In Search of Asterius: Studies on the Authorship of the »Homilies on the Psalms« 9783666551543, 3525551541, 9783525551547

Citation preview

VôR

WOLFRAM

KINZIG

In Search of Asterius Studies on the Authorship of the Homilies on the Psalms

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN G Ö T T I N G E N

Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte Band 47

CIP-Titelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Kinzig, Wolfram: In search of Asterius : studies on the authorship of the homilies on the psalms / Wolfram Kinzig. - Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1990 (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte; Bd. 47) Zugl.: Heidelberg, Univ., Diss., 1988 ISBN 3-525-55154-1 N E : GT

© 1990 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Printed in Germany. - Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Ubersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Druck: Guide-Druck GmbH, Tübingen Bindearbeit: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

Preface

This study is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, which was passed in its German version by the Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät of the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg in the summer semester 1988. Literature which has come to my knowledge after this date has been added. The main part of this book was written in Heidelberg and during two research years in Christ Church, Oxford (1985/86) and Trinity College, Cambridge (1986/87). It would not have come into existence without the generous support of numerous teachers and friends in Germany and the United Kingdom. It is a special pleasure for me to be able to express my gratitude here: First I should like to thank my supervisor Professor Dr Adolf Martin Ritter (Heidelberg) who suggested the topic to me and assisted me with his learned advice during the preparation of this book. I am particularly indebted to Professor Dr Maurice F. Wiles (Oxford) who encouraged and supported my writing a dissertation which argues against the results of his own research. He has thus given me a memorable example of scholarly tolerance. Mrs Susan Hockey at the Oxford University Computing Service, Dr Enno Mammen, Dr hábil. Theo Eisele (both Heidelberg) and my friend Dr Guido Walz (Mannheim) all assisted me with the computer project described in chapter 2. 2. and the statistical assessment of the data obtained. This work was kindly funded by the Faculty of Divinity, Oxford. Frau Ute Wartenberg (Oxford) and Mr Peter Muller (Oxford, now Princeton) helped in many ways in the preparation of earlier stages of this study. For further suggestions and criticisms I am indebted to Professors G. Christopher Stead (Cambridge), Dieter Hagedorn (Heidelberg), Gilles Dorival (Paris), Ekkehard Muhlenberg (Göttingen), Karlfried Froehlich (Princeton), Gerhard May (Mainz), moreover to Drs Anthony Meredith SJ, Paul M. Parvis OP (both Oxford), Lionel R. Wickham (Cambridge) and Miss Jeanne Harrington (Matlock, Derbyshire). The staff of the University Library in Heidelberg, the Bodleian Library and the libraries of Pusey House and Christ Church (all Oxford) and the University Library and the libraries of the Faculty of Divinity and of Trinity College in Cambridge showed great patience in the sometimes

-

6

-

rather time-consuming task of making available hundreds of manuscripts and printed books. Señor Jaime Cavelier (Cambridge) drew the diagrams in Appendix 3. Mr Rupert Wood (Cambridge) kindly undertook the tedious task of proof-reading my English translations, whereas Dr Gerlinde Huber (Mannheim) checked the German version for mistakes. Mrs Laura Cordy (Cambridge) and Herr Bernhard Schäffer (Mannheim) assisted me in the different stages of preparing and printing out my computer files. Generous scholarships from the 'Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes', the World Council of Churches and Trinity College, Cambridge made it possible for me to dedicate myself entirely to my work without having to worry about how to earn my living. The fact that my dissertation is published as a book so soon after its being passed is due not only to a Research Fellowship from Peterhouse, Cambridge which gave me the necessary time, but also to the kindness of the publisher, Dr Arndt Ruprecht, who accepted it without hesitation to be included in the series of the Forschungen zur Kirchen und Dogmengeschichte. Finally, I should like to thank Seflorita Maria del Carmen Rascón Chávez who helped me when my mind was in danger of concentrating only on Asterius and no longer on the world around me. I dedicate this book to my parents without whose love I should not have become what I am today. Peterhouse, Cambridge

Easter 1989 Wolfram Kinzig

Table of Contents page Preface

5

Abbreviations

10

1. Introduction: The Problem

11

1. 1. Life and Works of Asterius the Sophist 1. 1. 1. Life 1. 1. 2. Works

14 14 20

1. 2. The Problem of Authorship — the Research so far 1. 2. 1. Cotelier's attribution to Asterius of Amasela 1. 2. 2. Doubts as to the authorship before Cotelier 1. 2. 3. The period between Cotelier and Richard 1. 2. 4. Richard and Skard's attribution to the Sophist and the research thereafter

22 22 23 24 27

1. 3. The Questions Arising from the Survey of the Research so far 2. The Unity of the Homilies on the Psalms

37 41

2. 1. The Evidence of the Manuscript Tradition

41

2. 2. A Stylometrical Study of the Homilies on the Psalms . . . 2. 2. 1. Particles and connectives 2. 2. 1. 1. Spearman's rank correlation 2. 2. 1. 2. The empirical correlation c o e f f i c i e n t . . . 2. 2. 1. 3. The x 2 -test for homogeneity 2. 2. 1. 4. The z-test 2. 2. 2. Prepositions 2. 2. 2. 1. Spearman's rank correlation 2. 2. 2. 2. The empirical correlation c o e f f i c i e n t . . . 2. 2. 2. 3. The x 2 -Test for homogeneity 2. 2. 2. 4. The z-test 2. 2. 3. Verba dicendi

46 51 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 56 56 56

-

8

-

2. 2. 4. Conclusions 2. 2. S. Summary 2. 3. Internal 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 2. 2. 3. 3.

Arguments Homily 24 Homily 26,1-3 Homily 27,9-24

3. A Re-examination of Richard's Hypothesis 3. 1. The Catenae Fragments 3. 1. 1. The tradition of the Homilies on the Psalms under the name of Chrysostom 3. 1. 2. The tradition of the Homilies on the Psalms under the name of Asterius, under other names, and anonymously 3. 1. 3. The identity of the author of the catenae fragments

57 58 59 59 63 66 69 69 72

74 84

3. 2. The History of the Printed Text 3. 2. 1. The Homilies on the Psalms as collection 3. 2. 1. 1. From the editio princeps to Cotelier . . . 3. 2. 1. 2. From Cotelier to Richard 3. 2. 1. 3. Richard and Skard's editions 3. 2. 2. The catenae fragments 3. 2. 3. Single catenae fragments

91 91 92 98 101 102 109

3. 3. The Testimony of Jerome 3. 3. 1. Commentarli in Psalmos = Homilies on the Psalms? 3. 3. 2. Asterius Philosophus = Asterius Scythopolita? . . .

113

3. 4. A Comparison of the Theology of Asterius the Sophist and the Theology of the Homilies on the Psalms 3. 4. 1. The theology of Asterius the Sophist 3. 4. 2. The theology of the Homilies on the Psalms compared with the theology of the Sophist 3. 4. 2. 1. The Trinity 3. 4. 2. 2. Relationship Father - Son 3. 4. 2. 3. Relationship Father - Creation 3. 4. 2. 4. The Holy Spirit Excursus: The angelology of the Homelies on the Psalms

115 122

125 125 132 135 136 146 150 150

-

9

-

3. 4. 2. 5. Internal arguments in favour of the Sophist's authorship 3. 4. 2. 6. The reference in Philostorgius 4. The Origin of the Homilies on the Psalms 4. 1. The Date of 4. 1. 1. The 4. 1. 2. The 4. 1. 3. The

Composition amnesty at Eastertide practice of infant baptism institution of Easter week

4. 2. The Place of Composition Excursus: The Bible of Asterius 1. The canon of the Bible of Asterius 2. The biblical text of Asterius 5. Conclusions Appendix 1: Synopsis of the major editions of the Homilies on the Psalms Appendix 2: Tables Appendix 3: Diagrams Appendix 4: List of the complete editions of the works of John Chrysostom Appendix 5: Synopsis of the catenae fragments in Barbaro and Richard Appendix 6: Synopsis of the catenae fragments in Lippomano and Richard . Appendix 7: Synopsis of the catenae fragments in Cordier and Richard

1S3 155 1S9 159 159 160 162 164 169 169 176 227 233 235 252 254 267 269 270

Bibliography

271

Indices Index of Index of Index of Index of

291 294 297 312

Manuscripts Biblical References Pagan and Patristic References Proper Names

- 10 -

Abbreviations In order to avoid unnecessary confusions the following abbreviations are used throughout the book: AS = Asterius the Sophist AA = Asterius of Amasela Ast = the author of the Homilies HomPs = Homilies

on the

Psalms

on the Psalms as edited by Marcel Richard

All other abbreviations are explicitly introduced in the text. Bibliographical references are abbreviated according to the 'Abkürzungsverzeichnis' of the Theologische Realenzyklopädie compiled by Siegfried Schwertner, Berlin/New York 1976. In quoting the Old Testament, in particular the Psalms, I follow the Göttingen edition of the LXX, where applicable, or Rahlfs' editio minor (Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Rahlfs, editio minor, Stuttgart 1935, reprinted 1979). Quotations from ancient authors are given in the following manner: author, title, book and/or chapter, paragraph (where appropriate), name(s) of editor(s) or series (in the case of PG, PL, CChr.SL and CChr.SG), volume (where appropriate), page number, line number (in most cases).

1. Introduction: The Problem O n e especially complex figure from the time immediately before and immediately after Nicaea is Asterius the Sophist (died soon after 341). He is complex, in that on the one hand it can be demonstrated that he put forward strictly Arian teaching, particularly in his Syntagmaiion, which was written before Nicaea, while on the other hand homilies on the Psalms and a series of Easter sermons are ascribed to him which evidently must be put after 335 and display throughout a pre-Nicene, orthodox christology, which is archaic in many of its features. In comparison with Eusebius of Caesarea, his friend, Asterius is heretical in the Syntagmation, but in his homilies he is more a man of the church and more orthodox than Eusebius.' This is the judgment of Alois Grillmeier in the first volume of his book Christ in Christian Tradition on one of the most iridescent figures of the Arian controversy. 1 Grillmeier's contribution is symptomatic of the dilemma which the recent research on AS has faced: — here a man who, because of his intellect and rhetorical gifts, was stylized by Athanasius as the archegete and the 'advocate of the heresy' 2 and who was called by Adolph von Harnack a 'travelling professor' 3 ; — there is a collection of interpretations of the Psalms including some sermons on the Easter Octave, which appear deliberately to avoid all controversial dogmatic questions and represent, quite innocently, a popular, unintellectual orthodoxy. 4 1

Grillmeier 197S, p. 206.

2

Cf. the references below note 19.

3

Harnack 1894ff, IV, p. 60. The judgment of Athanasius still exercises a strong influence on modern scholars. Bardy, for example, calls AS 'le porte-parole de l'Arlanisme' (In: HE III, 1936, p. 104). Rlcciotti sees in AS 'an "intellectual" representative of the Arlan party' (1960, p. 254); according to Hanson 'he combined the roles which today would be occupied by the theologian, the scientist, the Journalist and the advertising agency' (1988, p. 32).

4

Cf. Simonetti 1983, col. 422: 'L'esegesi Csc. of the HomPsl è In complesso di tipo tradizionale nella lettura cristologica del testo veterotestamentario, e sembra sfuggire di proposito l'approfondimento dottrinale, all' Infuori di espressioni genericamente ortodosse (Cristo generato del Padre ante saecula, ecc.), a riprova di un certo disimpegno dell' ultimo ACsterlo] del vivo della controversia ariana.'

-

12

-

Theoretically, there are two possible solutions to this difficulty: 1. Either the attribution of the HomPs to AS is maintained. Following on from this, two possibilities appear: 1. 1. At one point in his life, AS changed his mind and the fragments of the dogmatic works on one hand and the HomPs on the other hand reflect different stages of the Sophist's doctrinal development. 1. 2. The fragments, as collected by Bardy, have to be interpreted on the evidence of the HomPs and not the other way round, since the fragments which are preserved only by opponents of AS give a one-sided, biased picture. 2. Or the authorship of AS for the HomPs is questioned and the problem of the attribution of the HomPs is re-examined. Solution 1. 1., which is based on a remark in Philostorgius' Ecclesiastical History5 was adopted by Marcel Richard who was the first to ascribe the HomPs to AS in a number of articles, the first of which appeared in 1935; eventually, it culminated in the edition of the texts under the name of AS in 1956. Other scholars (e. g. auf der Maur, Gelsi, Simonetti and eventually also Grillmeier) followed him.6 The most prominent partisans of solution 1. 2. were Maurice F. Wiles and Robert C. Gregg in an article published in 1985, in which they tried to show that the fragments and the HomPs are by no means contradictory and that certain theological shifts were easily explicable by the different genres and different addressees. Both positions, however, were unanimous in their underlying assumption that the attribution by Richard was correct. The problem at stake is by no means of secondary importance. For its solution is of major importance for the history of doctrine and the history of the Church: if the attribution to the Sophist, as assumed by Richard, is correct, we should then have access to the only directly transmitted work by an Arian of the first generation. The consequences, especially for our picture of the spirituality of this theological movement, would be so far-reaching that Wiles and Gregg even claimed that the time had come for 'a new chapter in the history of Arianism.'7 3

P h l l o s t . . hist.

6

C f . R i c h a r d , e d i t i o n , p. III; a u f d e r M a u r 1967, p p . 5, 8 f . ; G e l s i 1978, p p . 7f. ; S i m o n e t t i 1983, c o l . 422; c f . G r i l l m e i e r 1975, p p . 2 0 6 f . a n d n o t e 168.

7

T h i s is the title question mark. A s to 693):

the

eccl.

2,15 ( B i d e z / W i n k e l m a n n

of

problem

their of

article

sources

of

which, early

p.

25,25-27).

however, Arianism

is (cf.

followed Ritter

by

1978,

a p.

M a r t i n T e t z d i s c o v e r e d the A r i a n o r i g i n o f a h o m i l y w h i c h h a s c o m e d o w n to u s u n d e r the n a m e o f A t h a n a s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a ( f i r s t e d i t e d

- 13 Yet at the same time sceptical voices have been raised regarding the reliability of the attribution. This scepticism is implicit throughout Grillmeier's contribution to the debate.8 Recently Christopher Stead quite explicitly questioned the attribution in his review of the article by Wiles and Gregg and listed concisely all the decisive points which render the attribution of the HomPs to AS problematic.9 Stead was supported by Rowan Williams in his new book on Arius who also described the authorship of AS as 'doubtful'.10 In view of these critical voices I suggest possibility 2.: it seems to me that the hypothesis of Richard needs a re-examination. Hence in what follows, the question of the authorship of the HomPs is to be dealt with right from the start. In doing this it seems important to me to note the following point ω regards the methodology: the burden of the proof is not on those who question a well established attribution, but only on those who make the attribution in the first place — against the testimony of history. It is true that there is a general consensus that the HomPs were not written by Chrysostom, under whose name they have been handed down to us. Yet proof that AS is the author must first be produced. Therefore the following study is not only a study of the authorship of the HomPs as such, but at the same time it is a study of the methodological problems of authorship attributions in general. From what has been said so far, it is clear that my initial and basic question is this: by C a s e y and again by Scheidweiler). A s author he s u g g e s t s Athanasius o f A n a z a r b a , and the date may be pre-Nicene (19S2/S3, passim). If this hypothesis is correct, w e s h o u l d have here smother early A r l a n source. H o w e v e r , this attribution is highly speculative. Scheidweiler s u g g e s t s as a date the second h a l f o f the f o u r t h century (1955/56, p. 140). The Commentary on Job by the A r l a n Julian w a s written by an A r i a n o f the second generation. C f . H a g e d o r n 1973, pp. L I V - L V : 'Julian w a r demnach ein Arianer reinsten W a s s e r s ; w i r d U r f e n in ihm einen A n h ä n g e r des Aetlos und des E u n o m l u s vermuten, jener Leute also, die man g e w ö h n l i c h Jungarianer, A n o m ö e r o d e r auch Eunomianer nennt.' The t w o Homélies Anoméennes edited by Jacques Llébaert b e l o n g to the same period, if Llébaert's a s s e s s m e n t o f their doctrinal content Is correct (cf. b e l o w note 130). A l l other s o u r c e s o f early A r i a n i s m are only transmitted by o f the A r i a n movement. 8

C f . the d o u b t s voiced throughout his chapter on A S .

» C f . Stead 1987, pp. 203-205. 10

C f . W i l l i a m s 1987, p. 321 note 17.

opponent

- 14 -

Who wrote the HomPs edited by Richard? In doing this I shall pay special attention to these points: 1. On what grounds did Richard attribute the HomPs to AS? 2. Are these grounds convincing, or do we perhaps have to look for one or more new authors? However, before we begin our investigation into these questions, I shall first give a survey of life and works of AS as well as an account of the research so far, in order to illuminate the background against which the shape of the problem as a whole can be discerned.

1. 1. Life and Works of Asterlus the Sophist

1. 1. 1. Life Even though (or, perhaps, since) AS was, intellectually, one of the most influential figures of early Arianism, the damnation of the movement as a heresy led to the virtual erasure of the memory of the life and works of this man. The information concerning his life and remains of his literary production is very scarce. Moreover, uncertainties as to the identity of this man obscured various parts of his biography at a very early stage, something which is perhaps also due to the damnatio memoriae.il The exact year of his birth is unknown. It must have been some time between 260 and 280 A. D., since, on the one hand, AS was already an adult by the time of the persecutions of the Christians under Maximianus Herculius at about 303, and, on the other hand, he participated in the synod of Antioch in 341. Neither do we have any details of his place of birth. Presumably AS came from Cappadocia.12 Auf der Maur assumed a Jewish background. However, this cannot be proved.13 At least we know that AS exercised 11

T h e b e s t a c c o u n t s o f A S ' l i f e a r e f o u n d In B a r d y 1936, p p . 316-328 a n d In a u f d e r M a u r 1967, p p . 2-6; c f . m o r e o v e r Llnié, p p . 3 0 f . , G e l s i 1978. p p . 1-8; H a r r i n g t o n 198S, p p . 1-22; H a n s o n 1988. p p . 32-41.

12

A S is c a l l e d a C a p p a d o c i a n in Ä t h a n . , de syn. 18,2 ( O p i t z II, p. 245.21); P h i l o s t . , hist. e c c i . 2,14 ( B i d e z / W i n k e l m a n n p. 25,1S); S o c r . , hist. eccl. 1.36 ( P G 67.172B); S o z o m . , hist. eccl. 2.33.4 ( B i d e z / H a n s e n p. 99,3); S y n o d . A n t i o c h . 341, lib. synod. ( M a n s i II, c o l . 13S0).

13

A u f d e r M a u r 1967, p. 2 f o l l o w i n g P e t e r s o n 1959, p. 222 n o t e 2, w h o r e f e r s to J e w i s h f u n e r a l i n s c r i p t i o n s in P h o e n i c i a . C f . a l s o G e l s i 1978, passim, e s p . p p . 2f. A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f the r e l e v a n t c o l l e c t i o n s of

- 15 the p r o f e s s i o n of a sophist, 1. e. o f a rhetor or philosopher 1 4 which to his surname. 1 5

It is not clear

whether

he

continued

working

sophist after his conversion. 1 6 According to the church historian tes,

he

gave

It

up.17

A

remark

made

by

Athanasius,

led

as

however,

may

suggest that he continued working as a sophist a f t e r w a r d s . 1 8 From same remark w e may assume that the j o b

of

a sophist

was

a

Socrathe

connected

with that o f a lawyer. The frequent nickname o f the Sophist as 'advocate o f the heresy' seems to c o n f i r m this. 19 Nothing

is

Christianity.

known

about

Phllostorglus

the

counts

circumstances AS

amongst

of the

his circle

conversion of

the

to 'syl-

lucianists', the pupils o f Lucian o f Antioch to which, moreover, Eusebius Latin and G r e e k Inscriptions, h o w e v e r , i m m e d i a t e l y s u g g e s t s the attestation o f the name f r o m the s e c o n d c e n t u r y o n w a r d s . C f . Canivet 1977, p. 243 n o t e 36. 14

wide also

C f . M a r r o u 19S7, pp. 243. 296; K e n n e d y 1983, p. 133. Stanton (1973. passim), however, distinguishes d i f f e r e n t historical stages. A c c o r d i n g t o h i m in the f i r s t and s e c o n d c e n t u r i e s φ ι λ ό σ ο φ ο ς and (>ήτωρ w e r e used promiscue, w h e r e a s σοφιστής w a s a t e r m o f a d i f f e r e n t o r d e r and that o n l y later this d i s t i n c t i o n d i s a p p e a r e d . A s the t e r m i n o l o g y s u g g e s t s , the e x a c t p r o f e s s i o n t e r m e d σοφιστής and its v a l u e is d i f f i c u l t to determine. Gerth emphasizes: ' D e r N a m e S o p h i s t g i l t als ein E h r e n n a m e . Er steht höher als d i e B e z e i c h n u n g R h e t o r . S o p h i s t b e z e i c h n e t nicht e i n e n b e s o n d e r e n B e r u f , s o n d e r n er kann d i e v e r s c h i e d e n s t e n B e r u f s z w e i g e u m f a s s e n ' (Gerth 1956, c o l . 723). A c c o r d i n g t o Stanton, h o w e v e r , the t e r m σοφιστής 'can b e used in a neutral s e n s e , but it tends t o have a d e r o g a t o r y c o n n o t a t i o n w h e n a p p l i e d t o m e n o f l e t t e r s ' (1973, p. 358; c f . a l s o Gerth, ibid.: ' M a n b e g e g n e t g e l e g e n t l i c h auch Ä u ß e r u n g e n , die verächtlich v o n d e n S o p h i s t e n s p r e c h e n . ' ) F o r the c o m p l e x as a w h o l e c f . a l s o W o l f 1952, e s p . pp. 9-31, B o w e r s o c k 1969 and K e n n e d y 1983, e s p . pp. 133ff. and, o n A S , pp. 207f. ( K e n n e d y a s s u m e s A S t o b e the author o f the fiomPs.i

15

Socr., hist.

16

That he continued is a s s u m e d by Skard 1940, p. 129-, c f . 1926. p. 221; 1936. pp. 318f. ; auf d e r M a u r 1967, p. 3. eccl.

eccl.

17

Hist.

18

Äthan., d e syn.

1,36 (PG 67.172B).

1,36 ( P G 67.172B); c f . N i c e p h . . hist.

Bardy

8,53 ( P G 147.215A).

20.1 (Opitz 11,1, p. 247.3f.) :

Sià τ ο ύ τ ο xat Άστέρι,ον tò\i θ ύ σ α ν τ « , Ασεβείας ίαυτΟνι π ρ ο ύ β ά λ λ ο ν τ ο ... 19

eccl.

also

σοφιστήν

βντα,

συνήγορον

τϊ|ς

Äthan., c. Arian. 1,30 ( B r i g h t p. 32), c f . 32 (Bright p. 33); 3,2 ( B r i g h t p. 155), 60 ( B r i g h t p. 213). M a r c e l l u s c a l l s A S and ' a d v o c a t e o f hims e l f ' ( f r g . 35 [ K l o s t e r m a n n / H a n s e n ] ) . C f . a l s o the p r e c e d i n g note. T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the p r o f e s s i o n o f a r h e t o r and a l a w y e r w a s not c l e a r cut. Judicial o r a t o r y b e l o n g e d t o the t o p i c s p r a c t i s e d in r h e t o r i c a l s c h o o l s ; c f . K e n n e d y 1983, pp. 6-19. A d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the p r o f e s s i o n s o f s o p h i s t and o f l a w y e r during the f o u r t h c e n t u r y is a s s u m e d b y W o l f 1952, pp. 22f.

-

16

-

of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicaea, Leontius of Antioch, Antonius of Tarsus, Menophantus, Noominius and Eudoxius belonged.20 If we assume a date of birth between 260 and 280, the latest date for AS' becoming a student of Lucian would be around 300.21 For AS, then, the way would have been clear for a brilliant ecclesiastical career, if he had not made a mistake which was then to be used against him again and again by his opponents.22 Under the first persecution of Christians by Maximianus Herculius, which is presumably identical with the repressions by the state following the first edict of Diocletian in 30323 (Maximian reigned with Diocletian from 286 to 30S), AS apostatized under imperial pressure and offered to the gods.24 Even though he later recanted under the influence of his teacher, from this point on an ecclesiastical career was no longer possible for him.2S Socrates reports this lapsus and its consequences tormented AS for the rest of his life as he tried untiringly to get any episcopate.26 In this regard Severus of Antioch tells us that '... it is related in church histories that Asterius, who was a sophist and author among the Arians, was often received and often returned to his vomit [II Pet 2:22], insomuch that this expression of his is cited in histories. He cried out lying on his face before everyone and saying, "Trample upon me, the salt which has lost its savour.'"27 During the following years nothing is heard of AS. Only in connection with the outbreak of the Arian controversy are the sources somewhat 20

P h i l o s t.. hist.

21

C f . H a r r i n g t o n 1985, p. ΙΟ.

eccl.

2,14 ( B i d e z / W i n k e l m a n n

p.

25,10-18).

22

A t h a n a s i u s f o r i n s t a n c e p o l e m i c a l l y c a l l s h i m s e v e r a l t i m e s the ' s a c r i f i c e r ' ( d e d e e r . 8,1 [ O p i t z II, p. 7,203; d e syn. 18,2 [ O p i t z II, p. 245, 22f.3; 20,1 [ O p i t z II, p. 247,33; c. Arian. 2,24 [ B r i g h t p. 943; c f . 2,28 [ B r i g h t p. 973), the ' m a n y - h e a d e d ' ( d e syn. 18,2 [ O p i t z II, p. 245,213) o r the ' c u n n i n g ' s o p h i s t (c. Arian. 1.30 [ B r i g h t p. 323) a n d c o m p a r e s h i m o n c e w i t h C a i p h a s (c. Arian. 2,40 [ B r i g h t p. 1093).

23

C f . G e l s i 1978, p. 4; c f . a l s o W i l e s / G r e g g 1985. p. 146 n o t e 26 a n d , m o r e o v e r , A l l a r d 1 8 8 5 f f „ v o l . I V . l , p p . 1 4 5 f f . a n d F r e n d 1965, p p . 492, 503. A s r e g a r d s the p r o b l e m a s a w h o l e c f . E n ß l i n ' s a r t i c l e s on M a x i m i a n u s ( H e r c u l i u s ) Ipassim, esp. cols. 2507ff.) and on M a x i m i a n u s ( G a l e r i u s ) (passim). S t ö v e r 1982. p p . 217-231.

24

Ä t h a n . , d e syn. 18,2 ( O p i t z II, p. 245,21-23); E p i p h a n . . pon. haer. 76,3,5 ( H o l l III. p. 3 4 3 , 2 3 f . ) ; P h i l o s t . , hist. eccl. 2,14 ( B i d e z / W i n k e l m a n n p. 25.15-18); S o c r . , hist. eccl. 1.36 ( P G 67.172B).

25

Ä t h a n . , d e syn. 18,2 ( O p i t z II, p. 2 4 5 , 2 0 - 2 4 ) ; S o c r . , hist. eccl. 1,36 67.172B); P h i l o s t . , hist. eccl. 2,14 ( B i d e z / W i n k e l m a n n p. 25,16-18).

26

S o c r . , hist.

27

S e v e r . A n t . , e p . V I 5.4 ( B r o o k s s t o r y is n o t a t t e s t e d e l s e w h e r e .

eccl.

(PG

1,36 ( P G 67.172B); c f . B a r d y 1936, p p . 325f. I.

pp.

321f.;

transi.

II.

p.

286).

The

- 17 more copious. AS seems still to have belonged to the circle of pupils of Lucian. Athanasius even calls him an Eusebian.28 Marcellus repeatedly names the syllucianlst Paulinus of Tyrus as the father of AS.29 We do not know exactly at what stage the Sophist comes into the history of the controversy. Athanasius writes twice in de decretis that Arius had copied his doctrines from AS and then distributed them.30 Therefore, according to him, AS was one of the fathers of Arianlsm.31 At least this much seems to be clear: at the beginning of the controversy (around 318?)32 AS must already have been writing. What do we know about it? Athanasius reports that AS, induced by the Eusebians, composed a little treatise (συνταγμάτιον).33 Supported by his partisans he then travelled around the churches of Syria34 and elsewhere. He even dared as a layman to sit down in the places assigned to the clergy and recited from his opusculum.35 It is not known whether AS participated in the council of Nicaea in 325.36 However, he was deeply involved in the theological arguments which followed in its aftermath. In particular he got into a debate with Marcellus of Ancyra. Jerome claims that Marcellus had written many things against the Arians whereafter AS and Apollinaris, for their part,

28

Ä t h a n . , d e syn. 18.2 (Opitz III. pp. 16,27-17,5).

29

C f . M a r c . , frgg. 4O ( K l o s t e r m a n n / H a n s e n p. 191,29f.) a n d 84 ( K l o s t e r m a n n / H a n s e n p. 203,20); c f . B a r d y 1936, p. 320, and a u f d e r M a u r 1967. p. 3 a n d note 33.

30

Ä t h a n . , d e decrct.

31

T o w h a t extent A S c a n i n d e e d b e s e e n as o n e o f the f a t h e r s o f the A r i a n d o c t r i n e h a s hitherto h a r d l y b e e n s t u d i e d . L o r e n z 1979, p p . 191f.. thinks that o n e cannot d r a w any f a r - r e a c h i n g conclusions from A t h a n a s i u s ' statement.

32

Cf. however

33

Ä t h a n . , d e syn.

34

A s r e g a r d s the p r o b l e m c o n c e r n i n g A s t e r i u s S c y t h o p o l i t a w h o is m e n t i o n e d b y J e r o m e in ep. 70,4 ( H i l b e r g I, p. 706.13) a n d ep. 112.20 ( H i l b e r g II, p. 390.7 = A u g . . ep. 75.20 C G o l d b a c h e r II, p. 318,91) c f . b e l o w p p . 122-124. H e is not identical w i t h A S .

35

Ä t h a n . , d e syn. 18,3 (Opitz II. p. 245,24-31); c f . m o r e o v e r S o c r . , hist, eccl. 1,36 ( P G 67.172B-C), w h o is a p p a r e n t l y d e p e n d e n t o n A t h a n a s i u s f o r this point.

36

K o p e c e k 1979, p p . 49f. c l a i m s that A S participated in the c o u n c i l . H o w e v e r , the r e f e r e n c e q u o t e d b y him is w r o n g . T h e s a m e m i s t a k e is m a d e b y H a n s o n 1988, p. 157. M i s s H a r r i n g t o n ' s r e m a r k s in this r e s p e c t , w h i c h a r e b a s e d o n S o c r . . hist. ecc. 1,8, a r e p u r e s p e c u l a t i o n (198S, p. 14).

II. p. 24S.20-24);

cf.

d e d e e r . 20.1f.

(Opitz

8,1 (Opitz 11,1, p. 7,20-22); 20.2 (Opitz 11,1, p. 17,3-S).

Kopecek

1979, p. 4; c f . a l s o Ritter 1978, p. 699.

18,2 (Opitz II, p. 245.23f.).

-

18

-

reacted by accusing Marcellus of SabelHanism.37 Indeed it emerges from the fragments of de sublectione Domini by Marcellus (written 33S) which were preserved by Eusebius and from Socrates38 that Marcellus was involved in a controversy with AS. Yet there it is Marcellus who attacks AS, not the other way round. We do not know from other sources whether or not AS again reacted to this.39 Marcellus in his book is, in fact, opposed to a piece by AS in which the latter defended a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyrus from around 320/21.40 This work of AS was probably written between 331 and 33S.41 Moreover, Marcellus tells us that at the time of writing of de subiectione Domini AS still travelled around in an erratic manner and had found many adherents among the clergy.42 Bardy assumes, from a remark by Socrates, that AS was present at the gathering of bishops in Jerusalem on the occasion of the inauguration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre donated by Constantine in 335.43 A last piece of information concerning the whereabouts of AS has been handed down in connection with the synod of Antioch in 341 which he attended in the suite of the Cappadocian bishop Dianius.44

37

H i e r . , vir. ini. 86 ( R i c h a r d s o n p . 44,17-25). S i m i l a r r e b u k e s w e r e m a d e b y E u s e b i u s o f C a e s a r e a , c f . e. g . eccl. theol.. passim.

38

C f . S o c r . , his t. eccl. 1,36 ( P G 67.172A-173B); N l c e p h o r u s S o c r a t e s {hist. eccl. 8.53 CPG 147.213D-217AÍ).

39

C f . B a r d y 1936, p. 323; n o t e h o w e v e r that the l a t e r t r a d i t i o n s o m e t i m e s g r o u p s A S a n d A p o l l i n a r i s t o g e t h e r ; c f . T h e o d t . , c. Cyr. 102 ( P G 8 4 . 5 5 B - C = M a n s i I X , 2 9 2 f . = A C O I V / 1 . p. 133). C f . in this c o n t e x t a l s o a s c h o l l o n in a P a r i s c o d e x p r i n t e d in B r e t z 1914. p. 17. n o t e 1:

also

depends

on

Ί σ τ έ ο ν ώς £στι.ν Ά σ τ έ ρ ι ο ς ύπό τοΟ Α γ ι ω τ Α τ ο υ Σ ω φ ρ ο ν ί ο υ É-J τοΤς otùtoO OUVOSLKOÎÇ Α ν α θ ε μ α τ ι ζ ό μ ε ν ο ς xotì ύπό ÄXXou π α τ ρ ό ς Ά π ο λ λ ι ν α ρ ί ψ καΐ ΕύτυχεΤ συνταττόμενος. N o t e , h o w e v e r , that T h e o d o r e t d i d not

compare AS

to

Eutyches.

40

C f . M a r c . , f r g . 87 ( K l o s t e r m a n n / H a n s e n p. 2 0 4 ) ; c f . E u s . N i c o m . , e p . a d Paul. ( O p i t z , U r k . 8, p p . 1S-17); c f . B a r d y 1936, p p . 323f. a n d the a c c o u n t s g i v e n in S o c r . , hist. eccl. 1,36 ( P G 67.172A-173B) a n d S o z . , hist. eccl. 2,33 ( B i d e z / H a n s e n p. 98,12-99,8).

41

C f . B a r d y 1936. b e f o r e 327.

42

C f . E u s . , c. Marc. 1,4.48 98 ( K l o s t e r m a n n / H a n s e n

43

S o c r . , hist.

44

M a n s i II. c o l . 1350. A s t o the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the Libellus Synodicus cf. B a r d y 1936, p p . 326f.; H e f e l e / L e c l e r c q 1907ff., v o l . I, p p . 128f. w i t h n o t e 3. C f . , h o w e v e r , b e l o w note 51 w h e r e the Libellus Synodicus Is p r e s u m a b l y w r o n g . A s t o this s y n o d in g e n e r a l c f . K e l l y 1972,

eccl.

p.

324;

cf.

however

Schwartz

(Klostermann/Hansen p. 206).

19S9. p.

p.

28,3-S);

233

note

Marc.,

6: frg.

1.36 ( P G 67.172-174); B a r d y 1936. p p . 32Sf.

- 19 Bardy assumes that the fact that the synod adopted the Lucian symbol is not least due to the influence of the Sophist.45 Additionally auf der Maur points out that this particular symbol 'entirely corresponds to fragments of Asterian works of his extremely Arian period.'* 6 Since at this time AS must have been quite old he presumably died soon afterwards. 47 Because of lack of information the influence of AS on later doctrinal developments in general and on later Arianism in particular is very difficult to assess. Moreover, he soon became a victim of his own name which was borne by several prominent theologians in the fourth and fifth centuries. This meant that confusions occurred frequently. Theodoret apparently confuses him with an Arian bishop of the same name who was killed by the prayers of the monk Julian Sabas. 48 Athanasius and Marcellus notwithstanding, his writings have nowhere been quoted and have rarely been mentioned.49 However, according to Socrates they still existed in the fifth century.so The Libellus Synodicus claims that AS was formally anathematized together with bishop Dianius of Caesarea, Eunomius and Theophronius at a synod in 370 in Caesarea in Cappadocia which gathered for the pp. 260-272, S i m o n e t t l 1975, p p . 153-160; S c h n e e m e l c h e r B r e n n e c k e 1984, p p . 3-16; H a n s o n 1988, pp. 284-292.

1977,

passim,

45

B a r d y 1936, pp. 125-127; 326f.

46

A u f d e r M a u r 1967. p. 6; c f . N a u t i n 1977/78, pp. 333f.; H a n s o n 1988, pp. 2 8 8 f f . A s t o the t a k i n g a l l e g e d I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the L u c í a n c r e e d i n t o the s o - c a l l e d s e c o n d f o r m u l a o f A n t l o c h c f . Bardy 1936, p p . 85-132; K e l l y 1972, pp. 268-271; c f . m o r e o v e r S c h n e e m e l c h e r 1977, p p . 34 I f f . ; L o r e n z 1980, p p . 181ff. ; H a n s o n 1988, pp. 288-290. N a u t i n d o u b t s L u c l a n ' s a u t h o r s h i p and a t t r i b u t e s this c r e e d d i r e c t l y t o A S h i m s e l f . It r e p r e s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o h i m 'une t e n t a t i v e d e c o m p r o m i s e n t r e la p o s i t i o n d e s p r e m i e r s a r i e n s et c e l l e d e s n i c é e n s s t r i c t s ' (ibid., p. 334). R e g a r d i n g the p r e t e n d e d c h a n g e o f m i n d w h i c h is reported by Phllostorglus, hist. eccl. 2,15 ( B i d e z / W l n k e l m a n n p. 25,25-27; c f . a l s o 4,4 CBldez/Winkelmann p. 60,14f.3), c f . below pp. 155 f .

47

M i s s H a r r i n g t o n (1985, p. 19) a s s u m e s that the A s t e r i u s w h o e x c o m m u n i c a t e d at the c o u n c i l o f S e r d i c a in 359 w a s the S o p h i s t Ä t h a n . , de syn. 12,5 COpitz 11,1, p. 240,91; S o c r . , hist. eccl. 2,40 6 7 . 3 4 5 A ] ) . T h e r e f o r e s h e p l a c e s the d e a t h o f A S at a r o u n d H o w e v e r , in v i e w o f the a g e w h i c h A S m u s t h a v e r e a c h e d b y such an a s s u m p t i o n s e e m s r a t h e r u n l i k e l y .

48

T h d t . , vit. patr. (philot.) 2,21f. ( C a n i v e t / L e r o y - M o l i n g h e n I, pp. 2402 4 4 ) ; c f . Synax. Eccl. Const, ad 17 Ian. ( D e l e h a y e c o l . 400.1-5); P h o t i u s . amphil. 312 ( P G 101,1161A-C), w h i c h is, m o r e o v e r , b a s e d o n T h d t . , vit. patr. (philot.) 2,7-10 ( C a n i v e t / L e r o y - M o l i n g h e n I, pp. 212218).

49

C f . b e l o w pp. 2 0 f .

so

S o c r . , hist. eccl.

1,36 ( P C 67.172B).

was (cf. CPG 360. then

- 20

-

election of Basil as bishop of this city. However, this testimony has little credibility.51 Apart from this doubtful testimony, it is rather surprising that AS was not condemned before the seventh century when Sophronius of Jerusalem anathematized him in his letter to Sergius of Constantinople in 634 which was later read out at the council of Constantinople in

680.52

All further information on AS is derived from the aforementioned sources and therefore of no further value.

1. 1. 2. Works Dogmatic writings: 1. Syntagmation ('little treatise') S3 It is not known whether this is actually the title.S4 The book is lost. Athanasius quotes some passages from it in de syn. 18f. and in his Orations against the A rians. Apparently It contained a synthesis of Arian thought. ss The date of composition is unknown; the work is possibly pre-Nicene.S6 2. Apology of the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedla to Paulinus of Tyrus S7 This letter is the object of Marcellus' polemics; he quotes from it now

51

32

C f . M a n s i III, c o l . 453. T h i s c o n d e m n a t i o n is n o t a t t e s t e d a n y w h e r e e l s e a n d s e e m s r a t h e r u n l i k e l y in v i e w o f the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n b e t w e e n D i a n i u s a n d B a s i l s h o r t l y b e f o r e Dianius* d e a t h ( c f . DCB I, 1877. c o l s . 823f.). PG

87/3,3192

=

Mansi

XI,

col.

500;

cf.

v.

Schönborn

1972. p p .

79f.;

99f. C f . a l s o a b o v e n o t e 39. S3

C f . Ä t h a n . , d e syn.

s*

C f . , h o w e v e r , O p i t z ad Ä t h a n . , d e syn. 18,2 ( O p i t z 11,1, p. 245,23) w h o i d e n t i f i e s the Syntagmation w i t h the a p o l o g y o f E u s e b i u s o f N i c o m e d i a . Athanasius calls the w o r k αυιιταγμάτιον a l s o in c. Arian. 1,30.32 ( B r i g h t p p . 3 2 f . ) , s o that this m a y i n d e e d b e the title. C f . a u f d e r M a u r 1967, p. 6, f o l l o w i n g B a r d y 1936, p. 336; c f . m o r e o v e r S o c r . , hist. eccl. 1,36 ( P G 6 7 . 1 7 2 B ) . T h e f r a g m e n t s a r e c o l l e c t e d in B a r d y 1936. p p . 341-348; a n E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n is g i v e n in H a n s o n 1988. p p . 33-37. T h e l i m i t s a n d the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the q u o t a t i o n s in c. Arlan, is e x t e n s i v e l y d i s c u s s e d b y K a n n e n g i e s s e r 1983, p p . 151-181. N a u t i n q u e s t i o n s the r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s — u n n e c e s s a r i l y a s w i l l b e s h o w n b e l o w (1977/78. p. 334; c f . b e l o w p p . 12S-132). C f . B a r d y 1936, p. 322.

ss

S6 37

18.2 ( O p i t z

II.l, p.

245,20-24).

M a r c . , f r g . 87 ( K l o s t e r m a n n / H a n s e n ) ; the letter in q u e s t i o n is p r e s u m a b l y the o n e h a n d e d d o w n b y T h e o d o r e t ( O p i t z , U r k . 8 ) ; c f . S c h w a r t z 1959, p p . 121-123; B a r d y 1936, p p . 323f.

-

21

-

and again.58 Again, the date of composition is unknown; it is possibly between 331 and 335.59 3. Polemical treatise against Marcellus of Ancyra60 Perhaps identical with No. 2 or a reaction to the polemics of Marcellus. Date of composition unknown. Exegetical writings: According to Jerome AS composed the following exegetical writings: 'ASTERIUS, Arianae philosophus factionis, scripsit regnante Constantio, In epistulam ad Romanos et In Evangelia et In Psalmos commentarios et multa alia, quae a suae partis hominibus studiosissime leguntur.'61 Moreover, a Commentary on John is attested by Theodore of Mopsuestia.62 Constantio regnante can only mean Constantius II who was proclaimed Augustus alongside Constantine II and Constans in 337 and reigned alone from 3S0 onwards. (Assuming it is not a mistake by some scribe and we should read Constantino instead.) However, since AS is no longer mentioned after the synod of Antioch in 341, it seems reasonable to assume a date of composition of the works mentioned by Jerome between 337 and 341.63 These works were thought of as being lost,6* until Marcel Richard claimed to have recovered a considerable amount of the Commentary on the Psalms in his HomPs edited in 1956. In mentioning this we already touch upon the history of the research on the HomPs which is reserved for the next chapter.

se

The f r a g m e n t s are collected In Bardy 1936, pp. 348-3S4.

59

C f . Bardy 1936. p. 324.

60

C f . Hleron., vir. ini. 86 (Richardson p. 44,17-25).

64

Hleron., vir. ini. 94 (Richardson p. 46.18-22).

62

Theod. M o p s . , b e l o w p. 134

63

C f . a l s o auf der M a u r 1967, pp. 8f.; G r l l l m e l e r Id., p. 207 note 171: b e t w e e n 336 and 341.

64

In the catenae o n M a t t h e w a s i n g l e f r a g m e n t preceded by the l e m m a "Αστεριού has been preserved (edition: Bretz 1914, p. 24). W h e t h e r this is the Sophist or the b i s h o p o f A m a s e l a o r s o m e other A s t e r i u s is not k n o w n . C f . Karo-Lietzmann 1902. pp. 567f.; C P G IV, C 113.

comm.

in loh.

(Voeté

II,

p.

2,1-11; 149,34-150,12).

Cf.

1975, p. 207 note 170;

-

22

-

1. 2. The Problem of Authorship — the Research so far 1. 2. 1. Cotelier's attribution to Asterius of Amasela The following remarks describe the history of the research on the HomPs which has hitherto been carried out. They do not deal with the history of the printed text, a topic which will be described in a special chapter.65 In 1681 the French scholar Jean-Baptiste Cotelier published a collection of seven homilies on the Psalms S-7 under the name of Asterius, bishop of Amaseia.66 These homilies had come down to us under the name of John Chrysostom. Cotelier found them in a manuscript belonging to the Bibliothèque du Roi — the future Bibliothèque Nationale — in Paris, and published them then for the first time.67 The reason he ascribed them to AA was indicated in his notes: 'Asterio istas tribuimus, auctoritate utriusque Catenae, alterius in quinquaginta Psalmos, alterius in totum Psalterium. Accessit & styli doctrinaeque convenientia.'68 Moreover, Cotelier mentioned that his manuscript contained a homily on Psalm 4 which Henry Savile had already edited in the first Greek edition of the works of John Chrysostom, but which on the evidence of the Catena on the fìfty Psalms had to be ascribed to AA as well. 69 The catenae that Cotelier refers to are the editions compiled by Daniele Barbaro and Balthasar Cordier·,70 and indeed, among the quotations bearing the lemma Άστερίου are literal extracts from, or at least precise résumés of, the homilies edited by Savile and Cotelier.71

63

C f . b e l o w p p . 91-113. A s y n o p s i s o f the m a j o r e d i t i o n s s p o n d i n g p a g e n u m b e r s Is g i v e n in A p p e n d i x 1.

66

T h e e x a c t title is g i v e n b e l o w p. 98 n o t e 131.

67

It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that in the c o d . P a r i s g r . 654, w h i c h s e r v e d a s b a s i s f o r C o t e l i e r ' s e d i t i o n , the H o m i l i e s 8 a n d 9 a r e c o m b i n e d . C f . R i c h a r d , e d i t i o n , a p p . ad loc. PG

w i t h the

corre-

68

C o l s . SISf. »

69

T h i s is 390D.

70

R e these catenae cf. b e l o w

71

R e B a r b a r o c f . D e v r e e s s e 1970, p p . X V ; 234-237. Fabrlcius-Harles 1790ff., v o l . V I I I , g i v e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e list o f a u t h o r s a n d page n u m b e r s o n p p . 653-657. A s f a r a s A s t e r i u s is c o n c e r n e d , Cordier offers fragments as in t y p e III. a paraphrase of the so-called Palestinian Catena, c f . b e l o w p. 108

Homily

40.390. 5

(Richard);

cf.

Cotelier,

ibid.,

cols.

S16f. = P G

40,

p p . 102-104. 108f.

- 23

Who was this Asterius of Amasela? 72 We do not know much about him. He must have been born around 340. Between 380 and 390 he succeeded Eulalios a s bishop of Amasela in Pontus. He died after the year 400, but we do not know the exact date. His teacher was a legendary Scythian who Is supposed to have been very famous, but we know neither his name nor which discipline he taught AA. Although the bishop of Amaseia was a contemporary of the three Cappadocians and other famous theologians of that time, he was completely ignored by his colleagues. His name is not mentioned before the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, when his description of a cycle of paintings of St Euphemia of Chalcedon was quoted as a testimony in the debate on the veneration of images. At that time he was already called μακάριος. Of his many sermons and speeches only sixteen have come down t o us; we know about others f r o m Photius and from the catenae on Luke, but many more may have been lost. 7 3 To the extant, genuine works, Cotelier in 1681 added the aforementioned collection of homilies on the Psalms.

1. 2. 2. Doubts as t o the authorship before Cotelier Cotelier, however, was not the first to doubt Chrysostom's authorship of the homilies in question. For in his edition, Henry Savile had already placed this same fifth homily that Cotelier referred t o among the Scripta Supposititia.7* From the history of the printed text the account of which will be given below, 7 5 it emerges that Savile had also included Richard's third homily in vol. VII of his edition among the genuine works of Chrysostom. However, here, too, Savile was not quite sure as t o the genuineness of the text, as becomes clear f r o m his annotations. 7 6 For Savile quotes a statement from his friend John Hales (1584-1656) also questioning the authenticity of this homily. Hales refers to passages which in his opinion do not fit the style and content of Chrysostom's genuine works. Unfortunately, though, this very homily was quoted as being genuine by John Damascene. 77 Hales therefore concludes thus: 72

For AA's biography cols. 626-639.

73

The latest edition of his works: mentary edition: Datema 1978/79.

74

Cf. Table of Contents to the seventh volume; the exact bibliographical references are given below p. 93 note 111.

75

Cf. below pp. 91-113.

I follow

76

Cf. cols. 931f.

77

Cf. below p. 90 and note 103.

the

most

recent

Datema

study

1970; see

by Speyer also

the

1986,

supple-

- 24 'Haec pluribus egi propter Damascenum, ne quis me arbitretur à tanti viri autoritate temeré velie discedere. Dicendum enim necessariò, aut tanti viri iudicium à vero deflexisse, aut Chrysostomum sibi dissimillima scripsisse, aut expositionis huius capiti, quod à Chrysostomo multum abludere non contenderim, recentiorem aliquem corpus & membra attexuisse.'78 Even earlier than Savile, the Italian humanist Flaminio Nobili (1532?-1590) questioned the genuineness of another homily in Richard's collection, Horn. 25. This Homily had been published for the first time by Gentian Hervet in 1549. In his Notationes in ejusdem Patris sententias quae aut interpretis aut exemplarium vitio pias laedere aures possunt Nobili stated: 'Hanc Homiliam ñeque apud Graecos puto haberi, neque in ea Chrysostomum agnosco.'79 Nobilis remarks were then seen as being authoritative, since his Notationes were not only reprinted in the Chrysoston edition published in Venice in 1583,80 but, moreover, in the Latin edition by Fronton du Duc which appeared in Paris in 1614.81

1. 2. 3. The period between Coteller and Richard Thus from 1. Of the six authenticity been called 78

the previous section we can note the following points: homilies published so far (Nos. 1-3, 5, 25, 26/27)82 the of at least three texts, namely 3, 5, and 25, had already into doubt before Cotelier's edition appeared in 1681.

Vol. VIII, cols.

931f.

I n f a c t the d o u b t s a s to the g e n u i n e n e s s o f the h o m i l i e s 1-3 e v e n b e o l d e r : S t e v e n s o n , w h e n d e s c r i b i n g the m s . V a t i c . Pli II 8 Vorlage o f S a v l l e ' s p r i n t e r ' s c o p y ) , n o t e s (1878, p. 137):

may (the

' F o l i o 19, q u o incipit P s a l m . I V , m o n u i t l i b r a r i u s In s u m m a p a g i n a : 'EvtaOftoi Χρυσόστομος βρχετοα, q u i b u s v e r b i s , e x a n t i q u o e x e m p l a r ! d e s c r i p t i s , i n n u i t u r , n o n e s s e C h r y s o s t o m i c o m m e n t a r l o » in t r e s P s a l m o s s u p e r i o r e s ' (1. e. R i c h a r d ' s h o m . 1-3). S i m i l a r l y in the c o d . V a t i c , g r . S24 ( R i c h a r d ' s c o d e x V ) the g e n u i n e h o m i l i e s b y C h r y s o s t o m a r e m a r k e d a d marglnem Χρ(υσοστόμου); cf. Codices Vaticani Graecl II, p p . 3 8 0 f . F r o m this o n e m a y c o n c l u d e that, a p p a r e n t l y , d o u b t s a s to the a u t h o r s h i p p e r s i s t e d t h r o u g h o u t the t e x t u a l h i s t o r y o f the HomPs u n d e r the n a m e o f C h r y s o s t o m . 79

This w o r k

80

C f . A p p e n d i x 4, N o . 22; I m p r i n t s C V I I I , p. S20.

was

n o t a c c e s s i b l e t o m e . I q u o t e d u D u c , c f . n o t e 81.

81

C f . b e l o w A p p e n d i x 4, N o . 3 0 . v o l . V , A p p e n d i x , c o l s . 1-24,19. D u D u c h i m s e l f s e e m s to a g r e e w i t h N o b i l i ( c f . i b i d . , c o l . 95), e v e n t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n his d o u b t s In h i s G r e e k - L a t i n e d i t i o n o f 1609ff.; c f . b e l o w p. 96f.

82

Cf. below

pp. 91ff.

cf.

The

National

Union

Catalog:

Pre-1956

- 25 -

2. The remaining homilies (1, 2, 26/27) were apparently considered as being genuine. Cotelier then ascribed the hitherto unpublished Homilies 6-13 a s well a s Horn. 5, a s printed in Savile's edition, to AA. Nevertheless, the authorship of this collection, which was to be included in vols. XL and LV of Migne's Patrologia Graeca 83 remained a matter of debate for centuries to come. Shortly after Cotelier's edition had been published, another French scholar, Louis Ellies du Pin uttered the first doubts as t o Cotelier's attribution in his Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques. I cite from the English translation which appeared in 1698 under the title A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers. After an account of the content of the genuine homilies, as edited by Franciscus Combefis in 1648, he goes on: 'This is all that F. Combefis hath collected of the Works of Asterius Amasenus: But since that, Cotelerius, in the second Volume of his Ecclesiastical Monuments, hath given us three Homilies upon Psal. 5, 6, and 7; which he ascribeth to Asterius Amasenus, upon the Authority of two Catenae upon the Psalms. He observes, that before these Homilies, there was one upon Psal. 4. Printed in the seventh Volume of the Eaton Edition of S. Chrysostom, page 431. which he likewise attributeth t o the same Asterius. I confess, I mistrust very much the Quotations of these Catenae; and I should rather believe, that these Commentaries belong t o Asterius the Philosopher, who according t o the Testimony of the Ancients, writ a Commentary upon the Psalms, than to the Bishop of Amasea, who is not said t o have written upon that Subject. Cotelerius pretends, that the Conformity both of Stile and Doctrine, demonstrate that these Homilies were written by Asterius Amasenus. But tho' I pay a great Deference t o the Judgment of that learned Man, yet I find no such resemblance; however, I would not believe upon my own Word, but leave it to those to judge, who will take the Pains to compare them.' 8 4 All at once another possible candidate for the authorship had appeared 'who according to the Testimony of the Ancients, writ a Commentary upon the Psalms.' By this du Pin refers, it would appear, t o the passage from Jerome's de viris inlustribus quoted above. 8S Indeed, Jerome is the only ancient author who mentions that an Asterius wrote about the Psalms. But unfortunately, it was a different Asterius from the one t o whom Cotelier had attributed the homilies. 83

Cf. the page numbers in Appendix 1.

84

du Pin 1687ff., vol. II, pp. 261f.-, Engl, transi, vol. Ill, p. 57.

es

Cf. above p. 21.

-

26 -

For about 2S0 years after Cotelier's work, the matter remained undecided, not least due t o the lack of any comprehensive study of the collection in question. Most scholars pleaded for the bishop of Amasela a s the author of the HomPs s o far published, but there were some other important voices who voted in favour of the Sophist. 8 6 In order to make the confusion complete Johannes Albertus Fabricius in 1717 suggested a third Asterius. In dealing with the homilies in Cotelier's edition he wrote: 'Caeterum cum Asterius quoque Scythopolitanus, (ne d e Asterio Cappadoce dicam,) Psalmos exposuerit teste Hieronymo, incertum num harum in Psalmos homiliarum, e x quibus Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Psalmos subinde nonnulla jam sub Asterii, jam s u b Didymi nomine allegant, auctor sit Asterius Amasenus, an vero Asterius Scythopolita vel Cappadox.' 8 7 In other words, Fabricius (and later Gottlieb Christopherus Harles) distinguished the Asterius Scythopolitanus mentioned by Jerome in ep. 70,4 (Hilberg I, p. 706,13) and ep. 112,20 (Hilberg II, p. 390,7 = Aug., ep. 75,20 [Goldbacher II, p. 318,191)88 f r o m the 'philosopher' appearing in vir. ini. 94 (Richardson p. 46,18-22) 8 9 Therefore a third candidate for the authorship had now appeared, and it was not clear at all t o which one of the triad the corpus, as published by Cotelier, had to be ascribed. 86

Below is a list of i m p o r t a n t s c h o l a r s f r o m d u Pin u p in 1930 d e a l t with t h e i s s u e f o r t h e l a s t time b e f o r e a r t i c l e w a s p u b l i s h e d in 193S.

t o Bardy, Richard's

who first

The o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y s u p p o s e d AA t o b e t h e a u t h o r , e. g. C o t e l i e r (cf. above pp. 22f.). Basnage (1699, vol. II. pp. 1328f.). Pagi (170S, a d arni. 370. § § XXIX-XXX), T i l l e m o n t (1701ff.. vol. X, pp. 175f. t w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s ] ) , Ittig (1707. p p . 407-409). Mlgne (cf. b e l o w p. ΙΟΙ), DC Β I. 1877, p. 178. F e s s l e r - J u n g m a n n (1890ff., vol. I, p. 624 n o t e 1). Schmid (1911, p. 7), B a r d e n h e w e r (1913ff., vol. Ill, pp. 229f.), Bardy (1926, p. 235). D e v r e e s s e (1928, c o l . 1127), Bardy (1930. c o l s . 1163f.). Yet s o m e s c h o l a r s n e v e r t h e l e s s s u g g e s t e d AS, e. g. d u Pin (cf. above n o t e 84), Oudin (1722. vol. I. c o l . 893). ActaSS XIII. 1883, p. 334. Bretz (1914. pp. 23f.), C h r i s t / S c h m i d / S t ä h l i n (1924, vol. 11,2. p p . 1429f.), Puech (1928ff., vol. III. pp. 134 n o t e 3, 605f.). Three authors presented both theories, but u n d e c i d e d : Cave (1740. vol. I. p. 372), KrUger J o s e f Bauer (1911. p. 75). 87 88

remained in t h e end (1897. p. 162). Michael

Fabricius 1705ff., vol. VIII, pp. 610f. Cf.

below

pp.

122-124.

We

have

no

further

information

about

this

Asterius. a

* Cf.

above

p.

21;

similarly T i l l e m o n t

cf.

Fabricius/Harles

1790ff..

1701ff.. vol. X, pp. 175f.

vol.

IX.

p.

517

and

- 27 1. 2. 4. Richard and Skard's attribution to the Sophist and the research thereafter It was not until 1935 that a decisive step seems to have been taken in a small article published by Marcel Richard,90 which then triggered off a whole series of studies on the text and tradition of the HomPs by Richard and his Scandinavian colleague Eiliv Skard. Richard himself said in the introduction to vol. I of his Opera Minora that this article had an enormous impact on his life as a scholar. 91 These were the results of Richard's first investigation: 1. First, Richard pointed out that not all the homilies published by Cotelier were attested in the catenae editions by Barbaro and Cordier but only Nos. 5, 6, 12 and 13 (Richard).92 2. Moreover, in Montfaucon's edition of the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea as well as in the cod. Paris. Coislin. gr. 80, Richard had found the lemma 'Αστεριού (Άστέριος) followed by the addition ΆρειαυοΟ (ó Άρειανός). Therefore he concluded that all the fragments in the catenae on the Psalms bearing the lemma "Αστεριού had to be seen as having been written by the 'Arian' Asterius. 3. Hence the author of the homilies from which some of these fragments were taken (nos. 5, 6, 12 and 13) must have been the same 'Arian' Asterius. 4. Using Jerome's remark in vir. ini. 94 (Richardson p. 46,18-22), he identified this Asterius with the Sophist. 93

90

Cf. Richard 1935.

91

Richard, Opera Minora I, p. 11: 'Cette modeste découverte a d'abord été pour moi un tonique extraordinaire. Je n'oublierai jeûnais le soir d'hiver où, pour préparer un cours sur l'Arlanisme. après avoir lu ce que Bretz, Bardy. Bardenhewer et Mgr Devreesse avaient écrit sur Astérius, J'ai eu l'idée de comparer le fragment d'Astérius l'Arien sur le psaume IV publié par Montfaucon dans son édition du commentaire d'Eusèbe sur le Psautier (PG 23,112-113) et l'homélie pseudo-Chrysostomienne sur le même psaume, attribuée par Cotelier A Astérius d'Amasée, mais non retenue par lui pour son édition (PG 55,539544). En écrivant ces lignes, je revis la surprise et la joie que j'ai ressenties en constatant que le fragment d'Astérius l'Arien était un résumé de l'homélie. Ainsi donc avec deux tomes de Migne, on pouvait faire une découverte aussi intéressante qu'en fouillant dans les manuscrits. Ce f u t pour moi une véritable révélation.'

92

Richard 1935, pp. 54Θ-551.

93

Ibid., pp. S51-558. In fact, the correspondence between the catena fragments attributed to the 'Arlan' Asterius and the Homilies, as edited by Cotelier, had already been observed in 1914 by Bretz (pp. 23f.), who had identified this Arian with the Sophist as well. However, Bretz failed to evaluate his observations systematically, as did Richard.

-

28

-

S. Due to the lack of evidence permitting an attribution to the Sophist, the remaining homilies in Cotelier's edition (Nos. 7-11 [Richard]) were again inserted among the mass of the pseudo-Chrysostomian corpus.94 Largely independently from Richard,9S the Scandinavian scholar Eiliv Skard tried to show in a detailed philological and literary analysis based on internal arguments that the style of the author of the HomPs differed considerably from that of the bishop of Amasela and identified this author with the Sophist, too.96 During the following years Richard and Skard studied the manuscript tradition and the style of the corpus thoroughly.97 At the same time the reesarch on the vast field of the catenae on the Psalms made further progress.98 Finally in 19S6, Richard published a collection of 31 Homilies on the Psalms I-XVI1I, among them a collection of Easter Homilies,99 which had all come down to us by means of a common textual tradition. Even though most of the Homilies survived only in a heavily mutilated state, the remaining texts in Richard's edition comprised 245 printed pages. Richard entitled this collection Asterii Sophistae Commentariorum in Psalmos quae supersunt accedunt aliquot homiliae anonymae without setting out in the introduction whether or not he considered the terms 'homilies' and 'commentaries' Interchangeable. Of the 31 sermons, fifteen had previously been edited.'00 Sixteen of the homilies, however, were now published for the first time in a sound critical edition, which had been anteceded by preliminary editions 94

I b i d . , p. 551.

99

S k a r d 1940, p. 91. R i c h a r d d e s c r i b e d the c o l l a b o r a t i o n b e t w e e n a n d h i m s e l f in his Opera Minora ( v o l . I, p. 11) a s f o l l o w s :

Skard

' L a n o t e q u i s i g n a l a i t m a d é c o u v e r t e [ s c . the a r t i c l e o f 19353 a u r a i t s a n s d o u t e e u p e u d e c o n s é q u e n c e s , si M r E i l i v S k a r d , p r o f e s s e u r A l'Université d ' O s l o , qui s'intéressait & A s t é r i u s d ' A m a s i e , n'avait p u b l i é u n a r t i c l e A s terJos v o n Amasela und Asterlos der Sophist, d a n s Symbolae Osloenses, t. X X (1940), p. 86-132, d a n s l e q u e l 11 r e v e n d i q u a i t p o u r l e S o p h i s t e l e s h o m é l i e s I I - V s u r l e p s a u m e V , q u e j ' a v a i s c r u d e v o i r é c a r t e r . C e t a r t i c l e q u e J'ai l u à L o u v a i n e n 1942 o u 1943. a n a t u r e l l e m e n t e x c i t é m a c u r i o s i t é et, après la libération d e nos d e u x pays, une f r u c t u e u s e c o r r e s p o n dance s'est e n g a g é e entre nous.' 96

S k a r d 1940, passim,

97

C f . the a r t i c l e s c i t e d in the

98

C f . the w o r k s m e n t i o n e d in the b i b l i o g r a p h i e s in M ü h l e n b e r g 1975ff., v o l . I l l , p p . 285-287 a n d id. 1988; c f . m o r e o v e r C P G I V , p. 188.

99

R i c h a r d p l a c e s a m o n g t h e m the H o r n . 8, 9, 11. 14, 15. 16. 22. 30. ( c f . R i c h a r d , e d i t i o n , p. V I ) ; a u f d e r M a u r a d d s , m o r e o v e r , H o r n . 21, 28 (1967, p. 8 ) .

100

Cf. below

pp. 91ff.

e s p . p p . 124-132. bibliography.

31 6,

- 29 of the Horn. 22, 30 and 31.101 Richard Included in his book the 32 catenae fragments bearing the lemma "Αοτερίου from the ms. Oxon. Bodl. Barocc. 235 which, according t o Richard, represented the oldest state of the catenae tradition. 1 0 2 Among these 32 fragments there were three which contained in the lemma the addition Άρειανοΰ. Together with the remark by Jerome, according to which Asterius the Philosopher had written commentaries on the Psalms, 1 0 3 this seemed t o be the decisive proof for Richard that the HomPs were written by the Sophist. The table in Appendix 1 shows the degree of congruity between the fragments and the Homilies. It should become very clear that not all the Homilies in Richard's collection are quoted In the catenae and likewise that there were quotations which had no equivalent in the extant homilies. Therefore it was not clear whether the whole collection was written by the Sophist or whether among the Homilies which were not attested in the catenae there were pieces written by another author. Richard and Skard dealt with that problem in a series of articles but did not come to a definitive conclusion. However, in this respect, it is intriguing t o note the different stages of the controversy, since it may arouse doubts as to the validity of general stylistical arguments in authorship debates when these are not based on a sound methodology: 1. As is mentioned above, of the Homilies 5-13 printed in Cotelier's edition, Richard, in 1935, attributed to AS only Horn. 5, 6, 12 and 13. As regards the authorship of the remaining Homilies 7-11, he stated: 'Je n'ai pas su découvrir en faveur d e leur attribution à Astérius le moindre argument soit interne, soit externe.' 1 0 4 2. Skard, in 1940, however, after having thoroughly studied the style and the imagery of the Homilies in question, found 'in all Homilies the same linguistic usage' 1 0 S and therefore concluded that they were all written by the same author. 1 0 6 3. Richard, in 1947, conceded that Homilies 7-9 and 11 were 'genuine' (i. e. written by AS), 107 but attributed Horn. 10 to Origen without 101

Cf. below pp. lOlf.

402

Cf. below pp. 82f.

103

Cf. above p. 21.

10

* Richard 193S, p. 551.

los

Skard 194Ο, p. 125.

106

Ibid., p. 126.

107

Richard 194 7, p. 55; as regards Horn. 9, cf., remark In his edition, p. VII note 8:

however,

the

cautious

'Le cas de l'homélie IX. conclusion d'un sermon pour un jour l'Octave, mériterait un nouvel examen.'

de

- 30 giving any reasons for such an attribution.108 Furthermore of the recently discovered remaining Homilies he regarded Horn. 18 as spurious (because of the όμοούσιος in 18,14 [p. 132,10f.]109) and Horn. 22 which he considered to be '... une intéressante petite production apollinariste, peut-être «uvre d'Apollinaire lui-même. A part de l'exorde, qui commente le titre du psaume, elle roule tout entière sur le problème du theopaschitisme.'110 Finally he also noticed the secondary ending of Horn. 25 in codd. VH (taken from a catena)111 and the contaminated state of Homily 28112. 4. Skard, in 1949, quoting from a letter by Richard, stated that according to Richard Horn. 10 is related very closely to Origen's commentary on Ps 5:1-3, as printed in PG 12.1168B-C, and therefore had to be seen as coming from the pen of the latter. However, by means of a stylistical analysis of the text Skard tried to defend the Asterian authorship of Horn. 10, putting the similarities between Horn. 10 and Origen down to the Sophist's being dependent on Origen.113 Moreover, he also showed that AS has to be regarded as the author of Horn. 22.

5. Richard, in 1952, admitted the 'genuineness' of Horn. 22,114 but still denied Horn. 10 to the Sophist. However, in this regard, too, he had to concede:

,oe

I n 1947 R i c h a r d h a d n o t n o t i c e d yet that P G 40,417-428 ( e d i t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the c o d e x P; c f . b e l o w p. 99, ΙΟΙ) w a s In f a c t m a d e u p o f t w o h o m i l i e s , 1. e. H o r n . 8 a n d 9 o f h i s l a t e r e d i t i o n . I b i d . , p. 66.

109

Ibid., pp.

110

I b i d . , p. 66.

65f.

111

Ibid., pp. 67f.

112

I b i d . . p. 69; c f . a l s o e d i t i o n , p p .

XXIII-XXIV.

In the m e a n t i m e the o r i g i n o f the s u s p e c t c h a p t e r s 2 8 , 8 - 9 discovered In t w o o t h e r h o m i l i e s preserved u n d e r the C h r y s o s t o m ( c f . C P G II, N o . 2815): H o r n . 28,8 (p. 227,2f.) is t a k e n f r o m l o h . C h r y s . . oratio ad Stagirium a daemone vexatum 1,8 ( P G 47,445,27f.; c f . 4310);

edhortatorie C P G II, N o .

H o r n . 28,8 ( p . 227,3-24) is t a k e n f r o m ibid.. 1,9 ( P G

47,445,34-S6).

H o r n . 28,9 (p. 227,24-228,16)

Chrys..

pium

leiuniorum

4671; A l d a m a , 413

has been name of

et No.

is

ieiunio

de

taken (PG

from

ps.-Ioh.

62,747,1-748,17);

cf.

in

CPG

princlII,

No.

504).

S k a r d 1949, p p . 5 4 - 5 8 .

As

t o the

relationship

with

Origen,

cf.

below

p. 166 n o t e 41. 114

R i c h a r d 1952. p. 33. It h a s to b e n o t e d that a w o r k w h i c h h e i n a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to b e f r o m the p e n o f A p o l l i n a r i s n o w a l l at w a s written by an Arlan.

origonce

31 'Cependant nous devons reconnaître qu'il ne nous a pas été possible jusqu'ici d'opposer à l'argumentation de notre savant collègue une réponse vraiment efficace.' 1 , s At the same time he slightly revised his former statement concerning Horn. 18: 'Mais nous avons sans doute été imprudent en la [sc. Horn. 181 refusant catégoriquement au Sophiste pour la seule présence dans son texte de la phrase ó του πατρός υιός όμοούσιος: une interpolation n'est pas impossible.' 116 He adds: 'La première homélie sur le psaume XIV [sc. Hom. 261 pose un problème analogue. Elle contient, non plus une phrase, mais tout un paragraphe [se. 26,31 qu'il serait déraisonnable d'attribuer à Astérius. Mais cette fois encore il ne nous a pas été possible d'écarter absolument l'hypothèse d'une interpolation ancienne.'117 6. Finally, in his edition, Richard expresses reservations as to the Sophist's authorship of Hom. 14 without giving any reasons for this view. 118 Furthermore he regards as spurious Homilies 1 (which he describes as 'antenicéenne'), 10, 24 ('un commentaire plutôt sec, exclusivement moral'), 26 (because of the criticism of Eunomius and Arius in 26,3).119 Finally he adds to the spuria also 27,9-24. The case of this Homily is described thus: 'Le cas de l'homélie XXVII est différent. Elle se compose de deux morceaux (§§1-8 et 9-24) séparés par un hiatus évident. La seconde partie est d'une médiocrité littéraire qui tranche avec la bonne qualité moyenne de l'ensemble de la collection. Nous ne pouvons croire qu'elle puisse sortir de la plume de notre Sophiste. En revanche, nous serions assez disposé à attribuer à celui-ci les §§l-8.' 120 Thus the controversy between Skard and Richard shows how the attribution of some of the Homilies changed over and over again. Moreover, it makes clear that a sound methodology (as developed in certain regards by Skard who always argued on the basis of syntactical and stylistical, but rarely theological, observations) is required in order to come to reliable conclusions.

115

Ibid.

116

Ibid.

117

Ibid.

118

Richard, edition, p. VIII.

119

Ibid.

120

Ibid.

32 After some additional articles by the two authors Richard's edition was supplemented by an Index Asterianus, compiled by Skard, which contained, moreover, important Corrigenda et addenda by Richard121. Here Richard not only added new witnesses, but, moreover, pointed out that ps.-Chrys., In adorationem venerandae crucis (PG 62.747-754)122 included a quotation from Horn. 29,12.123 One of the major weaknesses of this Index was that Skard did not include all references. He omitted not only word types which occurred very often, but, moreover, all the references relating to biblical quotations and allusions. Therefore his Index has to be used with great care. However, this provided the most Important tool for analysis of these texts. In the eyes of most scholars the puzzle of the authorship of the bulk of the HomPs seemed now to have been solved definitively, as was shown by the great acclaim which Richard's edition and Skard's Index received by their reviewers.124 All further studies of the manuscript or catenae tradition only slightly altered Richard's results (Devreesse. Rondeau, Dorival125). The way was open for an evaluation of these texts in relation to the history of early Arianism. But, curiously enough, it was not the theology of the Homilies that was first studied, although now the only directly transmitted source of early Arianism seemed to have been made accessible.126 Other features appealed more to the scholars, e. g. the Homilies as containing interesting philosophical or legal details (Volterra, Skard, Leopold Wenger,

121

S k a r d , Index, p p . 9-16; t h e s e a r e b a s e d p a r t l y o n t h e e v i d e n c e n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d m a n u s c r i p t s as w e l l as o n the l e a r n e d r e v i e w Richard's edition by R u d o l f Keydell.

122

C f . A l d a m a 1965, N o . II, N o . 4672.

123

Cols.

752,37-44

46;

= 29,12 ( p .

Halkin

1957, v o l .

Ill,

p.

89

(No.

415);

of of CPG

234,1-7).

C f . the r e v i e w s by A l t a n e r , C h a d w i c k , C o u r c e l l e , D a n i é l o u , D a r r o u z è s , Grant. G u i U a u m o n t , Irigoin, Joly, Keydell, M a l l e t , R o c h e f o r t , Rondeau. »2S D e v r e e s s e 1970. p p . 2 3 4 - 2 3 7 ; R o n d e a u 1 9 8 2 f f . , v o l . I. p p . 76-79. C f . , m o r e o v e r , the c h a p t e r o n A s t e r i u s i n t h e f o r t h c o m i n g s e c o n d v o l u m e o f G i l l e s D o r i v a l ' s Chaînes Exégétiques Grecques. T h e r e it w i l l be s h o w n t h a t H o r n . 1 is a l s o a t t e s t e d in t w o c a t e n a e u n d e r t h e l e m m a "Αστεριού ( A t h o n . V a t o p . 6 6 0 a n d V a t i c . O t t o b . g r . 398; l e t t e r d a t e d 21 J a n u a r y 1986 f r o m G i l l e s D o r i v a l ) . i2

*

426

A s f a r as I c a n see, a m o n g the r e v i e w e r s o n l y R o n d e a u c o n s i d e r s t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e n o n - A r l a n n a t u r e o f t h e HomPs in s o m e m o r e detail, finally agreeing with Richard 'qui p r e n d au sérieux le t é m o i g n a g e doctrinale d'Astérius après Nicée' Richard, edition, p. III).

de Philostorge sur l'évolution (Rondeau 1959, p . 453; cf.

- 33 EUrem, Harl 127 ), as documents for the Easter liturgy of the Early Church (Duplacy, auf der Maur 128 ) or as very early testimonies for infant baptism and the institution of godparents (Didier, Linié, Gelsi, Jeremias129). As the investigation of the pseudo-Chrysostomian corpus made further progress, other works were found which were close to the HomPs: 1. In 1969 Jacques Liébaert published Deux Homélies Anoméennes pour l'Octave de Pâques which showed striking similarities to the HomPs.130 2. In 1972 Michel Aubineau edited five hitherto unpublished Easter homilies for the first time. Among them is one (ps.-Chrysostomian) Homily, the author of which is not known (CPG II, Nr. 4740).131 This Homily quotes from Horn. 9.132 According to Aubineau another Homily in the collection under the name of Leontius of Constantinople in turn quotes from this pseudo-Chrysostomian Homily including the quotation from our collection. 133 3. In 1980 Aubineau's view was disputed by Pauline Allen and Cornells Datema. They marshalled strong arguments for their opinion according to which, on the contrary, the author of CPG II, No. 4740 quoted from Leontius and, moreover, independently of the former, the same was done by the author of CPG II, No. 4996.134 Moreover in 1987, drawing on an incidental remark by Richard,13S they suggested the possibility that Horn. 9 did not belong to the rest of the corpus and 127

C f . the

bibliography.

«2e

C f . the

bibliography.

129

C f . the s t u d i e s b y D i d i e r , Linió a n d G e l s i q u o t e d a n d . m o r e o v e r , J e r e m i a s I960, p p . 15, 69. 91-94.

in the

bibliography

130 C f . L i é b a e r t 1969, p p . 42-S4. T h e s e s i m i l a r i t i e s h a d a l r e a d y been n o t i c e d b y R i c h a r d ( e d i t i o n , p. V I ) . It s e e m s to m e , h o w e v e r , that the p r e t e n d e d ' a n h o m o i a n ' c h a r a c t e r o f the H o m i l i e s n e e d s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . F o r it f o r c e s L i é b a e r t to p u t t w o p a s s a g e s in b r a c k e t s w i t h o u t a n y e v i d e n c e a r i s i n g f r o m the t e x t u a l t r a d t i o n : 1,2 (p. 58, 28-33) e m p h a s i z i n g the i m m u t a b i l i t y a n d divinity o f C h r i s t ; a n d 2,11 (p. 106,125-129) p o l e m i c i z l n g a g a i n s t N e s t o r i u s f r o m a C y r i l l l a n p o i n t o f view. M o r e o v e r , three o f Liébaert's reviewers have independently o f e a c h o t h e r q u e s t i o n e d his d a t i n g a n d s u g g e s t e d a l a t e r date ( M o s s a y 1970, p p . 2 7 7 f . ; S i m o n e t t i 1970. p. 106; S t e a d 1970, p. 194). 131

Aubineau

132

A u b i n e a u 1972, p. 320.8-14

1972. p p .

30S-337.

133

1.2 ( A u b i n e a u p. 370,8-14) = H o r n . 8.2 ( D a t e m a / A l l e n p. 260,53-63). F o r this d e p e n d e n c e , c f . A u b i n e a u 1972, p p . 351f. I n his r e v i e w o f Nordberg's Athanasiana Daniélou attributed the fifth (mutilated) H o m i l y e d i t e d b y N o r d b e r g to A s t ( = A S ; 1964, p p . 165f.). A u b i n e a u . h o w e v e r , h a s s h o w n that this H o m i l y o r i g i n a l l y f o r m e d p a r t o f a H o m i l y b y L e o n t i u s o f C o n s t a n t i n o p l e ( A u b i n e a u 1974, passim).

( § 2) = H o r n . 9.3 ( p .

134

Edited by A l l e n / D a t e m a

,3S

C f . R i c h a r d , e d i t i o n , p. V I I n o t e 8 ( q u o t e d

69,2S-70,1).

1980, p p . 12-18; c f . ibid., above

passim. n o t e 107).

34 that Horn. 9 like the other texts quoted from Leontius and not the other way round.136 Even though their reconstruction of the dependence of the homilies CPG II, No. 4740 and 4996 on Leontius and not vice versa, as Aubineau had assumed at least for No. 4740, seems convincing, there is no evidence to suggest that the author of Horn. 9 (Richard) quoted from Leontius and not vice versa. An interesting alternative would be to assume a lost source for both texts.137 Yet this progress in the investigation of the actual text notwithstanding, it seemed almost as if the Homilies' theology as such puzzled scholars rather than attracted them. Bardy, e. g., in his otherwise fundamental study on the Sophist mentioned the results of Bretz and Richard without, however, drawing any conclusions from them concerning the Sophist's theology as such.138 Other studies on early Arianism either omitted the Homilies completely (Lorenz139) or mentioned them only incidentally (Simonetti, Ritter140). Apparently these scholars found themselves in the dilemma of not knowing how to combine the theology of the HomPs with our traditional view of early Arianism. Or, as Alois Grillmeier in the first volume of his book Christ in Christian Tradition very diplomatically puts it: 'We shall take it [sc. the Christology of the HomPsi as evidence of a complex person and a still more complex century; we shall take it as it is, as the expression of a Christian proclamation which is ante-Nicene in spirit, chiefly inspired by scripture and the liturgy, and it will remind us once again of the church's kerygma before and around Nicaea.'141 The situation changed only recently when Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh published their book Early Arianism — A View of Salvation1*2. According to Gregg and Groh our picture of early Arianism is mainly influenced by the account that opponents gave of that heresy, simply because we lack many original sources. Yet the main concern of early Arianism was not to maintain the uniqueness of God by reducing the Son to a simple creature, as the orthodox polemicists try to make 136

D a t e m a / A l l e n 1987, p p . 31f.

137

Datema/Allen

138

B a r d y 1936. p p .

139

L o r e n z m e n t i o n s R i c h a r d ' s e d i t i o n in b u t m a k e s n o u s e o f it in h i s b o o k . )

l

*°

themselves

c o n s i d e r this a l t e r n a t i v e

(1987, p.

30).

332-33S. his

bibliography

(1979,

p.

13),

S i m o n e t t i 197S, p p . 193 n o t e 77, 556 n o t e 24; Ritter 1982, p. 186.

141

G r i l l m e i e r 1975, p. 209. L i k e w i s e , in K x e t s c h m a r ' s s t u d y o n e s e n s e this d i f f i c u l t y n o w a n d a g a i n (1988, e s p . p. 312. 314f.).

142

London

1981.

can

- 35 us believe, but to underline the importance of salvation by putting the Logos on a par with us: 'At the center of the Arian soteriology was a redeemer, obedient to his Creator's will, whose life in virtue modeled perfect creaturehood and hence the path of salvation for all Christians.'143 Now the way was free for 'historical and theological reassessments' of early Arianism.144 They were expressed at the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford in 1983 and covered the HomPs as well: R. P. C. Hanson quoted the HomPs in his article The Arian Dextrine of the Incarnation as supporting his hypothesis according to which 'we can credit the Arians with a doctrine, even a theology, of the Incarnation.'145 According to Hanson, the Arian concept of the Incarnation was derived from 'the metaphysical doctrine of a high God and a lesser God, the high God incapable of becoming incarnate, the lesser God fitted by the higher to express his love and providence in incarnation, death and resurrection.'146 Yet another reaction to the views of Gregg and Groh was even more significant. At the same conference Maurice F. Wiles (who was later joined by Robert C. Gregg when publishing his paper) applied Gregg and Groh's new approach, although somewhat modified, to the HomPs. Wiles and Gregg took Richard's attribution for granted and asked then about the nature and main concern of the Arian movement. According to them a 'new chapter in the history of Arianism' had to be written, since the Homilies would shed a new light on our understanding of that movement, which combined a formal theological position with a deep-rooted piety. They summed up: 'Accounts of Arianism usually affirm that the primary motivation of Arian theology was a desire to protect the unity of God. There is no reason to doubt that concern for the unity of God was 143

Ibid., p.

144

T h e p a p e r s o n A r i a n i s m g i v e n at this c o n f e r e n c e a r e the title: Arianism: Historical and Theological ( = G r e g g 1985).

χ.

145

Hanson

146

I b i d . . p. 204; c f . a l s o H a n s o n

1985, p p .

collected under Reassessments

202f. 1987, p. 418:

' I n his H o m i l i e s a s f a r a s h e i n d u l g e s in f o r m a l t h e o l o g y A s t e r i u s c a n b e s e e n t o b e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y A r i a n , that is to s a y , he p r e a c h e s a d o c t r i n e o f a h i g h G o d w h o is b e y o n d c h a n g e a n d s u f f e r i n g , a n d a l e s s e r G o d , the S o n / L o g o s , w h o is c a p a b l e o f s u f f e r i n g a n d d e l i b e r a t e l y e n d u r e s it in o r d e r to s a v e m a n k i n d . '

- 36 important to the early Arians — as indeed it is for all Christians. But if we take these Homilies into account in our understanding of early Arianism, we are bound to reconsider the primacy of that concern. For the implication of their evidence is that to treat concern over the unity of God as the mainspring and primary motivation of early Arian theology, is seriously to misrepresent the spiritual dynamics of the movement. What the Homilies suggest is that the mainspring and primary motivation of the movement should rather be seen in its determination to safeguard the presentation of Christ's passion and crucifixion as unequivocally the passion and crucifixion of God.'147 So we have'to Interpret the beginnings of this heresy in a much more orthodox way than it has hitherto been interpreted: 'But above all our new chapter should serve to quash once for all the assumption that the fundamental characteristic and error of early Arianism was its rationalist and philosophical spirit. That may have had some part to play. But these Homilies, we believe, give us good reason to insist that it is no less true to see early Arianism as a movement, however misguided, of a religious and evangelical spirit, a movement whose heart and basic motivation was a passionate defence of the gospel of the incarnation.'148 Wiles and Gregg once again dealt with the problem of the disputed Homilies and came to the conclusion that Horn. 1; 10; 14; 26,4-17; 27,1-8 had to be regarded as written by the Sophist whereas Horn. 24; 26,1-3 and 27,9-24 came from another source.149 However, there was no consensus in these new assessments of the HomPs as a source for early Arianism: — On one hand, it is true, the HomPs made their way into accounts of the history of Arianism. Georg Kretschmar, for example, took the sermons as a reference for an Arian piety which focused on Christ and was derived from the Passah/Easter tradition, as it is found in, for instance, Melito.1S0 147

Wiles/Gregg

148

Ibid., p. 140.

198S, p. 136.

149

Ibid.. pp. 140-144. C f . a l s o the r e v i e w o f Richard's edition by Danlélou, w h o a r g u e s In f a v o u r o f the authenticity o f H o m i l i e s 1, 14, 24 and 26, w h e r e a s he hesitates as r e g a r d s Horn. 26 (cf. D a n l é l o u 1959, pp. 108f.). A m o n g the other reviewers o f Richard's edition and Skard's Index, only Keydell and M a l l e t deal with the p r o b l e m o f authenticity in s o m e m o r e detail (Keydell 1963, p. 226: Horn. 1 not 'genuine', Horn. 14 'genuine'; M a l l e t 1964, p. 1147: -'En fait, la discrimination entre ce qui est authentique et ce qui ne l'est pas n'est pas encore p o s s i b l e . ' ) .

4S0

C f . Kretschmar 1988. pp. 311-315.

- 37 -

More importantly, in his recent book on The search for the Christian Doctrine of God, R. P. C. Hanson claimed on the evidence of the HomPs that the Arian doctrine 'took redemption more seriously than did that of their opponents, because it made proper allowance for the scandal of the Cross, for what Paul called the 'weakness of God' (I Cor I:22-2S), f o r the involvement of the Godhead in the sufferings of Jesus Christ.' Hanson assumes a close link between the Arian soteriology and cosmology, for 'the Arians saw that the New Testament demanded a suffering God, as their opponents failed to see. They were convinced that only a God whose divinity was somehow reduced must suffer. Hence the radical Arian doctrine of Christ, but hence also the Arian readiness t o speak of God a s suffering.' 1 3 1 — On the other hand the view put forward by Wiles and Gregg met with scepticism. G. Christopher Stead in his review of the conference volume agreed with Wiles and Gregg's conclusions as to the homogeneity of the corpus in question: ' ... a single author is at work; the only texts we must exclude are Homilies 24 and 27.9ff., on clear grounds of style, and some short sections (but which?) of 26.' 1S2 Nevertheless then he goes on t o question the apparently well-established 'fact' that this author is the Sophist in marshalling an impressive series of arguments against the Sophist's authorship. Similarly, Rowan Williams in his new book on Arius questioned Richard's attribution, without, however, giving any justification f o r this view. 1S3 Thus all at once, the question cropped up again: Who is the author of the HomPs?

1. 3. The Questions Arising from the Survey of the Research so far From the account of the research s o f a r which was given in the previous chapter it emerges that the problem is much more complex than might be assumed at first sight. For not only had a part of the HomPs already been attributed to an Asterius who was not the Sophist, namely to AA, but moreover, once the attribution to AS is taken for ,S1

Hanson 1988, p. 41.

152

Stead 1987. p. 203.

153 Williams 1987, p. 321 note 17: ' ... the correctness of the attribution remains doubtful.'

38 granted, it is no longer clear how many Homilies of the collection are supposed to have been written by AS at all. In order not to complicate the problem unnecessarily I shall begin with some points in which there is a general consensus: 1. In certain manuscripts the HomPs have been handed down to us under the name of Chrysostom — these do not however originate from this Church Father. 2. These HomPs originally formed a collection, i. e. they formed a continuous exegesis of the Psalms with some multiple interpretations on single Psalms. 3. Today this collection is incomplete in two respects: — only the exegeses on the Psalms 1-18 are still preserved (with a gap for Pss 16 and 17); — the exegeses preserved are mutilated. 4. The major part of the collection was written by one author. 5. The collection includes a series of sermons on the Easter octave, which stem from the same author as most of the other Homilies, but which were only inserted into the collection afterwards. The following points are, however, a matter for debate: 1. It is so far unclear which Homilies do not stem from the author of the major part of the collection and how many other authors we have to assume. The debated Homilies are Nos. 10; 14; 24; 26; 27,9-24. 2. The following have so far been proposed as authors of the majority of the HomPs: — Asterius of Amaseia, — Asterius the Sophist. These two points are partly interconnected insofar as the assumption of the authorship of AS leads to a questioning of the authenticity of Horn. 26. However, as regards the methodology of authorship attributions, it seems problematic to me to question the 'genuineness' of some Homilies, before the authorship of the corpus as a whole is made clear. Each investigation into the authorship of the HomPs must therefore begin with the unity and homogeneity of the corpus and will pose the question as to how many authors have reasonably to be assumed. The resulting questions are best shown in a diagram. Three levels of questions have to be distinguished:

- 39 1. Were the HomPs written by one author?

Yes

No

2. Is the author called Asterius? Is one of the author's called Asterius? No

3.

Name?

Yes

Yes

AA?

AS?

No

Alternatives? Other Other Asterii? authors?

The problem could be greatly simplified if it were possible to prove the unity of the corpus, since then we could leave out the right hand part of the diagram. This proof will be attempted in the next chapter.

2. The Unity of the HomUtea on the Psalms 2. 1. The Evidence of the Manuscript Tradition As a starting-point it would be useful to take a look at the textual tradition of the HomPs, as revealed in the preserved manuscripts. This tradition has been fully studied by Richard so I shall limit myself to emphasizing various points worthy of note. The following is a list of all currently known manuscripts containing one or more HomPs. In his edition Richard used these manuscripts (sigla by Richard): A = Athon. Laur. θ 210 (saec. XIV/XV) Β = Paris, suppl. gr. 266 (saec. XVII ex.) C = Caesen. Malat. Plut. DXXVIII 2 (saec. XIV) E = Athon. Vatop. 660 (saec. X) 1 H = Athen. 37S (saec. XV) M = Mediol. Ambr. A 116 sup. (saec. XI) Ρ = Paris, gr. 6S4 (saec. X ex.) Q = Eiusdem Parisini gr. 654 fol. 1 (saec. XIII) S = Messan. S. Salv. 33 (saec. XI) Τ = Patm. 161 (saec. X in.) V = Vatic, gr. S24 (saec. XI) Later on Richard came across new evidence. Variant readings of the following codices were included in Skard's Index:2 L = Leid. Voss. gr. 0 1 (saec. XIV) Ν = Athen. 45S (saec. X/XI) 3 O = Vatic. Ottob. gr. 101 (saec. XVI/XVII) R = Mosqu. Synod. 234 (Sawas - 217 Vladimir)4 X = Venet. Marc. App. II 59 {an. 1579) Furthermore, in the Appendice of the second volume of his Opera Minora Richard indicated three more witnesses for Horn. 5, without however evaluating them (my sigla): D = Leningr. Bibl. pubi. gr. 76 (saec. XI) F = Sinait. gr. 380 (saec. XIII/XIV)

1

Re

2

C f . Skard,

3

As

* As

this c o d e x c f . b e l o w Index,

p. 81

p p . 9-16.

to t h e s e t w o c o d i c e s c f . a l s o R i c h a r d t o this c o d e x

c f . in extenso

Richard

1958, I960.

passim.

- 42 -

G = Athon. Protat. 18 (saec. X) s Finally, two more manuscripts, overlooked by Richard, have to be added to the evidence, the first one being another witness for Horn. S, the second one containing an apparently unique collection of extracts from the HomPs (my sigla): I = Rom. Angel, gr. 125 (saec. XI) 6 Κ = Vindob. theol. gr. 169 (saec. XlVex.) 7 . Codices descripti: Vatic. Ottob. gr. 95 (saec. XVI): copy of C 5

As to this codex cf. also Bretz 1914, p. 14.

6

Cf. Bretz 1914. p. 14; Ehrhard 1937ff., vol. II, p. 33; Samberger 1965ff„ vol. II, p. 164; Datema 1970, p. 67.

7

Cf. Hunger/Kresten/Hannick

1984, pp. 279-290. This codex contains

'eine weitgehend ungegliederte Sammlung theologischer Exzerpte, ζ. T. Altes und Neues Testament kommentierend, wiederholt mit marginaler Andeutung der Namen der exzerpierten Autoren, stellenweise mit Scholien von erster Hand (ζ. T. in Form einer Randkatene)' (ibid., p. 279). These excerpts have been Identified as coming f r o m the HomPax 1. f. 17. Z. 11 - 17v, Z. 9 f r o m bottom (Χρυσοστόμου cod.): (p. 2,7-4,4); not recognized in the catalogue.

Horn. 1,3-9

2. f f . 87 v - 95 (Χρυσοστόμου cod.): title: ΕΙς τήν έπιγραφήν τοΟ e' ψαλμοΟ Χέγουσαν είς τά τέλος ùnèp τής κληρονομούσης a. f f . 87, 1. 13 - 89, 1. S: Horn. 6.1-9 (pp. 45.8-50.2) b. f f . 89. 1. 5 - 91. 1. 10: Horn. 7.1-15 (pp. 54,9-61.2) c. f f . 91, 1. IO - 92, 1. 8 from bottom: Horn. 8,1-8 (pp. 63,4-66.28) d. f f . 92. 1. 8 f r o m bottom - 93. 1. 17: Horn. 11,1-5 (pp. 75,13-78,1) e. f f . 93. 1. 18 - 94 v , 1. 4 f r o m bottom: John 55.60. last 1. - 64.4) f.

Chrys..

In

Ps

5 (PG

f f . 94 v . 1. 4 f r o m bottom - 95. 1. 3: Horn. ll.lOf. (p. 80,14-22f.)

g. f. 95, 1. 3 - 1. 7 f r o m bottom: John Chrys.. 1. 5 f r o m bottom - 70. 1. 21 f r o m bottom)

In

Ps

5

(PG 5S.69.

3. a. f. 95, 1. 7 f r o m bottom - 95 v , 1. 15: Horn. 14,5-8 (pp. 106,15-107.15) b. f f . 95 v - 97 v , 1. 9: Horn. 15,1-17 (pp. 108,3-115,21) c. f f . 97 v , 1. 9 - 98 v , last 1.: Horn. 16,1-12 (pp. 117,3-121,28) d. f f . 98 v , last 1. - 99. last 1.: Horn. 17.8-11 (pp. 12526-126,27) e. f. 99, 1. 19 - 1. S f r o m bottom: Horn. 17,12f. (pp. 127,15-27, including doxology) f. f. 99, 1. 5 f r o m bottom - 99 v , 1. 15: John 55,107, 1. 6 - 1. 14 f r o m bottom) g. f f . 99 v , 1. 28)

1. 15 - ΙΟΙ. 1. 11 f r o m bottom: do.

4. f. 101, 1. 11 from bottom - 101v, 55,148, 1. 22 - 149, 1. 15).

1. 17: John

Chrys.,

In

Ps

8

(PG

(PG 55.116. 1. 15 - 119. Chrys.,

In

Ps

11 (PG

- 43 Vatic. Pii II 8 (saec. XVI): copy of the preceding codex Vatic. Ottob. gr. 74 (saec. XVI): copy of C Vindob. theol. gr. 105 (saec. XVI): copy of M Athon. Dion. 273 (saec. XVII), f f . 118v-121v (Horn. 3): copy of Savile's edition 8 Oxon. Bodl. Holkham. 42 (68) (saec. XVI ex.): copy o f X 9 Athon. Vatop. 318 (saec. XVI/XVII): copy of X 1 0 Oxon. Bodl. Auct. E. 3. 13 (saec. XVI/XVII): copy of the Vatic. Pii II 8 (the printer's copy of Savlle's edition) 11 Oxon. Bodl. Auct. E. 3. 8 (saec. XVI/XVII): copy of the Vindob. theol. gr. 105 (the printer's copy of Savile's edition) 12 The content of each manuscript is best shown, in a simplified manner, by means of a table: Hots, 1

2

3

4

S

i

7

t

9

10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 1» 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 24 27 2 » 29 30 31

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( l I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (ill I I I

Cod.

Λ I C Ε H Μ F Q

(il

I I I (ι) (i) (il (il (il Iii ι

S

I i i

ι i i i

ι

I i i i i i i i i

ι

L

Ν 0

til Iii

It X

III

D

ι

F G

ι ι

( I I I I I I I I I I

I I—I I

Iii

Iii

1

8

ι—ι

(ι)

III

Τ ι V

Κ

(il III

ι III

Iii Iii Iii

Cf. below e d i t i o n , p.

p p . 93-96. XVI.

® R i c h a r d in S k a r d , Index,

Iii

For

all

Iii Iii Iii Ii)

codices

mentioned

pp. 9f.. attributes

the s i g l u m

10

R i c h a r d , ibid., a t t r i b u t e s the s i g l u m Ζ t o it.

11

C f . b e l o w pp.

94f.

12

Cf.

9Sf.

below

pp.

before Y

cf.

Richard,

to this

codex.

- 44 It is very clear from this table that the most important manuscripts as far as the question as to whether the HomPs form a unity is concerned, are the codd. Α, Β, Ρ and V. Among those Β is a special case, since it is not a medieval manuscript, but an (indirect) copy of a medieval manuscript, the Scorial. I. Δ. 11, which was destroyed by a fire in 1671. This manuscript contained the Homilies on Psalms 4-12 by John Chrysostom together with Richard's Homilies 1-29. Unfortunately, the codex Β omits the genuine Homilies as well as Richard's Homilies 1-3 and 25-27 for reasons which are explained by Richard in the introduction to his edition.13 Hence the original order can no longer be reconstructed. Therefore, in what follows, I shall not deal with this manuscript. In the other codices Α. Ρ and V the HomPs are mixed with the Homilies on Pss 4-12 by John Chrysostom. The order of the single pieces shows some similarities between the three witnesses, as can be seen in the following (simplified) synopsis.14 cod.

cod.

Ρ

A

cod.

mut.

mut. ( H o r n . 1 CPs 13)

V

mut.

Horn. 2 Horn. 3 (Ps

( H o r n . 3 CPs 31)

3)

Horn. 4 (Ps 4) Horn. S (Ps 4) C h r y s . (Ps 4)

Horn. 4 (Ps 4) Horn. S (Ps 4) C h r y s . (Ps 4)

' " ' H o r n . 6 ( P s 5) H o r n . 7 ( P s S) ' H o r n . 8 / 9 ( P s 5) H o r n . 10 ( P s S) w H o m . 11 ( P s 5) C h r y s . ( P s S)

(*>Hom. 6 ( P s 5) H o r n . 7 ( P s S) * H o m . 8 ( P s S) (,)Hom. 9 ( P s 5) H o r n . IO ( P s 5) ' * ' H o m . 11 ( P s 5) C h r y s . ( P s 5)

Chrys.

C h r y s . ( P s 6) H o r n . 12 ( P s 6)

H o r n . 12 ( P s 6) C h r y s . ( P s 6)

H o r n . 12 ( P s 6) C h r y s . ( P s 6)

H o r n . 13 ( P s 7) C h r y s . ( P s 7)

H o r n . 13 ( P s 7) C h r y s . ( P s 7)

H o r n . 13 ( P s 7) C h r y s . ( P s 7)

W

Hom. Hom.

(,)

Hom. Hom.

14 ( P s 8 ) IS ( P s 8 )

(,)

13

Richard, edition, pp.

14

This synopsis pp. 28-30 ( A ) ; pp. 380f. ( V ) .

14 ( P s IS ( P s

8) 8)

Hom. '•'Horn. W

(Ps

S)

14 ( P s 8 ) IS ( P s 8 )

IX-XI.

is b a s e d o n the d e s c r i p t i o n s g i v e n b y R i c h a r d 19S2, id. 1947. p p . 56-58 ( P ) ; Codices Vaticani Graset II,

- 45 W H o m . 16 ( P s β ) H o r n . 17 ( P s 8 ) Chrys. (Ps 8)

W H o m . 16 ( P s 8 ) H o r n . 17 ( P s 8 ) Chrys. (Ps 8)

' • ' H o r n . 16 ( P s 8 ) H o r n . 17 ( P s 8 ) C h r y s . (Ps 8)

H o r n . 18 ( P s 9) H e s y c h . ( P s 9)

H o r n . 18 ( P s 9) C h r y s . ( P s 9)

H o r n . 18 ( P s 9) C h r y s . ( P s 9)

H o r n . 19 ( P s IO) C h r y s . ( P s IO)

H o r n . 19 ( P s IO) C h r y s . ( P s IO)

H o r n . 20 ( P s 11) ' " ' H o r n . 21 ( P s 11) ' * ' H o m . 22 ( P s 11) C h r y s . ( P s 11)

H o r n . 20 ( P s 11) w H o m . 21 ( P s 11) (φ)Ηοπι. 22 ( P s 11) C h r y s . ( P s 11)

C h r y s . ( P s 12) H o r n . 23 ( P s 12) H o r n . 24 ( P s 12)

Chrys.

H o r n . 25 ( P s 13)

H o r n . 25 ( P s

H o r n . 26 ( P s H o r n . 27 ( P s

H o r n . 26/27

(,)

Hom.

14) 14)

28 ( P s 15)

H o r n . 29 ( P s Chrys.

(Ps (Ps

13) (Ps

H o r n . 28 ( P s

14)

15)

18)

( P s s . 41; 4 3 - 4 9 )

Ps.-Chrys. Ps.-Chrys.

( P s 12)

Chrys.

(Ps

43)

50) SO)

" H o r n . 30 » H o r n . 31 mut.

The following points emerge from this synopsis: 1. There was an old collection of Homilies on the Psalms, covering Pss 1-15 and 18. 2. The Easter Homilies (marked *: additional Easter Homilies as suggested by Richard and auf der Maur are marked were inserted into this collection when they dealt with Psalms which were also covered by the remaining Homilies. The Horn. 30 and 31 which do not deal with a specific Psalm, were therefore placed at the end of this collection. 3. At a later stage the Homilies by John Chrysostom were inserted in the appropriate places. Generally speaking, they followed the Homilies (Richard) on each Psalm. The only exception are the Homily on Ps 12 which precedes the Horn. 23 and 24 in cod. A and the Homily on Ps 6 preceding Horn. 12 in cod. P. The position of the latter is clearly

46 a mistake, as can be seen from the right order in A and V. Unfortunately, for Horn. 23 and 24 we have no other witnesses to permit u s to correct the order in ms. A. It seems likely, however, that the order in cod. A, too, is simply distorted. There are two possible reasons for this insertion: — Either the HomPs had, at that time, already been attributed to John Chrysostom s o that it would have been quite natural to join the genuine Homilies to the false ones. — Or the purpose of the addition was precisely the falsification of the authorship. From the evidence we possess it cannot be decided which of these reasons is the correct one. 4. There is no evidence to suggest that the original collection was written by more than one author. Even though the manuscript tradition provides no definite proof of the homogeneity of the HomPs, at the very least it strongly suggests that they are the work of only one author. In his articles on the subject Skard added further internal arguments corroborating this hypothesis. However, the possibility cannot be totally ruled out that there are some Homilies within the corpus that come from another source. And indeed, some scholars have argued that some of the Homilies do not belong to the major part of the collection. 13 Within the limits of a study of the manuscripts a conclusive answer to this question is not possible. Therefore we must now turn to the internal evidence.

2. 2. A Stylometrical Study of the Homilies on the Psalms We saw in the last chapter that the textual tradition suggests that there was originally a collection of HomPs into which the existing Homilies on the Psalms by John Chrysostom were subsequently inserted. At the same time Chrysostom's name became used for the corpus as a whole. However, the fact that there was a uniform collection of HomPs does not necessarily mean that they all come from the pen of one single author. In fact, as was shown above, 16 during the history of the research on the HomPs from Richard's first article on the subject in 193S, the homogeneity of the corpus has always been a matter of debate, especially between Richard and Skard. 15

Cf. above pp. 27ff.

16

Cf. above pp. 27ff.

47 -

Below is a brief résumé of the results of this debate: — At the time of his edition Richard regarded the following Homilies as not having been written by AS: 1; 10; 14; 24; 26; 27,9-24. 17 — Skard, however, regarded at least Horn. 10 as 'genuine' (i. e. written by AS) too. 1 8 — Wiles and Gregg 19 , supported by Stead 20 , suggested arguments supporting the 'genuineness' of Horn. 1; 10; 14; 26,4ff.; 27,1-8. They regarded only Horn. 24; 26,1-3 and 27,9-24 as spurious. It can be inferred from this that the question has not yet been conclusively answered. On the one hand there is the sceptical view of Richard, and on the other hand this view is opposed by the more positive one maintained by Skard, Wiles/Gregg and Stead. How can a definitive solution be reached? We can confirm only that Horn. 1; 14 and 27,1-8 were written by the same author as the rest of the corpus: — In the case of Horn. 1 new evidence was found in the catenae by Dorival attesting the author's name 'Asterius'. 2 1 — As f o r Horn. 14, Richard gives no reasons f o r denying this short piece to the author of the rest of the corpus. 2 2 The evidence collected by Wiles and Gregg in favour of this Homily's belonging t o the rest of the corpus proves their case beyond doubt. — The 'genuineness' of 27,1-8 had actually never been questioned. The findings by Wiles/Gregg fully supported Richard's own results. Yet the case is more complicated as regards Horn. 10 COrigenistic'); 24 ('dry and moralistic'); 26 (criticism of Eunomius and Arius) and 27,9-24 (literary mediocrity). 23 It seems that our only chance of progress in this matter is a new method. It is provided by a rather unlikely source — the modern computer.

17

Richard, edition, pp. VII-IX.

18

Skard 1940 p. 125; 1949, pp. S4-59. Cf. furthermore the reviews by Daniélou (1959, p. 108: Horn. 1; 14; 24 'genuine', Horn. 26 difficult). Keydell (1963, p. 426: Horn. 1 and 14 not 'genuine') and Mallet (p. 114 7: reliable judgment not yet possible).

19

Wiles/Gregg 1985, pp. 140 144.

20

Stead 1987, p. 203.

21

Cf. above p. 32 note 125.

22

He simply states in his edition, p. VIII: 'Les homélies XIV et XVI n'ont pas été étudiées Jusqu'Ici. L'attribution de la première A Astérius pourrait présenter quelques difficultés.'

23

Cf. above p. 31.

48 -

For some years. In literary criticism and also in theology, the computer has, amongst other methods, been used in order to solve problems of authorship.24 Using a computer it has become possible to analyse the style of large amounts of text more precisely and, above all, more efficiently than by traditional methods. The progress which stylometrlcal research has made during the past three decades since the publication of Richard's edition suggests that one might fruitfully analyse the style of the HomPs using computer-assisted statistical methods. For which relevant questions can we reasonably expect an answer to be provided by such an enterprise given the material at hand? First, we can analyse whether or not the Homilies in question show the same stylistical features as the rest of the corpus. If the answer is yes, then we would have an argument for the homogeneity of the corpus and — after having eliminated all other possible causes of influence — evidence suggesting their having a single author. If the answer is no, we have to consider the possibility of there being at least two authors. Moreover, we might make substantial progress towards answering the question of authorship. Unfortunately, since no other writings by AS have come down to us, except the few fragments preserved by opponents, a direct comparison Is not possible. Yet some homilies by AA have come down to us, which are certainly genulne2S and can therefore be used as a means of comparison, at least as regards the question of AA's being the author. Finally we can investigate the authorship of the texts published by Liébaert and Migne.26 Thus we can ask whether or not the author of these texts (If there is only one) Is Identical with the author (or one of the authors) of the HomPs. For the sake of clarity I should like to formulate the questions thus: 1. Is the author of the major part of the collection (abbreviated X) Identical with the author of Horn. 10; 24; 26 and 27,9-24 (Y)? Or are the differences so statistically significant that two authors have to be assumed? 2. Is the author of X identical with AA (the letter's Homilies being abbreviated Amas)? 3. Is the author of X identical with the author of the texts published by Liébaert (Lieb)?

24

A

survey

is

given

Kenny of

of by

recent Hockey

himself

approach

has

(Kenny

research 1980,

recently

the pp.

solution 122-143

produced

of

and

another

authorship Kenny

1982.

example

of

1986).

29

C f . a l r e a d y a b o v e p. 23

26

C f . above pp.

32f.

on

esp.

and b e l o w

p. 69 n o t e 1.

problems pp.

1-14.

this

kind

- 49

4. Is the author of X identical with the author of the Homily In adorationem venerandae crucis published in Migne (Migne)? In order to be able to answer these questions, the whole collection of the HomPs, as edited by Richard, was input to the computer using a Kurzweil Data Entry Machine at the Oxford University Computing Service. Unfortunately it soon turned out that accents could not be transcribed owing to the poor print quality of the original text. Therefore a computer version of the texts without accents had to be used. Hence in compiling concordances and word lists homonymous forms of different word types were not distinguished.27 Thus I had to limit myself to investigating only selected function words, which, moreover, had to be checked manually for possible homonymous forms of other word types. The inadequacy of the print of the edition prevented the mechanical transcription of the remaining texts. Therefore, Migne and Lieb had to be input to the computer manually. Unfortunately, owing to lack of time it was not possible to input the whole of Amas by hand. Hence in this case two samples of approximately equal size (Amasi, Amas2> were used. In doing this, special care was taken to select Homilies which were, in their content, as close as possible to the texts in question. (The chosen Homilies Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 of Datema's edition are all Bible exegeses.) Moreover, in order to have control figures, samples from two other works were input which are as close as possible to the supposed date of composition and to the content of the HomPs. Those passages from the Commentaries on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea (Eus) and Diodor of Tarsus (Diod) which also deal with the Psalms interpreted in Richard's collection seemed best suited for this purpose.28 Here, once again, is a list of the abbreviations used throughout this chapter: XY X Y

= HomPs, edited by Richard and attributed to AA (Cotelier) or AS (Richard); = the 'genuine' part of the corpus attributed to AS by Richard; it is divided Into samples Xi to X«; = the 'false' part of the corpus not attributed to AS by Richard, namely Horn. 10; 24; 26 and 27,9-24;

27

Cf. Hockey

28

T h e Commentary on the Psalms b y E u s e b i u s is f o u n d In P G 23, the c o m m e n t a r y b y D i o d o r in C C h r . S G 6. I c a n n o t g o into f u r t h e r d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g the p r o b l e m s o f textual criticism of both w o r k s , cf. R o n d e a u 1982ff., v o l . I. p p . 64-75 ( E u s e b i u s ) a n d 93-102 (Diodor). T h e s e , m o r e o v e r , w o u l d n o t b e o f m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e s e investigations.

1980 p. 83.

- so Amas = Horn. 1, 2, 5 and 7 by AA, as edited by Datema; It is divided into samples Amasi (Horn. 1 and 2) and Amas2 (Horn. S and 7); Lieb = Homilies, ed. Liébaert; Migne = Homily, ed Migne; Eus = extracts from the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea, ed. Migne; Diod = extracts from the Commentary on the Psalms by Diodor of Tarsus, ed. Olivier. I have already indicated above that the size of the samples was determined by factors of time and money. In the case of Y, Lieb and Migne, the size of the texts was already given. An appropriate adjustment of the size of the samples Amas, Eus and Diod was made in order to make comparisons possible. The figures are given in Table 1. (All tables are included in Appendix 2 at the end of this book.) The texts were then processed at the Oxford University Computing Service using the Oxford Concordance Program. For each of the texts (X, Xt-6, Y, Amas, Amasi, Amas2, Lieb, Migne, Eus and Diod) alphabetical concordances and wordlists arranged according to frequency were compiled among other lists, each in a complete and in a short version excluding, by means of special tags, all biblical quotations, secondary additions and editorial remarks from processing. For the analyses in question only these short versions were, of course, used. All machinereadable versions of the texts were handed over to the Text Archive of the Oxford University Computing Service, where they are accessible to anybody working in this area. The compiled lists are my private property. However, I am willing to give any information required concerning these lists. In assessing the obtained data I have closely followed Anthony Kenny's pioneering study The Aristotelian Ethics. In this book Kenny shows by means of a stylistical analysis that the three books which have come down to us within both the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics originally belonged to the Eudemian Ethics.29 As far as the statistical background is concerned, I take as my basis this study as well as Kenny's book The Computation of Style.30 For professional statisticians further references are given in the footnotes, too. At the centre of these stylometrical investigations there is an analysis of the so-called 'function words', i. e. the words which are expected to occur in one author with a constant frequency independently of the

29

Kenny

30

A s r e g a r d s the s t a t i s t i c s S a c h s 1984 a n d id. 1982.

1978, e s p . p p . 7 0 f f . ; c f . n o w in

also

general,

Kenny

my

1986.

calculations

are

based

on

- 51 genre and the context. 31 Such an independence from genre and context is to be most expected for the so-called 'small words' like particles, connectives and prepositions which altogether constitute about 10 X of the studied texts.

2. 2. 1. Particles and Connectives Particles and connectives were studied together. Table 2 shows the absolute and relative frequencies of the nine particles and connectives occurring in all texts at least four times. 3 2 With these figures initial diagrams giving a first impression can be drawn up. Looking first at X, Eus and Diod in Diagram 4 (in Appendix 3), one notices the big differences between Eus and Diod on the one hand and X on the other. Four word types deserve special attention: Sé occurs in X (1.07 %) less frequently than in Eus (2.45 %) as well as in Diod (1.82 %). On the contrary, ως is used in X (1.61 %) about twice as often as in Eus (0.75 X) and in Diod (0.88 %). The same applies for Ινα which clearly occurs in X more often than in Eus and Diod, and the reverse applies for μέν. These four word types are particularly remarkable, because here both Eus and Diod deviate considerably from X in the same direction. Nearly the same characteristic differences are found when X is compared with Amasi and Amas2 (Diagram 2). (The values for Amasi and Amas2, however, are very close.) Only for ίνα is the contrast not

31

Cf. Kenny 1982, p. 8; Hockey 1980, p. 136. Of course, the question as to the Independence of genre and context can hardly be answered conclusively, since one has In any case to assume that the genre as well as the context may Influence the choice even of the function words. For Instance, it must be presupposed that causal connectives occur more frequently In argumentative texts than in narrative texts. Therefore it is Important in our case to use homilies and commentaries as comparative texts as well. (An instructive example of how the genre may Influence the choice of function words is given by Kenny 1979, pp. 13f.) To what extent the context is important for the choice of words is difficult to assess. However, the results which have been obtained In the stylometrical research so far suggest that the 'small words' mentioned above are largely independent. of context. As to the whole complex concerning the independence of observations in texts, cf. Kenny 1982, pp. 165-167.

32

The statistically relevant minimum number of observations cannot be precisely indicated, cf. e. g. Sachs 1982, pp. 76-79. Different tests suggested that a chosen minimum frequency of four observations still guarantees very reliable results. According to van der Waerden 1971, p. 224, at least two to three observations for each parameter are sufficient for the x 2 -Test.

52 quite as clear. Migne and Lieb, too, deviate from X in the same direction. Here the exception is μεν, which (as opposed to Eus, Diod and Amas) is less frequent in Lieb and Migne than in X (Diagram 3). The picture is completely different, however, when X and Y are juxtaposed (Diagram 1): not only is the picture as a whole more balanced; in the case of ίνα the value of Y is, in contrast to the other texts, clearly greater than the value of X, whereas δέ, μέν and ως have about the same values. Furthermore it is possible to measure these common features as well as these differences by means of some statistical formulae for calculating correlation functions on the basis of a data analysis. Moreover, the relationship between the texts can be tested for its significance. In the next chapters I should like to apply these procedures: — calculation of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, — calculation of the empirical correlation coefficient, — x2-test, — z-test.

2. 2. t. 1. Spearman's rank correlation First we can calculate the rank correlation coefficient according to Spearman.33 For this each absolute frequency of each word type in both samples (texts) is attributed a rank value by descending frequency in our case from 1 to 9) so that one gets nine rank pairs, which then can be tested for their mutual functional dependency using the formula given in Table 3. A value of r s = 1 means a complete correlation of both rank sets, as it would be ideally in the case of identical authorship. The results of these calculations are given in Table 3. With a value of 0.996 X and Y show an extremely high correlation. (Compare the control value Amasi/Amas2 showing a similar correlation.) All other values deviate from this by at least 0.129 points downwards. However all data are comparatively close together. This is not very surprising, since using this formula only the correlation of the rank sets are measured, but not the correlation of the absolute values. However, one can assume a priori that, in the same way, different authors of one period use certain words more frequently than others. Therefore the calculated values will also be very close. On the other hand, an even greater significance has to be attributed to the difference between X/Y and X/Amas.

33

C f . K e n n y 1978, p p . 7 7 f f . ; id. 1982, p p . 7 7 f f . ; S a c h s 1984, p p . Id. 1982, p p . 81-83; v a n d e r W a e r d e n 1971, p p . 316-325.

308-312;

- 53 2. 2. 1. 2. The empirical correlation coefficient Because of the aforementioned features of the rank correlation coefficient, for a more detailed evaluation of the data at hand another formula has to be used, one which takes into account the absolute values themselves rather than the relation between the rank numbers. One of the standard methods for doing this is the empirical correlation coefficient 34 which is a measure for the correlation between two random variables. For r = 1 this correlation is linear: all points are on one straight line. In our case these points are the absolute frequencies of the single word types in the two texts investigated. A linear correlation would mean that the frequencies of the function words in one text are functionally dependent on the frequencies of the function words in the other. This has ideally to be assumed in the case of identical authorship, since one presupposes that the author uses the function words, independently of context, with the same frequency. The results of these calculations are given in Table 4. These results are even more telling than those obtained using Spearman's method. X and Y are here again extremely highly correlated (as are also Amasi/ Amas2>. The difference between this and the next value X/Lieb is higher than with the rank correlation coefficient, being 0.169 (0.151). The correlation X/Lieb, too, is high, compared to all other coefficients (which are relatively low).

2. 2. 1. 3. The x2-text for homogeneity The calculations undertaken hitherto indicated the relation between two samples. However, they were pure data analyses, i. e. we compared different values derived from the data (namely the correlation coefficients) without interpreting them stochastically. However, the data have to be modelled stochastically, before the stochastical behaviour of these values (statistics) can be used, in order to assess the validity of certain hypotheses. In order to apply the so-called x2-test we first have to know what kind of distribution we are dealing with in this case. This question can be solved by a simple consideration: each word in our texts belongs to one of ten categories (the nine word types plus the remaining word). Since we presuppose the independence of the random variables (for this is the way in which the function words are actually defined), we are dealing with a polynomial distribution. We know, however, that — after having been normed in an appropriate way — poly-

34

C f . K e n n y 1978, p p . 79f.; id. 1982, p p . 79-84; S a c h s 1982, p p . 8 0 f . ; v a n d e r W a e r d e n 1971, p p . 2 9 7 f f .

1984, p p .

315f. ;

id.

- 54 nomial distributions of very large samples (i. e. words in each text) approximate the (multidimensional) normal distribution, which in turn is required in order to apply the x2-test. Since in our case the samples are large enough, the x2-test — given the independence of the random variables — is permitted.35 The results of this test for homogeneity are given in Table 5. In calculating this we presuppose the null hypothesis that both samples, i. e. both studied texts, show the same distribution of the word types in question, as this would be assumed in the case of identical authorship. Then the difference between the observed value and the expected value is measured. If the resulting figure transcends the theoretical values for the 2.5 X level, the null hypothesis is rejected, i. e. with an error probability of 2.5 X the high correspondence does not stem from chance, but has other causes. The results of this test confirms stochastically the observations which we have already made in analysing the correlation coefficients on the basis of a pure data analysis: only the value for X/Y and the control value for Amasi/Amas2 are not significant, all other values are far above the 2.5 % limit showing a difference of at least SO. 36

2. 2. 1. 4. The z-test For the so-called z-test, too, we first have to be aware of the stochastical assumptions permitting its application. By means of the z-test the difference between the relative frequencies of the single word types is measured in transforming them into the asymptotically standard normally distributed random variable z. 37 Then, however, there are only two possibilities: each word belongs either to the word type in question or not. Hence we are dealing with a binomial distribution. For observed frequencies of at least five for the single word types this binomial distribution, though, can be understood in terms of a close approximation to the standard normal distribution.38 The stochastical presuppositions

35

Cf. Dinges/Post

36

T h e s e r e s u l t s a r e e v e n o b t a i n e d w h e n u s i n g the O.l X l e v e l v a l u e f o r 9 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m : 21.67).

1982, p. 74; R i c h t e r 1966, p. 359.

37

C f . K e n n y 1978, p p . 8 7 f f . ; id. 1982, p p . 121ff.; S a c h s id. 1982, p p . 63f..

38

K e n n y 1978, p. I l l , g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g

reasons

for

(significant

1984, p p .

262-264;

this:

• ... w h e n w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h the p r o p o r t i o n o f a n u m b e r of discrete events f a l l i n g into o n e o f t w o c l a s s e s (as w e are with the o c c u r r e n c e s o f w o r d s ) w e k n o w that the a p p r o p r i a t e t h e o r e t i c a l s a m p l i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n is not the n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n b u t the b i nomial distribution. Moreover, w h e n the p r o p o r t i o n of events

55 for the application of the z-test are therefore given. Table 6 shows the results of this test. These results underline the observations made above: on the 2.5 % level there is not one significant value for X/Y (nor for Amas»/Amas2), whereas all other pairs show three to six significant values. As a comparison the z-test was also applied within X. For this X was first split into six parts of about equal length. Then the distance of the relative frequency of each studied word type in each of the six parts to the relative frequency of the population X was calculated in standard normal variables (Table 7).39 This test shows the high homogeneity of X, since only nine of 54 values are significant on the 2.5 X level. (For ούν there is even a value of 0.00.) If we compare the Tables 6 and 7, it is worth noticing that the frequent use of the conjunction ως is apparently especially typical for the author of the HomPs. For not only do the z—values of this word type differ significantly from all other texts, but moreover, at the same time it is used within X with a high constancy. This originates from the frequent ως-ονίτω(ς)-comparisons of the author.

2. 2. 2. Prepositions Is it possible to confirm the results so far by investigating selected prepositions? The absolute and relative frequencies of nine prepositions are given in Table 8. The results of our calculations are listed in Tables 9-13.

2. 2. 2. 1. Spearman's rank correlation When compared with the results of the rank correlation of the particles and connectives, the values of the prepositions are clearly f a l l i n g Into o n e o f t w o c l a s s e s is v e r y s m a l l ( a s It Is In the c a s e o f r a r e l y o c c u r r i n g w o r d s ) the a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c r e t e d i s t r i b u t i o n is not the b i n o m i a l , b u t s o m e o t h e r s u c h a s the P o i s s o n d i s t r i b u t i o n . N o n e the l e s s , it is r e g u l a r statistical p r a c t i c e to u s e the b i n o m i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n s t e a d o f the P o i s s o n , a n d the n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n in t u r n i n s t e a d o f the b i n o m i a l , p r o v i d e d that w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h a r e a s o n a b l y l a r g e n u m b e r o f t r i a l s ; f o r in s u c h c o s e s the d i s t r i b u t i o n s a p p r o x i m a t e v e r y c l o s e l y to e a c h o t h e r , a n d the u s e o f the normal distribution greatly facilitates computation.' Cf. 63. 39

also

id. 1982, p p .

154f. ;

F o r the f o r m u l a u s e d c f .

similarly

Kenny

Sachs

1978, p.

1984. p.

103; f o r

262; id.

a different

1982,

p.

formula

- 56 lower. Regarding the mutual relation, however, we see the same picture: X/Y shows by far the highest correlated value, X/Amas (Amasi, Amas2>, X/Eus and X/Diod the lowest. In between lies X/Lieb, as was already seen in Table 3. X/Migne is again an exception: whereas in table 3 X/Migne showed a very low correlation, in Table 9 the value of 0.492 (0.487) is comparatively high.

2. 2. 2. 2. The empirical correlation coefficient This general picture can be seen even more clearly in Table 10, which gives the values for the empirical correlation coefficient. X/Migne is the second highest correlation of all after X/Y (even higher than Amasi/Amas2> and above X/Lieb. X/Y again shows a value of far above 0.9. The values for X/Migne are therefore extremely unstable.

2. 2. 2. 3. The x2-test for homogeneity All other analyses, the results of which are listed in Tables 11-15, fit into this picture very well: the difference between the non-significant X2-value for X/Y and the next significant value (again for X/Migne) is certainly not as high as in Table 5, but is still quite clear (Table 11). 2. 2. 2. 4. The z-test The Tables 12 and 13 show the high homogeneity of X/Y and within X (only the value for one preposition is significant), whereas all other cases there are highly significant differences for at least four word types. The only exception here is X/Migne again.

2. 2. 3. Verba dicendi In Kenny's pilot study,40 a third group of word types was studied, namely the verba dicendi. Five word types were investigated: είπον, έρω, λέγω, φάσκω and φημί. Since the Oxford Concordance Program does not lemmatize, the forms of the single word types had to be added up by hand. In order to evaluate the (in part quite low) observed frequencies of the single word types, είπον, âpô and λέγω were taken together as one group λέγω. (However, in one case there were still only three occurrences.) A second group was made from the forms of φάσκω and Sachs 1984, p. 262. 40

C f . Kenny 1978, pp. 138f.

- 57

φημί (cf. Table 14). Then the x 2 -test and the z-test were applied again. Even though It is certainly worth discussing whether or not these word types are really independent of context, the results in Tables 15-17 correspond to the ones already obtained: no significance for X / Y (as Amasi/Amas2), high significance in all other cases.

2. 2. 4. Conclusions What conclusions, as regards our initial question, can be drawn f r o m the obtained results? 1. The author of the major part of the collection, as edited by Richard, (X) is identical with the author of the Horn. 10; 24; 26 and 27,9-24 (Y). If Y contains passages not written by the author of X, they must be very small. Therefore the corpus is homogeneous. Bearing in mind the limitations of the stylometrical method, this hypothesis can be seen as proven on the basis of all applied calculations (diagrams, correlation coefficients, x 2 -test, z-test). Counterarguments concerning the language of the time etc. can be refuted on one hand by pointing to the control calculations Amasi/Amas2 which are not significant either, and on the other hand by the low correlations X / E u s and X/Diod: the language of the time should be seen most clearly f r o m these values. Indeed the correlation is here still surprisingly high, yet much lower than the values for X/Y. 2. In all likelihood the author of X is not identical with AA. This is evident f r o m the diagrams, the significant values of the x 2 -test and of the z-test as well as f r o m the correlation coefficients. The fact that the latter are somewhat higher for X / A m a s than for X / E u s and X/Diod could be due to the genre. For like X / Y the works of AA are homilies, whereas Eus and Diod are commentaries in the strict sense. 3. Our third question, i. e. whether or not the author of X is identical with the author of the texts edited by Liébaert (Lieb), is more difficult to answer. The correlation coefficients lie exactly halfway between the values for X / Y and Amasi/Amas2 on one hand and the remaining values for X/Migne, X / E u s and X/Diod on the other. The diagram gives a non-uniform picture, too. One has to take into account here that a higher correlation was to be expected anyway, since there is a close relationship between Lieb and the HomPs. Therefore the results are somewhat biased. According to the x 2 -test and the z-test, however, X and Lleb are significantly different. From a strict statistical point of view, according to the results, the null hypothesis X = Lieb has to be rejected.

- 58 4. The case of X/Migne is even more problematic. If one takes as a basis the correlation coefficients for the particles and connectives, one has to assume two different authors. Nevertheless, in this case X/Migne does not fit the picture, because it shows by far the lowest values. (For the empirical correlation the values are even slightly negative.) For the prepositions, however, quite high correlation coefficients are found, which might indicate the identity of the authors. Despite this, the results of the x2-test and the z-test show a significant difference for all word groups studied. Therefore the applied statistical method seems to have stretched to its limits here. It seems to be of great importance that Migne is by far the smallest sample. Hence these values have to be interpreted with great care. Presupposing the applicability of the method in this case, the null hypothesis X = Migne would have to be rejected, too.

2. 2. 5. Summary The result of the stylometrical analysis is that the HomPs edited by Richard form a homogeneous corpus which in all likelihood was written by just one author. If they exist at all, secondary additions can only be very short. The style of the author is extremely consistent throughout the corpus, which means that correlation coefficients tend towards 1. The author of the corpus is not AA. The use of stylometrical methods alone cannot definitely confirm, however, whether or not the author is identical with the one of the Homilies edited by Liébaert and Migne. The evidence suggests, though, that the parallels between these homilies and the corpus in question stem from other causes than common authorship.41 Finally a word of warning concerning the limits of the statistical methods which I have applied here: by means of statistics a functional connection between two random variables can certainly be shown; but the ascertained result as such do not permit any conclusions as to the causes of this connection. In the preceding chapter, however, we have extrapolated a causal connection on the basis of a formal correlation, and we have attempted to answer questions concerning authorship by eliminating all other possible influences like language use of the time, 41

I cannot investigate these p r o b l e m s here any f u r t h e r , but shall reserve a f i n a l j u d g m e n t f o r a s e p a r a t e s t u d y o f the H o m i l i e s e d i t e d by M i g n e and Liébaert.

59 particularities due to the genre etc. Yet in doing this we have already gone beyond the limits of the statistical methods in a strict sense.42 However, as was shown above, Skard, Wiles/Gregg and Stead have already maintained the 'genuineness' of some disputed Homilies independently from our own investigations. Hence we may conclude with a high degree of certainty that Horn. 10; 26,4ff. and 27,1-8 were indeed written by the author of the rest of the corpus. As regards Horn. 24; 26,1-3 and 27,9-24, Richard, Wiles/Gregg and Stead maintained unanimously the spuriousness of these texts. Our results, on the other hand, suggest the unity of the whole corpus. We therefore have to examine in the next chapter these texts more closely and, moreover, the arguments which were produced by these authors as to their validity.

2. 3. Internal Arguments According the results obtained in the last chapter, it seems that the evidence in favour of the 'genuineness' of Horn. 10; 26,4ff. and 27,1-8 which was collected by Wiles and Gregg has weight, and we may confidently add these texts to the rests of the corpus. Only Horn. 24; 26,1-3 and 27,9-24 need some further investigation, since their being 'genuine' has been challenged unanimously. However, our stylometrical results suggest the unity of the whole corpus. The question is, however, whether the spuriousness of comparatively small texts like 26,1-3 show up in stylometrical computations of this kind at all. Therefore I shall now in turn analyse these texts 'manually' as to their content and style:

2. 3. 1. Homily 24 What arguments have been produced in favour of a foreign origin of this Homily? Richard in his edition claimed: 'La seconde [sc. homélie, i. e. Horn. 24] nous donne un commentaire plutôt sec, exclusivement moral, du psaume XII tout entier. Nous n'y reconnaissons pas la manière habituelle, assez exubérante, d'Astérius.'*3

42

For a discussion

43

R i c h a r d , e d i t i o n , p.

of

these questions cf. Sachs VIII.

19Θ4, p p .

306f.

60

-

Wiles/Gregg 44 and Stead4s simply emphasized this judgment without producing further evidence. Hence the argument is essentially twofold: the moralistic character as well as the style of the Homily is atypical of the author of the bulk of the collection. Both these statements do not withstand a close examination, as these parallels show: § 1, p. 182,4f.: Επειδή πολλάκις έδεήθη του θεοΟ ωστε ρυσθηναι των κακών ... Cf. 13,24 (p. 102,llf.): ... καί προσηύξατο ρυσθηναι του λέοντος του Άβεσσαλώμ ... 13,26 (ρ. 103,8f.): Επειδή ρυσθηναι ô πατήρ άπό του υίου προσηύχετο ... cf. also 4,9 (p. 26,23). p. 182,11: ΰπόθεσις as technical term for the argumentum of a Psalm is also used in 3,5 (p. 16,5); cf. in this context also the υποθέσεις in Athanasius' Commentary on the Psalms, as printed in PG 27.46 p. 182,14f.: άποναρκάω Oto be torpid'; cf. § 3, p. 183,3) is also used in frg. 12 (p. 261,14). § 2: As to the paragraph as a whole cf. 9,2. p. 182,19: καί τούτου μάρτυς (cf. also § 3, p. 183,3; § 4, p. 183,13 and § 6, p. 184,6) is a standard introduction for biblical testimonies in the HomPs (τούτου μάρτυς occurs 13 times outside this Homily; of these 13 times καί τούτου μάρτυς occurs 6 times47). p. 182,21-24: The conclusio de minore ad malus (of the type πολλψ μάλλον; cf. also § 44, p. 183,11) is used very often in the HomPs (πολλψ μάλλον occurs 14 times outside this Homily, πόσψ μάλλον 10 times48).

44

Wiles/Gregg

45

S t e a d 1987, p. 203.

198S, p. 142.

46

S i n c e V l a n (1978, p p . 61-84) d o e s n o t q u o t e t h e m a n o t h e r s o u r c e , they m a y b e r e g a r d e d a s g e n u i n e .

47

2,15 ( p . 10,16); 4.12 ( p . 2 8 . 2 0 ) ; 13,4 (p. 93,27; x. χ. μ.); 13,16 (p. 98,25); 15,8 (p. 111,21); 17,12 ( p . 127,18); 21,16 (p. 167.17; κ. τ. μ.); 25,31 (p. 201.17) (κ. τ. μ.); 25,34 (ρ. 202.21); 27.2 (ρ. 215,13; κ. τ. μ.); 29,3 (ρ. 229,24); f r g . 17 (ρ. 264.4; κ. τ. μ.); f r g . 2S (ρ. 272.7; κ. χ. μ.).

48

π ο λ λ ψ μ ά λ λ ο ν : 5,24 ( ρ . 44,11); 7.3 ( ρ . 55,22); 9,3 ( p . 70.2); 10.S (ρ. 72, ΙΟ); 12.4 (ρ. 8 3 , 8 ) ; 12.15 (ρ. 88.13); 19,7 (ρ. 143,10); 22.4 (ρ. 173.23);

as

coming

from

-

61

-

Moreover, a similar comparison between children and νηπιάζοντες occurs in 29,19 (p. 237,2ff.). § 3, p. 182,26-28f.: ... τφ υπερθέσει και αναβολή δοκιμάζων σου τήν διάθεσιν ούκ ίνα αυτός [sc. δ θεός] μάθη, άλλ' ίνα φανερώση σου τήν προαίρεσιν ... Cf. 9,3 (p. 69,20f.): ... ούκ ινα τότε μάθη, άλλ" Γνα τότε δικάση. ρ. 182,27: The right προαίρεσις is emphasized in very similar terms in 8,6 (p. 66,2f.); cf. in this context also 17,9 (p. 126,16f.) and 25,28f. (pp. 199f.). § 4, p. 183,9-11: Medical HomPs.*9

comparisons

occur

very

frequently

in

the

§ 5, p. 183,19: That God is not subject to human emotions is also emphasized in 12,11 (p. 86,13f.). § 6, p. 184,3f.: ωσπερ — οίίτω(ς) comparisons are very frequent in the HomPs, as was shown above. 50 As to άπαρέσκω cf. also 25,34 (p. 202,19f.). p. 184,S: βόρβορος καί δυσωδία: the same combination is also found in 18,20 (pp. 136,28-137,1). § 7, p. 184,8f.: Έπεί ούν και ô Δαυίδ έρρυπώθη μοιχείςί καί έσάπη τζ άνδροκτασίη: ... cf. frg. 18 (p. 265,13): ... τήν έκ του διαβόλου μοιχείαν καί άνδροφονίαν ... ρ. 184,11: (Έπεί ούν καί ό Δαυίδ) ... έλευκάνθη νηστείςι ... cf. 5,5 (ρ. 35,27): Ά λ λ ' έπειδή δια νηστείας δ Δαυίδ τήν άπέπλυνε ...

μοιχείαν

§ 8, p. 184,15f.: The self-accusation of the just is also found in 19,20 (p. 147,28).

25,2 (p. 188,2); 25.12 (p. 193,1); 25,40 (p. 205.7); (p. 230.22); 29,11 (p. 233.20 = f r g . 19 tp. 266,131).

27,3

(p.

216.3);

πόσψ μδΧΧον: 7,6 (p. 56,23); 7.10 (p. 59,4); 7,18 ( p . 62.12); 9,1 ( p . 13,23 (p. 102.8);

18.2

(p.

128.13); 19.23 (p.

(p. 224,12); 28,3 (p.

224.29).

49

Cf.

62f.

so

C f . a b o v e p. 5S.

Skard

1958, p p .

149,12); 27,8

29,5

69,11);

(p. 218,23);

28.2

62

-

ρ. 184,17-22 has an almost perfect parallel in 12,20 (p. 91,3-6). p. 184,22f.: As to the Psalm as νουθεσία cf. 10,1 (p. 70,14); 27,4 (p. 216,16); moreover frg. 25 (p. 272,14). The combination of νουθεσία and hearing of the prayer is also found in 5,11 (p. 38,1-5). This parallel is even more striking, since it is also very similar to § 2 (p. 182,24f.) und § 3 (p. 182,25-28). § 9, p. 185,2f.: The staining by sins (Ικαταίσπιλόω) is also found in 3,10 (p. 18,12.19); 5,5 (p. 36,1); 18,2 (p. 128,14); 27,8 (p. 218,16f.). ί>υπόω is used in this sense also in 18,1 (p. 128,7); cf. 18,3 (p. 128,27), παρανομία in 10,2 (p. 71,1); 18,2 (p. 128,IS); 27,18 (p. 221,24). § 10, p. 185,8: As (p. 181,28).

to

εύεργετέω

cf.

also

23,3

(p.

176,10)

and

23,17

p. 185,10: The image of God (Christ) as the rising light also occurs in 20,4 (p. 154,12f.). p. 185,10f.: The elaborate series of attributes, some of which are rather rare, is typical of the style of the author of the HomPs.Si p. 185,llf.: καπνίζω in the figurative sense of 'to befog' is very rare. PGL quotes as only example Diad., perf. 76 (des Places p. 134,21). In the HomPs, however, two parallels are found in 11,9 (p. 79,21-24) and 21,23 (p. 169,21). § 12, p. 185,28: One of the rare examples of death as reaper in Patristic literature. (PGL, s. v. θεριστής, quotes no example for this; cf. also Job 5:26; Rev 14:14-16). A similar image is found in 4,8 (p. 26,19). p. 186,6f.: The connection between sleep and death (cf. Ps 12:4b) also occurs in 28,7 (p. 226,27); frg. 16 (p. 262,14). p. 186,8f.: As to παρρησία in the sense of 'confidence, trust', cf. 10,5 (p. 71,27). § 13, p. 186,10: The devil is called αντίπαλος also in 18,21 (p. 137,9). p. 186,15: As to σκελίζω ('to trip up') in a moral sense, cf. 18,7 (p. 130,4); 18,21 (p. 137,12); cf. also 11,9 (p. 79,26). 51

Cf. Skard

1958, p p .

59f.

- 63 § 14, p. 186,23: The comparison of David's struggle with his enemies with a wrestling match also occurs in 23,8 (p. 177,28) and 23,9 (p. 178,11). p. 186,24: The εΰσπλαγχνία of God (p. 88,11) and 23,2 (p. 175,17.20).

is

also

mentioned

in 12,15

In view of these parallels and similarities there can hardly be any doubt that this Homily, which also figures in some catenae under the name of Chrysostom, 52 was written by the author of the rest of the pseudo-Chrysostomian corpus.53

2. 3. 2. Homily 26,1-3 Since this Homily polemlci7.es in § 3 against the baptismal practice of the Eunomians, the supporters of Richard's hypothesis suggest an emergency solution in contesting the 'genuineness' of this section (i. e. the Sophist's authorship). Richard himself declared Horn. 26 as a whole, or at least partially to be spurious because of § 3: 'Le passage peut fort bien être une interpolation ancienne, mais, si tel est le cas, les limites de celle-ci ne sont pas évidentes.' 34 Because of their presuppositions. Wiles and Gregg have to assume the spuriousness of this passage as well, but they, too, have some difficulties with its limits: 'Section 3 with its reference to Eunomius and έτεροούσιος cannot be genuine Asterian material, and we have therefore to choose between denying authenticity and allowing that there has been an

cf.

Richard,

edition,

conspectus

siglorum

52

Type XVII; ad loc.

and

apparatus

53

H e r e I m e n t i o n o n l y i n c i d e n t a l l y that this H o m i l y is m u t i l a t e d not o n l y at the e n d , b u t a l s o at the b e g i n n i n g , a s the m i s s i n g s u b j e c t o f the f i r s t s e n t e n c e c l e a r l y p r o v e s .

s*

R i c h a r d , e d i t i o n , p. V I I I ; c f . 1952, p. 33. T h e t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n o f H o r n . 26f. c o n t a i n s a s p e c i a l p r o b l e m . R i c h a r d f i r s t a s s u m e d o n the b a s i s o f the c o d . V a t i c , g r . 524 that H o m i l i e s 26 a n d 27 f o r m e d o n e p i e c e (1947. p. 71). O n l y later he r e c o g n i z e d f r o m n e w w i t n e s s e s that h e w a s d e a l i n g w i t h the r e m a i n d e r s o f t w o s e r m o n s , the s e c o n d of w h i c h h e a s c r i b e d to A S (1952. p. 25, 33). H e r e p e a t e d this v i e w w i t h s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n s in the i n t r o d u c t i o n to his e d i t i o n : o n l y Horn. 27,1-8 is t h o u g h t to b e g e n u i n e , the a u t h o r s h i p o f H o r n . 26 a n d 27,9-24, h o w e v e r , d o u b t f u l ( e d i t i o n , p. V I I I ) . T h e p r e s e r v e d c a t e n a e f r a g m e n t s f r o m the type V I o n this P s a l m a r e n o t f o u n d in the text ( R i c h a r d 194 7. p. 71; e d i t i o n , p p . 2 S 9 f . ) .

- 64

interpolation [...] It is probable that sections 1-3 do not belong, but that what follows is a genuine Asterian homily. ,5S Here the whole difficulty of Richard's hypothesis Is shown In nuce. For the defenders of this hypothesis are not able to indicate how the interpolation, if it exists, has to be delimited, since, as Wiles and Gregg have shown, the Homily as a whole actually fits the rest of the corpus very well. Moreover, there is no textual evidence suggesting a hiatus between §§ 1-3 and the rest of the Homily.S6 A close look at the structure of §§ 1-4 reveals that they have to be seen as a unity, since they form a kind of exordium, introducing the exegesis as such which starts in § 5: § 1 The beauty of the Psalm § 2 The subject of the Psalm: the church as tent on the field of the world ' ... δίδαξον αύτους δι' έμου, δέσποτα ... ' < § 3 Ps 14:1b; 'Τις;' Those who keep the right baptism. ' ... δέσποτα, δίδαξον τους πάροικους σου ... '