John of Damascus: New Studies on his Life and Works (Variorum Collected Studies) 9781409446378, 1409446379

Citation preview

Also

ίn

the

Varίorum

Collected Studίes

Serίes :

POLYMNIA ATHANASSIADI Mutations of Hellenism in Late Antiquity

ERIC REBILLARD Transformations ofReligious Practices in Late Antiquity ΜΑRΚ

EDWARDS

Christians, Gnostics and Philosophers in Late Antiquity

FRANCESYOUNG Exegesis and Theology in Early Christianity

HANSHAUBEN Studies οη the Melitian Schism in Egypt (AD 306- 335)

LESLIE S.B. MACCOULL Documenting Christianity in Egypt, Sixth to Fourteenth Centuries

CLAIRE SOTINEL Church and Society in Late Antique ltaly and Beyond

JOHNW. WATT Rhetoric and Philosophy from Greek into Syriac

NEILMCLYNN Christian Politics and Religious Culture in Late Antiquity

HENRY CHADWICK Studies οη Ancient Christianity MARΚVESSEY

Latin Christian Writers in Late Antiquity and their Texts

CHRISTOPHER STEAD Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity Arius, Athanasius, Augustine

GERALD BONNER Church and Faith in the Patristic Tradition Augustine, Pelagianism, and Early Christian Northumbria

ROBERT Α.

MARΚUS

Sacred and Secular Studies οη Augustine and Latin Christianity

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES

John ofDamascus

Vassa Kontouma

Vassa Kontouma

John ofDamascus

New Studies

οη

his Life and Works

1~ ~~o~;~;n~~~up LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2015 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Οχοη 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, ΝΥ 10017

ΟΧ14

4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

This edition © 2015 Vassa Kontouma Vassa Kontouma has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author ofthis work. ΑΙΙ ήghts reserved. Νο part ofthis book may be repήnted or reproduced or uti\ised ίη any form or by any e\ectronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or ίη any information storage or retrieval system, without permission ίη writing from the publishers.

Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN 9781409446378 (hbk) British Library Cataloguing ίη Publication Data Α catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. The Library ofCongress has cataloged the printed edition as fol\ows: 2014957379 ISBN 13: 978-1-4094-4637-8 (hbk)

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CS1053

CONTENTS Acknowledgements / Remerciements

ΙΧ

Introduction (English) /Introduction (French)

ΧΙ

xxiii

Abbreviations ΤΗΕ LtFE OF JOHN OF DAMASCUS AND ITS SOURCES Ι

John ofDamascus (c. 655- c. 745)

1-43

of 'Jean Damascene ', Dίctίonnaίre des phίlosophes antίques ΠΙ, ed. R. Goulet. Parίs: CNRS Edίtίons, 2000, pp. 989- 1012. Updated and augmented Englίsh translatίon

Π

John ΠΙ of Antioch (996- 1021) and the Life of John of Damascus (BHG 884)

1- 26

of 'Jean ΠΙ dΆntίoche (996-1021) et la Vie de Jean Damascene (BHG 884) ', Revue des etudes byzantines 68, 2010, pp. 127-47

Englίsh translatίon

Ν EOCHALCEDONIAN PHILOSOPHY ΠΙ

Remarques sur la situation de la philosophie byzantine du concile de Chalcedoine a Jean Damascene

1-48

La 'Source de connaίssance 'de Jean Damascene (ca 650- ca 750). Traductίonfranφίse et commentaίre des lίvres 1 (Dίalectίca) et ΠΙ (Exposίtίo fideί). PhD, Unίversίty of Parίs-lV Sorbonne, Parίs, 1996, pp. cχνίίί-clχχ. Fίrst publίcatίon, updated and augmented SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

IV

Pseudo-Cyril's De SS. Trίnίtate: a compilation of Joseph the Philosopher Orίentalia Christίana Perίodίca

61, 1995

117- 129

CONTENTS

νι

V

The Fount of knowledge between conservation and creation

1- 20

of 'La Fonte della Conoscenza tra consen;azίone e creazίone ', Gίovannί dί Damasco. Un Padre α/ sorgere dell'Jslam. Attί del XIJI Convegno ecumenίco ίnternazίonale dί spίrίtualίtά ortodossa, sezίone bίzantίna, Bose, 11- 13 sett. 2005, eds S. Chία/ά and L. Cremaschί. Bose 2006, pp. 177- 203 Englίsh translatίon

VI

At the origins ofByzantine systematic dogmatics: the of the Orthodoxfaίth ofSt John ofDamascus

Exposίtίon

Englίsh translatίon of 'Α / Όrίgίne de /α dogmatίque systematίque byzantίne: l 'Edίtίon precίse de /α fοί orthodoxe

1- 15

de saίnt Jean Damascene ', Byzantίne Theologίans. The Systematίzatίon of theίr own Doctrίne and theίr Perceptίon of Foreίgn Doctrίnes, eds Α. Rίgo and Ρ Ermίlov (Quadernί dί Νέα 'Ρώμη 3), Rome: Unίversίtά deglί Studί dί Roma 'Tor Vergata ', 2009, pp. 3- 17 CHRJSTIAN PRACTICES UNDER ΤΗΕ UMAYYADS

VII

Lent in Jerusalem according to John ofDamascus's De sacrίs ίeίunίίs

1- 14

translation of 'La Quarantaίne hίerosolymίtaίne dans le De sacrίs ίeίunίίs de Jean Damascene ', Θυσία αίνέσεως. Melanges lίturgίques offerts ά /α memoίre de l 'archeveque Georges Wagner, eds J. Getcha and Α . Lossky (Analecta sergίana 2). Paris: Presses Saint-Serge - Instίtut de Theologie Orthodoxe, 2005, pp. 77-87 Englίsh

VIII

Un florilege sur \e Grand Careme attribue a Jean Damascene Philomathestatos. Studίes ίn Greek and Byzantίne texts presented to Jacques Noret for hίs sίxty-.fifth bίrthday, eds Β. Janssens, Β. Roosen and Ρ Van Deun (Orίentalίa lovanensίa analecta 137). Leuven, Ραrίs, Dudley, ΜΑ: Peters Publίshers, 2004

77- 104

CONTENTS

ΥΙΙ

Le florilege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre de Jean Damascene a Cometas

ΙΧ

1-12

'La Quarantaίne hίerosolymίtaίne dans le De sacrίs ίeίunίίs de Jean Damascene ', Θυσία αίνέσεως. Melanges lίturgίques ojferts ά la memoίre de l 'archeveque Georges Wagner, eds J. Getcha and Α . Lossky (Analecta sergίana 2). Parίs: Presses Saίnt-Serge - lnstίtut de Theologίe Orthodoxe, 2005, pp. 89- 94. Updated and augmented

Byzantine celebrations ofthe infancy ofMary and the question σf Immaculate Conception ίη the 19th and 20th centuries

Χ

Englίsh translatίon

of 'La

questίon

de l'lmmaculee

1- 19

Conceptίon

dans !α tradίtίon orίentale et les celebratίons byzantίnes de l 'enfance de Marίe aux vιf-vπf sίecles ', Marίe et la Fete aux Normands . Devotίon, ίmages, poesίe, ed. Fr. Thelamon. Rouen: Publίcatίons des unίversίtes de Rouen et du Havre, 2011, pp. 59- 72

1- 8 1

Index Manuscripts Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca Greek terms Names

This volume contains

2 2

3

χχνί

+ 258 pages

PUBLISHER'S ΝΟΤΕ

The

volume, as ίn all others ίn the Varίorum Collected Studίes have not been gίven α contίnuous pagίnatίon . Essays 1, 11, V, VI, VII and Χ are Englίsh translatίons of the orίgίnal artίcles, and therefore have α new pagίnatίon . Essay /Χ ίs α revίsed and augmented versίon of the orίgίnal French artίcle and now also has α new pagίnatίon. Essay 111 ίs α first publίcatίon . Essays IV and VIII retaίn theίr orίgίnal pagίnatίon . Each artίcle has been gίven α Roman number ίn order of appearance, as lίsted ίn the Contents. Thίs number ίs repeated on each page and ίs quoted ίn the ίndex entrίes . artίcles ίn thίs

Serίes,

Support for this book was provided by Labex RESMED (ANR-10-LABX-72) as part of the programme Investissements d' avenir ANR-1 l -IDEX-0004-02. Ce livre a beneficie du soutien du Labex RESMED (ANR-10-LABX-72) dans le cadre du programme Investissements d'avenir ANR-1 l-IDEX-0004-02.

ANR - 10-LAB>2

ACΚNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks go to Augustine Casiday (Cardiff University), who undertook the English translations of my articles so attentively that Ι often understood my texts better ίη his version than ίη my own; to Jean-Claude Cheynet (Univ. Paris-IV) and to Olivier Delouis (CNRS), whose support was crucial for advancing my project to publication; to Albert Failler (IFEB), who has provided me with advice as fatherly as ίt is learned. If not for the particularly complicated calendar of my children, Salvatore and Flora Conticello, my work would probably have concluded more quickly. But ίt is thanks to their vitality and good sense that Ι have been able to maintain the enthusiasm necessary for its completion, at all times. Among the institutions or editors whom Ι also wish to thank, the Labex Resmed (Paris) comes first. It is thanks to the financial assistance that it provided me that this publication has been possible. As for the Bibliotheque Jean de Vernon (ICP, Paris), it has always provided me an idea\ environment for working, not only because ofthe treasures that it contains, but a\so because of the availability of its staff. Finally, several journals or collections have generously permitted me to reproduce my articles here: Analecta sergίana, Paris (VII and ΙΧ), Orίentalίa chrίstίana perίodίca, Rome (IV), Quadernί dί Νέα 'Ρώμη, Rome (VI), Revue des έtudes byzantίnes, Paris (ΙΙ). They are gratefully thanked. Likewise the editors of the col\ected publications that have included my contributions, who have authorised me οη behalf of their respective publishers to reproduce them here: R. Gou\et, CNRS (Ι), Fr. Thelamon, University of Rouen (Χ), Ρ. Van Deun, University of Leuven (VIII) and the editorial staff of the monastery of Bose (V). Every effort has been made to trace al\ the copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary aπangement at the first opportunity.

REMERCIEMENTS Mes remerciements vont a Augustine Casiday (Univ. de Cardiff), qui s'est charge des traductions anglaises de mes articles avec une telle attention que j'ai souvent mieux compris mes textes dans sa version que dans la mienne ; a Jean-Claude Cheynet (Univ. Paris-4) et a Olivier Delouis (CNRS), dont le soutien a ete decisif a l'avancement de mon projet de publication ; a Albert Failler (IFEB), qui m'a prodigue des conseils aussi paternels qu'erudits. Sans l'agenda particulierement elabore de mes enfants, Salvatore et Flora Conticello, mon travail aurait sans doute abouti plus vite. C'est toutefois griice a leur dynamisme et a leur bon sens que j'ai pu garder l'entrain necessaire a sa realisation, en toutes circonstances. Parmi les institutions ou editeurs que je souhaite egalement remercier, \e Labex Resmed (Paris) arrive en premiere place. C'est en effet griice au financement qu'il m'a accorde que cette publication voit le jour. Quant a la Bibliotheque Jean de Vernon (ICP, Paris) elle m'a toujours offert un environnement de travail idea\, non seulement en raison des richesses qu'elle recele, mais egalement par la disponibilite de son personnel. Enfin, plusieurs revues ou co\lections m'ont genereusement accorde la permission de reproduire ici mes articles, dans l'original ou en traduction anglaise : Analecta sergίana, Paris (VII et ΙΧ) , Orίentalίa chrίstίana perίodίca , Rome (IV), Quadernί dί Νέα 'Ρώμη, Rome (VI), Revue des έtudes byzantίnes, Paris (11). Qu'el\es en soient particulierement remerciees. 11 en va de meme pour les directeurs de publications collectives qui avaient accueil\i mes contributions et qui m'ont accorde \eurs autorisations de reproduction au nom de \eurs editeurs respectifs : R. Goulet, CNRS (1), Fr. Thelamon, Universite de Rouen (Χ), Ρ. Van Deun, Universite de Leuven (VIII) et l'equipe editoriale du monastere de Bose (V).

INTRODUCTION When Ι approached the Damascene's work for the first time ίη 1989, it seemed to me a vast continent - but one that had already been conquered. At that time, the bibliography included more than 700 publications (editions, monographs or articles) related to the life and the work of John of Damascus. 1 The greatest Catholic and Orthodox scholars had written οη the subject, whilst the staff of the Byzantine Institute at Scheyern Abbey had just produced not only a critical edition ofhigh quality, 2 but also a series of monographs related to John ofDamascus's method ofcomposition ίη the fields ofphilosophy and theology. 3 What else was there to do? Α close reading of the most recent studies made me at once aware of multiple prevailing points of view about John of Damascus's life, and about the significance and the authority of his work. Ιη 1990, Ι presented an initial assessment to the University of Paris-IV Sorbonne. 4 Here, Ι undertook to refute what seemed to me a typical example of modern hagiography, by exposing the major - and often contradictory - lines put forward by the Damascene's biographers. Furthermore, by reviewing the conclusions they reached οη the value ofhis work, Ι found that philological criticism had unintentionally ruined a monument whose authority had not been cha\lenged for many centuries, by insisting that the Fount of knowledge was basica\ly a misce\lany. Αη important discovery had actually triggered a vast movement by allowing the conclusion that, even ίη the parts of his work that seemed the most original, John of Damascus was merely a compiler after all. This was the study by Joseph de Guibert, who in 1912 demonstrated that the Trinitarian section of the treatise Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth was actually derived from an opuscule by ps.-Cyril. 5 The invitation to a research fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks (Washington, D.C.) ίη 1993- 94 provided me the opportunity to examine closely Guibert's ' See for instance G. DRAGAS,

Έibliography

in chronological progression (1472-1986)', PG

95 (anastatic reprint, Athens 1989), which lists 713 titles. 2 Κοττ εR 1-V (Berlin, New York 1969-88). 3

These monographs appeared in the collection Stιιdία Patristίca et Byzantίna, Ettal.

V. CoNTOUM AS, La Source de Connaissance de Jean Damascene : commentaίres, Memoire de DEA (dir. : Ρ. MAGNA RD), Paris-IV Sorbonne 1990. 4

5

J.

ο ε GυιΒ εκr,

'Une source de Jean Damascene, Defide orthodoxa', Recherches de scίence

religieuse 3 (1912), p. 356-68.

ΧΙ\

INTRODUCTION

argument and related literature. What struck me then was an initial flaw, and quite a big one: the opuscule by ps.-Cyril, invoked by everyone who insisted that the Damascene's work was chiefly anthologizing, was not actually composed ίη the 7th Century, as was widely supposed to have been proven. 6 Quite the contrary, this text is datable to the 13th-14th Century and its author, who was readily identifiable, had actually taken the core of the treatise from theExposίtίon ofthe Orthodoxfaίth. These conclusions are the subject of an article published in 1995 and reprinted here [IV]. The discovery of this flaw in the continent of Damascene studies revealed not merely that great scholars had reproduced an eπor for nearly a century: such is life, even in research. lt showed up another fact that was even more consequential. Once the Trinitarian section of the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth had been restored to him, John of Damascus became an original thinker once more, a theologian whose work made sense. lt was after all in this section that he articulated one of his major theological premisses, by applying to Trinitarian thinking a concept previously used only in Christology, namely, circumincession or περιχώρησις. 7 But if he had been ab\e to develop the thought of Gregory of Nazianzus 8 so powerfully, it is since his work was the bearer of a significance that surpasses the mere conservation of a theologica\ heritage by means of anthologizing it; it is equally the case that his many writings advanced a project that needed to be clarified. So I embarked upon studying the philosophical section of the Fount of Knowledge ίη the hopes of understanding its significance and defining its project. Now the Dίalectίca was John ofDamascus's treatise that had suffered the harshest blows from philo\ogica\ criticism. Specifical\y, the research of Gerhard Richter 9 showed that the Damascene had not known Porphyry's or Ammonius' original treatises - still \ess those of Aristot\e - and thus that he had not Christianised them. He had simply organised huge prefabricated elements which themselves had come from compilations of late Neoplatonic commentators, such as David or Elias. Unfortunately, a\though Richter's studies were thorough and scholarly, they did not succeed in reporting compilations whose existence could be proven. These complex Vorlagen remained hypothetical. Futhermore, his research did not answer the basic 6 Cf. Β. FR A ΙGN EAu-J u ιιεN , 'Un traite anonyme de Ιa Sainte Trinite attribue iι Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie' , Recherches de science religieuse 49 ( 1961 ), p. 118-211 and 386--405. 7 This teaching bas been explained by Ε . DuRAN D, La perichorese des personnes divines. Jmmanence mutuelle, reciprocite et communίon (Paris 2005). 8 GRtGoκv O F N Az ι ANzu s, Epist. 101 , 31 , ed. Ρ. GALLAY (SC 208, Paris 1974), p. 48. 9 G. Rι cHTER , Dίe Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos. Eine Untersuchung des Textes nach seine Qιιellen und seiner Bedeutung (STB I Ο , Ettal 1964).

xiii

INTRODUCTION

questions: why had John of Damascus compiled these texts? And why had generations of Byzantines conscientiously reproduced his work ίη more than two hundred manuscripts? It was ίη 1996 that I presented my first conclusions regarding the philosophica\ and theologica\ significance ofthe Dίalectίca. lt highlighted the processes that had \ead to the deliberate redirection of such concepts as ουσία, ύπόστασις, φύσις, μορφή, by means of the Aristotelian concept of όμωνυμία. Thus, for John of Damascus as for those who inspired him (Anastasios the Sinaite, for instance ), the homonomy σf concepts that are πολλαχώς λεγόμενα had permitted divergences within pagan systems and the inherent polyphony σfGreek philosophical schools. lt was therefore legitimate to make use σfthem in articulating the Christian significance ofthese same concepts, a significance that once posed took οη an absolute value since they had been proposed by none less than the very Scriptures and holy fathers. 1 From this perspective, it also became evident that the Dίalectίca was neither the random result σf compilations carelessly strung together, nor an isolated work. Rather, it represents the culmination σf an entire school of thought that can be described as Neochalcedonian. This study, initally presented as a chapter in my doctoral thesis, is found here [ΠΙ] . Encouraged by these results and seeing that a fresh reading of the Fount of knowledge was possible, 1 next approached the treatise Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth and more specifica\ly its aπangement, sometimes divided into four books and more often into one hundred chapters. Was The Orthodoxfaίth the Summa theologίca of the East, as some scholars had mantained? Or did it represent the dogmatic adornment of ascetic Centuries? Further, what are the distinctive features of Greek systematic dogmatics? Taking stock of these questions was the purpose of several seminars ίη the years 1998-2006. 11 Their outputs have not been included in this volume, insofar as they were simply steps in the research that cultimated ίη two articles published in 2006 and 2009, which appear here in English translation [V and VI].

°

1° Cf. ANASTAs ιos ΤΗΕ Sι ΝΑ ιτε, Viae dux VI , 2, ed. Κ.-Η . UτΗΕΜΑ ΝΝ (CCSG 8, Turnhout, Leuven 1981), p. 102- 3, 1. 57- 63 ; JoHN OF DAMAscus, Dialectica 31 (=11), ed. ΚοπΕR Ι , p. 93- 5. 11 See the 'Resumes de conferences' published ίη the Annιιaire de IΈPHE-SR 107 (199899), p. 339-45 (Dogmatic summae in Greek Orthodoxy); 108 (1999- 2000), p. 352- 3 (Dogmatic summae ίη Orthodoxy: theologians of the diaspora); 109 (2000- 2001), p. 372- 3 (Philosophia ancίlla theologiae: tbe history ofa formula); 110 (2001 - 2002), p. 367- 9 (Research into Orthodox dogmatics: the principle of philosophia ancilla theologiae and the arrangement of John of Damascus's Fount ο/ knowledge) ; 116 (2007- 2008), p. 235-41 (Orthodox dogmatics. Toward a fresh reading of John ofDamascus's Fount ofknowledge).

χίν

INTRODUCTION

The result that I think should be underlined is the following: the division into a hundred chapters according to which the treatise Exposition of the Orthodox faith comes down to us does not correspond to the original form ofthis work. That was done by John Damascene's Byzantine editor, someone who probably lived in the 9th Century and who promoted the circulation of these writings during or after the Second Iconoc\ast Controversy. Although he did us a great service, this editor was too strict in his divisions, which have compromised the conceptual subtlety ofthe original composition. The article published ίη 2006 [V] attempted to reconstruct the aπangement according to which the Exposition of the Orthodox faith can be read if we ignore the hundred titles that mark it out. The great thematic units of this aπangement are the following: knowledge of God; natural knowledge of the divine; traditional knowledge of God; divine activities; the principles of divine names; God, the place of creation; the creation of the world; the creation of man; the Economy of the Word; modes of salvation bequeathed by the Saviour; sin and emancipation of man. 12 As for the article of2009 [VI], it was dedicated to the more general question of Greek systematic dogmatics, an area whose primary representative is unquestionably the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faith . Ιη parallel with this research, the question of the Damascene's biography also held my attention. Ιη 1996, 1 came to conclude that John left his native city in 705 - and not ίη the years 717- 20, as is commonly stated - and, importantly, that he was involved in ecclesiastical activity at the highest level ίη the patriarchate of Jerusalem alongside Patriarch John V (705- 35), whose close advisor he was. 13 At the request of Richard Goulet, however, 1 began to study this subject more deeply, which also enabled me to consider from a critical point of view the copious hagiographic output οη the Damascene. Completely revised, updated and extended, the article published in 2000 in the Dίctίonnaίre des Phίlosophes antiques appears here in English translation [Ι]. During this work οη the Vίtae, a rather problematic text - the Life of John (BHG 884) - caused many difficulties for me. Indeed, a heated debate had taken place over the question of its date of composition and its author, most often considered to have been John VII of Jerusalem (964-66). Detailed study ofthis text, its language, its style and indeed its content, as well as consideration of historical data, lead me to an irnportantly different identification several years later. As I hope to have shown ίη the article published ίη 201 Ο and reprinted here in English translation [11], the author of the Life of John is John 111 of Antioch (996- 1021 ), an educated Constantinopolitan despatched to Syria 12 Α French translation of Expositίon ofthe Orthodoxfaith, presented according to this new arrangement, is now complete and awaiting publication. 13 Cf. CoNTOUMAS-CONTl CELLO 1996, p. Χ ΙΙΤ-Χ LΙΙΙ.

INTRODUCTION

XV

following its Byzantine reconquest. We\l trained at metaphrastic techniques, this hagiographer, who is also known from other writings, 14 probably began working οη the basis of Vίtae or o\der notes but considered them to be unacceptable. Such is the case with the Life of the Melodίsts Cosmas and John Damascene (BHG 394), which he quotes, and a dossier that reappeared ίη 1085 at the monastery of St Symeon, where Michael of Antioch consulted it. John 111's text is precise, well structured, and written in a lofty style, but it gives us little valuable information about John of Damascus's life. The goals pursued by his author are actual\y otherwise: to win the favour of the Arab-speaking Christians of his patriarchate by praising the figure of a great saint born in Damascus; to encourage the Greek-speaking soldiers present ίη Antioch toward a culture of peace, a culture that promoted values favourable to the renaissance of Byzantine Syria. It was by chance that in 2002- 2003 1 came across the De sacrίs ίeίunίίs, an authentic writing by John ofDamascus that Bonifaz Kotter failed to include in his critical edition ofthe complete works. My initial project was limited to its translation, to make use of it in the course of a seminar οη Great Lent. Very little studied in the past, this text held many surprises. First of all, the florilegium joined to it was not composed by the Damascene. Quite the opposite, it was sent to him for refutation, which the theologian did in the Letter to Cometas , which is also included in the De sacrίίs ίeίunίίs. Ιη addition, the florilegium itself is not without interest: indeed, it preserves Greek fragments from Severus of Antioch that are otherwise lost. These discoveries lead me to two publications. The first, which is quite technical, was focused οη the florilegium. It appeared in 2004 [VIII]. The second treated more generally ofthe length ofGreat Lent, the central theme of the Letter to Cometas, then attempted to unpack John of Damascus's position οη this question. It is reprinted here in English translation [VII] . However, its appendix - which includes the French translation of the Letter to Cometas - is retained in its original form and rounded off by the translation of the florilegium. 15 This collection, which presents the De sacrίs ίeίunίίs as a whole, is given as number ΙΧ. Finally, it was at the request of Fran9oise Thelamon that I approached the Damascene's Mariology. The initial idea was to study the Homίly on the Ναtίνίty ofMary (CPG 8060) and to unpack from it any indications concerning the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the area of Jerusalem in the 7th- 8th Centuries. However, this homily is not an authentic work; furthermore,

14 V. KoNTOUMA, 'Bapteme et communion des jeunes enfants. La Lettre de Jean d Άntioche ά Theodore d 'Ephese', REB 69 (2011 ), p. 185- 204. 15 This tτanslation is part of a third article on the subject : 'Du mauvais usage des sources dans un florilege palestinien du ντιι ' siecle', ed. S. MoRLET, Lire en extraits (Paris, fortbcoming).

XVI

INTRODUCTION

the subject seemed dangerous to me, since it did not begin from an analysis of historical realities ίη the first place, but rather from a problematic that appeared ίη the 19th Century, ίη a period when the Roman Church worked to establish the dogma of 1854. lt was therefore the presentation of the most important eastern mariological corpus, assembled by Catholic scholars of the 19th and 20th Centuries, that became the subject of the article published ίη 2011 and presented here ίη English translation [Χ]. Certainly, the topic of the Marian cult ίη Jerusalem ofthe 7th-8th Centuries is also discussed here. But these are more lines of work and interpretation which are suggested, than actual results which have been accomplished. As may be imagined, the exploration of the Damascene continent is far from over.

*** Since most of the articles are in a new layout, the addenda et corrίgenda are directly included ίη the notes. Also, since the vagaries of life and protocol have led to multiple changes of my name, 1 have signed the articles included ίη the present volume as V. Contoumas-Conticello, V. Conticello, V. Kontouma-Conticello and V. Kontouma. They should be cited, however, ίη the revised versions, only under the form V. Kontouma.

INTRODUCTION Lorsque, en 1989, j 'abordais pour la premiere fois 1' ceuvre damascenienne, celle-ci m'apparut comme un continent immense, mais deja conquis. Α cette epoque, la bibliographie recensait plus de sept cents publications - editions, monographies ou articles - relatives a la vie et a l'ceuvre de Jean Damascene 1• Les plus grands erudits catholiques ou orthodoxes s' etaient prononces a son sujet, et l'equipe de l'lnstitut byzantin de l'Abbaye de Scheyern venait de produire, ηοη seulement une edition critique de grande qualite2, mais egalement une serie de monographies relatives a la methode de composition de Jean Damascene dans les domaines de la philosophie et de la theologie 3 • Que restait-il a faire? La lecture attentive des etudes les plus recentes me permit tout d'abord de prendre conscience de la multiplicite des points de vue qui regnait quant a la perception de la vie de Jean Damascene, mais aussi du sens et de l'autorite de son ceuvre. Εη 1990, je presentais un premier bilan aupres de l 'Universite de Paris-4 Sorbonne4 • Dans celui-ci,je tentais \a refutation de ce qui m'apparaissait comme un exemple caracteristique d'hagiographie moderne, en relevant \es grands axes - souvent contradictoires - mis en avant par \es biographes du Damascene. Par ailleurs, en resumant les conclusions emises sur \a valeur de son ceuvre, je constatais que \a critique philologique, qui avait insiste sur \a nature compilatoire de \a Source de Connaίssance, avait, malgre elle, ruine un monument dont 1'autorite n'avait pas ete contestee durant de nombreux siec\es. Une decouverte importante avait en effet declenche un vaste mouvement, qui avait permis d'etablir que Jean Damascene n'avait ete, somme toute, qu'un compi\ateur, meme dans les parties de son ceuvre qui paraissaient \es plus originales. 11 s'agissait d'une etude de Joseph de Guibert, qui avait montre en 1912 que \a partie trinitaire du traite de La fοί orthodoxe etait en realite tiree d'un opuscule pseudo-cyrillien5•

ΡΟ

1 Voir par exemple Ο . DR AGAS, Bibliography in chronological progression (1472- 1986), 95 (reimpr. anast.), Athenes 1989, qui dresse une li ste de 713 titres.

ΚοπΕR 3

I-V, Berlin, New York 1969- 88.

Ces monographies ont paru dans la collection

Stιιdία Patrίstίca

et Byzantίna, Ettal.

V. CoNTOUMAS, La Soιιrce de Connaίssance de Jean Damascene : commentaίres, Memoire de DEA (dir. : Ρ. MAGNA RD), Paris-4 Sorbonne, 1990. 4

5

J. DE G u ιB E RT, Une source de Jean Damascene, Defide orthodoxa, Recherches de

re/igieuse 3, 1912, p. 356-68.

scίence

ΧΥΙΙΙ

INTRODUCTION

Εη 1993- 94, l'opportunite d'un sejour au centre de recherches de Dumbarton Oaks (Washington, D.C.) me permit d'examiner attentivement la demonstration de Guibert ainsi que la litterature afferente. Une premiere faille m'apparut alors, et elle etait de taille : l'opuscule pseudo-cyrillien invoque par tous ceux qui insistaient sur le caractere eminemment compilatoire de \a methode damascenienne, n'avait pas ete compose au 7e siecle, comme οη avait cru \e montrer6. Bien au contraire, ce texte etait datable du 13e_ 14e siec\e et avait un auteur bien identifie, qui en avait extrait Ι 'essentiel du traite de La fοί orthodoxe. Ces conclusions firent l'objet d'un article publie en 1995 et repris ici [IV]. La decouverte de cette faille dans \e continent des etudes damasceniennes ne revelait pas simplement que de grands erudits avaient reproduit une eπeur pres d'un siec\e durant : telle est \a nature meme de \a recherche. Elle pointait une autre realite, plus feconde. La partie trinitaire de La fοί orthodoxe lui ayant ete restituee, Jean Damascene redevenait un penseur original, un theologien dont l'ceuvre faisait sens. C'est en effet dans cette partie qu'il avait enonce l'une de ses theses theologiques majeures, en appliquant au domaine trinitaire un concept jusque-la utilise dans la seule christologie, a savoir celui de circumincession ou περιχώρησις7. Or, s'il avait ete capable de developper la pensee de Gregoire de Nazianze 8 avec une telle puissance, c'est que son ceuvre etait porteuse d 'un sens depassant la simple conservation d 'un patrimoine theologique par les voies de la compilation ; c' est egalement que ses nombreux ecrits procedaient d'un projet qu'il etait important d'eclairer. Je m'attelais alors a l'etude de la partie philosophique de la Source de Connaίssance, dans l'espoir d'en saisir le sens et d'en definir le projet. Les Dίalectίca etaient en effet le traite de Jean Damascene qui avait le plus subi les coups de la critique philologique. Εη particulier, les travaux de Gerhard Richter9 avaient montre que le Damascene n'avait pas connu les traites originaux de Porphyre ou d' Ammonius - et encore moins ceux d' Aristote - et qu'il ne les avait pas ηοη plus christianises. 11 avait simplement ordonne de grandes unites prefabriquees, qui procedaient elles-memes de compilations de commentateurs neoplatoniciens tardifs, tels que David ou Elias. Malheureusement, les recherches de Richter, bien que minutieuses et savantes, n'aboutissaient pas au signalement de compilations dont l'existence pouvait etre constatee. Ces 6 Cf. Β. F R A ΙGNEA u-JuιιεN , Un traite anonyme de la Sainte Trinite attribue iι Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie, Recherches de science religίeιιse 49, 1961, p. 118-211 et 386-405. 7 Cet enseignement a ete explicite par Ε . DuRAND, La perίchorese des personnes divines. lmmanence mutuelle, recίprocίte et communίon, Paris 2005. 8 GκέGοιRΕ οε ΝΑ z ι ΑΝzε, Epist. 101 , 31 , ed. Ρ. GALLAY (SC 208), Paris 1974, p. 48. 9 G. RιcHTER , Dίe Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos. Eίne Untersuchung des Textes nach seίne Quellen und seίner Bedeutung (STB l Ο), Ettal l 964.

INTRODUCTION

χίχ

Vorlagen complexes restaient hypothetiques. Par ailleurs, ses travaux ne repondaient pas a des questions essentielles : pourquoi Jean Damascene avaitil compile ces textes ? Et pourquoi des generations de Byzantins avaient-elles consciencieusement reproduit son reuvre, dans plus de deux cents manuscrits ? C'est en 1996 que je presentais mes premieres conclusions relatives au sens philosophique et theologique des Dίalectίca. Ι\ s'agissait de mettre en lumiere \e processus ayant conduit au detournement delibere de certains concepts comme ούσία, ύπόστασις, φύσις, μορφή, par l'exploitation de \a notion aristotelicienne d'όμωνυμία. Ainsi, pour Jean Damascene comme pour ses inspirateurs - Anastase \e Sinaϊte par exemple - , l'homonymie des concepts qui sont des πολλαχως λεγόμενα, avait autorise \es divergences entre systemes paϊens et \a polyphonie intrinseque aux eco\es philosophiques grecques. 11 etait donc \egitime de s'y appuyer pour enoncer \e sens chretien de ces memes concepts, un sens qui prenait toutefois une valeur absolue une fois pose, puisqu'il n'etait autre que celui que \es :έcritures et \es saints Peres avaient eux-memes envisage 10 • Dans cette perspective, il apparut egalement que \es Dίalectίca n'etait ni \e fruit a\eatoire de compilations mal fice\ees, ni une reuvre isolee. 11s representaient au contraire l'aboutissement de tout un courant de pensee qui pourrait etre qualifie de neochalcedonien. Οη trouvera ici cette etude, initialement presentee comme un chapitre de notre these de doctorat [ΠΙ]. Encouragee par ces resultats et voyant qu 'une nouvelle lecture de la Source de Connaίssance etait possible, j'abordais progressivement le traite de La fοί orthodoxe et plus particulierement son plan, parfois divise en quatre livres et plus souvent en cent chapitres. La fοί orthodoxe etait-elle la Somme theologίque de l'Orient, comme certains savants l'avaient soutenu ? Ou representait-elle le pendant dogmatique des Centuries ascetiques ? Mais d'ailleurs, quelles etaient les caracteristiques propres a la dogmatique systematique d'expression grecque ? La prise en compte de ces questions fit l'objet de plusieurs seminaires dans les annees 1998-2006 11• Leurs bilans n'ont pas ete retenus dans le present volume, dans la mesure οίι ils marquent

1° Cf. ANASTASE ιε S1ΝΑΪΊΈ, Vιae dux VI, 2, ed. Κ.-Η. UτΗ ΕΜΑΝΝ (CCSG 8), Tumhout, Leuven 1981 , p. 102- 3, 1. 57- 63 ; JEAN DAMASCENE, Dίalectίca 31 (= Ι 1), ed. ΚοττΕR Ι, p. 93- 5. 11 Voir ainsi les Resumes de conferences parus dans Ι'Αnnιιαίre de IΈPHE-SR 107, 1998-99, p. 339-45 (Les sommes dogmatiques dans l'orthodoxie grecque) ; 108, 1999- 2000, p. 352- 3 (Les sommes dogmatiques dans l'orthodoxie : theologiens de la diaspora) ; 109, 2000- 2001 , p. 372-3 (Phίlosophίa ancί/la theo/ogίae : histoire d'une formule) ; 110, 2001-2002, p. 367-9

(Recherches sur la dogmatique orthodoxe : le principe phίlosophίa ancίl/a theo/ogίae et le plan de la Source de Connaίssance de Jean Damascene); 116, 2007- 2008, p. 235-41 (Dogmatique orthodoxe. Pour une nouvelle lecture de la Source de Connaίssance de Jean Damascene).

χχ

INTRODUCTION

\es simples etapes d'une recherche qui a abouti adeux articles parus en 2006 et 2009, et qui sont donnes ici en traduction anglaise [V et VI]. Le resultat qu'il me semble utile de souligner est \e suivant: \e decoupage en cent chapitres sous lequel \e traite de La fοί orthodoxe nous est parvenu, ne correspond pas a \a forrne originaire de cette ceuvre. 11 a ete opere par l'editeur byzantin de Jean Damascene, un personnage qui a sans doute vecu au 9° siec\e et qui a favorise \a diffusion de ces ecrits pendant ou apres \e Second Iconoc\asme. Bien qu'ayant fourni un travail considerable, cet editeur a ete trop strict dans son decoupage, ce qui a compromis \a souplesse conceptuel\e de \a redaction initiale. L'article publie en 2006 [V] tente de reconstituer \e plan sous \equel Lafoί orthodoxe peut etre lue, si Ι 'οη fait abstraction des cent titres qui \a jalonnent. Les grandes unites thematiques de ce plan sont \es suivantes : connaissance de Dieu ; connaissance naturelle du divin ; connaissance traditionnel\e de Dieu ; activites divines, principes des noms divins ; Dieu, lieu de \a creation ; creation du monde ; creation de l'homme ; :έconomie du Verbe ; moyens du salut laisses en heritage par \e Seigneur ; peche et affranchissement de l'homme 12 • Quant a l'article de 2009 [VI], il est consacre a la question plus generale de la dogmatique systematique d'expression grecque, un domaine dont la reference principale reste incontestablement Lafoί orthodoxe. Parallelement a cette recherche, la question de la biographie du Damascene avait aussi retenu mon attention. Εη 1996, j'etais arrivee au constat que Jean avait quitte sa ville natale en 705 - et ηοη dans les annees 717- 20, comme il etait communement admis - et surtout qu'il avait eu une activite ecclesiastique de premier plan au patriarcat de Jerusalem, aux cδtes du patriarche Jean V (705-35), dont il avait ete le proche conseiller 13• Toutefois, c'est a la demande de Richard Goulet que j'entrepris d'apprσfondir ce sujet, ce qui me permit aussi de considerer d'un point de vue critique l'abondante production hagiographique sur le Damascene. Entierement revise, mis ajour et augmente, l'article publie en 2000 dans le Dίctίonnaίre des Phίlosophes antίques , est donne ici en traduction anglaise [1] . Durant ce travail sur les Vίtae, un texte assez problematique - la Vίe de Jean (BHG 884) - m'avait pose plusieurs difficultes. Εη effet, un debat enflamme avait eu cours sur la question de sa date de composition et de son auteur, le plus souvent considere comme etant Jean VII de Jerusalem (964-66). L'etude detaillee du texte, de sa langue, de son style et bien entendu de son contenu, ainsi que la prise en compte de donnees historiques, me conduisirent 12 La tτaduction fran9aise de La foi orthodoxe, presentee suivant ce nouveau plan, est actuellernent achevee et en attente de publication. 13 Cf. CON'ΓOUMAS-CONTICELLO 1996, p. ΧJΙΙ-ΧLΙΙΙ.

INTRODUCTION

xxi

a une identification bien differente quelques annees plus tard. Comme j 'espere l'avoir montre dans l'article publie en 2010 et repris ici en traduction anglaise [11] , l'auteur de \a Vίe de Jean est Jean 111 d'Antioche (996-1021), un \ettre constantinopolitain envoye en Syrie apres la reconquete byzantine de ce\leci. Rompu a la methode metaphrastique, cet hagiographe egalement connu par d'autres ecrits 14 , a sans doute travaille a partir de Vίtae ου de notices plus anciennes, mais jugees iπecevables par lui. Tel est le cas de la Vίe des Mέlodes Cosmas et Jean Damascene (BHG 394), qu'il cite, et d'un dossier que l'on retrouve en 1085 au monastere Saint-Symeon, οίι Michel d'Antioche \e consulte. Le texte de Jean 111 est coπect, structure et ecrit dans une langue elevee, mais il nous foumit peu d'informations valables sur la vie de Jean Damascene. Les buts poursuivis par son auteur sont en effet tout autres : gagner \a bienvei\lance des chretiens arabophones de son patriarcat en valorisant la figure d'un grand saint ne a Damas ; orienter les militaires hellenophones presents a Antioche vers une culture de paix, une culture porteuse de valeurs favorables a la renaissance de la Syrie byzantine. C'est par hasard que je suis tombee, en 2002-2003, sur \e De sacrίs ίeίunίίs, un ecrit authentique de Jean Damascene que Bonifaz Kotter avait omis d'inclure dans l'edition critique de ses α:uvres completes. Μοη projet initial se limitait a le traduire, pour en faire usage au sein d'un seminaire sur le Grand Careme. Tres peu etudie par le passe, ce texte reservait toutefois plusieurs suprises. Tout d'abord, le florilege qui lui etait joint n'avait pas ete compose par le Damascene. Bien au contraire, il lui avait ete envoye pour refutation, ce que le theologien avait fait dans la Lettre ά Cometas, elle-meme incluse dans le De sacrίs ίeίunίίs. De surcroit, ce florilege n'etait pas sans interet : il conservait en effet des fragments grecs de Severe d' Antioche, par ailleurs perdus. Ces decouvertes me conduisirent a deux publications. La premiere, tres technique, se concentre sur le florilege. Elle a paru en 2004 [VIII]. La seconde traite plus generalement de la duree du Grand Careme, theme central de la Lettre ά Cometas, puis s'attache a degager l'enseignement de Jean Damascene sur cette question. Elle est reprise ici en traduction anglaise [VII] . Εη revanche, son annexe - qui comprend la traduction franς;aise de la Lettre ά Cometas -, est conservee dans sa forme originale et completee par la traduction du florilege 15 • Cet ensemble, qui permet de retrouver tout le De sacrίs ίeίunίίs , est donne sous le numero ΙΧ .

14 V. KoNTO UMA, Bapteme et communion des jeunes enfants. La Lettre de Jean d Άntίoche ά Theodore d 'Ephese, REB 69, 20 l l, p. l 85- 204. 15 Cette traduction fait aussi partie d ' un troisieme article sur la question : Du mauvais usage des sources dans un florilege palestinien du νιιι' siecle, ίη S. MoRLET (dir.), Lire en extraίts , Paris

(iι paraίtre) .

χχιι

INTRODUCTION

Enfin, c'est a la demande de Franι;:oise Thelamon que j'ai aborde la Mariologie damascenienne. L'idee initiale etait de traiter de \'Homelίe sur la Natίvίte de Marίe (CPG 8060) et d'en degager d'eventuels indices relatifs a \a doctrine de l 'Immaculee Conception dans \a Jerusalem des 7e_8e siec\es. Cependant, cette homelie est un ecrit inauthentique ; par ailleurs, le sujet me semblait perilleux, car il ne procedait pas en premier lieu d'une analyse des realites historiques, mais plutδt d'une problematique apparue au 19° s., a\ors meme que l'Eglise romaine ceuvrait a 1'etablissement du dogme de 1854. C' est donc la presentation de l'important corpus mariologique oriental, constitue par \es savants catholiques aux 19° et 2oe siec\es, qui fait d'abord l'objet de l'article publie en 2011 et presente ici en traduction anglaise [Χ]. Bien entendu, le sujet du culte marial dans \a Jerusalem des 7e_8e siecles y est aussi aborde. Mais ce sont plus des pistes de travail et d'interpretation qui sont suggerees, que de veritables resultats qui sont obtenus. Comme on \e devine, l'exploration du continent damascenien est loin d'etre achevee.

*** La plupart des articles ayant fait l'objet d'une nouvelle mise en page, les addenda et corrίgenda ont directement ete inclus dans les notes. Par ailleurs, les aleas de la vie et de l'administration m'ayant conduite a changer plusieurs fois de nom, les articles inclus dans le present ouvrage sont signes V. Contoumas-Conticello, V. Conticello, V. Kontouma-Conticello ou V. Kontouma. 11 est recommande de les citer desormais, dans leur forme revisee, sous le seul nom de V. Kontouma.

ABBREVIATIONS ΑΒ

ACO AHDLMA BHG ΒΖ

CCSG CFHB CPG

csco ΘΗΕ

DHGE

DOP DS DTC ΕΙ

ΕΟ

GCS

JOB OCA OCP PG ΡΜΒΖ

ΡΟ

PTS REB

sc

SPB STB ST ΤΜ

Analecta Bollandίana, Brussels. Acta Concίlίorum Oecumenίcorum , Berlin/Leipzig. Archίves d'hίstoίre doctrίnale et lίtteraίre du Moyen άge, Paris. Bίblίotheca hagίographίca grceca, Brussels. Byzantίnίsche Zeίtschrift, Munich/Leipzig. Corpus chrίstίanorum. Serίes graeca, Leuven/Turnhout. Corpus fontίum hίstorίae byzantίnae, Berlin/Washington, D. C./Paris/Vienna. Clavίs patrum graecorum, Turnhout. Corpus scrίptorum chrίstίanorum orίentalίum, Louvain. Θρησκευτική καi ήθική έγκυκλοπαιδεία, Athens. Dίctίonnaίre d'hίstoίre et de geographίe ecclesίastίques, Paris. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Washington, D.C. Dίctίonnaίre de spίrίtualίte, Paris. Dίctίonnaίre de theologίe catholίque, Paris. Encyclopedίe de l Ίslam, Leiden/Paris. Echos d'Orίent, Paris. Dίe grίechίschen chrίstlίchen Schriftsteller der ersten dreί Jahrhunderte, Berlin/Leipzig. Jahrbuch der δsterreίchίschen Byzantίnίstίk, Vienna. Orίentalίa chrίstίana analecta, Rome. Orίentalίa chrίstίana perίodίca , Rome. Patrologίa graeca, Paris. Prosopographίe der Mίttelbyzantίnίscher Zeίt (641- 867) , Berlin/New York 1998-2002. Patrologίa orίentalίs , Paris/Turnhout. Patrίstίsche Texte und Studίen , Berlin/New York. Revue des etudes byzantίnes , Paris. Sources chretίennes, Paris. Studίa Patrίstίca et Byzantίna , Ettal. Studίen und Texte zur Byzantίnίstίk, Frankfurt-am-Main. Studί e Testί, Rome. Travaux et Memoίres, Paris.

ABBREVIATIONS

χχιν

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschίchte der altchrίst­ Archίv fiir dίe grίechίsch chrίstlίchen Schriftsteller der ersten dreί Jahrhunderte, Leipzig/Berlin.

τυ

lίchen Lίteratur.

*** CoNTJCELLO 1995 = V. CoNTICELLO, 'Pseudo-Cyril 's De SS. Trίnίtate: Α Compilation of Joseph the Philosopher ', OCP 61 (1995), p . 117-29 [IV]. CoNTJCELLO 2000 = ΕΑο. , 'Jean Damascene ', ed. R. GouLET, Dίctίonnaίre des Phίlosophes antίques 111 (Paris 2000), p . 989-1012 [English translation Ι] . CoNTJCELLO 2004 = EAD., ' Un florilege sur le Grand Careme attribue a Jean Damascene', eds Β. JANSSENS, Β . Roos EN, Ρ. V ΑΝ D EUN, Phίlomathestatos. Studίes ίn

Greek and Byzantίne texts presented to Jacques Noret for

hίs

(Orientalia lovanensia analecta 137, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, ΜΑ , 2004), p. 77-104 [VIII] . CoNTJCELLO 2005 = EAD. , 'La Quarantaine hierosolymitaine dans \e De sacrίs ίeίunίίs de Jean Damascene' , eds J. GETCHA, Α . LossκY, Θυσία αίvέσεως. Melanges lίturgίques offerts ά la memoίre de Georges Wagner (Analecta sergiana 2, Paris 2005), p. 77-94 [English translation VII] . CoNTICELLO 2006 = ΕΑο . , 'La Fonte della Conoscenza tra conservazione e creazione' , eds S. CHIALA, L. CREMASC HΙ , Gίovannί dί Damasco. Un Padre sίxty-fifth bίrthday

al sorgere dell Ίslam . Attί del ΧΙΙΙ Convegno ecumenίco ίnternazίonale dί ortodossa, Bose, 11-13 sett. 2005 (Bose 2006), p. 177-203

spίrίtualίtά

[English translation V] . CoNTOUMAS-CONTICELLO 1996 = V. CoNTOUMAS-CONTICELLO, La 'Source de connaίssance 'de Jean Damascene (ca 650- ca 750). Traductίon commentee des lίvres 1 (Dίalectίca) et 111 (Exposίtίo defide orthodoxa), PhD. , Univ. of Paris-lV Sorbonne (Paris 1996). DETORAΚES 1979 = Th. DETORAΚES, Κοσμάς ό Μελωδός. Βίος καi έργο (Thessalonica 1979). ΗοΕc κ = J.M . ΗοΕc κ, 'Stand und Aufgaben der Damaskenos-Forschung', OCP 17 (1951), 5-60. KoNTOUMA 2010 = V. KoNTOUMA, 'Jean 111 d'Antioche (996-1021) et la Vίe de Jean Damascene (BHG 884)' , REB 68 (2010), p . 127-47 [English translation 11]. ΚοΝτοuΜΑ 2011 = ΕΑο ., 'La question de l'Immaculee Conception dans la tradition orientale et les celebrations byzantines de l'enfance de Marie aux vιι e-vιιι e siecles', ed Fr. THELAMON, Marίe et la Fete aux Normands. Devotίon, ίmages, poesίe (Rouen 2011), p. 59-72 [English translation Χ] . ΚοπΕR 1959 = Β. ΚοπεR, Dίe ϋberlίeferung der Pege Gnoseos des Hl. Johannes von Damaskos (Studia patristica et byzantina 5, Ettal 1959).

ABBREVIATIONS

XXV

1 = Β. ΚοττΕR, Dίe Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 1 (PTS 7, Berlin 1969). ΚοττΕR 11 = Β . ΚοττΕR , Dίe Schriften , 11 (PTS 12, Berlin, New York 1973). ΚοττΕR 111 = Β. ΚοττΕR , Dίe Schriften , 111 (PTS 17, Berlin, New York 1975). ΚοττΕR IV = Β. ΚοττΕ R, Dίe Schriften , IV (PTS 22, Berlin, New York 1981). ΚοττΕR V = ΚοττΕR, Dίe Schriften, V (PTS 29, Berlin, New York 1988). MANSI = J.-D. MANSI, Sacrorum concίlίorum nova et amplίssίma collectίo (Florence 1767, repr. Graz 1960), ΧΙΙΙ. PAPADOPouιos-ΚERAME U S, Άνάλεκτα = Α. PAPADOPo uιos-ΚERAMEUS , Άνάλεκτα 1εροσολυμιτικης Σταχυολογίας (Saint Petersburg 1891-98, repr. Brussels 1963). ΚοττΕR

The Life of John of Damascus and its sources

I

John of Damascus (c. 655-c. 745) 1.

PROSOPOGRAPHY

1 The sources sources Greek sources ί Documentsfrom the perίod of ίconoclasm (754- 842) ίί Documents datίng to the 'Restoratίon of Orthodoxy' (9th - 10th C.) ίίί Documents datίng to the reίgn of Basίl 11 (976- 1025) ίν Later documents

Α. Orίental Β.

C.

Appraίsal

2. John ofDamascus through his work Α . Autobίographίcal detaίls Β. Detaίls

deduced from the Damascene :S

wrίtίngs

3. Summary biography 11.

WORΚS

1. Critical editions 2. Works not yet critically edited 3. Unedited works 4. Register of philosophically significant works Α.

'Neochalcedonίan 'phίlosophίcal wrίtίngs

Β.

Wrίtίngs

C.

Wrίtίngs

of cosmologίcal or anthropologίcal sίgnίficance that preserve fragments ofphίlosophίcal sίgnίficance or pertίnent to the hίstory ofphίlosophy

I 2

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

1. PROSOPOGRAPHY Hailed as Χρυσορρόας, 'river of gold' , by the faithful who crowded into the church of the Holy Sepulchre ίη Jerusalem to hear his homilies or hymns, and Μανζηρός , 'bastard', by the iconoclasts whom he violently opposed from 730 and who anathematised him in 754, 1 JD is chiefty known today for his imposing dogmatic work. Moreover he occupies a p]ace of the highest order in the world ofByzantine hymnography and music. 2 About his family origins and ecclesiastical activity, we possess very little historical information. But, paradoxically, these few details have led to many retellings and studies. Hagiographic or otherwise, the literature seeks to retrace his life as a notable Syrian and Palestinian churchman. It is, however, not very reliable. Freely mixing positive data and legendary stories, it gives an impressionistic picture of John that is neither totally true nor totally false, but that ίη any case the biographer of this author can discard only with great difficulty. What are the contours of this legendary portrait? From the Life of John 3 to our times, the biographical retellings and studies generally yield the following information: born in Damascus in the second half of the 7th century, John is the son of the 'most Christian', and also most rich, Sardjϊιn b. Μaη$ϊιr, the collector of poll tax and 'mawla' of the Umayyad caliphs Mu'awiya 1 (661- 80), Yazϊd 1 (680- 83), Mu'awiya 11 (683) and Άbd al-Malik (686- 705). His grandfather Μaη$ϊιr had received from Emperor Maurice (582- 602) the post of tax collector for Damascus and its suπounding region. Confirmed in post by Heraclius (610--42), he nevertheless twice betrayed Byzantium, during the Persian invasion of 61 Ο, then in participating in the surrender of the city to the Muslims in 635. Thereafter, Μaη$ίίΓ put himself in the service of the Caliphate, being installed in Damascus in 661 under Mu'awiya I as the head of tax administration for the whole Muslim empire.

MANSL, ΧΙΙΙ, 356 D; THEOPHANES, Chronographίa (a. m. 6221 , 6234 and 6245), ed. C. Dε BooR (Leipzig 1883), p. 408, 417 and 428. - At p. 417, Theophanes also describes JD as νέος της έκκλησίας διδάσκαλος. Α translation ofthis text appears in C. MANGO, R. S cοττ , The Chronίcle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzan tίne and Near Easιern Hisιory AD 284- 813 (Oxford 1997), p. 565 , 578 and 592. Οη this subject, which is not discussed here, see most recently J. GETCHA, 'Jean Damascene hymnographe ', Connaίssance des Peres de l'Eglίse 118 (2010), p. 34- 51. 3 Cf. I.l .Biii.b.

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

3

John received an excellent education, sacred and secular, from the Sicilian monk Cosmas, and succeeded his grandfather Μaη:;;ϊιr and his father Sardjϊιn in the post oftax collector under 'Abd al-Malik, Walϊd 1 (705- 15), Sulaiman (715- 17) and 'Umar 11 (717- 20). Following the harassments of the Christians ofDamascus, he left his place ofbirth along with his adopted brother Cosmas, future bishop ofMaiuma, for the monastery ofSt Sabas in Palestine, where he took the monastic habit in the years 717-20. Ordained priest by Patriarch John V of Jerusalem (705-35), he also served from time to time at the Holy Sepulchre. Famous for his condemnation of iconoclasm in 730, he died around 750 at an extremely advanced age - 104 years - and was buried at St Sabas.4 It should be noted at the outset that these details, however widespread they might be, lack clear confirmation from the sources. We will therefore begin by examining them, presenting them one by one and taking from them such information as they may provide. Next we will discuss a rather less known aspect of JD's biography, namely, the evidence he himself provides in his works. Finally, we will synthesise what positive information it is still possible to retain for his biography. 1. 1. The sources

Owing to the multiplicity and the complexity of the sources οη which it is based, the biography of JD is ίη itself a philological problem that has given rise, since the 19th century, to a fierce debate that involves patrologists, Byzantinists and Orientalists. 5 Our purpose is not to retrace the progress of this debate, but to make a critical review of the oriental and Byzantine documentation refeπed to by contemporaneous research so that we may sketch the life ofthe 'last Father ofthe Church'.

This legendary portrait is found in CοΝ ΤΟUΜ Αs -CοΝτι c ειιο 1996, p. ιν-ιχ . See also orlhodoxe (SC 535, Paris 2010), p. 12- 13. 5 Οη which, see arnongst other the appraisals of D. FεcιοRυ, VίaJa sfanιuluί Joan Damaschίn. Sιudίu de ίslorίe lίterara, cresjίna (Bucharest 1935); J. NASRALLAH, Saίnl Jean de Damas. Son epoque, sa νίe, son ιeuvre (Harissa 1950); Ηο εcκ; DετοRΑκεs 1979; M.-F. Aυzέrv, De la Palestine a Constantinople (VIII'-[X' siecles): Etienne le Sabaϊte et Jean Darnascene, ΤΜ 12 ( 1994), p. 183- 218; Α . Lουτ11 , Sι John Damascene. Tradίtίon and Orίgίnalίty ίn Byzanlίne Theology (Oxford 2002). 4

JoHN

OF DAMAscυs , Lafoί

I 4 Ι.

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745) 1.

Α. Orίental

sources

1.1.A.a. The only witness strictly contemporaneous to JD that we possess is a document written in Syriac, the Apologetίc letter ofElίas to Synkellos Leo ofHarran.6 Ιη it, our author is described as egregίus ίn parte vestra, 7 while three of his works (Dίalectίca, Exposίtίon of the Orthodox Faίth, Agaίnst the Jacobίtes) are cited eleven times. 8 The exact date of this evidence is hard to establish. Nothing precludes ίt being before 743, however, since the three writings by the Damascene were certainly completed before that date. 9 1.1.A.b. Also ίη Syriac, but in Arabic and ίη Persian as well, the Chronίcles of Al-Tabarϊ (9th- 10th C.), 10 Eutychios of Alexandria (10th C.) 11 and Michael the Syrian (12th C.) 12 give information about the ancestors of JD, specifically Man$ϋr b. Sardjϋn and Sardjϋn b. Man$ϋr, 'Diphysite' and 'Maximite' Christians, who served in the office oftax collector in the region of Damascus, under the basίleίs Maurice (582-602) and Heraclius (610---42), then under the caliphs Mu'awiya 1 (661-80), Yazϊd 1 (680-83), Mu'awiya 11 (683) and Άbd al-Malik (685- 705). 13 1.1 .A.c. There are two Arabίc Lίves of JD. The first was written a Iittle after 1084 by the monk Michael of St Symeon near Antioch. It was edited ίη 1912. 14 The second dates to 1665. It is the work ofMakarios Za'im, Melkite Ed. Α. V AN RoEY, Epίstula apologetίca Ε/ίαe ad Leonem syncellum Harranensem (CSCO 469- 70; Script. Syri 201- 2, Louvain 1985). 7 Jbίd., 470, p. 69, 1. 24. 8 Jbίd., 470, p. 79. Against the hypothesis ofVan Roey, who considers it after 743 . 10 The most recent edition of this chronicle, written in Arabic and translated into Persian, was made by Μ . HAMADE, Chronίque de Tabarί. Hίstoίre des envoyes de Dίeu et des roίs (Paris 2002). 11 Arab chronicle edited by L. CΗΕΙΚΗΟ, Β . CARRA DE VAux, Η . ΖΑΥΥΑΤ, Eutychίί patrίarchae Alexandrίnί Annales (CSCO 50- 51 , Script. Arab. 6- 7, Louvain 1906, 1909). Latin translation in PG 111, 889- 1232; the account ofthe Mansurides family in PG 111, 1096-8. 12 Syriac chronicle edited by J.-B. C!tABOT, Chronίque de Mίchel le Syrίen (Paris 1899- 1910 [4 vol.], repr. Brussels 1963, 2010). In vol. ΙΙ, p. 492- 3, Michael describes the family of Man$ίir as ' Maximites' , that is, as supporters ofMaximus the Confessor. 13 On the detai 1s supplied by these Chronίcles, see NASRALLAH , Sαίnι Jean, passίm, and AuzέrY , 'De la Palestine' , p. 195- 9. 14 C. BACHA, Bίographίe de Jean Damascene. Texte orίgίnal arabe (Harissa 1912). English trans. London 1912 and R.D. ΡοRτιιιο, ' The Arabic Life ofSt. John ofDamascus' ,

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

5

patriarch of Antioch ( t 1672), which was based either οη an ancient Arabic Life other than that by Michael, or οη a Greek Life. lts title is the Names and Lίves of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the Melodίsts. At present ίt remains unedited. 15 Another Arabic Life existed ίη the 10th century. It is mentioned ίη the Life of John. 16 Contemporaneous hagiographic literature also considered it the Άrabic original' of the latter. 1-!owever, we cannot retain this text amongst our sources, since it had been lost long since. C. Bacha thought to have rediscovered it, but ίη fact what he had to hand was the Life written by Michael of St Symeon. 17 1-!owever, as we have shown elsewhere, 18 it seems that Michael of St Sy1ηeon and the author of the Life of John had access to the same documentation. From this fact we can suppose that the lost Arabic Life - if it was a proper Life and not a biographical sketch - figured ίη the dossier which they consu]ted a century apart. Sadly, the details contained in this text can ηο longer be identified, since the two hagiographers have closely intertwined them with information coming from other sources. We therefore hold that neither the Life of John nor the Arabic Life of Michael of St Symeon is a 'calque' of the lost Arabic Life. This latter is not their Όriginal', but one of their numerous sources.

Ν.Β .

1.1 .A.d. Two Georgian Lίves of JD also exist. One was edited by Ephrem Mtsire (c. 1027-c. 1094) οη the basis of a Greek translation from the Arabic text by Michael of St Symeon, prepared by a certain Samuel of Adana. 19 The other was translated directly from the Arabic. 20 Parole de /'Orίent 21 (1996), p. 157- 88; German trans. G. GRAF, ΆDas arabische Original der Vita des h1. Johannes von Damaskus', Der Katholίk93 (1913), p. 164-90 and 320- 31 ; Russian trans. Α . Α . VA S ΙLJEV , Arabskaga versίa zίtία sv. Joanna Damaskίna (Saint-Petersburg 1913). See also Α . TREΙGER , ' Michael al-Sim'anϊ' , ed. D. THOMAS, Α . MALLETT et αlίί, Chrίstίan Muslίm Relatίons. Α Bίblίographίcal Hίstory V (1350- 1500), Leiden 2013, p. 655- 64. 15 NASRALLAH, Saίnt Jean, p. 6. - On Makarius, see J. NASII.ALLAH, Notes et documents poMr servίr ά l'hίstoίre du Patrίarcat melkίte d'Antίoche, Ι (Jerusalem 1965), p. 107sq.; Ιο., Hίstoίre du mouvement lίtteraίre dans l 'Eglίse melchίte, du Ve au XXe sίecle, IV.2 (Louvain, Paris 1979), p. 87- 127; J. RAssι-RIHAN Ι , 'Sources arabes du Lίvre de !Άbeίlle (Kitab al-NalJ]ah) de Makariyϋs Ibn al-Za'im ' , Parolede !Όrίent 21 (1996), p. 215-44; 1. F εοοοRον (ed.), Relatίons entre les peuples de l'Europe orίentale et les chretίens arabes au XVI!e sίecle: Macaίre 111 Jbn al-Za 'ϊm et Paul d Άlep. Actes du 1er colloque ίnternatίonal, Bucharest, 16 September 2011 (Bucharest 2012). 16 Cf. 1.1 .Biii.b. 17 BACHA, Bίographίe, passίm. 18 KoNTOUMA 2010, p. 144-6. 19 G. GRAF, Geschίchte derchrίstlίchen arabίschen Lίteratl4r, ΙΙ (ST 133, Vatican 1947), p. 70; Β . Fιu s ΙN , 'De l'arabe au grec puis au georgien: une Vie de saint Jean Damascene' , ed. G. CοΝΤΑΜΙΝΕ, Traductίon et traducteurs au Moyen Age (Paris 1989), p. 51-61. 20 Κ. Κεκειιοzε, [Georgian Vίta of John ofDamascus], Hrίstίanskij Vostok 3 (1914), p. 119- 74.

I 6

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

1.1 .A.e. Finally, Armenίan Arabic, are also known.21 Ι.Ι . Β. Ι.Ι.Βί.

Lίves

of JD, translated from the Greek or the

Greek sources Documentsfrom the perίod of ίconoclasm (754- 842)

1.1.Bi.a. Ιη 754, the iconoclast council of Hieria pronounced a quadruple anathema against JD, called Μανσούρ, whom it accused not only of iconodoulia, but also of falsifying patristic texts, of collaborating with the caliphate and of conspiring against the Empire.22 The final phrase in the anathema, ή τριάς τούς τρεις καθειλεν, refers to the spiritual death of the iconophiles Germanos of Constantinople, George of Cyprus and John of Damascus. But modern research sees ίη it a reference to the physical death of these figures as well, which leads us to date the death of JD before the year 754. 1.1.Bi.b. With reguard to the anathema of Hieria, the Short Hίstory of Nikephoros I of Constantinople (806- 15) notes that the iconoclasts did not fail to repeat it έπ ' άγορας, whilst engaging in the destruction of icons. 23 From this we can conclude that in the years 754- 87, the 'bad name' of Μανσούρ served not only as a reference for polemicists, but in the minds of common people it also acted as a synonym for a 'Saracen' hostile to the Empire's faith. 1.1.Bi.c. Ιη 787, the council of Nicaea II lifted the anathema of Hieria whilst adding some relatively vague details about JD. Like the evangelist Matthew (an allusion to his work as a tax collector, perhaps), 'John' (his 'nickname' Μανσούρ gives rise to an insult developed by the iconoclasts) abandoned the riches Όf Arabia' (Damascus is not mentioned), in order to follow Christ. When the 'madness' of iconoclasm broke out έν άλλοδαπfj , he preached έξ άνατολης ίη favour of the ancient practices and the peace ofthe Church. 24

21

Ρ.Ν . ΑκιΝ Ι ΑΝ

[Armenian

Vίtae

of John of Damascus], Handes

Amsoιya

61 (1947),

p. 193- 219. 356 D .

22

ΜΑΝS Ι , ΧΙΠ,

23

ΝικΕΡΗΟRΟS OF CoNSTANTΙNOl' LE ,

Short histoιy 72, ed. C . M ANGO , N ikephoros of Constantίnople Short Hίstory (CFHB 13, Washington , D.C., 1990), p. 144. Μ ΑΝS Ι , ΧΙΙΙ , 357; 400 C.

Patrίarch 24

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

7

1.1 .Bi.d. The first attempt at rehabilitating the historic personage of JD took place ίη Palestine, at the turn of the 8th century. It is courtesy of the hymnographer Stephen the Sabaite (t 807) - whom certain hagiographic sources consider as the nephew of JD himself, 25 but who is often confused during the Byzantine era with Stephen the Sabaite the Ascetic (t 794)2 6 who notably composed a Canon of John Damascene and St Barbara. 27 If this Canon is in fact authentic (and at present nothing precludes this), then the core of our knowledge about the life of JD must be considered to have been fixed by this date. Generally ignored by JD's biographers, this Canon has never been the object of sustained analysis. In brief, the following details are found there: JD is of royal stock (Ode IV, troparia 5 and 6). He abandoned riches, pleasures, honours (IV 5), distributed his goods to the poor to live ίη poverty (ΠΙ 5; IV 6) and asceticism (Kontakίon), and dwelt in the desert (Kathίsma; Stephen, hiιnself a Sabaite, never expressly speaks of JD entering the monastery of St Sabas). He was a sage who practiced philosophy (Ι 6: Ιiριστα την των δντων φύσιν σκοπων), distinguished himself in Trinitarian theology and Christology, which he taught by his writings (ΙΧ 5), established orthodox dogma (Exaposteίlarίon) and the hymnographic tradition of the ChuΓch (VI 6), to which his own contribution of hymns was great (ΙΧ 6). Α sage, he was also a man of action who combatted against the Manichaeans, the Nestorians and the Jacobites, as well as the iconoclasts (VII 5, 6; VIII 5, 6). By composing a single Canon for both JD and for St Barbara, Stephen probably intended to show either that JD died οη that saint's feast day (4 Dec.), or that he had a particular devotion to her. 28 Hagiography inclines toward the first hypothesis, the liturgical texts toward the second.

1.1 .Bi.e. From the Life of Stephen the Younger, 29 written c. 809, we learn that at the same time the iconophile party of Constantinople also venerated JD (ό παρά του τυράννου τούτου Μανσούρ έπονομασθείς, παρ ' ήμιν δέ '' Thus, the Life of the Melodίsts, ed. PAPADorouιos-KERAME us, Άνάλεκτα , rv, p. 299, whose author states the matter in these terms: [ ... ] τόν τίμιον Στέφανον , άδελφιδουν του μακαρίου 'Ιωάννου του Δαμασκηνου [ .. .] δς τό μαρτυρικόν αύτου καl πολύαθλον σωμα έντίμως εθαψεν έν τfi των Περσων χώρq.. - See also Η . DειΕΗΑΥΕ, Synaxarίum ecclesίae Constantίnopolίtanae (= Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorurn Novembris) (Brussels 1902), col. 170, 1. 20- 23. 26 On this latter, see ΡΜΒΖ, 1, p. 125-6. 27 Μenαία published for 4 Dec.; Ε. FοιιιΕRΙ, Ιnίtία hymnorum, 1 (ST 211, Vatican 1960), p. 433, 1. 12- 33. 28 Cf. ΚοττΕR Υ, p. 277, and the Canon of St Barbara cornposed by JD and published in the edited Μenαία (4 Dec). " BHG 1666. Ed. M.-F. Auzέrv , La Vιe d'Etίenne le Jeune par Etίenne le Dίacre (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 3, Birmingharn 1997).

I 8

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

although it regarded him chiefly as the author ofthe pseudepigraphic Letter to Constantίne Kaballίnos (CPG 8114). δσιος καi θεοφόρος), 30

1.1.Bi.f. Our knowledge of the historical personage of JD and his family are completed for this period by Theophanes the Confessor's Chronography (written 810- 14), 31 the chief and undisputed source for JD's biographers. Theophanes speaks ofthe family ofMan~ίίr, described as χριστιανικωτάτη, in the entries for the years 691, 730, 734, 742 and 754. He mentions Μaη~ίίr b. Sardjίίn, Sardjίίn b. Μaη~ίίr, a certain Theodore ό του Μανσούρ who is otherwise unknown, and of course JD: in 730, John the dίdaskalos, ό του Μανσούρ, priest and monk, who shines in Syria, joins the eastem bishops in anathematising Emperor Leo 111. 32 1.1.Bi.g. The second iconoclast crisis (815--42) leaves us ηο documents pertinent to JD. It is certain nevertheless that the council of Hagia Sophia (815), which retrieved the acts ofHieria and reinstated its decisions, repeated the quadruple anathema, thus stiπing up in people's minds the bad memory ofthe Saracen Μaη~ίίr. At the same time, Theodore the Studite (759-826) used some of JD's writings, albeit without citing them by name. 33 And, beyond the frontiers of Byzantium, ίη Palestine or southem Italy which had remained iconophile, the iconography was being elaborated which we know today thanks to the priceless manuscript of the Sacra Parallela, 34 Parίsίn. gr. 923 (first half of the 9th century). 35

31

p. 126. See above, n. 1.

32

ΤΗΕΟΙ' ΗΑΝΕS , Chronographίa,

30

lbίd. ,

ed. Dε BooR, p. 408:

'Ιωάννης συν τοίς της άνατολης

έπισκόποις τοίς άναθέμασι τόν άσεβη καθυποβάλλει; M ANGO, Scοττ,

The

Chronίcle

of

Theophanes , p. 565. 33 ΤιιεοοοRΕ ΤΗΕ Sτυοιτε, Epίstula 48, ed. G. FAτo υRos, Theodori Studitae Episll4lae (CFHB 31 /1, Berlin, New York 1992), ρ . 137, 1. 232 sq. (John is cited as ό συγγράφων). 34 Cf. ΙΙ . 2 .Α. 35 Cf. Κ . WειτzΜΑΝΝ, The Mίnίatures of the Sacra Parallela: Parίsίnus graecus 923 (Princeton, N.J. , 1979). JD, once more called Man~ίίr and presented as the author of the Sacra Parallela, wears the monastic great σχήμα and in his right hand holds a quill ; he is elderly, with a pointed gray beard, and haloed. - See also the important study by Μ. ΕνΑΝGΕLΑΊΌU , 'Word and Image in the Sacra Parallela (Codex Parίsίnus graecus 923)' , DOP 62 (2008), ρ. 113- 97.

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745) 1.1.Βίί.

Documents datίng to the

'Restoratίon

9

ofOrthodoxy'(9th- 10th

centurίes)

1.1 .Bii.a. We begin with the celebrated Parίsίn. gr. 1476 (a. 890), our best witness to the Menologίon of Methodios of Constantinople (843-47), composed ίη Rome between the years 815-21 ,36 which gives us, ίη the title and at the end of the Homίly on the wίthered fig tree (CPG 8058), an invaluable detail: 'By our holy father John, monk and priest of the Holy Resuπection of Christ our God 37 • According to this document, JD was therefore a monk and priest in the patriarchal church of the Anastasis in Jerusalem, a detail that we have been able to confirm with recourse to his homiletic and hymnographic works. 38 1.1.Bii.b. Ιη the midst ofthe 9th century ίη Constantinople, we witness the distribution oftwo pseudepigraphic works attributed to JD. The first is the Letter to the Emperor Theophίlos (CPG 8115), an amplified re-writing of the ' Synodikon of the three eastern patriarchs' dating to 836. As this text poses enormous problems for philologists, we shall simply note about it that, at a late date, the attempt is made to connect the iconoclast emperor Theophilos' name (t 842) to that of JD. This historically implausible encounter had its reasons, as we shall see below (1.1.B2.c.). 1.1.Bii.c. The second pseudepigraph is the curious Homίly on those who have reposed ίn the faίth (CPG 8112),39 one of the only Byzantine texts to hold open the possibility of a remission of sins after death, under the probable influence of Latin literature οη Purgatory and more specifically the Dίalogues of Pope Gregory the Great, the Greek translation of which first appeared in the year 800. 40 Read during the office of Saturday προ της άπόκρεως, this Homίly had a remarkable diffusion: today we have

Cf. D. SτιεRΝοΝ, ' Methode (saint) ' , DS Χ, col. 1!08. - On this manuscript, see p. 39, 305 and 306. 37 This is also the title of this homily that is retained by Κοπε R Υ, p. !02, on the basis of Parisin. gr. 1476: Του όσίου πατρός ήμων 'Ιωάννου, μοναχού καi πρεσβυτέρου της 36

Κοπ ε R Υ,

άγίας Χριστού του Θεού ήμων Άναστάσεως, 'λόγος εiς τήν ξηρανθείσαν συκην καi είς τήν παραβολήν του άμπελωνος. 38 CοΝΤΟUΜΑs-CοΝτι cε ιιο 1996, p. χνιιι-χχχ νιι . See also Μ. VAN EsBROECK, ' Le discours de Jean Damascene pour la Dedicace de Ι ' Anastasis', OCP 63 (1997), p. 53- 98 . 39 PG 95, 248- 77. 40 It is preserved in Vaιican. gr. 1666 (a. 800). Cf. likewise Patmίac. 48 of the 9th century, which brings together the Dίalogues and the Synodίkon of the ιhree easlern

palrίarchs.

I 10

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

148 manuscripts, fewer than of the Exposίtίon of the orthodox faίth (221 manuscripts) but more than of the Romance of Barlaam and Joasaph ( 145 manuscripts). Basing his argument οη the style of this treatise as we\l as on the iaιnbic verses that it contains, J.-M. Hoeck4 ' attributed ίt without hesitation to Michae\ Synkel\os (761- 846), an Όutsized' personality ofthe Byzantine 9th century,42 author amongst other things of the celebrated Elogy on St Dionysius the Areopagίte, 43 and ofthe Greek translation of the Confessίon offaίth by Theodore Αbίί Qurra,44 composed c. 813. Το Hoeck's stylistic argument, which we adopt entirely, we add the following remarks: [ 1] The invocation, ίη the first place, of the authority of ps.-Dionysius to support the Homίly ' s central thesis - the souls of the deceased bound for damnation can obtain salvation thanks to prayers repeated by the living - directly echoes the long citation of the Ύίsίοη ofCarpos' given ίη the Elogy. 45

[2] The ιnention of an episode from the life of Gregory the Great (an 'anecdote' not related ίη the BHG),46 and a ceι1ain familiarity with the doctrine of Purgatory, attest to a particular interest ίη Latin literature. For we know that Michael Synkellos was a great admirer of the West4 7 with which he was ίη contact more than once (controversy in Jerusalem about the filioque in 807, participation ίη the embassy of 813, close collaboration with the Sicilian Methodios, who was amongst other things an adviser of Pope Pascal 1) and the history of which he had mastered relatively well (ίη the Elogy, he advances an interesting ' correction' ofDionysius' date of death). Το this we add that the cult of Gregory the Great was clearly attested at the start of the 9th century in the monastery ofSt Sabas in Palestine, where Michael dwelt from 798 to 813. [3] We owe to Michael Synkellos and to Theophanes the Branded (c. 778- 845), his disciple and coιnpanion ίη hardships during the iconoclast persecution, nuιnerous texts

Ηο εc κ, ρ . 39--40. Cf. D. SτιΕRΝΟΝ, 'Michel le Syncelle', DS Χ, col. 1193- 7; D. DοΝΝΕτ, Le Τrαίιe de la construction de la phrase de Michel le Syncelle de Jerusalem. Histoire du texte, traductίon et commentaίre (Brussels, Rome 1983). 43 BHG 556; PG 4, 617- 88. See, too, the important study by R.-J. LoENERTZ, ' Le panegyrique de S. Denys l'Areopagite par S. Michel le Syncelle', ΑΒ 68 (1950), p. 94- 107, reprinted in Ιο ., Byzantίna et franco-graeca , Ι (Rome 1970), p. 149- 62, which dates its redaction to 833. 44 PG 97, 1504 D- 1521 C. On this latter, see R. Gιει , Α . Th. ΚHou RY, Johannes Damaskenos und Theodor Abu Qurra, Schriften zum Jslam (Corpus islamo-christianum 3, Wίirzburg 1995), p. 52, n. 15; Sτι ε RΝΟΝ, Michel le Syncelle, 1194. 45 The authority ofDionysius is invoked at PG 95, 249 CD. The Ύision of Carpos' is related at PG 4, 649 C- 652 D. 46 PG 95, 261 D- 264 Α . 47 See BHG 1296, ed. Th.l. ScHMITT, in Bulletin de l'Jnstitut archeologique russe de Constantίnople 11 (1906), ρ. 231, 26- 30. 41

42

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

11

of the greatest importance ίη the Parakletίke pertaining to the commemoration of the departed, as wel1 as the office of Saturday προ της άπόκρεως dedicated to the souls of the departed, ίη the Trίodίon. Finally, following Hoeck and Michel Le Quien,48 let us note that the Homίly ιηakes ιηοst sense ίη the context ofthe year 842-43, which was marked by a series oftalks between Empress Theodora and the iconophile party. Culminating with the enthronement of Methodios (843) and the 'Restoration of Orthodoxy ' , these talks a\so 1ed to a απαξ of Byzantine ecclesiastical history, the post-mortem absolution ofthe 'impious'Theophilos which Theodora required in return for an official condeιηnation of iconoclasιη . 49 The Homίly should thus be seen as part of the dossier of patristic authorities that Michael and Methodios put forward to convince the most intransigent ofthe iconophiles 50 ofthe orthodoxy, or at 1east the feasibility κατ' οίκονομίαν, of such an absolution.

Presented under the authority of JD, the Homίly on those who have reposed ίn the faίth acquired undeniable weight for the iconophiles. However, this false attribution was useless for convincing those close to Theodora, who came from the iconoclastic ranks and were hostile to the ' conspirator' Man$ίir. lt was therefore urgent to rehabilitate the historical figure of JD ίη the eyes of the Court - and vice versa , one could finally build οη this situation to formalise JD's entry into Byzantium. This was the primary role of the first Life of JD, which will be our subject presently. 1.1 .Bii.d. Directly connected to the previously mentioned Homίly, the Life of the Melodίsts Cosmas and John Damascene (BHG 394) is the primary document from this period. 51 This text, the public reading of which the Church would later prohibit, 52 has always been disdained by JD's biographers due to its crude anachronisms - JD is presented here as

PG 95, 246. See for example BHG 1731. 5° Cf. Ι. DoENS, Ch. ΗΑΝΝ ι c κ , ' Das Periorismos-Dekret des Patriarchen Methodios Ι. gegen die Studiten Naukratios undAthanasius ', JOB 22 (1973), p. 93- 102. 5' PA PADOPOULos-ΚERAMEUS , Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 271 - 302, and extracts in DETORAKES 1979, p. 54-5. Outlying dates for its redaction: 815 (resumption of iconoclasm) and 1156 (citation by John Merkouropoulos). BHG 884a follows a variant of it: cf. DET0RAKES 1979, p. 64-70. 52 The Life of ιhe Melodίsts is present in Chalcens. Panaghίa 1 (a. 1360), f. 1ogv_ 21, where it is introduced by this marginal note (f. ιos v): Τουτον τόν λ&yον μηδείς των 48 49

γραμματέων άναγνώτω · έπεi σύμπας ψευδής έστι μηδένα άληθές φθεγγόμενος ώσπερ γάρ

αν εί τις τό της κύλικος χειλος χρίση μέλιτι, τό δ'έντός εχει φαρμάκου άρσενικου μεστόν, ουτως καi ούτοσi ό λόγος εχει. Cf. Μ . KouRourou, Ρ. GέιιιΝ, Caιalogue des manuscrίts conserves dans la Bibliolheque du Palriarcal (Ecumenique. Les manuscrits du monaslere de la Panaghia de Chalki, Ι (Turnhout 2008), p. 64.

I 12

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

simultaneously contemporaneous to Chosroes, king of Persia (590- 628), to basίleίs Leo ΠΙ (716-40), Constantine V (740-75) and Constantine VI (780-90), as well as to Tarasios, patriarch of Constantinople (784-806); of improbable accounts - the resuπection of a dead man, long journeys by JD and Cosmas, east and west; and especially because it makes JD's father a Muslim emir - also named Man~ϋr - and JD himself a recent convert, which radically contradicts Theophanes. 53 We will summarise now the reasons that lead us, contrary to common opinion, to date it to the year 842-43 and to attribute to Michael Synkellos the composition of at least certain parts of it. Our argument is based οη two findings: [l] the Life of the Melodίsts is earlier than the end of the l 0th- start of the 11 th century, since it is cited by the Life ofJohn; [2] it belongs - wholly or ίη part - to a very precise historical context, that of the 'Restoration ofOrthodoxy'.

[l] The Life of John, which will be our subject below (cf. 1.1 .Biii.b.) and which is datable to the end of the 10th- start of the 11 th century, refers to the Life of the Melodίsts . Several passages are of interest. Thus, the formula άλλος Μωϋσης γενόμενος, θεοχαράκτους χαράττων νομοθεσίας, 54 used ίη the Life of the Melodίsts to designate the Exposition of the orthodoxfaith, is taken up by the Life ofJohn and attributed to 'a man who was not deceived' : ην liv τις παντός λόγου ορθού νομοθεσίας έρει, καi πλάκας Μωσαϊκάς, ούχ άμαρτήσει τού άληθούς. 55 It is even cited a second time: καi την ίεράν βίβλον και θεοχάρακτον πλάκα 56 . As for the author of the text to which the Life of John refers, that is to say the author of the Life of the Melodisls, he is a\so described as a man who is Ίearned ', but 'unforgivable' οη account of his numerous errors: οίς δέ λόγος τό σπουδαζόμενον γέγονεν, ού συγγνωστέον, βίους άγίων παρεωραμένους

Likewise, the astounding title of πρωτοσύμβουλος given to John of Damascus ίη the Life ofJohn, 58 also comes from an expression ίη the Life of the Melodίsts: ώς τα πρωτεια φέρει παρά τφ βασιλει των Περσων. 59 It should be added that a recent study οη the Ίegend of the severed hand' finds that versions implicating Constantine V are older than those which place the events under Leo ΙΙΙ: the Life of the Melodίsts, which commits this anachronism and situates the event under Constantine V, is thus part ofthese older accounts.60 έσχεδιασμένους ώς ετυχε . 57

53

See above, 1.1 .Bi.f.

54

PAt'ADOΙ'O ULOS-ΚERAME US , Άvάλεκτα,

55

PG PG PG PG

56 57

58

IV, p. 280.

94, 448 ΑΒ . 94, 476 Α . 94, 432 Α . 94, 449 Β .

IV, p. 281 . See 1. RocHow, Die Legende von der abgehauenen Hand des Johannes Damaskenos (Berliner Byzantinistische Studien 8, Frankfurt/Main, Berlin 2007), p. 362- 3. 59 60

PA t'ADOPOULos-ΚERAMEUS , Άνάλεκτα ,

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

13

[2] We have seen that the Life of the Melodίsts is earlier than the end of the I 0thbeginning of the 11 th century. Now let us examine the details provided by the text that enables us to outline the historical context ίη which it was composed : •

Α

first indication is given by the episode of the posthumous abso]ution of the brought about by the tears and supp]ications of JD and of Cosmas, and accompanied by the issue of an indulgence (!) written by the hand of Cosιηas, permitting Man$ίir's final ascent from hell to paradise.61 The account takes great liberties with the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, which exludes from paradise all the unbaptised (the righteous ancients were saved by the descent ofChrist into hel\). The emphasis οη this can be imagined and makes sense on]y in the context of the talks re]ating to the posthumous abso]ution of Theophilos: if an unbaptised person can be saved by divine in:finite mercy, this should be possible afortίor for a baptised person who had succumbed to heresy. It seems therefore that the Life of the Melodίsts is ίη the first instance a piece of ' hagiographic jurisprudence' presented ίη the case ofTheophilos. Μus]ίιη Μaη$ίίr,

• The author of the Life of the Melodίsts knew very well that its account is unbelievable. Το shore it uρ, he therefore introduces a second account with the expression προς δέ τούς άπιστούντας ίστορίαν άρχαίαν ού παραιτήσομαι διηγήσασθαι. 62 Once more, it treats of an episode from the life of Gregory the Great, where the subject is the absolution post mortem of Emperor Trajan that was brought about by the Pope's prayers. The presence - or rather the reprise of this account con:firms the close connection between the Life of the Melodίsts and the Homίly for those who reposed ίn thefaίth . 63 • The atmosphere ίη which the Life ofthe Melodίsts was composed can be discerned ίη a more satisfactory way thanks to two other passages: α. the long account of a miraculous deed that occuπed ίη the church of the Forerunner (of Petra?) ίη Constantinople, under Constantine VI, and that resulted ίη two conspicuous iconoclasts receiving - while still living! - puri:fication by :fire, converting, and prompting the confession and return of crowds who had still been impious. 64 Although the events of this account occured in the period between the two iconoclast crises, it attests chiefly to the prevailing climate ίη the afterιηath of Theophilos' death: the Court and the simple faithful had not yet been obliged officially to renounce the heresy and were therefore norma1ly accepted ίη the places of worship. However, the tides were turning and, to avoid a clash between the two parties, the leading iconophiles were obliged to reassure the iconoclast camp by proιηissing them pardon and forgiveness . b. The climate of uncertainty that characterised the year 842-43 can also be perceived ίη the long dedication to the Life of the Melodίsts, ίη which the author addresses himself

61

PAL'ADOΙ'O ULOS-ΚERAME US , Άvάλεκτα,

62

lbίd. ,

63 64

p. 278. Cf. I.l .Bii.c. lbίd.. p. 290-97.

IV, p. 276- 8.

I 14

John of Damascus (c. 655 -c. 745) direct]y to Cosmas, whoιn he urgent]y beseeches to aid the desperate peop]e move on from 'present evils' and 'to offer peace to the Church'. 65 •

Α

supplementary indication allows us to think that this text is due, ίη part, to Michael Synkellos. Ιη fact, it survives through two manuscripts incorporating tbe remains ofa ιnixed meno]ogion (combining 1ives ofsaints and hoιηilies for September to January; tbe Life ofthe Melodίsts is on 15 October), very probably pre-metaphrastic, wbich is not witbout similarities with wbat we know of the Menologion ofMethodios, 66 wbose right hand as we know was Micbael.

• Indeed, it seems to us that the anacbronisms and the eπors put forward by the autbor(s) oftheLife ofιhe Melodίsls attest less to an ignorance ofbistory tban to a willingness to give some bints to the reader's imagination. It is impossible to review all ofthese points. Let's merely note, to take one example, the confusion that ιηakes Sardjίin b. Man$ίil', JD's fatheΓ, into an emir naιηed Μan$ίίΓ perbaps owing to a connection between tbis figure and that other Man$ίir wbo was an exact contemporary of Constantine V and wbo was none other tban the powerful Abbassid ca]ipb al-Man$ίiΓ (754-75), a man suΓely better known to Byzantines tban was his Cbristian namesake. Likewise, the allusions to Tarasios and to the memory of Stephen the Younger aim to make the reader understand ίη wbich camp tbe protagonists of tbe Life of ιhe Melodίsls belong. We note elsewbere that some passages return to themes dear to Michael Synkellos: such is tbe case for the travels of John and Cosmas around the world (ώσπερ ηλιος έξ Έφας πρός Δύσιν διαδραμών καi δλην την Έσπέραν, μαλλον δέ την οίκουμένην κύκλφ μικρού περιλαβών, 67 for Cosmas, which tbe Elogy likewise tells us about Dionysius), 68 the stipulation tbat Cosmas returned from Rome to Jerusa]em by sea (Micbael, who had attempted to travel froιn Jerusalem to Roιne by 1and, bad bitterly regretted tbat decision since be was permanently held up in Constantinople), fascination witb Persia (Micbael calls himselfπερσογενής). On the otheΓ hand, some allusions refer to his personal experience: an exact knowledge of the Holy Land, of the joumey from Jerusalem via Antiocb then Nicomedia to Constantinople, the topograpby ofConstantinople; direct contact witb tbe hyιnnographer Stepben tbe Sabaite, etc.69

What details does the Life of the Melodίsts give us about JD? Ιη the end, neither more nor less than the Canon of JD and of St Barbara,70 the rest 65 66

302. See above, 1.1 .Bii.a.

lbίd., ρ.

IV, p. 299. According to Michael Synkellos, Dionysius made several voyages, following a δρόμον άποστολικόν: PG 4, 653 Β . 69 PA Ι'ADOPOULos-ΚERAMεus, Άvάλεκτα, IV, p. 299: Stephen and Michael Synkellos, both Sabaites, are contemporaries. 67

PAL'AD0 Ι'0 ULOS-ΚERAMEUS, Άvάλεκτα,

68

°

7

Cf.1.1.Bί.d.

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

15

being basically a romanticised interpretation of the evidence from Stephen the Sabaite 71 and the Acts of Nicaea 11. 72 The Life of the Melodίsts also refer to Stephen the Sabaite when it makes him the nephew and disciple of JD and affirms that he accompanied him at the end of his life: δς καi έν τη άθλήσει του [ ... ] 'Ιωάννου συμπαρην καi τό μαρτυρικόν αύτου καi πολύαθλον σωμα έντίμως εθαψεν έν τη των Περσων χώρψ ου τον τάφον ό

[ ... ] έδομήσατο ναόν έπ' όνόματι του [ ... ] 'Ιωάννου. 73 Two elements, however, are totally new and determine the development of all the subsequent Lίves : μέγας Κοσμας iδών

[ 1] Ιη the Life of the Melodίsts, there is first the matter of JD 's tutor, Cosmas, called the Hagiopolite. He was born and grew up in Crete, where he became a deacon παρά του αρχιερέα της Κρήτης; he was a melodist and wonderworker; elsewhere, we learn that he was bishop of Maiouma, which may be a late interpolation, because the existence of an orthodox episcopate in Maiouma c. 7th- 8th C. is in itself doubtful. Without dwelling οη this problematical figure ,74 who seemingly resulted from identifying at least three namesakes - the Cretan Cosmas the Hermit (6th C.), Cosmas the Melodist (7th C.) and a Constantinopolitan wonderworker (possibly resident at Petra) -, we can say that his appearance in the biography of JD reveals οη the one hand a desire to establish spiritual paternity between the three great hagίopolίte composers - Andrew 'bishop of Crete', Cosmas the Melodist, and JD - and οη the other hand the need to bring the Melodist into the iconophile camp. Ιη addition, making a couple of Cosmas and JD recalls other couples of well-known saints: Cosmas and Damian (or rather, Damianos, which sounds like Damaskenos), Cyril and John, John and Barsanuphius, or Barlaam and Joasaph. [2] Another new element: Constantine V's denunciation to Chosroes of a supposed conspiracy by JD, followed by the miracle ofthe severed hand. Without any doubt this account answers to the need to justify at one and the same time the existence of the Letter to Constantίne Kaballίnos 75 and the 71 Thus, the expression δαμάσας πολλοίς ίδρώσι τη ς άσκήσεως τό σώμα τό σόν frorn the Kontakion of the Canon gives ri se to the following interpretation: Πρώτος δέ ό γέρων

ώνόμασεν αύτόν Δαμασκηνόν, είτε δια τό έν τφ κήπφ πολύ δαμάσαι τό σκηνος αύτου, είτε

IV, ρ . 284. Thus, JD's preaching έξ άνατολη ς probably gives ri se to the account of his voyage and his preaching in Persia. See above 1.1 .Bi.c. 73 PA PA DOPO ULos-ΚERAMEUS, Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 299. 74 Cf. D ετοRΑΚΕs 1979, passίm . 75 Cf. 1.1 .Bi.e. δια τό έκ Δαμασκου πρός αύτόν φοιτησαι : PA PADoro u ιos-KERAMEUS , Άνάλεκτα, 72

I 16

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

accusation of conspiracy levied against JD by the Council ofHieria. Indeed, the same terms of the anathema - επίβουλος της βασιλείας - reappear at the heart of this account. 76 As for the miracle of the severed hand ( which had already given rise to a certain type of iconography), perhaps it may have been conceived during the second period oficonoclasm. 77 Το these two elements, we will add the specific and generally accurate details that the Life of the Melodίsts furnishes us about the theological and hymnographic work of JD (such as that John was a monk and priest in Jerusalem),78 details that coπoborate the evidence of Parίsίn . gr. 1476. 79 1.1.Bii.e. The Brίef Life (BHG 885b) was composed toward the end of the 9th century; it is preserved in three manuscripts, Sίnaίtίc. gr. 376 (lOth1lth C.), Venet. Marcίan. gr. Ζ. 363 (coll. 818) (12th C.) and Athen. Β.Ν. 2108 (12th C.). It was published οη the basis of Marcίanus alone by Μ. Gordillo, 80 then in a critical edition by R . Gkenakou-Mporobilou. 81 This record appears to 'correct' the anachronism in the Life of the Melodίsts pertaining to Cosmas' voyage to Constantinople and his meeting with Patriarch Tarasios, during the reign of Constantine VI. Here, we find ourselves in the reign of Leo 111, which is more accurate. The patriarch is Germanos 1, whose deposition (as we know) prompted the writing of the first Dίscourse agaίnst the ίconoclasts by JD. And the meeting took place between Germanos and JD, which is more logical from a theological point of view, so we end up in Constantinople. Elsewhere, the BrίefLife presents Cosmas as the adopted brother of JD. It also maintains that JD died in Damascus (!) οη 4 Dec. (= feast of St Barbara), having passed many years ίη asceticism. 82 76 77

PAPA DOPOULOS-ΚERAMEUS , Άνάλεκτα , IV, p. 281 . Concerning this legend, see now the cornprehensive study by RocHow, Dίe Legende,

passίm. 78

PA PA DOPOULOS-ΚERAMEUS, Άνάλεκτα,

79

Cf. 1.1 .Bii.a.

IV, p. 279.

80 Μ . GοRDιιιο, ' Darnascenica' , Orίentalίa Chrίstίana 8/2 (1926), p. 63- 5; review by Μ . JuGΙE, 'Une nouvelle Yie et un nouvel ecrit de S. Jean Darnascene' , ΕΟ 28 (1929), p. 35-41. 81 R. GκENAκou-MroRoBrιo u, 'Βίος σύντομος 'Ιωάννου του Δαμασκηνου (BHG 885b)' , Βυζαντινά 22 (2001), p. 67- 73. 82 As is noted by JuGιE, 'Une nouvelle Vie ', p. 39, this record has particularly - and perhaps only - the rnerit of disclosing the unexpected news of JD 's 104 years, which the late synaxaria also rnention . This is reached by adding 70 years of asceticisrn to his 34 years of life in the world that can be deduced frorn the Life ofJohn (BHG 884). Even so, it rnust be noted that these figures and this calculation are only found in a late interpolation,

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

17

1.1.Bii.f. The Brίef life is probably the basis of the entry in the Synaxarίon ofConstantίnople οη JD (BHG 885c) prepared at the order ofConstantine VII Porphyrogenetos (913- 59). 83 1.1 .Bii.g. Keeping the bare essentials from the Life of the Melodίsts, the Souda (2nd half of the 10th C.) dedicates an entry to JD, where he is described, like John Chrysostom, Philoponos, Lydus and Stobaeus, as ανήρ καi αύτος έλλογιμώτατος, ουδενός δεύτερος των κατ ' αυτων έν παιδείι;χ λαμψάντων. 84 The emphasis falls οη JD's literary output: Συγγράμματα αυτου πάνυ πολλά καi μάλιστα φιλόσοφα · είς τε την θείαν γραφήν Παράλληλοι κατ'έκλογήν, καi οί ~σματικοi κανόνες, ίαμβικοi καi

καταλογάδην. 85 Cosmas the Melodist is mentioned, but, as with the Life of the Melodίsts, the Souda regards him as a contemporary and collaborator of JD's, not his brother: Συνήκμαζε δ'αυτφ καi Κοσμας ό έκ 'Ιεροσολύμων, άνήρ ευφυέστατος καi πνέων μουσικήν δλως την έναρμόνιον. Οί γουν iσματικοi κανόνες 'Ιωάννου καi Κοσμα σύγκρισιν ουκ έδέξαντο ουδέ

δέξαιντο, μέχρις αν ό καθ ' ήμας βίος περαιωθήσεται. 86 1.1 . Βίίί.

Documents

datίng

to the

reίgn

of Basίl 11 (976-1025)

1.1 .Biii.a. Ιη 969, during the reign of Nikephoros Phokas, the Byzantines retook Antioch. They progressively installed in its patriarchate a Greek hierarchy, taken from the capital, who tended to make it a 'satellite' of Constantinople.87 Ιη this context (and ηο doubt because JD, Syrian by birth and Greek by culture, immediately seemed a symbol of the politics of 're-Byzantinizing' the patriarchate), a great deal oftranslating JD's works into Arabic began, which concluded ίη 989/990. This was the translation missing from the oldest manuscript, Sίnaίtίc. gr. 376. This has been shown by GκENAκou­ p. 68- 9. 83 Η. DELEHAYE, Synaxarίum Ecclesίae Constantίnopolίtanae e codίce Sίrmondίano nunc Berolίnensί adίectίs synaxarίίs selectίs (Brussels 1902), p. 278- 9. - This dating to the first half of the 10th century should be treated with caution. We note, however, that the entry about John ofDamascus is already found in Hίerosolymίt. Patr. 40 from the 10th- 11 th century. 84 Parallel expression in PA PADorouιos -ΚERAMEU S , Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 284. 85 Ed. Α. ADLER (Leipzig 1931), ΙΙ, p. 649, n° 467. MroRoBιLOu, 'Βίος σύντομος',

86

lbίd.

Ch. PAPAD0Ι'0ULOS , ϊστορία της Έκκλ ησίας Άντιοχείας(Αleχaηdrίa 1951), p. 813- 81; in the Middle Byzantine Period (969- 1084): The Reconstruction of the City as an Administrative, Military, Economic and Ecclesiastical Center', Τοpοί. Orίent­ Occίdent , Suppl. 5 (2004), p. 171 - 90; KoNTOUMA 2010, p. 135. 87

Κ.-Ρ. Τοοτ, Άntioch

I 18

John of Damascus (c. 655 -c. 745)

of Anthony, hegumen of the monastery of St Symeon, which includes notably the Dίalectίca, the Exposίtίon of the orthodoxfaίth, the Exposίtίon and declaratίon of the faίth (preserved in Arabic alone ), 88 as well as the treatises against the Nestorians, the Jacobites and the iconoclasts. 89 1.1.Biii.b. This brings us to the Life of our holy father John Damascene (BHG 884), 90 the 'official' Life of JD, in which scholars have long been pleased to see the oldest complete testimony about this author. The two questions that have been posed about this Life from the beginning are about its date and about its author. 91 Οη its date: the Life of John could not have been coιηposed after the 11 th century. Indeed, its oldest manuscripts presumably date back to this era: Athon. Lavra 456; Athon. Vatoped. 497. As for the paliιηpsest Vindob. philos. gr. 158, the dating ofwhich gave rise to great controversy, it is now considered to have been copied toward the end of the 11 th century. 92 Obviously, the dating bears οη the identification of the author. Elsewhere we have shown that he was the scholar John Polites, chartophylax of the patriarch of Constantinople and subsequently patriarch of Antioch from 996 to 1021. 93 This identification is ιηade against the generally held thesis, accoΓding to which the author of the Life ofJohn was a patriarch of Jerusalem. For this period, there are actually two 'candidates', John VII (994- 66) and John VIII (c. 1098- 1106), ofwhom John VII is generally preferred since John VIII is considered to be too late (also, his existence, or at the very least his presence at the siege of Jerusalem, is not sure). Without delaying over these points of detail, we wish now simply to underline a significant element that is relevant to the personality ofthe 'candidates'. Ιη fact, unlike John Polites, John VII of Jerusalem - an Arabophone - left behind ηο works and seems not to have had the profile of the scholarly Hellenist who shines so brightly through this hagiography, based as it is οη the rules set down by Symeon Metaphrastes. Indeed, his short patriarchate ended

Cf. below ΙΙ.3 [\]. GRAF, Geschίchte, ΙΙ , ρ. 41- 5. Note that Anthony a\so translated the Dίalogues of Gregory the Great from the Greek version of Pope Zachary. - Research into the Arabic translations of John of Damascus's works is advancing considerably with the efforts of Η. Ibrahim, who has already earned a master's degree by research for Jean Damascene arabe: Contre les Nestoriens, έdίtίοn et traductίon (ΕΡΗΕ, Paris 201 Ο) and who at present is preparing a doctoral thesis directed by Ρ. Gehin and ourself. 90 PG 94, 429- 89. 91 Cf. Ηοεcκ, p. 8- 9, and DετoRAKES 1979, p. 32- 5. 92 J. GRusκovA , Untersuchungen zu den grίechίschen Palίmpsesten der δslerreίchίschen Natίonalbίblίothek (Vienna 201 Ο), p. 54-102. 93 KoNTOUMA 2010. 88 89

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

19

with the looting and burning of the church of the Anastasis and his own martyrdom. 94 1-!ad he been the author ofthe Life ofJohn, wouldn ' t the ιnanuscript tradition have been quick to announce that fact?

It is impossible to present in the scope of this article the entire contents of the Life of John, which is the ground of most modern biographies of JD. We will simply point out that the new details it presents are of three types. [ 1] Ιη the first place there are those that originate from a desire to restructure the Life of the Melodίsts logically: 95 for example, the distinction between Cosmas, JD's tutor, and Cosmas, JD's brother, which reflected a difficulty in understanding the composite character of the oldest Life; the historical reordering that puts the episode of the severed hand in JD's youth (thus, under Leo 111 rather than Constantine V) and makes it the reason for his departure from Damascus; the long account of JD's monastic initiation, 96 which echoes a passage from the Life of the Melodίsts 15- 16. 97 [2] Next, there are those that concern the role of the Μaη~ίίr family in Damascus and come, in our view, either from a local oral tradition, from records or from an Arabic Life.98 [3] Finally, there are details according to which JD was a monk at St Sabas in Palestine. It is difficult to account for their origin, since the Life of John is the first text to speak of them, two and a half centuries after the Damascene's death. The Life of the Melodisls relates that only Cosιnas was buried at St Sabas, whereas JD was buried 'ίη the depths of Persia', according to the hyrnnographer Stephen the Sabaite.99 Does this detail come from a confusion or an extrapolation? Does the transformation of JD into a rnonk of St Sabas result frorn a preference by Anthony of St Symeon, himself a monk of St Sabas before he came to the region of Antioch? Does it corne frorn the lost Άrabic origina1 ', ιoo or from evidence preserved at St Syrneon? Or final1y do we just have to dea] with a rivalry between the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch? The latter, wishing to put forward 'its Damascene' , would have turned

Ν.Β .

According to the evidence of Yahya-Ibn-Sa'id of Antioch, ed. Ι. ΚRΑτcΗκονs κν , Histoire de Yahya-Jbn-Sa 'ίd d'Antίoche, contίnuateur de Sa 'ίd-Jbn-Bίtriq (ΡΟ 18 , Paris 1924), p. 799- 802. '' Cf. I.1 .Bii .d. 96 PG 94, 461 C-473 C. 97 PA PADOPO ULos-ΚERAMEUS , Άνάλεκτα , IV, p. 282- 6. 98 PG 94, 461 ΑΒ . 99 PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 299. 100 Cf. 1.1 .A.c . 94

Α. V Αs ιιιεν ,

I 20

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

attention from JD 's important activities ίη Jerusalem and transferred hiιn to St Sabas, ίη more neutral territory. Ιη any case, let's note that another monastic affiliation is mentioned a little later ίη the same era ίη Vatican. gr. 2081 (10th C.), in the title ofthe first Homίly on the Dormίtίon of the Virgίn Μαιy : 'Ιωάννου , ταπεινου καi άμαρτωλου μοναχου, δούλου των δούλων του κυρίου ήμων Ίησου Χριστου της παλαιας λαύρας. 101

For the Όld Lavra' , which Β. Kotter too hastily identified with the 'Great Lavra' of St Sabas, 102 customarily designates tbe monastery ofCbariton or Souka.

1.1.Biii.c. Among the documents dated to the reign of Basil 11, the best known to Byzantinists is the luxurious Menologίon of Basίl ΙΙ (= Vatίcan. gr. 1613), in fact, a synaxarion. Οη the date of29 November, this document features a report about JD and Cosmas, 103 which draws from the Life of John as well as the Life of the Melodίsts. From the first, it maintains the nobility and piety ofJD's family, as well as his entry into the monastery with his brother Cosmas. From the second, it makes mention of the exile and martyrdom of JD, and his burial by his 'disciple' (= Stephen the Sabaite). Ι. Ι . Βίν.

Late documents

From the 12th to the 15th Centuries, documentation pertaining to JD 's life increases in volume but remains wholly dependent upon the earlier tradition. The principal texts used by biographers of John ofDamascus are the following: 1.1.Biv.a. Αη unedited Life preserved in Athen. Β.Ν. 321 from the 12th century (BHG 884a), 104 which seems to be a recasting of the Life of the Melodίsts 105 that emphasises reports pertaining to Cosmas. 1.1.Biv.b. Α Life of our holy, god-bearίng Fathers [ .. .], the brothers John Damascene and Cosmas recounted by [ .. .] John Merkouropoulos, patrίarch of Jerusalem (BHG 395). 106 This text consists of a refutation of the principal points of the Life of the Melodίsts, 107 based (often Iiterally) οη the Life ofJohn. 108 Its interest resides above all else ίη its detailed account

101 102 103 104

105 106

K OTTER V, p. 483 . lbid. , p. 463 . Jl Menologίo dί Βαsίlίο 11 (Cod. Vatίcano greco 1613), ΙΙ (Turin 1907), p. 213. D ETORAKE S 1979, p. 64-70. 1.1 .Bii .d. Ed. PA1'A DOPOULo s-ΚERAM EUS, Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 303- 50.

107

1.1 . Bίi.d .

108

1.1 . Bίii . b.

I 21

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

of Cosmas's hymnographic works. Its author is John Merkouropoulos (ft. 1156), patriarch of Jerusalem, who resided in Constantinople since the see of Jerusalem was occupied by Latin clergy from 1099 to 1187. Ιη response to certain assumptions that confuse Merkouropoulos and the author of the Life of John, 109 it should be noted that he distinguishes himself from his predecessor in these terms: 'For 1 [re-]wrote the account that another had prepared οη the basis of a text which he found [ .... ] and which was written in Arabic. Pray therefore for the forgiveness of my sins, ο Fathers, you two who have the same name I do [= JD and the author of the Life ofJohn]'. 110 1.1.Biv.c. Αη unedited Panegyrίc on Cosmas, preserved in Athon. Lavra 44 from the 13th century (BHG 394b). 111

Γ

1.1.Biv.d. Α long Panegyrίc on JD (BHG 885)1 12 courtesy of the Grand Logothete Constantine Akropolites (t 1324), 113 a scholarly summary embellished with details provided by the Life of the Melodίsts 114 and the Life ofJohn. 115 1.1.Biv.e. Lastly, composed ίη the midst of the Constantinopolitan environment where the four documents mentioned above probably first appeared, the report entitled Life and mίracles of our holy father Cosmas the poet (BHG 394a), 116 which relates to us the following two details about JD: [1] JD was buried in the monastery of St Sabas, precisely where the report itself was written: [ό θειος 'Ιωάννης] την μεν ψυχήν παρέθετο τφ Θεφ, τό δέ γέ σωμα τfj καθ'ήμας άγίς.ι μovfj τεθησαύρισται. 11 7

109

D ET0RAΚES

1979, p. 41- 2.

IV, p. 350: ό ύμων θατέρφ συνωνυμων. 1979, p. 20- 26. 112 PG 140, 812- 85. 113 Οη this author, called the 'new Metaphrastes', see D .M . Νιcοι, 'Constantine Akropolites. Α Prosopographical Note', DOP 19 (1965), p. 249- 56; Ε . ΤRΑΙΨ et αlίί, Prosopographίsches Lexίkon der Palaίologenzeίt, Ι (Vienna 1976), p. 49, n° 520; R. MACRJ DES, George Akropolίtes, The Hίstoιy (Oxford 2007), p. 5- 29. 110

PAt'AD0Ι'0 uιos-ΚERAME US, Άvάλεκτα,

111

D ET0RAΚES

1.1 .Bii.d. I.l .Biii.b. 116 Ed . Th. DETORAKES, 'Άνέκδοτος Βίος Κοσμά Βυζαvτιvωv Σπουδωv 41 (1974), p. 259- 96, based on 15th century. 11 1 lbίd. , p. 293. 114 11 5

του Μαϊουμά', Έπετηρiς Έταιρείας Vatίcan. Barberίn.

gr. 583 from the

I 22

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745) [2] His Life is courtesy of John, patriarch of Jerusalem:

τετυχηκότος

έπαινετου

καi

ύμνητου

όμωνυμουντος

αύτφ

έτέρου

καi

τόν

our view these two details attest chiefly to the desire to appropriate JD's reputation for the monastery of St Sabas, a desire which could only grow during the Latin occupation of the Holy Land, during which time the hegumen of St Sabas (in the absence ofthe patriarch) became the leader ofthe Greek Orthodox communities of Palestine. 11 9 άρχιερατικόν πεπιστευμένου θρόνον τfjς Ίερουσαλήμ. 11 8 Ιη

1.1. C. Appraίsal Ιη the 8th and 9th Centuries, JD 's personality is likened to that of a traitor ofthe faith and the Empire. Inclined to defend him, the iconophiles recalled the role of his family described as 'most Christian' , even as it had to resist pressures from the Caliphate. Α Sabaite monk close to this family, regarded by the Life of the Melodίsts as a nephew of JD, composed a Canon to his memory less than fifty years after his death. 120 He seems to have known his work well, but says nothing ofhis possible presence at St Sabas. He speaks only of his retreat to and death in the desert. At the end of the iconoclast period, a richly illustrated manuscript, copied beyond the Empire, speaks again of Manξ,ίir, but it already sees him as a great ascetic and saint. 12 1 Ιη 842--43 , when the circle of Methodios, supported by Empress Theodora, prepared the ' Restoration of Orthodoxy', the personality of JD became useful for the pacification of the Church. Attributed to the authority of John, the sulphurous Homίly on those who have reposed ίn the faίth 122 became acceptable to the iconophiles and at the same time served the

118 lbid. , p. 280. We should note that a significant number ofmanuscripts attributing the Life ofJohn to a patriarch of Jerusalem are Sabaite in origin. 119 Ch. PAPA Dorou ιos, 1στορία της Έκκλησίας 1εροσολύμων (Jerusalem, Alexandria 1910), p. 387 sq. - Οη the question of the conservation of JD 's relics at St Sabas, see JoHN ΡΗΟΚΑS (12th C.), Descrίptio terrae sanctae, PG 133, 948 C, and 1. P H 0KY LΙD ES, Ή ίερά Λ αύρα Σάβα του ήγιασμένου (Alexandria 1927). On their presence in Constantinople in the 13th century, see G εoRGE PACHYMERES (1242-c. 1310), Hίstorίc Reports VII, 13, ed. Α . FA1LLER (CFHB 24/3, Paris 1999), p. 51- 3, as well as the accounts of the Russian travellers Stephen ofNovgorod (14th C.) and Zosima the Deacon (15th C.), ed. G.P. MAJES ΚA , Russ ίan Travelers to Constantίnople ίn the Fourteenth and Fijίeenth cen turίes (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 19, Washington, D.C., 1984), p. 42- 3 and p. 186- 7. 120 1.1 .Bi.d.

ι21

1.1 . Βί . g.

122

1.1 . Bίi.c .

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

23

iconoclasts who were awaiting pardon. At the same time, under the guise ofthe miraculous, the Life of the Melodίsts 123 allows the traitor and Saracen Μaη:;;ϊιr to make a worthy entrance into Constantinople. At this point, JD is never seen as a monk of St Sabas; he is presented instead as a mernber of the clergy of the Anastasis in Jerusalern, as a Hagiopolite. 124 The official Life of JD, or Life ofJohn, 125 carne into being a century and a half later, in the context of the politics of 're-Byzantinizing' Syria which followed the capture of Antioch by Nikephoros Phokas. It is attributable to John ΠΙ of Antioch, a Constantinopolitan scholar. His text answers the need to showcase the figure of a great Syrian theologian, which explains why it is so prolix about events occuring in Darnascus and silent about his deeds in Jerusalem. This relatively Iate Life (late lOth-early 11 th C.) knows the Life of the Melodίsts which frorn all the evidence it wishes to coπect, even to 'rnetaphrase'. It is equally based οη the evidence of a lost Arabic Life, 126 though its contribution should be rninirnised. It is the Life of John which rnentions for the first tirne, for reasons that rernain unclear, his entry into the rnonastery of St Sabas. 127 It is a blending of the Life ofJohn and the Life of the Melodίsts that is at work in later sources, 128 with nurnerous variations. Thus, the details given by these latter works should be considered unusable. However, let us note that the Darnascene's own work itself continues to provide us with valuable information about the life of our author. We turn to thern now. 1.2. John of Damascus through his work Despite their scarcity, sorne clues present in the work of JD rnake it possible to expand the rneager knowledge that we have about his life. We can distinguish two types of thern: direct information given by the author, and information deduced from the content of his works.

123 124

125 126

I. l.Bii .d. 1.1 .Bii .a. 1.1 .Biii.b. 1.1 .A.c.

127

PG 94, 461

128

1.1 .Biv.

Β.

I 24

John of Damascus (c. 655 -c. 745)

1.2.Α . Autobίographίcal detaίls

Ιη the first place we should list, in the order of significance, the passages in which our author affirms his connection to Patriarch John V of Jerusalem (705-35):

• Letter on the hymn of the Trίsagίon: 'Who knows better than I the thought of His Beatitude, Patriarch John? Νο one. For ίη truth he never breathed a word of dogrna that he did not entrust to rne as to his disciple' . 129 • Elogy on St John Chιysostom : '[Recalling] οη the one hand that fathers love the infancy of their children [ ... ] and considering οη the other that it is not decent to reject the exhortation of a godly rnan - for such a rnan is cornpassionate and we owe him many favours ίη our behalf- 1 begin my speech'. - 'Such, ο Father offathers, are the infancies that we address to you. But watch over us [two] who bear the sarne name you do' . 130 • Dίscourse agaίnst the ίconoclasts: Ί beseech the Lord Almighty [ ... ] and with Hirn, the whole people of God, the holy nation, the royal priesthood, as well as the good pastor of the reason-endowed flock of Christ, he who recapitulates ίη hiιnself the hierarch of Christ, that they would receive rny discourse with good will'. - Ί edited a second tiιne this discourse οη the icons. Indeed, soιne children ofthe Church encouraged rne to it, for the first was for many not easy to read. But forgive rne for that as well, for Ι have demonstrated obedience '. 13 1

These clues and the political circumstances - the death of Caliph 'Abd al-Malik, the transformation of the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Damascus into a mosque by Walϊd 1, the restoration of the patriarchate of Jerusalem after 67 years in abeyance - show that JD probably accompanied the patriarch at the time of his enthronement in Jerusalem in 705, 132 and that he was at his side when he died in 735. Then there are two texts in which the author, who reports the death of John V, defends himself against accusations by enemies from his own camp. Ιη our view, these texts suggest not only the chaos that likely erupted at the patriarch 's death but also the fact that, in this context, JD fell into disrepute: • Letter on the hymn ofthe Trίsagίon: '[Ι find] that the enerny ofthe Church still stirs up trouble and, what is worse, that he does it by means ofpeople living ίη piety. IV, p. 329. V, p. 359; 370. 131 ΚοπΕR, ΠΙ , ρ. 67; p. 69 . 132 Οη the importance of the year 705 for the Chalcedonians of Syria and Palestine, cf. CoNTOUMAS-CONTICELLO, ρ. χιιι-χνιιι. 129

°

13

KOTTER, KOTTER,

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

25

Indeed, our most pious brother, Abba Sergios, informed us by letter [ ... ] that our most ho]y father Abba Anastasios, the i1\ustrious hegumen ofthe monastery ofEuthymios, put forward quotations from our holy Fathers themse]ves which would allegedly refer the hymn of the Trisagion to the Son alone [ ... ]. And he also wrote that someone assured hίιη of the fact that ourselves held to this view, approving it and giving our assent to ίt. And even - which has surprised me greatly - he would have brought to us these passages - 1 will not lie - and that we wou]d have answered hίιη that they are from ho]y and eminent Fathers. And we wou]d have acquiesced ίη the belief that these quotations show that the hymn ofthe TΓisagion is referred to the Son alone [ ... ] and argued that the blessed Patriarch John [ ... ] held the same views'. 133 • Letter to Cometas : 'These are the circumstances that deterιηine if it is necessary to speak and ifkeeping quiet is not without danger [ . .. ]. Thus, ίη what concerns me, 1 should keep quiet at all times. lndeed, 1 have been amputated ίη speech for not having paid attention . [ ... ] Having this ίη ιηίηd , 1 would keep quiet even now, if the respect that I owe your God-preserved glory, dearest one, had not forced me to write. Seeing ίη truth your haste ίη your honourable letters, 1 deemed that you enjoined us to speak not use\essly and ίη vain, but because a pressing need ob]iged you [ ... ]. May anyone who knows the tria] ofthose under duress pardon me!' - Ύour most honourable virtue has written that some people have public]y proc\aiιηed that we argued that the weeks ofthe fast [ofGreat Lent] are eight ίη number. Το this, we answer that there is nothing higher than the peace ofthe Church [ ... ]. But peace is concord ίη the good. For concord ίη evil must be called sedition rather than pacification'. - 'Seeing therefore that the revolt about sacred fasts has reached its climax, 1 implored God and apologised, for sίn puts us to death by means of the good (Rom 7 .13). Indeed, what is the profit ofthe fast for those who fast ίη disputes and conflicts?' 134

It is therefore a climate of instability and infighting amongst the Chalcedonians of Palestine that these two letters reveal. The feud over the number of weeks of the fast is comparable to that over the addition of the formula 'crucified for us' to the Trisagion hymn. Ιη both cases, John of Damascus was violently taken to task and even suspected of heresy. His friends demanded by letters that he defend himself - he had probably already left Jerusalem - and that is precisely the purpose ofhis responses. Even though he had been 'amputated in speech (το γαρ λαλειν άφήρημαι)' 135 - owing to his iconophile beliefs? - he intended to face the slanders and

133 134

135

ΚοττεR, IV, p. 305. PG 95, 65 Β-68 Α. ΡΟ

95, 65 Β .

I 26

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

accusations, to exhibit and illustrate his teaching, and finally to exhort them to 'the peace of the Church '. 136 The latest phase of the Damascene's life is evoked in the Elogy to St Barbara, in which we read John's personal prayer where he reports his own physical distress in moral terms: Ήeal the wounds of my soul and my body, and protect me from every punishment due to events '. 137 The author already alludes to his great age in the second Homίly on the Dormίtίon of the Vίrgίn Μωy: Thus we, ίη the winter of life, offer the blossoms of our eloquence to our Queen, we who prepare our aged voice to be fit to declaim this elogy [... ], may we be received even more favourably sti\l! 138 1.2.Β. Detaίls

deducedfrom the Damascenes wrίtίngs

The details deduced from the contents ofthe Damascene's works are more numerous. We will not pause here over those that disclose his high level of education: 139 they deserve a separate study. We can nevertheless remark that some ofthese passages demonstrate that he had access to a library that was particularly rich considering the era and the geographic region, perhaps a private library established by himself or his family, in Damascus. 140 lt is evident first of all that JD did not withdraw from the world as a simple monk, but occupied a position of the highest importance ίη the patriarchate of Jerusalem, in contact with laity, pilgrims, and even high ranking ecclesiastics. The reasons that lead us to this affirmation are as follows: [1] the majority ofhis homilies are addressed to a large and mixed audience; [2] his hymnography is directly connected to ceremonies specific to the Holy Sepulchre and the Holy Places; [3] figuring amongst his coπespondants are lay dignitaries, as in the Letter to Cometas; expressing his own opinion, his Dίscourses ίn defence of ίcons also claim to represent the highest authorities of the patriarchate of Jerusalem; John wrote his treatise Agaίnst the Jacobίtes 'in the name' (έκ προσώπου) of Peter, On these matters, see CοΝτι cειιο 2004, p. 77- \04; ΚοΝτο υΜΑ 2005, p. 77- 94. ΚΟΠΕR, V, p. 277. 138 ΚΟΠΕR, V, p. 517. 139 Α . ΑιεχΑκ1 s, 'The Modesty Topos and John of Damaskus as a not-so-modest Author', ΒΖ 97 (2004), p. 521 - 30. 140 Many writings by John of Damascus preserve for us fragments of works that are otherwise lost; see below, 11.4.C. 136

137

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

27

bishop ofDamascus; likewise, his Lίbellus de recta sententίa serves as the profession of faith for a Maronite convert who was under the jurisdication of the same Peter; finally, the Prologue that proceeds the Dίalectίca (also known as the Letter to Cosmas of Maίuma) reports that the request came from several 'venerable Fathers' who had called for it. 141 Οη the other hand, as noted above, it seems that John V's death marked an abrupt end to JD's activities in Jerusalem. Called to account in the conflicts about the Trίsagίon and the duration of Great Lent, he seems to have fallen into disrepute in the latter years of his life, which is probably what drove him to depart the Anastasis for a more isolated place, as the Canon of Stephen the Sabaite indicates. Finally, we note that a text like ch. 100 in the treatise On heresίes, which attacks Islam violently, could not have circulated for long unbeknownstto the Caliph. 142 These verbal attacks were also coupled with a clear comrnitment to Peter ofMaiuma, martyred and executed ίη 743/744, whose epitaph JD himself composed. 143 At the end ofhis life, the Damascene thus necessarily became the object of double persecution, coming simultaneously from Caliph Walϊd II and the iconoclast basileus, Constantine V, who around 740/742 subjected him to an annual anathematisation. It is probably at this time, ίη the isolation of a henηitage, that he composed his Elogy for St Barbara, to which his own memorial was added after his death by Stephen the Sabaite. Ιη this context, it seems doubtful that he undertook to revise his theological work in the final years ofhis life, as the Life of John affinηs. 1 44 It would seem instead that his writings, incomplete in part upon his departure from Jerusalem, were edited by the generation oficonophiles who succeeded him in the lands of Palestine, a generation that included authors like Michael Synkellos and Stephen the Sabaite amongst others. The possibility cannot be excluded that this editor himself worked at St Sabas, which would make for a plausible explanation as to why JD was supposed to have lived in that monastery. 145

141

142 143

K OTTER

1, p. 53 .

JοιιΝ or D AMAscus, Ecrίts sur !Ίslam (SC 383, Paris 1992), p. 210- 26. Cf. Τιι ΕΟ Ρ Η ΑΝΕS, Chronographia, p. 417. Οη this topic, see A uzέrv , 'De la Palestine' ,

p. 204. 144

PG 94, 488

Α.

145

CON TICELLO

2006, p. 179- 205 .

I 28

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

1.3. Summary Biography The critical presentation of sources makes plain the difficulties attaching to any attempt at reconstructing the life of JD. It also results ίη a loss of one's bearings. Thus, ίη 2002, ίη his important monograph, Α. Louth deplored this state of affairs, which he could not fail to recognise. 146 However, critical work also has a positive effect: disengaged from biases connected to the legendary aspect of his personality, such examination of the Damascene 's work provides a supply of new information that enables us to sketch the outline of a biography that is less detailed, but more solid. First, we note that ηο certainty is acquired conceming the cuπently accepted dates. John's dates of birth and death are still unknown, and the duration of his life at 104 years does not withstand a critical inteπogation of the sources. Nevertheless, by means of deduction οη the bases of 'secure' dates,1 47 it can be conjectured that JD was bom around 655 and that he died before 745. His lifetime therefore coπesponds roughly to the period of the Umayyad caliphate in Damascus ( 661 - 7 50). It may be further distinguished into four major periods. 1.3.a. At the Umayyad court of Damascus: c. 655- c. 705. John certainly passed his childhood and adolescence in the Umayyad court, where his grandfather and then his father occupied the important and very lucrative office oftax collector. Though he grew up in a society dominated by lslam, he was likely more influenced by the Chalcedonian and Greek-speaking communities of Christians who were well represented ίη Damascus 146 Lο υηι , St John Damascene, p. 3 (note that the stυdy in hand was published for the first time in 2000). 147 Concerning four generations of the Mansurides, the only sure dates to which it is possible to refer are the following: [!] In 602, at the death of Emperor Maurice, Man~ίir was already in post; in 610, the first betrayal of Damascus, by which it was delivered to the Persians, took place; in 635, the second betrayal ofDamascus, by which it was delivered to the Muslim Arabs, took place; in 661 , Man~ίir took up a post in the court ofMu'awiya 1. [2] In 691 , Sardjίin b. Man~ίir intervened with Caliph Άbd al-Malik to prevent the destruction of the church in Gethsemane. [3] In 730, John V took up the patriarchal see of Jerusalem. Man~ίir b. Sardjίin , alias John of Damascus, is probably with him. In 730, JD composes the first Dίscourse ίn defence of ίcons. In 735, John V dies; this is the beginning of JD's fall from grace. In 742, Peter of Maiurna dies as a martyr; JD probably composes his epitaph. [4] In 798, the hymnographer Stephen the Sabaite, who had already given a sepulchre to his ' uncle ' JD, composed the record of the attack upon the Lavra of St Sabas; he died in 807 (ΝΒ : the hymnographer Stephen the Sabaite must be distinguished from his namesake the ascetic Stephen the Sabaite, t 794. On this subject, see R. Ρ. ΒιΑ κε, 'Deux lacunes comblees dans la Passίo λΧ monachorum sabaίtarum' , ΑΒ 68 [1950], p. 27-43, chiefly p. 40-42).

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

29

and among whom he was probably educated. It is worth recalling that Sophronios of Jerusalem (t 638) and Andrew of Crete (t 740) are also from Damascus. As an adult, and before his father's death, JD followed him in his administrative responsibilities. He probably kept that offi.ce until the death of Caliph 'Abd al-Malik (ob. 705), with whom his father was very close. 1.3.b. Prίest at the Anastasίs ίn Jerusalem and advίsor to Patrίarch John V: c. 705- c. 735. It seems that JD had ηο reason to prolong his stay in Damascus beyond 705. It is in fact in this year that 'Abd al-Malik's successor confiscated the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Damascus, the cultual centre of Syro-Palestinian Chalcedonianism, to replace it with the great Umayyad mosque. And it was also in the same year that the restoration of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, vacant for 67 years, took place. John V, who was close to the Damascene, occupied this see. As it appears from his works, JD followed the patriarch in his chief activities, which enables us to conjecture that he remained in Jerusalem throughout this period. The affi.rmation of the Council of Nicaea 11, according to which he distributed his great wealth to the poor 'like the evangelist Matthew', 148 can also take a more pragmatic sense in this context. Ιη these difficult days for SyroPalestinian Christianity, the backing that Man$ίir, a powerful, rich and well educated man, could provide toward the restoration of the patriarchate, would have been decisive. 149 1.3.c. ln Jerusalem after the death ofJohn V: c. 735- c. 742. After the death of his spiritual father, JD seems to have still held a post in the patriarchate of Jerusalem. But owing to his hostility towards the authorities Constantine V, Walϊd 11 - and his advocacy of iconophilism, he fell progressively into disrepute. He himself claims that he was deprived of the right to speak. Shortly after 735, he was not only called to witness in conflicts that had aήsen amongst the supporters of Chalcedon, but he also became the victim of slanders originating from certain people close to him. This situation probably drove him to depart from Jerusalem, since he was already very aged. We do not know if his place of exile was a monastery the Old Lavra, according to the evidence from Vatίcan. gr. 2081 (10th C.), 150

ΜΑΝs ι, ΧΙΠ, 357 and 400 C. It should be particularly noted here that, according to the testirnony of the Life of John (PG 94,437 D), the Man~ίirs owned considerable properties in Judea and Palestine. 10° Cf. ΚοττΕR V, ρ . 483s. 148 149

I 30

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

or possibly St Sabas - or a simple hermitage, 'in the desert', as the witness of Stephen the Sabaite lets us presume. 1.3.d. The final years: c. 742- c. 745. According to the Life of John, JD passed his last years in peaceful and learned retreat, in the midst of which he undertook to revise his writings. The political circumstances, as well as evidence from JD himself, lead us to think that his situation was altogether different at the twilight of his life. Α personal prayer found ίη the Elogy of St Barbara suggests this perspective. Confirmation is also given by the status ofthe Damascene's work, which seems to remain incomplete, then 'edited' by someone other than him. 151 11. WORΚS

The Damascene's work, authentic or not, benefitted from early editions, whether in the original Greek or in Latin translations. Thus, in 1472 a Latin version of the Romance of Barlaam and Joasaph appeared. 152 But it is JD's Canons which were edited for the first time ίη Greek, thanks to the efforts of Aldo Manuzio (Venice 150 l ). These projects of editing or translating abounded ίη the 16th century. Especially distinguished are those by Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, 153 Bernardino Donato, 154 Marcus Hopper, 155 Jean de Billy. 156 As for the edition of the Opera omnίa by JD, Cf. CONTl CELLO 2006. Liber gestorum SS. Barlaam, eremίtae, et Josaphat, lndίae regίs, auctore S. Joanne Damasceno [Speier, Yenice 1472/73]. It is possible that the author of this translation was George ofTrebizond, whose Hίstorίa de νίtίs et rebus gestίs Sanctorum Barlaam eremίtae et Josaphat regίs lndorum, Georgίo Trapezuntίo ίnterprete (Anvers s.d. (posthumous edition]) appeared thereafter. This is however simply a hypothesis οη our part, for we have not had access to the edition of 14 72. 153 Theologίa Damascenί. Ι. De Jneffabίlί dίvίnίtate. Ι1. De Creaturarum genesί, ordίne Moseos. ΠΙ. De ίίs que ab Jncarnatίone usque ad Resurrectίonem. IV. De ίίs que post Resurrectίonem usque ad unίversalem resurrectίonem (Paris 1507 [Interprete Jacobo Fabro Stapulensi]). 154 Joannίs Damascenί Εdίtίο orthodoxae jideί. Ejusdem de ίίs quί ίn jide dormίerunt (Yerona 1531 ). 155 Beatί Joannίs Damascenί Orthodoxae jideί accurata explίcatίo, IV. lίbrίs dίstίncta, nuncque prίmum graece et latίne sίmul [. ..] edίta, Jacobo Fabro [. ..] ίnterprete [. ..]. EjMsdem Jo. Damascenί, De ίίs quί ίn jide obdormίerunt liber, ίtem graece et latίne, Joan . Oecolampadίo ίnterprete (Basel 1548 [Edidit Μ . Hopper]). 156 Hίstoίre de Barlaam et de Josaphat, roy des Jndes, composee par saίnct Jean Damascene, et traduίcte par F Jean de Bίlly (Paris 1574). 151

152

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

31

it was prepared by Michel Le Quien in 1712. Reprinted in J.-P. Migne's graeca (νοl. 94-6), its authority remained uncontested until the first critical editions were published. Ιη the following pages, we will review, in as detailed a manner as possible, the status quaestίonίs pertaining to the editions ofthe Damascene's work in the 20th and 21 st Centuries, noting, too, several works that remain unedited. Then we will move οη to survey his philosophical work. 15 7

Patrologίa

this section, the works of JD are cited according to the Latin titles given by Kotter or by Μ . Geerard's Clavίs patrum graecorum, to facilitate recourse to those reference works.

Ν.Β . Ιη Β.

11. 1.

Crίtίcal edίtίons

Since the 1950s, JD's work has been the object of considerable scientific interest. First off all, at the suggestion of Α. Ehrhard, the roughly two thousand manuscripts known to transmit one or more works by JD were reviewed and, insofar as possible, studied at the Byzantine Institute of Scheyern Abbey (Benedictine). The lead researchers for this work were J.-M. Hoeck (critical presentation of 150 texts attributed to JD) 158 and Β. Kotter. 159 This preliminary study to the critical edition ofthe Damascene's Opera omnίa was completed by the additional research of F. Dδlger, Β. Studer, Κ. Rozemond and G. Richter. 160 Ιη the second phase, up to the death ofB. Kotter (t 1987), this project gave rise to the publication offive volumes ofworks by JD in critical edition (1. Philosophy, 11. Systematic dogmatics, 111. Anti-iconoclast discourses, IV. Polemics, V. Hagiography and homiletics):

157 Though this may seem surprιsιng ίη view of John of Damascus's extensive theo\ogica\ or hymnographic output (which far surpass his output ofphilosophica\ interest), it is due to the fact that the present article was initially written for the Dictίonnaire des Philosophes antίques edited by Richard Goulet. 158 Ηοεcκ , passim. 159 ΚοπΕR 1959 (οη the other writings by the Damascene, see the introductions to vols. 111- V ofthe critical edition: ΠΙ, p. 1- 62; IV, p. 70- 97; V, p. 3- 62). 160 F. ΟόιGΕR, Das grίechίsche Barlaam-Roman, eίn Werk des hl. Johannes νοn Damaskos (STB 1, Ettal 1953); Β. Sτυ D Ε Ι\ , Die theologίsche Arbeίtsweίse des Johannes von Damaskus (STB 2, Ettal 1956); Κ. RozEMOND, La chrίstologίe de Saίnt Jean Damascene (STB 8, Ettal 1959); G. RιcΗΊΈR , Die Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos. Eine Untersuchung des Textes nach seinen Quellen und seiner Bedeutung (STB I Ο, Ettal 1964).

I 32

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745) • ΚοπΕR 1, p. 20-26: Jnstίtutίo elementarίs (PG 95, 100- 112; CPG 8040); p. 51- 146: Dίalectίca, sίve capίta philosophίca (PG 94, 521-676; CPG 8041); 16 1 p. 151- 73 : Fragmenta philosophica (CPG 8042). 162 •

Κοττ ε R

11, p. 7- 239:

•

Κοτπ ιt ΙΙΙ,

Exposίtίo fideί

p. 65- 200: Contra 1232- 1420; CPG 8045). 163

(PG 94, 789- 1228; CPG 8043).

ίmagίnum calumnίatores oratίones

tres (PG 94,

• ΚοττΕR IV, p. 19-67: Lίberde haeresίbus (PG 94, 677- 780; CPG 8044); p. 109- 53: Contra Jacobίtas (PG 94, 1436-501 ; CPG 8047); p. 173- 231 : De duabus ίn Chrίsto voluntatίbus (PG 95, 128- 85 ; CPG 8052); 164 p. 238- 52 : Defide contra Nestorίanos (CPG 8054); p. 263- 88: Contra Nestorίanos (PG 95, 188- 224; CPG 8053); p. 304-32: Epίstola de hymno Trίsagίo (PG 95, 21-61 ; CPG 8049); p. 351 - 98: Contra Manίchaeos (PG 94, 1505- 84; CPG 8048); p. 409- 17: De natura composίta contra Acephalos (PG 95, 112- 25; CPG 8051); p. 427- 38: Dίsputatίo Chrίstίanί et Saracenί (spurίa; 165 PG 96, 1336--48; CPG 8075). •

V, p. 72- 90: Oratίo ίn Palmas (spurίa; CPG 8086); 166 p. 102- 10: Oratίo ίn ficum arefactam et ίn parabolam vίnae (PG 96, 576- 88 ; CPG 8058); p. 121--46: Oratίo ίn Sabbatum sanctum (PG 96, 601--44; CPG 8059); p. 169- 82: Oratίo ίn Natίvίtatem sanctae Deί genίtrίcίs Marίae (spurίa ; PG 96, 661- 80; CPG 8060); p. 202--45: Passίo magnί martyrίs Artemίί (PG 96, 1252- 320; CPG 8082); p. 256- 78 : Laudatίo sanctae martyrίs Barbarae (PG 96, 781- 813 ; CPG 8065); p. 289- 303 : Laudatίo sanctae martyrίs Anastasίae (spurίa ; CPG 8068; edίtίo prίnceps); p. 324--47: Ηοmίlία ίn Natίvίtatem Domίnί (CPG 8067); p. 359- 70: Laudatίo sanctί Johannίs Chrysostomί (PG 96, 61- 781; CPG 8064); p. 381- 95: Oratίo ίn occursum Domίnί (spurίa ; CPG 8066); p. 406- 18: Commentarίus ίn sanctum prophetam Elίam (spurίus ; CPG 8083); p. 436- 59: Ηοmίlία ίn Transfiguratίonem Salvatorίs nostrί Jesu Chrίstί (PC 96, 545- 76; CPG 8057); p. 483- 500, 516--40, 548- 55 : ln Dormίtίonem sanctae Deί genίtrίcίs Μαrίαe oratίones tres (PG 96, 700- 721 , 721- 53 , 75361 ; CPG 8061, 8062, 8063).

Κοττε R

161 The bre vίor version (50 chapters) andfusior version (68 chapters) were published in two facing colurnns (see in the same volume, p. 47- 50). 162 Texts parallel to certain chapters in the Dίalectίca, edited on the basis of Oxon. Bodl. Auct. Τ. 1.6 (13th C.). 163 The three discourses are presented in three facing columns. See in the same volume p. 59- 61. 164 Since the text was transmitted in two versions, a synoptic presentation is given for ch. 4-9. On the changes in the numbering of chapters, see in the same volume, p. 160-61 . 165 See in the same volume p. 420. 166 The text was transmitted in two, very different redactions, a and z, which are published here in parallel at the top and the bottom of the page, with two separate critical apparatus.

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

33

these five volumes were added two more ίη 2006 and 2009. Ιη a vastly learned introduction, R. Volk definitively established that the Romance of Barlaam and Joasaph, which F. Dδlger and Β. Kotter had considered authentic, is necessarily later than JD. 167 Το

• R.

Vοικ, Dίe Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 6/1. Hίstorίa anίmae utίlίs Barlaam et Ioasaph (spurίa}, Eίnjuhrung (PTS 61), Berlin, New York 2009, 596 p.

• R. Vοικ , Dίe Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 6/2. Hίstorίa anίmae utίlίs Bar/aam et Ioasaph (spurίa}, Text und zehn Appendίces (PTS 60), Berlin, New York 2006, 512 p.

Finally, it is Resurrectίon

ίη the same context that the edition of the Canon of the appeared:

• F. GAHBAUER, 'Der Osterkanon des Johannes νοη Damaskos. Text, ϋbersetzung und Kommentar', Studίen und Mίtteί/ungen zur Geschίchte des Benedίktίner­ Ordens und seίner Zweίge 106, 1995, p. 133- 74.

This series of publications was greeted with enthusiasm by the scholarly world. Even so, some criticisms have also been made. They chiefly concern the following points: •

1: Tbe partial edition of tbe Fragmenta phί/osophίca is misplaced and misleading, since these fragments are not JD's and were never attributed to

ΚοπεR

hίιη . ι 6s

•

ΚοπΕR

11: Tbe 'ps.-Cyri\1ian ' treatise De SS Trinitate (PG 77, 1120- 73 ; CPG 5432) was included ίη the apparatus of sources as a principal source for the Exposίtίofideί, whereas instead it is a late compilation (l3th- l4th C.) derived from tbe latter. 169

•

KorτER

111: Tbe synoptic presentation of tbree discourses, wbicb are relatively similar textually but were edited by JD οη three separate occasions and ίη different situations, destroys the unity and coherence of each discourse and makes for an awkward reading (which is proved by the reduction of the three discourses ' into one' ίη the French translation by M.-L. Darras-Worms). 170 Ιη

167 Prior to this monumental edition, R. Volk published two articles οη the subject: 'Urtext und Modifikationen des griechischen Barlaam-Romans. Prolegomena zur Neuausgabe' , ΒΖ 86/87 (1993- 94), ρ . 442-461; ' Symeon Metaphrastes. Είη Benutzer des Barlaam-Romans', JOB 48 (1998), ρ . 243- 72. Οη Volk's edition, see our review in REB 68 (2010), ρ . 292- 5. 168 R. RIEDINGER, ΒΖ 63 ( 1970), ρ. 342- 6. 169 CoNTICELLO 1995, p. 116- 29. 170 A.-L. DARRAs-WoRMS, Le vίsage de l 'ίnvίsίble (Paris 1994).

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

34

addition, the question of the autbenticity of the tbird discourse, preserved ίη only one manuscript, Neapolίtan. 54 (11 Β 16) from tbe 13th C. (already used for tbe edition ofM. Le Quien, Paris 1713), bas been inadequately studied. 171 •

ΚοττεR

IV: Tbe stemma of De haeresίbus establisbed by Kotter is completely wrong. Ιη deve]oping it, the editor re]ied οη tbe bypotbesis tbat JD took, almost completely, tbe Anakephalaίόsis (CPG 3765) of Epipbanius' Panarίon. However, it bas now been shown that JD used the original text oftbe Panarion (CPG 3745), tbus becorning birnself tbe autbor of a new Anakephalaiόsίs , wbicb is none otber than the De haeresίbus . 1 72

•

ΚοττΕR

V: Tbe fact tbat tbe autbenticity or inautbenticity of texts presented ίη tbis edition was establisheed οη tbe basis of strictly stylistic criteria has lead to some contradictions witb Hoeck's results, 173 followed by Μ. Geerard. 174 lt can be furtber added that the decision - following Dδlger - to attribute the Romance of Barlaam and Joasaph to JD rnakes these criteria highly questionable. 175

Fostered by the editorial activity of the Benedictines of Scheyern, an interest ίη the Damascene's work has developed over the last few years in France, with the translations ofthe Ecrίts sur l'Jslam by R. Le Coz (SC 383, Paris 1992), the Contra ίmagίnum calumnίatores oratίones tres by A.-L. Daπas-Worrns (Paris 1994), 176 the Dίalectίca and the Exposίtίo fideί by V. S. Conticello (PhD., Univ. of Paris-IV Sorbonne, 1996), the De ίeίunίίs or Letter to Cometas by V. Kontouma (Paris 2005), 177 the Exposίtίo fideί by Ρ. Ledrux (SC 535 and 540, Paris 201 Ο and 2011 ). Ιη Italy, there are two translations oftheExposίtίofideί: one by S. Rinaldi (Parrna 1994), the other by V. Fazzo (Collana di testi patristici 142, Roma 1998), who has also G. R1cHTER, Theologίsche Lίteraturzeίtung \02 (1977), p. 213- 14; Η. G. ΤΗϋΜΜΕL , 38 (1977), p. 224- 8. It is noteworthy, bowever, οη the basis of evidence from the Life of John, that the third Discourse was already written by the end of the 10th century. Indeed, as D. Zaganas brought to our attention, John Polites, the author of tbis Life, speaks of 'three spears' ίη connection with the Dίscourses agaίnst the ίconoclasts : λόγοις [ ... ] ώς τριλόγχοις δόρασιν (PG 94, 433 Β). 172 Ο. KNoRR, 'Zur ϋberlieferungsgeschichte des Lίber de haeresίbus des Johannes νοη Damaskus' , ΒΖ 91 ( 1997), p. 59- 69. 173 Ε. LANNE, Irenίkon 60 (l 987), p. 579. 174 CPG ΙΙΙ , p. 5 l l- 36 (see now bowever the supplement to CPG ΠΙ, p. 462- 8). 175 It is now proven that the Romance of Barlaam and Joasaph is not a work by JD. Following F. Dδlger, Β. Kotter adopted an opinion favourab]e to its autbenticity, including it in the database developed to differentiate JD's linguistic style. From this fact, it should be understood that the determination of the authenticity or inauthenticity of JO's homilies οη this stylistic basis should be wholly reviewed. 176 See above, η. 171. 177 KoNTOUMA 2006. 17 1

Byzantίnoslavίca

I 35

John of Damascus (c. 655-c. 745)

translated the Contra ίmagίnum calumnίatores oratίones tres (Collana di testi patristici 36, Roma 1983). Ιη Germany, the Dίalectίca was translated by G. Richter (Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur 15, Stuttgart 1982) and the Canon on the Natίvίty by Ο. Petrynko (Mίinster 2010). Finally, the Contra ίmagίnum calumnίatores oratίones tres has also been translated by Α. Louth into English (New York 2003). 178 Above and beyond the activities at Scheyem Abbey, mention should also be made of the contribution by Ο. PETRYNKO, Der jambίsche Weίhnachtskanon

des Johannes

von Damaskus.

Eίnleίtung,

Text,

ϋbersetzung, Kommentar (Jerusalemer theologisches Forum 15, Mίinster 201 Ο). Three writings falsely attributed to JD have also benefited from a

critical edition: the Epίstula ad Theophίlum ίmperatorem (CPG 8115), by Η. GAUER, Texte zum byzantίnsίchen Bίlderstreίt. Der Synodalbrίef der dreί Patrίarchen des Ostens von 836 und seίne Verwandlung ίn sίeben Jahrhunderten (SPB 1, Frankfurt/Main 1994), p. 74-128, 179 and also by

J.A.

MVNπ1z,

J. CHRYSOSTOMIDES,

Ε. HARVALIA-CRooκ

and Ch. DENDRINOS,

The Letter of the three Patrίarchs to Emperor Theophίlos and related texts (Camberley 1997); the Responsίo ad Iudaeos (CPG 8092), ed. J.H. DECLERCK, Anonymus dίalogus cum Iudaeίs saeculί ut vίdetur sextίί (CCG 30, Turnhout, Leuven 1994); the Opuscula ίslamίca, some ofwhich also circulated under the title of Concertatίones cum Saracenίs (CPG 8076) by R. GLEI and Α. Th. graeca 3, Wίirzburg 1995).

ΚHouRY

(Corpus islamo-christianum. Series

Finally, it should be noted that the Ηοmίlία de encaenίίs ecclesίae resurrectίonίs domίnί et ίn vίvifίcam crucem (CPG 8095), preserved uniquely in Ephrem Mtsire's Georgian translation, has been prepared ίη a critical edition by Ν. GoouAozέ, Tbilisi 1986, at p. 196- 220 of the edition of Ancίenl metaphraslίc accounls. The readings from ιhe month of September (in Georgian: our homily is on 13 Sept.). 180

11.2. Works not yet critically edited We have ηο recent information concerning a critical edition ofwhat remains from the Hίera, a florilegium by the Damascene better known through the numerous collections that stem from it and that circulate under

11.2.Α.

178 On the numerous other translations, ancient and modern, of JD's works, see the complete lists given in the collection ofthe Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. 179 Review by Β. Fι us 1N, REB 53 (1995), p.361- 3. 18° Cf. ΥΑΝ EsBRoεcκ, ' Le discours', p. 53- 98.

I 36

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

the title Sacra Parallela (CPG 8056; PG 95, 1040-588 and 96, 9-442). 181 This edition has been anticipated since the 19th century. 182 We should however note here that a lengthy article οη this work has reiterated, not long ago, the importance of this work by the Damascene. 183 Similarly, concerning the vast hymnographic work by JD, most frequently published 'in bulk' within publications intended for liturgical use (Octoechos, Trίodίon, Menaίon, etc.), it seems that ηο research preliminary to a critical edition is envisaged at present. 184

ΙΙ.2.Β.

ΙΙ. 2. C. The other wrίtίngs, stίll attrίbuted to JD, that have not yet benefited from α crίtίcal edίtίon constίtute thefollowίng groups:

11.2.C.a. Authentic: De recta sententίa lίber (CPG 8046; PG 94, 1421- 32); De sacrίs ίeίunίίs (CPG 8050; PG 95, 64-77). 185 11.2.C.b. Of doubtful attribution: [1] Writings circulating under JD's name: De sancta Trίnίtate (CPG 8077; PG 95, 9- 17); Commentarίί ίn epίstulas Paulί (CPG 8079; PG 95, 441- 1033); Deprecatίones 1- 111 (CPG 8081; PG 96, 816- 17); Fragmenta (CPG 8087); Martyrίum s. Petrί neomartyrίs Cf. II.4.C.b. See amongst other the preliminary works by F. L00FS, Studίen Uber dίe dem Johannes von Damaskus zugeschriebenen Parallelen (Hal le 1892); Κ . Ηοιι , Die Sacra Parallela des Johannes Damascenus (TU 16, Ι ; NF 1, 1, Leipzig 1897); Α. EHRHARD, 'Zu den Sacra Parallela des Johannes Damascenus und dem Florilegium des Maximos', ΒΖ ΙΟ (1901), p. 39~15; Ο. WAHL, Dίe Prophetenzίtateder Sacra Parallela ίn ίhrem Verhaltnίs zur Septuaginta-TexιUberlieferMng (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 13, Munich 1965); Ιο ., Der Sίrach-Text der Sacra Parallela (Forschung zur Bibel, 16, Wurzburg 1974); Ιο ., Der Proverbίen- und Kohelet- Text der Sacra Parallela (Forschung zur Bibel, 51, Wurzburg 1985). See also the overall presentation by Μ. RJCHARD, ' Florileges damasceniens ', DS Υ [1962], col. 476- 86, reprinted ίη [ο ., Opera minora Ι (Tumhout, Louvain 1976), η 0 1. 183 EνANGELAτou , 'Word and Image' , passίm 184 See however CPG 8070, to which should be added G. STATHΙS , Les rnanuscrίts de musίque byzantίne. Mont Athos, 1-ΙΙΙ (Athens 1975, 1976, 1993); J. RAASTED, The Hagίopolίtes. Α Byzantίne Treaιίse on Musίcal Theoιy (Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen Age grec et latin de l'Universite de Copenhague, Copenhagen 1983); G. WoιFRAM , Chr. ΗΑ ΝΝ ι c κ, Dίe Erotapokrίseίs des Pseudo-Johannes Darnaskenos zurn Kίrchengesang (Monumenta musicae byzantinae. Corpus scriptorum de re musica, 5, Yienna 1997); Gετc11Α, 'Jean Damascene', passίm . 185 Some findings preliminary to a critical edition of this text have been published in CοΝτι cε ιιο 2004. [η addition , the Florilegiurn on Greaι Lent now has a new edition : Υ. KoNTOUMA, 'Du mauvais usage des sources dans un florilege palestinien du ν111' siecle', ed. S. MoRLET, Lίre en extraίts (Paris, forthcoming). 181

182

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

37

Capίtolίadίs (in Georgian: ed. Κ. ΚΕΚΕLΙDΖΕ, Hrίstίanskίj Vostok 4, 1917, p. 1- 69, and CPG 8100); Sermo ίn annuntίatίonem Β.Μ V (ίη Arabic: ed. L. CΗΕΙΚΗΟ, al-Masrίq 17, 1914, p. 274- 7; CPG 8080; Latin tradition ίη PG 96, 643-8). [2] Writings circulating under the name of John ofEuboea: Ηοmίlία ίn conceptίonem deiparae (CPG 8135; PG 96, 1460--500); Ηοmίlία ίn sanctos ίnnocentes (CPG 8136; PG 96, 1501-8); Ηοmίlία ίn Lazarum (CPG 8137); Passίo s. Parasceuae (CPC 8138).

11.2.C.c. Inauthentic: we cannot compile here the long list ofwritings falsely attributed to JD. 186 Rather, we will focus οη the major pseudepigraphic works which have not, as yet, benefited from a critical edition: Oratίo de ίίs quί ίn fide dormίerunt (CPG 8112; PG 95, 248-77); 187 De sacrίs ίmagίnίbus contra Constantίnum Caballίnum (CPG 8114; PG 95, 309-44); De corpore et sanguίne Chrίstί (CPG 8117). 188

11.3. Unedited works With the exception of the Hίera, 189 very few of the Damascene's works preserved in Greek remain unedited. Chief among them are: Ηοmίlία de cruce (CPG 8084); 19° Conspectus hίstorίarum magnί canonίs, preserved in Sίnaίtίc. gr. 313 (CPG 8085); Lexίcon, preserved in Vatίcan. Palat. gr. 46 from the 13th century; 191 Professίo fideί, preserved in Vίndobon. phίl. gr. 149 from the 14th century. 192 The others reveal their inauthenticity by their very titles. Οη the other hand, a certain number of writings lost ίη the original Greek, but preserved ίη oriental languages, rightly hold the attention of philologists, for it is entirely probable that some of them are authentic. These are: [1] Writings ίη Arabic translation: Exposίtίo et declaratίo fideί (CPG 8078; Latin trans. ίη PG 95, 417-38); Refutatίo Saracenorum (CPG 8088);

On which see Hoεcκ, passίm. Cf. 1.1 . Βίί.c . 188 Cf. Ν. ΑRΜπΆGΕ, ' The Theology of the Introduction and Sermon De corpore et sanguίne Chrίstί attributed to John ofDamascus', Orίens chrίstίanus 80 (1996), p. 1- 10. 189 Cf. ΙΙ . 2 . Α . 19° Cf. Υ. Α . BARANOV, Ήomίly on ιhe Cross (CPG 8084). Αη unedited Treatise by John ofDamascus?', Hrίstίanskίj Voslok4/ IO (2002), p.319- 21. 186

187

191

Cf. Ηοεcκ, p. 48, n° 121.

192

Cf. Ηοεcκ , p. 20, n° 8.

I 38

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

Tractatus de matre deί (CPG 8089); De vίrgίnίtate (CPG 8090); Ηοmίlία (CPG 8091).

ίn

ascensίonem domίnί

[2] Writings (fragments frorn the Exposίtίo fideί?) in Arrnenian translation: De paradίso (CPG 8093); De provίdentίa (CPG 8094). [3] Writings ίη Georgian translation: Laudatίo ss. martyrum et patrum (CPG 8096); In archangelos (CPG 8097); Tractatus de theologίa et de natίvίtate domίnί nostrί lesu Chrίstί (CPG 8098); Ηοmίlία ίn lohannem Baptίstam (CPG 8099). 11.4.

Regίster

of phίlosophίcally-sίgnίficant works 193

11.4.Α. 'Neochalcedonίan 'phίlosophίcal wrίtίngs

11.4.A.a. Αη irnportant nurnber of writings by the Darnascene cover the principle concepts of the Aristotelian Categorίes , such as the notions of substance, nature, hypostasis, rnaking new developrnents to thern, the rneaning of which can be fully understood only ίη the light of Neochalcedonian Christological controversies, and chiefly ίη the context of debates between Severian Jacobites and Chalcedonians. These writings are as follows: lnstίtutίo elementarίs 194 and Dίalectίca, 195 two texts which explain the neoplatonic or patristic definitions of philosophical vocabulary used in the Christological controversy and which in this sense constitute veritable 'handbooks of Neochalcedonian philosophy' ;l 96 the

193 For a critical presentation of the secondary literalυre rele vant to JD ' s philosophical thought, see above all Α . Sι cιΑRΙ, ΊΙ pensiero filosofico di Giovanni di Damasco nella critica' , Aevurn 51 ( 1977), p. 349- 83 . - For JD 's philosophical thought, see also the more recent articles of Μ . F REDE, 'John of Damascus οη Human Action, the Will and Human Freedom', ed. Κ. l ER0DΙ A K0N0U , Byzantίne Phίlosophy and ίts A ncίent Sources (Oxford 2002), p . 63- 95, Ch. ERΙ SMA N, ' Α World ofHypostases. John of Damascus' rethinking of Aristotle's Categorical Ontology ' , Studίa patrίstίca 50 (2011 ), p. 269- 87, and J.A . DEM ETRACOPo u ιos, Ίη search of the pagan and Christian sources of John of Damascus' Theodicy', ed. Α . Rι οο et αlίί, Byzantίne Theology and its Phίlosophical Background (Βυζάντιος 4, Turnhout 2012), p . 50- 86. 194

Είσαγω γή δογμάτων σrοιχειώδης άπο φωνης Ιωάννο υ ταπεινο f5 μοναχοf5 προς

p. 20- 26. p. 47- 146.

7ωάννην τον όσιώτατον έπίσκοπον Λαοδικείας: Κοπ ΕR Ι , 195

Φιλόσοφα κεφάλαια / Πηγή γνώσεως: Κοπ Ε R Ι,

196

See CoNTOUMAS-CONTICELLO 1996, p.

CXV III-CLXX [=ΙΙΙ] .

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745) treatises Contra

39

Jacobίtas, 197

De natura composίta contra Acephalos, 198 De duabus ίn Chrίsto voluntatίbus, 199 De fide contra Nestorίanos (CPG 8054), 200 ίη which JD undertakes philosophico-theological reflection using the concepts defined in the Jnstίtutίo elementarίs and the Dίalectίca. Α comparison of the treatises De fide contra Nestorίanos, which is based οη philosophical speculation, and Contra Nestorίanos, 201 which uses strictly patristic argumentation οη the same subject, discloses the characteristics of the Damascene's philosophico-theological reflection as it is expressed in this group of texts. 202 11.4.A.b. Inauthentic writings: three texts demonstrating a similar kind of reflection have sometimes been wrongly attributed to JD; today, we can affirm that in reality they stem from these sources, notably from elaborating the Dίalectίca. These are two opuscula taken from the Hodegos by Anastasios the Sinaite (CPG 7745),203 entitled 'Όροι διάφοροι(= Hodegos, ch. 2) and De duabus ίn Chrίsto naturίs (= Hodegos, ch. 1 [?]). 204 Το them is added the dogmatic florilegium known as Doctrίna Patrum de Incarnatίone Verbί (ed. F. DΙΕΚΑΜΡ, Mϋnster 1907; repr. Aschendorff 1981 ), more specifically, in regard to philosophy, ch. 6. 11.4. Β. Wrίtίngs

of cosmologίcal or anthropologίcal sίgnifιcance

11.4.B.a. Many chapters in the Exposίtίo fideί 205 cover cosmological subjects (ch. 19-24) or anthropological subjects (ch. 26-39), the Iatter

IV, p. 109- 53 .

197

ΚΟΠΕR

198

Του όσίου πατρός ήμωv 1ωάvvου του ΔαμασκηvοiJ περί συνθέτο υ φύσεως κατά

άκεφάλωv: Κοττε R 199

IV, p. 409- 17.

Του μακαρίου 1ωάvvου μοvαχοiJ ΔαμασκηvοiJ περi των ιδιωμάτων των έv τφ έvi

Χριστφ τφ Κυρίφ ήμωv δύο φύσεων, έξ έπιδρομίjς δι': καi περi δύο θελημάτων καi έvεργειωv

IV, p. 173- 231 . IV, p. 238- 53. 201 ΚΟΠΕR IV, p. 263- 88. 202 On this subject, see CONTOUMAS-CONTI CELLO 1996, CXYIII-CLXIX. 203 A NASTASIOS ΤΗ Ε SιΝΑ ΙΤΕ, Vίae dux / Όδηγός, ed. Κ.-Η. UτΗ ΕΜΑΝΝ (CCSG 8, Turnhout, Leuven, 1981 ). 204 Ηοεcκ , ρ . 22, n° 17; ρ. 23 , n° 26. καi μιας ύποστάσεως: ΚοττεR 200

ΚΟΠΕR

205

Του όσίου άββίJ. 1ωάwου πρεσβυτέρου ΔαμασκηvοiJ έκδοσις άκριβής της όρθοδόξου

πίστεως: ΚοπΕ R

11.

I 40

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

consisting chiefly in retrievals or revisions from Nemesius ofEmesa's De natura homίnίs (CPG 3550).206 11.4.B.b. These chapters have sometimes been disseminated as separate opuscules: thus, Quίd est homo? (Τί έστιν άνθρωπος; PG 95, 244) substantially restates Exposίtίo fideί 24; De mensίbus macedonίcίs (PG 95, 236-8) cites Exposίtίo fideί 20 and 21. Even so, the inauthenticity of the great rnajority of opuscules of cosmological signifance put down to JD must be underlined. 20 7 11.4.B.c. Inauthentic and without philosophical interest are two other astronomical writings transmitted under JD's name. 208 11.4.B.d. The pseudepigraphic opuscule De generatίone homίnίs (CPG 8123), also transrnitted under the narnes of Pliny, Libanios and Galen, was edited and published by Κ. ΚRUMBACΙ-ΙER, Studίen zu den Legenden des hl. Theodosίos (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1892, Munich 1893), p. 220- 379 and 345- 7. 11.4.B.e. Unlike these opuscules, the De vίrtutίbus et νίtίίs (CPG 8111 ), 209 the oldest rnanuscript evidence for which dates back to the 8th century, was presented as authentic by Hoeck, 210 but rejected amongst the inauthentic works by Μ. Geerard, who compares it to De vίrtutίbus et passίonίbus (CPG 4055) which comes from the literature of 'Ephraem graecus ' . The philosophical significance of this opuscule resides in the systematic classification of the five 'double' sense of the body and the soul, and the corresponding virtues and vices, which it advances. ΙΙ. 4. C. Wrίtίngs pertίnent

that preserve fragments ofphίlosophίcal sίgnifίcance or to the hίstoιy ofphίlosophy

11.4.C.a. De haeresίbus § 83 preserves two fragments frorn John Philoponos' De arbίtrίo (CPG 7260): 2 11 'Ιωάννου γραμματικού του τριθε'ϊτου του

206 Οη the anthropology of JD, see most recently F.R. G AHBAUE R, 'Die Anthropologie des Johannes νοη Damaskos' , Theologίe und Phίlosophίe 69 (1994), p. 1- 21 . 207 Ι-Ιοεcκ , p. 51 - 2. 208 Ι-Ιοεcκ , p. 48- 9, η 0 122- 3. 209 Περi άρετών καi κακιών ψυχικών καi σωματικών : PG 95, 85- 97 . 210

Ηοεcκ,

p. 28, n° 50- 51 .

211

ΚοπΕR

IV, p. 19-67.

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

41

λεγομένου Φιλοπόνου έκτου δ' λόγου του Διαιτητου; 212 Έκτου Διαιτητου

κεφάλαιον ζ'. 213

11.4.C.b. Sacra Parallela. Generally cited under the title Sacra Parallela are several collections that were compiled from the remnants of the great florilegium composed by JD (or completed under his patronage ), which was titled the Hίera (Ιερά) and was divided into three books: Ι. God; 11. Humanity; ΠΙ. Virtues and vices, aπanged into pairs or 'parallels'. It seems that, in the initial form of the work, each lemma or title assembled scriptural and patristic quotations presented in a regular order: 1. Old Testament quotations; 2. New Testament quotations; 3. Patristic quotations, including [a] great authorities: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria; [b] ante-Nicene fathers: Clement of Rome and the ps.-Clementines, lgnatius, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumatourgos, Athenodorus, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Peter of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea (and Eusebius of Alexandria), Doctrίna Petrί; 214 4. Quotations from Josephus and Philo of Alexandria; 215 5. Contrary to what appears in the later collections of the Sacra Parallela, no quotations from profane authors are contained in the Hίera. - The best known collection of the Sacra Parallela, and the only one edited, is the Florίlegίum vatίcanum. 216 lbid. , p. 50- 51. lbid. , p. 51- 5. 214 Critical ed. ofthese fragments by Κ. Ηοιι, Fragmente vornίcanίscher Kίrchenvater aus den Sacra Parallela (TU 20, 2, NF 5, 2, Leipzig 1899). 21 5 Cf. WΑιιι, Dίe Prophetenιzίtaιe, p. 36-40 and F. Ρετιτ, Έη marge de l'edition des fragments de Philon (Questions sur la Genese et l'Exode). Les florileges damasceniens ' (Studia Patristica 15, TU 128, Berlin 1984), p. 20- 25. 216 Ed. Μ. Lε QυιεΝ (Paris 1712; 2nd ed., Venice 1748), ΙΙ, p. 278- 730, repr. ίη PG 95, 1040-588 and 96, 9-442. Cf. Rι c HARD, 'Florileges' , col. 480- 81. Ιη the first edition ofhis Biblίotheca graeca, VIII [1717], p. 806-15, J.A. Fabricius provides a list ofauthors cited in Le Quien's edition. Among them, Epicurus, Plato, Pythagoras, the Stoics, and Theognis represent profane literature. Their quotations however are interpolations later than the 9th century. Ιη the 2nd edition of the Bίbliotheca graeca, ΙΧ [1737], p. 722- 32, Harles adds to this index the one prepared by Α . Μ. ΒΑΝDΙΝ Ι , Catalogι1s manuscrίptorum graecorum . Bίblίothecae Medίceae Laurentίanae ... , 1 (Florence 1764), p. 369- 70, with reference to the manuscript evidence of another collection of the Sacra Parallela, namely, Florenl. Med. Laur. , Plut 8.22. This ' mixed' index - which refers to two paginations, one for Le Quien 's edition and the other for the manuscript from Florence - was unfortunately reprinted without warning ίη PG 94, 45- 52. This is seriously misleading, for the extremely numerous names of ancient philosophers which appear there do not correspond to quotations given ίη the Sacra 212 213

I 42

John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

11.4.C.c. Ηοmίlία ίn Natίvίtatem Jesu Chrίstί. 217 This homily, the largest part of which should be recognised as authentic, was subjected to a lenthy interpolation (§ 7-10), along the lines ofthe second Oratίo ίn dormίtίonem Β. Μ V, 18. 21 8 The interpolation was taken from a text entitled Εξήγησις των πραχθέvτωv έv Περσίδι, a piece ofpagan apologetic showing amongst other things predictions ofthe birth of Christ by the Oracles. 219 11.4.C.d. Close to this theme, we have a text of doubtful attribution, but one even so regarded as authentic by Kotter (against the οpίηίοη of Hoeck), the Passίo magnί martyrίs Artemίί. 220 This text, together with Photios' Bίblίotheca, cod. 40, 221 is our principal source of knowledge of the lost Ecclesίastίcal hίstory of Philostorgios. 222

Parallela, but to chapters taken from John Stobaeus, which are added to a collection from the Damascene only in Florent. Med. Laur., Plut 8.22. Οη this matter, cf. RιcHARD, 'Florileges', col. 480 and 495. 21 7 ΚοττεR V, p. 324-47. 218 Cf. ΚοττεR V, p. 504-5. 219 Ed. Ε . BRATKE, Das sogenannte Religionsgesprach am Hof der Sasaniden (TU 19, 3; NF 4, 3, Leipzig 1899). - Note that this text is transmitted to us ίη its entirety by the iconophile florilegium in Mosqu. Mus. Hίst. 265 (Vladίmίr 197): cf. Α. AL EXA ΚJ S , Codex Parίsίnus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 34, Washington, D.C., 1996), Appendix ΠΙ. 220 ΚοττεR V, p. 202-45. 221 Ed. R. HENRY (Paris 1959), Ι , p. 23- 5. 222 Edition offragments by J. Βιοεz, Phίlostorgίus Kίrchengeschίchte (GCS 21, Leipzig 1913; 2 1972; 3 1981). - lt preserves for us notably the following fragments: ΡΗιιοsτοRο ιοs , Hίst. eccl. \ 6; Π 4, 16; ΙΙΙ 1, 2, 22- 6, 27, 28; IV \, 2, 3; V 5- 7; VII la, lb, lc, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 8a, 9a, 15a; VIII la, 6a. Το these fragments, which relate Emperor Julian's accession to the throne, there must be added passages recounting: [Ι] a debate between Julian and the bishop Macarius (§ 25- 34), in which the latter makes reference to Hermes Trismegistus and the Life of Pythagoras; [2] a second debate between Julian and Artemios (§ 40-48), in which the emperor describes his astral religion, making parallels with the Greek pantheon (Sun- Apollo, Moon- Artemis, etc.) which Artemios refuted by reca\ling an oracle from Apollo (Μή ωφελες πύματόν με καi υστατον έξερέεσθαι καi ό παθών θεός έστι, καi ού θεότης πάθειν αύτή : § 46, 1. 9- 17) and by evoking Anaxagoras, called the 'spiritual father' of Archelaos and Pericles, Socrates and Plato. Το this is added a detailed description of the destruction by divine fire of the sanctuary of Apo\lo in Daphne near Antioch. - Οη the Byzantine illustration of passages from the Passίo Artemίί and the Ηοιnίlία ίn Natίvίtatem Jesu Christi within pagan apologetic, see D . C ACΙΙ A RELΙ AS , The codex Athous Esphigmenou Ι 4 (Ph. D., New York 1995); οη JD's Hellenic culture, see also VΑΝ EsBRoεcκ, 'Le discours ', p. 62-4.

I John of Damascus (c. 655 - c. 745)

43

11.4.C.e. Concerning the Romance of Barlaam and Joasaph (CPG 8120), which as we have seen above is ηο longer attributed to JD, 223 let us simply recall that it repeats the Apology of Arίstίdes (CPG 1062), a text itself relevant to anti-pagan apologetics. 224 11.4.C.f. Finally, the Διδασκαλικαi έρμηνείαι 22 5 consists of a compilation of reports οη ancient or mythical personages and οη a good number of Greek philosophers, before and after Christ. However, neither the details given by them nor their attribution to JD should be taken seriously. 226

223

Cf. ΙΙ.1.

Vοικ, Dίe Schrίften, VI/1, p. 122- 35, gives a precise account οη the use of the Apology ofArίstides iη the Romance ojΈarlaam and Joasaph . 225 Ed . Ρ. T ANNERY, ' Fragments de Jean Damascene' , Revue des eωdes grecques 6 ( 1893), p. 85- 91 and 273- 7, οη the basis of Ραrίsίn. gr. 253 1 ( 15th C.). 226 Κ. ΚRu MBACHER, ΒΖ 2 (1893), p. 637 sq., and ΒΖ 3 (1894), p. 193; Ηοεcκ , p. 47, η 0 120. 224

II

John 111 of Antioch (996-1021) and the Life ο/ John ο/ Damascus (BHG 884)

Ιη the first half ofthe 8th century, John ofDamascus distinguished himself through his intense activity as a hymnographer, dogmatician, preacher and polemist which he undertook in Palestine, then under Umayyad rule, and most especially at the Holy Sepulchre where it seems he was priest during the patriarchate of John V of Jerusalem (705-30), at a time when a briefbut inftuential revival occuπed. However, with the exception of a testimony by Stephen the Sabaite, the Hymnographer (ob. 807), his life was not the object of an account in the years following his death, perhaps because his memory was subjected after 754 to a quadruple anathema every year with the weighty accusation that he had betrayed the Empire. Thus, the few positive details we have about him come chiefty from his works and from brief references ίη the Chronography of Theophanes the Confessor (ob. 818), composed in the years 810-14. 1 The first hagiographic compositions about this fervent defender of icons and the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon probably appeared in the second half of the 9th century with the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Ten years ago, we advanced the hypothesis that the Life of the Melodίsts Cosmas and John Damascene (BHG 394) dates to this era. 2 If the absence of a critical edition of this composite text keeps us from offering sufficient evidence, we would note here that two new elements confirm its antiquity. 3 At the end

On all these points, see CοΝτιcειιο 2000 and our Introduction to Jοι-ιΝ 0F DAMAscus, Expose de lafoi orthodoxe (SC 535, Paris 201 Ο), p. 11- 30. 2 Cο Ντιcειιο 2000, p. 992-7. - This Life was edited by PA Ι'ADOl'0uιos -ΚERAM E U S, Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 271 - 302. Since our purpose is not to examine the questions of the date and author of this text, we briefly note two new points: [1] The Life of John (BHG 884) explicitly cites the Life of the Melodίsts (BHG 394), which describes the Damascene's dogmatic work in these terms: άλλος Μωϋσης γενόμενος, θεοχαράκτους χαράττων νομοθεσίας (ed. PAPA Dorouιos­ ΚEι?.AMEUS, Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 280). Furthermore, it attributes this reference to a ' man who was not deceived ': ην αν τις παντός λόγου όρθου νομοθεσίας έρει, καi πλάκας Μωσαϊκάς, ούχ άμαρτήσει του άληθους (PG 94, 448ΑΒ) . See also below, n. 95- 7. [2] Α recent study on the Ίegend of the severed hand' argues for the anteriority of the versions that implicate

II 2

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

of the 9th century, another hagiographical text was composed, the Short Life of John Damascene (BHG 885b) which was the object of a critical edition in 2001 οη the basis of three manuscripts, including Sίnaίtίc. gr. 379 (IOth- 1lth C.). 4 Το confirm this dating, we add that this Short Life is probably the source for the notice in the Synaxarίon of Constantίnople prepared at the order of Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos (913-59). 5 As for the Menologίon of Basil 11 (976-1025), its magnificently illuminated notice substantially reprises the Synaxarίon , but it modifies that material at certain points, notably with reference to details supplied by the Life of the Melodίsts. 6 There is ηο Βίος of the Damascene in the Menologίon of Symeon Metaphrastes (fl. 982). 7 By contrast, the Life of our holy Father John Damascene (BHG 884) takes its place in later recompositions originating from this Menologίon, for instance in Athon. Vatoped. 497, where it is one of two texts added to Metaphrastical hagiographies. 8 Despite its chronological Constantine V over those who place the events under Leo ΠΙ. The Life of the Melodίsts , which commits this anachronism and situates the episode under Constantine V, thus is part of the oldest accounts. See Ι. Rocιιow, Die Legende von der abgehaι1enen Hand des Johannes Damaskenos (Berliner Byzantinistische Studien 8, Frankfort/Main, Berlin 2007). R. GΚΕΝ Ακου -ΜΡοRοΒιιου, 'Βίος σύντομος 'Ιωάννου τού Δαμασκηνού (BHG 885b)' , Βυζανrινά 22 (2001), p. 67- 73 . Η . DειΕΙΙΑΥΕ, Synaxarίum Ecclesίae Constantίnopolίtanae e codίce Sirmondίano nunc Berolίnensί adίectίs synaxarίίs selectίs (Brussels 1902), col. 278- 9. - This dating to the first half ofthe \Oth century must be treated with caution, since the different parts ofthe Synaxarίon have not yet been dated with certainty. We note however that the notice οη John of Damascus is present already ίη Hierosolymίt. Patr. 40 from the I 0th- 11 th century. 1/ Menologίo dί Βαsί/ίο 11 (Cod. vatίcano greco 1613) (Turin 1907), ΙΙ, pl. 213; PG 117, 184 BC (29 November). - It cannot be precluded that the author ofthe notice in the Menologίon also had access to the Short Life (BHG 885b ). Οη this date, cf. Ch. Ηοσει, Symeon Metaphrastes. Rewrίtίng and Canonίzatίon (Copenhague 2002), p. 69- 70. Οη the absence of a Life of John Damascene in the Menologίon: ίbίd. , p. 125. Οη this manuscript, see S. EusτRATΙADES et α/ίί, Κατάλογος των έν τfj Ίερά Movfj Βατοπεδίου άποκειμένων κωδίκων, Ι (Paris 1924), p. 103, which he dates from 10th century, but also Α. EHRHAKD, ϋberlieferung und Bestand der hagίographίschen und homίletίschen Lίteratur der grίechίschen Kίrche (TU 50- 52, Leipzig, Berlin 1936-52), ΠΙ, p. 19- 21 . According to Ehrhard, Athon. Vatoped. 497 is the oldest witness of the 'verkίirzter Metaphrast' for the months of September to December. lts date should be after the 10th century. The two texts added there are the Martyrdom of Saίnt Artemίos (BHG 170- 7 lc) - put down to the authority of John ofDamascus - and the Life ofJohn . The folios οη which the latter is copied seem to be a late addition, probably from the 16th century. This manuscript clearly should be the object of further consideration.

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

3

distance from the facts it purports to relate, the Life ofJohn has emerged as a relatively reliable naπative, both in the cult of the aforementioned saint and ίη modern research. 9 The reasons are as follows: it is coherent, written in clear Greek of a high standard; it maintains close ties to the oriental tradition, especially the Arabophone tradition, from which it claims to draw; 10 its composition was attributed to a patriarch of Jerusalem. 11 Treated as an Όfficial Life', it is the ground of all subsequent hagiographic activity οη the Damascene and supplants other Lives already in circulation. Thus, in the 12th century, the Life of our holy and God-bearίng Fathers [. ..}, the brothers John Damascene and Cosmas (BHG 395) - a work by the patriarch of Jerusalem John Merkouropoulos (fl. 1156) - uses it to refute the major claims of the Life of the Melodίsts; ίη the l 3th-l 4th century, it was revised in an affected style by ConstantineAkropolites (ob. 1324);1 2 ίη 1360, Chalcen. Panaghίa 1 gives the Life ofJohn as well as the Life of the Melodίsts, though explaining that the latter is expressly forbidden. 13 If the Όfficial Life' of John of Damascus is the basis of his cult in Byzantium, it also has contacts with the oriental Lives of our saint, particularly an Arabίc Life composed c. 1084-85 by Michael of St Symeon's, near Antioch. Note, however, despite great similarities between these two texts, it is accepted today that they should not be read as an original and its translation. Instead, they had a common archetype. The Life of John explicitly refers to this Arab source, though Michael of Antioch

9 Despite the criticisms made against the Life of John , scholars have generally retained from this source three elements not verίfied by another source: the existence oftwo Cosmases; the late date of John 's departure from the court of the Caliph ίη Damascus; his entry into the monastery of St Sabas. 10 Cf. ΡΟ 94, 489 ΑΒ. 11 DετοRΑΚΕS 1979, p. 35, refers to a remark made ίη the Life ofCosmas (ΒΗΟ 394a) preserved ίη Vatίcan . Barberίn. gr. 583 (15th C.) and edited by him. Cf. Th. D ET0RAΚES, 'Ά νέκδοτος Βίος Κοσμα του Μ αιουμα ', Έπετηρiς Έταιρείας Βυζαντινων Σπουδών 41 ( 1974 ), ρ . 259- 96, quoting ρ . 280 : έτέρου τετυχηκότος έπαινετου καi ύμνητου όμωνυμουντος αύτφ

καί τόν άρχιερατικόν πεπιστευμένου θρόνου της Ίερουσαλήμ.

on John Damascene (ΒΗΟ 885) : ΡΟ 140, 812- 85 . The Life of the Melodίsts is found ίη f' \08ν- 121 and the Life ofJohn in f' 328- 7'. Cf. Μ . KoURourou, Ρ. ΟέΗΙΝ , Catalogue des manuscrίts conserves dans la Bίblίotheque du Patrίarcat CEcumenίque. Les manuscrίts du monastere de la Panaghίa de Chalkί, l (Turnhout 2008), p. 64, who also note this marginal comment at f' \08 ν : Τουτον τόν λόγον μηδείς των 12

Panegyrίc

13

γραμματέων άναγνώτω· έπεi σύμπας ψευδής έστι μηδένα άληθές φθεγγόμενος- ωσπερ γαρ

iiv

εϊ τις τό της κύλικος χε'ίλος χρίση μέλιτι, τό δ'έντός εχει φαρμάκου άρσενικου μεστόν,

ουτως καi ούτοσi ό λόγος εχει.

II 4

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

passes over it in silence. 14 It seems that our Όfficial Life' saw the light of day in a place where Arabic was spoken. This claim is one of the factors that serves to identify its author. It also helps to situate its composition in a given geographic area. We will initially consider the data on the author and the date of composition of the Life of John (BHG 884), in particular through its manuscript tradition. Then we will turn to examining the 'ideal candidate' for the authorship ofthis text who, from our perspective, is not John ΥΠ of Jerusalem (964- 66) as generally held, but John ΠΙ of Antioch. We will consider what interest John ΠΙ could have had for the type of hagiography common to his time, namely, metaphrasis, and we will also pose the question whether the Life ofJohn is a metaphrastic work. Finally, we will conclude with what sense the composition of this Life could have had in Antiochian society in the aftermath of the Byzantine reconquest of Syria. Our intention here is not to answer these problems definitively, but to supply further research by furnishing a certain number of indices that enable a better evaluation of the place, the validity, and the scope of our text.

1. The question of the author and date of composition of the Life of John If the Life of John was very quickly considered the work of a patriarch of Jerusalem named John, this attribution remains disputed to the present. Indeed, the author presents himself as the namesake of the saint whom he eulogises: he is thus called John. However the manuscript tradition, abundant and as yet inadequately studied, is divided οη the matter of the identification of this person who, by his style, his tone and his comments on the paίdeίa of his era, seems quite clearly to have been a learned cleric. Ιη 1950, Hoeck signalled the existence of 62 manuscripts preserving this Life, without however providing a list. 15 According to him, 38 manuscripts attributed it to John, patriarch of Jerusalem, whilst 19 others consider it the work of John, patriarch of Antioch. Five further manuscripts do not bear any indication of authorship. Amongst these Iatter is the palimpsest 14 Cf. the German translation ofthe Arabίc Life by G. GRAF, ΆDas arabische Original der Yita des hl. Johannes von Damaskus' , Der Katholίk 93 (1913), p. 170: Ίch erfuhr von dem gesamten Yolke, da13 es von ihm noch keine vollstandige Lebens-Geschichte gebe, weder griechisch noch arabisch' . See also above, n. 1Ο . 15 Ηο εc κ, p. 7- 8.

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

5

Vίndob. phίlos. gr. 158 copied, for the part that is relevant for us, at the turn of the 10th and 11th century [since 2010: end of the 11th C.]. 16 Another manuscript also caught Hoeck's eye. lt is Venet. Marcίan. gr. app. VII.25 (coll. 972) from the 12th century, where the Life of John is attributed to John of Antioch. This manuscript also has a Ρίnαχ which attributes it to John of Jerusalem. However, this information was cancelled by a later hand, who corrected it by substituting for it the name of the patriarch of Antioch. According to Hoeck, who considered this correction to have been at the origin of an entire branch of the manuscript tradition, there is a determining factor. We follow him οη that point, for this argument could also run in the other direction, with the substitution being the act of an informed proof-reader. Invoking the antiquity of Vίndob. phίlos. gr. 158 and the anteriority of the lost Arabίc Life, the redaction which is dated to the end of the 9th century, Hoeck dates the composition of the Life of John to the mid-10th century. However, during this period, ηο patriarch of Antioch was named John. Οη the other hand, from 964 to 66, Yuhanna b. Djamϊ' John VII - was patriarch of Jerusalem. 17 For Hoeck, he is therefore the author of this text, so that the improbable 'John of Antioch' should be excluded from the discussion. 18 The superior of the Benedictine abbey of Ettal ίη Bavaria, where the critical edition of the complete works of John of Damascus was prepared, Hoeck assuredly had privileged access to the microfilms of most relevant manuscripts. However, after these brief remarks, he has published nothing οη the subject and the case is still pending.

16

Cf. Η.

HUNGER,

Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Osterreichίschen

l (Vienna 1961 ), p. 261 , who favours the 10th century. - EHRHARD, ϋberlieferung und Bestand, 111, p. 1026, η . 1, gives a highly detailed description of the palimpsest and remarks that it does not necessarily go back to the 10th century, but could also be from the start of the 11 th century. He recalls a warning ϋοm Paul Ρ εετ ε ιιs, 'C.R. η 0 16- 17', ΑΒ 33 (1914), p. 78- 81, that 'il ne faudrait pas rajeunir le palimpseste uniquement pour les besoins de la cause' , then summarises his own findings: 'Bei dem Entzifferungsversuch [ ... ] kam ich zu dem Ergebnis, daB es in jener Minuskel geschrieben ist, die dem 10. Jh. allgemein zugewiesen wird, und daB es kaum in daB 11. Jh., auf keinen Fall aber in die Wende des 11 .-12. Jhs verlegt werden kann' . - For a more recent dating of this palimpsest, which situates its production at the end of the 11 th century, see n. 27, below. 17 Οη John VII of Jerusalem, see Ι. ΚRΑτσ1κονs κv, Α . VΑs 1ι1εν (eds), Histoίre de Yahya-Ibn-Sa 'id d Άntioche. continuateur de Sa 'ϊd-Ibn-Bitriq (ΡΟ 18, Paris 1924) , p. 799- 802. 18 Ηοεcκ , p. 9 and n. 3, deplores the 'resurrection' of John of Antioch implemented by J. N ASRALLAH, Saint Jean de Damas. Son epoque, sa νίe, son ΙEuνre (Harissa 1950), p. 6, n. 1.

Natίonalbibliothek,

II 6

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

Based on Hoeck's estimations, Detorakes gave in 1979 a list of 22 manuscripts of the Life ofJohn. 19 Among them, twelve attribute it to John, patriarch of Jerusalem, and ten to John, patriarch of Antioch. Detorakes presented the palimpsest from Vienna as a witness in favour of John of Jerusalem, but at that time, this could only be a hypothesis. 20 The oldest known manuscript clearly providing this information was therefore Hίerosolymίt. Patr. 17 (12th C.), 21 which is relatively late. Indeed, four manuscripts more or less old attribute the text to John of Antioch: Athon. Vatoped. 497 ;22 Athon. Lavra 456 ( 11 th C.); Venet. Marcίan. gr. app. VII.25 (coll. 972) (12th C.); Chalcen. Panaghίa 10 (12th C.). 23 The existence of these witnesses notwithstanding, Detorakes attributes the composition of the Life of John to John VIII of Jerusalem ( 1098-1106/7). He advances two arguments: it is later than the Arabίc Life by Michael of Antioch; John of Jerusalem is the author explicitly cited by a Life of Cosmas the Melodίst (BHG 394a) preserved in Vatίcan. Barberίn. gr. 583 (15th C.). 24 We note, however, that Detorakes contradicts himself, since he takes up a position in favour of an author much later than the three manuscripts that he already knows. Though Hoeck and Detorakes deserve credit for starting to reflect on the manuscript tradition ofthe Life ofJohn and make apparent the complexity ofthis case, they have given no evidence establishing that it is the work of a patriarch of Jerusalem, whether John VII or John VIII. In addition, they gave very little attention to the witnesses pertaining to John ofAntioch. Yet it is him the manuscripts of the 11 th century mention, whilst we must wait till the 12th century forthe name ofJohn of Jerusalem to appear. Ιη addition, there indeed was a prelate with that name at the turn of the 10th and 11 th century: John 111 Polites, patriarch of Antioch from 996 to 1021. Although the period when he was active is very close to our two oldest manuscripts (Vίndob. phίlos. gr. 158 and Athon. Vatoped. 497), it was not necessarily

1979, p. 30- 6. See η . 27, below. 21 Οη this manuscript, see Α . PAPADorouιos-KERAMEUS , Ίεροσολυμιτική Βιβλιοθήκη , Ι (Saint Petersburg 1891 ), p. 69- 77. The codex comes from the monastery of St Sabas. lt is a metaphrastic Menologίon for the summer months. The Life ofJohn is the final number ίη the collection (η 0 98; f' 226--42). It is out of place, since οη the previous folio (224' ) we read: τέλος τού αύγούστου μηνός . It may have been added to the collection at an even later date. 22 Οη this manuscript, see above, η . 8. 23 Cf. Κο υRΟUΙ'Ο υ-G έ ΗΙΝ, Catalogue de /α Panaghίa , 1, p. 80. 24 DετοRΑκεs 1979, p. 70- 80. This Life was edited by DετoRAKEs , 'Άvέκδοτος Βίος'. 19

20

DΕΤΟΙΙ.ΑΚΕS

II John

ΠΙ ofAntίoch

and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

7

later than them, particularly if one dates the composition ofthe Life ofJohn around the year 1000. These two manuscripts are generally dated to the end of the 10th century, in particular by Eustratiades, Hunger, and Kotter. 25 In the matter of their dating, however, it seems to us the opinions of Peeters and Ehrhard were not sufficiently taken into consideration. 26 Indeed, according to them, nothing precludes that Vιndob. phίlos. gr. 158 and Athon. Vatoped. 497 were copied ίη the first quarter or half of the 11 th century. Without delaying over these questions that will probably be answered by a philological and palaeographic study in the future, 27 we shall now examine why the personality of John ΠΙ of Antioch, as well as the circumstances ίη which he lived, make him an 'ideal candidate' for the authorship of our text. 2. John 111 of Antioch

ίη

conternporary research

Well before HoeckandDetorakes, Eustratiades briefty addressed thequestion of the authorship of the Life of John and, through information revealed by Athonite manuscripts, noted that further investigation into the person ofthe patriarch of Antioch was needed. 28 However, at this time, John ΠΙ Polites was relatively unknown and Eustratiades confused him with John V the Oxite (1088/89- 1100). 29 Αη important personality from the reign ofBasil 11, p. 195 and 201. See above, n. 8 and 16. See above, n. 16. - lt is necessary to repeat the argument of Peeters and Ehrhard in also considering recent research pertaining to Symeon Metaphrastes and the diffusion of his hagiographic work: cf. HoGEL, Symeon Meιaphrastes, p. 127- 34 and 154: 'The earliest manuscripts of the verkiirlzter and erweίlerter Metaphrast go back to the eleventh century, and if Athos was the place of origin ofthis activity it belongs to the period not long after the foundation ofthe great Lavra'. 27 In a work appearing a few months after the publication of this article, J. GRu sκoνA, Untersuchungen zu den grίechίschen Palίmpsesten der 6sιerreίchίschen Naιίonalbίblίothek (Yienna 2010), dates the Yienna palimpsest to the end ofthe 11 th century, all the while noting the mention of John Όf Jerusalem'. This rather late dating, which is opposed to the dating of Eustratiades, Hunger and Kotter, supports our argument. In effect, although it confirms Detorakes' hypothesis, according to which the name of John of Jerusalem appears in this manuscript, it situates this witness wel I after the date that we maintain for the composition of the Life ofJohn , to the time when the 'transformation' ofthe name of John of Antioch into 'John of Jerusalem' was probably already accomplished. 28 S. Ε υ sτRΑΤΙΑοεs, 'Ό άγιος 'Ιωάννης ό Δαμασκηνός καi τα ποιητικά αύτου εργα ', Νέα Σιών 26 (1931), p. 385-401, particularly p. 389- 90. 29 lbίdem , p. 390. - On John Υ the Oxite, see J. NASRALLAH, Hίstoίre du mouvement lίtteraίre dans l 'Eglίse melchίte du V au χy, sίecle, ΠΙ (Louvain, Paris 1983), p. 86- 9; 25

26

Κοπ ε R Υ,

II 8

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

John ΠΙ happily emerged from the shadows a few years later in 1933, thanks to a study by Grumel, 30 based on the Hίstory ofYahya-lbn-Sa'id of Antioch (c. 981- after 1034)31 and the Taktίkon of Nikon of the Black Mountain (1025- c. 1110). 32 The dossier was completed in 1960 by Darrouzes, who published several letters sent to John Polites. 33 Then, with the development of studies οη the second Byzantine period of Syria, and more specifically thanks to the recent synthesis by Todt, the figure of John ΠΙ of Antioch has begun to be known with relative precision. 34 Who then is this patriarch? Α Constantinopolitan (whence, probably, his sobriquet: Polites), John is a great scholar and man at Court. One of his correspondents, the judge Philetos Synadenos, based in Tarsus, claims to be unable to follow his lofty and impetuous style: Σύ δέ μοι τήν γραφήν δεχόμενος δάνειζε καi τάς χάριτας καi άντίγραφε, μή

άνωθεν καi άπό υψους, άλλ ' σία εγώ νοειν δύναμαι, ό τοίς άνοήτοις Κίλιξι συμβαρβαρωθείς- εi γαρ τήν των λόγων ροιζηδόν έπαφήσεις, έκ πρώτης πάντως καταπλήξεις της πείρας καi δειλόν με, τόν θρασύν, καi αναλκιν άπεργάσn. 3 5

Before 996, John holds the office of chartophylax of the Great Church in Constantinople, per the testimony of Yahya.36 According to Vinson, three letters from Metropolitan Leo of Synada were also addressed to him in Κ. -Ρ.

Τοοτ,

Regίon

und grίechisch-orιhodoxes Patrίarchat von Antίocheίa ίn und ίm Zeίtalter der Kreuzzuge (969-1204) , mimeographed

rnίtιelbyzantίnίscher Zeίt

Habilitation (Wiesbaden 1998), p. 702- 21. 30 V. GRUMEL, 'Les patriarches grecs d'Antioche du nom de Jean (ΧΙ• et XII' siecles)' , ΕΟ 32 (1933), p. 279- 99, particularly p. 281-4. 31 The Melkite Yahya, who emigrated fiΌm Caiω to Antioch in the second half of the reign of Basil ΙΙ, is a witness of choice. On him, see NASRALLAH, Mouvernent lίtιeraίre, ΙΙΙ , p. 167- 72; C. ΗοιΜ ΕS, 'Political Elites in the Reign ofBasil 11', ed. Ρ. MAGDALrN0, Byzantίurn ίn the Year 1000 (The Medieval Mediteπanean 45, Leiden, Boston 2003), p. 35- 69, chiefly p. 39. 32 V. Β εΝεsενιc , Taktίkon Nίkona Cernogorca, [Λόγος να'], in Ρ. US P EN SΚJ.Ι, Catalogus codίωrn rnanuscrίptorurn graecorurn quί ίn rnonasterίo Sanctae Catharίnae ίn Monte Sina asservantur, 1 (Saint Petersburg 1917), p. 576- 84. - On Nikon see NASRALLAH, Mouvernent litteraίre, 111, p. 110- 22. 33 J. DARRouzέs, Epίstolίers byzantίns du Χ" sίecle (Archives de l' Orient chretien 6,

Paris 1960): letters ofLeo ofSynada, n° 14- 16 and n° 47- 9; letters of Philetos Synadenos, n° 5- 7. 34 Τοοτ, Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 654-60. 35 DARRouzέs, Epίstolίers, p. 254, n° 7. 36 ΚRΑτcιικονsκν-V Αs ιιιεν, Hίstoίre de Yahya-lbn-Sa Ίd (ΡΟ 23, Paris 1932), p. 445 . See also the seal of John Chartophylax identified by V. LAURENT, Le Corpus des sceaux de l'Ernpίre byzantίn , V/ 1 (Paris 1963), p. 70- 71 , n° 88.

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

9

this capacity. 37 Ιη one of them, John is described as a generous man, an excellent friend: Ί-Ιμείς ούδέποτέ σου έπελαθόμεθα, κάλλιστε άνθρώπων, άλλ' είς νουν σε εχομεν καi των άπε ίρων σου καλων έν διηνεκει έσμεν μνήμει.

[ . .. ] Νυν δέ πρωτος

καi

γράψας καi πράξας καi πέ μψας τά συνήθη δωρα, πρωτος καi εiς φιλίαν, πρωτος

καi είς εύεργεσίαν παρ ' ήμων άναγραφήσn τε καi άναγορευθήσn . 38

The office of the chartophylax has been well identified. Ιη the first instance it includes the functions of archivist and librarian for the Patriarchate and, as such, those of authenticating and validating documents required for conciliar or synodal debates. The chartophylax is one of the highest dignitaries of the Great Church, after the patriarch. Having responsibility for the latter's coπespondence , he also kept the patriarchal seal. 39 Αη unedited text40 by John dates back, according to Grumel, to the period when he was still ίη that office. It is a Responsa de baptίsmo ad Theodorum metropolίtanum Ephesίnum, Parίsίn. gr. 1304 (15th C.). Allatius published this brief extract: Πως τανύν τινές ψευδόχριστοι καi ψευτοδιδάσκαλοι άναμοχλεύουσι, καi

σπουδάζουσι παρασαλεύσαι δρια Πατέρων, καi ούκ άκούωσι τού λέγοντος, 'Επικατάρατος ό σαλεύων δρια Πατέρων

[cf. Council ίη Trullo, canon 19].

Όμοίως καi τού θείου Άποστόλου Παύλου λέγοντος, Εϊ τις εύαγγελίζεται ύμίν

παρ'δ εύηγγελισάμεθα κ~ν αγγελος έξ ούρανού

11, ανάθεμα εστω [cf. Ga 1, 8].

Καi γαρ ή τού Θεού καθολική καi αποστολική 'Εκκλησία ού μόνον έγγράφως,

άλλα καi άγράφως πολλά παρέλαβεν, ώς αύτός ό θείος Παύλος φησίν. 4 1

37 See Μ . Ρ. VιNSON , The Correspondence ofLeo, Metropolίtan ofSynada and Syncellus (CFHB 23, Washington, D. C., 1985), p. 130- 31 . 38 DA RRouzέs, Epίstolίers, p. 201- 2, η 0 48 : Είς τόν χαρτοφύλακα. This text is before Leo 's embassy to the court ofOtto ΠΙ (996-1002) in Rome. 39 Οη the office ofthe chartophylax, see J. D A RRou zέs, Recherches sur les όφφίκια de l 'Eglίse byzantίne (Archives de l' Orient chretien 11, Paris 1970), p. 334- 53 ; J. Μ. W EHMEYER, ' The Chartophylax : Archivist and Librarian to the Patriarch in Constantinople', Lίbrarίes & Culture 32/ 1 (1997), p. l07- 12. 40 We have recently edited this text: V. KoNTOUMA, 'Bapte1ηe et communion des jeunes enfants: la Lettre de Jean d'Antioche iι Theodore d 'Ephese (998/999)', REB 69 (2011), p. 185- 204 (text and translation, p. 200- 203). 41 Leo ALLATIUS, De aetate, et ίnterstitίίs ίn collatίone Ordίnum etίam apud Graecos servandίs (Rome 1638), p. 215. - There is no quotation from Paul about tradition that is unwritten (άγραφος). John ΠΙ probably refers to a passage from Exposίtίo fideί 89 by John of Damascus: Ότι δέ καi πλειστα οί άπόστολοι άγράφως παραδεδώκασι, γράφει Παύλος ό των έθνων άπόστολος- 'Άρα oi:iv άδελφοί, στήκετε καi κρατειτε τάς παραδόσεις ήμων, ας έδιδάχθητε είτε δια λόγου είτε δι ' έπιστολης ήμων [2 Thess 2: 15], καi πρός Κορινθίους-

II 10

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

Although the Responsa was attributed to John ΠΙ in his capacity as patriarch of Antioch, Grumel supposes that it is earlier than his nomination, noting that this type of writing falls within the remit of a chartophylax. We note here that an official response would not have born his name; 42 the letter, which is explicitly attributed to him, could date back to the very first years of his patriarchate (i.e., 966-99), a period during which our prelate doubtless still lived in Constantinople. 43 For the installation of John did not pass smoothly and it is entirely possible that the effective date of his aπival into Syria was 999, the year Basil ΙΙ arrived there to consolidate his holdings after the death in combat of doux Damian Dalassenos (ob. 998).44 We know that Basil was in Antioch on 20th September 999. John ΠΙ was likely there too, and it was probably there that the emperor gave him the order to rebuild the cathedral of the city οη the model of Hagia Sophia. 45 From December 999, the area was also pacified under the command of a new doux, the magistros Nikephoros Ouranos. 46 The period that followed is marked by the restoration of Antioch as the administrative, military, economic and ecclesiastical centre of the region. 47 However, ifJohn declined to take up his see between 996 and 999, warfare at the Empire's frontiers wasn 't the only reason. Following the assassination of Patriarch Christophoros in 967, and the reconquest of Antioch by the Byzantines in 969, the Christian communities there - Melkites, Armenians, Jacobites - confronted or participated in revolts against the emperor's military leaders. The Antiochian Church evaded the control ofthe basileus

'Επαινώ δέ ύμας, άδελφοί, δτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καi, καθώς παρέδωκα ύμιν, τάς

[1 Cor 11 :2] . Cf. ΚοττΕR ΙΙ, p. 208. Another theme dear to John of Damascus, that of 'limits set by the holy fathers ', is found in this passage: cf. Expositίo fidei \, ed. ΚοττΕR ΙΙ, p. 8. 42 Moreover, a patriarch of Antioch would not be consulted - except in extraordinary cases - by a metropo\itan of Ephesus, since that see fal\s under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople. 43 For a more precise dating, see ΚοΝτου ΜΑ, 'Bapteme et communion', p. 188- 90. 44 On whom, Τοοτ, Region und Patriarchat, p. 290. 45 Τοοτ , Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 789; ΚRΑτc ιικονs κv-ΥΑ s ιιιΕν, Histoire de YahyaJbn-Sa 'ίd (ΡΟ 23 , Paris 1932) p. 445-6. 46 Τοοτ , Regίon und Patrίarchat , p. 290- 92 . Nikephoros was duke of Antioch from 999 to l007 . 47 See Κ . -Ρ. Τοοτ, Άntioch in the Middle Byzantine Period (969- I084) : The Reconstruction of the City as an Administrative, Military, Economic and Ecclesiastical Center' , Topoi. Orient-Occident. Suppl. 5 (2004), p. 171 - 90. παραδόσεις κατέχετε

II John

ΠΙ ofAntίoch

and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

11

who, after 970, took the initiative of directly nominating the patriarch from Constantinople. lt was thus that John I Tzimiskes (969- 76) designated his spiritual father, Theodore ofKoloneia, as patriarch. 48 In 978, the installation of Agapios 11, the Melkite bishop of Aleppo in the see of Antioch, did not improve the situation at all. 49 His independence vis-a-vis Basil 11, who had yet to put his trust in a compromise with Arabophone Christians in the region, drove the emperor to demand his abdication. 50 The strong man of the Melkite community bowed to the imperial decision and thus it was that John ΠΙ was nominated. Fearing however that he would be removed from his patriarchate by the metropolitans, he renounced being ordained by them, giving away 'the privileges of the Church of Antioch' (τα τfjς έκκλησίας Άντιοχείας προνόμια) in an official act - a σιγίλλιον - that is lost today. 5 1 By this expedient, according to Nikon ofthe Black Mountain, 'it was established that [the patriarch of Antioch] would be ordained by the patriarch of Constantinople. ' 52 lt is easy to imagine the former chartophylax at work in the redaction of this sigil, also called παράνομον by Nikon. John Polites had the authority ofhis office, which included validating documents and patriarchal correspondence by affixing οη them the seal. He had a mission: to pacify and restore the Church of Antioch recently restored to the fold of the Empire, and he knew how. This powerful and impetuous man, as his correspondent from Tarsus described him, had no intention to bow to or negotiate with a party whom he no doubt considered dissident. According to Nikon, it was he, and not the basileus or patriarch, who took the initiative to settle the matter; it was he who also promulgated this decision, which would determine the fate of

On Theodore ΙΙ of Antioch (970- 6), see Τοοτ, Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 641- 5. On Agapios ΙΙ (ob. 997), see N AS RALLAH, Mouvement lίtteraίre, ΠΙ , p. 82; Τοοτ, Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 645- 54. 50 On this affair, see Κ.-Ρ. Τοοτ, 'Griechisch-Orthodoxe (Melkitische) Christen im zentralen und sίidlichen Syrien. Die Periode von der arabischen Eroberung bis zur Verlegung der Palτiarchenresidenz nach Damaskus (635- 1365)', Le Museon 119 (2006), p. 33- 88, especially p. 52-4; Τοοτ, Άntioch in the Middle Byzantine Period ', p. 174- 5; 189- 90. 51 Cf. Β ΕΝΕSΕν ι c:, Taktίkon Nίkona , p. 582: άλλά καl την σφραγ ίδα παράνομον έχε ι 48

49

ό Κωνσταντινουπόλεως διά σπουδη ς Ίωάννου του άγιωτάτου , τα τη ς έκκλησίας Άντιοχε ίας προνόμια έδωκε. Καi άντέγραψ εν ό Κωνσταντινουπόλεως συγγνώμην αίτων, δτι παρά γνώμην αύτου ύπό του χαρτοφύλακος αύτου έγένετο τό σιγίλλιον . 52

lbίdem ,

p. 582:

κατά σπουδήν προέδωκεν τό προνόμιον Άντιοχείας, καί άπό τότε

έτυπώθη χε ιροτονείσθαι ύπό του πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως.

II 12

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

the patriarchate of Antioch for many centuries.53 John was a man of power. Α year after his departure from Constantinople, Leo of Synada, his old coπespondent and friend, sent him a letter in which he pleasantly presents, beneath teπible traits, 'the most courageous ofpatriarchs': ~Ην ώς αληθώς ώς ταύρου μυκηθμός γεγωνότερος, ετρεψε τον Άντίταυρον και λέοντος βρυχηθμός τfί αλκαίι;ι ύποθυμούμενος, ύπότρομα τα Ιiτρομα κατεστήσατο· καi στρατηγού η στρατού η ναυάρχου όρμωντος η και όργωντος

είς μάχην οίδα τό θαρραλεώτερον προφώνημά τε και έμβόημα τούς έναντίους τρέπειν . Ταύτα, α εδρασας έπ 'έμοί, πατριαρχών γενναιότατε. 54

But he was also a wise man ofhonourable and virtuous manners, a generous man, indeed a severe man. For he knew how to use his words Ίike whips to call fools to order' : Σοί γε τφ λόγοις σοφφ , τφ τρόποις χρηστφ, τφ δώροις απαλφ

[ ... ],

έάσθω

μόνος ασύγκριτος, iσόθεός τις ων καi ύπερνέφελος Ιiνθρωπος. [... ] Σύ δΊΤ:ι θεσπέσιε δέσποτα , καi ράβδον εχεις και μάστιγας εχεις, τούς ίερούς σου λόγους και παιδευτά.ς των αφρώνων . 55

Το complete this portrait, let us also recall that John ΠΙ behaved as a nobleman with his colleague, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Orestes (9861006), whom we otherwise know as the brother of Mary, the widow of Caliph al-'Azϊz (975-96).56 The facts related by Nikon are as follows: in the year 1000, Orestes, who was travelling to Constantinople as envoy of the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakϊm (996-1021), stopped off in Antioch, where he was received by John. For, during this era, Georgia, once more under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Antioch, annually sent him the sum of a thousand pieces of gold which were to meet the cost of spices for the making of the holy chrism. And John ΠΙ made a gift of these annual revenues to the patriarchate of Jerusalem. 57 By this gesture, the patriarch of Antioch showed himself not only in solidarity with all the Chalcedonian Christians suffering numerous persecutions and losses launched in Palestine

53 lbίdem , p. 582: παρά γνώμην . - The decisions ofthe sigil attributed to John ΠΙ were applied up to 1365. Οη this subject, see Τοοτ, ' Griechisch-Orthodoxe Christen ', p. 85- 7. 54 D ARRO UZES, Epίstolίers, p. 177, n° 14. 55 lbidem, p. 177- 8, η 0 14. 56 Οη Orestes of Jerusalem, see N ASRA LLAH, Mouvement litteraίre, ΠΙ, p. 99- 100. 57 Cf. Τοοτ, Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 658.

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

13

by the Muslim power during the second half of the 10th century; 58 he also took a central place in the eastern affairs of the Byzantine Church and demonstrated his willingness to exert his moral authority over the whole Syro-Palestinian area. Let us add to this collection of witnesses that enable us to discern the character of John 111 of Antioch, the existence of three seals signalled by Todt. 59 The first, seriously damaged, was published by Laurent, the other two by Cheynet, Morrisson and Seibt. 60 Οη the face of the seals is shown the Apostle Peter - the founder of the Antiochian Church - carrying a cross in his right hand. John 111 died ίη Antioch, ίη July 1021. With the exception of the Responsa discussed above, we know of ηο other work which he authored. It is however highly likely that this scholar, this redoubtable rhetor, this author of Ietters lost or not yet identified, has left us some other writings. 3. The Life of John, a metaphrasis by John 111 of Antioch?

Before examining the case for John 111 as the author of the Life of John (BHG 884), as some old manuscripts seem to suggest, let us first pause over the question of the relations that this prelate could maintain with the hagiographic movement of his time. As it has been shown recently, Basil 11, who particularly feared the great families of the Empire, loved to surround himself with high officials who were entirely devoted to him. 61 lt seems that the common interests of the men who found themselves at Court were not only military matters - with their religious dimensions, to which the Emperor was extremely attentive -, but also hagiography. The Menologίon of Vatίcan. gr. 1613 is the most striking witness to the expenditure that Basil could dedicate to it. The order

58 According to Yahya, the Holy Sepulchre was burnt ίη 966, and nurnerous other acts of destructions were commited in the area. Cf. ΚRΑτcΗκονs κΥ-ΥΑs ιιι εν , Hίstoίre de Yahya-Ibn-Sa'fd (ΡΟ 18, Paris 1924) p. 799- 802. See also Α . -Μ . ΤΑ ιΒοτ, ' Byzantine Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century' , ed. J. PATRJCH, The Sabaίte Herίtage ίn the Orthodox Churchfrom the Fίfth Century to the Present (Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 98, Leuven 2001), p. \00- \01. 59 Τοοτ, Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 657. 60 LAURENT, Corpus des sceaux V, 2, Paris 1965, p. 354, n° 1517; J.-C. CHEYNET, C. MoRRι ssoN, W. Sειsτ, Les Sceaux byzantίns de !α collectίon Henrί Seyrίg (Paris 1991), η 0 233a and 233b. 61 ΗοιΜεs , ' Political Elites', p. 35- 8.

II 14

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

he gave Symeon Metaphrastes to set up a team with a view to a full-scale hagiographic project, equally attests to the same. 62 Symeon, a layman, was Grand Logothete of the Drome, perhaps from 969. His revision of more than 120 Lives of saints did not take place in the isolation of a monastery, but within the imperial chancery. The organisation of his work, which required numerous collaborators, is now well known thanks especially to Hσgel's works. 63 Ιη the first place, a great number of Lives were collected by the team of the Metaphrast, selected and recopied. Then a secretary read them aloud and we witness their oral reconstruction, brought about either by the project director or by his most qualified assistants, those who have acquired a good understanding of his method and who like him respected, above all, the principle ofprecision (ακρίβεια) and the need for clarity in the structure ofthe presentation (κατά μέρος) . 64 The reconstruction began from a principal source, and several secondary sources are believed to verify or coπect it. 65 Sometimes, many old Lives were used as principal sources, which could give rise to contaminations. Scribes noted the dictation of Symeon or his assistants stenographically, then wrote out their texts. Finally, the Logothete of the Drome confirmed the final proofs that were recopied into a high quality codex. We can but imagine the stir that these activities would have caused within the Palace. Hagiography was highly prised there ίη general and others ίη the Court prided themselves οη practicing it. Thus the magistros Nikephoros Ouranos, in a letter to Nicholas ofNeocaesarea, hopes that his coπespondent will 'write about the saints of the whole year, and that this will be his gift in the spring. ' 66 Moreover Nikephoros presents himself as a close friend of Symeon Metaphrastes in the epitaph that he wrote upon the death of the latter.67 Indeed some years thereafter, in Antioch, he in turn

Cf. HoGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes , p. 61 - 76. lbidem, p . 89- 126; C. HoGEL, Ήagiography under the Macedonians: the two recensions of the Metaphrastic Menologion' , ed. MAGDALΙNO , Byzantίum ίn the Year 1000, p. 217- 32, esp. p. 221- 2. See also w., Metaphrasίs. Redactίons and Audίences ίn Mίddle Byzantίne Hagίography (KULTs skriftserie 59, St Hanshaugen 1996). 64 Cf. HoGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes, p. 105-6. 65 Jbίdem , p. 99- 102. 66 D ARROUZES, Epistoliers, ρ. 227, η 0 21. 67 Cf. S. G. MERCATΙ, Ύersi di Niceforo Uranos in morte di Simeone Metafraste' , ΑΒ 68 (1950), p. 126- 33 at p. 129: 'Pur sotto un frasario retorico si trova una concretezza di dettagli e un pathos di sincero affetto e cordoglio, presupposto di intima amicizia e communanza di sentimenti e di opere troncata recentamente dalla morte '. 62

63

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

15

wrote a very long metaphrasis, the Life of Symeon Stylίte the Younger. 68 As the letters edited by Daπouzes bear witness, these high officials seem very interconnected, forming a kind of circle of devout intellectuals around the basileus. Crostini remarks οη it precisely: Nikephoros' coπespondence is addressed to members of the secular and ecclesiastica] hierarchy, and overlaps with that of Leo of Synada [ .. . ], whose collection includes letters addressed to Nikephoωs Ouranos and to Emperor Basil. It is clear, therefore, that a tight-knit group of intellectuals, bound to one another by a network of friendship that eιηerges through their correspondence, was revolving around Basil 's court. The homogeneity of their subject matter, mostly hagiographical writings, suggests that their activity cohered around the eιηperor's expectations. 69

We have seen that Leo of Synada was also a coπespondent of John ΠΙ, whose absence he deplored a year after his departure from Constantinople. Nikephoros Ouranos for his part will be in direct collaboration with the patriarch of Antioch from 999. It cannot be excluded that these two men, who enjoyed the emperor's total confidence, were also acquainted before that date in Constantinople 70 . Was John himself part of this circle of intellectuals? His culture and high office suggest so. Moreover, as chartophylax of the Great Church, he would have been approached many times to provide this circle of 'courtly hagiographers' with ancient Lives destined for revision. We do not know if he knew the Metaphrast, who was much older than him and who died around 987. However, οη this subject we will advance an entirely personal hypothesis: it is possible that John Polites, when younger, was part of the team assembled by Symeon. His talents in the art of speech predisposed him to it ηο doubt. Moreover, the mode of composition in evidence in the Life of John indicates a redactor well versed in the practices of the metaphrastic workshop. It is this we need to consider now, through the following points: reference to sources; άκρίβεια and κατά μέρος; rhetorical idioms and vocabulary. Of course, it is

BHG 1690; PG 86, 2987- 3216. On this work by Nikephoros, see Paul ΥΑΝ DEN La Vιe ancίenne de S. Symeon Sιylite le JeMne (521- 92) (Subsidia hagiographica 32, Bruxelles 1962), Ι , p. 34*- 54*. 69 Β . CRosτTNι, 'The Emperor Basil II's Cultural Life', Byzantίon 66 (1996), p. 55- 80, quotation p. 70. 70 According to DARRouzέs, Epistoliers, p. 238- 9, η 0 39, a letter from Nikephoros Ouranos was addressed to John chartophylax, who must be identified as John ΠΙ. This letter is necessarily earlier than 996. 68

ΥΕΝ,

II 16

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

not a matter of carrying out a line reading of the text, but of providing some examples to illustrate our claim. References to sources

Following Symeon 's custom, the sources on which the metaphrasis is based are mentioned and their value is then sometimes discussed. Ιη the prologue and in the epilogue to the Life ofJohn, we find this practice once more and, even ifthe author only cites one source explicitly, he seems to have known several more. His principle source is apparently an Arabic text mentioned in the epilogue, and we leam that he was 'transformed' by the zeal and care of its author, thanks to the intervention of the saint: [ .. .] τουτον καλόν ερανον άλλου πεποιηκότος, ώς είχεν ό άνθρωπος, άφελως αύτόν εύρηκώς, καi διαλέκτφ Άράβων καi γράμμασι κείμενον, ό όμωνυμων σοι, έκ πόθου είς τουτο λόγου καi έπιμελείας της κατά δύναμιν , δια σων μετέβαλον έπισκέψεων

[ . .. ] .71

However, in his prologue, the author also makes reference to other texts, of which he is more critical. He signals in particular the existence of a Life edited by a man wielding the art of speech, but full of errors and poorly composed. Contrary to simple people who are content to relate the acts of the saints in Lίves with no Iiterary pretentions, the author of this flawed account cannot be pardoned: Τοις γαρ άγ ροικοτέροις συγγνώμη , ώς εχουσι, σχεδιάζουσι λόγους τάς πράξεις

έξιστορούντας των εύαρ εστησάντων Χριστφ· οίς δέ λόγος τό σπουδαζόμενον γέγονεν, ού συγγνωστέον, βίους άγ ίων παρεωραμένοις έσχεδιασμένους ώς

ετυχε

[ .. .].72

We do not think that the author of the Life ofJohn makes reference here to his Arabic source. It is in fact a Greek Life, a Life written in good Greek but with doubtful contents. Ιη our view, it is the Life of the Melodίsts (BHG 394). Indeed, the Life of John preserves some traces of it, as we shall see below. But it is possible that our author had at his disposal some other sources. Such for example is the case of the Short Life (BHG 885b), written in careful language but also having gross errors, as when it maintains that John of Damascus was sent to Constantinople to visit Patriarch Germanos 1. As chartophylax, John 111 would have had access to these two 71

72

PG 94, 489 ΑΒ . PG 94, 432 Α.

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

17

texts which were surely present in the capital during his time and which the Menologίon of Basil II seems also to have known. 73 Moreover, with reference to the latter, let us note that the author of the Life ofJohn probably refers to it in veiled terms: Όσοι δέ φιλοτιμώτερον τό σέβας ένδείκνυνται, καi ή χεiρ αύτοίς συν τφ πλουτείν μεγ αλοπρεπής πε ριφανεστέραις ταίς υλαις κέχρηται καi λαμπραίς, καi ταύταις τούς τούτων χαρακτήρας έντυπουσι, μείζω την τιμήν έντευθ εν

άφοσιουσθαι τοις άγίοις οiόμενοι. Εί συν περί την εκείνων μορφήν ουτω τό λαμπρόν έπισπεύδουσι, τί Ιiρα δέον πε ρί της ίστορίας αύτοίς των πράξεων ήμελημένους έαν τούς λόγους καi άκαλλείς ; 74

What does it mean, this slightly ambiguous allusion to wealthy men who use the richest materials to depict the figures of the saints, taking care of their portraits, but are less concerned with the texts that accompany them? Did John ΠΙ, who probably knew the imperial Menologίon , or who was at least aware of its preparation, express his reservations about the quality of its notices or even his critique of those who had redacted them? Άκρίβεια

and κατά μέρος

We have seen in his prologue that the author of the Life ofJohn condemns without appeal ' those who, although mastering the art of speech, compose Lίves of saints full of errors and following a dangerous pattern (βίους άγίων παρεωραμένοις έσχεδιασμένους ώς έτυχε). ' 75 Indeed it is a matter of offending the two greatest principles of the Metaphrast's technique, principles to which our author faithfully conforms. Let us give here some examples of the procedures that he followed. 1. The correction of anachronisms. The Life of the Melodίsts, probably a composite text, commits many anachronisms and places the redaction of John of Damascus 's treatises against the iconoclasts during the reign of Constantine V. Probably appealing to hagiographic tradition, the Life ofJohn restores the dates of their composition, situating under Leo ΠΙ the episode to which it refers.

73 74 75

See above, η . 6. PG 94, 429 Α -432 PG 94, 432 Α.

Α.

II 18

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John of Damascus (BHG 884)

Moreover, Constantine V, who played an important part in the Lίves and the oldest notices, disappears from it entirely. 76 2. The distinction of Cosmas, the teacher of John of Damascus, and Cosmas of Maiuma. The Lives and the notices before the Life of John make a certain Cosmas the companion in asceticism of John of Damascus, but they give him different roles. In the Life of the Melodίsts, Cosmas is the teacher of John ofDamascus; 77 in the Short Life, he is his adopted brother; 78 the Synaxarίon of Constantίnople does not take a position, contenting itself with τον μονήρη βίον ήσπάσατο μετά του μακαρίου Κοσμα, του γεγονότος υστερον έπίσκοπον Μαιουμα; 79 the Menologίon of Basil II is even more prudent in relating γέγονε μοναχός μετά καi Κοσμαν ουτινος πολύς ό λόγος[ . ..]. 80 The author ofthe Life of John resolves this problem by naming both the teacher and the adopted brother Cosmas, and positing that there were two Cosmases. Thus, in addressing the teacher of his two sons, John of Damascus 's father says, ίνα τουτον δή μοι τον έκ φύσεως υίόν Ίωάννην, καi τουτον δητα τον ετερον τον

όμωνυμουντά σοι

[ ... ] έκπαιδεύσης. 8 1

3. Restoring the order of events. Ιη the oldest Lives, the episode of fraud commited by the basileus against the 'king of Damascus' or 'of Persia' at the expense of John ofDamascus occurs when the latter has already become a monk. 82 The Life of John makes the events more credible by placing this episode - followed by the 'miracle of the severed hand' - in the period when our saint still served as an officer of the 'chief of the Saracens' and by seeing reason in it he abandoned riches and the vanities ofthis world, as well as his choice ofthe monastic life. 83

76 Cf. PA PA Dorouιos -ΚERAMEus, Άνάλεκτα , IV, p. 280 and PG 94, 453 BC, where Leo is however described as δυσώνυμος, which is probably a lingering trace of its source. Relative to these anachronisms, see RocHow, Legende, and above, η . 3. 77 Cf. P A Ι'ADO Ι'Ouιos-ΚERAM EUS , Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 273 . 78 G ΚENA KOU-MPOROBILOU, 'Βίος σύντομος', p. 72. 79 DειΕΗΑΥ Ε , Synaxarίum , p. 279. 80 PG 117, 184C. 81 PG 94, 445 Α . 82 PA PADOPO ULOS-ΚERAMEUS, Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 280; G ΚENA KOU-M POROBILOU, 'Βίος σύντομος ' , p. 73. 83 PG 94,460 C-461 Α .

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

19

4. Restoration offacts. The old Lives liked to make John ofDamascus travel. Ιη the Short Life, he went to Constantinople; 84 in the Life ofthe Melodίsts he preaches in Persia and Cosmas, for his part, traverses the world ' from east to west' .85 Faced with these manifest errors, the author of the Life of John asserts with ηο argument: John 'did not pass from Thrace to Sarmatia, neither from Byzantium to the Pillars of Hercules' ,86 'if he toured the world, it was not by walking, but like Paul, by preaching the truth through his letters.' 87 Rhetorίcal ίdίoms

and vocabulaιy.

The Life of John teems with rhetorical expressions and idiorns, as well as with allusions to themes and characters frorn Antiquity. Certainly, it is not possible to raise them here in their entirety. However, Iet us note a few points: 1. Epistolary composιt10ns. The author of the Life of John was interested ίη epistolography. He expressed his opinion about the three Epίstolae by John of Damascus against the iconoclasts - which he compared, ίη military terms, to 'three-headed lances' (ώς τριλόγχοις δόρασιν) 88 . Let us also note here that the letters mentioned by the old Lives are completely 'reconstituted' by the author of the Life ofJohn. 89 He took obvious pleasure in editing the cited documents, describing even the processes of redacting them, in particular in the rnatter of the fake letter forged in the Court of Leo 111. 90 Should we not see behind these cornpositions the old chartophylax, the letterwriter so praised by his correspondents? 2. Developrnents linked to instruction and book culture. The Life of John does not fail to dwell, οη several occasions, οη these kind of

72. IV, ρ . 279- 80.

84

GKENAKO U-MPOROBILOU, ' Βίος σύντομος' , ρ .

85

PA PA DO POULos-ΚERAM EUS , Άνάλεκτα,

86

PG

94, 433

Α: ού την Θρ(Lκην τότε ο ίκων, είς Σαυρομάτας άπέτρεχεν, ούδ 'έκ

Βύζαντος είς Ήρακλείους στήλας άπέφευγεν . 87

PG

94, 453

Α : καl κατά Παύλον ήπε ίγετο κύκλφ διαλαβείν τό περίγειον, εί καi μή

τφ ποδί, άλλα δι 'έπιστολών τφ τη ς άληθείας κηρύγματι.

The expression ώς τριλόγχοις δόρασιν appears in PG 94, 433 Β. 94, 453 C-456 Α (John of Damascuss letter to Leo ΠΙ); 456 Damascus's letter to the ' prince ofthe Saracens in Damascus' ). 90 PG 94, 453 Β (methods offabricating a fake document). 88 89

PG

ΑΒ

(John of

II 20

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

subjects. Thus, Cosmas the teacher makes a display ofhis leaming in a startling monologue; 91 the encyclical studies of John ofDamascus and Cosmas, his adopted brother, are described to the tiniest detail; 92 the revision and edition that John supposedly performed on his writings at the end of his life is also the object of a development of this type: Τοις πόνοις πόνους προσέθετο [ ... ] καi τον νουν συστείλας πανταχόθεν τέλεον,

a πεπόνηκε πρότερον, έπισυναγηοχώς, έποιfjτο

τούτων έπίσκεψιν, έπικοσμων, έπικαλλύνων, έπιδιορθούμενος προς άκρίβειαν, καi λέξιν, καi νουν, καi ρυθμόν, καi συνθήκην. Καi

δπου το κάλλος άνθηρον άγαν, καi οϊον άμετρον, έπισεμνύνων δια το σώφρονος, 'ίνα γένοιντο αύτφ οί λόγοι, μηδέν έπιδεικτικον καi

φαυλον έπισυρόμενοι. 93

Through these digressions, we encounter the universe of a consummate scholar, such as was John Polites. 3. Vocabulary. Numerous figures from antiquity are mentioned in the text: Chiron, 'the Stagirite', Midas, Pythagoras, Diophantus, Euclid, Orpheus. 94 The author speaks of Plato as the 'son of Ariston' .95 Regarding the Metaphrast's idioms, Hcιgel notes that some paraphrases designating the exercise ofpower recur. 96 We find at least two of them in the Life of John : δια το την σκηπτρουχίαν έπέχειν της των 'Ρωμαίων άρχfjς and ό των Ίεροσολύμων ιθύνων οίακας. 97 Indeed, we could note that certain expressions already found in the Life of the Melodίsts are conserved or adapted: thus, the 'tablets of Moses' (άλλος Μωϋσfjς γενόμενος, θεοχαράκτους χαράττων νομοθεσίας) 98 must have pleased our author very much since he refers to them twice, even making explicit mention of the one who had used this expression before him, namely, the author of the Life of the Melodίsts, which he already described Ίeamed',

94, 441 Β-444 C. 94, 445 Β-448 Α . 93 94, 484 Β . 94 94,440 Β; 441 C; 445 Α; 445 C; 465 Α ; 473 Α . 95 94,441 C. 96 H@GEL, Symeon Metaphrastes, p. 139: Έasy recognizable formulae are used, especially in martyria, where σκfjπτρα or άρχήν διέπειν / διιθύνειν [ ... ], replace the simpler βασιλεύοντος Τραϊανου [ ... ] ofthe old texts '. 97 PG 94,432 C; 480 Α-481 Α . 98 PAPADOPOULOS-ΚERAMEUS, Άνάλεκτα, IV, p. 280. 91

92

PG PG PG PG PG

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

but also 'unforgiveable' 99 because of its numerous errors:

21 ην αν

τις παντός λόγου όρθου νομοθεσίας έρει, καi πλάκας Μωσαϊκάς,

likewise, the astonishing title given to John ofDamascusιo 1 also comes from an expression in the Life of the Melodίsts : ώς τα πρωτεια φέρει παρά

ούχ άμαρτήσει του άληθους; ιοο πρωτοσύμβουλος

τφ βασιλει των Περσων. ιο 2

By means of these few remarks, it therefore appears that the Life of John has the characteristics of a work of metaphrasis. More precisely, it should be considered a reworking of multiple older sources, amongst which is certainly the Life of the Melodίsts or a part of the same. Let us now examine the more precise context of its composition, as well as the meaning that it could assume outside the very narrow circle of 'courtly hagiographers' that its author probably frequented. 4. The composition and meaning of the Life of John at Antioch year 1000

ίη

the

We have already seen that Nikephoros Ouranos was the author of a long Life ofSymeon Stylίte the Younger (BHG 1690). It consists of a metaphrasis of an old Life of the same (viz., BHG 1689), which he presumably wrote after his arrival at Antioch in 999. Indeed, many details of the account reveal that the doux personally visited the monastery of St Symeon of the Admirable Mountain, located a few kilometres away. 103 We also know that he had at hand a text of the old Life similar to the one preserved in Hίerosolymίt. Sabaίt. 108 (11th C.), copied in the same monastery. 104 lt is thus very probable that Nikephoros worked from a manuscript preserved in the region of Antioch and that he retired from time to time to St Symeon's to work οη his metaphrasis.

94, 432

99

PG

100

PAt'ADOΙ'O ULOS-ΚERAM EUS , Άνάλεκτα ,

Α.

IV, p. 280;

PG

94, 448 ΑΒ and 476 (καl την

ίεράν βίβλον καl θεοχάρακτον πλάκα) .

94, 449

Β.

101

PG

102

PA PA DOPOULOS-ΚERAMEUS, Άνάλεκτα,

103

Cf.

104

PA PA DOPouιos-ΚERAM EUS , Ίεροσολυμιτική Βιβλ ιοθήκη , Π,

V AN DEN VEN, Vιe ancίenne,

IV, p. 281. 1, p. 215* . p. 194:

Ή βίβλος αϋτη

ύπάρχε ι της σεβασμίας μονfjς του άγίου Συμεών του θαυματουργου του έν τφ Θαυμαστφ δρει.

II 22

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

Syria's second Byzantine period witnessed the apogee ofthis monastery, about which travellers spoke with amazement. Thus, thanks to an account by lbn Butlan who visited it in 1049, we learn that it was as large as half the palace ofthe Caliph in Bagdad and that its annual revenue amounted to the equivalent of 400,000 dinars. 105 St Symeon 's had a vast library and was a centre for literary activity. Ιη 989, the hegumen Anthony translated the works of John ofDamascus into Arabic for the first time there. 106 Moreover, we note that this translator is said to have been a monk at St Sabas' in Palestine before setting up at the Admirable Mountain. 107 Other figures encountered in the present study also passed through St Symeon's and probably worked in the monastery's library: Nikon ofthe Black Mountain stayed there up to the taking of Antioch by the Seljuks ίη 1084; Michael, author ofthe Arabίc Life of John ofDamascus, lived there during the same time and in any case to 1085.108 The convergence ofthese figures at the same place is striking; it becomes meaningful ifwe focus on a passage from the prologue ofMichael 's Arabίc Life, at which we pause and which till now was considered very obscure. We quote it here in Graf's German translation: Als das Jabr vo1lendet war und der Tag der beiden Feste berankam, d.b. das Fest der beiligen Barbara und des reinen Johannes, im zweiten Jabre, im Monat Dezember, da wϋnschte ich die Geschichte des heiligen Johannes zu hδren . Ich erfuhr νοη dem gesamten Volke, daβ es νοη ibm noch keine vollstandige Lebens-Gescbicbte gebe, weder griecbiscb nocb arabiscb. Da verwunderte icb ιnicb, wie sebr die Sorglosigkeit ϋber seine Zeitgenossen obsiegt batte, so daβ sie sein Andenken [ ... ] vergessen konnten, wabrend docb seine Worte νοη einer zahlreicben Menge Cbristen gepriesen werden [ ... ]. lch fand niemanden, der mir eine Ursacbe der Verdunkelung seiner Geschichte naιnbaft machte, und ίch hδrte iίber ίhn nur vereίnzelte Nachrίchten und fand nur sehr kurz gefaβte Erίnnerungen an ίhn, dίe ίn eίner Anzahl von Nachrίchten zeίtgenδssίscher Vaιer aufgeschrίeben und gleίchmaβig zerstiίckelι sίnd. lcb samrnelte dieselben

105 Οη tbe monastery, see VAN DEN VEN, Vie ancienne, Ι, p. 214*- 221 *; J. NASJ?.ALLAH, ' Couvents de la Syrie du Nord portant le nom de Symeon ', Syrίa 49 (1972), p. 127- 59, especially p. 136--41 ; Τοστ , Region und Patriarchaι, p. 921- 7. 106 Οη Anthony of St Symeon 's (fl. 989) and his Arabic translation of the Damascene corpus, see G. Gιι.ΑF, Geschichιe der Christlichen Arabischen Lileralur.11. Die Schriflsteller bis zur Μίιιe des 15. Jh. (ST 133, Vatican 1947), p. 41- 5; NASRALLAH, Mouvemenl lίιιeraire, ΠΙ , p. 273- 89. 107 N ASMLLAH, Mouvemenl lίιιerαίre, ΙΙΙ, p. 273. 108 GMF, Christliche Arabische Lileralur, ΙΙ , p. 69- 70; NASMLLAH, Mouvemenl lilleraire, ΠΙ , p. 334- 6; Todt, Region und Patriarchaι , p. 923-4.

II John ΠΙ ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

23

und liel3 einen Teil νοη ihnen beiseite, da ich ihren Zweig mit ihrer Wurzel nicht ίibereinstimmend fand, und machte aus ihnen eine einzige fortlaufende Erzahlung. 109

According to this passage, Michael had not found any Life of John of Damascus, whether Greek or Arabic. Yet today we know that these two Lives did exist at this time: the Life ofJohn refers to an antecedent Arabic Life and was itself composed before 1085. So has the monk from St Symeon 's lied? Some have been inclined to suppose so. 1ιο But it seems to us that such was not the case: in his description ofthe sources available to him, Michael probably wrote in good faith. He provides us further with major information, which we now need to decipher. If the Greek and Arabic Lives had vanished from Antioch and even from St Symeon's in 1085, which is entirely conceivable, since the Seljuk invaders pillaged the city in 1084, how can we explain the great similarities between the Life of John and Michael's Arabίc Life? It was long thought that there was a common archetype, an Arabic text that Michael had perhaps simply reproduced and given a prologue from his own hand. But what does he tel1 us himself? He had collected oral reports - which we attribute to people who had heard the Life of John, read or summarised at an office for the saint or orally translated into Arabic - and then he had worked up a collection of 'brief memories divided into equal sections and copied along with a collection of details transmitted by the Fathers ofhis time'. Ιη our view, it amounts to a dossier prepared by the author of the Life of John and by his possible team of copyists for the work of metaphrasis. One ofthe 'Fathers ofhis time' to which he alludes is probably Stephen the Younger. Indeed, some extracts from the Life ofStephen the Younger (BHG 1666) were cited by the author of the Life of John as well as by Michael ofSt Symeon's. 111 The texts 'divided into equal sections' are extracts from older Lives - the Life of the Melodίsts, the Short Life, probably an Arabic Life - selected by the author of the Life ofJohn using the technique of the Metaphrast's workshop. These extracts were probably annotated. Ιη fact, it is a marginal note that Michael's Arabίc Life seems to reproduce in the following passage: 'Das arabische Original' , ρ . 170.

109

GRAF,

11

Cf. N ASRA LLAH,

°

MoMνement lίlleraίre, ΠΙ , ρ .

335 .

The Life of Stephen the Younger (ed. M.-F. AuzέrY, La Vie d 'Etίenne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre [Birmingham 1997], ρ. 126) is mentioned ίη the Life of John : PG 94, 484 C--488 Α . TheArabic Life dedicates a very long passage to the witness ofStephen : GRAF, ' Das arabische Original', ρ. 185- 8. 111

II 24

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884) Du darfst nicht glauben, mein Hδrer, dal3 dies Kosmas ist, der Bischof νοη Majuma, der mit Johannes im Hause seines Vaters erzogen wurde, wegen der ϋbereinstimmung der Namen beider. Denn dieser Kosmas war ein anderer a\s jener, hochbetagt an Jahren, beredt ίη seinem Wissen, und alle beide genossen νοη ihm einen philosophischen Unterricht. 112

The provisional conclusions that we can draw from these findings are as follows: neither the Life of John nor its Arabic archetype were preserved in Antioch sixty years after the death of John ΠΙ. However, the dossier prepared for the metaphrasis of the Life of John could still be found at the monastery of St Symeon. This dossier contained extracts from the Life of the Melodίsts and probably also from other texts, amongst which figures the Life of Stephen the Younger. It was annotated. We can assume that this dossier or the sources that it integrates as 'small pieces' came from Constantinople. We do not know ifthe oldArabic Life was assembled there - ίη its original language or ίη a translation made there - or if it provided a parallel source for the author ofthe Life ofJohn. 11 3 Moreover, the latter may have overemphasised its importance as a source, to please his audience. Ιη any case, the composition of the old Arabic Life should be situated ίη the second half of the 10th century. It was probably a companion piece to the Arabic translation ofthe works of John ofDamascus at St Symeon's. It is perhaps also in this context that the detail that the Damascene had been a monk at St Sabas' came to the fore. Recall that Anthony, the translator, was formerly a monk of that monastery. 114 As for Michael 's account, it seems that he was based neither οη the Life ofJohn nor οη an Arabic life, but directly οη the dossier for the metaphrasis preserved at St Symeon's. Finally the Life ofJohn was not composed in Constantinople, but in Antioch, after the installation of Polites, around the year 1000. It is strictly contemporaneous with the Life of St Symeon Stylίte the Younger by Nikephoros Ouranos. The two counts were moreover produced in the same places, probably with the

GRAF, 'DasarabischeOriginal' , p. 172- 3. The episode ofselling baskets ίη Damascus is lacking from the Life ofthe Melodίsts, but present ίη the Life of John (PG 94, 465 C-468 Β) and ίη the Arabίc Life (GRAF, 'Das arabische Original', p. 181- 2). lt perhaps came from the Old Arabic Life. 114 Even if Anthony was the author of the old Arabic Life, he was ηο longer alive at the time when the Life of John was composed. Cf. PG 94, 489 Α. - Without additional information, it seems perilous to take this hypothesis much further. Indeed, even ifthe milieu in which this Arabic source saw the light of day can be compared to St Symeon 's, no other indicator points us toward identifying its author with the translator of John of Damascus's works. 112

113

II John

ΠΙ ofAntίoch

and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884)

25

same team and especially from the same perspective. What meaning, then, did this project take on? With the Macedonian dynasty, the emperors undertook prestige projects ίη the teπitories reconquered from Syria. The reconstruction of the walls of Antioch, material support given to monasteries such as St Symeon's of the Admirable Mountain, Basil II's desire to have St Cassian Cathedral reconstructed οη the model of Hagia Sophia are all examples of this movement. 115 Ιη 999, when Nikephoros Ouranos and John Polites aπived in Antioch, the region had just been pacified, the warlords' revolt quelled, and the patriarchate placed under the direct authority of Constantinople. But these successes were accomplished by means of compromise, thanks to the active collaboration of powerful local families of Arabic-speaking Christians. 116 The Melkites were also a majority ίη the region: mass immigration ofChristians fteeing persecution by Caliph al-Hakϊm had also augmented their number. Despite the aπival of some families ofByzantine nobility and the politics of 're-Hellenization' undertaken by Constantinople, the population of Antioch remained chiefty Arabic speaking at the turn of the 10th and 11 th century. The patriarch and the military governor of the city therefore had every interest in promoting their own tradition through valorising two illustrious Greek-speaking Syrians, Symeon Stylite the Younger and especially John of Damascus, the great Chalcedonian author ίη Greek and offspring of the important Melkite family of Man~ίir. By exalting him, they reassured the local elite and simultaneously underlined the importance ofthe paίdeίa that was so dear to them. Furthermore, the Greeks resident in Antioch could also take profit from this type of account. 117 This exhortation to prefer classical education to taking up arms - an exhortation that our author addresses from all the evidence to the military nobility from Byzantium - is perfectly understandable in this context: Είτα φροντίς τφ πατρί τού παιδός, ού κελητίζειν αύτόν μαθειν, ούδέ δόρυ κινειν δεξιως, ούκ έκ τόξου βάλλειν όϊστόν εύστοχώτατα, η θηρίοις μάχεσθαι

' Antioch in the Middle Byzantine Period' , passίm. the Melkite elite and their place ίη Byzantine Antioch, see Τουτ, ' Antioch ίη the Middle Byzantine Period' , p. 182- 8; Τουτ, Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 449. 117 Οη them, see Τουτ, Regίon und Patrίarchat, p. 453: 'Die Griechen Antiocheias im ethnischen und sprachlichen Sinne dϋrften sich ϋberwiegend aus den hohen Beamten und Klerikern, die aus Konstantinopel an den Orontes geschickt wurden, aus einem Teil des Militars und aus einigen aristokratischen Familien mit ihrer Gefolgschaft zusammengesetzt haben'. 115

Τουτ,

116

Οη

II 26

John 111 ofAntίoch and the Life of John ofDamascus (BHG 884) καί συναμοίβειν την φυσικήν ήμερότητα είς θηριώδη ώμότητα, σία γίνεται τοίς πολλοίς τον θυμον ταρασσομένοις συχνως, καί μανιωδες Ιiττουσι καί

παράπληκτον · έφΌίς ούκ έζητείτο τφ του 'Ιωάννου πατρi Χείρων άλλος τις όρεσιτρόφος, μυελοίς έλάφων έκτρέφειν τον διδασκόμενον, άλλ'άνήρ άνηρευνiiτο πiiσαν παιδείαν έξησκημένος, έν έπιστήμη τυγχάνων λόγου

παντοίου . 118

The Life ofJohn makes perfect sense if we approach it as a composition from the year 1000, prepared in Antioch by a highly accomplished rhetorician, trained ίη the techniques ofhagiographic metaphrasis practiced ίη Constantinople, a man who had every interest ίη winning the support of Arabic-speaking Melkites but also ίη orientating the Greek-speaking military toward a culture that is one of peacetime. lts author could be none other than John 111 Polites.

118

PG 94, 440 BC.

Ν eochalcedonian

philosophy

III

Remarques sur la situation de la philosophie byzantine du concile de Chalcedoine a Jean Damascene 1. Panorama des

prίncίpaux

auteurs (6e_ge s.)

1. Jean de Cesaree le Grammairien ( 1e moitie du 6° s.) 2. Anastase 1°' d'Antioche (559- 598) 3. Theodore de Raϊthou (ft. ca. 580- 620) 4. Maxime le Confesseur (ca. 580-662) 5. Ps.-Clement d'Alexandrie (2e moitie du 7e siecle) 6. Anastase le Sinaϊte (2° moitie du 7e siecle) 11. Υ a-t-ίl un systeme philosophίque

neochalcedonίen

?

1. Conditions de possibilite 2. Limites d'une symbiose 3. Aristotelisme et heresie 111.

L'unίte

du courant

philosophίque neochalcedonίen

1. Un principe : la μέση όδός 2. Une conscience philosophique unitaire IV. La pensee philosophίque neochalcedonίenne dans l'reuvre de Jean Damascene : choίx de textes

1. Le Christ, source absolue de la verite et de la connaissance. 2. Phίlosophίa ancίlla theologίae 3. Nature, essence et forme selon les philosophes paϊens et les Peres de l 'Eglise. 4. Identite de l'essence, de la nature et de la forme. 5. Hypostase et enhypostaton. 6. Les heretiques confondent nature et hypostase. 7. Une nature ne peut pas etre composee apartir de deux natures. Quant a l'hypostase, elle peut etre composee apartir de deux natures.

III 2

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

La periode que nous nous proposons d'aborder en un premier temps dans le present dossier s' etend du concile de Chalcedoine (451) et de la contestation de sa definition par Severe d'Antioche (512- 538), ala composition du Vίae dux d'Anastase le Sinaϊte (ca 700). Elle est donc strictement parallele au florissement de l 'Ecole neoplatonicienne d 'Alexandrie : d 'Ammonius Hermeiae (ca 440 - ca 520) a David (6e_7e s.). Pour les milieux chretiens, cette periode se caracterise en premier lieu par l'essor d'une theologie dite « chalcedonienne » ou « neochalcedonienne »1, mais aussi de faς;on annexe par une production apparemment desordonnee de paraphrases de 1' Organon aristotelicien. Notre but est de montrer que cette production d'allure philosophique comporte une unite et une specificite, qu'elle est basee sur un systeme de pensee autonome, dont la mise en place est certainement imputable a un enseignement commun dans des milieux philosophiques chretiens, mais qui s'est developpe et consolide dans la controverse avec les monophysites severiens. Bien plus que les commentaires neoplatoniciens, c'est cette production, apparamment marginale qui, anotre avis, explique la redaction des Dίalectίca 2 • Dans cette perspective, nous essayerons tout d'abord de presenter les principaux auteurs de textes philosophiques neochalcedoniens, en evaluant egalement dans quelle mesure ces auteurs ont pu influencer Jean Damascene. Par la suite, nous tenterons une premiere approche des grandes lignes de pensee qui ont caracterise ce courant, en considerant toutefois que l'enquete ne fait que commencer. Nous n'examinerons pas les florileges

Dans la presente etude, « neochalcedonien » est utilise dans le sens originel que lui a donne J. LEBON, Le monophysisme severien, Louvain 1909, p. 522 : « Les neochalcedoniens n'ont pas change la christologie du Synode ; sur la base de sa doctrine et de sa formule diophysites, ils ont eleve, griιce iι la philosophie aristotelicienne, le systeme dogmatique et scientifique qui est encore le nόtre. La christologie severienne, elle, η 'a pas voulu, par crainte du nestorianisme, s'accommoder iι la definition du Synode ». Ainsi, de notre point de vue, les « neochalcedoniens » n'ont pas modifie le dogme de Chalcedoine ; ils l'ont en revanche etaye par l'usage d'une terminologie philosophique elaboree, et renforce en etablissant des liens tres puissants entre les domaines de la christologie et de la doctrine trinitaire. - Sur les autres utilisations du terme « neochalcedonien » au 20' siecle, voir en dernier lieu 1. Ko u REM PELέs , Νεοχαλκηδονισμός. Δογματικός τρόπος διαίρεσης η τόπος οίκουμενικίjς συνύπαρξης, Thessalonique 2012. ΚοπεR Ι.

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

3

anonymes que sont les Definίtίones patmenses3, la compilation d'Oxford4, la Doctrίna Patrum 33 5, les Definίtίones marcίanae6, car ils posent encore aujourd'hui un certain nombre de problemes de datation. 1. Panorama des principaux auteurs (6c-sc s.) 1. Jean de Cesaree le

Grammaίrίen

(l e mοίtίέ du 6e s.)

TEXTES : Apologίa Concίlίί Chalcedonensίs. Excerpta graeca, ed. Μ. RrcHARD, Μ. ΑυΒΙΝΈΑU (CCSG 1), Tumhout, Leuven 1977, p. 47- 58. - Capίtula XVII contra Monophysίtas, ed. Μ. RιcHARD, Μ. AUBΙNEAU (CCSG 1), Tumhout, Leuven 1977, p. 59- 66. Souvent confondu avec Jean Philopon (5°-6° s.) et avec Jean le Κhozibite, eveque de Cesaree en Palestine (6e s.), Jean, pretre et grammairien (άπό γραμματικων) de Cesaree n'etait connu, jusqu'a une epoque recente, que par une courte notice d' Anastase le Sinaϊte7, par les titres de quelques Sous le nom de Definίtίones patmenses, Κ. -Η . UτΗΕΜΑΝΝ, Die ' Philosophische Kapitel' des Anastasius I von Antiochien (559- 598), OCP 46, 1980, p. 335- 7, designe une collection comprenant environ mille definitions a caractere philosophico-theologique, figurant dans le codex Patmίac. 263, f. 120- 89 date du 10' s., mais egalement dans le plus tardif codex Vatίcan. gr. 1778. Cette collection reprend en partie ANASTASE ιε SΙΝΑϊτε, Vιae dux / Όδηγός ΙΙ, ed. Κ.-Η. UτΗΕΜ ΑΝΝ (CCSG 8), Turnhout, Leuven 1981, p. 401, mais ne presente pas de parallele notable avec les Κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα d ' Anastase Ι" d ' Antioche. Le codex Oxon. Bodl. Auct. Τ.1.6 (misc. 184), date du debut du 13' s. contient principalement la Doctrίna Patrum, c. 1-41 (f. 33- 191 ν), mais egalement une collection de textes, notamment de definitions, sur des sujets de logique et de psychologie theologique, qui presentent de grandes similitudes, dans le fond et dans la forme, avec les Dίalectίca et l'Exposίtίo fideί de Jean Damascene, mais egalement avec la Doctrίna Patrum, bien qu ' ils ne semblent pas en dependre. Sans relations reciproques, ils livrent la pensee d ' une meme periode et d' un meme milieu. Les extraits les plus caracteristiques de ce texte ont ete edites par ΚοττεR Ι , p. 151- 73. Doctrίna Patrum de Incarnatίone Verbί, ed. F. DιεΚΑΜΡ, Munster 1907 ; reimpr. Aschendorff 1981, ρ. 249-66. Le codex Veneι. Marcίan. gr. Ζ. 257 (coll. 622), f" 250v et 247- 8, presente une collection de definitions classees par ordre alphabetique dont vingt se recoupent avec Doctrίna Paιrum 33. Certains paralleles avec Anastase d ' Antioche ont egalement pu etre releves par UτΗ Ε ΜΑΝΝ , Philosophische Kapitel, p. 332, n. 124. ANASTASE ι ε SιΝΑΪΤΕ, Vίαe dux VI, 1, p. 94- 5, 1. 21- 31 : Είτα 'Ιωάννης ό Καισαρεύς ό Γραμματικός άπελογήσατο ύπέρ τής συνόδου , καi ετεροι πλειστοι δι ' έκθέσεων άληθεστάτων.

Διωχθέντος ουν Σευήρου άπό Ά ντιοχείας διά τά πονηρά αύτου διδάγματα, απερ κατά της

III 4

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

fragments du traite de Severe d'Antioche Contra ίmpίum Grammatίcum cites au 6° siecle par Leonce de Jerusalem 8 et par le moine Eustathe au 7° siecle9 , par le Concile de Latran de 649 10 , enfin, par deux fragments d'un traite perdu d'Ephrem patriarche d' Antioche (526/27-544/45) sur le Concile de Chalcedoine 11 et le tome de saint Leon, dans lequel cet auteur prenait la defense de Jean de Cesaree contre les attaques de Severe 12 • Ce n'est que la publication du Contra ίmpίum Grammatίcum de Severe dans les annees 1930 13 , qui a revele la vraie personnalite de Jean le Grammairien de Cesaree, auteur, peu avant 518, d'une Apologίe du Concίle de Chalcedoίne, dont le texte original a fragmentairement ete preserve dans la Doctrίna Patrum 14 , mais egalement d'un texte fort interessant intitule Τωάννου γραμματικοί5 καi πρεσβυτέρου προς τούς άκεφάλους κεφάλαια ιζ

(= C. Monoph.) signale des 1907 par F. Diekamp 15 et edite pour la premiere fois par S. Helmer en 1962 16 . Dans la recente edition de ses Opera omnίa par Μ. Richard et Μ. Aubineau, qui marque une avancee considerable dans l'etude de cet auteur en revelant la vigueur de sa pensee et la solidite de ses connaissances aussi bien theologiques que philosophiques, un certain nombre de textes et fragments ont egalement ete ajoutes a la liste des ceuvres du Grammairien, bien que l'attribution de certains d'entre eux reste encore fortement controversee. Nous en remettant, ίcί, aux conclusions des editeurs, nous ne retiendrons de ces discussions que les remarques de Κ.συνόδου Χαλκηδόνος έδίδασκε, παραγίνεται έν Άλεξανδρείq. είς τόν φωλεόν των δφεων των έχθρών της καθολικης έκκλησίας, καi έγκύψας τοις συντάγμασι του Καισαρέως καi έτέρων

τινών των συνταττόντων ύπέρ της συνόδου δια πλειόνων πατρικών καi γραφικών χρήσεων καi συστάσεων καi άποδείξεων, πρώτον μεν εύθέως κατέγραψε κατά του Καισαρέως 'Ιωάννου .

PG 86, 1841 Β- 1845 C. 1848 Α et D. PG 86, 901-41,passίm. 10 ΜΑΝsι , Χ, 1116D. 11 MANSl, ΧΙ, 436 Α. 12 Cite dans les Sacra Parallela (Rupef.): PG 96, 481 C = PG 86, 2109 Β. 13 S ένέRΕ ο ' ΑΝτ10CΗΕ, Lίber contra ίmpίum Grammatίcum, ed. J. LEBON (CSCO syr. ser. IV, 4-6), Louvain 1929, 1933, 1938. - Yoir egalement J. LEBON, La Christologie du monophysisme syrien, in Α . GRlLLMEΙER, Η . ΒΑcΗτ (eds.), Das Konzίl von Chalkedon. Geschίchte und Gegenwart, Wurzbourg 1951, Ι, p. 425- 580. 14 Ces fragments ont ete reconnus parCh. MoELLER, Trois fragments grecs de l' Apologie de Jean le Grarnmairien pour le Concile de Chalcedoine, Revue d'Hίstoίre ecclesίasιίque, 46, 1951, 683- 8. 15 Cf. Doclrina Patrum, ed. DιΕΚΑΜΡ , p. χινιι1-ιι. 16 S. HELMER, Der Neuchalkedonίsmus. Geschichte, Berechιίgung und Bedeutung eίnes dogmengeschίchtlίchen Begriffes (Diss.), Bonn l 962, p. 255-6 l.

III 5

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Uthemann, qui conduisent a nier l'attribution des chapitres 12-17 du C. Monoph. a Jean, y voyant plutδt l'ceuvre d'Anastase le Sinaϊte 17 • Ni l'Apologίa ni le C. Monoph. ne se veulent des exposes de definitions philosophiques a l 'usage de la theologie. Ce sont des ouvrages a caractere purement polemique, dans lesquels l'auteur ne manque pas de parler a la premiere personne (par exemple, ηκουσα: Apologίa IV.1 , p. 51, 1. 83; καi έμέ : IV.3 , p. 54, 1. 169), et d'attaquer ouvertement ses adversaires (δια τάς ύμων άνοήτους κενοφωνίας : 11, p. 50, 1. 32 ; ού γαρ δή τοσουτον ηλίθιοι πεφύκατε : IV.3, p. 54, 1. 172). L'argumentation, qui tourne autour des deux theses centrales des monophysites, a savoir ουκ εστι φύσις άπρόσωπος et ουκ εστι ουσία άνυπόστατος, mais qui s'attache egalement a l' explication de la fameuse expression cyrillienne μία φύσις του Θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη 1 8 , fait cependant preuve d'une excellente maitrise et d'une exploitation extensive de concepts philosophiques tels que ουσία, φύσις, Η.

ύπόστασις πρόσωπον, κοινόν, ίδιον, ίδίωμα, χαρακτηριστική ποιότης,

σχέσις, ενωσις, διαφορά, ετεροφυές, είδος. La notion d'ένυπόστατον, dont l'invention est generalement rapportee a Leonce de Byzance, y est egalement presente et dίiment developpee 19 , ce qui nous conduit a reculer la date de son introduction dans les discussions theologiques avant 518. Les exemples donnes par Jean pour illustrer son argumentation ne manifestent que de fayon tres lointaine leur origine philosophique, et il est legitime de se demander s'ils n'ont pas tout simplement ete fabriques en milieu chretien dans un but de polemique, plutδt que christianises. Outre la banale substitution de Pieπe, Paul et Jean a Socrate, Platon et Alcibiade, οη peut citer les deux cas suivants : [ενωσις έν] όμωνυμίι;t μέν, ώς 'Ιούδας ό 'Ιακώβου καi ό 'Ισκαριώτης- ίσοτιμίςt δέ καi ταυτοβουλίι;t, ώς Πέτρος καi 'Ιωάννης- έκάτερος γαρ άπόστολος (Apologίa

1. 100-102) et Τίς γαρ

IV. l , p. 52,

άγνοεί, δτι καθόλου έν τοίς κατά μέρος προσώποις

δπερ ταίς χαρακτηριστικαίς ύποστάσεσι θεωρείται, οΊ:ον ή της θεότητος 17 Κ . -1-1 . UτΗΕΜΑΝΝ, Antimonophysitische Aporien des Anastasios Sinaites, ΒΖ 74, 1981 , p. 11- 26. 18 Jean Damascene traitera precisement de cette fonηule dans Exposίtίo .fideί 55 , ed. ΚΟΊΊΈ R ΙΙ, p. 131- 3. 19 Ήμων γαρ ένυποστάτως ήνωμένας δύο φύσε ις λεγόντων έθελοκωφούσι [ ... ] καί φασιν· ούκ εστι φύσις άπρόσωπος [ . .. ]. Εί δέ τούτο βούλονται κατασκευάζειν δτι πάση

φύσε ι ίδιάζον παρέπεται πρόσωπον, έπi των μή καθ'ύπόστασιν ήνωμένων φύσεων, δ έστιν ούσιων, καi τούτο όρθως ήγούμαι τόν λόγον, έπi δέ των έν συνθέσει καi ένυποστάτως ήνωμένων πόρρω της άληθείας καθέστηκεν . 'Έστι γαρ δτε διάφοροι φύσε ις συνερχόμεναι κατά την άδιαίρετον ενωσιν εν πρόσωπον καi μίαν άποτελούσιν ύπόστασιν

p. 53 , l. 118- 36.

: Apologίa IV.2,

III 6

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

φύσις έν πατρί, έν υίφ , έν άγίφ πνεύματι, όμοίως ή αγγελική φύσις έν Μιχαήλ, έν Γαβριήλ, κτλ. (IV.2, p. 53, 1. 125- 8). Le premier est, a notre connaissance, un απαξ λεγόμενον. Le second sera largement repris par les auteurs posterieurs. Α l'etat actuel de la recherche, il est tres difficile de dire si Jean Damascene a connu, de Jean le Grammairien, plus que les extraits donnes dans la Doctrίna Patrum 20 et les citations du Vίae dux d'Anastase le

Sinaϊte 21 .

2. Anastase Jer dΆntίoche (559- 598) Τεχτε

:

Του όσίου πατρός ήμων Άναστασίου άρχιεπισκόπου Άντιοχείας

της Συρίας κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα,

ατινα έν τοις θείοις δόγμασι δια

ed. Κ.-Η . UτΗΕΜΑΝΝ, Die 'Philosophische Kapitel' des Anastasius Ι. νοη Antiochien (559-598), OCP 46, 1980, p. 306-66, notamment p. 343- 60. παντός έμφέρεται ,

Anastase, originaire de Palestine et apocrisiaire du patriarche d' Alexandrie a Antioche, devint patriarche de cette meme ville en 558/559. Entre en desaccord avec Justinien, qu'il soupς;onnait d' adopter les opinions aphtartodocetes de Julien d'Halicarnasse, il fut banni a Jerusalem par Justin ΙΙ, en 570, puis retabli sur le trδne patriarcal de 593 jusqu' a sa mort, survenue en 598/599. Grace a l'etude systematique de G. Wei/322, a l'enquete de S. Ν. Sakkos23 et au bilan d'E. Chrysos 24 , nous sommes aujourd'hui en mesure d'evaluer l'extension de son reuvre theologique, dont le sommet est assurement marque par ses cinq discours dogmatiques sur la Trinite, l'Incarnation et la Resuπection2 5 • La recente edition de ses Κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα par Κ.-Η . Uthemann permet en outre une meilleure

Doctrίna Patrum 24, χ , ed. Dι ΕΚΑΜ Ρ, p. 166. Concernant les citations de Jean le Grammairien dans le Viae dux, cf. UnrEMANN (CCSG 8), p. 423-4. 22 G. W ε ι ss, Studίa Anastasίana, Ι (Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 4), Munich 1965. 23 S.N. S Α κκοs, Περί Άναστασίων Σιναϊτων (Άριστοτέλε ιον Πανεπιστήμιον 20

21

Θεσσαλονίκης. 'Επιστημονική Έπετηρiς Θεολογικης Σχολης. Παράρτημα του η ' τόμου) ,

Thessalonique 1964. 24 Ε . CHRYsos, Νεώτεραι ε ρευναι περί Άναστασίων Σιναϊτών, Κληρονομία , 1, 1969, 121-44. 25 La traduction latine de ces discours figure dans PG 89, 1309- 62.

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

7

connaissance de sa pensee philosophique, jusque la connue de faς;on extemement fragmentaire a travers les quelques lignes du Contra Iohannίs Phίloponί Dίaetetem 26 qui nous sont parvenues. Bien que les cinq discours dogmatiques fassent suffisamment recours a des notions philosophiques pour avoir - supposemment - suscite la redaction de la Προπαρασκευή de Theodore de Raϊthou 27 , et qu'ils presentent un certain nombre de paralleles avec I'Exposίtίo fideί de Jean Damascene, nous ne les considererons pas ici, car nous n'avons pas ete en mesure de consulter leur original grec 28 • Notre lecture se limitera donc aux Κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα.

Contrairement a Jean le Grammairien, qui fait entrer la philosophie dans le feu de la polemique, l'opuscule d'Anastase apparait, aussi bien par son titre que par sa forme, comme 1'expression la plus scolaire du processus de systematisation des themes majeurs de l'apologetique philosophique du 6e siecle. L'auteur qui, apparamment, s'efface deπiere des listes de definitions livrees aussi bien par la tradition des commentateurs neoplatoniciens que par les Peres de l'Eglise et que l'on rencontrera de nouveau, un peu plus tard, dans les Definίtίones Patmenses et le chapitre 33 de la Doctrίna Patrum, fixe discretement sa perspective au moyen de definitions dont il est vraisemblablement lui-meme l'auteur : μθΌ Μερική ουσία έστi λόγος μή γνωρίζων έν έαυτφ την δια του δντος υπαρξιν (Κεφάλαια, p. 349, 1. 92s), νΌ Μερική ουσία έστi πραγμα άνύπαρκτον (p. 349, 1. 94), ναΌ Μερική ουσία έστi λόγος καi άσήμαντος (p. 349, 1. 95), ος ' Διαίρεσίς έστιν ή τό μονοειδές εiς πολυειδές άπεσχοινισμένως ποιήσασα · καi πάλιν, τό iδίι;χ

καi άνά μέρος προς ετερον μηδαμώς γεγονός

(p. 353, 1. 133---4), formules

26 PG 89, 1283---4 ; PG 91 , 229 C8- 9 ; 232 Β9- ΙΟ; 232 C6- 12; Doctrίna Patrurn 191 , 7- 13; 204, 13- 205, 18: cf. CPG ΠΙ , 6956. Nous y avons releve des termes tels que

φύσις, ό καθ ' εκαστον, ό καθόλου, τό ε1δος, τό κοινόν είδος, άντιδιαιρούμενα, ούσία, όρισμός άνθρώπου· ζφον λογικόν θνητόν, διαφορά, άντιδιαστολή , καθ'εκαστα καi Ιiτομος Ιiνθρωπος, ύπόστασις . 27 Cette these a ete emise par F. DrEKAMP, Analecta Patrίstίca. Texte und Abhandlungen zu Grίechίschen Patrίstίk (OCA 117), Rome 1938, 174-5, qui s'appuie sur Προπαρασκευή, p. 200, 1. 19- 22, sur une confusion que le patriarche unioniste Jean Bekkos opere enlτe Anastase et Theodore, et sur une particularite de la tradition manuscrite, ού les deux textes sont parfois lies, comme dans le Vatίcan. gr. 830 (a. 1146), f. 90- 92' et 92- 105 et le Vίndob. phίlos. gr. 74 (16' s.), f. 141 '- 158' et f. 158 '- 162 Ό 28 L'edition de J. Β. PrτRA, Anastasίana. Anastasίorurn Antίochenurn et Sίnaίtorurn anecdota, Rome 1866, p. 60- 99, publiee en 60 exemplaires, n'est aujourd 'hui accessible qu'a la Bibliotheque Yaticane ; celle de S. Ν. SΑκκοs , Άναστασίου Α 'Άντιοχείας άπαντα τά σωζόμενα γνήσια έργα, Thessalonique 1976, p. 17- 78 nous est restee introuvable.

III 8

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

dont la

vιsee

anti-severienne n'est que trop visible ;

ρ'. Πίστις έστiν

ένυπόστατος ένέργεια χάριτι θεου τφ καθαρφ νφ καi μόνφ έγγινομένη

(p. 355, 1. 180s), intuition heureuse qui

connaίtra

son plein developpement

a la fin de la periode byzantine, au sein du palamisme, et ou le terme de ένυπόστατον est encore une fois mis a contribution. Dans le cadre de notre

recherche, les notions sur lesquelles nous nous sommes arretee sont les suivantes : δρος, ουσία, φύσις, κοινόν, ίδικόν, ύπόστασις, καθ'ύπόστασιν, άνυπόστατον, ένέργεια, ίδίωμα, διαίρεσις, ποσότης, ποιότης, συμβεβηκός,

φωνή, είδος, πραγμα, λόγος ένδιάθετος καi προφορικός, γενικόν, γένος, χαρακτηριστικά ίδιώματα, έν τφ τινί, μή δν, κίνησις, μονάς, αριθμός, διαφορά, υλη , σχfjμα, υπαρξις, ένωσις έτεροουσίων.

Bien que, d' apres 1' editeur des Κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα 29 , Jean Damascene ne semble pas avoir eu un acces direct a cette collection, il a ete possible le relever un assez grand nombre de paralleles - souvent litteraux - , ηοη seulement avec les Dίalectίca, mais aussi avec 1'Exposίtίo fideί. Que ces emprunts se soient faits a travers la collection de definitions d'Oxford ou a travers celle de Doctrίna Patrum, 33, ils ne cessent de nous signifier que les deux auteurs, guides par de memes preoccupations, ont aussi puise dans le meme substrat philosophico-theologique. Anastase l", Kephalaίa 1. 8- 9

JD, Dίalectίca 8,2- 3

JD, Exposίtίo

C.

1. 19- 21

C.

17, 9- 11

l. 28- 30

C.

13, 91. 93-4

1. 39-40 1. 48 1. 65- 7

C.

1, 15- 17

C.

1. 71 l. 75 1. 76 1. 78- 9 1. 87- 8

c. 8, 29- 30

l. 87

c.4,6- \0

1. 114 1. 122 1. 155- 8

c. 65 , 110- 11

UηιΕΜ Α ΝΝ,

13, 99- \02

c.26,58 C.

C.

8,5s C.

17,

C.

37, 3-4. 12

\Ο

40 (=23), 3-4

c.26,53- 5

l. 160-64

29

c.26,48-9 c. 32,2

C.

Philosophische Kapitel, p. 312.

14, 3-7

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne Anastase l", Kephalaίa 1. 221- 2

JD, Exposίtίo

JD, Dίalectίca C. 5, 19- 20

1. 263

c.28,4

3. Theodore de Τεχτε

9

:

Raϊthou

Praeparatίo

=

(fl. ca. 580- 620) Προπαρασκευή τις καi γυμνασία τφ βουλομένφ

μαθειν τις ό τρόπος της θείας ένανθρωπήσεως καi οικονομίας, καθ' δν πέπρακται, καi τίνα τά προς τούς ταύτην μή όρθως νοουντας λεγόμενα παρά των της έκκλησίας τροφίμων,

ed. F.

DιΕΚΑΜΡ

(OCA 117), Rome 1938,

p. 185-222. Moine et pretre du monastere de Raϊthou, situe au sud-ouest de la presqu'ile du Sinaϊ, Theodore n'est connu que par son traite intitu1eΠροπαρασκευή. Le manque de renseignements que nous possedons sur sa personne conduisit F. Combefis 30 a le confondre avec le moine Theodore, a la demande duquel Maxime le Confesseur composa son xxv1e opuscule theologique 3 1, tandis que G. Tilmann et Α. Possevin l'identifiaient a un certain Theodore d' Antioche, cite par Gennade de Marseille 32 • Fr. Diekamp ecarta cependant ces deux theses, en remarquant que Theodore d' Antioche n'etait autre que Theodore de Mopsueste, que notre auteur critique avec virulence, et en situant la redaction de la Προπαρασκευή avant l'eclatement de la crise monothelete et monoenergete, en raison de l' absence de toute problematique de cet ordre dans l 'ouvrage 33 • La datation du traite proposee par Diekamp, a savoir 580- 620, repose sur le propre temoignage de Theodore de Raϊthou, qui nous dit ecrire dans une periode de paix de l'Eglise et de treve des heresies : [ ... ] δτι θεου χάριτι καi εύμενείι;χ είρηνεύει τα της έκκλησίας έν γαλήνη τε καi άταραξίι;χ έσμέν, πάσης αίρέσεως έκποδών είς τούς έαυτfjς

(p. 185, l. 18-20). C'est apparemment sans fondement qu'elle a a ete remise en cause par Μ. Richard 34 .

φωλεούς κατακεκρυμμένης

°

3

31 32

F. CoMBEFΙS , Jllustrum Chrίstί martyrum lectί trίumphί, Paris 1660. Theodoro monacho ίllί proposίtίs : PG 91 , 276- 80. GENNADE οε ΜΑRsειιιε, De νίrίs ίllustrίbus ΧΙΙ , ed. Ε . C. RιcHARDSO N (TU 14),

Εχ quaestίonίbus α

Leipzig 1896, p. 65s. 33 Οι Ε ΚΑΜΙ', Analecta Patrίstίca, p. 174. 34 L'argumentation de Μ. RιcHARD, OTC 15, 282-4, qui propose d 'en situer la composition avant 553, ου meme 536, c'est-a-dire du vivant encore de Severe d' Antioche, en raison du fait qu'aucune allusion n' est faite a l'opposition des Theodosiens et des Gaϊanites ,

III 10

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Nous avons deja signale plus haut l'hypothese selon laquelle la aurait ete composee dans le but de servir d'introduction aux cinq discours dogmatiques d'Anastase d'Antioche 35 • Νοη seulement la tradition manuscrite, mais aussi son titre et des allusions presentes dans le texte semblent le confirmer. Toutefois, que la Προπαρασκευή soit une preparation a la lecture des cinq discours dogmatiques ou a tout autre enseignement dogmatique neochalcedonien, elle s'avere d'un grand interet pour celui qui entreprend de saisir le sens d'une philosophie proprement byzantine, aussi bien dans sa forme que dans les themes qu'elle developpe. Divisee en deux parties qui ont parfois ete editees isolement, elle dresse tout d'abord l'historique ou la filiation des deux opinions adverses des heretiques dont les eπeurs ont eu pour source la confusion des notions de nature et d'hypostase, ainsi que de leurs equivalentes, substance et personne. Puis, elle s'etend sur le developpement de ces memes notions dans un sens plus philosophique, qui suit cependant la tradition de l'interpretation patristique de Chalcedoine. Ce procede d'exposition sera largement mis a contribution, par la suite, dans le Vίae dux d'Anastase le Sinaϊte.

Προπαρασκευή

Loin d'etre, comme le remarque Richard, un catalogue incomplet d'heretiques suivi d'une simple « paraphrase chretienne de l'lsagoge de Porphyre et des Categorίes d' Aristote » 36 , la Προπαρασκευή manifeste, par l'imbrication de ces deux parties, l'importance que la philosophie d'inspiration aristotelicienne a pu prendre dans 1'apologetique neochalcedonienne: τα προς τούς δι'έναντίας λεγόμενα (p. 186, 1. 27) ne sont pas necessairement ici des arguments d'ordre theologique. Ils peuvent aussi constituer des developpements de notions philosophiques dont les δροι ont deja acquis, pour la plupart, une legitimite patristique. Sur les traces de Jean le Grammairien, face aux severiens et aux autres monophysites, Theodore dresse donc l'apologie, ηοη de doctrines theologiques, mais de notions philosophiques en usage en theologie : άναγκαιον ήμας τα σημαινόμενα έκάστης λέξεως των εiς τα προς αύτον Σευηρον λεγόμενα χρειωδως λαμβανομένων, έπi καιρου σαφηνίσαι κατά τον νουν των

se trouve refute par Theodore lui-meme, qui parle en ces termes du patriarche monophysite : [... ] κυκων δση δύναμις αύτiρ τήν της έκκλησίας είρήνην (Praeparatίo, p. 196, 1. 8). 35 Voir supra, n. 27 et Praeparatίo, p. 200, 1. 19- 22 : ίνα εχοιεν οί έντυχάνοντες τοις

Σευηρος

ύπογεγραμμένοις λόγοις έκ πρώτης έντεύξεως νοειν των λεγομένων τήν δύναμιν καi μή διά τήν αγνοιαν του σημαινομένου των λέξεων πρός τήv κατάληψιv των έν αύτοις θεωρημάτων παραποδίζωνται. 36

DTC 15, 282-4.

III 11

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

200, 1. 16-19). Comme ses predecesseurs, il se concentre principalement sur les notions de ουσία, φύσις, ύπόστασις, πρόσωπον, κοινόν, ιδικόν, ενωσις, διαφορά, mais s'etend egalement, sans grande originalite toutefois, a l'expose des categories d'Aristote dont la portee theologique n'apparaί't pas encore clairement dans son traite, mais qui commencera aprendre plus d'ampleur dans les Dίalectίca 50 (=33)-57 (=40) de Jean Damascene. Concernant le traitement des exemples philosophiques, οη peut dire que Theodore est l'auteur qui pousse le plus loin leur christianisation. Lorsque les exemples ne trahissent pas leur origine paϊenne, ils sont entierement restitues. Tel est le cas de l'exemple de la couleur et du corps, illustrant le rapport entre substance et accident, qui est integralement repris dans la Προπαρασκευή (p. 201, 1. 16-p. 202, 1. 2). Εη revanche, quand les exemples se pretent a un developpement chretien, ils sont entierement remanies. Ainsi, la simple subsitution de Pieπe, Paul et Jean a Socrate Platon et Alcibiade devient, pour Theodore, 1'occasion de certaines digressions, que les autres auteurs chretiens ne se sont jamais autorisees : έκκλησιαστικων διδασκάλων (ρ .

Pίerre

-

Ού γαρ έπειδή καi ό Πέτρος άνθρωπος, ήδη καi ό άνθρωπος

Πέτρος, έπεi καi τόν του Πέτρου λόγον ό άνθρωπος δέξεται. 'Έστιν ό

Πέτρος Σίμων υίός Ίωνα άπό Βηθσαϊδά της Γαλιλαίας, άπόστολος Ίησου Χριστου. Ταυτά τοι καi ό άνθρωπος εσται, είπερ ό άνθρωπος Πέτρος

[ ... ]

(p. 212, 1. 15- 19). Paul -

Ύποθώμεθα γάρ, δτι ό Παυλος άνθρωπός έστιν ώς δλοι οί

άνθρωποι, καi κατά τουτο τό είναι άνθρωπος ούτε αύτός των λοιπών άνθρώπων διαφέρει, ούτε δλοι οί άνθρωποι τούτου. Καθότι δέ Ταρσεύς έστι της Κιλικίας, καi φυλης Βενιαμίν, καi Σαυλος λέγεται ό καi Παυλος, καi άπόστολος Ίησου Χριστου , καi άπό 'Ιερουσαλήμ μέχρι του Ίλλυρικου πληρώσας

τό

Εύαγγέλιον,

καi

καθ ' ήμέραν

άποθνήσκων

ύπέρ

του

Εύαγγελίου, καi εί τι ετερον περί αύτου ίστόρηται τοιουτον, τούτοις, ώς

εφαμεν, των λοιπών άνθρώπων διακρίνεται. Ταυτα ουν Ιiπαντα περί την ύπόστασιν θεωρουνται, καi τό αύτό πραγμα, otov ό Παυλος, δταν τό είναι αύτου σκοπηται μόνον, τότε ούσία λέγεται, δταν δέ μετά τούτων των προλελεγμένων, τότε καi ύπόστασις

(p. 204, 1. 22- p. 205, 1. 1Ο).

Ή δέ ύπόστασις των αύτήν χαρακτηριζόντων έξ έναντίου κατά μέρος καi ούχ Ιiμα τήν δείξιν ποιειται . Νυν μεν γαρ ό Παυλος διώκτης, νυν δέ

κηρυξ, νυν καθίσταται συνευδοκων τfi άναιρέσει Στεφάνου, νυν δέ ϊσταται έπi των άναβαθμων τοίς Ίουδαίοις καταγέλλων τήν δύναμιν του Χριστου , νυν πηρουται τάς δψ εις ύπό της άστραπης του ούρανίου φωτός, νυν δέ άναβλέπει δια του Άνανίου

(p. 213, l. 28- p. 214, l. 2)

III 12

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne Jean -

Τήν δέ ύπόστασιν άδύνατον δι' όρισμού παραστησαι, άλλα δια

μόνης ύπογραφης . Έαν γαρ βουληθώ σοι παραστησαι τον δείνα άνθρωπον,

otov Ίωάννην τον Πρόδρομον, άνάγκη μοι ύπογράψαι σοι αύτον ουτως­ δτι Ίωάννης υίος Ζαχαρίου καi 'Ελισάβετ, έν ταις έρήμοις άνατεθραμμένος, λευκόχρους, μελάνθριξ, τρίπηχυς, ένδεδυμένος τρίχας καμήλου, ζώνην

δερματίνην εχων περί τήν όσφύν αύτού, έσθίων άκρίδας καi μέλι άγριον, προφητέυσας έπi της ίερατείας 'Άννα καί Καϊάφα, βαπτίσας τον δεσπότην έν τιρ Ίορδάνn, άποτεθείς έν τφ δεσμωτηρίφ δια Ί·Ιρωδιάδα καί άποκεφαλισθείς ύπο Ήρφδου τού βασιλέως (ρ .

214, 1. 19-p. 215, 1. 3).

Εη outre, οη retrouve chez Theodore l'exemple de l'archange Michael, prealablement elabore par Jean le Grammairien : οΤον Μιχαήλ ό άρχάγγελος, δτε τφ διαβόλφ διεκρίνετο περί του Μωυσέως σώματος, καi δτε τάς θείας έκείνας προρρήσεις άνέπτυσε τφ Δανιήλ, εν πρόσωπον άποκρινόμενον των

(p. 206, 1. 7-10). 11 en est de meme pour la division que Jean Damascene reprendra dans ses Dίalectίca : λοιπων άγγέλων δντα ήμιν έαυτόν διεδείκνυ

THEODORE, Praeparatίo,

JEAN DAMASCENE, Dίalectίca

p. 210, 1. 28s.

ι

ή άνθρώπου φύσις, αύτή καi είς θηλυ καi

είς

άρσεν

μεριζομένη.

Ών

ή

παραλλαγή κατά τε της ψυχης τα ηθη

23-7, ed.

κοπΕR

12,

1, p. 95.

[ ... ] οίον διαιρειται ό άνθρωπος είς - iδού διαίρεσις - καi

άρσεν καi θηλυ

πάλιν διαιρειται ό άνθρωπος είς ψυχήν

[ ... ]

κατά τε τα μέλη τού σώματος πολλή τε

καi σώμα, ίδού έπιδιαίρεσις-

καί λίαν έναργεστάτη.

γαρ καi έν τφ άρρρενι καi έν τft θηλεί~

ίδού

θεωρειται ψυχή καi σώμα.

PARALLέLES AVEC }ΕΑΝ DAMASCέNE 37

Theodore, Praeparatίo JD, Dίalectίca

JD,

190,20 191, 5

C. 55,4 c.46,29s.c. 50,33-4. C. 51, 14-15. C. 56, 33-4. C. 57, 4-5.c. 59, 141 - 2. c. 62, 11- 12. 23-4

194, 14- 15 201,9

37

Εη

C. C.

65 (=48), 105-7 40 (=23), 11

italiques, les paralleles terrninologiques.

Exposίtίo

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Theodore, Praeparatίo JD, Dίalectίca 201, 14-16

JD,

13

Exposίtίo

c. 40 (=23), 6- 11 . c. 4 (= 1), 62--4

201 , 16-202,2 202, 3- 5 202, 18- 20 202, 10- 203, 1 204, 5- 6 204, 7- 8 205, 20- 23 206, 5- 7 206, 7- 10 207, 10- 22 208, 1s 208,3--4 209, 5 209, 9s 209, 9- 10 209, 19- 21 210, 27- 9 212, 15- 17 213, 18- 19 213, 31 215, 20- 23 216,5- 217,27 218, 9- 22 218,24-6 221 , 22- 6

40 (=23), 3-5 4 (= 1), 6- 10 C. 31 (= 11), 26- 7 C. 41 (=24), 2-11 C. 44 (=27), 13s C. 43 (=26), 3 C. 43 (=26), 9- 11 C. 44 (=27), 2- 4 C. 44 (=27), 4-6 C. 47 (=30), 5- 23 c. 1Ο (=2), 6s C. 47 (=30), 4 C. 31 (=11), 23 C. 31 (=11), 28s C. 44 (=27), 10s C. 10 (=2), 9s C. 6 (= 12), 23- 7 c. 15 (=7), 19- 20 C. 31 (= 11), 30- 31 C. 44 (=27, 7 C.

C.

c. 8, 223- 30 12 (=4), 11- 24. (=5), 13- 23 c. 14(=6), 2- 15 C. 13 (=5), 1- 5 C. 37 (=20), 13- 16 C.

C.

13

4. Maxίme le Confesseur (ca. 580- 662)

TEXTES : Opuscula theologίca et polemίca, XIV. Variae definitiones (PG 91 , 149- 51); XVII. Distinctionum quibus res dirimuntur definitiones (PG 91 , 212); XVIII. Unionum definitiones (PG 91 , 213-16) ; ΧΧΙΙΙ. Capita de substantia seu essentia et natura, deque hypostasi et persona (PG 91, 26064. 265-8). - Epίstola XV : Του αύτου , περί κοινου και ιδίου , τουτέστιν ουσίας καi ύποστάσεως,

Άλεξανδρείας

προς Κοσμαν τον θεοφιλέστατον διάκονον

(PG 91, 544- 76).

III 14

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Figure de proue de son epoque, Maxime le Confesseur a surtout ete etudie pour sa contribution a la controverse du monoenergetisme, pour son systeme ecclesiologique et, plus recemment, pour le rδle que sa doctrine ontologique de l'energie a joue dans l'elaboration des theses palamites. Dans cet engouement, certes justifie, pour sa brillante pensee theologique, son apport plus modeste au systeme philosophique neochalcedonien a ete neglige au point que l'on ait souvent ete amene a confondre ses opuscules authentiques avec des pseudepigraphes que la tradition byzantine - qui, elle, voyait en lui une autorite philosophique incontestable -, a voulu placer sous son nom. Α ce stade de la recherche, il est bien evidemment impossible de presenter, de faς;on synthetique, la pensee philosophique du Confesseur. Cependant, pour ne pas faire , de nouveau, l'impasse sur son nom, nous avons pratique des incursions rapides dans quelques-uns de ses Opuscula, ainsi que dans 1'Epίstula XV, ces textes nous ayant semble revetir de premier abord un interet pour la comprehension du rδle que l'ceuvre de Maxime a pu jouer dans l'elaboration de la philosophie neochalcedonienne. Les definitions que Maxime expose dans les Opuscula XIV, XVII, XVIII et ΧΧΙΙΙ se trouvent aux antipodes de celles d' Anastase d' Antioche. Elles sont resolument patristiques, et presentent une pensee mίΊre, sίΊre d'elle et peu prete a faire des concessions a la philosophie paϊenne. Outre les equivalences classiques de ουσία = φύσις et ύπόστασις = πρόσωπον, Maxime s'arrete sur des notions comme ένυπόστατον et ένούσιον, developpant egalement, dans un but assurement polemique, les concepts de ενωσις et διαφορά sous leurs multiples acceptions. Interessante est aussi sa quadripartition de la notion d'ούσία - dont la source est peut-etre le traite pseudo-clementin De provίdentίa - , qui manifeste bien le souci d'eluder, en la rejetant sur un autre terrain, la difficile division aristotelicienne de l'ούσία en substance premiere et substance seconde. L'Epίstula XV au diacre Cosmas, plus theologique, est cependant plus structuree et nous revele une attitude se rapprochant fortement de celle de ces predecesseurs, notamment de Jean de Cesaree et Theodore de Raϊthou. Maxime, qui tout au long de sa lettre traite du κοινόν et du καθόλου , du μερικόν et du ίδιον en developpant l'identite des notions de nature et substance, hypostase et personne, sous la haute autorite de Gregoire de Nazianze et Basile de Cesaree, lutte ouvertement contre les severiens, qu'il considere comme les doubles heritiers de Manes et d'Epicure, d' Apollinaire et de Nestorius. C'est d'abord contre leurs accusations qu'il veut se justifier, car ils ont pretendu qu'il ne suivait pas la tradition patristique dans son

III 15

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

interpretation des notions philosophiques : 'Εγώ μεν ο-ον ταυτα προς σέ κατ'έπιτομην περi ών ηρώτησας διεξfjλθον, δουλε Θεου, της σfjς χάριν πληροφορίας- ούκ αλλως μεν εχων κατά ψυχήν, ως τινες των Σευήρφ χαιρόντων διαθρυλλουσιν, αλλως δέ λαλων τοις παρατυγχάνουσι. Μη τουτο νομίσης, άλλ' ώς έδιδάχθην καi φρονω καi πιστεύω, καi παρά των

(PG 91,576 ΑΒ). Mais, par ses deνeloppements philosophiques, c'est aussi Ι'ατοπον des theses de Seνere sur l'union et la difference en Christ qu'il νeut prouνer, un sujet deja extensiνement traite dans les Opuscula XVII et XVIII : Ότι Σευήρος ταυτόν εϊναι λέγων φύσιν Πατέρων παρέλαβον, λαλω

καi ύπόστασιν, σύγχυσιν ποιει την ενωσιν, καi διαίρεσιν την διαφοράν· καθ ' ην δείκνυται, τόν τε της Τριάδος εiς τετράδα πρόσωπον διαστέλλων τόν λόγον· καi τό της μονάδος εiς θεοτήτων δυάδα τέμνων μυστήριον· καi

(PG 91, 568 C). Jean Damascene, qui semble aνoir ete qualifie par certains de ses contemporains de « maximite » pour son attachement aux doctrines du Confesseur38 , a certainement eu connaissance de ces textes, dont il s'est manifestement inspire dans les Dίalectίca, l'Exposίtίo fideί, et probablement aussi dans son Contra Jacobίtas. Nous n'en aνons pourtant pas encore releνe un nombre suffisant de citations litterales pour les presenter sous forme de tableau. Nous mentionnerons simplement ici une ressemblance etonnante, qui n'a jamais ete releνee, entre la fameuse formule Έρω δέ έμόν μέν, ώς εφην, ούδέν, τα δέ τοις έγκρίτοις των διδασκάλων πεπονημένα εiς εν συλλεξάμενος du Prologue ( ed. ΚοπΕR 1, p. 53 , 1. 60-61) 39 aνec l'introduction de l'Epίstula XV de Maxime: Έμόν πάσης τόν Χριστόν βλασφήμως έκβάλλων ούσιώδους ύπάρξεως

μεν ούδέν έρω παντελως. 'Ό δέ παρά των Πατέρων έδιδάχθην φημi μηδέν παραμειβων της αύτων έπi τούτοις διδασκαλίας

(PG 91 , 544 D).

5. Ps-Clement d'Alexandrίe (2e moίtίe du 7e sίecle) De provίdentίa. Fragmenta, ed. Ο. SτλΗιrΝ, L. Alexandrίnus ΠΙ (GCS 17), Berlin, 2 1970, p. 219- 21. ΤΕΧΤΕ:

FRϋCHTEL,

Clemens

38 Cf. ΜιcΗ ε ι ι ε SYΙU EN , Chronίque, ed. J.-B. CHABOT, Paris 1901 (reimpr. Bruxelles 1963, 2010), ΙΙ, p. 492- 3. 39 Voir aussi Dialectίca 2, ed. ΚοττεR Ι , p. 55, 1. 9- 11 : Έρω τοιγαρουν έμόν μεν

ούδέν , τα δέ σποράδην Θείοις τε και σοφοις άνδράσι λελεγμένα συλλήβδην έκθήσομαι .

III 16

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Bien que nous ayons prefere eviter de presenter des ouvrages anonymes ou pseudepigraphes40 dans notre selection de textes caracterisant la philosophie neochalcedonienne pour ne pas ajouter precocement au difficile probleme de definition de celle-ci de lourdes questions d'ordre philologique, il nous a ete impossible d'ignorer le traite pseudo-clementin De provίdentίa, qui, aux yeux de certains byzantins, constituait, pour ainsi dire, le manifeste du mouvement philosophico-theologique des 5e_3e siecles. Produit du desir de donner une origine et un sommet a tout un ensemble de doctrines caracterisant la pensee philosophique neochalcedonienne, le De provίdentίa est, de toute evidence, une compilation du 7° siecle. Presentant une collection de δροι, qui commence avec 1' Opuscule ΧΧΙΙΙ de Maxime et recouvre un certain nombre de definitions tirees des Κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα d' Anastase d' Antioche, le De provίdentίa subsiste, dans sa forme la plus complete, dans le codex Florent. Med. Laur., Plut 9.8, tr' 304- 5, du 9° siecle, mais une anthologie transmise par le Parίsίn. gr. 854, :F 125vsq, du debut du 13e siecle, en livre egalement deux fragments, edites par Ν. Le Nourry et repris par Ο. Stahlin dans le troisieme volume de son edition de Clement d' Alexandrie, avec un certain nombre d'autres citations

40 Sur la proliferation des pseudepigraphes au 7• siecle, voir Μ . RιcHA RD, Un faux dithelite. Le traite de S. Irenee au diacre Demetrius, ίη Ρ. WιRτΗ (ed.), Polychronίon. Festschrift Franz Dδlger zum 75. Geburtstag, Heidelberg 1966, p. 431--40: « Comment expliquer cette exceptionnelle floraison de faux dans la litterature theologique du VII' siecle? Nous avons ecrit ailleurs que " le faux dogmatique est normalement l' arme des minorites persecutees " . Cette regle paraίt s'appliquer particulierement bien au cas qui nous occupe. Au temps de la crise monothelite, les partisans des deux volontes du Christ, pris iι partie iι la fois par les monophysites, l'Eglise officielle et le pouvoir civil, vivaient dans des conditions tres miserables. Les theologiens de l'epoque ne pouvaient pas publier la doctrine orthodoxe sous leur propre nom sans courir de reels dangers. L'anonymat n'offrait pas toute securite et risquait de limiter la diffusion des ecrits de propagande. La solution la plus efficace et la moins dangereuse etait d'assurer la publicite de la bonne doctrine sous le patronage de docteurs veneres du temps passe, depuis Justin et Hippolyte jusqu'iι Jean Chrysostome et Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Nous croyons que l'on calomnierait les auteurs de ces ecrits pseudepigraphes en les accusant d'avoir voulu consolider iι peu de frais leur doctrine par de faux temoignages des Peres. ΙΙ est, en effet, tres vraisemblable qu'ils n'avaient pas d' autre moyen de diffuser la doctrine orthodoxe contre la propagande officielle du monothelisrne sans risquer les plus graves ennuis, aussi bien pour eux que pour leurs lecteurs. ΙΙ est cependant inevitable que les auteurs de florileges dogmatiques s'emparent de ces ecrits et en fassent un usage beaucoup plus discutable. Οη peut se demander si l' enonce, dans quelque cas, de l' incipit des ceuvres citees avait pour but d'assurer une discrete publicite iι celles-ci ou simplernent de donner confiance au lecteur ».

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

17

imputables a Maxime le Confesseur4 1 et Anastase le Sinaϊte 42 • Un fragment douteux de ce texte, donne sous le nom de Clement de Rome dans le codex Medίol. Ambros. gr. 1041, f' 1ον, est en:fin signale par Stahlin d'apres le Quίs dίves salvetur de Clement d'Alexandrie 43 • Inversement proportionnel a la taille et a l'importance doctrinale des fragments qui nous en sont parvenus, le succes du De provίdentίa est dίΊ, sans nul doute, a l'anciennete et a la dimension philosophique de l'autorite patristique sous le nom de laquelle il est place. Εη effet, aux yeux d' Anastase le Sinaϊte, et vraisemblablement a ceux de ses contemporains, Clement d 'Alexandrie est le philosophe chretien par excellence, celui qui, selon le mot de Jean Damascene a « gagne le salut a travers les ennemis » en extirpant, des reuvres des sages grecs dont il s'est inspire, « tout ce qui est mauvais et qui releve de la connaissance au faux nom »44 • C'est donc a lui que revenait en premier la legitimite de poser, bien avant Chalcedoine, les bases des doctrines qui seraient plus tard developpees par Basile de Cesaree et qui serviraient par la suite aux docteurs neochalcedoniens pour combattre les opposants de l'Eglise : du De

provίdentίa

Ταύτα καi τά τοιαύτα καλως ό θεόφρων Βασίλειος έπιστάμενός φησιν προς Άμφιλόχιον- 'Φύσις δέ καi ούσία έν τοις έκκλησιαστικοις δόγμασιν εν τί έστιν'. Είπών δέ ό πατήρ 'έν τοις έκκλησιαστικοις δόγμασιν' έσήμανεν, δτι έν τοις έλληνικοίς ούχ εν τί έστιν ούσία καi φύσις. Διά τούτο καi Κλήμης

ό πολύς έν σοφίq καi γνώσει πεποίηκεν ιδιαζόντως δρους έκκλησιαστικων δογμάτων

[= De

provίdentίa ], ώς φοιτητής καi θρέμμα γνήσιον ύπάρχων

των άγίων άποστόλων Πέτρου καi Παύλου μάλιστα τού πανσόφου , καi άκούσας αύτού άποβαλλομένου καi λίαν μυσαττομένου καi καθυβρίζοντος

τήν έλληνικήν σοφίαν 45 .

41 Malgre ces citations, il est peu vraisemblable que le Confesseur ait connu le De providentia. En effet, le fragment Ι , ed. Ο. SτΑΗLΙΝ , Clemens Alexandrίnus , ΠΙ (GCS), Leipzig 1909, p. 219, 1. 15s, pretendument cite par Maxime, n' est pas reellement integre dans le texte de IΌpusculum ΧΧΠΙ; le fragment ΙΙ (p. 219, 1. 26s) ne mentionne aucune source, le fragment IV (p. 220, 1. 11s) est donne par uη opuscule pseudepigraphe et le fragment Υ (p. 220, 1. 20), issu de la Disputatίo c. Pyrrho renvoie aux Stromates et non au De providentia :

Κανόνι χρώμενος πρός τουτο τφ δντι φιλοσόφφ των φιλοσόφων Κλήμεντι, έν τφ εκτφ

των Στρωματέων λόγφ τήν μεν θέλησιν νουν είναι όρεκτικόν όρισαμένφ, τήν δέ βούλησιν,

(PG 91 , 317 C). 96 (PG 89, 741s.) =

εύλογον δρεξιν η τήν περί τινος θέλησιν

Quaestίo 28, ed. Μ . RJ c ιι A RD, J.A . ΜUΝιτιz, Anastasii Sίnaitae Quaestίones et Responsiones (CCSG 59), Turnhout, Leuven 2006, p. 65, 1. 184s. 43 SτΑΗLΙΝ , p. ινι-ινιι. 44 ΚΟΠ Ε R [, p. 52, J. 50s. 45 A NASTASE ιε SιNAiTE, Vιae dux Ι, 3, p. 21 - 2, 1. 69- 79. 42

ANASTASE

ιε

StNAiTE,

Quaestίo

III 18

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

C'est a lui aussi que l'antichrist Severe s'en prendrait dans sa folie heretique: Ό δέ Άντίχριστος καθαιρεί καi έκβάλλει, οϋς ό Θεός εθετο έν τft έκκλησίq. πατέρας καi ποιμένας, ώσπέρ τις διδάσκαλος των διδασκάλων ων ό ρήτωρ Σευηρος λέγων, δτι Όύκέτι άσφαλεις είσιν αί των άγίων πατέρων φωναί' . Λοιπόν σιγησάτο ό άποστολικός Διονύσιος- παυσάσθω Είρηναίος ό των

αίρέσεων πέλυξ· μή λαλείτω Κλήμης τό τού Χριστού κλημα 46 •

Grace adeux citations presentes, l'une dans Exposίtίo .fideί, 36, 1. 57- 9 (ed. p. 90) et 1'autre dans De duabus voluntatίbus 28, 1. 11-13 (ed. ΚοττΕR IV, p. 210), nous savons que Jean Damascene, qui , par ailleurs, fait un usage abondant des Stromates dans ses Sacra parallela, a connu le De provίdentίa sous le nom de Clement d 'Alexandrie, meme si nous ne somrnes pas en mesure de prouver qu'il ait lu l'ensemble de cet ouvrage. ΚοττΕR ΙΙ,

Ps.-Clement d' Alexandrie, De provίdentίa, ed. SτAHLIN, p. 220, 1. 11- 17.

Jean

De duabus 28 ed. ΚοηΈR, IV, p. 210, 1. 11- 13. Daιηascene,

voluntatίbus,

Θέλησίς έστι φυσική δύναμις τού

'Θέλησις τοίνυν έστi' κατά τον

κατά φύσιν δντος όρεκτική.

μακάριον Κλήμεντα 'δύναμις τού κυρίως δντος όρεκτική'

Θέλησίς έστι φυσική δρεξις τft

καi πάλιν Όρεξις τft τού

τού λογικού φύσει κατάλληλος.

λογικού φύσει κατάλληλος',

Θέλησίς έστι φυσική αύτοκράτορος

καi πάλιν 'αύτοκράτορος νου

νου αύτεξούσιος κίνησις η νους

κίνησις αύτεξούσιος'.

περί τι αύθαιρέτως κινούμενος. Αύτεξουσιότης έστi νους κατά φύσιν κινούμενος η νοερά της

ψυχης κίνησις αύτοκρατής.

6. Anastase le Sίnaϊte (2e moίtίe du 7e sίecle) ΤΕΧΤΕ : Vίae

dux /

Όδηγός,

ed.

Κ.-Η . UτΗΕΜΑΝΝ

(CCSG 8), Turnhout,

Leuven 1981 . Victimes d'une inextricable confusion entre plusieurs auteurs moyensorientaux vivant au 7e siecle et connus sous le nom d'Anastase, les

46

ANASTASE ιε SιΝΑΙΤΕ,

Viae dux VII, \, p. 107, \. 83-90.

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

19

savants qu1 ont porte leur attention sur le Vίae dux, depuis G. Cave47 jusqu'a S.N. Sakkos48 et Ε. Chrysos 49 ont generalement considere que cette ceuvre unique dans la pensee byzantine etait le resultat d'une compilation de plusieurs textes, un « opus tum ex variis ipsius Anastasii, tum ex nonnullis veterum opusculis consarcinatum » 50 , dont le noyau devait vraisemblablement etre rapproche de la production d' Anastase 11 d' Antioche. Les minutieuses recherches sur le sujet entreprises dans les annees 1950 par Μ. Richard 51 et conduites a leur terme par Κ.-Η . Uthemann avec la publication, en 1981 et 1985, des volumes 8 et 12 du CCSG52 , ont heureusement permis de jeter une lumiere nouvelle sur la personne d'Anastase le Sinaϊte et d'affirmer avec une certaine assurance que le Vίae dux est dιΊ a celui-ci dans son integralite. Ainsi, selon Uthemann, les differentes parties de l'ouvrage auraient ete redigees par le Sinaϊte dans une periode allant du patriarcat de Cyrus d'Alexandrie (631-639/642) a 686/689 au plus tard, date a laquelle il aurait procede a leur composition en un Gesamtwerk agremente de plusieurs scholies53 • Selon un mot de Richard, le chapitre Ι risquait de donner quelques soucis au futur editeur de l'Hodegos et le ch. ΙΙ des maux de tete 54 • Ce sont pourtant ces deux chapitres qui nous ont le plus interessee dans notre travail, car ce sont eux qui recapitulent le mieux, avec la Praeparatίo de Theodore de Raϊthou, les perspectives de la philosophie neochalcedonienne. Le chapitre Ι, qui se divise en trois parties, presente d'abord une Προγυμνασία κατ'έπιτομήν όμματίζουσα τον φιλόπονον, περί ων δει προ πάντων έξασκειν καi την είδησιν έχειν (Ι,

47

G.

CΑν Ε ,

Scriptorum

1, p. 7, 1. 1- 2), qui a certainement eu

ecclesίasticorum hίstorίa literarίa,

Geneve 1705 [2' ed.],

p. 392. SΑκκοs , Περi Άναστασίων, p. 107s. CHRvsos, Νεώτεραι ερευναι, p. 121---44. 5° C'est ainsi que G. Ch. Harles resume les differentes positions dans son Εdίtίο nova de J.A. FABRιcιus , Biblίotheca graeca sίve Notitia scrίptorum veterum graecorum Χ, Harnbourg 1807, p. 575 (reproduit dans PG 89, 14). 51 Μ. RI CHAιω, Anastase le Sinaϊte, l'Hodegos et le rnonothelisrne, REB 16, 1958, p. 29---42. 52 Le volurne 12 du CCSG contient deux ceuvres d'Anastase le Sinaϊte que nous considerons pas ici, les Sermones duo ίn constitutiones hominίs secundum imaginem deί et les Opuscula adversus monotheletas. 53 CCSG 8, p. CCXYIII. 54 Sur les nornbreux problernes philologiques poses par le chapitre ΙΙ, voiren dernier lieu CCSG 8, p. ccχχι----ccχχχνιιι et Κ.-Η . UτΗ ΕΜΑ ΝΝ, Ein neuer Zeuge der Definitionensamrnlung des Hodegos, Byzantίon 59, 1989, p. 281 - 2. 48 49

III 20

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

une valeur programmatique pour Jean Damascene, comme ceci apparait ηοη seulement dans les nombreuses citations litterales qu'il en donne dans toute son ceuvre, mais aussi dans l'application meme des principes qu'Anastase y expose: δτι δεί τούς δρους καί μάλιστα τούς άναγκαιοτέρους έπίστασθαι έκ στήθους

[= projet des Dίalectίca] :

Vιae

dux 1, 1, p. 7, 1. 6- 7.

δτι δει γινώσκειν κατά άκρίβειαν τα φρονήματα των έξ έναντίας καί

έγκύπτειν ταις τούτων γραφαις · πολλάκις γαρ έξ αύτων αύτούς καταισχύνειν δυνάμεθα[=

projet duDe

haeresίbus]:

1, 1, p. 7, 1. 8- 10.

δτι ού δεί τα βαθύτερα ήμων ψηλαφαν, ούδέ τα σεσιωπημένα τfi θεί~ γραφfi

et

ίστέον καί μή άγνοητέον, δτι ού δεί ήμας άβασανίστως καί

άπερισκέπτως l'Exposίtίo]:

την

οίανουν

δογματικήν

φωνήν

λέγειν

[= projet de

1, 1, p. 7, 1. 15- 17, et 1, 2, p. 10, 1. 2- 3.

δτι δεί ήμας πρό παντοίου λόγου άναθε ματίζειν δσας ύπολήψεις ψευδείς

ύπολαμβάνει περί ήμων ό δι' έναντίας, οίον, δτε προς 'Άραβας μέλλομεν διαλέγεσθαι, προαναθεματίσωμεν τόν λέγοντα δύο θεούς haeresίbus,

[ .. .] [= De

100]: 1, 1, p. 9, 1. 44- 7.

Par la suite, Anastase procede a une 'Έκθεσις έν έπιτομfj περί πίστεως dans laquelle il developpe, contre les monophysites et probablement aussi contre les monotheletes et monoenergetes, la doctrine des deux natures, des deux volontes et des deux activites en Christ, soulevant egalement les problemes poses par Phil. 2, 7, μορφήν δούλου λαβών, et par la formule μία θεανδρική ένέργεια. La troisieme partie du chapitre 1, intitulee Προθεωρία της ύποθέσεως των δρων της βίβλου, ης ή έπωνυμία λέγεται 'Οδηγός (1, 3, p. 18, 1. 1-2), constitue une introduction tres claire a la notion chretienne de δρος. Les δροι sont des guides sίΊrs - προηγείσθωσαν ούτοι ώσπερ τινές άσφαλεις όδηγοi της παρούσης ύποθέσεως (1, 3, p. 18, l. 21- 2) -, surtout lorsqu'ils contribuent a elaborer et defendre la doctrine orthodoxe. Car il y a des δροι qui suivent les lois de la nature et de la logique, ce sont ceux des philosophes paϊens qu'ils ne faut utiliser qu'avec prudence, ou rejeter s'ils s'averent contraires aux divins mysteres de la Trinite et de l'lncarnation. Puis, il y a les δροι de la doctrine ecclesiastique, enseignes par des Peres tels que Basile de Cesaree ou Clement d'Alexandrie, qui definissent les notions de φύσις, ένέργεια, γένος, θέλημα, ύπόστασις, ούσία. Ce sont donc ces notions, mais aussi celles de δρος, θεός, πατήρ, υίός, πνευμα, ίδίωμα, ενωσις, όμοούσιον, ψυχή, σωμα, αίσθησις, φθαρτόν, πίστις, λόγος, πρός τι, έτυμολογία, οίκονομικως,

qu' Anastase passera

assidίΊment

en revue

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

21

tout au long du chapitre 11, suivant un principe aristotelicien d'exposition qui consiste a repondre aux trois questions τί έστι (= definition), κατά τί είρηται (= etymologie) et όσαχως νοειται (= homonymie). Aux p. 421- 3 du CCSG 8, auxquelles nous renvoyons le lecteur, Uthemann donne un grand nombre de paralleles entre le Vίae dux et les ceuvres suivantes de Jean Damascene : Contra Jacobίtas (plus d'une quarantaine de paralleles), Dίalectίca (30 paralleles environ), Exposίtίo fideί (40 paralleles environ), De haeresίbus (2 paralleles) et lnstίtutίo (10 paralleles environ). Il est certain qu'une comparaison plus poussee en revelerait beaucoup d'autres, ηοη seulement au simple niveau textuel, mais aussi, comme nous l'avons signale plus haut, au niveau plus general des idees et de l'optique d'ensemble des deux auteurs. 11. Υ a-t-il un systeme philosophique neochalcedonien ? 1.

Condίtίons

de possίbίlίte

Poser la question de l' existence d'un systeme philosophique neochalcedonien, c' est a dire celle de la possibilite et de la legitimite de la mise en place d'un ensemble coherent et articule d'axiomes exterieurs a la dogmatique theologique chretienne, par des theologiens eux-memes, n'est pas sans rappeller les difficiles interrogations qui, d'Erasme 55 a Gilson, ont traverse la notion de philosophie chretienne 56 : la philosophie chretienne se confond-elle fatalement avec la theologie, ou subsiste-t-elle de fayon autonome, toleree tant bien que mal par celle-ci ? Le mode de pensee dialectique, caracteristique de tout surgissement philosophique, estil compatible avec le dogme chretien, pour la comprehension duquel seule la foi semble requise ? Comme pourrait le laisser entendre l'unique ouvrage d'ensemble consacre a ce sujet57 , et comme il est generalement admis aujourd'hui, la 55 E RASME DE Roπ ERDAM , Paraclesίs, id est adhortatio ad chrίs tίanae phίlosophίae studium, ίη Opera omnίa , Munich 1704, Υ, p. 137--44. 56 Οη se reportera notamment iι Ε . GιιsοΝ , L Έsprίt de la philosophie medievale, Paris 1932, p. 1--44 et iι sa Note bibliographique pour servir iι l' histoire de la notion de philosophie chretienne, iι la fin du merne volume. 57 Β. ΤΑτΑ κι s, La phίlosophίe byzantίne, Paris, 1947. - Depuis 1996, date de redaction de la presente etude, de nombreux travaux ont vu le jour dans le dornaine de la philosophie byzantine : voir par exemple, Κ . I ERODI A KONOU (dir.), Byzantίne Philosophy and ίts Ancίent Sources, Oxford 2002 (avec en particulier la contribution de L. ΒΕΝΑ κι s, Current Research

III 22

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

philosophie byzantine, chretienne par definition, ne serait autre qu'une theologie a part, une theologie orientale et donc de preference mystique, de laquelle se seraient par moments echappes des courants de pensee paradoxaux, nes du neoplatonisme et destines a s'opposer a la doctrine de l'Eglise. Byzance n'aurait donc jamais connu de veritables courants philosophiques autonomes, elle n'aurait jamais donne naissance a un systeme de pensee autre que celui que lui aurait legue la double tradition des Peres et du neoplatonisme. Elle aurait simplement accumule, recopie et compile, sans questionner. Bien evidemment, il ne saurait etre question, dans la presente etude, ni du statut ni des limites de la philosophie byzantine dans son ensemble, ce vaste domaine d'investigation commen9ant a peine a etre explore. Nous aimerions cependant nous arreter ici sur une attitude qui a, nous semblet-il, prevalu chez un certain nombre de theologiens orientaux des 6e_ge siecles, et que IΌη pourrait sans difficulte caracteriser de philosophique. Les lecteurs anciens d' Anastase 1er d' Antioche ou de Jean Damascene n'avaient pas manque de la reconnaitre, eux qui ont tδt fait de citer ces ceuvres qu'ils admiraient sous le nom de κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα ou κεφάλαια φιλοσοφικά.

« Cherchons, enquetons, examinons questionnons ! ». « Lisons une fois, deux fois, plusieurs fois ! ». Voila des intentions que le Damacene a clairement exprimees au tout debut de ses Dίalectίca 58 , mais qui ont malencontreusement ete occultees par l'extreme importance prise, au fil des etudes, par cette petite formule de circonstance : « Je ne dirai rien de mien »59 • Or, ces intentions ne repondent-elles pas a ce vceu maintes fois formule par Anastase le Sinaϊte ? Ού δει ήμας άβασανίστως καi άπερισκέπτως την οίανουν δογματικήν φωνήν λέγειν 60 • Ne viennent-elles pas confirmer ce sentiment si bien exprime par Theodore de Raϊthou, pour qui la science pouvait prendre, comme compagne de la foi, une importance salutaire?

in Byzantine Philosophy, ίbίd. , p. 283- 8); Α. RΙGo et αlίί (dir.), Byzanιίne Theology and ίts Background (Βυζάντιος 4), Turnhout 2012. Relativement au sens attribue a ce domaine par l'historiographie contemporaine, voir Μ. ΤRΙzιο, Byzantine Philosophy as a contemporary historiographical project, Recherches de Theologίe et Phίlosophίe Medίevales, 74,2007,p. 247- 94. 58 Cf. egalement sa Laudatίo s. Joh. Chrysostomί, 12, 1. 1s, ed. ΚοττεR Υ, 366 : έρευναν

Phίlosophίcal

τάς γραφάς έδίδαξεν έξηγητής καi παιδευτής τούτων γενόμενος. 59

60

Cf. supra n. 38 et texte. AN ASTASE ιε SιΝΑΙτε, Viae dux, l, 2, p. 1Ο, 1. 1- 2.

III 23

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne Στοχάζομαι δέ, δτι καi κατά τον καιρόν της άνταποδόσεως μείζων ό μισθός εσται καi ή άποδοχή πλείων τοΊς μετά γνώσεως έμμελούς, άραρότως

καi έδρασμένως έχομένοις της εύσε βείας, των άπλως καi ώς ετυχεν έκ πατροπαραδότου συνηθε ίας έν τfi αύτfi πίστε ι γνωριζομένων .

Oi

μέν γαρ

κατά συμβεβηκός μόνον, οί δέ καi άπό διανοίας καi γνώμης πιστοί γεγονότες εύρίσκονται61 •

Certes, de tous les theologiens mentionnes plus haut, aucun n'a voulu edifier une metaphysique ou une cosmologie exterieures a l' enseignement biblique. Aucun ne s'est aventure sur les sentiers d'une theologie naturelle. Aucun n'aconnu le principe, tout occidental, dufides quaerens ίntellectum: « Nous acceptons, connaissons et respectons tout ce qui nous a ete transmis par la Loi, les prophetes, les apδtres et les evangelistes, sans chercher audela » 62 • « Contentons-nous de cela et restons-y attaches, sans deplacer les bornes eternelles (cf. Pr 22, 28 ; Dt 19, 14) ηί depasser la tradition divine »63 • Mais la οι'ι l'effort dialectique n'etait pas perilleux pour la vie spirituelle, la οι'ι il etait meme necessaire au maintien des enseignements fondamentaux du christianisme, ils ont, chacun a la mesure de ses moyens, apporte leurs propres developpements, contribuant ainsi a eriger sur le terrain de la logique aristotelicienne et neoplatonicienne, une autre logique, une logique proprement patristique et byzantine. 2. Lίmίtes d 'une symbίose Οη pourra aisement nous objecter que la quasi-totalite des notions livrees par les Categorίae, Ie De lnterpretatίone et par leurs commentaires alexandrins subsiste, sans assimilation apparente, dans la plupart des traites de logique byzantine, lesquels seraient maladroitement coiffes de confessions de foi chretiennes servant simplement a attester, contre tout soupς;on d'hellenisme, l'orthodoxie de leurs auteurs. « Des lambeaux de doctrines grecques plus ou moins gauchement cousus a une theologie » 64 , voila donc ce que ces pretendus philosophes nous auraient laisse. Si l' οη entreprend toutefois de comprendre comment a pu s' operer, et se maintenir a travers les siecles, cette symbiose des notions fondamentales de l'aristotelisme avec les doctrines les plus hostiles a la tradition grecque du christianisme, si, en somme, οη se propose de trouver un sens a des 61 62

63 64

p. 186, 1. 15- 20. 1, 1. 19- 22, ed. KOTTE R ΙΙ , p. 7. Exposίtίo fideί 1, ι. 26- 8, ed. KoTTER ΙΙ , p. 8. Gι ιsοΝ, L Έsprίt , p. 2. THEODORE ΟΕ RAϊT H OU, Praeparatίo ,

Εχpοsίιίο fidei

III 24

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

textes consideres, depuis toujours, comme de mauvaises compilations, c'est a un concept aristotelicien, fortement transforrne, que l'on sera oblige de recourir, car c'est lui aussi qui a, au depart, servi a nos theologiens pour legitimer l'usage exclusivement chretien du vocabulaire logique d' Aristote et de ses commentateurs neoplatoniciens. Ce concept est celui de l'homonymie. Favorisee par le succes du monophysisme severien, qui recourait volontiers aAristote ou a des citations equivoques d' Athanase et de Cyrille d Άlexandrie pour contrer les arguments de ses adversaires, 1' « utilisation abusive de l' art des discours » 65 , avait donne lieu, apres Chalcedoine, a une inflation de definitions contradictoires de notions telles que ούσία, φύσις, ύπόστασις, sur lesquelles il etait devenu imperatif de trancher. Pour ce faire , le parti orthodoxe avait deux methodes a sa disposition : soit il decidait, comme osa une fois le faire Anastase 1e, d'Antioche, que certaines definitions paϊennes ou monophysites s'appliquaient en fait a des non-etres et n'avaient donc pas lieu d'exister - μερική ούσία έστi πραγμα ανύπαρκτον · μερική ούσία έστi λόγος καi άσήμαντος 66-, soit il usait de plus circonspection, mais aussi de plus de respect a l'egard de definitions antiques et largement diffusees, considerant qu'elles ne faisaient qu'accroitre la liste deja longue des sens homonymes d'une meme notion. Cette derniere solution avait ηοη seulement l'avantage de perrnettre, sans trop de risques, de « recueillir quelque chose d'utile [ .. .] dans les discours des auteurs profanes »67 , mais aussi celui de faciliter la refutation des adversaires par une meilleure connaissance de leurs positions : δει γινώσκειν κατά άκρίβειαν τα φρονήματα των έξ έναντίας καi έγκύπτειν ταις τούτων γραφαις-

δυνάμεθα 68 • Ήμεις

πολλάκις γαρ έξ αύτων αύτούς καταισχύνειν

Et aussi : [ ... ]

γουν

έκ

νεαρας

ήλικίας

και

εκ

πατρικής

παραλαβόντες μερικώς την των δρων παίδευσιν,

τροπουμένους

καi

ήττωμένους

πάντας

τούς

παραδόσεως

μετά θεόν δι ' αύτης

αντιδίκους

θεασάμενοι,

παρακαλουμεν προ πάντων της των δρων γνώσεως ποιείσθαι έπιμέλειαν,

65

Dίalectίca

1, 1. 60- 63 , ed. Κοττ ε R

Ι,

p. 54.

def. η 0 50- 51, ed. Uπι ΕΜΑΝΝ , p. 349. 1, 1. 53- 5, ed. Κοττ ε R Ι , p. 54. 68 ANASTASE ιε SιΝ Α ΪΤΕ, Viae dux l, 1, p. 7, 1. 8- 10. Voir aussi THEODORE DE RΑΙτΗου, Praeparatίo , p. 186, 6- 11 : ίνα εν των όποτέρων πάντως ήμιν ύπάρξη δια τη ς τοιαύτης 66

ANASTASE ο ' Α ΝΤΙΟCΗΕ, Κεφάλαια έμφ ιλόσοφα ,

67

Dίalectίca

άξιεπαίνου σπουδή ς, η τό σώζειν τούς άποδιορίζοντας έαυτούς καi έκ της πονηρας διακρίσεως ταύτης αύτούς έξαρπάζειν

[... ], ή ,

εi μή τουτο , καν άποφράττε ιν αύτών τό στόμα

τοις δικαίοις έλέγχοις, ώς μηδέ καιρόν έχε ιν αύτούς άθυρογλωττείν κατά τη ς άληθ είας .

III 25

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne καi μάλιστα των είς δόγμα συντεινόντων Χριστού, δπως μή έσεσθε τυφλοί

βάρβαροι καi ό λαλων συν ύμιν βάρβαρος 69 .

Au sein de la production de cette epoque, les Dίalectίca sont certainement l'reuvre qui a manifeste l'interet le plus vif pour les definitions de la philosophie paϊenne, qu'elle a essaye de restituer de la faς:on la plus complete possible. C'est aussi elle qui semble avoir ete le plus attachee a la notion d'homonymie, dont elle ne repete pas moins de trois fois la definition 70 : Α propos des homonymes, trois questions doivent etre posees : s'agitil bien d'homonymes ? Combien de significations ont-ils ? Quelle est la signification dont il est question ? Mais disons tout d'abord ce qu'est υπ homonyme. Homonymes sont deux ου plusieurs choses qui ont un seul nom, tandis que chacune signifie autre chose et releve d'une autre substance, c ' est dire reς;oit une autre definition 7 '.

a

Reprenant largement les classifications des commentateurs neoplatoniciens, mais parlant aussi quelques fois de leur propre initiative, les Dίalectίca se plaisent donc a preciser le nombre de significations que recouvre une notion, sans ommettre, lorsque l'occasion se presente, d'apporter ses propres complements, introduits par les habituels χρή γινώσκειν ou δεί εiδέναι. Tel est le cas, par exemple, pour les notions de genre (το γένος τρισσως λέγεται72 ), d'espece (το εϊδος των όμωνύμων έστίν 73 ), d'individu (το άτομον τετραχως λέγεται 74 ), de propre (το ίδιον τετραχως λέγεται 75 ), de sujet (το ύποκείμενον δισσως λέγεται76 ), d'avoir (το έχειν κατα όκτώ τρόπους λέγεται 77 ), ou d'universel (κοινόν δέ τετραχως λέγεται 78 ) , dont les multiples significations ont deja ete enumerees par les alexandrins, mais aussi pour les notions d'hypostase (το της ύποστάσεως δνομα δύο

dux 1, 3, p. 19, l. 34-41. 9, 16 (=8) et 32 (=8), ed. ΚΟΠ Ε Ι( 1, p. 72, 86 9, ι. 2- 7, ed. ΚΟΊΊΈ R 1, p. 72. 10 (=2), 1. 17, ed. KOTTER Ι , p. 74. 10 (=2), 1. 4, ed. KOTTER 1, p. 74 11 (=3), 1. 2, ed. KOTTER 1, p. 81 . 14 (=6), 1. 2, ed. KOTTER Ι, p. 83 . 17, 1. 2, ed. KOTTER Ι , p. 86. 63 (=46), 1. 2, ed. KoTTER Ι, p. 131 . 65 (=48), 1. 67, ed. ΚοττΕ R 1, p. 134.

69

A NASTASE ιε SrNAΪTE , Vίae

70

α. Dίalectίca

71

Dίalectίca

72

Dίalectίca

73

Dίalectίca

74

Dialectίca

75

Dialectίca

76

Dialectίca

77

Dίalectίca

78

Dίalectίca

et

101.

III 26

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

de nonet d'union (ενωσις γίνεται κατά διαφόρους τρόπους 82 ), qui caracterisent plus particulierement le debat neochalcedonien. Εη νertu de l'homonymie, la philosophie paϊenne aνait ete en mesure de delimiter, pour les termes qui l'interessaient, un champ semantique exclusiνement tributaire de ses competences. Jean Damascene ne pouνait pas l'ignorer, lui qui s'etait applique a preciser, dans le cas du genre par exemple, que « les philosophes ne s'occupent pas des genres dont nous νenons de parler [= la race, la patrie]. Le genre, c' est aussi ce sous quoi est rangee l' espece [ ... ] . C 'est de ce genre que traitent les philosophes » 83 • Or, c'est d'un champ semantique similaire que la pensee philosophique neochalcedonienne avait voulu de toute vraisemblance se doter, en entrant ouvertement en concuπence avec l'aristotelisme neoplatonisant et ses avatars monophysites. L' opposition de la philosophie paϊenne etde la pensee neochalcedonienne sur un meme terme homonyme est certainement l'element le plus voyant et le plus caracteristique de toute la litterature que nous avons presente plus haut. Les definitions contradictoires sont parfois formulees discretement, au moyen de simples pronoms demonstratifs : κατά τούς άλλους, καθ 'έτέρους84, de verbes tels que λέγουσι, όρίζουσι, ou meme sans aucun avertissement, comme ceci peut aπiver dans certaines collections scolaires de δροι85 . 11 est cependant plus frequent que la concuπence des definitions paϊennes et neoplatoniciennes s'exprime a travers la stricte bipolarisation οί μεν έξω φιλόσοφοι/ οί δέ &γιοι πατέρες 86 et par une nette prise de position de la part de l'auteur. Ainsi, pour Anastase le Sinaϊte, qui est assurement le plus prolixe sur ce sujet, la tendance grecque, designee par les adverbes όμηρικως, πυθαγορικως, άριστοτελικως, έλληνικως, se caracterise par une polyphonie qui, selon lui, n'a pas manque de provoquer l'egarement des heretiques : κατά δέ Άριστοτέλην και τούς λοιπούς σημαίνει 79 ),

hypostasie

d'enhypostasie

(τό ένυπόστατον δύο σημαίνει 80 ),

(τό άνυπόστατον δισσως λέγεται8 1 )

'Έλληνας πολυτρόπως ή φύσις όρίζεται, οϋστινας δρους οί άπό Σευήρου

79

80

81 82 83 84 85 86

43 (=26), 1. 2, ed. ΚοττΕR 1, p. 108. 30 (= 10), 1. 4- 5, ed. ΚοττεR Ι , p. 93 . Dίalectίca 30 (= 10), 1. 2. 4. 8, ed. ΚοττεR Ι, p. 93 . Dίalectίca 65 (=48), 1. 98, ed. ΚοττεR Ι , p. 135. Dίalectίca 9, l. 19- 24, ed. ΚοττεR Ι , p. 73 . ANASTASE ο' ΑΝΤΙΟCΗΕ, Κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα, def. η 0 52, ed. UTHEMANN, p. 349. Cf. Doctrina patrum, 33. Dίalectίca 31, ed. ΚοττΕR 1, p. 93-4. Dίalectίca Dίalectίca

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

27

Elle possede toutefois une unite et une cohesion philosophique, qui se manifeste notamment dans sa preference pour les definitions et les lois naturelles et son incapacite fonciere a saisir les axiomes paradoxaux du mystere chretien 88 • Aux antipodes de cette polyphonie intrinseque a la philosophie paϊenne, l'ensemble des definitions elaborees par les Peres se situe dans la lignee d'un enseignement qui, de Moϊse a Basile de Cesaree89, n'a connu aucune discordance, ce qui, pour nos auteurs, η' est pas sans montrer sa justesse et sa superiorite. κρατούντες άπεπλανήθησαν 87 .

Κατά Μωσέα καi τούς προφήτας καi τό Εύαγγέλιον έρμηνεύσωμεν την ουσίαν, τό γένος, την φύσιν, την ύπόστασιν, τό πρόσωπον, δπου ουδείς δύναται άντειπείν . Πρώτον μέν, δτι κυρία καi δέσποινα πάντων των αλλων

έκκλησιαστικων γραφών καi πατέρων τυγχάνει, δεύτερον δέ, δτι καi άνόθευτος καi άναντίρρητος ύπάρχει πασα νομική καi άποστολική φωνή 90 •

Ταύτην δέ την παράδοσιν καi τόν δρον τόν πε ρί φύσεως τούτον, δν νυν έκ παλαιας καi καινίjς διαθήκης παρηγάγομεν, ούτε διδάσκαλος ούτε iiγγελος

έξ ουρανού καινοτομησαι η άνατρέψαι δύναται είς τόν αίωνα 9 1 •

Τό γαρ πρόσωπον, ώς πολλάκις εΊπον, τό ίδικόν σημαίνει, ή δέ φύσις τό καθολικόν καi τήν τού πράγματος άλήθειαν, καθώς παρεστησαμεν έκ

νομικίjς καi προφητικίjς καi δεσποτικίjς καi εύαγγελικίjς καi άποστολικίjς καi διδασκαλικίjς παραδόσεως92 •

La presence meme des notions de φύσις, ύπόστασις, γένος, πρόσωπον dans les saintes Ecritures93 ne legitime donc pas seulement leur utilisation

ANASTASE ιε SrNAiTE, Viae dux ΙΙ, 3, p. 31 , 1. 4- 6. Yoir notamment ANASTASE ιε SιΝΑϊτε, Viae dux Ι , 3, p. 19- 21, 1. 42- 68. 89 Yoir ainsi ΒΑsιιε οε CέsAREE, Εpίsι . 236, 6, ed. Υ. CoυRTONNE (Collection des Universites de France), ΙΙΙ , Paris 1966, p. 53 : Ούσία δέ καi υπόστασις ταύτην έχει την διαφοράv fjv έχει τό κοινόν προς τό καθ'εκαστον, olov ώς εχει τό ζφοv προς τόν δείνα 87

88

iivθρωπον. Δια τούτο ούσίαv μεν μίαν έπi της θεότητος όμολογούμεv, ώστε τόv του

εlναι λόγον μή διαφόρως άποδιδόvαι· ύπόστασιv δέ ίδιάζουσαν, Υv ' άσύγχυτος ήμιv καi τετραvωμένη ή περί Πατρός καi Υiου καi Άγίου Πνεύματος έννοια ένυπάρχη .

ANASTASE ιε SΙΝΑΪΤΕ, Viae dux VI, 2, p. 102- 3, l. 57- 63 . ANASTASE ιε SΙΝΑΪΤΕ, Viae dux ΙΙ, 3, p. 33, 1. 45- 9. 92 ANASTASE ιε SrNAiTE, VίaeduxVIII, 5, p. 131, 1. 67- 75. 93 Seule exception, la notion d ' ούσία, qui n'est aucunement attestee dans l'Ecriture, comme le remarque d'abord Theodore de Raϊthou, τό της ούσίας δvομα [ ... ] ούδ'δλως έμφερόμενοv εύρίσκομεv τfi θείι;ι γραφfi (Praeparaιίo , p. 200, 1. 24- 5), sera generalement consideree comme le plus courant synonyme de φύσις : παρηκαται δέ αύτό τό δvομα της 00

91

III 28

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

dans un contexte theologique, elle requiert egalement que leur definition proprement philosophique se fasse a l'exterieur du champ semantique exclusivement contrδle par la pensee hellenique. 3.

Arίstotelίsme

et heresίe

Ίστέον δέ πρό πάντων καi μή αγνοητέον, δτιπερ Ιiπαντες οί μίαν ουσίαν

δογματίζοντες εΊναι της θεότητος καi της ανθρωπότητος του Χριστού έκτου Άριστοτέλους καi των άλλων έλληνικων [διδαχών] παρέλαβον

λέγειν την φύσιν πρόσωπον εΊναι καi τό πρόσωπον όμοίως φύσιν 94 • Άλλα

[ ... ]

μηδαμώς οί πιστοί καταδεξώμεθα κατά τα έλληνικά

καi

αριστοτελικά διδάγματα τα του Χριστού κηρύττειν δόγματα 95 •

Signe d'une admiration persistante pour l'immense legs intellectuel de l'antiquite, ou manifestation d'une conscience prete a reconnaitre le caractere desormais obsolete des principales doctrines paϊennes, peu de critiques sont adressees, en fait, a l'reuvre-meme d'Aristote ou des autres philosophes grecs. La refutation du paganisme, magistralement formulee dans le Dίscours catechetίque de Gregoire de Nysse, est deja faite depuis longtemps, et il ne s'agit pas d'y revenir. Ce qui preoccupe reellement nos auteurs, c'est l'incidence que certaines theses ou definitions aristoteliciennes, imprudemment introduites dans 1' interpretation de la revelation chretienne, ont pu avoir sur la formation d'un grand nombre d'heresies, dont la plus dangereuse demeure, a cette epoque, le monophysisme. Plus precisement, deux theses aristoteliciennes sont rejetees avec determination. Premierement, la conception de la φύσις comrne principe de mouvement et de repos, qui est radicalement contraire a l'idee de θεία φύσις, de nature divine immuable: Ό μεν γαρ Άριστοτέλης φύσιν λέγειν εlναι αρχήν κινήσεως καi ηρεμίας- ή δέ ευσεβής των αποστόλων παράδοσις ούτε αρχή κινήσεως ούτε ήρεμίαν

ηγουν τέλος όμολογεί έπi της θείας φύσεως 96 •

φύσεως παρά τό πεφυκέναι, τουτέστιν ύπάρχειν. 'Ώστε τό αύτό σημαίνει τό δνομα της

ούσίας καi της φύσεως, τό μεν παρά τό είναι, τό δέ παρά τό πεφυκέναι . Άμφότερα γαρ δηλουσιν την ύπαρξιν. Ού μόνον δέ όνόματι, άλλα καi πράγματι ταύτόν έστιν ούσία καi

p. 202, l. 18- 22). dux VI, 2, p. 99- 100, l. 1- 5. Vιae dux VI, 2, p. 101, l. 29- 31 . Vιae dux VIII, 5, p. 133, l. 117- 20.

φύσις καi δ τι έγγ ίω (Praeparalίo, 94

ANASTASE ιε SιΝΑΪΤΕ , Vιae

95

AN ASTASE ιε SιΝΑΙΤΕ,

96

AN ASTASE ιε SιΝΑΙτε,

III 29

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

La deuxieme est ladistinction aristotelicienne de la substance en πρώτη ούσία et δευτέρα ούσία, laquelle devait s'averer specialement pernicieuse, ηοη seulement dans le debat sur le nombre des natures du Christ, mais egalement dans la discussion trinitaire plus ancienne sur Ι'όμοούσιον. Conduisant a l'identification des notions de substance premiere et d'hypostase, de nature et de personne et, par voie de consequence, a l'equation φύσις = ύπόστασις, elle aurait en effet fourni aux δήθεν σοφούς 9 7 l'occasion de se fourvoyer dans un grand nombre d' eπeurs, qui, pour Theodore de Raϊthou 98 et Maxime le Confesseur99 , mais surtout pour Anastase le Sinaϊte 100 et Jean Damascene 101 , se sont principalement exprimees dans les courants de l'arianisme, du sabellianisme, du nestorianisme et du monophysisme, schematiquement classes de la faς;on suivante :

Φιλοδιαιρέται* Θεολογία

Οίκονομία

Ariens ( trois natures divines) Nestoriens (deux hypostases du Christ)

Άναχυτικοi καi συμφύρται

**

Sabel\iens (une hypostase divine) Monophysites (une nature du Christ)

* Sur ce tenηe, cf. THEODORE DE RAϊrHou, Praeparatίo, p. 192, l. 4. ** Sur ce terme, cf. ΤιιέοοοRΕ DE RΑϊηιοu , Praeparatίo , p . 193, l. 25. Partant de l'equivalence des notions de φύσις et ύπόστασις, les ariens ont donc considere les trois hypostases de la Sainte Trinite comme trois natures ou trois essences divines, s' elevant de cette faς;on contre l' enseignement de l ' όμοούσιον et de l'egalite de dignite des trois personnes de la Trinite et niant la stricte unicite de la nature divine : Λοιπόν τούτφ τφ ματαίφ κανόνι στοιχων ό 'Άρειος εϊπε τρεις ούσίας έπi πατρός και υίου καi άγίου πνεύματοςιο 2 •

Et de meme :

'Άρειος μεν και Εύνόμιος

[ ... ]

τρεις ούσίας

άναφανδόν έφληνάφησαν, ταις ύποστάσεσι την φύσιν συνδιατέμνοντες,

C. Jacobitas, 2, 23, ed. ΚοπΕ R IV, p. 111. Cf. TH E0D0RE DE RAiτH o u, Praeparatio, p. 187, l. 1- p. 199, 1. 22. 99 Cf. Epίstola XV, PG 91 , 568 Α-572 Β . 100 Cf. A NASTASE LE SιΝΑΪΤΕ, Vίae dux VI, 2, p. 100- 101 , 1. 7- 19 et 1. 65- 74. 101 C. Jacobitas 2, 1- 26, ed. ΚοπΕR IV, p. 110-11 . 102 A NASTASE ι ε SrN AΪTE, Viae dux VI, 2, p. 100, 1. 7- 8. 97 98

ΙΧ ,

2, p. 141- 2,

III 30

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Suivant un raisonnement inverse, Sabellius a commis l'impiete de reduire les trois personnes du Pere du Fils et de 1Έsprit a une seule hypostase, ouvrant ainsi la voie aux doctrines du theopaschisme : Και Σαβέλλιος όμοίως

κακως είδότες, και τfί ύποστάσει ταυτόν την φύσιν νοήσαντες 103 •

την φύσιν λέγων ύπόστασιν, μίαν ύπόστασιν είπε της άγίας τριάδος 1 04 •

Et aussi :

Σαβέλλιος δέ ό Λίβυς μίαν αφρόνως ύπόστασιν έξηρεύξατο

συναιρων κακως τάς τρεις και συναλείφων δια το μοναδικόν της ουσίας

Nestorius, dont la lignee heretique remontant a Theodore de Mopsueste et Paul de Samosate est amplement decrite par Theodore de Raϊthou, pratique au niveau christologique le meme amalgame qu' Arius avait opere au niveau triadologique, considerant qu ' aux deux natures du Christ correspondent deux hypostases, et finissant par dedoubler le Fils incarne en deux fils , le Dieu Verbe et le Christ fils de Marie : είς μίαν ύπόστασιν ίσον τfί φύσει νομίσας και την ύπόστασιν 105 •

Ούτε μήν πάλιν δυνατόν αύτοiς δύο όμολογείν έν Χριστφ τφ θεφ φύσεις, ίνα μή άναγκασθωσι και δύο πρόσωπα και δύο ύποστάσεις όμολογείν

νεστοριανως έπ' αύτφ· άπό γαρ Άριστοτέλους παρέλαβε και ό Νεστόριος

λέγειν τας φύσεις ύποστάσεις 1 06 • Ό άνθρωπολάτρης Νεστόριος και Διόδωρός καi ό Μοψου εστίας Θεόδωρος δύο τας φύσεις εiδότες διαιρουσι καi την ύπόστασιν καi συναριθμίους ταiς φύσεσι δύο και τας ύποστάσεις φασi και τον ενα υiόν καi Χριστόν καi κύριον εiς δύο υiούς και δύο κατατέμνουσι πρόσωπα δια τό ταύτόν ύποτοπάσαι τft

φύσει και τήν ύπόστασιν 107 •

Enfin, les monophysites, qui rassemblent en leur sein de nombreuses tendences et plusieurs heresiarques, ont deduit de l 'unicite de la personne du Christ son unique nature, soit en niant le salut de l 'humanite dont la nature n'a pas vraiment ete assumee, soit en concedant que la nature immuable de la divinite a ete soumise a la confusion et au melange : Ώσαύτως και ό Ευτυχής και ό Διόσκορος, Τιμόθεός τε και Γαϊανός και 'Ιουλιανός καi 'Ιάκωβος και Πέτρος ό Κναφεύς και Βαρσανούφιος καi Θεοδόσιος το δεκακέρατον της πλάνης ουκ έκ γραφικων καi ευαγγελικων, άλλ' έκτων

C. Jacobίtas 2, ι. 3- 6, ed. Κοττε R IV, p. 110. dux VI, 2, p. 101, l. 18- 19. 105 C. Jacobίtas, 2, 6- 9, ed. KoτrE R IV, p. 11 Ο. ιο, AN ASTASE ιε SιΝΑϊτε , Viae dux ΙΧ , 2, p. 142, 1. 69- 74. ιο, C. Jacobίtas, 2, 12- 16, ed. ΚοττεR IV, p. 110- 11. Yoir egalement Τιι έοοο Rε ο ε RΑϊτΗο u, Praeparatίo, p. 189, 1. 22 ; ΜΑΧΙΜΕ ι ε Co NFESSE UR, Epίstola XV: PG 91 , 568 Β 14-15. 103

104

A NASTASE ιε SιΝΑΪΤΕ, Vίae

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

31

άριστοτελικων κατηγοριων παρέλαβον τό λέγειν την φύσιν πρόσωπον καί,

δτι Ουκ εστι φύσις άπρόσωπος 108 •

Et de meme: Διόσκορός τε καi Σεύηρος

καi ή τούτων πολυκέφαλος καi δια τούτο άκέφαλος ϋδρα μίαν ύπόστασιν

θέμενοι μίαν καi την φύσιν ώρίσαντο 109 •

Parmi les monophysites et, plus generalement, parmi tous les heretiques auxquels se referent nos auteurs, Severe d' Antioche (512-538) est celui qui represente certainement le plus grand danger. Εη effet, si ariens, sabelliens et nestoriens ont ete conduits a identifier les deux notions de φύσις et ύπόστασις par ignorance et de faς;on peut-etre involontaire, Severe, lui, fait un usage parfaitement conscient des definitions aristoteliciennes, les elevant au rang de verites revelees et les developpant selon les regles de la sophistique pour appuyer ses theses contraires a l'enseignement de Chalcedoine 110 • Or, comme le remarque Maxime, τό δοκειν είναι σοφόν, μεγάλης καθίσταται πέφυκεν άνοίας δημιουργόν 111 • Chaque fois que le besoin se presentera, la pensee philosophique neochalcedonienne aura donc le devoir de preciser, sinon de redefinir, la terminologie mise en reuvre par Severe : 'Επειδή δέ ό Σευηρος ψιλαίς προκαθέζεται φωναίς έν ρήμασί τε μόνοις καi

ηχοις την εύσέβειαν ύποτίθεται

[...], ούτος δ έ παρ ' αύτιρ Σευήρφ κράτιστος

θεολόγος γνωρίζεται, δς αν τάς κατηγορίας Άριστοτέλους καi τά λοιπά των εξω φιλοσόφων κομψά ήσκημένος τυγχάνοι, άναγκαίον ήμας τά

σημαινόμενα έκάστης λέξεως των είς τά προς Σευηρον λεγόμενα χρειωδως λαμβανομένων, έπi καιρου σαφηνίσω κατά τον νουν των έκκλησιαστικων

διδασκάλων 112 •

Le premier argument auquel nos theologiens auront a repondre est celui de ουκ εστι φύσις άνυπόστατος et de son equivalent ουκ εστι φύσις άπρόσωπος, un axiome logique que les deux camps admettent volontiers, mais qui sert plus specialement aux severiens a denoncer le diphysisme strict, voire le nestorianisme de leurs adversaires neochalcedoniens. Selon Maxime le Confesseur, τό λέγειν τινας μή είναι φύσις άνυπόστατος, όρθως μεν λέγεται παρ ' αυτοις, ουκ όρθως δέ νενόηται 11 3 • Εη effet, les severiens

108 109 110

ANASTASE ιε SιNAiTE, Vίae dux VI, 2, p. 100, 1. 11- 17. C. Jacobitas, 2, 16- 17, ed. KoτrE R IV, p. 111 . Sur la theologie de Severe, voir l' article tres dense de LEBON, La Christologie,

passίm .

XV : PG 91 , 572 Α 9- 11 . p. 200, 1. 11 - 19. CoNFESSEUR, Opusculum ΧΧΙΙΙ : PG 91 , 261 C 6- 8.

111

ΜΑΧ ΙΜ Ε ιε CoN F εssεu R, Epίstola

112

THEODORE DE RAϊTHO U, Praeparatίo ,

113

Μ ΑΧΙΜ Ε ιε

III 32

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

cette formule comme une reciproque, posant que πάση φύσει ou induisant que tout ce qui n'est pas non-hypostasie est une hypostase - το μή άνυπόστατον εiς ύπόστασιν συνάγων 115 -, tandis qu'en realite elle ne se reciproque pas: conς;oivent

ιδιάζων παρέπεται πρόσωπον 114

'Επειδή ούκ άντιστρέφει. Ή μέν γαρ ύπόστασις, πάντως καi φύσις- ώσπερ

καi τό σχήμα, πάντως σώμα. Ούκ εστι γαρ ύπόστασιν νοησαι άνευ φύσεως­ ού δέ πάλιν σχήμα η χρώμα άνευ σώματος- ή δέ φύσις, ού πάντως και

ύπόστασις I1 6 •

Apres Maxime, c'est surtout Jean Damascene qui parviendra adonner, dans un brillant passage du Contra Jacobίtas, la refutation la plus complete de l'interpretation monophysite de cette formule, en introduisant dans le debat deux notions propres a la philosophie patristique et tardivement forgees, a savoir 1'ένούσιον et 1'ένυπόστατον : Εί γαρ καi μή έστι φύσις άνυπόστατος, ουτε μην ούσία άπρόσωπος ουδ ' α~'i πάλιν άνούσιος ύπόστασίς τε και πρόσωπον - ου γάρ έστιν -, άλλ ' ου ταυτόν ουσία τε καi ύπόστασις ουδέ φύσις καi πρόσωπον . Ου γαρ ταυτόν ουσία τε και ένούσιον ουδ ' ένυπόστατον καi ύπόστασις . 'Έτερον γάρ έστι τό εν τινι

καi έτερον τό έν φ· ένούσιον μέν γάρ έστι τό έν τfi ουσί~ θεωρούμενον, τουτέστι τό των συμβεβηκότων άθροισμα, δ δηλοi την ύπόστασιν, ούκ αύτήν την ούσίαν . Ένυπόστατον δέ ουχ ή ύπόστασις, τό έν ύποστάσει δέ καθορώμενον

[... ]. Ή μέν ύπόστασις πρόσωπον όρίζει τοις χαρακτηριστικοiς

ίδιώμασιν, τό δέ γε ένυπόστατον τό μή είναι αυτό συμβεβηκός, δ έν έτέρφ έχει την υπαρξιν II7 •

'Ότι μέν συν ουκ εστιν ούσία άνυπόστατος, ισμεν σαφώς, άλλ' ου ταυτόν φαμεν ένυπόστατον καi ύπόστασιν, ουτε μην ούσίαν τε καi ένούσιον· άλλ ' ένούσιον μέν την ύπόστασιν, ένυπόστατον δέ την ούσίαν . Τήν τε

γαρ ουσίαν της αγίας θεότητος ένυπόστατον ισμεν ύποστάσεων ώσαύτως ένούσιον

[... ].

[... ]

καi έκάστην των

Καi έπi της άρρήτου καi πάντα νουν

ύπερκειμένης τού κυρίου οίκονομίας ένούσιον μέν φαμεν την ύπόστασιν ώς

έν ταίς ουσίαις τελούσαν, έξ ων και συντέθειται, ένυπόστατον δέ έκάστην των Ούσιων αυτου 11 8 •

Comme ceci apparait a travers ces lignes, tres denses, de Jean Damascene, le probleme du severianisme ne se limite pas a la question du nombre IV, 2 (CCSG 1), p. 53, 1. 130- 31. : PG 91 , 264 Α 4. ΧΧΙΙΙ: PG 91 , 264 Α 8- 13.

114

JEAN DE Cέs AREE LE GRAMMAΙRΙEN , Apologίe

115

ΜΑΧΙΜ Ε ιε CoNFESSEUR,

116

ΜΑΧΙΜ Ε ιε CoNFESSEUR,

117

118

Opusculum Opusculum

C. Jacobίtas , 11, 1- 6, ed. C. Jacobitas, 12, 1- 9, ed.

Κοπ ε ιt ΚοττεR

ΧΧΙΙΙ

IV, p. 114. IV, ρ. 114- 15.

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

33

de natures presentes en Christ. Εη quelque sorte en effet, la patriarche d' Antioche concede que le Christ est issu de deux natures - εκ δύο φύσεων, ou plutδt εκ δύο ούσιων - , montrant par cette demarche qu'il n'est οϋτε δλως αληθής οϋτε δλως ψευδής, αλλΌiον είπειν ψευδαλήθης, selon le mot de Theodore de Raϊthou 119 • Ce qui separe neochalcedoniens et severiens, c'est plutδt la question du mode d'union et de subsistence de ces deux natures dans l'unique hypostase du Christ. Deux natures peuventelles etre presentes dans une seule et meme hypostase, selon la doctrine de Ι'ενυπόστατον? L'unique hypostase du Christ peut-elle etre dans deux natures, εν δύο φύσεσι, selon la formule de Chalcedoine qui a suscite l'enseignement de Ι'ενούσιον? Repondre a ces deux questions par la negatiνe, comme le font les seνeriens, tout en acceptant que divinite et humanite coucourent dans le Christ, equivaut, pour nos theologiens, a faire de l'union des deux natures ασύγχυται une confusion, et de la distinction de leurs proprietes essentielles une alteration : Άλλα την μεν ενωσιν σύγχυσιν κατά τον Άπολλινάριον απεργάζεται · την δέ διαφοράν αλλοτρίωσιν κατά τον Ν εστόριον 120 • Εη effet, si l'union des natures en une unique nature composee est reelle, comment concilier, dans cette seule et meme nature, les proprietes essentielles du cree et de l'incree, du mortel et de l'immortel ? Ή ούσία ούκ επιδέχεται ανά μέρος τα ούσιωδως αύτfj επιθεωρούμενα, αλλ' αμα καi αμερως 121 • Et aussi : Ή ούσία απ ' αρχής μέχρι τέλους τα αύτης ίδιώματα διασώζει μήτε μειούμενα μήτε χωριζόμενα 122 • Inversement, si ces proprietes essentielles opposees n'ont pas une presence reelle dans l'unique hypostase du Christ, y etant seulement perς;ues , par )'επίνοια, comme des qualites abstraites, l'union de la divinite et de l'humanite ne sera-t-elle pas seulement imaginaire ? Εί δέ ψιλων ποιοτήτων χωρίς των πραγμάτων εtναι λέγn τήν διαφοράν, τούτων λεγέτω καi τήν ενωσιν. ''Ών γαρ ή διαφορά μετά τήν ενωσιν, τούτων προδήλως ή ενωσις· καi δι' όλίγων συλλαβων 'Επικούρου τόν αύτοματισμόν

καi Μάνεντος τήν άπατηλήν φαντασίαν είσήγαγε, ούκ δντος αύτφ του Χριστου κατ'άλήθειαν τοις πράγμασιν, άλλα ταις διακένοις ποιότησι· καi

εσται ποιότητι μόνη Θεός ό Χριστός καi ού πράγματι 123 •

p. 197, 1. 19- 21 , XV: PG 91,568, THEODORE DE RAϊTHOU, Praeparatίo, p. 213, 1. 23-4, THEODORE DE RAϊTHOU, Praeparatίo, p. 214, 1. 2-4. ΜΑΧΙΜΕ ιε Co NFESSEUR, Epίstola XV: PG 91,569 D 5- 572 Α 4,

119

THEODORE DE RAϊTHO U, Praeparatίo ,

120

ΜΑΧ ΙΜΕ LE CoNFESSEUR, Epίstola

121 122 123

III 34

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Pour tenter de sortir de ce dilemme, Severe ne pouvait avoir recours, selon nos auteurs, qu'a une notion supposement issue de la philosophie aristotelicienne, a savoir celle de μερική ούσία 1 24 : Μερικας γαρ ούσίας λέγει ό Άριστοτέλης είναι τα πρόσωπα [ ... ]. Τούτφ τφ άνόμφ δρφ καi Σευfjρος στοιχήσας έκ δύο μερικών ούσιων καi ύποστάσεων ήμιτόμων

εtπεν άποτελείσθαι μίαν φύσιν τον Χριστόν 125 • Aux yeux de ses adversaires,

Severe reconnaissait donc deux phases dans le processus de l'union de la divinite et de l' humanite en Christ : [1] Sur le modele de l'union de l' ame et du corps en l'homme 126, et en vertu du principe ούκ εστι ούσία ανυπόστατος, deux ούσίαι = ύποστάσεις μερικαί ou ήμιτόμοι, possedant respectivement les qualites du cree et de l'incree, du corporel et de l' incorporel, s'unissaient par composition en Christ, donnant lieu a une unique hypostase composee. [2] Εη vertu de la reciprocite - admise par les seuls severiens - du principe ούκ εστι φύσις άπρόσωπος, a l'unique hypostase ou personne composee du Christ, coπespondaient, ηοη pas les deux ούσίαι μερικαί qui etaient entrees initialement dans la composition, mais une unique nature composee, caracterisee par l'expression controversee de Cyrille d'Alexandrie μία φύσις του Θεου Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη 12 7 , la notion meme de φύσις perdant son equivalence avec ούσία et devenant une ϋπαρξις intermediaire entre l'universel et le particulier. Bien evidemment, la these des μερικαi ούσίαι, qui allait a l'encontre de la doctrine fondamentale de la perfection de la divinite et de l'humanite

124 Selon A NASTASE ο' ΑΝΤΙΟC Η Ε, Κεφάλαια έμφιλόσοφα, def. η 0 50 et 51 , ed. UτΗΕ ΜΑΝΝ, p. 349 : μερική ούσία έστι πραγμα ανύπαρκτον et μερική ούσία έστι λόγος καi

ασήμαντος . AN ASTASE ιε SιΝΑϊτε , Viae dux VI, 2, p. 100, l. 5- 11 . Cette comparaison s'offrait deja a une premiere critique, puisqu'il n'y a pas une espece « theanthropique » ou une χριστότη ς a l'instar de l' espece humaine. Cf. LέοΝcε ο ε BYZANCE, Contra Monophysίtas 48, PG 86/2, 1797 Α : Ε ί ωσπερ την ψυχήν καi τό σ&μα 125 126

μέρη δλου του ανθρώπου ώς φυσικου είδους φαμέν, ούτω καi τόν Λόγον καi την σάρκα μέρη Χριστου ούχ ώς συνθέτου τινός μόνον, αλλ ' ώς φυσικου είδους λέγομεν, είπε τί τό δλον τουτο είδος ; 127 Entre autres, les neochalcedoniens reprochaient aux monophysites de comprendre cette formule de Cyrille comme si elle signifiait une nature produite de l' imagination, comparable aux hippocentaures et aux boucs-cerfs. Cf. JεΑΝ DE C έsΑιιi:ε ιε Gιι.ΑΜ ΜΑ ΙRJ ΕΝ , Contra monophysίtas, Ι , p. 61 , 1. 11- 14 : οί τό θεάνθρωπον ήμίν έπινοήσαντες λέγειν ίσως

ετερόν τι καi παρά ταυτά φασι τόν Χριστόν, ώς καi τόν τραγέλαφον ούτε τράγον , ούτε έλαφον εϊποι τις αν , αλλ'ετερόν τι τφ γένει.

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

35

en Christ - Dieu parfait et homme parfait - ne pouvait etre que totalement rejetee par nos neochalcedoniens. Εη effet, ηοη seulement elle niait le caractere inalterable conserve par les deux natures dans l'union, mais elle avait de plus un effet catastrophique au niveau trinitaire, comme ne manquent pas de le preciser Anastase le Sinaϊte et Jean Damascene : 'Όσοι κατά τον δρον της έλληνικης φιλοσοφίας άριστοτελικως λέγουσι τάς φύσεις ύποστάσεις καi πρόσωπα, ού δύνανται ούτε έπi της άγίας τριάδος τρείς ύποστάσεις είπείν, \Ύα μή καi τρείς φύσεις εύρεθωσιν ώς ό 'Άρειος

λέγοντες' 28 •

Ei

δέ έκάστη των της άγίας τριάδος θεαρχικων ύποστάσεων iδιάζουσαν

δωτε ούσίαν - όμοουσίους δέ ταύτας κατά την κοινήν ούσίαν όμολογήσετε, ταύτόν δέ ούσία τε καi ύπόστασις

-,

εσται καθ"ύμας τετράς ύποστάσεων,

τριών μεν μερικών, μιας δέ κοινfjς, καi ούσιων όμοίως τετράς. Καi έκάστη των ύποστάσεων δύο φύσεων τε καi ύποστάσεων, μιας μεν κοινης, μιας δέ μερικης, καi εσονται όμοούσιοι καi έτεροούσιοι, όμοϋπόστατοί τε καi έτεροϋπόστατοι. Καi τίς ού γελάσεται, μαλλον δέ άποδύρεται της μανίας

τήν ύπερβολήν; Ούκ εστι τούτο φλήναφος καi διανοίας άνάπλασμα κακοδαίμονος, δαιμόνων εύρημα σκοτεινόν καi της Έλληνικης τερθρείας

τεράτευμα; 129

111. L'unite du courant philosophique neochalcedonien 1. Un prίncίpe : la μέση

όδός.

Εη admettant, a propos du Christ, une unique hypostase composee issue de deux essences, l'une divine et l'autre humaine, Severe n'etait visiblement pas dans l'eπeur. Mais en concevant l'existence d'une unique nature composee resultant du melange de deux essences partielles, il recapitulait toutes les eπeurs de ceux qui l'avaient precede dans l'heresie, fussent-ils φιλοδιαιρέται ou συμφύρται, car il avait recherche μέσον τι χρfjμα ψεύδους καi άληθείας [ ... ], δπερ ουκ εστι. Μεσότητα γαρ άληθείας καi ψεύδους ουτε εύρειν ουτε έπινοfjσαι δυνατόν 130 • Or, selon une representation tres repandue - οη pouπait-meme parler d'une constante - dans la vision heresiologique neochalcedonienne, la verite est eternellement « centrale », elle n'accepte pas de voies de traverse :

Viae dux

ΙΧ ,

2, p. 141- 2, 1. 65- 9.

128

A NASTASE ιε SrΝΑϊτε,

129

C. Jacobitas , 10, 2- 12, ed. ΚοττΕR IV, ρ . 113.

130

TH EODORE DE RAϊTHO U , Praeparatίo,

p. 197, 1. 22- 5.

III 36

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne Ή μεν γαρ άλήθεια μέση άεi καi άπαρέγκλιτος καi δια τούτο έδραία καi

πάντοθεν ίση καi εύθύτομος. Ού παραδέξεται ούν ετερόν τι τό έγκάρσιον αύτήν άποτελουν καi έξωθουν τής οίκείας στάσεως καi μονιμότητος, εκτοξεύει δέ παν τό έπιβούλως αύτft προσπελάζον καi τό μέσον αύτης διασαλεύειν πειρώμενον 131 •

d'autres termes, pour rester dans la stricte ligne de l'enseignement orthodoxe et donc de la verite, celui qui voulait parler des doctrines chretiennes, en usant notamment du discours philosophique, ne devait s'aventurer ni sur la gauche ni sur la droite, marchant droit sur la voie mediane et royale de l'Eglise 132 • Le concept de μέση όδός, probablement inspire de ce mot du Christ, εγώ είμι ή όδός (Jn 14, 6) n'etait certes pas une nouveaute au 6e siecle byzantin 133 . Dans son Haeretίcarum fabularum compendίum, Theodoret de Cyr, qui, de toute vraisemblance, est la source la plus directe de nos auteurs sur ce sujet, faisait deja un ample usage de cette metaphore : Εη

Ποθειτε γαρ μαθειν τας έκατέρωθεν τής όδου τής εύθείας καινοτομησθείσας

παρά τινων άτραπούς, ων τόν τέλος τής άπωλείας τό βάραθρον. Τόν δέ πόθον είσδέξασθε τουτον, ούχ 'ίνα κάκιστα διαπλασθέντων καi δυσοσμίαν άφιέντων άπακούσητε μύθων, άλλ' δπως τούς άγνοούντας διδάξητε, ποία μέν ή βασίλειος λεωφόρος, ή τοις άποστολικοις καi προφητικοlς ίχνεσι κοσμουμένη, καi τέλος εχουσα των ούρανων τήν βασιλείαν, τίνες δέ των αίρετικων αί τρίβοι, αί τόν

εσχατον δλεθρον τοις έν αύταις όδοιποροiJσιν έπάγουσαι 134 •

THEODORE DE RΑϊηιοu, Praeparatίo, p. 197, \. 24-p. 198, 1. 2. Voir, par exemple, JEAN DE C έsAREE ιε GRAMMAΙRJEN, Apologίa ΙΥ.Ι , p. 52, 1. 113- 14 (τήν άκλινη καi μέσην όδόν βαδιούμεθα); ΤιιέοοοRΕ DE RΑϊπιοu , Praeparatίo , p. 196, 1. 3- 5 (ότι τής εκκλησίας παρωσαμένης τάς εφ ' έκάτερα των έναντιοδοκητών παρατροπάς, μέσην τε καi άληθεστάτην τεμνούσης όδόν) ; ANASTASE LE SιΝΑ ΪΤΕ, Vίae dux VIII, 5, p. 132, \. 99- 101 (Ή δέ άγία εκκλησία τήν βασιλικήν του θεου όδόν έκλεξαμένη άπεβάλετο τήν Σαβελλίου σύγχυσιν καi τήν Άρείου διαίρεσιν); JEAN DAMASCENE, Imag. ΙΙ , 3, 1- 3. ΠΙ. 1, 29- 31 , ed. ΚοπεR ΙΙΙ , p. 70 (Ή δέ άλήθεια μέσην όδόν βαδίζουσα πάντα ταυτα 131

132

άπαρνειται τα άτοπα). 133 L'usage de ce concept dans la pensee severienne a plus recemment ete evoque par Fr. Alpi, La Route royale. Sέvere d'Antίoche et les Eglises d'Orίent, 512- 5 Ι 8 (Instilυt franς;ais du Proche-Orient. Bibliotheque archeologique et historique 188), Beyrouth 2009. 134 THέODORET DE CvR, Haeretίcarumfabularum compendium: ΡΟ 83,336 C- 337 Α . - La tradition patristique a eu coutume d'opposer les tendances heretiques, tout autant que les exces symetriques par rapport iι un juste milieu. Ainsi, pour CιέΜΕΝΤ ο' AιεxANDRJE , Stromata, Ι, XV, 71, 5, ed. SτΑΗLΙΝ, ΙΙ (GCS), Leipzig 1906, p. 46, les heresies barbares s'opposent entre elles, par exemple en Inde ; suivant GRέGOΙRE DE ΝΑΖ ΙΑΝΖΕ , Oratίo 39, 11 (SC 358), p. 172, les sabelliens exagerent dans la συναίρεσις, et les ariens dans la διαίρεσις, mais les deux camps tombent certainement dans Ι'αιρεσις : « Nous allons eviter les exces

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

37

Ils seront pourtant reactualises avec force dans le discours polemique neochalcedonien, comme en temoigne, par exemple, ce passage de Jean Damascene: ΆλλΌυχ ουτω της εύσεβείας οί τρόφιμοι, της άληθείας οί κήρυκες, άλλα τφ θείφ νόμφ έπόμενοι καi τφ της θείας γνώσεως φωτi όδηγούμενοι, ουκ έσοφίσαντο περιττά ουδέ πέρα τού πρέποντος γεγόνασι δίκαιοι, μέσην δέ καi βασιλικήν διανύσαντες τρίβον ου προς το ευώνυμον ένέκλιναν, ου προς το δοκούν δεξιον άπηνέχθησαν, ου διαστροφfi την διαστροφήν διωρθώσαντο,

άλλ ' έν μεταιχμίφ των κακιών έν τοις δροις της άληθείας ίστάμενοι καi την έφ ' έκάτερα ροπήν άποκλίναντες μίαν μέν ουσίαν έπi της άγίας τριάδος, τρεις δέ τάς ύποστάσεις προς αυτης μυηθέντες έμυσταγώγησαν 135 •

Determinant foncierement la bipolarite φιλοδιαιρέται / συμφύρται, a laquelle nous avons deja fait allusion, la metaphore de la voie mediane se pretait donc a un renouveau de l'heresiologie traditionnelle, manifeste des le 6e siecle dans l'reuvre antimonophysite de Jean de Cesaree le Grammairien 136 , et accentue au sein meme du debat sur la valeur des definitions philosophiques, notamment dans la Praeparatίo de Theodore de Raϊthou 137 et le Vίae dux d' Anastase le Sinaϊte 138 . Visant principalement a retracer l'ascendance impie des severiens, les listes d'heretiques fabriquees par ces auteurs se rattachent, du point de vue de la methode et du contenu, aux deux premiers livres de 1'Έπιτομή de Theodoret de Cyr 139 , et les defauts, en ne faisant pas de l' union une confusion, ni de la division une alteration. Que soit de nous egalement eloignee la contraction de Sabellius et la division d'Arius, les maux diametralement opposes et egalement impies ». Voir aussi son Oratio 31 , 9 (SC 250, 292- 3) : « Les Trois sont Un au point de vue de la divinite, et l'Un est Trois au point de vue des proprietes. Ainsi, l'Un n' est pas celui de Sabellius, et les Trois ne sont pas ceux de la pernicieuse division d'aujourd'hui [= l'arianisme] ». Plus tard, THEODORE Αsυ QυRRA, Mίmar, Ι , 18- 21 , ed. G . GRAF, Die arabischen Schriflen des Theodor Abiι Qurra, Bischofs νοn Harrdn (ca. 740- 820) (Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte, Χ, 3-4), Padeborn 1910, p. 104- 11, enoncera de faι,;on plus systematique la these des heresies diametralement opposees. - Comme ceci apparait dans Dialectίca 58 (=41 ), l 'idee de l'opposition de deux maux a un seul bien est egalement traitee en logique, dans le cadre de la discussion sur les opposes. 135

C. Jacobίtas 3, 1- 9, ed. Κοττ εR IV, ρ. 111.

136

JEAN DE CέsAREE

137

ΤΗέοοσRΕ

ιε GRAMMAΙRΙEN ,

Contra

monophysίtas

l, p. 61 , 1. 3- 24.

DE RΑΙτι-ιου, Praeparatίo, p. 187, L. 1- p. 191 , L. 11 ; p. 196, 1. 3- p. 200,

1. 22 . ANASTASE ιε SιΝΑϊτε, Viae dux IV, p. 82- 8. THEODORET DE CvR, Haereιίcarum fabularum compendium, Ι-ΙΙ : PG 83, 340 C- 397 C. - Outre sa parente avec l' heresiologie de Theodoret, nous avons pu noter 138 139

III 38

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

dont ils donnent, en quelque sorte, la contίnuatίo. Remontant generalement aux deux grands heresiarques que sont Manes et Paul de Samosate, elles delaissent cependant les longs exposes de 1' Έπιτομή sur la doctrine des heresies anciennes, qui se sont « dessechees d'elles-memes comme l'herbe coupee » ou qui sont « tombees dans les tenebres de l'oubli »140 • Mis a part quelques variantes, la presentation des deux partis heretiques diametralement opposes a la doctrine orthodoxe se fait donc de la faς;on suivante:

άναχυτικοi καi

φιλοδιαιρέται

συμφύρται

M ANES

Ρ AUL ΟΕ SAMOSATE

(une nature de !α dίνίnίtέ manifestee sous l 'apparence du corps

(le Chrίst est un sίmple homme quί reι:;οίι !α dίνίnίιέ comme un prophete)

humaίn}

APOLLINA IRE Ο Ε L AOOICEE

(une nature de !α dίνίnίtέ ayanl reι:;u !α chaίr vίvanle de l 'homme sans l 'ίnlellect)

μέση όδός

Τι-ι έΟ ΟΟRΕ Ο Ε MOPSU ESTE

(le Chrίst est un sίmple homme rendu parfaίl par le bapteme; !α dίνίnίιέ eι l 'humanίte sont en luί de faι:;on relatίve)

EuτYCH ES

N ESTORJ US

(apres l 'Jncarnatίon, les deux natures se fondent en une seule nature)

(le Chrίst α deux natures dont l 'unίon n 'est pas hypostatίque)

que la structure de ces listes suit egalement un principe de logique que Dialectίca 58 (=41 ), ed. ΚοπεR Ι , p. 126, n'omet pas de mentionner discretement : « Premierement, le contraire du bien est necessairernent le rnal, tandis que le contraire du rnal est tantδt un bien, et tantδt un autre rnal. Car l' internperance est le contraire de la temperance, tandis que le contraire de l 'intemperance est tantδt la temperance et tantδt la stupidite. Εη effet, la stupidite c' est ne pas agiter ou reveiller les passions. L'intemperance est donc un manque de temperance, tandis que la stupidite en est l'exces. Or, l'exces est contraire au rnanque ». 14° Cf. ΤιιέοοοRΕΤ οε CYR, Haeretίcarumfabularum compendium: PG 83, 337 ΑΒ. Seule exception, le De haeresibus de Jean Darnascene, qui procede d'un souci de couvrir le plus largement possible l' histoire des anciennes heresies.

III 39

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne άναχυτικοi καi συμφύρται

JULJEN D'HALΙCA RN ASSE

Sένέ RΕ ο' ΑΝτιοcΗΕ

(la nature unίque

(la nature unίque

composee du Chrίst

ne possede

composeedu Chrίst possede

pas des proprίetes

des proprίetes

caracterίstίques

caracterίstίques

contraίres)

contraίres)

rejet de

2. Une

φιλοδιαιρέται

l 'humanίte

rejet de la dίvίnίte

conscίence phίlosophίque

Si nous avons voulu nous arreter ici sur cette metaphore de la « voie mediane », de la « route royale » qui passerait a travers des heresies diametralement opposees a la vraie doctrine, ce n'est pas uniquement parce que tous nos auteurs s'y referent avec constance et conviction pour refuter leurs adversaires, dans le cadre d'une heresiologie classique. C'est aussi parce que la notion meme de l'άνακλινής καi μέση όδός 141 nous renvoie inevitablement a des concepts qui nous semblent fondamentaux pour comprendre dans quelle mesure nos auteurs avaient concience de la specificite de leur travail extra-theologique. Ces deux concepts sont d'abord celui de όδηγός, de νίαe dux, de guide, qui, dans le cas present, recouvre l'ensemble des autorites constituant les references capitales de nos auteurs, puis celui d'όδοιπόρος, qui, nous l'esperons, nous permettra d'entrevoir l'image que nos auteurs avaient d'eux-memes et de leur activite ηοη dogmatique. Sur la route de Ι'εύσέβεια chretienne et du salut, le όδηγός et le πρόδρομος par excellence est le Christ, dont Jean Damascene parle clairement en ces termes : Έάν έπακολουθήσωμεν τοίς αύτου ιχνεσι καi τόν νόμον της έλευθερίας φυλάξωμεν καi μή πάλιν τφ ζυγφ της άμαρτίας δουλεύσωμεν -

141

JEAN DE CέSAREE LE GRAMM AIRIEN, Apologίa,

IV.l, p. 52, 114.

[... ] εδειξεν

III 40

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne ήμίν όδόν, καθ'ην περιπατούντες συμβασιλεύσομεν αύτφ, απερχόμενοι, ένθα αύτός πρόδρομος ήμων απηλθεν, Ιiλλην δέ όδόν όδεύοντες εξω μενούμεν

-,

γένοιτο δέ ήμας τοις αύτού έπακολουθούντας ϊχνεσι πάντοτε

συν αύτφ είναι καi απολαύειν της αύτού δόξης καi βασιλείας νυν καi αεί καi είς τούς αιώνας των αίώνων 1 42 ,

Mais en matiere de science theologique, Ι'όδηγός est aussi le SaintEsprit, dont 1'illumination est necessaire pour comprendre droitement les saintes Ecritures et les enseignements des Peres, qui ont parle par lui : Ώς έ μοi δοκεί, ούδέ τήν γραφήν, ούδέ τούς των πατέ ρων λόγους δυνήσεται Ιiνθρωπος απταίστως και απλανως καταλαβείν, έάν μή τό πνεύμα τό Ιiγιον τό λαλησαν έν αύτοις ενοικον καi όδηγόν κτήσεται Τό γαρ είπείν τον Χριστόν,

δτι 'Τό πνεύμα της αληθείας αύτό ύμας όδηγήσει είς πασαν αλήθειαν'

16, 13),

(Jn

ευδηλον, δτιπερ και τήν γραφήν και τούς πατέρας έσήμανεν 143 •

Si nos auteurs ne manquent jamais de se referer a ces deux autorites supremes de toute connaissance, dans leurs discussions sur la valeur des definitions philosphiques, ils semblent pourtant accorder leur preference a un autre groupe d'autorites, auxquelles ils se rapportent clairement comme aux peres fondateurs d'une discipline proprement philosophique. Or, tous les prophetes et les Peres auxquels οη accorde la paternite des principales definitions philosophiques en usage dans le debat neochalcedonien possedent bel et bien une vertu philosophique. Ainsi, pour Anastase le Sinaϊte, qui leur consacre un chapitre entier 144 , Moϊse, l'inspirateur de Platon, et Salomon le sage auraient ete les premiers a refuter l'equation φύσις = πρόσωπον, elaborant en meme temps la definition chretienne de φύσις. L'apδtre Paul, qui affronta les philosophes paϊens, et son disciple Denys, le premier philosophe converti au christianisme, auraient eux aussi contribue a elaborer la notion chretienne de φύσις, donnant egalement a ουσία une signification chretienne. Clement d' Alexandrie, auquel la tradition byzantine attribue toute une collection de δροι, comme nous l'avons vu plus haut, est perς;u comme le vrai patron de la philosophie chretienne, qu'il a sύ liberer de son joug paϊen. Enfin Basile de Cesaree et Gregoire de Nazianze, les deux illustres etudiants d'Athenes, les Peres philosophes, sont cites par tous nos auteurs sans exception, comme les

De duabus voluntatίbus 44, 1. 26- 33, ed. ΚοττεR rv, p. 230- 31 . Viae dux ΙΙΙ, 1, p. 79, 1. 86-92. SιΝ ΑΙΤΕ, Viae dux VIII, p. 114-34.

142

JεΑΝ D AMASCENE,

143

ANASTASE ιε SιΝ ΑΙΤΕ,

144

ANASTASE LE

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

41

veritables fondateurs d'un systeme de pensee philosophique proprement chretien 145 • Les όδοιπόροι, quand a eux, ne se qualifient pas necessairement de φιλόσοφοι. Dans un article celebre, Dδlger avait bien mis en evidence le sens que le terme de φιλόσοφος avait pu revetir pour les auteurs byzantins, qui l'appliquaient notamment aux hommes saints et pieux, qui, s'etant defait de tout souci corporel, vivaient en « vrais philosophes » dans le Christ. Or, pour designer leur propre activite d'apprentissage et d'etude des δροι, Anastase le Sinaϊte et Jean Damascene se qualifiaient plutδt de φιλομαθείς, πολυμαθείς 146 ou φιλόπονοι 147 , ce qui permettait de distinguer l 'activite proprement philosophique de l 'activite contemplative ou mystique des « vrais philosophes ». Quant a la voie suivie, comment la caracteriser? Par reference au shema classique de l 'arbre de Porphyre, nous dirons que les multiples ramifications sont vouees a disparaί'tre, ou tout du moins, qu'elles ne reςoivent plus aucune valeur ontologique 148 • Deux seuls niveaux d'existence sont maintenus. Celui des καθολικώτερα, et celui des μερικώτερα. Ce passage de l'arbre de Porphyre a la position de ces deux niveaux ontologiques se realise pleinement dans la Praeparatίo de Theodore de Raϊthou 149 , que nous resumons ainsi : Τούτου πάντως προεγνωσμένου ήμιν, δτι ταύτόν έστιν ή ούσία τfi φύσει και ή ύπόστασις τφ προσώπφ

[ ... ], λεγέσθω τοίνυν κατά τον μέγαν

145 Yoir JEAN DE CέsARέE ιε Gιι.ΑΜΜΑΙRJ ΕΝ, Apologia, Π, p. 49, 1. 20- 22 ; TH έODORE DE RΑϊτιιου, Praeparaιίo, p. 195, 1. 7s ; p. 195, 1. 19 ; p. 199, 1. 24, et surtout Maxime le Confesseur, Epίsιula XV (PG 91 , 548 D- 549 Α) : Τοσαύτηv μέv οί θεηγόροι Πατέρες ήμωv

Γρηγόριος καi Βασίλειος ύπάρχουσαv των θείων δογμάτων τήv συμφωνίαν παρέστησαν,

ταύτόν διαρρήδην είπόντες- τfi μέν ούσίr;ι την φύσιν, ώς κοινόν καi καθόλου· τfj δέ ύποστάσει τό πρόσωπον, ώς ίδικόv τε καi μερικόv· μηδαμως συμφύραντες των λεγομένων την εννοιαv , δια της τούτων είς άλλήλας περιτροπής καi συγχύσεως. Ύφ "ένός γαρ καi του αύτου Πνεύματος έvεργηθέvτες, τήv όρθήv της πίστεως τοις λαοίς παρεδώκασιv ομολογίαν.

Τούτοις δέ συμφώνως εύρήσεις, καi πάντας τούς κατά την χάριν του Πνεύματος πιστευθέντας της Έκκλησίας τούς οίακας, τον όρθόv της εύσεβους πίστεως πρεσβέυσαντας λόγον, καi μηδέν ταύτης της ένvοίας παντελως έκτραπέvτας.

Cf. Dialeclίca , 1, 48- 9, ed. ΚοπΕR Ι , p. 54 : Έαv ούv ωμεv φιλομαθείς, έσόμεθα καi ANASTASE LE SιΝ Α ΪΤΕ , Viae dux Π , p. 71 , 1. 83-6. 147 ANASTASE ιε SrNAΪTE , Vίae dux Ι, 1, p. 7, 1. 2 ; ΙΙ, 1, p. 25, 1. 40-42. 148 Sur la valeur ontologique accordee par Jean Damascene a l'hypostase, οη consultera egalement le tres riche article de Ch. ERISMAN, Ά World ofHypostases. John ofDamascus' rethinking of Aristotle's Categorical Ontology', Sιudίa palrίslίca 50(2011 ), p. 269- 87. 149 THEODORE DE RAϊTHO U , Praeparalίo, p. 207- 16. 146

πολυμαθείς.

III 42

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne Βασίλειον, δτι ' ταύτην εχει διαφοράν ή ούσία προς τήν ύπόστασιν, ην εχει τό κοινόν προς τό ίδιον 150 '. Άλλ' επειδή του κοινου καi του ίδίου Ιiλλως μεν οί εξω ποιουνται τάς διαιρέσεις, Ιiλλως δέ οί καθ ' ήμας θεόσοφοι, Ιiξιον διασαφηνίσαι καi τουτο·

α'. Οί των Έλλήνων σοφοί· ούσία

(γενικώτατον γένος) σώμα

ε μψυχον

άσώματον

Ιiψυχον

φυτόν ζωόφυτον ζώον

λογικόν

θνητόν

Ιiλογον

αθάνατον

Ιiνθρωπος

(είδικώτατον είδος) οί καθ 'εκαστον Ιiνθρωποι

(Ιiτομα

-

ύποστάσεις)

β'. Οί δέ ήμέτεροι καθηγηταί τό εύσύνοπτον καi τοΊς πολλοίς ευληπτον έπετήδευσαν ώς του συντετμημένου εύαγγελίου δντες διάκονοι·

ούσία

(γενικώτατον γένος καi εiδικώτατον είδος) οί καθ' εκαστον

(Ιiτομα ύποστάσεις)

IV. La pensee philosophique neochalcedonienne dans l'reuvre de Jean Damascene : choix de textes complement de l'etude ci-dessus, nous donnons un choix de textes issus de 1'ceuvre damascenienne et caracteristiques de cette pensee philosophique que nous avons qualifiee de neochalcedonienne, et dont il fut ηοη seulement l'illustre heritier, mais egalement le plus ardent promoteur.

Εη

150

ΒΑsιιε οε CέsΑRέε, Epίst .

dessus, n. 89.

236, 6, ed.

CouRτoNNε, ΙΙΙ ,

p. 53-4. Voir egalement ci-

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

1. Le

Chrίst,

source absolue de la

verίte

et de la

43

connaίssance.

« Rien n'est plus precieux que la connaissance. Car si la connaissance est la lumiere de l'ame raisonnable, l'ignorance en est l'obscurite. [ ... ] Ainsi, celui qui manque de connaissance, bien qu'il soit, par nature, raisonnable et capable de science et de connaissance [ ... ], est pire que les etres prives de raison a cause de la paresse et de la negligence de son ame. Par connaissance, j'entends la veritable connaissance des etres. [ ... ] Εη effet, le faux n'est pas autre chose que le non-etre [ ... ]. Cependant, [notre] intellect ne puise pas cette connaissance [ ... ] en lui-meme : il a donc besoin d'un maitre. Allons donc au maitre veridique, a la verite, au Christ qui est la sagesse et la verite enhypostasiee ! Εη lui se trouvent tous les tresors caches de la connaissance, en lui qui est la sagesse et la puissance de Dieu le Pere. Ecoutons sa νοίχ dans les divines Ecritures, et aπivons a la connaissance veritable de tous les etres. Εη allant a lui, avanς:ons avec diligence et sincerite, sans affaiblir l'ceil intellectuel de notre ame par les passions. Εη effet, ce n'est que d'un oeil limpide et transparent que nous pouπons clairement contempler la verite [ .. .]. Repoussant donc tous les tumultes du raisonnement, approchons-nous immateriellement de la verite. Et lorsque nous aπiverons devant le portail, ne soyons pas satisfaits, mais frappons avec vigueur jusqu'a ce que la porte de la chambre nuptiale nous soit ouverte, et que nous puissions voir les beautes qu'elle recele. Le portail, c'est la lettre, et la chambre nuptiale qui est deπiere ce portail, c'est la beaute cachee du sens, c'est a dire l'Esprit de la Verite. Frappons avec vigueur, lisons une fois, deux fois, plusieurs fois. C'est en creusant ainsi que nous trouverons le tresor de la connaissance, et que nous jouirons de cette richesse. Cherchons, enquetons, examinons, questionnons. 'Car quiconque demande reς:oit ; qui cherche trouve ; et a qui frappe οη ouvrira' (Mt 7, 8) [ ... ]. Si nous aimons apprendre, soyons instruits en toutes choses. Εη effet, par leur nature meme, toutes choses ne peuvent etre conquises qu'avec sollicitude et peine et, avant tout et apres tout, avec la grace donnee par Dieu » 151 •

101

Dίalectίca

\ , ed. ΚοπεR 1, p. 53-4.

III 44 2.

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne Phίlosophίa ancίlla theologίae 152

« Mais puisque le divin apδtre a dit : Έxaminez tout : ce qui est bon, retenez-le' (1 Th 5, 21 ), examinons aussi les discours des auteurs profanes. Nous y trouverons peut-etre quelque bien a retenir, et y recueillerons quelque chose d'utile a l'ame. Tout artisan a besoin d'outils pour mener a bien son ouvrage. Et il convient a la reine d'avoir des servantes a son service. Acceptons donc leurs paroles tant qu'elles servent la verite, et repoussons l'impiete qui les soumet a sa tyrannie. N'usons pas du bien a mauvais escient, et n'abusons pas de l'art des discours pour tromper les simples d'esprit. Et bien que la verite n'ait pas besoin d'argumentations subtiles, usons-en pour refuter tout adversaire malhonnete et detruire la fausse connaissance » 153 • 3. Nature, essence et forme selon les phίlosophes paϊens et les Peres de l'Eglίse.

« Les philosophes paϊens ont formule la difference entre l'essence et la nature, en disant que l' essence est l' etre absolu et que la nature est l' essence specifiee par les differences essentielles, qui, avec l'etre absolu, possede aussi l'etre-ainsi (τό τοιωσδε είναι); elle est soit raisonnable soit privee de raison, soit mortelle soit immortelle. [ ... ] La nature c'est le principe immuable et invariable, la cause et la puissance que le createur a introduit dans chaque espece pour son mouvement; pour les anges, ceci consiste a intelliger et communiquer leurs pensees sans discours oral; pour les hommes aintelliger, raisonner et communiquer leurs pensees par le discours oral; pour les etres prives de raison, c'est le mouvement vital, sensitif et respiratoire; pour les plantes, la puissance nutritive, d'accroissement et de generation; pour les pieπes, la puissance d'echauffement, de refroidissement et le deplacement local par impulsion exterieure, c'est a dire le deplacement inanime. C'est ceci qu'ils ont appele nature, c'est a dire les especes specialissimes, comme l'ange, l'homme, le cheval et ainsi de suite, lesquelles, plus universelles, contiennent les hypostases et existent egalement et sans defaut dans chacune des hypostases qu'elles contiennent. Donc, le particulier, ils l'ont appele hypostase, l'universel qui

"' Sur l'usage de cette formule par Jean Damascene, voir aussi notre resume dans de l 'EPHE-SR !09, 2000- 2001, p. 372- 3. 153 Dίalectίca 1, ed. ΚοττεR Ι , ρ. 54.

l'Annuaίre

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

45

contient les hypostases, ils l'ont appele nature, et l'existence absolue, ils 1Όηt appelee essence. Delaissant toutes ces elucubrations, les Saints Peres ont appele essence, nature et forrne, ce qui est communement attribue a une pluralite d'individus, c'est a dire l'espece specialissime, par exemple l'ange, l'homme, le cheval, le chien et ainsi de suite. Certes, l'essence (ούσία) tient son nom du verbe 'etre' (είναι), et la nature (φύσις) tient son nom du verbe 'etre par nature' (πεφυκέναι), mais le verbe 'etre' et le verbe 'etre par nature ' sont identiques. D ' ailleurs, la forrne et l'espece signifient la meme chose par nature. Le plus particulier ils l'ont appele individu, personne et hypostase, par exemple, Pieπe, Paul. L'hypostase requiert une essence avec des accidents, de subsister par soi et d' etre saisie par la sensation, c' est a dire d'etre en acte. Par ailleurs, il est impossible que deux hypostases ne different pas par les accidents, si elles se distinguent par le nombre. De plus, les proprietes caracteristiques sont les accidents qui caracterisent l 'hypostase » 154 • 4. Jdentίtέ de l 'essence, de la nature et de la forme. « La forrne est une essence pour ainsi dire inforrnee et specifiee par les differences essentielles, qui signifie l'espece specialissime. Par exemple, l'essence inforrnee et specifiee par le corps anime et sensible produit l'animal. Si elle reyoit de plus le raisonnable et le mortel, elle produit l'espece de l'homme. Devenue ainsi espece specialissime, elle est appelee forrne comme une essence informee. Les Saints Peres appliquent donc a l'espece specialissime le nom d'essence, de nature et de forrne, et ils disent que l' espece specialissime, l' essence, la nature et la forrne sont la meme chose. Et ils disent aussi que les individus ranges sous l' espece specialissime sont de meme essence, de meme nature, de meme genre et de meme forme . Quant aux especes specialissimes, ils disent qu'elles sont d'essence differente, de nature differente, d'espece differente, de genre different et de forme differente. Car il est impossible qu'une espece par rapport a une autre espece, une nature par rapport a une autre nature, et une essence par rapport a une autre essence, ne soient pas d'essence differente, de nature differente et de forrne differente » 155 •

154

Dίaleclίca

1"

Dίalectίca

31 (= 11), ed. KoTTER Ι , p. 93- 5. 42 (=25), ed. ΚοττΕR Ι , p. 107.

III 46

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

5. Hypostase et enhypostaton. « L' enhypostasie ( ένυπόστατον) signifie tantδt 1'existence simple et, d' apres cette signification, nous ne disons pas seulement que l'essence simple est enhypostasiee, mais aussi l'accident, meme s'il n'est pas a proprement parler enhypostasie, mais hypostasie dans une autre chose. Tantδt, il designe l'hypostase au sens propre, c'est a dire l'individu. Or, l'individu n'est pas a proprement parler enhypostasie, mais plutδt hypostase, et il est ainsi appele. Au sens propre, enhypostasie est soit ce qui ne subsiste pas par soi, mais qui est considere dans les hypostases (par exemple, l'espece ou la nature des hommes n'est pas consideree dans sa propre hypostase, mais dans Pieπe , Paul et toutes les hypostases humaines), soit ce qui s'unit a une chose d'essence differente pour produire un tout, et constituer une unique hypostase composee (par exemple, l'homme est compose d'ame et de corps: ηί 1'ame seule, ηί le corps seul ne sont dits hypostases, mais plutδt enhypostasies. Ce qui est constitue a partir des deux, c'est l'hypostase des deux). Au sens propre, hypostase est ce qui est et subsiste individuellement par soi, et elle est ainsi appelee. Enhypostasiee est encore appelee la nature assumee par une autre hypostase, et qui a son existence dans cette autre hypostase. Donc, la chair du Seigneur qui n'a pas subsiste un seul instant par soi, n'est pas une hypostase, mais plutδt une nature enhypostasiee. Εη effet, elle a ete assumee par l'hypostase du Dieu Verbe, et elle a subsiste en elle. L'hypostase du Dieu Verbe a ete son hypostase, et elle l'est encore » 156 •

6. Les

heretίques

confondent nature et hypostase.

« La cause de l'egarement des heretiques consiste dans l'identification de la nature et de l'hypostase » 157 • « Concernant la [ ... ] Trinite monarchique et consubstantielle, Arius et Eunome et toute leur bande polytheiste et ηοη moins athee ont evidemment radote en posant trois essences ; leur eπeur a consiste a diviser la nature avec les hypostases et a concevoir 1'hypostase comme identique a la nature. D'autre part, en depit du bon sens, Sabellius le Libyen a retenu une seule hypostase en contractant et en confondant a tort les trois [hypostases] en une seule hypostase, en raison de l'unicite de l'essence; il a cru [lui aussi] que l'hypostase et la nature etaient egales. 45 (=28), ed. ΚοπΕR 1, p. 109- 10. 47, 1. 39-40, ed. ΚοπΕR ΙΙ, p. 112.

156

Dίalectίca

157

Exposίtίo fideί

III Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

47

Par ailleurs, concernant l'Incarnation [ ... ] de l'Un de la Trinite, le Dieu Verbe, le Fils monogene du Pere, Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ, [ ... ] l'adorateur de l'homme Nestorius, ainsi que Diodore et Theodore de Mopsueste, reconnaissant deux natures, divisent egalement l'hypostase et posent deux hypostases, par assimilation au nombre de natures, et ils divisent aussi le Fils et Christ et Seigneur unique en deux fils et deux personnes, parce qu'ils supposent que la nature et l'hypostase sont identiques. Quant a Dioscore et Severe et leur hydre aux nombreuses tetes - et par consequent acephale - , ils posent une seule hypostase et definissent ainsi une seule nature, ne comprenant 'ni ce qu'ils disent ni ce dont ils se portent garants' (lTm 1, 7). Εη effet, ceux-la aussi ont donne une acception unique a la nature et a l'hypostase. Et leur impiete n'a pas cesse la: ils ont aussi affirme qu'il y avait trois essences et natures partielles (μερικαi ούσίαι καi φύσεις) dans la Sainte et supra-divine Trinite [ ... ]. Mais ces pretendus sages a barbe longue η Όηt pas compris que les hommes pieux ne doivent pas suivre en toutes choses les doctrines des philosophes paϊens, mais qu'ils doivent devenir des banquiers experimentes, afin de reconnaitre la frappe originale et la distinguer de la fausse monnaie » 158 • 7. Une nature ne peut pas etre composee α partίr de deux natures. Quant l 'hypostase, elle peut etre composee α partίr de deux natures.

α

« 11 est impossible qu'une nature composee soit produite a partir de deux essences ou natures, car des differences constitutivement opposees ne peuvent pas exister simultanement dans une meme chose. Cependant, il est possible qu'une unique hypostase composee soit produite a partir de natures differentes » 159 . « Α propos de Notre Seigneur Jesus-Christ, nous savons qu'il a deux natures et une seule hypostase composee de ces deux natures. Lorsque nous considerons ses natures, nous les appelons divinite et humanite. Lorsque nous considerons l'hypostase composee de ses natures, nous la nommons soit a partir des deux, 'Christ', 'Dieu Homme' et 'Dieu incarne', soit a partir d'une seule de ses parties 'Dieu' et 'Fils de Dieu' uniquement, ou 'homme' et 'Fils de l'homme' uniquement. Et tantδt nous le nommons uniquement a partir de ses proprietes les plus elevees, et tantδt uniquement a partir des plus humbles. Car il est un, celui qui est ceci et cela. 11 est

158 159

C. Jacobitas 2, ed. KoTTER IV, ρ . 1 10- 11. 42 (=25), ed. ΚοπΕR Ι , ρ . 107- 8.

Dίalectica

III 48

Remarques sur la phίlosophίe byzantίne

Dieu, parce qu'il est issu eternellement et sans cause du Pere. Et il devient homme, ulterieurement, par amour des hommes. Lorsque nous parlons de la divinite, nous ne lui appliquons pas les proprietes de l 'humanite, car nous ne disons pas que la divinite est passible ou creee. Et lorsque nous parlons de la chair, c'est a dire de l'humanite, nous ne lui appliquons pas les proprietes de la divinite, car nous ne disons pas que la chair, c'est a dire l'humanite, est increee. Εη ce qui concerne l'hypostase, qu'elle soit nommee a partir des deux ou d'une partie seulement, nous lui appliquons toujours les proprietes des deux natures. Εη effet, le Christ, qui est l'un et l' autre, est dit Dieu et homme, cree et incree, passible et impassible. Ainsi, lorsqu'il est nomme d' une partie uniquement, Dieu et Fils de Dieu, il reς;oit aussi les proprietes de la nature coexistente, c' est adire de la chair. 11 est alors appele Dieu passible et Seigneur de gloire crucifie, ηοη en tant que Dieu, mais parce qu ' il est aussi homme. Et lorsqu 'il est nomme homme et Fils de l'homme, il reς;oit aussi les proprietes et la gloire de l' essence divine. Ainsi, il est appele enfant preeternel et homme sans principe, ηοη en tant qu'enfant ou en tant qu'homme, mais parce qu'il est Dieu preeternel, devenu enfant dernierement. Tel est donc le mode de communication des proprietes. Chaque nature communique a l' autre ce qui lui est propre, par l' identite de l'hypostase et la circumincession (περιχώρησις) des natures. C'est ainsi que nous pouvons dire a propos du Christ 'notre Dieu est apparu sur la teπe' (Ba 3, 36. 38) et 'cet homme est incree, impassible et indescriptible' » 160 •

160

Expos ίtίofideί

48, ed. Κοττ ε R

ΙΙ ,

p.11 6-18.

Systematic theology

IV

Α

Pseudo-Cyril' s «De SS. Trinitate»: Compilation of Joseph the Philosopher ·

The anonymous treatise De SS. Trίnitate was first published in 1604 by the Geπnan scholar J. Wegelin, who found it in the sixteenth century codex Augsburg Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 240. 1 Now, since this codex also contains a fragrnent of Cyril of Alexandήa (412-444 )2 immediatly following the De SS. Trίnitate, Wegelin attήbuted the latter also to Cyril. 3 But already by 1613, Robert Bellaπnine noticed that the De SS. Trίnitate contained anti-monothelitic theses, and rejected this attήbution. 4 D. Petau accepted Bellaπnine's argument and reached the conclusion that the De SS. Trίnitate was a compilation which drew upon the texts of * This paper was completed in 1993-94 during my stay at Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington, D.C., as Junior Fellow. Ι am grateful to the Trustees of Harvard University for providing me with this fellowship, and to Dumbarton Oaks staff and fellows for their encouragement and support. 1 Cyril of Alexandria, Liber de Sacrosancta Trinitate, ed. J. Wegelin (Augsburg 1604) 1-117: Greek text with Latin translation; 126-140: commentaries. For the description of the manuscript and of his contents, see Η . Spilling, Die Handschriften der Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg (Wiesbaden 1984) 274-275 . On Wegelin, see C. G. Jϋcher, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon, IV (Leipzig 1751, repr. Hildesheim 1961) 1846. 2 Although it is not present in the Patrologia Graeca and not mentioned by Μ. Geerard, Clavis patrum graecorum, ΠΙ (Tumhout 1979), this fragment was published twice, first by D. Hoeschel, Homiliae quaedam (Augsburg 1587) 503-509, and then by Wegelin (Liber de Sacrosancta Trinitate, 119-121). 3 The proximity to the De SS. Trinitate of Cyril's presumed fragment, a statement added to the beginning of the codex that John of Damascus quotes Cyril (f χν), and a marginal gloss «Τό (?) Κυρίλλου» (f 22v), probably induced Wegelin to attribute this fragment to Cyril. Οπ this attribution, see Cyril of Alexandria, Liber de Sacrosancta Trinitate , 262. 4 R. Bellarmine, De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis liber unus (Operum t. VII, Venice 1728, 1st ed. Rome 1613) 153C: «Liber de Sacrosancta Trinitate ποπ videtur esse Cyrilli, sed alicujus posterioris; auctor enim copiose disputat de duabus naturis in Christo et de duabus voluntatibus, et operationibus, et reddit rationem, cur ποπ repugnent istis dogmatibus, qui aliquando dixerunt in Christo esse operationem Theandricam, et unam Verbi naturam esse incarnatam. Itaque videtur auctor scripsisse post sextam Synodum» .

IV 118

John of Damascus (d. ca. 750), 5 a conclusion confiπned by Μ. Lequien6 and J.-A. Fabήcius. 7 Ιη 1859, J.-P. Migne reproduced the De SS. Trίnitate in the Patrologia Graeca among the dubia of Cyήl, 8 and in 1907, J. Mahe gave its exact parallels with John of Damascus' De fide orthodoxa. 9 However, in 1912, J. de Guibert argued that the De SS. Trίnitate was not a late compilation, but indeed the source of the Damascene's De fide orthodoxa. 10 Once Guibert's arguments had become commonly accepted, scholars began to be interested in the author and the date of composition of the De SS. Trίnitate. Although Guibert believed it to be a pseudepigraphic text composed for the needs of the monothelitic controversy, 11 L. Prestige asserted that the so-called Ps.-Cyήl of Alexandήa was an oήginal and important author, the first to have used the concept of circumincessio (περιχώρησις) in tήnitarian theology. 12 After much discussion about the chronology of Ps.-Cyήl, in which scholars such as Β. Studer 13 and Κ. Rozemond 14 were involved,

5 D. Petau, De Trinitate (Dogmata theologica, IV), V, 1, 17 (Paris 1865, 1st ed. 1644) 98: «Haec Joannes Damascenus. Quae totidem verbis exscripta leguntur ίη libro quodam de Sancta Trinitate, quem ante annos triginta sub Cyrilli nomine Augustae Vindelicorum Joannes Wegelinus edidit. Sed nihil aliud, praeter excerpta Joannis Damasceni, continet» . 6 John of Damascus, Opera omnia, ed. Μ. Lequien (Paris 1712) 120 = PG 94, 783.

J.-A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca graeca , ΙΧ (Hamburg 1804) 472-473. PG 77, 1120-1173. Migne reproduces J. Aubert's edition of Cyril of Alexandria, Opera omnia, VII (Paris 1638), which already presented the De SS. Trinitate among the dubia of Cyril. 9 J. Mahe, «Cyrille dΆlexandrie», DTC 3 [1907] 2500, gives the following parallels: «PG 77, 1120-1145 (c. 1-Χ), 1145 (c. ΧΙ-ΧΙΙ), 1164-1172 (c. XXIII-XXVI), 1172 (c. XXVII), 1173 (c. XXVIII) avec PG 94, 789-833, 836-841, 1181-1192, 997-1000, 11081109. Les c. ΧΙΙΙ-ΧΙΙ de PG 77 manquent dans PG 94» . 7 8

10 J . de Guibert, «Une source de S. Jean Damascene, De fide orthodoxa», Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 356-368. 11 Guibert, «Une source de S. Jean Damascene», 368. 12 G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London 1952) 280-281. Οη the concept of περιχώρησις ίη trinitarian theology, see also G. L. Prestige, «Περιχωρέω and περιχώρησις ίη the Fathers», JTS 29 (1928) 242-252 and Β. Studer, Die Theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus (Studia patristica et byzantina 2, Ettal 1956) 112-113, note 52. For the use of this concept in the Christological parts of the De SS. Trinitate, see J. Stead, «Perichoresis in the Christological Chapters of the De Trinitate of Pseudo-Cyril of Alexandria», Dominican Studίes 6 (1953) 12-20.

13

Studer, Theologische Arbeitsweise, 23.

IV PSEUDO-CYRIL' S «DE SS. TRINITATE»

119

Fraigneau-Julien 15 established the year of composition of the De SS. Trinitate through an analysis of its contents. Pointing out that Maximus the Confessor (d. 662) had a deep influence οη Ps.-Cyril, he fixed the terminus post quem at 657. As ηο mention of the Sixth Ecumenical Council is found in the De SS. Trinitate, the terminus ante quem was put in 681. 16 This chronology was commonly accepted, and Β. Kotter, in his cήtical edition of John of Damascus' works, presented and used the De SS. Trinitate as a source of the De fιde orthodoxa. 17 Unfortunately, the relation between Ps.-Cyril and some Byzantine texts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuήes came to notice only in 1974, one year after the publication of Kotter's edition. Ιη a bήef remark in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, D. Stiemon identified the De SS. Trinitate with the De pietate (Περί εύσεβείας) of Joseph the Philosopher (d. ca. 1330). 18 Later, Stiemon also noticed that an important part of the De SS. Trinitate was probably taken from the Sermo ad monachos suos (PG 142, 583-606) of Nicephorus Blemmydes (1197-1272). 19 Thus, he concluded that the De SS. Trinitate was not a source of John of Damascus, but a compilation due to Joseph the Philosopher. 1n fact, G. de Andres had already made the same observation in 1967, in his descήption of the Β.

14 Κ. Rozemond, Lα Christologie de Saint Jean Damascene (Studia patristica et byzantina 8, Ettal 1959) 57-59.

15 Β.

Cyrille

Fraigneau-Julien, «Un traite anonyme de la Sainte Trinite attribue a Saint Recherches de science religieuse 49 (1961), 118-211 and 386-405.

dΆ!exandrie»,

16 Fraigneau-Julien, «Un traite anonyme», 205-208, 397 and 401, notices ίη the De SS. Trinitate an influence of the Tomus dogmaticus ad Marinum diaconum (PG 91, 6889), the Epistola ad Marinum Cypri presbyterum (PG 91, 133-137) and the Disputatio cum Pyπho (PG 91 , 288-353) of Maximus the Confessor. Οη the terminus post quem,

see 402. 17 Β. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, Π (Patristische Texte und Studien 12, Berlin-New York 1973) ΧΧΙΧ, LVIII.

D. Stiernon, «Joseph le Philosophe», DSp 8 [1974] 1391 . For a recent bibliograJoseph the Philosopher, see Ε . Trapp, Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, IV (Vienna 1980) 207. 18

phy

οη

19 D. Stiernon, «Nicephore Blemmyde», DSp 11 [1982] 192. The relation between the De pietate of Joseph and the Sermo ad monachos suos of Blemmydes was first noticed by G. Vitelli, Indice de' codici greci Riccardiani, Magliabechiani e Marucelliani (Florence-Rome 1894) 492, in his description of the codex Riccard. Gr. 31. See also Studer, Theologische Arbeitsweise, 23, note 84. For a recent bibliography on Nicephorus Blemmydes, see Nicephorus Blemmydes, Α Partial Account. Introduction translation and notes by J . Α. Munitiz (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Etudes et documents 48, Leuven 1988) X-XV.

IV 120

Scorial. Gr. 426 (Ψ.Ι.6.) containing the Synopsis variarum disciplinarum of Joseph the Philosopher, 20 but this had escaped the attention of the aforementioned scholars. 1 have been able to confirm the hypothesis of Andres and Stiemon by two kinds of analyses: first, through an examination of the textual relations between the De SS. Trinitate, the De fide orthodoxa and the Sermo ad monachos suos, and second, by consideήng the manuscήpt tradition of the De SS. Trinitate, which seems to be much broader than has been believed. The collation of the texts of the De SS. Trinitate, the De fide orthodoxa and the Sermo ad monachos suos results in table 1: Table 1 John of Damascus,

Blemmydes, Sermo ad

Ps.-Cyril

De fide orthodoxa

monachos suos

De SS. Trinitate

(PG 142)

(PG 77)

ed .

Β.

Kotter 585Α

8-13

cf. C. 2, 10-13

2

1120Α

1-6

Ι 120Α

6-10

1120Α

10-11

4

C. 1, 7-22

1120Α

11-30

5

C. 2, 36-C. 8, 222

112ΙΑ 4-Ι 14ΙΒ

3

585Α

13-15

13-C 4

6

C. 8, 223-227

Ι 14ΙΒ

7

c. 8, 227-238

l 141C 6-D 6

8

c. 8, 238-243

1141D 6-13

9

C. 8, 243-250

1141D

10

C. 8, 250-258

Ι 144Α 7-Β

11

C. 8, 268-276

l 144C 3-16

12

C. 8, 288-291

Ι 145Α

13

C. 8, 291-297

Ι 145Α 9-Β

14

C. 9, 7-14 601D

15 16

cf. C. 9, 17-28

17

C. 11, 2-39

18

ΠΙ

14-604Α

5

8

13-1144Α

7

4

3-9 1

Ι 145Β

7-15

Ι 145Β

15-C 3

l 145C 4-D 2

1145D 7-l 148D 6 589Α

15-593D 12

1148D 8-1153C 9

20 G. de Andres, Catalogo de los codices griegos de /α Real Biblioteca de el Escorial, (Madrid 1967) 9.

IV 121

PSEUDO-CYRIL'S «DE SS . TRINITATE»

19

593D 13-15

20

593D

21

596C 3-601D 14

15-596Β

1153D 1-3 15

1153D

3-1156Β

22

c.91,2-77

23

C.

91, 123-138

1168Α 12-Β

24

C.

91, 78-122

1168Β 5-1169Β

25

c . 91, 129-158

26

C.

48, 5-42

1172Α

27

C.

77, 9-49

1173A2-C8

28

c. 77, 53-58

1173C8-DI

29

6

Ι 156Β10-1164Α12 1164Β Ι-1168Α

11

5 14

l 169C 2-1 Ι 72Α 6 8-D 14

1173Dl-5

Οη the basis of this table, the following observations can be made: First, a glance at the articulation of the De fide orthodoxa (col. 1), the Sermo ad monachos suos (col. 2) and the De SS. Trinitate (col. 3), reveals that the De fide orthodoxa and the Senno ad monachos suos never coincide. Had both John of Damascus and Nicephorus Blemmydes used the De SS. Trinitate as a source, one would expect them to share common passages. But it can be seen from the table that Blemmydes' text stops exactly where John of Damascus' text begins (lines 3, 15 and 21). Consequently, accepting the theory that the De SS. Trinitate was the common source of both would necessitate positing a very complicated procedure οη the part of Blemmydes, who would have to retained only the passages that John of Damascus did not use. Much simpler and more credible is the theory that the De SS. Trinitate is a compilation of the De fide orthodoxa and the Senno ad monachos suos . Second, it is noticeable that the order in which the chapters of the De fide orthodoxa are reproduced in the De SS. Trinitate (c. 2; c. 1-9; c. 11; c. 91; c. 48; c. 77) follows the outline of a version of the De fιde orthodoxa which appears for the first time in the eleventh century. This version, called Expositio inversa, does not differ from the De fιde orthodoxa in its text, but because it changes completely the order of its chapters, presenting first chapters 1 to 18, then chapters 82 to 100, and finally chapters 19 to 81. 21 Since the order in which the chapters of the De fide orthodoxa

21 The De fide orthodoxa has been transmitted ίη two different versions, the Expositio ordinata , existing ίη 174 manuscήpts , and the Expositio inversa, existing in 44 manuscήpts . Οη these two versions of the De fide orthodoxa, see Β . Kotter, Die

IV 122

appear in the De SS. Trinitate coincides with this ordeήng, it may be considered likely that in wήting his compilation, Ps.-Cyήl had available to him one of the manuscήpts containing this version of the De fιde orthodoxa. 22 The collation of the De fide orthodo:xa and the De SS. Trinitate also helps to establish that many of the textual discrepancies between the two works are not due to eπors or voluntary modifications, but existed already in some manuscήpts of the De fide orthodoxa which Ps.-Cyήl could have used for his compilation. Indeed, a compaήson of the vaήants of the De fide orthodoxa as given in the apparatus of Kotter, 23 with several passages of the De SS. Trinitate reveals that Ps.-Cyήl reproduces more than 67 of them. Table Π24 gives a sample of the most interesting vaήants of the De fide orthodoxa assumed by the De SS. Trinitate .

Oberlieferung der Pege Gnoseos des hl. Johannes von Damaskos (Studia patήstica et byzantina 5, Ettal 1959) 148-195. 22 Α study of some variants of the De fιde orthodoxa quoted by Ps.-Cyril shows that the four manuscήpts of the De fιde orthodoxa which are closer to the De SS. Trinitate contain the text of the Expositio inversa (Oxon. Cromw. Gr. 13, 11th c.; Londin. Mus. Brit. add. 27 862, 11th c.; Vat. Gr. 490, 12th-13th c.; Monac. Gr. 317, 13th-14th c.). Among them, the Monac. Gr. 317 presents 66% of the vaήants reproduced in the De SS. Trinitate. On this manuscήpt, see 1. Hardt, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum bibliothecae regiae bavaricae, ΙΠ (Munich 1806) 276-277. 23 On the manuscήpts employed in Kotter's edition, and on the composition of the apparatus, see Kotter, Schriften, XXX-LIX. 24 The sigla quoted in this table coπespond to the following manuscήpts: Β = Messan. Gr. 116, 10th c.; C = Cryptoferr. ΙΙ (Patr.) 11 (Β.α.11), lOth-llth c.; Ε = Mosqu. Synod. 201, 9th c.; F = Athous Dionys. 175, 13th c.; G = Vat. Chis. Gr. 18, AD 1029/30; Η= Sinait. Gr. 383, (9th-10th c.) 11th c.; 1 = Mosqu. Synod. 202, 11th c.; Κ = Monac. Gr. 317, 13th c.; L = Vat. Gr. 490, 12th-13th c.; Μ = Oxon. Cromw. Gr. 13, 11th c. ; Ν = Londin. Mus. Brit. add. 27862, 11 th c.

IV 123

PSEUDO-CYRIL'S «DE SS. TRINITATE»

Tablell John όf Damascus, De fide orthodoxa (ed. Β. Kotter) c . 3, 28:

πάντα τά όντα,

Ps.-Cyril, De SS. Trinitate (PG 77)

De fide orthodoxa (ed. Β . Kotter): Variae lectiones όντα

add.

τρεπτά Η"

1121 C 11 : πάντα

τά

όντα τρεπτά

2

c . 4, 5:

Πώς γάρ σεπτόν

] Fc

l 124C 6:

γάρ σεπτόν

δέ

άτρεπτον

σεπτόν

Πώς άτρεπτον

]

άτρεπτον Η

3

c. 4, 38: ού

νοουμεν

σκότος

νοουμεν, άλλ ' δτι ούκ

εστι

φως, άλλ' ύπέρ τό φως .

add.

καί φως,

έ στι φώς, άλλ' ύπέρ τό

add.

καί

CGc (i.m.) Mc (num. s.s. hic ins.) έστι add. θεός CFMc

6 7

c. 7, 41f:

ή συνέχουσά με.

add.

ούσίαν ΚLΜΝ

8,179:

δεσποζόμενον

ού

c. 8, 206: ύπερτελη

καί

c. 8, 273f:

c . 91, 23:

κατ·

τουτέστι τάς

έν τψ πατρί

12

91, 78:

έπί του σωτηρος

add.

13

παντέλειον

ού

1141Α

11:

ύπερτελη καί

παντέλειον

ύποστάσεις

add.

του

1144C 12:

(τουτέστι τάς

υίου καί του πνεύματος

ύποστάσεις του υίου καί

κ

του πνεύματος)·

έν τψ πατρί

add. καί LcMN

γεγραμμένων

]

add.

ε'ίπετο

-

γυμνοί

αύτοίς

έν τψ πατρί,

6:

έπί Χριστου

λεγομένων,

1173Β

6:

άλλ' όλίγοι

γυμνοί, πτωχοί

ΒCΕΗΚΜΝ

γάρ αύτούς Κ

1164C 14f:

καί άμα τψ πατρί,

1168Β

όλίγοι

γάρ αύτοίς

9:

θεούμενον·

]

77, 37:

77, 39f: εϊπετο

1140Β

FHM προτέλειον

λεγομένων ΒΚL

άλλ ' όλίγοι

άνόμοιον

δεσποζόμενον· θεουν ού

Χριστου γεγραμμένων

πτωχοί,

11:

θεουν ού θεούμενον

άμα τψ πατρί

11

1133Β

ή διδάσκουσά

παντελώς κατ· ούσίαν.

κ

ύποστάσεις

10

1129D 8: με.

παντελώς

προτέλειον

9

1125C 4: εΊς έστι θεός,

GemgHM

c . 8, 62: άνόμοφν

δεσποζόμενον,

8

σκότος έστίν.

συνέχουσα] διδάσκουσα

παντελώς.

C.

φως, καί φως, δτι ού

καί ού πολλοί,

πολλοί,

5

ού σκότος

ΚLΜΝ

φως, δτι ού σκότος έστί ν

c . 5, 3: εΊς έστι καί ού

8s:

νοουμεν, άλλ' δτι ούκ

ύπέρ τό φως

4

1125Β

δτι ού σκότος έστί ν

]

ένίσχυε

1173Β

10:

ένίσχυε γάρ

αύτούς

This is not the place to cornment οη the instances where the De SS. Trinitate reproduces additions or omissions given as variants of the De fi.de σrthodoxa, even if some of them are quite interesting, namely in the

IV 124

case of lines 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12. Ι will focus only οη three points, which, in my opinion, prove that the De SS. Trίnitate can in ηο way be considered a source of the De fιde orthodoxa. These points appear οη lines 2, 5 and 8 of table ΙΙ. Line 2: Because of a confusion between «γdρ σεπτόν» and «ι'iτρεπτον» which Kotter ascήbes to F (the Athous Dionys. 175 of the thirteenth century) or Η (the Sinait. Gr. 383 of the eleventh century), the sentence reading «Πως γdρ σεπτόν, εί περιγραπτόν και παθητόν;» in the De fide orthodoxa (c. 4, 5) becomes in the De SS. Trίnitate, «Πως ι'iτρεπτον, εί περιγραπτόν και παθητόν;» (1124C 6). Now we know that this sentence is part of a quotation from the Oratio 28, 7 of Gregory of Nazianzus: «'Ότι μεν γdρ άσώμα­ τον, δηλον. Πως γdρ σώμα τό άπειρον [ ... ]. Πως γdρ σεπτόν, εί περιγραπτόν; Και πως άπαθές τό έκ στοιχείων συγκείμενον [ ... ]». 25 John of Damascus reproduces coπectly the whole quotation, but this is not the case with Ps.-Cyήl, who does not recognize the text of Gregory of Nazianzus and gives this quotation in its corrupted eleventh or thirteenth century version. Line 5:

relation to the passage from Wisdom 1. 7, «πνεϋμα κυρίου τό συνέχον τd πάντα», and to a quotation of Basil of Caesarea, De Spirίtu Sancto, 16, «τό στερεοϋν τό Πνεϋμα», 26 the verse Job 33. 4, «Πνεϋμα θείον τό ποιησάν με, πνοη δέ παντοκράτορος ή διδάσκουσά με», is modified by Ιη

John of Damascus into «Πνεϋμα θείον τό ποιησάν με, πνοη δέ παντοκρά­ τορος ή συνέχουσά με» (c. 7, 41), in order to introduce the following commentary: «Πνεϋμα δέ άποστελλόμενον και ποιοϋν και στερεοϋν και συνέχον ούκ άσθμα έστι λυόμενον» (c. 7, 42s). Some manuscήpts like G (the Vatic. Chis. Gr. 18 of AD 1029/30), Η (the Sinait. Gr. 383 already mentioned) and Μ (the Oxon. Cromw. Gr. 13 of the eleventh century), do not take into account this commentary of John of Damascus, and restore the correct form of this verse, «ή διδάσκουσά με». Since Ps.-Cyήl follows this variant, which appears in the eleventh century, he seems also to ignore the oήginal intention of John of Damascus. Line 8: The expression «ύπερτελη και προτέλειον» given in the De fide orthodoxa (c. 8, 206) is a quotation of the De divinis nominibus, Π, 10 25 Gregory of Nazianzus, Discours 28. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Ρ. Gallay (SC 250, Paris 1978) 114, 8f. 26 Basil of Cesarea, Sur le Saint-Esprit. Introduction, texte, traduction et notes par Β. Pruche (SC 17bis, Paris 19682 ) 340, 38.

IV PSEUDO-CYRIL'S «DE SS. TRINITATE»

125

and VΠ, 2 ofDionysius Areopagita. 27 Again, we see that Ps.-Cyτil does not recognize this quotation, but follows the different reading of Κ (the Monac. Gr. 317 of the thirteenth century), which changes it into «ύπερτε­ λη και παντέλειον» (114 lA 11), an expression never used in the Corpus Dίonysiacum. 28

At this point, there can ηο longer be any doubt about the relation of the De SS. Trinitate to the De fιde orthodoxa and the Senno ad monachos suos: far from being the common source of John of Damascus and Nicephorus Blemmydes, the De SS. Trinitate is rather a late compilation based οη these two authors. Its terminus post quem must be put at the end of the thirteenth century. Is it possible to argue further that its author, the so-called Ps.-Cyτil, is in fact Joseph the Philosopher? The answer to that question can only be found after taking into consideration the manuscήpt tradition of the De SS. Trinitate. As already stated, Wegelin's edition of the De SS. Trinitate was based οη a single manuscήpt, the Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg 240. With the publication of the catalog of the manuscήpts of Augsburg in 1984, 29 we now have a complete and recent descήption of this codex. Thus, we see that besides the text of the De SS. Trinitate (ff 1ι-_zgv), which is anonymous, the codex contains a fragment attήbuted to Cyτil of Alexandήa (ff 2Ψ-34ar) 30 and an anonymous treatise De virtute (ff 35ι-_57,') also published by Wegelin in 1603. 31 Appended to the latter are some fragments οη physical questions by the fifteenth century humanist Theodorus of Gaza (ff 57v_5gv). 32 Consideήng the main part of this codex (ff 1ι-_ 57 1"), it is obvious that it reproduces, in fact, the last sections of the Syn27 Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, ed. Β. R. Suchla, Corpus Dionysiacum, Ι (Patristische Texte und Studien 33, Berlin-New York 1990) 134, 11 and 196, lOf.

the De divinis nomίnίbus , IV, 10 and ΧΙΙΙ , 1, Dionysius Areopagita combines with «ύπεράρχιον» (Suchla, Ι, 155, 5) and with «ύπερέχον» (Suchla, Ι , 226, 11 ), but never with «παντέλειον» which we find only ίη the De ecclesiastica hierarchia, Π, 5, where it is combined with «άμωμον» (ed. G. Heil, Α. Μ. Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum , Π [Patristische Texte und Studien 36, Berlin-New York 1991] 71, 14). 28 Ιη

«ύπερτελές»

29

See note 1.

30

See note 2.

31

J. Wegelin, Anonymi christiani philosophi liber de virtute (Augsburg 1603).

L. Mohler, Κardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsman, ΠΙ: Aus Bessarions Gelehrtenkreis (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte 24, Paderborn 1942) 248. 32

IV 126

opsis varίarum disciplinarum of Joseph the Philosopher, which is also known as the «Encyclopedia». 33 The «Encyclopedia» of Joseph the Philosopher, a compilation written in the middle of the fourteenth century, has never been published in its entirety. However, we have some very good descήptions of its more important manuscήpts, namely the Riccard. Gr. 31, 34 the Marc. Gr. 529 (= 847) 35 and the Parίs. Gr. 3031, 36 all three of the fourteenth century, the Monac. Gr. 78 37 of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, the Moden. Gr. 101 38 of AD 1508, and the Scorίal. Gr. 426 (Ψ.1.6)3 9 of AD 1545. ΑΠ of these manuscήpts present the text of the De SS. Trίnitate, generally under the title Περί εύσεβείας or De pietate, as a part of the «Encyclopedia», and attήbute it clearly to Joseph the Philosopher. Following the program Joseph himself gives in the Prologue of his work, the theological part of the «Encyclopedia» (i.e., the De SS. Trίnitate = De pietate) is directly connected to the moral part, which is represented by the De virtute. 40 Thus, in all the manuscήpts mentioned above, we see that the De virtute is always accompanied by the De SS. Trίnitate. The fragment of Cyήl also follows the De SS. Trίnitate in almost all the manuscήpts. 41 Now, the same combination of these three texts can be seen in

On Joseph's «Encyclopedia», see Μ. Treu, «Der Philosoph Joseph», ΒΖ 8 (1899) Terzaghi, «Sulla composizione dell'Enciclopedia del filosofo Giuseppe», Studi italiani di filologia classica 10 (1902) 121-132 = Ν. Terzaghi, Studia graeca et latina (1901-1956) , Ι (Turin 1963) 588-599 and R. Criscuolo, «Note sullΈnciclopedia del filosofo Giuseppe», Byz 44 (1974) 255-281. 33

1-64,

34

Ν.

See Vitelli, Indice, 490-493.

See Ε. Mioni, Codices graeci manuscripti bibliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum, Π (Rome 1985) 416-417. 35

36 See Η. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationale , ΠΙ (Paris 1888) 96. 37 See Hardt, Catalogus, Ι, 458-460. 38 See V. Puntoni, Indice dei codici greci della Biblioteca Estense di Modena (Florence-Rome 1896) 450 = C. Samberger, Catalogi codicum graecorum qui in minoribus bibliothecis italicis asservantur, Ι (Leipzig 1965) 366. 39 See Andres, Codices, 8-10. 40 According to the Prologue published by Treu, «Der Philosoph Joseph», 41-42,

45-46, the outline of the «Encyclopedia» is as follows: Rhetoric, Logic, Physics, Anthropology, Quadrivium, Ethics, Theology. 41 In the Scorial. Gr. 426 (Ψ.1.6.), this fragment has been replaced by another fragment attributed to Cyril, which is also present in a trinitarian homily of Joseph

IV PSEUDO-CYRI L'S «DE SS. TRINITATE»

127

the manuscript used by Wegelin, the Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg 240, which, consequently, appears to be not nothing else but an incomplete copy of Joseph's «Encyclopedia». Thus, since there is ηο manuscript presenting the De SS. Trinitate isolated from the «Encyclopedia» and attributing it to another author, Ps.-Cyril must certainly be identified with Joseph. Ιη closing, Ι would like to discuss the reasons why Joseph chose to compile the De fide orthodoxa of John of Damascus and the Semw ad monachos suos of Nicephorus Blemmydes. As can be seen in the «Encyclopedia», Joseph the Philosopher had a good knowledge of and a special predilection for the works of Nicephorus Blemmydes. Indeed, the Sermo ad monachos suos is not the only work of this author he employed: he quoted large sections of his Epitome logica 42 and his Epitome physica,43 and also two of his treatises, the De anima and the De corpore. 44 However, if Joseph the Philosopher did not hesitate to reproduce whole texts of Blemmydes, one could ask why he did not simply copy the Sermo ad monachos suos, instead of combining it with some chapters of the De fιde orthodoxa. Indeed, if we compare the parts of the Semw ad monachos suos Joseph omitted with the chapters of the De fide orthodoxa he quoted, we notice that they deal exactly with the same matter, namely the trinitarian doctrine. The historical background in which Joseph composed the De SS. Trinitate can help us answer this question.

Bryennios (ca. 1350-ca.1438), published by τά εύρεθέντα, Ι (Leipzig 1768) 237.

Ε.

Voulgaris,

'Ιωσήφ μοναχου του Βρυεννίου

42 Nicephorus Blemmydes, Epitomes isagogicae liber Ι: Epitome logica, ed. J. Wegelin (Augsburg 1607) = PG 142, 675-1004. See also Nicephorus Blemmydes, Curriculum vitae et carmina, ed. Α. Heisenberg (Leipzig 1896) LXVIII-LXXVII and Κ.­ Η. Uthemann, «Zur Sprachtheorie des Nikephoros Blemmydes. Bemerkungen zu einem byzantinischen Beitrag zur Geschichte der Logik», JOB 34 (1984) 123-153. 43 Nicephorus Blemmydes, Epitomes isagogicae liber ΙΙ: Epitome physica, ed. J. Wegelin (Augsburg 1607) = PG 142, 1005-1320. See also Nicephorus Blemmydes, Curriculum vitae, LXXVIII-LXXXII and W. Lackner, «Zum Lehrbuch der Physik des Nikephoros Blemmydes», Byzantinische Forschungen 4 (1972) 157-169; idem, «Die erste Auflage des Physiklehrbuc hes des Nikephoros Blemmydes», in F. Paschke (ed.), ϋberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (TU 125, Berlin 1981) 351-364.

the De anima and the De corpore, see Nicephorus Blemmydes, Curriculum IV and Μ. Verhelst, «Le ΠΕΡΙ ΨΥΧΗΣ de Nicephore Blemmyde. LXXXIII-LXXX vitae, Preliminaires a une edition critique», Byzantinische Forschungen 4 (1972) 214-219. 44 Οη

IV 128

Blemmydes' tήnitaήan doctήne, according to his own autobiography as well as according to Nicephorus Gregoras (d. ca. 1359), had been misunderstood and strongly cήticized by his contemporaήes. Thus, the Synod and the Patήarch rejected his views on the question of the Pater maior me est exposed in his Encomium in Ioannem Evangelistam. 45 Furthermore, concerning the delicate problem of the procession of the Holy Spiήt, some of his enemies claimed that he was defending the Latin position, 46 because he supported the moderate patήstic formula Spiritus ex Patre per Filium, sometimes rejected by the most extreme opponents of the fιlioque. 47 Although Nicephorus Blemmydes was never condemned, it is nonetheless true that John Bekkos, the unionist patήarch of Constantinople (1275-1282), made extensive use of his works, and even admitted to have reached his pro-Latin convictions through Blemmydes' wήtings on the procession of the Holy Spiήt. 48 Therefore, if Joseph wanted to be sure to remain in the stήct line of orthodoxy, he had to avoid the tήnitaήan part of the Sermo ad monachos suos, and so he replaced it with the commonly accepted doctήne of John of Damascus. As for his selection of the De fιde orthodoxa, this can be explained on two grounds: first, the tήnitaήan doctήne of John of Damascus was not only well-established, but, as far as the per Filium is concerned, it was also very close to Blemmydes' posiJ. Α. Munitiz, «Blemmydes Encomium οη St John the Evangelist (BHG 931)», 107 (1989) 285-346, especially 297-299 (corrigenda in ΑΒ 108, 1990, 146); Nicephorus Blemmydes, Autobiographia sive curriculum vitae, ed. J. Α. Munitiz (CCG 13, Ιη a letter Tιirnhout-Leuven 1984) 76-79 and idem, Α Partial Account, 128-132. adressed to the emperor Theodorus Ducas Lascaris, Epistulae CCXVII, ed. Ν. Festa (Florence 1898) 314-316, Blemmydes apologizes for this event. 46 Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, V, 2, 6, ed. L. Schopen, Ι (CSHB, Βοηη 1829) 129 = PG 148, 268D-269A: «ην τηvικαυτα σοφός άνήρ Νικηφόρος ό 45

ΑΒ

Βλεμμύδης, θείων γραφών έμπειρότατος, δς σχολίl δεδωκώς έαυτόν ήρξατο συλλέγειν πολλάς παρά των θείων γραφών μαρτυρίας, συγκροτείν δοκούσας τφ των Λατίνων δόγματι, καi λογογραφείν έπi τούτοις, λάθρ~ μεν δια την των πολλών ύπόληψιν,

έλογογράφει δ' οί'iν εστιν li». 47 Nicephorus Blemmydes, De processione Spiritus sancti oratio ΙΙ, 3 (PG 142, 568D-569A): «Καιρός δ' ού πολύς, έξ οδ τινες έπαθόν τι γελοιότατον, η μαλλον είπείν

άθλιότατον, βουλόμενοι γαρ έκ περιουσίας άνελείν τό έκ του Υίου, συνανείλον αύτφ καi τό δι' Υίου καi τά διδάγματα των τοσούτων άγιων».

48 This is reported by Georges Pachymeres, De Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis, 9, ed. Ι. Bekker, ΙΙ (CSHB, Βοηη 1835) 28 = PG 144, 33-34 and Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, V, 2, 6, ed. Schopen, Ι, 129-130 = PG 148, 269Α. See also Ν. Xexakes, 'Ιωάννης Βέκκος καί αί θεολογικαί αντιλήψεις αύτού (Athens 1981) 36-37. Ι,

IV PSEUDO-CYRIL'S «DE SS. TRINITATE»

129

tion. 49 Second, both the De fide orthodoxa and the Sermo ad monachos suos are contained in a fourteenth century codex, the Vallicell. Gr. 30, which may well have been available to J oseph the Philosopher. 50 The Vallicell. Gr. 30 is an extremely interesting codex which seems to have been composed for the purpose of refuting the Latin doctήne of the filioque. We find in it not only patήstic texts dealing with the procession of the Holy Spiήt, but also some anti-Latin treatises wήtten by Eustratius of Nicea (d. ca. 1145/50), Nicholas of Methone (d. ca. 1165) and even Nicephorus Blemmydes. 51 The De fide orthodoxa, which is reproduced in the unusual form of the Expositio inversa, has an important place in the codex. 52 The Sermo ad monachos suos is presented under the title Περί πίmεως. 53 Most surpήsing however is the fact that some other texts quoted in the «Encyclopedia» of Joseph, like the De anima 54 and the De corpore, 55 are also contained in the Vallicell. Gr. 30. Ιη addition, some unidentified fragments of Cyήl can also be found in this manuscήpt. 56 Since Ι have not yet fully collated with the De SS. Trinitate the texts of the De fide orthodoxa and the Sermo ad monachos suos given by the Vallicell. Gr. 30, Ι cannot confirm that Joseph took this specific manuscήpt as a basis for his «Encyclopedia». However, the presence of many of his sources in the same codex suggests that in doing his compilation, he used only a small number of manuscήpts, the identification of which awaits further research.

49 See V. Grumel, «Nicephore Blemmyde et la procession du Saint-Esprit» , Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 18 (1929) 636-656, especially 647-648. 50 See Ε. Martini, Catalogo dei manoscrίtti greci esistenti nelle biblioteche italiane, ΙΙ: Biblioteca Vallicelliana (Milan 1902) 48-54.

51

See Martini, Manoscrίtti greci, 49-50.

The text of the De fide orthodoxa contained ίη the Vallicell. Gr. 30 is described by Kotter, ϋberlieferung, 62. 52

53 54

See Martini, Manoscrίtti greci, 52 (ff 366ν-36Ψ). See Martini, Manoscrίtti greci, 52 (ff 374ν_330).

See Martini, Manoscrίtti greci, 52 (ff 380-389). 56 See Martini, Manoscrίtti greci, 52 (ff 390-39Ψ).

55

V

The Fount of knowledge between conservation and creation

The titleFount ofknowledge refers to a collection ofthree texts- Dίalectίca, De haeresίbus, Exposίtίo fideί - the authenticity of which has never been questioned and the organisation of which into a trilogy is confirmed by the Letter to Cosmas of Maίuma that appears by way of a prologue. The author's plan is presented in these terms: First, 1 will exposit what is best amongst the Greek sages, considering that every good thing has been given to humans by God. Then, 1 will give an account ofthe nonsense ofheresies hostile to God. Thus recognizing the lie, we can dislodge it from the truth. Next, with the help and by the grace of God, 1 will exposit the truth that destroys eπor and dispels lies, embellished and augmented by discourses by the inspired Prophets like ajewel set ίη gold. As I have said, Ι will speak nothing of my own. Gathering, so far as possible, into a unity what the most esteemed teachers have developed, 1 will offer a brief discourse, complying ίη all things with your request. 1

We do not know whether John of Damascus himself gave this collection the title Fount of knowledge. What is sure is that he announces it in the first paragraphs of the Dίalectίca: Our purpose is therefore to begin with philosophy and to exposit briefly ίη the present book, so far as possible, knowledge of all sorts. It is theΓefore called Fount of knowledge. 2

It was taking it from this passage that the first editor of John ofDamascus's complete works, Μ . Le Quien, applied it to the trilogy that he had first reconstructed, based οη the plan provided in the Letter to Cosmas. It should therefore be noted that the work which several generations of philologists Dίalectίca, 2

Dίalectίca

Prologue: ΚοττεR 1, p. 52- 3. 2: ΚοττεR 1, p. 55.

V 2

The Fount ofknowledge between

conservatίon

and creatίon

and theologians have read, commented οη, or translated, first in the Paris edition of l 712 and then ίη J.-P. Migne's Patrologίa graeca, is in reality a reconstruction from the 18th Century. Indeed, with the exception of a single manuscript, Venet. Marcίan. gr. app. 11.196 (coll. 1403) from the 11 th Century3 - which was not utilised by Le Quien - , ηο witness transmits the three texts ofthe Fount ofknowledge ίη this order and under this title. More precisely, 156 manuscripts contain only a single book from the trilogy, whilst 150 manuscripts present the Dίalectίca and the Exposίtίo fideί, most often combined in a single book under the title One hundred andfifty chapters. Finally, only 22 manuscripts present all three texts, albeit in a different order. The Dίalectίca, the De haeresίbus and the Exposίtίofideί were separated from one another in Β . Kotter's critical edition,4 from which the title Fount ofknowledge has also disappeared. Here we will discuss each ofthese three texts from the point of view of their particularities, drawing to attention if possible their eventual links and especially their distinctive originality. Το this end, note that research into what is awkwardly called its originality or creativity is not a foregone conclusion: the Fount of knowledge has always been considered as a work that summarize patristic tradition and innovates nothing, just as its author explicitly declares: It is therefore ca\1ed Fount ofknowledge. 1 wi\1 say nothing ofmy own, but will discuss by way of summary the comments made here and there by holy and wise men .5

1. The Dίalectίca The Dίalectίca, known as such since 1548, appears without a title ίη the manuscripts. However, in Byzantium, the work was generally disseminated under the title Phίlosophίcal chapters by the Damascene or Phίlosophίcal chapters, as witnessed for example by their table of contents or pίnax. 6 The work has been transmitted by 229 Greek manuscripts. Of them, only one

See Ε . ΜιοΝι , Codίces (Rome 1985), p. 129- 30.

graecί

manMscripli bibliothecae divi Marci VenetiarMm 1/2

4

ΚοττΕR Ι; Dίaleclίca ; ΚοττΕR ΙΙ : ΕχpοsίΙίο jideί; ΚοττΕR

5

Dialeclίca

6

Dialeclίca,

2: ΚοττΕR

Pinax:

Ι,

p. 55.

Κοττ ΕR Ι,

p. 47.

IV: De haeresibMs.

V The Fount ofknowledge between conservatίon and creatίon

3

dates to the 10th Century, so that the vast majority were produced from the 13th to 15th Centuries. 7 Atfirst glance, the Dίalectίca presents itself as a renewal, rather clumsily, of late commentaries to the logical corpus of Aristotle and most especially to the Categorίae. Divided into 50 or 68 chapters, depending οη which version is considered, it develops along two axes. The first attempts to introduce the beginner, 'who cannot take solid nourishment and still needs milk' (cf. Hb 5, 12), 8 to the fundamental concepts of pagan philosophy. The point is made οη the five terms of Porphyry, attribution, the questions of commonality and difference of the five terms, then the ten categories themselves, including the antepredicaments and the postpredicaments. The second is far less visible, but constitutes the pivot of John of Damascus's philosophical thought. It is central in the proper meaning of the term, since the chapters dedicated to it are placed in the middle of the work. It is an introduction to the fundamental concepts of Christian philosophy, which will be followed a bit Iater by some elaborations οη these same concepts. Because of the numerous philosophical sources from which ίt seems to have drawn οη questionable grounds, the Dίalectίca is considered by modern research as an inconsistent compilation of sayings detached from their context or, as Etienne Gilson said, 'scraps of Greek doctrines more or less clumsily stitched into a theology' .9 But these conclusions, which derive from research strictly based οη textual criteria, 10 fail to take account of the Damascene's project and leave the philosopher and the theologian hungry for more. Indeed, John ofDamascus's purpose was not to register ίη some Neoplatonic school 's tradition, nor even to transmit certain of its lessons. Instead, his work aims to establish the Christian redefinition of numerous concepts. lt is explicitly placed in the tradition Όf the prophets and the Fathers', true ' guides', even in matters ofphilosophy. We can hear him claim, with Anastasios the Sinaite, Let us explain the concepts of substance, genre, nature, hypostasis and person, according to Moses, the prophets and the Gospel, where no one can contradict us. 11 7

KOTTER 1959, p. 6--97.

8

Dίalectίca

9

Ε. GιιsοΝ, L 'esprίt de la phίlosophίe medίevale (Paris 1932), p. 2.

1: ΚοπεR

Ι,

p. 55.

10 G. RιcH TE R , Dίe Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos. Eίne UntersMchung des Textes nach seίne Quellen und seίner Bedeutung (STB 10, Ettal 1964). 11 ANASTAS ΙOS ΤΗΕ SιΝΑ ΙΤΕ , Vιae dux VI, 2, ed. Κ.-1-! . UτΗΕΜ ΑΝΝ (CCSG 8, Turnhout, Leuven 1981 ), p. 102- 3, 1. 57- 63.

V 4

The Fount ofknowledge between

conservatίon

and creatίon

Indeed, the same tenn being a 'homonym' for the philosophers whose discordant schools lead to a 'polyphony', it is perfectly legitimate for the Christian to announce ίη turn its Christian sense. Thus, to the given homonymous term - for example, nature, substance, hypostasis, space - , it is therefore possible, even necessary, to apply a definition that is generated from the 'consensus' ofthe Fathers and consequently true. Let's take a few examples: Ιη ch. 40--46, John ofDamascus begins by recalling what he considered as the definitions of pagan philosophy: 'nature is the principle of movement and repose for each thing', 12 'the fonn of the essence is fonned and made specific by means of different essentials, and signifies the specific species' , 13 'the name hypostasis signifies simple existence and, in this sense, essence and hypostasis are identical '. 14 Then, by way of saying 'you should know that', he introduces the definitions of these same concepts such as they are acknowledged within Christianity. Thus, for hypostasis, he gives the following definition: 'the existence which constitutes itself ίη itself of by itself, the individual' .15 Some specifically Christian concepts also receive their philosophical definitions in this context: person is defined as 'that which makes itself manifest to us in an evident and limited manner compared to beings ofthe same nature as itself, through its own actions and properties' 16 and 'that nature assumed by another hypostasis and which has this existence in this other hypostasis is called enhypostasised' . 17 But if it is important to establish the Christian sense of homonyms from pagan philosophy, it is a priority above all to allocate these concepts their true place ίη the plan of Christian ontology which, unlike Neoplatonism, contains only two levels: the common and the particular. Such is the role of ch. 31 of the Dίalectίca, the central place of which has already been signalled: The pagan philosophers formulated the difference between essence and natw·e, saying that essence is absolute being and that nature is essence specified by essential difference [ ... ]. It is this which they called nature, that is, most specific species, such as angel, human, horse and so forth, which, more universal, contain the hypostasises and exist equally and without defect 12

ΑR1 sτοτιΕ, Physίcs Β ,

13

Dίalectίca

14 15 16 17

42: ΚοττεR Dίalectίca 43 : ΚοττεR Dίalectίca 43 : ΚοττεR Dίalectίca 44: ΚοττΕR Dίalectίca 45 : ΚοττΕR

1 and G, Ι (192b, 200b). Ι , p. 107. Ι , p. 108. Ι , p. 108. Ι, p. 109. Ι, p. 110.

Dialectίca

41:

ΚοττΕR Ι,

p. 107.

V The Fount ofknowledge between conservatίon and creatίon

5

ίη each of the hypostasis that they contain. Thus, the particular they call ' hypostasis', the universal which contains the hypostases they call 'nature' , and absolute existence they call ' essence' . 18

Abandoning all these lucubrations, the Holy Fathers called essence, nature and form that which is commonly attributed to a plurality of individiuals, that is, the most specific species, for example, angel, human, horse, dog, and so forth . [ .. . ] The more particular they called individual, person and hypostasis, for example, Peter, Paul . Hypostasis requires an essence with accidents, to subsist by itself and be apprehended by sensation, that is, to be ίη action. 19 Το recapitulate: the outer philosophers introduced a difference between essence and nature. Thus, they placed essence and ' specified essence at two different levels. Moreover, nature, known by the Aristotelians as the principle of movement implanted in each species, is assimilated to most specific species. Further defined as absolute existence, essence is identified in tum with hypostasis. For the distinction of essence and of nature, coupled with the identification of essence and hypostasis, is the source of every eπor in theology, indeed of every heresy. From Nicaea to Chalcedon, this scheme imputed to pagan philosophy is unacceptable. By contrast, the equivalences recognised by the Fathers, even if they did not state them explicitly, are the following: οη the one hand, essence = nature = form and οη the other hand, hypostasis = individual = person. They must be recognised as the basis of all Orthodox teaching, in Triadology as in Christology.

2. De haeresίbus Under the title On α hundred heresίes ίn brίef, how they began and where they orίgίnated, the second book of the Fount of knowledge revisits the Anakephalaίόsίs or completes a new "recapitulation" of Epiphanius of Salamis's Panarίon. 20 Το this text, which he used for the simple

31 : ΚοπΕ R Ι , p. 93--4. 31 : ΚοπΕ R Ι , p. 94. 20 TheAnakephalaίδsίs (PG 42, 833- 85 ; CPG 3765) is a summary ofthe heresiological treatise by Epiphanius of Salamis, which circulated under his name ϋοrη the start of the 5th Century. Οη the subject of the connections between this text and the De haeresίbus, see Ο. ΚNoRR, ' Zur ϋberlieferungsgeschichte des Lίber de haeresίbus des Johannes νοη Damaskus', ΒΖ 91 (1997), p. 59- 69. 18

Dίalectίca

19

Dίalectίca

V 6

The Fount ofknowledge between

conservatίon

and creatίon

presentation of ancient heresies, John of Damascus adds a long expose οη the heresy of the Messalians, 21 as well as several extracts from John Philoponos' Dίatetes, 22 thus conserving some important passages from that now-lost work. For his part, he composed 20 supplementary chapters, treating especially ofthe Nestorians, Eutychians, Monophysites, Gaianites, Themistians, Barsanuphites, but also certain otherwise unknown heretics like the Heliotropites or Theokatagnostes. The two final chapters concem monothelism and Islam. We will speak ηο more of it, since this short chapter, joined to a work that is otherwise a compilation, has already been the object ofmuch research and its originality has always been known. 23 Since De haeresίbus was separated very early from Dίalectίca and Exposίtίo fideί and reproduced in several canonical collections, as in a late version of Doctrίna patrum,24 establishing its manuscript tradition 79 manuscripts - posed particular problems for its editor. This edition, as well as the place of this text in the Fount of knowledge, are now contested points. 25 1 will not dwell οη them here. 3. Exposίtίo fideί announcing the third part ofthe Fount of knowledge, John ofDamascus uses ίη his prologue the verb 'to exposit' (έκθήσομαι), giving us to understand that the work takes, or could take, the title Exposίtίo (έκθεσις): 'Ν ext, with the help and by the grace of God, 1 will exposit the truth'. 26 However, Ekthesίs is only attested by a small number of manuscripts, where the usual title of the work is Precίse edίtίon (έκδοσις) ofthe Orthodoxfaίth. The work, one of the most diffused ίη the Byzantine and post-Byzantine world, survives in 252 Greek manuscripts, of which we note that three date to the 9th Century while the great majority, 182 manuscripts, were produced between the 12th and 15th Centuries. 27 Ιη

21 De haeresίbus 80: ΚοττεR IV, p. 42- 8. - The source of this chapter is probably TH E0D0RETUS 0 F CYR, Haeretίcarumfabularum compendίum (CPG 6223). 22 De haeresίbus 83 add .: ΚοττεR IV, p. 50- 55 . 23 See CPG (Suppl.) 8044. 24 Doctrίna PatrMm de Incarnatίone Verbί 34: F. DιΕΚΑ ΜΡ (Munster 1907; repr. Aschendorff 1981 ), p. 266- 70. 25 See ΚNoRR , 'Zur ϋberlieferungsgeschichte' , passίm . 26 Dίalectίca, Prologue: KoτrER Ι , p. 52. 27

KoτrER 1959 , passίm.

V The Fount ofknowledge between conservatίon and creatίon

7

The Ekdosίs constitutes the dogmatic part of the Fount of knowledge. Ιη the manuscripts, it is divided into 100 chapters, just like De haeresίbus , which is reminiscent of the genre of centuries. Otherwise, if it is combined with the Dίalectίca, we have a total of 150 chapters which corresponds to the number of Psalms. Ιη 1150, in the Latin translation by Burgundio of Pisa, these 100 chapters were divided into four books: Ι. Trinitarian doctrine (ch. 1- 14); ΙΙ. Cosmology and anthropology (ch. 15-44); ΠΙ. Christology (ch. 45- 73); IV. Diverse questions and eschatology (ch. 74- 100). This later numbering is imposed upon most modem editions and translations and has even been followed in the secondary literature. However, it is convenient to recall that it is nowhere attested in the manuscript tradition. At this stage, Ι would like to announce the results at which Ι have arrived. For many years, Ι worked οη the plan of the Fount of knowledge and more exactly οη that of its dogmatic component, the Ekthesίs/Ekdosίs. It is generally observed that the plan for systematics that it has - that in 100 chapters as given by the manuscripts - presents many problems: duplications, the inadequacy of certain chapters' titles with respect to the contents of those chapters, uneven sections. Otherwise, though the Trinitarian, cosmological, and Christological sections are relatively coherent, the sense of the final chapters, i.e., ch. 74- 100, remains an open question for specialists. Ιη short, one gets the impression of a failure, of a gap between the Damascene's project, its theological depth, and the work's plan of presentation. The explanation most often given for this deficit goes back to John of Damascus's method, which many specialists consider as purely compiling. Certainly, John drew his materials from numerous Fathers, amongst whom those he used most often are Gregory of Nazianzus (194 citations, 186 of which are exact), Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria (73 citations, 58 of which are exact), Maximus the Confessor (70 citations, 66 ofwhich are exact), Basil ofCaesarea (69 citations), Gregory ofNyssa (49 citations, of which 42 are exact), and ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite (41 citations). He made much use ofNemesius ofEmesa's De natura homίnίs (71 citations). However, significant parts ofthe Ekdosίs must be attributed to him. Such is the case in the Trinitarian section, previously considered as a repetition from a treatise from the 7th Century and attributed to ps.-Cyril. However, as Ι have demonstrated elsewhere, this ps.-Cyrillian treatise cannot be a source for John ofDamascus, for the simple reason that it was

V 8

The Fount ofknowledge between

conservatίon

and creatίon

not composed in the 7th Century, but in the 13th/14th Century. Its author, who widely used the Damascene's work, is Joseph the Philosopher. 28 The Ekdosίs therefore is not a compilation, but neither does it measure up, at first glance, to the requirements of coherence that are expected from an original work. 1s it John ofDamascus who did not know how to complete his project? Or must the reasons for this inadequacy be sought elsewhere? My research leads me to affirm the second hypothesis. Briefty: through detailed analysis ofthe sections ofthe Ekdosίs, 1 determined that they such as we read them today, even in Kotter's critical edition, are the result of work by two people. The author, of course, John of Damascus, but also the editor. For the Ekdosίs - as its title indicates rather explicitly - is the edition of a text by John of Damascus, it is a text shaped for distribution. The one who did that task, the editor, is other than John of Damascus. It is he who 'manufactured' the hundred chapters. Lest we forget, this was a common practice in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and it is astonishing that ηο one ever read the Ekdosίs from this perspective. It is known, after all, that major works through their length and their distribution received a pίnax serving as a table of contents. At this stage, there also occurred a structuring by chapters. lt was rare for an author to prepare his own pίnax. This task is usually done by the editor29 • This is what also occurred with the hundred chapters ofthe Ekdosίs. Once released from these constraints, the text can reveal its own structure, a looser structure, but one that follows a precise and coherent order of ideas. Here then are the major lines and original points: Knowledge of God Ιη an introduction with covers practically the first three chapters, John of Damascus poses the problem of the knowledge of God. lt is God himself who is the 'Fount ofknowledge'. Even ifthe expression isn't found there, the first paragraph of the Ekdosίs and the extracts it compiles return directly

1995. See Titres eι arιίculations du ιexte dans les αuvres antiqι1es. Acιes du colloqι1e ίnternalίonal de Chantίlly (13-15 decembre 1994), ed. J.-C. FRΕDο u ιιι ε et αlίί (Paris 1997). - Two other Byzantine authors have been examined on this subject since the original publication of this article (= CοΝτι cειιο 2006). They are Nikephoros of Constantinople and George Pachymeres. See Α. CHRv ssosτA ιι s, Recherches sMr la tradiιion manMscrite du Contra Eusebium de Nίcephore de Constantίnople (Paris 2012); Α. FΑιιι ε R, Όrigine et authenticite des titres dans l'Hίstoίre de Georges Pachymeres', REB 66 (2008), p. 95- 123. 28 29

CONTI CELLO

V The Fount ofknowledge between conservatίon and creatίon

9

to the title announced at the start of the Dίalectίca. There are two ways categories in the knowledge of God: natural knowledge and knowledge from tradition. Natural knowledge of the dίvίne

By contrast with what is announced in the title to ch. 1 - from the Byzantine editor - , John attributes a certain importance to natural knowledge. He notes that it has been comιpted, but also that it can be renewed by the illuminating grace ofthe Spirit. So he dedicates to the topic a long passage covering ch. 3 to 7. Through natural knowledge, one can come to know certain divine properties: for example, that God is creator, providence, organiser; that he is bodiless and motionless; that he is infinite and incomprehensible; that he is one. However, one can equally come, albeit with less exactitude, to natural knowledge of the hypostatic processions. Such is the sense of ch. 6 and 7, οη the Word and the Spirit, which should ηο longer be considered duplicates of ch. 8. Knowledge from

tradίtίon

After posing the possibility of a natural knowledge of the divine, John goes οη to examine the knowledge of God that comes from tradition and Scripture. This is the object of the long ch. 8. He stops short of the divine properties, of which it draws up only a catalogue. Traditional knowledge of the hypostatic processions, little developed beforehand, captures much more of his attention. His analysis leads to the famous passage οη the procession of the Spirit which marks Byzantine and Orthodox theology: As for the Holy Spirit, we say that he is issued from the Father and we cal\ hίιη the Spirit of the Father. We do not say that the Spirit is issued from the Son, but we cal1 him a\l the same the Spirit of the Son. For the divine apostle said: 'who does not have the Spirit of Christ' (Rom 8:9). We therefore confess that he is ιηani fest to and transmitted to us by the Son, for ' he exhaled' and said to his disciples: ' Receive the Holy Spirit' (John 20:22).30

The question of the knowledge of hypostatic processions cannot be addressed without reference to the Dionysian principle of the union and distinction of the hypostases. It is in this expose that the Damascene 30

Expos ίtίofideί

8:

ΚοττεR

11, p. 30- 31 .

V 10

The Fount ofknowledge between

conservatίon

and creatίon

by deduction, at an original theological pronouncement: the union and distinction of the hypostases of the Trinity, and their mode of existence, can be understood from the principle of circumincession. aπives,

The Father, the Son and the Ho]y Spirit [ .. . ] are united [ ... ] without confusion, but possessing one another; and they include one another ίη a circumincession, without any contraction or blending. 31

The transfer is made from Christology. Gregory of Nazianzus is known to have spoken of the circumincession of the two natures of Christ ίη the hypostatic union. 32 The Damascene deliberately returns to this principle to apply it in the domain ofTrinitarian doctrine. He is the first to accomplish this transfeπal. Just as the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity are united without confusion, distinct without separation and counted [ ... ], likewise the natures of Christ are equal1y united, for they are united without confusion . And ifthey are one ίη the other through circumincession, they do not change nor transform one into the other. 33

The

dίνίne actίvίtίes, prίncίple

of the dίvίne names

When it comes to the knowledge of God, an aspect distinctive of eastern theology cannot be neglected: that of the knowledge of God through and in his activities, or energies. Speaking of it ίη connection with John of Damascus may seem audacious. ΑΙΙ the same, that is the sense that ch. 9-12 have to be given, which are based οη the authority of Dionysius and revolve around the idea that the divine activities, which we know ίη particular through Scripture, are the principle of the divine names: It must not be thought that everything that is said of God signifies what he is according to the essence; rather, it shows either what he is not, or a re]ation with a being different from hiιn, or what derives from his nature, or his activity (ένέργεια) [ ... ]. 34 Therefore when we know all these names and are led by them toward the divine essence, ίt is not the essence itselfthat we perceive, but what is around the essence (τα περί την ούσίαν). 35

8: ΚοττεR

p. 29. 1Ο 1, 31: Ρ. Exposίtίo fideί 49: ΚοπεR ΙΙ , ρ . 118- 19. Exposίtίo fideί 9: ΚοττΕR ΙΙ, p. 31. Exposίtίo fideί l Ο : ΚοπΕR ΙΙ, p. 32.

31

Exposίtίo fideί

32

GREGORY oF NAZΙ ANzus, Epίst.

33 34

35

ΙΙ,

G ALLAY

(SC 208, Paris 1974), ρ . 48 .

V The Fount ofknowledge between conservatίon and creatίon

11

God the place of creatίon

Since the activity par excellence of God the creator is creation, it is the object of ch. 13-14. These two chapters are obscure, perhaps altered through interpolations. Αη idea is clear, however : the activity of God the creator does not happen in a place, it ίs the place of creation. Ιη the act of creating, God remains uncircumscribable and immutable. The

creatίon

of the world

The part relevant to creation coπesponds rather well to the sections of the Byzantine editor. lt includes in particular ch. 15-25, which should be regrouped into three large collections: creation ofthe invisible world, that is, ofthe ages (immaterial nature without reason) and the angels (immaterial nature with reason); creation of the visible world, that is, of heaven and the elements, where John of Damascus, who had a realist cosmological thought, sets in parallel the teachings of the Greek physicists and Scripture; and creation of the word composed of the visible and the invisible, that is, of paradise. The

creatίon

of man

The creation of man, a composite of the visible and invisible and chief work of God, gives rise to another large section (ch. 26--45). According to Gen 1:26, man is created 'in the image and likeness of God '. These therefore are the two aspects which will be examined first. John begins by considering the question of the 'likeness' which, for him, is that of the exercise of piety (εύσέβεια) . Το understand the mechanism of human action with reference to piety, he undertakes to analyse the functioning of the parts of the soul ίη their relation to the body. The question of the 'image' is pursued next. lt is that ofthe exercise offree will (αύτεξούσιον). Beyond the freedom of human action, there is also that which does not depend οη us (τα ούκ έφ'ήμιν). This pertains especially to Providence, which is treated in a following section. lt is preliminary with a view to explaining the fall ofman as a consequence ofhis exercise ' against nature' (παρά φύσιν) offreedom. Ιη paradise, free will or the image was put to the test. The outcome was a failure of deification, a loss of grace, mortality. Only the Economy of the New Adam, an Economy of will and freedom 'according to nature ' (κατά φύσιν) , can raise man up from this fall.

V 12

The Fount ofknowledge between

conservatίon

and creatίon

The Economy of the Word

The theme of the Economy of the Word is developed in ch. 46-82. It is certainly the longest and most powerful part of the Ekdosίs from a theological perspective. John of Damascus first considers the question of the hypostatic union. This question had already been addressed in the Dίalectίca. Here, it is a matter of taking up again the distinctions and equivalences operated οη the notions of substance, nature, form, person and hypostasis. The prime axes of the reftection are made up by patristic or conciliar formulas: the Incamation 'according to us' (καθ'ήμας) and 'beyond' us (ύπέρ ήμας); 36 'perfect god and perfect man, of two natures and in two natures'; 37 'wholly God and wholly man'. 38 Other, more problematic formulas are explained: Όηe single nature incarnate', 39 theotokos not chrίstokos. 40 The debate οη the two natures and activities of Christ, in which John was involved afterwards, was also based οη conciliar formulas: 'each form wills and acts with the communion of the other' 41 and 'those which have a single activity also have a single essence' 42 • It is ίη this context that he announces his perspective οη the liberty of the two wills of Christ and οη the gnomίc will: We do not attribute deliberation or choice to the soul of the Lord, for it was ignorant of nothing. Certainly, it pertains to a nature that is ignorant of future events, but united to God the Word hypostatically, it had knowledge ofall things, not by grace, but [ ... ) by the hypostatic union. For he himself was God and man. That is why he had no gnomic will. He possessed natural will, which is simp]e and which exists in the same manner in al1 huιnan hypostases, but his holy soul had no opinion or object of desire contrary to his divine will, and he wanted nothing different from what his divine will wanted.43

For ifChrist assume the whole man, with an intellective soul, its will and its free will, appropriating also our curse and abandonment, it is to restore

36

37 38 39

40 41 42

43

51 : ΚοττΕR ΙΙ , p. 125. 2, 45, 47: ΚοττεR ΙΙ, p. 9, 108, 113. Exposίtίofideί 51 , 62 : ΚοττΕ R ΙΙ , p. 126, 159. Exposίtίo fideί 55: ΚοττεR ΙΙ , p. 131 - 3. Exposίtίo fideί 56: ΚοττεR ΙΙ , p. 133-6. Exposίtίofideί47 , 58,59 : KoπεRil,p . 115 , 137, 152. Exposίtίofideί 59, 63 : ΚοττεR ΙΙ, p. 146, 160. Exposίtίofideί 36: ΚοττΕR ΙΙ, p. 91- 2. Exposίtίo fideί Exposίtίofideί

V The Fount ofknowledge between conservatίon and creatίon

13

the Ίike by like' (τφ όμοίφ τον δμοιον άνεσώσατο) 44 , it's to restore 'the image'. It is to the description of this process that the Damascene devotes some lovely passages in which he reminds us that, as well as a dogmatician, he is also a hymnographer and preacher. He speaks, too, of the life-giving death of the Lord, of the bait of the body and the hook of the divinity, ofthe descent into hell, ofthe resuπected body, to conclude with the power of the Crucified and to announce the firstfruits of the resuπection of men.

Means of Salvatίon bequeathed by the Lord Thus we aπive at the final chapters of the Ekdosίs, usually considered to be incoherent. Stripped of their inadequate titles and considered along the lines that have been stated, they rediscover altogether naturally their sense and their interest. Here is how we have understood them. Α first part concerns the means of salvation bequeathed by the Lord (ch. 82- 92). There are here three categories. First, the life of the Lord itself, the model of Salvation par excellence. Ιη the course of his life, by his Passion, the Lord has in effect given us three indispensable means to follow: Baptism, the Cross, and the Holy Mysteries. Ifthe first and third come as ηο surprise, the second is rather original. Ιη effect, the Damascene, a priest ofthe church of the Anastasίs in Jerusalem, considers the Cross practically as a sacrament. Offered by Christ, it is the distinctive sign of Christians and their rallying point. 45 Secondly, the living images of the Lord: Mary, whose genealogy John draws up; then the saints, children of God by grace. Third, the means of transmitting and preaching the faith: οη the one hand, the images, nonscriptural (άγραφα) witnesses of the Incarnation, 46 οη the other hand the Scripture, Old and New Testament, whose unity is guaranteed by the person of Christ. Sίn

and lίberatίon of man

Lastly, the final part of the Ekdosίs focuses οη sin and the liberation of man ( ch. 93-100). Here John examines first the questions of evil, the state of being 'against nature' (παρά φύσιν) and the law of sin. Evil is 44 Exposίtίofideί 45, 62: ΚοττΕ R Π, p. 108, 157. 38, 13, 21 (SC 358), p. 132. 45 Exposίtίo fideί 84: ΚοττΕ R ΙΙ , p. 188. 46 Exposίtίo fideί 89: ΚοττΕ R ΙΙ , p. 208.

Cf.

GREGORY OF NAZ Ι A NZ U S, Oratίo

V 14

The Fount ofknowledge between

conservatίon

and creatίon

not an essence, but the deviation of what is by nature toward what is against nature. Το restore what is 'according to nature' (κατά φύσιν) requires conforming to the spiritual law, opposed that is to the law of sin, and practicing virtue. Το this end are introduced the questions of fasting, virginity and the circumcission of sin. The two concluding chapters draw up the Damascene's eschatology. They are well known for their suggestive force in describing the man of sin and the resuπection of the body.

*** Freed from its four medieval parts and its hundred Byzantine titles, the regains the appearance of a great theological fresco : it is not a handbook, nor a dogmatic century. The author's thinking thus becomes more coherent and, paradoxically, exhaustive. It even gives the impression of a classic work. However, it must not be forgotten that it is a work of simplification, of vulgarisation in the strict sense. The process is clearly identifiable in the formulations of the author who, elsewhere, customarily expressed himself in far more elaborate language. 47 Historical circumstances explain this choice: at a time when oriental Christianity suffered grave reversals, persecutions and numerous conversions to Islam, at a time when the very survival of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, severed from Byzantium, was problematical48 it was essential to synthesise and record the contents of the faith. It was also important to make it clear and accessible to a larger number. It would, however, be false to say that John of Damascus's theology is limited to that. The task of synthesis, accomplished for the first time to this level of exhaustiveness, gave place to a deepening of many points that had not been achieved by polemic. But there is more. The synthesis produced by John of Damascus is not just any synthesis. It is based οη a specific theological thinking, nearly contemporaneous to its author, that of Maximus the Confessor. We could therefore understand the Ekdosίs as a synthesis ofMaximian theology, the difficulty and fragmentation ofwhich is also known. The analysis ofthis connection has not yet been made, and it needs to be undertaken.

Ekdosίs

47 We can take for example this quotation from Ρsε υοο-DιοΝΥ s ιυ s, Celestial Hierarchy , 6, 2, which is taken up in this way in the Έχpοsίtίο jideί 17 (ΚοττεR ΙΙ , p. 48) : Πασα ή

θεολογ ία, ήγουν ή θεία γραφ ή, τάς ούρανίας ούσίας εννέα κέκληκε 48

C ONTICELLO

2000, p. 1002- 3.

[ ... ].

V The Fount ofknowledge between conservatίon and creatίon

15

conclusion, what do we think of the form of trilogy which we considered in the first place? After doing it with the Ekdosίs ίη particular, we must attempt to understand the process of edition more globally, considering the other texts as well: the Letter to Cosmas, the De Haeresίbus and especially the Dίalectίca. The place ofthe first two is highly debatable, since they are part of a project that does not seem really to coπespond to John ofDamascus's intentions. By contrast, the unity ofthe Dίalectίca and the Ekdosίs forcefully imposes itself. Doubtless it exists from their original composition. Indeed, the theme of a 'Fount of knowledge', announced at the beginning of the Dίaletίca, is taken up again at the beginning of the Ekdosίs. Likewise, the Ekdosίs refers to the Dίalectίca, particularly οη the question of the equivalence between essence and nature, hypostasis and person. 49 Ιη light ofthis unity, the sense ofthe two texts is clear: the Dίalectίca are a philosophical praeparatίo for Christian ontology; the Ekdosίs explains the world from the perspective of the Economy of Salvation. This seems therefore to be the realisation of John of Damascus 's initial plan, to make available to Christians a 'Fount ofknowledge'. Ιη

49

Exposίtίo fideί 48: ΚοττεR 11,

υπόστασις, πλειστάκις είρήκαμεν.

p. 116 : Ότι μεν ούν ετερον ουσία καi ετεροv

V 16

The Fount ofknowledge between

Contents of the Ekdosίs

Tίtles

(ed.

conservatίon

and creatίon

of the One hundred chapters 11)

1. That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with the things which have not been delivered to us by the holy Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists. 2. Concerning things utterable and things unutterable, and things knowable and things unknowab]e. 3. Proofthat there is a God.

Knowledge of God

PG

Β. ΚοττΕR

1, 1

2

3

Natural knowledge of the dίνίne - Natural knowledge of divine properties

4. Concerning what is Deity: that it is incomprehensible. 5. Proofthat God is one and not many.

- Natura] know]edge ofthe hypostatic processions

Knowledge from

6. Concerning the Word of God. 7. Concerning the Holy Spirit.

4 5 6 7

tradίtίon

- Traditional knowledge of divine properties - Traditional knowledge of the hypostatic processions - Union and distinction of the hypostases ofthe Trinity

The dίνίne actίνίtίes, of the dίνίne names

8. Concerning the Holy Trinity.

8

prίncίple

- Essence and ' that which is around the essence'

9. Concerning what is affirmed about God. 10. Concerning divine union and separation.

- Names known through activities

11. Concerning what is affirmed about God as though He had body. 12. Concerning the same.

9 10 11 12

God the place of creatίon - God uncircumscribed - God unchanging

13. Concerning the place ofGod: and that the Deity alone is uncircumscribed. 14. The properties ofthe divine nature.

13

14

V The Fount ofknowledge between The

creatίon

conservatίon

17

and creatίon

of the world

- The invisible world

15. Concerning 16. Concerning 17. Concerning 18. Concerning demons.

- The visible world

19. Concerning the visible creation. 20. Conceming the heaven. 21. Conceming light, fire, the luιninaries, sun, moon and stars. 22. Concerning air and winds. 23. Concerning the waters. 24. Concerning earth and its products.

8 9 10

25. Concerning Paradise.

11

26. Concerning man.

12

27. Concerning pleasures. 28 . Concerning pain. 29. Concerning fear. 30. Conceming anger. 31. Concerning iιnagination . 32. Concerning sensation. 33. Concerning thought. 34. Concerning meιηory. 35. Conceming conception and articulation. 36. Concerning passion and energy. 37. Concerning energy. 38. Concerning what is voluntary and what is involuntary.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

- The world made up ofthe visible and the invisible

The

crealίon

ίη

11, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

of man

- Man ιηade up of the visible and the invisible -

aeon or age. the creation. angels. the devil and

the likeness': the soul the exercise of virtue

Ίη

- Ίη the image' : the soul the exercise of free will

- Providence and government of creation

ίη

22 23 24

39. Concerning what is ίη our own power, that is, concerning free will. 40. Concerning events. 41 . Concerning the reason of our endowment with free will.

25

42 . Concerning what is not ίη our hands. 43 . Concerning Providence.

28 29

26 27

V 18

The Fount ofknowledge between

Contents of the Ekdosis (cont.) - The fall of man

Tίtles

(ed.

conservatίon

and creatίon

of the One hundred chapters 11)

PG

Β. ΚοττΕR

44. Concerning prescience and predestination. 45. Concerning the Divine Economy and God's care over us, and concerning our salvation.

30

111, l

The Economy of ιhe Word - The hypostatic union

- Subsidiary problems related to the doctrine of the hypostatic union

- The two wills and activities of Christ: 'each form wil\s and acts ίη coιnmunion with the other'

46. Concerning the manner in which the Word was conceived, and concerning His divine incarnation. 47 . Concerning the two natures. 48 . Concerning the ιηanner ofthe mutual communication of properties. 49. Concerning the nuιnber ofthe natures. 50. That in one of its hypostaseis the divine nature is united ίη its entirety to the human nature, ίη its entirety and not only part to part. 51. Concerning the one compound hypostasis of God the Word.

2

52. Ιη reply to those who ask whether the natures of Christ are brought under a continuous or a discontinuous quantity. 53. Ιη reply to the question whether there is any nature that has ηο hypostasis. 54. Concerning the Trίsagium (' the Thrice Holy'). 55. Concerning the nature as viewed ίη species and ίη individual, and concerning the difference between union and incarnation: and how this is to be understood, "The one nature ofGod the Word incarnate." 56. That the holy Virgin is the Mother of God.

8

57. Concerning the properties of the two natures. 58. Concerning the volitions and free wil\s of our Lord Jesus Christ. 59. Concerning the energies ίη our Lord Jesus Christ.

3 4 5 6

7

9

10 11

12 13 14 15

V The Fount ofknowledge between - Problems related to the doctrine ofthe two activities and two wills

- The restoration of like by like

- The life-giving death of the Lord

conservatίon

19

and creatίon

60. Ιη reply to those who say, Ίf man has two natures and two energies, Christ must be held to have three natures and as many energies.' 61. Concerning the deification of our Lord's human nature and ofHis wi]l. 62 . Further concerning volitions and free wills: minds, too, and knowledges and wisdoms. 63. Concerning the theandric energy. 64. Concerning the natural and innocent passions. 65. Concerning ignorance and servitude. 66. Concerning His growth. 67. Concerning His fear. 68. Concerning our Lord's praying. 69. Concerning the appropriation. 70. Concerning the Passion of our Lord's body, and the impassibility of His divinity. 71. Concerning the fact that the divinity of the Word remained inseparab]e froιn the soul and the body, even at our Lord's death, and that His hypostasis continued one. 72 . Concerning corruption and destruction . 73. Concerning the descent to Hades. 74. Concerning what fo1\owed the resurrection. 75. Concerning the sitting at the right hand ofthe Father. 76. Ιη reply to those who say, Ίf Christ has two natures, either you do service to the creature ίη worshipping created nature, or you say that there is one nature to be worshipped, and another not to be worshipped.' 77. Why it was the Son ofGod, and not the Father or the Spirit, that became man: and what having become man He achieved.

16

17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 IV,l 2 3

4

V 20

The Fount ofknowledge between

Contents of the Ekdosis (cont.) - Subsidiary questions and definitions

conservatίon

and creatίon

of the One hundred chapters 11)

PG

78. Ιη reply to those who ask ifChrist's hypostasis is create or uncreate. 79. Concerning the question, when he was called 'Christ'. 80. Ιη answer to those who enquire whether the holy Mother ofGod bore two natυres , and whether two natυres hung upon the Cross. 81. How the Only-begotten Son of God is ca1led first-born .

5

Tίtles

(ed.

Β. ΚοττΕR

6 7

8

Means of Salvatίon bequeathed by the Lord - The life ofthe Saviour, model of salvation

- The ιηodel ofliving images of the Lord

82. Concerning faith and baptism. 83. Concerning faith . 84. Concerning the cross and here further concerning faith. 85. Concerning worship towards the East. 86. Concerning the holy and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord.

9 10 11 12 13

87. Concerning our Lord's genealogy and concerning the holy Mother ofGod. 88. Concerning the honouι- due to the saints and their ι-eιηains .

14

89. Concerning images. 90. Concerning Scriptυre . 91 . Regarding the things said concerning Christ.

16 17 18

92. That God is not the cause of evils. 93. That theι-e aι-e not two principles. 94. The purpose fοι- which God in His foι-eknowledge created persons who would sin and not repent. 95. Concerning the law of God and the law of sin.

19 20 21

- The restoration kata Spiritual law and the practice ofvirtue

96. Against the Jews on the question of the Sabbath. 97. Concerning virginity. 98. Concerning the circumcision.

23

- The end of times and the Second Coιηing

99. Concerning the Antichrist. 100. Concerning the ι-esuπection .

26 27

- The means oftι-ansmission o f the pι-eaching ofthe faith

Sίn

15

and lίberation of man

- Evil, para physίn and the law of sin

physίn .

22

24 25

VI

At the origins of Byzantine systematic dogmatics: the Exposition of the Orthodox faith of St John of Damascus

Posing the question of 'systematisation' in the field ofByzantine theology 1 leads immediately to stating two more: that ofthe elaboration in Byzantium of a systematic dogmatics or - to avoid pleonasm - of a dogmatic theology; that of the composition of works that systematise theological knowledge, particularly with a polemical purpose. What complicates reflection, of course, is that these two questions are not entirely distinct; furthermore many scholars found it convenient to conflate them in the 19th and 20th centuries. 2 And yet they coπespond to differing needs that have been shaped by distinct periods in the history of Orthodox theology. The first need: the requirement for knowledge of and expression of proper doctrine for an ojfensίve purpose - that of destroying heresies or, to put it otherwise, a curatίve/therapeutίc purpose for affections or deviations, for individual νόσοι or collective λοιμοί. We find this theme explicit as early as the work of Theodoret of Cyr (386--458),3 but it is expressed most fully ίη the Panoplίes of the 12th-13th Centuries. Nor is it lacking from the chapters that Gregory Palamas composed in 1349/50 which is entitled precisely One hundred and fifty chapters: natural and theologίcal, ethίcal and practίcal, and on purifίcatίon from the Barlaamίte

See also V. Cο Ντιcειιο , ' Les sommes dogmatiques dans IΌrthodoxie grecque' , de l'EPHE-SR \07 (1998- 99), p. 339-45. MA CA ΙRE [Boulgakov], Theologίe dogmatίque orthodoxe (Paris 1860; Russian edition : 1852), 1, p. 60-65; Ρ. Τιι.ΕΜ ΒΕLΑS, Dogmatίque de l'Eglίse orthodoxe catholίque (Paris 1966- 68; Greek edition: Athens, 1959), 1, p. 66- 89 ; Ι. ΚARMΙRES, ' Δογματική' , ΘΗΕ 5 [1964], c. 135-42. THEODORET oF CvR, Therapeutίque des maladίes hellenίques , ed. and trans., Pierre Canivet (SC 57/1- 2, Paris 2000- 2001), 1, p. 46- 7.

Annuaίre

VI 2

defilement

Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

(Κεφάλαια έκατόν πεντήκοντα φυσικά καi θεολογικά, ηθικά τε

καi πρακτικά καi καθαρκτικά τής βαρλααμίτιδος λύμης). 4

The second need: the requirement for knowledge of and expression of proper doctrine for an defensίve purpose, that of preserving a given theological tradition ίη the face of competing traditions. lt unfolds as part ofthe process of 'confessionalisation' inaugurated in the 16th century and is expressed ίη the confessions of faith of the 17th century. lt is a matter of a όμολογία which, over time, detaches itself from polemical intentions to adopt a relatively scientific methodology. lt also leads, in the 19th and 20th Centuries, to the birth of an Orthodox dogmatic theology that is more exacting, more precise, more complete, but also more academic and more rigid. 5 Certainly, there was also a νία medίa between these two trends. Byzantium was not without a dogmatic theology issuing from spontaneous inteπogation of the natural and supernatural world as well as from direct reading ofthe Scriptures (most especially ofGenesis and the Psalms), even though it had few representatives there. The chief among them was assuredly John of Damascus. His famous work, theExposίtίon ofthe Orthodoxfaίth or Exposίtίofideί, which for some years we have worked to liberate from the straitjacket that its first editor put οη it, probably ίη the 9th century, 6 is for the Byzantines an unsurpassable reference for dogmatic systematics and, simultaneously, a fund that all other compositions drew from deeply, regardless of their intentions. Ιη this sense, John of Damascus's work appears to be present in one way or another in the overwhelming majority of systematic compositions from the period explored here. 7 Α preliminary word about the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth considered as a reference. 8 This eighth-century text seems to have had a remarkable diffusion ίη Byzantium. Indeed it is one ofthe most frequently

GREGORY PALAMAS, The one hundred and fifly chapters, ed. and transl. Robert Ε . Sinkewicz (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Studies and Texts 83, Toronto 1988). Amongst others, see the dogmatic works cited above (η . 2) CONTICELLO 2006. We will not address here the question ofthe reception ofthe Darnascene's dogrnatics ίη rnedieval Latin theology. Οη this topic, see J. DE GH ELLINCK, Le mouvement theologίque du XJJe s. (Bruges 1948 2) , p. 245- 76 and 374-415. See also JοιιΑ ΝΝ ΕS νοΝ DAM As κos, Phίlosophίsche Kapίtel, intr. and trans . by G. RιcHTER (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 15, Stuttgart 1982), p. 32- 62 ('Das Ansehen des Kirchenlehrers ' ).

VI Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

3

copied there. Β. Kotter has identified 252 manuscripts containing it, from the following eras: 9th C.: 3 13th C.: 46 17th C.: 10

10th C.: 5 14th C.: 63 18thC.: 11

11th C.: 19 15th C.: 49

12th C.: 24 16th C.: 22

F or the period of interest to us (9th-15th C. ), we therefore have a total of 209 manuscripts, of which 201 come from the 11th to 15th Centuries. 9 Alongside the diffusion of the original Greek text, there were also quite quickly several translations that promoted the Damascene's dogmatics broadly in the non-hellenophone Orthodox world. The most ancient are as follows: in the 9th-10th century, an Old Bulgarian translation by John the Exarch; ιο in the 10th century, an Arabic translation made by Anthony, the superior of the Monastery of St Symeon near Antioch; 11 in the 11 th century, a Georgian translation by Ephrem Mtsire (c. 1027- 94) and Arsen Iqaltoeli (1 lth- 12th C.) 12 It also seems that the dogmatics of John of Damascus is physically ubiquitous in Byzantium, and so - we may suppose - that it was read by most Byzantines who prided themselves οη theology. Yet we should note that authority was not attributed to it as a matter of course. Before the end of the 10th century, when an 'official' biography of the saint saw the light of day - the Vίta Joannίs (BHG 884), which for our part we attribute to the learned Constantinopolitan, John ΠΙ of Antioch (996- 1021) - , John of Damascus was not really venerated nor often cited, even in iconophile

KOTTER

1959 ; KOTTER

Ι! , p. XXXX- LlX. Porov, Bogoslovίe svatago Joanna

Damaskίna ν perevode Joanna Eksarcha Bolgarskago, po charatejnomu spίsku Moskovsoj Sίnodal'noj bίblίotekί bukvu ί slovo ν slovo (Moscow 1878); L. SADN ΙK , Des hl. Johannes νοn Damaskus Έκθεσις άκριβής τijς όρθοδόξου πίστεως ίn der ϋbersetzung des Exarchen Johannes (Monumenta 10

Ο. Μ. BoDJ ANSKΙJ , Α .

Linguae Slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et Dissertationes 5, 14, 16, 17, Wiesbaden 19671983). 11 Preserved in Vatίcan. ar. 177, f" 4ν_36ν (13th C.) and Beryt. Βίb/. orίent. ar. 347. Cf. G. Gιι.ΑF, Geschίchte der chrίstlίchen arabίschen Lίteratur. 11. Dίe Schriftsteller bίs zur Mίtte des 15. Jahrhunderts (ST 133, Yatican 1947), p. 43. 12 This translation was published ίη Moscow ίη 1744: cf. ΚοττεR 1959, p. 218. For the Georgian translation of the Dίalectίca: Μ . RAPAVA, Joane Damaskelί, Dίalekhtίka (Tbilissi 1976).

VI 4

Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

circles. 13 Though he was ηο doubt rehabilitated by the end of iconoclasm, in the 9th and 10th Centuries he did not enjoy an immaculate reputation, particularly in Constantinople, perhaps due to his virulent words against interventions in theology by emperors. The anathema that accuses him of having been έπίβουλος της βασιλείας 14 still influenced opinions, it seems, till the end of the 10th century. lt is thus interesting to see with what force he reappears in Byzantine theology through the Dogmatίc Panoply ofEuthymios Zigabenos (c. 1050c. 1120). 15 These few remarks enable us to move οη to the theme ofhow the Exposίtίo fideί was used as a textual source for Byzantine dogmatics. Zigabenos' Dogmatίc Panoply cites the Damascene abundantly, presenting him as an authority equal to Fathers such as Dionysius or the Cappadocians. Ιη this regard, let us note a few points: - Ιη the oldest manuscripts ofthe Dogmatίc Panoply, the author is never presented under the name 'Ιωάννης μοναχός, 'Ιωάννης πρεσβύτερος or 'Ιωάννης Μανσούρ. lt is always a case of the Damascene, του Δαμασκηνου. - Zigabenos cites a version of the Exposίtίo fideί called the Exposίtίo ίnversa, which represents a minor branch of the manuscript tradition. 16 - The texts included are extracted from the following chapters:

the attribution to John ΠΙ of Antioch, see CοΝτι cειιο 2000, p. 998 [and 2010] . The first tangible proof ofveneration appear in the Menologίon ofBasil ΙΙ (976- 1025) : Jl Menologίo dί Βαsίlίο 11 (cod. Vat. greco 1613) (Turin 1907), Ι, p. 58, η . 213 and ΙΙ (29th ofNovember). 14 The Quadruple anathema ofthe Council ofHieria (754): cf. ΜΑ Ν s ι , ΧΙΙΙ, 356 D. 15 Οη the Dogmatίc Panop/y , see Α . Rι ο ο , ' La Panoplie dogmatique d'Euthyme Zigabene: les Peres de l' Eglise, l'empereur et les heresies du present' , ed. Α. Rιοο, Ρ. ΕRΜ ιιον , Byzanlίne ιheologίans. The systematίzatίon of theίr own doctrίne and ιhe perceplίon offoreίgn doclrίnes (Quaderni di Νέα 'Ρώμη 3, Rome 2009), p. 19- 32. 16 KoTTER 1959, p. 176- 95. 13

Οη

KoNTOUM A

VI Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

Euthymios Zigabenos, Dogιnatίc panoply (PG 130)

John of Damascus, Exposίtίo fideί Ed. Β. KOTTER 11

1. God, One and Three

Ref. ίη Zigabenos: inversa / ordinata

41CD

ch. 3 = 3, 22-43*

44Α

ch. 5 = 5, 13- 25*

448C

ch. 6 = 6, 2- 18*

44CD

ch. 7 = 7, 2- 15* ch. 8 = 8, 286- 297

44D-45A 11. Union and distinction

ίη

God

100D - 116A

ch. 8 = 8

116 8C

ch. 12 = 13, 85- 102

111.

Οη

God, commonly

152Α - 153Α

ch. 11 = 12

153Α - 156Α

ch. 13 = 13, 2-41

156ΑΒ

0 = 13, 42- 50

IV. The incomprehensibility of God

185 D - 188 8

ch. 1 = 1

1888 - 1898

ch. 2 = 2

VII. lncarnation

233D - 236 C

ch. 66 = 46

236 C - 237 8

ch. 68 = 48, 6-42

237 8 - 241

cb. 70 = 50

241

Α

cb. 71 = 51, 28- 63

8 - 244Α

244AC

ch. 75 = 55, 4- 26

244 D - 245

cb. 84 = 64

Α

245 8 VIII.

cb. 97 = 77, 3- 8 Οη

the Jews and circumcision

296 C - 300 D

ch. 32 = 96

304 D - 305 C

cb. 34 = 98

ΙΧ.

Simon Magus, the Manichaeans

325 C - 328 C ΧΙΙ.

Arians,

1005 Α -

οη

ch. 29 = 93 the Holy Spirit

1009 Α

ch. 76 = 56

1009 8C

ch. 86 = 66, 2- 15

1009 CD

cb.98 = 71,4- 10 ; 18- 24

5

VI 6

Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

Euthymios Zigabenos, Dogιnatic panoply (PG 130) (cont.)

John of Damascus, Exposίtio fidei Ed. Β. ΚοττΕR 11

XVI. Eutyches, Dioscorus, the Monophysites

1045

- 1049 D

ch. 66 = 47

1049 D - 1052 D

ch. 69 = 49

1052 D - 1053 D

ch. 72 = 52

1053 D - 1056 Β

ch. 96 = 76

1056 BD

ch. 73 = 53

Β

1056 D - 1060 Α

ch. 74 = 54

1060 Β - 1061

Β

ch. 80 = 60

1060 Β - 1064 Α

ch. 90 = 80

1064ΑΒ

ch. 75 = 55, 45- 66

1064CD

ch. 90 = 70, 3- 22

XVII. Aphtartodocites

1089 C - 1090 Α ΧΧΙ.

ch. 92 = 72

Monotheletes

1148 CD

ch . 77 = 57

1148 D - 1149 D

ch. 78 = 58, 3- 37

1149 D - 1052 Α, 1052 Α - 1153 Α

ch. 78 = 58, 70- 81 ; 89- 108; 155- 168

1153AC

ch. 79 = 59, 104-127

1153C - 1156A

ch. 81 = 61, 16- 39

1156Α - 1157 Β

ch. 82 = 62, 33- 81

1157C - 1160C

ch . 83 = 63

ΧΧΙΙΙ.

Armenians

1172Α - 1173 Β

ch. 25 = 89

XXIV. Paulicians

1244 C - 1248 D

ch. 21 = 84, 2- 87

XXV. On the Cross and baptism

1253 C - 1260 D

ch . 19 = 82;83

1265

ch. 23 = 86, 2- 172

Β

- 1273

Β

- Some ofthese extracts (indicated by *) are condensed or paraphrased by Euthymios. We therefore do not always find the original ditation under the Damascene's name:

VI Orίgίns

Exposίtίo .fideί

KOTTER

7

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

7, 1. 2-15:

Dogιnatίc

panoply: PG 130, 44 CD.

11, p. 16.

Δει δε τον λόγον καi πνευμα έχειν· καi γαρ

Δει

καi ό ήμέτερος λόγος ούκ άμοιρός έστι

συμπαρομαρτουν

τον

Λόγον

έχειν αύτφ,

καi

Πνευμα

καi

φανερουν

πνεύματος. Άλλ 'έφ ' ήμων μεν τό πνευμα

αύτου την ένέργειαν. Καi γαρ ό ήμέτερος

άλλότριον της ήμετέρας έστiν ούσίας ·

λόγος ούκ άμοιρός έστι πνεύματος, όπερ έν

του άέρος γάρ έστιν όλκή

τφ καιρφ της έκφωνήσεως φωνή γίνεται

είσελκομένου

καi

καi φορά

προχεομένου

πρός

τφ λόγφ ήμων φανερουσα την τούτου

την του σώματος σύστασιν, όπερ έν τφ

δύναμιν.

καιρφ της έκφωνήσεως φωνή του λόγου

της ήμετέρας ούσίας τό πνευμα τό άέρος

Άλλ 'έφ 'ήμων

μεν

άλλότριον

γίνεται την του λόγου δύναμιν έν έαυτ,η

ον είσροή καi έκροή· έπi δέ του Θεου,

φανερουσα. Έπi δέτης θείας φύσεως της

ωσπερ ό λόγος ού κατά τόν ήμέτερον,

άπλης καi άσυνθέτου τό μέν είναι Πνευμα

άλλ' ούσιωδως ύφεστώς, καi της αύτης τφ

Θεου εύσεβως όμολογητέον διά τό μή

Θεφ ούσίας καi φύσεως καi τελειότητος

εlναι τόν του Θεου Λόγον έλλιπέστερον

έκτου Πατρός προϊόν, καi έν αύτφ δν,

του ήμετέρου λόγου, ούκ εστι δέ εύσεβές

καi τφ Λόγφ καi Υίφ συμπαρομαρτουν,

άλλότριόν τι εξωθεν έπεισερχόμενον τφ

καi έκφαντικόν ύπάρχον αύτου.

Θεφ τό Πνευμα λογίζεσθαι ώς καi έφ ήμων των συνθέτων. Άλλ ' ωσπερ Θεου Λόγον ούδέ

άκούσαντες έκ

ούκ

μαθήσεως

άνυπόστατον

προσγινόμενον

ούδέ διά φωνης προφερόμενον ούδέ εiς

άέρα χεόμενον καi λυόμενον φήθημεν, άλλ Όύσιωδως τε

καi

ύφεστωτα

ένεργόν

καi

προαιρετικόν παντοδύναμον,

ουτω καi Πνευμα μεμαθηκότες Θεου τό

συμπαρομαρτουν

φωνερουν

αύτου

την

τφ

Λόγφ

ένέργειαν

πνοήν άνυπόστατον έννοουμεν

καi

ού άλλα

δύναμιν ούσιώδη, αύτήν έφ'έαυτης έν

ίδιαζούση

ύποστάσει

θεωρουμένην,

έκ του Πατρός προερχομένην καi έν τφ

Λόγφ άναπαυομένην καi αύτου οJσαν έκφαντικήν.

When read through Zigabenos' lense, the Damascene text seems far removed from the authentic writing. Even so, it remains the case that the presence of the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth in the Panoply is massive and imposing. How do we account for this sudden reintroduction?

VI 8

Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

lt seems to me that the answer is found in the Prologue to the Dogmatίc Panoply. 1 cite a few passages from it, where the subject is the theological activity ofEmperor Alexios Komnenos (1081- 1118): And so, seizing the opportunity when there was a brief cessation from public and common obligations, he gave himself over totally to careful and studious reading of the God-inspired Scriptures, baving as it bappened for his companions the wisest men [ ... ]. Furthermore, he exerted himself witb dogmatic discourses, for which be bore ίη bis soul a fervent and passionate love. 17 Moreover, since tbe emperors after biιn would try to imitate biιn, be very wisely considered how to leave them and tbeir subjects an armament of dogmatic weapons, spiritual seige-engines, and rational apparatuses, which those who compose theιn call taktίka - not usurping the work of the bierarcbs, but encouraging them by bis own example, making a pact of alliance with them (συμμαχίαν παρεχώμενος). 18 For it would be inconvenient for one who bas authority to remain silent from reasoning about the faith, wben its reason is ίη dange of opposition. This goes for not only the pious emperor, wbo freely gave bis own gravίtas and assent to the hierarchs' doctrines (τοις δόγμασι των άρχιερέων τό κυρος δια της έαυτου ροπής καi συνέσεως χαριζόμενον) , but equally every faith person wbo knows bow and is able to speak [ ... ]. 19 With help from the wisest and most experienced men of our time, he selected the doctrines of tbe blessed Fatbers and defenders of tbe true faitb and, gatbering them together, he entrusted to me their assembly, and bade me to put them ίη order, presented barmoniously and aπanged logically. 20

Two points appear clearly to us in this text : 1. Zigabenos expounds a theory that goes directly counter to the accustion that John ofDamascus made against the emperor's theological activity: in a new pact with the clergy, the emperor ηο longer legislates in the Church, 'does not usurp the work' ofthe bishops, but gives them dogmatic arms for the defense of the faith, now threatened from without. lt also appears that Alexios Komenos' intention is not to take ηο notice of John ofDamascus's theory, but rather to respond to it with an apology for the basileus' 17 18 19

20

PG PG PG PG

130, 21 BC. 130, 21 D. 130, 24Α. 130, 24 ΑΒ.

VI Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

9

theological activity. Let's recall the Damascene's precise words, which we find in his second Dίscourse ίn defense of the ίmages: It does not belong to the empeΙΌrs to legislate for the Church [ . . . ]. It is not the emperors who preach to us the word, but rather the apostles, the p rophets, the pastors and the teacheι-s [ .. .]. The political order is the responsibility of the emperoι-s, but the ecclesiastical institution belongs to pastors and shepheι-ds . 21

2. Zigabenos tells us thatAlexios himself'made a selection' ofthe patristic texts contained in the Panoply. Even thought the extent of this task is debatable, one thing is for certain: as a reader of the Damascene, whose work was in fact very useful to him, Alexios wanted his full rehabilitation as a patristic authority. As emperor, he therefore accomplished what the most fervent of iconophiles did not: installing the traitor Man~ίir as an authority. It is therefore during the reign of Alexios Komnenos and thanks to him that John of Damascus seems to have entered officially into the sphere of Byzantine dogmatic theology. However, his work did not serve as a fulcrum for the further systemisation of theology; rather, it was cut and cropped according to the specific needs of the time. It was therefore not considered a model of dogmatics, but rather as an ensemble of material readily reused for a pratical end - fighting against heresies. We will pause briefty over the presence of the Damascene's work in the Thesaurus of Niketas Choniates (c. 1155- 1215/16). First, the principle of its use seems not to have changed much a century after Zigabenos. Certainly, it is immediately apparent that Niketas had a better understanding of the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth , a greater respect in regard to the author's original text, and finally a further concern for comprehensiveness. But it is of course rather difficult for us to comment οη his reading of John of Damascus in the absence of a good edition of the Thesaurus . By way of example, we cite below an extract which makes clearly evident the problematic character of the cuπent edition:

21

Jmag

ΙΙ ,

12:

ΚοπΕR ΠΙ ,

p. 102s.

VI 10

Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

John of Damascus, Exposίtίo fideί 58, Niketas Choniates, Thesaurus: 1. 89-92: ΚοττεR 11, p. 140-41. 140, 176 Α.

PG

Του Δαμασκηνού

Ό των δλων Θεός καi Πατήρ καθ'δ

Ό των δλων Θεός καi Πατήρ καθ'δ

Πατήρ θέλει, η καθ'δ Θεός; Άλλ'εί μέν

Πατήρ θέλει, η καθ'δ Θεός; Άλλ'εί μεν

καθ'δ Πατήρ, άλλο τό αύτου εσται παρά

καθ'δ Πατήρ, άλλο τό αύτου εσται παρά

τό του Υίου θέλημα· ού γαρ Πατήρ ό

τό του Υίο11 θέλημα· ού γαρ Πατήρ ό

Υίός εί δέ καθ'δ Θεός, Θεός δέ καi ό

Υίός εi δέ καθ'δ Θεός, Θεός δέ καi ό

Υίός καi τό Πνεύμα τό iiγιον, iiρα τό

Υίός καi τό Πνεύμα τό iiγιον , iiρα τό

θέλημα φύσεως, ήγουν φυσικόν.

θέλημα σύ

φύσεως,

γουν

κατά

ήγουν

τουτον

φυσικόν.

Καi

συλλογισάμενος

έρώτησον· ό των δλων Θεός καi Πατήρ καθ'δ

Πατήρ

προσεδέξατο

τό

του

Μονογενους αψα, καθ 'δ Θεός; Άλλ 'εί μεν καθ'δ Πατήρ, άλλη αύτου έστω παρά την του Υίου δύναμις καi ενέργεια· ού γαρ Πατήρ ό Υίός εί δέ καθ 'δ Θεός, Θεός δέ

καi ό Υίός καi τό Πνευμα τό άγιον, άρα τό

του Μονογενους αίμα του ένός της άγίας Τριάδος, ή αύτή άγία Τριάς καθ 'δ Θεός προσεδέξατο.

If, during the course of the 12th century, the elaboration of heresiological arsenals seems to have moved further and further from dogmatic profundities and to anchor themselves more firmly in the political realities of the day - thus, in the Sacred Arsenal of Andronikos Kamateros ( 110811 70),22 the accent falls οη anti-Latin polemic and the controversy with the Armenians -, a second tendency equally seems to emerge. Ιη our view, this tendency renews a theological questioning and invests itself in a more direct reading of the Holy Scripture, in an approach more centred οη Revelation and Salvation. Thus it is more authentically faithful to the Damascene's model. lt is expressed concretely in the De oeconomίa Deί by Nilos Doxapatres (fl. 1143), an enormous summa that presents a history of salvation in terms of Providence.

22 Οη this work, see Α. Bucoss ι, ' The Sacred Arsenal by Andronikos Karnateros, a forgotten treasure ' , ed. RιGo , ΕRΜιιον, Byzanιίne theologίans, p. 33- 50 [see also ANDRONι cu s CAMATERUS, Sacrum armamenlarίum. Pars prίma, ed. Α . B ucossι (CCSG 75, Leuven, Turnhout 2014)].

VI Orίgίns

11

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

We know rather Iittle about this work. From its prologue, edited by Ε. Miller ίη 1884, 23 it seems that it was divided into five books, two survive of which at present. These two books, of which only the detailed plan has been edited, revolve around the symmetrical opposition of Adam (Book 1)/the New Adam (Book 11). Here Doxapatres elaborates οη many points of detail, which he probably takes directly from John ofDamascus's Exposίtίon of the Orthodoxfaίth. Some examples: Nίlos Doxapatres, De oeconoιnίa Deί, John ofDamascus, Exposίtίo fideί, Pinax: 11, 41. KOTTER 11, p. 5-6. Περί γαρ των λειπομένων χριστιανικών

δογμάτων

εμπροσθεν

άνελλειπως

ch. 82 Περί πίστεως καi βαπτίσματος - ch. 83 Περί πίστεως - ch. 84 Περί σταυρου, βαπτίσματος, περί σταυρου, περί της έν φ ετι καi περί πίστεως - ch. 85 Περί κατά Άνατολάς προσκυνήσεως, περί του προσκυνείν κατά ανατολάς - ch. 86

(άνελλιπως) ρηθήσεταιέντιρπροσφόρφ

τόπφ, ητοι περί πίστεως άπλως, περί

της προσκυνήσεως καi τιμης των αγίων

Περί των αγίων και αχράντων του Κυρίου

- ch. 87

(και των) λειψάνων αύτων, περί των

μυστηρίων

αχράντων

του Κυρίου καi περί της αγίας Θεοτόκου

του

Χριστου

μυστηρίων,

περί των αγίων γραφών και της έξ αύτων

ώφελείας,

περί

των

θείων

βίβλων, ποίαί είσι δεικταί (δεκταί), περί της προσκυνήσεως των αγίων είκόνων,

ch. 88

Περί της γενεαλογίας

-

Περί των αγίων καi των λειψάνων

- ch. 89 Περί - ch. 91 Χριστου λεγομένων -

- ch.

αύτων τιμης

είκόνων

90

Περί των έπi

Περί γραφης

περί του σαββάτου καi της περιτομης,

αρχήν, καi ού δύο κατά τούς μιαρούς

ch. 92 'Ότι ούκ εστι των κακών αίτιος ό Θεός - ch. 93 'Ότι ού δύο αρχαί - ch. 94

Μανιχαίους, καi δτι ούκ έστίν ό Θεός

Τίνος ενεκεν προγινώσκων ό Θεός τούς

αίτιος των κακων· περί νόμου αμαρτίας,

αμαρτάνειν καi μη μετανοείν μέλλοντας

καi πρός τούς

95 Περί νόμου Θεου καi νόμου - ch. 96 Κατά 'Ιουδαίων περί του σαββάτου - ch. 97 Περί παρθενίας - ch. 98 Περί της περιτομης - ch. 99 Περί του Άντιχρίστου - ch. 100 Περί αναστάσεως.

περί της θεότητος, περί του μίαν είναι

άπορουντας

διατί ό

Θεός προγινώσκων τούς αμαρτάνειν μέλλοντας καi μη μετανοειν παρήγαγεν δλως

καi

πρός

τούς

διαβάλλοντας

την παρθενίαν δια την πρόφασιν της

εκτισεν - ch .

άμαρτίας

τεκνογονίας και περί του Άντιχρίστου ·

είτα καi περί της αναστάσεως, περί τούτων γαρ

πάντως

έν

τfi

δεούσn

ακολουθίι;ι ανελλιπώς διαληψόμεθα .

23 Ε. Μιιι Ε R , 'Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque royale de Madrid (Supplement au catalogue d'Iriarte)', Notίces et extraits des manuscrίts de lα Biblioιheque nalίonale et autres bίblίotheques publίes par l 'lnstίlut natίonal de France, 31/2 ( 1866), p. 29- 56 [MS 0.1 / Matrit. gr. 4591 ). - On this work see also S. ΝειRΥΝcκ, 'Nilus Doxapatres's De oeconomia Dei. In search of the author behind the compilation' , ed. RιGo, ΕRΜιιον , Byzanlίne Theologίans, p. 51-69.

VI 12

Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

Given the cuπent state of our knowledge, we can say Nilos Doxapatres largely reprised John of Damascus. But although he did not hesitate to reuse fully - perhaps more so than his contemporaries and predecessors extracts from the Damascene corpus, he alone in this era seems also to have grasped the teaching very profoundly. Indeed, ίη the original frame of the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth, the Adam/N ew Adam symmetry appears with force, even though the superimposed plan in a hundred chapters has largely contributed to altering it. That the Damascene's general plan is equally one of a providential history of Salvation is something that we have attempted to demonstrate elsewhere.24 lt is therefore deeply regrettable that the De oeconomίa Deί, despite it exceedingly composite character, has not yet received an edition. 25 lts originality consists in its extension along the most powerful axis of Byzantine and Orthodox dogmatics: through ample use of typology, it is built up along the central themes of Creation, of the Incarnation and of Salvation. Heresiological concerns ηο longer take precedence, rather it unfolds as a detailed exposition ofthe contents ofthe faith. The purpose of the treatise is ηο long to contribute to the victory of orthodoxy over heresy, but to give 'to those who wish to live in a Christian way' (τοίς χριστιανικως βιουν έθέλουσιν) 'simply everything needful and useful' (πάντα άπλως τα χρειώδη καi χρήσιμα). 26

IfDoxapatres boπows from the Damascene the themes of soteriological order and a method of exposition marked by typology, Nikephoros Blemmydes (1997/98- 1272) for his part manages to build up from the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth a veritable όμολογία πίστεως. Ιη the midst of the 13th century, Blemmydes is a connoisseur of the Damascene's works. His Έπιτομή λογική in particular is directly connected to the Dίalectίca. And he seems to have taken inspiration, too, from this Father in the elaboration ofhis own doctrine ofthe procession ofthe Holy Spirit 'δια του Υίου'. 2 7 Unfortunately, the Typikon ofhis 'Phrontisterion',

Cf. η . 6. Α critical edition in two volumes, prepared by Stefaan Neyrinck and Ilse De Vos under the direction of Peter Van Oeun and Caroline Mace (Univ. ofLeuven) will be published in theCCSG. 26 Μιιι Ε R, Catalogue, p.31 - 2. 24

25

DAMASCUS, Exposίtίo fideί, 8, 288- 90: Κοπε R ΙΙ, p. 30. On this subject, 'L Έsprίt Sαίnι proci:de du Pere par le Fίls. L'actualite de la pneumatologie de Nicephore Blemmydes ( 13• siecle)' , Freίburger Zeίtschrifl fiir Phίlosophίe und Theologίe 52 (2005), p. 115-44, especially p. 133ff. 2'

JOHN OF

Μ . SτΑν Rου ,

VI Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

13

which apparently included the treatises known separately today as Περi πίστεως andΠεpi άρετijς, is now lost. We can only with difficulty pronounce οη the place the όμολογία occupies there. What we can however affirm without fear of failure is that this text was likely considered the apex of an entire pedagogical programme that passed from logic, physics, geography, anthropology and psychology to the study of dogmatic theology and morals. 28 Let's retum to the text of Περi πίστεως. It is opportune to note that it was edited for the first time in Jassy in 1698,29 by Dositheos of Jerusalem (1669-1707), a personality of the first order ίη what we have earlier described as the 'process of confessionalisation' of the 17th century. 30 Το be sure, because of its brevity (ten columns ίη J.-P. Migne's Patrologίa graeca), the text is far from a summa. It is nevertheless an authentic treatise of dogmatic theology, which is developed especially ίη the areas of Trinitarian theology and the Economy of Christ. What I want to insist upon here is that it was directly inspired by the philosophical and dogmatic works by the Damascene (lnstίtutίo, Dίalectίca, Exposίtίo fideί), without for all that being a compilation. 31 Α final work that is situated ίη the inheritance ofDamascene dogmatics ίη Byzantium is the Encyclopedίa of Joseph the Philosopher (ob. c. 1330), composed or rather compiled at the start ofthe 14th century. It constitutes an audacious undertaking that is especially surprising from the pen of a hesychast monk like Joseph. 32 Through love of leaming, he considered it his responsibility to assemble the best products, in each area ofknowledge,

D . SτιΕRΝΟΝ , ' Nicephore Blemmydes' , DS ΧΙ [1982], c. 187- 98. DosιnιEos OF JέRUS A LEM, Τόμος άγάπης (Jassy 1698), p. 494-50\; repr. ίη PG 142, 585- 605. Critical ed. and French trans.: Μ. SτAVROU, La doctrίne trίnίtaίre de Nίcέphore Blemmydes (1197-ν. 1269) . PhD. Univ. Paris-IV Sorbonne, ICP, ΙΤΟ (Paris 2004), Ι , ρ . 286- 356 (philological study); ρ . 357- 72 (Greek text) ; ΙΙ, ρ . 487- 510 (French translation and notes) = ΝικΕΡΗΟRΟS BιEMMY DES, CEuvres thέologίques Π , ed. Μ. SτAνRou (SC 558, Paris 28

29

2013), ρ. 273- 379. 30 Οη Dositheos, see Κ.-Ρ. Τοοτ, 'Dositheos ΙΙ. νοη Jerusalem' , ed. C.G. CοΝτι cε ιιο, V. Cο Ντιcειιο , La Thέologίe byzantίne el sa lradίtίon , ΙΙ (Turnhout 2002), ρ . 659- 720; G. PoosΚALSKY, Ή έλληνική θεολογία έπί Τουρκοκρατίας 1453- 1821 , Greek trans. by G. METALLENos (Athens 2005), p. 353- 72. 31 Elsewhere, we have established the correspondences that are found between Blemmydes' Περi πίστεως and the Damascene corpus: CοΝΤΟ UΜΑs -CοΝτι cειιο 1996, Appendix. These parallels were taken up, verified and augmented ίη the annotated translation ofthe text by SτAνRou , Doctrίne Ιrίnίtaίre, Π, p. 487- 510. They are not reproduced here. 32 D. SτΙΕRΝΟΝ , 'Joseph le Philosophe', DS VIII [1974], c. 1388- 92.

VI 14

Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

from his age or from earlier times. The plan for his work, as yet unedited ίη its entirety, is given in 140 iambic verses which introduce different treatises: rhetoric, the Organon, physics, anthropology, psychology, physiology, the quadrivium, morals. 33 Nikephoros Blemmydes' work is largely reproduced there. The apex of this summa of sciences, too, is crowned by theology, namely, the treatise Περi εύσεβείας, a clear and concise expose ofTrinitarian and Christological doctrine, the nearness of which to Blemmydes' Περi πίστεως was noted very early οη. The Περi εύσεβείας, which itself also constitutes a όμολογία, was edited in 1604 under the name of Cyril of Alexandria and reprinted in PG 77 with that Father's works. It is more generally known as the treatise De Trίnίtate of 'ps.-Cyril' (CPG 5432). Until recently, this text, which is dated to the 7th century, was considered a major source for John ofDamascus, particularly for his Trinitarian doctrine. 34 Β. Kotter's critical edition of the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth is based οη this presupposition. We were nonetheless able to prove a few years ago that the De Trίnίtate or Περi εύσεβείας is not a work from the 7th century, but its paternity must be attributed to Joseph the Philosopher. More precisely, Joseph compiled two texts into this treatise: 1. the Περi πίστεως by Nikephoros Blemmydes; 2. the first chapters of the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth by John of Damascus. 35 The argument was as follows: Joseph largely reprised Blemmydes in his Encyclopedίa. And yet, fearing lest Blemmydes' theses οη the procession ofthe Holy Spirit be attributed to him, 36 he prudently replaced the parts of Περi πίστεως on that topic with safer, authoritative texts from

TREU, ΆDer Philosoph Joseph', ΒΖ 8 (1899), p. 1- 64. J. DE G u1s ε1σ, ' Une source de S. Jean Damascene, Dejide orthodoxa' , Recherches de Science relίgίeuse 3 ( 1912), p. 356-68. Guibert's conclusions lead many scholars to attribute to ' ps.-Cyril' the introduction of the notion of περιχώρησις into Trinitarian thinking: L. PRESTIGE, God ίn Patrίstίc thought (London 1952), p. 280- 81 ; Ιο., 'Περιχωρέω and περιχώρησις ίη the Fathers' , Journal of theologίcal studίes 29 (1928), p. 242- 52; J. SτεΑD, 'Perichoresis in the Christological Chapters of the De Trinίιate of Pseudo-Cyril of Alexandria', Domίnίcan studίes 6 (1953), p. 12- 20. This thesis was recently corrected by Ε. DuRAND, La perίchorese des personnes dίvίnes. Immanence mutuelle. Recίprocίte et communίon (Paris 2005), p. 19- 38. 35 CοΝη c ειιο 1995. For the table of correspondances amongst the three texts, see p. 120- 21 . 3' CοΝη cειιο 1995, p. 128; Μ . SτAν Rou, ' Le theologien Nicephore Blemmydes ( 1197-ν. 1269), figure de contradiction entre orthodoxes et latinophrones' , OCP 74 (2008), p. 165- 79. 33

34

Μ.

VI Orίgίns

of Byzantίne systematίc dogmatίcs

15

John ofDamascus. Did he do so for convenience or because he recognised the Damascene as Blemmydes' chief source? It is neither possible, nor necessary, to answer that question. Nevertheless, with this composition there appears a paradox with which we complete this study: in the 14th century, the authority of John of Damascus in the area of dogmatics was so affirmed that an author like Joseph cites him, so to speak, with his eyes closed. Taken in by this process, modern philology in turn ends up considering for over a century that the chief source for John ofDamascus's Trinitarian theology, and the best part of it, is nothing other than a text (by chance attributed to ps.-Cyril) that is itself nothing other than a part of the Exposίtίon of the Orthodox faίth, albeit a part reprised and reworked by a fourteenth-century author. We have shown by several examples how the reading of John ofDamascus determined diverse procesess of systematisation of theological knowledge ίη Byzantium from the 9th to 14th Centuries. Since some of the texts considered are unfortunately unedited or partially edited as yet, much research remains to be done. This work could also take stock of the corpus of post-Byzantine Confessίons, which equally need to be examined from this point ofview. Let's not forget, after all, that ίη the 17th century John of Damascus is also one of the chief sources for Peter Mogila.37

Cf. Α . M ALVY , Μ . Υιιι εR, La Confessίon orthodoxe de Pίerre Moghίla metropolίte de (1633- 1646). Texte latίn ίnedίt (Orientalia christiana 10, Rome, Paris 1927), p. 171- 5.

37

Κίeν

Christian practices under the Umayyads

VII

Lent ίη Jerusalem according to John of Damascus's De sacris ieiuniis

The actual duration of the pre-Paschal fast in the ancient Church remains an open question to this day. Indeed, although the Council ofNicaea (325) already described the Τεσσαρακοστή , 1 observing it seems to have obtained a degree of uniformity only at the start of the 8th century. Yet this often disconcerting variation cannot be attributed only to the perpetuation of regional customs. lt is explained chiefly by a principle inherent to the proper exercise of fasting, the freedom of each to pursue personal development, beyond obedience to a law or prescription from above: And since ηο one can show a written prescription ίη this matter [ofthe fast], this evidently means that the apost]es have a11owed in this subject for each follower a personal view and persona] decision, 1est the good be put under the guidance offear or ofnecessity. 2

This freedom is highlighted by certain Fathers or ecclesiastical writers of the 4th-5th Centuries, such as John Chrysostom, Asterius of Amasea and Palladius, from whom we derive these remarks: The custom is to ask of everyone, during Lent, how many weeks each fasted. We can hear some say th at they have fasted fo r two weeks, others fo r th ree weeks, and still others for all the weeks of Lent. But what is gained if we pass the period of fasting without our being improved? 3

See Canon 5, ed. Ρ. -Ρ. JoANNOU, Dίscipline generale antique (JJe-Jχe s.) Ι/ 1 (Pontificia Commissione per la redazione del Codice di dίritto canonico orientale. Fonti. Fasc. 9, Grottaferrata 1962), p. 28 . Equal1y, AnιANAs ιu s OF AL EXAN DRΙ A , Ep. ency cl. (PG 25 , 232 Α) and Cnuι OF JERUSALEM, Catech. Ι , 5 (PG 33, 376 Β) . SocRATES, Hίst. eccl. Υ, 22, 40 (GCS. NF 1, repr. Berlin 2011 ), p. 301. See also the edition of Ρ. MARAVAL (SC 505, Paris 2006), p. 228. JoHN CHRY sosτoM, Ad populum Antiochenum : PG 49, 169. This is also the message ofthe much celebrated Sermo catech. ίn pascha (CPG 4605), attributed to Chrysostom.

VII 2

Lent ίn Jerusalem Don't count the days ofLent like an idle employee waiting to be paid, don't grieve because your house isn 't fi1led with smoke from the first hour and because the cook isn't standing by the fire.4 After a little time passed, Lent arrived and he saw each engage ίη specific practices. One ate ίη the evening, another every other day, yet another every fifth day; one passes the night standing and sat during the day. Thus, having dipped a large nurnber of palm \eaves ίη water, he stood ίη a corner and touched neither bread nor water until the forty days had passed and Pascha had arrived . He never bent the knee, never stretched out. He ate nothing but a few cabbage leaves, and that only οη a Sunday, to glorify the day.5

Though necessary for the Christian's spiritual progress, this free choice for the better sometimes led to disagreements that can be considered as detrimental to the unity of the Church. Such is revealed by the historians Socrates and Sozomen, who did not fail to reflect οη the diversity of circumstances pertaining to the practice ofthe Τεσσαρακοστή: There are ηο religions (ούδε μία των θρησκειων) that keep the same usages, even if their opinions οη the divine are identica1. And those who keep the same faith also know differences ίη questions of usage. And it is ηο waste of time to notice here some points of detail in the usages of the Churches. First we note that the fasts before Pascha are differently observed arnong different people. At Rome, people fast during three successive weeks before Pascha, except for Saturdays and Sundays. Ιη Illyrica, throughout Greece and in Alexandria people observe a fast of six weeks, and this they call 'the Forty Days'. Others commence this fast seven weeks before the feast [of Pascha], fasting three times five days, with interruptions, and nonetheless call this period 'the Forty Days'. All this leads me to be surprised that these people, who disagree οη the number of days [of the fast], all call it 'the Forty Days' and that each invents one reason or another to give the period this naιne . Indeed, one finds not only people who disagree over the number of days, but equally people who do not abstain from food ίη the same manner. Some completely abstain from living things, others consuιηe only fish arnong animals, still others also eat fowl , since these too cοιηe [came] from the waters according to Moses (cf. Gen 1:20- 22). Some abstain from fruits and eggs, others eat only dry bread, sti11 others deprive themse]ves even of

Hom . XIV. ln prίnc. ieίun. 8, 4, ed. C. DATEMA, Aslerίus of Amasea. I- XIV (Leiden 1970), p. 211. PALLA Dιus, Ηίsι. laus. XVIII, 14, ed. G. J. Μ. BARTELΙNK (Milan 19904), p. 86. AsτERιu s,

Homίlίes

VII Lent

ίn

Jerusalem

3

this. Some fast till the ninth hour, then eat what they will; indeed, amongst other people we encounter countless other customs. 6 The same tradition are not observed identically ίη all the Churches, even if they [sc., the Churches] share ίη the saιηe faith [ . . . ]. And this [fast] called 'the Forty Days,' which is observed before it [= Pascha] and during which the multitude fast, some think lasts six weeks: such is the case ofthe Illyrians, the Westerners, all of Libya, Egypt and the Palestinians. Sοιηe pratice a fast for six or seven weeks, others a fast ofthree continuous weeks before the feast [of Pascha] , still others [fast only] two weeks, such as the Montanists.7

Thanks to these testimonies and to the infonnation supplied by Athanasius 8 and Cyril of Alexandria, 9 οη the one hand, and Basil of Caesaraea 10 and Epiphanius of Salamis 11 οη the other, we know that ίη Alexandria Lent took place over six weeks, including Holy Week, and that in Constantinople and Asia Minor it also included six weeks, to which Holy Week was always added, for a total of seven weeks of fasting. Sadly, the rare testimonies we have about other Churches - apart from Rome - do not allow us to comment so readily οη their practices. Even so, in the present article we will attempt to examine the case of Jerusalem, which has been little studied and is particularly problematic. 12 We have seen that Socrates has nothing to say about Lent in Palestine. However, Sozomen, a native ofGaza, provides clarification οη this subject: Some think that its duration is six weeks: such is the case with the Illyrians, the Westerners, all ofLibya, ofEgypt, and the Palestinians. ' 3

Soc 11.Aτ εs, Hίst. ρ.

224- 8. SozoMEN,

eccl.

Υ,

22, 30--40 (GCS. NF 1), p. 300- 301. - See also SC 505,

eccl. VII, 19, 2; 7 (GCS. NF 4, repr. Berlin 2012), p. 330; 331 . oF ΑιΕΧΑΝD RΙΑ , Ep. fest. , passίrn . Since the original Greek is lost, see AτιιANAsr u s, Lettres festales et pastorales, trans. frorn the Coptic by L.-Th. LEFORT (CSCO 150, Louvain 1955); lD., Lettere festalί, trans. frorn the Syriac by Α. CΑΜΙ'LΑ Ν Ι (Rorne 2003). CvRJι 0F AιεxA N DRJA, Ep. festa/es,passirn (SC 372,392,434). 10 ΒΑsιι 0F CA ESARAEA, In ebrίosos: PG 31,444. 11 Ει'ΙΙ'ΗΑΝι us 0F SALAMΙS, Dejide (GCS 37 2 , repr. Berlin 1985), ΠΙ, p. 523. 12 Οη this suject, the most complete discussion to this day remains Υ. ΡεRι , 'La durata e la struttura della Quaresima nell 'antico uso ecclesiastico gerosolimitano' , Aevurn 37 ( 1963), p. 31- 62. 13 See above, n. 7. Hίst.

AτHANAsr us

VII 4

Lent ίn Jerusalem

And yet this testimony from the 5th century contradicts - at least, apparently - that ofthe pilgrim Egeria, which dates to the end ofthe 4th century. When the days of Pascha aπive, it is celebrated ίη this way. Just as, with us, forty days are kept before Pascha, so here eight weeks are kept before Pascha. If eight weeks are kept, that is because ηο one fasts οη Sundays or Saturdays, except for the Saturday which is the vigil of Pascha, when one is required to fast; with the exception of that day, ηο one here ever fasts οη any Saturday throughout the year. Thus, if one deducts from the eight weeks the Sundays and seven Saturdays (since οη one Saturday fasting is required, as Ι said above), there reιηain forty-one days during which one fasts, which here are called Eortae, that is, Quadragesίmae. ' 4

But Egeria's instance is not unique. Ιη the first half of the 6th century, Dorotheos of Gaza also insists οη an eight week fast. Having made the calculation, they sanctify for us the seven weeks offasting among the 365 days of the year. For they assign to the fast seven weeks. They are the Fathers who subsequent]y decided to add another week, at one and the same time to practice abstinence and likewise to dispose (δια τό προγυμνάζεσθαι και οίον προομαλίζεσθαι) those who are going to dedicate themselves to the work of fasting, and to honour these fasts with the number of the holy Forty Days which our Lord himself spent fasting. For eight weeks ιηake forty days, if one discounts the Sundays and Saturdays, without taking into account the privileged fast of Holy Saturday, which is sacred above all and the only fast οη Saturday in the year. 15

lt is also noteworthy that the contradiction between Sozomen's testimony, which we just examined, and the two texts cited above is not the only one. Two other documents appear to indicate a fast of seven weeks: 1. The Armenίan Lectίonary, which is conventionally dated to the second half of the 5th century, explicitly mentions six weeks of fasting for Lent (55b: 'the sixth week of Lent'), followed by Holy Week. 16 2. Α short fragment

14 EGERΙ A , Iιiner. XXVII, 1 (SC 296, Paris 1982, repr. 1997), p. 256-8. Later (XLVI, 3, 310), Egeria indicates that the eighth week ofthe fast was Holy Week: 'The eighth week of Lent, which is here called Great Week, the bishop has no tirne to instruct thern, that the ceremonies spoken of above could occur.' 15 DoR0TH E0S 0F GAzA, lnstruct. XV (SC 92, Paris 1963, repr. 2001), p. 447. The expression προγυμνάζεσθαι καί οίον προομαλίζεσθαι seems to me to designate well what John ofDarnascus calls προνήστιμος έβδομάς (PG 95, 69 D). 16 F.C. CoNYBEARE, Rituale armenorurn, Oxford 1905, 518- 20, esp. p. 520. See also Α. RENoux, Le codex arrnenίen de Jerusalem Ι 21 (ΡΟ 35, Turnhout 1969, 1971).

VII Lent

ίn

5

Jerusalem

attributed to Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem (524-44), 17 the redaction of which must be placed in 533, also reports a seven week period offasting: Having just made mention of fasting, we will also tel1 you this, namely that by the grace ofGod we wi1l begin as customary the fast of seven weeks οη 7th ofFebι-uat)' and we will celebι-ate the saving Passion and the Resuπection of Christ οη the 27th ofthe month ofMarch. 18

For the 4th-6th Centuries, we therefore have, in chronological order ofthe testimonies, the following outline:

Late 4th C.

Egeria, Jtineraιy

8 weeks

4th- 5thC.

Armenίan Lectίonaιy

7 weeks

439- 50

Sozomen, Ecclesίastical Hίstoιy

6 weeks

Early 6th C.

Dorotheos of Gaza, Jnstructions

8 weeks

533

Peter of Jerusalem, Fragment

7 weeks

What are we to make of the lack of linearity ίη this development? Must one or more of these testimonies be challenged? Or indeed should we suppose that the practice ofLent fluctuated οη numerous occasions within the Church of Jerusalem? Scholars have long hesitated between these two possibilities. Ιη the first place, the validity ofEgeria's testimony, followed by that ofDorotheos, has been questioned. 19 However, today this hesitation is ηο longer justified, since critical editions ofthese two texts have preserved as authentic the passages that interest us. And yet some doubt, probably 17 Οη Peter of Jerusalem, whose actιvιty is known to us thanks to Cyril of Scythopolis' Vita s. Sabae (BHG 1608): F. DιΕΚΑΜΡ, Die orίgenίstischen Streitigkeiten ίm sechsten Jahrhundert und das fiinfte allgemeίne Concίl (Mϋnster/W. 1899), p. 27- 32; Μ . VAN Es BRoεc κ, 'L'Homelie de Pieπe de Jerusalem et la fin de l'origenisme palestinien en 551 ' , OCP 51 ( 1985), p. 33- 59. 18 Fragment preserved ίη the florilegium attached to John of Damascus's De sacrίs ίeiunίίs : PG 95, 76 Β. 19 The status quaestionίs of the validity of Egeria's testimony is addressed by Ρ. MARAVAL (SC 296), p. 257- 9. As fοι- Dorotheos' testimony, it has been challenged by Α. RAHLFS, 'Die alttestamentlichen Lektionen der griechischen Kirche' , Nachrichten von der kδnίgl. Gesellschaft der Wίssenschaften zu Gδttίngen, Philol.-hίsl. ΚΙ. (Berlin 1915/ 1), p. 102.

VII 6

Lent ίn Jerusalem

exaggerated, remains concerning the coincidence ofthese two testimonies. Thus, Egeria's description pertains to a different reality than that to which Dorotheos alludes. Such is the thesis ofV. Peri, who, after devoting himself to a systematic review of the sources, challenges the possibilty that the practice of the fast oscillated so, and who calls for a reinterpretation of Egeria's testimony. 20 Despite this, explanations that invoke fluctuating practice are still most cornmon: Α. Baumstark rnaintained it in 1911 21 , followed by Α. Bludau, who conjectured that the change from eight weeks to six weeks happened through the influence of Alexandrian practices. 22 So, too, Ρ. Maraval 23 and Α. Renoux 24, who remain quite cautious about Peri's position. It is understandable that, ίη default of other evidence, only a critical review of these rare sources will enable us to move toward a provisional solution. lt is therefore necessary to apply to other problematical documents, such as is (in our view) that of Peter of Jerusalem, a treatment similar to that used οη the testirnonies ofEgeria and Dorotheos. Α later and less contested text ought equally to be analysed: John of Darnascus's De sacrίs ίeίunίίs (CPG 8050). Although it has never been subjected to critical review, this 20 PERJ, 'La durata', p. 62: 'Si potriι pertanto affermare che il passaggio universale dalle sette alle otto settimane di digiuno quaresimale e in ogni caso avvenuto nella chiesa di Gerusalemme con un distacco di tempo troppo notevole [ ... ] per non rendere impossibile sostenere che allo stesso fatto possa alludere ο riferirsi il documento latino, quando parla delle otto settimane di digiuno. In secondo luogo nessun indizio e reperibile [ ... ] per poter sostenere che sia esistito a Gerusalemme un primo stadio ufficiale compiutamente organizzato, in cui la quaresima avrebbe avuto una durata di otto settimane, che sarebbe stata in seguito ridotta a sette e quindi ancora portata ad otto nuovamente. Per nessun'altra chiesa sono attestate analoghe oscillazioni pendolari [ ... ]. Sembra pίίι piano ritenere che il testo debba essere interpretato in un modo differente e plausibile, che Ιο chiarisca in conformitiι ad uno sviluppo liturgico altrimenti stabilito e documentabile' . 21 Α . BAUMSTARK, 'Das Alter der Peregrίnaιίo Aetherίae ' , Oriens Christίanus , NS 1 (1911), p. 32- 76. 22 Α. BιuDAU, Dίe Pίlgerreίse der Aeιherίa (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 15, Paderborn 1927), p. 105 : ' Die Ersetzung einer altesten achtwδchentlichen zunachst durch eine nur mehr sechswδchentlichen Fastenpraxis konnte in den benachbarten Palastina sehr wohl von Agypten her durch den Einfluβ Alexandrias angeregt werden, fiir das jener kίirzeste Umfang der δsterlichen Vorbereitungszeit durch Athanasius bezeugt wird und dessen Osterbriefen eine gesamtkirchliche Bedeutung zukam ' . 23 See SC 296, p. 257- 9. 24 RENoux, Le codex armenίen (ΡΟ 36/2), p. 183, summarises the evolution of the length ofLent in the Church of Jerusalem in these terms: 'Le careme hierosolymitain, passe de huit iι sept semaines dans les annees 384-439, devait garder la meme duree pendant pres de deux siecles, avant de revenir iι huit semaines, iι la fin du VI' s.'

VII Lent

ίn

Jerusalem

7

rather rich testimony has sometimes been considered authoritative, which has considerably complicated reflection οη the problems connected to Lent in the ancient Church. Το illustrate this state of affairs, take as a single example this passage from a note ίη the Dίctίonnaίre de theologίe catholίque:

Whilst the West arrived at a fast of forty days from a very early stage, ίη the East two different customs reigned. Ιη Catholic areas, Great Lent lasted seven weeks, which gives only 36 days, since ηο one ever fasted οη Sundays or Saturdays with the exception ofHoly Saturday. Thus it was in Jerusalem in 544, ίη the time of Patriarch Peter (PG 95, 76); ίη Antioch, toward the end ofthe 6th century, under Patriarch Anastasios (ίbίd.); ίη Athens, c. 681 , under Metropolitan John (ίbίd. ) ; perhaps ίη Constantinople, ίη 732, under Patriarch Anastasios (PG 95, 73). By contrast, the Monophysites observed a lent of eigbt weeks and offorty days, as we see from tbe writings ofSeverus, patriarch of Antiocb (512- 18) (PG 95, 76) and ofBenjaιηin, Coptic patriarcb of Alexandria (621- 60) (PG 95, 77). Ιη tbe first balf ofthe 8th century, tbe forty-day fast was still very poorly noted amongst the Ortbodox; St John Damascene had to explain it ίη his faιηous Letter on Fasts (PG 95, 64-78) and bis position was such that botb practices could equally claim bim as their defender. Little by little, at a date that cannot be determined, the Greek Cburcb arrived at tbe current observance of a forty-day Lent. 25

Without wishing to dwell οη this notice, we merely point out that all the testimonies put forward have come from the same text, namely the ftorilegium attached to the De sacrίίs ίeίunίίs. And yet, as we have had occasion to demonstrate elsewhere, 26 this ftorilegium poses numerous problems: οη the one hand, it is not certain that it came from the pen of John ofDamascus; quite the contrary John clearly points out its inconsistencies. Οη the other, this ftorilegium abounds ίη quotations 'reworked' ίη favour ofits compiler's positions. Such is the case for instance with the data given under the names of Anastasios of Antioch, Anastasios of Constantinople and Severus of Antioch, which the notice in the Dίctίonnaίre de theologίe catholίque puts forward as authorities. Let us look now at De sacrίs ίeίunίίs to identify the problems attached to it and get from it John ofDamascus's position.

25 26

S. VA ΙLHE, 'Constantinople (Eglise de)' , DTC 3 [1938], col. 1412- 13. See CοΝτιcειιο 2004, p. 77- 104.

VII 8

Lent ίn Jerusalem

1. De sacrίs

ίeίunίίs: Α

bipartite work?

Edited by Μ. Le Quien in 1712, added to vol. 95 of J.-P. Migne's Patrologίa graeca, and always presented as authentic, De sacrίs ίeίunίίs has gleaned so little attention that we can without exaggeration say that it has remained invisible within Damascene studies. 1s it its subject, apparently abstruse, or its affirmations, seemingly obscure, that have driven away specialists? Such reasons perhaps should not be written off. Ιη any case, our text was signalled with but a single word (' echt') in J.-M. Hoeck's excellent directory. 27 This judgement was reprinted in the Clavίs Patrum Graecorum (8050) which also presented the work as authentic. And yet, despite this presumed authenticity and the relatively unproblematic character of its manuscript tradition, it was not included in the prestigious critical edition of John of Damascus's complete works edited by Β . Kotter. 28 It therefore remains to be studied. Ιη Le Quien's edition, De sacrίίs ίeίunίίs is presented as a text in two parts, ofwhich the second is also divided in two: 1. John ofDamascus's letter to Cometas, defending the practice of eight weeks of fasting (= Ep. ad Cometam); 2. Florilegium: a. Florilegium for the defense of a fast of seven weeks; b. Florilegium against "the heresy" of eight weeks. Did this collection come from the same pen? Ιη other words, is John of Damascus also the author of the florilegium? Le Quien already responded to this question in the negative, supposing that the Ep. ad Cometam was in reality a response to the florilegium, compiled as far as he was concerned by an adversary of the Damascene thesis. 29 Elsewhere we have had the opportunity to discuss this opinion and to give arguments to consolidate it. 30 Let's note here that the Ep. ad Cometam should be retained as an authentic work by John of Damascus for reasons of style and content, but also for the autobiographical details that it preserves for us; οη the other hand, the florilegium, widely cited in the letter, must be regarded as a document contemporary to John of Damascus, coming from a group

p. 27, η 0 47 . If it had been taken into account by Kotter, the De sacrίs ίeίunίίs would have been included ίη the fourth volume of his edition, which includes the polemical works of John of Damascus. Οη the manuscript tradition of this text, cf. CοΝτι cει ιο 2004, p. 79- 80, and V. KoNTOUM A, 'Du mauvais usage des sources dans un florilege palestinien du ν ιιι• siecle', ed. S. ΜοRιετ , Lίre en extraίts (Paris, forthcoming) . 29 PG95,61- 2. 30 See CοΝτιcειιο 2004, p. 85- 90. 27

28

1-!ο εcκ,

VII 9

Lent ίn Jerusalem

that is Όrthodox' but opposed to his ideas. Moreover, as we said above, its reliability is highly questionable: most of the quotations provided are corrupt and the attributions often false or even counterfeited. As to the dating of De sacrίs ίeίunίίs, a comparison can be made with the Ep. de hymno Trίsagίo (CPG 8049), written after the death of John V of Jerusalem (705-35). Indeed what these two documents reveal is a similar climate of instability and infighting. The debate of the number of weeks in the fast can thus be compared with that over the insertion of the formula σταυρωθής δι'ήμας into the Trisagion. Ιη both cases, John of Damascus, who was loyal to the patriarch of Jerusalem, John V, was violently attacked and even suspected of heresy. His friends demanded that he defend himself, and such is the burden of his two letters: to respond to calumnies and allegations, to expound and illustrate his teaching, to promote 'the peace ofthe Church'. Therefore, the Ep. ad Cometam should be considerd a document dated to the years 735-45 (from the death of John V to that of John ofDamascus), a period when the patriarchate of Jerusalem once more knew a period of sede vacante and of instability.

2. The Epίstola ad Cometam and its teaching about Lent Contrary to what the entry in the Dίctίonnaίre de theologίe catholίque suggests, John ofDamascus's teaching οη the practice ofthe fast is coherent if we posit that the Ep. ad Cometam is not illustrated by the florilegium joined to it, but rather that it is a response to the latter. Elsewhere we have developed arguments ίη support ofthis thesis. 31 What we will consider now is John ofDamascus's position with respect to the florilegium. At the end of the Epίstula, our author expresses himself in these terms concerning quotations that would potentially substantiate his remarks: Concerning patΓistic authoΓities on the subject, we omit them because the courier is in haste; but they are easily obtained.32

fοΓ

now

What does this phrase mean? First of all, that a courier brought John of Damascus the request written by Cometas, probably accompanied by the florilegium we are considering that defended a fast of seven weeks, which he asked our author to examine. The same courier would have carried back to Cometas not only John of Damascus's reply (that is, our Ep. ad 31

lbίd.

32

PG 95, 72

Β.

VII 10

Lent ίn Jerusalem

Cometam) but also a new ftorilegium. But our author says that such a ftorilegium was not feasible under the circumstances, but not because the necessary quotations did not exist. Is this credible? We have seen above that very few of the Fathers expressed themselves clearly οη the question of the actual length of Lent. Did John of Damascus know this? lt is hard to doubt it. lt is likely for this reason that he based the customs of the Jerusalem fast οη an unwritten tradition: Likewise we also know, by an unwritten tradition, the custom ofthe Church [ .. . ]. Such is the definition and the common law ofthe Church, which we know is followed in [the Anastasis,] the holy church of the Resuπection of Christ our God.33

Moreover, extant quotations are ambiguous and often even contradictory, as the ftorilegium sent by Cometas likes to emphasize. For John ofDamascus, it is important to reconcile them, at least those which must be considered authentic. It is necessary to reconcile these two opinions. In effect, the teachings of these divine men should not be taken in flagrant contradiction. For what causes the turbulence is a failure to judge the value ofthe statements. 34 Ιη

this instance, our author pauses over the weightiest quotations:

1. The Constίtutίones apostolorum (CPG 1730), whose canonicity he does not discuss here, but from which he retrieves the distinction between Lent and the fast of the Passion, as well as the special status of Saturdays and Sundays: Το these we respond that, having read the Constίtutίons of the Holy Apostles, we there found the following precept: ' Fasting is required during holy Lent, beginning on the Monday and ending on the Friday, after which we begin Passion Week. 35

2. Athanasius of Alexandria, who is undoubtedly an authority present throughout the ftorilegium even ifhis name does not appear ίη the modern edition. lt seems in effect that it is actually Athanasius' name that underlies the improbable attribution of the fifth quotation to the iconoclast Patriarch 33 34 35

PG 95, 69 D. PG 95, 68 C. PG 95, 69 Α, which refers to 73

Α.

VII Lent

ίn

Jerusalem

11

Anastasios Ι of Constantinople. This quotation is, from all the evidence, taken from an Ep. festalίs later than Athanasius's time - perhaps a letter from Timothy Aelurus - but it is under his authority that it seems to have been included, at least in the version of the ftorilegium that John of Damascus had before his eyes. 36 Hence his astonishment: However, Athanasius, ιηοst excellent ίη divine knowledge and virtue, has said most expressly ίη his Festal letters that Lent is six weeks long. And he orders that Passion Week begins after then. 37

Here our author exhibits a certain confusion probably owing to his desire to show respect to Athanasius's teaching such as it is presented in this quotation. After consulting the patriarch 's Ep. festales (CPG 2102), John of Damascus could not ignore - as the first part of his assertion shows - that Athanasius attributed a duration of six weeks to Lent, including Holy Week. Ιη his eyes, what seems to be important was the limitation of Lent strictly speaking to six weeks, in order to give a special status to the προνήστιμος έβδομάς and to Holy Week. 3. Following the same principle, he brings about the reconciliation ofBasil ofCaesarea and Gregory ofNazianzus. Ιη fact, the partisans ofseven weeks have highlighted the authority of Basil, whose teaching it effectively is. But if this F ather spoke of seven weeks 'in total' , that is because he himself added the fast ofHoly Week to that ofLent. 38 4. The positions of Severus of Antioch and Benjamin of Alexandria are for their part subject to derision. Affirming that Lent lasts for eight weeks, without taking any account of Saturdays and Sundays in calculating the forty days of the fast, means that the whole fast must last for nine weeks, according to the principle of distinguishing the fast of Lent from the fast ofHoly Week: But ifLent spans eight weeks, and ifwe begin Passion Week thereafter, the fast lasts for nine weeks altogether.39

36 37 38 39

See CοΝτιcειιο 2004, p. 99- 103. PG 95, 69 Α , which refers to 73 C. PG 95, 68 C, which refers to 73 Β. PG 95, 69 Α, which refers to 76 D- 77

Β.

VII 12

Lent ίn Jerusalem

Is John of Damascus ignoring Severus of Antioch's real position οη the length of Lent? Even if the ψευδαλήθης patriarch did not express himself clearly οη this question, it is nevertheless the case that the Jacobite Church opted for a Lent of seven weeks and not of eight. Only the Copts - and thus Severus' Coptic descent- instituted a Lent of eight weeks. Ιη the context of polemics evoked in his Epίstula, John ofDamascus felt ηο need to address these points. We can once more deduce that the debate is internal to the Church of Jerusalem, and that it is not the refutation of a group considered heretical. The reconciliation of the Fathers should therefore take place οη a foundation that eludes the defenders of seven weeks: the clear distinction between the three periods that make up 'the totality ofthe holy fasts' ofthe Triodion. 40 We are here at the heart of John ofDamascus's teaching: We know [ .. . ] the custom of the Church to observe a week of pre-fasting, ίη which we obstain on]y from ιneat, up ti\1 evening, and do not celebrate terce, sext, nones or the office of the Presanctified. Six [weeks], during which terce, sext and nones as we11 as the Presanctified are ce]ebrated, and during which abstinence from eggs, cheese and the 1ike is added to abstinence from meat. For Passion Week, xerophagia is legislated and moreover there is ηο office of the Presanctified. Then οη Holy Thursday is the celebration of the mysteries, for it is οη that day they were instituted. Then οη Great and Holy Friday, a total fast [is observed] until Saturday evening. And οη the evening ofSaturday, even though other things can be eaten, ηο one eats meat. Οη the holy Sunday ofthe Resurrection, the Unique Sabbath, those who wish ιnay eat meat as well. 4 1

If this basis is ignored by the defenders of the seven weeks, it is because they give excessive weight to the symbolic interpretation of the number seven. John of Damascus does not speak openly οη this opinion, but ίt is well indicated by his attitude of indifference when faced with quotations from the florilegium that insist οη the sacred character ofthe number seven, more precisely, those given under the deeply questionable authority of John of Athens and Anastasios of Antioch:

40 On the formation of these three periods, and more generally on the practice of Lent during the ancient and Byzantine Church, see the very rich artic1e of J. G ετc ΗΑ , ' La pratique dujeί\ne pendant la Quarantaine pascale d'apres le Triode byzantin' , ed. J. G ETCHA, L. Lossκv , Θυσία αίνέσεως. Melanges liturgίques ojjerts ά la memoire de l 'archeveque Georges Wagner (1930- 1993) (Analecta Sergiana 2, Paris 2005), p. 95- 112. 41 PG 95, 69 D- 72 Α.

VII Lent

ίn

Jerusalem

13

From John, bishop of Athens: '[ . .. ) So we suppose that the outcome ofthis holy Heptad of fasting is sure and flaw]ess. Indeed, ίη coιning back upon itse]f and turning like a circle, the week fulfils this age which endures but for a time. ' 42 From St Anastasios, patriarch of the City of God, that is, Antioch ίη Syria: ' [ . .. ] So you see we should understand that the fast of the Forty Days unfo]ds over seven weeks. Ιη ηο way does it cease to be foήy days, but takes an added mystical charm. For the number seven is evidently holy and most sacred, and it has exceedingly graced the days of our holy combat, having completed itselfseven tiιηes these seven weeks.' 43

These quotations did not hold his attention, either because from the outset they seemed to him 'retouched' or else because they adopted the perspective that it is right to reproach the monophysites. Indeed, it is in order to oppose them to the eight πονηροί λογισμοί, that the monophysites reckon eight weeks ofLent, as it appears ίη a fragment from Benjamin of Alexandria: [ .. .) ίη beginning the foήy days ofthe fast, that is, the eight weeks, and ίη fasting in temperance for the destruction of the eight λογισμοί which arise against the soul, from the 27th of the month of Mechir according to the Egyptians, to the 20th ofthe month of Pharιnouthi. 44

Eight is certainly a full number, the Ogdoad symbolises the completion of the Age, but the holy Heptad should be prefered to it. Α reflection of this sort is far removed from the dogmatics of the Damascene. We encounter it only once in his works, and then as a reminiscence. 45 Furthermore, in the Epίstula, we also encounter a refusal to use a certain mysticism of numbers. The position of Dorotheos of Gaza, otherwise similar to his own, οη the 'tithe' of the year4 6 is here openly criticized:

42 43

PG 95, 76 Α . PG 95, 76 ΑΒ PG 95, 77 ΑΒ. -

44 On the duration ofthe fast in the Coptic Church: L. VιLLECOU RT , ' Les observances liturgiques et la discipline du jeune dans l'Eglise copte. IV. JeGnes et Semaine sainte' , Le Musέon 38 (1925), p. 261- 7. It should be noted that the oldest witness to the Coptic practice is found in the fragment from Benjamin of Alexandria preserved ίη our florilegium. Οη this topic, see also Α τΗΑΝΑs ιυs, Lellere fesιalί, p. 32-4. 45 Exposίtίo fideί 15 : ΚοπΕ R ΙΙ , p. 44. 46 See η. 15 (with text).

VII 14

Lent ίn Jerusalem The law does not require us to fast for a tenth of the year, as some suppose. For there is a canon that explicitly prescribes a fast offorty days, and a tenth of the year is not forty days.47

We see that, ίη the middle ofthe 8th century, John ofDamascus clearly took the side of eight weeks of fasting, divided into three periods (Προνήστιμος έβδομάς, Τεσσαρακοστή, Μεγάλη έβδομάς) , ίη the midst of which is Lent strictly speaking, which begins οη Clean Monday and concludes the Friday before Lazarus Saturday. Thus, he heralds the practice currently followed by the Orthodox Church up to our time, but he agrees also - and this isn't a mere detail - with the testimony from Egeria and from Dorotheos of Gaza. As for the evolution of Lent in Jerusalem, what shall we deduce? Should these three testimonies be accepted, against those of the Armenίan lectίonary, Sozomen, and Peter of Jerusalem? Lacking proofs adequate for an explanation of the divergences attested by the latter, we rest content underlining that our documentation pertaining to the eight weeks offasting should henceforth be considered authentic and clear; it also provides three important milestones referring to the same practice, at least in the narrow scope ofthe church oftheAnastasis. Further efforts at understanding should therefore be directed toward the testimonies from the Lectίonary and from Sozomen. As for the testimony of Peter of Jerusalem, it seems to us that calling into question the authenticity of the florilegium that preserves it, viz. , the florilegium of De sacrίίs ίeίunίίs , has already contributed to undermining its authority.

47

PG 95, 68 C.

VIII

UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME ΑΠRIBUE Α JEAN DAMASCENE AUTHENTICITE, SOURCES, NOUVEAUX FRAGMENTS DE SEVERE D' ANTIOCHE

ad Cometam 1 de Jean Damascene est suivie d'un florilege sur le Grand Careme divise en deux parties: 1. Defense apostolique et patristique du jefine de sept semaines; 2. Positions heretiques sur le jefine de huit semaines. Bien qu'edites des 1712 par Μ. Le Quien sous le titre de Περί των άγίων νηστειών/ De sacrίs jejunίίs (CPG 8050) et repήs dans les ed. successives de la Patrologίa graeca (PG 95, 72-77), 1Έpίstula et son f\orilege sont toujours restes dans 1Όmbre. Aussi etonnant que cela paraisse, nous n'avons pu trouver aucune etude, generale ou ponctuelle, les concernant directement2 • Pourtant, le florilege du De sacrίs jejunίίs recele des χρήσεις inconnues par ailleurs. La CPG releve quatre d'entre elles: η 0 6959 pour Anastase d'Antioche, η 0 7018 pour Pieπe de Jerusalem, η 0 7940 (1) et (2) pour Benjamin d'Alexandήe 3 • Α cette liste, nous souhaitons egalement ajouter les fragments grecs que le florilege attribue a Severe d'Antioche. Nous avons en effet constate a leur propos qu'ils n'avaient pas encore ete repertories. La presente etude a pour objet la presentation d' ensemble du f\orilege ainsi que la discussion de l'attribution de certaines de ses χρήσεις les plus remarquables. Si nous la dedions a Μ. Jacques Noret, ce n'est pas dans un esprit de pur desinteressement. Avant d'envisager l'edition cήtiL'Epίstula

' PmbZ 3666. Ce Cometas, dont Jean Damascene dit qu'il est un homme puissant (PG 95, 65 Β: «οίς ή αρετή τό Ιiρχειν ενδίκως περιποιήσατο» ), n'est connu qu'a travers le De sacrίs jejuniis. 2 Exception faite d'un aperc;:u de la seule Epίstula donne par V. Peri, La durata e la struttura de/la Quaresima nell'antico uso ecclesiastiω gerosolίmitano, dans: Aevum 37 (1963), p. 31-62, notamment p. 50-54. Voir aussi Α. Bludau, Dίe Pίlgerreise der Aetherίa (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, \5), Paderbom, 1927, p. 104-105. 3 Dans CPG 7940, οη coπigera la mention PG 96, 77 par PG 95, 77. Sur l'importance historique de ces fragments: Α. JU!icher, Berichtίgu.ng von Daten ίm heraklianίschen Jahrhundert, dans: Festgabe Adolf von Harnack, Tίibingen, 1921, p. 121-133; Id., Dίe Liste der alexandrinischen Patriarchen ίm 6. und 7. Jahrhundert, dans: Festgabe fiir Karl Miiller zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Tίibingen, 1922, p. 7-23.

VIII 78

que du De sacrίs jejunίίs, nous serions en effet heureuse de recueillir son avis toujours eclaire sur les nombreux problemes qu'il pose. 1.

L'EPISTULA AD COMETAM ΕΤ SON FLORILEGE: QUESTIONS DΆUTHENTICITE

Le De sacrίs jejunίίs n'ayant pas ete inclus dans l'edition cήtique des reuvres completes de Jean Damascene4 , l'unique edition que nous en possedons a ce jour reste celle de Le Quien. Dans sa preface, celui-ci evoque en ces terrnes la faς:on dont il a pris connaissance du texte: «Epistolae hujus magnam partem acceperam ab eruditissimo clarissimoque viro D. Joanne Ernesto Grabe, ut jacet ίη cod. Barocciano η. 196; integram vero mihi tandem procuravit doctissimus reverendusque admodum Ρ. D. Anselmus Bandurius ex Bibliotheca Medicea descriptam [ ... ]. Auctoήtates Patrum ob nimiam tabellarii festinationem, δια την επιστοληφόρου σπουδήν, Noster [Joannes Damascenus] omiserat; quae vero subnexae sunt, retatem ipsius referunt, ipsique missas potius a Cometa putaverim, tanquam certa traditionis, cui refragatus dicebatur, testimonia, receptreque alteήus apud hrereticos, prresertim Jacobitas, consuetudinis 5 » .

Quarante-trois ans plus tard, dans sa description du manuscήt de Florena, Med. Laur., Plut. 86. 6 (Xlle siecle), §VII (f. lOlv-105), Α.Μ. Bandini fait echo a cette presentation, sans prendre position sur la question de l'attribution du florilege: «'Ιωάννου πρεσβυτέρου[ .. . ] περί των άγίων νηστειων [ . .. ]. Inter eius Opera edit. Paήs. Gr. Lat. anni MDCCXII. fol. curante Michaele Lequenio, Tom. Ι. pag. 499 seqq. Subiiciuntur deinde testimonia, sive auctoήtates Patrum circa eamdem materiam, qure sunt: [ .. .]. Quae quidem omnia, ex hoc ipso descήpta Codice, habes loc. cit. pag. 503 seqq. ubi consulenda est Admonitio ab editore praemissa Epistolae Damasceni de Ieiuniis, quam modo innuimus 6 ».

Εη fait, l'hypothese de Le Quien, selon laquelle le florilege n'aurait pas ete compile par Jean Damascene mais reς:u plutδt par lui dans sa coπespondance avec Cometas, ne fut jamais discutee. Εη 1951, dans son status quaestίonίs sur les recherches damasceniennes, J. Hoeck semble l'ignorer. Le η 0 47 de sa liste est laconique: «De sacrίs ίeίunίίs,

4 S' il avait ete pris en consideration par Β. Kotter, Ιe De sααίs jejunίίs aurait dί\ etre inclus dans le t. IV des Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos (PTS, 22), Berlin - New Υ ork, 1981, qui rassemble les reuvres polemiques du Damascene. 5 PG 95, 61-62. 6 Α . Μ . Bandini, Catalogus codίcum manuscrίpto,-um Bίblίothecae Mediceae Laurentίanae, l, Florence, 1764 (reimpr. anast. Leipzig, 1961), p. 294-295.

VIII UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

79

Μ. 95, 63-78: echt 7 ». 11 en est de meme pour CPG 8050 qui, a la suite de Hoeck, n'emet aucune reserve sur l'unite et l'authenticite de cet ecrit. L'Epίstula ad Cometam et le florilege qui l'accompagne constituentils les deux parties d'un meme ecrit, attribuable a Jean Damascene? Ou faut-il plutδt suivre l'hypothese de Le Quien, et considerer que l'Epίstula est la reponse de Jean Damascene aux difficultes doctrinales soulevees par le florilege? Pour aborder ces questions, il nous a semble necessaire de considerer, au prealable, la tradition manuscrite du De sacrίs jejunίίs.

1.

Tradίtίon manusaίte

Comme il vient d'etre dit, l'editeur du De sacrίs jejunίίs connaissait deux manuscήts: Oxford, Baroccίanus 196, f. 312 (a. 1043) [= Ο] et Flω·enι-e, Med. Laur., Plut. 86. 6, f. 101v-105 (Xlle siecle) [= F]. Depuis, trois autres manuscrits ont ete signales 8 : Andros, Μονή Άγίας 88, f. 364ν-367 (a. 1248) [= Α]; Sίnαϊ, Μονή Άγίας Αlκατερίνης gr. 482, f. 352ν_354 (XJVe siecle) [= S]; Athos, Μονή Διονυσίου 118 (3652) (XVIIe siecle)9 • Pour l'instant, nous n'en avons consulte que deux (Ο et Α), sur des microfilms conserves a Paris, a la section grecque de ΙΊRΗΤ. En attendant de prendre connaissance de l'ensemble de ces temoins, nous nous limiterons donc a ces quelques constatations: a. Le titre de l'ouvrage est transmis sous trois formes: [1] Τφ ευλογημένφ καi γνησίφ δούλφ Χριστοί\ κυρίφ Κομητg., πνευ­ ματικφ άδελφφ, 'Ιωάννης ελάχιστος

(F, S; Le Quien); [2]

Του

δσίου πατρός ημών 'Ιωάννου πρεσβυτέρου του Δαμασκηνου επι­ στολή περί των άγίων νηστειών (Α);

[3)

Του αυτου 'Ιωάννου του

Δαμασκηνου περί των άγίων νηστειών, τφ ευλογημένφ καi γνη­ σίφ δούλφ Χριστου κυρίφ Κομητg. (Ο). 7 J.M. Hoeck, Stand und Aufgaben der Danιaskenos-Forschung, dans: OCP 17 (1951), p. 27, Π 0 47. 8 Cf. R. Sinkewicz, Μαηuι,πίpt Li;;tingsfor the Authors ofthe Patristic and Byzantίne Periods (Gι·eek lndex Project Seι-ίe.~, 4), Toronto, 1992, fiche η 0 008 / G 04, ainsi que la base de donnees " Pinakes " de lΊRHT. - Hoeck (cf. η. 7), p. 27, evoquait deja l'existence de cinq manuscrits sans toutefois preciser lesquels. 9 Le listing de Sinkewicz, repris par le logiciel "Pinakes", signale la presence du De sασίs jejuniis dans Διονυσίου 118, sans autres precisions. La consultation directe du manuscrit revele toutefois qu'il s'agit la d' une eπeur, due a une lecture trop rapide des informations foumies par Sp. Lampros, Catalogue ofthe Greek Manusσίpts on Mount At/1os, Ι, Cambridge, 1895, p. 335 ( «Λόγοι είς την άγίαν καi μεγάλην τεσσαρακοστήν» ). Par consequent, Διονυσίου 118 doίt etre supprime de la liste des manuscrits du De sααίs jejuniis.

VIII 80 b. Son florilege est present dans deux manuscήts des XII0 et XIll0 siecle: F et Α. La comparaison de Α avec Ie texte de Le Quien (= F) montre que ces deux manuscήts appartiennent a des familles distinctes 10 • c. 11 est impossible de dire si Ο contenait le floήlege. Εη effet, le texte de I'Epίstula s'y inteπompt brusquement au milieu d'une phrase, a la demiere ligne du f. 312v (Έπεi τοίνυν κανών των άγίων απο­ στόλων διατετύπωται: PG 95, 69 Β). Le f. 313, le demier du manuscrit, est tres endommage et d'une lecture difficile. Toutefois, a partir du microfilm, nous avons pu verifier qu'il ne contenait pas d'autres passages du De sacrίs jejunίίs. Οη y trouve en effet un extrait (§39, 22-40, 7) du Dίalogus Tίmotheί et Aquίlae 11 , un «contra Iudaeos» anonyme, ποπ signale dans le catalogue de Η.Ο. Coxe 12 • L'eventuelle presence du florilege dans cette partie perdue d'O, qui se trouvait entre I'Epίstula et le Dίalogus, ne peut pas etre exclue. Une conclusion provisoire qui peut etre tiree de ces constatations est que la presence du florilege a Ia suite de I'Epίstula ad Cometam n'est pas accidentelle ou fortuite. Attestee dans deux manuscrits de familles clairement distinctes, elle remonte probablement a une epoque qu'il faut situer bien avant la production de F.

2 . L 'Epistula ad Cometam:

authentίcίte,

date, objet

Nous l'avons vu plus haut, J.M. Hoeck ne discute nullement I'authenticite du De sacrίs jejunίίs, qu'il qualifie simplement de «echt» 13 • Pour ce qui est de I'Epίstula elle-meme (PG 95, 61-72), il nous semble raisonnable de le suivre. Εη effet, plusieurs indices relevant aussi bien du style que du temoignage personnel de l'auteur, concourent a prouver l'authenticite de cette premiere partie du De sacrίs jejunίίs. a. L'Epίstula abonde en reminiscences stylistiques et doctrinales qui renvoient a d'autres ecήts damasceniens sans en constituer toutefois des reprises litterales, lesquelles pouπaient etre le fait d'un imitateur. Le 10 Les variantes dans les titres des χρήσεις sont nombreuses. Plus significative encore nous semble etre la divergence de F et Α dans la citation de Basile de Cesaree: cf.

11.Α.3.

Ed. R.G. Robertson, The Dίalogue of Tίmothy and Aquίlas. Α Critical Text, Introto the Manuscript Evίdenι-e and an Inquίry ίnto the Sources and Lίteraιy Relatίonshίps, Diss., Harvard University, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1986, p. LXXXILXXXIV. Signalons ici que Robertson, comme les autres specialistes du Dίalogue, ne connait pas le fragment de Ο. 12 Η.Ο. Coxe, Bodleίan Lίbrary. Quarto Catalogues, Ι, Greek manuscrίpts, Oxford, 1853 (reimpr. anast., 1969), col. 341. 13 Voir ci-dessus, η . 7. 11

ductίon

VIII UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

81

Quien relevait deja l'adage «ουδέ τό καλόν καλόν, ει μή καλώς γένηται» (PG 95, 68 Β), cher au Damascene 14 . Nous y en avons retrouve plusieurs autres 15 • Α titre d'exemple, signalons ici l'image platonicienne (cf. Phedre, 247b) du λόγος - ήνίοχος, que !Όη retrouve dans la Laudatίo s. Johannίs Chrysostomί, 6, 13 (PTS 29, p. 362), la definition du jugement (κρίσις) selon l'Exposίtίo fίdeί, 36, 77 (PTS 12, p. 90), ou la comparaison de I Όrateur et du marcheur, comme dans la Dίalectίca, 2 (PTS 7, p. 55). Remarquons enfin que le ton de l'Epίstula, qui mele une grande humilite a une ferme autorite, est bien celui de Jean Damascene. b. Α l'instar de l'Epίstula de hymno trίsagίo (CPG 8049), grace a laquelle nous savons que Jean Damascene a ete le fidele disciple et le confident du patriarche Jean V de Jerusalem (t 735; PmbZ 2952) 16 , 1Έpίstula ad C ometam nous foumit plusieurs informations sur son auteur. La plus importante a ete relevee par Le Quien: «Suadent isthaec alia quibus Hierosolymitanae Ecclesire presbyter agnoscitur 17 ». L'auteur revele en effet qu'il fait ou qu'il a fait partie du clerge de l'Anastasis a Jerusalem: «οδτος δ κοινός δρος και νόμος της 'Εκκλησίας, δν και έν τfl άγί(! Χριστου του Θεου ήμων Άναστάσει έπιτελούμενον

(PG 95, 72 Α). Ce temoignage, neglige tant que !Όη admettait sans reserves l'appartenance de Jean Damascene au clerge du monastere de Saint-Sabas, trouve sa confirmation dans d'autres sources. Parmi celles-ci, rappelons [1] l'Oratίo ίnfίcum arefaaam (CPG 8058), dont le titre, tel qu 'il est donne dans le Parίsίnus gr. 1476 (a. 890), fournit la meme information: «Του δσίου πατρός ήμων 'Ιωάννου, μονα­ οίδαμεν»

χου και πρεσβυτέρου της άγίας Χριστου του Θεου ήμων άνα­

[ ... ]» (29, p. 102); [2] Ι'Ηοmίlία de encaenίίs ecclesίae et ίn νίνίfίcαm crucem (CPG 8095), dont il a ete recemment montre qu'elle etait bien l'reuvre du Damascene 18 • στάσεως

resuπectίonίs domίnί

14 PG 95, 61-62. Οη retrouve cet adage dans l'Expositίo fιdeί, 25b (PTS 12, p. 75, 1. 18) et Ie Contι-ajacobitas, 1 (PTS 22, p. 109), ou il introduit le discours; cf. aussi les Sacra parallela, 5 (PG 96, 169 Β). 15 Ces reminiscences sont passees en revue dans notre article La Quarantaίne hierosolymitaίne dans le De sacris jejuniis de Jean Damascene, dans: Analecta Sergiana 2, Paris, 2004 (iι paraitre). 16 Cf. Epistula de hymno trίsagίo, 26 (PTS 22, p. 329): «Τίς γάρ οiδε του

μακαριωτάτου 'Ιωάννου του πατριάρχου νόημα έμου πλέον; Ούδείς. 'Ός , ϊνα τάληθές εϊπω, ούκ άνέπνευσε πνοήν δογματικήν πώποτε, ην έμοί ώς μαθητft ούκ άνέθετο»; l'amitie de Jean Damascene avec son "homonyme", Jean V, est aussi evo-

quee dans la

Laudatίo s. Joannίs ήμiiς τούς δμωνύμους».

Chrysostomi, 19 (PTS 29, p. 370):

«'Αλλ' έποπτεύοις

17 PG 95, 61-62. " Cette homelie n'est connue qu 'iι travers sa version georgienne: cf. Μ. van

VIII 82

Une datation de 1Έpίstula ad Cometam peut egalement etre envisagee griice au temoignage personnel de l'auteur, qui evoque les circonstances de sa redaction. Οη apprend ainsi que la question de la duree du Grand Careme a plonge l'Eglise - de Jerusalem? - dans une revolte: «Έωρακώς τοιγαρουν την περί των άγίων νηστειών στάσιν μέχρις άέρος κορυφωθεισαν»

(PG 95, 68 Α); «δ δέ Θεός της εtρήνης [... ]

περιελει τα σκάνδαλα, καi άξιώσει νηστεύειν νηστείαν δεκτην»

(72 BC). Il ne s'agit pas d'attaques venues de l 'exterieur, de la part d'heretiques, mais bien de dissensions intemes: «δεινως έποτνιώμην καi ηνιώμην, δτι καi δια του άγαθου μοι ή άμαρτία τον θάνατον

(68 Α). Deux camps se sont ainsi formes. D'un cδte, il y a les defenseurs du Careme de sept semaines, que l 'οη prie de bien vouloir obeir a la hierarchie locale: «τοις μεν έπτά τας των άγίων

κατεργάζεται»

νηστειών έβδομάδας λέγουσι συνεβούλευον μη ζυγομαχειν, καi στασιάζειν τό καλόν σωμα Χριστου, τουτέστιν την 'Εκκλησίαν· πειθαρχειν δέ μαλλον τοις την προεδρίαν καi οικονομίαν του λόγου πεπιστευμένοις»

de huit semaines, dont

οη

(68 Α); de l'autre, les defenseurs du Careme deplore le zele excessif: «Τοις δέ τάς όκτώ

έβδομάδας νομοθετουσιν ύπετιθέμην, ώς ουδέ τό καλόν καλόν, ει μη καλως γένηται» (68 Β). Pour Jean Damascene, il ne s'agit pas d'accorder la victoire a l'un ou l'autre camp. La victoire ne doit revenir qu'a la paix de l'Eglise: «Ό δέ Θεός της ειρήνης[ ... ] βραβεύσει τη άγίι;ι αυτου Έκκλησίι;ι» (72 BC). Εη effet, rien n'est supeήeur a celle-ci: «της έκκλησιαστικης ειρήνης ουδέν ύψηλότερον» (65 C). Quant a lui, il devrait garder le silence: « Έμοi μεν οδν πας καιρός του

σιωπαv- τό γαρ λαλειν ύπό 19 της έμαυτου άπροσεξίας άψ(lρημαι»

(65 Β). Cometas ayant cependant une raison pressante de connaitre son opinion sur cette affaire, il se soumet a sa requete par amitie: «Πολλην γαρ την των τιμίων ύμων 20 γραμμάτων επειξιν ιδών, εκρινα μη αλλως καi μάτην ήμας 21 προς τό λέγειν προτρέπεσθαι, ει μή τις άνάγκη προς τουτο κατήπειγε. Γράφω τοίνυν τη άρετη καi φιλίι;ι σου βιασθείς» (65 BC). Cette raison est la suivante: Jean Damascene a ete pris a temoin par l'un des deux camps. Οη dit- est-ce la une calomnie? - qu'il aurait lui-meme ete favorable au Careme de huit semaines:

Esbroeck, Le discouι·s de Jean Damascene pour la Dedicace de !Άnastasίs, dans: OCP 63 (1997), p. 53-98. Sur la question de l 'appartenance de Jean Damascene au clerge de l'Anastasis, voir en demier lieu notre notice (s. ν . ), in R. Goulet (dir.), Dίctίonnaίι·e des phίlosophes antίques, ΙΙΙ, Paήs, 2000, p. 992 et 1002. 19 Nous retenons la variante ύπό donnee par Ο, f. 312 et Α, f . 365. 20 Nous coπigeons ήμών par ύμών en suivant Α, f. 365. 21 Nous corrigeons ύμίiς par ήμίiς en suivant Α, f. 365.

VIII 83

UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

«τίνες

διεφήμισαν

ήμας

εiρηκέναι

όκτώ

τας

των

νηστειών

(65 C). Il est donc oblige de rendre publique son opinion personnelle. Celle-ci est conforrne a l'enseignement des Peres, qu'il examine, et dont il dit que les divergences ne sont qu'apparentes: «Ει δέ τό ήμιν δοκούν δημοσιεύειν χρεών, τουτό φαμεν, δτι [ ... ] έβδομάδας ύπάρχειν»

ανάγκη αμφότερα συμβιβάζειν αλλήλοις, ϊνα μη ασύμφωνα τα των θείων ανδρών φωραθείη δόγματα»

Peres qui doit

pήmer

sur la lettre:

(68 BC).

Εη

effet c'est l'espήt des

«Τούτο γάρ εστι τό την στάσιν

(68 C). Suffisamment precises pour evoquer les circonstances de la redaction de IΈpίstula ad Cometam, ces inforrnations ne nous perrnettent pourtant pas encore de la dater. C'est le rapprochement avec IΈpίstula de hymno tι·ίsαgίο qui devrait nous faire avancer sur ce point. LΈpίstula de hymno trίsagίo a, elle aussi, ete redigee dans un climat de troubles pour l'Eglise de Jerusalem. Comme dans IΈpίstula ad Cometam, Jean Damascene y remarque que ces troubles sont intemes: κινούν, τό μη διακρίνειν των λεγομένων την δύναμιν»

«Πως δ της εκκλησίας εχθρός ταύτην αεί κυκαν κατεπείγεται, καi

(1, 16-18; PTS 22, p. 305). Ici aussi, deux camps se sont forrnes. L'un accuse τό δη χαλεπόν, είγε δια των της ευσεβείας τροφίμων»

l'autre de rapporter au seul Fils l'hymne du Trisagion et de repandre ainsi dangereusement l'heresie de Pieπe Ie Foulon 22 . Jean Damascene est inforrne par lettres du scandale: Anastase (PmbZ 288), I'higoumene de Saint-Euthyme, aurait produit un floήlege pour legitimer l'heresie: «Γράμμασι γαρ ήμιν κατεμήνυσεν [ ... ] δ αββας Σέργιος, δ αστός καi συνήθης καi φίλος [ ... ] ώς [ ... ] δ κύρις αββας 'Αναστάσιος, δ κλεινός της Ευθυμίου του μάκαρος καθηγεμών, χρήσεις τινας των άγίων πατέρων προκεκόμικε δηθεν εις τον υίόν μόνον αναφε­

ρούσας τον τρισάγιον ϋμνον. Οδ δοθέντος ουδέν κωλύσει την εκ του κναφέως κακώς επεισφρήσασαν λύμην πάντας αρδην κατα­ λυμήνασθαι»

(1, 18-25; ίbίd.). S'agirait-il de calomnies? Jean Damas-

cene a du mal

a croire

que son

coπespondant

s'y serait livre:

«τό

22 Le patriarche d'Antioche Pieπe le Foulon (470; 485-489) avait introduit dans le Trisagion la foπnule «δ σταυρωθείς δι'ήμας» , rapportant donc cette hymne, non pas a la Sainte Trinite, mais au seul Verbe incame. Au sujet de cette addition, la position de Jean Damascene, Exposίtio fίdeί, 54 (PTS 12, p. 129), est tres critique: «'Εντευθεν καi

την έν τφ τρισαγίφ προσθήκην ύπό του ματαιόφρονος Πέτρου του κναφέως γεγενημένην βλάσφημον δριζόμεθα ώς τέταρτον παρεισάγουσαν πρόσωπον καi ό.ναμέρος τιθείσαν τον του θεου υίόν την του πατρός ένυπόστατον δύναμιν καi ό.ναμέρος τον έσταυρωμένον ώς αλλον δντα παρά τον tσχυρόν η παθητήν την άγίαν τριάδα δοξάζουσαν καi συσταυρουσαν τφ υίφ τον πατέρα καi τό πνευμα τό αγιον».

VIII 84 αψ ευδές του κατηγόρου σαφως γινώσκομεν. Θεόν γαρ ποθων καi

αυτφ ζων ουκ αν, οiμαι, ώς ψεύσαιτο, καi συκοφάντης εσται αθφου ανδρός» (1, 29-31; ίbίd.). Mais l'affaire est pressante, et notre auteur est somme de donner son opinion: «κατήπειξε πάσης αναβολης ατερ καi ύπερθέσεως την ήμετέραν περί τούτου έπισημήνασθαι γνώ­ μην » (1, 34-35; ίbίd. ). C'est qu'il est lui-meme soupς;onne d'avoir pris position dans cette affaire et d'avoir ete favorable a l'addition de Pieπe \e Foulon: «γέγραφ ε δέ καi τουτο αυτόν βεβαιώσασθαι, δτιπερ καi

ήμεις τη γνώμη ταύτn καθυπεκύψαμεν, σύναινοι καi σύμψηφοι

αυτφ περί τούτου γενόμενοι» (1, 36-37; ίbίd.). Et il n'est pas le seul a avoir ete victime de cette calomnie. Le defunt patriarche de Jerusalem, Jean V, est aussi accuse d'avoir verse dans l'heresie : «καi τον τρισμα­ κάριστον δέ πατριάρχην [ ... ] Ίωάννην [ ... ] της αυτης αυτφ γεγε­ νησθαι έννοίας» (1, 41-44; PTS 22, p. 306). Toutefois, les χρήσεις compilees par Anastase et soumises a son jugement ne lui ont pas paru douteuses. Il y a reconnu l 'enseignement des Peres et a exprime son adhesion: « προκεκόμικε γαρ ήμίν τας χρήσεις , ου ψεύσομαι , καi των

άγίων καi έκκρίτων πατέρων εiναι ταύτας απεφηνάμεθα· ου μην εiς τον υίόν μόνον δηλουν αναφέ ρεσθαι τον τρισάγιον ϋμνον τας

(1, 38-41; ίbίd.). La similitude des deux affaires est saisissante. Dans les deux cas, οη nous presente une Eglise troublee par de graves dissensions internes, incapable de recourir a une autoήte supeήeure pour faire cesser les conflits. Dans les deux cas, οη est aussi frappe du rδ\e central que prend la figure de Jean Damascene. Sa reputation, bonne ou mauvaise, ne fait pas de doute; les uns le calomnient, les autres le consultent, certains se reclament de lui. Mais lui-meme hesite a choisir son camp. Il souhaite se tenir a 1'ecart, prδne les vertus du silence et ne prend la parole que pour faire son apologie. Ce qu'il appelle de ses vreux, c'est la paix de l 'Eglise. Or, nous savons que l Έpίstula de hymno trίsagίo a ete redigee apres 735, date de la mort de Jean V. Cette periode, qui est aussi celle de la vieillesse de Jean Damascene, nous est mal connue. L'iconoclasme, auquel le defunt patriarche et son fidele disciple se sont violemment opposes, bat son plein. Quels sont les successeurs de Jean V et quelle position adoptent-ils face a ce puissant courant? Quelle place accordent-ils au Damascene qui, malgre son autoήte theologique, est tres genant du point de vue politique 23 ? Jusqu'en 760/762, date a laquelle Theodore 1 χρήσεις συνnνέσαμεν»

23 Εη raison de ses prises de position contre l ' iconoclasme mais aussi contre la personne du basίleus. Voir ainsi son Oratίo contra ίmagίnum calumnίatores ΙΙ, 12 (PTS 17, p. 102-104).

VIII UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

85

(avant 762-apres 767; PmbZ 7575) accede au trδne de Jerusalem, nous manquons d'informations sur ce siege. Aurait-il connu une nouvelle vacance, comme en 638-705? Aurait-il cede a la pression iconoclaste? Quoi qu'il en soit, la peήode semble propice aux conflits. C'est dans celle-ci - de 735 a 745 environ - qu'il nous semble donc opportun de situer la composition de l'Epίstula ad Cometam. 3. Rapports entre

/Έpistula

ad Cometam et le florίlege

Si l'authenticite de l'Epίstula ne fait aucun doute, celle du floήlege doit etre consideree avec plus de prudence. La premiere raison en est que Jean Damascene, en personne, affirme ne pas avoir joint de χρήσεις a sa lettre, en raison de la hate du couπier: «τας δέ περί τούτων χρήσεις προς τό παρόν δια την του έπιστοληφόρου σπουδήν,

(PG 95, 72 Β). La precision laisserait-elle supposer que ces χρήσεις auraient ete envoyees plus tard? L'examen du contenu doctrinal du florilege nous oblige a ecarter cette hypothese. 11 revele en effet un decalage important entre les positions du floήlege et celles de 1Έpίstula. a. Le floήlege se prononce nettement en faveur du Careme de sept semaines. Les χρήσεις qu'il rassemble - et qui ne sont pas toujours exactes, comme nous le veπons plus bas - concourent a opposer les Peres les plus anciens, qui se seraient explicitement prononces pour un total de sept semaines de jeune, aux heretiques, en 1'occuπence des monophysites (Severe d'Antioche et Benjamin d'Alexandrie), qui auraient opte pour un total de huit semaines: « Άπόδειξ ις, δτι όκτώ λέγουσι ν έβδομάδας των άγίων οί αίρετικοi πάντες νηστειών» (76 Β). Or, il nous semble qu'a ce sujet, le point de vue de Jean Damascene n'est pas exactement le rnerne. Nous avons vu plus haut qu'il refuse de considerer tel ou tel camp comme heretique. Aux partisans des sept semaines, il recommande l'obeissance 24, et il donne meme l'impression d'avoir une preference pour les partisans des huit semaines: «τό δέ ευλήπτους οϋσας παρ'ήμιν, παρήκαμεν» «προς τό παρόν»

περισσεύειν έν τφ καλφ, καi έπιδαψιλεύσασθαι την άρετήν, ουκ άδόκιμον, ουδέ άπόβλητον, άλλα Θεφ καi άνθρώποις ευάρεστον, τοις γε νουν εχουσιν» (72 Α). Visiblement, il ne s'agit pas la de monophysites, comme dans la seconde partie du florilege. Si tel etait le cas, Jean Darnascene, auteur du Contra Jacobίtas (CPG 8047), n'aurait pas manque de le faire remarquer. 24

Epistula, 68 Α: «τοίς μεν έπτά τάς των άγίων νηστειών έβδομάδας λέγουσι

συνεβούλευον μή ζυγομαχείν

[... ],

πειθαρχείν δέ μiiλλον τοίς την προεδρίαν καi

οίκονομίαν του λόγου πεπιστευμένοις».

VIII 86 b. Force de livrer son opinion personnelle, Jean Damascene parle d'une semaine de pre-jeίine (προνήστιμος) dont il n'est nullement question dans le florilege. Pour lui, la semaine des laitages (της τυρι­ νης), «semi-jeίinee», s'ajoute aux six semaines de la τεσσαρακοστή, ainsi qu'a la Semaine Sainte: «Οϋτως τοίνυν καi την συνήθειαν της 'Εκκλησίας εξ αγράφου παραδόσεως επιστάμεθα, μίαν προνήστι­

μον έβδομάδα, εν η μόνων των κρεων αποχή καi ή μέχρις έσπέρας νηστεία επετελείτο, μηδαμως τρίτης, η εκτης, η εννάτης, η της

των άγίων προηγιασμένων τελετης γενομένης. "Εξ δέ, εν αίς αί τριτοεκτοεννάται καi προηγιασμέναι επιτελουνται, ώων τε, καi

τυρου, καi των τοιούτων μετά των κρεων αποχαί.

Tfj

δε του πάθους

έβδομάδι ξηροφαγία νενομοθέτητο, ου μέντοι προηγιασμένων

τελετή· είτα τη άγί(Χ πέμπτη ή των μυστηρίων τελετή, εν η καi απήρξατο. Είτα τfj Παρασκευfj τfj άγί(Χ καi φρικτfj παντελής ασιτία μέχρι της του Σαββάτου έσπέρας καi τfj μεν έσπέρ(Χ του Σαββάτου, των μεν λοιπων εσθιομένων, των κρεων ου μετέχουσι· τη δέ άγί(Χ της αναστάσεως Κυριακfj, τη μψ των Σαββάτων, καi

των κρεων μετέχουσιν οί βουλόμενοι. Ταύτην την ακολουθίαν

εφθάσαμεv- οδτος δ κοινός δρος καi νόμος της 'Εκκλησίας, δν καi εν τfj άγί(Χ Χριστου του Θεου ήμων Άναστάσει επιτελούμενον

(69 D - 72 Α). Ce qu'il faut tout d'abord remarquer, c'est que Jean Damascene prend bien soin de distinguer la periode de six semaines de jeίine, qui constitue la τεσσαρακοστή, du jeίine de la Semaine Sainte. Or, cette distinction n'est pas toujours clairement faite dans le florilege. Ainsi, dans les χρήσεις η 0 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, l'accent est mis sur le nombre sept. Plus particulierement, les η0 7 et 8 insistent sur la valeur mystique de ce nombre, pour repondre en quelque sorte aux χρήσεις de Severe d'Antioche (η 0 10, 11), qui portent sur l'excellence du nombre huit. Il nous semble que cette faςon d'aborder le probleme est tres eloignee de la methode theologique de Jean Damascene25 • Dans I'Epίstula ad Cometam, ce point de vue symbolique est d'ailleurs laisse de cδte. Suivi d'une semaine de ξηροφαγία, le jeίine de la τεσσαρακοστή est precede, pour notre auteur, d'une semaine προνήστιμος. Est-ce a propos du statut de cette demiere que la querelle decήte dans 1'Epίstula a eclate? L'histoire de l'introduction de la semaine des laitages dans le calendrier liturgique byzantin est mal connue 26 . Le calendήer liturgique οίδαμεν»

25

Nous ne connaissons qu'un cas

οιι

cette methode est evoquee:

(PTS 12, p. 44). 26

Α.

Baumstark,

Lίturgie

comparee.

Prίncίpes

Exposίtίo fίdei

15

et methodes, Chevetogne, 1953 3 ,

VIII UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

87

des syriens jacobites semble l'ignorer27 • Εη revanche, dans la tradition copte, cette semaine, qui passe pour avoir ete etablie par Heraclius, est jeίinee 28 . Α propos de cette semaine προνήστιμος, la position de Jean Damascene est tres claire: transmis par une «αγραφος παράδοσις», ce semijeίine est legal. La preuve en est qu'il a toujours ete pratique, ποπ seulement au sein du clerge de l 'Anastasis, mais aussi par l 'Eglise dans son ensemble: «οδτος δ κοινός δρος καi νόμος της 'Εκκλησίας». Ainsi, le jeίine du cycle pascal ne se limite pas a sept semaines. 11 couvre huit semaines, parmi lesquelles la premiere η' est pas une semaine de jeίine au sens strict, comme c 'est le cas dans l 'Eglise copte. Partant de la, οη comprend mieux le sens du florilege, et la raison pour laquelle il a ete soumis au jugement de Jean Damascene. Craignant que la τυρινή ne se transforme en une semaine supplementaire de la τεσσαρακοστή, une partie de l'Eglise de Jerusalem se serait opposee a la pratique de ce semi-jeίine, et aurait ainsi prδne le jeίine de sept semaines au sens strict 29 • Cette faction n'aurait pas manque de puiser dans la litterature monophysite pour signifier a ses adversaires, partisans du maintien de la τυρινή, qu'ils s'engageaient sur la voie de l'heresie. C'est a cette demonstration qu'aurait servi la seconde partie du florilege. Cependant, les defenseurs du jeίine de sept semaines devaient aussi prouver, contre les partisans de la τυρινή, et donc des huit semaines au sens large, que leur conviction constituait 1'authentique tradition de l'Eglise, des ses origines. Tel est le but qui aurait conditionne la composition de la premiere partie du florilege. Α ce stade, les deux partis se trouvaient pourtant confrontes a une serieuse difficulte, car l 'opinion des Peres sur la τεσσαρακοστή n'a jamais ete monolithique. Pour renforcer son point de vue, le compilateur du florilege recourut donc a quelques subterfuges. Nous veπons, dans notre seconde partie,

p. 219; S. Salaville, La formation du ωlendrίa lίtuι·gίque byzantίn d'apri!s les recherde Μgι· Ehrhard, dans: Ephemerίdes Lίturgίcae 50 (1936), p. 314-315; Perί, La durata (cf. n. 2), p. 61-62. 27 V. Grumel, La Chronologίe, Paris, 1958, p. 338. L'etude d'A. Baumstark, Festbrevieι- und Kiι·ι·henjahΓ der syrisι·hen Jakobίten, Paderborn, 19!0, p. 204-215 , montre cependant la complexite de cette question. 28 L. Villecourt, Les obseι-vances liturgiques et la dίsciplίne du jeune dan.s l'Eglίse copte. IV. Jeune.i et semaίne saίnte, dans: Le Museon 38 (1925), p. 262. - Οη remarquera par ailleurs que l'attestation la plus ancienne de la pratique copte se trouve dans les fragments de Benjamin d'Alexandrie conserves par notre florilege (η 0 12, 13). Α ce propos, voir notamment Atanasίo di Alessandrίa. Lettere Fe.stalί. Introduzione, traduzione et note di Α. Camplani, Rome, 2003, p. 32-34. 29 Selon Peri, La durata (cf. η. 2), p. 51 et 54, cette opposition aurait emane d'autres eglises ou de «zones peripheriques». ι·hes aitίques

VIII 88 que quelques-unes de ses citations sont "retouchees". Face a celles-ci, Jean Damascene garde generalement ses distances. Eviter d'attiser la polemique semble etre son premier souci. Dans ce but, il ne s'agit pas de viser le compilateur et ses methodes deconcertantes, mais plutδt de saisir la δύναμις qui sous-tend les χρήσεις oήginales qu'il a recueillies pour trouver une issue au conflit: «Τουτο γάρ εστι τό την στάσιν κινουν, τό μη διακρίνειν των λεγομένων την δύναμιν» (PG 95, 68 C) 30 • 11 apparait ainsi que l'Epίstula ad Cometam et son florilege ne sont pas attribuables au meme auteur. L'Epίstula est un ecrit damascenien des annees 735-745, qui repond au florilege. Celui-ci a ete compile dans cette meme periode, au sein de l'Eglise de Jerusalem, pour legitimer l'opinion d'une faction qui s'y etait formee a propos de la question du maintien ou ηοη de la semaίne des laitages au sein du cycle pascal. Cette explication donne raison a l 'hypothese de Le Quien. Nous essayerons maintenant de la consolider en examinant les cas οiΊ notre auteur emet une opinion sur telle ou telle χρήσις. a. Le premier cas est celui d'un passage de Basile de Cesaree, cite dans le florilege (η 0 3) et commente dans I'Epίstula ad Cometam (PG 95, 68 BC). Basile, qui prδne un jeune de sept semaines, aurait ete oppose a Gregoire de Nazianze - ηοη cite dans le florilege - , qui parle quant a lui de τεσσαράκοντα ήμέραι. Pour Jean Damascene, opposer les enseignements des Peres est inutile. Au contraire, il faut s'efforcer de les concilier, afin que Ies doctrines de ces hommes inspires ne semblent pas discordantes: Florilege (73 Α): Του άγίου Βασιλείου, εκ του Κατά μεθυόvτωv λόγου. [ ... ] καi εφεξής των έπτά τούτων της νηστείας έβδομάδων [ ... ] ουκ επαυσάμεθα. Epίstula (68 BC): του μύστου της άληθείας άγίου Πατρός ήμων Βασιλείου έπτά τάς πάσας των άγίων νηστειών έβδομάδας φή­ σαντος εν τφ Κατά μεθυόvτωv λόγφ, καi του της θεολογίας επω­ νύμου Γρηγορίου τfl τεσσαράκοντα ήμερων νηστείι_χ του Κυρίου,

τύπον καi μίμημα τάς νηστείας ταύτας δωρησαμένου εν τφ Περί

° Cette

situation rappelle, encore une fois, celle decrite par IΈpίstula de hymno propos des χρήσεις compilees par Anastase, l'higoumene de Saint-Euthyme soupς:onne d'avoir verse dans l'heresie de Pieπe le Foulon, le jugement de Jean Damascene est positif. Les citations des Peres sont authentiques; leur enseignement est confoπne iι la tradition de I'έglise: «προκεκόμικε γαρ ήμi:ν τiις χρήσεις, ού ψεύσομαι, 3

trίsagίo. Α

καi των άγίων καi έκκρίτων πατέρων είναι ταύτας άπεφηνάμεθα· ού μην είς τόν υίόν μόνον δηλοϋν άναφέρεσθαι τόν τρισάγιον ϋμνον τiις χρήσεις συνnνέσαμεν» (Trίsag. ,

\, 38-41; PTS 22, p. 306).

VIII 89

UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

βαπτίσματος λόγφ, άνάγκη άμφότερα συμβιβάζειν άλλήλοις, ϊνα

μή άσύμφωνα τα των θείων άνδρων φωραθείη δόγματα.

b. Le second cas concerne une citation de Severe d'Antioche, donnee dans la seconde partie du florilege (η 0 10). 11 s'agit de la these selon laquelle les quarante jours du Careme sont obtenus en multipliant par huit les cinq jours jeίines de chaque semaine, les samedis et les dimanches η ' etant pas jeίines. Ces huit semaines de cinq jours, lesquels coπespon­ draient symboliquement aux cinq sens, constitueraient donc la τεσσα­ ρακοστή. Accuse-t-on Jean Damascene, qui s'oppose par ailleurs categoήquement au jeίine du samedi et du dimanche 3 1, d'avoir aussi effectue ce calcul? La question qu'il pose a la premiere personne (περανουμεν ... νηστεύσαιμεν; 68D - 69Α) le laisse supposer. Εη tout cas, sa reponse est claire: la τεσσαρακοστή ne doit jamais etre confondue avec la ξηροφαγία de la Semaine Sainte. S'il avait suivi le calcul de Severe d'Antioche, ί\ aurait jeίine pendant neuf semaines, ce qui lui est tout a fait etranger: Florilege (76 C): Οί γαρ τάς πέντε αισθήσεις, δι' (i)ν ή άμαρτία λαμβάνει παρείσδυσιν· άκοήν, φημi, καi δρασιν, καi άφήν, καi γευσιν, καi δσφρησιν· όκτάκις καθαίροντες, τεσσαράκοντα ήμέ­ ρας νηστεύουσιν, ϊνα της μακαρίας εκείνης ήμέρας τύχωσι της όγδόης καi πρώτης. Ό γαρ πέντε άριθμος όκτάκις ενελιττόμενος,

τον των τεσσαράκοντα ήμερων άριθμον εκτελει.

Epίstula (68 C - 69 Α): Πως οδν οί πέντε της έ βδομάδος νηστ ε ύ­ οντες, τον άριθμον περανουμεν των τεσσαράκοντα, ε ι μή των όκτώ

έβδομάδων τάς

πεντάδας

νηστεύσαιμεν;

[ ... ]

Ει

τοίνυν

δι'όκτώ έβδομάδων ή Τεσσαρακοστή τελειουται, μετά δέ ταύτας της του πάθους άρχόμεθα, εννέα τάς πάσας έβδομάδας νηστεύειν χρεών.

c. Un troisieme cas est celui de la citation des Constίtutίons apostolί­ ques (η 0 2). Le commentaire que Jean Damascene en donne est a peu pres la seule partie de l'Epίstula qui ait ete prise en compte par la recherche depuis 1712 32 . Εη effet, ί\ s'agit la de la seule occuπence οιι notre auteur cite explicitement les Διατάξεις. Dans ses autres ceuvres, ί\ evite soigneusement de s'y referer, sans doute par respect des decisions du Concile ίη Trullo qui en a prohibe la lecture 33 • S'il deroge ici a cette reCf. PG 95, 69 BC. Cf. F.X. Funk, Didascalia et Constίtutiones Apostolorum, scripturae propinquae, Paderbom, 1905 , p. 19. 33 Canon 2, ed. G. Nedungatt - Μ. Featherstone, The Councίl (Kanonika , 6), Rome, 1995, p. 65. 31

32

ΙΙ, Testίmonίa ίn

Trullo

et

revίsίted

VIII 90 gle, c 'est probablement parce que la citation donnee par le florilege l'oblige a s'y referer. Tel serait le sens de son «ανεγνωκότες» et de son «εϋρομεν».

Florilege (73 Α): Διάταξις των άγίων 'Αποστόλων. Μεθ'ης ήμιν [ ... ] Έπιτελείσθω

φυλακτέα ή νηστεία της άγίας Τεσσαρακοστης

δέ ή νηστεία αϋτη προ της νηστείας του Πάσχα, αρχομένη μεν από δευτέρας, πληρουμένη δέ εις Παρασκευήν. Μεθ'ίiς απονη­

στεύσαντες αρξασθε της άγίας του Πάσχα έβδομάδος

(69

Epίstula

[ ... ].

Α): Προς ταυτα τοίνυν φαμέν, ώς ανεγνωκότες τάς

των άγίων αποστόλων διαταγάς,

έντεταγμένον εϋρομεν·

Χρη

νηστεύειν την άγίαν Τεσσαρακοστήν, αρχομένους από δευτέρας,

καi λήγοντας εις Παρασκευήν, μεθ'ην της έβδομάδος του πάθους αρχόμεθα.

11.

LE FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME: SON CONTENU

Le florilege sur le Grand Careme est un ensemble coherent constitue de deux parties. 11 nous a semble utile d'examiner ici chacune de ses χρήσεις du point de vue de leurs sources et de leur authenticite. Les χρήσεις les plus remarquables ou les plus problematiques seront analysees dans notre troisieme partie. Α.

Defense

apostolίque

et patrίstίque du jeune de sept semaίnes

1. Pseudo-Ignace d'Antioche (CPG 1026) PG 95, 72 D: Του άγίου ίερομάρτυρος Ίγνατίου, έκ της προς Φιλιππησίους Έπιστολης. Εί τις άγνεύει [ ... ] οδτος Χριστοκτόνος έστί.

= Ps.-Ignace, Epίstula 5,

Tίibingen,

13, 2-3, ed. F.X. 1901, p. 120; PG 5, 937 Α.

FυΝκ,

Patres

apostolίcί,

11,

2. Constitutions apostoliques 34 PG 95, 73 Α: Διάταξις των άγίων 'Αποστόλων . Μεθ' ης ήμιν φυλακτέα ή νηστεία

[ ... ]

δια την των 'Ιουδαίων δυσσέβειαν.

34 Selon Nicephore de Constantinople, le florilege iconoclaste du Concile de SainteSophie (815), commen,;:ait par une citation des Constίtutions apostolίques, texte prohibe depuis le Concile in Tι-ullo (νοίr η. 33): Nicephore de Constantinople, Refutatίo et eversίo definitionis synodalis annί 815, 81, 6-10, ed. Μ. Featherstone (CCSG, 33), Tumhout Leuνen, 1997, p. 139 et 338: «[ ... ] πρωτίστην καί κρατίστην [ ... ] προτιθέασιν

χρησιν, ώς έξ 'Αποστολικών καταρχόμενοι Διατάξεων, φάσκοντες δτι άρχηθεν [ .. .] αϋτη». La presence de cette χρησις au

αυτών των άποστόλων έστίν ή διάταξις

debut du florilege sur le Grand Careme montre qu'une «rehabilitation» de ce texte apocryphe s'etait deja produite lors du premier iconoclasme.

VIII 91

UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

= Constίtutίons apostolίques V, 13, 3-14, 1, ed. Μ. MEτzGER, SChr 329, Paris, 1986, p. 246-248. Α partir de νηστεύοντες, le texte du floήlege s'ecarte notablement de celui de sa source: CA V, 13, 4-14, 1

PG95

νηστεύοντες αυτήν πάντες μετά

νηστεύοντες αυτήν ίiπαντες μετά

φόβου καi τρόμου, προσευχόμενοι έν αυταίς περί των άπολλυμένων. 'Ήρξαντο γαρ την κατά του Κυρίου

φόβου καi τρόμου. Προσευχόμενοι

έπιβουλήν ποιείσθαι δευτέρι;ι σαβ­

βουλήν ποιείσθαι.

έν αυτfi

περί των άπολλυμένων,

έν fι ηρξατο την κατά του Κυρίου

βάτων μηνi πρώτφ, δς έστι Ξαν­ θικός.

Cette alteration a pour consequence un changement complet du sens de ce passage. Ce glissement trouve sa confirmation dans la phrase de conclusion, absente quant a elle du texte oήginal des Constίtutίons apostolίques: «Παρήγγειλε γαρ ήμίν αυτός νηστεύειν τας εξ ημέρας

ταύτας δια την των 'Ιουδαίων δυσσέβειαν»

(PG 95, 73

Α) 35 •

3. Basile de Cesaree (CPG 2858) PG 95, 73 Β: Του άγίου Βασιλείου, εκ του κατά μεθυόντων λόγου. Ει γαρ επί τοσαύταις παραινέσεσιν

[ ... ]

καθησθαι εν τοίς

οίκοις.

= Basile de Cesaree, In ebrίosos, 1: PG 31, 444, 47 - 445, 3 et 445, 21-25. Les deux citations se rejoignent artificiellement dans une phrase qui altere considerablement le sens de 1Όriginal: « Έπi ποίαις ελπίσι διαλεχθωμεν, γυναίκες ακόλαστοι επιλαθόμεναι του φόβου του Θεου»

(PG 95, 73 Β) au lieu de (PG 31, 445, 2-3) et

σήμερον;»

«επί ποίαις ελπίσι διαλεχθωμεν «Γυναίκες ακόλαστοι, επιλαθό­

[ ... ] καθησθαι εν τοίς οίκοις» (445, 2125). Οη remarquera que Α ne donne que la premiere de ces deux citations (PG 31, 444), en conservant toutefois le σήμερον de l'oήginal, absent de F. Il est possible qu'un texte plus long, ou une autre χρησις, desormais disparus, aient ete donnes a cet endroit du florilege. Cette alteration perceptible aussi bien dans Α que dans F a laisse d'autres traces: dans Α, la citation suivante (η0 4: Jean Chrysostome) est en effet introduite par «Του αυτου», ce qui se rapporte en fait a Basile. μεναι του φόβου του Θεου

35 L'idee d'un jeίlne pratique en raison de l'impiete des juifs, qui ne seraient pas aπi­ ves iι la connaissance du Messie, se retrouve dans l'Epίstσla apσstσlσrum apocryphe (CANT 22): cf. C. Schmidt - 1. Wajnberg, Gespriiche Jesu mίt seίnen Jungern nach der Auferstehung. Ein Kathσlisch-Apσstolίsches Sendschreiben de.~ 2. Jahrhunderts (TU, 43), Leipzig, 1919, p. 52, 54; ΡΟ 9, p. 198-199. Α ce propos, voir aussi Baumstark, Lίturgίe cσmparee (cf. η. 26), p. 215.

VIII 92 4. Jean Chrysostome (CPG 4330) PG 95, 73 Β: Του Χρυσοστόμου, έκ του Προς τφ τέλει της

[ ... ]

νηστείας λόγου. Τεσσαράκοντα λοιπόν ήμέραι παρηλθον ουδε παραίνεσιν προσάξω.

== Jean Chrysostome, Ad populum Antίochenum,

ΧΧ ('Ότι ουκ άρκει

ή νηστεία της Τεσσαρακοστης προς τό δύνασθαι κοινωνειν

[ ... ])

§9: PG 49, 211, 6-9. 5. Anastase de Constantinople (Regestes

η0

138)

PG 95, 73 C: Του άγίου 'Αναστασίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταν­ τινουπόλεως, έκ της Έγκυκλίου 36 . Τό μέντοι αγιον Πάσχα της ένδεκάτης 37 Ίνδικτιωνος συν Θεφ έπιτελουμεν· κατά μεν Αiγυ­ πτίους, μηνός Φαρμουθi εiκάδι πέμπτη· κατά δε 'Ρωμαίους, μηνός

Άπριλλίου εiκάδι 38 , προ δεκαδύο καλανδων Μαίωv- άρχόμενοι της νηστείας των έπτά έβδομάδων έξ αυτης δευτέρας ήμέρας, κατά

μεν

Αiγυπτίους,

όγδόn

του

Φανεμώθ

μηνός

κατά

δε

'Ρωμαίους Μαρτίου τρίτn .

La mention du patriarche iconoclaste Anastase 1°' de Constantinople (730-754), par ailleurs qualifie de "saint" (του άγίου), a laisse Le Quien perplexe: «Quis sit iste Anastasius Constantinopolitanus qui lndictione 11 Pascha celebratum annuntiaverit, Pharmuthi secundum Aegyptίos 25, et Aprίlίs 20 secundum Romanos, nondum assecutus sum [ ... ]» (PG 95, 73-74, η. g). Sur l'attribution de ce fragment: 111. 2. 6. Epίphane de Chypre PG 95, 73 CD: Του

άγίου

Έπιφανίου Κύπρου, έκ του εiς

Μοναχούς. Την Τεσσαρακοστήν της άγίας 'Εκκλησίας, καi την έβδομάδα του άγίου Πάσχα παρατετηρημένως φυλάττετε.

== Ps.-Athanase d'Alexandήe, Syntagma ad monachos (e cod. Vosgr.f° 46), 2, 11 (CPG 2264), ed. Ρ. BATIFF0L, Syntagma doctήnae dίt de Saίnt Athanase (Studίa patrίstίca. Etudes d'ancίenne lίtterature

sίano

chretίenne, 2), Parίs, 1890, p. 123. Cette citation apparait neanmoins comme un resume d'Epίphane de Salamine, De fίde 22, 9-10, ed. Κ. HoLL, Epίphanίus, 111 (GCS), Berlin, 1985 2 , p. 523: «την δε τεσσα­

ρακοστήν την προ των έπτά ήμερων του άγίου Πάσχα ώσαύτως φυλάττειν είωθεν ή αυτή εκκλησία έν νηστείαις διατελούσα, τάς δε κυριακάς ουδ'δλως, ουτε έν αυτη τη τεσσαρακοσττj· τάς δε εξ 36 Α, f. 367 confirme cette attήbution etonnante: Του έν άγίοις πατρός ήμων 'Ανα­ στασίου άρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως έκτης εγκυκλίου έπιστολης. 37 Α donne simplement Ια'. 38 είκάδι πέμπτη, είκάδι] Α: είκοστfl πέμπτη, είκοστfl.

VIII 93

UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

ήμέρας του Πάσχα έν ξηροφαγί\l διατελουσι πάντες οί λαοί, φημί δέ αρτφ καί άλί καί ϋδατι μόνον χρώμενοι προς έσπέραν».

7. Jean d'Athenes PG 95, 76 Α: 'Ιωάννου έπισκόπου Άθηνων. 'Ίνα δια της σεπτης έπτάδος των νηστειων ασφαλη τε και ακατάπτωτον την διέξοδον ύποπτεύσωμεν.

Ή

έβδομάς γαρ αεί στρεφομένη

τε και συν­

νεύουσα, και οίον εκ τ'αυτου περί ταυτό σημείον εiλουμένη και περιπολίζουσα, τον έβδοματικόν ήμίν αiωνα συμπερατοί.

Trois eveques d'Athenes repondant a ce nom sont connus pour la periode mesobyzantine: Jean 11 (680-694; PmbZ 2710), qui a participe au Vl° Concile recumenique (Constantinople, 680/81) en tant que legat de Rome; Jean 111 (t 713; PmbZ 2959); Jean IV (t 819; PmbZ 3209). Aucun d'eux ne semble avoir laisse d'ecrits. Fragment ηοη repertoήe. Sur son attήbution: 111. 1. 8. Anastase d' Antioche (CPG 6959) PG 95, 76 ΑΒ: Του άγίου 'Αναστασίου πατριάρχου Θεουπόλεως, fιγουν 'Αντιοχείας Συρίας. Δευρο δή κατανοήσωμεν, δτου χάριν

έπτά έβδομάσιν ή τεσσαρακονθήμερος τελείται νηστεία.

[ ... ]

αρ­

τιος μεν γάρ, καί πανίερος διαπέφηνεν δ έπτά αριθμός, καί μαλλον

κεχαρίτωκε των ίερων ήμίν αγώνων τάς ήμέρας, έπτάκις δια των έπτά έβδομάδων τελούμενος . Εη l'etat actuel de la recherche, il est impossible d'identifier ce fragment comme provenant d'une reuvre authentique du patriarche d'Antioche Anastase. De meme, il ne semble pas attribuable a Anastase le Sinaϊte. Οη remarquera seulement qu'une partie ηοη originale de la Quaestίo 64 (PG 89, 661 C) de ce dernier se refere au probleme de la duree du Grand Careme: « Ίστέον δέ, δτι ώς ου δει νηστεύειν

έβδομάδας όκτώ έν τfl μεγάλη Τεσσαρακοστfl, ώς οί Άρειανοί, ύπερβαίνοντες τον παρά του Κυρίου δεδομένον ήμίν αριθμόν των μ' ήμερων, έν τφ προστιθέναι έβδομάδα μίαν 39 ». Pour ce qui est des Anastases ίncertί signalons le Sermo de trίbus quadragesίmίs (CPG 7773), beaucoup plus tardif (XII siecle), ainsi que \Ίn hexameron (CPG 7770). Adoptant la methode de la mystique des nombres, ce dernier est peut-etre le texte «anastasien» le plus proche de notre χρησις40 • 0

Μ . Richard, Les veι·ίtables Questions et reponses d'Anastase /e Sίnaite , dans: Bulde /Ίnstitut de Recherche et dΉίstoίre des Textes 15 (1967-1968) = Opera mίnora, ΠΙ , 64, Turnhout - Leuven, 1977, p. 46, η 0 51 . 40 Ainsi, par exemple, PG 89, 919 C: «Nam septem dies significant septem nostras retates». 39

letίn

VIII 94 9.

Pieπe

de Jerusalem (CPG 7018)

PG 95, 76 Β: Του άγίου Πέτρου πατριάρχου Ίεροσολύμων. Νηστείας

δέ

έπιμνησθέντες

ευκαιρότατα, κάκεινα προς

ύμας

ε'ίποιμεν αν, ώς Θεου χάριτι, της νενομισμένης άπαρξώμεθα νη­ στείας, των έπτά έβδομάδων, άπό της έβδόμης του Φεβρουαρίου μηνός, τήν του σωτηρίου Πάθους, καi της Χριστου 'Αναστάσεως έπιτελουντες πανήγυριν, τfi είκάδι έβδόμη του λεγομένου Μαρ­ τίου μηνός.

L'activite de Pieπe, patriarche de Jerusalem de 524 a 544, nous est bien connue a travers la Vίe de Saίnt Sabas par Cyrille de Scythopolis (BHG 1608; CPG 7536) 41 . La date de Paques (27 mars) donnee par ce fragment coπespond bien a son patriarcat. Deux annees sont possibles: 533 et 54442 • Pieπe mentionne explicitement sept semaines de Careme, se trouvant ainsi en contradiction, non seulement avec Jean Damascene, mais egalement avec les temoignages d'Egerie (IVe s.)43 et de Dorothee de Gaza (Vle siecle) 44 • La duree du Careme a l'Anastasis aurait-elle connu des variations 45 ? Ou faut-il plutδt considerer comme eπonee l'une des deux 41 Voir aussi F. Diekamp, Dίe σrίgenίstίschen Streίtίgkeίten ίm sechsten Jahrhundert und dasfiinfte allgemeίne Cσnc·ί/, Mϋnster i. W., 1899, p. 27-32; Μ. van Esbroeck, L'Hσ­ melίe de Pίerre de Jerusalem et lafίn de l'σrίgenίsme palestίnίen en 551, dans : OCP 51 (1985), p. 33-59, qui met en question I Όrthodoxie de ce patriarche. 42 Cf. Grumel, Chrσnσlσgίe (cf. η . 27), p. 310. 43 έgerie , Jσurnal de vσyage, 27, 1 (SChr, 296), p. 256-258 : «Item dies paschales cum uenerint, celebrantur sic. Nam sicut apud nos quadragesimae ante pascha adtenduntur, ita hic octo septimanas attenduntur ante pascha. Propterea autem octo septimanae attenduntur, quia dominicis diebus et sabbato ποπ ieiunantur excepta una die sabbati, qua uigiliae paschales sunt et necesse est ieiunaή ; extra ipsum ergo diem penitus nunquam hic toto anno sabbato ieiunatur. Ac sic ergo de octo septimanis deductis octo diebus dominicis et septem sabbatis, quia necesse est una sabbati ieiunaή , ut superius dίχί, remanent dies quadraginta et unum, qui ieiunantur, quod hic appellant eortae, id est quadragesimas». έgerie, Jσurnal, 46, 3 (SChr 296, p. 310), nous signale par ailleurs que la huitieme semaine de jefine etait la Semaine Sainte: «Octava enim septimana quadragesimarum, id est quae appellatur septimana maior». 44 Dorothee de Gaza, lnstructίσns, XV. Des saints jefines (SChr, 92; reed. 2001), p. 446: «Καi ψηφίσαντες ήγίασαν ήμίν άπο των τριακοσίων έξήκοντα πέντε ήμερων

του έ νιαυτου ταύτας τάς έπτά έβδομάδας των νηστ ε ιών· οϋτω γάρ άφώρισαν έπτά έβδομάδας . 'Αλλά οί Πατέρες τφ χρόνφ συνείδον προστεθείναι αύταίς καi αλλην

μίαν έ βδομάδα, iiμα μεν διά το προγυμνάζ ε σθαι καi oiov προομαλίζεσθαι τούς μέλλοντας εtσ ε λθ είν ε tς τον κόπον των νηστειών, iiμα δέ καi τιμώντες τάς νηστείας τφ άριθμφ της άγίας Τεσσαρακοστης fιν ένήστευσεν δ Κύριος ήμών. Αί γάρ όκτώ έ βδομάδες, ύφαιρουμένων των σαββάτων καi των κυριακών, τεσσαράκοντα ήμέραι γίνονται».

11 nous semble que l'expression

«προγυμνάζεσθαι

καi oiov προομαλίζεσθαι τούς μέλλοντας είσελθείν είς τον κόπον των νηστειών»

designe bien ce que Jean Damascene qualifie de «προνήστιμος έβδομάς». 45 En se fondant sur Ies temoignages precedemment cites (η. 43 et 44), mais aussi sur

VIII UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

95

positions? Enfin, deux traditions auraient-elles perdure en parallele au sein de l'Eglise hierosolymitaine? Faisant du temoignage de Pieπe une donnee fixe et incontestable sur la pratique du jeίine a Jerusalem, la recherche contemporaine a parfois eu tendance a mettre en doute celui d'Egerie 46 . 11 nous semble cependant que I'importance, voire Ia validite de ce temoignage est a reconsiderer, non seulement en raison des problemes d'authenticite poses par notre florilege, mais aussi a cause des positions propres au patriarche. Οη ignore par exemple quels etaient les rapports de Pieπe avec son ce\ebre contemporain Severe d'Antioche. Bien entendu, ces problemes meritent d'etre abordes dans une etude particuliere, qui ne peut etre envisagee ici. sur le jeίιne de

Β. Posίtίons heretίques

Titre du florilege (PG 95, 76

huίt semaίnes

Β): 'Απόδειξις, δτι όκτώ λέγουσιν

έβδομάδας των άγίων οί αίρετικοi πάντες νηστειών, ληρουντες οϋτως.

10. Severe d'Antioche PG 95, 76 BC: Χρήσεις Σευήρου του Άκεφάλου καi αίρε­ σιάρχου, καi 'Έλληνος, γενομένου αρχιεπισκόπου

'Αντιοχείας

της Συρίας, έκ των ένθρονιαστικων αυτου λόγων, εις την των

νηστειών Τεσσαρακοστήν· έλέχθη δέ τfi προ αυτης Παρασκευfi,

έν τfi Κασιανου Έκκλησίq: οδ ή αρχή· Νόμος έστi καi έπi των σωματικών παλαισμάτων. Καi έν τφ μέσφ του λόγου· Οί γαρ τας πέντε αισθήσεις

[... ]

τον των τεσσαράκοντα ήμερων αριθμόν

έκτελει.

Fragments grecs

ηοη

repertories. Sur leur attribution, voir ci-dessous,

111. 1.

11. Severe d 'Antioche PG 95, 76 C: Του αυτου, έκ της βίβλου των ύποσημειωθέντων ιδιοχείρως διαφόρων κεφαλαίων· ύποσημείωσις δευτέρα έστiν αϋτη. 'Ότι δει τας τεσσαράκοντα ημέρας απαραλείπτως νηστεύειν

[... ] ώς έντευθεν είναι δηλον, δτιπερ ου χρή έν Σαββάτφ καi celui des lectionnaires armeniens et georgiens de Jerusalem , Α. Renoux, Le codex armenien deJerusalem 121 (ΡΟ, 36/2), Tumhout, 1971 , p. 183, resume ainsi l'evolution de Ιa duree du Careme dans Ι ' έglise hierosolymitaine: «Le careme hierosolymitain , passe de huit iι sept semaines dans les annees 384-439, devait garder Ιa meme duree pendant pres de deux siecles, avant de revenir iι huit semaines, iι la fin du vres.». Voir aussi Peri, La durata (cf. n. 2). 46 Cf. έgerie , Journal de voyage, 27, 1 (SChr, 296), p. 257, n. 4.

VIII 96 Κυριακfj νηστεύειν, ουδέ έν τfj άγίq. των νηστειών Τεσσαρα­ κοστfj.

Fragment

ηοη

repertorie. Voir ci-dessous, 111. 1.

12. Benjamin d' Alexandήe (CPG 7940. 1) PG 95, 77 Α: Του καταράτου καi θεοστυγους Βενιαμίν, γενο­ μένου

ψευδεπισκόπου

'Αλεξανδρείας Αίγύπτου, της κακίστης

συνωρίδος τυγχάνοντος Διοσκόρου καi Σευήρου, έκ του τετάρτου

βιβλίου των έορταστικων αυτου, ψευδεορταστικfj τριακοστfj, ης ή άρχή· Φαιδρά καi άξιάγαστος. Καi προς τα τέλη· Άρχόμενοι των

τεσσαράκοντα ήμερων της νηστείας, ηγουν των όκτώ έβδομάδων

[... ] μέχρι είκάδος μηνός Φαρμουθί. Fragment grec identifie par Jίilicher (cf. η. 3) et reedite par C.D.G. MϋLLER , Dίe Homίlίe uber dίe Hochzeίt zu Kana und weίtere Schriften des Patrίarchen Benjamίn / . von Alexandrίen, dans: Abhandlungen der Heίdelberger Akademίe der Wίssenschaften, Phίlos.-hίst. Klasse, Heidelberg, 1968, 1. Abhandlung, p. 3247 • 13. Benjamin d'Alexandrie (CPG 7940. 2) PG 95, 77 ΑΒ: Του αυτου, ψευδεορταστικfj τριακοστfj πρώτη, ης ή άρχη οϋτως έστίν · Καi νυν άκούειν δοκω. Καi προς τφ τέλει·

Άρχόμε νοι των όκτώ έβδομάδων της νηστείας, τουτέστι της άγίας Τεσσαρακοστης, δια τό μη συναριθμεισθαι τό Σάββατον καi την Κυριακην

[... ]

καi έφεξης, τελέσαντες τάς άγίας του Πάσχα

ήμέρας, έσπέρq. βαθείq. του άγίου Σαββάτου καταπαύσομεν την νηστείαν.

Reed. 111.

MϋLLER, Dίe Homίlίe,

p. 32.

Χρήσεις REMARQUABLES: LEUR AΠRIBUTJON

Parmi les auteurs cites dans le florilege, deux ont plus particulierement retenu notre attention. 11 s 'agit de Severe d' Antioche et d 'Anastase de Constantinople, dont nous souhaitons maintenant considerer les χρήσεις de faς:on plus precise.

Sur Benjamin (626-665): C.D.G. Mtiller, Benjamίn ! ., 38. Patrίarι·h von Alexandans: Le Museon 69 (1956), p. 313-340; id., Der Stand der Forschung ίiber Benjamίn !. den 38. Patι-ίarchen von Alexandrίen, dans: Zeίtschι-ift deι- deutschen morgenlandίschen Gesellschaft. Suppl. Ι.2 (1969), p. 404-410. 47

drίen,

VIII 97

UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

1. Severe d'Antioche:

η0

10, 11, 7.

Le floήlege contient plusieurs fragments grecs de Severe d' Antioche qui, a notre connaissance, η' ont pas encore ete repertories48 • La citation η 0 10 est la plus explicite. Sa provenance y est en effet signalee. Il s 'agit de l'Homelίe cathedrale XV49 , prononcee au debut du Grand Careme de l'annee 513: Seνere,

Hom. XV:

ΡΟ

38, p. 418

PG 95, 76 BC Χρήσεις Σευήρου του Άκεφά­ λου καi αίρεσιάρχου, καi 'Έλλη­ νος,

γ ε νομένου

'Αντιοχείας

Sur \e jeune des quarante (jours). Elle fut prononcee le vendredi precedent dans l'eglise de Cassien. C'est une \oi, egalement dans \es competitions corporelles, que, avant le jour veritable des combats, comme en des engagements pre\iminaires, les athletes luttent les uns contre les autres.

D'apres le florilege, la citation homelie : Severe, Hom. XV, 15:

ΡΟ

38, p. 429

της

αρχιεπισκόπου

Συρίας,

εκ

των

ε νθρονιαστικων αυτου λόγων, εις την των νηστειων Τεσσαρακοστήν· ελέχθη δέ τfι προ αυτης Παρα­ σκευfι , εν τfι Κασιανου Έκκλησίι;ι ·

οδ ή αρχή · Νόμος εστι και επi των σωματικων παλαισμάτων·

η0

10 est tiree du «milieu» de cette PG 95, 76 BC καi εν τφ μέσφ του λόγου ·

Apres avoir donne ces explications, revenons a parler de ce que nous avions propose et voyons pourquoi nous jeunons seulement ces quarante jours. Pourquoi? - Pour nous preparer en vue de ce huitieme jour et premier, ce [jour] important et resplendissant, ce jour du Seigneur. Εη effet, ceux qui puήfient huit fois ces cinq sens par le moyen desquels \e peche se procure une entree, je veux dire IΌuϊe, la vue, le toucher, le gout et I Όdorat, jeunent quarante jours, afin d'obtenir \e jour bienheureux, ce [jour] huitieme et pre-

Οί γαρ τάς πέντε αισθήσεις, δι '

rbv ή άμαρτία λαμβάνει παρεί­ σδυσιν · dκοήν, φημi, καi δρασιν, και άφήν, και γευσιν, καi δσφρη­ σιν· όκτάκις καθαίροντες, τεσσα­

ράκοντα ήμ έ ρας νηστεύουσιν, ϊνα της μακαρίας εκείνης ήμέρας τύ-

Cf. CPG 7022-7081 . Severe d'Antioche, Homelίe cathedrale XV, trad. Μ. Bήere - F. Graffin et al. (ΡΟ , 38.2), Tumhout, 1976. De cette homelie, υπ seul fragment grec a pour l'instant ete releve: Α. Mai, Spίcίlegίum Romanum, Χ, Rome, 1844, p. 204, f. 176. Cf. ΡΟ 38, p. 417. 48

49

VIII 98 mier; car le nombre cinq en revenant huit fois acheve le nombre quarante.

χωσι της όγδόης καi πρώτης. Ό γαρ πέντε αριθμός όκτάκις ενελιτ­

τόμενος, τον των τεσσαράκοντα ήμερων αριθμόν εκτελεί. Εη revanche, ce que le compilateur du florilege n'annonce pas, c'est la presence d'un autre fragment de cette meme homelie dans sa premiere partie, pour la defense du jeίlne des sept semaines. 11 s'agit de la seconde partie de la χρησις η 0 7, mise sous le nom de Jean d'Athenes et ηοη encore repertoriee: ΡΟ 38, p. 427 Nous savons par les ecrits de Moϊse qu 'il dit: Dieu fit ce monde visible en six jours, et il se reposa le septieme jour, parce que le septieme est le temps total de cette νίe. En effet en revenant sur elle-meme et en tournant comme un cercle, la semaine accomplit ce siecle qui ne dure qu'un temps, attendu que, lorsqu'il sera acheve, le jour du Seigneur viendra alors, ce (jour) grand et resplendissant.

Severe, Hom. XV, 13:

PG 95, 76

Α

Ή έβδομας γαρ αεί στρεφομένη

τε καi συννεύουσα, καi οίον εκ τ 'αυτου περί ταυτό σημειον είλου­

μένη καi περιπολίζουσα, τον έβδο­ ματικόν ήμιν αίωνα συμπερατοι.

XV de Severe est donc citee aussi bien pour la defense du des sept semaines que pour celui des huit semaines. Qu'en est-il en realite? Six de ses Homelίes cathedrales sont consacrees au jeίlne de la τεσσαρακοστή (Hom. XV, ΧΧΧΙΧ, LXVIII, LXXXVII, CV, CXX). 11 n'y est jamais explicitement question du nombre de semaines de jeίlne. Pour Severe, il s'agit toujours de respecter les «quarante jours», la τεσσαρακοστή, et de ne point prolonger le Careme au dela: «[Le Christ] jeίlne egalement et, apres quarante jours, il a pris la faim sur lui volontairement, sans depasser la mesure du jeίlne de Moϊse et d'Elie, que lui-meme leur avait fixee, afin de foumir a l'ennemi une occasion de combat. Car s'il avait depasse le nombre de quarante jours, [le Calomniateur] aurait craint de combattre avec lui» (Homelίe XV: ΡΟ 38, p. 425). «Pourquoi nous jeίlnons quarante jours seulement et ποπ pas cinquante ou soixante?» (Homelίe XV: ΡΟ 38, p. 427). D'ailleurs, la juste mesure prδnee par le patήarche conceme aussi les pήvations alimentaires en elles-memes: «Et quand tu prolongeras le jefine dans de tres grandes privations d'aliments, tu lui feras aussi depasser la mesure et tu ignoreras - ce qui est insense - qu'il est pour toi une vierge, joyeuse et belle a cause de l'eloignement des aliments, mais desagreable, LΉomelίe

jeίlne

VIII UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

99

odieuse et qui ne mene pas a l'allegresse dans sa personne» (Homelίe CV: ΡΟ 25, p. 653). Nous pouvons ainsi nous demander si le passage cite pour illustrer les vues heretiques de Severe (η 0 10) conceme effectivement les huit semaines de jeίlne. Εη effet, il y est bien question de la multiplication des cinq sens par huit. Cependant, rien ne pennet d'affinner que ce nombre correspond a des semaines. Dans la phrase qui precede notre citation, et qui a ete escamotee par le compilateur, «huit» symbolise clairement la perfection du huitieme jour, celui de la resuπection universelle50 . Nous pouvons dire par consequent que la multiplication symbolique proposee dans la χρησις η 0 10 ne conceme pas la duree du Grand Careme, mais qu'elle evoque plutδt l'intensite et la perfection de la puήfication attendue. Ceci etant pose, considerons maintenant l'authenticite de la seconde citation mise sous l'autoήte de Severe d'Antioche. Le compilateur du florilege attribue la citation η0 11 a Severe: «Του αυτου». 11 precise par ailleurs qu'il s'agit d'une χρησις capitale, puisqu'elle provient d'une annotation autographe: «έκ της βίβλου των ύποσημειωθέντων ιδιοχείρως διαφόρων κεφαλαίων· ύποσημείω­

Son but est-il de montrer que la symbolique du nombre huit enoncee dans la citation precedente (n° 10) coπes­ pond a un precepte pratique «incontestable» du patriarche monophysite sur la duree du Grand Careme? Nous le pensons. Εη effet, le raidissement doctrinal qui est opere nous semble caracteristique d'un tel procede: «'Ότι δει τάς τεσσαράκοντα ήμέρας άπαραλείπτως νηστεύ­ ειν· αιτινες εκ των όκτώ έβδομάδων συνάγονται». Ainsi, la «note autographe», dont la provenance nous reste encore inconnue - mais qui pouπait etre copte - , ne doit pas, a notre sens, etre repertoriee comme etant de la plume de Severe d'Antioche. σις δευτέρα έστiν αϋτη 51 ».

2. Anastase de Constantinople:

η0

5

La citation de loin la plus etonnante du florilege est celle attήbuee a Anastase 1er de Constantinople (730-754; PmbZ 285). Nous l'avons vu plus haut (11.Α.5), elle a laisse Le Quien perplexe. Qui pouvait croire en effet qu'un florilege mis sous le nom de Jean Damascene aurait contenu 50 ΡΟ 38, p. 429: «Pour nous preparer en vue de ce huitieme jour et premier, ce [jour] important et resplendissant, ce jour du Seigneur». 51 L'identification de cette «βίβλος των διαφόρων κεφαλαίων» πe nous a pas ete possible. Nous renvoyons toutefois au Dίctίonnaίre de Spirίtualίte, XIV, col. 750, qui signale une piste, celle des «Extraits ascetiques des homelies de Severe» du ms. Londres, Britίsh Museum Add. 14613 (Ιχe_χe siecle), f. 196-203.

VIII 100 une citation du patriarche iconoclaste, de surcroίt qualifie de αγιος 52 ? Considere comme le resultat d'une ou plusieurs eπeurs de copie, l'entete de la χρησις η 0 5 a donc ete rejete sans discussion par les rares savants ayant consulte ce texte 53 • Selon l'eπeur de copie envisagee, plusieurs noms ont ete avances: Anastase d'Antioche54, Anatole de Constantinople, Athanase d' Alexandrie 55 • C 'est Anatole qui a finalement ete retenu, et c'est sous son nom que le fragment est aujourd'hui classe dans les Regestes. Cette attribution nous semble toutefois fort contestable. Nous souhaitons la discuter ici. La χρησις η0 5 est suffisamment riche en informations pour que l'on puisse faire abstraction de son en-tete problematique et situer sa redaction a une epoque et dans un milieu precis. Ces informations sont les suivantes: [1] le texte, dont il est dit qu'il est extrait d'une Έγκύκλιος, provient vraisemblablement d'une lettre festale. Son auteur est donc un patriarche. [2] La date de Paques annoncee est donnee en premier selon le calendrier egyptien, puis selon le calendήer romain; enfin, le quantieme du mois est aussi precise a la maniere romaine: «κατά μεν Αιγυπτίους, μηνός Φαρμουθi εικάδι πέμπτη· κατά δέ 'Ρωμαίους,

μηνός Άπριλλίου εικάδι, προ δεκαδύο καλανδων Μαίωv-».

plus de la date de Paques (25 Pharmouthi/20

avήl)

[3]

Εη

et de la date du debut

52 Les deux manuscήts (F et Α) qui transmettent notre florilege ne laissent aucun doute sur cette mention: « Του άγίου 'Αναστασίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπό­ λεως, έ κ της 'Εγκυκλίου» pour F (= PG 95), «Του έ ν άγίοις πατρός ήμών

'Αναστασίου αρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως έκτης εγκυκλίου έπιστολης»

pour Α: l ' eπeur, si eπeur il y a, a ete commise iι une etape assez ancienne de la transmission du texte. 53 Piiques n'a jamais eu lieu un 20 avril de la ΧΙ' indiction sous le patriarcat d'Anastase de Constantinople. Si IΌη souhaite maintenir cette attήbution etonnante, il est necessaire de supposer une eπeur de copie dans l' indiction, eπeur d'ailleurs tres facile iι commettre. Εη effet, si, iι la place de la Xle indiction (ια'), le texte avait mentionne la XV' indiction (ιε'), ce passage aurait conceme l'annee 732, deuxieme annee du patήarcat d 'Anastase. 54 Ainsi, au lieu de « Κωνσταντινουπόλεως» !Όήginal aurait mentionne «Θεουπό­ λεως». Cette hypothese doit etre ecartee pour plusieurs raisons, mais surtout parce que la date de Piiques annoncee est incompatible avec les dates du patriarcat d'Anastase. 55 Cf. V. Grumel, Les ι·egestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantίnople, Ι, 1, Paήs, 1972, p. 99: «Οη ne devra donc pas hesiter iι attribuer notre encyclique iι Anatole, dont le nom, par une faute de lecture assez explicable, aιυa ete transfoπne en Anastase [ ... ] . Quant iι saint Athanase d Άlexandrie iι qui convient la premiere coϊncidence, celle de 368, il est difficile de lui attribuer notre document, car, outre que cela supposerait une double faute de lecture, une pour le nom et une pour le siege, il est a remarquer que dans aucune des lettres festales de ce patriarche qui nous sont parvenues, l'annee η 'est signifiee au moyen de l'indiction, et de plus, lorsqu'il indique la maniere de compter des Romains, le quantieme du mois n'est indique qu'iι la maniere romaine (par calendes, ides et nones), tandis que dans notre document est indiquee en outre la maniere byzantine».

VIII 101

UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

du Careme (8 Phamenoth/3 mars), l'extrait signale aussi l'indiction: «Τό μέντοι αγιον Πάσχα της ένδεκάτης Ίνδικτιωνος συν Θεφ

Or, deux annees coπespondent a cette combinaison, pour la peήode qui nous interesse: 368 et 458. [4] La duree du jeίine, qui est de sept semaines, est aussi precisee: «άρχόμενοι της νηστείας των έπιτελουμεν· ».

έπτά έβδομάδων».

Si les points [3] et [4] permettent d'envisager l'attribution a Anatole, les points [1] et [2] l'excluent categoήquement, tout comme ils excluent toute attribution qui ne concernerait pas un patriarche d'Alexandrie. Εη effet, il est etrange qu'un patriarche de Constantinople - ου d' Antioche - ait promulgue une Encyclique donnant la date de Paques selon le calendrier egyptien, comme c'est le cas dans notre citation. Ajoutons a cela que le genre litteraire de la lettre festale a son ancrage a Alexandήe et ηοη a Constantinople, ou il semble avoir ete assez peu pratique. Or, notre fragment releve bien de cette litterature. La comparaison avec un passage de la lettre festale d'Alexandre II d'Alexandήe (704-729) conservee dans le Papyrus gr. η 0 10677 de Berlin valide, a notre sens, cette hypothese 56 : 10677

PG 95

Άρξώμεθα της μεν άγίας τεσσα­

άρχόμενοι της νηστείας των έπτά έβδομάδων έξ αύτης δευτέρας

Ρ

ρακοστης των νηστειών τουτέστιν των όκτώ έβδομάδων 57 από κς· του κατ '

Αiγυπτίους

Μεχεiρ

μηνός,

κατά δε 'Ρωμαίους πρό ι' καλανδών

ήμέρας, κατά μεν Αιγυπτίους, όγ­

δόn του Φαμενώθ μηνός κατά δε 'Ρωμαίους Μαρτίου τρίτη.

Μαρτίων, ητις έστi Φεβρουαρίου ΚΌ

Έορτάσωμεν τη έξf:; έπιφω­ σκούσn άγίι;ι κυριακfl, τη κα· του αύτου κατ' Αιγυπτίους Φαρμουθi μηνός,

κατά

δε

'Ρωμαίους

ις· καλανδών Μαιων, ητις Άπριλλίου ιςΌ

πρό

έστiν

Τό μέντοι &.γιον Πάσχα της έν­ δεκάτης Ίνδικτιώνος συν Θεφ έπι­ τελουμεν· μηνός

κατά

Φαρμουθi

μεν

Αιγυπτίους,

εiκάδι

πέμπτη·

κατά δε 'Ρωμαίους, μηνός Άπριλ­ λίου εiκάδι, πρό δεκαδύο καλαν­ δών Μαιων ·

56 C. Schmidt - W. Schubart, Altchri.~tlίche Texte (Berlίner Klassίkertexte, 6), Berlin, 1910, p. 55-109: Osterbrίef des Alexander Patriarchen von Alexandrίen (notre texte p. 86). Dates possibles de l'homelie festale: 713, 719, 724. 57 Sur la question de la duree du jefine dans Ρ. 10677, voir Α. Camplani, La Quaresima egiziana nel VII secolo: note dί cronologίa su Mon. Epiph. 77, Manchester Ryland Suppl. 47-48, Ρ . Grenf 11112, Ρ. Berol. 10677, Ρ. Kδln 215 e un'omelia copta, dans: Augustίnίanum 32/2 (1992), p. 423-432. Α la p. 426, η. 16, Camplani se refere au De sacrίs jejunίίs de Jean Damascene, en donnant plus de poids au florilege qu'au texte de l'Epίstula ad Cometam.

VIII 102 Peut-on dire pour autant que cette citation est issue d'une lettre festale d'Athanase d'Alexandrie (328-373), seul patriarche, avec Timothee Elure (457-460 et 475-477), a avoir connu une Xle indiction avec Piiques au 20 avril? Rappelons tout d'abord ceci: a. Nous possedons la lettre festale promulguee par Athanase pour l'annee 368, mais uniquement dans sa version syriaque58 • Le patriarche, qui indique bien les mois egyptiens et les quantiemes du mois a la maniere romaine - les mois romains ne sont jamais mentionnes dans ses Iettres festales, comme le remarque Grumel59 - , donne la date du 25 Pharmouthi pour Piiques. Toutefois, pour le debut du Careme, il indique le 14 Phamenoth, contrairement a notre χρησις, qui situe celui-ci une semaine avant, au 8 Phamenoth. Ceci est d'ailleurs parfaitement conforme a son habitude: les lettres festales d' Athanase fixent toujours la duree du jeίlne a six semaines60 . b. L'en-tete de la χρησις η 0 5 parle d'une lettre encyclique (έγκύ­ κλιος), dont cet extrait aurait ete tire, et ποπ d'une lettre festale (έορταστική). Or, Athanase est aussi l'auteur d'une celebre Epίstula encyclίca (CPG 2124), dans laquelle il fait etat d'evenements s'etant produits pendant le Grand Careme: «Ταυτα δέ έγίγνετο εν αυτfi τfi άγίι;ι Τεσσαρακοστfi περί τό Πάσχα, δτε οί μεν άδελφοi ένή­ στευον [ ... ]» (PG 25, 232 Α). Mais ces evenements ont eu lieu bien avant 368: il s'agit en effet de la τεσσαρακοστή de l'annee 339. Signalons par ailleurs que nous η' avons releve aucun parallele entre Ι 'Epίstula encyc·lίca et notre fragment. Ces donnees excluent-elles definitivement une eventuelle attribution du fragment a Athanase? Il nous semble que la reponse a cette question est plus complexe qu'il n'y parait. Nous avons vu en effet que 1Έpίstula ad Cometam devait etre comprise comme une reponse cήti­ que de Jean Damascene a un florilege «retouche» qui lui avait ete presente. Or, dans celle-ci, apres avoir commente les citations «problematiques» de Basile et des Constίtutίons apostolίques (η 0 2 et 3), le Damascene ajoute: «Ό μέντοι πολύς την θείαν γνώσιν καi άρετήν

'Αθανάσιος,

έν

τοις

έορταστικοις

αυτου

λόγοις

εξ

τάς

της

Τεσσαρακοστης έβδομάδας έκφανέστερον άπεφήνατο· μεθ'liς της του πάθους έβδομάδος προστάττει άπάρχεσθαι»

(PG 95, 69

Α).

58 W. Cureton, Tlιe Festal Letter.~ of Athana.~ius, Londres, 1848. Nous avons consulte la Lettre XL dans sa traduction italienne: voir ci-dessus, η. 28. 59 Voir ci-dessus, η. 55. 60 Sur cette question , cf. Α. Camplani, Le Lettere Festali dί Atanasio dί Alessandria. Studio stoι·ίω-critίco, Rome, 1989, p. 159-189.

VIII UN FLORILEGE SUR LE GRAND CAREME

103

Cette allusion peut donner l' impression d 'une digression inutile d'autant plus qu'Athanase se prononce pour six semaines de Careme - , sauf si \Όη considere que l'Epίstula commente une χρησις d'Athanase contenue dans le florilege. La digression de l' Epίstula ad Cometam doit alors etre comprise de \a faς;on suivante: Jean Damascene a sous les yeux une citation dont il est dit qu'elle est extraite de l'Epίstula encyι·lίca d'Athanase d'Alexandrie (peut-etre en ces termes: « 'Αθανασίου έκ της έγκυκλίου» ), et qui affirme que la duree du Grand Careme est de sept semaines. C'est notre χρησις η 0 561 • Notre auteur n'a pas les moyens de verifier cette citation; il sait neanmoins que dans ses lettres festales, Athanase s'est toujours prononce pour un Careme de six semaines. D'ou sa reponse: ailleurs, Athanase a "plus explicitement" adopte une position differente de celle enoncee dans le florilege: «έν τοις έορταστικοις αύτου λόγοις εξ τας της Τεσσαρακοστης έβδομάδας έκφανέστερον απεφήνατο» (PG 95, 69 Α). Dans le texte original du florilege, la citation d' Anastase de Constantinople etait donc placee sous l'autorite d'Athanase d'Alexandrie. Cependant, d'ou etait tire ce fragment? Α notre sens, deux hypotheses peuvent etre avancees: [1] Si l'on suppose que le fragment n'a pas ete manipule, mais qu'il est effectivement extrait d'une lettre festale d'un patriarche d'Alexandrie, οη doit l'attribuer a Timothee Elure. Ceci n'est pas incompatible avec les procedes suivis par le compilateur du florilege. Εη effet, nous avons vu plus haut qu'un fragment de Severe d'Antioche avait ete place sous l'autorite de Jean d'Athenes (η 0 7). [2] Si !Όη opte pour 1'hypothese de la falsification, οη doit considerer que Ie compilateur s'est inspire de la lettre festale de 368 promulguee par Athanase, mais qu'il a largement remanie son texte, notamment dans la presentation du calendrier du Careme. Il aurait ainsi adopte un style caracteristique de son epoque - celui que nous connaissons a travers Ρ 10677 - , et recalcule la date du debut du jeίine, remplaς;ant le 14 Phamenoth par le 8 Phamenoth. Malheureusement, les donnees que nous possedons a ce jour ne nous permettent pas d'operer un choix entre l'une ou l'autre de ces deux hypotheses, meme s'il apparait que la seconde est plus difficile a soutenir.

61 Remarquons par ailleurs que l ' autoήte qui se cache deπiere le nom d'Anastase de Constantinople doit etre consideree comme une personnalite de premier rang, puisque le compilateur la place avec les Constitution.~ apostoliques, Basile et Jean Chrysostome: c'est bien le cas d'Athanase.

VIII 104 CONCLUSION

Le floήlege sur le Grand Careme inclus dans le De sacrίs jejunίίs n'est pas une reuvre de Jean Damascene. 11 a ete realise de faς;on coherente par un seul compilateur, dans le cadre d'une querelle interne a l'Eglise de Jerusalem sur le maintien ou ποπ de la semaine des laitages, dans les annees 735-745 environ. 11 a ete communique a Jean Damascene, qui a donne une reponse a son sujet dans l'Epίstula ad Cometam. Ce florilege est interessant dans la mesure ou il nous permet de saisir Ies methodes mises en reuvre par le compilateur pour manipuler a son avantage plusieurs χρήσεις patristiques ou monophysites. 11 nous livre egalement des fragments d'reuvres perdues. Etant donne l'usage douteux qui y est fait des citations identifiables, la plus grande prudence est a garder pour ce qui est des fragments d'reuvres inconnues par ailleurs. Une question qui n'a pas ete consideree dans la presente etude meriterait egalement d'etre abordee; c'est la question des rapports que le parti favorable aux sept semaines de jefine aurait eventuellement entretenus avec le mouvement iconoclaste. Une recherche entreprise dans cette optique permettrait peut-etre aussi de comprendre quand et comment le nom d 'Anastase de Constantinople a ete introduit dans le floήlege .

IX

Le florilege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre de Jean Damascene a Cometas (Traduction Α.

franςaise)

Florilege anonyme sur la Grand Careme 1

Ι. Dέfense apostolίque

et patrίstίque dujeiιne de sept semaίnes.

1. De saint lgnace, hieromartyr, Epitre aux Philippiens2 . Si un homrne est chaste et continent, qu'il n'en tire pas vanite, pour ne pas perdre sa retribution. Ne dedaignez pas les celebrations. Ne meprisez pas la Quarantaine, car elle contient en elle l 'imitation de la vie du Seigneur. Ne negligez pas la Semaine de la Passion. Εη jeunant les mercredis et les vendredis, donnez le surplus aux indigents. Si quelqu'unjeune le dimanche ou le samedi, un seul samedi excepte, celui-ci est un meurtrier du Christ. 2. Commandement des saints Apδtres 3 • Avec cela, il nous faut observer le jeune de la sainte Quarantaine, qui fait memoire de la vie et de la legislation du Christ. Que 1'οη pratique ce jeune avant le jeune de Paques, en commenς;ant le lundi et en allant jusqu'au vendredi . .έtant parvenus a la fin du jeune de ces [semaines], comrnencez la sainte semaine de Paques, en jeunant tous [durant cette semaine] avec crainte et peur, et en priant au cours de celle-ci pour ceux qui sont perdus, La presente traduction du Florίlege sur le Grand Careme sera egalement publiee dans notre article Du mauvais usage des souτces dans un florilege palestinien du νιιι' siecle, in S. MoRL ET (dir.), Lίre en extraits, Paris (a parailτe). Elle est basee sur la nouvelle edition donnee dans ce meme article et realisee a partir des deux seuls temoins connus : Florent. Med. Laur. , Plut 86.6 (12' s.), f. 106- 7 ; Andros, Μονή Άγίας 88 (a. 1258), f. 366 ν-8 . - La premiere edition du Florίlege a ete donnee par Μ. L ε Quι εΝ , Joannίs Damascenί, Opera omnίa [. . .], Paris 1712, 1, p. 498- 505 (=ΡΟ 95, 69 D- 72 Α). Elle est basee sur le manuscrit de Florence. Nous ne signalons ici que les divergences les plus notables de notre texte par rapport a celui de Le Quien. P s.-lG NAC E D'ΑΝτιοcιιε, Epistula 5, 13, 2- 3, ed. F. Χ. F UNκ, Patres apostolίcί, Π , Tubingen 1901 , p. 120 ; ΡΟ 5, 937 Α. Constitutίons apostolίques V, 13, 3- 14, ed. Μ . M ETZGER (SC 329), Paris 1986, p. 246- 8.

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

2

car c'est [durant cette semaine] qu'ils ont commence a agir contre la volonte du Seigneur. Or lui-meme nous a ordonne de respecter ces sixjours de jeune, en raison de l 'impiete des juifs. 3. De saint Basile, discours Contre les

ίvrognes4.

Si, malgre toutes les exhortations que nous n'avons pas cesse de vous adresser ces derniers temps, si, malgre le temoignage de l 'Evangile de la grace de Dieu, que nous n'avons pas aπete de vous donner, nuit et jour, durant ces sept semaines de jeune, aucun benefice ne s'est produit, que pouvons-nous esperer en nous adressant a vous aujourd'hui 5 ? 4. De Chrysostome, discours Sur le jeune, vers la fin 6 • Quarante jours sont donc passes. Si la sainte Paque est donc passee, je n'accorderai plus de pardon a personne ηί ne ferai d'exhortation. 5. De saint Anatole7, patriarche de Constantinople, Encyclίque8 • Nous celebrons donc, par la grace de Dieu, la sainte Paque de la onzieme indiction, le 25 du mois de Pharmouthi selon les Egyptiens, soit le 20 avril selon les Romains, douze jours avant les calendes de mai ; et nous commenς:ons le jeune des sept semaines a partir du lundi 8 du mois de Phamenoth selon les Egyptiens, le 3 mars selon les Romains.

ΒΑsιιε

DE

CέsΑRέε,

ln

ebrίosos ,

1 : PG 31 , 444, 47--445 , 3. ] έπi ποίαις έλπίσι

έπi ποίαις έλπίσι διαλεχθωμεν σήμερον

διαλεχθωμεν, γυναικες

άκόλαστοι έπιλαθόμεναι του φόβου του Θεου, του πυρός αίωνίου καταφρονήσασαι, έν ήμέρι;ι.

τοιαύτ,η, δτε αύτάς έχρην διά τήν άνάμνησιν της άναστάσεως καθησθαι έν τοις οίκοις

95, 73

add. PG

Β.

JEAN

CιιRνsοsτοΜΕ,

Ad populum Antίochenum ,

ΧΧ

§ 9: PG 49, 211 , 6-9.

Του άγίου Άνατολίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, έκτης 'Εγκυκλίου] Του

PG 95, 73 C. Cf. V. GRUMEL, Les Regestes des actes du patrίarcat de Constantίnople, Ι , l , Paris 19722 , p. 99. - Nous avons longuement traite de cette citation dans CοΝτιcειιο 2004. Cependant, a l'epoque, nolτe lecture du manuscrit de Andros etait la suivante : Του έν άγίου Ά ναστασίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, έκ της 'Εγκυκλίου

άγίοις πατρός ήμων Άναστασίου άρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, έκ της έγκυκλίου έπιστολης (cf. CοΝτιcειιο 2004, p. 92, n. 36). Un nouvel examen du microfilm, realise en 2013, a permis de lίre Άνατολίου a la place de Άναστασίου. C'est donc cette variante, qui confirme l' hypothese de Grumel, que nous avons retenue ici. 11 n'en reste pas moins que cette reference est tres discutable, rien n'excluant que Jean Damascene ait eu sous les yeux la fausse attribution aAthanase d' Alexandrie, une hypothese que nous discutons dans CONTICELLO 2004, p. 99- 103.

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

3

6. De saint Epiphane de Chypre, Aux moίnes 9 • Respectez sans ecart la Quarantaine de la sainte Eglise et la semaine de la sainte Paque. 7. Jean eveque d' Athenesιo. Afin que nous supposions que l'issue de cette septaine sacree des jeιΊnes soit sιΊre et impeccable. Εη effet, en se retournant et en s'inclinant perpetuellement sur elle-meme, comme si elle s'enroulait et tournait de faς;on identique autour d'un meme point, la semaine accomplit pour nous le siecle septuple. 8. De saint Anastase patriarche de Theoupolis, c'est-a-dire d'Antioche de Syrie 11 • Comprenons donc que le jeιΊne des quarante jours se deroule sur sept semaines, sans cesser toutefois, d'aucune faς;on, d'etre une Quarantaine. Au contraire, il gagne aussi une finesse mystique. Εη effet, sept se distingue comme nombre parfait et tres sacre, et il remplit plutδt de grace divine les jours de nos combats sacres, en se produisant sept fois durant ces sept semaιnes.

9. De saint Pierre, patriarche de Jerusalem 12 • Ayant opportunement mentionne le jeιΊne, nous vous dirons egalement ceci : par la grace de Dieu, commenς;ons le jeίΊne prescrit des sept semaines depuis le 7 du mois de fevrier, en celebrant la Passion salutaire et la Resurrection du Christ le 27 du mois appele mars. ΙΙ. Demonstratίon

: les heretίques affirment que les jeunes sont au nombre de huίt.

semaίnes

des

saίnts

1. Citations de Severe 1'Acephale, heresiarque et paϊen, qui devint archeveque d'Antioche de Syrie, tirees de ses Homelίes cathedrales, [en particulier de celle] Sur la Quarantaίne des jeunes. [Cette homelie] a ete prononcee le vendredi precedant [le jeίΊne], dans l'eglise de Cassien. Ps .-ATHANASE οΆιεχΑΝDRΙΕ , Syntagrna ad monachos, 2, 11 , ed. Ρ. BATΙFFOL, Syntagma doctrinae dίt de Saίnt Athanase, Paris 1890, p. 123. Egalement, resume d'ΕΡΙΡΗΑΝΕ DE SALAM ΙNE, Dejide 22, 9- 10, ed. Κ. Ηοιι, Epίphanίus, ΙΙΙ, Berlin 19852, p. 523. 10 Il s' agit en realite d' un texte tire de SένέRΕ ο' ΑΝτιοcΗΕ , Homelίe cathedrale XV, 13, ed. Μ. Briere, F. Graffin (ΡΟ 38), Turnhout 1976, p. 427. α. CONTICELLO 2004, p. 96-9. 11 Fragment non identifie a ce jour. 12 Fragment d ' une ceuvre imputee aPierre de Jerusalem (cf. CPG 7018), mais inconnue par ailleurs.

IX 4

Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

Elle commence ainsi : « C'est aussi une loi, a propos des competitions corporelles ». Et au milieu du discours 13 : Εη effet, ceux qui purifient huit fois ces cinq sens par le moyen desquels le peche se procure une entree - je veux dire l'ouϊe, la vue, le toucher, le gοί'ιt et l'odorat -, jeunent quarante jours, afin d'obtenir le jour bienheureux, ce [jour] huitieme et premier. Car le nombre cinq, en revenant huit fois, produit le nombre des quarante jours. 2. Du meme, du livre des chapitres divers annotes par lui-meme de fayon autographe. Seconde annotation 14 • Qu 'il faut jeίΊner sans ecart les quarante jours, qui sont deduits des huit semaines. Εη effet, pour chaque semaine, deux jours, je veux dire le samedi et le dimanche, sont consacres au repos des elus. 11 est de ce fait evident qu'il ne faut pas jeuner le samedi et le dimanche, meme durant la sainte Quarantaine des jeunes. 3. Du maudit ennemi de Dieu Benjamin, eveque usurpateur d'Alexandrie d'Egypte, qui appartient au tres mauvais attelage de Dioscore et de Severe, du quatrieme livre de ses Lettres festales, de la trentieme lettre pseudofestale, dont le debut est : « Joyeuse et digne d'admiration ». Et vers la finιs : Εη commenyant les quarante jours du jeίΊne, c' est-a-dire les huit semaines, et en jeίΊnant dans la temperance pour la destruction des huit pensees qui se dressent contre l'ame, du 27 du mois de Mehir selon les Egyptiens, jusqu'au 20 du mois de Pharmouthi.

4. Du meme, trente-et-unieme lettre pseudo-festale, dont le debut est : « Et maintenant, je crois entendre ». Et vers la fin 16 : Commenyant le jeίΊne des huit semaines - c'est-a-dire de la sainte Quarantaine, puisqu'on n'inclut pas le samedi et le dimanche dans les jours de jeune - le 19 du mois de Mehir selon les Egyptiens, soit aux ides de fevrier selon les Romains, c'est-a-dire le 13 fevrier, et celui de la sainte semaine de la Paque salvatrice le 8 du mois de Pharmouthi selon les Egyptiens, soit trois jours avant les nonnes d'avril selon les Romains, c'est 13

SένέRΕ ο' ΑΝΤΙΟCΗΕ, Homelίe

14

Provenance inconnue.

cathedrale XV:

ΡΟ

38, p. 418 et 429.

ed. C. D. G. Μ ϋ ιιεR, Die Homίlie iiber die zu Καnα und weίtere Schrίflen des Patrίarchen Benjamίn 1. von Alexandrίen , dans Abhandlungen der Heίdelberger Akademίe der Wίssenschaften, Phίlos.-hίst. Klasse, Heidelberg 1968, 1. Abhandlung, p. 32. 16 BENJAMIN ο' ALEXANDRIE, Homelίes, p. 32. 15

ΒΕΝJΑΜΙΝ ο'ΑιΕΧΑΝDRΙΕ, Homelίes ,

Hochzeίt

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

5

a dire le 3 avril. Et par la suite, ayant celebre les saints jours de la Paque, nous romprons le jeune tard dans la soiree du Samedi saint. Β.

Jean Damascene, Lettre a Cometas 17

Au seigneur Cometas 18 , beni et veritable serviteur du Christ, son frere spirituel, Jean le moindre. 1. Parmi les dons nombreux et infinis dispenses aux hommes par Dieu, le premier et le plus extraordinaire est le don de la prudence. Εη effet, elle est discemement du bien et du mal 19 . Ainsi, celui qui a parfaitement discerne, a aussi parfaitement choisi ce qui est le plus convenable, faisant de sa raison le cocher des puissances subaltemes20 • La parole de Salomon « il y a un temps pour tout »21 est le fruit mur de la prudence. Elle signifie que le bien est tout ce qui est. Car le mal n'est pas dans les choses qui Notre traduction de la Lettre ά Cometas a ete publiee pour la premiere fois dans 2005, p. 89- 94. Elle est fondee sur le texte de Le Quien (= PG 95, 64 Α-72 C), legerement ameliore au regard des manuscrits Oxon. Barocc. 196 (a. 1043), f. 312, et surtout Andros, Μονή Άγίας 88 (a. 1258), f. 364ν-366 '. On notera qu'il existe trois autres manuscrits de la Lettre ά Cometas: Florent. Med. Laur. , Plut. 86.6 (l2e s.), dont s'est servi Μ . Le Quien pour son edition; Sίnaitίc. 482 (14e s.); Athon. Dionys. 118 (3652) (17' s.). 18 Sur lui, cf. ΡΜΒΖ 3666. - Ce Cometas, dont nous apprenons plus bas qu ' il est un homme puissant (PG 95, 65 Β: οίς ή άρετη τό Ιiρχειν ένδίκως περιποιήσατο) , n' est connu qu'a travers le De sacris ieiuniis. 19 ΑRι sτοτε , Eth. Nicom., 1140 Β , definit la φρόνησις comme une εξις μετά λόγου άληθη περί τα άνθρώπινα άγαθά πρακτική . Dans Eth. Eud. , 1214 Α , il rappelle que pour certains, la φρόνησις est le plus grand bien : οί μέν την φρόνησιν μέγιστον εlναί φασιν άγαθόν, οί δέ την άρετήν, οί δέ την ήδονήν. J εΑΝ DAMASCENE, Dialectίca 52, 1. 23, ed. Κοττε R Ι , p. 120, rappelle la definition aristotelicienne de la φρόνησις comme εξις : ή μέν εξις δυσμετάβλητος έστι καi χρονιωτέρα οίον ή φρόνησις . Dans Expositίo jidei 36, ed. ΚοττεR ΙΙ, p. 89, traitant des γνωστικαi δυνάμεις, il decrit ainsi son processus de formation : Ή δέ 17

CοΝτι cειιο

ένθύμησις έν ταυτφ μείνασα καi έαυτήν βασανίσασα καi άνακρίνασα φρόνησις ονομάζεται.

Les et άνακρίνασα correspondent bien au discernement. 2 Cf. ΡιΑΤΟΝ, Phaedrus, 247b. - La presente allusion a l'image du cocher s'inscrit dans la tradition des developpements apportes par ΡΗιιοΝ o'AιEXAN DRIE , Legum allegoriarum lίber ΙΙΙ, 118, 3 : ήνίοχον καi κυβερνήτην έφιστάς τόν λόγον ; 132, 4; 136, 2- 3 : έφιδρύσαι τόν λόγον ώσανε ί τινα ήνίοχον; De νίrtutίbus 13, 3 : της λογ ικής[ ... ] ήνιοχούσης ; Cι έΜ ΕΝΤ o'Aι EX AN DRI E, Stromate V, VIII, 53, 1 (SC 278, p. 110- 11 ; cf. aussi SC 279, p. 196-7); GRέGOIRE DE Nv ssε, Dial. de anima et resurrectione (PG 46, 61 , 29): ό λόγος[ . . . ] οίόν τις ήνίοχος. - Jean Damascene utilise egalement cette image dans sa Laudatίo sanctί Johannίs Chrysostomί (6, 1. 13, ed. ΚοηΈ Ι\ Υ, p. 362) : λόγου δέ έπικρατείr;ι ήνιοχούντος τό άλογον. 21 Qo 3, 1. Ή δέ φρόνησις πλατυνθεισα ποιει τόν διαλογισμόν ένδιάθετον λόγον όνομαζόμενον .

termes

°

βασανίσασα

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

6

sont ; il est plutδt banissement et destruction du bien 22 • Donc, lorsque telle chose aura ete jugee bonne, au moyen de la raison bien entendu (car le mauvais jugement est plus absence de jugement que jugement)23 , il y aura un temps pour garder le silence, lorsque ceci sera bon, et un temps pour parler, lorsque quelqu'un le demandera. Εη effet, parler avant d'avoir ete inteπoge et prendre la route avant d'avoir reς:u la mission, c'est sottise pour celui qui parle et celui qui marche 24 • Toutefois, ce sont les circonstances qui determinent s'il est necessaire de parler et si se taire n'est pas sans dangers 25 • Il y a ainsi des moments ού le devoir est preferable a ce qui semble bon. Ainsi, en ce qui me regarde, je devrais me taire a tout moment. Εη effet, j'ai ete ampute de la parole pour n'avoir pas fait attention 26 • Et 22

Cf. JEAN DAMASCENE,

Dίalectίca

1, 1. 12- 13 , ed. KoTTER

Ι, ρ.

53 :

Τό γαρ ψευδος

ετερον ούδέν, η τό μή δν, καθέστηκεν.

Cf. JEAN DAMASCENE, Exposίtίo fideί 36, 1. 77, ed. ΚοπεR ΙΙ, p. 90 : Είτα κρίνει τό - Pour Jean Damascene, Je jugement est ]'une des activites (ένέργειαι) de la nature raisonnable dans son exercice de la libre volonte (αύτεξούσιος θέλησις). Contraίrement aux appetits non raisorιnables (iiλογαι όρέξεις), passions (πάθη) qui donnent lieu a un passage immediat et spontane a l'action (εύθής όρμή πρός τήν πραξιν), ces activites, definies comme appetits naturels et raisonnables (λογικαi καi φυσικαi όρέξεις) , a l' instar de la volonte elle-meme, se succedent dans un processus permettant d'aboutir au libre choix du meilleur (τό κρειττον), puis iι l'action responsable, selon la parole de Qo 33, 34: iiνευ κρίσεως μή ποιήσn μηδέν. Cf. Exposίtίofideί 36, 1. 51 - 94; 62, 1. 57- 70, ed. ΚοπεR ΙΙ , ρ . 89- 91 ; 159- 60; De duabus ίn Chrίsto voluntatίbus 18, 1. 19- 29, ed. ΚοπΕR IV, p. 202- 3 ; Sacra parallela 17 (PG 95, 1392 Β) . 24 Cf. JEAN DAMASCENE, Dialectίca 2, 1. 2- 3, ed . KOTTER Ι , ρ . 55 : πας άσκόπως 23

κρειττον, καi λέγεται κρίσις.

έναρχόμενος πράγματος ώς έν σκότει διαπορεύεται. 25

Cf. JEAN DAMASCENE, De

ίmagίnίbus Ι, 1, 1.

4- 19, ed.

ΚοπΕR ΠΙ , ρ .

ήμας άεi της έαυτών συναισθανομένους άναξιότητος σιγήν iiγειv

[ ... ],

65:

Έχρην μέν

άλλ'έπειδή πάντα

[ ... ] βαλλομέvην [ ... ], ούκ εύλογον ήγησάμην [ ... ] ; De ίmagίnίbus ΙΙ , 1, 1. 6- 8, ed. ΚοηΈ Ι\ ΠΙ , ρ . 68 : Ού γαρ δόξης ένεκεν η φανητιασμου πρός τό λέγειν ωρμησα [ ... ] άλλα ζήλφ άληθείας. 26 Nous avons prefere au ύπέρ donne dans l' edition Le Quien le ύπό des manuscrits (Oxford, Barocc. 196, f. 312 ; Andros, Μονή Άγίας 88, f. 365). - Allusion probable aux deboires subis par l'auteur iι la suite de sa vehemente prise de position en faveur des images (cf. ci-dessus, n. 25). - L'άπροσεξία, definie par llisvcHιus, Lexίcon, ed. Κ. LΑΠΕ , Copenhague 1966, n°6843, de p1tθυμία παρά τό μή προσέχειν τινά έαυτφ η τοις πρακτέοις, est ce defaut ou maladie de l' iime qui conduisit notre premier ancetre au peche: cf. Eu sεsε οε CέsAREE , Praeparatίo evangelίca VII, 1Ο (SC 215, ρ . 21 Ο) : ό πρώτος δι ' άπροσεξίαν, θείας καταφρονήσας έντολης, άποπέπτωκεν [ ... ] ; JEAN DAMASCENE, Oratίo ίn Sabbatum sanctum 17, 1. 11- 13, ed. ΚοηΈ Ι\ V, p. 129 : ο'ί γε πρός τό παρά φύσιν έξ άπροσεξίας έληλακότες. Les auteurs ascetiques la classent parmi les etats conduisant a l'eloignement de Dieu. Voir ainsi Ps . -MACAΙRE, Sermo ΙΙ, 1, 2, ed. Η , BERTHOLD (GCS), Berlin J973 : των δέ μή ποιούντων καλά έν καιρφ αύτών, όρώ δέ τήν έκκλησίαν

σιγαν καi δεσμόν έπιθείναι τfί γλώσσn

καρπόν ζωής αίωνίου σημειά έστι ταυτα· άκηδία, μετεωρισμός, περίβλεψις, άπροσεξία,

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

7

d'ailleurs, comment celui qui est pauvre en vertu parlerait-il devant ceux qui sont sages et superieurs par leur intelligence, ceux qui, grace a leur vertu, ont a bon droit reςu le gouvernement ? Ayant cela a l'esprit, je me serais tu, meme a present, si le respect que je dois a ta gloire preservee par Dieu, δ tres cher, ne m'avait force a ecrire. Voyant en effet ta hate dans tes 27 lettres honorables, j'ai juge que tu ne nous 28 enjoignais pas a parler inutilement et en vain, mais parce qu 'un besoin pressant t'y contraignait. J'ecris donc, force par ta vertu et ton amitie 29 • Que quiconque connait l'epreuve de force de ceux qui sont sous la contrainte me pardonne30 ! J'ecris sans placer quoi que ce soit au-dessus de la verite, qui est preferable a toutes choses, meme a la vie. C'est avec [la verite] que l'on doit choisir de vivre, et la mort en sa faveur est plus souhaitable que la vie 31 • 2. Votre tres honorable vertu 32 a ecrit que certaines personnes ont proclame publiquement que nous soutenions que les semaines de jeune [du Grand Careme] etaient au nombre de huit. Et elle nous a enjoint a ecrire pour dire si telle etait notre opinion. Α cela, nous repondrons qu'il n'y a rien de plus haut que la paix de l'Eglise33 . C'est pour elle qu'il y eut la Loi et γογγυσμός, κ:έμφωσις IΞPHREM ιε SYRΙEN , Sermones parenetίcί ad monachos Aegyptί 14, ed. Κ. Ρι1RΑΝτzοιέs, Thessalonique 1990 : Νηφε ουν σφόδρα, δτι πολλής προσοχής δέεται τό πραγμα, κ:αi μή κ:αταφρονήσης- άλλ 'έν πάση άγιότητι έστω ύμών ή άναστροφή μετ ' άλλήλων, μήποτε έξ άπροσεξίας ύποσπείρη τι των ίδίων ό 'Εχθρός διά της ύπακ:οης του

On retrouve ce theme chez des auteurs plus tardifs : ΝιcέΡΗΟRΕ ΒιεΜΜΥDέs , Sermo ad monachos suos (PG 142, 589 Α-593 Ο): 'Ή γάρ έξ έπισφαλούς προαιρέσεως τό

ύποκ:ειμένου.

άμαρτάνειν, η κ:αi παρά προαίρεσιν έξ άπροσεξίας ήμιν έπιγίνεται. Μαλλον δέ κ:αi αύτό

; THEOLEPTE DE ΡΙΙΙLΑDΕLΡΗΙΕ, 14, ed. R. SιΝκεwιcz (Studies and texts 111 ), Toronto 1992, p. 118 :

τό άπρόσεκ:τον άμαρτία έστίν, η τέως γουν άμαρτίας άρχή Oratίones monastίcae Π ,

Ό δέ τήν άπροσεξίαν νοσών τφ μέρει της άλογίας ύποκ:λίνεται κ:αί, τον γνόφον ύπερχόμενος τού των αίσθήσεων έρωτος, τον έρωτα τού θείου φωτός άποτίθεται κ:αi τού λόγου διακρίνεται κ:αi της γνώσεως έκ:βάλλεται κ:αi είς τήν χώραν των παθών γίνεται.

En suivant le manuscrit d ' Andros, f. 365, nous corrigeons ήμών par ύμών. En suivant le manuscrit d ' Andros, f. 365, nous corrigeons ύμας par ήμας. 29 φιλίςι. Dans le manuscrit d'Andros, f. 365, nous trouvons la variante θεοφιλίςι . 3 Cf. JEAN DAMASCENE, Exposίtίo jideί 38, l. 15- 20, ed. ΚοπεR 11, p. 94- 5. 31 Eccl . 4, 28 : εως θανάτου άγωνίσαι περί της άληθείας, κ:αi κύριος ό Θεός πολεμήσει ύπέρ σού . Voir aussi JEAN DAMASCENE, Sacra Parallela 19 (PG 95, 1204 Ο) . 32 Ce passage iι la deuxieme personne du pluriel marque le changement de registre : la preface a un caractere prive, la suite prend un caractere public. 33 JEAN CHRYSOSTOME, De decem mίllίum talentorMm debitore (PG 51, 28, l. 51) : της είρήνης κ:αi της άγάπης της είς τον πλησίον ούδέν άνώτερον τίθησιν . Voir aussi JEAN DAMASCENE, Sacra Parallela 18 (PG 95, 1200 Β). 27

28

°

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

8

les prophetes. C'est pour elle que Dieu devint homme, mystere reellement grand et insondable. C'est elle que le Christ vint annoncer. C'est elle que le Christ lui-meme offrit a ses disciples avant la Passion et apres la Resuπection qui suivit la Passion. C'est elle qu'il laissa en heritage aux apδtres et, par leur intermediaire, a l'Eglise, lorsqu'il monta aux cieux avec sa chair, ces cieux dont il etait descendu sans la chair34 • Or, la paix, c'est l'accord (συμφωνία) 3 5 dans le bien. Car l'accord dans le mal doit etre appele sedition plutδt que pacification. Par consequent, mon but, a moi le tres humble, est de donner avant tout la victoire a la paix et de dire, dans la mesure de mes forces, a ceux qui me le demandent, qu ' est-ce qui conduit a elle36 . 3. Voyant donc que la revolte au sujet des jeίines sacres avait atteint son paroxysme, j'implorais Dieu et me desolais, parce que « le peche nous soumet a la mort au moyen du bien » 37 • Εη effet, quel est le profit dujeune pour ceux qui jeίinent dans les disputes et les conflits ? C'est pourquoi je recommandais a ceux qui se prononcent en faveur des sept semaines de ne pas se quereller et se revolter contre le bon corps du Christ, c' est a dire l'Eglise, mais plutδt d' obeir a ceux qui ont re9u la charge de diriger [l'Eglise] et de dispenser la Parole. Εη effet, c'est une bonne chose que de surabonder dans le bien, progresser, s'elever vers les choses les plus grandes et les plus hautes, « ajouter a toutes les louanges du Seigneur » 38 • Quant a ceux qui font une loi des huit semaines, je retorquais que nul bien n'est un bien s'il n'est pas bien fait. Ainsi, la virginite est un bien. Mais « si pourtant tu te maries, tu ne peches pas »39 . Jeίiner chaque jour est un bien. Mais « que celui qui ne mange pas ne juge pas celui qui mange »40 • Et voila ce que je leur ai encore dit : dans ces choses, il ne faut pas legiferer, il Cf. Jn 14, 27 . Cf. Mt 18, 19 et JEAN DAMASCENE, Sacra Parallela 18 (PG 95, 1196 Β) . 36 Cf. JEAN DAMASCENE, Sacra Parallela 18 (PG 95, 1193 CD). Cf. Ps 71 , 14. 37 Cf. Rm 7, 13 ; JEAN DAMASCENE, Oratίo ίn natίvίtatem sanctae deί genίtrίcίs Marίae 8, 1. 3-4, ed. ΚοπεR Υ, p. 177 ; Commentarίί ίn Ep. Paulί (PG 95, 493 D). - L'usage de ce verset iι propos dujeί\ne se retrouve chez Mι cH E L CιιοΝ ι Ατ έs , Oratίo Υ, ed . S. LAM PROS Ι [s.l.] 1879, reirnpr. Grδningen 1968, p. 11 Ο: Τί γάρ σοι τό κέρδος ένσάρκου μέν άπέχεσθαι τροφη ς, 34 35

των δέ σαρκικών ήττασθαι παθών καi ο'ίνου μέν μή γεύεσθαι τυχόν, μεθύειν δ · άλλως θυμφ

καi βακχεύεσθαι καi τόν όφθαλόν ταράττεσθαι;

[ .. . ]

μή τό δπλον της σωτηρίας ποιήσεις

άπωλείας πρόφασιν, μή γένηται καθ ' ύπερβολήν άμαρτωλός ή άμαρτία, δια τού άγαθο ύ της νηστείας κατεργαζομένη θάνατον. 38 39

40

Cf. Ps 71 , 14. ΙCο 7, 28 . Rm 14, 3.

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

9

ne faut pas contraindre, il n'est pas convenable de conduire par la force le troupeau qui nous est confie. 11 faut plutδt user de persuasion, de douceur, et « assaisonner de sel son discours »41 • 4. Par ailleurs, s'il faut rendre publique notre propre opinion, nous dirons ceci : si, d'une part, notre saint Pere Basile, l'initiateur de la verite, a dit dans son discours Contre les ίvrognes qu'il y a sept semaines de jeunes sacres au total 42 et si, d'autre part, Gregoire, celui dont le surnom vient de la theologie, a dit dans son discours Sur le bapteme que le Seigneur nous a offert par son jeύne de quarante jours un typos et un modele a imiter pour ces jeύnes4 3 , il est necessaire de concilier ces deux opinions. Εη effet, les doctrines de ces hommes divins ne doivent pas etre prises en flagrant delit de contradiction. Car voila, ce qui provoque la revolte, c'est l'incapacite a discerner la force des enonces. Nous n'avons pas reς;u comme Ιοί de jeύner la dime de l'annee, comme certains le pensent44 • Εη revanche, il existe un canon qui prescrit explicitement de jeuner la Quarantaine45 . Or, la dime de l'annee n'est pas de quarante jours. Dans ce cas, comment nous, qui jeύnons cinq jours par semaine, aπiverions-nous au chiffre quarante, si nous ne jeύnions pas cinq jours par semaine pendant huit semaines 46 ? Α cela nous repondons donc, qu'ayant lu les Constίtutίons des Saίnts Apόtres , nous y avons trouve le precepte suivant : « il faut jeύner la sainte Quarantaine, en commenς;ant par un lundi et en finissant un vendredi, apres quoi nous commenς;ons la semaine de la Passion »47 • Mais si la Quarantaine s'etend sur huit semaines, et si, par la suite, nous commenς;ons la semaine

41

Cf. Col 4 , 6 ; JEAN D AMASCENE, Laudatίo sanctί Johannίs Chrysostomί 13, 1. 4 , ed. p. 266 ; Sacra parallela (PG 96, 73 D) ; Comm entarίί ίn Ep. Paulί (PG 95, 901 Β). B As ιιε υ ε CέsAREE, lnebrίosos 1 (PG 31 , 444, l.47---445, 1. 3 ; 445,1. 21- 5), citedans

ΚοηΈ R Υ, 42

le

Florίlege 43

sur le Grand Careme (Ι, 3). DE ΝΑΖΙ Α ΝΖ Ε, Or. XL , 30 (SC 358), p. 266 :

GRέooιRE

Καί ό μεν νηστεύει

τεσσαράκοντα ήμέρας - Θεός γαρ ην -, ήμεις δέ τfi δυνάμει τούτο συνεμετρήσαμεν, εί καί τινας ςiττειν ό ζη λος πείθει καi ύπέρ δύναμιν. 44

Cf. Lv 27, 30- 32; JEAN

CASS Ι EN ,

lnstruct. XV, 159 (SC 92), p. 448;

ΧΧΙ , 25 (SC 64), p. 100; DoROTHEE DE GAzA, LE G RAND, Hom. XL ίn Evang., Hom. XVII, 5

Conl.

GRέGO ΙRE

(PL 76, 1137). 45 Cf. Concile de Nicee, Canon 5, ed. Ρ. -Ρ. JοΑΝΝο υ, Discipline generale antίque (JJe-Jχe s.) Ι/ 1 (Pontificia Commissione per la redazione del Codice di diritto canonico orientale. Fonti. Fasc. 9), Grottaferrata 1962, p. 28. 46 Jean Damascene semble se referer ici a un ύagment present dans le Florίlege (ΙΙ , 1). ΙΙ s 'agit d ' un extrait de SένέRΕ ο ' ΑΝτιοcΗ Ε , Hom . cathedralίs XV (ΡΟ 38/2, p. 429). 47 Cf. Const. apost. Υ, 13 , 1. 3---4 (SC 329), p. 246-7, passage cite dans le Florίlege (Ι, 2).

IX 1Ο

Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

de la Passion, il faudra jeuner pendant neuf semaines au total. Pourtant, le tres excellent dans la connaissance divine et la vertu Athanase, a dit plus explicitement dans ses Lettres festales que la Quarantaine est de six semaines. Et il ordonne que la semaine de la Passion cornmence apres celles-ci 48 • Partant de tous [ces enseignements], nous sommes parvenus a la conclusion que le jeune n'est pas seulement une privation complete de nourriture, du matinjusqu'au soir, mais egalement l'abstinence de certains aliments. Εη effet, nous disons jeuner de vin ou de viandes. Ainsi, puisqu'il existe un canon des saints apδtres selon lequel il est prescrit de ne pas jeuner le samedi et le dimanche, et de jeίΊner [cependant] la sainte Quarantaine49 , [nous pensons que] c'estjustement parce qu'il a ete ordonne de suivre un jeίΊne complet les cinq jours de la semaine, et de se priver uniquement de certains aliments les deux autres jours, a savoir le samedi et le dimanche. 11 faut savoir en effet que lorsque deux peines sont en presence, c'est la plus forte qui l'emporte et prend le dessus. Par exemple, la Loi ordonne que la circoncision se fasse dans les huitjours 50 , mais en meme temps, elle impose le respect du Sabbat51 • Si les huit jours sont accomplis au moment du Sabbat, que faut-il faire? Circoncire le jour du Sabbat, et violer la loi du Sabbat, ou violer la loi de la circoncision52 ? 11 en va de meme dans notre cas : le Saint Esprit, par les serviteurs du Verbe, a prescrit que le jeίΊne se fit les cinq jours de la semaine, jusqu'au soir ; et il a ordonne que l'on 48 La confusion de Jean Damascene quant iι l'opinion d'Athanase d'Alexandrie sur la duree du Careme - les Ep. festales font etat de six semaines de Careme, Semaine sainte ίncluse - est peut-etre due au fait que notre auteur a sous les yeux uη fragment inauthentique mis sous l'autorite de ce Pere (Florίlege, Ι, 5). Α ce sujet, voir CοΝτιcειιο 2004, p. 99- 103. 49 Can. apost. 64, ed. JoANNOU, Dίscίplίne, p. 41. 50 Gn 17, 12. 51 Εχ 16, 23 . 52 Cf. Exposίtίo fideί 96, 1. 35- 6, ed. KOTTER ΙΙ , p. 225 : Ti δέ πας 'Ισραήλ; Ού περιτέμνει τό παιδίον έν σαββάτφ, εί τύχει όκταήμερον ; Dans ce meme passage, Jean Damascene fait egalement allusion iι certains episodes veterotestamentaires temoignant de la pratique du jeune de quarante jours. Dans ces cas toutefois, la Ιοί du Careme prend le dessus sur la Ιοί du Sabbat, et les samedis sont jeunes : Έπεi πρωτος Μωσfjς τεσσαράκοντα

ήμερων καi αυθις έτέρων τεσσαράκοντα νηστείι;ι. προσεδρεύσας τφ Θεφ, πάντως καi τοις σάββασι δια της νηστείας έκάκου έαυτόν τού νόμου μή κακούν έαυτούς έν τfl τού σαββάτου ήμέρι;,. προστάσσοντος. Εί δέ φαίειν, δτι πρό τού νόμου τουτο, τί φήσουσι περί τού Θεσβίτου

Ήλιου τεσσαράκοντα ήμερων όδόν άνύσαντος έν βρώσει μι~; Α notre sens, il ne s'agit liι aucunement d'une contradiction avec la these de la Lettre ά Cometas : si les samedis et les dimanches du Careme des chretiens ne doivent pas etre jeunes, c' est bien en raison de la descente du Christ aux enfers et de la preeminence de la Resurrection.

IX Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

11

s'abstint de certains aliments seulement le samedi et le dimanche, [d'une part] en raison de la preeminence de la Resuπection, dont nous savons qu'elle eut lieu un dimanche, [et d'autre part] a cause de l'oblation pour tous les saints precedemment endormis, [oblation] que nous avons l'ordre de celebrer tous les samedis, en reference au samedi avant Paques, ce jour auquel le Christ a lie le Vigoureux et saisi son equipement53 , seul samedi οίι doivent jeίΊner ceux qui attendent la joie de la Resuπection. 5. De meme, nous connaissons aussi, par une tradition non-ecrite, la coutume de l'Eglise d'observer une semaine de pre-jeίΊne, dans laquelle οη s 'abstenait uniquement de viande, jusqu 'au soir, et ne celebrait ni tierce, ni sexte, ni none, ni l'office des saints Presanctifies. Six [semaines], pendant lesquelles tierce, sexte et none, ainsi que les Presanctifies sont celebres, et pendant lesquelles l'abstinence d'reufs, de fromage et de toutes ces choses s'ajoute a celle de la viande. Pour la semaine de la Passion, οη a reς:u la Ιοί de la xerophagie, et de plus, il n'y a pas d'office des Presanctifies. Puis, le jeudi saint a lieu la celebration des mysteres, car c'est ce jour-la qu'ils ont ete institues. Puis, le saint et terrible vendredi, [il faut respecter] un jeίΊne complet, jusqu'au soir du samedi. Et le soir du samedi, bien que l'on puisse manger de tout, οη ne prend pas de viande. Le saint dimanche de la Resurrection, l'Unique Sabbat, ceux qui le souhaitent peuvent aussi consommer de la viande. 6. Nous sommes donc aπives a cet ordre. Telle est la definition et la loi commune de l'Eglise, dont nous savons qu'elle est suivie dans [l' Anastasis,] la sainte Eglise de la Resurrection du Christ notre Dieu. Surabonder en bien 54 et se surpasser en vertu n'est ni reprehensible, ηί meprisable, mais agreable a Dieu et aux hommes, du moins a ceux qui ont du bon sens. Mais ceci ne soit pas se faire par la force ou la contrainte, mais plutδt par la persuasion55 • Et ceci [est indispensable] de surcroit lorsque les circonstances sont adverses et que regne l'instabilite. Ainsi, ces deux choses, a savoir surabonder en bien et se passer de violence, sont encore plus utiles et necessaires en ce moment. Qui douterait qu'il ne faille faire de notre vie toute entiere unjeίΊne permanent? Mais une chose est exhorter, Cf. Mt 12, 29. Nous corrigeons κακφ par καλφ en suivant le rnanuscrit d ' Andros (f. 366v). 55 L'opposition classique de la βία et de la πειθώ - cf. par ex. PιuτA RQUE, Vies 11 : Themίs tocle 21, 2, ed. R . F ιΑcε ιι έRΕ (CUF), Paris 1961, p. 126 ; ΑRι sτοτ ε , Eth. Eud. 122\a (ή δέ πειθώ τft βίι;,. καi άνάγκn άντιτίθεται) - se retrouve dans J EAN DAMASCENE, De ίmagίnίbus Ι , 66 et ΙΙ , 69, ed. Κοπ ε R ΙΙΙ , p. 167 : ληστρικά γάρ τά βίι;,. καi ού πε ιθοι γινόμενα . Voir aussi Exposίtίo fideί 38, \. 15- 20, ed. ΚοπΕR ΙΙ , p. 94- 5. 53

54

IX 12

Le florίlege sur le Grand Careme et la Lettre a Cometas

autre chose est legiferer. Contentons-nous des lois donnees par IΈsprit ! Que la surabondance en bien soit l'effet de l'exhortation ! 7. Voila donc notre opinion, voila ce que nous disons a tous a ce propos. Concernant les autorites patristiques sur le sujet, nous les omettons pour le moment a cause de la hate du couπier ; mais elles sont faciles a obtenir. Quant au Dieu de la paix, « Notre Paix, lui qui des deux n'a plus fait qu'un et a rompu le mur de clδture, la haine »56 , par sa croix, lui qui nous reconcilia avec son Pere, puisse-t-il recompenser sa sainte Eglise de sa paix qui depasse tout entendement, circonvenir aux scandales et nous rendre dignes de jeίΊner d'un jeίΊne qui lui agree 57 , celui qu'il a lui-meme choisi ! Puisse-t-il defaire les attaches du joug ! [Puisse-t-il] « rompre le pain pour les affames » 58 , celui du corps, mais plus encore [le pain] de l'ame, je veux dire le Verbe Sauveur59 ! Et fasse-t-il que nous jeunions, mangions et fetions en esprit, faisant et pensant et disant tout cela pour sa gloire, afin que « son nom ne soit pas blaspheme par les nations, a cause de nous » 60 , mais qu ' il soit plutδt glorifie. Car la gloire lui est due dans les siecles. Amen.

56

57 58

59 60

Eph 2, 14. Is 58, 5. Is. 58, 7. Cf. EuSEBE Is 52, 5.

DE CέSΑΙUΞΕ,

Praep . evang. Ι, 34 (SC 206, Paris 1974), p. 110-1 \ .

X

Byzantine celebrations of the infancy of Mary and the question of Immaculate Conception ίη the 19th and 20th centuries

We cannot speak ofthe Byzantine celebrations ofthe infancy ofMary without addressing the context in which, for over a century, the scientific study of the texts bearing witness to it have developed. Indeed, the cήtical interest that many scholars gave to them, from the middle of the 19th century, was ηο stranger to issues far removed from simple questions of learning. The apostolic constitution Jnejfabίlίs Deus of 8 Dec. 1854, according to which 'the doctrine that holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God', proceeds with a triple argument based first οη the notion of 'fittingness', secondly οη proofs taken from Holy Scripture, thirdly οη the tradition ofthe Church. Through this final aspect, it gave fresh impetus to the method known as 'patristic argumentation' . 1 The western tradition being deeply divided οη the question, there was enthusiastic recourse to the eastern tradition, chiefly to the Greekand Syriac-speaking Fathers of the Church. Such was the purpose of the monumental work by Carlo Passaglia, who played an important role in preparing the Bull of Pius ΙΧ and of whose work the first two volumes were published some months before promulgation of the Iatter. 2 Indeed, Passaglia had 'the excellent idea of exploring with particular care a field till then little known in the West [ ... ], the liturgical books of the Eastern

On the triple argument, see Χ. Lε BACHELET, Ίmmaculee Conception', DTC 7 [1922], col. 1207- 9. 2 C. PASSAG LΙA , De Jmmaculato Deίparae Semper Vίrgίnis Conceptu (Rome 1854 [vols 1-ΙΙ] and 1855 [vol. ΠΙ]). Οη this scholar, see in the first instance G. RAMB ALD Ι, Ί due tempi della riconciliazione con la Chiesa di Carlo Passaglia. Con documenti inediti' , Archivum hίstorίcum socίetatίs Jesu, 55, n° !09 (1986), p. 87-128.

X 2

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

churches' ,3 surpassing 'by far all his predecessors, in successively presenting the most noteworthy quotations, not only from Greek liturgical books, but also from Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin liturgical books, supplemented with well-chosen fragments from homilies and sermons of the holy Fathers. ' 4 The three large volumes are something to be admired indeed. Vol. 1 compiles into a tidy summa countless witnesses pertaining to the sanctity ofthe Virgin and to her typoί in the Old Testament. Vol. 11 takes as its subject several verses of Scripture read through the commentaries of the Fathers. However, there is a notable absence of any study pertaining to the use ofthe Protevangelίum ofJames (2nd century) by Greek and Syriac authors: the apocrypha and their ongoing reception in the eastern tradition are not considered here. Vol. 111, published in 1855, addresses amongst other things the question ofthe most ancient celebrations ofthe feast ofthe Conception of St Anne. Here, Passaglia outlined the elements that would be determinative for subsequent research; he dates the establishment ofthis feast before the 7th century, indeed during the 5th century, with reference to a Typίkon attributed to St Sabas (439- 532), to a hymn from Andrew of Crete (t 740), as well as to a homily by a certain John of Euboea (8th century). Ιη the same year 1855, this list was enriched by a collection of texts in critical edition and Latin translation, prepared by Antonio Ballerini. 5 There, we find Byzantine Marian homilies expected to give evidence favourable to the dogma ofthe Immaculate Conception: homilies from Sophronios of Jerusalem (t 638), 6 Germanos I of Constantinople (t 733), 7 John of Euboea, 8 Tarasios of Constantinople (t 806) 9 or Cosmas Vestitor (8th- 9th C.), 10 amongst the most ancient. Some years later, a 3 J.-B. ΜΑιο u, L 'Jmmaculee Conceptίon de la Β. V Marίe consίderee comme dogme de fοί (Brussels 1857), Ι , p. χχ11-χχ111. [η working to increase public knowledge, Malou forgot the works of Jacques Goar, editor ofthe famous Euchologίon sίve Rίtuale Graecorum (Paris 1647). 4 lbίd., p. ΧΧΙΙΙ. Amongst the predecessors cited by Malou, we note the name of Hippolyte Marracci, author of Polyanthea Marίana ίn qua lίbrίs octodecίm Deίparae Marίae Virgίnίs sanctίssίma nomίna [. ..} lectorum oculίs exhίbentur (Cologne 1727), a dictionary of designations given to Mary by the Scriptures and the Fathers. 5 Α . BA LLERIN Ι , S. J., Sylloge MonumentorMm ad Mysterίum Conceptίonίs Jmmaωlatae Virgίnίs Deίparae (Paris 1855 [2 vols]). 6 lbίd. , II,p. 33- 131 = PG 87, 3217- 88 (CPG 7638). 7 lbίd. , 1, 287- 327 = PG 98, 292- 309 (CPG 8007). 8 lbίd. , 1, 47- 104 = PG 96, 1460- 500 (CPG 8135). 9 Jbίd., 1, 345- 75 = PG 98, 1481- 500. 10 lbίd., 1, 345- 75 = PG 106, 1005- 12 (CPG 8151).

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

3

record pertaining to Byzantine hymnography ίη the same spirit saw the light of day. Based οη manuscript and printed texts kept in the Abbey of Grottafeπatta, the authors, Teodoro Toscani and Giuseppe Cozza, provided an edition and translations, Latin and Italian, of Byzantine hymns apt to support the cause of the Immaculate Conception. 11 The first amongst these hymns is the Canon of Andrew of Crete, considered also by Passaglia. These publications, written in Latin and addressed to the educated world, were inaccessible to a larger readership. Jean-Baptiste Malou, bishop ofBruges, saw the need to give an account ofthe subject in French. Malou had already published a study in Latin οη the Marian devotion of the holy Fathers in 1847. 12 The question ofthe evidence from easterners in favour of the Immaculate Conception held his attention particularly ίη the work published ten years later. His thesis cleverly reconciled the notion of dogmatic development with the need of recourse to ancient witnesses, even if they were those of dissidents: The schismatic Greek church [ ... ] adopted immobility as its anchor of salvation [ ... ]. This immobility, which has become a necessity for the Churches separated frorn the centre of unity since they lack a sure guide, has the advantage of keeping intact ancient traditions, which at many points attest to the ancient union of al1 the Churches and accuse the Greek Churches of rnanifest schisιn. 13

By means ofthis simplification, Malou could therefore date back to the 5th century, or even earlier, the first celebration of the feast of the Conception ofStAnne: It is therefore averred that the Conception ofthe holy Virgin was celebrated, from the earliest times to our own days, by the Greek Church, and that the cult of this Church, despite the regrettable schism that separates ίt frorn us, attests to the truth ofMary's privilege. 14

11 Τ. ToscA NΙ, G. CozzA, De Immaculata Deίparae Conceptίone. Hymnologίa Graecorum ex edίtίs et manuscriptίs codίcίbus Cιyptoferratensίbus (Rorne 1862). 12 J.-B. MALou, Sanctorum Patrum et veterum scrίptorum ecclesίastίcorum pίetas marίana (Louvain 1847). 13 ΜΑιο υ, L 'Immaculee Conception, Ι, p. 95 . Joseph de Maistre's influence οη this theory is conspicuous. Cf. Μ. Jυοιε, Joseph de Maίstre et l 'Eglίse greco-russe (Paris 1922). 14 lbίd. , Ι, p. 97.

X 4

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

Next, taking up the homilies edited by Ballerini, Malou undertakes to exhibit the 'explicit witnesses of the Greek Church', 15 in which 'the scholars of the 17th century [ ... ] discovered an imrnense source of light', 16 even though 'the schismatic Greeks are still unaware of the treasures that they keep for us.' 17 Thus, contrary to all probability, he comes to present the Immaculate Conception as a dogma that is ancient, undisputable, and preserved as such by the eastemers: One last factor gives this tradition decisive authority, which is the absence of all dissent, all polemic, all controversy on this subject in the eastern Churches. Α doctrine of this importance, which touches on all the mysteries of the faith [ ... ], cou]d not have been taught for fifteen centuries without dissent in a Church where heresy has successively struck at the heart of a11 the principle dogmas of the faith, if it were not based on the teaching of the Apostles and supported by common belief. 18

The important success of this work notwithstanding, Malou's imprudent enthusiasm could only encounter more critical spirits. Οη 1 June 1857, an anonymous article appeared in the Greek Orthodox ecclesiastical press. 19 From the opening paragraph, sumrnarised here, the response to the bishop ofBruges's assertions was iπevocable: Rome, still young and frisky, engenders and elevates new dogmas which were not only hidden fωm ancient generations, but of which the Apostles and the Fathers were entirely unaware. Thus it falls to the 19th century to assist in the birth of this new dogma, long carried in the Vatican 's womb, true scion of an infallib]e head. The Orthodox, ]eft in sterility and having only ancient dogιnas to assert, are nevertheless not envious ofthis glory[ ... J.2°For this doctrine is clearly contrary to Apostolic writings and the consistent teaching of all the Fathers. How far will this strange revision of our ancestral tradition go?2 1

France, οη 1 August 1857, a series of 27 letters written by the leamed Gallican Rene-Franς;ois Guettee and published in the Observateur

Ιη

30- 69.

15

Jbίd. , Π, ρ .

16

Jbίd. , Π,p . 161 .

17

Ibίd. ,

18

Jbίd., Π,

19

1, p. 96. p. 161 - 2. [Anon.], ' 'Ιστορία

του παρά Λατίνοις νέου δόγματος της άσπίλου συλλήψεως της

άγίας "Άννης ' , Ευαγγελ ικός Κήρυξ 20

Ibίd.,

p. 263.

21

Ibίd.,

p. 274.

1- 6 (1857), p. 262- 75.

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

5

opened the hostilities. 22 Whereas the anonymous Orthodox was content to react to the principle ofthe Greek tradition being misrepresented and did not enter into textual details, preferring to highlight western divisions, 23 Guettee for his part took pains to respond at length to Malou's arugments, based οη the observation that 'the ultramontane system has poured thickest darkness οη this issue; like a parasitic plant, it laid its roots into Christian theology, drawing οη its sap and growing to its detriment. ' 24 Our purpose is not to review these responses, which pertain to a rereading of texts produced by Passaglia and Ballerini in the light of critical philology, of the history of eastern Churches or of the very coherence proper to the thought of the Greek fathers, particularly in Letters 8, 1Ο, and 17- 22. We consider here that it goes mainly to show the weakness, even the absence, of clear witnesses pertaining to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the eastern tradition. Moreover, to strengthen his position, the Gallican critic did not hesitate to appeal to the authority of Denys Petau who, in 1650, maintained that 'the Greeks have left nothing clear as to whether the blessed Virgin was reached by this [original] fault, from her conception. ' 25 catholίque

22 They have been collected into one volume: Μ . l'abbe *** [= R.F.W. Guettee], Le nouveau dogme en presence de l 'Ecriture saίnte et de Ια traditίon catholίque. Lettres ά Mgr Malou sur son lίvre ίntίtule L Ίmmaculee Conceptίon de la Β. Vierge consίderee comme dogme de fοί (Paris s.d. [= 1859]). Before 1854, Guettee seems to have been rather close

to Mgr Sibour, archbishop of Paris, who in 1850 opposed the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, but who ultimately relτacted his position in 1854: cf. LE BACH ELET, Ίmmaculee Conception', col. 1198, 1210; W. Gυεττέε, Souvenίrs d 'un pretre romain devenu pretre orthodoxe (Paris 1889). 23 The dissent about this question in western Middle Ages also constituted the principal argument made by Patriarch Anthimos VII (1895- 96), Encyclical Letter, Constantinople 1895, in his laconic condemnation of'the innovation' ofthe Immaculate Conception (p. 11): ' The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven ecumenical Councils has as its dogma that the supernatural Incarnation ofthe only Son and Word ofGod, by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, is the only pure and immaculate one. But the papal Church has once more innovated, forty years ago, by establishing on the subject ofthe immaculate conception of the Yirgin Mary, the Mother of God, a new dogma, which was unknown in the ancient Church and which once had been violently opposed even by Papacy's most distinguished theologians.' On the Orthodox responses, see also Α . SrALDAK, 'Die Stellung der griechischrussischen Kirche zur Lehre der unbefleckten Empfangnis' , Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologίe 28 (1904), p. 767- 74, which examines the reason that the Greek Church was afraid to recognise the dogma that she presumably produced herself: 'Woher diese Scheu vor der Anerkennung einer Lehre gerade bei den Erben jener groβen Yater, denen wir die herrlichen Denkmaler des Glaubens an Sie verdanken?' (p. 767) 24 Μ. l' abbe *** , Le nouveau dogme, p. νι-νιι. 25 D. Ρ ετΑυ, De Incarnatione Verbi XIV, ch. ΙΙ: Opus de theologίcis dogmatίbus (Anvers 1700), Υ, p. 214; see also p. 216. Guettee refers to his authority in Letter 13.

X 6

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

Passaglia's whole work and its popular version from Malou were developed as a denial of 'the oracle of Petau'. 26 They did not, however, prevent numerous opponents from rallying to the record ίη the years that followed the fiftieth anniversary ofthe Bull of Pius ΙΧ. 27 Ιη 1907, under the pseudonym Guillaume Herzog, the modernist Joseph Turmel published a long study οη 'The Holy Virgin ίη History', 28 which did not fail to recall Petau 's verdict: The authentic books ofthe teachers ofthe East therefore furnished quite an abundant harvest of texts favourable to the Iιηmaculate Conception [ ... ]. The most illustrious representatives of the Greek Church, from St Andrew the Apostle [ . .. ] to St John of Damascus, solemnly declared that original sin had not defiled the Yirgin Mother of God. All these infringements of history cou\d not impose ίt on people familiar with the texts. Petau had the courage to declare that there was absolutely nothing to find amongst the Greek Fathers pertaining to the Immaculate Conception, for the reason that they rarely made mention of original sin and that they were never occupied with it ex professo.29

According to the same author, the origin ofthe doctrine ofthe Immaculate Conception should rather be sought ίη a transformation that were produced ίη the encounter of the eastern feast of the Conception of St Anne with a medieval theology founded οη presuppositions foreign to the theology of the Greek Fathers. His thesis is announced thus: The privilege of the Immaculate Conception owes nothing to Christology, nor to the love of the I-loly Yirgin. Its source is found exclusively ίη the eastern feast of the mίraculous conception of Mary, i.e. ίη a liturgical institution that has ηο connection to the dogma of original sίη, but which, encountering this dogma ίη the West, had to transforιη itself to resist it and

26

Μ. JuGrE, L Ίmmaculee Conceptίon dans l 'Ecrίture saίnte et dans la tradίtίon

(Rorne 1952), p. 25. this occasion, the Acts associated with the elaboration of the dogmatic formula were published: Υ. S A RDΙ, La solenne definizίone del dogma dell Ίmmacolato Concepίmento dί Μαrία Santίssίma. Attί e documentί (Rorne 1904 [2 vols ]). 28 G. HERZOG, 'La Sainte Yierge dans IΉistoire' , Revue d 'hίstoίre et de lίtterature relίgίeuse 12 (1907), p. 483- 607. The periodical was edited by Alfred Loisy, from whom Turmel derived his ideas and who was excommunicated the following year (1908). It is noteworthy that the study signed by Herzog appeared in the December number, just three months after the promulgation of Pascendί Domίnίcί Gregίs, Pius X's encyclical on the errors of rnodernisrn (8 Sept 1907). 29 HERZOG, 'La Sainte Yierge' , p. 595. orίentale 27

Οη

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the ίnfancy of Mary

7

ιnaintain itse]f. It is the law of the strugg]e for life that ιnetamorphosed the feast of conception that was mίraculous into the feast ofthe conception that was immaculate, i.e. exempt from original sin. lt is the prestige ofthis feast that protected the theory ofthe immaculate conception agains the attacks of theology and that progressively raised it to the height of a revealed truth.30

Turmel was not content simply to deny the presence of a belief in the Immaculate Conception in the theology of the Greek Fathers. From the second page of his study, he also introduced into the debate the Protevangelίum ofJames , considered as the premier source of eastem and westem traditions οη the infancy ofMary. At that time, the Protevangelίum was read in the edition made by Constantin Tischendorf, 3 1 ίη the light of Adolf Hamack's studies; 32 Turmel became the voice of scholars who intended to situate its production in a milieu tainted with gnostic docetism. 33 It therefore became essential for the immaculatist camp, who till then had left to one side the question of the Protevangelίum, to produce a study ridding this apocryphon from every suspicion of heresy. This was the object ofEmile Amann's research, who ίη 1910 published a revised edition ofTiscendorff's text, accompanied by an annotated French translation and by a full introductory study. From the outset, Amann expressed a clear judgment οη the apocryphon ίη the opening of his work: The Protevangelίum of James occupies a special place among the New Testament apocrypha. It is, unquestionably, one of the most ancient; and thanks to its scrupu]ous respect for orthodoxy, it has deservedly exerted a great inftuence οη the Latin Church as well as οη the eastern Churches. The venerable legends that it circulated [ ... ] have been incorporated, more or less rapidly according to the region , ίη the mainstream teaching of the doctors.34

this way, it is thus possible to maintain that the author of the is 'to be ranged amongst the very first defenders of the Immaculate Conception. ' 35 Two new variants retained ίη the revised Ιη

Protevangelίum

Ibid. , p. 606. C. TιscHEN DORFF, Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig 1853), 18762, p. 1-48. 32 Α. HARNACK, Dίe Chronologίe der altchrίstlίchen Lίteratur bίs Eusebίus (Leipzig 1897), Ι , p. 598-603. 33 HERZ0G, 'La Sainte Yierge', p. 483-6. 34 Ε. ΑΜΑΝΝ, Le Protevangile de Jacques et ses remanίements latίns (Paris 191 Ο), p. ν11. Οη the question of the orthodoxy of the author of the Protevangelίum, see the argurnents by ΑΜΑΝΝ, ίbίd. , p. 77-100. 35 Jbid. , ρ. 17 et ρ. 15- 22: 'La conception et la naissance de Marie'. 30

31

X 8

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

edition seem to indicate so, ίη any case. 36 Amann did not, however, risk considerations οη the dogmatic order. Emphasising the role received by the Protevangelίum in the Greek liturgy and hymnography, his study furnished key elements for the history ofthis text's reception ίη Byzantium. 37 At the same time, a specialist of eastern dogmatics, Martin Jugie, 38 set himself to studying the 'mariological' domain and published a long series of articles as well as three volumes οη the question of the Immaculate Conception amongst the Greek Fathers, Byzantine authors or modern and contemporary Orthodox theologians. The publication of these articles took place during the period 1908- 23,39 and culminated ίη 1922 with two important contributions to the Dίctίonnaίre de Theologίe catholίque. 40 Jugie also notably provided two articles οη the Protevangelίum ofJames in 1911, following Amann's publication. 41 Then came two editions of texts, Homelίes marίales byzantίnes (1922) and Theophanes Nίcaenus (1935), 42 which renewed and completed Ballerini 's record. Despite this, Jugie later said that this period was not conducive to serious study of the question. the era when ps.-Herzog triumphed [ . . . ], ίη this atιnosphere of combat, it was difficult to protect the calm required for scientific work. Apologetic preoccupation tended to swell beyond measure the scope of certain ancient witnesses, just as the poleιηic spirit of certain adversaries atteιηpted to destroy it or minimise its true value.43 Ιη

lt was thus much later, in 1952, probably during the preparations for celebrating the centenary of the Bull Ineffabίlίs Deus, that Jugie began 36 lbίd., p. 17 sq. and Μ . J υGιε, ' Le Protevangile de Jacques et l'Immaculee Conception', ΕΟ 14 (1911), ρ . 16- 20. 37 ΑΜΑΝΝ, Protevangile, ρ. 109- 37: 'LeProtevangile chez les ecrivains de langue grecque'. 38 On him , see V. LAURENT, ' L'ceuvre scientifique du R. Ρ. Martin Jugie' , REB 11 (1953), ρ. 7- 32; J. G ετC Η Α, V. ΚοΝΤΟU ΜΑ-CΟΝτι cειιο, 'Deux lettres de Martin Jugie a Serge Boulgakov' , REB 67 (2009), p. 183- 96. 39 The list of these articles is given by LAURENT, 'L'ceuvre scientifique' , p. 20- 24 (n° 15, 18, 20- 22, 26, 29- 31 , 35,44-8, 58, 72, 73 , 79, 83 , 87, 89, 90, 93, 100, 101 , 106, 108). 40 Μ. JυGιε, 'L' Immaculee Conception dans l' Eglise grecque apres le Concile d ' Ephese ' , DTC 7 [1922], col. 893- 975 ; 'L' Immaculee Conception dans les Eglises nestorienne et monophysites ' , ίbίdem , co\. 975- 9. 41 LAURENT, ' L'ceuvre scientifique', n° 35 et 46.

Μ . J υGι ε, Homelίes marίales byzantίnes. Textes grecs edίtes et traduίιs en latίn 16/3, Paris 1922; 19/3, Paris 1925); ιο ., Theophanes Nίcaenus, Sermo in Sanctissίmam Deίparam (Lateranum 1, Rome 1935). 43 JuGιE, L Ίmmaculee Conceplίon , ρ . 3. 42

(ΡΟ

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the ίnfancy of Mary

9

to prepare a synthesis long left ίη abeyance, in the form of a volume of nearly 500 pages: L 'Immaculee Conceptίon dans l 'Ecrίture saίnte et dans la tradίtίon orίentale. 44 We have said above that Jugie was ηο liturgist, but rather a dogmatician. Looking to refute Turmel 's thesis completely, he attempted (amongst other things) to study the definition ίη its very formulation, to consider the question of original sin amongst the Greek Fathers, to grasp each assertion ίη the light of the totality of a given author's Marian doctrine, etc. For the Byzantinist keen to examine this record in minute detail, Jugie's work remains a necessary reference to this day. Even so, the aim announced by the author from the first pages of his study is notably not strictly faithful to the standards of a scientific study. Indeed, even if Jugie congratulated himself for having contributed to ridding 'Marian theology [ ... ] from certain methodological vices and numerous apocryphal and legendary elements' ,45 he did not gi ve up a clearly polemical perspective: 'we bless the delay that has allowed us [ ... ] to advance more solid proofs against the adversaries of the dogma, whether they happen to be unbelievers or dissident Christians' .46 This work must therefore be used with greatest prudence and constant concern for verification. The same attitude of prudence also needs to be adopted ίη dealing with a certain number of works written during the same period and ίη the same spirit, e.g. the works ofC. Chevalier,47 Μ. Gordillo, 48 or Ρ. Voulet. 49

*

44 Cf. n. 26. Some years later, Jugie published his great work La Mort et l'Assornptίon de la Saίnte Vίerge. Etude hίstorίco-doctrίnale (ST 114, Vatican 1944), in the context of promoting the dogma of the Assumption ( 1950). 45 JυGι ε , L Ίrnmaculee Conceptίon, p. 3. With reference to the works of Passaglia and Malou, Jugie reproaches the former for his distractions, ommissions and exaggerations, and the latter for the weakeness ofhis eastern information (ίbίd. , p. 1, η . 1- 2). 46 lbίd., p. 2- 3. 47 C. CHEVA LΙER , La Marίologίe de Jean Damascene (OCA 109, Rome 1936). The author 's method is astonishing: 'dresser une liste de toutes les questions dont s'occupent aujourd ' hui les traites de Mariologie [ ... ], puis comparer ces idees, les dernieres de la theologie, avec celles que professe ou qu'insinue saint Jean Damascene' (see ίbid., p. 9). 48 Μ . GοRοιιιο, Mariologίa Orientalis (OCA 141 , Rome 1954). 49 Ρ. Vουι ετ, Jean Damascene, Hornelies sur la Nativίte et la Dormίtίon (SC 80, Paris 1961 , 1998 2) . - With reference to this work, see Α . Jεντιc, Άγίου 1ωάννου Δαμασκηνου, Ή Θεοτόκος (Athens 1970, 19902).

X 10

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

We have sought here to demonstrate that an up-to-date study of the Byzantine celebrations of the infancy of Mary cannot be made without a clean break from the deeply engaged interpretations ofthe years 1850- 1950. And yet it is the case that the imposing dossier which Catholic scholars assembled in the context ofthe promulgation and the defense ofthe dogma of the Immaculate Conception provides the essential materials for anyone wishing to undertake this study. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that, despite its pronounced bias, this corpus was painstakingly assembled. It was progressively submitted to philological, historical and doctrinal critique and therefore remains perfectly usable. What conclusions does reading it enable us to make today, conceming the eastem teaching οη the conception ofMary and the expansion ofMarian cult in Byzantium? 1. Despίte the efforts of scholars engaged ίn the defence of the dogma of the Immaculate Conceptίon, the Όracle of Petau '50 has not been reversed. The corpus assembled ίη the years 1850-1950 is chiefly concerned with evidence derived from Marian cult: liturgical, hymnographic and homiletic texts. They certainly have a pronounced hagiographic and poetical character which underscores Mary's all-holiness and absolute purity. Even so, their doctrinal teaching is less precise and ίt is only recourse to sources of a dogmatic character that enables us to define the theological sense that Marian cult had in Byzantium. However, this documentation gives a clear message: only one conception was immaculate and it was Jesus'. Thus, despite long research and numerous publications of texts, the dogmatic witnesses assembled by Catholic scholars have been revealed to be unusable to defend the thesis that Greek theology already announced a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. We note here the example of John of Damascus, who set the tone for subsequent Byzantine theology: Once the Holy Virgin had given her consent, tbe Ho]y Spirit came upon ber according to the word oftbe Lord proc]aimed by tbe angel , purifίed her and gave ber tbe powerto receive the divinity oftbe Word, as well as to engender Him.5 1

so 51

See above, and n. 25. DAMAscus, Exposίtίo fideί 46:

JoHN OF

ΚοπΕR ΙΙ,

p. 109.

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the ίnfancy of Mary

11

As for the sanctifying power of the Spirit, it descended upon her, purifίed her, sanctifίed her and, in a certain manner, prepared her to receive the seed. 52

For its part, Byzantine exegesis was even more prudent with regard to information taken from the Protevangelίum of James or other apocrypha, which it carefully avoided throughout its history. 53 Such is the finding that can be made for the theology ofGreek tradition, which remained faithful to Chalcedon. However, ίη terms of Syriaclanguage theology, which is chiefly non-Chalcedonian, the conclusions are more mixed. Admittedly, this theology is still poorly known to us, and scholars keen to find in it a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception have approached it mainly with reference to works of a highly poetic character. 54 It may be asked, however, if the refusal of the Chalcedonian concept of a hypostatic union - έκ δύο φύσεων and έν δυσi φύσεσι - amongst the Nestorians as well as the Jacobites has not given space for one or more original Marian doctrines in Syriac-language tradition. For, according to John of Damascus, the hypostatic union took place in the womb of Mary, Mother of God: Thus, the enhypostasised wisdom and power of the Most High, the Son of God consubstantial with the Father, overshadowed her as a divine seed . Of her pure and innocent blood, he formed for himself a flesh animated by a reasoning and intellective soul - the firstfruits of our constituion ( άπαρχή φυράματος: cf. Roιn 11: 16). ΑΙΙ this happens without insemination, but by creation (δημιουργικως) , by the Holy Spirit. His figure was not framed by successive additions, but was completed at a stroke. The Word of God himselfbecame the hypostasis o f the flesh . For the Word God was not united to aflesh already havίng ίts own hypostasίs . 55 As his own hypostasis inhabits ίη an indescribable way the womb of the Holy Virgin, he hypostasised, from the pure blood of the Virgin, the flesh animated by a reasoning and intellective soul, receiving the firstfruits of the human constitution. Thus, the Word became himself the hypostasis of the flesh. When it came into existence, the flesh was the flesh o f God the Word. And when the animated, JoHN OF DAMAscus, Sermo de Dormίtίone BMV 1: Κοπε R V, p. 485- 6. Cf. AM ANN, Protevangile, p. 130- 32. See p. 132: Ίes exegetes byzantins connaissaient et acceptaient les donnees du Protevangίle ; ils ne se croyaient pas autorises toutefois a les inserer dans la trame de leurs commentaires'. 54 Cf. G οRοιιιο, Marίologίa , passίm . 55 JoHN OF DAMAscus, Contra Jacobitas 18 (ΚοπΕ R IV, p. 117): Ίf the union were made from two natures, they were two before the union, in the union or after the union. For ifthey subsist in a hypostasis before the union, for what do we reproach Nestorius?' 52 53

X 12

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

reasoning and intellective flesh came into existence, it was the animated, reasoning and inte1lective flesh of God the Word. That is why we do not speak of man made God, but of God made ιnan. Indeed, whilst being God perfect in nature, he himselfbecame man perfect ίη nature, without changing ίη his nature or incarnating hiιηselfin an illusory fashion . Without confusion, without alteration and without division, he was united by hypostasis to the animated flesh ofreason and intellect that he took from the Holy Virgin and which exists ίη him. He did not transform the nature ofhis divinity into the essence ofhis flesh, or the essence ofhis flesh into divine nature. Finally, he did not form α unίque composίte nature of his divine nature and the human nature that he assumed.56

Refusing the concept ofthe hypostatic union necessarily leads to a different consideration of Mary's participation in the work of the Incarnation. But research pertaining to this dogmatic question still remains to be done. 2. The multίplίcatίon of Marίan celebratίons, observed ίn the East from the 7th century, must be regarded as the consequence of relίgίous rίvalrίes.

The study of liturgical tradition has made it possible to posit with certainty that a feast of the miraculous Conception of St Anne had begun to develop in the Greek Church in the late 7th century. Andrew of Crete's Canon can be regarded as the most ancient witness to its existence. 57 The feast is also celebrated ίη the Jacobite Church in Syria and the Coptic Church ίη Egypt, as research into their liturgical calendars bears witness. 58 As yet, the

56 JoHN oF DAMAscus, Exposίtίo fideί 46: ΚοττεR ΙΙ , ρ . 11 Ο. The final phrase is opposed to the Jacobite thesis. 57 PG 97, 1305- 16. This edition, dating from 1860, is older than that of ToscAN Ι­ CozzA, De Immaculata Deίparae Conceptione ( 1862). lt reprints the edition ofF. CoMBEFΙS , Biblioιhecae palrMm novum auctarίum graeco-latίnum (Paris 1648), ρ . 452 sq . Ofnumerous studies that have been conducted in recent years οη Andrew ofCrete (Damas, c. 660-Lesbos, 740), see Α. GιΑΝΝοuιι , Dίe beίden byzantίnίschen Kommenlare zum Groβen Kanon des Andreas von Kreta (Wiener byzantinistische Studien 26, Yienna 2007); ΡΜΒΖ 362; Μ . Β. C UNN ΙNGHAM, 'Andrew of Crete: Α high style preacher of the eighth century', ed. Μ.Β . C uNNΙNGHAM , Ρ. ΑιιεΝ, Preacher and AMdience. Sιudίes ίn Early Chrίstίan and Byzantίne Homίletίcs (Leiden 1998), p. 267- 93; M.-F. AuzέrY, 'La carriere d' Andre de Crete', ΒΖ 88 ( 1995), p. 1- 12. We have also consulted the typescript thesis of G. GRA εcu, Doctrίna marialis iMxta sanctum Andream Creιensem (saec. vιι- vιιι), Pontificium Athenaeum Urbinianum de Propaganda Fide (Rome 1938) [= Library of the Institut franς:ais d' etudes byzantines, Paris, η 0 ΠΙ 459]. 58 Υ. GRUMEL, La Chronologίe (Paris 1958), p. 333-42.

X Byzantίne celebratίons

13

of the ίnfancy of Mary

exact date that this feast appeared in non-Chalcedonian Churches has not been firmly established. We can note, however, that the Coptic and SyroJacobite Churches reject Chalcedon but are deeply attached to the Council ofEphesus and that their geographic, cultural and linguistic proximity with the Nestorian Church led them to develop, in opposition to a theology that rejects the notion ofthe 'Mother ofGod' (Theotokos), a particularly strong veneration ofMary: In an ancient Coptic Arabic Synaxarion, an important place is given to the feast commemorating the Council ofEphesus (9 September). 59 Furthermore, the 21st of each month is dedicated to Mary. The other Marian feasts ofthis rite are: Conception (9 December); Nativity (8 September); Presentation (21 November); Annunciation (November- December); Visitation (NovemberDecember); Salutations (26 December); Our Lady of Seed (15 January); Annunciation (25 March); Our Lady of Corn (15 May); Dedication of the first church of the Mother of God (15 June); Departure or Assumption or Dormition (15 August); Our Lady of Vines (15 August). 60 Α similar attachrnent to the Mother and 'daughter of God' (θεόπαις), tbe New Eve, is seen in the Syro-Jacobite Church, whose hymnography has deep roots in the poetic works of Ephrern tbe Syrian 61 and wbose borniletics - in particular, tbe hoιnilies of Severus of Antioch (c. 465- 538), 62 Jacob of Sarug (c. 449521 )63 and Jacob of Edessa (640- 708) 64 - seeks to promote the veneration ofMary.

Can we conclude from this observation that the Marian celebrations were more developed ίη the Coptic and Syro-Jacobite Churches than ίη the Chalcedonian Church at the time when Andrew of Crete composed his 59 R. BASSET, Le 1907), p. 259- 61 .

Synaxaίre

arabe jacobίte

(Μοίs

de Tout et de Babeh)

(ΡΟ

1, Paris

JV Lίeux et temps sacres. Culte dίνίn. Benefices et bίens temporels ecclesίastίques (Sacra Congregazione per la Cbiesa orientale. Codificazione canonica orientale. Fonti ΙΙ/28 , Rome 1943), p. l l l- 26. 61 Ephrem 's thinking on Mary is the object ofmany studies. See recently Ρ. Yo uss ιF, ' La Yierge Marie et le disciple bien-aime chez saint Ephrem de Nisibe', OCP 55 (1989), p. 283- 316 and the rich article by Ι. ORτι z DE URBrNA, 'La Yergine Maria nella teologia di S. Efrem', Symposίum syrίacum 1972 (OCA 197, Rome 1974), p. 65- 104. 62 F. GRAFFIN, 'Severe d'Antioche', DS 14 [1989], col. 748- 751. 63 F. GRAFFIN, 'Jacques de Saroug', DS 8 [1972], col. 56- 60. C. ΥοΝΑ, Omelίe marίologίche dί S. Gίacomo dί Sarug (Lateranum, N.S., 19, n° 1-4, Rome 1953). 64 F. GRAFFIN, ' Jacques d' Edesse' , DS 8 [1972], col. 33- 5. ΗιΝDΟ, Dίsciplίna antίochena, p. 309, said of it: 'La Conception est signalee dans le Calendrίer de Jacques d'Edesse (640-708). Cf. Vatίcan. syr. 37, f' 194'. We have been unable to find a study that dates tbis manuscript and the text ofthe calendar that it contains. 60

Ρ. ΗΙΝDο, Dίscίplίna antίochena antίca. Sίrί.

Magίstere ecclesίastίque.

X 14

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

Canon on the Conceptίon of Anne? Can we even go further, and suppose that the Marian feasts of the Greek Church were developed as it were in competition with the non-Chalcedonian Churches?65 These are fresh questions, completely foreign to the problematic of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The response we propose is therefore tentative. First of all, in the 7th century both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian communities dwelt ίη two places where veneration of Mary was notably booming: Syria and Palestine. Andrew of Crete and John ofDamascus were both Syrians from Damascus, who travelled to and remained in Jerusalem. The relations that Andrew maintained with the Monophysite Church are unclear. At the time of the monothelete crisis, he seems to have changed sides twice.66 However, when it comes to John of Damascus, we know from his work that throughout his life he combatted the Nestorians ηο less than the Jacobites and the partisans ofmonotheletism and monergism. 67 It is therefore interesting to consider the Marian work of these two authors from this perspective and to examine whether it emerged in the movement of competition already mentioned. 68 lt must be stipulated that, in Jerusalem where these two Fathers worked, the question of controlling the sites of 65 On this question, see S. C. MrMOUNI, Dormίtίon el Assomplίon de Marίe. Hίstoίre des lradίtίons ancίennes (Theologie historique 98, Paris 1995), p. 371-471 (Marian liturgy ίη Jerusalem during the Byzantine era) and p. 665- 74 (the appearance of Marian liturgy pertaining to the Dormition should be situated in the context of the conflict arising from Chalcedon). 66 AuzέrY, ' La caπiere ', p. 2-4, evokes these ditherings: After the council of 680, 'il partit [de Jerusalem] a Constantinople, pour porter l' acceptation officiel\e de l'Eglise de Jerusalem aux decisions du concile convoque par l' empereur Constantin IV, mais il arriva a l'avenement de Justinien ΙΙ (685) [ ... ]. Andre a signe, en meme temps que Germain, alors eveque de Cyzique, l'anatheme du vreconcile sous Philippίkos en 711. Le retablissement du monothelisme sous Philippikos serait dί'ι , d'apres la Chronique [de Theophane], a la prophetie [de] Paul, le moine de Kallistratou [ . . .]. Ce retour au monothelisme n' a dure qu'un temps, fort court, du regne de Philippikos (711 - 13). Son successeur Artemios Anastase (713- 15) revint a l'orthodoxie et Andre de Crete rentra dans le rang: οη possede la reponse qu ' il fit a l'archidiacre de Sainte-Sophie Agathon, dans laquel\e il confesse son erreur et le dyothelisme [PG 97, 1437-44]'. G7 Cf. KOTTER IV. 68 ΕrιΡΗ ΑΝ ιοs ΤΗΕ ΜοΝ κ (8th- 9th C.), author of the Life of the Holy Virgίn, says ίη the prologue to this work, PG 120, 188 ΑΒ: ' Lest anyone happens to denounce us for having added or removed things οη our own, we have signalled [our sources] beforehand, even if we drew ίn apocιypha or ιhe work of heretίcs. Let ηο one reproach us. For the witnesses that have been taken from our enemies are the more reliable, as Basil the Great said.' It is notable that this Epiphanios was a monk at the monastery ofKallistratou, as was Paul who was involved ίη the condemnation from the Council of680. See above, η. 66.

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

15

pilgrimage was lively and this competition made itself specially felt from the moment ofthe Muslim conquest ofthe Holy City (638), notably at sites commemorating Mary, such as the Kathίsma οη the road to Bethlehem or the Tomb at Gethsemane. At this point, we wish to supplement this hypothesis with another that we will present succinctly here, but that deserves to be the subject of comprehensive study: that ofthe relationship between the Marian homilies of Andrew of Crete and John of Damascus, and popular Muslim piety linked to Quranic teaching about Maryam. At the time Muslims took Jerusalem and came into contact with Christian communities, Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonians, the person of Mary is not unknown to them. Quite the contrary, Maryam, the mother of Jesus, is the only woman whom the Quran calls by name. It is expansive about her, mentioning her holiness, her chastity, her election by God, her birth and her consecration to the Temple, her impregnation by the Holy Spirit, as well as the miraculous birth of Jesus. Moreover, Surahs ΠΙ and ΧΙΧ ( which bear her name) directly concern her. The great lines of Quranic teaching about Mary are as follows: The wife of Amram (Ίmran) who, according to Num. 26:59, is the mother of Moses, received the annunciation of her daughter Mary (ΠΙ, 35- 8). From birth, the latter is welcomed by the Lord, 'who caused her to grow in a good manner and put her in the care of Zechariah' , father of John the Baptist. Her parents dedicated her to the Temple, where she was nourished by an angel (ΠΙ, 37). Then the Quran, without expressing the slightest doubt, retraces the history of Mary's miraculous pregnancy by the Holy Spirit 'who presented himself before her in the form of a perfect man' , who breathed ίηtο the pocket of her robe. This breath is identified as the Word ofGod: 'Yes, the Messiah, Jesus, the son ofMary is the prophet ofGod, his Word, which he directed upon Mary, a Spirit coming from him' (IV, 171 ). The impregnation of Mary is compared to the birth of Adam (ΠΙ, 59). But after her impregnation, Mary's family accused her of immodesty (ΧΙΧ, 27- 9), a slander having been made against her (IV, 156). But Jesus' mother had preserved her virginity (LXVI, 12). She is sinless, ineπant, pure. The angels praised her as the one whom God had 'chosen above all the women of the world' (ΠΙ, 42). Birthpangs seized her when she was at the foot of a palm tree. At his birth, Jesus told her to shake the tree and eat

X 16

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

its fruit (ΧΙΧ, 23-6). Finally, the Quran rejects the beliefthat Jesus and his mother were part of the Trinity (V, 116-17). 69 lt therefore seems that the Quran is the voice of certain Christian apocryphal traditions, connected in particular with the Protevangelίum of James in its Syriac version (5th-6th century) or close to the Gospel ofps.Matthew. Popular Muslim piety concerning Mary develops other themes taken probably from earlier legends: engagement with Joseph, Jesus' birth in a grotto, the ftight into Egypt, Mary and John preaching in Rome, Mary's miraculous disappearance swallowed by the earth during a persecution. We can therefore suppose that in 7th-century Jerusalem the Marian piety of the conquering Muslims itself entered into competition with what existed around the holy places connected to Mary's life and divided Chalcedonians and Jacobites already. Faced with this new phenomenon, Byzantine homiletics, though to this point reserved ίη its use of apocryphal texts, felt constrained to resort to them to affirm its own beliefs and to counter the multiplification of extraordinary legends relating the miracles ofMary. These homilies, which illustrate the Chalcedonian doctrine ofthe hypostatic union of two natures of the God-Man, encourage the necessary veneration of the Theotokos whilst simultaneously purging all reference to traditions considered superftuous and dangerous. 7°Favouring control of the holy places, they also recover most of the teaching about Mary in the Council of Ephesus, faced with possible contaminations of popular piety encouraged by Islamic tradition. 71 lt remains to be evaluated what sense this subject, see the items 'Marie' or ' Maryam', in Μ.Α . AM1R-Moεzz 1 , du Coran (Paris 2007), p. 535- 8; Encyclopedίe de l'Jslarn 6 (1991], ρ . 613- 17. See also R. ARNALDEZ, Jesus fils de Marίe, prophete de l 'Jslarn (Paris 1980); Ι. Zιuo-GRANDΙ , 'La Yierge Marie dans le Coran ', Revue de l Ήίstoίre des relίgίons 214/ 1 (1997), p. 57- 103. '0 [n his De haeresίbus, 100, 1- 2, John of Damascus directly addresses the place of Mary in the Quran : Άccording to its sayings, Christ is the Word of God and his Spirit, but he was created and has a servant; he was born without seed of Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron. lndeed, it says, the Word and the Spirit of God entered Mary and engendered Jesus, who was a prophet and servant ofGod [ ... ]. Many other derisible absurdities are reported in this Book.' Cf. R. Lε Coz, Jean Darnascene, Ecrίts sur l'Jslarn (SC 383 , Paris 1992), p. 213- 15. 71 Οη the place of Jerusalem ίη Islam during the Umayyad era, see Encyclopedίe de l'Islarn 5 (1986], p. 323- 5 and 340-43. It was ίη Jerusalem that Mu ' awiya Ι was acknowledged as caliph ίη 660. Οη this occasion, he prayed at Golgotha, Gethsemane and the Tomb of Mary: lslam took possession of the monotheist religions that proceeded it as their heir. The programme ofbuilding the Dome ofthe Rock also began during the reign of this caliph. lt was completed ίη 691- 2. The inscriptions there insist οη Jesus ' role as a prophet and deny his divine sonship. Furthermore, as the historian al-Muqaddasϊ reports, Christian 69

Οη

Dίctίonnaίre

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the ίnfancy of Mary

17

this literature could receive in Constantinople, at the time iconoclasm began to shake the foundations of the veneration of saints. 72 3. Α conclusίon must be made: the celebratίons of Mary s ίnfancy spread throughout the Byzantίne Empίre from the 8th century

From the 8th to 10th Centuries, numerous feasts connected with the veneration ofMary were attested in Byzantium. Several ofthem were local, but others had already acquired a general character by the 8th century. Α list ofthem is given by John ofEuboea: 73 The first of all the important feasts is the one that celebrates the Annunciation made to Joachim and Anne about the birth ofthe ιηοst pure Mother ofGod, Mary [= Conception of St Anne]. Next comes her most venerable Nativity, for where there is the conception, there is also the birth [= Nativity ofMary ]. After this, there is another one, very venerable and worthy ofworship, when Gabriel, treading the earth with his immaterial feet, addressed the Virgin Ήail ! ' [= Annunciation ]. Next, the Nativity which saved the world, namely that of the king of all, Christ our God, from the Virgin [= Nativity of the Lord]. AfteΓ this, the ascent [ofChrist] to the temple and his being taken ίηtο the arms of Simeon [= Presentation at the Temple or Hypapante ]. And again, Epiphany full of lights. And again, the Transfiguration οη Mt Tabor. And the life-bearing Passion, Pascha of the Resurrection leading to eternal life. And again that ofthe Ascension into the heavens, when [Christ], ίη the flesh, sat at the right ofthe Father. And the final day, the final day offeast, is that when the Most Holy Spirit descended upon the holy disciples and apostles ofOur Lord Jesus Christ. 'Celebrate your feasts, Judah'! (Nahurn 2: 1 [LXX]) Such then are the feasts that the prophet called Judah to celebrate. 74

More precisely, regarding Marian veneration, John ofEuboea notes: Let us celebrate together, dear ones, the feasts of Mary the Mother of God, rejoicing ίη spirit and understanding ίη this sense the word of the prophet:

feasts continued to dominate the rhythm ofthe year during this period ίη Jerusalem, even for the Muslim population. 72 Cf. CUNNrNGHAM, Άndrew ', p. 277sq. and A uzέPY , 'La carriere'. lt is noteworthy that patriarchs Germanos Ι and Tarasios ofConstantinople, as well as writing homilies οη the Yirgin, were fervent iconophiles. 73 JοιιΝ 0F EuBOEA, Sermo ίn Conceptίonem Deiparae: PG 96, 1459- 1500. Οη this author, about whom we know only that he was active in 744, cf. D. SτιεRΝο Ν, 'Jean d'Eubee ', DS 8 [1972], col. 487. 74 PG 96, 1473 C- 1476 Β.

X 18

Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

'Celebrate your feasts, Judah! For he who has breathed ίη your face, and borne up your affiictions, has ascended οη high' (cf. Nahuιn 2:1 [LXX]). Ιη fact, [Mary] comes from Judah, and the Lord coιnes froιn her according to the ftesh. Ιη the midst of great and divine celebrations, we should therefore equally celebrate what pertains to the Virgin, our hope. Ιη addition to all ten feasts, we also celebrate her life-giving Dormition. Indeed, this feast is celebrated after the Ascension into heaven of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the descent of the ιnost holy and life-giving Spirit upon the Apostles - this feast which is the \ast and which is great, and which we ca11 the completion of the Economy of the kindness of the Saviour Our God. The feast of the Dormition is therefore celebrated last of all. 75

And to return to the first feast of the annual cycle: The first - though not a11 know ίt - is that ίη the course of which we celebrate the annuncation of the Nativity of the Ever-Virgin Mother of God Mary, ιηade to the blessed Joachim and Anne. It occurs on 9 December. 76

Between the 10th and 12th Centuries, these feasts acquired an official character. Ιη the imperial Menologίon composed at the order of Basil 11 (960--1025), 77 the feast of the Conception of Anne is mentioned οη 9 December: 'The Conception of St Anne, mother of the Theotokos', 78 that of the Nativity of Mary οη 8 September, 79 that of the Presentation in the Temple (Είσόδια) οη 21 November80 and that of the Dormition οη 15 August. 81 It is the same in the manuscript Hίerosol. Sanctae Crucίs 40 ( 10th C. ), which preserves the text of the Typίkon of the Great Church. 82

PG 96, 1497 AC. PG 96, 1500 Α. 77 Il Menologio di Βαsίlίο 11 (Cod. Vatίcano Greco 1613) (Turin 1907). 78 PG 117, 196 BC. There it is stipulated that ' Mary was born not, as some pretend, after seven months of pregnancy, or without the participation of a man [at her conception], but after nine full months, as the consequence of a union with a man. Indeed, only Our Lord [ ... ] was born without the concurrence and seed ofa man, from the Holy Virgin, in a hidden and inexplicable manner, as he alone knows ' . 79 PG 117, 37 BC. 80 PG 117,172 D- 173 Β. 81 PGl17,585AB. 82 J. MATEOS, Le Typίcon de la Grande Eglίse. Ms. Saίnte-Croίx n° 40, Χ' sίecle (OCA 165- 6, Rome 1960), p. 18- 21 (8 September, Nativity ofMary); p. 110- 11 (21 November, Presentation); p. 126-7 (9 December, Conception); p. 368- 73 (15 August, Dormition). 75

76

X Byzantίne celebratίons

of the

ίnfancy

of Mary

19

Finally, in 1166 in the constitution ofManuel I Komnenos (1143-80), these feasts became public holidays. 83 At this point, the question arises as to the eventual passage ofthe Feast of the Conception of St Anne to the West. It does not seem that this has yet been fully elucidated. However, several works pertaining to the Typίka of southern Italy demonstrate that it was already celebrated broadly there in the 12th century. 84 Indeed, three recently studied Italo-Greek Typίka report the same: those of the monasteries of San Nicola di Casole, 85 Santa Maria del Patir86 and San Salvatore di Messina. 87 Could we have in southern Italy, where the Normans established themselves, a relay into the Latin world?

83 PG 133, 756 C- 757 C: 8 September(Nativity ofMary), 21 November(Presentation), 9 December (Conception) and 15 August (Dormition) are public holidays. 84 PG 96, 1497 AC. 85 Aug. Taurin. C.III. l 7 (a. l l 73): see Α. Luzzι , ΊΙ calendario eortologico per il ciclo delle feste fisse del Tipico di S. Nicola di Casole', Rivίsta dί studi bizantίnί e neo-ellenίcί 39 (2002), p. 229- 61 (the feast ofthe Conception, p. 246). 86 Jenensίs Bibl. Univ. G.B.q.6a: see S. LucA, Ί Normanni e la Rίnascίta del sec. χιι', Archivίo storico per la Calabria e la Lucania 60 (1993), p. 1- 91 (the ms., p. 11- 12). 87 Μ. MRANz, Le Typίcon du Monastere du Saίnt-Sauveur ά Messίne. Codex Messίnensίs gr. 115, A.D. 1131 (OCA 185, Rome 1969), p. 68.

INDEX Manuscripts 88: ΥΙΙ 1 79; ΙΧ 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11 Athen. Β.Ν. 32 1: 1 20 Athen. Β.Ν. 2 108 : 1 16 Athon. Dίonys. 11 8 (3652): ΥΙΗ 79; ΙΧ 5 Athon. Dίonys. 175: IV 122, 124 Athon. Lavra 456: 1 18; ΙΙ 6 Athon. Lavra Γ 44: ! 2 1 Athon. Vatoped. 497: Ι 18; 11 2, 6, 7 Αιιg. Taurin. C.11 1.1 7: Χ 19 Aug. Vindel., Staats- ιιnd Stadtbίblίothek 240: IV 11 7, 125, 127 Andι-os, Μονή Άγίας

Beryt.

Bίbl. Orίen t.

ar. 347: VI 3

Oxon. Barocc. 196 : VIII 78, 79; ΙΧ 5 Oxon. Bodl. Auct. Τ.1.6 (ιηίsc. 184): 1 32; 111 3 Οχοη. Cromw. gι·. 13: IV 122 , 124 gr. 854: 111 16 Parisin. gr. 923: 1 8 Parisίn. gr. 1304: 11 9 Parisin. gr. 1476 : 1 9, 16; VIII 8 1 Parisin. gr. 2531: 1 43 Parisin . gι·. 303 1: IV 126 Ραtιnίαc. 48: 19 Patιniac. 263: 111 3 Ραι·ίsίn.

Ron1. Vallice/1. C4 (= gr. 30): IV 129 Scorίal.

gr. 426

Cryptoferr. B.a.11 : IV 122 Floren t. Med. Laur., Med. Lαιιr., Florent. Med. Lαιιr. , ΙΧ 1, 5 Florent. Rίccaι·d. gι:

Floι·ent.

Plut. 8.22: 141 , 42 Plut. 9.8 : 111 16 Plut. 86.6: VIII 78, 79;

17: Π 6 40: Ι 17; 11 2 Sabait. 108: 11 2 1 Sanctae Crucίs 40: Ραtι:

Hierosolymit.

Hίerosolyιnit. Ραtι:

Hieι-osolyιn it. Hίerosolymίt.

Jenensis, Bibl. Londin.

Μιιs.

Londίn.

Mus.

Unίv.

Sίnaitic. gr. 3 76: Sinaitic. gr. 379: Sίnaitίc.gr. 383: Sίnaitic. gr. 482:

177: VI 3 gr. 583: 1 2 1; Η 3, 6 Vatίcan. Chίg. R ΙΥ.18 (g,·. 18): IV 122, 124 Vatίcan. gr. 490: IV 122 Vatίcan. gr. 830: 111 7 Vatίcan. gr. 16 13: 120; ll 2, 13; Χ 18 Va tίcan. gr. 1666: 1 9 Vatίcan. gr. 1778: 111 3 Vatίcan. gr. 208 1: 1 20, 29 Vatίcan. Palat. gι: 46: Ι 37 Vatίcan. syr. 37: Χ 13 Venet. Μαrcίαη. gr. app. ll.1 96 (coll. 1403):

Vatican.

31: IV 11 9, 126

G.B.q.6a:

Χ

Χ

18

19

Britan. add. 146 13 add. 27862: IV 122

Brίtan.

Mediol. Ambros. gr. 1041 : 1111 7 Messan. gr. 11 6: IV 122 Moden. gr. 1Ο 1: IV 126 Monac. gr. 78: IV 126 Monac. gr. 317: IV 122, 125 Μοsqιι. Μιιs. Hist. 265 ( Vladimir 197): Ι 42 Μοsqιι. Synod. 20 1: IV 122 Mosqu. Synod. 202: IV 122

IV 120, 126 1 37 1 16, 17 11 2 IV 122, 124 VIII 79; ΙΧ 5

(Ψ. 1 .6):

Sίnaitic.gr.3 1 3:

αr.

Vatίcan. Barb eι·in.

V2 Venet. Marcian. gr. app. Vll.25 (co ll . 972) : ΙΙ 5, 6 Venet. Marcian. gr. Ζ. 257 (coll. 622): lll 3 Venet. Marcian. gr. Ζ. 363 (coll. 8 18): ! 16 Venet. Marcian. gr. Ζ. 529 (co ll. 847): !V 126 Vιndob. philos. gr. 74: ΠΙ 7 Vιndob. phίlos. gr. 149: Ι 37 Vιndob. phίlos. gr. 158: l 18; ll 5, 6, 7

INDEX

2

Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG BHG

170: Η 2 394: χν, χχί; Ι 1 Ι ; 11 1, 16 394a: Ι 21; ΙΙ 3, 6 394b: Ι 21 395: J 20; ΙΙ 3 556: J ΙΟ 884: χ ί ν, χχ; Ι 16, 18; 11 ι , 2, 4, 13· ' 884a: 1 11, 20 885: J 2 1; ΙΙ 3 885b: 1 16; ΙΙ 2, 16 885c: Ι 17 1296: Ι ΙΟ 1608: VII 5 1666: 1 7; 11 23 1689: ΙΙ 21 1690: 11 15 21 1731: Ι, 11 '

5, 8, 14, 26, 32, 33 , 46 5, 8, 11 , 14, 15, 20, 26, 33 επιβουλος: ι 16; νι 4 ευσέβεια: V I Ι ; VJII 83 εχειν : ΠΙ 25 έφ ' ήμιν: V 11 ένυπόστατον: ΗΙ

~ν~σις: ΠΙ

ήμίτομος: ΠΙ νι

3

Greek terms 19; V 13; ΥΠ! 86 87 άναχυτικός: ΙΙΙ 29, 38, 39 ' ~ν~πόστατος: ΠΙ 5, 8, 26, 3 1, 32, 34 αποκρεω: ! 9, 11 ; ΥΠ! 86 άπροσεξία: ΙΧ 6, 7 άπρόσωπος: ΙΙΙ 5, 3 ! , 32 34 'Άραβες: 11 16; 11 ι 20 ' άσύγχυτος: ΙΙΙ 27, 33 iiτομον: 111 7, 25, 42 αύτεξούσιον: ΠΙ 18; V 1 1; ΙΧ 6 iiγραφος:

! 12, 16; 11 20, 2 1; 111 12, 36, 37, 40; VI 4

βασιλεύς, βασιλεία:

γένος :

111 8, 20, 25, 27, 42 ! 17; ΠΙ 4, 20, 22, 27, 30, 40

Γραφ1):

15 ; VJ 4 7, 8, 12, 15 , 36 δι_αφορά: ΠΙ 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 27, 33, 42 δογμα: νι 8; VΠΙ 83 Δαμασκηνός: Ι διαίρ εσις: !Π

έβδομάς: νιι ι ι , Ι 4; νηι

82, 85, 88- 90, 92- 7, 99, 101 είδος: 111 5, 7, 8 25 34 42 ,., ' ' ' ε ιναι: 111 11 , 27, 44, 45 έκδοσ ις: V 6 έκθεσις : !!Ι 20; V 6 ένέργεια: ιrr 8, 20; ν ι Ο ; ιχ 6 ένούσιον: !Π 14, 32, 33

34

][[ 20 17, 18; ]][ 29

θ εανδρικός: θέλησις: ΙΙΙ θεολογία: ίδιον: ΠΙ

ΙΧ

6

5, 13, 14, 25 , 42 , 43 5, 8, 20

ίδίωμα : ΠΙ

111 7, 27, 42 V Ι2 καθολικόν: 1114 27 41 καθόλου: [Il 5, 14, 41 κοινόν: ΠΙ 5, 7, 8, 1 l , 13 , 14, 25, 27, 35, 41 , 42 καθ ' εκαστον: καθ ' ήμiiς:

7,

2 ! 6, 7, 8; νι 4 μερικός: ΙΙΙ 7, 14, 24, 34, 35, 4 1, 47 μορφ1): χίίί , χίχ ; 111 20

Μανζηρός: Ι Μανσούρ:

νηστεία: VIHpassiιn

1 12; 11 1, 20, 21 34, 37, 39; νιιι 81 , 86, 87, 97

νομοθεσία: νόμος: ΠΙ

ξηροφαγία: νιπ

86, 93

20, 39, 40 39, 41 όδός : ΠΙ 1, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 ?,ίκονομία : 1 11 ; 111 9, 20, 29, 32; ΥΠ! 82 ομοιος: V 13 όμολογία : 11! 41; ν ι 2, 13 όμοούσιον: ΠΙ 20, 29, 35 όμοϋπόστατον: rrι 35 ?,μωνυμία: χ ίί ί , χίχ ; Ι 22; 11 3, 16, 18; ΙΙΙ 5, 25 ον: 17; 1117, 8, 12, 18 δρεξις: IIJ 17, 18; ΙΧ 6 δρος: 1 39; 111 8, 1Ο, 16, 17, 20, 26, 27, 35, 37, 40, 41; νιιι 86, 87 ούσία:χίί ί ,χίχ·Ι ΙΙ 5 7 8 1113- 151 7 20 24, 27:_30, 32_:_5: 37,' 40--42( y 10 ' όδηγός: ΠΙ

όδοιπόρος: rιι

...

17; ][ 12, 26; 111 22 1 43; ΙΧ 6 περιχώρησις : χίί , χνίίί; 111 48 Π έρσαι: 17, 12, 15, 42; 1121 περσογενή ς : ι 14 παιδεία: Ι πάθη:

[NDEX xi ii , xix 111 41 πρόδρομος: 111 39, 40 προνήστιμος: VΙΙΙ 86, 97 προνόμιον: 11 11 πρόσωπον: 1115, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, 28, 30- 32,34,35 , 40, 41 πολλαχώς λεγόμενα: πολυμαθή ς:

11 11 111 15 , 33 , 36 συμμαχία: νι 8 συμφύρτης: 111 29, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41 συμφωνία: 111 41 σιγίλλιον:

σύγχυσις:

1, 2, 14; VIII 86---90, 92, 93 , 95, 96, 99, 102, 103 τριθειτη ς : Ι 4 Ι τυρινή: VIII 87 τεσσαρακοστή: VΠ

ύπερήμας: ν 12 ύπόστασις: xiii , xix;

[ 39; ]][ 5, 7, 8, 11 , 12, 14, 15, 20, 24, 27,29,30-32, 35, 41 , 42

29, 35, 37, 38, 39 111 41 φιλόπονος: 111 41 φιλόσοφος: 1 17, 39; 11! 22, 26, 41 φρόνησις: ΙΧ 5 φύραμα: Χ 11 φύσις: xiii , xix; 1 7, 39; ΙΠ 5-8, 11 , 12, 14, 17, 20, 24, 26- 9,31 , 32, 34, 40, 45; V 11 , 13;Χ 11 φιλοδιαιρέται: ΠΙ φιλομαθής:

χρησις: νιι1

77, 83-6, 88, 93, 12

Ι οο ,

102

Χρυσορρόας: ψευδαλ11θης:

111 33; VII 12

Names al-Malik, Uιηayyad Caliph: 1 2, 3, 4, 24, 28, 29 Adam: ν 1 Ι ; νι 11 , 12; χ 15 Agapios ιι , Bishop of Aleppo: 11 11 Agathon, Archdeacon ofSt Sophia: Χ 14 Alexandria (Alexandrie): VJI 2; VΙΓΙ 101 Alexandros 11 of Alexandria (Alexandre ΙΙ d'Alexandrie): VΠJ 101 Alexios I Komnenos, Byzantine Emperor: νι 8, 9 Allatius, ι.: 11 9 Amann, Ε.: Χ 7, 8 Ammonius Henηiae: xii , xviii Άbd

3

Anastasios, hegumen of St Euthymios (Anastase de Saint-Euthyme): 1 25; Vl!I 83, 84 Anastasios J, Patriarch of Antioch (Anastase 1" d ' Antioche, Anastase d' Antioche): ]][ 1, 3, 6- 10, 14, 16, 22, 24, 26, 34; Vlll 77, 93 100; ΙΧ 3 Anastasios Ι , Patriarch of Constantinople (Anastase 1" de Constantinople): VJII 92, 96, 99, 100, 103, 104 Anastasios 11, Patriarch of Antioch (Anastase 11 d'Antioche): 111 19 Anastasios the Sinaite (Anastase le Sinaϊte): χίίί, χίχ ; 1 39; 111 1- 3, 6, 10, 17- 20, 25-31 , 34- 7, 40, 41; V 3; VIII 93 Anatolios, Patriaι·cl1 ofConstantinople (Anatole de Constantinople): VIII 100, 101 ; ΙΧ 2 Andres (de), G.: IV 119, 120 Andrew, apostle: Χ 6 AndrewofCrete: 115, 29; Χ 2, 3, 12- 15, 17 Anne, saint: Χ 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 17- 19 Antl1imos VII , Patriarcl1 ofConstantinople: Χ5

Anthony,

of St Symeon: 1 18, 19; 22, 24; νι 3 Antioch (Antioche): χν, χχί; Ι 14, 17, 19, 23, 42; ΙΙ 3, 8, 10- 14, 21-6; νι 3; ν11 7, 13; VIII 101 Cathedral of St Cassian: ΙΙ 25 Monastery ofSt Symeon (Saint-Symeon): χν, χχί; ι 18, 19; π 21-5; νι 3 Apollinaris of Laodicea (Apollinaire de Laodicee): 111 14, 38 At'abia: 16 At'ians (Ariens): 111 29; VI 5 At'istotelians (Aristoteliciens): χίίί , χίχ ; 1 38; lll 1, 2, 10, 21 , 23, 24, 26, 28; V 5; ΙΧ 5 At'istotle (Aristote): χίί, χνίίί; Ι 38; JII 10, 11 , 24, 28; V 3, 4; ΙΧ 5, 11 At'ius: lll 30, 37 Aι·menians , Aι·menian: Ι 6, 38; IJ 10; VI 6, 10; VI! 4, 5, 14; Χ 2 Arsen Iqaltoeli: νι 3 Artemios, saint: 1 42; 11 2 Asia Minor: VII 3 Asterius of Amasea: VII 1, 2 Atl1anasius of Alexandria (Athanase d ' Alexandrie): ΠΙ 24; V 7; VII 1, 3, 6, 10, 11 , 13 ; VIII 100, 102, 103; ΙΧ 2, 3, 10 Athanasius of Alexandria, ps.- (Athanase d'Alexandrie, ps.-): VΠΙ 92 Athenodorus: 1 41 heguιηen

π

INDEX

4 Aubineau, Μ. : ΠΙ 3, 4 al-Άzϊz, Fatimid Caliph:

8, 10-12, 15, 16, 19, 24-6; VI 4; VII 3, 7; VIII 101 ; Χ 14, 17 Church ofthe Forerunner: Ι 13 Monastery of Kallistratou : Χ 14 Coptic Church (Egli se copte): VΠ 13 ; VΠΙ 87; Χ 2, 12, 13 ; see also Copts Copts: VΠ 12; see also Coptic Church Cosmas and Damian: Ι 15 Cosmas Hagiopolite: Ι 15; see also Cosmas the Melodist Cosmas of Maiuma (Cosmas de Maϊouma): I3 , 27; Vl , 15 Cosmas the Hermit: Ι 15 Cosmas the Melodist: Ι 11- 17, 19- 21 ; Π 1, 3, 6, 18, 19, 20; see also Cosmas Hagiopolite Cosmas the Sicilian: Ι 3, 19; Π 20 Cosmas Vestitor: Χ 2 Councils Nicaea 1 (Nicee Ι): V 5; VII Ι ; ΙΧ 9 Ephesus : Χ 13, 16 Chalcedon (Chalcedoine): Ι 29; ΙΙ 1; ΠΙ 1, 2, 4, 10, 17, 24, 31 , 33; V5 ; Χ 11 , 13, 14 In Trullo: ΙΙ 9; IV 119; VIII 89, 90 Hieria (Hieria): Ι 6, 8, 16; VI 4 Hagia Sophia (Sainte-Sophie): 1 8; VΠΙ 90 Nicaea ΙΙ (Nicee ΙΙ): Ι 6, 15, 29 Coxe, Η.Ο . : VΠΙ 80 Cozza, G.: Χ 3 Crete: Ι 15 Crostini, Β . : ΙΙ 15 Cyprian of Carthage: Ι 41 Cyril and John: 1 15 Cyril of Alexandria (Cyrille d ' Alexandrie): Ι 41 ; ΠΙ 16, 24; IV 117, 118, 125, 126; V 7; VI 14; VII 3 Cyril of Jerusalem: VII 1 Cyril ofScythopoli s (Cyrille de Scythopoli s): VII 5; VIII 94 Cyril, ps.- (Cyrille, ps.-): xi, χ ίί, χ νίί , χν ίίί ; Ι 33 ; IV 118- 20, 122- 25, 127; V 7; VI 14, 15 Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria (Cyrus d'Alexandrie): ΠΙ 19 Π

ΙΙ

12

Bacha, C.: Ι 5 Ballerini, Α.: Χ 2, 4, 5, 6 Bandini, Α . Μ.: VΠΙ 78 Barbara, saint: Ι 7, 14, 16, 26, 27, 30, 32; ΙΙ 22 Barlaam and Joasaph: Ι 10, 15, 30, 31 , 33, 34, 43 Barsanuphites: V 6 Basil Π , Byzantine Emperor: Ι 1, 17, 20; Π 2, 7, 8, 10, 11 , 13, 15, 17, 18, 25; VI4 ; X 18 Basil o f Caesarea (Basile de Cesaree): Ι 41 ; ΠΙ 14, 17, 27, 42; IV 124; V 7; VΠ 3, 11 ; VΠΙ 80, 88, 91 , 102; ΙΧ 2, 9;Χ 14 Baumstark, Α.: VΠ 6 Bellarmine, R.: IV 117 Benjamin, Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria (Benjamin d'Alexandrie): VΠ 7, 11 , 13 ; VΠΙ 77, 85, 87, 96; ΙΧ 4 Billy (de), J.: Ι 30 Bludau, Α.: VII 6 Burgundio of Pisa: V 7 Camplani, Α.: VΠΙ 101 Carpos: 1 10 Chalcedonians: Ι 24, 25, 28, 29, 38; Π 12, 25; Χ 13- 16 Chevalier, C.: Χ 9 Cheynet, J.-C .: ΙΙ 13 Chosroes, King of Persia: Ι 12, 15 Christophoros Ι, Patriarch of Antioch: 1 1Ο Chrysos, Ε .: ΠΙ 6, 19 Clement of Alexandria (Clement d'Alexandrie): Ι 41 ; ΠΙ 1, 14, 16, 17, 18, 36; !Χ 5 Clement ofRome (Clement de Rome) : Ι 41 ; ΙΙΙ 17 Combefis, F.: ΠΙ 9 Cometas (Cometas): χν, χχί ; Ι 25, 26, 34; VΠ 8-10; VΠΙ 77, 79; ΙΧ 1, 5, 10 Constantine V, Byzantine Emperor: Ι 12, 14, 15, 19, 27, 29; Π 2, 17, 18; see also Constantine Kaballinos Constantine VI, Byzantine Emperor: Ι 12, 13, 16 Constantine VΠ Porphyrogenetos, Byzantine Emperor: Ι 17; Π 2 Constantine Akropolites: Ι 21 ; Π 3 Constantine Kaballinos: Ι 8, 15 ; see also Constantine V Constantinople: Ι 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 - 3;

Damascus (Damas): χ ν, χχ ί ; Ι 2-4, 6, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29; Π 3, 18, 19, 24; Χ 14 Cathedral of St John the Baptist: 1 24 Damian Dalassenos: Π I Ο Darrouzes, J.: Π 8, 15 David the Philosopher (David le Philosophe): χίί , χνίίί

INDEX Detorakes, Th.: Π 6, 7 Diekamp, F.: ΠΙ 4, 9 Diodore ofTarsus (Diodore de Tarse): ΠΙ 47 Dionysius of Alexandria: Ι 41 Dionysius, ps.-: l 10; IV 125; V 7, 9, 10, 14; VI4 Dionysius theAreopagite: l 10, 14 Dδlger, F.: Ι 31 , 33, 34 Donato, 8.: Ι 30 Dorotheos ofGaza (Dorothee de Gaza): VΠ 4---6, 13, 14; VΠΙ 94; ΙΧ 9 Dositheos Π, Patriarch of Jerusalem: VI 13 Egeria, pilgrim (Egerie): VII 4- 6, 14; VΠΙ 94, 95 Egypt, Egyptians: VII 3, 13 ; Χ 12, 16 Ehrhard, Α. : 131 ; Π 2, 7 Elias: Ι 4 Elias the Philosopher (Elie le Philosophe): χίί,

xviii

Elijah the Prophet (Elie le Prophete): VΠΙ 98 Ephrem Mtsire: Ι 5, 35 ; VI 3 Ephrem the Syrian: Χ 13 Epicurus (Epicure ): Ι 41; ΠΙ 14 Epiphanios, monk of Kallistratou: Χ 14 Epiphanius ofSalamis (Epiphane de Chypre, Epiphane de Salamine): ι 34; V 5; Vll 3; VIII 92; ΙΧ 3 Erasmus of Rotterdam (Erasme ): ΠΙ 21 Eusebius of Alexandria: Ι 41 Eusebius of Caesarea: 1 41 Eustratiades, S.: 11 7 Eustratios ofNicaea: IV 129 Euthymios Zigabenos: VI 4--6 Eutyches (Eutyches): ΠΙ 38 Eutychians: V 6 Eutychios of Alexandria: Ι 4 Fabricius, J.-A. : IV Ι 18 Fraigneau-Julien , 8.: IV 119 Gaianites: V 6 Galen: 140 Gaza: VII 3 Geerard, Μ . : Ι 31 , 34, 40 Geιιnadius of Massilia (Geιιnade de Marse ille ): 111 9 George of Cyprus: Ι 6 George ofTrebizond: 1 30 George Pachymeres: Ι 22; V 8 Georgian, Georgians: Ι 5, 35, 37, 38; VI 3 Germanos 1, Patriarch ofConstantinople: 1 6, 16; 11 16; Χ 2 Gilson , Ε.: ΠΙ 21; V 3 Gkenakou-Mporobilou, R.: 116

5

Gordillo, Μ.: Χ 9 Goulet, R. : χίν, χχ; 1 31 Grabe, J. Ε .: VΠΙ 78 Graf, G.: Π 22 Greece: VII 2 Gregory ofNazianzus (Gregoire de Nazianze): χίί, χνίίί; l 41; ΠΙ 14, 36, 40; IV 124; V 7, 10, 13 ; VII 11 ; Vlll 88; ΙΧ 9 Gregory ofNyssa (Gregoire de Nysse): Ι 41 ; ΠΙ 28; V 7; lX 5 Gregory Palamas: VI 1, 2 Gregory Thaumatourgos: 1 41 Gregory the Great, Pope: Ι 9, 1Ο, 13, 18; lX 9 Grumel , V.: Π 8- 10; Vlll 102 Guettee, R.-F. W.: Χ 5 Guibert (de), J.: χί , χνίί , χνίίί ; IV 118; VI 14 al-Hakϊm , Fatimid Caliph: Π 12, 25 Harles, G. Ch.: 141; ΙΙΙ 19 Harnack, Α.: Χ 7 Heliotropites: V 6 Helmer, S.: ΠΙ 4 Heraclius, Byzantine Emperor (Heraclius): 1 2, 4; VIII 87 Herzog, G.: Χ 6; see a/so Turmel, J. Η ippolytus of Rome: Ι 41 Hoeck, J.-M.: Ι 10, 11 , 31 , 34, 40, 42; ΙΙ 4, 5, 6, 7; VH 8; VIII 78, 80 H0gel , Ch.: 11 14, 20 Holy Places, Holy Land: Ι 14, 22 , 26; Π 13; Χ 16 Betblehem: Χ 15 Gethsemane: Ι 28; Χ 15 , 16 Kathisma: Χ 15 Hopper, Μ.: Ι 30 Hunger, Η.: Π 7

lbn Butliin: Π 22 lconoclasts (Iconoclastes, lconoclasme ): χίν, χχ ; Ι2 , 6,7 , 13 , 16, 18, 23 , 24, 34; 11 17, 19; VIII 84, 85, 90, 100, 104; Χ 17 Ignatius, hieromartyr (Ignace hieromartyr, lgnace d' Antioche, ps.-): Ι 41 ; VIII 90; ΙΧ 1 Ίmriin (Amram): Χ 15 lrenaeus: 1 41 ltaly, Southern: Ι 8; Χ 19 Abbey ofGrottaferratta: Χ 3 Monastery of Santa Maria del Patir: Χ 19 Monastery of San Ν icola di Casole: Χ 19 Monastery of San Salvatore di Messina: Χ 19

6

INDEX

.Jacob of Edessa: Χ 13 Jacob ofSarug: Χ 13 .Jacobite Church: ΥΠ 12; Χ 12, 13; see also Jacobites .Jacobites: Ι 4, 7, 18, 26, 32, 38, 39; Π ΙΟ; VΠΙ 87; Χ 11, 12, 14, 16; see also .Jacobite Church James, apostle: Χ 2, 7, 8, 11 , 16 .Jerusalem (Jerusalem): χν, χνί, χχίί; Ι 2, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18- 21, 23- 9; ΙΙ 12; ΠΙ 6; V 13, 14; νπ 1, 3, 5-7, 9, ΙΟ, 12, 14; VΙΠ 81 - 3, 87, 88, 95, 104; Χ 14, 15, 17 Church of the Anastasis (Eglise de Ι ' Anastasis), Holy Sepulchre, Holy Resurrection of Christ: 1 1, 3, 9, 19, 23, 26, 27, 29; Π, 1,1 3; V 13; ΥΠ ΙΟ, 14; VIII 81, 82, 87, 94; ΙΧ 11 Dome ofthe Rock: Χ 16 John, Bishop of Athens (Jean d' Athenes): ΥΠ 7, 13; VΠΙ 93, 98, 103; ΙΧ 3 John, evangelist: Χ 16 .John Ι Tzimiskes, Byzantine Emperor: Π 11 .fohn ΙΙΙ, Patτiarch of Antioch (.fean ΠΙ d'Antioche): χίν, χν, χχί; Ι 23; Π 1, 4,6-13, 16, l7,24, 26;VI3,4;see also John Chartophylax, John Polites .John V, Patriarch of Antioch: Π 7 John V, Patriarch of Jerusalem (Jean V de .Jerusalem): χίν, χχ; Ι 3, 24, 27-9; Π 1; VII 9; VΠΙ 81 , 84 .John ΥΠ , Patriarch of Jerusalem (Jean ΥΠ de Jerusalem): χίν, χχ; 1 18; ΙΙ 4, 5 .John VΠΙ , Patriarch of Jerusalem: Ι 18; Π 6 John VIII (or ΙΧ) Merkouropoulos, Patriarch of Jerusalem: Ι 11, 20, 21; Π 3 John ΧΙ Bekkos, Patriarch of Constantinople: IV 128 John and Barsanuphius: Ι 15 .John Cassian (Jean Cassien): ΙΧ 9 John Chartophylax, John Polites: 1 18, 34; Π 8, 9, 15, 20, 24, 25; see also John ΙΙΙ, Patriarch of Antioch .John Chrysostom (Jean Chrysostome): Ι 17, 41; ΠΙ 16; VII Ι ; VIII 91, 92; ΙΧ 2, 7 .John ofCesarea the Grammarian (Jean de Cesaree le Grammairien): ΠΙ 1, 4, 6, 7, ΙΟ, 14, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41 John of Euboea: 1 37; Χ 2, 17 .John Lydus: Ι 17 John Philoponos (Jean Philopon): Ι 17, 40; ΠΙ 3; V 6 John Phokas: Ι 22 .John Stobaeus: Ι 17, 42 John the Baptist: Χ 15

.John the Exarch: VI 3 John the Κbozibite , Bishop of Cesarea (Jean le Khozibite): ΠΙ 3 Joseph, husband of Mary: Χ 16 .Joseph Bryennios: IV 126-7 Joseph the Philosopher: IV 117,119, 125- 7, 129; V 8; VI 13-15 Josephus, Titus Flavius: 1 41 .Jugie, Μ.: Χ 8, 9 Julian the Apostate, Byzantine Emperor: Ι 42 .Julian of Halicarnassus (Julien d'Halicarnasse): ΙΙΙ 6, 39 .1 ίiΙ icher, Α.: VΙΠ 96 Justin, martyr: 141; ΙΙΙ 16 .Justin Π, Byzantine Emperor: ΠΙ 6 Justinian 1, Byzantine Emperor (Justinien ["): ΠΙ 6 Justinian Π, Byzantine Emperor (Justinien Π): Χ 14 Kamateros, Andronikos: VI ΙΟ Kotter, Β.: χν, χχί ; Ι 20, 31 , 33, 34, 42; IV 119, 122; VI 3, 14; ΥΠ 8

ΙΙ

7;

Laurent, V.: ΙΙ 13 Lefevre d'Etaples, J.: Ι 30 Le Nourry, Ν.: ΙΙΙ 16 Leo ΠΙ, Byzantine Emperor: Ι 8, 12, 16, 19; Π2 , 17- 19 Leo ofHaπan: Ι 4 Leo ofSynada: ΙΙ 8, 9, 12, 15 Leo the Great, Pope (Leon le Grand): ΠΙ 4 Leontius of Byzantium (Leonce de Byzance): ΠΙ 5, 34 Leontius of Jerusalem (Leonce de Jerusalem): ΠΙ 4 Le Quien, Μ . : Ι 11 , 31, 34, 41; IV 118; ΥΠ 8; VΙΠ 77, 78, 80, 81, 88, 92, 99; ΙΧ 1, 5 Libanios: Ι 40 Libya: VII 3 Loisy, Α.: Χ 6 Louth, Α . : Ι 28, 35 Mahe, J.: IV 118 Maistre (de), J.: Χ 3 Makarios ΙΙΙ Za'im, Patriarch of Antioch: Ι 4, 5 Malou, J.-B.: Χ 2- 6, 9 Mani (Manes): ΠΙ 38 Manichaeans: Ι 7, 32; VI 5 al-Man~ίir, Abbassid Caliph: Ι 14 Man~ίir, α/ίαs John Damascene: 1 8, 11 , 22, 23, 29; VI 9 Μaη~ίίr b. Sardjίin: Ι, 4, 8

INDEX Man~ur family: Ι 4, 8, 19, 29; Π 25 Man~ίir the Elder: 1 2, 3, 4, 28 Man~ur the Έmir ' : Ι 12, 13, 14 Manuel Ι Komnenos, Byzantine Emperor: Χ 19 Manuzio, Α.: Ι 30 Maraval , Ρ.: VΠ 6 Mary, Virgin and Theotokos: χν, χνί, χχίί; Ι 20, 26; V 13; Xpassίm Mary, widow ofCaliph al-Άzϊz: ΙΙ 12 Matthew, evangelist: Ι 6, 29; Χ 16 Maurice, Byzantine Emperor: Ι 2, 4, 28 Maximus the Confessor (Maxime le Confesseur): 14; ΙΙΙ 9, 14, 17, 29, 30-33,4I;IV 119;V7, 14 Melkites: Ι 4; ΙΙ 8, ΙΟ, 11 , 25, 26 Messalian: V 6 Methodios 1, Patriarch ofConstantinople: Ι 9-11 , 14, 22 Methodius ofOlympus: Ι 41 Michael Choniates (Michel Choniates): ΙΧ 8 Michael of Antioch (Michel d' Antioche): χν, χχί; Π 3, 6 Michael of St Symeon: Ι 4, 5; ΙΙ 3, 22-4; see also Michael of Antioch Michael Synkellos: Ι 10-12, 14, 27 Michael the Syrian (Michel le Syrien): Ι 4; ΠΙ 15 Migne, J.-P.: 131; IV 118; VI 13; VII 8 Miller, Ε .: VI 11 Monophysites: ΠΙ 2, 4, ΙΟ, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32; Υ 6; VI 6; ΥΠ 7, 13; ΥΙΠ 85, 87, 99, l04; Χ 8, 14 Monothelism (Monothelisme): ΠΙ 9, 16, 19, 20; V 6; VI 6; Χ 14 Montanists: VII 3 Moπisson, C.: Π 13 Moses (Moϊse): Π 20; ΠΙ 27 , 40; Υ 3; ΥΠ 2; VIII 98; Χ 15, 16 Mu' awiya 1, Umayyad Caliph: ι 2, 4, 28; Χ 16 Mu'awiya ΙΙ, Umayyad Caliph: Ι 2, 4 al-Muqaddasϊ: Χ 16 Nemesius of Emesa: 140; Υ 7 Neochalcedonians (Neochalcedoniens): χίίί, χίχ; 11, 38; ΠΙ 1, 2, ΙΟ, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21,26, 31,33, 35,3~42 Nestorian Churcb: Χ 13 ; see also Nestorians Nestorians (Nestoriens): 1 7, 18, 32, 39; ΠΙ 29, 31; Υ 6; Χ 8, 11 , 14; see also Nestorian Church Nestorius of Constantinople: ΠΙ 30, 38; Χ 11 Nicholas ofMethone: IV 129 Nicholas ofNeocaesarea: Π 14 Nicomedia: Ι 14

7

Nikephoros Ι, Patriarch ofConstantinople (Nicephore !" de Constantinople ): Ι 6; V 8; VΠΙ 90 Nikephoros ΙΙ Phokas, Byzantine Emperor: Ι 17, 23 Nikephoros Blemmydes: IV 119- 21 , 125, 127-9; VI 12-14 Nikephoros Gregoras: IV 128 Nikephoros Ouranos: Π 10, 14, 15, 21, 24, 25 Niketas Choniates: VI 9, 10 Nikon ofthe Black Mountain: Π 8, 11, 12, 22 Nilos Doxapatres: VI Ι Ο, Ι Ι , Ι 2 Noret, J.: VΠΙ 77 Orestes, Patriarch of Jerusalem: Otto ΠΙ , German king: ΙΙ 9

Π

12

Palestine: 13, 7, 8, 10, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29; Π 1, 12, 22; ΠΙ 3, 6; VΠ 3; Χ 14 Monastery ofEuthymios: Ι 25 Monastery ofOld Lavra: Ι 20, 29 Monastery of St Sabas: Ι 3, 7, ΙΟ, 19- 23, 27, 28, 30; Π 3, 6, 22, 24; VΠΙ 81 Palladius ofHelenopolis: ΥΠ 1, 2 Passaglia, C.: Χ 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 Paul, apostle: Ι 36; Π 9, 19; ΠΙ 5, 11; ΙΧ 8, 9 Paul ofKallistratou: Χ 14 Paul ofSamosata (Paul de Samosate): 11[ 30, 38 Paulicians: VI 6 Peeters, Ρ.: 11 5, 7 Peri , Υ.: VII 6 Persia: 12, 4, 12, 14, 15, 19, 28; 1118, 19 Petau, D.: IV 117; Χ 5, 6, ΙΟ Peter, apostle (Pieπe): 1113; ΠΙ 5, 11 Peter, Bisbop ofDamascus: 126 Peter, Bishop ofMaiuma: Ι 27, 28 Peter, Patriarch of Jerusalem (Pierre de Jerusalem): VΙΙ 5, 6, 7, 14; VΙΙΙ 77, 94,95 Peter the Fuller (Pierre le Foulon): VΙΠ 83, 84 Peter Mogila, Metτopolitan ofKiev: VI 15 Peter of Alexandria: Ι 41 Philetos Synadenos: Π 8 Plιilippikos Bardanes, Emperor: Χ 14 Philo of Alexandria (Philon d'Alexandrie): 141; ΙΧ 5 Philostorgios: Ι 42 Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople: 1 42 Pius ΙΧ , Pope: Χ 1, 6 Pius Χ , Pope: Χ 6 Plato (Platon): Ι 41 , 42; Π 20; ΠΙ 5, J 1, 40; ΙΧ 5 Porphyry ofTyre (Porphyre de Tyr): χίί, χνίίί ; 111 ΙΟ , 41; V 3

8

INDEX

Possevin, Α.: lll 9 Prestige, G. L.: IV Ι Ι 8 Pythagoras: l 41, 42; ll 20 Renoux, Α.: VII 6 Richard, Μ.: ΙΙΙ 4, 9, 10, 19 Richter, G.: xii, xviii; Ι 31, 35 Robertson, R. G. : VIII 80 Rome: l 9, 14; ll 9; VII 2, 3; Χ 4 Rozemond, Κ .: Ι 31; IV 118 Sabellians (Sabelliens, sabellianisme): ΙΙΙ 29 Sabellius: lll 30, 37 Sakkos, S.N.: ΙΙΙ 6, 19 Samuel of Adana: l 5 Sardjίin b. Man~ίir: Ι 2, 3, 4, 8, 14, 28 Seibt, W.: ll 13 Seljuks: Π 22, 23 Sergios, abba: l 25; VIII 83 Severians (Severiens, severianisme ): 1 38; πι 2, 10, 14, 24, 31-3, 36, 37 Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (Severe d'Antioche): χν, xxi; ΠΙ 4, 9, 18, 31, 34, 35, 39; VII 7, 11, 12; VIII 77, 85, 86, 89, 95- 9, 103; ΙΧ 3, 4, 9; Χ 13 Sinai (Sinaϊ): ΠΙ 9, Socrates (Socrate): 1 42; ΙΙΙ 5 Socrates Scholasticus: ΥΠ 1-3 Solomon (Salomon): ΠΙ 40; ΙΧ 5 Sophronios l, Patτiarch of Jerusalem: l 29; Χ 2 Sozomen: VII 2- 5, 14 Stahlin, Ο.: ΠΙ 16, 17 Stephen ofNovgorod: Ι 22 Stephen the Sabaite: l 7, 14, 15, 19, 20, 27, 28, 30; ΙΙ 1 Stephen the Sabaite the Ascetic: l 7, 28 Stephen the Younger: Ι 7, 14; 11 23, 24 Stiernon, D.: IV 119, 120 Stobaeus: 1 17, 42 Stoics: 141 Studer, 8.: Ι 31 ; IV 118 Sulaiman, Umayyad Caliph: 1 3 Symeon Metaphrastes: 1 18, 33 ; ΙΙ 2, 7, 14, 15, 16, 20 Symeon Stylite the Younger: ll 15, 21 , 24, 25 Syria (Syrie): xiv, χν, xxi; 1 8, 23, 24; 114, 8, 10, 22, 25 ; νπ 13; χ 12, 14 al-Tabarϊ:

14

Patτiarch of Constantinople: l 12, 14, 16; Χ 2, 17 Tarsus: 11 8, 11 Thelamon, F.: χν, xxii Themistians: V 6 Theodora, Byzantine Empress: 1 11, 22

Theodore 1, Patriarch of Jerusalem (Theodore Ι de Jerusalem): VIII 84-5 Theodore Π, Patτiarch of Antioch: 11 11 Theodore II Dukas Laskaris, Byzantine Emperor: IV 128 Theodore Αbίί Qurra: Ι ιο, 37 Theodore ό του Μανσούρ: 1 8 Theodore of Ephesus: 11 9 Theodore ofGaza: IV 125 Theodore of Koloneia: ΙΙ 11 Theodore of Mopsuestia (Theodore de Mopsueste, Theodore d'Antioche): ΠΙ 9, 30, 38 Theodore of Raithu (Theodore de Raϊthou): ΠΙ 7, 9-14, 19, 23, 24, 29-31 , 33, 35, 36, 37, 41 Theodore the Studite: 1 8 Theodoretus of Cyr (Theodoret de Cyr): ΠΙ 36-8; V 6; VI 1 Theognis: 1 41 Theokatagnostes: V 6 Theoleptos of Philadelphia (Theolepte de Philadelphie): ΙΧ 7 Theophanes the Branded: 1 1Ο Theophanes the Confessor: Ι 2, 8, 12, 27; ll 1 Theophanes Nicaenus: Χ 8 Theophilos, Byzantine Emperor: 1 9, 11 , 13, 35 Theophilus of Antioch: 141 Tilmann, G.: ΠΙ 9 Timothy Aelurus (Timothee Elure): VII 11; VIII !02, 103 Tischendorf, C.: Χ 7 Todt, Κ.-Ρ.: ll 8, 13 Toscani, Τ.: Χ 3 Trajan, Roman Emperor: Ι 13 Turmel, J.: Χ 6, 7, 9; see also Herzog, G. 'Umar ll, Umayyad Caliph: 1 3 Umayyad, Umayyads: Ι 2, 28, 29; 11 Uthemann , Κ.-Η.: ΠΙ 5, 6, 19, 21

Ι; Χ

16

Vinson, Μ.Ρ.: 11 8 Volk, R.: 1 33 Voulet, Ρ.: Χ 9 Walϊd Walϊd

1, Umayyad Caliph: l 3, 24 11, Umayyad Caliph: Ι 27, 29

Wegelin, .1.: IV 117, 125 WeiB, G.: ΙΙΙ 6

Tarasios,

Yahya-ibn-Sa ' id of Antioch: Ι 19; 11 5, 8, 1Ο 1, Umayyad Caliph: 1 2, 4

Yazϊd

Zechariah: Χ 15 Zosima the Deacon: Ι 22