Altercatio ecclesiae et synagogae, Opera

Citation preview

TYVOGRAPHI BREPQLS TVRNHOLTI

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM

Series Latina LXIX A

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM Series Latina

LXIX A

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE cura et studio J.N. HILLGARTH

POTAMII EPISCOPI OLISPONENSIS OPERA OMNIA cura et studio M. CONTI

TURNHOUT BREPOLSSPUBLISHERS 1999

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE

ET

SYNAGOGAE cura et studio J.N. HILLGARTH

POTAMII

EPISCOPI

OLISPONENSIS OPERA

OMNIA

cura et studio M. CONTI

TURNHOUT BREPOLSSPUBLISHERS 1999

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM

Series Latina

in Abbatia Sancti Petri Steenbrvgensi a reuerendissimo Domino Eligio Dekkers fundata nunc sub auspiciis Vniuersitatum Universiteit Antwerpen - UFSIA Vrije Universiteit Brussel Universiteit Gent Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Universite Catholique de Louvain edita

editionibus curandis praesunt Fernand Bossier Rita Beyers Georges Declercq Luc De Coninck Jean Goossens Mathijs Lamberigts Paul Tombeur Marc Van Uytfanghe parandis operant dant Roland Demeulenaere Luc Jocque Roel Vander Plaetse

This book has been printed on paper according to the prevailing ISO-NORMS. © 1999 BR.EPOLSS3PUBLISHER.S (Turnhout - Belgium) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

cura et studio J.N. HILLGARTH

INTRODUCTION Although the Altercatio ecclesiae et synagogae was first published in 1506 and was often reprinted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and then passed from the Maurist edition of the works of Augustine to Migne's Patrologia latina, it only became the object of special study in re cent times. The first scholar to point out the deficiencies of the standard text was dom Germain Morin. In 1900 Morin noted how this could be improved by the use of MS. Monte Cassino 247 (our 0.1 While dom Morin later withdrew his suggestion that our Altercatio [henceforth A] was the work of the author of Evagrii altercatio legis (which precedes it in O, his remarks on the value of C for our text remain valuable.2 Before Morin wrote others had noted the interest of A as a possible source for representations in medieval art of the Church and the Synagogue.3 In the twentieth century A has been studied by scholars concerned with the history of

1 G. Morin, Deux ecrits de polemique antijuive d'apres le Cod. Casin. 24J, in Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique i (1900), 270-73. J. Juster, Les juifs dans I 'Empire romain, leur condition juridique, economique et sociale, 1 (Paris, 1914), 73, remarked that F. Cumont - presumably in Reliquiae Taurinenses: Un dialogue judeo-chretien du temps deJustinien, in Bul letin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques de I'Academie Royale de Belgique (1904), 81-96 -, had published a collation of a Monte Cassino MS. which was reproduced by Morin. In 2: 245 n.3, he referred to a "MS. de Turin, maintenant detruit" as having the rea ding "clarissimatus ordinem" [our 1.131]. Here we have a triple error, first that Morin "reproduced" a collation made by Cumont, whereas Morin had collated our C himself, secondly that the text was contained in a MS. of Turin, later destroyed, and thirdly that Cumont's article was con cerned with A. 2 Morin, Autour des 'Tractatus Origenis, in Revue benedictine 19 (1902), 243. In his Etudes, textes, decouvertes 1 (Maredsous, 1913), 30, Morin pointed out the deficiencies in the editions of A, especially as re gards the biblical citations. He considered that the work belonged to the time of Augustine. 3 See especially P. Weber, Geistliches Schauspiel und kirchliche Kunst in ihrem Verhdltnis erlautert an einer Ikonographie der Kirche und Synagoge (Stuttgart, 1894). This view is echoed by P. Hildenfinger, La Fi gure de la synagogue dans I'art du moyen age, in Revue des etudes juives 47 (1903), 187-96, H. Walther, Das Streitgedicht in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Munich, 1920), pp. 27 f., and others.

4

INTRODUCTION

disputation between Jews and Christians.4 The biblical ci tations in the work have also been looked at.5 Here an apparent digression. In 1937 the Majorcan priest Gabriel Segui Vidal published his doctoral thesis on an en cyclical letter of 417-418 from Bishop Severus of Minorca, written to announce the mass conversion of the Jews of the island. Although this letter was edited by Baronius in 1594 and had often been reprinted, this thesis contained the first critical edition and one of the main objects that Dr. Segui had in mind was to demonstrate the work's authenticity.6 This was again challenged, however, by the well known historian of Judaism, Bernhard Blumenkranz, who saw the letter as a seventh-century production from Visigothic Spain.7 It is only recently that this question has been put to rest by the publication of newly discovered letters by Augustine's Balearic correspondent, Consentius. The ex haustive study by another Majorcan scholar, Josep Amengual i Batle, which includes a new critical edition of Se verus' letter, dispenses me from dealing further with the question of its authenticity, which is now generally acknowledged.8 4 Notably H. Pflaum, Die Religiose Disputation in der europaischen Dichtung des Mittelalters (Geneva-Florence, 1935), A. L. Williams, Adversus Iudaeos. A Bird's-Eye View of Christian Apologiae' until the Renais sance (Cambridge, 1935), and B. Blumenkranz (cited below, n.7). 5 See A. Oepke, Ein bisher unbeachtetes Zitat aus dem fiinften Buche Ezra, in Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren Kirche 42 (1949), 161-65; and, more briefly, P. Bellet, La edicion de la 'Vetus Latina 'par los monjes de Beuron, in Estudios Biblicos (1950), 83-87, and T. Ayuso, La Vetus Latina Hispana (Madrid, 1953), pp. 250 and 527. 6 G. SeguI Vidal, La carta-enciclica del Obispo Severo de Menorca (Palma de Mallorca, 1937). 7 Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chretiens du moyen age latin sur les juifs et le juda'isme, in Revue des etudes juives, N. S. 9 (1948-49), 29-32, N. S. n (1951-52), 24-27 (articles reprinted as a book in Paris, 1963). 8 See Els origens del Cristianisme a les Balears i el seu desenvolupament fins a l epoca musulmana, 2 vols. (Mallorca, 1992), and my review in Speculum 69 (1994), 729-31. On Consentius see especially the articles by M. Moreau and J. Wankenne, in Les Lettres de saint Augustin decouvertes parf. Divjak (Paris, 1983), pp. 215-23 and 225-42 (Wankenne discus ses the difference between the style of Consentius and that of Severus; that of A is very different again). In a private conversation at Toledo in 1989, the late Professor Blumenkranz told me that he was now convin ced that the letter was by Severus. Before the publication of Amengual's

INTRODUCTION

5

It was, however, a question involved with Severus that first led me to interest myself in A. In 1937 Dr. Segui had launched the idea that this work, also, was written by the bishop of Minorca and should be identified with a Commonitorium mentioned in his encyclical letter.9 The discovery, in the early 1950s, of the foundations of an early Christian basilica situated at Son Bou, on the southern coast of Minorca, led Segui to return to this subject. In a series of articles he proposed the identification of the com munity round the basilica with that referred to in A.l0 At Dr. Segui's invitation I joined him in a study of this question. In an article published in 1955 under both our names, while Dr. Segui attempted to date the document, to establish its Severan authorship, and to connect it to the archaeological study of the basilica of Son Bou, I was res ponsible for the first critical edition of the work." The fact that this article appeared in a local Majorcan publication meant that it was not as widely known as might otherwise have been the case.12 I only know of two reviews of interest. In one of these the late Dr. Jose Vives of Barcelona argued that the edition of A should have gi ven greater importance to MS. C, whose orthography see med to him to display "Spanish symptoms".13 In 1957 Pro fessor M. C. Diaz y Diaz (then of Valencia University, now at Santiago de Compostela), while concurring in his emp hasis on C, suggested some specific changes in the text; work, both Peter Brown, in The Cult of the Saints: its rise and function in Latin Christianity (Chicago, 1981), and E. D. Hunt, St. Stephen in Mi norca. An Episode in Jewish-Christian Relations in the earlyfifth century A.D., in Journal of Theological Studies, N. S. 33 (1982), 106-23, in discus sing Severus's letter, had treated it as authentic. (The edition of Severus of Minorca, Letter on the Conversion of the Jews, by Scott Bradbury (Oxford, 1996), has useful comments on the text, but does not modify Amengual's conclusions.) 9 Segui, pp. 67-72. 10 See especially La Basilica paleocristiana de Son Bou en Menorca, in Boletin de la Sociedad Arqueologica Luliana 30 (1947-52), 687-707. " G. Segui and J. N. Hillgarth, La 'Altercatio' y la Basilica paleocristi ana de Son Bou de Menorca, in Boletin [as last note], 31 (1954), and se parately published; see p. 60 n.1. 12 Although it is cited, for instance, by dom E. Dekkers, in his Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 2nd edition (Steenbrugge, 1961), p. 132. I3 Jose Vives, in Hispania Sacra 9 (1956), 227-29.

6

INTRODUCTION

these have been duly taken into account in the present edition.14 While Dr. Vives agreed that A was probably by Bishop Severus, he expressed fundamental doubts as to the identification of the Christian community referred to in the text with that at Son Bou. It should be said that these doubts proved justified; the basilica there is now generally dated to the sixth century and cannot, therefore, be con nected to Severus or to A. 15 Meanwhile Professor Diaz y Diaz had demonstrated that Severus' letter and A were by different authors. He suggested that A may have served as a source for the former work.16 While this is certainly a possibility to be borne in mind, the situation has changed in that Severus' letter is now generally regarded as authen tic, which was not the case in 1957. Given the urgency of its tone and the fact that it was at once transmitted to Uzali in North Africa, the letter must have been written in 417418, immediately after the sensational conversion of the Je wish community of Magona (Mahon) which it records; this makes it difficult to suppose that its author would have had the leisure to draw on a complex literary document such as the Altercatio. A would also seem an improbable source for Severus to use; unlike Severus' letter, A does not dis play any interest in the conversion of the Jews but merely celebrates their inferior status to that of Christians.17 In fact A evinces remarkable ignorance as to Judaism as a religion.18

'4 M. C. DtAZ Y DIaz, De patristica espanola, in Revista espanola de teologia 17 (1957), 3-12. 15 See J. Fontaine, L'Art preroman hispanique, 1 (La Pierre-qui-vire, 1973), 58-61. 16 DIaz, p. 11. 17 This point was noted by DIaz, p. 9. 18 See below, n.25. Emilienne Demougeot, "L'Eveque Severe et les juifs de Minorque au Ve siecle", Majorque, Languedoc et Roussillon de I'Antiquite a nos jours (Montpellier, 1982), pp. 13-34, and especially her stress on a close connection between A and Severus' letter, was partly based on Dr. Segui's earlier arguments (see above). She suggested that both works, at least in their present form, originated in early saec. VII Spain. In a letter of 3 August 1986 Mile. Demougeot informed me that she accepted the authenticity of the letter. This being now generally agreed, there seems no reason to date A, as a separate work, in the se venth century.

INTRODUCTION

7

The Date and Place of Origin of the Altercatio If one is obliged to abandon any connection between A and Bishop Severus and his letter of 417-418, what date can one ascribe to A and where did it originate? Given the anonymity of its author, the main hope of dating and pla cing it consists in its language and in the legal references it contains. Professor Diaz y Diaz was the first - and, as far as I know, the only - scholar to point out that some of the terms used in A, for instance "christicola, gerulos litterarum, caraxatas, apices", indicate a writer of the late fourth or the fifth century.19 As Erasmus had already seen, the use of legal arguments denotes either a lawyer or at least so meone familiar with Roman law.20 While the "Synagogue" of the dialogue is able to point out that Jews are still able to trade freely in the Roman empire, the "Church" is able to retort that they are obliged to live under Christian em perors, and are unable to rise to high office, to enter the senate or the army, become a count, or occupy the prefecture.21 These statements indicate a date after the law of 404 which prohibited Jews holding office at court. In 404 and again in 418 they were to be deprived "omni militia".22 In 438 there followed a total ban on Jews holding any pu blic office.23 Thus 438 seems the first definite date post quem that one can establish for A. Because of the reference to "Christian emperors", Juster, followed by Blumenkranz, suggested a date between 438 and 476, the year of the di sappearance of the last shadow emperor in the west.24 However, the deposition of Romulus Augustulus seems to have created so little repercussion that it is hard to be sure of 476 as a date ante quem. What is striking is the igno19 Diaz, p. 10, "nos hacen ver un autor muy en contacto con las corrientes literarias, y especialmente poeticas del siglo V". For these refe rences see below, li. 35, 113, 125, 143. 20 See below and n.59. The edition is in Divi Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis episcopi, Opera, summa vigilantia repurgata per Des. Erasmum, 6 (Basle, 1528), 54-64. 21 See li. 109-112; 125-133. 22 Cod. Theod. XVI, 8, 16 and 24. 25 Nov. Theod. 3, 2. M Juster (cited, n.1), v. 74 n.1.

8

INTRODUCTION

rance of Judaism displayed in the statement that the Sab bath begins in the morning of that day, rather than on Fri day evening.25 But this does not help one as to the date of A. One has to return to the literary associations of the lan guage used which, together with the legal references, sug gest the fifth century. One point that is definitely establis hed by the surviving manuscripts is that A is certainly ear lier than the ninth century; given the radical divergence between the two families, it would seem considerably earlier.26 One can, therefore, dismiss Oepke's ingenious suggestion that the work belongs to the eleventh century.27 If one can only date A to the fifth century, can one say where it might have been written? In 1957 Diaz y Diaz no ted that the use of "Basileion" (1. 530) to indicate the Book of Kings is typical of North African writers, Tertullian, Cy prian, and Lactantius.28 The biblical citations used in such abundance in the treatise are certainly taken from the Vetus Latina, not the Vulgate. Although a few are closer to citations found in Augustine or Ambrose, most of them are taken from Cyprian's Testimonia. The passages cited from Cyprian are indicated in the apparatus. Three examples may suffice here. In ll. 188-198 A copies texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah in the same order as Cyprian, Test. I, 3. In ll. 238-45 a citation from Deuteronomy follows one from Jere miah, exactly as in Test. I, 8. In ll. 477-81 the author of A cites Ps. 2.6 and Mal. 1.14 as does Test. II, 29. While Cyprian's works were no doubt widely diffused by 400, this clear use of the Testimonia (more precisely of a tradition represented by a specific group of manuscripts, WLMB)

15 See 11. 364 f. This was noted by Williams (cited, n.4), p. 331 n.1o. 16 See below, pp. 14 f. 17 For Orpke see n.5, above. His suggestion was noted as deserving consideration by Blumenkranz and Ayuso. A further clue to the date of A is afforded by the fact that in all the older MSS. of the 4> family it is preceded by the early fifth-century De vita christiana and in some MSS. (5 and the lost Reichenau codex) also by two works of Jerome against the Pelagians. This was pointed out to me in a letter of 1955 by Dr. Owen Chadwick (see n.63 below). 28 DfaZ, p. 8 n.23.

INTRODUCTION

9

may provide a clue leading to a North African author (pro bably a lawyer) for A.19 The reference to possible "Spanish symptoms", already noted, was based on readings in C. Since this is a manu script in Beneventan script, the confusion between b and v, the arbitrary use of h, and the confusion between final d and t, all noted by Dr. Vives in his review of my earlier edition, do not seem conclusive.30 All these orthographi cal variants occur in Beneventan as well as in Visigothic script. Their presence in C is not, therefore, proof that the exemplar used by C, let alone the archetype behind both families (C and was Spanish. This does not exclude the possibility that A, like many other texts from Christian antiquity, was transmitted through Spain. In 1969 I suggested that our work was known to and used by Julian of Toledo (d. 690). 31 Julian's Historia Wambae, with his accompanying Insultatio in tyrannidem Galliae, was probably written about 673, shortly after the events it describes. Julian was not to become bis hop of Toledo until 680. He owed his nomination to what, during his episcopate, was to be declared the primatial see of Spain, to King Wamba. This nomination may have in part been due to his treatises in honour of the king, apo logetic history in the tradition of Isidore of Seville's earlier Historia Gothorum. Julian's Historia celebrated the triumph of King Wamba over a rebellion led by Duke Paul in Septimania, the Visigothic province north of the Pyre-

29 See the apparatus at 522. On several occasions, for instance in Altercatio Ecclesiae contra Sinagogam, in Revue du Moyen Age Latin 10 (1954), 27 n.67, Blumenkranz suggested "un pays fraichement incorpore a la 'Romania'" as the place of origin of A. I cannot see why the fact that the "Synagogue" should claim more ancient rights in the Roman empire than the "Church" possessed (1. 48), should imply this. Pflaum (cited, n.4), pp. 10 f., was responsible for an unconvincing attribution; compa ring A with a Syriac hymn, he suggested that both derived from a lost Byzantine text of the fifth century. See DIaz's remarks, cited above, nn.19, 28. 30 See Vives (cited, n.13) and below, under "Orthography". " Historiography in Visigiothic Spain, in La storiografia altomedievale, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 17 (Spoleto, 1970), 301 f. (this article was reprinted in my Visigothic Spain, Byzantium and the Irish [London, 1985]).

10

INTRODUCTION

nees. Julian - whom the anonymous "Mozarabic Chroni cle" or Continuatio hispana of 754 was to describe as him self of Jewish descent - considered that the rebellion was largely inspired by Jews. 32 This was a time in Spain when the anti-Jewish sentiment which was to produce the legis lation of later reigns must have been gathering strength.33 Hence it would be natural for Julian to draw on an antiJewish rhetorical model which stressed the inferiority of Jews to Christians and seemed made to be employed against Wamba's defeated adversaries; thus the "Church" and "Synagogue" of A can be used for other personifica tions, the "Spania" and "Gallia" of 673. The following pa rallels between Julian's works and A seem significant. Ex cept for the first passage in Julian - part of a probably imaginary speech by a noble to Wamba, persuading him to accept the throne - these quotations are taken from Julian's virulent attack on the rebellious "Gallia", for which he employs the attacks on the "Synagogue" in A. 1. (A, ll. 561 f.), Gladius tuus per apicem mucronis madido adhuc cruore distillat et revinci desideras? Cf. Histo ria Wambae, 2 (ed. Levison, 1910, 502.8 f., reprint CCSL 115, 1976, 219.28-30), Nisi consensurum te nobis modo promittas, gladii modo mucrone truncandum te scias. 2. (A, ll. 121 f.), Si adhuc regnas liberam te esse cognosco et necdum mihi servitute subiectam. Cf. Insultatio, 1 (ed. Levison, 1910, 526.8 f., 1976, 245. 2f.), Ubi est illa libertas tua, in qua male libera de erecto tibi fastus supercilio adplaudebas? 3. (A, 1. 383), Audi, misera, audi, infelicissima!; (146), Hic me miseram errasse cognosco; (151 f.). Certum habeo quod legisti sed quae legeris retinere non potes et ipsud agnosco redire; (404), Crimen memoriam tollit. Cf. Insult. 2 (1910,

32 This point is stressed in the Insultatio, ed. W. Levison, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 5 (1910), 526-29 (reprinted in CCSL 115 [1976], 245-49). lC also appears in the Historia Wambae, 28. " See E. A. Thompson, The Goths in Spain (Oxford, 1969), pp. 205-8 (on earlier legislation), 234-8 (on that of 681, which ordered the forced baptism of all the Jews in Spain).

INTRODUCTION

n

526.29-527.3; 1976, 245.30-246.2), Agnosce, misera, agnosce quid feceris! Sufficiat tibi inter febres amississe memoriam. These comparisons suggest that A was present in the ex cellent episcopal library of Toledo in the late seventh century.34 From there it may be presumed that it travelled in two different directions, across the Pyrenees to the Frankish world, where its presence is attested in the ninth cen tury, and to southern Italy, where it is represented by C. Manuscripts and Editions of the Altercatio Twelve surviving manuscripts of A are known to me.35 B = Bamberg, Patr. 23. B. III. 13. Parchment. 159 folios. 213 x 162 mm. One column, 22 lines. Saec. X. A occupies fols. 52v-63v. In saec. XIII this MS. was present in Bamberg ca thedral; it appears in a list of books "qui magistro Richardo commissi sunt".36 Ba = Basel, Universitatsbibliothek, A. IX. 75. Paper. 1 mo dern folio + a + 4 = b. 290 x 213 mm. (written space 195-200 x 130). 50-56 lines. Binding modern. Saec. XV second quar ter. Provenance unknown. A French hand, according to the typescript description in the library. Ink brown/black. No decoration. F. a: "D. Augustini libelllus de altercatione Ecclesie et Synagoge" in the hand of Konrad Pfister (15761636). This is the only work contained in the MS.37

34 For which see J. N. Hillgarth, Las Fuentes de san Julian de Toledo, in Anales toledanos 3 (1971), 97-118. 35 I possess photostats of all twelve MSS. and have seen BaCGMPSV. I am indebted to the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in Pa ris for their help in obtaining photographs and in particular for allowing me to consult the very detailed, unpublished "notice descriptive" of V made in 1955 by Mile. Le Breton. Further debts are acknowledged be low. 36 F. Letschuh and H. Fischer, Kataloge der Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg (Bamberg, 1895-1906), p. 374. B. Ruf, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, III, 3 (Munich, 1939), p. 343. 37 Die Handschriften der Universitatsbibliothek Basel, Register von der Abteilungen A I-A XI und O, ed. M. Steinmann (Basel, 1982), p. 25, lists the MS.

12

INTRODUCTION

C = Monte Cassino, 247. Parchment. 380 pages. 213 x 150 mm. Saec. XII. A composite volume consisting of four ori ginally separate codices; from p. 129 on two codices in Beneventan script. The last (1 column, 22 lines) contains A, in mutilated form (pp. 361-380); it lacks the last pages, and ends [1. 425] "in visu nocte et ecce".38 F = Firenze, bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, aed. Flor. eccl. (Bibl. aedilium Florentinae ecclesiae) IX. Parchment. 179 folios. 2 cols. Saec. XI. A (fols. 26r-3ir) is preceded by the Pseudo-Augustinian works, De agone christiano, Adversus V haereses, and De vita christana and followed by De de cem chordis [Sermo IX].39 G = Gent, Universiteitsbibliotheek, 299 [431]. no folios + modern fols. de garde. Parchment. 185 x 117 mm. (written space 140 x 82). 23 lines. Old binding damaged; modern binding in parchment. No certain provenance, but proba bly Trier. Fols. 2-100v Omnes epistulae sancti Pauli apostoli. Fols. 10ov-nov contain A, ending (1. 437) "nunc clarificabor et exaltabor, nunc". Saec. XII. The same scribe was responsible for the Epistula ad Hebraeos, which begins on fol. 87', and for A. This part of the codex has red rubrics, whereas in the first part they are in black. Irregularities in the quire containing fols. 95-102 suggest that originally the Ep. ad Hebraeos may not have been followed by A40

38 M. Inguanez, Codicum Casinensium Manuscriptorum Catalogus cura et studio monachorum S. Benedicti Archicoenobii Montis Casini, II (Monte Casino, 1928-34), 57-59; E. A. Loew, The Beneventan Script (Ox ford, 1914), p. 347. "A. M. Bandinus, Bibliotheca Leopoldina Laurentiana seu Catalogus manuscriptorum qui iussu Petri Leopoldi ... in Laurentianam translati sunt, 1 (Florence, 1791), cols. 24 f.; M. Oberleitner, Die Handschriftliche Uberlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus, 1,2 (Vienna, 1970), 85, does not add to this description. Bandini lists the following works after De decern chordis: Cassiodorus, De anima, Augustine, In epistulam loannis, Origen, In Canticum, Isidore, Contra Iudaeos, and Bede, In Marci Evangelium. 40 A. DeroleZ, Inventaris van de Handschriften in de Universiteitsbibliothek te Gent (Gent, 1977), p. 26. I am much indebted to Professor Derolez for his comments in a letter of 22 September 1995, in which he states "the codex most probably belongs to a series of manuscripts which came to Ghent from Trier ... about 1816. It is not possible to state to which abbey it belonged (most probably either St. Eucharius-St Mathias or St. Maximinus)". His other suggestions are cited in the text.

INTRODUCTION

13

K = Koln, Historisches Archiv G. B. f° 166. i + 234 folios. 290 x 210 mm. (written space 210 x 145). Paper. 2 cols. 48 lines in our text. Bastard script by several hands of late saec. XV. A is contained in fols. 77r-8ov and is followed (as in F) by De decem chordis. Provenance: Kreuzbriider, Koln. 41 M= Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 15819. Par chment. 125 folios. Originally two separate codices (the se cond saec. XII). Our MS., the first (saec. IX), consists of 71 folios. 219 x 150 mm. (written space 150 x 103). One column, 17 lines. A occupies fols. 42-71. The MS. comes from Salz burg cathedral. In a letter of 14 November 1954, the late Professor Bernhard Bischoff informed me that it was writ ten in Salzburg during the episcopate of Archbishop Liuphram (836-859). 42 Pa = Padova, Biblioteca del Seminario 527. Parchment, i + 109 folios. 395 x 255 mm. (written space 280 x 170). 2 cols. 39-41 lines. A (fols. 43r-49r) is preceded by the same three Pseudo-Augustinian works as in F and is followed by the same sermones 355-356. This MS. (saec. XI/XII), "written by five copyists, working at the same time in the same scrip torium", was originally part of a larger codex, part of which is now MS. Mantova, Bibl. Comunale E V 14. Provenance: San Benedetto di Polirone (founded in 1007 and affiliated to Cluny in 1077 at the wish of Pope Gregory VII).43 41 This MS. is listed by R. Kurz, in the work cited n.39, above, V,i (Vienna, 1976), 44, and is described in detail by J. Vennebusch, Die theologischen Handschriften des Stadtarchivs Koln (Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Koln, ed. H. Stehkamper, I, 1) (Koln-Wien, 1976), 138-44. 41 K. Foltz, Geschichte der Salzburger Bibliotheken (Viena, 1877), pp. 35, 38; C. Halm et al., Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, II (Munich, 1878), p. 37. 43 This MS. is listed by Oberleitner (cited, n.39). I am very grateful to Professor Mirella Ferrari, who examined the MS. for me. My description is based on her very detailed notes, which I cite here. She points out that the "209" of fol. I refers to a saec. XV library catalogue of Polirone. I owe to her references to P. Piva, Contribut0 al recupero di un grande centro scrittorio, la miniatura romanica nel monastero di Polirone, in Codici miniati e artigianato rurale (Polirone, 1978), p. 16, and to A. C. Quintavalle, Wiligelmo e Matilde. L 'officina romanica. Catalogo delle opere, ed. A. Calzona et al. (Milan, 1991), pp. 568-70. See also M. Fer rari, Immagini fredde e immagini scintillanti, in Virgilio e il Chiostro, Manoscritti di autori classici e civilta monastica, ed. M. Dell'Omo (Montecassino-Rome, 1996), pp. 25-32.

14

INTRODUCTION

P = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 10463. Parchment. 142 + ii folios. 192 x 132 mm. (written space 150 x no). One column, 21 lines. One hand throughout. A occupies fols. 44r-59v. Saec. XI. No known origin or provenance. S = St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 132. Parchment. 330 numbe red pages (actually 334), with a first and a last unnumbered folio. "The binding is Carolingian, of the sort (now grey leather over boards, sewn on paired cords of twist) execu ted during the abbacy of Grimald (850-872). The MS. is co pied by several St. Gall hands (saec. IX3/4)." A occupies pp. 284-329: 164 x 208 mm. (written space 101 x 133). One co lumn, 16 lines. It is copied "by at least two hands and pro bably three in all", with "contemporary corrections by two different St. Gall hands, one of which may be that of Notker Balbulus".44 The MS. is listed in several saec. IX cata logues of St. Gall, one of the second half of the century, and another of MSS. written for Abbot Hartmut (872-883); however, as indicated, the MS. was written under Grimald.45 T= Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Theol. 80, 157. Par chment. 1 fol. (unnumbered) + 274 pp. + 2 fols. (unnum bered). 150 x 125 mm. (written space approximately 120 x 90). One column, 15-21 long lines. The codex "appears to be composite", with "4 + hands, ranging from saec. IX to XI". A (pp. 93-136) was written saec. IX late or "possibly early X". As in S it is preceded by the De vita christiana. The MS. comes from the Bavarian abbey of Tegernsee; saec. XIX it belonged to Sir Thomas Phillips at Cheltenham (no. 16355). 46 44 G. Scherrer, Verzeichnis der Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek von St. Gallen (Halle, 1875), p. 47; A. Bruckner, Scriptoria medii aevi Helve tica, III (Geneva, 1938), p. 70. I am indebted to my friends and collea gues Dr. Michael I. Allen and Professor John Magee for their notes on this MS. The quotations are taken from Dr. Allen's personal communi cation to me. See Susan Rankin, Ego itaque Notker scripsi, in Revue benedictine 101 (1991), 268-98. 45 P. Lehmann, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, I (Munich, 1918), 73, 86; see also p. 107 (the inventory of 1461). 46 H. Schenkl, Bibliotheca patrum latinorum Britannica, in Sitzungsberichte des philosophisch-historisches Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaft, Wien (Viena, 1892), p. 56, described the MS. when it

INTRODUCTION

15

V = Verdun, Bibliotheque Municipale 74. Parchment. 133 folios + 2 (paper) "de garde". 146 x 107 mm. (written space 115 x 80). Long lines. To fol. 82v saec. XII, the rest saec. XI. Several hands; fols. 1v-16 and 67-82v seem to be in the same hand and contain three decorated initials. A occupies fols. iv-16. The origin of the MS. is uncertain, "sans doute un monastere de Test de France qui faisait partie de la reforme inauguree a Gorze". It certainly belonged to St. Vanne saec. XVII.47 We also know of at least three lost manuscripts. One is recorded at Reichenau in 835-842 and again in a catalogue of the second half of the ninth century.48 The second ap pears in the Cluny catalogue dated by Delisle 1158-61, "Volumen in quo continetur Athanasius de Trinitate, et ejusdem altercationes atque Augustini et ecclesie ac synagoge adversus haereses".49 The third of these lost manuscripts is listed in a late medieval catalogue of the Augustinian house of Lanthony, in a manuscript where A followed the Didascalicon of Hugo of St. Victor.50 On the other hand, Munich, CLM 19610 (saec. XV), fols. 134-45, does not con tain the A but a late medieval Dialogus inter Synagogam et Ecclesiam de variis erroribus Talmuth Judaeorum.51 was at Cheltenham (no. 16355). Professor Magee, to whom I am indebted for the details given in the text, informs me that there is no modern pu blished catalogue one can cite but there is a handlist at Berlin ("im 1. Haus"). 47 Catalogue des manuscrits des Departements, V (Paris, 1874), 474 f. (a very brief description). See n.35, above (Mile. Le Breton's description, which I cite). 48 Lehmann, op. cit., pp. 261, 264. 49 L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 2 (Paris, 1874), 462. Despite the connection between Cluny and Polirone (see n.43, above), I doubt if our MS. Pa derives from a Cluniac model. The texts indicated in the catalogue and those in Pa are too different. 50 I owe my first knowledge of this reference to the late Francis Wormald and my information on the catalogue to a letter of 7 July 1995 from Professor Andrew Watson. The catalogue of Lanthony Priory of c. 135560, preserved in MS. BL, Harl. 460, is to be included in The Libraries of the Augustinian Canons, to be edited by M. J. T. Webber and A. G. Watson as volume 7 of the new Corpus of British Medieval Library ca talogues. Fol. 8r lists [A 16, 298] "Distinctiones quedam, Didascolicon [sic] Hugonis et sermones, Altercacio ecclesie et synagoge quaternus niger". 51 MS. St. Gallen 1398 III, pp. 19-30, consists of fragments of the late saec. IX or early saec. X which are attributed in the index (though not in the text) of Scherrer's work (cited, n.44) to A; this attribition has been

16

INTRODUCTION

Prior to 1955 A only appeared in successive collections of works of St. Augustine. No incunabula are recorded. The editio princeps is the ninth work in the eleventh volume of the first collected edition of Augustine, published by Amerbach in Basle in 1506-17. 52 This text, as revised by Erasmus in 1528, was the basis for all later editions.53 Erasmus' edi tion was republished in Paris in 1531 and 1555, at Lyon in 1561-63, at Basle in 1569, in Paris, by Vives, in 1571, at Venice in 1584, and in the important reprint "per Theologos Lovanienses" published by Plantin at Antwerp in 1576. 54 This edition was reproduced at Paris in 1586 and at Lyon in 1664. In 1694 the Maurists included A in their famous edition of St. Augustine, and it appears in the reprints of Antwerp (1700-03) and Venice (1768). 55 The Maurists did not re-edit the work but used the edition of Antwerp by Plantin (es sentially by Erasmus); for some reason they cut the text off at "non dilectam, dilectam" (1. 540). Migne reprinted the treatise in Patrologia latina 42, cols. 1131-40; he used the earlier editions to fill in the gap left by the Maurists. The only editions of any interest are those of Amerbach of 1506 and that of Erasmus. Amerbach's edition seems to have been taken from a manuscript resembling our MS. B. 56 Amerbach included eight variants in his edition, only one of which was reproduced by Erasmus ("latum tenuis-

repeated recently but, as I discovered from an examination of the MS., it is erroneous. While I have not as yet been able to identify the text it appears to be part of a commentary on the Song of Songs. A letter of 26 September 1995 from the Stiftsbibliotekar, Professor Dr. P. Ochsenbein, informs me that he and Dr. Beat von Scarpatetti locate the hand of the fragments "im rheinischen Gebiet" and see no connection between it and the St. Gall scriptorium, which was responsible for our 5. I am gra teful to Professor Ochsenbein and to the Assistant Librarian, Dr. Cornel Dora, for their assistance during my visit to St. Gall in September 1997. 52 Undecima pars librorum divi Aurelii Augustini quorum mentionem non fuit in libris Retractationum (Basle, 1506). For this edition see J. de Ghellinck, La Premiere edition imprimee des 'Opera omnia S. Augustini, in Miscellanea J. Gessler, 1 (Louvain, 1948), 530-47; V. Scholderer, The First Collected Edition of St. Augustine, in Library, V, 14 (1959), 46-49. 53 For Erasmus' edition see above, n.20. 54 Opera divi Aurelii Augustini, VI (Antwerp, 1576), 367-70. " In 1694 as Appendix tomi octavi, cols. 19-24. 56 See, for instance, 11. 347 (agnus agni nuptias), 372 (furialis).

INTRODUCTION

17

set imperium", 1. 120, the reading of all our manuscripts).57 Erasmus, for his part, corrected the earlier edition in ele ven places; and his changes still appear in Migne.58 More interesting is his "censura", which recalls Joseph de Ghellinck's verdict on him as an editor, "Libellus elegans, sed qui nihil habeat phraseos Augustinianae. Videtur aulicus aut Iureconsultus quispiam fuisse."59 This judgement was reproduced almost verbatim by the Theologians of Louvain.60 The Families of Manuscripts My edition of 1955 was the first to attempt to reconstruct the text on the basis of the manuscript tradition. For it I consulted six of the manuscripts listed above (B, C, M, P, S, and V; the whereabouts of the rest were not then known to me). It was clear to me that the manuscripts divided into two families, one of which was only represented by C; the rediscovery of T and consultation of Ba, F, G, K and Pa does not change this situation. I shall now try to set out the differences between these two families and then ex plain the principles, in some respects different from those I followed in 1955, which have guided me. Both C and the other manuscripts, whose hyparchetype I call , descend from a common archetype (fl). At certain points in the apparatus both families of manuscripts fail and one is obliged to emend. There are cases I have mar-

57 The others are: iure reticeo (5 f.), vidi (178), haec mihi (309), dubitare (433), eius for Dei (444), occiderunt for interfecerunt (565), and elogiis (592). 58 Erasmus's most important "correction" was "diversabare" for the "diverso ore" of Amerbach (53). See also "condensa" or "contemptior" for "condensior" (53), and "degas" for "eligas" (105). The Louvain editors introduced six very minor changes in Erasmus' text; the Basle edition of 1569 already has them all, except for "consessus" for "concoetus" (9), a "correction" still preserved in Migne and in my 1955 edition but now de leted as lacking any MS. support. 59 See J. de Ghellinck, Patristique et Moyen Age, 2 (Brussels-Paris, 1948), 378: "se revele tout de suite la haute superiorite du styliste qui sait apprecier la langue de chaque auteur." 60 "Non sapit Augustini phrasem, nec ab aliquo bono authore habet testimonium. Auctor videtur aulicus fuisse et Iureconsultus."

18

INTRODUCTION

ked as corrupt (12, 100, 373). There are more problems after 1. 425, where C comes to a abrupt end. In the following list I note when I use the reading of the Maurist edition (m) this is almost always that of the editio princeps and may, of course, have been that of a now lost manuscript - or emend myself. 61 spicula, enses (m), 92 voluntati, 93 mandavit, 108 serviam, 141 poenae, 197 ruris (as Cy prian, Test. I, 3), 229 Iudaeos, 262 impressam, 290 non ut, 297 Pentateucho, 328 te, 349 spondeo (m), 352 puerperio (ra), 359 quo, 362 et (ra), 372 mox, 421 Eliam (rri), 435 potuit, 439 vana (Cyprian, Test., II, 26)), 524 devicta es (m), 551 tua (m), 551 and 567 Esdras (m), 557 effusionem, 568 discesserunt (m), 593 et (m). On occasion Cyprian's Test. corroborates the reading of the manuscripts; see 339 (gigans, as against gigas of m). I also noted some instances when m agrees with B - see, for instance, quae (423), Da vid om. (450), fortitudine (457), cognoscis (470), a om. (544), et om. (579) - or seems to derive from it or a manu script close to it (see 557). Otherwise, in the interest of cla rity, I have eliminated most references to the older edi tions, which often tend to agree with the Vulgate text, which was not that used by the author of A.61 At other ti mes they attempt to "improve" on the original. 62 I have also omitted some emendations by modern scholars which I recorded in 1955.63 It is almost always possible to arrive at a sound text on the basis of our two families of manu scripts.

61 For instance in 1. 274, where m follows the Vulgate in adding "us que ad internecionem" after "interficite". 62 So at 92 (voluminis), 102 (minorem for parviorem), 120 (locum tenuisset imperii), 131 (charismatis), or 228 (circumcisionis signum populo). 63 Notably "ob facina" (257), where I followed a conjecture by Dr. B. C. F. Atkinson, reported by Williams (cited, n.4), p. 329 n.1o, and con jectures by Pflaum (cited, n.4), in 2 (videar), 12 (aliam), 19 (et, ad), and 21 (retinentes). I have also, though with reluctance, omitted some very helpful emendations suggested privately to me in 1955 by the then su pervisor of my doctoral thesis at Cambridge, now Professor Owen Chadwick, KBE. These are noted in the apparatus at 12 (meritum), (possidente), and 556 (videris). In this new edition I am much indebted to my friend and former colleague in Toronto, Professor John Magee (see also notes 44, 46, above).

INTRODUCTION

19

The apparatus gives the readings of C and of the four ol der manuscripts of the other (northern European, essen tially German) family, BMST, which date between the midninth and the tenth centuries. These four codices differ, as will be seen, in various ways, but they are sufficiently close to be generally represented by the siglum . It is notable, for instance, that in all four, and in the lost ninth-century manuscript recorded in the catalogues of Reichenau (as well as in F and Pa), A is preceded by the Pseudo-Augustinian work, De vita christiana, whereas in C it is prece ded by the Altercatio legis attributed to Evagrius. I have not recorded in the apparatus the readings of the other seven manuscripts. P tsaec. XI) and V (saec. XII) are close to each other and to S, especially to its corrections (S7 - noted by me but not always recorded in the appara tus). These manuscripts also agree with G (which, uni quely in the tradition, at least at present, follows a Biblical text) in a number of readings. P and V agree, for instance, in reading invia (43), ac viminosus (53), vaccinia glandes (55, here V follows a "correction" in P), expertus ... genitus exercitum (62), ornamenta (101), deiras (105), oculis (192), renovate (239), curationem (333), spospondi (349), ergo (403, for error), and potest (422). Except for curationem and potest, all these readings are also found in G. A num ber of them are inferior to anything in S and they add nothing to its testimony. F and Pa agree in some readings with B, e.g. et illa que auribus (13), domina mihi (85), clarissimatus (131), ipse Deus (186), agnus nuptias agni (347), furualis (372), imposuisti (389). They share readings, e.g. et reddit (25), diviso ore (53), spiculenses (61), gemitus om. (62), potentia (76), craxatas (143), recolo (152), Moyses om. (214), haec haberes (252), circumcisi (260), descendit (267), adverte legem (291), maritantes (351), propheta (417), amicitiam (500), ge nesis (503), laetata (515), liam om. (533), ubi om. (552), vide rogo (556), impleantur (587). Pa is inferior to F, e.g. te om. 235, circumcisionem (246), media (276), nesciret (329), sed] sub (400), potest (422), et non (568). I have not made a complete collation of the two late manuscripts, Ba and K. While they help to document the wide diffusion of the text,

20

INTRODUCTION

they contribute nothing of value to its establishment. Ba is closer to B than to the other members of the main family (it agrees with B at 21, 52, 53, 55, 90, 174/175, 178, 186, 204, 223, 257, 297). K follows MST at 21, 61, 199, 280, though at other points - 90, 178, 186 - it appears closer to B. Both families and C) contain numerous errors. In the 425 lines (a little over two-thirds of the whole text) atte sted by both, C has far more errors than . I shall limit my self to the first 200 lines; here C appears to err in 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 (ter), 10 (bis), 10-11, 11 (bis), 12, 13 (bis), 13-14, 15 (ter), 16 (bis), 17 (bis), 18, 19, 19-20, 20, 20-21, 21, 22 (bis), 23, 24, 25, 26 (to), 27, 28, 31, 32 (bis), 35, 36, 37 (to), 38 (to), 39, 40, 46, 47, 49, 50 (ter), 54, 55, 55-56, 57, 59, 60, 61 (to), 62, 64 (to), 65-66, 67 (to), 70, 72 (ter), 74 (to), 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 (to), 80, 81, 84 (to), 85 (to), 86-87, 89 (to), 95, 97, 103 (to), 104, 106, 107, no, 1n, 112, 117, 120, 121, 122 (to), 124, 126, 127, 128 (to), 130, 132, 133 (to), 134 (quater), 135, 140, 141, 143 (to), 151 (ter), 152 (to), 152-153, 155, 157, 164, 165, 166 (to), 168 (to), 170 (to), 175 (to), 175-176, 178, 179, 180 (ter), 181-182, 182 (to), 183, 185 (ter), 189 (ter), 190, 191, 194 (ter), 195, 196, 197-198. Thus, in 200 lines, we have some 160 errors. The same proportion of errors ap pears in the rest of the text in C. Towards the end C is much affected by erasures; it would be unfair to list all of them as errors but they do reduce the usefulness of the manuscript. In one finds errors in 4, 5, 13, 15, 20, 21, 25, 33, 43 (ter), 44, 44-45, 53 (to), 53-54, 55, 58, 61, 70, 72, 84, 87, 89 (to), 93, 95, 96, 98, 99-100, 102, 105, 107, 116, 117, 119, 126, 127, 131 (to), 141 (ter), 142 (to), 144, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 161, 162, 172 (to), 173 (to), 174, 174-175, 179, 185, 192, 195 (to), 196. Here we have almost 70 errors, or less than half the number in C, in the same length of text. One therefore needs both C and Duo C 96 separabuntur] diuidentur 97 paulo ante maiore C 98 fuisse om. 99 uallibus om. S 99/100 latuisse ... et] dilituisse quondam uel in 102 lacte uixisse 103 milites C* est] sit C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

29

minor atque pauperior, tu maior et diues subiugata mihi 105 degeneras populo seruitura minori. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Recognosco titulum testa ment! et uideo litteras quas ipsa in thesauro meo et in bibliotheca seruaui. Sed dicito mihi quomodo tibi seruiam, quae adhuc filios meos liberos esse cognosco. Uacant ne110 gotiis, nauigandi potestas est libera, compedes nesciunt, nullus uineam laboriosae necessitatis fossura discerpit, nescio an tibi sim seruitute subiecta. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Testamentum recolis, apices recognoscis et adhuc non recipis seruitutem. 115 SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Dic tu mihi quod asseris. Re cognosco Moysen, audio et refutare non possum, sed qualiter tibi seruiam scire desidero. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Mutare te non potes, semper negas, et in falsis semper de falsitate contendis. Certe regnasse te 120 ante dixisti, cum populus Israel latum tenuisset imperium. Si adhuc regnas liberam te esse cognosco et necdum mihi seruitute subiectam. Alioquin si recte populo Israel christianus populus regnat constat te ancillam esse, non libe ram, quam uideo seruitute subiectam. Respice in legioni125 bus signa, nomen saluatoris intende, christicolas imperatores aduerte, et te considera de regno discussam et nobis iuxta testamenti fidem quod seruas id confitere. Tributum mihi soluis, ad imperium non accedis, habere non potes praefecturam. Iudaeum esse comitem non licet, senatum 130 tibi introire prohibetur, praefecturam nescis, ad militiam non admitteris, mensam diuitum non adtingeris, clarissimatus ordinem perdidisti, totum tibi non licet, cui etiam ad manducandum, ut uel male uiueres, paucula condonamus. 104 subiuga C 105 degeras 106 Cognosco C 107 et om. meo om. C 108 seruiam ego scr., seruio fl 109 esse om. MST no liberi C in uinea C 112 seruituti C 114 non om. T 116 refutare] refugere 117 seruio C desidero] non possum 119 in falsis] fallis 120 dixisse C 121 Si] Sed C 122 serui tuti subiecta C populo BT\ populos C, in populo MSB' 124 serui tuti BC 125 signa] et praem. S' 126 c. t. tr. discussa C 127 serues C id om. 128 solues C accedes C 130 pro hibitum est C 131 mensas 4> adtingis 131/132 clarissimatus BC, clari senatus MSTB2 132 etiam] uel add. C 133 ut om. C condonabimus C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

135

140

145

150

155

Ergo si haec quae summa, quae prima sunt caruisti, lege quid Rebeccae sit dictum cum geminos pareret: Duae gentes in utero tuo sunt et duo populi de uentre tuo diuidentur et populus populum superabit et maior seruiet minori. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Quid tamen feceram ut me diuinitas de regno discuteret et priuaret imperio? ECCLESIA DIXIT. Si tu ut grauiter peccasti, tam grauis poenae subiecta sis seruituti sub interitu mortis debitae; iam nec ancilla poteris esse nec libera. Nam cum primum Moyses in monte Syna caraxatas decalogo, duplices tabulas accepisset, uos contra dominum idola poposcitis, dicentes ad Aaron: Fac nobis deos qui nos antecedant. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Hic me miseram errasse cognosco sed mox eos qui idola poposcerunt usque ad ultimam damnationis mortem peruasit interitus. Quid ergo posteri fecerunt si mox illi seniores qui istud admiserant poenae ipsorum merita susceperunt? ECCLESIA DIXIT. Certum habeo quod legisti sed quae legeris retinere non potes et ipsud agnosco redire, sed recole scriptum: Et adnuntient filii filiis suis quoniam peccata parentum suorum in filiis creuerunt et iam non laxabo illis dicit dominus. Ut et alibi ait: Parentes uuas acerbas manducauerunt et filiis dentes obstupuerunt. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. In quo tibi plaudis, sub cuius regno imperium tenes prius ad me uel in populo meo Christus aduenit.

I35/137 Gen. 25, 23 156 Ezech. 18, 2

145 Exod. 32, 1

153/155 4 Esdras 1, 6

155/

134 haec] et C quae2 om. C prima] premissa C caruisti, lege] adisti legem C 135 cum geminos pareret om. C 136 tuo' om. B* 140 Sit ut te B graui C 141 poenae ego scr., -nam C, -na subiecta om. sit seruitutis 142 iam om. potes 143 Moyses] posses C caraxatas] incrassatus C 144 dominum] deum 4> 147/149 eos ... mox om. S* 148 m. d. tr. 150 ipso rum] suae 151 quod] ergo C sed om. C quae] quare C 152 legeris (-eres 5*)] religeris C et om. S ipsud] om. 5, ipsum BM redire om. cf> sed om. C 152/153 cole C 154 filiorum suorum suorum C, eorum BST, meorum M 155 ibi C 156 stupuerunt 157 plaudes C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE 160

165

170

175

180

185

31

ECCLESIA DIXIT. Sic erat dignum ut totum quidquid fuerat adstruendum diuina indulgentia praeueniret. Si enim ad me Christus principaliter aduenisset et te in aduentu ipso primae natiuitatis repudiare uoluisset, hodie diceres: "Non uenit ad me, nesciui quid colerem; nam si et in populo meo dignatus fuisset accedere quem prophetae Deum dixerant, confiterer." Ad te uenit: mortuos tuos uirtutum imperio suscitauit, loquaces praestitit mutos, gressibus reddidit claudos, caecos oculauit, paraliticos absolutis artubus expediuit, leprosos sanitati restituit; et non esse Deum quem Deum legeras profana mente dixisti. Idcirco quia dixisti saluatorem et dominum prius ad te uenisse, recolo et elogium tuum rursus ostendo. Lege quid tibi Esdras ex persona saluatoris scripserit: Ad meos ueni et mei me non cognouerunt. Quidfaciam tibi Iacob? Noluit me obaudire Iuda, transferam me ad alteram gentem. Unde uides te non debere gloriari quod uideris Christum. Maior enim causa criminis est uidere cui seruias et contemnere cui debeas seruitutem. Defenderes forsitan te si diceres, Non uidi dominum, nesciui quid facerem, putabam prophetas fuisse mentitos. At cum et prophetae dixerint et ipsum dominum quem prophetae cecinerant cum suis mirabilibus agnouisses et miserabili refatiuncula blasphemasses, uides te sub tanto criminis reatu excusari non posse. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Dixerant quidem prophetae esse uenturum; sed unctum Dei, sed puerum sanctum na-

173/174 Cf. Ioann. 1, 11

174/175 4 Esdras 1, 24

161 indulgentia] sapientia 162 in] sub 164 e. s. tr. C 165 quia prophetas C 166 dixerat confiteri C tuos om. C 168 claudos 4> (clad- 5*)] clodos C absolutis] sepatis C (separatis p. c.) 170 dominum quem dominum C legeras B, egeras C, legebas MST 172 elogio tuo 4> contendo 173 scripsit me mei tr. 4> 174 cognouerunt] receperunt 174/175 audire me (m. a. tr. E) 175 Iudam C alteram] aliam C 175/176 uidete C 178 tA.tr. C uidi] noui B 179 quid ... putabam om. prop hetas] profectum C 180 At] Ad C dixerunt CM dominum om. C 181/182 agnouissent C 182 et om. C miserabiliter fugati uincula C 183 excusare CM 185 esse om. C puerum] natum et add. C sanctum] et add. C natum] om.

32

190

195

200

205

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

tum de uirgine, unde an Deus ipse uenire uelit penitus ignorabam. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Recte ergo Esaias ait: Uade et dic populo isti, sic aure audietis et non intellegetis, et uidentes uidebitis et non uidebitis. Incrassauit enim cor populi huius et auribus grauiter audierunt et oculos suos clauserunt, ne forte uideant oculis aut auribus audiant et corde intellegant et reuertantur et curem illos. Nam et Hieremias ait: Me dereliquerunt fontem aquae uiuae, effoderunt sibi lacus detritos qui non potuerunt aquam portare. Et quid adiecit idem propheta uenerabilis uates: Cognouit tempus suum turtur et hirundo, ruris passeres custodierunt tempora introitus sui, populus autem meus me non cognouit. Nam et in Salomone credo quod legeris, qui ait: Quaerunt me mali et non inuenerunt: odio enim habuerunt sapientiam, sermonem autem domini non receperunt. Uides ergo te dominum Dei Filium blasphemis oculis et profano pectore reiecisse. Ergo si legis Esaiam, legis prophetas, domi num Christum frequenter audisti. Sic enim ait, ut tibi et de uirgine et de Alio sicut ipsa dixisti, respondeam: Pariet uirgo filium et uocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel, quod est interpretatus "Nobiscum Deus". Et Dauid ait: Propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus. Et in Genesi sic ait: Et fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei. 188/193 Isai. 6, 9-10 (Cyprianus, ibid., I, 3, p. 41.3-7) 194/195 Ierem. 2, 13 (Ibid., p. 41.8-9) 196/198 Ierem. 8, 7 (Ibid., p. 41.11-13) 199/ 201 Cf. Prou. 1, 28-29 (Ibid., p. 41. 17-19) 205/206 Isai. 7, 14; cf. Matth. 1, 23 207/208 Psal. 44, 8 208/209 Gen. 1, 27 186 ipse deus tr. B 188 ergo om. S* 189 isto C sic aure Morin, sciaure C, aure audientis C intellegentis C 190 enim om. C 191 suos om. C 192 aut] et corde] oculis S 194 Me om. S derelinquerunt CM fontem] forte C effoderunt MST, effuderunt B, et foderunt C 195 lacos C qui] et potare 4> 196 uates om. Nouit C 197 ruris Vetus latina, rures BMT, grues S 197-198 ruris ... tempora om. C 197 passeres] et praem. ST 199 Salomonem B'MT qui ait om. S Quaerunt BC] Quaerent MST 200 inuenerunt C, inuenient MST, inueniunt B 202 do minum] deum 4> 202/203 peccatore C 203 iecisse T legis Esaiam] leges esse iam C leges C 203/204 dominum] deum 204 et om. B 204/205 et de uirgine om. C 205 sicuti BST respondam C 206/207 est interpretatus] interpretatur 4> 207 ait: Propterea om. C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE no

215

no

225

230

235

33

SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Nolo te in tanto plausu efferant lectiones, sed ad illud conuertere quod mihi arbitror profuturum. Respice te nec legem accepisse nec circumcisionem meruisse, in quo signo gentilitas segregatur. Inde est quod et signum meum habeo et legem quam Moyses pertulit non amitto. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Legem te accepisse testaris sed legem ueteris testamenti. Ego autem Euangeliorum nouam legem accepi. Et ut scias ueterem nouitate compressam, lege Esaiam qui tibi ait: Ilia uetera transierunt et eccefacta sunt noua, nunc orientur. Nam quod dicis, te in salutem populi circumcisionis signaculum accepisse, hodie probo stultitiam tuam fuisse deceptam. Si ergo per circumcisionem aeternitas donabatur, uides te caput accepisse non pedes et oculo uno uel una manu fuisse truncatam, mediam uixisse et mediam fuisse emortuam. Nam si dicis populum tuum in signo circumcisionis esse saluandum, quid facient uirgines tuae, quid facient uiduae, quid matres etiam synagogae, si circumcisionem in signo populi ad aeternam uitam processisse testaris? Ergo Iudaeos feminas habere non decet. Uiri enim circumciduntur, mulieres praeputium non admittunt; ergo saluae esse non possunt si circumcisione saluamini. Uides ergo te uiros, hoc est circumcisos, habere posse Iudaeos, mulieres autem, quae circumcidi non possunt, nec Iudaeas nec Christianas sed paganas esse profiteor. Audi, doceo te clarissimae circumci-

219/220 Isai. 43, 19 (cf. Cyp. I, 12, p. 47.10)

210 tantum C 211 architror C 212 profurum 5* nec legem te nec1] ne C 213 segregatur] separatur C 215 admitto C 218 uetere C 219 esaia C quia C, quid S et om. B 220 nouaque C orientur MST, orienter 5* oriuntur C Numquid B salute C 221 circumcisionis signaculum] circumcisione C 222/223 circumcisione C 223 dominabaturB 223/224 caput... uno om. C 224 detruncata C 224/225 media'*2 C 225 emor tuam] mortuam M, demortua C 226 circumcisionis] tuae passionis saluandum] seruandos 228 circumcisione C 229 iudaeos ego scr., iudaeas ft 230 decet] debes C enim om. C 231 praetium C amittunt B'S 232 si om. C te om. C hoc est om. C 234 sed] nec C 235 doceo te] doce C C

34

240

245

250

255

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

sionis insignia, quam circumcisionem si accipere potuisses numquam ut prodigium de regno perpetuo cecidisses. Respice quod Hieremias ait: Haec dicit dominus uiris iudaeis qui habitatis in Hierusalem, Renouamini inter uos nouitatem et ne seminaueritis in spinis. Circumcidite uos Deo uestro et circumcidite praeputium cordis uestri. Quod et ille Moyses ait, quem tu similiter sequebaris, licet mihi mandata portaret. Erit, inquit, in nouissimis diebus circumcidet dominus cor tuum et cor seminis tui ad Dominum Deum tuum amandum. Ut et apostolus Paulus ait: Circumcisi estis circumcisione non manu facta in expoliatione carnis sed in circumcisione Christi. Quid ad haec dicimus, Synagoga? Ecce non carnis sed cordis circumcisio mandabatur, scilicet ut uitia cordis circumcideres, ut libidinem desecares, ut idolatriae caput auferres, ut tunicam fornicationis scinderes. Quia ut ait propheta, In lapidem moechaberis et in ligno. Uides ergo te non accepisse in signum salutis circumcisionem sed in signo potius pudoris et turpitudinis. Nam putas signum esse illud quod uestitu tegitur, quod pro pudore celatur, quod pro uerecundia non profertur, quod uxori tantummodo debitum esse cognoscitur, qua officina et mulieres tuas depilato capite uel decaluato in asinis saepe uidi damnatas? Utique si signum sa-

238/141 Ierem. 4, 3-4 (Ibid., I, 8, p. 45.9-12) 243/245 Deut. 30, 6 (Ibid., p. 45.14-15) 246/247 Col. 2, 11 (Ibid., p. 45. 18-20) 251/252 Ie rem. 3, 9 236 qua circumcisione C 237 ut] om. 4> perpetuo C, perpete S, perpeti BMT cecidissent C 238 quot C Z39 habitatis BC, habi tant MT, habitabant S in om. C Renouamini] renouate S1, innouate C 241 quid (quod B1) 242 ille om. C tu] quidem C 243 portaret BS, portare MT, portares C Et erit MST 244 do minus] deus 245 deum om. 5 Ut om. MS et om. BT Pau lus om. C 248 synagoga] respondit add. S circumciso C, circum cisione M 249 circumcideres C, incideres BS, incideris MT 249/ 250 et liuidine desiccares C 250 tunica C 251 scinderis MT Qui S (quid 51) ut] om. In om. C lapide BS 252 non om. (ras.) C 253 signum] ligno C circumcisione C 254 illud om. uestitum C 255 quod ... celatur om. pro om. (ras.) C 256 tantum C 257 quia M tuae C uel] ac B 257/ 258 decaluato] decaluate capite C 258 Ut C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

35

lutis esset illud quod adulteram stuprauit, quod uirginem z6o uitiando compressit, mulier quae de circumcisionis salute sibi turpiter lusit, damnari non debet nec ille puniri qui adulteram de salutifero circumcisionis signo impressam uel in mortem deiecit. Nescio an illic signum salutis esse potuisset unde facinoris admissa damnantur. Populus autem 265 meus signum salutis in fronte gestando totos homines, uiros ac mulieres, de alto signaculo casta, de sublimibus et pudica libertate defendit. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Uellem addiscere ubi signum frontis acceperis uel quis propheta "signum" istud quod di270 cis, hoc est signum frontis, signaculo sanctificationis incident. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Habes Ezechiel prophetam qui ex praesentia maiestatis exclamat: Ite et caedite et nolite parcere oculis uestris, nolite misereri senioribus; iuuenes et uirgines, paruulos et mulieres interficite. Omnem autem 275 super quem signum in fronte inueneritis, ne tetigeritis. Item quoque idem propheta sic ait: Transi per mediam Hierusalem et notabis signum superfrontem uirorum, qui ingemescunt et moerent ob iniquitates quaefiunt in medio ipsorum. Item in Apocalipsi: Et uidi agnum stantem in 280 monte Sion et cum eo centum quadraginta quatuor millia; habebant nomen eius et nomen patris eius in frontibus scriptum. Uides ergo signum mihi datum in signo crucis, quia, dimissa te atque derelicta, me passio saluatoris ornauit.

272/275 Ezech. 9, 5-6 (Ibid., II, 22, p. 90.9-12) 276/279 Ezech. 9, 4 (Ibid., p. 90.6-8) 279/282 Apoc. 14, 1 (Ibid., p. 90.16-19) 259 est adultera C, adulterum S 259/260 uirgine uicia C 261/262 puniri qui adulteram om. C 262 impressam m, inpressum 4>, inpensa C 263 morte C reiecit 264 admissa damnantur om. (ras.) C 265 totum hominem 4> 266 de'] dei C signaculo C, signacula S, signaculi BMT 267 publica 268 uelle C 270 significationis incedere C 271 propheta C 273 et] om. 274 et mulieres om. $ interficite] ut iudaeos illos add. BMS, et nolite parcere ut iud. illos add. T 275 in fronte inueneritis C, scriptum est in frontem BMT (s. e. in fronte 5) 276 Idem idem] ipse Transi Vetus latina, ///nsi C, Vade

per mediam] de media C 278 ingemescent C 280 quadra ginta] et add. MST 281/282 s. i. f. (suis add. B) 282 datum] et add. 283 p. s. m. tr.

36 285

290

295

300

305

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. De signo frontis interrogata, crucis signaculum proposuisti, quasimodo antequam saluator uenerit uates antiquissimi haec insignia praedicauerint. Et ideo dicito mihi si legisti quod Christus passurus esset et in cruce penderet. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Audi, synagoga, et non ut docearis sed ut puniaris, aduerte. Lege et inuenies ubi saluator manibus extensis crucem figuraliter prophetauit. Sic enim Esaias ex persona saluatoris ait: Expandi manus meas tota die ad plebem contumacem et contradicentem mihi, quae ambulat uias non bonas sed post peccata sua. Nam et Hieremias ait: Uenite, mittamus lignum in pane eius. Et in Deuteronomio, quia Pentateucho utebaris, credo quod legeris: Et erit, inquit, pendens uita tua ante oculos tuos die ac nocte. Sic et psalmidicus refert: Exclamaui ad te domine: tota die extendi manus meas ad te. Nam in Numeris, hoc est in lege tua, quam tu prior acceperas, quod Christus suspensus es set et in cruce penderet, sic ait: Non quasi homo Deus suspenditur neque quasi filius hominis minas patitur. Ut et alibi propheta ait: Dominus regnauit a ligno. Ecce crucis insignia, ecce miracula passionis, ecce speculum lucis, ecce populi tui iniqua commenta, ut dominum Deum filium in cruce suspenderent.

293/295 Isai. 65, 2 (Ibid., II, 20, p. 87.15-17) 296 Ierem. 11, 19 (Ibid., p. 87.17-18) 297/298 Deut. 28, 66 (Ibid., p. 87.19-20) 299/300 Psal. 87, 10 (Ibid. p. 88.13-14) 302/303 Num. 23, 19 (Ibid., p. 88.15-16) 304 Psal. 95, 10 285 frontis] crucis C 286 crucis signaculum] signum crucis C 287 ueniret C haec om. 290 non ut ego scr., ut non fl 292 sic] et praem. Esayas] ezechiel 294/295 ambul/// C, ambulant B 295 et Hieremias om. (ras.) C 297 Pentateucho ego scr., pentatico MS, pentaticu T, pentaticum B, penteuteticum C credo ... legeris om. 298 u. t. p. tr. B ac] et nocte om. (ras.) C 299 die om. (ras.) C 300 expandi BM a. t. ma. me. tr. numeros S 302 et om. C crucem MT penderet om. C 303 minis MST 304 ait p. tr. C 304/305 Ecce ... insignia om. 306 dominum] deum 307 in cruce suspenderent (-ere B)] crucifixus penderet C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

310

315

320

325

330

37

SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Facta recolo et dicta similiter recognosco sed quae es tu quae haec mihi increpare uidearis? Tu rustica, tu aliquando montana, tu de legibus aliena, quae gentilico more uiuebas. Ego in lege uersabar, ad me prophetae uenerunt mihique iussa et praecepta portabant. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Audi, synagoga, audi, uidua, audi, derelicta. Ego sum quod tu esse non potuisti. Ego sum regina quae te de regno deposui, ego sum sponsa quae derelictis idolis de silua et de monte descendi, ut ait patriarcha tuus: Ecce odorfilii mei sicut odor agripleni quem benedixit dominus. Unde ueniens uirgo cum lacte, cum floribus intemerata, iuuencula, opaca de nemore, ciuis simplex, laeta, pallio niueali composita, sponsum meum speciosum prae filiis hominum, regem regum qui caput mitra composuit ac me protinus purpurauit, uenientem excepit. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Qualiter istud poteris comprobare, quod et tu sponsa sis et Christus in lege uideatur sponsus? ECCLESIA DIXIT. Si ad me prophetae principaliter cucurissent, hodie diceres ignorasse legem, non habuisse prophetas, nescire quid esset scriptum. De tuis igitur prophetis reuincendam te recognosce. Audi ergo quid prophe tae de sponso et sponsa mandauerint. Nam sic Ioel propheta ait: Cantate tuba in Sion, sanctificate ieiunium et in-

318/319 Gen. 27, 27 (Ibid., I, 21, p. 54.8-9) 321/322 Psal. 44, 3 (Ibid., II, 29, p. 97.18) 332/336 Ioel, 2, 15-16 (Ibid., II, 19, p. 85.10-13) 308 recolo] periculo C et om. (ras.) C 309 quae ... quae] quae est ut qui C haec om. B 310 legionibus C 311 gentilico BS, gentilicio M*T, gentili C 312/313 portabant] dicebant C 318 pleni om. (ras.) C 319 uenis 4> cum lacte cum om. (ras.) C floribus] meis add. C 320 opaco BS1 opaca] sponsum meum speciosum add. T ciuis] ciui B, cui C 321 palle onibali C speciosum] formam add. C prae om. C 521 rex 4> caput] meum add. B 323 ueniente C 324 poterit C* 325 uidebatur M 326 spon sus] suspensus C 327 pri. pro. tr. B 327/330 prophetae ... quid om. C 328 te ego scr. 329 nesciret B (-res p.c.) 330 recogno sce B, esse cognosce MST quod BT 331 mandauerit C 332 Canite 4> 332/333 induite oratione C

38

335

340

345

350

355

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

dicate orationem, aggregate populum, santificate ecclesiam, suscipite maiores natu, colligite paruulos lactantes. Procedat sponsus de cubiculo suo et sponsa de thalamo suo. Nam certum habeo quod tu es illa Hierusalem, de qua et sponsus et sponsa migrauit, ut ait Dauid: Et ipse tamquam sponsus procedens de thalamo suo, exultauit ut gigans ad currendam uiam. A summo coeli egressio eius et occursus eius usque ad summum eius nec est qui se abscondat a calore eius. Et in Apocalipsi Iohannes ait: Ueni, ostendam tibi nouam nuptam sponsam agni. Et eduxit me in spiritu in montem magnum et ostendit mihi ciuitatem sanctam descendentem de coelo, habentem claritatem Dei. Sic etiam ipse Iohannes ait: Regnabit dominus Deus omnipotens, exultemus et laetemur et demus ei claritatem, quoniam uenerunt nuptiae agni et sponsa eius se praeparauit. Uides ergo et sponsam et uxorem dictam fuisse per legem, sponsam quod spondeo fidem me reddituram domino saluatori, uxorem quod per conceptum baptismi spiritu maritante Alios uteri mei lauacro turgente producam. In quo puerperio, generatione regenerationis spiritus et anima nuptiali societate iunguntur. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Illud scire desidero, ne forte putes me oblitam fuisse quid dixeris, ut totum uidear scru-

337/341 Psal. 18, 6-7 (Ibid., p. 85.16-19) 342/345 Apoc. 21, 9-11 (Ibid, p. 85.20-86.1) 345/348 Apoc. 19, 6-7 (Ibid., p. 87.11-13)

333 orationem] et add. C pupillum BMS, pupulum T 334 susci pite] excipite 335 lact///ntes C 336 i. e. tr. 4> 337 et' om. C migrauit] om. 339 coelo MST 339/340 egressio] processio C 340 occursus] regressus C 342 noua CT nuptam sponsam om. (ras.) C duxit MST 343 magnum et ostendit om. (ras.) C 346 et2] om. 347 uenerunt nuptiae agni C, agnus ad nuptias MS, agnus nuptias agni B, agnus ad nuptias agni T sponsa] uxor 4> 348 sponsa uxore dicta C 349 spondeo m, spondero BC, spopondero T, spopondire M, spospondi S 350 domini saluatoris C per conceptum] praecepta C, praeceptum M 351 spiritum maritantem C uteris C 351/352 turgente producam] purgantem produco C 352 puerperio m, purpureo C, puer imperio BST, puer M generationem 5, -nis C regenerationis] grationis B, om. C 353 et om. C animam C 354 scire desidero] uolo scire C 355 oblita C to tum om. B 355/356 scrutare C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

360

365

370

375

380

39

tari, quid est quod prophetam dixisse contendis, quid est quod ait in Deuteronomio: Et erit pendens uita tua ante oculos tuos die ac node. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Non quo[d] te doceam eloqui uel effari contendo sed ne taciturnitas dubitationis lineam ducat ac per hoc de tuo te testamento conuinco. Saluator enim die et nocte pependit in cruce, hoc est sexta feria per diem et huius diei per noctem usque ad sabbatum; sabbato enim dixisti iuxta legem hominem in ligno non licere pendere. Haec tibi interim ut fecisti dicta esse uideantur. Nam ad causam ueritatis et ad dogmatis nodum illud contemplare quod dicimus: Et erit, inquit, uita tua pendens ante oculos tuos die ac nocte. In una enim die et dies fuit et nox. Lucem diei subito tenebrarum horrore nocturna caligo distinxit, sicuti saluator cum suspenderetur in ligno, ab hora diei sexta usque ad horam nonam tenebrae factae sunt, mox lumen abstulit et totam diem funebra et luctuosa ca ligo caecauit. Uides ergo in unam diem et diem t fuisse t et noctem; merito propter hanc diem passionis in Deuteronomio ait: Et erit uita tua pendens ante oculos tuos die et nocte. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Ergo si in cruce suspensus est, si pependit, si occisus est, quomodo resurrexit? Quomodo tu illum adseris uiuere, surrexisse, et in dextera patris in coelis residere? Doce ergo mihi si mortem uicit, si resur

357/358 Deut. 28, 66 367/368 Deut. 28, 66 370/371 Cf. Matth. 27, 45 (cf. ibid., II, 23, p. 91. 9-10) 375/376 Deut. 28, 66

356 quid om. (ras.) C per prophetam S propheta C 357 deuteronomium C pendens om. C 358 ac] et 361 te] om. BC die C 362 et' m, ut , om. C 363 nocte C, noctemus MT sabbato om. 4> enim om. B 364 dixistis 4> 365 ut fecisti] offecisti ut C esse uideantur om. (ras.) C 366 et ... contemplare om. (ras.) C nodum] nondum MST 367 quod] quern C 368 ac] et et1] om. 369 diei subito om. C 370 sicut C cum B, om. cett 371 sextam C 372 nox ft totum C funebra C, furualis B, auernalis MS, uernalis T 373 fuisse] fort, factas esse 374 hunc C hanc idem passionem 374/375 deuteronuo C 378 resur rexit om. (ras.) C 379 illum om. C resurrexisse BMT 379/ 380 in' ... coelis] i. c. i. d. p. tr. 380 resedere MST me si'] quia C

40

385

390

395

400

405

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

rexit qui uidetur occisus, ita tamen ut mihi quae dicis de prophetis adsignes. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Audi, misera, audi, infelicissima, audi, mulier parricida, quae adhuc de Christi morte, de resurrectione subdubitas. Lege quid tibi Dauid dixerit ex persona saluatoris in psalmo quinto decimo: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno nec dabis sanctum tuum uidere corruptionem. Quis est sanctus nisi Christus? Quis incorruptus nisi Alius Dei? Sicut ait in psalmo: Domine eduxisti ab inferis animam meam. Item in psalmo tertio: Ego dormiui et somnum cepi et resurrexi, quoniam dominus auxiliatus est mihi. Et idem rursus Dauid ex persona patris ad filium ait: Exsurge gloria mea, exsurge, exsurgam, inquit, diluculo. Nam diluculo quod ait, hoc est post diem tertiam, calcata morte inferisque damnatis, rediuiua luce resurrexit semper uicturus. Ut ait propheta: Ad uesperum demorabiturfletus et ad matutinum laetitia. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Aliud interrogaueram et aliud inmisisti, de resurrectione cognoui et quod inferos superauit addidici. Sed quomodo dixisti die tertia resurrexisse dominum saluatorem, quod an fuerit factum ignoro. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Scio quia memor es sed poenitentiae causa non uis confiteri quod nosti. Error macerat conscientiam et crimen memoriam tollit. Audi ergo Christum ab inferis, ut nos uiuificaret, die tertia resurrexisse. Lege Osee prophetam, qui ait: Uiuificauit nos die tertia. Et in Deuter

386/388 Psal. 15, 10 (cf. ibid., II, 24, p. 91. 13-14) 389/390 Psal. 29, 4 (Ibid., p. 91.15) 390/392 Psal. 3, 6 (Ibid., p. 91. 16-17) 393/394 Psal. 56, 9 396/397 Psal. 29, 6 406 Osee 6,2

385 tibi] om. 4> d. e. p. s. D. tr. 4> 386 quinto decimo om. C 388/389 incorruptus ... ait om. (ras.) C 389 psalmo] uigesimo nono add. B 389/39oDomine ... inferis om. {ras.) C 389 eduxisti] inposuisti B 390 in psalmo tertio om. C 391 somnium MT exsurrexi quia T 391/392 auxiliatus est mihi] suscepit me 393 Ex gloria gloria T inquit] om. 394 ait hoc est om. (ras.) C 394/ 395 tertium calcante C 395 damnatis /// C rediuiua luce] om. 395/396 resurrexit semper uicturus] recedebat uenturus B, surrexit C 399 et om. MST 400 addidici om. C 401 dominum om. B 403 non om. (ras.) C 404 tulit C 405 ut nos om. C uiuiflcari et C 405/406 Ose propheta C 406 quid C

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

410

415

420

425

430

41

onomio sic ait: Dixit dominus ad Moysen: Descende et sanctificd populum meum et sanctificabo illos hodie et cras et lauent uestimenta sua et sintparati in perindinum diem; die enim tertia descendet dominus in monte Sina, Et in Euangelio sic ait: Progenies nequam et adultera signum petit et signum non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae prophetae, Quomodo enim Ionasfuit in uentre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, ita eritfilius hominis tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in corde terrae. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Recognosco uera sunt quae mihi teste prophetia narrantur. Nunc scire desidero ubi sit, ubi lateat Christus qui de terra resurrexit. Uolo enim uidere si postea per prophetas aliquid post passionem uel post resurrectionem habeat potestatis. Legi enim ad saluandum populum uenturum esse Eliam unctum Dei. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Ergo, misera, quod negare non potes confltere, et audi omnia, quia ueritas celari non potest; tota se usque ad coelos claritatis libertas extendit. Lege Danielem qui ait: Uidebam in uisu node et ecce in nubibus coeli quasi filius hominis ueniens uenit usque ad ueterem dierum et stetit in conspectu eius, et qui adsistebant obtulerunt eum. Et data est ei potestas regia, et omnes reges ter rae per genus et omnis claritas seruiens ei, et potestas eius aeterna quae non auferetur et regnum eius quod non corrumpetur.

407/410 Exod. 19, 10-11 (cf. ibid., II, 25, p 92.7-10) 411/415 Matth. 12, 39-40 (cf. ibid., p. 92.10-14) 425/431 Dan. 7, 13-14 (Ibid., II, 26, p. 92.17-22)

407 et om. B 408 sanctifica 409 uestem suam perin dinum diem] diem tertium C 410 descendit BC 410/411 monte ... ait om. (ras.) C 411/412 adultera signum petit om. (ras.) C 413 f. I. tr. 4> 414/415 ita ... terrae om. {ras.) C 416/417 quae mihi om. (ras.) C 417 Tunc 5 418 ubi om. (ras.) C terra] tertia die C Nolo S 419 postea om. C 419/420 pro resurrectione C 420 Lege T 421 Eliam m, helia C, heli B, elim MT, olim S 422 negarne 5* 423 confiteri C quae B celare C non om. (ras.) C 424 ad coelos claritatis om. (ras.) C claritas M ex tendi C 425 ait om. (ras.) C uisione B ecce] dehinc usque ad finem deest C 426 quia si S 428/429 et ... potestas eius om. S

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

435

440

445

450

455

460

SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Gloriam habere unctum Dei, hoc est Christum, dubitare non possum, sed hoc mihi dicito si, postea quam passus est et resurrexit, gloriam istam adipisci potuit et tenere. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Lege Esaiam prophetam qui ex persona saluatoris ait: Nunc exsurgam, dicit dominus, nunc clarificabor et exaltabor. Nunc uidebitis, nunc intellegetis, nunc confundemini, uana eritfortitudo spiritus uestri, ignis uos consumet. Sed et Dauid ait: Dixit dominus domino meo, sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Uirgam uirtutis tuae emittet domi nus ex Sion et dominaberis in medio inimicorum tuorum. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Ergo et Deus et filius Dei? ECCLESIA DIXIT. Utique, stulta. Qui de homine gignitur homo est, ita et qui de Deo oritur Deus profecto signatur. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Non adsertionibus credo sed lege reuinci desidero. Non enim te sed prophetas audire contendo. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Respice quid psalmidicus Dauid ait, et scies dominum Deum esse saluatorem. Exsurgat, inquit, Deus et dissipentur inimici eius, non effugiant qui eum oderunt a facie eius. Sicut deficit fumus deficient et sicut tabescit cera a facie ignis sic pereant peccatores a facie Dei. Cantate Deo, psallite nomini eius, uiam facite ei qui ascendit super occasum. Dominus nomen est Mi. Qui producit uinctos in uirtute, qui habitant in monumentis. Et rursus idem Dauid: Exsurge domine, iudica terram, quoniam tu exterminabis in omnibus gentibus. Et alibi: Deus deorum dominus locutus est. Et, Pariet uirgo filium et uo-

437/440 Isai. 33, 10 (Ibid., p. 92.23-93.2) 440/443 Psal. 109, 1-2 (Ibid., p. 93.3-6) 451/457 Psal. 67, 2-3, 5, 7 (Ibid., II, 28, p. 95.12-14) 458/459 Psal. 81, 8 (Ibid., p. 96.4-5) 459/460 Psal. 49, 1 (cf. ibid., p. 95.2) 433 possunt S 435 potuerit ego scr., potuit 437 Tunc 5 nunc1 om. S 439 uana Vetus latina, una 440 uos om. S et om. B ait om. M 441 a] ad B 445/449 Ecclesia ... con tendo om. S* 448 prophetas] per praem. MTS1 450 Dauid om. B et] ut S 453 defecit f. deficiant B 454 c. t. tr. M 457 uirtute] fortitudine B 458 rursum S

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

465

470

475

480

485

43

cabitur nomen eius Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum "Nobiscum Deus". Et, Propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus. Habes ergo et Deum et dominum et regem. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Et Deum et dominum recognosco sed regem mihi probari desidero. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Stultissima mulierum, si Deum confiteris, regem fateri non debes? Aut numquid Deus potest esse nisi regnauerit? Omne regnum sub pedibus Dei iacebit et quidquid regna tenent maiestas possidet Dei. Ergo regem dubitas quem Deum profecto cognoscis? SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Non quidem dubito sed uolo mihi Israel ueritate signari. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Lege Dauid et inuenies in psalmo septuagesimo primo: Deus iudicium tuum regi da et iustitiam tuam filio regis. Et in psalmo septuagesimo tertio sic ait: Deus autem rex noster ante saecula, operatus est salutem in medio terrae. Et in psalmo secundo: Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo super Sion montem sanctum eius adnuntians imperium eius. Et apud Malachiam sic ait: Rex magnus sum ego, dicit dominus, et nomen meum inlustrabo apud gentes. Et in psalmo nonagesimo sexto: Domi nus regnauit, exultet terra, laetentur insulae multae. Et alibi: Eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum, dico ego opera mea regi. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Praeuenisti me, respondere nihil possum; non adsertione uerborum sed lege uideor esse damnata. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Interroga quaecumque uolueris et ego te de tuo testamento reuincam.

460/461 Isai. 7, 14 (cf. Matth. 1, 23) 462 Psal. 44, 8 474/ 475 Psal. 71, 1 (Ibid., II, 30, p. 99.8-9) 476/477 Psal. 73, 12 (Ibid., II, 29, p. 98.12-13) 477/479 Psal. 2, 6 (Ibid., p. 97.5-7) 479/481 Mai. 1, 14 (Ibid., p. 97.3-4) 481/482 Psal. 96, 1 (Ibid., p. 98.7) 483/ 484 Psal. 44, 2 (cf. ibid., II, 3, p. 64.17-18) 464 Et' ... dominum om. MST 469 quiqui B 470 cognoscas MST 471 quidem om. MST 473/474 LXX T 475 sic ait om. S 486 uideor] iudeorum 5

44 490

495

500

505

510

515

520

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Certe dicis te diffiteri non posse quod Christus Deus sit Abrahae, Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob. Utique Abraham Iudaeus fuit; quomodo ergo me dicis esse damnandam? ECCLESIA DIXIT. Bene quod iam coepisti reciprocare sermones et de obliquitate uerborum per flexuras parabolarum membra palpare. Nam et Petrus et Paulus praedicatores mei Iudaei fuerunt sed derelicta te ad fontem uitae aeternamque gratiam conuenerunt. Nam Abraham quem nominasti, cum esset paganus et idola confringeret, sic ad diuinae maiestatis amicitias conuolauit. Inde incolumis iam Dei amicus ad te rursus accessit sed et postmodum a te ad gentes, hoc est ad nos, iterum redire mandauit. Sic enim in Genesi ait: Dixit, inquit, Dominus Deus Abrahae, Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domopatris tui, et uade in illam terram quam tibi ostendero etfaciam te in gentem magnam et benedicam te et magnificabo nomen tuum. Uides ergo Abrahae praeceptum, ut exiret de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui et ueniret ad terram gentium et princeps fieret super gentes et magnum nomen acciperet. Nam et in figura saluatoris benedixit Isaac Iacob. Seruient tibi, inquit, gentes et adorabunt te principes et eris dominus fratribus tuis et adorabunt te filii patris tui. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Ergo omnes ad te uenerunt et ego quae tot et tantos Alios habui et filiorum multitudine gloriata sum et derelicta despicior, quae fui mater populis. Aut si tibi ut plures Alios habeas in lege mandatum est, probare debes ex lege. ECCLESIA DIXIT. Nunc flecteris, nunc te antiquus rigor extollit, mox et ad malitiam replicaris. Dicit enim dominus: Dilate locum tabernaculi tui et auleorum tuorum longas fac mensuras et palos tuos confirma. Adhuc in dexteram

503/506 Gen. 12, 1-2 (Ibid., I, 21, p. 54.2-5) 511/512 Gen. 27, 29 (Ibid., p. 54.10-12) 520/525 Isai. 54, 2-4 (Ibid., I, 20, p. 52.9-15)

491 Christus] deus praem. MST 492 iudaeus] iudaeus add. S' 495 flexuras B, plexuram 5* plexuras MTS' 498 aeternaque S 510 acciperetur S 516 tibi om. T ut] aut B* 518 flecteres T 519 mox om. B

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

525

530

535

540

545

550

45

tuam et in sinistram extende et semen tuum gentes possidebunt et ciuitates desertas inhabitabis. Noli timere quia deuicta es neque uerearis quia maledicta es, quoniam confusione aeterna obliuisceris. Fui utique maledicta cum idola sequerer, fui confusa cum diuinitatis mandata nescirem, fui sterilis quia baptismum non habebam, quo imperio maiestatis filios enutrirem. Nunc exaltata sum in filios et per dominum Christum aeterna regna suscepi. Merito et in Basileion ait: Sterilis peperit septem et quae plurimos fi lios habebat infirmata est. Et ut apostolus ad septem ecclesias epistolas mittit. Et Iacob accepit uxores duas, maiorem Liam, oculis infirmioribus, typum synagogae, et minorem speciosam Rachel, typum ecclesiae, quae et sterilis diu mansit et postea peperit et benedicta est. Merito ait in Genesi: Et dixit dominus ad Rebeccam, Duae gentes in utero tuo sunt et duo populi de uentre tuo diuidentur et populus populum superabit et maior seruiet minori. Item apud Osee prophetam: Uocabo, inquit, non populum meum populum meum et non dilectam dilectam. Erit enim quo loco dicetur, non populus meus, illo loco dicentur filii Dei uiui. Nam et in Esaia legis: Terra uestra deserta, ciuitates uestrae exustae, regionem uestram in conspectu uestro alieni comedent et ecce deserta est et subuersa apopulis alienis. Derelinqueturfilia Sion, sicut casa in uinea et sicut custodiarium in cucumerario et quasi ciuitas quae expugnatur. Nunc ergo si iuxta legem et derelicta es et desolata, et quid ego feci quae, quia credidi dotalibus tabulis, regnum mag num accepi, quod et tu procul dubio habere potuisses, si non te criminis furore et profano parricidio praedamnas

530/531 I Regum, 2, 5 (cf. ibid., p. 53.10) 531/532 Cf. Apoc. 1, 11 532A35 Cf. Gen. 29, 23 536/538 Gen. 25, 23 (Ibid., I, 19, p. 51. 22-24) 539/540 Osee, 2, 24 (Ibid., p. 52.1-2) 542/546 Isai, 1, 7-8 (Ibid., I, 6, p. 44.7-")

522/523 possidebit mCyp (possidebunt WLMB inter codd Cyp) 524 deuicta es m, deuinces 4> (reuinces WLM inter codd Cyp) 528 in om. B' 530 basilio 7* 530/531 h. f. tr. S 535 bedicta S 540 quo] qui T 542 esaiam B'MT 543 alii B 544 a om. B 544/545 delinquetur B 545/546 custodiarium 57*, custodiarum BM, custodia B' 547 et1 om. S

46

555

560

565

570

575

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

ses. Nam memor es quid ex persona tua Esdras ille propheta tuus exclamet ubi filiis tuis miserabilem seruitutem indixisti: Ite filii quia uidua sum et derelicta, educaui uos cum laetitia, amisi uos cum luctu et tristitia. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Ergo homicidium feci? ECCLESIA DIXIT, t Uidero t si apud te humani sangui nis effusionem, homicidii crimen, admisseris. Nam negare non potes quod iustos Dei, quod prophetas occideris. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Quis mihi probat quod maculauero manus meas sanguine prophetarum? ECCLESIA DIXIT. Gladius tuus per apicem mucronis madido adhuc cruore distillat et reuinci desideras? Audi ergo quod Elias propheta testatur: Aemulando aemulatus sum domino Deo omnipotenti, quoniam dereliquerunt tefilii Israel et altaria tua demolierunt et prophetas tuos interfecerunt gladio, et remansi ego solitarius et quaerunt animam meam ut auferant eam. Uide etiam quid Esdras praedixerit: Discesserunt a te et abierunt post legem tuam et prop hetas tuos interfecerunt qui obtestabantur eos ut reuerterentur ad te. Sic etiam et Hieremias scripsit: Misi ad uos seruos meos prophetas, ante lucem mittebam, et non exaudiebatis me, neque intendebatis auribus uestris, ne ambularetis post deos alienos ut seruiretis eis, et praecepta mea audire noluistis. SYNAGOGA RESPONDIT. Nunc recolo, nunc recognosco, sed quid diceretur ante nesciui, quia prophetas istos neglegenter audiui.

11) 15

553/554 4 Esdras 2, 2 563/567 III Regum, 19, 10 (Ibid., I, 2, p. 40.7568/570 2 Esdras, 9, 26 (Ibid., p. 40.11-13) 570/574 Ierem. 35,

551 Nam] Non B tua m, om. # Esdras m, hesdra illa 5 553 edocaui MT 555 Ergo] Ego S 556 Videro BT, Vide MS, Vi deo m, uideris Chadwick coni. 557 effusionem ego scr., effusio MST, persecutos B, persecutrix m admiserit MS 563 testatur om. B 564 derelinquerunt M 567 quis T Esdras m, hesdra 567/ 568 praedixerat T 568 discesserunt m, disciuerunt 571 seruos om. S mittebam om. M 576 quod 5

ALTERCATIO ECCLESIAE ET SYNAGOGAE

580

585

590

595

47

ECCLESIA DIXIT. Non quod loqueris sed quod intellexeris, in lege etiam uidetur esse testatum, ut ait Esaias: Et erunt uobis hi omnes sermones sicut sermones libri qui signatus est, quem si dederis homini nescienti litteras ad legendum dicit: "Non possum legere, signatus est enim". Sed in illa die audient surdi sermonem libri, et qui in tenebris et qui in nebula sunt; oculi caecorum uidebunt. Et ut Hieremias ait: In nouissimo die cognoscetis eum. Sicut et Da niel scripsit: Muni sermones, signa librum usque ad tempus consummationis, quo adducantur multi et impleatur agnitio, quoniam cumfit dispersio cognoscent omnia baec. Cognita sunt omnia et in suo ordine coniuncta feliciter cucurrerunt. Et ideo tuo te gladio scito esse damnatam, tuo te testamento percussam, tuorum prophetarum, hoc est omnium Iudaeorum, elogiis. Nihil adhuc protuli quae monstraui, Euangelia et apostolos mihi meisque seruandum, quae si legisses amplius inmugires. Gaudete populi, gaudete christicolae, sterilis peperit et quae filios habebat cum filiis suis ante defecit. Explicit altercatio ecclesiae et synagogae.

579/584 Isai. 29, 11, 18 (Ibid., I, 4, p. 42.9-13) 585 Ierem. 23, 20 (cf. ibid., p. 42.14) 586/588 Dan. 12, 4, 7 (Ibid., p. 42.15-17) 579 Et om. B 580 omnes sermones] homines 5, omnes M ser mones2 om. T 581 est om. M scienti 5 585 et om. M 591 te om. M 593 euangelica S et m, om. mihi om. T seruanda 5, seruandos M (fortasse recte) 597 Expl. a. e. et s.

INDICES

Index Locorvm S. Scriptvrae Index Scriptorvm

Enumerationem formarum, concordantiam formarum et indicem formarum a tergo ordinatarum inuenies in fasciculo 116 seriei A Instrumentorum lexicologicorum latinorum.

INDEX LOCORVM SACRAE SCRIPTVRAE Genesis i, 27 12, 1-2 25, 23

27, 27, 29, 34,

27 29 23 26

208/209 503/506 95/97 135/137 536/538 318/319 511/512 cf. 532/535 cf. 66/69

Exodus 19, IO-II 32. 1

407/410

44, 2 44, 3 44, 8

483/484 321/322 207/208 462

49, 1 56, 9 67, 2-3 67, 5, 7 71, 1 73, 12 81, 8 87, 10 95, 10 96, 1 109, 1-2

459/460 393/394 451/457 451/457 474/475 476/477 458/459 299/300 304

481/482 440/443

145

Prouerbia Numeri 1, 28-29 23, 19

cf. 199/201

302/303 Isaias

Deuteronomium 28, 66

30, 6

297/298 357/358 375/376 243/245

I Regum 1, 5

530/531

1,7-8 6, 9-10 7, H 29, 11 29, 18 33, 10 43, 19 54, 2-4 65,2

542/546 188/193 205/206 460/461 579/584 579/584 437/440 219/220 520/525 293/295

III Regum Ieremias 19, 10

563/567 2, 13 3, 9 4, 3-4

II Esdras 9, 26

568/570

11, 19 23, 20 35, 15

Psalmi 2, 6 3,6

15, 10 18, 6-7 29, 4 29, 6

8,7

477/479 390/392 386/388 337/341 389/390 396/397

194/195 251/252 238/241 196/198 296 585

570/574

Ezechiel 9, 4 9, 5-6 18, 2

276/279 272/275 155/156

INDICES

52

12, 39-40 411/415 cf. 370/371 27, 45

Daniel 7. 13-14 12, 4 12, 7

425/431 586/588 586/588

Iohannes 1, 11

cf. 173/174

Osee ad Colossenses 2, 24 6, 2

539/540 406

332/336

Malachias 1, 14

246/247

Apocalypsis

Ioel 2, 15-16

2, 11

1, 11 H, 1 19, 6-7 21, 9-11

cf. 531/532 279/282 345/348 342/345

479/481 4 Esdras

Matthaeus 1, 23

cf. 205/206 cf. 460/461

i,6 1, M 2, 2

153/155 174/175 553/554

INDEX SCRIPTORVM Cyprianus Carthaginensis TestUmoniorum libri in 1,2

1,3

1,4

563/567 568/570 188/193 194/195 196/198 199/201 579/584

II, 20

II. 22

585

1,6 1,8

I, 12 I,i9

I, 20 1,21

11,3 II,i9

586/588 542/546 246/247 243/245 238/241 219/220 95/97 536/538 539/540 520/525 530/531 318/319 503/506 511/512 483/484 332/336 337/341 342/345 345/348

II, 23 II, 24

II, 25 0, 26

II, 28

II, 29

II, 30

293/295 296 297/298 299/300 302/303 272/275 276/279 279/282 370/371 386/388 389/390 390/392 407/410 411/415 425/431 437/440 440/443 451/457 458/459 459/460 321/322 476/477 477/479 479/481 481/482 474/475

POTAMII EPISCOPI OLISPONENSIS OPERA OMNIA

cura et studio M. CONTI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express my deepest gratefulness to Professor Antonio Montes Moreira for all his untiring support and advice in the course of my research on Potamius of Lisbon. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge that he is the scho lar who informed me about the two new manuscripts of the Epistula de Substantia, namely P and P, and then provided me with material about them both, with the kind help of Dr Jose Francisco Meirinhos and Dr Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann, who have recently studied the two codices. I am also deeply grateful to Roswitha Wagenknecht, Mercedes de Grado and Martina Roesner for all the help they gave me in my search for manuscripts' microfilms and photographs, and especially for all their extreme kindness, patience and affection. I renew my most sincere thanks to Professor Andrew Louth, Dr Carol Harrison and all the staff at the Department of Theology in Durham, to Roel Vander Plaetse at the Corpus Christianorum in Brugge, to Mr Stephen Ryle and Professor Francis Cairns at the School of Classics in Leeds for their constant availability and precious suggestions. Finally I would like to thank Amanda Harrison, Benja min, Thomas, Paolo Chesti and Michael Fuller for all their advice and friendship throughout my long research.

THE LIFE AND WORKS OF POTAMIUS OF LISBON I. Life of Potamius Potamius is the first bishop of Lisbon who is known through reliable historical sources1. He was probably an Iberian native and his birthplace, even though in the his torical testimonies no clue exists in this direction, might be identified with Lisbon itself since the Iberian Christian communities used to elect their bishops among their own citizens. The dates of his birth and of his elevation to the see of Lisbon are completely unknown. According to the Libellus Precum, a Luciferian pam phlet2, Potamius was orthodox in the first phase of his career but afterwards became an Arian in order to obtain a farm3 from the pro-Arian emperor Constantius II4. As a

' In the seventeenth century Da Cunha asserted in his history of the Lisbon Church that Potamius was the fifth bishop of the city. Modern scholars have demonstrated that he relied upon medieval sources wit hout historical value. Cf. R. Da Cunha, Historia Eclesidstica da Igreja de Lisboa, fol.2iv-24r, Lisbon 1642. For an extented analysis of this problem cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 49-54; Conti, Life and Works, 5-7. 2 Cf. Faustinus and Marcellinus, Libellus Precum, IX, 32, PL 13,89; CSEL 35X1,14-15; CC 69,368. The schismatic group of the Luciferians was for med after the Council of Alexandria (held in 362) and was inspired by Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, even if it is certain that he was never directly involved in the foundation of this group. The Luciferians were charac terised by an intolerant and blind attitude towards the opponents of the Nicene faith. Among the works issued by the followers of this schisma tic group an extremely important one, even though ideologically bias sed and exaggerated, is the Libellus Precum composed by two Roman priests, Faustinus and Marcellinus, and published in 383 or 384. The work is a historical account of the religious who betrayed the Nicene faith. Cf. G. Kruger, Lucifer Bischof von Cagliari und das Scbisma der Luciferianer, Berlin 1886; F. Piva, Lucifero di Cagliari contro limperatore Costanzo, Trento 1928; Simonetti, crisi, 443-445; G.F. Diercks, Luciferi Calaritanis opera quae supersunt , vii-xxxvii, Turnhout 1978. 3 The motif of covetousness which induced Potamius to adopt Arianism is probably a Luciferian invention and its historical reliability has been denied by the majority of the scholars: cf. Montes Moreira, Pota mius, 92 n.173. 4 Constantius II, son of Constantine I, ruled the Eastern empire after the death of his father, while his brothers Constantine II and Constans respectively held the prefectures of Gaul, Britain and Spain, and Africa,

J8

INTRODUCTION

consequence Ossius of Cordova, formerly Constantine's ecclesiastical secretary and president of the Nicene Coun cil, reported the apostasy of Potamius to the Iberian church, but was summoned by the pro-Arian Constantius in regard of his denunciation and sent to exile in spring or summer 356 s. From this account it can be inferred that Potamius be came an Arian convert in the months preceding Ossius' denunciation and consequent exile, that is in the months between the end of 355 and the beginning of 356. Since Os sius denounces Potamius as the bishop of Lisbon, these same months can be indicated as the terminus ante quem for his elevation to the see of Lisbon 6. At the beginning of 357 Potamius, now a member of the Arian party, intervened in the affair of Liberius 7 by oppos ing the tepid pro-Arian policy which this pope had inau gurated with his letter Studens Pacis, written during his exile in Thrace. Potamius did not accept the cautious atti-

Italy and Pannonia. In spring 340 a war broke out between Constantine II and Constans in which the former was killed. In January 350 Magnentius, a general in command at Autun in Gaul, was acclaimed as emperor and Constans was murdered during the rebellion of the troops. At this stage Constantius II intervened against the usurper and defeated Magnentius, who committed suicide in August 353. After this victory Con stantius extended his power on all the empire. His pro-Arian policy, which was previously opposed by his pro-Nicene brothers, reached its climax in this period (351-360). 5 For a complete study on the life and times of Ossius cf. De Clercq, Ossius. 6 This terminus ante quern was proposed by Montes Moreira who based himself on the testimony of the Libellus Precum (cf. note n.2). This pamphlet asserts that Potamius was already the bishop of Lisbon at the time of being accused by Ossius (cf. infra note n.6) of professing Arianism. Ossius' denunciation occurred immediately before his exile which started in spring or summer 356. Therefore the terminus ante quern for Potamius' elevation to the see of Lisbon can be easily placed in the months between the end of 355 and the start of 356. Cf. Faustinus and Marcellinus, Libellus Precum, IX,32 PL 13,89; CC 69,368; Montes Mo reira, Potamius, 74-75; Conti Life and Works 11-12. 7 Liberius (pope 352-366). For a summary of his policy during the Arian crisis cf. Simonetti, crisi, 211-249. 8 Liberius, Studens Pad, PL 10,679-681; CSEL 65,155; cf. also Montes Moreira, Potamius, 77-81; L. Duchesne, 'Libere et Fortunatien', Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire, 28 (1908), 42-59.

INTRODUCTION

59

tude of Liberius and, together with Epictetus9, tried to force the pope to adopt Arianism openly10. In August 357 Potamius was present and played a signifi cant role at the council held at Sirmium, in which the Sec ond Formula of Sirmium was issued". Potamius was ac cused by Hilary, in De Synodis™, of being the author of that formula together with Ossius, who had been forced, after his exile, to accept Arianism by Constantius. However the stylistic difference which exists between the text of the formula and the surviving works of Potamius and the fact that Hilary in Liber contra Constantium imperatoremn , a treatise written after De Synodis, ascribes the authorship of the formula first to Ossius, Ursacius and Valens14, and then to Ursacius and Valens only, has suggested to scholars that the historical information supplied by Hilary in De Synodis is not certain and that Potamius subscribed to the formula and made a contribution to its formulation but did not write it15. Another testimony on the participation of Potamius at the Sirmian council, and on his subscription to the formula, is supplied by Phoebadius of Agen16, who transcribes also an excerpt from an Arian work of

9 Epictetus of Centumcellae (now Civitavecchia in the north of Latium) was an Arian bishop who played an important role in this phase of the controversy (356-360): cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 101-106; De Clercq, Ossius, 440-442. ,c This episode was reported by Hilary of Poitiers: cf. Hilary of Poi tiers, Collect. Antiar. par., B, 111,2, CSEL 65,155-156 (Fragm. hist. IV,2 ac cording to PL 10,681); Montes Moreira, Potamius, 96-106; Conti, Life and Works, 14-15. " On the council held at Sirmium in 357 cf. Simonetti, crisi, 227-234; Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire, vol. I, 841. An excellent edition of the Second Formula of Sirmium is in: E.J. Jonkers, Acta et symbola conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt, Leiden 1954. 12 Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis, 3, n, PL 10,482-483, 10,487. 13 Hilary of Poitiers, Liber contra Constantium Imperatorem, 23, 26, PL 10,599, 10,601. Cf. also Montes Moreira, Potamius, 113-121. 14 Ursacius and Valens were the ecclesiastical secretaries of Constan tius II and the Arian leaders during the phase of the controversy lasting from 351 to 360 (the Arian offensive under Constantius). 15 Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 140-147; Conti, Life and Works, 27. 16 Cf. Phoebadius of Agen, Contra Arrianos, 3, 5, PL 20,15, 20,16; CC 64,25, 64,27; Montes Moreira, Potamius, 114-115; Conti, Life and Works, 17-18.

6o

INTRODUCTION

Potamius 17 which constitutes the only specimen of the lit erary output of the bishop of Lisbon during his Arian phase. After the council held at Sirmium in 357 the information provided by historical sources becomes very scant. Athanasius wrote a letter18 to his Iberian colleague in order to counter his Arian positions, but nothing is known about Potamius' activity during this phase of the controversy. After the council held at Ariminum in 359 Potamius re turned to the Nicene faith and wrote his extant doctrinal works, consisting of an Epistula addressed to Athanasius and a treatise on the substance of the Persons19. Potamius' return to orthodoxy is the most controversial aspect of his entire career. This event is clearly evidenced by the Epistula ad Athanasium, Potamius' violently antiArian letter to the champion of Nicenism, which bears the following title: Incipit Epistula Potami ad Athanasium episcopum ab Arrianis postquam in Concilio Ariminensi subscripserunt. Even though the general meaning of the title appears to be obscure, the chronological reference to the Council of Ariminum (held in 359) is unquestionable20: Potamius, after 359, returned to the Nicene faith and wrote two doctrinal letters against the Arians. Nevertheless certain scholars, among whom the most representative are Wilmart21 and Madoz12, denied Pota-

17 This fragment is usually indicated as Epistula Potami: cf. Monies Moreira, Potamius, 134-137; Conti, Life and Works, 32-33, 40, 133-134; Simonetti, ariana, 130-131. 18 This letter by Athanasius is quoted by Alcuin: cf. Alcuin, Contra haeresim Felicis, 61, PL 101,113; Montes Moreira, Potamius, 154-167; Conti Life and Works 20, 23. " The Epistula ad Athanasium and the Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti were composed after 359. The letter on the sub stance was certainly written after that to Athanasius because it develops and discusses in detail the same topics: cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 236-240; Conti Life and Works 34, 39-40, 45-57, 84-132. With regard to the other two works of Potamius, namely the homilies De Lazaro and De Esaia, it is not possible to state with certainty in which moment of Po tamius' career they were written: Conti Life and Works 34-38, 58-83. 20 Cf. Simonetti, ariana, 129 n.8. " Wilmart, 'La lettre', 257-285; 'Le 'De Lazaro', 289-304. " J. Madoz, 'Potamio', 77-109.

INTRODUCTION

61

mius' return to orthodoxy. In their opinion it was not pos sible that just two years after the council of Sirmium, where he signed an openly pro-Arian formula, and moreover in a phase of the controversy in which the Arians amply pre vailed in the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia23, Potamius became again a member of the Nicene party. There fore they supposed that the title of the Epistula ad Athanasium was a falsification24, and that Potamius wrote his letter during the orthodox phase of his career, that is, be fore 355-356. After his conversion to Arianism Potamius, ac cording to Wilmart and Madoz, supported the heretic party to his death. This theory has been recently confuted by two scholars who have found in the text of the Epistula ad Athanasium clear references proving that the letter was certainly writ ten after the council held at Sirmium in 357, and therefore very probably after Ariminum, as is stated by its title. Simonetti 25 has emphasised that in the Epistula ad Atha nasium Potamius opposes the Arian argument which as serts that it is not possible to use the term substantia 26 in the description of the relationship between the Father and the Son, since substantia is not attested in the Scriptures.

13 On the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia cf. Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire, vol.1, 929-955; Simonetti, crisi, 314-349. 14 Wilmart and Madoz (cf. notes n. 21-22) assert that the title of the Epistula ad Athanasium was a Luciferian falsification. One of the fun damental motifs of the propaganda of this schismatic group consisted in emphasizing how the Council of Ariminum had been the most shameful overthrow of the Nicene party: a council in which all the Western or thodox bishops surrendered to the imperial pressure in favour of Aria nism. Therefore Wilmart and Madoz suppose that the Luciferians added to the letter its false title, in order to show that Potamius, a character of a certain importance in the controversy, fell at the council of Ariminum. However the Luciferians did not notice that their falsification was extre mely awkward: in the first place the pro-Nicene matter of the letter was in open contradiction with the presumed apostasy of Potamius at the council of Ariminum; in the second place the historical sources stated that the Arian career of Potamius had started at least from 355-356 and made no mention of his fall at Ariminum. Consequently Wilmart and Madoz maintain that the Epistula ad Athanasium was written before 355-356. Cf. also Conti, Life and Works, 22-24. Z5 Cf. Simonetti, ariana, 129-130 n.8; Conti, Life and Works, 24-26, 5051, 52-53. 26 Cf. Potamius, Episula ad Athanasium, 50-51

6z

INTRODUCTION

This argument was officially proposed by the Arians, for the first time, precisely in the second formula of Sirmium. The second proof put forward by Simonetti 27 concerns a biblical passage quoted in the text of the Epistula adAthanasium. In his letter Potamius challenges the Arian inter pretation of Ioh. 14, 28, which in the opinion of the her etics proved the inferiority of the Son in comparison with the Father28. This gospel passage is quoted in the form: Qui me misit maior me est, which is actually a combina tion of Ioh. 14,24 and 14,28. Now this particular combina tion, in the same particular form, was used for the first time by the Arians in the second formula of Sirmium. Montes Moreira29 has clearly demonstrated that in the Epistula ad Athanasium there is a reference to the second council of Sirmium when Potamius asserts: antiquitas patrum in synodo sanction, uoluntate uiperea inpurae uirositatis inflata, castis etiam te transfixere missilibus}0. In fact the bishop of Lisbon makes an obvious reference to the council of Nicaea (synodo sanction) in this passage, but also hints at another council which is understood as a second term of comparison: Montes Moriera has unques tionably shown that this unnamed council is the one held at Sirmium in 357. A further proof that Potamius wrote his letter after the council of Ariminum may be constituted by a statement that he makes at the beginning of the Epistula ad Athana sium: he asserts that he defines the Arian sect damnabilis officina by quoting a passage from Athanasius31. In the Epistula de Synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria celebratis (published circa 359-362) 32 Athanasius de scribes the Arians by using the expression: to xpio-TOfi&xov kpyao-TTjpiov (idekvKTov, where kpyaaTf\piov is the

27 Cf. Simonetti, crisi, 129-130 n.8. 28 Cf. Potamius, Epistula ad Athanasium, 28-29. 29 Cf. Montes Moreira, 'Le retour', 338. JO Cf. Potamius, Epistula ad Athanasium, 32-34. " Cf. Potamius, Epistula ad Athanasium, 3-4. 52 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula de Synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria celebratis, 20, PG 26,689A8.

INTRODUCTION

63

exact parallel for the Latin officina, and on the other hand fiSeXvKTdv seems to be a very close parallel for damnabilis". The date of the death of Potamius is completely un known: a single source, the Libellus Precum, describes the last days of Potamius, but the Luciferian pamphlet provides a narrative which has no historical value34. Therefore in this regard the available sources only enable us to fix a terminus post quem, constituted by the first years after the Council held at Ariminum in 359, in which Potamius wrote his doctrinal works, and a terminus ante quem, repre sented by the date of publication of the Libellus Precum (about 383-384), which describes in a legendary manner the death of Potamius. II. Works of Potamius EPISTULA AD ATHANASIUM This is the first text of Potamius, which was edited and published. It was discovered by L. d'Achery, a benedictine scholar, in a manuscript from the Abbey of Saint-Evroult (now in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, ms. Lat. 12. 131), and was published in 1657 in his Spicilegium35. If the chronological reference in the title of the letter36 has caused profound perplexities on the part of scholars, the authenticity of the text was agreed without important discussion 37'. This work appears to be a brief doctrinal treatise in form of epistula, in which Potamius opposes certain arguments alleged by the Arians.

" For a detailed discussion of this passage: cf. Conti, Life and Works, 46-47. 34 Cf. Faustinus and Marcellinus, Libellus Precum, XI,41-42, PL 13,91; CC 69,370; Montes Moreira, Potamius, 208-213; Conti, Life and Works, 21. " L. d' Achery, Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis maxime Benedictinorum latuerant spicilegium, vol. II, 366-368, Paris 1657. 36 Cf. note n.24 57 Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 219-221.

INTRODUCTION

64

The structure of the work has a rather rigid conforma tion and its development appears to follow a cyclical course. In the preamble (lines 3-12) Potamius hints at the essential contribution given by Athanasius to the fight against Arianism, and, by addressing him directly, de scribes the bishop of Alexandria as a warrior hero armed with a cutting sword. Then he abruptly proceeds to a suc cession of invectives against the Arians, whom he repre sents as a poisonous serpent. At this stage Potamius passes to the confutation of two arguments which the Arians em ploy in order to demonstrate that the Son is lower than the Father, and that the Nicene formula is arbitrary. The first argument is Ioh. 14,24 + 28, which the Arians cite as a scrip tural proof of the lower position of Christ38. Potamius dis cusses this argument in the first half of the central part of the letter, then faces the second question raised by the Arians: the use of the term substantia in the Nicene for mula. The Arians allege that it is arbitrary to employ sub stantia in order to describe the relationship between the Son and the Father, since this term is not attested in the Scriptures39. Potamius opposes this argument by quoting different scriptural passages and by availing himself of very effective images. After this doctrinal part, Potamius returns to a briefer succession of invectives against the Arians. Then the cyclical structure of the letter comes to a close with a double doxology dedicated to Mary. In the final line Potamius addresses Athanasius by invoking the blessing of the Trinity upon him. DE LAZARO The De Lazaro is a homily, which was at an early stage misattributed to other authors. It has been transmitted in two versions and in two distinct branches of manuscript tradition. The first version, which is shorter, is preserved in a fair number of manuscripts containing the Latin homilies at3s Cf. section 'The Life of Potamius' and notes n. 25-26. 39 Cf. section 'The Life of Potamius' and note n.27.

INTRODUCTION

65

tributed to John Chrysostom40. While still in 1494 J. Trithemius 41 had no doubt that the De Lazaro was a genu ine work of Chrysostom, a few years later certain editors 42 of the Homiliae suggested that those based on the Gospel of John, and among them the De Lazaro, appeared not to be by the Greek writer: they, however, proposed no au thor to whom these works might be attributed. A decisive step for the restitution of the De Lazaro to Potamius was made in 1739 when two Italian scholars, P. and H. Ballerini, published a new critical edition of the homilies by Zeno of Verona43. In the corpus of this author, whose editio princeps dates from 1508 44, there were eleven homilies which scholars45 had at an early stage indicated as spurious. When the Ballerini brothers began to prepare their edition, only nine of these homilies had been restored to their real authors while two of them, namely the De Lazaro, in a more extended version than the one attributed to Chrysostom, and the De Esaia, still remained anony mous. These scholars identified the author of the De Lazaro by basing themselves on a passage in which the writer addresses himself by mentioning the name Photamius: Age, age, Photami servus Dei vivi, si aliquid praevales, de lacrymis Domini pauca narrato46. They demon strated how "Ph" is a usual corruption of "P" and found a confirmation of their hypothesis of Potamius' authorship in

40 Augustine quotes the lines 103-106 from the De Lazaro, and already acknowledges this homily as a work of Chrysostom: cf. Aug., Contra IuHanum, (published 421-422), 1,6,24, PL 44, 656-657; Opus imperfectum contra Iulianum, (published 429-430), 6,7, PL 45, 1513. The relationship between the De Lazaro and the Contra Iulianum and Opus imperfec tum contra Iulianum is discussed in detail in Wilmart , 'Le "De Lazaro", 291-292; Montes Moreira , Potamius , 282-287; Conti, Life and Works, 6970. 41 J. Trithemius, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, fol. 19v, Bale 1494. 41 Many editions of the Homiliae present this notice from the editors: "Hae homiliae (scil. superJoannis Evangelium) non videntur esse Chrisostomi" Editions published in 1542,1543,1545,1547: cf. Montes Moreira, Po tamius, 247, n.2, 3. 45 P., H. Ballerini, Sancti Zenonis, XXX - XXXI and 293-296. 44 Castellano, Zenonis Sermones, fol. yzr-y}v. 45 Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 248-249. 46 Cf. Potamius, De Lazaro, 95-96. Cf. also Conti, Life and Works, 68.

66

INTRODUCTION

the profound affinity between the De Lazaro and the Epis tula edited by d'Achery. A further comparison of the De Esaia with the text of the Epistula ad Athanasium allowed them to ascribe even this second homily to Potamius47. It is extremely important to underline that the De Lazaro was ascribed to Potamius by the Ballerini brothers and later editors such as Gallandi and Migne48, merely on the basis of the manuscripts and editions of Zeno, and none of these scholars discovered that the same text, even if in a version presenting significant cuts, had been edited and published among the works of Chrysostom. This situation paradoxically remained unchanged for about two centu ries so that still in 1907 Ch. Baur49 asserted that the De Lazaro in the corpus of Chrysostom was a Greek apocry phal homily translated into Latin by Anianus of Celeda. In 1918 A. Wilmart definitively solved this question by publishing a new critical edition of the De Lazaro 50 . He employed for the first time some of the manuscripts tradi tionally ascribing the text to Chrysostom, and presenting a shorter version of the text, together with some of those at tributing it to Zeno, and eventually united the two branches of the manuscript tradition of the De Lazaro. In comparison with the Epistula ad Athanasium, which can be dated with sufficient reliability and appears to be a perfectly orthodox text, the De Lazaro raises certain

47 The Ballerini brothers, however, thought that these three texts, the Epistula and the two homilies, could not be attributed to the Potamius described by the historical sources as an Arian convert, so that they put forward the hypothesis of the existence of two different Potamii, the former being an unknown orthodox bishop, the latter the pro-Arian bis hop of Lisbon. In 1769 another Italian scholar, A. Gallandi, who re-edi ted the two homilies, refuted the theory of the two Potamii and restored these texts to the historical Potamius, bishop of Lisbon. Cf. P., H. Balle rini, Sancti Zenonis, XXX - XXXI and 293-296; Montes Moreira, Pota mius, 249-251; Gallandi, Bibliotheca, vol.V, p.XVII. Cf. also Montes Mo reira, Potamius, 171-173, 251. 48 Cf. Gallandi, Bibliotheca, vol.V, 96-97, (cf. also note n.47); PL VIII, col. 1411-1415. 49 Ch. Baur, 'L'entree litteraire de saint Chrysostome dans le mond Latin', RHE 8 (1907), 260. 50 Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 294-304.

INTRODUCTION

67

perplexities". Since it is not a doctrinal work like the Epistula, the author does not express precise theological posi tions during the course of it, nor does he make use of technical language. As a consequence Potamius' doctrinal point of view in the De Lazaro cannot be stated with ab solute certainty. Montes Moreira52 has emphasised how terms which openly state the equal divinity of the Son, such as the titles of Deus, Salvator and Dominus given in this homily to Jesus, were also commonly employed by the Arians with a different meaning. In the same way M. Meslin 53 has underlined how the expression referred to the Son: flebat Deus, which appears to be perfectly orthodox in the context of popular religiosity, might imply a hetero dox point of view: Potamius might want to emphasise the human nature and psychology of Christ, even if he does not maintain the ontological inferiority of the Son to the Father. M. Simonetti, who has also analysed this text54, concludes that the expression flebat Deus cannot consti tute a proof of the heterodoxy of the De Lazaro since it is used in a generic and non-technical context: however it might foreshadow the subsequent conversion of Potamius to Arianism, that is it might indicate how the underlying similarity between Potamius' christology 55 and that of the Arians contributed to his conversion to heresy. These differences of emphasis help to explain the ex treme difficulty encountered by scholars in proposing even an approximate date for the De Lazaro. On the basis of Simonetti's remarks, even though he provides no hypoth esis in this regard, the De Lazaro ought to be placed in the years previous to Potamius' apostasy. Montes Moreira, on the other hand, alleges that there is no definitive proof of an Arian or heterodox point of view in the De Lazaro: he

51 Cf. note n.19. 51 cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 256-258; 'Le retour', 327- 328. " M. Meslin, Les Ariens d'Occident, 32, Paris 1967. 54 Cf. Simonetti, ariana, 131. " Simonetti asserts that Potamius expresses in the De Lazaro the "Word-Flesh" type of Christology which might have facilitated his con version to Arianism. Simonetti, ariana, 131; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 281-282, London 1968.

68

INTRODUCTION

is therefore inclined to place the text in the orthodox phase of Potamius' career preceding or following his Arian con version, but does not absolutely exclude the possibility of dating it in his Arian years56. In our opinion Montes Moreira's position is the correct one. We merely add that a connection between the return of Potamius to Nicenism and the choice of the subject of the De Lazaro may exist. In fact if we consider Potamius' point of view in this hom ily as perfectly orthodox, we may suppose that he wants to symbolise the resurrection of Nicenism in his soul through the account of the raising of Lazarus. And more over he may wish to assert, by giving to the episode of Lazarus an allegorical meaning, the inevitability of a final resurrection and victory of the Nicene party after the dif ficult phase, which followed the council of Ariminum. From the literary point of view the De Lazaro is charac terised by a combination of narrative passages, in which Potamius reports the putrefaction of Lazarus in the grave, the intervention of Jesus and the consequent scene of res urrection, and very extended philosophical digressions, in which he describes the different physical elements of hu man body and the forces which cause its dissolution after death57. Facing the problem of the possible sources of the De Lazaro Wilmart 58 has noticed that in his narrative Potamius reports certain details (e.g. lines 5, 85-86, 115-116, 132-136, 137-144), which are so precise that they suggest the use of an apocryphal source. More recently Montes Moreira has resumed this question59 accepting in general the remarks of Wilmart, but also raising certain reasonable reserva tions. In fact he has shown that, if the hypothesis of an 56 This is the position of Montes Moreira in his monograph. In his ar ticle on the return of Potamius to orthodoxy he is more definite in his remarks and maintains that at the moment there is no basis for Arian or heterodox interpretations of the De Lazaro: the work therefore appears to be perfectly orthodox. Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 262-263; 'Le retour', 328. 57 Cf. Conti, Life and Works, 35. For a complete commentary on the De Lazaro see Conti, Life and Works, 58-74. 58 Cf. Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 298 n.1. 59 Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 258-262.

INTRODUCTION

69

apocryphal source appears to be likely, it is supported at the moment by no proof since there is no extant apocry phal text including an accurate description of the raising of Lazarus or any of the details employed by Potamius60. THE TWO VERSIONS OF THE DE LAZARO As we have already mentioned at the beginning of this section, the De Lazaro has been transmitted in two ver sions and in two separated manuscript traditions. The first version, named "Chrys" by Wilmart61, is pre served in 25 manuscripts, which contain the Latin homilies of John Chrysostom62 together with the works of other writers. All these manuscripts, which date from the ninth to the sixteenth century, include the De Lazaro among the Latin homilies of the Greek writer. The second version, named "Zen" by Wilmart63, is present in 18 manuscripts, which contain the homilies of Zeno of Verona and preserve the De Lazaro among them. These manuscripts date from the eighth-ninth to the fif teenth century. The "Chrys" version is much shorter than that attributed to Zeno: it consists of 591 words compared to the 972 of "Zen". Therefore the first hypothesis to be considered is that "Chrys" is an earlier draft of the De Lazaro which was later expanded. However, from a close comparison of the two versions, the text of "Chrys" turns out to be an abridge ment of "Zen" achieved by simply removing phrases, sen tences or entire passages, while there is no trace of a sig nificant reworking between the two texts. All the extended passages omitted by "Chrys" are philosophical digressions, while all the narrative passages are retained in this version, even if they are mostly simplified with the omission of

60 In the extant apocryphal writings we merely find very brief hints of Lazarus' episode: cf. Epistula Apostolorum 27; Evangelium Nicodemi VIII and IV (XX); cf. also A. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. I, 220, 405, 416, Tubingen 1990. 6' Cf. Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 289-304. 61 Cf. also note n. 40. 65 Cf. Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 289-304.

70

INTRODUCTION

words or phrases. Therefore it may be supposed that the text of "Chrys" was abridged in order to make it more en joyable and more comprehensible when it was read in the presence of a congregation. The technique of abridgement through the removal of words or phrases in "Chrys" is sometimes fairly awkward, and appears to be almost me chanical. A typical case is in "Chrys" 56-58, where the ma jority of the manuscripts presents the following text: Harum ad lacrimas saluator pietate commotus fletus fleti bus contrahebat ut quia ipse sororum lacrimis filii sui etiam inter ipsos caelos paternitas flecteretur. It is evident that in the process of abridgement the verb ruled by the subject ipse has been accidentally removed, so that the sentence appears to be incomprehensible. In "Zen" 105-108 we find the complete passage, which is the following: Harum ad lacrimas et sparsam crinis miserandi caesariem saluator pietate commotus fletus fletibus recontrabat; et quia ipse sororum fletibus mouebatur, lacrimis filii sui saluatoris nostri inter ipsos caelos eius paternitasflectebatur. In the manuscripts /, Dot, Q, Va, C, Tp, Y of "Chrys" this passage appears to have been corrected, probably through a comparison with the text of "Zen": Harum ad lacrimas saluator pietate commotus fletus fletibus contrahebat ut quia ipse sororum lacrimis mouebatur (flectebatur in C, Tp, Y)filii sui etiam inter ipsos caelos paternitasflecteretur. From this passage it can be also noticed how sometimes the text of "Chrys" replaces difficult words with easier ones: contrahebat instead of recontrabat. From this analysis we might conclude that "Zen" is the original version of the De Lazaro, while "Chrys" is a later abridged version. However we find in "Chrys" a few nar rative passages which appear to have been removed from "Zen": cf. for example "Chrys" 59-67: Reuoluuntur saxa, secretarium patescit horroris. Curiosi adfatim gentium populorum oculi mittebantur in antrum. Ecce uox domini saluatoris: 'Lazare- inquit- ueni'. Et, ut Christus docet et praeuidet, exeunte mortuo, qui curiosos oculos in antrum sollicitius praetendebant, uenientefloras, expauescenteformidine longius recurrebant. Uisus est tecta facie, manibus pedibusque constrictus, et ad documentum uirtutis ipse se,

INTRODUCTION

71

mortuus adhuc uinculatus, ut Christus iusserat, suis mani bus resoluebat ; and "Zen" 109-116: Mox ergo Iesus Christus ad sepulchrum Lazari accessit. Statim iussione eius reuoluuntur saxa, secretarium patescit horroris. Curiosi affatim in specum gementium populorum oculi mittebantur. Uisus est Lazarus tecta facie, manibus pedibusque constrictus, et ad documenta uirtutum ipse se, mortuus et adhuc pedibus uinctus, ut Christus iusserat, suis manibus resoluebat (cf. also "Chrys" 13-20 and "Zen" 65-69; Chrys" 42-51 and "Zen" 92-101). It is evident, therefore, that also "Zen" has been submitted to a process of abridgment through the removal of phrases or sentences. The criterion for this abridgement seems to be opposite to that employed in "Chrys". While in the version attributed to Chrysostom the philosophical, more technical passages have been completely removed in favour of the narrative ones, in "Zen" we observe the re duction of some narrative details. We may suppose that certain narrative passages, in which in general a popular narrative taste prevails, have been removed from "Zen" in order to give more relief to the philosophical, technical passages. At this stage it is evident that a complete reconstruction of the De Lazaro is impossible. In the first place we can not be sure that all the narrative passages removed from "Zen" have been actually preserved by "Chrys", which in any case has undergone a radical process of abridgement. In the second place we are almost certain that the narra tive passages retained by "Chrys" and omitted by "Zen" have been simplified to some extent, since a tendency to simplification, as we have seen, is characteristic of the "Chrys" version. In our opinion, through a combination of the two extant versions, we can reconstruct a text very close to that writ ten by Potamius, but not the complete, original one. DE MARTYRIO ESAIAE PROPHETAE This text, like the De Lazaro, is misattributed by the manuscript tradition to Zeno of Verona. It is present in 14 of the 18 manuscripts of Zeno in which the De Lazaro is

72

INTRODUCTION

preserved. Unlike that homily it was never attributed to Chrysostom, and therefore has a single manuscript tradition64. It was restored to Potamius by the brothers Ballerini who, in the course of their edition of Zeno65, rec ognised the profound affinity between this text and both the Epistula ad Athanasium and the De Lazaro. The De Esaia presents no characteristic element, which gives it a precise literary identity. However the traditional definition of homily has been accepted by scholars66 even for this work since it shows certain affinities with the homiletic genre 67 and obviously with the De Lazaro. The abso lute lack of doctrinal topics and theological remarks pre vents the possibility of dating this text or of placing it in a definable phase of Potamius' career: the bishop of Lisbon might have written it in his orthodox years or during his Arian period68. However we suppose that, as in the case of the De Lazaro, the choice of the subject of the De Esaia might be connected with Potamius' return to orthodoxy. In fact it is possible to interpret symbolically the main ele ments present in the narrative of the De Esaia and to draw from them an allegory of the fight between Arianism and Nicenism in which Potamius may express his new support for orthodoxy. In the first place the heroic figure of Isaiah may symbolise Athanasius: certain affinities crop up be tween the description of the bishop of Alexandria in the Epistula ad Athanasium and that of Isaiah in this homily. Then the narrative of the vexations undergone by Isaiah might be a reference to Athanasius' imprisonment and ex ile. Finally the central motif of the torture by the means of a saw, which the Jews employ to split Isaiah into two halves, may symbolise the violence of the Arians who at-

64 Cf. Wilmart , Le "De Lazaro", 292-296; Montes Moreira , Potamius, 297-300; Conti, Life and Works, 75. 65 Cf. the section on the De Lazaro. 66 Montes Moreira, Potamius, 289. 67 In particular it presents a passage in which the use of the expres sion advertite ( De Esaia 16 ) suggests an address to an audience, cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 289. 68 Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 292-293.

INTRODUCTION

73

tempt to split the unity of the Trinity69 and the unity of Christianity. Therefore, on the basis of these remarks, the De Esaia might represent a sort of homiletic parallel to the Epistula ad Athanasium, and consequently a means used by Potamius to express to a popular audience his support of Nicenism through a more sensational language and im agery. The narrative structure of the work is constituted by a single scene: Isaiah, who had prophesied the condemna tion of the Jewish people, is subjected to an atrocious tor ture: he is split into two halves with a saw. Potamius re peatedly emphasises the prophet's heroism as he describes the course of the saw through his body. The extreme ob scurity of the text has caused scholars to assert that it has been transmitted in a fragmentary condition70. Our im pression is that the extant text has been submitted to a radical process of abridgement achieved through the re moval of phrases, sentences or entire passages, and the stitching-together of different segments of sentences71. It seems to us that this abridgement is similar to that under gone by the "Chrys" version of the De Lazaro72 and there fore was intended as a way to simplify the text. However in the case of the De Esaia it was achieved in such an awkward way that the resulting text turns out to be ex tremely obscure and probably more difficult than the origi nal text was. The source of the De Esaia is the apocryphal work en titled "Ascension of Isaiah"73. It is composed by two sepa-

69 A similar image of cruelty concerning an attempt on the part of the enemies of faith of separating the unity of the Trinity is employed by Potamius in the Epistula ad Athanasium: Lanio truculentus, parricida desertor, milvinis, ut reor, unguibus vel dentibus malesanis, si potuisset, temptavit scindere (sc. Trinitatis unitatem) (Epist. ad Athan zyvj) 70 Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 289. For a complete commentary on the text of the De Esaia cf. Conti, Life and Works, 75-83. 71 Cf. for a detail analysis of this aspect cf. Conti, Life and Works, 7583. 71 Cf. the section on the De Lazaro. 73 For a recent English translation with clear introduction and notes cf. Martyrdom and Ascension ofIsaiah intr. and trans, by M.A. Knibb in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha, 143-176,

74

INTRODUCTION

rate sections: the former is commonly defined "Martyrdom of Isaiah", the latter constitutes the so-called "Vision of Isaiah". The first section is the more ancient and dates from the first century A.D., its origin is Jewish and it probably includes references to the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes which occurred in the second century B.C. The sec ond section, which forms the "Vision of Isaiah", is more recent, dating from the half of the second century, and is of Christian origin74. Potamius bases his homily on the Jewish section of the work, that is, on the "Martyrdom of Isaiah"75, but introduces certain new elements. In the first place he describes in detail the torture which is briefly re ported in the apocrypha. Then he makes the demon Beliar, who in the original narrative guides the evil rule of the king Manasseh and compels him to torture Isaiah, a human character, a wizard who tries his sorcery on the prophet. Finally he fuses the figure of the king Manasseh, who was the son of the king Hezekiah, with Beliar himself since he calls Beliar son of Hezekiah76. With regard to sources it is also necessary to consider a passage of Paul (cf. Heb. 11,37), m which the apostle praises those who died for the true faith, and makes a pre cise reference to the torture of the saw: it is extremely likely that Potamius was influenced by this passages when he chose to write a homily on the martyrdom of Isaiah.

New York 1985. For an extended study and introduction cf. A. Acerbi, Serra lignea. Studi sulla fortuna della Ascensione di Isaia, Roma 1984. For a complete edition with a very detailed commentary cf. E. Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae, 2 vol., Turnhout 1995. 74 A third independent section of the 'Ascension of Isaiah" is embed ded into the "Martyrdom of Isaiah": it covers chapters 3,13 - 4,22 and is defined "Testimony of Isaiah"; its origin is also Christian. 75 It is uncertain whether Potamius used his apocryphal source in a direct way. While Montes Moreira maintains a direct employment of this source, recently certain scholars have asserted that Potamius' approach to it was indirect. Cf. A. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 289-290; F. Gori, Gli Apocrifi e i Padri, 231, in A.Quacquarelli (ed.), Complementi interdisci plinary di Patrologia, Roma 1989. 76 For a detailed analysis of the relationship between the De Esaia and the Ascension of Isaiah cf. Conti, Life and Works, 77, 81-82.

INTRODUCTION

75

EPISTULA DE SUBSTANTIA PATRIS ET FILII ET SPIRITUS SANCTI This work is preserved in six manuscripts, the most an cient dating from the tenth century, and is ascribed by tra dition to Jerome. In 1908-1909 G. Antolin edited and published 77 the Epistula de Substantia under the name of Jerome without confronting in detail the question of the authorship of this work. In 1912 A. Wilmart78 noticed the close affinity of style, motifs and language between the Epistula de Substantia and the Epistula ad Athanasium, De Lazaro and De Esaia, and ascribed it with certainty to the bishop of Lisbon. However some reservations were raised by G. Morin79 so that Wilmart resumed the question in 1913 s0 by adding new arguments: in particular he empha sised the use of identical terms in the Epistula de Substan tia and the Epistula ad Athanasium in order to demon strate the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Twenty years later, in 1934, A.C. Vega published the entire corpus of Potamius' writings in a new edition including the Epistula de Substantia. In the introduction to his work81 Vega accepted all the arguments proposed by Wilmart and indicated the close relationship between the Epistula de Substantia and the Epistula ad Athanasium by listing the passages which are identical in both texts81. Recently Montes Moreira83 has pointed out how a great number of internal indications prove unequivocally that the Epistula de Substantia is a genuine work of Potamius,

77 G. Antolin, 'Opusculos desconocidos de San Jeronimo - "Codex Epistolarum" de la Biblioteca de El Escorial: A.II.3', Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos 19 (1908), 216-226; 20 (1909), 60-63. 78 A. Wilmart, 'Fragments du Ps-Origene sur le psaume XCI dans une collection espagnole', RB 29 (1912), 279. 79 G. Morin, '"Pro Instantio" - Contre l'attribution a Priscillien des opuscules du Manuscrit de Wurzburg ', RB 30 (1913), 160; G. Morin, Etu des, textes, decouvertes: Contributions a la litterature et a I'histoire des douze premiers siecles, 6, 502, 508, Paris 1913. 80 Wilmart, 'La lettre', 268-269. 81 Vega, Opuscula, 37. 81 For example the section 315-339 of the De Substantia is a mere combination of passages taken from the Epistula ad Athanasium, 50-85. 83 Montes Moreira, Potamius, 234-236.

76

INTRODUCTION

while Simonetti84 has underlined how in this letter Potamius develops and deepens the arguments which he has discussed more briefly in the Epistula ad Athanasium. However, R.P.C. Hanson has recently thrown doubt on Potamius' authorship of the Epistula de Substantia in his work on the Arian crisis published in 1988 85 . The British scholar notices a profound difference of style between this Epistula and the other works of Potamius and asserts that a series of identical passages in two texts cannot demon strate that the author is the same: at the most it shows that "one author has copied the other86". In our opinion the position of Hanson is unacceptable and appears to be iso lated with respect to the leading critical trend which Montes Moreira and Simonetti have begun with their works. Recently three scholars, J. Scudieri Ruggieri87, J. Lorenzo88 and S. Alvarez89, have analysed the Epistula de Substantia especially from a stylistic and linguistic point of view and have shown in their articles how this work, even in this respect, fits perfectly into the context of the Epistula ad Athanasium and the homilies restored to Potamius90. In the introduction to his edition, Vega91 also tried to state the chronological relationship between the two Epistulae of Potamius, but was obliged to leave the question open, since even though he found in the beginning of the Epistula de Substantia 91 a hint of a superior tractatus, he was not certain that it was a reference to the Epistula ad Athanasium. In 1947 Madoz93 reopened this question and concluded that the expression superior tractatus was a 84 Simonetti, ariana, 133-134. 85 R.P.G. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 526527, n.n0, Edinburgh 1988. 86 R.P.G. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 527 n.no, Edinburgh 1988. 87 Ruggieri, 'latino' 126-158. 88 Lorenzo, 'sintaxis', 117-130. 89 Alvarez , 'ritmo', 265-276. 90 For a complete commentary on the Epistula de Substantia cf. Conti, Life and Works, 84-132. 91 Cf. Vega, Opuscula, 21. 92 Potamius, Epist. de Substantia, 16-17: quia superiori tractatu Trinitatis excussimus lumen. Cf. also Conti, Life and Works, 86. 93 Madoz, 'Potamio', 94.

INTRODUCTION

77

clear reference to the Epistula ad Athanasium, so that the De Substantia had to be placed without doubt after it. Madoz's position was rejected in 1959 by Dominguez del Val94, but recently has been accepted by Montes Moreira95 and Simonetti96. In our opinion Madoz's position is very likely; moreover it seems reasonable that Potamius, after reaffirming his Nicene faith in the Epistula ad Athanasium, felt the need to demonstrate both his desire to combat Arianism and his doctrinal authority through a more extended and detailed work. In any event, even if it is certain that the De Substantia is later than the Epistula ad Athanasium, the interval of time separating the two works is difficult to establish: for the composition of the De Substantia it is merely possible to indicate a terminus post quem, that is circa 360, the period when Potamius wrote his letter to Athanasius, while the terminus ante quem is obviously constituted by 382-383 97. The Epistula de Substantia is the most extended work in the corpus of Potamius and represents, in a sense, the sum of the author's theological and doctrinal reflection on the Trinitarian dogma. Even though it falls within the episto lary genre98, it actually appears to be a thorough-going treatise in which doctrinal discussion prevails even more than in the Epistula ad Athanasium. The main arguments on the basis of which Potamius de velops his discussion are two: the legitimacy of the use of the term substantia laid down by the authority of the Bible; and the unquestionable existence of a total unity of will, action and substance between the Father and the Son. Potamius supports his arguments by availing himself of the same scriptural quotations and partly of the same remarks, 94 Dominguez del Val, 'Su ortodoxia', 242: this scholar thinks that the expression superiori tractatu very probably refers to another work and not to the Epist. ad Athan. 95 Montes Moreira, Potamius, 239, 302-303. 96 Simonetti, ariana, 132. 97 I.e. the year of publication of the Libellus Precum, which reports Potamius' death. 98 A.C. Vega and Dominguez del Val suppose, on the contrary, that the Epistula de Substantia is a homily: cf. Vega, Opuscula, 21; Domin guez del Val, 'Su ortodoxia', CD 172, (1959), 237-258.

78

INTRODUCTION

which he employs in the Epistula ad Athanasium". How ever in the Epistula de Substantia he deepens and expands his discussion in an extreme way. The structure of the work appears to be tripartite. In the first part, consisting of the section 1-160, Potamius explains the meaning of the term substantia and expounds through a long train of metaphors how the persons act in a har mony of will and action. In the course of this section he makes various digressions concerning the passion of Christ, the rise of Arian sects and other topics. In the sec ond part (section 161-355) Potamius concentrates on the substance as an element, and describes its principal char acteristics through different comparisons with material ob jects, fruits and plants. Finally in the section 356-638 Pota mius asserts that God not only engraved his image on the human face, but created the different anatomical parts of the body as material representations of the Trinity. Threfore he describes in detail how different organs work, since they show in a precise way how the Trinity itself acts in its harmony. EPISTULA POTAMI With regard to the works written by Potamius during his Arian phase, only one very short fragment has been pre served by indirect tradition. This fragment is usually indi cated as Epistula Potami and is quoted by Phoebadius of Agen in his Contra Arrianos published in 357 or 358 I00. Its importance is essential since it represents all that remains of the pro-Arian writings of Potamius. Certain scholars101 have rejected the authenticity of this fragment by suppos ing that it was an interpolation by the Luciferians in the

99 Hier. 9,10 (quoted from a Vetus Latina which coincides in this pas sage with the text of the Septuaginta); Hier. 23,22; lob. 10,30; Ioh. 5,8. Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 233-235. 100 Cf. Phoebadius of Agen, Contra Arrianos, 3, 5, PL 20,15, 20,16; CC 64,25, 64,27. For a complete commentary on the Epistula Potami cf. Conti, Life and Works, 133-134. "" Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 132-136 for a detailed discussion of this problem.

INTRODUCTION

79

text of Phoebadius, but this position has found no favour102. The date of the Epistula from which Phoebadius draws his quotation can be placed between the end of 355 103 and 357, but in our opinion it must be very close to the second council of Sirmium held in August 357. Both Montes Moreira104 and Simonetti105 agree with good reason in asserting that this extremely important frag ment expresses the so-called "Word-Flesh" type of christology which "making no allowance for a human soul in Christ, viewed the incarnation as the union of the Word with human flesh" 106 . This kind of christology was already wide-spread between the end of the third and the begin ning of the fourth century in the East, and especially in Al exandria. The Arians took possession of it in order to dem onstrate the inferiority of the Son: in fact since this theory denied the presence of a human soul in Jesus, all his af fections (pains, emotions etc.) described in the Gospels were attributed to the Word, which therefore, according to the Arian point of view, revealed in these human charac teristics his inferiority with regard to the Father.

THE MANUSCRIPTS I. Manuscripts of the Epistvla ad Athanasivm The extant manuscripts including the Epistula ad Athanasium are sixteen (CVREFGANBDHILSMP), and date from the ninth to the beginning of the sixteenth cen tury. All these manuscripts contain a dossier, or a part of a dossier, which was probably compiled at the end of the fourth century (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 269-275) by the

102 103 104 105 106

Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 136-137. Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 134-137. Cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 153; 'Le retour', 326-327. Cf. Simonetti, ariana, 130-131. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christians Doctrines, 281, London 1968.

80

INTRODUCTION

Spanish Luciferians, and later was slightly altered (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 275). It consists of nine works, which de fend the Nicene trinitarian doctrine against the errors of the Arians. Eleven manuscripts, namely REFANBDHILM, con tain the complete dossier, which includes the following texts: 1. Sancti Athanasii episcopi de Trinitate libri octo PL, lxii, 237-288: this work has been attributed to different writers (Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, Ambrose, Vigilius Thapsensis, and to a Luciferian falsarius). It has been transmitted in three versions, one consisting of seven books, one of eight and one of twelve. The complete ver sion in twelve books has been recently edited by V. Bulhart in his edition of Eusebius of Vercelli for the Corpus Christianorum (cf. CC, ix, 1-99; 115-118; 127-205). However Bulhart attributes to Eusebius only the version in seven books, while he regards the remaining books as spurious and includes them in the appendix of his edition. 2. Libellus Fidei PL, lxii, 287-288: this short work has been transmitted by a part of the manuscripts as the ninth book of the De Trinitate mentioned above. Certain scholars at tribute it, with some reservations, to Gregory of Elvira (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 271: and more recently M. Simonetti, Gregorio di Elvira. La Fede, 11, Torino, 1975). Bulhart has included this text in the appendix of his edition of Euse bius (cf. CC, ix, 1 29-131) and among the dubia et spuria of his edition of Gregory of Elvira (cf. CC, lxix, 267-268). 3. De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto PL, lxii, 307-334: also this work, like the Libellus Fidei, has been transmitted by cer tain manuscripts as a part of the De Trinitate, namely as the twelfth book. Its origin is probably Luciferian (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 271-272). The most recent editors of this work are Bulhart, who includes it in the appendix of his edition of Eusebius (cf. CC, ix, 165-205), and Simonetti, who has re-edited it in 1957 (cf. M. Simonetti, Pseudoathanasii de Trinitate 11 x-xii, Bologna 1957).

INTRODUCTION

81

4. Contra Arianos, Sabellianos, Photinianos dialogus PL, lxii, 179-238: this dialogue in three books, published under the name of Athanasius, was composed at the end of the fifth century by Vigilius Thapsensis (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 272). This work was added to the original Luciferian dos sier probably in the sixth century in Spain, or later in France (cf. G. Ficker, Studien zu Vigilius von Thapsus, 2542, Leipzig 1897). 5. Epistula Potami ad Athanasium PL, viii, 1416-1418. 6. Epistula Athanasii episcopi ad Luciferum episcopum PL, lxii, 515-517: this letter is a Luciferian forgery, which the compilers of our dossier took from the corpus of Lucifer of Calaris (cf. Wilmart, la Lettre', 273-274; L. Saltet, 'Fraudes litteraires des schismatiques luciferiens aux IVe et Ve siecles', BLE 8 (1906), 300-326). It has been recently re-ed ited by Dierks in his complete edition of Lucifer (cf. CC, viii, 307-310). 7. Solutiones obiectionum Arianorum PL, lxii, 469-472: this anonymous work, misattributed to Vigilius Thapsensis (cf. G. Ficker, Studien zu Vigilius von Thapsus, 35, Leipzig 1897), is probably of Luciferian origin (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 274). It is extremely likely that it was part of the Luciferian dossier from the beginning, and was not added later like the Contra Arianos of Vigilius (cf. above n. 4). 8. Fides sancti Hieronymi PLS, i, 515: this short work, at tributed to Jerome, was probably written by Gregory of Elvira, or by his disciples under his direct influence (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 275). It was originally published by G. Morin in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii, 3 (1903), 199-200 and recently has been included by Bulhart in the dubia et spu ria of his edition of Gregory of Elvira (cf. CC, lxix, 273-275). 9. Defide apud Bethleem PLS, i, 514: this symbol of faith, like the previous one, was written in the circle of Gregory of Elvira (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 274-275). It was originally published by A. E. Burn in An introduction to the Creeds,

82

INTRODUCTION

245-246, London 1899. Recently it has been included by Bulhart in the dubia et spuria of his edition of Gregory of Elvira (cf. CC, lxix, 269-272). The remaining manuscripts present the following differ ences in their contents: a) C and V omit numbers 3, 8 and 9 from the previous list. b) G omits numbers 8 and 9 and replaces them with Vigilius Thapsensis, Contra Eutychetem (PL, lxii, 95-154) and Petrus Chrysologus, Epistula ad Eutychetem (PL, Hi, 71). c) P omits numbers 7, 8 and 9 and replaces them with Ps-Ambrose, De Trinitate Tractatus tres (PL, xvii, 509-546) which is the first work in the manuscript, and Ferrandus Carthaginensis, Epistula ad Reginum comitem (PL, lxvii, 928-950), which is placed at the end. d) S includes Apponius, In Canticum Canticorum (PLS, i, 800-1031; CC, xix, 1-311), Jerome, Dogma Origenis de resurrectione carnis (which is a section of Contra Ioannem Hierosolymitanum PL, xxii, 355-396), Theodulphus of Or leans, De Spiritu Sancto (PL, cv, 259-276) together with number 1, 5 and 6 from the Luciferian dossier. e) A, which contains the complete dossier, adds the Capitula Sancti Augustini de duodecim abusiuis (PL, xl, 10791088) after number 9. 0 N and E, which contain the complete dossier, add Guitmundus, Epistula ad Ergastum (PL, cxlix, 1501-1508) af ter number 9. According to their variants, the manuscripts including the Epistula ad Athanasium can be grouped into two main families. The first family, named "C" by Wilmart (cf. 'La Lettre' 276-277), consists of fourteen manuscripts (C V R E FG A NBDHILS), the second, named "M", of two (M P).

INTRODUCTION

83

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE FAMILY "C" Group CVL C = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canonici "Patr. Lat." 112, (IX century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 103r-104V. The manuscript is on parchment, in folio minori, and consists of 112 leaves. It is dated by Coxe at the beginning of the eleventh century (cf. H. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, part III, col. 356, Oxford 1854), but Wilmart (cf. 'La Lettre', 276-277), through his detailed analysis of the script, has fixed the date of C to the ninth century. The main text is written by a French, Caroline hand in a slightly archaic style, while the corrections are undoubt edly in the style of Corbie. The manuscript originally belonged to the library of Cor bie, as is attested by a note (n.225) of the ancient catalogue (cf. L. Delisle, Memoires de L'Academie des Inscriptions, XXV, 1, 334, Paris 1861), but was probably removed or sto len before the manuscripts of Corbie were attributed to the library of the monastery of Saint-Germain des Pres in 1638. This manuscript is the most ancient and important in the family "C, to which it gives the name, and Wilmart has employed it as the basis for his edition. It presents a text which often appears to be inaccurate, so that we have taken into consideration the variants of the later manu scripts of this family in order to solve the frequent incon gruities of "C". V = Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliotheque Municipale, 29, (XI century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. i15V-117r. The manuscript is on parchment, in quarto, and consists of 123 leaves. It is written in long lines in minuscule, 28 per page (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits, (in 40), tome IV, 590-591, Paris 1872). It was originally copied and pre served in the monastery of Saint-Vast ( Bibliothecae monasterii Sancti Vedasti Atrebatensis B. 86). It presents a text which is very similar to that of c7, and the two manuscripts differ in a significant way from

84

INTRODUCTION

each other only at line n, where V has the correct reading libidinosa and C libidinosam, and at line 40, where Incor rectly writes dominus and C domine. It is very probable that the text of V directly derives from that of C, but we cannot exclude the possibility that Kwas actually copied from a brother manuscript of C (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 285). L = London, British Library, Royal 6 A VIII, (dated 14961497), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 74V-/6r. The manuscript is on paper, sized 285mm x 209mm, and consists of 121 leaves. It was written at Spanheim, A.D. 1496-97, for the Abbot John Tritheim. Afterwards it became part of the library of John Theyer (cf. G.F. Warner, J. P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections, vol. I, 129-130, London 1921). L presents a text which is extremely similar to that of C and V. Its variants appear to be of humanistic origin. It was probably copied from a brother manuscript of C or V, but was heavily revised in the process of copying. Group ENS E = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 12.131, (XII cen tury), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 68r-69r. The manuscript is on parchment and in quarto (cf. L. Delisle, Inventaire des manuscrits de Saint Germain des Pres, 38, Paris 1868). It comes from the Abbey of SaintEvroult (iste liber est de armario sancti Ebrulfi - cf. Wil mart, 'La Lettre', 278-279). Later it was moved to the library of Saint-Germain des Pres, and finally to the Bibliotheque Nationale. The editio princeps of the Epistula ad Athana sium is based on this single manuscript (cf. L. d'Achery, Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis maxime Benedictinorum latuerant spicilegium, II, 366-368, Paris 1657). The text, which this manuscript presents, mostly coin cides with that of C and V, but at the same times presents some peculiarities ( e.g. line 20 nostrum iesum instead of deum; line ^ifacere opera mea instead of opera meafac

INTRODUCTION

85

ere; line 55 et pauer tuo instead of expauerunt) , which are found in two other manuscripts only, namely N and S. Therefore it can be supposed that E is the most ancient representative of a different sub-group of manuscripts be longing to the family "C". It probably derives from an ex emplar very similar to that employed by C, but distinct from it. N = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1685, (XII cen tury), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 102v-104r. The manuscript is on parchment, is sized 265 x 180 mm, and consists of 119 leaves (cf. Bibliotheque Nationale Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits Latins, tome II, 124, Paris 1940). It originally belonged to Charles d'Orleans as is attested by the note at fol. 119: Hunc librum emi ego dux Aurelianensis ... Karolus. The text of N significantly differs from that of Ei (prima manus) only at line 9, where it presents the correct read ing perfectus instead of perfestus of E. Other variants are merely orthographic. The secunda manus of E, however, corrected the text on the basis of a better manuscript than that employed for N, so that £2 presents in general a better text than N (cf. Wilmart, 'La lettre', 279). It is extremely probable that the two manuscripts were copied from the same exemplar. S = Selestat, Bibliotheque Humaniste Municipale, 77, (XVI century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 20ir-202r. The manuscript is on paper, is sized 283mm x 209 mm, and consists of 203 leaves written in long lines (cf. Cata logue Generale des Manuscrits, (in 40), tome III, 580, Paris 1861). It was part of the library of Beatus Rhenanus (cf. CC, xix, VI). Different sections, originally independent, were gathered together and then bound in the course of the sixteenth century to form this manuscript. The section including the Epistula ad Athanasium was probably copied in 1506 (cf. CC, xix, VII). S differs from E and N only at line 86, where it presents the reading 0 immutescat instead of the correct obmutescat. Other variants are merely orthographic. Prob

86

INTRODUCTION

ably S is a copy of an older manuscript deriving from the same exemplar employed by E and N, but we cannot ex clude that it was directly copied from E or N. Group BDRAH B = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Trinity College, XXV, (XI century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 141v -143V. The manuscript is on parchment, in quarto, and consists of 156 leaves. It appears to be well written and preserved. It was presented by the Fundator Collegii S. Trinitatis (cf. H. Coxe, Catalogus Codicum MSS. qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur, part II, 11, Ox ford 1852). The manuscripts belonging to the last two sub-groups, among which B and D are the most ancient, significantly differ from the previous ones in one key reading at line 5, where they have the genitive plural cadauerum instead of the accusative cadauera. This reading, which was rejected by Wilmart in his edition, appears to be the correct one. The phrase exordium et stercoris cruento de fetore cadauera mortuorum, which seems to be incomprehen sible, becomes clearer with the substitution of cadauerum: 'and the beginning of a putrescence emanating from the bloody stench of corpses'. In our opinion B was copied from an exemplar, which was extremely similar to that employed by the manuscripts of the two previous groups, but presented better readings in a few passages. D = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Jesus College, XLIII, (XI century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 152r - 154r. The manuscript is on parchment, in folio minori, and consists of 167 leaves. It appears to be well written and preserved (cf. H. Coxe, Catalogus Codicum MSS. qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur, part II, 16-17, Oxford 1852).

D differs from B only at line 74, where it has the plural substantias instead of substantiam, and at line 90, where Di has adtollit instead of adtollat. The remaining variants

INTRODUCTION

87

are merely orthographic. This manuscript, which dates from the same century as B, was probably copied from the same exemplar. R = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1684, (XI cen tury), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 1i3r-114V. The manuscript is in parchment, sized 295mm x 215mm, and consists of 130 leaves. At fol. 128 we read the sentence Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori Hugoni, which is prob ably by the hand of the copyist himself (cf. Bibliotheque Nationale - Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits Latins, tome II, 123-124, Paris 1940). It was originally written in Rouen (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 279), and later became part of the library of the Bigot (n.37). The main text (Ri) of this manuscript, even though it presents the reading cadauerum at line 5 (cf. entry for E), shows many similarities with C. However it was revised on the same exemplar of B and D, and therefore Rz has all the characteristic readings of these two manuscripts. A = London, British Library, Royal 6 B XIII, (XII century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 92V-93V. The manuscript is on parchment, is sized 311mm x 215mm, and consists of 108 leaves. It is well written in an English hand. It originally belonged to Thomas Cranmer, archibishop of Canterbury, and John Lumley, whose names (not autograph) are on the first folium (cf. G.F. Warner, J. P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections, vol. I, 142, London 1921). A was probably copied from the same exemplar of B and D, or directly from one of these manuscripts. It only pre sents some spelling variants and at line 37 places a word in a different position. H = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodleian 147 (1918), (XII century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 70V - 71V. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 304mm x 196mm, and consists of 80 leaves. It was written in England in the twelfth century. It was presented by the Dean and Chap ter of Exter in 1602 (cf. F. Madan, H.H.E. Craster, A Sum

88

INTRODUCTION

mary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, vol. II, 1, 116, Oxford 1922). H, as well as A, was probably copied from the same ex emplar of B and D, or directly from one of these manu scripts. Its only variant, quid instead of quod at line 32, is corrected by the secunda manus, and is probably a mis take in the process of copying. Group F G I F = Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, 425 (previously A. 178), (XII century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 83V-85r. This manuscript is on parchment, sized 330mm x 240mm, and consists of 93 leaves (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits, tome I, 82, Paris 1886). It probably comes from Fecamp, as is suggested by the following inscription at the end of the volume 'Hilduino Fiscanensi monacho, De Mareste dAlge, anno 16rf (cf. Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 279). F differs from the manuscripts of the previous group (B D RA H) at line 68, where it has the reading prodigus filius instead of euangelista, and at line 73, where it has congrega instead of congregaui. Since in F the reading prodigus filius is written by the se cunda manus on the deleted word euangelista, we sup pose that this reading was originally a glossa in the exem plar employed by the secunda manus, who included it in the text. The remaining variants are merely orthographic, so that we can conclude that the exemplar from which Fwas cop ied was probably a brother manuscript of that employed by B D R A H. G = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1683, (XII cen tury), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 76V-77V. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 370mm x 275mm, and consists of 126 leaves written on double columns. It originally belonged to the library of Guillelmus Jacherius and later to that of the Cardinal Mazarin (cf. Bibliotheque Nationale - Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits Latins, tome II, 123, Paris 1940).

INTRODUCTION

89

G retains the same characteristic readings of F at lines 68 and 73, and shows a few orthographic variants. It is very probable that this manuscript was directly copied from F or from a copy of F. I = Cambridge, Trinity College, O.5.5 (1286) (6159), (XIV century), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 88v - 89v. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 406mm x 298mm, and consists of 100 leaves written on double columns of 35 lines. It was probably copied in North East France (cf. M. R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of the Trinity College, vol. III, 308-310, Cambridge 1902). / retains the same characteristic readings of F and G at lines 68 and 73, but also presents different variants which are only found in this manuscript: e.g. line }fossam instead offossa; line 4 coaceruatam (which is the correct reading) instead of coaceruata; line 7 casti instead of castis; line 27 incidere instead of scindere. It is very probable that this manuscript was copied from F or a copy of F, but was heavily revised in the process of copying. Its variants appear to be of humanistic origin. MANUSCRIPTS OF THE FAMILY "M" M = Saint-Mihiel, Bibliotheque Municipale, 28, (IX cen tury), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. i}zr-mr. This manu script was lost after 1914. Its variants are listed in the edi tion by Wilmart (cf. 'La Lettre', 280-283). The manuscript was on paper and in octavo. On its front page it showed the following inscription, written by a later hand (probably twelfth century): Liber sancti Michaelis. Si quis eum abstulerit a monasterio almi Michaelis, anath ema sit (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits, (in 40), tome III, 522, Paris 1861). M presents in its text several peculiar readings, which sharply distinguish it from the manuscripts of the family "C". According to Wilmart (cf. 'La Lettre', 277-278) they might be either primitive readings, which appear to be corrupted in this manuscript, or ancient intentional inter polations to be considered in connection with the main

90

INTRODUCTION

text, or also late conjectures of the copyists without a real value. In general most of these readings seem to be unac ceptable and often quite absurd: e.g. at line 3 trudat in stead of crudam; at line 16 sinotris ultioris instead of sinu trisulci oris; at line 34 ui rosaetatis instead of uirositatis. Wilmart (cf. 'La Lettre', 278) puts forward the hypothesis that the archetype of M was probably better than that of the family "C", but its original readings were corrupted in the course of tradition. Therefore it is extremely difficult to reconstruct these more ancient readings through M, whose text clearly appears to be in a late stage of corruption. In our opinion it is impossible to state that M derives from a better archetype, since its variants are in many cases corruptions of the readings found in the family "C". Also the sentence omnes qui contra ueritate niceni sinodi repugnantes anathema maranatha, which M adds after the word maranatha at line 8 is, in our opinion, an interpola tion included in order to emphasise the pro-nicene con tents of the epistula, and not an original part of the work, which was lost in the manuscripts of the family "C" (cf. also Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 277-278). P = London, British Library, Addition 26762, (XII cen tury), Epistula ad Athanasium fol. 101v-102v. The manuscript is on parchment and in folio. It was cop ied in Pontigny as is attested by its inscription: Liber sanctae Mariae Pontiniacensis (cf. Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the years 1854187s, vol. II, 281-282, London 1877; Wilmart, 'La Lettre', 278). P retains some of the peculiar readings of M together with the interpolated sentence at line 8. In general it pre sents a better text than M. According to Wilmart (cf. 'La Lettre', 278) this manuscript was copied from an exemplar slightly different from M. Our impression is that the text of P was carefully revised in the process of copying, or was reproduced from a later revised copy of M.

INTRODUCTION

91

II. Manuscripts of the De Lazaro MANUSCRIPTS OF THE FAMILY "CHRYS" The manuscripts of the family "Chrys" misattribute the De Lazaro to John Chrysostom and include an abridged version of the text (cf. p. 69-71). All these manuscripts preserve under the name of Chry sostom an extended collection of Latin homilies, among which the De Lazaro is included. In addition to it all of them contain certain of his treatises translated into Latin together with some short works by early or medieval Latin fathers. Modern scholars tend to consider the entire collection of the Latin homilies of Chrysostom as spurious, even though for some of them it has not been possible to establish who is the real author (cf. A. Wilmart 'La collection des 38 homelies latines de Saint Jean Chrysostome', JTS 19 (1918), 305-327; E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 3rd edition, 301-302, Turnhout 1995). The misattribution of the De Lazaro to John Chrysostom occurred at an early stage of the manuscript tradition since Augustine in early fifth century quotes two passages from the De Lazaro, and attributes the work to the Greek writer (cf. p. 65 n. 40).

Group OFAGLSaRo HJNr Zn Wb O = Oxford, Bodleian Library, "Laud. Misc." 452, (IX cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 83r - 84r. The manuscript is on parchment, in folio, and consists of 277 leaves. H.Coxe (cf. Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, part II, fasc.1, 326-327, Ox ford 1858) dated this manuscript at the end of the tenth century. Since the codex shows the inscription Monasterii S. Nazarii, he supposed that it was originally preserved in the monastery of St. Nazarius in Milan. More recently (cf. F. Madan, H.H.E. Craster, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library

92

INTRODUCTION

at Oxford, vol. II, 1, 44, Oxford 1922) the manuscript has been dated at the middle of the ninth century, and it has been verified that its provenance is from the monastery of St. Nazarius in Lorsch. O, with its frequent archaic readings (cf. Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 296), appears to be the manuscript which is closer to the exemplar originating this group. In general it repre sents a textual tradition already soundly fixed, as is dem onstrated by the numerous contemporary and later manu scripts in this group, which differ only slightly from O. F = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 12.140, (X cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 98r - 99V. The manuscript is on parchment and in quarto. According to L. Delisle (cf. Inventaire des manuscrits de Saint Germain des Pres, 38, Paris 1868), it dates from the tenth century. This manuscript presents only a few spelling variants in comparison with O, and a few obvious copying mistakes. It probably derives from the same exemplar employed by O (cf. also Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 296). A = Angers, Bibliotheque Municipale, 147 (139), (IX cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 70V -71V. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 255mm x 214mm, and consists of 187 leaves. A few sections have been re written in the twelfth century. The manuscript appears to be in poor condition (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits, vol. XXXI, 233, Paris 1898). This manuscript, which Wilmart (cf. 'Le 'De Lazaro', 296) defines as colourless, does not differ substantially from O and F. However it presents at line 62 the reading exuite mortuum instead of exeunte mortuo, which is only found in this manuscript. Since it is unlikely that this reading is a conjecture of the copyist, the manuscript dating from the ninth century, we may suppose that A derives from an ex emplar similar to that employed by O and F, but distinct from it. G = St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 103, (IX century), De Lazaro fol. 191-193.

INTRODUCTION

93

The manuscript is on parchment, in quarto, and consists of 266 leaves (531 pages) written by different hands (cf. Verzeichniss der Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek von St. Gallen, 39-40, Halle 1875). Wilmart (cf. 'Le 'De Lazaro', 296) puts forward the hy pothesis that this manuscript is the closest to the Italian ar chetype, which was probably a brother manuscript or the model of the exemplar originating O and F. The variants of G in comparison with O and F are mostly orthographic. L = Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ashburnham 13 (57-14), (IX century), De Lazaro fol. 27v-28v. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 310mm x 242mm, and consists of 168 leaves. The first part of the codex is missing. On the last leaf there is the following inscription by the copyist: Quisquis legis ora pro scriptore, si dominum Iesum Christum habeas adiutorem. The manuscript was originally preserved in the chapter library of Beauvais (Sancti Petri Beluacensis) (cf. C. Paoli, L Codici Ashburnhamiani della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze, vol.1, fasc.1, 21-24, Roma 1887). L is extremely similar to G and is probably a copy from the same exemplar or a direct copy from G. Sa = Saint-Omer, Bibliotheque Municipale, 97, (IX cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 47v - 48r. The manuscript is on parchment, in folio, and is written on double columns. It was originally copied in the Abbey of Saint-Bertin. The codex is generally well preserved, but the first and the last two leaves have been torn off (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits (in 40), vol. III, 57-58, Paris 1861). Sa is extremely similar to G and L. At line 14 it presents a reading, abiectus instead of obiectus, which is only found in the manuscripts of the group Do Va I. We suppose, how ever, that there is no direct relationship between Sa and Do Va I, since abiectus appears to be a typical copying mistake. In our opinion Sa is a copy from the same exem plar employed by G or Z, or from one of these two manu scripts.

94

INTRODUCTION

Ro = Bruxelles, Bibliotheque Royale, 1203 (II. 989), (X century), De Lazaro fol. 84r - 851.. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 338mm x 195mm, and consists of 206 leaves. The first 25 leaves were written in the thirteenth century, while the rest of the manuscript dates from the tenth century. The volume presents the fol lowing inscription: Liber Sancti Gilleni in Cella. Later it belonged to the library of Sir Thomas Phillipps, and was purchased by the Royal Library of Belgium in 1888 (cf. J. Van Den Gheyn, Catalogue des Manuscrits de la Biblio theque Royale de Belgique, vol. II, 209-210, Bruxelles 1902). Ro appears to be a copy from the same exemplar em ployed by G or from G itself. In general its text is less cor rect than that of G H = Montecassino, Biblioteca dell'Abbazia, 12, (XI cen tury), De Lazaro fol. no - in. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 365mm x 255mm, and consists of 344 pages (172 leaves) written on double columns in Beneventan script. The codex is divided into two parts (first part pp. 1-294; second pp. 295-344). In the margins some notes by Ottavio Fraia Frangipane (praefectus Casinensis archivibus) can be read (cf. M. Inguanez, Codicum Casinensium Manuscriptorum Catalogus, vol. I, pars 1, 17-22, Montecassino 1912). H is extremely similar to O and F and is probably a copy from the same exemplar employed by these two manu scripts. / = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 2651, (XI century), De Lazaro fol. 109v - mr. The manuscript is on paper, sized 245mm x 175mm, and consists of 196 leaves. Some sections date from the twelfth century. The codex presents several lacunae and mu tilated leaves. It was originally preserved in the Abbey of Saint-Martial in Limoges (cf. Bibliotheque Nationale Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits Latins, tome II, 563, Paris 1940). / is extremely similar to G and is probably a copy from the same exemplar employed by G, or from a copy of G.

INTRODUCTION

95

Nr = Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, 440, (XII century), De Lazaro fol. 53v-54v. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 276mm x 216mm, and consists of 204 leaves written on double columns (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits, vol. I, 87, Paris 1886). Nr is extremely similar to G and is probably a copy from the same exemplar employed by G, or from a copy of G. Zn = Laon, Bibliotheque Municipale, 302, (XII century), De Lazaro fol. 115v-116v. The manuscript is on parchment, in octavo, and is writ ten on double columns. It was originally preserved in the Abbey of Val Saint-Pierre (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits (in 40), vol. I, 174, Paris 1849). Zn is extremely similar to G and is probably a copy from the same exemplar employed by G, or from a copy of G. Wb = Bruxelles, Bibliotheque Royale, 1204 (1258-1259), (XV century), De Lazaro fol. 78r-79r (previously 77r-78r). The manuscript is on parchment, sized 292mm x 200mm, and consists of 6 + 182 leaves written on double columns. The second leaf presents the following incription: Liber domus canonicorum regularium vallis sancti Martini in Lovanio. The fifth leaf is inscribed on the verso with the words: Est liber hic sancti Martini Lovaniensis (cf. J. Van Den Gheyn, Catalogue des Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique, vol. II, 211-213, Bruxelles 1902). Wb is extremely similar to O and F. However it probably derives from an exemplar which was slightly revised on an exemplar belonging to the following group, so that in a few cases Wb presents the typical readings of Ph P and E: e.g. uel membrisfetentibus at line 3-4. It also presents a few variants, which appear to be of humanistic origin. Group Ph P E Ph = Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, 44 (Phillipps 1673), (IX cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 66v - 67v. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 250mm x 170mm, and consists of 191 leaves written on double columns. It

96

INTRODUCTION

was written by different hands and in different times, but mostly in the ninth century. Some sections of the manu script date from the tenth and the twelfth century. It was originally copied in Metz and later preserved in Paris at the Jesuit College (cf. V. Rose, Verzeichniss der lateinischen Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, vol. I, 60-64, Berlin 1893). The main text of Ph does not differ in general from that of the manuscripts belonging to the previous group. How ever it was corrected on the basis of a different exemplar, so that Phz presents some interesting variants. The most significant is at line 3-4 where Phz has the correct reading uel membris fetentibus while the manuscripts of the previ ous group have uel membris foetoribus. Another important reading is at line 24 where only Phz presents the correct palpitante, while the rest of the manuscripts have different wrong variants. P = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 12. 141, (X cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 92V-93V. The manuscript is on parchment and in quarto. It was copied in the tenth century except for fol. 1-7 which date from the twelfth century (cf. L. Delisle, Inventaire des manuscrits de Saint Gemain des Pres, 38, Paris 1868). P is extremely similar to Ph. Like this manuscript it de rives from an exemplar belonging to the previous group. However it was later corrected on the basis of an exem plar, which was very similar to that employed for the cor rection of Ph. Therefore the two manuscripts present a very similar main text and more or less the same correc tions. E = Escorial, Biblioteca del Escorial, R.III.5, (XIV cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 83V-84V. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 275mm x 185mm, and consists of in leaves. Each work included in the codex is written by a different hand. Only for the last work (Nicolaus de Lyra Tractatus de Messia) we have a note by the copyist: Per me Gerlacum Alamanum de Bunna scriptum. The manuscript was originally preserved in the library of

INTRODUCTION

97

the Conde-Duque de Olivares (P.G. Antolin, Catdlogo de los Codices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial, vol. III, 493-496, Madrid 1913). E probably derives from the exemplar employed for the correction of P, so that its main text appears to be ex tremely similar to Pz. Its variants from this manuscript, which are not very frequent, appear to be of humanistic origin. Group BaCTpY Ba = Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 8109 (Mag. 9), (XI century), De Lazaro fol. 76V-77V. The manuscript is on parchment, in quarto maiore, and consists of 193 leaves. It was originally copied in Mainz (ex bibliotheca ecclesiae archiepiscopalis Maguntinensis) (cf. C. Halm, G. Meyer, Catalogus codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, vol. IV, part.1, 2, Miinchen 1874). Ba is a peculiar manucript since it presents some typical readings of the main group O FA GLSaRo HJNr Zn, such as uel membris foetoribus at line 3-4, but also certain cor rect variants only found in C Tp Y and Wb, and which are typical of the manuscripts of the family "Zen": e.g. fretus at line 43. At this stage it can be supposed that Ba derives from an exemplar, which had been slightly revised on the basis of an exemplar of the family "Zen" (cf. also Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 296). C = Paris, Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal, Ms. Latin 175, (XII century), De Lazaro fol. 33V-34r. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 356mm x 246mm, and consists of 148 leaves written on double columns. The manuscript was originally copied in the Abbey of Fontanay, diocese of Autun. Later it was included in the library of M. de Palmy and finally moved to the Arsenal (cf. Cata logue Generale des Manuscrits, Paris - Arsenal, vol. I, 9091, Paris 1885). C can be considered as the best manuscript of the entire family. In general its text appears to be accurate. Most of

98

INTRODUCTION

the incongruities of the version "Chrys" of the De Lazaro (cf. p. 69-71) appear to have been corrected in this manu script through a collation with an exemplar of the family "Zen" (cf. also Wilmart, 'Le 'De Lazaro', 296). We believe that this collation was made by the copyist of C, but it can not be excluded that C derives from an exemplar already corrected. Tp = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1769, (XIV cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 46r - 46V. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 345mm x 245mm, and consists of 321 leaves written on double columns. The recto of leaf 1 presents the following inscription by a hand of the sixteenth century: In Cruce Alba. The manuscript dates from the end of the fourteenth century (cf. Biblio theque Nationale - Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits Lat ins, tome II, 164-165, Paris 1940). Tp is extremely similar to C and probably derives from of copy of C or from C itself. Y = Poitiers, Bibliotheque Municipale, 62 (252), (XV cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 66r-67r. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 208mm x 142mm, and consists of 104 leaves. The initials are in German style. The codex originally belonged to the Jesuits, to whom it had been presented (don de la Frezeliere) (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits, vol. XXV, 19, Paris 1894). Y is almost identical to Tp, and appears to derive from a copy of Tp or from Tp itself. Group / Do Va I = Arras, Bibliotheque Municipale, 133, (X century), De Lazaro fol. 49V-50V. The manuscript is on parchment and in quarto. The first seven leaves are written on double columns, the rest in long lines. The entire codex is a palimpsest, and sections of the previous script are visible. It was originally pre served in the Bibliotheca monasterii Sancti Uedasti Atre

INTRODUCTION

99

batensis (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits (in 40), vol. IV, 64-65, Paris 1872). / is an extremely interesting manuscript. It is not as ac curate as C, but can undoubtedly be considered as the second best manuscript of the entire family "Chrys". Like C, I presents certain readings which are characteristic of the family "Zen". For instance at line 26, / and the manu scripts of its group, Do and Va, present the reading mixtas, which is only found in the manuscripts of the family "Zen", while the rest of the "Chrys" codices omit this word; and at line 57, 1 Do Va (with the addition of Q) have mouebatur, which is also characteristic of the family "Zen", while the manuscripts of the group C Tp Y have flectebatur, and the rest of the "Chrys" codices omit this verb: see also p. 70. At this stage it can be supposed that / derives from an exemplar which was collated with an exemplar of the family "Zen", and then corrected on the basis of that manuscript. However, since / amply pre-dates the humanistic age, it is possible that it derives from an exem plar including a slightly different "Chrys" version of the De Lazaro, which was in a sense closer to the "Zen" ver sion. Do = Douai, Bibliotheque Municipale, 212, (XII century), De Lazaro fol. 106r - 106V. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 320mm x 220mm, and consists of 133 leaves written on double columns of 40 lines. The manuscript was originally preserved in the Ab bey of Anchin. On the first leaf there is the following in scription: S. Saluatoris Aquicinctensis (cf. Catalogue Generale des Manuscrits (in 40), vol. VI, 106-107, Paris 1878). The main text of Do is very similar to that of the main group O F A G L Sa RoH J Nr Zn Wb, but the manuscript was corrected on the basis of / or of a copy of /, so that Doz presents all the characteristic readings of this manu script. Va = Vaticano, Vaticanus Latinus 399, (XV century), De Lazaro fol. 57r-57V.

100

INTRODUCTION

The manuscript is on parchment, sized 251mm x 179mm, and consists of 1 + 90 leaves. Leaf 90v shows the following inscription: Ex pluteo secundo bibliothecae magnae secretae. On the back of the codex the insignia of Pius VI and F.X. de Zelada, cardinal librarian, are engraved (cf. M. Vattasso, P.F. de' Cavalieri, Codices Vaticani Latini, vol. I, 307310, Roma 1902). Va is almost identical to / and probably derives from a copy of this manuscript. Manuscript Q Q = Montecassino, Biblioteca dell'Abbazia, 288 F, (XII century), De Lazaro fol. 292 - 296. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 225mm x 170mm, and consists of 229 leaves (458 pages). It is written in Benventan script on the entire page by different hands (cf. M. Inguanez, Codicum Casinensium Manuscriptorum Catalogus, vol. II, pars 1, 102-103, Montecassino 1912). Q is a fairly peculiar manuscript. Even though it is gen erally similar to the manuscripts belonging to the Ph P E and / Do Va groups, it presents certain exclusive variants: see for instance line 3-4, where Q has uel membris facto libet and the rest of the manuscripts uel membris fetentibus or uel membris foetoribus; and line 25, where Q has grecas cessabo and the rest of the manuscripts different spellings of graecissando or graecissonando. It is possible that these variants, which sometimes appear to be incom prehensible, are the result of conjectures on the part of the copyist. However we cannot exclude the possibility that they are readings, probably corrupted, deriving from a dif ferent archetype. Manuscript K K = Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, CCl 200, (XIV cen tury), De Lazaro fol. f6r-flr. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 320mm x 235/ 240mm, and consists of 171 leaves written on double col umns of 35 lines. It was copied in 1370. Leaves 1r, 79r and

INTRODUCTION

101

170V show the following inscription: Liber sancte Marie uirginis in Newburga claustrali (cf. H. Pfeiffer, Catalogus Codicum Manu Scriptorum, qui in Bibliotheca Canonicorum Regularium S. Augustini Claustroneoburgi asservantur, vol. I, 150-156, Wien 1922; A. Haidinger, Katalog der Handschriften des Augustiner Chorherrenstiftes Klosterneuburg, teil 2, 167-169, Wien 1991). K presents certain readings, which are only found in this manuscript. Sometimes these readings are the correct ones: cf. line 5, where K has numerabiles and the rest of the manuscripts innumerabiles; and line 17, where K has quae and the rest of the manuscripts quas. In our opinion K derives from an exemplar which originally belonged to the Ph P E group, but was later deeply revised, probably through a collation with an exemplar of the family "Zen". Manuscript Mb Mb = Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 10895, De Lazaro (XV-XVI century), fol. 53r-53V. The manuscript on paper, sized 275mm x 205mm, and consists of 195 leaves. The manuscript was copied between the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century by different hands, and was finished in 1505, as is attested by this inscription at leaf 194V: Explicit opusculum editum a uenerabili domini Henrico Kalker anno domini MCCCCCV per me fratrem Thomas Hassel nouicium scriptum et completum (cf. E. Remak-Honnef, H. Hauke, Katalog der lateinische Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek Milnchen, vol. IV, 1, 251-253, Wies baden 1991). Mb presents certain exclusive readings and frequent omissions, sometimes fairly extended. Since this manu script is very recent, we suppose that it was heavily revised in the process of copying. However it cannot be excluded that it derives from a different archetype.

102

INTRODUCTION

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE FAMILY "ZEN" The eighteen manuscripts of the family "Zen" contain the ninety-two tractatus of Zeno of Verona divided into two books. The first book includes sixty-two treatises, and the second the remaining thirty. At the end of book two a sort of supplementary series of texts is attached, which consists of eleven sermons written by different authors and misattributed by the manuscripts to Zeno. These sermons are the following: i. Hilary of Poitiers, In Psalmos, 126,3, I27> I28, 129, 130 PL, ix, 693-727; CSEL, 613-660. 2. Potamius, De Lazaro. 3. Potamius, De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae (this text is not included in the manuscripts N Lg Ox Fa). 4. Basil (Rufino interprete), De liuore et inuidia PG, xxxi, 1753B-1761B. 5. Basil (Rufino interprete), De praecepto 'Attende tibi' PG, xxxi, 1733D-1744C. 6. Basil (Rufino interprete), De ieiunio, Greek Text PG, xxxi, 164-184 (the translation by Rufinus is still unedited). 7. Basil (Rufino interprete), De duplici temptationum specie PG, xxxi, 1744C-1753B. According to Lofstedt, who recently edited the works of Zeno (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 13*-17*), the manuscripts of the family "Zen" can be divided into two main groups: Group a and Group J3. Even though the division made by Lofstedt is based exclusively on the texts of Zeno, it can be used for the texts of Potamius as well. The main question concerning the two groups centres on the difficulty to state whether they derive from two distinct hyparchetypes. The only two exemplars of the Group /3, Z and Pa, which are not copies of preserved manuscripts, both date from the fifteenth century, a period in which hu manists frequently emended texts with a certain freedom and easiness. Lofstedt is moderately inclined to believe

INTRODUCTION

103

that the manuscripts of the Group /3 originally derived from an exemplar different from that of the Group a (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 14*-15*), but the examination of the texts of Potamius in the two groups of manuscripts, reveals, in our opinion, that the manuscripts of the Group /3 derive from an emended exemplar of the Group a. GROUP a Codex R R = Reims, Abbaye de Reims, codex Remensis 31, (VIIIIX century), Lost in a fire in 1774. The manuscript (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 19*-22*) was on parchment and consisted of 140 leaves. At the beginning of the eighteenth century it was examined by Scipione Maffei, who put his collation at the disposal of the broth ers Ballerini for their edition of Zeno published in 1739. On the basis of two facsimile leaves included by the Ballerini in the introduction to their edition (Cf. P., H. Ballerini, Sancti Zenonis, between p. VI and VII), Lassarini (Cf. V. Lassarini, La scuola calligrafica Veronese del secolo IX, 5, Venezia 1904) suggested that the manuscript was written in Verona in the eighth or ninth century. On the first leaf of the codex the following inscription could be read, 'Hincmarus Archiepiscopus dedit Sancto Remigio', which allows us to fix the years 845-882, that is, the years of Hincmar's archibishopric, as a terminus ante quem. Unfortunately, since this extremely important manu script was destroyed in the eighteenth century, all our in formation about it relies on the collations of Maffei and the Ballerini. Many examples demonstrate that both these col lations are fairly unreliable: see, for instance, line 17 of the De Lazaro, where, according to the Ballerini's apparatus, R and all the other manuscripts should read foetido, while all the preserved codices have uetito, and foetido clearly appears to be an emendation by the editors; and line 41, where the Ballerini state that R and all the other manu scripts have the reading moles et pigra glebositas (except for X, which should have moles pigra glebositas), while all

104

INTRODUCTION

the extant codices have malis pigra glebositas, and moles et pigra glebositas is taken directly from the Bagatta edi tion (Cf. Bagatta, Peretti, Zenonis Sermones, 204). On the basis of the available data we can suppose that in general R, which was the most ancient exemplar of the Group a, did not differ significantly from the other manu scripts of its family. The variants listed in the Ballerini's apparatus mostly consist of omissions of words or differ ent spellings. Codices Pi U Pi = Pistoia, Archivi della Cattedrale C.134, (XII century), De Lazaro fol. 81v - 83r. The manuscript is on parchment, in folio, and consists of 120 leaves written on double columns. It was probably written in Verona or was copied from a Veronian exemplar (Cf. G. B. C. Giulari, S. Zenonis episcopi Veronensis Ser mones, CX-CXI, Verona 1883). In addition to the sermons of Hilary, Potamius and Basil (see above), this manuscript also includes the letter of Vigilius Tridentinus to the bishop Simplicianus (PL, xiii, 548-558). According to Lofstedt, who submitted the manuscript to the attention of B. Bischoff, it does not date from the ninth-tenth century but from the beginning or middle of the twelfth century (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 23*). Pi is the second most ancient manuscript of the Group a, and appears to have been corrected by a later hand. The readings of Piz are mostly accurate and probably are not the result of conjectures on the part of the corrector. It is more likely that the readings of Piz derive from another manuscript employed in the process of correction (Cf. Lof stedt, CC xxii, 25*). In general Pi does not differ signifi cantly from R. U = Vatican, cod. Urbinas Latinus 504 (previously 150), (XV century), De Lazaro fol. n7v-120r. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 275mm x 184mm, and constists of 164 leaves (Cf. C. Stornajolo, Codices Ur binates Latini, vol. II, 5-7, Roma 1912).

INTRODUCTION

105

U is a copy of Pi of which it retains all the characteristic mistakes with the additions of some copying mistakes (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 2f-z6*). Codices N Ox Lg Fa N= Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, VI D 31, (XIII century), De Lazaro fol. 99r - ioir. Since no printed catalogue is available for the Latin nonclassical manuscripts of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, N remained unknown to scholars until 1971, when it was employed by Lofstedt for his very accurate edition of Zeno (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 26*). N and the other cod ices of this group (Ox Lg Fa) differ in their contents from the rest of the manuscripts of Group a. They omit the sec ond homily of Potamius, namely the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae, add the De Petro et Paulo by Gaudentius of Brescia (PL, xx, 827-1006), and place the works by Hilary and Basil in an order which is different from that followed by the other manuscripts of Group a. The text of N is in general very similar to that of all the manuscripts of Group a, but in one instance it presents a correct reading, which is exclusively found in this manu script and in those of its group: at line 9 of the De Lazaro, where all the manuscripts have optimus luti liquor, N Lg Ox and Fa have opimus luti liquor, which is the correct reading as is demonstrated by a passage in Tertullian's De Anima: cf. De An., 27,7: Quid aliud limus quam liquor opimus? (cf also Wilmart, 'Le "De Lazaro", 298, n.8; Madoz, 'Potamio', 103). Ox = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat. Th. D. 28, (XV cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 87v-89r. Ox is probably a copy of the manuscript of the Cathe dral Library of Verona, which was used in liturgical ser vices during the fourteenth century, was re-discovered by Guarino Veronese in 1419 and since lost. Ox was later pre sented by Timoteo Veronese to Santa Maria della Carita, a house of regular canons in Venice, and at the end of four teenth century was given by Bartolomeo de Carpo, ar

106

INTRODUCTION

chipresbyter of Vicenza, to the Augustinian house in Vicenza (Cf. Bodleian Library Record 5:1 (1954), 52-53). Now Ox is preserved in the Bodleian library. Previously it was in the library of Thomas Phillips (n. 1291) in Middlehill after being acquired from the library Derschau in Norimberg (cf. G. Haenel, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum qui in bibliothecis Galliae... asservantur, col. 828, Leipzig 1830). Ox is extremely similar to N and it seems very likely that both manuscripts originate from the same exemplar, that is, the lost manuscript of the Cathedral Library of Verona. At line 141 of the De Lazaro Oxz presents the correct reading rediuiuis, which is probably a good conjecture of the corrector, while all the other manuscripts of the family "Zen" have recidiuis. Lg = Lugano, Biblioteca Cantonale D.2 E.19, (XV cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 69r - 70V. The manuscript is on paper and consists of 92 leaves without page-numbers. The script is Italian and of a single hand (Cf. R. Sabbadini, 'Manoscritti di Cicerone, San Zenone e Paolo Veneto nella Biblioteca Cantonale di Lugano', Bolletino Storico della Svizzera Italiana, XXX (1908), 79-82). Even though Lofstedt is inclined to think that Lg was not directly copied from Ox (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 28*-29*), on the basis of the De Lazaro of Potamius Lg appears to be a fairly inaccurate copy of Ox, of which it retains the char acteristic readings with the addition of frequent copying mistakes and a few omissions of single words. Fa = Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ashburnham 135, (XV century), De Lazaro fol. 83V -85r. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 270mm x 155mm, and consists of 122 leaves of 33 lines (Cf. C. Paoli, / Codici Ashburnhamiani della Reale Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana di Firenze, vol. I, 99-103, Roma 1887). It was originally preserved in the library Gianfilippi of Verona, and like many other manuscripts of the collection Gianfilippi it might have been copied in the monastery of San Zenone Maggiore in Verona.

INTRODUCTION

107

Fa is undoubtedly a direct copy of Ox (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 28*-29*). The only variants of Fa appears to be obvi ous copying mistakes. Codices T V T= Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 284, 1. 193 (II 85) (2050), (XIII century), De Lazaro fol. 75r - 76v. The manuscript is on parchment and consists of 100 leaves. According to Valentinelli T is extremely similar to R, but appears to have been written by a less accurate hand. It might be a copy from R or from the exemplar em ployed by R (Cf. J. Valentinelli, Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, Codices Manuscripti Latini, vol. II, 140-141, Venezia 1869). The text of Tdoes not differ significantly from that of the other manuscripts of the Group a. The only characteristic of this manuscript is that it presents many marginal notes (mostly glossae) by a third hand. V = Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1235 (previously 173), (XV century), De Lazaro fol. 161v-164v. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 295 x 180, and consists of 210 leaves of 27 lines. It was written in Italy by a single hand (Cf. M. H. Laurent, Codices Vaticani Latini Codices 1135-1266, 187-189, Roma 1958). According to Lofstedt Kwas not copied from T, but from the same exemplar employed by T (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 30*-3i*). On the basis of the De Lazaro and the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae V appears to be almost identical to T. In general it presents a text which is slightly more accurate than that of T. Codex B B = Vatican, Biblioteca del Capitolo della Basilica di San Pietro, F.33, (XIII-XIV century), De Lazaro fol. 5or-51v. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 382mm x 240mm, and consists of 63 leaves written on double columns. It originally belonged to Giordano Orsini, who was cardinal

108

INTRODUCTION

between the years 1405 and 1438. At the beginning of the eighteenth century B was given by Giuseppe Bianchini to the brothers Ballerini for their edition of Zeno (Cf. C. Stornajolo, Inventarium Codicum manuscriptorum latinorum Archivii Basilicae S. Petri in Vaticano, 46, Roma 1968). B is in general fairly inaccurate and presents many mis takes which are not found in the other manuscripts of this family, so that it can be supposed that none of the surviv ing manuscripts derives directly from B (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 3i*-32*). It also presents frequent conjectures which usually appear to be wrong. However at line 24 of the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae B presents the reading testum, which is evidently a good conjecture and which we have adopted in our edition, while the rest of the manuscripts have textum. Codex X X = Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, 49, (XV century), De Lazaro fol. 10ir - 104r. The manuscript is on paper and might have been cop ied, according to Lofstedt, slightly later than the fifteenth century (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 38*). At the time it was em ployed by the Ballerini X belonged to Alessandro Pompei, so that it is called ms. Pompeianus in their edition. Previ ously it was in the library of the family Pellegrini, as is demonstrated by the coat of arms on the first leaf. Lofstedt supposes that the exemplar employed by X was a manuscript of the Group a, which had been continuously compared with a manuscript of the Group /3, or which al ready included many variants characteristic of the Group /3 (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 39*-40*). On the basis of the texts of Potamius X undoubtedly appears to be closer to the manuscripts of the Group a than to those of the Group /3. In general its texts does not present any characteristic reading and its variants are often due to copying mistakes: see line 57 of the De Lazaro, where X has nobilitatem and the rest of the manuscript mobilitatem.

INTRODUCTION

109

GROUP B Codices ZMW Z = Verona, Biblioteca Civica, 798 (2007), (XV century), De Lazaro 83v - 85r. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 285mm x 200mm, and consists of no leaves. It originally belonged to the Monastery of S. Zenone Maggiore in Verona as is attested by the following inscription on the first leaf: Liber Monasterii seu Conuentus sancti Zenonis Maioris de Verona (Cf. G. Biadego, Catalogo descrittivo dei Manoscritti della Bib lioteca Comunale di Verona, 381-382, Verona 1892). Z, like all the manuscripts of the Group B, presents a text which have been deeply revised and appears to be a typi cal product of the humanist period. Very often the orthog raphy and the syntax have been corrected according to the rules of Ciceronian Latin, even though all the texts in cluded in the manuscript belong to the fourth or fifth cen tury. In addition Z, together with the manuscripts of the Group B, presents many conjectures which are not always correct. A typical example is at line 7 of the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae, where Z and the other codices of the Group B have aut ipsa lamina, while the manuscripts of the Group a have the correct reading aut in ipsa laniena. Since Z and the manuscripts of the Group B show an un questionable similarity with N, Lofstedt has put forward the hypothesis that the manuscripts of the Group B might de rive from N or from a brother manuscript of N which was heavily revised in the later stages of the tradition (Cf. Lof stedt, CC xxii, 17*). However we must take into consider ation the fact that N (as well as Ox Lg and Fa) omits the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae, and differs in this regard from all the manuscripts of the Group B which include this work of Potamius. M = Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 276, 1. 193 (II 83) (2200), (XV century), De Lazaro fol. 93v-95v. The manuscript is on parchment and is written in elegant humanistic script. It was preserved in the Monastery of San

no

INTRODUCTION

Nicola da Tolentino in Venice until the year 1797, when it was brought to Paris. In 1816 it was returned to the Biblioteca Marciana. According to Valentinelli M dates from the fourteenth century (Cf. J. Valentinelli, Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, Codices Manuscripti Latini, vol. II, 139-140, Venezia 1869), but it appears clear from the kind of script and from a not totally legible chronologi cal indication in the explicit that it was not copied before the middlle of the fifteenth century (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 34*). M differs from Z only orthographically or in some obvi ous copying mistakes, and unquestionably appears to be a copy of Z. W = Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1234 (previously 2588), (XV century), De Lazaro 119V-121V. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 260mm x 180mm, and consists of 157 leaves of 28 lines. According to Laurent W dates from the fourteenth-fifteenth century (Cf. M. H. Laurent, Codices Vaticani Latini- Codices 1135-1266, 186-187, Roma 1958), but Lofstedt, who has also submitted the manuscript to the attention of Prof. G. Battelli, has fixed the date of W in the fifteenth century and probably in the second half (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 35*-36*). Except for a few spelling variants and obvious copying mistakes the text of W is identical with that of Z, and it is extremely likely that Wis actually a direct copy from Z (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 36*). Codices Ca D Ca = Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, n. 327, (XV cen tury), De Lazaro fol. 92V - 94V. The manuscript is on parchment and dates from the sec ond half of the fifteenth century. At the beginning of the codex there is a dedicatory letter of bishop Ermolao Bar bara to Alessandro Gonzaga, which is dated the 5th Kal. Sept. 1459. According to Lofstedt there is no positive proof that Ca is a direct copy of Z. However Ca, besides a number of

INTRODUCTION

in

unique mistakes, has no mistakes that do not also exist in Z, and therefore can be regarded as a copy of Z (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 35*). D = Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1233 (previously 2587), (XV century), De Lazaro fol. n9r-121v. The manuscript is on parchment, sized 280mm x 190mm, and consists of 157 leaves of 27 lines. It was written in Italy by a single hand (cf. M. H. Laurent, Codices Vaticani Latini- Codices 1135-1266, 183-185, Roma 1958). D differs from Ca only orthografically or in some obvi ous copying mistakes, and unquestionably appears to be a copy of Ca (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 35*).

Codex Pa Pa = Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, n.347, (XV century), De Lazaro fol. 94v - 96v. The manuscript is on parchment and dates from the end of the fifteenth century. On the basis of the texts of Zeno Lofstedt has proved that none of the surviving manuscripts of the family "Zen" has been copied from Pa, since this codex contains some unique mistakes, which seem to be conjectures of humanist origin. He suggests that Pa is probably a brother manuscript of Z, and not a direct copy from it, even though all its variants from Z might be re garded as conjectures by the copyist (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 36*-37*). On the basis of the texts of Potamius Pa appears to be absolutely identical with Z.

Codex S S = Verona, this manuscript was probably lost at the end of the seventeenth century. The codex Sparaverianus, denoted by S in Lofstedt's edi tion of Zeno, is named after Fr. Sparavieri of Verona (16311697). This scholar worked on an edition of Zeno, which he was not able to complete. A copy of his note about his

1i2

INTRODUCTION

planned edition is found in the Biblioteca Capitolare of Verona with the shelfmark Nr. 333. This note was later in cluded as an appendix to the Ballerini's edition (Cf. P., H. Ballerini, Sancti Zenonis, 535 ff.). Sparavieri included in his note some variants from a manuscript to which he had ac cess and which already the Ballerini considered to be lost without trace. From the collation by Sparavieri S appears to be a manu script of the Group j3, which does not differ significantly from the other manuscripts of its group (Cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 37*-38*). III. Manuscripts of the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae The De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae is included in all the manuscripts of the De Lazaro which belong to the family "Zen", except for N Ox Lg and Fa. The manuscripts of the family "Zen" have already been described in the section devoted to the manuscripts of the De Lazaro. In the same section we have also discussed the relationships among these manuscripts on the basis of the texts of both the De Lazaro and the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae. Here we will confine ourselves to list each manuscript with the number of the pages where the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae is included. FAMILY "ZEN" Group a R = Reims, Abbaye de Reims, codex Remensis 31, (VIIIIX century), Lost in a fire in 1774. No page numbers avail able. Pi = Pistoia, Archivi della Cattedrale C.134, (XII century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 8 3 r- 84V. U = Vatican, cod. Urbinas Latinus 504 (previously 150), (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 12or-121r.

INTRODUCTION

113

T = Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 284, 1. 193 (II 85) (2050), (XIII century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. j6v-jjr. V = Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1235 (previously 173), (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 164v165v. B = Vatican, Biblioteca del Capitolo della Basilica di San Pietro, F.33, (XIII-XIV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophe tae fol. 51v-52r. X = Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, 49, (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol.104r-104v. GROUP /3 Z = Verona, Biblioteca Civica, 798 (2007), (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol.85r-85v. M = Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 276, 1. 193 (II 83) (2200), (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 95v-96r. W = Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1234 (previously 2588), (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 121vI22v. Ca = Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, n. 327, (XV cen tury), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 94v-95r. D = Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1233 (previously 2587), (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 121v-122r. Pa = Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, n.347, (XV century), De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae fol. 96v-97r. S = Verona, this manuscript, employed by Sparaverius for his planned edition of Zeno, was probably lost at the end of seventeenth century. No page numbers available.

n4

INTRODUCTION

IV. The Manuscripts of the De Svbstantja Patris etFilii ET SPIRITVS SANCTI The entire manuscript tradition of the De Substantia Pa tris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti relies on six manuscripts, which date from the tenth to the fifteenth century. Only two of these codices include the complete text, while the others contain sections of different extension. All these manuscripts misattribute the work to Jerome, so that the Epistula de Substantia was first edited by G. Antolin as a work of Jerome in 1908-1909, and only a few years later, in 1912-1913, was restituted to Potamius by Wilmart (see p. 75-78). The contents of the codices (except for F) are very simi lar. In all of them the main portion is constituted by a col lection of Jerome's letters and sermons to which similar works by other authors are added. It is not possible to state exactly in which century the Epistula de Substantia was misattributed to Jerome and re ceived into the corpus of his letters, but a reliable termi nus ante quem has been indicated by Montes Moreira. It is represented by an anonymous work of the ninth century, which has been edited by J. Leclercq, and is entitled Inter rogate in the single manuscript preserving it (cf . J. Leclercq, 'Un tratado sobre los nombres divinos en un manuscrito de Cordoba', Hispania Sacra 2 (1949), 327- 338; Montes Moreira, Potamius, 243-245; Conti, Life and Works, 84; E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 2nd ed., 635, Turnhout 1961). This work quotes (cf. from line 34 of p. 337 to line 38 of p. 338 in the Leclercq edition) a passage from the Epistula de Substantia (cf. lines 285-312), by often adapting and re-working it and giving no evidence of the real author of the text. It is consequently very probable that in this period the Epistula de Substantia had already been misattributed to Jerome whose authority made him one of the most quoted and paraphrased fathers in medi eval theological literature. Wilmart supposes that the misattribution of the De Substantia to Jerome occurred at an early stage of the manuscript tradition and probably in the fifth or sixth century (cf. A. Wilmart , 'Fragments du Ps

INTRODUCTION

115

Origene sur le psaume XCI dans une collection espagnole', RB 29 (1912), 279). Manuscripts A B A = Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, A.II.3, (X cen tury), Epistula de Substantia fol. 2r-1ov (complete). The manuscript is on parchment, sized 240mm x 130mm, and consists of 157 leaves written on double columns. The script is in Visigothic littera minuta. The margins of the leaves present corrections and glossae by two different an cient hands. It is not possible to establish the name of the copyist or that of the monastery where the manuscript was written, since the last leaves are missing. According to Vega the codex might have been copied in the monasteries of Silos or Braga (Vega, Opuscula, 19). The manuscript was presented to the king Felipe II in 1578 by a member of the noble family of the Beteta as is attested by an inscription on the first leaf: Diole Don Jorge de Beteta a Su Majestad Anno 1578. The codex was previously shelf-marked II. B. 3 and I.H.3 (cf. P.G. Antolin, Catdlogo de los Codices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial, vol. I, 32-36, Madrid 1910; 'Opusculos desconocidos de San Jeronimo - "Codex Epistolarum" de la Biblioteca de El Escorial: A. II. 3', Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos 19 (1908), 207-214; Vega, Opuscula, 19-20 ). A dates from the tenth century and is the most ancient manuscript of the De Substantia. It is one of the two manu scripts (the other is B), which include the complete text of the Potamian work. Considering the extreme complexity of the De Substan tia and the date of the manuscript, A appears to be suffi ciently accurate and carefully written. It is unquestionable that A must be regarded as the basis for any edition of the De Substantia, and this is the policy that we have followed in the present edition. The main problem in the text of A is constituted by a passage at lines 372-374: Uultumque illut quod diuinitas suae maiestatis oculauit expinxit, timido uultu subducitur ex capite uel fronte sub pectoris indumento caelatur. Ex

n6

INTRODUCTION

amining the syntax of this sentence, it is natural to think that in the exemplar from which A derives there was a la cuna after uultumque. In B, which is the only other manu script including this passage and whose text we have adopted for this edition, we find: Uultusque Me quem diuinitas suae maiestatis oculauit et pinxit, timido uultu subducitur ex capite uelfronte sub pectoris indumento caelatur. The text of B appears to be more correct, but in or der to give it an acceptable sense we have been obliged to emend caelatur into caelata. At this stage we cannot ex clude that the copyist of B corrected the original text of his exemplar and that actually a short lacuna was present in the text of the hypoarchetype. B = Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, &. I. 4, (XII century), Epistula de Substantia fol. iV-7r (complete). The manuscript is on parchment, sized 368mm x 225mm, and consists of 207 leaves written on double columns. It was copied in the monastery of the Monte-Aragon in the twelfth century and probably at the end. On the final leaf the following inscription by a fourteenth century hand can be read: Anno Domini MCCLXXX die Iouis uidelicet VIII idus febroarii audiuit missam nuptialem Sancius de ... Clauigarius Monasterii Montis aragonis cum domina Teresia Gondissalui et obiit in die Sabbati que est VIII idus Martii anno MCCCXVIII. Originally the manuscript be longed to the library of the Conde-Duque de Olivares (cf. P.G. Antolin, Catdlogo de los Codices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial, vol. II, 336-344, Madrid 1911; Vega, Opuscula, 20). The text of B appears to be fairly accurate and, in gen eral, very similar to that of A. The only passage in which the two codices significantly differ is at line 372-374 (cf. above). As we have already suggested in our description of A, it cannot be excluded that this difference between A and B is simply due to the conjectures of the copyist of B. According to Wilmart B does not derive from A notwith standing the frequent common mistakes which the two codices present (cf. A. Wilmart, 'Fragments du Ps-Origene

INTRODUCTION

117

sur le Psaume XCI dans une collection espagnole', RB 29 (1912), 277). Vega, on the other hand, supposes that the two manuscripts derives from two completely different branches of the manuscript tradition (cf. Vega, Opuscula, 20). We believe that Wilmart's opinion is correct, in fact there is no proof that B was directly copied from A. How ever it seems extremely likely that the two manuscripts derive from two very similar hypoarchetypes. In addition we believe that B or its exemplar were submitted to a more evident process of emendation on the part of the copyist. Manuscript C C = Madrid, Archivo Historico Nacional, n. 1007 B (pre viously n.1279), (X century), Epistula de Substantia fol. i00v (incomplete). The manuscript is on parchment and dates from the tenth century. It presents no indication about the monastery where it was written or about the copyist. De Bruyne, whom Vega consulted while preparing his edition, sug gested that the manuscript might come from the monastery of Silos. This hypothesis is acceptable since the type of script of the codex was usually employed in Silos. How ever on the margin of leaf 10ov the manuscript shows the cross of Oviedo drawn by a contemporary hand, and the following inscription: hic dicit quia crux domini nostri Ihesu Christi expalmafuit quia per lignum decidimus per ipsum reparati sumus. Therefore Vega came to the conclu sion that the manuscript was copied in the Abbey of Oviedo (cf. Vega, Opuscula, 20-21 and note 1 at page 21). C includes a very short section of the De Substantia, which in the present edition corresponds to lines 215-246. This codex demonstrates that already in the tenth century the Epistula de Substantia began to be copied partially, and that large sections of this work were intentionally omitted by the copyists. Since all the manuscripts which only include a portion of the De Substantia omit the final part of the work, where Potamius describes different hu man organs as real representations of the Trinity, it may be supposed that medieval copyists found this section par

n8

INTRODUCTION

ticularly hard and not very effective in a discussion on the Trinitarian dogma. On the basis of the very short section of the De Substan tia included in C, it is difficult to make a hypothesis on the relationship of this manuscript with the others. However it can be unquestionably excluded that C derives from A, not only because it contains an extremely short portion of the work, but also because of its frequent variants. The text of C in general appears to be less correct than that of A and B, but in one case this codex preserve the right reading: see line 233, where C has renitebit while the rest of the manuscripts have retinebit. Manuscript P P = Porto, Biblioteca Publica Municipal, 25 (13,8,5), (XII century), Epistula de Substantia fol. n5r-n6v (incomplete). The manuscript is on parchment and consists of I + 178 + I leaves written on double columns. Leaves 2-5 are miss ing. The codex appears to be constituted by two distinct parts, the first covering leaves I + 6-92, the second leaves 93-178 + I. Both parts date from the twelfth century and are written in monastic Gothic script. The corrections are by a contemporary hand. Some glossae on the margin appear to be by a later hand. Both parts of the codex were written in the Abbey of Santa Cruz de Coimbra (cf. A.A. Nascimento, J. F. Meirinhos, Catdlogo dos Codices da Livraria de Mao do Mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra na Biblioteca Publica Municipal do Porto, 78-90, Porto 1997). P contains a large portion of the De Substantia roughly covering the first third of the entire work (lines 1-200 of the present edition). In the case of P we believe that it is pos sible to put forth an hypothesis on the criterion employed by this branch of the manuscript tradition in selecting this particular portion of the work. In fact the section included in P covers all the main issues of Potamius' anti-Arian po lemic, while the two remaining thirds of the work deepen such issues or expatiate upon a very detailed description of different human organs as physical representations of the Trinity. Therefore it seems likely that some copyists

INTRODUCTION

119

began to regard the two final thirds of the work as repeti tious and to neglect them. It is unquestionable that P belongs to a distinct manu script tradition and that it derives from an archetype dif ferent from that which originated A and B. It is not pos sible to compare P with C since the text of the latter begins from line 215 of our edition, while that of P ends at line 200. The text of P is extremely interesting. There are some passages in which P clearly presents the correct reading and therefore we have followed the text of this manuscript in our edition. However many variants in P appear to be incomprehensible and even absurd. In our opinion it is possible that these unusable variants are the result of a progressive corruption of this branch of the manuscript tradition, which in P has already reached an advanced stage. Manuscript F F = Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense, Fondo Historico 134 (116-Z-46 ), (XIV-XV century), Epistula de Substantia fol. 9or-9iv (incomplete). The manuscript is on parchment, sized 312mm x 238mm, and consists of 175 leaves. On the verso of the first leaf, which might belong to another codex, the following in scription by a sixteenth century hand can be read: Libros de los antiguos de la eglesia de toledo. According to the in dex, the manuscript originally included after leaf 100 seven more books on different theological subjects. F differs in its contents from the other manuscripts, since it mostly includes historical works by different authors. The most important of these works are Eusebius' Cronica translated by Jerome, an epitome of the Cronica of Sulpicius Severus and the De Ortu et uita uel obitu Sanctorum Patrum by Isidorus (cf. J. Villa-Amil y Castro, Catdlogo de los Manuscritos existentes in la Biblioteca del Noviciado de la Universidad Central- procedentes de la Antigua de Al calde part I, 52-53, Madrid 1878). A portion of the Epistula de Substantia (corresponding to lines 1-244 of the present edition) is included in an opusculum by Richardus, entitled

120

INTRODUCTION

De Heresibus and consisting of different passages taken from various Christian and Pagan writers. At the top of the recto of the two leaves containing this portion of the Epis tula de Substantia the following title by a later hand can be read: Sanctus Hieronimus de Escritoribus Ecclesiasticis. It obviously appears not to be connected with the Potamian work. It seems that the portion of the Epistula included in F has been selected with the same criterion employed for P (cf. above). It appears to be only slightly longer than that included in P. Also the text of the two manuscripts is simi lar in many respects, but F is in general more accurate than P and does not include those corrupted and illegible vari ants which are characteristic of P. In two important pas sages F differs from all the other codices, and presents, in our opinion, the correct readings, which we have adopted for this edition: cf. line 63, where F has cui mancipatae, and the rest of the manuscripts cum ancipites; and lines 212-213, where F has reportaret ut sine substantia possit esse nec natura nec pomum, while the other manuscripts non possit esse natura nec pomum. Since F dates from the hu manist period, it might be supposed that it is an heavily corrected copy of an exemplar very close to P. However we have the impression that the correct readings in F are not humanistic conjectures, but original readings from a different hypoarchetype. Probably F derives from an exem plar of the same branch of P, but in some points more ac curate and complete. Manuscript H H = London, British Library, Harley 3169, (XV century), Epistula de Substantia fol. 122v-123r (previously 193v-194r) (incomplete). The manuscript is on parchment and in folio. It presents a mutilation at the beginning where the first 69 leaves are missing. It is written in a very elegant humanistic script on double columns (cf. also H. Wanley, R. Nares, A Catalogue of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts preserved in the British Museum, vol. III, 7, London 1808). H shows no in

INTRODUCTION

121

dication about the copyist or the place where it was cop ied, but on the basis of its script it can be supposed that it was written in the north of Italy. The codex does not only present an extended mutilation at the beginning, but also frequent gaps in the middle and at the end, so that many of the works contained in //appears to be incomplete. This situation also occurs in the case of the Potamian work. Therefore while C, P and F intentionally select a particular portion of the De Substantia to which they give a title and an explicit, H clearly appears to include a fragment of the work (corresponding to lines 126-259 of this edition) since its text starts and ends in the middle of a sentence and gives no title of the work nor any other information. At this stage it is impossible to know whether H originally in cluded a portion of the De Substantia, like C, P and F, or the entire text, like A and B. Both these hypotheses are ac ceptable. The text of H is in general less accurate than that of A B CP and F, and seems to have been written carelessly. Many of the variants in this manuscript are obvious copying mis takes. Often the copyist, instead of writing the right word, repeats a word he had just written before, so that he cre ates frequent repetitions which are not in the text. There are also some evident conjectures which in general appear to be useless. However, beside the copying mistakes and conjectures, H also presents many variants which distin guish this codex from the others. In some passages H seems to have a very vague resemblance with A and B, while appears to be absolutely distinct from C and P. The only manuscript with which H shares a few characteristic variants is F. On the basis of this slight resemblance be tween the two codices, we suppose that H derives from an exemplar which was a distant relative of that employed by F.

122

INTRODUCTION EDITIONS

A. Castellano, Eximi et excellentis viri praeclarissimique doctoris Sancti Zenonis episcopi Veronensis sermonum elegantissimorum ad populum excerptorum ex vetustissimo volumine Veronae ab Guarino Veronensi viro eloquentissimo in episcopii Veronensis bibliotheca reperto, Venezia 1508, De Lazaro jzr-j^v, De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae 63V-64r. The edition by Castellano includes two Potamian works, namely the De Lazaro (in the version "Zen"), and the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae, which were attributed by the manuscript tradition to Zeno of Verona. According to its title this edition is based on the now lost codex, which Guarino discovered in Verona at the end of the fifteenth century. A copy of this lost codex, which we have named Ox (see p. 105-106), is now preserved in the Bodleian Library. Through a collation of Ox with the text of the edition it is possible to assert with certainty that Castellano did not only employ the codex of Guarino, but also some of the codices of the Group B (cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 46*-47*). Conjectures in the Castellano's edition have been largely used by later editors (e.g. Bagatta-Peretti, Ballerini). S. Gelenius, Opera divi Joannis Chrysostomi episcopi Constantinopolitani, vol. III, col. 429-430, Bale 1547. The edition by Gelenius includes a single work of Potamius, that is, the De Lazaro in its Version "Chrys", which was misattributed by the manuscript tradition to John Chrysostom (see p. 69-71). This edition, like all the previ ous Chrysostom's editions including this version of the De Lazaro (for a complete list cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 264-268) is based on a single manuscript, namely Ba (see p. 97). However this edition presents an improved text thanks to the corrections of Erasmus, whose edition pub lished in 1530 Gelenius took into consideration, and also thanks to Gelenius' good conjectures. R. Bagatta, B. Peretti, Sancti Zenonis Veronensis episcopi et martyris, doctoris eximii sermones, Verona 1586, De Lazaro 202-208; De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae 138.

INTRODUCTION

123

This edition, like that by Castellano, includes the De Lazaro (in the Version "Zen"), and the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae. It presents frequent differences in comparison with that earlier edition, since Bagatta and Peretti exam ined and collated a larger number of manuscripts belong ing to the Group /3 (cf. Lofstedt, CC xxii, 47*-48*). This edi tion also includes many conjectures which the Ballerini directly received into their edition without quoting their source. L. d'Achery, Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis maxime Benedictinorum latuerant spicilegium, II, 366-368, Paris 1657; 2nd ed. Paris 1681; 3rd ed. Paris 1723. The edition by d'Achery, which only includes the Epistula ad Athanasium, is extremely important from the his torical point of view: it is the first printed book which pre sents a text under the name of Potamius. It is based on a single manuscript, namely manuscript E (see p. 84), so that it is not very useful from the point of view of textual criticism. Later editions, based on a larger number of manuscripts, have demonstrated that the conjectures in the edition by d'Achery are in general wrong. P., H. Ballerini, Sancti Zenonis episcopi Veronensis sermones, Verona 1739, Epistula ad Athanasium 302-303; De Lazaro 297-300; De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae 300-301. The edition by the brothers Ballerini constitutes a mile stone in the textual criticism of Potamius' works. They were the first editors who acknowledged the De Lazaro and the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae as works of Pota mius, not only through the author's self-address included in the text (Age age Photami), but also through a compari son with the text of the Epistula ad Athanasium published by d'Achery. They also described many of the manuscripts of the Family "Zen", and compiled the first critical appa ratus for the De Lazaro and the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophe tae, while they confined themselves to include in their vol ume a reprint of the edition by d'Achery of the Epistula ad Athanasium.

124

INTRODUCTION

Unfortunately, from the strictly philological point of view, the edition Ballerini presents numerous defects. Most of the variants included in the apparatus are wrong, and in general it seems that the two editors collated the manuscripts at their disposal very carelessly. In addition many conjectures taken from the editions Castellano and Bagatta-Peretti are directly included in the text without any explanation or note in the apparatus (cf. also Lofstedt, CC xxii, 48*-49*). A. Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, V, Venezia 1769, Epistula ad Athanasium 99; De Lazaro 96-97; De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae 98. The importance of the edition by Gallandi is especially historical. In fact this scholar demonstrated that the Potamius who wrote the Epistula ad Athanasium, the De Lazaro and the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae was the same Potamius, who was described in the historical testi monies as an Arian convert. The Ballerini, in the intro duction to their edition, had put forward the hypothesis that the writer Potamius was an unknown bishop who had no relationship with the Potamius who had adopted Arianism. From the point of view of textual criticism the edition Gallandi appears to be a reprint of the edition d'Achery (Epistula ad Athanasium) and the edition Ballerini (De Lazaro and De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae), to which the editor has added a few conjectures. A. Wilmart, 'La lettre de Potamius a Saint Athanase', RB 30 (1913), 280-283.

This edition is very well researched and extremely ac curate. Wilmart, for the first time, considered a large num ber of manuscripts in the course of preparing his text and was able to individuate the two main branches of the manuscript tradition of the Epistula ad Athanasium, that is, the branch consisting of the manuscripts of the Family "C", and that consisting of the manuscripts of the Family "M".

INTRODUCTION

125

In our opinion there are only two minor defects in this edition: the fact that Wilmart did not consider some manu scripts (B D H I L 5) by regarding them as negligible, while they have sometimes good readings, and the fact that he gave too much importance to the manuscript C, on which he mostly based his edition. A. Wilmart, 'Le "De Lazaro" de Potamius', JTS 19 (1918), 298-304. The edition of the De Lazaro by Wilmart is another mile stone in the history of the textual criticism of Potamius' works. Wilmart for the first time discovered that the De Lazaro misattributed to John Chrysostom was an abridged version of that misattributed to Zeno (cf. p. 69-71), and was able to reunite these two independent branches of the manuscript tradition, and to combine them in order to present a more complete and faithful text. Unfortunately Wilmart only examined the manuscripts of the Family "Chrys", and a few of them, while for those of the family "Zen" he completely relied on the edition Ballerini. As a consequence his critical apparatus reproduces all the mistakes present in that of the Ballerini. In addition Wilmart's text obviously includes all the conjectures by former editors which the Ballerini received into their text without quoting their source and without giving evidence that they were conjectures. This defect of Wilmart's edition is, in our opinion, particularly serious since the reader, by comparing the text and the apparatus, has the impression that these conjectural readings were actually in the manu scripts. G. Antolin, 'Opusculos desconocidos de san Jeronimo "Codex Epistolarum" de la Biblioteca de El Escurial: A.II.3', Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, 19 1908), 216-226, and 20 (1909), 60-63. The edition by Antolin of the Epistula de Subtantia has a merely historical importance, since it represents the editio princeps of this Potamian work. It is based on a single manuscript, namely A, and shows frequent mistakes of transcription.

126

INTRODUCTION

Antolin, who carefully examined and described manu script A in his introduction to the edition, did not face the question of the paternity of the work and followed the manuscript tradition in attributing it to Jerome. A.C. Vega, Opuscula omnia Potamii episcopi Olisiponensis, Escorial 1934, Epistula ad Athanasium 25-29; De Lazaro 30-34; De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae 35-36; Epistula de Sub stantia 37-54. That by Vega is the only complete edition of the works of Potamius which was published before the present edi tion. It has the unquestionable merit of presenting the Epis tula de Substantia as a work of Potamius, after the ques tion of the Potamian paternity of this work had been dis cussed in detail by Wilmart (see p. 75-78). Vega himself gave his own contribution to the question by listing in the introduction to his edition the passages of the Epistula de Substantia which coincide with the Epistula ad Athana sium, and by stressing the profound affinity between the two texts. From the point of view of textual criticism, however, the edition by Vega shows several defects. In the first place Vega reproduces the edition by Wilmart of the Epistula ad Athanasium without any attempt at improving it. Then he presents the De Lazaro as it was edited by the Ballerini, that is, without considering the Version "Chrys" of the work. In fact he confines himself to list in his apparatus the variants of a manuscript of the Family "Chrys", namely E, which had not been employed by Wilmart, but does not use these variants for his edition. Finally he reproduces the De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae from the Ballerini edition with the addition of a few conjectures. For the Epistula de Substantia he is undoubtedly able to provide a better ed ited text, which is based on three manuscripts, namely A B and C. However frequent mistakes in the transcription of the manuscripts, omissions and misprints seriously impair the edition of this work as well. Therefore considering the edition by Vega there is a general impression of inaccuracy and carelessness.

INTRODUCTION

127

THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF POTAMIUS Potamius employs in his writings the typical components of the Latin Christian literature of his age, but reworks them, from the linguistic and stylistic point of view, to such an extreme extent, that he presents them to the reader in a new, original and disconcerting light107. Two main factors, in our opinion, determine his peculiar style. In the first place there is Potamius' natural tendency towards hyper-realism and expressionism108, which often prompts him to search for an extreme mode of expression. In the second there is his personal spiritual experience which was particularly complicated and controversial: his style therefore, in its tension and linguistic density, seems to reflect the drama of a personality under an evident psy chological pressure. The philosophical and theological component, which is obviously fundamental in the works of Potamius and his contemporaries, or in those of Tertullian, a model for the Christian writers of the fourth century109, is reprocessed and exaggerated in its typical aspects. For example the use of similes and concrete examples drawn from every-day life, trades (e.g. textiles in the Epistula de Substantia 57160), or natural sciences (e.g. botany and anatomy in the Epistula de Substantia 207-638, according also to the model of classical philosophers), is, in many passages, so obses sive and complicated that it disconcerts the reader rather than helping him to comprehend the writer's arguments. At the same time the technical terms employed in these similes and examples are often so specialised and obscure that they appear to be more suitable for a scientific trea-

107 The majority of the scholars regards the Latin of Potamius as a su preme example of bad taste and obscure and involved style: cf. Wilmart, 'La lettre de Potamius', 257; 'Le "De Lazaro", 289. 108 We believe that in this regard Potamius is close to the anti-classi cism of the Spanish Neronian writers, such as Seneca and Lucan. 109 Cf. Montes Moreira , Potamius , 223, 233; Madoz , 'Potamio', 103105.

128

INTRODUCTION

tise than a theological discussion110. Finally the epideictic and deductive course of philosophical prose is often stretched to such an extreme limit that the starting point of a demonstration easily gets lost in the disorderly develop ment of Potamius' reflections (cf. Epistula de Substantia 57-160). The general impression, reading Potamius' philo sophical passages, is that of a style and a thought that are in an extreme state of tension, so that they abruptly ex pand in all directions as soon as the writer loses his con trol of them. In De Lazaro 49-60 Potamius, describing the tension existing among the elements which constitute the human body, seems to describe metaphorically his own internal and stylistic tension. Another component which Potamius reworks in an ex tremely original way is that of characteristically popular diction. In ancient Christian literature the writers often tried to be close to the tastes and imagery of common people through the use of plain, simple narratives and fables, or through sensational descriptions, as in hagiography (e.g "The Acts of the Martyrs"), or popular history (e.g. Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum) . This popular com ponent had two main purposes: to make the text more comprehensible to an uneducated audience, and, at the same time, to provide it with impressive examples of the power of God, the glory of the Saints, or the sufferings of the enemies of faith. Potamius retains these purposes in his use of the popu lar component to a limited extent. On the other hand he reworks it in a completely new direction. In the first place he exaggerates its most sensational aspects to an un heard-of extent, and constantly tends to eliminate the mor1,0 R. Weijenborg supposes that Potamius is a fictitious figure inven ted by the Luciferians and that his works might be ascribed to Marcellus Empiricus, a physician of the fourth century (Marcellus Empiricus De Medicamentis edited by G.Helmreich Leipzig 1889) whom he calls Marcellinus, by confusing him with another physician and writer of the se cond century. Montes Moreira has demonstrated the complete inconsis tency of this hypothesis in his article on the return of Potamius to or thodoxy: cf. R. Weijeborg, 'Review of Montes Moreira's Potamius de Lisbonne et la controverse Arienne' , Antonianum 45 (1970), 524; Montes Moreira, Le retour', 306-307 and n.7-9.

INTRODUCTION

129

alising element which characterises the hagiographic or historical sensational narratives (this is particularly evident in the description of Lazarus' decomposition in the tomb). In the second place he heavily contaminates this Christian popular component with suggestions and terms from clas sical novels (especially Apuleius' Metamorphoses), and epic and tragic poetry (especially Virgil, Seneca and Lucan). It is evident, in certain passages, that Potamius uses the popular component as a starting-point to create a dis concerting blend of sensationalism, poetical language, tragic imagery and novel narrative. From this point of view he reveals an unquestionable modernity in his effort to keep together, in a sort of baroque construction, different literary elements from different literary genres. It is interesting to observe how Potamius also reworks in an original way two aspects which are purely syntactical and linguistic. A constant problem for the ancient Chris tian authors was that of harmonising the plain and collo quial biblical syntax (especially that of the Gospels) with the classical rhetorical style of the pagan tradition. At the same time, with regard to language, there was the need to insert the new technical terms of Christianity into the tex ture of classical Latin. The general trend among the con temporaries of Potamius (cf. Hilary and Gregory of Elvira) was that of finding an even arrangement considering all these different necessities. Potamius, on the contrary, ne glects any attempt at harmonisation and emphasises to an extreme limit the differences. As a consequence he con nects passages written in a complex oratorical style to col loquial and spoken constructions, while, in his use of lan guage, he places beside classical words not only technical Christian terms, but also new words which he coins in his expressionistic search for stylistic tension and clashing ef fects. In the following lines the readers will find some passages from the works of Potamius in which the typical aspects of his peculiar style are more evident:

130

INTRODUCTION

1. Epistula ad Athanasium 13-19: Iaceat serpens, et terra quae ilium susceperit purulento ueneno nigrescat. Iaceat serpens caelesti ictu damnatus. Iaceat serpens sanguineo horrore contractus. Iaceat ser pens eliso luminum sinu, trisulci oris patefacta sentina. Uomat defluat torqueatur culparum auctor, cui paruum fuerat quod protoplaustum aeternitate priuauerat, nisi et contra Saluatorem hydra uirosior prorupisset . This passage in the first place shows how Potamius makes a heavy use of rhetoric, which he derives from the classical Latin tradition, and how he inserts in this classical texture technical terms or other extraneous elements which produce a clashing stylistic effect. For example in the very long anaphora"1, which gives the passage a sort of poetical and ritual character, he inserts a technical term, purulentus, which he connects to a poetical verb, nigresco, and the Christian technical term protoplaustus, which he connects to the mythological image of the hydra: hydra uirosior prorupisset. In the last three periods of the passage it can also be no ticed how Potamius reworks in an extremely sensational way the images and suggestions that he draws from his lit erary models, both pagan and Christian: cf. Tertullian, Ad Martyras, 1,5: Fugiat conspectus vestrum, et in ima sua delitescat contractus et torpens, tamquam coluber excantatus aut affumigatus; and Vergilius, Aeneis, 8,259 Hic Cacum in tenebris incendia vana vomentem corripit in nodum complexus, et angit inhaerens elisos oculos et siccum sanguine guttur. 1. De Lazaro 20-24: Contractis igitur membris inter ieiunas et numerabiles costaspellis tetra distenditur et humoris riuus qui de gurgite uiscerum relaxatur foetenti iam sentina per solum cadaueris teter et caeruleus labebatur.

For a similar use of anaphora see De Lazaro 97-m

INTRODUCTION In this passage Potamius'taste for sensational images is particularly evident. The author enjoys to graphically de scribe an image of putrefaction which is totally absent from the Gospel of John. It is evident that he reworks the Bib lical narrative through the use of a language (cf. the terms gurges and caeruleus commonly employed in epic poetry) and an imagery, which he draws from the classical epic and tragic tradition. It can also be noticed how Potamius constantly makes use of rhetoric: cf. the alliteration cadaueris ... caeruleus. 3. De Lazaro 73-90: Mox sorores, constipante turba miraculi, eiulatu aestu ieiuniis lacrimarum ubertatibus ebriatae, dei genibus stratu totius corporis miserande iactantur. Heu luctus pius, precum pulsus tenuante defectu, carmine palpitante. So rores lacrimas pro germano fundebant et hebraeas graecas cessando uoces fractis in unum singultibus mixtas, saluatoris in laudibus expiabant. Quantus illic, rogo uos, populi festinatus. Quae spectantium turba. Qualis tanti miraculi potuit esse concentus, ubi essent plangentes puellae, mortuus frater, et Christus hominem promitteret excitandum. Conuenerunt, credo, ad hoc spectaculum seruandae memoriae sempiternum milites, Iudaei, gen tiles, christiani, proselyti, clarissimi senatores, nobiles iudices, nautae, serui et omnis pene ciuitas certatim occurrit, ut uiderent an resurgere possit Lazarus, cuius foetor iam longius de sepulchro populos feriebat. Quo uiso, tota ciui tas mirabatur. This passage clearly shows how Potamius mixes in his narrative suggestions and images taken from the oral tra dition of folk-tales and from the Roman novel. The gospel narrative used by Potamius in this passage has in general an intimate dimension, in which the people who came to comfort Lazarus' sisters remain in the background of the scene. Here, on the contrary, the writer presents to the readers an extremely pathetic and sensational scene, in which a large crowd of citizens of every social class gath ers in order to witness the resurrection of Lazarus. A very

132

INTRODUCTION

similar scene is described in Apuleius' Metamorphoses (cf. 2,27-28), where, during a funeral procession taking place in the main square of a town, a crowd gathers around a man who promises to resurrect his dead nephew through the agency of an Egyptian priest. To the scene of the crowd gathering around Jesus, which is clearly influenced by Apuleius, Potamius adds typical elements of the oral folk tale tradition. For instance, in order to make his narrative more impressive, he places clarissimi senatores and nobiles iudices in Bethany, a very small village outside Jerusalem, with that unconcern for reliability which is typi cal of folk-tales. With regard to language and syntax it can be noticed how in this passage Potamius approaches poetical con structions and expressions to sentences in colloquial and spoken style: cf. the sentence: Heu luctus pius, precum pulsus tenuante defectu, carmine palpitante, which pre sents an elliptical, poetical construction including a chias mus and a rhyme; and the sentence: Conuenerunt, credo, ad hoc spectaculum seruandae memoriae sempiternum milites, Iudaei, gentiles, christiani, proselyti, claris simi senatores, nobiles iudices, nautae, serui et omnis pene ciuitas certatim occurrit, which shows the typical paratactical course of spoken language. 4. Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti 143-160: Adtende igitur ut redeamus ad propositum dogma. Organum telae unitum, sibimet conexum, fila retinet, omni tenacitate uincitur; alligatur et alligat. Modum pendenti tunicae, dum conectitur, praestat. Sarcitur et sarcit, texit et texitur, uestitur et uestit, orditur et liciat. Sub tegminis lineam transuersum latus exacuit staminis fibula, morsu quo tenetur adstringit. Unus interuenit, alter intercipit. Alius interfunditur, unus incurrit. Utrumque panniculas decurrentes accipiunt. Unus unum, dum per ambos curritur, adprehendit et refugit; alter alium, dum stringit, includit: ambo aeque redeunt, nec offendunt. Semper tamen tunicae istius de unitate rigentior trama, quae in se sibiper

INTRODUCTION

133

sua uicissim commercia bifido traduce suspenditur, uinculatur. Merito tunica unita sibimet et desuper contextilis Saluatoris est, ut et stamine quo penditur, et subtegmine quo uestitur, et licio quo regitur, unius lanae concretio Trinitatis singularis in Christo de rebus propositis substantia comparetur. This passage represents a typical example of Potamius' philosophical style, with its extremely complicated mixture of technical and metaphorical language, and its stilted similes. Through an extended and detailed description of the loom, of the different ways in which it works, and of its finished product, namely the seamless tunic, Potamius sets out to explain, by means of very obscure metaphors, the essential aspects of the Trinitarian dogma. In the first place we suppose that he intends to demonstrates that the per son of the Son generated by the Father and the Father himself (in his metaphor the cloth produced by the loom and the loom itself) form an indissoluble whole (organum telae unitum, sibimet conexum, fila retinet, omni tenacitate vincitur; alligatur et alligat). Then his discussion seems to face the problem of the unity of intent and will among persons: through a series of symmetrical periods, which shows the influence of Seneca's minutae sententiae, he appears to identify the Trinity with the loom which har moniously works with the various parts of its machinery. This description, which presents the working of the loom as a natural and constant activity, may also be interpreted as a metaphor of the eternal generation of Christ: as the constant function of the loom is that of producing a tunic, so the constant function of the Trinity is that of generating the Son. The final period may be regarded as a final sum mary of the entire simile: the seamless tunic, bound to the loom with an indissoluble knot of unity, symbolises the substance of the unique Trinity in Christ. It is evident that in this passage Potamius reworks the typical elements of the pagan philosophical literature, such as similes taken from everyday occupations, technical lan guage and epideictic style, in an extremely expressionistic and exaggerated way. As a consequence the original func

134

INTRODUCTION

tion of these elements, that is, their clarifying function is lost, and the reader is disconcerted by the extreme obscu rity of the style: cf. for instance the sentence: Semper tamen tunicae istius de unitate rigentior trama, quae in se sibi per sua uicissim commercia bifido traduce suspenditur, uinculatur. A very probable source for this section of the Epistula de Substantia is a passage in the Epistulae ad Lucilium. It is interesting to notice that this Senecan passage (including a quotation from Ovid) is introduced by the philosopher as a supreme example of oratorical self-indulgence: Potamius, who had a peculiar concept of style, and greatly ap preciated stilted imagery, seems to draw without a qualm from this Senecan example: cf. Epistulae ad Lucilium, 90,20: Incredibilest, mi Lucili, quam facile etiam magnos viros dulcedo orationis abducat a vero. Ecce Posidonius, ut mea fert opinio, ex iis qui plurimum philosophiae contulerunt, dum vult describere primum quemadmodum alia torqueanturfila, alia ex molli solutoque ducantur, deinde quemadmodum tela suspensis ponderibus rectum stamen extendat, quemadmodum subtemen insertum, quod duritiam utrimque conprimentis tramae remolliat, spatha coire cogatur et iungi, textrini quoque artem a sapientibus dixit inventam, oblitus postea repertum hoc subtilius genus in quo tela iugo vincta est, stamen secernit harundo, inseritur medium radiis subtemen acutis, quod lato paviunt insecti pectine dentes (Ovid, Met., 6,5558).

NOTE ON THE PRESENT EDITION All the editions of Potamius which have appeared so far (cf. p. 122-126) take into consideration only a part of the available manuscripts, and very often a quite limited num ber of them. Therefore we have adopted the policy of in cluding in our critical apparatus all the variants of all the manuscripts. In certain cases we have decided not to list

INTRODUCTION

135

the orthographic variants of the apographi, but all the sig nificant variants have always been included. We realise that, as a consequence, the apparatus sometimes appear to be too voluminous, but it is our intention to give the reader a complete, and possibly definitive vision of Potamius' manuscript tradition, especially because it was al ways presented in a defective, partial form in the previous editions. With regard to orthography we have adopted the spell ing of imperial Latin. When such spelling was not available in the manuscripts, we have adjusted the readings to this norm, and recorded these adjustments in the apparatus. In the use of punctuation we have tried to follow the ex ample of Wilmart, who in his editions mostly respects the original punctuation of the manuscripts, and changes it when it clearly appears to be incorrect or differs too much from the modern use. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY L. d'Achery, Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis maxime Benedictinorum latuerant spicilegium, II, Paris 1657. L. d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3rd edi tion revised by L.F.G. de la Barre, III, Paris 1723. S. Alvarez, 'El ritmo prosaico de Potamio de Lisboa', Euphrosyne 17 (1989), 265-276. G. Antolin, 'Opusculos desconocidos de San Jeronimo "Codex Epistularum" de la Biblioteca de El Escurial: A. II. 3', Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, 19 (1908), 216-226, and 20 (1909), 60-63. R. Bagatta, B. Peretti, Sancti Zenonis Veronensis episcopi et martyris, doctoris eximii sermones, Verona 1586. P., H. Ballerini, Sancti Zenonis episcopi Veronensis ser mones, Venezia 1739.

136

INTRODUCTION

Ch. Baur, 'L'entree litteraire de Saint Chrysostome dans le monde latin', RHE 8 (1907), 249-265. A. Castellano, Eximi et excellentis viri praeclarissimi doctoris Sancti Zenonis episcopi Veronensis sermonum elegantissimorum ad populum excerptorum ex vetustissimo volumine Veronae ab Guarino Veronensi viro eloquentissimo in episcopii Veronesis bibliotheca reperto, Venezia 1508. M. Conti, The Life and Works ofPotamius ofLisbon, Turnhout 1998. R. Da Cunha, Historia eclesidtica da Igreja de Lisboa, Lisbon 1642. V.C. De Clercq, Ossius of Cordova- A contribution to the history of the Constantinian Period, Washington 1954. E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 2nd edition, Turnhout 1961, 3rd edition, Turnhout 1995. G. Dierks, Luciferi Calaritanis opera quae supersunt, (CC VIII), Turnhout 1978. U. Dominguez Del Val, 'Potamio de Lisboa - Su ortodoxia y doctrina sobre la consustancialidad del Hijo', CD 172 (1959), 237-258. L. Duchesne, 'Libere et Fortunatien', d'archeologie et d'histoire 28 (1908), 42-59.

Melanges

G. Ficker, Studien zu Vigilius von Thapsus, Leipzig 1897. A. Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, V, Venezia 1769. S. Gelenius, Opera divi Joannis Chrysostomi episcopi Constantinopolitani, vol. III, Bale 1547. R.P.G. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988.

INTRODUCTION

137

J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles d'apres les documents originaux, (translated into French and revised by H. Leclercq), Paris 1907. E.J. Jonkers, Acta et Symbola conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt, Leiden 1954. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, London 1968. M.A. Knibb, Martyrdom and Ascension ofIsaiah, (in J.H. Charlesworth ed., The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha, New York 1985). G. Kriiger, Lucifer Bisch of von Cagliari und das Schisma der Luciferianer, Berlin 1886. J. Leclercq, 'Un tratado sobre los nombres divinos en un manuscrito de Cordoba', Hispania Sacra 2 (1949), 327-338. B. Lofstedt, Zenonis Veronensis Tractatus, Corpus Christianorum XXII, Turnhout 1971. J. Lorenzo, 'Acercamiento a la sintaxis de Potamio' , Emerita 46 (1978), 117- 130. J. Madoz, 'Potamio de Lisboa', RET 7 (1947), 79-109. M. Meslin, Les Ariens d'Occident, Paris 1967. A. Montes Moreira, Potamius de Lisbonne et la Controverse Arienne, Louvain 1969. A. Montes Moreira, 'Le retour de Potamius de Lisbonne a l'orthodoxie niceenne', Didaskalia 5 (1975), 303-354. G. Morin, Etudes textes et decouvertes - Contributions a la litterature et d I'histoire des douze premiers siecles, I, Paris 1913. G. Morin, 'Pro Instantio - Contre l'attribution a Priscillien des opuscules du manuscrit de Wiirzburg', RB 30 (1913), 153-173.

138

INTRODUCTION

F. Piva, Lucifero di Cagliari contro Vimperatore Costanzo, Trento 1928. J. Scudieri Ruggieri, 'Considerazioni sul Latino di Spagna del secolo IV, Cultura Neolatina 29 (1969), 126-158. L. Saltet, 'Fraudes litteraires des schismatiques luciferiens aux IVe et Ve siecles', BLE 8 (1906), 300-326. A. Schneemelcher, Tubingen 1990.

Neutestamentliche

Apokryphen,

M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Roma 1975. M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana e I'inizio della riflessione teologica in Spagna (in Hispania Romana, Colloquio ItaloSpagnolo, anno 371, quaderno n. 200, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), Roma 1974. J. Trithemius, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, Bale 1494. A. C. Vega, Opuscula omnia Potamii episcopi Olisiponensis, Escorial 1934. R. Weijenborg, 'Review of Montes Moreira's Potamius', Antonianum 45 (1970), 524. A. Wilmart, 'La lettre de Potamius a Saint Athanase', RB 30 (1913), 257-285. A. Wilmart, 'Le "De Lazaro" de Potamius', JTS 19 (1918), 289-304. A. Wilmart, 'Fragments du Ps-Origene sur le Psaume XCI dans une collection espagnole', RB 29 (1912), 274-293. A. Wilmart, 'La collection des 38 homelies latines de Saint Jean Chrysostome', JTS 19 (1918), 289-304.

INTRODUCTION

139

ABBREVIATIONS Alvarez, 'Ritmo' = S. Alvarez, 'El ritmo prosaico de Potamio de Lisboa', Euphrosyne 17 (1989), 265-276. Bagatta - Peretti, Zenonis Sermones = R. Bagatta, B. Peretti, Sancti Zenonis Veronensis episcopi et martyris, doctoris eximii sermones, Verona 1586. P., H. Ballerini, Sancti Zenonis = P., H. Ballerini, Sancti Zenonis episcopi Veronensis Sermones, Verona 1739. Castellano, Zenonis Sermones = A. Castellano, Eximis et excellentis viri praeclarissimi doctoris Sancti Zenonis epis copi Veronensis sermonum elegantissimorum ad populum excerptorum ex vetustissimo volumine Veronae ab Guarino Veronensi viro eloquentissimo in episcopii Veronensis bibliotheca reperto, Venezia 1508. Conti, Life and Works = M. Conti, The Life and Works of Potamius of Lisbon, Turnhout 1998. De Clercq, Ossius = V.C. De Clercq, Ossius of Cordova A contribution to the History of the Constantinian Period, Washington 1954. Dominguez Del Val, 'Su Ortodoxia' = U. Dominguez Del Val, 'Potamio de Lisboa - Su ortodoxia y doctrina sobre la consustancialidad del Hijo', CD 172 (1959), 237-258. Gallandi, Bibliotheca = A. Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum , V, Venezia 1769. Hanson, Search = R.P.G. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988. Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire = J. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles d'apres les documents originaux (translated into French and revised by H. Leclercq), Paris 1907.

140

INTRODUCTION

Lofstedt, CC xxii = B. Lofstedt, Zenonis Veronensis Tractatus, Corpus Christianorum XXII, Turnhout 1971. Lorenzo, 'sintaxis' = J. Lorenzo, 'Acercamiento a la sintaxis de Potamio', Emerita 46 (1978), 117-130. Madoz, 'Potamio' = J. Madoz, 'Potamio de Lisboa', RET 7 (1947). 79-109. Montes Moreira, Potamius = A. Montes Moreira, Pota mius de Lisbonne et la Controverse Arienne, Louvain 1969. Montes Moreira, 'Le retour' = A. Montes Moreira, 'Le re tour de Potamius de Lisbonne à l'orthodoxie Nicéenne', Didaskalia 5 (1975), 303-354. Ruggieri, 'latino' = J. Scudieri Ruggieri, 'Considerazioni sul latino di Spagna del secolo IV, Cultura Neolatina 29 (1969), 126-158. Simonetti, ariana = M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana e l'inizio della riflessione teologica in Spagna, (Hispania Ro mana Colloquio Italo-Spagnolo, anno 371, quaderno n. 200, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), 128-147, Roma 1974. Simonetti, crisi = M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV se colo, Roma 1975. Vega, Opuscula = A. C. Vega, Opuscula omnia Potamii episcopi Olisiponensis, Escorial 1934. Wilmart, 'La lettre' = A. Wilmart, 'La lettre de Potamius à Saint Athanase', RB 30 (1913), 257-285. Wilmart, 'Le "De Lazaro" = A. Wilmart, 'Le "De Lazaro" de Potamius', yTS 19 (1918), 289-304.

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM

141

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIUM C

= Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canonici "Patr. Lat." 112, (IX century), fol. 103r-104V.

V

= Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliotheque Municipale, 29, (XI century), fol. i15V-117r.

L

= London, British Library, Royal 6 A VIII, (dated 1496-1497), fol. 74V-76r.

E

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 12. 131, (XII century), fol. 68r-69r.

N

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1685, (XII century), fol. 102v-104r.

S

= Selestat, Bibliotheque Humaniste Municipale, 77, (XVI century), fol. 20ir-202r.

B

= Oxford, Bodleian Library, Trinity College, XXV, (XI century), fol. 141V-143V.

D

= Oxford, Bodleian Library, Jesus College, XLIII, (XI century), fol. 152r-154r.

R

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1684, (XI century), fol. i13r-1i4V.

A

= London, British Library, Royal 6 B XIII, (XII cen tury), fol. 92V-93V.

H

= Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodleian 147 (1918), (XII century), fol. 70V-71V.

F

= Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, 425 (previuosly A.178), (XII century), fol. 83V-85r.

G

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1683, (XII century), fol. 76V-77V.

/

= Cambridge, Trinity College, O.5.5 (1286) (6159), (XIV century), fol. 88V-89V.

142

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM

M

= Saint-Mihiel, Bibliotheque Municipale, 28, (IX century), fol. i}ir-i}}r. This manuscript was lost after 1914.

P

= London, British Library, Addition 26762, (XII century), fol. 101v-102v.

Acher.

= Editio D'Achery, 1657

Acher. 2 = Editio D'Achery, 1723 Gall.

= Editio Gallandi, 1769

Wilm.

= Editio Wilmart, 1913

Vega

= Editio Vega, 1934

Sb

= De Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

Sb A

= De Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti Codex Escurialensis A

Sb B

= De Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti Codex Escurialensis B

DE LAZARO Versio I Iohanni Chrysostomo attributa O

= Oxford, Bodleian Library, "Laud. Misc." 452, (IX century), fol. 83r-84r.

F

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 12.140, (X century), fol. 98r-99v.

A

= Angers, Bibliotheque Municipale, 147 (139), (IX century), fol. 70v-71v. •

G

= St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 103, (IX century), fol. 191-193.

L

= Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ashburnham 13 (57-14), (IX century), fol. 27v-28v.

Sa

= Saint-Omer, Bibliotheque Municipale, 97, (IX century), fol. 47v-48r.

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM

143

Ro

= Bruxelles, Bibliotheque Royale, 1203 (II. 989), (X century), fol. 84r-85r.

H

= Montecassino, Biblioteca dell'Abbazia, 12, (XI century), fol. no-1n.

/

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 2651, (XI century), fol. i09v-mr.

Nr

= Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, 440, (XII cen tury), fol. 53v-54v.

Zn

= Laon, Bibliotheque Municipale, 302, (XII cen tury), fol. 115v-116v.

Wb

= Bruxelles, Bibliotheque Royale, 1204 (1258-1259), (XV century), fol. 78r-79r (previously 77r-78r).

Ph

= Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, 44 (Phillipps 1673), (IX century), fol. 66v-6jv.

P

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 12. 141, (X century), fol. 92v-93v.

E

= Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, R.III.5, (XIV century), fol. 83v-84v.

Ba

= Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 8109 (Mag. 9), (XI century), fol. 76v-77v.

C

= Paris, Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal, Ms. Latin 175, (XII century), fol. 33v-34r.

Tp

= Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 1769, (XIV century), fol. ^6t-^6v.

Y

= Poitiers, Bibliotheque Municipale, 62 (252), (XV century), fol. 66r-67r.

I

= Arras, Bibliotheque Municipale, 133, (X century), fol. 49v-50v.

Do

= Douai, Bibliothèque Municipale, 212, (XII cen tury), fol. 1o6r-1o6v.

Va

= Vaticano, Vaticanus Latinus 399, (XV century), fol. 57r-57v.

144

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM

Q

= Montecassino, Biblioteca dell'Abbazia, 288 F, (XII century), fol. 292-296.

K

= Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, CCl 200, (XIV century), fol. ^6r-^jr.

Mb

= Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 10895, (XV-XVI century), fol. 531.-53V.

Wilm.

= Editio Wilmart, 1918

Versio II Zenoni attributa R

= Reims, Abbaye de Reims, (VIII-IX century). Lost in 1774 or 1775 (probably burnt).

Pi

= Pistoia, Archivi della Cattedrale C.134, (XII cen tury), fol. 81V-83r.

U

= Vatican, cod. Urbinas Latinus 504 (previously 150), (XV century), fol. 117V-120r.

N

= Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, VI D 31, (XIII cen tury), fol. 99r-101r.

Lg

= Lugano, Biblioteca Cantonale D.2 E. 19, (XV cen tury), fol. 69r-70V.

Ox

= Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat. Th. D. 28, (XV century), fol. 87V-89r.

Fa

= Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ashburnham 135, (XV century), fol. 83V -85r.

T

= Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 284, 1. 193 (II 85) (2050), (XIII century), fol. 75r-76V.

V

= Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1235 (previously 173), (XV century), fol. 161V-164V.

B

= Vatican, Biblioteca del Capitolo della Basilica di San Pietro, F.33, (XIII-XIV century), fol. 5or-51V.

Z

= Verona, Biblioteca Civica, 798 (2007), (XV cen tury), 83V-85r.

M

= Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 276, 1. 193 (II 83) (2200), (XV century), fol. 93V-95V.

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM

145

Ca

= Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, n. 327, (XV cen tury), fol. 92V-94V.

D

= Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1233 (previously 2587), (XV century), fol. i19r-121V.

W

= Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1234 (previously 2588), (XV century), 119V-121V.

Pa

= Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, n.347, (XV century), fol. 94V-96V.

S

= Verona, this manuscript, employed by SparaVerius for his planned edition of Zeno, was prob ably lost at the end of seventeenth century.

X

= Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, 49, (XV cen tury), fol. I02r-104r.

Spar.

= Emendations proposed by Sparaverius in his planned edition of Zeno. They were later in cluded in the Editio Ballerini.

Bag.

= Editio Bagatta-Peretti, 1586

Ball.

= Editio Ballerini, 1739

Wilm.

= Editio Wilmart, 1918

Vega

= Editio Vega, 1934

DE MARTYRIO ESAIAE PROPHETAE R

= Reims, Abbaye de Reims, (VIII-IX century). Lost in 1774 or 1775 (probably burnt).

Pi

= Pistoia, Archivi iella Cattedrale C.134, (XII cen tury), fol. 83r-84V.

U

= Vatican, cod. Urbinas Latinus 504 (previously 150), (XV century), fol. 120r-121r.

T

= Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 284, l. 193 (II 85) (2050), (XIII century), fol. 76v-jjr.

V

= Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1235 (previously 173), (XV century), fol. 164V-165V.

146

conspectvs siglorvm

B

= Vatican, Biblioteca del Capitolo della Basilica di San Pietro, F.33, (XIII-XIV century), fol. 5iV-52r.

Z

= Verona, Biblioteca Cívica, 798 (2007), (XV cen tury), fol.85r-85V.

M

= Venezia, Biblioteca di San Marco, a. 276, 1. 193 (II 83) (2200), (XV century), fol. 95V-96r.

Ca

= Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, n. 327, (XV cen tury), fol. 94V-95r.

D

= Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1233 (previously 2587), (XV century), fol. 121v-122r.

W

= Vatican, cod. Vaticanus Latinus 1234 (previously 2588), (XV century), fol. 121V-122V.

Pa

= Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, n.347, (XV century), fol. 96V-97r.

S

= Verona, this manuscript, employed by SparaVerius for his planned edition of Zeno, was prob ably lost at the end of seventeenth century.

X

= Verona, Biblioteca del Capitolo, 49, (XV cen tury), fol.104r-104V.

Ball.

= Editio Ballerini, 1739

Vega

= Editio Vega, 1934

DE SVBSTANTIA PATRIS ET FILII ET SPIRITVS SANCTI A

= Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, A. II. 3, (X century), fol. 2r-1ov (complete).

B

= Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, &.I.4, (XII century), fol. iV-7r (complete)

C

= Madrid, Archivo Historico Nacional, n. 1007 B (previously n.1279), (X century), fol. 10ov (in complete).

P

= Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, 25 (13,8,5), (XII century), fol. ii5r-nóv (incomplete).

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM

147

F

= Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense, Fondo Historico 134 (116-Z-46), (XIVXV century), fol. 9or-9iv (incomplete)

H

= London, British Library, Harley 3169, (XV cen tury), fol. 122v-123r (previously 193v-194O (in complete).

Ant.

= Editio Antolin, 1908-1909

Vega

= Editio Vega, 1934

Ep. Ath. = Epistula ad Athanasium

EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIVM

THE LETTER OF POTAMIUS TO THE BISHOP ATHANASIUS, FROM THE ARIANS AFTER THEIR SUBSCRIPTION AT THE COUNCIL OF ARIMINUM Potamius to his brother the very glorious and blessed lord bishop Athanasius. What hand would have been more effective in scraping off or in cleansing with fiery merits the damned sect's filthy dirt that is abundant because of the pit of such a large prison, as you correctly write, and likewise the beginning of a putrescence emanating from the bloody stench of corpses, if that hand of yours, which is eternal in regard to the pious feats of a man crowned by exile, had not repel

INCIPIT EPISTVLA POTAMI AD ATHANASIVM EPISCOPVM AB ARRIANIS POSTQVAM IN CONCILIO ARIMINENSI SVBSCRIPSERVNT Domino fratri gloriosissimo episcopo Potamius.

ac

beatissimo Athanasio

Tanti carceris fossa crudam inluuiem damnabilis officinae coaceruatam, ut recte conscribis, exordium et sterco5 ris cruento de fetore cadauerum mortuorum, quae magis manus potuisset igneis uirtutibus extricare uel radere, nisi illa tua castis de exilio capitis coronati perennata titulis ex-

3 cf. Damasus Papa, Epigrammata, 2,20 (1,20); 27,4 (21,4) 3/4 cf. Athanasius, Epistula de Synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria celebratis, 20; De Sententia Dyonisii, 13; Epistula de morte Arii, 4 6 cf. Lucanus, Pharsalia, 9,7-8 Inscriptio: Incipit epistula Potami ad Athanasium episcopum ab Arrianis postquam in concilio Arriminensi subscripserunt C Incipit epistola Potami ad Athanasium episcopum ab Arrianis postquam in con cilio Ariminensi subscripserunt Mi Incipit epistola Potamii ad Atha nasium episcopum ab Arrianis postquam in concilio Ariminensi sub scripserunt Mz P VAz Incipit epistola Potamii ad Athanasium episco pum ab Arrianis postquam in concilio Arriminensi subscripserunt D Incipit epistola Potamii ad Athanasium episcopum ab Arrianis post quam in concilio Ariminensi Ai Incipit epistola Potamii ad Athana sium ab Arrianis postquam in concilio Arriminensi subscripserunt B Incipit epistola Potamii ad Athanasium ab Arrianis postquam in con cilio Ariminensi subscripserunt E H R Incipit epistola Potamii ad Athanasium episcopum postquam in concilio Ariminensi subscripserunt N Incipit epistola Potamii ad Athanasium F G I Epistola Potamii ad Athanasium episcopum ab Arrianis postquam in concilio Arriminensi subscripserunt L Incipit epistola Potami ad Athanasium episcopum ab Arrianis impetitum postquam in concilio Ariminensi subscripserunt Acher.z inscriptionem totam om. S 1 domino] omino S om. M P L fratri gloriosissimo ... Potamius (I.2)] om. L 3 carceris] cerceris Fi fossa] Dz sup. lin. fossam / crudam] trudat M crudato P crudem C V inluuiem] inlubiem Ci M illuuiem V Rz Ez F GA NHS illuuief / in lubiem L damnabilis] dampnabilis F G A I dapnabilis Ei 4 coaceruatam] scripsi cum I coaceruata cett. codd. exordium] exordio P 5 de] om. A B D H Rz fetore] faetore CAR foetore Ez factore V cadauerum] cadauera C V Ez N M L S cadeuera Ei 6 manus] manu C V E N Fi L S ex tricare] exstricare M 7 castis] casti / exilio] exsilio C coronati] coronatis Ci coronata Bi perennata] perhennata Ri Fi G A B D I perhennitatis P pennata L titulis] stolis P

1 52

LETTER TO ATHANASIUS

led the heretical sect with the anathema of God? You smi led, I say, upon us, perfect in your Catholic purity, while slaying and condemning the treacherous and perjured ene mies of true faith. Armed with the cutting sword of one faith, you overcame doubtful minds corrupted by heresy and the immoderate, culpably poisonous intrigues of a damnable soul. May the serpent lie dead and the land which received him become black with his purulent venom. May the ser pent lie condemned by the divine thunderbolt. May the serpent lie gripped in his blood-red horror. May the ser pent lie with his eye-sockets crushed, with the sewer of his three-forked mouth wide open. May the originator of every crime vomit, go to rack and ruin, writhe in agony: his ha ving deprived the first man of eternal life would have been a little offence, had he, more poisonous than the Hydra, not flung himself even on the Saviour. He wanted to separate our Lord Jesus Christ from the Father and the Holy Ghost, as if he might be able to cut into pieces the Word of Jesus Christ, even though it is evi dent that the Trinity is a unity bound together by the buckle of substance: the Scriptures in fact assert: I and the

EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIVM

153

clusisset haeresis sectam anathema maranatha? Adrisisti, inquam, nobis catholica uirginitate perfectus iugulando perfidos damnando periuros. Corruptas adulterio mentes ambiguas, maledicti pectoris libidinosa commercia ueneno damnabiliter sarcinata unius fidei rumphea feriente uicisti. Iaceat serpens, et terra quae illum susceperit purulento ueneno nigrescat. Iaceat serpens caelesti ictu damnatus. Iaceat serpens sanguineo horrore contractus. Iaceat ser pens eliso luminum sinu, trisulci oris patefacta sentina. Vomat defluat torqueatur culparum auctor, cui paruum fuerat quod protoplaustum aeternitate priuauerat, nisi et contra Saluatorem hydra uirosior prorupisset. Separare uoluit Dominum Deum Christum, quasi uerbum Christi possit incidere, substantiae fibula concatenata Trinitatis unitate, ut ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus, et: Qui me

22 Ioh. 10,30

22/23 Ioh. 4,9

12 cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 8,5,7 14/15 cf. Tertullianus, Ad Martyras, 1,5 15/16 cf. Vergilius, Aeneis, 8,259 8 haeresis] scripsi cum L heresis cett. codd. Wilm. maranatha] mara natha L omnes qui contra ueritate niceni sinodi repugnantes ana thema maranatha add. M omnesque contra ueritatem nicene synodi re pugnantes anathema maranatha add. P adrisisti] arrisisti F A P N B D HILSRG 9 catholica] catholico C V Fi perfectus] perfestus C V E iugulando] uigilando L 10 damnando] dampnando F A 1 G periuros] speriuros Gi et add. P corruptas] corruptos Ei M mentes] mentis M 11 ambiguas] et add. P libidinosa] libidinosam C libidinoso E N L S libidinusa H commercia] comercia C commertia VE FA B D IR G N 12 damnabiliter] dampnabiliter FA I S sarcinata] sacinata N1 rumphea] romphea C (C) iterum marg.) V G rumfea P rumphe Dz 13 susceperit] susciperat Mi susciperit Mx suscepit A B D H purulento] purolento M purrulento G 14 ictu] ioco L damnatus] dampnatus FA I G dapnatus Ei 15 sanguineo ... serpens] Ex marg. horrore] orrore M 16 luminum] lumine MP et add. P sinu] sinotris M trisulci oris] ultioris M trisulcioris C Vi Hi Ez Ni trisulti oris D tris ulcioris Ei G sentina] sentia Ci sententia M P sentena Fi 17 defluat] ac praem. P torqueatur] torquearum C V auctor] auctus M paruum] parum I L 18 pro toplaustum] prothoplaustum G prothoplastum P NL S protoplastum V RxEFABDHIL 19 hydra uirosior] ydra uirosior F G I hydra uirusior Cz V hydrauirosyor Hi 20 dominum] deum Ei deum] nostrum iesum ENS 21 possit] posset REzFGANPBDHIS substantiae] substantia et M concatenata] concatinata M concatenatae Vx concathenata P L

154

LETTER TO ATHANASIUS

Father are one, and He who sees me, sees the Father, and / am in the Father and the Father in me and In the begin ning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God This barbaric torturer, this deserter and parricide sought, if he only could, to divide, so I believe, the unity of the Trinity with rapacious claws and furious fangs. And after all this, what did the blasphemers argue in re ply? He who sent me, they cite, is greater than I. The one from whom he was begotten is his Father, certainly: since he is acknowledged as Son. However the Father is greater than the Son because he is Father. The rank is placed first, but the substance is not separated. What do you say to these arguments, you infamous trai tor? You must justly admit that, when your poisonous desire of impure slander was inflamed, the venerable fa thers transfixed you with pious arrows in that holier coun cil. Here also it is clearly shown that you held before you fetters of malicious distortion, since the Saviour says: / have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. What do you answer, serpent? Is it really possible that you seek to obfuscate the brightness of this pure profession, which they consider to be a very small problem? The occasion has a bearing on the matter.

EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIVM

155

uidet uidet et patrem, et: Ego in patre et pater in me, et: In principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud Deum et Deus 25 erat uerbum. Lanio truculentus, parricida desertor, miluinis, ut reor, unguibus uel dentibus malesanis, si potuisset, temptauit scindere. Et post haec, quid opposuere blasphemi? Is qui me misit - inquiunt - maior me est. Ex quo genitus est, pater, uti30 que; quia Alius confitetur. Maior ergo, quia pater, filio. Ordo praeponitur, non substantia separatur. Quid ad haec dicis, adulter infamis? Bene quod te antiquitas patrum in synodo sanction, uoluntate uiperea inpurae uirositatis inflata, castis etiam te transfixere missilibus. 35 Nam et hic doceris calumniandi pedicas praetendisse, quod Saluator ait: Non ueni opera mea facere, sed eius qui me misit. Quid dicis serpens? Numquid in hac luce tenebras infundis simplici huic professioni quam quaestiunculam putant? Tempus in causa est.

23 Ioh. 14,11 37 Ioh. 6,38

23/25 Ioh. 1,1

28 Ioh. 14,24

28/29 cf. Secunda Formula Sirmiensis 6,4-5

29 Ioh. 14,28

36/

35/37 cf. Apuleius, Florida,

23 uidet uidet] uidit uidit Ci Ei L 25 truculentus] troculentus M parricida] parricica Wilm. 26 reor] ras. inter reor et unguibus in R malesanis] male sanis F M Pz L E 27 temptauit] timptauit Ci tentauit L teptauit E temtauit Rz scindere] incidere / 28 oppo suere] oposuere M apposuere P opposuero R £2 F G A N B D H I S blasphemi? Is] scripsi blasphemiis? codd. me misit] meminit M 29 pater] om. P 31 ordo] ordo non Dz marg. ordine M L praeponitur] proponitur MP 32 dicis] dicturus es P infamis] infames Fi M in famis H quod] namque P quid Hi te] om. M P tene Ci antiquitas] ante antiquitatis P 33 patrum] patris M patres P synodo] sinodo M G S N sanctiori] scanctiori Ci sanctiore P uiperea] uipereae P ueperea D uippera L inpurae] inpure M I impurae F G B D M E Rz 34 uirositatis] ui rosaetatis Mi ui rusaetatis Mz uirositates Ci uirositas Ei om. P inflata] om. P inflatam / etiam] et iam Ei te transfixere] tetras fixere Ei missilibus] misselibus M missibibus Ri 35 hic] hinc / doceris] diceris P ca lumniandi] calumpniandi F G A I 36 quod] quo P 37 me misit] misit me E A N S dicis] dices M numquid] et add. P nunquidD// L 38 infundis] infundes P quaestiunculam] questiculam M quaestiuncula C V 39 putant] putans /

156

LETTER TO ATHANASIUS

The Lord our Saviour appeared to mankind as a human being, since he had clothed himself with a human body.

Therefore he said: / have come down from heaven not to do my own will. He denied the exercise of the humanity that was in him. Therefore he cries out in order to proclaim in himself the predecessor whom he remembers as his Fa ther and begetter. Since the Son is named second, there fore he who precedes is greater: but, because these three are one, the substance of him who sends and of him who is sent, in the context of the unity of the Godhead, is one: / and the Father are one, and He who sees me, sees the Fa ther and, as the Saviour himself said to the Apostles: / have been so long with you and yet you do not know the Father. It is also asserted by the enemies of Faith that the term "substance" is not attested in the Scriptures. Restore what you had stolen, you thievish tempter: see, you are over come. You have the nerve to refute the "substance"! Indeed the pious men, that is, the ancient ranks of holy prophets, the entire chorus, according to the Scriptures openly de clare: (They heard not) the sound of the substance: from the birds of the sky and the cattle they run in fear, they yelled,

EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIVM

157

40

Saluator Dominus apud homines, quia hominum corpus induerat, uidebatur in corpore. Ideo dixit: Non ueni opera meafacere. Hominis in se negauit officia. Clamat ergo, ut illum ordinatorem in se praedicet quem in se sibi meminit auctorem Patrem. Quia Filius sequitur uocabulo, ita maior 45 est ille qui praeuenit; sed et mittentis et missi, quia tres unum sunt, de unitate deitatis una substantia est: Ego et Pater unum sumus, et, Qui me uidet uidet et Patrem, et ipse Saluator ad Apostolos, Tanto tempore, inquit, uobiscum sum, et Patrem non nostis. 50 Dicunt etiam quod in libris dominicis substantia numquam uideatur esse conscripta. Redde quod inuolaueras furacissime temptator: ecce uinceris. Confutare de substan tia. Etenim boni clamant, sanctorum antiqui greges prophetarum, tota praeconia, ut ait: {Non audierunt) uocem 55 substantiae: a uolatilibus caeli usque ad pecora expauerunt (et) uociferabantur, et dabo Hierusalem in transmi

41/42 Ioh. 6,38 45/46 I Ioh. 5,8 46/47 Ioh. 10,30 14,9 48/49 Ioh. 14,9 54/57 Ier. 9,10

40/41 cf. Lactantius, Epitome Divinarum Institutionum, 38,8 51 cf. Secunda Formula Sirmiensis

47 Ioh.

50/

40 dominus] domine C homine domine Ei om. NS homines] ho minis Ci quia] qui MP hominum] humanum P 41 induerat] induerit M induens P ideo] cum P quia add. N S quod add. R2 A B D H ideoque / dixit] dicens / opera mea facere (1. 42)] facere opera mea E N S 42 official officia? P offitia G 43 ilium] in se add. P praedicet] praedicit M in se sibi] ipse sibi / meminit] meminet Ci 44 filius] Alio M ut praem. P uocabulo, ita] uocabulo. Ita C V 45 ille] om. A iste L praeuenit] preuenit V P mittentis] mitentis £1 46 deitatis] diuinitatis Acher.1-2 47 uidet uidet] uidit uidit Ci Ei M L 48 apostolos] discipulos L inquit] inquid M marg. 50 dominicis] domicis £1 nuraquam] nunquam B D // £2 nuquam Ei om. I 51 inuolaueras] inuolueras A B D Hz I L inuolare idest furari add. C3 marg. 52 furacissime] o praem. G temptator] temnator D tentator L temtator Rz ecce] haec M confutare] confutari A B D H /1 confutare de substantia] confutare. De substantia PL 53 sanc torum] scrm (cum lineola superiore) M greges] gregis M 54 tota] tuta P non audierunt] suppleui cum Wilm. e Sb 2j; )S 55 a] ad Mi pecora] peccora G expauerunt] et pauer tuo Ei N S 56 et] sup pleui cum Wilm. e Sb 27; )8 uociferabantur] uociferantur P et] ego Gall. dabo] ab M P Hierusalem] Ierusalem APBDHSRzN Iherusalem / in transmigrationem] intrans migrationem C M

158

LETTER TO ATHANASIUS

and I will deliver up Jerusalem to captivity. Since Christ the God had not been heard at all by the earlier people, the inhabitants having become corrupted, the columns of Jeru salem collapsed. And now, you wretch, even though one judgement of God should have been sufficient, listen to what the holy prophet thundered: If they had stood in my substance and had listened to me and proclaimed my words to my people, I would have turned them from their evil way. This sacred voice concerning the "substance" broke out on impious nations, in order that even the prop het, beginning from Adam, desperately looks for Christ: / am stuck fast in deep mire, and there is no substance: to be sure because the substance of the Father had not yet been instilled in the human body of Jesus Christ; and the same occurs to him who lost all his substance after having dissipated his property with his dissolute life - in fact, as the sacred prophet of God wrote: the holy spirit of God will shun deceit: he lost his substance because he lacked holi ness owing to his licentiousness.

EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIVM

159

grationem. Ecce cum Christus Deus anteriori de populo minime esset auditus, tabefactis commanentibus Hierosolymae columnae ceciderunt. Ecce adhuc miser, licet una 60 Dei sententia sufficere debuit, quod propheta sanctus intonuit: Si stetissent in substantia mea et audissent sermones meos et docuissent populum meum, auertissem eos a malis studiis eorum. Ecce hic felix de substantia infelicibus populis prorupit auditus, ut et propheta ex persona 65 Adae Christum requirat in lacrimis: Infixus sum, inquit, in limo profundi et non est substantia: scilicet quia necdum Patris substantia apud Christum in came conuenerat; sicut et ille [euangelista] (qui) conuastatis rebus luxuriose uiuendo perdidit omnem substantiam suam, - ut sanctus 70 Dei uates scripsit: Spiritus Dei effugiet fictum: inde ergo substantiam perdidit, quia per luxuriam sanctitate caruit.

61/63 Ier. 23.22

65/66 Ps. 68,3

70 Sap. 1,5

57 anteriori] anteriore Ei P L anterior M 58 auditus] auditur C V commanentibus] comanentibus D cummanentibus / conmanentibus R hierosolymae] hierosolimae Ci V Ri F L hyerosolymae Cx hierosolime G ierosolimae Rz A B D H ierosolime N P S iherosolime / 59 columnae] columpnae G A I ceciderunt] caeciderunt CF adhuc miser] miser adhuc ENS 60 dei] A sup. lin. dei sen tentia] sententia dei C Vx sententia tibi Vi quod] Fx marg. 63 malis] multis Gall. infelicibus] in felicibus VS 64 populis] Hx sup. lin. prorupit] prorumpit M erupit G et] Ex sup. lin. 65 requirat] requirit P referat Ax requirat in] requirat. In C la crimis] lachrymis L inquit] inquid CM 66 limo] limum C VREFG Ai N M Wilm. scilicet ... patris substantia (1. 67)] Cz marg. nec dum] nec dum F 67 apud] aput C ad L 68 ille] R sup. lin. euangelista] euuangelista L prodigus euangeli P prodigus filius Fx G I prodigus uel profligator euangelistae prop. Wilm. apud euange lista prop. Gall. om. Sb qui] suppleui e Sb 318 conuastatis] cum uastatis VRx EN A B DH contestatis L conuagatis SbA 318 conuacatis SbB 318 luxuriose] luxoriosae C M luxuriosae Fi 69 ut] om. M I 70 uates] uatis M scripsit] scribit P effugiet] effugit P Sb 320 fictum] uictum L 71 substantiam perdidit] perdidit substantiam A B DI luxuriam] F scr. sup. ras. luxoriam Ci Ei M sanctitate] sanctitatem C Mi Fi Ri Wilm. SbA 321

160

LETTER TO ATHANASIUS

If this is sufficient for you, I have finished. If you are now panting after them everything is filled with these sacred verities; but if you are still on the rack, I will intensify my action. We read in the Scriptures: I also gatheredfor myself silver and gold and substance of kings and provinces. This is that substance which the prophet recalls by saying: God has spoken once, twice I have heard this. The prophet as serts with certainty that in the utterance of one word he has heard two voices, as David confirms: My tongue is like the calamus ofa scribe. In fact, as the calamus is made with separate, equal small teeth and works by means of harmo niously combined thorns, so the Saviour is united to the will of his Father in an indivisible harmony. Therefore what the Father said, the Son proclaimed, and what the Son announced, the Father fulfilled. With good cause the prophet says: God has spoken once, twice I have heard this. Two persons expressed one will; and thus even in the De calogue double tablets are engraved with one sentence.

EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIVM

161

Si tibi sufficit, dixi. Quibus si iam palpitas, plena sunt omnia; si adhuc torqueris, intendo. Scriptum legimus: Congregaui mihi aurum atque argentum et substantiam re75 gum et regionum. Haec est illa substantia quam propheta meminit dicens: Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audiui. In una quippe uoce duo haec audisse se propheta testatur, ut ait Dauid: Lingua mea calamus scribae. Vt enim cala mus denticulorum subdiuisa aequalitate ducitur et radiis 80 consonantibus expeditur, ita Saluator indiuisibili conexione cum Patris operibus unitatur. Quod enim Pater dixit Filius exclamauit, et quod Filius locutus est Pater impleuit. Merito inquit: Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audiui. Duae personae unum tulere iudicium; ut in Decalogo una 85 sententia duplices tabulae conscribuntur.

73/75 Ecclesiastes 2,8

76 Ps. 62,12

78 Ps. 44,2

83 Ps. 62,

12

72 cf. Lucanus, Pharsalia, 2,181; Tertullianus, De Anima, 23,1

72 si] Fz ras. dixi] dixit ENL S iam] eam I2 palpitas] palpitat Ei sunt] sint P 73 omnia] Cz sup. lin. intendo] intende M P congregaui] congrega G F I 74 mihi] michi G enim Acher.i-z substantiam] substantia A substantias P D 75 et ] atque S propheta] prophetae Ci 76 meminit] meminet Ci locutus] loquutus M 77 quippe uoce] uoluntate quippe I audisse] audire Sb 326 se] om. M 78 Dauid] Dauit E calamus] calamais C scri bae] scribe V M P H I 79 denticulorum] denticolorum C VP sub diuisa] sub diuisa N H I L subdiuisus Sb 327 aequalitate] aequalitatem Ei ducitur] deducitur Sb 328 80 conexione] connexione Ei L S 81 patris] patribus Ci unitatur] unitatis M unitate P unitur V 82 et quod] om. C V F G M P I L quod tantum om. Ri et tantum om. Sb 330 Wilm. et quod filius locutus est pater impleuit] Dz marg. 83 inquit] inquid C M locutus] loquutus M est] om. S N deus] om. I 84 tulere] tollere M iudicium] iuditium Ei G ut] unde Wilm. 85 duplices] dupplices G A P B conscribuntur] consscribuntur Ei

i6z

LETTER TO ATHANASIUS

May the heretical sect be suppressed, after being con demned to eternal silence, smashed by the lightning of God and forsaken in the abyss of hell. May the virgin al one, mother of God, raise to the clouds of heaven her head 90 crowned with laurels, she who is our only dove and is su perior in fecundity. May she be blessed among the nations who are piously faithful to the sacred unity of the Trinity and fully praise her now and forever, world without end. 95 May the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make you blessed.

EPISTVLA AD ATHANASIVM

163

Obmutescat haeresis aeterno silentio praedamnata diuinis ictibus caesa, baratro tartarisque deposita. Sola semper cum laureis suis uirgo puerpera Deo, una nobis columba, fecunditate numerosior, usque ad nubes caeli caput coronatum adtollat. Sit benedicta cum populis, Trinitatis unitate consecrata iustissimis, cuius laude plena est a nunc et in aeterna sem per saecula saeculorum. Beatificet Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus.

88/89 cf. Tertullianus, De Anima, 6,8 86 obmutescat] obmutiscat Ci FM ommutescat Rx Ex A N H obmutescant Di o immutescat S haeresis] scripsi cum G L heresis cett. codd. Wilm. praedamnata] praedampnata F G A I praedempnata Ei 87 ictibus] actibus Ex factibus Ei baratro] barathro Acher. sola] sed haec M sed ad haec P 88 laureis] lauretis Fi una nobis columba] uolui ua M ("Rq notauit Mx marg.) solo sua P una nobiscum columba / 89 fecunditate] faecunditate C V foecunditate Ex fecundate M caput] capud Ri Ei Fx G A B coronatum] laureis add. C)marg. 90 adtollat] attollat VRx E N Fx A PB HIS adtollit Di attolat Gi L 91 consecrata] consegregata Ei Ni L Si uel consecrata 52 sup. lin. 92 iustissimis] iustissimi Ci laude] laudem C Vi Mi plena] plaena C a] om. M I semper] om. PS 93 saeculo rum] amen add. REFNABDHIS 94 beatificet pater et Alius et spiritus sanctus] om. P Dx marg. beatificet] te add. I Add. amen M £3 marg. amen finis L explicit V ex plicit epistola potamii A P explicit epistola potamii ad athanasium F G D HR explicit epistola potamii ad athanasium episcopum N I amen explicit epistola potamii ad athanasium B

DE LAZARO

ON LAZARUS With enormous astonishment, brothers, and huge ama zement, amid uncertain anxieties I am whirled this way and that by plunging waves in a hollow vertiginous cavity. Lazarus, this intimate friend of God, died, as is known through the testimony of the Gospel. According to John, for forty years he had compensated for the losses of the flesh by the actions of his will. And so after a quick death (which was due to his earthly frame, that is, to earth itself more than to humanity - according to the book of Genesis the rich fluidity of clay is responsible for us as well), while Christ the judge was far away, imparting the gifts of salva tion on the borders of Judaea, Lazarus was buried and pla ced in the tomb: that is, in order that he might begin to be what he had been, in other words clay, while he ceased to be what he was in appearance or report. Here indeed, throughout the gloomy spheres of darkness and the shades of black horror, that is throughout the course of four days which are renewed in accordance with the alternate interchange of increase and diminution, throughout eight days, we may say, by including also the dark nights- he lay with his jaws gaping and hanging down, the teeth in his mouth dropping, his mouth obstruc ted since he was really putrefying like a crumbly clod, consumed by earthly destruction, and his unhappy burial condemned his nerve bundles with the essence of his body to a miserable corruption. Thus, with the contraction of his limbs, his blackened skin is stretched over the dry and easy-to-count ribs, and a stream of bodily fluid, which is released from the cavity of the entrails, an already foulsmelling sewer, flowed filthy and dark to the feet of the corpse. Alas, when could the corpse, in four days and four nights, fail to produce through the whole of its mouth filthy rivers of bile and phlegm, and, with the limbs de cayed, foul exhalations from its lungs? The rose itself, in fact, which is in its own perfume, we may say, more pre cious than any other leaf fragrant of purity and beauty, if it is radically plucked from the rose-bed with a sickle, beco

DE LAZARO (POTAMI VERSIO)

5

io

15

20

25

30

Grandi, fratres, stupore grandique miraculo per ambiguas curas hinc inde in concauo uertiginis sinu pronis fluctibus torqueor. Lazarus mortuus est, deo hic familiaris, ut ferunt teste euangelio, cum apud Ioannem quadragenariae uoluntatis gestu carnis detrimenta pensasset. Nam sub occasu iam propero, quod terrenis artubus debebatur, hoc est ipsi humo quam homini, - ut nobis ipsis iuxta librum Genesis opimus luti liquor in causa est, - longe alibi Christo censore, dum Iudaeae finibus salutaria foeneraret, sepultus est et humatus; hoc est ut inciperet esse quod fuerat, lutum scilicet, dum desinit esse quod erat forma uel fabula. Hic quippe, per graues tenebrarum globos et nigri horroris umbracula, hoc est per quatuor dierum circulos, succidua incrementi et decrementi uicissitudine renascentes, - octo, ut ita dixerim, cum caerulis noctibus dies, - pendulo mandibularum rictu, elisis in ore dentibus, uetito ore sic iacuit, uere quia de terrena labe confectus, putris gleba, marcesceret et neruorum traduces cum corporis qualitate miserabili tabo infelix sepultura damnaret. Contractis igitur membris inter ieiunas et numerabiles costas pellis tetra distenditur et humoris riuus qui de gurgite uiscerum relaxatur foetenti iam sentina per solum cadaueris teter et caeruleus labebatur. Heu, quando non poterat cadauer, quatuor diebus et quatuor noctibus, per totum oris fellis et flegmatis flumina sentinarum, corruptis artubus foetentia pulmonis spiramenta conflare? cum ipsa etiam rosa pudoris et uenustatis fragranti folio in suo sibimet parato balsamo, ut ita dixerim, pretiosior, contra si fuerit de rosario falce pollicis uel-

2/3 cf. Vergilius, Aeneis, 8,580 7/8 cf. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, 2,10,3 9 cf. Tertullianus, DeAnima, 27,7 13/14 cf. Lucanus, Pharsalia, 5,564; Augustinus, De natura boni, 42; Epistulae, 137,1,3 14/ 15 cf. Apuleius, De Deo Socratis, 2,7; Metamorphoses, 11,1,2 17/18 cf. Lucretius, 6,1194; 5,142; Vergilius, Georgica, 1,44

168

ON LAZARUS

mes pale and sad in its decaying death, in such a way that it is deprived of its floral colour and scent. Water itself, if it is carried away from the river where it lives, dies, because the natural element which made it alive ceases to exist. And so in a short time, because the substance of its ele ment is lacking, when it is removed, liquid produces mud, wherever it lies, and soon becomes foul and stinking. No-one therefore should be surprised if the entire body of that human creature (he had been preserved, seasoned with the salt of wisdom, by his spirit in a fragrant atmosp here and regulated by the soul from heaven's sweetness with the liveliness of nectar and the honeyed abundance of balsam, lest his earthly nature, which is unhappy in its pains, should produce, as a result of the pulling apart of the spirit as it withdrew, a muddy mass because of the ex tremely perishable state of the dead as the elements of his structure battle against each other) were to be left in its rotten state to the impurity of its stench. That is why, as a result of the incompatibility of the different elements, the entire nature of each member, compacted into a single mass, becomes inert. After the soul, which used to inhabit the flower-bed of the body, has withdrawn, the entire cor poreal matter collapses into corruption with a livid texture, and in place of the corpse's voice the disgusting stench of black bile emanates. Since the substance of the body is made up of earth, fluid, cold and heat (and these four elements, being per manently incompatible with each other, undermine the body with a storm of discomforts: heat does not like cold and cold is afflicted by heat - opposite elements are inti mately dependent upon their opposites - earth is corrup ted by excessive fluid and fluid becomes soiled by earth), since these fourfold elements coalesce together in a qua dripartite mass, when the disruption of death has caused the removal of the charioteer who had allotted these four elements their places, so that none of them should make too violent a movement, and who drove them with a com manding whip, joining them together harmoniously in one after their limits had been separated, - these four elements, I say, when the soul withdraws, are mingled together in

DE LAZARO (Potami Versio)

169

licata, marcenti morte tristis albescat, ita ut et colore floris careat et odore. Aqua ipsa, si de flumine rapta sit in quo uiuit, perit, natura dum desinit esse quod uixit. Mox ergo, quia elementi sui, dum rapitur, substantia caret, ubicumque iacuerit, limum liquor obducit, mox et foetore sordescit. Nemo ergo mirari debeat, si hominis, - quem spiritus, sapientiae sale conditum, redolenti aura seruauerat et ex caeli suauitate anima uiuacitate nectarea et balsami generositate melliflua rexerat, ne faceret diuortio recedentis spiritus lutea malis pigra glebositas caduca linea defunctorum, repugnantibus fabricae qualitatibus, - corpus omne ad foetoris maculam sui de putredine relaxetur. Inde est quod, per distantiam rerum in unam glomerationem compacta, omnis membrorum natura torpescit. Recedente igitur anima quae corporis floriarium recolebat, tota materies liuenti gena in putredinem relaxatur et pro uoce cadaueris nigri fellis teter mortui foetor hauritur. Terra igitur humore frigore et calore composita corporis fabrica, - quae quatuor partes semper sibimet repugnantes corpus criminum in procella subuertunt: calor frigus non amat et frigus calore torquetur, contraria contrariis mancipantur: terra nimio humore uitiatur et humor de terra sordescit, - his quadriformibus elementis in unum quadripartita mole constantibus, dissociato per diuortium mortis auriga qui quatuor istis partibus loca dederat, ne quisquam mobilitatem sui uehementius tolleret, dominante flagro diuisis in unum concordanti iunctura finibus agitabat, -

40/41 cf. Tertullianus, De Anima, 7,3 47 cf. Lucanus, Pharsalia, 5,215; Statius, Silvae, 5,5,12 55/56 cf. Tertullianus, De Anima, 53,3

170

ON LAZARUS

the mass of the bereaved body, once the force responsible for their association has been shaken off. But because our Lord had loved this young man - 1 mean Lazarus - in this worldly life, being aware of future events, with prophetic words he told his apostles that Lazarus had fallen asleep. And he predicted that he must be wakened straightaway if he reached that village. And so this Lazarus - who had become livid, whose limbs had decomposed because of the pressure coursing through his blackened veins, and whom, placed in the cave of a hollowed rock, the closing stone, as a permanent seal and a heavy load, had thrust down with its tremen dous weight, - is touched with affection, through the good gift of [Christ's] majesty, by the venerable power of calm eternity; and God's sincere and most holy love began to proclaim to the young man's sisters, who had scattered the locks of their torn hair about their sad cheeks, that he would rise again, if they believed these things. So, while a crowd gathered for the miracle, the sisters, exhausted by lamenting, anxiety, fasts and abundant tears, pitifully cast themselves at God's knees in total prostration. Ah, always feeling pity for mourning, Jesus was moved by the fainting weakness of their prayers, by their sobbing in cantation. The sisters poured out tears for their brother and, while ceasing their Hebrew and Greek words mixed together with broken sobs, were purified amidst the prai ses of the Saviour. How many people, I ask you, rushed there. What a large audience gathered. What an incitement for such an ext raordinary miracle could occur, in that situation where the maidens wept, their brother was dead, and Christ promi sed to resuscitate him. Soldiers, Jews, gentiles, Christians, proselytes, disting uished senators, noble judges, sailors, slaves, gathered to gether, I believe, for that spectacle whose memory is to be preserved forever, and virtually the whole city vied with each other in their haste to see whether Lazarus was able to rise again, Lazarus whose stench coming from his grave already offended people from a distance. All the city looked on in wonder at that sight. How did you appear

DE LAZARO (Potami Versio)

171

hae, inquam, quatuor partes, recedente anima, in globum 60 corporis uiduati, excusso societatis auctore, miscentur. Sed quia istum iuuenem -Lazarum loquor- dominus in saeculo dilexerat, praesaga uoce prescius futurorum apostolis suis dormisse Lazarum dixit. Quem promisit, si ad illam ciuitatem accederet, protinus excitandum. 65 Huic ergo Lazaro, cui liuenti, errante connixu per caerulas uenas membra tabuerant, quem loculatum in specu incisae rupis, inmani obiectus ex pondere lapis, perennis ualua, grauis libra, detruserat, bono maiestatis munere serena augustae uirtutis aeternitas flectitur pietate, et ad sor70 ores pueri, quae lacero crine sparsos per genas tristes capillos obduxerant, resurgere posse Lazarum, si ista crederent, sacratissima uera dei pietas intonabat. Mox sorores, constipante turba miraculi, eiulatu aestu ieiuniis lacrimarum ubertatibus ebriatae, dei genibus stratu 75 totius corporis miserande iactantur. Heu luctus pius, precum pulsus tenuante defectu, carmine palpitante. Sorores lacrimas pro germano fundebant et hebraeas graecas cessando uoces fractis in unum singultibus mixtas, saluatoris in laudibus expiabant. 80 Quantus illic, rogo uos, populi festinatus. Quae spectantium turba. Qualis tanti miraculi potuit esse concentus, ubi essent plangentes puellae, mortuus frater, et Christus hominem promitteret excitandum. Conuenerunt, credo, ad hoc spectaculum seruandae me85 moriae (ad) sempiternum milites, Iudaei, gentiles, christiani, proselyti, clarissimi senatores, nobiles iudices, nautae, serui et omnis pene ciuitas certatim occurrit, ut uiderent an resurgere possit Lazarus, cuius foetor iam longius de sepulchro populos feriebat. Quo uiso, tota ciuitas miraba-

66 cf. Varro, De re rustica, 3,17,4 hoses, 2,27-28

73/83 cf. Apuleius, Metamorp

172

ON LAZARUS

there, Jesus Christ? How fragrant, how glorious were you, purer than spring-water, brighter than snow, clearer than the moon, seven times more resplendent than the sun? Alas, what am I asking him, whom I did not deserve to see then? But now I have come to recognize in love who and how great you are. Behold! it is said that in those circum stances Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, wept. Come, come Potamius, servant of the living God, if you are capa ble of something, speak a few words about the Lord's tears. God wept, moved by the tears of mortals, and although he was about to release Lazarus from the bond of death by the exercise of his power, he fulfilled the requirement of human affection with the comfort of his sympathetic tears. God wept, not because he learned that the young man had died before him, but in order to moderate the sister's out pourings of grief. God wept, in order that God might do, with tears and compassion, what human beings do on be half of their fellow men. God wept, because human nature had fallen to such an extent that, after being expelled from eternity, it had come to love the lower world. God wept, because those who could be immortal, the devil made mortal. God wept, because those whom he had rewarded with every benefit and had placed under his power, those whom he had set in paradise, among flowers and lilies without any hardship, the devil, by teaching them to sin, exiled from almost every delight. God wept, because those whom he had created innocent, the devil through his wickedness, caused to be found guilty. Alas thin emenation from heaven, the body that you had directed, you left with its limbs collapsing. But neither the Father nor the Son ever despised you. In order to free you from death even Christ himself was made mortal. At the sight of their tears and their pitiable scattered locks of hair, the Saviour, moved by compassion, repayed their weeping with his own weeping; thus, since he him self was moved by the sisters' mourning, even in heaven the Father was touched by the tears of his Son, our Saviour. Then Jesus Christ reached Lazarus' grave. Immediately the stones are removed at his command, the secret place

DE LAZARO (Potami Versio)

173

90 tur. Qualis illic eras, Christe Iesu. Quam croceus, quam decorus, fonte purior, niue candidior, luna clarior, septies sole candentior. Heu me, quid interrogo quem tunc uidere non merui? Nunc tamen quis quantusue sis pietate cognoui. Ecce inter haec Iesus Christus saluator humani gene95 ris fleuisse narratur. Age age Potami, seruus dei uiui, si aliquid praeuales, de lacrimis domini uel pauca narrate Flebat deus mortalium lacrimis excitatus et, cum Lazarum potestate sua fretus mortis de uinculo reuocaret, praestabat pietatis officium solacio lacrimarum. Flebat 100 deus, non quod ante se mortuum perisse cognosceret, sed quod sororum fletibus temperaret. Flebat deus ut quod ho mines pro hominibus facerent deus lacrimis et pietate monstraret. Flebat deus cur usque ad hoc mortalitas deliquisset ut discussa de perennitatibus inferos adamasset. 105 Flebat deus quod eos qui immortales esse potuerunt diabolus fecit esse mortales. Flebat deus quod eos quibus omnia donauerat et in potestatem redegerat, paradiso etiam floribus et liliis sine ullo labore praeposuerat, diabolus docendo peccatum de omnibus pene fecit extorres. Fle110 bat deus quod eos quos fecerat innocentes diabolus per malitiam suam fecit inueniri nocentes. Heu tenuis aura de caelo, corpus quod rexeras succiduis artubus deserebas. Sed non te pater, non Alius aliquando despexit. Pro tua morte factus est et Christus ipse mortalis. 115 Harum ad lacrimas et sparsam crinis miserandi caesariem saluator pietate commotus fletus fletibus recontrabat; et quia ipse sororum fletibus mouebatur, lacrimis filii sui saluatoris nostri etiam inter ipsos caelos eius paternitas flectebatur. 120 Mox ergo Iesus Christus ad sepulchrum Lazari accessit. Statim iussione eius reuoluuntur saxa, secretarium patescit

103/106 cf. Augustinus, Contra Iulianum, 1,6,24; Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem opus imperfectum, 6,7 109 cf. Lucifer Calaritanus, De non parcendo, 22,5

174

ON LAZARUS

of horror is open out to view. The inquiring eyes of the bewailing people were allowed to watch to satisfaction in side the cave. Behold: the voice of our Lord the Saviour said: "Come, Lazarus". And, as Christ demonstrated and foresaw, when the dead man came out those who cast their curious eyes so eagerly into the cave, when he emerged, were overcome with fear and ran far away. Lazarus appeared with his face covered, bound hand and foot, and in order to prove his merits he himself, who had died and was still enchained, untied himself with his own hands, as Christ had ordered. What exclamations, I ask you brothers, were uttered there. What a crowd of onlookers. How attentive were the eyes of the amazed people. What a multitude of people hung upon the shoulders of those in front of them. What tears, what delights. What a roaring. What an unheard-of and divine miracle. Death is overcome, the man is restored, the chains of the underworld are broken. And after four days Lazarus' ton gue stirs, his hands get ready for their duty, his eyes re volve quickly in their sockets, his feet disentangle and take steps, his hearing returns to his ears, his glance turns to his kindred. His eyes, brought back to life, take in his re lations; familiar voices rush back to his ears. On all sides the crowd vies to kiss the feet of the Saviour. Cold water is required, bread is not refused, they make their way home, they spread the word of Christ's miracles. To whom be glory world without end Amen.

DE LAZARO (Potami Versio)

125

130

135

140

145

175

horroris. Curiosi adfatim in specum gementium populorum oculi mittebantur. Ecce uox domini saluatoris: 'Lazare - inquit - ueni'. Et, ut Christus docet et praeuidet, exeunte mortuo, qui curiosos oculos in antrum sollicitius praetendebant, ueniente foras, expauescente formidine longius recurrebant. Visus est Lazarus tecta facie, manibus pedibusque constrictus, et ad documenta uirtutum ipse se, mortuus et adhuc uinculatus, ut Christus iusserat, suis manibus resoluebat. Quae, rogo uos fratres, illic uoces. Quae pressura uidentium. Quam curiosa mirantium lumina. Qualis in ceruicibus praeuenientium multitudo pendebat. Qui fletus, quae gaudia. Quale murmur. Quam nouum et caeleste miraculum. Mors uincitur, homo redditur, inferorum catenae franguntur. Et post quatriduum Lazari lingua mouetur, manus officio praeparantur, oculi suis in orbibus currunt, uestigia gressibus explicantur, auribus renouatur auditus, acies dirigitur in parentes. Cognatio rediuiuis obtutibus numeratur, uox prosapiae currit in auribus. Vestigia saluatoris undique aduersis motibus oscula recognoscunt. Frigida poscitur, non respuitur panis, domus petitur, Christi miracula referuntur. Cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum amen.

138/142 cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 11,13,3-5

SYNOPSIS VERSIONVM

DE LAZARO (Versio "Chrys") Grandi, fratres, stupore grandi miraculo hinc inde fluctibus tollor. Lazarus mortuus est et ut terrenis artubus uel membris foetentibus debebatur sepultus est et humatus.

Inscriptio: De Lazaro resuscitato O A Zn Va Mb Omelia de Lazaro resuscitato XVIII Wb XVIII Incipit omelia de Lazaro resuscitato Ba Incipit omelia eiusdem Sancti Iohannis de Lazaro resuscitato P Tp Y Incipit omelia eiusdem Sancti Iohannis de Lazaro resuscitato XVIII F G Incipit omelia eiusdem Sancti Iohannis de Lazaro resusci tato capitulum XVIII L Sa I Incipit omelia eiusdem de Lazaro resus citato / Ro Incipit omelia eiusdem de Lazaro resuscitato capitulum XVIII Nr Incipit omelia XVI de Lazaro resuscitato C Incipit ome lia Sancti Iohannis de Lazaro resuscitato Do Sancti Iohannis Grisostomi de Lazaro resuscitato LXXIII H Sequitur Sancti Iohannis episcopi de Lazaro resuscitato Q Sermo Beati Iohannis Crisostomi episcopi de resurectione Lazari Ei Sermo de Lazaro Ez resurrectione add. Ex marg. Item Sermo eiusdem de Lazaro suscitato K Capi tulum XVIII Item Omelia de Lazaro resuscitato Ph i grandi] grande Phi hinc] hic Fi et add. Ba inde] deinde Roi 3 mortuus] mortuos Oi et ut] et quod C Tp Y et in G artubus] artibus O F Pi Roi uel ... fetentibus (1. 4)] uel membris foetoribus OA F G Pi Phi Ro L Sa I Ba J Nr Do Zn H Va uel membris facto libet Q

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen") Grandi, fratres, stupore grandique miraculo per ambiguas curas hinc inde in concauo uertiginis sinu pronis fluctibus torqueor. Lazarus mortuus est, deo hic familiaris, ut ferunt teste 5 euangelio, cum apud Iohannem quadragenariae uoluntatis gestu carnis detrimenta pensasset. Nam sub occasu iam propero, quod terrenis artubus debebatur, hoc est ipsi humo quam homini, - ut nobis ipsis iuxta librum Genesis opimus luti liquor in causa est, - longe alibi Christo cenio sore, dum Iudaeae finibus salutaria foeneraret, sepultus est et humatus; hoc est ut inciperet esse quod fuerat, lutum scilicet, dum desinit esse quod erat forma uel fabula. Hic quippe, per graues tenebrarum globos et nigri horroris umbracula, hoc est per quatuor dierum circulos, suc15 cidua incrementi et decrementi uicissitudine renascentes, - octo, ut ita dixerim, cum caerulis noctibus dies, - pendulo mandibularum rictu, elisis in ore dentibus, uetito ore

Inscriptio: Tractatus de Lazaro R Pi U B N Fai Lg Ox hic sermo sequitur in finem post interpretationes psalmi CXXXI add. Fa) marg. Tractatus de Lazaro capitulum XXXVI T V Tractatus de Lazaro XXXVI X De Lazaro XXXVI Z Ca D W Pa S De Lazaro capitulum trigesimum sextum M 1 grandi] randi B Lg ambiguas] ambigeas Lgi 2 uertiginis] uertinis B uoraginis propos. Spar. 4 est] om. B ut ferunt] ut fertur B S Ox scr.in parenth. teste euangelio, cum apud Iohannem (1. 5)] teste euangelio apud Iohannem, cum Wilm. cum teste euangelio apud Iohannem Ball. 5 Iohannem] Ioannem R Z M Ca W Pa S X qua dragenariae] quadregenariae Oxi uoluntatis] aetatis prop. Ball, uitae prop. Spar. 6 detrimenta] deternitate B occasu] ocasu Ca 7 propero] propenon Pi prope non U propeno Lg Ox Fa Z M Ca D W Pa artubus] artuus Pii artibus Piz marg. U T 8 quam] Oxx marg. magis praem. Ball. Wilm. ipsis] Oxz marg. ipsi Lg 9 opi mus] scripsi cum N Lgi Oxi Fai optimus cett. codd. exclus. Spar. luti] om. R liquor] obducit add. R alibi] a add. Cai censore] super ras. et iterum in marg. scr. Xz censere Oxz censente prop. Spar, absente uel existente prop. Ball, consensore prop. Vega 10 Iudaeae] Iude Lg 11 scilicet] silicet B 13 nigri] nigro Bi 14 quatuor] quattuor Pi U Fa 16 caerulis] rulis B caeruleis Xz 17 rictu] ritu Lgi Z Mz Ca D W Pa ritu ecclesiis Mi elisis] interclusis prop. Spar. uetito] foetido Ball. Wilm.

180 5

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

Contractis igitur membris inter ieiunas et numerabiles costas pellis tetra distenditur et humoris riuus, qui de gurgite uiscerum laxabatur, foetenti iam sentina, per solum cadaueris teter et caeruleus labebatur.

5 contractis] contractus Oi membris] menbris P Nr Zn ieiunas] ieiunus Oi numerabiles] scripsi cum K innumerabiles cett. codd. 6 costas] castas Oi tetra] thetra Va terra Wb humoris] umoris Pi humor Ph riuus] riuos Tp Y ribus H qui] quae Ro gurgite] gurgitae L Do scr. post uiscerum 7 laxabatur] laxatur Q lazabatur R01 foetenti iam] fetentium Tp Y sentina] sentinae Tp Y sentima E 8 teter] theter Va et] scripsi cum C K om. cett. codd. cae ruleus] caerulus G O L F P Ba E Ph Ro Sa IJ H Q Nr Do Zn Va Mb la bebatur] habebatur F

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

20

25

30

35

181

sic iacuit, uere quia de terrena labe confectus, putris gleba, marcesceret et neruorum traduces cum corporis qualitate miserabili tabo infelix sepultura damnaret. Contractis igitur membris inter ieiunas et numerabiles costas pellis tetra distenditur et humoris riuus qui de gurgite uiscerum relaxatur foetenti iam sentina per solum cadaueris teter et caeruleus labebatur. Heu, quando non poterat cadauer, quatuor diebus et quatuor noctibus, per totum oris fellis et flegmatis flumina sentinarum, corruptis artubus foetentia pulmonis spiramenta conflare? cum ipsa etiam rosa pudoris et uenustatis fragranti folio in suo sibimet parato balsamo, ut ita dixerim, pretiosior, contra si fuerit de rosario falce pollicis uellicata, marcenti morte tristis albescat, ita ut et colore floris careat et odore. Aqua ipsa, si de flumine rapta sit in quo uiuit, perit, natura dum desinit esse quod uixit. Mox ergo, quia elementi sui, dum rapitur, substantia caret, ubicumque iacuerit, limum liquor obducit, mox et foetore sordescit.

18 sic iacuit] sic tacuit B iacuit sic Lg putris] putres Pi putrens U B N Lg Ox Fai gleba] gleua Pi TVB in marg. mandibulae add. T) 19 marcesceret] marcesseret Lg et neruorum traduces cum] om. B 20 damnaret] dampnaret B 21 numerabiles] miserabiles Lg te tra] tecta B terra W 22 humoris] umoris Pi qui] que Ni gur gite] gurgitis Pi U T V B Ox relaxatur] relaxantur T V in marg. de cadaueribus add. V3 23 sentina] iterum scr. 73 marg. teter] iter W 24 caeruleus] caerulus Pi U T V B X labebatur] labetur B 25 quatuor] quattuor Pi U Fa 26 oris] horis Pi U orbis D fel lis] felis N Ox Fa flegmatis] scripsi flumatis T V fleugmatis Lg fleumatis cett. codd. flemmatis Wilm. phlegmatis Vega 27 corruptis] artuus add. T artubus] artuus Pii V1 B artibus Px marg. foeten tia] fetencia T sententia B 28 uenustatis] uenustatus Lgi 29 fra granti] flagranti Pi U TX dixerim] direrim M 30 pretiosior] preciosior Lg Fax M Ca D W Pa contra] conca Pi U Vz N Lg Ox Fai casi Vi concasi T B pollicis] policis N Lg Ox Fa X uellicata] uelicata 0*2 31 albescat] abbescat Pi et] om. R N Lg Oxi Fai W Ball. colore] colorem Pi T V B N Lg Oxi falce pollicis uellicata] iterum scr. T) marg. 32 odore] odorem Pi T V B N Lg Oxi aqua] a qua V Fa 33 pe rit] parit U natura] naturam U dum] cum Lg 34 quia elementi] quia dum rapitur elementi Bi quia elementis Xi substantia] substancia T substantia sua Cai 35 limum] linum Pi U obducit] abdicit B obduxit N Lg Ox Fai abducit Ball. Wilm. Vega sordescit] sordexit Ca

182

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

40

45

50

55

183

Nemo ergo mirari debeat, si hominis, - quem spiritus, sapientiae sale conditum, redolenti aura seruauerat et ex caeli suauitate anima uiuacitate nectarea et balsami generositate melliflua rexerat, ne faceret diuortio recedentis spiritus lutea malis pigra glebositas caduca linea defunctorum, repugnantibus fabricae qualitatibus, - corpus omne ad foetoris maculam sui de putredine relaxetur. Inde est quod, per distantiam rerum in unam glomerationem compacta, omnis membrorum natura torpescit. Recedente igitur anima quae corporis floriarium recolebat, tota materies liuenti gena in putredinem relaxatur et pro uoce cadaueris nigri fellis teter mortui foetor hauritur. Terra igitur humore frigore et calore composita corporis fabrica, - quae quatuor partes semper sibimet repugnantes corpus criminum in procella subuertunt: calor frigus non amat et frigus calore torquetur, contraria contrariis mancipantur, terra nimio humore uitiatur et humor de terra sordescit, - his quadriformibus elementis in unum quadripartita mole constantibus, dissociato per diuortium mortis au-

37 debeat] debet S hominis] scripsi cum R hominem cett. codd. 38 sapientiae] sapienciae T sale] sal Pi U T V B N Lg Ox Fai 39 uiuacitate] unde praem. Pi U T V B N Lg Oxi Fai undae praem. Vega generositate melliflua (1. 40)] iterum scr. 73 marg. 40 mel liflua] meliflua N Ox Fa rexerat] corpus praem. codd. exc. R ne] cum prop. Spar. faceret] fieret Ball. Wilm. 41 malis] moles et Bag. Ball. Wilm. glebositas] gleuositas Pi U T V B X caduca linea ... qualitatibus (1. 42)] excl. Spar. linea] linena M 42 repugnantibus] repugnatibus B qualitatibus] qualitatis Lg 43 relaxetur] scripsi cum R S relaxatur cett. codd. 44 distantiam] distanciam T discordiam prop. Spar. glomerationem] glumerationem Pi compacta] conpacta Pi 45 omnis] omnes U natura] matura Ph X scr. ante membrorum recedente] raecedenti Vi raecendente Vi 46 anima] om. B corporis] corpori Pi U T V B N Lg Ox Fai floriarium] iterum scr. T) marg. 47 liuenti] libenti Pi U T V B N Lg Oxi Fai 48 nigri] rigri B fellis] felis TV Fa felix Lg Ox om. W mortui] excl. Spar. hauritur] auritur Pi U B 49 humore] in more B composita] compositi B corporis] corpo Lg 50 quatuor] quattuor Pi U Fa semper] om. R X 51 subuertunt] subuertuntur Di 52 mancipantur] iterum scr. 7*3 marg. 53 humore] homore T uitiatur] uiciatur Vi N Ox Fa Z M Ca D W Pa uicciatur T uici uiciatur Lg humor] homor T 54 his] hiis B quadripartita] quadripertita T V B N W 55 mole] molle Fa dissociato] dissortiato T dissotiato B X dissociatio Z M Ca D W Pa diuortium] diuorcium Ox

184

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

Seel quia istum iuuenem, Lazarum quem loquor, dominus in saeculo dilexit, praesaga uoce prescius futurorum apostolis suis dormire Lazarum dixit et quem promisit, si ad illam ciuitatem accederet, protinus excitandum. Huic ergo Lazaro, cui per caerulas uenas membra tabuerant, quem locatum spelunca incisae rupis, inmani obiectus ex pondere lapis, perennis ualua, detruserat, bono maiestatis munere serena augustae uirtutis aeternitas [saluator] flectitur pietate, et ad sorores pueri, quae lacero crine sparsos per genas tristes capillos obduxerant, resurgere posse Lazarum, si ista crederent, sacratissima uera dei pietas intonabat. 9 sed] set Zn loquor] locor F 10 in saeculo] E scr. ante praesaga (1. 9) dilexit] scripsi cum CTp Y dixisset Oi Ei dilexisset cett. codd. praesaga] et praem. Tp Y prescius] praescius P Ph 11 et] om. C si] se Y 11 ad] scripsi cum C ut Tp Y om. cett. codd. accede ret] excederet G accenderet Ei accedere/ excitandum] extitandum E 13 ergo] E scr. post Lazaro Lazaro] iuueni Mb caerulas] caeruleas A C K membra tabuerant] membra tabuerunt O Sa menbra tabuerant P membrat habuerant F 14 quem locatum ... detruserat (1.15)] om. Mb locatum] scripsi cum C Ba K Tp YE locus G2 locatus cett. codd. spelunca] speluncam G incisae rupis] incisa rupis P Nr E Tp Y incise rupis C F Wb incisa erupis G Ph Ro Sa Doi Va incisa aerupis L inmani] inmanis Pz Zn immani C J obiectus] abiectus Sa Do Va obitus Gz et add. Pz E 15 ex] om. C Sa2 Do Tp Y Va pe rennis] conieci perhenni C Sa Ba J Nr Do Zn E Va Wb perhempni Tp Y perenni cett. codd. ac add. Pz E ualua] scripsi cum C Tp Y G2 uulua Q ualia K ualida cett. codd. detruserat] tetruserat Ph detenserat Tp decrescerat Y destruserat Ci bono] scripsi cum C bone Y bonu G bona cett. codd. 16 maiestatis] maiestas K maiestate Mb mayestatis E magestatis Tp munere] scripsi cum C Y munera O F Wb muneri G P Ph L IJBa Nr K muneris AH Q numeri Ro Sa Doi Zn E immuneri Va munera tribuuntur Mb serena ... uirtutis (1. 15)] om. Mb serena augustae] scripsi cum C auguste serenum Do Va serenum angustae Tp Y Wb serenum agustae F secretum augustae E serenum augustae cett. codd. uirtutis] uirtutes Oi saluator] expunxi cum Mb 17 pietate] pietati H ad] ut Q pueri] om. Do Va Mb quae] scripsi cum K om. Mb quas cett. codd. lacero] scripsi cum C Ph 1 H Q Tp Y laceros K Lazari Mb Lazaro cett. codd. 18 crine] scripsi cum C Tp Y om. Mb crines cett. codd. sparsos] persos Fi spersos A Fz G O Ph Ro L Sa J I Ba Nr H Wb sparsus Tp Y sparssos E perfusus C om. Mb per] quarum add. Mb genas] genos Oi capillos] capillas Oi capillus C Y capilli sparsi Mb obduxerant] obduxerat C Bai obduxant E defluxerant Mb resurgere] eum add. Wilm. 19 Lazarum] om. Wilm. si] om. A ista]islaeOPCLRoJBaNrDo iste F G Ph Sa I Zn H Tp YEVaWb ita K rmsus A om. Mb sacratissima] om. Mb uera] uere AFOzPPhLSaIJNrDoZnHQTpYEVaWb uero G uerae Oi ueri K om. C Mb 20 pietas] piaetas /

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

185

riga qui quatuor istis partibus loca dederat, ne quisquam mobilitatem sui uehementius tolleret, dominante flagro diuisis in unum concordanti iunctura finibus agitabat, hae, inquam, quatuor partes, recedente anima, in globum 60 corporis uiduati, excusso societatis auctore, miscentur. Sed quia istum iuuenem - Lazarum loquor - dominus in saeculo dilexerat, praesaga, prescius futurorum apostolis suis dormisse Lazarum dixit. Quem promisit, si ad illam ciuitatem accederet, protinus excitandum. 65 Huic ergo Lazaro, cui liuenti, errante connixu per caerulas uenas membra tabuerant, quem loculatum in specu incisae rupis, immani obiectus ex pondere lapis, perennis ualua, grauis libra, detruserat, resurgere posse Lazarum, si ista crederent, sacratissima uera dei pietas intonabat.

56 quatuor] quattuor Pi U 57 mobilitatem] nobilitatem X uehe mentius] uehmentius T V tolleret] tolleretur Pi U T V B N Lg Ox Fai toleret X dominante] et dominante Ball. Wilm. dominateitem M $8 concordanti] concordatim Lg finibus] funibus Pi T B X 59 hae] haec Pi U T VB X inquam] igitur in U in qua B inquam M quatuor] quattuor Pi U Fa recedente] recedenti Pi U T VB N Lg Ox 60 uiduati] uiduiati Oxi induati W societatis] sotietatis B miscentur] miscenter Pa 61 istum] iustum D Lazarum loquor] Lazari loquor T Elazarum loquor D Pa scr in parenth. dominus] dominum Pi U T B Ni Fa Z M Ca D W Pa X 62 dilexerat] scripsi cum R S dilexisset Ox dilexisse cett. codd. praesaga] om. R S prece saga Pi U praesagia T praesagiis Z M Ca D W Pa X 64 protinus] proptinus Lg 65 huic] hunc R S Lazaro] N marg. Lazarum R S iuueni Mb cui liuenti] cuilibet fabricae B cui libenti Pi U T V N Lg Oxi Fai connixu] conixu Pi T V N cerulas] caeruleas U 66 lo culatum] scripsi cum Ball. Wilm. luculatus Pi T Fa Ca X(etiam marg.) loculatus U VB Oxx Z M D W Pa uiculatus N Lg Oxi in specu] in spe cui Pi U T V B N Lg Oxi Fai 67 obiectus] obtectus prop. Spar. pe rennis] conieci perhenni Pi Z M Ca D W perhemni U perenni cett, codd. 68 ualua] ualuae prop. Spar. resurgere] eum add Wilm. Lazarum] om. Wilm. 69 uera] uere PiUTVBZMCaDWPaX ueri N Lg (post dei) Ox Fai K intonabat] intimabat B

186

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

Mox sorores, constipante turba miraculi, eiulatu aestu ieiuniis lacrimarum ubertatibus ebriatae, dei genibus stratu totius corporis miserande iactantur. Heu luctus pius, precum pulsus tenuante defectu, carmine palpitante. Sorores 25 lacrimas pro germano fundebant et hebraeas graecas cessando uoces fractis in unum singultibus mixtas, saluatoris in laudibus expiabant. Quis illic, rogo uos, populi festinatus. Quae spectantium turba. Qualis tanti miraculi potuit esse conuentus, ubi es30 sent plangentes puellae, mortuus frater, et Christus fratrem promitteret excitandum. Conuenerunt, credo, ad hoc spectaculum seruandae me moriae (ad) sempiternum milites, Iudaei, gentiles, christi-

21 constipante] constipate Nn Mb miraculi] mirabili K Y Mb curiosa add. Wilm. eiulatu] heiulatu A F O C Ph Ro L IJ Ba Nr H K eiulatum E Tp heiulatum Pz Y hieiulatum Pi heiulatu C aestu] mesto C esto Tp Y in marg. de sororibus Lazari add. Ba^ 22 ieiuniis] ieiunis C ubertatibus] ubertate Pi ebriatae] ebrietate A G L R01 Sa JDoZnEVa ebriaetate Ph I aebrietate P ebriaetate ubertate F ebrie tate ubertate O Wb ebrietatae Q ebriate Tp Y ebriate et K om. Mb dei] scripsi cum C Q deinc Nn de hinc Ro Ba K Va Wbi dehinc cett. codd. stratu] statu Ei Wb strato Tp 23 miserande] miserandae OAGLJBaDoHQ mirande Ro iactantur] eluctantur Q precum pulsus (1. 24)] praecum pulsus A Ro C G O I precumpulsus F precumpulssus E preconpulsus P 24 defectu] deffectu E deffectum Y om. Wb palpitante] scripsi cum Phz palpitanti C Nr Tp Y Mb palpiti Sai palpitari H palpitant Q palpitate Phi K palpitati cett. codd. 25 fundebant] fuderunt K hebraeas] scripsi cum Ba ebraeas N Lg Oxi Fai ebreas E hebreas cett. codd. graecas cessando] conieci grecissando C Roz Tp gracissando Ba greziszando A grecis sando R01G I J Nn Zn grecis sonando F O Mb Wb greces sonando E grecessonando P gregis sando H grecas cessabo Q graecessando cett. codd. 26 singultibus] scripsi cum A Cz Tp Y E Va Mb Wb inglutientibus Q singulcientibus K singultientibus cett. codd. mixtas] scripsi cum I Do marg. Va om. cett. codd. 27 expiabant] excitabant C expiebant Ro 28 quis] qualis Mb illic] illec Zn festinatus quae] festinat usque P festinatusque A G L Sa Zn Q festinatus qui Ro festinatur quae / festinatio quae Mb usque E spectantium] expectantium A O P I Y Mb expectancium F E Tp K Wb 29 tanti] tanta E 30 plangentes] plangentis K Y mortuus] mortuos Oi mortuum Sa Do Zn Va frater] fratrem Sa Do Zn Va fratrem] mortuum add. Wb 31 promitteret] promiteret / 32 spectaculum] expectaculum Pi exspectaculum Pz seruandae] seruanda G P L Sa Nr Zn E seruandum Mb om. Tp Y memoriae] memoria Pz E om. Tp Y 33 ad] addidi cum Wilm. sempiternum] sempiternae Mb sempiterne Wb christiani] cristiani F om. Mb

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

187

70

Mox sorores, constipatae turba miraculi, eiulatu aestu ieiuniis lacrimarum ubertatibus ebriatae, dei genibus stratu totius corporis miserande iactantur, et hebraeas graecas cessando uoces fractis in unum singultibus mixtas, saluatoris in laudibus expiabant. 75 Quantus illic, rogo uos, populi festinatus. Quae spectantium turba. Qualis tanti miraculi potuit esse concentus, ubi essent plangentes puellae, mortuus frater, et Christus hominem promitteret excitandum. Conuenerunt, credo, ad hoc spectaculum seruandae memoriae (ad) sempiternum

70 miraculi] om. S curiosa add. Wilm. eiulatu] heiulatu B N 71 ieiuniis] ieiunis Pi Lg lacrimarum] lachrimarum U ubertati bus] urbertatibus B ebriatae] ebrietate U T V B N Lg Ox Fai M stratu] feratu B N 72 miserande] miserandae Aft M X hebraeas] hebreocrgre B ebraeas N Lg Oxi Fai graecas cessando (1. 73)] conieci cessando B graecissando Tz marg. graecessando cett. codd. 73 in] excl. Spar. 74 expiabant] expiabunt T V complicabant prop. Spar. 75 illic] illec Wi populi] populus Wi rogo uos po puli] X scr.in parenth . festinatus quae] festinatus qui Ox 76 mi raculi] iterum scr. 73 marg. concentus] contentus N Lg Ox Fai ubi] nisi N Lg Oxi 78 promitteret] promicteret U 79 sempiternum] ad praemisi cum Wilm.

188

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

ani, proselyti, nautae, nobiles, serui, senatores et iudices. 35 An resurgere possit, cuius foetor longius de sepulchro populos feriebat, tota ciuitas mirabatur. Qualis illic eras, Iesu Christe. Quam croceus, quam decorus, fonte purior, niue candidior, luna clarior, septies sole candentior. Ecce inter haec, Christe Iesu domine deus, 40 fleuisse narraris. Age age seruus dei uiui, si aliquid praeuales, de lacrimis domini uel pauca narrate Flebat deus mortalibus lacrimis excitatus et, cum Lazarum potestate sua fretus mortis de uinculis reuocaret, praestabat pietatis officium solacio lacrimarum. Flebat 45 deus, non quod ante se mortuum perisse cognosceret, sed quod sororum fletibus temperaret. Flebat deus ut quod ho mines pro hominibus facerent deus lacrimis et pietate monstraret. Flebat deus cur usque ad hoc mortalitas deli-

34 proselyti] proseliti O P F C Ro Sa IJ Nr Do Zn H K Tp Y E Va Mb Wb prosileti A seliti Phi selyti Phx serui] R01 scr. bis 35 possit] pos set A C Tp Y Wb cuius] cuiu Gi longius] longior /1 sepulchro] sepulcro I H Tp Y E Va saeculo E (ante correctionem) populos] populus GOFJL populum Wb 37 qualis] o praem. Mb quam (10)] quem J croceus] troceus Sa cruceus Ro J decorus] dechorus F 38 luna] lana O F G P Ph Ro L Sa I Bai Nr Do H Q E Va Mb Wb om. J clarior] om. J septies] sepcies F Tp K Wb species E 39 can dentior] candidior K candencior F Wb Christe Iesu] Iesu Christe Tp Y domine deus] om. Wb 40 fleuisse] flebisse O R01 G F L ali quid] aliquis Ph praeuales] praeualis F G Phi praevaleas Roi 41 de] dae O narrato] Sax sup. lin. narracio F 42 lacrimis] lachrimis H excitatus] excitus /1 exitatus Va excitatis Y in marg. fletus Christi add. £3 43 fretus] scripsi cum C Ba Tp Y Wb fletu A non fletu K letus Doz Va om. Mb fletus cett. codd. mortis] Mb scr. post de reuocaret] poterat reuocare / D01 Va reuocare Q reuocabat Pi in marg. flebat deus flebat deus add. /C3 44 officium] offitium/ solacio] solatia CI solacia Tp Y solutioAffo solatio F Ph L Sa J Nr Do Zn E lacrimarum] scripsi cum Mb lamentatorum Pz E lamentorum cett. codd. in marg. flebat deus flebat deus add. A3 45 ante] a K 46 fletibus] fletus C Tp Mb Wb temperaret] obtemperaret G ut] om. O A F G P Ph Roi Li Sa Ba J Nr Do Zn H Q E Va Mb quod] quid O2 F P C Ph Ro L Sa I Ba J Nr Do Zn H Q E Va Mb Wb homines] hominis Phi omnes Tp Y 47 lacrimis] lachrimis H lacrimas P E et] E scr. post deus deus lacrimis ... monstraret (1. 48)] Cz marg. 48 mostraret] monstrat Mb monstrauit Wb flebat deus cur ... adamasset (1. 49)] retulit Augustinus in Contra Iulianum 1,6,24 deus] Christus Aug. ut add. Lz cur usque] quur usque O G Ph L Sa Nr H qur usque F quoniamAfb ad hoc] K scr. ante usque deliquisset] et add. codd. ( Do Va Wb post ut ) exc. C I Mb

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

189

80 milites, Iudaei, gentiles, proselyti, clarissimi senatores, nobiles iudices, nautae, serui et omnis pene ciuitas certatim occurrit, ut uiderent an resurgere possit Lazarus, cuius foetor iam longius de sepulchro populos feriebat. Quo uiso, tota ciuitas mirabatur. Qualis illic eras, Christe Iesu. Quam 85 croceus, quam decorus, fonte purior, niue candidior, sole candentior et luna septies clarior. Heu me, quid interrogo quem tunc uidere non merui? Nunc tamen quis quantusue sis pietate cognoui. Ecce inter haec Iesus Christus saluator humani generis fleuisse narratur. Age age Potami, seruus 90 dei uiui, si aliquid praeuales, de lacrimis domini uel pauca narrato. Flebat deus mortalium lacrimis excitatus et, cum Lazarum potestate sua fretus mortis de uinculo reuocaret, praestabat pietatis officium solacio lacrimarum. Flebat 95 deus, non quod ante se mortuum perisse cognosceret, sed quod sororum fletibus temperaret. Flebat deus quod eos quibus omnia donauerat et in potestatem redegerat, paradiso etiam floribus et liliis sine ullo labore praeposuerat,

80 proselyti] proseliti Pi U B N Lg Ox Fa Z M Ca D W Pa nobiles] om. T V in marg. de Lazaro mirabile add. V3 81 nautae] om. R Ball. 83 iam] scripsi cum N Lg Ox Pai Zz om. cett. codd. sepul chro] sepulcro B N W Ball. populos] populum X foetor populos feriebat] iterum scr. T) marg. 84 mirabatur] om. T V in marg. nobilitas corporis Lazari add. K3 86 luna] lunae Pi U TV B lana OF G P Ph L Sa I Bai Nr Do H Q E Va Mb 87 quantusue] quantus ne T 88 inter] inter inter T Iesus Christus] Christus Iesus TV 89 hu mani generis] generis humani B Age age Potami ] scripsi cum Ball. age ago phota mi U age age phota mi N age agephota mi Xi age agephotami Xx marg. age age photami cett. codd. 90 lacrimis] lachrimis U lacrimi W lachrymis X domini] om. Cai in marg. Christus Christus fleuit add. V) in marg. aliud dominus fleuisse dicitur add. B} 92 lacrimis] lachrimis U lachrymis X in marg. quare deus fleuit quando Lazarum suscitauit add. 73 93 sua] om. Lg fre tus] fletus Pi U 94 praestabat] om. Lg officium] offitium Lg sola cio] scripsi cum M solatio cett. codd. lacrimarum] lachrimarum U Oxz 95 perisse] periisse V N Lg Ox Fa 96 fletibus] fletus Xz marg. deus] om. Bi 97 potestatem] potestate Pi U T V B N Lg Ox re degerat] redigerat Pi U T VN WX redigerit B paradiso] eos quos in add. Wilm.

190

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

quisset ut discussa de perennitatibus inferos adamasset. so Flebat deus quod eos qui immortales esse potuerunt diabolus fecit esse mortales. Heu tenuis aura de caelo, corpus quod rexeras succiduis artubus deserebas. Sed non te pater, non filius aliquando despexit. Pro tua morte factus est et Christus ipse mortalis. 55 Flebat Maria et fratre mortuo soror Martha plangebat. Harum ad lacrimas saluator pietate commotus fletus fletibus contrahebat, ut, quia ipse sororum lacrimis mouebatur, filii sui etiam inter ipsos caelos paternitas flecteretur. Reuoluuntur saxa, secretarium patescit horroris. Curiosi 60 adfatim gentium populorum oculi mittebantur in antrum.

49 discussa] discussas Pi excussa Aug. C Y dicussa Nn decussa Nrz difusa E repulsa Mb maiestas praem. Kx marg. de] om. Nn perennitatibus] perhennitatibus C I Ba J Nr Do Zn E Va Mb Wb perepnitatibus Tp Y inferos] inferus / Q adamasset] adamaret Aug. 50 flebat deus quod ... esse mortales (1. 51)] denuo recitauit Augustinus in Contra Iulianum 1,6,24, sed etiam in Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem VI, y flebat] fidelis Mbi deus] Christus Aug. quod eos] quod eos quod eos Gi immortales] inmortales O F G P Ph Ro EJ Ba Wilm. potuerunt] poterant Aug. in Contra Iulianum 1,6,24 (sed potuerunt in Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem VI, j) diabolus] dyabolus K Tp Y Mb Wb diabulus Wilm. 51 fecit] scripsi cum Aug. fecisset codd. 52 corpus] Do Va scr. ante succiduis rexeras] scripsi cum C Y Mb rex erat O P L rexerat cett. codd. 53 artubus] artibus Pi E deserebas] deserebat Ro Ba Wb sed] set Zn te] om. Q filius] te praem. Wilm. 54 despexit] G sup. lin. dexpexit / et] om. C Mb Christus] Cx marg. mortalis] inmortalis G 55 fratre] fratrem C mortuo] mortuum C soror] Nrz marg. Martha] Marta FJi E 56 ad] et O F Wb ex Mb P sup. lin. lacrimas] lacrimis Mb et add. Ball. Wilm. fletus] suis K 57 contrahebat] contraibat Phx econtrahebat F P Wb e contra resonabat H econtraibat K consolatur CTpY econtrabat Oi Phi Ro G A L Sa I Ba J Nr Do Zn Q Va ut]etM> quia] quare Mb ipse] ipsa O lacrimis] lachrimis H lacrimis la crimis Mb mouebatur] scripsi cum I D01 marg. Q Va flectebatur C Tp Y om. cett. codd. 58 filii] Alia F pia Wb lacrimis praem. C sui] Dot sup. lin. E scr. ante filii om. O F Mb Wb etiam] eciam K 59 reuoluuntur] reuelluntur G L Sa Nr Do Zn H Q reuelantur APE Wb reueluntur Phi Roi releuantur O F reserantur Mb reuera K saxa] sacra Ei tunc K patescit] patescat P E horroris] orroris Fi 60 adfatim] affatim O2 Ca Ba J Do Zn E Va Mb Wb ad fatum Nr affatum Tp Y adstatim G astant K gentium] gencium F E Tp Va Wb ingencium K gentilium Pi gentium et Mb mittebantur] mittebantr Gi mitebantur C intendebant K antrum] cantrum Fi

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

191

diabolus docendo peccatum de omnibus pene fecit extor100 res. Flebat deus quod eos quos fecerat innocentes diabo lus per malitiam suam fecit inueniri nocentes. Heu tenuis aura de caelo, corpus quod rexeras succiduis artubus deserebas. Sed non te pater, non Alius aliquando despexit. Pro tua morte factus est et Christus ipse mortalis. 105 Harum ad lacrimas et sparsam crinis miserandi caesariem saluator pietate commotus fletus fletibus recontrabat; et quia ipse sororum fletibus mouebatur, lacrimis filii sui saluatoris nostri inter ipsos caelos eius paternitas flectebatur.

99 diabolus] dyabolus TB Z Ca D WPa diabulus Wilm. docendo] om. Xi peccatum] pecatum M de omnibus pene] poene de omni bus T V pene de omnibus B de omnibus poene Xx fecit] inue niri add. Pi inuenire add. U 100 fecerat] fecererat 7i diabolus] dyabolus T B Z Ca D Pa diabulus Wilm. 101 malitiam] maliciam Ox Z M Ca D W Pa X 102 tenuis] tenus R rexeras] texeras {/ suc ciduis] iterum scr. 73 marg. 103 artubus] artibus Pi U T(T3 iterum scr. marg.) V B N Lg Ox Fax deserebas] deferebas V filius] et praem. Xi te praem. Wilm. 105 lacrimas] lachrimas Oxx lachrymas X et add. Ball. Wilm. miserandi] miserandae Pi V T V X miserande cett, codd. caesariem] caesariae W 106 commotus] comotus Pi N recontrabat] recontrahat Lg Wz contrahat Wi econtrabat prop. Spar. 107 mouebatur] commouebatur X lacrimis] lachrimis Oxz H lachrymis X 108 flectebatur] flectabatur V fectebatur Z Ca D W fetebatur M mouebatur Xi

192

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

Ecce uox domini saluatoris: 'Lazare - inquit - ueni'. Et, ut Christus docet et praeuidet, exeunte mortuo, qui curiosos oculos in antrum sollicitius praetendebant, ueniente foras, expauescente formidine longius recurrebant. Visus est 65 tecta facie, manibus pedibusque constrictus, et ad documentum uirtutis ipse se, mortuus adhuc uinculatus, ut Christus iusserat, suis manibus resoluebat. Quae rogo uoces illic, qualis pressura uidentium, quam curiosa mirantium lumina, qualis in ceruicibus praeuenien70 tium multitudo pendebat. Qui fletus, quae gaudia. Quale murmur. Quam nouum et caeleste miraculum. Mors uincitur, homo redditur, inferorum catenae franguntur. Et post quatriduum Lazari lingua mouetur, manus officio praeparantur, oculis uisus redditur, in orbibus cur75 runt, uestigia gressibus explicantur, auribus renouatur auditus, acies dirigitur in parentes. Cognatio recidiuis obtutibus renouatur, uox prosapiae currit in auribus. 61 saluatoris] ait add. I inquit] C Do Va Wilm. scr. post ueni inquid O F G P Sa Nr et] om. C Tp Y P E Ro J scr. post ut ut] haec add. C hec add. Tp Y om. G 62 docet] dicit C om. Tp Y et] om. C Tp Y praeuidet] om. C Tp Y exeunte] exuite A mortuo] mortuum A curiosos] curiosus Oi curiosis Nr Li curioso Q cariosos P2 63 oculos] oculis Nr Lz oculo Q sollicitius] solicitius G sollicicius F K Wb sollicitus Ro E praetendebant] praetendebat Oi ueniente] uenientem O A G F P Ph Ro L Sa J I Ba Nr Do Zn H Q E Va Mb Wb 64 expauescente] expauescenti A F G Ph Ro L Sa J I Ba Nr Do Zn H Q K Va Wb expauescentes C Mb expauescerent E 65 tecta] tacta L Sa Nr Doi Zn taecta Doz facie] fatie / Nr faciem Q pedibusque] pedibus A constrictus] constrictis K 66 se] om. Ro E mortuus] mortuos Tp Y adhuc] adhuic Oi F Pi Ph ad hunc H ad Q uinculatus] uinclatus E pedibus praem. I 6j iusserat] iusserit PE 68 rogo] ergo Zn ergo rogo Wb uoces] uos P (ante correctionem) pressura] praessura Oi presuraFZ precessuraP£ uidentium] uidencium FEK 69 curiosa] curiosim / mirantium] uidentium Nn mirancium F E Tp K Wb irantium J ceruicibus] uerticibus Mb seruicibus E praeuenientium] praeuenencium FEK Wb 70 pendebat] et add. C qui] quae Pi fletus] fletis Ph 71 miraculum] mysterium G 72 inferorum] infernorum H inferiorum Ci catenae] cathenae C F Zn K Tp Y E Va Mb Wb 73 quatriduum] quadriduum O2 Ph Ro L H Q Ez triduum Wb mouetur] mouet Phi 74 officio] offitio F J Nr Zn praeparantur] reparantur C prepantur / praeparentur P oculis] occulis Tp uisus] suis Ro in orbibus] morbidus Zn in urbibus P 75 auditus] Va scr. ante renouatur 76 acies] aties F K scr. ante in parentes dirigitur] scripsi cum C I Doz dirigunt Va dirigontur Li diriguntur cett. codd. cognatio] cognacio G Tp E Wb recidiuis] residuus E 77 renouatur] renonatur Mb renouantur Nn prosapiae) prosapie O F G Ph L

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

193

Mox ergo Iesus Christus ad sepulchrum Lazari accessit. no Statim iussione eius reuoluuntur saxa, secretarium patescit horroris. Curiosi affatim in specum gementium populorum oculi mittebantur. Visus est Lazarus tecta facie, manibus pedibusque constrictus, et ad documenta uirtutum ipse se, mortuus et ad115 huc pedibus uinctus, ut Christus iusserat, suis manibus resoluebat. Quae, rogo uos fratres, illic uoces. Quae pressura uidentium. Quam curiosa mirantium lumina. Qualis in ceruicibus praeuenientium multitudo pendebat. Qui fletus, quae 120 gaudia. Quale murmur. Quam nouum et caeleste miraculum. Mors uincitur, homo redditur, infernorum catenae franguntur. Et post quatriduum Lazari lingua mouetur, manus officio praeparantur, oculi suis in orbibus currunt, uestigia 125 gressibus explicantur, auribus renouatur auditus, acies dirigitur in parentes. Cognatio rediuiuis obtutibus numeratur.

109 sepulchrum] sepulcrum B Lazari] letari B no statim] om. NLg Ox Fai reuoluuntur] resoluuntur Pi U T V B Xi reuuoluuntur M secretarium] se certatim N Lg Ox Fai iussione secretarium] iterum scr. 73 marg. in in specum] spe Pi U T V B N Lg Ox Fai gemen tium] congementium Pi U T V B N Lg Ox Fai 112 mittebantur] initebantur R mictebantur U mitebantur B 114 se] iterum scr. 73 marg. mortuus] iterum scr. T) marg. 117 rogo] ergo N Lg Ox Fai M W uos] nos TV Lg Ox Fai fratres] dilectissimi add. Pi UTBX domini add. V rogo uos fratres dilectissimi X scr.in parenth. 118 curiosa] curio Lg mirantium] uidentium Lg 119 praeuenientium] prece uenientium Pi U qui] quis T V X 120 quale] qualis Pi U 122 red ditur] reditur N catenae] cathenae Faz Z M Ca D W Pa X 123 Et post ... officio praeparantur (1. 124)] Xz marg. quatriduum] quadriduum T B N Lg 124 officio] offitio Lg in orbibus] morbibus Vi Ti 125 gressibus] gresibus Lg renouatur] om. B 126 rediuiuis] scripsi cum Oxz reciduis T recidiuis cett. codd. numeratur] muneratur Ox

194

DA LAZARO (Versio "Chrys")

Vestigia saluatoris unde aduersis motibus oscula recognoscunt. Frigida poscitur et panis nec non et domus peti80 tur, Christi miracula referuntur. Cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum amen.

78 saluatoris] Mb scr. ante uestigia salua C Tp Y unde] hinc inde Wb aduersis motibus] aduersus motibus P Tp Y aduersus montibus E diuersis motibus Wb oscula recognoscunt] oscularecognoscunt Ro F osculare cognoscunt O L Nr Zn obsculare cognoscunt P E oscula recognoscuntur C Tp osculari conantur Wb 79 frigida] om. Mb Wb panis] pannis E petitur] petietur / 80 miracula] uincula Y gloria] honor et praem. K Tp Y Add. Explicit de Lazaro feliciter R Pi Xi Explicit de Lazaro U Do Va finis V Explicit de Lazaro resuscitato OA FGP Ph Ro L I Sa Tp Nr Zn Explicit omelia de Lazaro resuscitato/ Ba Explicit omelia XVI C

DE LAZARO (Versio "Zen")

195

Frigida poscitur, non respuitur panis, domus petitur, Christi miracula referuntur.

127 domus] domi N Lg Fai

petitur] patitur Tpatit V Fai petit X

Add. Explicit de Lazaro feliciter R Pi Xi finis V

Explicit de Lazaro U

DE MARTYRIO ESAIAE PROPHETAE

ON THE MARTYRDOM OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH Since Isaiah prophesied the coming of Christ or since he had reported to the people of Israel the sentence announ cing its future condemnation, the brutality of the Jewish blasphemers burst with such ferocity that they condemned him to the atrocious torture of being cut with a saw and severed from the head into two pieces ... and he [Beliar?] required that his neck was sawn beginning from the head, through the ears, to the shoulders: he thought it was not sufficient that he should transfix the martyr of God with a sharp blade in a frenzy of cruelty and that in the course itself of the torture of an innocent man he should make furrows with strident blows on his ribs by means of a long line of teeth, thus he demanded to cut his body ferociously into two pieces, so as to achieve, in a sense, a double corpse owing to the breaking of the split flesh, and even to saw such body into two nearly perfect halves for the symmetry of the joint. But in this miracle of divine power, because of the hide ous spectacle, you would not be able to find any one, in my opinion, who could even attempt to report the diffe rent events. Therefore consider with attentive gaze the sin

DE MARTYRIO ESAIAE PROPHETAE Esaias cum Christum praedicaret, uel cum futurae damnationis elogium israelitico populo nuntiasset, atroci feritate blasphemantium commota barbarie, sectum eum a capite duabus cum uiolento supplicio quasi offulis bifidarunt ... iussitque a capite per aures usque ad scapulas secari ceruicem, quasi parum fuerit si immanitate lymphatica martyrem dei acuto ense transfoderet, aut in ipsa laniena insontis uiri per iugerum fidiculae saeuientis [per] costas stridente ictu sulcaret, nisi in unum corpus duas offulas gemini pene cadaueris scissae carnis ruptura truculentus appeteret, et duas de aequalitate iuncturae quasi formulas exsecaret. Sed in tanto caelestis palestrae miraculo nullus, ut arbitror, spectaculo resultanti, ita uidere se poterit, qui gesta numerare pertentet. Idcirco sollicitis uisibus ueteris disci8/9 cf. Lucretius, 2,410

Inscriptio: Incipit Tractatus de Esaia R Incipit Tractatus de Esaia XXXVII X S Incipit Tractatus de Esaia capitulum XXXVII V Tractatus Esayae Pi Incipit de Esaia U Tractatus de Ysaya ca pitulum XXXVII T Tractatus de Ysaia B De Martyrio Ysaiae Prophetae XXXVII Z Ca D W Pa De Martyrio Isayae Prophetae capitulum XXXVII M 1 Esaias] Esayas Pi Isaias T Ca W Pa Isayas ZM Saias B D prae dicaret] praediceret S praedicare M damnationis] dampnationis B 2 israelitico] israhelitico Pi T V Z Ca W Pa nuntiasset] nunciasset T Z M Ca VC Pa feritate] ferocitate B X in marg. Isaiae mors add. T) 3 blasphemantium] blasfemantium TB barbarie] conieci barbaries codd. eum] om. Z M Ca D W Pa S X a] om. M 4 duabus] scripsi cum Ball, duobus codd. cum] scripsi cum T Z eum cett. uiolento] uiolenti Pi U T V B bifidarunt] bifoederunt R biffidarunt Ca D X bifidauit Ball. 6 fuerit] fuerat Pi U T V B immanitate] imanitate Pi lymphatica] limfatica Pi U Pa limphatica B lymfatica Z Ca W lymfantica M 7 martyrem] martire B martirem W Pa transfoderet] transfoderant B aut in ipsa laniena] aut ipsa lamina Z M Ca D W Pa S X in marg. lamina add. 73 9 stridente] stridenti Pi B Z M Ca D W Pa X stridentis T V ictu] ictus TV 10 ruptura] rupturae Pi 1 truculentus] truculenti B W n appeteret] adpeteret Pi B 12 exsecaret] secaret T V execaret Pa i 13 caelestis] coelestis X coelesti Ball. nullus] nullos T ut] et M 14 se] eum S se poterit qui gesta] eum poterit nisi gesta Ball. 15 pertentet] pertemptet Pi T V B X i idcirco] iccirco X uisibus] nisibus Xz marg.

200 ON THE MARTYRDOM OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH gular glory of the austere men of antiquity in facing their sufferings; see how illustrious and valiant was the courage which they showed in their martyrdom. While the saw made its way through the head, that is, the centre of human sensibility, and its teeth opened fur rows with a strident backwards and forwards motion, the blade plunged, I believe, fixing its teeth, and through his crop of hair and the thick protective cover, and even through the connective tissue of the solid skin, through the veins shaped like Hebrew letters of his head, the blade cut into the top of his skull. When afterwards the dedicated butcher, while striving to reach the seat of the prophesying heart, drove his attack to the streams of the purple springs as the loosened veins spilt their contents, in order that the profaner should not strain with his thumb the veins in twisted lines, a vivid shower spread copiously, so that with the sight of the the veins hidden by the gushing of blood he did not act even more cruelly. Therefore the tangled connexions of the divinely speaking youth lay open, his punishing trumpet resoun ded, and his profound, natural vigour and his strict chas tity shone.

DE MARTYRO ESAIAE PROPHETAE

201

plinae nouam de passionibus celebritatem aduertite, qualisque illic fuerit martyrii nobilitas, quam praeclara, quam fortis. Cum in capite, hoc est, collectae sensualitatis umbilico 20 serra uiam faceret, et stridore reciproco sulcos dentium duceret, labebatur, credo, lamina, dum dentes infigit, et per messem capillamenti, crassumque tegminis uelamentum, uel callosae glutinum cutis, hebraeas capitis litteras, testum uerticis morsit. 25 Mox se ut ad cubile cordis concinentis nisus sector sollicitus defixisset ( in ) fontis fluenta purpurei, laxatis uenarum lapsibus, ne uenas uermiculatim pollice profanus intenderet, croceus se affatim imber infudit, ut tecta gurgite sanguinis uenarum pictura non premeret ... [et quale 30 esset illud unde uictus erubescere miraretur], Patuerunt quippe internorum uiscerum castidici iuuenis laqueata commercia, sonus buccinae ferientis, profunda uiuacitas et sicca ieiunia uoluptatum.

23 cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 8,4,4 16 nouam] noua B nonam M celebritatem] caelebritatem Pi M coelebritatem X 1 aduertite] auertite X 1 qualisque] qualis TV Pi U B 17 illic] illec V martyrii] martirii T Pa martii B nobilitas quam] nobilitasque D quam (sec.)] scr. sup. rasuram Xx 19 sen sualitatis] tensualitatis Pi B censualitatis T V umbilico] umbelico T V B Z M Ca D W Pa 20 serra] sera T V faceret] facere Pi U T V B 21 duceret] duceretur R Pi ducerent U T V ducerentur Pi 1 la bebatur] leuabatur Pi U lauebatur T V Z M Ca D W Pa lauabatur X dentes] dente Ca D 23 litteras] licteras B 24 testum] scripsi cum B textum cett. codd. morsit] mersit Z M Ca D W Pa S X 25 se] seu T V concinentis] conieci concinenti R Pi U VB ZM Ca DWPaXS concinenta T concinnamenti Ball. nisus] scripsi cum R nissu Z M Ca D W Pa nissus X nissus est 5 nisu Ball. uisus Pi U T VB sollicitus] solicitus Pa 26 laxatis] lapsatis U tranans rs Cai 27 uermiculatim] uermicula tim T uermicula tini V profanus] scripsi cum R profanatus PiUTVBZMCaD W X S prophanatus Pa profanator Vega 28 affatim] adfatim Pi 29 pictura] puctura B premeret] conieci tremeret R Pi U V B Z M Ca D W Pa S X temeret T et quale ... erubescere miraretur (1. 30)] neque miraretur, quale es set illud, unde uictus erubescere cogeretur Ball. 30 unde] und B 32 commercia] commertia Pi U V W Pa X sonus] sonnus M buccinae] buccina R bucina Pi' U T V B bucinae X ferientis] feruentis T

202 ON THE MARTYRDOM OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH But Beliar, son of Hezekiah, a cruel man openly devoted to casting horoscopes, an astrologer, a high-priest of possesed people, necromancers and magicians, searched for the place of assembly of the letters of the civil prophecy inside the cuirass of the holy breast, the seat of the faith. And even though the possession of the body was by now divided limb by limb, and the infamous persecutor showed the entrails, and revealed and laid open the secret and in nermost parts, and what it was that caused the defeated man to blush in amazement, while he tore the man of God to pieces with the teeth of an instrument of torture: howe ver the glorious and clear prophet endured in the immo vable state of his firm body between his prostrate and sa gging butchers until he began to be two halves, which condemned the delusions of the peoples together with their persecutor.

DE MARTYRO ESAIAE PROPHETAE Sed Beliar, Alius Ezechiae, uir cruentus, et prodigus ge35 nealogiae, mathematicus, catabolicorum, fatidicorum, et pythonicorum antistes, intra loricam sacri pectoris fidei comitium, praedicationis politicae litterarum curiam requirebat. Et licet iam esset membratim corporis diuisa possessio, 40 interna proderet, abdita reuelaret, obscura porrigeret, et quale esset illud, unde uictus erubescere miraretur, ut per secutor infamis hominem dei dentibus discerperet alienis, propheta tamen egregius et illustris inter resupinatos sectores, et pendulos tamdiu immobili inconcussi corporis 45 perdurauit statu, quamdiu duo esse inciperent, qui figuras gentium cum suo persecutore damnarent.

34/46 cf. Ascensio Isaiae, 2-4 35/36 cf. Tertullianus, De Anima, 28,5 36/37 cf. Apuleius, Apologia, 7,15 44/45 cf. Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus, 1740 34 Beliar] scripsi Beliab codd. Belias Ball. Ezechiae] Iezechiae Pi U Hiezeciae T V Hiezechiae Z M Ca D W Pa X Hyerechiae B prodigus] prodicus M genealogiae] geneologiae Pi U geneagiae B 35 fatidicorum] scripsi cum Ball, phiridicorum Pi U T VZ M Ca D W Pa X phidiculorum B phitidicorum S phisidicorum R et] om. Pi U T V 36 pythonicorum] scripsi cum Ball., ephitonicorum R ephytonicorum Pi U ephyconicorum T V phytonicorum Z B Ca D Pa Xi phytinicorum M phitonicorum WX antistes] anthistes V lo ricam] luricam Pi U T V B comitium] comicium B Z M Ca D W 37 praedicationis] praedicatios B politicae] polypticos Pi U T V B litterararum] licterarum B requirebat] requirebant Pi U T V B 39 esset] esse Pi U B diuisa] diuisia B 40 abdita] habita Pi VB habitare U T reuelaret] uelaret U T X 2 41 unde] unde unde U 43 illustris] inlustris B inter] om. M in terre Pi U resupinatos] supinatos Pi U 44 immobili] immobilis Pi U T V B imobili Pa 46 damnarent] dapnnaret T dampnarent B damnarunt S Add. Explicit de Esaia feliciter R X Explicit de Esaya feliciter Pi qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum T finis V

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA PATRIS ET FILII ET SPIRITVS SANCTI

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT I am accustomed, brethren, I am accustomed, as you yourselves say and I am not unaware, to enter into the se crets of the law, to hollow out the marrow of the dogma, to reach the recesses of the innermost truth, to manipulate the internal organs of the parables. But in these circum stances, after abandoning the swift tour throughout which I, with a quivering of the soul and the rapidity of a per plexed mind, was striving in the gamut of prophecy and the notions of seers who know the future, while I was seeking the force of 'substance' and illustrating its sense, I came up against the limit of speech and the boundarymark of my wanderings. Therefore since in the matter of the three-fold unity of the mystery I had touched the profound evidence of its venerability, it happened that from three-fold twins, and simply from the single term 'Trinity', to which they atta ched themselves, from pearls bound in their individuality by the rejoicing chain of their connection, and earlier from the cut jewel, I embroidered a mitre woven together for the whole head.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA PATRIS ET FILII ET SPIRITVS SANCTI Soleo fratres soleo ut ipsi dicitis et ego non nescio secreta legis intrare; medullas dogmatis inhaurire; uiscerum uenas adtingere, et interna parabolarum membra palpare. Sed inter haec, circumeundi pernicitate deposita, qua ui5 bratu animi per ambitum prophetiae uatumque praesagacium sensus uelocitate pendentis rapidus exercebar, cum substantiae uim quaererem materiamque inlustrarem, dicendi limitem, euagandi metam qua circumueherer offendi. io Quippe cum de trina profunditatis unitate, altum uenerabilitatis signaculum adtigissem, accidit ut ex triformibus geminis, et tantum de uocabulo trinitatis uno, cui fixerunt se, margaritis singularitate constrictis conexionis catena plaudente, ante angulato de lapide, consertam sibimet to15 tius capitis mitram intexerem.

7/9 cf. Vergilius, Ciris, 271 Inscriptio : Incipit epistula beati Iheronimi de substantia Patris ac Filii et Spiritus Sancti A Incipit epistula beati Iheronimi de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti B C Iheronimi de substantia trinitatis P Sanctus Hieronimus de Fscritoribus Ecclesiasticis Fx 1 fratres] mei carissimi add. F soleo] doleo F 2 dogmatis] docmatis A P inhaurire] scripsi cum P inaurire F aurire A haurire B 3 adtingere] attingere P 4 deposita] et add. P om. F qua] quia B uibratu] uibrata P 5 prophetiae] prophaetiae B praesagacium] praesagatium B praesagiumPF praesagantium Vega 6 sen sus uelocitate] sensualitate F pendentis] conieci pendenti codd. rapidus] inpidus F cum] quum A 7 substantiae] substanciae B (B scribit substanci* pro substanti* in omnibus locis praeter 36; 41; 47; 224; 577) quaererem] colorem P consultem Fi consultam Fz ma teriamque] matheriamque B materiam F inlustrarem] lustrarem B P perlustrarem F dicendi] discendi F 10 cum] quum A de trina] doctrinam P unitate] unitatis P altum] alterum B 11 adtigissem] attigissem B P ex] om. B ex triformibus] ueris formibus F 12 geminis] gemmis P F trinitatis] tripartitis P F fixerunt] fixae B fixae sunt Px F 13 se) om. A P margaritis] margariti F con strictis] constrictus P catena] cathena B cathenas Fi 15 intexe rem] intexere F

208

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And so, since in the previous treatise we shook out the divine light of the Trinity, the flashing brightness of hea ven has shone out, and the dogma that is capable of inter pretation has collected together the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in its own theme in all its convolutions, the only remaining task is to declare the power of the undivided Trinity and the noble substance of its splendid name. Let us go ahead then, with the help of the God to whom this name is due, let us make manifest immediately, excellent doctors, what is 'substance'. In the first place it is proper to describe 'substance' itself according to the authority of the law; so that we can con sequently show, with the images which will follow, the power of the 'substance' that caused the eternal faith to flourish. The prophet said: They heard not the sound of the substance: from the birds of the sky and the cattle they run in fear, they yelled, and I will deliver up Jerusalem to cap tivity. Here the passage about the speaking 'substance' is quoted with regard to the Trinity; what will they do, they who removed the expression 'substance? With good reason John asserts: and the three of them are one. 'Substance' is the expression of a single entity. In fact the substance of a thing is the totality of that through which a thing exists. Thus 'substance' is either under a certain condition, or shows that a certain condition is sub jected to it. As a consequence 'substance' is that through

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

20

25

30

35

209

Igitur, quia superiori tractatu Trinitatis excussimus lu men, corusca sideris claritas rutilauit, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum in suo sibi themate uoluminum omnium interpretabile dogma collegit, superest ut indiuisae Trinitatis imperium augustam praefulgentis nominis substantiam praedicemus. Age ergo, adiuuante deo, cuius hoc nomen est, de conexo quid sit substantia, dilectissimi, propalemus, antistites. Prius est igitur ut ipsam substantiam legis de auctoritate doceam, ut consequenter et uim substantiae, per quam lex aeterna floruit, de figuris subiacentibus demonstremus. Ait propheta: Non audierunt uocem substantiae, a uolatilibus caeli et usque ad pecora expauerunt et uociferabantur, et dabo Hierusalem in transmigrationem. Ecce uocalis substantiae locus de Trinitate dicitur, quid ergo facient qui substantiae uerba tulerunt? Merito Iohannes ait: Et tres unum sunt. Substantia singularis uocabuli nomen est. Est enim substantia rei omne illud per quod est res. Substantia enim, aut sub aliquo statu est, aut aliquem subesse sibi docet statum. Merito ergo

27/29 Ier. 9,10

32 I Ioh. 5,8

16 tractatu] tractu Bi excussimus] excussim A ecxussus F 19 interpretabile] scripsi cum Vega interpretabilis codd. dogma] docma A P superest] diues est Ant. ut] et P indiuisae] indiuise P indiscissae F 20 augustam] augusta Ax B angustam P F prae fulgentis] scripsi cum F prefulgentis Ai praefulgenti B perfulgentis P refulgentis Ax nunc refulgentis Ant. 21 adiuuante] adiubante A deo] domino P 22 de conexo] scripsi deconexo P deconexum cett. codd. de conexu Vega substantia] substancia P substantie F dilectissimi] fidelissime F 23 antistites] antestites A 24 de] de de Ai 25 doceam] doceamus F ut] om. P 26 floruit] influit F subiacentibus] sub iacentibus B et add. F demonstremus] demostremus A ait] ayt A P 27 propheta] profeta A audierunt] audieru Ai audiunt F 28 pecora] peccora B expauerunt] expauerant P et uociferabantur ... transmigrationem (1. 29)] om. F 29 in transmigrationem] intransmigrationem B intransmigratione P sub stantiae] substantia P 30 locus] et pream. P dicitur] praedicitur P F qui] quid A facient] faciant P faciunt F 32 Iohannes] Iohannis A ait) ayt A P substantia] substanciae B 33 uocabuli] uocaboli A uocabulo li Ant. substantia] substanciae B om. F rei] rerum F illud] illut A 34 quod] quos Ant. statu est (1. 35)] scripsi cum P instituto est F statuet A statuit B 35 statum] statu A

no

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

which the perplexity of faith is resigned and the unity of the Trinity is bound together. For that reason the prophet says: They heard not the sound of the substance, that is, the word of the Father, the voice of Christ which spoke out of the paternal substance. And what did he add? / will deliver up Jerusalem to capti vity; undoubtedly, since the voice of the substance had not been heard, it would obviously have been despised at the coming of the Saviour. Jerusalem was condemned to cap tivity as the prophet Isaiah attests. Your country lies deso late, your cities are burned with fire, in your very presence aliens devour your land And likewise Jeremiah, with re gard to that mass deportation, answers that it occurred be cause that great city had not heard the voice of the 'sub stance': How lonely sits the city that once wasfull ofpeople! How like a widow she has become, she that was great among the nations has become a vassal. Judaea was depor ted in its humiliation, it sits among the nations, finds no peace. Although the bond of the Trinity is an insoluble knot of unity, it can be loosened by means of names, which are however associated through their identification; it is sub divided, but with the virtues of its conjoint operation col lected into one, it is bound together. One is the faith in the Trinity instilled through baptism, by means of which the waters of heaven are introduced through a single spirit of faith.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

40

45

50

55

211

substantia est, per quam fidei perplexitas redditur et Trinitatis unitas catenatur. Idcirco ait propheta: Non audierunt uocem substantiae, hoc est, uerbum Patris, uocem Christi, quae ex paterna substantia loquebatur. Et quid adiecit? Dabo Hierusalem in transmigrationem, utique cum uox substantiae non esset audita, scilicet fuisset saluatoris sub aduentu contempta. Data est Hierusalem in transmigrationem ut ait Esaias prop heta: Terra uestra deserta, ciuitates uestrae igne crematae, regionem uestram in conspectu uestro alieni comedent. Sic etiam et Hieremias de transmigratione respondit cur ciuitas illa magna uocem substantiae non audisset: Quomodo sedet sola ciuitas quae abundabat populis! Facta est ut uidua, quae multiplicata est in gentibus, facta est in tributo. Transmigrata est Iudaea in humiliatione sua, sedet inter gentes, requiem non inuenit. Nam cum catenatio Trinitatis insolubilis nodus sit unitatis, relaxatur per nomina, sociata tamen foedere, subdiuisa, sed, collectis in unum iuncti operis uirtutibus, inligatur. Vna est fides Trinitatis concorporata per lauacrum, quo per unum professionis spiritum unda caelestis intratur.

38 Ier. 9,10

40/41 Ier. 9,10

44/45 Is. 1,7

47/50 Lam. 1,1

36 substantia] substantiae B redditur ... unitas (1. 37)] om. Ant. 37 catenatur] cathenatur B 38 idcirco] iccircho B ait] ayt A P 40 substantia] post indiuisibilis substantia add. F et quid] inquid Ai adiecit] om. A in transmigrationem (1. 41)] intransmigrationem BP 41 non ... audita (1. 42)] audita non esset P 42 scilicet] licet P cum add. F contempta] scripsi cum P F contemta cett. codd. 43 in transmigrationem] intransmigrationem B P ait] ayt A P Esaias] Esayas B Isayas P 44 uestrae] om. F igne] igni F crematae] exuste F 45 comedent] commedent B eam] add. F 46 de transmigratione] scripsi cum Vega de transmigrationae A detransmigratione B 48 abundabat] habundabat A P 49 est] erat F facta est] om. A princeps in regionibus praem. F 50 Iudaea] scripsi cum Vega Iudea codd. humiliatione] humiliationae A humiliacione P 51 requiem] et praem. F. inuenit] habet F 52 cum catenatio] quum catenatio A cum cathenatio B concatenatio PF sit] est P F 53 sociata] sociato F foedere] cedere Fi subdiuisa] non diuisa P subdiuisi Fi 54 iuncti] iunctis A inligatur] illigatur B P 55 est fides] est fides est A fides est P trinitatis] trinitas P F concorporata] corporata A F lauacrum] labacrum/1 quo] quod P

212

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

Therefore according to the evengelist, as the account transmitted earlier had prophesied, the garment of Christ our Saviour was a seamless tunic woven from the top, as David says: They cast lots over my clothes. Certainly in or der that one soldier, who had won in the draw, should re ceive it, since it was not possible to divide it into parts. Let us go on then! given that we have already begun to dis cuss the indivisible garment let us weave our words! words which women also may understand, since our words con cern the kind of job to which they were assigned. In the first place let us take weaving, if you please, as our starting point, so that the unity of the Trinity may be woven by means of the clews of dogma; and, indeed, as if according to the impartiality of a hanging scale, when the curve of the hem has been completed, let us undertake our allotted tasks of righteousness. In fact women learn to sus pend tunics from the forked yoke of the loom as if in the form of a cross. And truly the cloth is stretched in the li keness of a cross, through the remarkable miracle of the making of the garment, whose seamless nature and threads are preserved, in the quality of size, by the undivided si des of the sleeves, thanks to the work of the weaver's thumb. Thus even the tunic itself, which is woven in shape of a cross, as the event proves by its function, before it touches the looms and the weft of the cloth, is the vesture of the Saviour now with its natural covering.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

213

Merito apud euangelistam, ut historia transfusa ante cecinerat, desuper textilis tunica Christi indiuisa uestitus est

Saluatoris, ut Dauid: Super uestem meam miserunt sortem. 60 Scilicet ut unus eam, qui sorte exisset, acciperet, quia partibus diuidi non liceret. Age ergo, quia de indiuisibili ueste tractare iam coepimus, dicta nostra texamus, quae in se etiam ex officio suo cui mancipatae sunt feminae recognoscant. 65 De textrino primum, si uidetur, sumamus exordium, ut per globos dogmatis Trinitatis unitas possit ordiri, scilicet ut sub aequalitate pendentis librae, confecto tramitis sinu, iustitiae pensa ducamus. Nam ipso telae patibulo feminae quasi in crucis ambitu pendere tunicas discunt. Et uere ad 70 similitudinem crucis facturae uestis insigni miraculo tela praetenditur, cuius per qualitatem spatii indiscissis pinnarum lateribus, procurante pollice praesidentis, insuitas et fila seruantur. Nam et tunica ipsa quae in habitu crucis orditur, ut probat res officio, prius quam organa textrini et 75 subfarcinamenta telae contigerit naturali iam tegmine ues tis est Saluatoris. 59 Ps. 22,18 (cf. Ioh. 19,24; Matth. 27,35) 57 apud] aput P historia] scripsi cum Vega storia A istoria B P historia transfusa] historiographus F 58 indiuisa] in diuisa B inde scisa P om. F uestitus] uestis B P F 59 ut] ait add. B P F ue stem] ueste A 60 sorte] om. A PF 61 diuidi] fieri F indiuisibili] scripsi cum F inuisiuili A inuisibili B P 62 texamus] scripsi cum P F taxamus A texeamus B Vega nominamus tangimus gloss. A$ marg. 63 officio] offitio B P cui mancipatae] scripsi cum F cum ancipites cett. codd. 65 sumamus] summamus A in marg. de textrino add. Az 66 globos] glouos A dogmatis] docmatis A Pi 67 con fecto] confecta Ai sinu] signo P 68 iustitiae] iusticiae B ipso] in praem. F telae] telo B 69 in] om. B ambitu] ambitum P discunt] tiscunt B dicunt F 70 facturae uestis] factum reuertis P insigni] conieci in signo A insigne B tela] tele F 71 qualita tem] qualitate A equalitatem P spatii] spacii B P pinnarum] pennarum B 72 procurante] scripsi cum Ai P procuranti Az B prae sidentis] lacuna inter praesidentis et insuitas in B insuitas] uruitas B inru gitas P inrugita F inruitas Ant. 73 et fila] semifila F seru antur] serbantur A et] om. B habitu] scripsi cum P F abitu cett. codd. 74 orditur] et texitur add. F probat res] probares P probare F officio] offitio P sufficio F quam] utquam A organa] organo F 75 subfarcinamenta telae] sub farcinamenta telae B suffar cementale P contigerit] concigerunt P naturali] naturale A

214

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

Christ is a pure lamb without spot, as Moses says: we write of his fleece, his wool which, before lying down his clothing of flesh through his passion, he had undertaken to use and wear as a pallium of innocence. And afterwards the looms with their machinery take on this function, ac cording to the appearance of the cross: in David's words, the horns of the unicorns - as if he were speaking about the Lord's apparel - the extended beams take up the snowwhite fleece of the lamb. The wool of the lamb will be sold off by means of rather weighted scales, and Judas Iscariot with an iniquitous bar gain puts the Saviour up for sale for thirty pieces of silver. Women carry the wool of the lamb to the weaving mill with the scales giving a false reading; and the Jews value the lamb according to the measure of women, through Judas Iscariot's lies. This is the lamb which in the evening the Jews, with the clothes girded up to their loins and holding a staff in their hand, believe they must eat together, as David says: In the evening tears, and in the morning gladness will linger. In fact, by carrying these staves with which they assail the

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

215

Agnum purum sine macula, ut Moyses ait, Christum esse: tractamus eius uellera, eius lanas, quibus antequam carnis per passionem uestimenta deponeret, uelut innocentiae 80 pallium uti gestarique praesumpserat. Quod et postmodum telae ad imaginem crucis cum organis suis suscipiunt, ut Dauid: Cornua unicornuorum, quasi de uestitu domini, niualia agni uellera protensae trabes accipiunt. Lanas agni propensior distrahet statera, et Saluatorem 85 XXXA libras argenti Iudas scariotha malefico mercatu credidit uenundatum. Mulieres ad textrinum agni lanas adeunt, statera fallente, et Iudaei ad instar feminarum ag num adpretiant, Iuda scariotha mentiente. Hic est agnus quem ad uesperam Iudaei succincti per 90 lumbos uestimenta, baculo manu comessare se credunt, ut Dauid ait: Ad uesperum demorabitur fletus et ad matutinum laetitia. Nam cum istis baculis cum quibus inmaculati

77 cf. Ex. 12,5 82 Ps. 21,22 Ex. 12,11 91/92 Ps. 29,6

85/86 cf. Matth. 26,15

89/90 cf.

84/88 cf. Athanasius, De decretis Nicaeni Synodi, 2 77 purum] paruum P ait] ayt A in marg. de agno add. Ax 78 uellera] bellera A lanas] lana A Vega carnis per passionem uestimenta (1. 79)] uestimenta carnis passionum P carne passionis uestimenta F 79 innocentiae] innocenciae B 80 praesumpserat] scripsi cum P praesumserat cett. codd. 81 telae] tale F imaginem] immaginem B suscipiunt] om. F 82 unicornuorum] unicornium B F unicorniorum Vega uestitu] uestito A 83 niualia] nibalia A protensae] propensae F 84 distrahet) distrahit F in marg. de XXX argenteis add. Ax 85 XXXA libras argenti Iudas scariotha male fico] Iudas scarioth XXXA libras argenti malefico P triginta libras argenti Iudas scarioth amalefico B mercatu] mercatum B credidit] tradidit gloss. A} marg. 86 uenundatum] scripsi cum P uendicandum F uenundandum cett. codd. agni] magni Bi 87 Iudaei] scripsi cum Vega Iudei codd. 88 adpretiant] appreciant B P scariotha] sca rioth P mentiente] menciente B 89 hic est] idest B agnus] om. F uesperam] uespera A Iudaei] scripsi cum Vega Iudei codd. succincti] succinti Ai P 90 uestimenta] uestita F baculo] haculo Bi manu] manum B in manu P comessare] commessare B 91 ait] ayt A P 92 laetitia] laeticia B leticia P cum) quum A inmaculati] in maculati B

216

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

flesh of the immaculate lamb, the riotous people, Judas Iscariot being their captain at the crucial moment of the pas sion, convene in order to catch the Saviour, and towards them the severe voice of the lamb spoke out with these words: Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and staves?. With swords certainly, by means of which the lamb is killed; with staves with which the mean mob of the blasphemers arms itself to the teeth. Since in the evening the image of God, this lamb, is en trapped, through the seduction of night the people of Is rael with their counterfeit law blindly blaspheming in their arrogance, by supporting what they had invented, brought to completion their acknowledged crime, so that the ap proval of the world of darkness accompanied the culpabi lity of their outrage. The passion of Christ, which was ac complished through a great sacrifice at the meeting-point of night and day, seemed for a short lapse of time to con stitute an eclipse of the light whose name Christ had assu med, so that, after the darkness of the bloody meal at which the lamb had been sacrified, Christ should shine again with his light in a new day, alive from the under world, the error of the triple night having been condem ned.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

217

agni carnes appetunt, Iudam scariotham uexillarium sub passionis ultimum tempus, ad occupandum Saluatorem tu95 multuositas plebeia conuenit, quibus ita agni acerba uox intonuit: Quasi ad latronem cum fustibus et gladiis aduenistis ? Gladiis scilicet quibus agnus occiditur; fustibus qui bus minuta blasphemantium popularitas perarmatur. Nam quod sub uespera, imago dei, agnus iste, decipitur, 100 noctis lenocinio adulteratae legis populus Israhel admissum facinus per insolentiam caece blasphemantes, fouendo quod finxerat, includebat, ut noxam criminis, orbis tenebrarum sequeretur adsensus. Passio Christi quae in confinio noctis et luminis magno sacrificio litabatur lucis, 105 cuius Christus nomen adsumpserat, temporario lapsu uidebatur occasus, ut post tenebras cruentae caenae qua agnus fuerat immolatus, Christus iterum in alia die uiuus ex inferis, damnato trinae noctis errore, cum sua luce fulgeret.

96-97 Matth. 26,55

93 cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 4,10,2 Anima, 55,2-3

107/108 cf. Tertullianus, De

93 agni] om. B appetunt] apetunt Ai Iudam] Iuda F scario tham] scariotha Pi scarioth Pz scariothe F uexillarium] uixillarium A uexillario F sub passionis (1. 94)] subpositionis P 94 ultimum] ultionum P tumultuositas] tu multuositas B 95 acerba] acerua A ad cerba Bi sacer F uox] scripsi cum P mox A Bi nox Bz balatus F 96 latronem] latranem Bi fustibus et] om. B gladiis] gladii A 98 minuta] minata P blasphemantium] scripsi cum Vega blasfemantium A P blasphemancium B 99 uespera] uspera B 100 le nocinio] linocinio A leocinio Bi leuocinio P Israhel] isrs P admissum] ad missum B 101 facinus] facimus Ant. insolentiam] insolenciam B blasphemantes] blasfemantes A P 102 fouendo] fobenter A finxerat] fixerat P orbis] dirus P 103 adsensus] scripsi cum Vega sensus A assensus B P 104 sacrificio] sacrifitio B lita batur] scripsi cum P lustrabatur cett. codd. 105 cuius] cui A Chris tus] Christi Vega adsumpserat] scripsi adsumserat A assumpserat P BF temporario] temporalio Bi temperacio F 106 occasus] occassus Ai Vega cruentae] cruente B P qua] quam A 107 Christus] Christum B iterum] uerum B uiuus] uibus A 108 trinae] trino A trige P

218

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

As a consequence, after the Lord's passion, the perfect fleeces of the spotless lamb, since Christ's whole being ap peared to be subject to suffering, are themselves also drawn on to the comb, pulled apart on the teeth, thinned out among garments, heaped on spindles, trampled among rags, twisted in store-rooms, reduced to tufts, bound in curls, displayed in houses, thrust on to burning coals. This is how from the fire's embers, one glows bright red in its flaming dress, another adopts a feigned yellow co lour by turning pale, many blaze with blue like flowers, a certain number gleam with gold; not a few shimmer green with a smile or put on the perfection of a white mantle; but what falsifies the immaculate fleece of the lamb with a dye of different colours, these are the heresies which by altering and changing into different colours the snowy and woollen vesture that is more than innocuous, always in fect themselves with the bitterness of the dye. But from the one wool of Christ, in which they should certainly have shone, the sects of folly move, so that when garments have been made from the single fleece of the lamb, from the unblemished splendour of the year-old creature, sects and numerous heresies originate. As a result of them may their

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

219

Merito sub hac domini passione, ipsa etiam agni inma110 culati atque perfecta uellera, quo totum Christi uidebatur esse passibile, trahuntur in pectinem, discerpuntur in dentem, tenuantur in uestibus, glomerantur in fusis, proteruntur in pannis, torquentur in cellariis, coguntur in uillis, conectuntur in cirris, proponuntur in aedibus, retruduntur 115 in prunis. Hoc est, ut alius ex mortuo igne flammea ueste subrutilet, alius mentiti colons crocei palleat, multi prasinos quasi flores inflamment, aliquanti auro subluceant; nonnulli uiridi colore subrideant, perfectitatem castalinis induantur; 120 sed quod ex agni uellere candidato diuersi coloris tinctura fucatur, istae sunt hereses quae ex niuali lanea ueste plus quam innocua mutando per colores et uariando se amaritudine tincturae semper inficiunt. Sed ex una Christi lana cui enitescere profecto debuerant insipientiae sectae mu125 tantur, ut ex uno agni uellere anniculi perfecto candore, translatis uestibus, sectae et multae hereses oriantur. Qui-

116/120 cf. Vergilius, Ciris, 317; Georgica, 4,275; Ovidius, Metamorp hoses, VI, 61-67

109 ipsa] ipse Bi ipsam P etiam] om. P no atque] adque A perfecta] perfecte P uidebatur] uideatur P F in passibile] inpassi uelle P trahuntur] trauntur P pectinem] pectionem P dis cerpuntur] discrepuntur P 112 tenuantur] tenuatur A uestibus] uestibulo P vestibulis F 113 pannis] uannis F torquentur ... cirris (1. 114)] om. F torquentur] torquuntur A torcentur Pi cellariis] conieci celebris A Vega cebris B P coguntur] quocuntur P uillis] uires P 114 conectuntur] quonectuntur A conetuntur P retrudun tur] detruduntur P F 116 alius] alio F flammea] flamea P in marg. de uarietate uestis add. Az 117 palleat] pelleat A fallat P F prasinos] conieci prosinos A presinos B F praesinuos P praesinos Vega 118 inflamment] scripsi cum Vega infament A Bi P F inflament Br auro] uero P subluceant] sublaudant P subrubeant F non nulli] non nulli B 119 subrideant] subludant F perfectitatem] perfecti tamen P F castalinis] castalis P induantur] inbuantur P F 120 diuersi coloris] uersiculo P uersicolor F 121 fucatur] fugatur P istae] iste P niuali] niualis P lanea] lane P lana agni F 122 se] et F 123 ex] et P 124 enitescere] enim texere P sec tae] scripsi cum Vega secta codd. 125 anniculi] om. P et praem. F perfecto] perfecta F 126 et] P scr. post multae om. F multae] incipit codex H hereses] ereses A oriantur] scripsi cum Vega horiantur A oriuntur B P H

220

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

schools be anathema, and whatever impious heresy may have achieved in presenting itself in brighter or darker co lours, may the very humble image of the events of the passion alleviate by means of medicine and herbs. However it will not have the power to confess without reserve the source of the wool, the tuft of the fleece, the texture of the garment, in the course itself of its dissent, or that Christ is God, since it swears in its apostasy to blasheme him and deceives by means of flattering lies. With good reason against the money-grabbing monsters, the lewd ears, the vain imprecations of the blasphemers, the Saviour justly thundered: On that day many will say to me- Lord, Lord, we ate and drank in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and did many deeds ofpower and prophecy. Then in aswer he will say to them: Away from me, you evildoers, I never knew you in the house of my Father: and it will be of no use for anyone to speak.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

221

bus sint damnabiles officinae, et quanto se in auguranda uel obumbranda per floreos colores heresis profanata confecerit, medicaminibus herbisque uilissima monumento130 rum pictura leuauerit. Matricem tamen lanae oscillum uelleris frondem uestis in ipso discordiae suae curriculo, Christum deum, quem diuortio blasphemare iuratque et figmentis adulantibus fallit, confiteri penitus non ualebit. 135 Merito contra uenalia monstra, lasciuas aures blasphemantium probra caduca Saluator intonuit: Multi mihi di cent in illa die: domine, domine, in tuo nomine manducauimus et in tuo nomine bibimus et in tuo nomine demonia eiecimus, magnalia fecimus, prophetauimus. Tunc res140 pondens dicet eis: Discedite a me operarii iniquitatis, non uos noui in domo Paths mei: nec enim proderit cuiquam dicere.

136/139 Matth. 7,22

140/141 Matth. 7,23

127 quanto] quanta A quantum H auguranda uel (1. 128)] augurandum uel A auguran dumiel Ant. 128 obumbranda] obumblanda P floreos] florentes P heresis] scripsi cum F eresis P ereses Ai hereses Az B H profanata] prophanata H confecerit] confecit P 119 herbisque] erbisque P uilissima] quenuis sime P 130 pic tura] pinctura A pectora F leuauerit] leuaberit A limauerit F 131 matricem] mamem Pi inamem Pz lanae oscillum] scripsi cum F laneoscillum A laneo scillum B laneos illum P laneo stilum H frondem] frontem F 132 discordiae] discordia et P curriculo] curricula P deum] dominum H P F 133 diuortio] diuorcio B deuortio Pi blasphemare iuratque] scripsi cum Vega blasfemare iuratque A blasphemat reiuratque B H blasphemare uirare Pi blasphemare iurare Pz blasphemanti rea iurat F et] ex Vega adu lantibus] adolantibus A 134 fallit] falliet Pi falli et Pt 135 uena lia] uenenalia H F lasciuas] lascifas A lascite P blaphemantium] blasfemantium A 136 mihi dicent] dicent mihi B 137 manducauimus] manducabimus A 138 in tuo nomine] om. B ante bibimus in tuo nomine bibimus et] om. Vega 139 eiecimus] deiecimus H fe cimus] et add. H prophetauimus] prophetabimus A 140 dicet] dicam F a me] Hz sup. lin. om. F 141 uos noui] noui uos P nec] naec B 142 dicere] sed facere add. P F

222

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And now pay attention to my words so that we can re turn to the doctrine under discussion. The loom, which is united to the cloth and connected to itself, holds the thread and is bound together in a totally indissoluble bond: it is bound and it binds. It provides the suspended tunic with a proper form while it is being woven. It is repaired and it repairs, it weaves and it is woven, it is clothed and it clo thes, it begins to weave and it sets the threads in order. Under the line of the covering it sets in motion the beam placed crosswise with the entire warp, by means of the hooks with which it is fastened it holds the threads in place. One comes between, the other separates off. One is interwoven, the other sets the pattern. Each of them takes the threads of cloth descending from the loom. One grasps and leaves hold of the former cloth while it runs through them both; the other marks the end of the latter by bin ding it fast: both equally return, and they never hamper each other. In any event the weft of this tunic, which is more rigid because of its unity and is held up by the two fold stem when in use, is constantly bound. With good reason the tunic of the Saviour is bound with itself and woven from the top in one piece, so that, thanks to the threads by which it is formed, and the weft by which is covered, and the leash by which is held together, the weaving together of a single piece of wool may be com pared with the substance of the unique Trinity in Christ, according to our appointed topics.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

145

150

155

160

223

Adtende igitur ut redeamus ad propositum dogma. Organum telae unitum, sibimet conexum, fila retinet, omni tenacitate uincitur; alligatur et alligat. Modum pendenti tunicae, dum conectitur, praestat. Sarcitur et sarcit, texit et texitur, uestitur et uestit, orditur et liciat. Sub tegminis lineam transuersum latus exacuit staminis fibula, morsu quo tenetur adstringit. Vnus interuenit, alter intercipit. Alius interfunditur, unus incurrit. Vtrumque panniculas decurrentes accipiunt. Vnus unum, dum per ambos curritur, adprehendit et refugit; alter alium, dum stringit, includit: ambo aeque redeunt, nec offendunt. Semper tamen tunicae istius de unitate rigentior trama, quae in se sibi per sua uicissim commercia bifido traduce suspenditur, uinculatur. Merito tunica unita sibimet et desuper contextilis Saluatoris est, ut et stamine quo penditur, et subtegmine quo uestitur, et licio quo regitur, unius lanae concretio Trinitatis singularis in Christo de rebus propositis substantia comparetur.

143/155 cf. Ovidius, Metamorphoses, V1,55-58; Seneca, Epistulae ad Lucilium, 90,20

143 adtende] attende B attendite H ut] aut Bi redeamus] reddeamus Bi propositum] prepositum A dogma] docma A Pi 144 telae] tela F conexum] connexum H retinet] retinent P 145 tenacitate] tenuitate P alligat] rasura inter alligat et modum in A modum] nodum P F pendenti] pendentis B 146 conecti tur] connectitur H 147 orditur] horditur A liciat] liceat Ai P Fi litiat H sub tegminis] sub teminis Bi subtegminis H Pz lineam] linea F 148 exacuit] excuciat P fibula] fibola A fibulam H fila P 149 adstringit] astringit B H stringit F unus] anus P interfunditur] funditur B P H F 150 utrumque] uterque H panniculas] paniculas H decurrentes] de currentes B 151 adprehendit] apprehendit B H pendit F 152 alium] aliud F includit] includet A P in cludit B ambo] ambos F 153 aeque] sue quo P e quo F re deunt nec] redeunte F nec] et P offendunt] offenduntur Vega istius] stius A sitius P 154 rigentior trama quae] scripsi rigen tior trama que H rigentior tramaque A B regentior tramaque P sibi] siue A per sua] om. P uicissim] uicissem A uilissima H 155 commercia] commertia A comertia H bifido] bifida H sus penditur] suspendatur F 156 tunica] Bz sup. lin. unita] uniora H et] om. H F contextilis] contexilis Bi 157 est] om. F et]exH om. P stamine] staminae B penditur] pendetur B F subteg mine] sub tecmine Pi sub tegmine A Pz 158 licio] litio P H regi tur] tegitur H F trinitatis] om. P 159 comparetur] conparetur A

224

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And now, if you agree, since we have burst out from the spring of the Trinity, let us examine again, like keen inves tigators, the innermost nature of the 'substance', from which the spring gushes and flows out. Thus the Saviour proclaimed: The Father and I are one. Likewise John says: And the three of them are one. And David also: For this purpose God has anointed you, your God he says - that is, the God to whom you are obliged. He will appear to be yours, he says; 'yours' means, in David's words, the half of your part of which he is the whole. Yours - he says - that is, devoted to you, to whom you yourself should be made over. He is 'yours' to whom the words are spoken, or 'his' who comes, or 'of him' whom he frequently meets. Your God, he says, to whom you certainly belong, with whom you are associated thanks to unity, or who, from his 'substance', is associated with you. But since the power of the Father is the Son, the power itself pertains to its 'substance', because 'substance' cannot exist without power. With good reason the 'substance' of the Father and the Son is one. When we say: God from God, we indubitably confess that everything that is from God is from God. Twin persons, unity of godhead. Your God, he says, that is part of you, portion of majesty, half of devotion, one 'sub stance', as the Apostle also asserts: (There is) one mediator between God and man and as the prophet says in another passage: If they had stood in my substance and had liste ned to my words, and had taught my people, I would have turned them from their evil ways.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

165

170

175

180

225

Nunc ergo, si placet, quia de Trinitatis fonte prorupimus, et uenas substantiae unde fons scaturit et profluit curiosi iudices relegamus. Nam sic Saluator intonuit: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Vt et Iohannes: Et tres, inquit, unum sunt. Et Dauid: Propterea unxit te deus deus tuus, inquit, hoc est, cui tu deberis. Tuus, inquit, uidebitur; tuus, inquit, partis tuae dimidium, cuius est totus. Tuus inquit, hoc est, tibi deditus, cui ipse sis mancipatus. Tuus cui dicitur, aut suus est qui aduenit, aut ipsius est iste cui frequenter occurrit. Deus tuus, inquit, scilicet cuius es, ad quem pertines unitate, aut qui ex sub stantia pertinet ad te. Sed quia uirtus Patris est Filius, uirtus ipsa ad substantiam pertinet suam, quia sine uirtute non potest esse substantia. Merito una Patris et Filii substantia est. Cum deum de deo dicimus, proculdubio confitemur quia de deo est quicquid de deo. Gemina persona, singularitas deitatis. Deus, inquit, tuus, hoc est, pars tua, portio maiestatis, dimidium pietatis, una substantia, sicut et apostolus ait: Mediator dei et hominis; ut et alibi propheta: Si stetissent in substantia mea et audissent sermones meos, et docuissent populum meum, et auertissem eos a malis studiis eorum.

2,5

164 Ioh. 10,30 165 I Ioh. 5,8 180/182 Ier. 23,22

165/166 Ps. 44,8

179/180 I Tim.

161 prorupimus] pro rumpimus Pi prorumpimus Pz F in marg. redit ad texturam add. Az 162 scaturit] scaturrit A P 163 iudices] scripsi cum P H F iudicis cett. codd. 164 ut] om. B P H F 165 inquit] inquid A unum] unus H unius P 166 inquit] inquid A deus tuus] deus tuus tuus P deberis] debebis H 167 tuus inquit uidebitur ... cuius est totus (1. 168)] Az scr. marg. uidebitur tuus inquit] om. HF inquit] inquid A 168 est (10)] es HF inquit] hoc est in quo es et qui est in te tuus inquit add. F cui] cum H 169 qui aduenit] quia uenit P 170 cui] cum H frequenter] frecquenter Bz 171 scilicet] et add. B es] est A om. P qui ex] quid et P 175 filii] et add. A substantia] substancia P cum] quum A om. P cum deum] deinde F 176 dicimus] et in deum deo add. F proculdubio] procul dubio Pi quia] qur P 177 de] in H deo] est add. H in deum est et add. F inquit] inquid A 178 portio] porcio B 179 ait] ayt A 180 ut] om. F et] om. H 182 auer tissem] scripsi cum Ep. Ath.64 et Vega auertissent codd.

226

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

Behold! this blessed voice of the 'substance' united with God and mixed with Christ broke out, so that the glory of the undivided Trinity and of the indivisible substance flashes. But in order that you do not investigate the pro perties of the 'substance', its reality and its nature at random, hear now what the substance wants to be, even if we assume a very arduous task: God will give us his sup port, he who taught us to open our mouth with regard to the secrets of the divine law, so that he himself might speak. Certainly in our opinion wheat, or anything else, is a substance. Therefore everything concerning wheat will be real substance of wheat: such as meals, ground flours and loaves. All that is from wheat or is made of wheat consti tutes one substance with wheat: substance in fact is the matter of which a thing is made. So flour cannot be lacking in the substance of wheat because flour is made of wheat, and wheat, if you pay heed to it, is in flour, and therefore is also always in wheat, because all that is in flour is enti rely made of wheat. With good reason when you use ex cellent bread, you call it grand wheat; and you would va lue the origin of the substance in as much as it comes from the quality of wheat. Wool is also a substance, whether it is patterned in the weft or let down in the warp. Therefore a tunic, which through its wool appears to be of a single material, since the thing from which it derives is exactly constituted by wool, represents a substance. For this reason you say grand wool when you feel a tunic with a gentle rubbing of the fingers, so that you value in it the natural substance, that is the wool from which the tunic is made.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

185

190

195

200

205

227

Ecce et hic substantiae unitae cum domino, mixtae cum Christo, felix prorupit auditus, ut indiscissae Trinitatis, substantiae indiuisibilis, coruscet ornatus. Sed ne forte sub stantiae proprietatem, rem rationemue disquiras, quid sibi uelit esse substantia, licet grandia praesumamus, audite: Deus aderit, qui nos in secreta legis, ut ipse loqueretur, os aperire praecepit. Substantia quippe est ut putamus triticum siue aliud. Ergo quicquid pertinet ad triticum, ex tritico hoc erit uera substantia: ut puta farinae pollines panes. Quicquid de tri tico uel ex tritico est, cum tritico una substantia est: sub stantia enim rei est cuius est res. Ergo non potest farina tritici carere substantia, quia farina de tritico est, et triticum si respicias in farina est, ac proinde et farina semper in tri tico est, quia totum de tritico est quicquid est in farina. Merito cum optimo pane uteris, magnum triticum dicis; et substantiae originem praeferas in eo quod est ex tritici qualitate. Nam et lana substantia est, quicquid in subtegmine cogitur, quicquid in stamine deuocatur. Ergo tunica quae per lanam est una, cum id ex quo est, hoc est lanae, substantia est. Idcirco magnam lanam dicis cum tunicam molli digitorum adtritu palpaueris, praeferens in ea substantiam naturalem, hoc est de qua lana fit tunica. 183 et] om. F mixtae] mixto A 184 prorupit] prorapit H ut indiscissae] ut in discissae B et indicisse P trinitatis] unitatis F substantiae] substantia F 185 coruscet] choruscet H coruscaret F 186 rationemue] racionemue B 187 grandia] grandi P 188 os aperire (1. 189)] ossa perire A os perire Vega 190 substantia] et praem. P putamus] puta P F aliud] aliut A in marg. de tritico utilis comparatio add. Az 191 erit] est P 192 puta] pura H fari nae] farina H farina et P 193 cum tritico] om. H 194 rei] conieci res codd. ergo] regna P farina] farinam A 195 substantia] sub stantiam A quia] quae P farina de tritico est] de tritico est farina H 196 respicias] respitias H proinde] per inde P farina semper in tritico est (1. 197)] farina semper inde et farina semper in tritico est P 197 quicquid] quia quid P farina] farinam P 198 cum] quum A optimo] obtimo A P uteris] huteris Az et]utBPHF 199 est] om. P 200 qualitate] desinit codex P 201 quicquid] eiusdemque substantiae est praem. H F in marg. de lana add. Az 202 deuo catur] deuoratur H 203 lanam est una] lanam est est una H id] eo B lanae] lana H substantia] substantiae A 204 cum] quum A 205 adtritu] attritu H palpaueris] palpaberis A Vega praefe rens] preferes A proferes H ea] earn A H 206 fit] sit H

228

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

Figs also are made of the substance of fig-tree, so that the fig-tree is what produces the figs . Certainly the tree is named after the fruits, but the substance of the figs is the tree by which the figs are produced. With good reason also the sound by which they are called is returned from the parent tree to the fruits, in order that, because the fig-tree, from which the figs are produced, is first planted in hea ven, it may bring back the name of its fruit from its own substance, so that without substance neither the nature nor the fruit can exist. Therefore fig is from fig in order that the power of its substance might be operative, in order that its nature might begin to be one thing with its stock through the substance of the unity. And God precisely con firmed this at the beginning of the earthly paradise: so that no one should doubt that there could exist God from God, Lightfrom Light, a God of a single substance, since he had revealed this even in trees. And in as much as we have begun to demonstrate the unity of substance in trees, the cross of Christ our God, as I learned from the secrets of Abraham, originates from the palm of victory. Remark the word and recognize the pro per name of the tree. It is a kingly tree and without doubt will bear a king. It is said that a palm was the emblem which Christ, returning to heaven, brought back to his Fa ther, in the sense of his own 'substance', after overcoming his enemies. Indeed its fruits provide perfect paradigms of fingers, so that they are called 'dactili' in Greek and 'digiti' in Latin. Compare now the trunk of the tree to a gibbet:

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

210

215

220

225

229

Nam et ficus ex substantia ficus est, ut inde sit ficus ex quo gignitur ficus. Ficus utique pomorum dicitur, sed sub stantia ficus arbor est unde et gignitur ficus. Merito etiam pomis et uocabilis sonus redditur ex matrice, ut, quia ficus in paradiso, unde gignitur ficus, primo plantatur, [ut] nomen pomi sui ex sua sibimet substantia reportaret ut sine sub stantia possit esse nec natura nec pomum. Inde ficus ex ficu, ut substantiae suae operaretur uis, et una esse inciperet natura cum genere per substantiam unitatis. Et hoc ipsum quidem recte in primordio paradisi diuinitas sanxit, ut nullus dubitaret posse esse deum ex deo, lumen ex lumine, unius substantiae deum, cum istud etiam in arboribus aduertisset. Et quia de arboribus coepimus unitatis fibulam consarcire, crux Christi dei, ut Abrahae secretis addidici, ex palma uictoriae est. Aduerte uocabulum, et arboris proprium nomen agnosce. Regia dicitur, regem proculdubio portatura. Palma dicitur, quam Christus caelos repetens ad Patrem, hoc est propriae in sensu substantiae, triumphato hoste, portaret. Nam et poma eius perfecta adferunt nomina digitorum, ut graece dactili, digiti nuncupentur. Ha-

207 substantia ficus] substantia ipsius ficus H ut] et H in marg. de ficus comparatio add. Az 208 pomorum] pomum H 209 arbor] arborem Fi est] om. F et] om. B F 210 pomis] pomus H uo cabilis] uocabulum H uocalis F sonus] pomis H ut quia] neque H 212 reportaret ... ponum (1. 213)] scripsi cum. F non possit esse natura nec pomum cett. codd. 214 uis] bis B H uirtus F esse] om. H 216 recte] incipit codex C diuinitas] diuinitatis H sanxit] sancxit C condidit iussit gloss. A$ marg. 217 dubitaret] dubitare C posse] posset C 218 substantiae] substantia A cum] quum A C quia F istud] istut A C 219 coepimus] excepimus H consarcire] sarcire C in marg. de palma et disputatio eadem add. Az 220 crux] hic dicit quia crux domini nostri Ihesu Christi ex palma fuit quia per lignum decidimus per ipsum reparati sumus add. Cz marg. Christi Dei] Dei Christi C Abrahae] ab ebreis C sup. ras. hebrei H secretis] om. B 221 uictoriae] uictoria C est] om. H arbo ris] arboribus C 222 regia] regina H regem proculdubio] procul dubio regem H 223 portatura] portat A F 224 propriae] om. F sensu] sinu F 225 eius] eis C perfecta] am. C adferunt] afferunt B H nominal in omnia C 226 digitorum] clericorum H graece] graecae B greci H dactili] dactuli H

230

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

even in the cross 'dactili' are fixed, that is fingers which in David composed the Psalter with blessings; and in Egypt, while the Magians were prophesying, the voice of the pharaoh became frightened. And then certainly what is strong in the trunk, is full of vigour in the foliage, glows in the seed, is powerful in the fruits of its parent-tree, even though everything differs in colour or aspect, yet one substance will shine, because there are no dates without a palm, no fruits without boughs, and there is no trunk without a seed, no dates without a palm. It is the palace of the king, because its king reigns forever from there. The bunched mass of dates is attached to the boughs, and there is one substance in the whole of them. Afterwards however the matter becomes more sublime by as much as the palmate boughs rise into a crest, so that it is lofty because it is noble, incorruptible because it supports the Saviour, so that it is kingly because it is heavenly, crowned with a palm because it has con quered. I am not exaggeratedly praising the fruit of the palm, you know it well. It oozes honey, its taste is sweet, its appearance is juicy. And since it is really the fruit of the cross, it cures wounds, brings poultices to their proper condition, nourishes the stomach, reinvigorates sick per sons, knows the Eastern lands, and lives there, where the Saviour underwent his passion.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

230

235

240

245

231

bes ergo stipitem ligni patibulo figuratum, atque in cruce figuntur dactilos, hoc est digitos, qui apud Dauid exorcismis psalterium parauerunt, et in Aegypto, Magis praecinentibus, auditus pharaonis expauit. Et hic utique quod pollet in robore, uiret in comis, rutilat in semine, pollet in pomis matricis suae, licet specie uel colore discrepent omnia: una tamen substantia renitebit, quia nec digiti sine palma sunt, nec sine frondibus poma, nec robur sine semine, nec digiti sine palma. Regis regia est, quia rex ibi suus semper dehinc regnat. Haeret fron dibus congesta numerositas dactilorum, et omnibus una substantia est. Mox tamen tanto celsior fit materies, quanto palmatae frondes adtolluntur in comam, inde celsa quod nobilis, inde inputribilis quod gerula Saluatoris, inde regia quod caelestis, inde palmata quod uicerit. Nam poma palmae non praefero, uos nouistis. Mella defluunt, dulcis eius sapor, pinguis aspectus est. Et uere quia fructus est crucis, uulnus curat, malagmas temperat, stomacum nutrit, aegrotos reparat, orientis solos nouit, et illic ubi Saluator passus est uiuit.

227 ergo] enim A stipitem] stipem F patibulo] patibolo C fi guratum] figmentum H atque] et quae C et palmas quae F adque A 228 dactilos] dactili Hi dactuli Hz digitos] digiti H qui] quia A apud] aput A exorcismis] exorcismi B F exorcissimis H 229 Aegypto] scripsi cum Vega Egipto Ai B H Egypto Ax C F 230 pharaonis] pharo Ci pharao Cz 231 comis] commis C H 232 licet] rasura inter licet et specie (speciae) in B specie] spetie H speciae B uel colore discrepent (1. 233)] discrepent uel colore B uel colore discreta sint F 233 una] unam Vega substantia] substantiam Vega renitebit] scripsi cum C retinebit cett. codd. Vega 234 nec] naec B digiti] digitis A palma] palme Ai 235 nec] naec B robur] robor C nec] naec B digiti] digitis A 236 quia] qui A B ibi] sibi F dehinc] inde C in F regnat] regia est F 237 numerositas dactilorum] docti locum numerositas H 238 tanto] tante A fit] fiat H 239 palmatae] palmae et F ad tolluntur] attolluntur B H comam] comma C conum F 240 ge rula] erula A 241 uicerit] uictrix F 242 praefero] profero A C 243 eius] eis C est] om. H uere quia] quia uere B 244 uul nus] nullus H malagmas] malacmas C temperat] desinit codex F stomacum] stomachum H 245 reparat] temperat H orientis] horientis A orientes H ubi] om. B 246 uiuit] desinit codex C

232

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And lest by chance anyone should allege with a faint suspicion that the substance of the fig, through the iden tity of the term for the fruit and its origin, by means of which I maintained that 'fig (is) from fig', issues from the name, while the real substance is absent, and that on this point only the sense has occurred to us, let us provide him with a further example. Fruits are put forth by the olive-trees, that is from the parent - trees of their stock, and the liquid of the olive is squeezed out of the fruits of olive-trees, so that the fruit is produced from the tree, the liquid from the fruit, the sub stance from nature. In the fruits there is the substance of their parent-tree and of their origin. The liquid of the olive is the specific element of the fruit so that it is said that oil and fruits form one substance with their parent-tree. It is from here that fruit and oil take their origin. And as in the ancient law Hezekiah is advised to have a cataplasm ap plied made of the mass of figs, so in the kingdom of the future age a new noble race is ordered to be anointed. We gather pears, plums and cherries because of the qua lity of their trees, and call the pleasing seasonal fruits, as though they are sons, with the name of the trees which are mothers to them. However no one eats the stone of a fruit, but we choose for eating the fruits themselves which are soft or which afford sweetness. Therefore even though the fruits are produced from their parent-tree and are remo ved from the tree, are separated from the trunk, yet they form one equal substance with the tree that gives them their name and species. In fact the fruit possesses its sub stance since, when it reverts to its nascent stage, it returns to its parent-tree like a wanderer returning to his father land, as David says: And he shall be as a tree planted by

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

250

255

260

265

270

233

Et ne forte substantiam ficus, pomi et originis uocabuli unione quo ficum ex fico praetulerim, de nomine edere, abesse sustantiam, aliquis in hac parte tantummodo sensum nobis occurrisse modica suspicione contendat, aliud simile recognoscat. Oleis ex matrice generis poma proferuntur, et ex pomis olearum olei liquor exprimitur, ut ex olea pomum, liquor ex pomis, substantia de natura reddatur. In pomis enim matricis originisque substantia est. Liquor olei res singularis est pomi, ut et oleum et poma et matris originis una dicatur esse substantia. Inde est unde pomi et olei est principium. Et ut Ezechias de massa ficus in ueteri lege cataplasmari praecipitur; ita in regno futuri saeculi noua generositas crismari mandatur. Nam et pira, prunum aut cerasium de qualitate arborum [poma] praesumimus, et earum nomine quibus matres fuerint quasi filios grata temporum pomula nuncupamus. Et tamen lignum pomi nemo manducat, sed poma ipsa mitia uel gerula suauitatis esui uindicamus. Igitur poma, licet habeant ex matrice, tollantur ex arbore, sequestrentur ex robore, una tamen pomis cum nomine uel matrice aequalisque substantia est. Habet enim pomum substantiam suam, cum reuoluta natiuitate peregrinus reuertitur ad matricem, ut Dauid ait: Et erit tamquam lignum quod planta-

270/272 Ps. 1,3

247 substantiam] substiam Ai uocabuli] uocaboli A 248 unione] re H praetulerim] paetulerim Vega 249 abesse] conieci adesse codd. 250 suspicione] suspitione H A sup. ras. aliud] aliut A 252 proferuntur] praeferuntur Vega in marg. de olea add. Az 253 olei] dei H liquor] licor A B olea] oleo H liquor] licor A B 255 liquor] licor A B pomi] poma Ai et (10)] om. B 257 unde] est add. H pomi] sequitur lacuna in H et] om. H est] esse A H 258 cataplasmari] scripsi cum Vega cataplasmare A catasplasmari B cathaplasmari H 259 regno] regnorum A H futuri] desinit codex H noua] noba A 261 prunum] conieci prunus codd. in marg. de pira pruna et cerasia add. Az 263 nun cupamus] nominamus gloss. A) marg. 265 suauitatis] suauitis A 266 tollantur] tollant Ai 267 robore] rubure A 268 substantia] substanciae B 269 cum] quum A peregrinus] peregrinum Vega 270 ait] ayt A

234

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

the brooks of waters which shall yield its fruit in its season, and its leaf shall not fall off. Yet the substance of flowers, honey-combs and honey is one, because as combs are from flowers, so honey is from combs. Hower we credit bees with no merit, because wit hout flowers combs cannot exist and without combs ho ney cannot flow. Thus, reconstructing the lineage, it is evi dent that combs and honey are connected to one sub stance of flowers: in fact the origin of all things is the beginning, but for all things substance is primary. Thus when the rays emitted by the dawn diminish in the twilight, they return to their sun, and the origin of rivers is the pouring out of a spring. The substance of a thing is all that causes a thing to exist. As the prophet rightly states: And now what is my hope? Is not the Lord? and my sub stance is before you. Therefore the 'substance' of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one. The Son of the Father is Christ. Certainly when the word is uttered, it fills the hearing of all, and yet the word which comes from the mouth of him who speaks exceeds no limit. It stays in its treasure where its speech was born and in its conclave orders the ideas which have to be spread among the nations; its speech anyhow dwells in its tongue. It is accepted, it is read, it condemns, revo kes, heals and warns, and it dwells both on the palate of the offspring and the mouth of the Father.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

275

280

285

290

tum est secus decursus aquarum. Quodfructum suum dabit in tempore suo, et folium eius non decidit. Sed floribus, fauis et mellis una substantia est, quia ut sunt faui de floribus, ita mella de fauis. Nihil tamen apibus uindicamus, quia sine floribus faui esse non possunt, nec sine fauis mella defluere. Ita cum ad prosapiam tenditur, et faui et mella in unam florum substantiam reuertuntur: omnium enim rerum origo principium est, sed est omni bus substantia principalis. Sic in solem suum redeunt, cum emissi diluculo uesperam radii contrahuntur, et origo fluminum fontis effusio est. Substantia ergo rei est omne illud per quod est res. Merito ut ait propheta: Et nunc quae est expectatio mea? nonne dominus? et substantia mea ante te est . Ergo Paths et Filii et Spiritus sancti una substantia est. Filius enim Patris est Christus. Certe cum emittitur uerbum omnium complet auditum, et tamen uerbum ex ore eius qui loquitur nullum excedit. Manet in thesauro suo quo natus est sermo et in secretario suo portandam per populos sententiam ducit, ipse tamen in sua sibimet lingua uersatur. Excipitur legitur damnat reuocat curat alloquitur et in palato generis patris in ore uersatur.

283/284 Ps. 38,8 280/281 cf. Tertullianus, Apologeticum, 21,12-13; Adversus Praxean, 8,5-6 271 dabit] dauit A 273 sed] si Ai sic Ax in marg. de floribus fabo et melle add. Az 274 sunt faui] faui sunt B nihil] nicil A 275 sine] rasura inter sine et floribus in B nec] naec B 276 cum] quum A 280 redeunt] re deunt B cum] quum A in marg. de sole et fonte add. Ax 281 contrahuntur] contrauntur A effusio] A sup. ras. efusio B 282 substantia] substanciae B rei] conieci res codd. 283 ait] ayt A propheta] profeta A quae] Az sup. lin. expectatio] expectacio B 284 ante] apud B 285 est] om. A 286 cum] quum A 288 thesauro] thessauro A 290 uersatur] uolbitur gloss. A) marg. 292 palato] palata A

236

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And so what awakens, what breaks the chains of death, what takes steps on the sea, what treads underfoot the waves, what imposes silence upon the winds, what raises Lazarus from the dead, what causes the heat of fever to di minish, what unties the knots of paralytics, what astringes blood-vessels, what gives the centurion back his servant, what loosens the bonds of the devil, what puts the lame and the halt straight, what places words in the mouth of dumb men, what instils hearing into deaf men, what frees blind people from darkness: all this is in the power of the Person who possesses the united 'substance'. What the Son made, the Father caused. What the Father wanted, the Son fulfilled. The Father ordered all that the Son commanded. The will of the Father is everything for which the Son feels compassion: in fact the Word of God, Christ, that is the power of the Father, has put everything into effect. That is why the Father has made all that the Son has ordered. Indeed the Father with his power, when the Son descended to the underworld, through the Son and his self-same power, broke the adamantine bars of hell, and with the word of power evoked the dead men from the bowels of the abyss, and with the flaming sword of his mouth, according to the judgement delivered by his Christ, exiled the devil. This is one substance, this is the invisible and eternal majesty, this is the everlasting unity of the un divided Trinity. As John says: And the three of them are one. And Peter implores three tabernacles, and every word is confirmed by three witnesses.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

295

300

305

310

237

Igitur quod suscitat, quod mortis impedimenta dissoluit, quod gradibus maris insultat, quod uestigio proterit fluctus, quod silentium uentis imponit, quod Lazarum excitat, quod calorem detrahit febribus, quod paraliticis nodos absoluit, quod sanguinis uenas adstrinxit, quod uernaculum centurioni redonat, quod demonis uincla resoluit, quod claudos dirigit, quod mutis uerba committit, quod auditum surdis infundit, quod caecos enubilat: totum eius est cuius est unita substantia. Quod Filius fecit, Pater operatus est. Quod Pater uoluit impleuit et Filius. Pater iussit quicquid Filius imperauit. Patris uoluntas est quicquid Filius miseretur: omnia enim uerbum dei, Christus, hoc est uirtus Patris, exercuit, inde est, quod Pater fecit quicquid Filius ordinauit. Pater enim uirtute sua, descendente ad inferos Filio, per filium eademque uirtute adamantinas tartari seras infregit, et uerbo uirtutis de secretis barathri mortuos euocauit, et diabolum flammea oris rumphea Christi sui per sententiam exulauit. Haec est una substantia, haec inuisibilis et aeterna maiestas, haec indiscissae Trinitatis unitas sempiterna. Vt Iohannes ait: Et tres unum sunt. Et tria tabernacula Petrus exorat et tribus testibus uerbum omne consistit.

294/295 cf. Matth. 14,24-33; 8,23-27 295 cf. Ioh. n-12 196/297 cf. Matth. 8,14-15; 9,1-8 297 cf. Matth. 9,20-22 297/298 cf. Matth. 8,5-13 298 cf. Matth. 8,28-34 298-299 cf. Matth. 15,31; 21,14 199 cf. Matth. 9,32-34 299/300 cf. Marc. 7,31-37 300 cf. Matth. 20,29-34 313 I Ioh. 5,8 313 Marc. 9,4 314 Matth. 18,16 (cf. Deut. 19,15) 294/295 cf. Lucretius, 3,1032; Vergilius, Aeneis, 12,330; 12,337 293 quod mortis impedimenta dissoluit] om. B dissoluit) dissolbit in marg. de mirabilibus Christi add. Az 295 uentis] uestis A 296 detrahit] detrait A febribus] floribus B paraliticis] paraleticis A absoluit] absolbit A 297 adstrinxit] adtraxit A uernacu lum] serbum gloss. A) marg. 298 quod demonis uincula resoluit] om. A uincula] uincla Vega 303 impleuit] implebit A 307 per] pa ter^ eademque] edemque Ai 309 barathri] scripsi cum Vega baratri codd. inferorum gloss. A} marg. 310 flammea] flamea A sen tentiam] sententia A 312 maiestas] magestas A 313 ait] ayt A 314 uerbum omne] omne uerbum B

A

238

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And so also the prophet, in the name of Adam, despera tely looks for Christ. / am stuck fast - he says - in deep mire, and there is no substance, to be sure because the 'substance' of the Father, that is Christ, had not yet united with the flesh; and the same occurs to him who lost all his 'substance' after having dissipated his property with his dissolute life. Since the prophet wrote: the holy spirit of God will shun deceit: thus he lost his 'substance' because he lacked holiness owing to his licentiousness. And in another passage he says through the prophet: / also gathered for myself silver and gold and the substance of kings and provinces. This is that 'substance' which the prophet recalls by saying: God has spoken once, twice I heard this. The prophet asserts that in the utterance of one word he has with certainty heard two voices, as David confirms: My tongue is like the calamus of a scribe. In fact, as the calamus is made with separate, equal small teeth and works by means of harmoniuosly combined thorns, so the Saviour is united to the will of his Father in an indivi sible harmony. Therefore what the Father said, the Son proclaimed. What the Son announced, the Father fulfilled. With good reason the prophet says: God has spoken once, twice I have heard this. Two persons have expressed one judgement. In the Decalogue double tablets are engraved with one sentence. Twice - he says - / have heard this: once God speaks. Christ is the word; the Father is the mouth. So all that the Father planned through his mouth, the Word, his Son, carried out. This is why the prophet as serts: God has spoken once, twice I have heard this. As John also confirms: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA 315

320

325

330

335

239

Sic et propheta ex persona Adae Christum requirit in lacrimis. Infixus sum, inquit, in limo profundi, et non est substantia, uidelicet quia necdum Patris substantia, Christus, in carne conuenerat; ut et ille qui conuastatis rebus luxuriose uiuendo, perdidit omnem substantiam suam. Vt propheta (scripsit): Spiritus dei effugit fictum: inde ergo substantiam perdidit, quia per luxuriam caruit sanctitate. Et alibi per prophetam ait: Congregaui mihi aurum atque argentum et substantiam regum et regionum. Haec est illa substantia quam propheta meminit dicens: Semel locutus est deus, duo haec audiui. In unam quippe uocem duo haec audire se propheta testatur ut ait Dauid: Lingua mea calamus scribae. Vt enim calamus denticulorum subdiuisus aequalitate deducitur et radiis consonantibus expeditur, ita Saluator indiuisibili conexione cum Patris operibus unitatur. Quod enim Pater dixit, Filius exclamauit. Quod Filius locutus est, Pater impleuit. Merito semel, inquit, locutus est deus, duo haec audiui. Duae personae unum tulere iudicium. In decalogo una sententia duplices tabulae conscribuntur. Duo, inquit, haec audiui: semel loquitur deus. Verbum, Christus est; os, Pater. Ergo quicquid Pater ore composuit, uerbum, Filius explicauit, inde est quod propheta ait: Semel locutus est dominus duo haec audiui. Vt et Iohannes ait: In principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud deum et deus erat uerbum. 316/317 Ps. 68,3 318/319 Luc. 15,13 320 Sap. 1,5 322/323 Eccle. 2,8 324/325 Ps. 62,12 326/327 Ps. 44,2 331/332 Ps. 62,12 337 Ps. 62,12 338/339 Ioh. i,i 315 in marg. de adam add. Az 316 inquit] inquid A 317 quia] qua A 318 conuenerat] uenerat Bi et]om.B conuastatis] scripsi cum Ep. Ath. 68 et Vega conuagatis A conuacatis B in marg. de luxurioso filio add. Ax 320 scripsit] suppleui cum Ep. Ath. 70 et Vega 321 substantiam perdidit] perdidit substanciam B luxuriam] luxoriam A sanctitate] sanctitatem A 322 et] ut B prophetam] prop heta A ait] scripsi cum Vega ayt A dicitur B congregaui] congregauit Bi congregabi A atque] adque A 324 locutus] loquutus A 325 unam] unum A quippe] quipe Ai Vega 326 se]sety4 ait] ayt A 327 enim] ait B 328 consonantibus] consolantibus Bi 329 conexione] connexione B 333 iudicium] iuditium B in de calogo] inde calogo B sententia] sentencia B 335 quicquid] quicquit B 337 ait] ayt A locutus] loquutus B 338 et] Bz sup. lin. ait] ayt A 339 apud] aput A

240

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And David says: O God, give yourjustice to the king and your righteousness to the son ofthe king. The Father is king, the king's Son is king. Also the Son born of a king reigns over the realm of his parent, reigns by the agency of the king. The son of a king is the same as a king; he who reigns by the agency of his Father is eternity. Two entities, the Father and the Son; but one single sovereignty founded beforehand of the sacred mind, the expression of a unity without end. Come therefore, Brothers, a people united with its Lord for the God who is its friend. Rise with your eyes, rise in revolt with your hands and words, crush the blasphemous and impious men who deny the 'substance' by grinding them under your feet, destroy them by jumping on top of them with your steps, bearing in mind these words: How good to be sure, howfine it isfor brothers to dwell together*. We are a union, believe in catholic unity, maintain one God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and with our backs bent low and heads bowed we beg for true wisdom and embrace God the Lord of eternal majesty through the way of supplication. In order that the unity itself of the three-fold majesty and denomination should encounter our understanding, the in visible majesty itself states so: Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness. Look! he has demon strated what we believe. He has engraved his image on the face of man and has said: in our image. The knowledge of Father and Son is impressed upon the face of man; and the features of his face, by means of the clay by which we are formed, revealed in the human original model how the Fa ther and the Son were, so that man could admire God in man.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA 340

345

350

355

360

241

Et Dauid dicit: Deus iudicium tuum regi da, et iustitiam tuam filio regis. Rex est pater, Alius regis rex est. Parentis regno regnat, et filius natus regis, regnat ex rege. Filius re gis, idem rex est, qui regnat ex Patre, aeternitas. Duo haec, Pater et Filius, sed unum sacrae testae et singulare praeceptum imperium, sine fine unitatis auditus. Age ergo, Fraternitas, amico deo plebs unita cum do mino. Adtolle oculis, manu, uerbo consurge, blasphemos et impios qui substantiam negant, pedis adtritu conminue, uestigio resultante confringe, respiciens illud: Ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum. Sumus in unum, credimus unitatem catholicam, retinemus unum deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, dorso humili curuatis ceruicibus supplicantes ueram sapientiam et aeternae sedis deum dominum obsecrationis norma conplectimur. Nam ut unitas ipsa trinae maiestatis ac nominis ad nostram concurreret notionem, sic ait inuisibilis ipsa maiestas: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Ecce docuit quid credamus. Imaginem suam in hominis uultu signauit et dixit: ad imaginem nostram. Patris et Filii cognitio in hominis uultu digeritur, et qualis esset Pater et Filius, talem in archetypam humanam de limo quo fingimur caracter sui uultus expressit, ut homo deum ex homine miraretur. 340/341 Ps. 71,2

349/350 Ps. 132,1

358/359 Gen. 1,26

347/349 cf. Vergilius, Aeneis, 12,728; 12,928 340 iudicium] iuditium B iustitiam] iusticiam B in marg. de rege add. Az 344 sed] set A sacrae] scripsi cum Vega secre Ai sacre Az secretum B 345 unitatis auditus] auditus unitatis B 347 oculis] occulis Ai 348 pedis] pedes A adtritu] atritu B conminue] conminuae B 349 illud] illut A 350 unum] Bz sup. lin. 353 ceruicibus] ceruice Ai sapientiam] sapienciam B 354 et] om. A obsecrationis] obsescrationis B norma] regulae sacramentorum aequitur gloss. A} marg. conplectimur] contemplamus gloss. A) marg. 357 ait] ayt A inuisibilis ipsa] ipsa inuisibilis B 358 in marg. de inmagine dei add. Az 359 imaginem] inmaginem A 361 et qualis] equalis A esset] esse A 362 archetypam] scripsi cum Vega arctypam A archiotipam B 363 caracter] signale gloss. A) marg.

242

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

And perhaps in order not to pair the face of majesty with animals, and in order that the face of man should reveal God in itself and devotion enter into man from the image of divinity, God wanted to be seen as he was in his appea rance, when he drew the figure of his human creature. The face of God is displayed in man so that this image rather than man should rule the animals, the birds, the cattle and the fish. And with good reason the lion, which is the most powerful beast in this world, trembles and takes fright at the image of man, and that face, which the divinity of his majesty furnished with eyes and depicted, with a frighte ned appearance is hidden by the lion from its head or its face, which it conceals under the cover of its body. So when God said: Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness, he wanted what power he has to be seen, when he revealed in man his own nature. He called it ours and created one face, so that he might eng rave the features of the Father and the Son of man. See then, concerning the very image of unity, the potential na ture of the one who ensured that he set in motion and wove together everything for us to see, so that he arran ged nothing contemptible to our sight, but in his divine power fashioned for himself the sacred gifts of grace through a beautiful likeness. Let us make - he says - man in our image and according to our likeness. And the book of Genesis asserts: So God created man in his image. The features differ from each other, but the face is one.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA 365

370

375

380

385

243

Et ne beluae forsitan conpararet faciem maiestatis, uultus humanus ostenderet et pietas in homine ex imagine diuinitatis intraret, uoluit uideri se deus qualis esset in forma, cum hominem suum digessit in linea. Vultus domini praefertur in homine ut bestiis, auibus, pecoribus, piscibus, non homo sed imago potius imperaret. Merito leo quo ni hil fortius in saeculo est, imaginem hominis trepidus expauescit, uultusque ille, quem diuinitas suae maiestatis oculauit expinxit, timido uultu subducitur ex capite uel fronte sub pectoris indumento caelata. Ergo cum dixit deus: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, uoluit uideri quid possit, cum in homine qualis esset ostendit. Nostram dixit et unam faciem fabricatus est, ut Patris et Filii hominis liniamenta signaret. Respice igitur de ipsa unitatis effigie qualis possit esse qui fecit, ut omnia uultibus nostris sic ordiretur et texeret, ne aliquid despicabile uisui ordinaret, sed gratiae sacra de similitudine speciosa sibimet diuinitas repararet. Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Et liber Genesis ait: Et fecit deus hominem ad imaginem dei. Dissona facies, sed uultus aequalis est.

369/370 Gen. 1,26 385 Gen. 1,27

375/376 Gen. 1,26

382/383 Gen. 1,26

384/

366 ostenderet] scripsi cum Vega hostenderet codd. imagine] ymane A 369 homine] hominem B bestiis] uesteis A pecori bus] peccoribus Ai piscibus] B sup. ras. 370 imago] ymago A nihil] scripsi cum Vega nichil codd. in marg. de leo (sic) add. Ax 371 imaginem] ymaginem A 372 uultusque] uultumque A Vega ille] illud Vega illut A quem] quod A Vega in marg. de uultu add. Ax 373 oculauit] occulauit B expinxit] et pinxit B ex] et B 374 caelata] conieci celatur Vega caelatur codd. 375 cum] quum A imaginem] ymaginem A 376 uideri] rasura inter uideri et quid in A 377 ostendit] scripsi cum Vega hostendit codd. 378 ut] et A 379 effigie] efigiae B possit] posset A 380 ordiretur] ordiret A et] ut A 381 despicabile] desplicabile Bi sed] rasura in ter sed et gratiae in A 382 repararet] separaret B faciamus] facimus Vega 383 inquit] dixit gloss. A) marg. 384 ait] ayt A ima ginem] ymaginem A

244

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

There are two eyes, but a single vision. The eyes are de prived of their function if their power of sight is darkened. They both cause each other to shine, and when they flash upon a single object of contemplation their gaze becomes brighter. Where one turns, the other fixes its glance. The one helps the other with their equal sight. I ask: what do you think? Is sight better with two eyes? If you remove one eye, the sight appears to be bereft. The power of sight is reduced if one eye should happen to be closed. The sa cred visage is adorned by the splendour of the eyes and the entire face shines with a fuller light thanks to the beauty of the eyes. If one eye is struck, the other becomes enfeebled. The pain of one eye causes pain in the other. Both of them are healthy, if neither is deprived of sight. In fact both eyes possess a connected small bone which is hidden under the nostrils and connects both of them in one joint so that, when one reverses its direction, it leads the other, towards that to which it is drawn, and as it looks we may say that it seizes what it has fixed upon. They have their own unity of vision, so that, if one eye drawn by a glittering sight is driven to the right, immediately the other follows the gaze of its partner. The guiding principle of the eyes is of such a kind that either they are always guided with an equal gaze in opposing orbs; or they raise them selves, facing upwards, to the heights, that is to heaven, or they always remain fixed to the ground 'heads lowered', whether they agree in looking to the left or the right with their abundantly ready, rapid vision. This is the unity of glances, the equality of eyes. Let us make (them) - he says - in our image and accor ding to our likeness. In fact our eyes receive the distinguis hing mark of the maker. There is a single sight in the two

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

390

395

400

405

410

245

Duo sunt oculi, sed unus aspectus. Orbantur oculi, si caecetur obtutus. Vnus per alium lucet ambobus, et micanti (in) unam contemplationem magis coruscat aspectus. Quo unus dirigitur, alius aciem figit. Vnus unum adiuuat de conspectu simili. Rogo, quid dicitis? duobus oculis plus uidetur? Vnum si detrahas, orbus aspectus est. Minus cernitur, si unus forsitan concludatur. Oculorum lusibus sacer uultus ornatur et tota facies luminum decore plus emicat. Si unus percutiatur, alius marcet. Dolor unius alterum sollicitat ad dolorem. Vtrique sani sunt, si nullus orbetur. Nam est ambobus oculis caelata sub naribus clauicula perconexa, qui uno ambo stringit umbilico, ita ut cum se unus inuerterit, alium ad id quo trahitur ducat et qualis respicit dicamus quid flxerit rapit. Habent suam sibi fibulam uisus, ut si raptatus in dexteram uibreo sollicitetur aspectu, mox alius socii sequatur intuitum. Est ergo ratio talis oculorum, ut, aut in contradirectis orbibus aequali semper stupore tendantur; aut in sublimibus se, hoc est in caelo, se supinantes extollant; aut terrae se prona ceruice semper infigant, uel in leuam siue in dexteram partem propenso affatim mobili uisu concurrant. Haec est unitas lu minum, aequalitas oculorum. Faciamus, inquit, ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Oculi autem nostri, artificis accipiunt ornamentum. Vnus in duobus aspectus est, in unum colligunt quicquid

408/409 Gen. 1,26

386 sed unus aspectus orbantur oculi] om. B sed] scripsi cum Vega set A in marg. de oculis add. Az 387 obtutus] facies gloss. A) marg. 389 adiuuat] adiubat A adjubat Vega 391 detrahas] de trahas B aspectus] espectus A 393 plus] plenus A plenius Vega 394 percutiatur] percuciatur B 395 utrique] utri quae Si 396 caelata] celata Vega 397 perconexa] per conexa Vega cum] quum A 398 quo] quod B trahitur] scripsi cum Vega traitur codd. et] om. B 399 dicamus] digamus A quid] quod B 400 raptatus] raptus A sollicitetur] sollicetur Bi 401 alius] alii A 402 in] Az sup. lin. contradirectis] contra directis B aequali] conieci aequalis codd. 403 tendantur] tendatur A 405 siue] siuae B 406 concurrant] concursant A sup. ras. 408 inquit] inquid B imaginem] ymaginem A 409 artificis] artefices A 410 aspec tus] apectus A

246

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

of them, they gather into one all that they observe. Where the stars of the eyes focus, the gaze grows brighter. It stri kes those whom fear turns away from being seen; so each person who is afraid of God trembles. The eyes of men are avoided, and the gaze of the Judge is shunned entirely. Two eyes possess a single vision. The one causes the other to move, and the one directs the other. If they are called, both turn their gaze. No one turns one eye without the other. Both the eyes make each other straight, one obser ves in regard to the other all that it wants to see. They ne ver forsake each other. And if there is something to see, both turn wherever they look. The one is driven towards the other with rapid glance, there is no vision without both eyes. If the right eye turns, the left has perceived some thing. If the eye on the left side becomes pale under pres sure, the right soon compensates the loss in the power of vision. If you look at the sky, both of them raise up their eyelids. If you weep, the tears are equally shared. If you sleep, both rest. If you stay awake, both open their doors. If you read, both lap the letters. If there is smoke both be come distressed, and in the darkness there is no sight. If they are quickly urged towards the light, no one stays unawakened without the other. The one sees all that the other considers. Both observe what they have noticed. Both immediately distinguish what is good or bad. The eye and the sight discover the flowers of the season, the benefits of the sun, the fruits of the season, the constella tions of the stars. Man places complete faith in whatever he looks upon with his eyes. And since I have described the unity of 'substance' beginning from the unity of the or gans of vision and the organic joints of the eyes and the small bone, which lies between them both, now I will go on by treating the olfactory function of the nostrils in the body.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

415

420

425

430

435

247

adtendunt. Sidus luminum in parte qua conuertitur, plus coruscat aspectus. Percutit quos metus auertit uideri, sic palpitat quisque dominum contremiscit. Oculi uitantur in homine, et totus iudicis declinatur aspectus. Duobus oculis unus est uisus. Vnus unum torquet, et alter alium ducit. Si uocantur, ambo respiciunt. Lumen sine altero nullus aspargit. Ambo se corrigunt, unus in alium, quicquid alius uidere uoluerit, obseruat. Nemo neminem deserit. Et si aliquid fuerit contemplandum, ambo se trahunt quocumque respiciunt. Vnus in alium mobili uisu torquetur, sine altero nullus aspectus est. Si dexter respicit, sinister inspexit. Si sinistro uisu pressus oculus inalbescat, dexter in ipsum luminis aciem mox refundit. Si caelum respicis, ambo uela suspendunt. Si defies, communis est lacrima. Si dormis, ambo quiescunt. Si uigilas, ambo portas aperiunt. Si legis, ambo litteras lambunt. Si fumus est, ambo macerantur, et in tenebris nullus aspectus est. Si cito sollicitantur ad lu cent, nullus sine alterum dormit. Videt unus quicquid alius contuetur. Respiciunt ambo, quicquid aspexerint. Bonum ambo malumque quodcumque mox denotant. Flores anni, solis praemia, poma temporum, astrorum signa, oculus uisusque reperiunt. Tota fides est hominis, quicquid oculis admiratur. Et quia de unitate luminum, et congeminationibus oculorum et clauiculae, quae ambos interserit, unitam substantiam praedicaui, nunc adgrediar narium spiramenta per corpus.

411 adtendunt] attendunt B parte] patre A qua] quia A 413 palpitat] tremet gloss. A) marg. contremiscit] contremescit A 415 torquet] conuertit rotat gloss. A} marg. 417 aspargit] spargit B 418 uoluerit] et add. A deserit] deseret A aliquid] aliquit A 419 trahunt] traunt A 420 mobili] mouili A 421 si] Az sup. lin. 422 uisu] uisus B pressus] om. B in] om. A ipsum] ipsam Vega 424 defies] ploras gloss. A) marg. lacrima] scripsi cum Vega lacrimae codd. 426 lambunt] ambunt Bi 428 alterum] alteram B quicquid] quicquit B 430 quodcumque] quodquumque A de notant] de notant B 432 oculus] oculis B reperiunt] repperiunt A 434 oculorum] occulorum B clauiculae] clauicula Ant. 435 praedicaui] praedicabi A adgrediar] aggrediar B incipiam gloss. A) marg.

248

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

The nostrils, which are united to each other by their close proximity, bring two slender vessels to the duct of the eyes, so that, through the joint of the eyes, by means of those knots by which they are bound, the sense of smell binds together the visions of the eyes. Therefore the eyes act in order that nothing unpleasant offends the nostrils. In fact, when the nostrils find something that stinks, the grimace made because of the stench closes the eyes as well. You have here, thanks to the (as it were) double joint supplied by nature's goodness, the sight and the sense of smell made twins which are able to recognize a stench, to draw in perfumes, to abhor corpses, to absorb sweetness. This is the way the nostrils act in order that an offending smell does not reach the eyes. If you pick up the purple calyx of a rose, that the eye has noticed for its pleasant ness, the serviceable hand will quickly bring it to the nos trils, which almost act as judges of pure sweetness, and through those vessels belonging to another sense, the smell, thanks to the ducts, is conveyed to the eyes, so that they draw inside the inner seats the smell of nectar which they have perceived through the outward beauty of the flower's colourful look. In this situation they are gratified with perfect equality, and are bound with indissoluble cohesiveness. To act as guards is the duty of the eyes, to smell that of the nostrils. Therefore we declare that equal and double joints from the nostrils reach the inside of the head, exactly under the edge of the brow, as the doctors have demonstrated by dissecting the skulls of dead men. We see, in fact, that bet ween the eyes and the nose there is a substance. And so a ring, fastened by a natural joint, appears to hold together the links of the soft center there, where are the persons of the eyes forming a pair, but the internal connexion of unity

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

440

445

450

455

460

249

Nam foramina in se sibi proxima uicinitate coniuncta, usque ad oculorum traducem, subfiles fistulas ducunt, ut cum oculorum glutino, nodulis quibus alligati sunt, uisus et narium conpingat odoratus. Inde est quod oculi prouident, ne quid triste narium odoratus offendat. Mox enim aliquid olidum nares inuenerint, contracta facies de fetore et oculos claudit. Habes et hic generositatis natiuae ex duplici quasi iunctura geminos narium uisus, qui fetores notent, odores hauriant, cadauera respuant, suauitates obducant. Inde est quod oculi naribus procurantur, ne grauis oculis reddatur odoratus. Purpuream rosae si colligas concam, quam oculus de amoenitate prospexerit, naribus affatim quasi purae iudicibus suauitatis manus ministra portabit, per quos tra duces sensu alio fistularum gratia transfertur ad oculos et odorem nectaris internis sedibus rapiunt, quem per externam uisus coloris gratiam acceperunt. Illic enim pari aequalitate pascuntur, cum indiuisibili tenacitate iunguntur. Custos enim oculorum, odoratus narium. Ergo probamus et naribus aequales et duplices esse iuncturas in capite, hoc est sub margine frontis, per occipitia defunctorum, et ut medicina desecuit. Nam inter oculos et nasum uidemus esse substantiam. Illic ergo quidam umbilici mollis nodos tenere ambitus coniunctione foederis uidetur adstrictus, ubi duplices personae sunt oculorum,

447/453 cf. Tertullianus, De Corona, 5,2 437 coniuncta] coniunta Ai in marg. de naribus add. Az 439 glutino] gluttino Az Bz 440 odoratus] hodoratus Az 442 olidum] holidum A 444 duplici] dupplici B 445 hauriant] auriant A 446 suauitates] suauitatis Bi 447 oculi] conieci oculos codd. procurantur] procuratur Vega 449 purae] pure B 450 ministra] mitristra A portabit] scripsi cum Vega portauit codd. 451 fistularum] fertularum A 452 externam] sternam Ai exsternam Az 453 gratiam] scripsi cum Vega gratia codd. illic] illi A 454 cum] quum A indiuisibili] scripsi cum Vega inde uersibili Bi indeuersibili Bz indiuisiuili A 455 custos] custus A 456 et (10)] ex Vega duplices] dupplices B esse] ese Ai 457 occipitia] occipia Bi occipicia Bz 458 defunctorum] defuntorum Ai ut] om. B 459 nasum] nasu A uidemus] uidebimus B ubilici] umblici A 460 tenere] conieci tener codd. coniunctione] coniugatione A 461 adstrictus] astrictus B personae sunt] om. A

250

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

is prominent. Therefore, since they possess a certain inter posed diaphragm, even the nostrils appear to constitute two persons, but in the eyebrow itself it is proved that the matter is one and the same. In fact by the doors of the nostrils, together with the diaphragm which separates them both, three summits are united, so that the beauties of the Trinity can be depicted through the entire image, which shines out and disports itself on the basis of the si mile. In fact the eyes which have two gems, as we assert, yet possess one sight. So without doubt the Father and the Son are two gems, but one ornament made of magnificent jewels. As two eyes have one substance of vision, so the Father and the Son have a single sovereign power. One eye, because God is one, comprehends some slight aspect of the Trinity. The eye is set between two eyelids and is covered on either side, and the true Trinity is sup ported by its very array. This happens in order that he who has seen the Father, may believe he has seen the Trinity; that he who has considered the Son, may rejoice in obser ving that the Trinity is revealed. With good reason the Saviour, upon whom the entire Trinity smiled, even though he was about to return to his Father, said: He who sees me, sees the Father . And since the Apostles strongly desired to know the Father, he answered: I have been so long with you and yet you do not know the Father. So in order that our eye, that is Christ, who had descen ded from the eye, that is the Father, being on the point of showering the twin light of the eyes on the blessed people, claimed that he possessed his Trinity and showed the Fa ther in heaven together with the Trinity itself, said: The Fa ther and I are one.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

465

470

475

480

485

251

sed conexus praeminet interior unitatis. Sic et naribus, me dio quodam pariete subposito, duae uidentur esse personae, sed in ipso supercilio una probatur esse concretio. Nam ex ipsis narium postibus cum pariete qui utrumque discriminat, tres apices coniunguntur, ut totius imaginis, quae ex similitudine coruscat et ludit, Trinitatis ornamenta pingantur. Nam et oculis, duas gemmas habere dicimus, sed unus est uisus. Duae gemmae sunt utique Pater et Filius, sed unum magnis lapidibus ornamentum. Vt enim duobus ocu lis una uidendi substantia est, ita Patri et Filio una uirtus est imperandi. Nam et unus oculus, quia unus est deus, nescio quid Trinitatis amplectitur. Duabus pinnis medius oculus, hinc inde contegitur et de ipso ornatu uera Trinitas sustinetur. Hoc est, ut qui Patrem uiderit, Trinitatem uidisse se credat. Qui Filium respexerit, Trinitatem eluxisse congaudeat. Merito Saluator, cui tota Trinitas adridebat, licet esset reuersurus ad Patrem, qui me uidet, inquit, uidet et Patrem. Et cum apostoli Patrem nosse percuperent respondit: Tanto tempore uobiscum sum, et Patrem non nouistis? Ergo ut oculus noster, hoc est Christus, qui de oculo, hoc est de Patre, descenderat, geminam oculorum lucem felicibus infusurus Trinitatem suam habere se diceret, et Pa trem in caelis cum ipsa Trinitate monstraret, Ego et Pater,

inquit, unum sumus.

480 Ioh. 14,9

481/482 Ioh. 14,9

486/487 Ioh. 10,30

462 conexus] conligatus gloss. A$ marg. 463 pariete] parietem Ai subposito] sub posito B 464 concretio] compactio gloss. A) marg. 465 ex] et B 466 apices] scripsi abibices A appices B Vega imaginis] ymagines Ai ymaginis Az 469 gemmas] scripsi cum Vega gemas codd. sed] set A in marg. de oculis add. Az 474 nescio] nesci A in marg. de uno oculo add. Az 475 amp lectitur] amplectatur gloss. A$ marg. duabus] duobus B Ant. pin nis] pennis B 477 trinitatem] scripsi cum Vega trinitate codd. 479 adridebat] arridebat B 480 inquit] inquid A 481 cum] quum A percuperent] percupirent A Vega 483 ut] et A qui] conieci quique Ai Vega quique qui Az B oculo] suo add. B 485 trinitatem suam ... cum ipsa trinitate monstraret (1. 486)] Bz marg. se] set A 486 cum] quum A ipsa] ipsam Bz marg.

252

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

If I describe the modulations of the mouth itself, you will hear, in this treatise, the great mystery of God. And indeed here there is no toil in debating the problem or in inqui ring, no fear of speaking, and no sweat in contemplating. The mouth is the source from which a word is uttered; the Word is Christ. What do you look for? So the evangelist as serts: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God And correctly it is writ ten: At the mouth of three witnesses every word will stand Therefore three are the testimonies in which the entire word resides. Language is articulated by means of lips and tongue. These are the three testimonies through which the Father wanted to reveal himself, as the psalmist says: My tongue is the calamus of a scribe. It is constructed by the regular beat of teeth, and is subdivided by the lips, not by their cleft, and we write in a fair tongue, that is to say, fluency is praised by fluency. And so the lips of the mouth, whenever the tongue speaks, take on the appearance of the holy Trinity. Neither lips without tongue nor tongue without lips can pronounce languages. The tongue speaks through the lips, the mouth enclosed within the lips sup plies the words. Language is produced in the heart, as David says: My heart threw up a good word And through the tongue lan guage is led, by the lips it is directed: the tongue speaks with the lips. All that the tongue has uttered, the lips de clare publicly. Peace is repeated on the lips, faith is ex pressed with the words, we utter words with the lips and from lips we taste the heavenly healing. The lips acknow ledge the Son. The Father is appeased by the lips, and at the same time the lips acknowledge him and the tongue

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

490

495

500

505

510

253

Nam si oris ipsius modulamenta describam, magnum dei mysterium in ipsis tractatibus audietis. Hic etenim iam nec disputandi labor nec requirendi, nec pauor dicendi, nec sudor est cogitandi. Os est unde uerbum exprimitur: Verbum Christus. Quid requiris? Sic enim ait euangelista: In principio erat uerbum, et uerbum erat apud deum, et deus erat uerbum. Recte et illud quod scribitur: In ore trium testium stabit omne uerbum. Tria sunt enim testimonia in quibus uerbum omne consistit. Sermo labiis linguaque dirigitur. Haec sunt tria testimonia, quibus se paternitas uoluit confiteri, ut ait psalmista: Lingua mea calamus scribae. Aequa denticulorum iactura componitur, et labiis subdiuiditur non per incidituram, et lingua aequa scribimus, hoc est liquor ex liquore laudatur. Sic labia oris cum lingua loqui tur formam sanctae Trinitatis accipiunt. Nec labia enim sine lingua, nec lingua sine labiis sermones exacuunt. Loquitur lingua per labia, os refertum in labiis uerba procurat. In corde sermo conficitur, ut ait Dauid: Eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum. Et per linguam sermo deducitur, labiis destinatur, labiis lingua loquitur. Quicquid lingua protulerit, labia protestantur. Pax in labiis redditur, fides dictis expromitur, labiis uerba proferimus et de labiis caelestem medellam gustamus. Filium labia recognoscunt. Patrem pacificatur ex labiis et idem labia recognoscunt, be492/494 Ioh. 1,1 494/495 Deut. 19,15 498 Ps. 44,2 505/506 Ps. 44,2

495/496 cf. Matth. 18,16

488 modulamenta] modulata Bi in marg. de oris (sic) add. Az 489 mysterium] scripsi cum Vega misterium codd. tractatibus] tractantibus B etenim] enim B nec] naec B 490 disputandi] desputandi A nec] naec B nec pauor ... cogitandi (1. 491)] om. B pauor] scripsi cum Vega pabor.4 491 oslhocB 492 quid] qui B ait] ayt A 494 Recte et illud ... stabit omne uerbum (1. 495)] om. Vega 495 omne] omnem B 498 ait] ayt A psalmista] salmista A 500 non] om. Vega incidituram] conieci inciditura codd. est] om. B 501 liquor] scripsi cum Vega licor codd. liquore] scripsi cum Vega licore codd. cum] quum A 502 nec] haec B labia] scripsi labiia Vega labiis codd. 503 nec] naec B sine] sinae B labiis] labia A 504 refertum] sacrorum impiorum gloss. A$ marg. 505 ait] ayt A eructauit] eructabit A 506 linguam] lingua A 509 caelestem] caelestis A 510 medellam] scripsi cum Vega medella A medelam B patrem pacificatur ... recognoscunt (1. 511)] bis scribit A 511 idem] quem Vega

254

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

also blesses him. Thus for these there are three testimo nies in the mouth, so that no one can speak without the other. Language is proposed by the tongue, and what the tongue has offered is given voice by the lips. Hence as in the eyes the brightness of unity will flash thanks to the doubling of the power of sight, so also by the nostrils the real Trinity comes under consideration; both the lips by means of the tongue and the tongue by means of the lips get together in the harmony of an embrace, and through the substance of the face express the very truthful Trinity. In fact as the eyes, through the union of the pupils look this way and that and examine the things within their view with their flaming orbs, so the two eyebrows receive the sign of the forehead midway between them, so that the specific trinity may here be expressed by the visual cha racter of the things. The cheeks themselves, which have adorned the jaws for the beauty of the human countenance, appear to be two, one right and one left in the face. But so that they should not be kept separate at all, they are rounded off in their lower edge, that is in the hollow of the chin, so that the whole cause of the single substance is described by its own sensual character. And now, since I am penetrating the matter and the sub stance of the Trinity has been laid under consideration, let us go inside, if you please, the cavities of the ears. Observe the symmetrically winding structures, which are full of bends with their fleshy edges and which prevent the sound from vanishing after the voice has entered through these places and is driven through the channels. Ears are curved in order that they may pick up the sounds by means of the valleys which they include, and after they have received the sound, it will gently and gradually insinuate itself among the sounds of the passages.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

515

520

525

530

535

255

nedicit et lingua. Ita et his tria in ore sunt testimonia, ut nullus loqui sine altero possit. De lingua sermo proponitur, et labiis, quod lingua dederit, personatur. Hinc ergo ut in oculis geminatione luminum unitatis claritas coruscauit, et naribus uera trinitas recensetur, labia per linguam lin gua per labia utrumque sibi concordia ambitu coniunguntur, et per substantiam uultus fidelissimam proferunt trinitatem. Nam ut internas res suas oculi gemmarum foedere flammeis orbibus hinc inde lustrantur, ita medium inter se duo supercilia, signum frontis accipiunt, ut hic trinitas propria rerum de pictura reddatur. Genae ipsae, quae per pulcritudinem uultus hominis maxillas ornauerint, duae dextera leuaque uidentur in fa cie. Sed ne aliquid separentur in subiecto margine, hoc est, in umbilico menti concluduntur, ut tota unius substantiae causa sua sibimet sensualitate narretur. Nunc quia inuado, Trinitatis conlocata substantia est, aurium si uidetur lacunas intremus. Respice sinuatas aequaliter concas, torosis in se marginibus flexuosas, quibus dum per haec loca aura uocis insederit, dum ducitur per meatum, euanescere non possit auditus. Inflexae sunt aures ut auram uallibus, quibus exinuant, accipiant, et dum acceperint, mox se tenuis sensim locorum uocabulis infundant.

529/541 cf. Cicero, De natura deorum, 2,57 513 altero] alterum A 515 coruscauit] coruscabit Vega 516 re censetur] resensetur A 517 concordia] scripsi cum Vega concordiam codd. 520 internas res] scripsi cum Vega interna res A in nares Bi inter nares Bz oculi] oc A sup. ras. flammeis] flameis A 521 lus trantur] lustratur A inter se] interre Ant. 522 supercilia] supercelia A 523 pictura] pinctura Ai 524 genae] maxillae gloss. A} marg. ipsae] ipse B in marg. de genis add. Az 525 duae dextera leuaque] dextera leuaque duae B facie] scripsi cum Vega faciem A faciae B 527 unius] unus A 528 narretur] narrentur B 529 con locata] scripsi cum Vega collocata B conloco A 530 sinuatas] sinautas B 532 insederit] insiderit A ducitur] dicitur Bi 535 sen sim] sensi B locorum] licorum A uocabulis] uocabilis A infundant] infudat A infudet Vega

256

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

If one ear has heard what is uttered, the other reports what the hearing has perceived. If an opinion strikes one ear, shortly it also runs into the hearing of the other. The two ears are connected together by a duct to a plectrum inside the head; if someone causes a movement in that part, both vibrate. The eyes report what appears, the ears convey what each person at length utters, nostrils are at tracted to sweet flowers by the power of their scent. Shortly the mouth is revealed by the hearing of the ears, the vision of the eyes, the nostril's sense of smell and the reliability of the tongue. And so now these functions, always unified, make no di visions, because the whole thing is strengthened by an es sential bond. They receive two originary forms both from faith and from the venerable appearance. But between both of them the progress is equal and the power of hearing is one. What one perceives, immediately pours back to the other. What had been received by the ear which had poured it out, immediately returns from that ear to the other. An utterance causes both to vibrate, the one vibrates because it has perceived, the other because it has heard. Whatever one has drawn into itself, immediately is transferred to the other too. If you praise one ear, through the other both get to know all that you have said. One im parts hearing to the other, the trust of one does not take away what is due to the other. Both conceive as a unity what each person has said. Thanks to this undivided firm unity the ears themselves always possess a single sense of hearing, because through his image, which God assembled in man by uniting, not by separating, through this image of his identity with the Son through the Holy Spirit, he fashioned the undivided Trinity. And we assert this in order to show you that the substance of both the eyes and the nostrils, and of the mouth and the ears is one, one substance naturally bound together by the bond of unity and accumulated in one part of the head, according to the natural system of the things which are before everybody's eyes.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

540

545

550

555

560

565

2.57

Si una auris acceperit quod clamatur, alia nuntiat, quid auditus exceperit. Si aliam pulsat opinio, mox et alterius curritur in auditum. Duae aures sunt una sibimet traduce fibulatae plectrum capitis: in qua parte quis mouerit, utrumque concutiunt. Oculi nuntiant quod uidetur, aures credunt quod quisque longe proloquitur, nares ad nectareos flores odora uirtute tolluntur. Os auditu aurium, uisu oculorum, narium spiramento, linguae ueritate, mox proditur. Nunc ergo sibi haec unita semper officia nihil separant, quia totum sibimet necessaria concatenatione firmatur. Duas parentes, et fide et specie uenerabili formas accipiunt. Sed inter ambas aequalis cursus, et unus auditus est. Vna quod accipit, in alteram mox refundit. Ex ipsa illa quae fuderat quod conlocauerat, recurrit in alteram. Ambas mox uibrat spiritus, unam quod recipit, aliam quod audiuit. Quicquid alia conceperit, mox et in alteram transit. Si unam laudas, per aliam quicquid dixeris ambae cognoscunt. Vna uni infundit auditum, fides alterius quod debetur alteri non fraudat. Vnum ambae quod quisquis dixerit repraesentat. Merito indiscissae soliditatis ipsis auribus, unus semper auditus est, quia per imaginem suam quam deus in homine, non separando, sed unitando collegit, suae similitudinis cum Filio per Spiritum sanctum, indiscissam reddidit Trinitatem. Nam ut uobis, tam oculorum quam narium, oris uel aurium unam esse substantiam unionis scilicet conexione constrictam, in uno capitis fronte glomeratam, ex ipsa rerum quae ante pedes est ratione monstremus.

537 nuntiat] nunciat B 540 fibulatae] fabulatae A qua] aqua A 541 nuntiant] nunciant B 542 quisque] quis Ax B nectareos] naectareos B 543 odora] adora A aurium] aurum Bi 544 na rium] narrium Si 546 nihil] scripsi cum Vega nichil codd. 551 conlocauerat] conieci colorauerat B coloraberat A Vega coloraberit Ant. 552 unam] una A aliam] alia A 553 quicquid] quic Ai conceperit] conperit A transit] transiit B 558 solidita tis] solidatus Ai solidatis Az Vega 559 homine] hominem A 560 sed] set A suae] om. Ax 561 reddidit] retidit A 562 oris uel ... constrictam (1. 564)] om. Ant.

258

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

All mutes lack any sense of hearing. Therefore we should consider anyone who has lost the power of speech to be a blind person, because he is not able to report with his ton gue what he has seen. And it is inevitable that the power of vision of the mute acts in accordance with his tongue, which frustrates itself still more with inarticulate bello wing, and that for the mute, since his vessels are occlu ded, the sense of smell has become dull. That is why through the image of God this entire single capacity of the face for sensation flashed with glittering rays through every opening of its substance, so that it should shine back on man, that is, in order that the eyes might take into their possession the flower of the light, the nostrils might not refuse balsams, the mouth might sing the praise of Christ, the tongue taste faith, and the ears hear prophecies. With good reason the apostle Paul seems to have been bound up with the idea of the 'substance' of the Trinity when he saw that the divine intelligence must take prece dence over human face or head. He asserts: The head of Christ is God: the head of man is Christ. This is so that he might collect whatever is a unity totally in the head. Had he not snatched the seed on the sacred altars for God's au dience I would still, from the everlasting and heavenly treasure itself of the Trinity, the substance we must keep to, be grasping after the resources of the law, sumptous dividends to enrich the brethren, and be discussing the unity of the organs which assist each other: seeing that mediocrity could make an examination by means of an outstretched neck. Also the very hands and arms with which we pray to God are joined together; and so that the simile of God from the connexion with which we speak of the arms themselves, may not by any chance seem a facile one to the untutored, I would like to test it, go over the names, speak of small details, and even establish its qualities.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

570

575

580

585

590

259

Mutis omnibus nullus auditus est. Inde est quod caecus habendus est quem lingua deseruit, quia explicare quod uiderit lingua non praeualet. Et necesse est, ut muti linguam, quae se mugitu plus decipit ineffabili sequatur obtutus, cuius exclusis meatibus torpuerit odoratus. Inde est quod haec tota per imaginem dei una sensualitas frontis, per omnes aditus substantiae suae, ut reniteret in hominem, uibrantibus radiis coruscauit, idest ut oculi florem lucis acciperent, nares balsama non negarent, os Christum caneret, fidem lingua gustaret, et prophetias aures accipe rent. Merito apostolus Paulus, Trinitatis uidetur substantiae deligatus uidens diuinum sensum humano uultui uel capiti praeferri debere. Caput, inquit, Christi, deus est. Caput uiri, Christus est. Hoc est, ut quicquid unum est, totum in capite colligeret. Nisi ad auditorium dei sacris altaribus se men raperet, adhuc ex ipso Trinitatis perpetuo caelestique thesauro haerendae substantiae, diuites census locupletandis fratribus, opes legis appeterem, et consolantium sibi membrorum de unitate tractarem: quippe quod rimari mediocritas poterat per substantiam excussae ceruicis. Ipsae etiam, quibus deum precamur, manus et brachia coniugata, et ne facilis similitudo dei, de conexo ipsa quo brachia dicimus, inperitis forsitan uideretur, probarem, nomina recenserem, materias minutas dicerem, qualitates etiam expedirem. 579/580 I Cor. 30,13 566 mutis] motis A quod] quo A in marg. quia mutis natis au ditus deest add. Az 568 ut muti] scripsi cum Vega ut militi A utmiti B sup. ras. linguam] lingua B 569 ineffabili] ineffabilis B obtutus] facies gloss. A} marg. 571 imaginem] ymaginem A 572 aditus] auditus B reniteret] resplenderet gloss. A} marg. 573 coruscauit] coruscabit A 578 deligatus] delegatus B humano] humanu A uel] rasura inter uel et capiti in B 579 caput (10)] capud B 581 ad] om. B 582 adhuc] aduc A 583 census] caensus B consacratae diuitiae gloss. A) marg. locupletandis] locuplecandis B 584 legis] legibus Bi 585 unitate] unitatem A 586 ceruicis] cerbices Ai cerbicis Az 587 ipsae] ipse B etiam] aetiam B bra chia] bracia A 588 de conexo] scripsi de conexu A deconexu B ipsa] ipso B 589 brachia] bracia A inperitis] imperitis B probarem] probare A 590 materias minutas dicerem] om. A materias] scripsi cum Vega matherias B qualitates] equalitates B

260

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

The arms are equal, their strength is the same and their physical state similar in all respects: one never prevails over the other. And when we open the palms, they show the sign of the cross. In fact the decalogue of the Law was accomplished on the basis of the number of fingers, so that the sign of the cross should preserve all the precepts of the Law. The Law of God is written with one hand, and is held fast by the other. The form of the two Testaments is similar in every respect. Consequently the articulation it self of the arms, with the three parts through which it stret ches and flexes, being united from the shoulder to the el bow, and from the elbow to the hand, so that the hand itself flexes in the third place, constitutes a tripartite joint, and the solidity of its unity is given by the knots which bind it. At any event this kind of trinity, since it is true to its obligations, remains flexible, connected to the shoulder, for the lifting of whatever is carried: therefore the body is supported on the elbow, the second constituent is used to embrace a brother, and the hand of a writing person is adorned by its thumb. And what would be the purpose of breasts in a man, if they did not reveal the persisting ima ges of heavenly fertility joined in a single body? The fingers are separate, but connected in the lowest part, divided and uncut at the bottom. If you touch one, you stimulate them all; if you move another, all of them act in harmony. Each of them holds what the other has grasped. If you close a finger, while it is turned to the palm and flexed, all the others, in a sense, bow their heads. If you squash one of them, the pain is shared by all the others, and shortly the arm becomes weak. In fact if you inquire about the gems of the nails, you realize that they are afflicted together if one of them is separated from the others, so that it does not boast of its own brilliance among its fellows. With good reason a hand appers to be disfigu red if a finger is cut off, and so that you may not be una ware of the way in which the fingers themselves pertain to the treasure of the heart, children and boys are thrashed

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

595

600

605

610

615

261

Aequa sunt brachia, aequali robore, statu consimili, nullus nullum excedit. Et cum palmas aperimus, signum cru ris ostendunt. Nam testamenti decalogum numeri profecerunt digitorum, ut omnia legis oracula, cruris signacula retentarent. Lex dei una manu conscribitur, et ex alia retinetur. Duorum testamentorum imago consimilis. Nam flexura ipsa brachiorum tribus partibus quibus cohaerens mollitur et flectitur ab humero usque ad cubitum, et a cubito usque ad manum, ut tertio manus ipsa flectatur, tripertita conexio est, et per nodos quibus conectitur, soliditas unitatis. Et tamen haec trinitas, licet sit in officio suo, manet sibimet solubilis conexa humero gestanda quaeque portantur: corpus cubito suo tenetur, fratrem secunda iactura complectitur, manus scribentis pollice decoratur. Nam et in uiro mamillae quid facerent, nisi uberum caelestium haerentes sibimet in uno corpore iunctas imagines demonstrarent? Separati sunt digiti, sed protinus conexi, diuisi et non perincisi. Si unum tetigeris, omnes exasperas, alterum si moueas, toti consentiunt. Nullus non tenet, quicquid alius occupauerit. Si unum clauseris, respiciente ad manum deciduo, quasi capite toti curuantur. Si percusseris aliquem, communis dolor est, mox et brachium marcescit. Nam et gemmas unguium (si) quaeras simul uexantur, si aliqua se parator ex omnibus, ut non candore uernaculo inter consimiles glorietur. Merito deformatur manus, si digitus incidatur, et ut ad cordis thesaurum digitos ipsos pertinere non

592 aequa] qua B brachia] bracia A in marg. de bracia] add. Az 593 cum] quum A 594 ostendunt] scripsi cum Vega hostendunt codd. decalogum] decalegum A 596 retentarent] retinerent gloss. A$ marg. 597 imago] ymago A 598 brachiorum] braciorum A 600 tertio] tercio B 601 conexio] connexio B conectitur] connectitur B 604 conexa] connexa B quaeque] quaequae B portantur] portanda Ant. 605 complectitur] conplectitur A 607 uberum] huberum A in marg. de mamillis] add. Az 608 corpore] copore Vega imagines] ymagines A 610 sed] set A in marg. de digitis] add. Az 612 moueas] mobeas A 614 curuantur] scripsi curbantur A Vega turbantur B 615 bra chium] bracium Ai 616 unguium] ungium Vega si] suppleui cum Vega

262

LETTER ON THE SUBSTANCE

with the hands so that they may utter the secrets of their hearts; since all that is told by the heart or is sent from the heart, is written down by the fingers which preserve me mories. And however, the hands themselves, although they are bound by the link of unity, although they are connected by their chain of joints, and for them even the knots them selves bend through the intersections of this trinity, and lead the memory of the heart with the duty of numerical calculation, when they return to the service of the Father and the Son thanks to the eyes, before which the unity of the divinity shines and the paternal substance glows, by curving inwards and spreading out carry water, and by going over the whole face with their fingers, sprinkle wha tever they have touched. Indeed they know that the light of the human face shi nes with the splendour of the parent, and that before our eyes the glittering signs of the Trinity glow red with fla mes. In fact since the hands together with their parentarms form the image of the cross, with good reason they have won such great prizes of dignity, that they both im press the sign of the cross on our foreheads, come into contact with the body of Christ and, by bringing to the mouth, which blesses the Lord, the divine mysteries in our daily bread, by going back and forth recall the rites of worship.

EPISTVLA DE SVBSTANTIA

263

620 nescias, infantes et pueri, ut secreta cordis exacuant, manibus uerberantur, quia quicquid de corde dicitur aut ex corde mandatur, digitis recordantibus exaratur. Et tamen manus ipsae licet unitatis uinculo conligentur, licet catena sua articuli consuantur, quibus et ipsi nodi se 625 Trinitatis per plexuras intorqueant, et memoriam cordis of ficio calculationis per numeros ducant, cum ad officium Patris et Filii redeunt oculis, quibus unitas deitatis effulget et rutilat paterna substantia, concauis et exsinuatis manibus aquam deferunt, et faciem totam digitis decurrendo 630 quicquid tetigerint lambunt. Nouerunt enim faciei hominis lumen praenitere paren tis, et oculis nostris fulgentia Trinitatis signa rutilare. Nam quia manus cum brachiis parentibus, crucis imaginem faciunt, merito tanta dignitatis praemia meruerunt et ut sig635 num in frontibus figant, corpus Christi contrectent, et ori quod dominum benedicet et mysteria deferentes quotidiano pastu, euntes ac redeuntes officiositatis itinera recognoscant.

620 nescias] rasura inter nescias et infantes in B 623 ipsae] ipse B conligentur] colligentur B 624 catena] cathena B arti culi] arculi A 626 calculations] caucolationis A Vega cum] quum A officium] offitium B 627 filii] filium A unitas] unita A Ant. effulget] effulgit A 628 exsinuatis] exsinuati A sinuati Ant. 629 faciem] faciaem B 631 faciei] faciem A 632 fulgentia] fulgentae B rutilare] offulgere splendere gloss. A} marg. 633 brachis] braciis A imaginem] ymaginem A 634 dignitatis] dignatis B 636 et] om. B mysteria] scripsi cum Vega misteria A ministeria B quotidiano] quotidianu A Add. Explicit epistula beati Iheronimi presbyteri C

FRAGMENTVM

LATIN TEXT OF THE EPISTULA POTAMI

267

LATIN TEXT OF THE EPISTULA POTAMI (Fragment) QUOTED BY PHOEBADIUS OF AGEN (The Latin text is reproduced from the edition by R. Demeulenaere in Corpus Christianorum - Series Latina Vol. LXIV p. 27) Phoebadius, Contra Arrianos, V,1-6, (publ. 357 or 358) CC 64,27: Et idcirco duplicem hunc statum, non coniunctum, sed confusum uultis uideri, ut etiam unius uestrum, id est, Epistula Potamii quae ad Orientem et Occidentem transmissa est, qua adserit: came et spiritu Christi coagulatis 5 per sanguinem Mariae et in unum corpus redactis passibilem Deum factum.

LETTER OF POTAMIUS FRAGMENT QUOTED BY PHOEBADIUS OF AGEN IN CONTRA ARRIANOS V,i-6 (publ. 357 or 358): Therefore you (Arians) want this twofold state to appear to be not united, but muddled, as well as one of your party, namely Potamius, who in his letter transmitted from the East and the West, asserts: with Christ's flesh and spirit coagulated through Mary's blood and reduced to a single body, a passible God was made.

INDICES

Index Locorvm S. Scriptvrae Index Scriptorvm

Enumerationem formarum, concordantiam formarum et indicem formarum a tergo ordinatarum inuenies in fasciculo 116 seriei A Instrumentorum lexicologicorum latinorum.

INDEX LOCORVM SACRAE SCRIPTVRAE Ath. = Epistula ad Athanasium Sb. = Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sanctus opus linea Genesis 1.26

1.27

opus linea Sapientia

Sb. Sb. Sb. Sb. Sb. Sb.

358-359 369-370 375-376 382-383 408-409 384-385

Sb. Sb.

89-90 77

9,10

Sb.

494-495

23,22

Sb. Sb. Sb.

270-272 82 59 (cf. Iohannes 19.24; Matthaeus 27,35) 91-92 283-284 78 326-327 498 505-506 165-166 76 83 324-325 331-332 337 65-66 316-317 340-341 349-35°

1,5

Ath. Sb.

70 320

Ecclesiastes 2,8

Ath. Sb.

73-75 322-323

Ath. Sb. Sb. Sb. Ath. Sb.

54-57 27-29 38 40-41 61-63 180-182

Exodus Ieremias 12,11 12,5

Deuteronomium 19,15 Psalmi

Lamentationes 1,3 21,22 22,18

29,6 38,8 44.2

44,8 62,12

68.3 71,2 132,1

Sb. Sb. Ath. Sb. Sb. Sb. Sb. Ath. Ath. Sb. Sb. Sb. Ath. Sb. Sb. Sb.

i,i

Sb.

47-50

Sb. Sb. Sb.

136-139 140-141 297-298

Sb. Sb. Sb. Sb.

296-297 298 297 299

Sb.

294-295

Sb. Sb.

298-299 3i4(cf. Deutero nomium 19,15) 495-496 300 85-86 96-97

Matthaeus 7,22 7,23 8,5-13 8,H-15; 9,1-8 8,28-34 9,20-22 9,32-34 H,24-33; 8,23-27 i5,3i; 21,14 18,16

Sb. 20,29-34 Sb. 26,15 Sb. 26,55 Sb.

INDICES

272

opus linea

opus linea Marcus 7,31-37 9,4

Sb. Sb.

299-300 313

Mi.

318-319

Lucas 15,13

6,38 10,30

11-12

14,9

Ath. Sb. Sb. Ath. Ath. Ath. Ath. Sb. Sb. Sb. Ath. Ath.

23-25 338-339 492-494 36-37 41-42

48-49 480 481-482 23 28 29

I ad Corinthios 30,13

Iohannes 1,1

14,11 14^4 14,28

Ath. Sb. Sb. Ath. Ath. Ath.

Sb.

579-580

I ad Timotheum 2,5

Sb.

179-180

22

46-47 164 486-487 295 22-23 47

Epistula I Iohannis 5,8

Ath. Sb. Sb. Sb.

45-46 32 165 313

INDEX SCRIPTORVM Ath. = Epistula ad Athanasium Laz. = De Lazaro Es. = De Martyrio Esaiae Prophetae Sb. = Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti opus linea Apuleius

Contra secundam Iuliani res ponsionem 6,7 Laz. 103-106

Apologia 7-15

Florida 6,4-5

Es.

36-37

Ath.

35-37

Cicero

De Deo Socratis i,7 Laz. Metamorphoses 2,27-28 Laz. 4,10,2 Sb. 8,4,4 Es. 8,5,7 Ath. 11-1,2 Laz. »,i3,3-5 Laz.

Es.

De natura deorum 2,57 Sb. 529-541

14-15 Damasus Papa 73-83 93 23 12 14-15 138-142

Ascensio Isaiae (Apocryphus) 2-4

opus linea

Epigrammata 2,20 (1,20)

Ath.

27,4 (21,4) Ath.

3 3

Lactantius Epitome Divinarum Institutionum 38,8 Ath. 40-41

34-46 Divinae Institutiones 2,10,3 Laz. 7-8

Athanasius Epistula de Synodis 20 Ath. 3-4 De Sententia Dyonisii 13 Ath. 3-4 Epistula de morte Arii 4 Ath. 3-4

Lucifer Calaritanus De non parcendo 22,5 Laz.

109

Lucanus Pharsalia

De decretis Nicaeni Synodi 2 Sb. 84-88

2,181

5,"5 5,564 9,7-8

Augustinus De natura boni 42 Laz.

Ath. Laz. Laz. Ath.

47 13-14 6

Es. Sb. Laz. Laz.

8-9 294-295 17-18 17-18

72

13-14 Lucretius

Epistulae 137,1,3

Laz.

Contra Iulianum 1,6,24 Laz.

13-14 103-106

2,410 3,1032 5,142 6,1194

INDICES

274

opus linea

opus linea Ovidius Metamorphoses VI, 55-58 Sb. VI, 61-67 Sb.

143-155 116-120

Seneca Epistulae ad Lucilium 90,20 Sb. 143-155 Hercules Oetaeus 1740 Es.

44-45

Sirmium (357) Secunda Formula Sirmiensis Ath. 28-29 Ath. 50-51 Statius Silvae 5,5,12

Laz.

47

Tertullianus Apologeticum 21,12-13 Sb Ad Martyras Ath. 1,5 De Anima Ath. 6,8 Laz. 7,3

280-281 14-15

40-41

23,1 27,7 28,5 53,3 55,2-3

Ath. Laz. Es. Laz. Sb.

72 9 35-36 55-56 107-108

De Corona 5,2 Sb. 447-453 Adversus Praxean 8,5-6 Sb. 280-281 Varro De re rustica Laz. 3.17.4

66

Vergilius Ciris 271 317

Sb. Sb.

7-9 116-120

Georgica i,44 4,^75

Laz. Sb.

17-18 116-120

8,259 8,580 12,330 12,337 12,728 12,928

Ath. Laz. Sb. Sb. Sb. Sb.

15-16 2-3 294-295 294-295 347-349 347-349

CONSPECTVS MATERIAE Altercatio Ecclesiae et synagogae cura et studio J.N. Hillgarth Introduction The Date and Place of Origin of the Altercatio Manuscripts and Editions of the Altercatio The Families of Manuscripts Orthography Sigla Stemma codicum

3-24 7-11 11-17 17-22 22-23 23 24

Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae

25-47

Indices Index locorum Sacrae Scripturae Index Scriptorum

49-53 51-52 53

Potamii episcopi Olisponensis opera omnia cura et studio M. Conti Acknowledgements The life and Works of Potamius of Lisbon 1. Life of Potamius 2. Works of Potamius Epistula ad Athanasium De Lazaro The two Versions of the De Lazaro De martyrio Esaiae prophetae Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti Epistula Potami The Manuscripts 1. Manuscripts of the Epistula ad Athanasium Manuscripts of the Family C Group C V L Group ENS

56 57-79 57-63 63-79 63-64 64-71 69-71 71-74

75-78 78-79 79-121 79-90

83-89 83-84 84-86

276

CONSPECTVS MATERIAE

Group B D R A H Group F G I Manuscripts of the Family M 2. Manuscripts of the De Lazaro Manuscripts of the Family Chrys Group OFAGLSaRoHJNrZnWb Group Ph P E Group BaCTpY Group I Do Va Manuscript Q Manuscript K Manuscript Mb Manuscripts of the Family Zen Group a Codex R Codices Pi U Codices N Ox Lg Fa Codices T V Codex B Codex X Group /3 Codices Z M W Codices Ca D Codex Pa Codex S 3. Manuscripts of the De martyrio Esaiae Prophetae Family Zen Group a Group /3 4. Manuscripts of the De substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti Manuscripts A B Manuscript C Manuscript P Manuscript F Manuscript H Editions The Language and Style of Potamius

86-88 88-89 89-90 91-112 91-101 91-95 95-9j 97-98 98-100 100 100-101 101 102-112 103-108 103-104 104-105 105-107 107 107-108 108 109-112 109-110 110-111 m 111-112 112-113 112-113 112-113 113 114-121 115-117 117-118 118-119 119-120 120-121 122-126 127-134

CONSPECTVS MATERIAE

277

Note on the present Edition Select Bibliography Abbreviations Conspectus Siglorum Epistula ad Athanasium De Lazaro De martyrio Esaiae Prophetae De substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

134-135 135-138 139-140 141-147 141-142 142-145 145-146 146-147

Epistula ad Athanasium De Lazaro Potami uersio Synopsis uersionum De martyrio Esaiae Prophetae Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti Fragmentum - Epistula Potami

150-163 166-195 166-175 178-195 198-203 206-263 z6j

Indices Index locorum Sacrae Scripturae Index Scriptorum

269-274 271-272 273-274

D/1999/095/49 ISBN 2-503-00693-0 relie ISBN 2-503-00694-9 broche ISBN 2-503-00000-2 serie PRINTED IN BELGIUM