâíî íå èäåíòè÷íû, ïîñêîëüêó àäðåñàò ïèñåì ê 821 ã. áûëà óæå «ïîñëóøíèöåé», â òî âðåìÿ êàê áóäóùàÿ ïåñíîïèñèöà óøëà â ìîíàñòûðü òîëüêî ïîñëå âûáîðà íåâåñò (Theodori Studitae Epistulae… 365, fn. 719). Îäíàêî ýòîò äîâîä íå óáåäèòåëåí: èç ïèñåì ñâ. Ôåîäîðà ê Êàññèè ìû óçíàåì òîëüêî, ÷òî îíà â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ëüâà V Àðìÿíèíà ðåøèëà ïðèíÿòü ìîíàøåñòâî, êîãäà ãîíåíèÿ ïðåêðàòÿòñÿ; à íýìöç ×ñéóôï™ ãÝãïíáò (Ep. 217), ñóäÿ ïî êîíòåêñòó, îáîçíà÷àåò íå êàêîé-òî ôîðìàëüíûé ñòàòóñ, à ñàìî ðåøåíèå ñòàòü ìîíàõèíåé, ïðèíÿòîå åùå â äåòñòâå, êàê ÿâñòâóåò èç òîãî æå ïèñüìà. Ñîäåðæàíèå ïèñåì ñâ. Ôåîäîðà ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñ õðîíîëîãèåé: Êàññèÿ ìîãëà ïðèíÿòü ïîñòðèã êàê ðàç óæå ïîñëå âûáîðà íåâåñò, ïîñêîëüêó ñ âîöàðåíèåì Ìèõàèëà II ãîíåíèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïðåêðàòèëèñü. 121 «Åñëè äîâåðÿòü ðàññêàçó õðîíèñòîâ î ñìîòðå êðàñàâèö (…), åäâà ëè âîçìîæíî íàéòè àáñîëþòíîå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå ìåæäó ïîÿâëåíèåì Êàññèè ñðåäè íåâåñò Ôåîôèëà è åå ðàííèì ðåøåíèåì (ïðèíÿòûì åùå äî ýòîãî) äåâñòâîâàòü âî èìÿ Áîãà», âåäü ïîñëàíöû èìïåðàòðèöû, ïîäáèðàâøèå êàíäèäàòîê äëÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò, «åäâà ëè îñâåäîìëÿëèñü î æèçíåííûõ ïëàíàõ ñîáèðàåìûõ èìè äåâóøåê» (Ñ. Ñ. ÀÂÅÐÈÍÖÅÂ, [ðåö. íà:] I. Rochow, Studien zu der Person, den Werken und dem Nachleben der Dichterin Kassia (Berlin, 1967) //  32 (1971) 249–251; öèò. 250, ïðèì. 8. 119

Т. А. Сенина

269

Èòàê, Ôåîôèë, çàìåòèâ ÷òî-òî «íå òî», ðåøèë, áûòü ìîæåò, óçíàòü ìûñëè Êàññèè, ïðè÷åì òàê, ÷òîáû îêðóæàþùèå íå ïîíÿëè åãî èñòèííûõ íàìåðåíèé, — è ïðîöèòèðîâàë ôðàçó ïðî çëî, ïðîèñøåäøåå îò æåíùèíû, êàê áû âîïðîøàÿ: «Òû ñîãëàñíà ñòàòü ìîåé æåíîé?» Îòâåò Êàññèè — âîçðàæåíèå — îçíà÷àë: «Íåò».122 Èìåííî ïîòîìó Ôåîôèë è îòîøåë îò íåå, «óÿçâëåííûé â ñàìîå ñåðäöå». Ñìûñë äèàëîãà ìîã áûòü äàæå åùå áîëåå ñèìâîëè÷åñêèì, ñ ó÷åòîì òîãî, íàñêîëüêî âîîáùå âèçàíòèéöû ëþáèëè âñÿêèé ñèìâîëèçì, ñî÷åòàíèÿ ðàçíûõ ñìûñëîâ è ò. ï. Ôåîôèë ñêàçàë: «×ðåç æåíùèíó èçëèëîñü çëî íà çåìëþ», — è çäåñü èìååòñÿ â âèäó Åâà, ïåðâàÿ âêóñèâøàÿ çàïðåòíûé ïëîä è ñòàâøàÿ âèíîâíèöåé èçãíàíèÿ èç ðàÿ è âñåõ äàëüíåéøèõ ëþäñêèõ áåäñòâèé, òðóäîâ è ñêîðáåé — â òîì ÷èñëå è ñóïðóæåñòâà â òîì âèäå, â êîòîðîì ìû åãî çíàåì. Êàññèÿ æå, ïðîäîëæèâ öèòàòó, ñêàçàëà: «Íî è ÷ðåç æåíùèíó áüþò èñòî÷íèêè ëó÷øåãî», — èìåÿ â âèäó Áîæèþ Ìàòåðü, ïîêðîâèòåëüíèöó äåâñòâà; «ëó÷øåå», ïðîèñòåêøåå îò Íåå, áûëî — ñïàñåíèå è íåòëåíèå, Õðèñòîñ, ïðèçâàâøèé âñåõ æåëàþùèõ ñîâåðøåíñòâà ê äåâñòâåííîìó æèòèþ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, äèàëîã Êàññèè è Ôåîôèëà, âîëüíî èëè íåâîëüíî, äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïîëó÷èë íåêîòîðûé áîãîñëîâñêèé ñìûñë — íî âîâñå íå ñâÿçàííûé ñ èêîíîïî÷èòàíèåì. Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ è Þ. Êàçà÷êîâ ïèøóò: «…âåñü ñþæåò ðàññêàçà, åãî äðàìàòè÷åñêîå íàïðÿæåíèå ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ òîëüêî â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè îòâåò Êàññèè çâó÷èò ñîâåðøåííî íåîæèäàííî äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà. Ñîáñòâåííî ãîâîðÿ, íàøè èñòî÷íèêè óïîòðåáëÿþò äîñòàòî÷íî ñèëüíûå âûðàæåíèÿ, ÷òîáû îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü èçóìëåíèå (…). Âðÿä ëè òàêàÿ ðåàêöèÿ ìîãëà áûòü âûçâàíà òåì, ÷òî äåâóøêà âñåãî ëèøü ïðîäîëæèëà èçâåñòíóþ èìïåðàòîðó öèòàòó. Íàêîíåö, êàê âèçàíòèéñêèå, òàê è ñîâðåìåííûå èñòîðèêè åäèíû â òîì, ÷òî öàðñòâåííûé æåíèõ áûë ïîðàæåí èìåííî íàõîä÷èâîñòüþ Êàññèè, à íå åå ýðóäèöèåé».123 Îäíàêî, åñëè ïðèíÿòü âåðñèþ, ÷òî Ôåîôèë õîòåë íå èñïûòàòü Êàññèþ íà óì èëè ñêðîìíîñòü, à èìåííî óçíàòü ïî åå îòâåòó, ñîãëàñíà ëè îíà ïîéòè çà íåãî çàìóæ — âèäèìî, îí áûë, ÷òî íàçûâàåòñÿ, áëàãîðîäíûì ÷åëîâåêîì è íå õîòåë åå áðàòü çà ñåáÿ ïðîòèâ âîëè, — òî ðåàêöèÿ åãî êàê ðàç ïîíÿòíà. Ýòî òåì áîëåå âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî «èñïûòûâàòü íà ñêðîìíîñòü» âòîðóþ êàíäèäàòêó — Ôåîäîðó — Ôåîôèë íå ñòàë, à ïðîñòî ïðîòÿíóë åé ÿáëîêî — íå ïîòîìó ëè, ÷òî âèäåë, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà êàê ðàç õî÷åò ñòàòü åãî æåíîé?124 Èç èñòî÷íèêîâ èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà ëþáèëà ñâîåãî ìóæà — è î÷åíü âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî îíà 122 Ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Êàññèÿ íàðî÷íî îòâåòèëà òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû «íå ïîíðàâèòüñÿ» Ôåîôèëó, ïîòîìó ÷òî ñ äåòñòâà èçáðàëà ìîíàøåñêóþ ñòåçþ, âûñêàçàë åùå Ï. Ïåòðèäåñ: S. PÉTRIDÈS, Cassia // ROÑ 7 (1902) 218–244; ñì. 227. 123 ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå… 124 ×òî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñî ñêàçàííûì î âûáîðå íåâåñò â «Æèòèè Ôåîäîðû».

270

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

ïîëþáèëà åãî ñðàçó æå, êàê òîëüêî óâèäåëà íà âûáîðå íåâåñò, è Ôåîôèë ýòî ïîíÿë.125 Êîíå÷íî, ïîäîáíûå «ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèå» îáúÿñíåíèÿ âñåãäà ãèïîòåòè÷íû è íå ìîãóò èìåòü ñèëû äîêàçàòåëüñòâà. Îíè ìîãóò òîëüêî ïðåäëàãàòüñÿ â êà÷åñòâå âîçìîæíîãî, áîëåå èëè ìåíåå ïðàâäîïîäîáíîãî, îáúÿñíåíèÿ îïèñàííûõ õðîíèñòàìè ôàêòîâ; íî âðÿä ëè ñ ïîìîùüþ òàêèõ ãèïîòåç ìîæíî äîêàçàòü, ÷òî òå èëè èíûå èñòîðèè, èçâåñòíûå íàì èç õðîíèê, íå ìîãëè èìåòü ìåñòî â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè. Êàê áûëî ïîêàçàíî âûøå, äàâ òåì æå ôàêòàì èíîå ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîå èñòîëêîâàíèå, ìîæíî ñ òàêèì æå óñïåõîì óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî îíè âïîëíå ìîãëè ïðîèçîéòè íà ñàìîì äåëå. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, çäåñü ìû íå âûõîäèì èç îáëàñòè äîãàäîê. Ïî÷òè â ëþáîì ýïèçîäå, îïèñûâàåìîì âèçàíòèéñêèìè õðîíèñòàìè, ìîæíî óâèäåòü ñòîëü áîãàòóþ ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêóþ è ñèìâîëè÷åñêóþ ïîäîïëåêó, ÷òî îòìåòàòü äîñòîâåðíîñòü òåõ èëè èíûõ ñîáûòèé, îñíîâûâàÿñü íà ñóáúåêòèâíûõ ïðåäïîëîæåíèÿõ îòíîñèòåëüíî òîãî, ÷òî äîëæíû áûëè äóìàòü èëè ÷óâñòâîâàòü òå èëè èíûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ïåðñîíàæè, — íå ñëèøêîì ðàçóìíî. Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî â ëåãåíäàõ î Êàññèè è â åå æèòèÿõ íîâåéøåãî âðåìåíè ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî Ôåîôèë âñþ æèçíü íå ìîã çàáûòü Êàññèþ è äàæå ïðèãëàñèë ïåðåä ñìåðòüþ âî äâîðåö íà ïîñëåäíåå ñâèäàíèå (ñì., íàïð.: Ìîíàõèíÿòà-õèìíîãðàô ñâåòà ïðåïîäîáíà Êàñèàíà (Àñåíîâãðàä, 1996) 14–15), à çíàìåíèòàÿ ñòèõèðà Êàññèè ïðî áëóäíèöó «Ãîñïîäè, ÿæå âî ìíîãèÿ ãðåõè âïàäøàÿ æåíà…» ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñîâìåñòíûì òâîðåíèåì èãóìåíüè è èìïåðàòîðà (ñì.: Ó. ÅÕÓÔÑÁÔÉÁÄÇÓ, Êáóéáíx ½ ìåëùäüò // EÅêêëçóéáóôéê’ò ÖÜñïò 31 (1932) 94; Ã. É. ÐÁÐÁÄÏÐÏÕËÏÓ, Óýìâïëáé åkò ôxí jóôïñßáí ôyò ðáñE ½ìsí dêêëçóéáóôéêyò ìïõóéêyò (EÅí EÁèÞíáéò, 1890) 251–252; ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person… 77–81). Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ îïèñûâàåò ñóïðóæåñêèå îòíîøåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà è Ôåîäîðû ïî÷òè êàê èäåàëüíûå (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèë໅ 56), íî õðîíèêè, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ãîâîðÿò î äðóãîì. Íå ñ÷èòàÿ âîçíèêøèõ ñî âðåìåíåì òðåíèé èççà âîïðîñà îá èêîíîïî÷èòàíèè, ñóïðóãè, êàæåòñÿ, âîîáùå äîâîëüíî ñèëüíî ðàñõîäèëèñü âî âêóñàõ: â òî âðåìÿ êàê èìïåðàòîð, «ýñòåò è ðîìàíòèê», ëþáèë öåðêîâíîå ïåíèå, ñî÷èíÿë è êëàë íà ìóçûêó ñòèõèðû — ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, êàê è Êàññèÿ (ñì.: ÏÔ III, 16; ThCont 106:17–18), — áûë «ëþáèòåëåì êðàñèâûõ âåùåé» (LeoGram 215:12), çàíèìàëñÿ ñòðîèòåëüñòâîì, öåíèë îáðàçîâàíèå è îáðàçîâàííûõ ëþäåé, — èìïåðàòðèöà… çàíèìàëàñü òîðãîâëåé; è êîãäà Ôåîôèë óëè÷èë â ýòîì ñóïðóãó, îí ïóáëè÷íî æàëîâàëñÿ íà åå ïîâåäåíèå ïåðåä ïðèäâîðíûìè, à åé äàæå ïðèãðîçèë ñìåðòüþ â ñëó÷àå, åñëè ïîäîáíîå ïîâòîðèòñÿ (ñì.: ÏÔ III, 4; ThCont 88:10–89:14). È äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âðÿä ëè ìîãëî áûòü ìíîãî îáùåãî ìåæäó òåì, êòî ïîëó÷èë áëåñòÿùåå ñòîëè÷íîå îáðàçîâàíèå, è òîé, êîòîðàÿ «áûëà âîñïèòàíà òðàäèöèîííî — “âåðåòåíî è ïðÿëêà”: ïðÿñòü íèòêè è òêàòü ïîëîòíî — ïîäîáàþùèå çàíÿòèÿ äëÿ äåâèöû. ×åìó æå åùå ìîæíî áûëî íàó÷èòüñÿ â Ýâèññå?» (HERRIN, Women in Purple… 189); íåëüçÿ íå îòìåòèòü, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà äîëæíà áûëà â ýòîì îòíîøåíèè ñîñòàâëÿòü ðàçèòåëüíûé êîíòðàñò ñ Êàññèåé — âåðîÿòíî, óðîæåíêîé ñòîëèöû, ÷üèì óìîì è ñëîâîì âîñõèùàëñÿ ñâ. Ôåîäîð Ñòóäèò (ñì. Theodori Studitae Epistulae… Ep. 370). 125

271

Т. А. Сенина

Èòàê, íà îñíîâàíèè ïðîâåäåííîãî àíàëèçà, ìîæíî ñäåëàòü ñëåäóþùèå âûâîäû. 1) Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî îïèñàíèÿ «êîíêóðñàõ íåâåñò» äëÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ èìïåðàòîðîâ â IX â. ñîäåðæàò â ñåáå îïðåäåëåííûå ñèìâîëè÷åñêèå ÷åðòû è ëèòåðàòóðíûå òîïîñû, ýòî íå ìîæåò ñëóæèòü äîêàçàòåëüñòâîì òîãî, ÷òî çà íèìè íå ñòîèò èñòîðè÷åñêîé ðåàëüíîñòè; íî äàæå íàïðîòè⠗ óïîìèíàíèå èõ â îïðåäåëåííîì êîíòåêñòå ìîæåò ÿâëÿòüñÿ àðãóìåíòîì â ïîëüçó èõ èñòîðè÷íîñòè. Ïî-âèäèìîìó, ïîÿâëåíèå «êîíêóðñîâ íåâåñò» â Âèçàíòèè íå â ïîñëåäíþþ î÷åðåäü áûëî ñâÿçàíî ñ îïðåäåëåííûì ñèìâîëèçìîì, ïðîÿâèâøèìñÿ â èêîíîáîð÷åñêóþ ýïîõó. 2) Êàê ïîêàçûâàåò àíàëèç èñòî÷íèêîâ è íóìèçìàòè÷åñêèõ äàííûõ, âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà ñîñòîÿëñÿ íå â 830-ì, à â 821 ã.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì õðîíîëîãèÿ ñîáûòèé ñåìåéíîé æèçíè Ôåîôèëà, ïðåäëîæåííàÿ Â. Òðåäãîëüäîì, äîëæíà áûòü ðàäèêàëüíî ïåðåñìîòðåíà. 3) Òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ôðàçû, êîòîðûìè îáìåíÿëèñü Ôåîôèë è Êàññèÿ íà âûáîðå íåâåñò, âçÿòû èç ãîìèëèè ñâ. Èîàííà Çëàòîóñòà íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå, íå äîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî âñÿ èñòîðèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëèòåðàòóðíîé âûäóìêîé; íàïðîòèâ, òî, ÷òî Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ è Þ. Êàçà÷êîâ ñî÷ëè «ðàçîáëà÷åíèåì», ñêîðåå, ìîæåò ÿâèòüñÿ ïîäòâåðæäåíèåì òîãî, ÷òî äèàëîã äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìåë ìåñòî, — ìû íàõîäèì ïàðàëëåëè ñ óïîìÿíóòîé ãîìèëèåé â îäíîé èç ñòèõèð, íàïèñàííûõ Êàññèåé, à ñàìà ãîìèëèÿ â IX âåêå áûëà õîðîøî èçâåñòíà âèçàíòèéöàì, ââèäó åå èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ñâ. ïàòðèàðõîì Íèêèôîðîì äëÿ çàùèòû èêîíîïî÷èòàíèÿ. 4) Êàê ïîêàçûâàåò ïðèìåð ñî «Ñëîâîì íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå», ïðè èññëåäîâàíèè âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ íåëüçÿ èñêëþ÷àòü èç ïîëÿ çðåíèÿ ãèìíîãðàôèþ, èáî ýòî ìîæåò ïðèâåñòè ê äîñàäíûì íåäîñìîòðàì è îøèáêàì, à òî è âîâñå èñêàçèòü ðåêîíñòðóèðóåìóþ êàðòèíó äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè.

SUMMARY Tatiana A. Senina (Nun Kassia) St-Petersbourg

DIALOGUE BETWEEN THEOPHILUS AND KASSIA: LITERARY FICTION OR REALITY? The paper deals with the story of the bride-show for the Emperor Theophilus and the possible role in this story of the hymnographer Kassia. L. Rydén’s opinion that such bride-shows for the royal sons in the 9th century are fictions is revised. It is most likely that such stories told by the chroniclers have some real facts behind them. In this connection, a new hypothesis of the reasons of composition of the Vita of Philarete the Merciful is put forward. The chronology of the life of the Emperor Theophilus in general and the date of his bride-show in particular are revised as well. It was shown that the dates of his life proposed by W. Treadgold

272

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

are accepted by many scholars rather uncritically while, in fact, they are far from being well-founded. According to the present analysis of the sources, including the numismatic data and the hymnography, Theophilus’ bride-show is to be dated by 821 and Kassia’s participation is to be admitted. The fact that dialogue between Theophilus and Kassia, as reported by Symeon Logothetus, contains a verbatim quote from the Homily on Annunciation by John Chrysostome, is not an argument to take the whole story as fiction (pace D. Afinogenov and Yu. Kazachkov) because this homily was widely known in this time and is quoted, for instance, in an anti-iconoclast treatise of the Patriarch Nicephorus and, that is most important, by Kassia herself in her sticheira on Annunciation. Finally, it was attempted to reveal the meaning of the interchange between Theophilus and Kassia that was traditionally interpreted as an attempt of an orthodox girl to hurt the iconoclastic emperor.

Dan D. Y. Shapira Open University of Israel, Raíanannah

´TABERNACLE OF VINEª: SOME (JUDAIZING?) FEATURES IN THE OLD GEORGIAN VITA OF ST. NINO1 St. Nino, «Mother of the Georgians», the traditional illuminator of Georgia,2 is believed to have brought Christianity to Eastern Georgia around 335 (her memory is celebrated on January 14th); Coptic and Byzantine writers of later dates called her theognosté, «she who made God known» to the Georgians.3 The Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino forms a part of Conversion of Georgia [henceforth: MK],4 which served as one of the sources of the GeorThis article is mostly based on two papers read at the Institut für Iranistik (Freiuniversität, Berlin), 10th December 1994, and at the Eighth Caucasian Colloquium, Societas Caucasologica Europaea, University of Leiden, 7th June 1996. Earlier versions of this paper were read by Prof. Konstantin Lerner, Prof. Shaul Shaked, Prof. Michael Stone, by Dr. Mordechai Even-Vered, Mr. Michael Shneider (the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Mr. Reuven Kipperwasser (Bar-Ilan University), Fr. Gregory [V. M.] Lourié (St. Petersburg), Prof. Ora Limor and Mr. Uri Gershovich (The Open University of Israel). I am very grateful to these persons for their remarks and insights. All the shortcomings are, of course, mine. 2 In fact, of Eastern Georgia, Kartli; Western Georgia, Lazica, was Christianized by King Tsate and the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527–565) only in 523, although at least one city, Pytyus (Pityonte, Georgian Bièvinta, Russian Picunda) had a bishop as early as in 325. 3 Cf. now M. VAN ESBROEK, Nino, Théognosta et Eusthate: un dossier hagiographique oriental des IVe–Ve siècles (forthcoming). See also M. VAN ESBROEK, Le dossier de sainte Nino et sa composante copte // Santa Nino et Georgia. Storia e spiritualitácristiana nel paese del Vello d’oro. Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi Georgiani. Roma 30 gennaion 1999 / Ed. G. SHURGAIA (Roma 2000) 99–123 (the volume reviewed by A. Muravjev in ÕÂ 3 (IX) (2002) 521–523). 4 Mokcevay Kartlisa [Mok>c>evai K>art>lisa] // Jveli K>art>uli agiograp>iuli literaturis jeglebi [Relics of Old Georgian Hagiographical Literature]. I / Ed. I. ABULAJE (Tbilisi, 1964) 81–163. For a new edition of the text, Cf. the recent Hebrew book by K. LERNER, The Chronicle The Conversion of Klis C>xovreba]. I–II / Ed. S. QAUXCŠIŠVILI (Tbilisi, 1955); quoted (vol. I) as KC. See also F. BROSSET, Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’Antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle (St Petersburg, 1856); cf. also W. E. D. ALLEN, History of the Georgian People (London, 1932; repr.: New York, 1971); G. PÄTSCH, Das Leben Karli's. Eine Chronik aus Georgien, 300–1200 (Leipzig, 1985); R. W. THOMSON, Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation / Transl. with Introd. and Comm. (Oxford, 1996). On Georgian literature in general: M. TARCHNISHVILI, Geschichte der kirchlischen georgischen Literatur (Vatican, 1955); G. DEETERS, Georgische Literatur // Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 1. Bd. 7: Armenisch and kaukasische Sprachen (1963) 129–155; K. SALIA, La littérature géorgienne // Bedi Kartlisa. Revue de kartvélogie. Vol. 17–26 (1964–1969), esp. Vol. 17–18 (1964) 28– 61; H. FÄHNRICH, Die georgische Literatur (Tbilisi, 1981); R. BARAMIDZE, Die Anfänge der georgischen Literatur // Georgica (Jena, 1987) 39–43; D. RAYFIELD, The Literature of Georgia. A History (Oxford, 1994). 6 The Šatberdi MS is from 973 CE. For dating the older strata of this composition, cmp. Z. ALEKSIDZE, Sur le vocabulaire de la Conversion du Kartli: miap>ori, niap>ori ou minap>ori? // From Byzantium to Iran. Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoïan / Ed. J.-P. MAHÉ, R. W. THOMSON (Atlanta, GA, 1997) 47–52. 7 Only two or three (the first, the second, and probably, the fourth) of the six parts of KC were edited by him.

D. D. Y. Shapira

275

or the eleventh century,8 while the History of the King Vaxtang Gorgasal, another composition also found in KC (the third part) and describing the events from the 5th–6th centuries, was written in the eighth or the ninth century. The final redaction of KC was made only in the 18th century in Moscow, by the exiled Georgian carevicš (Russian for «prince-of-blood») Vahušti (or, Vaxušti) Bagrationi (Bagration). As noted by many scholars, the version of the Vita of St. Nino in MK, as compared to that of KC, preserved numerous traits going back to the period of the Georgian history in which her Christian tradition was not yet finally fixed. Here some episodes allegedly reflecting this primitive stage of the Georgian Christianity will be dealt with. Georgian traditions attribute the Christianization of Georgia exclusively to St. Nino and to her pupils, members of the local Jewish community (stressing the role of the female followers). Later, the so-called «Syriac fathers» were credited with establishment of Christian institutions. Nevertheless, the Georgian historical memory could not have ignored the all-too-obvious role played by St. Gregory the Parthian, the Illuminator (Lousaworiè>, ï öùóôÞñ) of the Armenians,9 and the legendary figure of St. Nino, whose name is attested not earlier that the seventh century, served with the Georgians to combine, or «to telescope», various layers of traditions about the early stages of the Georgian conversion. So she was said to be the daughter of Zaboulon / Zabilon of Cappadocia (who is said to vanquish the Branjis10 at the *Catalaunian Fields11 and to baptize them thereafter!), to be brought up in the Armenian community in Jerusalem, she speaks Armenian and the language of the Jews,12 has links K. KEKELIDZE (Kange³os and its Oriental Versions // Réarm

D. D. Y. Shapira

277

less, the St. Nino traditions are no more historical than, e. g., those of the Ethiopian Kebrâ Negâst,18 and they should be studied, as a whole, in a general context of the split with the Armenian Mother Church in the early 7th century, and, as a consequence, of building an alternative, Judaizing, set of traditions claiming for the apostolic status of the Georgian Church.19 NS 14 (1980) 125–141. This work was composed of several independant parts put together after 456 CE (WINKLER, Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat>ange³os... 125: after 450–451), Agathangelos has Faustos Buzand as one of its major sources (R. W. THOMSON, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians (Albany, NY, 1976) xvi). Winkler (Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat>ange³os... 137) stated that these texts «show tendentious insistence on the connections of Grigor with Cappadocia, and this despite the overwhelming traces of ties with Syria... Prior to the Christianization of Armenia through Cappadocia, there must have been a strong missionary activity from Syria which has come down to us only in obscure legendary reports, and which only can be detected through a careful investigation of the vocabulary...». 18 C. BEZOLD, Kebra Nagast, Die Herrlichkeit der Könige. Nach dem Handschriften in Berlin, London, Oxford und Paris zum ersten Mal im äthiopischen Urtext hrsg. und mit deutscher Uebersetzung versehen (Münich, 1905); D. A. HUBBARD, The Literary Sources of the Kebra Nagast (The University of St. Andrews, 1956), a PhD Thesis under supervision of Prof. E. Ullendorf; I. SHAHID, The Kebra Nagast in the Light of Recent Research // Mus 89 (1976) 133–178; cf. also the important study, Â. Ì. ÏËÀÒÎÍÎÂ, Êåáðà Íàãàñò (Îñíîâíûå èäåè ýôèîïñêîãî äèíàñòè÷åñêîãî ðîìàíà XIV â.) // Ïàëåñòèíñêèé ñáîðíèê 28 (91), (1986) 45–50. Cf. now ËÓÐÜÅ, Èç Èåðóñàëèìà â Àêñóì ÷åðåç õðàì Ñîëîìîíà... 137–207. 19 Judaizing tendencies were prominent in many of the national churches outside the Roman Empire, and in Armenia they were perhaps no less significant than in Aksum: beside legends, of a later date, about Jewish descent of certain noble families, we should ennumerate the legendary origin of the Armenian Arsacids from Abraham and Keturah, remnants of royal polygamy, hereditary character of the office of the head of the Church, later called «catholicos», and of the bishops, etc. Both Armenian and Georgian literacy began to flourish around the mid-5th century; until then, their languages of religious education were Syriac or Greek. It was in the context of the struggle against Nestorius and his views that the national scripts were invented, apparently, by St. Mesrop (cf. P. PEETERS, Jérémie, évèque de l’Ibérie perse (431) // AB 41/1–2 (1933) 5–33). Fighting against the armies of Yazdigird II the Sasanian, the Armenians and Georgians did not participate actively in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and did not endorse the decisions made there, wrongly identifying them later with the teachings of Nestorius (cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge University Press, 1979 (19721) 313. It should be remembered that Nestorius’ supporters believed that their views were vindicated by the Chalcedon Counsil.) Another reason for the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon was purely linguistic: the Armenian, at that time, had only one term, p>nout>iwn, for both physis and hypostasis, and only much later a new term for physis, ew>iwn or koiout>iwn, was coined).

278

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

They accepted the compromising Henotikon of the Emperor Zeno (481/2CE) under the Katholikos Babgen (490–515), apparently, in 491 (cf. now also Í. Ã. ÃÀÐÑÎßÍ, Áûë ëè Ñîáîð â Âàëàðøàïàòå â 491 ãîäó? // Õ 2 (VIII) (2001) 116–120), but when the Imperial Church returned to the Chalcedon formula in 518, they rejected it, and in 554 or 555 the Greek Church itself — apparently, on hierarchial basis, — not only her doctrine, was anathematized at the Second Duin Synod under the Katholikos Narsçs II (548–557). Beginning from 591, Persarmenia, Albania and Kartli were under direct Persian domination, and the Byzantine established a Chalcedonite Armenian Catholicosate at Awan, to confront the Monophysite one at Persian Duin (Í. Ã. ÀÄÎÍÖ, Àðìåíèÿ â ýïîõó Þñòèíèàíà. Ïîëèòè÷åñêîå ñîñòîÿíèå íà îñíîâå íàõàðàðñêîãî ñòðîÿ (Åðåâàí, 1971) 343–344; Â. À. ÀÐÓÒÞÍÎÂÀ-ÔÈÄÀÍßÍ, Àðìÿíî-âèçàíòèéñêàÿ êîíòàêòíàÿ çîíà (ՖÕI ââ.). Ðåçóëüòàòû âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ êóëüòóð (Ìîñêâà, 1994) 60–61). In 606–608, the Georgians, under their Katholikos Kyrion, adopted Byzantine Orthodoxy, to which they had been inclined since the late 6th century, and it was then that the deep cultural split between the Armenians and the Georgians began, after Abraham I the Armenian (607–615) excommunicated Kyrion and the Georgians at Dwin in 609. Cf. UXTANÇS EPISKOPOS, Patmout>iwn Hayoc>, hatouac> erkrord. Patmout>iwn bažanman Vrac> i Hayoc> (Va³aršapat, 1871); Girk> T> ³t>oc> [Book of Letters] / Ed. Y. IZMEREANC> (Tiflis, 1901) (translation of the material relevant for this discussion in: N. GARSOÏAN, L’église arménienne et le grand schism d’Orient (Lovanii, 1999) (CSCO 574; Subsidia 100) 516–583; see also pp. 355–398); L. MELIK>SÇT>BEK, Vrac> a³byourner# Hayastani i hayeri masin (Erevan, 1934); UXTANESI, Ista,24 the capital city of Kartli; while living there for three years, she was secretly praying in the brambling bush, located outside the walls, and she erected there a cross made of vine twigs (KC ignores this episode). Later this cross became known in Georgia as «the Cross of St. Nino», «the Vine-Cross» or «the Cross of the Branches» (jvari sasxlevisa), highly venerated by Georgians;25 as to the spot of Nino’s prayer before the vine cross, on its place is now the altar of the Upper Church, being thus considered, together with the «Live-Giving Cross» transferred there later, the most sacred relics of the early Georgian Christianity. Later on, she witnessed the statue of the supreme sword-bearing god of Mc>xet>a, Armazi,26 having been shattered by rage of God, in accordance to Nino’s prayer, during a pagan festival. People fled in turmoil, while Nino The Armenian author of uncertain date, Moses Khorenac>i, mentions [R. W. THOMMoses Khorenats>i. History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources (Cambridge, Mass.—London, 1980) II. 86] Nunç, one of the scattered holy helpers of Rip>simç, as the one who escaped to Mc>xet>a, the capital city of the Iberians. She is depicted as an auxilary to St.Gregory. The question of the genesis of the St. Nino legend and its relation to the Rip>simç / St. Gregory tradition is a complicated one and is still open. 25 One cannot but get reminded of the Mandaean drafša, which is a kind of cross with something similar to a tallith hung over it. 26 Armazi’s idol was erected under Parnavaz, the second Georgian king, in legendary times. The names of many ancient Georgian kings and their officials bore were of Scytho-Sarmatian origin (Ksefarnug, Saumarg, Vaxtang (kings); Radamist (prince), Sharagas, Zevax, Aspauruk (pitiaxš-s); Iodmangan (chancellor), cf. Â. È. ÀÁÀÅÂ, Ñêèôî-ñàðìàòñêèå íàðå÷èÿ // Îñíîâû èðàíñêîãî ÿçûêîçíàíèÿ. I (Ìîñêâà, 1979) 272– 365 (p. 361, n. 33). In Scythian legends, as reported by Herodot, iv 62, their Ares was seen as an antique iron sword on a platform surrounded by a huge wood pile to whom prisoners were sacrificed, with their blood poured over the sword. Such a «temple» was said to have been placed in the capital of every district in the vast territories of Scythia. A legend with similar motifs was told in Western China about the origin of the local Scythian (Saka) Buddhist dynasty to Hsuxet>a must be of the same Scythian origin. The name of the supreme god of the ancient Georgians, Armazi, is generaly taken to be derived from the Iranian Ahûra Mazdå- (Í. ß. ÌÀÐÐ, Áîãè ÿçû÷åñêîé Ãðóçèè // Çàïèñêè Âîñòî÷íîãî Îòäåëåíèÿ Èìïåðàòîðñêîãî Ðóññêîãî Àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî Îáùåñòâà 14 (2–3) (1902); Ñ. Ñ. ÊÀÊÀÁÀÄÇÅ, Ê âîïðîñó î ñòîëèöå Äðåâíåé Êàðòëè (Èáåðèè) Àðìàçè-Ìöõåòà // Ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêèé Áëèæíèé Âîñòîê, Âèçàíòèÿ è Èðàí (Ìîñêâà, 1967) 112–123). There is however another opinion, deriving the name of this god from Asianic languages [Hittite etc.] (M. CERETELI, The Hittite Land, Its Peoples, Languages, History (Constantinopole, 1924) 84 [Georgian], who was unavailable to me; Ø. È. ÀÌÈÐÀÍÀØÂÈËÈ, Èñòîðèÿ ãðóçèíñêîãî èñêóññòâà. I 24

SON,

282

Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

found a beryl which was put in the idol’s eye. Then she rested on the mountain’s ridge near the old castle where stood a booth, sagrilobeli, built by king Bratman, under whom Jews first arrive in Mc>xet>a, according to MK. The booth, sagrilobeli, stood near the tree of brinj27 accacia.28 There she prays before the cross she has erected, and it was on the sixth day of the month when Immanuel shew on Mt. Tabor the likeness of His Father to the heads of the living and the dead, it is, the Feast of Transfiguration.29 (We should remind, to return to this later, that at Jesus’ transfiguration, he, Moses and Elijah sat in the booths.) It is important to note that in the preceding and following scenes, roses, vines and other plants and flowers are frequently referred (Òáèëèñè, 1944) 56; À. È. ÁÎËÒÓÍÎÂÀ, Ê âîïðîñó îá Àðìàçè // Âåñòíèê äðåâíåé èñòîðèè 4 (1949) 235ff.; Ã. À. ÌÅËÈÊÈØÂÈËÈ, Ê èñòîðèè Äðåâíåé Ãðóçèè (Òáèëèñè, 1960). According to M. ANDRONIKASHVILI, Studies in Iranian-Georgian Linguistic Contacts. I (Tbilisi 1966) 548, 570, Armazi is an Iranian loan of the Achemenian epoch, from Old Persian A(h)ûra Mazdâ: «the Georgian language avoids congestion of consonants at the end of a word — Vaštasab from Vištâsp, Luarsab from Lôhrasp, Artavaz from Artavazd, Armaz from Aramazd, etc.» (the case of Artavaz from Artavazd is especially important here). The name of the second god, Zaden-i, was connected to the Iranian word Yazata-; it seems that the particular Georgian form is from Parthian Plural, (*ya-)zadçn, which is very close in meaning to the Middle Persian yazdân, sometimes used in a singular sense. 27 The Georgian word, which means also «rice» and is Persian in origin, can be explained as the result of a mistranslation of Syriac < rz< or Arabic < rz (aw zlousi¬çn patmouèann zar¡ajÔin zor koroys Adamn i draxtin.74 This reference to «that primal raiment of light» in the context of Adam’s story in the Paulician tradition is important, as, according to Garsoïan, ib., pp. 155, 233, the oldest strata of the Paulician tradition treats «the story of Adam and Eve in its traditional form», on the one hand, and represents the «original Christianity received from Syria», on the other. It is also plausible to suggest that the miškân, talavar, was supposed to substitute the š#khînâh (which is formed from the same root) that they had lost.

For the Armenian text, cf. STONE, The Penitence of Adam…; for the Georgian text, cf. C. K>URC>IKIDZE, Adamis Apokrifuli cxovrebis kartuli versia // Philological Studies 1 (1964) 97–136 [Georgian] and J.-P. MAHÉ, Le Livre d’Adam géorgien // Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religion / Ed. R. van den Broek, M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden, 1981) 227–260. 70 STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve… 6. 71 It is not unprobably that there existed an Armenian intermediary for the Georgian composition which was older that the extant Armenian, though the evidence for an Armenian Vorlage of the Georgian is not strong, cf. STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve… 38, n. 106; 39. 72 The Georgian version was even taken to be the best witness to the Adam Book, cf. STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve… x–xi, 69; J.-P. MAHÉ, Notes philologiques sur la version géorgienne de la Vita Adae // Bedi Kartlisa 41 (1983) 51–65 (p. 65). 73 Cf. N. G. GARSOÏAN, The Paulician Heresy. A Study of the Origins and Development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire (Paris, 1967) 153 n. 6. 74 On the meaning of that last Armenian word and its etymology, cf. SHAPIRA, An Aramaic-Irano-Armenian Note… 95 & 97, n. 15. 69

D. D. Y. Shapira

295

Building this talavar-booth thus was an attempt to return to the conditions of the lost Paradise,75 where the rightous ones «sit, when their crowns are on their heads, enjoying from the Divine Splendor»,76 «in their booths»,77 as it is obvious from the next description of Adam and Eve’s quest for food, being not just a «housing solution»: Adam and Eve are not described in this composition as Kulturträger of any sort or civilizing inventors. In the Babylonian Talmud we are told that «the Holy One Blessed Be He, will make seven booths for every single righteous one».78 It was noted that the mention of «wreaths»79 in Jubilees’ description of the first Feast of Tabernacles, held by Abraham, is striking as it implies soteriological dimensions of booth-dwelling.80 In traditions about the Rechabites, the righteous heterodox Hebrews, legends about whom were very early connected with the traditions about the Lost Tribes, we have some soteriological hints as reflected in the mention of «tabernacle»: in the Aramaic Targum to Jeremiah the Hebrew word for tents, Uèrâ Revised: Notes on AramaicIranian Linguistic Interaction and Mystical Traditions // Kabbala: International Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 6 (2001) 151–182. 89 The Mandaic maškan / maškna, «a cult-hut» was studied by G. FURLANI, I Termini Mandei per Tempio, Santuario e Chiesa // Studi Orientalistici in Onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida. Vol. I (Roma, 1956) 341–360 (pp. 348–352, inter alia). 90 Cf. K. RUDOLPH, Die Mandäer, I. Prolegomena: Das Mandäerproblem (Göttingen, 1960) 32, n. 5; cf. now D. KRUISHEER, «Theodor Bar Koni’s Ketâbâ d-Eskolyon as a Source for the Study of Early Mandaeism // Ex Oriente Lux. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap 33 (1993–1994 [1995]) 151–169. 84 85

D. D. Y. Shapira

297

«Clouds of Glory» and «canopy», h³ uppâh, were used. It is exactly in this sense that the word sagrilobeli is used in the Old Georgian Vita Nino, one of the oldest Georgian texts, from gril-, «shade» (like the Aramaic mt³lla church or in Aksum and Lalibela!). We remember that building a *talavar, a sukkâh, was caused by the first human eating from the Tree of Knowledge, and in Mc>xet>a, the altar of the church was built on the place of the brinji tree. The Tree of Knowledge is half-way up the mountain of Paradise, while the Tree of Life is at the summit of Paradise (HdP III.2). Paradise symbolizes both the Temple and the Church, and vice versa, of course: Tabernacle is equal to Paradise.102 The Manichaean milieu in Georgia was already refered to. Warûèân (Iranian for Georgia) is mentioned in an early Manichaean text in Iranian. In a Manichaean Parthian text, which one may call «a Manichaean Q#duššâh / Sanctus»,103 we find: qwfarîš ka->arîð Mûsâ thumâm wa-khašab fazwg< l, izgâl — from *uz-gauš, A. GHILAIN, Essai sur la langue parthe, son système verbal d’après les textes manichéens du Turkestan Oriental (Louvain, 1939) (Bibliothèque du Muséon 8) 66; Â. Ñ. ÐÀÑÒÎÐÃÓÅÂÀ, Å. Ê. ÌÎË×ÀÍÎÂÀ, Ïàðôÿíñêèé ÿçûê // Îñíîâû èðàíñêîãî ÿçûêîçíàíèÿ. Ñðåäíåèðàíñêèå ÿçûêè (Ìîñêâà, 1981) 147–232, p. 180; N. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Eastern Middle Iranian // Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum / Hrsg. R. SCHMIDT (Wiesbaden, 1989) 165–172, p. 167, commented on this shift: «non-Sogdian forms (in New Persian loan words from East Iranian Languages), however, include ... ispagol «seed of the fleawort», literally «horse-ear» with ... L < *š ...»; ibid., p. 171: «L < *Š, < zgwl- «to hear», with L < *Š as in Sanglièi and Sariqoli ... Such forms as these have been plausibly attributed to the otherwise unknown language of the Parnians, a tribe of the «Scythian» Dahae...», quoting W. B. HENNING, Mitteliranisch, Iranistik, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, vierster Band (Leiden—Köln, 1958) 92–94. Thus, one would derive tl- from *taš, affirming this etymology by a semantic comparison to Aramaic mat³lâlâ, «shelter, hut, booth», used as Aramaic for Hebrew sukkâh (cf. M. JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1950) 768a), from t³allçl, «to cover» [a sukkâh, i.a.]. It seems

D. D. Y. Shapira

303

Thus, the Parthian talwâr was used, on semantic and etymological grounds, as an Iranian125 equivalent of Aramaic *mašk# nâ / mat³lâlâ. It is not impossithat this Aramaic verb was used also for «to cover with wood», «to screen» (compare the Targum to 1Kings 6.9, wyspn < t hbyt, cf. Jastrow, p. 537b) [Hebrew t³all"th, «tallith, talles, praying shawl», «*a covering», is from the same root, with additional contamination of the roots for «to hang», tâlâh and t³lal; as to t³allçl, the Hebrew word used in Nehemia 3.15 is an Aramaeism]. As an alternative etymology of talwâr, a comparison to the second element of the Manichaean Middle Persian b< rg tš, «a strong wall» (cf. W. B. HENNING, A List of Middle Persian and Parthian Words // BSOS 9/1 (1937) 79–92, p. 88), may have been suggested. Here the order of the two elements is inverted; however, the derivation of b< rg from Avestan vara- is questionable, cf. I. M. ORANSKIJ, Notes Irano-Slaves. Vieil Iranien VAR- / Russe Dialectal VAR // Acta Iranica 5 (Monumentum H. S. Nyberg) (1975) 139–143, p. 10. On the other hand, tala might be an old Iranian word: Finnish tala, Livonian talz#D, «šalaš, labaz», «Laube», were seen as an Indo-Iranian loan word (A. J. JOKI, Uralier und Indogermanen. Die ältesten Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und ingermanischen Sprachen (Helsinki, 1973) (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 151) 324), but Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (Ò. Â. ÃÀÌÊÐÅËÈÄÇÅ, Â. Â. ÈÂÀÍÎÂ, Èíäîåâðîïåéñêèé ÿçûê è èíäîåâðîïåéöû, ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ è èñòîðèêî-òèïîëîãè÷åñêèé àíàëèç ïðàÿçûêà è ïðàêóëüòóðû. Ò. I–II (Òáèëèñè, 1984) 933, n. 2) saw here a Baltic loan word (Prussian talus, «ground»). Professor W. Sundermann informed me that while the second element of talwâr might be -var-, «cover», the first element perhaps is the Semitic ‹all, thus accepting my comparision to the Aramaic mat³l°lâ[< ]; however, such hybrid SemitoIranian word looks to me unlikely. Prof. Sh. Shaked, by an oral communication, proposed to reconstruct talawara as *tarna-vara-, «a moisten / freshy covering». I think this is a convincing etymology, keeping in mind what talwâr was; as to semantics, compare Song of Songs 1.16, ars´çnu råanânâh, «our trellis is fresh», which comes immediately before qôrôth bâttçnû